Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 56 references

The Spencer cohomology and integrability of multisymplectic structures

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that flatness of a multisymplectic form can require conditions of arbitrarily high order j, so no bounded-order Darboux theorem exists for multisymplectic structures.

desk verdict The first general Spencer-cohomology framework for multisymplectic Darboux theorems, with a plausible but sketch-dependent construction of order-j obstructions; deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05267 v2 pith:MQEY6ZJF submitted 2026-07-06 math.DG

Manuel de León , Rubén Izquierdo-López , Manuel Lainz This is my paper
classification math.DG MSC 53C1058A1558A2053D05
keywords multisymplecticmanifoldsDarbouxtheoremG-structuresSpencercohomologystructuretensorsCartantableauxgroupshigher-orderobstructions
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 the task of finding Darboux coordinates for a multisymplectic form—coordinates in which the form has constant coefficients—is governed, in general, by obstructions of arbitrarily high differential order. Treating a multisymplectic manifold of fixed linear type as a G-structure, the authors use Spencer cohomology and the associated structure tensors to measure the obstructions to flatness. Their central result is a family of nondegenerate 3-forms ϖ_j, on vector spaces of dimension 2j+5, whose Spencer cohomology group H^{2,j} is nonzero for every j≥1, together with explicit closed forms realizing those obstructions: the order-j structure tensor vanishes exactly when a particular j-th derivative vanishes. If correct, this gives a negative answer to the question of whether a single order bound can appear in a Darboux theorem for multisymplectic forms. Along the way the paper supplies a rough classification of multisymplectic representations and a general scheme for proving flatness theorems in the cases where the obstructions are absent.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Spencer cohomology of the Lie algebra g_ϖ of the stabilizer of a form ϖ, reinterpreted through a cochain complex of 'Hamiltonian forms' (Proposition 4.3). The structure tensors c_k of a G-structure—sections valued in H^{2,k}(g_ϖ)—measure the obstructions to finding flat coordinates order by order. The key construction is a two-dimensional Cartan tableau A_j, which embeds as a retraction into g_{ϖ_j} for an explicit 3-form ϖ_j; because injection of tableaux induces an injection on Spencer cohomology, the nonzero H^{2,j}(A_j) forces H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j}) ≠ 0.

What would settle it

Compute the order-j Spencer structure tensor c_j of the explicit 3-form ω_j directly, without using the coordinate-change ansatz ẽp_i = p_i − f_i, ẽx_i = x_i − g_i; if c_j fails to vanish precisely when ∂^j f/∂(y_2)^j = 0—for example, if c_j vanishes for some f with nonvanishing j-th derivative—the paper's realization claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that flatness of a multisymplectic structure—existence of local coordinates making a closed form have constant coefficients—can require conditions of arbitrarily high order j. Concretely, for every j≥1 there is a nondegenerate 3-form ϖ_j on R^{2j+5} with stabilizer Lie algebra g_{ϖ_j} whose Spencer cohomology H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j}) is nonzero, so the G-structure machinery predicts a j-th order obstruction. The authors then exhibit closed 3-forms ω_j of this linear type whose first j−1 structure tensors vanish but whose j-th structure tensor is the obstruction ∂^j f/∂(y_2)^j = 0. The conclusion the authors draw is that no uniform bound exists on the order of the conditions entering

