Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Arithmetic and geometry of Markov polynomials

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 For Fibonacci and Pell Markov polynomials, the monomials that appear are exactly the lattice points of the Newton polygon; the paper conjectures this saturation for all cases and adds log-concavity, entropy, and sail-duality structure.

desk verdict The special-case results are real and worth publishing, but the general Newton-polygon theorem is unproved and load-bearing, so the conjectures are conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14882 v3 pith:2WBFUQAU submitted 2025-01-24 math.NT

S.J. Evans , A.P. Veselov , B. Winn This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NT MSC 11B3911J7013F6052B2005A20
keywords MarkovpolynomialsNewtonpolygonSaturationConjectureFibonaccinumbersPelllog-concavityentropyfunctioncontinuedfractions
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 studies the Laurent-polynomial solutions of the generalised Markov equation, called Markov polynomials, by treating the exponent pairs of their numerator monomials as points in a convex polygon. Its central proposal is the Saturation Conjecture: for the rational parameter $a/b$, every integer lattice point inside the Newton polygon (the region $i/a+j/b \ge 1$, $i+j \le a+b-1$) actually occurs as a monomial, with positive coefficient. The conjecture is proved for the Fibonacci family $a/b = 1/n$ and the Pell family $a/b = n/(n+1)$, using explicit coefficient formulas and recurrences. Along the way the paper gives exact binomial-type formulas for boundary and near-boundary coefficients, proves weak log-concavity for the Fibonacci family, computes a strictly concave entropy function in the continuum limit, and formulates two structural conjectures: the Factor 4 conjecture and a Markov sail duality that organise interior coefficients by continued-fraction geometry.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Newton polygon $\Delta_{a/b}$, the convex hull in the $(i,j)$-plane of the exponent pairs occurring in the homogeneous numerator $P_{a/b}(u,v,w)$; Theorem 3.2 identifies it as the region between the lines $i/a+j/b=1$ and $i+j=a+b-1$. The argument runs along the mutation formula $ZZ'=X^2+Y^2$ in the form of the numerator recurrence $P_{a+2c,b+2d}=(u+v+w)P_{c/d}P_{(a+c)/(b+d)}-u^c v^d w^{c+d}P_{a/b}$, which lets the paper induct from the base numerators $1$, $u+v$, $(u+v)^2+uw$ over the rational topograph. For the two special families the induction closes into explicit recurrences: the $1/n$ numerators satisfy the two-variable cluster recurrence $f_{m+1}=(f_m^2+1)/f_{m-1}$ and produce the closed coefficient formula $\binom{n-j}{n+1-i-j}\binom{i+j}{j}$, while the $n/(n+1)$ numerators satisfy $R_{2k+1}=(x^2+y^2)(x^2+y^2+z^2)R_{2k-1}-x^2y^2z^4R_{2k-3}$, whose coefficient-level recurrence propagates values across the polygon. A separate tool is the binary entropy function $H(p)=-p\ln p-(1-p)\ln(1-p)$, which computes the continuum limit of coefficients and yields the proved strict concavity for the Fibonacci family.

What would settle it

For a rational $a/b$ not of the two proved families, e.g. $2/5$, compute $P_{a/b}$ explicitly and check whether every lattice point of the claimed Newton polygon has a nonzero coefficient; a single zero coefficient would disprove the Saturation Conjecture, while a single missing lattice point or nonzero coefficient outside the polygon would falsify Theorem 3.2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's starting description is Theorem 3.2: for coprime $a,b>0$, the Newton polygon $\Delta_{a/b}$ of the numerator $P_{a/b}(u,v,w)$ is exactly the set $\{i,j\ge 0 : i/a+j/b \ge 1,\ i+j \le a+b-1\}$. Because Markov polynomials have positive coefficients, every lattice point in this polygon might in principle have a zero coefficient; the Saturation Conjecture asserts that the support of $P_{a/b}$ is precisely $\Delta_{a/b} \cap \mathbb{Z}^2$. The paper proves this for $\rho=1/n$ by deriving the closed coefficient formula $A_{ij}=\binom{n-j}{n+1-i-j}\binom{i+j}{j}$, and for $\rho=n/(n+1)$ by a Pell-type recurrence that forces the same support. It also proves explicit binomial formulas for boundary and near-boundary coefficients, log-concavity along the principal directions for the Fibonacci family, strict concavity of the associated entropy function in the continuum limit, and carries out the first verification of the proposed sail-duality and location-of-4 conjectures on the Pell family, where the interior sail coefficients are shown to be $4m$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole structure rests on the unproved description of the Newton polygon as the region $i/a+j/b \ge 1$, $i+j \le a+b-1$, borrowed from a general rank-3 cluster-algebra result; if that description failed for some denominator, the saturation, log-concavity, and sail statements would need revision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every Markov-Fibonacci polynomial $M_{1/n}$, the coefficient at $(i,j)$ is $\binom{n-j}{n+1-i-j}\binom{i+j}{j}$, so every lattice point of the Newton polygon has a positive coefficient and the Saturation Conjecture holds in this family.
  • For every Markov-Pell polynomial $M_{n/(n+1)}$, saturation holds as well; the interior sail coefficients are exactly $4,8,\ldots,4(n-1)$, the coefficient at the penultimate convergent position is $4$, and the remaining boundary value is $7n-10$.
  • The boundary and near-boundary coefficients of every Markov polynomial are explicit sums of binomial coefficients: the top diagonal is $\binom{a+b-1}{i}$, the vertical and horizontal edges are $\binom{b-1}{i-a}$ and $\binom{a-1}{j-b}$, and the next two diagonals have three-term binomial formulas.
  • The entropy function of the Fibonacci family is strictly concave, invariant under $(\xi,\eta)\mapsto(\xi,1-\xi-\eta)$, and attains its maximum $2\ln((1+\sqrt{5})/2)$ at a single interior point, so the growth of coefficients in the continuum limit is concentrated along one direction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If saturation holds for all rationals, the coefficient support of every numerator is a full lattice polygon; this would make Markov polynomials a test case for general saturation phenomena in cluster algebras, where only cluster variables of rigid representations are known to saturate.
  • The Factor 4 conjecture would follow from a free action on the perfect matchings that compute these coefficients; such an action, if it exists, would also explain the location-of-4 statement as a fixed-point contribution.
  • The sail-duality propagation rule resembles a discrete integrable system: starting from the seed value 4 it determines almost all interior sail coefficients by alternating differences, which suggests a direct continued-fraction proof of positivity along the sail might be available even without a full saturation proof.
  • The concavity of the entropy function for arbitrary rationals could be tested numerically: for large $n$ and a fixed scaled point $(\xi,\eta)$, ratios of coefficients along nearby rays should approach ratios of exponentials of the conjectured entropy, and the Hessian should stay negative definite.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies Markov polynomials, the Laurent-polynomial solutions of the generalized Markov equation obtained by cluster mutations from an initial triple (x,y,z), parametrized by rationals via the Conway topograph. The authors propose a description of the Newton polygon of each Markov polynomial (Theorem 3.2, Eq. (11)) and use it to formulate the Saturation Conjecture 3.3, explicit boundary and near-boundary coefficient formulas (Theorems 4.1–4.3), a log-concavity conjecture and partial results (Section 6), an entropy function in a continuum limit (Section 7), and a Markov-sail duality (Section 8). They prove the saturation conjecture and additional coefficient structure for the Fibonacci family M_{1/n} (Theorem 5.2, Corollary 5.3) and for the Pell family M_{n/(n+1)} (Corollary 5.5, Theorems 9.1–9.2), and they prove strict concavity of the entropy function for Fibonacci polynomials (Theorem 7.4).

