Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 41 references

The Lawson surface ξ2,1 is the only closed embedded minimal surface of genus 2 in the 3-sphere whose isometry group contains the bidihedral group D4h.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

The Lawson surface ξ2,1 is the unique closed embedded minimal surface of genus 2 in S^3 whose isometry group contains the bidihedral group D4h.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection A significant symmetry-reduction theorem, undermined by a real derivative gap in Proposition 7.9; referee it, but don't accept as is. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.16295 v3 pith:ZKD6TMUE submitted 2025-11-20 math.DG

Genus two embedded minimal surfaces in $\mathbb{S}^3$ with dihedral symmetry

Jos\'e M. Espinar , Joaqu\'in P\'erez This is my paper
classification math.DG MSC 53A1049Q0553C42
keywords Lawson surfacegenus twominimal surfacesthree-spherebidihedral symmetryPlateau problemconjugate surfaceuniqueness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proves a uniqueness theorem: among all closed embedded minimal surfaces of genus 2 in the round 3-sphere, the classical Lawson surface ξ2,1 is the only one whose symmetry group contains the 16-element bidihedral group generated by two reflections across orthogonal totally geodesic spheres and a half-turn about a great circle. This is a step toward the open classification problem for genus-two minimal surfaces, weakening earlier hypotheses that required the full symmetry group. The proof works by cutting any such surface into sixteen congruent pieces, conjugating a fundamental piece so that its boundary becomes a right-angled geodesic pentagon, solving the Plateau problem for a two-parameter family of such pentagons, and then showing that the closing condition — where successive Schwarz reflections produce a closed embedded surface — has exactly one solution. Since the Lawson surface itself realizes that solution, uniqueness follows.

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2.5: ξ2,1 is the unique closed embedded minimal surface in S^3 with genus 2 and D4h-symmetric. Equivalently, every embedded genus-two minimal surface in the sphere whose isometry group contains the bidihedral group (Z2 × D4, with D4 the square dihedral group) is congruent to Lawson's surface. The authors reduce the problem to a two-parameter family of right-angled geodesic pentagons P_{l,ω} in S^3; each pentagon bounds a unique stable minimal disk whose conjugate surface has boundary arcs of reflective symmetry. Solving the closing problem requires the length L of a reflective geodesic to equal π/2 and an angle Θ between two totally geodesic spheres to vanish. Pr

What carries the argument

The bidihedral group D4h = Z2 × D4, realized as the symmetries generated by reflections across two orthogonal totally geodesic two-spheres and a half-turn about a great circle, cuts any invariant surface into sixteen congruent fundamental pieces. The decisive technical objects are the two-parameter family of right-angled geodesic pentagons P_{l,ω} (with parameter domain (0,π)×(−π/2,π/2) minus one point, plus a limiting one-parameter family P_σ), the Plateau solution disks Σ_{l,ω} bounded by them, and the conjugation operation that swaps great-circle boundary arcs with arcs of reflective symmetry. The proof tracks two scalar functions on the parameter space: L(l,ω), the length of the reflecti

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes that every surface with bidihedral symmetry can be placed, by an ambient isometry, into the standard coordinate model generated by the two reflections R1, R4 and the half-turn R*_+; the paper states but does not prove this conjugacy uniqueness.

What would settle it

Find a closed embedded minimal surface of genus 2 in S^3 whose isometry group contains a group isomorphic to D4h but that is not congruent to Lawson's surface; or, along the analytically defined curve Ξ(τ) of parameter values with L=π/2, compute the angle Θ(τ) and locate a second zero besides the unique Lawson value — a numerical evaluation of Θ(τ) with rigorous interval arithmetic would settle the uniqueness of the zero.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Every closed embedded minimal surface of genus 2 in S^3 with D4h symmetry is congruent to the Lawson surface ξ2,1.
  • The earlier uniqueness result for Lawson surfaces under their full symmetry group now holds under the strictly smaller, index-three bidihedral subgroup.
  • The open Conjecture 1.1 is settled affirmatively in genus 2 once the Klein subgroup is enlarged to D4h: the extra hypothesis about boundary curves meeting a great circle becomes unnecessary.
  • The level-set analysis of the length function L(l,ω)=π/2 gives an analytic one-parameter curve of candidate pentagons, and along that curve the angle condition Θ=0 has exactly one zero.
  • The technique is announced to adapt to genus g≥3 for surfaces invariant under the analogous symmetry group generated by reflections across S1, S4 and a half-turn about Γ_{k,v_g}.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the uniqueness is robust, it may provide a rigidity tool: any D4h-symmetric genus-two minimal surface sufficiently close to ξ2,1 in a strong topology would have to be congruent to it, with quantitative estimates on the closing data.
  • The two-parameter pentagon family and the monotonicity of L along level sets of τ suggest a possible parameterization of a local moduli space of genus-two minimal surfaces with symmetry, which could make the open classification problem amenable to numeric search.
  • A testable extension is to replace the half-turn generator by a rotation of angle 2π/k; the same cut-and-conjugate method may produce explicit closing equations whose number of roots could predict how many symmetric genus-two or higher-genus surfaces exist for larger symmetry groups.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves Theorem 2.5: among closed embedded minimal surfaces of genus two in the three-sphere, the Lawson surface ξ_{2,1} is the unique one whose isometry group contains the bidihedral group D_{4h}=Z_2×D_4. The proof decomposes any such surface into sixteen congruent fundamental pieces, passes to the conjugate minimal disk bounded by a right-angled geodesic pentagon P_{l,ω}, solves the Plateau problem for these pentagons, and reduces the closing problem after Schwarz reflection to two conditions: L(l,ω)=π/2 and Θ(τ)=0. The final uniqueness step is Proposition 7.9, which asserts that there is a unique parameter τ satisfying both conditions, and the last section identifies the Lawson surface with that parameter.

Significance. If the proof is completed, this is a substantial contribution: it replaces the full symmetry assumption in the Kapouleas–Wiygul characterization by a smaller, index-three subgroup and gives a concrete two-parameter reduction of the closing problem. The manuscript contains explicit parameterizations and computations, a real-analytic length function, and a generally careful monotonicity analysis. The external Kapouleas–Wiygul theorem is used only to identify the Lawson branch, not to force the conclusion. However, the uniqueness of the closing parameter is not established as written, and two supporting results are asserted rather than proved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Proposition 7.9, Section 7] The step after Eq. (125) is not justified. The identity ρ_{δ+,τ}(lτ)=π−ωτ is the endpoint statement of Theorem 5.1(4) and holds identically for all (l,ω)∈C1. Differentiating an identity gives no information: as a function of (l,ω) the endpoint angle is π−ω, so its partial derivative with respect to ω is −1, and the derivative along the curve is the tautology (ρ_l)\dot l + (ρ_ω+1)\dot ω = 0, i.e. 0=0 after substituting ρ_ω=−1. The conclusion \dot ω=0, and hence the contradiction \dot J_x=0, requires a first-variation computation for the endpoint normal angle (or for Length(N*∘δ*+)) under the normal deformation of Σ*_τ. No such computation is supplied. Without it, Proposition 7.9, and therefore the uniqueness in Theorem 2.5, is unproved.
  2. [Theorem 5.7, Section 5.2] This theorem is stated with its proof left to the reader. It is not a cosmetic omission: items 3 and 4 (Length(N∘γ)>π/2, uniqueness and stability of Σσ) are used in Lemma 6.6 to discard the P_σ family and in Lemma 7.5 to locate the unique σ with L(σ)=π/2. Since the whole argument for Theorem 2.5 excludes the family P_σ only through this result, the paper should include the full proof, or at least a detailed adaptation of Theorem 5.1 and Lemma 5.6, including the convergence statement (96).
  3. [Sections 2.5 and 3] The normalization to the generators R1, R4, R∗+ is a premise of the entire octant decomposition. The text asserts that D4h is 'uniquely up to conjugacy' an index-three subgroup of S3×D4, and Section 3 begins by using this as an isometric normalization. No proof or reference is given for this conjugacy uniqueness. If there were a D4h action not conjugate to (F1)–(F3), the fundamental-piece description of Proposition 3.2 and all subsequent parameter reductions would not apply. Please provide the group-theoretic verification.
  4. [Section 7.1.7] The parameterization of L^{-1}_+({π/2}) by an analytic curve Ξ(τ) needs more support. The proof uses strict monotonicity of L along each τ-level plus analyticity of L. Strict monotonicity of an analytic function does not prevent ∂L/∂ω from vanishing at isolated points; the implicit function theorem requires a nondegeneracy condition. Since Proposition 7.9 later differentiates Θ(τ) and other quantities along Ξ, the analyticity (or at least differentiability) of Ξ is load-bearing. The paper should either prove ∂L/∂ω≠0 on the level set or give an alternative argument.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] The sentence 'Observe that the totally geodesic two-sphere of S^3 defined by (4) with the choices p=k and v=j, is S^3' appears to be a typo: with v=j the set is the coordinate two-sphere S^3∩{x_2=0}, not the whole S^3. Please correct.
  2. [Lemma 7.5] The bound σ>π/3 is asserted with only 'can be deduced from the same comparison arguments used in Lemma 7.4'. Since this bound is not used later in an essential way, a brief justification or a clear reference to the comparison would suffice.
  3. [Lemma 4.10] The proof of Lemma 4.10 is also left to the reader. This is less serious than Theorem 5.7, but a sentence explaining the limiting argument from Lemma 4.9 would improve readability.
  4. [Concluding remarks] The concluding remarks claim that the techniques can be adapted to prove uniqueness for ξ_{g,1}, g≥3, and that an extension to D_4 is in preparation. These are not proven in the manuscript and should be phrased as conjectures or work in progress.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the uniqueness argument is a geometric reduction, and the cited Kapouleas–Wiygul classification is external and used only to identify the Lawson branch.

full rationale

The paper does not fit parameters to data and then call the result a prediction. Its main chain is: any D4h-symmetric genus-2 embedded minimal surface is decomposed into a fundamental piece (Proposition 3.2), conjugated to a Plateau disk over a geodesic pentagon (Sections 3–4), parameterized by (l,ω) or σ with existence/uniqueness from Meeks–Yau and a Radó-type argument (Theorem 5.1), then closing is reduced to two geometric conditions L=π/2 and Θ=0 (Section 7), and Proposition 7.9 asserts one solution. The only classification input, Kapouleas–Wiygul [17], is an external theorem and is used only on the special cos l + cos ω = 1 branch to identify ξ2,1, not to define the target. There are no self-citations of the authors, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, and no renaming of a known result as a new derivation. The reviewer-flagged issue in Proposition 7.9—that differentiating ρ(l,ω)=π−ω with ∂l=0 yields (ρ_ω+1)ω̇=0, which is a tautology because ρ_ω≡−1—is a proof-gap/correctness concern, not a circularity; it does not turn an input into an output. Therefore the circularity burden is essentially zero.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data: (l,ω) and σ are geometric degrees of freedom of the right-angled pentagons, and the closing conditions L=π/2, Θ=0 are derived from the geometry. No new entities are introduced; helicoids, conjugate disks, and Plateau solutions are standard tools. The main background assumptions are standard theorems plus the asserted conjugacy-uniqueness of D4h.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption D4h = Z2×D4 is unique up to conjugacy in O(4) as an index-three subgroup of S3×D4, so every D4h-symmetric surface can be conjugated to the normal form (F1)–(F3).
    Used at the start of Section 3 to reduce to octants and a specific fundamental piece; if another conjugacy class existed, some surfaces could be missed. The paper asserts this uniqueness without proof.
  • standard math Meeks–Yau theorem: for a Meeks-Yau type domain U and Jordan curve P⊂∂U there is an embedded least-area minimal disk with boundary P, interior disjoint from ∂U.
    Theorem 2.2 produces the Plateau solutions Σ_{l,ω} and Σ_σ; their embeddedness and uniqueness are used throughout Sections 5–8.
  • standard math Lawson conjugation correspondence (Prop 2.3): under conjugation, great-circle arcs become geodesics of reflective symmetry and vice versa, preserving angles and lengths.
    Basis for Section 6: converts a fundamental piece into a minimal disk bounded by a geodesic pentagon and determines the closing conditions.
  • standard math Kapouleas–Wiygul theorem: ξ_{m,k} is the unique closed embedded minimal surface in S^3 of genus mk with the symmetry group of ξ_{m,k}.
    Used in Lemma 6.7 to identify ξ2,1 on the regular-hexagon branch; an external independent characterization, not an assumption of the main theorem.
  • standard math Ros two-piece property: a compact minimal surface in S^3 is cut by a totally geodesic sphere into connected pieces.
    Used in Proposition 3.2 to control Σ*∩S3 and in the argument against the normal variation being larger than π/2.
  • standard math White's analytic structure for the space of minimal disks and the properness of the boundary map.
    Used in Section 7.1.1 to prove the length function L is real-analytic, which is needed for the analytic parameterization of the level set L^{-1}(π/2).

