Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Cuspidal modules over Superconformal algebras of rank \geq 1

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read Complete classification of cuspidal modules over all known rank-≥1 superconformal algebras, with the central-charge anomaly located at a single central extension of the contact algebra K(4).

desk verdict The classification is real and the main theorems hold up, but Corollary 14.3 has a genuine sign error: the δ-conditions are swapped, and the proof of Lemma 14.4 silently uses the corrected version. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20974 v1 pith:RODY7S4F submitted 2025-05-27 math.RT

Consuelo Martinez , Olivier Mathieu , Efim Zelmanov This is my paper
classification math.RT MSC 17B6817B6517B7017B10
keywords cuspidalmodulessuperconformalalgebrascentralchargehighestweighttheorytensordensitycontactsuperalgebrasK(4)twisted
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 classifies cuspidal modules—irreducible Z-graded modules whose support is neither bounded above nor below—over every known superconformal algebra of rank at least one. Using highest-weight theory, the authors show that each such module is isomorphic to a generalized Verma module V(λ,δ,u) built from a tensor-density representation of the centralizer CL(F), reducing the classification to an explicit list of triples (λ,δ,u). The central discovery is a localization of central charge: only the specific central extension [K(4) of the contact superalgebra K(4) admits cuspidal modules with nonzero central charge, and this exceptional extension also controls the representation theory of K(3), CK(6), and the twisted algebra $K^{{(2)}}$(4). The classification covers W(n), S(n;γ), K*(N), [K(4), CK(6), and the twisted contact algebras, and it reveals three one-parameter families of small exceptional modules linked by the embeddings K(3) ⊂ [K(4) ⊂ CK(6).

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the highest-weight reduction of Chapter 8: a chosen element F in the Cartan subalgebra H gives a triangular decomposition L = L+ ⊕ CL(F) ⊕ L−; the centralizer CL(F) is a semidirect product G ⋉ Rad CL(F), where G is either Vir ⋉ H⊗C[t,t⁻¹] or K*(1) ⋉ H⊗C[t,t⁻¹,ξ]. The simple growth-one modules of these split extensions are exactly the tensor-density modules Tens(λ,δ,u), classified in Theorems 3 and 4. Coinduced modules F(S,u), the associated generalized Verma modules V(λ,δ,u), and the algebra of formal multidistributions developed in Chapter 9 together provide the explicit computations that decide cuspidality; the exceptional extension [K(4) is singled out by the specific 2-cocycle ψ and the splitting of the central extension over the isotropy subalgebra.

What would settle it

Construct a cuspidal module over one of the listed superconformal algebras whose highest weight λ satisfies λ(h1) = 0, or whose restriction to CL(F) is not isomorphic to Tens(λ,δ,u); alternatively, exhibit a cuspidal module with nonzero central charge over any superconformal algebra other than the specific extension [K(4).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a complete classification of cuspidal modules over the known superconformal algebras of rank ≥1. The paper proves that every cuspidal module V of an untwisted superconformal algebra L is isomorphic to some V(λ,δ,u) with λ dominant and λ(h1)≥1, and then determines, case by case, exactly which triples (λ,δ,u) give cuspidal modules (Theorems 7, 8, 11–15). A second structural result, Theorem A, states that for L ≄ K(4) all projective cuspidal L-modules have zero central charge, while for L = K(4) only the specific central extension [K(4) admits cuspidal modules with nonzero central charge. The paper also establishes the embeddings K(3) ⊂ [K(4) ⊂ CK(6), shows that the CK(6)-module T(u) splits as S+(u) ⊕ S−(u) upon restriction to [K(4), and that S±(u) are parity-changed copies of the K(3)-module S(u).

Load-bearing premise

The classification rests on the structural axiom that the centralizer CL(F) is a semidirect product G ⋉ Rad CL(F), with G a Virasoro or contact-current extension, and that the only simple growth-one modules of this split extension are the tensor-density modules Tens(λ,δ,u); the paper verifies this axiom case by case for the known algebras but does not prove it for an arbitrary superconformal algebra.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every cuspidal module over W(n), S(n;γ), K*(N), [K(4), CK(6), and K^{(2)}(2m) is now explicitly parameterized by a finite list of triples (λ,δ,u), so questions about these modules reduce to the listed families.
  • Because zero central charge is forced except for [K(4), any attempt to construct cuspidal modules with nonzero central charge over any other superconformal algebra is doomed; the classification explains why the known examples are unique.
  • The embeddings K(3) ⊂ [K(4) ⊂ CK(6) transfer exceptional modules across the three algebras: T(u) restricts to S+(u)⊕S−(u) and further to parity-changed copies of S(u), yielding explicit small modules of conformal dimensions 8 and 4.
  • For the twisted algebras K^{(2)}(2m), the classification reduces to the fixed-point component V^σ of a cuspidal module of second kind, and for m = 2 these modules inherit the [K(4) central extension even though K^{(2)}(4) itself has trivial center.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One implication the authors leave implicit is that Theorem 6, the reduction to V(λ,δ,u), is only proved for algebras satisfying Axiom 2; for an as-yet-unknown superconformal algebra, verifying that CL(F) is a semidirect product G ⋉ Rad CL(F) with the stated split-extension module classification would be the natural next step, and failure of that axiom could produce cuspidal modules outside the lis
  • The sharp transition at λ(h1) = 2, with a handful of boundary families at λ(h1) = 1, suggests a geometric reading: cuspidality is equivalent to the coinduced module having finite-dimensional homogeneous components, and the exceptional boundary families may be exactly those that admit an independent second construction via the embeddings among K(3), [K(4), and CK(6).
  • A testable extension would be to study the [K(4)-modules S±(u) and T(u) at arbitrary values of the central element, rather than only at the specific central charge picked out by the paper, to see whether the cuspidality of these one-parameter families persists or whether it is tied to the particular cocycle ψ.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a classification of all simple cuspidal modules over the known superconformal algebras of rank at least 1, together with their central extensions. The main results are Theorem A (every projective cuspidal module has zero central charge except for one specific central extension [K(4) of K(4)), Theorem 6 (every cuspidal module is a highest-weight module V(λ,δ,u)), and a series of case-by-case theorems (Theorems 7–20) that spell out explicit cuspidality conditions on the triple (λ,δ,u) for the families W(n), S(n;γ), K*(N), CK(6), [K(4), and K^(2)(2m). The approach combines a general highest-weight reduction with explicit computations organized through formal distributions and multidistributions.

Significance. If correct, this is a major contribution to the representation theory of superconformal algebras: it completes the classification of cuspidal modules over all currently known superconformal algebras and identifies a genuinely exceptional phenomenon for the specific central extension [K(4) of K(4). The paper develops substantial original machinery, including the coinduced-module construction of growth-one modules (Chapter 4), the classification of simple modules over the split extensions (Chapters 5–6), and a multidistribution formalism that appears well adapted to the Ramond, Neveu–Schwarz, and twisted cases (Chapter 9). The central-charge theorem is derived rather than fitted, and the classification results are stated in explicit parameter form. However, the chapter on [K(4) contains an internal inconsistency that currently undermines the proof of the exceptional case, so the results cannot be accepted without a careful revision of Chapter 14.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 14.2, Corollary 14.3 and Lemma 14.2; also Theorem 11 and Theorem 10] Corollary 14.3 states that V(λ−2ϵ1)=0 iff (λc=2λ2 and δ=1−λ1/2) or (λc=−2λ2 and δ=λ1/2). Solving the four equations displayed in its proof, namely (δ−1+λ1/2)(δ−λ1/2)=0, (λ2−λc/2)(δ−1+λ1/2)=0, (δ−λ1/2)(λ2+λc/2)=0, and (λ2+λc/2)(λ2−λc/2)=0, gives instead (λc=2λ2 and δ=λ1/2) or (λc=−2λ2 and δ=1−λ1/2). The two δ-values are therefore interchanged in the printed statement. This is not a harmless typo: Corollary 14.6 derives the necessity of the cuspidality conditions from this criterion, and Lemma 14.4 uses the asserted vanishing V(λ˜−2ϵ1)=0 for a module that only satisfies the printed, incorrect pairing. In addition, Theorem 11(b),(c) as printed (δ=1−λ2/2 and δ=1+λ2/2) do not reproduce the S± families of Theorem 10: for λ1=λ2=1/2 and λc=1, the cuspidal module S+ has δ=1/4, while the printed formula gives δ=3/4. The intended conditions are δ=(1−λ2)/2=λ1/2 for λc=2λ2 and δ=(1+λ2)/2=1−λ1/2 for λc=−2λ2. Since [K(4) is the exceptional case in Theorem A, the statements of Theorem 11 and Corollary 14.3 and the proofs of Lemma 14.4 and Corollary 14.6 must be corrected and rechecked consistently.
  2. [Section 7.6, Lemma 7.7] The proof of Lemma 7.7 is relegated to the sentence 'This can be checked by direct computation.' The lemma asserts the k-invariance and conformal invariance of a third-order differential cocycle D on [K(4), and it is used in Corollary 7.8 to realize [K(4) faithfully as a subalgebra of K(4)⋉C[t,t−1,ξ1,ξ2,ξ3,ξ4]. Because this cocycle is the mechanism behind the exceptional nonzero central charge, the computation should be supplied in full or verified by an explicitly machine-checkable calculation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.3] In the definition of the sl(2)-triples, the range '1 ≤ i ≤ i − 1' should read '1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1'.
  2. [Section 2.5.3] The notation 'CN S[t, t−1, ξ1, · · ·, ξN ] := CN S[t, t−1, t 1/2 ξ1, · · ·, t 1/2 ξN ]' is unclear; the Neveu–Schwarz algebra should be defined with an explicit symbol such as C[t, t−1, t1/2ξ1, ..., t1/2ξN].
  3. [Theorem 14] Condition (a) reads 'λ1 + λ2 ≥ 2', which is not meaningful for K(3) with its one-dimensional Cartan subalgebra; it should be 'λ1 ≥ 1' (equivalently 'λ(h1) ≥ 2'), as used in Corollary 17.1.
  4. [Section 10.3] In formula (b) of Lemma 10.3, the variable 'u' in 'ξ1ξk ∂/∂ξk (u, w, x)' should be 'v'.
  5. [Section 8.5] The heading 'Proof of Theorem 8.2' does not match the numbering of the main theorem of Chapter 8, which is Theorem 6; likewise Section 3.5 is titled 'Proof of Theorem 3' although Chapter 3 proves Theorem 1.
  6. [Throughout] There are numerous minor typographical errors, including 'Corrolary' (Corollary 14.6), 'sucessively' (Section 14.2), and 'albelian' (Section 5.5); these should be corrected in a final revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central classification is derived from internal highest-weight arguments and explicit module constructions, with self-citations serving only as independent prior support.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—Theorem A on central charges, Theorem 6 identifying cuspidal modules as V(λ,δ,u), and the case-by-case cuspidality criteria—are derived in-text rather than fitted or defined into existence. The reduction of cuspidal modules to highest-weight modules V(λ,δ,u) is justified by Theorems 3 and 4, which classify growth-one modules of the split extensions g(H) and G*(H) from the Maurer-Cartan equation and elementary finite-dimensional representation arguments; these are internal proofs, not restatements of the target classification. The cuspidality criteria are established by explicit computations of the weight λ−2ϵ1 (e.g., Lemmas 10.3, 14.2, 17.2) and by sufficiency arguments using coinduced modules (Proposition 4.7 and its corollaries). The exceptional modules S(u), S±(u), and T(u) are constructed explicitly as tensor products with the natural module tuW (Lemmas 13.1–13.3), so their cuspidality is not assumed to match the classification. The central-charge theorem is proved from the Kac–van de Leur/Cheng–Kac cohomology classification and from Lemma 7.5, which shows that nonsplit restrictions to Vir or Vir⋉C[t,t−1] force trivial central charge; no parameter is fitted to the conclusion. The cited self-results ([42], [36], [37]) are prior published theorems with independent grounding: [42] is corroborated by Martin–Piard [34], and [37] supplies an external classification input for CK(6) rather than a redefinition of the present result. The paper is not fully self-contained because it imports external classifications and cohomology computations, but none of those imports is equivalent, by construction, to the paper's announced predictions. A possible δ-interchange in Corollary 14.3 is a correctness concern, not a circularity, and does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted constants. Its main inputs are the conjectural list of superconformal algebras, the external classification of Virasoro modules, and the case-by-case verification of the structural Axioms 1-3. The only genuinely new object is the specific central extension [K(4), which carries independent evidence via its cuspidal modules and embedding into CK(6).

assumptions (5)
  • standard math The base field is C and all vector spaces are over C.
    Chapter 1, first sentence: 'Throughout the paper all vector spaces are considered over the field C of complex numbers.'
  • domain assumption All Z-graded L-modules have finite dimensional homogeneous components.
    Chapter 1: 'Except explicitly stated otherwise, we assume that all Z-graded L-modules have finite dimensional homogenous components.'
  • domain assumption The Kac-van de Leur list contains all superconformal algebras.
    Chapter 1 states the definition of V. Kac and J. van de Leur and the conjecture that the list is complete. The paper's classification is for the known algebras of this list; if the list is incomplete, the classification would not cover an unknown superconformal algebra.
  • ad hoc to paper The centralizer subalgebra CL(F) has the semidirect structure G ⋉ Rad CL(F) with G isomorphic to g(H), G(H), or G_NS(H).
    Axiom 2 in Section 4.5. This is verified case-by-case for known algebras, but it is a structural input that the highest weight theory requires. If it failed, Theorem 6 and the subsequent classification would not apply.
  • domain assumption Every simple Z-graded g-module (resp. G*-module) of growth one is isomorphic to Tens(λ,δ,u) with λ≠0.
    Theorems 3 and 4, proved in Chapters 5 and 6. These are substantial classification results for the split extensions; they are not assumed but are derived. They are a necessary input to reduce the classification of cuspidal L-modules to highest weight theory.
invented entities (1)
  • Specific central extension [K(4) of K(4) independent evidence
    purpose: It is the unique central extension that admits cuspidal modules with nonzero central charge; it is constructed via a chosen cocycle ψ from H^2(K(4)).
    Section 7.2 defines [K(4) via explicit bracket formulas; Theorem A and Corollary 7.3 prove it has cuspidal modules with nonzero central charge, and Theorem 9 shows it embeds into CK(6), providing external anchoring.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cuspidal modules over Superconformal algebras of rank \geq 1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RODY7S4F

@misc{pith2026250520974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cuspidal modules over Superconformal algebras of rank \geq 1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RODY7S4F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20974}
}
abstract

According to V. Kac and J. van de Leur, the superconformal algebras are the simple $\Z$-graded Lie superalgebras of growth one which contains the Witt algebra. We describe an explicit classification of all cuspidal modules over the known supercuspidal algebras of rank $\geq 1$, and their central extensions. Our approach reveals some unnoticed phenomena. Indeed the central charge of cuspidal modules is trivial, except for one specific central extension of the contact algebra $\K(4)$. As shown in the paper, this fact also impacts the representation theory of $\K(3)$, $\CK(6)$ and $\K^{(2)}(4)$. Besides these four cases, the classification relies on general methods based on highest weight theory.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ademolo and al., Supersymmetric Strings and Color Connement, Phys

    M. Ademolo and al., Supersymmetric Strings and Color Connement, Phys. Lett. 62B (1976), 105-110

    work page 1976

  2. [2]

    Allison and Y

    B. Allison and Y. Gao, Central quotients and coverings of Steinberg uni- tary Lie algebras, Canad. J. Math. 48 (1996) 449–482

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Billig, V

    Y. Billig, V. Futorny, Classification of irreducible representations of Lie algebra of vector fields on a torus, J. Reine Angew. Math. 720 (2016) 199-216

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Billig, V

    Y. Billig, V. Futorny, K. Iohara and I. Kashuba, Classification of simple strong Harish-Chandra W( m, n)-modules, Preprint (2020) Arxiv: 2006.05618

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Y. Cai, D. Liu and R. Lu, Classification of simple Harish-Chandra mod- ules over the N = 1 Ramond algebra and its contact subalgebra, J. Pure and Appl. Algebra 567 (2021) 114-127

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Cai and R

    Y. Cai and R. Lu, Classification of simple Harish-Chandra modules over Neveu-Schwarz algebra and its contact subalgebra, J. Pure Appl. Alg. 226 (2022) 1-14

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Classification of simple quasifinite modules for contact superconformal algebras with $N\ne4$

    Y. Cai and R. Lu, Classification of simple quasifinite modules for contact superconformal algebras with N ̸= 4, (2025) Preprint arXiv:2501.04230

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Y. Cai, R. Lu and Y. Xue, Classification of simple Harish-Chandra mod- ules over the Lie superalgebra of vector fields on Cn,m, (2023) Preprint (arXiv:2308.02822)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Cantarini and V

    N. Cantarini and V. G. Kac, Classication of linearly compact simple Jordan and generalized Poisson superalgebras, J. Algebra, 313 (2007) 100- 124

    2007

  2. [10]

    Cartan, Les groupes de transformations continues, infinis simples, Ann

    E. Cartan, Les groupes de transformations continues, infinis simples, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. 26 (1909) 93-161

    1909

  3. [11]

    Cheng and V.G

    S.J. Cheng and V.G. Kac, A new N = 6 superconformal algebra. Com- mun. Math. Phys. 186 (1997) 219-231. 169

    1997

  4. [12]

    Dixmier, Enveloping Algebras

    J. Dixmier, Enveloping Algebras. North Holland Math. Lib. 14 (1977)

    1977

  5. [13]

    Dong, Vertex algebras associated with even lattices, J

    C. Dong, Vertex algebras associated with even lattices, J. of Algebra 161 (1993) 245-265

    1993

  6. [14]

    Fattori and V.G

    D. Fattori and V.G. Kac, classification of simple Lie conformal superal- gebras, J. Algebra (Special issue in celebration of Claudio Procesi’s 60th birthday) 258 (2002) 23-59

    2002

  7. [15]

    Gabber, The integrability of the characteristic variety

    O. Gabber, The integrability of the characteristic variety . Amer. J. Math. 103 (1981) 445–468

    1981

  8. [16]

    Germoni, On the Classi ¢cation of Admissible Representations of the Virasoro Algebra

    J. Germoni, On the Classi ¢cation of Admissible Representations of the Virasoro Algebra. Letters in Mathematical Physics 55 (2001) 169–177

    2001

  9. [17]

    Grozman, D

    P. Grozman, D. Leites and I. Shchepochkina, Lie superalgebras of string theories, Acta Math. Vietnam 26 (2001) 27-63

    2001

  10. [18]

    Iohara and Y

    K. Iohara and Y. Koga, Representation Theory of the Virasoro Algebra. Springer Monographs in Mathematics (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Iohara and O

    K. Iohara and O. Mathieu, A Global version of Grozman’s theorem, Math.Z. 274 (2013) 955–992

    2013

  12. [20]

    Jacobson Structure and Representations of Jordan Agebras , Amer

    N. Jacobson Structure and Representations of Jordan Agebras , Amer. Math. Soc. Colloquium Publ. 39, Providence, R.I. (1968)

    1968

  13. [21]

    Jacobson Nathan Jacobson

    N. Jacobson Nathan Jacobson. Lie algebras . Dover Publications, Inc., New York, (1979)

    1979

  14. [22]

    V.G. Kac. Lie Superalgebras, Advances in Mathematics, 26 (1977) 8-96

    1977

  15. [23]

    Kac, Classification of simple Lie superalgebras and simple Jordan superalgebras, Comm

    V.G. Kac, Classification of simple Lie superalgebras and simple Jordan superalgebras, Comm. Algebra 13 (1977) 1375-1400

    1977

  16. [24]

    Kac, Vertex algebras for beginners , University Lecture Series, vol

    V.G. Kac, Vertex algebras for beginners , University Lecture Series, vol. 10, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI(1997)

    1997

  17. [25]

    V.G. Kac, C. Martinez and E. Zelmanov Graded simple Jordan superal- gebras of growth one , Mem. Amerc. Math. Soc. 150 (2001) 170

    2001

  18. [26]

    Kac and A.K

    V.G. Kac and A.K. Raina, Bombay Lectures: On Highest Weight Repre- sentations of Infinite Dimensional Lie Algebras, Advanced Series In Math- ematical Physics 29 (1985)

    1985

  19. [27]

    Kac and J.W

    V.G. Kac and J.W. van de Leur, On classification of superconformal algebras. Proceedings of Strings 88 Teaneck (1989) 77-106

    1989

  20. [28]

    Kantor, Classification of irreducible transitive differential groups, Dokl

    I.L. Kantor, Classification of irreducible transitive differential groups, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 158 (1964) 1271–1274

    1964

  21. [29]

    Kantor, Certain generalizations of Jordan algebras, Trudy Sem

    I.L. Kantor, Certain generalizations of Jordan algebras, Trudy Sem. Vector Tensor Anal. 16 (1972) 407-499

    1972

  22. [30]

    Kantor, Connections between Poisson brackets and Jordan and Lie superalgebras, Differential Equations and Representation Theory Univ

    I.L. Kantor, Connections between Poisson brackets and Jordan and Lie superalgebras, Differential Equations and Representation Theory Univ. Montreal QC (1990) 213-225

    1990

  23. [31]

    King and K

    D. King and K. McCrimmon, the Kantor construction of Jordan super- algebras, Comm. in Alg. 20 (1992) 109-126

    1992

  24. [32]

    Koecher, Imbedding of Jordan algebras into Lie Algebras I, Amer

    M. Koecher, Imbedding of Jordan algebras into Lie Algebras I, Amer. J. Math. 89 (1967)787-816

    1967

  25. [33]

    D. Liu, Y. Pei and L. Xia, Classification of simple modules with finite dimensional weight spaces for the N = 2 Ramond algebra. ref

  26. [34]

    Martin and A

    C. Martin and A. Piard, Classification of indecomposable bounded ad- missible modules over the Virasoro Lie algebras with weight spaces of dimension not exeeding two, Com. Math. Physics 150 (1992) 465-493

    1992

  27. [35]

    Martinez, I

    C. Martinez, I. Shestakov and E. Zelmanov, Jordan superalgebras de- fined by brackets, J. London Math. Soc. 64 (2001) 357-368

    2001

  28. [36]

    Martinez and E

    C. Martinez and E. Zelmanov, Simple finite-dimensional Jordan super- algebras of prime characteristic, J. of Algebra 236 (2001) 787-816

    2001

  29. [37]

    Martinez and E

    C. Martinez and E. Zelmanov, Specializations of Jordan Superalgebras. Canad. Math. Bull. Vol. 45 (2002) 653–671

    2002

  30. [38]

    Martinez and E

    C. Martinez and E. Zelmanov, Lie superalgebras graded by P (n) and Q(n), Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 100 (2003) 8130–8137. 171

    2003

  31. [39]

    Martinez and E

    C. Martinez and E. Zelmanov, Irreducible representations of the excep- tional Cheng-Kac superalgebra, Trans. Am. Math. Soc

  32. [40]

    Martinez and E

    C. Martinez and E. Zelmanov, Brackets, superalgebras and spectral gaps, S˜ ao Paulo Journal of Mathematical Sciences 13 (2019) 112–132

    2019

  33. [41]

    Mathieu, Classification des alg` ebres de Lie gradu´ ees simples de crois- sance ≤ 1

    O. Mathieu, Classification des alg` ebres de Lie gradu´ ees simples de crois- sance ≤ 1. Invent. Math.86 (1986) 371–426

    1986

  34. [42]

    Mathieu, Classification of Harish-Chandra modules over the Virasoro Lie algebra

    O. Mathieu, Classification of Harish-Chandra modules over the Virasoro Lie algebra. Invent Math 107 (1992) 225–234

    1992

  35. [43]

    Mathieu, Classification of irreducible weight modules

    O. Mathieu, Classification of irreducible weight modules. Annales de l’Institut Fourier, 50 (2000) 537–592

    2000

  36. [44]

    McCrimmon, A Taste of Jordan Algebras

    K. McCrimmon, A Taste of Jordan Algebras. Universitext , Springer (2003)

    2003

  37. [45]

    Neveu and J.H

    A. Neveu and J.H. Schwarz, Factorizable models of pions, Nuclear Physics B 31 (1971) 86-112

    1971

  38. [46]

    Ramond, Dual theory for free fermions, Phys

    P. Ramond, Dual theory for free fermions, Phys. Rev. D (1971) 2415- 2418

    1971

  39. [47]

    I. P. Shestakov, A. I. Shirshov, A. M. Slin’ko, and K. A. Zhevlakov, Rings that are nearly associative.Academic Press, Inc. , New York-London, (1982)

    1982

  40. [48]

    Schoutens, A nonlinear Representation of the D = 2 so(4), Extended Superconformal Algebra, Phys

    K. Schoutens, A nonlinear Representation of the D = 2 so(4), Extended Superconformal Algebra, Phys. Lett. B 194 (1987) 75-80

    1987

  41. [49]

    Schwimmer and N

    A. Schwimmer and N. Seiberg, Comments on the n = 2, 3, 4 supercon- formal algebras in two dimensions, Physics Lett. B 184 (1987) 191-196

    1987

  42. [50]

    Tits, Une classe d’alg` ebres de Lie en relation avec les alg` ebres de Jordan, Indag

    J. Tits, Une classe d’alg` ebres de Lie en relation avec les alg` ebres de Jordan, Indag. Math. 24 (1962) 530–534. 172

    1962

Pith tools

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