bio | website | preschema.com |
---|---|---|
location | Essen, Germany | |
age | 23 | |
visits | member for | 5 years, 8 months |
seen | Jun 18 at 14:21 | |
stats | profile views | 1,579 |
May
14 |
revised |
References for the “nerve of an algebraic variety”
added 952 characters in body |
May
14 |
revised |
References for the “nerve of an algebraic variety”
added 14 characters in body |
May
14 |
answered | References for the “nerve of an algebraic variety” |
May
13 |
comment |
Universal property of gluing [collage, cograph] of dg-categories
See Remark 4.2 in the linked paper. |
May
13 |
comment |
Universal property of gluing [collage, cograph] of dg-categories
@FrancescoGenovese, they are the same for pretriangulated dg-categories, and otherwise the version of Orlov is the pretriangulated envelope of the version of Kuznetsov-Lunts. |
May
4 |
comment |
Morphism between Fourier-Mukai functors implies the morphism between kernels?
However, the corresponding statement at the level of dg-categories is true: $\mathbf{D}(X \times Y) = \underline{\mathbf{Hom}}(\mathbf{D}(X), \mathbf{D}(Y))$, so that morphisms of integral kernels correspond to morphisms of the induced dg-functors (note though that the Hom means the internal Hom in the localization of the category of dg-categories with respect to the quasi-equivalences). |
May
2 |
comment |
Comparison of model structures
@user38585, see section 1.3.3. In particular Corollary 1.3.16 is a useful way to check if a given Quillen adjunction is a Quillen equivalence. |
Apr
17 |
comment |
Could one recover the relative K-theory from the quotient derived category?
Given dg enhancements of the derived categories, the Verdier quotient may be described as the homotopy category of the homotopy cofibre in the category of small dg categories with the Morita model structure. As a functor on the category of dg-categories, K-theory is known to preserve homotopy cofibres (this is part of being a localizing invariant in the sense of Tabuada). |
Mar
6 |
awarded | Nice Answer |
Mar
6 |
awarded | Yearling |
Mar
6 |
comment |
Why is the derived tensor product only defined for bounded above derived categories?
An even more modern treatment using the language of model categories is the paper "Local and stable homological algebra in Grothendieck abelian categories" by Cisinski-Deglise (arxiv.org/abs/0712.3296). One gets an unbounded derived tensor product mostly by abstract nonsense, see Example 2.2 and Proposition 2.3. |
Mar
6 |
answered | Why is “naive” definition of non-commutative spectrum bad? |
Feb
14 |
comment |
The most important facts, modern surveys, and readable introductions to p-adic cohomology theories (crystalline cohomology and the mysterious functor)
We had a seminar on this paper in Berlin recently, you might like to take a look at the program: mi.fu-berlin.de/en/math/groups/arithmetic_geometry/… |
Feb
10 |
revised |
Motivic derived algebraic geometry
Added tags |
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 |