Timeline for Do the adjoints of the Lefschetz operators always commute?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2018 at 23:51 | comment | added | S. S. | Thank you very much! This clearifies my ideas. I will think more about examples, and try to post the outcome. | |
| May 6, 2018 at 20:38 | comment | added | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | Huybrechts explains in section 2 of this paper that different $\Lambda_I$ and $\Lambda_J$ commute on the level of forms, but this does not descend to cohomology because the Laplacian for $\omega_I$ does not commute with $L_J$ and $\Lambda_J$. But I would still love see an actual example worked out... | |
| May 6, 2018 at 16:01 | history | edited | Ben McKay | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
spelling, grammar, formatting
|
| May 6, 2018 at 15:59 | comment | added | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | I thought that the reason $\Lambda_I$ and $\Lambda_J$ do not commute is that they are scaled by a factor depending on which part of the Lefschetz decomposition you're in. Thus, in general they should not commute on classes that are primitive for $\omega_1$ but not for $\omega_2$. | |
| May 6, 2018 at 15:59 | history | edited | S. S. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| May 6, 2018 at 15:52 | history | asked | S. S. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |