Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 54 references

On the geometry of isomonodromic deformations on the torus and the elliptic Calogero-Moser system

T0 review · 2 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 This paper claims that the elliptic sixth Painlevé equation has an extended scaling symmetry—if $q(\tau)$ solves it with parameters $(\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_3)$, then $(jq,j\tau)$ solves it with $(\alpha_0/j^3,\dots,\alpha_3/j^3)$—and that…

desk verdict The claimed extended symmetry of elliptic Painlevé VI fails on a lattice-scaling error; the rest is a competent review of known results. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14015 v1 pith:BDZUAJ7N submitted 2024-11-21 math-ph math.MPmath.SGnlin.SI

Mohamad Alameddine This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MPmath.SGnlin.SI MSC 34M5637K1053D30
keywords isomonodromicdeformationstorusellipticPainlevéVICalogero-MosersystemWeierstrassfunctionsLaxpairsymplecticformmonodromy
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

The paper develops the geometry of isomonodromic deformations of meromorphic connections with a simple pole on a torus, and claims two main results. The first is a new extended symmetry of the elliptic sixth Painlevé equation: any solution $q(\tau)$ with parameters $(\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_3)$ is mapped to a solution $(jq,j\tau)$ with parameters $(\alpha_0/j^3,\dots,\alpha_3/j^3)$ for any nonzero complex $j$, and the map is a bijection. The second is that the elliptic Calogero-Moser system fits inside this torus geometry: its Lax pair is a connection with one simple pole, its equations of motion are the zero-curvature condition, and its phase space carries an extended symplectic two-form that is closed. A sympathetic reader would care because the results connect Painlevé equations and integrable many-body systems through a common geometric picture, and because the claimed scaling symmetry would be a genuinely new symmetry of elliptic Painlevé VI.

What carries the argument

Three linked mechanisms carry the argument. The extended symmetry rests on the homogeneity of the Weierstrass function and its derivative, $\wp(z,\Lambda)=j^2\wp(jz,j\Lambda)$ and $\wp'(z,\Lambda)=j^3\wp'(jz,j\Lambda)$, which the proof invokes when the modular parameter changes from $\tau$ to $j\tau$. The isomonodromic interpretation of the Calogero-Moser system is carried by the Lax pair $(\tilde L(z),\tilde A(z))$ built from Lamé-type functions $x(u,z)=\theta_1(z-u)\theta_1'(0)/(\theta_1(z)\theta_1(u))$ and $y=\partial_u x$; their quasi-periodicity turns the zero-curvature equation into Hamilton's equations for the Weierstrass potential. The symplectic conclusion is carried by the extended two-form $\Omega_{\mathrm{iso}}$ on the phase space with coordinates $(q,p,\tau)$, whose closedness makes the horizontal vector field $X_H$ a symplectic Ehresmann connection.

What would settle it

Take a known solution $q(\tau)$ and a nonzero $j\neq 1$, define $Q(\tau)=j q(\tau/j)$, and evaluate (for example at $\tau=i$) the expression $(2\pi i)^2 Q''(\tau)-\sum_{a=0}^3 (\alpha_a/j^3)\wp'(Q(\tau)+\omega_a(j\tau),j\tau)$; if this is not identically zero for some $j$, the claimed bijection fails, and the calculation also shows whether the homogeneity identity is being applied to the actual lattice $\mathbb{Z}+j\tau\mathbb{Z}$ rather than to $j\Lambda$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a third symmetry of the elliptic sixth Painlevé equation, complementing the inherited $S_4$ and Landin symmetries: if $q(\tau)$ is a solution with parameters $(\alpha_0,\dots,\alpha_3)$, then $(jq,j\tau)$ is a solution with parameters $(\alpha_0/j^3,\dots,\alpha_3/j^3)$, and the correspondence is a bijection because the inverse scaling restores the original solution. The paper further claims that the elliptic Calogero-Moser system is an instance of the same isomonodromic geometry: from the Lax pair on a once-punctured torus, the zero-curvature equations become Hamilton's equations with the Weierstrass potential, and the extended symplectic two-form $\Omega_{\mathrm{iso}}=\sum_j dq_j\wedge dp_j-\frac{1}{2\pi i}dH\wedge d\tau$ is closed, making the associated Ehresmann connection symplectic.

Load-bearing premise

The new symmetry's proof assumes that changing the modular parameter from $\tau$ to $j\tau$ rescales the lattice by $j$, so the homogeneity identity $\wp'(z,\Lambda)=j^3\wp'(jz,j\Lambda)$ applies; under the paper's own convention $T_\tau=\mathbb{C}/(\mathbb{Z}+\tau\mathbb{Z})$, the lattice for $j\tau$ is not $j\Lambda$ in general.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The bijection $(q,\tau,\alpha_i)\leftrightarrow(jq,j\tau,\alpha_i/j^3)$ gives the elliptic Painlevé VI a continuous rescaling symmetry alongside the discrete affine-Weyl and Landin symmetries, identifying solution families at different parameter values.
  • The elliptic Calogero-Moser Hamiltonian emerges as the Hamiltonian of an isomonodromic deformation on a once-punctured torus, so the many-body system is governed by a zero-curvature condition rather than only by an isospectral Lax equation.
  • The closure of $\Omega_{\mathrm{iso}}$ makes the horizontal vector field $X_H$ define a symplectic connection, so parallel transport in the $\tau$ direction preserves the symplectic form.
  • Passing to a periodic gauge introduces extra apparent singularities in the Lax matrix while leaving the local polar data at the marked point unchanged, so the isomonodromic interpretation is stable under this gauge change.
  • The monodromy-independence argument generalizes to several poles, so the construction is not limited to the single-pole case treated in detail.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the extended symmetry is valid, the solution space of elliptic Painlevé VI carries a $\mathbb{C}^*$-action that rotates $q$ and $\tau$ together, a continuous symmetry that the rational Painlevé VI does not have; this was left implicit and could act nontrivially on tau functions and monodromy manifolds.
  • The Lamé-function gauge gives a concrete template for realizing other elliptic integrable systems, such as Calogero-Moser models for other root systems, as isomonodromic deformations, since the same theta-function mechanism handles the quasi-periodic twist.
  • The closed extended symplectic form places the torus isomonodromic system in the symplectic-fibration setting used for quantization, so a natural next step would be to derive the torus analogue of the KZB connection from $\Omega_{\mathrm{iso}}$ rather than from the Lax pair alone.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper revisits isomonodromic deformations of meromorphic connections on the torus, with the elliptic Painlevé VI and the elliptic Calogero-Moser system as the main examples. Its advertised new result is Theorem 2.1(3), an 'extended symmetry' of the elliptic Painlevé VI under (q,τ,α_a) → (jq,jτ,α_a/j^3). The rest of the paper reviews a geometric construction for such deformations, identifies the elliptic CM Lax pair within that construction, and introduces an extended symplectic two-form Ω_iso that is proved closed. The manuscript is self-contained and includes an appendix on theta and Lamé-type functions.

