Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Deformations of ideals in Lie algebras

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes a deformation theory for Lie ideals, with a controlling dgL[1]a whose Maurer-Cartan elements are exactly the small deformations of an ideal.

desk verdict Core construction (controlling dgLa for ideal deformations) is new and mostly sound; the rigidity theorem has a genuine lifting gap in its proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20600 v2 pith:MRXXWXTD submitted 2024-12-29 math.DG math.RAmath.RT

I. Ermeidis , M. Jotz This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DGmath.RAmath.RT MSC 17B5614D15
keywords deformationtheoryLieidealsdgL[1]-algebrasL-infinityalgebrasMaurer-CartanelementsrigiditystabilityChevalley-Eilenbergcohomology
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 develops a deformation theory for Lie ideals, treating an ideal as a structure to be deformed rather than merely as a Lie subalgebra. The central claim is that smooth one-parameter deformations of an ideal $\mathfrak{i} \subset \mathfrak{g}$ differentiate to cocycles in the cohomology of $\mathfrak{g}$ with coefficients in $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathfrak{i}, \mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{i})$, and that, after choosing a vector-space complement, the full deformation problem is controlled by a differential graded Lie algebra whose Maurer-Cartan elements are exactly the small deformations. If correct, this gives the missing infinitesimal and formal framework for studying how many ideals a Lie algebra has and how they sit inside it, and yields sufficient cohomological conditions for rigidity and stability of ideals.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair consisting of the ideal deformation cohomology $H^\bullet(\mathfrak{i} \rhd \mathfrak{g}) = H^\bullet_{\delta^{\mathrm{Hom}}}(\mathfrak{g}; \mathfrak{i}^* \otimes \mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{i})$ and the dgL[1]a $(C^\bullet(\mathfrak{g};\mathfrak{i}^* \otimes \mathfrak{i}^c), \delta^{\mathrm{Hom}} = m_1, m_2)$ built from a Voronov dataset $(\mathsf L, \mathfrak{a}, P, \Theta)$, where $\mathsf L = C^\bullet(\mathfrak{g};\mathfrak{g})[1] \oplus C^\bullet(\mathfrak{g};\mathfrak{gl}(\mathfrak{g}))$, $\mathfrak{a} = C^\bullet(\mathfrak{g};\mathfrak{i}^* \otimes \mathfrak{i}^c)$, $P$ is the projection onto the $\mathfrak{i}^c$-components, and $\Theta = \mu_{\mathfrak{g}} + \operatorname{ad}_{\mathfrak{g}}$ is the Maurer-Cartan element encoding the Lie bracket and its adjoint representation. The derived-bracket construction converts this datum into multibrackets whose Maurer-Cartan equation is exactly the condition that $\operatorname{graph}(\varphi)$ be an ideal, which is the mechanism turning the infinitesimal cohomology into a full formal deformation theory.

What would settle it

Find a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ and an ideal $\mathfrak{i}$ such that $H^0(\Pi)$ is surjective but $\mathfrak{i}$ is not $\mathrm{Aut}(\mathfrak{g})$-rigid; equivalently, exhibit an element $\eta \in Z^0(\mathfrak{i} \rhd \mathfrak{g})$ that lies in the image of the restriction map from $Z^1(\mathfrak{g};\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{i})$ but not in the image of the map $Z^1(\mathfrak{g};\mathfrak{g}) \to T_{\mathfrak{i}}\mathrm{Gr}_k(\mathfrak{g})$. A concrete place to look is a nilpotent or solvable Lie algebra where the automorphism group is computable and the tangent sequence can be checked by hand.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that the deformation problem of an ideal $\mathfrak{i} \triangleleft \mathfrak{g}$ is governed by the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex $C^\bullet(\mathfrak{g}; \mathfrak{i}^* \otimes \mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{i})$ with the representation $\operatorname{ad}^{\mathrm{Hom}}$ obtained from the adjoint actions on $\mathfrak{i}$ and on $\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{i}$. Smooth deformations differentiate to $0$-cocycles (Proposition 4.2), so $H^0(\mathfrak{i} \rhd \mathfrak{g})$ consists of infinitesimal deformations. With a complement $\mathfrak{i}^c$ chosen, the authors construct a Voronov dataset whose derived brackets give a dgL[1]a structure with $m_1 = \delta^{\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathfrak{g} \rhd \mathfrak{i}}$ and an explicit $m_2$; Theorem 5.3 states that degree-zero Maurer-Cartan elements of this dgL[1]a are in bijection with small deformations via $\varphi \mapsto \operatorname{graph}(\varphi)$. The same Voronov data also produces an $L_\infty[1]$-algebra controlling simultaneous deformations of the ideal and of the ambient Lie bracket (Theorem 5.5). On the geometric side, the Kuranishi map $[\eta] \mapsto \tfrac{1}{2}[m_2(\eta,\eta)]$ detects obstructions, surjectivity of $H^0(\Pi) : H^1_{\pi_{\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{i}}}(\mathfrak{g};\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{i}) \to H^0(\mathfrak{i} \rhd \mathfrak{g})$ is claimed to imply $\mathrm{Aut}(\mathfrak{g})$-rigidity (Theorem 6.14), and vanishing of $H^1(\mathfrak{i} \rhd \mathfrak{g})$ is shown to imply stability (Theorem 6.21).

