Complex analytic vs algebraic geometry
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
This is more of a philosophical or historical question, and I can be totally wrong in what I am about to write next.
It looks to me, that complex-analytic geometry has lost its relative positions since 50's, especially if we compare it to scheme theory. Are there internal mathematical reasons for why that happened?
As we all know, lot's of techniques which were later adapted by algebraic geometrers were originally developed in the complex analytic setting (sheaves, local algebra machinery, etc.). In the 50's, Serre, Cartan, Grothendieck and others seemed to have been developing scheme theory somewhat in parallel with complex-analytic spaces (results on coherent sheaves, base change and cohomology theorems, etc.). But already in the 60's it seems like complex analytic geometry started to lag behind - Grothendieck developed Hilbert shceme in 61, and it took already 5 years for Douady to build a complex-analytic analogue. Then in the 80's came Fulton's monograph on intersection theory, and as far as I can tell intersection theory for complex analytic spaces is still work in progress.
And in general, my impression is that the amount of people doing complex analytic geometry is minuscule compared to algebraic geometry (I only know of big research groups around Demailly in Europe and Siu in the US).
ag.algebraic-geometry cv.complex-variables ho.history-overview mathematical-philosophy analytic-geometry
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
This is more of a philosophical or historical question, and I can be totally wrong in what I am about to write next.
It looks to me, that complex-analytic geometry has lost its relative positions since 50's, especially if we compare it to scheme theory. Are there internal mathematical reasons for why that happened?
As we all know, lot's of techniques which were later adapted by algebraic geometrers were originally developed in the complex analytic setting (sheaves, local algebra machinery, etc.). In the 50's, Serre, Cartan, Grothendieck and others seemed to have been developing scheme theory somewhat in parallel with complex-analytic spaces (results on coherent sheaves, base change and cohomology theorems, etc.). But already in the 60's it seems like complex analytic geometry started to lag behind - Grothendieck developed Hilbert shceme in 61, and it took already 5 years for Douady to build a complex-analytic analogue. Then in the 80's came Fulton's monograph on intersection theory, and as far as I can tell intersection theory for complex analytic spaces is still work in progress.
And in general, my impression is that the amount of people doing complex analytic geometry is minuscule compared to algebraic geometry (I only know of big research groups around Demailly in Europe and Siu in the US).
ag.algebraic-geometry cv.complex-variables ho.history-overview mathematical-philosophy analytic-geometry
There are Quot spaces in the complex analytic setting. This is a consequence of Douady spaces.
– Jason Starr
8 hours ago
I suspect the reasons for the shift are more sociological than mathematical.
– Donu Arapura
6 hours ago
@JasonStarr, oh, ok, didn't know about the Quot scheme, I will edit it out. But what about the post itself, do you disagree that complex-analytic geometry became a much less active field?
– Bananeen
4 hours ago
Isn’t Kahler geometry a large and active area, a part of complex geometry but outside of algebraic geometry?
– Sam Hopkins
4 hours ago
1
What possible purpose can it serve for you to ask whether "complex-analytic geometry became a much less active field"? If there is a beautiful problem in complex analysis that you would like to solve, I recommend that you learn about that and work on that regardless of questions like this one.
– Jason Starr
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
up vote
10
down vote
favorite
This is more of a philosophical or historical question, and I can be totally wrong in what I am about to write next.
It looks to me, that complex-analytic geometry has lost its relative positions since 50's, especially if we compare it to scheme theory. Are there internal mathematical reasons for why that happened?
As we all know, lot's of techniques which were later adapted by algebraic geometrers were originally developed in the complex analytic setting (sheaves, local algebra machinery, etc.). In the 50's, Serre, Cartan, Grothendieck and others seemed to have been developing scheme theory somewhat in parallel with complex-analytic spaces (results on coherent sheaves, base change and cohomology theorems, etc.). But already in the 60's it seems like complex analytic geometry started to lag behind - Grothendieck developed Hilbert shceme in 61, and it took already 5 years for Douady to build a complex-analytic analogue. Then in the 80's came Fulton's monograph on intersection theory, and as far as I can tell intersection theory for complex analytic spaces is still work in progress.
And in general, my impression is that the amount of people doing complex analytic geometry is minuscule compared to algebraic geometry (I only know of big research groups around Demailly in Europe and Siu in the US).
ag.algebraic-geometry cv.complex-variables ho.history-overview mathematical-philosophy analytic-geometry
This is more of a philosophical or historical question, and I can be totally wrong in what I am about to write next.
It looks to me, that complex-analytic geometry has lost its relative positions since 50's, especially if we compare it to scheme theory. Are there internal mathematical reasons for why that happened?
As we all know, lot's of techniques which were later adapted by algebraic geometrers were originally developed in the complex analytic setting (sheaves, local algebra machinery, etc.). In the 50's, Serre, Cartan, Grothendieck and others seemed to have been developing scheme theory somewhat in parallel with complex-analytic spaces (results on coherent sheaves, base change and cohomology theorems, etc.). But already in the 60's it seems like complex analytic geometry started to lag behind - Grothendieck developed Hilbert shceme in 61, and it took already 5 years for Douady to build a complex-analytic analogue. Then in the 80's came Fulton's monograph on intersection theory, and as far as I can tell intersection theory for complex analytic spaces is still work in progress.
And in general, my impression is that the amount of people doing complex analytic geometry is minuscule compared to algebraic geometry (I only know of big research groups around Demailly in Europe and Siu in the US).
ag.algebraic-geometry cv.complex-variables ho.history-overview mathematical-philosophy analytic-geometry
ag.algebraic-geometry cv.complex-variables ho.history-overview mathematical-philosophy analytic-geometry
edited 4 hours ago
asked 8 hours ago
Bananeen
310310
310310
There are Quot spaces in the complex analytic setting. This is a consequence of Douady spaces.
– Jason Starr
8 hours ago
I suspect the reasons for the shift are more sociological than mathematical.
– Donu Arapura
6 hours ago
@JasonStarr, oh, ok, didn't know about the Quot scheme, I will edit it out. But what about the post itself, do you disagree that complex-analytic geometry became a much less active field?
– Bananeen
4 hours ago
Isn’t Kahler geometry a large and active area, a part of complex geometry but outside of algebraic geometry?
– Sam Hopkins
4 hours ago
1
What possible purpose can it serve for you to ask whether "complex-analytic geometry became a much less active field"? If there is a beautiful problem in complex analysis that you would like to solve, I recommend that you learn about that and work on that regardless of questions like this one.
– Jason Starr
2 hours ago
add a comment |
There are Quot spaces in the complex analytic setting. This is a consequence of Douady spaces.
– Jason Starr
8 hours ago
I suspect the reasons for the shift are more sociological than mathematical.
– Donu Arapura
6 hours ago
@JasonStarr, oh, ok, didn't know about the Quot scheme, I will edit it out. But what about the post itself, do you disagree that complex-analytic geometry became a much less active field?
– Bananeen
4 hours ago
Isn’t Kahler geometry a large and active area, a part of complex geometry but outside of algebraic geometry?
– Sam Hopkins
4 hours ago
1
What possible purpose can it serve for you to ask whether "complex-analytic geometry became a much less active field"? If there is a beautiful problem in complex analysis that you would like to solve, I recommend that you learn about that and work on that regardless of questions like this one.
– Jason Starr
2 hours ago
There are Quot spaces in the complex analytic setting. This is a consequence of Douady spaces.
– Jason Starr
8 hours ago
There are Quot spaces in the complex analytic setting. This is a consequence of Douady spaces.
– Jason Starr
8 hours ago
I suspect the reasons for the shift are more sociological than mathematical.
– Donu Arapura
6 hours ago
I suspect the reasons for the shift are more sociological than mathematical.
– Donu Arapura
6 hours ago
@JasonStarr, oh, ok, didn't know about the Quot scheme, I will edit it out. But what about the post itself, do you disagree that complex-analytic geometry became a much less active field?
– Bananeen
4 hours ago
@JasonStarr, oh, ok, didn't know about the Quot scheme, I will edit it out. But what about the post itself, do you disagree that complex-analytic geometry became a much less active field?
– Bananeen
4 hours ago
Isn’t Kahler geometry a large and active area, a part of complex geometry but outside of algebraic geometry?
– Sam Hopkins
4 hours ago
Isn’t Kahler geometry a large and active area, a part of complex geometry but outside of algebraic geometry?
– Sam Hopkins
4 hours ago
1
1
What possible purpose can it serve for you to ask whether "complex-analytic geometry became a much less active field"? If there is a beautiful problem in complex analysis that you would like to solve, I recommend that you learn about that and work on that regardless of questions like this one.
– Jason Starr
2 hours ago
What possible purpose can it serve for you to ask whether "complex-analytic geometry became a much less active field"? If there is a beautiful problem in complex analysis that you would like to solve, I recommend that you learn about that and work on that regardless of questions like this one.
– Jason Starr
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
Though I am not an expert on this I think that the shift toward algebraic geometry is not entirely sociological. Consider the following statement which is true in both the category of schemes and analytic spaces :
The push-foward of a coherent sheaf by a proper map is coherent.
In algebraic geometry, this statement is rather a routine-like statement, once you have the tools crafted by Grothendieck. In the complex-analytic setting, this is a hard theorem (due to Grauert and Remmert) and no simple proof of it is known.
Another result one could be interested is Mori's bend-and-break lemma. It is probably one of the most important tool in modern birationnal geometry (and was celebrated as one of the most important results in algebraic geometry in the late 70's early 80's). The original proof goes through caracteristic $p$ techniques (namely the use of the Froebenius morphism to amplify a given vector bundle).
Siu and others have claimed to have a purely analytical proof of the bend-and-break lemma. But as far as I can tell (I am not an expert, but I know a bit of birational geometry) their analytical proofs are very hard to follow.
In my opinion, many people in the 70's and 80's left analytical geometry to embrace algebraic geometry because so many powerful and beautiful results had simple and crystalline (in the non-Grothendickian sense) proofs in the algebraic category while their analytic counterparts looked, at the time, either out of reach or extremely hard to prove.
A very down-to-earth baby example at the undergraduate level is the following:
A regular function on the affine line which has a non-isolated zero vanishes everywhere.
In the algebraic category, there is a one-line proof using Euclidean division. In the analytic setting (that is for analytic functions over $mathbb{C}$), you have to work a little to prove this.
Note however that the Empire may be striking back. Indeed, outside of Siu's and Demailly's circles, which are, in my opinion, not very active anymore, there is a new approach to the minimal model program using the Ricci-flow and the techniques Perelman introduced to prove the Poincaré conjecture. In a word, the new idea is to start with a (smooth) variety whose canonical bundle is not nef, run the Ricci flow on it and hope that it will converge to a minimal model. So, at least as far as birational geometry is concerned, it seems that analysis is back!
1
I think perhaps the OP is merely confused. As anybody can freely read, Douady proved representability of Quot in the analytic setting. Here is a link to Douady's paper: numdam.org/item/AIF_1966__16_1_1_0 It might be unwise to engage in argumentative speculations if, in fact, the OP is simply confused.
– Jason Starr
4 hours ago
5
@JasonStarr Did you read my answer or did you post your comment for the sake of it?
– Libli
4 hours ago
@Libli, thank you for your comment, I've heard a similar position, that algebraic category somehow has just the optimal balance of flexibility and rigidity to make proofs easier than in complex analytic category. It is interesting to know about the new approach to MMP you mention towards the end.
– Bananeen
4 hours ago
@Bananeen: isn't the algebraic category supposed to be more "rigid" than the analytic one? I would tend to think it's the "rigidity" aspects of algebraic geometry that make it "easier" than the analytic counterpart.
