Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Isometric Incompatibility in Growing Elastic Sheets

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Growing a positively curved sheet past 4π total curvature makes smooth, stretch-free shapes impossible.

desk verdict Clean construction and a compelling dimple transition, but the central non-embeddability claim is explicitly unproven — an honest conjecture that deserves peer review, not a theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.21112 v2 pith:ZFZZHDDD submitted 2026-03-22 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mtrl-scimath-phmath.MPphysics.app-ph

Yafei Zhang , Michael Moshe , Eran Sharon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mtrl-scimath-phmath.MPphysics.app-ph MSC 53A0574K2074B20
keywords isometricembeddinggeometricfrustrationGaussiancurvaturerigidifyingcurvesthinelasticsheetsd-conesPogorelovridgesnon-Euclideanplates
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

A smooth elastic sheet can grow until its total built-in curvature reaches 4π — the curvature of a full sphere. Beyond that, no configuration exists that preserves all in-plane lengths, even though every local patch of the sheet is geometrically compatible. The paper proves this 'isometric incompatibility' by showing that at 4π the boundary of the natural axisymmetric shape becomes a rigidifying curve, across which the linear and nonlinear isometry equations break down. Experiments and simulations confirm that past the horizon the sheet responds by breaking symmetry and forming localized d-cone dimples and Pogorelov ridges, which concentrate stress instead of spreading it as wrinkles. This adds a new, topological source of frustration for open sheets and distinguishes positive-curvature growth from the known negative-curvature case.

What carries the argument

Rigidifying curve and the horizon of the surface-of-revolution embedding. For the metric ds² = Φ²du² + dv² with Φ(v) = (A/√K0) cos(√K0 v), the embedding given by elliptic integrals has a horizon at v_h = arcsin(A⁻¹)/√K0 where the principal curvature b_vv diverges while b_uu vanishes. Along this curve, the normal curvature is zero, making it a rigidifying curve: infinitesimal isometries vanish across it, nonlinear isometries are excluded by the curvature blow-up, and the Weingarten equations cannot be integrated further. This establishes the 4π bound via Gauss-Bonnet, since the total curvature reaches 4π exactly at the horizon.

What would settle it

Find a smooth isometric embedding of the metric ds² = A² cos²(√K0 v) du² + dv² for v ∈ [-v0, v0] with v0 > arcsin(1/A)/√K0 and A > 1, for example by numerical continuation that keeps the metric equal to the reference metric over the whole domain. If such a non-symmetric or higher-order embedding exists, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that an open elastic disc or annulus carrying a smooth reference metric of constant positive Gaussian curvature cannot be isometrically embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space once the total reference Gaussian curvature reaches 4π, even though the metric satisfies the Gauss and Mainardi-Codazzi-Peterson compatibility conditions locally. The obstruction is extrinsic: the axisymmetric embedding develops a horizon at which the surface normal is constant, one principal curvature diverges, and the Weingarten equations lose ellipticity. The authors argue from rigidifying-curve theory that no isometric extension can cross this horizon, and they show experimentally and numeric

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the only isometric embedding of the sheet up to the horizon is the axisymmetric surface of revolution, and that the failure of linear and nonlinear isometries at the horizon also rules out higher-order and non-symmetric isometric extensions; without that rigidity claim, the 4π bound might only obstruct symmetric stretch-free shapes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a circular disc with radial growth, total reference curvature ≤ 4π is a necessary condition for the existence of a smooth stretch-free configuration.
  • When total curvature exceeds 4π, equilibrium shapes are residually stressed, with energy localized in d-cones and Pogorelov ridges rather than smooth wrinkles.
  • The frustration persists in the zero-thickness limit, so no accessible stretching-free embedding exists, deviating from the standard energy-scaling expectation for non-Euclidean plates.
  • Cutting the sheet along a radial direction restores isometric embeddability, showing the obstruction has a topological character.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 4π bound likely generalizes to a boundary-capacity principle: the boundary's ability to absorb excess Gaussian curvature through geodesic curvature sets a maximum for stretch-free growth; in annular domains this maximum can be lower than 4π.
  • If no non-symmetric isometry exists, the surface of revolution is rigid at the horizon, suggesting a new form of rigidity driven by curvature blow-up that may apply to other shell theories.
  • The cut-and-insert (Volterra-type) construction that removes the frustration could be reinterpreted as a measurable topological charge; one could test whether the inserted angular sector equals the excess angle beyond 4π.
  • A testable extension: in a hydrogel growth experiment with a prescribed radial swelling profile, measure the dimple spacing and the critical growth parameter, and check that the symmetry-breaking transition occurs at v_h = arcsin(1/A)/√K0.
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 proposes a new form of geometric frustration in thin elastic sheets: “isometric incompatibility” beyond a total reference Gaussian curvature of 4π. The authors study a family of axisymmetric metrics of constant positive Gaussian curvature on a disc/annulus, construct the explicit surface-of-revolution isometric embedding via elliptic integrals, and show that this embedding develops a horizon at v_h = arcsin(A^{-1})/√K0 where one principal curvature diverges. They argue that this horizon is a rigidifying curve, so no smooth isometric embedding can be extended beyond it, and support this with numerical simulations and table-top experiments showing symmetry breaking into d-cones and Pogorelov ridges. They further show that cutting the sheet restores isometric embeddability and interpret the frustration as topological. The central mathematical claim—that no stretching-free configuration exists once the integrated curvature exceeds 4π—is explicitly acknowledged in the text to rest on an unproven rigidity hypothesis.

Significance. If the 4π obstruction were rigorously established, this would be an important new mechanism of geometric frustration, distinct from Gauss and MCP incompatibility, and would expand the landscape of stress-focusing in thin sheets. The explicit construction of the axisymmetric embedding, the clean phase diagram, and the combination of experiments, simulations, and theory are valuable strengths. However, the paper's headline claim is precisely the part that is not proven: the authors concede that non-symmetric isometric embeddings are not excluded and that higher-order nonlinear isometries are hypothesized not to exist. Thus the significance is conditional on closing this gap or on appropriately reframing the claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Isometric incompatibility; End Matter] The central no-embedding theorem is load-bearing and is explicitly incomplete. The text states: “The argument presented here does not exclude the existence of a non-symmetric isometry and therefore does not form a complete proof,” and the End Matter concedes that “this argument lack a rigorous proof for one step: Based on the absence of nonlinear isometries we hypothesize that higher order nonlinear isometries do not exist.” The uniqueness of the axisymmetric embedding applies only within the symmetric class; a hypothetical full embedding need not be symmetric, so its restriction to v∈[-v_h,v_h] need not coincide with the surface of revolution. This gap directly undermines the statement “it is impossible to further isometrically extend the domain” and the abstract's claim of a new incompatibility that “forbids any stretching-free configuration.” The manuscript must either supply a proof,
  2. [End Matter] The application of rigidifying-curve results from Ref. [39] is not justified at the singular horizon. The authors invoke [39] to exclude linear and nonlinear isometries across v=±v_h, but in their own solution b_vv → ∞ at v_h, whereas rigidifying-curve theorems in the cited literature typically assume a finite second fundamental form. The text replaces this by a hypothesis about higher-order nonlinear isometries. A rigorous treatment would need to show that the singular limit is covered by, or can be suitably approximated by, the smooth theory in [39].
  3. [Discussion; Fig. 2(d)] The claim that the frustration is “topological” is not established. The observation that cutting along a meridian restores isometric embeddability (Fig. 2(d)) demonstrates that a particular surgical alteration removes the obstruction, but it does not identify a topological invariant or a monodromy that quantifies the incompatibility. The discussion invokes “topological charges” and “monodromy” without defining them for this problem. As written, “topological character” is speculative and should be either made precise or presented as a conjecture.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Growth model and geometry] Typo: “This define a horizon” should be “This defines a horizon.”
  2. [Curvature diagnostics] Fig. 3(c) caption states the accumulated curvature “collapses to 4π at the edge,” while the text says it “overshoot 4π” before relaxing back to 4π. Please clarify the wording to avoid apparent contradiction.
  3. [Beyond the horizon] The sentence “if exist, they are not accessible perturbatively” should be “if they exist, they are not accessible perturbatively.”
  4. [References] The supplementary material reference [36] contains the typo “cooresponding” and a placeholder “[publisher will insert url]”; this is acceptable at submission but should be cleaned before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the 4π bound is derived from the explicit embedding and Gauss–Bonnet, and the admitted rigidity gap is an unproven assumption, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained for its main analytic result. The horizon v_h = arcsin(A^{-1})/√K0 follows from the explicit surface-of-revolution embedding (Eq. 2 and End Matter Eqs. 8–12), and the total curvature at the horizon is obtained by direct integration: K_T = 4π A sin(√K0 v0) (End Matter Eq. 7), reducing to 4π at v0 = v_h. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the phase boundary in Fig. 2(c) is an independent comparison with simulation and experiment against this closed-form curve. The central incompatibility claim does rely on the rigidifying-curve framework of Refs. [37–39] and on the authors' own hypothesis that 'higher order nonlinear isometries do not exist' (End Matter). Crucially, the authors explicitly flag this as an incomplete proof: 'The argument presented here does not exclude the existence of a non-symmetric isometry and therefore does not form a complete proof' (main text) and 'this argument lack a rigorous proof for one step' (End Matter). This is an acknowledged mathematical gap—an assumption whose falsity would weaken the global claim—but it is not circularity: the 4π bound is not defined in terms of the conclusion, nor is the conclusion obtained by re-fitting inputs. Self-citations ([21], [32]) provide standard elasticity framework and the negative-curvature analogue, but they are not load-bearing for the 4π result. Therefore the circularity score is 0; the proof-gap concern is a correctness risk, not a circularity risk.

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

No free parameters are fitted: A, K0, and v0 are control parameters, and the phase boundary v0=v_h is parameter-free. The central non-embeddability claim rests on several unproved rigidity assumptions, itemized above. No new physical entities (particles, forces, fields) are introduced; the new object is the named mechanism 'isometric incompatibility.'

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Föppl–von Kármán / non-Euclidean plate energy: E = ∫ t/2||a−ā||² + t³/6||b−b̄||² dS
    Eq. (3) underpins the numerical energy minimization and thin-limit reasoning; it is standard from Ref. [21] but is assumed rather than derived here.
  • standard math Fundamental theorem of surfaces, Gauss–Bonnet theorem, and Weingarten equations
    Invoked in the End Matter and Discussion to infer incompatibility from the singular shape operator and the 4π total-curvature bound.
  • domain assumption Rigidifying-curve rigidity criterion of Audoly and Al Mosleh–Santangelo (Refs. [37–39])
    The proof that no nonlinear isometry crosses v=v_h rests on this external criterion; the paper explicitly hypothesizes its extension to higher-order isometries in the End Matter.
  • ad hoc to paper Uniqueness of the axisymmetric isometric embedding implies the restriction of any full embedding to [−v_h, v_h] must be that surface of revolution
    Main text: 'the restriction ... must coincide with the surface-of-revolution isometry obtained above, since the isometry equations admit a unique solution for this metric with the prescribed symmetry.' The restriction of a hypothetical non-axisymmetric embedding need not have that symmetry; this step is unproved.
  • ad hoc to paper No exotic W2,2 isometric embeddings exist beyond the horizon
    Discussion: 'we cannot rule out the existence of complicated isometric embeddings in the present case as well.' The headline 'no stretching-free configuration' claim requires this absence, which is not established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Isometric Incompatibility in Growing Elastic Sheets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZFZZHDDD

@misc{pith2026260321112,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Isometric Incompatibility in Growing Elastic Sheets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZFZZHDDD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.21112}
}
read the original abstract

Geometric incompatibility, the inability of a material's rest state to be realized in Euclidean space, underlies shape formation in natural and synthetic thin sheets. Classical Gauss and Mainardi-Codazzi-Peterson (MCP) incompatibilities explain many patterns in nature, but they do not exhaust the mechanisms that frustrate thin elastic sheets. We identify a new incompatibility that forbids smooth stretching-free configurations, even when the rest state of the elastic sheet locally satisfies the Gauss and MCP compatibility conditions. We demonstrate this principle in a model of surface growth with positive Gaussian curvature, where a geometric horizon forms, leading to the onset of frustration. Experiments, simulations, and theory show that the sheet responds by nucleating periodic d-cone-like dimples. We show that this obstruction to stretching-free configurations is topological, and we point to open questions concerning the origin of frustration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.21112 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Emergent frustration in an axisymmetric growing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Pattern formation induced by the isometric frustra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Post-horizon analysis. (a) Gaussian curvature map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Embedding limitations and singularities in surfaces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Growth and remodeling control shape memory in morphogenetic rods

    cond-mat.soft 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a visco-elasto-plastic rod, an intermediate remodeling rate preserves an encoded shape best, and uniform growth rescues shape memory by suppressing both elastic coarsening and noise-driven disorder.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [39]

    Al Mosleh and C

    S. Al Mosleh and C. Santangelo, Nonlinear mechanics of rigidifying curves, Physical Review E96, 013003 (2017)

    2017

  2. [1]

    Armon, E

    S. Armon, E. Efrati, R. Kupferman, and E. Sharon, Ge- ometry and mechanics in the opening of chiral seed pods, Science333, 1726 (2011)

    2011

  3. [2]

    Zhang, O

    Y. Zhang, O. Y. Cohen, M. Moshe, and E. Sharon, Geo- metrically frustrated rose petals, Science388, 520 (2025)

    2025

  4. [3]

    Katifori, S

    E. Katifori, S. Alben, E. Cerda, D. R. Nelson, and J. Du- mais, Foldable structures and the natural design of pollen grains, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 7635 (2010)

    2010

  5. [4]

    Dervaux and M

    J. Dervaux and M. Ben Amar, Morphogenesis of growing soft tissues, Physical review letters101, 068101 (2008)

    2008

  6. [5]

    Arroyo and A

    M. Arroyo and A. DeSimone, Shape control of active sur- faces inspired by the movement of euglenids, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids62, 99 (2014)

    2014

  7. [6]

    Latorre, S

    E. Latorre, S. Kale, L. Casares, M. G´ omez-Gonz´ alez, M. Uroz, L. Valon, R. V. Nair, E. Garreta, N. Montser- rat, A. Del Campo,et al., Active superelasticity in three- dimensional epithelia of controlled shape, Nature563, 203 (2018)

    2018

  8. [7]

    W. T. Irvine, V. Vitelli, and P. M. Chaikin, Pleats in crystals on curved surfaces, Nature468, 947 (2010)

    2010

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Moshe, I

    M. Moshe, I. Levin, H. Aharoni, R. Kupferman, and E. Sharon, Geometry and mechanics of two-dimensional defects in amorphous materials, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences112, 10873 (2015)

    2015

  2. [9]

    G. Meng, J. Paulose, D. R. Nelson, and V. N. Manoha- ran, Elastic instability of a crystal growing on a curved surface, Science343, 634 (2014)

    2014

  3. [10]

    M. Wang, S. Roy, C. Santangelo, and G. Grason, Ge- ometrically frustrated, mechanical metamaterial mem- branes: Large-scale stress accumulation and size-selective assembly, Physical Review Letters134, 078201 (2025)

    2025

  4. [11]

    Serafin, J

    F. Serafin, J. Lu, N. Kotov, K. Sun, and X. Mao, Frus- trated self-assembly of non-euclidean crystals of nanopar- ticles, Nature Communications12, 4925 (2021)

    2021

  5. [12]

    Levin, R

    I. Levin, R. Deegan, and E. Sharon, Self-oscillating mem- branes: Chemomechanical sheets show autonomous peri- odic shape transformation, Physical Review Letters125, 178001 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    Klein, E

    Y. Klein, E. Efrati, and E. Sharon, Shaping of elastic sheets by prescription of non-euclidean metrics, Science 315, 1116 (2007)

    2007

  7. [14]

    Davidovitch, Y

    B. Davidovitch, Y. Sun, and G. M. Grason, Geometri- cally incompatible confinement of solids, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 1483 (2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    Sun and X

    K. Sun and X. Mao, Fractional excitations in non- 6 euclidean elastic plates, Physical Review Letters127, 098001 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    Tobasco, Y

    I. Tobasco, Y. Timounay, D. Todorova, G. C. Leggat, J. D. Paulsen, and E. Katifori, Exact solutions for the wrinkle patterns of confined elastic shells, Nature Physics 18, 1099 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    Timounay, R

    Y. Timounay, R. De, J. L. Stelzel, Z. S. Schrecengost, M. M. Ripp, and J. D. Paulsen, Crumples as a generic stress-focusing instability in confined sheets, Physical Re- view X10, 021008 (2020)

    2020

  11. [18]

    Bartolo and D

    D. Bartolo and D. Carpentier, Topological elasticity of nonorientable ribbons, Physical Review X9, 041058 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    J. Hure, B. Roman, and J. Bico, Wrapping an adhesive sphere with an elastic sheet, Physical review letters106, 174301 (2011)

    2011

  13. [20]

    C. E. Moguel-Lehmer and C. D. Santangelo, Topologi- cal rigidity in twisted, elastic ribbons, Physical Review Letters135, 128201 (2025)

    2025

  14. [21]

    Efrati, E

    E. Efrati, E. Sharon, and R. Kupferman, Elastic theory of unconstrained non-euclidean plates, Journal of the Me- chanics and Physics of Solids57, 762 (2009)

    2009

  15. [22]

    Si´ efert, I

    E. Si´ efert, I. Levin, and E. Sharon, Euclidean frustrated ribbons, Physical Review X11, 011062 (2021)

    2021

  16. [23]

    In contrast, the ref- erence tensors ¯aand¯bspecify the preferred length of line- element and variation of surface-normal in a stress-free geometry

    The actual metric and curvature tensorsaandben- code the length of line-element and variation of surface- normal in the realized configuration. In contrast, the ref- erence tensors ¯aand¯bspecify the preferred length of line- element and variation of surface-normal in a stress...

