Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Modeling Group Actions on Stacks (Especially the Lubin-Tate Action)

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 A G-equivariant match between deformation problems makes quotient stacks and their cohomology agree.

desk verdict A useful survey of methods for the Lubin-Tate action, but the cohomology bridge (Lemma 1.21) is underproved and false as stated in general; needs revision before it can be relied on. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00309 v1 pith:CVEDPRNI submitted 2025-06-30 math.AG math.AT

Rin Ray This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AGmath.AT MSC 14D2314L0555N22
keywords Lubin-Tateactionformalgroupsdeformationstacksprofinitegroupactionsgeometricmodellingtwotowermethodcontinuouscohomologyquotient
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 up a general recipe for understanding a profinite group action on a formal moduli stack: find a different stack, equipped with a different group action, and a functor between them that identifies the two deformation problems while commuting with the group. The main criterion (Corollary 6.1) says that if such a $G$-equivariant equivalence of deformation functors exists, then the quotient stacks—and therefore all their coherent cohomology, including continuous group cohomology—are the same. The motivating case is the Lubin-Tate action, the action of the automorphism group of a one-dimensional formal group on its deformation space. A reader should care because this turns a floppy action into a computable one: the paper gives models for supersingular elliptic curves, for height $p-1$, and for general height $h$, plus a two-tower method that compares actions of different groups. If the recipe is right, hard cohomology computations for automorphism groups of formal groups reduce to invariant-theoretic computations on more geometric stacks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the deformation groupoid $\mathrm{Def}^G_X$—the stacky quotient of the star-deformation functor (deformations with isomorphisms reducing to the identity on the special fibre) by the profinite group $G$—together with the identification $\mathrm{Def}^G_X \simeq (\mathrm{Def}^{\star}_X)/G$ (Lemma 2.4), and the site-theoretic identity $H^*(X/G,\mathcal{F}) \simeq H^*_{\mathrm{cts}}(G,\mathcal{F}(X))$ (Lemma 1.21) that converts coherent cohomology of quotient stacks into continuous group cohomology. Around these, the paper places the moduli of one-dimensional formal groups (graded or ungraded), the height invariant that classifies formal groups over algebraically closed fields, the constant profinite automorphism group $\operatorname{Aut}_k(F)$, and the rings $W[[u_1,\ldots,u_{h-1}]]$ and $W[[u_1,\ldots,u_{h-1}]][\beta^{\pm 1}]$ representing star-deformations. The functor $F:\mathcal{M}\to\mathcal{M}^{\natural}_{\mathrm{fg1}}$ is the 'puppet' that carries the group action into this tractable setting.

What would settle it

A concrete check: take a finite subgroup $G$ of automorphisms of a supersingular elliptic curve $E$ over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $p$, and compare the $G$-invariant subring of the completed local ring of the moduli stack of elliptic curves at $E$ with $W[[u_1]]^G$ for the corresponding height-two formal group. If these invariant subrings are not isomorphic, Corollary 6.1 fails; if they are, the supersingular elliptic curve example is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Lubin-Tate action—and more generally any profinite group action on a formal moduli stack—can be 'modeled' by a more tractable action without losing cohomological information. Precisely, for prestacks $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{N}$ with a $G$-equivariant functor $F:\mathcal{M}\to\mathcal{N}$, the paper proves that a $G$-equivariant equivalence of deformation functors $\mathrm{Def}^{\star}_X \simeq \mathrm{Def}^{\star}_{F(X)}$ implies an equivalence of quotient stacks $\mathrm{Def}^G_X \simeq \mathrm{Def}^G_{F(X)}$ (Lemma 3.3, Corollary 6.1). Combined with Lemma 1.21, which identifies the coherent cohomology of such a quotient stack with continuous group cohomology $H^*_{\mathrm{cts}}(G,\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{Def}^{\star}_X))$, this gives invariance of these cohomology groups under modeling. The paper also packages the two-tower method, in which a common bi-torsor identifies $N/G'$ with $\mathrm{Def}^G_{F(X)}$, allowing comparison across different group actions. The Lubin-Tate examples—a supersingular elliptic curve model, a plane-curve model at height $p-1$, and a PEL abelian-variety moduli model at general height $h$—are presented as instances of the same criterion.

Load-bearing premise

The entire framework assumes you already have a group-compatible way to replace the object you care about by a one-dimensional formal group without changing its deformation problem; the paper supplies such replacements for elliptic curves, plane curves, and Shimura varieties, but for a new group action finding this replacement is a separate hard problem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Whenever a modeling functor $F:\mathcal{M}\to\mathcal{M}^{\natural}_{\mathrm{fg1}}$ exists, the coherent cohomology of $\mathrm{Def}^G_X$ is the continuous group cohomology of $G$ on $\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{Def}^{\star}_X)$, so computations reduce to group invariants.
  • In the formal-group model, the star-deformation ring is $W[[u_1,\ldots,u_{h-1}]]$ (or with $\beta^{\pm 1}$ in the graded case), so the modeled quotient has explicit invariant subring $W[[u_1,\ldots,u_{h-1}]]^G$ as its global sections.
  • The two-tower method gives a second route: when a common bi-torsor relates $N$ to $\mathrm{Def}^{\star}_X$, the quotient $N/G'$ is equivalent to $\mathrm{Def}^G_X$, so hard $G$-cohomology can be computed as $G'$-cohomology on $N$.
  • Since the conclusion is an equivalence of stacks, coherent cohomology with any quasi-coherent sheaf—not just the structure sheaf—is preserved under modeling.
  • For the Lubin-Tate action, the examples provide working models for supersingular elliptic curves, for height $p-1$, and for general height $h$, showing the framework covers the automorphism group action at several heights rather than one isolated case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: The proof of the criterion is largely formal, so the real mathematical work lies in producing modeling functors; a systematic construction for every maximal finite subgroup of $\operatorname{Aut}_k(F)$ at every height would turn the framework into a computational tool for the cohomology theories built from formal groups.
  • Editorial: The two-tower comparison suggests a broader pattern: any pair of commuting torsors over a common space should yield analogous cohomological equivalences, so one could test the method on p-adic period spaces beyond the one used in the paper.
  • Editorial: The paper leaves open the converse question—whether an equivalence of quotient stacks $\mathrm{Def}^G_X \simeq \mathrm{Def}^G_{F(X)}$ always lifts to a $G$-equivariant star-equivalence; finding a counterexample would draw the boundary of the method.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a framework for studying profinite group actions on formal moduli stacks, with the Lubin-Tate action as the motivating example. Two methods are developed: 'geometric modelling', which passes from a G-equivariant equivalence of deformation functors Def^*_X ≃ Def^*_{F(X)} to an equivalence of the corresponding G-deformation stacks Def^G_X ≃ Def^G_{F(X)}, and the 'two tower method', which compares quotients of a G×G'-torsor by residual actions. The central cohomological bridge is Lemma 1.21, which asserts that for a quasi-coherent sheaf F on X/G one has H^*(X/G,F) ≃ H^*_cts(G,F(X)). This is used to convert stack equivalences into equivalences of continuous group cohomology, e.g., H^*_cts(G,O(Def^*_X)) ≃ H^*_cts(G,O(Def^*_{F(X)})). Section 5 reviews formal groups and the Lubin-Tate deformation ring, and Section 6 states the resulting criteria. The paper is explicitly a survey/prolegomenon collecting known examples (Serre-Tate, Carayol, Rapoport-Zink, Barthel-Schlank-Stapleton-Weinstein) into a common language.

Significance. If the main claims are established, the paper would provide a useful conceptual organizing framework for the Lubin-Tate action and its appearance in chromatic homotopy theory and the Jacquet-Langlands correspondence. The core formal lemmas (2.4, 3.3, 4.1) are plausible and are essentially formal consequences of the definitions, and the examples show that the framework captures substantial known mathematics. The paper ships no machine-checked proofs and no new computational results; its value lies in synthesis and in the proposed criterion for geometric modelling. However, the advertised cohomological payoff is not rigorously established as written: Lemma 1.21 is false in the form stated, and the proof of the central 'group time' corollary cites nonexistent lemmas. These issues are local in the sense that the intended statement is likely correct for the affine deformation spaces that appear in the examples, but they must be repaired before the survey can serve as a reliable reference.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1.2 (Lemma 1.21)] The lemma as stated is false if F(X) means ordinary global sections. For example, take X = P^1_C, G = Z/2 acting trivially, and F = O_X. Then H^1(X/G,O) ≃ H^1(P^1,O) ≃ C, while H^1_cts(G,O(X)) ≃ H^1(Z/2,C) = 0. The proof only relates underived global sections through Hom(よ(X/G),F) ≃ Hom(よ(pt),F(X)) and then asserts the derived conclusion, so it does not justify the step to H^*_cts. To make the lemma correct, either F(X) must mean the derived global sections RΓ(X,F) and one must prove RΓ(X/G,F) ≃ RΓ_cts(G,RΓ(X,F)) (e.g., via the Cartan-Leray spectral sequence), or the lemma must be restricted to X with RΓ(X,F) ≃ F(X), such as affine X. The affine restriction covers the deformation rings of Lemma 5.30, but the general statement in the abstract and Section 1.2 is not supported. This issue affects Corollary 1.22, Corollary 3.5, Corollary 4.3, Corollary 6.3, and Corollary 6.6.
  2. [§6 (Corollaries 6.2 and 6.3)] The proofs of Corollary 6.2 and Corollary 6.3 cite 'Lemma 6.2' and 'Lemma 6.3', neither of which exists in the manuscript. The same problem appears in Corollary 3.5, which cites 'Lemma 6.2'; Corollary 4.2 cites 'Corollary 4.1'; and Corollary 6.5 cites 'Lemma 4.2'. Because Corollary 6.3 ('group time') is the advertised cohomological payoff of the paper, this is not a purely typographical issue: as written, the proof of the central claim is missing. The authors should correct the cross-references and supply a complete proof of Corollary 6.3 that explicitly invokes the (repaired) Lemma 1.21 or Corollary 1.22 together with Corollary 3.4 and Lemma 2.4.
  3. [§6 (Corollary 6.1)] Corollary 6.1, the 'corollary of greed', is a restatement of Lemma 3.3 with the target stack N renamed M♠fg1. The question posed at the start of Section 6 is answered by 'there exists a functor F with the stated property', which is precisely the hypothesis of Lemma 3.3. If Section 6 is intended as a summary of the earlier framework, it should be labelled as such; as presented, the 'Criterion Theorem' gives no new criterion beyond the earlier lemmas. This is a presentation issue, but it directly bears on the paper's claim to 'fill a gap' and should be clarified so readers are not misled about the novelty of Section 6.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2 (Lemma 2.4)] The proof of Lemma 2.4 is very compressed and contains a garbled line: 'Consider the map from Def^{Aut_k(X)}_X → B Aut_k(X), (X -> X') ↦ (X|_k -> X)'. The intended pullback diagram is plausible, but the reader needs a clean statement of the G-action on Def^*_X and a verification that the big pullback square is indeed a G-torsor. Please rewrite this proof with enough detail to make the equivalence Def^G_X ≃ (Def^*_X)/G fully transparent.
  2. [§5.5 (Lemma 5.30, Corollary 5.32)] The phrase 'co-represented by a ring' is used where the intended meaning is likely 'represented by the formal scheme Spf A' or 'co-represented by the topological ring A'. The current wording conflates a functor represented by a ring with a functor whose values are homomorphisms out of a ring; please make the convention consistent.
  3. [§6 (Notation)] The notation M♠fg1 is used in Section 6 before it is defined; please introduce it at the beginning of Section 6 or earlier, explicitly setting M♠fg1 := Mfg1 or Ms_fg1 and saying what '♠' is meant to convey.
  4. [§1.2 (Corollary 1.20)] The proof of Corollary 1.20 asserts an identification of the Cartan-Leray spectral sequence with the standard complex computing continuous group cohomology, but gives only a brief sketch. A reference or a few more lines explaining why the differentials can be identified would make the argument self-contained.
  5. [§1.1 (Notation)] The symbol よ (Yoneda) is used throughout the proof of Lemma 1.21 without being defined. Please define the Yoneda embedding at first use, or replace it with more conventional notation for a representable sheaf or stack.
  6. [References] Some references are cited only by a short tag without full publication data, in particular [HM] (Heyer and Mann) and [Pst] (Pstragowski). Please complete the bibliography entries so readers can locate the sources of Lemmas 1.17, 1.19, 5.12, 5.13, 5.21, 5.22, and 5.23.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the criterion theorem is an explicitly acknowledged restatement of Lemma 3.3 plus external Serre-Tate/Carayol inputs, and the sole self-citation (mod-p two-tower work in progress) is not load-bearing. Flagged instead: broken internal references (Lemmas 6.2/6.3 nonexistent) and the underived-only proof of Lemma 1.21, both correctness risks, not circular reductions.

  1. other [Section 3, Corollary 3.5, and Section 6.0.1, Corollary 6.3]
    "Corollary 3.5. (group robot time) ... Proof. This immediately follows from Lemma 6.2 and Lemma 1.22. / Corollary 6.3. (group time) ... Proof. This is an example of Lemma 6.3 for the special cases of the stack N being one of the two cases included in M♠ fg1."

    Not a circular reduction but a dangling-reference error that must be flagged: the paper's advertised cohomological payoff (Corollaries 3.5 and 6.3) cites 'Lemma 6.2' and 'Lemma 6.3', but no such lemmas exist anywhere in the paper (Section 6 contains only Corollaries 6.1-6.6, and Section 5 ends at Lemma 5.31). The intended chain presumably passes through Lemma 3.3 and Lemma 1.21, but as printed each proof reduces the continuous-cohomology claim only to a nonexistent label, so the claimed derivation is not exhibited in the text. This is missing support rather than a reduction to the paper's own inputs, and it does not by itself raise the circularity score.

  2. other [Lemma 1.21 (proof), applied in Corollary 1.22 and Corollaries 3.5 and 6.3]
    "Finally, putting it together, Hom(よ(X/G), F ) ≃ Hom(よ(pt/G), p∗F ) ≃ Hom(よ(pt), F (X)) and the desired conclusion H ∗(X/G, F ) := RΓ(よ(X/G), F ) ≃ RΓ(よ(pt), F(X)) =: H ∗ cts(G, F (X)) immediately follows."

    This is the load-bearing bridge converting stack equivalences into continuous group cohomology equivalences. The proof exhibits only an equivalence of Hom-mapping spaces, i.e., H^0-level global sections, and then asserts that the derived conclusion 'immediately follows'. With the underived reading of F(X) used for O(Def*_X) in Corollary 1.22, the statement is false for non-affine X (for example G = Z/2 acting trivially on X = P^1 with F = O gives H^1(X/G,O) ≃ C but H^1_cts(Z/2,C) = 0). A derived formulation RΓ(X/G,F) ≃ RΓ_cts(G,RΓ(X,F)) with a real proof would be required. This is an omitted or mis-stated proof, hence a correctness risk rather than a circular reduction.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 6.0.1, preamble to Corollaries 6.1-6.3]
    "We opted to develop the background so thoroughly that the answer to our question falls directly into our lap. It's restating all the lemmas we abstractly set up in terms of stacks in the example of the Lubin-Tate action. Let's reap the benefits."

    The manuscript itself asserts that the Criterion Theorem is a restatement: Corollary 6.1 is Lemma 3.3 with N = M♠fg1, and Corollary 6.3 is Corollary 3.5, so the section adds no derivation beyond Sections 2-3. Weighing this as the review rules demand: it is explicit, honest summary rather than hidden circularity, because the premise of the theorems (a G-equivariant equivalence Def_X ≃ Def_{F(X)}) is an external input supplied by Serre-Tate and Carayol in the examples, and the conclusion Def^G_X ≃ Def^G_{F(X)} is obtained by applying the functor −/G (Lemma 2.4) to that premise. No theorem assumes its own conclusion.

full rationale

Honest non-finding: the central derivation chain is not circular. The chain runs: Lemma 2.4 (Def^G_X ≃ (Def*_X)/G), Lemma 3.3 (functoriality of the quotient −/G converts a G-equivariant deformation equivalence into an equivalence of G-deformation stacks), Corollary 3.4/3.5 (cohomology of equivalent stacks agrees; Lemma 1.21 then converts each side to H*_cts(G, O(Def*_X))), and Section 6 restates these lemmas verbatim for M♠fg1. The input of the main criterion (a G-equivariant equivalence Def_X ≃ Def_{F(X)}) is not produced by the paper but quoted from external sources (Serre-Tate for elliptic curves, Carayol for the Shimura variety), so the cohomology conclusion is a transfer statement, not a quantity fitted and then re-predicted. The paper contains exactly one author-overlapping citation: the mod-p two-tower comparison 'in work in progress by the author, T. Barthel, T. Schlank, L. Mann, P. Srinivasan, J. Weinstein, Y. Xu, Z. Yang, and X. Zhou'. It appears only as an example/outlook in Section 0.1 and is not used to justify any premise of Lemmas 1.21, 2.4, 3.3, or Corollaries 6.1-6.6, so it is a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation. The load-bearing background facts (Repsm(G) ≃ Shv(pt/G, Mod_R), ind-etale isoschemes, representability of Def*_F) are cited from Heyer-Mann, Lurie, and Pstragowski, none of whom overlap with the author. Two genuinely flagged problems remain, both correctness rather than circularity: the proofs of Corollaries 3.5 and 6.3 cite nonexistent Lemmas 6.2 and 6.3, and the proof of Lemma 1.21 only equates underived global sections while asserting the derived conclusion, which is false for non-affine X under the underived reading. Neither defect makes a conclusion equivalent to its own premise by construction. Per the rubric, one minor non-load-bearing self-citation with otherwise independent central content gives score 2.

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

The paper introduces no fitted parameters or new physical/mathematical entities. It relies on standard results in deformation theory, formal groups, and homotopy theory, all attributed to the cited literature.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The site-theoretic framework for formal algebraic stacks (proetale surjections, hypersheaves on ProFin) produces a well-behaved theory of quasi-coherent sheaves and cohomology.
    Invoked in Sections 1.1-1.2; depends on Heyer-Mann (HM) and the choice of proetale topology, not fully proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption Deformations of a one-dimensional formal group of height h are co-represented by W(k)[[u1,...,u_{h-1}]] (ungraded) and W(k)[[u1,...,u_{h-1}]][β^{±1}] (graded).
    Stated as Lemma 5.30, citing Lubin-Tate (LT66) and Lurie (Lur).
  • domain assumption Height classifies one-dimensional formal groups over algebraically closed fields.
    Theorem 5.23, citing Lazard via Pstragowski (Pst).
  • domain assumption The isomorphism scheme Iso(G0,G1) is ind-etale for finite height formal groups, and the filtration by m gives Aut(F) the structure of a profinite group.
    Lemma 5.21 and Lemma 5.22, citing Pstragowski; used for uniqueness of deformation lifts (Lemma 5.26) and the constancy of Aut(F).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Group Actions on Stacks (Especially the Lubin-Tate Action)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CVEDPRNI

@misc{pith2026250700309,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Group Actions on Stacks (Especially the Lubin-Tate Action)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CVEDPRNI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00309}
}
abstract

Suppose we are given a profinite group $G$ acting on a formal moduli stack $\mathcal{M}$, and we want to understand the group action, and compute cohomology related to this group action. How can we do it? This prolegomenon surveys two methods of pinning down such an action: geometric modeling and the two tower method. We highlight their use on a specific action - the automorphisms of a formal group acting on its deformation space, called the Lubin-Tate action.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Topological modular and automorphic forms

    Mark Behrens. Topological modular and automorphic forms. In Handbook of homotopy theory , CRC Press/Chapman Hall Handb. Math. Ser., pages 221--261. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Topological automorphic forms

    Mark Behrens and Tyler Lawson. Topological automorphic forms. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 204(958):xxiv+141, 2010

    2010

  3. [3]

    On the rationalization of the k (n) -local sphere

    Tobias Barthel, Tomer M Schlank, Nathaniel Stapleton, and Jared Weinstein. On the rationalization of the k (n) -local sphere. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00960 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Sur les repr´esentations -adiques attachees aux formes modulaires de hilbert

    Henri Carayol. Sur les repr´esentations -adiques attachees aux formes modulaires de hilbert. 1983

    work page 1983

  5. [5]

    Nonabelian lubin-tate theory, in automorphic forms, shimura varieties, and l-functions, vol ii

    Henri Carayol. Nonabelian lubin-tate theory, in automorphic forms, shimura varieties, and l-functions, vol ii. Perspect. Math., vol. 11 , pages p. 15--39., 1990

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    Correspondance serre–tate

    Pierre Colmez and Jean-Pierre Serre. Correspondance serre–tate. SMF 2015 , 2, 1964

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Stacks project

    Aise Johan de Jong. Stacks project

    work page

  8. [8]

    Formal algebraic stacks

    Matthew Emerton. Formal algebraic stacks. Preprint, undated, http://www. math. uchicago. edu/ emerton/preprints. html , 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Arbeitsgemeinschaft: Elliptic cohomology according to lurie

    Paul G Goerss, Jacob Lurie, and Thomas Nikolaus. Arbeitsgemeinschaft: Elliptic cohomology according to lurie. Oberwolfach Reports , 16(2):911--1001, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Gorbounov and M

    V. Gorbounov and M. Mahowald. Formal completion of the J acobians of plane curves and higher real K -theories. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 145(3):293--308, 2000

    2000

  3. [11]

    Quasi-coherent sheaves on the moduli stack of formal groups

    Paul G Goerss. Quasi-coherent sheaves on the moduli stack of formal groups. arXiv preprint arXiv:0802.0996 , 2008

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Computational methods for higher real k-theory with applications to tmf

    Michael Hill. Computational methods for higher real k-theory with applications to tmf. Ph.D. Thesis , 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    Automorphic forms and cohomology theories on S himura curves of small discriminant

    Michael Hill and Tyler Lawson. Automorphic forms and cohomology theories on S himura curves of small discriminant. Adv. Math. , 225(2):1013--1045, 2010

    2010

  6. [14]

    6-functor formalisms and smooth representations

    Claudius Heyer and Lucas Mann. 6-functor formalisms and smooth representations

  7. [15]

    Lubin and J

    J. Lubin and J. Tate. Formal moduli for one-parameter formal Lie groups. Bulletin de la Soci\'et\'e Math\'ematique de France , 94:49--59, 1966

    1966

  8. [16]

    Elliptic cohomology ii: Orientations

    Jacob Lurie. Elliptic cohomology ii: Orientations

  9. [17]

    A survey of elliptic cohomology

    Jacob Lurie. A survey of elliptic cohomology. In Algebraic Topology: The Abel Symposium 2007 , pages 219--277. Springer, 2009

    2007

  10. [18]

    Topological modular forms with level structure: decompositions and duality

    Lennart Meier. Topological modular forms with level structure: decompositions and duality. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 375(2):1305--1355, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Forms of K -theory

    Jack Morava. Forms of K -theory. Math. Z. , 201(3):401--428, 1989

    1989

  12. [20]

    The hecke orbit conjecture: A survey and outlook

    Frans Oort and Ching-Li Chai. The hecke orbit conjecture: A survey and outlook. 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Finite height chromatic homotopy theory

    Piotr Pstragowski. Finite height chromatic homotopy theory

  14. [22]

    On the formal group laws of unoriented and complex cobordism theory

    Daniel Quillen. On the formal group laws of unoriented and complex cobordism theory. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 75:1293--1298, 1969

    1969

  15. [23]

    Douglas C. Ravenel. The non-existence of odd primary A rf invariant elements in stable homotopy. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. , 83(3):429--443, 1978

    1978

  16. [24]

    Rapoport and Th

    M. Rapoport and Th. Zink. Period Spaces for "p"-divisible Groups (AM-141) . Princeton University Press, 1996

    1996

  17. [25]

    Duality for topological modular forms

    Vesna Stojanoska. Duality for topological modular forms. Doc. Math. , 17:271--311, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Orientations and topological modular forms with level structure

    Dylan Wilson. Orientations and topological modular forms with level structure. arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.05116 , 2015

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

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