bio | website | buddha239.livejournal.com |
---|---|---|
location | St. Petersburg (Russia) | |
age | 37 | |
visits | member for | 5 years, 5 months |
seen | May 23 at 6:49 | |
stats | profile views | 4,551 |
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!
May 22 |
revised |
On various “extension closures” and “orthogonals” in triangulated categories
added 87 characters in body |
May 22 |
revised |
On various “extension closures” and “orthogonals” in triangulated categories
added 221 characters in body |
May 22 |
revised |
On various “extension closures” and “orthogonals” in triangulated categories
added 154 characters in body |
May 21 |
revised |
On various “extension closures” and “orthogonals” in triangulated categories
edited tags |
May 21 |
comment |
On various “extension closures” and “orthogonals” in triangulated categories
Certainly, in some cases retract-closures or extension-closures are sufficient to "generate" $E$ starting from a smaller $E'$ that is orthogonal to $D$ (and such that $D$ is the maximal class orthogonal to it). Yet my pseudo-extensions seem to give "more" objects in general. |
May 21 |
revised |
On various “extension closures” and “orthogonals” in triangulated categories
edited tags |
May 21 |
asked | On various “extension closures” and “orthogonals” in triangulated categories |
May 19 |
comment |
Cycle class map in smooth quasi-projective varieties
This looks rather strange; one usually defines cycle classes only for those cohomology theories that satisfy some sort of the homotopy invariance property (that fails for the cohomology you consider unless $X$ is also proper). |
May 12 |
comment |
Chow groups of locally trivial affine fibrations
I would prefer to write the right hand side of (4) as $A_k(X)$ (since $X$ does not have to be equi-dimensional); everything else seems to be fine. |
May 12 |
awarded | Civic Duty |
May 12 |
comment |
Do there exist nontrivial motivic cohomology operations preserving weights?
I doubt this conjecture.:) You probably need more restrictions on "operations" to prove a statement like this. |
May 12 |
revised |
Do there exist nontrivial motivic cohomology operations preserving weights?
edited tags |
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? |