Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

G(3)-supergeometry and a supersymmetric extension of the Hilbert-Cartan equation

T0 review · 3 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 G(3) is realized as the full symmetry superalgebra of an explicit super Hilbert–Cartan equation and a companion contact super-PDE, with no larger transitive symmetry algebra possible.

desk verdict First explicit realization of G(3) as the full supersymmetry algebra of concrete super-PDEs, with a load-bearing omitted bracket computation that a careful referee should check before the maximality claim is taken as fully closed. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09106 v2 pith:WFAPHDUU submitted 2019-08-24 math.DG math-phmath.MP

Boris Kruglikov , Andrea Santi , Dennis The This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DGmath-phmath.MP MSC 17B7053C1558A15
keywords G(3)LiesuperalgebrasuperHilbert–CartanequationTanaka–WeisfeilerprolongationSpencercohomologyrank(2|4)superdistributionscontactsuper-PDE(1|2)-twistedcubicbinaryquarticinvariant
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 tries to establish that the exceptional Lie superalgebra $G(3)$ has a concrete geometric life as the symmetry of explicit super-PDEs. Its main targets are a super Hilbert–Cartan equation (the SHC system (1.7)) whose internal symmetry superalgebra is exactly $G(3)$, and a companion $G(3)$-contact super-PDE (1.8) whose contact symmetry superalgebra is also exactly $G(3)$. Both systems are written out with their $(17|14)$ symmetry generators, and the proof is carried by a computation of the Tanaka–Weisfeiler prolongation of the associated symbol superalgebras. If the theorems are right, $G(3)$ becomes the maximal transitive symmetry superalgebra for these supergeometries, and the second Spencer cohomology gives a binary quadratic invariant that can be read as a 'square root' of the classical binary quartic for rank-2 distributions in five dimensions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Tanaka–Weisfeiler prolongation of the negatively graded Lie superalgebra $m=g_-$ attached to two parabolic subalgebras, $p^{IV}_1$ and $p^{IV}_2$, of $G(3)$. The first Spencer cohomology groups $H^{d,1}(m,g)$ control how large a transitive symmetry superalgebra can be: vanishing in positive degrees forces $\mathrm{pr}(m)$ or $\mathrm{pr}(m,g_0)$ to be exactly $G(3)$. The paper computes these groups by spectral-sequence and representation-theoretic arguments, using the explicit full-rank bracket table of $m$ in the SHC case (Lemma 3.13). On the PDE side, the field of $(1|2)$-twisted cubics and its Lagrangian osculating spaces carry the contact super-PDE, and the cubic-form identities (Proposition 2.5) reduce the direct symmetry verification to manageable algebraic checks.

What would settle it

Recompute the first Spencer cohomology directly from the brackets in Lemma 3.13 and check whether $H^{0,1}(m,g)$ and $H^{1,1}(m,g)$ really vanish; equivalently, test the 31 listed symmetry generators of Appendix C and Table 7 by substituting them into the defining Pfaffian systems (1.7) and (1.8), or search for a locally transitive SHC-type superdistribution whose symmetry superalgebra has dimension strictly larger than $(17|14)$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that $G(3)$ is not merely an abstract simple Lie superalgebra but the exact symmetry superalgebra of two concrete differential systems: the SHC equation (1.7) and the $G(3)$-contact super-PDE (1.8). Theorem 4.13 identifies the internal symmetries of the SHC equation with $G(3)$, and Theorem 4.10 identifies the contact symmetries of the companion system with $G(3)$, with all generators listed explicitly. The prolongation theorems (Theorem 3.16 with Corollary 3.17 for SHC, Theorem 3.9 with Corollary 3.10 for the contact case) show that the corresponding Tanaka–Weisfeiler prolongation is exactly $G(3)$, so no larger transitive symmetry superalgebra can appear. In the curved setting, the SHC symbol is rigid, and any locally transitive symmetry superalgebra that is not $G(3)$ has dimension at most $(10|8)$, a gap realized by super-extensions of the classical submaximally symmetric models. The second Spencer cohomology computation for the SHC grading yields $H^{2,2}(m,g)_{\bar 0}\cong S^2\mathbb{C}^2\otimes\Lambda^2\mathbb{C}^2$, a binary quadratic invariant that the paper interprets as a 'square root' of the classical binary quartic invariant.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the bracket table of Lemma 3.13, whose proof is omitted: the vanishing of the first Spencer cohomology, and hence the claim that $G(3)$ is the maximal symmetry superalgebra, is computed from that table, so a missing bracket or a sign error would break the main theorem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The SHC equation has a rigid solution space: its solutions depend only on five arbitrary constants, and the space of maximal integral submanifolds of any SHC-type superdistribution has the same finite functional dimension (Theorem 5.10).
  • The SHC symbol is rigid: up to isomorphism there are exactly four fundamental non-degenerate symbol superalgebras with growth $(2|4,1|2,2|0)$, and SHC-type distributions are stable under small deformations preserving the growth vector (Theorem 5.1 and Corollary 5.3).
  • There is a sharp supersymmetry gap: a locally transitive SHC-type distribution has symmetry superalgebra either $G(3)$, of dimension $(17|14)$, or at most $(10|8)$; super-extensions of the classical submaximally symmetric models realize the bound (Theorems 5.12 and 5.13).
  • The second Spencer cohomology of the SHC grading is a binary quadratic form in degree 2 and vanishes in all other positive degrees, giving a 'square root' of the classical binary quartic invariant for five-dimensional rank-2 distributions (Theorem 3.20).
  • The two super-PDE systems are linked by a Cauchy-characteristic reduction, mirroring the classical G(2) twistor correspondence between the Hilbert–Cartan equation and the G(2)-contact system (Section 4.4).

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the second-cohomology computation is correct, the existence of an SHC super-extension of a Monge equation should be exceptional: the underlying classical distribution must carry a binary-quadratic invariant of restricted type, so super-extendability becomes a selection principle among Monge equations.
  • The same prolongation-plus-explicit-symmetry strategy is a natural template for other exceptional Lie superalgebras; $F(4)$ is the most obvious next candidate, and an explicit $F(4)$-symmetric super-PDE would give the kind of concrete model the paper proposes for $G(3)$.
  • The dimension gap between $(17|14)$ and $(10|8)$ raises the question whether the non-flat models with symmetry dimension $(10|8)$ are locally unique or form a moduli space; the paper's methods do not yet settle the intransitive case, which would need Cartan-connection techniques.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper realizes the exceptional Lie superalgebra G(3) as the full symmetry superalgebra of two concrete super-PDE systems: the super Hilbert–Cartan equation (SHC, Eq. (1.7)) and the G(3)-contact super-PDE system (1.8). The proofs combine an explicit computation of symmetry generators (Appendix C and Table 7) with upper bounds obtained from Tanaka–Weisfeiler prolongation, computed through first Spencer cohomology for two parabolic gradings of G(3). The authors further compute second Spencer cohomology in the SHC grading, obtaining H^{2,2}(m,g) ≅ S²C² ⊠ Λ²C², which they interpret as a 'square-root' of Cartan's binary quartic; they then study curved superdistributions of SHC type, prove rigidity of the symbol, classify their integral submanifolds, and exhibit submaximally symmetric super-extensions of the classical Monge models.

