English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Let $M$ be an Anderson t-motive of dimension $n$ and rank $r$. Associated aretwo $\Bbb F_q[T]$-modules $H^1(M)$, $H_1(M)$ of dimensions $h^1(M)$, $h_1(M)\ler$ - analogs of $H^1(A,\Bbb Z)$, $H_1(A,\Bbb Z)$ for an abelian variety $A$.There is a theorem (Anderson): $h^1(M)=r \iff h_1(M)=r$; in this case $M$ iscalled uniformizable. It is natural to expect that always $h^1(M)=h_1(M)$.Nevertheless, we explicitly construct a counterexample. Further, we answer aquestion of D.Goss: is it possible that two Anderson t-motives that differ onlyby a nilpotent operator $N$ are of different uniformizability type, i.e. one ofthem is uniformizable and other not? We give an explicit example that this ispossible.

$h^1\ne h_1$ for Anderson t-motives