Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Homotopical Observables and the Langlands Program via $\infty$-Topoi

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims a canonical bijection between cuspidal automorphic representations of $\mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbb{A}_{\mathbb{F}_2})$ and invariant predicates on the pro-étale space $D_\infty$, preserving $L$-functions.

desk verdict The paper's main construction fails at an explicit finite-level check, so the claimed Langlands correspondence never gets off the ground. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22558 v1 pith:ATUGS6IC submitted 2025-05-28 math.GM

Anatoly Galikhanov This is my paper
classification math.GM MSC 11F7011G0918N60
keywords Langlandscorrespondencefunctionfieldspro-étaletopologyautomorphicrepresentationsL-functionsinvariantpredicatesArtin-Schreierextensions∞-categories
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 sets out to prove that a pro-étale space $D_\infty$ built from an Artin-Schreier tower in characteristic 2 carries a canonical endofunctor $O$, and that the fixed points of $O$—the invariant predicates—are in one-to-one correspondence with cuspidal automorphic representations of $\mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbb{A}_{\mathbb{F}_2})$. If the main theorem is right, each such representation would be encoded as a single Boolean-valued function on $D_\infty$ invariant under $O$, and the $L$-function of the representation would equal the $L$-function of the predicate. The paper also claims that the same space uniformizes the moduli space of rank-2 Drinfeld modules over $\mathbb{F}_2$ and that its motivic cohomology is a direct sum of Tate motives. A sympathetic reader would care because the construction would turn a central object of number theory into a concrete fixed-point problem in topos-theoretic geometry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the tower $X_n$ with Boolean algebras $B_n=2^{2^n}$ and the endofunctor $O$. At level $n$, $O_n$ acts on a Boolean function $f$ by $$O_n(f)(x_1,\dots,x_n)=\bigoplus_{i=1}^n f(x_1,\dots,x_i\oplus1,\dots,x_n),$$ and it is claimed these operators are compatible with the transition maps $\pi_{n,m}$, so they pass to the inverse limit $D_\infty$. The unique non-constant invariant predicate $A_n$ at each level (for $n=3$, $A_3=p_2\oplus p_3\oplus p_5\oplus p_8$) is claimed to form a compatible system giving $A=\lim A_n$; these invariant predicates are exactly the objects that the Langlands correspondence parametrizes.

What would settle it

Compute the claimed compatibility identity $\pi_{1,2}\circ O_2 = O_1\circ \pi_{1,2}$ on the generator $x_{i,\alpha}\in R_1$. If the two composite pullbacks differ on any generator, the endofunctor $O$ of $D_\infty$ does not exist as defined, and the invariant predicates used in the main bijection are not well-defined objects. This is a finite matrix computation over $\mathbb{F}_2$ and can be done by hand or by a few lines of code.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a canonical bijection $\Psi$ from the set of cuspidal automorphic representations of $\mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbb{A}_{\mathbb{F}_2})$ to the set of invariant predicates on $D_\infty$, with $L(\pi,s)=L(\Psi(\pi),s)$. The paper constructs the space as the inverse limit of finite Boolean schemes $X_n=\mathrm{Spec}(R_n)$ whose rings are generated by idempotent variables indexed by binary strings, with transition maps corresponding to Artin-Schreier covers. On each $X_n$ it defines an operator $O_n$ that flips each bit in turn and XORs the results; the claimed compatibility of these operators gives an endofunctor $O$ of $D_\infty$. The bijection is then assembled locally: at each place of $\mathbb{F}_2$, invariant subspaces of functions on $(D_\infty)_v$ under the local group are matched to irreducible local representations, the global predicate is obtained by restricted tensor product, and the trace formula on the automorphic side is compared with a fixed-point formula on $D_\infty$; the key identity asserts that $O_v$ acts as Frobenius on the invariant subspace, which is what makes $L$-functions match.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction depends on one compatibility check: at every pair of levels, the operator built at the larger level must agree with the operator at the smaller level after projection. If that check fails even once, there is no single operator on the infinite space and the main correspondence has nothing to attach to.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every cuspidal automorphic representation of $\mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbb{A}_{\mathbb{F}_2})$ would be recoverable from a single $O$-invariant Boolean function on $D_\infty$, and conversely every such predicate would come from a representation.
  • The equality $L(\pi,s)=L(\Psi(\pi),s)$ would make analytic data of automorphic $L$-functions readable from the spectrum of $O$: local Frobenius eigenvalues become eigenvalues of $O_v$.
  • The uniformization $M_{2,\mathbb{F}_2}\cong D_\infty/\Gamma$ would settle the Carlitz-Drinfeld uniformization for rank-2 Drinfeld modules over $\mathbb{F}_2$.
  • The claimed motivic decomposition $M(D_\infty)\cong\bigoplus_{n\ge0}\mathbb{Z}(n)[2n]$ would give concrete computations in the triangulated category of motives.
  • The universal property stated for $(D_\infty,O)$ would make it a canonical test object for Boolean observation structures inside $\infty$-topoi.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One step beyond the paper: the claimed spectral decomposition of $O$ suggests a computable truncation scheme, since at level $n$ the invariant predicate $A_n$ can be found by solving a linear system over $\mathbb{F}_2$; the first few levels could be checked by brute force.
  • A testable extension: in the paper's worked example for the normalized weight-12 level-1 cusp form, powers of $O$ are said to act on the corresponding predicate with orbit lengths $(2k+1)^2$; checking these orbit lengths for small $n$ would be a direct numerical test of the claimed modular periodicity.
  • If the bijection generalizes to $\mathrm{GL}_n$ with $n>2$, the Boolean-tower construction would need a different covering family beyond $\mathbb{Z}/2$-covers; the paper lists this as a future direction but does not indicate what replaces the Artin-Schreier tower.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a pro-étale scheme D∞ as the inverse limit of Artin–Schreier Boolean schemes X_n over F2, together with operators O_n on Boolean algebras B_n and an induced endofunctor O. It claims that invariant predicates (fixed points of O) are in canonical bijection with cuspidal automorphic representations of GL2(A_{F2}) and that this bijection preserves L-functions (Theorem 1.1). It further claims applications to Carlitz–Drinfeld uniformization, motivic cohomology, discrete conformal field theory, quantum error correction, and computational complexity. The proof strategy combines ∞-topos language with explicit finite-level computations.

Significance. If Theorem 1.1 were true, it would establish a striking new bridge between topos-theoretic fixed points and the Langlands program, with substantial consequences for function-field arithmetic. The paper also has positive features: it attempts explicit finite-level computations, presents a worked example at n=3, and engages a relevant literature (Lurie, Bhatt–Scholze, Arthur, Drinfeld, Lafforgue). However, the central construction collapses at a very basic level: Lemma 4.2 is false, so the endofunctor O on D∞ is not defined; the n=3 worked example contradicts the claimed fixed-point structure; the spectral arguments mix F2-linear algebra with Hilbert-space methods; and the proof of Theorem 8.3 is a sequence of unsupported assertions. The advertised results are therefore not established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Lemma 4.2] The claimed compatibility π_{n,m}∘O_m = O_n∘π_{n,m} is false. Take n=1, m=2 and the constant function 1 on X1: π^*_{1,2}O_1(1)=1, while O_2π^*_{1,2}(1)=1⊕1=0. Equivalently, for f(x1)=x1, one gets π^*O_1(f)=¬x1 but O_2π^*(f)=¬x1⊕x1=1. In the displayed computation, passing from the expression for O_m^* on x_{i+m-n,αβ} to the claimed (O_n∘π_{n,m})^* omits the flips in positions i+1,…,m; for n=1, m=2 these are exactly the missing terms. Hence no pro-étale endomorphism O of D∞ is induced, and 'invariant predicates on D∞', which is the target of Theorem 1.1, is not defined.
  2. [Section 5, Examples 5.3–5.4] The claimed invariant predicate A3=p2⊕p3⊕p5⊕p8 is not invariant. Using the matrix M of Example 5.2, O3(A3)=O3(p2)⊕O3(p3)⊕O3(p5)⊕O3(p8) = (p1⊕p4⊕p6)⊕(p1⊕p4⊕p7)⊕(p1⊕p6⊕p7)⊕(p4⊕p6⊕p7) = p1⊕p4⊕p6⊕p7, which is not equal to A3. Moreover, the row-reduction claim that M−I has rank 6 is incorrect: solving (M+I)v=0 directly gives a 4-dimensional nullspace. Thus the dimension-2 eigenspace assertion in Theorem 4.3 fails already at n=3, and Theorem 6.1's 'unique non-constant invariant predicate' is contradicted by the paper's own worked example.
  3. [Theorem 4.3] The spectral decomposition is not mathematically well-posed. The operator O_n is an F2-linear endomorphism of the F2-vector space F2^{2^n}; its eigenvalues and eigenspaces are defined only over F2 or an extension, not as complex numbers. The proof invokes Perron–Frobenius theory and L2(D∞,μ), but no complex Hilbert space structure is introduced, and the matrix of O_n has entries in F2, so absolute values, spectral radius, and complex spectrum are undefined. Consequently Steps 1–4 of Theorem 4.3, including the bound |λ_k|≤2^{-k/4}, do not constitute a proof.
  4. [Theorems 4.3 and 6.1] There is an explicit circularity. Theorem 4.3 Step 4 asserts that dim E1=2 because each E1,n is 2-dimensional, spanned by the constant function and the 'unique non-constant invariant' An. But the existence and uniqueness of An is exactly what Theorem 6.1 is supposed to prove, and Theorem 6.1 Step 2 cites Theorem 4.3 for the dimension-2 statement. No independent argument is given for uniqueness, and the n=3 computation in Section 5 contradicts the claimed dimension.
  5. [Theorem 8.3] The 'Complete Proof' of the main correspondence is a chain of unsupported assertions. Step 1 does not define C((D∞)_v) or the O_v action, and the claim that every O_v-invariant subspace is an isotypic component under GL2(O_v) is not proven. Step 2 asserts convergence of a restricted tensor product and the identity Ψ(π)^2=Ψ(π) without defining the product or proving the identity. Step 3's key identity Frob_v∘ι=ι∘O_v is the entire local matching content and is merely asserted. Step 4 compares an Arthur–Selberg trace formula with a Lefschetz fixed-point formula without specifying the matching of test functions or the bijection of conjugacy classes and fixed points. Step 5 defines π_P by induction from a character χ_P determined by P, but no construction of χ_P, no automorphy proof, and no cuspidality proof are supplied. In addition, GL2(A_{F2}) is not a standard object because F2 is not a global field; if the intended field is F2(t), the notation must be corrected throughout. The L-function preservation in Theorem 1.1 is therefore unproven.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Theorem 3.3] The proof of Theorem 3.3 is empty: the 'Proof.' block contains no argument, so the asserted identification with diamonds is unsupported.
  2. [Section 8.1, Definition 8.1] Cuspidal automorphic representations are not simply irreducible subrepresentations of L2; the unitary structure and the definition of the cuspidal spectrum need to be specified.
  3. [Example 8.4] Congruences such as p≡1 mod 4 are not meaningful for primes in F2[t]; this example appears to mix classical modular-form notation with function-field notation without justification.
  4. [Theorem 7.2] The stated relation H*(D∞,Z/2)≅Z/2[A]/(A^{2^k}) ignores the degree of [A]∈H^2(D∞,Z/2); as written, the ring structure and the exponent k are undefined.
  5. [Section 12.1 and references] Section 12.1 contains a typo 'F argues-F ontaine' (should be Fargues–Fontaine), and reference [24] has a truncated URL.
  6. [Sections 4 and 8] The notation uses O for the global endofunctor and O_v for local operators without explicitly stating the relation between them; this makes Definition 8.2 and the local factors L_v(P,s) ambiguous.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Mutually dependent existence theorems and an L-function defined through O_v make the main correspondence true by construction.

  1. self definitional [Theorem 4.3, proof Step 4; Theorem 6.1, proof Step 2]
    "Step 4: Dimension of E1. The projection operators Pn : L2(D∞)→ L2(Xn) satisfy Pn◦O = On◦Pn. Hence: dim(E1) = lim n→∞ dim(E1,n) = 2 since each E1,n is 2-dimensional (constants + unique non-constant invariant). ... Step 2: Kernel dimension. The operator On−I has kernel of dimension exactly 2. To see this: • The constant functions form a 1-dimensional invariant subspace • By Theorem 4.3, the eigenspace for eigenvalue 1 has dimension 2 • These are the only solutions to (On−I)f = 0"

    Theorem 6.1 derives the existence and uniqueness of the non-constant invariant predicate A_n from the claim that the eigenvalue-1 eigenspace has dimension 2, citing Theorem 4.3. But Theorem 4.3's Step 4 obtains that same dimension by asserting that each E1,n is '2-dimensional (constants + unique non-constant invariant)'—exactly the conclusion Theorem 6.1 is supposed to establish. No independent computation of dim(E1,n) is given for general n. Thus the uniqueness of A_n, and with it every later 'invariant predicate on D∞', rests on a circular pair of theorems rather than on a derivation from the definitions.

  2. self definitional [Section 8.1, Definition 8.2; Theorem 8.3, Step 3]
    "Definition 8.2: For an invariant predicate P on D∞, define its L-function: L(P,s)=∏_v L_v(P,s) where the local factors are: L_v(P,s)=1/det(I−q_v^{−s}·O_v|V_P). ... Theorem 8.3, Step 3: Key identity: We prove that O_v|V_{π_v} = π_v(Frob_v) as operators. This follows from analyzing the Galois action on (D∞)_v. The Frobenius element acts on the tower {X_n} compatibly with O, giving: Frob_v∘ι=ι∘O_v"

    The geometric L-function L(P,s) is defined directly in terms of the operator O_v acting on V_P. The only content needed to conclude L(π,s)=L(Ψ(π),s) is the asserted identity O_v|V_{π_v}=π_v(Frob_v), and this identity is not derived: the proof says it 'follows from analyzing the Galois action' and then writes Frob_v∘ι=ι∘O_v. Once O_v is declared to be Frobenius inside the definition of L(P,s), the equality of Euler factors is true by construction rather than by an independent computation. The paper's 'key identity' is therefore an input to the definition of the geometric L-function, not a theorem about it.

full rationale

The paper's central correspondence is not self-contained: its two key existence claims are mutually referential, and its L-function preservation is baked into the definitions. Theorem 6.1 proves uniqueness of A_n using Theorem 4.3's dimension-2 claim, while Theorem 4.3 proves that dimension by invoking the 'unique non-constant invariant'—the same uniqueness Theorem 6.1 is proving. Since Theorem 1.1 is stated in terms of 'invariant predicates on D∞', this circular pair is load-bearing: without an independent proof of existence and uniqueness, the domain of the alleged bijection is not established. Separately, the claimed preservation of L-functions is definitional: Definition 8.2 defines L(P,s) through O_v, and Theorem 8.3 then asserts O_v equals Frobenius without proof; identifying the two inside the definition forces L(P,s)=L(π,s). A further, non-circular but fatal gap is that Lemma 4.2's compatibility identity is false as written (e.g., n=1,m=2 gives O_2(π^*f)=¬x_1⊕x_1=1 while π^*(O_1f)=¬x_1), so the pro-étale endofunctor O on D∞, and hence the fixed-point object of the whole theory, is not independently defined. These issues together mean the main theorem is forced by definition and mutual reference rather than derived from first principles. Score 8 reflects a central result that reduces, at key points, to its own assumptions; it is not a case of one harmless self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on an unproved compatibility that defines the endofunctor on the inverse limit, an existence/uniqueness statement proved circularly, a conflation of the finite field F2 with a global function field, and an asserted identification of O with Frobenius. These are not standard background facts; they are load-bearing and unsupported.

free parameters (2)
  • central charge c = 1
    Theorem 10.2 declares central charge c=1 without computation; not connected to the main bijection.
  • potential coupling lambda = unspecified
    Construction 10.1 defines V(phi)=lambda(phi-A)^2 with lambda unspecified; only used in the CFT section.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The operators O_n are compatible with the transition maps pi_{n,m}, so O descends to D∞.
    Lemma 4.2 states this; the proof drops terms involving bit flips in positions i+1..m, so the identity fails in small examples.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence and dimension-2 eigenspace of the unique non-constant invariant predicate.
    Theorem 6.1 uses Theorem 4.3 and Theorem 4.3 uses Theorem 6.1; the uniqueness is assumed in both.
  • domain assumption A_F2 is a global field adele ring with places v and primes in F2[t].
    Section 8.1 defines automorphic representations on GL2(A_F2); F2 is a finite field, not a function field, so the cuspidal spectrum and local fields are undefined as written.
  • ad hoc to paper O_v acts as Frobenius on V_{pi_v}, giving L(P,s)=L(pi,s).
    Section 8.3 Step 3 asserts Frob_v∘iota=iota∘O_v without derivation; the geometric L-function is defined through O_v, so the equality is imposed.
  • domain assumption D∞ has a diamond/pro-étale presentation and motive M(D∞) makes sense.
    Theorem 3.3 has an empty proof and Theorem 1.3 assigns a Voevodsky motive to an inverse limit without defining it.
invented entities (3)
  • D∞
    purpose: Universal pro-étale space whose invariant predicates are claimed to encode automorphic forms.
    Constructed from an Artin-Schreier tower; no falsifiable external prediction is attached.
  • Endofunctor O
    purpose: Observational endomorphism whose fixed points are claimed to be automorphic representations.
    Fixed points are the content of the main theorem, not an independent observable.
  • Invariant predicate A
    purpose: Unique non-constant fixed point used to generate cohomology, CFT fields, and quantum codes.
    No independent calculation or experiment constrains A outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Homotopical Observables and the Langlands Program via $\infty$-Topoi." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ATUGS6IC

@misc{pith2026250522558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Homotopical Observables and the Langlands Program via $\infty$-Topoi},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ATUGS6IC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22558}
}
abstract

We introduce a pro-\'etale geometric object $D_\infty$ arising naturally from the tower of Artin-Schreier extensions in characteristic 2, equipped with a canonical endofunctor $O$ whose fixed points correspond to automorphic representations of $\mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbb{A}_{\mathbb{F}_2})$. The main theorem establishes that invariant predicates on $D_\infty$ parametrize cuspidal automorphic representations, preserving $L$-functions. We provide complete proofs using $\infty$-categorical techniques, explicit computations for small cases, and establish connections to discrete conformal field theory. As applications, we resolve the Carlitz-Drinfeld uniformization conjecture for function fields and compute previously unknown motivic cohomology groups. Our approach differs fundamentally from coalgebraic models by working internally in topoi and connecting to arithmetic geometry.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Artin and J.-L

    M. Artin and J.-L. Verdier, Seminar on ´ etale cohomology of number fields, Woods Hole, 1964

    work page 1964

  2. [2]

    Arthur, The Selberg trace formula for groups of F-rank one , Ann

    J. Arthur, The Selberg trace formula for groups of F-rank one , Ann. of Math. 100 (1974), 326–385

    work page 1974

  3. [3]

    Arthur, An introduction to the trace formula , in: Harmonic analysis, the trace formula, and Shimura varieties, Clay Math

    J. Arthur, An introduction to the trace formula , in: Harmonic analysis, the trace formula, and Shimura varieties, Clay Math. Proc., vol. 4, AMS, 2005, pp. 1 –263

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Awodey, Category Theory, Oxford Logic Guides, vol

    S. Awodey, Category Theory, Oxford Logic Guides, vol. 52, Oxford University Press, 201 0

    work page

  5. [5]

    Awodey and K

    S. Awodey and K. Kishida, Topology and modality: The topological interpretation of fir st-order modal logic, Rev. Symb. Log. 1 (2008), 146–166

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Bhatt and P

    B. Bhatt and P. Scholze, The pro-´ etale topology for schemes, Ast´ erisque369 (2015), 99–201

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Carlitz, A class of polynomials , Trans

    L. Carlitz, A class of polynomials , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 43 (1938), 167–182

    work page 1938

  8. [8]

    Connes, Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press, 1994

    A. Connes, Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press, 1994. 21

    work page 1994

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Drinfeld, Elliptic modules , Math

    V.G. Drinfeld, Elliptic modules , Math. USSR-Sb. 23 (1974), 561–592

    1974

  2. [10]

    Drinfeld, Proof of the Langlands conjecture for GL(2) over functional fi elds, Invent

    V.G. Drinfeld, Proof of the Langlands conjecture for GL(2) over functional fi elds, Invent. Math. 94 (1988), 219–224

    1988

  3. [11]

    Faltings, A proof for the Langlands conjecture for GL(n) over function fi elds, preprint

    G. Faltings, A proof for the Langlands conjecture for GL(n) over function fi elds, preprint

  4. [12]

    Grothendieck, ´El´ ements de g´ eom´ etrie alg´ ebrique, Publ

    A. Grothendieck, ´El´ ements de g´ eom´ etrie alg´ ebrique, Publ. Math. IH ´ES, 1960–1967

    1960

  5. [13]

    Grothendieck and J.L

    A. Grothendieck and J.L. Verdier, Th´ eorie des topos et cohomologie ´ etale des sch´ emas, LNM 269, Springer, 1972

    1972

  6. [14]

    Jacobs, Introduction to Coalgebra: Towards Mathematics of States and Observation, Cam- bridge University Press, 2016

    B. Jacobs, Introduction to Coalgebra: Towards Mathematics of States and Observation, Cam- bridge University Press, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Jacobs, Categorical Logic and Type Theory , Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Math- ematics, vol

    B. Jacobs, Categorical Logic and Type Theory , Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Math- ematics, vol. 141, Elsevier, 1999

    1999

  8. [16]

    Johnstone, Topos Theory, London Mathematical Society Monographs, vol

    P.T. Johnstone, Topos Theory, London Mathematical Society Monographs, vol. 10, Academi c Press, 1977

    1977

  9. [17]

    Johnstone, Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium , 2 vols., Oxford Logic Guides, vols

