2018
DOI: 10.1017/s0013091517000293
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modular Interpretation of a Non-Reductive Chow Quotient

Abstract: The space of n distinct points and a disjoint parameterized hyperplane in projective d-space up to projectivity-equivalently, configurations of n distinct points in affine d-space up to translation and homothety-has a beautiful compactification introduced by Chen-Gibney-Krashen. This variety, constructed inductively using the apparatus of Fulton-MacPherson configuration spaces, is a parameter space of certain pointed rational varieties whose dual intersection complex is a rooted tree. This generalizes M 0,n an… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

3
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since this H-action extends to the standard GL d -action, we can apply Question 6.2 and ask whether this non-reductive Chow quotient is isomorphic to the reductive Chow quotient GL d /H × (P d−1 ) n−d+1 // GL d . The following lemma describes GL d /H and the induced group actions and implies that this reductive Chow quotient is precisely the one appearing in our generalized Gelfand-MacPherson correspondence, the right side of Equation (4), and hence as claimed that the Krashen question is a specific instance of Question 6.2: The left vertical equality (up to normalization) here is [GG18], the right vertical equality is the following lemma together with the Gelfand-MacPherson isomorphism, the top horizontal equality is the Krashen question, and the bottom horizontal equality is a special instance of Question 6.2. Certainly the most natural projective completion to take for the space of full rank matrices is its Zariski closure in the space of all matrices, hence GL d /H = P Hom(k d−1 , k d ).…”
Section: The Borel Transfer Principle and The Chen-gibney-krashen Mod...mentioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Since this H-action extends to the standard GL d -action, we can apply Question 6.2 and ask whether this non-reductive Chow quotient is isomorphic to the reductive Chow quotient GL d /H × (P d−1 ) n−d+1 // GL d . The following lemma describes GL d /H and the induced group actions and implies that this reductive Chow quotient is precisely the one appearing in our generalized Gelfand-MacPherson correspondence, the right side of Equation (4), and hence as claimed that the Krashen question is a specific instance of Question 6.2: The left vertical equality (up to normalization) here is [GG18], the right vertical equality is the following lemma together with the Gelfand-MacPherson isomorphism, the top horizontal equality is the Krashen question, and the bottom horizontal equality is a special instance of Question 6.2. Certainly the most natural projective completion to take for the space of full rank matrices is its Zariski closure in the space of all matrices, hence GL d /H = P Hom(k d−1 , k d ).…”
Section: The Borel Transfer Principle and The Chen-gibney-krashen Mod...mentioning
confidence: 92%
“…On the other hand, the Chen-Gibney-Krashen moduli space T d−1,n−d+1 is a compactification of the same configuration space[CGK09], and Krashen's question is whether these are isomorphic. In[GG18] it is shown that T d−1,n−d+1 is isomorphic to the normalization of the Chow quotient (P d−1 ) n−d+1 // Ch H, whereH ∼ = G 2 m ⋊ G d−1 a…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…. , p n ) ∈ (P d ) n is automorphism-free (meaning that there is no non-trivial automorphism of P d fixing all the p i ), then p is strongly non degenerate (see also [GG18,Proposition 3.2]). Notice that the converse of this statement is false.…”
Section: The Veronese Compactification In Higher Dimensionsmentioning
confidence: 99%