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper provides the first concrete geometric realizations of the exceptional Lie superalgebra G(3) as the maximal supersymmetry algebra of PDE systems and of distributions with growth (2|4,1|2,2|0). This is a substantial contribution to super-differential geometry and to the theory of super-PDE. The lower-bound computations are explicit and reproducible: the symmetries are written out in full in Table 7 and Appendix C, and the paper is careful to separate the direct symmetry computation from the independent Spencer-cohomology computation, so there is no evident circularity. The Spencer-cohomology arguments are nontrivial, use appropriate tools (Hochschild–Serre spectral sequence, Kostant's theorem for the even part, osp(1|2)-representation rigidity), and the paper makes an honest effort to give fully detailed proofs in the main text and appendices. The main unresolved question is not the overall architecture but the verification of several load-bearing computational constants.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4.1, Lemma 3.13] The proof of Lemma 3.13 is omitted, with the text saying only that the bracket components follow from a root-system 'full rank' check. These brackets, especially the constants in (3.16), are the concrete input to Lemma 3.14, Theorem 3.16, and Theorem 3.20: they feed the cocycle computations that yield H^{d,1}(m,g)=0 for d≥0 and H^{2,2}(m,g) ≅ S²C² ⊠ Λ²C². A missed component or a wrong sign or normalization ratio would change the Spencer cohomology and hence the maximality and square-root statements. I was not able to verify the constants from the printed root-system data alone. This is a verification gap rather than an observed error, but it is load-bearing and must be closed: please supply a proof of Lemma 3.13, or an explicit machine-checked verification of all nonzero bracket constants and their signs, or a reproducible computation that derives (3.14)–(3.16) from the root-system conventions of Section 2.1.
  2. [Section 5.4.1, Theorem 5.12, Case 2] Case 2 of Theorem 5.12, which rules out filtered deformations of the graded subalgebra a of dimension (10|9), is delegated to Maple computations that are only summarized in the text ('Those are done in Maple ... and rely on linear algebra over Q only'). This case is needed for the claimed supersymmetry dimension gap: it excludes symmetry superalgebras strictly between (10|8) and (17|14). The printed parameter analysis is suggestive but not by itself a complete proof. Please make the Maple computation an explicit part of the public record: include the script and its output, or state the decisive polynomial/rational identities that the reader can check, so that the classification of Case 2 is independently verifiable from the paper.
  3. [Section 5.3 and Theorem 5.13] The statement that the special parameter values m = −1, 1/3, 2/3 in Theorem 5.13 have symmetry dimension exactly (10|8) is asserted as 'a direct computation shows', without presenting the resulting symmetry algebra or a reproducible verification. These values are used to support the conclusion that maximally symmetric classical rank-2 distributions can be super-extended either to the maximal G(3) case or to the submaximal (10|8) case. Since this is one of the paper's advertised phenomena, the computation should be either written out or supplied in a reproducible form, analogously to the explicit generators given for the generic m in Theorem 5.13.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Remark 5.7] The abstract says the second Spencer cohomology group 'provides' a square-root of Cartan's binary quartic, while Remark 5.7 says the precise geometric relationship with the Cartan quartic will be given elsewhere. Please align the wording so the advertised claim does not exceed what is proven.
  2. [Proposition 2.1] The proof of the second claim of Proposition 2.1 refers forward to Theorem 3.16. There is no circularity, but it would help the reader if the text noted explicitly that the proof of Theorem 3.16 does not use Proposition 2.1.
  3. [Section 3.3.3, Theorem 3.9] The identification of H^{0,1}(m,g) and H^{1,2}(m,g) as irreducible osp(3|2)-modules uses an inspection of [14, Table 3.65] and dimension counts. This is acceptable, but a sentence explaining the exact branching calculation would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Section 5.1, Corollary 5.6] The determinant computation P = p_{uxx}^{56}(p_{ux}+L|_o p_z)^8 is stated as 'an easy computation' but no derivation is given. Since Corollary 5.6 is a striking functional-dimension result, please at least describe the structure of the 64×64 symbol matrix or provide the calculation as supplementary material.
  5. [Appendix C] The explicit list of 31 generators is very long and hard to check by eye. It would be helpful to state explicitly that the generators have been verified with the Maple package and to archive the verification script with the arXiv submission, since the paper already relies on Maple for Theorem 5.12.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: G(3) symmetry is established by explicit symmetry computations plus independent Spencer-cohomology upper bounds, not by assuming the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's main claims are the maximality of G(3) as the internal symmetry superalgebra of the super Hilbert–Cartan equation (Theorem 4.13) and as the contact symmetry superalgebra of the G(3)-contact super-PDE (Theorem 4.10). These claims have two logically independent ingredients. The lower bound is explicit: the paper lists the (17|14) symmetry generators in Table 7 and Appendix C, and verifies in Proposition 4.11 that the top-degree generating function is a symmetry of the flat G(3)-contact supergeometry using the key identities of Proposition 2.5, which are derived from the explicit cubic form, not from an assumed G(3)-action. The upper bound is cohomological: Theorem 3.16 proves H^{d,1}(m,g)=0 for all d>=0 for the SHC grading, and Theorem 3.9 does the analogous vanishing in positive degrees for the contact grading; Corollaries 3.10 and 3.17 then identify the Tanaka–Weisfeiler prolongation with G(3). These computations are performed directly on the bracket data of the graded Lie superalgebra m, using the Hochschild–Serre spectral sequence, Kostant's theorem on the even part, and representation theory of osp(1|2), rather than by citing the desired symmetry result. The construction of the SHC equation by integrating the nilpotent Lie superalgebra associated to p^IV_2 does make G(3)-invariance of the flat model built in, but that is a lower bound only; the nontrivial content is maximality, which is supplied independently by the Spencer cohomology. The omitted proof of Lemma 3.13 is a genuine verification gap: the stated bracket constants feed into the cocycle computations that determine H^{1}(m,g) and H^{2}(m,g), and a missed component would change the conclusions. However, an omitted proof is not circularity, and the reader's context correctly identifies this as a verification risk rather than a circular reduction. Self-citations are present—[35] is by D. The and [10] is cited for classical submaximal symmetry results—but they are used as classical benchmarks or as a source of parametrization, not as the proof that the super-symmetry algebras equal G(3). The paper explicitly notes that the parabolic-geometry method of [35] is not available in the super-setting and therefore computes the Spencer cohomology directly. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own prior work to forbid alternatives, and no known result is merely relabelled.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no ad hoc structural assumptions. Its inputs are standard classification and representation theory facts (Kac classification, Kostant/Bott-Borel-Weil for the even part, Djokovic-Hochschild complete reducibility for osp(1|2)) and the Tanaka-Weisfeiler prolongation framework extended to superalgebras. The main geometric object, the (1|2)-twisted cubic, is constructed from the homogeneous model rather than postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Tanaka-Weisfeiler prolongation theory extends verbatim to finite-dimensional Lie superalgebras and to the mild generalization pr(m,g0).
    Stated in Section 1.1; the paper relies on it to identify G(3) with pr(m) and to bound symmetry dimensions.
  • standard math Djokovic-Hochschild complete reducibility for finite-dimensional osp(1|2) modules, with irreducible modules splitting into two sp(2) irreducibles with different consecutive highest weights.
    Used in Theorem 3.16 and Proposition 3.21 to force vanishing of H^{d,1} and H^{d,2,bar1} for the SHC grading, cited as [6, 9].
  • standard math Kostant's version of the Bott-Borel-Weil theorem for the even part G(2) ⊕ sp(2), used to compute H^q(m_bar0, g).
    Invoked in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.4.1; the super-case lacks such a theorem, so the paper computes the mixed-parity contributions separately.
  • domain assumption Restriction to the complex field; the real version corresponds to the split (normal) form.
    Stated in Section 1; all homogeneity and cohomology results are for complex Lie superalgebras.
  • domain assumption Existence of local quotients by Cauchy characteristic spaces and the functor-of-points description of supervarieties.
    Used for the SHC reduction in Section 4.4 and for the (1|2)-twisted cubic in Section 2.4.3.
invented entities (1)
  • Field of (1|2)-twisted cubics V ⊂ P(C) independent evidence
    purpose: Defines the G(3)-contact supergeometry and its reduction to COSp(3|2); its osculations give the super-PDE (1.8).
    In the flat model G(3)/PIV_1 it is the orbit of a parabolic OSp(3|2) flag variety, so it is constructed from the group action rather than postulated; its classical body is the rational normal cubic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of G(3)-supergeometry and a supersymmetric extension of the Hilbert-Cartan equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WFAPHDUU

@misc{pith2026190809106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: G(3)-supergeometry and a supersymmetric extension of the Hilbert-Cartan equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WFAPHDUU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09106}
}
read the original abstract

We realize the simple Lie superalgebra G(3) as supersymmetry of various geometric structures, most importantly super-versions of the Hilbert-Cartan equation (SHC) and Cartan's involutive PDE system that exhibit G(2) symmetry. We provide the symmetries explicitly and compute, via the first Spencer cohomology groups, the Tanaka-Weisfeiler prolongation of the negatively graded Lie superalgebras associated with two particular choices of parabolics. We discuss non-holonomic superdistributions with growth vector (2|4,1|2,2|0) deforming the flat model SHC, and prove that the second Spencer cohomology group gives a binary quadratic form, thereby providing a "square-root" of Cartan's classical binary quartic invariant for generic rank 2 distributions in a 5-dimensional space. Finally, we obtain super-extensions of Cartan's classical submaximally symmetric models, compute their symmetries and observe a supersymmetry dimension gap phenomenon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09106 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. G(2)-twistor correspondence as a relation between PDEs and ODEs. On the left is the 5-dimensional space G(2)/P1 equipped with a rank 2 distribution having growth vector (2, 1, 2). (Here and in the following, the growth vector is the list of dimensions of the graded components of the symbol algebra. Another convention is to list dimensions of the filtered components, in which case it is called a (2, 3, 5) distributio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. G(3)-twistor correspondence considered in this paper. The superdistribution D2 has a non-trivial Cauchy characteristic space Ch(D2 ), which we compute in Section 4.4 (we remark that D2 is simply denoted by the symbol H in that section). It is spanned by the even supervector field C = Dx − λDy − θDν − φDτ , (1.9) where Dx, Dy, Dτ, Dν are truncated total derivatives (explicit formulae are given in Section 4.4) and λ =… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Inequivalent simple root systems for G(3) 2.2. Parabolic subalgebras and a map of G(3)-supergeometries. A Z-grading of g is a de￾composition g = L k∈Z gk satisfying [gi, gj ] ⊂ gi+j for all i,j ∈ Z. In particular, g0 is a LSA and each gk is a g0 -module. Since the Killing form on G(3) is non-degenerate, then gk = (g−k) ∗ as g0 -modules. The corresponding parabolic subalgebra is p = g>0 = L k>0 gk, and g− is the asso… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Map of G(3)-supergeometries. Green nodes are the focus of this article. 2.3. SHC and contact gradings. We will work with Π = {α1, α2, α3} labelled IV in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    bosonic solutions

    = − cρ2 andΞ(e2,θ ′′ 1 ) = cρ1 withc ⁄= 0 sinceΞ(e2, ·)|Ke1 is injective. Finally , the relations (5.8) imply thatΘ(θ ′ 2,ρ2) = − 1 cf2 = −Θ(θ ′′ 2 ,ρ1). Rescalinge2 andf2, we arrive at the canonical normal form for q,β,Ξ,Θ as in the SHC symbol algebra. The map ω is either vanishing, in which case we are led to the model (M4), or non-degenerate, in which ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    We first establish (ii)

    Moreover,Ke isq-isotropic (using (5.1) and that β is an isomorphism). We first establish (ii). If (ii) fails, then there exists 0 ⁄=θ ∈ (g− 1)¯1 such that Ξ(·,θ) = 0, so q(θ, ·) ⁄= 0 by (N2). By (5.1), for any θ2 ∈ (g− 1)¯1, we have the identity Θ(θ,Ξ(e,θ2)) =β(e,q(θ,θ2)) of elements (g− 3)¯0. Since β is an isomorphism, then: (a) fixing θ2 ∈ (g− 1)¯1 withq(...

    work page

  3. [3]

    proportional to

    type geometry via a purely odd contact structure. Ifσ is a local defining 1-form for the rank (0|7) contact distribution C, then [dσ|C] is a conformal metric (in the classical sense). A reduction of t he structure group toG(2)×C× ⊂ CO(7) can be encoded by the additional choice of a conformal class o f generic 3-forms on C. Let us focus on the geometries hi...

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Carmeli, L

    C. Carmeli, L. Caston, and R. Fioresi. Mathematical foundations of supersymmetry . EMS Series of Lectures in Mathematics. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Z ¨urich, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    E. Cartan. Sur la structure des groupes simples finis et co ntinus. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris , 116:784–786, 1893

    work page

  6. [6]

    E. Cartan. Les syst `emes de Pfaff `a cinq variables et les ´equations aux d ´eriv´ees partielles du second ordre. Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (3) , 27:109–192, 1910

    work page 1910

  7. [7]

    Chapovalov , M

    D. Chapovalov , M. Chapovalov , A. Lebedev , and D. Leites.The classification of almost affine (hyperbolic) Lie superalgebras. J. Nonlinear Math. Phys., 17(suppl. 1):103–161, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Cheng and V

    S.-J. Cheng and V . G. Kac. Generalized Spencer cohomolog y and filtered deformations of Z-graded Lie superalgebras. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 2(5):1141–1182, 1998

    work page 1998

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Corwin, Y

    L. Corwin, Y. Ne’eman, and S. Sternberg. Graded Lie algeb ras in mathematics and physics (Bose-Fermi symmetry). Rev. Modern Phys., 47:573–603, 1975

    1975

  2. [10]

    Coulembier

    K. Coulembier. Bott-Borel-Weil theory and Bernstein-G el’fand-Gel’fand reciprocity for Lie superalgebras. T ransform. Groups, 21(3):681–723, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Deligne, P

    P . Deligne, P . Etingof, D. S. Freed, L. C. Jeffrey , D. Kazhd an, J. W. Morgan, D. R. Morrison, and E. Witten, editors. Quantum fields and strings: a course for mathematicians. Vol . 1, 2 . American Mathematical Society , Providence, RI; Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), Pri...

    1999

  4. [12]

    D. v . Djokovi´c and G. Hochschild. Semisimplicity of 2-graded Lie algebras. II. Illinois J. Math., 20(1):134–143, 1976

    1976

  5. [13]

    Doubrov and B

    B. Doubrov and B. Kruglikov . On the models of submaximal symmetric rank 2 distributions in 5D. Differ- ential Geom. Appl. , 35(suppl.):314–322, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    F. Engel. Sur un groupe simple `a quatorze param `etres. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris , 116:786–788, 1893. 68 BORIS KRUGLIKOV, ANDREA SANTI, AND DENNIS THE

  7. [15]

    Figueroa-O’Farrill and A

    J. Figueroa-O’Farrill and A. Santi. Spencer cohomolog y and 11-dimensional supergravity. Comm. Math. Phys., 349(2):627–660, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Fioresi and M

    R. Fioresi and M. A. Lled ´o. The Minkowski and conformal superspaces . World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2015. The classical and quantum descr iptions

    2015

  9. [17]

    Frappat, A

    L. Frappat, A. Sciarrino, and P . Sorba. Dictionary on Lie algebras and superalgebras . Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, 2000. With 1 CD-ROM (Windows, Macintosh and UNIX)

    2000

  10. [18]

    D. B. Fuks. Cohomology of infinite-dimensional Lie algebras . Contemporary Soviet Mathematics. Consultants Bureau, New York, 1986. Translated from the Russian by A. B. S osinski˘ı

    1986

  11. [19]

    A. S. Galaev . Holonomy of supermanifolds. Abh. Math. Semin. Univ. Hambg., 79(1):47–78, 2009

    2009

  12. [20]

    A. S. Galaev . Irreducible complex skew-Berger algebra s. Differential Geom. Appl. , 27(6):743–754, 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    Goncharov

    A. Goncharov . Generalized conformal structures on man ifolds. Selecta Math. Sov., 6(4):306–340, 1987

    1987

  14. [22]

    Guillemin

    V . Guillemin. The integrability problem for G-structures. T rans. Amer. Math. Soc., 116:544–560, 1965

    1965

  15. [23]

    D. Hilbert. ¨Uber den begriff der klasse von differentialgleichungen. Math. Ann., 73(1):95–108, 1912

    1912

  16. [24]

    V . G. Kac. Classification of simple Z-graded Lie superalgebras and simple Jordan superalgebras . Comm. Algebra, 5(13):1375–1400, 1977

    1977

  17. [25]

    V . G. Kac. Lie superalgebras. Advances in Math., 26(1):8–96, 1977

    1977

  18. [26]

    B. Kostant. Lie algebra cohomology and the generalized Borel-Weil theorem. Ann. of Math. (2), 74:329–387, 1961

    1961

  19. [27]

    Kruglikov

    B. Kruglikov . The gap phenomenon in the dimension study of finite type systems. Cent. Eur. J. Math. , 10(5):1605–1618, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    Kruglikov

    B. Kruglikov . Symmetries of filtered structures via filt ered Lie equations. J. Geom. Phys., 85:164–170, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    Kruglikov and D

    B. Kruglikov and D. The. The gap phenomenon in parabolic geometries. J. Reine Angew. Math., 723:153–215, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Leites, E

    D. Leites, E. Poletaeva, and V . Serganova. On Einstein e quations on manifolds and supermanifolds. J. Non- linear Math. Phys., 9(4):394–425, 2002

    2002

  23. [31]

    Y. I. Manin. Grassmannians and flags in supergeometry. I n Some problems in modern analysis , pages 83–101. Moskov . Gos. Univ ., Mekh.-Mat. Fak., Moscow , 1984

    1984

  24. [32]

    Y. I. Manin. Gauge field theory and complex geometry , volume 289 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wis- senschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Scie nces]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997. Translated from the 1984 Russian original by N. Koblitz and J. R. King, With a...

    1997

  25. [33]

    Rittenberg and M

    V . Rittenberg and M. Scheunert. Elementary Constructi on of Graded Lie Groups. J. Math. Phys. , 19:709, 1978

    1978

  26. [34]

    A. Santi. Superization of homogeneous spin manifolds a nd geometry of homogeneous supermanifolds. Abh. Math. Semin. Univ. Hambg., 80(1):87–144, 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    Sciarrino and P

    A. Sciarrino and P . Sorba. Representations of the Lie su peralgebraG(3). In XV International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics (Philadelphia, P A, 19 86), pages 513–521. World Sci. Publ., Teaneck, NJ, 1987

    1987

  28. [36]

    Serganova

    V . Serganova. Kac-Moody superalgebras and integrability. In Developments and trends in infinite-dimensional Lie theory, volume 288 of Progr. Math., pages 169–218. Birkh ¨auser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2011

    2011

  29. [37]

    N. Tanaka. On differential systems, graded Lie algebras and pseudogroups. J. Math. Kyoto Univ. , 10:1–82, 1970

    1970

  30. [38]

    D. The. Exceptionally simple PDE. Differential Geom. Appl. , 56:13–41, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    V . S. Varadarajan. Supersymmetry for mathematicians: an introduction , volume 11 of Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics . New York University , Courant Institute of Mathematical Sc iences, New York; American Mathematical Society , Providence, RI, 2004

    2004

  32. [40]

    B. J. Weisfeiler. Infinite dimensional filtered Lie alge bras and their connection with graded Lie algebras. Funkcional. Anal. i Prilo ˇzen, 2(1):94–95, 1968

    1968

  33. [41]

    Wess and B

    J. Wess and B. Zumino. Supergauge transformations in fo ur dimensions. Nuclear Phys., B70:39–50, 1974

    1974

  34. [42]

    T/u.sc/l.sc/l.sc/i.sc/o.sc L/e.sc/v.sc/i.sc-C/i.sc/v.sc/i.sc/t.sc/a.sc

    K. Yamaguchi. G2-geometry of overdetermined systems of second order. In Analysis and geometry in several complex variables (Katata, 1997), Trends Math., pages 289–314. Birkh ¨auser Boston, Boston, MA, 1999. (BK, DT) D/e.sc/p.sc/a.sc/r.sc/t.sc/m.sc/e.sc/n.sc/t.sc /o.sc/f.sc M/a...

    1997

Pith tools

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