Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 26 references

A story of webs: the webs by conics on del Pezzo quartic surfaces and Gelfand-MacPherson's web of the spinor tenfold

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The Gelfand–MacPherson web of the spinor tenfold carries a unique master 2-abelian relation from which every quartic del Pezzo hyperlogarithmic identity can be recovered.

desk verdict A genuinely new master 2-abelian relation for the GM web on Y5, plausible and likely important, but the load-bearing cancellation in Prop 3.4 is asserted rather than shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12180 v1 pith:5XAVL3KK submitted 2025-07-16 math.AG

Luc Pirio This is my paper
classification math.AG MSC 14J2814M1753A6014L30
keywords abelianrelationsofwebsGelfand–MacPhersonspinortenfolddelPezzoquarticsurfacesdilogarithmfunctionalidentitieshyperlogarithmicSerganova–SkorobogatovembeddingWeylgroupD5
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 argues that the Gelfand–MacPherson web on the quotient of the spinor tenfold by a Cartan torus is the canonical rank-5 generalization of Bol's web. Its main theorem states that the 2-abelian relations of this web form an 11-dimensional space: ten combinatorial logarithmic relations plus a single dilogarithmic master relation, unique up to scalar. From that master relation by residues, the paper recovers the weight-3 hyperlogarithmic abelian relation of every quartic del Pezzo surface, and it extends the same master-relation structure to the webs for ranks four through seven. A sympathetic reader would take the claim to be that the two-parameter family of del Pezzo hyperlogarithmic identities is not a family at all but one identity seen through different embeddings.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a logarithmic 2-form $\Omega = \ln u_1\, d\ln u_2 \wedge d\ln u_3 - \ln u_2\, d\ln u_1 \wedge d\ln u_3 + \ln u_3\, d\ln u_1 \wedge d\ln u_2$, defined on $\mathbb{C}^3$ under the relation $u_3 = 1 + u_1 - u_2$. Pulling this form back by the ten rational first integrals $U_i$ of $W^{\mathrm{GM}}_{\mathcal{Y}_5}$ and summing with signs $(\epsilon_i) = (1,-1,1,-1,1,1,-1,1,-1,1)$ gives the identity $\sum_i \epsilon_i U_i^*(\Omega) = 0$ that defines $\mathrm{HLOG}_{\mathcal{Y}_5}$. Taking residues along the ten divisors $\zeta_k = 0$ produces the ten combinatorial 2-abelian relations; pulling back to a quartic del Pezzo surface via the Serganova–Skorobogatov embedding and integrating primitives converts the master relation into the weight-3 hyperlogarithmic abelian relation. For $r = 6, 7$, explicit first integrals are built from octonionic Veronese coordinates, and the same mechanism produces the master $(r-3)$-abelian relation.

What would settle it

Recompute the scalar components of $\sum_{i=1}^{10} \epsilon_i U_i^*(\Omega)$ on the cube $I \subset (0,1)^5$; if any coefficient of a term $\log|\zeta_k|$, for example the coefficient of $\log|y_{13}|$ in the $dy_2 \wedge dy_3$ component, fails to vanish, the master relation $\mathrm{HLOG}_{\mathcal{Y}_5}$ is false and with it the recovery of $\mathrm{HLog}^3_{\mathrm{dP}_4}$. A second check is the claimed identity $\sigma_1^*(\mathrm{Res}_{y_1}) = -\mathrm{Res}_{y_2} + \mathrm{Res}_{y_4} + \mathrm{Res}_{y_5} + \mathrm{Res}_{P_3} + \mathrm{Res}_{P_5}$, which can be verified directly from the explicit residue formulas.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1.1 states that for the Gelfand–MacPherson web $W^{\mathrm{GM}}_{\mathcal{Y}_5}$, the virtual 2-rank is $\rho_2 = 11$, and every 5-subweb has virtual 2-rank at most 1. Exactly sixteen 5-subwebs have maximal rank 1, with their 2-abelian relations spanned by complete irreducible logarithmic relations $\mathrm{LogAR}^{\epsilon}$; these span the 10-dimensional space $\mathrm{AR}^2_{\mathrm{C}}$ of combinatorial relations. There is one additional relation $\mathrm{HLOG}_{\mathcal{Y}_5}$, complete, irreducible, with dilogarithmic components, unique up to scalar, so that $\mathrm{AR}^2(W^{\mathrm{GM}}_{\mathcal{Y}_5}) = \mathrm{AR}^2_{\mathrm{C}} \oplus \langle \mathrm{HLOG}_{\mathcal{Y}_5} \rangle$ and the web has maximal 2-rank. This decomposition is the decomposition into irreducible $W_{D_5}$-representations: the one-dimensional piece is the signature representation and the combinatorial space is the module $V^{10}_{[11,111]}$. For any smooth quartic del Pezzo surface, residues of $\mathrm{HLOG}_{\mathcal{Y}_5}$ along weight divisors, pulled back by the Serganova–Skorobogatov embedding, produce the weight-3 hyperlogarithmic relation $\mathrm{HLog}^3_{\mathrm{dP}_4}$, and the same pattern holds for the family $W^{\mathrm{GM}}_{\mathcal{Y}_r}$, $r = 4, \dots, 7$, each carrying an essentially unique master $(r-3)$-abelian relation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the asserted vanishing of the formal expansions in Proposition 3.4: after writing each scalar component of $\sum_i \epsilon_i U_i^*(\Omega)$ as a rational combination of logarithms $\log|\zeta_k|$, all coefficients are claimed to vanish, but the expansions are not displayed and many later results, including Propositions 3.8 and 7.5 and Theorem 3.14, rely on the same style of omitted computer verification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every quartic del Pezzo identity $\mathrm{HLog}^3_{\mathrm{dP}_4}$ is a residue of a single relation, so the two-parameter family of del Pezzo identities has a common ancestor.
  • The 2-rank of $W^{\mathrm{GM}}_{\mathcal{Y}_5}$ equals its virtual 2-rank, so the web is 2-AMP, matching the maximal-rank status of Bol's web.
  • The sixteen 5-subwebs of maximal 2-rank correspond one-to-one with the sixteen lines of a quartic del Pezzo surface, so the combinatorial structure matches the line geometry.
  • For $r = 6, 7$, the webs on the Cayley-plane and Freudenthal quotients carry unique master $(r-3)$-abelian relations, with all other relations recovered by residues or monodromy.
  • The Weyl-group actions on the spaces of abelian relations are fully reducible and explicitly identified as signature plus $V^{10}_{[11,111]}$ for 2-abelian relations, with analogous irreducibles for 1- and 0-abelian relations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's master relation rests on asserted formal cancellations that are not displayed; an independent symbolic check of each coefficient in Proposition 3.4 would settle whether the claimed uniqueness and the recovery of $\mathrm{HLog}^3_{\mathrm{dP}_4}$ are sound.
  • Question 1.3 suggests a Gelfand–MacPherson-style integral-geometric construction of $\mathrm{HLOG}_{\mathcal{Y}_5}$ from a characteristic class on a real form of $\mathbb{S}_5$; if established, it would give a Stokes-theorem explanation analogous to the original derivation of Abel's five-term relation.
  • The scattering-diagram speculation in Section 8.2 would imply that $\mathrm{HLOG}_{\mathcal{Y}_5}$ is the consistency condition of a finite-type scattering diagram for $\mathcal{Y}_5$, unifying the cluster and residue viewpoints; this is not yet a theorem.
  • The same residue-recovery scheme may extend to other minuscule homogeneous spaces beyond the $r = 4, \dots, 7$ cases treated here, but the paper provides evidence only for these ranks.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Gelfand–MacPherson web induced on the quotient of the spinor tenfold S5 by the Cartan torus of Spin10(C), working in a birational coordinate model Y5. It gives explicit rational first integrals, determines the spaces of 0-, 1-, and 2-abelian relations, and identifies a distinguished 2-abelian relation HLOGY5 with dilogarithmic components. It proves uniqueness up to scalar, describes the W(D5)-module structure of the spaces of abelian relations, shows that the sixteen logarithmic combinatorial relations are residues of HLOGY5, and derives from HLOGY5 the weight-3 hyperlogarithmic identities of all quartic del Pezzo surfaces via the Serganova–Skorobogatov embedding. It also sketches extensions to r = 6, 7.