Significance. If the main conjectures hold, the paper would provide a clean geometric/combinatorial model for Markov polynomial coefficients, connecting cluster algebras, continued fractions, and tropical geometry, with concrete arithmetic predictions such as the Factor-4 Conjecture and the Markov Sail Duality. The paper has clear strengths: the Fibonacci coefficient formula is derived from independent results of Caldero–Zelevinsky and Zelevinsky and is machine-checkable; the entropy function for Fibonacci polynomials is rigorously shown to be strictly concave; the Binet-type formula for Pell polynomials is explicit; and several falsifiable conjectures are stated. However, the central Newton-polygon description is not proved here, and one of the stated coefficient formulas is internally inconsistent with another theorem, so the paper currently requires major revision before the central claims can be regarded as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Theorem 3.2 and Eq. (11)] The explicit description of the Newton polygon is stated without proof: the text says "This is straightforward but a bit technical, so we omit the details" and cites [16] informally. This is load-bearing, since Eq. (11) is used to define the coefficient formulas in Theorem 4.2, the Saturation Conjecture 3.3, the entropy function in Section 7, and the sail constructions in Section 8. The induction is not purely formal because recurrence (8) contains a negative term; positivity of coefficients does not by itself prevent the convex hull of the support from deviating from Eq. (11). Please provide a complete proof of Theorem 3.2, or a precise statement and theorem number from Lee–Li–Schiffler [16] that implies it, and explain why subtraction in (8) cannot change the convex hull.
  2. [Section 4, Theorems 4.1 and 4.2] Theorem 4.1 proves only the formula for T0 and declares the remaining cases "similar". Theorem 4.2, which is used in Sections 6 and 9, depends on all of the formulas in Theorem 4.1, so the missing proofs are consequential. Moreover, there is a concrete internal inconsistency: Theorem 4.1 gives R1(u,w) = u^a(3a-1)(u+w)^{b-2} + u^{a+1}(b-2a)(u+w)^{b-3}, while Theorem 4.2 states A_{i,1} = (3a-1) binom(b-2, i-a) + (b-2) binom(b-3, i-a-1). For M_{2/3}, the coefficient at (3,1) is 4, but the latter formula gives 6; the former formula gives 4. This error matters for Theorem 6.6, because Lemma 6.5 is proved only for positive A and B, while (b-2a) is negative for a/b > 1/2. Please correct the formula and supply complete proofs for all cases of Theorem 4.1.
  3. [Section 5.2, Corollary 5.5] The saturation claim for Markov-Pell polynomials is asserted with only "From equations (20) we can deduce" and no argument. Since this is one of the two special cases announced in the abstract as proved, a complete proof is needed. Recurrence (22) is a plausible starting point, but the paper does not show that the support of the coefficients is exactly the set of lattice points of the Newton polygon Δ_{n/(n+1)}. In addition, the claim that (20)-(21) is "precisely the recurrence for the numerators of the Markov polynomials M_{k/(k+1)}" is not immediate from (8) and needs a derivation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] In the sentence introducing Theorem 3.2, "the Newton polygon is the area on the ij-plane" should be phrased as "the convex hull in the ij-plane" or "the region", since Newton polygons are convex hulls of supports.
  2. [Section 8] The recurrence for continued fractions is misstated: "q_k = a_k q_{k-1} + p_{k-2}" should be "q_k = a_k q_{k-1} + q_{k-2}" (and similarly for the earlier display).
  3. [Section 9, proof of Theorem 9.2] The displayed computation for A^{(2k+1)}_{n-1,2} omits the terms A^{(2k-1)}_{n-3,2} and 2A^{(2k-1)}_{n-2,1}; they vanish because they lie outside the relevant Newton polygon, but this should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Section 7, Proposition 7.1] The proof of Proposition 7.1 is extremely terse: it says the result follows from the estimate A_{i,j}(ρ_n) < m_{ρ_n} and results of Fock. Since this is stated as a proposition, please either give a complete argument or clearly label the statement as a conjecture with supporting evidence.
  5. [Section 5.2] The notation in Theorem 9.1 and surrounding text switches between n and k (e.g., A^{(2n+1)}_{1,n} vs. Eq. (22) written with k). Please harmonize the indexing so the recurrences and the final formulas are unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claims rest on independent external theorems and explicit recurrences; the unproved Newton-polygon description is a rigor gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The Saturation Conjecture (3.3) asserts that the support of P_{a/b} fills the integer lattice points of the Newton polygon Delta_{a/b}; since Delta_{a/b} is introduced as the convex hull of the support in Eq. (10), the conjecture is a genuine positivity statement and not a tautology. The special cases are proved from independent sources: Fibonacci coefficients come from the Caldero-Zelevinsky/Zelevinsky formulas (Theorem 5.1, citing [4,27]), and Pell coefficients are derived from the explicit recurrences (20)-(22) with base cases checked directly. No parameter is fitted and no prediction is the renamed input of a fit. The only load-bearing assumption that is not proved in the paper is Theorem 3.2, the explicit description of Delta_{a/b} as Eq. (11); the authors state 'This is straightforward but a bit technical, so we omit the details' and attribute the result to the external rank-3 cluster algebra polytope description [16]. This is a missing-proof/correctness risk — if Eq. (11) failed for some coprime a/b, the polygon-based statements (Theorem 4.2, the sail constructions, and the special-case saturation proofs that use polygon vertices) would require revision — but it is not a circular reduction, because Eq. (11) is not defined in terms of the saturation claim and the cited polytope theorem is external to the present authors. Two self-citations occur ([23] in Prop. 7.1 and [15] in the Fibonacci-polynomial remark), but both are supporting references alongside independent results (Fock [10], Morier-Genoud-Ovsienko [18]) and neither carries the central derivation. Hence no significant circularity; score 2 reflects only minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims of the paper rest on standard external theorems from cluster algebra theory and on the paper's own geometric constructions (entropy function, Markov sail). No free parameters are fitted to data. The main unproved input is the Newton polygon description of Theorem 3.2, whose proof is omitted and which is attributed to prior work.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Theorem 5.1 (Caldero-Zelevinsky [4], Zelevinsky [27]): explicit formulas for the cluster variables f_{2n} and f_{2n+1} of the A_1^(1) cluster algebra.
    Used in Theorem 5.2 to derive the coefficient formula for Markov-Fibonacci polynomials M_{1/(n+1)}.
  • standard math Newton polytope description for rank 3 cluster variables from Lee-Li-Schiffler [16].
    Invoked informally in the footnote to Theorem 3.2, whose proof is omitted, to justify the explicit Newton polygon Delta_{a/b}.
  • standard math Fock's results [10] on dual Teichmuller spaces, used in Proposition 7.1 to establish existence of the entropy limit superior.
    The proof of Proposition 7.1 cites Fock [10] together with the coefficient bound A_{ij}(rho) < m_rho.
  • standard math Theorem 6.8, Newton's theorem on real-rooted polynomials implying log-concavity, quoted from Stanley [25].
    Applied in Theorem 6.7 to prove log-concavity on the third diagonal when a/b <= 3/5.
  • standard math Non-negativity of Markov polynomial coefficients, proved by Propp [22].
    Background assumption ensuring coefficients are non-negative integers, used throughout the paper.
invented entities (2)
  • Entropy function H_alpha(xi, eta)
    purpose: Continuum limit of normalized log-coefficients on scaled Newton polygons; conjectured to be strictly concave.
    Defined in Eq. (28); existence via Proposition 7.1, concavity proven only for the Fibonacci family in Theorem 7.4. No external falsifiable handle is provided.
  • Markov sail and M-values
    purpose: Geometric encoding of coefficients inside the critical triangle via Klein sails; conjectured to satisfy arithmetic progression and duality properties.
    Introduced in Section 8; supported only by the numerical example 8.5 and by the Pell family results in Section 9. Conjectures 8.3 and 8.4 remain open in general.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Arithmetic and geometry of Markov polynomials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2WBFUQAU

@misc{pith2026250114882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Arithmetic and geometry of Markov polynomials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2WBFUQAU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14882}
}
abstract

Markov polynomials are the Laurent-polynomial solutions of the generalised Markov equation $$X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 = kXYZ, \quad k=\frac{x^2 + y^2 + z^2}{x y z}$$ which are the results of cluster mutations applied to the initial triple $(x, y, z)$. They were first introduced and studied by Itsara, Musiker, Propp and Viana, who proved, in particular, that their coefficients are non-negative integers. We study the coefficients of Markov polynomials as functions on the corresponding Newton polygons, proposing several new conjectures. Some of these conjectures are proved for the special cases of Markov polynomials corresponding to Fibonacci and Pell numbers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14882 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Rationals in [0, 1] represented on the Conway topograph. To represent Markov numbers on the Conway topograph we iterate via the Vieta formula from the Markov equation, as shown on the left of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Markov numbers represented on the Conway topograph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Markov polynomials on the Conway topograph. We will use the notation Mρ = Mρ(x, y, z) to represent the Markov polynomial occu￾pying the same region as the rational ρ on their respective Conway topographs. Formally, this Frobenius parametrization is a mapping (4) F : ρ ∈ [0, 1] ∩ Q 7→ Mρ(x, y, z). Setting x = y = z = 1 in Markov polynomials gives the corresponding Markov number: Mρ(1, 1, 1) = mρ. We have the correspo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Section of the Conway topograph showing correspondence. Consider the part of the Conway topograph shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Newton polygon ∆ρ, of the Markov polynomial Mρ, ρ = 2 3 . We have the following explicit description1 of the Newton polygons of the numerators of Markov polynomials in general case.2 Theorem 3.2. Given a rational ρ = a b , the Newton polygon ∆a/b of the numerator of Ma…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ‘Weighted’ Newton polygon of the Markov polynomial M2/3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Lines on the Newton polygon where the coefficients are explic￾itly known. For the rationals of the form ρ = 1 n and ρ = 2 2n−1 we can add also the coefficients on one more vertical line with i = 1. Theorem 4.3. For the Markov polynomials M1/n and M2/(2n−1) we have resp…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Weighted Newton polygon of M1/5 with the highlighted coeffi￾cients on the line i = 1. In the next two sections we consider in more detail two special series of Markov poly￾nomials Mρ with ρ = 1/n and ρ = n/(n + 1). 5. Markov polynomials corresponding to Fibonacci and P…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Graph of the entropy for Fibonacci polynomials. 8. Critical triangle and Markov sails We can split up the Newton polygon by drawing ‘critical lines’ i = a, j = b as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The set of lattice points with i < a, j < b, i a + j b > 1 we will refer to as the critical triangle. 1 4 6 4 1 2 5 4 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 0 j i [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Klein Diagram for the rational 5 3 More formally we can define Ai ’s and Bi ’s as follows, (32) Ai = (q2i−1, p2i−1), Bi = (q2i , p2i), where pk qk = [a1, a2, . . . , ak] is the kth convergent. Note that for rationals we always consider the final continuant (i.e., the …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (Left) Combined sail for the rational 5 3 ; (Right) the reflection in the line x = a/2. This is precisely the convex hull of the integer lattice above the line y = b a x (with endpoints (0, 0),(3, 5) omitted). From Eq. (11) it is clear to see that the critical triangl…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Markov sail for Example 8.5. According to Conjecture 8.4, since the continued fraction has odd length (n = 5, m = 2) we should have m(B2) = 4. Now using Conjecture 8.3, we should have d(A2A3) = −M(B2) d(B1B2) = −M(A2) d(A1A2) = −M(B1) d(B0B1) = −M(A1). Note the intege…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    K. Lee, L. Li, R. Schiffler Newton polytopes of rank 3 cluster variables. Algebraic Combinatorics 3:6 (2020), 1293–1330

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Aigner Markov’s Theorem and 100 Years of the Uniqueness Conjecture: A Mathematical Journey from Irrational Numbers to Perfect Matchings

    M. Aigner Markov’s Theorem and 100 Years of the Uniqueness Conjecture: A Mathematical Journey from Irrational Numbers to Perfect Matchings . Springer, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [2]

    Arnold Continued fractions

    V.I. Arnold Continued fractions. Moscow Center of Continuous Mathematical Education, Moscow, 2002 (in Russian)

    work page 2002

  4. [3]

    Bourgain, A

    J. Bourgain, A. Gamburd and P. Sarnak. Markoff surfaces and strong approximation. Comptes Rendus de l’Acad. Sci. 354:2 (2016), 131—135

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    Caldero, A.V

    Ph. Caldero, A.V. Zelevinsky Laurent expansions in cluster algebras via quiver representations. Moscow Mathematical Journal, 2006, 6:3 (2006), 411–429

    work page 2006

  6. [5]

    C ¸ anak¸ cı, R

    ˙I. C ¸ anak¸ cı, R. SchifflerSnake graphs and continued fractions. European J. of Combinatorics 86 (2020), article 103081

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Conway The Sensual (Quadratic) Form, Carus Mathematical Monographs, Vol.26

    J.H. Conway The Sensual (Quadratic) Form, Carus Mathematical Monographs, Vol.26. Mathematical Association of America, 1997

    work page 1997

  8. [7]

