Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence from a topological point of view

Juan Luo; Quanshui Wu; Xingting Wang

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence from a topological point of view

T0 review · 2 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 The paper proves that a complex affine Poisson algebra satisfies the Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence exactly when every Poisson prime ideal lying over fewer than continuum many minimal Poisson primes lies over only finitely many.

desk verdict The κ-separability/poset criterion is a genuine contribution, but the symplectic-core half is not sound as written: Proposition 5.3(iii) and Theorem 6.7(ii) are false, and the proof of Theorem C needs repair. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06542 v2 pith:ZZM7KR3X submitted 2019-08-19 math.RA

Juan Luo , Xingting Wang , Quanshui Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.RA MSC 16D6017B6313N15

keywords PoissonDixmier-Moeglinequivalenceprimespectrumsymplecticcoresleaveskappa-separabilitycommutativedifferentialalgebrasprimitiveidealsZariskitopology

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 claims that for a complex affine Poisson algebra, the whole Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence—the coincidence of Poisson primitive, Poisson rational, and locally closed Poisson prime ideals—is a purely topological phenomenon, readable from the Zariski topology of the Poisson prime spectrum. Specifically, the equivalence holds exactly when every Poisson prime ideal with fewer than continuum many minimal Poisson primes over it has only finitely many. The same topology also detects the equivalence through the symplectic core stratification on the maximal spectrum: all symplectic cores must be locally closed. Because the result is formulated for commutative differential algebras, it also extends a previously known weaker version of the equivalence from Poisson algebras to that broader setting.

What carries the argument

The central object is $\kappa$-separability for points of a Zariski space: a point $p$ is $\kappa$-separable when the complement of $\{p\}$ in its closure can be covered by fewer than $\kappa$ closed irreducible subsets, equivalently when $p$ has fewer than $\kappa$ covers in the specialization poset. The paper proves that $\aleph_0$-separability is exactly local closedness, and that, over large base fields, $|k|$-separability is exactly $\Delta$-rationality and $\Delta$-primitivity. Passing to Poisson algebras is done by taking the derivations $\Delta$ to be the Hamiltonian derivations of the Poisson bracket, so that Poisson ideals, Poisson cores, and the Poisson prime spectrum are exactly the $\Delta$-objects.

What would settle it

Look for a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ in a singular complex affine Poisson algebra for which the Zariski closure of the symplectic leaf $L(\mathfrak{m})$ is a proper subset of the symplectic core $C(\mathfrak{m})$; the paper's Lemma 6.5 asserts these always coincide, so such an example would falsify the symplectic-core criterion in Theorem 6.7.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For any complex affine Poisson algebra $A$, the paper establishes that $A$ satisfies the Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence if and only if, in the poset $(\mathrm{P.spec}\, A, \subseteq)$, every Poisson prime ideal that is $|\mathbb{C}|$-separable is also $\aleph_0$-separable. Concretely, a Poisson prime ideal is $|\mathbb{C}|$-separable when fewer than continuum many minimal Poisson prime ideals lie over it, and $\aleph_0$-separability means that there are only finitely many such minimal primes. The paper also proves an equivalent geometric formulation: the equivalence holds exactly when every symplectic core in the maximal spectrum is locally closed. These results are obtained through a broader theorem for commutative differential algebras $R$ over a base field $k$ satisfying $\dim_k R < |k|$ and $|\Delta| < |k|$, where $|k|$-separability in the $\Delta$-prime spectrum is shown to be equivalent to $\Delta$-rationality.

Load-bearing premise

The symplectic-core characterization rests on the Brown-Gordon lemma that for every maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ the Zariski closure of the symplectic leaf $L(\mathfrak{m})$ is exactly the symplectic core $C(\mathfrak{m})$; if that equality fails on singular affine Poisson varieties, the geometric criterion collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If a complex affine Poisson algebra's Poisson prime spectrum is a union of locally closed pieces each homeomorphic to the Poisson spectrum of another affine Poisson algebra, the algebra satisfies the Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence if and only if each piece does.
If the Poisson bracket is algebraic, meaning every symplectic leaf is locally closed, then the equivalence holds; this recovers earlier finite-leaf results as a special case.
If an algebraic group acts rationally by Poisson automorphisms and there are only finitely many orbits of symplectic leaves or symplectic cores, the equivalence holds.
For commutative differential algebras satisfying $\dim_k R < |k|$ and $|\Delta| < |k|$, the paper's Theorem 4.6 gives an analogous topological criterion, so the result is not special to Poisson structures.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the criterion in Theorem 6.2 is phrased only in terms of the specialization poset of $\mathrm{P.spec}\, A$, one can in principle verify the Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence from a finite or countable description of the poset, without computing Poisson brackets on large subalgebras; this is an editorial extension, since the paper does not develop such a computational procedure.
The paper's use of the cardinality bound $\dim_k R < |k|$ suggests that the same topological criterion should be testable for Poisson algebras over other uncountable base fields, replacing $|\mathbb{C}|$ with $|k|$ and $\aleph_0$ with the corresponding threshold; the paper does not state such a generalization for Poisson algebras.
One way to search for a counterexample to the Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence would be to construct an affine Poisson algebra whose Poisson prime poset has a prime ideal with countably many but not finitely many minimal primes over it and then check whether that prime is rational; the paper's theorem predicts such a prime cannot be rational.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things worth knowing. The κ-separability/poset part is the real contribution. Theorems 4.5–4.6 and their Poisson consequence Theorem 6.2 are proved in detail, they generalize Bell–Launois–Sánchez–Moosa in a clean way, and the adaptation of Bell–Wang–Yee's base-field trick is careful. That half looks solid and is new.

The symplectic-core half is not. Proposition 5.3(iii) is false as stated. In the proof of (i)⇒(iii), from ∩_{M∈C(P)}M = P the authors conclude C(P) = {Q ∈ max R | P ⊆ Q}. That conclusion confuses a set with its Zariski closure. The intersection equality only gives the closure. Concrete example: A = C[x,y] with {x,y} = x. The DME holds: primitive, rational, and locally closed Poisson primes are {0} together with the points (x, y−c). But for P = 0, C(0) = {max ideals with a ≠ 0} = max∖V(x), while {Q | 0 ⊆ Q} = max. So the equality in (iii) fails while DME holds. The same closure confusion appears in the appeal to Lemma 6.5; as typeset, that lemma cannot supply the equality used in Proposition 5.3 and Theorem 6.7.

Theorem 6.7(ii) is also false as stated. On C[x,y] with the zero Poisson bracket, DME holds but Cspec(0) = {0} is not locally closed in spec C[x,y]. The theorem should quantify over primitive ideals, or over maximal cores only, not over every prime ideal.

I want to be clear about proportion: I found no gap in the Section 4 chain, and the poset criterion is substantial. But the abstract and Theorem C overstate the symplectic-core criterion, and the proof does not go through as written. The gap is repairable, probably by using local closedness together with closure equality, but right now the Section 5–6 arc is unsound.

This paper deserves a serious referee; the good half is worth referee time. I would not desk-reject, but I would not accept until the core equality is fixed or the claims are weakened.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a topological criterion for the Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin (DM) equivalence. It introduces κ-separability for points of a Zariski space and of a poset, and proves for noetherian commutative differential algebras over a large base field k that Δ-primitive, Δ-rational and |k|-separable Δ-prime ideals coincide (Theorem 4.5), so that the Δ-DM equivalence is equivalent to the statement that |k|-separability implies ℵ0-separability in Δ-spec R (Theorem 4.6). It then applies this to complex affine Poisson algebras, obtaining the poset criterion (Theorem 6.2), a local detection criterion (Theorem 6.3), and a claimed characterization in terms of local closedness of symplectic leaf/core strata (Theorems 6.7 and 6.10). The abstract also promises a generalization of a weaker DM equivalence from Bell–Launois–Sánchez–Moosa to arbitrary commutative differential algebras.

