Skip to main content

All Questions

Filter by
Sorted by
Tagged with
71 votes
1 answer
8k views

What is the relationship between motivic cohomology and the theory of motives?

I will begin by giving a rough sketch of my understanding of motives. In many expositions about motives (for example, http://www.jmilne.org/math/xnotes/MOT102.pdf), the category of motives is defined ...
Makhalan Duff's user avatar
8 votes
1 answer
989 views

How to think about $\mathbf{Z}(n)_{\mathcal{M}}$

One definition of motivic cohomology for smooth schemes $X$ over a field, is via Friedlander-Suslin complexes. A refresher (you may skip to the question at the bottom) One defines (1) $z_n(X,d) :=$...
user avatar
17 votes
1 answer
1k views

Why presheaves with transfer?

Presheaves with transfer are a main technical ingredient in Voevodsky's construction of his category of mixed motives. From the perspective of motivic homotopy theory, the only difference between SH ...
Fabian Carlström's user avatar
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 ...
user avatar
11 votes
1 answer
967 views

How to think about infinite generatedness of motivic cohomology

In this question I previously asked how to think about the motivic complex $\mathbf{Z}(1)_{\mathcal{M}}$, whose Zariski hypercohomology should morally be the "singular cohomology" $H^*((-)\wedge S^{2n}...
user avatar
5 votes
1 answer
468 views

Any "motive"(-like) theory which can catch that cusp $y^2=x^3$ (and similar) are non-trivial?

Consider cusp $y^2=x^3$ which can also be described as $k[z]~without~z$ , taking $x=z^3,y=z^2$. Algebraically its $Spec$ is quite different from $k$. For example: it has plenty non-trivial "line-...
Alexander Chervov's user avatar
2 votes
1 answer
589 views

Are finite correspondances flat?

In Voevodsky&Mazza&Weibel's book on motivic cohomology they define "an elementary correspondance from X (Smooth connected scheme over $k$) to Y (separated scheme over $k$) as an irreducible ...
Tintin's user avatar
  • 2,871