    J. Eddy, E. Fuchs, M. Litman, D. Martin, N. Tripeny Connectivity of Markoff mod- p graphs and maximal divisors. Preprint 2023, arXiv:2308.07579

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    Fei Combinatorics of F -polynomials

    J. Fei Combinatorics of F -polynomials. International Mathematics Research Notices, Vol. 2023, No. 9, 7578—7615

    2023

  2. [9]

    Felikson, M

    A. Felikson, M. Shapiro, P. Tumarkin Skew-symmetric cluster algebras of finite mutation type. J. Eur. Math. Soc. 14:4 (2012), 1135–1180

    2012

  3. [10]

    V. V. Fock Dual Teichm¨ uller spaces.Preprint 1997, arXiv:dg-ga/9702018v3

    1997 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Fomin and A

    S. Fomin and A. Zelevinsky The Laurent phenomenon. Advances in Applied Mathematics 28:2 (2002),119–144

    2002

  5. [12]

    Frobenius ¨Uber die Markoffschen Zahlen

    G. Frobenius ¨Uber die Markoffschen Zahlen . Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wis- senschaften zu Berlin, 1913

    1913

  6. [13]

    Itsara, G

    A. Itsara, G. Musiker, J. Propp, and R. Viana Combinatorial interpretations for the Markoff numbers. Memo dated May 1, 2003; https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~musiker/Markoff2003.pdf

    2003

  7. [14]

    Karpenkov Geometry of Continued Fractions

    O. Karpenkov Geometry of Continued Fractions. Springer, 2022

    2022

  8. [15]

    Leclere, S

    L. Leclere, S. Morier-Genoud, V. Ovsienko and A. Veselov On radius of convergence of q-deformed real numbers. Mosc. Math. J. 24 (2024), 1–9

    2024

  9. [17]

    Markoff Sur les formes quadratiques binaires ind´ efinies

    A.A. Markoff Sur les formes quadratiques binaires ind´ efinies . Mathematische Annalen, 15 (1879), 381–406; 17 (1880), 379–399

  10. [18]

    Morier-Genoud and V

    S. Morier-Genoud and V. Ovsienko q-deformed rationals and q-continued fractions. Forum Math. Sigma 8 (2020), e13, 55 pp

    2020

  11. [19]

    Newton Arithmetica Universalis: Sive De Compositione Et Resolutione Arithmetica Liber

    I. Newton Arithmetica Universalis: Sive De Compositione Et Resolutione Arithmetica Liber. London 1707

  12. [20]

    MARKOV POLYNOMIALS 25

    OEIS Foundation Inc., The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, http://oeis.org. MARKOV POLYNOMIALS 25

  13. [21]

    Penner The decorated Teichm¨ uller space of punctured surfaces.Comm

    R.C. Penner The decorated Teichm¨ uller space of punctured surfaces.Comm. Math. Phys. 113 (1987), 299-339

    1987

  14. [22]

    Propp The combinatorics of frieze patterns and Markoff numbers

    J. Propp The combinatorics of frieze patterns and Markoff numbers. Integers 20 (2020), article A12

    2020

  15. [23]

    Sorrentino and A.P

    A. Sorrentino and A.P. Veselov Markov numbers, Mather’s beta-function and stable norm. Nonlinearity 32, Number 6 (2019), 2147–2156

    2019

  16. [24]

    Spalding, A.P

    K. Spalding, A.P. Veselov Lyapunov spectrum of Markov and Euclid trees. Nonlinearity 30 (2017), 4428–4453

    2017

  17. [25]

    Stanley Log-concave and unimodal sequences in algebra, combinatorics, and geometry

    R.P. Stanley Log-concave and unimodal sequences in algebra, combinatorics, and geometry. Ann. New York Acad. Sci, 576(1), 500–535 (1989)

    1989

  18. [26]

    Ustinov Geometric proof of Rødseth’s formula for Frobenius numbers

    A.V. Ustinov Geometric proof of Rødseth’s formula for Frobenius numbers. Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Math. 76, 275–282 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Zelevinsky Semicanonical basis generators of the cluster algebra of type A(1) 1

    A. Zelevinsky Semicanonical basis generators of the cluster algebra of type A(1) 1 . The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 14.1 (2007): Research paper N4, 5 p. Department of Mathematical Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK Email address : S.J.Evans@l...

    2007

Pith tools

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