Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Generalized chip firing and critical groups of arithmetical structures on trees

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that every finite abelian group is the critical group of some arithmetical structure on a tree, and that the number of invariant factors of such a group is bounded by a starlike decomposition of the tree.

desk verdict Solid paper that settles two open questions in arithmetical structures on trees; the only soft spot is a terse induction in Lemma 4.3, which is fixable. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05392 v2 pith:6FM452K6 submitted 2025-05-08 math.CO math.NT

Kassie Archer , Alexander Diaz-Lopez , Darren Glass , Joel Louwsma This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.COmath.NT MSC 05C0505C2505C5005C7020K01
keywords arithmeticalstructurescriticalgroupschipfiringtreesinvariantfactorssandpilegroupstarlikedecomposition2-matchingnumber
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

An arithmetical structure on a graph assigns positive integer labels $r(v)$ to vertices so that each $r(v)$ divides the weighted sum of labels at neighboring vertices; the torsion part of the cokernel of $\operatorname{diag}(d)-A(G)$ is its critical group, also known as the sandpile group or Jacobian. This paper uses a generalized chip-firing game, where firing at a vertex subtracts a column of that matrix, to bound the number of invariant factors of the critical group for trees in terms of a starlike decomposition into simpler trees. It proves that every finite abelian group is realized as the critical group of some arithmetical structure on a tree, and that if a tree $T$ has $\ell(T)$ leaves, any group with at most $\ell(T)-2$ invariant factors appears on a subdivision of $T$. It also classifies the trees on which every arithmetical structure has cyclic critical group: exactly paths, three-leaf starlike trees, and trees with two adjacent vertices of degree $3$ (and no vertex of degree at least $4$). A wedge-sum theorem shows that critical groups add when two arithmetical structures are merged at vertices whose $r$-values are coprime.

What carries the argument

Four pieces carry the argument. generalized chip firing: firing at a vertex $v$ replaces a divisor $\delta$ by $\delta$ minus the column of $\operatorname{diag}(d)-A(G)$ indexed by $v$; divisors modulo firing form the cokernel, and the degree weighted by $r$ is preserved, so degree-zero classes form the critical group. starlike decompositions: a tree is recursively split into starlike trees (one vertex of degree at least $3$) and paths, and Lemma 4.3 uses borrowing along tentacles to concentrate any divisor at $\sum_i(\ell_i-2)+1$ vertices. the wedge-sum merge of Proposition 3.1, with the coprime-$r$ condition, gives $K(G_1\vee G_2)\cong K(G_1)\oplus K(G_2)$ (Theorem 3.3). Finally, the starlike-tree formula $K(S)\oplus (\mathbb{Z}/r_0\mathbb{Z})^2\cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^{\ell} \mathbb{Z}/d_i^*\mathbb{Z}$ (Theorem 6.1) is the constructive engine: it turns prescribed invariant factors into $r$-values on a broom graph, and tentacles can be extended without changing the critical group.

What would settle it

Compute the Smith normal form of $\operatorname{diag}(d)-A(T)$ for every arithmetical structure on a small tree $T$ with two non-adjacent degree-$3$ vertices; finding any critical group with more than $\ell(T)-2-\iota(T)$ invariant factors, or any divisor class that cannot be represented on at most that many plus one vertices, would refute Theorem 4.5 and Lemma 4.3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a transfer between chip-firing geometry and linear algebra: if every divisor on a graph is equivalent, under this generalized firing, to one supported on a set $Z$ of vertices, then the critical group has at most $|Z|-1$ invariant factors (Theorem 2.4). For trees, the paper shows that a starlike decomposition $\{S_i\}$ lets every divisor be supported on at most $\sum_i(\ell_i-2)+1$ vertices, giving the bound that every arithmetical structure on $T$ has at most $\sum_i(\ell_i-2)=\ell(T)-2-\iota(T)=|E(T)|-\nu_2(T)$ invariant factors (Theorems 4.5 and 5.5). On the construction side, the paper combines a formula for critical groups of starlike trees with a wedge-sum additivity theorem: Theorem 6.1 computes critical groups of starlike trees, Theorem 3.3 makes critical groups additive under merging vertices with coprime $r$-values, and the resulting broom-graph construction realizes every finite abelian group; Corollary 6.5 realizes any group with at most $\ell(T)-2$ invariant factors on a subdivision of any tree $T$. The classification of trees with only cyclic critical groups (Corollary 4.6) is a direct corollary of the invariant-factor bound: the allowed trees are paths, starlike trees with three leaves, and trees with exactly two adjacent degree-$3$ vertices and no vertex of degree at least $4$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Lemma 4.3's claim that, using borrowing along tentacles, every divisor on a tree can be concentrated on at most $\sum_i(\ell_i-2)+1$ vertices for arbitrary integer labelings $d$; if the induction silently leaves one extra vertex with chips, the invariant-factor upper bounds and the classification of cyclic critical groups collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every finite abelian group $G$ appears as the critical group of an arithmetical structure on a broom graph, that is, a starlike tree with at most one tentacle of length greater than one (Proposition 6.3).
  • For any tree $T$ and any finite abelian group $G$ with at most $\ell(T)-2$ invariant factors, some subdivision of $T$ carries an arithmetical structure with critical group $G$ (Corollary 6.5).
  • The number of invariant factors of the critical group of any arithmetical structure on $T$ is at most $\ell(T)-2-\iota(T)=|E(T)|-\nu_2(T)$, and every integer from $0$ up to that bound is attained by some arithmetical structure on $T$ (Theorems 4.5 and 5.5).
  • All arithmetical structures on a tree have cyclic critical group exactly when the tree is a path, a starlike tree with three leaves, or a tree with two adjacent degree-$3$ vertices and nothing of degree at least $4$ (Corollary 4.6 and Remark 4.7).
  • Under wedge merging with coprime $r$-values at the merged vertices, critical groups add as a direct sum; this also gives arithmetical structures on $c$-cyclic graphs with any prescribed finite abelian critical group, for every positive integer $c$ (Remark 6.7).

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the support bound in Lemma 4.3 holds for arbitrary integer labelings $d$, not only for arithmetical-structure matrices, the same invariant-factor upper bound should apply to any integer matrix $\operatorname{diag}(d)-A(T)$; a computational search over small trees with non-arithmetical $d$ could test whether the bound is sharp outside the intended setting.
  • The paper's bound ties invariant factors to purely graph-theoretic parameters (leaves, splitting irregularity number, 2-matching number), suggesting that the structure of the critical group is carried by branch vertices and their adjacencies; one could attempt analogous bounds for graphs of higher cyclomatic number by decomposing along blocks.
  • The realization result yields a natural optimization problem not addressed in the paper: the minimum number of leaves a tree needs to realize a given finite abelian group $G$, which Corollary 6.5 places between the number of invariant factors of $G$ plus $2$ and the leaf count of a chosen host tree; determining this minimum exactly would be a next step.
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 develops a generalized chip-firing framework for arithmetical structures and uses it to bound the number of invariant factors of the associated critical groups, with a focus on trees. The main results are: (1) an upper bound on the number of invariant factors in terms of a starlike decomposition of a tree (Theorem 4.5(a)); (2) a matching lower construction showing every number of invariant factors up to that bound occurs (Theorem 4.5(b)); (3) a classification of trees for which every arithmetical structure has cyclic critical group (Corollary 4.6); (4) a reinterpretation of the invariant-factor bound via a new tree invariant, the splitting irregularity number, and the 2-matching number (Theorem 5.5); and (5) constructions of arithmetical structures on broom graphs and on subdivisions of arbitrary trees with prescribed critical groups, culminating in the statement that every finite abelian group is realized as the critical group of some arithmetical structure on a tree (Section 6, especially Proposition 6.3 and Corollary 6.5). The paper also proves a wedge-sum additivity theorem for critical groups under a coprimality hypothesis (Theorem 3.3).

Significance. If the proofs are fully repaired, these are substantial results. The wedge-sum additivity theorem cleanly extends Lorenzini's p-primary result, the invariant-factor bounds give a new structural restriction on critical groups of arithmetical structures on trees, and the classification of trees with only cyclic critical groups is a natural and satisfying corollary. The constructive results in Section 6 are particularly strong: they not only realize every finite abelian group on a tree but do so on subdivisions of any given tree with enough leaves, and the broom construction is explicit and elementary. The paper is generally clearly written, the Smith normal form arguments in Section 2 are sound, and the authors are careful to identify the external results on which they rely, such as [18, Theorem 2.1] for starlike critical groups. The main weakness is that the central upper-bound lemma is not stated with the fixed-support property needed for its application, and its proof is too terse at the key inductive step.

major comments (2)
  1. [Lemma 4.3 and Theorem 4.5(a)] The inference from Lemma 4.3 to Theorem 4.5(a) is not justified as written. Lemma 4.3 concludes only that, for each individual divisor, there exists a support set of size at most sum_i(ell_i - 2) + 1; this set may depend on the divisor. Theorem 2.4, however, requires a fixed set Z such that every divisor is equivalent to a divisor supported on Z. The proof of Theorem 4.5(a) invokes Theorem 2.4 immediately after Lemma 4.3, so the bound on invariant factors does not follow from the stated lemma. The lemma should be strengthened to assert the existence of a fixed set Z of size at most sum_i(ell_i - 2) + 1, with the proof adjusted accordingly, or Theorem 4.5(a) needs a different argument.
  2. [Proof of Lemma 4.3] The induction step in the proof of Lemma 4.3 is under-specified at the merged vertex v. The induction hypothesis applied to T' allows arbitrary firings on T', including firings at v; when these firings are repeated on T, they change the chip count at the central vertex of S1. The subsequent instruction to 'borrow out along all other tentacles of S1' does not explain how the vertices of T' (which include v) are protected from disturbance, nor why the final support is contained in a fixed set independent of the original divisor. This is connected to the previous comment, but it deserves separate attention because the repair requires a detailed induction invariant: for example, a fixed support set for T' that includes v, and a rule that S1's central vertex is cleared using only non-v tentacles.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Lemma 4.3] The statement of Lemma 4.3 says 'let d in Z^{V(G)}', but the graph is T; this should be 'd in Z^{V(T)}'.
  2. [Corollary 4.6] The phrase 'T has does not have non-adjacent vertices of degree at least 3' is grammatically incorrect, and the sentence 'By Theorem 4.5(b), it suffices...' should reference both Theorem 4.5(a) and Theorem 4.5(b), since the 'if' direction uses part (a) and the 'only if' direction uses part (b).
  3. [Example 6.2 and Proposition 6.3] In Example 6.2, the computation 'r(v4) = -(108 + 18 + 1) mod 364 = 197' uses 364, but r(v0) = 324; the modulus should be 324.
  4. [Theorem 6.4] In the statement of Theorem 6.4, the phrase 'an arithmetical structure on T'' should read 'an arithmetical structure on tilde T'; the current wording introduces a symbol T' that is not defined in the statement.
  5. [Proof of Theorem 6.4] In the final paragraph of the proof of Theorem 6.4, the tree obtained by subdividing all edges is denoted with the same symbol T as the original tree, which is confusing; using a different symbol such as tilde T would clarify the argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the critical-group bounds and constructions are derived from chip-firing, Smith normal form, and independent external results; the only self-citation is non-essential.

full rationale

The paper's main upper bound (Theorem 4.5(a)) is obtained from Lemma 4.3 (divisor support reduction by generalized chip firing) and Theorem 2.4 (Smith normal form / minor criterion). Neither step assumes the conclusion: Lemma 4.3 is proved by induction on starlike splittings, and Theorem 2.4 is a self-contained matrix argument. The only subtlety is that Lemma 4.3 as worded gives a support set that may depend on the divisor, while Theorem 2.4 is stated for a fixed Z; the proof can be read constructively to yield a fixed set, so this is an expositional gap rather than a circular reduction. Theorem 4.5(b) invokes the authors' own [2, Theorem 1] for star critical groups; this is a genuine self-citation, but it is not load-bearing because the star computation is independently published with its own proof and the paper notes it also follows from Lorenzini's external [18, Theorem 2.1]. Section 6's realization of every finite abelian group is an explicit r-label construction verified by Theorem 6.1 (Lorenzini) and the wedge-sum Theorem 3.3; no parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. Corollaries 4.6 and 6.5 are immediate consequences of the proved bounds, not of assuming the target classification. I therefore find no circular derivation; the score of 2 reflects the minor non-essential self-citation rather than any reduction by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new physical or formal entities. The splitting irregularity number iota(T) is a new mathematical definition (Section 5), but its well-definedness is proven in Proposition 5.1 rather than postulated. The main external dependencies are Lorenzini's rank and starlike-formula results and the self-cited star formula; none of these assume the paper's target theorems.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Smith normal form over Z and the Cauchy-Binet formula characterize when an integer matrix has a right inverse
    Used in Proposition 2.3 to equate divisor concentration (condition (a)) with the gcd of maximal minors being 1.
  • standard math Every finite abelian group has an invariant factor decomposition and direct-summand cancellation is valid
    Used in Theorem 4.5(b), Proposition 6.3, and Theorem 6.4 to split and reassemble groups; cancellation of the (Z/r0)^2 factor in Proposition 6.3 gives K isomorphic to G.
  • standard math The signed Euclidean recurrence r(v(j+1)) = (-r(v(j-1))) mod r(v(j)) preserves consecutive gcds and terminates at a unit
    Used in Proposition 6.3 to extend the broom tentacle; termination at r-value 1 is argued via gcd(r(v0), r(v(m+2))) = 1.
  • domain assumption The generalized Laplacian L(G, d) of an arithmetical structure has rank |V| - 1
    Invoked in Theorem 2.4 so the Smith normal form of L has exactly one zero entry; cited to Lorenzini [16, Proposition 1.1].
  • domain assumption Starlike-tree critical group formula: K(S; d, r) plus (Z/r0 Z)^2 is isomorphic to the direct sum of Z/(r0/ri) Z over the leaves
    Quoted as Lorenzini [18, Theorem 2.1]; this is the engine of Section 6's prescribed-group constructions.
  • domain assumption Star critical group computations from Archer et al. [2, Theorem 1]
    Self-cited result used in Theorem 4.5(b); also implied by [18, Theorem 2.1], so the dependency is not unique to the present authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized chip firing and critical groups of arithmetical structures on trees." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6FM452K6

@misc{pith2026250505392,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized chip firing and critical groups of arithmetical structures on trees},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6FM452K6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05392}
}
read the original abstract

Chip firing provides a way to study the sandpile group (also known as the Jacobian) of a graph. We use a generalized version of chip firing to bound the number of invariant factors of the critical group of an arithmetical structure on a graph. We also show that, under suitable hypotheses, critical groups are additive under wedge sums of graphs with arithmetical structures. These results allow us to relate the number of invariant factors of critical groups associated to any given tree to decompositions of the tree into simpler trees. We use this to classify those trees for which every arithmetical structure has cyclic critical group. Finally, we show how to construct arithmetical structures on trees with prescribed critical groups. In particular, every finite abelian group is realized as the critical group of some arithmetical structure on a tree.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05392 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Arithmetical structures on G1 (upper) and G2 (lower), where the d-values are given on the left and the r-values on the right. The arithmetical structure on G1 ∨ G2 obtained by merging G1 and G2 at the circled vertices is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The graph G1 ∨ G2, with G1 and G2 from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Tree for which all arithmetical structures have cyclic critical group. 5. Splitting irregularity numbers and 2-matching numbers In this section, we introduce an invariant of trees that we call the splitting irregular￾ity number and show how it is related to the 2-matching number. We then reinterpret Theorem 4.5 in terms of splitting irregularity numbers and 2-matching numbers. 5.1. The splitting irregularity number.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The thick, red edges form a maximal 2-matching of this tree. on more than just the degree sequence of T; one must consider the adjacencies between high-degree vertices and what happens to these vertices under starlike splittings. 5.2. 2-matching numbers. The splitting …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A broom graph with three prongs and the r-values of an arith￾metical structure. The associated critical group is Z/3Z ⊕ Z/18Z. Proposition 6.3 implies that every finite abelian group arises as the critical group of an arithmetical structure on a tree, and more specific…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A tree T, a starlike decomposition {Si} 7 i=1 of T, and the r-values of an arithmetical structure on Te, a subdivision of T, that has critical group (Z/4Z) 7 . of 16, r-values of 4 and 1 at the prongs, and r-values of 11, 6, and 1 along the remaining tentacle. Merging …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Kassie Archer, Alexander Diaz-Lopez, Darren Glass, and Joel Louwsma, Critical groups of arithmetical structures on star graphs and complete graphs , Electron. J. Combin. 31 (2024), no. 1, Paper No. 1.5, 28 pp., https://doi.org/10.37236/11729

    work page doi:10.37236/11729 2024

  2. [1]

    Bishop, Alexander Diaz-Lopez, Luis D

    Kassie Archer, Abigail C. Bishop, Alexander Diaz-Lopez, Luis D. Garc´ ıa Puente, Darren Glass, and Joel Louwsma, Arithmetical structures on bidents, Discrete Math. 343 (2020), no. 7, Paper No. 111850, 23 pp., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2020.111850

    work page arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Arash Asadi and Spencer Backman, Chip-firing and Riemann–Roch theory for directed graphs , arXiv:1012.0287 [math.CO], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1012.0287

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1012.0287

  4. [4]

    Roland Bacher, Pierre de la Harpe, and Tatiana Nagnibeda, The lattice of integral flows and the lattice of integral cuts on a finite graph , Bull. Soc. Math. France 125 (1997), no. 2, 167–198, https://doi. org/10.24033/bsmf.2303

    work page doi:10.24033/bsmf.2303 1997

  5. [5]

