Definition of The Chow Ring
It is part of the definition of rational equivalence that it only holds between subvarieties of equal dimension. For the purposes of constructing the Chow ring, we are interested in the codimension of the subvariety (that is, the difference between its dimension and that of X) since it makes the product work properly, so we define the groups Ak(X), for integers k satisfying, to be the abelian group of formal sums of subvarieties of X of codimension k modulo rational equivalence. The Chow ring itself is the direct sum of these, namely,
The ring structure is given by intersection of varieties: that is, if we have two classes in Ak(X) and Al(X) respectively, we define their product to be
This definition has a number of technicalities that will be discussed below; here it suffices to say that in the best case, which can be shown always to hold up to rational equivalence, this intersection has codimension k + l, hence lies in Ak + l(X). This makes the Chow ring into a graded ring. As a matter of notation, an element of the Chow ring is often called a "cycle".
Read more about this topic: Chow Ring
Famous quotes containing the words definition of the, definition of, definition and/or ring:
“The very definition of the real becomes: that of which it is possible to give an equivalent reproduction.... The real is not only what can be reproduced, but that which is always already reproduced. The hyperreal.”
—Jean Baudrillard (b. 1929)
“Perhaps the best definition of progress would be the continuing efforts of men and women to narrow the gap between the convenience of the powers that be and the unwritten charter.”
—Nadine Gordimer (b. 1923)
“No man, not even a doctor, ever gives any other definition of what a nurse should be than this—”devoted and obedient.” This definition would do just as well for a porter. It might even do for a horse. It would not do for a policeman.”
—Florence Nightingale (1820–1910)
“Generally, about all perception, we can say that a sense is what has the power of receiving into itself the sensible forms of things without the matter, in the way in which a piece of wax takes on the impress of a signet ring without the iron or gold.”
—Aristotle (384–323 B.C.)