Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Spencer-Riemann-Roch Theory: Mirror Symmetry of Hodge Decompositions and Characteristic Classes in Constrained Geometry

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 Mirror constraint pairs have matching Spencer-Riemann-Roch Euler characteristics.

desk verdict The paper's worked example contradicts its own mirror-symmetry theorem, and the Spencer differential is never proven to square to zero; desk-reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05915 v2 pith:2WWGMLBU submitted 2025-06-06 math.GM

Dongzhe Zheng This is my paper
classification math.GM MSC 14C4014F0553C07
keywords compatiblepairSpencercomplexmirrorsymmetrySpencer-HodgedecompositionRiemann-RochformulacharacteristicclassesGAGAprincipleconstrainedgeometryPSU(2)
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 claims that mirror symmetry in compatible pair Spencer theory is a topological phenomenon, not just a metric one. Working under strict Lie group conditions (compact, connected, semisimple, trivial center), it algebraizes Spencer complexes via Serre's GAGA correspondence and proves that flipping the dual constraint $\lambda$ to $-\lambda$ leaves all Chern classes, Chern characters, and Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch Euler characteristics of the Spencer complex unchanged. The central result is Theorem 14: $\chi(M,H^k_{\text{Spencer}}(D,\lambda))=\chi(M,H^k_{\text{Spencer}}(D,-\lambda))$ in every degree, with the total Euler characteristic mirror invariant. The paper verifies the theory by explicit PSU(2) computation on $\mathbb{C}P^2$, obtaining mirror-invariant degree-wise and total Euler characteristics. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that constrained geometry carries a mirror symmetry with computable topological invariants.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the compatible pair Spencer complex. Its $k$-th space is $S^k_{D,\lambda}=\Omega^k(M)\otimes\operatorname{Sym}^k(\mathfrak{g})$ and its differential is $D^k(\omega\otimes s)=d\omega\otimes s+(-1)^k\omega\otimes\delta^\lambda_\mathfrak{g}(s)$, where $\delta^\lambda_\mathfrak{g}$ is the graded derivation of $\operatorname{Sym}^\bullet(\mathfrak{g})$ defined by nested Lie brackets paired with $\lambda$. The mirror identity $\delta^{-\lambda}_\mathfrak{g}=-\delta^\lambda_\mathfrak{g}$ makes the mirror Spencer differential equal to the original plus an explicit zero-order operator $R^k=-2(-1)^k\omega\otimes\delta^\lambda_\mathfrak{g}(s)$. Because $R^k$ is lower-order relative to the elliptic exterior-differential part, the argument transfers harmonic spaces, Hodge decompositions, and dimensions between mirror pairs. Under GAGA these complexes become coherent sheaf complexes, and Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch converts their Euler characteristics into integrals of $\operatorname{ch}(\Omega^k_M\otimes\operatorname{Sym}^k(G_\lambda))\wedge\operatorname{td}(M)$.

What would settle it

Take $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{su}(2)$ with a basis $e_1,e_2,e_3$, pick a nonzero $\lambda$, and evaluate $(\delta^\lambda_\mathfrak{g})^2(e_1)$ on three test vectors using the two rules in Definition 1; if the result is nonzero for any choice of $\lambda$ and test vectors, then $D^{k+1}D^k\neq 0$ and the cochain complex, Hodge decomposition, and Theorem 14 are not defined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery presented is that the mirror transformation $(D,\lambda)\mapsto(D,-\lambda)$, already known to preserve Spencer metrics and cohomology at the analytic level, is equivalent at the characteristic-class level to equality of the adjoint bundles $G_\lambda$ and $G_{-\lambda}$: equal curvature forms, equal Chern classes, equal Chern characters for $G$ and all $\operatorname{Sym}^k(G)$, and consequently equal Riemann-Roch integrals. Theorem 14 states that for every degree $k$, $\chi(M,H^k_{\text{Spencer}}(D,\lambda))=\chi(M,H^k_{\text{Spencer}}(D,-\lambda))$, and Corollary 15 packages this as a single integral formula for the total Euler characteristic. The explicit PSU(2) computation on $\mathbb{P}^2$ is intended as complete verification: degree-wise values $3/2$, $-2a$, and $18-7a/2$, total $39/2-3a/2$, all unchanged when $a$ is replaced by $-a$.

Load-bearing premise

In Section 2.1 the paper asserts, citing [Zhe25c, Zhe25a] but not proving it here, that $(\delta^\lambda_\mathfrak{g})^2=0$; if that nilpotency failed, $D^{k+1}D^k$ would not vanish, and Spencer cohomology, the Hodge isomorphism, and all Riemann-Roch results would be undefined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mirror compatible pairs have equal Spencer-Betti numbers $b_k=\dim H^k_{\text{Spencer}}(D,\lambda)$ in every degree, so mirror symmetry is visible in cohomology dimensions alone.
  • The Spencer-Riemann-Roch formula gives a direct computational path: $\chi(M,H^k_{\text{Spencer}}(D,\lambda))=\int_M \operatorname{ch}(\Omega^k_M\otimes\operatorname{Sym}^k(G_\lambda))\wedge\operatorname{td}(M)$, with explicit symmetric-polynomial expansions for $\operatorname{ch}(\operatorname{Sym}^k(G))$.
  • GAGA makes algebraic and analytic Spencer theories interchangeable: computations can be done with coherent sheaves on an algebraic manifold and transferred to analytic principal bundles.
  • For PSU(2) on $\mathbb{P}^2$, the listed degree-wise values and total $39/2-3a/2$ are invariant under $a\mapsto-a$, giving a concrete numerical check of mirror symmetry.
  • The framework unifies the Spencer-Hodge decomposition, the mirror cohomology isomorphism, and Riemann-Roch evaluation into one total Euler characteristic formula for constrained geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the cited nilpotency of $\delta^\lambda_\mathfrak{g}$ is supplied with a proof, the same characteristic-class argument suggests a general constrained-geometry index theorem: the Spencer Euler characteristic depends only on $\operatorname{ch}(G_\lambda)$ and $\operatorname{td}(M)$, making the PSU(2) numbers one example of a broader invariant.
  • Editorial extension: because mirror invariance holds at the level of Chern characters, any observable or invariant built from $\operatorname{ch}(G_\lambda)$ in a constrained mechanical or gauge system would be automatically mirror-symmetric; this gives a testable signature of mirror symmetry without solving the Spencer Laplacian.
  • Editorial extension: relaxing the strict Lie group conditions, for instance allowing finite center, is the natural stress test; a compact connected semisimple group with nontrivial center where the mirror Euler characteristic changes would mark the boundary of the theorem.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an algebraic-geometric formulation of compatible-pair Spencer complex theory, claiming mirror symmetry of Spencer-Hodge decompositions at the level of characteristic classes and Riemann-Roch-type Euler characteristic formulas. The central result, Theorem 14, asserts that the per-degree and total Euler characteristics are invariant under the mirror transformation (D,λ) ↦ (D,−λ). Section 6 attempts to verify these claims by an explicit computation for PSU(2)-compatible pairs on the complex projective plane P², obtaining numerical values for χ(P²,H^k_Spencer) and for the total Euler characteristic.

Significance. If the central claims were valid, the paper would establish a substantive bridge between constrained differential geometry and algebraic geometry, with explicit characteristic-class formulas and a concrete verification on P². The manuscript does make a genuine attempt at a falsifiable computation: the PSU(2)/P² example is concrete, the Chern character computations are written out step by step, and the claimed mirror equalities are numerically checkable. These strengths, however, are undermined by load-bearing gaps: the nilpotency of the Spencer extension operator is asserted without proof, the P² verification contains arithmetically inconsistent mirror identities, and the degree-zero computation contradicts the Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch theorem for the structure sheaf. The main theorems therefore do not currently rest on a sound foundation.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] The nilpotency of the Spencer extension operator δ^λ_g is asserted without proof: the text states that (δ^λ_g)²=0 and mirror antisymmetry are 'derived directly from this definition [Zhe25c, Zhe25a]', but no derivation is given. For a graded derivation of degree +1 on Sym(g), δ²=0 is a nontrivial condition and does not follow from the graded Leibniz rule alone; on generators it is equivalent to identities of the form ⟨λ,[e_i,[e_j,e_k]]⟩=0, which are not established. Since Eq. (4) defines the Spencer differentials D^k via δ^λ_g, the condition D^{k+1}D^k=0, and hence the existence of Spencer cohomology H^k_Spencer, the Hodge isomorphism of Corollary 3, and every Riemann-Roch formula in Section 5, all depend on this unproved assertion. This is a foundational, load-bearing gap.
  2. [§6.6] The explicit verification is internally inconsistent. §6.5 computes χ(P²,H²_Spencer)=27−7a/2, but §6.6 uses 18−7a/2 when forming the total Euler characteristic and when stating the mirror value. Moreover, the mirror equalities written in §6.6, namely 2a=−2a, 18+7a/2=18−7a/2, and 39/2+3a/2=39/2−3a/2, hold only for a=0, whereas §6.3 fixes a=1. Consequently the numerical example does not verify mirror symmetry; as written it contradicts Theorem 14.
  3. [§6.5] The degree-zero computation contradicts the manuscript's own definition of H^0_Spencer. §6.2 states that S⁰=H⁰(P²,O_{P²})=C, and since D⁰ maps this one-dimensional space by the exterior differential, H⁰_Spencer should be H⁰(P²,O_{P²}), of dimension 1. But Eq. (56)–(58) compute χ(P²,H⁰_Spencer)=3/2 by integrating ch(O_{P²})∧td(P²), using the degree-2 component 3H²/2 of the Todd class. This is not the Euler characteristic of the actual cohomology and suggests that Eq. (37) is computing an integral of a characteristic-class expression rather than the Euler characteristic of the Spencer cohomology.
  4. [§4.2–4.3] The proof of mirror invariance of the Spencer metric reduces to the identity w_{−λ}(x)=1+∥−λ∥²=1+∥λ∥²=w_λ(x), which holds by definition of the norm. Therefore the subsequent equality of Chern classes, ch(G_λ)=ch(G_{−λ}), is forced by the sign-invariant quadratic weight rather than by any geometric content. Similarly, in Theorem 9 the key step that K^k h̃=0 for h̃ in the mirror harmonic space is asserted without a proof and is not a standard consequence of 'geometric properties of mirror transformation'; this leaves the claimed equality of harmonic-space dimensions unsupported.
  5. [§2.2] The Hodge decomposition theory that the paper relies on is imported from the self-citations [Zhe25d, Zhe25a] rather than proved or summarized in sufficient detail. In particular, the finite-dimensionality of harmonic spaces, the existence of Green operators, and the identity ker(D^k)∩im((D^{k+1})*) = im(D^{k-1}) are standard elliptic-theory facts only when the complex exists and is elliptic; since ellipticity itself rests on unproved assertions about strong transversality and nilpotency, the current manuscript does not provide a self-contained foundation for Theorem 2 or Corollary 3.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2] The formula ch(Ω^k_M)=Λ^k(ch(T^*M)) is written in a way that is not standard; the Chern character of an exterior power is not obtained by applying an exterior-power operation to a scalar Chern character, and the intended meaning should be clarified or the formula corrected.
  2. [§5.2] In Eq. (43), the notation e_k(−c_1(TM),c_2(TM),...) is introduced without defining the domain of the map e_k; this should be made explicit.
  3. [§6.4] The remark states that the computation uses ch(G)=3−H² by taking a=1, but the displayed formula for ch(Sym²(G)) is then written with a general a; the two presentations should be harmonized.
  4. [§6.6] Equation (79) repeats the inconsistent degree-2 value 18−7a/2 instead of the value 27−7a/2 computed in Eq. (77); this should be corrected regardless of the outcome of the verification.
  5. [References] The paper repeatedly refers to the four preprints [Zhe25b, Zhe25c, Zhe25a, Zhe25d] for foundational facts, but reference [Zhe25d] is listed as 'arXiv preprint' without a number; at least one complete identifier should be supplied.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Central mirror symmetry is the defining sign-invariance of the metric weight, and the Spencer-complex differential rests on an unproved nilpotency imported from the author's own preprints; the numerical verification is internally inconsistent.

  1. self definitional [§2.2 eq. (7); §4.2 Theorem 7, Step 1]
    "Spencer metrics are naturally induced based on the geometric structure of compatible pairs, where constraint strength metrics use weight functions 𝑤𝜆(𝑥)=1+∥𝜆(𝑝)∥2𝔤∗ to construct inner products ... Mirror invariance of Spencer metrics means constraint strength weight functions satisfy 𝑤−𝜆(𝑥)=𝑤𝜆(𝑥), directly from: 𝑤−𝜆(𝑥)=1+∥(−𝜆)(𝑝)∥2𝔤∗=1+∥𝜆(𝑝)∥2𝔤∗=𝑤𝜆(𝑥)."

    The asserted mirror invariance is exactly the statement that the function x ↦ 1+||x||² is even. Because the Spencer metric was defined with this squared-norm weight, the 'invariance' is an identity in the definition, not a geometric theorem. Theorem 7 then concludes that the Hermitian geometries and Chern classes of G_λ and G_−λ are equal from this identity, and Corollary 8 and Theorem 14 inherit that conclusion. Thus the central mirror prediction is fixed by construction; no property of the Spencer complex or of the compatible pair is needed to derive it.

  2. self citation load bearing [§2.1, Definition 1 and eq. (4)]
    "Spencer differential operators are composed of standard exterior differentials and Spencer extension operators: D𝑘𝐷,𝜆(𝜔⊗𝑠)=𝑑𝜔⊗𝑠+(−1)𝑘𝜔⊗𝛿𝜆𝔤(𝑠) (4) ... Key algebraic properties, such as nilpotency((𝛿𝜆𝔤)2=0)and mirror antisymmetry(𝛿−𝜆𝔤=−𝛿𝜆𝔤), are derived directly from this definition [Zhe25c, Zhe25a]."

    Equation (4) makes D^{k+1}D^k equal, up to sign, to the action of (δ^λ_g)^2 on the symmetric tensor factor. Definition 1 only specifies δ^λ_g as a graded derivation of degree +1; the graded Leibniz rule alone does not imply that its square vanishes on generators or on products. The paper provides no proof of nilpotency and instead sends the reader to two same-author preprints. If (δ^λ_g)^2=0 fails, the Spencer sequence is not a cochain complex, H^k_Spencer in (10) is undefined, and the Hodge, HRR and mirror formulas in Theorems 2, 10 and 14 are vacuous. This is a load-bearing property imported by self-citation rather than established.

2 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§4.3 Theorem 9, Step 3]
    "But the precise result in reference[Zhe25d] gives: dim ker(Δ𝑘𝐷,𝜆)=dim ker(Δ𝑘𝐷,−𝜆) ... Proof of precise equivalence: Letℎ∈H𝑘𝐷,𝜆 ... Δ𝑘𝐷,−𝜆ℎ˜=(Δ𝑘𝐷,𝜆+K𝑘)ℎ˜=K𝑘ℎ˜. Due to geometric properties of mirror transformation and strict Lie group conditions, K𝑘ℎ˜=0, therefore ℎ˜∈H𝑘𝐷,−𝜆."

    The needed equality of harmonic-space dimensions is first quoted verbatim from the author's earlier preprint [Zhe25d], and then the following 'proof' re-asserts the conclusion by declaring K^k h̃=0. No definition of the mirror map h ↦ h̃ is given and no argument shows the perturbation K^k annihilates harmonic forms; that vanishing is precisely the mirror invariance being proved. Thus the mirror Hodge decomposition equivalence is not derived in the paper; it is either imported from the self-citation or assumed in the proof.

  2. self definitional [§5.3 Theorem 14, Step 1]
    "By characteristic class mirror equivalence(32): ch(Ω𝑘𝑀⊗Sym𝑘(G𝜆))=ch(Ω𝑘𝑀⊗Sym𝑘(G−𝜆)) This equivalence is the manifestation of Spencer metric mirror invariance at the characteristic class level."

    Theorem 14's conclusion — χ(M,H^k_Spencer(D,λ)) = χ(M,H^k_Spencer(D,−λ)) — is obtained by substituting this Chern-character identity into the HRR integral. But the identity is the same defining sign-invariance of w_λ = 1+||λ||² carried through Chern-Weil theory, plus the fact that the adjoint bundle G is independent of λ. The Riemann-Roch mirror equality is therefore not a prediction of the theory; it is the metric's definitional evenness repackaged as the paper's strongest theorem.

full rationale

Standard external ingredients — Serre GAGA, Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch, Chern-Weil theory, and elliptic Hodge theory — are real evidence and are not counted against the paper. The circularity lies in the specialization that produces the mirror claims. The mirror invariance of the Spencer metric is an identity in the definition of the weight w_λ=1+||λ||², so the characteristic-class equivalence in Theorem 7 and the mirror Riemann-Roch equalities in Theorem 14 are forced by construction. Separately, nilpotency of the Spencer extension operator is load-bearing for the entire complex and is merely asserted with citations to same-author preprints rather than proved. Theorem 9 similarly imports its key equality from [Zhe25d] and then asserts the needed vanishing K^k h̃=0 without argument. The §6.6 verification is also internally inconsistent: §6.5 computes χ(P²,H²_Spencer)=27−7a/2, §6.6 uses 18−7a/2 in the total sum, and the written mirror equalities 2a=−2a, 18+7a/2=18−7a/2, and 39/2+3a/2=39/2−3a/2 force a=0 although §6.3 fixes a=1. That is a correctness defect rather than circularity, but it removes the claimed numerical confirmation. Because the central new claim reduces either to a definitional identity or to a self-citation chain, the circularity score is 8.

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

The central claim rests on unproved nilpotency of the Spencer extension operator, an unsupported ellipticity assertion, the applicability of GAGA to PSU(2) principal bundles, and the strict Lie group conditions inherited from earlier self-cited preprints. The only hand-chosen numerical parameter is a=c_2(G)/H^2, set to 1 in the example.

