Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 84 references

On the sharpness of the $C^1$-norm threshold for perturbations in the normally hyperbolic invariant manifold theorem---a toy model perspective

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a family of dissipative twist maps, the sharp $C^1$ perturbation threshold for a smooth invariant graph is exactly $(1-\sqrt\lambda)^2$.

desk verdict The sharpness claim for the C^1 threshold is not established: the construction in Theorem 2 fails to control inf G', and the prescribed template actually forces G' below 2√λ, making the perturbation's C^1 norm larger than claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04862 v1 pith:O4WTURIW submitted 2026-08-05 math.DS

Yujie Huang , Junhao Li , Lin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DS MSC 37J4037E40
keywords DissipativetwistmapsNormallyhyperbolicinvariantmanifoldsgraphsHerman-MatherformulaSharpthresholdCircleConecondition
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 studies the family of dissipative twist maps $F^\varphi_{\lambda,\alpha}(x,y)=(x+\alpha_1+\lambda y+\varphi(x),\alpha_2+\lambda y+\varphi(x))$ and asks how large the $C^1$ norm of the perturbation $\varphi$ may be before the unique invariant graph loses smoothness. Its answer is that the critical size is exactly $(1-\sqrt\lambda)^2$: whenever $\|\varphi\|_{C^1}<(1-\sqrt\lambda)^2$, the map has a unique $C^1$ invariant graph that is $1$-normally hyperbolic, while at equality there exist $C^\infty$ perturbations with $\|\varphi\|_{C^1}=(1-\sqrt\lambda)^2$ whose unique invariant graph is Lipschitz but has non-differentiable points. This matters because the normally hyperbolic invariant manifold theorem gives persistence only for sufficiently small perturbations; the paper turns that qualitative smallness condition into a sharp, computable threshold for this model.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Herman–Mather formula $g(x)+\lambda g^{-1}(x)=(1+\lambda)x+(1-\lambda)\alpha_1+\lambda\alpha_2+\varphi(x)$, which expresses the invariant graph through the circle map $g$ induced on the graph, and its differentiated form $g'(x)+\lambda/g'(g^{-1}(x))=1+\lambda+\varphi'(x)$. The proof of Theorem 2 constructs $g$ by prescribing $g'$ on the intervals of a partition coming from a rational rotation: a smooth decreasing template $\psi$ with $\psi(0)=a$, $\psi(1)=b$, $\int_0^1\psi=1$, where $a>1>b>0$ are the two roots of $z+\lambda/z=1+\lambda+(1-\sqrt\lambda)^2$. The identity $G'=g'(g(y))+\lambda/g'(y)$ then makes $G$ smooth and gives $\sup G'=1+\lambda+(1-\sqrt\lambda)^2$, yielding the equality case.

What would settle it

Compute the infimum of $G'(x)$ for the template constructed in Section 3 at $\lambda=0.25$. If $\inf G'<1$, then $|\varphi'|=|G'-(1+\lambda)|>0.25=(1-\sqrt{0.25})^2$ somewhere, and the constructed $\varphi$ violates the norm condition of Theorem 2; this is a concrete check of the missing lower-bound estimate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the classical persistence statement is quantitatively optimal: the threshold $(1-\sqrt\lambda)^2$ separates smooth persistence from a genuine loss of differentiability. The positive direction (Theorem 1) shows that the graph transform is a contraction on Lipschitz graphs once $\|\varphi\|_{\mathrm{Lip}}\le(1-\sqrt\lambda)^2$, and that strict inequality upgrades the unique invariant graph to $C^1$ and $1$-normal hyperbolicity via cone conditions and the derived Herman–Mather formula. The negative direction (Theorem 2) constructs, for every rational rotation number, a $C^\infty$ perturbation $\varphi_\lambda$ whose $C^1$ norm equals the threshold and for which the unique invariant graph has non-differentiable points, so the strict inequality in Theorem 1 cannot be relaxed. The construction is built from a circle map $g$ with prescribed derivative profile and the identity $G(x)=g(x)+\lambda g^{-1}(x)$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the auxiliary function $G(x)=g(x)+\lambda g^{-1}(x)$ obeys $\inf G'\ge 2\sqrt\lambda$ as well as the proved upper bound $\sup G'=1+\lambda+(1-\sqrt\lambda)^2$; both bounds together put $\varphi'=G'-(1+\lambda)$ inside the announced $C^1$ ball, and the paper supplies only the upper one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The threshold $(1-\sqrt\lambda)^2$ cannot be enlarged: at equality there are $C^\infty$ perturbations whose unique invariant graph has non-differentiable points, so no general persistence theorem can guarantee a $C^1$ graph beyond this size.
  • For every rational rotation number $\beta$, the critical perturbation can be chosen so that the restriction of the map to the invariant graph is a circle map of frequency $\beta$, so the breakdown is compatible with any rational frequency.
  • When $\|\varphi\|_{C^1}<(1-\sqrt\lambda)^2$, the invariant graph is not only $C^1$ but $1$-normally hyperbolic, hence it persists as a normally hyperbolic invariant manifold under further perturbations.
  • The examples in Section 4 show that $C^1$ invariant graphs can exist without being normally hyperbolic, with perturbations whose $C^1$ norm can be made small as $\lambda\to1^-$.
  • At the threshold, Birkhoff's theorem's Lipschitz regularity is the best possible: the graph is unique and Lipschitz but not differentiable everywhere.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct numerical check of the Section 3 construction would test the missing half of the norm estimate: for $\lambda=0.25$, if $\inf G'$ comes out below $2\sqrt\lambda=1$, then $\|\varphi\|_{C^1}$ exceeds $(1-\sqrt\lambda)^2$, so the proof would need an additional lower-bound argument to keep the claimed equality.
  • The ratio-symmetric function $t+\lambda/t$ suggests that analogous sharp thresholds for conformally symplectic twist maps in higher dimensions should be controlled by the normal contraction rate $\lambda$; a natural next step is to look for the same equality/non-differentiability transition in the dissipative standard map.
  • One could try replacing the rational rotation in the construction by an irrational rotation; the same derivative-profile mechanism might produce critical perturbations with prescribed irrational frequency, linking this threshold phenomenon to known non-differentiable invariant curves in conservative twist maps.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the family of dissipative twist maps F^φ_{λ,α}(x,y)=(x+α1+λy+φ(x), α2+λy+φ(x)) with 1-periodic zero-mean C^1 perturbations φ. Theorem 1 asserts that if ∥φ∥_{C^1} < (1−√λ)^2, then the map admits a unique C^1 invariant graph that is 1-normally hyperbolic, and the proof uses a graph transform, a cone condition, and a normal-hyperbolicity computation. Theorem 2 claims that this threshold is sharp: for every rational β there exist α and a C∞ zero-mean perturbation φλ with ∥φλ∥_{C^1} = (1−√λ)^2 such that the map has a unique Lipschitz invariant graph with non-differentiable points whose restriction has rotation number β. The construction of Theorem 2 goes through the Herman–Mather formula (A), building a non-differentiable circle map g with break points and setting G(x)=g(x)+λg^{-1}(x). The paper also discusses inclusions among sets of perturbations admitting C^1 graphs, normally hyperbolic graphs, and persistent graphs.

Significance. If Theorem 2 were established, the paper would give a sharp quantitative threshold for the persistence of C^1 invariant graphs in dissipative twist maps, complementing the qualitative normally hyperbolic invariant manifold theorem and extending the conservative Herman–Mather constructions to the conformally symplectic setting. The proof of Theorem 1 is mostly standard and appears internally sound. However, the construction underlying Theorem 2 contains a load-bearing error: the equality ∥φλ∥_{C^1} = (1−√λ)^2 requires both an upper and a lower bound on G′, but the paper proves only the upper bound, and the lower bound is false for the proposed template. The main sharpness result is therefore not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Proposition 3.1 and Step 6] Proposition 3.1 proves only sup_x G′(x) = Mλ (Eq. (13)). The subsequent construction defines φ through φ′ = G′ − (1+λ) with zero mean, so ∥φ∥_{C^1} = sup_x |φ′(x)| = sup_x |G′(x) − (1+λ)|. To obtain ∥φλ∥_{C^1} = (1−√λ)^2, one needs G′(x) ∈ [2√λ, Mλ] for all x, since 2√λ − (1+λ) = −(1−√λ)^2 and Mλ − (1+λ) = (1−√λ)^2. The proof never establishes inf G′ ≥ 2√λ, and the stated sup bound alone is insufficient; it only controls positive excursions of φ′. Theorem 2's equality claim therefore does not follow from the proposition as proved.
  2. [Section 3, Steps 3–6] The lower bound inf G′ ≥ 2√λ fails for the constructed template. Let ψ be the strictly decreasing function of Step 3 with ψ(0)=a>1, ψ(1)=b<1, and ∫_0^1 ψ = 1. Choose u0∈(0,1) with ψ(u0)=√λ. Lemma 3.3 gives v0 := ∫_0^{u0} ψ ≥ u0, and the inequality is strict for u0∈(0,1). Since ψ is strictly decreasing, ψ(v0) < ψ(u0) = √λ. For y with g′(y)=ψ(u0), the normalized coordinate of g(y) is v0, so G′(g(y)) = ψ(v0) + λ/ψ(u0) < √λ + λ/√λ = 2√λ. Hence φ′(g(y)) < 2√λ − (1+λ) = −(1−√λ)^2, and therefore ∥φ∥_{C^1} > (1−√λ)^2. The construction used to attain the sup bound necessarily violates the needed lower bound, so the claimed sharpness is contradicted by the paper's own template.
  3. [Section 3.2] The Gevrey-s refinement preserves the strictly decreasing template structure and the Step 6 argument unchanged; it introduces no lower bound on G′. Consequently the failure described in the previous comment persists for the Gevrey (and hence C∞) version of the construction. The paper contains no alternative argument that would repair the missing inf G′ ≥ 2√λ, so the error is not a local omission but a structural obstruction in the proof of Theorem 2.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Proposition 4.1] The piecewise definition of p* contains a duplicated interval '1/8 ≤ x ≤ 1/4' and the line '1 + 8(1−b′)(x−3/4)' is assigned to 1/8 ≤ x ≤ 1/4 instead of the intended interval, making the formula difficult to parse.
  2. [Section 1.2] The text attributes the dissipative Herman–Mather formula (A) to [SW26], which shares an author with the present paper, but then derives the formula inline from the invariance equation; the precise contribution imported from [SW26] should be stated more clearly to avoid ambiguity about the novelty.
  3. [Section 3, Lemma 3.2] The proof that Φ(H)=(0,1) uses the connectedness of H and the facts that Φ cannot attain 0 or 1, but the latter assertion is not justified; a short argument from φ(0)=0 and φ(1)=1 would make the proof complete.
  4. [Section 2, Lemmas 2.1–2.3] The constants K1, K2, K3 are introduced, but K1 is never used after Lemma 2.1; the presentation would be clearer if the constants were collected in one place or if K1 were referenced explicitly in the comparison preceding the contraction argument.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained; the sole overlapping-author citation is not load-bearing, and the main gap in Theorem 2 is a correctness defect rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The persistence proof (Theorem 1) is self-contained: the threshold (1−sqrtλ)^2 appears from the explicit graph-transform contraction estimates in Lemmas 2.1–2.3 and from the cone inequality (10), not from any pre-fitted parameter. The sharpness construction (Theorem 2) starts from a circle homeomorphism g with prescribed derivative data and defines G and then φ using the Herman–Mather formula; the claimed C1 norm is a conclusion to be verified, not an input. The only overlapping-author citation is [SW26] for the dissipative Herman–Mather formula (A); however Section 1.2 states that the formula is derived from the invariance of the graph, and the displayed relations g=x+α1+λΨ+φ and Ψ(g)=α2+λΨ+φ give (A) by direct elimination of Ψ, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. I therefore find no circular step. I do flag, as the review rule requires, a separate unsupported premise: Section 3, Step 6 proves only the upper bound sup G'=Mλ and never establishes inf G'≥2√λ, which is needed for |φ'|=|G'−(1+λ)|≤(1−√λ)^2; in fact the monotone template ψ forces inf G'<2√λ, so the equality ∥φλ∥C1=(1−√λ)^2 is not established. This is an internal proof error, not an equivalence-by-construction, and it does not raise the circularity score.

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

The central proof relies on standard background (NHIM theorem, Birkhoff graph theorem) and on the Herman-Mather formula, which is attributed to a paper sharing an author but is derived in the text. The most important unstated assumption is the lower bound on G', which the paper never introduces.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The classical NHIM theorem applies to the invariant graph and guarantees persistence for sufficiently small C^1 perturbations
    Used in Section 1 and Remark 3 to assert B ⊆ C and B = B' (Mañé's persistence equivalence).
  • standard math Birkhoff's graph theorem: any invariant graph of the twist map is at least Lipschitz
    Invoked in Section 1.1 to justify that the invariant graph, if it exists, is Lipschitz.
  • domain assumption The dissipative Herman-Mather formula (A) is the correct equivalence between invariant graphs and circle diffeomorphisms g
    Attributed to [SW26, Prop 2.1]; derived in the text, but the one-to-one correspondence is used to construct φ from g in Theorem 2 and to compute φ' in Lemma 2.5.
  • ad hoc to paper The template ψ chosen via Lemma 3.2 satisfies the additional condition inf_x G'(x) ≥ 2√λ
    Needed to conclude ∥φ∥_{C^1} = (1−√λ)^2; not stated or proved in Section 3, and not implied by the stated properties of ψ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the sharpness of the $C^1$-norm threshold for perturbations in the normally hyperbolic invariant manifold theorem---a toy model perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O4WTURIW

@misc{pith2026260804862,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the sharpness of the $C^1$-norm threshold for perturbations in the normally hyperbolic invariant manifold theorem---a toy model perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O4WTURIW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04862}
}
abstract

The classical normally hyperbolic invariant manifold theorem asserts that a \(C^1\) normally hyperbolic invariant manifold persists under \(C^1\) small perturbations. For a family of standard-like dissipative twist maps, we show that the threshold \((1-\sqrt{\lambda})^2\) for the \(C^1\)-norm of the perturbation is sharp: there exists a $C^\infty$ perturbation \(\phi\) with \(\|\phi\|_{C^1} = (1-\sqrt{\lambda})^2\) such that the map preserves a unique invariant graph, but this graph possesses non-differentiable points. On the other hand, whenever \(\|\phi\|_{C^1} < (1-\sqrt{\lambda})^2\), the \(C^1\) normally hyperbolic invariant manifold persists, where \(\lambda\) denotes the Jacobian determinant of the map. This provides a critical threshold phenomenon for the persistence of invariant graphs in dissipative twist maps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04862 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. For the detailed verification, see Section 4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M.-C. Arnaud. A non-differentiable essential irrational invariant curve for a C^1 symplectic twist map . Journal of modern dynamics, 2011, 5 (3), pp.583-591

    2011

  2. [2]

    V. Bangert. Mather sets for twist maps and geodesics on tori . Dynamics Reported 1 (1988), 1-45

    1988

  3. [3]

    Berger and A

    P. Berger and A. Bounemoura. A geometrical proof of the persistence of normally hyperbolic submanifolds . Dynamical Systems, 2013, 28 (4), 567-581

    2013

  4. [4]

    Berretti, G

    A. Berretti, G. Gentile. Scaling Properties for the Radius of Convergence of a Lindstedt Series: The Standard Map . J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 78 (1999), no. 2, 159-176

    1999

  5. [5]

    Berretti, G

    A. Berretti, G. Gentile. Scaling properties for the radius of convergence of Lindstedt series: generalized standard maps . J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 79 (2000), no. 7, 691-713

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Berretti, G

    A. Berretti, G. Gentile. Bryuno function and the standard map . Comm. Math. Phys., 220 (2001), no. 3, 623-656

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Berretti, G

    A. Berretti, G. Gentile. Periodic and quasi-periodic orbits for the standard map . Comm. Math. Phys. 231 (2002), no. 1, 135-156

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    U. Bessi. An analytic counterexample to the KAM theorem . Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 20 (2000), 317-333

    work page 2000

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    G. D. Birkhoff. Surface transformations and their dynamical applications . Acta Mathematicae 43 (1920) 44-47 Collected Mathematical Papers of G.D. Birkhoff , vol. II, p. 195-202, Dover, New York (1968)

    1920

  2. [10]

    G. D. Birkhoff. Sur quelques courbes ferm\' e es remarquables . Bull. Soc. Math. France 60 (1932), 1-26

    1932

  3. [11]

    Bounemoura and J

    A. Bounemoura and J. F\' e joz. KAM, -Gevrey regularity and the -Bruno-R\" u ssmann condition . Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) 19 (2019), no. 4, 1225-1279

    2019

  4. [12]

    Bounemoura

    A. Bounemoura. Some remarks on the optimality of the Bruno-R\" u ssmann condition . Bulletin de la soci\' e t\' e

  5. [13]

    Calleja, A

    R. Calleja, A. Celletti and R. de la Llave. A KAM theory for conformally symplectic systems: efficient algorithms and their validation . J. Differ. Equ. 255 (2013), 978-1049

    2013

  6. [14]

    Calleja, A

    R. Calleja, A. Celletti and R. de la Llave. KAM Theory for Some Dissipative Systems . New Frontiers of Celestial Mechanics: Theory and Applications. I-CELMECH 2020. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol 399. Springer

    2020

  7. [15]

    Calleja, A

    R. Calleja, A. Celletti and R. de la Llave. KAM quasi-periodic solutions for the dissipative standard map . Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 106 (2022), Paper No. 106111, 29 pp

    2022

  8. [16]

    Chierchia and C

    L. Chierchia and C. Falcolini. A direct proof of a theorem by Kolmogorov in Hamiltonian systems . Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) 21 (1994), no. 4, 541-593

    1994

  9. [17]

    Casdagli

    M. Casdagli. Periodic orbits for dissipative twist maps . Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 7 (1987), 165-173

    1987

  10. [18]

    Cheng and L

    C.-Q. Cheng and L. Wang. Destruction of Lagrangian torus for positive definite Hamiltonian systems . Geom. Funct. Anal. 23 (2013), 848-866

    2013

  11. [19]

    C. Conley. Isolated Invariant Sets and the Morse Index . CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics. 38 American Mathematical Society, Providence (1978)

    1978

  12. [20]

    de Melo, S

    W. de Melo, S. van Strien. One-Dimensional Dynamics . Springer-Verlag. (1993)

    1993

  13. [21]

    A. Denjoy. Sur les courbes d\' e finies par les \' e quations diff\' e rentielles \` a la surface du tore . J. de Math. Pures et Appl., (9), 11 (1932), 333-375

    1932

  14. [22]

    R. Devaney. An Introduction to Chaotic Dynamical Systems . Wetsview Press. 2 (2003), 102-113

    2003

  15. [23]

    A. Davie. The Critical Function for the Semistandard Map . Nonlinearity 7, (1994), 219-229

    1994

  16. [24]

    Eliasson Compensations of signs in a small divisor problem

    H. Eliasson Compensations of signs in a small divisor problem . in Aspects dynamiques et topologiques des groupes infinis de transformation de la mecanique (Lyon, 1986), 37-48, Travaux en Cours Vol. 25, Hermann,

    1986

  17. [25]

    Eliasson Absolutely convergent series expansions for quasi-periodic motions

    H. Eliasson Absolutely convergent series expansions for quasi-periodic motions . University of Stockholm preprint (1988), and Math. Phys. Elect. J. 2, No. 4 (1996),

    1988

  18. [26]

    J. Favard. Sur les meilleurs proc\' e d\' e s d'approximation . B.S.M. 61 (1937), 243-256

    1937

  19. [27]

    Fayad and R

    B. Fayad and R. Krikorian. Some questions around quasi-periodic dynamics . World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2018, 1909-1932

    2018

  20. [28]

    G. Forni. Analytic destruction of invariant circles . Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 14 (1994), 267-298

    1994

  21. [29]

    Gallavotti

    G. Gallavotti. Invariant tori: a field-theoretic point of view of Eliasson's work . in Advances in dynamical systems and quantum physics (Capri, 1993), 117-132, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 1995

    1993

  22. [30]

    G. Gentile. Invariant curves for exact symplectic twist maps of the cylinder with Bryuno rotation numbers . Nonlinearity 28 (2015) 2555–2585

    2015

  23. [31]

    Gentile, V

    G. Gentile, V. Mastropietro. Methods for the analysis of the Lindstedt series for KAM tori and renormalizability in classical mechanics . A review with some applications, Rev. Math. Phys. 8 (1996), 393-444

    1996

  24. [32]

    C. Gol\' e . Symplectic twist maps: global variational techniques . Vol. 18. World Scientific, 2001

    2001

  25. [33]

    J. Guo, Y. Liu and L. Wang. On non-KAM invariant circles for area-preserving twist maps . arXiv:2510.21098 [math.DS]

  26. [34]

    M. R. Herman. Sur la conjugation diff e rentiable des diff e omorphismes du cercle a des rotations . Publ. Math. IHES 49 (1979), 5-233

    1979

  27. [35]

    M.R. Herman. Sur les courbes invariantes par les diff\' e omorphismes de l'anneau . Ast\' e risque 103-104 (1983), 1-221

    1983

  28. [36]

    M. R. Herman. Sur les courbes invariantes par les diff e omorphismes de l'anneau . Ast e risque 144 (1986), 1-243

    1986

  29. [37]

    M.R. Herman. In\' e galit\' e s ``a priori" pour des

  30. [38]

    M.R. Herman. Non existence of Lagrangian graphs

  31. [39]

    M.R. Herman. Some open problems in dynamical systems . Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. II (Berlin, 1998) Doc. Math. 1998, Extra Vol. II, 797-808

    1998

  32. [40]

    Hirsch, C

    M. Hirsch, C. Pugh and M. Shub. Invariant manifolds . Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 583. Springer-Verlag, (1977), ii+149 pp

    1977

  33. [41]

    Jarn\' k

    V. Jarn\' k. Diophantischen Approximationen und Hausdorffsches mass. Mat. Sbornik 36 (1929), 371–382

    1929

  34. [42]

    A. Ya. Khinchin. Continued Fractions .University of Chicago Press, 1964

    1964

  35. [43]

    Katok and B

    A. Katok and B. Hasselblatt. Introduction to the Modern Theory of Dynamical Systems (Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 54). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995

    1995

  36. [44]

    V. F. Lazutkin. Recent results on the separatrix splitting for the standard map . S\' e minaire de Th\' e orie spectrale et g\' e om\' e trie, 11(1992-1993), 157-165

    1992

  37. [45]

    Le Calvez

    P. Le Calvez. Existence d'orbites quasi-periodiques dans les attracteurs de Birkhoff . Commun. Math. Phys. 106 (1986), 383-394

    1986

  38. [46]

    Le Calvez

    P. Le Calvez. Propri\' e t\' e s des attracteurs de Birkhoff . Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 8 (1987), 241-310

    1987

  39. [47]

    Libermann

    P. Libermann. Sur les automorphismes infinit\' e simaux des structures symplectiques et des structures de contact . (French) 1959 Colloque G\' e om. Diff. Globale

    1959

  40. [48]

    Q. Li, Y. Liu and L. Wang. Persistence of invariant graphs for twist maps under ultra-analytic perturbations . Preprint

  41. [49]

    Li and L

    Q. Li and L. Wang. On the Dynamics of Invariant Graphs for Dissipative Twist Maps . Preprint

  42. [50]

    Liu and L

    Y. Liu and L. Wang. Herman's converse KAM mechanism revisited . Preprint

  43. [51]

    Katznelson and D

    Y. Katznelson and D. Ornstein. Smoothness of invariant curves . Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Jean-Pierre Kahane (Orsay, 1993) J. Fourier Anal. Appl.,Special Issue(1995), 283-310

    1995

  44. [52]

    Ma\ n \' e

    R. Ma\ n \' e . Persistent manifolds are normally hyperbolic . Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 246 (1978), 261-283

    1978

  45. [53]

    Marco and D

    J.-P. Marco and D. Sauzin, Stability and instability for Gevrey quasi-convex near-integrable Hamiltonian systems, Publ. Math. IHES 96 (2003), 199–275

    2003

  46. [54]

    Mar\`o and A

    S. Mar\`o and A. Sorrentino. Aubry-Mather theory for conformally symplectic systems. Comm. Math. Phys. 354 (2017), 775-808

    2017

  47. [55]

    J. E. Massetti. Attractive invariant circles `a la Chenciner . Regul. Chaot. Dyn. 28, 447-467 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Mather and G

    J. Mather and G. Forni. Action minimizing orbits in hamiltomian systems . Transition to Chaos in Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Lectures given at the 3rd Session of the Centro Internazionale Matematico Estivo (CIME) held in Montecatini Terme, Italy, July 6–13, 1991. Berlin, ...

    1991

  49. [57]

    J. Moser. On invariant curves of area-preserving mappings of an annulus . Nachr. Akad. Wiss. G\" o ttingen,

  50. [58]

    J. Moser. Stable and Random Motions in Dynamical Systems . Princeton University

  51. [59]

    J. P. Marco and D. Sauzin. Stability and instability for Gevrey quasi-convex near-integrable Hamiltonian systems . Publ. Math. IHES 96 (2003), 199-275

    2003

  52. [60]

    Marmi and J.-C

    S. Marmi and J.-C. Yoccoz. Some open problems related to small divisors Lecture Notes in Math., 1784 Fond. CIME/CIME Found. Subser. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002, 175-191

    2002

  53. [61]

    J. N. Mather. Non-existence of invariant circles . Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 4 (1984), 301-309

    1984

  54. [62]

    J. N. Mather. Modulus of continuity for Peierls's barrier . Periodic Solutions of Hamiltonian Systems and Related Topics. ed. P.H.Rabinowitz et al . NATO ASI Series C 209 . Reidel: Dordrecht, (1987), 177-202

    1987

  55. [63]

    J. N. Mather. Destruction of invariant circles . Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. 8 (1988), 199-214

    1988

  56. [64]

    Massetti

    J. Massetti. Attractive invariant circles \` a la Chenciner . Regul. Chaot. Dyn. 28, 447-467 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Newhouse

    S. Newhouse. Cone-fields, domination, and hyperbolicity . Brin,

  58. [66]

    Newhouse

    S. Newhouse. Cone-fields, domination, and hyperbolicity . Brin, Michael (ed.) et al., Modern dynamical systems and applications. Dedicated to Anatole Katok on his 60th birthday. Cambridge University Press. 419-432, 2004

    2004

  59. [67]

    Olvera and N

    A. Olvera and N. Petrov. Regularity Properties of Critical Invariant Circles

  60. [68]

    o schel. \

    J. P\" o schel. \" U ber invariante Tori in differenzierbaren Hamiltonschen Systemen . (German)[On invariant tori in differentiable Hamiltonian systems]

  61. [69]

    u ssmann. Kleine Nenner. I. \

    H. R\" u ssmann. Kleine Nenner. I. \" U ber invariante Kurven differenzierbarer Abbildungen eines Kreisringes . Nachr. Akad. Wiss. G\" o ttingen Math.-Phys. Kl. II(1970), 67-105

    1970

  62. [70]

    R\" u ssman

    H. R\" u ssman. On optimal estimates for the solutions of linear partial differential equations of first order with constantm coefficients on the torus . Lecture Notes in Physics. 38 (1975), 598-624

    1975

  63. [71]

    R\" u ssmann

    H. R\" u ssmann. On the existence of invariant curves of twist mappings of an annulus . Lecture Notes in Mathematics. 1007 (1983), 677-718

    1983

  64. [72]

    R\" u ssman

    H. R\" u ssman. On the frequencies of quasi-periodic solutions of nearly integrable Hamiltonian systems . Euler International Mathematical Institute, St. Petersburg, Dynamical Systems, 14-27 October 1991

    1991

  65. [73]

    D. Salamon. The Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser theorem . Math. Phys. Electron. J. 10 (2004), Paper 3, 37 pp

    2004

  66. [74]

    C. Siegel. Iteration of analytic functions . Ann. of Math. (2) 43 (1942), 607-612

    1942

  67. [75]

    Sorrentino and L

    A. Sorrentino and L. Wang. On the Destruction of Invariant Lagrangian Graphs for Conformal Symplectic Twist Maps . Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 65(5), 2026, Article 153

    2026

  68. [76]

    Su and L

    X. Su and L. Wang. Total destruction of invariant tori for the generalized Frenkel-Kontorova model , Journal of Math. Phys. , 53 (2012), 022702, 7pp

    2012

  69. [77]

    F. Takens. A C^1 counterexample to Moser's twist theorem. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Ser. A 74 . Indag. Math. 33

  70. [78]

    L. Wang. Variational destruction of invariant circles . Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 32 (2012), 4429-4443

    2012

  71. [79]

    L. Wang. Destruction of invariant circles for Gevrey area-preserving twist maps . J. Dynam. Differential Equations , 27 (2015), 283-295

    2015

  72. [80]

    L. Wang. Total destruction of Lagrangian tori . J. Math. Anal. Appl. 410 (2014), 827-836.012)

    2014

  73. [81]

    L. Wang. Quantitative destruction of invariant circles . Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 42 (2022), 1569-1583

    2022

  74. [82]

    L. Wang. Quantitative Destruction and Persistence of Lagrangian Torus in Hamiltonian Systems . arXiv:2312.01695v3 [math.DS]

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    J.-C. Yoccoz. Conjugaison diff\' e rentiable des diff\' e omorphismes du cercle dont le nombre de rotation v\' e rifie une condition diophantienne . Ann. Sci. \' E cole Norm. Sup. (4) 17 (1984), no. 3, 333-359

    1984

  76. [84]

    J.-C. Yoccoz. Travaux de Herman sur les tores invariants. Astérisque, 206, 311–346

Pith tools

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