bio | website | math.washington.edu/~kovacs |
---|---|---|
location | Seattle, WA | |
age | ||
visits | member for | 4 years, 11 months |
seen | 14 hours ago | |
stats | profile views | 7,543 |
I am an algebraic geometer.
Aug
22 |
comment |
Varieties with an ample vector bundle mapping to their tangent bundle
No, it isn't. That morphism is only on $\mathbb P^1$ and it maps to the restriction of $T_V$ to $\mathbb P^1$. So, you really just get a morpohism $T_{\mathbb{P}^1}\rightarrow T_V\left|_{\mathbb P^1}\right.$. It also contradicts the Andreatta and Wiśniewski result mentioned, so if this were correct, that theorem would be toast. |
Aug
22 |
answered | Vanishing of sheaf cohomology with compact support |
Aug
15 |
revised |
Vanishing for ideal sheaves on spaces with only rational singularities
added 831 characters in body |
Aug
15 |
comment |
Vanishing for ideal sheaves on spaces with only rational singularities
Karl, you are right. When I started I meant to say this. Then I got interrupted and forgot what I had planned. I guess I'm getting old... I'll edit the answer accordingly. |
Aug
15 |
answered | Vanishing for ideal sheaves on spaces with only rational singularities |
Aug
1 |
awarded | birational-geometry |
Jul
28 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Jul
25 |
awarded | Good Answer |
Jul
24 |
revised |
Intuition behind the Kodaira Vanishing Theorem?
deleted 317 characters in body |
Jul
23 |
answered | Intuition behind the Kodaira Vanishing Theorem? |
Jul
23 |
comment |
Intuition behind the Kodaira Vanishing Theorem?
I'm not sure what you are asking. There are many proofs available. I think the easiest way to see that a theorem is true is to read a proof. I personally like Kollár's proof: goo.gl/bzE5Ho |
Jul
22 |
answered | pull back of an ample line bundle under a blow up |
Jul
1 |
revised |
The canonical bundle of an infinitesimal deformation
added 4 characters in body |
Jul
1 |
comment |
The canonical bundle of an infinitesimal deformation
Right, of course. I guess I got stock in the proper world by the wording of the question... :) |
Jun
30 |
answered | The canonical bundle of an infinitesimal deformation |
Jun
26 |
comment |
Morphisms contracting a family of curves
Hi Roy, this sounds good. It's a nice proof assuming that $Y$ is projective. The statement is still true assuming that $g$ is proper and $f$ is arbitrary (plus the connectivity assumptions). (Which is what I had in mind all along so I thought that there cannot be such a simple proof. But there is one with $Y$ projective). Cheers! :) |
Jun
25 |
comment |
Morphisms contracting a family of curves
Roy: I am not sure how that works if you only know that a special fiber is contracted. In that case the general hyperplane section will miss the point where that special fiber maps and thus does not give any information. No? |
Jun
25 |
answered | Morphisms contracting a family of curves |
Jun
12 |
revised |
is there a pattern here showing up or it's simply a coincidence?
added 1 character in body |
Jun
11 |
revised |
Projective dimension of zero module
deleted 3 characters in body |