Related papers: Cliff-wall surgery and vanishing of basic phase fu…
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a crucial error in the proof of Lemma 2.2.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a crucial sign error in equation 1
This paper has been withdrawn.
In this paper, we get an elementary and important lemma(See Lemma 3.2) which is about pushout and pullback of modules. And we prove a weak form of a long open conjecture on vanishing of group cohomology for blocks.
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors due to a gap in the proof of the main result (in 5.3).
This paper has been withdrawn because of serious errors.
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors, due to a crucial error.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a crucial sign error in equation 1.
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors due to crucial error in the main proof (located in Section 2.4). The authors apologize for any inconveniences.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a crucial error
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to the version of [A complete proof of Hamilton's conjecture] at arXiv:1008.1576
An elementary gap in the proof of corollary 2.2 was found, the claim in the first version of the paper is thus retracted.
This paper has been withdrawn, since it contains a corollary with impossible consequences and the source of an error is currently unknown.
The paper has been withdrawn
This paper has been withdrawn.
This paper has been withdrawn since its content is included in the more general version arXiv:0804.1882
This paper is being withdrawn because an error was discovered in lemma 4.3. Although the rest of the paper appears to be correct, this error invalidates the proof of theorem 3.1 and theorem 3.3.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a critical error in the proof of Theorem A pointed out by Burkhard Wilking.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a crucial sign error in equation 1
The paper is suspended. The reason: as was noted by prof. H. Esnault, Theorem 2.1.1 of the previous version (as well as the related Theorem 6.1.1 of http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/9908/9908037v2.pdf of D. Arapura and P. Sastry) is wrong…