Teichm\"uller spaces of generalized symmetric homeomorphisms

Huaying Wei; Katsuhiko Matsuzaki

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Teichm\"uller spaces of generalized symmetric homeomorphisms

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The Bers embedding is a homeomorphism for generalized symmetric Teichmüller spaces.

desk verdict Genuinely new family of Teichmüller spaces, well-built architecture, but one under-specified horoball containment lemma needs to be pinned down. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06618 v1 pith:KJTA6XBK submitted 2019-08-19 math.CV

Huaying Wei , Katsuhiko Matsuzaki This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.CV MSC 30F6030C6232G1537E1058D05

keywords generalizedsymmetrichomeomorphismTeichmüllerspaceBersembeddingbarycentricextensionBeltramicoefficientcomplexBanachmanifoldquadraticdifferential

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 introduces a class of circle homeomorphisms, the generalized symmetric homeomorphisms associated with a finite set $X$ of boundary points, and proves these homeomorphisms carry a complex-analytic parameter space. The move is to allow an extending quasiconformal map's complex dilatation to be arbitrarily small except inside horoballs tangent at the points of $X$; after dividing by Möbius transformations, one obtains a Teichmüller space $T_X^*$ lying between the universal Teichmüller space and its symmetric subspace. The paper's central result is that the Bers Schwarzian derivative map restricts to a holomorphic split submersion from the Beltrami space $M_X^*(D)$ onto an open domain in a Banach space $B_X^*(D^*)$, so the Bers embedding becomes a homeomorphism and $T_X^*$ is a complex Banach manifold. A reader should care because this gives a precise infinite-dimensional complex structure to a whole family of boundary-regularity classes, with a natural interpolation question already in view: as $X$ grows to cover the circle, the spaces may interpolate between symmetric and universal Teichmüller theory.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the generalized Beltrami spaces $M_X^*(D)$ and their Schwarzian images $B_X^*(D^*)$. $M_X^*(D)$ holds complex dilatations whose essential supremum outside the union of finitely many horoballs tangent at $X$ tends to zero; $B_X^*(D^*)$ holds bounded holomorphic quadratic differentials whose hyperbolic norm outside the reflected horoballs tends to zero. The proof chain runs through three mechanisms: an integral representation of the Schwarzian derivative shows $\Phi$ maps $M_X^*(D)$ into $B_X^*(D^*)$; the barycentric extension, applied to generalized symmetric boundary maps, produces a global continuous section $s: T_X^* \to M_X^*(D)$; and the holomorphic split submersion of $\Phi$ is established by building local holomorphic sections from a quasiconformal reflection formula, then moving any section to a prescribed fiber point by right translation with a trivial Beltrami coefficient. The key structural point is that these right translations are biholomorphic automorphisms of $M_X^*(D)$, which compensates for the fact that $M_X^*(D)$ is not a group under composition.

What would settle it

Take an explicit Beltrami coefficient $\nu$ with zero boundary values that lies in $M_X^*(D)$, solve for its quasiconformal map $f_\nu$, and check whether every marked horoball $D^{\xi_i}_t$ is mapped into some horoball $D^{\xi_i}_{t'}$ tangent at the same point. If one $f_\nu$ sends a marked horoball outside all such horoballs, Lemma 6.1 fails and the split-submersion theorem no longer holds; the paper supplies no explicit constants that would preclude this.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is the statement of Corollary 6.4: for any finite subset $X$ of the unit circle, the Bers embedding $\beta: T_X^* \to B_X^*(D^*)$ is a homeomorphism onto the domain $\beta(T) \cap B_X^*(D^*)$ inside the Banach space of bounded holomorphic quadratic differentials whose hyperbolic norm vanishes off the reflected horoballs at $X$. Consequently $T_X^*$ carries a complex Banach manifold structure modeled on $B_X^*(D^*)$, and the Teichmüller projection $\pi: M_X^*(D) \to T_X^*$ is a holomorphic split submersion. This is an extension, not merely an analogue, of the single-tangent-point construction: the same Bers-Schwarzian machinery works when the small-dilatation condition is measured against finitely many horoballs, and the proof supplies a global continuous section through the barycentric extension before constructing local holomorphic sections.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that any controlled-distortion self-map of the disk that fixes the boundary pointwise sends each small disk internally tangent to the circle at a marked point inside a comparable such disk, a distortion estimate the paper cites without proving.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every generalized symmetric Teichmüller space $T_X^*$ is contractible, because the barycentric section realizes it as a retract of the contractible space $M_X^*(D)$.
The Bers image of $T_X^*$ is exactly $\beta(T) \cap B_X^*(D^*)$, showing that these generalized symmetric spaces appear inside the universal Bers domain as open intersections with closed subspaces.
The Teichmüller projection $\pi: M_X^*(D) \to T_X^*$ is a holomorphic split submersion, so equivalent generalized symmetric Beltrami coefficients form a smooth infinite-dimensional complex manifold rather than only a topological quotient.
The complex structure is induced by the Schwarzian derivative through a section that is conformally natural, so no arbitrary choice of representatives enters the manifold structure.

