Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 34 references

Time-changed Dirac-Fokker-Planck equations on the lattice

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 A lattice Dirac equation modified by a fractional time-dependent diffusion term admits explicit convolution solutions built from Bessel-type kernels and generalised hypergeometric functions.

desk verdict Solid core Theorem 4.3, but Theorem 4.6 has a factor-of-two error; worthwhile for discrete Clifford analysis once fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04661 v2 pith:CCBWL7F3 submitted 2019-08-13 math-ph math.APmath.FAmath.MPmath.PR

N. Faustino This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.APmath.FAmath.MPmath.PR MSC 30G3535Q4142B0533E1235Q8439A1244A20
keywords discreteDiracoperatortime-changedFokker-PlanckequationfractionalBrownianmotionHurstparametermodifiedBesselfunctionsgeneralisedWrightMellin-Barnesrepresentationlatticefermiondoubling
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 proposes a lattice version of the Dirac equation in which a time-dependent diffusion term, with coefficient $\sigma^2Ht^{2H-1}$ controlled by the Hurst parameter $H$, is added to the discrete Dirac operator. The central claim is that the resulting time-changed Dirac-Fokker-Planck equation is completely solvable: every solution is a discrete convolution of the initial datum with an explicit kernel, and the same kernel can be re-expressed through solutions of a semi-discrete Klein-Gordon equation and a one-sided stable distribution. In the range $\alpha+1/2 \leq H < 1$ the paper establishes a complex contour representation of the kernel in terms of the special function $_1\Psi_1$, so the solution has a uniform analytic representation. A reader should care because this gives a concrete analytic handle on a lattice fermion model that interpolates between known Dirac-Kähler discretisations and a mass-cutoff regularisation, while connecting the model to stochastic-process language.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the factorisation of the discrete Dirac symbol: the Fourier multiplier $z_{h,\alpha}(\xi)$ of $D_{h,\alpha}$ satisfies $z_{h,\alpha}(\xi)^2=d_h(\xi)^2$, where $d_h(\xi)^2$ is the Fourier multiplier of the discrete Laplacian $-\Delta_h$. This factorisation lets the free evolution $\exp(i\mu tD_{h,\alpha})$ split into cosine and sine parts, and lets the diffusion factor $\exp(-\sigma^2t^{2H}d_h(\xi)^2/2)$ be written as a Laplace-type integral of a one-sided stable density. The proof machinery then combines this split with the known modified Bessel-function representation of the discrete heat kernel and with Mellin-transform relations for the special function $_1\Psi_1$; these ingredients together convert the abstract exponential solution into the convolution and contour representations stated in Theorems 4.3 and 4.6.

What would settle it

Take $n=1$, initial datum a discrete delta, and a fixed $H$ in $(0,1)$; substitute the explicit convolution solution from Theorem 4.3 into equation (3.4) and check equality for several $H$ values. A single $H$ where the identity fails would falsify the representation. For the stochastic claim, a more direct test is to compare the solution's variance with $\sigma^2t^{2H}$: for $H\neq 1/2$ the formal substitution is not a stochastic integral, so any mismatch with the claimed variance exposes the unsupported step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is the solution formula $\Phi(x,t)=\exp(i\mu t D_{h,\alpha}+\sigma^2t^{2H}\Delta_h/2)\Phi_0(x)$ for the Cauchy problem $\partial_t\Phi = i\mu D_{h,\alpha}\Phi + \sigma^2Ht^{2H-1}\Delta_h\Phi$, $\Phi(\cdot,0)=\Phi_0$, on the lattice $\mathbb{R}^n_{h,\alpha}\times[0,\infty)$. It proves that this exponential ansatz is the unique solution in the chosen Schwartz-class spaces and that it equals the discrete convolution of $\Phi_0$ with an explicitly defined kernel $F_H$. The paper then shows that the same solution can be written as a discrete convolution of the solution of a semi-discrete Klein-Gordon equation with a heat-type kernel whose factors are modified Bessel functions of the first kind; in Fourier variables this convolution becomes an integral of the Klein-Gordon solution against a one-sided stable density. Finally, under $\alpha+1/2 \leq H < 1$, the kernel functions admit complex contour representations in terms of the generalised hypergeometric-type function $_1\Psi_1$, giving a uniform analytic description of the solution on the whole lattice.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the formal rule $dB_s^H=(\sigma^2/2)\Delta_h Z_s\,ds^{2H}$; for $H\neq 1/2$ the noise process does not have a standard stochastic integral, so this step is heuristic, and the PDE should be read as a model rather than a derived stochastic equation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For initial data in the lattice Schwartz space, the DFP equation has a unique solution, and that solution is the explicit convolution formula of Theorem 4.3.
  • In the superdiffusive parameter range $\alpha+1/2 \leq H < 1$, the kernels can be evaluated through uniformly convergent contour integrals, enabling analytic or numerical computation on the lattice.
  • The representation reproduces the known Dirac-Kähler lattice solution when $\alpha$ and $H$ tend to $0$, and recovers a mass-cutoff regularisation of the lattice Dirac operator for $0<H\leq 1/2$ in the limit $\alpha \to 1/2$.
  • In the zero-drift case ($\mu=0$), the solution kernel factors into modified Bessel functions, giving the solution a probabilistic reading as a product of Bessel-type transition densities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test what happens when $H$ is below $\alpha+1/2$; checking numerically whether the convolution formula still satisfies the PDE would be a direct probe of how sharp the stated convergence condition is.
  • Since the stochastic derivation is formal for $H\neq 1/2$, an inference beyond the paper is that the equation is best treated as a deterministic model whose fractional time dependence is a modelling device; the probabilistic content would need a separate construction.
  • The explicit Bessel structure of the kernel suggests a computational route, evaluating the solution through fast Bessel-function routines, that the paper does not explore.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a lattice model called the time-changed Dirac-Fokker-Planck (DFP) equation, ∂tΦ = iµD_{h,α}Φ + σ²Ht^{2H-1}Δ_hΦ on R^n_{h,α}×[0,∞), and studies analytic representations of its solutions. The main results are: Theorem 4.3, which represents the solution as a semigroup acting on the initial datum and, via a discrete convolution identity, as a convolution with a kernel F_H; Corollary 4.5, which relates the DFP solution to the semi-discrete Klein-Gordon equation through a one-sided Lévy distribution; and Theorem 4.6, which gives a Mellin-Barnes representation of the kernel functions K_H^(β) in terms of generalized Wright functions of type 1Ψ_1. The paper's underlying algebraic observation, that the Dirac operator D_{h,α} and the Laplacian Δ_h commute because D_{h,α}² = -Δ_h, is used cleanly to construct explicit solutions. However, I find a normalization error in the convolution identity used to prove Theorem 4.3(ii), and a separate missing Jacobian factor in the Mellin computation of Theorem 4.6; both affect the advertised exact representations.

Significance. If the convolution representations were correctly normalized, the paper would provide an explicit analytic solution theory for a fractional, lattice-regularized Dirac-type equation, connecting discrete Clifford analysis, Hartman-Watson distributions, and Wright functions. The semigroup construction in Theorem 4.3(i) is sound and elegant, and the use of commuting operators is a genuine strength. The paper also offers a concrete target for numerical or asymptotic checks, since the kernel formulas are explicit and falsifiable. However, the convolution normalization failure and the factor-of-2 error in the Mellin-Barnes formula mean the central representation claims are not correct as printed; these are local, fixable errors rather than defects in the underlying PDE construction. The paper is likely to be valuable after the constants are rederived and the stochastic motivation is either made rigorous or clearly labeled as heuristic.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, eq. (2.9)] The discrete convolution identity (2.9) is not correct under the Fourier normalization (2.5)–(2.6). Take h=1, n=1 and f=δ_h. Since δ_h(0)=1, the convolution in (2.8) gives δ_h ⋆ Φ = Φ, so the left-hand side of (2.9) equals F_{h,α}Φ. But (2.5) gives F_{h,α}δ_h = (2π)^{-1/2}, so the right-hand side is (2π)^{-1/2}F_{h,α}Φ. Thus (2.9) fails by a factor of (2π)^{n/2} (and it also ignores the reflection inherent in the definition f(y-x)). Because Theorem 4.3(ii) is proved from (2.9), the convolution representation and the subsequent kernel formulas (4.9), (4.10), (4.13), and Corollary 4.5 inherit incorrect normalization constants. The authors should either renormalize the Fourier transform to an unnormalized lattice transform or insert the missing factor in the convolution identity, and then recompute the kernels consistently.
  2. [§4.3, eqs. (4.20)–(4.21) and (4.15)] The Mellin transform computation in (4.20) omits a Jacobian factor of 1/2. For g(t) = 0Ψ_1[(β+1/2,1); -c t²], the correct Mellin transform is (1/2)c^{-s/2}Γ(s/2)/Γ(β+1/2-s/2), whereas (4.20) drops the 1/2 and also writes the argument with a stray t^{-s}. Propagating the missing 1/2 through the Parseval identity (A.6) and the change s→2s shows that (4.21) and (4.15) should carry a prefactor √π(μ/2)^β/(2H), not √π(μ/2)^β/H. A direct sanity check confirms the printed formula is wrong: for n=1, h=1, β=0, μ=0, y=0, H=1/2, eq. (4.13) gives K_H^(0)(0,t|0,σ²) = √(2π)e^{-σ²t}, while eq. (4.15) as printed gives 2√(2π)e^{-σ²t}. This is a concrete internal inconsistency in the advertised Mellin-Barnes representation.
  3. [§3.1, eq. (3.2)] The derivation of the model equation (3.4) from the fBM-driven SDE (3.1) uses the formal replacement dB_s^H(x) = (σ²/2)Δ_h Z_s(x) ds^{2H}. For H ≠ 1/2, fractional Brownian motion is not a semimartingale, so the integral in (3.1) is not defined in the usual Itô sense and this substitution is not a mathematical step. The PDE (3.4) is a legitimate model on its own, and the semigroup solution in Theorem 4.3(i) is unaffected, but the claimed stochastic interpretation of the time-changed DFP equation is not supported. I recommend reframing Section 3.1 as heuristic motivation and softening the stochastic assertions in the abstract and in Remark 3.1.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, eq. (4.20)] The notation M{g(t)}(s) is confusing because the Mellin transform should be a function of s only; the displayed factor (μ²t²d_h(ξ)²/4)^{-s/2} contains a stray t^{-s} that should be removed.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'limit α,H → 0' is imprecise, since H is a fixed parameter in (0,1) throughout; the intended joint limiting statement should be clarified.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical inconsistencies, including the alternative notations R^n_{h,α} and R^n_{α,h}, and the abstract contains a visible typo ('pro posed'); a careful copyedit is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central solution representations are derived by direct Fourier verification and external Mellin/Wright identities, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's main results are self-contained verifications rather than circular reductions. Theorem 4.3 derives the solution of the time-changed DFP equation by taking the discrete Fourier transform, solving the resulting ordinary differential equation (4.5)-(4.7), and then applying Fourier inversion and the convolution property (2.9); the ansatz (4.8) is checked against the equation, not assumed as the conclusion. Theorem 4.2 similarly verifies that the proposed Klein-Gordon ansatz satisfies the Cauchy problem (4.1), using only the factorization z_h,alpha(ξ)^2 = d_h(ξ)^2 and elementary calculus. Corollary 4.5 and Theorem 4.6 rest on standard Mellin transform identities, the Parseval-type formula (A.6), and external results on generalized Wright functions from Kilbas et al.; no parameter is fitted to the target Mellin-Barnes representation. The author's self-citations to [12] provide the discrete Dirac operator construction, but the operator is redefined explicitly in Section 2.3, so the argument does not reduce to an unverified self-citation. The formal replacement dB_s^H = (σ^2/2) Δ_h Z_s ds^{2H} in Section 3.1 is a modeling ansatz, not a circular derivation of a prediction from its inputs. The apparent off-by-factor-2 issue in eqs. (4.20)-(4.21) noted in the skeptical review is a correctness concern, not a circularity concern, and does not affect this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No constants are fitted to data; h, alpha, H, sigma^2, and mu are model inputs with specified ranges, not determined by the derivation. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The only new object is the proposed PDE itself, which is a model equation rather than an entity with independent falsifiable evidence.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Clifford algebra relations (2.1) define the algebraic setting for the operators.
    Standard background from [31]; no new physics or ad hoc choices.
  • standard math Discrete Fourier transform and Parseval identity hold on the lattice R^n_{h,alpha}.
    Based on [28, Exercise 3.1.7] and standard discrete harmonic analysis.
  • standard math The Fourier multiplier factorization z_{h,alpha}(xi)^2 = d_h(xi)^2 holds.
    Follows from definitions (2.11) and (2.13), and is used throughout the proof of Lemma 4.1.
  • standard math D_{h,alpha} and Delta_h are self-adjoint with respect to the sesquilinear form (2.3).
    Cited from [12, p. 449]; needed for the weak-form derivation of (3.4).
  • standard math The operators D_{h,alpha} and Delta_h commute, so the exponential product rule (4.6) holds.
    Follows from Delta_h = -(D_{h,alpha})^2 and the functional calculus; used in Theorem 4.3.
  • standard math The one-sided Levy distribution satisfies the Laplace identity e^{-s^H} = integral e^{-su} L_H(u) du for 0 < H < 1.
    Standard result from [13,22], used in Corollary 4.5 via (A.13)-(A.14).
  • standard math Generalized Wright functions have the Mellin-Barnes representation (A.12) with the convergence conditions given in [20, Theorem 1].
    Imported from [20] and used in Theorem 4.6.
  • ad hoc to paper The fractional Brownian motion increment can be replaced by the formal expression dB_s^H(x) = sigma^2/2 Delta_h Z_s(x) ds^{2H}.
    Section 3.1 uses this to motivate (3.4), but it is not a valid stochastic integral for H != 1/2. This is the main formal step in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-changed Dirac-Fokker-Planck equations on the lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CCBWL7F3

