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 beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology 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 lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar 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-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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2010

    started stub for Chow group

    hoping I got this right...

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2010
    • (edited Jan 21st 2010)

    Well, as I warned you in a parallel discussion there are MANY different versions of Chow groups, depending on particular adequate equivalence relation used. You here forced rational equivalence as THE equivalence in your exposition, what is OK for some purposes, but the general story is also important. It is like putting the condition "Zariski cover" in the definition of what a sheaf is. Another thing is that one can label them by dimension or by codimension of the cycles, and the distinction is of course crucial in their interpretation. Chow groups are rather difficult subject, especially in hi codimension. The business of filtrations is here important and more subtle than with algebraic K-theory. Of course, between the two there is again a version of the Chern character, as I mentioned earlier.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2010

    Ah, thanks. Okay, I need to add at least a warning. Better yet, I try to better understand this! :-)

    Which precise definition of Chow group should be the one that Denis-Charles Cisisnki refers to in the passage that I included into motivic cohomology?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2010

    It is not obvious from that "Nisnevich" infinity stack description, I don't know which one.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2013

    I updated the page with definitions and references.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2013

    Zoran, in the literature I haven't seen the term "Chow group" being used for other equivalence relations than rational equivalence. Even in André's book on motives, where other relations are also discussed, he specifically says that Z_k(X)/~ is called the Chow group in the case ~ = ~_rat.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2013
    • (edited Mar 21st 2013)

    Already the very first google hit disproves you. Look at 2.7 of

    http://jfresan.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/lectures-murre.pdf

    and you will see variants CH hom *C H^*_{hom}, CH *=CH rat *C H^* = C H^*_{rat}, CH num *C H^*_{num} etc. used (in this notation) and compared. Of course, the DEFAULT case is the Chow groups for rational equivalence which are almost always used without saying “rational”. If we do not put any subscript to CHC H we mean rational, of course. But in the development of the theory, the other Chow groups are sometimes compared, with great importance and often with such names and notation.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2013
    • (edited Mar 21st 2013)

    Indeed he uses the notation CH_hom, CH_num, etc., but he never calls these "Chow groups". This term is reserved for the rational case, see page 9. I believe this is because historically Chow introduced and studied rational equivalence. Anyway, I will add a note about this on the page.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2013
    • (edited May 30th 2013)
    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2013

    Thanks!

    It would be good to add brief explanation of some of the symbols that appear

    At graph morphism I added a pointer to graph of a function.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2013

    Sorry, good catches. "long" denoted "longeur" and I changed it to "length".

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2013

    Nothing to apologize for! I am very thankful for your additions.

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)