GL-algebras in positive characteristic III: the divided power algebra

Karthik Ganapathy

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 31 references

GL-algebras in positive characteristic III: the divided power algebra

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Despite being neither noetherian nor finitely generated, the divided power algebra has a derived module category that decomposes into Frobenius-twist layers.

desk verdict The paper has the right shape and several new results, but the proof of Lemma 4.3 has a real gap that blocks the shift theorem and hence Theorems C and D. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00982 v1 pith:NAOPRMYB submitted 2026-08-02 math.AC math.RT

Karthik Ganapathy This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.ACmath.RT MSC 13A5013E9918G1018G80

keywords GL-algebradividedpoweralgebrapositivecharacteristicGL-coherencesemi-orthogonaldecompositionderivedcategoryHasse–SchurderivativesFrobeniustwist

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper studies the infinite-variable divided power algebra $D = \operatorname{Div}(k^{\infty})$ over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $p$. Unlike the polynomial and exterior analogues, $D$ is not noetherian and not even finitely generated as an algebra, so the usual noetherian techniques do not apply. The paper proves $D$ is GL-coherent — every finitely generated submodule of a finitely presented equivariant module is finitely presented — and computes its GL-spectrum as a single chain of prime ideals $I_0 \subset I_1 \subset \cdots \subset I_\infty$. The main structural claim is a semi-orthogonal decomposition, an ordered splitting of the bounded derived category of finitely presented equivariant $D$-modules into layers, with the $r$-th layer generated by the Frobenius twist $D^{(r)}$ tensored with each irreducible GL-representation $L_\lambda$. The upshot is that a non-noetherian equivariant algebra can still have a completely described derived category, and the route through finite subalgebras and shift functors suggests a general method.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the family of Hasse–Schur derivative functors $\{\Sigma_m\}$ on polynomial GL-representations, together with the decomposition of $D$ as a flat colimit of its finite subalgebras $D[r,s]$. The derivative $\Sigma_m$ takes the weight-$m$ piece under a new one-dimensional torus direction; for $q = p^r$, the natural map $M \to \Sigma_q(M)$ measures a shift in $D[r,s]$-modules. The shift theorem says $\Sigma_q^t(M)$ is flat for $t \gg 0$, and flat modules over these algebras are free after forgetting the GL-action. Because each inclusion $D[r,s] \to D[r,\infty]$ is flat, properties proved on the finite subalgebras pass to $D^{(r)}$. The nonvanishing Lemma 4.3 — that e

What would settle it

Take the smallest nontrivial case, e.g. $p = 2$, $r = 1$, $n = 2$, and $W = L_{(1)}$ or $L_{(2)}$, and compute the Hasse–Schur derivative $\Sigma_2$ on every nonzero subrepresentation $U$ of $(D[1,s])_2 \otimes W$. Lemma 4.3 predicts $\Sigma_2(U) \neq 0$ for every such $U$; exhibiting one $U$ with $\Sigma_2(U) = 0$ would break the shift theorem's key input. The computation is finite and can be done by hand or with a computer algebra system.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the failure of noetherianity in $D$ is not an obstruction to a full structural description of its equivariant module category. Theorem A identifies every GL-prime ideal as one of the ideals $I_r$, giving a totally ordered GL-spectrum homeomorphic to $\mathbb{N}$ with the right-order topology. Theorem B shows $D$ is GL-coherent, so the category of finitely presented modules is abelian. Theorems C and D then give the paper's main claim: the bounded derived category $D^b_{\mathrm{fp}}(\mathrm{Mod}\,D)$ is generated by the modules $D^{(r)} \otimes L_\lambda$, and in fact decomposes as a semi-infinite semi-orthogonal decomposition $\langle \ldots, T_1, T_0 \rangle$,