@misc{pith2026190804661,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-changed Dirac-Fokker-Planck equations on the lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CCBWL7F3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04661}
}
abstract

A time-changed discretization for the Dirac equation is proposed. More precisely, we consider a Dirac equation with discrete space and continuous time perturbed by a time-dependent diffusion term $\sigma^2Ht^{2H-1}$ that seamlessly describes a latticizing version of the time-changed Fokker-Planck equation carrying the Hurst parameter $0<H<1$. Our model problem formulated on the space-time lattice $\mathbb{R}_{h,\alpha}^n\times [0,\infty)$ ($h>0$ and $0<\alpha<\frac{1}{2}$) preserves the main features of the Dirac-K\"ahler type discretization over the space-time lattice $h\mathbb{Z}^n\times [0,\infty)$ in case of $\alpha,H \rightarrow 0$, and encompasses a regularization of Wilson's approach [Physical review D, 10(8), 2445, 1974] for values of $H$ in the range $0<H\leq \frac{1}{2}$ (limit condition $\alpha \rightarrow \frac{1}{2}$). The main focus here is the representation of the solutions by means of discrete convolution formulae involving a kernel function encoded by (unnormalized) Hartman-Watson distributions -- ubiquitous on stochastic processes of Bessel type -- and the solutions of a semi-discrete equation of Klein-Gordon type. Namely, on our main construction the ansatz function $\widehat{\varPsi}_H(y)$ appearing on the discrete convolution representation may be rewritten as a Mellin convolution type integral involving the solutions $\varPsi(x,t|p)$ of a semi-discrete equation of Klein-Gordon type and a L\'evy one-sided distribution $L_H(u)$ in disguise. Interesting enough, by employing Mellin-Barnes integral representations it turns out that the underlying solutions of Klein-Gordon type may be represented through generalized Wright functions of type ${~}_1\Psi_1$, that converge uniformly in case that the quantity $\alpha+\frac{1}{2}$ may be regarded as an lower estimate for the Hurst parameter in the superdiffusive case (that is, if $\alpha+\frac{1}{2}\leq H<1$).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baaske, F., Bernstein, S., De Ridder, H., & Sommen, F. (20 14). On solutions of a discretized heat equation in discrete Clifford analysis . Journal of Difference Equations and Applications, 20(2), 271-295

    work page

  2. [2]

    N., & Salminen, P

    Borodin, A. N., & Salminen, P. (2012). Handbook of Brownian motion-facts and formulae . Birkh¨ auser

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    L., & Jansche, S

    Butzer, P. L., & Jansche, S. (1997). A direct approach to t he Mellin transform. Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications , 3(4), 325-376

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Cerejeiras, P., K¨ ahler, U., Ku, M., & Sommen, F. (2014). Discrete hardy spaces . Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications, 20(4), 715-750

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    A., Roncal, L., Torrea, J

    Ciaurri, ´O., Gillespie, T. A., Roncal, L., Torrea, J. L., & Varona, J. L . (2017). Harmonic analysis associated with a discrete Laplacian . Journal d’Analyse Math´ ematique, 132(1), 109- 131

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    De Bie, H., De Ridder, H., & Sommen, F. (2012). Discrete Clifford analysis: the one- dimensional setting . Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations, 57(7-8), 903-9 20

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    De Ridder, H., De Schepper, H., K¨ ahler, U., & Sommen, F. ( 2010). Discrete function theory based on skew Weyl relations . Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 138(9) , 3241-3256

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Faustino, N., K¨ ahler, U., & Sommen, F. (2007). Discrete Dirac operators in Clifford analysis . Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras, 17(3), 451-467

    work page 2007

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Faustino, N. (2016). Solutions for the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations on the la ttice based on Chebyshev polynomials . Complex Analysis and Operator Theory, 10(2), 379-399

    2016

  2. [10]

    Faustino, R., & Jos´ e, N. (2017). A conformal group approach to the Dirac-K¨ ahler system on the lattice . Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, 40(11), 411 8-4127

    2017

  3. [11]

    Faustino, N. (2017). Hypercomplex Fock states for discrete electromagnetic Sch r¨ odinger op- erators: A Bayesian probability perspective . Applied Mathematics and Computation, 315, 531-548

    2017

  4. [12]

    Faustino, N. (2019). Relativistic Wave Equations on the lattice: an operational perspective. In Topics in Clifford Analysis (pp. 439-469). Birkh¨ auser, C ham

    2019

  5. [13]

    Gorenflo, R., & Mainardi, F. (1998). Fractional calculus and stable probability distributions . Archives of Mechanics, 50(3), 377-388

    1998

  6. [14]

    (1997).Quaternionic and Clifford calculus for physicists and engineers

    G¨ urlebeck, K., & Spr¨ ossig, W. (1997).Quaternionic and Clifford calculus for physicists and engineers. Wiley

    1997

  7. [15]

    Hairer, M. (2005). Ergodicity of stochastic differential equations driven by f ractional Brown- ian motion . The Annals of Probability, 33(2), 703-758

