# Noncommutative geometry on the arXiv

Recall that I have written about the standard conjectures and noncommutative motives before. Now there is a follow-up article by Bernardara--Marcolli--Tabuada: Some remarks concerning Voevodsky's nilpotence conjecture. The conjecture is proved for some previously unknown cases (as far as I can tell, I'm not an expert on the motives literature, or any other literature) using the equivalent formulation in the world of noncommutative motives. In the situations they cover (which are based on quadrics) we have some known semi-orthogonal decompositions, and these allow them to prove the nilpotence conjecture.

Another interesting article is Orlov's Smooth and proper noncommutative schemes and gluing of DG categories. It's a really nice write-up of noncommutative geometry using dg categories (of which the previous paragraph was of course already a manifestation). I'm not sure how important, new or spectacular the result is, but I particularly like the last section, in which an "ad hoc" (or local) approach to noncommutative projective planes is embedded into these general noncommutative schemes.

The last article in this commercial break is Rizzardo--Van den Bergh's http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4506, which covers one of my favourite subjects: Fourier-Mukai transforms. The question they tackle is whether Orlov's representability result of fully faithful functors as Fourier-Mukai transforms still holds when you drop the fully faithfulness. It is shown that in a slightly different context (not beteen the bounded derived categories of coherent sheaves, but perfect complexes to the derived category of quasicoherent sheaves) the representability fails if one drops fully faithfulness. The most awesome thing about the proof is that it entails two totally different subresults:

- comparing scalar extensions of derived categories of Grothendieck categories depends on the Hochschild dimension (section 10)
- proving that this result on comparing scalar extensions cannot be improved by exhibiting a geometric counterexample (and now comes the amazing part) based on
*the moduli of vector bundles on curves*(sections 4 and 8)

In the ANAGRAMS seminar I'm planning to give a talk on moduli of vector bundles on curves. I had decided this before I saw this article, but this really gives me the motivation to fully understand this particular instance of geometric invariant theory.