Affine cone over the Grassmannian
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I'm currently working on understanding the affine cone over the Grassmannian, which according to my paper is given by
$$textSpec(K[p_ij^pm : ij in binomlbrack n rbrack2 ] / I_2,n).$$
I know that for the standard projection $p: mathbbA^n+1 setminus 0 rightarrow mathbbP^n$ and $Y$ a projective variety given by $Y=V(I)$ for some homogeneous ideal $I subseteq K[T_0, dotsc, T_n]$, the affine cone is given by
$$ C(Y)= p^-1(Y) cup (0, dotsc, 0)=V_textaff(I) cup (0, dotsc, 0).$$
So I tried to argue that, as we have $Gr(2,n)=V(I_2,n)$ and that for a commutative unital ring $R$, the closed subset $V_textaff(I)$ of Spec($R$) may be identified with Spec$(R/I)$, this would provide me with
$$ C(Gr(2,n))=textSpec(K[p_ij : ij in binomlbrack n rbrack2 ] / I_2,n) cup (0, dotsc, 0).$$
My question: How is this equal to the claim? I.e. how do I get the power $pm 1$? Respectively where is my mistake?
Thank you very much!
algebraic-geometry grassmannian affine-varieties
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I'm currently working on understanding the affine cone over the Grassmannian, which according to my paper is given by
$$textSpec(K[p_ij^pm : ij in binomlbrack n rbrack2 ] / I_2,n).$$
I know that for the standard projection $p: mathbbA^n+1 setminus 0 rightarrow mathbbP^n$ and $Y$ a projective variety given by $Y=V(I)$ for some homogeneous ideal $I subseteq K[T_0, dotsc, T_n]$, the affine cone is given by
$$ C(Y)= p^-1(Y) cup (0, dotsc, 0)=V_textaff(I) cup (0, dotsc, 0).$$
So I tried to argue that, as we have $Gr(2,n)=V(I_2,n)$ and that for a commutative unital ring $R$, the closed subset $V_textaff(I)$ of Spec($R$) may be identified with Spec$(R/I)$, this would provide me with
$$ C(Gr(2,n))=textSpec(K[p_ij : ij in binomlbrack n rbrack2 ] / I_2,n) cup (0, dotsc, 0).$$
My question: How is this equal to the claim? I.e. how do I get the power $pm 1$? Respectively where is my mistake?
Thank you very much!
algebraic-geometry grassmannian affine-varieties
You are correct though - which paper is this?
â Pig
yesterday
It is "Faithful Tropicalization of the Grassmannian" by Cueto, Häbich and Werner and the statement is in the beginning of chapter 3.
â SallyOwens
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I'm currently working on understanding the affine cone over the Grassmannian, which according to my paper is given by
$$textSpec(K[p_ij^pm : ij in binomlbrack n rbrack2 ] / I_2,n).$$
I know that for the standard projection $p: mathbbA^n+1 setminus 0 rightarrow mathbbP^n$ and $Y$ a projective variety given by $Y=V(I)$ for some homogeneous ideal $I subseteq K[T_0, dotsc, T_n]$, the affine cone is given by
$$ C(Y)= p^-1(Y) cup (0, dotsc, 0)=V_textaff(I) cup (0, dotsc, 0).$$
So I tried to argue that, as we have $Gr(2,n)=V(I_2,n)$ and that for a commutative unital ring $R$, the closed subset $V_textaff(I)$ of Spec($R$) may be identified with Spec$(R/I)$, this would provide me with
$$ C(Gr(2,n))=textSpec(K[p_ij : ij in binomlbrack n rbrack2 ] / I_2,n) cup (0, dotsc, 0).$$
My question: How is this equal to the claim? I.e. how do I get the power $pm 1$? Respectively where is my mistake?
Thank you very much!
algebraic-geometry grassmannian affine-varieties
I'm currently working on understanding the affine cone over the Grassmannian, which according to my paper is given by
$$textSpec(K[p_ij^pm : ij in binomlbrack n rbrack2 ] / I_2,n).$$
I know that for the standard projection $p: mathbbA^n+1 setminus 0 rightarrow mathbbP^n$ and $Y$ a projective variety given by $Y=V(I)$ for some homogeneous ideal $I subseteq K[T_0, dotsc, T_n]$, the affine cone is given by
$$ C(Y)= p^-1(Y) cup (0, dotsc, 0)=V_textaff(I) cup (0, dotsc, 0).$$
So I tried to argue that, as we have $Gr(2,n)=V(I_2,n)$ and that for a commutative unital ring $R$, the closed subset $V_textaff(I)$ of Spec($R$) may be identified with Spec$(R/I)$, this would provide me with
$$ C(Gr(2,n))=textSpec(K[p_ij : ij in binomlbrack n rbrack2 ] / I_2,n) cup (0, dotsc, 0).$$
My question: How is this equal to the claim? I.e. how do I get the power $pm 1$? Respectively where is my mistake?
Thank you very much!
algebraic-geometry grassmannian affine-varieties
edited yesterday
user347489
1,122617
1,122617
asked Aug 29 at 8:59
SallyOwens
284210
284210
You are correct though - which paper is this?
â Pig
yesterday
It is "Faithful Tropicalization of the Grassmannian" by Cueto, Häbich and Werner and the statement is in the beginning of chapter 3.
â SallyOwens
yesterday
add a comment |Â
You are correct though - which paper is this?
â Pig
yesterday
It is "Faithful Tropicalization of the Grassmannian" by Cueto, Häbich and Werner and the statement is in the beginning of chapter 3.
â SallyOwens
yesterday
You are correct though - which paper is this?
â Pig
yesterday
You are correct though - which paper is this?
â Pig
yesterday
It is "Faithful Tropicalization of the Grassmannian" by Cueto, Häbich and Werner and the statement is in the beginning of chapter 3.
â SallyOwens
yesterday
It is "Faithful Tropicalization of the Grassmannian" by Cueto, Häbich and Werner and the statement is in the beginning of chapter 3.
â SallyOwens
yesterday
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
In the paper you refer to, they only claim that this is the coordinate ring of the affine cone over the open subset $operatornameGr_0(2,n)$ of $operatornameGr(2,n)$, which is defined shortly before by requiring that the coordinates $p_ij$ do not vanish. Hence, this is not the coordinate ring of the affine cone over the Grassmannian, which you correctly identified, but the coordinate ring of an open subset of it, namely the open subset that arises by removing the coordinate hyperplanes.
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
In the paper you refer to, they only claim that this is the coordinate ring of the affine cone over the open subset $operatornameGr_0(2,n)$ of $operatornameGr(2,n)$, which is defined shortly before by requiring that the coordinates $p_ij$ do not vanish. Hence, this is not the coordinate ring of the affine cone over the Grassmannian, which you correctly identified, but the coordinate ring of an open subset of it, namely the open subset that arises by removing the coordinate hyperplanes.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
In the paper you refer to, they only claim that this is the coordinate ring of the affine cone over the open subset $operatornameGr_0(2,n)$ of $operatornameGr(2,n)$, which is defined shortly before by requiring that the coordinates $p_ij$ do not vanish. Hence, this is not the coordinate ring of the affine cone over the Grassmannian, which you correctly identified, but the coordinate ring of an open subset of it, namely the open subset that arises by removing the coordinate hyperplanes.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
In the paper you refer to, they only claim that this is the coordinate ring of the affine cone over the open subset $operatornameGr_0(2,n)$ of $operatornameGr(2,n)$, which is defined shortly before by requiring that the coordinates $p_ij$ do not vanish. Hence, this is not the coordinate ring of the affine cone over the Grassmannian, which you correctly identified, but the coordinate ring of an open subset of it, namely the open subset that arises by removing the coordinate hyperplanes.
In the paper you refer to, they only claim that this is the coordinate ring of the affine cone over the open subset $operatornameGr_0(2,n)$ of $operatornameGr(2,n)$, which is defined shortly before by requiring that the coordinates $p_ij$ do not vanish. Hence, this is not the coordinate ring of the affine cone over the Grassmannian, which you correctly identified, but the coordinate ring of an open subset of it, namely the open subset that arises by removing the coordinate hyperplanes.
answered yesterday
Jesko Hüttenhain
10.2k12253
10.2k12253
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2898126%2faffine-cone-over-the-grassmannian%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
You are correct though - which paper is this?
â Pig
yesterday
It is "Faithful Tropicalization of the Grassmannian" by Cueto, Häbich and Werner and the statement is in the beginning of chapter 3.
â SallyOwens
yesterday