Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 42 references

Multisymplectic observable reduction using constraint triples

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 The paper shows that observable reduction in multisymplectic geometry is a purely algebraic construction from constraint BV-modules.

desk verdict A genuinely useful algebraic framework whose central reduction theorem is probably true but not yet proved as written: Proposition 4.10's proof has a quantifier error that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00234 v2 pith:OGUIZU3T submitted 2025-05-30 math.SG math.DGmath.RA

Antonio Michele Miti , Leonid Ryvkin This is my paper
classification math.SGmath.DGmath.RA MSC 53D2017B70
keywords L∞-algebrasmultisymplecticgeometryconstrainttriplesBV-modulesGerstenhaberalgebrasLie–Rinehartobservablessymplecticreduction
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 aims to prove that the construction and reduction of $L_\infty$-algebras of observables are fully algebraic phenomena. It claims that any Gerstenhaber algebra equipped with a BV-module and a closed element gives rise to an $L_\infty$-algebra of Hamiltonian pairs, and that an algebra, an ideal, and a Lie–Rinehart symmetry algebra determine a reduced $L_\infty$-algebra of observables by the subobject–quotient mechanism of constraint triples. The reduction works without freeness, properness, or regularity assumptions, so it covers singular symmetries. In the smooth case it recovers the reduction scheme of the authors' earlier work [BMR24], and it explains the 'residue defect' that separates the algebraic reduced algebra from the geometric one. If correct, the paper turns multisymplectic observable reduction into a routine algebraic computation, applicable to singular foliations and field-theoretic examples.

What carries the argument

The central object is a constraint triple $(V_T,V_N,V_0)$—a graded vector space with an admissible subspace $V_N$ and a null subspace $V_0\subseteq V_N$, whose reduction is the quotient $V_N/V_0$. The paper lifts this to constraint BV-modules (Definition 3.29): a BV-module whose contraction, Lie derivative, and differential are constraint morphisms. From such a module and a cocycle $\omega$, the Hamiltonian-pair space $\mathrm{Ham}_0(V,\omega)=\{(\alpha,X)\mid \iota_X\omega = -d\alpha\}$ carries the multisymplectic observable brackets, with $l_2((\alpha,X),(\beta,Y)) = (\iota_X\iota_Y\omega, \{X,Y\})$ and $l_j = -\iota_{X_1}\cdots\iota_{X_j}\omega$ for $j\ge 3$. The load-bearing condition of Theorem 4.11 is that contractions with the symmetry algebra $F$ land in the null component, i.e. $\omega(F, X(A,I), \ldots, X(A,I)) \subseteq I$, which makes the brackets descend to the quotient $\mathrm{Ham}(B',\omega)_N/\mathrm{Ham}(B',\omega)_0$.

What would settle it

A hand calculation in the singular one-dimensional case $A=\mathbb{R}[x]$, $I=(x)$, with $F$ the Lie–Rinehart algebra generated by $x\partial_x$ and $X(A)_0$, checking in low form degrees whether $d(B'_N)\subseteq B'_N$, would settle whether Proposition 4.10 holds as stated; if a form in $B'_N$ has differential outside $B'_N$, the reduced $L_\infty$-algebra of Theorem 4.11 is not defined by the given data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 4.11. Fix a commutative algebra $A$, an ideal $I\subseteq A$, and a Lie–Rinehart subalgebra $F\subseteq X(A)_N$ containing $X(A)_0$; let $\omega$ be a closed element of the Chevalley–Eilenberg complex of $X(A)$ satisfying $\omega(F, X(A,I), \ldots, X(A,I)) \subseteq I$. Then the Hamiltonian-pair construction of Lemma 4.5 produces a constraint $L_\infty$-algebra, and the quotient $\mathrm{Ham}(B',\omega)_N / \mathrm{Ham}(B',\omega)_0$ is a reduced $L_\infty$-algebra of observables. In the smooth-manifold case ($A = C^\infty(M)$, $I$ the vanishing ideal of a closed subset $S$, $F$ the symmetry algebra preserving $I$), Corollary 4.15 identifies this quotient with the reduction scheme of the authors' earlier work [BMR24]. The paper also proves that any constraint Lie–Rinehart algebra yields a constraint BV-module (Lemma 3.31), so the entire observable algebra is assembled from the same algebraic data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Proposition 4.10: the space $B'$ of forms whose contractions and Lie derivatives in the null directions stay in the null component must itself be a BV-module; the published verification checks vector fields in the larger component $Y_N$, whereas the definition of $B'$ only imposes conditions for the smaller component $Y_0$, so the stated argument is incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • As a corollary of Theorem A, any Lie–Rinehart algebra with a Chevalley–Eilenberg cocycle carries an $L_\infty$-algebra of observables, so the construction applies beyond manifolds to singular foliations and Lie algebroids.
  • As a corollary of Theorem 4.11, reduction can be performed by first restricting to elements compatible with the ideal $I$ and then quotienting by the symmetry algebra $F$; the result is again an $L_\infty$-algebra of observables.
  • In the geometric case, Corollary 4.15 says that the quotient $\mathrm{Ham}(B',\omega)_N/\mathrm{Ham}(B',\omega)_0$ equals the reduced observable algebra of [BMR24], providing a conceptual explanation of that scheme.
  • The residue defect of Subsection 4.4.2 shows that the algebraic reduction can be strictly smaller than the geometric reduced observables, because a Hamiltonian pair must satisfy $d\alpha=-\iota_X\omega$ globally on $M$ and not merely on the constraint subset.
  • In the presymplectic momentum-map case, the construction yields a Poisson algebra of reduced observables even though the framework only requested a Lie algebra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the closing discussion of the paper suggests replacing the cocycle condition by the weaker requirement $d\omega\in B'_0$; one would then expect an $L_\infty$-structure on the quotient only, with relaxed compatibility on the total space.
  • Inference: because constraint Lie–Rinehart algebras feed Lemma 3.31, the reduction scheme should transplant to Lie algebroids and singular foliations with non-closed leaves, where no honest manifold quotient exists; a foliation with non-closed leaves is a natural test case.
  • Inference: the residue defect should be understood as a statement about global solvability of $d\alpha=-\iota_X\omega$; allowing $d\alpha+\iota_X\omega\in B'_0$ in the definition of Hamiltonian pairs might remove the defect while preserving an $L_\infty$-structure on the quotient, but the paper does not establish this.
  • Inference: the outlook on homotopy momentum maps suggests a possible bridge to homotopy reduction in higher-order Lagrangian field theory; establishing that bridge would require a comparison of the two reduction procedures that the paper leaves open.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper develops a fully algebraic framework for constructing L∞-algebras of observables from BV-modules equipped with a closed cocycle, and for their reduction using constraint triples. The main results are: Theorem A (Definition 2.20), which associates an L∞-algebra Ham(V,ω) to any BV-module with a cocycle; Lemma 3.31, which produces constraint BV-modules from constraint Lie–Rinehart algebras; Lemma 4.5, which extends the construction to constraint BV-modules; and Theorem 4.11, which gives a reduction recipe from a commutative algebra A, an ideal I, a Lie–Rinehart symmetry algebra F with X(A)_0 ⊆ F ⊆ X(A)_N, and a closed element ω satisfying ω(F, X(A,I),...,X(A,I)) ⊆ I. Corollary 4.15 then recovers the reduction scheme of [BMR24] in the smooth manifold case. The paper also discusses the 'residue defect' in the comparison with geometric reduction.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, the paper provides a general algebraic reduction machine for L∞-algebras of observables, unifying and conceptually explaining [BMR24] through the constraint triple formalism. The framework is natural and parameter-free, and the paper includes concrete examples and a careful comparison with geometric multisymplectic reduction. The main concern is that the proof of Proposition 4.10, which supplies the constraint BV-module needed for Theorem 4.11, has quantifier and verification gaps. These appear fixable, but they are load-bearing for the central reduction claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Proposition 4.10, first bullet] The proof of d-invariance of B'_N uses the wrong quantifier. The text says 'Let α ∈ B′_N and X ∈ Y_N' and then concludes L_X dα ∈ dB_0 from L_X α ∈ B_0. However, the definition of B'_N only guarantees L_X α ∈ B_0 and ι_X α ∈ B_0 for X ∈ Y_0, not for arbitrary X ∈ Y_N. To show dB'_N ⊆ B'_N one must verify, for every α ∈ B'_N and every X ∈ Y_0, that L_X dα and ι_X dα lie in B_0; the intended computation works with X ∈ Y_0 and uses d(B_0) ⊆ B_0. As written, the verification is incomplete, and since Proposition 4.10 is the foundation for the Hamiltonian-pair construction in Lemma 4.5 and the reduction in Theorem 4.11, this gap is load-bearing.
  2. [§4.2, Proposition 4.10, second bullet] The proof that contractions with (Λ_{A'}Y)_N preserve B'_N is circular and uses unstated hypotheses. The text asserts 'Contractions with elements of Y_N preserve B′_N by construction' and then computes with a ∈ A'_N, α ∈ B'_0, X ∈ Y_N; this proves the wrong inclusion and does not check the Y_0-conditions required for membership in B'_N. The intended argument needs the facts that [Y_0, Y_N] ⊆ Y_0 and that the operations by Y_N preserve B_0; both are true for the specific Y of Proposition 4.8 and for a constraint BV-module B, but they are not stated or verified. Without this, the claim that B' is a constraint BV-module over Λ_{A'}Y is not established.
  3. [§3.2, Lemma 3.31, proof] The verification that d_CE is a constraint morphism is only sketched for the N-component. The text says that the two required conditions 'both follow from the same type of argument' with 'the only additional subtlety of a case distinction' in the second sum, but the case distinction is not given. Since CE(X(A)) is the concrete BV-module used in the main reduction theorem and in Corollary 4.15, this step should be written out in full.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The reference 'arXiv:2206.03137(3)' should presumably be '[BMR24]'.
  2. [Introduction, Theorem A statement] The symbol 'L_{i≤0}' in the statement of Theorem A should be a direct sum; also, the proof of Theorem A is deferred to [Rog12, Thm. 5.2] without indicating which Cartan identities are used, which would help the reader.
  3. [Definition 2.20] The higher brackets are defined for all j ≥ 3 by −ι_{X_1}...ι_{X_j}ω; for j > k+1 one should state explicitly that these brackets vanish (or justify the convention in the algebraic setting), since in the geometric case this follows from degree reasons.
  4. [Lemma 4.5, proof] In the bullet on l1, 'For i = 1' should be 'For i = −1'.
  5. [Corollary 4.15] The equality in (7) is asserted after a single sentence; since this is the announced comparison with [BMR24], a short derivation of (7) from Theorem 4.11 would make the correspondence checkable.
  6. [Example 4.18] The expression 'α ∈⊆ Iµ + Q' contains a typo: the symbols '∈' and '⊆' should not be combined.
  7. [Definition 3.1] The heading 'Contraint vector spaces' contains a misspelling of 'constraint'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reduction theorem is derived from external BV-module and constraint-triple axioms; the self-cited [BMR24] result appears only as a comparison corollary, not as a premise.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Lemma 4.5 and Theorem 4.11 build the reduced L∞-algebra from the constraint BV-module of Proposition 4.10, whose hypotheses are expressed in terms of external definitions: constraint triples from [DEW19], BV-modules, Lie–Rinehart algebras, and the algebraic Cartan calculus. The verification of the L∞-bracket identities is adapted from Rogers's theorem [Rog12, Thm. 5.2], an independent external result. Corollary 4.15 presents the earlier [BMR24] construction as a consequence of Theorem 4.11, not as an input: the numerator and denominator in Eq. (7) are computed from the definitions of Ham0 and the constraint components, and no fitted parameter or pre-imposed reduced bracket is used. The self-citations [BMR24], [RW19], and [Ryv16] are background or comparison references and do not supply any load-bearing uniqueness or existence theorem. The main caveat is a correctness gap rather than circularity: the published verification of Proposition 4.10 checks d-invariance for X ∈ Y_N, whereas B'_N is defined by conditions involving Y_0 only; this is an omitted or misquantified proof step. That gap would affect the soundness of Theorem 4.11, but it does not make the conclusion equivalent to the paper's inputs by construction. The score of 2 reflects only the presence of minor non-load-bearing self-citations; no circular step was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper is proof-based and contains no fitted numerical parameters. It relies on standard algebraic structures (BV-modules, constraint triples, Lie-Rinehart algebras) and on a geometric extension lemma for smooth sections; the comparison to geometric reduction invokes Blacker's theorem and embedded-submanifold facts. Two new structures, constraint BV-modules and constraint L∞-algebras of observables, are introduced and anchored to examples.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math BV-module axioms: L_x = [ι_x,d], mixed Leibniz rules, graded commutation relations of Cartan calculus (Remark 2.15).
    Used in Definition 2.20 to assert the L∞ identities and in Theorem 4.11 to show brackets are constraint morphisms.
  • standard math Constraint triples form a monoidal category with monoidal reduction functor (Definition 3.1, Lemma 3.5).
    Basis for defining constraint algebras, modules, BV-modules and their reductions; imported from [DEW19, Dip23].
  • standard math The proof of the L∞ relations in Rogers's theorem is purely algebraic (Theorem 5.2 in [Rog12]).
    Invoked after Definition 2.20 to justify that Ham(V,ω) is an L∞-algebra without reproducing the computation.
  • domain assumption Section extension lemma: for a closed subset S of a smooth manifold and a vector bundle E, sections of E vanishing on S are finite sums of functions in I_S times sections of E (Nestruev).
    Used in Lemma 4.12 and Corollary 4.13 to identify X(A)_0 = I_S X(M) and B_N = B_T.
  • domain assumption For an embedded submanifold S, algebraic tangency X(I_S) ⊆ I_S is equivalent to geometric tangency X|_S ∈ X(S) (Lemma 4.21).
    Needed for the comparison with Cartan calculus on constraint manifolds and for the geometric interpretation of the reduction.
  • domain assumption Blacker's geometric multisymplectic reduction theorem in the free and proper case [Bla21, Theorem 1].
    Used in Subsection 4.4.2 only as the geometric benchmark to which the algebraic reduced algebra is compared.
invented entities (2)
  • Constraint BV-module independent evidence
    purpose: Encodes a Cartan calculus on constraint triples, the main algebraic device from which constraint L∞-algebras of observables are built.
    Definition 3.29 is new to this paper; it is anchored by Lemma 3.31, which shows every constraint Lie-Rinehart algebra produces one, so it is not an ad hoc postulate.
  • Constraint L∞-algebra of observables Ham(V,ω) independent evidence
    purpose: The reduced observable algebra that Theorem 4.11 constructs; it organizes Hamiltonian pairs and differential forms in the constraint setting.
    Definition 4.3 and Lemma 4.5; in the smooth-manifold case it specializes to Rogers's concrete L∞-algebra of multisymplectic observables, giving an external benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multisymplectic observable reduction using constraint triples." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OGUIZU3T

@misc{pith2026250600234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multisymplectic observable reduction using constraint triples},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OGUIZU3T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00234}
}
abstract

The purpose of this paper is to present a fully algebraic formalism for the construction and reduction of $L_\infty$-algebras of observables inspired by multisymplectic geometry, using Gerstenhaber algebras, BV-modules, and the constraint triple formalism. In the "geometric case", we reconstruct and conceptually explain the recent results of arXiv:2206.03137(3).

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Androulidakis and G

    I. Androulidakis and G. Skandalis, The Holonomy Groupoid of a Singular Foliation , Journal f \"u r die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal) 2009(626), 1--37 (January 2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Homotopy reduction of multisymplectic structures in Lagrangian field theory

    J. Bernardy, Homotopy reduction of multisymplectic structures in Lagrangian field theory , (may 2025), 2505.09492

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    The sh Lie structure of Poisson brackets in field theory

    G. Barnich, R. Fulp, T. Lada and J. Stasheff, The Sh Lie Structure of Poisson Brackets in Field Theory , Communications in Mathematical Physics 191(3), 585--601 (February 1998), hep-th/9702176

    work page Pith review arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Blacker, Reduction of Multisymplectic Manifolds , Letters in Mathematical Physics 111(3), 64 (June 2021)

    C. Blacker, Reduction of Multisymplectic Manifolds , Letters in Mathematical Physics 111(3), 64 (June 2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Blohmann, The Homotopy Momentum Map of General Relativity , International Mathematics Research Notices 2023(10), 8212--8250 (may 2023)

    C. Blohmann, The Homotopy Momentum Map of General Relativity , International Mathematics Research Notices 2023(10), 8212--8250 (may 2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Blohmann, Lagrangian Field Theory - Lecture Notes , 2024

    C. Blohmann, Lagrangian Field Theory - Lecture Notes , 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Reduction of $L_\infty$-Algebras of Observables on Multisymplectic Manifolds

    C. Blacker, A. M. Miti and L. Ryvkin, Reduction of L_ -Algebras of Observables on Multisymplectic Manifolds , Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications (jul 2024), 2206.03137

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    B \' u a, T

    L. B \' u a, T. Mestdag and M. Salgado, Symmetry reduction, integrability and reconstruction in k -symplectic field theory , Journal of Geometric Mechanics 7(4), 395--429 (dec 2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Capriotti, V

    S. Capriotti, V. D \' i az, E. Garc \' i a-Tora \ n o Andr \' e s and T. Mestdag, Cotangent bundle reduction and Routh reduction for polysymplectic manifolds , Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 55(41), 415401 (oct 2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Cattaneo, D

    A. Cattaneo, D. Fiorenza and R. Longoni, Graded Poisson Algebras, in Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics , pages 560--567, Elsevier, 2006

    2006

  3. [11]

    Callies, Y

    M. Callies, Y. Fr \' e gier, C. L. Rogers and M. Zambon, Homotopy moment maps , Adv. Math. (N. Y). 303, 954--1043 (November 2016), arXiv:1304.2051

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    N. L. Delgado, Multisymplectic Structures and Higher Momentum Maps , Masters thesis, University of Bonn, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    Dippell, C

    M. Dippell, C. Esposito and S. Waldmann, Coisotropic triples, reduction and classical limit , Doc. Math. 24, 1811--1853 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    De Sole , P

    A. De Sole , P. Hekmati and V. G. Kac, Calculus structure on the Lie conformal algebra complex and the variational complex , Journal of Mathematical Physics 52(5) (may 2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Dippell, Constraint Reduction in Algebra, Geometry and Deformation Theory , Doctoral thesis, Universit \"a t W \"u rzburg, 2023

    M. Dippell, Constraint Reduction in Algebra, Geometry and Deformation Theory , Doctoral thesis, Universit \"a t W \"u rzburg, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Dippell and D

    M. Dippell and D. Kern, Constraint vector bundles and reduction of Lie (bi-)algebroids , Differential Geometry and its Applications 99, 102242 (jun 2025), 2312.08263

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    de Lucas, X

    J. de Lucas, X. Gr \` a cia, X. Rivas, N. Rom \' a n-Roy and S. Vilari \ n o, Reduction and reconstruction of multisymplectic Lie systems , Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 55(29), 295204 (jul 2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    de Lucas, X

    J. de Lucas, X. Rivas, S. Vilari \ n o and B. M. Zawora, On k-polycosymplectic Marsden–Weinstein reductions , Journal of Geometry and Physics 191, 104899 (sep 2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    de Lucas, X

    J. de Lucas, X. Rivas, S. Vilarino and B. M. Zawora, Marsden--Meyer--Weinstein reduction for k -contact field theories , (may 2025), 2505.05462

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gerstenhaber, The Cohomology Structure of an Associative Ring , The Annals of Mathematics 78(2), 267 (sep 1963)

    M. Gerstenhaber, The Cohomology Structure of an Associative Ring , The Annals of Mathematics 78(2), 267 (sep 1963)

    1963

  13. [21]

    Gomis, A

    J. Gomis, A. Guerra and N. Rom \' a n-Roy, Multisymplectic constraint analysis of scalar field theories, Chern-Simons gravity, and bosonic string theory , Nuclear Physics B 987, 116069 (feb 2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    M. J. Gotay, J. Isenberg, J. E. Marsden and R. Montgomery, Momentum Maps and Classical Relativistic Fields. Part I: Covariant Field Theory , (jan 1998), 9801019

    1998

  15. [23]

    Huebschmann, Lie-Rinehart algebras, Gerstenhaber algebras and Batalin-Vilkovisky algebras , Annales de l'Institut Fourier 48(2), 425--440 (1998)

