Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Boundary framings for locally conformally symplectic four-manifolds

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs a rational homotopy-theoretic classifying space for locally conformally symplectic structures on four-manifolds and derives a cobordism category of three-manifolds equipped with principal $\Omega^2S^2$ bundles.

desk verdict Genuinely novel framework, but the main construction is delegated to unpublished work and the one explicit computation in the text has a sign error — an interesting announcement, not yet a paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05983 v5 pith:4H4YJJXU submitted 2025-02-09 math.AT

J Morava This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AT MSC 55P6253D1053D0557R56
keywords locallyconformallysymplecticcobordismcategoryrationalhomotopytheorycontactstructuresopenbookdecompositionsHodge-LefschetzcohomologyOmega^2S^2bundlesfour-manifolds
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 constructs a rational homotopy-theoretic model for a classifying space of locally conformally symplectic (lcs) structures on four-manifolds, and uses it to define a cobordism category. Objects are three-manifolds equipped with principal $\Omega^2S^2$ bundles, a framing that generalizes contact structures; morphisms are compact lcs four-manifolds whose boundaries carry compatible framing data. The intended payoff is a rational homotopy invariant framework in which contact three-manifolds appear as the boundary objects of lcs four-manifolds, with an $\mathfrak{sl}_2$-representation-valued Hodge–Lefschetz bidiifferential cohomology theory supplying invariants for the morphisms. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a homotopy-theoretic bridge between four-dimensional symplectic geometry and three-dimensional contact topology.

What carries the argument

The central object is the differential graded algebra $\Omega^*_{\mathcal{B}lcs} = \Lambda^*_{\mathbb{Q}[t]}\{\omega_1,\omega_2 \mid d\omega_2 = t\,\omega_1\wedge\omega_2,\ d\omega_1=0\}$, a rational model for the classifying space of lcs structures, together with its boundary restriction $\Omega^*_{\Omega S^2}\otimes\mathbb{Q}[t]$, where $\Omega S^2$ is the based loop space of the two-sphere. An lcs structure on a four-manifold makes its de Rham forms an effective algebra over this model, and a collar identifies boundary forms as data over the loop-space algebra. The auxiliary mechanism is the map $\eta^2: S^3\to\Omega^2S^3$, whose composition with $BSU(2)\to\Omega S^3\to\Omega S^2$ assigns line bundles to almost contact structures, via the relation $\eta^3=4\nu$.

What would settle it

Compute $d\omega_2$ for $\omega_2=-t^{-1}d(t\alpha)$ and compare it with $\vartheta\wedge\omega_2$ for $\vartheta=t^{-1}dt$ on the collar $I\times Y$; the paper's claimed identity fails by a sign. Replacing $\vartheta$ by $-\vartheta$ makes the defining equation hold, so the boundary construction is effective only after such a change, and the geometric meaning of the Lee form on the boundary must be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that an lcs structure on a compact four-manifold $X$ makes the de Rham algebra $\Omega^*(X)$ into an effective algebra over the differential graded algebra $\Omega^*_{\mathcal{B}lcs} = \Lambda^*_{\mathbb{Q}[t]}\{\omega_1,\omega_2 \mid d\omega_2 = t\,\omega_1\wedge\omega_2,\ d\omega_1=0\}$, whose rational homotopy type is a classifying space for lcs structures. Restricting to a collar of the boundary $Y$ exhibits $\Omega^*(Y)$ as boundary data over the loop-space algebra $\Omega^*_{\Omega S^2}\otimes\mathbb{Q}[t]$. The paper argues these data assemble into a cobordism category (Proposition 2.3) whose objects are three-manifolds with line bundles defined through the map $B\eta^2: BSU(2)\to B\Omega^2S^2$, and whose morphisms are lcs four-manifolds; the category carries an $\mathfrak{sl}_2(\mathbb{R})$-representation-valued Hodge–Lefschetz bidiifferential cohomology theory. This is presented as a rationally equivalent, homotopy-theoretic replacement for almost contact and spin structures, losing only two-torsion information.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the explicit collar forms $\omega_2 = -t^{-1}d(t\alpha)$ and $\vartheta = t^{-1}dt$ satisfy $d\omega_2=\vartheta\wedge\omega_2$; a direct computation gives $d\omega_2=-\vartheta\wedge\omega_2$, so the proposed contact boundary data do not yet satisfy the defining equation of an lcs structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Contact three-manifolds become boundary objects in a rational homotopy cobordism category for lcs four-manifolds, giving a homotopy-theoretic notion of filling.
  • The category supports an $\mathfrak{sl}_2(\mathbb{R})$-representation-valued Hodge–Lefschetz bidiifferential cohomology with elliptic complexes when the manifolds are compact, yielding new invariants for lcs four-manifolds.
  • Principal $\Omega^2S^2$ bundles provide a rational framing of three-manifold boundaries that generalizes almost contact structures while discarding only two-torsion information.
  • The rational model $\Omega^*_{\mathcal{B}lcs}$ opens lcs geometry to Sullivan–Quillen minimal model techniques, including non-nilpotent spaces with $\pi_1 = \mathbb{Z}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the sign error in the collar computation is repaired by replacing $\vartheta$ with $-\vartheta$, the boundary model would describe lcs structures with the opposite Lee form, which may still support a cobordism category but with a different geometric interpretation.
  • One could test the framework by computing the rational homotopy type of the lcs classifying space on simple four-manifolds such as $\mathbb{CP}^2$ or $S^2\times S^2$ and comparing the resulting invariants with known contact data on their boundary three-spheres.
  • The appearance of $\eta^2$ and the relation $\eta^3=4\nu$ suggests that the lost two-torsion information could be studied through the $\eta$-family in stable homotopy, possibly yielding mod-2 refinements of the rational invariants.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a rational homotopy-theoretic framework for locally conformally symplectic (lcs) structures on four-manifolds, with an associated cobordism category of three-manifolds "anchored" by principal Omega^2 S^2-bundles. It introduces a differential graded algebra Omega^*_{Blcs}, a topos of spaces with enough basepoints, and discusses connections to contact structures, open books, Hodge-Lefschetz cohomology, and Euclidean general relativity. The central results are stated as Proposition 2.3 (a cobordism category with lcs four-manifolds as morphisms) and an Anderson localization isomorphism in Section 3.4. The exposition is informal and explicitly delegates the main rational classifying-space construction to unpublished joint work with Urs Schreiber.

