Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 18 references

Metric--Measure Geometry and Geometric Analogues of Holographic Extremal Surfaces

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A metric–measure space with a measure factor e^{-f} yields codimension-two extremal-surface equations of the form H=½∇_n f without any holographic input.

desk verdict Correct but textbook weighted-area identities repackaged as an intrinsic route to holographic extremal surfaces; the applications have real errors and the emergence is the ansatz. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28690 v1 pith:MEADF4X4 submitted 2026-07-30 physics.gen-ph

Rohit Dhormare This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.gen-ph MSC 53C2353C4453C2153C4258E12
keywords metric-measuregeometryextremalsurfacesweightedareafunctionalRicciflowgeneralizedentropyholographySchwarzschildAnti-deSitterspace
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

The paper sets out to show that the structural equations of holographic extremal surfaces are already present in a much simpler setting: any Riemannian manifold equipped with a deformed measure e^{-f}dV_g. On such a metric–measure space, a codimension-two surface that extremizes the weighted area ∫e^{-f/2}dA satisfies H=½∇_n f, a balance between the surface's mean curvature and the normal gradient of the measure deformation. The author argues this condition, and its extension to a functional with a bulk contribution, reproduces the form of semiclassical generalized entropy without invoking quantum fields or holographic duality. The Schwarzschild example with f=r²/4τ gives a preferred radius r*=2√τ, and the AdS example with f=α log z shifts the UV scaling exponent to d+α/2. A sympathetic reader would care because, if right, the metric–measure structure is a minimal intrinsic origin for effects usually associated with quantum gravity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the measure-weighted area functional A_f[Σ]=∫_Σ e^{-f/2}dA, defined with the half-weight that makes the normal projection (∇f)^⊥ appear with coefficient 1/2 in the first variation. The variation produces the extremality condition H=½∇_n f, which the paper reads as a generalized minimal-surface equation: the measure deformation acts as a drift force balancing the extrinsic curvature. A generalized functional F=A_f/(4G)+F_bulk extends the same variational structure to an entropy-like setting, with E_bulk arising from the bulk region bounded by Σ. Throughout, the measure e^{-f}dV_g and the level-set foliation of f carry the geometric information; the metric itself is not c

What would settle it

Compute the mean curvature of a coordinate sphere in the spatial Schwarzschild metric with g_rr=(1−2M/r)^{-1}: the unit-normal expansion gives H=2√(1−2M/r)/r, not 2/r. Substituting into H=½∇_n f with f=r²/4τ yields 2√(1−2M/r)/r = r/(2τ), whose solution reduces to r=2√τ only in the flat limit M=0—so a direct calculation of H settles whether the Schwarzschild example's emergent scale is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a metric–measure space (M,g,f), the paper defines the codimension-two weighted area A_f[Σ]=∫_Σ e^{-f/2}dA. Its first variation under normal deformations is δA_f=∫_Σ e^{-f/2}(H−½∇_n f)φ dA, so stationarity is equivalent to H=½∇_n f, or in covariant form H⃗=½(∇f)^⊥. The same mechanism supports a generalized functional F[Σ]=1/(4G)∫_Σ e^{-f/2}dA+F_bulk[Σ], whose Euler–Lagrange equation is (1/(4G))e^{-f/2}(H−½∇_n f)+E_bulk=0; the author emphasizes this is an analogue of semiclassical generalized entropy, not a physical entropy. Applications in constant-time Schwarzschild slices (f=r²/4τ) yield r*=2√τ, and in AdS slices (f=α log z) yield an effective scaling exponent d+α/2 that changes UV diver

Load-bearing premise

The examples rest on treating f as a freely prescribed measure deformation and on using H=2/r for coordinate spheres in the spatial Schwarzschild metric; the radial metric factor (1−2M/r)^{-1} gives H=2√(1−2M/r)/r instead, so if either premise is corrected the derived scale r*=2√τ does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the equations governing quantum extremal surfaces—area term plus bulk term—are reproduced by a purely geometric variational principle, so holographic duality is not needed to produce their structural form.
  • In a Schwarzschild slice, the weighted-area extremum sits at r*=2√τ; with τ chosen at horizon scale this gives a geometric selection mechanism for a preferred hypersurface near the horizon.
  • In an AdS slice, the measure deformation f=α log z changes the leading UV divergence of the weighted area to ϵ^{-(d-2+α/2)} (or log(1/ϵ) in the critical case), giving an intrinsic way to modify short-distance scaling.
  • The same variational mechanism unifies codimensions: with weight e^{-α f}, the extremality condition takes the schematic form (curvature) ∼ α (projection of ∇f), covering curves (α=1/2) and hypersurfaces (α=1).

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves f freely prescribed; a natural next step the author does not take is to couple f to a dynamical equation (e.g., a heat-type flow) and check whether the preferred scales r*=2√τ survive once f is solved for rather than chosen.
  • The variational framework invites a stability analysis the paper does not perform: computing the second variation would show whether the weighted extremal surfaces are local minima, and whether the modified Jacobi operator retains positivity.
  • Because the functional is structurally identical to generalized entropy, the paper's own disclaimer implies a direct test: if F_bulk is physically quantum entropy, the framework acquires predictive content; if not, the correspondence remains a formal analogy. That distinction is left open.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a metric–measure framework (M,g,f), introduces measure-weighted area functionals for hypersurfaces and codimension-two surfaces, and derives stationarity conditions of the form H = ∇_n f (codimension one) and H = ½∇_n f (codimension two). It then constructs a generalized functional F[Σ] with an effective bulk term, compares its Euler–Lagrange equation to semiclassical generalized entropy, and applies the framework to Schwarzschild and AdS geometries, claiming that preferred scales and modified UV scaling emerge intrinsically from the measure structure.

Significance. The first-variation computations for the hypersurface functional are standard and the paper is unusually explicit about its own limitations: it repeatedly states that f is prescribed, that no flow evolution is assumed, and that the constructions are not identified with physical entropy. These caveats are welcome. However, the advertised central claim—that the extremal-surface structure arises 'solely from the metric–measure structure'—is not supported. The codimension-two weight in Eq. (20) is an input, the examples select f by hand, and the AdS calculation contains a dimension inconsistency. As it stands, the paper is best read as a set of illustrative exercises for a freely chosen weight function, not as an intrinsic derivation of holographic analogues.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (20)–(22)] The central condition H = ½∇_n f is not derived from the metric–measure structure. The measure dµ = e^{-f}dV_g naturally induces a submanifold weight e^{-f}, whose stationarity gives H = ∇_n f; for a general weight e^{-αf} the condition is H = α∇_n f. The value α = 1/2 in Eq. (20) is an external input, supported only by the heuristic sentence in Sec. 4.1. The abstract's claim that Eq. (22) arises 'solely from the metric–measure structure' is therefore not established, and every application inherits this undetermined input.
  2. [Sec. 6.5, Eq. (38)] For the spatial Schwarzschild metric (31), the unit normal is n = (1 − 2M/r)^{1/2} ∂_r. Hence the mean curvature of a coordinate sphere is H = 2r^{-1}(1 − 2M/r)^{1/2}, not 2/r, and ∇_n f = (r/2τ)(1 − 2M/r)^{1/2}. Eq. (38) is therefore numerically incorrect for both quantities. The common factor cancels in Eq. (39), so the conclusion r² = 4τ survives, but the geometric content claimed in Eq. (38) must be corrected; as written the example misidentifies the mean curvature and the normal derivative.
  3. [Sec. 7.3, Eq. (46)] The area element in Eq. (46) is dimensionally inconsistent. In the d-dimensional spatial slice (42), a graph z = z(x) over a (d−2)-dimensional boundary subspace has induced metric determinant z^{-2(d−2)}(1 + |∇z|²), so dA = z^{-(d−2)}√(1+|∇z|²) d^{d−2}x. If, instead, the surface is codimension-two in the full (d+1)-dimensional AdS spacetime, it has dimension d−1 and the integration measure should be d^{d−1}x. Eq. (46) combines z^{-(d−1)} with d^{d−2}x. The modified UV scaling and the effective exponent d_eff in Sec. 7.5 rely on this expression and need to be recomputed for the correct embedding dimension.
  4. [Secs. 5.2–5.4, Eqs. (25)–(29)] The generalized functional F[Σ] has no independent content as presented. F_bulk is introduced by assuming it is Fréchet differentiable and that its first variation has the local form δF_bulk = ∫ E_bulk φ dA (Eq. 26). Since E_bulk is not specified, Theorem 1's Euler–Lagrange equation (29) is a restatement of the definition of the variational derivative. Without a geometric or dynamical specification of F_bulk, the claimed structural correspondence with S_gen is not a result but a labeling of an undefined quantity.
  5. [Secs. 6.2, 6.6a, 7.2, 7.5] The applications do not exhibit emergence. In Sec. 6.2, f(r) = r²/(4τ) is an ansatz, explicitly 'not obtained as a solution' (Sec. 6.2a), and Sec. 6.6a then sets τ ∼ M² by hand to place r* = 2√τ near 2M. In Sec. 7.2, f(z) = α log z is chosen to produce a scaling shift, and Sec. 7.5 reports d_eff = d + α/2 with α free. The preferred scales and modified exponents are rearrangements of the prescribed f, not outputs of metric–measure geometry. The central claim requires a principle that fixes f; none is provided.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.4 and Appendix A] Eq. (10) disagrees with Eq. (A.3). The main-text variation lacks the factor 1/2 that appears in the appendix and has the ∇f term with opposite sign relative to (A.3). The two derivations of the modified geodesic equation must be reconciled.
  2. [Secs. 3.3 and 4.2] The sign convention for the mean curvature is not stated. Since H = ∇·n depends on the orientation of n, the stationarity conditions (19) and (22) are sign-convention dependent. For a paper whose main output is these equations, a convention should be fixed explicitly.
  3. [Sec. 7.4, Eq. (49)] The integral leading to Eq. (50) is evaluated without specifying the allowed range of α. For d − 1 + α/2 ≤ 1 the near-boundary behavior is not a power-law divergence of the form shown, and this case should be discussed separately.
  4. [References] References [7] and [8] are cited as motivation for Lorentzian entropy/flow frameworks, but no technical input from them is used in the derivations. Consider clarifying the relation or removing the invocation.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central 'intrinsic' extremality equation and advertised preferred scales are fixed by hand: the weight e^{-f/2} is chosen to yield H=½∇_n f, and the Schwarzschild/AdS outputs simply rearrange the freely prescribed f.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (20)-(22)]
    "The choice of weight e^{−f/2} follows from consistency with the ambient metric–measure structure. More generally, for a weight e^{−αf}, the first variation produces a term proportional to α∇_n f. ... For codimension-two submanifolds, the value α=1/2 ensures that the resulting extremality condition involves a balanced projection of ∇f onto the normal bundle, yielding a covariant relation between the mean curvature vector and the measure gradient. ... Stationarity implies the measure-weighted extremality condition H=1/2 ∇_n f."

    The coefficient 1/2 in Eq. (22) is not selected by metric–measure geometry; it is inserted by defining the codimension-two functional with weight e^{-f/2}. The paper itself notes that a general weight e^{-αf} gives a term proportional to α∇_n f. Thus the central 'intrinsic' extremal-surface equation is the Euler–Lagrange equation of a functional whose weight was chosen to produce that equation. The advertised origin 'solely from the metric–measure structure' therefore reduces to the chosen ansatz for the weight.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 6.2, 6.4, 6.6]
    "Motivated by Gaussian weights appearing in diffusion processes and in Perelman’s formulation of Ricci flow, we consider the ansatz f(r) = r^2/(4τ) ... The extremality condition dA_f/dr = 0 yields r^2 = 4τ, so that the preferred radius is r∗ = 2√τ ... If τ is chosen to scale with the geometric parameter M^2, then r∗ ∼ 2M, indicating that the preferred hypersurface lies near the horizon scale."

    The 'preferred radius' r*=2√τ is just the solution to f'(r)=2/r for the freely chosen ansatz f(r)=r²/(4τ). The horizon identification is added by hand through the further choice τ∼M². Neither f nor τ is determined by the metric–measure structure, and the paper explicitly calls this 'purely parametric.' The claimed emergence of a preferred geometric scale is therefore a rearrangement of the input ansatz, not a prediction of the framework.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 7.2, 7.5]
    "To preserve the scaling symmetry of AdS, we consider the logarithmic ansatz f(z) = α log z, with α ∈ R. The associated weight is e^{−f/2} = z^{−α/2}. ... The divergence can be expressed in terms of an effective exponent d_eff = d + α/2."

    The reported modified UV scaling d_eff=d+α/2 is exactly the exponent introduced by the chosen ansatz f=α log z. The parameter α is prescribed by hand, and the 'effective dimension' is a relabeling of that parameter. Thus the claimed modification of ultraviolet scaling behavior is not derived from metric–measure geometry; it is the input ansatz renamed as an output.