– Qfwfq
3 hours ago
@Libli. I read what you wrote. I think that the OP, or anybody, would do better to read beautiful mathematics (about which the OP is apparently confused) rather than play pointless word games about which field of mathematics is more active.
– Jason Starr
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f318754%2fcomplex-analytic-vs-algebraic-geometry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
Though I am not an expert on this I think that the shift toward algebraic geometry is not entirely sociological. Consider the following statement which is true in both the category of schemes and analytic spaces :
The push-foward of a coherent sheaf by a proper map is coherent.
In algebraic geometry, this statement is rather a routine-like statement, once you have the tools crafted by Grothendieck. In the complex-analytic setting, this is a hard theorem (due to Grauert and Remmert) and no simple proof of it is known.
Another result one could be interested is Mori's bend-and-break lemma. It is probably one of the most important tool in modern birationnal geometry (and was celebrated as one of the most important results in algebraic geometry in the late 70's early 80's). The original proof goes through caracteristic $p$ techniques (namely the use of the Froebenius morphism to amplify a given vector bundle).
Siu and others have claimed to have a purely analytical proof of the bend-and-break lemma. But as far as I can tell (I am not an expert, but I know a bit of birational geometry) their analytical proofs are very hard to follow.
In my opinion, many people in the 70's and 80's left analytical geometry to embrace algebraic geometry because so many powerful and beautiful results had simple and crystalline (in the non-Grothendickian sense) proofs in the algebraic category while their analytic counterparts looked, at the time, either out of reach or extremely hard to prove.
A very down-to-earth baby example at the undergraduate level is the following:
A regular function on the affine line which has a non-isolated zero vanishes everywhere.
In the algebraic category, there is a one-line proof using Euclidean division. In the analytic setting (that is for analytic functions over $mathbb{C}$), you have to work a little to prove this.
Note however that the Empire may be striking back. Indeed, outside of Siu's and Demailly's circles, which are, in my opinion, not very active anymore, there is a new approach to the minimal model program using the Ricci-flow and the techniques Perelman introduced to prove the Poincaré conjecture. In a word, the new idea is to start with a (smooth) variety whose canonical bundle is not nef, run the Ricci flow on it and hope that it will converge to a minimal model. So, at least as far as birational geometry is concerned, it seems that analysis is back!
1
I think perhaps the OP is merely confused. As anybody can freely read, Douady proved representability of Quot in the analytic setting. Here is a link to Douady's paper: numdam.org/item/AIF_1966__16_1_1_0 It might be unwise to engage in argumentative speculations if, in fact, the OP is simply confused.
– Jason Starr
4 hours ago
5
@JasonStarr Did you read my answer or did you post your comment for the sake of it?
– Libli
4 hours ago
@Libli, thank you for your comment, I've heard a similar position, that algebraic category somehow has just the optimal balance of flexibility and rigidity to make proofs easier than in complex analytic category. It is interesting to know about the new approach to MMP you mention towards the end.
– Bananeen
4 hours ago
@Bananeen: isn't the algebraic category supposed to be more "rigid" than the analytic one? I would tend to think it's the "rigidity" aspects of algebraic geometry that make it "easier" than the analytic counterpart.
– Qfwfq
3 hours ago
@Libli. I read what you wrote. I think that the OP, or anybody, would do better to read beautiful mathematics (about which the OP is apparently confused) rather than play pointless word games about which field of mathematics is more active.
– Jason Starr
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Though I am not an expert on this I think that the shift toward algebraic geometry is not entirely sociological. Consider the following statement which is true in both the category of schemes and analytic spaces :
The push-foward of a coherent sheaf by a proper map is coherent.
In algebraic geometry, this statement is rather a routine-like statement, once you have the tools crafted by Grothendieck. In the complex-analytic setting, this is a hard theorem (due to Grauert and Remmert) and no simple proof of it is known.
Another result one could be interested is Mori's bend-and-break lemma. It is probably one of the most important tool in modern birationnal geometry (and was celebrated as one of the most important results in algebraic geometry in the late 70's early 80's). The original proof goes through caracteristic $p$ techniques (namely the use of the Froebenius morphism to amplify a given vector bundle).
