Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Borel subgroups of the automorphism groups of affine toric surfaces

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For each affine toric surface $X_{d,e}$, the automorphism group has one or two conjugacy classes of Borel subgroups, according as $e^2 \equiv 1 \pmod d$.

desk verdict A clean arithmetic dichotomy for Borel subgroups of Aut(X_{d,e}), presented with a couple of fixable gaps in the written proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09679 v1 pith:QCGAHUHA submitted 2025-07-13 math.AG

Ivan Arzhantsev , Mikhail Zaidenberg This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AG MSC 14J5020E0814M2514R10
keywords affinetoricsurfaceautomorphismgroupBass–SerretreeBorelsubgroupmaximalsolvablecyclicquotienttriangularamalgam
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper classifies the Borel subgroups—the maximal connected solvable subgroups—of the automorphism groups of the cyclic quotients $X_{d,e}$ of the affine plane, where the group of $d$-th roots of unity acts by $(x,y) \mapsto (\zeta^e x, \zeta y)$. The answer is a clean dichotomy: if $e^2 \equiv 1 \pmod d$, all Borel subgroups are conjugate to a single triangular subgroup; if $e^2 \not\equiv 1 \pmod d$, there are exactly two conjugacy classes, represented by the two triangular factors of an amalgam decomposition. In both cases every connected solvable subgroup is conjugate into one of these triangular subgroups, and every Borel subgroup is maximal among all solvable subgroups, not just connected ones. The proof imports the known amalgam structure of $\operatorname{Aut}(X_{d,e})$ and analyzes it through Bass–Serre trees, showing that connected solvable subgroups can only live in the amalgam factors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Bass–Serre tree $T_{d,e}$ of the amalgam decomposition $\operatorname{Aut}(X_{d,e}) \cong N_{d,e}/G_{d,e} = A \,*_C\, B$ supplied by the authors' earlier theorem. A group acting on a tree is called torsionally unbounded when every element with unbounded fixed subtree is a torsion element; the paper proves $N_{d,e}$ and $\operatorname{Aut}(X_{d,e})$ have this property. For such groups, Theorem 5.8 and Corollary 5.9 force every connected solvable subgroup to be elliptic—conjugate into one of the factors—so Borel subgroups must be conjugate to Borel subgroups of $N^+_{d,e}$ or $N^-_{d,e}$. The decisive local calculation is Lemma 7.12: when $e^2 \not\equiv 1 \pmod d$, any element fixing a geodesic segment of length 3 in $T_{d,e}$ is conjugate to a diagonal matrix with primitive root eigenvalues, hence is torsion.

What would settle it

Take $d=5$, $e=2$, so that $e^2 \not\equiv 1 \pmod 5$. If one could exhibit an element of $\operatorname{Aut}(X_{5,2})$ of infinite order whose fixed subtree in the Bass–Serre tree contains a geodesic segment of length 3, Lemma 7.12 and the uniqueness of the two Borel classes would fail; conversely, finding a connected solvable subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(X_{5,2})$ not conjugate into either $N^+_{5,2}/G_{5,2}$ or $N^-_{5,2}/G_{5,2}$ would contradict Theorem 7.10(b).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' terms, the central discovery is Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 7.10: for the affine toric surface $X_{d,e}=\mathbb{A}^2/G_{d,e}$, the group $\operatorname{Aut}(X_{d,e})$ has a unique conjugacy class of Borel subgroups when $e^2 \equiv 1 \pmod d$, represented by $N^+_{d,e}/G_{d,e}$ (equivalently $N^-_{d,e}/G_{d,e}$, since the twist conjugates them), and exactly two conjugacy classes when $e^2 \not\equiv 1 \pmod d$, represented by the two factors $N^+_{d,e}/G_{d,e}$ and $N^-_{d,e}/G_{d,e}$ of the amalgam $\operatorname{Aut}(X_{d,e}) = N^+_{d,e}/G_{d,e} \,*_{T/G_{d,e}}\, N^-_{d,e}/G_{d,e}$. Every solvable connected subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(X_{d,e})$ is conjugate into one of these triangular subgroups, and every Borel subgroup is maximal among the solvable subgroups. Theorem 1.2 adds that, outside the abelian exceptions, a maximal solvable subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(X_{d,e})$ is a Borel subgroup exactly when it contains no proper subgroup of finite index.

Load-bearing premise

The entire classification depends on the amalgam decomposition $\operatorname{Aut}(X_{d,e}) \cong N_{d,e}/G_{d,e}$ imported from the authors' previous paper—and, in one step, on applying Serre's bounded-length theorem to algebraic subgroups without an explicit bounded-length proof—so if that decomposition were false, the Bass–Serre tree arguments would no longer apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $X_{d,e}$, the automorphism group has one or two conjugacy classes of Borel subgroups according as $e^2 \equiv 1 \pmod d$ or not.
  • Every connected solvable subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}(X_{d,e})$ is triangulable: it is conjugate into one of the triangular factors, an analogue of the classical Borel and Lie–Kolchin theorems for these infinite-dimensional groups.
  • Borel subgroups of $\operatorname{Aut}(X_{d,e})$ are maximal among all solvable subgroups, not merely among connected solvable ones, and each coincides with its normalizer.
  • A non-abelian maximal solvable subgroup is a Borel subgroup precisely when it has no proper subgroup of finite index.
  • Every abstract group automorphism of $\operatorname{Aut}(X_{d,e})$ preserves the set of Borel subgroups.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Across all normal affine toric surfaces, the number of conjugacy classes of Borel subgroups is always 1 or 2: the remaining cases $\mathbb{A}^2$, $(\mathbb{A}^1_*)^2$, and $\mathbb{A}^1 \times \mathbb{A}^1_*$ each have a single Borel subgroup, so the dichotomy for $X_{d,e}$ completes a full census.
  • The torsionally-unbounded criterion suggests a reusable mechanism: any automorphism group admitting an amalgam decomposition in which elliptic non-torsion elements have bounded fixed trees will have Borel subgroups inherited from the amalgam factors; this could be tested on other amalgams arising from affine surfaces such as Gizatullin surfaces.
  • The finite-index condition gives an intrinsic, subgroup-theoretic way to recognize Borel subgroups in these ind-groups, and could be checked without comparing conjugacy classes, potentially extending Theorem 7.15 to other automorphism groups of affine varieties.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies Borel subgroups, defined as maximal connected solvable ind-subgroups, of the automorphism groups of cyclic quotient affine toric surfaces X_{d,e} = A^2/µ_d. The main theorem, Theorem 1.1, asserts a dichotomy: when e^2 ≡ 1 mod d the Borel subgroups form one conjugacy class, and when e^2 ≢ 1 mod d they form exactly two conjugacy classes represented by the two triangular factors of an amalgam. The proof combines Bass–Serre theory for amalgams with the authors' earlier description of Aut(X_{d,e}) as a quotient of a normalizer in Aut(A^2). The paper also gives a criterion, Theorem 1.2, for maximal solvable subgroups to be Borel subgroups in terms of absence of finite-index proper subgroups, and it classifies maximal solvable subgroups of Aut(A^2) and Aut_0(A^2).

Significance. If the main classification is correct, it is a valuable contribution to the structure theory of automorphism groups of affine surfaces: it confirms and extends, for cyclic quotients of the affine plane, the phenomenon already known for Aut(A^2), and it gives a clean one-versus-two conjugacy dichotomy controlled by the congruence e^2 ≡ 1 mod d. The paper uses a well-chosen mix of Bass–Serre theory, algebraic-group arguments, and the Cantat–Regeta–Xie algebraicity theorem. The free-subgroup argument in Proposition 3.1 and the root-of-unity computation in Lemma 7.12 are explicit and rigorous. However, several load-bearing steps in the treatment of the e^2 ≡ 1 case are either unsupported or actually false as printed, so the paper needs substantial revision before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7.2, Proposition 7.8 and Theorem 1.1(c)] For e > 1 with e^2 ≡ 1 mod d, equation (12) gives N^+_{d,e} = T and Notation 7.2 gives N_{d,e} = ⟨T, τ⟩. Since T is a normal subgroup of ⟨T, τ⟩ with quotient of order 2, the whole group N_{d,e} is solvable. Hence T/G_{d,e} is a proper subgroup of the solvable group N_{d,e}/G_{d,e}, so the claim in Proposition 7.8 that N^±_{d,e}/G_{d,e} is maximal among the solvable subgroups of Aut(X_{d,e}) is false in this case. Consequently Theorem 1.1(c), which states that every Borel subgroup is maximal among the solvable subgroups, also fails for this family. The proof's appeal to Proposition 3.1 is not available here because the amalgam in (17) has one factor equal to the amalgamated subgroup and is not proper.
  2. [§5, Corollary 5.5(b) and Theorem 5.8] The proof of Corollary 5.5(b) asserts that the commutative algebraic subgroup ⟨C⟩ is elliptic by invoking Serre's Theorem 2.14, but it does not prove that ⟨C⟩ has bounded length. Bounded length is not a formal consequence of algebraicity for an arbitrary amalgam of ind-subgroups; for Aut(A^2) it follows from degree bounds, but Corollary 5.5(b) is stated in full generality and no such bound is supplied. This step is load-bearing because Theorem 5.8 uses Corollary 5.5(b) to conclude that the penultimate derived subgroup of a loxodromic solvable connected subgroup consists of elliptic elements, and Corollary 5.9 and Theorem 7.10 inherit the gap. In the specific setting of X_{d,e} the missing fact could be supplied by the analogue of Theorem 6.3 imported from [1, Theorem 4.15], but that replacement is not made in the manuscript.
  3. [§7.10, proof of Theorem 7.10 and Corollary 7.14] Corollary 5.9 is applied to the amalgams in (17), but for e = 1 and for e > 1 with e^2 ≡ 1 mod d the expression (17) has the form A *_{A} B and is not a proper amalgam. The associated Bass–Serre tree, as defined in §2, is degenerate or not a tree in the relevant sense, so the torsionally unboundedness argument and Corollary 5.9 do not apply to these cases. Furthermore, in the e > 1 case the sentence 'the inclusion T ⊂ N^+_{d,e} is strict' in the proof of Theorem 7.10 is incorrect, since (12) gives equality. The e^2 ≡ 1 cases require a separate proof, using for example the algebraic group structure of PGL(2,k) when e = 1 and of the solvable extension T ⋊ ⟨τ⟩ when e > 1.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§7.15, proof of Theorem 7.15] The proof cites 'Theorem 4.13(a)–(d)', but no Theorem 4.13 appears in Section 4; from the content of the cited statements, the reference should be Theorem 6.6(a)–(d).
  2. [§7.2, equation (17)] The notation N^+_{d,e} *_{N^+_{d,e}} N_{d,e} is confusing because the two appearances of N^+_{d,e} are equal, so the amalgam is not proper; the later notation in Remark 7.6.2, N^+_{d,e} *_{T} ⟨T,τ⟩, clarifies the intended edge group for e > 1 but should be made consistent with (17).
  3. [§5, Theorem 5.8 proof] In Claim 2 of Theorem 5.8, the phrase 'every elliptic f ∈ H is a torsion element' is then used to assert that all elements of H^{(n-1)} are torsion; this is not fully spelled out, since H^{(n-1)} consists of products of commutators, and one must first know that each such commutator is elliptic, which is exactly what Corollary 5.5(b) is being used to provide.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the Borel dichotomy is derived from the imported amalgam structure, which is independent of the target result; the self-citation to [1] is load-bearing but not circular.

