Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have two sources, which claim that the category of perverse sheaves on $\mathbb C$ constructible with respect to the stratification $0$ and $\mathbb C^*$ is equivalent to the category of certain representations of a quiver. In both cases the quiver consists of two dots with one arrow $u,v$ in each direction between them.

The first source considers such representation such that both 1+uv and 1+vu are invertible.

The second source only wants 1+uv to be invertible.

Now I have to admit that I understand neither of the proofs completely so my question is which description is correct?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Suppose $1+uv$ is invertible, inverse $w$. Let your imagination run wild:

$1/(1+vu)= 1-vu+vuvu - vuvuvu + ... = 1 - v(1-uv + uvuv - ...)u = 1-vwu$

Now you can check $1-vwu$ really is inverse to $1+vu$.

There's a name for this trick; I have forgotten it but someone here will know.

share|cite|improve this answer
I don't know the name, but it's discussed @… – Grigory M Nov 29 '11 at 16:57
Wow thanks very much! – Jan Nov 29 '11 at 17:10
You're welcome, I've known that trick for years but never had a chance to use it. – m_t_ Nov 30 '11 at 10:17
Depending on who you ask, this is the Kaplansky trick, the Halmos trick, or the Jacobson trick. – user641 Jan 2 '12 at 23:14

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.