  17. [24]

    M. P. Do Carmo,Differential geometry of curves and sur- faces: revised and updated second edition(Courier Dover Publications, 2016)

    2016

  18. [25]

    AW 2,2 embedding [26]

  19. [26]

    Lewicka and M

    M. Lewicka and M. R. Pakzad, Scaling laws for non- euclidean plates and the w 2,2 isometric immersions of riemannian metrics, ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations17, 1158 (2011)

    2011

  20. [27]

    T. A. Witten, Stress focusing in elastic sheets, Reviews of Modern Physics79, 643 (2007)

    2007

  21. [28]

    J. A. Jackson, N. Romeo, A. Mietke, K. J. Burns, J. F. Totz, A. C. Martin, J. Dunkel, and J. Imran Alsous, Scal- ing behaviour and control of nuclear wrinkling, Nature physics19, 1927 (2023)

    1927

  22. [29]

    B. C. Vellutini, M. B. Cuenca, A. Krishna, A. Sza lapak, C. D. Modes, and P. Tomancak, Patterned invagination prevents mechanical instability during gastrulation, Na- ture , 1 (2025)

    2025

  23. [30]

    B. He, K. Doubrovinski, O. Polyakov, and E. Wieschaus, Apical constriction drives tissue-scale hydrodynamic flow to mediate cell elongation, Nature508, 392 (2014)

    2014

  24. [31]

    T. Wang, Z. Dai, M. Potier-Ferry, and F. Xu, Curvature- regulated multiphase patterns in tori, Physical Review Letters130, 048201 (2023)

    2023

  25. [32]

    Sharon and E

    E. Sharon and E. Efrati, The mechanics of non-euclidean plates, Soft Matter6, 5693 (2010)

    2010

  26. [33]

    M. B. Amar, M. M. M¨ uller, and M. Trejo, Petal shapes of sympetalous flowers: the interplay between growth, ge- ometry and elasticity, New Journal of Physics14, 085014 (2012)

    2012

  27. [34]

    Marder and N

    M. Marder and N. Papanicolaou, Geometry and elasticity of strips and flowers, Journal of statistical physics125, 1065 (2006)

    2006

  28. [35]

    Marder, R

    M. Marder, R. D. Deegan, and E. Sharon, Crumpling, buckling, and cracking: elasticity of thin sheets, Physics Today60, 33 (2007)

    2007

  29. [36]

    See supplemental material at [publisher will insert url] for detailed description of experiments, simulations, the- ories, and the cooresponding extended results, which in- cludes refs

  30. [37]

    Audoly, Courbes rigidifiant les surfaces, Comptes Rendus de l’Acad´ emie des Sciences-Series I-Mathematics 328, 313 (1999)

    B. Audoly, Courbes rigidifiant les surfaces, Comptes Rendus de l’Acad´ emie des Sciences-Series I-Mathematics 328, 313 (1999)

    1999

  31. [38]

    Audoly and Y

    B. Audoly and Y. Pomeau, The elastic torus: anoma- lous stiffness of shells with mixed type, Comptes Rendus M´ ecanique330, 425 (2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    Here, the thin limit is defined bytbeing much smaller than other characteristic system dimensions, e.g.,t≪√ ¯K R2 0

  33. [41]

    Cerda and L

    E. Cerda and L. Mahadevan, Conical surfaces and cres- cent singularities in crumpled sheets, Physical Review Letters80, 2358 (1998)

    1998

  34. [42]

    A. V. Pogorelov,Bendings of surfaces and stability of shells, Translations of Mathematical Monographs, Vol. 72 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1988)

    1988

  35. [43]

    E. G. Poznyak and E. V. Shikin, Small parameter in the theory of isometric imbeddings for two-dimensional riemannian manifolds into euclidean spaces, Journal of Mathematical Sciences74, 1078 (1995)

    1995

  36. [44]

    Kupferman and J

    R. Kupferman and J. P. Solomon, A riemannian approach to reduced plate, shell, and rod theories, Journal of Func- tional Analysis266, 2989 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Kupferman, M

    R. Kupferman, M. Moshe, and J. P. Solomon, Met- ric description of singular defects in isotropic materials, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis216, 1009 (2015). 7 END MA TTER Isometric obstruction beyond4π.LetMbe a two- dimensional Riemannian manifold defined on the do...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.