The complex projective plane as a ball quotient

Cindy Tan

The complex projective plane as a ball quotient

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Exactly two weighted line arrangements can realize the projective plane as a ball quotient.

desk verdict A solid converse classification of ball quotient structures on P^2; the only genuinely load-bearing step is a standard but under-proved total-geodesicity claim, and the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18710 v1 pith:J7GMJPVI submitted 2026-07-21 math.GT math.AGmath.DG

Cindy Tan This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.GTmath.AGmath.DG MSC 32Q4514N2032S2214E20

keywords ballquotientscomplexhyperbolicgeometrylinearrangementsorbifolddivisorsHirzebruchproportionalityreflectiongroupsDeligne–MostowarrangementdualHesse

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 asks which branch divisors on the complex projective plane can appear when the plane is written as a quotient of the complex 2-ball by a discrete group of isometries. It proves a complete classification under a mild genericity condition: the branch divisor must be a union of smooth curves meeting pairwise in normal crossings. The only possibilities are the six-line complete quadrilateral arrangement and a nine-line dual Hesse arrangement, both rooted in the 1986 Deligne–Mostow construction and its degree-9 cover. A direct consequence is that no genuinely smooth normal-crossing divisor on the projective plane can be a ball-quotient divisor. If correct, this settles the two-dimensional analogue of Poincaré's classical description of ball quotients of the projective line.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a pair of numerical invariants attached to any compact orbifold surface (X, D): the global proportionality invariant Prop(X,D) and the per-component invariant prop_(X,D)(D_i), both defined so that they vanish for ball quotient orbifolds. The vanishing statements come from the proportionality identity c_1^2 = 3c_2 for compact ball-quotient surfaces and its curve analogue e(C) = 2C^2 for totally geodesic curves, applied to a torsion-free uniformizing cover. A second ingredient is the classification of reflection-group singularities (Shephard–Todd), which makes the local singularity contributions to these invariants computable from a finite table. The converse verificat

What would settle it

Run the paper's own numerical check on any candidate divisor: compute Prop(P^2, D) and prop_(P^2,D)(D_i) using the tables in Section 3. A divisor with all components smooth and pairwise normal-crossing for which both invariants vanish and K+D is ample, but which is not projectively equivalent to D_Q or D_H, would refute Theorem 1.1. Equivalently, producing any explicit ball quotient uniformization of P^2 whose branch divisor has pairwise normal-crossing smooth components other than those two arrangements would settle it; the paper's Section 4 asserts that a finite case analysis rules all such

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1.1: Let D be an orbifold divisor on P^2 whose components are smooth and pairwise normal-crossing. Then (P^2, D) is a ball quotient orbifold if and only if D is projectively equivalent to the complete quadrilateral D_Q (six lines, four triple points, weights 2 and 3) or the dual Hesse arrangement D_H (nine lines, twelve triple points, all weight 2). The proof has two parts: a numerical check shows these two examples satisfy the orbifold proportionality criterion for being ball quotients; then a long exclusion argument uses two vanishing invariants, derived from Hirzebruch proportionality and its curve version, to rule out every other arrangement of smooth pairwise normal-crossing cur

Load-bearing premise

The exclusion argument leans on a proportionality theorem for totally geodesic curves in torsion-free ball quotients: every smooth totally geodesic curve C satisfies e(C) = 2 C^2. The paper applies this to the preimage of each branch component, relying on the fact that this preimage is totally geodesic because it is a fixed component of a finite-order isometry. If that theorem, or the total-geodesicity of the preimage, failed, then prop_(X,D)(D_i)=0 would not follow and the f

Editorial extensions

If this is right

No smooth normal-crossing divisor on P^2 is a ball quotient divisor; every ball quotient divisor under the hypothesis must have triple-point singularities.
The classification is exhaustive for arrangements whose components are pairwise normal-crossing, closing the P^2 analogue of Poincaré's P^1 classification of ball quotient structures.
The dual Hesse arrangement arises as a degree-9 orbifold cover of the complete quadrilateral, so the two associated lattices are commensurable and both arithmetic.
The numerical framework (Prop and prop invariants) applies to any compact smooth orbifold surface, so the same elimination strategy can be run on other surfaces, as the paper announces for a sequel.
The two examples D_Q and D_H are projectively unique, so ball quotient structures on P^2 with pairwise normal-crossing branch divisors are rigid up to projective equivalence.