full rationale

The central dichotomy in Theorem 1.1 is obtained by combining the amalgam structure of Aut(X_{d,e}) (Theorem 7.5) with the general Bass-Serre-Tits classification of subgroups of an amalgam and with Corollary 5.9, which says that in a torsionally unbounded situation every Borel subgroup is conjugate to a Borel subgroup of one of the factors. The one-versus-two conjugacy dichotomy then follows from whether the two factors are conjugate in the amalgam, i.e., from whether e^2 ≡ 1 mod d and τ belongs to the normalizer. This is a genuine derivation from the amalgam data, not a restatement of the definition of a Borel subgroup and not a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. The imported Theorem 7.5 comes from the authors' own prior paper [1], and it is load-bearing: without the amalgam description of Aut(X_{d,e}) the tree arguments would not apply. However, this is a legitimate mathematical dependency rather than a circularity. The cited theorem describes the automorphism group as an amalgam; it does not assume anything about Borel subgroups or about the number of conjugacy classes of maximal solvable subgroups. It has an independent proof in [1], and the paper cites an alternative proof of parts (b) and (c) by Kovalenko [29]. No parameter is fitted to force the conclusion, and no equation in the paper reduces to its own input. The proof of Corollary 5.5(b) invokes Serre's Theorem 2.14 without explicitly proving the bounded-length condition for arbitrary amalgams of ind-subgroups; this is an unsupported step or gap in exposition, but it is not a circular step, because bounded length is a hypothesis of the cited theorem rather than a restatement of the desired conclusion. In the concrete cases of Nd,e and Aut(X_{d,e}) the needed bounded-length/algebraic-ellipticity input is supplied by [1, Theorem 4.15] and Proposition 8.7. Overall, the derivation is not circular; the score of 2 reflects the self-citation burden, not a logical circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the paper is a structural classification theorem. No invented entities are introduced. The axioms are external mathematical results; the most delicate is the authors' own prior amalgam description of Aut(X_{d,e}), which is self-cited but not circular because the target Borel classification is not an input to it.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Jung-van der Kulk-Nagata amalgam decomposition for Aut(A^2), equation (4), and its bounded-length corollary, Theorem 6.3
    Invoked in Section 6.1 and throughout; classical theorem from polynomial automorphism theory, cited to [4], [16], [33], [34], and [45].
  • domain assumption Structural theorem for Aut(X_{d,e}) as an amalgam, equations (16) and (17)
    Imported from the authors' own prior paper [1, Theorem 4.2, Lemma 4.3, Proposition 4.4] as Theorem 7.5; not reproved here and it underpins the Bass-Serre tree used for the main classification.
  • domain assumption Cantat-Regeta-Xie algebraicity theorem for commuting families of automorphisms, Theorem 5.4
    Used in Corollary 5.5 and Theorem 5.8 to show connected commutative torsion subgroups are trivial and that solvable connected subgroups of the amalgam are elliptic; taken from [7, Theorem B].
  • standard math Serre's theorem: subgroups of bounded length in an amalgam are elliptic, Theorem 2.14
    Used to classify algebraic subgroups in the amalgam, especially in Corollary 5.5(b) and in the Aut(A^2) context in Theorem 6.3.
  • standard math Lamy's classification of subgroups of Aut(A^2) into elliptic, parabolic, elementary loxodromic, and general loxodromic types, Theorem 6.6
    Imported from [33] and [34]; used for Aut(A^2), Aut_0(A^2), and via the same amalgam machinery for the groups N_{d,e}.
  • domain assumption Base field k is algebraically closed of characteristic zero
    Assumed throughout; root-of-unity computations, algebraic group theory, and ind-group statements depend on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Borel subgroups of the automorphism groups of affine toric surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QCGAHUHA

@misc{pith2026250709679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Borel subgroups of the automorphism groups of affine toric surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QCGAHUHA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09679}
}
read the original abstract

In [I. Arzhantsev and M. Zaidenberg, Acyclic curves and group actions on affine toric surfaces. Affine Algebraic Geometry, 1--41. World Scientific Publishing Co. 2013] we described the automorphism groups of the cyclic quotients of the affine plane. In this article, we study the Borel subgroups and, more generally, the maximal solvable subgroups of these ind-groups. We show that the cyclic quotients of the affine plane are divided into two species. In one of them, the Borel subgroups form a single conjugacy class, while in the other, there are two conjugacy classes of Borel subgroups. The proofs explore the Bass-Serre-Tits theory of groups acting on trees.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Regular Borel subalgebras of the Lie Algebra of Aut($\mathbb{A}^2$)

    math.RA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Every regular Borel subalgebra of Lie(Aut(A^2)) is either the metabelian Lie(∆,ℓ(1,1)) or a derived-length-3 algebra Lie(t2,ℓ(a,b),(a,b)) with a≠b, classified up to graded isomorphism by n=gcd(a,b).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Arzhantsev and M

