Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Invariant forms compute the Dolbeault cohomology of complex nilmanifolds

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Left-invariant forms compute Dolbeault cohomology on every compact complex nilmanifold.

desk verdict Settles the long-open Dolbeault-invariants conjecture for nilmanifolds via a clean dimension squeeze; the only real external risk is the concurrent polynomial C^n-cover result it rests on. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26786 v1 pith:LHOXN353 submitted 2026-07-29 math.DG

Keizo Hasegawa , Lorenzo Sillari , Adriano Tomassini This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DG MSC 22E2532G0517B5620J06
keywords nilmanifoldDolbeaultcohomologyleft-invariantcomplexstructurepolynomialautomorphismsdeformationsBott–CherngroupFrölicherspectralsequence
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

For more than twenty years it has been conjectured that the Dolbeault cohomology of a compact nilmanifold with a left-invariant complex structure is completely determined by the finite-dimensional complex of left-invariant forms. This paper proves that conjecture in full generality: the inclusion of invariant forms induces an isomorphism in every bidegree. The argument uses a polynomial biholomorphism of the universal cover with $C^n$, reduces cohomology to group cohomology of polynomial forms, and compares that to the Chevalley–Eilenberg complex via local unipotence of the deck action. As direct consequences, small deformations remain left-invariant, and Bott–Chern, Aeppli, and Frölicher-type invariants are likewise computed by invariant forms and do not depend on the choice of lattice.

What carries the argument

The polynomial model of the universal cover: a biholomorphism $\Phi: (G, J) \to C^n$ that is polynomial with polynomial inverse, so the deck action becomes a group of polynomial automorphisms of bounded degree; Dolbeault cohomology is then identified with group cohomology of polynomial holomorphic forms, which is shown isomorphic to the invariant Chevalley–Eilenberg cohomology.

What would settle it

Exhibit a compact nilmanifold with left-invariant complex structure whose Dolbeault number $h^{p,q}$ differs from the dimension of the corresponding invariant cohomology, or show that some small deformation is not again left-invariant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For every compact nilmanifold $M = \Gamma\backslash G$ carrying a left-invariant complex structure $J$, the natural map from the invariant Dolbeault cohomology $H^{p,q}_{\bar{\partial}}(g, J)$ into $H^{p,q}_{\bar{\partial}}(M)$ is an isomorphism in every bidegree $(p, q)$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire argument rests on the universal cover being biholomorphic to complex n-space by a map that is polynomial with polynomial inverse; without that polynomial model the reduction to polynomial group cohomology and the unipotence comparison do not run.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Small deformations of a left-invariant complex structure on a compact nilmanifold remain left-invariant (and are realized by lattices of polynomial automorphisms of uniformly bounded degree).
  • The inclusion of invariant forms is an E1-isomorphism of double complexes, so both Frölicher spectral sequences and their abutments agree with the invariant ones.
  • Bott–Chern and Aeppli cohomologies, the six Varouchas groups, and Bigolin–Schweitzer cohomologies are all computed by invariant forms.
  • These cohomological invariants are independent of the choice of lattice in a fixed simply connected nilpotent Lie group.
  • The invariant Kodaira–Spencer DGLA is quasi-isomorphic to the full Kodaira–Spencer algebra, so deformation theory is governed by finite-dimensional invariant data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same polynomial-cover technique cannot be expected to salvage the Dolbeault computation for general solvmanifolds, where the paper already notes that surjectivity of the invariant map can fail even with Stein universal covers.
  • Once deformations are known to stay inside the invariant class, moduli of complex structures on nilmanifolds reduce to algebraic deformation problems on the Lie algebra, opening concrete classification in higher dimensions.
  • Independence of the lattice suggests that numerical Hodge-type invariants of nilmanifolds are really invariants of the underlying real Lie algebra plus complex structure, not of the discrete quotient.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves that for every compact nilmanifold M=Γ\G with left-invariant complex structure J, the inclusion of left-invariant forms induces an isomorphism ι: H^{p,q}_∂̄(g,J) → H^{p,q}_∂̄(M) in every bidegree (Theorem 1.1), settling the Console–Fino conjecture. The argument reduces Dolbeault cohomology via a Cartan–Leray double complex to group cohomology H^q(Γ,Ω^p(C^n)), then shows every class has a polynomial representative (Theorem 4.1, Hörmander L^{2} estimates plus a controlled zig-zag) and that polynomial group cohomology matches the Chevalley–Eilenberg cohomology of (g,J) (Theorem 5.1/5.6, via algebraic induction, local unipotence, and Hochschild comparison). Console–Fino injectivity closes the dimension squeeze. Consequences include invariance of small deformations (Theorem 1.2/7.2, Hasegawa) and computation of Bott–Chern, Aeppli, Frölicher, Varouchas, and Bigolin invariants by invariant forms, independently of the lattice (Corollary 7.6, Angella).

Significance. The result closes a conjecture open for more than two decades and known only in special classes (parallelizable, nilpotent, abelian/rational, dim≤3). The deformation consequence settles the second half of Hasegawa’s conjecture and makes the Kodaira–Spencer algebra of nilmanifolds explicitly computable by invariant forms (Theorem 7.1). The E_{1}-isomorphism of double complexes yields lattice-independence of Bott–Chern and related invariants, proving Angella’s conjecture. The proof architecture—polynomial C^n model, growth-controlled Cartan–Leray zig-zag, and unipotent rational-module comparison—is a substantial and reusable contribution to the cohomology of complex homogeneous spaces. Conditional on the companion biholomorphism theorem, the logical skeleton is complete and uses standard tools correctly.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3, Theorem 3.1 and Lemma 3.2] Load-bearing input Theorem 3.1/[14]: the entire reduction (uniform degree bound D in Prop. 3.3, algebraic G_C-action and Ω^p_pol ≑ ind^{G_C}_{G_{0,1}} E in Prop. 5.2, W_m-exhaustion and local unipotence in Constr. 5.3/Thm. 5.4, and the polynomial-growth zig-zag of §4) rests on Φ being polynomial with polynomial inverse. The manuscript states that polynomiality of Φ^{-1} “follows from the proof contained in [14], even if it is not stated explicitly there.” Before acceptance, either [14] must explicitly record polynomiality of the inverse, or this paper must supply a short self-contained verification. As written, a reader cannot check the hypothesis of Lemmas 3.2 and 4.3–4.4 from cited statements alone.
  2. [§3, Proposition 3.3; Construction 5.3] Proposition 3.3 asserts a uniform w-degree bound D < ∞ independent of Φ, with the existence of a bound in terms of the nilpotency step referred to the concurrent thesis [31]. The constant D controls the finite-dimensionality of the G_C-spans W_m and W^{(p)}_m (Construction 5.3) and hence the colimit comparison in Theorem 5.6(a)–(b). A brief self-contained degree estimate (or a precise theorem number and statement from [31]/[14]) should appear in the text so that the finiteness used in §5 does not depend on an unpublished thesis for a load-bearing constant.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.4] In the proof of Theorem 4.1, the inhomogeneous coboundary convention is introduced mid-argument; a one-line pointer back to §2.3 at the first use of (δ_Γ β)(γ)=γ·β−β would help the reader track signs in the total-complex identity D_tot(∑ ε_k β_k)=ε_{q-1} c_q − α̃.
  2. [§4.1, Lemma 4.4] Lemma 4.4 claims polynomial growth of all derivatives of Γ-invariant forms by rewriting in the invariant coframe and using polynomial Jacobians of Φ,Φ^{-1}. The inductive step on ∂^{(m)} is sketched; a sentence making precise that a_{kj}, b_{kj} are polynomial (entries of DΦ^{-1}) would remove any ambiguity.
  3. [§5.3, Theorem 5.6(c)] Theorem 5.6(c) invokes exactness of algebraic induction because X is affine, citing [7]. A parenthetical recall that R^t ind=0 for t>0 on affine quotients would make the collapse of the Grothendieck spectral sequence immediate for non-specialists.
  4. [References] Reference [14] is listed as arXiv:2606.31448 and [17] as arXiv:2607.07059; ensure final bibliographic data (and the explicit inverse-polynomiality statement requested above) are aligned before publication. The note that Sillari–Tomassini found the solvmanifold counterexample earlier ([26], work in preparation) should be updated if a public reference becomes available.
  5. [Front matter / running heads] Typographical inconsistencies: “Frölicher” appears both with and without the o-umlaut encoding in the abstract/front matter; “Hörmander” is correct in §4 but the running header uses “INV ARIANT” with a spurious space. Normalize.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Load-bearing self-citation to the polynomial C^n-cover theorem [14], but the Dolbeault isomorphism itself is not forced by definition or by renaming that input.

  1. self citation load bearing [Theorem 3.1 / Section 3; used throughout §§4–5 and proof of Thm 1.1]
    "The starting point of the proof is a recent theorem of Hasegawa, Rollenske, Sillari, Tomassini and Wehler [14]: the universal cover (G, J) of a complex nilmanifold is biholomorphic to C^n by a map Φ that is polynomial with polynomial inverse in exponential coordinates. [...] Observe that polynomiality of Φ^{-1} follows from the proof contained in [14], even if it is not stated explicitly there."

    Theorem 3.1 is cited as the geometric foundation for the deck representation ρ, the uniform w-degree bound D (Prop. 3.3), the identification Ω^p_pol ≅ ind^{G_C}_{G_{0,1}} E (Prop. 5.2), and local finiteness/unipotence (Thm 5.4). Authors of [14] overlap with the present paper (Hasegawa, Sillari, Tomassini). The cohomology argument does not reduce to [14] by construction, but every subsequent device that makes the group-cohomology comparison and the polynomial-growth staircase work is built on this unverified-in-paper self-citation; the manuscript itself flags that polynomial inverse is only implicit in [14].

full rationale

The proof of Theorem 1.1 is a genuine dimension squeeze: Console–Fino injectivity of ι (external), surjectivity H^q(Γ, Ω^p_pol) → H^{p,q}_∂̄(M) via Hörmander L² estimates and a Cartan–Leray zig-zag inside polynomial-growth forms (Theorem 4.1), and dim H^q(Γ, Ω^p_pol) = h^{p,q}(g,J) via local unipotence, Hochschild, and algebraic induction (Theorem 5.1). None of these steps defines the target cohomology in terms of itself, fits a parameter and re-labels it a prediction, or renames a known empirical pattern. The single circularity-relevant weakness is that the entire polynomial model—uniform degree bound D, algebraic G_C-action, Ω^p_pol ≅ ind E, and the W_m exhaustion—rests on Theorem 3.1 from the overlapping-author preprint [14] (arXiv:2606.31448), with polynomiality of Φ^{-1} only implicit there and the degree bound deferred to the concurrent thesis [31]. That is a load-bearing self-citation supplying the geometric setup, not a definitional collapse of the cohomology claim. Conditional on [14], the derivation is self-contained against external classical tools. Score 3 reflects one material self-citation that is load-bearing for the method but leaves independent content in the central argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The result is a pure-existence/isomorphism theorem in complex differential geometry. It rests on classical analytic and Lie-theoretic tools plus one recent structural theorem on the universal cover. No fitted parameters appear. The only substantial non-classical input is the polynomial biholomorphism of the cover.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Nomizu’s theorem: invariant forms compute de Rham cohomology of compact nilmanifolds.
    Used as the base case of the unipotent flag induction in Lemma 5.5 and as background for the de Rham side.
  • domain assumption Console–Fino injectivity: ι: H^{p,q}_∂̄(g,J) → H^{p,q}_∂̄(M) is always injective.
    Invoked in §6 to upgrade dimension inequality to isomorphism; not re-proved.
  • standard math Hörmander’s weighted L² estimate for ∂̄ on pseudoconvex domains (Thm cited as [16, Lemma 4.4.1]).
    Engine of the polynomial-growth Poincaré lemma (Lemma 4.2) that feeds Theorem 4.1.
  • domain assumption Universal cover (G,J) is biholomorphic to C^n by a polynomial map with polynomial inverse (Theorem 3.1 / [14]).
    Starting point of the whole model; supplies Aut_pol deck action, degree bound D, and affine homogeneous space X=G_C/G^{0,1}.
  • standard math Hochschild’s theorem equating rational cohomology of unipotent algebraic groups with Lie-algebra cohomology in char 0.
    Used twice in Theorem 5.6 (steps b and d) to pass between H_rat and H(g).
  • standard math Compact nilmanifold M=Γ\G is a finite K(Γ,1); C admits a resolution by finitely generated free ZΓ-modules.
    Needed so group cohomology commutes with directed colimits and matches de Rham of the flat bundle (Lemma 5.5, Thm 5.6(a)).
  • domain assumption G nilpotent simply connected with lattice Γ and left-invariant integrable complex structure J.
    Standing global hypothesis of the paper; integrability makes g^{1,0}, g^{0,1} subalgebras and ∂̄^2=0 on invariant forms.
  • standard math Algebraic induction ind^{G_C}_{G^{0,1}} is exact because X=G_C/G^{0,1} is affine.
    Collapses the Grothendieck spectral sequence in Theorem 5.6(c) to Shapiro-type isomorphism.
invented entities (2)
  • Polynomial holomorphic forms module Ω^p_pol with Γ-action via ρ(γ^{-1})^* independent evidence
    purpose: Intermediate coefficient module bridging smooth Dolbeault cohomology of M and the finite-dimensional invariant algebra.
    Not a new physical object; a standard construction once the polynomial deck action exists. Independent mathematical content is the local finiteness/unipotence theorem for this module.
  • Homogeneous model X=G_C/G^{0,1} ≅ C^n as affine G_C-variety independent evidence
    purpose: Realizes C[w] and Ω^p_pol as rationally induced modules so Hochschild/Shapiro comparisons apply.
    Built from the polynomial biholomorphism and complexification; standard homogeneous-space language once [14] is granted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Invariant forms compute the Dolbeault cohomology of complex nilmanifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LHOXN353

@misc{pith2026260726786,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Invariant forms compute the Dolbeault cohomology of complex nilmanifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LHOXN353}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26786}
}
abstract

We prove that the inclusion of left-invariant forms into the Dolbeault complex of a compact nilmanifold $M$ endowed with a left-invariant complex structure $J$ induces an isomorphism in cohomology in every bidegree, settling a long-standing conjecture. As consequences, we show that small deformations of $J$ are still invariant, as conjectured by Hasegawa. We also prove that Bott--Chern, Aeppli, and Fr\"olicher invariants are computed by invariant forms and are independent of the lattice, settling a conjecture of Angella on Bott--Chern cohomology.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    Biholomorphism type of left-invariant complex structures on nilpotent Lie groups

    K. Hasegawa, S. Rollenske, L. Sillari, A. Tomassini and K. Wehler. “Biholomorphism type of left-invariant complex structures on nilpotent Lie groups” (2026). Preprint, arXiv:2606.31448

    arXiv 2026

  2. [31]

    Wehler.Moduli spaces for complex nilmanifolds

    K. Wehler.Moduli spaces for complex nilmanifolds. PhD Thesis. 2026.doi:10.17192/ openumr/689. Keizo Hasegawa: Department of Mathematics, Graduate School of Science, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan; and Department of Mathematics, F aculty of Education, Niigata University, Ikarashi-nino-cho, Nishi-ku, Niigata 950-2181, Japan Email address:...

    2026

  3. [1]

    The cohomologies of the Iwasawa manifold and of its small deformations

    D. Angella. “The cohomologies of the Iwasawa manifold and of its small deformations”.J. Geom. Anal.23(2013), pp. 1355–1378.doi:10.1007/s12220-011-9291-z. MR 3078358

    work page doi:10.1007/s12220-011-9291-z 2013

  4. [2]

    Canonical bundles of complex nilmanifolds, with applications to hypercomplex geometry

    M. L. Barberis, I. G. Dotti and M. Verbitsky. “Canonical bundles of complex nilmanifolds, with applications to hypercomplex geometry”.Math. Res. Lett.16(2009), pp. 331–347. doi:10.4310/MRL.2009.v16.n2.a10. MR 2496748

    work page doi:10.4310/mrl.2009.v16.n2.a10 2009

  5. [3]

    Gruppi di Aeppli

    B. Bigolin. “Gruppi di Aeppli”.Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (3)23(1969), pp. 259–287. MR 245836

    1969

  6. [4]

    Osservazioni sulla coomologia del∂ ¯∂

    B. Bigolin. “Osservazioni sulla coomologia del∂ ¯∂”.Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (3)24(1970), pp. 571–583. MR 269882

    1970

  7. [5]

    Borel.Linear algebraic groups

    A. Borel.Linear algebraic groups. Second. Vol. 126. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991, pp. xii+288.doi:10 . 1007 / 978 - 1 - 4612 - 0941 - 6. MR 1102012

    1991

  8. [6]

    K. S. Brown.Cohomology of groups. Vol. 87. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer- Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1982, pp. x+306. MR 672956

    1982

Show all 31 references
  1. [7]

    Induced modules and affine quotients

    E. Cline, B. Parshall and L. Scott. “Induced modules and affine quotients”.Math. Ann. 230(1977), pp. 1–14.doi:10.1007/BF01420572. MR 470094

    1977 doi

  2. [8]

    Dolbeault cohomology of compact nilmanifolds

    S. Console and A. Fino. “Dolbeault cohomology of compact nilmanifolds”.Transform. Groups6(2001), pp. 111–124.doi:10.1007/BF01597131. MR 1835667

    2001 doi

  3. [9]

    Compact nilmanifolds with nilpo- tent complex structures: Dolbeault cohomology

    L. A. Cordero, M. Fern´ andez, A. Gray and L. Ugarte. “Compact nilmanifolds with nilpo- tent complex structures: Dolbeault cohomology”.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.352(2000), pp. 5405–5433.doi:10.1090/S0002-9947-00-02486-7. MR 1665327. 18K. HASEGA W A, L. SILLARI AND A. TOMASSINI

    2000 doi

  4. [10]

    Dolbeault cohomology of complex nilmanifolds foliated in toroidal groups

    A. Fino, A. Rollenske and J. Ruppenthal. “Dolbeault cohomology of complex nilmanifolds foliated in toroidal groups”.Q. J. Math.70(2019), pp. 1265–1279.doi:10.1093/qmath/ haz017. MR 4045100

    2019 doi

  5. [11]

    Sur quelques points d’alg` ebre homologique

    A. Grothendieck. “Sur quelques points d’alg` ebre homologique”.Tohoku Math. J. (2)9 (1957), pp. 119–221.doi:10.2748/tmj/1178244839. MR 102537

    1957

  6. [12]

    Complex and K¨ ahler structures on compact homogeneous manifolds— their existence, classification and moduli problem

    K. Hasegawa. “Complex and K¨ ahler structures on compact homogeneous manifolds— their existence, classification and moduli problem”.Singularities—Niigata–Toyama 2007. Vol. 56. Adv. Stud. Pure Math. Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2009, pp. 151–167.doi:10. 2969/aspm/05610151. MR 2604081

    2007

  7. [13]

    Small deformations and non-left-invariant complex structures on six-dimensional compact solvmanifolds

    K. Hasegawa. “Small deformations and non-left-invariant complex structures on six-dimensional compact solvmanifolds”.Differential Geom. Appl.28(2010), pp. 220–227.doi:10.1016/ j.difgeo.2009.10.003. MR 2594464

    2010

  8. [15]

    Cohomology of algebraic linear groups

    G. Hochschild. “Cohomology of algebraic linear groups”.Illinois J. Math.5(1961), pp. 492– 519.doi:10.1215/ijm/1255630894. MR 130901

    1961

  9. [16]

    H¨ ormander.An introduction to complex analysis in several variables

    L. H¨ ormander.An introduction to complex analysis in several variables. Third. Vol. 7. North-Holland Mathematical Library. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1990, pp. xii+254. MR 1045639

    1990

  10. [17]

    A solvmanifold with a left-invariant complex structure whose universal cover is not Stein

    S. Kanda. “A solvmanifold with a left-invariant complex structure whose universal cover is not Stein” (2026). Preprint, arXiv:2607.07059

    2026 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Techniques of computations of Dolbeault cohomology of solvmanifolds

    H. Kasuya. “Techniques of computations of Dolbeault cohomology of solvmanifolds”.Math. Z.273(2013), pp. 437–447.doi:10.1007/s00209-012-1013-0. MR 3010169

    2013 doi

  12. [19]

    On the cohomology of compact homogeneous spaces of nilpotent Lie groups

    K. Nomizu. “On the cohomology of compact homogeneous spaces of nilpotent Lie groups”. Ann. of Math. (2)59(1954), pp. 531–538.doi:10.2307/1969716. MR 64057

    1954 doi

  13. [20]

    On the cohomology of the Bigolin complex

    R. Piovani. “On the cohomology of the Bigolin complex” (2025). Preprint, arXiv:2405.20823

    2025

  14. [21]

    Dolbeault cohomology of nilmanifolds with left-invariant complex struc- ture

    S. Rollenske. “Dolbeault cohomology of nilmanifolds with left-invariant complex struc- ture”.Complex and differential geometry. Vol. 8. Springer Proc. Math. Springer, Heidel- berg, 2011, pp. 369–392.doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20300-8\_18. MR 2964483

    2011 doi

  15. [22]

    Lie-algebra Dolbeault-cohomology and small deformations of nilmanifolds

    S. Rollenske. “Lie-algebra Dolbeault-cohomology and small deformations of nilmanifolds”. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2)79(2009), pp. 346–362.doi:10.1112/jlms/jdn076. MR 2496518

    2009 doi

  16. [23]

    Vertical-horizontal decomposition of Laplacians and cohomologies of manifolds with trivial tangent bundles

    S. Rollenske, A. Tomassini and X. Wang. “Vertical-horizontal decomposition of Laplacians and cohomologies of manifolds with trivial tangent bundles”.Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 199(2020), pp. 833–862.doi:10.1007/s10231-019-00903-3. MR 4102793

    2020 doi

  17. [24]

    On compact complex parallelisable solvmanifolds

    Y. Sakane. “On compact complex parallelisable solvmanifolds”.Osaka Math. J.13(1976), pp. 187–212.doi:10.18910/5964. MR 422706

    1976 doi

  18. [25]

    Autour de la cohomologie de Bott-Chern

    M. Schweitzer. “Autour de la cohomologie de Bott-Chern” (2007). Preprint, arXiv:0709.3528v1

    2007 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Sillari and A

    L. Sillari and A. Tomassini.Work in preparation

  20. [27]

    On linear combinations of cohomological invariants of compact complex mani- folds

    J. Stelzig. “On linear combinations of cohomological invariants of compact complex mani- folds”.Adv. Math.407(2022), Paper No. 108560, 52.doi:10.1016/j.aim.2022.108560. MR 4453031

    2022

  21. [28]

    On the structure of double complexes

    J. Stelzig. “On the structure of double complexes”.J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2)104(2021), pp. 956–988.doi:10.1112/jlms.12453. MR 4311116

    2021 doi

  22. [29]

    Some remarks on the Schweitzer complex

    J. Stelzig. “Some remarks on the Schweitzer complex”.Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble)75 (2025), pp. 35–47.doi:10.5802/aif.3645. MR 4862341

    2025 doi

  23. [30]

    Propri´ et´ es cohomologiques d’une classe de vari´ et´ es analytiques complexes compactes

    J. Varouchas. “Propri´ et´ es cohomologiques d’une classe de vari´ et´ es analytiques complexes compactes”.S´ eminaire d ’analyse P. Lelong - P. Dolbeault - H. Skoda, ann´ ees 1983/1984. Vol. 1198. Lecture Notes in Math. Springer, Berlin, 1986, pp. 233–243.doi:10 . 1007 / BFb0...

    1983

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.