feat(AlgebraicGeometry): Pushforward of algebraic cycles#26304
Conversation
PR summary 4bea9a0394Import changes for modified filesNo significant changes to the import graph Import changes for all files
|
|
This pull request has conflicts, please merge |
|
After some discussion with Andrew, the following is my suggestion for this PR:
In the next PR, I would suggest to:
|
…lyFinsuppWithin (#35807) In this PR, we generalised the various instances for locally fin supp functions. These changes were originally made on the PR #26304 about algebraic cycles, but it was decided that these changes are more appropriate in their own PR. Co-authored-by: Raph-DG <raphaeldouglasgiles@gmail.com>
|
This pull request has conflicts, please merge |
What's here I think fulfils this, but I now think it's probably more sensible design-wise to directly use Function.locallyFinsuppWithin to talk about locally finsupp functions with support in s. I'm temporarily making this PR WIP to try and do such a refactor. Edit: Christian already knows this, but for anyone else who happens to be reading this, we realised this idea does not quite work so I've reverted this to the state it was in before I attempted the refactor and have removed the WIP label |
| instance [PrespectralSpace X] [T0Space X] [QuasiSober X] : | ||
| T2Space <| WithConstructibleTopology X where | ||
| t2 := by |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I remember correctly, I showed you how to rewrite this using wlog some time ago, but this proof looks like the old one. Could you please restore the wlog version or is that lost in time?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes unfortunately I couldn't find this old version of the lemma (in fact I couldn't find the other proof either, I just rewrote this and I suppose I made the same mistake again). I'll try and rewrite it using wlog, but I'm a little bit hazy on the details of how that improvement to the code went tbh
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had a go using wlog for this proof. I think what's there is definitely conceptually cleaner and there is less repetition, but it's still less clean than I remember the proof you showed me
9bb061e to
d5f980c
Compare
In this PR we define a notion of the "pushfoward of functions with locally finite support". We give this PR the suggestive title "pushforward of algebraic cycles" because we will go on to model algebraic cycles on a scheme X as functions from X to the integers with locally finite support.