Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Penrose transformation on flag domains

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Higher automorphic cohomology of certain line bundles on non-classical flag domains is isomorphic to automorphic forms on Hermitian symmetric domains.

desk verdict Smart generalization with a real overclaim: Lemma 3.8 fails for Sp(4), so the main isomorphism theorems don't cover a case they claim to. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13085 v2 pith:THSOXPFB submitted 2024-11-20 math.AG

Kefeng Liu , Yang Shen This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AG MSC 32M1014M1722E4632L10
keywords flagdomainsPenrosetransformationautomorphiccohomologyhomogeneouslinebundlesHermitiansymmetriccyclespacesdiscreteseriesrootsystems
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 proves that the Penrose transformation—a classical bridge between sheaf cohomology and solutions of field equations—applies to a wide class of non-classical flag domains $D = G_{\mathbb{R}}/T$ with $G_{\mathbb{R}}$ of Hermitian type, relating the cohomology of homogeneous line bundles on $D$ to that on a diffeomorphic classical flag domain $D'$. Under explicit root-system inequalities, the transformation is injective; under an additional regularity condition, it is an isomorphism on compact quotients $X = \Gamma \backslash D$. The consequence the authors emphasize is that for line bundles built from the canonical bundle of the Hermitian symmetric domain $B = G_{\mathbb{R}}/K$, the higher automorphic cohomology groups $H^q(X, L_{\mu_k})$ are isomorphic, for all large $k$, to the group $H^0(\Gamma \backslash B, \omega_B^{\otimes k/k_0})$ of automorphic forms on $B$. This lends an arithmetic structure to cohomology groups that previously had none. The same isomorphism is then used to construct cup-product homomorphisms into the dual of a totally degenerate limit of discrete series.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the correspondence space $W = G_{\mathbb{C}}/T_{\mathbb{C}}$ (an open Stein subset of the enhanced flag variety) with its two holomorphic submersions to $D$ and $D'$, and the incidence variety $I = \{(x,u) \in D \times U : x \in Z_u\}$, where $Z_u$ are the compact cycles in $D$ and $U$ is the cycle space. The EGW theorem identifies the cohomology of a line bundle $L_\lambda$ on $D$ with the relative de Rham cohomology $H^*_{DR}(W, \Omega^\bullet_\pi(L_\lambda))$ of global sections on $W$, because $W$ is Stein and the fibers are contractible. The transformation itself is multiplication by the left-invariant $q$-form $\omega^{nc,1} = \omega_{-\beta_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge \omega_{-\beta_q}$, which is $d_\pi$-closed with values in $L_{-2\rho^{nc,1}}$ and pairs the two de Rham complexes. Two vanishing inputs make the argument work: the vanishing theorem on $I$ (Theorem 2.7), which uses the Bott–Borel–Weil theorem on each cycle and upper semi-continuity of cohomology to control neighboring cycles, and the root-system lemma (Lemma 3.8)—every $\beta \in \Delta^{nc,1}_+$ has positive inner product with some compact root—which turns the injectivity hypothesis into a checkable condition on weights and is proved by classification of Hermitian symmetric spaces together with a root-system vanishing statement from the companion preprint.

What would settle it

For a concrete group such as $SU(3,2)$ or $Sp(6,\mathbb{R})$, compute the dimensions of $H^0(\Gamma\backslash B, \omega_B^{\otimes k/k_0})$ and $H^q(X, L_{\mu_k})$ at several large $k$; if they ever differ at a level where the paper's conditions hold, the isomorphism theorem is false. Alternatively, exhibit a Hermitian-type root system in which a root $\beta \in \Delta^{nc,1}_+$ satisfies $(\beta, \alpha) \le 0$ for all compact roots $\alpha$, which would refute Lemma 3.8 and the injectivity theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Let $D = G_{\mathbb{R}}/T$ be a non-classical flag domain with $G_{\mathbb{R}}$ of Hermitian type. A companion construction gives a classical flag domain $D'$ on the same underlying manifold, with complex structures differing only along a subspace $p^1_{\pm}$; in root terms $\Delta_+ = \Delta^c_+ \cup \Delta^{nc,1}_+ \cup \Delta^{nc,2}_+$ and $\Delta'_+ = \Delta^c_+ \cup (-\Delta^{nc,1}_+) \cup \Delta^{nc,2}_+$. The paper defines a Penrose transformation $P : H^0(D', L_{\mu'}) \to H^q(D, L_\mu)$ for weights with $\mu + \rho = \mu' + \rho'$ by passing through the correspondence space $W$ and multiplying by the left-invariant closed $q$-form $\omega^{nc,1} = \omega_{-\beta_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge \omega_{-\beta_q}$, where $q = \#\Delta^{nc,1}_+$. The main injectivity theorem (Theorem 3.5) asserts that $P$ is injective whenever, for every $\beta \in \Delta^{nc,1}_+$, there is a compact root $\alpha \in \Delta^c_+$ with $(\alpha, \mu' - \beta) < 0$. The proof uses a new vanishing theorem on the incidence variety $I$: if $(\lambda, \alpha) < 0$ for some compact root $\alpha$, then $H^0(I, \pi_D^* L_\lambda) = 0$, obtained by the Bott–Borel–Weil vanishing theorem on the cycles $Z_u$ and by upper semi-continuity of cohomology dimensions as the cycle moves. Passing to compact quotients $X = \Gamma \backslash D$, the same argument gives injectivity (Theorem 4.2), and Theorem 4.7 upgrades it to an isomorphism when $\mu + \rho$ is regular in the Weyl chamber of $\Delta^c_+ \cup \Delta^{nc,1}_+ \cup (-\Delta^{nc,2}_+)$ and the pairing inequality $(\mu' + 2\rho'_{nc}, -\Delta'^{nc}_+) > 0$ holds. Theorem 4.8 applies this to the line bundles $L_{\mu'_k} = \omega_B^{\otimes k/k_0}$ pulled back to $D'$, with $L_{\mu_k} \to D$ defined by $\mu_k = \mu'_k - 2\rho^{nc,1}$: for all sufficiently large $k$ the Penrose transformation is an isomorphism, so $H^q(X, L_{\mu_k}) \cong H^0(\Gamma \backslash B, \omega_B^{\otimes k/k_0})$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction depends on the companion preprint's two results—that every non-classical flag domain with Hermitian-type group has a diffeomorphic classical twin with the prescribed complex structure, and that a certain root-counting vanishing statement holds; if either fails, the injectivity and isomorphism theorems collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $G_{\mathbb{R}}$ is of Hermitian type and $D$ is non-classical, then for every sufficiently large $k$ the Penrose transformation is an isomorphism, so $H^q(X, L_{\mu_k}) \cong H^0(\Gamma\backslash B, \omega_B^{\otimes k/k_0})$.
  • The injectivity criterion (7) is a purely root-system condition; for weights satisfying $\mu'$ orthogonal to all compact roots, injectivity holds unconditionally (Theorem 3.7).
  • On compact quotients, the isomorphism holds exactly when the weight chamber condition (10) and the pairing inequality (11) hold, which together are equivalent to Williams' Property W for the weight $\mu + \rho$.
  • The cup-product theorem gives explicit homomorphisms $H^0(\Gamma\backslash B, \omega_B^{\otimes k/k_0}) \times H^0(\Gamma\backslash \overline{B}, \omega_{\overline{B}}^{\otimes k/k_0} \otimes L_{\lambda_0}) \to H^d(X, L_{-\rho})^*$ for $SU(s+1,s)$ and a variant with an extra weight factor $L_{\beta}$ for $Sp(6,\mathbb{C})$.
  • The quotient $X$ admits no $\partial\bar{\partial}$-structure and is not in the Fujiki class, while $X'$ is projective; the isomorphism transfers arithmetic structure from the projective side to the non-algebraic side.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not pursued in the paper, is to make the threshold $N$ in Theorem 4.8 effective by tracking the inner-product inequalities; this would turn the abstract isomorphism into a computable family of isomorphisms.
  • If Proposition 2.2 of the companion preprint could be replaced by a direct proof from the classification, the injectivity theorem would become self-contained and the dependency on the companion preprint would be removed.
  • The cup-product homomorphisms target a TDLDS representation; the surjectivity question raised in Problem 1 could be tested by computing the dimensions of the source and target in explicit examples such as $SU(3,2)$.
  • The isomorphism suggests that the arithmetic structure on $H^q(X, L_{\mu_k})$ could support automorphic or motivic interpretations, connecting non-classical period domains to the arithmetic theory of automorphic forms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Penrose transformation for non-classical flag domains D = G_R/T with G_R of Hermitian type, comparing cohomology of homogeneous line bundles on D with those on a diffeomorphic classical flag domain D'. The main results give sufficient conditions for injectivity of the transformation (Theorems 3.5, 4.2), an isomorphism criterion on compact quotients (Theorem 4.7), an application to automorphic forms on Hermitian symmetric domains (Theorem 4.8), and cup-product maps toward TDLDS (Theorem 5.2). The proofs use a correspondence space W, an incidence variety I, root-system computations, Bott-Borel-Weil vanishings, and results from the authors' companion paper [22].

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper provides a substantial generalization of earlier SU(2,1) and Sp(4) Penrose transformations, linking higher automorphic cohomology of non-classical flag domains to classical automorphic forms. The explicit root-system conditions in Theorems 3.5 and 4.7 are useful and falsifiable, and the applications to canonical-bundle weights (Theorem 4.8) and cup products (Theorem 5.2) are interesting. The paper is not machine-checked and depends on several external or companion results, but the overall structure is coherent and the examples are concrete.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Lemma 3.8 and Example 6.4] Lemma 3.8 is stated for every simple real group of Hermitian type, but Example 6.4 (Sp(4)) contradicts it: for Δ^c_+ = {e_1-e_2} and Δ^{nc,1}_+ = {2e_1, e_1+e_2}, taking β = e_1+e_2 gives (β, e_1-e_2) = 0, so no α ∈ Δ^c_+ has (β, α) > 0. Consequently Theorems 3.7 and 4.3, which reduce to Lemma 3.8, are not proved for Sp(4), and Theorem 4.8's Step 1, which uses Theorem 4.3 for injectivity, does not cover Sp(4). Since the main theorems are stated without excluding Sp(4), the central claim is overbroad; the paper should either explicitly exclude Sp(4), or supply a separate argument for that case.
  2. [Section 3 and Section 4, dependence on [22]] The injectivity results rely essentially on unstated companion results: Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2 of [22] provide the classical twin D' and its complex structure, while Proposition 2.2 of [22] is used in Lemma 3.8 for roots β with β+γ not a root. These results are neither restated nor proved in the present paper. This is acknowledged in the introduction, but as a referee I cannot verify the foundation of Theorem 3.5, Theorem 4.2, and hence Theorem 4.8 without access to the companion results or at least a precise statement of the needed propositions as clearly marked assumptions.
  3. [Section 3, proof of Theorem 3.5, around Proposition 2.6] In the proof of Theorem 3.5, after equation (42), the assertion that [F_σ ω^{nc,1}] lies in H^q_DR(W, π_I^* Ω^•_{π_D}(L_μ)) is not immediate: Ω^q_π has a filtration, and membership in the π_I^*Ω^•_{π_D} part is a property of the class, not just of the form's wedge type. Proposition 2.6 gives surjectivity onto that subspace, but one must first justify that the class is in that subspace. Please spell out the filtration step and how the class [F_σ ω^{nc,1}] is identified with the pullback of a class on I.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Theorem 2.7] The phrase 'or equivalently (λ+ρ_c, α) ≤ 0' is not an equivalence in general; (λ, α) < 0 does not imply (λ+ρ_c, α) ≤ 0 unless (ρ_c, α) is controlled. Since the proof uses the first condition, please replace 'equivalently' by 'in particular' or prove the intended equivalence under the standing assumptions.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos and OCR artifacts: 'desecnd' in Section 4, 'dose' in Remark 2.9, 'T able' in the proof of Lemma 3.8, and 'K¨ahler' in the Introduction. The text also uses 'ba a' in the statement of Theorem 4.6. These should be corrected.
  3. [Sections 3-4, statements of Theorems 3.7, 4.3, 4.8] Remark 3.9(2) and Example 6.4 show that Sp(4) is exceptional, but the theorem statements do not mention this exception. Please add an explicit caveat in the statements of Theorems 3.7, 4.3, and 4.8, or, preferably, broaden the proof to cover Sp(4) as described in the major comments.
  4. [Section 3, Lemma 3.8 proof] The proof uses 'Lemma 4 of [25]' and 'Table 1 in [17]' without stating the exact root-system conventions. Since the k=2 case is delicate and now known to be exceptional, it would help the reader to state the relevant classification fact as a lemma in the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the Penrose isomorphism is not built from its own conclusion; the main load-bearing self-citation is to [22], whose stated root-system and complex-structure theorems do not include the Penrose result. A separate correctness gap (Lemma 3.8 vs Example 6.4) is not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a standard sequence of definitions and theorems: the Penrose transformation is defined by coupling the EGW isomorphisms (4)-(5) with wedge multiplication by ω^{nc,1}; injectivity is reduced to a root-pairing condition (41), and the isomorphism theorem is reduced to checking Williams' Property W via (52). No parameter is fitted, and no cohomology group is defined in terms of the group it is supposed to predict. The only self-citations are Theorems 1.1-1.2 and Proposition 2.2 of the companion preprint [22]; these are parameter-free statements with assumptions that do not contain the Penrose isomorphism, and they are invoked as prior results, so under the stated rules they count as independent support rather than circularity. I therefore set score 0. I do flag an internal correctness problem, not a circularity: Lemma 3.8 asserts that every β in Δ^{nc,1}_+ pairs positively with some α in Δ^c_+, but Example 6.4 for Sp(4) gives Δ^c_+ = {e1*−e2*}, Δ^{nc,1}_+ = {2e1*, e1*+e2*} and observes (e1*+e2*, e1*−e2*) = 0, so Lemma 3.8 is false as stated. Since Theorem 4.3 and Step 1 of Theorem 4.8 use exactly this lemma for injectivity, the main theorem is not established for Sp(4). That is a mathematical gap, not a self-referential reduction.

