1990
DOI: 10.1007/bf02097104
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The $$\bar \partial $$ -operator on algebraic curves

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…as k → ∞. Finally let e −t∆ F ∂ : L 2 (reg(X), h) → L 2 (reg(X), h) (12) be the heat operator associated to (9). Then (12) is a trace class operator and its trace satisfies the following estimates e −at Tr(e −tb∆ F ∂ ) ≤ Tr(e −t∆ F ) ≤ Tr(e −t∆ F ∂ ) (13) and, for each 0 < t ≤ 1, Tr(e −t∆ F ∂ ) ≤ r vol h (reg(X))t −v (14) where r is some positive constant.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…as k → ∞. Finally let e −t∆ F ∂ : L 2 (reg(X), h) → L 2 (reg(X), h) (12) be the heat operator associated to (9). Then (12) is a trace class operator and its trace satisfies the following estimates e −at Tr(e −tb∆ F ∂ ) ≤ Tr(e −t∆ F ) ≤ Tr(e −t∆ F ∂ ) (13) and, for each 0 < t ≤ 1, Tr(e −t∆ F ∂ ) ≤ r vol h (reg(X))t −v (14) where r is some positive constant.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that from the point of view of the analytic proof the contribution of the singular points of X to the Morse inequalities is caused by the fact that dom(∆ 1 ) = dom(∆ t,1 ) and thus is related to the small eigenvalues of the "transversal Laplacian" (i.e., the Laplacian on the link of the singularity). Recall that the small eigenvalues of the transversal Laplacian play an important role for L 2 -methods in the presence of singularities, namely for the lack of essential selfadjointness of ∆ |Ω0 and in the study of index theorems for regular singular operators (see [9] for the general case and [19], [8] for the case of a singular algebraic curve).…”
Section: Annales De L'institut Fouriermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case, Theorem 1.1 is much easier to prove. Questions of analysis have been treated in great detail by Nagase [27], Brüning and Lesch [11], [10] and Brüning, Peyerimhoff, and Schröder [12].…”
Section: Theorem 14 (Gauss-bonnet Theoremmentioning
confidence: 99%