# Talk:Picard group

WikiProject Mathematics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
 C Class
 High Importance
Field:  Geometry

## Alternate definition/Disambiguation

I'm staring at an alternate definition of the Picard group as PSL(2,Z[i]), with Z[i] the gaussian integers. I can't tell at all if this is somehow related to the Picard group defined in this article. Any clue? Problem I'm dealing with is a link I just added from Fuchsian group to here. linas 01:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, yours is the "Picard modular group", which is a discrete group of isometries of the open unit ball in C^2. Same Picard, but no direct relationship between the two groups. P.L. Clark

## Picard group of non-separated scheme

The remark about the Picard group of the affine line with double point has been there since the beginning of the page (2005). Can anyone verify this? I assume you have to use some lemma on the effect of removing a point on cohomology...or perhaps there's a reference? Expz (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

## Holy Jargon, Batman!

I'm adding a dated jargon tag because, as someone who has an associate's level understanding of math and hobbyist understanding of astronomical and relativistic concepts, I can't make head or tail of what's in this article.

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "Avoid introducing too many new words for the purpose of "teaching the reader some new words" that are specialized to a field, when more common alternatives will do. Also, wikilinking as a mechanism for explanation (rather than a parenthetical in the article) is poor form, especially if done repeatedly." Naptastic (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Advanced math is beyond the grasp of people without sufficient background; there is no cure for this. Things are defined in terms of other things, which are defined in terms of other things, and so on down; an associate's degree isn't going to get you near this. This is true for every post-graduate mathematical topic, and why doctorates in math take so long. I don't intend this as an insult, but just a true statement. I'm removing the tag.Rodya mirov (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)