A note on cubic fourfolds containing several planes

Moritz Hartlieb

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 9 references

A note on cubic fourfolds containing several planes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For very general cubic fourfolds, two planes that meet produce associated K3 surfaces that are never isomorphic, even though their twisted derived categories agree.

desk verdict A genuine, useful note on cubic fourfolds with two planes; the main theorem is probably right but the degeneration argument in Thm 3.4 has a gap that needs a closedness statement. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06666 v3 pith:YNGS6WVA submitted 2025-09-08 math.AG

Moritz Hartlieb This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AG MSC 14J2814J3514F0814C30

keywords cubicfourfoldsplanesK3surfacestwistedderivedcategoriesBrauerclassesHodgeisometryEckardtellipticfibrations

topics The Hodge Conjecture

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

The paper studies a cubic fourfold that contains two planes meeting in a point or along a line, and the two twisted K3 surfaces that Kuznetsov's theorem attaches to the planes. Its main claim is that for a very general such fourfold those two K3 surfaces are not isomorphic, and in fact not derived equivalent. For the case where the planes meet along a line, the paper goes further: a single surface double-covers both K3 surfaces, and this double cover explains on the level of Hodge structures and derived categories why the two twisted K3 surfaces are nevertheless equivalent. The result matters because these K3 surfaces control the derived category of the cubic fourfold and are the main tool in current rationality questions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the surface FL, the residual component of the intersection F'_P1 ∩ F'_P2 inside the Fano variety of lines of X: it parametrizes lines that meet L = P1∩P2 and are contained in neither plane. A coordinate computation shows FL admits an elliptic fibration over L, and projection to the two sextic-double-cover K3 surfaces makes it a cyclic double cover of each, ramified along the same two fibers; the two covering involutions lift the involution of the Gauss map L -> P1. This single surface carries the comparison: pullback along either double cover splits the corresponding Brauer class, and the intersection of the two pullback transcendental lattices inside H^2(FL) recovers t

What would settle it

An explicit very general cubic fourfold in the family with two planes meeting along a line (or in a point) for which the two associated plane sextic curves are isomorphic — or a direct Hodge isometry between T(SP1) and T(SP2) for a general member — would contradict the theorem. Equivalently, one can try to show the isomorphism locus is open and contains the Eckardt example, which would invalidate the degeneration step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a very general cubic fourfold X containing two planes P1, P2 that intersect (in a point or along a line), the K3 surfaces SP1 and SP2 obtained by resolving the double covers of the plane branched along the sextic discriminant curves are not isomorphic (Theorem 3.4); since each has no nontrivial Fourier–Mukai partner, they are not derived equivalent either (Corollary 3.5). When P1 and P2 meet along a line L, the paper constructs a smooth minimal surface FL of Kodaira dimension one with two double covers f_i: FL -> SPi, an elliptic fibration over L, and identical branch loci (Theorem 3.7). This correspondence yields a Hodge isometry T(SP1, αP1) ≃ T(X) ≃ (f_1^*T(SP1) ∩ f_2^*T(SP2), 1/2(.))

Load-bearing premise

The non-isomorphism theorem is proved by degenerating to one special Eckardt cubic fourfold and assuming that showing the two sextic curves are different there implies they are different for the very general member; the needed closedness of the isomorphism locus in the family is not proved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For very general cubic fourfolds with two non-disjoint planes, the two associated K3 surfaces are distinct objects: no isomorphism and no Fourier–Mukai equivalence exists between them, even though their twisted derived categories are equivalent.
The surface FL gives a geometric reason for the twisted equivalence: the two twisted K3 categories appear as admissible pieces of the same equivariant derived category Db(FL)^{Φ1} and Db(FL)^{Φ2}, which are equivalent.
The Hodge-theoretic statement shows that the transcendental lattice of X is cut out by the two transcendental lattices of the K3 surfaces inside H^2(FL), making the Fano correspondence of X visible as an intersection.
The two K3 surfaces are Tate–Shafarevich twists of the same Jacobian elliptic K3 surface, so the Donagi–Pantev duality applies and produces the twisted equivalence directly, without passing through the Kuznetsov component.
The Brauer classes of the three planes P1, P2, P3 satisfy β1·β2 = β3 on the common Jacobian, so the residual plane is encoded in the group of two-torsion Brauer classes.

Reading between the lines

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

The degeneration argument suggests a testable stronger statement: the locus in the 18-dimensional family where the two sextic curves or K3 surfaces become isomorphic should be empty, not merely of lower dimension; verifying the needed closedness of the isomorphism locus would turn the one-example degeneration into a full proof.
The double-cover correspondence FL may be expected to mediate rationality questions: if a very general member of the line-intersection family were rational, the induced rational map would have to be compatible with both involutions, which the non-isomorphism of the quotients makes unlikely.
For two planes meeting in a point, the paper gives no analogue of FL; the natural next step is to look for a similar correspondence or to prove that none exists, which would explain why that case is harder.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, this is not a repackaging: the non-isomorphism of the associated K3 surfaces for non-disjoint planes, the F_L double-cover correspondence, the Hodge isometry T(S_P1, α) ≅ f_1^*T(S_P1) ∩ f_2^*T(S_P2), and the equivariant derived equivalence are new and geometrically meaningful. Second, the central theorem's proof has a missing step. The degeneration to Eckardt cubic fourfolds exhibits one point where the sextics are non-isomorphic; to conclude very general non-isomorphism you need the locus where they become isomorphic to be contained in a proper closed subset. That is not stated. It is fixable—the relative Isom scheme of the two families of genus-nine curves is finite over the base, so its image is closed—but as written the logic doesn't close.

What works well: the construction of F_L is the real contribution. Proposition 3.7 and the diagram are concrete, and the consequences in Sections 4 and 5 (T(X) as an intersection of pullbacks, the Donagi–Pantev interpretation, the equivariant SOD) give a convincing geometric explanation of a twisted equivalence that before was only abstract. The use of Kuznetsov, Voisin, Moschetti, and Huybrechts is standard and honest. The explicit computation of the induced map on twisted Mukai lattices in Appendix B is useful and checked by hand in enough detail to be credible.

Soft spots, in order of size. The Thm 3.4 gap is real; Cor 3.5 and Lemma 4.4 inherit it. Lemma 3.6 and Prop 3.7 rely on 'coordinate-wise computation' and 'explicit computation' without giving the computation; for a note this is tolerable but a referee should ask for the equations. Remark 3.13 uses a Magma computation for p_g(D_L)=2 without code or a reproducible certificate; this is minor but should be tied down. The proof of Thm 5.13 is compressed: the equivariant kernel is asserted to exist after invoking [DP08] and [CS07], and the statement that it induces a Fourier–Mukai equivalence on the branch components is not shown. It is plausible and probably right, but it is the least complete part of the paper.

Bottom line: the paper deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review and ask for the degeneration gap to be fixed or explicitly cited, and for more details on the computational claims. For someone working on cubic fourfolds and twisted K3 surfaces, this is worth reading and citing.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies smooth cubic fourfolds containing two planes, with emphasis on the case where the planes meet along a line. For each plane P_i, the Kuznetsov–Moschetti construction yields a twisted K3 surface (S_{P_i}, α_{P_i}). The author proves that for a very general such X with P_1∩P_2 a line (or a point), S_{P_1} and S_{P_2} are not isomorphic (Thm. 3.4) and not derived equivalent (Cor. 3.5). In the line case he constructs a minimal surface F_L of Kodaira dimension one with degree-two maps to both K3 surfaces; he shows that the two elliptic fibrations have a common Jacobian, computes the transcendental-lattice Hodge isometry (Thm. 4.7), identifies the Brauer classes via Tate–Šafarevič twists (Thm. 4.8), and obtains a derived equivalence between equivariant categories D^b(F_L)^{Φ_i} respecting the semiorthogonal decompositions (Thm. 5.13). The appendix supplies Eckardt degenerations and explicit computations in twisted Mukai lattices.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper makes a solid contribution: it gives a geometric two-cover explanation for the relation between the two twisted K3 models of the same Kuznetsov component, identifies the common Jacobian, and makes the Tate–Šafarevič twist structure explicit. Strengths include the use of the Kuznetsov–Moschetti equivalence, Voisin's Torelli results, the explicit correspondence F_L, and the detailed lattice computations in Sections 4 and 8. The paper is written carefully and is well informed by the existing literature. However, the very-general non-isomorphism theorem relies on an unstated closedness principle, and the central construction of F_L is partly asserted via coordinate computations; these points need repair before the main claims are fully established.

major comments (3)

[§3.2, proof of Thm. 3.4] The degeneration argument is incomplete as written. 'Very general' means outside a countable union of proper closed subsets; exhibiting one Eckardt fiber (Cor. 7.6 / Lem. 7.5) with non-isomorphic associated sextics only shows that the isomorphism locus is not the whole family. If that locus were dense open, the very general member would lie in it and the theorem would fail. What is needed is the statement that the locus where C'_{P_1}≅C'_{P_2} (equivalently S_{P_1}≅S_{P_2}, by Lem. 3.3) is a countable union of proper closed subsets. This follows from finiteness of the relative Isom scheme of the normalized genus-9 curve families, but that is not stated or proved. Cor. 3.5 and Thm. 6.4 inherit the same gap.
[§3.3, Lem. 3.6 and Prop. 3.7] The construction of F_L is the geometric core of the paper, but the proof that F'_L is a well-defined irreducible surface with elliptic fibers and that the diagram is Cartesian is asserted after 'coordinate-wise computation' and 'explicit computation' without displaying the computation or giving a precise reference. The later Hodge-theoretic and derived-category results (Thms. 4.7 and 5.13) all rely on F_L being a minimal surface with q=0, p_g=3 and on the two double covers. Please expand the coordinate verification or provide a complete reference; as it stands this is a gap in the exposition of a load-bearing construction.
[§5, proof of Thm. 5.13] The proof asserts that the pullback of the Donagi–Pantev twisted kernel to F_L×F_L is (Φ_1×Φ_2)-equivariant and induces an equivalence on the second SOD component D^b(E), but it only says 'by construction' and 'étale locally... we see'. This is a central equivalence statement; the equivariance of the kernel and the identification of the induced action on E need to be verified explicitly. A reader cannot check from the text whether the chosen Morita trivializations defining Φ_i are compatible with the kernel.

minor comments (4)

[Thm. 1.3] The displayed relations between β_i and α_{P_i} are opposite to the correct statement in Thm. 4.8: one should have r_1(β_2)=α_{P_1} and r_2(β_1)=α_{P_2}. Please correct the introduction to match the main text.
[Remarks 3.13 and 4.13] The Magma computation showing p_g(D_L)=2 is not reproducible as stated. The authors should either include the code or provide a verifiable mathematical argument, especially since Remark 4.13 uses the value to decompose T(F_L).
[§7, Lem. 7.3] Typo: 'two general lines lines on a cubic threefold' should be 'two general lines on a cubic threefold'.
[§3.4] The phrase 'S_{P_i}/P_1' in Thm. 1.3 and Cor. 3.9 is used both for the elliptic fibration and for the base; this is standard but could be clarified for the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: derivation is self-contained; the Eckardt degeneration step has an unproved closedness point, but that is a proof gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from external, established inputs (Kuznetsov's and Moschetti's equivalences, Voisin's Fano correspondence, Donagi-Pantev duality, the Prym map, and standard K3 facts), and the new results are geometric consequences rather than restatements of those inputs. Corollary 1.1 really does follow from the Kuznetsov component equivalence. Theorem 3.4 reduces non-isomorphism of the K3 surfaces to non-isomorphism of the associated ramification sextics via Lemma 3.3 and then invokes a degeneration to Eckardt cubic fourfolds. This is a degeneration argument, not a circular one: the Eckardt example is constructed independently from a cubic threefold and two general lines, and the conclusion for the very general member is not obtained by fitting a parameter or by assuming the desired non-isomorphism. The one genuine concern is that the proof of Theorem 3.4 implicitly assumes a closedness/constructibility statement for the locus where the two sextics are isomorphic: existence of one Eckardt point outside the locus only shows the locus is not everything, while 'very general' requires the non-isomorphism locus to contain a very general point. That is an omitted proof or correctness gap, not circularity, because no definition or equation forces the very general conclusion to be equivalent to the single Eckardt example. Corollary 3.5 relies on the external no-Fourier-Mukai-partner result [MS24, Cor. 5.13], and the later lattice and derived-category arguments use computed discriminants and standard Torelli results rather than assuming the target conclusions. Citations to Huybrechts' book are standard background facts and are not load-bearing self-citations; Huybrechts is not an author of this paper. There is no fitted input renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the author's own prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in by self-citation. The correct circularity score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results rest on deep external theorems (Kuznetsov, Moschetti, Voisin, Donagi-Pantev) and on a genericity assumption about the cubic fourfold. No free parameters are fitted. The main new object, the surface F_L, is constructed from the Fano variety of lines rather than postulated. The most fragile premise is the unstated closedness assumption in the degeneration proof of Theorem 3.4.

assumptions (7)

standard math Kuznetsov's theorem: D^b(S_P, α_P) ≃ A_X for a cubic fourfold containing a plane P (Thm 2.4).
Quoted from [Kuz10] and [Mos18]; the central identification of the Kuznetsov component with the twisted K3 category is used in Cor 1.1, Cor 5.2, and throughout.
standard math Moschetti's description of the Brauer-Severi scheme F_P → S_P and its fibers (Lemma 2.2).
Used in Lemma 4.5 and Section 8 to compute residues; cited from [Mos18], [Kuz14].
standard math Voisin's Fano correspondence Hodge isometry (Prop 2.3).
Used in Thm 4.7 and Prop 2.3; cited from [Voi86].
standard math Donagi-Pantev theorem on twisted derived equivalence of Tate-Shafarevich twists (Thm 5.3).
Used to give the geometric proof of Cor 5.4 and in Thm 5.13.
standard math Classification of automorphism groups of K3 surfaces with Picard lattice of rank 2 and discriminant -4.
Quoted from [Huy16, Ch. 15] and [Rou22]; ensures uniqueness of the double cover in Lemma 3.3 and Lemma 6.3.
domain assumption Very general assumption: X contains no planes other than P1,P2,P3 and the discriminant sextics have a unique node (Section 3.1).
This genericity hypothesis is used to ensure Pic(S_Pi)=⟨h,s⟩, Aut(S_Pi)=Z/2, and the uniqueness of the double cover; it is stated as 'very general' without proof, though standard.
ad hoc to paper Implicit closedness of the isomorphism locus in the degeneration argument for Theorem 3.4.
The proof that one Eckardt example with non-isomorphic sextics implies the very general member has non-isomorphic associated K3 surfaces uses an unstated openness/closedness property of the isomorphism locus.

invented entities (1)

The surface F_L (minimal model of the residual component of F'_P1 ∩ F'_P2 in the Fano variety of lines). independent evidence
purpose: Provides a common double cover of the two associated K3 surfaces S_P1 and S_P2, enabling geometric proofs of the Hodge isometry and derived equivalence.
Not an ad hoc postulate: F_L is constructed as a component of the intersection of two known divisors in the Fano variety of lines, and its properties (elliptic fibration, double covers) are proved in Prop 3.7.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A note on cubic fourfolds containing several planes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YNGS6WVA

@misc{pith2026250906666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A note on cubic fourfolds containing several planes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YNGS6WVA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06666}
}

read the original abstract

We study the geometry, Hodge theory and derived category of cubic fourfolds containing several planes and their associated twisted K3 surfaces. We focus on the case of two planes intersecting along a line.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06666 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The (rational) involutions on FL,P Since L ⊂ P, we can (rationally) embed FL,P into the Brauer–Severi variety F ′ P over the (singular) K3 surface S ′ P . By the same arguments as in the proof of Proposition 3.7, the composition FL,P 99K F ′ P /S ′ P is generically finite of degree two: Indeed, a point [(Π, R)] ∈ S ′ P corresponds to a linear threespace Π ⊂ P 5 containing P and a ruling R on the residual quadric su… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

9 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[1]

On the Brauer group of Enriques surfaces

[Bea09] Arnaud Beauville. “On the Brauer group of Enriques surfaces”.Math. Res. Lett.16.6 (2009), pp. 927–934. [CS07] Alberto Canonaco and Paolo Stellari. “Twisted Fourier-Mukai functors”.Adv. Math. 212.2 (2007), pp. 484–503. [Don92] Ron Donagi. “The fibers of the Prym map”.Curves, Jacobians, and abelian varieties (Amherst, MA, 1990). Vol

work page 2009
[45]

Adv. Stud. Pure Math. Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2006, pp. 1–30. 28 REFERENCES Mathematisches Institut, Universitat Bonn, Endenicher Allee 60, 53115 Bonn, Germany Email address:hartlieb@math.uni-bonn.de

work page 2006
[95]

Singular cubic fourfolds containing a plane

[Ste03] Paolo Stellari. “Singular cubic fourfolds containing a plane”.Matematiche (Catania) 58.2 (2003), 277–305 (2005). [Voi86] Claire Voisin. “Th´ eor` eme de Torelli pour les cubiques deP5”.Invent. Math.86.3 (1986), pp. 577–601. [Yos06] Kota Yoshioka. “Moduli spaces of twisted sheaves on a projective variety”.Moduli spaces and arithmetic geometry. Vol

work page 2003
[136]

Torus fibrations, gerbes, and duality

Contemp. Math. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1992, pp. 55–125. [DP08] Ron Donagi and Tony Pantev. “Torus fibrations, gerbes, and duality”.Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.193.901 (2008). With an appendix by Dmitry Arinkin, pp. vi+90. [DS81] Ron Donagi and Roy Campbell Smith. “The structure of the Prym map”.Acta Math. 146.1-2 (1981), pp. 25–102. [Gar19] Alice Garb...

work page 1992
[282]

Scheme of lines on a family of 2-dimensional quadrics: geom- etry and derived category

Progr. Math. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Boston, MA, 2010, pp. 219–243. [Kuz14] Alexander Kuznetsov. “Scheme of lines on a family of 2-dimensional quadrics: geom- etry and derived category”.Math. Z.276.3-4 (2014), pp. 655–672. [KP17] Alexander Kuznetsov and Alexander Perry. “Derived categories of cyclic covers and their branch divisors”.Selecta Mathematica23.1 (...

work page 2010
[722]

Enriques surfaces with trivial Brauer map and involutions on hyperk\"ahler manifolds

[MS12] Emanuele Macr` ı and Paolo Stellari. “Fano varieties of cubic fourfolds containing a plane”.Math. Ann.354.3 (2012), pp. 1147–1176. [MS24] Reinder Meinsma and Evgeny Shinder. “Derived equivalence for elliptic K3 surfaces and Jacobians”.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN13 (2024), pp. 10139–10164. [Mos18] Riccardo Moschetti. “The derived category of a non gen...

work page Pith review arXiv 2012
[2015]

Springer, 2016, pp. 29–66. [Huy16] Daniel Huybrechts.Lectures on K3 surfaces. Vol

work page 2016
[2016]

Nodal quintic surfaces and lines on cubic fourfolds (with an appendix by John Christian Ottem)

[Huy24] Daniel Huybrechts. “Nodal quintic surfaces and lines on cubic fourfolds (with an appendix by John Christian Ottem)”.Enseign. Math.70.3-4 (2024), pp. 499–532. [Huy23] Daniel Huybrechts.The geometry of cubic hypersurfaces. Vol

work page 2024

Show all 9 references

[2023]