Siu and others have claimed to have a purely analytical proof of the bend-and-break lemma. But as far as I can tell (I am not an expert, but I know a bit of birational geometry) their analytical proofs are very hard to follow.
In my opinion, many people in the 70's and 80's left analytical geometry to embrace algebraic geometry because so many powerful and beautiful results had simple and crystalline (in the non-Grothendickian sense) proofs in the algebraic category while their analytic counterparts looked, at the time, either out of reach or extremely hard to prove.
A very down-to-earth baby example at the undergraduate level is the following:
A regular function on the affine line which has a non-isolated zero vanishes everywhere.
In the algebraic category, there is a one-line proof using Euclidean division. In the analytic setting (that is for analytic functions over $mathbb{C}$), you have to work a little to prove this.
Note however that the Empire may be striking back. Indeed, outside of Siu's and Demailly's circles, which are, in my opinion, not very active anymore, there is a new approach to the minimal model program using the Ricci-flow and the techniques Perelman introduced to prove the Poincaré conjecture. In a word, the new idea is to start with a (smooth) variety whose canonical bundle is not nef, run the Ricci flow on it and hope that it will converge to a minimal model. So, at least as far as birational geometry is concerned, it seems that analysis is back!
1
I think perhaps the OP is merely confused. As anybody can freely read, Douady proved representability of Quot in the analytic setting. Here is a link to Douady's paper: numdam.org/item/AIF_1966__16_1_1_0 It might be unwise to engage in argumentative speculations if, in fact, the OP is simply confused.
– Jason Starr
4 hours ago
5
@JasonStarr Did you read my answer or did you post your comment for the sake of it?
– Libli
4 hours ago
@Libli, thank you for your comment, I've heard a similar position, that algebraic category somehow has just the optimal balance of flexibility and rigidity to make proofs easier than in complex analytic category. It is interesting to know about the new approach to MMP you mention towards the end.
– Bananeen
4 hours ago
@Bananeen: isn't the algebraic category supposed to be more "rigid" than the analytic one? I would tend to think it's the "rigidity" aspects of algebraic geometry that make it "easier" than the analytic counterpart.
– Qfwfq
3 hours ago
@Libli. I read what you wrote. I think that the OP, or anybody, would do better to read beautiful mathematics (about which the OP is apparently confused) rather than play pointless word games about which field of mathematics is more active.
– Jason Starr
2 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Though I am not an expert on this I think that the shift toward algebraic geometry is not entirely sociological. Consider the following statement which is true in both the category of schemes and analytic spaces :
The push-foward of a coherent sheaf by a proper map is coherent.
In algebraic geometry, this statement is rather a routine-like statement, once you have the tools crafted by Grothendieck. In the complex-analytic setting, this is a hard theorem (due to Grauert and Remmert) and no simple proof of it is known.
Another result one could be interested is Mori's bend-and-break lemma. It is probably one of the most important tool in modern birationnal geometry (and was celebrated as one of the most important results in algebraic geometry in the late 70's early 80's). The original proof goes through caracteristic $p$ techniques (namely the use of the Froebenius morphism to amplify a given vector bundle).
Siu and others have claimed to have a purely analytical proof of the bend-and-break lemma. But as far as I can tell (I am not an expert, but I know a bit of birational geometry) their analytical proofs are very hard to follow.
In my opinion, many people in the 70's and 80's left analytical geometry to embrace algebraic geometry because so many powerful and beautiful results had simple and crystalline (in the non-Grothendickian sense) proofs in the algebraic category while their analytic counterparts looked, at the time, either out of reach or extremely hard to prove.
A very down-to-earth baby example at the undergraduate level is the following:
A regular function on the affine line which has a non-isolated zero vanishes everywhere.
In the algebraic category, there is a one-line proof using Euclidean division. In the analytic setting (that is for analytic functions over $mathbb{C}$), you have to work a little to prove this.