    Matthew Baker and Serguei Norine, Riemann–Roch and Abel–Jacobi theory on a finite graph , Adv. Math. 215 (2007), no. 2, 766–788, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2007.04.012

    doi:10.1016/j.aim.2007.04.012 2007

  6. [6]

    Glass, Cyclic critical groups of graphs , Australas

    Ryan Becker and Darren B. Glass, Cyclic critical groups of graphs , Australas. J. Combin. 64 (2016), 366–375, https://ajc.maths.uq.edu.au/pdf/64/ajc_v64_p366.pdf

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    N. L. Biggs, Chip-firing and the critical group of a graph , J. Algebraic Combin. 9 (1999), no. 1, 25–45, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018611014097

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1018611014097 1999

  8. [8]

    Martin, Gregg Musiker, and Carlos E

    Benjamin Braun, Hugo Corrales, Scott Corry, Luis David Garc´ ıa Puente, Darren Glass, Nathan Kaplan, Jeremy L. Martin, Gregg Musiker, and Carlos E. Valencia,Counting arithmetical structures on paths and cycles, Discrete Math. 341 (2018), no. 10, 2949–2963, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2018.07.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.disc.2018.07.002 2018

Show all 21 references
  1. [9]

    Valencia, Critical ideals of trees , arXiv:1504.06239 [math.CO], https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1504.06239

    Hugo Corrales and Carlos E. Valencia, Critical ideals of trees , arXiv:1504.06239 [math.CO], https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1504.06239

    doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Valencia, Arithmetical structures on graphs , Linear Algebra Appl

    Hugo Corrales and Carlos E. Valencia, Arithmetical structures on graphs , Linear Algebra Appl. 536 (2018), 120–151, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.laa.2017.09.018

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Valencia, Arithmetical structures on graphs with connectivity one, J

    Hugo Corrales and Carlos E. Valencia, Arithmetical structures on graphs with connectivity one, J. Algebra Appl. 17 (2018), no. 8, Paper No. 1850147, 13 pp., https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219498818501475

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Scott Corry and David Perkinson, Divisors and sandpiles: An introduction to chip-firing , American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1090/mbk/114

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Deepak Dhar, Self-organized critical state of sandpile automaton models , Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), no. 14, 1613–1616, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.1613

    1990 doi

  6. [14]

    22 KASSIE ARCHER, ALEXANDER DIAZ-LOPEZ, DARREN GLASS, AND JOEL LOUWSMA

    Jeremiah Hower, On Elliptic Curves and Arithmetical Graphs , University of Georgia, 2009, Thesis (Ph.D.), https://openscholar.uga.edu/record/9140. 22 KASSIE ARCHER, ALEXANDER DIAZ-LOPEZ, DARREN GLASS, AND JOEL LOUWSMA

    2009

  7. [15]

    Klivans, The mathematics of chip-firing , Discrete Mathematics and its Applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315206899

    Caroline J. Klivans, The mathematics of chip-firing , Discrete Mathematics and its Applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315206899

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Dino Lorenzini, Arithmetical graphs, Math. Ann. 285 (1989), no. 3, 481–501, https://doi.org/10. 1007/BF01455069

    1989

  9. [17]

    73 (1990), no

    Dino Lorenzini, Groups of components of N´ eron models of Jacobians, Compositio Math. 73 (1990), no. 2, 145–160, http://www.numdam.org/item?id=CM_1990__73_2_145_0

    1990

  10. [18]

    Reine Angew

    Dino Lorenzini, Jacobians with potentially good ℓ-reduction, J. Reine Angew. Math. 430 (1992), 151–177, https://doi.org/10.1515/crll.1992.430.151

    1992 doi

  11. [19]

    Reine Angew

    Dino Lorenzini, Reduction of points in the group of components of the N´ eron model of a Jacobian , J. Reine Angew. Math. 527 (2000), 117–150, https://doi.org/10.1515/crll.2000.078

    2000 doi

  12. [20]

    Number Theory 257 (2024), 215–248, https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jnt.2023.10.009

    Dino Lorenzini, The critical polynomial of a graph , J. Number Theory 257 (2024), 215–248, https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jnt.2023.10.009

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Raynaud, Sp´ ecialisation du foncteur de Picard, Inst

    M. Raynaud, Sp´ ecialisation du foncteur de Picard, Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. 38 (1970), 27–76, http://www.numdam.org/item?id=PMIHES_1970__38__27_0. (K. Archer) Department of Mathematics, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402, USA Disclaimer: The views e...

    1970

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.