Universal Characteristic-free Resolution of Singularities, I

Yi Hu

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 21 references

Universal Characteristic-free Resolution of Singularities, I

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The paper claims one universal sequence of blowups, built from Plücker relations, resolves all singularity types over Q and finite fields.

desk verdict Big claim, unfinished keystone: the universal algorithm is concrete and credible in its visible algebra, but the ℘-termination and §8 Jacobian are deferred, so this is a promising program, not yet a proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21400 v1 pith:4A7P3FN4 submitted 2025-07-29 math.AG math.NT

Yi Hu This is my paper

classification math.AGmath.NT MSC 14E1514M1514B05

keywords resolutionofsingularitiescharacteristic-freeuniversalblowupMnevuniversalityGrassmannianPlückerrelationsΓ-schemeJacobiancriterion

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 claims to resolve the singularity types of every singular integral affine scheme of finite presentation over a perfect field defined over Z, in a way that works uniformly in all characteristics. The strategy is to stop treating singularities one by one: by Mnev universality as formulated in the paper's cited reference, every such singularity appears, up to a smooth morphism, inside a Grassmannian Gr3,E as a Γ-scheme cut out by coordinate hyperplanes and Plücker relations. The paper builds a birational model V of Gr3,E in which those Plücker relations are replaced by linear equations and well-organized binomials, then applies one fixed sequence of codimension-two blowups designed from the Plücker relations alone. The concluding claim, Theorem 1.3, is that the final transform of any integral Γ-scheme is smooth over Q or F_p, so the original X admits a resolution of singularity type. The details for a general perfect field are postponed, with a spreading-out argument announced for Part II.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a birational model V ⊂ R: V is the closure of the graph of the rational map that sends a point of U ∩ Gr3,E with Plücker coordinates $x_u$ to, for each primary Plücker relation F, the tuple $[x_{(u_s,v_s)}]$ of pairwise products $x_{u_s}x_{v_s}$. In R the defining equations split into governing data: the binomials $B_{(k\tau)}: x_{(u_s,v_s)}x_{u_F} - x_{(m,u_F)}x_{u_s}x_{v_s}$, which separate the two sides of each primary Plücker relation, and the linearized Plücker relations $L_F = \sum_s \operatorname{sgn}(s)\,x_{(u_s,v_s)}$. The universal blowup process has three layers: ϑ-blowups along intersections of the divisors $(x_{u_F}=0)$ and $(x_{(m,u_F)}=0)$; ordered ℘-blowups along intersections of pairs of divisors associated to the two terms of each governing binomial, organized in rounds because exceptional parameters accumulate; and one ℓ-blowup per Plücker relation along the intersection of the proper transform of $(L_F=0)$ with the corresponding ϑ-exceptional divisor. At the end, these governing relations are shown by Jacobian calculation to generate the local ideals of eVℓ and of each eZℓ,Γ, yielding smoothness.

What would settle it

Run the first block of the algorithm explicitly for the Grassmannian Gr(3,6): if a pair of divisors associated to the two terms of a governing binomial keeps meeting the transformed variety after every finite round, or if the computed Jacobian of the governing relations on one admissible chart has rank smaller than the chart's dimension, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is Theorem 1.3: for F = Q or a finite field, every integral Γ-scheme ZΓ inside the affine chart U = (p123 ≠ 0) of Gr3,E has an ℓ-transform eZℓ,Γ in the final blowup eVℓ that is smooth over F. Since Γ-schemes are exactly the singularity types produced by the version of Mnev universality the paper relies on, smoothness of this transform implies Theorem 1.1: any singular integral affine X of finite presentation over a perfect field defined over Z admits a smooth morphism Y → X such that Y carries a smooth projective birational model eY → Y. The paper does not track how individual singularities change; it resolves the ambient model V simultaneously for all Γ, and then reads off smoothness from the Jacobian of the governing binomials and linearized Plücker relations. The proof is broken into Theorems 8.5 and 8.6.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the middle layer of the blowup process never runs forever: the paper defines the round-count parameter with infinity allowed and defers the finiteness proof, and it also assumes without a visible derivation that the final layer's blowup is an isomorphism on the strict transform because the center is a Cartier divisor there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Theorem 1.3 is correct, resolution of singularity types is achieved without any restriction on characteristic: the same sequence of blowups works over Z and hence over Q and all finite fields $\mathbb{F}_p$.
The universal construction eliminates the need for monotone invariants tracking singularity improvement; singularities may worsen mid-process without affecting the final output.
After the ϑ-blowups, non-governing binomials become dependent; after the ℓ-blowups, the rb-binomials become dependent, so the final Jacobian computation uses only governing binomials and linearized Plücker relations.
Each $\widetilde{Z}^{\dagger}_{\ell,\Gamma}$, an irreducible component of $\widetilde{Z}_{\ell,\Gamma}$ mapping projectively and birationally onto $Z_\Gamma$, is smooth, so any singular integral $Z_\Gamma$ has an explicit resolution.
Combined with the paper's universality reference, every singular integral affine X of finite presentation over a perfect field defined over Z fits into a diagram $\widetilde{Y} \to Y \to X$ with $\widetilde{Y}$ smooth, the first map proper birational, and the second smooth.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the construction suggests that resolution could be organized as a precomputed atlas of charts for each n and Γ, independent of the input ideal; the paper does not take this computational perspective.
The proof assumes ZΓ is integral; a natural extension would be to test whether the same final transform is smooth, or at least has smooth irreducible components, for non-integral or reducible Γ-schemes, where the irreducible-component bookkeeping in diagram (1.17) would need revision.
Because the order of the ϑ-, ℘-, and ℓ-blowups is described as highly sensitive to the ordering of Plücker relations, an obvious experiment is to vary those orders for a small case such as Gr(3,6) and check whether finiteness of the ℘-rounds and final Jacobian rank are preserved.
Effective versions of the universality theorem would convert the existence result into a bound on n, and hence on the size of the universal atlas, in terms of the presentation of X; the paper does not address effectiveness.

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

Colleague — read the thing. If Theorem 1.3 is right, it is the real item: characteristic-free resolution of singularity types by one algorithm, using Mnev–Lafforgue to replace arbitrary defining equations by Plücker relations, then linearized Plücker plus binomials in V, then ordered ϑ/℘/ℓ blowups. That would be a dramatic result.

The paper is not a slogan. Sections 3–6 give explicit equations: Corollary 4.47 identifies defining relations of V, Propositions 5.11 and 5.16 describe local charts and equations after ϑ-blowups, there are concrete examples of rb-binomials, and the dependence of non-governing on governing binomials is written out. I read through the available algebra and found no contradiction. The debt to Lafforgue and to the author's earlier [10] is disclosed; the reliance is legitimate, and the citation pattern is normal.

But the central theorem is not yet proved in this text. The ℘-rounds can in principle run forever: Definition 6.7 defines ρ(kτ) as the first round with no ℘-set meeting the strict transform, allows ∞, and says finiteness "will be shown soon" — then uses ρ to construct eR℘k, eRℓk, and eventually eVℓ. If ρ is infinite, the final scheme does not exist, and the §8 Jacobian computation has no object to apply to. That is a load-bearing gap, not a detail. The §2e.4 claim that the ℓ-blowup is an isomorphism on the strict transform because it blows up a Cartier divisor is asserted, not derived; it matters for the bookkeeping. Section 8, where the Jacobian analysis is supposed to happen, was not in the reviewed text. And the general-perfect-field form of Theorem 1.1 is explicitly postponed to Part II, so the abstract overstates what Part I establishes.

The author flags all of these himself — that is honest, but it means the paper as posted is a program with an unfinished keystone, not a proof.

Who gets value: someone working on resolution or on Grassmannian models could benefit from the V construction and the very explicit chart bookkeeping; it is a credible route worth examining. But I would not rely on the main theorem yet, and I would not cite it as a resolution theorem. It does deserve a serious referee: the claim is important, the available algebra is concrete, and the gaps are specific enough that a referee could either find the missing finiteness argument or expose a fatal flaw.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a universal, characteristic-free resolution process for singularity types. Starting from Lafforgue's version of Mnev universality, it embeds arbitrary singular affine varieties into Grassmannian charts, then replaces the chart U ∩ Gr(3,E) by a birational model V defined in a smooth ambient space R by explicit binomial and linearized Plucker relations (Corollary 4.47). The author designs three kinds of embedded blowups—ϑ-, ℘-, and ℓ-blowups—on this universal model, tracks the induced transforms of Γ-schemes, and claims that the final ℓ-transform eZℓ,Γ is smooth over Q or F_p (Theorem 1.3). Theorem 1.1, the advertised resolution statement for integral affine schemes over any perfect field defined over Z, is stated as a consequence via Lafforgue's theorem, with the general-perfect-field case deferred to a Part II. Sections 3–6 contain explicit algebraic identities and local equations, and the announced Jacobian computation in Section 8 is supposed to establish smoothness of eZℓ,Γ.

Significance. If the construction can be completed, the approach would be a striking departure from the existing resolution literature: a single blowup algorithm, independent of characteristic and of the individual singularity, that resolves all singularity types at once. The strengths of the present paper are its explicit, combinatorial bookkeeping: the governing binomials and linearized Plucker relations are written out (Definition 4.50 and (5.7)), the defining equations of the model V are stated explicitly in Corollary 4.47, and the local equations after ϑ-blowups are given in Proposition 5.16. The use of Lafforgue's theorem is disclosed and the dependence on the author's previous work [10] is explicit. However, the central object of the paper—the final scheme eRℓ and its transform eZℓ,Γ—exists only if every ℘-blowup round terminates, and that termination is not proved in the visible text. The smoothness theorem is therefore conditional on an unresolved finiteness assertion. The paper also does not yet prove the full generality claimed in Theorem 1.1, since general perfect fields are postponed to Part II.

major comments (3)

[Definition 6.7 and §6b.1] The construction of the final scheme is conditional on the finiteness of ρ(kτ). Definition 6.7 defines ρ(kτ) as the first round with no ℘-set meeting the strict transform and explicitly permits ρ(kτ)=∞, adding only that finiteness 'will be shown soon.' No proof of this termination appears in Sections 3–6, and the sequences (6.3), (6.5), and (6.6) that produce eR℘k, eRℓk, and eVℓ terminate only when all ρ(kτ) are finite. Since Theorem 1.3 and the announced Jacobian computation in Section 8 concern eZℓ,Γ inside this not-yet-constructed scheme, the main theorem is not established as it stands. A descent argument or an explicit bound on the number of rounds and on the exponents of exceptional parameters acquired by proper transforms of governing binomials is needed.
[Theorem 1.1 and §1f] Theorem 1.1 promises resolution for every singular integral affine scheme of finite presentation over a perfect field defined over Z, but the proved statement in Theorem 1.3 is only for F = Q or a finite field. The paragraph at the end of §1f explicitly says that the case of a general perfect field is obtained by spreading out and 'The details are written in Part II.' Thus Part I does not contain a proof of the theorem as advertised. Either the statement of Theorem 1.1 should be restricted to the base fields covered by Theorem 1.3, or the spreading-out argument must be included.
[§2e.4] The assertion that the ℓ-blowup induces an isomorphism eVℓk → eV℘k 'as it is a blowup along a Cartier divisor' is used to justify the birational bookkeeping of the later transforms, but it is not proved in the text. The center of the ℓk-blowup is the intersection D_{℘k,LFk} ∩ E_{℘k,ϑk}; it is not immediate from the definitions that this intersection is a Cartier divisor on eV℘k at the points where it meets the strict transform. A proof, or a precise reference to a proposition establishing this, is required because the isomorphy of this step is used in the induction that defines the ℘- and ℓ-transforms of Γ-schemes.

minor comments (6)

[Throughout] There are numerous typos and misspellings: 'Lemmminglea' appears in Lemmas 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.8, 4.9, 4.16, 4.18, 4.21, 4.24–4.27, 4.36, 4.38–4.40, and 4.46; 'Propsotion' in Proposition 4.55; 'interchangeblly' near the end of §6b.1; 'exmaple' in Example 4.41; and the inconsistent rendering 'Mn¨ev' vs. 'Mn¨ev’s'. These should be corrected.
[Propositions 5.10 and 5.12] Proposition 5.10 says the quasi-free T-action on eRϑ[k] lifts to a quasi-free T-action on eRϑ[k], which is tautological as stated; presumably the first scheme should be eRϑ[k−1]. Proposition 5.12 has the same form. Please fix the indices.
[Definition 4.7] The definition of ℘-reducibility is written with a missing condition: the statement 'xu′xv′x(u,v) | m and x(u′,v′) | m′' should require that x(u,v) and x(u′,v′) are homogeneous coordinates of the same P_F and, more importantly, the reduction step should explicitly identify which term is replaced. The displayed equivalence in (4.9) helps, but the definition should be stated with the matching indices to avoid ambiguity.
[§3 and Example 3.9] Example 3.9 computes with Gr(2,5), although the main body of the paper works with Gr(3,E). If the example is intended only as an elementary illustration of de-homogenization, that should be said explicitly; otherwise the switch of Grassmannian degree is confusing.
[Notation in diagram (1.17)/(2.9)] The diagrams use the symbol 'ℏ' for intermediate stages, but ℏ is never defined as an index set or a function of (k,τ,µ,h). Please define the range of this symbol or replace it with explicit indices.
[§5a, convention (5.12)] The convention xV,u = 1 for u ∈ eV and xV,(u,v) = 1 for (u,v) ∈ dV is used repeatedly in the proof of Proposition 5.16 and in Corollary 5.18. It would help the reader to have this convention recalled at the point of first use in Proposition 5.16, since omission of this convention makes several displayed equations appear to have different numbers of terms.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular dependency: the smoothness conclusion is derived from explicit equations and Jacobians, not from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1.3, proven by constructing explicit blowups and computing Jacobians of governing relations in Section 8. The governing relations are defined from Plücker relations and the explicit binomial equations (1.8)-(1.11), with the V-model built in Section 4 as the closure of the graph of an explicit rational map. No parameter is fitted to the target smoothness; the ℓ-transform eZℓ,Γ is defined by prescribed universal blowups, not as 'the locus where the Jacobian has maximal rank'. The cited Lafforgue universality theorem is external and supplies the smooth morphism Y→X, not the resolution conclusion, so it is not circular. The author's prior work [10] is cited only as a parallel construction for motivation, while the model is constructed and proved independently in Section 4 and the blowup properties are proved in Propositions 5.16 and 6.11; the self-citation is therefore not load-bearing. The notable gaps are non-circular: Definition 6.7 leaves ρ(kτ) possibly infinite with the promise that finiteness 'will be shown soon', and Section 1f explicitly defers the general-perfect-field form of Theorem 1.1 to Part II. These are incompleteness or correctness risks, not cases where the output reduces to an input by construction. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The visible machinery rests on three kinds of input: (1) external mathematical theorems (Lafforgue/Mnev universality, standard blowup and Jacobian facts), (2) the paper's own elementary Plücker generation argument (Prop 3.6), and (3) hand-chosen combinatorial data (the order <℘, the choice of primary relations, the rational slices) that the paper admits are crucial for square-freeness and termination. No empirical free parameters are fitted, but the construction is tuned: the orders and centers are selected so that the deferred Jacobian computation is supposed to come out with full rank. The genuinely un-accounted-for load is the finiteness of ρ(kτ) and the full-rank Jacobian conclusion of Section 8.

free parameters (3)

Total order <℘ on primary Plücker relations and on governing binomials = rank first, then lexicographic on u\m, then lexicographic on m∩u (Definition 3.13); ϱ-variables largest, ϖ-variables…
The paper stresses the orders are crucial: 'The order of ℘-blowups ... may be subtle and are carefully chosen' (§1c.4) and square-freeness propagation depends on them (§2e.2). Different orders are claimed possible but no invariance is proved, so the construction is a hand-chosen family.
Choice of the m-primary Plücker relations (chart (123) and the specific Fm,u among several containing the leading term) = chart m=(123); relations of type Fm,(abc,a) (Remark 3.10)
Remark 3.10 shows at least six different relations contain the term pmpabc; any could be chosen and fixed. The blowup design depends on this choice, so it is a hand-chosen parameter.
Choice of rational slices for Γ-transforms when ZΓ is contained in a blowup center = not specified; chosen 'from a rational slice of the total transform' (§2f)
The proof that the chosen slice is smooth for every Γ is part of the deferred Sections 7-8; the choice itself is ad hoc to the paper.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Lafforgue's version of Mnev universality (Theorem I.14 of [13]): every affine Z-variety admits, up to a smooth morphism, an open immersion into a matroid Schubert cell of Gr(3,E)
Invoked in §1a.1 and §9 as the bridge from arbitrary X to the Γ-schemes ZΓ. Theorem 1.1 depends on it; it is external to this paper.
standard math The minimal set of primary Plücker relations F defines the chart UGr = U ∩ Gr(3,E) over Z (Proposition 3.6 and the rank-lex ordering of §3b)
The paper itself flags that over Z and positive characteristic the full Plücker ideal I℘ is strictly smaller than the ideal of the Grassmannian (§3a), so the generation claim for the primary relations is load-bearing and is proven elementarily in Prop 3.6.
standard math Standard facts on blowups along smooth centers, proper transforms, and the Jacobian criterion, assumed without proof throughout Sections 5-8
Used in Proposition 5.3, Definition 5.4, and Section 8; these are textbook results and are not the fragile part.
domain assumption Spreading out for varieties over a general perfect field, reducing to the Z-defined case (deferred to Part II)
§1f: 'For a singular affine or projective variety X over a general perfect field k, we spread it out and deduce that X/k admits a resolution as well. The details are written in Part II.' The abstract presents this as proven.

invented entities (3)

The birational model V (closure of the graph of Θ[Υ],Gr), with ambient R = U × ∏ PF independent evidence
purpose: New platform where Plücker relations become linearized relations LF and governing binomials; all singularities are embedded in it
V is explicitly constructed (§4a), and Corollary 4.47 gives its defining equations, so any reader can check the construction; its birationality to U∩Gr is stated. The independence is formal, not empirical.
ϱ-variables x(u,v), ϱ-divisors, L-divisors, ϑ-, ℘-, ℓ-centers and their exceptional parameters independent evidence
purpose: Bookkeeping devices that encode which factors of governing binomials vanish and define the centers of the universal blowups
Each is defined by explicit equations (Propositions 5.11, 6.11), so the handles are explicit. The risk is not existence but whether the claimed termination and Jacobian-rank properties actually hold.
The transforms eZℓ,Γ and eZ†ℓ,Γ (rational slices and selected irreducible components of strict transforms) independent evidence
purpose: To carry the birational modification of ZΓ through the universal blowups and identify the smooth output
Their construction is described in §2f and Lemmas 7.3-7.5 (deferred); the choice of component and slice is the paper's construction, checkable once Sections 7-8 are complete.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal Characteristic-free Resolution of Singularities, I." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4A7P3FN4

@misc{pith2026250721400,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal Characteristic-free Resolution of Singularities, I},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4A7P3FN4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21400}
}

abstract

We prove that for any singular integral affine variety $X$ of finite presentation over a perfect field defined over $\mathbb Z$, there exists a smooth morphism from $Y$ onto $X$ such that $Y$ admits a resolution. That is, there exists a smooth scheme $\widetilde{Y}$ and a projective birational morphism from $\widetilde{Y}$ onto $Y$, followed by a smooth morphism from $Y$ onto $X$. Our approach differs fundamentally from existing methods, as we neither restrict to any specific singular variety nor fix the characteristic. Instead, we design a {\it universal} blowup process that {\it simultaneously} resolves all possible singularities, and, our method is entirely characteristic-free.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[10]

arxiv 2025

Yi Hu, G-quotients of Grassmannians and Equations. arxiv 2025

work page 2025
[1]

Abhyankar, Resolution of singularities of embedded algebraic surfaces, Springer Mono- graphs in Mathematics, Acad

Shreeram S. Abhyankar, Resolution of singularities of embedded algebraic surfaces, Springer Mono- graphs in Mathematics, Acad. Press (1966)

work page 1966
[2]

Dan Abramovich, Michael Temkin, Jaroslaw Wlodarczyk, Functorial Embedded Resolution via Weighted Blowings up, arXiv:1906.07106v3

arXiv 1906
[3]

Aise Johan de Jong, Smoothness, Semi-stability and Alterations, Publ. Math. IHES 83, (1996) 51-93

work page 1996
[4]

Hautes ´Etudes Sci

Alexander Grothendieck, ´El´ ements de g´ eom´ etrie alg´ ebrique IV:´Etude locale des sch´ emas et des mor- phismes de sch´ emas, III, Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. 28 (1966)

work page 1966
[5]

Hartshorne, Algebraic Geometry, Springer, 1977

R. Hartshorne, Algebraic Geometry, Springer, 1977

work page 1977
[6]

of Math., 2, 79 (1), (1964) 109-203, 205-326

Heisuke Hironaka, Resolution of Singularities of an Algebraic Variety over a Field of Characteristic zero, I, II , Ann. of Math., 2, 79 (1), (1964) 109-203, 205-326

work page 1964
[7]

