Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange
141
reputation
3

Torsten Schoeneberg

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, iii(b) should be omitted.
  • Page 25: In line 9, the 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 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 "$BC_r$".

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)

1
answer
0
questions
0
people reached
  • on tour
  • Member for 2 years, 1 month
  • 1 profile view
  • Last seen Mar 10 at 0:47

Top Tags (2)

Score 4
Posts 1
Score 4
Posts 1

Top Posts (1) All Questions Answers | Votes Newest

Badges (3)

Gold

Silver

Bronze

3

Rarest