Timeline for Zeta function of Abelian variety over finite field
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2017 at 13:42 | comment | added | user19475 | @David Speyer: Can you give the title of the article of Sturmfels and Zworski you mentioned? | |
| Sep 29, 2017 at 13:53 | comment | added | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | @js21: but we do not need to determine the value of $q$, so shouldn't that still suggest that $g$ of them will do? | |
| Sep 29, 2017 at 13:53 | history | edited | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Incorporated suggestion from js21.
|
| Sep 29, 2017 at 13:49 | comment | added | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | @js21 and DavidSpeyer: thanks for your comments. It seems that I was a bit rash. I will update my 'answer' accordingly. | |
| Sep 29, 2017 at 13:43 | comment | added | js21 | @David Speyer: Indeed. The error lies in the fact that the number of points is not given by $f(\alpha_1^r,\dots,\alpha_g^r)$ but by $f(\alpha_1^r,\dots,\alpha_g^r,q^r)$ for some $f$ depending only on $g$, symmetric in its first $g$ variables. | |
| Sep 29, 2017 at 13:43 | history | edited | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added example.
|
| Sep 29, 2017 at 13:30 | history | edited | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed typo.
|
| Sep 29, 2017 at 13:24 | history | edited | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 436 characters in body
|
| Sep 29, 2017 at 13:15 | comment | added | David E Speyer | I really don't think this is right. Kedlaya ( arxiv.org/abs/math/0411623 , Section 8) proves $\max(2g, 18)$ values suffice and Sturmfels and Zworski conjecture $g+1$ suffice; I don't see anyone saying $g$ do. I'm still digging through papers looking to produce an answer, but can you point out where in Suh I should find the result that $g$ are enough? | |
| Sep 29, 2017 at 12:51 | history | answered | R. van Dobben de Bruyn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |