bio | website | preschema.com |
---|---|---|
location | Essen, Germany | |
age | 23 | |
visits | member for | 5 years, 4 months |
seen | 15 hours ago | |
stats | profile views | 1,446 |
Feb 10 |
comment |
Motivic derived algebraic geometry
@DylanWilson, that sounds pretty interesting, though I know nothing about tmf. |
Feb 10 |
comment |
Motivic derived algebraic geometry
@FernandoMuro, right this is what I'm wondering about: whether such a construction could have any interesting applications for which E-infinity derived geometry would be insufficient. |
Feb 9 |
asked | Motivic derived algebraic geometry |
Feb 8 |
answered | For what varieties do we have results on the category of singularities? |
Jan 24 |
comment |
Reasons for the use of Nisnevich topology in motivic homotopy theory
@SimonPepinLehalleur, why don't you write this as an answer? |
Jan 22 |
comment |
Push-outs of fully faithful (enriched) functors
This looks relevant: faculty.fortlewis.edu/Scull_L/pushouts.pdf |
Jan 4 |
answered | It looks so coKleisli, but it's not. What is it? |
Jan 4 |
comment |
unique enhancement for derived categories
let us continue this discussion in chat |
Jan 3 |
comment |
Reconstruction of noncommutative scheme
For stacks a reconstruction theorem was proved in arxiv.org/abs/1004.3087, though this is more in the spirit of Balmer than Rosenberg. In the noncommutative setting, the first question is how to define the categories of quasi-coherent sheaves; this is done in the setting of fibred categories, or categories over a category in Kontsevich-Rosenberg's paper "Noncommutative stacks". I haven't seen any reconstruction theorems in this setting, but this unpublished preprint you mention sounds promising. Wouldn't that be a satisfactory answer to your question? (Is it available online btw?) |
Jan 3 |
comment |
unique enhancement for derived categories
@FernandoMuro, ok. I am just wondering what possible difference there could be, since the various models of stable linear (infty,1)-categories, including pretriangulated dg-categories, are known to be equivalent, as you of course know. |
Jan 3 |
comment |
unique enhancement for derived categories
I imagine ii) should be true, but I'm not familiar enough with the techniques of Lunts-Orlov to be sure. |
Jan 3 |
comment |
unique enhancement for derived categories
@FernandoMuro, why would it matter? Surely Aleksa means some kind of stable linear (infty,1)-categorical enhancements. |
Jan 2 |
comment |
It looks so coKleisli, but it's not. What is it?
This is close to the orbit category, appearing in works of Keller and Tabuada. When $M'$ is the full subcategory spanned by the objects $X^{\otimes n}$ for some fixed $X$ and for all $n \in \mathbf{Z}$, this is the orbit category of $M$ with respect to the auto-equivalence $- \otimes X$. |
Jan 1 |
revised |
gluing of DG-categories
added 267 characters in body |
Jan 1 |
revised |
gluing of DG-categories
added 267 characters in body |
Jan 1 |
answered | gluing of DG-categories |
Jan 1 |
comment |
gluing of DG-categories
You need to be able to identify the dg-categories with their respective opposite categories. For example it would make sense for dg-categories of sheaves on a scheme, where you have duals ($E \mapsto \mathbf{R}\mathrm{Hom}(E, O_X)$). |
Jan 1 |
comment |
gluing of DG-categories
How exactly are you defining $\varphi^\mathrm{op}$? |
Dec 30 |
comment |
V.I. Arnold's high school problem
This is a very easy olympiad problem. Take a look at "The USSR olympiad problem book", you'll be surprised at what else Russian twelve-year olds can do. |
Dec 30 |
answered | Maps to projective space determined by a line bundle |