    I. Arzhantsev and M. Zaidenberg, Acyclic curves and group actions on affine toric surfaces , In: Affine Al- gebraic Geometry, Proceedings of the Conference dedicated to Prof. Miyanishi’s 70th birthday. Kayo Masuda, Hideo Kojima, Takashi Kishimoto (eds.), 1–41. World Scientific Publishing Co. 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Bass, Some remarks on group actions on trees , Comm

    H. Bass, Some remarks on group actions on trees , Comm. Algebra, 4 (1976), no. 12, 1091–1126

    work page 1976

  3. [3]

    Beauville, Finite subgroups of PGL2(K), Contemp

    A. Beauville, Finite subgroups of PGL2(K), Contemp. Math. 522 (2010), 23–29. BOREL SUBGROUPS 35

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Berest, A

    Yu. Berest, A. Eshmatov, and F. Eshmatov, Dixmier groups and Borel subgroups, Adv. Math. 286 (2016), 387–429

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Blanc and I

    J. Blanc and I. Stampfli, Automorphisms of the plane preserving a curve , Algebr. Geom. 2 (2) (2015), 193–213

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Borel, Groupes lin´ eaires alg´ ebriques, Ann

    A. Borel, Groupes lin´ eaires alg´ ebriques, Ann. Math. 64 (1956), no. 1, 20–82

    work page 1956

  7. [7]

    Cantat, A

    S. Cantat, A. Regeta, and J. Xie, Families of commuting automorphisms, and a characterization of the affine space, Amer. J. Math. 145 (2023), no. 2, 413–434

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Chevalley, Le normalisateur d’un groupe de Borel , S´ eminaire Claude Chevalley, tome 1 (1956-1958), exp

    C. Chevalley, Le normalisateur d’un groupe de Borel , S´ eminaire Claude Chevalley, tome 1 (1956-1958), exp. no. 9, 1–8

    work page 1956

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Culler and J

    M. Culler and J. W. Morgan, Group actions on R-trees, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 55 (1987), 571–604

    1987

  2. [10]

    D´ eserti,Sur les automorphismes du groupe de Cremona , Compos

    J. D´ eserti,Sur les automorphismes du groupe de Cremona , Compos. Math. 142 (2006), no. 6, 1459–1478

    2006

  3. [11]

    I. V. Dolgachev, McKay correspondence. Winter 2006/07 , October 26, 2009. Available at: http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/idolga/lecturenotes.html

    2006

  4. [12]

    Fulton, Introduction to toric varieties , Ann

    W. Fulton, Introduction to toric varieties , Ann. Math. Studies 131, Princeton University Press, Prince- ton, NJ, 1993

    1993

  5. [13]

    Furter and I

    J.-P. Furter and I. Hed´ en, Borel subgroups of the plane Cremona group , J. Reine Angew. Math. 794 (2023), 133–177

    2023

  6. [14]

    Furter and H

    J.-P. Furter and H. Kraft, On the geometry of automorphism groups of affine varieties , arXiv:1809.04175 (2018), 179 pages

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Furter, S

    J.-P. Furter, S. Lamy, Normal subgroup generated by a plane polynomial automorphism , Transform. Groups 15 (2010), 577–610

    2010

  8. [16]

    Furter and J.-M

    J.-P. Furter and J.-M. Poloni, On the maximality of the triangular subgroup, Ann. Inst. Fourier 68 (2018), no. 1, 393–421

    2018

  9. [17]

    M. H. Gizatullin and V. I. Danilov, Examples of nonhomogeneous quasihomogeneous surfaces , Math. USSR-Izv. 8 (1974), no. 1, 43–60

    1974

  10. [18]

