bio | website | |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | ||
visits | member for | 4 years, 6 months |
seen | yesterday | |
stats | profile views | 1,016 |
Jun 6 |
comment |
Kähler differentials, intuition behind $\text{div}(\omega)$, canonical divisor on algebraic curves?
Well reading Hartshorne's chapter on curves should be more than enough. You will learn more doing this job by yourself than taking the easy option of asking the question here, where it is not really appropriate. |
Jun 6 |
comment |
Kähler differentials, define valuation?
and not a research-level question. |
Jun 6 |
comment |
Intuition for thinking about $R$-module of Kähler differentials, universal receptacles, derivations?
not a research level question in my opinion. |
Jun 6 |
comment |
Kähler differentials, intuition behind $\text{div}(\omega)$, canonical divisor on algebraic curves?
not a research-level question in my opinion. |
May 27 |
comment |
lifting morphism of torsors
Don't you mean $H^1(X,\mathfrak{g}_P\otimes I)$ instead of $H^1(X,\mathfrak{g}_P)$ ? |
May 25 |
comment |
Do line bundles descend to coarse moduli spaces of Artin stacks with finite inertia?
@David Rydh: thanks for the explanation. |
May 25 |
comment |
Differentials for algebraic stacks
The twist in $\mathfrak{g}^\vee[1]$ seems wrong to me, I think $\mathfrak{g}^\vee[-1]$ is correct. |
May 12 |
comment |
Do line bundles descend to coarse moduli spaces of Artin stacks with finite inertia?
Thanks for the answer ! In proof of Lemma 2 : "Since $Z\to X$ is finite, we can trivialize $\mathcal{L}$ étale-locally on $X$". I don't get it - could you elaborate ? Sorry if I am missing something obvious. |
May 5 |
comment |
Do line bundles descend to coarse moduli spaces of Artin stacks with finite inertia?
@Zsolt Patakfalvi : you are right that Alper's criterion is "the stabilizers act trivially on the fibers" and not stalks. And I was indeed assuming that the moduli space is good. |
May 5 |
comment |
Do line bundles descend to coarse moduli spaces of Artin stacks with finite inertia?
You can probably answer positively (for S quasi compact) by using Alper's criterion : namely a vector bundle descends to the moduli space iff the stabilizers act trivially on the stalks. See his paper "Good moduli spaces for Artin stacks" Theorem 10.3 . |
Apr 25 |
comment |
Descending a monomorphism of stacks
You are simply confused, because there is no such new $Q$. That is my point D. |
Apr 25 |
answered | Descending a monomorphism of stacks |
Apr 21 |
comment |
Relative Proj and generation of sections
Your question is hardly understandable to me. What is $Y$ ? Your morphism seems independent from $k$ so what means the condition on $k$ ? What means $\Gamma_*$ ? What is the reference Stacks (Ex. 21.2) ? |
Apr 18 |
answered | Exact sequences of groups and Tannakian formalism |
Mar 30 |
comment |
Representability of morphism of stacks
@user74230 : "see this spaces as sheaves" means to a space associate its functor of points ; this is sufficient since this Yoneda-like operation is fully faithful. Are you sure of "that is very different from stalks as in the SP reference" ? |
Mar 29 |
comment |
Representability of morphism of stacks
Yes, it is enough to verify the property on geometric points : you need to check that the kernel say $K/U$ a is trivial, that is that the unit section $U\to K$ is an isomorphism. You can see these spaces as sheaves, and then use the fact that the geometric points form "a conservative family of points" see stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/00YJ . |
Mar 29 |
answered | Representability of morphism of stacks |
Mar 26 |
comment |
Do algebraic stacks satisfy fpqc descent?
@Denis as I already mentioned in the first comment "algebraic stacks with quasi-affine diagonal are fpqc sheaves" is misleading since this can be understood as : a sheaf of sets. That is what most algebraic geometers will understand when you claim a stack is a sheaf. If the answer uses a different terminology than the question, there should be a warning. |
Mar 26 |
comment |
Do algebraic stacks satisfy fpqc descent?
@Denis the question was formulated with a clear reference to the stacks project and to algebraic stacks, so I don't understand the point of your remark. |
Mar 25 |
comment |
Do algebraic stacks satisfy fpqc descent?
This is not the classical definition, for instance not the definition in the stacks project. What you call sheaf is simply misleading with the current terminology. |