Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 31 references

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

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 If three Spencer premises hold on X, the Hodge conjecture follows from a dimension count.

desk verdict A well-organized framework that assumes the target equality in its premises, and whose only worked example depends on a false K3 fibration. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12720 v1 pith:WE3KDPXZ submitted 2025-06-15 math.GM

Dongzhe Zheng This is my paper
classification math.GM MSC 14C3032G2014J28
keywords HodgeconjecturealgebraiccyclesSpencercohomologyconstraintgeometryvariationofstructuresK3surfacesLiegroupsymmetrymirror
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 proposes a way to make the Hodge conjecture a verification problem rather than a search for algebraic cycles. It introduces a cohomology theory built from a 'compatible pair' $(D,\lambda)$ on a principal bundle over a projective algebraic manifold, and it defines Spencer-Hodge classes through a triple constraint: the certification tensor lies in a Cartan subalgebra, lies in the kernel of the constraint-coupled Spencer operator, and closes the Spencer chain. The central theorem states that under three structural premises—geometric realization, algebraic-dimensional control, and a Spencer-calibration equivalence principle—the resulting constraint-coupled Spencer cohomology equals the space of algebraic Hodge classes, so the Hodge conjecture reduces to verifying a dimension equality. The paper's declared contribution is this sufficient-condition framework, not a universal proof. It also reports a concrete $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ model on K3 surfaces with Picard rank one that, if the framework's premises are accepted, recovers all algebraic $(1,1)$-classes.

What carries the argument

The key object is the constraint-coupled Spencer prolongation operator $\delta^\lambda_\mathfrak{g}:\mathrm{Sym}^k(\mathfrak{g})\to\mathrm{Sym}^{k+1}(\mathfrak{g})$, defined through nested Lie brackets paired with a constraint function $\lambda$; its kernel $K^k_\lambda$ is the degenerate kernel space in which the Spencer differential collapses to the ordinary exterior derivative. Around this sits the compatible pair $(D,\lambda)$ on a principal bundle, which supplies the constraint distribution and the transversality condition, and the Spencer variation of Hodge structures with its Spencer-Gauss-Manin connection. The paper's hyper-constraint conditions tie these together: a certification tensor must live in a Cartan subalgebra (a maximal commutative subalgebra of the Lie algebra), must be killed by the Spencer operator, and must satisfy the Spencer closed-chain condition, and then mirror antisymmetry $\delta^{-\lambda}_\mathfrak{g}=-\delta^\lambda_\mathfrak{g}$ makes the mirror-stability requirement automatic.

