[HN Gopher] The Stacks Project, a new model for organizing and v...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Stacks Project, a new model for organizing and visualizing
       mathematics
        
       Author : mathgenius
       Score  : 57 points
       Date   : 2022-02-05 15:58 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (news.columbia.edu)
 (TXT) w3m dump (news.columbia.edu)
        
       | dang wrote:
       | Related from 2013: https://mathbabe.org/2013/07/30/the-stacks-
       | project-gets-ever...
       | 
       | (via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11054838, but nothing
       | else there)
        
       | mjfl wrote:
       | How much of this math is deep work and how much of it is it the
       | conjuring of obscure objects that haven't had much study and
       | proving trivial things about them?
        
         | ogogmad wrote:
         | I think Deligne's Theorem is a poster child for the power of
         | Modern Algebraic Geometry. Andrew Wiles's proof of Fermat's
         | Last Theorem might also be relevant.
         | 
         | Generally speaking, studying what the solution sets of
         | polynomial equations is "like" is quite fundamental to a lot of
         | mathematics. Doing this in a "deep" way can lead to a
         | reimagining of much of modern mathematics:
         | https://rawgit.com/iblech/internal-methods/master/notes.pdf
         | 
         | [edit]
         | 
         | For instance, lots of people use a straightforward
         | generalisation of number systems called rings. But ring theory
         | is quite abstract. Modern Algebraic Geometry shows that at
         | least in the case of commutative rings, these are merely spaces
         | of functions on a space called a ring's spectrum. You can
         | visualise a ring's spectrum, unlike the ring itself. Many
         | properties of a ring are just properties of its spectrum. This
         | seems like a significant conceptual leap in the understanding
         | of things that were studied since the 1800s without much
         | geometric understanding.
         | 
         | Oh yeah, and I'm not an algebraic geometer.
        
         | foxes wrote:
         | Algebraic geometry has many deep and powerful ideas. It started
         | out by looking at the space described by the zeros of a
         | polynomial, eg
         | 
         | y^2 - x^3 - x = 0, x^2+y^2+1=0
         | 
         | But actually you do not need to talk about the underlying space
         | directly. If you want to talk about a space, all you actually
         | need to think about are the possible functions on the space. If
         | you want to talk about geometry, you only need the algebra of
         | functions on that space, so in the example just the polynomials
         | themselves, rather than having to say explicitly solve it for
         | the points. You can use this big idea in a lot of other areas
         | of mathematics and physics.
        
       | hoten wrote:
       | It's very difficult to navigate this on mobile.
        
       | ruined wrote:
       | wikipedia is the wiki encyclopedia hosted and managed by the
       | wikimedia foundation.
       | 
       | this article appears to be about a different and completely
       | distinct wiki project.
        
         | ogogmad wrote:
         | It's a bit like a Wiki, except with more centralised
         | editorialship. Confusing title indeed.
        
         | gryn wrote:
         | it's used in the sense of 'a wiki project which tries to act
         | like an encyclopedia' unlike for example the wiki wiki web. a
         | similar kind of wiki is scholarpedia.org.
         | 
         | the emphasis is on the encyclopedia part.
        
         | Someone wrote:
         | I think HN's 'smart' code to remove clickbait fragments from
         | titles didn't help here. The page's full title is
         | 
         |  _This Wikipedia of Algebraic Geometry Will Forever Be
         | Incomplete. That's the Point._
         | 
         | That _"This"_ , IMO, makes it clear that they use Wikipedia in
         | a genericized way
         | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark)
        
       | ogogmad wrote:
       | To what extent is this knowledge reducible to a form that someone
       | can learn it quickly and get something done with it? Algebraic
       | Geometry is just one field of mathematics, no?
       | 
       | Related question: How do you use this resource?
       | 
       | [edit] To make it clear: It's a wonderful thing that this exists.
        
