Let V be a mixed characteristic complete discrete valuation ring, k its residual field, P a proper smooth formal scheme over V, P its special fiber, T a divisor of P, U:=Psetminus T, Y a smooth closed subscheme of U. We prove that the category of overconvergent F-isocrystals on Y is equivalent to the category of overcoherent F-isocrystals on Y. More generally, we prove such an equivalence by gluing for any smooth variety Y over k. Moreover, we check that overcoherent F-complexes of arithmetic D-modules split in overconvergent F-isocrystals.

Hi!

Last I knew, me and some kids and I (sic) were walking to see a movie!
A reader whispered in my ear—“incoherent! You are being incoherent!” (And can we have ice cream again like yesterday?????)

Interesting you say so, reader! I am so not told that anywhere near enough! I should/want to be told that WAY MORE OFTEN! Sometimes in court!

At practically the same time, my daughter was saying about the Herzog (in a very condescending snotty (everyone also had or was getting the first of the Alaska fall colds) (Sarah Palin, I hear, has never had a cold! Not once!) tone): “THIS ISN’T EVEN A MOVIE! A MOVIE HAS A BEGINNING, A MIDDLE AND AN END!” “THIS IS ALL ONE THING!” And what does that mean for coherence and poetry?

Very interesting! (Jesus! And all these people blogging and actually reading blogs and actually commenting—and/but yes, Gerard Manley Hopkins!) (I mean to memorize)) I don’t, however, agree with one of my defenders (although I love my defenders almost as much as my de/dis/re-tractors!*), I don’t think incoherent is the new articulate.** I think overcoherent is the new/old coherent.

Anyway, the part of the movie I wanted to discuss/mention (other than, like Werner, encourage discussion of gay and insane penguins) ( I feel so surfacey! ( But can’t find the ledge of real air)) was the one scientist diver dude who was caught in a pensive mood (and looked like a slightly older Jeff Tweedy) (before not rehab but the need for rehab) saying that we evolved not out of some sort of striving (maybe—and I apologize and want to talk about Robert Irwin and ambition sometime soon--, maybe-- that is my word) but only to escape the sheer evil and brutality of the deep. And what does this mean for poetry?

ALLCOHERENT, on the other hand, from another VERY QUICK TO COIN commenter, who I for some strange reason envision sitting on a tufted royal (maybe Mexican?) blue pillow in blue American apparel running shorts next to an OED and a copy of ed skoog’s new book not yet out from Copper Canyon***) thank you, but that can only describe…SARAH PALIN! ****And the closing scene of the movie’s music choice: the mass sung by a Ukrainian Catholic priest, just like the ones I used to listen to when I was 3, 6, 7, 8, 9.

*this is/was from yesterday and now it is/was today, September 11, (and now, look again, September 18) and just/then saw that and I’ll write a poem for bill knot fucking later.
**and Auden on O’Hara and Ashberry (non sequitur as the new coherence—also something I don’t necessarily believe in: Mary Ruefle: “I did not think you suffered that way” and it DOES SUCK about David Foster Wallace and this all DOES FOLLOW: “I think you (and John too for that matter) must watch what is always the great danger of any “surrealistic” style namely confusing AUTHENTIC NONLOGICAL RELATIONS which arouse wonder with accidental ones which arouse mere surprise and in the end FATIGUE.”

***People all around our row were leaving, but I didn’t notice. Too busy was I getting popcorn and chocolate shakes. And water. People were thirsty.
****Happy Birthday Michael Weigers! Yes, today—September 18.
***** Gloria Steinem on Sarah Palin
>
> September 4, 2008
>
> Here's the good news: Women have become so politically
> powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a
> headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap
> with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women --
> and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or
> confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to
> Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only"sign off the White
> House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there
> through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.
>
> But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first
> time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because
> she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and
> need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman.
> It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not
> about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that.
> It's about baking a new pie.
>
> Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush
> Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton
> supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her
> down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a
> Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates
> as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the
> right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything
> Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still
> does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying,
> "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."
>
> This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be
> wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say
> she can't do the job because she has children in need of care,
> especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no
> pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign
> policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to
> learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.
>
> Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When
> asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still
> can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly
> that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said,
> "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."
>
> She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was
> unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using
> unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being
> praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact
> that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has
> opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know
> it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them.
> Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in
> the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on
> "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that
> McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.
>
> So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He mayhave chosen
> Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the
> difference between form and content, but the main motive
> was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed
> anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom.
> If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman whoknows what a
> vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like
> Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine.
> McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing
> patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence
> Against Women Act.
>
> Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about
> every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She
> believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but
> disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports
> government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research
> but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted
> births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use
> taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air
> but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the
> lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a
> candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in
> subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports
> drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain
> has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling.
She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
>
> I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of
> the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals
> from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about
> increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power
> plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to
> criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if
> one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should
> bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human
> right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it
> also protects the right to have a child.
>
> So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is
> James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women
> are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he
> may be voting for Palin's husband.
>
> Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan
> gains from this contest. Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing
> patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause
> the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was
> the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the
> last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.
>
> And American women, who suffer more because of having two
> full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have
> support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women
> can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama
> and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be,
> can be and want to be at home for their children.
>
> This could be huge.
>