What would settle it

A concrete test: take a very general quartic surface in $\mathbb{P}^3$. It is a K3 surface with $\mathrm{rank}(\mathrm{Pic}(X))=1$ but no elliptic fibration, so Theorem 7.2's line $L^2=0$ does not hold there. Running the paper's $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ construction on this surface—or finding whether the fibration-based certification tensor $J_F$ exists without a fibre class—would settle whether the advertised rank-one verification actually works or whether it depends on a geometric input the surface does not have. For the general framework, one can compute the flat sections of the Spencer connection on a manifold whose algebraic classes are already known and check whether they coincide.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 5.4: for a projective algebraic manifold $X$, if a Lie group $G$ and associated structures satisfy Premise 5.1, Premise 5.2, and Premise 5.3, then $H^{p,p}(X)\cap H^{2p}(X,\mathbb{Q})=H^{2p}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Q})$. The core technical result behind it is Theorem 6.4, which asserts that the space $H^{2p}_{\mathrm{constraint}}(X)$ generated by constraint-coupled Spencer kernels coincides exactly with $H^{2p}_{\mathrm{alg}}(X,\mathbb{Q})$ under the same premises. A class is Spencer-Hodge when it admits a nonzero certification tensor $s$ in $\mathrm{Sym}^{2p}(\mathfrak{h})$ with $s\in K^{2p}_\lambda$ and $\delta_\mathfrak{g}^\lambda(\omega\otimes s)=0$; from these conditions the paper derives flatness under the Spencer-Gauss-Manin connection, and Premise 5.3 converts that flatness into algebraicity. The K3 chapter then computes the $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ kernels explicitly and claims that for rank-one Picard K3 surfaces the constraint direction of the kernel maps precisely onto the one-dimensional algebraic class space.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that algebraicity is equivalent to Spencer-flatness (Premise 5.3) and that the constraint-coupled Spencer kernel has exactly the dimension of the algebraic class space (Premise 5.2); if either fails, the equality between Spencer cohomology and algebraic classes does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wherever the three premises and the Hodge potential dimension condition can be checked, the $(p,p)$-Hodge conjecture would follow without constructing any algebraic cycle explicitly.
  • The verification program becomes modular: check the geometric realization, check the dimension match, check the calibration equivalence, and the conclusion is automatic.
  • The $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ computation on rank-one Picard K3 surfaces would, if sound, supply the first nontrivial test case in which the Spencer kernel's constraint direction has dimension one and exhausts the algebraic class space.
  • For higher-dimensional manifolds the same logic suggests a representation-theoretic route: find a Lie group whose invariant subspaces in symmetric powers have dimensions equal to the relevant Hodge numbers, and the framework would supply the algebraic classes.
  • If the soundness and completeness theorem is accepted, the Spencer method would be a complete detector of algebraic classes, with no algebraic class omitted and no non-algebraic class admitted.

Reading between the lines

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

  • On my reading, the hard content of the Hodge conjecture has been pushed into Premises 5.2 and 5.3: the dimension equality in 5.2 and the flatness-algebraicity equivalence in 5.3 are each strong enough that verifying them on a given manifold is comparable in difficulty to proving the conjecture there.
  • A direct stress test would be to run the $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ construction on a very general quartic surface in $\mathbb{P}^3$, a rank-one Picard K3 surface with no elliptic fibration; if the construction needs the fibre class $L$ with $L^2=0$ that Theorem 7.2 asserts, then that test case would require a different geometric input.
  • The mirror antisymmetry of the Spencer operator is a compact, checkable algebraic fact that could be studied on its own as a constraint-geometric analogue of complex conjugation, independent of the Hodge conjecture.
  • The dimension-matching examples suggest a broader program: search for Lie groups whose representation theory forces symmetric-power subspaces with dimensions equal to Hodge numbers, turning 'find the algebraic cycle' into 'find the right group'.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a framework for attacking the Hodge conjecture via constraint-coupled Spencer cohomology. It develops compatible pairs (D, λ), a constraint-coupled Spencer prolongation operator δ^λ_g, a complex geometrization procedure, and a Spencer-VHS formalism. The central results are Theorem 5.4 and Theorem 6.4: if a projective algebraic manifold satisfies Premises 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3, then the constraint-coupled Spencer cohomology H^{2p}_{constraint}(X) equals the algebraic cohomology H^{2p}_{alg}(X,Q), and with the Hodge potential hypothesis the (p,p)-Hodge conjecture follows. The final chapter applies the framework to K3 surfaces with rank(Pic X)=1 using an SU(2) model, claiming to recover all algebraic (1,1)-classes.

Significance. The paper is transparent about its axiomatic structure and gives detailed algebraic computations for the SU(2) Spencer kernel, which is a credit. However, the central claim is powered by premises that already contain the desired equality: Premise 5.2(2) fixes the dimension of the constraint-coupled kernel to be the dimension of the algebraic Hodge classes, and Premise 5.3 declares algebraicity equivalent to Spencer-VHS flatness. Theorem 6.4 is a logical unfolding of these premises rather than an independent derivation, and the only non-trivial verification, Chapter 7, rests on a false statement about rank-one Picard K3 surfaces. As it stands, the manuscript does not provide an independent verification procedure for the Hodge conjecture, and the K3 example does not supply the advertised evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1–§5.2, §6.3; Eqs. (68)–(70), (89), (110)] Theorem 5.4 and its cornerstone Theorem 6.4 are not derived from independent geometric input; they are restatements of the premises. Premise 5.2(2) (Eq. (68)) already fixes dim_Q K^k_constraint(λ) = dim_Q H^{p,p}_{alg}(X), and Premise 5.3 already declares algebraicity equivalent to Spencer-VHS flatness. The completeness proof, Lemma 6.6, begins by assuming the geometric encoding map Ψ_λ of Eq. (110), whose existence is exactly Premise 5.2(2); the soundness proof, Lemma 6.5, reaches algebraicity only through Premise 5.3. The dimension sandwich in §6.4 then uses the Hodge potential hypothesis, whose verification together with Theorem 6.4 is equivalent to the desired equality dim H^{2p}_{alg} = h^{p,p}. Thus the advertised verification procedure reduces the Hodge conjecture to checking statements that are effectively the conjecture in new notation; the assertion in §5.3 that this is not circular is not supported by the proof structure.
  2. [§7.1, Theorem 7.2] Theorem 7.2 is false. A K3 surface with rank(Pic X)=1 need not admit an elliptic fibration, and the Picard generator need not satisfy L^2=0. A very general quartic surface X⊂P^3 has Pic X = Z·H with H^2=4 and admits no elliptic fibration; an elliptic K3 has Picard number at least two, since the fiber class F (with F^2=0) and a section span a rank-two sublattice. The proof's assertion "Since X is K3, we have L^2=0" is without basis. Because the elliptic fibration is used to construct the constraint parameter (Definition 7.7), the fibration Spencer invariant J_F (Theorem 7.15), and the dimension matching (Theorem 7.19), Chapter 7 does not verify the premises for any actual rank-one Picard K3 surface.
  3. [§3.3 and §4.4; Eqs. (7), (43)–(52), Corollary 4.4] The Spencer differential has a type mismatch that makes the claimed complex ill-defined. In Eq. (7), D^k_{D,λ}(α⊗s) = dα⊗s + (-1)^k α∧δ^λ_g(s), where dα⊗s lies in Ω^{k+1}(X)⊗Sym^k(g) and α∧δ^λ_g(s) lies in Ω^k(X)⊗Sym^{k+1}(g); the image is thus a sum of elements with different Lie-algebra degrees, not an element of S^{k+1}_{D,λ} = Ω^{k+1}(X)⊗Sym^{k+1}(g). In Theorem 4.3, the three operators ∂_S, \bar∂_S, δ_g map S^{p,q}_{D,λ}=Ω^{p,q}(X)⊗Sym^k(g) respectively to Ω^{p+1,q}(X)⊗Sym^k(g), Ω^{p,q+1}(X)⊗Sym^k(g), and Ω^{p,q}(X)⊗Sym^{k+1}(g); no single total-degree-raising differential on the bigraded family exists. Consequently the cohomology defined in Corollary 4.4 as ker D / im D, and the Spencer-VHS construction in Theorem 4.5 built on it, are not well-defined without additional explanation.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§3.2 and §5.1, Eq. (64)] The modified Cartan equation dλ + ad^*_ω λ = 0 from §3.2 and the modified Maurer-Cartan equation dλ + 1/2[λ∧λ]_Killing = Ω(D) from Eq. (64) are not shown to be equivalent; this inconsistency makes the verification of Premise 5.1 difficult to follow.
  2. [§7.6, Theorem 7.21] The proof of (2)⇒(3) shows only stationarity of the variational functional E_cal, not minimality; establishing equivalence of flatness with calibration minimality would require an additional convexity or stability argument.
  3. [References and Appendix E] The foundational reference [Zhe25c] is listed as an arXiv preprint without an identifier, and several cornerstones of the framework are deferred to unpublished preprints by the same author; this makes the stated assumptions unverifiable from the present manuscript alone.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Theorem 6.4 restates Premises 5.2(2) and 5.3; Lemma 6.6 assumes the geometric encoding map whose existence is the conclusion; Chapter 7's K3 test rests on the false Theorem 7.2.

