On the $ C^{8/3} $-Regularisation of Simultaneous Binary Collisions in the Collinear 4-Body Problem

Holger R. Dullin; Nathan Duignan

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 28 references

On the $ C^{8/3} $-Regularisation of Simultaneous Binary Collisions in the Collinear 4-Body Problem

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simultaneous binary collisions in the collinear four-body problem are exactly $C^{8/3}$-regularisable, for every choice of masses.

desk verdict Known theorem, new geometric proof, but the online computation has a concrete error in the antiderivative: the claim as printed does not hold, so the new proof is incomplete as written. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05576 v1 pith:J4TR2L2S submitted 2019-08-15 math.DS

Nathan Duignan , Holger R. Dullin This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DS MSC 70F1070F1637D1037G05

keywords simultaneousbinarycollisioncollinearfour-bodyproblemblockregularisationC^{8/3}regularityblow-upnormallyhyperbolicinvariantmanifoldDulacmapnormalform

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 establishes that in the collinear four-body problem, the singularity of two simultaneous binary collisions is exactly $C^{8/3}$-regularisable: after any block regularisation, the flow depends on initial conditions with only $2$ derivatives plus a fractional $8/3$ derivative, and no smoother extension exists. The proof works by blowing up the singularity and computing the first non-smooth term in the block map explicitly, showing that its coefficient is a positive function of the masses. The result matters because isolated binary collisions are analytically regularisable, while simultaneous ones are not; the paper locates the obstruction in the first term of the potential that couples the two binaries, namely $b_c z_1^4 z_2^4$, and links the finite differentiability to the impossibility of constructing local integrals near the collision.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the block map, the transition map taking an ingoing transverse section of the collision orbits to an outgoing section. To compute it, the paper blows up the simultaneous collision into a collision manifold and shows in Proposition 3.1 that this manifold is a heteroclinic connection between two normally hyperbolic manifolds, $N^+$ and $N^-$, each a hyperbolic saddle with eigenvalue ratio $3:1$ or $1:3$. Hyperbolic transitions near these manifolds are Dulac maps, whose asymptotic series is controlled by a normal-form theorem; the regular transition between them is obtained by solving variational equations along the heteroclinic. The final composition is simplified by an approximate integral $\kappa$ of the degree-9 normal form, which shows that the resonant term enters only at order $8$ in the intrinsic energies.

What would settle it

Integrate the regularised vector field numerically for several small values of $v$ on the ingoing section, measure $h_1$ and $h_2$ on the outgoing section, and test whether $(h_1^{\mathrm{out}}-h_1^{\mathrm{in}})/(\tilde b_c a_1^{-1/3} v^{8/3})$ tends to $1$ while the difference from $\tilde b_c a_1^{-1/3} v^{8/3}$ is $O(v^3\ln v)$. A different leading exponent or coefficient would falsify the explicit block-map expansion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 4.13: in the collinear four-body problem, the simultaneous binary collision is precisely $C^{8/3}$-regularisable, for every choice of positive masses and independently of the initial condition. The paper establishes this by computing the asymptotic expansion of the block map $\pi_+$ on one side of the collision-ejection manifold: $$\pi_+(v,x,h_1,h_2,y) = \left(v,x,h_1+\tilde b_c $a_1^{{-1/3}}$ $v^{{8/3}}$, h_2 - \tilde b_c $a_2^{{-1/3}}$ $v^{{8/3}}$, y\right)+O\left($v^{3}$\ln v\right),$$ with $\tilde b_c>0$, showing that the first non-smooth term is of order $v^{8/3}$. The coefficient is traced to the first coupling monomial $b_c z_1^4 z_2^4$ in the potential expansion; this is the same obstruction that prevents a smooth invariant foliation of the normal space at order $8$. In the paper's own formulation, the finite differentiability is caused by the impossibility of constructing a set of local integrals at the simultaneous binary collision, with the $1/3$ coming from the resonance ratio of the two normally hyperbolic manifolds in the collision manifold and the $8$ from the order at which the first resonant term appears.

Load-bearing premise

The explicit coefficient of $v^{8/3}$ rests on two propositions from an unpublished companion paper on normal forms and transition maps near normally hyperbolic manifolds, and on the assumption that the limit $\nu\to0$ can be interchanged with the asymptotic series; if either assumption fails, the computed block-map coefficient need not be the true one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The regularised flow is exactly $C^{8/3}$; it is not smooth, and no choice of masses or initial conditions can improve this order.
The non-smoothness is concentrated along the direction tangent to the collision-ejection manifold, so derivatives in all other directions up to that order remain regular.
The first coupling term between the two binaries, $b_c z_1^4 z_2^4$, is the sole source of the leading $v^{8/3}$ term; the kinetic and single-binary terms do not affect the differentiability.
There are formal integrals up to order $8$, but no fourth local integral can be continued past that order, so no smooth foliation by invariant 2-planes exists near the collision; this is equivalent to the observed obstruction.
The geometric proof strategy is explicitly designed so that a similar blow-up and normal-form route could be attempted for the planar four-body problem or for $n>4$ bodies, although the paper does not carry out those extensions.

Reading between the lines

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

The same $8/3$ exponent should be expected in the planar four-body problem if the analogous first coupling monomial produces the same resonant term; this would give a direct route toward the open planar conjecture through normal forms rather than Picard iteration.
The explicit constant $\tilde b_c$ could be compared with the value obtained from the older Picard-iteration proof of the same result, providing a consistency check between two very different methods.
Because the coefficient $b_c$ is strictly positive for every positive mass assignment, the $8/3$ obstruction is structurally robust rather than a fine-tuning artifact; a similar calculation for $n>4$ bodies might reveal mass-dependent sign changes that alter the regularity order.
The presence of an $O(v^3\ln v)$ remainder suggests that the next quantitive correction to the block map is logarithmic, which could be resolved in high-precision numerical integrations and might carry further dynamical information about the collision manifold.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, quick take: this paper re-proves the Martínez–Simó C^{8/3} regularization theorem for the collinear 4-body problem, and the method is worth paying attention to. The geometric picture—two normally hyperbolic saddle manifolds with a 1:3 resonance connected by heteroclinics—is genuinely clarifying, and tying the exponent 8/3 to a failure to foliate at order 8 is a nice way to think about the problem. The authors also correctly identify the first coupling term as the source of the obstruction, and they show the result is independent of masses and initial conditions. For a proof-theorem, that is real progress in presentation even if the theorem itself is old.

The trouble is in the key computation. In Section 4.5.2, the paper defines an antiderivative for the 8th variation of h1, then displays a closed form in terms of a hypergeometric function. I checked the elementary part: at u=0 the integrand evaluates to roughly 102.5, while the derivative of the displayed expression at 0 is about 23.7. That factor of 4.3 means the printed equality cannot be true. The subsequent asymptotic formula for H8(ν), and therefore the coefficient b̃c > 0 that drives the v^{8/3} term, is unsupported as written. This is a concrete correctness gap, not just a missing justification.

There is also the structural issue: the proof leans on an unpublished companion paper [5] for the Dulac-map asymptotics, the normal form transformation in Proposition 4.2 is “provided upon request,” and the ν→0 limit in Section 4.5.3 is asserted more than shown. These were already enough to make the paper hard to verify; the antiderivative error settles it.

That said, the paper should not be shelved. The theorem is true by independent proof, so the risk of a false central claim is low. The geometric machinery may well extend to other cases, and the authors clearly know the literature and are not fitting parameters to reach 8/3. But as a standalone proof it is currently not complete.

Recommendation: send it to a serious referee, but make clear that acceptance should come only after the numerical/analytic error is fixed, the missing normal form and [5] are supplied, and the limit argument is tightened. The authors can probably repair this; as printed it is not yet usable as a proof.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the simultaneous binary collision singularity in the collinear four-body problem. Working in generalised Levi-Civita coordinates, the authors blow up the singularity and show that the collision manifold consists of two normally hyperbolic manifolds of fixed points, with stable-to-unstable eigenvalue ratios 1:3 and 3:1, connected by a manifold of heteroclinics. They compute the normal form of the vector field to degree 9 and identify a resonant term in the intrinsic-energy components that originates from the first coupling monomial $b_c z_1^4 z_2^4$ in the potential. Using a theory of Dulac maps near normally hyperbolic manifolds (stated from an unpublished companion paper), they decompose the block map into two hyperbolic transitions and a regular transition, and claim to compute its asymptotic expansion explicitly. The expansion contains a non-smooth term proportional to $v^{8/3}$ with a positive mass-dependent coefficient, yielding the main theorem that the simultaneous binary collision is exactly $C^{8/3}$-regularisable for all masses.

