All Questions
7 questions
4
votes
0
answers
205
views
$\mathbf{A}^1$- contractibility
Suppose $U$ is an $\mathbf{A}^1$-contractible smooth scheme over a field $k$, that is, it is isomorphic to a point in the $\mathbf{A}^1$-homotopy category of smooth schemes over $k$.
Does motivic ...
user119470
9
votes
0
answers
463
views
Beilinson regulators and Bloch's mythological algebraic intermediate Jacobians
In the paper introducing his motivic cycle complexes, Bloch outlines a project he says he was going to return to in the future:
Towards the end of page 270, he says, given a smooth projective variety ...
user95222
14
votes
2
answers
1k
views
Is Deligne cohomology the motivic cohomology of analytic spaces?
Let $X$ be a smooth projective complex analytic space.
We can cook up a complex analytic version of Bloch's cycle complex by declaring
$z^n(X^{\rm an}, m)$
is the free abelian group on all ...
user92332
12
votes
3
answers
2k
views
Motivic vs Deligne cohomology
Where can I find the construction of the cycle class map from motivic cohomology to Deligne cohomology of smooth projective varieties over the complex numbers?
It should be a construction by Bloch ...
user95222
4
votes
1
answer
182
views
Explicit description of Verdier quotient of effective motives
Let $DM^{eff}_{gm}(k)$ be the triangulated category of effective geometric motives over some field $k$ (in the sense of Voevodsky), and let $DM^{eff}_{gm}(k)(1)$ be its full triangulated subcategory ...
- 41
4
votes
0
answers
218
views
The 'most general' papers on rational Borel-Moore motivic homology and K'-theory?
There are two ways to define Borel-Moore motivic homology (of schemes) with rational coefficients: one should either consider certain complexes of algebraic cycles, or the $\gamma$-filtrations of ...
- 16.9k
14
votes
1
answer
1k
views
Motivic cohomology vs. K-theory for singular varieties
As far as I understand, for a smooth variety $X$ its motivic cohomology could be described as the corresponding piece of the $\gamma$-filtration of (Quillen's) $K^*(X)$; this is completely true for $\...
- 16.9k