REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 42 references
Simple proof of Bourgain bilinear ergodic theorem and its extension to polynomials and polynomials in primes
T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read This paper proves that bilinear ergodic averages along two arbitrary integer-valued polynomials, and also along prime-indexed polynomial steps, converge almost everywhere.
desk verdict The claimed polynomial bilinear theorem is not established: the rotated oscillation estimates are asserted without proof and the interpolation step is flawed, though the linear Bourgain proof is mostly sound. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the identity (7.5), combined with the oscillation method. The identity is $$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N f(x+P(n))g(x-P(n)) = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \hat f(\$\theta$)\left(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N g_\$\theta$(x-P(n))\right)$e^{{2ix\theta}}$\,d\$\theta$,$$ with $g_\theta(x)=g(x)e^{ix\theta}$. It turns a product of two orbit segments into a continuum of ordinary linear averages of a single rotated function, so estimates from the linear theory can be integrated against $|\hat f|$. The oscillation method is the scheme of Lemma 3 by which a bound on the sum over dyadic blocks of the $\ell^2$ size of the maximal oscillation between block endpoints forces almost-everywhere convergence; the polynomial and prime-polynomial versions of these oscillation estimates are Lemmas 6 and 7, whose proofs rest on the discrete maximal inequality and the circle method for exponential sums. A spectral fact about the integer shift — that it has simple Lebesgue spectrum — is what, in this argument, upgrades these estimates to the rotated, uniformly-in-$\theta$ form (8.3)-(8.4) needed for arbitrary $P,Q$.
What would settle it
Choose $R(n)=n^2$, $Q(n)=n$, and for growing $K$ compute, on finite subsets of $\mathbb Z$, the quantity $\sum_{k=1}^K \|\sup_{N_k\le N\le N_{k+1}, N\in S_\rho} |\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n\le N} e^{in^2\theta}g(x+n)-\frac{1}{N_{k+1}}\sum_{n\le N_{k+1}} e^{in^2\theta}g(x+n)|\|_{\ell^2(\mathbb Z)}$. If there are sequences $g\in\ell^2(\mathbb Z)$ and phases $\theta$ for which this grows like $\sqrt{K}\|g\|_2$ rather than $o(\sqrt{K})\|g\|_2$, the uniform rotated inequality (8.3) fails, and with it the paper's route from the proved case $Q=-P$ to arbitrary polynomial pairs.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is Theorem 2.1: for any non-constant integer-valued polynomials $P(n),Q(n)$ and any invertible measure-preserving transformation $T$ of a probability space, the averages $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N f(T^{P(n)}x)g(T^{Q(n)}x)$ and $\frac{1}{\pi_N}\sum_{p\le N} f(T^{P(p)}x)g(T^{Q(p)}x)$ converge almost everywhere whenever $\frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{r'}=1$ and $f\in L^r$, $g\in L^{r'}$. The discovery is that this family of results can be reached from a single oscillation scheme: prove the convergence on the integer lattice $\ell^2(\mathbb Z)$ via Fourier analysis and maximal inequalities, then transfer to an arbitrary dynamical system by a bilinear transference principle. The decisive mechanism is the identity (7.5), which rewrites the bilinear average $f(x+P(n))g(x-P(n))$ as an integral of linear averages of rotated functions $g_\theta(x)=g(x)e^{ix\theta}$; this reduces the bilinear problem to a family of linear polynomial averages. To pass from the symmetric case $Q=-P$, where (7.5) applies directly, to arbitrary pairs $P,Q$, the paper states a rotated version of its polynomial and prime-polynomial oscillation estimates, uniformly in the rotation parameter $\theta$ (equations (8.3)-(8.4)).
Load-bearing premise
The proof's bridge to the general case of two distinct polynomials $P$ and $Q$ is an assertion after (8.2): the oscillation inequalities remain true when the summands are multiplied by a phase $e^{iR(n)\theta}$, uniformly over all phases $\theta$. The paper gives no proof or reference for this rotated version, so everything beyond the symmetric case $Q=-P$ stands on that unproved estimate.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- For any non-constant integer-valued polynomials $P,Q$, the averages $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N f(T^{P(n)}x)g(T^{Q(n)}x)$ converge for almost every $x$, for all $f\in L^r$ and $g\in L^{r'}$ with $\frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{r'}=1$.
- The same almost-everywhere convergence holds when the time parameter runs over primes: $\frac{1}{\pi_N}\sum_{p\le N} f(T^{P(p)}x)g(T^{Q(p)}x)$ converges for almost every $x$.
- Theorem 2.2 yields a strong maximal inequality for the supremum in $N$ of the polynomial bilinear averages, with $L^1$ norm bounded by $C_r\|f\|_r\|g\|_{r'}$; this is the mechanism that passes from dense classes of functions to all admissible $L^r\times L^{r'}$ pairs.
- The same oscillation method gives a unified treatment of Birkhoff's theorem, the homogeneous bilinear ergodic theorem, and their polynomial and prime-polynomial extensions, with a bilinear transference principle carrying the integer-lattice estimates to arbitrary measure-preserving systems.
Reading between the lines
- If the rotated oscillation inequalities (8.3)-(8.4) are supplied with proof, the same Fourier-rotation scheme would plausibly extend to pairs of sequences whose exponential sums obey uniform Weyl-type estimates, including multi-dimensional $\mathbb Z^d$ actions, not just polynomial powers of one transformation.
- A finite-range numerical check of the uniform-in-$\theta$ oscillation bound for, say, $R(n)=n^2$ and $Q(n)=n$ would provide evidence about whether the asserted rotated estimates are plausible; such a check cannot prove almost-everywhere convergence, but a clear violation would show the gap at (8.3)-(8.4) is genuine.
- The paper's final conjecture about averages with operators in the weak closure of $T$ would become a natural target if the rotated estimates are established, since the same integral-of-linear-averages mechanism could then handle a much wider class of exponent sequences.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper claims to give a simple proof of Birkhoff's ergodic theorem, a proof of Bourgain's homogeneous bilinear ergodic theorem, and an extension of these results to averages along arbitrary non-constant integer-valued polynomials and along primes evaluated at polynomials. The main theorem (Theorem 2.1) asserts almost everywhere convergence of (1/N)Σ f(T^{P(n)}x)g(T^{Q(n)}x) and the prime analogue for f∈L^r, g∈L^{r'} with 1/r+1/r'=1 for any invertible measure-preserving T. The proof strategy follows Bourgain's oscillation method: a spectral identity reduces the bilinear average to an integral of a linear average of a rotated function g_θ; oscillation lemmas (Lemmas 6 and 7, borrowed from Bourgain and Nair) are then invoked; and Theorem 2.2 claims a bilinear maximal inequality that is used to pass from L^∞ to L^r×L^{r'}. Section 7 derives the convergence only in the special case Q = -P (Equation (7.5)), while Section 8 asserts, without proof, a 'rotated version' of Lemmas 6 and 7 (equations (8.3)-(8.4)) that would handle general polynomial pairs, and also claims a bilinear interpolation step that is not carried out.
Significance. If the main theorem were fully proved, it would be a significant contribution: it would generalize Bourgain's bilinear ergodic theorem to polynomial iterates and to primes along polynomials, with a claimed sharp L^r×L^{r'} range. The paper also presents an expository proof of Birkhoff's theorem via Bourgain's oscillation method and cites several machine-checkable or reproducible lemmas from the literature. However, the central new claims are not established: the key estimates for general polynomial pairs are asserted rather than proved, and the interpolation argument does not mathematically close. The paper's strengths are its expository portions and the recognition of the role of the shift's simple Lebesgue spectrum, but the novelty of the extension is unsupported.
major comments (5)
- [Section 7, Equation (7.5)] The proof of convergence in Section 7 is carried out only for the special case Q = -P. The identity (7.5) expresses the average along P(n) and -P(n), and the subsequent estimates (7.6)-(7.8) concern g(x-P(n)). Theorem 2.1 is stated for arbitrary non-constant integer-valued polynomials P and Q; the passage from Q = -P to general P,Q is not present in Section 7 and is deferred to the assertions in Section 8. This is a load-bearing gap for the main theorem.
- [Section 8, Equations (8.3)-(8.4)] The 'rotated version' of Lemmas 6 and 7 is asserted with no proof and no reference. The statements (8.3)-(8.4) claim a uniform-in-θ oscillation estimate for averages weighted by e^{iR(n)θ} along a polynomial Q, and the same for prime averages. This is precisely the estimate needed to control the integral in (7.6) when the two polynomials P and Q are distinct: the phase e^{iR(n)θ} arises from the second polynomial and changes the Weyl sums fundamentally. Bourgain's lemmas, as cited in [6,7,33], do not contain such a uniform oscillatory estimate. The phrase 'it can be seeing that' is not a proof. Since (8.3)-(8.4) is the only bridge from the proved case Q = -P to arbitrary P,Q, the main theorem for general polynomial pairs is unsupported.
- [Section 8, Equation (8.2) and 'bilinear interpolation'] The proof of Theorem 2.2 does not yield the claimed maximal inequality. Equation (8.2) establishes an ℓ1×ℓr → ℓr bound, and the text notes the trivial ℓ∞×ℓ∞ → ℓ∞ bound. The claimed conclusion for f∈L^r, g∈L^{r'} with 1/r+1/r'=1 would require an endpoint such as ℓ1×ℓ∞ → ℓ1 or an interpolation that produces ℓr×ℓ^{r'} → ℓ1. The stated endpoints do not give this: bilinear interpolation between ℓ1×ℓr → ℓr and ℓ∞×ℓ∞ → ℓ∞ yields bounds with norms on the right in a range that does not include the conjugate-exponent pair claimed in Theorem 2.1. The remark at the end of Section 8 concedes that the claimed range is 1 ≤ 1/r+1/r' < 3/2, which is not the same as the conjugate-exponent range in Theorem 2.1. Thus the maximal inequality, and hence the L^r×L^{r'} extension, is not established.
- [Section 8, interpolated application to primes] The proof of the prime version of Theorem 2.2 and Theorem 2.1 is not written out. The text says 'Applying the same machinery' and 'The case r = +∞ can be handled in the same manner', but no prime analogue of (8.1)-(8.2) is proved. Since the prime maximal inequality (7.4) is cited from Nair and the rotated prime estimate (8.4) is asserted without proof, the prime part of the main theorem inherits the same gaps and adds no independent derivation.
- [Section 6, Equation (6.7)] In the proof of Bourgain's bilinear ergodic theorem, the passage from the ℓ2(Z) estimate (6.5)-(6.6) to the L^2(X) estimate (6.7) is only sketched as 'using carefully similar arguments to that in the proof of Propositions 1 and 2'. Since the transference principle in Propositions 1 and 2 is stated for the homogeneous averages with the form f(T^n x)g(T^{-n}x), and the oscillation estimate requires control along a sequence of intervals, the transference of the oscillation norm is not immediate. This leaves the proof of the classical Bourgain theorem itself incomplete, although this portion is not the main novelty.
minor comments (5)
- [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors and notation inconsistencies (e.g., 'Garcia' for 'Garsia', 'Etamedi' for 'Etemadi', 'curial' for 'crucial', 'Cauchy-Cauchy' repetitions, inconsistent use of [−π,π) and [−1/N,1/N] in Lemma 4 and its proof). These should be corrected.
- [Section 2, Theorem 2.2 statement] The displayed norm in Theorem 2.2 contains a misprint: it writes ||f||_r ||f||_{r'} instead of ||f||_r ||g||_{r'}. This should be fixed.
- [Section 5, Lemma 4 and Lemma 5] Lemma 4 is stated for g positive integrable on the circle, while the proof of Lemma 5 appears to prove the stronger estimate for arbitrary θ with a uniform constant; the relationship between the two lemmas and the role of the spectral measure σ_f (which is not necessarily absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure) should be clarified. The estimate is used at a point where absolute continuity of σ_f is asserted without proof.
- [Section 5, Theorem 5.1 vs Theorem 5.2] In the proof of Theorem 5.2, the spectral transfer uses σ_f and claims its absolute continuity with respect to Lebesgue measure; this is not generally true for arbitrary f∈ℓ2(Z). The argument appears to rely instead on the fact that the shift has Lebesgue spectrum, but the exposition is not precise about how σ_f is handled.
- [References] The reference [2] is cited as the author's own work, but the connection to the present proof is not explained. Several references (e.g., [13], [37]) are cited for standard lemmas; a precise pointer to the claimed rotated estimates (8.3)-(8.4) would be essential, but none is given.
Circularity Check
No circular step exhibited; the lone self-citation is a peripheral pointer, while the load-bearing inputs are external Bourgain and Nair lemmas.
full rationale
The derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. Section 7's polynomial case rests on Lemma 6 and Lemma 7, whose proofs are explicitly referred to the independent works of Bourgain and Nair: "The proof of the Lemma 6 and Lemma 7 is based essentially on the Hardy-Littlewood circle method. For their proof, we refer to [6], [7], [33, Lemmas 4 and 5]." The Fourier identity (7.5) is likewise attributed to Bourgain. The only self-citation is the introduction's pointer "For a finitary simple proof of it, we refer to [2]", where [2] is the author's own paper; that citation is not used in the proof of Theorem 2.1 or Theorem 2.2 and hence is not load-bearing. The rotated oscillation estimates (8.3)-(8.4) are asserted without proof, and the bilinear interpolation in Section 8 is only sketched, so the general P,Q case has a serious correctness gap; however, this is an unproved assertion rather than a circular derivation, since the estimates are not derived from the theorem being proved and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Shift map on Z has simple Lebesgue spectrum
- domain assumption Hardy-Littlewood maximal inequality and circle method estimates (Lemmas 6 and 7) cited to [6],[7],[33],[37]
- ad hoc to paper Rotated oscillation inequalities (8.3)-(8.4) hold uniformly in theta
- ad hoc to paper Bilinear interpolation yields maximal inequality for 1 <= 1/r + 1/r' < 3/2
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Simple proof of Bourgain bilinear ergodic theorem and its extension to polynomials and polynomials in primes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZWQ4SA4L
@misc{pith2026190802281,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Simple proof of Bourgain bilinear ergodic theorem and its extension to polynomials and polynomials in primes},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZWQ4SA4L}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02281}
}
abstract
We first present a modern simple proof of the classical ergodic Birkhoff's theorem and Bourgain's homogeneous bilinear ergodic theorem. This proof used the simple fact that the shift map on integers has a simple Lebesgue spectrum. As a consequence, we establish that the homogeneous bilinear ergodic averages along polynomials and polynomials in primes converge almost everywhere, that is, for any invertible measure preserving transformation $T$, acting on a probability space $(X, \mathcal{B}, \mu)$, for any $f \in L^r(X,\mu)$ , $g \in L^{r'}(X,\mu)$ such that $\frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{r'}= 1$, for any non-constant polynomials $P(n),Q(n), n \in \mathbb{Z}$, taking integer values, and for almost all $x \in X$, we have, $$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^{N}f(T^{P(n)}x) g(T^{Q(n)}x),$$ and $$\frac{1}{\pi_N}\sum_{\overset{p \leq N}{p\textrm{~~prime}}}f(T^{P(p)}x) g(T^{Q(p)}x),$$ converge. Here $\pi_N$ is the number of prime in $[1,N]$.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Aaronson, An introduction to infinite ergodic theory
J. Aaronson, An introduction to infinite ergodic theory. Mathem atical Sur- veys and Monographs, 50. American Mathematical Society, Provid ence, RI, 1997
work page 1997
-
[2]
E. H. el Abdalaoui, On the homogeneous ergodic bilinear averages with M¨ obius and Liouville weights, arXiv:1706.07280v3 [math.CA]
-
[3]
Beckner, Inequalities in Fourier analysis, Annals of Mathematic s, Second Series, 102 (1): 159-182
W. Beckner, Inequalities in Fourier analysis, Annals of Mathematic s, Second Series, 102 (1): 159-182
-
[4]
A. Bellow, Transference principles in ergodic theory, Harmonic An alysis and Partial Differential Equations, edited by Michael Christ, Carlos E. K enig, and Cora Sadosky, Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, (1999), 2 7-39
work page 1999
-
[5]
J. Bourgain, On the maximal ergodic theorem for certain subset s of the integers, Israel Journal of Mathematics, Vol. 61, (1) , 1988, 39 -72
work page 1988
-
[6]
J. Bourgain, On the pointwise ergodic theorem on Lp for arithmetic sets, Israel Journal of Mathematics, Vol. 61, (1), 1988, 73-84
work page 1988
-
[7]
Bourgain, An approach to pointwise ergodic theorems, Spring er L.N.M., Vol
J. Bourgain, An approach to pointwise ergodic theorems, Spring er L.N.M., Vol. 1317, 204-223
-
[8]
J. Bourgain, Pointwise ergodic theorems on arithmetic sets, with an appen- dix on return time sequences (jointly with H. Fnrstenberg, Y. Katz nelson, D. Ornstein), Publications Math´ ematiques de l’I.H.E.S., (69), 1989, 5 -45
work page 1989
Show all 42 references
-
[9]
Bourgain, Double recurrence and almost sure convergence, J
J. Bourgain, Double recurrence and almost sure convergence, J. Reine Angew. Math., 404 (1990), pp. 140-161
1990
-
[10]
A. P. Calderon, Ergodic theory and translation-invariant oper ators, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 59 (1968), 349-353
1968
-
[11]
Carleson, On convergence and growth of partial sums of Fo urier series, Acta Math
L. Carleson, On convergence and growth of partial sums of Fo urier series, Acta Math. 116 (1966), 135157
1966
-
[12]
Cuny and M
C. Cuny and M. Weber, Ergodic theorems with arithmetical weights , to ap- pear in Isr. J. Math., available at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.7640. WITH OSCILLATION METHOD. 29
-
[13]
Demeter, Pointwise convergence of the ergodic bilinear Hilber t transform, Illinois J.Math
C. Demeter, Pointwise convergence of the ergodic bilinear Hilber t transform, Illinois J.Math. 51.4 (2007), pp. 1123-1158
2007
-
[14]
Demeter, T
C. Demeter, T. Tao, C. Thiele, Maximal multilinear operators. Tr ans. Amer. Math. Soc. 360 (2008), no. 9, 4989-5042
2008
-
[15]
Etemadi, An elementary proof of the strong law of large numb ers
N. Etemadi, An elementary proof of the strong law of large numb ers. Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete 55 (1981), no. 1, 119-122
1981
-
[16]
Furstenberg, Recurrence in ergodic theory and combinato rial number theory, M
H. Furstenberg, Recurrence in ergodic theory and combinato rial number theory, M. B. Porter Lectures. Princeton University Press, Prin ceton,N.J., 1981
1981
-
[17]
V. F. Gaposhkin, A theorem on the convergence almost everyw here of a sequence of measurable functions, and its applications to sequenc es of sto- chastic integrals. Math. USSR Sbornik 33 (1977), -1-17
1977
-
[18]
V. F. Gaposhkin, Individual ergodic theorem for normal opera tors on L2 , Funct. Anal. Appl., 15 (1981), 14-18
1981
-
[19]
Garcia, Topics in almost everywhere convergence , Markham Publishing Company, Chicago, 1970
A. Garcia, Topics in almost everywhere convergence , Markham Publishing Company, Chicago, 1970
1970
-
[20]
Grafakos, Modern Fourier analysis, Third edition
L. Grafakos, Modern Fourier analysis, Third edition. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 250. Springer, New York, 2014
2014
-
[21]
Grafakos, T
L. Grafakos, T. Tao, and E. Terwilleger, Lp bounds for a maximal dyadic sum operator, Math. Z. 246 (2004), no. 1-2, 321-337
2004
-
[22]
P. Hall, C. C. Heyde, Martingale limit theory and its application. Pro ba- bility and Mathematical Statistics. Academic Press, Inc. [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], New York-London, 1980
1980
-
[23]
G. H. Hardy and J. E. Littlewood, A maximal theorem with functio n- theoretic applications, Acta Mathematica, 54 (1930), 81-116
1930
-
[24]
G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood and G. P´ olya, Inequalities, secon d ed., Cam- bridge, at the University Press, 1952
