Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Intersections of Hecke correspondences on the modular varieties of $\mathcal{D}$-elliptic sheaves

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · 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 on modular varieties of D-elliptic sheaves, every Hecke intersection number equals a combination of modified Hurwitz class numbers of imaginary orders and a volume term, giving a higher-rank class number relation.

desk verdict Genuinely new higher-rank Hurwitz–Kronecker formula; the flagged proof gaps are either justifiable or easily patched, so this deserves full refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15746 v1 pith:MUJLD4TL submitted 2025-01-27 math.NT

Özge Ülkem , Fu-Tsun Wei This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NT MSC 11R5811G18
keywords D-ellipticsheavesHeckecorrespondencesintersectionnumbersHurwitzclassimaginaryordersoptimalembeddingsfunctionfieldsnumberrelation
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 proves a higher-rank analogue of the classical class number relation in the function-field setting. On the modular variety of D-elliptic sheaves attached to a central division algebra D of dimension $r^{2}$ over a global function field k, with r a prime different from the characteristic of k, the intersection number of the diagonal with the Hecke cycle Z_a determined by a nonzero ideal a is expressed as a finite sum of modified Hurwitz class numbers of imaginary orders together with a volume term. The precise formula is $$i(Z\cdot Z_a)=\frac{r}{q-1}\left(\sum_{\vec c} H_D(\vec c)+\sum_c H_D(0)\right)$$. This matters because it converts a geometric counting problem into an arithmetic invariant of auxiliary orders, extending the known rank-two relation to every prime rank where the intersection has a clean geometric description.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three linked mechanisms. First, a finite Galois cover X(n) of the coarse moduli scheme X is chosen so that X(n) is smooth, and Briney-style intersection theory for quotients of varieties by finite groups, together with the projection formula, rewrites i(Z\cdot Z_a) as an averaged sum of intersection numbers of pulled-back Hecke cycles Z(n,g) on X(n)\times X(n). Second, the rigid-analytic uniformization X(n)(C_\infty)\simeq D^*\backslash\Omega_r\times D^*(A_f)/K(n) is used to prove that distinct cycles Z(n) and Z(n,g) intersect transversally, so their intersection number is just a count of points. Third, that count is matched through double-coset manipulations to the number of optimal embeddings of imaginary orders into the division algebra D, which the local-global theory of embeddings converts into modified Hurwitz class numbers; the self-intersection of Z(n) is evaluated by a Gauss-Bonnet-type volume formula, giving the H_D(0) term.

What would settle it

For a small case such as r=2, A=F_q[t], and a fixed ideal a, compute both sides of Theorem 9.1 independently: enumerate the contributing c-vectors and optimal embeddings on the arithmetic side, and count the intersection points of X(n) and X(n,g) directly from the uniformization D^*\backslash\Omega_2\times D^*(A_f)/K(n) on the geometric side; a disagreement for any single pair (q,a) would refute the formula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 9.1 asserts that, for r a prime distinct from the characteristic of k and for every nonzero ideal a of A, the intersection number i(Z\cdot Z_a) equals r/(q-1) times the sum, over all c-vectors c=(c_1,\dots,c_r)\in A^r with c_r A=a, of the modified Hurwitz class number H_D(\vec c) of the order R_{\vec c}=A[x]/f_{\vec c}(x), provided f_{\vec c} is irreducible over k and K_{\vec c}=k[x]/(f_{\vec c}(x)) is imaginary over k, plus the sum, over all c\in A with c^r A=a, of the volume quantity H_D(0). In other words, the geometric intersection number is completely determined by class numbers of imaginary orders and a volume term depending only on Pic(A), the zeta function of k, and the ramification set of D. Because D is a division algebra there is no cuspidal intersection, and the assumption that r is prime restricts all intersection components to dimensions 0 or r-1, making the count purely combinatorial after passing to a smooth level-n cover.

Load-bearing premise

The counting step assumes that the auxiliary level n, chosen only by divisibility conditions on the ideal a, can be made to kill all nontrivial units of the imaginary orders modulo n, which needs a prime divisor of n whose residue field is small enough, and for the n actually chosen that requirement is asserted without proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 9.1 is correct, every Hecke intersection number on these modular varieties is a finite, explicitly computable sum of modified Hurwitz class numbers and a volume term depending only on the base curve, the ramification set of D, and the ideal a.
  • For r=2, the formula specializes to a function-field analogue of the Hurwitz-Kronecker class number relation, with the intersection number expressed as a sum over values t^2-4a of modified Hurwitz class numbers of imaginary quadratic orders.
  • Because D is division, the formula gives the full intersection number rather than a finite part, since there are no cuspidal contributions.
  • The right-hand side of Theorem 9.1 does not depend on the auxiliary level n, so the intersection number is shown to be independent of the level structure used to compute it.
  • The restriction to prime r is essential to the clean statement: for composite r, intersection components of higher dimension associated with non-maximal orders would appear, so Theorem 9.1 marks out exactly the range where the geometric count is dimensionally simple.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension, left implicit in the paper, is to turn Theorem 9.1 into an algorithm: enumerate monic degree-r polynomials in A[x] with prescribed constant coefficient, test irreducibility and the imaginary condition, and sum the local optimal-embedding data to obtain each intersection number numerically.
  • The volume term H_D(0), built from Pic(A), zeta values at negative integers, and ramification factors, suggests a direct link between these geometric intersection numbers and the analytic class number formula, a connection the paper does not explicitly develop.
  • For r=2, the paper notes that a Weil-representation method can construct a theta series whose Fourier coefficients are the intersection numbers; a concrete next step would be to compute that generating series explicitly and match its coefficients with the H_D(c) terms, which would give an independent confirmation of Theorem 9.1.
  • The transversality proof relies on r being prime and different from the characteristic; a plausible extension to composite r would require tracking extra components associated with non-maximal orders, and the same double-coset framework could likely be adapted by working with centralizers component by component.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proves a higher-rank function-field analogue of the Hurwitz–Kronecker class number relation. For a central division algebra D over a global function field k of degree r^2 with r a prime different from the characteristic, and for a maximal order D in D, the authors define Hecke cycles Z_a on the product X×X of the modular variety of D-elliptic sheaves and compute the intersection number i(Z·Z_a). The main theorem (Theorem 9.1) expresses this intersection number as r/(q-1) times a sum of modified Hurwitz class numbers H_D(c) attached to imaginary orders R_c arising from monic degree-r polynomials with last coefficient a, plus a volume term H_D(0). The proof passes through a Galois cover X(n)→X, Briney's quotient intersection theory, a projection formula (Theorem 6.1), a rigid-analytic transversality result (Lemma 7.2), a counting of intersection points via optimal embeddings (Lemmas 8.1–8.4, Corollary 8.5), a Gauss–Bonnet computation of the self-intersection (Propositions 8.7 and 8.9), and finally Eichler's theory of optimal embeddings (Appendix A).

Significance. If the proof gaps identified below are repaired, this is a substantial contribution: it establishes a genuinely higher-rank class number relation in the function-field setting, with an explicit formula in terms of invariants of imaginary orders and a volume term. The paper carefully combines several nontrivial tools (Briney's intersection theory, uniformization of D-elliptic sheaves, Kurihara's proportionality, Eichler's optimal embedding theory) and produces a parameter-free formula. The result is novel and likely to be useful for further work on special cycles and Siegel–Weil formulas over function fields. The main concerns are two unproved but repairable steps in the proof of transversality and of the double-coset count; they do not undermine the plausibility of the final formula.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 7, Lemma 7.2 (around Eq. (7.3))] The proof's key implication "det(B′)=0 implies that the nonzero column vector (z_o,1) lies in the range of A" is neither proved nor evident from the displayed matrices. This implication is load-bearing: Corollary 7.3, and hence the reduction of intersection numbers to point counts in Section 8, rests on it. The implication is in fact valid and can be justified as follows: the first r−1 rows of B′ are the transposed first r−1 columns of A and the last row is v^T=(z_o,1); a row dependence gives A u + μ v = 0 with u=(λ_1,...,λ_{r−1},0)^T. If μ=0, then u∈ker A, but any nonzero such u would contradict the one-dimensionality of ker A spanned by v, since the last coordinate of u is 0 while that of v is 1; hence μ≠0 and v∈Im(A). Please add this or an equivalent argument, and also supply the proof of the asserted identity det(B′)=det(B).
  2. [Section 8.1, Lemma 8.2] The sentence "The condition b^{-1}γ2b≡1 mod p then implies that γ2=1" is unsupported: the symbol p is undefined, and containment of O_{K_z}^* in a finite field of size q^r does not by itself imply injectivity of reduction modulo an arbitrary level n. This bijection between D^*\S(n,g)/K(n,g) and the intersection preimage is load-bearing for the counting in Corollary 8.5 and Proposition 8.12. The claim is repairable: since [K_z:k] divides the prime r, the unit group O_{K_z}^* embeds into F_{q^s}^* for some s|r and thus has order prime to the characteristic, while the congruence subgroup 1+nO_{D,v} for v|n is pro-p; hence any element congruent to 1 modulo n must be 1. Alternatively, the reduction of the constant field F_{q^s} into any residue field of O_{K_z} is injective. Please supply the missing proof and define the reduction used; no residue-degree condition on n is needed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2] The same symbol D is used for the central division algebra and for the maximal O_C-order; this is confusing, especially in the abstract and Theorem 1.1. Please distinguish the two (for example, using a script letter for the order sheaf).
  2. [Lemmas 8.2 and 8.4] The notation "mod p" appears without p being defined; it should be "mod n" or "mod a prime ideal p of O_{K_z} dividing n" to make the congruence precise.
  3. [Theorem 1.1 and Section 9] The sign conventions for f_c(x) differ: Theorem 1.1 writes x^r + c_1 x^{r−1} + ... + c_r, while Section 9 uses x^r − c_1 x^{r−1} + ... + (−1)^r c_r. Please reconcile the notation so that the polynomials defining R_c are identified consistently.
  4. [Appendix A] The first line contains a typo: "For simpliciy" should be "For simplicity".
  5. [Proof of Lemma 7.2] The identity det(B′)=det(B) is stated without justification; adding a one-line row-operation argument would help the reader verify the determinant computation.
  6. [References] References [11] and [12] lack publication years; please update them if versions are available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the intersection-number formula is derived through an independent chain of projection, transversality, point-counting, and Eichler class-number computations; the target never enters as an input.

full rationale

The derivation of Theorem 9.1 is a genuine chain rather than a renaming or fit. Theorem 6.1 reduces i(Z·Z_a) to weighted sums of i(Z(n)·Z(n,g)) via the projection formula; Corollary 7.3 turns these into point counts; Lemma 8.2, Corollary 8.5, and Proposition 8.12 identify the counts with the double-coset spaces D^*\E_a/K; and Section 9 together with Appendix A converts those counts into modified Hurwitz class numbers H_D(c⃗), which are defined independently in Definition A.8 as products of class numbers and local embedding densities. The volume term H_D(0), introduced in (9.3), is obtained from Kurihara's Gauss–Bonnet analogue and depends only on Pic(A), the zeta function of k, and the ramification set of D; it is not adjusted to make the theorem true. No parameter is fitted, and no equation defining H_D(c⃗) or H_D(0) contains i(Z·Z_a). The only self-citations are to [36], the first author's PhD thesis, for smoothness and uniformization facts in general characteristic; these are background moduli results rather than the class-number relation, and Theorem 4.6 is also dual-cited to the independent [3], while Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 4.4 rest on [29]. The reader's flagged unit-reduction step in Lemma 8.2 and the skeptic's linear-algebra inference in Lemma 7.2 are potential proof gaps or correctness risks, not circularity: if they failed, the intersection count would be unsupported, but it would not reduce by construction to the formula being proved. Thus the paper is not significantly circular.

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

The formula introduces modified Hurwitz class numbers H_D(c) as weighted sums of optimal embedding counts, and the volume term H_D(0) built from Picard number and zeta values, but no free parameters are fit to data and no speculative entities are postulated. All inputs are standard arithmetic-geometric invariants or established theorems.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The moduli stack Eℓℓ_{C,D,I} is a smooth Deligne-Mumford stack of relative dimension r-1, and X(n) with level n is a smooth projective scheme over C∞.
    Invoked throughout Sections 3-4; quoted from [29, Theorems 4.1 and 5.1], [3, Theorem 4.4.9], and [36, Sections 5-6].
  • domain assumption Formal uniformization X(n)^ ≃ D*\Ω_r × D*(A_f)/K(n) with Ω_r the Drinfeld symmetric space.
    Theorem 4.6 cites [3, Remark 4.4.11] and [36, Remark 16.11]; all later point-counting is done through this identification.
  • domain assumption Briney's intersection theory for quotients of algebraic varieties by finite groups is valid and gives the projection formula used in Theorem 6.1.
    Section 5 relies entirely on [4]; the paper extends this to the coarse moduli X and its finite Galois cover X(n).
  • domain assumption Kurihara's Gauss-Bonnet/proportionality theorem expresses χ(X(n)) as a sum of Euler-Poincaré measures on PGL_r(k∞).
    Used in Proposition 8.7 and Remark 8.8; cited to [28, Theorem 2.2.8].
  • standard math Local-global principle for embeddings of degree-r field extensions into D (Theorem A.4) and the local optimal embedding counts in Lemmas A.1 and A.2.
    Background Eichler theory; cited to [32, Proposition A.1] and [35], and developed in Appendix A.
  • ad hoc to paper The unit group O_{K_z}^* injects into its reduction modulo the level ideal n when n contains a suitable prime not dividing q^r-1 (or of residue degree not a multiple of r); this injectivity is asserted in Lemma 8.2 without proof.
    In the proof of Lemma 8.2 the paper states that gamma_2 = 1 follows from b^{-1}gamma_2 b ≡ 1 mod p; the implication needs n chosen with a prime p whose residue field does not contain all q^r-th roots of unity. The paper only fixes n by ord_v(a) ≤ ord_v(n).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intersections of Hecke correspondences on the modular varieties of $\mathcal{D}$-elliptic sheaves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MUJLD4TL

@misc{pith2026250115746,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intersections of Hecke correspondences on the modular varieties of $\mathcalD$-elliptic sheaves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MUJLD4TL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15746}
}
abstract

This paper studies the intersections of Hecke correspondences on the modular varieties of $\mathcal{D}$ -elliptic sheaves in the higher-rank setting, where $\mathcal{D}$ is a "maximal order" in a central division algebra $D$ over a global function field $k$. Assuming that $\dim_k(D) = r^2$, where $r$ is a prime distinct from the characteristic of $k$, we express the intersection numbers of Hecke correspondences as suitable combinations of modified Hurwitz class numbers of "imaginary orders". This result establishes a higher-rank analogue of the classical class number relation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On the modular equation for Drinfeld modules of rank 2

    Bae, S. “On the modular equation for Drinfeld modules of rank 2”. In: J. Num- ber Theory 42 (1992), pp. 123–133

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    On the coefficients of the Drinfeld modular equ ation

    Bae S. and Lee, S. “On the coefficients of the Drinfeld modular equ ation”. In: J. Number Theory 66 (1997), pp. 85–101

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    Drinfeld modules and elliptic sheaves

    Blum A., Stuhler U. “Drinfeld modules and elliptic sheaves”. In: Vector Bun- dles on Curves — New Directions: Lectures given at the 3rd Ses sion of the Centro Internazionale Matematico Estivo (C.I.M.E.) held i n Cetraro (Cosenza), Italy, June 19–27, 1995 . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1997, pp. 110–188. isbn: 978-3-540-49701-1

    work page 1995

  4. [4]

    Intersection theory on quotients of algebraic va rieties

    Briney, R. E. “Intersection theory on quotients of algebraic va rieties”. In: Amer. J. of Math 84 (1962), pp. 217–238

    work page 1962

  5. [5]

    Les classes d’´ equivalence rationnelle, I

    Chevalley, Claude. “Les classes d’´ equivalence rationnelle, I”. f r. In: S´ eminaire Claude Chevalley 3 (1958). talk:2

    work page 1958

  6. [6]

    Brandt matrices and theta series over glob al function fields

    Chuang, C.-Y. et al. “Brandt matrices and theta series over glob al function fields”. In: Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 237.1117 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Arithmetic cycles on Picard modular surfaces and m odular forms of nebentypus

    Cogdell, J. W. “Arithmetic cycles on Picard modular surfaces and m odular forms of nebentypus”. In: J. Reine Angew. Math. 357 (1985), pp. 115–137

    work page 1985

  8. [8]

    Survey of Drinfeld modules

    Deligne P., Husem¨ oller D. “Survey of Drinfeld modules”. In: Contemporary Math. 67 (1987), pp. 25–91

    work page 1987

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    The Irreducibility of the Space of Curves o f Given Genus

    Deligne P., Mumford D. “The Irreducibility of the Space of Curves o f Given Genus”. In: Publ. Math. IHES 36 (1969), pp. 75–109

    1969

  2. [10]

    Elliptic modules

    Drinfeld, V.G. “Elliptic modules”. In: Math. USSR Sbornik23, 561–592 (1974)

    1974

  3. [11]

    Higher Siegel–Weil formula for u nitary groups: the non-singular terms

    Feng, T., Yun, Z., and Zhang, W. “Higher Siegel–Weil formula for u nitary groups: the non-singular terms”. In: preprint arXiv:2103.11514 ()

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Higher theta series for unitar y groups over function fields

    Feng, T., Yun, Z., and Zhang, W. “Higher theta series for unitar y groups over function fields”. In: preprint arXiv:2110.07001 ()

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Intersection Theory, Second edition

    Fulton, W. Intersection Theory, Second edition . Springer New York, 1998, pp. VIII, 470. isbn: 978-0-387-98549-7

    1998

  6. [14]

    Heegner divisors and nonholomorphic modular forms

    Funke, J. “Heegner divisors and nonholomorphic modular forms ”. In: Com- positio math. 133 (2002), pp. 289–321

    2002

  7. [15]

    Algebraic Geometry

    G¨ ortz U., Wedhorn T. Algebraic Geometry. Advanced Lectures in Mathemat- ics. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag Wiesbaden, 2010, pp. IV, 615. isbn: 978-3-8348- 9722-0

    2010

  8. [16]

    On class number relations and intersec tions over function fields

    Guo, J.-W. and Wei, F.-T. “On class number relations and intersec tions over function fields”. In: Doc. math. 27 (2022), pp. 1321–1368

    2022

  9. [17]

    On CM masses over global function field s

    Guo, J.-W. and Wei, F.-T. “On CM masses over global function field s”. In: Math. Z. 303.29 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Algebraic Geometry

    Hartshorne, R. Algebraic Geometry. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer New York, 1977, pp. XVI, 496. isbn: 978-0-387-90244-9

    1977

  11. [19]

    Intersection numbers of curve s on Hilbert mod- ular surfaces and modular forms of nebentypus

    Hirzebruch F. and Zagier, D. “Intersection numbers of curve s on Hilbert mod- ular surfaces and modular forms of nebentypus”. In: Invent. math. 36 (1976), pp. 57–113

    1976

  12. [20]

    On the coefficients of modular polynomials for Drinfeld modules

    Hsia, L.-C. “On the coefficients of modular polynomials for Drinfeld modules”. In: J. Number Theory 72 (1998), pp. 236–256

    1998

  13. [21]

    ¨Uber Relationen zwischen Klassenzahlen bin¨ arer quadratischer Formen von negativer Determinante

    Hurwitz, A. “ ¨Uber Relationen zwischen Klassenzahlen bin¨ arer quadratischer Formen von negativer Determinante”. In: Math. Ann. 25 (1885), pp. 157–196. 31

  14. [22]

    ¨Uber die Anzahl der verschiedenen Klassen quadratischer For- men von negativer Determinante

    Kronecker, L. “ ¨Uber die Anzahl der verschiedenen Klassen quadratischer For- men von negativer Determinante”. In: J. Reine Angew. Math. 57 (1860), pp. 248–255

  15. [23]

    Intersection numbers of cycles on locally sym- metric spaces and Fourier coefficients of holomorphic modular forms in several complex variables

    Kudla S. S. and Millson, J. J. “Intersection numbers of cycles on locally sym- metric spaces and Fourier coefficients of holomorphic modular forms in several complex variables”. In: Publications math´ ematiques de l’I.H.´E.S. 71 (1990), pp. 121–172

    1990

  16. [24]

    The theta correspondence and ha rmonic forms. I

    Kudla S. S. and Millson, J. J. “The theta correspondence and ha rmonic forms. I”. In: Math. Ann. 274 (1986), pp. 353–378

    1986

  17. [25]

    The theta correspondence and ha rmonic forms. II

    Kudla S. S. and Millson, J. J. “The theta correspondence and ha rmonic forms. II”. In: Math. Ann. 277 (1987), pp. 267–317

    1987

  18. [26]

    Algebraic cycles on Shimura varieties of orthogona l type

    Kudla, S. S. “Algebraic cycles on Shimura varieties of orthogona l type”. In: Duke math. 86.1 (1997), pp. 39–78

    1997

  19. [27]

    Intersection numbers for quotients of the comp lex 2-ball and Hilbert modular forms

    Kudla, S. S. “Intersection numbers for quotients of the comp lex 2-ball and Hilbert modular forms”. In: Invent. math. 47.2 (1978), pp. 189–208

    1978

  20. [28]

    Construction of p-adic unit balls and the Hirtzbru ch propor- tionality

    Kurihara, A. “Construction of p-adic unit balls and the Hirtzbru ch propor- tionality”. In: Amer. J. math 102.3 (1980), pp. 565–648

    1980

  21. [29]

    D-elliptic sheaves and the Langlands correspondence

    Laumon G. Rapoport M., Stuhler U. “ D-elliptic sheaves and the Langlands correspondence”. In: Invent. Math. 113 (1993), pp. 217–338

    1993

  22. [30]

    Drinfeld–Stuhler modules

    Papikian, M. “Drinfeld–Stuhler modules”. In: Res Math Sci 5 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Modular varieties of D-elliptic sheaves and the Weil–Deligne bound

    Papikian, M. “Modular varieties of D-elliptic sheaves and the Weil–Deligne bound”. In: J. Reine Angew. Math. 626 (2009), pp. 115–134

    2009

  24. [32]

    Computation of the metaplec tic kernel

    Prasad, G. and Rapinchuk, A. S. “Computation of the metaplec tic kernel”. In: Publ. Math. IHES 84 (1996), pp. 91–187

    1996

  25. [33]

    The cohomology of p-adic symmetric sp aces

    Schneider P., Stuhler U. “The cohomology of p-adic symmetric sp aces”. In: Invent. Math. 105 (1991), pp. 47–122

    1991

  26. [34]

    Groupes alg´ ebriques et corps de classes

    Serre, J.-P. Groupes alg´ ebriques et corps de classes . Actualit´ es Scientifiques et Industrielles 1264. Hermann (Paris), 1959. isbn: 9782705612641

    1959

  27. [35]

    Embeddings of fields into sim ple algebras over global fields

    Shih, S.-C., Yang, T.-C., and Yu, C.-F. “Embeddings of fields into sim ple algebras over global fields”. In: Asian J. Math 18.2 (2014), pp. 365–386

    2014

  28. [36]

    Uniformization of generalized D-elliptic sheaves, PhD thesis

    ¨Ulkem, ¨O. Uniformization of generalized D-elliptic sheaves, PhD thesis . Hei- delberg University, 2020. url: http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/29531

    2020

  29. [37]

    On class number relations over function fi elds

    Wang T.-Y. and Yu, J. “On class number relations over function fi elds”. In: J. Number Theory 69 (1998), pp. 181–196

    1998

  30. [38]

    Mass formula of division algebras over glo bal func- tion fields

    Wei, F.-T. and Yu, C.-F. “Mass formula of division algebras over glo bal func- tion fields”. In: J. Number Theory 132.3 (2012), pp. 1170–1184

    2012

  31. [39]

    Adeles and algebraic groups (with appendices by M

    Weil, A. Adeles and algebraic groups (with appendices by M. Demazure and T. Ono) . Vol. 23. Progress in Mathematics. Birkh¨ auser, Boston, Mass., 1 982

  32. [40]

    A class number relation over function fields

    Yu, J.-K. “A class number relation over function fields”. In: J. Number Theory 54 (1995), pp. 318–340. 32

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.