Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 11 minor 28 references

Geometric transformation theorem, fundamental groups and monotone of numbers of almost Euclidean factors of geodesic balls

T0 review · 3 major / 11 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Monotone splitting yields transformation theorem and abelian π₁

desk verdict The non-decreasing transformation theorem (Theorem 1.1) is a genuine new result; the proof has one real gap in the iteration step of Proposition 2.2 that needs fixing but is likely salvageable. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06277 v1 pith:F7Z5WYJG submitted 2026-07-07 math.DG

Lina Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DG MSC 53C2053C2358E10
keywords transformationtheoremalmostsplittingmapsRiccicurvaturefundamentalgroupMilnorconjectureRCDspacesGromov-Hausdorffconvergencevirtuallyabelian
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proves that a geometric transformation theorem for almost-splitting maps holds when the number of almost Euclidean factors of geodesic balls is non-decreasing in the radius, complementing a prior result for the non-increasing case. The central mechanism is a local gap theorem (Proposition 2.2) showing that in an RCD space that splits k Euclidean factors but not k+l+1, any (ϵ, k+l)-splitting map must contain k linear combinations that are exactly linear functions along the Euclidean factors. This gap result feeds into an induction on the number of splitting factors, producing a controlled lower-triangular transformation T_s at each scale. The paper also constructs an explicit counterexample (Theorem 1.2) showing that if the monotonicity of Euclidean factors fails, no such transformation theorem can hold. Combining both monotone directions, the author proves that an open manifold with nonnegative Ricci curvature whose universal cover is polar at infinity and satisfies this monotonicity condition has a fundamental group that is finitely generated and virtually abelian, giving a partial confirmation of the Milnor conjecture under these geometric hypotheses.

What carries the argument

Local gap theorem (Proposition 2.2) for k-splitting RCD spaces, proved by contradiction via compactness and passage to a limit space; lower-triangular transformation matrices T_s with controlled comparison bounds; induction on the number of splitting factors from n down to k.

What would settle it

Theorem 1.2: in dimensions n≥5, there exist manifolds with almost nonneg Ricci curvature where balls are (δ,k)-Euclidean at all small scales but no controlled transformation of splitting maps exists—showing monotonicity cannot be dropped.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The key new technical ingredient is a local gap phenomenon: in a k-splitting RCD(0,N)-space whose balls are not (η, k+l+1)-Euclidean at any scale beyond a threshold, any (ϵ, k+l)-splitting map must have at least k linear combinations that are linear functions on the R^k factors. This local gap replaces the global gap theorem used in the non-increasing case and is what makes the transformation theorem work under the non-decreasing condition. Together with the prior non-increasing result, this shows that monotonicity of the number of almost Euclidean factors—whether non-increasing or non-decreasing—is the precise condition that guarantees the transformation theorem, and the counterexample (The

Load-bearing premise

The local gap theorem (Proposition 2.2) is proved by contradiction using compactness: one passes to a limit space and argues that a certain lower bound on the function u^a survives the limit, ensuring u^a is not constant. If this lower bound fails to survive the limit passage, the gap theorem collapses, and with it the entire transformation theorem and the fundamental group results.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the transformation theorem holds under monotonicity in both directions, then the class of open manifolds with nonneg Ricci curvature and monotone Euclidean factor counts has virtually abelian fundamental groups, partially extending the Milnor conjecture beyond the cases where it was previously verified.
  • The counterexample in Theorem 1.2 shows that monotonicity is not merely a technical convenience but a necessary condition—without it, the splitting structure can be too irregular for any controlled transformation to exist.
  • The Euclidean volume growth corollary (Corollary 1.4) provides a concrete geometric condition (volume growth lower bound) that automatically implies the monotonicity hypothesis, making the fundamental group conclusion applicable without directly verifying monotonicity.
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

3 major / 11 minor

Summary. This paper proves a geometric transformation theorem (Theorem 1.1) for manifolds with Ricci curvature bounded below, under a non-decreasing condition on the number of almost Euclidean factors of geodesic balls (condition (1.2)). This complements the non-increasing (generalized Reifenberg) condition studied by Huang-Huang [13]. The key new technical ingredient is Proposition 2.2, a local gap theorem proved via a compactness-by-contradiction argument. Theorem 1.1 is then combined with results from [13] to extend the main theorem of Huang [15], yielding Theorem 1.3: under the monotonicity condition and polar-at-infinity assumption on the universal cover, the fundamental group of an open manifold with nonnegative Ricci curvature is finitely generated and virtually abelian. A counterexample (Theorem 1.2) shows the transformation theorem fails without monotonicity.