  1. self definitional [Hypothesis 5.2(2), Section 5.1]
    "Precise algebraic dimension correspondence principle: Dimension of constraint-coupled Spencer kernel precisely corresponds to algebraic geometric structure of manifold: dimQ(K^k_constraint(λ)) = dimQ(H^{p,p}_alg(X)) (68) where H^{p,p}_alg(X) denotes space of algebraic (p,p)-Hodge classes on X, k = 2p."

    This premise fixes the dimension of the newly defined constraint kernel to equal the dimension of the algebraic Hodge classes. Since the theorem to be proved is exactly that the rational (p,p)-Hodge classes equal the algebraic Hodge classes, and the later Hodge potential hypothesis makes dim H_constraint = h^{p,p}, the dimension equality dim H_alg = h^{p,p} is effectively assumed before the dimension sandwich in Theorem 5.4 begins.

  2. self definitional [Hypothesis 5.3, Section 5.1]
    "for any rational (p,p)-Hodge class [ω] ∈ H^{p,p}(X)∩H^{2p}(X,Q), the following three conditions are equivalent: 1. Algebraicity: [ω] is an algebraic class... 2. Constraint-coupled Spencer-VHS flatness: Section σ_[ω] corresponding to [ω] in constraint-coupled Spencer-VHS is flat: ∇_{λ,Spencer}σ_[ω]=0 (69)..."

    The premise declares that Spencer flatness is equivalent to algebraicity for exactly the classes whose algebraicity is the target of the paper. Lemma 6.5 then proves flatness from the hyper-constraint conditions and cites Premise 5.3 to convert flatness into algebraicity. The soundness direction is therefore not an independent theorem; it is an application of an axiom that already contains the desired equivalence.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Lemma 6.6, Section 6.3.2]
    "By Premise Condition 5.2(2) precise algebraic dimension correspondence principle and geometric encoding property of constraint parameter λ, there exists geometric encoding mapping: Ψ_λ : D_alg(X) → K^{2p}_constraint(λ) (110). This mapping encodes algebraic geometric information of manifolds into constraint-coupled Spencer kernels."

    Completeness requires showing every algebraic class satisfies the hyper-constraints, i.e. H_alg ⊆ H_constraint. The proof assumes, without construction, a map from all algebraic geometric data into the constraint kernel; the existence of such an encoding for every algebraic class is exactly the completeness claim. Premise 5.2(2) only states a dimension equality and does not provide this map, so the reduction is by definitional assumption.

full rationale

The central claims are not derived from geometric input but are direct restatements of Hypotheses 5.1-5.3. Hypothesis 5.2(2) fixes dim K_constraint = dim H_alg, Hypothesis 5.3 declares flatness equivalent to algebraicity, and Lemma 6.6 assumes a geometric encoding map from algebraic data into the constraint kernel. Theorem 6.4 then 'proves' H_constraint = H_alg by combining these assumptions: soundness uses Premise 5.3, completeness uses the assumed Ψ_λ. Theorem 5.4 adds the Hodge potential hypothesis dim H_constraint = h^{p,p} and performs a dimension sandwich; the sandwich is formally valid, but the crucial equality it relies on was already assumed. The only worked example, Chapter 7, does not supply independent evidence: Theorem 7.2's assertion that a rank-one Picard K3 satisfies L^2=0 and admits an elliptic fibration is false (a very general quartic has Pic = Z·H with H^2=4 and no elliptic fibration), so the SU(2) dimension matching cannot apply to the advertised surfaces. The paper's own Section 5.3 calls the conditions 'strong hypotheses' and describes the strategy as reduction, but the reduction is to axioms that encode the target equality. This is not harmless self-citation: even if the cited previous work [Zhe25b, Zhe25a, etc.] is correct, the present premises already assert the Hodge-theoretic conclusion in new notation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The framework rests on a chain of assumptions assembled from the author's own companion papers, and on Premise 5.2 and Premise 5.3 that encode the desired equality. The free parameters in the K3 example are chosen to make the Spencer kernel contain a preferred element J_F and to force the image of the fibration map onto Q c1(F). No independent evidence is provided.

free parameters (3)
  • Constraint parameter lambda on K3 (components along H, E, F) = langle lambda,H rangle = Re(i d log |g(z,w)|^2), langle lambda,E rangle = 0.5 Re(dw), langle lambda,F rangle = 0.5…
    Chosen by hand to be compatible with the chosen elliptic fibration and to force the Spencer kernel to contain J_F; no independent derivation shows such lambda exists generally.
  • Angle theta in Spencer kernel element J_F = theta determined by modular parameters of the elliptic fibration, not computed
    Appears in Corollary 7.16; the proof does not specify how theta is fixed, and the kernel dimension count depends on the choice.
  • Calibration form phi(D,lambda) = Constructed from lambda and K^2_lambda
    Introduced in Premise 5.3; its existence and calibration property are assumed, and it is engineered so minimality is equivalent to the desired algebraicity.
assumptions (9)
  • ad hoc to paper There exists a compatible pair (D,lambda) on a principal G-bundle satisfying D_p = {v : langle lambda(p), omega(v) rangle = 0} and T_p P = D_p + V_p.
    Assumption 3.0.1; no proof in this preprint, existence deferred to the unpublished [Zhe25b].
  • ad hoc to paper The constraint-coupled Spencer operator delta^lambda_g exists and is nilpotent, (delta^lambda_g)^2 = 0.
    Assumption 3.0.3; the appendix proof is incomplete, and the claimed cochain complex has a target-space mismatch in Assumption 3.0.4.
  • ad hoc to paper Spencer differential operators are elliptic, giving Hodge decomposition and finite-dimensionality.
    Assumption 3.0.5; ellipticity is deferred to the self-cited [Zhe25a] and is not re-proved here.
  • ad hoc to paper Differential degeneration: for s in K^k_lambda, D^k_{D,lambda}(alpha tensor s) = d alpha tensor s.
    Assumption 3.0.8; the mechanism is delegated to [Zhe25f] and is used to identify Spencer-Hodge classes with de Rham classes.
  • ad hoc to paper Premise 5.2(2): dim_Q K^k_constraint(lambda) = dim_Q H^{p,p}_{alg}(X) for k = 2p.
    This is the core of the Hodge conjecture placed as a hypothesis; used in Lemma 6.6 to assert the existence of the encoding map Psi_lambda.
  • ad hoc to paper Premise 5.3: algebraicity, Spencer-VHS flatness, and calibrated minimality are equivalent.
    This equivalence is exactly the soundness step of Theorem 6.4 and is never derived from more basic facts.
  • domain assumption Hodge potential hypothesis: dim_Q H^{2p}_{constraint}(X) = h^{p,p}(X).
    Definition 5.5; needed to turn the universality equality into the full Hodge conjecture. For the K3 example the paper verifies only the 1-dimensional algebraic part, not h^{1,1}=20.
  • ad hoc to paper Rank-one Picard K3 surfaces admit elliptic fibrations with L^2 = 0.
    Theorem 7.2; this is false, so the K3 verification is invalid.
  • standard math GAGA principle applies to the Cartan subbundle and its symmetric powers on X.
    Invoked in Lemma 6.5 Step 4; standard but requires the algebraic structure of P asserted in Premise 5.1(1).
invented entities (4)
  • Constraint-coupled Spencer cohomology H^k_constraint(X;lambda)
    purpose: Claimed to equal algebraic Hodge cohomology H^{2p}_{alg}(X,Q)
    Defined in equation (1) and Theorem 2.1; no external falsifiable prediction, depends on assumed compatible pairs and ellipticity.
  • Spencer-Hodge classes
    purpose: Filter algebraic (p,p)-classes from rational Hodge classes
    Definition 4.1; their equivalence with algebraic classes is a consequence of assumptions, not an independent check.
  • Spencer-VHS and Spencer-Gauss-Manin connection
    purpose: Transport flatness to algebraicity
    Theorem 4.5; construction rests on assumed Spencer structure and the flatness-equivalence principle.
  • Spencer-calibration equivalence principle
    purpose: Convert Spencer flatness into algebraicity
    Premise 5.3; asserts the very equivalence needed to prove the Hodge conjecture.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Rigidity of Constraint: A Spencer-Hodge Theoretic Approach to the Hodge Conjecture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WE3KDPXZ

@misc{pith2026250612720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Rigidity of Constraint: A Spencer-Hodge Theoretic Approach to the Hodge Conjecture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WE3KDPXZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12720}
}
read the original abstract

This paper proposes a new theoretical perspective for studying the Hodge conjecture through an analytical framework based on constraint geometry. Our theory begins with a key observation: in compatible pair Spencer theory, a "differential degeneration" mechanism simplifies Spencer differential operators to classical exterior differential under specific algebraic conditions, bridging constraint geometry and de Rham cohomology. This bridge alone is insufficient to filter rare Hodge classes with algebraicity. We introduce the core concept -- "Spencer hyper-constraint conditions," a constraint system from Lie algebraic internal symmetry integrating: differential degeneration, Cartan subalgebra constraints, and mirror stability. This constraint principle filters geometric objects with excellent properties from degenerate classes, constructively defined as "Spencer-Hodge classes." To reveal their geometric significance, we "complex geometrize" the framework, integrating with Variation of Hodge Structures theory to construct Spencer-VHS theory. We establish connections between Spencer hyper-constraint conditions and flatness of corresponding sections under Spencer-Gauss-Manin connections. With the "Spencer-calibration equivalence principle" and "dimension matching strong hypothesis," flatness directly corresponds to algebraicity, providing sufficient conditions for verifying the Hodge conjecture. This forms "Spencer-Hodge verification criteria," transforming the proof problem into investigating whether three structured conditions hold: geometric realization of Spencer theory, satisfaction of algebraic-dimensional control, and establishment of the Spencer-calibration equivalence principle. This framework provides new perspectives for understanding this fundamental problem.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The yang-mills equations over riemann surfaces

    Michael F Atiyah and Raoul Bott. The yang-mills equations over riemann surfaces. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A , 308(1505):523--615, 1983

    work page 1983

  2. [2]

    The index of elliptic operators on compact manifolds

    Michael F 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

  3. [3]

    Variétés kählériennes dont la première classe de chern est nulle

    Arnaud Beauville. Variétés kählériennes dont la première classe de chern est nulle. Journal of Differential Geometry , 18(4):755--782, 1983

    work page 1983

  4. [4]

    Extensions of mixed hodge structures

    James A Carlson. Extensions of mixed hodge structures. Journées de Géométrie Algébrique d'Angers , pages 107--127, 1987

    work page 1987

  5. [5]

    Mixed Hodge structures , volume 52 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete

    Eduardo Cattani, Pierre Deligne, and Aroldo Kaplan. Mixed Hodge structures , volume 52 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete . Springer, 1995

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    Hodge cycles on abelian varieties

    Pierre Deligne. Hodge cycles on abelian varieties. Lecture Notes in Mathematics , 900:9--100, 1982

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    An application of gauge theory to four-dimensional topology

    Simon K Donaldson. An application of gauge theory to four-dimensional topology. Journal of Differential Geometry , 18(2):279--315, 1983

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    Towards mirror symmetry for varieties of general type

    Mark Gross, Ludmil Katzarkov, and Helge Ruddat. Towards mirror symmetry for varieties of general type. Advances in Mathematics , 308:208--275, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Periods of integrals on algebraic manifolds

    Phillip A Griffiths. Periods of integrals on algebraic manifolds. American Journal of Mathematics , 90(2):568--626, 1968

    1968

  2. [10]

