Geometry of strong forces in continuum mechanics

Daniil Glukhovskiy; Theodore D. Drivas

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Geometry of strong forces in continuum mechanics

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Strong potential constraints on threads and fluids produce ideal constrained motion plus extra nonlocal forces from conserved actions of fast transverse oscillations when data are imperfectly prepared.

desk verdict Clean geometric packaging of Takens corrections for continuum stiff limits, with explicit new forces for the thread and inhomogeneous Euler and honest vanishing cases; the infinite-sum regularity issue is real but already flagged by the authors. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27165 v1 pith:WXA3UL7S submitted 2026-07-29 math.AP math-phmath.CAmath.MPphysics.flu-dyn

Theodore D. Drivas , Daniil Glukhovskiy This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.APmath-phmath.CAmath.MPphysics.flu-dyn MSC 35Q3137J4074K0576N10

keywords TakenslimitconstrainingpotentialadiabaticinvariantinextensiblethreadincompressibleEuleracousticstressanelasticapproximationlakeequations

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

When a continuum system is driven by a very steep potential that pins it to a constraint manifold (inextensible length for a thread, incompressibility for a fluid), the naive expectation is that it simply follows the ideal constrained equations. This paper shows that expectation holds only for carefully prepared initial data. For mildly ill-prepared data the fast transverse oscillations act like slowly modulated harmonic oscillators that conserve action, not energy; the result is an extra effective potential built from the square roots of the eigenvalues of the normal Hessian. For a stiff elastic thread that correction appears as a nonlinear nonlocal bending resistance; for a compressible fluid it appears as an acoustic stress tensor that can drive the incompressible motion. In several geophysical limits (homogeneous barotropic Euler, anelastic Euler, lake and great-lake equations) the extra potential is constant on the constraint set, so the naive models remain valid even for imperfect data.

What carries the argument

The Takens limit system: constrained Newtonian motion on the critical manifold of the stiff potential, forced by the gradient of the homogenized potential V = Σ c_i √λ_i, where λ_i are the eigenvalues of the Hessian restricted to the normal spaces and the constants c_i are the adiabatic invariants fixed by the normal components of the initial data.

What would settle it

A high-resolution numerical simulation of a stiff hyperelastic loop (or of mildly ill-prepared compressible Euler) whose long-time bending (or acoustic stress) either matches the explicit nonlocal formula built from the computed adiabatic invariants and normal eigenvalues, or systematically fails when order-three resonances are forced.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The stiff limits of the hyperelastic extensible thread and of compressible Euler are, for mildly ill-prepared data, the corresponding ideally constrained systems (inextensible thread, incompressible Euler) plus an additional homogenized potential V equal to a sum of adiabatic invariants times square roots of the eigenvalues of the normal Hessian of the constraining potential. Explicitly the thread acquires a fourth-order nonlocal bending force and the fluid acquires a nonlocal acoustic stress; in the homogeneous barotropic, anelastic, lake and great-lake settings that extra force vanishes identically.

Load-bearing premise

That the finite-dimensional picture of conserved actions and non-resonant averaging continues to select the same effective equations in the infinite-dimensional spaces of loops and diffeomorphisms, even though the paper treats those equations only formally and makes no convergence claims.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Bending resistance in an inextensible thread can emerge purely from initial stretching energy without any intrinsic bending stiffness in the constitutive law.
Ill-prepared compressible initial data leave a remnant acoustic wavefield that continues to force the incompressible Euler dynamics through a nonlocal stress tensor.
Homogeneous barotropic incompressible Euler, anelastic Euler, and the lake/great-lake equations remain the correct stiff limits even for mildly ill-prepared data because their homogenized potentials are constant.
Stabilizing or destabilizing effects of the Takens correction can be read off from the second variation of V on the constraint manifold (e.g., quadratic stability of a circular loop against high Fourier modes).

Reading between the lines

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

The same formal procedure should produce Takens corrections for other continuum constraints (e.g., free-boundary or magnetohydrodynamic idealizations) whenever the normal Hessian varies along the constraint set.
Resonance crossings that destroy adiabatic invariance may produce non-unique or subsequence-dependent limits (“Takens chaos”) already visible in simple spring-chain models; continuum analogues would be worth hunting numerically.
If the acoustic-stress correction can be measured in a carefully prepared compressible-to-incompressible experiment, it would give a direct macroscopic signature of conserved acoustic actions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The punchline is that this is a careful geometric synthesis: it lifts classical finite-dimensional Takens–Bornemann stiff-constraint corrections to Loops and Diff, and it actually computes the resulting continuum PDEs. What is new is not the finite-dimensional story (Rubin–Ungar, Takens, Bornemann) nor the existence of acoustic remnants (Métivier–Schochet), but the systematic infinite-dimensional packaging plus three concrete payoffs: the nonlocal fourth-order bending force that emerges from stretch energy alone for the thread, the acoustic-stress form with explicit adiabatic constants for inhomogeneous non-barotropic Euler, and the clean proofs that the homogenized potential is constant (hence the naive constrained models are robust) for homogeneous barotropic Euler, anelastic, lake and great-lake.

The calculations are detailed and internally consistent. Hessians, normal eigenproblems, Hellmann–Feynman gradients of eigenvalues, and the formulae for the actions c_i from mildly ill-prepared data are all written out carefully. The vanishing cases are especially useful: they give a geometric reason why those models remain valid without well-prepared data. Agreement with the known fluid results is a consistency check after an independent derivation, not circular. Appendix B sketches the finite-dimensional argument cleanly enough to serve as a template.

The soft spot is exactly the one the authors flag and the stress-test repeats: they make no convergence claims, treat infinite sums in V and Σ formally, and assume spectral smoothness plus non-resonance. Eigenvalues accumulate, mildly ill-prepared data can excite infinitely many modes, and without decay on the c_i the gradients need not define classical forces on the constraint manifold. Existing rigorous anchors already use truncations or well-prepared data. That is a genuine limitation on the status of the continuum statements, but it is not hidden and does not break the internal algebra. No Lean proofs or numerics are shipped; this is pure formal geometry.

The paper is for people who work on geometric hydrodynamics, singular limits, or constrained continuum mechanics. It organizes several classical limits under one mechanism and supplies explicit correction terms worth checking. I would send it to referees; the formal predictions are sharp enough to deserve that time even if the infinite-dimensional leap stays heuristic for now. Worth engaging.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies the finite-dimensional Takens–Bornemann theory of strong constraining forces to continuum systems viewed as Newtonian particles on infinite-dimensional configuration spaces (Loops(M), Diff(M)). For a stiff extensible thread it derives a formal Takens limit consisting of the inextensible thread plus a nonlocal fourth-order bending force generated by the homogenized potential V = Σ c_i √λ_i, where λ_i are eigenvalues of the tension operator and c_i are adiabatic invariants of mildly ill-prepared data (Thm 3.1, Prop 3.11–3.12). For compressible Euler it likewise obtains incompressible Euler driven by an acoustic stress Σ built from the same data and the spectrum of the acoustic operator (Thm 4.1, Eq 4.3). In several geophysical models (homogeneous barotropic Euler, anelastic, lake/Great Lake) the homogenized potential is constant on the constraint manifold, so the naïve constrained equations remain the Takens limit. The derivations consist of explicit Hessian computations, Hellmann–Feynman gradients, and adiabatic-invariant formulae; no PDE convergence theorems are claimed.

Significance. If the formal continuum corrections are accepted as the correct singular limits, the work supplies a unified geometric explanation for several classical constrained models and predicts two genuinely new nonlinear nonlocal forces (thread bending from pure stretch resistance; remnant acoustic stress). The agreement with the Métivier–Schochet force and the vanishing of the correction in the anelastic/lake settings are nontrivial consistency checks. The calculations are detailed, the finite-dimensional background is cleanly recalled (including a self-contained sketch in App B), and the paper is explicit about its formal character. These features make the manuscript a useful source of predictions and a geometric organizing principle for singular limits in continuum mechanics.

major comments (2)

[Thm 3.1, Thm 4.1, Eq. (4.3), Introduction] The central continuum claims (Thm 3.1 for the thread, Thm 4.1/Eq 4.3 for the fluid) write the homogenized potential V and the resulting forces (K and Σ) as infinite sums over eigenpairs of operators whose eigenvalues accumulate (λ_n ∼ n² for the tension operator; ∼|k|² for the acoustic operator). Mildly ill-prepared data in the ambient Fréchet spaces generically excite infinitely many modes. The paper treats the sums formally (Introduction: “intentionally vague regarding \ldots infinite sums”) and assumes simple eigenvalues plus non-resonance up to order 3. Without an additional summability/regularity hypothesis on the sequence c_i, grad V need not define a classical section of the cotangent bundle of the constraint manifold, so the predicted limit PDEs are a priori well-formed only after spectral truncation. Existing rigorous anchors ([16,23]) use precisely such truncations or well-prep
[Introduction, §2, App B] The paper repeatedly invokes the finite-dimensional Takens–Bornemann theorem (Thm 2.6 / App B) as a template while stating that it makes no convergence claims in infinite dimensions. The weakest link is therefore the unstated axiom that adiabatic invariants and weak limits continue to select the same Eulerian PDEs on Loops(M) and Diff(M). A short, precise statement of the additional analytic hypotheses under which the formal calculations would become theorems (or an explicit disclaimer that the continuum forces are only formal predictions) would strengthen the manuscript without changing its scope.

minor comments (4)

[§3.3] Assumption 3.6 (length spectrum) is used to exclude closed geodesics; a one-sentence remark on what happens if the assumption fails would be helpful.
[Figs 3–6] The numerical illustrations (Figs 3–6) are informative but lack quantitative diagnostics (e.g., measured action drift or L² distance to the Takens trajectory).
[§1–§2] Notation for the inertia operator / weighted metrics is introduced early and then used inconsistently (ϱ_0 versus ϱ); a short glossary or consistent subscripting would improve readability.
[passim] Several references to “Bornemann [10]” and “Métivier–Schochet [23]” appear without page or theorem numbers; adding them would aid the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: continuum Takens corrections are computed from normal Hessians and adiabatic invariants, not fitted or defined in terms of the claimed limit forces.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) write extensible thread / compressible Euler / shallow-water / Green–Naghdi as Newton equations on Loops or Diff with stiff potential U; (ii) identify the nondegenerate critical manifold M (SLoops, SDiff, anelastic slice rearrangements, lake level sets); (iii) compute Hess U restricted to normal spaces (tension operator W''(1)L_X, acoustic L_X = −Q div(ϱ^{-1}∇), etc.); (iv) form the homogenized potential V = Σ c_i √λ_i with c_i from mildly ill-prepared data via the finite-dimensional Takens–Bornemann template (Thm 2.6 / App. B); (v) take grad V by Hellmann–Feynman and rewrite in Eulerian form (fourth-order nonlocal bending for the thread; acoustic stress Σ for the fluid). When eigenvalues are configuration-independent on M (homogeneous barotropic, anelastic, lake/Great Lake), V is constant by direct spectral computation, so the naive constrained equations are recovered. None of these steps defines the output force in terms of itself, fits continuum data, or rests on a load-bearing self-citation uniqueness theorem. Agreement with Métivier–Schochet [23] and Ebin/Masmoudi is an a-posteriori consistency check after an independent geometric calculation. Infinite-sum formality and lack of PDE convergence proofs are rigor gaps, not circular reductions. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The load-bearing structure is finite-dimensional Takens theory plus the modeling choice that continuum systems are Newtonian on Loops/Diff with the stated potentials and inertia metrics. No empirical free parameters are fitted. Infinite-dimensional spectral and non-resonance hypotheses are domain assumptions carried over without proof.

assumptions (5)

standard math Takens–Bornemann theorem: mildly ill-prepared stiff Newtonian systems with spectrally smooth constraining U converge (away from order-≤3 flat resonances) to constrained motion with homogenized potential V=Σ c_i √λ_i
Theorem 2.6 cited from Takens and Bornemann; App. B sketches the Euclidean case used as template.
domain assumption Continuum models are Newton equations on Fréchet manifolds Loops_ϱ0(M) or Diff_ϱ0(M) (or GN metric) with the given strain/internal-energy potentials
Sections 3–6; standard geometric mechanics setup (Arnold, Ebin–Marsden, Preston, etc.).
domain assumption Normal Hessians are spectrally smooth with simple eigenvalues along the limiting trajectory, and the trajectory is non-resonant up to order 3
Invoked for thread (Thm 3.1), fluid (Thm 4.1 / Thm 4.4 conditions), and throughout; not proved for the PDE operators.
ad hoc to paper Infinite-dimensional formal adiabatic invariants and weak limits behave as in finite dimensions sufficiently to select the same Eulerian limit PDEs
Introduction explicitly declines convergence claims and treats infinite sums in V formally; this is the bridge from Thm 2.6 to continuum predictions.
domain assumption Constitutive assumptions: W≥0, W(1)=0, W''>0; bulk modulus Q=ϱ∂_ϱP̃>0; for anelastic non-isentropic case N²>0 and ∂_z s_0≠0; length ℓ_0 not in length spectrum of M for threads
Used to get nondegenerate minima, positive normal Hessians, and to exclude closed geodesics (Assumption 3.6).

invented entities (1)

Homogenized continuum potentials / acoustic stress Σ and thread bending coefficient K built from mode actions c_i independent evidence
purpose: Encode the effective force from unresolved normal oscillations in the stiff limit
Direct infinite-dimensional lift of Takens V; Σ and K are derived composite fields, not new particles. Independent evidence is partial via agreement with Métivier–Schochet for fluids.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometry of strong forces in continuum mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WXA3UL7S

@misc{pith2026260727165,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometry of strong forces in continuum mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WXA3UL7S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27165}
}

abstract

Consider a material point in finite dimensions moving under the influence of a potential force according to Newton's laws. Suppose the potential energy function is a generalized well, strictly convex transverse to a smooth submanifold $M$ on which it is minimal. If the potential is steep, one expects the particle will oscillate rapidly about this submanifold and, if the initial displacement is not too great, should approximately move along $M$ as if it were ideally constrained (e.g. geodesic). This expectation is true if the initial conditions are very well prepared but may fail otherwise - additional potential forces determined by how the Hessian of the potential varies along $M$ may be present. The origin of this force is that the transversal motion acts as a simple harmonic oscillator with a slowly varying frequency, which approximately conserves action, not energy. In this work, we regard continuum mechanical systems such as the elastic thread or compressible fluid as material points moving in an infinite dimensional space according to Newton's laws for appropriate potential energy functionals. We show how to arrive at ideally constrained systems such as the inextensible thread and incompressible fluid as a limit of a strong potential force, computing also corrections to the naive predictions when the data is not very well prepared. For example, for the thread we find a resistance to bending emerge from a strong resistance to compression/expansion. For the fluid, the effective incompressible dynamics may be driven by a remnant acoustical wavefield. Both of these emergent features are nonlinear and non-local. Finally, we give examples of some limits for which the naive models robustly hold because the additional force is trivial. These include the homogeneous incompressible Euler, anelastic Euler, as well as the lake and great lake equations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27165 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Black: trajectory of the strongly forced system, oscillating around manifold M. Red: trajectory of the constrained model given by d’Alembert’s principle. It is thus reasonable to ask whether the axiomatically defined d’Alembert motion can be derived from the more fundamental Newton’s laws by some sort of a limiting procedure. Specifically, one usually considers taking the true system to be given, for some potential… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Spring chain double pendulum with ε = 0.01, k1 = 2 and k2 = 5. Viewed as the motion in R 4 with coordinates z = (z1, z2) = (x1, y1, x2, y2), the equations of motion are given by Hooke’s law ( z¨1 = − 1 ε 2 k1(|z1| − 1) z1 |z1| − 1 ε 2 k2(|z2 − z1| − 1) z1−z2 |z1−z2| z¨2 = − 1 ε 2 k2(|z2 − z1| − 1) z2−z1 |z1−z2| . (2.7) They are Newton’s equations with potential 1 ε 2U(z) = 1 ε 2 1 2 k1(|z1| − 1)2 + k2(|z2 − z1| − … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Three systems: spring chain, rigid double pendulum, Takens system. Row 1: c+ = 0, c− = 0, all three systems agree, d’Alembert’s principle is justified. Row 2: c+ ̸= 0, c− ̸= 0, rigid pendulum fails to capture the dynamics. The Takens correction is necessary. Resonance condition is thus an algebraic condition on (k1, k2). Consider first a non-resonant situation; in this case with the initial conditions scaled as in … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Three systems: spring chain, rigid double pendulum, Takens system. Row 1: c+ > 0, c− = 0. Rigid double pendulum fails to capture the dynamics of stabilization of right angle observed in spring system. Row 2: c+ = 0, c− > 0. Rigid double pendulum fails to capture the dy…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Three systems: spring chain, rigid double pendulum, Takens system. k1 = 2, k2 = 4, c+ > 0, c− > 0. Non-transversal order three resonance happens at each right-angle configuration, both constrained systems fail to capture behavior of the spring system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Numerical simulation of inextensible thread without the Takens correction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

Abanov, T

A. Abanov, T. Can, and S. Ganeshan, Odd surface waves in two-dimensional incompressible fluids,SciPost Physics5(2018), no. 1, 010

2018
[2]

S. S. Antman,Nonlinear Problems of Elasticity, Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol. 107, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995

1995
[3]

V. I. Arnol’d,Geometrical Methods in the Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations, vol. 250, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012
[4]

V. I. Arnol’d,Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, vol. 60, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

2013
[5]

V. I. Arnol’d,Mathematical Understanding of Nature: Essays on Amazing Physical Phenomena and Their Understanding by Mathematicians, American Mathematical Society, 2014

2014
[6]

V. I. Arnol’d, Sur la g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle des groupes de Lie de dimension infinie et ses applications ` a l’hydrodynamique des fluides parfaits,Annales de l’Institut Fourier16(1966), 316–361

1966
[7]

V. I. Arnol’d and B. A. Khesin,Topological Methods in Hydrodynamics, Springer, New York, 1998

1998
[8]

Asano, On the incompressible limit of the compressible Euler equation,Japan Journal of Applied Mathematics 4(1987), no

K. Asano, On the incompressible limit of the compressible Euler equation,Japan Journal of Applied Mathematics 4(1987), no. 3, 455–488

1987

Show all 29 references

[9]

D. Bao, J. Lafontaine and T. Ratiu, On a nonlinear equation related to the geometry of the diffeomorphism Group,Pacific Journal of Mathematics158(1993), no. 2, 223–242

1993
[10]

Bornemann,Homogenization in Time of Singularly Perturbed Mechanical Systems, Springer, Berlin– Heidelberg, 1998

F. Bornemann,Homogenization in Time of Singularly Perturbed Mechanical Systems, Springer, Berlin– Heidelberg, 1998

1998
[11]

Bornemann and C

F. Bornemann and C. Sch¨ utte, Homogenization of Hamiltonian systems with a strong constraining potential, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena102(1997), nos. 1–2, 57–77

1997
[12]

Bresch, B

D. Bresch, B. Desjardins, and E. Grenier, Oscillatory limits with changing eigenvalues: A formal study, inNew Directions in Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, A. V. Fursikov, G. P. Galdi, and V. V. Pukhnachev, eds., Advances in Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2009

2009
[13]

Bresch, B

D. Bresch, B. Desjardins, E. Grenier, and C.-K. Lin, Low Mach number limit of viscous polytropic flows: Formal asymptotics in the periodic case,Studies in Applied Mathematics109(2002), 125–149. doi:10.1111/1467- 9590.01440

2002
[14]

Bruveris, The L2 metric onC ∞(M, N)” (2018), arXiv:1804.00577

M. Bruveris, The L2 metric onC ∞(M, N)” (2018), arXiv:1804.00577

2018 arXiv
[15]

Camassa, D

R. Camassa, D. D. Holm, and C. Levermore, Long-time shallow-water equations with a varying bottom,Journal of Fluid Mechanics349(1997), 173–189

1997
[16]

D. G. Ebin, The motion of slightly compressible fluids viewed as a motion with strong constraining force,Annals of Mathematics105(1977), no. 1, 141–200

1977
[17]