Significance. The paper addresses a natural and well-motivated question in the structure theory of manifolds with lower Ricci curvature bounds, directly responding to a question raised in [13]. The connection to the Milnor conjecture gives the results clear significance. The author provides a falsifiable counterexample (Theorem 1.2) and a concrete new sufficient condition (condition (1.2)) for the transformation theorem. The overall strategy of combining the new gap theorem with existing machinery from [13, 15] is sound and the results are a genuine contribution to the field, provided the key technical gap is addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. Proposition 2.2 (page 5-6, around (2.6)): The iteration argument contains a gap. After establishing (2.5), the author defines û^a = 2u^a for functions satisfying (2.6) and claims 'It is obvious that û^{a_1}, ..., û^{a_{l+1}} still satisfy (2.1)-(2.4).' This is incorrect for condition (2.2): after doubling, |2u^a(x)| ≤ 2(d^{1+ε}+4), which violates the bound d^{1+ε}+4 required by (2.2). The subsequent compactness argument invokes [2, Theorem 4.4] for W^{1,2}_{loc} convergence. The author must verify whether [2, Theorem 4.4] requires the specific polynomial growth rate in (2.2) or merely any local L^∞ and W^{1,2} bound. If only local bounds are needed, the argument is likely salvageable, but the claim of obviousness is inaccurate and the verification must be carried out explicitly, as Proposition 2.2 is load-bearing for Theorems 2.3 and 1.1.
  2. Proof of Theorem 1.1 (page 9, induction step): In the inductive argument for k, the author writes 'If r_0 < s_{k+1} = s_{k+2} = ... = s_{k+l} < s_{k+l+1} ≤ 2 where s_{n+1} = 2, then for δ < δ_0(n, τ_{k+1}, τ_{k+l+1}), by Theorem 1.3, Theorem 1.1 holds for a almost splitting map as for k+l or k+l+1.' This appears to be a circular reference: Theorem 1.3 is proved using Theorem 1.1, so it cannot be invoked in the proof of Theorem 1.1. The author likely means to cite Theorem 2.3 here. This should be corrected and the logic of the induction clarified.
  3. Proof of Theorem 2.3 (page 8): In the contradiction argument, the author assumes there is no k×k matrix T_i and k-factors of ũ_i such that T_i u_i is a (δ, k)-splitting map on B_{r_{2i}/10}(p_i). After applying Proposition 2.2 to the limit v, the author concludes that (v^{a_1}_i, ..., v^{a_k}_i) is a (ε_i, k)-splitting map on B_r(p̃_i) for r ∈ [1/20, 1], yielding a contradiction. However, the contradiction assumption is on B_{r_{2i}/10}, while the conclusion is on B_r for r ∈ [1/20, 1] in the rescaled space. The author should clarify the rescaling relationship between these two balls to make the contradiction explicit.
minor comments (11)
  1. Title: 'monotone of numbers' should be 'monotonicity of numbers'.
  2. Page 1, line 3 of abstract: 'give an example that transformation theorem is false' should be 'give an example showing that the transformation theorem is false'.
  3. Page 4, line 2: 'The idea of the proof of the following local gap property comes from [13, Theorem 3.8] under local observations.' The phrase 'under local observations' is unclear; consider rephrasing.
  4. Page 5, line -5: 'It is obvious that ũ_l is a linear combination of ũ_1, ..., ũ_{l-1}, u_l' — the tilde notation for ũ_l^0 vs ũ_l should be checked for consistency throughout the Gram-Schmidt process.
  5. Page 6, line 1: 'satisfiy' should be 'satisfy'.
  6. Page 7, line -3: 'propersition' should be 'proposition' (reference [19]).
  7. Page 9, line 8: 'If r_0 = s_{k+1}' should probably be 'If r_0 = s_{k+1}' — check whether equality or strict inequality is intended in the case distinction.
  8. Page 10, Proof of Theorem 1.2: The argument that 'u is closed to a function that are constant restricted to the second factor' is sketched very briefly. A sentence or two expanding why this holds would improve readability.
  9. Page 12, line 5: 'And it is obvious that l_s ≤ k_s' — a brief justification would help the reader.
  10. Reference [8]: The bibliographic entry appears to merge two references and has a duplicated fragment ('with Ricci curvature bounded below, Ann. of Math. (2) 144 (1996), 189-237. MR 1405949.'). This should be cleaned up.
  11. Throughout: The notation Ψ(δ) is introduced on page 8 but the convention that it may differ between lines should be stated more prominently at first use.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and for identifying two genuine errors (a mislabeled reference and an insufficiently explained rescaling) along with one important technical point in Proposition 2.2 that requires explicit verification. We address each comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Proposition 2.2 (page 5-6, around (2.6)): The iteration argument contains a gap. After establishing (2.5), the author defines û^a = 2u^a for functions satisfying (2.6) and claims 'It is obvious that û^{a_1}, ..., û^{a_{l+1}} still satisfy (2.1)-(2.4).' This is incorrect for condition (2.2): after doubling, |2u^a(x)| ≤ 2(d^{1+ε}+4), which violates the bound d^{1+ε}+4 required by (2.2). The subsequent compactness argument invokes [2, Theorem 4.4] for W^{1,2}_{loc} convergence. The author must verify whether [2, Theorem 4.4] requires the specific polynomial growth rate in (2.2) or merely any local L^∞ and W^{1,2} bound. If only local bounds are needed, the argument is likely salvageable, but the claim of obviousness is inaccurate and the verification must be carried out explicitly, as Proposition 2.2 is load-bearing for Theorems 2.3 and 1.1.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the claim of obviousness is inaccurate: after doubling, condition (2.2) in its stated form is violated. We have verified that the argument is nonetheless salvageable, and here is the explicit verification. The convergence theorem invoked is [2, Theorem 4.4] (Ambrosio-Honda), which requires local L^∞ bounds and local W^{1,2} bounds on the sequence of harmonic functions, together with the RCD structure of the underlying spaces. It does not require the specific polynomial growth rate d(x,p)^{1+ε}+4 appearing in (2.2); that rate is used only to pass to a limit and obtain the growth bound |u^a(x)| ≤ d(x,y)+4 on the limit function, which is a consequence of the local L^∞ bound on each annulus and the locally uniform convergence. In the compactness-by-contradiction argument (the sequence (Y_i, y_i) converging to (Y, y)), the functions u^a_i satisfy |u^a_i(x)| ≤ d_i(y_i, x)^{1+ε_i} + 4, which provides a local L^∞ bound on every compact subset of B_R(y_i). After doubling, û^a = 2u^a satisfies |û^a(x)| ≤ 2(d^{1+ε_i}+4), which is still a local L^∞ bound (with a different constant). The W^{1,2} bound follows from the splitting conditions and the gradient estimate (2.8). Therefore [2, Theorem 4.4] applies, and the convergence goes through. The specific form of (2.2) is needed only for the final conclusion about the limit function, where the factor of 2 is absorbed into the constant C in the limit. We will revise the manuscript to: (1) replace the claim 'It is obvious' with an explicit remark that after doubling, the specific bound (2.2) is replaced by |û^a(x)| ≤ 2(d^{1+ε}+4), which still provides the local L^∞ bound required by [2, Theorem 4.4]; (2) add an explicit statement that [2, Theorem 4.4] requires only local L^∞ and W^{1,2} bounds, not the precise revision: yes