Load-bearing premise

The whole shift theorem rests on two cited facts about the representation theory of divided powers: each graded piece $\operatorname{Div}^n$ has exactly the predicted irreducible as its socle, and every nonzero subrepresentation of $(D[r,s])_n \otimes W$ contains a weight vector whose factors are supported on disjoint variables; if either external input fails, Lemma 4.3 and the main decomposition do not follow from the given proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Finitely presented equivariant $D$-modules admit finite right resolutions by flat modules up to torsion: each module embeds in a bounded complex of semi-induced modules whose cohomology is torsion.
For every finitely presented $D^{(r)}$-module $M$, sufficiently many applications of the shift functor $\Sigma_{p^r}$ produce a flat $D^{(r)}$-module, giving uniform control over resolutions.
The semi-orthogonal decomposition gives vanishing of Ext between layers: objects supported on the prime $I_r$ have no morphisms to $D^{(r)} \otimes L_\lambda$, so torsion and twist parts are cleanly separated.
The GL-spectrum being a chain $I_0 \subset I_1 \subset \cdots \subset I_\infty$ means every nonzero GL-prime ideal is one of the $I_r$; there are no exotic equivariant prime ideals.
Since $D$ is GL-coherent, kernels and cokernels of maps between finitely presented modules stay finitely presented, making homological algebra inside the category possible.

Reading between the lines

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

If the shift-theorem mechanism is as general as the flat-colimit argument suggests, other GL-coherent but non-noetherian GL-algebras expressible as flat colimits of GL-noetherian subalgebras should also admit semi-orthogonal decompositions of this form; the paper sketches the exterior-algebra analogue but leaves the general framework open.
A testable consequence at finite rank: families of $GL_n$-equivariant modules over $\operatorname{Div}(k^n)$ that arise by restricting a finitely presented $D$-module should have eventually constant resolution slopes, mirroring the paper's remark about compatible sequences.
Because Remark 1.1 shows the results fail for an algebra-isomorphic but GL-inequivalent presentation of the same underlying ring, the decomposition is a statement about the GL-structure of $D$, not about the commutative algebra $D$; any future axiomatization of shift theorems must track the representation structure explicitly.
Should Lemma 4.3 extend to other twist levels or other GL-algebras, the same local-cohomology comparison would yield semi-orthogonal decompositions with more than one layer per Frobenius twist, a possibility the paper does not explore.

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

I read this as a serious contribution to GL-equivariant commutative algebra in positive characteristic. The main architectural idea—writing D as a flat colimit of the GL-noetherian subalgebras D_[r,s] and using a coherence criterion (Prop 2.20)—is sound and genuinely new. Theorems A and B are well-supported. The shift theorem and the semi-orthogonal decomposition are exactly what one would hope for in this setting, and the paper is honest about which parts are sketches (Theorem 4.32, Lemma 5.15). The author also discloses LLM use and says it caught gaps; that is a good sign.

The problem is Lemma 4.3, and I think the stress-test note lands. In the proof, after restricting to G(t-1) and writing U'⊂(X_0⊗Y_1)⊕(X_1⊗Y_0), the text asserts that X_1⊗Y_0 is a direct sum of (Div_i{V})^(r). That would force Y_0 to be trivial, but Y_0 is the degree-zero part of Sh_{t-1}(W) for an arbitrary polynomial representation W—take W=V and p=2, r=1 to see the claim cannot hold as stated. I checked the cited Lemma 4.1: it describes Sh_t(Div^n) and says nothing about tensoring with Y_0. So this step is unjustified. Since Lemma 4.3 is the engine for Proposition 4.7 and hence for the shift theorem, the proof of Theorems C and D is incomplete as written.

The other flags are minor: the proof of Theorem 4.32 is parked in [SS19], Lemma 5.15 is left as an exercise, and the load-bearing external inputs ([Gan25a, Prop 4.8], [CRDG+26, Cor 2.10]) are not checked here. Self-citation is heavy but not inappropriate since the earlier papers really do establish the notation and lemmas.

The gap may be fixable—perhaps by a more careful choice of t or a different weight-counting argument—but I cannot see a repair in the current text. This is exactly the kind of thing a referee should force out. The first half of the paper is likely solid and useful even if the derived-category results need work.

Who is this for? People working on GL-algebras, twisted commutative algebras, and modular representation theory. It deserves a serious referee; I would not desk reject. Send it out, but ask the referee to focus on Lemma 4.3 and its consequences. My own verdict is: conditional acceptance after the gap is closed.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies GL-equivariant modules over the infinite-variable divided power algebra D in characteristic p>0. It claims four main results: a complete computation of the GL-spectrum of D (Theorem A); GL-coherence of D (Theorem B); a shift theorem for finitely presented D-modules (Theorem E, and Theorem 5.6 for Frobenius twists); and a semi-orthogonal decomposition of the bounded derived category of finitely presented D-modules into pieces generated by twists D^{(r)}⊗L_λ (Theorems C and D). The strategy is to write D as a flat colimit of GL-noetherian subalgebras D^{[r,s]}, develop a structure theory for modules over these finite subalgebras using Hasse–Schur derivative functors, prove a nonvanishing lemma (Lemma 4.3), and then pass to the colimit. The paper is well organized and the main arguments are presented in detail, but one central technical lemma has a proof gap that needs to be addressed before the main theorems can be considered fully established.

