Not signed in (Sign In)

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-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group 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 integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages 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 stack string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft 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.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2014
    I started an incomplete

    * guide to noncommutative algebraic geometry literature

    which is obviously missing several important papers. I will hopefully continue tomorrow. Later I will try to merge it with the existing entries.
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2014
    • (edited Jan 8th 2014)

    As I see this is a guide to the DERIVED noncommutative algebraic geometry literature only. This should be reflected in the title.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2014
    That is true, but it seems to me that all noncommutative algebraic geometry is "derived" these days. So from my perspective the adjective derived is redundant. Am I wrong? I am only familiar with the Moscow style (triangulated categories) and with the Kontsevich, Tabuada style (dg-categories). There is also Marco Robalo's thesis, I am not very familiar with it, but it is also using dg-categories I believe.
    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2014
    • (edited Jan 8th 2014)

    but it seems to me that all noncommutative algebraic geometry is “derived” these days

    Is this is a reality show competition or a serious discussion ?

    So from my perspective the adjective derived is redundant. Am I wrong?

    Absolutely.

    Also, when deriving one looses some information and makes things easier. Read, say, Arfin Laudal (e.g. pdf), Michael Artin, Zhang, Smith, van Oystaeyen (e.g. Algebraic geometry for associative algebras, M. Dekker, New York, 2000), Rosenberg (pdf1, pdf2, pdf3). On situation with actions see my paper Some equivariant constructions in noncommutative algebraic geometry, arXiv. Some of the important issues are sheaves on noncommutative topologies (like Q-topology), localization theory, difficulties with morphisms, differential operators, inadequate pullbacks, noncommutative spectra…

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2014
    The articles you mention are relatively old. I have seen some of Rosenberg's manuscripts, but these are just expositions of work done with Kontsevich decades ago, it seems. But ok, I will take your preprint as proof that someone is still doing noncommutative AG with abelian categories.

    However I have a concern with this approach. Isn't isomorphism in this sense, that is equivalence of abelian categories, too strong to be useful? In the triangulated setting, isomorphism seems to be closely connected to geometry, for example as known for abelian varieties, K3 surfaces, etc. And in the setting of enhancements, isomorphism is of course the same as isomorphism as triangulated categories. But I am worried that it is probably too strong a condition to ask noncommutative spaces to be equivalent already as abelian categories. Am I wrong?

    Also, it would be interesting if you could mention any applications of Rosenberg-style NCAG in commutative AG, as I am not aware of any.
    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2014
    • (edited Jan 8th 2014)

    The articles you mention are relatively old.

    One should familiarize with the field starting with standards, not exotics.

    but these are just expositions of work done with Kontsevich decades ago

    No.

    Isn’t isomorphism in this sense, that is equivalence of abelian categories, too strong to be useful?

    There is a field called representation theory. You can be interested in category of representations, or only in its derived category; NAG is largely motivated by it. The derived information is much easier; many things pass easier at the derived level.

    Say the application of abelian level NAG are supposed to be the Kazhdan-Lusztig conjectures. They should be an instance of a noncommutative Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch theorem. Crystal bases for quantum groups can be explained from the spectral theory with much new information.

    In the triangulated setting, isomorphism seems to be closely connected to geometry, for example as known for abelian varieties, K3 surfaces, etc.

    The point of noncommutative geometry is not only that K3 surface has a geometry which can be viewed from new point of view but also that some genuinely noncommutative objects, like noncommutative flag varieties have nontrivial geometry. One wants to view quantum groups as geometrically as one does with Lie groups. Complex commutative algebraic geometry is an important subject but not the only measure of things and not the only source of examples and problems.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2014
    • (edited Jan 8th 2014)

    Isn’t isomorphism in this sense, that is equivalence of abelian categories

    One wants even more: to keep the information on the generator/structure sheaf; keeping the information on the Morita equivalence class.

    I will take your preprint

    This is Georg. Math. J. 2009. There has been much progress since than in this area, but most is not publicly available. Hopf algebra community is searching for generalizations of torsor theory (related to Hopf algebras, Hopf algebroids, quasiHopf algebras, weak Hopf algebras, coring etc.) and there are hundreds of papers on the subject in last 20 years; this paper just suggests how to go beyond the essentially affine cases.

    Did you read any Majid’s work for example ?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2014
    • (edited Jan 8th 2014)

    The point of noncommutative geometry is not only that K3 surface has a geometry which can be viewed from new point of view but also that some genuinely noncommutative objects, like noncommutative flag varieties have nontrivial geometry.

    Ok, but these genuinely noncommutative objects can be studied both as noncommutative spaces or as derived noncommutative spaces. This is not the same thing, so the question is, which is what one really wants to do? “Derived” NCAG isn’t supposed to be a new subject, rather it is supposed to be a new framework for studying the same objects as previous flavours of NCAG. Evidence for it being a better framework is given by the fact that, for commutative spaces like K3 surfaces or abelian varieties, it gives an interesting notion of isomorphism, which is very geometric in nature. In underived NCAG, I thought isomorphism was just the same as isomorphism as commutative spaces. From your second comment, I guess that’s wrong, but still I wonder whether Morita equivalence has some relation to geometry like triangulated equivalence does.

    Did you read any Majid’s work for example ?

    No, I never even came across it before.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2014

    Anyway, I don’t mind changing the title. It’s just that I don’t see “derived” NCAG as a new subject, but rather a new approach to the same one. It’s not analogous to AG vs. derived AG, where one really does study a wider class of objects.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2014
    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2014
    • (edited Jan 9th 2014)

    It’s not analogous to AG vs. derived AG, where one really does study a wider class of objects.

    Surely, I was writing this in entries couple of years ago. Derived picture is typically just loosing a bit information, like passing from abelian to derived category. But this is possible just for a PART of NAG, there are many objects in NAG which are NOT represented by abelian categories but other kinds of objects and deriving is not known there.

    But it is wider in the sense that not all dg etc. things come from abelian things.

    but rather a new approach to the same one.

    Approach just to a partial picture of the same one you could say.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2014

    I added the reference

    to guide to noncommutative algebraic geometry literature and to model structure on dg-categories. On the latter page I noticed the section on the Morita model structure was lacking so I quickly added some remarks.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2014
    • (edited May 13th 2014)

    Thanks a whole lot for expanding that section on the Morita model structure!

    (I had added the minimum stub that was there before a while back, when I became aware of Lee Cohn’s article. Didn’t have time to expand further, but clearly this is an important point to expand on.)