Talk:Ample vector bundle

So, is this article talking about line bundles or vector bundles? --Ardonik 06:26, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

It's funny - nowhere in the article the notion of "ample vector bundle" is defined. I think it should be renamed to "ample line bundle", to avoid confusion. --Tiphareth 20:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a whole book about ample vector bundles by Hartshorne, so the more general concept exists. I don't have easy access to it; but more of an improvement to the article would be to add something, even if it is brief. Charles Matthews 19:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several notions of ampleness in fact. The one due to Hartshorne is the following: a bundle is ample if the relative O(1) line bundle on its projectivization is ample.

This notion is much more exotic than the usual ampleness for line bundles, which is pretty much the most common and important notion in algebraic geometry. I believe the ample vector bundles should be defined in a separate article. --Tiphareth 04:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

This article is called ample vector bundles but makes no mention of ample vector bundles except the statement that there is a theory about them.
I cannot make sense of the second sentence, neither mathematically nor gramatically, and I do speak English.
The following sentence in parenthesis does not make any meaningful statement.
In particular, it mentions some RHS without having an equation anywhere in the near.
There is a more general theory of ample vector bundles. is a great example of nonsensical blah.

In essence, I consider this is a great example of what Wikipedia should not be like. --129.132.146.66 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup[edit]

I cleaned up the article, because - as was pointed out - it was partly unreadable. Moreover, I moved it to ample line bundle, because ample vector bundles are not discussed (yet). Jakob.scholbach 20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]