Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Hi there, in recent times I was reading texts about motives, and I want to ask something about Tate motives which is not clear to me (as I came across different definitions in different texts).

Let $V_k$ be the category of (projective) k-varieties. I read that the polynomial ring $\mathbb{Z}[\mathbb{L}] \subset K_0(V_k)$, the latter being the Grothendieck ring of $V_k$, with $\mathbb{L}$ the Lefschetz class $[\mathbb{A}_1]$, "corresponds to" mixed Tate motives generated by the Tate objects $\mathbb{Q}(m)$ in the Grothendieck ring $K_0(M_k)$, $M_k$ being the category of pure $k$-motives. In another article one rather spoke about the subring $\mathbb{Z}[\mathbb{L},\mathbb{L}^{-1}] \subset K_0(M_k)$ ($\mathbb{L}$ now the Lefschetz motive). And in yet another paper I read that mixed Tate motives are defined differently.

My question is: is one of the two first approaches indeed the correct way to see mixed Tate motives ? Or is this a restricted way to define them ?

I am especially interested in the connection between mixed Tate motives and $\mathbb{Z}$-varieties which are polynomial-countable. (When assuming the Tate conjecture, these varieties would have mixed Tate motives, and conversely.)

Thanks !!!

share|improve this question
4  
It's a question of whether the authors are talking about motives, where $\mathbb{L}$ is inverted, or effective motives where it isn't. –  Donu Arapura Oct 26 '12 at 15:26

1 Answer 1

There exists an abelian category of mixed Tate motives M (defined as the heart of some t-structure on the subtriangulated category generated by the $\mathbb{Q}(m)$ in the triangulated category of mixed motives defined by Voevodsky). In this category, every object has a increasing filtration whose quotients are one $\mathbb{Q}(m)$. This implies that at the K-group level, we obtain just the ring $\mathbb{Z}[\mathbb{L}, \mathbb{L}^{-1}]$ which is your second definition. Your first definition is not very coherent : if one take only $\mathbb{Z}[\mathbb{L}]$ then one don't have all the $\mathbb{Q}(m)$. A remark about the restriction of the definition : the existence of the category M (and more important the fact that we know the Ext groups in M) is a much more non-trivial and poweful thing than the description at the K-group level.

share|improve this answer
2  
The existence of this t-structure is only known when $k$ is a number field/ –  Mikhail Bondarko Oct 26 '12 at 19:59
    
@Mikhail Bondarko, Thanks for recalling that. In my head, I always have $k = \mathbb{Q}$ for this topic but if I do not recall that, what I wrote can namely be misleading. –  user25309 Oct 28 '12 at 14:13
    
@unknown (google): Could you be a little more precise about what you mean here with "at the K-group level" ? –  THC Oct 30 '12 at 10:23

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.