Significance. If the constructions were fully established, the paper would provide a new rational homotopy invariant for lcs four-manifolds and a framework connecting contact three-manifolds to lcs fillings, with potential applications to Hodge-Lefschetz cohomology. The paper is candid about its debts and contains a rich bibliography. However, the central claims are currently asserted rather than proven, and the only explicit local computation, in Section 1.3.3, contains a sign error. The potential significance is real, but the manuscript in its present form does not provide sufficient support for its main claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1.3.3] The verification that an open-book contact form defines an effective Omega^*_{Blcs}-algebra structure on Omega^*(I × Y) is false as written. With omega_2 = -t^{-1} d(t alpha) and theta = t^{-1} dt, direct computation gives d omega_2 = -theta ∧ omega_2, not d omega_2 = theta ∧ omega_2. Indeed, omega_2 = -theta ∧ alpha - d alpha, so d omega_2 = +theta ∧ d alpha, whereas theta ∧ omega_2 = -theta ∧ d alpha. The sign could be repaired by a different choice of theta, but the displayed verification in the manuscript is incorrect. Since this is the only concrete demonstration that contact three-manifolds supply the boundary data for the cobordism category, the morphism side of Proposition 2.3 is left unsupported.
  2. [§2.3 (Prop. 2.3)] Proposition 2.3, the central cobordism-category claim, is asserted rather than proved. The text defines Mor^*(Y', Y) as a disjoint union of topological groupoids and states that cobordisms compose by gluing along compatible boundaries, but no verification is given that effective Omega^*_{Blcs} structures glue, that composition is associative and unital, or that the rational model of Section 1.2 is well-defined. Moreover, the construction of the rational classifying space is attributed to unpublished joint work with Schreiber, so the paper does not contain the construction promised in the abstract. This is a load-bearing gap, not a mere presentation issue.
  3. [§3.4] The proof of the isomorphism H^*_{D0}(Met(X)) ≅ H^*_{D0}(X&) is a one-line appeal to a "hypothetical Leray sseq" that "collapses". No spectral sequence is constructed, no differentials or edge maps are analyzed, and no justification for collapse is provided. As stated, this is not a proof. If this isomorphism is intended as a substantive claim, it needs a complete argument; if it is only a conjecture, it should be labeled as such.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "use it to definition a cobordism category" should read "use it to define a cobordism category".
  2. [§1.3.2] The line "Prop A collar" appears to be missing a period after "Prop" and an article; it should likely read "Proposition. A collar...". The notation Omega^*_{Omega S^2} ⊗ Q[t] is also confusing because the same Omega symbol is used for both differential forms and loop spaces.
  3. [§3.3] The notation X& is used in the diagram in §3.3 before it is defined; please introduce it explicitly before first use.
  4. [References] Reference [29] has mismatched brackets: "Prop 4.5.11, Exercises 5.3.13]" is missing an opening bracket before "Prop".
  5. [§1.2] The displayed diagram contains a double comma in "dω2 = tω1 ∧ ω2, , dω1 = 0" and the typesetting of the arrows is hard to read; these should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lcs model and cobordism category are defined from the lcs structure, not derived by fitting or by a self-citation chain; the paper's main flaw is an incorrect boundary computation in §1.3.3, which is a correctness issue, not a circular one.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. §1.2 defines the DGA Ω*_Blcs = Λ*Q[t]{ω1, ω2 | dω2 = tω1 ∧ ω2, dω1 = 0} as a model of the lcs relation dω = ϑ ∧ ω, and §1.3.1 observes that any lcs structure gives a map from this model to the de Rham algebra; that is a definitional encoding rather than a circular prediction. Proposition 2.3 then assembles the cobordism category by definition from four-manifolds equipped with such effective structures and their boundaries. No parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The only place where a circularity could hide is §1.3.3, where the paper asserts, for ω2 = -t^{-1}d(tα) and ϑ = t^{-1}dt, 'Indeed dω2 = ϑ ∧ ω2'. Direct computation gives dω2 = -ϑ ∧ ω2 (while ω2 ∧ ω2 = 2ϑ ∧ α ∧ dα holds), so the printed verification is false. That is a genuine gap in the proof that open-book contact boundaries provide effective Ω*_Blcs boundary data, but it is not a self-referential reduction. The self-citations ([48]–[52], [74]) are used as examples, notation proposals, or background, and none is load-bearing; the topos [50] is offered as an equivalent formulation, not as an external uniqueness theorem. The construction 'with Urs Schreiber' is asserted rather than cited, which is another support gap, but it does not make the paper's conclusion equivalent to its inputs. Hence no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

No numeric parameters are fitted in this paper; the ledger consists of background theorems and several unproven framework choices. The most consequential assumptions are the existence of the minimal model replacements and the proposed topos of spaces with enough basepoints; neither is demonstrated in the text, and both are load-bearing for the cobordism category.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Sullivan minimal model replacements exist for the non-nilpotent dga Omega*_Blcs because pi_1 = Z has cohomological dimension one.
    Invoked in section 1.2 to justify the dotted minimal model arrows; the sufficiency of cd(Z)=1 for this construction is stated but not proven in the text.
  • standard math Every closed oriented three-manifold admits an open book decomposition supporting a contact form, by Thurston-Winkelnkemper and Giroux.
    Used in section 1.3.3 and appendix a1 to build the boundary data for lcs cobordisms; this is a standard theorem in contact topology.
  • ad hoc to paper The topos {X / |Fin^otimes_C|+} of spaces with enough basepoints is a rationally equivalent alternative to spin and contact structure data.
    Proposed in section 2.0 and appendix a4 without a proof or reference; the objects of the cobordism category depend on this replacement.
  • standard math The Hodge-Lefschetz bidifferential complex of Angella-Otiman-Tardini has good finiteness properties on compact lcs manifolds.
    Used in section 2.3 and appendix a2 via reference [2]; accepted as cited background but not verified in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The Leray spectral sequence in section 3.4 collapses, giving H^*_{D0}(Met(X)) isomorphic to H^*_{D0}(X&).
    Marked as a hypothetical 'proof' in section 3.4; no collapsing argument is supplied.
invented entities (3)
  • Principal Omega^2S^2 bundles are used as boundary framings, or anchorings, for three-manifolds.
    purpose: Define the objects of the proposed cobordism category, generalizing contact structures.
    Introduced in sections 2.0 through 2.3; no external falsifiable consequence is derived.
  • The topos {X / |Fin^otimes_C|+} of spaces with enough basepoints is proposed as a framework.
    purpose: Serve as a 'rationally equivalent alternative' to spin structures and as a home for WZW-type line bundles.
    Proposed in section 2.0 and appendix a4; no theorem in the paper establishes the equivalence.
  • The Anderson localization map X& -> X for diffeomorphism group actions is introduced.
    purpose: Model the 'disorder-free' part of the manifold as a cofibrant replacement in the gravity and renormalization analogy.
    Defined in section 3.3 via a pullback diagram; no independent evidence is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boundary framings for locally conformally symplectic four-manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4H4YJJXU

@misc{pith2026250205983,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boundary framings for locally conformally symplectic four-manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4H4YJJXU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05983}
}
abstract

We construct a rational homotopy-theoretic model for a classifying space of locally conformally symplectic structures on four-manifolds, and use it to definition a cobordism category of three-manifolds `anchored' by principal $\Omega^2 S^2$ - bundles ($\S2$, generalizing contact structures). Powerful $sl_2$ - representation-valued Hodge-Lefschetz cohomology (going back to Chern and Weil), taking values in the $\mathbb{Z}$-graded category of bidifferential modules of Angella, Otiman, and Tardini is available for its study. This is an extended revision with a detailed introduction replacing the final section. The original concern of the paper was a characteristic two issue which remains unchanged.

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. On a complex topological orientation for circle-equivariant K-theory

    math.KT 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper attempts to define a T-equivariant complex orientation for K-theory via a formal group law, but the proof has a load-bearing algebraic sign error.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    K Ahara, A Hattori, 4-dimensional symplectic S1-manifolds admitting moment map.J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA Math. 38 (1991) 251 – 298

    work page 1991

  2. [2]

    D Angella, A Otiman, N Tardini Cohomologies of locally con formally symplectic manifolds and solvmanifolds https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05512

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

    M Atiyah, R Bott, The moment map and equivariant cohomolog y, Topology 23, 1 – 28 (1984); ? II

    work page 1984

  4. [4]

    G´ eom´ etrie symplectique et m´ ecanique, 1 – 25, Springer LNM 1416 (1990)

    M Audin, Hamiltoniens p´ eriodiques sur les vari´ et´ es symplectiques compactes de dimension 4. G´ eom´ etrie symplectique et m´ ecanique, 1 – 25, Springer LNM 1416 (1990)

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    Coll oq., Dijon, 1974),

    A Banyaga, Differential topology and geometry (Proc. Coll oq., Dijon, 1974),. Differential topology and geometry p 50 – 56, SLN 484, Springer 1975. BOUNDARY FRAMINGS FOR lcs FOUR-MANIFOLDS 15

    work page 1974

  6. [6]

    R Bieri, Mayer-Vietoris sequences for HNN-groups and hom ological duality. Math. Z. 143 (1975), no. 2, 123–130

    work page 1975

  7. [7]

    R Brown, JPL Hardy, Topological groupoids. I. Universal c onstructions.Math. Nachr. 71 (1976), 273–286

    work page 1976

  8. [8]

    Differential Geom

    J-L Brylinski, A differential complex for Poisson manifol ds, J. Differential Geom. 28 (1988) 93 – 114

    work page 1988

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    E Calabi, On the group of automorphisms of a symplectic man ifold. Sympos. in honor of Salomon Bochner , 1 – 26, Princeton UP 1970

    1970

  2. [10]

    Princeton 1956

    H Cartan, S Eilenberg, Homological algebra . Princeton 1956

    1956

  3. [11]

    B Carter, Global structure of the Kerr family of gravitat ional fields, https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103

  4. [12]

    T Chang, T Skjelbred, The topological Schur lemma and rel ated results, Ann Math 100 (1974) 307 - 321

    1974

  5. [13]

    Dong Yan, Hodge structures on symplectic manifolds, Adv Math 120,143 –154 (1996)

    1996

  6. [14]

    Global Analysis (Proc

    D Ebin The manifold of Riemannian metrics. Global Analysis (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math (1968) 11–40 AMS (1970

    1968

  7. [15]

    Y Eliashberg On symplectic manifolds with some contact p roperties. J. Differential Geom. 33 (1991) 233 – 238

    1991

  8. [16]

    —– A few remarks about symplectic filling, https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0311459

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    O Esen, M de Le´ on, C Sard´ on, M Zajac, Hamilton-Jacobi fo rmalism on locally confor- mally symplectic Manifolds O˘ gul Esen, Manuel de Le´ on, Cri stina Sard´ on, Marcin Zajac, https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02016

    1910 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J Etnyre, Lectures on open book decompositions and conta ct structures, https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0409402

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    ——, Contact structures on 3-manifolds are deformations of foliations, arXiv:math/0607825

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    ——-, Lectures on contact geometry in low-dimensional to pology https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0610798 1 – 298

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    K Honda On symplectic cobordisms, https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0102162

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    ——-, B Ozbagci, Invariants of contact structures from op en books https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0605441

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    D Fiorenza, H Sati, U Schreiber, The character map in (twi sted differential) non-abelian cohomology https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.11909

    2009 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M Freedman, Controlled Mather-Thurston theorems, https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.00374

    2006 arXiv

  17. [25]

    I M Gelfand, O Mathieu, On the cohomology of the Lie algebr a of Hamiltonian vector fields, J. Funct. Anal. 108 (1992) 347 – 360

    1992

  18. [26]

    Vilenkin Generalized functions V ol 4 Academic Press 1964

    —–, N Ya. Vilenkin Generalized functions V ol 4 Academic Press 1964

    1964

  19. [27]

    G Giotopoulos, H Sati, U Schreiber, Flux Quantization on M5-branes https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11304

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Pro- ceedings of the Beijing ICM Vol

    E Giroux, G´ eom´ etrie de contact: de la dimension trois v ers les dimensions sup´ erieures. Pro- ceedings of the Beijing ICM Vol. II 405–414, Higher Ed. Press , Beijing 2002

    2002

  21. [29]

    AMS Grad Studies 20 (1999)

    R Gompf, A Stipsicz, 4-manifolds and Kirby calculus . AMS Grad Studies 20 (1999)

    1999

  22. [30]

    Manuscripta Math

    RP Gonzales, Localization in equivariant operational K-theory and the Chang-Skjelbred prop- erty. Manuscripta Math. 153 (2017) 623 – 644

    2017

  23. [31]

    M Goresky, R Kottwitz, R MacPherson, Equivariant cohomo logy, Koszul duality, and the localization theorem, Invent. math. 131, 25 - 83 (1998)

    1998

  24. [32]

    V Guillemin, C Zara, One-skeleta, Betti numbers and equi variant cohomology, Internat. Math. Res. Notices 2001, no. 10, 519–542. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9903051

    2001 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S Haller, T Rybicki, On the group of diffeomorphisms prese rving a locally conformal symplectic structure. Ann. Global Anal. Geom. 17 (1999) 475 – 502

    1999

  26. [34]

    S Haller, J Teichmann, Smooth perfectndss for the group o f diffeomorphisms, https://people.math.ethz.ch/~jteichma/note05.pdf

  27. [35]

    M Harada, G Landweber Surjectivity for Hamiltonian G-sp aces in K-theory, https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0503609

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    K Hess, Rational homotopy theory https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0604626

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    T Holm, L Kessler, S Tolman, Equivariant cohomological r igidity for four-dimensional Hamil- tonian S1-manifolds https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14310

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    M Hopkins, I M Singer, Quadratic functions in geometry, t opology, and -theory. J. Differential Geom. 70 (2005) 329 – 452 https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0211216 16 J MORA V A

    2005 arXiv

  31. [39]

    W u-Yi Hsiang, Cohomology theory of topological transformation groups , Ergebnisse Band 85, Springer 1975

    1975

  32. [40]

    Haw-Chung Lee, A kind of even-dimensional differential g eometry and its application to ex- terior calculus. Amer. J. Math. 65 (1943) 433 – 438

    1943

  33. [41]

    Lˆ e, Hˆ ong Vˆ an, J Vanˇ zura, Cohomology theories on locally conformal symplectic manifolds. Asian J. Math. 19 (2015), no. 1, 45–82

    2015

  34. [42]

    Lerner, David E.The space of Lorentz metrics. Comm. Math . Phys. 32 (1973), 19–38

    1973

  35. [43]

    D McDuff, Lectures on groups of symplectomorphisms, https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0201032

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    D McDuff, G Segal, Homology fibrations and the ”group-comp letion” theorem. Invent. Math. 31 (1975/76) 279 – 284

