Talk:Riemann-Roch theorem: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Aleksander Stos
(checklist)
 
imported>Greg Woodhouse
(Elermentary statement?)
Line 10: Line 10:
|                  by = --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 12:40, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
|                  by = --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 12:40, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
}}
}}
== Elermentary statement? ==
I first encountered the Riemman-Roch theorem in Fulton ("Algebraic Curves") where it was stated in the form l(D) − l(K − D) = deg(D) − g + 1 (actually, I think W was used for the canonical divisor there), and only later became aware of the cohomological intepreation and proof. Perhaps the article could benefit from a more elementary statement at the outset, followed by the more modern interpretation and treatment. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 18:14, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 17:14, 12 April 2007


Article Checklist for "Riemann-Roch theorem"
Workgroup category or categories Mathematics Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? Yes
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by --AlekStos 12:40, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





Elermentary statement?

I first encountered the Riemman-Roch theorem in Fulton ("Algebraic Curves") where it was stated in the form l(D) − l(K − D) = deg(D) − g + 1 (actually, I think W was used for the canonical divisor there), and only later became aware of the cohomological intepreation and proof. Perhaps the article could benefit from a more elementary statement at the outset, followed by the more modern interpretation and treatment. Greg Woodhouse 18:14, 12 April 2007 (CDT)