Elliptic solutions to matrix CKP equation

A. Zabrodin

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Elliptic solutions to matrix CKP equation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For elliptic solutions of the matrix CKP equation, the poles and their matrix coefficients satisfy first-order differential equations in the time $t_3$, unlike the second-order dynamics of the KP and BKP hierarchies.

desk verdict Plausible and novel first-order pole dynamics for the matrix CKP hierarchy, but the printed proof is too compressed to verify — send to referees with a request for the omitted algebra. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08774 v1 pith:4UKYC4NP submitted 2026-08-09 nlin.SI math-phmath.MP

A. Zabrodin This is my paper · ORCID

classification nlin.SImath-phmath.MP MSC 37K1035Q5337J35

keywords matrixCKPhierarchyellipticsolutionspoledynamicsfirst-orderflowdouble-BlochansatzLaxequationsspinmany-bodysystemswavefunction

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 for a class of elliptic solutions of the matrix CKP equation, the motion of the poles $x_i$ and their matrix coefficients $a_i$ under the first nontrivial time flow is described by first-order differential equations. This is in contrast to the KP and BKP hierarchies, where the pole dynamics is second order. The result matters because it identifies the CKP flow as a different, simpler many-body dynamics, and it does so without writing down the nonlinear equation itself: only the auxiliary linear problem is used. The proof produces explicit formulas for $\dot x_i$ and $\dot a_i^\alpha$ in terms of the elliptic functions $\wp$ and $\zeta$.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the double-Bloch ansatz for the matrix wave function: $\Psi_{\alpha\beta}=e^{xz+\cdots}\sum_i \rho_{i,\alpha\beta}\,\Phi(x-x_i,\lambda)$, where $\Phi$ is the elliptic function with a simple pole at lattice points and fixed Bloch multipliers. Substituting this ansatz into the linear problem $\partial_{t_3}\Psi=B_3\Psi$ with $B_3=\partial_x^3-3\xi_1'\partial_x-\frac{3}{2}\xi_1''-\frac{3}{2}\partial_{t_2}\xi_1|_{t_2=0}$ and imposing cancellation of poles order by order yields the norm constraint, the spectral equation, and the first-order equations of motion. The reduction from the matrix KP hierarchy enters through the rank-one residue form $\rho_i=a_i c_i^T$ and the CKP condition $L^\dagger=-L$, which enforces the symmetric choice $b_i=a_i$ with unit norms.

What would settle it

Take a two-pole solution, integrate equations (47) and (48) numerically for a nontrivial choice of unit vectors, substitute the result into $u_{1,\alpha\beta}=-\sum_i a_i^\alpha a_i^\beta \,\wp(x-x_i)$, and test the $t_3$-$t_5$ Zakharov-Shabat compatibility to first nontrivial order in $t_3$; any uncancelled pole or nonzero second derivative $\ddot x_i$ would refute Theorem 3. A direct verification of the Lax equation $\dot{\mathcal L}+[\mathcal L,M]=0$ with $\mathcal L$ from (57) would also settle the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated as Theorem 3, is that every elliptic solution of the matrix CKP equation whose coefficient matrix is $u_{1,\alpha\beta}=-\sum_i a_i^\alpha a_i^\beta \,\wp(x-x_i)$ has pole positions and unit-norm vectors obeying the first-order system (5): $\dot x_i=3\sum_{j\ne i}(a_i^\gamma a_j^\gamma)^2 \,\wp(x_i-x_j)$ and an explicit equation for $\dot a_i^\alpha$ with a single $\wp'$ term plus a double sum of $\wp\,\zeta$ terms. In the proof, the fourth-order pole cancellation in the linear problem forces the norm condition $a_i^\gamma a_i^\gamma=1$, the third-order cancellation yields the spectral equation, and the second-order cancellation directly gives the pole equations, in contrast to the KP case where an overdetermined system must first be solved. Here 'elliptic' means the coefficient functions are double-periodic in $x$, and the solutions are built from double-Bloch wave functions with simple poles.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on assuming that the CKP reduction of the matrix KP wave function is exactly the identification $b_i=a_i$ with unit norms, and that the imported $t_2$-flow equations remain valid after the even times are set to zero.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every elliptic matrix CKP solution of the stated form has first-order pole dynamics: no term $\ddot x_i$ appears, in contrast to KP and BKP.
The unit-norm condition $a_i^\gamma a_i^\gamma=1$ keeps the internal vectors on the unit sphere, and the interaction strength is governed by the squared scalar product $(a_i^\gamma a_j^\gamma)^2$.
In the trigonometric and rational degenerations of $\wp$ and $\zeta$, the same formulas yield explicit first-order dynamics for the corresponding degenerate solutions.
The spectral curve $\det(zI-\mathcal L(\lambda))=0$ associated with the matrix (57) provides a generating function for integrals of motion of the $t_3$ flow.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step would be to test whether this first-order vector field is Hamiltonian with respect to a standard symplectic structure on poles and unit vectors; the paper does not address this.
Extending the result to all odd times of the hierarchy, which the paper leaves as an open problem, would require proving that the higher flows are also generated by commuting first-order vector fields; the Lax equation $\dot{\mathcal L}+[\mathcal L,M]=0$ in Remark 3 is the consistency condition to check.
The structure of the equations suggests a connection to spin many-body systems with pair interactions proportional to $(a_i\cdot a_j)^2$; writing out the rational limit and comparing with known rational spin systems would test that identification.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Zabrodin derives first-order t_3 equations of motion for poles and residue vectors of elliptic solutions of the matrix CKP equation. The result is new — no one has written these equations before — and it sits naturally between the scalar CKP case [30] and the matrix KP case [21,22,23]. If correct, it completes the picture: t_3 flow is first-order, unlike the second-order KP/BKP dynamics. The Lax-Sato setup and the reduction b_i=a_i from the symmetry of ξ_1 are clearly explained, and the final equations (47)-(48) have the right flavor.

The trouble is that the central computation in Section 4 is too compressed to check, and what is displayed contains apparent typos. In the long expansion after (53), the term corresponding to -3u_1∂_xΨ is written with a factor z in front of u_1ψ'; after cancelling e^{xz} that term should be just -3u_1ψ'. With the printed z, the fourth-order pole cancellation gives a z-dependent condition, not the norm condition (46). Equation (52) defines w with a sum over k≠i but no sum over i; as written it is not an elliptic function. Also, the sign of the u_1 terms in the expansion is opposite to what follows from (53) taken with B_3 = ∂_x^3 + 3u_1∂_x + (3/2)u'_1 + (3/2)w. Finally, the proof says that simple poles cancel 'from (55) and (47)', and then states (47) as the result; that is either circular or the sentence is garbled. The step where (47) actually comes from the zero-order residue is never shown.

I don't want to overstate the damage. This is the kind of thing that often is misprints and a missing line. The method is standard Krichever pole cancellation, the author is an expert, and the final answer is consistent with the scalar CKP limit. But as printed, the paper does not allow a reader to verify (47)-(48). The referee can reasonably ask for a rewritten Section 4 with every term in the pole expansion, the corrected w, and an explicit derivation of (47) from simple-pole cancellation.

Bottom line: worth engaging, but only after a revision. Send it to a serious referee; the result is important enough for the integrable-systems subfield, and the problems are fixable rather than fatal.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies elliptic solutions of the matrix CKP hierarchy, i.e. solutions for which the Lax coefficients are double-periodic functions of x, and derives equations of motion for the pole positions x_i and the vector coefficients a_i as functions of the time t_3. The main result, Theorem 3 (Theorem 1 in the introduction), states that for solutions of the form u_{1,\alpha\beta} = -\sum_i a_i^\alpha a_i^\beta \wp(x-x_i) with a_i^\gamma a_i^\gamma=1, the t_3-flow is first order: \dot x_i = 3\sum_{j\ne i}(a_i^\gamma a_j^\gamma)^2\wp(x_i-x_j) and a corresponding explicit first-order equation for \dot a_i^\alpha. The derivation uses the Krichever pole-cancellation method: the Baker-Akhiezer function is written as a sum of Lam\'e-Hermite functions, the CKP reduction is imposed by setting b_i=a_i in the known matrix KP residue data, and equations (47)--(48) are claimed to follow from cancellation of poles in the linear problem (53). The paper also contains a compact review of the multi-component and matrix CKP hierarchies and an appendix on Weierstrass and Lam\'e-Hermite functions.