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

The central claim rests on standard theorems (EGW, Bott-Borel-Weil, upper semi-continuity, Williams) and on two key structural results from the authors' own companion preprint [22]. No free parameters or new entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math EGW theorem: H*(N,F) ≅ H*_DR(M, Ω^•_π(F)) for Stein M with contractible fibers.
    Used in Section 2, Theorem 2.5, to identify cohomology on D and D' with relative de Rham cohomology on W.
  • domain assumption Theorem 1.1 of [22]: any non-classical flag domain D=G_R/T with G_R Hermitian is diffeomorphic to a classical flag domain D' with complex structure k_- ⊕ p^1_+ ⊕ p^2_-.
    Foundation of Section 1; imported from companion preprint without proof in this paper.
  • domain assumption Proposition 2.2 of [22]: root-system vanishing statement for non-classical flag domains.
    Used in the proof of Lemma 3.8 for roots β ∈ Δ^{nc,1}_+ \ Δ^{nc,12}_+; imported from [22].
  • standard math Upper semi-continuity of dim H^0(Z_u, L_λ|Z_u) in the analytic family of cycles.
    Used in Theorem 2.7, Step 2, citing Kodaira-Spencer [21].
  • standard math Identity theorem: holomorphic sections vanishing on a nonempty open subset vanish on the connected incidence variety I.
    Tacitly used in the last step of the proof of Theorem 2.7.
  • standard math Williams' theorem: dimension formula for n-cohomology of limits of discrete series and Property W.
    Used in Theorem 4.7 to equate dimensions on both sides of the Penrose transformation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Penrose transformation on flag domains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/THSOXPFB

@misc{pith2026241113085,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Penrose transformation on flag domains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/THSOXPFB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13085}
}
abstract

Building on our recent work, we construct the Penrose transformations of the cohomology groups of homogeneous line bundles on flag domains $D = G_\R / T$, where $G_\R$ is of Hermitian type. We provide sufficient conditions for the injectivity of the Penrose transformation and identify conditions under which the Penrose transformation of the automorphic cohomology groups on compact quotients of flag domains is an isomorphism. Finally, we prove that the higher automorphic cohomology groups of certain homogeneous line bundles are isomorphic to the groups of automorphic forms on the Hermitian symmetric domain, and we apply this result to the cup products of the automorphic cohomology groups.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Vanishing Theorems and Complex Structures on Non-Classical Flag Domains

    K. Liu and Y. Shen, Geometry of non-classical period dom ains, arXiv:2405.16536, (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    R. J. Baston, and M. G. Eastwood, The Penrose transform: its interaction with representatio n theory, Courier Dover Publications, (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    Bott, Homogeneous vector bundles, Annals of Math

    R. Bott, Homogeneous vector bundles, Annals of Math. , 66 (1957), pp. 203–248

    work page 1957

  4. [3]

    Burns, S

    D. Burns, S. Halverscheid, and R. Hind, The geoemtry of Gr auert tubes and complexifica- tion of symmetric spaces, Duke J. Math. , 118 (2003), pp. 465–491

    work page 2003

  5. [4]

    Carayol, Limites d´ eg´ en´ er´ ees de s´ eries discr` etes, formes automorphes et vari´ et´ es de Griffiths-Schmid: le cas du groupe U(2, 1), Compos

    H. Carayol, Limites d´ eg´ en´ er´ ees de s´ eries discr` etes, formes automorphes et vari´ et´ es de Griffiths-Schmid: le cas du groupe U(2, 1), Compos. Math., 111 (1998), pp. 51–88

    work page 1998

  6. [5]

    Carayol, Quelques relations entre les cohomologies d es vari´ et´ es de Shimura et celles de Griffiths-Schmid (cas du groupe SU(2, 1)), Compos

    H. Carayol, Quelques relations entre les cohomologies d es vari´ et´ es de Shimura et celles de Griffiths-Schmid (cas du groupe SU(2, 1)), Compos. Math., 121 (2000), pp. 305–335. PENROSE TRANSFORMA TION ON FLAG DOMAINS 47

    work page 2000

  7. [6]

    Carayol, Cohomologie automorphe et compactification s partielles de certaines vari´ et´ es de Griffiths-Schmid, Compos

    H. Carayol, Cohomologie automorphe et compactification s partielles de certaines vari´ et´ es de Griffiths-Schmid, Compos. Math., 141 (2005), pp. 1081–1102

    work page 2005

  8. [7]

    Carayol and A

    H. Carayol and A. W. Knapp, Limits of Discrete Series with Infinitesimal Character Zero, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , Vol. 359, No. 11 (2007), pp. 5611– 5651

    work page 2007

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    Carlson and D

    J. Carlson and D. Toledo, Compact quotients of non-class ical domains are not K¨ ahler ,Con- temporary Mathematics, 608 (2014), pp. 51–57

    2014

  2. [9]

    Eastwood, S

    M. Eastwood, S. Gindikin, and H. Wong, Holomorphic reali zations of ∂-cohomology and constructions of representations, J. Geom. Phys. , 17(3) (1995), pp. 231–244

    1995

  3. [10]