Significance. If the main results are correct, this is a substantial contribution: it extends the positive-characteristic GL-algebra program to a genuinely non-noetherian algebra and provides a derived-category decomposition analogous to Sam–Snowden's results. The coherence theorem and the use of flat colimits of GL-noetherian algebras are elegant, and the paper is careful to flag its own limitations in Remarks 3.16 and 5.11. The paper also explicitly builds on the author's earlier work, which is reasonable given the series, but it means that the verification of the central claims depends on external results that are not reproduced here. The main risk is concentrated in Lemma 4.3, the engine of the shift theorem and hence of Theorems C and D.

major comments (1)

[Lemma 4.3 (Section 4.1)] The proof of Lemma 4.3 has a load-bearing gap. After choosing a tensor-disjoint weight vector u and passing to the G(t-1)-subrepresentation U', the proof shows that the image of U' in X_1⊗Y_0 is nonzero, and then concludes that 'U′ contains L_{p^rν_i}' because X_1⊗Y_0 is a direct sum of Frobenius-twisted divided powers. This inference is not justified: a nonzero equivariant image of a module need not lift to a simple submodule of the domain, especially in the non-semisimple category of GL-representations in positive characteristic. One would need to prove that some simple submodule of U' maps nontrivially into the socle of X_1⊗Y_0, or cite a stronger version of [Gan25a, Prop. 4.8] that guarantees this lifting property. The direct sum assertion itself is also insufficiently explained: Lemma 4.1 says nothing about Y_0, and one must use that Y_0 is a degree-zero representation, hence trivia

minor comments (5)

[Lemma 4.3 proof] Even apart from the lifting issue, the sentence 'Using Lemma 4.1, we see that the GL-representation X_1⊗Y_0 is a direct sum of (Div_i{V})^{(r)}' needs a short justification: Y_0 is degree 0, so tensoring with it only adds multiplicities. Please spell this out.
[Theorem 4.32] Theorem 4.32 is stated as a theorem, but its proof is 'How this follows from the above results is explained in Section 4.2 and Section 4.3 of [SS19].' Since this result is not used in the proof of Theorems C and D, this is not fatal, but the statement should either be proved or explicitly marked as a referenced result.
[Section 5.4] Theorem 5.14(3) and (4) depend on Lemma 5.15, which is 'left as an exercise to the reader.' If these claims are intended as theorems, they need proofs; if they are intended as a sketch of future work, they should be labeled as such.
[Lemma 3.8 proof] The notation in the proof is confusing: the text writes 'I_{p^r t} ⊂ (D^{[r,s]})_t ⊂ D^{(r)}_t', but the degree indexing appears inconsistent. Please clarify whether the second and third factors denote degree p^r t or degree t.
[Lemma 3.7] The proof of Lemma 3.7 cites [CRDG+26, Cor. 2.10] for the head of Sym^n{V}. Since this is a key input to Lemma 4.3, it would help to state the cited result explicitly in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs; reliance on the author's earlier papers is transfer of independent preparatory results, not a self-citation loop.

full rationale

Theorems A and B are derived from explicit GL-stable ideals, the external socle computation [CRDG+26, Cor. 2.10] used in Lemma 3.7, Cohen's S_∞-noetherianity theorem, and the flat-colimit coherence criterion (Proposition 2.20). These inputs do not assume the target results. The technical core, Lemma 4.3 and Theorem E, uses the Hasse-Schur derivative formalism introduced in Section 2.6 and cites [Gan25a, Prop. 4.8] for a tensor-disjoint weight-vector statement about polynomial representations; that statement is about GL-representations, not about the divided-power algebra or about the semi-orthogonal decomposition being proved, so the citation is independent support rather than an imported conclusion. The proof of Lemma 4.3 does contain a compressed step ('Using Lemma 4.1, we see that the GL-representation X_1⊗Y_0 is a direct sum of (Div_i{V})^(r)') that is a possible correctness gap if Y_0 is not accounted for, but this is not a circular reduction: X_1 and Y_0 are defined by degree decomposition, and the assertion does not presuppose Theorem C, Theorem D, or the nonvanishing statement being proved. Theorems C and D then follow from the shift theorem through standard resolution and local-cohomology arguments (Propositions 4.15, 4.28, 5.7-5.12, Section 5.3), not by restating the assumptions. The only self-citations are to the author's preceding papers in the same series for preparatory lemmas and techniques; no fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, no known result is merely renamed, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the author's prior work. The manuscript's explicit limitations, including the LLM-use disclosure and the 'exercise to the reader' in Section 5.4 for the exterior-algebra analogue, do not affect the central D-module derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters and no new entities. It relies on several deep external theorems: Cohen's theorem, the head-of-symmetric-power computation, the author's prior tensor-disjoint weight-vector lemma, and Sam-Snowden's injective-property framework. These are load-bearing for the main results.