Reading between the lines

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

If one takes increasing finite subsets $X_n$ exhausting the circle, the contractibility and intersection formulas in this paper give a concrete route toward the authors' stated interpolation between the little and universal Teichmüller spaces: the question becomes how the Banach subspaces $B_{X_n}^*(D^*)$ grow to fill the universal Bers domain.
Because $B_X^*(D^*)$ decomposes as the sum of the single-point subspaces $B_{\xi_i}^*(D^*)$, one can test whether the complex charts on $T_X^*$ respect this additive splitting, with one Banach coordinate per tangency point.
An explicit version of the distortion bound cited in Lemma 6.1 would turn the existence of the complex structure into quantitative bounds on the barycentric section and on the Bers image; the constants are not stated in this paper.

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

Bottom line: this paper does something genuinely new—it defines generalized symmetric homeomorphisms for a finite set X of boundary tangency points and proves the corresponding Teichmüller space T_X^* is a complex Banach manifold via the Bers embedding. The main architecture follows the Earle-Markovic-Saric and Hu-Wu-Shen templates, but the generalization is nontrivial: the space M_X^* is not a group, so the submersion argument needs extra care. The paper delivers on that with Proposition 6.2 and Lemma 6.1.

The strongest part is Theorem 5.1, the two-way transfer between M_X^* and B_X^*, and its consequences (barycentric section, Corollaries 5.2–5.4). I checked the area computation in Theorem 4.1; it's sound. The proof of Theorem 6.3 is more fleshed out than the reader's note suggests: the 'standard argument' comment is followed by an actual Ahlfors-reflection construction, and it works modulo Lemma 6.1.

The real soft spot is exactly what the stress test flags. Lemma 6.1 asserts that a trivial ν ∈ M_X^* gives a biholomorphic automorphism r_ν of M_X^*. The key geometric claim is that f_ν maps a horoball D^ξ_t into D^ξ_{t'} with t'→0. The proof says 'by some distortion theorem of quasiconformal maps' and gives a cross-ratio sketch. That is a genuine hole in the presentation: no theorem name, no dependence of t' on K and t, no details of the four-point estimate. Since Proposition 6.2 and Theorem 6.3 rely on this containment, the gap is load-bearing. It is very likely fillable—Teichmüller's cross-ratio distortion is the right tool—but a referee should ask for a complete lemma.

Citation pattern is clean. [19] is used only for the non-subgroup fact, and [12]/[9] are appropriate anchors. No circularity, no invented entities.

Who is this for? Teichmüller theorists interested in interpolation between T_0 and T. The paper deserves a serious referee; I'd make acceptance conditional on filling Lemma 6.1, but I would not desk reject it.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces, for a finite subset X of the unit circle, a class of generalized symmetric homeomorphisms QS_X^* and a corresponding Teichmüller space T_X^* = Möb(S)\QS_X^*. The authors define Beltrami coefficient spaces M_X^*(D) and Schwarzian derivative spaces B_X^*(D*) using horoballs tangent at the points of X, and prove that the Bers Schwarzian derivative map sends M_X^*(D) into B_X^*(D*) (Theorem 4.1). They then use the Douady–Earle barycentric extension to show that the barycentric section carries T_X^* into M_X^*(D) (Corollary 5.2), that T_X^* is contractible (Corollary 5.3), and that its Bers embedding image is exactly β(T)∩B_X^*(D*) (Corollary 5.4). The main structural result, Corollary 6.4, asserts that the Bers embedding is a homeomorphism onto this domain, giving T_X^* a complex Banach manifold structure modeled on B_X^*(D*). The proof of Theorem 6.3, which establishes that Φ is a holomorphic split submersion, relies on Lemma 6.1 and Proposition 6.2 concerning right translations by trivial Beltrami coefficients that preserve M_X^*(D).

Significance. If the main claim holds, the paper gives a nontrivial family of Teichmüller spaces lying between the universal Teichmüller space and the little universal Teichmüller space, each carrying a complex Banach manifold structure induced by the Bers Schwarzian derivative. This extends the single-point symmetric Teichmüller space result of Hu–Wu–Shen to finite sets of horoball tangency points and provides a natural candidate for interpolating between T0 and T. The paper has several strengths: the definition of M_X^*(D) and B_X^*(D*) is careful and geometrically motivated; Theorem 4.1 is proved with a concrete Astala–Zinsmeister estimate; Theorem 5.1 gives a two-way equivalence that cleanly yields the barycentric section property; and the final statement Corollary 6.4 is precise and testable. The main weakness is that the split-submersion proof rests on a horoball-containment lemma whose proof is only a sketch, so the complex-manifold conclusion is not yet fully supported.

major comments (3)

[§6, Lemma 6.1] The proof of Lemma 6.1 is not complete. The key assertion that a boundary-identity quasiconformal self-map of the upper half-plane maps a horoball H_t into another horoball H_{t'} is justified only by the phrase 'by some distortion theorem of quasiconformal maps,' followed by a four-point cross-ratio sketch. No theorem is named, no quantitative statement is given, and no control of t' in terms of t and K = (1+||ν||_∞)/(1−||ν||_∞) is supplied. This lemma is load-bearing: it is used to prove that the right translation r_ν is a biholomorphic automorphism of M_X^*(D), which is then used in Theorem 6.3 to move a local holomorphic section to the required base point, and the same argument is invoked in Proposition 6.2. Since Corollary 6.4 depends on Theorem 6.3, the central claim is not fully established until this gap is filled. Please provide a complete proof with the precise distortion theorem (e.g., Teichmüller's cross-ratio distortion theorem as in Ahlfors [2, Chapter III.D]) and explicit bounds.
[§6, Theorem 6.3, formula (4)] The step 'Since ψ, φ ∈ B_X^*(D*), the above estimate implies that μψ∘f_φ ∈ M_X^*(D). Then, we see from (4) that νψ ∈ M_X^*(D)' is too quick. The estimate (3) bounds |μψ(f_φ(ζ))| by a multiple of ρ^{-2}_{D*}(ζ*)|ψ(ζ*)−φ(ζ*)|, giving decay outside the reflected horoballs; however, one still has to translate this into a statement about ζ ∈ D outside a common union of horoballs, and then combine that with μ ∈ M_X^*(D) in the nonlinear formula (4), where the factor τ is not constant. Because M_X^*(D) is not closed under the standard composition operation for Beltrami coefficients, the conclusion νψ ∈ M_X^*(D) requires a separate pointwise estimate. Please spell out this argument explicitly.
[§6, Proposition 6.2] Proposition 6.2 asserts that the composition ν = μ1^{-1}*μ2 of equivalent Beltrami coefficients μ1, μ2 ∈ M_X^*(D) lies in M_X^*(D), with the proof referring back to 'the argument in the proof of Lemma 6.1.' This inherits the gap in Lemma 6.1 and also leaves implicit the fact that the inverse μ1^{-1} is handled without a separate proof. The proposition should be proved directly, including the horoball-containment estimate for the relevant composition, rather than by invoking an incomplete lemma.

