Timeline for Horrible sets and blowups in Hubbard's Teichmuller theory

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

12 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Dec 2, 2012 at 3:22	history	edited	Brian Rushton		Retagged
Nov 23, 2012 at 2:22	history	bounty ended	Brian Rushton
Nov 18, 2012 at 6:57	comment	added	naf		It does seem as if there is no "horrible set". However, if one removes from $X$ the "strict transform" of $\mathbb{C} \times 0$, i.e., the set of horizontal directions on each $\mathbb{P}^1_z$, then one does get a complex manifold which is not second countable so the example still works.
Nov 16, 2012 at 1:23	history	bounty started	Brian Rushton
Nov 16, 2012 at 1:23	history	edited	Brian Rushton		edited tags
Nov 15, 2012 at 17:24	history	edited	Brian Rushton	CC BY-SA 3.0	Added the original statement of the example. Had formatting issues with wide tilde.
Nov 15, 2012 at 4:35	history	edited	Brian Rushton	CC BY-SA 3.0	Rephrased question (hopefully) more clearly
Nov 13, 2012 at 23:19	comment	added	Brian Rushton		@nono I think the key idea he uses is that we only blow up in one direction, so that most elements of the blowups (i,e. all the ones not pointing in that direction) are not close to each other. Is there a version of the Riemann Zariski space that only looks at blowups on a lower-dimensional subset?
Nov 13, 2012 at 17:21	history	edited	Brian Rushton	CC BY-SA 3.0	Clarity edit
Nov 13, 2012 at 15:13	comment	added	nono		This is not quite the same as your question, but may be Riemann-Zariski space is helpful. By definition, the latter is the "cohomology classes" you obtain when taking limit of the cohomology groups of finite blowups of a given compact Kahler surface.
Nov 13, 2012 at 4:29	history	edited	Brian Rushton	CC BY-SA 3.0	Fixed grammar; edited tags
Nov 13, 2012 at 3:30	history	asked	Brian Rushton	CC BY-SA 3.0