Leafwise de Rham cohomology of generic Reeb foliations

Yong-Geun Oh

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Leafwise de Rham cohomology of generic Reeb foliations

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that for a residual set of contact forms, the leafwise de Rham cohomology of the Reeb foliation is trivial in degrees zero and one.

desk verdict The H^0 genericity result is plausible and interesting, but the H^1 = R claim is false because closed Reeb orbits create unavoidable cokernel elements; the paper should be reworked as an H^0-only theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16453 v3 pith:F5VEHUXD submitted 2025-04-23 math.SG

Yong-Geun Oh This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.SG MSC 53D1053C1257R30

keywords contactformReebfoliationdeRhamcohomologynon-projectableconformalexponentstrictcontactomorphismcontroltheorygenerictransversality

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 tries to prove that on a compact connected contact manifold, for a residual set of contact forms $\lambda$—a dense, countable intersection of open dense sets—the only smooth functions constant along the Reeb flow are the constants. If true, the Reeb-foliation cohomology is as small as possible: $H^0(F_\lambda)$ and $H^1(F_\lambda)$ are both one-dimensional. The proof treats $\lambda$ as a control parameter: for any non-constant $H$, the discriminant of the conformal exponent of the time-one map $\psi_H^1$ is forced to miss the relevant Reeb trajectories for a generic $\lambda$, which rules out $R_\lambda H = 0$. The claimed consequence is that the functional equation $R_\lambda f = u$ is uniquely solvable modulo constants for every mean-zero $u$, and that the Lie algebra of strict contactomorphisms is the one-dimensional span of the Reeb vector field. The same triviality is claimed for a generic choice of contact form with a fixed contact structure $\xi$, while any form with a closed Reeb orbit is claimed to have infinite-dimensional $H^1$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the parameterized moduli space of pointed Reeb trajectories subjected to constraints at the regular part of the discriminant $\Sigma^{\mathrm{reg}}(H;\lambda) = g(\psi_H^1;\lambda)^{-1}(0)$ minus its critical and fixed points. The variation formulas $\delta_\lambda g(\psi;\lambda)(\alpha) = \psi^* h_\alpha - h_\alpha$ and $\delta_\lambda R_\lambda(\alpha) = -X_h^\pi - h R_\lambda$, where $h_\alpha = \alpha(R_\lambda)$ is the Reeb component, make the 0-jet and 1-jet evaluation maps transverse over a residual set of $\lambda$. The resulting Fredholm projection has index $2n+1-k$, so with $k = 2n+2$ the constrained moduli space is empty for generic $\lambda$, proving $\ker R_\lambda = \mathbb{R}$. Skew-adjointness $R_\lambda^* = -R_\lambda$ then converts this into the claimed cohomological triviality.

What would settle it

Take any contact form $\lambda$ on a closed three-manifold, where a standard theorem guarantees a closed Reeb orbit $\gamma$ of period $T$; choose a smooth bump $b$ equal to 1 along $\gamma$, supported in a thin tube, with Liouville mean $m \neq 1$. Since $\int_0^T R_\lambda f(\gamma(t))\,dt = f(\gamma(T))-f(\gamma(0))=0$ for every smooth $f$, the mean-zero function $b-m$ cannot equal $R_\lambda f$, contradicting the claimed isomorphism onto mean-zero functions for any such $\lambda$ placed in the residual set.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a generic triviality theorem: there is a residual subset $C_{np}(M)$ of all contact forms, and similarly $C_{np}(M,\xi)$ for a fixed contact structure, such that $\ker R_\lambda$ consists only of constants. The proof does not solve $R_\lambda f = u$ directly; instead it studies pointed moduli spaces of Reeb trajectories with jet constraints coming from the discriminant of the conformal exponent $g(\psi_H^1;\lambda)$. For any $H$ with $dH \neq 0$, a generic $\lambda$ makes the constrained moduli space empty for $2n+2$ marked points, so no such $H$ can satisfy $R_\lambda H = 0$. Combined with the skew-adjointness $R_\lambda^* = -R_\lambda$ with respect to the contact Liouville measure, this injectivity is claimed to make $R_\lambda$ an isomorphism from mean-zero smooth functions to mean-zero smooth functions, giving $H^0(F_\lambda) \cong \mathbb{R} \cong H^1(F_\lambda)$ and $\operatorname{cont}^{st}(M,\lambda) \cong \mathbb{R}\{R_\lambda\}$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes that showing the smooth kernel of $R_\lambda$ is just the constants forces $R_\lambda$ to map the mean-zero smooth functions onto themselves via formal skew-adjointness and hypoellipticity; any closed Reeb orbit supplies a mean-zero smooth function that cannot be in the image, so this implication fails in the presence of closed orbits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $\lambda$ in the residual set, the equation $R_\lambda f = u$ has a unique solution modulo constants for every smooth $u$ with zero integral against the contact Liouville measure.
The Lie algebra of strict contactomorphisms is the one-dimensional abelian algebra spanned by the Reeb vector field, so generically strict contactomorphisms beyond the Reeb flow cease to exist.
The same triviality holds for a residual subset of contact forms with a fixed contact structure, so the vanishing is not an artifact of letting the structure vary.
Any contact form with a closed Reeb orbit has infinite-dimensional $H^1(F_\lambda)$; since every contact form on a closed three-manifold has a closed Reeb orbit, this is claimed for all three-dimensional contact forms.
For a generic $\lambda$, the standard definition of a contact integrable system would have no non-constant functions satisfying $\{1,f_i\}=0$, so the Reeb flow is the only strict contact flow.

Reading between the lines

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

The closed-orbit obstruction appears to undercut the generic-triviality theorem in dimension three: if every contact form has a closed Reeb orbit, the bumped-function argument gives a mean-zero function not in the image of $R_\lambda$, and the claimed isomorphism from mean-zero functions to mean-zero functions would fail for every such $\lambda$.
The paper nowhere confronts closed Reeb orbits as obstructions in the cohomological sections; a sympathetic reading would need $C_{np}(M)$ to avoid all forms with closed orbits, which in dimension three would make it empty rather than residual.
The method suggests a general recipe for generic rigidity of first-order operators of principal type with a control parameter: use the characteristic ODE as a finite-dimensional approximate moduli and prove jet-evaluation transversality over the parameter space.
A testable extension would be to compute $H^1$ for a small generic perturbation of a contact form with a closed orbit: the integration obstruction is open in the $C^\infty$ topology, so the infinite-dimensionality should persist for nearby forms, directly testing the residual-set claim.

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

The paper proves two things that are really different: a genericity theorem for H^0 (ker R_λ = constants for a residual set of forms) and a unique-solvability theorem for R_λ f = u on mean-zero functions, phrased as H^1 = R. The first is plausible and contributes a genuinely new control-theoretic framing—contact form as control, conformal exponent as payoff—to a hard problem. The second is false as stated.

The soft spot is load-bearing. The paper never confronts closed Reeb orbits. For any closed orbit γ of period T, ∫_0^T R_λ f(γ(t))dt = f(γ(T)) - f(γ(0)) = 0. So the functional u ↦ ∫_0^T u(γ(t))dt annihilates the image of R_λ. But it does not vanish on all mean-zero functions: take a bump b equal to 1 on γ, supported nearby, with mean m ≠ 1; then u = b - m is mean-zero but has nonzero integral along γ. By the paper's own Corollary 5.6(1), this means H^1 is not R. And Taubes' theorem—which the abstract cites—guarantees a closed orbit for every contact form on a closed 3-manifold. So in dimension 3, H^1 ≅ R fails for every λ, including any non-projectable one. Theorem 1.14 and Corollary 1.9 are false.

There is also an internal contradiction: the v1 abstract said H^1 is infinite-dimensional when a closed orbit exists; the v2 abstract removes that sentence and asserts H^1 ≅ R. The main body never reconciles the two. The proof of Proposition 15.2 is omitted, and the general case of Lemma 9.6 is only sketched; the functional-analytic infrastructure is deferred to the companion [OS]. These are not fatal by themselves, but they make independent verification harder.

The H^0 half—ker R_λ = constants for a residual set—may survive, since the closed-orbit argument does not contradict it. But the paper as packaged should be reworked as an H^0-only genericity theorem, with the cokernel statement downgraded and the missing proofs supplied.

Who is this for? Researchers working on Reeb dynamics and contact mapping class groups. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should be asked to focus on whether the H^0 argument holds up after the H^1 claim is stripped out. My recommendation: send to peer review, expect heavy revision, and do not accept the cohomological claims as they stand.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the leafwise de Rham cohomology of the Reeb foliation F_λ associated to a contact form λ on a compact connected orientable contact manifold. Its central claims are that, for a residual set of contact forms (the "big phase space" C(M) and the "small phase space" C(M,ξ)), the kernel of the first-order operator R_λ consists only of constants, and that, by formal skew-adjointness, R_λ is an isomorphism from mean-zero smooth functions to mean-zero smooth functions. The paper then concludes H^0(F_λ) ≅ R ≅ H^1(F_λ), and that the Lie algebra of strict contactomorphisms is one-dimensional. The proof is built on a control-theoretic transversality framework: it studies Reeb trajectories with marked points constrained to the regular part of the discriminant of the conformal exponent g(ψ^1_H;λ), and uses Sard-Smale arguments over the infinite-dimensional parameter space of contact forms.

Significance. If Theorem 1.6 (generic triviality of ker R_λ) were correct, it would be a significant contribution: it would show that nonconstant Reeb-invariant smooth functions are generically absent and that strict contactomorphisms are generically scarce. The control-theoretic formulation and the explicit variation formulas, especially Lemma 8.2 for the conformal exponent, are original and potentially useful. However, the paper's advertised H^1 triviality is false in the presence of a closed Reeb orbit, and in dimension 3 Taubes' theorem produces a closed orbit for every contact form. Thus Theorem 1.14 and Corollary 1.9 are false as stated, and the central cohomological claim of the paper cannot stand. The generic-kernel part of the argument may be salvageable, but the main advertised conclusion is not.

major comments (3)

[§5.3, Theorem 5.9; §1.3, Theorem 1.14] The inference from ker R_λ = {constants} to surjectivity of R_λ onto the mean-zero functions is false when λ has a closed Reeb orbit. Let γ be a closed Reeb orbit of period T. For every smooth f, ∫_0^T R_λ f(γ(t)) dt = f(γ(T)) - f(γ(0)) = 0, so the functional L(u) = ∫_γ u annihilates im R_λ. Choose a bump function b identically equal to 1 on γ with mean m ≠ 1; then u = b - m is mean-zero, but L(u) = T(1-m) ≠ 0, so u ∉ im R_λ. Hence im R_λ is strictly smaller than the mean-zero subspace, coker R_λ is not R, and by Corollary 5.6(1), H^1(F_λ) is not R. Since every contact form on a closed 3-manifold has a closed Reeb orbit by Taubes' theorem, Theorem 1.14 fails for every λ in dimension 3, including every λ in the residual set C_np(M). Sections 5, 14, and 19 never address this integral obstruction.
[Abstract; §1.3] The abstract as supplied states both that H^1(F_λ) ≅ R for a residual set of contact forms and, on the other hand, that the rank of H^1(F_λ) is infinite whenever λ admits a closed Reeb orbit, in particular for every contact form in dimension 3. These two statements are contradictory on a closed 3-manifold: Taubes' theorem gives a closed orbit for every λ, so the second statement implies H^1(F_λ) ≇ R for all λ, while Theorem 1.14 asserts H^1(F_λ) ≅ R for a residual set. The manuscript as a whole is therefore internally inconsistent on its central claim.
[§5.1, Proposition 1.8] The asserted isomorphism ker R_λ ≅ Coker R_λ obtained from formal skew-adjointness is not valid in the Fréchet setting without a proof that im R_λ is closed. The closed-orbit functional L constructed above is a concrete witness that the algebraic cokernel is larger than the annihilator of im R_λ; the invocation of hypoellipticity and the Open Mapping Theorem in Theorem 5.9 does not repair this, because R_λ is not elliptic and its range need not be closed. This is the load-bearing gap that invalidates the surjectivity half of Theorem 5.9.

minor comments (3)