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Genus two embedded minimal surfaces in $\mathbb{S}^3$ with dihedral symmetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZKD6TMUE

@misc{pith2026251116295,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Genus two embedded minimal surfaces in $\mathbbS^3$ with dihedral symmetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZKD6TMUE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.16295}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We prove that the Lawson surface $\xi_{2,1}$ is the unique closed embedded minimal surface of genus $2$ in $\mathbb{S}^3$ whose isometry group contains the dihedral group $D_4$ generated by two reflections across orthogonal totally geodesic two-spheres and a half-turn about a great circle. This weakens the full-symmetry hypotheses in previous characterizations of Lawson surfaces and leads to a substantially different geometric problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.16295 by Joaqu\'in P\'erez, Jos\'e M. Espinar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: In the conformal model, the intersection of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The gray disk DL produces the Lawson surface ξ2,1 after Schwarz reflection in the blue geodesic arcs. The red arcs are geodesics in DL of reflective symmetry. (C2) ξ2,1 is characterized by its topology and symmetry group: Kapouleas and Wiygul [17] proved that for every m, k ∈ N, ξm,k is the unique closed, embedded minimal surface in S 3 with genus mk and the group of symmetries of ξm,k (up to congruencies)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Every embedded, D4h-invariant minimal surface of genus 2 is made of 16 copies of the disk F ∗ shaded in gray, which is described in Proposition 3.2. where n = n(p) ∈ N, n ≥ 3, is the number of local analytic arcs crossing at p in the equiangular system Σ∗ ∩ S 2 p,N∗(p) . Since v+ ∈ Σ ∗ (by item 2 of Lemma 3.1) and Σ∗ is R4-invariant, Σ∗ ∩ S4 is a line of curvature of Σ∗ , and the tangent vector at v+ of Σ∗… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The subdisk T , shown in orange, represents one quarter of DL. The mirror image R⊥(T ) across S(Γ⊥) is shown in gray, while the π-rotation R∗ (T ) about [p1, q1] appears in purple. (I1) The only umbilic point of F ∗ L is x ∗ = v+ = q1. (I2) The arc α ∗ is contained in the totally geodesic two-sphere R∗ (S(Γ)) := S4. Also, (p1, p2, q1) plays the role of (z ∗ , k, v+) in Proposition 3.2. (I3) The length of δ… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top left: The pentagon Pl,ω for the choice of parameters (l, ω) = (π/3, π/4) with its edges δ+, δ− in green, β+, β− in blue, and α in red. Top center: Pl,ω for (l, ω) = (π/3, 0), contained in S3. Top right: Pl,ω for (l, ω) = (π/2, π/4), contained in S4. Bottom left: Pl,ω for (l, ω) = (2π/3, −π/4), a choice of parameters in C2. Bottom right: The pentagon Pσ for the value σ = π/4. 4.6 The reduced space of pa… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: In red, the locus {(l, ω) ∈ (0, π) × (−π/2, π/2) \ {(π/2, 0)} | cosl + cos ω = 1}: there are no solutions of this equation in C2. It is not hard to check that given ω ∈ (0, π/2), the totally geodesic 2-spheres Π±,ω := Span ( cos ω − 1 2 , ∓ 1 2 , − sin ω √ 2 , p (2 − cos ω) cos ω √ 2 !)⊥ ∩ S 3 , (55) 35 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Given (l, ω) ∈ C1, the polyhedron Ul,ω is the convex hull of Pl,ω and it is a solid pyramid with vertex k and geodesic quadrilateral base face contained in S 2 α of vertices z+, z−, y+, y−; its other four boundary faces are the spherical triangles T(k, y+, y−) ⊂ S 2 x , T(k, z+, z−) ⊂ S3, T(k, z+, y+) ⊂ S 2 β+ and T(k, z−, y−) ⊂ S 2 β− . Right: Section in S2 showing the angle ∢(S 2 x , S 2 α ) in pin… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Given σ ∈ (0, π/2), the polyhedron Uσ is bounded by the three mutually orthogonal two-spheres S1, S3, S 2 σ . The internal angle in Uσ between S1 and S 2 σ is π/2. 4.8.3 The polyhedron Ul,ω for (l, ω) ∈ C2 The following lemma can be proven with similar arguments as above. Lemma 4.11. Given (l, ω) ∈ C2, consider the totally geodesic two-spheres S 2 x , S 2 α ⊂ S 3 given by S 2 x = S 3 ∩ Span {i, k, x}… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Given (l, ω) ∈ C2, the polyhedron Ul,ω is the quarter of S 3 bounded by S 2 x ∪ S 2 α that contains the point e. Ul,ω contains Pl,ω, but it is not the convex hull of Pl,ω. this Plateau problem is unique, embedded and graphical with respect to a certain Killing field of S 3 . In the case (l, ω) ∈ C2 (Section 5.3) we cannot ensure uniqueness of a minimal surface with boundary Pl,ω, but we will prove in Lemma… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: S2 ∩ S 2 x and S2 ∩ S 2 α are geodesics of S2 that intersect at ±x. The normal vector N at x lies in the open convex sector between the unit normal vectors Jx, Jα to these geodesics. Compare with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Relative position between the normals N to Σl,ω, Jα to S 2 α and Jx to S 2 x , and the rotation Killing field Ki,j , at the point x. Now, (72), (78), (81) and the fact that Vi,j is R2-symmetric, imply that if (l, ω) ∈ C1, then Vi,j > 0 in the interior of Σl,ω by the maximum principle. This finishes the proof of the first sentence of item 7. 46 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Representation in the conformal model for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Level curves τ −1 (τ ) for different values of τ . To simplify the notation, we denote: δ±,i := δ±,lτ (ωi) z±,i := z±,lτ (ωi) Pi := Plτ (ωi),ωi β±,i := β±,lτ (ωi),ωi y±,i := y±,lτ (ωi),ωi Σi := Σlτ (ωi),ωi αi := αlτ (ωi),ωi,r(lτ (ωi),ωi) xi := xlτ (ωi),ωi Ui := Ulτ (ωi),ωi γi := γlτ (ωi),ωi First, observe that the monotonicity properties of lτ and dτ imply that lτ (ω1) > lτ (ω2) and dτ (ω1) > dτ (ω2). Mor… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: In blue, the portions of the helicoids H+, H− given by (84) with (s, t) ∈ [0, r(l1, ω1)] × [l2, l1] inside the polyhedron Ul1,ω1 . In gray, S 2 x1 = S 2 x2 = B + 3 ∩ B + 4 ∩ {(cos τ, 0, − sin τ, 0)} ⊥. Definition 5.4. Fix τ ∈ [0, π/2). Given (l1 := lτ (ω1), ω1) ̸= (l2 := lτ (ω2), ω2) ∈ τ −1 (τ ) such that ω1 < ω2, we will denote by Bτ (ω1, ω2) the closure of the component of S 3 \ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Checking property (∢) along β+,2: In blue, the portions H+, Hb+ of the same helicoid. In orange, the portion of Σ2 in B + 2 . Claim: U2 ∩ ∂Hb+ = δ+,2 ∪ β+,2. Proof of the Claim. Parameterize ∂ 2 + by ∂ 2 +(t) = H+(r(l2, ω2), t), t ∈ [0, l2]. We will start by checking that ⟨∂ 2 +(t), Jx⟩ < 0 in [0, l2). (86) Observe that ⟨∂ 2 +(t), Jx⟩ vanishes at t = l2, since ∂ 2 +(l2) = y+,2, which lies on S 2 x1 . Usin… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: For σ = π/4, xσ = Γk,j(π/4) and Length(δ ∗ L ) > Length(γσ). 7.1.5 Behavior of L at the vertex (l, ω) = (π/2, 0) Given σ ∈ (0, π/2), let γσ = S2 ∩ Σσ be the geodesic of reflective symmetry introduced in (94). We define the function L = L(σ): (0, π/2) → (0,∞), L(σ) := Length(γσ). It is clear that L(σ) is analytic for σ ∈ (0, π/2) by Theorem 5.7 and the same arguments as in Section 7.1.1. Lemma 7.5 (Monoton… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The angle Θ being positive is equivalent to the positivity of the coordinate of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p068_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Representation of S1 in Euclidean three-space. The geodesic triangle T(−e,j, −k) is shaded in gray. By (116), N∗ (z ∗ ) lies in the great circle arc [−k, wΘ]. The length of the blue great circle segment [e, N∗ (δ ∗ +(t1))] is φ1. Therefore, (118) and (119) show that Length(N∗ ◦δ ∗ +) l 0 > 3π/4. As Length(N∗ ◦δ ∗ +) l 0 = π − ω by (104), we have ω < π/4. This completes the proof. We next study the sign of… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Two different possibilities for the curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p077_19.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    F. J. Almgren. Some interior regularity theorems for minimal surfaces and an exten- sion of Bernstein’s theorem.Ann. of Math. (2), 84:277–292, 1966. MR200816, Zbl 0146.11905

    arXiv 1966

  2. [2]

    B¨ ogelein, F

    V. B¨ ogelein, F. Duzaar, and N. Fusco. A quantitative isoperimetric inequality on the sphere.Adv. Calc. Var., 10(3):223–265, 2017. MR3667048, Zbl 1370.49039

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    S. Brendle. Embedded minimal tori inS 3 and the Lawson conjecture.Acta Math., 211(2):177–190, 2013. MR3143888, Zbl 1305.53061. 80

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Carozza, F

    M. Carozza, F. Giannetti, F. Leonetti, and A. Passarelli di Napoli. A sharp quan- titative estimate for the perimeters of convex sets in the plane.J. Convex Anal., 22(3):853–858, 2015. MR3400158, Zbl 1328.52002

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    J. Choe. Sufficient conditions for constant mean curvature surfaces to be round. Math. Ann., 323(1):143–156, 2002. MR1906912, Zbl 1016.53007

    arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    Choe and M

    J. Choe and M. Soret. First eigenvalue of symmetric minimal surfaces inS 3.Indiana Univ. Math. J., 58(1):269–281, 2009. MR2504411, Zbl 1160.49045

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Choe and M

    J. Choe and M. Soret. New minimal surfaces inS 3 desingularizing the clifford tori. Math. Ann., 364(3-4):763–776, 2016. MR3466850, Zbl 1341.49052

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Cianci, M

    D. Cianci, M. Karpukhin, and V. Medvedev. On branched minimal immersions of surfaces by first eigenfunctions.Ann. Global Anal. Geom., 56:667–690, 2019. MR4029852, Zbl 1427.53080

    arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    S. Heller. A spectral curve approach to lawson symmetric CMC surfaces of genus 2. 360(3-4):607–652, 2014. MR3273639, Zbl 1321.53012

    arXiv 2014

  10. [10]

    Heller and N

    S. Heller and N. Schmitt. Deformations of symmetric CMC surfaces in the 3-sphere. Exp. Math., 24(1):65–75, 2015. MR3305040, Zbl 1317.53012

    arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    Hopf.Differential Geometry in the Large, volume 1000 ofLecture Notes in Math

    H. Hopf.Differential Geometry in the Large, volume 1000 ofLecture Notes in Math. Springer-Verlag, 1989. MR1013786, Zbl 0669.53001

    arXiv 1989

  12. [12]

    L. Hsu, R. Kusner, and J. M. Sullivan. Minimizing the squared mean curvature inte- gral for surfaces in space forms.Experimental Math., 1(3):191–207, 1992. MR1203874, Zbl 0778.53001

    arXiv 1992

  13. [13]

    Jakobson, M

    D. Jakobson, M. Levitin, N. Nadirashvili, N. Nigam, and I. Polterovich. How large can the first eigenvalue be on a surface of genus two?Int. Math. Res. Not., 63:3967– 3985, 2005. MR2202582, Zbl 1114.58026

    arXiv 2005

  14. [14]

    Jakobson, N

    D. Jakobson, N. Nadirashvili, and I. Polterovich. Extremal metric for the first eigen- value on a Klein bottle.Canadian Journal of Mathematics, 58(2):381–400, 2006. MR2209284, Zbl 1104.58008

    arXiv 2006

  15. [15]

    Kapouleas and P

    N. Kapouleas and P. McGrath. Generalizing the Linearized Doubling approach, I: General theory and new minimal surfaces and self-shrinkers.Camb. J. Math., 11(2):299–439, 2023. MR4600544, Zbl 1516.53009

    arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Kapouleas and D

    N. Kapouleas and D. Wiygul. The index and nullity of the Lawson surfacesξ g,1. Camb. J. Math., 8(2):363–405, 2020. MR4091028, Zbl 1437.53049. 81

    arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Kapouleas and D

    N. Kapouleas and D. Wiygul. The Lawson surfaces are determined by their sym- metries and topology.J. Reine Angew. Math., 786:155–173, 2022. MR4434746, Zbl 1496.53075

    arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Kapouleas and D

    N. Kapouleas and D. Wiygul. Minimal surfaces in the round three-sphere by desingu- larizing intersecting Clifford tori.Math. Ann., 383(1-2):119–170, 2022. MR4444117, Zbl 1522.53005

    arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Kapouleas and S-D

    N. Kapouleas and S-D. Yang. Minimal surfaces in the three-sphere by doubling the Clifford torus.Amer. J. Math., 132(2):257–295, 2010. MR2654775, Zbl 1198.53060

    arXiv 2010

  20. [20]

    Karcher, U

    H. Karcher, U. Pinkall, and I. Sterling. New minimal surfaces inS 3.J. Differential Geom., 28(2):169–185, 1988. MR0961512, Zbl 0653.53004

    arXiv 1988

  21. [21]

    Karpukhin, R

    M. Karpukhin, R. Kusner, P. McGrath, and D. Stern. Embedded minimal sur- faces inS 3 andB 3 via equivariant eigenvalue optimization. 2024 preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13121

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Karpukhin, R

    M. Karpukhin, R. Petrides, and D. Stern. Existence of metrics maximizing the first laplace eigenvalue on closed surfaces.Annals of Mathematics, 2025. To appear, arXiv:2505.05293

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    D. Ketover. Equivariant min–max theory. 2016 preprint at arXiv:1612.08692

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    D. A. Klain. Bonnesen-type inequalities for surfaces of constant curvature.Adv. in Appl. Math., 39(2):143–154, 2007. MR2333645, Zbl 1157.53039

    arXiv 2007

  25. [25]