Significance. If Theorem 3 is correct, the paper gives a natural matrix generalization of the known scalar CKP pole dynamics and provides another example of first-order pole equations in contrast to the second-order Calogero-Moser dynamics of KP and BKP. This would be a useful contribution to the theory of elliptic solutions of integrable hierarchies. However, the proof as printed is not verifiable: the central displayed substitution into (53) contains sign errors and a spurious factor z, equation (52) is missing a summation over the pole index, and the derivation of (47) is essentially asserted rather than shown. These are load-bearing issues because they occur in the computation that establishes the main theorem. The underlying method is standard and the result may well be correct, but the manuscript needs a substantial correction of the proof before it can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, displayed equation after (53)] The rearrangement of (53) after division by e^{xz} is not correct as displayed. The contribution of -3u_1\partial_x\Psi is -3u_1(zF+F'), so when the non-\partial_{t_3} terms are moved to the right-hand side the u_1 terms should appear as +3z u_1F and +3u_1F', and the u_1' term should appear as +(3/2)u_1'F. The printed right-hand side instead contains -3z u_1F, -3z u_1F', and -(3/2)u_1'F. Consequently, with the printed signs, the fourth-order pole coefficient is -6C -3(1+z)AC (writing C=a_i^\alpha c_i^\beta and A=a_i^\gamma a_i^\gamma), which cannot be cancelled by the z-independent condition A=1. With the corrected signs the coefficient is (-6+6A)C, so that A=1 follows. Thus the printed computation does not establish (46), and the displayed algebra must be redone.
[Section 4, Eq. (52)] Equation (52) is missing an outer summation over the pole index i. As written, the right-hand side has a free index i and is not an elliptic function with first-order poles at all points x_i, despite the claim in the preceding sentence that w has first-order poles at x=x_i. The subsequent substitution into (53) uses this expression as though it were summed over i. The formula should read w_{\alpha\beta}=2\sum_i\sum_{k\ne i}(a_i^\alpha a_k^\beta-a_i^\beta a_k^\alpha)(a_i^\gamma a_k^\gamma)\wp(x_i-x_k)\zeta(x-x_i). Without this sum the pole expansion in the central computation is not well defined.
[Section 4, paragraph containing (55)] The derivation of the main equation (47) is not shown. The text says 'from the equations (55) and (47) it follows that simple poles cancel, too' and then states that (47) is the equation of motion for a_i, but (47) is precisely the unknown quantity that should be obtained from the simple-pole cancellation. This is circular unless the simple-pole coefficient is computed and shown to imply (47). The same paragraph also asserts, without presenting the algebra, that second-order pole cancellation gives (48). Given the errors in the displayed expansion, these omitted computations are essential and must be written out explicitly.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4, Eq. (55)] The quantities \alpha_1 and \alpha_2 are used in (55) without definition in the main text; they are the expansion coefficients of the Lam\'e-Hermite function from the appendix (A4), and the text should refer to that formula.
[Section 3, first sentence] The sentence 'It is obtained from it the after restricting the independent variables' contains a grammatical error and should be rephrased.
[Introduction, Theorem 1, Eq. (5)] In the displayed formula (5) there is an unmatched parenthesis after a_k^\alpha in the double-sum term; the corresponding formula (47) is correctly bracketed.
[Section 4, displayed equation after (53)] In the term \partial_{t_3}(a_i^\alpha c_i^\beta), it should be stated explicitly that the t_3-derivative is taken at fixed spectral parameter z, since c_i^\beta depends on z.
[Remark 3] The statement \lambda=O(z^{-1}) should be qualified as the behaviour as z\to\infty, and the dependence of \lambda on z in the spectral curve equation (58) could be stated more explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new t3 pole dynamics are derived from a separate pole-cancellation computation, not from the cited inputs.

full rationale

The central claim, Theorem 3, is the first-order t3 dynamics (47)-(48). The inputs are the matrix-KP residue structure rho_i = a_i c_i^T and the t2-flow equations (43), imported from [21], together with the CKP reduction b_i = a_i enforced by the symmetry of xi_1. These inputs determine u1 and w, but they do not contain the t3 equations; equations (47)-(48) are obtained by substituting the double-Bloch ansatz into the linear problem (53) and canceling poles order by order. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the result is not equivalent by definition to the t2 data. The self-citations [22,23,30,32] are background or prior scalar-case results whose assumptions do not include Theorem 3, so they are not load-bearing. The proof does contain a logical inversion at the end ('from the equations (55) and (47) it follows that simple poles cancel'), and the displayed expansion after (53) appears to contain typographical errors (a spurious z in the 3u1 psi' term and a missing outer sum in (52)); these are correctness or presentation gaps that would need repair, but they are not instances of the claimed result being reduced to its own inputs. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity, with a score of 0.

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

The central claim rests on standard Lax-Sato formalism and on results from [21] and [30] for the matrix KP and scalar CKP hierarchies. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The main domain assumptions are the double-Bloch ansatz and the rank-one residue property inherited from the KP case.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The double-Bloch ansatz (38) with simple poles at x_i and Lame-Hermite building blocks describes all elliptic solutions of the matrix CKP hierarchy under consideration.
Invoked in Section 4 after equation (37); if higher-order poles or additional singularities exist, the pole-cancellation computation does not apply.
domain assumption Residues of the matrix CKP wave function at the poles are rank-one matrices, rho_i = a_i c_i^T, inherited from the matrix KP result of [21] via embedding into KP with even times zero.
Used in equation (40); load-bearing for the form of the equations of motion.
domain assumption The t_2-flow equations (43) from [21] remain valid after the CKP reduction (b_i = a_i) and at t_2 = 0.
Used to compute w = -∂_{t_2} xi_1 in equations (51)-(52).
standard math Standard properties of Weierstrass sigma, zeta, and ℘ functions and Lame-Hermite functions, as listed in the appendix, together with the Lax-Sato formalism of Section 2.
Background for the derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Elliptic solutions to matrix CKP equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4UKYC4NP

@misc{pith2026260808774,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Elliptic solutions to matrix CKP equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4UKYC4NP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08774}
}

read the original abstract

A class of elliptic solutions to the matrix CKP equation is studied. Equations of motion for their poles and matrix coefficients at the poles are obtained. As in the scalar case, they are of the first order, in contrast to what takes place in the KP and BKP hierarchies, where the equations of motion are of the second order.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[30]

Krichever and A

I. Krichever and A. Zabrodin,Kadomtsev-Petviashvili turning points and CKP hi- erarchy, Commun. Math. Phys.386(2021) 1643–1683, arXiv:2012.04482

arXiv 2021
[1]

Airault, H.P

H. Airault, H.P. McKean, and J. Moser,Rational and elliptic solutions of the Korteweg-De Vries equation and a related many-body problem, Commun. Pure Appl. Math.,30(1977) 95–148

work page 1977
[2]

Krichever,Rational solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation and inte- grable systems ofNparticles on a line, Funct

I.M. Krichever,Rational solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation and inte- grable systems ofNparticles on a line, Funct. Anal. Appl.12:1(1978) 59–61

work page 1978
[3]

Krichever,Elliptic solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation and inte- grable systems of particles, Funk

I.M. Krichever,Elliptic solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation and inte- grable systems of particles, Funk. Anal. i Ego Pril.14:4(1980) 45–54 (in Russian); English translation: Functional Analysis and Its Applications14:4(1980) 282—290

work page 1980
[4]

Chudnovsky and G.V

D.V. Chudnovsky and G.V. Chudnovsky,Pole expansions of non-linear partial dif- ferential equations, Nuovo Cimento40B(1977) 339–350

work page 1977
[5]

Calogero,Solution of the one-dimensionalN-body problems with quadratic and/or inversely quadratic pair potentials, J

F. Calogero,Solution of the one-dimensionalN-body problems with quadratic and/or inversely quadratic pair potentials, J. Math. Phys.12(1971) 419–436

work page 1971
[6]

Calogero,Exactly solvable one-dimensional many-body systems, Lett

F. Calogero,Exactly solvable one-dimensional many-body systems, Lett. Nuovo Ci- mento13(1975) 411–415

work page 1975
[7]

Moser,Three integrable Hamiltonian systems connected with isospectral deforma- tions, Adv

J. Moser,Three integrable Hamiltonian systems connected with isospectral deforma- tions, Adv. Math.16(1975) 197–220

work page 1975

Show all 32 references

[8]

Olshanetsky and A.M

M.A. Olshanetsky and A.M. Perelomov,Classical integrable finite-dimensional sys- tems related to Lie algebras, Phys. Rep.71(1981) 313–400

1981
[9]

Shiota,Calogero-Moser hierarchy and KP hierarchy, J

T. Shiota,Calogero-Moser hierarchy and KP hierarchy, J. Math. Phys.35(1994) 5844-5849

1994
[10]

Krichever, A

I. Krichever, A. Zabrodin,Spin generalization of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider model, non-abelian 2D Toda chain and representations of Sklyanin algebra, Uspekhi Math. Nauk,50(1995) 3–56

1995
[11]

Haine,KP trigonometric solitons and an adelic flag manifold, SIGMA3(2007) 015

L. Haine,KP trigonometric solitons and an adelic flag manifold, SIGMA3(2007) 015

2007
[12]

Zabrodin,KP hierarchy and trigonometric Calogero-Moser hierarchy, Journal of Mathematical Physics61(2020) 043502, arXiv:1906.09846

A. Zabrodin,KP hierarchy and trigonometric Calogero-Moser hierarchy, Journal of Mathematical Physics61(2020) 043502, arXiv:1906.09846

2020 arXiv
[13]

Zabrodin,Elliptic solutions to integrable nonlinear equations and many-body sys- tems, Journal of Geometry and Physics146(2019) 103506, arXiv:1905.11383

A. Zabrodin,Elliptic solutions to integrable nonlinear equations and many-body sys- tems, Journal of Geometry and Physics146(2019) 103506, arXiv:1905.11383. 13

2019 arXiv
[14]

Prokofev and A

V. Prokofev and A. Zabrodin,Elliptic solutions to the KP hierarchy and elliptic Calogero-Moser model, Journal of Physics A: Math. Theor.,54(2021) 305202

2021
[15]

Prokofev and A

V. Prokofev and A. Zabrodin,Elliptic solutions to Toda lattice hierarchy and elliptic Ruijsenaars-Schneider model, Teor. Mat. Fys.,208(2021), No. 2, 282—309 (English translation: Theoretical and Mathematical Physics,208(2021) 1093–1115

2021
[16]

Prokofev and A

V. Prokofev and A. Zabrodin,Elliptic solutions of the Toda lattice with constraint of type B and deformed Ruijsenaars-Schneider system, Mathematical Physics, Analysis and Geometry26:20(2023)

2023
[17]

E. Date, M. Jimbo, M. Kashiwara and T. Miwa,Transformation groups for soliton equations III, J. Phys. Soc. Japan50(1981) 3806–3812

1981
[18]

Kac and J

V. Kac and J. van de Leur,Then-component KP hierarchy and representation theory, in: A.S. Fokas, V.E. Zakharov (Eds.), Important Developments in Soliton Theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1993

1993
[19]

Takasaki and T

K. Takasaki and T. Takebe,Universal Whitham hierarchy, dispersionless Hirota equations and multicomponent KP hierarchy, Physica D235(2007) 109–125

2007
[20]

Teo,The multicomponent KP hierarchy: differential Fay identities and Lax equations, J

L.-P. Teo,The multicomponent KP hierarchy: differential Fay identities and Lax equations, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.44(2011) 225201

2011
[21]

Krichever, O

I. Krichever, O. Babelon, E. Billey and M. Talon,Spin generalization of the Calogero- Moser system and the matrix KP equation, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2170 (1995) 83–119

1995
[22]

Pashkov and A

V. Pashkov and A. Zabrodin,Spin generalization of the Calogero-Moser hierarchy and the matrix KP hierarchy, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.51(2018) 215201

