AG-Week Four: Difference between revisions

From UW-Math Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(New page: = Week Three = This is the page with specific information for Week 3 of our Algebraic Geometry Graduate Reading Course '''Discussion Leader''': Lalit == Schedule == * For 9/15: Read ...)
 
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
= Week Three =
= Week Four =
This is the page with specific information for Week 3 of our [[Algebraic Geometry Graduate Reading Course]]
This is the page with specific information for Week 4 of our [[Algebraic Geometry Graduate Reading Course]]


'''Discussion Leader''': Lalit
'''Discussion Leader''': Amanda


== Schedule ==
== Schedule ==
* For 9/15: Read & be prepared to discuss 2.6/3.1
* For 9/22: Be prepared to discuss 3.4
** Hand in 6 written up problems
** Hand in 6 written up problems
* For 9/17: Read & be prepared to discuss 3.2 and 3.3
* For 9/24: Read & be prepared to discuss 3.5
* For 9/20: Read & be prepared to discuss 3.4
* For 9/27: Read & be prepared to discuss 3.5, 3.6, 3.7.
** Meeting with faculty: Bring questions from all of Chapter 3 covered so far and any additional questions about Abelian Categories.
** Meeting with faculty: Bring questions from all of Chapter 3.


== Homework ==
== Homework ==
6 problems due 9/13
*6 problems due 9/22


== Questions ==
== Questions ==
2.6:
* Why does sheafification being left-adjoint to the forgetful functor "explain" why you don't need to sheafify when taking kernel, and why you need to sheafify when taking cokernel (see 3.4.K)?
Rohit's method: is there a way to use the fact that Hom(,M) is a left exact contravariant functor and Hom (A,M) = M, to show that left adjoints are right exact in A-mod?
** If $f:A \to B$ is a morphism of sheaves, then we really have a morphism of presheaves $F(f): F(A) \to F(B)$, where $F$ denotes the forgetful functor. Since $F$ is right-adjoint to sheafification, it commutes with kernels, so we "should" have, $ker_{pre} F(f) = F(ker_{sheaf} f)$. Since $F$ is just the forgetful functor, it doesn't really do anything. So taking the kernel in presheaves "should" actually be a kernel in sheaves. So (sh, F) being adjoint explains why we don't need to sheafify with kernels.
 
Ed's crazy ring of functions: what is the union of ideals generated by subsequences? How about maximal ideals?
 
3.1:
Geometric Interpretation of m/m^2 ?


== Comments ==
== Comments ==
[http://math.wisc.edu/~hittson/note3.pdf Amanda's notes on fibered products]


== Typos ==
== Typos ==


[[Category:Fall 2010 Algebraic Geometry Reading Course]]
[[Category:Fall 2010 Algebraic Geometry Reading Course]]

Latest revision as of 17:07, 24 September 2010

Week Four

This is the page with specific information for Week 4 of our Algebraic Geometry Graduate Reading Course

Discussion Leader: Amanda

Schedule

  • For 9/22: Be prepared to discuss 3.4
    • Hand in 6 written up problems
  • For 9/24: Read & be prepared to discuss 3.5
  • For 9/27: Read & be prepared to discuss 3.5, 3.6, 3.7.
    • Meeting with faculty: Bring questions from all of Chapter 3.

Homework

  • 6 problems due 9/22

Questions

  • Why does sheafification being left-adjoint to the forgetful functor "explain" why you don't need to sheafify when taking kernel, and why you need to sheafify when taking cokernel (see 3.4.K)?
    • If $f:A \to B$ is a morphism of sheaves, then we really have a morphism of presheaves $F(f): F(A) \to F(B)$, where $F$ denotes the forgetful functor. Since $F$ is right-adjoint to sheafification, it commutes with kernels, so we "should" have, $ker_{pre} F(f) = F(ker_{sheaf} f)$. Since $F$ is just the forgetful functor, it doesn't really do anything. So taking the kernel in presheaves "should" actually be a kernel in sheaves. So (sh, F) being adjoint explains why we don't need to sheafify with kernels.

Comments

Typos