University of Oxford

One can get fairly good estimates for primes in short
intervals under the assumption of the Riemann Hypothesis. Weaker
estimates can be shown unconditionally by using a 'zero density
estimate' in place of the Riemann Hypothesis. These zero density
estimates are typically proven by bounding how often a Dirichlet
polynomial can take large values, but have been limited by our
understanding of the number of zeros with real part 3/4. We introduce a
new method to prove large value estimates for Dirichlet polynomials,
which improves on previous estimates near the 3/4 line.

This is joint work (still in progress) with Larry Guth.

If $n$ is congruent to 0 or 4 modulo 6, there are infinitely many primes of the form $x^2 + ny^2$ with both $x$ and $y$ prime. (Joint work with Mehtaab Sawhney, Columbia)

Consider definable sets over the family of finite fields $\mathbb{F}_q$. Ax proved a quantifier-elimination result for this theory, in a reasonable geometric language. Chatzidakis, Van den Dries and Macintyre showed that to a first-order approximation, the cardinality of a definable set $X$ is definable in a very mild expansion of Ax's theory.  Can such a statement be true of the next higher order approximation, i.e. can we write $|X(\mathbb{F}_q)| = aq^{d} + bq^{d-1/2} + o(q^{d-1/2})$, with $d,a,b$ varying definably with $X$ in a tame theory?    Here $b$ must be viewed as real-valued so continuous logic is needed. I will report on joint work in progress with Will Johnson.

Associated to a complex admissible representation of a p-adic group is an invariant known is the "canonical dimension". It is closely related to the more well-studied invariant called the "wavefront set". The advantage of the canonical dimension over the wavefront set is that it allows for a completely different approach in computing it compared to the known computational methods for the wavefront set. In this talk we illustrate this point by finding a lower bound for the canonical dimension of any depth-zero supercuspidal representation, which depends only on the group and so is independent of the representation itself. To compute this lower bound, we consider the geometry of the associated Bruhat-Tits building.

If \(F\) is a free group and \(F/N\) is a presentation of a group \(G\), there is a natural way to turn the abelianisation of \(N\) into a \(\mathbb ZG\)-module, known as the relation module of the presentation. The images of normal generators for \(N\) yield \(\mathbb ZG\)-module generators of the relation module, but 'lifting' \(\mathbb ZG\)-generators to normal generators cannot always be done by a result of Dunwoody. Nevertheless, it is an open problem, known as the relation gap problem, whether the relation module can have strictly fewer \(\mathbb ZG\)-module generators than \(N\) can have normal generators when \(G\) is finitely presented. In this talk I will survey what is known and what is not known about this problem and its variations and discuss some recent progress for groups with a cyclic relation module.

Solovay defined the inner model $L(\mathbb{R}, \mu)$ in the context of $\mathsf{AD}_{\mathbb{R}}$ by using it to define the supercompactness measure $\mu$ on $\mathcal{P}_{\omega_1}(\mathbb{R})$ naturally given by $\mathsf{AD}_{\mathbb{R}}$. Solovay speculated that stronger versions of this inner model should exist, corresponding to stronger versions of the measure $\mu$. Woodin, in his unpublished work, defined $\mu_{\infty}$ which is arguably the ultimate version of the supercompactness measure $\mu$ that Solovay had defined. I will talk about $\mu_{\infty}$ in the context of $\mathsf{AD}^+$ and the axiom $\mathsf{V} = \mathsf{Ultimate\ L}$.

https://woloszyn.org/

I will report on a joint work with Pablo Destic and Nuno Hultberg, about some applications of Globally Valued Fields (GVFs) and I will describe a density result that we needed, which turns out to be connected to Riemann-Zariski and Berkovich spaces.

I will present a recent work with G. Kocharyan, where we show the undecidability of the following two problems: given a finitely generated subgroup G of GL(n,Q), a) determine whether G has a non-identity element whose (i,j) entry is equal to zero, and b) determine whether the stabilizer of a given vector in G is non-trivial. Undecidability of problem b) answers a question of Dixon from 1985. The proofs reduce to the undecidability of the word problem for finitely presented groups.