Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Answer

Name of article
Source Link
LSpice
LSpice
  • 12.9k
  • 4
  • 45
  • 69

In A characterization of nilpotent orbit closures among symplectic singularities, Namikawa proved that a weight 1 conical symplectic singularity must be a nilpotent orbit closure. https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.06105

So I guess that this implies that a weight 1 conical symplectic resolution (which just means that the affinization is a weight 1 conical symplectic singularity) must be the cotangent bundle of a partial flag variety. (I think that it is known that if a nilpotent orbit closure admits a symplectic resolution, then this symplectic resolution must be a cotangent bundle.)

Namikawa proved that a weight 1 conical symplectic singularity must be a nilpotent orbit closure. https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.06105

So I guess that this implies that a weight 1 conical symplectic resolution (which just means that the affinization is a weight 1 conical symplectic singularity) must be the cotangent bundle of a partial flag variety. (I think that it is known that if a nilpotent orbit closure admits a symplectic resolution, then this symplectic resolution must be a cotangent bundle.)

In A characterization of nilpotent orbit closures among symplectic singularities, Namikawa proved that a weight 1 conical symplectic singularity must be a nilpotent orbit closure.

So I guess that this implies that a weight 1 conical symplectic resolution (which just means that the affinization is a weight 1 conical symplectic singularity) must be the cotangent bundle of a partial flag variety. (I think that it is known that if a nilpotent orbit closure admits a symplectic resolution, then this symplectic resolution must be a cotangent bundle.)

Source Link
Joel Kamnitzer
Joel Kamnitzer
  • 4.6k
  • 27
  • 40

Namikawa proved that a weight 1 conical symplectic singularity must be a nilpotent orbit closure. https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.06105

So I guess that this implies that a weight 1 conical symplectic resolution (which just means that the affinization is a weight 1 conical symplectic singularity) must be the cotangent bundle of a partial flag variety. (I think that it is known that if a nilpotent orbit closure admits a symplectic resolution, then this symplectic resolution must be a cotangent bundle.)