Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Higher dimensional dominoes in de Rham-Witt cohomology

T0 review · 3 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 The paper proves that every domino in de Rham–Witt cohomology admits a normal form, classifies the two-dimensional ones, and uses this to reconstruct Brauer-type invariants of supersingular abelian varieties from crystalline cohomology, bou

desk verdict Strong structure theory for dominoes; the geometric payoffs are real but hang on a compressed Berthelot–Ogus step that a referee should check carefully. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26323 v1 pith:CDAG4BE6 submitted 2026-07-28 math.AG

Yuanning Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AG MSC 14F3014K15
keywords deRham–WittcohomologydominoesslopespectralsequenceRaynaudringcrystallinesupersingularabelianvarietiesBrauergroupa-number
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 characteristic-p phenomenon in the cohomology of smooth proper varieties: the de Rham–Witt cohomology contains a canonical piece, the domino, that is not finitely generated and that carries exactly the nonzero differentials of the slope spectral sequence. Previously only one-dimensional dominoes were classified; the paper proves that every domino has a normal form given by a strictly upper-triangular matrix over a skew polynomial ring, and that the two-dimensional indecomposable ones are classified by a single Frobenius-skew polynomial up to rescaling. On this structural basis, it reconstructs the degree-two diagonal slice of de Rham–Witt cohomology from the crystalline F-crystal for Mazur–Ogus varieties, and for supersingular abelian varieties it computes the domino explicitly in two families and proves that the p-exponent of the p-primary Brauer group is bounded by ceil((g-1)/a) ≤ e ≤ g-a+1, with e = g-1 iff a = 1, for every prime p. A sympathetic reader would care because this is the first classification beyond dimension one, and it turns a structural gap into explicit numerical bounds on Brauer groups.

What carries the argument

The central object is the domino U, a two-term module U^0 → U^1 over the Raynaud ring—the ring that packages Frobenius F, Verschiebung V, and the de Rham differential d—killed by a power of p but not finitely generated over the Witt vectors; it is the part of de Rham–Witt cohomology that carries the nonzero slope-spectral-sequence differentials. The structural load is borne by three tools: the type sequence J(U), the canonical filtration whose graded pieces are elementary dominoes U_j; the presentation theorem over the skew polynomial ring k_σ[V], which writes any domino of fixed type as a strictly upper-triangular matrix of Ext^1-classes and describes isomorphisms as upper-triangular change

What would settle it

Exhibit a principal polarization on the abelian variety whose H^1 Dieudonné module is the rank-6 cyclic F-crystal with valuation word (0,0,1,0,1,1); the paper's upper bound σ_Art(A) ≤ 7 makes such a polarization impossible, so constructing one would refute Theorem 5.30.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that higher-dimensional dominoes are not an unmanageable wilderness: every domino of fixed type is presented, uniquely up to explicit upper-triangular changes of generators, by a strictly upper-triangular matrix of extension classes over k_σ[V] (Theorem 3.18), and in dimension two the classification is the orbit space of a nonzero polynomial under the Frobenius-skew frame-change f ↦ σ(b_0) f c_0^{-1} (Theorem 3.9). The paper then shows that each domino carries two unipotent realizations—a formal group and a perfect group—with identical isogeny partitions, so the two Brauer-type invariants are two functors of one object. The geometric payoff is Theor

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every supersingular abelian variety is Mazur–Ogus—crystalline cohomology torsion-free and the Hodge–de Rham spectral sequence degenerating—so that the Hodge–Witt filtration is read off from the F-crystal by the formula Fil^i = ∩ φ^{-r}(p^{ir}M); if any supersingular abelian variety violates this, the identification of the Brauer exponent with the lattice exponent (and of σ_Art with half the discriminant length) collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two-dimensional classification: an indecomposable 2-dimensional domino is an extension U_{j_2} → U → U_{j_1} with gap at least 2, and its isomorphism class is a Frobenius-skew polynomial f(V) up to the rescaling f ↦ σ(b_0) f c_0^{-1}; a full list is possible in this dimension.
  • Normal form in all dimensions: for any type sequence, the isomorphism classes of dominoes are orbits of upper-triangular presentation matrices under explicit upper-triangular changes of generators; this turns classification into a (generally wild) matrix problem but gives a canonical language for all further computations.
  • Unipotent realizations: each domino yields a formal unipotent group and a perfect unipotent group with the same isogeny partition; in degree two these are the formal Brauer group and the perfect Brauer group, so the two Brauer invariants are governed by a single object.
  • Reconstruction: for Mazur–Ogus varieties, H^2(X,WΩ^•_X)[0,0] and in particular the domino U^{0,2}_X are determined by the F-crystal H^2_crys(X/W); the domino is therefore an invariant of crystalline cohomology, not an additional piece of structure.
  • Brauer bounds: for every supersingular abelian g-fold and every prime p, the p-exponent of the p-primary Brauer group lies between ⌈(g-1)/a⌉ and g-a+1, and the degree-two Artin invariant σ_Art(A) is bounded by g(g-1)-binom(a,2) from below and by floor(e g(2g-1)/2) from above under a principal polarization; a=1 characterizes the maximal exponent g-1.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The normal-form theorem suggests that the 'type sequence plus extension matrix' is the right invariant of a domino, so any geometric invariant that depends only on isogeny (like the formal Brauer group's isogeny class) can forget the matrix, while finer invariants (like the actual domino) remember it; one testable consequence is that the extension matrix should be recoverable from the differential
  • The reconstruction theorem implies that, at least in the Mazur–Ogus setting, the domino contributes no new information beyond the F-crystal of degree-two crystalline cohomology; a natural extension is to test this for non-Mazur–Ogus varieties, where the diagonal slice need not be nft and the Nygaard-pair description should fail in a measurable way.
  • Because the upper bound on σ_Art is proved via a self-dual chain and a discriminant-length estimate, the same strategy may yield bounds on other length invariants attached to Hodge–Witt filtrations, such as the lengths of torsion in H^{2d-2} of varieties with nondegenerate duality.
  • The principal-polarization obstruction in §5.3 turns the size of a domino into a numerical witness against polarizability; one could systematically search cyclic F-crystals for degree/p-exponent combinations that violate the upper bound and thereby produce new non-polarizable Dieudonné modules.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a structure theory for dominoes, the non-finitely-generated pieces of de Rham–Witt cohomology lying over the nonzero slope-spectral-sequence differentials. It classifies two-dimensional indecomposable dominoes by orbits of Frobenius-skew polynomials (Theorem A), gives a fixed-type presentation theorem for arbitrary-dimensional dominoes (Theorem 3.18), and identifies a distinguished maximal-exponent family (Theorem 3.20). It then introduces Ekedahl modules and Nygaard pairs, and claims that for a Mazur–Ogus variety the F-crystal H^2_crys(X/W) functorially reconstructs the diagonal slice H^2(X,WΩ^•)[0,0] and hence the domino U^{0,2}_X (Theorem 4.22). For supersingular abelian varieties this is turned into a combinatorial algorithm for cyclic F-crystals, closed computations for two families (Theorems 5.13, 5.14), and bounds on the p-exponent and the degree-two Artin invariant in terms of the a-number (Theorem F). The paper also attaches formal and perfect unipotent groups to each domino and proves equality of their isogeny partitions (Theorem C).

