Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Classical interpolation categories

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 For the infinite-rank classical groups over finite fields, this paper determines all measures and proves that the two standard constructions of interpolation tensor categories agree, resolving two conjectures.

desk verdict The GL and symplectic results are fully earned; the orthogonal and unitary blanket claims rest on a literal 'Proof. do this' placeholder, so treat those as deferred rather than established. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12216 v1 pith:2CRW3VMZ submitted 2025-07-16 math.RT

Nate Harman , Andrew Snowden This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.RT MSC 18M0520C3320G0520B27
keywords interpolationcategoriesoligomorphicgroupsultraproducttensorBurnsideringsmeasuresonfiniteclassicalpre-Tannakian
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 tensor categories that interpolate the representation categories of the finite classical groups GL_n, Sp_2n, O_n, and U_n over a fixed finite field. Two very different constructions exist: an ultraproduct construction that is easy to define but opaque in structure, and an oligomorphic-group construction that requires a choice of measure, with the space of measures previously unknown. The paper claims to settle both sides: it classifies all measures on the relevant infinite-rank oligomorphic groups, and it proves that the oligomorphic and ultraproduct tensor categories coincide. If correct, the ultraproduct interpolation categories depend only on a single parameter $t$ (plus one piece of parity data in the orthogonal case), have enough projective objects, and are semi-simple for all regular parameters. The complete written proofs are carried out in detail for the general linear group, with the other classical groups handled by stated reductions to that case.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the relative Burnside ring $B=B(G,\mathbb{V})$, whose basis classes are the transitive permutation $G$-sets $X_{a,b}$ and whose product records orbit decompositions of products. The paper computes $B[1/q]$ as a polynomial ring generated by very few low-level classes, using marks homomorphisms that count embeddings $V_{a,b}\to V_{m,n}$; these counts are packaged into explicit polynomials $Q_{a,b}(t,u)$ from finite-geometry recurrences. The infinitesimal Burnside ring, built from restriction maps $\delta$, is shown to coincide with $B$ after inverting $q$, and from it the universal measure ring $\Theta(G)$ is extracted. On the representation side, smooth approximation by homogeneous spaces produces a counting measure, a functor from the oligomorphic category $\operatorname{Perm}(G,\mu)$ into the ultraproduct category, and a trace-zero property for nilpotents; the Farahat-Higman algebra and central characters then give the criterion that forces this functor to be an equivalence. Together these ingredients prove the asserted equivalence between oligomorphic and ultraproduct tensor categories.

What would settle it

Complete the missing orthogonal and unitary proofs and check their central-character criterion: if any non-trivial simple object in $\operatorname{Rep}(O^\pm_t)$ or $\operatorname{Rep}(U_t)$ has trivial central character, or if a direct computation of the relevant infinitesimal Burnside ring exposes additional generators or relations beyond those stated, then the asserted equivalence and the classification of measures would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the oligomorphic and ultraproduct approaches to interpolation categories for the infinite-rank classical groups produce the same tensor categories, and that the resulting categories depend only on the categorical dimension $t$ of the standard permutation object. For the general linear group, Theorem 7.19 states that the tensor functor $\Phi:\operatorname{Rep}_k(\mathrm{GL}_t)\to T$ from the oligomorphic abelian envelope to the ultraproduct category is an equivalence, and analogous equivalences are asserted for the symplectic, orthogonal, and unitary groups. Along the way, the paper determines the universal measure ring: it is $\mathbb{Q}[t]$ for GL, Sp, and U, and $\mathbb{Q}[t,t']/(tt')$ for the orthogonal group, whose two one-parameter families merge at $t=0$. This resolves the paper's Conjectures 1.1 and 1.2, which predicted independence of the ultraproduct category from the auxiliary choices of fields and ultrafilters, and predicted pre-Tannakian structure, enough projectives, and semi-simplicity at regular parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's blanket claim for all four classical groups rests on the assertion that the orthogonal and unitary cases are genuinely covered by arguments said to be 'similar' to the general linear and symplectic cases; one theorem in the orthogonal section is left with the literal placeholder 'Proof. do this $\square$', and several other theorems are stated without proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ultraproduct interpolation category for each classical group is independent of the chosen fields and ultrafilter, depending only on $t$, with an extra parity label in the orthogonal case.
  • For every non-zero parameter $t$ the interpolation category is a pre-Tannakian abelian envelope with enough projective objects; for regular $t$, it is semi-simple.
  • All measures on the infinite-rank classical groups are classified: a single one-parameter family for GL, Sp, and U, and two one-parameter families for O that coincide at $t=0$.
  • Nilpotent endomorphisms in the permutation category have trace zero for every non-zero $t$, which is the key technical condition needed to construct abelian envelopes.
  • At regular parameters, simple characters are linearly independent, so irreducible constituents of small tensor powers of permutation modules for the finite classical groups are distinguished by small group elements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same smooth-approximation strategy could be tested on other oligomorphic groups, such as automorphism groups of modules over finite rings; the Burnside ring is the first invariant one would need to compute.
  • The Fourier-transform isomorphism between $C(\mathbb{V}_0)$ and $C(\mathbb{V}_1)$ suggests that duality built into a smooth approximation will force parabolic-style and Levi-style constructions to coincide more broadly than the GL case alone.
  • At parameters of the form $q^n$, the semi-simplification of the interpolation category should recover the ordinary representation category of the corresponding finite classical group; the paper notes this phenomenon without treating it in detail, so it is a concrete next step.
  • The orthogonal group's two one-parameter families, distinguished only by parity data, indicate that any future classification for other groups should expect finite, group-specific decorations rather than a single universal parameter.
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. This paper develops a general framework for constructing tensor categories from measures on oligomorphic groups, extending the authors' prior work [HS1], and applies it to the infinite classical groups over a finite field: general linear, symplectic, orthogonal, and unitary. Part I introduces the smooth group algebra and a Farahat–Higman algebra, gives criteria for equivalence with ultraproduct categories via central characters and smooth approximation, and treats regular and quasi-regular cases. Part II treats the general linear case in complete detail: the Burnside ring is shown to be polynomial after inverting q, the measure ring Θ(G)⊗Q is identified with Q[t], and Theorem 7.19 proves the equivalence Φ: Rep(GL_t) → T, resolving Conjectures 1.1 and 1.2 for GL. The symplectic case is developed in substantial detail (Propositions 8.4, 8.11; Theorems 8.18, 8.19). The orthogonal and unitary cases are asserted with major proofs omitted: Theorem 9.17 ends with the literal placeholder 'Proof. do this □', Theorem 9.18 is stated without proof, and Theorems 10.13 and 10.14 are stated without proof.

Significance. If the missing proofs were supplied, the paper would be a landmark contribution: it would establish that the ultraproduct interpolation categories for classical groups depend only on the parameter t (plus parity data in the orthogonal case), have enough projectives, are pre-Tannakian, and are semi-simple away from a countable set of exceptional parameters. It would also provide the first determination of the measure space for these oligomorphic groups. The general machinery of Part I—smooth approximations, the Farahat–Higman algebra, and the central-character criteria—is clearly valuable beyond the examples treated, and the explicit enumerative computations (Q-polynomials) are checkable and a genuine strength. However, because the central claim of the abstract covers all classical groups and the only written proofs cover GL and mostly Sp, the manuscript as submitted does not establish its headline result for orthogonal and unitary groups.

major comments (3)
  1. [§9, Theorems 9.17 and 9.18] The proof of Theorem 9.17 is the literal placeholder 'Proof. do this □', and Theorem 9.18 is stated without proof. These theorems are exactly the steps that establish the pre-Tannakian structure and the equivalence Φ: Rep(O^*_t) → T^* for the orthogonal groups, which is an essential part of the paper's resolution of Conjectures 1.1 and 1.2. The omitted verification is not merely routine: the proof of Theorem 5.18 requires checking the central-character condition (∗) of Proposition 4.10, and the orthogonal case has two measure families µeven_t and µodd_t, with a Burnside ring that requires inverting 2q (Proposition 9.6). The two families must be treated separately, and the parity data mean the argument cannot be read off from the GL or Sp cases. Until these proofs appear, the abstract's blanket statement for orthogonal groups is unsupported.
  2. [§10, Theorems 10.13 and 10.14] The unitary case is asserted without proof. This is load-bearing because Theorem 10.14 is the equivalence Φ: Rep(U_t) → T, and it depends on the central-character criterion of Theorem 5.18. The unitary case is structurally different from GL: the parameter is t = ((-q)^n) (see §10.5), so the measure restriction is µ_t ↦ µ_{-t/q} (§10.4), and the finite unitary group U_n(q) does not embed into GL_n(q) with matching parameter. The symplectic proof used the embedding GL ⊂ Sp (Proposition 8.16); no analogous embedding or sign check distinguishing µ_t from µ_{-t} is supplied for the unitary group. Consequently, the proof of Conjectures 1.1 and 1.2 for unitary groups is not contained in the manuscript.
  3. [§1.4(b)] The authors acknowledge in §1.4(b) that only the GL case is written in full detail and that 'some results are easily reduced to the GL case, while other results have nearly identical proofs to the GL case, which allows us to omit some details.' This statement does not account for the actual state of the orthogonal and unitary sections, where entire proofs (Theorems 9.17, 9.18, 10.13, 10.14) are missing rather than merely 'omitted details.' The paper's central claim, stated in the abstract and §1.3, is for 'all infinite rank classical groups,' and the unproved theorems are exactly the equivalence theorems for O^* and U. The gap is thus in the main theorem, not in peripheral lemmas.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§8.5] The first sentence of §8.5 cites '(Proposition 9.11)' for the smooth approximation of the symplectic group; the correct reference is Proposition 8.10, and the cross-reference should be fixed.
  2. [Throughout] The manuscript repeatedly contains the corrupted string 'RepRepRepRepRepRepRepRepRepRepRepRepRepRepRepRepRep' in place of the notation 'Rep' (e.g., in §3, §4, §7, and the abstract). This appears to be a rendering artifact and should be corrected.
  3. [§6.7] In the proof of Theorem 6.16, the notation 'Θq(G;V)' is used without definition in the sentence 'The above discussion shows that b generates Θq(G;V)[1/q]'; this presumably means Θ(G;V)[1/q] and should be clarified.
  4. [§9.6] In Theorem 9.12, the codomain of φeven × φodd is described as Z_{2q}[t] × Z_{2q}[t], while the individual maps φ^* were defined earlier with codomain Z_q[t]; the inversion of 2q in the combined map should be stated explicitly for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the measure classification and the GL equivalence are derived from independent enumerative and character-theoretic arguments, with t universal rather than fitted; the orthogonal/unitary blanket claims rest on explicit proof placeholders, a completeness gap not a circular loop.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The measure spaces are computed from explicit counting polynomials (Propositions 6.3, 8.3, 9.5, 10.4) and marks homomorphisms, not from the categories under study; the universality theorems (6.16, 8.11, 9.12, 10.9) determine Θ(G) from those counts. The key equivalence Φ: Rep(GL_t) → T is proved in Theorem 7.19 via the general criterion Theorem 5.18, with its condition (*) supplied by Theorem 7.9, whose proof is an independent induction on level using character independence and rational dependence on t. Citations to the authors' prior [HS1] supply the oligomorphic-envelope theory, whose assumptions do not include the present conjectures; this is research-program dependence, not a loop. No parameter is fitted to the conclusion: t is universal by the measure classification, and every measure is shown equivalent to an ultraproduct measure via Laxton's lemma. I do flag a completeness and correctness risk, which is not a circularity: the blanket claim for orthogonal and unitary groups rests on unproved theorems. Theorem 9.17 literally ends "Proof. do this □", Theorems 9.18, 10.13 and 10.14 are stated without proofs, and §1.4(b) concedes "For the other groups, some results are easily reduced to the GL case, while other results have nearly identical proofs to the GL case, which allows us to omit some details." In particular, the unitary case is structurally different from GL, so a verbatim GL proof cannot be assumed. Until those proofs are supplied, those cases are asserted rather than derived, but they are not reductions of the conclusion to the hypothesis.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The new input of the paper is the computation of Burnside rings, measure spaces, and category equivalences. The universal measure makes t the sole free parameter for GL, Sp, and U, with an extra even/odd choice for O. The framework of measures and abelian envelopes is imported from [HS1] as a black box, and Laxton's theorem is imported from the literature.

