On the \(p\)-adic Beilinson conjecture and the equivariant Tamagawa number conjecture (Q2056169)

This paper fills a major gap in our knowledge about the validity of the so-called equivariant Tamagawa number conjecture (ETNC), even though the new results are again conditional on certain other conjectures. This is normal and hard to avoid in this trade, as witnessed by the vast majority of relevant publications. We will not formulate ETNC; in the paper under review it is considered for the pairs \((h^0(\text{Spec}(E))(r), \mathbb Z[G])\), where \(r\) ranges over all integers, and \(G\) is the Galois group of a given extension \(E/K\) of number fields. Here \(K\) is always totally real, and \(E\) is either also totally real, or a CM field. Let us call the resulting conjectures E(r), for brevity. Generally, if one can prove an instance of ETNC, one also obtains proofs of ``older'' conjectures that are somewhat easier to formulate. For more details we refer to the second paragraph in Nickel's paper. For the case \(G\) abelian, E(r) was shown to hold unconditionally for all \(r\) by \textit{D. Burns} and \textit{C. Greither} [Invent. Math. 153, No. 2, 303--359 (2003; Zbl 1142.11076)], \textit{D. Burns} and \textit{M. Flach} [Doc. Math. 6, 501--570 (2001; Zbl 1052.11077)], \textit{M. Flach} [J. Reine Angew. Math. 661, 1--36 (2011; Zbl 1242.11083)] a while ago. So in a way the paper under review focuses on non-abelian \(G\). For negative \(r\), \textit{D. Burns} [J. Reine Angew. Math. 698, 105--159 (2015; Zbl 1322.11110)] and the author [Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 106, No. 6, 1223--1247 (2013; Zbl 1273.11155)] showed independently that the \(p\)-part of E(r) holds, conditionally to the vanishing of Iwasawa's \(\mu\)-invariant attached to the prime \(p\). (This is conjectured to be always true, but no general proof is in sight.) There are also results for \(r=0\) and \(r=1\), for which we again refer to the introduction of the paper. The main result concerns the missing conjectures E(r) for \(r>1\); as the article's main result (Thm.4.19), E(r) is proved under three assumptions: (a) the \(p\)-adic Beilinson conjecture is true at \(s=r\); (b) a conjecture of Schneider holds for the Tate motive \(\mathbb Z_p(r)\); and (c) the Equivariant Iwasawa Main Conjecture (EIMC) holds for \(E/K\). These assumptions line up nicely with assumptions used in results concerning \(r=0\) and \(r=1\), but again we have to skip this. There are two very important points concerning Nickel's new result. First, it does not require any \(\mu=0\) assumption. At least not directly; some affirmative results on the validity of EIMC use such a hypothesis, so \(\mu=0\) may creep in again at the back door. Second, the result can be applied in concrete cases where \(G\) is not abelian, thanks to earlier results of \textit{H. Johnston} and the author [Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 368, No. 9, 6539--6574 (2016; Zbl 1339.11093)]. This concerns the base field \(K=\mathbb Q\) and groups \(G=\text{Aff}(q)\), which is the semidirect product of the additive and the multiplicative group of the field with \(q\) elements. The road to this new result is long and complex, but the paper does a really good job of introducing and explaining the numerous conjectures and techniques that are required: derived categories, regulators, comparison periods, conjectures of Gross and Schneider, to name just a few. No details can be given here. Let us just stress at this point that the paper as a whole is excellently written. All important points are explained very clearly or underpinned by detailed references, or both. The key point that makes the argument possible and allows to avoid any \(\mu=0\) hypothesis is a slightly more explicit version that the author exhibits for a standard complex (more precisely: the corresponding objects of the derived category) which is often used in this theory. Nickel uses that the complex \(C^{\bullet}_{r,S}\) can be replaced by a complex which (cheating a little) only consists of two terms; both of them have projective dimension at most one (this is a frequently used property in this game), and one of them is fully explicit. Another important element of the proof is a descent from infinite level, where Iwasawa theory comes in, and the finite level \(E/K\). Again, the necessity or appositeness of the descent procedure is not at all new, but it is redone in a particularly clever way in the article under review.