Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

On the non-uniqueness of locally minimizing clusters via singular cones

T0 review · 3 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 In every dimension from 8 to 2700 there exists a locally minimizing three-chamber partition of space that is not the standard lens cluster and whose interface at infinity is a singular cone.

desk verdict New construction of locally minimizing non-standard lens clusters in dimensions 8–2700, with a clean analytic proof and honest computer-assisted verification; the n>8 range hangs on the FLINT code, but the paper deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13995 v1 pith:EXSAGAGM submitted 2025-07-18 math.AP

Lia Bronsard , Robin Neumayer , Michael Novack , Anna Skorobogatova This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 49Q2049Q0553A10
keywords locallyminimizingclusters(12)-clusterstandardlensclustersingulararea-minimizingconesLawsonnon-uniquenesscomputer-assistedproofintervalarithmetic
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 sets out to show that the standard lens cluster—the symmetric three-chamber partition of $\mathbb{R}^n$ into a bounded droplet and two infinite chambers that locally minimizes interfacial area—is not the only locally minimizing cluster once the dimension reaches 8. The authors build rival clusters by forcing the outer interface to follow a singular area-minimizing cone at large scales and then letting the scale go to infinity. They prove that in every dimension from 8 to 2700 such a rival exists and that its blowdown at infinity is a singular cone. If the construction is right, the classification of locally minimizing three-chamber clusters in low dimensions is genuinely sharp, and singular cones appear as asymptotic shapes rather than only as defects.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a renormalized energy comparison between the lens constant $\Lambda_{\mathrm{plane}}(n)$, the asymptotic cost of placing a lens-shaped droplet on a flat interface, and the cone constant $\Lambda(\partial K)$, the infimum cost of placing a unit-volume droplet near an interface modeled on a singular cone $\partial K$. The proof runs a sequence of penalized energy minimizers in balls of radius $R$ with boundary data $K$ outside $B_{3R}$; the penalization confines the droplet while its Lipschitz constant $1/\sqrt{R}$ dies in the limit, so any limiting concentration minimizes the unpenalized perimeter. A partial concentration-compactness argument shows that if all mass escaped as lens-shaped droplets the total energy would be at least $\Lambda_{\mathrm{plane}}(n) + P(K; B_{4R})$, contradicting the strict inequality $\Lambda(\partial K) < \Lambda_{\mathrm{plane}}(n)$; therefore some concentration survives with singular blowdown. The numeric input is Proposition 7.1, which evaluates the closed forms (7.1) and (7.14)--(7.19) in interval arithmetic.

What would settle it

Run an independent interval-arithmetic evaluation of formulas (7.1) and (7.14)--(7.19) for each $n = 9, \dots, 2700$; if for any such $n$ the computed competitor energy $M(k,l)$ is not strictly below $\Lambda_{\mathrm{plane}}(n)$, then Theorem 1.1 fails in that dimension. The $n=8$ case is separately settled by the paper's by-hand computation, so it would survive such a failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for each $n \in \{8,\dots,2700\}$ there is a locally minimizing $(1,2)$-cluster $X$ that is not the standard lens. The mechanism is a conditional statement, Theorem 1.2: whenever $K$ is a singular perimeter-minimizing cone in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and the renormalized energy comparison $\Lambda(\partial K) < \Lambda_{\mathrm{plane}}(n)$ holds, the penalized minimization procedure yields a locally minimizing cluster whose blowdown interface is a singular area-minimizing cone. Theorem 1.3 verifies the comparison in the stated dimensions using the Lawson cones $C_{k,l}$: with $k = n/2-1$ for even $n$ and $k=(n-3)/2$, $l=k+1$ for odd $n$, the paper computes the competitor energy $M(k,l)$ and proves $M(k,l) \le \Lambda_{\mathrm{Lawson}}(n) < \Lambda_{\mathrm{plane}}(n)$ by rigorous interval arithmetic, with a full by-hand verification for $n=8$. Hence the standard lens cluster is not the unique local minimizer in these dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the interval-arithmetic computations certifying $\Lambda_{\mathrm{Lawson}}(n) < \Lambda_{\mathrm{plane}}(n)$ for every $n = 8, \dots, 2700$ are correct; only the $n=8$ case has an independent by-hand verification, so a bug in the code or in the special-function identities would undo the proof for every dimension above 8.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The classification in dimensions $n \le 7$ cannot extend to $n \ge 8$: for every $n = 8, \dots, 2700$ there are at least two non-homothetic locally minimizing $(1,2)$-clusters.
  • The singular area-minimizing cones that were already known to exist become genuine asymptotic profiles of local minimizers, not merely obstructions to regularity.
  • In even dimensions the energy comparison can in principle be checked by hand; the paper carries this out explicitly for $n=8$, giving an independent verification of the first new dimension.
  • The same penalized-compactness scheme supplies minimizers for a capillarity problem inside singular cones under an analogous strict inequality, as described in Section 8.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The numerical gap $\Lambda_{\mathrm{plane}}(n) - M(k,l)$ appears to shrink as $n$ grows, so a plausible route to all dimensions $n \ge 8$ is to prove monotonicity of $\Lambda_{\mathrm{plane}}$ and then verify the inequality by asymptotic expansion rather than computation.
  • If the strict comparison persists in every dimension, the same construction should give non-uniqueness of the standard lens cluster in all $n \ge 8$, although the specific competitor used here may cease to work at very large $n$.
  • The blowdown of the constructed cluster is not shown to be the same cone $K$ used as boundary data; identifying $K_\infty$ would require uniqueness of tangent cones to minimal surfaces, which the paper notes is open.
  • Because the energies are continuous in the surface-tension weights, the same construction should produce non-standard minimizers for weighted cluster energies near equal weights, a direction the paper only sketches.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs, for each n in {8,...,2700}, a locally minimizing (1,2)-cluster in R^n that is not the standard lens cluster, answering a question raised in earlier work by Bronsard and Novack. The construction is variational: for each large R, a penalized perimeter problem is solved in a ball with boundary data given by a singular area-minimizing cone K, and a compactness/concentration argument yields a limiting locally minimizing cluster. The main conditional theorem (Theorem 1.2) states that if the strict inequality Λ(∂K) < Λplane(n) holds, then the resulting cluster has a blowdown whose interface is a singular area-minimizing cone. The paper then verifies this strict inequality for the Lawson cones, using a computer-assisted interval-arithmetic computation (Proposition 7.1), and gives a complete by-hand verification for n = 8. The paper also contains a related existence result for a capillarity problem inside cones.

Significance. If the proofs are correct, this is a significant advance: it establishes non-uniqueness of the standard lens cluster in all dimensions from 8 to 2700 and shows that singular area-minimizing cones can appear as blowdowns of local perimeter minimizers in the (1,2)-cluster problem. The analytic framework in Sections 3–6 is coherent: the penalized minimization, concentration compactness, density estimates, monotonicity formula, and the energy comparison argument are all laid out in detail. The by-hand computation of Λplane(8) and M(3,3) in Section 7.4 is a useful, independently checkable special case. The paper also contains a number of clearly stated limitations (e.g., the blowdown K∞ is not identified with the original cone K, and the numerical verification stops at n = 2700), which is commendable for its honesty.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7.3, Proposition 7.1] Proposition 7.1 is the sole computational foundation for Theorem 1.1 for n > 8, yet the manuscript does not report the actual certified interval enclosures or the precision parameters used in the FLINT/Arb computation. In particular, the margin Λplane(n) − M(k,l) decreases with n, and the paper states that the code cannot estimate Λplane(n) past roughly 2800, so the verification near n = 2700 is especially delicate. The reader needs to see the interval widths for the largest n and a reproducible script that outputs the enclosures. Please include a table of rigorous upper and lower bounds for Λplane(n) and M(k,l) for a sample of n (or for all n in the range), along with the precision and the version of the Arb library used.
  2. [§7.2, Appendix B] The closed forms (7.14)–(7.19) rely on the Euler and Picard integral representations, whose validity requires the parameter conditions stated in Appendix B (e.g., max{|λ/(ρ−d)|, |λ/(ρ+d)|} < 1). The text asserts these inequalities hold 'by construction', but no quantitative verification is provided for the full range n ∈ {8,...,2700}. Since the formulas are used to define M(k,l), a failure of these conditions for some n would invalidate Proposition 7.1. Please add a short argument or a numerical check showing that these inequalities hold for every k,l considered in Proposition 7.1.
  3. [§6, Step 2] Equation (6.6) contains a typographical error: 'Hn−1(∂K ∩ ¯X (1)(1))' should presumably read 'H^{n-1}(∂K ∩ ¯X(1))'. More substantively, the gluing construction that leads from (6.6) to the contradiction with minimality is only described in words ('a repetition of the same gluing argument giving us (6.4) above'). Since this is the step where the strict inequality Λ(∂K) < Λplane(n) is actually used, the gluing should be formulated precisely, including the control of the error term o_k(1). Without this, the proof of Theorem 1.2 is not fully verifiable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3, Eq. (3.1)] The definition of gR is written with two cases that overlap: 't − √R / √R for t ≥ √R' and '0 for t ∈ [0, R)'. The second case should be '0 for t ∈ [0, √R)' (or the first case should be 't ≥ R'), since the later estimates such as (3.8) rely on gR being positive for t ≥ √R.
  2. [§1.1, Eq. (1.3)] The phrase 'P(Xlens(1)) − ω_{n−1} ρ_n^{n−1} / n' is not self-explanatory; the notation is only clarified later in (7.4). Consider adding a sentence explaining that Λplane(n) is the renormalized energy after subtracting the area of the interface disk in the planar part of the lens.
  3. [§7.4, Table 2] Table 2 lists exact values of Λplane(n) for n = 8,...,16, but the derivation is only sketched via the recurrence in (7.23). A brief note on how the closed forms were simplified (e.g., using the contiguous relation and evaluating at z = 1/4) would help the reader reproduce these entries.
  4. [§2, Notation] The reference to [29, Chaper 12] contains a typo: 'Chaper' should be 'Chapter'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the main theorem is conditional on an independently verified strict inequality and prior classification results, none of which reduce to the conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 1.2 is an honest conditional: if Lambda(dK) < Lambda_plane(n), then a locally minimizing non-lens cluster with singular blowdown exists. The proof rules out the planar-growth alternative by invoking the prior classification [10, Theorem 2.9] of locally minimizing (1,2)-clusters with planar growth; that cited theorem is an external published result, not a consequence of the present construction, and it only characterizes the case the paper excludes. Theorem 1.3 then verifies the strict inequality Lambda_Lawson(n) < Lambda_plane(n) through exact special-function identities (7.1), (7.14)-(7.19) and rigorous interval arithmetic in FLINT/Arb, supplemented by a complete by-hand proof for n = 8. No parameter is fitted to the claimed conclusion, no quantity is defined in terms of the target cluster, and no prediction is a renamed input. The paper's reliance on [10] for lens rigidity and for the inequality Lambda_plane(n) < n*omega_n^(1/n) is load-bearing but independent: those results are prior published theorems with stated assumptions, not restatements of Theorem 1.1. The computer-assisted verification for n > 8 is a correctness and reliability risk rather than a circularity risk, because the interval-arithmetic computation directly checks the required strict inequality instead of encoding the conclusion.

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

The central claim rests on standard geometric measure theory, prior classification results for the lens cluster, a knowledge of Lawson cones, and a specifically designed penalization potential. There are no free parameters fitted to data and no invented physical entities. The main external computational ingredient is the rigorous interval arithmetic in FLINT/Arb.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard geometric measure theory background: compactness, lower semicontinuity, density estimates, monotonicity identities, and regularity results for sets of finite perimeter and clusters.
    Invoked throughout Sections 2-6 and Appendix A, with references to Maggi's book, Allard's varifold theory, and standard minimal surface regularity results.
  • domain assumption Lawson cones C_{k,l} are perimeter-minimizing with isolated singularity when k+l > 6, and in R^8 the relevant cones are C_{3,3} and C_{2,4}.
    Used in Section 1.2 and Section 7 to select the competitor cones K; the minimizing property is cited from [8] and [22].
  • domain assumption The classification and rigidity results of [10]: the standard lens is the unique locally minimizing (1,2)-cluster for n <= 7 and under planar growth for n >= 8.
    This self-cited prior work is the benchmark defining Λplane(n) and is used in Step 2 of the proof of Theorem 1.2 to identify planar-growth limits as lens clusters. It is prior published/forthcoming work, not a new postulate of this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The confinement potential g_R and the penalized minimization problem (3.1)-(3.3) are designed so that the penalty vanishes in the limit after energy comparison.
    The specific form of g_R is a technical device introduced for this proof; it is not derived from an independent physical principle, but it is not fitted to the conclusion and its Lipschitz decay is verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the non-uniqueness of locally minimizing clusters via singular cones." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EXSAGAGM

