Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Persistent homology of function spaces

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes a homotopy-invariant persistence barcode for the space of Lipschitz maps between manifolds, filtered by log-Lipschitz constant, and shows that for the simply connected target S^3∨S^3 the barcode contains finite bars…

desk verdict A genuinely new quantitative invariant for mapping spaces with impressive first theorems, but the headline L^{4/3} example depends on a sketchy new lemma and an algebraic formula that fails its own endpoint conditions. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16907 v1 pith:VT4IVZ7A submitted 2025-05-22 math.AT math.DGmath.MG

Jonathan Block , Fedor Manin , Shmuel Weinberger This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.ATmath.DGmath.MG MSC 55N3155P6254C35
keywords persistenthomologyLipschitzconstantmappingspacerationalhomotopytheoryshadowingprinciplebarcodeheightfunctionS^3wedge
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 turns the Lipschitz constant into a filtration of the space of maps between two manifolds, and studies the persistent homology barcode of that filtration. The authors establish that, up to finite interleaving distance, the barcode is a homotopy invariant of the pair, and then ask which targets force finite bars to be bounded in log-Lipschitz length. For targets of nonpositive curvature, for loop spaces, for rationally H-space targets, and for targets with positive rational weights, they prove all finite bars have uniformly bounded length. For the simply connected target $S^{3}$∨$S^{3}$ they show the opposite: homotopic L-Lipschitz maps from $CP^{2}$×$S^{3}$ exist for which every homotopy must pass through maps of Lipschitz constant > $cL^{{4/3}}$, so finite bars grow without bound. The exponent 4/3 is shown sharp.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the shadowing principle of Manin, refined by Berdnikov–Manin for scalable targets: it converts a homomorphism from the Sullivan minimal model of Y to the de Rham algebra of X, together with a formal homotopy of bounded dilatation, into a genuine Lipschitz map or homotopy whose Lipschitz constant is controlled by the dilatation. The paper operates on the algebraic side by constructing explicit homomorphisms φ_L, ψ_L from the minimal model M_Y^* of $S^{3}$∨$S^{3}$ to H^*(X), connecting them by algebraic homotopies of dilatation Ω($L^{{12/7}}$), and then uses Lemma 6.5 to show any real homotopy with time-slice Lipschitz constant C induces such an algebraic homotopy of dilatation O($C^{{9/7}}$), yielding the 4/3 exponent.

What would settle it

A concrete disproof would be a sequence of homotopic L_i-Lipschitz maps f_i,g_i: $CP^{2}$×$S^{3}$ → $S^{3}$∨$S^{3}$ together with homotopies whose time-slices all have Lipschitz constant ≤ c $L_i^{{4/3 - ε}}$ for some ε>0 and all i; computing such homotopies explicitly for increasing L would settle whether the 4/3 exponent is true.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the persistence barcode of (Lip(X,Y), log Lip) is a meaningful quantitative invariant of the pair (X,Y), and that its qualitative features are governed by the rational homotopy type of Y. Theorems C and D give uniform boundedness of the finite bars for targets with positive weights and for rationally H-space targets; Theorem E exhibits the first simply connected counterexample, showing that for Y = $S^{3}$∨$S^{3}$ finite bars of arbitrarily large length occur, and Theorem 9.2 proves a matching upper bound O($L^{{4/3}}$), so the example is sharp.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the shadowing principle gives genuinely controlled Lipschitz maps and homotopies from algebraic data, with constants depending only on dimensions—if that conversion failed in these cases, the uniform boundedness theorems and the $L^{{4/3}}$ lower bound could not be derived.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorems C and D hold, then for every finite simplicial complex X and every simply connected target Y with positive weights or rational H-space type, the log-Lipschitz filtered persistence module of Lip(X,Y) has all finite bars uniformly bounded, independent of L.
  • If Theorem E holds, the barcode of Lip(CP^2×S^3, S^3∨S^3) contains finite bars of arbitrarily long length, giving a quantitative distinction between rationally H-space targets and non-H-space targets.
  • Sharpness (Theorem 9.2) means the L^{4/3} threshold is intrinsic: for any 7-dimensional domain, homotopic L-Lipschitz maps to S^3∨S^3 are homotopic through O(L^{4/3})-Lipschitz maps, so the unboundedness is tight.
  • Theorem B gives that for simply connected Y, all finite bars in the based or free Lipschitz loop space have length bounded linearly in homological degree, extending Gromov's quantitative questions about loops.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mechanism behind Theorem E—a quadratic constraint on a homotopy's coefficients that must blow up—suggests that other multi-stage targets, such as wedges of spheres of differing dimensions, will exhibit similar power-law forced peaks, with exponents governed by the degrees of the rational homotopy generators.
  • One could test the 4/3 bound computationally in low degrees by trying to find explicit homotopies with smaller Lipschitz constant; if one were found, it would disprove the sharpness claim rather than merely refine it.
  • If the shadowing principle is accepted, these results give a new geometric interpretation of the rational homotopy groups: the degrees of the DGA differential determine how 'expensive' certain homotopies are.
  • Outside the paper, the boundedness questions for P H_i with i>0 remain open for two-stage targets; the example suggests the answer may hinge on whether the target is scalable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a persistent homology framework for spaces of Lipschitz maps between finite complexes/manifolds, filtered by the Lipschitz constant or its logarithm, and proves a series of theorems about the boundedness of finite bars. The main results are: q-tameness and homotopy invariance of the resulting persistence modules (Theorems 2.6 and 2.8); absence of finite bars for nonpositively curved targets (Theorem A); uniform boundedness of finite bars for based and free loop spaces of simply connected finite complexes (Theorem B, via Sections 4 and 5); uniform boundedness for targets with positive weights or rationall H-space type (Theorems C and D); and, as the central new construction, an example of unbounded finite bars for the simply connected target S^3∨S^3 with domain CP^2×S^3 (and a second domain S^2×S^2×(S^3∨S^3)), with the sharp exponent L^{4/3} (Theorem E, Section 8), together with an optimality theorem showing that no better exponent is possible for 7-dimensional domains (Theorem 9.2).

Significance. If the technical gaps identified below are repaired, this is a substantial contribution to quantitative and persistent homotopy theory. It makes precise Gromov's idea of studying the 'Morse landscape' of the Lipschitz constant on function spaces, and it demonstrates that persistent homology is a meaningful invariant of this landscape, sensitive to rational homotopy type. The paper builds on, and extends, published results of Manin, Berdnikov–Manin, Nabutovsky–Rotman, and Gromov; the framework and the examples are novel. The results are plausible and well-motivated, and the paper is clearly written. However, the proof of the new Lemma 6.5, which is load-bearing for Theorem E and Theorem 9.2, is only a sketch, and a displayed algebraic computation in Lemma 8.4 is incorrect as written. These issues prevent certification of the headline claims in their present form.

major comments (2)
  1. [6.4 (Lemma 6.5)] Lemma 6.5 is the central new technical tool used in Lemma 8.7 and hence in Theorem E, but its proof is only a sketch and is not a complete argument. In part (i), the step “We then define Φ_{k+1}(V_{k+1})|_{t=1} by setting φ to the value of this obstruction” is not a well-defined construction: the obstruction is a cohomology class in H^{k+1}(X;V_{k+1}), and the text gives no formula for the resulting homomorphism Φ_{k+1} nor a verification that the required factorization through H^*(X) holds. In part (ii), the “Moreover” clause, which is essential because Lemma 8.7 uses the freedom to choose the endpoint homomorphisms η|_{s=0} and η|_{s=S}, is justified only by “From the proof it is clear that the choice … doesn’t affect the end result.” The improved exponent α=9/7 for Y=S^3∨S^3 is asserted after the proof in a single paragraph; the induction in Proposition 6.6 contains several distinct terms (Dil(Φ_k)^{k+2}, Dil(φ)^{k+1}, Dil(ψ)^{k+1}, and isoperimetric constants), and the text does not verify uniformly that the terms other than the product of the degree-3 and degree-5 forms are smaller, nor that the endpoint replacement and time reparametrization do not introduce extra powers of Liph. Since Lemma 6.5(ii) with α=9/7 is precisely the mechanism that converts an L′-Lipschitz geometric homotopy into an algebraic homotopy of dilatation O((L′)^{9/7}) in Lemma 8.7, and since the exponent 4/3 in Theorem E is the quotient (12/7)/(9/7), this gap is load-bearing. A complete proof of Lemma 6.5, including the improved estimate α=9/7, is needed before the claim of Theorem E can be certified.
  2. [8.3 (Lemma 8.4)] In the proof of Lemma 8.4, the displayed formula η(c_2)=yx^2(L^{12} − 1/2 β^2(t)) does not satisfy the endpoint conditions η(c_2)|_{t=0}=η(c_2)|_{t=1}=0 that are required because φ_L(c_2)=ψ_L(c_2)=0. Indeed, with β(0)=−L^6 and β(1)=L^6, this expression evaluates to L^{12}/2 at both endpoints. The explicit homotopy η_L given earlier in the section has η(c_2)=2L^{12} yx^2 t(1−t), which is a different expression that does have the correct endpoints. The Ω(L^{12/7}) lower bound appears to survive once the missing constant term is added (the value at β=0 still contains a term of order L^{12}), but the proof as written is incorrect, and the computation should be redone carefully before the lower bound is relied upon.
minor comments (6)
  1. [6.4 (Lemma 6.5)] The general statement of Lemma 6.5 yields α=48/35 for Y=S^3∨S^3 and 7-dimensional X, but the proof of Theorem E uses the improved value α=9/7, which is only discussed in the paragraph after the proof. Since this improved value is essential, it should be stated as a separate lemma or corollary with a complete proof.
  2. [8.5] The proof for the second family X=S^2×S^2×(S^3∨S^3) consists of “A similar argument to Lemma 8.6 shows…” and “A similar argument to Lemma 8.5 shows…” without spelling out the needed modifications. Given the complexity of the first case, the reader cannot easily verify the second family; the authors should either write out the analogues or clearly state the differences.
  3. [7.1 (Theorem 7.1)] In the proof of Theorem 7.1, the sentence “For i≥k+1, every i-vector in X is trivial” should read “For i>dim X, every i-vector in X is zero.” Also, the rescaling of the metric on Z by R=Dil(g_c^*m_Y) and the subsequent application of the relative shadowing principle need one more sentence explaining why the relative hypotheses hold for the subcomplex ∂Z×X ∪ Z×A.
  4. [2.4 (Corollary 2.10)] The claim that “any homotopy equivalence between compact Riemannian manifolds can be deformed to a Lipschitz homotopy equivalence” is standard, but it would be helpful to give a proof or a reference, since the corollary depends on it.
  5. [2.3] In the discussion of ε-smoothing, the notation M^ε_t is introduced but the dependence on ε of the isometry theorem for q-tame modules (Theorem 2.5) is not discussed; this is a minor clarity issue.
  6. [Title page] The title on the first page contains a spacing artifact (“SP ACES”); this should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's new bounds follow from independent published shadowing theorems and self-contained algebraic estimates; the compressed proof of Lemma 6.5 is a rigor concern, not a circular one.

full rationale

The paper does not fit parameters to its own outputs or define its conclusions into its hypotheses. Theorems C and D are proved by applying the shadowing principle of [Man19] (Theorems 6.1-6.2) and the scalable-target improvement of [BM22] (Theorem 6.4); although these sources share an author with the present paper, each is a published theorem with stated hypotheses that do not include Theorems C-E, so they constitute independent support under the review rules. Theorem E's L^{4/3} lower bound is a genuine derivation: Section 8.3 explicitly constructs algebraic maps phi_L, psi_L and a homotopy eta_L, Lemma 8.4 proves by the differential equations of the minimal model that every algebraic homotopy has dilatation Omega(L^{12/7}), and Lemma 8.7 converts the geometric Lipschitz bound to this algebraic bound via the exponent 9/7 in Lemma 6.5. No step renames a fitted quantity as a prediction or imports an unverified uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work. The proof of Lemma 6.5 is compressed - the endpoint flexibility clause is justified only by 'From the proof it is clear...' and the displayed formula for eta(c2) in Lemma 8.4 does not on its face satisfy the stated endpoint conditions - but these are potential correctness or rigor gaps, not circularity, because they do not make the conclusions equal to the inputs by construction.

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

The central claims rest on standard algebraic topology, the q-tame persistence formalism, and the published quantitative-geometry tools of NR13, Man19 and BM22. There are no fitted constants, no ad hoc parameters, and no invented mathematical entities; the dependence on prior results of the same author (Manin) is tool-like rather than result-like.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The q-tame persistence module formalism of [CCBdS16] and [CdSGO16] applies to the Lipschitz filtrations studied here, so barcodes are well-defined (Theorem 2.5 generalized isometry).
    Used throughout Sections 2, 3, 7-9 to speak of bars and their lengths for the infinite-rank modules arising from function spaces; stated and justified in Section 2.3-2.4.
  • domain assumption The quantitative loop-space contraction theorem of Nabutovsky and Rotman [NR13, Thm 8.2] with the stated constants (d, S, ε) holds for simply connected closed manifolds.
    Invoked in Section 4 as Theorem 4.2; it is the engine for Theorem 4.1 and the warmup for Theorem C. The paper cites the published theorem rather than reproving it.
  • domain assumption The shadowing principle of Manin [Man19] (Theorems 6.1 and 6.2) and the improved shadowing principle for scalable spaces of Berdnikov-Manin [BM22] (Theorem 6.4) correctly replace algebraic dilatation bounds by genuine Lipschitz bounds on maps and homotopies, in relative and noncompact settings.
    This conversion is the load-bearing technical bridge in Sections 7-9; it is applied to chains (Z×X) that may be noncompact and to scalable targets. A failure of any constant would invalidate Theorems C, D and E. Cited, not reproven.
  • standard math Sullivan minimal models and the obstruction theory of [GM81, Ch. 10 and 14], including the rational Postnikov stage formalism and Prop. 14.4, are valid for the spaces considered.
    Used in Section 6.1 and 6.4 and throughout Section 8 to encode rational homotopy classes and obstructions in DGA language.
  • domain assumption Every finite simplicial complex admits a locally CAT(1) metric [AKP24, §12C] and closed Riemannian manifolds satisfy the CAT(K) hypothesis.
    Needed for Theorem 2.6 to establish q-tameness; cited and stated in Section 2.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Persistent homology of function spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VT4IVZ7A