Load-bearing premise

The rigidity theorem rests on the assumption that every infinitesimal deformation of the ideal obtained by restricting a cocycle of the projection $\mathfrak{g} \to \mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{i}$ is tangent to an actual automorphism of $\mathfrak{g}$; the paper asserts this identification through a diagram without proving that projection cocycles lift to derivations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any smooth deformation of an ideal differentiates to a $0$-cocycle in $C^\bullet(\mathfrak{g};\mathfrak{i}^* \otimes \mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{i})$, so $H^0(\mathfrak{i} \rhd \mathfrak{g})$ is the space of infinitesimal deformations of the ideal.
  • Small deformations of an ideal, relative to a fixed complement, are exactly the Maurer-Cartan elements of the constructed dgL[1]a; the deformation problem is therefore controlled by a differential graded Lie algebra, not merely by a cochain complex.
  • The Kuranishi map $\operatorname{Kur}_{\mathfrak{i} \rhd \mathfrak{g}} : H^0(\mathfrak{i} \rhd \mathfrak{g}) \to H^1(\mathfrak{i} \rhd \mathfrak{g})$ sends an infinitesimal deformation to its first obstruction; if it is nonzero, that infinitesimal deformation cannot be integrated to a smooth deformation of the ideal.
  • If $H^0(\Pi)$ is surjective, the ideal is topologically rigid under the automorphism group of $\mathfrak{g}$; in particular, rigidity follows whenever $H^2(\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{i};\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{i}) = 0$.
  • If $H^1(\mathfrak{i} \rhd \mathfrak{g}) = 0$, the ideal is stable: nearby Lie brackets on $\mathfrak{g}$ admit nearby ideals, and the space of ideals is locally a manifold of dimension $\dim Z^0(\mathfrak{i} \rhd \mathfrak{g})$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The framework suggests a relative deformation theory in which one deforms the pair $(\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{i})$ rather than fixing $\mathfrak{g}$; the simultaneous $L_\infty[1]$-algebra of Theorem 5.5 is the first step in that direction, and the paper leaves the corresponding Kuranishi map for the pair unexplored.
  • Because the deformation complex is a Chevalley-Eilenberg complex of $\mathfrak{g}$ with coefficients in $\mathfrak{i}^* \otimes \mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{i}$, standard cohomological vanishing theorems can likely be applied directly to produce further examples of rigid or stable ideals, beyond the semisimple cases treated in the corollaries.
  • The Heisenberg-center example shows that obstruction as an ideal differs from obstruction as a subalgebra; this suggests a hierarchy of deformation problems for the same geometric object, with different controlling algebras and different Kuranishi maps, whose mutual relations are only partially captured by the comparison diagrams in Section 4.2.
  • The rigidity theorem's missing lifting step might be repaired by adding a hypothesis on the kernel of the tangent map $T_{\mathrm{Id}}\alpha_{\mathfrak{i}}$ or by requiring the projection cocycle to be a derivation; nilpotent Lie algebras, where automorphisms are computable, offer a concrete testing ground.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a deformation theory for Lie ideals. It introduces a cochain complex C•(g; i*⊗g/i) and proves that the derivative of a smooth deformation of an ideal is a 0-cocycle (Proposition 4.2), calling H^0(i⊳g) the space of infinitesimal deformations. It compares this cohomology with several others (deformation complex of the projection g→g/i, Nijenhuis–Richardson complex, subalgebra deformation complex, and the complex for deformations of g preserving i) in Section 4.2. After choosing a complement i^c, the paper constructs a Voronov dataset and obtains an L∞[1]-algebra (claimed to be a dgL[1]a) on C•(g; i*⊗i^c); Theorem 5.3 establishes a bijection between its degree-zero Maurer–Cartan elements and small deformations of the ideal. Theorem 5.5 gives an L∞[1]-algebra controlling simultaneous deformations of the bracket and the ideal. Section 6 studies obstructions via a Kuranishi map, proves a stability theorem (Theorem 6.21) under H^1(i⊳g)=0, and claims a rigidity theorem (Theorem 6.14) under a surjectivity condition on H^0(Π). The paper is well-written, and the infinitesimal and stability parts are convincing; the rigidity theorem has a proof gap.

Significance. The paper addresses a real gap in the literature, since deformations of Lie ideals had not been treated systematically. The explicit identification of the infinitesimal deformation cocycles and the Maurer–Cartan description of small deformations are clean and likely useful. The systematic comparison of cohomology theories in Section 4.2 is valuable, as is the simultaneous-deformation L∞-algebra of Theorem 5.5. The stability theorem is a convincing application of standard zero-stability techniques. If the rigidity theorem is repaired, the paper will be a solid contribution to the deformation theory of Lie algebras. At present, the load-bearing proof of Theorem 6.14 is incomplete, which affects the advertised rigidity applications (Corollary 6.15 and Example 6.16).

major comments (2)
  1. [§6.2, Theorem 6.14 (proof, first paragraph)] The proof equates surjectivity of the cohomology map H^0(Π) with exactness of the tangent sequence (34) at C^0(g; i*⊗g/i). This is not justified: surjectivity of H^0(Π) gives Z^0(i⊳g) ⊆ Π(Z^1(g;g/i)), but exactness requires Z^0(i⊳g) ⊆ Π((π_{g/i})_*(Z^1(g;g))), i.e., that each 0-cocycle η be the restriction to i of a projection of an actual derivation ψ∈Z^1(g;g). The paper's diagram factors T_{Id_g}α_i through Z^1(g;g/i), but does not prove that every 1-cocycle φ∈Z^1(g;g/i) lifts to a derivation ψ with π∘ψ=φ. The obstruction to such a lift lies in H^2(g;i) via the long exact sequence of 0→C•(g;i)→C•(g;g)→C•(g;g/i)→0. Consequently, the non-degeneracy condition of Proposition 6.7 is not established, and the rigidity conclusion (and Corollary 6.15, Example 6.16) is unsupported. The theorem might be repairable with an additional hypothesis (e.g., H^2(g;i)=0) or a more refined argument; as written, this is a load-bearing gap.
  2. [§5.1, after Eq. (28)] The assertion that 'an easy computation using I(ψ)∘I(φ)=0' implies m_k=0 for all k≥3 is not demonstrated. This vanishing is load-bearing: the paper advertises a dgL[1]a controlling deformations, and Theorem 5.3 relies on the Maurer–Cartan equation being exactly δ^Hom(φ)+½m2(φ,φ)=0. If any higher m_k is nonzero, the MC set of the L∞[1]-algebra would differ, and the bijection with small deformations would require an additional argument. Please provide the explicit computation (or a structural reason) for the vanishing of all m_k with k≥3.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2.2, proof of Proposition 4.4] The indexing in the computation is inconsistent with the statement: the proof writes φ∈∧^k g*⊗g/i while the definition of Π uses C^{k+1}(g;g/i). This makes the proof hard to follow; please rewrite with consistent indices.
  2. [§6.2, proof of Theorem 6.14] The first sentence refers to 'Proposition 6.14', but the relevant statement is Proposition 6.10 (the Aut(g)-equivariance of σ). Please correct the reference.
  3. [§6.2, Definition 6.12] The symbol U_i⊥ is used for the neighborhood of i but is not defined; use a standard notation such as U_i or specify its meaning.
  4. [§4.1 (notational consistency)] The paper uses ⊲ in δ^Hom_{g⊲i} and ⊳ in H^•(i⊳g) to denote the ideal relation; please unify the notation.
  5. [Example 6.4] The notation 'h3(R) = : g' should be 'g := h3(R)' for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the deformation complex and controlling dgL[1]a are derived from first principles, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are proven by direct computation rather than assumed through their own conclusions. Proposition 4.2 differentiates the ideal condition σ(t)=0 and obtains exactly the cocycle condition for the independently defined differential δHom; Theorem 5.3 expands the Maurer-Cartan equation m1(φ)+1/2 m2(φ,φ)=0, using the Voronov-derived brackets, and shows it is algebraically equivalent to the condition that graph(φ) is an ideal. The deformation cohomology H*(i⊳g) is defined before any deformation statement is made, and the dgL[1]a structure comes from a Voronov dataset with Θ=µ_g+ad_g, not from an ansatz that already encodes the target bijection. The rigidity and stability arguments rely on external results [4] and [39], which are not authored by the paper's authors, and the paper contains no self-citations. The possible proof gap in Theorem 6.14 concerning whether projection cocycles lift to derivations of g is a mathematical-validity concern, not a circularity: the theorem's hypothesis is not defined in terms of its conclusion, and the stated implication is a substantive claim rather than a tautological reduction. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not rename a known result as a new one.

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

No numbers are fitted and no ad hoc axioms are introduced; the paper relies on standard deformation-theoretic machinery (Voronov datasets, stability of zeros, Grassmannian geometry) and on Singh's theorem, which is cited and used transparently. The only auxiliary choices, a complement ic and an inner product, do not affect the main cohomology.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Voronov's higher derived bracket construction (Theorems 2.8 and 2.10) produces L-infinity[1]-algebras from Voronov datasets.
    Invoked in Section 5.1 to obtain the controlling dgL[1]a and the simultaneous L-infinity[1]-algebra.
  • standard math Proposition 6.7 (openness of orbits of G-equivariant sections) from Crainic-Schatz-Struchiner.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 6.14 to conclude rigidity from non-degeneracy of the zero.
  • standard math Proposition 6.17 (stability of zeros) from Crainic-Schatz-Struchiner.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 6.21 to conclude stability from vanishing H1.
  • standard math Singh's Theorem 3.20 in [39].
    Used in Remark 6.22 to state a weaker stability condition H1_land = 0.
  • standard math The Gerstenhaber bracket on C*(V; V)[1] and the Maurer-Cartan characterization of Lie brackets and representations.
    Background from Section 2.3 used throughout for dgLa and L-infinity structures.
  • domain assumption The Grassmannian chart and tangent space identifications for Gr_k(g), including the chart centered at i by a complement ic.
    Defines small deformations of an ideal as graphs and underlies Theorems 5.3 and 5.5 and the geometric applications.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deformations of ideals in Lie algebras." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MRXXWXTD

@misc{pith2026241220600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deformations of ideals in Lie algebras},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MRXXWXTD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20600}
}
abstract

