About Kodaira's book on deformations - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net 2013-05-24T12:13:15Z http://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/75035 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdf http://mathoverflow.net/questions/75035/about-kodairas-book-on-deformations About Kodaira's book on deformations Qfwfq 2011-09-09T20:45:50Z 2011-09-09T23:24:30Z <p>I happened to read the following sentence in the <a href="http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000998.html" rel="nofollow">blog</a> by the physicist Jacques Distler:</p> <blockquote> <p>"What makes Kodaira’s <em>Complex Manifolds and Deformation of Complex Structures</em> such a delight to read is that he doesn’t neaten up the presentation by removing all the “extraneous” intuitions (both the ones that proved correct, and the ones that didn’t)".</p> </blockquote> <p>Question: which "extraneous intuitions" (if any) did <em>not</em> prove correct in the book by Kodaira? What could the author of the above phrase be referring to, precisely? </p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/75035/about-kodairas-book-on-deformations/75050#75050 Answer by Faisal for About Kodaira's book on deformations Faisal 2011-09-09T23:24:30Z 2011-09-09T23:24:30Z <p>You can find lots of these "extraneous" tidbits starting at Chapter 4: Infinitesimal Deformation, where Kodaira pursues what he calls the "main theme" of the book. In particular, the creation of Kodaira--Spencer theory is told kind of like a story. Already on the second page Kodaira mentions how he and Spencer were "rather sceptic" about the "fundamental idea" of the theory, and a few pages later we're told how Kodaira found a particular thing to be "too good to be true" while Spencer held "a more optimistic view" about that same thing.</p> <p>For a specific example of an intuition that didn't prove correct, let me quote part of the last page of Chapter 4 (in my reprint of the 1986 edition):</p> <blockquote> <p>Our Theorems 4.2, 4.3, and 4.6 contain the assumption that <code>$\dim H^1(M_t, \Theta_t)$</code> is independent of <code>$t$</code>. At first we did not know whether this assumption was essential or not. Since we might expect the local triviality of [...], we suspected that we could get rid of this assumption. But the study of deformations of Hopf surfaces revealed the necessity of this assumption.</p> </blockquote> <p>(Theorems 4.2, 4.3 and 4.6 deal with proving the local triviality of a differentiable family <code>$M_t$</code> of compact complex manifolds under some certain assumptions.)</p>