bio | website | buddha239.livejournal.com |
---|---|---|
location | St. Petersburg (Russia) | |
age | 37 | |
visits | member for | 5 years, 5 months |
seen | 17 hours ago | |
stats | profile views | 4,519 |
I am a professor in St. Petersburg State University. I have several papers on (additive Galois module structure of) local fields, formal groups, and finite group schemes. Currently I am studying Voevodsky's motives and their cohomology. In the process I introduced the notion of a weight structure for a triangulated category; this seems to be an interesting piece of homological algebra (that possibly could be applied to algebraic topology). See http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0091 for a survey of some of my recent results.
You can send me letters to mbondarko gmail.com. In particular, if you answered one of my questions, please tell me how can I mention you in my papers!
Apr 16 |
comment |
Does a fully faithful functor between triangulated categories induce embedding of their Grothendieck groups?
A counterexamle in the general case (generalizing the one of Matthias Wendt): if you embedd your category $A$ into $B$ that is closed with respect to countable coproducts (or products) then you kill the whole $K_0(A)$ since $K_0(B)=0$. |
Apr 1 |
comment |
What should one “do” to “strictify” a triangle of transformations coming from a lax commutative triangle of functors?
The units of my adjunctions in the case when $f,g,h$ admit right adjoints (so that one can compose the units for $f$ and $g$). |
Mar 31 |
comment |
What should one “do” to “strictify” a triangle of transformations coming from a lax commutative triangle of functors?
Yes; if we fix $f$ and its adjoint then the unit and the counit will be fixed also. Yet I am interested in the case when the adjoint to $f$ is not fixed. |
Mar 31 |
comment |
What should one “do” to “strictify” a triangle of transformations coming from a lax commutative triangle of functors?
Do you prefer "unit/counit of the adjunction"? |
Mar 31 |
asked | What should one “do” to “strictify” a triangle of transformations coming from a lax commutative triangle of functors? |
Mar 20 |
comment |
Récollement of stable $t$-structures
And certainly the result follows immediately from the "formula" for the glued t-structure. |
Mar 19 |
answered | Recollement of multiple $t$-structures |
Mar 17 |
comment |
Recollement of multiple $t$-structures
No, this was not clarified clearly enough for me to understand it. For which triangulated categories do you consider this "multiple glued" t-structures? |
Mar 16 |
comment |
Recollement of multiple $t$-structures
I cannot give an answer until I know which functors and triangulated categories you consider. |
Mar 16 |
comment |
Recollement of multiple $t$-structures
Definitely no geometry is necessary here; yet could you describe the setting you consider in more detail? |
Mar 16 |
comment |
Gersten Conjecture for Milnor K-theory
Did you read all Kerz's papers on the subject? As far as I remember, he proposed "correcting" Milnor's K-theory in the case when residue fields are finite. |
Mar 16 |
comment |
Recollement of multiple $t$-structures
Could you explain what gluing data do you have for your $D_i$? My guess it that $D_i$ should have "well-defined images" in the "glued category" $D$. |
Mar 16 |
comment |
Récollement of stable $t$-structures
Look at Appendix E5 in webusers.imj-prg.fr/~bruno.kahn/preprints/der1mot.pdf |
Mar 10 |
accepted | Motivic integration in positive characteristic: how much is known? |
Mar 9 |
comment |
On Grothendieck's idea on his Standard Conjecture B
This may be true. At least, in some papers written around 1970 (not by Grothendieck:)) I have met the hope that crystalline cohomology (or, maybe, some other $p$-adic cohomology theory) will yield the proof of the last remaining Weil conjecture. |
Mar 6 |
revised |
K-theory of coherent sheaves on complex manifolds: references and gamma-filtration?
added 108 characters in body |
Mar 6 |
asked | K-theory of coherent sheaves on complex manifolds: references and gamma-filtration? |
Mar 5 |
asked | Motivic integration in positive characteristic: how much is known? |
Mar 2 |
comment |
On Grothendieck's idea on his Standard Conjecture B
Well, this was just a guess; you can write down your own one. |
Mar 1 |
comment |
When does a perverse sheaf occur in the decomposition theorem?
$j_{!*}L$ occurs in the decomposition of a semi-simple perverse $P$ if and only if $L$ is in the decomposition of $j^*P$. |