    2005

  8. [16]

    Hairer, M., Maas, J., & W eber, H. (2014). Approximating rough stochastic PDEs . Commu- nications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 67(5), 776-870

    2014

  9. [17]

    Hairer, M., & Matetski, K. (2018). Discretisations of rough stochastic PDEs . The Annals of Probability, 46(3), 1651-1709

    2018

  10. [18]

    Hahn, M., Kobayashi, K., & Umarov, S. (2011). Fokker-Planck-Kolmogorov equations asso- ciated with time-changed fractional Brownian motion . Proceedings of the American mathe- matical Society, 139(2), 691-705

    2011

  11. [19]

    Hahn, M., Ryvkina, J., Kobayashi, K., & Umarov, S. (2011 ). On time-changed Gaussian pro- cesses and their associated Fokker-Planck-Kolmogorov equations. Electronic Communications in Probability, 16, 150-164

    2011

  12. [20]

    A., Saigo, M., & Trujillo, J

    Kilbas, A. A., Saigo, M., & Trujillo, J. J. (2002). On the generalized Wright function . Frac- tional Calculus and Applied Analysis, 5(4), 437–460

    2002

  13. [21]

    Kogut, J., & Susskind, L. (1975). Hamiltonian formulation of Wilson ’s lattice gauge theorie s. Physical Review D, 11(2), 395

    1975

  14. [22]

    Mainardi, F., & Pagnini, G. (2007). The role of the FoxWright functions in fractional sub- diffusion of distributed order . Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 207(2) , 245-257. 26 N. F AUSTINO

    2007

  15. [23]

    B., & Van Ness, J

    Mandelbrot, B. B., & Van Ness, J. W. (1968). Fractional Brownian motions, fractional noises and applications. SIAM Review, 10(4), 422-437

    1968

  16. [24]

    M., & Sikorskii, A

    Meerschaert, M. M., & Sikorskii, A. (2011). Stochastic models for fractional calculus (Vol. 43). W alter de Gruyter

    2011

  17. [25]

    Montvay, I., & M¨ unster, G. (1997). Quantum fields on a lattice . Cambridge University Press

    1997

  18. [26]

    B., & Ninomiya, M

    Nielsen, H. B., & Ninomiya, M. (1981). A no-go theorem for regularizing chiral fermions . Physics Letters B, 105(2-3), 219-223

    1981

  19. [27]

    Rabin, J. M. (1982). Homology theory of lattice fermion doubling . Nuclear Physics B, 201(2), 315-332

    1982

  20. [28]

    Ruzhansky, M., & Turunen, V. (2010). Pseudo-differential operators and symmetries: back- ground analysis and advanced topics (Vol. 2) . Springer Science & Business Media

    2010

  21. [29]

    Sushch, V. (2014). A discrete model of the Dirac-K¨ ahler equation. Reports on Mathematical Physics, 73(1), 109-125

    2014

  22. [30]

    Tarasov, V. E. (2014). Large lattice fractional FokkerPlanck equation . Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2014(9), P09036

    2014

  23. [31]

    Vaz Jr, J., & da Rocha Jr, R. (2016). An introduction to Clifford algebras and spinors . Oxford University Press

    2016

  24. [32]

    Wilson, K. G. (1974). Confinement of quarks . Physical review D, 10(8), 2445

    1974

  25. [33]

    Wilson, K. G. (1982). Nobel Lecture. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Media AB 2019. Tue. 9 Jul 2019. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1982/wilson/lecture/

    1982

  26. [34]

    Yor, M. (1980). Loi de l’indice du lacet brownien, et distribution de Hartma n-Watson. Prob- ability Theory and Related Fields, 53(1), 71-95. CMCC, Universidade Federal do ABC, 09210–580, Santo Andr ´e, SP, Brazil E-mail address : nelson.faustino@ufabc.edu.br | nelson.faustino...

    1980

Pith tools

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