assumptions (4)

standard math D_[r,s] is GL-noetherian because it is a quotient of Sym(V^{⊕(s-r+1)}) as an S_∞-algebra, and Sym(V^{⊕N}) is S_∞-noetherian by Cohen's theorem (Lemma 3.1).
Cited [Coh67]; this is the foundation for Proposition 2.20 (flat colimit coherence) and for the finite-module structure theory in Section 4.
standard math The socle of Div^n{V} is the irreducible GL-representation of highest weight ν_n = ((p-1)^a, b) (Lemma 3.7), quoted from the head-of-Sym result [CRDG+26, Cor 2.10].
Used in Lemma 3.8, Theorem A, and crucially in Lemma 4.3 to show Σ_q(U) ≠ 0; if this external computation were wrong the shift theorem fails.
standard math Existence of tensor-disjoint weight vectors in nonzero subrepresentations of tensor products of polynomial GL-representations ([Gan25a, Prop 4.8]).
Quoted from the author's previous paper; it is the starting point of Lemma 4.3, the technical engine of the shift theorem.
standard math Sam-Snowden's Property (Inj) and the Artin-Rees arguments for Serre subcategories and injectives ([SS19, Section 4.4]) are valid in this setting.
Used in Propositions 4.16, 4.21, 4.31 and Lemma 5.10 to control injectives in torsion subcategories, underpinning the local cohomology computations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GL-algebras in positive characteristic III: the divided power algebra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NAOPRMYB

@misc{pith2026260800982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GL-algebras in positive characteristic III: the divided power algebra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NAOPRMYB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00982}
}

abstract

In this paper, we study GL-equivariant modules over the infinite-variable divided power algebra $D = \text{Div}(k^{\infty})$ with $k$ an algebraically closed field of characteristic $p > 0$. Unlike previously analyzed GL-algebras, the divided power algebra is not noetherian or even finitely generated. We show that $D$ is GL-coherent and prove a ``shift theorem'' for finitely presented $D$-modules. Using this, we obtain a (semi-infinite) semi-orthogonal decomposition of its bounded derived category with one piece corresponding to each Frobenius twist $D^{(r)}$ of $D$. Crucial to our approach is the fact that $D$ is a flat colimit of subalgebras which are GL-noetherian.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Eggermont, and Andrew Snowden

Arthur Bik, Jan Draisma, Rob H. Eggermont, and Andrew Snowden. The geometry of polynomial representations . International Mathematics Research Notices , 2023(16):14131--14195, 08 2022. arXiv:2105.12621

arXiv 2023
[2]

Uniformity for limits of tensors

Arthur Bik, Jan Draisma, Rob Eggermont, and Andrew Snowden. Uniformity for limits of tensors. arXiv:2305.19866, 2023

arXiv 2023
[3]

The geometry of polynomial representations in positive characteristic

Arthur Bik, Jan Draisma, and Andrew Snowden. The geometry of polynomial representations in positive characteristic . Math. Z. , 310(1):Paper No. 13, 39, 2025. arXiv:2406.07415

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[4]

FI-modules and stability for representations of symmetric groups

Thomas Church, Jordan S Ellenberg, and Benson Farb. -modules and stability for representations of symmetric groups . Duke Math. J. , 164(9):1833--1910, 2015. arXiv:1204.4533

work page Pith review arXiv 1910
[5]

FI-modules over Noetherian rings

Thomas Church, Jordan S. Ellenberg, Benson Farb, and Rohit Nagpal. F I -modules over N oetherian rings. Geom. Topol. , 18(5):2951--2984, 2014. arXiv:1210.1854

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[6]

