Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Boxy/peanut shaping of a mature galactic bar in action-angle space

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a mature galactic bar, vertical resonant trapping, not resonant heating, is the dominant ongoing process that grows the boxy/peanut bulge.

desk verdict New method that separates trapping from heating in N-body bars, but the dominance claim is undercut by the lack of a measured ΔJ_z budget. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10391 v1 pith:4G5Z3AGF submitted 2024-11-15 astro-ph.GA

Viktor D. Zozulia , Anton A. Smirnov , Natalia Ya. Sotnikova , Alexander A. Marchuk This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galacticbarboxy/peanutbulgeverticalinnerLindbladresonanceresonanttrappingheatingaction-anglevariablesN-bodysimulationsorbitalclassification
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 asks why disk galaxies develop boxy or peanut-shaped bulges long after the initial buckling of the bar has finished. Using the actions and resonant angles of the actual orbits in a self-consistent N-body simulation, the authors distinguish two late-time mechanisms: resonant trapping, where orbits librate around the vertical inner Lindblad resonance, and resonant heating, where orbits simply pass through it. They report that trapping dominates: at t=500, 30% of recently trapped bar orbits are caught in the resonance versus 21% in passage, and half of all bar orbits spend more than 2.5 Gyr inside the resonance over a 4 Gyr interval. The implication is that real galaxies can keep growing their boxy/peanut bulges purely through resonant capture, without buckling or a frozen-potential artifact.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the resonant angle $\theta_{\rm res}=\theta_z-\theta_R$ built from the vertical and radial angles of each orbit, together with a four-state classification of its behavior: circulation with $\theta_{\rm res}$ increasing, circulation with $\theta_{\rm res}$ decreasing, libration around 0, $\pi$ (banana orbits) or $\pi/2$, $3\pi/2$ (anti-banana orbits), and passage through the resonance. Unperturbed actions and frequencies are computed for the axisymmetrized potential, time-averaged over oscillation periods, and smoothed with mean-preserving splines to obtain secular values (Appendix A). The resonant angle, rather than the frequency ratio $\omega_z/\kappa$, is what lets the authors separate trapping from heating: a ratio near 1 can describe either a librating orbit or one that is merely passing through, while the angle's time history shows which is happening.

What would settle it

Take orbits classified as trapped at t=500 and integrate them in a frozen potential built from the actual barred snapshot; if they do not librate around $\theta_{\rm res}=0$ or $\pi$ in that potential, the trapping label is an artifact of using axisymmetric actions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that in the mature, post-buckling phase of a typical bar, the vertical inner Lindblad resonance acts as a persistent trap rather than a transient heater. Tracking the resonant angle $\theta_{\rm res}=\theta_z-\theta_R$ over t=250–550 in a self-consistent N-body model, the authors classify every orbit into four behaviors: circulation with increasing or decreasing angle, libration in resonance (banana or anti-banana), and passage. Among orbits that joined the bar between t=300 and 400, 30% were librating at t=500 while only 21% were in passage; half of trapped orbits stayed in resonance for more than 1.9 Gyr, and half of all bar orbits logged more than 2.5 Gyr in resonance during the 4 Gyr window. The authors conclude that resonant trapping, not resonant heating, is the dominant ongoing mechanism that lifts disk orbits into the B/PS bulge, in direct contradiction of several recent works.

Load-bearing premise

The whole classification rests on treating the time-averaged motions computed from the round, bar-free version of the galaxy's gravity as genuine underlying motions; if the strong bar breaks those approximations, an orbit's labeled trapping or passage could be a numerical artifact rather than real behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • After buckling has ended, resonant trapping alone can keep growing the boxy/peanut structure as the bar matures.
  • Frequency ratios near $\omega_z/\kappa = 1$ are ambiguous; the resonant angle's time history is required to tell trapped, passing, and circulating orbits apart.
  • The thickest part of the B/PS bulge formed early and is barely replenished, while the thinner, extended parts are fed by newly trapped orbits.
  • Some orbits remain locked in the vILR for more than 4 Gyr even while the bar slows down and the potential changes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If trapping dominance is generic, the growth rate of a boxy/peanut bulge should track the bar's slowdown rate: a faster-decaying pattern speed sweeps the vILR outward more quickly, converting more passing orbits into trapped ones.
  • The same resonant-angle method could be turned on other bar resonances (corotation, outer Lindblad) to test whether trapping versus transit is a general dichotomy for secular bar-driven evolution, not just vertical thickening.
  • A natural stress test would be to recompute actions in a time-dependent barred potential fitted to the simulation snapshots; if the 30%/21% split and multi-gigayear librations survive, the conclusion is robust to the unperturbed-actions caveat, and if not, the distinction may be an artifact of the axisymmetric approximation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies vertical resonant trapping and resonant heating of orbits in a mature, self-consistent N-body galactic bar, using action-angle variables computed with AGAMA for the axisymmetrized potential. The authors track the resonant angle θ_z−θ_R and classify orbits as circulating, librating (in the vILR), or passing through resonance. They report that at t=500, among orbits trapped into the bar between t=300 and t=400, 30% librate in the vILR, 21% are in passage, and that trapped banana orbits can remain in resonance for more than 1.9 Gyr. From these statistics they conclude that in the later stages of bar evolution vertical trapping dominates the ongoing growth of the boxy/peanut bulge, contradicting some recent works.

Significance. The paper introduces a genuinely new diagnostic to the N-body study of B/PS bulges: the resonant angle as a function of time, as opposed to instantaneous frequency ratios. The qualitative demonstration that trapping and heating coexist at the mature-bar stage, and that individual orbits can librate for several Gyr and then escape, is valuable and goes beyond previous frequency-based analyses. The use of a fully self-consistent model without imposed symmetry is a strength. However, the central quantitative claim that trapping dominates the ongoing growth of the boxy/peanut shape is not supported by the evidence presented; the analysis shows that trapped orbits are numerous and long-lived, but it does not measure their actual contribution to the growth of the vertical action J_z. If the missing attribution analysis is provided, the result would be a significant contribution to the debate on B/PS formation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 and Conclusions, second bullet] The claim that vertical trapping dominates the ongoing growth of the B/PS bulge is not established because the paper never measures the actual growth of the vertical action J_z attributable to orbits in the trapped (librating) versus passage states. In Sec. 3.3 the authors state that while an orbit librates, J_z oscillates around the mean value, and that 'leaving the vILR, the orbit enters the circulation mode with the maximum value of J_z (Fig. 3)'; they also state that 'the thickest part of the B/PS bulge grows due to orbits that have passed through the vILR'. The residence-time statistics in Sec. 3.4 (half of trapped orbits in the vILR for >1.9 Gyr) do not imply a large ΔJ_z during trapping; the librating example in Fig. 3 maintains its average J_z. To support the dominance claim, the authors must compare the total ΔJ_z over t=400–550 contributed by each state, for example by integrating the time-dependent J_z over periods spent librating versus passing, or by comparing ensemble J_z growth for orbit subsets matched in J_v and initial J_z. Without such an accounting, the relative importance of the two mechanisms remains undetermined.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 3.4] The abstract states that 'Half of all bar orbits spend more than 2.5 Gyr in vertical resonance over an interval of 4 Gyr', but Sec. 3.4 reports this only for a restricted subset: 'Half of all bar orbits with a resonant angle ∼0(π) spend more than 180 time units in vertical resonance' (i.e., banana-type orbits identified at t=500). The fraction over all bar orbits is not stated and is likely much lower, so the abstract overstates the headline result. In addition, the abstract says 'Half of the orbits trapped into the bar over the last 3 Gyr of simulation remain captured in vertical resonance for more than 2 Gyr', whereas the body says 'half of trapped orbits stay in the vILR for more than 135 time units (1.9 Gyr)'. The abstract should be corrected to match the qualified statements in the body.
  3. [Sec. 2.2 and Appendix A] The entire classification into libration, circulation, and passage rests on 'unperturbed' actions and frequencies computed for the axisymmetrized potential, which the authors acknowledge in Sec. 1 are 'not really proper actions' in a strongly barred potential. If these quantities are not close to true invariants, the resonant angle θ_z−θ_R may show artificial libration or circulation unrelated to resonance. The paper does not test the robustness of the classification to the action definition—for example, by comparing with actions from a torus-fitting method in the barred potential, or by verifying that the resonant-angle behavior is consistent in a frozen barred potential where the Hamiltonian is time-independent. Because the central claim is a quantitative distinction between trapping and heating, this validation is load-bearing. The authors should add a test of the stability of the computed actions (e.g., conservation of J_z over several libration periods for representative orbits) or at least a discussion of the expected systematic error.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'contradicts the results of several recent works' is vague; please name the specific works (e.g., Sellwood & Gerhard 2020) and state precisely which of their conclusions are contradicted.
  2. [Sec. 3.3] The sentence 'In 100–200 time units, about 2·10^4 of 14·10^4 orbits were added to the B/PS bulge in this manner' is unclear; please specify the exact time interval and state the denominator (all orbits in the bar, or the trapped subset).
  3. [Sec. 3.2] The choices of 'flat orbit' (J_z < 0.05 at t=300) and the trapping interval t=300–400 are not justified or tested for sensitivity; please add a sentence explaining why these thresholds are robust or acknowledge the dependency of the statistics on them.
  4. [Appendix A] In the description of the vertical action and frequency, the paper introduces separate θ_z^max and θ_z^min and then averages them; please clarify why this procedure differs from the standard single θ_z and how the initial phases are set consistently between the apocenter-based and z-maximum-based definitions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical measurement from an external N-body simulation, not a consequence of the paper's definitions or prior self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the target claim. The model (disk plus NFW halo evolved with gyrfalcON) is reused from Zozulia et al. (2024), but that prior work is an independent numerical simulation, not a fit to the quantities being predicted; the present conclusion about vertical resonant trapping dominating over resonant heating in a mature bar is obtained by classifying actual orbits from that simulation according to the behavior of the resonant angle theta_z - theta_R (Sec. 3.3) and by measuring residence times (Sec. 3.4). The classification of 'in resonance' versus 'passage' is stated in terms of libration or sign change of the resonant angle (Appendix A), not in terms of the conclusion that trapping contributes more to Delta J_z. The claim 'trapping dominates' is therefore not true by definition; it is an inference from orbit statistics, and the paper itself notes that a librating orbit 'maintains the average value of J_z' while leaving the vILR 'enters the circulation mode with the maximum value of J_z' (Sec. 3.3). That observation points to a gap between residence-time statistics and vertical-action growth attribution, which is an evidential limitation rather than a circular reduction. The acknowledged caveat that actions in a barred potential 'are not really proper actions in the original sense' (Sec. 1) is likewise a validity caveat, not a circular step. Self-citations to Zozulia et al. (2024) supply the simulation, the abnormal-orbit bar definition, and the action-angle machinery; none of these are the target result, and none are invoked as an authority that forbids alternatives. No parameter is fitted to the statistics that are later reported as the main finding, and no equation in the paper sets the conclusion equal to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim depends on the validity of unperturbed actions in a barred potential, on the representativeness of a single N-body model, and on hand-chosen classification thresholds for resonance and passage. These are assumptions the reader must grant; they are not derived in the paper.

free parameters (6)
  • flat_orbit_threshold = J_z < 0.05 at t=300
    Selects the population of 'recently trapped' orbits; changing this threshold changes the sample and quoted fractions.
  • trapping_interval = t=300 to 400 (1.4 Gyr)
    Defines 'orbits trapped into the bar' in the analyzed interval; arbitrary window within the mature-bar phase.
  • resonance_tracking_interval = t=250 to 550 (4.1 Gyr)
    The interval over which resonance residence times are measured; endpoints set by post-buckling stage and simulation length.
  • libration_classification_rule = at least 3 crossings of π/2 multiples within ±π/2
    Hand-chosen rule for labeling an orbit 'in resonance' from its resonant angle history.
  • circulation_classification_rule = 3 successive crossings of π/2 multiples in one direction
    Hand-chosen rule for labeling circulation; affects the fractions of orbit types.
  • classification_epoch = t=500
    The time at which orbits are typed; residence-time distributions are conditional on this selection.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Unperturbed actions computed for the axisymmetric potential approximate the true dynamics in the barred potential.
    Appendix A; the paper states these actions are 'not really proper actions' when a strong bar is present (Sec. 1).
  • domain assumption The single N-body model is a typical representative of bar-forming galaxies.
    Section 2.1; no parameter variation or multiple realizations are provided.
  • domain assumption The early buckling episode (t≈180) does not affect orbits that join the bar after t=300.
    Sections 1 and 3.1; the authors exclude buckling and attribute later lifting only to resonant interaction.
  • standard math The vertical inner Lindblad resonance is characterized by the resonant angle θ_z−θ_R (with ω_z/κ=1 for bar orbits).
    Section 3.1, footnote 4; standard resonance theory applied to the bar frame.
  • domain assumption The adiabatic invariant J_v = J'_R + J_z + L_z/2 is sufficiently conserved over 250-550 to order orbits.
    Appendix A and Fig. 1; used to compare orbits with different histories.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boxy/peanut shaping of a mature galactic bar in action-angle space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4G5Z3AGF

