Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Wrapped Floer homology and subcritical handle attachment

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that subcritical handle attachment leaves wrapped Floer homology unchanged, and repairs a gap in the earlier cofinal-Hamiltonian construction.

desk verdict A genuinely useful repair of a known theorem, mostly expository, with one interpolation step that needs an explicit check before the fix is airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23290 v1 pith:W2PADJAM submitted 2025-07-31 math.SG

Filip Broćić This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.SG MSC 53D4053D35
keywords wrappedFloerhomologysubcriticalhandleattachmentWeinsteincofinalHamiltonianfamilyMaslovindexLiouvilledomainReebchordsdirectlimit
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

Wrapped Floer homology is a Lagrangian analogue of symplectic homology: its chain complex is generated by Hamiltonian chords between two exact cylindrical Lagrangians in a Liouville domain, and its differential counts solutions of Floer's equation. The paper's central claim is the invariance theorem: under the standard index assumptions $2c_1(M)=0$ and vanishing Maslov classes, attaching a subcritical Weinstein $k$-handle $H^{2n}_k$ to the Liouville domain along an isotropic sphere in one Lagrangian, while attaching its imaginary part $H^n_k$ to that Lagrangian, leaves $HW^*(L_0,L_1;M)$ unchanged. The theorem had been proved before, but the earlier proof contained a gap in the choice of a cofinal family of Hamiltonians, and this paper repairs that gap. The repair allows the cofinal Hamiltonians to create additional chords inside the handle, provided their Robbin–Salamon indices grow with the Hamiltonian slope; such chords disappear from any fixed degree of the direct limit. A reader should care because wrapped Floer homology is a computable invariant of Liouville domains and their Lagrangians, and knowing it is unchanged under subcritical surgery makes transfer arguments valid.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cofinal family $H_i=a_iH_{\delta_i}+2a_i+b_i$ on $M\cup_S H^{2n}_k$, where $H$ is the Hamiltonian obtained by interpolation between the handle's defining function $\psi_\delta$ and the radial model $h_{\Sigma_\delta}$. Lemma 5.4 constructs the interpolation so that the vector field keeps the positive-coefficient form $X_H=C_xX_x-C_yX_y+C_zX_z$ with $C_x,C_y,C_z>0$; this is what confines all new chords to the Liouville subspace $x=y=0$ through the Lyapunov function $L=\sum_{i=1}^k x_i y_i$. The handle itself is the standard Weinstein $k$-handle $H^{2n}_k=\{\phi\ge -1\}\cap\{\psi_\delta\le -1\}\subset \mathbb{C}^k\times\mathbb{C}^{n-k}$, and its imaginary part $H^n_k$ is the subset $x_i=0$ that is glued to the Lagrangian $L_1$. The explicit Robbin–Salamon index calculation on $x=y=0$, splitting into $k$ non-rotating and $n-k$ rotating directions, is what shows the new chords have index growing linearly with the slope $a$.

What would settle it

Compute the coefficient functions $C_x,C_y,C_z$ for the vector field of the interpolated Hamiltonian $H=\hat H+(h_{\Sigma_\delta}-\hat H)\beta(h_{\Sigma_\delta}+2)$ using the estimate in Lemma 5.4; if any of these coefficients is not strictly positive on an open set, then the argument that all new chords lie in $x=y=0$ fails and the index control is lost.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central content is a corrected proof of Theorem 1.1. Starting from a cofinal family on $M$ that is linear near the boundary, the paper extends each Hamiltonian across the handle by interpolating between the handle's defining function and a radial model, using an interpolation lemma designed to keep the Hamiltonian vector field in the form $X_H=C_xX_x-C_yX_y+C_zX_z$ with $C_x,C_y,C_z>0$ (equation (9)). This positive-coefficient form, together with the Lyapunov function $L=\sum_{i=1}^k x_i y_i$, forces every newly created Hamiltonian chord to lie in the Liouville subspace $x=y=0$. There the dynamics is explicit, and the Robbin–Salamon index of a chord is $\mu_{\mathrm{RS}}(x)=\frac{n}{2}+(n-k)(\frac{aC_z}{2\pi}-\frac{1}{2})$, so after resolving degeneracies the resulting Maslov indices tend to $+\infty$ as the slope $a$ grows. In each fixed degree the chain complexes eventually have the same generators, and passage to the direct limit gives the isomorphism.

Load-bearing premise

The proof's control of newly created chords depends on the interpolated Hamiltonian's vector field keeping the positive-coefficient form $X_H=C_xX_x-C_yX_y+C_zX_z$ with $C_x,C_y,C_z>0$; the paper does not explicitly check that the interpolation error term from Lemma 5.4 preserves this form, and if it did not, the confinement of chords to $x=y=0$ and the index bound would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wrapped Floer homology is unchanged by subcritical handle attachment: any Liouville domain pair related by such surgery has isomorphic $HW^*$, so invariants computed before surgery transfer directly.
  • For a single Lagrangian $L=L_0=L_1$, the relative condition $2c_1(M,L)=0$ is sufficient, and the isomorphism simplifies to $HW_*(L;M)\cong HW_*(L\cup_S H^n_k; M\cup_S H^{2n}_k)$.
  • The new chords created by the repaired cofinal family have Maslov index tending to $+\infty$ with the slope, so in any fixed degree they cannot affect the direct limit.
  • When $L_0$ and $L_1$ are distinct, no new $1$-chords are created by the handle at all, giving the invariance in that case without index control.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same interpolation-and-index-control mechanism should extend to partially wrapped Floer homology and to Weinstein sectors, where subcritical handle attachment is expected to be invariant; the paper treats only exact cylindrical Lagrangians in Liouville domains.
  • The index formula suggests that in a filtered wrapped Floer complex the handle contributes a cluster of generators whose indices grow linearly with the slope; computing filtered groups for the model handle would test this.
  • Because the proof runs over $\mathbb{Z}_2$, carrying the isomorphism to integer coefficients would require orienting the moduli spaces of Floer strips; the index-cluster bound does not by itself settle orientations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper gives an expository proof of the invariance of wrapped Floer homology under subcritical Weinstein handle attachment (Theorem 1.1). For a Liouville domain M with 2c1(M)=0, exact cylindrical Lagrangians L0,L1 with vanishing Maslov classes, and an isotropic sphere S⊂L1∩∂M with trivial conformal symplectic normal bundle, the theorem asserts HW*(L0,L1;M) ≅ HW*(L0,L1∪_S H^n_k; M∪_S H^{2n}_k). The proof follows Fauck's strategy for symplectic homology: it constructs a cofinal family of Hamiltonians whose extensions to the handle create new Hamiltonian chords only in the Liouville subspace {x=y=0}, proves that their Robin-Salamon/Maslov indices go to infinity with the slope, and then uses a direct-limit comparison of the chain complexes in each fixed degree. Along the way the paper develops the wrapped Floer machinery, Viterbo's transfer morphism, and the Weinstein handle model.

Significance. If the proof is correct, the paper provides a useful and much more explicit treatment of a theorem originally proved by Irie, fixing a known gap concerning the cofinal Hamiltonian family. Its main contributions are the detailed construction of the cofinal family, the generic avoidance lemma, the Morse-Bott index estimate in Section 6.1, and the direct-limit diagram in Section 6.2. The expository value is high, particularly for readers wanting the handle-attachment invariance in a form suitable for applications such as the chord conjecture and the circular restricted three-body problem. However, the theorem itself is not new, and the paper's analytic foundations are partly outsourced to references, so the novelty is limited to the corrected construction and its presentation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1.2, Eq. (9)] The claim that the interpolated Hamiltonian H satisfies X_H = C_x X_x − C_y X_y + C_z X_z with C_x, C_y, C_z > 0 is not established. Lemma 5.4 only shows that the error term (ψ−φ)β′R is small; it does not show that adding this term to the positive-coefficient combination preserves the signs of the coefficients. In particular, the coefficient of X_y in X_{ψ_δ} is −(1−(1+ε)g′), which can be as small as ε/(1+2ε), and the error term contributes −(ψ−φ)β′ c_y X_y for a positive c_y; without a quantitative bound comparing the error to this lower bound, the Lyapunov computation dL/dt = (C_x x + C_y y)/2 may fail, and the conclusion that all new chords lie in {x=y=0} would be unjustified. Since the index calculation in §6.1 and the direct-limit argument in §6.2 both rely on this conclusion, a verified sign-preserving interpolation (or a different interpolation scheme) is required.
  2. [§5.1, Lemma 5.2] The proof of Lemma 5.2 does not justify the step from the dimension/transversality statement to the assertion about Reeb chords from Λ0 to Λ1 entering H_δ. The transversality argument shows that a generic contact form has no Reeb chord from Λ0 to S, but a chord from Λ0 to Λ1 that enters a thin handle need not end on S; one must use compactness of chords of period ≤ a to pass from avoidance of Λ0×S to avoidance of a neighborhood of S in Λ1, and the dimension count should be applied to Y×[0,a] rather than to Y×R_+. This is a local fix, but the lemma is a central input to the cofinal family construction and should be proved explicitly.
  3. [§5.1 Remark 5.1 and §6.2] The case of distinct Lagrangians L0 and L1 is dismissed in Remark 5.1 with the assertion that 'the only 1-chords of H are the chords in M'. This is not immediate: a chord starting on L0 and ending on the new handle H^n_k is not a Reeb chord from Λ0 to Λ1, so Lemma 5.2 as stated does not rule it out, and the Lyapunov argument does not control L along L0 because L need not vanish there. Since Theorem 1.1 is stated for general L0,L1, the distinct case either needs a full proof (e.g., an avoidance statement for Λ0×(H^n_k∩Σ_δ)) or the theorem should be stated only for L0=L1 with the general case delegated to a reference.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, e.g., 'Translted' in reference [AD14], 'OVER VIEW' in [Wen], and 'Arnol‘d'; these should be corrected.
  2. [§6.2] The commutative diagram is garbled; the lower-right corner should presumably be HF_k(L0,L1∪H^n_k,H_{i+1}), not HW_k(L0,L1∪H^n_k,H_i).
  3. [§5.1, proof of Lemma 5.2] The domain of F_α is written as M×R_+, but the dimension count (2n) indicates Y×R_+ is intended; this should be clarified.
  4. [Lemma 5.4] The symbol δ is used both for the handle parameter and for the error tolerance; this is confusing and should be renamed.
  5. [§3.3.2] The sentence 'we have already shown just shown that w:C→M is non-constant' contains a duplicated phrase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proof is self-contained modulo standard Floer theory and Fauck's independent handle-attachment construction; self-citations appear only in applications and side remarks.

full rationale

The manuscript's central derivation is not circular. Theorem 1.1 is proved by constructing a cofinal Hamiltonian family (Section 5.1), controlling newly created handle chords via the Robin-Salamon index (Section 6.1), and then passing to a direct limit (Section 6.2). The construction explicitly follows Fauck's independent work ([Fau16b], [Fau20]) and does not invoke the theorem being proved as an input. The self-citations ([BCS25], [BC24], [BF25]) occur in the applications section, in a pointer for a maximum-principle variant, and in a remark about a similar transversality argument; none is load-bearing for the main proof. The most delicate step, equation (9) after Lemma 5.4, is asserted from 'close' to exact positive-coefficient form without a fully explicit verification; if valid, this is a proof gap rather than a circularity, because the subsequent index calculation is performed explicitly rather than assumed. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is repackaged under new coordinates. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No empirical free parameters appear; the constants epsilon, delta, a_i, and r_n are construction parameters chosen to satisfy inequalities, not fitted to data. The central proof uses standard Floer-analytic machinery as black boxes and one unverified-if-plausible structural claim about the interpolated Hamiltonian. No new entities are invented.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard analytic foundations of wrapped Floer homology, including transversality, compactness, gluing, and continuation maps, hold as in the cited literature.
    Invoked throughout Section 3, especially in Theorems 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 and Proposition 3.4. The paper sketches but does not fully prove these standard results.
  • domain assumption The grading hypotheses 2c1(M)=0 (or 2c1(M,L)=0 when L0=L1) and vanishing Maslov classes of L0 and L1 remain true for the surgered pair (M∪H^{2n}_k, L1∪H^n_k).
    Theorem 1.1 and Section 6.2 use HW_* on the surgered side without an explicit check that the hypotheses persist after subcritical handle attachment.
  • ad hoc to paper Lemma 5.2: for subcritical k<n, a generic perturbation makes all Reeb chords from Λ0 to Λ1 of period below any given threshold stay outside a sufficiently thin handle.
    This transversality and dimension-counting lemma is specific to the handle construction and is used in Section 5.1 to build the cofinal family H_i with no short chords entering the handle.
  • ad hoc to paper The interpolated Hamiltonian H built in Section 5.1.2 has Hamiltonian vector field X_H = C_x X_x - C_y X_y + C_z X_z with positive coefficient functions C_x, C_y, C_z > 0.
    The Lyapunov argument and the index calculation in Section 6.1 rely on this exact form. The text asserts it after Lemma 5.4 without checking the interpolation error term explicitly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wrapped Floer homology and subcritical handle attachment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W2PADJAM

@misc{pith2026250723290,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wrapped Floer homology and subcritical handle attachment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W2PADJAM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23290}
}
read the original abstract

In this expository article, we present the proof of the invariance of the wrapped Floer homology under the subcritical handle attachment. This is proved by Irie. Here, we fix a minor gap in the proof about the choice of a cofinal family of Hamiltonians. We adapt the arguments from Fauck's PhD thesis, who resolved the gap for the case of handle attachment in symplectic homology. The effect of the handle attachment on the symplectic homology was originally explored by Cieliebak.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23290 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A Liouville subdomain W ⊂ M, and a Lagrangian L¯ = L ∩ W. The following integrated maximum principle will be used in the definition of Viterbo’s transfer map. This was introduced in [AS10b] for the wrapped Floer (co)homology and adapted to the setting of symplectic (co)homology in [Rit13]. Consider two Hamiltonians H± that are contact at infinity, and assume that the corresponding contact Hamiltonians satisfy h−(x) … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The graph of Hn. If a Hamiltonian is given by a function of radius H = h(r) in a certain region, since the Hamiltonian vector field XH is equal to h ′ (r)Rα, hence the action of a chord in this region is given by rh′ (r) − f(r), which equals to the minus of the y-coordinate of the intersection of the tangent line to h, and y-axis. Using this observation, the actions of the chords of our cofinal sequence Hn are divid… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A schematic picture of Σ−, Σ+ and H2n k , where R 2n−k = {y = 0}, and R k = {x = z = 0}. Using that Xx = 3 2 X k i=1 xi∂yi , Xy = − 1 2 X k i=1 yi∂xi , Xz = 1 2 Xn i=k+1 (xi∂yi − yi∂xi ), leads to dψδ(X) = ωst(X, Xψδ ) = λ(Xψδ ) = (1 + (1 + ϵ)g ′ /δ)3x − (−1 + (1 + ϵ)g ′ )y + (1 + (1 + ϵ)g ′ /δ)z. This is strictly positive, unless x = y = z = 0, but ψδ(0, 0, 0) = −1 − ϵ ̸= −1. Define the handle by H2n k := {ϕ ≥ −1} … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Neighbourhoods V− ⊂ U− of S ⊂ M 4The function hΣ− is defined only on the image of Σ− × R+ by the Liouville flow of the, for simplicity we write R2n. 43 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abouzaid

    M. Abouzaid. Symplectic cohomology and V iterbo's theorem. In Free Loop Spaces in Geometry and Topology , pages 271--486. European Mathematical Society, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Audin and M

    M. Audin and M. Damian. Morse Theory and Floer Homology , volume 223 of Universitext . Springer, 2014. Translted by Reinie Ern \'e

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Albers, U

    P. Albers, U. Frauenfelder, O. V. Koert, and G. P. Paternain. Contact geometry of the restricted three-body problem. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 65(2):229--263, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Abbondandolo, A

    A. Abbondandolo, A. Portaluri, and M. Schwarz. The homology of path spaces and F loer homology with conormal boundary conditions. J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. , 4:263--293, 2008

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    V. I. Arnol'd. First steps in symplectic topology . Russ. Math. Surv. , 41(6):--21, 1986

    work page 1986

  6. [6]

    Abbondandolo and M

    A. Abbondandolo and M. Schwarz. On the F loer homology of cotangent bundles. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 59:254--316, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Abbondandolo and M

    A. Abbondandolo and M. Schwarz. Floer homology of cotangent bundles and the loop product. Geom. Topol. , 14:1569--1722, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Abouzaid and P

    M. Abouzaid and P. Seidel. An open string analogue of V iterbo functoriality. Geom. Topol. , 14:627--718, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    D. Auroux. A Beginner's Introduction to Fukaya Categories , pages 85--136. Springer International Publishing, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Bro \'c i \'c and D

    F. Bro \'c i \'c and D. Cant. Bordism classes of loops and floer's equation in cotangent bundles. Journal of Fixed Point Theory and Applications , 26(3):26, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Bro \'c i \'c , D

    F. Bro \'c i \'c , D. Cant, and E. Shelukhin. The chord conjecture for conormal bundles. Mathematische Annalen , 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Bro\'ci\'c and U

    F. Bro\'ci\'c and U. Frauenfelder. Wrapped Floer homology and the circular restricted three body problem . draft, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Cieliebak, A

    K. Cieliebak, A. Floer, H. Hofer, and K. Wysocki. Applications of symplectic homology ii: Stability of the action spectrum. Mathematische Zeitschrift , 223(1):27--45, 1996

    1996

  6. [14]

    Cieliebak

    K. Cieliebak. Handle attaching in symplectic homology and the chord conjecture. J. European Math. Soc. , 4(2):115--142, 2002

    2002

  7. [15]

    Eliashberg

    Y. Eliashberg. On symplectic manifolds with some contact properties . Journal of Differential Geometry , 33(1):233 -- 238, 1991

    1991

  8. [16]

    L. Evans. Partial differential equations . American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    A. Fauck. Handle attaching in symplectic topology - a second glance. https://www.mathematik.hu-berlin.de/ wendl/SFT8/Fauck.pdf, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    A. Fauck. Rabinowitz-Floer homology on Brieskorn manifolds . PhD thesis, Humboldt-Universit\"at zu Berlin , 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    A. Fauck. On manifolds with infinitely many fillable contact structures. Int. J. Math. , 31(13), 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    A. Floer. Morse theory for L agrangian intersections. J. Diff. Geom. , 28(3):513--547, 1988

    1988

  13. [21]

    Frauenfelder and O

    U. Frauenfelder and O. Van Koert. The restricted Three-Body problem and holomorphic curves . Springer, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    H. Geiges. An Introduction to Contact Topology . Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    M. Gromov. Pseudo holomorphic curves in symplectic manifolds. Invent. Math. , 82:307--347, 1985

    1985

  16. [24]

    Hutchings and C

    M. Hutchings and C. H. Taubes. Proof of the Arnold chord conjecture in three dimensions. I . Math. Res. Lett. , 18(2):295--313, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Hutchings and C

    M. Hutchings and C. H. Taubes. Proof of the Arnold chord conjecture in three dimensions. II . Geom. Topol. , 17(5):2601--2688, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    K. Irie. Handle attaching in wrapped F loer homology and brake orbits in classical H amiltonian systems. Osaka J. Math. , 50(2):363--396, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    M. McLean. The Symplectic Topology of Stein Manifolds . PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2008

    2008

  20. [28]

    M. McLean. Lefschetz fibrations and symplectic homology. Geometry & Topology , 13(4):1877–1944, 2009

    1944

  21. [29]

    K. Mohnke. Holomorphic disks and the chord conjecture. Ann. Math. , 154:219--222, 2001

    2001

  22. [30]

    McDuff and D

    D. McDuff and D. Salamon. J -holomorphic curves and Symplectic Topology . American Mathematical Society, Colloquium Publications, 2nd edition, 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    McDuff and D

    D. McDuff and D. Salamon. Introduction to Symplectic Topology . Oxford University Press, 3rd edition, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Merry and I

    W. Merry and I. Uljarevic. Maximum principles in symplectic homology. Israel Journal of Mathematics , 229(1):39--65, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    A. Oancea. A survey of Floer homology for manifolds with contact type boundary or Symplectic homology . arXiv:math/0403377, 2004

    2004 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Polterovich and D

    L. Polterovich and D. Rosen. Function Theory on Symplectic Manifolds . CRM monograph series. American Mathematical Society, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    A. Ritter. Topological quantum field theory structure on symplectic cohomology. J. Topol. , 6:391--489, 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    J. Rotman. An Introduction to Homological Algebra . Springer New York, 2 edition, 2009

    2009

  29. [37]

    Robbin and D

    J. Robbin and D. Salamon. The M aslov index for paths. Topology , 32(4):827--844, 1993

    1993

  30. [38]

    D. Salamon. Lectures on F loer homology. IAS/Park City Graduate Summer School on Symplectic Geometry and Topology, 1997

    1997

  31. [39]

    P. Seidel. Graded lagrangian submanifolds. Bull. Soc. Math. France , page 103–146, 2000

    2000

  32. [40]

    P. Seidel. A biased view of symplectic cohomology . arXiv:0704.2055, 2007

    2007 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Seidel and I

    P. Seidel and I. Smith. The symplectic topology of Ramanujam’s surface . Comment. Math. Helv. , 80:859–881, 2005

    2005

  34. [42]

    Salamon and J

    D. Salamon and J. Weber. Floer homology and the heat flow. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 16:1050--1138, 2006

    2006

  35. [43]

    C. Viterbo. Functors and computations in F loer homology with applications, I . Geom. Funct. Anal. , 9(5):985--1033, 1999

    1999

  36. [44]

    Weinstein

    A. Weinstein. Contact surgery and symplectic handlebodies . Hokkaido Mathematical Journal , 20(2):241 -- 251, 1991

    1991

  37. [45]

    C. Wend. A BEGINNER’S OVERVIEW OF SYMPLECTIC HOMOLOGY . https://www.mathematik.hu-berlin.de/ wendl/pub/SH.pdf

Pith tools

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