We prove some conditions for higher-dimensional algebraic fibering of pro-p group extensions, and we establish corollaries about incoherence of pro-p groups. In particular, if $1 \to K \to G \to \Gamma \to 1$ is a short exact sequence of pro-p groups, such that $\Gamma $ contains a finitely generated, non-abelian, free pro-p subgroup, K a finitely presented pro-p group with N a normal pro-p subgroup of K such that $K/ N \simeq \mathbb {Z}_p$ and N not finitely generated as a pro-p group, then G is incoherent (in the category of pro-p groups). Furthermore, we show that if K is a finitely generated, free pro-p group with $d(K) \geq 2$, then either $\mathrm{Aut}_0(K)$ is incoherent (in the category of pro-p groups) or there is a finitely presented pro-p group, without non-procyclic free pro-p subgroups, that has a metabelian pro-p quotient that is not finitely presented, i.e., a pro-p version of a result of Bieri–Strebel does not hold.

Given an affine Coxeter group W, the corresponding Shi arrangement is a refinement of the corresponding Coxeter hyperplane arrangements that was introduced by Shi to study Kazhdan–Lusztig cells for W. Shi showed that each region of the Shi arrangement contains exactly one element of minimal length in W. Low elements in W were introduced to study the word problem of the corresponding Artin–Tits (braid) group and turns out to produce automata to study the combinatorics of reduced words in W. In this article, we show, in the case of an affine Coxeter group, that the set of minimal length elements of the regions in the Shi arrangement is precisely the set of low elements, settling a conjecture of Dyer and the second author in this case. As a by-product of our proof, we show that the descent walls – the walls that separate a region from the fundamental alcove – of any region in the Shi arrangement are precisely the descent walls of the alcove of its corresponding low element.

We study symmetric and antisymmetric tensor products of Hilbert-space operators, focusing on norms and spectra for some well-known classes favored by function-theoretic operator theorists. We pose many open questions that should interest the field.

The proof of Theorem 3.14 contains an unsubstantiated claim. To overcome this problem, we add a hypothesis to the statement of 3.14 and we provide a new valid proof. We adjust Theorem 3.15, Corollary 3.16, Proposition 4.23, Theorem 4.26, Corollary 4.29, and Corollary 4.32 accordingly.