Load-bearing premise

The construction turning a nonzero Spencer cohomology class into an actual obstruction relies on a computation the paper only sketches—the identification of the order-j structure tensor of the explicit form ω_j with the derivative ∂^j f/∂(y_2)^j—and if that identification fails, the cohomology groups could be nonzero while no flatness condition of order j actually occurs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, there can be no universal Darboux theorem for multisymplectic forms phrased in terms of conditions up to some fixed order j_0; flatness of different linear types must be studied per type.
  • The structure-tensor framework gives a concrete necessary condition for any multisymplectic form of constant linear type: all Spencer structure tensors must vanish; checking these is a finite procedure for each type, and in the cases covered by Theorems 4.11 and 4.13 it is also sufficient.
  • The classification of multisymplectic representations into irreducible, product, j-isotropic, and semi-finite types provides a decision tree for proving Darboux theorems, with the 1-isotropic case fully settled (Theorem 4.13) whenever the leaf and quotient geometries are flat.
  • The explicit Lie algebra computations for the polarized multisymplectic groups Mult(m,n,r) show that the symmetry algebra of a classical field theory's linear type is an abelian extension of either gl(n+m) or the block-triangular algebra block(n,m), depending on whether r>m or r≤m.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The collection of tableaux A_j could serve as a benchmark for testing algorithms that compute normal forms of differential forms: an algorithm truncating at order k will fail on ω_j for j>k, providing a sharp complexity measure.
  • If the sketched computation in Theorem 5.7 is filled in rigorously, the same machinery likely produces higher-degree (k>3) forms with arbitrarily high-order obstructions, since the tableau construction is essentially degree-independent.
  • The results suggest that for a generic multisymplectic form (not of constant linear type), no finite jet can decide flatness; this could be made precise by showing that any open set of forms with nonvanishing c_j projects dominantly onto jet spaces of arbitrary order.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a G-structure and Spencer-cohomology framework for multisymplectic manifolds of constant linear type. It defines the relevant structure tensors, proves a rough classification of multisymplectic representations (irreducible, product, j-isotropic, semi-finite), and gives flatness theorems in several regimes. The main new result is a family of 3-forms ϖ_j on R^{2j+5} with H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j}) ≠ 0, together with explicit forms ω_j whose structure tensors of order 0 through j−1 vanish but whose order-j tensor is obstructed unless ∂^j f/∂(y_2)^j = 0. This is used to conclude that the conditions in a Darboux-type theorem for multisymplectic forms may be of arbitrarily high order. The final section computes the Lie algebras for the multisymplectic groups used in classical field theories.

Significance. If the main construction is correct, the paper settles an interesting question: there is no uniform bound on the order of the differential conditions needed for flatness of multisymplectic structures. The framework via Spencer cohomology is appropriate and the paper is honest about the unresolved formally-flat-versus-flat issue. The explicit cochain computations in §5.1 and the retraction argument in §5.2 are checkable and constitute a genuine strength, as does the self-contained smooth solvability result in Appendix A. However, the realization of the cohomological obstruction as an actual geometric obstruction (Theorem 5.7) is the load-bearing step and is only sketched. The paper is therefore promising but not yet fully verified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3, Theorem 5.7] The proof of Theorem 5.7 begins with 'We simply sketch the computations.' This is exactly the step that turns the nonvanishing cohomology class H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j}) of Theorem 5.4 into a realized obstruction for a concrete multisymplectic form. The claim that any flat coordinate system must be of the form ẽy_i=y_i, ẽp_i=p_i−f_i, ẽx_i=x_i−g_i is not proved; Proposition 4.12 gives necessary conditions but not a normal form for all possible flat coordinate changes. Please provide a complete derivation of the PDE system and show explicitly that no other coordinate change can cancel the order-j obstruction when ∂^j f/∂(y_2)^j ≠ 0.
  2. [§5.2, Eq. (5), Theorem 5.4] The decomposition asserted in Eq. (5) is justified by the sentence 'Since the part on the γ_j is not involved in any other equation, we have that Eq.(5) holds.' This is not sufficient: γ_j appears in the condition γ_j∧α_j=0, and the decomposition of an arbitrary element of g_{ϖ_j} into the claimed direct summands is not demonstrated. Please spell out why every element satisfying the listed conditions lies in the right-hand side of Eq. (5) and why the intersection with the complement is exactly the stated subspace.
  3. [§5.3, Theorem 5.7 and Corollary 5.5] The theorem identifies the order-j structure tensor with the cohomology class determined by ∂^j f/∂(y_2)^j. But H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j}) may be larger than the one-dimensional class coming from the retracted tableau A_j. The proof should explain how the computed obstruction is exactly the nonzero class arising from Theorem 5.4, and how independence of the chosen coordinate change is established. Without this, the paper only proves that a certain coordinate-change ansatz is obstructed, not that the G-structure itself carries a nonvanishing order-j structure tensor.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Lemma 5.6 / Definition 5.1] The basis is announced as {x_0,...,x_{j+1},p_0,...,p_j,y_1,y_2}, but Lemma 5.6 uses a basis (x_0,...,x_{j+1},y_0,y_1) and Theorem 5.4 later refers to y_0. This is inconsistent; likely y_2 is intended.
  2. [§6, Definition 6.2 and Theorem 6.1] The notation Mult(m,n,r) is used both for the Lie group G_{ϖ_{m,n,r}} and for its Lie algebra. The Lie algebra should be denoted differently (e.g. mult(m,n,r) or fraktur) to avoid confusion.
  3. [Throughout] There are a number of typos: 'hightlight' in the introduction, 'whises' in the acknowledgements, 'soem' in §4.2, and the Kähler mis-encoding in §7. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main derivation is self-contained; the flagged weak points are sketched computations, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is a de novo construction, not a repackaging of inputs. Theorem 5.1 computes H^{2,j}(A_j) directly from the definition of the tableau. Lemma 5.6 computes the Spencer kernel of the 2-forms α_i by an explicit coefficient calculation. Theorem 5.4 then constructs ϖ_j and uses Corollary 2.4, showing by an explicit retraction computation that H^{2,j}(A_j) injects into H^{2,j}(g_{ϖ_j}); this is a proof that a form has nonzero Spencer cohomology, not an assumption of it. Theorem 5.7 gives an explicit ω_j and derives the condition ∂^j f/∂(y_2)^j = 0 for vanishing of the j-th structure tensor from the coordinate-change PDE system; the obstruction is a computed consequence of the chosen form, not fitted afterward. Self-citations (de León–Izquierdo-López et al., refs. [14,32,33,34]) appear in background statements and conclusions, not as load-bearing support for the new theorems; the load-bearing results cite Guillemin, Goldschmidt–Spencer, Singer–Sternberg, and Hörmander, which are external and independently checkable. The paper also transparently flags the formally-flat-implies-flat question as open ('As far as we are aware, in the literature there is a debate...') and never assumes it. The genuinely weak points are correctness/completeness gaps explicitly acknowledged in the text: Theorem 5.7 says 'We simply sketch the computations,' Theorem 5.4 uses 'a straightforward computation,' and Lemma 6.3 says 'not hard (although a bit tedious)'. These are omitted justifications, not circular definitions or fitted predictions, so they do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Pure-math derivation. Inputs are standard theorems of G-structure theory (Guillemin, Goldschmidt–Spencer, Singer–Sternberg, Kobayashi–Nagano), Hörmander's PDE solvability theorems, and the Moser trick — all external and cited. Theorem A.3 is proven in the appendix, not assumed. The main constructions (tableaux A_j, forms ϖ_j and ω_j, retraction argument) are carried out explicitly. No free parameters fitted to data; no invented entities. The one background question the authors explicitly do not resolve — whether formal flatness always implies flatness for the relevant G-structures — is not assumed as an axiom; the paper proves cases and states the remainder as an open problem.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Guillemin's theorem: a k-flat G-structure is (k+1)-flat at x iff the order-k structure tensor c_k vanishes; formal flatness iff all structure tensors vanish.
    Section 3.1, Theorems 3.6–3.7; cited to [25]. Load-bearing for the whole structure-tensor machinery.
  • standard math Finite-type G-structures: formal flatness implies flatness when g^{(j)} = 0 for some j.
    Section 3.2, Theorem 3.8; cited to [20, 21] (Goldschmidt–Spencer).
  • standard math Irreducible G-action: formal flatness implies flatness.
    Section 3.2, Theorem 3.9; cited to [49] (Singer–Sternberg).
  • standard math Kobayashi–Nagano: a G-structure admits a torsionless adapted connection iff c_0 = 0.
    Section 3.1, Theorem 3.2; cited to [29].
  • standard math Hörmander Theorems 7.6.13 and 7.6.14 (solvability of constant-coefficient systems and density of exponential solutions).
    Appendix A, Theorems A.1–A.2; used in the proof of Theorem 4.13. Theorem A.3 (smooth version) is proven in the appendix from these.
  • standard math Moser trick, including the distribution-adapted version.
    Section 4.3, Proposition 4.10 and Remark 4.5.
  • domain assumption Nondegeneracy convention for multisymplectic forms (v ↦ ι_v ϖ injective), with degenerate forms handled by quotienting by the kernel.
    Definition 4.1 and the proof of Proposition 4.3 (degenerate case). Standard in multisymplectic geometry.
  • standard math Spencer-complex facts for tableaux: no 0-cocycles, and the characterization of prolongations of A_j.
    Section 5.1, Lemma 5.2 and 5.3; proved within the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Spencer cohomology and integrability of multisymplectic structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MQEY6ZJF

@misc{pith2026260705267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Spencer cohomology and integrability of multisymplectic structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MQEY6ZJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05267}
}
abstract

We study the integrability problem of multisymplectic structures, by identifying them as $G$-structures. Applying the theory of Spencer cohomology, we give conditions on a multisymplectic form for it to admit a chart in which it has constant coefficients. This general study allows for a rough classification of multisymplectic structures of constant linear type, depending on the natural action of the stabilizer group. The theory is illustrated by providing a scheme for proving a Darboux theorem, which is exemplified with several relevant cases. We also build linear types of multisymplectic forms $\varpi_j$ whose flatness strictly requires a condition of order $j$. Finally, the corresponding Lie algebras are computed in the case of field theories.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abraham and J

    R. Abraham and J. E. Marsden.Foundations of Mechanics. Vol.364. AMS Chelsea Publishing. 10.1090/chel/364. Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co., 1978. 40

    doi:10.1090/chel/364 1978

  2. [2]

    Sur la g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle desG-structures

    D. Bernard. “Sur la g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle desG-structures”. In:Universit´ e de Grenoble, Annales de l’Institut Fourier10(1960). numdam.org/item?id=AIF 1960 10 151 0, pp. 151– 270

    1960

  3. [3]

    E. Binz, J. ´Sniatycki, and H. Fischer.Geometry of Classical Fields. Vol. 154. North-Holland Mathematics Studies. Notas de Matem´ atica, 123. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1988, pp. xviii+450.isbn: 0-444-70544-9

    1988

  4. [4]

    Reduction of Multisymplectic Manifolds

    C. Blacker. “Reduction of Multisymplectic Manifolds”. In:Lett. Math. Phys.111.3 (2021). 10.1007/s11005-021-01408-y, p. 64

    work page doi:10.1007/s11005-021-01408-y 2021

  5. [5]

    R. L. Bryant et al.Exterior Differential Systems. Vol. 18. Mathematical Sciences Research Insti- tute Publications. 10.1007/978-1-4613-9714-4. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991, pp. viii+475. isbn: 0-387-97411-3

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-9714-4 1991

  6. [6]

    Multisymplectic Forms of Degree Three in Dimension Seven

    J. Bureˇ s and J. Vanˇ zura. “Multisymplectic Forms of Degree Three in Dimension Seven”. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Winter School “Geometry and Physics” (Srn ´ ı, 2002). 71. 2003, pp. 73– 91

    2002

  7. [7]

    Th´ eor` eme g´ en´ eral d’´ equivalence pour les pseudogroupes de Lie plats transitifs

    C. Buttin and P. Molino. “Th´ eor` eme g´ en´ eral d’´ equivalence pour les pseudogroupes de Lie plats transitifs”. In:Journal of Differential Geometry9(1974), pp. 347–354

    1974

  8. [8]

    Homotopy moment maps

    M. Callies et al. “Homotopy moment maps”. In:Advances in Mathematics303 (2016), pp. 954– 1043.issn: 0001-8708.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2016.08.012

    doi:10.1016/j.aim.2016.08.012 2016

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Hamiltonian Structures on Multisymplectic Manifolds

    F. Cantrijn, A. Ibort, and M. de Le´ on. “Hamiltonian Structures on Multisymplectic Manifolds”. In:Universit` a e Politecnico di Torino. Seminario Matematico. Rendiconti54.3 (1996), pp. 225– 236

    1996

  2. [10]

    On the Geometry of Multisymplectic Manifolds

    F. Cantrijn, A. Ibort, and M. de Le´ on. “On the Geometry of Multisymplectic Manifolds”. In: Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, Series A66.3 (1999), pp. 303–330

    1999

  3. [11]

    A General Approach to Almost Structures in Geometry

    F. Cattafi. “A General Approach to Almost Structures in Geometry”. Advisor: Marius Crainic. dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/395162. PhD thesis. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Universiteit Utrecht, 2020.isbn: 978-90-393-7257-9

    2020

  4. [12]

    The Geometry ofG-Structures

    S. S. Chern. “The Geometry ofG-Structures”. In:Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society72(1966). 10.1090/S0002-9904-1966-11473-8, pp. 167–219

