2,154 reputation
11427
bio website preschema.com
location Essen, Germany
age 23
visits member for 5 years, 4 months
seen 8 hours ago

Nov
11
awarded  Necromancer
Nov
11
answered A bestiary of topologies on Sch
Nov
10
comment Etale topos as a classifyng topos ?
The question is answered in arxiv.org/pdf/0902.1130v2.pdf (though surely known much earlier).
Nov
8
comment Mysterious quotes (at least for me)
Right, I should have said derived Morita invariance. And Orlov's remark was about the derived category of a commutative scheme.
Nov
7
awarded  Enlightened
Nov
7
awarded  Nice Answer
Nov
6
comment why are motives more serious than “naive” motives?
@VivekShende, Chow motives are supposed to be the semisimple objects in the abelian category of mixed motives (whose derived category is supposed to coincide with Voevodsky's DM). There is a functor from Chow motives to DM which is known to be fully faithful.
Nov
6
revised Mysterious quotes (at least for me)
added 10 characters in body
Nov
6
revised Mysterious quotes (at least for me)
added 30 characters in body
Nov
6
answered Mysterious quotes (at least for me)
Nov
3
comment Does “simplicial” commute with “Bousfield localization”?
Of course, this has nothing to do with $\Delta$ and works more generally for presheaf (∞-)categories.
Nov
2
revised Why higher category theory?
add higher-category-theory tag
Nov
2
suggested approved edit on Why higher category theory?
Nov
2
comment Why higher category theory?
See the closely related question mathoverflow.net/questions/169187/….
Oct
29
comment Why care about Fourier-Mukai partners?
By results of D. Orlov and B. To\"en, there is no difference between equivalence at the level of derived categories or at the level of dg- or infinity-categories, for smooth projective varieties.
Oct
24
revised What is the Beilinson regulator?
update broken link
Oct
24
suggested approved edit on What is the Beilinson regulator?
Sep
27
answered Existence of ind-right adjoint functor for semi-simple category?
Sep
16
comment Can the Grothendieck ring of varities over a field $k$ be defined for non separated schemes?
@Ari, the question is not about the Grothendieck group $K_0(X)$ of a scheme X, but about the Grothendieck ring $K_0(Sch_k)$ of all (separated, finite type) k-schemes.
Sep
15
comment Are these two “FUNCTORS” adjoint?
I guess this is what the OP has in mind: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/spectrum+of+an+abelian+category