26,164 reputation
25792
bio website math.washington.edu/~kovacs
location Seattle, WA
age
visits member for 3 years, 9 months
seen Jul 8 at 15:31
I am an algebraic geometer.

Jul
3
awarded  Popular Question
Jul
2
awarded  Curious
Jun
28
comment Vanishing theorems for pluri-canonical bundle
And if you look at the proof in the cited paper, the author first comments that this is a special case of Kollár's vanishing and immediately goes to saying that he will only prove it for the case $\dim X=\dim Y$. I think he called it GR vanishing mistakenly. It's not a big deal to me, but Kollár's vanishing is a lot harder than GR vanishing, so he should get the credit for it.
Jun
27
answered Vanishing theorems for pluri-canonical bundle
May
12
awarded  Nice Answer
May
10
comment Is the Kähler cone of a toric variety always simplicial?
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!
May
10
comment Is the Kähler cone of a toric variety always simplicial?
Could you tell me the definition of a simplicial cone? Thanks
Apr
17
comment Degree and quasi projective family
Why can't you take the closure $\bar V$ of V in $\mathbb P^n\times \mathbb P^m$ and apply your argument in the projective case? It seems to me that $\deg V_p\leq \deg (\bar V)_p$, so this should be OK.
Apr
10
answered A covering lemma of Kawamata
Apr
3
revised An affine singular surface
added 428 characters in body
Apr
3
comment An affine singular surface
Indeed, I hesitated writing that about being "more familiar" as it surely depends on one's point of view. Also, at the end it is the same thing. From the fact that the exceptional curve is a smooth rational curve with self-intersection $-n$ it follows easily that the resolution of the projectivized cone is actually $\mathbb F_n$.
Apr
3
revised An affine singular surface
added 95 characters in body
Apr
3
answered An affine singular surface
Mar
28
answered Recognizing a Mukai flop
Mar
16
comment Kawamata-Log-Terminal pairs
@ggelli: If $\tilde\Delta\subset X$ is a smooth Cartier divisor, then $(X,\varepsilon\tilde\Delta)$ is klt for any $1>\varepsilon>0$ essentially by the argument you're providing. On the other hand, if you want to change or refine your question, you should do it by editing the question and not by posting a comment to an answer.
Mar
9
revised Making Hironaka's theorem explicit for hypersurfaces
deleted 1 characters in body
Mar
8
answered Making Hironaka's theorem explicit for hypersurfaces
Feb
20
comment Bertini type theorem
No,of course not. I was just answering to what you wrote. Sure, you need to resolve the indeterminacies. So it is a projective closure somewhere else. I don't see the problem. I should edit what I wrote, because it maybe ambiguous. I'll do that soon.
Feb
20
comment Bertini type theorem
Smoothness is not needed, so there is no need for a resolution. Just take a projective closure.
Feb
19
comment Ample divisors on $\mathbb{P}^3$ blow-up along single point
Uh, did you mean that the blow up is "Fano" instead of "ample"?