Note however that the Empire may be striking back. Indeed, outside of Siu's and Demailly's circles, which are, in my opinion, not very active anymore, there is a new approach to the minimal model program using the Ricci-flow and the techniques Perelman introduced to prove the Poincaré conjecture. In a word, the new idea is to start with a (smooth) variety whose canonical bundle is not nef, run the Ricci flow on it and hope that it will converge to a minimal model. So, at least as far as birational geometry is concerned, it seems that analysis is back!
Though I am not an expert on this I think that the shift toward algebraic geometry is not entirely sociological. Consider the following statement which is true in both the category of schemes and analytic spaces :
The push-foward of a coherent sheaf by a proper map is coherent.
In algebraic geometry, this statement is rather a routine-like statement, once you have the tools crafted by Grothendieck. In the complex-analytic setting, this is a hard theorem (due to Grauert and Remmert) and no simple proof of it is known.
Another result one could be interested is Mori's bend-and-break lemma. It is probably one of the most important tool in modern birationnal geometry (and was celebrated as one of the most important results in algebraic geometry in the late 70's early 80's). The original proof goes through caracteristic $p$ techniques (namely the use of the Froebenius morphism to amplify a given vector bundle).
Siu and others have claimed to have a purely analytical proof of the bend-and-break lemma. But as far as I can tell (I am not an expert, but I know a bit of birational geometry) their analytical proofs are very hard to follow.
In my opinion, many people in the 70's and 80's left analytical geometry to embrace algebraic geometry because so many powerful and beautiful results had simple and crystalline (in the non-Grothendickian sense) proofs in the algebraic category while their analytic counterparts looked, at the time, either out of reach or extremely hard to prove.
A very down-to-earth baby example at the undergraduate level is the following:
A regular function on the affine line which has a non-isolated zero vanishes everywhere.
In the algebraic category, there is a one-line proof using Euclidean division. In the analytic setting (that is for analytic functions over $mathbb{C}$), you have to work a little to prove this.
Note however that the Empire may be striking back. Indeed, outside of Siu's and Demailly's circles, which are, in my opinion, not very active anymore, there is a new approach to the minimal model program using the Ricci-flow and the techniques Perelman introduced to prove the Poincaré conjecture. In a word, the new idea is to start with a (smooth) variety whose canonical bundle is not nef, run the Ricci flow on it and hope that it will converge to a minimal model. So, at least as far as birational geometry is concerned, it seems that analysis is back!
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Libli
1,678819
1,678819
1
I think perhaps the OP is merely confused. As anybody can freely read, Douady proved representability of Quot in the analytic setting. Here is a link to Douady's paper: numdam.org/item/AIF_1966__16_1_1_0 It might be unwise to engage in argumentative speculations if, in fact, the OP is simply confused.
– Jason Starr
4 hours ago
5
@JasonStarr Did you read my answer or did you post your comment for the sake of it?
– Libli
4 hours ago
@Libli, thank you for your comment, I've heard a similar position, that algebraic category somehow has just the optimal balance of flexibility and rigidity to make proofs easier than in complex analytic category. It is interesting to know about the new approach to MMP you mention towards the end.
– Bananeen
4 hours ago
@Bananeen: isn't the algebraic category supposed to be more "rigid" than the analytic one? I would tend to think it's the "rigidity" aspects of algebraic geometry that make it "easier" than the analytic counterpart.
– Qfwfq
3 hours ago
@Libli. I read what you wrote. I think that the OP, or anybody, would do better to read beautiful mathematics (about which the OP is apparently confused) rather than play pointless word games about which field of mathematics is more active.
– Jason Starr
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
I think perhaps the OP is merely confused. As anybody can freely read, Douady proved representability of Quot in the analytic setting. Here is a link to Douady's paper: numdam.org/item/AIF_1966__16_1_1_0 It might be unwise to engage in argumentative speculations if, in fact, the OP is simply confused.
