Talk:Riemann-Roch theorem: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Aleksander Stos
(checklist)
 
imported>Subpagination Bot
m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details))
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{subpages}}
|                abc = Riemann-Roch theorem
 
|                cat1 = Mathematics
== Elermentary statement? ==
|                cat2 =  
 
|                cat3 =  
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)
|          cat_check = n
|              status = 2
|        underlinked = y
|            cleanup = y
|                  by = --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 12:40, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
}}

Latest revision as of 10:46, 14 November 2007

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Theorem that relates the complex analysis of a connected compact Riemann surface with the surface's purely topological genus g, in a way that can be carried over into purely algebraic settings. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Mathematics [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

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)