A cluster theory approach from mutation invariants to Diophantine equations

Zhichao Chen; Zixu Li

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A cluster theory approach from mutation invariants to Diophantine equations

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Positive integer solutions of a certain quartic Diophantine equation exist exactly when the parameter is 7, and cluster mutations generate them all from (1,1,1).

desk verdict New sign-equivalent matrix classification and a likely-true but underproved k=7 classification; send to referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09435 v1 pith:6MXD5CXW submitted 2025-01-16 math.NT math.COmath.RAmath.RT

Zhichao Chen , Zixu Li This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NTmath.COmath.RAmath.RT MSC 13F6011D0911D25

keywords sign-equivalentexchangematricesmutationinvariantsclusteralgebrasDiophantineequationsMarkovequationpositiveintegerpointsLaurentpolynomials

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 proves that the quartic Diophantine equation $x_1^2+x_2^4+x_3^4+2x_1x_2^2+2x_1x_3^2 = k x_1x_2^2x_3^2$ has positive integer solutions if and only if $k=7$, and that for $k=7$ every solution is obtained from $(1,1,1)$ by finitely many cluster mutations of the rank-3 cluster algebra $A_L$. This gives the complete set of positive integer points of the Lampe variant mutation invariant $T_2(x_1,x_2,x_3)=\frac{x_1^2+x_2^4+x_3^4+2x_1x_2^2+2x_1x_3^2}{x_1x_2^2x_3^2}$. The same cluster-mutation descent reproves Aigner's theorem for the Markov equation ($k=1$ or $k=3$) and provides a Diophantine explanation for the difference between finite-type and affine-type rank-2 cluster algebras: mutation invariants coming from finite-type clusters are 'reductive' Laurent polynomials, whose value equations have finitely many positive integer solutions, whereas the affine-type invariants are not reductive and have infinitely many. The paper also classifies all irreducible sign-equivalent exchange matrices and, as an application, shows that for any non-constant monic polynomial $F$, equations $F(T_i(x))=F(t)$ have positive integer solutions exactly when $t$ lands on the special values $1,3$ for $T_1$ and $7$ for $T_2$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Laurent mutation invariant $T_2(x_1,x_2,x_3) = \frac{x_1^2+x_2^4+x_3^4+2x_1x_2^2+2x_1x_3^2}{x_1x_2^2x_3^2}$ of the cluster algebra $A_L$ whose exchange matrix is $\begin{pmatrix} 0&1&-1\\ -4&0&2\\ 4&-2&0 \end{pmatrix}$. The argument's engine is the substitution $X_1=x_1$, $X_2=x_2^2$, $X_3=x_3^2$, which flattens the quartic terms into $X_1^2+X_2^2+X_3^2+2X_1X_2+2X_1X_3 = kX_1X_2X_3$, together with three maps $\hat{\mu}_1,\hat{\mu}_2,\hat{\mu}_3$ on triples that commute with actual cluster mutations under this substitution. Vieta's formula makes each $\hat{\mu}_i$ replace one coordinate by the second root of a quadratic whose other root is the current coordinate, so the maximum strictly decreases; the descent terminates only when a coordinate has fallen to 1 (or, for $k=1$, below 4), which Theorem 5.7 declares impossible. A secondary mechanism is the notion of a 'reductive' Laurent polynomial, which bounds one variable once the invariant is fixed and thereby yields the finiteness theorem for finite-type rank-2 invariants.

What would settle it

Run a finite computer search for positive integers $x_1,x_2,x_3 \le 1000$ satisfying $x_1^2+x_2^4+x_3^4+2x_1x_2^2+2x_1x_3^2 = k x_1x_2^2x_3^2$ with $k\neq 7$; the descent argument proves that any such solution forces a smaller one, so it is enough to look at tuples with $x_2=1$, $x_3=1$, or (for $k=1$) a component below 4. Finding even one such tuple would refute Theorem 5.7; finding none would confirm the missing exclusion on which the proof depends.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim of the paper is Theorem 5.7: the Diophantine equation $x_1^2+x_2^4+x_3^4+2x_1x_2^2+2x_1x_3^2 = k x_1x_2^2x_3^2$ has positive integer solutions precisely when $k=7$. The authors prove this by substituting $X_1=x_1$, $X_2=x_2^2$, $X_3=x_3^2$, which turns the quartic equation into the Markov-like equation $X_1^2+X_2^2+X_3^2+2X_1X_2+2X_1X_3 = k X_1X_2X_3$, and then showing that the compatible 'cluster mutation' maps $\hat{\mu}_i$ on triples act as Vieta jumps: mutating at the maximal component produces a new positive integer solution whose maximum is strictly smaller. Repeating this descent, any solution for $k\neq 7$ would have to reach a forbidden boundary (a component equal to 1, or for $k=1$ a component below 4), which the authors rule out, leaving $k=7$ as the only admissible parameter. The paper also establishes Theorem 5.2, that the Markov invariant equation $x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2 = k x_1x_2x_3$ has positive integer solutions exactly for $k=1,3$, via the same mutation-descent method rather than Aigner's coprimality argument. Its supporting classification Theorem 3.5 lists all irreducible sign-equivalent exchange matrices: the rank-2 matrices with non-zero off-diagonal entries, and two families of rank-3 matrices up to permutation, which are exactly the matrices whose mutation class is $\{B,-B\}$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on excluding solutions with $x_2=1$ or $x_3=1$ for $k\neq 7$, and for $k=1$ solutions with any variable equal to 1 or 2; these exclusions are asserted without a fully matching proof, and if any such solution exists the descent argument fails to reach a contradiction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $k=7$, the solution set of the quartic equation is a single cluster-mutation orbit: every positive integer triple is obtained from $(1,1,1)$ by iterating the mutations of $A_L$.
For any non-constant monic $F\in\mathbb{Z}[X]$ and any integer $t$, the equation $F(T_2(x_1,x_2,x_3))=F(t)$ has positive integer solutions exactly when $F(t)=F(7)$, and all solutions lie in that same orbit; the analogous statement holds for $T_1$ with $t\in\{1,3\}$.
The Markov equation $x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2 = k x_1x_2x_3$ is solved without the classical pairwise-coprimality argument, showing the mutation-descent method subsumes both known results.
The classification of sign-equivalent exchange matrices (rank 2 with $b,c>0$ and two rank-3 families up to permutation) provides a concrete source of new mutation invariants: any rational function fixed by all one-step mutations is invariant on the whole mutation class.
The reductive/non-reductive dichotomy for Laurent invariants explains the finite-type/affine-type boundary in rank 2: finite-type invariants have finitely many positive integer points, affine-type ones have infinitely many.

Reading between the lines

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

The square substitution $X_2=x_2^2$, $X_3=x_3^2$ suggests a general recipe: mutation invariants that are polynomials in even powers of some variables can be reduced to Markov-type equations, potentially creating new Diophantine equations with one cluster orbit.
The unproven exclusion of $x_2=1$ and $x_3=1$ for $k\neq 7$ is probably repairable by a direct modular or Vieta argument on the reduced equation; closing that gap would make the descent self-contained.
If the paper's closing conjecture holds, the two rank-3 sign-equivalent families yield exactly two Laurent mutation invariants up to polynomial composition, making the classification of rank-3 solution sets exhaustive.
The descent method might transfer to other mutation-finite cluster algebras (e.g. the rank-3 matrices listed in Theorem 3.5) to classify positive integer points of their invariants, provided a suitable square-substitution exists.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper has one solid new result—the classification of irreducible sign-equivalent exchange matrices (Theorem 3.5)—and one important but not fully proved classification, the k=7 iff for the Lampe variant Markov equation. The second is likely true, but the written proof has load-bearing gaps. I would send it to a referee, not because it is finished, but because the core is credible and the holes are repairable.

What is genuinely new: Theorem 3.5 is explicit and appears correct; the argument reducing to (3.1) and then solving the system is direct and checkable. The sign-equivalent matrix list fills a small but real gap in the finite-mutation-type literature. The authors also give a clean Diophantine distinction between finite and affine rank-2 cluster algebras via 'reductive' Laurent polynomials (Theorem 4.5), though the proof needs a small strengthening of the definition or a variable-swap argument.

The soft spot is Theorem 5.7. In the proof, after substitution X1=x1, X2=x2^2, X3=x3^2, they say 'By Lemma 5.6, we have b≠1 and c≠1.' That does not follow: Lemma 5.6 concerns x1^2+x2^4+2x1+1 = k x1 x2^2. Setting x2=1 in (5.9) gives a^2+c^4+1+2a+2ac^2 = k a c^2, which is not that equation because of the cross term 2ac^2. The exclusion is recoverable—for k≥4 rearrange to a^2+c^4+2a+1 = (k-2)a c^2 and apply Lemma 5.6 with k-2; for k=1,2 it is elementary—but the paper does not do this. The k=1 case also asserts a,b,c≥3 without proof. If a=1 or b=1/c=1 is possible, the descent inequalities f(B)<0 etc. are not valid, so the descent may not terminate. These are not cosmetic gaps; they are the load-bearing part of the main theorem. The broad strategy is sound and the result is very likely correct.

I also checked Theorem 4.5: Step 2 is lengthy but plausible; the explicit cluster-sequence calculations are checkable by hand. The definition of reductive should be 'there exists a term with u1>u or v1>v (not both equal)', or the proof must handle the u1=u case by swapping variables. Minor but should be fixed.

Who is this for? People working on cluster algebras and Diophantine equations—about a dozen active researchers. The paper deserves a serious referee, because the claimed classification is new and important for that program, and the gaps look repairable. With the Lemma 5.6 reduction and the k=1 bound filled in, Theorem 5.7 would be publishable. I'd engage with it.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces and classifies sign-equivalent exchange matrices (Theorem 3.5), uses the authors' earlier rank-2 mutation-invariant description to prove finiteness for a class of rank-2 Diophantine equations (Theorem 4.5), gives a cluster-mutation proof of Aigner's classification for the Markov equation (Theorem 5.2), and claims a complete classification for the variant Markov equation x1^2+x2^4+x3^4+2x1x2^2+2x1x3^2 = k x1 x2^2 x3^2, asserting that positive integer solutions exist if and only if k=7 (Theorem 5.7). The final section applies these classifications to equations F(T_i(x))=F(t) for monic integer polynomials F.

Significance. If Theorem 5.7 is established, it is a substantial and attractive result: it gives a complete description of the positive integer points of Lampe's mutation invariant T2, with all solutions generated from (1,1,1) by finite cluster mutations of AL. Theorem 3.5 is also a useful structural classification, and the paper's reliance on previously published theorems of Chen--Li and Lampe is legitimate rather than circular. Theorem 5.2's cluster-mutation proof of Aigner's theorem is a nice alternative presentation. However, the central proof of Theorem 5.7 has load-bearing gaps, and because Proposition 6.8 depends directly on Theorem 5.7, the applications inherit those gaps.

major comments (2)

[5.2, proof of Theorem 5.7] The inference 'By Lemma 5.6, we have b≠1 and c≠1' is not supported as written. Setting x2=1 in (5.9) gives a^2+c^4+2a+1=(k-2)ac^2, which is the equation of Lemma 5.6 with parameter k-2, not with parameter k. Lemma 5.6 therefore forces k-2=5, i.e. k=7, not b,c≠1 in general. Thus the lower bounds B=b^2≥4 and C=c^2≥4 used throughout the descent are justified only after a case split excluding k=7; for k=1,2 one needs the additional observation that the right-hand side is non-positive, which is not written. Since these lower bounds are load-bearing for the inequalities f(B)<0, g(A)<0, and for the terminal contradictions, the proof needs an explicit reduction in this step.
[5.2, k=1 case of Theorem 5.7] The statement 'Note that a≥3, b≥3, c≥3' in the k=1 case is asserted without proof. The subsequent verification that A≥7 only eliminates A=3,4,5,6; it does not rule out A=1 or A=2, and nothing in the written proof rules out b=2 or c=2. The descent inequalities require B≥9 and C≥9, and the terminal condition is A0<7 or min(B0,C0)<4. If any solution with a∈{1,2} or with b=2 or c=2 existed, the descent would not terminate in the claimed contradiction. The theorem may still be true, but as written this case is incomplete and must be supplied.

minor comments (4)

[6.2, proof of Proposition 6.8] The final sentence of the proof says that all positive integer solutions are generated by finite cluster mutations of AP, but the proposition statement and the surrounding context require AL.
[5.2, proof of Lemma 5.6] In the first paragraph of the proof, 'the Equation (5.1)' should refer to Equation (5.6).
[Throughout Section 5.2] The notation xμ1, xμ2, xμ3 for the maps pμ_i is hard to read; the hats should be typeset properly, and the compatibility S∘μ_i = pμ_i∘S should be displayed explicitly for all i=1,2,3 before being used.
[Remark 6.9] The phrase 'we conjectured that' should be 'we conjecture that'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the main classifications are proved by descent arguments over external, independently published cluster-generation theorems; the unsupported exclusions in Theorem 5.7 are proof gaps, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not obtained by defining a quantity in terms of the result, by fitting a parameter and calling it a prediction, or by a self-citation chain. Theorem 5.2 (Markov equation) is proved by an internal descent on positive integer triples; the constructive half for k=3 is quoted from the external theorem [Lam16, Theorem 2.3], and the nonexistence for k≠1,3 is established by new inequalities and descent, not by assuming the conclusion. Theorem 5.7 similarly uses [Lam16, Theorem 2.6] only for the existence/generation half at k=7, while the exclusion of all k≠7 is attempted through a descent on A,B,C using the inequalities f(B)<0 and g(A),g(C)<0. The cited results from the authors' earlier paper [CL24] (Theorem 3.1, Lemmas 2.23, 2.26, 3.9, 3.12) are published, parameter-free theorems with stated assumptions that do not include the target Diophantine classifications; they are used as imported lemmas, and they do not make the present conclusions true by construction. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the value it is later used to force, and no numerical input is fitted to a data subset and then renamed a prediction. I also flag, as correctness risk rather than circularity, that in the proof of Theorem 5.7 the inference "By Lemma 5.6, we have b≠1 and c≠1" is written without the needed rearrangement (setting x2=1 in (5.9) gives a^2+c^4+2a+1=(k−2)ac^2, so Lemma 5.6 applies directly only for k≥4), and the bounds a≥3,b≥3,c≥3 for k=1 are asserted without proof. These omissions make the written descent incomplete, but they are not reductions of the theorem to its own inputs, so they do not raise the circularity score.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters, no new particles or mediators, and no ad hoc mathematical entities. Its assumptions are standard cluster algebra facts and published theorems from the cited literature, including the authors' own [CL24]. The main mathematical content is case analysis and descent arguments on known mutation invariants.

assumptions (6)

standard math The mutation invariant classification of rank 2 cluster algebras in [CL24, Theorem 3.1]: every rank-2 mutation invariant has the form (4.1) with symmetric polynomial Phi and rational function F.
Borrowed from the authors' prior published paper; used in Theorem 4.5 and Remark 4.8.
standard math Laurent phenomenon and positivity: every cluster variable is a Laurent polynomial with nonnegative integer coefficients in the initial cluster.
Used throughout to justify the form of mutation invariants and nonnegative polynomial reductions; cited to FZ02 and GHKK18.
standard math The Felikson-Shapiro-Tumarkin classification of coefficient-free cluster algebras of finite mutation type is complete.
Used in Section 3 as context for sign-equivalent exchange matrices and to justify that the classification is finite.
standard math Lampe's generation theorems [Lam16, Theorems 2.3 and 2.6]: all positive integer solutions for the k=3 Markov equation and for the k=7 variant are generated from (1,1,1) by finite cluster mutations.
Used as the constructive half of Theorems 5.2 and 5.7 and in the applications in Section 6.
standard math Aigner's characterization of solutions to x^2+y^2+z^2=xyz as triples divisible by 3, used in Lemma 6.6.
Used to pass from Markov triples with k=3 to solutions with k=1.
standard math The integer ring Z is integrally closed in Q.
Used in Section 6 to force the value of a monic polynomial in a mutation invariant to be an integer.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A cluster theory approach from mutation invariants to Diophantine equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6MXD5CXW

@misc{pith2026250109435,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A cluster theory approach from mutation invariants to Diophantine equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6MXD5CXW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09435}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we define and classify the sign-equivalent exchange matrices. We give a Diophantine explanation for the differences between rank 2 cluster algebras of finite type and affine type based on \cite{CL24}. We classify the positive integer points of the Markov mutation invariant and its variant. As an application, several classes of Diophantine equations with cluster algebraic structures are exhibited.

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

Cluster algebraic interpretation of generalized Markov numbers and their matrixizations
math.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Two new families of cluster Cohn and Markov-monodromy matrices for generalized Markov cluster algebras are introduced, fully classified, and made explicit via weighted fence posets whose order ideals expand cluster variables.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

[1]

Aigner Markov's theorem and 100 years of the uniqueness conjecture: a mathematical journal from irrational numbers to perfect matchings Springer 2013

M. Aigner Markov's theorem and 100 years of the uniqueness conjecture: a mathematical journal from irrational numbers to perfect matchings Springer 2013

work page 2013
[2]

M. F. Atiyah, I. G. Macdonald Introduction to Commutative Algebra Addison-Wesley Publishing Company 1969

work page 1969
[3]

Beineke, T

A. Beineke, T. Br \"u stle, L. Hille Cluster-Cyclic Quivers with Three Vertices and the Markov Equation Algebr. Represent. Theory 14 2011 , no. 1, 97 112

work page 2011
[4]

L. Bao, F. Li A study on Diophantine equations via cluster theory J. Algebra 639 2024 , 99 119

work page 2024
[5]

A. Buan, O. Iyama, I. Reiten, J. Scott Cluster structures for 2-Calabi-Yau categories and unipotent groups Compos. Math. 145 2009 , 1035 1079

work page 2009
[6]

A. Buan, R. Marsh, M. Reineke, I. Reiten, G. Todorov Tilting theory and cluster combinatorics Adv. Math. 204 2006 , 572 612

work page 2006
[7]

Z. Chen, Z. Li Mutation invariants of cluster algebras of rank 2 J. Algebra 654 2024 , 25 58

work page 2024
[8]

Derksen, J

H. Derksen, J. Weyman, A. Zelevinsky Quivers with potentials and their representations I: Mutations Selecta Mathematica 14 2008 , 59 119

work page 2008

Show all 37 references

[9]

Derksen, J

H. Derksen, J. Weyman, A. Zelevinsky Quivers with potentials and their representations II: applications to cluster algebras J. Amer. Math. Soc. 23(3) 2010 , 749 790

2010
[10]

V. Fock, A. Goncharov Cluster ensembles, quantization and the dilogarithm Ann. Sci. Ecole Normale. Sup. 42 2009 , 865 930

2009
[11]

Fujiwara, Y

S. Fujiwara, Y. Gyoda, Duality between final-seed and initial-seed mutations in cluster algebras, SIGMA 15 (2019), 24 pages

2019
[12]

Fomin, N

S. Fomin, N. Reading Generalized cluster complexes and Coxeter combinatorics Int. Math. Res. Not. 2005 , no. 44, 2709 2757

2005
[13]

Felikson, S

A. Felikson, S. Shapiro, P. Tumarkin Skew-symmetric cluster algebras of finite mutation type J. Eur. Math. Soc. 14 2012 , no. 4, 1135 1180

2012
[14]

Felikson, S

A. Felikson, S. Shapiro, P. Tumarkin Cluster algebras of finite mutation type via unfoldings Int. Math. Res. Not. 2012 , no. 8, 1768 1804

2012
[15]

Fomin, A

S. Fomin, A. Zelevinsky Cluster Algebra I: Foundations J. Amer. Math. Soc. 15 2002 , 497 529

2002
[16]

Fomin, A

S. Fomin, A. Zelevinsky Cluster Algebra II: Finite type classification Invent. Math. 154 2003 , 112 164

2003
[17]

Fomin, A

S. Fomin, A. Zelevinsky Cluster algebras: Notes for the CDM-03 conference in: CDM 2003: Current Developments in Mathematics, International Press 2004

2003
[18]

Fomin, A

S. Fomin, A. Zelevinsky Cluster Algebra IV: Coefficients Comp. Math. 143 2007 , 63 121

2007
[19]

Gantmacher The Theory of Matrices , AMS Chelsea, American Mathematical Society: Providence, Rhode Island, 1998 , Volume II

F. Gantmacher The Theory of Matrices , AMS Chelsea, American Mathematical Society: Providence, Rhode Island, 1998 , Volume II

1998
[20]

Gross, P

M. Gross, P. Hacking, S. Keel, M. Kontsevich Canonical bases for cluster algebras J. Amer. Math. Soc. 31 , 2018 , 497 608

2018
[21]

Gyoda, K

Y. Gyoda, K. Matsushita Generalization of Markov Diophantine equation via generalized cluster algebra Electron. J. Comb. 30 (4), 2023 , P4.10

2023
[22]

Gekhtman, M

M. Gekhtman, M. Shapiro, A. Vainshtein Cluster algebras and Poisson geometry Mosc. Math. J. 3 2003 , 899 934

2003
[23]

Gekhtman, M

M. Gekhtman, M. Shapiro, A. Vainshtein Poisson geometry of directed networks in an annulus J. Europ. Math. Soc. 14 2012 , 541 570

2012
[24]

Huang On the monotonicity of the generalized Markov numbers arXiv:2204.11443

M. Huang On the monotonicity of the generalized Markov numbers arXiv:2204.11443

arXiv
[25]

Hernandez, B

D. Hernandez, B. Leclerc Cluster algebras and quantum affine algebras Duke Math. J. 154(2) 2010 , 265 341

2010
[26]

Keller, D

B. Keller, D. Yang Derived equivalences from mutations of quivers with potential Adv. Math. 226(3) 2011 , 2118 2168

2011
[27]

Kuniba, T

A. Kuniba, T. Nakanishi, J. Suzuki T-systems and Y-systems in integrable systems J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44 2011 , 103001

2011
[28]

K. Lee, L. Li, A. Zelevinsky, Greedy elements in rank 2 cluster algebras, Selecta Mathematica 20 (2014), no. 1, 57-82

2014
[29]

K. Lee, L. Li, M. Rabideau, R. Schiffler On the ordering of the Markov numbers Adv. Appl. Math. 143 2023 , 102453

2023
[30]

Lampe Diophantine equations via cluster transformations J

P. Lampe Diophantine equations via cluster transformations J. Algebra 462 2016 , 320 337

2016
[31]

Muller Locally acyclic cluster algebras Adv

G. Muller Locally acyclic cluster algebras Adv. Math. 233 2013 , 207 247

2013
[32]

Muller = for locally acyclic cluster algebras SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom

G. Muller = for locally acyclic cluster algebras SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 10 2014 , Paper 094

2014
[33]

Nakanishi Cluster algebras and scattering diagrams MSJ Mem

T. Nakanishi Cluster algebras and scattering diagrams MSJ Mem. 41 2023 , 279 pp; ISBN: 978-4-86497-105-8

2023
[34]

Nakanishi, A

T. Nakanishi, A. Zelevinsky On tropical dualities in cluster algebras Contemp. Math. 565 2012 , 217 226

2012
[35]

Propp The combinatorics of frieze patterns and Markoff numbers Integers 20 2020

J. Propp The combinatorics of frieze patterns and Markoff numbers Integers 20 2020

2020
[36]

X. Peng, J. Zhang Cluster algebras and markoff numbers CaMUS 3 2012 , 19 26

2012
[37]

Reading, S

N. Reading, S. Stella, Initial-seed recursions and dualities for d -vectors, Pacific J. Math 293 (2018), 179-206

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Aigner Markov's theorem and 100 years of the uniqueness conjecture: a mathematical journal from irrational numbers to perfect matchings Springer 2013

M. Aigner Markov's theorem and 100 years of the uniqueness conjecture: a mathematical journal from irrational numbers to perfect matchings Springer 2013

work page 2013

[2] [2]

M. F. Atiyah, I. G. Macdonald Introduction to Commutative Algebra Addison-Wesley Publishing Company 1969

work page 1969

[3] [3]

Beineke, T

A. Beineke, T. Br \"u stle, L. Hille Cluster-Cyclic Quivers with Three Vertices and the Markov Equation Algebr. Represent. Theory 14 2011 , no. 1, 97 112

work page 2011

[4] [4]

L. Bao, F. Li A study on Diophantine equations via cluster theory J. Algebra 639 2024 , 99 119

work page 2024

[5] [5]

A. Buan, O. Iyama, I. Reiten, J. Scott Cluster structures for 2-Calabi-Yau categories and unipotent groups Compos. Math. 145 2009 , 1035 1079

work page 2009

[6] [6]

A. Buan, R. Marsh, M. Reineke, I. Reiten, G. Todorov Tilting theory and cluster combinatorics Adv. Math. 204 2006 , 572 612

work page 2006

[7] [7]

Z. Chen, Z. Li Mutation invariants of cluster algebras of rank 2 J. Algebra 654 2024 , 25 58

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Derksen, J

H. Derksen, J. Weyman, A. Zelevinsky Quivers with potentials and their representations I: Mutations Selecta Mathematica 14 2008 , 59 119

work page 2008