bio  website  buddha239.livejournal.com 

location  St. Petersburg (Russia)  
age  37  
visits  member for  4 years, 9 months 
seen  10 hours ago  
stats  profile views  4,159 
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!
22h

comment 
Are Anderson $T$motives motives for the function field analogy?
Abelian varieties should yield all motives only over finite fields! 
1d

comment 
Are Anderson $T$motives motives for the function field analogy?
This looks somewhat similar to the category of mixed Tate motives i.e. you consider certain objects endowed with a filtration with 'simple' factors (on which $T=\theta$ in your setting). 
Aug 10 
asked  The 'most general' papers on rational BorelMoore motivic homology and K'theory? 
Aug 9 
accepted  Which valuations of a field yield codimension $1$ subschemes of their 'models' 
Jul 30 
comment 
Motivic Lfunction vs motivic zeta function
I did not read this 1991 paper; I can only say that you have just written the zeta function of the tensor product of $M$ by the Artin motif corresponding to $\rho$. The latter motif becomes constant when you pass to the field $F_{p^{\sharp G}}$, whereas $M$ can be an arbitrary motif. And here is a certain reference: users.ictp.it/~pub_off/lectures/lns019/Loeser/Loeser.pdf 
Jul 29 
revised 
Which valuations of a field yield codimension $1$ subschemes of their 'models'
deleted 2 characters in body 
Jul 28 
revised 
Hodge modules and DeligneBeilinson cohomology of function fields
added 144 characters in body; edited tags 
Jul 28 
comment 
Motivic Lfunction vs motivic zeta function
For example, p. 76 of math.lsa.umich.edu/~mmustata/zeta_book.pdf yet I am not sure that this is a nice reference. 
Jul 28 
answered  Motivic Lfunction vs motivic zeta function 
Jul 27 
asked  Hodge modules and DeligneBeilinson cohomology of function fields 
Jul 26 
accepted  On two notions of 'generators' for a 'large' triangulated category 
Jul 26 
comment 
On two notions of 'generators' for a 'large' triangulated category
Thank you! It seems that the implication you indicated is exactly what I need for my purposes. 
Jul 26 
comment 
Which valuations of a field yield codimension $1$ subschemes of their 'models'
This is probably true. Yet do you now any references for this (where some terms are introduced)? 
Jul 25 
awarded  Notable Question 
Jul 25 
comment 
Which valuations of a field yield codimension $1$ subschemes of their 'models'
Possibly I am getting something wrong; yet in the 'geometrical' case there are 'bad' valuations; see mathoverflow.net/questions/135544/… 
Jul 25 
comment 
On two notions of 'generators' for a 'large' triangulated category
Thank you! Yes; I have met the equivalence of (i) and (ii) in the paper of Krause on wellgenerated triangulated categories. Yet I wonder whether wellgeneratedness is necessary here. 
Jul 25 
asked  Which valuations of a field yield codimension $1$ subschemes of their 'models' 
Jul 25 
asked  On two notions of 'generators' for a 'large' triangulated category 
Jul 16 
comment 
Strengthening of Suslin's rigidity argument?
Yes, in a certain range \'etale and motivic cohomology groups are isomorphic. Could you say, what are the (numbers of the) groups you are interested in? Also, do you have any more evidence supporting your conjecture? 
Jul 15 
comment 
Strengthening of Suslin's rigidity argument?
Certainly, etale and algebraic Ktheory do not coincide. One may say that algebraic Ktheory is controlled by motivic cohomology. Also, it seems that the 'usual' method for proving rigidity does not yield any statement as desired. 