Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Yano's conjecture

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · 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 Yano's 1982 conjecture: generic b-exponents of irreducible plane curve singularities are computed from the semigroup by an explicit generating function.

desk verdict A serious full-generality proof of Yano's conjecture, conditional on a missing direct-sum decomposition in Theorem 17.3 that the semicontinuity argument leans on. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05917 v3 pith:RQG5PEHD submitted 2019-08-16 math.AG

Guillem Blanco This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AG MSC 14H2032S4014B0532S25
keywords Bernstein-Satopolynomialb-exponentsplanecurvesingularitiesYanoconjecturesemigroupofvaluesMilnorfibrationresolutionsemicontinuity
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

Yano's conjecture, proposed in 1982, predicts that the generic b-exponents of an irreducible plane curve singularity are determined by the curve's semigroup alone. This paper claims to prove the conjecture: for any irreducible plane branch, there is a $\mu$-constant (topologically trivial) deformation such that for generic fibers the full set of b-exponents is given by an explicit generating function built from the resolution data. The b-exponents are normally not topological invariants and can vary in topologically trivial families, so the statement pins down their generic behavior completely. If the proof is correct, a 40-year-old conjecture is settled and the generic b-exponents of every plane branch can be read off from its characteristic sequence.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through four linked pieces. Malgrange's theorem identifies the b-exponents with eigenvalues of $t\partial_t$ on the saturated Brieskorn lattice, and Varchenko's elementary sections reinterpret those eigenvalues as exponents in asymptotic expansions of period integrals. A resolution of the singularity, followed by semi-stable reduction, turns each period into a sum over exceptional divisors of terms $t^{\sigma_{i,\nu}-1}$ multiplied by integrals of multivalued forms $R_{i,\nu}(\omega)$ on the punctured projective line; a Deligne-Mostow non-vanishing criterion shows these forms give non-zero locally constant geometric sections when the exponent is non-resonant, meaning the associated numbers $\varepsilon_{j,\nu}(\omega)$ are not integers. The new structural input is a duality statement: for each rupture divisor $E_i$ with $\chi(E_i^\circ)=-1$, the vanishing cycle lying over $E_i$ is the unique eigenvector dual to the section $A^\omega_{\sigma_{i,\nu}-1,0}$, and these pairs assemble into a global basis of eigenvectors. A rupture divisor is an exceptional component whose complement has negative Euler characteristic, i.e. a branching point of the resolution dual graph, and it is the combinatorial carrier of each candidate exponent.

What would settle it

Check the asserted decomposition directly for a plane branch with at least three Puiseux pairs: compute, from the resolution dual graph and the formula in Proposition 14.1, the dimensions of the subspaces $j_*H_1(X_{i,t},\mathbb{C})$ for each rupture divisor $E_i$, and test whether their pairwise intersections are zero and their sum is the Milnor number $\mu$. If the dimensions do not add up, or if two subspaces share a monodromy eigenspace, Theorem 17.3's basis of eigenvectors does not exist and the proof of the conjecture fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Let $f:(\mathbb{C}^2,0)\to(\mathbb{C},0)$ define an irreducible plane curve with semigroup $\Gamma=\langle\beta_0,\dots,\beta_g\rangle$. The central theorem (Theorem 17.5) states that there is a $\mu$-constant deformation of $f$ such that for generic fibers the b-exponents are exactly $$\bigcup_{i=1}^g \left\{\sigma_{i,\nu}=\frac{m_i+n_1\cdots n_i+\nu}{n_i\beta_i}\;\bigg|\; 0\le \nu<n_i\beta_i,\ \beta_i\sigma_{i,\nu}\notin\mathbb{Z},\ e_{i-1}\sigma_{i,\nu}\notin\mathbb{Z}\right\},$$ where $e_i=\gcd(\beta_0,\dots,\beta_i)$, $n_i=e_{i-1}/e_i$, and $m_i=\beta_i/e_i$. Equivalently, Yano's generating function $R((n,\beta_1,\dots,\beta_g),t)$ equals $\sum_{\alpha} t^\alpha$ over these generic b-exponents. The proof establishes an upper-semicontinuity theorem for plane-branch b-exponents under $\mu$-constant deformations with no distinct-eigenvalues hypothesis, and then shows, via semigroup-constant deformations of Teissier's monomial curve, that every candidate from the formula is realized generically.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the semicontinuity theorem assumes, without proof, that the first homology of the Milnor fiber is the direct sum of the subspaces coming from the $g$ rupture divisors; if those subspaces overlap or do not span, the dual-basis construction and the semicontinuity argument collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every irreducible plane branch has generic b-exponents that are topological invariants of the branch, fixed by the characteristic sequence.
  • Yano's generating function identity holds: the multiset of all $\mu$ generic b-exponents is given coefficientwise by $R((n,\beta_1,\dots,\beta_g),t)$, counted with multiplicity.
  • The semicontinuity theorem applies to all plane branches, removing the earlier hypothesis that the eigenvalues of the monodromy are pairwise distinct.
  • For each candidate exponent the proof constructs a non-zero locally constant geometric section, giving an explicit basis of monodromy eigenvectors for the Milnor fiber.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the asserted direct-sum decomposition of the Milnor-fiber homology holds, the same duality-plus-semicontinuity strategy could plausibly be adapted to reducible plane curves by working branch-by-branch; the paper neither claims nor rules this out.
  • Because the formula is parameter-free, computer algebra systems that compute Bernstein-Sato polynomials could test the conjecture on explicit three-Puiseux-pair branches; a mismatch would show generic b-exponents are not equisingularity invariants.
  • The upper-semicontinuity statement suggests a structural picture of jumps in $\mu$-constant families: as the parameter moves toward special fibers, b-exponents can only move downward in the exponent order, which is the behavior seen in the classical examples the paper cites.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims a proof of Yano's conjecture for irreducible plane curve singularities: for any such germ with characteristic sequence (n, beta_1, ..., beta_g), there exists a mu-constant deformation such that the generic b-exponents are exactly the candidates in (17.4), equivalently the exponents read off from Yano's generating function R((n, beta_1, ..., beta_g), t). The proof follows Varchenko's framework: it introduces geometric and elementary sections of the cohomological Milnor fibration, reformulates b-exponents via the Brieskorn lattice and Malgrange's theorem, develops an asymptotic expansion of periods from a resolution of singularities, constructs dual locally constant geometric sections over rupture divisors, and finally assembles them through Teissier's monomial curve and semigroup-constant deformations.

Significance. If the proof can be completed, the result settles a 1982 conjecture of Yano and generalizes the previously known cases of one Puiseux pair and of two Puiseux pairs under distinct-eigenvalue hypotheses. A notable strength is that the candidate b-exponents are not fitted: they are derived a priori from the characteristic sequence via A'Campo's formula and Yano's generating function, and the paper gives explicit geometric constructions aimed at showing these candidates are realized. However, the manuscript's central assembly step is not fully proved, and the semicontinuity theorem and final conclusion depend on that step. The paper therefore represents a substantial and potentially correct contribution, but it is not in its current form a complete proof.

major comments (3)
  1. [17, proof of Theorem 17.3] The proof asserts: since we have exactly mu cycles and all these subspaces j_*H_1(X_{j,t},C) are direct summands in H_1(X_t,C), one has H_1(X_t,C) = direct sum of j_*H_1(X_{j,t},C) over rupture divisors. This direct-sum decomposition is load-bearing and is not proved. Proposition 14.2 only produces, for each non-resonant sigma_{i,nu}, an eigenvector inside j_*H_1(X_{i,t},C) that is dual to the corresponding locally constant section within that subspace; it does not control intersections or linear relations among the images for different rupture divisors. Having mu cycles whose union spans is not enough to conclude that the sum is direct or exhaustive. Proposition 14.1 computes the Betti number of the covering space X_{i,t}, not the rank of the induced map j_*: H_1(X_{i,t},C) to H_1(X_t,C); that rank can be strictly smaller than b_1(X_{i,t}). Without a proof of the global decomposition, the hypothesis in Proposition 8.2 is not verified, and the upper-semicontinuity argument, and hence the final theorem, does not follow. This gap must be repaired by proving the global basis statement directly or by replacing the argument with one that does not rely on this unproved splitting.
  2. [17, proof of Theorem 17.5] The verification that A^omega_{sigma_{i,nu}-1,0} is not a section of S_{sigma_{i,nu}-2} is incomplete. The text argues from the inequality sigma_{i,nu}(omega)-1 < sigma_{i,0}(omega), but the required statement is that this particular section, whose label exponent is sigma_{i,nu}-1, cannot be expressed as a combination of sections of exponent sigma_{i,nu}-2. Since S_{sigma-2} is contained in S_{sigma-1}, an inclusion into S_{sigma-2} does not force the section itself to have exponent below sigma_{i,0}(omega)-1. A filtration argument or an explicit comparison of the locally constant geometric sections is needed. As written, the invocation of Lemma 10.6 is not justified.
  3. [17, proof of Theorem 17.5, final combination] The final paragraph says that upper-semicontinuity can be used to apply the argument to all candidate b-exponents simultaneously, but the deformation-theoretic mechanism is not spelled out. Proposition 17.4 produces, for each individual sigma_{i,nu}, a mu-constant deformation for which the corresponding locally constant section is generically non-zero. It is not explained how these separate deformations are merged into a single mu-constant deformation, nor why upper-semicontinuity guarantees that all candidates from (17.4) are realized for a generic fiber of one common deformation. This is the last step of the proof of Yano's conjecture and needs a precise argument.
minor comments (5)
  1. [16] The sentence 'Finally, define the integers m_i := beta_i/e_i and m_i := beta_i/e_i' contains an apparent duplication; one of the two displayed definitions should be corrected.
  2. [17, Eq. (17.4)] The notation sigma_{i,nu} in (17.4) should be explicitly defined at that point, or the reader should be referred back to (10.5) with omega = dx wedge dy and to the semigroup notation introduced in Section 16.
  3. [17, Proposition 17.4 proof] The phrase 'since the pull-back of omega has exceptional support' is unclear: the intended meaning is presumably that the relevant contribution of the pulled-back form is supported near E_i, but the wording should be clarified.
  4. [8] The notation in Proposition 8.2 is introduced without comment and clashes with the earlier notation for monodromy eigenspaces; a brief notational reminder would help.
  5. [references] There are minor formatting inconsistencies in the references, including some author names and accents; these should be harmonized during revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the candidate set (17.4) is fixed from Yano's combinatorial data and then proved to be the generic b-exponents; the Theorem 17.3 decomposition issue is an unproved assertion, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central implication is made in one direction only: Yano's combinatorial generating function and the A'Campo/Kashiwara-Lichtin candidate list are taken as the definition of the candidate exponents, and Theorem 17.5 then proves that, in a suitable mu-constant deformation, every candidate in (17.4) is a b-exponent. No parameter is fitted to any known b-exponent and later renamed a prediction; no equation defining the candidates incorporates the conclusion it is used to prove. The non-resonance conditions beta_i sigma and e_{i-1} sigma not in Z are part of Yano's prescription and are shown equivalent to the analytic non-resonance condition in Lemma 17.1, so they do not smuggle the target in. The only self-citation is [7], the author's earlier distinct-eigenvalue proof, cited in the introduction for context and not invoked in any later argument; it is not load-bearing. The genuinely fragile point is the proof of Theorem 17.3: the assertion that H_1(X_t,C) equals the direct sum over j of j_*H_1(X_{j,t},C) because there are mu cycles and the subspaces are direct summands is not proved and appears to be a gap, because Proposition 14.2 only produces eigenvectors inside each subspace and does not control pairwise intersections. But this is a missing justification in a proof, not a reduction of the conclusion to an input by definition; if the decomposition fails the theorem is unproved, not trivially true. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the paper is self-contained against external tools: Varchenko's semicontinuity framework, Deligne-Mostow, A'Campo, and Teissier's deformations.

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

The proof rests on the standard machinery of the Gauss-Manin connection, Brieskorn lattice, resolution of singularities, Varchenko's elementary sections, A'Campo's monodromy formula, and Teissier's deformation theory. No new entities or fitted parameters are introduced. The most notable unproved input is the direct sum decomposition of the Milnor fiber homology stated in Theorem 17.3, which is not derived or cited.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Malgrange's theorem (Theorem 7.1): the reduced Bernstein-Sato polynomial equals the minimal polynomial of -t∂_t on the saturated Brieskorn lattice quotient.
    Used to identify b-exponents with eigenvalues of an endomorphism. Stated and cited to [29].
  • standard math Varchenko's isomorphism (Theorem 7.2) between the saturated Brieskorn lattice quotient and the sheaf G, identifying b-exponents with eigenvalues of D.
    Basis for the filtration argument in Lemma 10.6 and the final proof in Section 17. Cited to [41].
  • standard math A'Campo's formula for the characteristic polynomial of the monodromy (Equation 14.2).
    Provides the candidate set (17.1) and the counting argument. Cited to [3].
  • domain assumption Teissier's existence of a miniversal semigroup constant deformation (Theorem 16.4).
    Used in Proposition 16.5 to produce µ-constant deformations with prescribed divisorial valuations. Stated and cited to [38].
  • standard math Deligne-Mostow Proposition 12.1 on the non-vanishing of cohomology classes of multivalued forms on the punctured projective line.
    Critical for Proposition 13.4, which constructs non-zero locally constant geometric sections. Stated as a slight generalization of [16, Prop. 2.14].
  • ad hoc to paper The first homology of the Milnor fiber decomposes as a direct sum of the subspaces j_*H_1(X_{i,t},C) over rupture divisors E_i.
    Asserted during the proof of Theorem 17.3 without proof or citation; it is load-bearing for the construction of a dual basis of eigenvectors and hence for the semicontinuity theorem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Yano's conjecture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQG5PEHD

@misc{pith2026190805917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Yano's conjecture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQG5PEHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05917}
}
abstract

We present a proof of a conjecture proposed by T. Yano about the generic $b$-exponents of irreducible plane curve singularities.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A’Campo, Le nombre de Lefschetz d’une monodromie , Indag

    N. A’Campo, Le nombre de Lefschetz d’une monodromie , Indag. Math. 35 (1973), 113–118. 24 32 G. BLANCO

    work page 1973

  2. [2]

    , Sur la monodromie des singularit´ es isol´ ees d’hypersurfaces complexes , Invent. Math. 20 (1973), 147–169. 21, 23

    work page 1973

  3. [3]

    , La fonction zˆ eta d’une monodromie, Comment. Math. Helv. 50 (1975), 233–248. 11, 16, 22, 23, 24

    work page 1975

  4. [4]

    Artal Bartolo, Pi

    E. Artal Bartolo, Pi. Cassou-Nogu` es, I. Luengo, and A. Melle H ern´ andez,Yano’s conjecture for two-Puiseux-pair irreducible plane curve singularities , Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 53 (2017), no. 1, 211–239. 2, 17

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Bernstein, Analytic continuation of distributions with respect to a pa rameter, Funct

    J. Bernstein, Analytic continuation of distributions with respect to a pa rameter, Funct. Anal. Appl. 6 (1972), no. 4, 26–40. 1

    work page 1972

  6. [6]

    Bj¨ ork, Dimensions of modules over algebras of differential operato rs, Fonctions analytiques de plusieurs variables et analyse complexe (Colloq

    J.-E. Bj¨ ork, Dimensions of modules over algebras of differential operato rs, Fonctions analytiques de plusieurs variables et analyse complexe (Colloq. Internat. CNRS, No. 208, Paris, 1972), Agora Mathematica, vol. 1, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1974, pp. 6–11. 1

    work page 1972

  7. [7]

    Blanco, Poles of the complex zeta function of a plane curve , Adv

    G. Blanco, Poles of the complex zeta function of a plane curve , Adv. Math. 350 (2019), no. 9, 396–439. 2

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Brauner, Zur Geometrie der Funktionen zweier komplexer Ver¨ aderlic her

    K. Brauner, Zur Geometrie der Funktionen zweier komplexer Ver¨ aderlic her. II. Das Verhalten der Funktionen in der Umgebung ihrer Verzweigungsstellen , Abh. Math. Semin. Univ. Hambg. 6 (1928), no. 1, 1–55. 25

    work page 1928

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Brieskorn, Die Monodromie der isolierten Singularit¨ aten von Hyperfl¨achen, Manuscripta Math

    E. Brieskorn, Die Monodromie der isolierten Singularit¨ aten von Hyperfl¨achen, Manuscripta Math. 2 (1970), 103–161. 3, 4, 7

    1970

  2. [10]

    Budur, On Hodge spectrum and multiplier ideals , Math

    N. Budur, On Hodge spectrum and multiplier ideals , Math. Ann. 327 (2003), no. 2, 257–270. 2

    2003

  3. [11]

    Budur and M

    N. Budur and M. Saito, Multiplier ideals, V -filtration, and spectrum , J. Algebraic Geom. 14 (2005), no. 2, 269–282. 2

    2005

  4. [12]

    Casas-Alvero, Singularities of plane curves , London Math

    E. Casas-Alvero, Singularities of plane curves , London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., no. 276, Cam- bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2000. 25, 26

    2000

  5. [13]

    Cassou-Nogu` es, Polynˆ ome de Bernstein g´ en´ erique, Abh

    Pi. Cassou-Nogu` es, Polynˆ ome de Bernstein g´ en´ erique, Abh. Math. Semin. Univ. Hambg. 58 (1988), no. 1, 103–124. 2, 17

    1988

  6. [14]

    C. H. Clemens, Picard-Lefschetz theorem for families of nonsingular alge braic varieties acquiring ordinary singularities, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 136 (1969), 93–108. 3

    1969

  7. [15]

    Deligne and N

    P. Deligne and N. Katz, S´ eminaire de G´ eom´ etrie Alg´ ebrique du Bois-Marie (1967/69); SGA 7 II , Lecture Notes in Math., no. 340, Springer, Berlin, 1973. 24

    1967

  8. [16]

    Deligne and G

    P. Deligne and G. D. Mostow, Monodromy of hypergeometric functions and nonlattice inte gral mon- odromy, Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. 63 (1986), 5–89. 2, 17, 18, 21

    1986

  9. [17]

    L. Ein, R. Lazarsfeld, K. E. Smith, and D. Varolin, Jumping coefficients of multiplier ideals , Duke Math. J. 123 (2004), no. 3, 469–506. 2

    2004

  10. [18]

    Grothendieck, S´ eminaire de G´ eom´ etrie Alg´ ebrique du Bois-Marie (1967/69); SGA 7 I , Lecture Notes in Math., no

    A. Grothendieck, S´ eminaire de G´ eom´ etrie Alg´ ebrique du Bois-Marie (1967/69); SGA 7 I , Lecture Notes in Math., no. 288, Springer, Berlin, 1972. 3

    1967

  11. [19]

    Hartshorne, Algebraic geometry, Grad

    R. Hartshorne, Algebraic geometry, Grad. Texts in Math, no. 52, Springer, Berlin, 1977. 19

    1977

  12. [20]

    Kashiwara, B-functions and holonomic systems , Invent

    M. Kashiwara, B-functions and holonomic systems , Invent. Math. 38 (1976), no. 1, 33–53. 1, 14

    1976

  13. [21]

    Kato, The b-function of a µ -constant deformation of x7 + y5, Bull

    M. Kato, The b-function of a µ -constant deformation of x7 + y5, Bull. College Sci. Univ. Ryukyus 32 (1981), 5–10. 2

    1981

  14. [22]

    College Sci

    , The b-function of a µ -constant deformation of x9 + y4, Bull. College Sci. Univ. Ryukyus 33 (1982), 5–8. 2

    1982

  15. [23]

    Lichtin, Some algebro-geometric formulae for poles of |f (x, y )|s, Amer

    B. Lichtin, Some algebro-geometric formulae for poles of |f (x, y )|s, Amer. J. Math. 107 (1985), no. 1, 139–162. 19, 21

    1985

  16. [24]

    , An upper semicontinuity theorem for some leading poles of |f |2s, Complex analytic singu- larities, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986, pp. 241–272. 2, 14

    1986

  17. [25]

    , Poles of |f (z, w )|2s and roots of the B-function, Ark. Mat. 27 (1989), no. 1-2, 283–304. 1, 21

    1989

  18. [26]

    Loeser, Fonctions d’Igusa p-adiques et polynˆ omes de Bernstein, Amer

    F. Loeser, Fonctions d’Igusa p-adiques et polynˆ omes de Bernstein, Amer. J. Math. 110 (1988), no. 1, 1–21. 2, 19, 20, 21

    1988

  19. [27]

    Malgrange, Int´ egrales asymptotiques et monodromie, Ann

    B. Malgrange, Int´ egrales asymptotiques et monodromie, Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 7 (1974), no. 3, 405–430. 2, 4, 5, 7

    1974

  20. [28]

    , Sur les polynˆ omes de I. N. Bernstein , Russian Math. Surveys 29 (1974), no. 4, 81–88. 2 YANO’S CONJECTURE 33

    1974

  21. [29]

    4 (1975), 98–119

    , Le polynˆ ome de Bernstein d’une singularit´ e isol´ ee, Lecture Notes in Math. 4 (1975), 98–119. 1, 2, 7

    1975

  22. [30]

    101-102, Soc

    , Polynˆ ome de Bernstein-Sato et cohomologie ´ evanescente, Analysis and topology on singular spaces, II, III (Luminy, 1981), Ast´ erisque, vol. 101-102, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1983, pp. 243–267. 1

    1981

  23. [31]

    Milnor, Singular points of complex hypersurfaces , Ann

    J. Milnor, Singular points of complex hypersurfaces , Ann. of Math. Stud., no. 61, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J., 1968. 3

    1968

  24. [32]

    Saito, On microlocal b-function, Bull

    M. Saito, On microlocal b-function, Bull. Soc. Math. France 122 (1994), 163–184. 1

    1994

  25. [33]

    Sato and T

    M. Sato and T. Shintani, Theory of prehomogeneous vector spaces (algebraic part) – t he English translation of Sato’s lecture from Shintani’s note , Nagoya Math. J. 120 (1990), 1–34. 1

    1990

  26. [34]

    Sebastiani, Preuve d’une conjecture de Brieskorn , Manuscripta Math

    M. Sebastiani, Preuve d’une conjecture de Brieskorn , Manuscripta Math. 2 (1970), 301–308. 7

    1970

  27. [35]

    E. H. Spanier, Algebraic topology, Springer, Berlin, 1981. 24

    1981

  28. [36]

    J. H. M. Steenbrink, Mixed Hodge structure on the vanishing cohomology , Real and complex sin- gularities (Oslo, 1976), Proc. Ninth Nordic Summer School/NA VF Sym pos. Math., Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn, 1977, pp. 525–563. 11, 12

    1976

  29. [37]

    179-180, Soc

    , The spectrum of hypersurface singularities, Actes du Colloque de Th´ eorie de Hodge (Luminy, 1987), Ast´ erisque, vol. 179-180, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 19 89, pp. 163–184. 1

    1987

  30. [38]

    Teissier, Appendix, in [ 47], 1986

    B. Teissier, Appendix, in [ 47], 1986. 3, 17, 26, 27

    1986

  31. [39]

    Lˆ e D˜ ung Tr´ ang,Sur les noeuds alg´ ebriques, Compos. Math. 25 (1972), no. 3, 281–321. 21, 23

    1972

  32. [40]

    Lˆ e D˜ ung Tr´ ang and C. P. Ramanujam,The invariance of Milnor’s number implies the invariance of the topological type , Amer. J. Math. 98 (1976), no. 1, 67–78. 9, 10, 25, 29

    1976

  33. [41]

    A. N. Varchenko, Gauss-Manin connection of isolated singular point and Bern stein polynomial, Bull. Sci. Math. (2) 104 (1980), 205–223. 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11

    1980

  34. [42]

    USSR-Izv

    , Asymptotic Hodge structure in the vanishing cohomology , Math. USSR-Izv. 18 (1982), no. 3, 469–512. 2, 11, 12, 20

    1982

  35. [43]

    C. T. C. Wall, Singular points of plane curves , London Math. Soc. Stud. Texts, no. 63, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2004. 25, 29

    2004

  36. [44]

    Yano, Exponents of singularities of plane irreducible curves , Sci

    T. Yano, Exponents of singularities of plane irreducible curves , Sci. Rep. Saitama Univ. Ser. 10 (1982), no. 2, 21–28. 1, 2, 16, 17

    1982

  37. [45]

    Zariski, On the topology of algebroid singularities , Amer

    O. Zariski, On the topology of algebroid singularities , Amer. J. Math. 54 (1932), no. 3, 453–465. 25

    1932

  38. [46]

    Equivalent wingularities of plane algebroid curves , Amer

    , Studies in equisingularity I. Equivalent wingularities of plane algebroid curves , Amer. J. Math. 87 (1965), no. 2, 507–536. 25

    1965

  39. [47]

    25, 33 Department of Mathematics, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200 B, 3001 Leuven, Belgium

    , Le probl` eme des modules pour les branches planes , Hermann, Paris, 1986. 25, 33 Department of Mathematics, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200 B, 3001 Leuven, Belgium. Email address : guillem.blanco@kuleuven.be

    1986

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.