Timeline for Are the underlying undirected graphs of two mutation-equivalent acylic quivers isomorphic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 16, 2010 at 8:31 | answer | added | Bernhard Keller | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jun 18, 2010 at 22:10 | answer | added | Patrick Le Meur | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jun 5, 2010 at 13:19 | comment | added | Dylan Thurston | Mariano, I don't see where 0906.0761 proves the second part of your statement, about mutation at source or sink. Can you be more precise? | |
| Jun 4, 2010 at 14:54 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | David, this is proved in arxiv.org/abs/0906.0761. | |
| Jun 4, 2010 at 14:36 | comment | added | David E Speyer | Mariano -- could you find a reference or proof for that? I would like to see it. | |
| Jun 4, 2010 at 13:53 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | (APR tilting = mutation at a sink or a source, by the way) | |
| Jun 4, 2010 at 13:53 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | If two acyclic quivers are mutation equivalent, their Ginzburg dg-algebras (whith trivial potential, because there are no cycles to construct a potential!) are derived equivalent. I'm pretty sure this implies the quivers are obtained from each other by a sequence of APR tiltings... | |
| Jun 4, 2010 at 13:46 | answer | added | Bugs Bunny | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 4, 2010 at 12:32 | history | asked | Josef Knecht | CC BY-SA 2.5 |