Timeline for A neat monodromy group of a family of Kaehler manifolds
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
May 7, 2014 at 21:05 | answer | added | Will Sawin | timeline score: 3 | |
Mar 27, 2014 at 10:19 | history | edited | Misha Verbitsky |
tagged
|
|
Mar 27, 2014 at 10:13 | answer | added | Misha Verbitsky | timeline score: 1 | |
Feb 25, 2014 at 8:12 | comment | added | Atsushi Kanazawa | Not necessarily. The mirror quintic gives an example of a family over $\mathbb{P}^1$ whose monodromy group is non-trivial. | |
Dec 27, 2013 at 15:15 | comment | added | Venkataramana | If the base is simply connected, is not the monodromy group also trivial? | |
Dec 26, 2013 at 21:22 | history | edited | Ariel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 172 characters in body
|
Dec 26, 2013 at 21:20 | comment | added | Ariel | You are right. I am interested in a more specific example, where $B$ is simply connected and the full monodromy group is generated by the local monodromies. | |
Dec 26, 2013 at 15:20 | comment | added | Jason Starr | You ask two different questions: (1) "Is it true that if each local monodromy is neat then $G$ is neat?", (2) "... is it true that $G$ is neat if it is generated by neat elements?" Typically these are different questions: the global monodromy group is not necessarily generated by local monodromies. There are geometric hypotheses that insure that the global monodromy group is generated by local monodromies, e.g., for the family of hyperplane sections of a fixed projective manifold obtained from a Lefschetz pencil of hypereplane sections. Did you want to impose such a hypothesis? | |
Dec 26, 2013 at 13:46 | answer | added | Jason Starr | timeline score: 1 | |
Dec 26, 2013 at 13:08 | history | edited | Ariel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body; edited title
|
Dec 26, 2013 at 12:05 | review | First posts | |||
Dec 26, 2013 at 12:13 | |||||
Dec 26, 2013 at 11:47 | history | asked | Ariel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |