Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 43 references

A no-go theorem for the persistent reality of Wigner's friend's perception

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An observer cannot give her own two-time memories a joint, linear, unitary probability—so one of three quantum assumptions must go.

desk verdict A clean, correct single-observer no-go theorem for Wigner's friend; the force of the conclusion depends on P2, which the paper itself flags, but that is a scope caveat, not a mathematical flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2009.09499 v2 pith:3TN37XEH submitted 2020-09-20 quant-ph

Philippe Allard Guérin , Veronika Baumann , Flavio Del Santo , Časlav Brukner This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords Wigner'sfriendpersistentrealityno-gotheoremjointmeasurabilityPOVMtwo-timeprobabilitiesunitaryquantummechanicsmeasurementproblem
topics The Measurement Problem
open problems The Measurement Problem
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

The paper asks whether a single observer can treat a measurement outcome she remembers as having a fixed reality across time while a superobserver later measures her. It proves that, for generic choices of the superobserver's measurement basis, there is no joint probability distribution for the friend's perceived outcomes at two different times that is linear in the initial state of the measured system and whose single-time marginals match unitary quantum mechanics. The theorem leaves three options: introduce a nonlinear two-time probability rule, forbid using present records to predict the future in some situations, or deny that unitary quantum mechanics gives valid single-time predictions for every observer. If the theorem is right, the Wigner's friend paradox bites even for one observer over time, not only between two observers at one time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of effective POVMs $E^1_{f_1}$ and $E^2_{f_2}$ on the system qubit, built by pushing the friend's outcome projectors at $t_1$ and $t_2$ back through the isometries that map the initial system state to the global state at each time. A POVM is a positive operator-valued measure, a set of positive operators whose outcomes sum to the identity; joint measurability is the question of whether two such measurements can be realized as marginals of a single joint measurement. The first POVM is sharp, so the existence of a joint distribution satisfying P1–P3 is equivalent to $[E^1_U,E^2_U]=0$. Computing the commutator yields a nonzero expression for generic superobserver basis parameters $a,b$, so no joint distribution exists. This recasts the question of whether the friend's two perceptions share one reality as a joint-measurability problem between two quantum observations at different times.

What would settle it

Compute the commutator $[E^1_U,E^2_U]$ for a superobserver basis with $|a|^2=|b|^2=1/2$ and $ab\neq 0$: it is nonzero, so by the sharp-POVM criterion no joint POVM with the required marginals exists. Equivalently, the theorem's conditional prediction in that case is $p(f_2|f_1)=1/2$; a concrete two-time probability rule satisfying P1–P3 that yields any other value, or a numerical search that finds a joint POVM, would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a no-go theorem: assumptions P1–P3 cannot all hold in the Wigner's friend experiment for a general choice of the superobserver's measurement basis. P1 says the friend's two perceived outcomes form a joint event with a probability distribution; P2 says each single-time probability is assigned from the unitarily evolved, un-collapsed state; P3 says the joint probability depends linearly on the initial system state. Translating the friend's outcome projectors at the two times into effective POVMs $E^1_{f_1}$ and $E^2_{f_2}$ on the system qubit, P1 and P3 require these POVMs to be jointly measurable, while P2 fixes their marginals. Since $E^1$ is sharp, joint measurability is equivalent to commutativity, and the commutator is nonzero for generic $a,b$. In the special case where the superobserver measures in the equal-weight entangled basis and the initial state is the equal superposition, the theorem forces the friend's remembered outcome to flip with probability $1/2$, even though the superobserver's measurement is non-disturbing.

Load-bearing premise

The fragile premise is P2: the friend must assign her probability for the second outcome from the un-collapsed, unitarily evolving state, even though she has already perceived her first outcome; allow any collapse or state update after that first perception and the contradiction disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any interpretation that keeps linear, Born-rule-style joint probabilities must accept that the friend's earlier perception is not a persistent fact after a supermeasurement.
  • In the equal-weight basis case, the friend's memory must flip with probability $1/2$ even when the superobserver's measurement is non-disturbing, if the three assumptions are kept.
  • To preserve unitary single-time predictions for all observers, one must either add a nonlinear two-time probability rule or restrict when present records may be used to predict the future.
  • Interpretations that insist on a definite observer-independent record and on unitary single-time probabilities are forced to reject linearity of two-time probabilities in the initial state.
  • For practical settings with sufficient decoherence, the usual state-update predictions remain usable; the contradiction appears only in the coherent Wigner's friend regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if P2 is the assumption that breaks, then a superobserver's valid description and the friend's self-description genuinely diverge, suggesting that one-time predictions are not observer-independent across coherent supermeasurements.
  • Editorial extension: the theorem is a temporal analogue of contextuality—two outcome variables separated in time cannot be embedded in a single linear probability model, which may connect to contextuality arguments over time.
  • Editorial extension: a small quantum processor playing the friend's role could test the memory-flip prediction directly; observed two-time statistics deviating from the linear rule would support collapse-like or nonlinear models.
  • Editorial extension: making the friend's first measurement unsharp would soften the sharpness condition that forces commutativity; quantifying how much noise restores joint measurability might map a boundary between persistent and non-persistent records.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a no-go theorem for the possibility of assigning a joint probability distribution to the Wigner's friend's perceived outcomes at two different times in a Wigner-friend scenario. The authors formulate three assumptions (P1: existence of a joint distribution; P2: single-time marginals given by unitary quantum mechanics without state update; P3: linear dependence of the joint distribution on the initial state) and prove Theorem IV.1 that these assumptions are inconsistent for generic choices of Wigner's measurement basis. The proof maps the marginals to POVMs E1 and E2, shows that P1 and P3 imply joint measurability of these POVMs, and then uses the sharpness of E1 to reduce joint measurability to commutativity, which fails for generic a,b via Eq. (17). The paper also analyzes special cases where the assumptions hold, and discusses which interpretations of quantum mechanics reject which assumptions.

Significance. The theorem is a clean and correctly proven conditional no-go result. Its main strengths are the explicitness of the derivation (all POVM elements are computed in Eqs. (12)-(15), the use of a standard joint-measurability criterion, and the honest and detailed discussion of the assumptions' status across interpretations (Section V.A). The result clarifies that the tension in Wigner-friend scenarios can manifest for a single observer and single-time marginals, without invoking multiple observers or locality. The paper also identifies a striking special case (|a|=|b|) where a non-disturbing Wigner measurement nonetheless implies, under P1-P3, that the friend's later outcome is independent of her earlier one, which is a useful touchstone for interpretational debates. The conditional scope (particularly the role of P2) is made explicit by the authors, so the theorem is not overstated.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, proof of Theorem IV.1] The step from P1 and P3 to the existence of a joint POVM {G_{f1 f2}} with marginals E1 and E2 is stated without proof; I recommend adding one sentence noting that finite-dimensional linearity and positivity of the joint probabilities in ρ imply that each G_{f1 f2} is a positive operator and that Σ_{f1,f2} G_{f1 f2} = I, so that {G_{f1 f2}} is indeed a POVM.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'motivatived' in Section IV.A, 'interepretation' and 'canditates' in Section V.A, 'in is known' in Section V.A, and 'intereference' in Section V.B; please correct them.
  3. [Title and abstract] The title states a no-go for 'persistent reality', which is stronger than the theorem's formal statement (a joint distribution satisfying P1-P3); consider adding a qualifier such as 'under unitary marginals and linearity' to the title or abstract to avoid overreading.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (17)] After Eq. (17), it may be worth stating explicitly that the commutator vanishes exactly when |a|=|b| or when a=0 or b=0, which connects directly to the special cases discussed in Section V.B.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the theorem is a valid conditional no-go result derived by an explicit commutator computation; its assumptions and interpretational scope are openly stated.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a conditional no-go theorem: assuming P1-P3, it derives a contradiction through explicit construction of the POVMs E1 and E2 and calculation of the commutator [E1_U, E2_U] (Eq. (17)). The conclusion, that no joint probability distribution can have unitary marginals and linear dependence on the initial state, is not assumed as a premise; it is obtained as a mathematical consequence. The only external mathematical input is Proposition 8 of Heinosaari, Reitzner, and Stano (Ref. [29]), an external, parameter-free result about sharp POVMs, cited as a lemma rather than as self-supporting prior work by the authors. There are no fitted parameters, no predictions extracted from a fitted subset of data, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The paper explicitly acknowledges the fragile nature of P2 in Section V A, noting that objective-collapse theories and QBism deny it, and that Everett denies P1; this limits the scope of the theorem but does not make the derivation circular. The dependence of the theorem's statement on the assumptions is the normal structure of a no-go proof, not a circular reduction, because the proof supplies the nontrivial algebraic content. Self-citations appear only as background and interpretive commentary, not as evidence for the central deduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theorem is a conditional no-go result. Its central claim rests entirely on the three explicitly stated assumptions P1-P3, plus standard probability theory and the standard joint-measurability criterion for sharp POVMs. There are no fitted parameters and no invented entities; the Wigner's friend scenario is standard.

free parameters (1)
  • a, b (Wigner's measurement basis amplitudes)
    Complex amplitudes defining Wigner's entangled-basis measurement (Eq. (3)). The no-go theorem holds for generic values; they are not fitted to data. Only the special cases |a|^2=|b|^2 or ab=0 avoid the contradiction (Sec. V B).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption P1: The friend's perceived outcomes f1 and f2 at t1 and t2 can be assigned a joint probability p(f1,f2) whose marginals match one-time probabilities.
    Section IV. It encodes that measurement records are facts of the world and makes the joint event a legitimate probabilistic object.
  • domain assumption P2: One-time probabilities are assigned by unitary quantum mechanics, Eq. (6), with no state update after t1.
    Section IV. It determines the POVMs E1 and E2 whose non-commutativity drives the proof and rules out collapse.
  • domain assumption P3: The joint probability p(f1,f2) depends convex-linearly on the initial state rho_S.
    Section IV. It guarantees the joint distribution is represented by a joint POVM G, reducing the contradiction to joint measurability.
  • standard math For two POVMs in which at least one observable is sharp, joint measurability is equivalent to commutativity.
    Invoked in the proof of Theorem IV.1, citing Proposition 8 of Ref. [29]. It is the external criterion that links non-commutativity to the absence of a joint POVM.
  • standard math Kolmogorov probability calculus holds for the events f1, f2, in particular p(f1)=sum_{f2} p(f1,f2) and p(f2)=sum_{f1} p(f1,f2).
    Used in P1 and in defining the marginals required for joint measurability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A no-go theorem for the persistent reality of Wigner's friend's perception." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3TN37XEH

@misc{pith2026200909499,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A no-go theorem for the persistent reality of Wigner's friend's perception},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3TN37XEH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2009.09499}
}
read the original abstract

The notorious Wigner's friend thought experiment (and modifications thereof) has in recent years received renewed interest especially due to new arguments that force us to question some of the fundamental assumptions of quantum theory. In this paper, we formulate a no-go theorem for the persistent reality of Wigner's friend's perception, which allows us to conclude that the perceptions that the friend has of her own measurement outcomes at different times cannot "share the same reality", if seemingly natural quantum mechanical assumptions are met. More formally, this means that, in a Wigner's friend scenario, there is no joint probability distribution for the friend's perceived measurement outcomes at two different times, that depends linearly on the initial state of the measured system and whose marginals reproduce the predictions of unitary quantum theory. This theorem entails that one must either (1) propose a nonlinear modification of the Born rule for two-time predictions, (2) sometimes prohibit the use of present information to predict the future -- thereby reducing the predictive power of quantum theory -- or (3) deny that unitary quantum mechanics makes valid single-time predictions for all observers. We briefly discuss which of the theorem's assumptions are more likely to be dropped within various popular interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1” or “2

    At a slightly later time t2 > tW, the measurement is over and we have the final state |Ψ(t2)⟩ =(αa∗ + βb∗)|1⟩SF|1⟩W + (αb− βa)|2⟩SF|2⟩W =a(αa∗ + βb∗)|↑⟩S|U⟩F|1⟩W + b(αa∗ + βb∗)|↓⟩S|D⟩F|1⟩W (3) + b∗(αb− βa)|↑⟩S|U⟩F|2⟩W − a∗(αb− βa)|↓⟩S|D⟩F|2⟩W, where|1⟩W and|2⟩W are pure quantum states corre- sponding to Wigner seeing the outcome “1” or “2” respectively. No...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Bell basis

    This corresponds to Wigner performing a measurement in the “Bell basis” , for example |1⟩ = 1√ 2 (| ↑, U⟩ +| ↓, D⟩),|2⟩ = 1√ 2 (| ↑, U⟩−| ↓ , D⟩).8 Eqs. (14) and (15) show that the relative phases do not matter, so it suf- fices to consider this example. We have in this case p( f1, f2) = tr(E1 f1 E2 f2 ρ), with E1 U =|↑⟩⟨↑| (20) E1 D =|↓⟩⟨↓| (21) E2 U = E2...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Bell’s states

    This means that the friend’s memory gets flipped with proba- bility 1 2, independently of the initial state ρ. This is particularly surprising in the case where the ini- tial state is |ψ⟩ = 1√ 2 (|↑⟩ +|↓⟩), because in that case Wigner performs a non-disturbance measure- ment [12, 13]. This means that the joint state of the friend and system|Ψ(t1)⟩ is actua...

    work page

  4. [4]

    E. P . Wigner,Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp. 247–

    work page

  5. [5]

    Decoherence allows quantum theory to describe the use of itself

    A. Relaño, “Decoherence allows quantum theory to de- scribe the use of itself,” arXiv:1810.07065. 8

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [6]

    Quantum theory as a universal physical the- ory,

    D. Deutsch, “Quantum theory as a universal physical the- ory,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 24, 1–41 (1985). 9 Conceptually speaking, this would be a costly conclusion to make in general, since these "two agents" share many common memories about their past

    work page 1985

  7. [7]

    On the Quantum Measurement Problem,

    ˇC. Brukner, “On the Quantum Measurement Problem,” in Quantum [Un]Speakables II: Half a Century of Bell’s Theorem, R. Bertlmann and A. Zeilinger, eds., pp. 95–

    work page

  8. [8]

    Inadequacy of Modal Logic in Quantum Settings

    N. Nurgalieva and L. del Rio, “Inadequacy of modal logic in quantum settings,” EPTCS 287, 267–297 (2019), arXiv:1804.01106

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    A No-Go Theorem for Observer- Independent Facts,

    ˇC. Brukner, “A No-Go Theorem for Observer- Independent Facts,” Entropy 20, 350 (2018), arXiv:1804.00749

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    The hidden assumptions of Frauchiger and Renner,

    A. Sudbery, “The hidden assumptions of Frauchiger and Renner,” arXiv:1905.13248

    1905 arXiv

  3. [11]

    On Formalisms and Interpreta- tions,

    V . Baumann and S. Wolf, “On Formalisms and Interpreta- tions,” Quantum 2, 99 (2018), arXiv:1710.07212

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Quantum theory and the limits of objectivity,

    R. Healey, “Quantum theory and the limits of objectivity,” Found. Phys 48, 1568–1589 (2018), arXiv:1807.00421

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Wigner’s friend as a ra- tional agent,

    V . Baumann and ˇC. Brukner, “Wigner’s friend as a ra- tional agent,” in Quantum, Probability, Logic , pp. 91–99. Springer, 2020. arXiv:1901.11274

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox,

    K.-W. Bong, A. Utreras-Alarcón, F. Ghafari, Y.-C. Liang, N. Tischler, E. G. Cavalcanti, G. J. Pryde, and H. M. Wise- man, “A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox,” Nat. Phys. (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    The view from a Wigner bubble,

    E. G. Cavalcanti, “The view from a Wigner bubble,” arXiv:2008.05100

    2008 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Comment on Healey’s “Quantum Theory and the Limits of Objectiv- ity

    V . Baumann, F. Del Santo, and ˇC. Brukner, “Comment on Healey’s “Quantum Theory and the Limits of Objectiv- ity”,” Found. Phys 49, 741–749 (2019), arXiv:1901.10331

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Generalized probability rules from a timeless formulation of Wigner’s friend sce- narios,

    V . Baumann, F. Del Santo, A. R. H. Smith, F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and ˇC. Brukner, “Generalized probability rules from a timeless formulation of Wigner’s friend sce- narios,” arXiv:1911.09696

    1911 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself,

    D. Frauchiger and R. Renner, “Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself,” Nat. Commun. 9, 3711 (2018), arXiv:1604.07422

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    ‘Two dogmas’ redux,

    J. Bub, “‘Two dogmas’ redux,” in Quantum, Probability, Logic, pp. 199–215. Springer, 2020. arXiv:1907.06240

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Respecting One’s Fellow: QBism’s Analysis of Wigner’s Friend,

    J. B. DeBrota, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, “Respecting One’s Fellow: QBism’s Analysis of Wigner’s Friend,” arXiv:2008.03572

    2008 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Experi- mental test of local observer independence,

    M. Proietti, A. Pickston, F. Graffitti, P . Barrow, D. Kundys, C. Branciard, M. Ringbauer, and A. Fedrizzi, “Experi- mental test of local observer independence,” Sci. Adv 5, eaaw9832 (2019), arXiv:1902.05080

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Even performed pre- measurements have no results,

    M. ˙Zukowski and M. Markiewicz, “Even performed pre- measurements have no results,” arXiv:2003.07464

    2003 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Wallace, The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory Ac- cording to the Everett Interpretation

    D. Wallace, The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory Ac- cording to the Everett Interpretation. OUP Oxford, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism,

    C. A. Fuchs, “QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism,” arXiv:1003.5209

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of

    D. Bohm, “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden" Variables. II,” Phys. Rev. 85, 180–193 (1952)

    1952

  18. [26]

    It’s hard to think when someone Hadamards your brain

    S. Aaronson, “It’s hard to think when someone Hadamards your brain.” https://www.scottaaronson. com/blog/?p=3975

  19. [27]

    "Relative State

    H. Everett, “"Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454–462 (1957)

    1957

  20. [28]

    Law without law: from observer states to physics via algorithmic information theory,

    M. P . Müller, “Law without law: from observer states to physics via algorithmic information theory,” Quantum 4, 301 (2020), arXiv:1712.01826

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of

    D. Bohm, “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden" Variables. I,” Phys. Rev. 85, 166–179 (1952)

    1952

  22. [30]

    “No Information Without Disturbance

    P . Busch, ““No Information Without Disturbance”: Quan- tum Limitations of Measurement,” in Quantum Real- ity, Relativistic Causality, and Closing the Epistemic Circle , vol. 73 of The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Sci- ence, pp. 229–256. Springer Netherlands, Dordre...

  23. [31]

    Bohmian mechanics,

    D. Dürr and S. Teufel, “Bohmian mechanics,” in Bohmian Mechanics, pp. 145–171. Springer, 2009

    2009

  24. [32]

    Evolution without Evo- lution: Dynamics Described by Stationary Observables,

    D. N. Page and W. K. Wootters, “Evolution without Evo- lution: Dynamics Described by Stationary Observables,” Phys. Rev. D 27, 2885-2892 (1983)

    1983

  25. [33]

    Information processing in generalized prob- abilistic theories,

    J. Barrett, “Information processing in generalized prob- abilistic theories,” Phys. Rev. A 75, 032304 (2007), arxiv:quant-ph/0508211

    2007 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Notes on Joint Measurability of Quantum Observables,

    T. Heinosaari, D. Reitzner, and P . Stano, “Notes on Joint Measurability of Quantum Observables,” Foundations of Physics 38, 1133–1147 (2008), arXiv:0811.0783

    2008 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Reformulating and Reconstructing Quantum Theory,

    L. Hardy, “Reformulating and Reconstructing Quantum Theory,” arXiv:1104.2066

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests,

    A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P . Singh, and H. Ul- bricht, “Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 471– 527 (2013), arXiv:1204.4325

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Quantum theory from five reasonable ax- ioms,

    L. Hardy, “Quantum theory from five reasonable ax- ioms,” arxiv:quant-ph/0101012

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    What dynamics can be ex- pected for mixed states in two-slit experiments?,

    A. Luis and Á. S. Sanz, “What dynamics can be ex- pected for mixed states in two-slit experiments?,” Annals of Physics 357, 95–107 (2015), arXiv:1311.2612

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Foliable Operational Structures for General Probabilistic Theories,

    L. Hardy, “Foliable Operational Structures for General Probabilistic Theories,” arXiv:0912.4740

    arXiv

  32. [41]

    The measurement theory of Everett and de Broglie’s pilot wave,

    J. S. Bell, “The measurement theory of Everett and de Broglie’s pilot wave,” in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philos- ophy, pp. 93–99. Cambridge University Press, 2 ed., 2004

    2004

  33. [42]

    De Broglie–Bohm, delayed-choice double-slit experiment, and density matrix,

    J. S. Bell, “De Broglie–Bohm, delayed-choice double-slit experiment, and density matrix,” in Speakable and Un- speakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quan- tum Philosophy, pp. 111–116. Cambridge University Press, 2 ed., 2004

    2004

  34. [117]

    arXiv:1507.05255

    Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017. arXiv:1507.05255

    2017 arXiv

  35. [260]

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.