Significance. The result itself is not new: exact $C^{8/3}$-regularisability in the collinear problem was proved by Martinez and Simó [19]. The paper's contribution is a geometric proof scheme and, in particular, the explicit computation of the leading non-smooth term of the block map, which ties the finite differentiability to the obstruction to a local invariant foliation and shows the coefficient is positive for all masses. If the computation were correct and fully substantiated, this would be a valuable methodological step toward the planar problem. The main strengths are the transparent geometric decomposition of the dynamics near the singularity and the concrete identification of the coupling term as the source of the loss of regularity. However, the central asymptotic computation as printed contains a concrete error, and the proof depends on omitted and unpublished material; these issues must be resolved before the paper's new proof can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[§4.5.2, between (4.28) and (4.30)] The displayed antiderivative for $\bar H^{(8)}(\bar u)$ is not the antiderivative of the stated integrand. With $\tilde R_h(u,1)=R_h(u+1,u-1)$, the integrand at $u=0$ is $3^{8/3}\cdot 104/19 \approx 102.5$, whereas differentiating the displayed closed form at $u=0$ gives $72\cdot 65/(95\cdot 3^{2/3})\approx 23.7$. For large $u$, the integrand is $O(u^{5/3})$, so the integral grows as $O(u^{8/3})$, while the displayed expression grows as $O(u^{25/3})$. Consequently the formula for $H_8(\nu)$ and the positive coefficient $\tilde b_c$ in the block map are not derived from the stated calculation. Since this coefficient is exactly what produces the $v^{8/3}$ term and the sharp $C^{8/3}$ bound in Theorem 4.13, the proof of the main theorem is unsupported at this point. The authors must supply a corrected antiderivative or an alternative derivation of the $v^{8/3}$ coefficient.
[§4.5.3] The limit $\nu\to 0$ is asserted rather than proved. The passage from the finite-$\nu$ composition $\pi^+_\nu = D^\nu_2\circ T^+_\nu\circ D^\nu_1$ to the block map $\pi^+=\lim_{\nu\to 0}\pi^+_\nu$ requires that the error terms $O(\nu^{1/3}, v^3\ln v)$ be uniform in the remaining variables and that the limit can be interchanged with the asymptotic series. The text claims independence of $\nu$ but gives no argument that the truncated expansions converge to the true block map as $\nu\to 0$. This is a load-bearing gap because the definition of the block map and the conclusion of Theorem 4.13 depend on this limit.
[Proposition 4.2] The proof of Proposition 4.2 does not include the normalising transformation; the text states that it 'can be provided upon request.' The normal form $X_9$, the approximate integral $\kappa$ in (4.10), and the subsequent computation of the block map all depend on this transformation and on the assertion that the displayed terms lie in $\ker L^*$. As written, this proposition is not verifiable from the manuscript. The proof should include the transformation, a reproducible computational script, or an independent verification of the normal form.
[Propositions 4.9 and 4.10] The asymptotic theory of Dulac maps near manifolds of normally hyperbolic singularities is taken from the unpublished reference [5], described as 'to appear.' These propositions are load-bearing: they supply the asymptotic series used to compute the hyperbolic transitions $D^\nu_1,D^\nu_2$ and hence the final block map. Since the manuscript does not prove these propositions or make the companion text available, the central calculation is not checkable by the reader. The authors should either include proofs of these propositions as an appendix or make the companion manuscript accessible; at minimum, the precise hypotheses for the co-dimension 2 case with resonance ratio 1:3 should be stated in full and justified.

minor comments (4)

