Lightlike and ideal tetrahedra

Carlos Scarinci; Catherine Meusburger

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 20 references

Lightlike and ideal tetrahedra

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Lightlike tetrahedra in AdS, de Sitter and Minkowski space are determined by two edge lengths and are projectively dual to generalized ideal tetrahedra, with closed volume formulas in all three cases.

desk verdict Solid, significant paper that answers the open questions it poses with explicit volume formulas and a duality theorem; the main results are believable but the key duality proof is too terse and the power-series corollary has a misindexed formula. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00932 v4 pith:TXKHTMEO submitted 2019-09-03 math.GT math-phmath.DGmath.MP

Catherine Meusburger , Carlos Scarinci This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.GTmath-phmath.DGmath.MP MSC 51M1053C5057M50

keywords lightliketetrahedrageneralizedidealcomplexnumbersprojectivedualityanti-deSitterspacedeMinkowskihalf-pipe

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes that tetrahedra whose faces lie in lightlike planes in 3d anti-de Sitter, de Sitter, and Minkowski space are governed by the same kind of shape parameter as ideal hyperbolic tetrahedra: a generalized cross-ratio in a commutative two-dimensional real algebra that interpolates between complex, dual, and hyperbolic numbers. It proves that such lightlike tetrahedra are determined up to isometry by two edge lengths, with opposite edges equal, and shows via projective duality that they correspond exactly to the generalized ideal tetrahedra of hyperbolic, anti-de Sitter, and half-pipe space, determined by two dihedral angles. The paper also derives closed volume formulas: a direct generalization of the classical ideal-tetrahedron volume formula for the dual objects, and an analogous formula with logarithmic corrections for the lightlike tetrahedra. The Minkowski volume emerges as the zero-curvature limit. If correct, these are the Lorentzian analogues of ideal tetrahedra needed for gluing constructions and volume computations across all three constant-curvature 3d geometries.

What carries the argument

The central object is the algebra of generalized complex numbers $C_\Lambda=\mathbb{R}[\ell]/(\ell^2+\Lambda)$ — complex numbers for $\Lambda=1$, dual numbers for $\Lambda=0$, hyperbolic numbers for $\Lambda=-1$ — together with the identification of $X_\Lambda$ and $Y_\Lambda$ with positive-determinant $2\times2$ matrices over $C_\Lambda$. This single description carries the whole argument: geodesics and lightlike planes are exponentials of traceless matrices, the ideal boundary is $C_\Lambda P^1$, the isometry group is $PGL^+(2,C_\Lambda)$, and the shape parameter of a tetrahedron is an element of $C_\Lambda^\times$. The volume computation uses the global parametrizations of Proposition 4.4 (lightlike) and Proposition 4.14 (ideal), together with the generalized Clausen function $\mathrm{Cl}_\Lambda(\alpha)=-\int_0^\alpha \log|2s_\Lambda(\theta/2)|\,d\theta$, where $s_\Lambda$ is the generalized sine from (7).

What would settle it

Take a lightlike tetrahedron in Minkowski space with edge parameters, say, $\alpha=1$, $\beta=2$ (so $\gamma=-3$), write its vertices in the standard form of Proposition 4.2, and compute the volume two ways: directly as the 3d Minkowski volume of the convex hull (claimed value $2$) and via the dual incidence at $\Lambda=0$ using equation (6). If the $\Lambda=0$ duality fails to map each vertex to the plane spanned by the duals of the opposite three vertices, or if the direct volume disagrees with $2$, then Theorem 4.18 or Theorem 5.2 fails in the Minkowski/half-pipe case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Every lightlike tetrahedron in $X_\Lambda$ — anti-de Sitter space for $\Lambda=-1$, de Sitter space for $\Lambda=1$, Minkowski space for $\Lambda=0$ — is determined up to isometry by two real edge lengths $\alpha,\beta$, with $\gamma=-\alpha-\beta$ and opposite edges equal; its shape parameter is the generalized cross-ratio $z=-\frac{s_\Lambda(\beta)}{s_\Lambda(\alpha)}e^{\ell\gamma}\in C_\Lambda^\times$. Under the projective duality (6), these tetrahedra are dual to the generalized ideal tetrahedra of $Y_\Lambda$ (hyperbolic space for $\Lambda=1$, anti-de Sitter space for $\Lambda=-1$, half-pipe space $H^2\times\mathbb{R}$ for $\Lambda=0$), with the edge lengths of one becoming the dihedral angles of the other; this identification is Theorem 4.18. The paper then computes both volumes from the shape parameters: an ideal tetrahedron has volume $\tfrac12(\mathrm{Cl}_\Lambda(2\alpha)+\mathrm{Cl}_\Lambda(2\beta)+\mathrm{Cl}_\Lambda(2\gamma))$, while a lightlike tetrahedron has volume $\frac{1}{2\Lambda}(\mathrm{Cl}_\Lambda(2\alpha)+\mathrm{Cl}_\Lambda(2\beta)+\mathrm{Cl}_\Lambda(2\gamma)) + \frac{1}{\Lambda}(\alpha\log|s_\Lambda(\alpha)|+\beta\log|s_\Lambda(\beta)|+\gamma\log|s_\Lambda(\gamma)|)$ for $\Lambda=\pm1$, reducing to $-\alpha\beta\gamma/3$ in Minkowski space.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the claim that the point-versus-plane duality between lightlike tetrahedra and ideal tetrahedra, which is exact for curved spaces, still works in the flat Minkowski-to-half-pipe case even though the ambient bilinear form becomes degenerate there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The usual gluing-equation framework for ideal triangulations can be rewritten over $C_\Lambda$ for lightlike tetrahedra, with the same cross-ratio transformations as in the ideal case.
Volumes of 3-manifolds built from lightlike or ideal tetrahedra become sums of the closed formulas in Theorems 5.1 and 5.2, and the $\Lambda\to0$ limit gives Minkowski and half-pipe volumes from the curved cases.
Opposite edges of a lightlike tetrahedron have equal length, so the full edge-length geometry is captured by two numbers, exactly as an ideal tetrahedron is captured by two dihedral angles.
Under projective duality, edge lengths of a lightlike tetrahedron equal the corresponding dihedral angles of its dual ideal tetrahedron, giving a single parameter family of tetrahedra spanning all five constant-curvature 3d geometries.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same $C_\Lambda$-matrix description should produce lightlike simplices in all dimensions, and the Bernoulli expansion in Corollary 5.3 suggests their $\Lambda=0$ volume is always a polynomial in edge lengths; the paper only treats tetrahedra.
Because the shape parameters satisfy the standard $z\mapsto 1/(1-z)\mapsto(z-1)/z$ cross-ratio orbit, a natural unproven next step is to implement the 2-3 Pachner move for these tetrahedra and test invariance of the volume sum, the analogue of the hyperbolic 3-manifold invariant.
A cheap test of the $\Lambda=0$ transition would be to compute the half-pipe volume of a generalized ideal tetrahedron directly from its definition and compare it with the $\Lambda\to0$ limit of Theorem 5.1; the paper does not carry out that direct verification.

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 paper is worth taking seriously. It gives a unified treatment of lightlike tetrahedra in XΛ and ideal tetrahedra in YΛ, proves they are projectively dual, and derives closed-form volume formulas that generalize Milnor–Lobachevsky and include the Minkowski limit vol = −αβγ/3. The main results answer the open questions posed in the introduction, and the formulas are explicit enough to use.

What is actually new: the lightlike tetrahedra themselves, their parametrization by a pair of edge lengths (α, β with γ = −α−β), the duality theorem with Danciger’s generalized ideal tetrahedra, and the volume computation. The CΛ framework is partly built on prior work (including the authors’ own), but the applications here are new. The paper is honest about what it uses from [Da14], [FS], and their earlier papers.

Soft spots, in order of concern. First, Theorem 4.18 — the duality theorem — is proved by a single sentence: “By computing their duals as in (6).” For Λ = 0 the ambient bilinear form is degenerate, and the duality is imported via blow-up limits from [FS]; no incidence computation between the four vertices and four face-planes is shown. That is the load-bearing step, and it deserves at least a sketch of the matrix computation. I do not think it is false, but it is under-supported. Second, Corollary 5.3 has a misindexed power series: as printed, the k = 1 term gives αβ/9, not the claimed αβ(α+β)/3. The binomial sum likely needs to run over j = 1..2k with (2k+1 choose j) and the coefficients adjusted. Third, Proposition 4.16 has a typo: |z31| = |z34| should be |z31| = |z24|. Fourth, the key antiderivative in the proof of Theorem 5.2 is left as “direct but lengthy computation.” That is acceptable but not ideal; the formula is displayed, so a motivated reader can check it, but for a published proof more detail would be better.

The citation pattern looks fine — self-citations are mostly to the CΛ framework they are building on, and the debt to Danciger is acknowledged clearly.

Who should read this: anyone working on 3D geometric structures, geometric transitions, or volume calculus in anti-de Sitter and half-pipe spaces. It is a specialist paper, but it gives concrete tools.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. The main claims are probably right, the formulas are useful, and the rough edges are fixable. A good referee should ask for a fuller proof of Theorem 4.18 and corrections to Corollary 5.3 and Proposition 4.16.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a unified framework for tetrahedra with lightlike faces in the three-dimensional Lorentzian model spaces XΛ (AdS, dS, Minkowski) and their projective duals, the Danciger generalized ideal tetrahedra in YΛ (AdS, H3, half-pipe). Using the ring CΛ of generalized complex numbers, the authors parametrize both classes up to isometry by α, β, γ with α + β + γ = 0, interpret the parameters as edge lengths (lightlike) and dihedral angles (ideal), and prove that the two classes are projectively dual (Theorem 4.18). They then compute volumes: for ideal tetrahedra they obtain a direct generalization of the Milnor-Lobachevsky formula (Theorem 5.1), and for lightlike tetrahedra a formula involving generalized Clausen functions and logarithmic terms (Theorem 5.2), with the Minkowski limit vol = -αβγ/3.

Significance. If the results hold, they provide the first unified volume formulas for both families across the three geometries and identify them via projective duality. The CΛ matrix parametrization is elegant, and many explicit computations (edge lengths, shape parameters, symmetries, parametrizations) are included, making the paper potentially useful for geometric transition and gluing-equation applications. The authors are also careful to include the degenerate Λ = 0 cases as limits. However, the paper currently leaves two load-bearing computations as assertions: the duality incidence in Theorem 4.18 (especially for Λ = 0) and the key indefinite integral in the lightlike volume computation. These need to be supplied before the central claims are fully verifiable, and the displayed power series in Corollary 5.3 appears to contain an indexing error.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.2, Theorem 4.18] The proof of Theorem 4.18 is the single sentence 'By computing their duals as in (6), one finds...'. This is load-bearing because the theorem claims vertex-face incidence for all Λ, and for Λ = 0 the ambient form in (5) is degenerate and Section 2.3 delegates the duality to blow-up limits in [FS]. Please provide the explicit computation of the duals of the standard vertices from Proposition 4.2 and the ideal vertices from Proposition 4.12, verify that the four face-planes match, and state precisely how the Λ = 0 case follows from [FS] or compute it directly.
[Section 5.2, Proof of Theorem 5.2] The crucial indefinite integral displayed before the integration over s is justified by 'a direct but lengthy computation', and several later simplifications are introduced with 'after some computations'. Since the volume formula is the central new numerical result, these steps should be written out fully (or placed in an appendix), with the intermediate cancellations between the third and fourth lines displayed.
[Corollary 5.3, Eq. (58)] As printed, the inner sum is Σ_{j=1}^k binom(k+1,j) α^j β^{k+1-j}. For k = 1 this gives leading term 2/9 αβ, which contradicts the asserted leading term 1/3 αβ(α+β) and Theorem 5.2. The intended binomial expansion of (α+β)^{2k+1} - α^{2k+1} - β^{2k+1} would use binom(2k+1,j) and degree 2k+1; please correct the display if this is a typesetting error, or explain the different series.

