Back to search
2112.00961

Hamilton-Jacobi Equations for Nonholonomic Magnetic Hamiltonian Systems

Hong Wang

correctmedium confidence
Category
Not specified
Journal tier
Specialist/Solid
Processed
Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM

Audit review

Theorem 5.3 of Wang (2021) explicitly proves the equivalence between the two Type II Hamilton–Jacobi conditions on the reduced nonholonomic magnetic system by pairing with the reduced distributional two-form and invoking non-degeneracy; see the statement of the theorem and the key equality ω^B_{K̄}(T λ̄ · X^B_H · ε − τ_{K̄} · T ε̄ · X^B_{h_{K̄}·ε̄}, T λ̄ · w) = 0 leading to the equivalence T γ̄ · X_ε = X^B_{K̄} · ε̄ ⇔ T λ̄ · X^B_H · ε = τ_{K̄} · T ε̄ · X^B_{h_{K̄}·ε̄} (non-degeneracy then gives equality of vectors) . The proof uses the reduction identities π*/G ω^B_{K̄} = ω^B_U and the defining reduced equation i_{X^B_{K̄}} ω^B_{K̄} = d h_{K̄} . By contrast, the candidate solution tacitly assumes extra hypotheses (e.g., Im(Tγ) ⊂ U and ε(M) ⊂ M), omits the necessary projections τ_U/τ_{K̄} at intermediate steps, and pairs at points where K̄ may be undefined, so it does not form a correct proof as written.

Referee report (LaTeX)

\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions

\textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid

\textbf{Justification:}

The paper establishes Type I/II Hamilton–Jacobi theorems for nonholonomic magnetic systems and their nonholonomic reductions. The results are technically sound and extend prior work in a natural, useful way. However, a few domain-of-definition and projection subtleties are glossed over. Adding explicit statements of where various objects are defined and inserting projections systematically would improve rigor and readability without changing the main results.