    Standard conjectures on algebraic cycles

    Alexander Grothendieck. Standard conjectures on algebraic cycles. In Algebraic Geometry (Internat. Colloq., Tata Inst. Fund. Res., Bombay, 1968) , pages 193--199. Oxford University Press, 1969

    1968

  3. [11]

    Symplectic techniques in physics

    Victor Guillemin and Shlomo Sternberg. Symplectic techniques in physics . Cambridge University Press, 1984

    1984

  4. [12]

    The topological invariants of algebraic varieties

    William Vallance Douglas Hodge. The topological invariants of algebraic varieties. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians , 1:182--192, 1950

    1950

  5. [13]

    The theory and applications of harmonic integrals

    William Vallance Douglas Hodge. The theory and applications of harmonic integrals . Cambridge University Press, 1952

    1952

  6. [14]

    Introduction to Lie algebras and representation theory , volume 9 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

    James E Humphreys. Introduction to Lie algebras and representation theory , volume 9 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer, 1972

    1972

  7. [15]

    Lectures on K3 surfaces , volume 158 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics

    Daniel Huybrechts. Lectures on K3 surfaces , volume 158 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    L'analysis situs et la géométrie algébrique

    Solomon Lefschetz. L'analysis situs et la géométrie algébrique . Gauthier-Villars, 1924

    1924

  9. [17]

    A survey of the Hodge conjecture , volume 10 of CRM Monograph Series

    James D Lewis. A survey of the Hodge conjecture , volume 10 of CRM Monograph Series . American Mathematical Society, 1999

    1999

  10. [18]

    Geometric invariant theory , volume 34 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete

    David Mumford, John Fogarty, and Frances Kirwan. Geometric invariant theory , volume 34 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete . Springer, 1994

    1994

  11. [19]

    Reduction of symplectic manifolds with symmetry

    Jerrold Marsden and Alan Weinstein. Reduction of symplectic manifolds with symmetry. Reports on Mathematical Physics , 5(1):121--130, 1974

    1974

  12. [20]

    Variation of hodge structure: the singularities of the period mapping

    Wilfried Schmid. Variation of hodge structure: the singularities of the period mapping. Inventiones mathematicae , 22(3-4):211--319, 1973

    1973

  13. [21]

    Deformation of structures on manifolds defined by transitive, continuous pseudogroups

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

    1962

  14. [22]

    Hodge theory and complex algebraic geometry I , volume 76 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics

    Claire Voisin. Hodge theory and complex algebraic geometry I , volume 76 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, 2002

    2002

  15. [23]

    Hodge theory and complex algebraic geometry II , volume 77 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics

    Claire Voisin. Hodge theory and complex algebraic geometry II , volume 77 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, 2007

    2007

  16. [24]

    Topological quantum field theory

    Edward Witten. Topological quantum field theory. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 117(3):353--386, 1988

    1988

  17. [25]

    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

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    Extension research of principal bundle constraint system theory on ricci-flat k\"ahler manifolds

    Dongzhe Zheng. Extension research of principal bundle constraint system theory on ricci-flat k\"ahler manifolds. arXiv preprint , 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    Mirror symmetry in geometric constraints: Analytic and riemann-roch perspectives

    Dongzhe Zheng. Mirror symmetry in geometric constraints: Analytic and riemann-roch perspectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06610 , 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Mirror symmetry of spencer-hodge decompositions in constrained geometric systems

    Dongzhe Zheng. Mirror symmetry of spencer-hodge decompositions in constrained geometric systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05816 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Spencer differential degeneration theory and its applications in algebraic geometry

    Dongzhe Zheng. Spencer differential degeneration theory and its applications in algebraic geometry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07410 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Spencer-riemann-roch theory: Mirror symmetry of hodge decompositions and characteristic classes in constrained geometry

    Dongzhe Zheng. Spencer-riemann-roch theory: Mirror symmetry of hodge decompositions and characteristic classes in constrained geometry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05915 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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