Skip to main content
Torsten Schoeneberg's user avatar
Torsten Schoeneberg's user avatar
Torsten Schoeneberg's user avatar
Torsten Schoeneberg
  • Member for 6 years, 5 months
  • Last seen this week
  • on tour
Stats
971
reputation
5k
reached
10
answers
2
questions
Loading…
About

My doctoral thesis Semisimple Lie Algebras and their classification over $\mathfrak{p}$-adic fields has appeared as Mémoires de la SMF 151.

Errata and remarks:

  • Page 10, definition 2.1.2: Omit iii(b).
  • Page 11, Remark 2.1.4i: Ignore the statement in parentheses: The analogous statement for centralisers holds too.
  • Page 25, line 9: Reference (1) points to the equation at the bottom of p. 13.
  • Page 46, Remark 3.1.54(ii): First parenthetical remark, cf. MO/164198. Last three lines, cf. MS/764696.
  • Page 47, second line of 3.2: Omit the nonsensical "[Spr3 ... ... corrections" (leftover from an earlier draft).
  • Page 53, footnote: the reference should be to exercise 16.b.
  • Page 57, first line after the proof: The reference is Bo2, VIII.5.2.
  • Page 68, line 2: The third reference is Sel1, IV §§1-2.
  • Page 70, line 8: It should say "... if there are no arrows in its Satake-Tits diagram." (Pointed out by Prof H. Rubenthaler.)
  • Page 86, second line of 4.5.1.3: Read "For $r=\nu=\frac{1}{2}n$, we have"
  • Page 88, first line after the big matrix: Replace "$D \setminus k$" by "$\mathcal{D}\mathfrak{D} = [\mathfrak{D}, \mathfrak{D}]$".
  • Page 93, 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, 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, line 5: This equation should be read mod $\mathcal{O}_k^* \cdot \pi_k^{\ 3\Bbb Z}$.
  • Page 113, second line after the top diagrams: Replace "$BC_{(n+1)/2}$" by "$BC_{(n-1)/2}$".
  • Page 116, line 9: Replace "$B_r$" by "$BC_r$".
  • Page 139, 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)

This user doesn’t have any gold badges yet.
5
silver badges
16
bronze badges
19
Score
3
Posts
25
Posts %
19
Score
2
Posts
17
Posts %
16
Score
3
Posts
25
Posts %
14
Score
3
Posts
25
Posts %
13
Score
4
Posts
33
Posts %
12
Score
2
Posts
17
Posts %
Top posts
View all questions and answers