Hi guys:

Here is a reminder of who has control over which files:

1. Classical Euler systems
-------------------------------------
1.1.circular-units.tex:  Henri   [Samit]
1.2.elliptic-units.tex:  Francesc [Kartik]
1.3.heegner-points.tex:  Francesc  [Kartik, Henri, Massimo]   

2. Euler systems of Garrett-Rankin-Selberg type
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 2.1. beilinson-kato.tex:  Massimo. [Victor]
 2.2. beilinson-flach.tex:  Samit.   [Massimo]
 2.3. gross-kudla.tex: Victor  [Henri]


The person whose name is in [  ] has some more responsibility to proofread the associated
section, but only the "main author" can make changes to the section file assigned to him.


In this log file I also propose inserting questions that any of us might have and which could be responded to by any of the authors.


Question 1 [Asked by Henri]
I am not completely convinced of the title of our paper, which is perhaps  a bit corny. 
But I like the idea of a subtitle to make it less boring and generic.
Let me know what you think and if you have  better suggestions.
In a similar trivial vein, let me know if your are thrown off by the cultural reference at the end of the intro, which may be obscure too all but one 
of the authors...



Remark  2 [Henri]
I am quite happy with the proof of the Leopoldt formula given in section 1.1., which I learned from Samit when I visited him. Thanks to Francesc for pointing out that it  also appears at the end of  Katz's paper on p-adic interpolation of real analytic Eisenstein series -- reading it there also made me realise that the vanishing of the difference of p-adic weight zero Eisenstein series could be deduced, more simply, from the fact that the nebentype character is non trivial and therefore the constants do not lie in this space.  I foolishly overlooked this in an earlier proof, and invoked more complicated considerations involving q-expansions at other cusps...

 
 Remark 3 [Henri]
 I am not completely at ease with the material around equations (10) and (12) -- these formulae are certainly correct morally, and follow from the reference to Perrin-Riou that I give there,but the exposition there was a bit confusing, at least to me, and I am not sure that all my conventions and notations agree with hers (or what I think are hers...)