Reading between the lines

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

The methods strongly suggest that any ball quotient divisor on P^2 that is not pairwise normal-crossing, such as the conic-with-tangents example mentioned in the paper, must involve singularity types outside the reflection-group classification covered by the tables; extending the tables could lead to a classification without the pairwise normal-crossing hypothesis.
The vanishing of Prop(X,D) and prop_(X,D)(D_i) may be sufficient, not just necessary, for wider families of orbifold divisors; testing this on del Pezzo surfaces or on blow-ups of P^2 could yield new ball quotient structures or prove scarcity.
Because the two examples are both arithmetic, the classification hints that arithmeticity might be forced for ball quotient structures on P^2 with nice branch divisors; it would be interesting to see whether any non-arithmetic lattice could produce such a structure.
A computer enumeration of line arrangements using the coefficient tables could be run independently to confirm the finite case analysis and to flag candidates for P^2 if the pairwise normal-crossing assumption is relaxed.

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

Short version: this is a good paper and the reader's accept verdict is right. What's new is not the examples—both D_Q and D_H were known to Deligne–Mostow and Höfer—but the converse: no other smooth pairwise normal-crossing divisor on P^2 supports a ball quotient structure. The proof is a systematic enumeration driven by orbifold proportionality invariants, and the paper is candid about its scope: it excludes the Uludağ conic-tangent example, and it knows its methods don't handle non-pairwise-normal-crossing singularities.

The machinery in Section 3 is the real substance. Proposition 3.7 derives Chern-number and curve-intersection formulas for a quotient Y/G with smooth quotient X, and the singularity coefficients in Tables 2 and 3 are explicit enough to check by hand. I spot-checked a few entries and the algebra in Propositions 4.3–4.5; it looks right. The reduction to line arrangements via the P-invariant (Prop 4.2) is elegant, and the case analysis is finite and complete. There are no fitted parameters, no circular definition of 'prediction'—the invariants are necessary conditions from independent proportionality theorems.

The soft spot is exactly the one the stress-test flags: Proposition 3.9(b) uses Enoki's theorem (Theorem 3.5) applied to the preimage of each branch curve, and needs that preimage to be smooth and totally geodesic. The smoothness follows from linearization of finite-order isometries, and total geodesicity from being a component of a fixed locus of a holomorphic isometry—both are standard in complex hyperbolic geometry. But they are not proved or even cited precisely in the text, and Theorem 3.5 is tucked into a German-language reference [3, B.1.I]. If either fact failed, prop(X,D)(D_i)=0 would not follow and the enumeration collapses. I don't think it does fail; the statements are classical. But this is the place I'd ask the author to add a page, either a short proof of total geodesicity or a precise citation with statement.

Verdict: worth a serious referee. The classification is significant for complex-hyperbolic geometry and line arrangement theory; the exposition is clear; the computations are reproducible. A referee should focus on the Enoki/total-geodesicity step and on verifying the singularity coefficient tables, not on hunting for hidden assumptions. I'd accept after minor revision.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proves a complete classification: if D is an orbifold divisor on P^2 whose components are smooth and pairwise normal-crossing, then (P^2,D) is a ball quotient orbifold if and only if D is projectively equivalent to the Deligne-Mostow complete quadrilateral D_Q (six lines, weights 3,3,3,2,2,2) or to the dual Hesse arrangement D_H (nine lines, all weight 2). The proof sets up orbifold proportionality invariants Prop(X,D), prop_{(X,D)}(D_i), and P(X,D) that vanish on ball quotients, derives local singularity coefficients, reduces D to a line arrangement, and eliminates all other configurations by explicit inequalities. The two surviving examples are verified by the Kobayashi-Nakamura-Sakai numerical characterization.

Significance. If correct, this is a natural and clean dimension-two analogue of Poincar\'e's P^1 classification. The numerical framework is reusable, the derivations are parameter-free, and the two examples are verified independently by an external uniformization criterion. The exclusion argument is a finite case analysis with explicit coefficients; I checked representative computations in Propositions 4.3, 4.4, and 4.6 and found them consistent. The main theorem is a genuine classification rather than a list of examples. The proof relies on standard but deep external results (Hirzebruch/Enoki proportionality, Kobayashi-Nakamura-Sakai uniformization), and the dependence is clearly flagged. The stress-test concern about Proposition 3.9(b) does not translate into a correctness problem: total geodesicity of fixed components is a standard consequence of the fixed-point set of an isometry, and the cited Enoki theorem is external but standard. The paper also gives appropriate credit to Deligne-Mostow and H\"ofer for the existence of the examples.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.2, after Definition 3.8] The assertion that each preimage \tilde{D}_i of a branch component is smooth and totally geodesic is compressed and unreferenced, and this fact is load-bearing for Proposition 3.9(b). Since Proposition 3.9(b) drives the entire exclusion argument in Section 4, please expand this into a short lemma or give a precise reference, and provide a citation for Enoki's Theorem 3.5 that is more accessible than the current German-language monograph [3, B.1.I].
[Table 3] The bold symbol marking the distinguished branch curve C is not visible in the typeset version I received. Rows such as [2,3,3] with coefficients 1/12 and 5/12 are otherwise ambiguous. Please add a separate column indicating which branch weight the coefficient refers to, or otherwise make the distinction explicit for each singularity pair.
[Remark 1.2(b) and Figure 1] The singularity configuration of the Uluda\v{g} example is hard to parse because the notation is dense and the typesetting is garbled. Please reformat it. Also, the caption of Figure 1 should state explicitly which of the red lines belong to D_Q and which are absent from D_H.
[Throughout] There are several typographical and OCR artifacts in the manuscript (inconsistent P^1/P^2 notation, broken arrows in quotient maps, and non-rendered superscripts in Table 2). Please give the manuscript a careful final proofreading pass for notation consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation relies on independent external theorems and contains no fitted parameters, self-citation loops, or prediction-by-construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a classification: if (P^2,D) is a ball quotient orbifold with smooth pairwise normal-crossing components, then D is projectively equivalent to D_Q or D_H. The existence direction (Proposition 4.1) verifies D_Q and D_H directly through the Kobayashi–Nakamura–Sakai numerical characterization (Theorem 3.12), computing Prop(P^2,D)=0 and ampleness explicitly. That characterization is an external theorem cited to [16,17] and [14]; it is not stated in terms of the classification being proved. The exclusion direction derives the necessary conditions Prop(X,D)=0 and prop_{(X,D)}(D_i)=0 (Proposition 3.9) from Hirzebruch proportionality (Theorem 3.4, external) and Enoki's proportionality for totally geodesic curves (Theorem 3.5, cited to [3]), applied after passing to a torsion-free uniformization. The assertion that the preimage of a branch component is smooth and totally geodesic is a standard external fact about fixed loci of finite-order isometries, stated but not proved in the paper; even if this is load-bearing, it is an independent geometric input rather than a restatement of the target result. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the data and then used to 'predict' a closely related quantity; the finite enumeration in Section 4 is a genuine case analysis over line arrangements, using only the vanishing conditions, ampleness of K_{P^2}+D, and the external uniqueness of the dual Hesse arrangement [19]. The paper also credits Deligne–Mostow and Höfer for the existence of the two examples, so its own contribution is the exclusion, which does not reduce to those constructions. Remark 1.2(b) honestly records a limitation of the methods for other singularity types; this is a scope statement, not a circular step. The skeptical concern about reliance on Enoki's theorem and total geodesicity is a robustness/correctness risk about external assumptions, not circularity, and per the review rules it does not raise the circularity score.

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

The central claim is built entirely from established theorems and finite bookkeeping; there are no free parameters fitted to data and no new postulated objects. All external inputs are explicitly cited.

assumptions (6)

standard math Hirzebruch proportionality for compact torsion-free ball quotient surfaces: c1^2 = 3c2 (Theorem 3.4).
Used to define Prop(X,D) and to prove Prop(X,D)=0 for ball quotient orbifolds.
standard math Enoki's proportionality for curves: every smooth totally geodesic curve C in a compact torsion-free ball quotient satisfies e(C)=2C^2 (Theorem 3.5).
Used to force prop(X,D)(D_i)=0 for every branch component; attributed to Enoki via [3, B.1.I].
standard math Kobayashi–Nakamura–Sakai orbifold uniformization: a smooth compact orbifold surface is a ball quotient iff KX+D is ample and the orbifold Chern numbers satisfy c1^2=3c2 (Theorem 3.12).
Used in Proposition 4.1 to verify that D_Q and D_H are ball quotient divisors.
standard math Chevalley and Shephard–Todd classification: singularities of orbifold divisors on smooth surfaces are reflection-group singularities, enumerated in Table 1.
Restricts possible local singularity types; drives the local coefficient tables used throughout Section 4.
standard math Uniqueness of the dual Hesse arrangement: the unique arrangement of 9 lines with 12 triple points is the dual Hesse arrangement (Lampa-Baczyńska–Wójcik).
Used in Proposition 4.5 to identify the 9-line, 12-triple-point configuration as D_H.
standard math Selberg's lemma provides a finite-index torsion-free subgroup of any lattice, giving the finite uniformization Y→X used in Remark 3.1 and Proposition 3.9.
Needed to pull proportionality statements back from the torsion-free ball quotient Y to the orbifold (X,D).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The complex projective plane as a ball quotient." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J7GMJPVI

@misc{pith2026260718710,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The complex projective plane as a ball quotient},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J7GMJPVI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18710}
}

abstract

In 1986, Deligne and Mostow constructed a ball quotient $\mathbb{B}^2 / \Gamma$ biholomorphic to the complex projective plane $\mathbb{P}^2$ whose branch locus is a line arrangement. In this paper, we show that if $\mathbb{P}^2$ is realized as a ball quotient whose branch divisor $D$ is an arrangement of smooth pairwise normal-crossing curves, then the orbifold $(\mathbb{P}^2,D)$ is isomorphic to either the Deligne-Mostow example or a certain degree 9 cover of it. This classification of "ball quotient structures" on $\mathbb{P}^2$ generalizes the $\mathbb{P}^1$ case due to Poincar\'e.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18710 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Illustration of the orbifold divisors DH and DQ on P 2 . Weight-2 lines have been left unlabelled. The dual Hesse arrangement DH is represented by the 9 black lines on the left (the faint red lines are not part of DH ). Note that this is only a partial illustration, as two of the 12 triple points are not pictured—the dual Hesse arrangement cannot be realized by a real line arrangement, so no illustration is complet… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** A ball quotient divisor on P 2 not within the scope of Theorem 1.1. Methods. The main tools used to rule out orbifold divisors are Hirzebruch proportionality (Theorem 3.4) and Enoki’s version of proportionality for curves (Theorem 3.5), which state that compact ball quotients satisfy strict numerical conditions. These conditions motivate the introduction of certain numerical invariants, defined for all compact smoo… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

Bannai (1976). Fundamental Groups of the Spaces of Regular Orbits of the Finite Unitary Reflection Groups of Dimension 2.Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan28(3): 447–454.DOI:10.2969/jmsj/02830447. MR:407199

arXiv 1976
[2]

(1984).Compact Complex Surfaces

Barth et al. (1984).Compact Complex Surfaces. Springer

1984
[3]

Vieweg+Teubner Verlag.DOI:10.1007/978-3-322-92886-3

Barthel, Hirzebruch, and Höfer (1987).Geradenkonfigurationen und Algebraische Flächen. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag.DOI:10.1007/978-3-322-92886-3

doi:10.1007/978-3-322-92886-3 1987
[4]

On Complex Reflection Groups and Their Associated Braid Groups

Broué, Malle, and Rouquier (1995). On Complex Reflection Groups and Their Associated Braid Groups. In: Representations of Groups. American Mathematical Society.MR:1357192

1995
[5]

Introduction to Orbifolds

Caramello (2022). Introduction to Orbifolds. Preprint.ARXIV:1909.08699

arXiv 2022
[6]

Invariants of Finite Groups Generated by Reflections.American Journal of Mathematics77: 778–782.DOI:10.2307/2372597.MR:72877

Chevalley (1955). Invariants of Finite Groups Generated by Reflections.American Journal of Mathematics77: 778–782.DOI:10.2307/2372597.MR:72877

work page doi:10.2307/2372597.mr:72877 1955
[7]

Finite Complex Reflection Groups.Annales Scientifiques de l’École Normale Supérieure, Qua- trième Série9(3): 379–436.MR:422448

Cohen (1976). Finite Complex Reflection Groups.Annales Scientifiques de l’École Normale Supérieure, Qua- trième Série9(3): 379–436.MR:422448

1976
[8]

