Hear top geometers! Edinburgh, December 6

Yujiro Kawamata (Tokyo) and Yum-Tong Siu (Harvard) will speak in Edinburgh on Monday, December 6th, at a meeting of the London Mathematical Society. Limited funds are available to contribute to the expenses of members of the LMS or research students to attend the meeting. Contact Isabelle Robinson <isabelle.robinson@lms.ac.uk> for information.

This should be an interesting afternoon. Kawamata will speak on the abundance conjecture, perhaps the main open problem in birational geometry. Siu, the second speaker, has strongly suggested that he can prove this conjecture by analytic techniques.

Schedule and location
15.00  Tea and coffee
15.30-16.20  Yujiro Kawamata, Survey of the Abundance Conjecture
16.30-17.20  Yum-Tong Siu, Recent and Historical Analytic Techniques for Algebro-geometric Problems
18.00  Wine reception

UPDATE: I believe these talks are now taking place at the ICMS, 15 South College Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AA. Directions: here.

This LMS meeting is part of the first day of a conference on Birational Geometry organized by Caucher Birkar and Ivan Cheltsov, taking place 6-10 December at the Institute of Geography, Drummond Street, Edinburgh EH8 9XP (Google map: here). See details for the entire conference: here.



Filed under LMS, travel

2 responses to “Hear top geometers! Edinburgh, December 6

  1. Artie Prendergast-Smith

    Dear Burt,

    The natural order of conjectures in birational geometry seems to be the minimal model conjecture first, abundance second. Could you explain why abundance is nevertheless regarded as a more important problem than the minimal model conjecture?

    Best wishes,

    • Burt Totaro

      Well, it’s only a blog, so I’ll take “why abundance is … regarded” as meaning “why you regard abundance….” To justify what I said, note that the “classification of surfaces” on which MMP is modeled crucially involves abundance. For example, a key fact is that a (minimal) surface with Kodaira dimension 1 is an elliptic surface; if we didn’t know that, we could hardly say that we understood surfaces of Kodaira dimension 1.

      There are a few more justifications. Historically, abundance has been a harder problem than existence of minimal models. For example, we know existence of minimal models in dimension 4, but not abundance. Finally, Caucher Birkar showed that even weak versions of abundance imply the existence of minimal models (see “On existence of log minimal models II”, for example).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s