On the linearizability of 3-webs: end of controversy (Q1704654): Difference between revisions

Using J.-P. Dufour's example of linearizable three-web, the author shows that the linearizability conditions found with his co-authors [Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl., Ser. A, Theory Methods 47, No. 4, 2643--2654 (2001; Zbl 1042.93526)] are more accurate than the conditions found by \textit{V. V. Goldberg} and \textit{V. V. Lychagin} [J. Geom. Anal. 16, No. 1, 69--115 (2006; Zbl 1104.53011)]. Reviewer's remarks: \begin{itemize} \item[1.] The contradiction between the two solutions of the problem of linearizability could arise from the fact that Goldberg and Lychagin [loc. cit.] considered ordered three-webs up to transformations preserving the order of foliations. In the example of Dufour, the order is not preserved. \item[2.] A positive solution to Gronwall's conjectures is given in our article [``Solution of Gronwall problem on equivalenceof Grassmannian webs'', Izvest. Penza State Pedagog. Univ. V. G. Belinsky, Phys. Math. Techn. Sci., Vol. 1, No. 26, 311--320 (2011)]. It is proved in the paper that a local diffeomorphism that transforms a Grassmannian three-web into another one is a projective transformation. This gives a positive solution to the Gronwall conjectures. This solution is also given in the monograph [the reviewer et al., Криволинейные три-ткани (Дифференциально-топологическая теория) (Russian). Tver': Tverskoĭ Gosudarstvennyĭ Universitet (2013; Zbl 1328.53018)]. \end{itemize}