For all those who are unlikely to have answers to my questions, I provide some


Background:
===========


In some sense, pure motives are generalisations of smooth projective varieties. Every [Weil cohomology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weil_cohomology_theory) theory factors through the embedding of smooth projective varieties into the category of [pure Chow motives](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_%28algebraic_geometry%29).


Pure effective motives
----------------------


In the definition of pure motives (say over a field k), the last step is to take the category of pure effective motives and formally invert the Lefschetz motive L.


The category of pure effective motives is the [pseudo-abelian envelope](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Karoubian+category) of a category of correspondence classes, which has as objects smooth projective varieties over k and as morphisms X → Y [cycle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_cycle) classes in X×Y of dimension dim X (think of it as a generalisation of morphisms, where morphisms are included as their graphs), where an [adequate equivalence relation](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/adequate+equivalence+relation) is imposed, to have a well-defined composition (therefore the word "classes"). When the adequate relation is rational equivalence, the resulting category is called the category of pure effective Chow motives.  

In each step of the construction, the monoidal structure of one step defines a monoidal structure on the next step.


For more background see Ilya's question about the [yoga of motives](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/2146/whats-the-yoga-of-motives).


Definition of the Lefschetz motive
----------------------------------


The Lefschetz motive L is defined as follows:


For each point p in P¹ (1-dimensional projective space over k), there is the embedding morphism Spec k → P¹, which can be composed with the structural morphism P¹ → Spec k to yield an endomorphism of P¹. This is an idempotent, since the other composition Spec k → Spec k is the identity.  

The category of effective pure motives is pseudo-abelian, so every idempotent has a kernel and thus [P¹] = [Spec k] + [something] =: 1+L, where the summand [something] is now named Lefschetz motive L.


Properties
----------


The definition of L doesn't depend on the choice of the point p.


[From nLab](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/pure+motive) and [Kahn's leçons](http://people.math.jussieu.fr/~kahn/preprints/lecons.pdf) I learned that the inversion of the Lefschetz motive is what makes the resulting monoidal category a [rigid monoidal category](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/rigid+monoidal+category) - while the category of pure effective motives is not necessarily rigid.


In the category of pure motives, the inverse $L^{-1}$ is called T, the Tate motive.


Questions:
==========


These questions are somehow related to each other:



> 
> 1. Why is this motive L called "Lefschetz"?
> 2. Why is its inverse $L^{-1}$ called "Tate"?
> 3. Why is it exactly this construction that "rigidifies" the category?
> 4. Would another construction work, too - or is this somehow universal?
> 5. How should I think of L geometrically?
> 
> 
> 


I have almost no background in number theory, so even if you have good answers, it may remain totally unclear to me, why the name "Tate" intervenes. I expect however, that the name "Lefschetz" has something to do with the Lefschetz trace formula. I guess that the procedure of inverting L is the only one which makes the category rigid, in some universal way, but I have no idea, why. In addition, I guess there is no "geometric" picture of L.


If I made any mistakes in the background section, feel free to edit. As I'm currently taking a first course on motives, I may now have asked something completely stupid. If this is the case, please point me politely to some document which will then enlighten me or, at least, let me ascend to a higher level of confusion.


**UPDATE:** Thanks so far for the answers, questions 1-4 are now clear to me. It remains, if the "rigidification" could be accomplished by another construction - maybe some universal way to turn a monoidal category into a rigid one? Then one could later identify the Lefschetz motive as some kind of a generator of the kernel of the rigidification functor.  

The geometric intuition, to think of L as a curve and of $L^{\otimes d}$ as a d-dimensional manifold, remains fuzzy, but I have the hope that this becomes clear when I have worked a little bit on the classical Lefschetz/Poincare theorems and the proof of Weil conjectures for Betti cohomology (is this hope justified?).



Understanding the definition of the Lefschetz (pure effective) motive
The motive $L$ is called Lefschetz because it is the cycle class of the point in ${\mathbb P}^1$, and so underlies (in a certain sense) the Lefschetz theorems about the cohomology of
projective varieties. To understand this better, you may want to read about how the hard Lefschetz theorem for varieties over finite fields follows from the Riemann hypothesis, as well as a discussion of Grothendieck's standard conjectures and how they relate to the Weil
conjectures.


The motvie $L^{-1}$, when converted into an $\ell$-adic Galois representation, is precisely the $\ell$-adic Tate module of the roots of unity. Tensoring by this Galois representation is traditionally called Tate twisting, and so the motive underlying this Galois representation is called the Tate motive.


One needs to have $L^{-1}$ at hand in order for the category to admit duals. 


If one were working with just usual singular cohomology, this wouldn't be necessary; Poincare duality would pair $H^i$ with $H^{\text{top}-i}$ into $H^{\text{top}}$, which would be
isomorphic with ${\mathbb Q}$ via the fundamental class.


But motivically, if $X$ (smooth, connected, projective) has dimension $d$, so that the top dimension is $2d$, then $H^{\text{top}} = L^{\otimes d}$, and so $H^i$ and $H^{2d-i}$ pair into
$L^{\otimes d}$. To get a pairing into $\mathbb Q$ (the trivial 1-dim'l motive) we need
to be able to tensor by powers of $L^{-1}$. Traditionally tensoring by the $n$th tensor power of $L^{-1}$ is denoted $(n)$; so we find e.g. that
$H^i$ pairs with $H^{2d -i}(d)$ into ${\mathbb Q}$, and we have our duality.


You can see from the fact that cup product pairs cohomology into powers of $L$ that inverting $L$ is precisely what is needed in order to obtain duals.


Finally, one should think of $L$ as the fundamental class of a curve,
think of $L^{\otimes d}$ as the fundamental class of a smooth projective $d$-dimensional
manifold, and also become comfortable with Poincare duality and the Lefschetz theorems;
these are the basic ideas which will help give solid geometric sense to motivic constructions.