    1975

  37. [45]

    New York J

    K Mann, A short proof that Diff c(M) is perfect. New York J. Math. 22 (2016), 49 – 55

    2016

  38. [46]

    W Meier, Minimal models for nonnilpotent spaces, Commen t. Math. Helv. 55 (1980) 622 – 633

    1980

  39. [47]

    J Morava, At the boundary of Minkowski space, https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.08053

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    —-, A locally conformally symplectic structure on Kerr s pace-time https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.08210

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    —-, A homotopy-theoretic context for CKM/Birkhoff renor malization https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10148

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    —-, Some very low-dimensional algebraic topology https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15885

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    —–, Circular symmetry-breaking and topological Noethe r currents https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00672

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    —–, D Rolfsen, Toward the group completion of the Burau re presentation. Trans. AMS 376 (2023) 1845 – 1865 https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01994

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Ann Math 40 (1939) 400 – 416

    S B Myers, N Steenrod, The group of isometries of a Riemann ian manifold. Ann Math 40 (1939) 400 – 416

    1939

  46. [54]

    J Neisendorfer, Lie algebras, coalgebras and rational h omotopy theory for nilpotent spaces, Pacific J. Math. 74 (1978) 429 – 460

    1978

  47. [55]

    CUP 2010

    ——, Algebraic methods in unstable homotopy theory , New Mathematical Mono- graphs12. CUP 2010

    2010

  48. [56]

    H Omori, Groups of diffeomorphisms and their subgroups, https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1973-179-00/S0002-9947-1973-0377975-0/S0002-9947-1973-0377975-0.pdf

    1973

  49. [57]

    B O’Neill, The geometry of Kerr black holes , A K Peters, Ltd., W ellesley, MA, 1995

    1995

  50. [58]

    A Otiman, Locally conformally symplectic bundles, https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02770

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    D Quillen, Daniel,The spectrum of an equivariant cohomo logy ring. I, II. Ann. of Math. (2) 94 (1971), 549–572; ibid. (2) 94 (1971), 573–602

    1971

  52. [60]

    D Ravenel, Complex cobordism and stable homotopy groups of spheres Academic Press Pure and Applied 121 (1986)

    1986

  53. [61]

    JP Serre, Complex semisimple Lie algebras , Springer (1987)

    1987

  54. [62]

    K Shibata, Sullivan-Quillen mixed type model for fibrati ons, J. Math. Soc. Japan 36 (1984) 221–242

    1984

  55. [63]

    Differential Geometry 9 ( 1974) 219 – 238

    R E Stong, Contact manifolds, J. Differential Geometry 9 ( 1974) 219 – 238

    1974

  56. [64]

    AMS 52 (1975) 345 – 347

    W Thurston, H Winkelnkemper On the existence of contact f orms, Proc. AMS 52 (1975) 345 – 347

    1975

  57. [65]

    Diff Geo 91 (2012) 417 – 443 https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1250

    Tseng Li-Sheng, Yau Shing-Tung, Cohomology and Hodge th eory on symplectic manifolds I, J Diff Geo 91 (2012) 383 – 416 https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.5418; II, J. Diff Geo 91 (2012) 417 – 443 https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1250

    2012 arXiv

  58. [66]

    —-, —, Tsai Chung-Jun, Hodge theory on symplectic manifo lds: III. J. Diff Geo103 (2016) 83 – 143 https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0427

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabauty_topology

  60. [68]

    https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/category+of+elements

  61. [69]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_localization

  62. [70]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirwan_map

  63. [71]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misalignment_mechanism BOUNDARY FRAMINGS FOR lcs FOUR-MANIFOLDS 17 further reading:

  64. [72]

    M Abouzaid, M McLean, I Smith, Gromov-Witten invariants in complex and Morava-local K-theories, https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.01883

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Shaoyun Bai, D Pomerleano, Equivariant formality in com plex-oriented theories, https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.05821

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0208235 Department of Mathematics, The Johns Hopkins University, Bal timore, Maryland Email address : jmorava1@jhu.edu

    J Morava, HKR characters and higher twisted sectors Grom ov-Witten the- ory of spin curves and orbifolds, Contemp Math 403 143 - 152, A MS 2006. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0208235 Department of Mathematics, The Johns Hopkins University, Bal timore, Maryland Email address : jmo...

    2006 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.