Timeline for Is there a higher Grothendieck ring of varieties?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2017 at 19:18 | comment | added | Jesse Wolfson | Dan, Jonathan Campbell has written a construction of the higher K-theory of varieties precisely along the lines you sketch (Inna's construction uses a slightly different approach). See arxiv.org/abs/1505.03136. Judging from your notes, Jonathan rediscovered Ekedahl's proof of additivity. It's not obvious however that Inna's and Jonathan's constructions are equivalent (surely they must be, but I haven't yet seen a proof). @Clark Barkwick: do you have one on hand? | |
| Aug 21, 2014 at 16:09 | comment | added | Clark Barwick | I was totally unaware of Ekedahl's work in this direction, but thanks to your lovely exposition, I can confirm that Zakharevich's is indeed equivalent. It looks to me as though they had the same general pattern in mind for the definition of these "higher scissors congruence relations." Indeed, that was the point of Zakharevich's thesis (which is a joy to read, BTW). She also gave a marvelous talk about this material just a week ago at CUNY: videostreaming.gc.cuny.edu/videos/video/1805/in/channel/55 | |
| Aug 21, 2014 at 15:11 | history | edited | Dan Petersen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 165 characters in body
|
| Aug 21, 2014 at 14:38 | vote | accept | Gring | ||
| Aug 21, 2014 at 14:38 | comment | added | Gring | @Dan Petersen: thank you very much for posting this summary of Ekedahl's talk! | |
| Aug 21, 2014 at 14:22 | history | edited | Dan Petersen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3933 characters in body
|
| Aug 21, 2014 at 10:29 | comment | added | Jason Starr | A true loss ... | |
| Aug 21, 2014 at 7:37 | history | answered | Dan Petersen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |