Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Bifurcation from periodic solutions of central force problems in the three-dimensional space

T0 review · 1 major / 4 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 proves that non-circular periodic solutions of three-dimensional central force problems persist under small electromagnetic perturbations whenever the same solution is non-degenerate viewed as a planar problem; in the…

desk verdict Spatial non-circular bifurcation for central force problems is done cleanly; the Mishchenko–Fomenko coordinate reduction is legitimate and the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05842 v1 pith:ASJHIBFH submitted 2025-06-06 math.DS math-phmath.MP

Alberto Boscaggin , Guglielmo Feltrin , Duccio Papini This is my paper
classification math.DSmath-phmath.MP MSC 34C2537J2070H1270H40
keywords centralforceproblemsperiodicsolutionsbifurcationelectromagneticperturbationssuperintegrablesystemsaction-anglecoordinatesLusternik-SchnirelmanncategoryrelativisticKeplerproblem
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 shows that periodic orbits of a particle moving under a central force in three-dimensional space are robust: when a small time-periodic electric and magnetic field is added, nearby periodic solutions still exist, provided the same orbit is non-degenerate when viewed in its own orbital plane. The result covers both classical mechanics and the special-relativistic equation of motion. In the fixed-period setting it guarantees at least five distinct bifurcating solutions; with a time-independent perturbation and fixed energy it guarantees at least one. The key insight is that the required non-degeneracy in three dimensions is exactly equivalent to a determinant condition for the planar problem in action-angle coordinates.

What carries the argument

The device that carries the argument is the system of partial action-angle coordinates of the Mishchenko-Fomenko theorem for superintegrable Hamiltonian systems, applied to the spatial unperturbed problem. Locally around $\mathcal{M}_3$, the flow is written as $\dot I_i = 0$, $\dot \phi_i = \partial_{I_i} K_0(I_1,I_2)$ for $i=1,2$, and $\dot \Xi = \dot \xi = 0$, where $(I_1,I_2,\phi_1,\phi_2)$ are the planar action-angle coordinates and $(\Xi,\xi)$ is an extra conjugate pair that stays constant. The monodromy of the linearized system along $x^*$ then has the block form $(X,Y,\alpha,\beta)\mapsto (X,\,T\nabla^2 K_0(I^*)X+Y,\,\alpha,\,\beta)$, so the kernel of $I-Q$ has dimension $2+2+\operatorname{nullity}(\nabla^2 K_0(I^*))$; requiring this dimension to equal $\dim\mathcal{M}_3=4$ is exactly the planar non-degeneracy condition. For the fixed-energy problem the same reduction turns the bordered determinant of Proposition 4.2(iv) into the spatial condition.

What would settle it

Compute the dimension of the space of $T$-periodic solutions of the linearization of the spatial system along a planar non-circular solution $x^*$ for a potential that satisfies the planar non-degeneracy condition, e.g., the homogeneous potential $\alpha=0$; if this dimension exceeds four, the central equivalence between spatial and planar non-degeneracy fails. A cheaper check is to verify directly that the Mishchenko-Fomenko coordinates are symplectic on a full neighborhood of $\mathcal{M}_3$ for that potential.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 5.8 (fixed period) and Theorem 5.9 (fixed energy): if $x^*$ is a non-circular, non-rectilinear $T$-periodic solution of the unperturbed central force problem in $\mathbb{R}^3$, and if the planar manifold $\mathcal{M}_2$ made from time-translations and planar rotations of $x^*$ is non-degenerate, meaning $\det \nabla^2 K_0(I^*) \neq 0$ for the fixed-period problem, or the analogous bordered determinant $\det\begin{pmatrix} \nabla^2 K_0(I^*) & \nabla K_0(I^*)^\top \\ \nabla K_0(I^*) & 0 \end{pmatrix} \neq 0$ for the fixed-energy problem, where $K_0$ is the planar Hamiltonian in action-angle coordinates and $I^*$ the action value of the torus, then for every small $\varepsilon$ there are solutions of the perturbed electromagnetic problem branching from the four-dimensional manifold $\mathcal{M}_3 = \{M x^*(t-\theta): M\in O(3), \theta\in\mathbb{R}\}$, staying uniformly close to it. In the fixed-period case the number of such solutions is at least five, because $\mathcal{M}_3$ is homeomorphic to $SO(3)\times T^1$ and its Lusternik-Schnirelmann category equals five. Thus spatial non-degeneracy of $\mathcal{M}_3$ is precisely equivalent to planar non-degeneracy of $\mathcal{M}_2$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the local existence of the partial action-angle coordinates $(I_1,I_2,\phi_1,\phi_2,\Xi,\xi)$ given by the Mishchenko-Fomenko theorem, in particular that the extra pair $(\Xi,\xi)$ is constant along the flow and does not contribute to the monodromy; the paper cites this theorem from the literature rather than proving it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bifurcation from non-circular periodic solutions now holds in three spatial dimensions for any perturbation of the form (1.9), covering classical mechanics and special relativity.
  • The number of bifurcating solutions in the fixed-period problem is at least five, matching the Lusternik-Schnirelmann category of $\mathcal{M}_3$.
  • The results apply to the homogeneous central force problem for $\alpha<2$, $\alpha\notin\{-2,1\}$, to the Levi-Civita equation, and to the relativistic Kepler problem.
  • A spatial problem that is superintegrable and therefore KAM-degenerate can still be non-degenerate for bifurcation purposes, as long as the associated planar problem is non-degenerate.
  • The fixed-energy version yields at least one solution; multiple solutions are not claimed because the autonomous perturbed problem retains time-translation invariance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The planar-to-spatial reduction suggests a general recipe: for superintegrable systems with extra constants that are 'just geometry' (like the orbital plane), non-degeneracy of a lower-dimensional section may be the only obstruction to bifurcation.
  • The $H^{1/2}$ Hamiltonian formulation for the fixed-energy problem used here could be exported to other Hamiltonian systems where the Lagrangian action is not $C^2$, a situation that arises for relativistic kinetic terms.
  • One testable extension is to numerically continue the five predicted branches for a homogeneous potential like $\alpha=0$ and verify that no additional branches appear; the excluded degenerate cases $\alpha=-2$ and $\alpha=1$ should show an enlarged kernel, which would confirm the sharpness of the conditions.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies bifurcation of T-periodic solutions for a three-dimensional central force equation with electromagnetic perturbation, from the four-dimensional manifold M3 of orthogonal transforms and time shifts of a fixed non-circular non-rectilinear planar periodic solution. The main results (Theorems 5.8 and 5.9) assert that if the planar periodic manifold M2 is non-degenerate in the fixed-period or fixed-energy sense ((1.6) or (1.7)), then bifurcation occurs from M3, with five distinct solutions in the fixed-period case. The proof uses a Hamiltonian variational formulation on H^{1/2}, a cut-off, an abstract bifurcation theorem, and a reduction via partial action-angle coordinates (Mishchenko–Fomenko) of the spatial non-degeneracy to the planar determinant conditions.

Significance. If the coordinate reduction is made fully rigorous, the paper gives a clean and useful conditional theorem: spatial non-degeneracy of M3 is exactly equivalent to planar non-degeneracy of M2. It extends previous planar results to 3D and to electromagnetic (not just potential) perturbations, and it yields a sharp multiplicity bound via Lusternik–Schnirelmann category. The variational framework with cut-offs is carefully handled, and the topological computation cat(M3)=5 is a nice feature.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3.2, equations (3.9)–(3.10); proofs of Theorems 5.8 and 5.9] The proof that non-degeneracy of M2 implies non-degeneracy of M3 relies entirely on the existence of local symplectic coordinates (I1,I2,φ1,φ2,Ξ,ξ) in which the unperturbed system takes the form (3.10) with the pair (Ξ,ξ) constant and decoupled. The paper does not state the Mishchenko–Fomenko theorem with hypotheses, does not verify them for the central force system (2.6), and the description 'Without entering into the details... provided by the plane...' is not a proof (nor is [13, p. 42] a theorem statement). Since the monodromy computation in Section 5.2 reduces the kernel dimension to the planar Hessian/bordered determinant only through this normal form, this gap is load-bearing. Please provide (i) a precise statement of the theorem used, (ii) a verification that its hypotheses hold on a neighborhood of M3 for the integrals H0,L1,L2,L3, and (iii) either an explicit symplectic construction of Ψ-tilde or a precise reference where it is constructed for this system.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, around (3.9)] The extension Ψ-tilde is only described informally; please state explicitly that it is a local symplectomorphism onto a neighborhood of U_V4 and how the coordinates (Ξ,ξ) are related to the orientation of the plane of motion.
  2. [Proof of Proposition 3.1] In the injectivity argument, the step from M x*(t) = x*(t) for all t to M = I3 should be justified by noting that x*(0) and p*(0) are linearly independent for a non-rectilinear planar orbit.
  3. [Theorem 5.2] The set N = {(z(T(z)s), T(z)) : z in M} is asserted to be a manifold; please add a sentence explaining why the map is an embedding (for instance, for M3 one can choose T constant, and in general the graph of the period function works).
  4. [Section 5.2, proof of Theorem 5.9] The identification between the space F of Proposition 4.2(i) and the corresponding space G in partial action-angle coordinates is delegated to [20, Appendix A]; a brief explanation of why the symplectic change of variables preserves this condition would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorem is a conditional reduction from planar non-degeneracy to spatial non-degeneracy via an external normal form theorem.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Theorems 5.8 and 5.9) is conditional: if the planar manifold M2 is non-degenerate (conditions (1.6)/(1.7), equivalently Proposition 4.1(iv)/4.2(iv)), then bifurcation from the spatial manifold M3 occurs. The proof does not define spatial non-degeneracy in terms of the planar condition; it derives it by computing the monodromy in partial action-angle coordinates. The normal form (3.10), in which the extra pair (Xi, xi) is constant and decoupled, is quoted from the Mishchenko-Fomenko theorem [31] and Fassò [22], which are external sources, not the authors' own prior work. The planar non-degeneracy conditions are proved directly in Proposition 4.1 and 4.2 via the monodromy of the planar action-angle system. The monodromy computation in the proofs of Theorems 5.8 and 5.9 is explicit: Q(X,Y,alpha,beta) = (X, T grad^2 K0(I*) X + Y, alpha, beta), so dim ker(I-Q) = 4 exactly when det grad^2 K0(I*) != 0. This is a genuine reduction, not a renaming. The paper's applications invoke the authors' previous results [15], [16], [18] to instantiate the planar hypotheses for specific potentials; those are external published results with stated assumptions that do not include the spatial theorem, so they are independent support. The reliance on the Mishchenko-Fomenko normal form is a correctness assumption, not a circular one: it does not assume the target conclusion, and the normal form is a standard external theorem. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own earlier papers. The only minor self-citations occur as technical references (e.g., [16] for action-angle construction, [20] for a standard kernel isomorphism); these are not load-bearing. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

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

No fitted constants, hand-chosen parameters, or invented entities appear. The central claim is conditional on planar non-degeneracy imported from earlier papers; the new ingredient is the reduction using Mishchenko-Fomenko coordinates, which is itself an external theorem.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Abstract bifurcation theorem of Ambrosetti-Coti Zelati-Ekeland (Theorem 5.5)
    Used as a black box to obtain critical points of perturbed functionals near a non-degenerate critical manifold; cited as [8, Theorem 2.1] and [30, Theorem 10.8].
  • standard math Liouville-Arnold action-angle coordinates for the planar integrable system
    Provides coordinates (I, phi) in which the planar system takes the form (3.6); used to express planar non-degeneracy via the Hessian of K0. Cited as [33].
  • standard math Mishchenko-Fomenko partial action-angle coordinates for superintegrable systems
    Gives local coordinates (I1, I2, phi1, phi2, Xi, xi) with dynamics (3.10); this is the load-bearing tool for reducing spatial non-degeneracy to the planar condition. Cited as [31,22].
  • standard math Invariance of monodromy non-degeneracy under coordinate changes
    Used to transfer the kernel-dimension computation from partial action-angle coordinates back to the original system; cited as [20, Appendix A].
  • domain assumption Planar non-degeneracy of M2 (nonzero Hessian of K0 or nonzero isoenergetic bordered determinant)
    This is an explicit hypothesis of Theorems 5.8 and 5.9; the paper does not prove it for specific potentials, relying on [15,16,17,18].
  • domain assumption The unperturbed solution x* is non-circular, non-rectilinear and the perturbation satisfies (H1)-(H3)
    Needed for M3 to be a 4D manifold of solutions avoiding the singularity at x = 0 and for the cut-off procedure; stated in Section 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bifurcation from periodic solutions of central force problems in the three-dimensional space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ASJHIBFH

@misc{pith2026250605842,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bifurcation from periodic solutions of central force problems in the three-dimensional space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ASJHIBFH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05842}
}
abstract

The paper deals with electromagnetic perturbations of a central force problem of the form \begin{equation*} \dfrac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t} \bigl( \varphi(\dot{x}) \bigr) = V'(|x|) \dfrac{x}{|x|} + E_{\varepsilon}(t,x)+\dot{x} \wedge B_{\varepsilon}(t,x), \qquad x \in \mathbb{R}^3 \setminus \{0\}, \end{equation*} where $V \colon (0,+\infty) \to \mathbb{R}$ is a smooth function, $E_\varepsilon$ and $B_\varepsilon$ are respectively the electric field and the magnetic field, smooth and periodic in time, $\varepsilon\in\mathbb{R}$ is a small parameter. The considered differential operator includes, as special cases, the classical one, $\varphi(v)=mv$, as well as that of special relativity, $\varphi(v) = mv/\sqrt{1-\vert v \vert^2/c^2}$. We investigate whether non-circular periodic solutions of the unperturbed problem (i.e., with $\varepsilon=0$) can be continued into periodic solutions for $\varepsilon\neq0$ small, both for the fixed-period problem and, if the perturbation is time-independent, for the fixed-energy problem. The proof is based on an abstract bifurcation theorem of variational nature, which is applied to suitable Hamiltonian action functionals. In checking the required non-degeneracy conditions we take advantage of the existence of partial action-angle coordinates as provided by the Mishchenko--Fomenko theorem for superintegrable systems. Physically relevant problems to which our results can be applied are homogeneous central force problems in classical mechanics and the Kepler problem in special relativity.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbondandolo, Morse theory for Hamiltonian systems, vol

    A. Abbondandolo, Morse theory for Hamiltonian systems, vol. 425 of Chapman & Hall/CRC Research Notes in Mathematics, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2001

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    Abbondandolo, L

    A. Abbondandolo, L. Macarini, G. P. Paternain, On the existence of three closed mag- netic geodesics for subcritical energies, Comment. Math. Helv. 90 (2015) 155–193

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Abbondandolo, M

    A. Abbondandolo, M. Schwarz, A smooth pseudo-gradient for the Lagrangian action functional, Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 9 (2009) 597–623

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Albers, U

    P. Albers, U. Frauenfelder, Rabinowitz Floer homology: a survey, in: Global differential geometry, vol. 17 of Springer Proc. Math., Springer, Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 437–461

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Ambrosetti, U

    A. Ambrosetti, U. Bessi, Multiple closed orbits for perturbed Keplerian problems, J. Differential Equations 96 (1992) 283–294. 30 A. Boscaggin, G. Feltrin and D. Papini

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    Ambrosetti, V

    A. Ambrosetti, V. Coti Zelati, Perturbation of Hamiltonian systems with Keplerian potentials, Math. Z. 201 (1989) 227–242

    work page 1989

  7. [7]

    Ambrosetti, V

    A. Ambrosetti, V. Coti Zelati, Periodic solutions of singular Lagrangian systems, vol. 10 of Progr. Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl., Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1993

    work page 1993

  8. [8]