minor comments (5)

[§2.2] The definition of H_t^* contains a typesetting corruption: '−y /greaterorequalslantt' should read '-y ≥ t'.
[§4, proof of Theorem 4.1] The notation for the Möbius transformation changes from γ_ζ to γ_{ζ*} in the line 'diam^2(γ_{ζ*}(D^{ξ_i}_t))'; please use the notation consistently throughout the area estimate.
[§5, proof of Theorem 5.1] In the final line of the (1)⇒(2) direction, the conclusion 'Φ(µ) − Φ(ν) ∈ B_X^*(D)' should read 'B_X^*(D*)'.
[§6, equation (4)] The definition of τ appears corrupted in the text as 'τ = ∂fφ / ∂fφ'; it should be the appropriate ratio of ∂̄ f_φ and ∂ f_φ, and the formula for νψ should be checked against the standard Beltrami composition rule.
[§5 and §6] The paper invokes [9, Lemma 6.1] for convergence of Φ(μ_k) and s([μ_k]) without stating the lemma or verifying its hypotheses in the present setting; please include a precise statement or a more detailed citation so the reader can verify the step.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central derivation is not circular: the Teichmüller-space theorems are obtained from external tools (Ahlfors, Astala–Zinsmeister, Douady–Earle, Earle–Markovic–Sarić); the only self-citation [19] is a peripheral non-subgroup remark, and the fragile horoball-containment step in Lemma 6.1 is an unproved estimate rather than an assumption of the target result.

full rationale

The main chain (Definition 3.2, Theorem 4.1, Theorem 5.1, Corollary 5.2, Theorem 6.3, Corollary 6.4) does not reduce to its inputs. The spaces M_X^*(D) and B_X^*(D*) are defined independently, and the forward inclusion Phi(M_X^*(D)) subset B_X^*(D*) is proved from the Astala–Zinsmeister integral estimate, not from the definition of T_X^*. The converse inclusion in Corollary 5.4 is obtained from Theorem 5.1, whose proof adapts the Earle–Markovic–Sarić barycentric-extension argument using [9, Lemma 6.1] rather than assuming the target complex structure. Theorem 6.3 constructs its local section from Ahlfors's quasiconformal reflection and the Bers Schwarzian derivative map; the use of Lemma 6.1 and Proposition 6.2 only transports a section along an equivalence fiber after the local section is independently constructed for the barycentric representative. The only self-citation with mathematical content is [19], used for the remark that QS_*(R) is not a subgroup; this is peripheral and not load-bearing for the main theorems. The genuine weakness is Lemma 6.1, where the horoball-containment estimate is asserted by an unnamed distortion theorem without explicit constants or a named theorem; this is an omitted verification or proof gap, not a circular step, because the estimate is an external quasiconformal-distortion fact and the target complex-Banach-manifold structure is nowhere assumed in its proof. Accordingly, no derivation-equivalent-to-input circularity is present; the paper earns a low score reflecting only the minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard theorems of Teichmüller theory and quasiconformal mappings; no numerical parameters are fitted and no new physical or mathematical entities are postulated outside the paper's explicit definitions. The most nontrivial background inputs are the Earle-Markovic-Saric limit lemma and the Ahlfors reflection estimates, which are quoted rather than proved.