Significance. If correct, this is a substantial advance. The two-dimensional classification and the fixed-type normal form are parameter-free and internally coherent, and the explicit cyclic algorithm gives computable answers for natural families of supersingular abelian varieties. The sharpness remarks in §5.21 and §5.25 provide independent support for the exponent bounds. The geometric half of the paper, however, depends on a chain of reconstructions whose most delicate link is Theorem 4.22; the a-number bounds and the Artin-invariant bounds collapse if that link fails. The structural §3 arguments are detailed and appear sound, and I found no fitted-parameter circularity.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Theorem 4.22, Step 3] The equality φ(N)=V_K^{-1}M is the load-bearing step for Theorems D–F and for all of §5. The proof is compressed: it asserts that the reduction map sends Fil^1_N M to the Hodge filtration Fil^1_H via [BO78, Thm 8.26(1)], and that this implies u=V(n). The cited theorem is not stated with its exact hypotheses, and the compatibility of the Nygaard modification WΩ•_X(-1) with the Mazur–Ogus condition is not verified. If this identification fails, p-exp(U^{0,2}_A)=e(N) and σ_Art(A)=lgth_W(N/L) no longer follow. Please expand Step 3 into a separate lemma giving the precise Berthelot–Ogus statement used and proving the edge identifications ε_0 and ε_{-1}.
  2. [§4.1, Example 4.11 and Definition 4.8] The reconstruction and all of §5 assume that every supersingular abelian variety is Mazur–Ogus. The text cites [GSY25, Def. 1.4] for ‘straight’ but does not show that ‘straight’ is equivalent to Definition 4.8, nor does it give a proof that abelian varieties have torsion-free crystalline cohomology and Hodge–de Rham degeneration in the exact sense used by Ekedahl. Since the a-number bounds apply to every supersingular abelian variety, this premise is load-bearing. Please either prove the needed statement directly or give a precise standard reference, and clarify the relation between ‘straight’ and the intrinsic Hodge–Witt filtration formula of Proposition 4.14.
  3. [Appendix A.2, Theorem A.2] The isogeny partition theorem is advertised as a central structural result, but its proof is only a sketch. The identification im[p]^r_{G^{perf}(U)} ≃ G^{perf}(p^rU) is asserted via exactness of the F-fixed realization and Proposition A.1, and the Zink/Serre decompositions are cited without checking that the dimensions d_r(U) are exactly the Witt-part contributions. Since Theorem C is one of the main claims, please expand this proof or state the theorem as an assembly of the cited standard results with the exactness check carried out.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Example 3.10] The notation W_{2,σ}[[V]]⊕kF is confusing: kF looks like a field extension rather than a one-dimensional k-vector space spanned by F. Please clarify the notation.
  2. [Theorem 5.24] The theorem statement says ‘Assume g≥3’ only in the proof paragraph; please state the hypothesis explicitly in the theorem block. Also, the a=2 improvement to g−2 is stated in Theorem F but appears only at the end of the proof; this is easy to miss.
  3. [Remark 5.31] This remark concludes that a rank-6 cyclic F-crystal is not principally quasi-polarizable. It would be cleaner to state explicitly that the blockwise algorithm of Theorem 5.6 is being applied to an abstract cyclic slope-one F-crystal before drawing a conclusion outside the abelian-variety setting.
  4. [General references] Several references are to preprints or very recent papers ([GSY25], [LY26], [Yan26]). Please date them and, where possible, indicate the specific theorem or section being used, especially [GSY25, Def. 1.4] and [BO78, Thm 8.26(1)].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the classification and reconstruction arguments are parameter-free, with external citations not reducing to the paper's own claims.

full rationale

The structural half of the paper (§3) defines dominoes as iterated extensions of elementary dominoes U_j and proves classification and presentation theorems from the explicit Ext calculation of Proposition 3.3. Theorem 3.9's orbit space is a genuine computation of extension classes, and Theorem 3.20's uniqueness is proved by induction, not assumed. The geometric reconstruction (Theorem 4.22) starts from the F-crystal H^2_crys(X/W) and applies Ekedahl's Hodge-Witt filtration formula (Proposition 4.14), the Nygaard-pair equivalence (Theorem 4.21), and Berthelot-Ogus's external Mazur theorem [BO78, Thm 8.26(1)]; the latter is an independent result, not a self-citation, and the equality φ(N)=V_K^{-1}M is argued via the long exact sequence for the Nygaard modification, not by definition. The final bounds in §5 are obtained from elementary-divisor and exterior-square estimates using Li's superspecial envelope [Li89], again independent. Although the geometric theorems depend on the Mazur-Ogus/straightness hypothesis, that is a stated external hypothesis and a potential correctness risk, not a circular reduction. I found no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the present authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 5 invented entities

The paper is pure mathematics; the central claims rest on a long chain of cited theorems from the Illusie–Raynaud–Ekedahl formalism plus geometric inputs (Mazur–Ogus property, Li's envelope, Berthelot–Ogus). No numbers are fitted to data anywhere; the only inputs are geometric invariants (p, g, a, polarization). The ledger records the main unproved background theorems the paper invokes as axioms.

assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption Coherence criterion and devissage: a coherent R-module admits a finite filtration by Dieudonné modules and elementary dominoes (Props 2.12, 2.14, Def 2.8)
    The entire framework of §§2–3 — coherence, cores, dominoes — rests on [Eke85, Prop III.1.1] and [Eke84, Lemma 0.8], stated as Props 2.12/2.14 without proof.
  • domain assumption Type filtration: every domino has a unique filtration whose graded pieces are iterated extensions of U_j (Prop 2.17)
    Used throughout §3 (proofs of Thm 3.9, Lemma 3.13) and is the backbone of J(U), m_j(U), dim(U); cited from [Eke86, Prop III.3.2].
  • domain assumption Survival of the core (Prop 2.16) and Ekedahl's Poincaré-duality domino range (Prop 2.23(1))
    Gives the domino range 0 ≤ i ≤ n−2, 2 ≤ j ≤ n used in Prop 4.13 and Cor 5.4; cited from [Eke85] and [Eke84, Cor IV.3.5.1].
  • domain assumption Illusie–Raynaud right-free resolution of R_n (Prop 3.1)
    Input to the Ext computation (Prop 3.3), which drives the 2-dimensional classification; cited from [IR83, Prop I.3.2].
  • domain assumption Hodge–Witt filtration formula Fil^i_HW M = ∩_{r≥0} φ^{-r}(p^{ir}M) for Mazur–Ogus varieties (Prop 4.14)
    Load-bearing for the reconstruction (Thm 4.22) and for all of §5; cited from [Eke86, Thm III.4.5].
  • domain assumption Abelian varieties (in particular supersingular ones) are Mazur–Ogus / straight (Example 4.11)
    Needed for U^{0,2}_A ∈ Dom^+ and for the reduction p-exp(U^{0,2}_A) = e(N); cited to [GSY25, Def 1.4].
  • domain assumption Li's superspecial envelope: existence and strict-growth filtration with a ≤ g − δ (Lemma 5.22)
    The upper bound e ≤ g−a+1 (Thm 5.24) rests on Li's filtration [Li89, Lemmas 1.3–1.6], following the proof of [GSY25, Thm 3.8].
  • domain assumption Berthelot–Ogus Mazur theorem [BO78, Thm 8.26(1)] used in Step 3 of Thm 4.22
    Identifies the reduction of the Nygaard filtration term with the Hodge filtration; essential for identifying ker(dV) with V_K^{-1}M/L.
  • domain assumption Existence of principal quasi-polarizations / realization of the cyclic Dieudonné module family (NV07, Har10)
    Theorem 5.13 requires R_0/R_0(F^g − V^g) to be realized by a principally polarized abelian variety; cited to [NV07, Ex. 3.3] and [Har10, Prop 5.3].
  • domain assumption Weight-one syntomic realization and Brauer-group identifications (BMS19, SP25, IR83)
    Appendix A bridges dominoes to actual Brauer groups via Rλ_*Z_p(1) ≃ WΩ^1_log[−1] [BMS19] and the p-primary Brauer decomposition [SP25, App. A]; cited, not proved.
invented entities (5)
  • Ekedahl modules E = Mod_c(R) ∩ ∆ ∩ G independent evidence
    purpose: Organizes two-term coherent R-modules with surjective dV; repository of the diagonal slices H^2(X,WΩ^•)[0,0].
    Characterized as the triple-heart intersection (Appendix B) and shown equivalent to Nygaard pairs (Thm 4.21), giving a checkable handle.
  • Nygaard pairs (K_0, K_{−1}, ι, ν) independent evidence
    purpose: Finite W-module data encoding nft Ekedahl modules; the output of the F-crystal reconstruction.
    Exact equivalence with E_nft (Thm 4.21); computable from F-crystals with a worked combinatorial algorithm (Thm 5.6).
  • Perfect Brauer group Br^perf_X (terminology flagged non-standard) independent evidence
    purpose: Perfect quasi-algebraic group whose k-points are the nondivisible part of the p-primary Brauer group; the syntomic realization of U^{0,2}_X.
    Identified with H^3_syn(X,Z_p(1))[p^∞] via [SP25, App. A] and Lemma A.7, where its p-exponent is computed for supersingular abelian varieties — a falsifiable handle.
  • Degree-two Artin invariant σ_Art(A) = deg(U^{0,2}_A) independent evidence
    purpose: Generalizes the classical Artin invariant of supersingular surfaces to any dimension; bounded below and above in Theorem F.
    Computed explicitly for the superspecial (binomial(g,2)) and cyclic supergeneral families, with a numerical gap result (Rem 5.28) and a polarization obstruction (Rem 5.31).
  • Distinguished dominoes U_{j,j+2,...,j+2n−2} = bR/bR(F^n, dV^{j−1}) independent evidence
    purpose: A rigid, maximal-p-exponent family of fixed-type dominoes that realize the cyclic supergeneral summands.
    Uniqueness theorem (3.20) pins the isomorphism class and Cor A.6 computes the realizations as cW_n and W^perf_n — checkable predictions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higher dimensional dominoes in de Rham-Witt cohomology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CDAG4BE6

