Skip to main content
added 709 characters in body
Source Link
Marc Hoyois
  • 9k
  • 1
  • 49
  • 52

I'm not sure if that's exactly what you mean by "being motivic", but this long exact sequence comes from a triangle in Voevodsky's category of (integral) motives $DM(\mathbb Q)$.

More generally if $X$ is a $\mathbb Q$-scheme of finite type, $Z\subset X$ a closed subscheme, $\pi : Y \to X$ the blowup at $Z$, and $E=\pi^{-1}(Z)$, then there is a triangle $$ M(E) \to M(Y)\oplus M(Z) \to M(X) \to M(E)[1] $$ in $DM(\mathbb Q)$. This is proved in Mazza–Voevodsky–Weibel's Lecture notes on motivic cohomology, see equation (14.5.3). It can also be viewed a formal consequence of the six-functor formalism for $DM(-)$, as described by Cisinski and Déglise in their paper Integral mixed motives in equal characteristic.

Added later: Let me sketch the abstract proof, which works in the $\ell$-adic context as well. The proof only uses that $\pi:Y\to X$ is a proper map that restricts to an isomorphism over the complement of $Z$ (an "abstract blow-up"). The triangle comes from a homotopy cocartesian square $1_X=M(Y) \coprod_{M(E)}M(Z)$ in $DM(X)$. Here for $f: X' \to X$ of finite type, we define $M(X')=f_!f^!(1_X)$. Let $i: Z\to X$ be the inclusion and $j: U\to X$ the open complement. Then the pair of functors $(i^!,j^*)$ is conservative. But applying either functor to the given square, using the proper base change theorem, gives a square which is cocartesian for formal reasons (opposite sides are equivalences).

I'm not sure if that's exactly what you mean by "being motivic", but this long exact sequence comes from a triangle in Voevodsky's category of (integral) motives $DM(\mathbb Q)$.

More generally if $X$ is a $\mathbb Q$-scheme of finite type, $Z\subset X$ a closed subscheme, $\pi : Y \to X$ the blowup at $Z$, and $E=\pi^{-1}(Z)$, then there is a triangle $$ M(E) \to M(Y)\oplus M(Z) \to M(X) \to M(E)[1] $$ in $DM(\mathbb Q)$. This is proved in Mazza–Voevodsky–Weibel's Lecture notes on motivic cohomology, see equation (14.5.3). It can also be viewed a formal consequence of the six-functor formalism for $DM(-)$, as described by Cisinski and Déglise in their paper Integral mixed motives in equal characteristic.

I'm not sure if that's exactly what you mean by "being motivic", but this long exact sequence comes from a triangle in Voevodsky's category of (integral) motives $DM(\mathbb Q)$.

More generally if $X$ is a $\mathbb Q$-scheme of finite type, $Z\subset X$ a closed subscheme, $\pi : Y \to X$ the blowup at $Z$, and $E=\pi^{-1}(Z)$, then there is a triangle $$ M(E) \to M(Y)\oplus M(Z) \to M(X) \to M(E)[1] $$ in $DM(\mathbb Q)$. This is proved in Mazza–Voevodsky–Weibel's Lecture notes on motivic cohomology, see equation (14.5.3). It can also be viewed a formal consequence of the six-functor formalism for $DM(-)$, as described by Cisinski and Déglise in their paper Integral mixed motives in equal characteristic.

Added later: Let me sketch the abstract proof, which works in the $\ell$-adic context as well. The proof only uses that $\pi:Y\to X$ is a proper map that restricts to an isomorphism over the complement of $Z$ (an "abstract blow-up"). The triangle comes from a homotopy cocartesian square $1_X=M(Y) \coprod_{M(E)}M(Z)$ in $DM(X)$. Here for $f: X' \to X$ of finite type, we define $M(X')=f_!f^!(1_X)$. Let $i: Z\to X$ be the inclusion and $j: U\to X$ the open complement. Then the pair of functors $(i^!,j^*)$ is conservative. But applying either functor to the given square, using the proper base change theorem, gives a square which is cocartesian for formal reasons (opposite sides are equivalences).

Source Link
Marc Hoyois
  • 9k
  • 1
  • 49
  • 52

I'm not sure if that's exactly what you mean by "being motivic", but this long exact sequence comes from a triangle in Voevodsky's category of (integral) motives $DM(\mathbb Q)$.

More generally if $X$ is a $\mathbb Q$-scheme of finite type, $Z\subset X$ a closed subscheme, $\pi : Y \to X$ the blowup at $Z$, and $E=\pi^{-1}(Z)$, then there is a triangle $$ M(E) \to M(Y)\oplus M(Z) \to M(X) \to M(E)[1] $$ in $DM(\mathbb Q)$. This is proved in Mazza–Voevodsky–Weibel's Lecture notes on motivic cohomology, see equation (14.5.3). It can also be viewed a formal consequence of the six-functor formalism for $DM(-)$, as described by Cisinski and Déglise in their paper Integral mixed motives in equal characteristic.