– Jason Starr
4 hours ago
5
@JasonStarr Did you read my answer or did you post your comment for the sake of it?
– Libli
4 hours ago
@Libli, thank you for your comment, I've heard a similar position, that algebraic category somehow has just the optimal balance of flexibility and rigidity to make proofs easier than in complex analytic category. It is interesting to know about the new approach to MMP you mention towards the end.
– Bananeen
4 hours ago
@Bananeen: isn't the algebraic category supposed to be more "rigid" than the analytic one? I would tend to think it's the "rigidity" aspects of algebraic geometry that make it "easier" than the analytic counterpart.
– Qfwfq
3 hours ago
@Libli. I read what you wrote. I think that the OP, or anybody, would do better to read beautiful mathematics (about which the OP is apparently confused) rather than play pointless word games about which field of mathematics is more active.
– Jason Starr
2 hours ago
1
1
I think perhaps the OP is merely confused. As anybody can freely read, Douady proved representability of Quot in the analytic setting. Here is a link to Douady's paper: numdam.org/item/AIF_1966__16_1_1_0 It might be unwise to engage in argumentative speculations if, in fact, the OP is simply confused.
– Jason Starr
4 hours ago
I think perhaps the OP is merely confused. As anybody can freely read, Douady proved representability of Quot in the analytic setting. Here is a link to Douady's paper: numdam.org/item/AIF_1966__16_1_1_0 It might be unwise to engage in argumentative speculations if, in fact, the OP is simply confused.
– Jason Starr
4 hours ago
5
5
@JasonStarr Did you read my answer or did you post your comment for the sake of it?
– Libli
4 hours ago
@JasonStarr Did you read my answer or did you post your comment for the sake of it?
– Libli
4 hours ago
@Libli, thank you for your comment, I've heard a similar position, that algebraic category somehow has just the optimal balance of flexibility and rigidity to make proofs easier than in complex analytic category. It is interesting to know about the new approach to MMP you mention towards the end.
– Bananeen
4 hours ago
@Libli, thank you for your comment, I've heard a similar position, that algebraic category somehow has just the optimal balance of flexibility and rigidity to make proofs easier than in complex analytic category. It is interesting to know about the new approach to MMP you mention towards the end.
– Bananeen
4 hours ago
@Bananeen: isn't the algebraic category supposed to be more "rigid" than the analytic one? I would tend to think it's the "rigidity" aspects of algebraic geometry that make it "easier" than the analytic counterpart.
– Qfwfq
3 hours ago
@Bananeen: isn't the algebraic category supposed to be more "rigid" than the analytic one? I would tend to think it's the "rigidity" aspects of algebraic geometry that make it "easier" than the analytic counterpart.
– Qfwfq
3 hours ago
@Libli. I read what you wrote. I think that the OP, or anybody, would do better to read beautiful mathematics (about which the OP is apparently confused) rather than play pointless word games about which field of mathematics is more active.
– Jason Starr
2 hours ago
@Libli. I read what you wrote. I think that the OP, or anybody, would do better to read beautiful mathematics (about which the OP is apparently confused) rather than play pointless word games about which field of mathematics is more active.
– Jason Starr
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f318754%2fcomplex-analytic-vs-algebraic-geometry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
There are Quot spaces in the complex analytic setting. This is a consequence of Douady spaces.
– Jason Starr
8 hours ago
I suspect the reasons for the shift are more sociological than mathematical.
– Donu Arapura
6 hours ago
@JasonStarr, oh, ok, didn't know about the Quot scheme, I will edit it out. But what about the post itself, do you disagree that complex-analytic geometry became a much less active field?
– Bananeen
4 hours ago
Isn’t Kahler geometry a large and active area, a part of complex geometry but outside of algebraic geometry?
– Sam Hopkins
4 hours ago
1
What possible purpose can it serve for you to ask whether "complex-analytic geometry became a much less active field"? If there is a beautiful problem in complex analysis that you would like to solve, I recommend that you learn about that and work on that regardless of questions like this one.
– Jason Starr
2 hours ago