Timeline for Isometry of K3 surface.
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 27, 2013 at 18:09 | history | edited | ACL | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected typo in title
|
| Dec 30, 2012 at 16:03 | answer | added | Johannes Nordström | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 15:33 | comment | added | Zheng | @Johannes So the question should be "Assume $\iota$ is anti-symplectic for some complex structure, then is it isometry?". But I simplified my question above. Thank you for pointing out this. | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 15:31 | comment | added | Zheng | @Johannes I am not assuming that $g$ is invariant under $\iota$. As to the second question, you are right. $g$ is Kahler-Einstein for any complex structure obtained by hyperKahler rotation but $\iota$ is not necessarily holomorphic in other complex structure. | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 15:26 | comment | added | Zheng | @Robert Yes, it does. I added the definition. | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 15:25 | history | edited | Zheng | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Dec 30, 2012 at 15:12 | comment | added | Johannes Nordström | I don't understand the question. Are you implicitly assuming that $g$ is invariant under $\iota$? Why would the choice of complex structure affect whether a map is an isometry? | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 15:07 | comment | added | Robert Bryant | Does 'anti-symplectic involution of $S$' mean a holomorphic involution of $S$ that carries a holomorphic volume form on $S$ to its negative? | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 14:30 | history | asked | Zheng | CC BY-SA 3.0 |