bio | website | |
---|---|---|
location | ||
age | ||
visits | member for | 4 years, 2 months |
seen | Apr 12 at 8:36 | |
stats | profile views | 2,874 |
Apr 8 |
answered | What is the intuition behind the definition of cuspidal representations? |
Apr 3 |
accepted | An affine singular surface |
Apr 2 |
comment |
An affine singular surface
Yes, I understand, but I wonder if someone has already performed that. |
Apr 2 |
asked | An affine singular surface |
Feb 8 |
awarded | Yearling |
Nov 18 |
comment |
Restriction to Levi Subgroups and the Affine Grassmannian
Let me make one comment about it. Although, the construction is indeed as described above, there is one subtle thing about it. Namely, on the representation theory side, the restriction functor depends only on $L$ but not a choice of a parabolic $P$. However, geometrically the functor depends on the parabolic very heavily (note that you can have non-conjugate parabolics with the same Levi). I don't know any geometric way (without using Satake equivalence) to prove independence of $P$ - this is actually a very good problem (but probably it has no reasonable solution). |
Nov 18 |
accepted | Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing for non-Gorenstein singularities |
Nov 18 |
comment |
Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing for non-Gorenstein singularities
Thanks a lot, Sandor (and Dave). I think that log canonicity will suffice for my situation. And I promise to improve my notation! (you are definitely absolutely right about it). |
Nov 17 |
comment |
Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing for non-Gorenstein singularities
Thank you. But I really need something more similar to my original question. The point is that I need to prove cohomology vanishing for some line bundle $L'$ and I know that I can represent it as $L\otimes (\omega_Y+\Delta)$, where $L$ is very ample. Do you know ANY vanishing theorems for line bundles on non-Gorenstein schemes? For example, my $\Delta$ is very explicit. What does one need to know about the singularities of $(Y,\Delta)$ in order to guarantee the vanishing? |
Nov 17 |
asked | Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing for non-Gorenstein singularities |
Nov 17 |
accepted | Group action on a stack and fixed points |
Nov 17 |
comment |
Group action on a stack and fixed points
Great, thanks a lot! |
Nov 16 |
asked | Group action on a stack and fixed points |
Sep 5 |
accepted | cohen-macaulayness of reduced and non-reduced schemes |
Sep 1 |
comment |
cohen-macaulayness of reduced and non-reduced schemes
Thanks a lot. Let me ask about a specific situation: assume that $Y$ is a Cohen-Macaulay scheme and $X$ is a divisor in it. Assume that we know the following: 1) Every component of $X$ is CM 2) Set-theoretically $X$ is the zero set of some regular function on $Y$. Can it be enough to conclude that $X$ is CM? If not, is there anything else one might require to gaurantee that $X$ is CM? |
Aug 31 |
asked | cohen-macaulayness of reduced and non-reduced schemes |
Jul 5 |
awarded | Popular Question |
Jun 25 |
awarded | Revival |
Jun 13 |
comment |
Smooth map to the stack of G-bundles
For example, the fiber over the trivial $G$-bundles on some scheme $X$ is the space of maps from $X$ to $G/H$. |
Jun 13 |
comment |
Smooth map to the stack of G-bundles
Angelo: what you wrote is wrong (it is only true for bundles over a point). |