This paper develops the deformation theory of Lie ideals. It shows that the smooth deformations of an ideal $\mathfrak i$ in a Lie algebra $\mathfrak g$ differentiate to cohomology classes in the cohomology of $\mathfrak g$ with values in its adjoint representation on $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathfrak i, \mathfrak g/\mathfrak i)$. The cohomology associated with the ideal $\mathfrak i$ in $\mathfrak g$ is compared with other Lie algebra cohomologies defined by $\mathfrak i$, such as the cohomology defined by $\mathfrak i$ as a Lie subalgebra of $\mathfrak g$ (Richardson, 1969), and the cohomology defined by the Lie algebra morphism $\mathfrak g \to \mathfrak g/\mathfrak i$. After a choice of complement of the ideal $\mathfrak i$ in the Lie algebra $\mathfrak g$, its deformation complex is enriched to the differential graded Lie algebra that controls its deformations, in the sense that its Maurer-Cartan elements are in one-to-one correspondence with the (small) deformations of the ideal. Furthermore, the $L_{\infty}$-algebra that simultaneously controls the deformations of $\mathfrak{i}$ and of the ambient Lie bracket is identified. Under appropriate assumptions on the low degrees of the deformation cohomology of a given Lie ideal, the (topological) rigidity and stability of ideals are studied, as well as obstructions to deformations of ideals of Lie algebras.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. C. Baez and A. S. Crans. Higher-dimensional algebra. V I. Lie 2-algebras. Theory Appl. Categ. , 12:492–538, 2004

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Bott and L

    R. Bott and L. W. Tu. Differential forms in algebraic topology , volume 82 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer- Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1982

    work page 1982

  3. [3]

    M. Crainic. On the perturbation lemma, and deformations . arXiv preprint math/0403266 , 2004

    arXiv 2004

  4. [4]

    Crainic, F

    M. Crainic, F. Sch¨ atz, and I. Struchiner. A survey on sta bility and rigidity results for Lie algebras. Indag. Math. (N.S.) , 25(5):957–976, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    P. Deligne. Letter to J. Millson and W. Goldman. 1987

    work page 1987

  6. [6]

    Drinfeld

    V. Drinfeld. A letter from Kharkov to Moscow. EMS Surv. Math. Sci. , 1(2):241–248, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Fiorenza and M

    D. Fiorenza and M. Manetti. L∞ structures on mapping cones. Algebra Number Theory , 1(3):301–330, 2007. DEFORMATIONS OF IDEALS IN LIE ALGEBRAS 41

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Fr´ egier and M

    Y. Fr´ egier and M. Zambon. Simultaneous deformations of algebras and morphisms via derived brackets. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 219(12):5344–5362, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Gerstenhaber

    M. Gerstenhaber. The cohomology structure of an associa tive ring. Ann. of Math. (2) , 78:267–288, 1963

    1963

  2. [10]

    Gerstenhaber

    M. Gerstenhaber. On the deformation of rings and algebr as. Ann. of Math. (2) , 79:59–103, 1964

    1964

  3. [11]

    Gerstenhaber

    M. Gerstenhaber. On the deformation of rings and algebr as. II. Ann. of Math. (2) , 84:1–19, 1966

    1966

  4. [12]

    Gerstenhaber

    M. Gerstenhaber. On the deformation of rings and algebr as. III. Ann. of Math. (2) , 88:1–34, 1968

    1968

  5. [13]

    Gerstenhaber

    M. Gerstenhaber. On the deformation of rings and algebr as. IV. Ann. of Math. (2) , 99:257–276, 1974

    1974

  6. [14]

    Gerstenhaber and C

    M. Gerstenhaber and C. W. Wilkerson. On the deformation of rings and algebras. V. Deformation of differential graded algebras. In Higher homotopy structures in topology and mathematical ph ysics (Poughkeepsie, NY, 1996) , volume 227 of Contemp. Math. , pages 89–101. Amer. Math....

    1996

  7. [15]

    W. M. Goldman and J. Millson. The homotopy invariance of the kuranishi space. Illinois Journal of Mathematics , 34:337–367, 1990

    1990

  8. [16]

    V. Hinich. DG coalgebras as formal stacks. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 162(2-3):209–250, 2001

    2001

  9. [17]

    Jacobson

    N. Jacobson. Lie algebras , volume No. 10 of Interscience Tracts in Pure and Applied Mathematics . Interscience Pub- lishers (a division of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), New York-Lon don, 1962

    1962

  10. [18]

    K. Kodaira. Complex manifolds and deformation of complex structures , volume 283 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical S ciences]. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986. Translated from the Japanese by Kazuo Akao, With an appendix b...

