Timeline for Understanding the unreducedness of a subscheme supported on fixed points
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 24, 2010 at 22:19 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | I believe your argument, but it takes an input the point which is the crux of the matter for me (i.e. the barrier between me and the result I ultimately want) which is whether X^T is flat over S. I just posted a question about whether/when this is true, probably literally while you were writing your addendum. | |
| Oct 24, 2010 at 22:09 | history | edited | David Treumann | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 885 characters in body
|
| Oct 24, 2010 at 19:11 | comment | added | Ben Webster♦ | In case it's relevant, the X's I have in mind have rational singularities, and in particular, are Cohen-Macaulay. It would be a real beast to try to prove that they are complete intersections, since there's no really natural choice of embedding, but something like Gorenstein or l.c.i. is more conceivable. | |
| Oct 24, 2010 at 4:50 | history | answered | David Treumann | CC BY-SA 2.5 |