    1966 doi

  5. [13]

    L. A. Cordero, M. de Le´ on, and C. T. J. Dodson.Differential Geometry of Frame Bundles. Mathematics and Its Applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989

    1989

  6. [14]

    Graded Poisson and Graded Dirac Structures

    M. de Le´ on and R. Izquierdo-L´ opez. “Graded Poisson and Graded Dirac Structures”. In:J. Math. Phys.66.2 (2025). 10.1063/5.0243128, p. 022901

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    Solution of Some Problems of Division. I. Division by a Polynomial of Deriva- tion

    L. Ehrenpreis. “Solution of Some Problems of Division. I. Division by a Polynomial of Deriva- tion”. In:American Journal of Mathematics76.4 (1954). 10.2307/2372662, pp. 883–903

    1954 doi

  8. [16]

    Multisymplectic and Polysymplectic Structures on Fiber Bun- dles

    M. Forger and L. G. Gomes. “Multisymplectic and Polysymplectic Structures on Fiber Bun- dles”. In:Rev. Math. Phys.25.09 (2013). 10.1142/S0129055X13500189, p. 1350018

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    Fujimoto.Theory ofG-Structures

    A. Fujimoto.Theory ofG-Structures. English. Vol. Vol. 1. Publications of the Study Group of Geometry. Okayama University, College of Liberal Arts and Science, Department of Applied Mathematics, Study Group of Geometry, Okayama, 1972, pp. vi+143

    1972

  10. [18]

    The Poincar´ e–Cartan Invariant in the Calculus of Variations

    P. L. Garc ´ ıa. “The Poincar´ e–Cartan Invariant in the Calculus of Variations”. In:Symposia Mathematica14(1974). Symposia Mathematica, Vol. XIV, pp. 219–246

    1974

  11. [19]

    The Integrability Problem for Lie Equations

    H. Goldschmidt. “The Integrability Problem for Lie Equations”. In:Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society84.4 (1978), pp. 531–546

    1978

  12. [20]

    On the Non-Linear Cohomology of Lie Equations. I

    H. Goldschmidt and D. Spencer. “On the Non-Linear Cohomology of Lie Equations. I”. In: Acta Mathematica136.1-2 (1976). 10.1007/BF02392044, pp. 103–170. 41

    1976 doi

  13. [21]

    On the Non-Linear Cohomology of Lie Equations. II

    H. Goldschmidt and D. Spencer. “On the Non-Linear Cohomology of Lie Equations. II”. In: Acta Mathematica136.3-4 (1976). 10.1007/BF02392045, pp. 171–239

    1976 doi

  14. [22]

    An introduction to higher-form symmetries

    P. R. S. Gomes. “An introduction to higher-form symmetries”. In:SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes (2023), p. 74.doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.74

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    M. J. Gotay et al.Momentum Maps and Classical Relativistic Fields. Part I: Covariant Field Theory. arXiv:physics/9801019. 2004. arXiv:physics/9801019 [math-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  16. [24]

    On Darboux Theorems for Geometric Structures Induced by Closed Forms

    X. Gr` acia et al. “On Darboux Theorems for Geometric Structures Induced by Closed Forms”. In:Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, F ´ ısicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matem´ aticas 118.3 (2024). 10.1007/s13398-024-01632-w, p. 131

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    The Integrability Problem forG-Structures

    V. Guillemin. “The Integrability Problem forG-Structures”. In:Transactions of the American Mathematical Society116(1965). 10.2307/1994134, pp. 544–560

    1965 doi

  18. [26]

    H¨ ormander.An Introduction to Complex Analysis in Several Variables

    L. H¨ ormander.An Introduction to Complex Analysis in Several Variables. 3rd revised ed. Vol. 7. North-Holland Mathematical Library. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1990.isbn: 0-444-88446-7

    1990

  19. [27]

    T. A. Ivey and J. M. Landsberg.Cartan for Beginners: Differential Geometry via Moving Frames and Exterior Differential Systems. Vol. 61. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. 10.1090/gsm/061. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 2003, pp. xiv+378.isbn: 0-8218-3375-8

    2003 doi

  20. [28]

    Kijowski and W

    J. Kijowski and W. M. Tulczyjew.A Symplectic Framework for Field Theories. Lecture Notes in Physics. 10.1007/3-540-09538-1. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1979.isbn: 978-3-540-09538-5