    Ambrosetti, V

    A. Ambrosetti, V. Coti Zelati, I. Ekeland, Symmetry breaking in Hamiltonian systems, J. Differential Equations 67 (1987) 165–184

    work page 1987

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    V. I. Arnol’d, Mathematical methods of classical mechanics, vol. 60 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989

    1989

  2. [10]

    Bambusi, A

    D. Bambusi, A. Fusè, M. Sansottera, Exponential stability in the perturbed central force problem, Regul. Chaotic Dyn. 23 (2018) 821–841

    2018

  3. [11]

    Barrera-Anzaldo, Uniform bifurcation of comet-type periodic orbits in the restricted (n+ 1)-body problem with non-Newtonian homogeneous potential, J

    C. Barrera-Anzaldo, Uniform bifurcation of comet-type periodic orbits in the restricted (n+ 1)-body problem with non-Newtonian homogeneous potential, J. Differential Equations 360 (2023) 572–598

    2023

  4. [12]

    Bartsch, A

    T. Bartsch, A. Szulkin, Hamiltonian systems: periodic and homoclinic solutions by vari- ational methods, in: Handbook of differential equations: ordinary differential equations. Vol. II, Elsevier B. V., Amsterdam, 2005, pp. 77–146

    2005

  5. [13]

    Benettin, Appunti per il corso di Meccanica Analitica, Lecture notes (2017-2018)

    G. Benettin, Appunti per il corso di Meccanica Analitica, Lecture notes (2017-2018). URLhttps://www.math.unipd.it/~benettin/links-MA/ma-17_10_25.pdf

    2017

  6. [14]

    Benettin, F

    G. Benettin, F. Fassò, Introduzione ai sistemi dinamici, Lecture notes (2001-2002). URLhttps://www.math.unipd.it/~benettin/postscript-pdf/hamilt.pdf

    2001

  7. [15]

    Boscaggin, W

    A. Boscaggin, W. Dambrosio, G. Feltrin, Periodic solutions to a perturbed relativistic Kepler problem, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 53 (2021) 5813–5834

    2021

  8. [16]

    Boscaggin, W

    A. Boscaggin, W. Dambrosio, G. Feltrin, Periodic perturbations of central force prob- lems and an application to a restricted 3-body problem, J. Math. Pures Appl. 186 (2024) 31–73

    2024

  9. [17]

    Boscaggin, W

    A. Boscaggin, W. Dambrosio, G. Feltrin, Prescribed energy periodic solutions of Kepler problems with relativistic corrections, in: Topological methods for delay and ordinary differential equations with applications to continuum mechanics, vol. 51 of Adv. Mech. Math., Birkhäuse...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Boscaggin, W

    A. Boscaggin, W. Dambrosio, G. Feltrin, Bifurcation of closed orbits of Hamiltonian systems with application to geodesics of the Schwarzschild metric, SIAM J. Math. Anal., to appear, arXiv:2310.02615

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Boscaggin, W

    A. Boscaggin, W. Dambrosio, E. Muñoz Hernández, A Maupertuis-type principle in relativistic mechanics and applications, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 62 (2023) Paper No. 95, 29 pp

    2023

  12. [20]

    Boscaggin, G

    A. Boscaggin, G. Feltrin, D. Papini, Nearly-circular periodic solutions of perturbed relativistic Kepler problems: the fixed-period and the fixed-energy problems, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 64 (2025) Paper No. 64, 29 pp

    2025

  13. [21]

    ordinary

    H. W. Broer, G. B. Huitema, A proof of the isoenergetic KAM-theorem from the “ordinary” one, J. Differential Equations 90 (1991) 52–60

    1991

  14. [22]

    Fassò, Superintegrable Hamiltonian systems: geometry and perturbations, Acta Appl

    F. Fassò, Superintegrable Hamiltonian systems: geometry and perturbations, Acta Appl. Math. 87 (2005) 93–121

    2005

  15. [23]

    Fonda, A

    A. Fonda, A. C. Gallo, Periodic perturbations with rotational symmetry of planar systems driven by a central force, J. Differential Equations 264 (2018) 7055–7068

