Embeddings of flag manifoldsMinimal Embedding for flags varietiesDo symmetric spaces admit isometric embeddings as intersections of quadrics?Riemannian metric on a flag varietyEquivariant Almost Complex Structures on the Full Flag ManifoldsIs there a complex surface into which every Riemann surface embeds?Is there an algebraic way to characterise the ordinary integral flags?When is the determinant an $8$-th power?Topological Invariance of Chow VarietiesDegree of the projection of a projective varietyThe isometry groups of flag manifoldsDegree of Varieties and Segre's Embedding
Embeddings of flag manifolds
Minimal Embedding for flags varietiesDo symmetric spaces admit isometric embeddings as intersections of quadrics?Riemannian metric on a flag varietyEquivariant Almost Complex Structures on the Full Flag ManifoldsIs there a complex surface into which every Riemann surface embeds?Is there an algebraic way to characterise the ordinary integral flags?When is the determinant an $8$-th power?Topological Invariance of Chow VarietiesDegree of the projection of a projective varietyThe isometry groups of flag manifoldsDegree of Varieties and Segre's Embedding
$begingroup$
Consider the flag manifold $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)$ parametrizing flags of type $F^a_1subseteqdotssubseteq F^a_ksubseteq V$ in a vector spaces $V$ of dimension $n+1$, where $F^a_i$ is a sub-vector space of dimension $a_i$.
Then $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)$ embeds in the product of Grassmannians $G(a_1,V)timesdotstimes G(a_k,V)$ which in turn embeds in $mathbbP^N_1timesdotstimesmathbbP^N_k$ via the product of the Plücker embeddings. Now we can embed $mathbbP^N_1timesdotstimesmathbbP^N_k$ in a projective space $mathbbP^N$ via the Segre embedding.
Finally, we get an embedding $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)hookrightarrowmathbbP^N$. Is this embedding the minimal rational homogeneous embedding of $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)$?
ag.algebraic-geometry projective-geometry homogeneous-spaces flag-varieties embeddings
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider the flag manifold $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)$ parametrizing flags of type $F^a_1subseteqdotssubseteq F^a_ksubseteq V$ in a vector spaces $V$ of dimension $n+1$, where $F^a_i$ is a sub-vector space of dimension $a_i$.
Then $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)$ embeds in the product of Grassmannians $G(a_1,V)timesdotstimes G(a_k,V)$ which in turn embeds in $mathbbP^N_1timesdotstimesmathbbP^N_k$ via the product of the Plücker embeddings. Now we can embed $mathbbP^N_1timesdotstimesmathbbP^N_k$ in a projective space $mathbbP^N$ via the Segre embedding.
Finally, we get an embedding $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)hookrightarrowmathbbP^N$. Is this embedding the minimal rational homogeneous embedding of $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)$?
ag.algebraic-geometry projective-geometry homogeneous-spaces flag-varieties embeddings
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
What @VictorPetrov writes is completely correct. I just want to clarify one point. When you write "minimal", do you mean that the dimension of the projective space is minimal, or do you mean that the ample cone is the translate of the nef cone by the divisor class of this embedding (the embedding is the "vertex" of the ample cone)?
$endgroup$
– Jason Starr
Mar 17 at 11:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider the flag manifold $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)$ parametrizing flags of type $F^a_1subseteqdotssubseteq F^a_ksubseteq V$ in a vector spaces $V$ of dimension $n+1$, where $F^a_i$ is a sub-vector space of dimension $a_i$.
Then $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)$ embeds in the product of Grassmannians $G(a_1,V)timesdotstimes G(a_k,V)$ which in turn embeds in $mathbbP^N_1timesdotstimesmathbbP^N_k$ via the product of the Plücker embeddings. Now we can embed $mathbbP^N_1timesdotstimesmathbbP^N_k$ in a projective space $mathbbP^N$ via the Segre embedding.
Finally, we get an embedding $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)hookrightarrowmathbbP^N$. Is this embedding the minimal rational homogeneous embedding of $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)$?
ag.algebraic-geometry projective-geometry homogeneous-spaces flag-varieties embeddings
$endgroup$
Consider the flag manifold $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)$ parametrizing flags of type $F^a_1subseteqdotssubseteq F^a_ksubseteq V$ in a vector spaces $V$ of dimension $n+1$, where $F^a_i$ is a sub-vector space of dimension $a_i$.
