Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure 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 superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 21st 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: Markdownstarted stub for [[Chow group]] hoping I got this right...

   started stub for Chow group

   hoping I got this right...

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeJan 21st 2010
   • (edited Jan 21st 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownWell, 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.

   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.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 21st 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownAh, 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]]?

   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?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeJan 21st 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownIt is not obvious from that "Nisnevich" infinity stack description, I don't know which one.

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

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthoradeelkh
   • CommentTimeMar 21st 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: adeelkh
   Format: MarkdownI updated the page with definitions and references.

   I updated the page with definitions and references.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthoradeelkh
   • CommentTimeMar 21st 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: adeelkh
   Format: MarkdownZoran, 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.

   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.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMar 21st 2013
   • (edited Mar 21st 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexAlready 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 $C H^*_{hom}$, $C H^* = C H^*_{rat}$, $C H^*_{num}$ 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 $C H$ 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.

   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 $C H^*_{hom}$, $C H^* = C H^*_{rat}$, $C H^*_{num}$ 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 $C H$ 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.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthoradeelkh
   • CommentTimeMar 21st 2013
   • (edited Mar 21st 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: adeelkh
   Format: MarkdownIndeed 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.

   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.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthoradeelkh
   • CommentTimeMay 30th 2013
   • (edited May 30th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: adeelkh
   Format: MarkdownI added the stubs * [[algebraic cycles]] * [[rational equivalence]] * [[graph morphism]] * [[irreducible component]]

   I added the stubs

   • algebraic cycles
   • rational equivalence
   • graph morphism
   • irreducible component
10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2013
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexThanks! It would be good to add brief explanation of some of the symbols that appear * at _[[algebraic cycle]]_: "$long$" ? * at _[[rational equivalence]]_ I added a pointer to [[Weil divisor]] where $div(-)$ appears. An explaination of $j_{\alpha, \ast}$ is missing (I added: [[direct image]] of ...) At _[[graph morphism]]_ I added a pointer to _[[graph of a function]]_.

    Thanks!

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

    • at algebraic cycle: “$long$” ?

    • at rational equivalence I added a pointer to Weil divisor where $div(-)$ appears. An explaination of $j_{\alpha, \ast}$ is missing (I added: direct image of …)

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

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2013
    • PermaLink
    Author: adeelkh
    Format: MarkdownSorry, good catches. "long" denoted "longeur" and I changed it to "length".

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

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 30th 2013
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexNothing to apologize for! I am very thankful for your additions.

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