Timeline for Why is "naive" definition of non-commutative spectrum bad?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8, 2014 at 15:31 | vote | accept | Sasha Patotski | ||
| Mar 6, 2014 at 17:34 | answer | added | AAK | timeline score: 22 | |
| Mar 6, 2014 at 12:08 | vote | accept | Sasha Patotski | ||
| Mar 6, 2014 at 12:08 | |||||
| Mar 6, 2014 at 7:37 | answer | added | Daniel Larsson | timeline score: 9 | |
| Mar 6, 2014 at 5:06 | comment | added | user36931 | Bad for what? What do you want to prove at the end of the day? I think this question is philosophical rather than mathematical. For what it's worth most people seem to think that one should think of some category of modules over the algebra as the space. However it is hard to formulate what is a coherent module for an algebra which is not coherent. So one thinks of the dg-category of complexes of modules instead, where one can formulate the notion of perfect complex. Of course, unlike in the commutative case this is not a tensor category so it is somewhat less geometric. | |
| Mar 5, 2014 at 22:36 | comment | added | Alex Degtyarev | Not an answer, just a thought. Schemes were not defined as rings: one started with useful geometric objects, and it took Grothendieck's genius to realize that they are the same as rings. What are the useful geometric objects behind your definition? | |
| Mar 5, 2014 at 22:33 | history | asked | Sasha Patotski | CC BY-SA 3.0 |