Significance. If Theorem 2.1(3) were correct, it would be a genuinely new transformation group for the elliptic Painlevé VI and would likely be of interest to the integrable-systems community. The paper also contains some useful expository material: the review of the torus isomonodromy construction, the identification of the CM system with the one-pole case, and the direct proof in Proposition 4.2 that the extended two-form is closed. However, the central claimed novelty is not established: the proof of the extended symmetry misapplies the homogeneity identity to the wrong lattice, and the claimed bijection of solutions fails for generic j under the paper's own conventions. The remaining material is largely a summary of known results and does not, by itself, support the paper's advertised contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.2, Theorem 2.1(3), Eqs. (2-8), (2-15)] The proof of the extended symmetry applies the homogeneity identity ℘'(z,Λ)=j^3℘'(jz,jΛ) to the lattice Λ=Z+τZ. But the elliptic Painlevé VI for modulus jτ is defined on the torus T_{jτ}=C/(Z+jτZ), whose lattice is Z+jτZ, not jΛ=jZ+jτZ. Therefore ℘'(jq+jω_a,jτ) is not related to ℘'(q+ω_a,τ) by Eq. (2-15); the right-hand side of (2-8) after (q,τ)→(jq,jτ) is not the scaled expression obtained in the proof. Consequently the parameter transformation α_a→α_a/j^3 is not derived.
  2. [Section 2.2, Theorem 2.1(3), Eqs. (2-3), (2-12)] The claimed bijection (2-12) is also inconsistent with the definition of the half-periods. For the modulus jτ, the half-periods of T_{jτ} are {0,1/2,(1+jτ)/2,jτ/2}, not the scaled values jω_a={0,j/2,j(1+τ)/2,jτ/2} used in the proof. A direct substitution Q(T)=j q(T/j), T=jτ, gives the left-hand side (1/j)(2πi)^2 q''(τ); with parameters α_a/j^3 and the paper's half-periods, the right-hand side becomes j^{-6} Σ_a α_a ℘'(q+ω_a,τ) after correctly applying homogeneity to the lattice jΛ. Equating with the original right-hand side (1/j)Σ_a α_a ℘'(q+ω_a,τ) requires j^5=1. Thus the asserted symmetry fails for generic nonzero j, and the bijection statement is false rather than merely unproven.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2-11)] The factors (2πi)^2 are dropped inconsistently: Eq. (2-8) has (2πi)^2 d^2q/dτ^2, while the Landin-transform display writes d^2q/dτ^2 and a factor 1/4 without explaining the normalization. Please state the convention explicitly.
  2. [Eq. (A.4)] The summation limits are written as '∞X_{n=∞}', which is malformed; this should presumably be n from -∞ to ∞, and the surrounding product formulas appear to contain related typesetting errors.
  3. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4-5)] The function x(u,z)=θ1(z-u)θ1'(0)/(θ1(z)θ1(u)) is called a Lamé function, but it is a ratio of theta functions rather than a solution of the Lamé equation. The terminology is nonstandard and could confuse readers.
  4. [Proof of Theorem 2.1, after Eq. (2-15)] The sentence stating that Eq. (2-15) 'is a part of a larger set of properties that describes the action of the modular group' is misleading: the map z↦jz, Λ↦jΛ is a homothety of the lattice, not a modular transformation of T_τ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivations are self-contained and rely on standard identities and external results; the main risk in Theorem 2.1(3) is mathematical correctness, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper contains no parameter fitting, no fitted input renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation. The symmetry claims in Theorem 2.1 are derived from standard Weierstrass identities: item 1 is referred to Manin's published argument, item 2 is a direct use of Landin's identity, and item 3 is an attempted application of the homogeneity property ℘'(z,Λ)=j^3℘'(jz,jΛ). The elliptic CM Hamiltonian and Lax pair are taken from Krichever and Takasaki and are then checked against the zero-curvature equation, so the resulting equations are not being assumed as their own output. The closedness of Ω_iso is a direct exterior-derivative computation with no hidden input. The self-citations (Refs. [40]-[42]) appear in the introduction and outlook as contextual remarks about related work and do not support any derived statement in this paper. The paper's genuine weakness lies in applying the homogeneity identity to the wrong lattice when passing from τ to jτ, which would invalidate the proof of Theorem 2.1(3) for generic j; that is a mathematical error, not a circular step.

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

No free parameters are fitted. The paper relies on standard elliptic function identities and on the known Lax pair for the Calogero-Moser system. The main problematic step is the misapplication of the lattice homogeneity property.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math Homogeneity of the Weierstrass function under simultaneous scaling of coordinate and lattice: ℘'(z,Λ)=j^3℘'(jz,jΛ).
    Stated in equation (2-15). The property is true, but the paper applies it with Λ = Z+τZ and jΛ = Z+jτZ, which is invalid.
  • domain assumption The Lax pair (4-1) with functions x,y satisfying (4-3) yields the elliptic Calogero-Moser system via the zero curvature equation.
    Taken from Krichever [32] and Takasaki [54]; the paper uses this as input and does not derive it.
  • domain assumption The moduli space dimensions dim M_{1,s}=n(sn+1) and dim M_{1,1}=n^2+n+1.
    Stated without proof in Definitions 3.1 and 3.3; the formulas are not derived and may not match standard character variety dimensions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the geometry of isomonodromic deformations on the torus and the elliptic Calogero-Moser system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BDZUAJ7N

@misc{pith2026241114015,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the geometry of isomonodromic deformations on the torus and the elliptic Calogero-Moser system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BDZUAJ7N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14015}
}
read the original abstract

We consider isomonodromic deformations of connections with a simple pole on the torus, motivated by the elliptic version of the sixth Painlev\'e equation. We establish an extended symmetry, complementing known results. The Calogero-Moser system in its elliptic version is shown to fit nicely in the geometric framework, the extended symplectic two-form is introduced and shown to be closed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams, J

    M.R. Adams, J. Harnad, and J. Hurtubise. Dual moment maps into loop algebras. Lett. Math. Phys. , 20:299–308, 1990

    work page 1990

  2. [2]

    A. Yu. Alekseev and A. Z. Malkin. Symplectic structure of the moduli space of flat con- nection on a Riemann surface. Comm. Math. Phys. , 169(1):99–119, 1995

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    Atiyah and R

    M. Atiyah and R. Bott. The Yang-Mills equations over Riemann surfaces. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A , 308(523-615), 1982

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    Beeauville and Y

    A. Beeauville and Y. Laszlo. Conformal blocks and generalized theta functions. Comm. Math. Phys. , 164(2):385–419, 1994

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    Bertola, J

    M. Bertola, J. Harnad, and J. Hurtubise. Hamiltonian structure of rational isomonodromic deformation systems. J. Math. Phys. , 64, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Birkhoff

    G.D. Birkhoff. Singular points of ordinary linear differential equations. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 10(4):436–470, 1909

    work page 1909

  7. [7]

    P. Boalch. Symplectic geometry and isomonodromic deformations . PhD thesis, Oxford D.Phil., 1999

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    P. Boalch. Symplectic manifolds and isomonodromic deformations. Adv. Math., 163(2):137– 205, 2001

    work page 2001

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    P. Boalch. Simply-laced isomonodromy systems. Publ. Math. IH ´ES, 116:1–68, 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    Bonelli, F

    G. Bonelli, F. Del Monte, P. Gavrylenko, and A. Tanzini. Circular quiver gauge theories, isomonodromic deformations and WN fermions on the torus. Lett. Math. Phys. , 111(3), 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    A. J. Bordner, E. Corrigan, and R. Sasaki. Calogero-Moser models. I: A new formulation. Prog. Theor. Phys., 100(6):1107–1129, 1998. 22

    1998

  4. [12]

    Del Monte, H

    F. Del Monte, H. Desiraju, and P. Gavrylenko. Monodromy dependence and symplectic geometry of isomonodromic tau functions on the torus. J. Phys. A-Math. , 56(29):294002, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    P. Etingof. Lectures on Calogero-Moser systems. arXiv:math/0606233, 2009

    2009 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Eynard, E

    B. Eynard, E. Garcia-Failde, O. Marchal, and N. Orantin. Quantization of classical spectral curves via topological recursion. Comm. Math. Phys. , 405(5), 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Eynard and N

    B. Eynard and N. Orantin. Invariants of algebraic curves and topological expansion. Com- mun. Number Theory Phys. , 1(2), 2007

    2007

  8. [16]

    Felder, Y

    G. Felder, Y. Markov, V. Tarasov, and A. Varchenko. Differential equations compatible with KZ equations. Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. , 3(2):139–177, 2000

    2000

  9. [17]

    R. Fuchs. Sur quelques ´ equations diff´ erentielles lin´ eaires du second ordre.C. R. , 141:555– 558, 1905

    1905

  10. [18]

    R. Fuchs. ¨Uber lineare homogene differentialgleichungen zweiter ordnung mit drei im endlichen gelegenen wesentlich singul¨ aren stellen.Math. Ann., 63(3):301–321, 1907

    1907

  11. [19]

    Gaiur, M

    I. Gaiur, M. Mazzocco, and V. Rubtsov. Isomonodromic deformations: Confluence, reduc- tion and quantisation. Comm. Math. Phys. , 400(2):1385–1461, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    B. Gambier. Sur les ´ equations diff´ erentielles du second ordre et du premier degr´ e dont l’int´ egrale g´ en´ erale est ` a points critiques fixes.Acta Math., 33:1–55, 1910

    1910

  13. [21]

    R. Garnier. Solution du probl` eme de riemann pour les syst` emes diff´ erentiels lin´ eaires du second ordre. Ann. Sci. ´Ec. Norm. Sup´ er., 43:177–307, 1927

    1927

  14. [22]

    Gotay, R

    M. Gotay, R. Lashof, J. ´Sniatycki, and A. Weinstein. Closed forms on symplectic fibre bundles. comment. math. helv , 58:617–621, 12 1983

    1983

  15. [23]

    Guillemin, E

    V. Guillemin, E. Lerman, and S. Sternberg. Symplectic Fibrations and Multiplicity Dia- grams. CUP, 1996

    1996

  16. [24]

    G. H. Hardy and E. M. Wright. An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers . Oxford, fourth edition, 1975

    1975

  17. [25]

    J. Harnad. Quantum isomonodromic deformations and the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equa- tions. In Workshop on Symmetries and Integrability of Difference Equations, pages 155–161, 1994

    1994

  18. [26]

    N. Hitchin. Stable bundles and integrable systems. Duke Math. J. , 54(1), 1987

    1987

  19. [27]

    Iwasaki, H

    K. Iwasaki, H. Kimura, S. Shimomura, and M. Yoshida. From Gauss to Painlev´ e, volume 16 of Aspects of Mathematics . Springer Vieweg-Teubner, 1991

    1991

  20. [28]

    Jimbo and T

    M. Jimbo and T. Miwa. Monodromy preserving deformation of linear ordinary differential equations with rational coefficients. II. Phys. D. Nonlin. Phen. , 2(3):407–448, 1981

    1981

  21. [29]

    Jimbo, T

    M. Jimbo, T. Miwa, and K. Ueno. Monodromy preserving deformation of linear ordinary differential equations with rational coefficients: I. general theory and τ -function. Phys. D. Nonlin. Phen. , 2(2):306–352, 1981. 23

    1981

  22. [30]

    Knizhnik and A.B

    V.G. Knizhnik and A.B. Zamolodchikov. Current algebra and Wess-Zumino model in two dimensions. Nucl. Phys. B. , 247(1):83–103, 1984

    1984

  23. [31]

    Korotkin and H

    D. Korotkin and H. Samtleben. On the quantization of isomonodromic deformations on the torus. Internat. J. Modern Phys. A , 12(11):2013–2029, 1997

    2013

  24. [32]

    Krichever

    I. Krichever. Elliptic solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation and integrable sys- tems of particles. Funct. Anal. Appl. , 14(4):282–290, 1981

    1981

  25. [33]

    Krichever

    I. Krichever. Isomonodromy equations on algebraic curves, canonical transformations and Whitham equations. Mosc. Math. J. , 2(4):717–752, 2002

    2002

  26. [34]

    Y. Laszlo. Hitchin’s and WZW connections are the same. J. Differential Geom., 49(3):547 – 576, 1998

    1998

  27. [35]

    A. M. Levin and M. A. Olshanetsky. Painlev´ e—Calogero Correspondence, pages 313–332. Springer New York, New York, 2000

    2000

  28. [36]