         | WoahNoun wrote:
         | Modern Algebraic Geometry is a field that encompasses and
         | somewhat unifies so many different areas of mathematics that it
         | is extremely difficult to distill down quickly. So it really
         | depends on what your currently mathematical background is. If
         | you only know some Abstract Algebra (ring and field theory in
         | particular) and Topology at the undergrad level, it will take a
         | long-time for you to contribute to research mathematics, but
         | you could probably get a feel for the subject after a couple
         | years (shorter if our a graduate student focusing on it full-
         | time). If you don't know anything about those two subjects,
         | it's a very long slog. If you know differential geometry,
         | category theory, complex geometry in addition to the above, you
         | could probably pick it up relatively quickly.
         | 
         | The definitions and machinery make sense if you have enough
         | background, but the why and how we got here is often very
         | unclear.
         | 
         | If you don't care about schemes, stacks and current modern
         | viewpoint of Algebraic Geometry, it's not hard to get a decent
         | understanding of algebraic varieties which are the original
         | motivation in the field. An undergrad book on the subject
         | Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms by Cox, Little, and O'Shea
         | does a great job of introducing the subject. And has a really
         | cool project on calculating Groebner bases for polynomial
         | equations in sin and cosine to define the configuration space
         | of different types of robotic arms.
        
           | ogogmad wrote:
           | I'm trying to learn more modern algebra (including algebraic
           | geometry). The modern stuff is of interest to me, but it
           | feels overwhelming.
           | 
           | I get that affine schemes are somehow the "geometric" dual of
           | a commutative ring. A motivating example is Spec(R[X,Y]/(X^2
           | + Y^2 - 1)), which is simple enough as a ring (if you remove
           | the "Spec"), but as an affine scheme it is a circle. The
           | slash is almost acting like a subset formation operation. I
           | know enough category theory to see that the reason why the
           | slash is acting that way is because equalisers are the dual
           | construction to coequalisers; the slash (ring quotienting) is
           | a coequaliser, and in the category of affine schemes it
           | becomes an equaliser, and equalisers on "spaces" are supposed
           | to form subsets somehow. Another example is the ring
           | R[X]/(X^2), sometimes called the dual numbers, whose affine
           | scheme (or Spec) is a lot like an infinitely small line
           | segment. The fact that the affine scheme behaves like an
           | infinitely small region of space is dual to the algebraic
           | fact that the dual numbers are a _local_ ring.
           | 
           | Finally, I have a vague understanding that a scheme is the
           | result of gluing some affine schemes together. Sheaf stuff is
           | involved.
           | 
           | Anyway, the above summarises my understanding of schemes. I
           | don't know any differential geometry as such. I rely a lot on
           | naive, and sometimes not wholly rigorous intuition. I have no
           | idea how you compute with this, especially given how
           | elaborate the definitions are.
           | 
           | [edit]
           | 
           | I'm hoping this might present a shortcut for someone like me:
           | https://www.ingo-blechschmidt.eu/research.html It's
           | especially promising because the computations look more
           | familiar to me.
        
             | ABeeSea wrote:
             | The dual numbers, in my opinion, are a lot easier to
             | understand with some background in differential geometry.
             | In differential geometry, if I_x is the ideal of smooth
             | functions vanishing at the point x in the ring of smooth
             | functions, then I_x / I_x^2 is a real vector space called
             | the cotangent space (these elements are given the
             | suggestive dx moniker) and dual of this vector space is the
             | space of tangent vectors at this point. Another way to
             | think about R[X,Y]/(X^2) dropping all the non-linear terms
             | for X to create a flat (co)tangent space.
             | 
             | Also the original motivation for sheaves was about creating
             | a way to deal with multi-valued complex function. The
             | complex log function is multi-valued so in intro complex
             | analysis it's studied locally by choosing a branch of the
             | range where it's singular valued. Thus it's impossible to
             | "do differential geometry" by talking about a global ring
             | of analytic functions. But you can talk about the "local
             | ring of analytic functions" at a point and specific branch
             | and glue these locally ringed spaces together to get global
             | insight.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-02-05 23:00 UTC)