1952
-
[25]
R. A. Hunt, On the convergence of Fourier series, Orthogona l Expansions and their Continuous Analogues (Proc. Conf., Edwardsville, Ill., 1967 ), Southern Illinois Univ. Press, Carbondale, Ill., 1968, pp. 235255
1967
-
[26]
Jones, Z
R. Jones, Z. Kaufman, J. Rosenblatt, and M. Wierdl, Oscillation in ergodic theory, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 18 (1998), 889935
1998
-
[27]
Katznelson and B
Y. Katznelson and B. Weiss, A simple proof of some ergodic theor ems, Israel J. Math., 42 (1982), no. 4, 291296
1982
-
[28]
Keane, K
M. Keane, K. Petersen, Easy and nearly simultaneous proofs o f the er- godic theorem and maximal ergodic theorem. (English summary) Dyn amics & stochastics, 248251, IMS Lecture Notes Monogr. Ser., 48, Ins t. Math. Statist., Beachwood, OH, 2006
2006
-
[29]
Lacey and C
M. Lacey and C. Thiele, A proof of boundedness of the Carleson operator, Math. Res. Lett. 7 (2000), no. 4, 361370
2000
-
[30]
Mirek and B
M. Mirek and B. Trojan, Cotlar’s ergodic theorem along the prime numbers, J. Fourier Ana. and App. 21 (2015), 822848
2015
-
[31]
M. G. Nadkarni, Basic ergodic theory, Reprint of the 1997 original. Texts and Readings in Mathematics, 15. Hindustan Book Agency, New Delhi, 201 3
1997
-
[32]
M. G. Nadkarni, Spectral theory of dynamical systems, Reprint of the 1998 original. Texts and Readings in Mathematics, 15. Hindustan Book Age ncy, New Delhi, 2011. 30 E. H. EL ABDALAOUI
1998
-
[33]
Nair, On polynomials in primes and J
R. Nair, On polynomials in primes and J. Bourgains circle method app roach to ergodic theorems II, Stud. Math. 105 (1993), no. 3, 207–233
1993
-
[34]
Parry, Topics in ergodic theory, Reprint of the 1981 original
W. Parry, Topics in ergodic theory, Reprint of the 1981 original. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, 75. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , 2004
1981
-
[35]
Riesz, Sur un Th´ eor` eme de maximum de Mm
F. Riesz, Sur un Th´ eor` eme de maximum de Mm. Hardy et Littlewo od, J. London Math. Soc., 7 (1), 1932 10-13
1932
-
[36]
Simon, Harmonic analysis
B. Simon, Harmonic analysis. A Comprehensive Course in Analysis, Part 3. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2015
2015
-
[37]
Thouvenot, La convergence presque sˆ ure des moyennes ergodiques suiv- ant certaines sous-suites d’entiers (d’apr` es Jean Bourgain)
J-P. Thouvenot, La convergence presque sˆ ure des moyennes ergodiques suiv- ant certaines sous-suites d’entiers (d’apr` es Jean Bourgain). (French) [Almost sure convergence of ergodic means along some subsequences of in tegers (after Jean Bourgain)] S´ eminaire Bourbaki, Vol. ...
1990
-
[38]
Weber, Dynamical Systems and Processes, European Mathematical So- ciety Publishing House, IRMA Lectures in Mathematics and Theoretic al Physics 14, 2009
M. Weber, Dynamical Systems and Processes, European Mathematical So- ciety Publishing House, IRMA Lectures in Mathematics and Theoretic al Physics 14, 2009
2009
-
[39]
Wiener, The Fourier integral and certain of its applications, Dover publi- cations, (1958)
N. Wiener, The Fourier integral and certain of its applications, Dover publi- cations, (1958)
1958
-
[40]
Wierdl, Pointwise ergodic theorem along the prime numbers
M. Wierdl, Pointwise ergodic theorem along the prime numbers. Israel J. Math. 64 (1988), no. 3, 315-336
1988
-
[41]
Williams, Probability with martingales, Cambridge Mathematical Text- books
D. Williams, Probability with martingales, Cambridge Mathematical Text- books. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991
1991
-
[42]
Zygmund, Trigonometric series vol
A. Zygmund, Trigonometric series vol. I & II, second ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1959. University of Rouen Normandy, LMRS UMR 6085 CNRS-UNIV, F768 01 Saint-´Etienne-du-Rouvray, France E-mail address : elhoucein.elabdalaoui@univ-rouen.fr
1959
Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.