Significance. Theorems 4.5, 4.6 and 6.2 are attractive and, if correct, constitute a genuinely parameter-free topological characterization of the Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence: no group action and no finite-strata assumption is needed. The treatment of Δ-cores is detailed, the relevant external results are cited, and the main chain from Section 4 appears to be proved step-by-step. However, the symplectic-core section contains a false proposition and a mis-stated theorem, so the paper needs substantial revision before the core-stratification claims (Theorem C of the introduction) can be accepted. The counterexamples below show that the errors are not merely cosmetic: they affect the exact content of Proposition 5.3 and Theorem 6.7.

major comments (2)

[§5, Proposition 5.3, proof of (i)⇒(iii)] The implication (i)⇒(iii) is false as stated. After proving ∩_{M∈C(P)} M = P, the proof writes C(P) = {Q ∈ max R | (∩_{M∈C(P)} M) ⊆ Q} = {Q ∈ max R | P ⊆ Q}. The first equality describes the Zariski closure of C(P), not C(P) itself, and a locally closed set need not equal its closure. Concretely, let A = C[x,y] with Poisson bracket {x,y} = x and take P = 0. The Poisson prime spectrum is {0} ∪ {(x)} ∪ {(x,y−c) : c ∈ C}; the locally closed, primitive and rational Poisson primes are exactly {0} and the points (x,y−c), so the Poisson DM equivalence holds. But C(0) = {maximal ideals (x−a, y−b) with a ≠ 0}, which is a proper open dense subset of max A, whereas {Q ∈ max A | 0 ⊆ Q} = max A. Hence the equality in condition (iii) fails. In the Poisson application, Lemma 6.5 supplies only closure equalities, namely \overline{L(m)} = {q | P(m) ⊆ q} and \overline{L(m)} = \overline{C(m)}; it does not supply equality of C(m) with that closed set. The proof of Theorem 6.7 must therefore be revised: the correct input is local closedness together with closure equality, not the stronger set equality used in the paper.
[§6, Theorem 6.7(ii)] The statement 'Cspec(p) is locally closed in spec A for any p ∈ spec A' is false. In the same example A = C[x,y] with {x,y} = x, take p = (x). The only prime ideal whose Poisson core is (x) is (x) itself, so Cspec((x)) = {(x)}. But (x) is the generic point of the irreducible curve V(x) and is not locally closed in spec C[x,y] (it is not open in its closure, since V(x) has infinitely many closed points). Since the Poisson DM equivalence holds in this example, (i) does not imply (ii) as stated. The intended statement is presumably Proposition 5.3(ii), namely local closedness of Cspec(P) for P ∈ P.prim A, or equivalently for primes p with Poisson primitive core. The theorem statement and its proof need to be corrected accordingly.

minor comments (5)

[§2, first paragraph] There is a typo: 'Every every open subset' should read 'Every open subset'.
[§5, proof of Proposition 5.3(iii)⇒(i)] The displayed expression C(P) \setminus \overline{C(P)} should read \overline{C(P)} \setminus C(P); as written it describes the empty set and makes the subsequent argument unreadable.
[§1, definition of Poisson prime ideal] The sentence 'A Poisson prime ideal of A is a prime ideal of A that is also a prime ideal' should end with 'also a Poisson ideal'.
[§6, proof of Theorem 6.7] The claim that the equality C(m) = {q ∈ max A | P(m) ⊆ q} is 'automatically satisfied by Lemma 6.5(i)&(ii)' is incorrect; Lemma 6.5 gives closure equality, not set equality. The proof should be rewritten using closure equality, as indicated in the major comments.
[Global] Examples 6.11 and 6.12 contain typographical errors such as 'noncommuative', 'singluar' and 'M oeglin'; these should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the topological criteria are derived, not assumed, and the sole self-citation is a proof-technique attribution.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived rather than presupposed. Theorem 6.2 follows from the general differential-algebra Theorem 4.6, which in turn rests on Proposition 3.5 and Lemma 4.3. Lemma 4.3 states that its proof 'follows closely the proof of [8, Lemma 2.3]', but this is an attribution of method, not a logical dependence: the present statement concerns ∆-prime ideals in commutative differential algebras and is proved with its own construction of R0 and F. The only overlapping author with [8] is X. Wang, and the cited lemma is not used as an unproved premise. Theorem 6.7 depends on Proposition 5.3 and on Lemma 6.5, taken from Brown-Gordon [11]; that is external support, not self-citation. No fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction, and no definition of the Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence is smuggled into the hypotheses. Even the point on which a skeptic might attack the proof — the inference in Proposition 5.3(iii) replacing C(P) by its closure when deriving C(P) = {Q : P ⊆ Q} — is a mathematical correctness concern about a step in a proof, not a case of the theorem being equivalent to its inputs by construction. The paper is therefore not circular in any of the seven monitored senses, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The results are pure algebraic theorems. No numerical parameters are fitted and no new physical or algebraic entities are postulated. The new definition kappa-separability is a property of points in posets and Zariski spaces, not an entity with an independent falsifiable handle. The axioms listed are standard algebra facts or explicitly cited results from [10], [11], and [16].