    2018

  16. [24]

    Fonda, M

    A. Fonda, M. Garrione, P. Gidoni, Periodic perturbations of Hamiltonian systems, Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 5 (2016) 367–382. Bifurcation from periodic solutions of central force problems 31

    2016

  17. [25]

    Fonda, R

    A. Fonda, R. Toader, Periodic orbits of radially symmetric Keplerian-like systems: a topological degree approach, J. Differential Equations 244 (2008) 3235–3264

    2008

  18. [26]

    Fonda, A

    A. Fonda, A. J. Ureña, A higher dimensional Poincaré-Birkhoff theorem for Hamilton- ian flows, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré C Anal. Non Linéaire 34 (2017) 679–698

    2017

  19. [27]

    A. C. Gallo, Periodic solutions of perturbed central Hamiltonian systems, NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl. 26 (2019) Paper No. 34, 24 pp

    2019

  20. [28]

    Kato, Perturbation theory for linear operators, Classics in Mathematics, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1995

    T. Kato, Perturbation theory for linear operators, Classics in Mathematics, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1995

    1995

  21. [29]

    Levi-Civita, Fondamenti di Meccanica Relativistica, Zanichelli, Bologna, 1928

    T. Levi-Civita, Fondamenti di Meccanica Relativistica, Zanichelli, Bologna, 1928

    1928

  22. [30]

    Mawhin, M

    J. Mawhin, M. Willem, Critical point theory and Hamiltonian systems, vol. 74 of Applied Mathematical Sciences, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989

    1989

  23. [31]

    A. S. Mishchenko, A. T. Fomenko, A generalized Liouville method for the integration of Hamiltonian systems, Funkcional. Anal. i Priložen. 12 (1978) 46–56, 96

    1978

  24. [32]

    Montejano, A quick proof of Singhof’scat(M×S 1) = cat(M) + 1theorem, Manuscripta Math

    L. Montejano, A quick proof of Singhof’scat(M×S 1) = cat(M) + 1theorem, Manuscripta Math. 42 (1983) 49–52

    1983

  25. [33]

    Moser, E

    J. Moser, E. J. Zehnder, Notes on dynamical systems, vol. 12 of Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics, New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York; American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005

    2005

  26. [34]

    Ortega, D

    R. Ortega, D. Rojas, Relativistic effects in the dynamics of a particle in a Coulomb field, Phys. D 472 (2025) Paper No. 134534, 9 pp

    2025

  27. [35]

    P. H. Rabinowitz, Periodic solutions of a Hamiltonian system on a prescribed energy surface, J. Differential Equations 33 (1979) 336–352

    1979

  28. [36]

    Y. B. Rudyak, F. Schlenk, Lusternik-Schnirelmann theory for fixed points of maps, Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 21 (2003) 171–194

    2003

  29. [37]

    Singhof, Minimal coverings of manifolds with balls, Manuscripta Math

    W. Singhof, Minimal coverings of manifolds with balls, Manuscripta Math. 29 (1979) 385–415

    1979

  30. [38]

    Soave, Symbolic dynamics: from theN-centre to the(N+ 1)-body problem, a preliminary study, NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl

    N. Soave, Symbolic dynamics: from theN-centre to the(N+ 1)-body problem, a preliminary study, NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl. 21 (2014) 371–413

    2014

  31. [39]

    Weinstein, Normal modes for nonlinear Hamiltonian systems, Invent

    A. Weinstein, Normal modes for nonlinear Hamiltonian systems, Invent. Math. 20 (1973) 47–57

    1973

  32. [40]

    Giuseppe Peano

    A. Weinstein, Bifurcations and Hamilton’s principle, Math. Z. 159 (1978) 235–248. Alberto Boscaggin Dipartimento di Matematica “Giuseppe Peano” Università degli Studi di Torino Via Carlo Alberto 10, 10123 Torino, Italy e-mail:alberto.boscaggin@unito.it Guglielmo Feltrin Dipart...

    1978

Pith tools

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