    R. Kusner. Comparison surfaces for the Willmore problem.Pacific J. Math., 138(2):317–345, 1989. MR996204, Zbl 0643.53044

    arXiv 1989

  26. [26]

    Kusner, Y

    R. Kusner, Y. L¨ u, and P. Wang. The Willmore problem for surfaces with symmetry. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.12582v1

    arXiv

  27. [27]

    H. B. Lawson. Complete minimal surfaces inS 3.Ann. of Math., 92:335–374, 1970. MR0270280, Zbl 0205.52001

    arXiv 1970

  28. [28]

    F. C. Marques and A. Neves. Min-max theory and the Willmore conjecture.Ann. of Math., 179(2):683–782, 2014. MR3152944, Zbl 1297.49079

    arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    W. H. Meeks III and B. White. Minimal surfaces bounded by convex curves in parallel planes.Comment. Math. Helv., 66(2):263–278, 1991. MR1107841, Zbl 0731.53004

    arXiv 1991

  30. [30]

    W. H. Meeks III and S. T. Yau. The existence of embedded minimal surfaces and the problem of uniqueness.Math. Z., 179(2):151–168, 1982. MR0645492, Zbl 0479.49026. 82

    arXiv 1982

  31. [31]

    Mercuri and I

    F. Mercuri and I. I. Onnis. On the Bj¨ orling problem in a three-dimensional Lie group. Illinois J. Math., 53(2):431–440, 2009. MR2594637, Zbl 1484.53101

    arXiv 2009

  32. [32]

    Montiel and A

    S. Montiel and A. Ros. Minimal immersions of surfaces by the first eigenfunctions and conformal area.Invent. Math., 83(1):153–166, 1986. MR813585, Zbl 0584.53026

    arXiv 1986

  33. [33]

    Nadirashvili

    N. Nadirashvili. Berger’s isoperimetric problem and minimal immersions of surfaces. Geom. Funct. Anal., 6(5):877–897, 1996. MR1415764, Zbl 0868.58079

    arXiv 1996

  34. [34]

    Petrides

    R. Petrides. Existence and regularity of maximal metrics for the first laplace eigen- value on surfaces.Geom. Funct. Anal., 24(4):1336–1376, 2014. MR3248488, Zbl 1310.58022

    arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    A. Ros. A two-piece property for compact minimal surfaces in a three-sphere.Indiana Univ. Math. J., 44(3):841–849, 1995. MR1375352, Zbl 0861.53009

    arXiv 1995

  36. [36]

    Ros and E

    A. Ros and E. Vergasta. Stability for hypersurfaces of constant mean curvature with free boundary.Geom. Dedicata, 56(1):19–33, 1995. MR1338315, Zbl 0912.53009

    arXiv 1995

  37. [37]

    C. Wang S. Bai and S. Wang. Minimal surfaces in the three-dimensional sphere with high symmetry.J. Topol. Anal., 13(2):289–317, 2021. MR4284611, Zbl 1481.53075

    arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    El Soufi and S

    A. El Soufi and S. Ilias. Immersions minimales, premi` ere valeur propre du laplacien et volume conforme.Math. Ann., 275(2):257–267, 1986. MR854009, Zbl 0675.53045

    arXiv 1986

  39. [39]

    Takahashi

    T. Takahashi. Minimal immersions of Riemannian manifolds.J. Math. Soc. Japan, 18:380–385, 1966. MR198393, Zbl 0145.18601

    arXiv 1966

  40. [40]

    B. White. New applications of mapping degrees to minimal surface theory.J. Dif- ferential Geom., 29(1):143–162, 1989. MR0978083, Zbl 0638.58005

    arXiv 1989

  41. [41]

    D. Wiygul. Minimal surfaces in the 3 minimal surfaces in the 3-sphere by stack- ing Clifford tori.J. Differential Geom., 114(3):467–549, 2020. MR4072204, Zbl 1434.53066. 83

    arXiv 2020

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.