-
Recent Posts
Categories
Blogroll
Recent Comments
Archives
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- August 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- Akshay Venkatesh
- Ana Caraiani
- andras schiff
- Andrew Wiles
- Bach
- Bao Le Hung
- Barry Mazur
- Beethoven
- Borel
- Bourgeois Pig
- Chess
- Class Number Problem
- Coffee
- completed cohomology
- cricket
- Cris Poor
- CSO
- David Geraghty
- David Yuen
- Deligne
- Dick Gross
- Elsevier
- Fermat
- Fred Diamond
- Galois Representations
- Gauss
- George Boxer
- Glenn Gould
- Gowers
- Grothendieck
- Hilbert modular forms
- Ian Agol
- Intelligentsia
- Inverse Galois Problem
- Jack Thorne
- James Newton
- Jared Weinstein
- Joel Specter
- John Voight
- Jordan Ellenberg
- K-theory
- Ken Ribet
- Kevin Buzzard
- Langlands
- Leopoldt Conjecture
- LMFDB
- Mark Kisin
- Matthew Emerton
- Michael Harris
- MO
- modular forms
- Modularity
- MSRI
- Music
- Nonsense
- Patrick Allen
- Peter Sarnak
- Peter Scholze
- Richard Moy
- RLT
- Robert Coleman
- Schoenberg
- Schubert
- Serre
- Shekar Khare
- Tate
- Taylor-Wiles
- The Hawk
- Toby Gee
- torsion
- Vlad Serban
- Vytas Paskunas
- Wintenberger
- Zagier
- Zili Huang
Meta
Tag Archives: Pro-Virtual Cohomological Dimension
Horizontal Vanishing Conjectures.
Let be a number field, and let be a reductive group over , and let be a congruence subgroup of . I can hear BC objecting that this doesn’t make sense without extra choices; if you have such an objection, … Continue reading