  2. Referee: Proof of Theorem 1.1 (page 9, induction step): In the inductive argument for k, the author writes 'If r_0 < s_{k+1} = s_{k+2} = ... = s_{k+l} < s_{k+l+1} ≤ 2 where s_{n+1} = 2, then for δ < δ_0(n, τ_{k+1}, τ_{k+l+1}), by Theorem 1.3, Theorem 1.1 holds for a almost splitting map as for k+l or k+l+1.' This appears to be a circular reference: Theorem 1.3 is proved using Theorem 1.1, so it cannot be invoked in the proof of Theorem 1.1. The author likely means to cite Theorem 2.3 here. This should be corrected and the logic of the induction clarified.

    Authors: The referee is entirely correct. This is a typographical error: the reference to 'Theorem 1.3' in the induction step of the proof of Theorem 1.1 should be 'Theorem 2.3.' Theorem 1.3 depends on Theorem 1.1, so citing it here would be circular. The intended logic is that Theorem 2.3 (which is proved independently, using Proposition 2.2 and [13, Theorem 4.1]) is applied at the induction step to handle the case where the splitting numbers s_{k+1}, ..., s_{k+l} coincide. We will correct the reference and add a sentence clarifying that the induction step invokes Theorem 2.3, which has already been established and does not depend on Theorem 1.1. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Proof of Theorem 2.3 (page 8): In the contradiction argument, the author assumes there is no k×k matrix T_i and k-factors of ũ_i such that T_i u_i is a (δ, k)-splitting map on B_{r_{2i}/10}(p_i). After applying Proposition 2.2 to the limit v, the author concludes that (v^{a_1}_i, ..., v^{a_k}_i) is a (ε_i, k)-splitting map on B_r(p̃_i) for r ∈ [1/20, 1], yielding a contradiction. However, the contradiction assumption is on B_{r_{2i}/10}, while the conclusion is on B_r for r ∈ [1/20, 1] in the rescaled space. The author should clarify the rescaling relationship between these two balls to make the contradiction explicit.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies a missing step in the exposition. The rescaling is as follows. The rescaled space is (X̃_i, p̃_i, d̃_i, m̃_i) = (X_i, p_i, r_{2i}^{-1} d_i, m(B_{r_{2i}}(p_i))^{-1} m_i), so that d̃_i = r_{2i}^{-1} d_i. Under this rescaling, the ball B_{r_{2i}/10}(p_i) in the original space corresponds to B_{1/10}(p̃_i) in the rescaled space. The conclusion from Proposition 2.2 and the W^{1,2}_{loc} convergence gives that (v^{a_1}_i, ..., v^{a_k}_i) is an (ε_i, k)-splitting map on B_r(p̃_i) for r ∈ [1/20, 1]. Since [1/20, 1] ⊂ [1/10, 1], in particular this holds on B_{1/10}(p̃_i), which is the rescaled image of B_{r_{2i}/10}(p_i). Pulling back to the original space, (v^{a_1}_i, ..., v^{a_k}_i) is an (ε_i, k)-splitting map on B_{r_{2i}/10}(p_i) for large i, contradicting the assumption that no such k-factor splitting exists on that ball. We will add an explicit sentence spelling out this rescaling correspondence and the inclusion [1/20, 1] ⊃ B_{1/10} to make the contradiction transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; derivation chain rests on external citations and a genuinely new gap theorem.

full rationale

The paper's central new ingredient is Proposition 2.2 (the local gap theorem), which is stated and proved independently, even though its proof strategy follows [13, Theorem 3.8] by the author's own acknowledgment. The citations [13] (Huang-Huang), [15] (Huang), [2] (Ambrosio-Honda), [19] (Mondino-Naber), [11] (Colding-Naber), and [25] (Pan) are all to work by different authors—not self-citations. Theorem 1.1 is derived from Proposition 2.2 + Theorem 2.3 + [13, Corollary 4.5] via an induction on k, where the non-decreasing condition (1.2) is a genuinely new input not equivalent to the conclusion (existence of splitting maps with controlled transformation matrices). Theorem 1.3 adapts the argument structure of [15] but replaces the polar-at-infinity hypothesis with the monotone condition plus Theorem 1.1, yielding a different theorem with independent content. Theorem 1.2 is a counterexample construction using [11]. No step reduces to its inputs by definition or by a fitted parameter renamed as prediction. The skeptic's concern about condition (2.2) being violated after doubling is a correctness issue, not a circularity issue. Score 1 reflects the minor dependence on the proof strategy of [13, Theorem 3.8] for Proposition 2.2, but this is standard mathematical practice and does not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new mathematical entities, particles, or physical objects. All objects (splitting maps, RCD spaces, tangent cones at infinity, Gromov-Hausdorff limits) are standard in the literature. The function Φ is a parameter, not an invented entity. The monotonicity condition (1.2) is a new condition on existing objects, not a new object.