Then $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)$ embeds in the product of Grassmannians $G(a_1,V)timesdotstimes G(a_k,V)$ which in turn embeds in $mathbbP^N_1timesdotstimesmathbbP^N_k$ via the product of the Plücker embeddings. Now we can embed $mathbbP^N_1timesdotstimesmathbbP^N_k$ in a projective space $mathbbP^N$ via the Segre embedding.
Finally, we get an embedding $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)hookrightarrowmathbbP^N$. Is this embedding the minimal rational homogeneous embedding of $mathbbF(a_1,dots,a_k)$?
ag.algebraic-geometry projective-geometry homogeneous-spaces flag-varieties embeddings
ag.algebraic-geometry projective-geometry homogeneous-spaces flag-varieties embeddings
edited Mar 17 at 14:56
Michael Albanese
7,86655393
7,86655393
asked Mar 17 at 9:35
gxggxg
1538
1538
2
$begingroup$
What @VictorPetrov writes is completely correct. I just want to clarify one point. When you write "minimal", do you mean that the dimension of the projective space is minimal, or do you mean that the ample cone is the translate of the nef cone by the divisor class of this embedding (the embedding is the "vertex" of the ample cone)?
$endgroup$
– Jason Starr
Mar 17 at 11:07
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
What @VictorPetrov writes is completely correct. I just want to clarify one point. When you write "minimal", do you mean that the dimension of the projective space is minimal, or do you mean that the ample cone is the translate of the nef cone by the divisor class of this embedding (the embedding is the "vertex" of the ample cone)?
$endgroup$
– Jason Starr
Mar 17 at 11:07
2
2
$begingroup$
What @VictorPetrov writes is completely correct. I just want to clarify one point. When you write "minimal", do you mean that the dimension of the projective space is minimal, or do you mean that the ample cone is the translate of the nef cone by the divisor class of this embedding (the embedding is the "vertex" of the ample cone)?
$endgroup$
– Jason Starr
Mar 17 at 11:07
$begingroup$
What @VictorPetrov writes is completely correct. I just want to clarify one point. When you write "minimal", do you mean that the dimension of the projective space is minimal, or do you mean that the ample cone is the translate of the nef cone by the divisor class of this embedding (the embedding is the "vertex" of the ample cone)?
$endgroup$
– Jason Starr
Mar 17 at 11:07
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In general there is a more efficient way: $a_1,ldots,a_k$ determines a Young diagram, and you can realize the flag variety as the stabilizer of a point in the unique closed orbit of $mathbb P(U)$, where $U$ is the representation of $GL(V)$ corresponding to this diagram. Its dimension is given by the "hook formula".
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Am I missing something or should the words "the stabilizer of a point in" be omitted? The flag variety will be the orbit itself while the stabilizer of a point will be the parabolic subgroup.
$endgroup$
– imakhlin
Mar 20 at 1:34
$begingroup$
You are right, I have had in mind the respective parabolic subgroup. The variety itself is just the closed orbit.
$endgroup$
– Victor Petrov
Mar 20 at 6:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Victor Petrov essentially answered your question showing that this projective embedding is, in general, not minimal. I'll just try to explain why this other embedding is, in fact, minimal by dimension. (I'm assuming everything is complex.)
First, the embedding. Let $n$ and $a_1,ldots,a_k$ be as in your question, $F=mathbb F(a_1,ldots,a_k)$ and $G=SL_n+1$. Consider the dominant $G$-weight $lambda=omega_a_1+ldots+omega_a_k$ where the $omega_i$ are the fundamental weights. Let $L_lambda$ be the corresponding irreducible representation with highest weight vector $v_lambda$. (Your $F$ is $G/P$ where $P$ is the parabolic subgroup preserving the line $mathbb Cv_lambda$.) Consider the projectivization $mathbb P(L_lambda)$ and the point $mathrm v_lambda$ therein corresponding to the line $mathbb Cv_lambda$. Then, $F$ can be realized as the (closed) orbit $Gmathrm v_lambdasubset mathbb P(L_lambda)$.
Now, the minimality. Suppose we have a minimal projective embedding $iota:Fhookrightarrowmathbb P(U)$. Consider the pullback $mathcal L=iota^*(mathcal O_mathbb P(U)(1))$. The minimality implies that $Gamma(F,mathcal L)=U^*$. However, every line bundle on $F$ is $G$-equivariant (see Theorem 1 in http://www.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/papers/bwb.pdf) and every equivariant line bundle with global sections on $F$ is $mathcal L_mu$ for some $mu$ which is a $mathbb Z_>0$-linear combination of the $omega_a_i$ (by Borel-Weil-Bott, again, see Lurie's text). So $mathcal L=mathcal L_mu$ for some $mu$ but $Gamma(F,mathcal L_mu)=L_mu^*$ and $dim L_mugedim L_lambda$, i.e. $dim Uge dim L_lambda$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f325605%2fembeddings-of-flag-manifolds%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In general there is a more efficient way: $a_1,ldots,a_k$ determines a Young diagram, and you can realize the flag variety as the stabilizer of a point in the unique closed orbit of $mathbb P(U)$, where $U$ is the representation of $GL(V)$ corresponding to this diagram. Its dimension is given by the "hook formula".
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Am I missing something or should the words "the stabilizer of a point in" be omitted? The flag variety will be the orbit itself while the stabilizer of a point will be the parabolic subgroup.
$endgroup$
– imakhlin
Mar 20 at 1:34
$begingroup$
You are right, I have had in mind the respective parabolic subgroup. The variety itself is just the closed orbit.
$endgroup$
– Victor Petrov
Mar 20 at 6:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general there is a more efficient way: $a_1,ldots,a_k$ determines a Young diagram, and you can realize the flag variety as the stabilizer of a point in the unique closed orbit of $mathbb P(U)$, where $U$ is the representation of $GL(V)$ corresponding to this diagram. Its dimension is given by the "hook formula".
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Am I missing something or should the words "the stabilizer of a point in" be omitted? The flag variety will be the orbit itself while the stabilizer of a point will be the parabolic subgroup.
$endgroup$
– imakhlin
Mar 20 at 1:34
$begingroup$
You are right, I have had in mind the respective parabolic subgroup. The variety itself is just the closed orbit.
$endgroup$
– Victor Petrov
Mar 20 at 6:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In general there is a more efficient way: $a_1,ldots,a_k$ determines a Young diagram, and you can realize the flag variety as the stabilizer of a point in the unique closed orbit of $mathbb P(U)$, where $U$ is the representation of $GL(V)$ corresponding to this diagram. Its dimension is given by the "hook formula".
$endgroup$
In general there is a more efficient way: $a_1,ldots,a_k$ determines a Young diagram, and you can realize the flag variety as the stabilizer of a point in the unique closed orbit of $mathbb P(U)$, where $U$ is the representation of $GL(V)$ corresponding to this diagram. Its dimension is given by the "hook formula".
answered Mar 17 at 10:08
Victor PetrovVictor Petrov
1,24968
1,24968
$begingroup$
Am I missing something or should the words "the stabilizer of a point in" be omitted? The flag variety will be the orbit itself while the stabilizer of a point will be the parabolic subgroup.
$endgroup$
– imakhlin
Mar 20 at 1:34
$begingroup$
You are right, I have had in mind the respective parabolic subgroup. The variety itself is just the closed orbit.
$endgroup$
– Victor Petrov
Mar 20 at 6:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Am I missing something or should the words "the stabilizer of a point in" be omitted? The flag variety will be the orbit itself while the stabilizer of a point will be the parabolic subgroup.
$endgroup$
– imakhlin
Mar 20 at 1:34
$begingroup$
You are right, I have had in mind the respective parabolic subgroup. The variety itself is just the closed orbit.
$endgroup$
– Victor Petrov
Mar 20 at 6:48
$begingroup$
Am I missing something or should the words "the stabilizer of a point in" be omitted? The flag variety will be the orbit itself while the stabilizer of a point will be the parabolic subgroup.
$endgroup$
– imakhlin
Mar 20 at 1:34
$begingroup$
Am I missing something or should the words "the stabilizer of a point in" be omitted? The flag variety will be the orbit itself while the stabilizer of a point will be the parabolic subgroup.
