Torsten Schoeneberg
• Member for 10 years
• Last seen this week
• on tour
Stats
24,873
reputation
303k
reached
698
24
questions
Communities
View all

My doctoral thesis Semisimple Lie Algebras and their classification over $$\mathfrak{p}$$-adic fields has appeared as Mémoires de la SMF no. 151.

Errata and remarks:

• Page 10: In definition 2.1.2, omit iii(b).
• Page 11: In Remark 2.1.4 i, ignore the statement in parentheses: The analogous statement for centralisers is true as well, as follows from the same reference.
• Page 25: In line 9, reference (1) points to the equation at the bottom of p. 13.
• Page 46: Remark 3.1.54(ii): For the first parenthetical remark, cf. MO/164198. For the last three lines, cf. MS/764696.
• Page 47: In the second line of 3.2, omit the nonsensical "[Spr3 ... ... corrections" (a leftover from an earlier draft).
• Page 53: In the footnote, the reference should be to exercise 16.b
• Page 57: In the first line after the end of the proof, the reference is Bo2, VIII.5.2.
• Page 68: In line 2, the third reference is Sel1, IV §§1-2.
• Page 70: In line 8, it should say "... if there are no arrows in its Satake-Tits diagram." (Pointed out by Prof H. Rubenthaler.)
• Page 86: In the second line of 4.5.1.3, read "For $$r=\nu=\frac{1}{2}n$$, we have"
• Page 93: In the fifth line of the proof, replace "$$D \setminus k^*$$" by "$$\mathcal{D}\mathfrak{D} = [\mathfrak{D}, \mathfrak{D}]$$", and "$$r$$" by "$$r+1$$". (Pointed out by Prof. H. Rubenthaler.)
• Page 106: In line 10, replace "So $$j$$ does not divide $$n$$" by "So $$gcd(j,n) =1$$".
• Page 108: Equation (28) should be read mod $$\mathcal{O}_k^* \cdot \pi_k^{\ 2\Bbb Z}$$.
• Page 109: Likewise, the equation in line 5 should be read mod $$\mathcal{O}_k^* \cdot \pi_k^{\ 3\Bbb Z}$$.
• Page 113: In the second line after the top diagrams, replace "$$BC_{(n+1)/2}$$" by "$$BC_{(n-1)/2}$$".
• Page 116: In line 9, replace "$$B_r$$" by "$$BC_r$$".
• Page 139: In line 2, replace "now" by "no".

J’avais passé longtemps dans l’étude des sciences abstraites et le peu de communication qu’on en peut avoir m’en avait dégoûté. Quand j’ai commencé l’étude de l’homme, j’ai vu que ces sciences abstraites ne sont pas propres à l’homme, et que je m’égarais plus de ma condition en y pénétrant que les autres en l’ignorant. J’ai pardonné aux autres d’y peu savoir, mais j’ai cru trouver au moins bien des compagnons en l’étude de l’homme et que c’est le vrai étude qui lui est propre. J’ai été trompé. Il y en a encore moins qui l’étudient que la géométrie. Ce n’est que manque de savoir étudier cela qu’on cherche le reste. Mais n’est‑ce pas que ce n’est pas encore là la science que l’homme doit avoir, et qu’il lui est meilleur de s’ignorer pour être heureux.

-- Pascal (Pensées, Lafuma 687 = Brunschwicg 144)

2
46
90
786
Score
317
Posts
44
Posts %
423
Score
188
Posts
26
Posts %
342
Score
104
Posts
14
Posts %
320
Score
120
Posts
17
Posts %
275
Score
84
Posts
12
Posts %
198
Score
62
Posts
9
Posts %
Top posts
View all questions and answers
77
Oct 21, 2019
32
May 21, 2018
31
Jan 31, 2021
31
Jun 11, 2019
26
Jul 10, 2018
20
Sep 8, 2021
16
Aug 6, 2020
13
Jun 26, 2019
13
Dec 12, 2022
Top Meta posts
1
0
Top network posts
View all network posts