@misc{pith2026241110391,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boxy/peanut shaping of a mature galactic bar in action-angle space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4G5Z3AGF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10391}
}
abstract

We study vertical resonant trapping and resonant heating of orbits. These two processes both lead to the growth of a boxy/peanut-shaped bulge in a typical $N$-body model. For the first time, we study this by means of the action variables and resonant angles of the actual orbits that compose the model itself. We used the resonant angle instead of the frequency ratio, which allowed us to clearly distinguish between these two processes in numerical simulations. We show that trapping and heating occur simultaneously, at least at the stage of a mature bar, that is, some orbits quickly pass through vertical resonance while at the same time, a substantial number of orbits remains trapped into this stage for a long time. Half of all bar orbits spend more than 2.5 Gyr in vertical resonance over an interval of 4 Gyr. Half of the orbits trapped into the bar over the last 3 Gyr of simulation remain captured in vertical resonance for more than 2 Gyr. We conclude that in the later stages of the bar evolution, the process of vertical trapping dominates in the ongoing process that causes the boxy/peanut shape of a bar in a typical $N$-body model. This contradicts the results of several recent works.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10391 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Vertical action and its evolution. Left and middle columns: 2D maps of the vertical action 𝐽𝑧 plotted in different coordinates, (𝐿𝑧 , 𝐽 ′ R = 𝐽R − 𝜃(−𝐿𝑧 )𝐿𝑧 ) (first column), (𝐿𝑧 , 𝜔𝑧/𝜅) (second column), and (2(Ω − Ω𝑝)/𝜅, 𝜔𝑧/𝜅) (third column). Top row: Average value of the action in the pixel. Bottom row: Mean changes in 𝐽𝑧 from 𝑡 = 300 to 𝑡 = 400 (actions and frequencies refer to the moment 𝑡 = 400). The vector fie… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Vertical action and its evolution for captured orbits. Left and middle columns: 2D density maps (bar and disk) in the background and 2D maps (superimposed in the foreground) of 𝐽𝑧 for orbits that were flat (𝐽𝑧 < 0.05) at 𝑡 = 300 and trapped into the bar over the time interval of 𝑡 = 300 − 400. Different time moments are shown from top to bottom, 𝑡 = 300 (top row), 400 (middle row), and 500 (bottom row). The thin gra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Four examples of different orbital behaviors in our 𝑁-body simulations. For each orbit, from left to right, we show snapshots (𝑥𝑦 and 𝑥𝑧), the change in the resonant angle 𝜃𝑧 −𝜃R with time, the orbit in the plane (𝜃res, 𝐽𝑧 ), where 𝐽𝑧 is the midterm vertical action. The top left and right orbits remain a long time in vILR and librate around 𝜃𝑧 − 𝜃𝑅 ∼ 𝜋 (banana orbit) and 𝜋/2 (anti-banana orbit), respectively, and th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Snapshots (𝑥𝑦 and 𝑥𝑧) of the bar (top two rows) and the structure assembled from the orbits trapped into the bar in the time interval 𝑡 = 300 − 400 (bottom two rows) at 𝑡 = 500. The first column shows all orbits under consideration. Structures assembled from orbits tha…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 1D distributions of the orbits trapped into the bar over the time interval 𝑡 = 300−400, which were flat (𝐽𝑧 < 0.05) at 𝑡 = 300 (the same orbits as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distributions of the time that the bar (four left plots) and trapped (four right plots) orbits spend in resonance or pass through it, around the angles 0, 𝜋, and 𝜋/2, 3𝜋/2. Orbits with resonant angles of 0, 𝜋 are combined and are designated in the plots as 𝜃𝑧 − 𝜃R ∼ 𝜋.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 4 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. GalPort: Investigation of the bar in action-angle space

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GalPort computes multi-timescale action-angle variables and orbital classifications for evolving barred galaxy simulations, with specialised bar phase-space analysis tools.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G., Valluri , M., Shen , J., & Debattista , V

    Abbott , C. G., Valluri , M., Shen , J., & Debattista , V. P. 2017, , 470, 1526

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    2003, , 341, 1179

    Athanassoula , E. 2003, , 341, 1179

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    2018, , 474, 2706

    Binney , J. 2018, , 474, 2706

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    2020, , 495, 886

    Binney , J. 2020, , 495, 886

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    & Freeman , K

    Bureau , M. & Freeman , K. C. 1999, , 118, 126

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    & Klypin , A

    Ceverino , D. & Klypin , A. 2007, , 379, 1155

    2007

  7. [7]

    & Bureau , M

    Chung , A. & Bureau , M. 2004, , 127, 3192

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    1990, , 233, 82

    Combes , F., Debbasch , F., Friedli , D., & Pfenniger , D. 1990, , 233, 82

    1990

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    & Sanders , R

    Combes , F. & Sanders , R. H. 1981, , 96, 164

    1981

  2. [10]

    1975, , 201, 566

    Contopoulos , G. 1975, , 201, 566

    1975

  3. [11]

    2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 179, 27

    Dehnen , W. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 179, 27

    2002

  4. [12]

    & Debattista , V

    Erwin , P. & Debattista , V. P. 2013, , 431, 3060

    2013

  5. [13]

    & Debattista , V

    Erwin , P. & Debattista , V. P. 2017, , 468, 2058

    2017

  6. [14]

    J., Erwin , P., Debattista , V

    Kruk , S. J., Erwin , P., Debattista , V. P., & Lintott , C. 2019, , 490, 4721

    2019

  7. [15]

    & Merrifield , M

    Kuijken , K. & Merrifield , M. R. 1995, , 443, L13

    1995

  8. [16]

    2023, , 520, 1243

    Li , X., Shlosman , I., Pfenniger , D., & Heller , C. 2023, , 520, 1243

    2023

  9. [17]

    & Lieberman , M

    Lichtenberg , A. & Lieberman , M. 1992, Regular and Chaotic Dynamics

    1992

  10. [18]

    2000, , 145, 405

    L \"u tticke , R., Dettmar , R.-J., & Pohlen , M. 2000, , 145, 405

    2000

  11. [19]

    1979, , 187, 101

    Lynden-Bell , D. 1979, , 187, 101

    1979

  12. [20]

    A., Smirnov , A

    Marchuk , A. A., Smirnov , A. A., Sotnikova , N. Y., et al. 2022, , 512, 1371

    2022

  13. [21]

    McMillan , P. J. & Dehnen , W. 2007, , 378, 541

    2007

  14. [22]

    Merrifield , M. R. & Kuijken , K. 1999, , 345, L47

    1999

  15. [23]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1996, , 462, 563

    1996

  16. [24]

    D., Smirnov , A

    Parul , H. D., Smirnov , A. A., & Sotnikova , N. Y. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2002.06627

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Patsis , P. A. & Katsanikas , M. 2014, , 445, 3525

    2014

  18. [26]

    & Friedli , D

    Pfenniger , D. & Friedli , D. 1991, , 252, 75

    1991

  19. [27]

    2015, , 450, L66

    Portail , M., Wegg , C., & Gerhard , O. 2015, , 450, L66

    2015

  20. [28]

    Quillen , A. C. 2002, , 124, 722

    2002

  21. [29]

    C., Minchev , I., Sharma , S., Qin , Y.-J., & Di Matteo , P

    Quillen , A. C., Minchev , I., Sharma , S., Qin , Y.-J., & Di Matteo , P. 2014, , 437, 1284

    2014

  22. [30]

    A., James , R

    Raha , N., Sellwood , J. A., James , R. A., & Kahn , F. D. 1991, , 352, 411

    1991

  23. [31]

    Ruiz-Arias , J. A. 2022, Solar Energy, 248, 121

    2022

  24. [32]

    Sellwood , J. A. & Gerhard , O. 2020, , 495, 3175

    2020

  25. [33]

    A., & Athanassoula , E

    Skokos , C., Patsis , P. A., & Athanassoula , E. 2002, , 333, 847

    2002

  26. [34]

    Trick , W. H. 2022, , 509, 844

    2022

  27. [35]

    H., Fragkoudi , F., Hunt , J

    Trick , W. H., Fragkoudi , F., Hunt , J. A. S., Mackereth , J. T., & White , S. D. M. 2021, , 500, 2645

    2021

  28. [36]

    2019, , 482, 1525

    Vasiliev , E. 2019, , 482, 1525

    2019

  29. [37]

    1999, , 118, 2108

    Veilleux , S., Bland-Hawthorn , J., & Cecil , G. 1999, , 118, 2108

    1999

  30. [38]

    & Yamauchi , C

    Yoshino , A. & Yamauchi , C. 2015, , 446, 3749

    2015

  31. [39]

    D., Smirnov , A

    Zozulia , V. D., Smirnov , A. A., & Sotnikova , N. Y. 2024, [ [arXiv] 2403.08326 ]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  33. [41]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.