Timeline for Finite Quotients and Resolutions of Singularities
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2014 at 0:05 | vote | accept | Charles Siegel | ||
| Jun 9, 2014 at 23:40 | answer | added | Lev Borisov | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 9, 2014 at 13:03 | history | edited | Charles Siegel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 356 characters in body
|
| Jun 9, 2014 at 13:01 | comment | added | Charles Siegel | User76758: Good point, I am working in a specific situation and can check it there. Though between your comment, Lev's comment, and abx's answer, I think I've realized that I didn't quite ask the question that I wanted to, but a much stronger statement. I'm editing the question to rephrase. | |
| Jun 9, 2014 at 12:53 | comment | added | user76758 | Why do you believe that $X \times_Y \widetilde{Y} \rightarrow \widetilde{Y}$ is the quotient by the natural $G$-action on the source (say assuming $X$ and $Y$ are quasi-projective varieties over an algebraically closed field)? This entails some delicate algebraic conditions, not just topological ones, and the formation of such quotients generally does not commute with non-flat base change (beyond the case of a free $G$-action). | |
| Jun 9, 2014 at 12:10 | answer | added | abx | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 9, 2014 at 12:10 | comment | added | Charles Siegel | Is there any reasonable to check criterion for when it's smooth? | |
| Jun 9, 2014 at 11:17 | comment | added | Lev Borisov | The fiber product you write is typically singular. | |
| Jun 9, 2014 at 7:53 | history | asked | Charles Siegel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |