Talk:Complex analytic variety

A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Clementhyme, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on 16 November 2024. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!
Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: This is a stub with talks of moving/merging, and not enough information for a copyedit

This mathematics-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Merger proposal from analytic space

I think analytic space is just another name for complex analytic space, so I propose that they should be merged. Jowa fan (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that you can define analytic spaces over any field. I think the complex analytic case is the most studied, though. For instance, over R, one usually talks about subanalytic sets, not analytic sets, and over Q_p, one usually studies rigid analytic spaces. Ozob (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. If that's the case then the analytic space page needs a few words of explanation to be added. If you can put in something appropriate, then I'll happily withdraw the merger proposal. Jowa fan (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten analytic space. I think it makes clear that there is a theory of analytic spaces outside the complex case. What do you think? Ozob (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good; I'm withdrawing the merge proposal. I wonder if schemes should be mentioned somewhere, just for motivation. Jowa fan (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I've added a paragraph on schemes. It's not really motivation, more pointing out the similarities. I'm not sure that one can really rely on schemes as a motivation here; some of the people who look at that article will have an SCV background, not an AG background, so we can't assume that the reader already understands schemes. Ozob (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refereces incorrect?

I cannot discover any book called "Complex Analytic Spaces", by Grauert and Remmert, or by anyone else. (Perhaps "Coherent Analytic Sheaves" by Grauert and Remmert was meant?) gorlim (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]