assumptions (6)

standard math Measurable Riemann mapping theorem for the existence and uniqueness of quasiconformal solutions to the Beltrami equation.
Used in Section 2.1 to define the projection pi: M(D) -> T and to identify T with M(D)/~.
standard math Douady-Earle barycentric extension is conformally natural, diffeomorphic, bi-Lipschitz, and defines a continuous section s of pi.
Used throughout Sections 5 and 6; the properties are quoted from [7] and [9].
standard math Astala-Zinsmeister integral estimate for the Schwarzian derivative with constant C depending only on the sup norm of the Beltrami coefficient.
Used in Theorem 4.1 to show that Phi maps M_X^*(D) into B_X^*(D*); quoted from [3] and [6].
standard math Earle-Markovic-Saric limit lemma, stating that limits of normalized quasiconformal maps pass through the barycentric section and the Bers projection.
Used in Theorem 5.1 to pass through limits of the barycentric extension; quoted from [9], not proved in this paper.
standard math Ahlfors quasiconformal reflection estimates and the unique locally univalent solution to the Schwarzian equation with small norm.
Used to construct the local holomorphic section in Theorem 6.3; quoted from [1].
standard math A quasiconformal distortion estimate, attributed to Teichmüller, ensuring that f_nu(H_t) stays within horizontal strips H_t'' subset H_t'.
Used in Lemma 6.1 to prove horoball containment for trivial Beltrami coefficients; the paper gives only a sketch and an implicit citation to [2, Chapter III.D].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Teichm\"uller spaces of generalized symmetric homeomorphisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJTA6XBK

@misc{pith2026190806618,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Teichm\"uller spaces of generalized symmetric homeomorphisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJTA6XBK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06618}
}

read the original abstract

We introduce the concept of a new kind of symmetric homeomorphisms on the unit circle, which is derived from the generalization of symmetric homeomorphisms on the real line. By the investigation of the barycentric extension for this class of circle homeomorphisms and the biholomorphic automorphisms induced by trivial Beltrami coefficients, we endow a complex Banach manifold structure on the space of those generalized symmetric homeomorphisms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[19]

Symmetric and strongly symmetric homeomorphisms on the real line with non-symmetric inversion

H. W ei and K. Matsuzaki, An example of a symmetric homeom orphism of the real line with non-symmetric inversion, arXiv:1905.05933. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Jiangsu Normal Uni versity Xuzhou 221116, PR China E-mail address : hywei@jsnu.edu.cn Department of Mathematics, School of Education, W aseda Univ ersity Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-8050, Jap...

work page Pith review arXiv 1905
[12]

Y. Hu, L. W u and Y. Shen, On symmetric homeomorphisms on t he real line, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 146 (2018), 4255-4263

work page 2018
[9]

C. J. Earle, V. Markovic and D. Saric, Barycentric extens ion and the Bers embedding for asymptotic Teichm¨ uller space, Complex manifolds and hyperbolic geometry, Contemporary Math. vol. 311, pp. 87–105, Amer. Math. Soc., 2002

work page 2002
[1]

Ahlfors, Quasiconformal reﬂections, Acta Math

L. Ahlfors, Quasiconformal reﬂections, Acta Math. 109 ( 1963), 291–301

work page 1963
[2]

Ahlfors, Lecture on Quasiconformal Mappings, Prince ton: Van Nostrand, 1966

L. Ahlfors, Lecture on Quasiconformal Mappings, Prince ton: Van Nostrand, 1966

work page 1966
[3]

Astala and M

K. Astala and M. Zinsmeister, Teichm¨ uller spaces and BM OA, Math. Ann. 289 (1991), 613–625

work page 1991
[4]

Beurling and L

A. Beurling and L. V. Ahlfors, The boundary corresponden ce under quasiconformal map- pings, Acta Math. 96 (1956), 125-142

work page 1956
[5]

Carleson, On mappings, conformal at the boundary, J

L. Carleson, On mappings, conformal at the boundary, J. A nal. Math. 19(1967), 1-13

work page 1967

Show all 19 references

[6]

Cui, Integrably asymptotic aﬃne homeomorphisms of th e circle and Teichm¨ uller spaces, Sci

G. Cui, Integrably asymptotic aﬃne homeomorphisms of th e circle and Teichm¨ uller spaces, Sci. China Ser. A 43 (2000), 267–279

2000
[7]

Douady and C

A. Douady and C. J. Earle, Conformal natural extension of homeomorphisms of the circle, Acta Math. 157 (1986), 23–48

1986
[8]