free parameters (1)
  • a = c_2(G) coefficient in H^2 = a=1 (chosen, not fitted; topological invariant for the non-trivial PSU(2) bundle)
    Introduced in §6.3 for the P^2 example: c_2(G)=aH^2. The value a=1 is chosen by hand for a non-trivial principal bundle. The mirror verification incorrectly changes a to -a for (D,-λ), although a is fixed by the principal bundle and not by λ.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The Spencer extension operator δ^λ_g is nilpotent, (δ^λ_g)^2=0, so the Spencer sequence is a cochain complex.
    Stated in §2.1 immediately after Definition 1 with citation to [Zhe25c, Zhe25a] but no proof. If false, Spencer cohomology and all Riemann-Roch statements are undefined.
  • ad hoc to paper Strong transversality D_p⊕V_p=T_pP implies ellipticity of the Spencer complex with injective principal symbol.
    Invoked in §2.5 and Theorem 2 proof Step 1. The paper claims the symbol of the exterior differential is injective, which is false for k>0 because ξ∧(ξ∧η)=0, so this ellipticity argument is unsupported.
  • domain assumption GAGA applies to the algebraic principal PSU(2)-bundle and identifies algebraic and analytic Spencer complexes.
    Used in §2.4, equation (13). Standard GAGA requires projective algebraic varieties and algebraic coherent sheaves; the paper assumes this without checking that the PSU(2)-principal bundles are algebraic.
  • ad hoc to paper PSU(2) admits a complex algebraic group structure compatible with the GAGA setup.
    §6.1 says PSU(2)=SU(2)/Z_2 admits a complex algebraic group structure. PSU(2) is a compact real Lie group; its complexification is SL(2,C), so the claimed complex algebraic structure is questionable and unproved.
  • domain assumption Compact, connected, semi-simple, trivial-center Lie group assumptions suffice for all elliptic regularity, Hodge decomposition, and Riemann-Roch results used.
    Repeatedly stated in §2-§5. These are standard assumptions, but their sufficiency for the specific Spencer complexes is asserted rather than proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spencer-Riemann-Roch Theory: Mirror Symmetry of Hodge Decompositions and Characteristic Classes in Constrained Geometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2WWGMLBU

@misc{pith2026250605915,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spencer-Riemann-Roch Theory: Mirror Symmetry of Hodge Decompositions and Characteristic Classes in Constrained Geometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2WWGMLBU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05915}
}
read the original abstract

The discovery of mirror symmetry in compatible pair Spencer complex theory brings new theoretical tools to the study of constrained geometry. Inspired by classical Spencer theory and modern Hodge theory, this paper establishes Spencer-Riemann-Roch theory in the context of constrained geometry, systematically studying the mirror symmetry of Spencer-Hodge decompositions and their manifestations in algebraic geometry. We utilize Serre's GAGA principle to algebraic geometrize Spencer complexes, establish coherent sheaf formulations, and reveal the topological essence of mirror symmetry through characteristic class theory. Main results include: Riemann-Roch type Euler characteristic computation formulas for Spencer complexes, equivalence theorems for mirror symmetry of Hodge decompositions at the characteristic class level, and verification of these theories in concrete geometric constructions. Research shows that algebraic geometric methods can not only reproduce deep results from differential geometry, but also reveal the intrinsic structure of mirror symmetry in constrained geometry through characteristic class analysis, opening new directions for applications of Spencer theory in constrained geometry.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Rigidity of Constraint: A Spencer-Hodge Theoretic Approach to the Hodge Conjecture

    math.GM 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper reduces the Hodge conjecture to premises that already assert the desired equality, and its K3 example rests on an invalid elliptic fibration claim.

  2. Extension Research of Principal Bundle Constraint System Theory on Ricci-flat K\"ahler Manifolds

    math.GM 2025-06 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    The paper asserts that compatible-pair constraint theory is curvature-independent, but the proofs it gives contain a sign error and an unjustified Spencer differential construction.

  3. Spencer Differential Degeneration Theory and Its Applications in Algebraic Geometry

    math.GM 2025-06 reject novelty 1.0 of 10

    The degeneration of the Spencer differential to the exterior derivative is a trivial consequence of its definition, and the K3 application is invalid because K3 surfaces are not parallelizable.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Michael Francis Atiyah and Isadore M. Singer. The index of elliptic operators on compact manifolds. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society , 69(3):422--433, 1963

    work page 1963

  2. [2]

    A simple intrinsic proof of the gauss-bonnet formula for closed riemannian manifolds

    Shiing-Shen Chern. A simple intrinsic proof of the gauss-bonnet formula for closed riemannian manifolds. Annals of Mathematics , 45(4):747--752, 1944

    1944

  3. [3]

    Intersection Theory , volume 2 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete

    William Fulton. Intersection Theory , volume 2 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete . Springer-Verlag, 2nd edition, 1998