[§2.3] In the sentence 'We take a slight vairation to Elbialy', 'vairation' should be 'variation'.
[Eq. (4.29)] The second line of the displayed transition map appears to contain a typo: it should be $\bar x_2 = \bar x_1 + O(w_1^9)$, and the last line should be $\bar y_2 = \bar y_1 + O(w_1^9)$; as printed, the $x$-line is tautological.
[§4.5.1] The claimed error orders for the Dulac maps are not fully consistent: the text says there are no terms of the form $v\ln v, v^2\ln v$ in $D^\nu_1$, but the displayed result gives $O(v^3\ln v)$; please clarify the order to which the Dulac map is known and what the notation means uniformly in the normal-form variables.
[§3.2 and §4] The symbol $C$ is used for the simultaneous-binary-collision set in the original coordinates and also for the collision manifold cylinder after blow-up; this dual use is confusing and should be disambiguated.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The new proof's Dulac-map asymptotics are imported from the first author's unpublished [5]; the central regularity claim is nonetheless independently established by [19].

self citation load bearing [Section 4 introduction and Section 4.4, Propositions 4.9 and 4.10; used in Section 4.5.1 Eq. (4.24)]
"The relevant theory to compute the asymptotic orbit is detailed in [5]. This theory is summarised in several propositions. It is used to prove Theorem 4.11 which asserts that the block map is generically quasi-regular."

Propositions 4.9 and 4.10 are the sole source for the normal form (4.11), the Dulac series (4.12), and the quasi-regularity conclusion of Theorem 4.11; they are quoted from [5], an unpublished manuscript by the first author. The explicit hyperbolic transitions D^ν_1, D^ν_2 in (4.24), and hence the v^{8/3} coefficient assembled in Section 4.5.3, are evaluated from that imported normal form. The paper supplies no proof or independent verification of [5], so the new proof's load-bearing asymptotic machinery reduces to a self-citation rather than to a derived or externally checked result. Because Theorem 1.3/[19] independently establishes the target regularity, the central claim is not invented by the paper, but the new derivation is not self-contained at its core.

full rationale

Circularity score is 4 rather than 0 because the paper's claimed new derivation of the block-map asymptotics depends, at its load-bearing point, on Propositions 4.9 and 4.10 from [5], an unpublished work by the same first author. The paper itself says: 'The relevant theory to compute the asymptotic orbit is detailed in [5]. This theory is summarised in several propositions. It is used to prove Theorem 4.11 which asserts that the block map is generically quasi-regular.' Theorem 4.11 and the explicit computation in Section 4.5 then use those propositions directly. This is not an independent, machine-checked, or externally falsifiable citation, so it contributes circularity burden. However, this is not a case of fitting a parameter or defining a quantity so that the conclusion follows: the v^{8/3} exponent and positive coefficient are computed from the blow-up and variation equations, and the result is already known from Martinez-Simo [19], so the conclusion has independent content. A separate correctness defect was noted: the displayed antiderivative for Hbar^(8) in Section 4.5.2 does not differentiate to the stated integrand, so the numerical coefficient in (4.30) is unsupported as written; this is a correctness risk, not a circularity, and does not by itself raise the circularity score. If [5] were replaced by a published, verified proof, the score would drop to 0-1.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The blow-up constructions (collision manifold, NHIC manifolds N±, heteroclinic connection) and the approximate integral κ are mathematical devices built from the given Hamiltonian, not new postulates. There are no free parameters fitted to data; the masses are inputs and the coefficient of v^{8/3} is a positive function of the masses computed from the model.

assumptions (5)

standard math Belitskii / Stolovitch-Lombardi inner-product normal form theorem (Theorem 4.1) provides a formal conjugacy to a normal form with resonant terms in ker L*.
Used in Section 4.1 to justify the normal form computation. Standard but non-elementary background theorem.
domain assumption Propositions 4.9 and 4.10 of [5] (Duignan, to appear): near a manifold of normally hyperbolic saddles with rational hyperbolicity ratio p/q, there is a smooth normal form and the Dulac map has an asymptotic series with polynomial log terms.
This is the load-bearing external input. The paper quotes [5] for the normal form of the NHIC manifolds and the Dulac-map expansion used to compose the block map. [5] is unpublished and self-cited, so the reader cannot verify it.
domain assumption The potential K has an expansion to degree 8 with the first coupled monomial b_c z1^4 z2^4; the expansion requires x* scaled to 1 and x* != 0.
Equation (4.4) and the surrounding discussion. The expansion assumes the two binaries are separated (x* != 0) and uses a scaling to set x* = 1, which is valid away from the case where the two binaries collide at the same point.
ad hoc to paper The limit ν→0 of the intermediate-section composition π+_ν is equal to the block map π+ and may be interchanged with the asymptotic series.
In Section 4.5.3, the authors argue the block map is independent of the intermediate sections and therefore the limit ν→0 can be taken. This is a regularity-of-the-limiting argument, not proven in detail; error estimates for O(ν^{1/3}) are not given.
domain assumption The Levi-Civita energy relation (2.8) is invertible with h_i z_i^2 + 1 > 0 and branch u_i = +sqrt(1 + h_i z_i^2).
Section 2.3 states this branch condition to cover a neighbourhood of the simultaneous binary collision equilibria. It is a standard local-coordinate assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the $ C^{8/3} $-Regularisation of Simultaneous Binary Collisions in the Collinear 4-Body Problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J4TR2L2S

@misc{pith2026190805576,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the $ C^8/3 $-Regularisation of Simultaneous Binary Collisions in the Collinear 4-Body Problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J4TR2L2S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05576}
}

abstract

The singularity at a simultaneous binary collision is explored in the collinear 4-body problem. It is known that any attempt to remove the singularity via block regularisation will result in a regularised flow that is no more than $ C^{8/3} $ differentiable with respect to initial conditions. Through a blow-up of the singularity, this loss of differentiability is investigated and a new proof of the $ C^{8/3} $ regularity is provided. In the process, it is revealed that the collision manifold consists of two manifolds of normally hyperbolic saddle singularities which are connected by a manifold of heteroclinics. By utilising recent work on transitions near such objects and their normal forms, an asymptotic series of the transition past the singularity is explicitly computed. It becomes remarkably apparent that the finite differentiability at $ 8/3 $ is due to the inability to construct a set of integrals local to the simultaneous binary collision. The finite differentiability is shown to be independent from a choice of initial condition or value of the masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05576 by the authors.

**Figure 2.1.** The configuration variables near simultaneous binary collision The coordinates are depicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.1.** A qualitative plot of the uncoupled problem. Using blow-up methods in Section 3.2 this qualitative picture is validated. The C 0 -regularity of a well chosen block map π is clearly apparent. treatment of the problem in comparison to the general framework presented by Elbialy where l pairs of binaries are undergoing collision simultaneously inside the n-body problem. By only treating two binaries in the 4-body probl… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.2.** Blow-up of the uncoupled problem. The collision manifold C is represented by the cylinder and some trajectories on and nearby are given. Finally, we are in a position to prove the first key theorem, already known in [28, 13, 18]. Theorem 3.3. The set of simultaneous binary collisions is at least C 0 -regularisable in the collinear 4-body problem. Proof. The blow-up is a diffeomorphism on R 6 \C and so the inverse, t… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.1.** Figure 4.1: A geometric sketch of the required computation. The dynamics local to the manifold has been split into hyperbolic regions (Σ0 → Σ + 1 and Σ + 2 → Σ3) and a smooth transition region (Σ+ 1 → Σ + 2 ). context they are called Dulac maps. The Dulac maps have been shown to…

**Figure 4.2.** Figure 4.2: Diagram of the case N is co-dimension 2 in R 3 The following proposition from [5] gives the asymptotic structure of the Dulac map D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4_2.png]

**Figure 4.3.** Figure 4.3: Intermediate sections and their desingularisations for the upper block map π+. with some choice of 0 < δ ≤ 1 and B4 δ (0) the open ball of radius δ in R 4 . Further, denote respectively by Σˆ i , Σ¯ i the images of σi in the ˜z1 and ˜z2 directional charts. See [PITH…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[5]

Normal forms for manifolds of normally hyperbolic singularities and asymptotic properties of nearby transitions

Nathan Duignan. Normal forms for manifolds of normally hyperbolic singularities and asymptotic properties of nearby transitions. to appear

work page
[19]

The degree of diﬀerentiability of the regularization of simultaneous binary collisions in some N-body problems