    A. M. Levin, M. A. Olshanetsky, and A. V. Zotov. Classification of isomonodromy problems on elliptic curves. Russ. Math. Surv. , 69(1):35–118, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Malmquist

    J. Malmquist. Sur les ´ equations diff´ erentielles du second ordre dont l’int´ egrale g´ en´ eral a ses points critiques fixes. Ark. Mat. Ast. fys. , 17:1–89, 1922

    1922

  30. [38]

    Yu. I. Manin. Rational points of algebraic curves over function fields , page 23–68. World Scientific, 1996

    1996

  31. [39]

    Yu. I. Manin. Sixth Painlev´ e equation, universal elliptic curve, and mirror of P2, 1996

    1996

  32. [40]

    Marchal and M

    O. Marchal and M. Alameddine. Hamiltonian representation of isomonodromic deforma- tions of twisted rational connections: The Painlev´ e 1 hierarchy. arXiv:2302.13905, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Marchal and M

    O. Marchal and M. Alameddine. Isomonodromic and isospectral deformations of meromor- phic connections: the sl2(C) case. Nonlinearity, 37(11):115006, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Marchal, N

    O. Marchal, N. Orantin, and M. Alameddine. Hamiltonian representation of isomonodromic deformations of general rational connections on gl2(C). arXiv:2212.04833, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    J. J. Millson and V. T. Laredo. Casimir operators and monodromy representations of generalised braid groups. Transform. Groups, 10(2):217–254, 2005

    2005

  36. [44]

    K. Okamoto. D´ eformation d’une ´ equation diff´ erentielle lin´ eaire avec une singularit´ e irr´ eguliere sur un tore.Journ. Fac. Sci., Univ. Tokyo , 26:501–518, 1979

    1979

  37. [45]

    K. Okamoto. Polynomial Hamiltonians associated with Painlev´ e equations. Proc. Jap. Acad. Ser. A, Math. Sci. , 56:264–268, 1980

    1980

  38. [46]

    K. Okamoto. Isomonodromic deformation and Painlev´ e equations, and the Garnier system. Journ. Fac. Sci., Univ. Tokyo , 33:575–618, 1986

    1986

  39. [47]

    K. Okamoto. Studies on the Painlev´ e equations: I.-Sixth Painlev´ e equation Pvi.Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., 146(1):337–381, 1986

    1986

  40. [48]

    M. A. Olshanetsky and A. M. Perelomov. Completely integrable Hamiltonian systems connected with semisimple lie algebras. Invent. Math. , 37(2):93–108, 1976. 24

    1976

  41. [49]

    Painlev´ e

    P. Painlev´ e. Sur les ´ equations diff´ erentielles du second ordre et d’ordre sup´ erieur dont l’int´ egrale g´ en´ erale est uniforme.Acta Math., 25:1–85, 1902

    1902

  42. [50]

    E. Picard. M´ emoire sur la th´ eorie des fonctions alg´ ebriques de deux variables. J. math. pures appl., 5:135–319, 1889

  43. [51]

    G. Rembado. Simply-laced quantum connections generalising KZ. Comm. Math. Phys. , 368(1):1–54, 2019

    2019

  44. [52]

    Reshetikhin

    N. Reshetikhin. The Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov system as a deformation of the isomonodromy problem. Lett. Math. Phys. , 26(3):167–177, 1992

    1992

  45. [53]

    ¨Uber eine Klasse von Differentialsystemen beliebiger Ordnung mit festen kritischen Punkten

    L Schlesinger. ¨Uber eine Klasse von Differentialsystemen beliebiger Ordnung mit festen kritischen Punkten. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 141:96–145, 1912

    1912

  46. [54]

    Takasaki

    K. Takasaki. Elliptic Calogero–Moser systems and isomonodromic deformations. J. Math. Phys., 40(11):5787–5821, 1999. 25

    1999

Pith tools

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