    M. H. Gizatullin and V. I. Danilov, Automorphisms of affine surfaces. I , Math. USSR-Izv. 9 (1975), no. 3, 493–534

    1975

  11. [19]

    M. H. Gizatullin and V. I. Danilov, Automorphisms of affine surfaces. II , Math. USSR-Izv. 11 (1977), no. 1, 51–98

    1977

  12. [20]

    Hausmann, Sur l’usage de crit` eres pour reconna ˆ ıre un groupe libre, un produit amalgam´ e ou une HNN-extension, Enseign

    J.-C. Hausmann, Sur l’usage de crit` eres pour reconna ˆ ıre un groupe libre, un produit amalgam´ e ou une HNN-extension, Enseign. Math. 27 (1981), 221–242

    1981

  13. [21]

    J. E. Humphreys, Linear algebraic groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 21. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1975

    1975

  14. [22]

    H. A. Jung, On finite fixed sets in infinite graphs , Discrete Math. 131 (1994), 115–125

    1994

  15. [23]

    Kambayashi, On the absence of nontrivial separable forms of the affine plane , J

    T. Kambayashi, On the absence of nontrivial separable forms of the affine plane , J. Algebra 35 (1975), 449–456

    1975

  16. [24]

    Kambayashi, Automorphism group of a polynomial ring and algebraic group action on an affine space , J

    T. Kambayashi, Automorphism group of a polynomial ring and algebraic group action on an affine space , J. Algebra 60 (1979), 439–451

    1979

  17. [25]

    Kambayashi and G

    T. Kambayashi and G. Margrave, On homomorphisms from algebraic groups to GL n(Z), Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 74 (1979), no. 2, 223–226

    1979

  18. [26]

    Karrass and D

    A. Karrass and D. Solitar, The subgroups of a free product of two groups with an amalgamated subgroup , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 150 (1970), 227–255

    1970

  19. [27]

    Kikteva, On the connectedness of the automorphism group of an affine toric variety , Sb

    V. Kikteva, On the connectedness of the automorphism group of an affine toric variety , Sb. Math. 215 (2024), no. 10, 1351–1373

    2024

  20. [28]

    Koll´ ar,Automorphisms and twisted forms of rings of invariants , Milan J

    J. Koll´ ar,Automorphisms and twisted forms of rings of invariants , Milan J. Math. 92 (2024), 473–499

    2024

  21. [29]

    Kovalenko, Transitivity of automorphism groups of Gizatullin surfaces , Int

    S. Kovalenko, Transitivity of automorphism groups of Gizatullin surfaces , Int. Math. Res. Not. (IMRN) 21 (2015), 11433–11484

    2015

  22. [30]

    Kovalenko, A

    S. Kovalenko, A. Perepechko, and M. Zaidenberg, On automorphism groups of affine surfaces , in: Alge- braic varieties and automorphism groups , 207–286. Adv. Stud. Pure Math. 75. Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Kraft, Regularization of rational group actions , arXiv:1808.08729 (2018)

    H. Kraft, Regularization of rational group actions , arXiv:1808.08729 (2018). 36 IV AN ARZHANTSEV AND MIKHAIL ZAIDENBERG

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kraft and M

    H. Kraft and M. Zaidenberg, Algebraically generated groups and their Lie algebras, J. London Math. Soc. (2) (2024), 109:e12866

    2024

  25. [33]

    Lamy, L’alternative de Tits pour Aut[C2], J

    S. Lamy, L’alternative de Tits pour Aut[C2], J. Algebra 239 (2001), 413–437

    2001

  26. [34]

    Lamy, The Cremona Group , preliminary version, July 5, 2025

    S. Lamy, The Cremona Group , preliminary version, July 5, 2025. Available at: https://plmbox.math.cnrs.fr/f/84c65736965a4b0586cc/

    2025

  27. [35]

    Liendo, A

    A. Liendo, A. Regeta, and Ch. Urech, Characterization of affine surfaces with a torus action by their automorphism groups, Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5), XXIV (2023), 249–289

    2023

  28. [36]

    D. I. Moldavanskii, Certain subgroups of groups with one defining relation , Siberian Math. J. 8 (1967), 1370–1384

    1967

  29. [37]