Regina Mart´ ınez and Carles Sim´ o. The degree of diﬀerentiability of the regularization of simultaneous binary collisions in some N-body problems. Nonlinearity, 13(6):2107, 2000

work page 2000
[1]

Belbruno

Edward A. Belbruno. On simultaneous double collision in the collinear four-body problem. Journal of Dif- ferential Equations, 52(3):415–431, May 1984

work page 1984
[2]

Belitskii

Genrikh R. Belitskii. Invariant normal forms of formal series. Functional Analysis and Its Applications , 13(1):46–47, 1979

work page 1979
[3]

Belitskii

Genrikh R. Belitskii. C∞-normal forms of local vector ﬁelds. Acta Applicandae Mathematicae, 70(1):23–41, 2002

work page 2002
[4]

Isolated invariant sets and isolating blocks

Charles Conley and Robert Easton. Isolated invariant sets and isolating blocks. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 158(1):35–61, 1971

work page 1971
[6]

Nathan Duignan and Holger R. Dullin. Regularisation for planar vector ﬁelds. Nonlinearity, 2019, arXiv:1901.08701. in press

arXiv 2019
[7]

Singularities of vector ﬁelds on the plane

Freddy Dumortier. Singularities of vector ﬁelds on the plane. Journal of Diﬀerential Equations, 23(1):53–106, 1977

work page 1977

Show all 28 references

[8]

Regularization of vector ﬁelds by surgery

Robert Easton. Regularization of vector ﬁelds by surgery. Journal of Diﬀerential Equations , 10(1):92–99, 1971

1971
[9]

The topology of the regularized integral surfaces of the 3-body problem

Robert Easton. The topology of the regularized integral surfaces of the 3-body problem. Journal of Diﬀer- ential Equations, 12(2):361–384, 1972

1972
[10]

The Geometry of Schemes , volume 197

David Eisenbud and Joe Harris. The Geometry of Schemes , volume 197. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000

2000
[11]

Collision singularities in celestial mechanics

Mohamed Sami ElBialy. Collision singularities in celestial mechanics. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Anal- ysis, 21(6):1563–1593, 1990

1990
[12]

On simultaneous binary collisions in the planar n-body problem

Mohamed Sami ElBialy. On simultaneous binary collisions in the planar n-body problem. Zeitschrift f¨ ur angewandte Mathematik und Physik ZAMP , 44(5):880–890, 1993. REGULARISATION FOR SIMULTANEOUS BINARY COLLISIONS 27

1993
[13]

Simultaneous binary collisions in the collinear N-body problem

Mohamed Sami ElBialy. Simultaneous binary collisions in the collinear N-body problem. Journal of Diﬀer- ential Equations, 102(2):209–235, 1993

1993
[14]

Collision–Ejection Manifold and Collective Analytic Continuation of Simultane- ous Binary Collisions in the Planar N-Body Problem

Mohamed Sami ElBialy. Collision–Ejection Manifold and Collective Analytic Continuation of Simultane- ous Binary Collisions in the Planar N-Body Problem. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications , 203(1):55–77, October 1996

1996
[15]

The ﬂow of the N-body problem near a simultaneous-binary-collision singularity and integrals of motion on the collision manifold

Mohamed Sami ElBialy. The ﬂow of the N-body problem near a simultaneous-binary-collision singularity and integrals of motion on the collision manifold. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 134(4):303–340, 1996

1996
[16]

Elphick, E

C. Elphick, E. Tirapegui, M. E. Brachet, P. Coullet, and G. Iooss. A simple global characterization for normal forms of singular vector ﬁelds. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , 29(1):95–127, November 1987

1987
[17]

Normal forms of analytic perturbations of quasihomogeneous vector ﬁelds: Rigidity, invariant analytic sets and exponentially small approximation

Eric Lombardi and Laurent Stolovitch. Normal forms of analytic perturbations of quasihomogeneous vector ﬁelds: Rigidity, invariant analytic sets and exponentially small approximation. Annales Scientiﬁques de l’ ´Ecole Normale Sup´ erieure, pages 659–718, 2010

2010
[18]

Simultaneous binary collisions in the planar four-body problem.Nonlin- earity, 12(4):903, 1999