D. G. Ebin and J. E. Marsden, Groups of diffeomorphisms and the motion of an incompressible fluid,Annals of Mathematics92(1970), 102–163

1970
[18]

Ganeshan and A

S. Ganeshan and A. G. Abanov, Odd viscosity in two-dimensional incompressible fluids,Physical Review Fluids 2(2017), no. 9, 094101

2017
[19]

D. D. Holm and E. Luesink, Stochastic wave–current interaction in thermal shallow-water dynamics,Journal of Nonlinear Science31(2021), no. 2, article 29

2021
[20]

Khesin, G

B. Khesin, G. Misio lek, and K. Modin, Geometric hydrodynamics and infinite-dimensional Newton’s equations, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society58(2021), 377–442

2021
[21]

Gallavotti,The Elements of Mechanics, Texts and Monographs in Physics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983

G. Gallavotti,The Elements of Mechanics, Texts and Monographs in Physics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983

1983
[22]

Masmoudi, Rigorous derivation of the anelastic approximation,Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees 88(2007), no

N. Masmoudi, Rigorous derivation of the anelastic approximation,Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees 88(2007), no. 3, 230–240

2007
[23]

M´ etivier and S

G. M´ etivier and S. Schochet, Averaging theorems for conservative systems and the weakly compressible Euler equations,Journal of Differential Equations187(2003), no. 1, 106–183

2003
[24]

Preston, The motion of whips and chains,Journal of Differential Equations251(2011), no

S. Preston, The motion of whips and chains,Journal of Differential Equations251(2011), no. 3, 504–550

2011
[25]

Preston, The geometry of whips,Annals of Global Analysis and Geometry41(2012), no

S. Preston, The geometry of whips,Annals of Global Analysis and Geometry41(2012), no. 3, 281–305

2012
[26]

Rubin and P

H. Rubin and P. Ungar, Motion under a strong constraining force,Communications on Pure and Applied Math- ematics10(1957), 65–87

1957
[27]

Mathematical Hydrodynamics

A. Shnirelman, The motion of an inextensible thread and incompressible fluid and foundations of mechanics, in Abstracts of the International Conference “Mathematical Hydrodynamics”, Moscow, Russia, June 12–17, 2006, Steklov Mathematical Institute and Lomonosov Moscow State Uni...

2006
[28]

N. K. Smolentsev, Principle of Maupertuis,Siberian Mathematical Journal20(1979), 772–776

1979
[29]

Takens, Motion under the influence of a strong constraining force, inGlobal Theory of Dynamical Systems, Z

F. Takens, Motion under the influence of a strong constraining force, inGlobal Theory of Dynamical Systems, Z. Nitecki and C. Robinson, eds., Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 819, Springer, Berlin–Heidelberg, 1980. 56 THEODORE D. DRIV AS AND DANIIL GLUKHOVSKIY Department of ...

1980

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Abanov, T

A. Abanov, T. Can, and S. Ganeshan, Odd surface waves in two-dimensional incompressible fluids,SciPost Physics5(2018), no. 1, 010

2018

[2] [2]

S. S. Antman,Nonlinear Problems of Elasticity, Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol. 107, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995

1995

[3] [3]

V. I. Arnol’d,Geometrical Methods in the Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations, vol. 250, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012

[4] [4]

V. I. Arnol’d,Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, vol. 60, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

2013

[5] [5]

V. I. Arnol’d,Mathematical Understanding of Nature: Essays on Amazing Physical Phenomena and Their Understanding by Mathematicians, American Mathematical Society, 2014

2014

[6] [6]

V. I. Arnol’d, Sur la g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle des groupes de Lie de dimension infinie et ses applications ` a l’hydrodynamique des fluides parfaits,Annales de l’Institut Fourier16(1966), 316–361

1966

[7] [7]

V. I. Arnol’d and B. A. Khesin,Topological Methods in Hydrodynamics, Springer, New York, 1998

1998

[8] [8]

Asano, On the incompressible limit of the compressible Euler equation,Japan Journal of Applied Mathematics 4(1987), no

K. Asano, On the incompressible limit of the compressible Euler equation,Japan Journal of Applied Mathematics 4(1987), no. 3, 455–488

1987