Prev: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
Next: Dedekind Cut confusion on the square root of 2
From: Omega John on 8 Jan 2010 08:54
Hi

Can the empty set be regarded as an abstract algebraic variety?
From: A N Niel on 8 Jan 2010 10:12
In article <4b4738fa$0$2775$c83e3ef6(a)anchorman-read.tele2.net>, Omega
John <omega_john_userfriendly(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Can the empty set be regarded as an abstract algebraic variety?

What is your definition of "abstract algebraic variety"?
From: Omega John on 8 Jan 2010 13:34
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:12:54 -0500, A N Niel wrote:

> In article <4b4738fa$0$2775$c83e3ef6(a)anchorman-read.tele2.net>, Omega
> John <omega_john_userfriendly(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Can the empty set be regarded as an abstract algebraic variety?
>
> What is your definition of "abstract algebraic variety"?

A separated (reduced?) scheme of finite type over a field.
From: Axel Vogt on 8 Jan 2010 14:51
Omega John wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can the empty set be regarded as an abstract algebraic variety?

Why?
From: Axel Vogt on 8 Jan 2010 15:39
Axel Vogt wrote:
> Omega John wrote:
>> Hi
>> Can the empty set be regarded as an abstract algebraic variety?
>
> Why?

I am asking because for me a scheme/k is always X ---> spec{k) and
for the algebras needs some fleche k ---> k-Algebra. What should
O(empty) be?
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
Next: Dedekind Cut confusion on the square root of 2