@misc{pith2026250516907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Persistent homology of function spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VT4IVZ7A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16907}
}
read the original abstract

We can view the Lipschitz constant as a height function on the space of maps between two manifolds and ask (as Gromov did nearly 30 years ago) what its ``Morse landscape'' looks like: are there high peaks, deep valleys and mountain passes? A simple and relatively well-studied version of this question: given two points in the same component (homotopic maps), does a path between them (a homotopy) have to pass through maps of much higher Lipschitz constant? Now we also consider similar questions for higher-dimensional cycles in the space. We make this precise using the language of persistent homology and give some first results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16907 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Construct maps ud,h : S 2 × S 3 → Y by “budding off” a small sphere and then projecting the rest onto the S 3 factor. 8. Examples with bars of unbounded length Theorem 8.1. Let X = CP 2 × S 3 or S 2 × S 2 × (S 3 ∨ S 3 ). Then there is a sequence of L → ∞ and pairs of L-Lipschitz maps fL, gL : X → S 3 ∨ S 3 which are homotopic, but not through maps of Lipschitz constant o(L 4/3 ). 8.1. Notation and conventions. We wi… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alexander, V

    S. Alexander, V. Kapovitch, and A. Petrunin, Alexandrov geometry---foundations, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 236, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Berdnikov, L

    A. Berdnikov, L. Guth, and F. Manin, Degrees of maps and multiscale geometry, Forum Math. Pi 12 (2024), art. no. e2, 48pp

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Berdnikov and F

    A. Berdnikov and F. Manin, Scalable spaces, Invent. Math. 229 (2022), no. 3, 1055--1100

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    R. Body, M. Mimura, H. Shiga, and D. Sullivan, p -universal spaces and rational homotopy types , Comment. Math. Helv. 73 (1998), no. 3, 427--442

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Brady, T

    N. Brady, T. Riley, and H. Short, The geometry of the word problem for finitely generated groups, Advanced Courses in Mathematics. CRM Barcelona, Birkh\"auser Verlag, Basel, 2007, Papers from the Advanced Course held in Barcelona, July 5--15, 2005

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Crawley-Boevey, Decomposition of pointwise finite-dimensional persistence modules, J

    W. Crawley-Boevey, Decomposition of pointwise finite-dimensional persistence modules, J. Algebra Appl. 14 (2015), no. 5, art.\ 1550066, 8pp

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Chazal, W

    F. Chazal, W. Crawley-Boevey, and V. de Silva, The observable structure of persistence modules, Homology Homotopy Appl. 18 (2016), no. 2, 247--265

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    G. R. Chambers, D. Dotterrer, F. Manin, and Sh. Weinberger, Quantitative null-cobordism, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 31 (2018), no. 4, 1165--1203, With an appendix by Manin and Weinberger

    work page 2018

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Chazal, V

    F. Chazal, V. de Silva, M. Glisse, and S. Oudot, The structure and stability of persistence modules, SpringerBriefs in Mathematics, Springer, Cham, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    G. R. Chambers, F. Manin, and Sh. Weinberger, Quantitative nullhomotopy and rational homotopy type, Geom. Funct. Anal. 28 (2018), no. 3, 563--588

    2018

  3. [11]

    Cohen-Steiner, H

    D. Cohen-Steiner, H. Edelsbrunner, and J. Harer, Stability of persistence diagrams, Discrete Comput. Geom. 37 (2007), no. 1, 103--120

    2007

  4. [12]

    Deligne, Ph

    P. Deligne, Ph. Griffiths, J. Morgan, and D. Sullivan, Real homotopy theory of K\" a hler manifolds , Invent. Math. 29 (1975), no. 3, 245--274

    1975

  5. [13]

