Timeline for Castelnuovo and Artin contractibility criteria for families
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 25, 2017 at 2:25 | history | edited | Stefano | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Further addedndum
|
| Apr 22, 2017 at 19:56 | comment | added | user47305 | Depending on the situation (e.g. if it really just is a family of $(-1)$-curves), the contraction you're after might just be a step of the $\mathcal X/T$-MMP, in which case the image is automatically projective and has reasonable singularities. But of course this is not going to work for more exotic contractions, which aren't $K_{\mathcal X/T}$-negative. | |
| Apr 22, 2017 at 15:02 | history | edited | Stefano | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Addendum
|
| Apr 22, 2017 at 13:47 | answer | added | HYL | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 22, 2017 at 1:12 | comment | added | Mohan | I believe, if $\mathcal{X},\mathcal{B}$ are flat and projective over a reasonable (finite type over a field for example) $T$, eveyrthing should be alright. The proof should just follow the steps in Hartshorne. | |
| Apr 21, 2017 at 21:25 | history | asked | Stefano | CC BY-SA 3.0 |