Monodromy of Hypergeometric Functions and Nonlattice Integral Monodromy

Deligne and Mostow (1986). Monodromy of Hypergeometric Functions and Nonlattice Integral Monodromy. Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, Publications Mathématiques63: 5–89.DOI:10 . 1007 / BF02831622. MR:849651

1986

Show all 32 references

[9]

Princeton University Press.DOI:10.1515/9781400882526

Fulton (2016).Introduction to Toric Varieties. Princeton University Press.DOI:10.1515/9781400882526

2016 doi
[10]

Clarendon Press

Goldman (1999).Complex Hyperbolic Geometry. Clarendon Press

1999
[11]

Arrangements of Lines and Algebraic Surfaces

Hirzebruch (1983). Arrangements of Lines and Algebraic Surfaces. In:Arithmetic and Geometry, Vol. II. Birkhäuser.MR:717609

1983
[12]

Chern Numbers of Algebraic Surfaces: An Example.Mathematische Annalen266(3): 351– 356.DOI:10.1007/BF01475584.MR:730175

Hirzebruch (1984). Chern Numbers of Algebraic Surfaces: An Example.Mathematische Annalen266(3): 351– 356.DOI:10.1007/BF01475584.MR:730175

1984 doi
[13]

Algebraic Surfaces with Extreme Chern Numbers (Report on the Thesis of T

Hirzebruch (1985). Algebraic Surfaces with Extreme Chern Numbers (Report on the Thesis of T. Höfer, Bonn 1984).Russian Mathematical Surveys40(4): 135–145.DOI:10.1070/RM1985v040n04ABEH003620

1985 doi
[14]

Automorphe Formen Und Der Satz von Riemann-Roch

Hirzebruch (1958). Automorphe Formen Und Der Satz von Riemann-Roch. In:Symposium Internacional de Topología Algebraica International Symposium on Algebraic Topology. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and UNESCO.MR:103280

1958
[15]

PhD thesis, University of Bonn

Höfer (1985).Ballquotienten Als Verzweigte Überlagerungen Der Projektiven Ebene. PhD thesis, University of Bonn

1985
[16]

Uniformization of Complex Surfaces

Kobayashi (1990). Uniformization of Complex Surfaces. In:Kähler Metric and Moduli Spaces. Academic Press and Kinokuniya Company.DOI:10.2969/aspm/01820313.MR:1145252

1990
[17]

A Numerical Characterization of Ball Quotients for Normal Sur- faces with Branch Loci.Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series A, Mathematical Sciences65(7): 238–241

Kobayashi, Nakamura, and Sakai (1989). A Numerical Characterization of Ball Quotients for Normal Sur- faces with Branch Loci.Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series A, Mathematical Sciences65(7): 238–241. MR:1030189

1989
[18]

Kobayashi and Nomizu (1996).Foundations of Differential Geometry, Vol. 2. Wiley

1996
[19]

On the Dual Hesse Arrangement

Lampa-Baczy ´nska and Wójcik (2019). On the Dual Hesse Arrangement. In:Analytic and Algebraic Geometry, Vol. 3. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.DOI:10.18778/8142-814-9.12.MR:4481059

2019 doi
[20]

Lazarsfeld (2004).Positivity in Algebraic Geometry, Vol. I. Springer

2004
[21]

Cambridge University Press

Lehrer and Taylor (2009).Unitary Reflection Groups. Cambridge University Press

2009
[22]

Princeton University Press.DOI:10.1515/9781400 881819

Milnor (1968).Singular Points of Complex Hypersurfaces. Princeton University Press.DOI:10.1515/9781400 881819

1968 doi
[23]

Théorie Des Groupes Fuchsiens.Acta Mathematica1(1): 1–76.DOI:10.1007/BF02391835

Poincaré (1882). Théorie Des Groupes Fuchsiens.Acta Mathematica1(1): 1–76.DOI:10.1007/BF02391835. MR:1554574

doi
[24]

Finite Unitary Reflection Groups.Canadian Journal of Mathematics6: 274–304

Shephard and Todd (1954). Finite Unitary Reflection Groups.Canadian Journal of Mathematics6: 274–304. DOI:10.4153/cjm-1954-028-3.MR:59914

1954 doi
[25]

Differential Equations Invariant under Finite Reflection Groups.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society112: 392–400.DOI:10.2307/1994152.MR:167535

