Timeline for Explicit Direct Summands in the Decomposition Theorem
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 8, 2018 at 11:39 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | Removal of the tag (decomposition-theorem) was suggested on meta. Since you are probably the creator of this tag, I thought it might be useful to let you know about the post on meta. | |
| Oct 22, 2009 at 0:42 | vote | accept | Peter McNamara | ||
| Oct 20, 2009 at 1:44 | comment | added | Peter McNamara | So being careful, wouldn't it be R^d f_* F on the stratum where d is the appropriate dimension? | |
| Oct 19, 2009 at 4:00 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | If F is a perverse sheaf on X, then yes (assuming you are careful about what cohomology with coefficients in F means. This is just using the Cartesian diagram for the inclusion of the stratum, and the way pull-back and push-forward can go through either corner. | |
| Oct 19, 2009 at 3:56 | history | edited | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 231 characters in body
|
| Oct 19, 2009 at 0:17 | comment | added | Peter McNamara | I want to know how to attack the problem of finding the local systems that appear, and to date I have only seen the geometric interpretation for f<sub>*</sub>ℚ<sub>X</sub>[dim X]. Does your answer mean I can take my perverse sheaf F, and on a relevant stratum take the local system whose stalk at a point y is the highest degree cohomology of f<sup>-1</sup>(y) with coefficients in F? Also I would be interested in knowing about any good references out there for this type of material. | |
| Oct 18, 2009 at 16:18 | history | answered | Ben Webster♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |