Timeline for Do fixed point sets in equivariant crepant resolutions have the same cohomology? How about for the specific case of Nakajima quiver varieties?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:27 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jun 15, 2012 at 21:17 | answer | added | Hiraku Nakajima | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 15, 2012 at 11:16 | history | edited | Paul Johnson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 201 characters in body
|
| Jun 15, 2012 at 11:11 | comment | added | Paul Johnson | Hiraku, I could have been clearer. We certainly have $\chi(F_1)=\chi(X)=\chi(F_2)$ by localization. But it appears that more is true -- namely, the betti numbers of the $F_i$ are equal. I've edited the question to make this a bit clearer. | |
| Jun 9, 2012 at 3:22 | comment | added | Hiraku Nakajima | What do you mean by `$H^*(F_1) = H^*(F_2)$' ? There is no natural homomorphism between them. If you just compare the dimensions of RHS and LHS, they are the Euler numbers of $Y_1$ and $Y_2$, and hence are equal. | |
| May 17, 2012 at 3:29 | answer | added | Ben Webster♦ | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 15, 2012 at 22:11 | history | asked | Paul Johnson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |