Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 35 references

CAT(0) geometry of complex curve complements and families

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that complements of branch curves of generic complete intersections have CAT(0) fundamental groups, and that the universal families for E6, E7, and E8 simple singularities do not.

desk verdict Solid paper with two genuinely new families; the E6/E7/E8 negative result has a compressed central-splitting step that needs a fix, but the stress-test concern about nontrivial outer monodromy is likely a red herring. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18067 v1 pith:FW53S3SI submitted 2024-11-27 math.GT math.AGmath.GR

Corey Bregman , Anatoly Libgober , Kejia Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GTmath.AGmath.GR MSC 20F6514H5032S2557M07
keywords CAT(0)groupplanecurvecomplementbraidmonodromycompleteintersectionsurfaceArtinsimplesingularitynonpositivecurvaturegeometric
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks which fundamental groups of plane-curve complements and their deformation families can carry CAT(0) geometry, a question motivated by the conjecture that braid groups are CAT(0). It answers positively for branch loci of generic projections of smooth complete intersection surfaces: the affine and projective complement groups are CAT(0), and the proof goes through the virtual abelianness of the quotients $\tilde B_d$ of braid groups. It answers negatively for the universal families over the semi-universal deformations of the simple singularities $E_6$, $E_7$, and $E_8$: those fundamental groups are not CAT(0). A separate computation shows that deleting singular fibers from the 3-cuspidal quartic projection produces a free-by-free group with infinite monodromy that is not CAT(0).

What carries the argument

The main obstruction is Property LIP: a group $Q$ has Property LIP if every infinite normal subgroup contains an infinite finitely generated subgroup with finite centralizer, and acylindrically hyperbolic groups have it. The load-bearing theorem states that if a CAT(0) group $G$ is an extension $1 \to R \to G \to Q \to 1$ with $R$ finitely generated and centerless and $Q$ having Property LIP, then the algebraic monodromy $Q \to \mathrm{Out}(R)$ has finite image or finite kernel. The positive result uses the opposite mechanism: the cited presentation of $\tilde P_{0,d}$ exhibits it as a central extension of $\mathbb{Z}^{d-1}$ by $\mathbb{Z}/2$, so $\tilde B_d$ is virtually free abelian.

What would settle it

Compute the action of the center $Z(A_R)$ on $\pi_1(C_R)$ through the monodromy of the bundle $V_R \to U_R$; if the boundary multitwist does not generate a direct $\mathbb{Z}$ factor of a finite-index subgroup of $\pi_1(V_R)$, the E6/E7/E8 proof loses its reduction. Independently, constructing a proper cocompact isometric action of $\pi_1(V_R)$ on any CAT(0) space for a single E-type would refute the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central assertion is that CAT(0) behavior in these families is governed by the monodromy of a fibration by punctured spheres or affine curves. On the positive side, the group $\tilde B_d = B_d / \langle\![x_2, (x_3x_1)^{-1}x_2(x_3x_1)]\!\rangle$ is virtually abelian for every $d \ge 4$; since this group is isomorphic to $\pi_1(\mathbb{C}^2 \setminus C_a)$ and its quotient is $\pi_1(\mathbb{P}^2 \setminus C)$, both complement groups act properly and cocompactly on a CAT(0) space. On the negative side, for each $R \in \{E_6, E_7, E_8\}$ the extension $1 \to F_{g(R)} \to \pi_1(V_R) \to A_R \to 1$ is argued to be non-CAT(0): after a finite-index cover splits off the center of the Artin group $A_R$ as a $\mathbb{Z}$ factor, the residual extension has a geometric monodromy with an infinite kernel, which contradicts the Property LIP dichotomy for CAT(0) extensions.

Load-bearing premise

The non-CAT(0) conclusion for E6/E7/E8 depends on the claim that the infinite cyclic center of the Artin group acts on the free-group fiber only through a boundary multitwist and splits off as a direct factor of a finite-index subgroup; if that splitting is not genuine, the reduction to a non-CAT(0) core extension fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every branch curve of a generic projection of a smooth complete intersection surface, both $\pi_1(\mathbb{C}^2 \setminus C_a)$ and $\pi_1(\mathbb{P}^2 \setminus C)$ admit proper cocompact actions on Euclidean space.
  • The groups $\tilde B_d$ are virtually free abelian for all $d \ge 4$, so this infinite family of braid-group quotients is CAT(0) even though the full braid-group conjecture remains open.
  • The 3-cuspidal quartic example shows that a free-by-free group with infinite monodromy and infinite kernel can fail to be CAT(0), even when the underlying curve complement is finite and CAT(0).
  • The E6, E7, and E8 universal families supply new non-CAT(0) quasi-projective groups whose base is an Artin group rather than a surface group.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same LIP dichotomy plausibly applies to any singularity family whose geometric monodromy is known to have an infinite kernel, so the E6/E7/E8 technique is not tied to that specific root system.
  • For $A_n$ and $D_n$, where geometric monodromy is injective, the paper's obstruction disappears; determining whether $\pi_1(V_R)$ is CAT(0) there would separate the two monodromy regimes.
  • A testable extension is to compute the action of the center of $A_R$ on the fiber free group directly; if that action is not a boundary multitwist that splits as a direct factor, the product structure used in the negative proof would need revision.
  • On the positive side, the virtual abelianness of $\tilde B_d$ suggests these branch-curve complements are as flexible as possible among CAT(0) groups, potentially admitting flat-space actions rather than only general CAT(0) actions.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies whether fundamental groups of plane curve complements and of certain universal deformation families are CAT(0). In the positive direction, it proves that for a generic projection of a smooth complete intersection surface, the complement of the branch curve in P^2 has CAT(0) fundamental group, by showing that the groups ~B_d and their quotients appearing in Robb's theorem are virtually abelian for d ≥ 4. It also claims that complements with finite monodromy admit CAT(0) fundamental groups and, in fact, finite-volume nonpositively curved Riemannian metrics. In the negative direction, it uses Zhu's LIP obstruction to show that the complement of the 3-cuspidal quartic together with singular fibers is not CAT(0), and that the fundamental group of the universal family over the semi-universal deformation of E6, E7, and E8 simple singularities is not CAT(0).

