Timeline for Fixed points under a finite group action on projective variety
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2, 2019 at 12:02 | vote | accept | Filip | ||
| May 2, 2019 at 11:50 | vote | accept | Filip | ||
| May 2, 2019 at 12:02 | |||||
| May 2, 2019 at 11:49 | answer | added | Filip | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 2, 2019 at 6:41 | answer | added | abx | timeline score: 8 | |
| May 2, 2019 at 2:13 | history | edited | Filip | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2019 at 0:24 | comment | added | Filip | @SándorKovács I completely agree. However, I was having in mind examples with non-zero Euler characteristic (as written in my edited question). | |
| May 2, 2019 at 0:21 | history | edited | Filip | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I have put an additional condition and impose a new, precise question and erased the previous ones (as they were false or well known)
|
| Apr 17, 2019 at 3:50 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 25, 2019 at 18:50 | |||||
| Apr 17, 2019 at 0:34 | answer | added | cgodfrey | timeline score: 8 | |
| Apr 16, 2019 at 22:40 | comment | added | Sándor Kovács | @Filip92: 1. does not hold even for smooth projective varieties: a translation on an abelian variety has no fixed points. | |
| Apr 16, 2019 at 22:34 | comment | added | Filip | I am aware that it 1,2,3 holds when the whole variety is smooth. Here I am just saying that its components are smooth, not the variety itself - hence the reason to challenge those statements. | |
| Apr 16, 2019 at 22:14 | comment | added | ssx | mathoverflow.net/questions/171525/… | |
| Apr 16, 2019 at 21:46 | history | asked | Filip | CC BY-SA 4.0 |