Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Non-orderability and the contact Hofer norm

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 A short Reeb flow lift forces a contact manifold to be non-orderable.

desk verdict Strong paper: new Hofer-shortening criterion proves non-orderability of standard S^1 × S^2 and subcritical Weinstein boundaries; only real worry is an unproved relative extension of Nakamura's theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19887 v2 pith:WR6YKVOK submitted 2024-11-29 math.SG

Jakob Hedicke , Egor Shelukhin This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.SG MSC 53D1053D3557R17
keywords contactHofernormorderabilityopenbookdecompositionslooseLegendrianspositiveloopssubcriticalWeinsteindomainsconjecturepre-Lagrangiandisplacement
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 establishes a quantitative criterion for non-orderability: a closed contact manifold admits a contractible positive loop as soon as the contact Hofer norm of a Reeb flow can be shortened, $|\tilde\phi^\alpha_t|_\alpha < |t|$ for some $t$. The authors prove this shortening occurs for many manifolds by showing their contact Hofer norms are bounded along large classes of paths, via open book decompositions and Legendrian flexibility. This yields many new non-orderable contact manifolds, including contact boundaries of subcritical Weinstein domains and the long-standing case of the standard $S^1 \times S^2$. A sympathetic reader should care because the result replaces the search for explicit positive loops by a norm estimate and opens new families of contact manifolds to orderability questions.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three objects. First, the contact Hofer norm $|\cdot|_\alpha$ of a path, the integrated maximum of the contact Hamiltonian, together with the shortening criterion Theorem 2.2 that turns boundedness of the norm along the Reeb flow into a positive contractible loop. Second, a flow built in Lemma 2.7 that contracts the complement of one page skeleton into an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of another, which makes the Hofer diameter of skeleton-complements finite and enables a fragmentation lemma splitting any isotopy that avoids a skeleton into two isotopies with controlled norm. Third, for loose Legendrians and loose isotropic complexes, a small-energy isotopy theorem that reconnects the Reeb image of the skeleton to itself with Hofer cost bounded by chart constants; the relative form for complexes with fixed subcritical part is invoked to handle the combined subcritical and loose case.

What would settle it

Compute the contact Hofer norm of the Reeb flow on the ideal contact boundary of $W \times \mathbb{C}$ for a finite-type Weinstein manifold of dimension at least 4 and find that $|\tilde\phi^\alpha_t|_\alpha$ grows linearly in $t$; that would contradict Theorem 1.5. More narrowly, exhibiting a loose isotropic complex with fixed subcritical part for which the asserted relative small-energy isotopy fails would remove the proof of Theorem 1.16 without necessarily disproving the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 2.2: for the lift of the Reeb flow of any contact form $\alpha$, strict inequality $|\tilde\phi^\alpha_t|_\alpha < |t|$ for one time $t$ forces the existence of a contractible positive loop, so the manifold is non-orderable. This turns orderability into a quantitative question about the contact Hofer norm. The paper then shows the norm is bounded on the contactomorphism group, or on its universal cover, for closed contact manifolds admitting a Weinstein open book whose page is subcritical, or whose page skeleton is a loose Legendrian or a loose isotropic complex. Consequences include non-orderability of ideal contact boundaries of $W \times \mathbb{C}$ for finite-type Weinstein manifolds of dimension at least 4, and of the standard $T^n \times S^{n+1}$ for every $n \geq 1$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a flexible Legendrian object, namely a loose Legendrian or loose isotropic complex, can be moved close to a prescribed isotopy with contact Hofer cost bounded only by chart constants, and that this small-energy property survives when the lower-dimensional part of the complex is held fixed; the paper cites the Legendrian case and asserts the relative complex case without a full proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every contact form on a manifold satisfying the hypotheses has a contractible closed Reeb orbit, so the Weinstein conjecture holds there.
  • Orderable prequantization spaces do not admit subcritical polarizations, giving new obstructions to polarizations of symplectic manifolds whose Boothby-Wang bundles are orderable.
  • The standard contact $T^n \times S^{n+1}$ is non-orderable for every $n \geq 1$.
  • The ideal contact boundary of $W \times \mathbb{C}$ is non-orderable for every finite-type Weinstein manifold of dimension at least 4.
  • Domains inside the symplectization or inside $W \times S^1$ admit squeezing phenomena whenever these non-orderability results apply.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the relative small-energy extension is correct, the same method should also give non-orderability for ideal boundaries of flexible Weinstein manifolds, a case the authors flag as future work.
  • The shortening criterion suggests a numerical invariant, the asymptotic growth rate $\mu(\alpha)=\lim_{t\to\infty}|\tilde\phi^\alpha_t|_\alpha/t$; the paper shows it is 0 in the bounded cases and 1 in orderable cases, and intermediate values may distinguish non-orderable manifolds.
  • The paper's examples cluster at the non-orderable end of the translated-point spectrum, suggesting that existence of contactomorphisms without translated points may characterize non-orderability, a question the authors pose explicitly.
  • The explicit positive-loop construction of Section 4.6 may connect to previously known loops on $S^3$, raising the question of whether all such loops are homotopic through positive loops.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper establishes a general criterion relating non-orderability of closed contact manifolds to shortening of the Reeb flow in the contact Hofer norm (Theorem 2.2). It then proves boundedness of the contact Hofer norm on the identity component and its universal cover for several classes of contact manifolds, using open book decompositions and Legendrian flexibility. The main results are Theorem 1.1 (bounded Hofer norm for subcritical pages and for loose Legendrian skeleta), Theorem 1.10 (bounded Hofer norm along paths displacing a page skeleton), and Theorem 1.16 (a relative loose-complex version), leading to non-orderability of ideal contact boundaries of subcritical Weinstein domains and of the standard S^1 × S^2. Applications include obstructions to subcritical polarizations, contactomorphisms without translated points, and a C^0-continuity property of the contact Hofer metric.

Significance. If the proofs are completed, the paper resolves a long-standing question by showing that the standard tight S^1 × S^2 is non-orderable, and more generally gives many new non-orderable contact manifolds. The overarching idea—reducing non-orderability to boundedness of the contact Hofer norm along the Reeb flow—is conceptually clean and likely influential. The paper contains several genuinely detailed proofs: Theorem 2.2 is proved from first principles, Lemma 2.7 gives an explicit contracting flow, Proposition 3.1 contains explicit Hofer-norm estimates, and Lemma 3.2 is elementary and clearly proved. These are strong points. The central caveat is that the relative extension of Nakamura's small-energy isotopy theorem (Theorem 2.10) is asserted without proof and is load-bearing for Theorem 1.16 and hence Theorem 1.5; the S^1 × S^2 example and Theorem 1.1(i) do not depend on that step.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.9, Theorem 2.10] Theorem 2.10 is stated as a 'readily extends' version of Nakamura's theorem, but no proof of the relative extension is supplied. The only justification in Section 3.9 is the sentence 'Applying the argument of [45], which readily extends to the relative case.' This extension is load-bearing: it is used to produce the isotopy ψ_t with ψ_t = id on U′, ψ_1(L)=φ_1(L), and uniform Hofer bound |ψ̃_1|_α ≤ 2C(V)+δ, which is essential for the proof of Theorem 1.16 and hence for Theorem 1.5. The extension is not a routine restatement: the top stratum L \setminus L^{n-1} is non-closed, the isotopy must be pointwise fixed on a neighbourhood of L^{n-1}, and the Hofer bound must be uniform in t and in the number of strata in the isotropic complex. Without a proof of this relative statement, Theorem 1.5 does not follow from the supplied arguments. I ask the authors to provide the missing proof, or to state and prove a more precise relative version, or to restrict the claims accordingly. Note that Theorem 1.1(i), Theorem 1.10, and Corollary 1.12 are not affected by this gap.
  2. [Section 2.2, proof of Theorem 2.2] There is a normalization error in the proof of Theorem 2.2. After choosing a path (ψ_s)_{s∈[0,t]} representing φ˜^α_t with length < t, the proof claims that c := ∫_0^t min_M α(dψ_s/ds) ds satisfies |c| < 1. This does not follow from |φ˜^α_t|_α < t; the correct bound is |c| < t (after the natural time rescaling from [0,t] to [0,1], the normalized average satisfies |c|/t < 1). Accordingly, the displayed inequalities '1 + c > 0' and '≥ 1 + c − δ > 0' should be 't + c > 0' and '≥ t + c − δ > 0' once the path is correctly normalized with respect to the Reeb flow over time t. This is a load-bearing step for the implication 'shortening ⇒ non-orderability', and the proof as written is not correct. The repair appears straightforward, but it must be written out explicitly.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.7, Proposition 4.11] Proposition 4.11 is stated as a proposition but introduced with the phrase 'without proof, as we do not use it in the rest of the paper.' A proposition without proof is not a proved result; please either provide a proof, move the statement to a conjecture or remark, or explicitly mark it as an aside outside the main theorems.
  2. [Section 4.7, after Proposition 4.11] The sentence 'It would be interesting to study possible values of C(α) for non-orderable manifolds ... and see if intermediate values C(α) ∈ (0, ∞) could be achieved' conflicts with the definition C(θ) ≥ 1. The range should presumably be (1, ∞) if intermediate values are meant.
  3. [Section 3.4] In the proof of Theorem 1.1(ii), the appeal to Theorem 2.8 requires Hofer-norm bounds on the loose chart U and its image φ_1(U); the text says Proposition 3.1 supplies such bounds, but the step could be spelled out more explicitly because U is a Darboux ball and not literally a skeleton-complement as written in Proposition 3.1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the shortening criterion is proved in-paper, the Hofer-norm bounds come from independent h-principles, and the only flagged weakness is an unproved relative extension that is a gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. Theorem 2.2, which links shortening of the Reeb flow in the contact Hofer norm to non-orderability, is proved in-paper using Lemma 2.3; that lemma is adapted from [36], a published independent result, so the link is not a definitional equivalence or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The main bounded-diameter statement, Proposition 3.1, is proved directly from the open-book contraction flow of Lemma 2.7, whose proof is included. The loose-Legendrian shortening input is Theorem 2.8, quoted from Nakamura [45], an external h-principle; the paper verifies its chart-norm hypotheses via Proposition 3.1 rather than assuming the conclusion. The self-citations [36] and [51] are real, published, parameter-free results with stated assumptions that do not include the present theorems, so under the review rules they do not raise the circularity score. The genuinely load-bearing weakness is the relative extension of Nakamura's theorem to loose isotropic complexes: Section 2.5 asserts 'Theorem 2.8 readily extends to this setting' as Theorem 2.10, and Section 3.9 invokes it through 'Applying the argument of [45], which readily extends to the relative case.' This extension is not proved and is needed for Theorem 1.16 and hence Theorem 1.5; however, this is a missing-proof or correctness risk, not a circular reduction, because the paper does not define the desired non-orderability conclusion into the extension and no parameter is fitted to force the claimed bound. The headline S^1 x S^2 example (Corollary 1.12) and Theorem 1.1(i) rest on the proved open-book and fragmentation arguments and are unaffected by the gap. No renaming, ansatz-smuggling, or imported-uniqueness pattern is present, so no specific circular step can be exhibited.

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

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no numerical parameters. Its dependence is on a chain of established or cited structural results from contact topology; the most consequential external input is Nakamura's small-energy theorem for loose Legendrians and the relative extension assumed in Section 3.9.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Nakamura's small-energy isotopy theorem for loose Legendrians, and its relative version for loose isotropic complexes [45, Theorem 1.2; quoted as Theorems 2.8 and 2.10].
    This h-principle result is the engine behind Theorem 1.1(ii), Theorem 1.16 and hence Theorem 1.5. Its proof is external to the paper, and the relative extension is asserted rather than proved in Section 3.9.
  • standard math Giroux correspondence: every contact manifold of dimension at least 3 is supported by an open book with Weinstein pages (Theorem 2.5, citing [32,11]).
    Used at the start of the paper and in the proofs to ensure the existence of Weinstein open books and ideal Giroux forms.
  • domain assumption Existence and properties of ideal Giroux forms and the local embedding W × (-epsilon,epsilon) (Lemma 2.6 from [23]).
    Provides the model dt + lambda used in Lemma 2.7 and Proposition 3.1.
  • domain assumption Genericity of perturbations of isotropic complexes: two isotropic submanifolds or complexes of dimension less than n can be made disjoint (invoked from [23, Proposition 5.2] in the proof of Theorem 1.1(i)).
    Needed to split Reeb isotopies via fragmentation in the subcritical case.
  • standard math Casals-Murphy [15, Proposition 2.9] on looseness of skeleta of 1-stabilizations, and Cieliebak's classification of subcritical Weinstein manifolds as W × C [21, Theorem 14.6].
    Connects abstract Weinstein data to the looseness conditions used in Theorems 1.1(ii), 1.16 and Corollary 1.3.
  • standard math Eliashberg-Polterovich equivalence between orderability and absence of contractible positive loops, together with the [36] relation to the Hofer norm used in Theorem 2.2.
    Basis for translating Hofer-norm bounds into non-orderability; the proof of Theorem 2.2 is included in Section 2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-orderability and the contact Hofer norm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WR6YKVOK

@misc{pith2026241119887,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-orderability and the contact Hofer norm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WR6YKVOK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19887}
}
abstract

We relate non-orderability in contact topology to shortening in the contact Hofer norm. Combined with considerations of open books, this provides many new examples of non-orderable contact manifolds, including contact boundaries of subcritical Weinstein domains, and in particular the long-standing case of the standard $S^1 \times S^2.$ We also produce new examples of contact manifolds admitting contactomorphisms without translated points, provide obstructions to subcritical polarizations of symplectic manifolds, and establish a $\mathcal{C}^0$-continuity property of the contact Hofer metric.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19887 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Front projection of the Legendrian arc γ. As shown in [44], loose Legendrians satisfy an h-principle, which can be used to prove various flexibility results. In this paper we will use the following application of the h-principle to the contact Hofer metric on the isotopy class of a loose Legendrian which the simplification of a theorem proved by Nakamura [45, Theorem 1.2]. Theorem 2.8 ([45]). Let (M, ker α) be a clo… view at source ↗

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. Full citation record

  1. On weakly exact Lagrangians in Liouville bi-fillings

    math.SG 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In McDuff and torus bundle Liouville domains, every weakly exact Lagrangian torus is homotopic to a standard fibre, and any exact Lagrangian meeting two different boundary components has non-zero wrapped Floer cohomology.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [23]

    Contactomorphism groups and Legendrian flexibility

    S. Courte and P. Massot , Contactomorphism groups and Legendrian flexibility , arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07997, (2018). 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, 2 0

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  2. [29]

    Fraser, L

    M. Fraser, L. Polterovich, and D. Rosen , On Sandon-type metrics for contactomor- phism groups , Annales mathématiques du Québec, 42 (2018), pp. 191–214. 4 , 16

    work page 2018

  3. [36]

    Hedicke , Lorentzian distance functions in contact geometry , Journal of Topology & Anal- ysis, 16 (2024)

    J. Hedicke , Lorentzian distance functions in contact geometry , Journal of Topology & Anal- ysis, 16 (2024). 2, 5, 8, 9, 25

    work page 2024

  4. [51]

    Shelukhin , The Hofer norm of a contactomorphism , J

    E. Shelukhin , The Hofer norm of a contactomorphism , J. Symplectic Geom., 15 (2017), pp. 1173–1208. 2, 8, 22, 25

    work page 2017

  5. [45]

    Small energy isotopies of loose Legendrian submanifolds

    L. Nakamura , Small energy isotopies of loose Legendrian submanifolds , Geom. Topol., to appear. Preprint available at arXiv:2105.05970, 2021. 3, 5 , 6, 14, 17, 20 28 JAKOB HEDICKE AND EGOR SHELUKHIN

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  6. [1]

    Albers, U

    P. Albers, U. Fuchs, and W. J. Merry , Orderability and the Weinstein conjecture , Compositio Mathematica, 151 (2015), pp. 2251–2272. 2, 23, 2 4

    work page 2015

  7. [2]

    Albers and J

    P. Albers and J. Kang , Rabinowitz Floer homology of negative line bundles and Floe r Gysin sequence, Advances in Mathematics, 431 (2023), p. 109252. 2, 4, 24

    work page 2023

  8. [3]

    Albers, E

    P. Albers, E. Shelukhin, and F. Zapolsky , Spectral invariants for contactomorphisms of prequantization bundles and applications , Forthcoming. 5

    work page

Show all 54 references
  1. [4]

    Allais , On the minimal number of translated points in contact lens sp aces, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 150 (2022), pp

    S. Allais , On the minimal number of translated points in contact lens sp aces, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 150 (2022), pp. 2685– 2693. 23, 24

    2022

  2. [5]

    J. Bae, J. Kang, and S. Kim , Rabinowitz Floer homology for prequantization bundles and Floer gysin sequence , Mathematische Annalen, (2024), pp. 1–83. 2, 4, 23, 24

    2024

  3. [6]

    Biran and K

    P. Biran and K. Cieliebak , Symplectic topology on subcritical manifolds , Comment. Math. Helv., 76 (2001), pp. 712–753. 4, 23

    2001

  4. [7]

    Biran and Y

    P. Biran and Y. Jerby , The symplectic topology of projective manifolds with small d ual, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (2013), pp. 4413–4450. 24

    2013

  5. [8]

    M. S. Borman, Y. Eliashberg, and E. Murphy , Existence and classification of over- twisted contact structures in all dimensions , Acta Mathematica, 215 (2015), pp. 281–361. 3, 6, 8

    2015

  6. [9]

    M. S. Borman and F. Zapolsky , Quasimorphisms on contactomorphism groups and con- tact rigidity , Geometry & Topology, 19 (2015), pp. 365–411. 7, 23, 24

    2015

  7. [10]

    Bowden and D

    J. Bowden and D. Crowley , Contact open books with flexible pages , Bull. Lond. Math. Soc., 55 (2023), pp. 1302–1313. 3

    2023

  8. [11]

    Breen, K

    J. Breen, K. Honda, and Y. Huang , The Giroux correspondence in arbitrary dimensions , Preprint arXiv:2307.02317, (2024). 11

    2024 arXiv

  9. [12]

    Cant , Contactomorphisms of the sphere without translated points , Journal of Symplectic Geometry, (2022)

    D. Cant , Contactomorphisms of the sphere without translated points , Journal of Symplectic Geometry, (2022). 22, 25

    2022

  10. [13]

    Cant and J

    D. Cant and J. Hedicke , On the rigidity of translated points , Submitted, (2024). 22

    2024

  11. [14]

    D. Cant, J. Hedicke, and E. Kilgore , Extensible positive loops and vanishing of sym- plectic cohomology, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.1826, (2023). 2, 7

    2023

  12. [15]

    Casals and E

    R. Casals and E. Murphy , Legendrian fronts for affine varieties , Duke Mathematical Journal, 168 (2019), pp. 225–323. 3, 6, 13, 17, 21

    2019

  13. [16]

    Casals and F

    R. Casals and F. Presas , On the strong orderability of overtwisted 3–folds , Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici, 91 (2016), pp. 305–316. 8

    2016

  14. [17]

    Chantraine, V

    B. Chantraine, V. Colin, and G. Dimitroglou Rizell , Positive Legendrian isotopies and Floer theory , in Annales de l’Institut Fourier, vol. 69, No. 4, 2019, pp. 1 679–1737. 2, 7 NON-ORDERABILITY AND THE CONTACT HOFER NORM 27

    2019

  15. [18]

    Chernov and S

    V. Chernov and S. Nemirovski , Non-negative Legendrian isotopy in ST ∗ M , Geometry & Topology, 14 (2010), pp. 611–626. 2, 7, 8

    2010

  16. [19]

    , Universal orderability of Legendrian isotopy classes , Journal of Symplectic Geometry, 14 (2016), p. 149–170. 7

    2016

  17. [20]

    Chiang, F

    R. Chiang, F. Ding, and O. v an Koert , Open books for Boothby-Wang bundles, fibered Dehn twists and the mean Euler characteristic , J. Symplectic Geom., 12 (2014), pp. 379–426. 4, 23

    2014

  18. [21]

    Cieliebak and Y

    K. Cieliebak and Y. Eliashberg , From Stein to Weinstein and back: symplectic geometry of affine complex manifolds , vol. 59, American Mathematical Soc., 2012. 3, 10, 11, 13, 17

    2012

  19. [22]

    Colin , Livres ouverts en géométrie de contact (d’après Emmanuel Gi roux), no

    V. Colin , Livres ouverts en géométrie de contact (d’après Emmanuel Gi roux), no. 317, 2008, pp. Exp. No. 969, vii, 91–117. Séminaire Bourbaki. Vol. 2006 /2007. 11

    2008

  20. [24]

    Del Pino and L

    A. Del Pino and L. Nakamura , The size of an overtwisted disk , Forthcoming. 3

  21. [25]

    Dimitroglou Rizell and M

    G. Dimitroglou Rizell and M. G. Sulliv an , The persistence of a relative rabinowitz– floer complex , Geometry & Topology, 28 (2024), pp. 2145–2206. 9

    2024

  22. [26]

    Eliashberg, S

    Y. Eliashberg, S. S. Kim, and L. Polterovich , Geometry of contact transformations and domains: orderability versus squeezing , Geometry & Topology, 10 (2006), pp. 1635–1747. 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 25

    2006

  23. [27]

    Eliashberg and D

    Y. Eliashberg and D. Pancholi , Honda-Huang’s work on contact convexity revisited , Preprint arXiv:2207.07185, (2022). 11

    2022

  24. [28]

    Eliashberg and L

    Y. Eliashberg and L. Polterovich , Partially ordered groups and geometry of contact transformations, Geometric & Functional Analysis GAF A, 10 (2000), pp. 1448– 1476. 2, 6, 7, 24

    2000

  25. [30]

    Geiges , An introduction to contact topology , vol

    H. Geiges , An introduction to contact topology , vol. 109 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008 . 11, 23

    2008

  26. [31]

    Giroux , Structures de contact en dimension trois et bifurcations de s feuilletages de sur- faces, Inventiones mathematicae, 141 (2000), pp

    E. Giroux , Structures de contact en dimension trois et bifurcations de s feuilletages de sur- faces, Inventiones mathematicae, 141 (2000), pp. 615–689. 11

    2000

  27. [32]

    , Géométrie de contact: de la dimension trois vers les dimensi ons supérieures , in Proceedings of the international congress of mathematicia ns, ICM 2002, Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2002, pp. 405–414. 11

    2002

  28. [33]

    , Ideal Liouville Domains, a cool gadget , Journal of Symplectic Geometry, 18 (2020), pp. 769–790. 11, 19

    2020

  29. [34]

    A. B. Givental’ , Nonlinear generalization of the Maslov index , in Theory of singularities and its applications, vol. 1 of Adv. Soviet Math., Amer. Math . Soc., Providence, RI, 1990, pp. 71–103. 5

    1990

  30. [35]

    Granja, Y

    G. Granja, Y. Karshon, M. Pabiniak, and S. Sandon , Givental’s non-linear maslov index on lens spaces , International Mathematics Research Notices, 2021 (2021) , pp. 18225– 18299. 2, 23, 24

    2021

  31. [37]

    Honda and Y

    K. Honda and Y. Huang , Convex hypersurface theory in contact topology , Preprint arXiv:1907.06025, (2019). 11

    2019 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Ibort, D

    A. Ibort, D. Martinez-Torres, and F. Presas , On the construction of contact sub- manifolds with prescribed topology , Journal of Differential Geometry, 56 (2000), pp. 235–283. 11

    2000

  33. [39]

    Lazarev , Contact manifolds with flexible fillings , Geom

    O. Lazarev , Contact manifolds with flexible fillings , Geom. Funct. Anal., 30 (2020), pp. 188–

    2020

  34. [40]

    Liu , Positive loops of loose legendrian embeddings and applicat ions, Journal of Symplectic Geometry, 18 (2020), pp

    G. Liu , Positive loops of loose legendrian embeddings and applicat ions, Journal of Symplectic Geometry, 18 (2020), pp. 867–887. 5, 8

    2020

  35. [41]

    Marinković and M

    A. Marinković and M. Pabiniak , On displaceability of pre-lagrangian toric fibers in con- tact toric manifolds , International Journal of Mathematics, 27 (2016), p. 16501 13. 4, 19, 24

    2016

  36. [42]

    McDuff , Symplectic manifolds with contact type boundaries , Inventiones mathematicae, 103 (1991), pp

    D. McDuff , Symplectic manifolds with contact type boundaries , Inventiones mathematicae, 103 (1991), pp. 651–671. 10

    1991

  37. [43]

    Meiwes and K

    M. Meiwes and K. Naef , Translated points on hypertight contact manifolds , Journal of Topology and Analysis, 10 (2018), pp. 289–322. 23, 24

    2018

  38. [44]

    Murphy , Loose Legendrian embeddings in high dimensional contact ma nifolds, arXiv preprint arXiv:1201.2245, (2012)

    E. Murphy , Loose Legendrian embeddings in high dimensional contact ma nifolds, arXiv preprint arXiv:1201.2245, (2012). 6, 13, 14

    2012 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Opshtein , Polarizations and symplectic isotopies , J

    E. Opshtein , Polarizations and symplectic isotopies , J. Symplectic Geom., 11 (2013), pp. 109–133. 4

    2013

  40. [47]

    Polterovich and D

    L. Polterovich and D. Rosen , Function theory on symplectic manifolds , vol. 34 of CRM Monograph Series, American Mathematical Society, Provide nce, RI, 2014. 21

    2014

  41. [48]

    Rosen and J

    D. Rosen and J. Zhang , Chekanov’s dichotomy in contact topology , Mathematical Research Letters, 27 (2020), pp. 1165–1193. 5, 9

    2020

  42. [49]

    Sandon , On iterated translated points for contactomorphisms of R2n+1 and R2n × S1, International Journal of Mathematics, 23 (2012), p

    S. Sandon , On iterated translated points for contactomorphisms of R2n+1 and R2n × S1, International Journal of Mathematics, 23 (2012), p. 125004 2. 22

    2012

  43. [50]

    Seyf addini, C0-limits of Hamiltonian paths and the Oh–Schwarz spectral in variants, International Mathematics Research Notices, 2013 (2013), pp

    S. Seyf addini, C0-limits of Hamiltonian paths and the Oh–Schwarz spectral in variants, International Mathematics Research Notices, 2013 (2013), pp. 4920–4960. 22

    2013

  44. [52]

    Starkston , Arboreal singularities in Weinstein skeleta , Selecta Mathematica, 24 (2018), pp

    L. Starkston , Arboreal singularities in Weinstein skeleta , Selecta Mathematica, 24 (2018), pp. 4105–4140. 3, 10, 17

    2018

  45. [53]

    Ter vil, Translated points for contactomorphisms of prequantizati on spaces over mono- tone symplectic toric manifolds , Journal of Symplectic Geometry, 19 (2021), pp

    B. Ter vil, Translated points for contactomorphisms of prequantizati on spaces over mono- tone symplectic toric manifolds , Journal of Symplectic Geometry, 19 (2021), pp. 1421–1493. 23, 24

    2021

  46. [54]

    v an Koert, Lecture notes on stabilization of contact open books , Münster J

    O. v an Koert, Lecture notes on stabilization of contact open books , Münster J. Math., 10 (2017), pp. 425–455. 21 Centre de recherches mathématiques (CRM), Université de Mo ntréal, 2920 Chemin de la tour, Montréal (Québec), H3T 1J4, Canada Email address : jakob.hedicke@gmail....

    2017

Pith tools

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