assumptions (4)

domain assumption k is a field of characteristic zero and R is a noetherian commutative k-algebra with dim_k R < |k| and |Delta| < |k| for the differential-algebra theorems.
Stated in Section 3 and used in Theorems 4.5 and 4.6. For complex affine Poisson algebras, dim_C A is at most countably infinite and |Delta| can be chosen finite, so the assumption is automatically satisfied.
standard math The prime spectrum of a noetherian ring is a Zariski space, and every noetherian k-algebra with dim_k R < |k| is a Jacobson ring satisfying the Nullstellensatz.
Invoked in Lemma 3.1(iv), Proposition 3.5, and Theorem 4.5 via [10, Proposition II.7.12 and II.7.16].
domain assumption The Delta-core map pi: spec R to Delta-spec R is a continuous retraction and a topological quotient, and Delta-prime ideals are intersections of Delta-primitive ideals when dim_k R < |k|.
Used in Lemma 3.1 and Proposition 5.3; these are results of Goodearl [16, Theorem 1.3, Lemma 1.1].
domain assumption For a complex affine Poisson algebra, the symplectic leaf through a maximal ideal m has Zariski closure equal to the symplectic core, which equals the set of maximal ideals containing the Poisson core P(m).
This is Lemma 6.5, cited from Brown-Gordon [11, Lemma 3.5 and Proposition 3.6], and it is the geometric input for Theorems 6.7 and 6.10.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence from a topological point of view." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZM7KR3X

@misc{pith2026190806542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence from a topological point of view},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZM7KR3X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06542}
}

abstract

In this paper, we provide some topological criteria for the Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence for $A$ in terms of the poset $({\rm P. spec A}, \subseteq)$ and the symplectic leaf or core stratification on its maximal spectrum. In particular, we prove that the Zariski topology of the Poisson prime spectrum and of each symplectic leaf or core can detect the Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence for any complex affine Poisson algebra. Moreover, we generalize the weaker version of the Poisson Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence for a complex affine Poisson algebra proved in [J. Bell, S. Launois, O.L. S\'anchez, and B. Moosa, Poisson algebras via model theory and differential algebraic geometry, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 19(2017), no. 7, 2019-2049] to the general context of a commutative differential algebra.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

Abrams, J

G. Abrams, J. P. Bell, and K. M Rangaswamy, The Dixmier-Mo eglin equiv- alence for Leavitt path algebras. Algebr. Represent. Theory 15 (2012), no. 3, 407–425

work page 2012
[2]

Artin, J

M. Artin, J. Tate, and M. Van den Bergh, Some algebras asso ciated to auto- morphisms of elliptic curves. In The Grothendieck Festschrift, Vol. I , volume 86 of Progr. Math., pages 33–85. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Boston , MA, 1990

work page 1990
[3]

J. P. Bell and D. Ghioca, Periodic subvarieties of semiab elian varieties and annihilators of irreducible representations. Preprin t, available online at ArXiv:1806.11054

arXiv
[4]

J. P. Bell, S. Launois, O. Le´ on S´ anchez, and R. Moosa, Po isson algebras via model theory and diﬀerential-algebraic geometry. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 19 (2017), no. 7, 2019–2049

work page 2017
[5]

J. P. Bell, O. Le´ on S´ anchez, and R. Moosa,D-groups and the Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence. Algebra Number Theory 12 (2018), no. 2, 343–378

work page 2018
[6]

J. P. Bell and W. H. Leung, The Dixmier-Moeglin equivalen ce for cocommu- tative Hopf algebras of ﬁnite Gelfand-Kirillov dimension. Algebr. Represent. Theory 17 (2014), no. 6, 1843–1852

work page 2014
[7]

J. P. Bell, D. Rogalski, and S. J. Sierra, The Dixmier-Moe glin equivalence for twisted homogeneous coordinate rings. Israel J. Math. 180 (2010), 461–507

work page 2010
[8]

J. P. Bell, X. Wang, and D. Yee, The Dixmier-Moeglin equiv alence, Morita equivalence, and homeomorphism of spectra. J. Algebra 534 (2019), 228–244

work page 2019

Show all 37 references

[9]

Bourbaki, Commutative Algebra , Chapters 1-7, reprint of the 1972 ed., Elem

N. Bourbaki, Commutative Algebra , Chapters 1-7, reprint of the 1972 ed., Elem. Math. (Berlin), Springer, Berlin, 1989

1972
[10]

K. A. Brown and K. R. Goodearl, Lectures on algebraic qua ntum groups. Advanced Courses in Mathematics. CRM Barcelona. Birkh¨ auser Verlag, Basel, 2002

2002
[11]

K. A. Brown and I. Gordon, Poisson orders, symplectic re ﬂection algebras and representation theory. J. Reine Angew. Math. 559 (2003), 193–216

2003
[12]

K. A. Brown and M. T. Yakimov, Azumaya loci and discrimin ant ideals of PI algebras, Adv. Math. 340 (2018), 1219–1255. 28 J. LUO, X. W ANG, AND Q.-S. WU

2018
[13]

Chin, Actions of solvable algebraic groups on noncom mutative rings, Con- temp

W. Chin, Actions of solvable algebraic groups on noncom mutative rings, Con- temp. Math. , vol. 124, 1992, pp. 29–38

1992
[14]

Dixmier, Id´ eaux primitifs dans les alg` ebres envel oppantes

J. Dixmier, Id´ eaux primitifs dans les alg` ebres envel oppantes. J. Algebra 48 (1977), 96–112

1977
[15]

Dixmier, Enveloping algebras

J. Dixmier, Enveloping algebras. North-Holland Mathe matical Library, Vol. 14. Translated from the French. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-New York-Oxford, 1977. xvi+375 pp

1977
[16]

K. R. Goodearl, A Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence for Pois son algebras with torus actions. In Algebra and its applications, volume 419 o f Contemp. Math., pages 131–154. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2006

2006
[17]

K. R. Goodearl and S. Launois, The Dixmier-Moeglin equi valence and a Gel’fand-Kirillov problem for Poisson polynomial algebra s. Bull. Soc. Math. France 139 (2011), 1–39

2011
[18]

K. R. Goodearl and E. S. Letzter, The Dixmier-Moeglin eq uivalence in quan- tum coordinate rings and quantized Weyl algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 352 (2000), no. 3, 1381–1403

2000
[19]

K. R. Goodearl and J. J. Zhang, Noetherian Hopf algebra d omains of Gelfand- Kirillov dimension two. J. Algebra 324 (2010), no. 11, 3131–3168

2010
[20]

R. D. Hartshorne, Algebraic Geometry. New York: Springer-Verlag, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 52, 1977

1977
[21]

Launois and O

S. Launois and O. L. S´ anchez, On the Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence for Poisson- Hopf algebras. Adv. Math. 346 (2019), 48–69

2019
[22]

L¨ u, X Wang, and G.-B

J.-F. L¨ u, X Wang, and G.-B. Zhuang, Universal enveloping algebras of Poisson Ore extensions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 143 (2015), no. 11, 4633–4645

2015
[23]

, Homological unimodularity and Calabi-Yau condition for P oisson al- gebras, Lett. Math. Phys. 107 (2017), no. 9, 1715–1740

2017
[24]

McConnell and J

J. McConnell and J. Robson, Noncommutative Noetherian rings. With the cooperation of L. W. Small. Revised edition. Graduate Studi es in Mathematics,
[25]

Moeglin, Id´ eaux bilat` eres des alg` ebres envelopp antes

C. Moeglin, Id´ eaux bilat` eres des alg` ebres envelopp antes. Bull. Soc. Math. France 108 (1980), 143–186

1980
[26]

Nguyen, K

B. Nguyen, K. Trampel, and M. T. Yakimov, Noncommutativ e discriminants via Poisson primes, Adv. Math. 322 (2017), 269–307

2017
[27]

A. V. Odesskii and V. N. Rubtsov, Theoret. and Math. Phys. 133, no. 1 (2002), 1321–1337

2002
[28]

Oh, Symplectic ideals of Poisson algebras and the Poisson structure associated to quantum matrices, Comm

S.-Q. Oh, Symplectic ideals of Poisson algebras and the Poisson structure associated to quantum matrices, Comm. Algebra 27 (1999), 2163–2180

1999
[29]

Polishchuk, Algebraic geometry of Poisson brackets , J

A. Polishchuk, Algebraic geometry of Poisson brackets , J. Math. Sci. 84 (1997), 1413–1444

1997
[30]

American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001

2001
[31]

S. P. Smith and J. Tate, The center of the 3-dimensional a nd 4-dimensional Sklyanin algebras, K-Theory, 8(1):19–63, 1994

1994
[32]

Vanhaecke, Integrable Systems in the realm of Algebr aic Geometry, Spring Lect

P. Vanhaecke, Integrable Systems in the realm of Algebr aic Geometry, Spring Lect. Notes Math. , 1638, Berlin 1996

1996
[33]

Vonessen, Actions of algebraic groups on the spectru m of rational ideals

N. Vonessen, Actions of algebraic groups on the spectru m of rational ideals. J. Algebra 182 (1996), no. 2, 383–400

1996
[34]

Walton, X

C. Walton, X. Wang, and M. T. Yakimov, Poisson geometry o f PI three- dimensional Sklyanin algebras, Proc. of the Lond. Math. Soc. , (3) 118, (2019), no. 6, 1471–1500

2019
[35]

, Poisson geometry and representations of PI 4-dimensional Sklyanin algebras, preprint, arXiv:1802.06487

arXiv
[36]

Weinstein, The local structure of Poisson manifolds , J

A. Weinstein, The local structure of Poisson manifolds , J. Diﬀ. Geom. 18 (1983), 523–557. SOME TOPOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR THE POISSON DIXMIER-MOEGLIN EQUIV ALENCE 29

1983
[37]

A. E. Zalesski ˘ ı, The irreducible representations of ﬁ nitely generated nilpotent groups without torsion. Mat. Zametki 9 (1971), 199–210. Mathematics and Science College, Shanghai Normal Universi ty, Shanghai 200234, China E-mail address : luojuan@shnu.edu.cn Department of M...

1971

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Abrams, J

G. Abrams, J. P. Bell, and K. M Rangaswamy, The Dixmier-Mo eglin equiv- alence for Leavitt path algebras. Algebr. Represent. Theory 15 (2012), no. 3, 407–425

work page 2012

[2] [2]

Artin, J

M. Artin, J. Tate, and M. Van den Bergh, Some algebras asso ciated to auto- morphisms of elliptic curves. In The Grothendieck Festschrift, Vol. I , volume 86 of Progr. Math., pages 33–85. Birkh¨ auser Boston, Boston , MA, 1990

work page 1990

[3] [3]

J. P. Bell and D. Ghioca, Periodic subvarieties of semiab elian varieties and annihilators of irreducible representations. Preprin t, available online at ArXiv:1806.11054

arXiv

[4] [4]

J. P. Bell, S. Launois, O. Le´ on S´ anchez, and R. Moosa, Po isson algebras via model theory and diﬀerential-algebraic geometry. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 19 (2017), no. 7, 2019–2049

work page 2017

[5] [5]

J. P. Bell, O. Le´ on S´ anchez, and R. Moosa,D-groups and the Dixmier-Moeglin equivalence. Algebra Number Theory 12 (2018), no. 2, 343–378

work page 2018

[6] [6]

J. P. Bell and W. H. Leung, The Dixmier-Moeglin equivalen ce for cocommu- tative Hopf algebras of ﬁnite Gelfand-Kirillov dimension. Algebr. Represent. Theory 17 (2014), no. 6, 1843–1852

work page 2014

[7] [7]

J. P. Bell, D. Rogalski, and S. J. Sierra, The Dixmier-Moe glin equivalence for twisted homogeneous coordinate rings. Israel J. Math. 180 (2010), 461–507

work page 2010

[8] [8]

J. P. Bell, X. Wang, and D. Yee, The Dixmier-Moeglin equiv alence, Morita equivalence, and homeomorphism of spectra. J. Algebra 534 (2019), 228–244

work page 2019