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper supplies new positive and negative examples in the study of CAT(0) groups among quasi-projective fundamental groups, and it connects the longstanding question of whether braid groups are CAT(0) with plane-curve complements. The proof of Theorem 3.6 is short and checkable, and the explicit braid-monodromy computation for the 3-cuspidal quartic is a useful concrete contribution. The paper is transparent about its reliance on external results of Robb, Wajnryb, Zhu, Calvez--Wiest, and others, and it contains no fitted parameters or circular reasoning. However, two load-bearing points need repair: the statement of Proposition 3.2 does not match its proof, and the proof of Theorem 4.8 contains an unjustified splitting argument.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1, Proposition 3.2] The proposition is stated for π1(BlO(P^2) \ C), but the proof uses that BlO(P^2) \ C is the total space of a locally trivial punctured-sphere bundle over a punctured sphere. That bundle statement is only true after deleting the singular fibers L, i.e. for BlO(P^2) \(C ∪ L), as established in Section 2.1. The proof of Lemma 3.4 and the sentence 'we know that BlO(P^2 \ C) is the total space of a locally trivial S_{0,n+1}-bundle over S_{0,m+1}' are therefore inconsistent with the proposition's hypothesis. Moreover, the proposition's second assertion also switches notation to 'BlO(P^2 ∖ C)', which is not a standard blow-up. The statement should be corrected to concern BlO(P^2) \(C ∪ L), in line with Theorem A(1); as written, the proposition is not a valid theorem about π1(BlO(P^2) \ C).
  2. [Section 4.3, proof of Theorem 4.8] The proof asserts that because the center Z = Z(A_R) acts by a boundary multitwist and 'since Z(A_R) is free, there is a splitting σ: Z → G′ such that σ(Z) is central in G′.' This does not follow. The freeness of Z as an abstract group does not split an arbitrary extension, and centrality of the boundary multitwist in Mod(C_R) does not by itself imply that the associated outer automorphism of π1(C_R) ≅ F_{g(R)} is trivial. To justify the direct-product decomposition G′ = H′ × σ(Z), one must show that the monodromy of Z is trivial in Out(F_{g(R)}), then use the trivial center of F_{g(R)} to adjust a lift of the generator of Z to a central element. This is load-bearing: the subsequent Bowers–Ruane reduction and the application of Theorem 2.5 to H′ both require the splitting. The gap is local and likely fixable, but the argument as written is incomplete.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1] The notation for L is inconsistent: earlier L = ∪_{i=1}^4 L_i, but the displayed extension before Theorem 4.2 writes 'π1(BlO(P^2) ∖ (C ∪_{i=1}^3 L_i))'. Since the base is P^1 with four punctures, the sum should be over all four singular fibers.
  2. [Section 4.1] The equation of the 3-cuspidal quartic has mismatched parentheses: 'C = {F([x ∶ y ∶ z] = ... = 0}' is missing a closing brace/parenthesis. This is purely typographical but should be fixed.
  3. [Section 4.1] In the discussion of L0, the phrase 'setting τ2 = 1 and τ1τ2τ3 = 1' appears to be a typo; with four singular fibers one expects the relations τ2 = τ3 = 1 and τ1τ4 = 1 coming from the product relation. The intended computation is clear, but the displayed relation is confusing.
  4. [Appendix A.2.1] The sentence 'The fundamental group π1(F1 ∖ C) where F1 is the blow-up of P2 at P has expression similar to (12)' uses P without definition and conflicts with the point O elsewhere; the notation should be unified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the positive and negative results follow from explicit braid-monodromy computations and external published theorems; the flagged Theorem 4.8 center-splitting step is a compressed omission in justification, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem A(1) and Proposition 3.2 are proved by constructing CAT(0) models from finite monodromy using Nielsen realization for graphs and surfaces, with no fitted input. Theorem A(2) and Theorem 3.6 rest on Robb's external computation of the fundamental groups of complements to branch curves: the paper quotes Robb's Theorem 3.5 and Robb's presentation of ~P0,d, then derives virtual abelianness from those relations. No quantity is fitted to data and then announced as a prediction; no group is defined in terms of the CAT(0) property that is being derived. The negative results likewise use explicit computations: the monodromy of the 3-cuspidal quartic example is calculated explicitly in B4(S2), giving image Z/2 x F2 and infinite kernel before applying Theorem 2.5. The obstacle theory of Theorem 2.5 is cited from the third author's prior paper [Zhu23]; this is load-bearing self-citation, but it is an external published theorem with general hypotheses that do not include the present conclusions, so it operates as independent evidence rather than a self-referential premise. The only real concern is in the proof of Theorem 4.8: the sentence 'Under the monodromy action phi, the center of A_R acts by a multitwist along the boundary of C_R. In particular, since Z(A_R) is free, there is a splitting sigma: Z -> G' such that sigma(Z) is central in G'' asserts a central splitting without fully justifying the centrality of the lift. The remark 'since Z(A_R) is free' accounts for the existence of a lift of the cyclic subgroup but not automatically for commuting with the fiber subgroup and the rest of G'. This is a missing or compressed argument in the negative result, not a circular one: a repair would show that a boundary multitwist induces the trivial outer automorphism on the free-group fiber and then adjust the lift by an element of the fiber to make it central. Weighing this, the gap is a correctness-risk flag in Theorem 4.8, but it does not reduce the derivation to its own input, and no other step exhibits self-definition, fitted-input prediction, or a self-citation chain replacing the proof. Accordingly the circularity score is 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or postulated entities. All load-bearing assumptions are standard theorems or published results from the literature (Robb, Wajnryb, Zhu, Calvez-Wiest, Perron-Vannier). The ledger records the main such inputs so the reader can see what is taken from outside the paper.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Zariski-van Kampen theorem: fundamental groups of plane curve complements are quotients of free-by-free extensions determined by braid monodromy.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 and Appendix A.1.2 as the basis for all group presentations in the paper.
  • standard math Nielsen realization for finite subgroups of Out(F_n) and of mapping class groups of punctured spheres.
    Used in Lemma 3.3 and Proposition 3.2 to realize finite monodromy by isometries on graphs or hyperbolic surfaces.
  • domain assumption Robb's theorem (Rob97): for a smooth non-degenerate complete intersection surface, pi1 of the branch-curve complement is isomorphic to ~B_d or ~B_d/⟨η^m μ^e⟩.
    This is the key external input for the positive CAT(0) result; the paper does not reprove it.
  • domain assumption Wajnryb's theorem (Waj99): there is no injective geometric representation of the Artin group of type E6, E7, or E8.
    Used in Section 4.3 to show the monodromy of the universal family has a nontrivial kernel.
  • domain assumption Zhu's theorem (Zhu23): an extension of a finitely generated group with trivial center by a group with Property LIP cannot be CAT(0) unless the algebraic monodromy has finite image or finite kernel.
    This is the main obstruction used for all negative results.
  • domain assumption Theorem of Calvez-Wiest (CW17): A_R/Z is acylindrically hyperbolic for irreducible spherical Artin groups.
    Provides Property LIP for the base group P' in Theorem 4.8.
  • standard math Bowers-Ruane theorem (BR96): G is CAT(0) if and only if G × Z^n is CAT(0).
    Used to reduce the CAT(0) question for G' to the subgroup H' after splitting off the center.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CAT(0) geometry of complex curve complements and families." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FW53S3SI

@misc{pith2026241118067,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CAT(0) geometry of complex curve complements and families},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FW53S3SI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18067}
}
abstract