free parameters (3)
  • Φ (control function) = unspecified, only requires lim_{δ'→0} Φ(δ')=0
    The function Φ:R+→R+ is a free parameter of the theorems, appearing in conditions (1.1) and (1.2). It is not fitted to data but is an input assumption; the theorems hold for any such Φ.
  • δ (Ricci curvature lower bound) = δ < δ(n,ϵ,Φ) (existential)
    The Ricci curvature bound Ric ≥ -(n-1)δ is a parameter that must be sufficiently small; the theorems assert existence of δ thresholds but do not compute them.
  • ϵ (splitting accuracy) = given as input
    The target splitting accuracy ϵ is an input parameter; the theorem produces δ' = δ'(n,ϵ,Φ).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math RCD(K,N) compactness and convergence theory
    The proofs rely on Gromov-Hausdorff compactness for RCD spaces, specifically [2, Theorem 4.4] for local W^{1,2} convergence of harmonic functions and [19, Proposition 2.12] for structural results.
  • standard math Cheeger-Colding splitting theory
    The framework of (δ,k)-splitting maps and almost Euclidean structure originates from Cheeger-Colding [7,8] and is used throughout.
  • domain assumption Huang-Huang transformation theorem [13, Theorem 4.1]
    Theorem 2.3 directly invokes [13, Theorem 4.1] for the (k+l)-splitting case, and the proof of Theorem 1.1 uses [13, Corollary 4.5]. This is a domain result from the same research program.
  • domain assumption Huang's fundamental group result [15, Lemma 3.1/3.2]
    Lemma 3.2 is quoted from [15] and is essential for the proof of Theorem 1.3. The proof of Theorem 1.3 explicitly follows the argument structure of [15, Theorem 1.3].
  • standard math Colding-Naber tangent cone characterization [11, Theorem 1.4]
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1.2 to construct the counterexample manifold with specific asymptotic splitting properties.
  • standard math Pan's escape rate / virtually abelian theorem [25, Theorem A]
    Theorem 3.5 (quoted from [25]) is the key input for the virtually abelian conclusion of Theorem 1.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometric transformation theorem, fundamental groups and monotone of numbers of almost Euclidean factors of geodesic balls." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F7Z5WYJG

@misc{pith2026260706277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometric transformation theorem, fundamental groups and monotone of numbers of almost Euclidean factors of geodesic balls},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F7Z5WYJG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06277}
}
read the original abstract

In \cite{HH}, H. Huang-X.Huang introduced the generalized Reifenberg condition which describes the non-increasing property of numbers of almost Euclidean factors of geodesic balls and gave a transformation theorem under this condition. In this note, we will prove a transformation theorem under a non-decreasing property compared with the non-increasing property above and give an example that transformation theorem is false without the monotone property. By these transformation theorems, as the main results in \cite{H}, we will show that for an open manifold with nonnegative Ricci curvature, if its universal cover is polar at infinity and the number of almost Euclidean factors of geodesic balls in the universal cover is monotone, then its fundamental group is finitely generated and virtually abelian.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Huang, X

    H. Huang, X. Huang, Almost splitting maps, transformation theorems and smooth fibration theorem, Adv.Math., 457 (2024), 109914

    work page 2024

  2. [15]

    H. Huang. Finite generation of fundamental groups for manifolds with nonnegative Ricci curvature whose universal cover is almost k-polar at infinite, J. Reine Angew. Math., vol. 2025, no. 819, 2025, pp. 283-299. https://doi.org/10.1515/crelle-2024-0089

    work page doi:10.1515/crelle-2024-0089 2025

  3. [1]

    M. T. Anderson. On the topology of complete manifolds of nonnegative Ricci curvature. Topology, 29(1):41–55, 1990

    work page 1990

  4. [2]

    Ambrosio, S

    L. Ambrosio, S. Honda, Local spectral convergence in RCD(K,N) spaces, Nonlinear Anal. 177 (2018) 1–23

    work page 2018

  5. [3]

    Bru` e, A

    E. Bru` e, A. Naber, and D. Semola. Six dimensional counterexample to the Milnor conjecture. arXiv:2311.12155, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [4]

    Bru` e, A

    E. Bru` e, A. Naber, and D. Semola. Fundamental groups and the Milnor conjecture. Ann. of Math. (2), 201(1):225–289, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [5]

    Naber, D

    Bru´ e, A. Naber, D. Semola, Boundary regularity and stability for spaces with Ricci bounded below, Invent. Math. 228 (2022) 777–891

    work page 2022

  8. [6]

    Bru´ e, E

    E. Bru´ e, E. Pasqualetto, D. Semola, Rectifiability of the reduced boundary for sets of finite perimeter over RCD(K, N) spaces, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 25 (2023) 413–465

    work page 2023

Show all 28 references
  1. [7]

    Cheeger, T.H

    J. Cheeger, T.H. Colding, Lower bounds on Ricci curvature and the almost rigidity of warped products, Ann. Math. (2) 144 (1) (1996) 189–237

    1996

  2. [8]

    Cheeger, T.H

    J. Cheeger, T.H. Colding, On the structure of spaces with Ricci curvature bounded below. I, J. Differ. Geom. 45 (1997) 406–480. with Ricci curvature bounded below, Ann. of Math. (2) 144 (1996), 189-237. MR 1405949

    1997

  3. [9]

    Cheeger, W

    J. Cheeger, W. Jiang, A. Naber, Rectifiability of singular sets in noncollapsed spaces with Ricci curvature bounded below, Ann. Math. (2) 193 (2) (2021) 407–538

    2021

  4. [10]

    Cheeger, A

    J. Cheeger, A. Naber, Regularity of Einstein manifolds and the codimension 4 conjecture, Ann. Math. (2) 182 (2015) 1093–1165

    2015

  5. [11]

    Colding, A

    T.H. Colding, A. Naber, Characterization of tangent cones of noncollapsed limits with lower Ricci bounds and applications, Geom. Funct. Anal. 23 (2013) 134–148

    2013

  6. [12]

    Cohn-Vossen

    S. Cohn-Vossen. Ku¨ rzeste wege und totalkru ¨ mmung auf fl¨ achen. Compositio Math., 2:69–133, 1935

    1935

  7. [14]

    Huang, X

    H. Huang, X. Huang, Nonnegative Ricci curvature, Euclidean volume growth, and the fun- damental groups of open 4-manifolds, arXiv:2502.03259

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    P. Li. Large time behavior of the heat equation on complete manifolds with nonnegative Ricci curvature. Ann. of Math. (2), 124(1):1–21, 1986

    1986

  9. [17]

    G. Liu. 3-manifolds with nonnegative Ricci curvature. Invent. Math., 193:367–375, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    J. Milnor. A note on curvature and fundamental group. J. Differential Geom., 2:1–7, 1968

    1968

  11. [19]

    Mondino, A

    A. Mondino, A. Naber, Structure theory of metric-measure spaces with lower Ricci curvature bounds, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 21 (6) (2019) 1809–1854

    2019

  12. [20]

    Kapovitch, B

    V. Kapovitch, B. Wilking, Structure of fundamental groups of manifolds with Ricci curvature bounded below

  13. [21]

    J. Pan. Nonnegative Ricci curvature, almost stability at infinity, and structure of fundamental groups. arXiv:1809.10220v2, 2019

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. Pan. Nonnegative Ricci curvature, stability at infinity and finite generation of fundamental groups. Geom. Topol., 23:3203–3231, 2019. 14 LINA CHEN

    2019

  15. [23]

    J. Pan. A proof of Milnor conjecture in dimension 3. J. Reine Angew. Math., 758:253–260, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    J. Pan. The fundamental groups of open manifolds with nonnegative Ricci curvature. SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl., 16:78,16 pp, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    J. Pan. Nonnegative Ricci curvature and escape rate gap. J. Reine Angew. Math., 782:175– 196, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Pan and X

    J. Pan and X. Rong. Ricci curvature and isometric actions with scaling nonvanishing property. arXiv:1808.02329, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    C. Sormani. Nonnegative Ricci curvature, small linear diameter growth and finite generation of fundamental groups. J. Differential Geom., 53:547–559, 1999

    1999

  20. [28]

    B. Wilking. On fundamental groups of manifolds of nonnegative curvature. Differential Geom. Appl., 13(2):129–165, 2000. (Lina Chen)School of Mathematics and Statistics, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing China Email address:chenlina mail@163.com

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.