Significance. If the computational assertions are correct, this is a substantial and conceptually attractive result: it provides a single canonical master relation HLOGY5 on a five-dimensional variety that specializes, by residues and pullback, to the entire two-parameter family of quartic del Pezzo weight-3 identities, and it frames HLOGY5 as a natural rank-5 analogue of Bol's web. The paper is unusually explicit: the first integrals, the residues, the Cremona generators of W(D5), and the symbolic recovery procedure are all written down in concrete formulas, which is a genuine strength. The main weakness is that several load-bearing verifications are asserted as 'straightforward formal computations' or Maple computations that are not reproduced, so the central identity is not independently checkable from the text as printed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1.2, Proposition 3.4] The identity HLOGY5 is the load-bearing object of the paper, but its proof displays only the coefficient of dy1∧dy2 and states that all other scalar components vanish after 'straightforward formal computations'. Since Theorem 1.1(4)–(7) and the entire recovery argument in Section 6 rest on this identity, the verification must be made available. Please include either the full table of rational coefficients of each ln ζ_k in each of the ten components after clearing denominators, or a public ancillary Maple worksheet, or a condensed algebraic identity that can be checked without recomputing everything. Without this, the master relation is an assertion rather than a proved statement.
  2. [§3.2, Proposition 3.8 and §3.3, Theorem 3.14] The claims that the ten residues Res_i form a basis of the combinatorial 2-ARs, that this space is the W(D5)-irreducible V^10_[11,111], and that the 1-AR spaces decompose as V^20_[2,2^1] ⊕ V^5_[-,2^2 1] ⊕ V^10_[11,111] are supported by character computations that are not shown. The proof of Theorem 3.14 explicitly says 'the proof essentially goes by explicit computations that we do not reproduce here', and only one sample matrix is given. These representation-theoretic conclusions are part of Theorem 1.1(3) and (6), so the matrices or the character table computations should be supplied or made available as reproducible code.
  3. [§6.1, Lemma 6.1] The symbolic identity ∑_{i=1}^{10} ε_i S(U_i^*(Ω)) = 0 in ∧^3 H_{Y5} is the bridge from HLOGY5 to HLog(dP4), but its proof is given as 'by pure elementary linear algebra' with no coefficient expansion. If the realization map is used, the argument also depends on Proposition 3.4, so it does not provide an independent check. Please include the expansion of S in the basis η_i ⊗ (η_j ∧ η_k), or the explicit list of cancellations, or a worksheet. This is necessary to make Theorem 1.1(7) and the formula (69) verifiable.
  4. [§7, Proposition 7.5 and Theorem 7.9] The extension to r = 6, 7 is asserted through omitted Maple computations: the proof of Proposition 7.5 says only that it relies on 'direct computations performed in Maple', and Proposition 7.4's rank values are announced after 'carrying out the necessary calculations'. Theorem 7.9's AMP-rank claim and the claimed recovery of hyperlogarithmic identities for dP_d with d = 3, 2 therefore are not reproducible. Please provide the computed first integrals U_F for r = 6, 7, the coefficient cancellation data for HLOGY_r, and the rank computations, or an ancillary file containing them.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.3.4, after Proposition 2.1] The coordinates y_i are introduced with missing subscripts: the text has 'y = y25, y = y35' instead of 'y_4 = y25, y_5 = y35'; please correct this notation.
  2. [§6.2, formula (69)] The integral notation '∫ F*_SS(η_k) ∫ F*_SS(∫ Res_k(HLOGY5))' is not formally defined; please specify the chosen primitives, the base points, and the domains on which the iterated integrals are taken.
  3. [§7.1, table] The notation G_r is used both for the simple group and for the homogeneous space G_r = G_r/P_r; in the table this is compressed in a way that can confuse the reader. Consider writing the homogeneous space explicitly, e.g. E6/P1 or the Cayley plane, throughout Section 7.
  4. [Introduction and §3.5] There are several typographical slips, including 'Gelfand-Mapherson' in §2.2 and a reference to 'tables page 1' that is not verifiable; please renumber and refer to Table 1 and Table 2 explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: HLOGY5 is an explicit differential identity, not a fit; reliance on prior papers is background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's master object HLOGY5 is introduced as an explicit differential identity (Proposition 3.4: the sum Σ ε_i U_i^*(Ω) vanishes), with the U_i's being explicit rational first integrals inherited from the Gelfand-MacPherson construction. The identity is not obtained by fitting parameters to the del Pezzo identities: the ε_i are a fixed sign vector and Ω is a fixed logarithmic 2-form. The recovery of HLog^3_dP4 in Section 6 is a downstream pullback/residue argument, not an input to the construction. Uniqueness and the W_D5 decomposition are supported by direct computations of residues and by the standard character table of W(D5), cited to [Pi4] but consisting of external data. The paper does lean on the author's previous papers [Pi5], [CP], and [Pi4] for definitions, first integrals, and character tables, but these are background with independent mathematical content, not the target result. The principal weakness is computational verifiability: Proposition 3.4 and several later statements (Proposition 3.8, Theorem 3.14, Proposition 7.5, Theorem 7.9) are delegated to 'straightforward formal computations' or Maple worksheets 'available upon request', so the cancellations on which HLOGY5 depends are not shown in the paper. That is an omitted-proof/correctness risk, not a circularity: no equation defining the output is used as its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; the paper is a pure mathematical derivation. The central results rely on established external theorems about the spinor tenfold, its torus quotient, the Serganova-Skorobogatov embedding, and Ducat's LPA structure. The main internal computational steps are asserted rather than fully displayed, which is a reproducibility concern rather than a circularity concern.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Skorobogatov's theorem that the Cartan torus action on the spinor tenfold admits a geometric quotient Y5 with Aut(Y5) isomorphic to the Weyl group W(D5).
    Invoked in §2.3.4 and used throughout for the definition of Y5, the weight divisors, and the W(D5)-equivariant structure central to Theorem 1.1.
  • domain assumption The Serganova-Skorobogatov embedding fSS: dP4 -> Y5 exists and has the stated properties, including the Picard lattice isomorphism and the correspondence between weight divisors and lines.
    Used in §2.3.5 and §6 as the bridge through which HLOGY5 is pulled back to recover HLog dP4; the recovery theorem depends structurally on this embedding.
  • domain assumption Ducat's finite-type LPA structure on the spinor tenfold S5 is a valid generalized cluster structure.
    The cluster statement of Proposition 1.2 and all of Section 4 rest on this external construction [Du] without re-deriving it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A story of webs: the webs by conics on del Pezzo quartic surfaces and Gelfand-MacPherson's web of the spinor tenfold." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5XAVL3KK

@misc{pith2026250712180,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A story of webs: the webs by conics on del Pezzo quartic surfaces and Gelfand-MacPherson's web of the spinor tenfold},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5XAVL3KK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12180}
}
abstract

In a previous paper, we studied the web by conics $\boldsymbol{\mathcal W}_{{\rm dP}_4}$ on a del Pezzo quartic surface ${\rm dP}_4$ and proved that it enjoys suitable versions of most of the remarkable properties satisfied by Bol's web $\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}$. In particular, Bol's web can be seen as the toric quotient of the Gelfand-MacPherson web naturally defined on the $A_4$-grassmannian variety $G_2(\mathbf C^5)$ and we have shown that $\boldsymbol{\mathcal W}_{{\rm dP}_4}$ can be obtained in a similar way from the web $\boldsymbol{\mathcal W}^{GM}_{ \hspace{-0.05cm} \boldsymbol{\mathcal Y}_5}$ which is the quotient by the Cartan torus of ${\rm Spin}_{10}(\mathbf C)$, of the Gelfand-MacPherson 10-web naturally defined on the tenfold spinor variety $\mathbb S_5$, a peculiar projective homogenous variety of type $D_5$. In the present paper, by means of direct and explicit computations, we show that many of the remarkable similarities between $\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathcal W}_{{\rm dP}_4}$ actually can be extended to, or from an opposite perspective, can be seen as coming from some similarities between Bol's web and $\boldsymbol{\mathcal W}^{GM}_{ \hspace{-0.05cm} \boldsymbol{\mathcal Y}_5}$. The latter web can be seen as a natural uniquely defined rank 5 generalization of Bol's web. In particular, it carries a peculiar 2-abelian relation, denoted by ${\bf HLOG}_{ \boldsymbol{\mathcal Y}_5}$, which appears as a natural generalization of Abel's five terms relation of the dilogarithm and from which one can recover the weight 3 hyperlogarithmic functional identity of any quartic del Pezzo surface.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Uber ein bemerkenswertes F\

    G. Bol . \"Uber ein bemerkenswertes F\"unfgewebe in der Ebene https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940735. Abh. Math. Semin. Univ. Hambg. 11 (1935), pp. 387--393

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02940735 1935

  2. [2]

    F. Brown . Iterated integrals in quantum field theory https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139208642.006. In `Geometric and Topological Methods for Quantum Field Theory (Proceedings of the 2009 Villa de Leyva Summer School)', Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781139208642.006 2009

  3. [3]

    Castravet, L

    A.-M. Castravet, L. Pirio . Hyperlogarithmic functional equations on del Pezzo surfaces https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2024.109567. Adv. in Math. 442 (2024), 109567

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Cavalier, D

    V. Cavalier, D. Lehmann . Rang et courbure de Blaschke des tissus holomorphes r\'eguliers de codimension un https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crma.2008.10.011. CRAS 346 (2008), pp. 1283--1288

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crma.2008.10.011 2008

  5. [5]

    D. Corey . Initial degenerations of spinor varieties https://doi.org/10.1007/s40879-023-00715-z, Eur. J. Math. 10 , (2024), n ^0 4

    work page doi:10.1007/s40879-023-00715-z 2024

  6. [6]

