Timeline for k3 surface as ramified double cover of $\mathbb{P}^2$
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 5, 2013 at 1:01 | comment | added | user31847 | @Garfield: what is more childish? Answering people's questions or pretending to be a fat lazy cartoon cat.... | |
| Mar 5, 2013 at 0:03 | comment | added | Sándor Kovács | @Garfield: my problem was exactly that you did not suggest that adding details would be helpful. Regarding being afraid about downvotes, read my comment again. Finally, how about continuing this discussion like grown ups who are not afraid to reveal their identity? | |
| Mar 4, 2013 at 22:21 | comment | added | Garfield | Mr. Kovács, you're the one who's being smug. Also, I am not frustrated, I simply put a downvote on an answer which I thought wasn't helpful. My comment stated the dry fact that terseness is not a positive attribute when it comes to math. That has nothing to do with attitude, much opposed to your childish lamenting. What's that about not adding details because I suggested it'd be helpful? Because you were afraid of getting further downvotes? Seriously man, grow up. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 17:04 | comment | added | Sándor Kovács | Your statement about the site wanting you to vote this answer down is a bit of a stretch, but fine, I accept it. However, if you are so keen on doing what the site wants, then why don't you do it? Look up Where's the rule that says I have to wear pants? in the FAQ. It discusses voting down, but even more importantly it encourages you to use your real name. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 17:02 | comment | added | Sándor Kovács | After your comment I could not in good conscience add details, because then it would have looked like I am doing it to avoid further downvotes. So, you see, your comment actually backfired. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 17:02 | comment | added | Sándor Kovács | This site works because people volunteer their time and energy to answer questions. Your smug and demanding attitude does not help that. When I wrote the original answer I didn't have time to write more and I thought this is still better than nothing. It gives a hint that might help the OP to work out the answer. It turns out that it was indeed enough for him. I initially thought I might come back and add more details, but then the two comments about terseness appeared.... | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 17:01 | comment | added | Sándor Kovács | Dear Garfield: First of all, I am not offended at all. Nothing happened that would warrant that. I said I was disappointed and that is what I am. I understand that you probably felt frustrated, but I don't think you approached the issue the right way. In case it hasn't been clear, my problem is not with your downvote, but with your comment and even more the attitude that it suggests. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 11:16 | vote | accept | rick | ||
| Feb 28, 2013 at 6:58 | comment | added | Garfield | I am sorry if this painted the wrong picture, but there is really no need to get offended. Opinions differ, and to continue your metaphor, I believe that people who come here have already tried to fish for months, are starving for food, and they should receive it. A complete answer on mathoverflow isn't spoonfeeding, it's what the site is made for. The site wants me to downvote when I don't find an answer helpful, and I did. I even left a comment to explain. Please understand that while experienced people might find terseness helpful, less experienced people might not. | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 0:24 | comment | added | Sándor Kovács | ps: Strictly speaking one should add that your formula works, because it is a double cover, but I am sure you thought of that and at least on this page I cannot criticize anyone for terseness. :) | |
| Feb 28, 2013 at 0:22 | comment | added | Sándor Kovács | @rick, that comment was addressed to Garfield, not you. This is a perfectly fine question. And yes, your computation is right. That was the point of my comment: I believed that if I tell you to use the Hurwitz formula then you can figure it out yourself. It seems I was right and I think you might appreciate it more this way that you did part of the work. So, please do not take that comment to heart, it wasn't meant for you. Cheers! | |
| Feb 27, 2013 at 23:33 | comment | added | rick | i'm sorry, i didn't mean to disappoint you, i asked just because i had no idea how to solve it. By the Hurwitz formula ($\pi$ is the double cover) i get $K_X\simeq \pi^*(K_{\mathbb{P}^2})\otimes \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2}(\sum_i(e_i-1)C_i)$, so, since $K_{\mathbb{P}^2}=-3[H]$, it must be $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2}(\sum_i(e_i-1)C_i)=6[H]$, i.e. it is a sextic, am i right? | |
| Feb 27, 2013 at 16:42 | history | edited | Sándor Kovács | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Feb 27, 2013 at 16:38 | comment | added | Sándor Kovács | ps: if there is a point you don't understand or get stuck with, then ask a specific (follow up) question... | |
| Feb 27, 2013 at 16:37 | comment | added | Sándor Kovács | Seriously, @Garfield? You wouldn't put your real name to your actions, but you make sophisticated judgement calls. This answer teaches rick (and you) to fish instead of giving him (and you) something to eat. The part that's not included in this answer belongs to math.stackexchange.com. Not that I care for those puny points, but I am deeply disappointed in trying to help people who want pre-chewed food instead of learning how to hunt. | |
| Feb 27, 2013 at 10:54 | comment | added | Garfield | Downvoted for terseness. | |
| Feb 27, 2013 at 3:19 | comment | added | JSE | Upvoted for terseness. | |
| Feb 27, 2013 at 1:57 | history | answered | Sándor Kovács | CC BY-SA 3.0 |