    1979 doi

  21. [29]

    On a Fundamental Theorem of Weyl-Cartan onG-Structures

    S. Kobayashi and T. Nagano. “On a Fundamental Theorem of Weyl-Cartan onG-Structures”. In:Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan17(1965). 10.2969/jmsj/01710084, pp. 84– 101

    1965

  22. [30]

    Kobayashi and K

    S. Kobayashi and K. Nomizu.Foundations of Differential Geometry. Vol. I. Wiley Classics Library. Reprint of the 1963 original, A Wiley-Interscience Publication. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996, pp. xii+329.isbn: 0-471-15733-3

    1963

  23. [31]

    Kol´ aˇ r, J

    I. Kol´ aˇ r, J. Slov´ ak, and P. W. Michor.Natural Operations in Differential Geometry. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1993.isbn: 978-3-662-02950-3

    1993

  24. [32]

    A New Geometric Setting for Classical Field Theories

    M. de Le´ on, J. C. Marrero, and D. Mart ´ ın de Diego. “A New Geometric Setting for Classical Field Theories”. In:Classical and Quantum Integrability (Warsaw, 2001). Vol. 59. Banach Center Publications. 10.4064/bc59-0-10. Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Mathematics, ...

    2001 doi

  25. [33]

    Tulczyjew’s Triples and La- grangian Submanifolds in Classical Field Theories

    M. de Le´ on, D. Mart ´ ın de Diego, and A. Santamaria-Merino. “Tulczyjew’s Triples and La- grangian Submanifolds in Classical Field Theories”. In:Applied Differential Geometry and Mechanics. Ghent, Belgium: Academia Press, 2003, pp. 21–47

    2003

  26. [34]

    Symmetries in Classical Field Theory

    M. de Le´ on, D. Mart ´ ın de Diego, and A. Santamar ´ ıa-Merino. “Symmetries in Classical Field Theory”. In:International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics1.5 (2004). 10.1142/S0219887804000290, pp. 651–710

    2004 doi

  27. [35]

    Density-Valued Symplectic Forms from a Multisymplectic Viewpoint

    L. Leski and L. Ryvkin. “Density-Valued Symplectic Forms from a Multisymplectic Viewpoint”. In:Differential Geometry and its Applications103(2026). 10.1016/j.difgeo.2026.102334, Paper No. 102334, 11

    2026

  28. [36]

    Introduction to the Theory of Semi-Holonomic Jets

    P. Libermann. “Introduction to the Theory of Semi-Holonomic Jets”. In:Archivum Mathe- maticum33.3 (1997). eudml.org/doc/18495, pp. 173–189

    1997

  29. [37]

    Libermann and C.-M

    P. Libermann and C.-M. Marle.Symplectic Geometry and Analytical Mechanics. 10.1007/978- 94-009-3807-6. Springer Netherlands, 1987

    1987 doi

  30. [38]

    Multi-Moment Maps

    T. B. Madsen and A. Swann. “Multi-Moment Maps”. In:Advances in Mathematics229.4 (2012). 10.1016/j.aim.2012.01.002, pp. 2287–2309. 42

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    Existence et approximation des solutions des ´ equations aux d´ eriv´ ees partielles et des ´ equations de convolution

    B. Malgrange. “Existence et approximation des solutions des ´ equations aux d´ eriv´ ees partielles et des ´ equations de convolution”. In:Annales de l’Institut Fourier6(1956). 10.5802/aif.65, pp. 271–355

    1956 doi

  32. [40]

    A Darboux Theorem for Multi-Symplectic Manifolds

    G. Martin. “A Darboux Theorem for Multi-Symplectic Manifolds”. In:Letters in Mathematical Physics16.2 (1988). 10.1007/BF00402020, pp. 133–138

    1988 doi

  33. [41]

    On the Volume Elements on a Manifold

    J. Moser. “On the Volume Elements on a Manifold”. In:Transactions of the American Math- ematical Society120.2 (1965). 10.2307/1994022, pp. 286–294

    1965 doi

  34. [42]

    Differential Systems Associated with Tableaux over Lie Alge- bras

    E. Musso and L. Nicolodi. “Differential Systems Associated with Tableaux over Lie Alge- bras”. In:Symmetries and Overdetermined Systems of Partial Differential Equations. Vol. 144. IMA Volumes in Mathematics and Its Applications. 10.1007/978-0-387-73831-4 26. New York: Springe...

