Timeline for Does negative Kodaira dimension imply uniruled?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 17, 2022 at 3:32 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed arxiv front-end link and gave full published reference with doi link
|
| Apr 22, 2017 at 20:54 | history | edited | Ben McKay | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
spelling, grammar
|
| Oct 14, 2010 at 8:33 | comment | added | Gianni Bello | Ok. I see your point. I agree: everything depends on what you call "abundance conjecture". My choice was motivated by the fact that you can define a numerical dimension also for non-nef divisors and Kawamata himself, in "On the abundance conjecture in the case $\nu=0$" ( arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.2682v3.pdf ) speaks also about the non-nef case using thsi definition. However I agree that most of papers use your convention. – Gianni Bello 0 secs ago | |
| Oct 11, 2010 at 9:00 | comment | added | Gianni Bello | I don't understand your point. If $K_X$ is pseudoeffective then the abundance conjecture would imply that its Kodaira dimension is non-negative. | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 12:07 | comment | added | Dmitri Panov | Gianni, I adjusted my answer according to what you say (I was not answering question 1 of the unknown :) | |
| Jul 14, 2010 at 10:11 | history | answered | Gianni Bello | CC BY-SA 2.5 |