Timeline for A question about the vanishing of motivic cohomology in negative Tate twist
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 6, 2018 at 6:02 | answer | added | Marc Hoyois | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 12:44 | answer | added | Mikhail Bondarko | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 22:00 | comment | added | D.-C. Cisinski | This vanishing property does not hold by construction but is well known indeed. | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 18:13 | history | edited | user438991 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2018 at 17:19 | comment | added | user438991 | @Denis-CharlesCisinski. I see now. So, the vanishing, droping the effectiveness, follows by construction? Or do they invoke some well known result? | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 16:43 | comment | added | D.-C. Cisinski | If you drop the effectiveness, this vanishing makes sense, does hold, and is used in the proof of the second assertion of Lemma 7.1.1 of loc. cit. indeed. | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 16:27 | history | undeleted | user438991 | ||
| Sep 4, 2018 at 16:17 | history | deleted | user438991 | via Vote | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 15:25 | comment | added | user438991 | Dear @Denis-CharlesCisinski, thank you for your answer. I was trying to understand the last part of the first point of Lemma 7.1.1 in uni-due.de/~bm0032/publ/Azumaya24.pdf | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 14:31 | comment | added | D.-C. Cisinski | By definition, negative Tate twists do not exist in the category of effective motives, so that this question does not even make sense. | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 6:26 | history | asked | user438991 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |