Timeline for Dolbeault cohomology
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2009 at 23:50 | comment | added | Danny Calegari | I think that's an entirely legitimate point of view, but it might also reflect your interests and taste. If you are interested in deformations of compact complex manifolds eg. as an example in the theory of elliptic PDE, you might appreciate expressing everything in terms of coordinates, since that makes it easier to adapt standard analytic tools (in which everything takes place in linear spaces). | |
| Nov 11, 2009 at 21:57 | comment | added | Kevin H. Lin | I am one of those people who really dislike Kodaira's book. One reason why I don't like it is because it does a lot of the theory (Kodaira-Spencer deformation theory) using coordinates and Cech cohomology. I think the theory is much clearer and cleaner if you do it without coordinates. | |
| Nov 11, 2009 at 18:36 | vote | accept | Learner | ||
| Nov 11, 2009 at 18:31 | comment | added | Danny Calegari | The funny thing is that Chern actually does discuss how to derive the Kahler form on a Kahler manifold from a function (i.e. its "Kahler potential"). Honestly, I also have no idea what "without potential theory" means in the title. :) | |
| Nov 11, 2009 at 18:26 | comment | added | José Figueroa-O'Farrill | Chern's book is great. The only thing is that I never did find what " potential theory" was :) It's probably the only mathematics book I know of, whose title contains a concept (here "potential theory") which is not mentioned AT ALL in the rest of the book! | |
| Nov 11, 2009 at 17:11 | history | answered | Danny Calegari | CC BY-SA 2.5 |