Heisuke Hironaka, Resolution of Singularities in Positive Characteristics , http://www.math.harvard.edu/ hironaka/pRes.pdf

work page

Show all 21 references

[8]

Yi Hu, Relative Resolution and Its Applications, Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Chinese Mathematicians. Vol. I, 467-488, Adv. Lect. Math. (ALM), 36, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2017

2017
[9]

Yi Hu, Resolution of Singularities in Arbitrary Characteristic, arXiv:2203.03842 [math.AG], March 8, 2022

2022 arXiv
[11]

J´ anos Koll´ ar,Lectures on Resolutions of Singularities, Ann. of Math. Studies, No. 166, 2007

2007
[12]

pasted together

Laurent Lafforgue, Pavages des simplexes, sch´ emas de graphes recoll´ es et compactification des PGLn+1 r /PGLr. (French. English summary) [Pavings of simplices, schemes of graphs that are “pasted together” and compactification of PGL n+1 r /PGLr] Invent. Math. 136 (1999), 23...

1999
[13]

(French) [Surgery on Grassmannians], CRM Monogr

−, Chirurgie des grassmanniennes. (French) [Surgery on Grassmannians], CRM Monogr. Ser. 19, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 2003

2003
[14]

Seok Hyeong Lee and Ravi Vakil, Mn¨ ev-Sturmfels Universality for Schemes,Clay Mathematics Pro- ceedings, Volume 18, 2013

2013
[15]

Qing Liu, Algebraic Geometry and Arithmetic Curves, Oxford University Press, 2002

2002
[16]

Michael McQuillan, Gianluca Marzo, Very Fast, Very Functorial, and Very Easy Resolution of Sin- gularities, arXiv:1906.06745v1

1906 arXiv
[17]

Nikolai Mn¨ ev,The Universality Theorems on the Classification Problem of Configuration Varieties and Convex Polytope Varieties, In Topology and Geometry, Rohlin Seminar, LNM 1346, 527-543, Springer, Berlin, 1988

1988
[18]

Temkin, Tame distillation and desingularization by p-alterations, Ann

M. Temkin, Tame distillation and desingularization by p-alterations, Ann. of Math. 186 (2017), 97 - 126

2017
[19]

Ravi Vakil, Murphy’s Law in Algebraic Geometry: Badly-Behaved Deformation Spaces, Inven. Math. 164 569-590 (2006)

2006
[20]

Oscar Zariski, Local uniformization theorem on algebraic varieties, Ann. of Math. 41 (1940), 852 - 896

1940
[21]

AMS (1947), 1 - 52

Oscar Zariski, The concept of a simple point of an abstract algebraic variety, Trans. AMS (1947), 1 - 52

1947

Pith tools

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

[1] [10]

arxiv 2025

Yi Hu, G-quotients of Grassmannians and Equations. arxiv 2025

work page 2025

[2] [1]

Abhyankar, Resolution of singularities of embedded algebraic surfaces, Springer Mono- graphs in Mathematics, Acad

Shreeram S. Abhyankar, Resolution of singularities of embedded algebraic surfaces, Springer Mono- graphs in Mathematics, Acad. Press (1966)

work page 1966

[3] [2]

Dan Abramovich, Michael Temkin, Jaroslaw Wlodarczyk, Functorial Embedded Resolution via Weighted Blowings up, arXiv:1906.07106v3

arXiv 1906

[4] [3]

Aise Johan de Jong, Smoothness, Semi-stability and Alterations, Publ. Math. IHES 83, (1996) 51-93

work page 1996

[5] [4]

Hautes ´Etudes Sci

Alexander Grothendieck, ´El´ ements de g´ eom´ etrie alg´ ebrique IV:´Etude locale des sch´ emas et des mor- phismes de sch´ emas, III, Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. 28 (1966)

work page 1966

[6] [5]

Hartshorne, Algebraic Geometry, Springer, 1977

R. Hartshorne, Algebraic Geometry, Springer, 1977

work page 1977

[7] [6]

of Math., 2, 79 (1), (1964) 109-203, 205-326

Heisuke Hironaka, Resolution of Singularities of an Algebraic Variety over a Field of Characteristic zero, I, II , Ann. of Math., 2, 79 (1), (1964) 109-203, 205-326

work page 1964

[8] [7]

Heisuke Hironaka, Resolution of Singularities in Positive Characteristics , http://www.math.harvard.edu/ hironaka/pRes.pdf

work page