Motivated by the question of whether braid groups are CAT(0), we investigate the CAT(0) behavior of fundamental groups of plane curve complements and certain universal families. If $C$ is the branch locus of a generic projection of a smooth, complete intersection surface to $\PP^2$, we show that $\pi_1(\PP^2\setminus C)$ is CAT(0). In the other direction, we prove that the fundamental group of the universal family associated with the singularities of type $E_6$, $E_7$, and $E_8$ is not CAT(0).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18067 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A choice of generating set for the fundamental group of the fiber at a point along the positive real axis in the base. The punctures x1, x2, x3 and x4 correspond to α1, α2, β1 and β2, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. From left to right, the three 4-stranded braids correspond to τ1, τ2, and τ3. The strands of each braid correspond to x1, x2, x3, x4 in left to right order, and match the colors in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Representation of T 2 with the 4 ramification points of ι at A˜ 1, A˜ 2, B˜ 1, and B˜ 2. be the two generators of Z/2Z × Z/2Z, thought of translations on T 2 . The three generators σ1, σ2, σ3 then correspond to the following pairs group elements σ1 = (0, S) σ2 = (x, I) ⋅ (0, T) ⋅ (x, I) = (x, T) ⋅ (x, I) = (x + y + x, T) = (y, T) σ3 = (y, I) ⋅ (0, S) ⋅ (y, I) = (y, S) ⋅ (y, I) = (y + x + y, S) = (x, S) Now we can co… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Dynkin diagram of E6 and the surface with boundary CE6 associated with it, along with the curves which define the geometric repre￾sentation of AE6 . Wajnryb uses the natural Garside structure on these groups to show that any such repre￾sentation cannot be injective…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wirtinger curves, artin groups, and hypocycloids

    Enrique Artal Bartolo, Jos \'e Ignacio Cogolludo-Agust \' n, and Jorge Mart \' n-Morales. Wirtinger curves, artin groups, and hypocycloids. Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, F \' sicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matem \'a ticas , 112(3):641--656, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Non-positively curved aspects of A rtin groups of finite type

    Mladen Bestvina. Non-positively curved aspects of A rtin groups of finite type. Geom. Topol. , 3:269--302, 1999

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Bridson and Andr\'e Haefliger

    Martin R. Bridson and Andr\'e Haefliger. Metric spaces of non-positive curvature , volume 319 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences] . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999

    1999

  4. [4]

    Braids, posets and orthoschemes

    Tom Brady and Jon McCammond. Braids, posets and orthoschemes. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 10(4):2277--2314, 2010

    2010

  5. [5]

    Bowers and Kim Ruane

    Philip L. Bowers and Kim Ruane. Boundaries of nonpositively curved groups of the form G Z ^n . Glasgow Math. J. , 38(2):177--189, 1996

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Braid monodromy of algebraic curves

    Jos \'e Ignacio Cogolludo-Agust \' n. Braid monodromy of algebraic curves. In Annales math \'e matiques Blaise Pascal , volume 18, pages 141--209, 2011

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Finite groups of outer automorphisms of a free group

    Marc Culler. Finite groups of outer automorphisms of a free group. Contributions to group theory , 33:197--207, 1984

    work page 1984

  8. [8]

    The 3-cuspidal quartic and braid monodromy of degree 4 coverings

    Fabrizio Catanese and Bronislaw Wajnryb. The 3-cuspidal quartic and braid monodromy of degree 4 coverings. Projective varieties with unexpected properties , pages 113--129, 2004

    work page 2004

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Acylindrical hyperbolicity and A rtin- T its groups of spherical type

    Matthieu Calvez and Bert Wiest. Acylindrical hyperbolicity and A rtin- T its groups of spherical type. Geom. Dedicata , 191:199--215, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Singularities and topology of hypersurfaces

    Alexandru Dimca. Singularities and topology of hypersurfaces . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Three-dimensional link theory and invariants of plane curve singularities.(am-110)

    David Eisenbud and Walter D Neumann. Three-dimensional link theory and invariants of plane curve singularities.(am-110). 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    A primer on mapping class groups (pms-49)

    Benson Farb and Dan Margalit. A primer on mapping class groups (pms-49) . Princeton University Press, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    K \"a hler groups, quasi-projective groups and 3-manifold groups

    Stefan Friedl and Alexander I Suciu. K \"a hler groups, quasi-projective groups and 3-manifold groups. Journal of the London Mathematical Society , 89(1):151--168, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    On fundamental groups related to degeneratable surfaces: conjectures and examples