    2008 doi

  35. [43]

    V. P. Palamodov.Linear Differential Operators with Constant Coefficients. 1st ed. Vol. 168. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1970, pp. VIII+448. isbn: 978-3-642-46221-4

    1970

  36. [44]

    The Integrability Problem for Pseudogroup Structures

    A. S. Pollack. “The Integrability Problem for Pseudogroup Structures”. In:Journal of Differ- ential Geometry9(1974), pp. 355–390

    1974

  37. [45]

    Formes trilin´ eaires altern´ ees de rang 7

    P. Revoy. “Formes trilin´ eaires altern´ ees de rang 7”. In:Bulletin des Sciences Math´ ematiques, 2e S´ erie112.3 (1988), pp. 357–368

    1988

  38. [46]

    Multisymplectic Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Formalisms of Classical Field Theories

    N. Rom´ an-Roy. “Multisymplectic Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Formalisms of Classical Field Theories”. In:SIGMA. Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry. Methods and Applications5 (2009). 10.3842/SIGMA.2009.100, Paper 100, 25

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    Darboux Type Theorems in Multisymplectic Geometry

    L. Ryvkin. “Darboux Type Theorems in Multisymplectic Geometry”. In:Accepted for publi- cation in the Springer INdAM volume ‘Poisson Geometry and Mathematical Physics’(2025). arXiv:2503.03672. arXiv:2503.03672

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    An Invitation to Multisymplectic Geometry

    L. Ryvkin and T. Wurzbacher. “An Invitation to Multisymplectic Geometry”. In:Journal of Geometry and Physics142(2019). 10.1016/j.geomphys.2019.03.006, pp. 9–36

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    The Infinite Groups of Lie and Cartan. I. The Transitive Groups

    I. M. Singer and S. Sternberg. “The Infinite Groups of Lie and Cartan. I. The Transitive Groups”. In:Journal d’Analyse Math´ ematique15(1965). 10.1007/BF02787690, pp. 1–114

    1965 doi

  42. [50]

    Sternberg.Lectures on Differential Geometry

    S. Sternberg.Lectures on Differential Geometry. Second. With an appendix by Sternberg and Victor W. Guillemin. New York: Chelsea Publishing Co., 1983, pp. xviii+442.isbn: 0-8284- 0316-3

    1983

  43. [51]

    One Kind of Multisymplectic Structures on 6-Manifolds

    J. Vanˇ zura. “One Kind of Multisymplectic Structures on 6-Manifolds”. In:Steps in Differen- tial Geometry (Debrecen, 2000). Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Debrecen, 2001, pp. 375–391

    2000

  44. [52]

    Hamiltonian Dynamics and Geometry on the Two-Plectic Six-Sphere

    M. Wagner and T. Wurzbacher. “Hamiltonian Dynamics and Geometry on the Two-Plectic Six-Sphere”. In:Journal of Symplectic Geometry24.3 (2026)

    2026

  45. [53]

    Symplectic Manifolds and Their Lagrangian Submanifolds

    A. Weinstein. “Symplectic Manifolds and Their Lagrangian Submanifolds”. In:Advances in Mathematics6.3 (1971). 10.1016/0001-8708(71)90020-X, pp. 329–346

    1971 doi

  46. [54]

    Irreducible Lengths of Trivectors of Rank Seven and Eight

    R. Westwick. “Irreducible Lengths of Trivectors of Rank Seven and Eight”. In:Pacific Journal of Mathematics80.2 (1979). projecteuclid.org/euclid.pjm/1102785726, pp. 575–579

    1979

  47. [55]

    Real Trivectors of Rank Seven

    R. Westwick. “Real Trivectors of Rank Seven”. In:Linear and Multilinear Algebra10.3 (1981). 10.1080/03081088108817411, pp. 183–204

    1981 doi

  48. [56]

    Trivectors in a Space of Seven Dimensions

    R. Westwick. “Trivectors in a Space of Seven Dimensions”. In:Canadian Mathematical Bulletin 20.3 (1977). 10.4153/CMB-1977-061-5, p. 401. 43

    1977 doi

Pith tools

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