Equivalences of twistedK3surfaces

[HS05] Daniel Huybrechts and Paolo Stellari. “Equivalences of twistedK3surfaces”.Math. Ann.332.4 (2005), pp. 901–936. [Kuz10] Alexander Kuznetsov. “Derived categories of cubic fourfolds”.Cohomological and geo- metric approaches to rationality problems. Vol

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

On the Brauer group of Enriques surfaces

[Bea09] Arnaud Beauville. “On the Brauer group of Enriques surfaces”.Math. Res. Lett.16.6 (2009), pp. 927–934. [CS07] Alberto Canonaco and Paolo Stellari. “Twisted Fourier-Mukai functors”.Adv. Math. 212.2 (2007), pp. 484–503. [Don92] Ron Donagi. “The fibers of the Prym map”.Curves, Jacobians, and abelian varieties (Amherst, MA, 1990). Vol

work page 2009

[2] [45]

Adv. Stud. Pure Math. Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2006, pp. 1–30. 28 REFERENCES Mathematisches Institut, Universitat Bonn, Endenicher Allee 60, 53115 Bonn, Germany Email address:hartlieb@math.uni-bonn.de

work page 2006

[3] [95]

Singular cubic fourfolds containing a plane

[Ste03] Paolo Stellari. “Singular cubic fourfolds containing a plane”.Matematiche (Catania) 58.2 (2003), 277–305 (2005). [Voi86] Claire Voisin. “Th´ eor` eme de Torelli pour les cubiques deP5”.Invent. Math.86.3 (1986), pp. 577–601. [Yos06] Kota Yoshioka. “Moduli spaces of twisted sheaves on a projective variety”.Moduli spaces and arithmetic geometry. Vol

work page 2003

[4] [136]

Torus fibrations, gerbes, and duality

Contemp. Math. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1992, pp. 55–125. [DP08] Ron Donagi and Tony Pantev. “Torus fibrations, gerbes, and duality”.Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.193.901 (2008). With an appendix by Dmitry Arinkin, pp. vi+90. [DS81] Ron Donagi and Roy Campbell Smith. “The structure of the Prym map”.Acta Math. 146.1-2 (1981), pp. 25–102. [Gar19] Alice Garb...

work page 1992

[5] [282]

Scheme of lines on a family of 2-dimensional quadrics: geom- etry and derived category

Progr. Math. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Boston, MA, 2010, pp. 219–243. [Kuz14] Alexander Kuznetsov. “Scheme of lines on a family of 2-dimensional quadrics: geom- etry and derived category”.Math. Z.276.3-4 (2014), pp. 655–672. [KP17] Alexander Kuznetsov and Alexander Perry. “Derived categories of cyclic covers and their branch divisors”.Selecta Mathematica23.1 (...

work page 2010

[6] [722]

Enriques surfaces with trivial Brauer map and involutions on hyperk\"ahler manifolds

[MS12] Emanuele Macr` ı and Paolo Stellari. “Fano varieties of cubic fourfolds containing a plane”.Math. Ann.354.3 (2012), pp. 1147–1176. [MS24] Reinder Meinsma and Evgeny Shinder. “Derived equivalence for elliptic K3 surfaces and Jacobians”.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN13 (2024), pp. 10139–10164. [Mos18] Riccardo Moschetti. “The derived category of a non gen...

work page Pith review arXiv 2012

[7] [2015]

Springer, 2016, pp. 29–66. [Huy16] Daniel Huybrechts.Lectures on K3 surfaces. Vol

work page 2016

[8] [2016]

Nodal quintic surfaces and lines on cubic fourfolds (with an appendix by John Christian Ottem)

[Huy24] Daniel Huybrechts. “Nodal quintic surfaces and lines on cubic fourfolds (with an appendix by John Christian Ottem)”.Enseign. Math.70.3-4 (2024), pp. 499–532. [Huy23] Daniel Huybrechts.The geometry of cubic hypersurfaces. Vol

work page 2024