Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 27 at 6:11 comment added David Loeffler (typo in first comment: "did not stand still" should be "stood still".)
Jun 27 at 6:10 comment added David Loeffler Your two example citations are (a) a set of introductory lecture notes which deliberately uses non-cutting-edge methods for simplicity, and (b) a paper somewhat outside the mainstream of research in this area. For instance, Kisin's work on potentially semistable deformation rings – which relies on Breuil-Kisin modules to go well beyond the Fontaine--Laffaille range – has been fundamental to virtually every major advance in modularity lifting since it was written (in 2007).
Jun 27 at 6:03 comment added David Loeffler I disagree with the premise of this question. You seem to suggest that integral p-adic HT did not stand still in the multiple decades between Fontaine--Laffaille and Bhatt--Scholze, and many of those advances (e.g. Breuil-Kisin modules) were motivated by & immediately applied to modularity-lifting problems.
Jun 25 at 21:50 comment added coLaideronnette On the other hand, the modern results on automorphy lifting theorems are heavily dependent on the study of the geometry of Shimura varieties, where the $p$-adic geometry plays an essential role.
Jun 25 at 21:36 comment added coLaideronnette From the arithmetic perspective, (integral) $p$-adic Hodge theory is the study of $p$-adic Galois representations. That’s why it plays a role in the proof of automorphy lifting theorems. However, Bhatt-Morrow-Scholze‘s work is geometric i.e. to study the geometry of (proper smooth) schemes over a $p$-adic field. So they are not directly related but we can construct some functors to link them and study $p$-adic Hodge theory via the interplay between the arithmetic and geometric perspectives.
Jun 25 at 11:11 history asked David Corwin CC BY-SA 4.0