Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- blog:2023-07-26 [2023/07/26 20:58] – [stop, why do you go here?] pzhou
+++ blog:2023-07-26 [2023/07/27 05:59] (current) – [2023-07-26] pzhou
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== 2023-07-26 ======
+Declaration: I was lost in abstract definitions for too long. I will now compute examples, examples, and examples. Not only because abstraction makes me sleepy, but also examples makes my hands dirty and my mind happy.
   * Reading Ginzburg's paper
   * Heisenberg algebra and Weyl algebra (just names)
@@ Line 37: / Line 40: @@
   * or you can do coherent state, $a = \d_z, a^\dagger = z \cdot $, and the inner product is using the Bargmann-Fock metric.
-===== stop, why do you go here? =====
+===== $G$-equivariant sheaf vs equivariant coherent sheaf=====
-I was formally moving these building blocks here and there, like $G(O)$-equivariant constructible sheaves on affine Grassmannian.
+Let $G=GL_n$, a linear algebraic group.
+The claim is, $G$-equivariant sheaf of a point is stupid, just vect; but $G$-equivariant coherent sheaf on a point is very clever. Why?
+First off, we can consider the definition. Let $X$ be a space, we have $p, a: G \times X \to X$. An equivariant sheaf is a sheaf $F$ on $X$, together with the data of an isomorphism $\phi: p^*F \to a^*F$. Now, if $F$ is just a sheaf, then, we just have sheaf pullback, $p^{-1}(F)$ and $a^{-1}(F)$, and if $X$ is a point, then we have $p^{-1}(F), a^{-1}(F)$ just being constant sheaf, and the isomorphism is just the same as automorphism. If $F$ is pulled back as a coherent sheaf, then we tensor with the $O_G$, structure sheaf of upstairs. For $F$ a represenation of $G$, we can have algebraic map $G \to Aut(V)$, which is just $Aut(O_G \otimes V)$.
+So, no luck? How about $I$-equivariant perverse sheaf on $G(K)/I$? Of course, everything maps.