## Conference on Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture

Posted by Andreas Holmstrom on February 7, 2011

In Cambridge, May 4-6, 2011. Conference website

Advertisements

## Blogroll

- Abstract nonsense
- AMS Grad student blog
- Annoying precision
- Arcadian functor
- Chromotopy
- Climbing Mount Bourbaki
- Concrete nonsense
- Delta Epsilons
- Embûches tissues
- Emmanuel Kowalski
- F_un mathematics
- Konrad Völkel
- London Number Theory
- Low-dimensional topology
- Martin Orr
- Math Life
- math-arch
- Mathematics and physics
- Michael Nielsen
- n-category cafe
- n-geometry cafe
- Neverendingbooks
- Noncommutative geometry
- Not even wrong
- Number theory research
- Rigorous trivialities
- Secret blogging seminar
- Terry Tao
- The rising sea
- Theoretical atlas
- Tim Gowers

## Selected posts

## Subscribe

Posted by Andreas Holmstrom on February 7, 2011

In Cambridge, May 4-6, 2011. Conference website

%d bloggers like this:

## Paul said

This is a little mysterious. Is the conjecture about to be proved? Would you be so kind as to share rumors or ideas you have on the topic?

I have a question. I think I understand the Tate conjecture (mostly) implies the Deligne-Beilinson conjecture, which I think generalize the BSD conjecture. Then: how much harder are the Tate conjectures thought to be than the BSD?

I think the Tate conjectures imply the Hodge conjecture too via some ideas of Deligne so I guess they are much harder than BSD.

Also what happened to Harada’s attempt at proving the standard conjectures? I have seen the paper was retracted. And why does the Tate conjecture (or the standard conjectures) for 1-motives imply it (resp. them) for all motives? That is, how does it imply that “the category of motives over finite fields is generated by abelian varieties”, as you quoted in this post: https://homotopical.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/update-on-haradas-proof/ ?

Well, don’t worry about ignoring my lazy questions, and thanks for all your work on this blog -and changing the “open link in new window” thing :).