Paper detail

On the quantitative distribution of polynomial nilsequences - erratum

This is an erratum to 'On the quantitative distribution of polynomial nilsequences' [GT]. The proof of Theorem 8.6 of that paper, which claims a distribution result for multiparameter polynomial sequences on nilmanifolds, was incorrect. We provide two fixes for this issue here. First, we deduce the "equal sides" case $N_1 = \dots = N_t = N$ of [GT, Theorem 8.6] from the 1-parameter results in [GT]. This is the same basic mode of argument we attempted in the original paper, though the details are different. The equal sides case is the only one required in applications such as the proof of the inverse conjectures for the Gowers norms due to the authors and Ziegler. Second, we sketch a proof that [GT, Theorem 8.6] does in fact hold in its originally stated form, that is to say without the equal sides condition. To obtain this statement the entire argument of [GT] must be run in the context of multiparameter polynomial sequences $g : \mathbb{Z}^t \rightarrow G$ rather than 1-parameter sequences $g : \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow G$ as is currently done.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.