Regina Mart´ ınez and Carles Sim´ o. Simultaneous binary collisions in the planar four-body problem.Nonlin- earity, 12(4):903, 1999

1999
[20]

Triple collision in the collinear three-body problem

Richard McGehee. Triple collision in the collinear three-body problem. Inventiones Mathematicae, 27(3):191– 227, 1974

1974
[21]

Normal Forms and Unfoldings for Local Dynamical Systems

James Murdock. Normal Forms and Unfoldings for Local Dynamical Systems . Springer, 2006

2006
[22]

Regularization of simultaneous binary collisions and solutions with singu- larities in the collinear four-body problem

Tiancheng Ouyang and Zhifu Xie. Regularization of simultaneous binary collisions and solutions with singu- larities in the collinear four-body problem. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems , 24:909–932, 2009

2009
[23]

Regularization of simultaneous binary collisions in some gravitational systems

Predrag Punoˇ sevac and Qiudong Wang. Regularization of simultaneous binary collisions in some gravitational systems. The Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics , pages 257–283, 2012

2012
[24]

Bifurcation of Planar Vector Fields and Hilbert’s Sixteenth Problem , volume 164 of Progress in Mathematics

Robert Roussarie. Bifurcation of Planar Vector Fields and Hilbert’s Sixteenth Problem , volume 164 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkh¨ auser Verlag, Basel, 1998

1998
[25]

The manifold structure for collision and for hyperbolic-parabolic orbits in the n-body problem

Donald G Saari. The manifold structure for collision and for hyperbolic-parabolic orbits in the n-body problem. Journal of Diﬀerential Equations , 55(3):300–329, December 1984

1984
[26]

Springer, 2012

Carl L Siegel and J¨ urgen K Moser.Lectures on Celestial Mechanics: Reprint of the 1971 Edition . Springer, 2012

1971
[27]

Some questions looking for answers in dynamical systems.Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - A , 38(12):6215–6239, 2018

Carles Sim´ o. Some questions looking for answers in dynamical systems.Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - A , 38(12):6215–6239, 2018

2018
[28]

Regularization of simultaneous binary collisions in the n-body problem

Carles Sim´ o and Ernesto A Lacomba. Regularization of simultaneous binary collisions in the n-body problem. Journal of Diﬀerential Equations , 98(2):241–259, 1992. (Nathan Duignan) School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney, Camperdown, 2006 NSW, Australia (Ho...

1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Normal forms for manifolds of normally hyperbolic singularities and asymptotic properties of nearby transitions

Nathan Duignan. Normal forms for manifolds of normally hyperbolic singularities and asymptotic properties of nearby transitions. to appear

work page

[2] [19]

The degree of diﬀerentiability of the regularization of simultaneous binary collisions in some N-body problems

Regina Mart´ ınez and Carles Sim´ o. The degree of diﬀerentiability of the regularization of simultaneous binary collisions in some N-body problems. Nonlinearity, 13(6):2107, 2000

work page 2000

[3] [1]

Belbruno

Edward A. Belbruno. On simultaneous double collision in the collinear four-body problem. Journal of Dif- ferential Equations, 52(3):415–431, May 1984

work page 1984

[4] [2]

Belitskii

Genrikh R. Belitskii. Invariant normal forms of formal series. Functional Analysis and Its Applications , 13(1):46–47, 1979

work page 1979

[5] [3]

Belitskii

Genrikh R. Belitskii. C∞-normal forms of local vector ﬁelds. Acta Applicandae Mathematicae, 70(1):23–41, 2002

work page 2002

[6] [4]

Isolated invariant sets and isolating blocks

Charles Conley and Robert Easton. Isolated invariant sets and isolating blocks. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 158(1):35–61, 1971

work page 1971

[7] [6]

Nathan Duignan and Holger R. Dullin. Regularisation for planar vector ﬁelds. Nonlinearity, 2019, arXiv:1901.08701. in press

arXiv 2019

[8] [7]

Singularities of vector ﬁelds on the plane

Freddy Dumortier. Singularities of vector ﬁelds on the plane. Journal of Diﬀerential Equations, 23(1):53–106, 1977

work page 1977