@misc{pith2026250713995,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the non-uniqueness of locally minimizing clusters via singular cones},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EXSAGAGM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13995}
}
abstract

We construct partitions of $\mathbb{R}^n$ into three sets $\{\mathscr{X}(1),\mathscr{X}(2),\mathscr{X}(3)\}$ that locally minimize interfacial area among compactly supported volume preserving variations and that blow down at infinity to singular area-minimizing cones. As a consequence, we prove the non-uniqueness of the standard lens cluster in a large number of dimensions starting from $8$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13995 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A depiction of the competitor Eˆ in the upper-right quadrant of the (u, v)-plane. The coarea formula (see e.g. [12]) yields Hn−1 (∂E) = (k + 1)(l + 1)ωk+1ωl+1 Z ∂Eˆ u k v l dH1 (7.9) |E| = (k + 1)(l + 1)ωk+1ωl+1 Z Eˆ u k v l du dv . (7.10) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A plot of Λplane(n) − M(k, l) as a function of n. Here k = l = n/2 − 1 when n is even and k = (n − 3)/2, l = k + 1 when n is odd. n k l ≈ Λplane(n) ≈ M(k, l) 8 3 3 7.29128238 6.81857964 9 3 4 7.93735360 7.47627954 10 4 4 8.55000228 8.10521276 10 3 5 — 8.09827171 11 4 5 9.13366648 8.69902383 12 5 5 9.69190314 9.26851974 13 5 6 10.22761175 9.81252149 14 6 6 10.74319067 10.33685856 14 5 7 — 10.33488774 15 6 7 11.240649… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Anisotropic isoperimetric double tilings of the plane

    math.AP 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Under L1 perimeter the isoperimetric double-tiling profile is 2√x + 2√(1-x), uniquely realized by the Pythagorean tiling of two axis-aligned squares except at equal area.

  2. Multi-Bubble Isoperimetric Problems

    math.DG 2025-10 unverdicted

    A survey of recent results: the multi-bubble isoperimetric conjecture is proved in Gaussian space for all k≤n and for up to five bubbles on Rⁿ and Sⁿ, with the remaining cases open.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Alama, L

    S. Alama, L. Bronsard, and S. Vriend, The standard lens cluster in R2 uniquely minimizes relative perimeter , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. Ser. B 12 (2025), 516–535. MR4888588

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Alama, L

    S. Alama, L. Bronsard, X. Lu, and C. Wang, Core shells and double bubbles in a weighted nonlocal isoperimetric problem , SIAM J. Math. Anal. 56 (2024), no. 2, 2357–2394. MR4717765

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    , Decorated phases in triblock copolymers: zeroth- and first-order analysis , 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    W. K. Allard, On the first variation of a varifold , Ann. of Math. (2) 95 (1972), 417–491. MR307015

    work page 1972

  5. [5]

    F. J. Almgren Jr., Existence and regularity almost everywhere of solutions to elliptic variational problems with constraints , Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 4 (1976), no. 165, viii+199. MR420406

    work page 1976

  6. [6]

    G. E. Andrews, R. Askey, and R. Roy, Special Functions, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 71, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999. MR1688958

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Bateman and B

    H. Bateman and B. M. Project, Higher Transcendental Functions [Volume i] , McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Bombieri, E

    E. Bombieri, E. De Giorgi, and E. Giusti, Minimal cones and the Bernstein problem , Invent. Math. 7 (1969), 243–268. MR250205

    work page 1969

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Bonacini, R

    M. Bonacini, R. Cristoferi, and ˙I. Topalo˘ glu,A stability inequality for planar lens partition , Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A (2025), 1–34

    2025

  2. [10]

    Bronsard and M

    L. Bronsard and M. Novack, An infinite double bubble theorem , to appear in Ann. Inst. H. Poincar` e C Anal. Non Lin` eaire, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Colombo, N

    M. Colombo, N. Edelen, and L. Spolaor, The singular set of minimal surfaces near polyhedral cones , J. Differential Geom. 120 (2022), no. 3, 411–503. MR4408288

    2022

  4. [12]

    Davini, On calibrations for Lawson ’s cones, Rend

    A. Davini, On calibrations for Lawson ’s cones, Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Padova 111 (2004), 55–70. MR2076732

    2004

  5. [13]

    De Lellis, F

    C. De Lellis, F. Glaudo, A. Massaccesi, and D. Vittone, Besicovitch’s 1/2 problem and linear programming , 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    De Philippis and F

    G. De Philippis and F. Maggi, Regularity of free boundaries in anisotropic capillarity problems and the validity of Young’s law, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 216 (2015), no. 2, 473–568. MR3317808

    2015

  7. [15]

    De Silva and D

    D. De Silva and D. Jerison, A singular energy minimizing free boundary, J. Reine Angew. Math. 635 (2009), 1–21. MR2572253

    2009

  8. [16]

    NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions . F. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds

  9. [17]

    Foisy, M

    J. Foisy, M. Alfaro, J. Brock, N. Hodges, and J. Zimba, The standard double soap bubble in R2 uniquely minimizes perimeter , Pacific J. Math. 159 (1993), no. 1, 47–59. MR1211384

    1993

  10. [18]

    G´ omez-Serrano,Computer-assisted proofs in pde: a survey , SeMA Journal 76 (2019), 459–484

    J. G´ omez-Serrano,Computer-assisted proofs in pde: a survey , SeMA Journal 76 (2019), 459–484

    2019

  11. [19]

    Hutchings, The structure of area-minimizing double bubbles , J

    M. Hutchings, The structure of area-minimizing double bubbles , J. Geom. Anal. 7 (1997), no. 2, 285–304. MR1646776

    1997

  12. [20]

    Hutchings, F

    M. Hutchings, F. Morgan, M. Ritor´ e, and A. Ros, Proof of the double bubble conjecture , Ann. of Math. (2) 155 (2002), no. 2, 459–489. MR1906593

    2002

  13. [21]

    Johansson, Arb: efficient arbitrary-precision midpoint-radius interval arithmetic , IEEE Trans

    F. Johansson, Arb: efficient arbitrary-precision midpoint-radius interval arithmetic , IEEE Trans. Comput. 66 (2017), no. 8, 1281–1292. MR3681746

    2017

  14. [22]

    G. R. Lawlor, A sufficient criterion for a cone to be area-minimizing , Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 91 (1991), no. 446, vi+111. MR1073951

    1991

  15. [23]

    , Double bubbles for immiscible fluids in Rn, J. Geom. Anal. 24 (2014), no. 1, 190–204. MR3145921 29

    2014

  16. [24]

    H. B. Lawson Jr., The equivariant Plateau problem and interior regularity , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 173 (1972), 231–249. MR308905

    1972

  17. [25]

    J. M. Lee and T. H. Parker, The Yamabe problem , Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 17 (1987), no. 1, 37–91. MR888880

    1987

  18. [26]

    G. P. Leonardi and F. Maggi, Improved convergence theorems for bubble clusters. II. The three-dimensional case , Indiana Univ. Math. J. 66 (2017), no. 2, 559–608. MR3641486

    2017

  19. [27]

    G. P. Leonardi, Infiltrations in immiscible fluids systems , Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 131 (2001), no. 2, 425–436. MR1830418

    2001

  20. [28]

    Lin and T

    F.-H. Lin and T. Rivi` ere,Energy quantization for harmonic maps , Duke Math. J. 111 (2002), no. 1, 177–193. MR1876445

    2002

  21. [29]

    F. Maggi, Sets of finite perimeter and geometric variational problems: An introduction to geometric measure theory, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    Milman, Isoperimetric inequalities on slabs with applications to cubes and Gaussian slabs , 2024