On the laws of a metabelian variety

Daniel E Cohen. On the laws of a metabelian variety . J. Algebra , 5(3):267--273, 1967. Available online. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82266052.pdf

work page arXiv 1967
[7]

Ideals preserved by linear changes of coordinates in positive characteristic

Bj rn Cattell-Ravdal, Erin Delargy, Akash Ganguly, Sean Guan, Trevor Karn, Michael Perlman, and Saisudharshan Sivakumar. Ideals preserved by linear changes of coordinates in positive characteristic. Comm. Algebra , 54(1):65--91, 2026

work page 2026
[8]

On finiteness properties of polynomial functors

Aur\' e lien Djament. Des propri\' e t\' e s de finitude des foncteurs polynomiaux . Fund. Math. , 233(3):197--256, 2016. arXiv:1308.4698

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

Show all 31 references

[9]

Topological N oetherianity of polynomial functors

Jan Draisma. Topological N oetherianity of polynomial functors. J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 32(3):691--707, 2019. arXiv:1705.01419

2019 arXiv
[10]

Generalizations of S tillman's conjecture via twisted commutative algebra

Daniel Erman, Steven V Sam, and Andrew Snowden. Generalizations of S tillman's conjecture via twisted commutative algebra . Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , 2021(16):12281--12304, 2019. arXiv:1804.09807

2021 arXiv
[11]

-algebras in positive characteristic I: The exterior algebra

Karthik Ganapathy. -algebras in positive characteristic I: The exterior algebra . Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 30(4):Paper No. 63, 2024. arXiv:2203.03693

2024 arXiv
[12]

Non-noetherian GL-algebras in characteristic two

Karthik Ganapathy. Non-noetherian GL-algebras in characteristic two . preprint , 2024. arXiv:2408.04630

2024 arXiv
[13]

Resolutions of symmetric monomial ideals via stratifications of derived categories

Karthik Ganapathy. Resolutions of symmetric monomial ideals via stratifications of derived categories . preprint , 2024. arXiv:2407.16071

2024 arXiv
[14]

G L -algebras in positive characteristic II : the polynomial ring

Karthik Ganapathy. G L -algebras in positive characteristic II : the polynomial ring. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) , 131(6):Paper No. e70112, 39, 2025. arXiv:2407.13604

2025
[15]

Ideal-theoretic non-noetherianity of polynomial functors in positive characteristic

Karthik Ganapathy. Ideal-theoretic non-noetherianity of polynomial functors in positive characteristic . preprint , 2025. arXiv:2506.15134

2025 arXiv
[16]

u nt\" u rk\

Sema G\" u nt\" u rk\" u n and Andrew Snowden. The representation theory of the increasing monoid. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 286(1420):vii+134, 2023. arXiv:1812.10242

2023 arXiv
[17]

Ultrahomogeneous tensor spaces

Nate Harman and Andrew Snowden. Ultrahomogeneous tensor spaces. Adv. Math. , 443:Paper No. 109599, 43, 2024. arXiv:2207.09626

2024 arXiv
[18]

On the cyclic homology of exact categories

Bernhard Keller. On the cyclic homology of exact categories. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 136(1):1--56, 1999. Available on author's website http://web.archive.org/web/20220120142123/https://webusers.imj-prg.fr/ bernhard.keller/publ/cyex.pdf

1999
[19]

Localization theory for triangulated categories

Henning Krause. Localization theory for triangulated categories. In Triangulated categories , volume 375 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. , pages 161--235. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2010. arXiv:0806.1324

2010 arXiv
[20]

Codimension and projective dimension up to symmetry

Dinh Van Le, Uwe Nagel, Hop D Nguyen, and Tim R \"o mer. Codimension and projective dimension up to symmetry . Math. Nachr. , 293(2):346--362, 2020. arXiv:1809.06877

2020 arXiv
[21]

Castelnuovo--Mumford regularity up to symmetry

Dinh Van Le, Uwe Nagel, Hop D Nguyen, and Tim R \"o mer. Castelnuovo--Mumford regularity up to symmetry . Int. Math. Res. Not. , 2021(14):11010--11049, 2021. arXiv:1806.00457

2021 arXiv
[22]

Filtrations and homological degrees of -modules

Liping Li and Nina Yu. Filtrations and homological degrees of -modules . J. Algebra , 472:369--398, 2017. arXiv:1511.02977

2017 arXiv
[23]