free parameters (2)
  • t = arbitrary element of an algebraically closed field k of characteristic 0
    The interpolation parameter t is the categorical dimension of the permutation module X; measures µ_t are parameterized by t via Θ(G)⊗Q = Q[t]. It is an input of the theory, not derived from data, but the central theorems describe how the categories vary with t.
  • parity label (even/odd) for the orthogonal case = two choices: even or odd
    For the orthogonal group there are two one-parameter families of measures, µ^even_t and µ^odd_t, so the full parameter space is two copies of A^1 meeting at t = 0. This is an additional free discrete parameter beyond t.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption General oligomorphic tensor category machinery of [HS1]: existence of Perm(G,µ), abelian envelope Rep(G,µ), and pre-Tannakian property when µ is quasi-regular and (Nil) holds.
    Invoked throughout Part I and Part II, for example in Theorems 3.2, 3.3, and Proposition 5.11. These results are proven in the cited prior work by the same authors, not in this paper.
  • standard math Laxton's theorem: a non-monomial integer polynomial evaluated at b^n has infinitely many prime divisors.
    Used in Lemma 6.23, Lemma 6.24, and Proposition 6.21 to realize every algebraic t as an ultraproduct measure; cited to [Lax].
  • standard math Witt's theorem and standard finite-geometry counts for embeddings into non-degenerate spaces.
    Used to establish homogeneity and the smooth approximation families, Propositions 6.15, 8.10, 9.11, and the unitary analog, and the enumerative polynomial formulas in sections 6.2, 8.2, 9.3, and 10.2.
  • domain assumption The stabilizer class defined by V is large, i.e., every transitive G-set is a subquotient of some X_{m,...}/Γ.
    Proven in the paper, Propositions 6.8, 8.8, 9.10, and the unitary analog; used to pass from Θ(G,V) to Θ(G). For the orthogonal and unitary groups the proofs are sketched as similar to the GL case.
invented entities (4)
  • Rep_k(GL_t) and Perm_k(GL_t) independent evidence
    purpose: Interpolates the representation categories Rep_k(GLn(F_q)) at t = q^n.
    Simples are classified in Proposition 7.4, characters are independent in Corollary 7.11, and Φ is an equivalence with the ultraproduct category in Theorem 7.19.
  • Rep_k(Sp_t) independent evidence
    purpose: Interpolates Rep_k(Sp_2n(F_q)).
    Pre-Tannakian structure and equivalence with the ultraproduct category are stated in Theorem 8.19, and the restriction functor from GL_u provides external control.
  • Rep_k(O^even_t) and Rep_k(O^odd_t)
    purpose: Interpolate Rep_k(O_{2r,1}) and Rep_k(O_{2r+1,1}).
    The theorem is stated and justified only by 'as in other cases'; Theorem 9.17 has a literal 'Proof. do this' placeholder, so the equivalence with the ultraproduct category is asserted rather than demonstrated.
  • Rep_k(U_t)
    purpose: Interpolates Rep_k(U_n(F_q)).
    Theorems 10.13 and 10.14 are stated without proof; the paper says the arguments are as in other cases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classical interpolation categories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2CRW3VMZ

@misc{pith2026250712216,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classical interpolation categories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2CRW3VMZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12216}
}
read the original abstract

We study tensor categories that interpolate the representation categories of finite classical groups. There are (at least) two ways to approach these categories: via ultraproducts and via oligomorphic groups. Both have strengths and weaknesses. The ultraproduct categories are easy to define, but their structure is not clear. On the other hand, the oligomorphic approach requires a certain kind of measure as an input, and the space of measures is not obvious. Furthermore, it is not a priori clear that the two approaches yield the same categories in general. We handle all of these issues: we determine all measures on the oligomorphic groups, and we show that the oligomorphic and ultraproduct categories agree, which gives us basic structural results about the latter. Our results rely upon (and in some sense repackage) enumerative results in finite geometry.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Classification of simple commutative algebras in the Delannoy category

    math.RT 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Every simple commutative algebra in the Delannoy category Rep(G), for G = Aut(R,<), is isomorphic to the Schwartz algebra C(R^(n)) of functions on ordered n-tuples; tensor-product relative versions (Theorems B and C) ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Symmetric tensor categories in characteristic 2

    Dave Benson, Pavel Etingof. Symmetric tensor categories in characteristic 2. Adv.\ Math. 351 (2019), 967--999. doi:10.1016/j.aim.2019.05.020 arXiv:1807.05549

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    New incompressible symmetric tensor categories in positive characteristic

    Dave Benson, Pavel Etingof, Victor Ostrik. New incompressible symmetric tensor categories in positive characteristic. Duke Math.\ J. 172 (2023), no. 1, pp. 105--200. doi:10.1215/00127094-2022-0030 arXiv:2003.10499

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Oligomorphic permutation groups

    Peter J.\ Cameron. Oligomorphic permutation groups. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 152, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990

    work page 1990

  4. [4]

    Tannakian categories in positive characteristic

    Kevin Coulembier. Tannakian categories in positive characteristic. Duke Math.\ J., 169 (2020), no. 16, pp. 3167--3219. doi:10.1215/00127094-2020-0026 arXiv:1812.02452

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Monoidal abelian envelopes

    Kevin Coulembier. Monoidal abelian envelopes. Compos.\ Math. 157 (2021), no. 7, pp. 1584--1609. doi:10.1112/S0010437X21007399 arXiv:2003.10105

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Monoidal abelian envelopes and a conjecture of Benson--Etingof

    Kevin Coulembier, Inna Entova-Aizenbud, Thorsten Heidersdorf. Monoidal abelian envelopes and a conjecture of Benson--Etingof. arXiv:1911.04303

    work page Pith review arXiv 1911

  7. [7]

    On Frobenius exact symmetric tensor categories

    Kevin Coulembier, Pavel Etingof, Victor Ostrik. On Frobenius exact symmetric tensor categories. arXiv:2107.02372v2

    work page Pith review arXiv

  8. [8]

    Monoidal Abelian Envelopes with a quotient property

    Kevin Coulembier, Pavel Etingof, Victor Ostrik, Bregje Pauwels. Monoidal abelian envelopes with a quotient property. arXiv:2103.00094

    work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Finite structures with few types

    G.\ Cherlin, E.\ Hrushovski. Finite structures with few types. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press, 2003. Annals of Mathematics Studies vol.\ 152

    2003

  2. [10]

    On blocks of Deligne's category (S_t)

    Jonathan Comes, Victor Ostrik. On blocks of Deligne's category (S_t) . Adv.\ Math. 226 (2011), no. 2, pp. 1331--1377. doi:10.1016/j.aim.2010.08.010 arXiv:0910.5695

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    On Deligne's category ^ ab (S_d)

    Jonathan Comes, Victor Ostrik. On Deligne's category ^ ab (S_d) . Algebra Number Theory 8 (2014), pp. 473--496. doi:10.2140/ant.2014.8.473 arXiv:1304.3491

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Modular invariants for group-theoretical modular data

    Alexei Davydov. Modular invariants for group-theoretical modular data. I. J.\ Algebra 323 (2010), no. 5, pp. 1321--1348. doi:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2009.11.041 arXiv:0908.1044

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    P. Deligne. Categories Tannakiennes. In ``The Grothendick Festschrift, Vol.II,'' Prog.\ Math. 87 (1990), pp. 111--195. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-8176-4575-5_3 purple DOI:10.1007/978-0-8176-4575-5\_3

    1990 doi

  6. [14]

    P. Deligne. Cat\'egories tensorielles. Mosc. Math. J. 2 (2002), no. 2, pp. 227--248. \\ doi:10.17323/1609-4514-2002-2-2-227-248 \\

    2002 doi

  7. [15]

    P. Deligne. La cat\'egorie des repr\'esentations du groupe sym\'etrique S_t , lorsque t n’est pas un entier naturel. In: Algebraic Groups and Homogeneous Spaces, in: Tata Inst. Fund. Res. Stud. Math., Tata Inst. Fund. Res., Mumbai, 2007, pp. 209--273. \\ Available at: ://www.m...

    2007

  8. [16]

    P. Deligne. Letter to A. Snowden. October 24, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Deligne, J

    P. Deligne, J. Milne. Tannakian Categories. In ``Hodge cycles, motives, and Shimura varieties,'' Lecture Notes in Math., vol.\ 900, Springer--Verlag, 1982. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-38955-2_4 purple DOI:10.1007/978-3-540-38955-2\_4 \\

    1982 doi

  10. [18]

    The Witt group of non-degenerate braided fusion categories

    Alexei Davydov, Michael Mueger, Dmitri Nikshych, Victor Ostrik. The Witt group of non-degenerate braided fusion categories. J. Reine Angew.\ Math. 677 (2013), pp. 135--177. doi:10.1515/crelle.2012.014 arXiv:1009.2117

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Representation theory in complex rank, I

    Pavel Etingof. Representation theory in complex rank, I. Transform.\ Groups 19 (2014), no. 2, pp. 359--381. doi:10.1007/s00031-014-9260-2 arXiv:1401.6321

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Representation theory in complex rank, II

    Pavel Etingof. Representation theory in complex rank, II. Adv.\ Math. 300 (2016), pp. 473--504. doi:10.1016/j.aim.2016.03.025 arXiv:1407.0373

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Deligne categories for the finite general linear groups, part 1: universal property

    Inna Entova-Aizenbud, Thorsten Heidersdorf. Deligne categories for the finite general linear groups, part 1: universal property. arXiv:2208.00241

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Tensor categories

    Pavel Etingof, Shlomo Gelaki, Dmitri Nikshych, Victor Ostrik. Tensor categories. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 205. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    p -adic dimensions in symmetric tensor categories in characteristic p

    Pavel Etingof, Nate Harman, Victor Ostrik. p -adic dimensions in symmetric tensor categories in characteristic p . Quantum Topology 9 (2018), no. 1, pp. 119--140. doi:10.4171/QT/104 arXiv:1510.04339

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    On the Frobenius functor for symmetric tensor categories in positive characteristic

    Pavel Etingof, Victor Ostrik. On the Frobenius functor for symmetric tensor categories in positive characteristic. J. Reine Angew.\ Math. 773 (2021), pp. 165--198. doi:10.1515/crelle-2020-0033 arXiv:1912.12947

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Computations in symmetric fusion categories in characteristic p

    Pavel Etingof, Victor Ostrik, Siddharth Venkatesh. Computations in symmetric fusion categories in characteristic p . Int.\ Math.\ Res.\ Not.\ IMRN (2017), no. 2, pp. 468--489. doi:10.1093/imrn/rnw024 arXiv:1512.02309

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Classification of simple commutative algebras in the Delannoy category

    Pavel Etingof, Andrew Snowden. Classification of simple commutative algebras in the Delannoy category. In preparation

  19. [27]

    urg Fr\"ohlich, J\

    J\"urg Fr\"ohlich, J\"urgen Fuchs, Ingo Runkel, Christoph Schweigert. Correspondences of ribbon categories. Adv.\ Math. 199 (2006), no. 1, pp. 192--329. doi:10.1016/j.aim.2005.04.007 arXiv:math/0309465

    2006 arXiv

  20. [28]

    H. K. Farahat, G. Higman. The centres of symmetric group rings. Proc.\ R.\ Soc.\ Lond.\ Ser. A Math.\ Phys.\ Eng.\ Sci. 250 (1959), no. 1261, pp. 212--221. doi:10.1098/rspa.1959.0060

    1959

  21. [29]

    Larry C. Grove. Classical groups and geometric algebra. Graduate Studies in Mathematics 39. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2002. doi:10.1090/gsm/039

    2002 doi

  22. [30]

    Harmonic analysis on (n) over finite fields

    Shamgar Gurevich, Roger Howe. Harmonic analysis on (n) over finite fields. Pure Appl.\ Math.\ Q. 17 (2021) no. 4, pp. 1387--1463. doi:10.4310/PAMQ.2021.v17.n4.a7 arXiv:2105.12369

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Guralnick, Michael Larsen, Pham Huu Tiep

    Robert M. Guralnick, Michael Larsen, Pham Huu Tiep. Character levels and character bounds. Forum Math.\ Pi 8 (2020). doi:10.1017/fmp.2019.9 arXiv:1708.03844

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Stability and periodicity in the modular representation theory of symmetric groups

    Nate Harman. Stability and periodicity in the modular representation theory of symmetric groups. arXiv:1509.06414v3

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Deligne categories as limits in rank and characteristic

    Nate Harman. Deligne categories as limits in rank and characteristic. arXiv:1601.03426

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Oligomorphic groups and tensor categories

    Nate Harman, Andrew Snowden. Oligomorphic groups and tensor categories. arXiv:2204.04526

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Discrete pre-Tannakian categories

    Nate Harman, Andrew Snowden. Discrete pre-Tannakian categories. arXiv:2304.05375

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Pre-Galois categories and Fra\"iss\'e's theorem

    Nate Harman, Andrew Snowden. Pre-Galois categories and Fra\"iss\'e's theorem. \\ arXiv:2301.13784

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Arboreal tensor categories

    Nate Harman, Ilia Nekrasov, Andrew Snowden, Noah Snyder. Arboreal tensor categories. arXiv:2308.06660

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    The Delannoy category

    Nate Harman, Andrew Snowden, Noah Snyder. The Delannoy category. arXiv:2211.15392

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    The circular Delannoy category

    Nate Harman, Andrew Snowden, Noah Snyder. The circular Delannoy category. arXiv:2303.10814

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    A construction of semisimple tensor categories

    Friedrich Knop. A construction of semisimple tensor categories. C. R. Math.\ Acad.\ Sci.\ Paris C 343 (2006), no. 1, pp. 15--18. doi:10.1016/j.crma.2006.05.009 arXiv:math/0605126

    2006 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Tensor envelopes of regular categories

    Friedrich Knop. Tensor envelopes of regular categories. Adv.\ Math. 214 (2007), pp. 571--617. doi:10.1016/j.aim.2007.03.001 arXiv:math/0610552

    2007 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Oscillator representations and semisimple pre-Tannakian categories

    Sophie Kriz. Oscillator representations and semisimple pre-Tannakian categories. Available at: ://krizsophie.github.io/

  35. [43]

    Quantum Delannoy categories

    Sophie Kriz. Quantum Delannoy categories. Available at: ://krizsophie.github.io/

  36. [44]

    Kannan, Christopher Ryba

    Arun S. Kannan, Christopher Ryba. Stable Centres II: Finite Classical Groups. arXiv:2112.01467

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    R. R. Laxton. On a Problem of M. Ward. Fibonacci Quart. 12 (1974), no. 1, pp. 41--44. doi:10.1080/00150517.1974.12430767

    1974

  38. [46]

