Timeline for The canonical line bundle of a normal variety
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13 at 20:16 | history | edited | Sándor Kovács | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 77 characters in body
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Oct 16, 2012 at 21:52 | comment | added | aglearner | Dear Sandor, thank you for adding this reasoning, this is very helpful. I realised though that I have one more question about the same paragraph in your answer. Do you know an example of a variety $X$ that satisfies $R1$ but not $S_2$ and has a function that vanishes on a set $Z$ of co-dimension $2$ or larger in $X$? I have a problem to imagine such an example (I don't think that such example exists among affine varieties over $\mathbb C$...) | |
| Oct 13, 2012 at 1:38 | comment | added | Sándor Kovács | @aglearner: I added a statement to explain that. I believe it tells you that in fact you can define property S2 this way. See also mathoverflow.net/questions/45347/… and mathoverflow.net/questions/45347/… | |
| Oct 13, 2012 at 1:36 | history | edited | Sándor Kovács | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1264 characters in body; added 292 characters in body
|
| Oct 11, 2012 at 21:04 | comment | added | aglearner | Dear Sandor, when you say "...this is essentially equivalent..." is this really equivalent? Is it true that if for every regular function $f$ its zero set has codimension $1$ then the variety has property $S_2$? Can property $S_2$ be formulated in such a language, or this is just implied by $S_2$? (maybe I miss-understand what you wrote). | |
| Jun 5, 2011 at 15:07 | vote | accept | Jesus Martinez Garcia | ||
| Nov 22, 2010 at 20:14 | history | edited | Sándor Kovács | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Nov 20, 2010 at 19:07 | history | edited | Sándor Kovács | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 201 characters in body
|
| Nov 20, 2010 at 8:46 | history | edited | Sándor Kovács | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
edited body
|
| Nov 20, 2010 at 0:01 | history | edited | Sándor Kovács | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 158 characters in body
|
| Nov 19, 2010 at 22:00 | comment | added | Eric Zaslow | This was a pleasure to read, Sandor! I love your top-down reasoning. It makes the abstruce accessible. Thanks. | |
| Nov 19, 2010 at 21:38 | history | edited | Sándor Kovács | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 83 characters in body
|
| Nov 19, 2010 at 18:23 | history | answered | Sándor Kovács | CC BY-SA 2.5 |