Inferring Ambient Cycles of Point Samples on Manifolds with Universal Coverings

Ka Man Yim

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Inferring Ambient Cycles of Point Samples on Manifolds with Universal Coverings

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read If the universal cover of the ambient manifold is known, distances between lifted sample points suffice to decide which cycles of a point cloud are genuine loops of the ambient space, and the paper gives the explicit homology-labelling map.

desk verdict Solid math and a real generalization of ambient-cycle labeling to arbitrary universal coverings, but the 'constructive' claim needs an algorithmic caveat and the experiments need reproducibility. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02400 v1 pith:MD5IW6QA submitted 2025-02-04 math.AT

Ka Man Yim This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AT MSC 55N3157M1053C2218B40

keywords topologicaldataanalysisuniversalcoveringmonodromyfundamentalgroupoidedgeminimisinggeodesicsambientcyclesprincipalpersistencemeasures

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

Topological data analysis usually reports cycles in a point cloud's complex without saying whether those cycles are genuinely non-trivial in the space the points were sampled from. This paper shows that if the ambient manifold's universal cover and its deck group $\Gamma$ are known, the question becomes computable from metric data alone: for each edge of the complex, take the deck transformation that brings one chosen lift closest to the other, and record it as $t(ij)$. These edge labels assemble into the transition homomorphism of the covering induced on the complex, and its abelianisation is exactly the inclusion-induced map on first homology, $H_1(K) \to H_1(M) \cong \Gamma_{\mathrm{ab}}$. So a cycle is an ambient cycle precisely when its labelled edges sum to a non-zero element of $\Gamma_{\mathrm{ab}}$. The method is constructive for Čech complexes below the convexity radius and for graphs whose edges are minimising geodesics, which exist for generic point clouds on compact manifolds, and the paper demonstrates it by labelling the four-point persistence cycles of uniform samples on the torus, Klein bottle, projective plane, and a genus-two surface by their ambient homology classes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the transition homomorphism $t: EK \to \Gamma$ of the induced covering, computed edge-by-edge as $t(ij) = \arg\inf_{g\in\Gamma} \tilde d(\tilde x_i, g\cdot \tilde x_j)$. Two bridges make this metric computation carry topological content. First, the equivalence between the edge groupoid $EK$ of the complex and the fundamental groupoid $\Pi|K|$, realised through the realisation and snapping homomorphisms $R$ and $S$: a groupoid homomorphism defined on edges, satisfying the cocycle condition of Lemma 2.8, stands in for homotopy classes of paths. Second, the monodromy correspondence: a transition homomorphism of a $\Gamma$-covering encodes exactly the same data as the monodromy homomorphism $\mu: \Pi X \to \Gamma$, the deck transformation picked out by lifting paths. The geometric fact tying these together is that a minimising geodesic in $M$ lifts to a minimising geodesic in $\tilde M$ ending at the nearest point of the relevant fibre, so the nearest-lift arg inf reproduces the monodromy on the unique geodesic class. Groupoid homology then converts $t$ into the explicit homology map $\tau: H_1(N(U)) \to \Gamma_{\mathrm{ab}}$ that recovers $H_1(f)$.

What would settle it

On the flat unit torus, represent lifts in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and compute $t(ij) = \arg\min_{g\in\mathbb{Z}^2} \|\tilde x_i - g - \tilde x_j\|$; for any four-point configuration that Lemma 4.15 says yields a persistent cycle, compare $\tau = t_{\mathrm{ab}}(01)+t_{\mathrm{ab}}(12)+t_{\mathrm{ab}}(23)+t_{\mathrm{ab}}(30)$ in $\mathbb{Z}^2$ with the actual winding of the interpolating geodesic loop around the torus — a single mismatch would falsify the reconstruction. A complementary test on the real projective plane, with lifts in $S^2$ and a pair of antipodal points where minimising geodesics are not unique, would show whether the uniqueness premise (S1) is genuinely needed for the homology recovery.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the induced map on first homology, $H_1(f): H_1(K) \to H_1(M)$, for a simplicial complex $K$ built on a finite point sample in a compact Riemannian manifold $M$ can be recovered from metric data on $M$ and on the universal covering $p: \tilde M \to M$. Concretely, choose arbitrary lifts $\tilde x_i \in p^{-1}(x_i)$ for the vertices, and for each edge $ij$ define $t(ij) = \arg\inf_{g\in\Gamma} \tilde d(\tilde x_i, g\cdot \tilde x_j)$, where $\Gamma$ is the deck group of the covering. Under the assumption that the edge's homotopy class in $M$ contains a unique minimising geodesic, the values $t(ij)$ form a groupoid homomorphism $t: EK \to \Gamma$, namely the transition homomorphism of the covering of $|K|$ induced by $f$. By the monodromy correspondence, $t$ carries the same information as the monodromy homomorphism $\mu: \Pi|K| \to \Gamma$, which is the pullback of the monodromy of the universal covering, so $t$ embeds $\pi_1(|K|)$ into $\Gamma$ up to conjugation. Applying groupoid homology, the map $\tau: H_1(K) \to \Gamma_{\mathrm{ab}}$ given by $\tau([\sum_i a_i \sigma_i]) = \sum_i a_i\, t_{\mathrm{ab}}([\sigma_i])$ recovers $H_1(f)$ up to the natural isomorphisms $H_1(K) \cong H_1(N(U))$ and $H_1(M) \cong \Gamma_{\mathrm{ab}}$. In this way, the homology class of every cycle of the complex, and in particular whether it is trivial in the ambient manifold, is read off a finite collection of nearest-lift computations.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes the universal cover and its deck group are explicitly known and the per-edge nearest-lift minimisation can actually be solved, and it needs each edge to sit in a unique minimising-geodesic homotopy class — a uniqueness the paper proves for generic point clouds and for Čech complexes below the convexity radius.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For Čech complexes with radius below the convexity radius of the manifold, the good-cover property means the induced map $H_1(\check{\mathrm{C}}ech_\epsilon(X)) \to H_1(M)$ is computable from pairwise distances on the point cloud and pairwise distances between chosen lifts, with no further information about $M$.
For min-geodesic graphs, whose edges are mapped to minimising geodesics, the same nearest-lift formula yields the transition homomorphism, and conversely any edge labelling into $\Gamma$ whose values attain the infimum is the transition homomorphism of some min-geodesic embedding.
Generic point clouds on compact manifolds satisfy the uniqueness premise: point sets with no point in the cut locus of another form an open dense subset of the configuration space, so the construction is well-defined for almost every configuration.
Because the homology map $\tau$ lands in $\Gamma_{\mathrm{ab}}$, it is independent of the arbitrary choices of atlases and lifts, allowing cycles from different samples to be compared by ambient homology class; this abelianisation sidesteps the conjugation ambiguity that affects the statement at the level of $\pi_1$.
Applied to four-point cycles, the method decomposes the first principal persistence measure by ambient homology class, and the empirical experiments on the torus, Klein bottle, real projective plane, and genus-two surface show that non-trivial ambient cycles can exceed the persistence bounds proven for simply-connected constant-curvature spaces and cannot approach the origin of the persistence dia

Reading between the lines

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

The nearest-lift step is the computational heart of the method, and for the model spaces the paper lists it is directly solvable: on the flat torus it is a nearest-lattice-point search in $\mathbb{Z}^2$, and on the hyperbolic disk a bounded search over generator combinations; an algorithmic treatment with complexity bounds for general $\Gamma$ is the natural next step but is not given in the paper
The criterion that a cycle is ambient exactly when $\tau \neq 0$ in $\Gamma_{\mathrm{ab}}$ suggests a practical noise-versus-signal pipeline: colour each point of a persistence diagram by its ambient homology class, treating the zero class as sampling noise; this is testable on the torus, where the correct class of a geodesic loop is directly visible.
The restriction to first homology is forced by the fundamental groupoid, which only sees one-dimensional topology; whether the same nearest-lift idea has a higher-degree analogue through the universal cover's cohomology or higher homotopy is a question the paper leaves open.

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

Quick take: this is a legitimately useful paper for TDA people who work with point clouds on manifolds with known universal covers, and the main mathematical engine is sound. The generalization from the Z^n periodic case in [21,22] to arbitrary deck groups is real, and the geodesic-lift labelling in Prop 4.5 is a clean idea. I buy Propositions 4.5, 4.6, 4.8; the genericity result (open dense NC point sets) is nice, and the principal-persistence decomposition is a genuine application.

The soft spot the reader flagged is real and load-bearing for the 'constructive' claim. Eq (52) asks for the arg inf over all deck transformations for every edge. The paper proves the minimizer set is finite (Prop 4.3(ii)) but gives no algorithm, fundamental-domain search, or complexity bound. Since every finitely presented group is pi_1 of a compact manifold, you cannot assume Gamma is tractable in general. For the flat torus and Klein bottle you have a lattice search; for the genus-2 hyperbolic example you need actual hyperbolic distance computations with a known fundamental domain. The paper should either restrict the claim to such tractable classes or explicitly state that 'constructive' means existence of a finite description, not an effective computation. As written, the phrase 'constructive method' overpromises.

The empirical section is also thin: no code, no data, no error bars, and the text admits it is an illustration. That is fine for a math paper, but it should be framed as a demonstration, not as part of the main claim. Minor presentation issues: the proof of Lemma 2.20 has notation slips, and Prop 4.18 is hard to follow. These are minor and fixable.

Bottom line: I agree with the conditional verdict. The covering-space/groupoid mathematics is coherent and the core inference mechanism is valuable. I would send this to a serious referee, but with the expectation of major revision: add the algorithmic discussion (or an explicit restriction), make the experiments reproducible, and clean up the presentation. It is not desk-reject material, and it is not yet ready as-is.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a groupoid-theoretic and covering-space framework for deciding, from a finite point cloud in a compact Riemannian manifold M with known universal covering p : M̃ → M, whether a one-cycle of a simplicial complex built on the point cloud is non-trivial in M. The main results relate the monodromy homomorphism of an induced covering to a transition homomorphism on the nerve of a good cover (Propositions 3.10 and 3.13), show that the first homology of the induced map is recovered as a map H₁(N(U)) → Γ_ab (Proposition 3.17), and—in the geometric part—construct the transition homomorphism from the assignment t(ij) = arg inf_{g∈Γ} d̃(ỹ_i, g·ỹ_j) under a uniqueness assumption on minimising geodesics (Proposition 4.5), with instantiations for Čech complexes of ε-thickenings for ε < conv(M) (Proposition 4.6) and for min-geodesic graphs (Proposition 4.8). The paper also proves that point clouds avoiding mutual cut loci are open and dense in configuration space on compact manifolds (Propositions 4.11–4.12, Corollary 4.13) and gives an empirical application to labelling principal persistence measures on four-point cycles for the torus, Klein bottle, RP², and the genus-2 surface (§4.4).

Significance. If the method can be made fully constructive, the paper provides a broad and conceptually clean answer to an important question in TDA: the metric data of the point cloud and of one lift per point do determine the induced homology homomorphism up to the inherent gauge freedom (conjugation). The groupoid formalism is appropriate and the chain of results from Section 2.3 to Proposition 4.5 is coherent; there are no fitted parameters, the main assumptions (S1) and (C1)–(C2) are stated explicitly, and the paper is honest about the limitations it does see (Remark 3.14 on pullback monodromy, Remark 4.14 on non-openness of unique-geodesic configurations). The generic-uniqueness results in Section 4.3 are a useful contribution in their own right. The central shortfall is that the passage from the mathematically well-defined Eq. (52) to an effective construction is not supplied, and the empirical section is not reproducible as described; these points are detailed in the major comments.

major comments (3)

[§4, Prop. 4.5, Eq. (52)] The abstract and Section 4 present the method as constructive, but the central computational step, t(ij) = arg inf_{g∈Γ} d̃(ỹ_i, g·ỹ_j) in Eq. (52), is not accompanied by an algorithm, a complexity bound, or a decidability statement for arbitrary deck groups Γ. Proposition 4.3(ii) proves only that the infimum is attained by finitely many elements; it does not explain how those elements are found. Since compact Riemannian manifolds in dimension at least 4 realize every finitely presented group as their fundamental group, and hence as deck group of the universal covering with an arbitrary metric, 'Γ is known' does not by itself make Eq. (52) computable. The constructive claim in the abstract and in Proposition 4.5 therefore needs either an explicit class of coverings for which the minimization is tractable (e.g., lattices and Fuchsian groups with fundamental-domain searches and explicit search radii), or a formal oracle model; as written, the 'metric data suffice' statement is a well-defined existence statement but not an effective construction.
[§4.4.2] The empirical section reports one million sampled four-point configurations on the torus, Klein bottle, RP², and the genus-2 surface and labels each persistent cycle by its homology class via Eq. (52). No numerical method is given for computing the arg inf over Γ, in particular for the Fuchsian group of the genus-2 surface, where neither a fundamental-domain search, nor a ball radius bound for the finite attainable set, nor a tolerance is specified. The figures (Figs. 2–5) are kernel density estimates without accompanying data or code, so the claimed decomposition of the principal persistence measure is not reproducible from the inputs described in the text.
[§4.3, Cor. 4.13 and §4.2, Prop. 4.8] Assumption (S1) in Proposition 4.5 is the uniqueness hypothesis that makes the arg inf in Eq. (52) unambiguous. It is certified only in two regimes: ε < conv(M) for the Čech construction (Prop. 4.6) and generically in configuration space for compact manifolds (Cor. 4.13). The min-geodesic graph pipeline of Prop. 4.8, which is the one used in §4.4, has no verifiable per-edge certificate of uniqueness for a given point cloud; non-generic clouds (points on mutual cut loci) fall outside Cor. 4.13, and Remark 4.14 explicitly notes that unique-geodesic configurations need not form an open set. In the non-generic case where several g attain the infimum, the homology label depends on the choice of minimizer, so the paper should state what is checked or perturbed in practice to enforce (S1) in the experiments, or restrict the claims accordingly.

minor comments (6)

[Lemma 2.20 proof] The notation in the proof is inconsistent: 'C = C(EX)' should read 'C̄ = C₁(EK)' and 'B = B(EK)' should be 'B̄ = B₁(EK)'; the text also concludes 'H₀(X) ∼= H₀(X)' where the second factor should be H₀(ΠX); and the phrase 'the , induces' contains a stray comma.
[Throughout] There are repeated typos: 'manfiolds' (§4.1 header and Definition 4.10), 'meausure', 'empiricla', 'folowing' (§4.4.2), 'unviersal' (§4.4.2), 'cna' (Introduction), and 'the such data' (§4.4.2); these should be corrected in a revision.
[Appendix A, Lemma A.3] The citation 'Vidit Nanda's lecture notes (?)' contains a dangling '(?)' and should be completed with a full reference or removed.
[§3.1, Eq. (28)] The map π₀(ι) appears without a definition of ι; the maps in the pointed-set exact sequence should be labelled consistently.
[Prop. 4.3 proof] The phrase 'When we lift any such geodesic' should specify that the lift is based at the chosen x̃ ∈ p⁻¹(x), and the proof carries some claims forward (e.g., d(x,y) = L) before they are established, which makes the ordering hard to follow.
[Figure 3 caption] The caption states homology classes are (n,m) ∈ Z ⊕ Z₂; the sign convention used to identify the classes should be specified, since the abelianization of the Klein bottle group has a canonical Z₂ summand only up to choice of generator.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the inference is a direct application of covering-space monodromy and Riemannian geodesic lifting, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Proposition 4.5 constructs the transition homomorphism t(ij) = arg inf_{g in Gamma} d_tilde(y_tilde_i, g·y_tilde_j) from known covering-space geometry (Proposition 4.3 and Corollary 4.4), and then recovers the inclusion-induced homology homomorphism via standard natural isomorphisms between edge-groupoid, fundamental-groupoid, and singular homology (Propositions 2.19, 2.21, and 3.17). The quantity being predicted—the homology class of a loop in the ambient manifold—is not used as an input to Eq. (52); instead it is computed from the deck-group element obtained by minimizing lifted distances. There are no fitted constants, no predictions made from a subset of the target data, and no load-bearing self-citations: the references cited for supporting results are standard textbooks and prior work by other authors, not by the present author. The main practical caveat, namely that the arg inf over a general deck group Gamma in Eq. (52) may not be algorithmically tractable or certified, is an algorithmic incompleteness and not a circularity, because the mathematical inference does not assume the conclusion it seeks to establish. Overall, the paper's central claim is an honest application of covering-space theory to point-cloud data, so the circularity burden is minimal.

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

The central claim depends on no fitted parameters and introduces no new entities. The inputs are the known universal covering, the deck group action, and point-cloud distances. All axioms are either classical background mathematics or domain assumptions about the data being supplied.

assumptions (4)

standard math Standard covering space theory: homotopy lifting, monodromy classification, pullback coverings.
The main machinery relies on classical covering space facts from Hatcher, stated as known, throughout Section 3.
domain assumption M is a compact Riemannian manifold with a known Riemannian universal covering p: M tilde to M and computable deck group Gamma.
The entire inference pipeline in Section 4 presupposes that the universal covering and its metric are available as inputs.
domain assumption Assumption (S1): each edge ij maps to a unique homotopy class containing a minimising geodesic.
Stated in Proposition 4.5; needed for the arg-inf assignment to define a transition homomorphism. Shown to hold for Cech complexes at scales below the convexity radius and for min-geodesic graphs.
standard math Cut locus properties: cut locus is closed, nowhere dense, and measure zero; NC point sets are open and dense.
Used in Propositions 4.9 through 4.13 to prove generic uniqueness of minimising geodesics; relies on do Carmo and Eltzner et al.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inferring Ambient Cycles of Point Samples on Manifolds with Universal Coverings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MD5IW6QA

@misc{pith2026250202400,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inferring Ambient Cycles of Point Samples on Manifolds with Universal Coverings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MD5IW6QA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02400}
}

read the original abstract

A central objective of topological data analysis is to identify topologically significant features in data represented as a finite point cloud. We consider the setting where the ambient space of the point sample is a compact Riemannian manifold. Given a simplicial complex constructed on the point set, we can relate the first homology of the complex with that of the ambient manifold by matching edges in the complex with minimising geodesics between points. Provided the universal covering of the manifold is known, we give a constructive method for identifying whether a given edge loop (or representative first homology cycle) on the complex corresponds to a non-trivial loop (or first homology class) of the ambient manifold. We show that metric data on the point cloud and its fibre in the covering suffices for the construction, and formalise our approach in the framework of groupoids and monodromy of coverings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02400 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Consider the boundary of a two-simplex K and the three possible surjective simplicial maps from K to the closure of edge. The images of the maps on vertices is marked out in the diagram. For the (arbitrarily chosen) snapping on the left hand side edge, we illustrate the only snapping on the bottom edge, such that there is a snapping on K that is simultaneously compatible with snappings on both the left and bottom ed… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Empirical samples of the first principal Vietoris-Rips persistence measure on the flat torus. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Empirical samples of the first principal Vietoris-Rips persistence measure on the flat Klein bottle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Empirical samples of the first principal Vietoris-Rips persistence measure on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Empirical samples of the first principal Vietoris-Rips persistence measure on the orientable surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Persistent Local Systems of Periodic Spaces
math.AT 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Toroidal cycles of periodic cell complexes embed into canonical persistent local systems, enabling a proposed classification and polynomial-time computation for arbitrary periodicity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Basic topology

Mark Anthony Armstrong. Basic topology. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

work page 2013
[2]

A unified view on the func- torial nerve theorem and its variations

Ulrich Bauer, Michael Kerber, Fabian Roll, and Alexander Rolle. A unified view on the func- torial nerve theorem and its variations. Expositiones Mathematicae, 41(4):125503, 12 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Nerves, fibers and homotopy groups.Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 102(1):88–93, 2003

Anders Bj¨ orner. Nerves, fibers and homotopy groups.Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 102(1):88–93, 2003

work page 2003
[4]

Topology and groupoids, 2006

Ronald Brown. Topology and groupoids, 2006

work page 2006
[5]

Manfredo Perdig˜ ao do. Carmo. Riemannian geometry. Mathematics. Theory & applications. Birkh¨ auser, Boston, MA, 1992

work page 1992
[6]

Combinatorial group theory: a topological approach

Daniel E Cohen. Combinatorial group theory: a topological approach . Number 14. Cambridge University Press, 1989

work page 1989
[7]

Stability of the cut locus and a central limit theorem for Fr´ echet means of Riemannian manifolds

Benjamin Eltzner, Fernando Galaz-Garc \’\ia, Stephan Huckemann, and Wilderich Tuschmann. Stability of the cut locus and a central limit theorem for Fr´ echet means of Riemannian manifolds. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 149(9):3947–3963, 2021

work page 2021
[8]

ˇCech cocycles for differential character- istic classes: an infinity-Lie theoretic construction

Domenico Fiorenza, Urs Schreiber, and Jim Stasheff. ˇCech cocycles for differential character- istic classes: an infinity-Lie theoretic construction. Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 16(1):149 – 250, 2012

work page 2012

Show all 26 references

[9]

Differential Geometry and Lie Groups , volume 12

Jean Gallier and Jocelyn Quaintance. Differential Geometry and Lie Groups , volume 12. Springer International Publishing, 2020. 36 Figure 4: Empirical samples of the first principal Vietoris-Rips persistence measure on RP2. The homology classes of the four point cycles are rep...

2020
[10]

Riemannian Geometry

Sylvestre Gallot, Dominique Hulin, and Jacques Lafontaine. Riemannian Geometry. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004

2004
[11]

Curvature Sets Over Persistence Diagrams

Mario G´ omez and Facundo M´ emoli. Curvature Sets Over Persistence Diagrams. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 72(1):91–180, 7 2024

2024
[12]

Critical point theory for distance functions

Karsten Grove. Critical point theory for distance functions. In Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, volume 54, pages 357–385, 1993

1993
[13]

Algebraic Topology

Allen Hatcher. Algebraic Topology. Cambridge University Press, 1 edition edition, 2005

2005
[14]

Categories and groupoids

Philip J Higgins. Categories and groupoids. Citeseer, 1971

1971
[15]

Springer, 1966

Dale Husem¨ oller.Fibre bundles , volume 5. Springer, 1966

1966
[16]

Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, volume 218 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

John M Lee. Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, volume 218 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer New York, 2012

2012
[17]

Introduction to Riemannian manifolds , volume 2

John M Lee. Introduction to Riemannian manifolds , volume 2. Springer, 2018

2018
[18]

Sur la forme des espaces topologiques et sur les points fixes des repr´ esentations

Jean Leray. Sur la forme des espaces topologiques et sur les points fixes des repr´ esentations. Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 24:95–167, 1945

1945
[19]

Hamilton—Jacobi Equations and Distance Functions on Riemannian Manifolds

Carlo Mantegazza and Andrea Carlo Mennucci. Hamilton—Jacobi Equations and Distance Functions on Riemannian Manifolds. Applied Mathematics & Optimization , 47(1):1–25, 2002

2002
[20]

Topology; a first course [by] james r

James R Munkres. Topology; a first course [by] james r. munkres . Prentice-Hall, 1974

1974
[21]

Quantifying the homology of periodic cell complexes

Adam Onus and Vanessa Robins. Quantifying the homology of periodic cell complexes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.09223, 2022

2022
[22]

Computing 1-Periodic Persistent Homology with Finite Win- dows

Adam Onus and Primoz Skraba. Computing 1-Periodic Persistent Homology with Finite Win- dows. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00709 , 2023

2023
[23]

Category theory in context

Emily Riehl. Category theory in context . Courier Dover Publications, 2017

2017
[24]

Classical topology and combinatorial group theory , volume 72

John Stillwell. Classical topology and combinatorial group theory , volume 72. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012
[25]

An introduction to homological algebra

Charles A Weibel. An introduction to homological algebra . Number 38. Cambridge university press, 1994. 37 Figure 5: Empirical samples of the first principal Vietoris-Rips persistence measure on the orientable surface with genus two. The homology classes of the four point cycl...

1994
[26]

J. H. C. Whitehead. Convex Regions in the Geometry of Paths. In Differential Geometry, pages 223–232. Elsevier, 1962. A Carriers Let K be a simplicial complex, and X be a topological space. An assignment σ 7→ C(σ) ⊂ X of simplices to subsets of X is a carrier if C(σ) ⊆ C(τ ) f...

1962

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Basic topology

Mark Anthony Armstrong. Basic topology. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

work page 2013

[2] [2]

A unified view on the func- torial nerve theorem and its variations

Ulrich Bauer, Michael Kerber, Fabian Roll, and Alexander Rolle. A unified view on the func- torial nerve theorem and its variations. Expositiones Mathematicae, 41(4):125503, 12 2023

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Nerves, fibers and homotopy groups.Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 102(1):88–93, 2003

Anders Bj¨ orner. Nerves, fibers and homotopy groups.Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 102(1):88–93, 2003

work page 2003

[4] [4]

Topology and groupoids, 2006

Ronald Brown. Topology and groupoids, 2006

work page 2006

[5] [5]

Manfredo Perdig˜ ao do. Carmo. Riemannian geometry. Mathematics. Theory & applications. Birkh¨ auser, Boston, MA, 1992

work page 1992

[6] [6]

Combinatorial group theory: a topological approach

Daniel E Cohen. Combinatorial group theory: a topological approach . Number 14. Cambridge University Press, 1989

work page 1989

[7] [7]

Stability of the cut locus and a central limit theorem for Fr´ echet means of Riemannian manifolds

Benjamin Eltzner, Fernando Galaz-Garc \’\ia, Stephan Huckemann, and Wilderich Tuschmann. Stability of the cut locus and a central limit theorem for Fr´ echet means of Riemannian manifolds. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 149(9):3947–3963, 2021

work page 2021

[8] [8]

ˇCech cocycles for differential character- istic classes: an infinity-Lie theoretic construction

Domenico Fiorenza, Urs Schreiber, and Jim Stasheff. ˇCech cocycles for differential character- istic classes: an infinity-Lie theoretic construction. Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 16(1):149 – 250, 2012

work page 2012