?? concerning recent (?...) idea of "underlying module of ideal as embodying blow-up concept", i mentioned how i wasn't sure to fit it with the idea of "forcing ideal to become invertible as module" ... ??? ... ??? but now it seems to me that it sort of ftis in some ways ... ??? ???ideal as "lumpy" (at corresponding subvariety ...), and smoothing out the lumpiness as corresponding to blowing-up the base-space to compensate ... ??? ... ?? ....

??this as suggesting ... ?? that to some extent this (...) idea makes sense in connection with ... ?? forcing arbitrary module to become invertible?? .... ???? "symmetric algebra of module" ??? ....

?? possibility that that's about as far as that goes without "anchor map" ??... ??rest of story ... "scaling deformation" ... ??? as maybe relying on that ?? ... ??? .... ??? ...

(??? vague feeling here about ... ???bit about "forcing ring r to become local doesn't really work but forcing topos in which it lives to become such that r is local does" ... ?? "forcing module to become invertible" as really forcing its ring to do something ... ??? ..... ??? ....)