$endgroup$
– imakhlin
Mar 20 at 1:34
$begingroup$
You are right, I have had in mind the respective parabolic subgroup. The variety itself is just the closed orbit.
$endgroup$
– Victor Petrov
Mar 20 at 6:48
$begingroup$
You are right, I have had in mind the respective parabolic subgroup. The variety itself is just the closed orbit.
$endgroup$
– Victor Petrov
Mar 20 at 6:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Victor Petrov essentially answered your question showing that this projective embedding is, in general, not minimal. I'll just try to explain why this other embedding is, in fact, minimal by dimension. (I'm assuming everything is complex.)
First, the embedding. Let $n$ and $a_1,ldots,a_k$ be as in your question, $F=mathbb F(a_1,ldots,a_k)$ and $G=SL_n+1$. Consider the dominant $G$-weight $lambda=omega_a_1+ldots+omega_a_k$ where the $omega_i$ are the fundamental weights. Let $L_lambda$ be the corresponding irreducible representation with highest weight vector $v_lambda$. (Your $F$ is $G/P$ where $P$ is the parabolic subgroup preserving the line $mathbb Cv_lambda$.) Consider the projectivization $mathbb P(L_lambda)$ and the point $mathrm v_lambda$ therein corresponding to the line $mathbb Cv_lambda$. Then, $F$ can be realized as the (closed) orbit $Gmathrm v_lambdasubset mathbb P(L_lambda)$.
Now, the minimality. Suppose we have a minimal projective embedding $iota:Fhookrightarrowmathbb P(U)$. Consider the pullback $mathcal L=iota^*(mathcal O_mathbb P(U)(1))$. The minimality implies that $Gamma(F,mathcal L)=U^*$. However, every line bundle on $F$ is $G$-equivariant (see Theorem 1 in http://www.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/papers/bwb.pdf) and every equivariant line bundle with global sections on $F$ is $mathcal L_mu$ for some $mu$ which is a $mathbb Z_>0$-linear combination of the $omega_a_i$ (by Borel-Weil-Bott, again, see Lurie's text). So $mathcal L=mathcal L_mu$ for some $mu$ but $Gamma(F,mathcal L_mu)=L_mu^*$ and $dim L_mugedim L_lambda$, i.e. $dim Uge dim L_lambda$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Victor Petrov essentially answered your question showing that this projective embedding is, in general, not minimal. I'll just try to explain why this other embedding is, in fact, minimal by dimension. (I'm assuming everything is complex.)
First, the embedding. Let $n$ and $a_1,ldots,a_k$ be as in your question, $F=mathbb F(a_1,ldots,a_k)$ and $G=SL_n+1$. Consider the dominant $G$-weight $lambda=omega_a_1+ldots+omega_a_k$ where the $omega_i$ are the fundamental weights. Let $L_lambda$ be the corresponding irreducible representation with highest weight vector $v_lambda$. (Your $F$ is $G/P$ where $P$ is the parabolic subgroup preserving the line $mathbb Cv_lambda$.) Consider the projectivization $mathbb P(L_lambda)$ and the point $mathrm v_lambda$ therein corresponding to the line $mathbb Cv_lambda$. Then, $F$ can be realized as the (closed) orbit $Gmathrm v_lambdasubset mathbb P(L_lambda)$.
Now, the minimality. Suppose we have a minimal projective embedding $iota:Fhookrightarrowmathbb P(U)$. Consider the pullback $mathcal L=iota^*(mathcal O_mathbb P(U)(1))$. The minimality implies that $Gamma(F,mathcal L)=U^*$. However, every line bundle on $F$ is $G$-equivariant (see Theorem 1 in http://www.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/papers/bwb.pdf) and every equivariant line bundle with global sections on $F$ is $mathcal L_mu$ for some $mu$ which is a $mathbb Z_>0$-linear combination of the $omega_a_i$ (by Borel-Weil-Bott, again, see Lurie's text). So $mathcal L=mathcal L_mu$ for some $mu$ but $Gamma(F,mathcal L_mu)=L_mu^*$ and $dim L_mugedim L_lambda$, i.e. $dim Uge dim L_lambda$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Victor Petrov essentially answered your question showing that this projective embedding is, in general, not minimal. I'll just try to explain why this other embedding is, in fact, minimal by dimension. (I'm assuming everything is complex.)