    Martin W. Liebeck. On the orders of maximal subgroups of the finite classical groups. Proc.\ Lond.\ Math.\ Soc. 50 (1985), no. 3, pp. 426--446. doi:10.1112/plms/s3-50.3.426

    1985 doi

  39. [47]

    Vicente Landazuri, Gary M. Seitz. On the minimal degrees of projective representations of the finite Chevalley groups. J. Algebra 32 (1974), no. 2, pp. 418--443. doi:10.1016/0021-8693(74)90150-1

    1974 doi

  40. [48]

    Constructing non-semisimple modular categories with local modules

    Robert Laugwitz, Chelsea Walton. Constructing non-semisimple modular categories with local modules. arXiv:2202.08644

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    On representation categories of wreath products in non-integral rank

    Masaki Mori. On representation categories of wreath products in non-integral rank. Adv.\ Math. 231 (2012), no. 1, pp. 1--42. doi:10.1016/j.aim.2012.05.002 arXiv:1105.5091

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    A survey of homogeneous structures

    Dugald Macpherson. A survey of homogeneous structures. Discrete Math. 311 (2011), no. 15, pp. 1599--1634. doi:10.1016/j.disc.2011.01.024

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    Upper bounds for measures on distal classes

    Ilia Nekrasov, Andrew Snowden. Upper bounds for measures on distal classes. arXiv:2407.19131

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    G. P\'olya. Arithmetische Eigenschaften der Reihenentwicklungen rationaler Funktionen. J.\ Reine Angew.\ Math. 151 (1921), pp. 1--31. doi:10.1515/crll.1921.151.1

    1921 doi

  45. [53]

    The number of isotropic subspaces in a finite geometry

    Vera Pless. The number of isotropic subspaces in a finite geometry. Atti.\ Accad.\ Naz.\ Lincei Rendic. 39 (1965), no. 6, pp. 418--421. Available at: ://www.bdim.eu/item?id=RLINA_1965_8_39_6_418_0

    1965

  46. [54]

    Stable Centres I: Wreath Products

    Christopher Ryba. Stable Centres I: Wreath Products. arXiv:2107.03752

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    The Burnside algebra of a finite group

    Louis Solomon. The Burnside algebra of a finite group. J.\ Combin. Theory 2 (1967), pp. 603--615. doi:10.1016/S0021-9800(67)80064-4

    1967 doi

  48. [56]

    On the representation theory of the symmetry group of the Cantor set

    Andrew Snowden. On the representation theory of the symmetry group of the Cantor set. arXiv:2308.06648

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Regular categories, oligomorphic monoids, and tensor categories

    Andrew Snowden. Regular categories, oligomorphic monoids, and tensor categories. arXiv:2403.16267

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Interpolation of the oscillator representation and Azumaya algebras in tensor categories

    Andrew Snowden. Interpolation of the oscillator representation and Azumaya algebras in tensor categories. arXiv:2408.00233

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Property of simplicity and semi-simplicity under base change of base field

    Benjamin Steinberg. Property of simplicity and semi-simplicity under base change of base field. ://mathoverflow.net/q/439913 (Accessed June 15, 2025.)

    2025

  52. [60]

    ://stacks.math.columbia.edu (accessed 2025)

    Stacks Project. ://stacks.math.columbia.edu (accessed 2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Stability of the centers of group algebras of _n(q)

    Jinkui Wan, Weiqiang Wang. Stability of the centers of group algebras of _n(q) . Adv.\ Math 349 (2019), pp. 749--780. doi:10.1016/j.aim.2019.04.026 arXiv:1805.08796

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    The finite simple groups

    Robert A.\ Wilson. The finite simple groups. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 251. Springer--Verlag London, Ltd., London, 2009. doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-988-2

    2009 doi

  55. [63]

    Combinatorics of Euclidean spaces over finite fields

    Semin Yoo. Combinatorics of Euclidean spaces over finite fields. Ann.\ Comb. 28 (2024), pp. 283--327. doi:10.1007/s00026-023-00661-3 arXiv:1910.03482

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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