Timeline for $G$-equivariant coherent sheaves on Bott$-$Samelson resolutions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2, 2016 at 3:05 | history | edited | Yemon Choi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Thanks for fixing the typo/format error I introduced in the title. I think I've now got the en dashes to work; fixed a hyphen in the main text
|
| S Jun 2, 2016 at 0:22 | history | suggested | Sean Lawton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed a typo in title
|
| Jun 2, 2016 at 0:11 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 2, 2016 at 0:22 | |||||
| Jun 1, 2016 at 23:33 | history | edited | Yemon Choi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
En dashes not hypens, IIRC from my sub-editing days. Also tweaked some of the "soit" phrases
|
| May 31, 2016 at 11:19 | comment | added | Sean Lawton | @MartinSleziak I do not think the comments thread of a question or answer is the right place to discuss editing practices on MO. That said, thank you for bringing this to my attention. | |
| May 31, 2016 at 4:50 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | @SeanLawton Maybe it is worth mentioning that some users do not agree to adding MathJax/LaTeX to the titles which are perfectly readable without it. See this discussion on meta or this message in chat. (As far as I can say, there is no clear consensus about this. But since at the moment you are one of the most active editors, I thought that it would be good to make sure you are aware of this.) | |
| S May 30, 2016 at 14:57 | history | suggested | Sean Lawton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor formatting edits, fixed uncompiled TeX in title.
|
| May 30, 2016 at 14:23 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 30, 2016 at 14:57 | |||||
| Oct 5, 2014 at 11:29 | comment | added | Allen Knutson | Yes, this is only $B$-equivariant, and yes, $Rf_*\mathcal O = \mathcal O$, even when the word is not reduced. One place to read about such things is Brion and Kumar's excellent book (on Frobenius splitting). | |
| Oct 5, 2014 at 9:16 | comment | added | Matthias Wendt | Are you sure about the equivariance? I would have expected $B$-equivariant objects. The group $G$ acts transitively on the $B$-fixed points of $G/B$, so it does not seem to act on $X_w$. From the question, it seems that you might be interested in looking at the literature on Soergel bimodules. | |
| Oct 5, 2014 at 5:29 | comment | added | Piotr Achinger | @Sasha yes, Schubert varieties have rational singularities. | |
| Oct 5, 2014 at 4:43 | comment | added | Sasha | Is the singularity of $X_w$ rational? If it is, then $Rf_*O = O$. | |
| Oct 5, 2014 at 2:27 | history | asked | Qiao | CC BY-SA 3.0 |