    1986

  11. [19]

    Kodaira, L

    K. Kodaira, L. Nirenberg, and D. C. Spencer. On the exist ence of deformations of complex analytic structures. Ann. of Math. (2) , 68:450–459, 1958

    1958

  12. [20]

    Kodaira and D

    K. Kodaira and D. C. Spencer. On deformations of complex analytic structures. I, II. Ann. of Math. (2) , 67:328–466, 1958

    1958

  13. [21]

    Kodaira and D

    K. Kodaira and D. C. Spencer. On deformations of complex analytic structures. III. Stability theorems for complex structures. Ann. of Math. (2) , 71:43–76, 1960

    1960

  14. [22]

    Kontsevich and Y

    M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman. Deformation theory. 20 02

  15. [23]

    Lada and M

    T. Lada and M. Markl. Strongly homotopy Lie algebras. Comm. Algebra, 23(6):2147–2161, 1995

    1995

  16. [24]

    Lada and J

    T. Lada and J. Stasheff. Introduction to SH Lie algebras f or physicists. Internat. J. Theoret. Phys. , 32(7):1087–1103, 1993

    1993

  17. [25]

    J. Lurie. Derived Algebraic Geometry X: Formal moduli p roblems. 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    M. Manetti. Differential graded Lie algebras and formal deformation theory. In Algebraic geometry, Seattle 2005. Proceedings of the 2005 Summer Research Institute, Seattle , WA, USA, July 25–August 12, 2005 , pages 785–810. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 2009

    2005

  19. [27]

    Nijenhuis

    A. Nijenhuis. Composition systems and deformations of subalgebras. Indag. Math. , 30:119–136, 1968. Nederl. Akad. W etensch. Proc. Ser. A 71

    1968

  20. [28]

    Nijenhuis and R

    A. Nijenhuis and R. W. Richardson, Jr. Cohomology and de formations of algebraic structures. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 70:406–411, 1964

    1964

  21. [29]

    Nijenhuis and R

    A. Nijenhuis and R. W. Richardson, Jr. Cohomology and de formations in graded Lie algebras. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 72:1–29, 1966

    1966

  22. [30]

    Nijenhuis and R

    A. Nijenhuis and R. W. Richardson, Jr. Deformations of h omomorphisms of Lie groups and Lie algebras. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 73:175–179, 1967

    1967

  23. [31]

    Nijenhuis and R

    A. Nijenhuis and R. W. Richardson, Jr. Deformations of L ie algebra structures. J. Math. Mech. , 17:89–105, 1967

    1967

  24. [32]

    Nijenhuis and R

    A. Nijenhuis and R. W. Richardson, Jr. Commutative alge bra cohomology and deformations of Lie and associative algebras. J. Algebra, 9:42–53, 1968

    1968

  25. [33]

    Page and R

    S. Page and R. W. Richardson, Jr. Stable subalgebras of L ie algebras and associative algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 127:302–312, 1967

    1967

  26. [34]

    J. P. Pridham. Unifying derived deformation theories. Adv. Math. , 224(3):772–826, 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    Jr. R. W. Richardson. Deformations of subalgebras of Li e algebras. Journal of Differential Geometry , 3(3-4):289 – 308, 1969

    1969

  28. [36]

    R. W. Richardson, Jr. On the rigidity of semi-direct pro ducts of Lie algebras. Pacific J. Math. , 22:339–344, 1967

    1967

  29. [37]

    R. W. Richardson, Jr. A rigidity theorem for subalgebra s of Lie and associative algebras. Illinois J. Math. , 11:92–110, 1967

    1967

  30. [38]

    W. Rudin. Functional analysis. International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics. McG raw-Hill, Inc., New York, second edition, 1991

    1991

  31. [39]

    K. J. Singh. Stability of fixed points in poisson geometr y and higher lie theory. Advances in Mathematics , 464:110132, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Th. Voronov. Higher derived brackets and homotopy alge bras. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 202(1-3):133–153, 2005

    2005

  33. [41]

    Th. Th. Voronov. Higher derived brackets for arbitrary derivations. In Travaux math´ ematiques. Fasc. XVI, volume 16 of Trav. Math., pages 163–186. Univ. Luxemb., Luxembourg, 2005. Email address : ilias.ermeidis@mathematik.uni-goettingen.de Email address : madeleine.jotz@uni-w...

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.