    Daisey, T

    O. Daisey, T. Ducat . A Laurent Phenomenon for the Cayley Plane https://doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2024.033. SIGMA 20 (2024), 033, 18 pages

    work page doi:10.3842/sigma.2024.033 2024

  7. [7]

    D.\,B. Damiano . Webs and characteristic forms of Grassmann manifolds https://doi.org/10.2307/2374443. Amer. J. Math. 105 (1983), pp. 1325--1345

    work page doi:10.2307/2374443 1983

  8. [8]

    T. Ducat . The 3-dimensional Lyness map and a self-mirror log Calabi-Yau 3-fold. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00229-023-01497-0 Manuscripta Math. 174 (2024), pp. 87--140

    work page doi:10.1007/s00229-023-01497-0 2024

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Gelfand, R

    I. Gelfand, R. MacPherson . Geometry in Grassmannians and a generalization of the dilogarithm https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8708(82)90040-8. Adv. in Math. 44 (1982), pp. 279--312

    1982 doi

  2. [10]

    Goncharov, D

    A. Goncharov, D. Rudenko . Motivic correlators, cluster varieties and Zagier's conjecture on zeta(F,4) https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.08585. Prepublication arXiv:1803.08585 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Griffiths

    P.\,A. Griffiths . The The legacy of Abel in algebraic geometry https://publications.ias.edu/sites/default/files/legacy.pdf. In `The legacy of Niels Henrik Abel', Springer-Verlag, 2004, pp. 179--205

    2004

  4. [12]

    R. Hain, R. MacPherson . Higher logarithms https://doi.org/10.1215/ijm/1255988272. Illinois J. Math. 34 (1990), pp. 392--475

    1990

  5. [13]

    S. Keel, J. Tevelev . https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129167X09005716 Equations for M_ 0,n . Internat. J. Math. 20 , (2009), pp. 1159--1184

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    M. Kerr, J. Lewis, P. Lopatto . Simplicial Abel-Jacobi maps and reciprocity laws https://doi.org/10.1090/jag/692. J. Algebraic Geom. 27 (2018), pp. 121--172

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    T. Lam, P. Pylyavskyy . Laurent phenomenon algebras https://dx.doi.org/10.4310/CJM.2016.v4.n1.a2. Camb. J. Math. 4 (2016), pp. 121--162

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Y. Manin . Cubic forms. Algebra, geometry, arithmetic https://www.sciencedirect.com/bookseries/north-holland-mathematical-library/vol/4/suppl/C. North-Holland Math. Lib. 4 . North-Holland Pub. 1986

    1986

  9. [17]

    Nakanishi

    T. Nakanishi . Cluster algebras and scattering diagrams https://doi.org/10.1142/e073. MSJ Memoirs 41 , Math. Soc. of Japan (2023), pp. xiv+279

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Nakanishi

    T. Nakanishi . Dilogarithm identities in cluster scattering diagrams https://doi.org/10.1017/nmj.2023.15. Nagoya Math. Journal 253 (2024), pp. 1--22

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    L. Pirio . Sur la lin\'earisation des tissus https://ems.press/content/serial-article-files/44191. L'Enseignement Math. 55 (2009), pp. 285--328

    2009

  12. [20]

    L. Pirio . https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.01543 On webs, polylogarithms and cluster algebras . Prepublication arXiv:2105.01543 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    L. Pirio . https://www.impan.pl/get/doi/10.4064/dm866-2-2023 On the (n+3) -webs by rational curves induced by the forgetful maps on the moduli spaces M_ 0,n+3 . Dissertationes Math. 584 (2023), pp. 1--133

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    L. Pirio . https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.02556 Webs by conics on del Pezzo surfaces and hyperlogarithmic functional identities . Prepublication arXiv:2212.02556 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    L. Pirio . https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.06711 On the 10-web by conics on the quartic del Pezzo surface . Prepublication arXiv:2401.06711 (2024) (to appear in the Ann. Fac. Sciences Toulouse)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Serganova, A

    V. Serganova, A. Skorobogatov . Del Pezzo surfaces and representation theory https://doi.org/10.2140/ant.2007.1.393. Algebra Number Theory 1 (2007), pp. 393--419

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    Skorobogatov

    A. Skorobogatov . Automorphisms and forms of torus quotients of homogeneous spaces https://doi.org/10.1070/SM2009v200n10ABEH004048. Sb. Math. 200 (2009), pp. 1521--1536

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    I. Yokota . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-88911-0 Exceptional L ie groups . Lecture Notes in Math. 2369 , Springer (2025), pp. xix+252

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.