Timeline for homology of abelian variety ?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2010 at 18:16 | vote | accept | TOM | ||
| May 12, 2010 at 18:16 | vote | accept | TOM | ||
| May 12, 2010 at 18:16 | |||||
| May 12, 2010 at 18:11 | history | edited | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 171 characters in body
|
| May 12, 2010 at 17:19 | comment | added | TOM | yes,it is your paper | |
| May 12, 2010 at 17:04 | comment | added | JS Milne | Perhaps its the paper that includes: "Recall that the category of abelian varieties up to isogeny is obtained from the category of abelian varieties by taking the same class of objects but replacing $Hom(A,B)$ with $Hom(A;B)\otimes\mathbb{Q}$. We shall always regard an abelian variety as an object in the category of abelian varieties up to isogeny: thus $Hom(A,B)$ is a vector space over $\mathbb{Q}$." If so, $A\otimes E$ means $A\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathcal{O}_{E}$, which is explained by Torsten. | |
| May 12, 2010 at 16:30 | comment | added | TOM | And the condtion that dim $A_0\otimes_Q E=[E:Q]$dim$A_0$is true in the paper | |
| May 12, 2010 at 16:26 | comment | added | TOM | Can you tell me the "Serre tensor construction",or any reference ? | |
| May 12, 2010 at 16:17 | comment | added | TOM | I find this statement in a paper,which does not tell us the exactly meaning of $A_0\otimes_Q E$,and I have thought that it is just base change ,maybe I am wrong.And the paper has another statement$H^1(A_0\otimes_Q E)=H^1(A_0)\otimes_Q E$ | |
| May 12, 2010 at 16:13 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | Well, BCnrd's terse comment is enlightening as usual. Let me know if you need any help fleshing it out. | |
| May 12, 2010 at 16:04 | history | answered | Pete L. Clark | CC BY-SA 2.5 |