2018
[23]

Prokofev, A

V. Prokofev, A. Zabrodin,Elliptic solutions to matrix KP hierarchy and spin gen- eralization of elliptic Calogero-Moser model, J. Math. Physics,62(2021) 061502

2021
[24]

Gibbons and T

J. Gibbons and T. Hermsen,A generalization of the Calogero-Moser system, Physica D11(1984) 337—348

1984
[25]

E. Date, M. Jimbo, M. Kashiwara and T. Miwa,KP hierarchy of orthogonal and symplectic type – Transformation groups for soliton equations VI, J. Phys. Soc. Japan50(1981) 3813–3818

1981
[26]

Dimakis and F

A. Dimakis and F. M¨ uller-Hoissen,BKP and CKP revisited: the odd KP system, Inverse Problems25(2009) 045001, arXiv:0810.0757

2009 arXiv
[27]

Chang and C.-Z

L. Chang and C.-Z. Wu,Tau function of the CKP hierarchy and non-linearizable Virasoro symmetries, Nonlinearity26(2013) 2577–2596

2013
[28]

Cheng and J

J. Cheng and J. He,The “ghost” symmetry in the CKP hierarchy, Journal of Ge- ometry and Physics,80(2014) 49–57

2014
[29]

van de Leur, A

J. van de Leur, A. Orlov and T. Shiota,CKP hierarchy, bosonic tau function and bosonization formulae, SIGMA8(2012) 036, arXiv:1102.0087 14

2012 arXiv
[31]

V. Kac, J. van de Leur,Multicomponent KP type hierarchies and their reductions, associated to conjugacy classes of Weyl groups of classical Lie algebras, J. Math. Phys.64(2023) 9, arXiv:2304.05737

2023 arXiv
[32]

Zabrodin,Tau-function of the multi-component CKP hierarchy, Math

A. Zabrodin,Tau-function of the multi-component CKP hierarchy, Math. Phys., Analysis and Geometry27:1(2024). 15

2024

Pith tools

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

[1] [30]

Krichever and A

I. Krichever and A. Zabrodin,Kadomtsev-Petviashvili turning points and CKP hi- erarchy, Commun. Math. Phys.386(2021) 1643–1683, arXiv:2012.04482

arXiv 2021

[2] [1]

Airault, H.P

H. Airault, H.P. McKean, and J. Moser,Rational and elliptic solutions of the Korteweg-De Vries equation and a related many-body problem, Commun. Pure Appl. Math.,30(1977) 95–148

work page 1977

[3] [2]

Krichever,Rational solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation and inte- grable systems ofNparticles on a line, Funct

I.M. Krichever,Rational solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation and inte- grable systems ofNparticles on a line, Funct. Anal. Appl.12:1(1978) 59–61

work page 1978

[4] [3]

Krichever,Elliptic solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation and inte- grable systems of particles, Funk

I.M. Krichever,Elliptic solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation and inte- grable systems of particles, Funk. Anal. i Ego Pril.14:4(1980) 45–54 (in Russian); English translation: Functional Analysis and Its Applications14:4(1980) 282—290

work page 1980

[5] [4]

Chudnovsky and G.V

D.V. Chudnovsky and G.V. Chudnovsky,Pole expansions of non-linear partial dif- ferential equations, Nuovo Cimento40B(1977) 339–350

work page 1977

[6] [5]

Calogero,Solution of the one-dimensionalN-body problems with quadratic and/or inversely quadratic pair potentials, J

F. Calogero,Solution of the one-dimensionalN-body problems with quadratic and/or inversely quadratic pair potentials, J. Math. Phys.12(1971) 419–436

work page 1971

[7] [6]

Calogero,Exactly solvable one-dimensional many-body systems, Lett

F. Calogero,Exactly solvable one-dimensional many-body systems, Lett. Nuovo Ci- mento13(1975) 411–415

work page 1975

[8] [7]

Moser,Three integrable Hamiltonian systems connected with isospectral deforma- tions, Adv

J. Moser,Three integrable Hamiltonian systems connected with isospectral deforma- tions, Adv. Math.16(1975) 197–220

work page 1975