    G. Fels, A. Huckleberry and J. A. Wolf, Cycle Spaces of Flag Domains, Progress in Mathemat- ics, 245, Birkh¨ auser, (2006)

    2006

  4. [11]

    Green, P

    M. Green, P. Griffiths and M. Kerr , Mumford-T ate Groups and Domains: Their Geometry and Arithmetic , Annals of Math. Studies, 183, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, (2012)

    2012

  5. [12]

    Green, P

    M. Green, P. Griffiths and M. Kerr , Hodge Theory, Complex Geometry, and Representation Theory, Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, Volume 118, American Mathematical Society , (2013)

    2013

  6. [13]

    Green, P

    M. Green, P. Griffiths and M. Kerr , Special values of auto morphic cohomology classes, Vol. 231, no. 1088, American Mathematical Society , (2014)

    2014

  7. [14]

    Griffiths and W

    P. Griffiths and W. Schmid, Locally homogeneous complex manifolds, Acta Math. , 123 (1969), pp. 253–302

    1969

  8. [15]

    Griffiths, C

    P. Griffiths, C. Robles and D. Toledo, Quotients of non-c lassical flag domains are not alge- braic, Algebraic Geometry, 1 (2014), pp. 1–13

    2014

  9. [16]

    Helgason, Differential geometry, Lie groups, and symmetric spaces, Academic Press, New York, (1978)

    S. Helgason, Differential geometry, Lie groups, and symmetric spaces, Academic Press, New York, (1978)

    1978

  10. [17]

    Humphreys, Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory , Springer-Verlag New York, (1972)

    J. Humphreys, Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory , Springer-Verlag New York, (1972)

    1972

  11. [18]

    Kerr , Cup products in automorphic cohomology: The ca se of Sp4, Contemporary Math- ematics, 608 (2014), pp

    M. Kerr , Cup products in automorphic cohomology: The ca se of Sp4, Contemporary Math- ematics, 608 (2014), pp. 199–234

    2014

  12. [19]

    A. W. Knapp, Lie groups beyond an introduction , Progress in Mathematics, Vol. 140, Boston: Birkh¨ auser , (1996)

    1996

  13. [20]

    A. W. Knapp, Representation Theory of Semisimple Groups: An Overview Ba sed on Examples , Princeton Univ . Press, Princeton, NJ, (1986)

    1986

  14. [21]

    Kodaira and D

    K. Kodaira and D. C. Spencer , On Deformations of Complex Analytic Structures, III, Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, 71(1) (1960), pp. 43–76

    1960

  15. [23]

    Schmid, Homogeneous complex manifolds and represen tations of semisimple Lie groups, Ph.D

    W. Schmid, Homogeneous complex manifolds and represen tations of semisimple Lie groups, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ . California, Berkeley (1 967); reprinted in Representation Theory and Harmonic Analysis on Semisimple Lie Groups , Math. Surveys and Monogr . 31, Amer . Math. Soc....

    1989

  16. [24]

    Schmid, Discrete series, Proc

    W. Schmid, Discrete series, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. , 61 (1997), pp. 83–113

    1997

  17. [25]

    J. A. Wolf, On the Classification of Hermitian Symmetric Spaces, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics , Vol. 13, No. 3 (1964), pp. 489–495

    1964

  18. [26]

    Williams, Discrete series multiplicities in L2(Γ \G) (II)

    F. Williams, Discrete series multiplicities in L2(Γ \G) (II). Proof of Langlands conjecture, Amer . J. Math., 107 (1985), pp. 367–376

    1985

  19. [27]

    Williams, The n-cohomology of limits of discrete series, J

    F. Williams, The n-cohomology of limits of discrete series, J. Funct. Anal. , 80 (1988), pp. 451–461. 48 KEFENG LIU AND YANG SHEN MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH CENTER , C HONGQING UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY , C HONGQING 400054, C HINA ; SHANGHAI INSTITUTE FOR MATHEMATICS AND IN...

    1988

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.