Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Double bracket formulation for the distribution function approach to multibead-chain suspensions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Modelling a bead chain as a higher-order jet bundle yields exact finite moment closures for Hookean suspensions and predicts an angular-momentum flux that is absent for two-bead pairs.

desk verdict A formally clean geometric-mechanics paper whose physical claim depends on treating a chain as a jet; worth refereeing, but the couple-stress result is an artifact of that idealization. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00798 v2 pith:PTGSV6IH submitted 2019-08-02 physics.flu-dyn math-phmath.MP

Ching Lok Chong This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dynmath-phmath.MP MSC 76A1037K6558A20
keywords viscoelasticfluidsmultibead-chainsuspensionshigherordertangentbundlessemidirectproductLie-Poissonbracketsdoublebracketformulationupper-convectedMaxwellmodelasymmetricstressfinitemomentclosure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that a suspension of Hookean bead chains with linear dissipation is not doomed to a high-dimensional kinetic description: its dynamics reduce exactly to finitely many moment equations, provided the chain's configuration is modelled as a jet of a smooth path, i.e. a point in the $N$th-order tangent bundle $T^{(N)}M$. Working in a double-bracket Hamiltonian formalism, the author lifts the fluid velocity to the chain's configuration space, derives the elastic stress from the same Hamiltonian that drives relaxation, and shows that for quadratic (Hookean) internal energy the stress and the moment hierarchy close at finite order. For chains with three or more beads the stress is generically asymmetric: its antisymmetric part is the divergence of a rank-3 tensor, which the paper reads as an angular momentum flux between fluid parcels, absent in two-bead pairs. If correct, these exactly closable models are the multibead-chain generalisations of the upper-convected Maxwell model, and they give a microscopic route from a distribution function to a closed internal-state-variable description.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $N$th-order tangent bundle $T^{(N)}M$, the space of $N$-jets of curves into $M$, whose points encode the Taylor data (position, first derivative, and so on up to the $N$th derivative) of a chain and thereby represent an $(N+1)$-bead chain as one smooth path rather than as separate connector vectors. The complete lift $u^\#$ of the fluid velocity field to this bundle gives the Lagrangian advection law, generating a semidirect-product Lie--Poisson bracket; a metric dissipation bracket supplies relaxation and diffusion. Closure is carried by an order-counting argument: under the complete lift and the drift/diffusion terms, homogeneous polynomial moments of order $b$ couple only to moments of order at most $b$, and the stress only needs moments up to order $2N$. A supplementary classification result identifies the admissible energies for which this order-counting works: they are precisely sums over $a$ of linear-quadratic functions of $y_{(a)}$, the Hookean-like form.

What would settle it

Take a three-bead chain in a steady flow with a nonzero second velocity gradient, for example a parabolic channel profile, and compare the predicted stress torque from the jet model, which has an antisymmetric part of the form the divergence of a rank-3 tensor, with the two-spring common-centre model, which has no such term. If no antisymmetric stress of divergence-of-rank-3 form appears, or if the moment hierarchy couples $\langle y^j y^k\rangle$ differently than the complete-lift advection law predicts, the $T^{(2)}M$ description is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the multibead-chain model with linear dissipation has a finite exact closure for quadratic energy, and that this closure produces generalisations of the upper-convected Maxwell model to Hookean bead-spring chains. With the configuration space taken to be $T^{(N)}M$, the moment of a homogeneous polynomial of order $b$ evolves under the conservative part without coupling to higher-order moments, and the metric dissipation bracket lowers or preserves moment order; hence collecting moments up to the maximum order appearing in the stress, at most $2N$, gives closed evolution equations. For $N\ge 2$ the resulting stress tensor $\sigma^{jk}$ contains an antisymmetric part expressible as the divergence of a rank-3 tensor, so total fluid angular momentum is conserved despite the absence of any internal angular momentum density. The paper also proves that among rotationally invariant energy functions, only the Hookean-like sum of linear-quadratic terms in each jet coordinate admits this closure, so exact closure is a special, albeit exactly computable, property.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on modelling an $(N+1)$-bead chain as the $N$-jet of a smooth path through a point, so the bending degree of freedom is a second derivative of the path rather than an independent discrete connector; change that kinematic choice and the advection law, the torque, and the closure all change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any $N$, a Hookean chain with linear mobility can be simulated by evolving a finite set of $x$-dependent tensor fields instead of a high-dimensional distribution function; no Fokker--Planck solution is required.
  • For the three-bead chain the closed moment set is explicit: $\langle 1\rangle$, $\langle y^j y^k\rangle$, $\langle z^j z^k\rangle$, $\langle y^i y^l z^k\rangle$, $\langle y^m y^n y^j y^l\rangle$, and $\langle z^k\rangle$, and it determines the stress.
  • For $N\ge 2$ the antisymmetric part of the elastic stress is a divergence of a rank-3 tensor, so the model conserves fluid angular momentum while transmitting it across material surfaces; the resulting continuum theory is a couple-stress, asymmetric-stress fluid.
  • When the internal energy contains any cross term between different jet orders, exact finite closure fails; only rotationally invariant admissible energies are Hookean-like sums of linear and quadratic terms in each jet coordinate.
  • The exactly closable systems reproduce and generalise the upper-convected Maxwell model, with the two-bead case recovered when the extra bending moments are forgotten by integrating over $z$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the jet description is right, the bending coordinate is not a second independent connector vector: a three-bead chain is kinematically different from two bead-spring pairs sharing a centre, and this difference should be visible in flows whose velocity has a nonzero second derivative.
  • The moment set that closes under the double-bracket dynamics suggests a natural, microphysics-free choice of internal state variables for more complex polymer models, thereby reducing the arbitrariness the author notes in the phenomenological state-variable approach.
  • The admissibility theorem implies that non-Hookean spring potentials, for example finite-extensible springs, will require approximate closures; the order counting used here gives a systematic place to insert a Peterlin-type pre-averaging assumption.
  • Because the stress asymmetry is generated solely by the $\partial^2 u$ term in the complete lift, its magnitude is controlled by velocity curvature; experiments in curved microchannels could separate this contribution from ordinary viscoelastic stress.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a double-bracket (Poisson plus dissipation bracket) formulation for suspensions of multibead chains, taking the configuration space of an (N+1)-bead chain to be the Nth-order tangent bundle T^(N)M. The conservative dynamics is built from the complete lift of the fluid velocity to T^(N)M, giving a semidirect-product Lie--Poisson bracket; a metric dissipation bracket supplies relaxation and diffusion. The author derives the particle-contributed stress from the Hamiltonian, shows that for N>=2 the stress is generically asymmetric with the antisymmetric part a divergence of a rank-3 tensor, and proves exact finite moment closure for quadratic (Hookean-like) internal energies. The 3-bead case is worked out explicitly, with the closed system of moment equations (5.17)--(5.22), and the general order-counting argument in Section 6 establishes the same closure for arbitrary N. The paper also characterizes admissible energies via a proposition showing that admissible polynomial energies are at most linear-quadratic in each separate order.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a useful and nontrivial extension of the upper-convected Maxwell closure to multibead chains, and gives a concrete kinetic model whose stress has an asymmetric (couple-stress) part. The central derivations are transparent and checkable: the moment equations for the 3-bead chain are explicit, and the order-counting argument for general N is clean. A notable strength is that the paper is honest about the modeling choice: it explicitly distinguishes T^(N)M from (T oplus ... oplus T)M and notes that the complete lifts differ, which is exactly the point on which the asymmetric stress rests. The paper also gives a clear sufficient condition for closure and proves that admissible energies are of a very restricted form. These features make the formal content reliable and reproducible.

major comments (2)
  1. [§6.3, Eq. (6.21)] Equation (6.21) contains a sign error that is inconsistent with the explicit 3-bead result (5.13). With R_a^jl defined by Eq. (6.22), specializing (6.21) to N=2 gives the final term +kappa_2 partial_l <y_j y_l z_k>, whereas Eq. (5.13) and a direct integration by parts from Eq. (6.12) give -kappa_2 partial_l <y_j y_l z_k>. The divergence term in (6.21) should carry a minus sign. Please correct this and re-check any downstream signs, since the direction of the couple-stress flux depends on this term.
  2. [§5 (Eq. (5.2)) and Appendix B.1] The physical status of the jet-bundle modeling premise needs a justification or an explicit caveat. The paper is transparent that T^(N)M and (T oplus ... oplus T)M have different complete lifts and that quadratic energy on (T oplus T)M gives a symmetric stress, but it does not provide a controlled limit (for example, bead spacing going to zero with finite-difference coordinates and suitably scaled spring constants) under which a discrete multibead chain is represented by the complete lift on T^(N)M. Since the asymmetric-stress conclusion depends entirely on this modeling choice, the paper should either supply such a limiting argument or explicitly restrict the physical claims to the jet-chain idealization rather than to generic discrete bead-spring chains.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (4.6)] In the displayed formula for tilde{y}^{(2)}(s), the right-hand side should begin with y^{(2)}, not y^{(1)}; as written it appears to be a typographical transcription of the second-order lift.
  2. [§3.4, §6.3] The dissipation bracket in the general multibead model uses unit coefficients in all fibre blocks, whereas the bead-pair benchmark in §3.4 deliberately chooses lambda = 1/2 in the metric to match Ref. [3,28]. This is presumably absorbed by rescaling kappa_a or zeta, but the paper should state explicitly that the general model reduces to the benchmark only after such a rescaling.
  3. [§2, §A] The suppression of smoothness and decay hypotheses is acknowledged, but a single sentence in Section 2 stating that all functionals are assumed sufficiently regular and that boundary terms vanish would help the reader distinguish technical assumptions from physical content.
  4. [§3.4, Eq. (3.31)] The displayed expression for the Oseen--Burgers tensor, Omega_ij = (|y|^2 delta_ij + y_i y_j)/|y|^3, does not appear to have the standard dimensional form; if this is a deliberate convention, a brief comment would avoid confusion.
  5. [Miscellaneous] There are minor typographical issues, including 'Ackowledgements' in the acknowledgements heading, 'Hamiltonain' in the conclusion, and the abstract's 'This flux appear' which should be 'appears'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all central results are derived from explicit model assumptions plus external benchmark calibration.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The model is constructed from explicit choices: configuration space T^(N)M, complete lift of the fluid velocity field, semidirect-product Lie-Poisson bracket, metric dissipation bracket, and quadratic internal energy. Eq. (5.2), the advection equation for the 3-bead distribution, is the coordinate expression of that complete lift; the stress (5.13) is obtained by substituting the quadratic energy into the general force expression (5.3), and its antisymmetric part being a divergence of a rank-3 tensor is a direct algebraic consequence, not an imposed target. The finite closure result is proven by an order-counting argument: each P_a is homogeneous of degree a, and the drift/diffusion terms couple moments only to moments of equal or lower order, so the monomial moments up to order 2N close exactly. The only calibrated quantity is lambda = 1/2 in the Sasaki metric (3.27), chosen so the pair equations coincide with the known bead-spring kinetic equation in [3,28]; this is an external benchmark, and the multibead closure does not depend on lambda. The paper explicitly acknowledges that T^(N)M and (T⊕T)M are noncanonically isomorphic and have different complete lifts (Appendix B.1), so the jet modeling choice is stated rather than smuggled in. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain appears. The physical applicability of the jet idealization to discrete chains is a modeling and correctness question, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central closure theorem is conditioned on the jet-space modeling assumption, the complete-lift homomorphism, the Lagrangian-marker advection picture, the metric dissipation bracket, and the quadratic energy class. No fitted constants enter the multibead results; spring constants and mobility are material parameters, and lambda = 1/2 is a benchmark calibration.

free parameters (3)
  • Metric coefficient lambda in dissipation bracket = 1/2 (chosen)
    Section 3.4 introduces ds^2(lambda) and selects lambda = 1/2 so the bead-pair kinetic equation reproduces Bird et al. [3,28]. It calibrates the UCM benchmark and diffusion coefficients but does not affect the multibead closure proof.
  • Mobility parameter 1/zeta = unspecified positive constant
    Eqs. (3.21) and (6.18) set the strength of dissipation and diffusion; it acts as a free drag parameter in the Fokker-Planck equations and does not enter the closure argument.
  • Spring and bending stiffness constants kappa_a = unspecified positive constants, a = 1,...,N
    The quadratic energy E = sum_a kappa_a |y^(a)|^2/2 in Eq. (6.19) contains one stiffness per chain mode; these are material parameters, not fitted to data.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Smoothness, decay and orientability hypotheses on all infinite-dimensional spaces are assumed.
    The functional derivative and Lie-Poisson machinery is used formally, with boundary terms dropped; stated at the start of Section 2.
  • standard math The complete lift u -> u# is a Lie algebra homomorphism from Vect(M) to Vect(T^(N)M).
    This theorem from Yano-Ishihara [34] underlies the semidirect-product bracket; only a proof sketch is given in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption The configuration space of an (N+1)-bead chain is T^(N)M, the space of jets of paths.
    Introduced in Section 4.1 as an approximation of a chain by Taylor coefficients; it is the main modeling idealization and is not derived from discrete bead mechanics.
  • domain assumption Beads are advected as Lagrangian markers in a Stokes flow, and chains have no inertia or internal angular momentum density.
    Justifies the semidirect advection term and the instantaneous torque balance in Sections 3.3 and 5.1.
  • domain assumption Dissipation is given by a Riemannian-metric bracket implementing a linear mobility relation.
    Defined in Eqs. (3.28), (5.6) and (6.17); this form produces Fokker-Planck drift and diffusion terms, and alternative mobilities such as Oseen coupling are noted to break closure.
  • domain assumption The internal energy E(y) is quadratic, or admissible in the sense of Eq. (6.23), for the closure theorem.
    The exact closure result is restricted to this energy class; the paper proves that admissible energies are linear-quadratic with no cross terms, and rotationally invariant ones reduce to Eq. (6.19).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Double bracket formulation for the distribution function approach to multibead-chain suspensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PTGSV6IH

@misc{pith2026190800798,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Double bracket formulation for the distribution function approach to multibead-chain suspensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PTGSV6IH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00798}
}
abstract

A suspension of elastic chains of small beads in a Newtonian fluid is a common model for a viscoelastic polymer solution. The configuration of these multibead chains can be described by a distribution function that evolves according to a Liouville or Fokker--Planck equation. For example, when we consider a suspension of Hookean bead-spring pairs, this approach leads to the well-known upper-convected Maxwell model. This is done by taking the second moment of the Fokker--Planck equation that governs the distribution function, which describes the stress of the bead-spring pairs on the fluid. The evolution of these multibead-chain suspensions can be described using a double bracket formulation with a Hamiltonian functional. The conservative part of the dynamics is described by a Poisson bracket, and the dissipative part by an additional symmetric bracket. We treat the configuration space of multibead chains as a higher order tangent bundle. Lifting the fluid velocity field to the bundle leads naturally to a semidirect product Lie--Poisson bracket for the conservative dynamics. The elastic stress exerted by the chains then follows directly from the Hamiltonian functional. For chains with three or more beads, the possible bending of the chain introduces an angular momentum flux that is absent for chains with two beads. This flux appear as an asymmetric elastic stress whose antisymmetric part is the divergence of a rank-$3$ tensor, as in the Cosserats' theory of couple stresses. We investigate the possibility of an exact closure, passing from a distribution function description to a closed internal state variable description of the fluid suspension, and obtain some sufficient conditions for their existence. The resulting exactly closable models are generalisations of the upper-convected Maxwell model to Hookean bead-spring chains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00798 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The effect of the flow of u ∈ Vect(M) on the path α i (t). One can check that this equivalence relation is coordinate independent. We will denote each equivalence class by (x i , yi ), where x i is the coordinates of α(0) and y i the coordinates of dα/dt(0), for α(t) a representing element of the equivalence class. Moreover, by constructing a path α i (t) = x i + y i t + O(t 2 ) using coordinates, we can show that e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The coordinates y and z describe the internal degrees of freedom of the 3-bead chain. 5 The 3-bead chain model As an application of the ideas of the previous section, consider the case N = 2. Then T (2)M is the configuration space of a 3-bead chain. The extra degrees of freedom y(1) = y, y(2) = z (renamed for notational clarity) can be thought of as the average extension and the bending of the chain, respectively, a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (T ⊕ T )M consists of a point on M, and a pair of tangent vectors y, z attached to that point. It can be though of as the configuration space of two bead-spring pairs with a common centre. linear quadratic y z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. N. Beris and B. J. Edwards. Poisson bracket formulation of vis coelastic flow equations of differential type: A unified approach. J. Rheol., 34:503–538, 1990

    work page 1990

  2. [2]

    A. N. Beris and B. J. Edwards. Thermodynamics of Flowing Systems . Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    R. Bird, C. Curtiss, R. Armstrong, and O. Hassager. Dynamics of Polymeric Liquids, Volume 2: Kinetic Theory. Wiley, New York, 1987

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    D. W. Condiff and J. S. Dahler. Fluid mechanical aspects of antisym metric stress. Phys. Fluids , 7:842–854, 1964

    work page 1964

  5. [5]

    Cosserat and F

    E. Cosserat and F. Cosserat. Th´ eorie des Corps D´ eformables,. A. Hermann et fils, Paris, 1909

    work page 1909

  6. [6]

    C. T. J. Dodson and M. S. Radivoiovici. Second-order tangent st ructures. Int. J. Theor. Phys. , 21:151–161, Feb 1982

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    Al. I. Cuza

    C. T. J. Dodson and M. S. Radivoiovici. Tangent and frame bundles of order two. An. Stiint. Univ.“Al. I. Cuza” Iasi Sect. I a Mat.(NS) , 28:63–71, 1982

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

    D. G. Ebin and J. Marsden. Groups of diffeomorphisms and the mot ion of an incompressible fluid. Ann. Math., 92:102–163, 1970

    work page 1970

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    B. J. Edwards, A. N. Beris, and M. Grmela. Generalized constitut ive equation for polymeric liquid crystals. Part 1. Model formulation using the Hamiltonian (Poisson bracket) f ormulation. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech., 35:51–72, 1990

