bio | website | buddha239.livejournal.com |
---|---|---|
location | St. Petersburg (Russia) | |
age | 37 | |
visits | member for | 4 years, 9 months |
seen | 1 hour ago | |
stats | profile views | 4,145 |
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!
Aug 10 |
asked | The 'most general' papers on rational Borel-Moore motivic homology and K'-theory? |
Aug 9 |
accepted | Which valuations of a field yield codimension $1$ subschemes of their 'models' |
Jul 30 |
comment |
Motivic L-function 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 Deligne-Beilinson cohomology of function fields
added 144 characters in body; edited tags |
Jul 28 |
comment |
Motivic L-function 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 L-function vs motivic zeta function |
Jul 27 |
asked | Hodge modules and Deligne-Beilinson 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 well-generated triangulated categories. Yet I wonder whether well-generatedness 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 K-theory do not coincide. One may say that algebraic K-theory is controlled by motivic cohomology. Also, it seems that the 'usual' method for proving rigidity does not yield any statement as desired. |
Jul 15 |
comment |
Is there any publication of “Beilinson’s dream” on motivic (complexes of) sheaves?
Possibly, you could be interested in my paper arxiv.org/abs/1105.0420 |
Jul 15 |
comment |
Cycle classes that are killed by pushing forward from normalization
I can probably prove that any element of this kernel is the image of an element of $CH_k(X'\times_X X')$ via $p_{1*}-p_{2*}$ where $p_i$ are the projections. Should I write this down? |