Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Green functions and a positive mass theorem for asymptotically hyperbolic $3$-manifolds

T0 review · 2 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 Asymptotically hyperbolic 3-manifolds with scalar curvature at least -6 have nonnegative volume-renormalized mass.

desk verdict A genuinely new monotonicity method and a likely-true positive mass theorem, but the density step in Theorem 1.3 has a concrete convergence gap that the authors wave off as minor; it is load-bearing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07108 v1 pith:NEE2LRY3 submitted 2025-06-08 math.DG

Klaus Kroencke , Francesca Oronzio , Alan Pinoy This is my paper
classification math.DG MSC 53C2131C1253C2453Z05
keywords positivemasstheoremasymptoticallyhyperbolicmanifoldsvolume-renormalizedGreenfunctionmonotonicityformulascalarcurvaturerigidity3-manifolds
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 proves a positive mass theorem for three-dimensional asymptotically hyperboloidal manifolds: if the manifold is orientable, has asymptotic order $\delta>1$, scalar curvature $R\ge -6$, and its second homology contains no spherical classes, then the volume-renormalized mass $m_{\mathrm{VR}}(g)$ is nonnegative, and it vanishes exactly for hyperbolic space $(\mathbb{H}^3,g_{\mathrm{hyp}})$. This matters because $m_{\mathrm{VR}}$ is a geometrically defined mass for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds, and previous versions of the theorem needed the topology to be that of $\mathbb{H}^3$. The argument follows the level sets of the Green function centered at an arbitrary point, proving a monotonicity formula whose limits at the pole and at infinity sandwich the mass. The proof first works under an assumed expansion of the Green function and then removes the assumption by a conformal normalization and density argument.

What carries the argument

The monotone quantity is the function $F(t)$ on the level sets $\Sigma_t=\{u=2-\coth t\}$, with $u=1-4\pi G_o$ for the minimal positive Green function $G_o$. It combines the flux $\int_{\Sigma_t}|\nabla u|^2$, the mean-curvature term $\int_{\Sigma_t}|\nabla u| H$, and two volume corrections in $\{u<2-\coth t\}$. Under $R\ge -6$, its derivative is a sum of nonnegative terms: a Gauss-Bonnet term, $(R+6)/2$, a trace-free second fundamental form term, and a squared mean-curvature deviation term. The asymptotic expansion $G_o=\phi(\xi)e^{-2r}+O_2(e^{-3r})$ supplied by the polyhomogeneous theory is what converts the large-$t$ limit of $F$ into the boundary integral defining $m_{\mathrm{VR}}(g)$.

What would settle it

Compute $m_{\mathrm{VR}}(g)$ for an orientable asymptotically hyperboloidal 3-manifold with order $\delta>1$, $R\ge -6$, and $H_2(M;\mathbb{Z})$ free of spherical classes: one example with negative mass disproves the theorem. A more targeted check looks at the density step: produce two $C^{2,\alpha}_\delta$-close metrics of scalar curvature $-6$, one polyhomogeneous and one not, whose $m_{\mathrm{VR}}$ differ by more than the approximation error claimed in the proof.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.3: for orientable three-dimensional $(M,g)$ that is asymptotically hyperboloidal of order $\delta>1$, with $R\ge -6$ and with $H_2(M;\mathbb{Z})$ containing no spherical classes, one has $m_{\mathrm{VR}}(g)\ge 0$, with equality if and only if $(M,g)$ is isometric to $(\mathbb{H}^3,g_{\mathrm{hyp}})$. The no-spherical-classes condition is the topological input: it guarantees that every regular level set of the Green function is either connected or has no sphere components, so each component contributes nonnegatively in the Gauss-Bonnet term of the monotone quantity. The proof also establishes a standalone monotonicity theorem (Theorem 1.5) along level sets of $u=1-4\pi G_o$, and the mass inequality follows by showing that the monotone function tends to $0$ at the pole and is asymptotically bounded above by $\tfrac12 m_{\mathrm{VR}}(g)$ at infinity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the volume-renormalized mass is stable under the approximations used to obtain the Green function expansion; if that stability fails in the allowed regularity class, Theorem 1.3 would only be proved for the restricted metrics where the expansion already holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every orientable asymptotically hyperboloidal 3-manifold of order $\delta>1$ with $R\ge -6$ and no spherical second-homology classes has $m_{\mathrm{VR}}(g)\ge 0$.
  • If $m_{\mathrm{VR}}(g)=0$ under those hypotheses, the manifold is isometric to hyperbolic space $\mathbb{H}^3$, so zero mass forces the unique rigid geometry.
  • This extends the earlier version of the theorem, which was restricted to manifolds diffeomorphic to $\mathbb{H}^3$, to a broad class of topologies (any prime decomposition without $S^1\times S^2$ factors).
  • The no-spherical-classes hypothesis excludes connected-sum factors $S^1\times S^2$; for one-ended manifolds it is equivalent to the absence of nonseparating spheres.
  • The monotonicity theorem itself holds in the more general class of complete noncompact $P_2$-irreducible 3-manifolds with $R\ge -6$, which may be useful beyond the mass theorem.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The density step is the part to scrutinize: Theorem 1.3 is first proved only for metrics whose Green function has the expansion (5.1), and the passage to general metrics is delegated to an approximation argument described as very similar to a result in the authors' earlier paper, without all hypotheses verified. If that approximation cannot be made to preserve the mass in the $C^{2,\alpha}_\delta$
  • The same monotonicity machinery could plausibly yield quantitative refinements, such as explicit lower bounds on $m_{\mathrm{VR}}$ in terms of the size of the level sets or the Green function's sublevel sets, rather than only its sign.
  • Because the argument is potential-theoretic rather than spinorial or minimal-surface based, it may adapt to nonorientable manifolds using the $P_2$-irreducible version, or to other mass invariants defined by volume renormalization for different conformal infinities.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a positive mass theorem for three-dimensional asymptotically hyperboloidal manifolds of order δ > 1, with scalar curvature bounded below by −6 and with no spherical classes in H_2(M;Z). The mass quantity is the volume-renormalized mass m_VR introduced by Dahl, Kröncke, and McCormick. The proof uses a monotonicity formula along the level sets of the Green function centered at an arbitrary point, together with asymptotic expansions of the Green function on polyhomogeneous asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds and a low-regularity Yamabe normalization. The main results are Theorem 1.3 (the positive mass theorem and rigidity), Theorem 1.5 (the monotonicity formula), Theorem 3.1 (Green function asymptotics), Theorem 5.1 (the positive mass inequality under a Green expansion assumption), and Theorem 5.3 (a Yamabe-type theorem for C^{2,α}_δ perturbations).

Significance. If the final approximation step can be made rigorous, this is a substantial contribution: it extends the positive mass theorem for the volume-renormalized mass from the diffeomorphic-to-H^3 case in [12] to a large class of topologies, and the rigidity statement identifies the unique zero-mass space. The monotonicity formula is a meaningful extension of the Agostiniani–Mazzieri–Oronzio method, and Section 3 provides useful, detailed asymptotics for Green functions on asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds. The paper also offers a variational view of m_VR through the renormalized Einstein–Hilbert action. However, the proof of Theorem 1.3 contains a load-bearing approximation argument that, as written, is not valid; this must be repaired before the main theorem is established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Proof of Theorem 1.3, density step (pp. 27–28)] The approximation sequence in the proof of Theorem 1.3 cannot exist as stated, and this is not a minor modification of [12, Theorem 4.8]. The proof fixes a metric b that coincides with φ^*g_hyp near the boundary and chooses g_i → \bar g in C^{2,α}_δ(M;S^2T^*M) with g_i − b supported in a b-geodesic ball of radius r_i → ∞. Let W = ρ^{-δ}(\bar g − b)|_{∂M}. After the Yamabe normalization of Theorem 5.3, W need not vanish: for δ ∈ (1,2), δ is not an indicial root of the conformal Laplacian in dimension 3 (the roots are −1 and 3), so a generic ρ^δ coefficient in g − b produces a nonzero ρ^δ coefficient in \bar g − b. Outside the support of g_i − b one has ρ^{-δ}(g_i − \bar g) = −ρ^{-δ}(\bar g − b), whose boundary value is −W ≠ 0. Hence g_i does not converge to \bar g in C^{2,α}_δ, and the subsequent appeals to [12, Proposition 4.3] and to continuity of S(g) have no hypotheses to act on. The argument may be repairable by approximating the normalized difference s = ρ^{-δ}(\bar g − b) in C^{2,α} by smooth sections and setting g_i = b + ρ^δ s_i, which gives polyhomogeneous metrics without the compact-support condition; however, this construction must be written out and the convergence of the corresponding Yamabe conformal factors re-verified. As it stands, the reduction of the general case to Theorem 5.1 is incomplete.
  2. [Theorem 5.1, Step 7 (pp. 23–26)] The asymptotic expansions in Step 7 are the core of the comparison with m_VR, and they depend critically on the order δ > 1, in particular through estimate (5.18). While the argument is plausible, several displayed expansions (e.g., (5.15) and (5.16)) combine Christoffel symbol differences, weighted error terms, and the divergence theorem in a way that is hard to verify from the text; the notation gΓ^k_{ij} and bΓ^k_{ij} is not explicitly defined. The authors should either provide a fuller derivation of the leading-order cancellation or state clearly which computations are delegated to [1] and [12]. This is not an independent obstruction if the density step is fixed, but it should be clarified in revision.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: "similiar" (p. 2), "countaining" (p. 7), "devided" (p. 7), "hyperboloildal" (p. 17), and "Poincar´ e" (p. 2); these should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2 and Step 4 of Theorem 5.1] The symbols gΓ^k_{ij} and bΓ^k_{ij} are used repeatedly but never defined; the authors should state explicitly that these are the Christoffel symbols of g and b, respectively.
  3. [Theorem 5.3] In Theorem 5.3 the conformally changed metric is denoted g = φ^{4/(n-1)}g, reusing the symbol g for both the original and the conformal metric; this makes the proof difficult to follow. Using \bar g consistently for the conformal metric would improve readability.
  4. [Equation (1.1)] In the definition of asymptotically hyperboloidal of order δ, the norm on C^{2,α}(H^{n+1}\setminus B_R, g_hyp) is not specified precisely; the display also has a typesetting issue with the subscript. Please clarify that the norm is taken with respect to g_hyp and over the stated region.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional or fitted-input circularity: the monotonicity formula, Green-function asymptotics and mass-limit computations are proved independently; the principal self-citations to [12] supply mass definitions and analytic properties whose assumptions do not include Theorem 1.3.

full rationale

The derivation chain runs from Theorem 3.1 (existence and asymptotics of the Green function), through the monotonicity formula Theorem 1.5 and the limit computations in Steps 1-7 of Theorem 5.1, to the density argument in Theorem 1.3. None of these steps defines its output in terms of the target inequality, and no parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The most cited ingredient is the authors' prior paper [12], from which the paper imports the mass functional m_VR, conformal monotonicity (Proposition 3.6 and Theorem E), Yamabe solvability and continuity (Proposition 4.3), and the zero-mass rigidity used in the equality case (Corollary 4.4). These are genuine self-citations, but they are parameter-free and their stated assumptions do not contain Theorem 1.3's conclusion; [12, Theorem D] is explicitly presented as the H^3 special case being generalized, not as a hidden assumption. The one substantive concern in the paper is not circularity: the approximating sequence in the proof of Theorem 1.3 is asserted with the comment that the argument is 'very similar to the proof of [12, Theorem 4.8]' and may fail for a generic nonzero boundary value of the weighted difference, which is a completeness or correctness risk rather than a reduction of the theorem to its inputs. Accordingly the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities. The central proof rests on topologically and analytically standard regularity results, most of which are cited from [19], [4], [12], [26], [5], and classical isoperimetric theorems. The most user-supplied input is the density and continuity step for m_VR, which is imported from [12].

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Polyhomogeneous or sufficiently regular asymptotically hyperbolic metrics form a dense subset of C^{2,α}_δ metrics, and the Yamabe problem is solvable for them
    Invoked in the density argument (Theorem 5.3 and proof of Theorem 1.3); relies on [12, Proposition 4.3] and [5, Theorem 1.7].
  • domain assumption The volume-renormalized mass m_VR is well-defined, independent of the exhaustion and chart, and monotone under conformal change, and on scalar-curvature -6 metrics it equals minus the renormalized Einstein-Hilbert action
    Imported from [12, Theorem 3.1, Proposition 3.6, Theorem E, Corollary 4.4]. These properties are load-bearing for Steps 6-8 of Theorem 5.1 and for the density argument.
  • domain assumption For an orientable 3-manifold with no spherical classes in H_2(M;Z), every regular level set of u is connected or has no sphere components, so the Gauss-Bonnet term in F'(t) is nonnegative
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1.5 via [26, Lemma 2.3]; this is the topological input to monotonicity.
  • domain assumption The Green function G_o exists, is positive, vanishes at infinity, and has the two-sided estimates and expansion (3.8) or (5.1)
    Existence is proven in Theorem 3.1 for asymptotically hyperbolic metrics, but the precise expansion (5.1) is assumed in Theorem 5.1 and used to compute lim F(t); the paper removes it by density.
  • standard math Willmore-type inequality (1/4)∫Σ H^2 ≥ 4π + Area(Σ) for closed surfaces in hyperbolic space and the hyperbolic isoperimetric inequality
    Used in Step 6 of Theorem 5.1 to bound Q_1(t); cited to [9, 28, 8, 27, 31].
  • standard math Weighted Hölder elliptic theory for the Laplacian on conformally compact manifolds, including the indicial radius and isomorphism estimates
    Used in Lemma 3.2 and Proposition 3.5; cited to Lee [19] and Allen-Isenberg-Lee-Stavrov Allen [4].
  • domain assumption R ≥ -6 on (M,g), complete noncompact orientable 3-manifold, and level sets of u are compact with finite measure
    These are hypotheses of Theorem 1.5 and are needed for F to be well-defined and monotone; compactness and finiteness from [16, Theorem 1.7] and [15, Theorem 1.1].
  • standard math In dimension 3, a complete simply connected Riemannian manifold with constant sectional curvature -1 is isometric to H^3 (via [6, Theorem 6.9]), and rigidity of the critical mass point gives Ric = -2g via [12, Corollary 4.4]
    Used in the equality case of Theorem 1.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Green functions and a positive mass theorem for asymptotically hyperbolic $3$-manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NEE2LRY3

@misc{pith2026250607108,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Green functions and a positive mass theorem for asymptotically hyperbolic $3$-manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NEE2LRY3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07108}
}
abstract

We prove a new positive mass theorem for three-dimensional manifolds which are asymptotically hyperboloidal of order greater than $1$. The mass quantity under consideration is the volume-renormalized mass recently introduced in a paper by Dahl, McCormick and the first author. The proof is based on a monotonicity formula holding along the level sets of the Green function for the Laplace operator centered at an arbitrary point. In order for this argument to work out, we require that the second homology of the manifold does not contain any spherical classes.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Mattias Dahl, Klaus Kr¨ oncke, and Stephen McCormick,A volume–renormalized mass for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds, ArXiv Preprint Server – ArXiv:2307.06196, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Scuola Norm

    Virginia Agostiniani, Carlo Mantegazza, Lorenzo Mazzieri, and Francesca Oronzio,Riemannian Penrose inequality via nonlinear potential theory, ArXiv Preprint Server – ArXiv:2205.11642v2, Accepted in Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Sci. Fis. Mat., 2022

    arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    Eng.4(2022), no

    Virginia Agostiniani, Lorenzo Mazzieri, and Francesca Oronzio,A geometric capacitary inequality for sub- static manifolds with harmonic potentials, Math. Eng.4(2022), no. 2, Paper No. 013, 40. MR 4281178

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    ,A Green ’s function proof of the positive mass theorem, Comm. Math. Phys.405(2024), no. 2, Paper No. 54, 23. MR 4707045

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    Allen, James Isenberg, John M

    Paul T. Allen, James Isenberg, John M. Lee, and Iva Stavrov Allen,Weakly asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds, Comm. Anal. Geom.26(2018), no. 1, 1–61. MR 3761652

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    hyperboloidal boundary conditions

    Lars Andersson and Piotr T. Chru´ sciel,Solutions of the constraint equations in general relativity satisfying “hyperboloidal boundary conditions”, Dissertationes Math. (Rozprawy Mat.)355(1996), 100. MR 1405962

    work page 1996

  7. [6]

    Lars Andersson and Ralph Howard,Comparison and rigidity theorems in semi-Riemannian geometry, Comm. Anal. Geom.6(1998), no. 4, 819–877. MR 1664893

    work page 1998

  8. [7]

    Bray, Demetre P

    Hubert L. Bray, Demetre P. Kazaras, Marcus A. Khuri, and Daniel L. Stern,Harmonic functions and the mass of 3-dimensional asymptotically flat Riemannian manifolds, J. Geom. Anal.32(2022), no. 6, Paper No. 184, 29. MR 4411747

    work page 2022

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Math.307(2020), no

    Xiaoxiang Chai,Willmore type inequality using monotonicity formulas, Pacific J. Math.307(2020), no. 1, 53–62. MR 4131799 GREEN FUNCTIONS AND A PMT FOR ASYMPTOTICALLY HYPERBOLIC 3-MANIFOLDS 29

    2020

  2. [9]

    Bang-yen Chen,Some conformal invariants of submanifolds and their applications, Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. (4) 10(1974), 380–385. MR 370436

    1974

  3. [10]

    Otis Chodosh and Chao Li,Stable minimal hypersurfaces inR 4, Acta Math.233(2024), no. 1, 1–31. MR 4816633

    2024

  4. [11]

    Chru´ sciel and Gabriel Nagy,The mass of spacelike hypersurfaces in asymptotically anti-de Sitter space-times, Adv

    Piotr T. Chru´ sciel and Gabriel Nagy,The mass of spacelike hypersurfaces in asymptotically anti-de Sitter space-times, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.5(2001), no. 4, 697–754. MR 1926293

    2001

  5. [13]

    MR 909697

    Sylvestre Gallot, Dominique Hulin, and Jacques Lafontaine,Riemannian geometry, Universitext, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1987. MR 909697

    1987

  6. [14]

    Robin Graham and John M

    C. Robin Graham and John M. Lee,Einstein metrics with prescribed conformal infinity on the ball, Adv. Math.87(1991), no. 2, 186–225. MR 1112625

    1991

  7. [15]

    Differential Geom.51(1999), no

    Robert Hardt, Maria Hoffmann-Ostenhof, Thomas Hoffmann-Ostenhof, and Nikolai Nadirashvili,Critical sets of solutions to elliptic equations, J. Differential Geom.51(1999), no. 2, 359–373. MR 1728303

    1999

  8. [16]

    Differential Geom.30 (1989), no

    Robert Hardt and Leon Simon,Nodal sets for solutions of elliptic equations, J. Differential Geom.30 (1989), no. 2, 505–522. MR 1010169

    1989

  9. [17]

    MR 2098385

    John Hempel,3-manifolds, AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2004, Reprint of the 1976 original. MR 2098385

    2004

  10. [18]

    1713, Springer, Berlin, 1999, pp

    Gerhard Huisken and Alexander Polden,Geometric evolution equations for hypersurfaces, Calculus of variations and geometric evolution problems (Cetraro, 1996), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1713, Springer, Berlin, 1999, pp. 45–84. MR 1731639

    1996

  11. [19]

    Lee,Fredholm operators and Einstein metrics on conformally compact manifolds, Mem

    John M. Lee,Fredholm operators and Einstein metrics on conformally compact manifolds, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.183(2006), no. 864, vi+83. MR 2252687

    2006

  12. [20]

    Topol.22(2018), no

    Yu Li,Ricci flow on asymptotically Euclidean manifolds, Geom. Topol.22(2018), no. 3, 1837–1891. MR 3780446

    2018

  13. [21]

    Joachim Lohkamp,The higher dimensional positive mass theorem II, ArXiv Preprint Server – ArXiv:1612.07505, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Setti,On the1/H-flow byp-Laplace approximation: new esti- mates via fake distances under Ricci lower bounds, ArXiv Preprint Server – ArXiv:1905.00216v3, Published in Amer

    Luciano Mari, Marco Rigoli, and Alberto G. Setti,On the1/H-flow byp-Laplace approximation: new esti- mates via fake distances under Ricci lower bounds, ArXiv Preprint Server – ArXiv:1905.00216v3, Published in Amer. J. Math., 2020

    1905 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Rafe Mazzeo,Elliptic theory of differential edge operators. I, Comm. Partial Differential Equations16 (1991), no. 10, 1615–1664. MR 1133743

    1991

  16. [24]

    Rafe Mazzeo and Boris Vertman,Elliptic theory of differential edge operators, II: Boundary value problems, Indiana Univ. Math. J.63(2014), no. 6, 1911–1955. MR 3298726

    2014

  17. [25]

    Melrose,Transformation of boundary problems, Acta Math.147(1981), no

    Richard B. Melrose,Transformation of boundary problems, Acta Math.147(1981), no. 3-4, 149–236. MR 639039

    1981

  18. [26]

    Ovidiu Munteanu and Jiaping Wang,Bottom spectrum of three-dimensional manifolds with scalar curvature lower bound, J. Funct. Anal.287(2024), no. 2, Paper No. 110457, 41. MR 4736650

    2024

  19. [27]

    Proc., vol

    Manuel Ritor´ e,Optimal isoperimetric inequalities for three-dimensional Cartan-Hadamard manifolds, Global theory of minimal surfaces, Clay Math. Proc., vol. 2, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005, pp. 395–404. MR 2167269

    2005

  20. [28]

    Z.49(1943), 1–109

    Erhard Schmidt,Beweis der isoperimetrischen Eigenschaft der Kugel im hyperbolischen und sph¨ arischen Raum jeder Dimensionenzahl, Math. Z.49(1943), 1–109. MR 9127

    1943

  21. [29]

    Richard Schoen and Shing-Tung Yau,On the proof of the positive mass conjecture in general relativity, Comm. Math. Phys.65(1979), no. 1, 45–76. MR 526976

    1979

  22. [30]

    ,Positive scalar curvature and minimal hypersurface singularities, Surveys in differential geometry

  23. [31]

    Felix Schulze,Optimal isoperimetric inequalities for surfaces in any codimension in Cartan-Hadamard manifolds, Geom. Funct. Anal.30(2020), no. 1, 255–288. MR 4080508

    2020

  24. [32]

    Stern,Scalar curvature and harmonic maps toS 1, J

    Daniel L. Stern,Scalar curvature and harmonic maps toS 1, J. Differential Geom.122(2022), no. 2, 259–269. MR 4516941

    2022

  25. [33]

    Taylor,L’Hospital’s rule, Amer

    Angus E. Taylor,L’Hospital’s rule, Amer. Math. Monthly59(1952), 20–24. MR 44602

    1952

  26. [34]

    Marco Usula,Boundary value problems for 0-elliptic operators, ArXiv Preprint Server – ArXiv:2412.06084, 2024. 30 K. KR ¨ONCKE, F. ORONZIO, AND A. PINOY

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Differential Geom.57(2001), no

    Xiaodong Wang,The mass of asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds, J. Differential Geom.57(2001), no. 2, 273–299. MR 1879228

    2001

  28. [36]

    Edward Witten,A new proof of the positive energy theorem, Comm. Math. Phys.80(1981), no. 3, 381–402. MR 626707 Institutionen f¨or Matematik, KTH Stockholm, Lindstedtsv¨agen 25, 10044 Stockholm, Sweden Email address:kroncke@kth.se Scuola Superiore Meridionale, Largo S. Marcelli...

    1981

  29. [2019]

    Part 2, Surv

    Differential geometry, Calabi-Yau theory, and general relativity. Part 2, Surv. Differ. Geom., vol. 24, Int. Press, Boston, MA, [2022]©2022, pp. 441–480. MR 4479726

    2022

Pith tools

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