Burnside rings for racks and quandles

Markus Szymik; Nadia Mazza

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Burnside rings for racks and quandles

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs a Burnside ring for finite racks and quandles and proves that the classes of connected racks form an integral basis, with marks that separate all elements.

desk verdict Core Burnside ring theory for racks is solid, but the closing crossed-Burnside ring isomorphism has a real gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01425 v1 pith:DWVL2QDA submitted 2025-07-02 math.RT math.ATmath.GNmath.GRmath.QA

Nadia Mazza , Markus Szymik This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.RTmath.ATmath.GNmath.GRmath.QA MSC 19A2220N02

keywords Burnsideringsracksquandlesadditiveinvariantsmarksconnectedprimecrossedactions

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

Racks are algebraic structures that abstract the axioms of knotting and braiding—a set where each element acts bijectively on the whole set—and quandles are the special case with $x\triangleright x = x$. The paper sets up a Burnside ring for finite racks: a ring built from all finite racks whose addition records how a rack decomposes into subracks, and whose multiplication records cartesian products. Its main structural claim is that the classes of connected racks form an integral basis of this ring, so every finite rack has a unique coordinate vector indexed by connected racks, and two connected racks have the same class exactly when they are isomorphic. The ring is the universal home for every invariant that is additive over decompositions, so any such invariant is determined by its values on connected racks. The paper also introduces marks—ring homomorphisms that count morphisms from a fixed connected rack—and proves they are strong enough to tell every element of the ring apart; for quandles it shows the Burnside ring is a monoid ring on connected quandles, giving prime quandles and a cancellation theorem.

What carries the argument

The central object is $B(\mathcal{R})$, the Burnside ring of finite racks, defined as the universal additive invariant: it is generated by symbols $b(R)$ with $b(R)=b(S)+b(T)$ whenever $R$ decomposes into subracks $S$ and $T$, and with multiplication $b(R)b(S)=b(R\times S)$. The load-bearing mechanism is Theorem 4.1, which makes the classes of connected racks an integral basis; through it every element of $B(\mathcal{R})$ has unique integer coordinates indexed by finite connected racks, and defining an additive invariant is the same as choosing a value on each connected class. The companion mechanism is the theory of marks: for a finitely generated connected rack $C$, the mark $\Phi_C$ sends $b(R)$ to the number of rack morphisms $C\to R$, and these maps are ring homomorphisms whose totality embeds $B(\mathcal{R})$ into a product of copies of $\mathbb{Z}$. For quandles, the cartesian product makes connected quandles an abelian monoid, and $B(\mathcal{Q})$ becomes the monoid ring on that monoid, which turns quandle classification into the arithmetic of prime quandles.

What would settle it

Find a finite rack with two different decompositions for which the multisets of maximal connected subracks differ, or find a nontrivial integer linear combination of classes of connected racks that equals zero in $B(\mathcal{R})$; either would refute Theorem 4.1. A concrete route is to enumerate small finite racks, compute the marks $\Phi_C$ for all small connected racks $C$, and check whether two non-isomorphic connected racks have identical mark vectors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that classification data for finite racks and quandles can be packaged as commutative ring arithmetic. Theorem 4.1 asserts that the map from the free abelian group on isomorphism classes of finite connected racks to $B(\mathcal{R})$, sending $[R]$ to $b(R)$, is an isomorphism; consequently the class of every finite rack has unique integer coordinates in the basis of connected classes, and $B(\mathcal{R})$ is torsion-free. Theorem 4.2 says in this basis $b(C)=b(D)$ forces $C\cong D$ for connected racks $C,D$. Theorem 5.8 asserts that the marks $\Phi_C$, indexed by finite connected racks $C$, form a jointly injective family of ring homomorphisms $B(\mathcal{R})\to\mathbb{Z}$, so counting morphisms from all finite connected racks is a complete system of ring-valued invariants. Theorem 7.4 identifies the Burnside ring $B(\mathcal{Q})$ of finite quandles with the monoid ring $\mathbb{Z}\{\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{con}}\}$ on connected quandles under cartesian product, yielding prime quandles as multiplicative generators and a cancellation theorem for products with nonempty quandles. Theorem 8.20 identifies $B(\mathcal{R})$ with the Burnside ring of the category of global crossed actions, so the rack bookkeeping coincides with a global version of crossed Burnside rings for finite groups.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the external decomposition fact that every finite rack is a disjoint union of its maximal connected subracks, since the proof of the integral-basis theorem uses that fact, through Lemma 2.10, to show that the basis map is injective.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Because connected classes freely generate $B(\mathcal{R})$, any additive invariant of finite racks is completely determined by the integers it assigns to connected racks; arbitrary integer values on connected classes extend uniquely to a homomorphism of the ring.
Connected racks are linearly independent in the universal invariant: two connected racks have the same class in $B(\mathcal{R})$ exactly when they are isomorphic, so additive invariants cannot confuse distinct connected racks.
For quandles, $B(\mathcal{Q})$ is the monoid ring on connected quandles, so each connected quandle factors as a product of prime quandles, cancellation holds for multiplication by nonempty quandles, and quandle classification acquires the language of prime factorisation.
The marks $\Phi_C$ separate all elements of $B(\mathcal{R})$, giving a constructive complete invariant: the vector $(|\mathrm{Mor}_{\mathcal{R}}(C,R)|)$ over finite connected racks $C$ determines the class of every finite rack in the ring.
Since knot quandles are finitely generated and connected, every knot provides a mark, i.e., a ring homomorphism $B(\mathcal{R})\to\mathbb{Z}$, so knot theory supplies linear functionals on the Burnside ring of racks.
The isomorphism $B(\mathcal{R})\cong B(\mathcal{X})$ with the Burnside ring of crossed actions means rack invariants and crossed Burnside ring constructions are the same bookkeeping, without fixing a finite group.

Reading between the lines

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

If Theorem 4.1 is right, then finite racks can be compared by their integer coordinate vectors in the connected basis; enumerating small racks and computing these vectors would give a practical isomorphism test for connected racks, since equality of all marks would force isomorphism.
The paper leaves open whether the map from the polynomial ring on prime quandles to $B(\mathcal{Q})$ is injective; if it is, connected quandles have unique prime factorisation and $B(\mathcal{Q})$ is a polynomial ring, a question one could probe by searching small connected quandles for two distinct products of primes that are isomorphic.
The identification with crossed actions suggests that invariants built from centralisers and conjugacy classes in crossed Burnside rings automatically become rack invariants; conversely, rack marks could reveal new congruences among crossed actions with different acting groups.
Because $B(\mathcal{R})$ is a free abelian group, one can reduce the mark vector modulo primes and build character-table-like arrays for racks and quandles, potentially giving fast separation criteria for classification databases in the style of marks for finite groups.

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

First thing you should know: the main content of this paper—a Burnside ring for finite racks built from decompositions instead of disjoint unions—is a genuine new idea, and the structural results in Sections 3–7 hold up. I would not desk-reject this. But there is a real problem in the last section: Theorem 8.20, the claimed isomorphism with the global crossed Burnside ring, has a flawed proof, and I believe the statement as written is false.

What is good: Theorem 4.1 (the classes of connected racks form an integral basis) is proved with an explicit invariant; the reliance on [AG03, Prop. 1.17] is standard and the result follows from the paper's own orbit concepts. The mark theory in Section 5 is well done and the separation theorem (5.8) is convincing. The prime quandle results and the cancellation theorem (7.1) are attractive. The authors are right that the Grothendieck group of disjoint unions is too big, and the decomposition-based ring fixes that.

The problem: in the proof of Theorem 8.20, they claim that a rack decomposition R = S ∪ T gives equivalent crossed actions R → Aut(R) and S ⊔ T → Aut(S) × Aut(T). That is false. Here is a concrete example. Let R = {s,a,b} with s▷s = s, s▷a = b, s▷b = a, and a,b acting trivially. This is a quandle. Let S = {s}, T = {a,b}; both are subracks, so this is a decomposition. The crossed action R → Aut(R) sends s to the transposition of a,b and a,b to the identity. The sum of the crossed actions on S and T has all crossings trivial, and no equivariant bijection to the first can exist because the first has a nontrivial C2-action while the sum has none matching it. So the proposed additive invariant R ↦ b(R → Aut(R)) is not additive: it does not respect b(R) = b(S) + b(T). This is not a minor gap; it sinks the proof of 8.20. The authors might salvage something by redefining the sum in the crossed-action category, but as written the theorem is unsupported.

Minor issues: Definition 3.1 says 'for each rack R' but the universal property only works for finite racks; please state that. Theorem 7.4 has a sketch rather than a full proof, though the result is plausible.

Bottom line: Sections 3–7 constitute a solid contribution to the classification theory of racks and quandles and deserve serious refereeing. Section 8 needs major correction or deletion. If that part is fixed, this is a good accept; if not, the core still has value.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops Burnside rings B(R) and B(Q) for finite racks and quandles, defined as universal additive invariants with respect to decompositions into subracks. Its main results are: the classes of connected racks form an integral basis of B(R) (Theorem 4.1); marks associated to finite connected racks separate the elements of B(R) (Theorem 5.8); the quandle Burnside ring B(Q) is the monoid ring of connected quandles, leading to a notion of prime quandles (Theorems 7.4 and 7.9); and B(Z) tensor B(Q) embeds into B(R) (Corollary 7.13). The final section introduces a global category of crossed actions and claims B(X) is isomorphic to B(R) (Theorem 8.20), advertised as a bridge to crossed Burnside ring theory.

Significance. Sections 1–7 contain a genuinely useful framework: the universal additive invariant construction is clean, the integral basis theorem is proved with explicit arguments, the mark theory is a plausible analogue of group-action fixed-point marks, and the quandle Burnside ring analysis is instructive and likely correct. If Theorem 8.20 were valid, it would substantially strengthen the paper's connections to crossed Burnside rings. However, the proof of Theorem 8.20 is invalid, and the claimed isomorphism is in fact false as stated. The counterexample below shows that the proposed additive invariant B(R) → B(X) does not exist. Thus the paper's final advertised result is a load-bearing error, even though the earlier sections appear sound and could form the basis of a revised paper.

major comments (1)

[§8.4, Proof of Theorem 8.20] The proof of the isomorphism B(X) ≅ B(R) fails at the claimed additivity of the map B(R) → B(X) sending a finite rack (R,δ) to the crossed action δ:R → Aut(R). The proof asserts that for a decomposition R = S ⊔ T, the crossed actions R → Aut(R) and S ⊔ T → Aut(S) × Aut(T) are equivalent via the inclusion Aut(S) × Aut(T) ≤ Aut(R). This inclusion is not generally valid. A concrete counterexample is as follows. Let S = {s1,s2} and T = {t1,t2,t3} be trivial quandles of orders 2 and 3, and define a rack R on S ⊔ T by keeping the operations within S and T trivial, setting s ▷ t = φ_s(t) for s ∈ S, t ∈ T with φ_{s1} = id_T and φ_{s2} = (t1 t2), and setting t ▷ s = s for t ∈ T, s ∈ S. One checks that each left multiplication is an automorphism, so R is a finite rack; moreover S and T are subracks (indeed ideals), so R is decomposed as S ∪ T. The sum crossed action attached to S and T in B(X) has constant identity crossing, because the left multiplications of the trivial quandles S and T are identity maps; hence it represents the trivial rack on five elements. The crossed action R → Aut(R) has δ(s2) = ℓ_{s2} = (t1 t2), a non-trivial permutation, so the two crossed actions are not equivalent (an equivalence would induce an isomorphism of the underlying racks). Equivalently, the map z(δ) = |{x ∈ X : δ(x) acts trivially on X}| is a well-defined homomorphism B(X) → Z, additive on sums by construction; it evaluates to 4 on R → Aut(R) and to 5 on the sum of the S- and T-crossed actions. Therefore the proposed additive invariant B(R) → B(X) does not exist, and Theorem 8.20 is false as stated.

minor comments (5)

[§2, Remark 2.2] The word "Definiton" should be "Definition".
[§8, Proof of Proposition 8.17] The word "betweem" should be "between".
[§8, Example 8.10] The phrase "integeral basis" should be "integral basis".
[§7, Theorem 7.4] The proof is very compressed; since this is a central structural result, a fuller proof of the additive isomorphism and of the compatibility with multiplication would help the reader.
[§6, Proposition 6.7] The multiplicativity check is terse: the product S × T of connected racks need not be connected, so the argument should explicitly pass through the connected components of S × T when applying the additivity of λ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the integral-basis theorem is derived from the universal definition of the Burnside ring, and the cited decomposition result is independently provable from the paper's own definitions.

full rationale

The central claim, Theorem 4.1, asserts that the classes of connected finite racks form an integral basis of the Burnside ring B(R) defined in Definition 3.8 as the universal additive invariant. The proof is not circular. Surjectivity is proved by induction on the number of elements, using Proposition 2.7 (connected if and only if indecomposable), which is established directly from the actions of inner automorphism groups. Injectivity is proved by constructing the additive invariant (4.3), sending a finite rack to the formal sum of its maximal connected subracks. The only external input is the cited [AG03, Prop. 1.17] decomposition of a finite rack into maximal connected subracks; this decomposition follows from the paper's own definitions: every element is a singleton connected subrack, and two connected subracks with non-empty intersection have connected union because any two elements in the union can be joined by a word in inner automorphisms of the intersecting subracks. Thus the citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. The paper explicitly notes in the introduction that one could alternatively define the Burnside ring via the basis and then prove universality, which shows the authors distinguish the universal definition from the basis theorem and do not presuppose the latter. The marks of Section 5 are defined independently by counting morphisms from finitely generated connected racks, and Theorem 5.8 is proved by an induction on cardinality using the partial order of injective morphisms, with no fitted parameters or assumed conclusion. The multiplicative results in Sections 6 and 7 are derived from Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 7.4's own proof, not from a self-referential assumption. Self-citations such as [Szy18] for the centre of the rack category and [Maz23] for crossed Burnside rings are used as background or for standard facts, and they are not the sole justification for the paper's principal structural results. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces the Burnside ring B(R) as a defined construction, not a postulated entity; it is justified as the universal additive invariant. No speculative entities are introduced. The central claims rest only on standard mathematics and a small number of cited background results.

assumptions (3)

standard math Standard mathematical foundations (ZFC set theory with classical logic)
The paper uses conventional algebra and category theory; no non-standard axioms are introduced.
domain assumption Every finite rack has a decomposition into maximal connected subracks
Cited as [AG03, Prop. 1.17]; used in the proof of Theorem 4.1 to construct the additive invariant R that goes to the sum of [C] over maximal connected subracks C.
domain assumption Basic properties of racks and quandles, including the canonical automorphism sigma(x) = x ▷ x and the enveloping group construction
Standard background established in Sections 1.3-1.4 and [Joy82a, AG03]; used throughout the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Burnside rings for racks and quandles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DWVL2QDA

@misc{pith2026250701425,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Burnside rings for racks and quandles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DWVL2QDA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01425}
}

read the original abstract

We restructure and advance the classification theory of finite racks and quandles by employing powerful methods from transformation groups and representation theory, especially Burnside rings. These rings serve as universal receptacles for those invariants of racks and quandles that are additive with respect to decompositions. We present several fundamental results regarding their structure, including additive bases and multiplicative generators. We also develop a theory of marks, which is analogous to counting fixed points of group actions and computing traces in character theory, and which is comprehensive enough to distinguish different elements in the Burnside rings. The new structures not only offer a fresh framework for the classification theory of finite racks and quandles but also equip us with tools to develop these ideas and create interfaces that strengthen connections with related areas of algebra. For example, they extend the Dress--Siebeneicher theory of the Burnside ring of the infinite cyclic group beyond the realm of permutation racks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

[1]

Andruskiewitsch

N. Andruskiewitsch. On pointed Hopf algebras over nilpotent groups. Isr. J. Math. 259 (2024) 169--202

work page 2024
[2]

Andruskiewitsch, M

N. Andruskiewitsch, M. Gra \ n a. From racks to pointed Hopf algebras. Adv. Math. 178 (2003) 177--243

work page 2003
[3]

Bardakov, M

V.G. Bardakov, M. Singh, M. Singh. Free quandles and knot quandles are residually finite. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 147 (2019) 3621--3633

work page 2019
[4]

Bohmann and M

A.M. Bohmann and M. Szymik. Boolean algebras, Morita in\-vari\-ance, and the algebraic K-theory of Lawvere theories. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 175 (2023) 253--270

work page 2023
[5]

S. Bouc. Burnside rings. Handbook of Algebra, Vol. 2, 739--804. Elsevier and North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2000

work page 2000
[6]

S. Bouc. The p --blocks of the Mackey algebra. Algebr. Represent. Theory 6 (2003) 515--543

work page 2003
[7]

Brieskorn

E. Brieskorn. Automorphic sets and braids and singularities. Braids (Santa Cruz, CA, 1986) 45--115. Contemp. Math., 78. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1988

work page 1986
[8]

G. Burde. Knoten. Jahrbuch \"Uberblicke Mathematik, 131--147. Bibliographisches Inst., Mannheim, 1978

work page 1978

Show all 55 references

[9]

Burrows, C

W. Burrows, C. Tuffley. The rack congruence condition and half congruences in racks. arXiv:2308.11852

arXiv
[10]

Carter, M

J.S. Carter, M. Elhamdadi, M. Saito. Homology theory for the set-theoretic Yang-Baxter equation and knot invariants from generalizations of quandles. Fundam. Math. 184 (2004) 31--54

2004
[11]

Davis, T.M

A. Davis, T.M. Schlank. Arithmetic kei theory. arXiv:2408.05489 http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.05489

arXiv
[12]

Carnovale, G

G. Carnovale, G. Maret. Twist equivalence and Nichols algebras over Coxeter groups. Pac. J. Math. 333 (2024) 229--252

2024
[13]

tom Dieck

T. tom Dieck. Transformation groups and representation theory. Lecture Notes in Math., 766. Springer, Berlin, 1979

1979
[14]

tom Dieck

T. tom Dieck. Transformation Groups. De Gruyter Stud. Math., 8. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1987

1987
[15]

A. Dress. A characterisation of solvable groups. Math. Z. 110 (1969) 213--217

1969
[16]

Dress, C

A.W.M. Dress, C. Siebeneicher. The Burnside ring of profinite groups and the Witt vector construction. Adv. in Math. 70 (1988) 87--132

1988
[17]

Dress, C

A.W.M. Dress, C. Siebeneicher. The Burnside ring of the infinite cyclic group and its relations to the necklace algebra, --rings, and the universal ring of Witt vectors. Adv. Math. 78 (1989) 1--41

1989
[18]

Ellenberg, A

J.S. Ellenberg, A. Venkatesh, C. Westerland. Homological stability for Hurwitz spaces and the Cohen--Lenstra conjecture over function fields. Ann. Math. 183 (2016) 729--786

2016
[19]

Eisermann

M. Eisermann. Yang--Baxter deformations and rack cohomology. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 366 (2014) 5113--5138

2014
[20]

Etingof, A

P. Etingof, A. Soloviev, R. Guralnick. Indecomposable set-theoretical solutions to the quantum Yang--Baxter equation on a set with a prime number of elements. J. Algebra 242 (2001) 709--719

2001
[21]

R. Fenn, C. Rourke. Racks and links in codimension two. J. Knot Theory Ramifications 1 (1992) 343--406

1992
[22]

Freyd and D.N

P.J. Freyd and D.N. Yetter. Braided compact closed categories with applications to low-dimensional topology. Adv. Math. 77 (1989) 156--182

1989
[23]

Heckenberger, A

I. Heckenberger, A. Lochmann, L. Vendramin. Nichols algebras with many cubic relations. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 367 (2015) 6315--6356

2015
[24]

Heckenberger, J

I. Heckenberger, J. Shareshian, V. Welker. On the lattice of subracks of the rack of a finite group. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 372 (2019) 1407--1427

2019
[25]

Hulpke, D

A. Hulpke, D. Stanovsk\' y , P. Vojt e chovsk\' y . Connected quandles and transitive groups, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 220 (2016) 735--758

2016
[26]

D.A. Joyce. A classifying invariant of knots, the knot quandle. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 23 (1982) 37--65

1982
[27]

D.A. Joyce. Simple quandles. J. Algebra 79 (1982) 307--318

1982
[28]

S. Kamada. Quandles derived from dynamical systems and subsets which are closed under quandle operations. Topology Appl. 157 (2010) 298--301

2010
[29]

R. Kai, H. Tamaru. On the Euler characteristics for quandles. Int J. Math. (to appear)
[30]

R. Kashaev. A course on Hopf algebras. Universitext. Cham, Springer, 2023

2023
[31]

Kiani, A

D. Kiani, A. Saki. The lattice of subracks is atomic. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 162 (2019) 55--64

2019
[32]

M.K. Kinyon. Leibniz algebras, Lie racks, and digroups. J. Lie Theory 17 (2007) 99--114

2007
[33]

Kr \"a hmer and F

U. Kr \"a hmer and F. Wagemann. Racks, Leibniz algebras and Yetter--Drin\-fel'd modules. Georgian Math. J. 22 (2015) 529--542

2015
[34]

Lawson and M

T. Lawson and M. Szymik. The homotopy theory of racks and quandles. Unstable notes
[35]

Lebed, L

V. Lebed, L. Vendramin. Homology of left non-degenerate set-theoretic solutions to the Yang-Baxter equation. Adv. Math. 304 (2017) 1219--1261

2017
[36]

J.-L. Loday. Une version non commutative des alg\`ebres de Lie: les alg\`ebres de Leibniz. Enseign. Math. 39 (1993) 269--293

1993
[37]

Lopes, D

P. Lopes, D. Roseman. On finite racks and quandles. Commun. Algebra 34 (2006) 371--406

2006
[38]

W. L\"uck. The geometric finiteness obstruction. Proc. London Math. Soc. 54 (1987) 367--384

1987
[39]

S.V. Matveev. Distributive groupoids in knot theory. Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 119/161 (1982) 78--88

1982
[40]

N. Mazza. On the (crossed) Burnside ring of profinite groups. J. Algebra 619 (2023) 799--821

2023
[41]

Mazza, M

N. Mazza, M. Szymik. Mackey functors for racks and quandles. In preparation
[42]

Nelson, C.-Y

S. Nelson, C.-Y. Wong. On the orbit decomposition of finite quandles. J. Knot Theory Ramifications 15 (2006) 761--772

2006
[43]

F. Oda, T. Yoshida. Crossed Burnside rings I. J. Algebra 236 (2001) 29--79

2001
[44]

C.S. Peirce. On the Algebra of Logic. Amer. J. Math. 3 (1880) 15--57
[45]

Randal-Williams

O. Randal-Williams. Homology of Hurwitz spaces and the Cohen--Lenstra heuristic for function fields (after Ellenberg, Venkatesh, and Westerland). 71e ann\'ee, Exp. 1162, 1--27. S\'eminaire Bourbaki, 2019

2019
[46]

A. Saki, D. Kiani. Complemented lattices of subracks. J. Algebraic Combin. 53 (2021) 455--468

2021
[47]

Shusterman

M. Shusterman. The tamely ramified geometric quantitative minimal ramification problem. Compositio Math. 160 (2024) 21--51

2024
[48]

L. Solomon. The Burnside algebra of a finite group. J. Combinatorial Theory 2 (1967) 603--615

1967
[49]

M. Szymik. Permutations, power operations, and the center of the category of racks. Comm. Algebra 46 (2018) 230--240

2018
[50]

M. Szymik. Artin--Schreier quandles of involutions in absolute Galois groups.\\ arXiv:2403.07545 http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07545

arXiv
[51]

Takahashi

N. Takahashi. Quandles associated to Galois covers of arithmetic schemes. Kyushu J. Math. 73 (2019) 145--164

2019
[52]

Vendramin

L. Vendramin. Nichols algebras associated to the transpositions of the symmetric group are twist-equivalent. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 140 (2012) 3715--3723

2012
[53]

Wagemann

F. Wagemann. Crossed modules. De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics 82. Berlin, De Gruyter, 2021

2021
[54]

Waldhausen

F. Waldhausen. On irreducible 3-manifolds which are sufficiently large. Ann. of Math. 87 (1968) 56--88

1968
[55]

D.N. Yetter. Quandles and monodromy. J. Knot Theory Ramifications 12 (2003) 523--541

2003

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Andruskiewitsch

N. Andruskiewitsch. On pointed Hopf algebras over nilpotent groups. Isr. J. Math. 259 (2024) 169--202

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Andruskiewitsch, M

N. Andruskiewitsch, M. Gra \ n a. From racks to pointed Hopf algebras. Adv. Math. 178 (2003) 177--243

work page 2003

[3] [3]

Bardakov, M

V.G. Bardakov, M. Singh, M. Singh. Free quandles and knot quandles are residually finite. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 147 (2019) 3621--3633

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Bohmann and M

A.M. Bohmann and M. Szymik. Boolean algebras, Morita in\-vari\-ance, and the algebraic K-theory of Lawvere theories. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 175 (2023) 253--270

work page 2023

[5] [5]

S. Bouc. Burnside rings. Handbook of Algebra, Vol. 2, 739--804. Elsevier and North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2000

work page 2000

[6] [6]

S. Bouc. The p --blocks of the Mackey algebra. Algebr. Represent. Theory 6 (2003) 515--543

work page 2003

[7] [7]

Brieskorn

E. Brieskorn. Automorphic sets and braids and singularities. Braids (Santa Cruz, CA, 1986) 45--115. Contemp. Math., 78. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1988

work page 1986

[8] [8]

G. Burde. Knoten. Jahrbuch \"Uberblicke Mathematik, 131--147. Bibliographisches Inst., Mannheim, 1978

work page 1978