Affine cone over the Grassmannian

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1












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!







share|cite|improve this question






















  • You are correct though - which paper is this?
    – Pig
    yesterday










  • It is "Faithful Tropicalization of the Grassmannian" by Cueto, Häbich and Werner and the statement is in the beginning of chapter 3.
    – SallyOwens
    yesterday














up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1












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!







share|cite|improve this question






















  • You are correct though - which paper is this?
    – Pig
    yesterday










  • It is "Faithful Tropicalization of the Grassmannian" by Cueto, Häbich and Werner and the statement is in the beginning of chapter 3.
    – SallyOwens
    yesterday












up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
4
down vote

favorite
1






1





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!







share|cite|improve this question














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!









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday









user347489

1,122617




1,122617










asked Aug 29 at 8:59









SallyOwens

284210




284210











  • You are correct though - which paper is this?
    – Pig
    yesterday










  • It is "Faithful Tropicalization of the Grassmannian" by Cueto, Häbich and Werner and the statement is in the beginning of chapter 3.
    – SallyOwens
    yesterday
















  • You are correct though - which paper is this?
    – Pig
    yesterday










  • It is "Faithful Tropicalization of the Grassmannian" by Cueto, Häbich and Werner and the statement is in the beginning of chapter 3.
    – SallyOwens
    yesterday















You are correct though - which paper is this?
– Pig
yesterday




You are correct though - which paper is this?
– Pig
yesterday












It is "Faithful Tropicalization of the Grassmannian" by Cueto, Häbich and Werner and the statement is in the beginning of chapter 3.
– SallyOwens
yesterday




It is "Faithful Tropicalization of the Grassmannian" by Cueto, Häbich and Werner and the statement is in the beginning of chapter 3.
– SallyOwens
yesterday










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote



accepted
+50










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.






share|cite|improve this answer




















    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: "69"
    ;
    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: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    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






























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    4
    down vote



    accepted
    +50










    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      4
      down vote



      accepted
      +50










      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        4
        down vote



        accepted
        +50







        up vote
        4
        down vote



        accepted
        +50




        +50




        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        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.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered yesterday









        Jesko Hüttenhain

        10.2k12253




        10.2k12253



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Mutual Information Always Non-negative

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?