From 6059377e10df7ad3ffbb109ad83fc246d9c0bbca Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aise Johan de Jong <aise.johan.de.jong@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:38:03 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Fix mistake in proof lemma in dpa.tex

Thanks to Shishir Agrawal
http://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/07GP#comment-1331
---
 CONTRIBUTORS | 1 +
 dpa.tex      | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/CONTRIBUTORS b/CONTRIBUTORS
index b3e12b24f..46d7f21c9 100644
--- a/CONTRIBUTORS
+++ b/CONTRIBUTORS
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
 Kian Abolfazlian
 Dan Abramovich
 Juan Pablo Acosta Lopez
+Shishir Agrawal
 Jarod Alper
 Dima Arinkin
 Hanno Becker
diff --git a/dpa.tex b/dpa.tex
index 643cb9ed8..7deb8b1f7 100644
--- a/dpa.tex
+++ b/dpa.tex
@@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ \section{Divided powers}
 \gamma_j(y)^k\gamma_k(\gamma_i(x)) \\
 & = \frac{(ki)!}{k!(i!)^k} \gamma_j(y)^k \gamma_{ki}(x) \\
 & =
-\frac{(ki)!}{k!(i!)^k} \frac{(kj)!}{k!(j!)^k} \gamma_{ik}(x) \gamma_{kj}(y)
+\frac{(ki)!}{k!(i!)^k} \frac{(kj)!}{(j!)^k} \gamma_{ik}(x) \gamma_{kj}(y)
 \end{align*}
 using (3) in the first equality, (5) for $x$ in the second, and
 (2) exactly $k$ times in the third. Using (5) for $y$ we see the