    E. Milman, Isoperimetric inequalities on slabs with applications to cubes and Gaussian slabs , 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Milman and J

    E. Milman and J. Neeman, Plateau bubbles and the quintuple bubble theorem on Sn, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    234 (2025), no

    , The structure of isoperimetric bubbles on Rn and Sn, Acta Math. 234 (2025), no. 1, 71–188. MR4877375

    2025

  25. [33]

    Milman and B

    E. Milman and B. Xu, Standard bubbles (and other M¨ obius-flat partitions) on model spaces are stable, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Naber and D

    A. Naber and D. Valtorta, Energy identity for stationary harmonic maps , 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Novack, I

    M. Novack, I. Topaloglu, and R. Venkatraman, Least Wasserstein distance between disjoint shapes with perimeter regulariza- tion, J. Funct. Anal. 284 (2023), no. 1, Paper No. 109732, 26. MR4494563

    2023

  28. [36]

    Novaga, E

    M. Novaga, E. Paolini, and V. M. Tortorelli, Locally isoperimetric partitions , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 378 (2025), no. 4, 2517–2548. MR4880454

    2025

  29. [37]

    , Existence of a non-standard isoperimetric triple partition , In preparation

  30. [38]

    Paolini and V

    E. Paolini and V. M. Tortorelli, The quadruple planar bubble enclosing equal areas is symmetric , Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 59 (2020), no. 1, Paper No. 20, 9. MR4048329

    2020

  31. [39]

    B. W. Reichardt, Proof of the double bubble conjecture in Rn, J. Geom. Anal. 18 (2008), no. 1, 172–191. MR2365672

    2008

  32. [40]

    B. W. Reichardt, C. Heilmann, Y. Y. Lai, and A. Spielman, Proof of the double bubble conjecture in R4 and certain higher dimensional cases, Pacific J. Math. 208 (2003), no. 2, 347–366. MR1971669

    2003

  33. [41]

    A. D. Rosa and R. Tione, The double and triple bubble problem for stationary varifolds: the convex case , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 378 (2025feb), no. 5, 3393–3444

  34. [42]

    Simon, Lectures on geometric measure theory , Proceedings of the Centre for Mathematical Analysis, Australian National University, vol

    L. Simon, Lectures on geometric measure theory , Proceedings of the Centre for Mathematical Analysis, Australian National University, vol. 3, Australian National University, Centre for Mathematical Analysis, Canberra, 1983. MR756417

    1983

  35. [43]

    3, 585–652

    , Cylindrical tangent cones and the singular set of minimal submanifolds , Journal of Differential Geometry 38 (1993), no. 3, 585–652

    1993

  36. [44]

    Simons, Minimal varieties in Riemannian manifolds , Ann

    J. Simons, Minimal varieties in Riemannian manifolds , Ann. of Math. (2) 88 (1968), 62–105. MR233295

    1968

  37. [45]

    J. M. Sullivan and F. Morgan, Open problems in soap bubble geometry, Internat. J. Math. 7 (1996), no. 6, 833–842. MR1417788

    1996

  38. [46]

    J. E. Taylor, Regularity of the singular sets of two-dimensional area-minimizing flat chains modulo 3 in R3, Invent. Math. 22 (1973), 119–159. MR333903

    1973

  39. [47]

    FLINT team, FLINT: Fast Library for Number Theory , 2025

    T. FLINT team, FLINT: Fast Library for Number Theory , 2025. Version 3.3.1, https://flintlib.org

    2025

  40. [48]

    B. White, Regularity of the singular sets in immiscible fluid interfaces and solutions to other Plateau-type problems , Minicon- ference on geometry and partial differential equations (Canberra, 1985), 1986, pp. 244–249. MR857670

    1985

  41. [49]

    Wichiramala, Proof of the planar triple bubble conjecture , J

    W. Wichiramala, Proof of the planar triple bubble conjecture , J. Reine Angew. Math. 567 (2004), 1–49. MR2038304 Department of Mathematics, McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4J8, Canada Email address : bronsard@mcmaster.ca Department of Mathematical Scie...

    2004

Pith tools

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