    Michael Friedman and Mina Teicher. On fundamental groups related to degeneratable surfaces: conjectures and examples. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa-Classe di Scienze , 11(3):565--603, 2012

    2012

  7. [15]

    Introduction to singularities and deformations

    GM Greuel. Introduction to singularities and deformations. Springer Monographs in Mathematics/Springer , 2007

    2007

  8. [16]

    M. Gromov. Hyperbolic groups. In Essays in group theory , volume 8 of Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. , pages 75--263. Springer, New York, 1987

    1987

  9. [17]

    The 6-strand braid group is CAT (0)

    Thomas Haettel, Dawid Kielak, and Petra Schwer. The 6-strand braid group is CAT (0) . Geom. Dedicata , 182:263--286, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    The seven-strand braid group is CAT(0)

    Seong Gu Jeong. The seven-strand braid group is CAT(0) . manuscripta mathematica , 171(3):563--581, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Finite groups of automorphisms of free groups

    Dmitrii Gennad'evich Khramtsov. Finite groups of automorphisms of free groups. Mathematical notes of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR , 38:721--724, 1985

    1985

  12. [20]

    Enumerative theory of singularities, real and complex singularities (proc

    S Kleiman. Enumerative theory of singularities, real and complex singularities (proc. ninth nordic summer school/navf sympos. math., oslo, 1976). MR , 58(27960):297--396, 1977

    1976

  13. [21]

    3-manifolds with(out) metrics of nonpositive curvature

    Bernhard Leeb. 3-manifolds with(out) metrics of nonpositive curvature. Inventiones mathematicae , 122:277--289, 1995

    1995

  14. [22]

    Complements to ample divisors and singularities

    Anatoly Libgober. Complements to ample divisors and singularities. Handbook of Geometry and Topology of Singularities II , pages 501--567, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Mapping class groups, multiple K odaira fibrations, and CAT (0) spaces

    Claudio Llosa Isenrich and Pierre Py. Mapping class groups, multiple K odaira fibrations, and CAT (0) spaces. Math. Ann. , 380(1-2):449--485, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    B. G. Moishezon. Stable branch curves and braid monodromies. In Anatoly Libgober and Philip Wagreich, editors, Algebraic Geometry , pages 107--192, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1981. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    1981

  17. [25]

    D. Osin. Acylindrically hyperbolic groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 368(2):851--888, 2016

    2016

  18. [26]

    Parabolic subgroups of A rtin groups

    Luis Paris. Parabolic subgroups of A rtin groups. J. Algebra , 196(2):369--399, 1997

    1997

  19. [27]

    Groupe de monodromie g\'eom\'etrique des singularit\'es simples

    Bernard Perron and Jean-Pierre Vannier. Groupe de monodromie g\'eom\'etrique des singularit\'es simples. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S\'er. I Math. , 315(10):1067--1070, 1992

    1992

  20. [28]

    On branch curves of algebraic surfaces

    Arthur Robb. On branch curves of algebraic surfaces. Singularities and Complex Geometry (Beijing, 1994), Amer. Math. Soc./Int. Press Stud. Adv. Math , 5:193--221, 1997

    1994

  21. [29]

    The homotopy type of complex hyperplane complements

    Harm van der Lek. The homotopy type of complex hyperplane complements . PhD thesis, University of Nijmegen, 1983

    1983

  22. [30]

    Artin groups and geometric monodromy

    Bronislaw Wajnryb. Artin groups and geometric monodromy. Inventiones mathematicae , 138:563--571, 1999

    1999

  23. [31]

    On the problem of existence of algebraic functions of two variables possessing a given branch curve

    Oscar Zariski. On the problem of existence of algebraic functions of two variables possessing a given branch curve. American Journal of Mathematics , 51(2):305--328, 1929

    1929

  24. [32]

    On the poincar \'e group of rational plane curves

    Oscar Zariski. On the poincar \'e group of rational plane curves. American Journal of Mathematics , 58(3):607--619, 1936

    1936

  25. [33]

    Conditions on the monodromy for a surface group extension to be CAT(0)

    Kejia Zhu. Conditions on the monodromy for a surface group extension to be CAT(0) . Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society , 151(11):4643--4651, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Finite groups of mapping classes of surfaces , volume 875 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics

    Heiner Zieschang. Finite groups of mapping classes of surfaces , volume 875 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981

    1981

  27. [35]

    U ber hom \

    Bruno Zimmermann. \"U ber hom \"o omorphismen n-dimensionaler henkelk \"o rper und endliche erweiterungen von schottky-gruppen. Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici , 56:474--486, 1981

    1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.