Timeline for Fourier-Mukai transform is the derived functor
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 27, 2023 at 14:06 | comment | added | Doug Liu | Dear @Hacon, Thanks for letting me know this! | |
| Jan 27, 2023 at 5:12 | comment | added | Hacon | If your doubt is about quasi-coherent $O_X$-modules vs, $O_X$-modules then you are correct and this is incorrect as stated in Mukai's paper (he is aware of this) see mathoverflow.net/questions/243202/… | |
| Jan 23, 2023 at 9:42 | comment | added | Gro-Tsen | @CraniumClamp This particular linguistic point occurred a number of times on MathOverflow already, but “I have doubts” is sometimes used, esp. by non-native English speakers, to convey their misunderstanding rather than their belief that there is a mistake in the reasoning. (Not being a linguistic prescriptivist, I will not endeavor to discuss whether they're “right” or “wrong” to use this phrase in this sense.) | |
| Jan 23, 2023 at 8:46 | history | edited | Doug Liu | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Jan 22, 2023 at 7:58 | comment | added | Doug Liu | Dear @Clamp, Thanks for your comment! First of all, the flat base change theorems that I have seen are about "quasi-coherent" modules. But in Mukai's case, $Mod(O_X)$ is the category of all $O_X$-modules. Secondly, I don't know how flat base change helps this problem when $F$ is NOT $O_{X\times Y}$. For these reasons, I keep my doubts | |
| Jan 21, 2023 at 9:22 | comment | added | Cranium Clamp | Not to be rude but if you cannot see it, why have doubts on it? This is literally flat base change at work. | |
| Jan 20, 2023 at 14:44 | history | asked | Doug Liu | CC BY-SA 4.0 |