C. J. Earle, F. P. Gardiner and N. Lakic, Asymptotic Teich m¨ uller space, Part II: the metric structure, In the tradition of Ahlfors and Bers, III, Contem p. Math. 355, Amer. Math. Soc. (2004), 187–219

2004
[10]

F. P. Gardiner and N. Lakic, Quasiconformal Teichm¨ ull er theory, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 76, Amer. Math. Soc., 2000

2000
[11]

F. P. Gardiner and D. Sullivan, Symmetric structure on a closed curve, Amer. J. Math. 114 (1992), 683-736

1992
[13]

Lehto, Univalent Functions and Teichm¨ uller Spaces , Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986

O. Lehto, Univalent Functions and Teichm¨ uller Spaces , Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986

1986
[14]

Matsuzaki, The universal Teichm¨ uller space and diﬀeomorphisms of the circle with H¨ older continuous derivatives, Handbook of group actions

K. Matsuzaki, The universal Teichm¨ uller space and diﬀeomorphisms of the circle with H¨ older continuous derivatives, Handbook of group actions. Vol. I, Adv. Lect. Math.(ALM), vol. 31, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2015, pp. 333-372. MR3380337

2015
[15]

Nag, The Complex Analytic Theory of Teichm¨ uller Spaces, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1988

S. Nag, The Complex Analytic Theory of Teichm¨ uller Spaces, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1988

1988
[16]

Semmes, Quasiconformal mappings and chord-arc curv es, Tran

S. Semmes, Quasiconformal mappings and chord-arc curv es, Tran. Amer. Math. Soc. 306 (1988), 233–263

1988
[17]

Shen and H

Y. Shen and H. W ei, Universal Teichm¨ uller space and BMO , Adv. Math. 234 (2013), 129– 148. 15

2013
[18]

Takhtajan and Lee-Peng Teo, W eil-Petersson metric o n the universal Teichm¨ uller space, Mem

L. Takhtajan and Lee-Peng Teo, W eil-Petersson metric o n the universal Teichm¨ uller space, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 183 (2006), no. 861

2006

Pith tools

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

[1] [19]

Symmetric and strongly symmetric homeomorphisms on the real line with non-symmetric inversion

H. W ei and K. Matsuzaki, An example of a symmetric homeom orphism of the real line with non-symmetric inversion, arXiv:1905.05933. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Jiangsu Normal Uni versity Xuzhou 221116, PR China E-mail address : hywei@jsnu.edu.cn Department of Mathematics, School of Education, W aseda Univ ersity Shinjuku, Tokyo 169-8050, Jap...

work page Pith review arXiv 1905

[2] [12]

Y. Hu, L. W u and Y. Shen, On symmetric homeomorphisms on t he real line, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 146 (2018), 4255-4263

work page 2018

[3] [9]

C. J. Earle, V. Markovic and D. Saric, Barycentric extens ion and the Bers embedding for asymptotic Teichm¨ uller space, Complex manifolds and hyperbolic geometry, Contemporary Math. vol. 311, pp. 87–105, Amer. Math. Soc., 2002

work page 2002

[4] [1]

Ahlfors, Quasiconformal reﬂections, Acta Math

L. Ahlfors, Quasiconformal reﬂections, Acta Math. 109 ( 1963), 291–301

work page 1963

[5] [2]

Ahlfors, Lecture on Quasiconformal Mappings, Prince ton: Van Nostrand, 1966

L. Ahlfors, Lecture on Quasiconformal Mappings, Prince ton: Van Nostrand, 1966

work page 1966

[6] [3]

Astala and M

K. Astala and M. Zinsmeister, Teichm¨ uller spaces and BM OA, Math. Ann. 289 (1991), 613–625

work page 1991

[7] [4]

Beurling and L

A. Beurling and L. V. Ahlfors, The boundary corresponden ce under quasiconformal map- pings, Acta Math. 96 (1956), 125-142

work page 1956

[8] [5]

Carleson, On mappings, conformal at the boundary, J

L. Carleson, On mappings, conformal at the boundary, J. A nal. Math. 19(1967), 1-13

work page 1967