[§5.2, Proposition 5.5] The displayed formula for H^1(F_λ) is inconsistent with the preceding lines: the numerator should be Z^1(F_λ) = {uλ | u ∈ C^∞(M)}, not {fλ | R_λ[f] = 0}. As written, the formula also omits the factor λ in the denominator. Corollary 5.6 uses the correct description, so this is a presentation error, but it should be corrected.
[§1.2, Theorem 1.14] The phrase "Let λ be any non-projectable contact form" overstates the hypothesis: non-projectability is defined only for elements of the residual set C_np(M) (or C_np(M,ξ)), so the statement should read "for any λ ∈ C_np(M)" to match the proof.
[Throughout] Several essential functional-analytic and Fredholm details, including the precise definition of Floer's C^ε norms and parts of the off-shell framework, are deferred to the companion paper [OS, Section 4]. Since the present paper's main theorem depends on this material, a self-contained treatment or a precise statement of the assumptions inherited from [OS] is needed in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the generic kernel result is proved by Sard-Smale transversality, and the cohomological consequences follow from skew-adjointness rather than being assumed.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Theorems 1.6 and 1.10) is a residual-subset statement proved by parameterized transversality and Sard-Smale arguments on moduli spaces of pointed Reeb trajectories and conformal-exponent discriminants (Sections 9-14 and 16-19). The functional equation R_λ f = u is then studied via the separate skew-adjointness result of Proposition 5.8 and hypoellipticity; the conclusion H^1(F_λ) ≅ R is not an assumption or a renaming of λ ∈ C_np(M), since non-projectability only fixes ker R_λ, and the cokernel identification uses the independent skew-adjointness calculation. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the claimed output, and no 'prediction' is a rearrangement of its input. Citations to [OS] and [DO] supply standard functional-analytic spaces (Floer C^ε norms), a short volume-form identity, and terminology; these are not the load-bearing genericity mechanism, which is carried out in the present paper. The known tension with closed Reeb orbits is a mathematical-consistency or correctness concern, not a circularity: the derivation chain does not define H^1 or C_np in terms of the theorem it claims.

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

Pure mathematics: no free parameters are fitted to data and no new physical entities are introduced. The load-bearing inputs are the Sard-Smale/transversality framework (partly deferred to the author's companion [OS]), the inference from skew-adjointness to surjectivity of R_λ (which fails under closed Reeb orbits), Taubes' three-dimensional Weinstein conjecture (cited in the abstract, and fatal for the H^1 claim), the Baire-space genericity of C(M), and the author's Motto asserting independence of the two information systems.

assumptions (5)

standard math Sard-Smale applies to the parameterized moduli problem in the C^∞/C^ε topology
Invoked throughout Sections 11-14 and 17-19 to obtain residual sets of regular values; the precise C^ε framework is deferred to [OS, Section 4].
domain assumption Skew-adjointness of R_λ plus ker R_λ = {constants} implies R_λ maps C^∞_0 onto C^∞_0
Theorem 5.9 and Corollary 1.9; false when a closed Reeb orbit exists, since the orbit integral is an additional cokernel functional. This is the step that breaks the H^1 claim.
standard math Taubes' three-dimensional Weinstein conjecture: every contact form on a closed 3-manifold has a closed Reeb orbit
Cited in the abstract; it turns the closed-orbit cokernel obstruction into a contradiction with the nonempty residual set in dimension 3.
ad hoc to paper The Motto: λ ↦ R_λ and (λ,H) ↦ g(ψ^1_H;λ) are independent information systems
Section 2; underpins the control and ampleness propositions (9.1, 9.5, 11.3, Sublemma 15.3). Stated as intuition, not proved as a general principle.
standard math C(M) and C(M,ξ) are Baire spaces, so residual subsets are nonempty
Needed so that C_np(M) is nonempty, which makes the dimension-3 contradiction with Taubes unavoidable.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leafwise de Rham cohomology of generic Reeb foliations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5VEHUXD

@misc{pith2026250416453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leafwise de Rham cohomology of generic Reeb foliations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5VEHUXD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16453}
}

abstract

In this paper, we prove that there exists a residual subset of contact forms $\lambda$ (if any) on any compact connected orientable manifold $M$ for which the foliation de Rham cohomology of the associated Reeb foliation has $H^0(F_\lambda) \cong \mathbb R$. We also prove the same triviality for a generic choice of contact forms with fixed contact structure $\xi$. This vanishing result of $H^0(F_\lambda)$ is also equivalent to the statement that the Lie algebra of the group of strict contactomorphisms is isomorphic to the span of Reeb vector fields, and so isomorphic to the 1 dimensional abelian Lie algebra $\mathbb R$. On the other hand, we derive the rank of $H^1( F_\lambda)$ is infinite whenever $\lambda$ admits a closed Reeb oribt, i.e., whenever Weinstein's conjecture holds. In particular we prove that $H^1(F_\lambda)$ is infinite dimensional for all contact form $\lambda$ in dimension 3, thanks to Taubes' proof of 3-dimensional Weinstein's conjecture.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Quantitative contact Hamiltonian dynamics
math.SG 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Contact spectral invariants are constructed from contact Hamiltonian Floer homology and used to prove rigidity theorems for contact manifolds.
Strict contactomorphisms are scarce
math.SG 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

For a generic non-projectible contact form on a compact manifold, every strict contactomorphism is a Reeb flow, so the strict contactomorphism group is a countable union of real lines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

V. I. Arnold, Mathematical M ethods of C lassical M echanics , Springer, New York, 1989, 2nd Edition

work page 1989
[2]

Boyer, Completely integrable contact H amiltonian systems and toric contact structures on S^2 S^3 , SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom

Charles P. Boyer, Completely integrable contact H amiltonian systems and toric contact structures on S^2 S^3 , SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 7 (2011), Paper 058, 22 pp

work page 2011
[3]

Roger Casals and Oldrich Sp\'acil, Chern- Weil theory and the group of strict contactomorphisms , J. Topol. Anal. 8 (2016), no. 1, 59--87

work page 2016
[4]

Manuel de Le\'on and Manuel Lainz Valc\'azar, Contact H amiltonian systems , J. Math. Phys. 60 (2019), no. 10, 102902, 18 pp

2019
[5]

Oh, Thermodynamic reduction of contact dynamics, 2024, arXiv:2412.19319

Hyun-Seok Do and Y.-G. Oh, Thermodynamic reduction of contact dynamics, 2024, arXiv:2412.19319

arXiv 2024
[6]

Evans, An introduction to mathematical optimal control theory, Lecture note, available from https://math.berkeley.edu/ evans/control.course.pdf

Lawrence C. Evans, An introduction to mathematical optimal control theory, Lecture note, available from https://math.berkeley.edu/ evans/control.course.pdf

work page
[7]

Pure Appl

Andreas Floer, The unregularized gradient flow of the symplectic action, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 41 (1988), no. 6, 775--813

work page 1988
[8]

J. W. Gray, Some global properties of contact structures, Ann. Math. (2) 69 (1959), 421--450

work page 1959

Show all 33 references

[9]

M. W. Hirsch, Differential T opology , GTM, Springer-Verlag, New York, Heidelberg, Berlin, 1976

1976
[10]

H \"o rmander, On the theory of general partial differential operators, Acta

L. H \"o rmander, On the theory of general partial differential operators, Acta. Math. 94 (1955), 161--248

1955
[11]

Annalen 140 (1964), 124--146

, Differential operators of principal type, Math. Annalen 140 (1964), 124--146

1964
[12]

1, Springer-Verlag, New York, Heidelberg, Berlin, 1982, 4th Edition

Fritz John, P artial D ifferenential E quatioins , Applied Mahtermatical Sciences, vol. 1, Springer-Verlag, New York, Heidelberg, Berlin, 1982, 4th Edition

1982
[13]

Khesin and S

B. Khesin and S. Tabachnikov, Contact complete integrability, Regul. Chaotic Dyn. 15 (2010), no. 4--5, 504--520

2010
[14]

Oh, Alfonso Tortorella, and Luca Vitagliano, Deformations of coisotropic submanifolds in J acobi manifolds , J

Hong Van Le, Y.-G. Oh, Alfonso Tortorella, and Luca Vitagliano, Deformations of coisotropic submanifolds in J acobi manifolds , J. Symplectic Geom. 16 (2018), no. 4, 1051--1116

2018
[15]

Lutz, Sur quelques propri\'et\'es des formes diff\'erentielles en dimension trois, Th\`ese, Strsbourg, 1971

R. Lutz, Sur quelques propri\'et\'es des formes diff\'erentielles en dimension trois, Th\`ese, Strsbourg, 1971

1971
[16]

Martinet, Formes de contact sur les vari\'et\'es de dimension 3, Lecture Notes in Math., vol

J. Martinet, Formes de contact sur les vari\'et\'es de dimension 3, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 209, pp. 142--163, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York, 1971

1971
[17]

Nest and B

R. Nest and B. Tsygan, Deformations of symplectic lie algebroids, deformations of holomorphic symplectic structure, Asian J. Math. 5 (2001), 599--635

2001
[18]

Y.-G. Oh, Bordered contact instantons and their F redholm theory and generic transversalities , to appear in the proceedigns of Bumsig Kim's Memorial Conference, October 2021, KIAS, arXiv:2209.03548(v2)

2021 arXiv
[19]

, Generic one-jet evaluation transversality of contact instantons against contact distribution, preprint 2025, arXiv:2501.04722

2025 arXiv
[20]

, Contact H amiltonian dynamics and perturbed contact instantons with L egendrian boundary condition , preprint, arXiv:2103.15390(v2), 2021

2021 arXiv
[21]

, Geometry and analysis of contact instantons and entangement of L egendrian links I , preprint, arXiv:2111.02597, 2021

2021 arXiv
[22]

Oh and Jae-Suk Park, Deformations of coisotropic submanifolds and strong homotopy L ie algebroids , Invent

Y.-G. Oh and Jae-Suk Park, Deformations of coisotropic submanifolds and strong homotopy L ie algebroids , Invent. Math. 161 (2005), no. 2, 287--360

2005
[23]

Oh and Y

Y.-G. Oh and Y. Savelyev, Strict contactomorphisms are scarce, preprint, 2025, arXiv:2504.16458

2025 arXiv
[24]

Oh and R

Y.-G. Oh and R. Wang, Canonical connection on contact manifolds, Real and Complex Submanifolds, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol. 106, 2014, (arXiv:1212.4817 in its full version), pp. 43--63

2014 arXiv
[25]

Oh and Ke Zhu, Embedding property of J -holomorphic curves in C alabi- Y au manifolds for generic J , Asian J

Y.-G. Oh and Ke Zhu, Embedding property of J -holomorphic curves in C alabi- Y au manifolds for generic J , Asian J. Math. 13 (2009), no. 3, 323--340

2009
[26]

Yuhan Sun, Igor Uljarevi\'c, and Umut Varolgunes, Contact big fiber theroems, preprint 2025, arXiv:2503.04277

2025
[27]

Terrell, Some fundamental control theory

William J. Terrell, Some fundamental control theory. I. C ontrollability, observability, and duality , Amer. Math. Monthly 106 (1999), no. 8, 705--719

1999
[28]

, Some fundamental control theory. II . F eedback linearization of single input nonlinear systems , Amer. Math. Monthly 106 (1999), no. 9, 812--828

1999
[29]

W. P. Thurston and H. E. Winkelmkemper, On the existence of contact forms, Proceedings of AMS 52 (1975), 345--347

1975
[30]

Mihai Visinescu, Contact H amiltonian systems and complete integrability , AIP Conference Proceedings 1916 020002 (2017)

2017
[31]

Weinstein, Symplectic manifolds and their L agrangian submanifolds , Adv

A. Weinstein, Symplectic manifolds and their L agrangian submanifolds , Adv. in Math. 6 (1971), 329–346

1971
[32]

Chris Wendl, Transversality and super-rigidity for multiply covered holomorphic curves, Ann. of Math. (2) 198 (2023), no. 1, 93--230

2023
[33]

Mei-Lin Yau, Cylindrical contact homology of subcritical S tein-fillable contact manifolds , Geometry & Topology 8 (2004), 1243--1280

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

V. I. Arnold, Mathematical M ethods of C lassical M echanics , Springer, New York, 1989, 2nd Edition

work page 1989

[2] [2]

Boyer, Completely integrable contact H amiltonian systems and toric contact structures on S^2 S^3 , SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom

Charles P. Boyer, Completely integrable contact H amiltonian systems and toric contact structures on S^2 S^3 , SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 7 (2011), Paper 058, 22 pp

work page 2011

[3] [3]

Roger Casals and Oldrich Sp\'acil, Chern- Weil theory and the group of strict contactomorphisms , J. Topol. Anal. 8 (2016), no. 1, 59--87

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Manuel de Le\'on and Manuel Lainz Valc\'azar, Contact H amiltonian systems , J. Math. Phys. 60 (2019), no. 10, 102902, 18 pp

2019

[5] [5]

Oh, Thermodynamic reduction of contact dynamics, 2024, arXiv:2412.19319

Hyun-Seok Do and Y.-G. Oh, Thermodynamic reduction of contact dynamics, 2024, arXiv:2412.19319

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Evans, An introduction to mathematical optimal control theory, Lecture note, available from https://math.berkeley.edu/ evans/control.course.pdf

Lawrence C. Evans, An introduction to mathematical optimal control theory, Lecture note, available from https://math.berkeley.edu/ evans/control.course.pdf

work page

[7] [7]

Pure Appl

Andreas Floer, The unregularized gradient flow of the symplectic action, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 41 (1988), no. 6, 775--813

work page 1988

[8] [8]

J. W. Gray, Some global properties of contact structures, Ann. Math. (2) 69 (1959), 421--450

work page 1959