    P.T. Johnstone, Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium , 2 vols., Oxford Logic Guides, vols. 43–44, Oxford University Press, 2002

    2002

  10. [18]

    Kozen, Semantics of probabilistic programs , J

    D. Kozen, Semantics of probabilistic programs , J. Comput. System Sci. 22 (1981), 328–350

    1981

  11. [19]

    Lafforgue, Chtoucas de Drinfeld et correspondance de Langlands , Invent

    L. Lafforgue, Chtoucas de Drinfeld et correspondance de Langlands , Invent. Math. 147 (2002), 1–241

    2002

  12. [20]

    Langlands, Problems in the theory of automorphic forms , in: Lectures in modern analysis and applications III, LNM 170, Springer, 1970, pp

    R.P. Langlands, Problems in the theory of automorphic forms , in: Lectures in modern analysis and applications III, LNM 170, Springer, 1970, pp. 18–61

    1970

  13. [21]

    Lawvere, Cohesive toposes and Cantor’s ”lauter Einsen” , Philos

    F.W. Lawvere, Cohesive toposes and Cantor’s ”lauter Einsen” , Philos. Math. 2 (1994), 5–15

    1994

  14. [22]

    Lawvere, Quantifiers and sheaves , in: Actes du Congr` es International des Math´ ematiciens (Nice, 1970), Tome 1, Gauthier-Villars, 1971, pp

    F.W. Lawvere, Quantifiers and sheaves , in: Actes du Congr` es International des Math´ ematiciens (Nice, 1970), Tome 1, Gauthier-Villars, 1971, pp. 329–334

    1970

  15. [23]

    Lurie, Higher Topos Theory, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol

    J. Lurie, Higher Topos Theory, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 170, Princeton Univer sity Press, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    Lurie, Spectral Algebraic Geometry, available at https://www.math.ias.edu/~lurie/papers/SAG-rootfil

    J. Lurie, Spectral Algebraic Geometry, available at https://www.math.ias.edu/~lurie/papers/SAG-rootfil

  17. [25]

    Mac Lane and I

    S. Mac Lane and I. Moerdijk, Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: A First Introduction to Topos Theory, Universitext, Springer-Verlag, 1992

    1992

  18. [26]

    Milnor, On spaces having the homotopy type of CW-complex , Trans

    J. Milnor, On spaces having the homotopy type of CW-complex , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 90 (1959), 272–280

    1959

  19. [27]

    Quillen, Homotopical Algebra, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol

    D. Quillen, Homotopical Algebra, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 43, Springer-Verlag, 1 967

  20. [28]

    Rutten, Universal coalgebra: a theory of systems , Theoret

    J.J.M.M. Rutten, Universal coalgebra: a theory of systems , Theoret. Comput. Sci. 249 (2000), 3–80

    2000

  21. [29]

    Rutten, Automata and coinduction (an exercise in coalgebra) , in: CONCUR’98, LNCS 1466, Springer, 1998, pp

    J.J.M.M. Rutten, Automata and coinduction (an exercise in coalgebra) , in: CONCUR’98, LNCS 1466, Springer, 1998, pp. 194–218. 22

    1998

  22. [30]

    Scholze, Perfectoid spaces, Publ

    P. Scholze, Perfectoid spaces, Publ. Math. IH ´ES 116 (2012), 245–313

    2012

  23. [31]

    Serre, Galois Cohomology, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, 19 97

    J.-P. Serre, Galois Cohomology, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, 19 97

  24. [32]

    Vickers, Topology via Logic , Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol

    S. Vickers, Topology via Logic , Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 5, Cambridge University Press, 1989

    1989

  25. [33]

    Voevodsky, Triangulated categories of motives over a field , in: Cycles, transfers, and motivic homology theories, Ann

    V. Voevodsky, Triangulated categories of motives over a field , in: Cycles, transfers, and motivic homology theories, Ann. of Math. Stud., vol. 143, Princeton Univ. Press, 2000, pp. 188–238

    2000

  26. [34]

    Voevodsky, A1-homotopy theory , in: Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathe- maticians (Berlin, 1998), Vol

    V. Voevodsky, A1-homotopy theory , in: Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathe- maticians (Berlin, 1998), Vol. I, Doc. Math. 1998, Extra Vol . I, pp. 579–604

    1998

  27. [35]

    Witten, Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial , Comm

    E. Witten, Quantum field theory and the Jones polynomial , Comm. Math. Phys. 121 (1989), 351–399. 23

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.