minor comments (4)

[Proof of Proposition 3.6] The final sentence of the proof refers to 'Proposition 3.6' for the characterization of Stab(X); this should be Proposition 3.3.
[Propositions 4.16 and 4.17] Proposition 4.16 displays |z31| = |z34| and Proposition 4.17 displays z31 = z34; by comparison with Proposition 4.9 these should be |z31| = |z24| and z31 = z24.
[Section 4.1] In the discussion after Definition 4.1, the reference 'as shown in Figure 4.1' appears to refer to Figure 2 (the figure of internal planes); please correct the cross-reference.
[Proposition 4.4] The sentence 'Note that this imposes restrictions on the possible values of α, β, γ, but does not determine γ uniquely as a function of α, β' is confusing in view of the condition α + β + γ = 0; please clarify what is meant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's derivations are explicit computations from a self-contained matrix model, and its self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived by direct computation rather than assumed. Lightlike tetrahedra are parametrized in Proposition 4.2 by solving for vertices from lightlike normal vectors using the matrix exponential; Corollary 4.5 and Proposition 4.6 then compute edge lengths from the arc-length formulas of Proposition 3.5. Ideal tetrahedra are parametrized in Proposition 4.12 from the cross-ratio construction, with a proof included, and the volume formulas in Theorems 5.1 and 5.2 are obtained by explicit integration of invariant volume forms over explicit parametrizations. The Λ=0 volume is computed both directly and as a limit of the Λ=±1 formula via the power series in Corollary 5.3, so it is not inserted as an input. The projective duality in Theorem 4.18 is asserted to follow from computing duals of the explicit vertex parametrizations via equation (6); although the proof is terse and does not display the incidence computation, this is a gap in exposition or a correctness risk, not circularity, because the statement is not equivalent to any fitted parameter or prior conclusion of the paper. The paper does cite prior work by the same authors, notably [MSc], [Me], and [MS], but these citations provide background, motivation, and the CΛ matrix framework, and the results needed for the main argument—such as Proposition 3.12—are either reproven in the text or quoted from Danciger's independent work [Da14]. The Λ=0 duality is imported from the external reference [FS] as a blow-up limit, which is a stated assumption from outside the paper, not a self-citation. There is no fitted input renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem invoked from the authors' own prior work to force a choice, and no ansatz smuggled in through self-citation. The identification with Danciger's generalized ideal tetrahedra is a substantive matching of independently defined objects, not a renaming of a known result. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained enough that no step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

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

The central results rest on standard projective-geometry facts, on Danciger's boundary parametrization, and on two domain conventions: the degenerate Λ = 0 duality and the normalization of the Λ = 0 volume form. No numbers are fitted to data and no ad hoc physical entities are introduced. The novel mathematical content is derived by explicit integration rather than postulated.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The projective duality in Eq. (6) extends to the degenerate Λ = 0 case via a blow-up limit from Λ = ±1, preserving the incidence between lightlike planes and boundary points.
Invoked in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 and used in the proof of Thm. 4.18. The extension is imported from the cited reference [FS] and not derived in this paper.
domain assumption The volume forms on X0 and Y0 are the unique invariant 3-forms, with normalization fixed by continuity from the Λ = ±1 metrics.
Stated in Section 5 before Thm. 5.2. The numerical value of the Minkowski and half-pipe volumes depends on this normalization choice.
standard math Any three pairwise intersecting lightlike planes in XΛ can be mapped to the reference normal vectors given in Cor. 3.10.
Used to put lightlike tetrahedra in standard position in the proof of Prop. 4.2. It follows from 3-transitivity of the PSL(2,R) action on ∂H2, which the paper treats as standard.
standard math Danciger's boundary normalization results: three boundary points pairwise connected by spacelike geodesics can be mapped to 0, 1, ∞, and the fourth vertex is encoded by a generalized cross-ratio in CΛ.
Used in the parametrization of ideal tetrahedra in Prop. 4.12. The paper cites [Da14, Prop. 2 and Prop. 3] and includes adapted proofs for some parts.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lightlike and ideal tetrahedra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TXKHTMEO

@misc{pith2026190900932,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lightlike and ideal tetrahedra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TXKHTMEO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00932}
}

read the original abstract

We give a unified description of tetrahedra with lightlike faces in 3d anti-de Sitter, de Sitter and Minkowski spaces and of their duals in 3d anti-de Sitter, hyperbolic and half-pipe spaces. We show that both types of tetrahedra are determined by a generalized cross-ratio with values in a commutative 2d real algebra that generalizes the complex numbers. Equivalently, tetrahedra with lightlike faces are determined by a pair of edge lengths and their duals by a pair of dihedral angles. We prove that the dual tetrahedra are precisely the generalized ideal tetrahedra introduced by Danciger. Finally, we compute the volumes of both types of tetrahedra as functions of their edge lengths or dihedral angles, obtaining generalizations of the Milnor-Lobachevsky volume formula of ideal hyperbolic tetrahedra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00932 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Null projection of the vertex xi on the opposite edge ekl. Instead of using geodesics through the midpoints of its edges, we can also characterize the geometry of a lightlike tetrahedron in terms of lightlike geodesics. For this, we consider lightlike geodesics in the geodesic planes defined by its faces and through one of its vertices. The longest edges of a lightlike tetrahedron are then distinguished by the fact … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Internal planes of a lightlike tetrahedron at the e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The isometries and normal vectors from Propositio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Exterior dihedral angle θ12 and shearing distance ϕ12 in H 3 . Proposition 4.14 and Corollary 4.15 show that the dihedral angles of an ideal tetrahedra play an analogous role to the edge lengths of lightlike tetrahedra. It is also possible to give a geometric interpret…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Sign conventions for the shearing distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

``Globally hyperbolic flat space-times'', J

Barbot, T. ``Globally hyperbolic flat space-times'', J. Geom. Phys. 53.2 (2005): 123-165

work page 2005
[2]

Barbot, T. and F. Fillastre ``Quasi-Fuchsian co-Minkowski manifolds'', (2018): arXiv:1801.10429

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[3]

Benedetti, R. and F. Bonsante Canonical Wick Rotations in 3-Dimensional Gravity, Memoirs of the AMS 198 (2009)

work page 2009
[4]

``From hyperbolic to AdS geometry'', PhD thesis, Stanford University (2011)

Danciger, J. ``From hyperbolic to AdS geometry'', PhD thesis, Stanford University (2011)

work page 2011
[5]

``A geometric transition from hyperbolic to anti-de Sitter geometry'', Geom

Danciger, J. ``A geometric transition from hyperbolic to anti-de Sitter geometry'', Geom. Topol. 17.5 (2013): 3077-3134

work page 2013
[6]

``Ideal triangulations and geometric transitions'', J

Danciger, J. ``Ideal triangulations and geometric transitions'', J. Topol. 7.4 (2014): 1118-1154

work page 2014
[7]

Maloni and J.-M

Danciger, J., S. Maloni and J.-M. Schlenker ``Polyhedra inscribed in a quadric'', Invent. Math. 221 (2020): 237-300

work page 2020
[8]

Fillastre, F. and A. Seppi, ``Spherical, hyperbolic and other projective geometries: convexity, duality, transitions'', in Eighteen Essays in Non-Euclidean Geometry, IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys. 29 (2019): 321-412

work page 2019

Show all 20 references

[9]

``The symplectic nature of fundamental groups of surfaces'', Adv

Goldman, W. ``The symplectic nature of fundamental groups of surfaces'', Adv. Math. 54.2 (1984): 200-225

1984
[10]

``Invariant functions on Lie groups and Hamiltonian flows of surface group representations'', Invent

Goldman, W. ``Invariant functions on Lie groups and Hamiltonian flows of surface group representations'', Invent. Math. 85.2 (1986): 263-302

1986
[11]

``Solving Thurston's equation in a commutative ring'', J

Luo, F. ``Solving Thurston's equation in a commutative ring'', J. Topol. 9.1 (2015): 143-160

2015
[12]

``Lorentz spacetimes of constant curvature'', Geom

Mess, G. ``Lorentz spacetimes of constant curvature'', Geom. Dedicata 126.1 (2007): 3-45

2007
[13]

``Geometrical (2+1)-Gravity and the Chern-Simons Formulation: Grafting, Dehn Twists, Wilson Loop Observables and the Cosmological Constant'', Commun

Meusburger, C. ``Geometrical (2+1)-Gravity and the Chern-Simons Formulation: Grafting, Dehn Twists, Wilson Loop Observables and the Cosmological Constant'', Commun. Math. Phys 273.3 (2007): 705-754

2007
[14]

Meusburger, C. and C. Scarinci, ``Generalized shear coordinates on the moduli spaces of three-dimensional spacetimes'', J. Differ. Geom. 103.3 (2016): 425-474

2016
[15]

Meusburger, C. and B.J. Schroers, ``Quaternionic and Poisson-Lie structures in three-dimensional gravity: The cosmological constant as deformation parameter'', J. Math. Phys. 49.8 (2008): 083510

2008
[16]

``Hyperbolic geometry: the first 150 years'', Bull

Milnor, J.W. ``Hyperbolic geometry: the first 150 years'', Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 6.1 (1982): 9-24

1982
[17]

Neumann, W. and D. Zagier, ``Volumes of hyperbolic three-manifolds'', Topology 24.3 (1985): 307-332

1985
[18]

``Flat conformal structures and the classification of de Sitter manifolds'', Comm

Scannell, K.P. ``Flat conformal structures and the classification of de Sitter manifolds'', Comm. Anal. Geom. 7.2 (1999): 325-345

1999
[19]

and J.-M

Scarinci, C. and J.-M. Schlenker, ``Symplectic Wick rotations between moduli spaces of 3-manifolds'', Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. 18.3 (2018): 781-829

2018
[20]

``Three-dimensional geometry and topology'', Notes of lectures at Princeton University (1980)

Thurston, W.P. ``Three-dimensional geometry and topology'', Notes of lectures at Princeton University (1980)

1980

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

``Globally hyperbolic flat space-times'', J

Barbot, T. ``Globally hyperbolic flat space-times'', J. Geom. Phys. 53.2 (2005): 123-165

work page 2005

[2] [2]

Barbot, T. and F. Fillastre ``Quasi-Fuchsian co-Minkowski manifolds'', (2018): arXiv:1801.10429

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

[3] [3]

Benedetti, R. and F. Bonsante Canonical Wick Rotations in 3-Dimensional Gravity, Memoirs of the AMS 198 (2009)

work page 2009

[4] [4]

``From hyperbolic to AdS geometry'', PhD thesis, Stanford University (2011)

Danciger, J. ``From hyperbolic to AdS geometry'', PhD thesis, Stanford University (2011)

work page 2011

[5] [5]

``A geometric transition from hyperbolic to anti-de Sitter geometry'', Geom

Danciger, J. ``A geometric transition from hyperbolic to anti-de Sitter geometry'', Geom. Topol. 17.5 (2013): 3077-3134

work page 2013

[6] [6]

``Ideal triangulations and geometric transitions'', J

Danciger, J. ``Ideal triangulations and geometric transitions'', J. Topol. 7.4 (2014): 1118-1154

work page 2014

[7] [7]

Maloni and J.-M

Danciger, J., S. Maloni and J.-M. Schlenker ``Polyhedra inscribed in a quadric'', Invent. Math. 221 (2020): 237-300

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Fillastre, F. and A. Seppi, ``Spherical, hyperbolic and other projective geometries: convexity, duality, transitions'', in Eighteen Essays in Non-Euclidean Geometry, IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys. 29 (2019): 321-412

work page 2019