Timeline for the map on Picard groups induced by restriction to a toric subvariety
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2021 at 21:20 | vote | accept | Dima Sustretov | ||
| May 12, 2021 at 17:11 | answer | added | Evgeny Shinder | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 28, 2021 at 0:27 | comment | added | Dima Sustretov | @PiotrAchinger: the problem is that the inclusion is not a toric morphism, so is not defined by a linear map of cocharacter lattices. It is an equivariant morphism (though it seems that there is no canonical section of the quotient projection, so you first have to pick one), but I am confused as to what combinatorial data defines it and how it can be used to describe the map on the Picard groups. | |
| Jan 20, 2021 at 22:00 | comment | added | Piotr Achinger | Just a comment. The Picard group has a description in terms of piecewise linear functions on the fan, and the pullback map should be compatible with pulling back these functions. | |
| Jan 20, 2021 at 16:17 | comment | added | Dima Sustretov | fair point, I have changed the question to be about Picard groups | |
| Jan 20, 2021 at 16:17 | history | edited | Dima Sustretov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jan 20, 2021 at 9:21 | comment | added | Evgeny Shinder | In general, that is in the singular case, class groups do not admit pull-backs for closed embeddings: a typical problem is when the Weil divisor does not intersect the singular locus properly, e.g. contains the singular locus, one may not be able to move it off to make an intersection of the the correct dimension. | |
| Jan 18, 2021 at 23:20 | history | edited | Dima Sustretov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 23:15 | history | asked | Dima Sustretov | CC BY-SA 4.0 |