    J. Huebschmann, Lie-Rinehart algebras, Gerstenhaber algebras and Batalin-Vilkovisky algebras , Annales de l'Institut Fourier 48(2), 425--440 (1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

    Kowalzig and U

    N. Kowalzig and U. Kr \" a hmer, Batalin-Vilkovisky structures on Ext and Tor , Journal fur die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik 2014(697), 159--219 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Kříž and May, J

    I. Kříž and May, J. P. , Operads, algebras, modules and motives , volume 233 of Astérisque , Paris: Société Mathématique de France, 1995

    1995

  18. [26]

    Kowalzig, Gerstenhaber and Batalin-Vilkovisky Structures on Modules over Operads , International Mathematics Research Notices 2015(22), 11694--11744 (feb 2015)

    N. Kowalzig, Gerstenhaber and Batalin-Vilkovisky Structures on Modules over Operads , International Mathematics Research Notices 2015(22), 11694--11744 (feb 2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    J. M. Lee, Introduction to Smooth Manifolds , volume 218 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics , Springer New York, New York, NY, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    Lada and J

    T. Lada and J. Stasheff, Introduction to SH Lie algebras for physicists , International Journal of Theoretical Physics 32(7), 1087--1103 (jul 1993), 9209099

    1993

  21. [29]

    K. R. Meyer, Symmetries and integrals in mechanics , pages 259--272, 1973

    1973

  22. [30]

    J. C. Marrero, N. Rom \' a n-Roy, M. Salgado and S. Vilari \ n o, Reduction of polysymplectic manifolds , Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 48(5), 055206 (feb 2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Marsden and A

    J. Marsden and A. Weinstein, Reduction of symplectic manifolds with symmetry , Reports on Mathematical Physics 5(1), 121--130 (feb 1974)

    1974

  24. [32]

    J. E. Marsden and A. Weinstein, Comments on the history, theory, and applications of symplectic reduction, in Quantization Singul. Symplectic Quotients , number 2000, pages 1--19, Birkh \" a user Basel, Basel, 2001

    2000

  25. [33]

    Nestruev, Smooth Manifolds and Observables , volume 220 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics , Springer International Publishing, Cham, second edi edition, 2020

    J. Nestruev, Smooth Manifolds and Observables , volume 220 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics , Springer International Publishing, Cham, second edi edition, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Richter, Lie Infinity-Algebras from Lie Rinehart Pairs , November 2013

    M. Richter, Lie Infinity-Algebras from Lie Rinehart Pairs , November 2013

    2013

  27. [35]

    G. S. Rinehart, Differential Forms on General Commutative Algebras , Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 108, 195--222 (1963)

    1963

  28. [36]

    C. Roger, Extensions Centrales d'alg \`e bres et de Groupes de Lie de Dimension Infinie, Alg \`e bre de Virasoro et G \'e n \'e ralisations , Reports on Mathematical Physics 35(2), 225--266 (1995)

    1995

  29. [37]

    C. L. Rogers, \(L _ \) -algebras from multisymplectic geometry , Lett. Math. Phys. 100(1), 29--50 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Ryvkin and T

    L. Ryvkin and T. Wurzbacher, An invitation to multisymplectic geometry , Journal of Geometry and Physics 142, 9--36 (aug 2019), 1804.02553

    2019

  31. [39]

    Ryvkin, Observables and Symmetries of n-Plectic Manifolds , Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 2016

    L. Ryvkin, Observables and Symmetries of n-Plectic Manifolds , Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Sniatycki, Poisson algebras in reduction of symmetries , Reports on Mathematical Physics 56(1), 53--76 (aug 2005)

    J. Sniatycki, Poisson algebras in reduction of symmetries , Reports on Mathematical Physics 56(1), 53--76 (aug 2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Sniatycki and A

    J. Sniatycki and A. Weinstein, Reduction and quantization for singular momentum mappings , Letters in Mathematical Physics 7(2), 155--161 (mar 1983)

    1983

  34. [42]

    Tsygan, Cyclic Homology, in Cyclic Homology in Non-Commutative Geometry , pages 73--113, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004

    B. Tsygan, Cyclic Homology, in Cyclic Homology in Non-Commutative Geometry , pages 73--113, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004

    2004

Pith tools

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