Complete scans of all volumes of SGA with the exception of SGA 5 which is here, Algébrique (FGA) – A collection of Grothendieck’s Bourbaki Seminar exposés. book “Revetements Etales et Groupe Fondamental”, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, , Springer-Verlag, , by Alexander Grothendieck et al. In French. Préfaisceaux, par A. Grothendieck et J.-L. Verdier: (original, réédition); Topologies et faisceaux, par J.-L. Verdier: (original, réédition); Fonctorialité des.
|Country:||Turks & Caicos Islands|
|Published (Last):||3 March 2013|
|PDF File Size:||19.16 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.35 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
He has also written synopses of the earlier sections.
[math/] Rev\^etements \’etales et groupe fondamental (SGA 1)
grothendiedk Some will read them later as they need facts, and will realize how beautiful they are. They can still be found in large math libraries, but distribution was limited. I mean there would be a sentence and then a seven-digit number And he said it was good to take a look at EGA when you need something. Last revised on April 22, at If you’re working over a complete discrete valuation ring A then sometimes you might temporarily need the residue field to be alg closed.
But one thing to remember is that many very clever people have pored over the details of EGA and SGA for many years now, and it so it is going to be hard for grotheendieck to find interesting new results that can be obtained just by applying the ideas from these sources alone as important as those sgq are. References to SGA typically mean the later, revised editions and not brothendieck original fascicles; some of the originals were labelled by capital letters, thus for example S.
This raises the question if a student, like me, should even bother reading EGA. While these later revisions were more widely distributed than the original fascicles, they are still uncommon outside of libraries.
It is an incredible resource, in terms of its completeness, its level of detail, its generality, its open discussion of grothenieck goals, assumptions, and choices of proof, and for many other reasons.
We plan to list here the grand plan and some remarks and links. Dear Ravi, your sentence Some will read them later for “pleasure”, like reading the classics is very unexpected, profound and thought-provoking. Does anyone know if there is a translation available for them? EGA can be a hard read, but it is also more complete than Hartshorne. How will you know the difference?
There is a common feeling that there is an overwhelming amount one has to know just to understand the literature.
The rules were being written, and these were never intended to be final drafts; witness the constant revisions to EGA, as the authors keep going back to improve what came before. But I think the fundamentals of the field are more broad and shallow than narrow and deep. Hartshorne, Some complex-point-of-view book e. I would like to hear what professional algebraic geometers would recommend their students in this matter.
One grothehdieck that always drove me crazy about EGA was the excessive back referencing. Griffith and Harris or Gunning’s books Something from an arithmetic point of view e.
However, as the title suggests, these books are in french. Even if you want to make progress in a very general, abstract setting, you will need ideas to come from somewhere, motivated perhaps by some new phenomenon you observe in geometry, or number theory, or arithmetic, or ….
Much of what I might grohtendieck was already said by Matt Emerton.
Towards a free electronic TeX version of SGA
Here are some well-known negative consequences. But other than that, I’ve read sections here and there. Then you revisit the same topics and, with your new and better perspective, you appreciate more of it. Further, Grothendieck wrote EGA for learning algebraic grothendidck, one needs only little french to read it and in any case learning french is a big personal extension.
CS1 French-language sources fr. Instead, each statement was small and trivial, yet they inexorably added up to something incredibly powerful.
I had a great time in a “seminar of pain” with a number of other people who grothendjeck also already reasonably happy with Hartshorne and more. I suppose I end up giving a rather mushy answer; if reading EGA appeals to you, then you will probably be drawn to the kind of problems where it’s essential that you’ve read EGA.
Unless you have a really special interest, you shouldn’t. The original is available here. A very small minority can and should and will read them as students. I haven’t seen one that made it past the first few sections.