Comments for Rigorous Trivialities

Comment on New math blog! by Chris

Chris — Wed, 07 May 2008 20:13:37 +0000

Thanks Charlie, I really appreciate it :) .

Comment on Ok, now I’m annoyed by Charles

Charles — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:37:53 +0000

I saw it over at Pharyngula. Excellent…though it was a bit weird hearing Dawkins finally admit that he’s a sex maniac.

Comment on Ok, now I’m annoyed by Todd Trimble

Todd Trimble — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:30:24 +0000

Here’s a YouTube parody: “Sexpelled Exposed”.

Comment on Ok, now I’m annoyed by Charles

Charles — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:35:52 +0000

Yeah, I know there’s a LOT of places that have debunked it…turns out that it’s pretty easy to demonstrate that Darwin DIDN’T cause the Holocaust…

I only linked to some of my favorite of them, and even then, only the ones I found while the posters were printing.

Comment on Linear Systems by funky

funky — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:55:43 +0000

thanks for nice discussion on basic alg geometry. i would like to read more about divisors. ample,big,nef etc etc and then intersection theory for surfaces

Comment on Ok, now I’m annoyed by Vishal Lama

Vishal Lama — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 03:33:02 +0000

At Recursivity, there is a post on the same topic (and many more other debunking, as well)!

Comment on Ok, now I’m annoyed by PhysioProf

PhysioProf — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:22:26 +0000

Thanks for the fucking link!

Comment on Weil Divisors, Cartier Divisors and more Line Bundles. by Linear Systems « Rigorous Trivialities

Linear Systems « Rigorous Trivialities — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:00:31 +0000

[...] 18, 2008 Ok, so last time, we discussed divisors. We’re going to keep going in that direction now, and now we’re going to talk about [...]

Comment on Differential Forms and the Canonical Bundle by Weil Divisors, Cartier Divisors and more Line Bundles. « Rigorous Trivialities

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:01:25 +0000

[...] 16, 2008 Some people might say that the natural place for this topic is before talk of differential forms and of the canonical bundle, but I disagree. Well, really it’s fine either way, but this is my blog, so I’m going [...]

Comment on Line Bundles and the Picard Group by Greg Stevenson

Greg Stevenson — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:05:49 +0000

I just thought I’d point out that I think the usual way to define an immersion is to give a factorization as an open immersion followed by a closed immersion, i.e. an open subscheme of a closed subscheme. It is true though that whenever this is the case that you can rewrite in the other order, as a closed immersion then an open one.

However, the converse requires the morphism to be quasi-compact. Working with varieties and good maps though this isn’t really an issue.

Also, keep up the good work ;)