-modules and the cohomology of modular representations of symmetric groups

Rohit Nagpal. -modules and the cohomology of modular representations of symmetric groups . PhD thesis, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2015. arXiv:1505.04294

2015 arXiv
[24]

-modules in nondescribing characteristic, part I

Rohit Nagpal. -modules in nondescribing characteristic, part I . Algebra Number Theory , 13(9):2151--2189, 2019. arXiv:1709.07591

2019 arXiv
[25]

- and -modules with varying coefficients

Uwe Nagel and Tim R\" o mer. - and -modules with varying coefficients . J. Algebra , 535:286--322, 2019. arXiv:1710.09247

2019 arXiv
[26]

The module theory of divided power algebras

Rohit Nagpal and Andrew Snowden. The module theory of divided power algebras . Illinois J. Math. , 61(3-4):287--353, 2017. arXiv:1606.03431

2017 arXiv
[27]

Symmetric modules over the infinite polynomial ring I: nilpotent quotients

Rohit Nagpal, Andrew Snowden, and Teresa Yu. Symmetric modules over the infinite polynomial ring I: nilpotent quotients . preprint , 2025. arXiv:2508.04624

2025 arXiv
[28]

Introduction to twisted commutative algebras

Steven V Sam and Andrew Snowden. Introduction to twisted commutative algebras . preprint , 2012. arXiv:1209.5122

2012 arXiv
[29]

-equivariant modules over polynomial rings in infinitely many variables

Steven V Sam and Andrew Snowden. -equivariant modules over polynomial rings in infinitely many variables . Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 368(2):1097--1158, 2016. arXiv:1206.2233

2016 arXiv
[30]

Gr\" o bner methods for representations of combinatorial categories

Steven V Sam and Andrew Snowden. Gr\" o bner methods for representations of combinatorial categories . J. Amer. Math. Soc. , 30(1):159--203, 2017. arXiv:1409.1670

2017 arXiv
[31]

-equivariant modules over polynomial rings in infinitely many variables

Steven V Sam and Andrew Snowden. -equivariant modules over polynomial rings in infinitely many variables. II . Forum Math. Sigma , 7:Paper No. e5, 71, 2019. arXiv:1703.04516

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Eggermont, and Andrew Snowden

Arthur Bik, Jan Draisma, Rob H. Eggermont, and Andrew Snowden. The geometry of polynomial representations . International Mathematics Research Notices , 2023(16):14131--14195, 08 2022. arXiv:2105.12621

arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

Uniformity for limits of tensors

Arthur Bik, Jan Draisma, Rob Eggermont, and Andrew Snowden. Uniformity for limits of tensors. arXiv:2305.19866, 2023

arXiv 2023

[3] [3]

The geometry of polynomial representations in positive characteristic

Arthur Bik, Jan Draisma, and Andrew Snowden. The geometry of polynomial representations in positive characteristic . Math. Z. , 310(1):Paper No. 13, 39, 2025. arXiv:2406.07415

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

FI-modules and stability for representations of symmetric groups

Thomas Church, Jordan S Ellenberg, and Benson Farb. -modules and stability for representations of symmetric groups . Duke Math. J. , 164(9):1833--1910, 2015. arXiv:1204.4533

work page Pith review arXiv 1910

[5] [5]

FI-modules over Noetherian rings

Thomas Church, Jordan S. Ellenberg, Benson Farb, and Rohit Nagpal. F I -modules over N oetherian rings. Geom. Topol. , 18(5):2951--2984, 2014. arXiv:1210.1854

work page Pith review arXiv 2014

[6] [6]

On the laws of a metabelian variety

Daniel E Cohen. On the laws of a metabelian variety . J. Algebra , 5(3):267--273, 1967. Available online. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82266052.pdf

work page arXiv 1967

[7] [7]

Ideals preserved by linear changes of coordinates in positive characteristic

Bj rn Cattell-Ravdal, Erin Delargy, Akash Ganguly, Sean Guan, Trevor Karn, Michael Perlman, and Saisudharshan Sivakumar. Ideals preserved by linear changes of coordinates in positive characteristic. Comm. Algebra , 54(1):65--91, 2026

work page 2026

[8] [8]

On finiteness properties of polynomial functors

Aur\' e lien Djament. Des propri\' e t\' e s de finitude des foncteurs polynomiaux . Fund. Math. , 233(3):197--256, 2016. arXiv:1308.4698

work page Pith review arXiv 2016