First, the embedding. Let $n$ and $a_1,ldots,a_k$ be as in your question, $F=mathbb F(a_1,ldots,a_k)$ and $G=SL_n+1$. Consider the dominant $G$-weight $lambda=omega_a_1+ldots+omega_a_k$ where the $omega_i$ are the fundamental weights. Let $L_lambda$ be the corresponding irreducible representation with highest weight vector $v_lambda$. (Your $F$ is $G/P$ where $P$ is the parabolic subgroup preserving the line $mathbb Cv_lambda$.) Consider the projectivization $mathbb P(L_lambda)$ and the point $mathrm v_lambda$ therein corresponding to the line $mathbb Cv_lambda$. Then, $F$ can be realized as the (closed) orbit $Gmathrm v_lambdasubset mathbb P(L_lambda)$.
Now, the minimality. Suppose we have a minimal projective embedding $iota:Fhookrightarrowmathbb P(U)$. Consider the pullback $mathcal L=iota^*(mathcal O_mathbb P(U)(1))$. The minimality implies that $Gamma(F,mathcal L)=U^*$. However, every line bundle on $F$ is $G$-equivariant (see Theorem 1 in http://www.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/papers/bwb.pdf) and every equivariant line bundle with global sections on $F$ is $mathcal L_mu$ for some $mu$ which is a $mathbb Z_>0$-linear combination of the $omega_a_i$ (by Borel-Weil-Bott, again, see Lurie's text). So $mathcal L=mathcal L_mu$ for some $mu$ but $Gamma(F,mathcal L_mu)=L_mu^*$ and $dim L_mugedim L_lambda$, i.e. $dim Uge dim L_lambda$.
$endgroup$
Victor Petrov essentially answered your question showing that this projective embedding is, in general, not minimal. I'll just try to explain why this other embedding is, in fact, minimal by dimension. (I'm assuming everything is complex.)
First, the embedding. Let $n$ and $a_1,ldots,a_k$ be as in your question, $F=mathbb F(a_1,ldots,a_k)$ and $G=SL_n+1$. Consider the dominant $G$-weight $lambda=omega_a_1+ldots+omega_a_k$ where the $omega_i$ are the fundamental weights. Let $L_lambda$ be the corresponding irreducible representation with highest weight vector $v_lambda$. (Your $F$ is $G/P$ where $P$ is the parabolic subgroup preserving the line $mathbb Cv_lambda$.) Consider the projectivization $mathbb P(L_lambda)$ and the point $mathrm v_lambda$ therein corresponding to the line $mathbb Cv_lambda$. Then, $F$ can be realized as the (closed) orbit $Gmathrm v_lambdasubset mathbb P(L_lambda)$.
Now, the minimality. Suppose we have a minimal projective embedding $iota:Fhookrightarrowmathbb P(U)$. Consider the pullback $mathcal L=iota^*(mathcal O_mathbb P(U)(1))$. The minimality implies that $Gamma(F,mathcal L)=U^*$. However, every line bundle on $F$ is $G$-equivariant (see Theorem 1 in http://www.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/papers/bwb.pdf) and every equivariant line bundle with global sections on $F$ is $mathcal L_mu$ for some $mu$ which is a $mathbb Z_>0$-linear combination of the $omega_a_i$ (by Borel-Weil-Bott, again, see Lurie's text). So $mathcal L=mathcal L_mu$ for some $mu$ but $Gamma(F,mathcal L_mu)=L_mu^*$ and $dim L_mugedim L_lambda$, i.e. $dim Uge dim L_lambda$.
edited Mar 21 at 14:14
answered Mar 20 at 1:23
imakhlinimakhlin
1,24311020
1,24311020
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f325605%2fembeddings-of-flag-manifolds%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
What @VictorPetrov writes is completely correct. I just want to clarify one point. When you write "minimal", do you mean that the dimension of the projective space is minimal, or do you mean that the ample cone is the translate of the nef cone by the divisor class of this embedding (the embedding is the "vertex" of the ample cone)?
$endgroup$
– Jason Starr
Mar 17 at 11:07