@misc{pith2026260726323,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higher dimensional dominoes in de Rham-Witt cohomology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CDAG4BE6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26323}
}
abstract

The de Rham-Witt cohomology of a smooth proper variety in characteristic $p$ contains a canonical piece called the domino, which is not finitely generated over the Witt vectors and carries the nonzero differentials of the slope spectral sequence. Beyond dimension one, dominoes were unclassified. We classify the two-dimensional ones and put a domino of any dimension into a normal form. To each domino we attach two unipotent groups, one formal and one perfect, and prove that their isogeny partitions agree. In degree two we recover the domino of a Mazur-Ogus variety from its crystalline cohomology, compute it for two families of supersingular abelian varieties, and bound the exponent of the $p$-primary Brauer group in terms of the $a$-number, for every prime $p$. This answers a question of Grammatica-Skorobogatov-Yang.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Derived invariants from topological H ochschild homology

    Benjamin Antieau and Daniel Bragg. Derived invariants from topological H ochschild homology. Algebraic Geometry , 9(3):364--399, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Counterexamples to H ochschild-- K ostant-- R osenberg in characteristic p

    Benjamin Antieau, Bhargav Bhatt, and Akhil Mathew. Counterexamples to H ochschild-- K ostant-- R osenberg in characteristic p . Forum Math. Sigma , 9, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Formal groups arising from algebraic varieties

    Michael Artin and Barry Mazur. Formal groups arising from algebraic varieties. Annales scientifiques de l' \'E cole Normale Sup \'e rieure, S \'e r. 4 , 10(1):87--131, 1977

    1977

  4. [4]

    Prismatic F -gauges

    Bhargav Bhatt. Prismatic F -gauges. Lecture notes for MAT 549, Princeton University, 2022. Available at https://www.math.ias.edu/ bhatt/teaching/mat549f22/lectures.pdf

    2022

  5. [5]

    The prismatization of p -adic formal schemes, 2022

    Bhargav Bhatt and Jacob Lurie. The prismatization of p -adic formal schemes, 2022. Preprint, arXiv:2201.06124

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Topological H ochschild homology and integral p -adic H odge theory

    Bhargav Bhatt, Matthew Morrow, and Peter Scholze. Topological H ochschild homology and integral p -adic H odge theory. Publications Math\'ematiques de l'IH\'ES , 129:199--310, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Notes on Crystalline Cohomology , volume 21 of Mathematical Notes

    Pierre Berthelot and Arthur Ogus. Notes on Crystalline Cohomology , volume 21 of Mathematical Notes . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1978

    1978

  8. [8]

    Representability of cohomology of finite flat abelian group schemes, 2021

    Daniel Bragg and Martin Olsson. Representability of cohomology of finite flat abelian group schemes, 2021. Preprint, arXiv:2107.11492

    arXiv 2021

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Prismatization

    Vladimir Drinfeld. Prismatization. Selecta Mathematica. New Series , 30:Paper No.\ 49, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    On the multiplicative properties of the de R ham-- W itt complex

    Torsten Ekedahl. On the multiplicative properties of the de R ham-- W itt complex. I . Arkiv f \"o r Matematik , 22(1--2):185--239, 1984

    1984

  3. [11]

    On the multiplicative properties of the de R ham-- W itt complex

    Torsten Ekedahl. On the multiplicative properties of the de R ham-- W itt complex. II . Arkiv f \"o r Matematik , 23(1--2):53--102, 1985

    1985

  4. [12]

    Diagonal complexes and F -gauge structures

    Torsten Ekedahl. Diagonal complexes and F -gauge structures . Hermann, Paris, 1986

    1986

  5. [13]

    Skorobogatov, and Yuan Yang

    Livia Grammatica, Alexei N. Skorobogatov, and Yuan Yang. Brauer groups of abelian varieties over fields of finite characteristic, 2025. Preprint, arXiv:2511.08840

    2025

  6. [14]

    Generic Newton polygons of Ekedahl--Oort strata: Oort 's conjecture

    Shushi Harashita. Generic Newton polygons of Ekedahl--Oort strata: Oort 's conjecture. Annales de l'Institut Fourier , 60(5):1787--1830, 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    Complexe de de R ham-- W itt et cohomologie cristalline

    Luc Illusie. Complexe de de R ham-- W itt et cohomologie cristalline. Annales scientifiques de l' \'E cole Normale Sup \'e rieure, S \'e r. 4 , 12(4):501--661, 1979

    1979

  8. [16]

    Les suites spectrales associ\'ees au complexe de de R ham-- Witt

    Luc Illusie and Michel Raynaud. Les suites spectrales associ\'ees au complexe de de R ham-- Witt . Publications Math\'ematiques de l'IH\'ES , 57:73--212, 1983

    1983

  9. [17]

    Classification of supersingular abelian varieties

    Ke-Zheng Li. Classification of supersingular abelian varieties. Mathematische Annalen , 283(2):333--351, 1989

    1989

  10. [18]

    On de R ham-- W itt cohomology of classifying stacks, 2026

    Shizhang Li and Yuan Yang. On de R ham-- W itt cohomology of classifying stacks, 2026. Preprint, arXiv:2604.03062

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Yu. I. Manin. The theory of commutative formal groups over fields of finite characteristic. Russian Mathematical Surveys , 18(6):1--83, 1963

    1963

  12. [20]

    Minimal truncations of supersingular p -divisible groups

    Marc-Hubert Nicole and Adrian Vasiu. Minimal truncations of supersingular p -divisible groups. Indiana University Mathematics Journal , 56(6):2887--2897, 2007

    2007

  13. [21]

    Niels O. Nygaard. Slopes of powers of F robenius on crystalline cohomology. Annales scientifiques de l' \'E cole Normale Sup \'e rieure, S \'e r. 4 , 14(4):369--401, 1981

    1981

  14. [22]

    Newton polygons and formal groups: conjectures by M anin and G rothendieck

    Frans Oort. Newton polygons and formal groups: conjectures by M anin and G rothendieck. Annals of Mathematics. Second Series , 152(1):183--206, 2000

    2000

  15. [23]

    Groupes proalg \'e briques

    Jean-Pierre Serre. Groupes proalg \'e briques. Publications Math \'e matiques de l'IH \'E S , 7:5--67, 1960

    1960

  16. [24]

    Algebraic Groups and Class Fields , volume 117 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

    Jean-Pierre Serre. Algebraic Groups and Class Fields , volume 117 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988

    1988

  17. [25]

    Skorobogatov and Alexander Petrov

    Alexei N. Skorobogatov and Alexander Petrov. Boundedness of the p -primary torsion of the B rauer group of products of varieties. Forum of Mathematics, Sigma , 13:Paper No.\ e134, 2025. Main text by A lexei N . S korobogatov, with an appendix by A lexander P etrov

    2025

  18. [26]

    Skorobogatov and Yuri G

    Alexei N. Skorobogatov and Yuri G. Zarhin. The B rauer group of K ummer surfaces and torsion of elliptic curves. Journal f \"u r die reine und angewandte Mathematik , 666:115--140, 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    Remarks on p -primary torsion of the B rauer group

    Yuan Yang. Remarks on p -primary torsion of the B rauer group. Journal of Number Theory , 279:184--215, 2026

    2026

  20. [28]

    Cartiertheorie kommutativer formaler Gruppen , volume 68 of Teubner-Texte zur Mathematik

    Thomas Zink. Cartiertheorie kommutativer formaler Gruppen , volume 68 of Teubner-Texte zur Mathematik . BSB B. G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig, 1984

    1984

Pith tools

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