    Edelsbrunner, D

    H. Edelsbrunner, D. Letscher, and A. Zomorodian, Topological persistence and simplification, Discrete Comput. Geom. 28 (2002), no. 4, 511--533, Discrete and computational geometry and graph drawing (Columbia, SC, 2001)

    2002

  6. [14]

    F\' e lix, S

    Y. F\' e lix, S. Halperin, and J.-C. Thomas, Rational homotopy theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 205, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    Ferry and Sh

    S. Ferry and Sh. Weinberger, Quantitative algebraic topology and L ipschitz homotopy , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110 (2013), no. 48, 19246--19250

    2013

  8. [16]

    Ph. A. Griffiths and J. W. Morgan, Rational homotopy theory and differential forms, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 16, Birkh\" a user, Boston, MA, 1981

    1981

  9. [17]

    Gromov, Homotopical effects of dilatation, J

    M. Gromov, Homotopical effects of dilatation, J. Differential Geometry 13 (1978), no. 3, 303--310

    1978

  10. [18]

    152, Birkh\" a user Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1999, with appendices by M

    , Metric structures for R iemannian and non- R iemannian spaces , Progress in Mathematics, vol. 152, Birkh\" a user Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1999, with appendices by M. Katz, P. Pansu and S. Semmes, translated from the French by Sean Michael Bates

    1999

  11. [19]

    , Quantitative homotopy theory, Prospects in mathematics ( P rinceton, NJ , 1996), Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1999, pp. 45--49

    1996

  12. [20]

    Hansen, Volumes of nullhomotopies in nilpotent spaces, Ph.D

    K. Hansen, Volumes of nullhomotopies in nilpotent spaces, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Manin, Plato's cave and differential forms, Geom

    F. Manin, Plato's cave and differential forms, Geom. Topol. 23 (2019), no. 6, 3141--3202

    2019

  14. [22]

    Milnor, Construction of universal bundles

    J. Milnor, Construction of universal bundles. I , Ann. of Math. (2) 63 (1956), 272--284

    1956

  15. [23]

    , Morse theory, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. No. 51, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1963, Based on lecture notes by M. Spivak and R. Wells

    1963

  16. [24]

    J. W. Morgan, The algebraic topology of smooth algebraic varieties, Inst. Hautes \' E tudes Sci. Publ. Math. (1978), no. 48, 137--204

    1978

  17. [25]

    Mimura and H

    M. Mimura and H. Toda, On p -equivalences and p -universal spaces , Comment. Math. Helv. 46 (1971), 87--97

    1971

  18. [26]

    Manin and Sh

    F. Manin and Sh. Weinberger, Integral and rational mapping classes, Duke Math. J. 169 (2020), no. 10, 1943--1969

    2020

  19. [27]

    Nabutovsky and R

    A. Nabutovsky and R. Rotman, Length of geodesics and quantitative M orse theory on loop spaces , Geom. Funct. Anal. 23 (2013), no. 1, 367--414

    2013

  20. [28]

    Polterovich, D

    L. Polterovich, D. Rosen, K. Samvelyan, and J. Zhang, Topological persistence in geometry and analysis, University Lecture Series, vol. 74, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Quillen, Rational homotopy theory, Ann

    D. Quillen, Rational homotopy theory, Ann. of Math. (2) 90 (1969), 205--295

    1969

  22. [30]

    Riley, Asymptotic invariants of infinite discrete groups, Ph.D

    T. Riley, Asymptotic invariants of infinite discrete groups, Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University, 2002

    2002

  23. [31]

    Sullivan, Infinitesimal computations in topology, Inst

    D. Sullivan, Infinitesimal computations in topology, Inst. Hautes \' E tudes Sci. Publ. Math. (1977), no. 47, 269--331 (1978)

    1977

  24. [32]

    Weinberger, Computers, rigidity, and moduli, M

    Sh. Weinberger, Computers, rigidity, and moduli, M. B. Porter Lectures, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2005, The large-scale fractal geometry of Riemannian moduli space

    2005

  25. [33]

    , What is persistent homology? , Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 58 (2011), no. 1, 36--39

    2011

  26. [34]

    , Persistent homology of function spaces and geometric metaphors in biology, presentation given at National Institute for Theory and Mathematics in Biology Annual Meeting https://www.simonsfoundation.org/event/national-institute-for-theory-and-mathematics-in-biology-annual-mee...

    2025

  27. [35]

    Whitney, Geometric integration theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1957

    H. Whitney, Geometric integration theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1957

    1957

  28. [36]

    Zomorodian and G

    A. Zomorodian and G. Carlsson, Computing persistent homology, Discrete Comput. Geom. 33 (2005), no. 2, 249--274

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.