This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Mid‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Regarding the fact that matrix inversion is polynomial, wouldn't the usual Cayley-Hamilton argument make this clearer? Michael Kinyon 16:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, I guess since Cayley-Hamilton follows from Cramer's Rule, it's not really all that different. Still, there is something about the way the argument is written here that is unsatisfactory. I just can't quite put my finger on it. Michael Kinyon 16:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another construction (perhaps a more natural one) interprets GL(n) as a group in 2n^2 coordinates, namely as a group of mutually inverse pairs of n by n matrices. In other words: GL(n)={(A,B)|AB=1}. Matrix inversion is just swapping coordinates and hence obviously polynomial. Lenthe 09:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes have been made in the article. The terminology is tricky because abelian scheme is a concept derived from abelian variety, and therefore it is usual to say "commutative group scheme". Charles Matthews (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the definition, instead of "presheaf corresponding to G under the Yoneda embedding", should it be the "S-scheme corresponding to G under the Yoneda embedding"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.136.158 (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it looks right as it is. As defined, G is an S-scheme, the presheaf is the image of G under the Yoneda embedding, i.e. G considered as a representable functor from (S-scheme)op to Sets. It is just saying that the Yoneda embedding factors through a functor from (S-scheme)op to Groups, that the S-scheme morphisms into the S-scheme G functorially form a group. More concretely, just saying that G(R), the R-valued points of G, the solutions of the systems of equations defining G in a ring R (it is enough to take (affine schemes)op = rings as where we are evaluating G) nicely form groups with arrows going where they should when we have ring homomorphisms, e.g. G(Z)-->G(Q)-->G(R)-->G(C) or G(Z) --> G(Z/pZ). The book of Demazure and Gabriel I added to the refs is a very good place to learn such things.John Z (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Group scheme/CommentsTalk:Group scheme/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 06:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The formatting on this page should be upgraded to latex.

This page would benefit from explicit models of higher dimensional abelian varieties *not* constructed from products of elliptic curves.