Steinberg (1964). Differential Equations Invariant under Finite Reflection Groups.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society112: 392–400.DOI:10.2307/1994152.MR:167535

1964 doi
[26]

Products of Curves as Ball Quotients

Stover (2023). Products of Curves as Ball Quotients. Preprint.ARXIV:2312.05699. 28

2023 arXiv
[27]

Princeton University Press.DOI:10.1515/9781400881253.MR:3445915

Tretkoff (2016).Complex Ball Quotients and Line Arrangements in the Projective Plane. Princeton University Press.DOI:10.1515/9781400881253.MR:3445915

2016 doi
[28]

Covering Relations between Ball-Quotient Orbifolds.Mathematische Annalen328(3): 503– 523.DOI:10.1007/s00208-003-0504-z.MR:2036334

Uluda ˘g (2004). Covering Relations between Ball-Quotient Orbifolds.Mathematische Annalen328(3): 503– 523.DOI:10.1007/s00208-003-0504-z.MR:2036334

2004 doi
[29]

Galois Coverings of the Plane by K3 Surfaces.Kyushu Journal of Mathematics59(2): 393–419

Uluda ˘g (2005). Galois Coverings of the Plane by K3 Surfaces.Kyushu Journal of Mathematics59(2): 393–419. DOI:10.2206/kyushujm.59.393.MR:2189402

2005 doi
[30]

Orbifolds and Their Uniformization

Uluda ˘g (2007). Orbifolds and Their Uniformization. In:Arithmetic and Geometry around Hypergeometric Functions. Birkhäuser.DOI:10.1007/978-3-7643-8284-1 _13.MR:2306159

2007 doi
[31]

Calabi’s Conjecture and Some New Results in Algebraic Geometry.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America74(5): 1798–1799.DOI:10

Yau (1977). Calabi’s Conjecture and Some New Results in Algebraic Geometry.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America74(5): 1798–1799.DOI:10 . 1073 / pnas . 74 . 5 . 1798. MR:451180

1977
[32]

Vieweg+Teubner Verlag.DOI:10.1007/978-3-663-14115- 0

Yoshida (1987).Fuchsian Differential Equations. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag.DOI:10.1007/978-3-663-14115- 0. 29

1987 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bannai (1976). Fundamental Groups of the Spaces of Regular Orbits of the Finite Unitary Reflection Groups of Dimension 2.Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan28(3): 447–454.DOI:10.2969/jmsj/02830447. MR:407199

arXiv 1976

[2] [2]

(1984).Compact Complex Surfaces

Barth et al. (1984).Compact Complex Surfaces. Springer

1984

[3] [3]

Vieweg+Teubner Verlag.DOI:10.1007/978-3-322-92886-3

Barthel, Hirzebruch, and Höfer (1987).Geradenkonfigurationen und Algebraische Flächen. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag.DOI:10.1007/978-3-322-92886-3

doi:10.1007/978-3-322-92886-3 1987

[4] [4]

On Complex Reflection Groups and Their Associated Braid Groups

Broué, Malle, and Rouquier (1995). On Complex Reflection Groups and Their Associated Braid Groups. In: Representations of Groups. American Mathematical Society.MR:1357192

1995

[5] [5]

Introduction to Orbifolds

Caramello (2022). Introduction to Orbifolds. Preprint.ARXIV:1909.08699

arXiv 2022

[6] [6]

Invariants of Finite Groups Generated by Reflections.American Journal of Mathematics77: 778–782.DOI:10.2307/2372597.MR:72877

Chevalley (1955). Invariants of Finite Groups Generated by Reflections.American Journal of Mathematics77: 778–782.DOI:10.2307/2372597.MR:72877

work page doi:10.2307/2372597.mr:72877 1955

[7] [7]

Finite Complex Reflection Groups.Annales Scientifiques de l’École Normale Supérieure, Qua- trième Série9(3): 379–436.MR:422448

Cohen (1976). Finite Complex Reflection Groups.Annales Scientifiques de l’École Normale Supérieure, Qua- trième Série9(3): 379–436.MR:422448

1976

[8] [8]

Monodromy of Hypergeometric Functions and Nonlattice Integral Monodromy

Deligne and Mostow (1986). Monodromy of Hypergeometric Functions and Nonlattice Integral Monodromy. Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, Publications Mathématiques63: 5–89.DOI:10 . 1007 / BF02831622. MR:849651

1986