    Nagata, Commutativity of elements in an amalgamated product , Japan

    M. Nagata, Commutativity of elements in an amalgamated product , Japan. J. Math. 6 (1980), no. 1, 173–178

    1980

  30. [38]

    Neumann, Generalized free products with amalgamated subgroups, Amer

    H. Neumann, Generalized free products with amalgamated subgroups, Amer. J. Math. 70 (1948), 590–625

    1948

  31. [39]

    Pays and A

    I. Pays and A. Valette, Sous-groupes libres dans les groupes d’automorphismes d’arbres , Enseign. Math. 37 (1991), 151–174

    1991

  32. [40]

    Perepechko, Structure of connected nested automorphism groups , arXiv:2312.08359 (2023)

    A. Perepechko, Structure of connected nested automorphism groups , arXiv:2312.08359 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    V. P. Platonov, Certain classes of topological groups , Siberian Math. J. 7, (1966), no. 5, 871–878

    1966

  34. [42]

    V. P. Platonov, A proof of the finiteness hypothesis for solvable subgroups of algebraic groups , Siberian Math. J. 10 (1969), no. 5, 800–804

    1969

  35. [43]

    Raghuram and B

    A. Raghuram and B. Sury, Groups acting on trees. Notes on the Bass–Serre Theory based on a short course of lectures at IIT-Guwahati . Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore. Available at: https://www.isibang.ac.in/ sury/tree.pdf, 99 pp

  36. [44]

    Regeta, Ch

    A. Regeta, Ch. Urech, and I. van Santen, Group theoretical characterizations of rationality . arXiv: 2409.07864 (2024); Invent. Math. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00222-025-01348-7 (to appear)

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Serre, Trees, Springer Monographs in Mathematics

    J.-P. Serre, Trees, Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003

    2003

  38. [46]

    Steinberg, Abstract homomorphisms of simple algebraic groups (after A

    R. Steinberg, Abstract homomorphisms of simple algebraic groups (after A. Borel and J. Tits) , in: S´ eminaire Bourbaki, 25-` eme ann´ ee (1972/1973), Exp. No. 435,, 307–326. Lecture Notes in Math. 383, Springer, Berlin, 1974

    1972

  39. [47]

    D. A. Suprunenko, Matrix groups. Translation of mathematical monographs, vol. 45. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1976

    1976

  40. [48]

    Sykiotis, Centralizers on groups acting on trees and Bass’ Conjecture , Comm

    M. Sykiotis, Centralizers on groups acting on trees and Bass’ Conjecture , Comm. Algebra 30 (2002), no. 3, 1199–1206

    2002

  41. [49]

    Tits, Sur le groupe des automorphismes d’un arbre, In: Essays on topology and related topics: Memoires d´ edi´ es ` a George de Rham, 188–211

    J. Tits, Sur le groupe des automorphismes d’un arbre, In: Essays on topology and related topics: Memoires d´ edi´ es ` a George de Rham, 188–211. Springer-Verlag, 1970

    1970

  42. [50]

    theorem of Lie-Kolchin

    J. Tits, A “theorem of Lie-Kolchin ” for trees. In: Contributions to Algebra. A collection of papers dedicated to Ellis Kolchin , 377–388. Academic Press. New York, San Francisco, London, 1977

    1977

  43. [51]

    Wikipedia, Index of a subgroup , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index of a subgroup#Finite index

  44. [52]

    Wright, Abelian subgroups of Aut(k[X, Y]) and applications to actions on the affine plane , Illinois J

    D. Wright, Abelian subgroups of Aut(k[X, Y]) and applications to actions on the affine plane , Illinois J. Math. 23 (1979), 579–634

    1979

  45. [53]

    Wright, Two-dimensional Cremona groups acting on simplicial complexes , Trans

    D. Wright, Two-dimensional Cremona groups acting on simplicial complexes , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 331 (1992), no. 1, 281–300. F aculty of Computer Science, HSE University, Pokrovsky Boulevard 11, Moscow, 109028 Russia Email address : arjantsev@hse.ru Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNR...

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.