Talk:Riemann-Roch theorem: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Greg Woodhouse (Elermentary statement?) |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
}} | |||
== Elermentary statement? == | == 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) | 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) | ||
Latest revision as of 10:46, 14 November 2007
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)