Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorhilbertthm90
    • CommentTimeAug 10th 2011

    There seemed to be several pages pointing to a blank Picard group, so I created it.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeAug 10th 2011

    That looks good. Have you any references to more modern sources where the theory is developed in other directions than the classical ones?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 10th 2011

    I have added the following paragraphs right at the beginning to indicate the more general notion:

    Generally, given a monoidal category (C,)(C, \otimes), its Picard group is the group of isomorphism classes of objects that have an inverse under the tensor product – the line objects. Or rather, more naturally (before decategorification), it is the maximal 2-group inside a monoidal category.

    More specifically, what is often meant by Picard group is the special case of this general notion where CC is a category of vector bundles or more generally quasicoherent sheaves or similar. In this case the Picard group consists of the line bundles or similar.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeAug 10th 2011
    • (edited Aug 10th 2011)

    I changed the wording a bit emphasizing the full (and quite standard in my experience) phrase Picard category of (C,)(C,\otimes). I think vague phrase like “general case” is then not needed any more. So one of the sentences above became:

    In geometry, by Picard group one usually means the Picard group of the monoidal category of vector bundles…

    We should make some clarification about the sense of the inverse here – it should be up to isomorphism, that is not with respect to a fixed unit object but any.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorhilbertthm90
    • CommentTimeAug 10th 2011
    1. Tim: I just wrote what came to mind, so I didn’t look at any references (I just threw Hartshorne in since I knew it was in there). The book FGA Explained has a great chapter on the Picard functor/Picard scheme, but it would be nice to have a source on the internet.

    That reminds me, do you think that “Picard scheme” and “Picard stack” should just be another section in Picard group, or should they be their own page? I might start typing something about these today.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeAug 10th 2011

    I think it should be a separate page. Picard scheme is a big topic and specific to algebraic geometry. Picard group is used also in other contexts.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeAug 10th 2011

    I have created a stub for Picard scheme with redirect for the special case, the Picard variety, so you can now fill more material in.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeAug 10th 2011

    I agree with Zoran. It would be best to have separate entries for them as Zoran has created.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2014

    At Picard group I have tried to clarify a bit more, or at least highlight more clearly, the general abstract concepts versus the specific meaning in locally ringed geometry.

    I have expanded the Idea-section and structured the Definition-section accordingly.

    Right now the Idea-section reads like this:


    Fully generally, a Picard group is an abelian group defined for a symmetric monoidal category as the group of isomorphism classes of objects which are invertible with respect to the tensor product.

    Traditionally though one speaks in the context of geometry of the Picard group Pic(X)Pic(X) of some kind of space and by default means the invertible objects in some monoidal category of something like vector bundles over XX. Specifically for XX a ringed topos (in particular a ringed space), then the monoidal category to be understood is that of locally free module sheaves over the structure sheaf and hence the Picard group in this case is that of locally free sheaves of 𝒪 X\mathcal{O}_X-modules of rank 11 (i.e. the line bundles).

    Specifically in complex geometry these objects on a complex manifold XX are holomorphic vector bundles and hence in this case the Picard group of a XX is that of isomorphism classes of holomorphic line bundles. This case has an obvious genralization to schemes in algebraic geometry, and in much of the literature a Picard group is meant to be a Picard group of 𝔾 m\mathbb{G}_m-torsors over a given scheme. In this (and other) geometric situations, the Picard group naturally inherits geometric structure itself and equipped with that it is then called the Picard scheme, see there for more.

    Not decategorifying by passing to isomorphism classes instead yields the concept of Picard 2-group and geometrically that of Picard stack, see there for more.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)