3
$\begingroup$

In Hanamura's paper Mixed Motives and Algebraic Cycles III

http://intlpress.com/site/pub/files/_fulltext/journals/mrl/1999/0006/0001/MRL-1999-0006-0001-a005.pdf

He proved that if assume Grothendieck's standard conjecture, Murre's conjecture and vanishing conjecture, there is a $t$ structure on Voevodsky's category of mixed motives $\textbf{DM}_{\text{gm}}(k,\mathbb{Q})$, whose heart is an abelian category $\text{MM}(k)$. Each of Betti, etale or de Rham cohomology (realisation) functor \begin{equation} \mathbb{R}\Gamma:\textbf{DM}_{\text{gm}}(k,\mathbb{Q}) \rightarrow D^b(\Lambda-\text{Vec}) \end{equation} (for suitable $\Lambda$) is a $t$-exact functor with respect to this $t$ structure and the natural $t$ structure on $D^b(\Lambda-\text{Vec})$. I have several questions,

1, Is the vanishing conjecture Hanamura assumed in his paper stronger or equivalent to the Beilinson-Soule vanishing conjecture about field $k$?

2, Is $\textbf{DM}_{\text{gm}}(k,\mathbb{Q})$ the bounded derived category of $\text{MM}(k)$?, i.e. $\textbf{DM}_{\text{gm}}(k,\mathbb{Q})=D^b(\text{MM}(k))$? Has this been proved in Hanamura's paper or is it still only a conjecture (even with several conjectures assumed)?

3, Let the restriction of $\mathbb{R}\Gamma$ to $\text{MM}(k)$ be \begin{equation} \Gamma:\text{MM}(k) \rightarrow \Lambda-\text{Vec} \end{equation} Since $\mathbb{R}\Gamma$ is $t$ exact, then $\Gamma$ is an exact functor, therefore the derived functor of $\Gamma$ is well defined. \begin{equation} D\Gamma:D^b(\text{MM}(k)) \rightarrow D^b(\Lambda-\text{Vec}) \end{equation} If 2 is true, if $D\Gamma$ the same as (or equivalent to $\mathbb{R}\Gamma$)? Any references or comments will be sincerely appreciated!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For (2), see mathoverflow.net/questions/240474/… $\endgroup$ – Jon Pridham Jul 3 '17 at 20:23
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, the example proves the heart $\text{MM}_{k}$ of the $t$ structure of $\text{DM}_{gm}(k,\mathbb{Q})$ is equivalent to Nori's mixed motives $\text{NMM}(k)_{\mathbb{Q}}$, could you elaborate why $\text{DM}_{gm}(k,\mathbb{Q})$ is equivalent to the bounded derived category $D^b(\text{NMM}(k)_{\mathbb{Q}})$? Sorry for these kind of questions, I am a beginner! $\endgroup$ – Wenzhe Jul 3 '17 at 21:00
5
$\begingroup$

1) I believe that the (Murre's) vanishing needed for Hanamura's argument is stronger than the BS conjecture.

2) There are certain standard conditions ensuring that a triangulated category is equivalent to the derived category of the heart of a t-structure on it. Yet I don't known much about them and they were not treated by Hanamura; thus it is not clear which conjectures are needed to answer your question.

3) This should be easy since the category of vector spaces is semi-simple.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much. Ayoub's in his paper a guide to (etale) motivic sheaves gives an ambiguous remark 5.8, i.e. conjecture A and conjecture B, in his paper "L'algebre de Hopf et le groupe de Galois motiviques d'un corps de caracteristique nulle, I." should imply the t structure conjecture of $\textbf{DA}^{et}_{ct}(S,\Lambda)$ andmore, "by more, we have in mind the property that $\textbf{DA}^{et}_{ct}(S,\Lambda)$ is equivalent to the derived category of the heart of its motivic t-structure ". Do you know whether this "more" has been proved or not? $\endgroup$ – Wenzhe Jun 30 '17 at 15:15
  • $\begingroup$ It's easy to believe that certain conjectures on the "motivic Hopf algebra" imply the statement you are interested in. Yet I doubt that anybody has written this down carefully. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail Bondarko Jun 30 '17 at 19:22
  • $\begingroup$ I would recommend you to contact either Leonid Positselski (positselski.narod.ru, positselski at yandex dot ru) or Sasha Beilinson. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail Bondarko Jul 1 '17 at 6:05
5
$\begingroup$

As I don't have enough rep to comment, I'll have to make my reply to Wenzhe's comment an answer. The example cited in References - Voevodsky motives are the derived category of Nori motives? doesn't just show the heart of the t-structure would be given by Nori's mixed motives, it shows that Voevodsky motives would also have to be the derived category of the heart (the statement $\mathcal{M}_{dg,\mathbb{A}^1}(F,\mathbb{Q})\simeq \mathcal{D}_{dg}(\mathcal{MM}_F)$ in that example).

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.