full rationale

The first-variation computations (Eqs. 10, 18, 21, 29) are standard and internally consistent, and the self-citations [7,8] are motivational rather than load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or prior result by the same author is used to force the main equations. However, the paper's central claim that the extremality conditions and preferred scales arise 'solely from the metric–measure structure' is undermined by its own statements. Sec. 4.1 shows the half-weight in Eq. (20) is a free choice, not a consequence of the measure dµ=e^{-f}dV_g; any α gives H=α∇_n f. The applications then choose f ad hoc: f=r²/(4τ) makes r*=2√τ, and f=α log z makes d_eff=d+α/2, with τ∼M² added to reach the horizon. The paper's limitation section admits 'The function f is prescribed rather than dynamically determined,' which confirms that the headline outputs are rearrangements of chosen inputs rather than intrinsic geometric predictions. The incorrect mean-curvature values in the Schwarzschild step (Eq. 38) are a separate correctness issue, not counted here as circularity. Overall: partial circularity, score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on f being a freely prescribed input, on the Riemannian-slice restriction, and on an assumed local form for the bulk term. These are not derived; removing any one collapses the advertised results.

free parameters (3)
  • f(r) = r^2/(4τ) = τ>0; later τ∼M^2
    Chosen ad hoc in Sec. 6.2; extremizing the weighted area yields r*=2√τ (Eq. 35), so the preferred radius is determined by the choice of f.
  • τ = ∼M^2 (Sec. 6.6a, 'purely parametric')
    Set by hand to move r* to the horizon scale; without this identification the Schwarzschild example has no gravitational content.
  • f(z)=α log z = α∈R free
    Introduced in Sec. 7.2; controls the UV exponent d_eff=d+α/2 (Eq. 52). Changing α changes the advertised scaling modification.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math First variation of weighted area: δ∫e^{-f}dA=∫e^{-f}(H−∇_n f)φ dA for hypersurfaces and analogously for codim-2 with weight e^{-f/2}.
    Used in Secs. 3.3, 4.2, 5.4; standard result in weighted Riemannian geometry, not proved in detail.
  • ad hoc to paper F_bulk[Σ] is Fréchet differentiable with local first variation δF_bulk=∫E_bulk φ dA.
    Assumed in Sec. 5.3 (i)-(ii); without this, Theorem 1 does not follow. The bulk term is never derived from a QFT or gravitational action.
  • ad hoc to paper The measure deformation f is a fixed prescribed function; τ and α are free parameters.
    Secs. 2.1b, 6.2 (f=r²/4τ), 7.2 (f=α log z); the paper states f is not obtained from Hamilton-Friedan equations.
  • domain assumption All constructions are Riemannian; gravitational examples use spatial slices of Lorentzian spacetimes and inherit gravitational meaning from these slices.
    Secs. 2.1a, 3.1a, 6.1, 7.1; no Lorentzian or covariant extension is provided.
  • domain assumption The structural similarity between F[Σ] and S_gen is meaningful without a thermodynamic/entropic interpretation.
    Sec. 5.5; the paper asserts a 'structural analogy' but provides no physical mechanism connecting f to entanglement entropy.
invented entities (1)
  • F_bulk[Σ]
    purpose: Effective bulk contribution appended to the weighted area to mimic S_gen=A/(4G)+S_bulk; its first variation is assumed to be ∫E_bulk φ dA.
    Introduced in Sec. 5.2–5.3; no derivation from QFT or gravity, no falsifiable prediction; Theorem 1's result is hard-wired by assumption (ii).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Metric--Measure Geometry and Geometric Analogues of Holographic Extremal Surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MEADF4X4

@misc{pith2026260728690,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Metric--Measure Geometry and Geometric Analogues of Holographic Extremal Surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MEADF4X4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28690}
}
abstract

We develop a geometric framework based on metric--measure spaces $(M,g,f)$, where the function $f$ defines a deformation of the Riemannian measure motivated by Perelman's formulation of Ricci flow. Within this setting, we introduce measure-weighted hypersurfaces and associated geometric functionals, and derive modified extremality conditions for codimension-one and codimension-two submanifolds. These conditions provide intrinsic geometric analogues of extremal surface equations, arising solely from the metric--measure structure and independent of holographic duality or quantum field theoretic input. We further define a generalized functional combining a measure-weighted geometric term with an effective bulk contribution and analyze its variational properties. The resulting Euler--Lagrange equation exhibits a structural correspondence with semiclassical generalized entropy functionals, while maintaining a purely geometric interpretation distinct from thermodynamic entropy in the sense of Perelman's $W$-functional. Applications to Schwarzschild and Anti-de Sitter geometries illustrate the emergence of preferred geometric scales and the modification of ultraviolet scaling behavior induced by the function $f$. These results suggest that metric--measure geometry provides a minimal framework in which key structural features of extremal surface constructions can arise from intrinsic geometric principles.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The large-Nlimit of superconformal field theo- ries and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The large-Nlimit of superconformal field theo- ries and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2(1998) 231–252. doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a1. arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Holographic derivation of entangle- ment entropy from AdS/CFT,

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Holographic derivation of entangle- ment entropy from AdS/CFT,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96(2006) 181602. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.181602. arXiv:hep-th/0603001. 29

    arXiv 2006

  3. [3]

    A covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal,

    V. E. Hubeny, M. Rangamani and T. Takayanagi, “A covariant holographic entanglement entropy proposal,” JHEP07(2007) 062. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/07/062. arXiv:0705.0016 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    Quantum extremal surfaces: holographic entanglemententropybeyondtheclassicalregime,

    N.Engelhardtand A.C. Wall, “Quantum extremal surfaces: holographic entanglemententropybeyondtheclassicalregime,” JHEP01(2015)073. doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2015)073. arXiv:1408.3203 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Black holes and entropy,

    J. D. Bekenstein, “Black holes and entropy,” Phys. Rev. D7(1973) 2333–2346. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.7.2333 1973

  6. [6]

    Particle creation by black holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle creation by black holes,” Commun. Math. Phys.43(1975) 199–220. doi:10.1007/BF02345020

    doi:10.1007/bf02345020 1975

  7. [7]

    Entropy and non-collapse in Lorentzian geometry,

    R. Dhormare, “Entropy and non-collapse in Lorentzian geometry,” Phys. Lett. B875(2026) 140355. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140355

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Coupled Ricci–Dilaton–Flux Flows in String Theory,

    R. Dhormare, “Coupled Ricci–Dilaton–Flux Flows in String Theory,” Preprints2025(2025) 2025081397. doi:10.20944/preprints202508.1397.v1

    arXiv 2025

Show all 18 references
  1. [9]

    Three-manifolds with positive Ricci curvature,

    R. S. Hamilton, “Three-manifolds with positive Ricci curvature,” J. Dif- ferential Geom.17(1982) 255–306. doi:10.4310/jdg/1214436922

    1982

  2. [10]

    The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications,

    G. Perelman, “The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications,” arXiv:math/0211159 [math.DG]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds,

    G. Perelman, “Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds,” arXiv:math/0303109 [math.DG]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Diffusions hypercontractives,

    D. Bakry and M. Émery, “Diffusions hypercontractives,” in: Séminaire de probabilités XIX, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1123, Springer, Berlin–Heidelberg, 1985, pp. 177–206. doi:10.1007/BFb0075847

    1985 doi

  5. [13]

    Comparison geometry for the Bakry– Émery Ricci tensor,

    G. Wei and W. Wylie, “Comparison geometry for the Bakry– Émery Ricci tensor,” J. Differential Geom.83(2009) 377–405. doi:10.4310/JDG.2009.v83.n2.a5

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    The fundamental physical importance of generic off-diagonal and Grigori Perelman entropy in the Einstein grav- ity theory,

    S. Vacaru and E. Veliev, “The fundamental physical importance of generic off-diagonal and Grigori Perelman entropy in the Einstein grav- ity theory,” Gen. Relativ. Gravit.57(2025) 117. doi:10.1007/s10714- 025-03466-8. arXiv:2508.10939 [gr-qc]. 30

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Off-diagonal deformations of regular Schwarzschild black holes and general relativistic G. Perelman thermo- dynamics,

    S. Vacaru and E. Veliev, “Off-diagonal deformations of regular Schwarzschild black holes and general relativistic G. Perelman thermo- dynamics,” Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 560. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025- 14278-2. arXiv:2505.18208 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Nonassocia- tive geometric and quantum information flows and R-flux deforma- tions of wormhole solutions in string gravity,

    L. Bubuianu, D. Singleton, S. Vacaru and E. V. Veliev, “Nonassocia- tive geometric and quantum information flows and R-flux deforma- tions of wormhole solutions in string gravity,” Fortschr. Phys.72(2024) 202300212. doi:10.1002/prop.202300212. arXiv:2402.10993 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ricci curvature for metric-measure spaces via optimal transport,

    J. Lott and C. Villani, “Ricci curvature for metric-measure spaces via optimal transport,” Ann. Math.169(2009) 903–991. doi:10.4007/annals.2009.169.903

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    On the geometry of metric measure spaces. I,

    K. T. Sturm, “On the geometry of metric measure spaces. I,” Acta Math. 196(2006) 65–131. doi:10.1007/s11511-006-0002-8. 31

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.