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Principles of Algebraic Geometry

    Phillip Griffiths and Joseph Harris. Principles of Algebraic Geometry . Pure and Applied Mathematics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1978

    work page 1978

  5. [5]

    Integrability criteria for systems of nonlinear partial differential equations

    Hubert Goldschmidt. Integrability criteria for systems of nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Differential Geometry , 1(3-4):269--307, 1967

    work page 1967

  6. [6]

    Sur quelques points d'algèbre homologique

    Alexander Grothendieck. Sur quelques points d'algèbre homologique. Tohoku Mathematical Journal , 9(2):119--221, 1957

    work page 1957

  7. [7]

    Topological Methods in Algebraic Geometry , volume 131 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften

    Friedrich Hirzebruch. Topological Methods in Algebraic Geometry , volume 131 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften . Springer-Verlag, 3rd edition, 1966

    work page 1966

  8. [8]

    Mirror Symmetry

    Kentaro Hori, Sheldon Katz, Albrecht Klemm, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Thomas, Cumrun Vafa, Ravi Vakil, and Eric Zaslow. Mirror Symmetry . American Mathematical Society, 2003. Clay Mathematics Monographs, Volume 1

    work page 2003

Show all 21 references
  1. [9]

    Humphreys

    James E. Humphreys. Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory , volume 9 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1972

    1972

  2. [10]

    Macdonald

    Ian G. Macdonald. Symmetric Functions and Hall Polynomials . Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1998

    1998

  3. [11]

    Milnor and James D

    John W. Milnor and James D. Stasheff. Characteristic Classes , volume 76 of Annals of Mathematics Studies . Princeton University Press, 1974

    1974

  4. [12]

    Formal properties of over-determined systems of linear partial differential equations

    Daniel Quillen. Formal properties of over-determined systems of linear partial differential equations. Harvard University PhD thesis , 1964

    1964

  5. [13]

    G \'e om \'e trie alg \'e brique et g \'e om \'e trie analytique

    Jean-Pierre Serre. G \'e om \'e trie alg \'e brique et g \'e om \'e trie analytique. Annales de l'Institut Fourier , 6:1--42, 1956

    1956

  6. [14]

    Richard W. Sharpe. Differential Geometry: Cartan's Generalization of Klein's Erlangen Program , volume 166 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, 1997

    1997

  7. [15]

    Deformation of structures on manifolds defined by transitive, continuous pseudogroups

    Donald Clayton Spencer. Deformation of structures on manifolds defined by transitive, continuous pseudogroups. Annals of Mathematics , 76(2):306--445, 1962

    1962

  8. [16]

    The invariants of algebraic loci

    John Arthur Todd. The invariants of algebraic loci. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society , 43(2):190--225, 1937

    1937

  9. [17]

    Frank W. Warner. Foundations of Differentiable Manifolds and Lie Groups , volume 94 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, 1983

    1983

  10. [18]

    Constructing two metrics for spencer cohomology: Hodge decomposition of constrained bundles

    Dongzhe Zheng. Constructing two metrics for spencer cohomology: Hodge decomposition of constrained bundles. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00752 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dynamical geometric theory of principal bundle constrained systems: Strong transversality conditions and variational framework for gauge field coupling

    Dongzhe Zheng. Dynamical geometric theory of principal bundle constrained systems: Strong transversality conditions and variational framework for gauge field coupling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16766 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Geometric duality between constraints and gauge fields: Mirror symmetry and spencer isomorphisms of compatible pairs on principal bundles

    Dongzhe Zheng. Geometric duality between constraints and gauge fields: Mirror symmetry and spencer isomorphisms of compatible pairs on principal bundles. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00728 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Mirror symmetry of spencer-hodge decompositions in constrained geometric systems

    Dongzhe Zheng. Mirror symmetry of spencer-hodge decompositions in constrained geometric systems. arXiv preprint , 2025

    2025

Pith tools

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