user avatar
user avatar
user avatar
Torsten Schoeneberg
  • Member for 8 years, 9 months
  • Last seen this week
  • on tour
Stats
20,936
reputation
215k
reached
606
answers
24
questions
Loading…
About

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
gold badges
37
silver badges
73
bronze badges
631
Score
283
Posts
45
Posts %
335
Score
150
Posts
24
Posts %
274
Score
107
Posts
17
Posts %
263
Score
93
Posts
15
Posts %
219
Score
74
Posts
12
Posts %
164
Score
57
Posts
9
Posts %
Top posts
View all questions and answers