scholarly journals Formal geometry for noncommutative manifolds

2015 ◽  
Vol 434 ◽  
pp. 261-282
Author(s):  
Hendrik Orem
2018 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Bojowald ◽  
Suddhasattwa Brahma ◽  
Umut Buyukcam ◽  
Michele Ronco

1975 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-72
Author(s):  
Nancy C. Whitman

The current interest in chess playing in this country prompts me to share a very effective technique I have used in introducing the study of formal geometry. Basically, it uses the chess game as an “advance organizer” of Euclidean geometry viewed as a deductive system. Of course, this is but one of several possible views of Euclidean geometry. For example, another view is that geometry is an abstraction of man's physical environment.


2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 1053-1080 ◽  
Author(s):  
PALTIN IONESCU ◽  
DANIEL NAIE

Let X be a complex, rationally connected, projective manifold. We show that X admits a modification [Formula: see text] that contains a quasi-line, i.e. a smooth rational curve whose normal bundle is a direct sum of copies of [Formula: see text]. For manifolds containing quasi-lines, a sufficient condition of rationality is exploited: there is a unique quasi-line from a given family passing through two general points. We define a numerical birational invariant, e(X), and prove that X is rational if and only if e(X)=1. If X is rational, there is a modification [Formula: see text] which is strongly-rational, i.e. contains an open subset isomorphic to an open subset of the projective space whose complement is at least 2-codimensional. We prove that strongly-rational varieties are stable under smooth, small deformations. The argument is based on a convenient characterization of these varieties. Finally, we relate the previous results and formal geometry. This relies on ẽ(X, Y), a numerical invariant of a given quasi-line Y that depends only on the formal completion [Formula: see text]. As applications we show various instances in which X is determined by [Formula: see text]. We also formulate a basic question about the birational invariance of ẽ(X, Y).


2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Koenderink ◽  
Andrea van Doorn ◽  
Baingio Pinna ◽  
Robert Pepperell

Are pictorial renderings that deviate from linear perspective necessarily ‘wrong’? Are those in perfect linear perspective necessarily ‘right’? Are wrong depictions in some sense ‘impossible’? Linear perspective is the art of the peep show, making sense only from one fixed position, whereas typical art works are constructed and used more like panel presentations, that leave the vantage point free. In the latter case the viewpoint is free; moreover, a change of viewpoint has only a minor effect on pictorial experience. This phenomenologically important difference can be made explicit and formal, by considering the effects of panning eye movements when perusing scenes, and of changes of viewpoint induced by translations with respect to pictorial surfaces. We present examples from formal geometry, photography, and the visual arts.


2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 1129-1193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Brain ◽  
Giovanni Landi ◽  
Walter D. van Suijlekom

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document