    1990

  2. [10]

    C. P. Enz and L. A. Turski. On the Fokker–Planck description of compressible fluids. Physica A, 96:369–378, 1979

    1979

  3. [11]

    Gay-Balmaz and T

    F. Gay-Balmaz and T. S. Ratiu. The geometric structure of com plex fluids. Adv. Appl. Math. , 42:176–275, 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    M. Grmela. Hamiltonian dynamics of incompressible elastic fluids. Phys. Lett. A , 130:81–86, 1988

    1988

  5. [13]

    M. Grmela. Hamiltonian dynamics of elastic fluids: Ericksen stress es. Phys. Lett. A , 137:342–348, 1989

    1989

  6. [14]

    D. D. Holm. Euler–Poincar´ e dynamics of perfect complex fluids. In J. Marsden, P. Newton, P. Holmes, and A. Weinstein, editors, Geometry, Mechanics, and Dynamics: Volume in Honor of the 60 th Birthday of J.E. Marsden , pages 114–168, New York, 2002. Springer

    2002

  7. [15]

    D. D. Holm, J. E. Marsden, and T. S. Ratiu. The Euler–Poincar´ e equations and semidirect products with applications to continuum theories. Adv. Math., 137:1–81, 1998

    1998

  8. [16]

    J. Jost. Riemannian Geometry and Geometric Analysis . Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg, 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    Khesin and R

    B. Khesin and R. Wendt. The Geometry of Infinite-Dimensional Groups . Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    Kim and S

    S. Kim and S. J. Karrila. Microhydrodynamics. Dover, New York, 2005

    2005

  11. [19]

    A. T. Mackay and T. N. Phillips. On the derivation of macroscopic m odels for compressible viscoelastic fluids using the generalized bracket framework. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. , 266:59–71, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    J. E. Marsden, T. Ratiu, and A. Weinstein. Semidirect products and reduction in mechanics. T. Am. Math. Soc. , 281:147–177, 1984. 33

    1984

  13. [21]

    J. E. Marsden, T. Ratiu, and A. J. Weinstein. Reduction and Ham iltonian structures on duals of semidirect product Lie algebras. Contemp. Math. , 28:55–100, 01 1984

    1984

  14. [22]

    J. E. Marsden and T. S. Ratiu. Introduction to Mechanics and Symmetry . Springer, New York, 2013

    2013

  15. [23]

    J. E. Marsden, A. Weinstein, T. Ratiu, R. Schmid, and R. G. Spen cer. Hamiltonian systems with sym- metry, coadjoint orbits and plasma physics. In Proceedings of the IUTAM-ISIMM symposium on modern developments in analytical mechanics, Vol. I (Torino, 1982 ), pages 289–340, 1983

    1982

  16. [24]

    P. J. Morrison. Some observations regarding brackets and dis sipation. Center for Pure and Applied Mathematics Report PAM-228, University of California, Berkeley, 1 984

  17. [25]

    P. J. Morrison. A paradigm for joined Hamiltonian and dissipative s ystems. Physica D , 18:410–419, 1986

    1986

  18. [26]

    P. J. Morrison. Hamiltonian description of the ideal fluid. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 70:467–521, 1998

    1998

  19. [27]

    P. J. Morrison and J. M. Greene. Noncanonical Hamiltonian dens ity formulation of hydrodynamics and ideal magnetohydrodynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 45:790–794, Sep 1980

    1980

  20. [28]

    M. Renardy. Mathematical Analysis of Viscoelastic Flows . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 2000

    2000

  21. [29]

    R. E. Rosensweig. Ferrohydrodynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985

    1985

  22. [30]

    R. Salmon. Hamiltonian fluid mechanics. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. , 20:225–256, 1988

    1988

  23. [31]

    M. I. Shliomis. Magnetic fluids. Soviet Phys. Uspekhi , 17:153–169, 1974

    1974

  24. [32]

    L. W. Tu. Differential Geometry . Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Weinstein

    A. Weinstein. The local structure of Poisson manifolds. J. Differ. Geom. , 18:523–557, 1983

    1983

  26. [34]

    Yano and S

    K. Yano and S. Ishihara. Tangent and Cotangent Bundles: Differential Geometry . Dekker, New York, 1973

    1973

  27. [35]

    V. E. Zakharov and E. A. Kuznetsov. Hamiltonian formalism for n onlinear waves. Physics–Uspekhi, 40:1087–1116, 1997. 34

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.