On $L^1$-$L^2$ dichotomy for flat symmetric spaces

Nico Spronk; Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 25 references

On $L^1$-$L^2$ dichotomy for flat symmetric spaces

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 Flat symmetric spaces satisfy the L1-L2 dichotomy in rank one except SL(2,R), and rank-two SU(2,q) spaces fail it at certain singular points.

desk verdict First study of L1-L2 dichotomy for flat symmetric spaces, with a clean rank-1 classification and the first rank-2 examples, but the rank-2 failure results rest on an unproven extension of a cited result that needs to be fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15564 v1 pith:X5SFJRJW submitted 2024-11-23 math.RT

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta , Nico Spronk This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.RT MSC 43A9043A8522E30

keywords symmetricspaceorbitalmeasuresphericalfunctionL1-L2dichotomyflatBesselfunctionsPlancherelformulaSU(pq)

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 studies the $L^1$-$L^2$ dichotomy for flat (Euclidean) symmetric spaces: the property that every $K$-invariant orbital measure, under repeated convolution, is either singular or becomes square-integrable. The authors prove that every non-compact irreducible rank-one flat symmetric space satisfies the dichotomy except the Cartan type AI case, $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})_0/\mathrm{SO}(2)$. For the rank-two and rank-three spaces $\mathrm{SU}(p,q)_0/\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(p)\times\mathrm{U}(q))$ with $p=2,3$, the dichotomy holds at regular points; at singular points of the rank-two family it holds for diagonal points when $q>2$, fails for diagonal points when $q=2$, and fails for axis points when $q\ge 3$, with the sharp square-integrability threshold $k\ge \tfrac{3}{4}+\tfrac{q}{2}$. These are the first rank-2 examples of failure of the dichotomy for any symmetric space. The argument reduces the question to the integrability of powers of explicit Bessel-function spherical transforms against the Plancherel measure.

What carries the argument

The central object is the orbital measure $\mu_H$ on the flat symmetric space $\mathfrak p\cong G_0/K$, defined by averaging over the $K$-orbit of $H\in\mathfrak p$. Its spherical transform is the basic spherical function $\psi_\lambda(H)=\int_K e^{iB(E_\lambda,\mathrm{Ad}(k)H)}\,dk$, and the transform of a convolution product is the product of the transforms (Lemma 2.1). The Plancherel formula (Lemma 2.2) then identifies $\|\mu_H^{*k}\|_{L^2(\mathfrak p)}^2$ with an integral over the positive Weyl chamber of $|\psi_\lambda(H)|^{2k}$ against the weight $\delta(\lambda)=\prod_{\alpha\in\Phi^+}|\alpha(E_\lambda)|^{m_\alpha}$. For rank one and for type AIII, the spherical functions are given explicitly by Ben Saïd–Ørsted in terms of Bessel functions: a single $J_\nu$ in rank one, and a determinant of $J_{q-p}$ functions in the $\mathrm{SU}(p,q)$ case. Asymptotic estimates for Bessel functions and their derivatives then determine, for each orbit, the smallest $k$ for which the Plancherel integral converges.

What would settle it

Check whether Lemma 2.3(2) is actually proved for rank $\ge2$ by the cited result: if [12, Corollary 3] does not cover the needed root systems, then the absolute-continuity premise for the rank-2 and rank-3 dichotomy theorems collapses. Concretely, test a singular axis point in $\mathrm{SU}(2,3)$: if $\mu_H^{*2}$ is singular rather than absolutely continuous, the dichotomy would hold at that point, contradicting Theorem 4.3; if it is absolutely continuous, the failure claim reduces to the threshold calculation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that flat symmetric spaces inherit the $L^1$-$L^2$ dichotomy from their rank-one compact and non-compact cousins, with the same single exception ($AI\cong BDI(q=2)$), and that in rank two the dichotomy is controlled by the type of singularity. Specifically, for $G_0/K=\mathrm{SU}(2,q)_0/\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(2)\times\mathrm{U}(q))$, the dichotomy holds for regular orbital measures for all $q\ge2$, holds for singular points of type D exactly when $q>2$, fails for type D when $q=2$, and fails for type A when $q\ge3$; in the last case $\mu_H^{*k}$ is square-integrable precisely when $k\ge \tfrac{3}{4}+\tfrac{q}{2}$. For $p=3$, the regular-point dichotomy holds as well. If correct, these are the first rank-2 instances in which the dichotomy fails for any symmetric space.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that the second convolution power of every nonzero orbital measure is absolutely continuous in rank $\ge2$ rests on an improvement of a cited theorem that the authors themselves note is 'not explicitly stated' in the source, for the needed rank range.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every non-compact irreducible rank-one flat symmetric space except $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{R})_0/\mathrm{SO}(2)$, every nonzero orbital measure has a convolution square in $L^2(\mathfrak p)$, so all higher powers are square-integrable as well.
In $\mathrm{SU}(2,q)$ flat spaces, regular orbital measures satisfy the dichotomy for every $q\ge2$, and diagonal singular points satisfy it for $q>2$.
For singular axis points in $\mathrm{SU}(2,q)$ with $q\ge3$, the dichotomy fails, and the minimal power for square integrability grows linearly: $k\ge \tfrac{3}{4}+\tfrac{q}{2}$.
For $\mathrm{SU}(3,q)$, regular points satisfy the dichotomy, extending the regular-point result to rank three.

Reading between the lines

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

The threshold $k\ge \tfrac{3}{4}+\tfrac{q}{2}$ grows with $q$, suggesting that axis singularities become progressively harder to smooth as the ambient dimension grows; one testable extension is whether $\mathrm{SU}(p,q)$ with $p\ge3$ has similar thresholds with $p$-dependent constants.
The unresolved $q=2$ axis case is a natural sharp test: deciding the integrability of $\int\int |J_0(x\lambda_1)-J_0(x\lambda_2)|^4 \lambda_1\lambda_2/(\lambda_1^2-\lambda_2^2)^2\,d\lambda_1 d\lambda_2$ would settle whether $\mathrm{SU}(2,2)$ fails the dichotomy at both singular types or only at the diagonal one.
The same Bessel-function integrability method should apply to other flat symmetric spaces with explicit spherical functions, such as rank-two CII or BDI spaces, to test whether rank-2 failure is special to type AIII.
Because the absolute-continuity step for rank $\ge2$ rests on a parenthetical extension of a cited result, a direct proof of $\mu_H^{*2}\in L^1(\mathfrak p)$ for these spaces would make the dichotomy results independent of that extension.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a genuine first. No one has studied L1-L2 dichotomy for flat symmetric spaces before, and the paper gives a complete rank-1 answer plus the first rank-2 examples, including failures. I think the results are probably right, but there is one load-bearing gap that needs fixing.

What's new and good: The setup is natural (orbital measures on the Euclidean space p via the semidirect product G0 = K ⋉ p), and the spherical transform approach works cleanly. Theorem 3.1 completes the rank-1 picture in parallel with the known compact and non-compact cases, and the AI exception (SL(2,R)/SO(2)) falls out of the Bessel asymptotics at ν = 0. The rank-2 results for SU(2,q) are the first of their kind: regular points satisfy the dichotomy, singular type D holds for q > 2 but fails for q = 2, and singular type A fails for q ≥ 3 with the sharp threshold k ≥ 3/4 + q/2. The proofs are detailed and the Bessel estimates are standard but carefully handled.

The soft spot is Lemma 2.3(2). It asserts that for rank ≥ 2, some fixed convolution power of any nonzero orbital measure lands in L1(p), citing [7, Corollary 7] improved by [12, Corollary 3]. The authors add the parenthetical that [12, Corollary 3] is valid for rank ≥ 2 even though not stated there. No derivation is given. This is load-bearing: the type D q = 2 failure and the type A q ≥ 3 failures require knowing that µ_H^{*2} is absolutely continuous so that it is not singular; without that, the dichotomy could hold vacuously at those points. The gap is real, but it is also small—it is a missing proof, not an example of circular reasoning. The rest of the paper does not depend on this in a way that would collapse; the rank-1 theorem and the regular-point theorems use only Lemma 2.3(1), which is solid.

Minor open case: SU(2,2) type A is left undecided, and the authors say so in Remark 4.4. That is fine.

My reading: the citation pattern is honest—[1], [12], [14] are prior published results, not self-serving assumptions. The paper is worth refereeing, but the referee should insist that the authors supply a proof of the rank ≥ 2 part of Lemma 2.3(2) or restate it as a conjecture and adjust the theorems that rely on it. If that gap can be filled, this is a solid paper for the harmonic analysis community.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the L1-L2 dichotomy for orbital measures on flat symmetric spaces G0/K = K ⋉ p / K, using the spherical transform and Bessel-function asymptotics. In rank 1 it proves that the dichotomy holds for every non-compact irreducible symmetric space except Cartan type AI. For the AIII spaces SU(2,q)/(S(U(2)×U(q))) it proves the dichotomy for regular points, proves that type D singular points satisfy the dichotomy when q>2 but fail when q=2, and proves that type A singular points fail for q≥3 with an explicit L2 threshold; the type A q=2 case is left open. The rank 3 regular case is also treated. The main new claimed contribution is the first rank-2 examples of failure of the L1-L2 dichotomy on flat symmetric spaces.

Significance. If the proofs are correct, the paper gives a substantial advance: a complete rank-1 classification and the first rank-2 examples where the L1-L2 dichotomy fails, with quantitative thresholds. The paper is careful in stating the open type A q=2 case and in describing limitations of the method. The use of explicit spherical functions and detailed Bessel estimates is well suited to the problem, and the rank-1 part is convincing. However, two load-bearing points need repair before the rank-2 and rank-3 claims are supported: an unproved extension of a cited result in Lemma 2.3, and an algebraic inconsistency in the derivation of the main integrand (4.3). These are gaps in proof, not disagreements with consensus.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.1, Eqs. (4.1)-(4.3)] The passage from (4.1) to (4.3) is not algebraically correct. Substituting the displayed formula for ψ(λ,X) into |ψ(λ,X)|^{2k} and multiplying by δ(λ) gives the factor (λ_i^2−λ_j^2) in the denominator with exponent 2k−2, not in the numerator as written in (4.3); it also introduces an additional factor (λ_1...λ_p)^{2k(r+1)}. Hence every estimate in Section 4 is applied to an expression that is not the Plancherel integrand derived from the stated spherical function. This affects Theorems 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.5. The displayed formula for ψ should also be checked against the rank-1 formula (3.1): for p=1 the product ∏(x_kλ_k) gives ψ∝tλ J_{q−1}(tλ), which contradicts (3.1).
[Lemma 2.3(2)] Lemma 2.3(2) asserts that for rank G/K ≥2, μ_H^{*k(G)} ∈ L1(p) for every nonzero H, and the proof invokes an extension of [12, Corollary 3] with the parenthetical remark that the result is valid for rank G/K ≥2 although not stated in [12]. This extension is load-bearing: Theorems 4.2 and 4.3 use μ_H^{*2} ∈ L1 for singular H in the root systems C_2 and BC_2. Without a proof or a precise citation verifying that the rank-2 root systems are covered, the nonsingularity of the second convolution power, and hence the failure claims at type D (q=2) and type A (q≥3), is not established.
[Theorem 4.1, estimate on W1] Even accepting the integrand (4.3) as the intended one, the estimate on W1 does not prove the claimed convergence for k≥2 when q=2. The displayed bound gives φ ≤ C λ_1^{-((2r+1)(k−1)+2k−2)}, and for r=0, k=2 this is λ_1^{-3}; the polar-coordinate integral in (4.9) is then ∫ ρ dρ/ρ^3, which diverges. The authors state that (4.9) converges for k≥2, but the q=2 case is not covered by the displayed exponent. The proof needs an additional estimate that exploits the vanishing of the determinant when λ_1=λ_2.

minor comments (4)

[Theorem 4.2, divergence intervals] The displayed equality of the two expressions for the intervals I_n is not correct: the two products differ by a shift of π in the first factor. The subsequent lower-bound estimates appear to use the first expression, so the paragraph should be rewritten with consistent interval notation.
[Section 4.1, definition of f_r] The value f_r(0) is written as 1/2^r, but from J_r(s)∼(s/2)^r/Γ(r+1) the correct value is 1/(2^r Γ(r+1)). This does not affect the stated integrability results, but the constant should be corrected.
[Theorem 4.3, Eq. (4.14)] The displayed estimate in (4.14) appears to have reciprocal exponents: the text says φ ≈ C' λ_1^{1+2r}/λ_1^{2(2k−2)} = C'/λ_1^{4k−5−2r}, which is not algebraically correct. The intended exponent should be stated explicitly so that the convergence condition can be checked.
[References] The reference [24] has a typo in the author's name ('Jodeph A. Wolf'); it should be 'Joseph A. Wolf'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Rank-2 failure claims rely on an unproven rank≥2 extension of a self-cited result in Lemma 2.3(2).

self citation load bearing [Lemma 2.3(2), Section 2; invoked in Theorems 4.2 and 4.3]
"This estimate is improved in [12, Corollary 3] in cases complementary to A_n and D_3. (Though not explicitly stated in [12], the result is valid for rank G/K ≥ 2.) Then, we apply [1, Theorem 3.1] to get the desired result."

The rank-2 singular-case theorems both begin 'Lemma 2.3 always provides that µ_H^{*2} ∈ L1(p)'. This premise is used to rule out singularity at the crucial power k=2 before testing L2; if µ_H^{*2} were singular, Definition 1.1 would already be satisfied and the divergence computations in Theorems 4.2(q=2) and 4.3 would not establish failure. The premise is supplied only by Lemma 2.3(2), whose proof cites [12, Corollary 3] while admitting the rank≥2 case is 'not explicitly stated in [12]' and gives no derivation. Since [12] is prior work of co-author Gupta, the central failure claims import their key non-singularity input from an unverified self-citation rather than from an independent proof.

full rationale

The rank-one dichotomy (Theorem 3.1) and the regular-point rank 2/3 theorems (4.1, 4.5) are derived from explicit spherical transform formulas of Ben Saïd–Ørsted, the Plancherel formula, and Bessel-function estimates; those are independent of any fitted parameter and do not assume the target conclusion. The singular type-D and type-A failure results (4.2, 4.3) rest on direct divergence estimates once µ_H^{*2} ∈ L1 is granted. The only load-bearing step that reduces to the authors' own prior work is Lemma 2.3(2): its proof imports [12, Corollary 3] for rank≥2 even while noting the statement is not explicit in [12]. This is a substantive proof gap and self-citation dependency, but it is not a definitional tautology or a fitted-input-called-prediction, so the score is moderate rather than 8–10.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters and no invented entities. The central computations rest on cited harmonic-analysis theorems (Plancherel, spherical functions) and standard Bessel asymptotics, plus one load-bearing extension of a prior result by the same authors that is flagged but not proved.

assumptions (5)

standard math Plancherel formula for Ad(K)-invariant measures on p (Helgason [21, Chapter IV, Theorem 9.1])
Invoked in Lemma 2.2 to characterize L2 membership of orbital measures via square-integrability of their spherical transform against the Plancherel density.
standard math Explicit formula for spherical functions ψ_λ on p (Helgason [21, Proposition 4.8])
Used in Lemma 2.1 to compute spherical transforms of orbital measures as products of spherical functions.
standard math Determinant formula for spherical functions on SU(p,q) flat spaces (Ben Saïd and Ørsted [3, Theorem 6.1])
Supplies the Bessel-function determinant in equation (4.1), the starting integral for all rank 2 and 3 estimates.
domain assumption Lemma 2.3(2) relies on the claim that [12, Corollary 3] gives L1 membership of µ_H^{*k(G)} for all rank G/K ≥ 2
The authors note '(Though not explicitly stated in [12], the result is valid for rank G/K ≥ 2.)' This extension is used to ensure second convolution powers of singular orbital measures are absolutely continuous in SU(2,q) cases.
standard math Standard asymptotic estimates for Bessel functions and their derivatives (equations (4.5), (4.7), (4.8))
Used throughout Section 4 to bound the integrals that determine square-integrability thresholds.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On $L^1$-$L^2$ dichotomy for flat symmetric spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5SFJRJW

@misc{pith2026241115564,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On $L^1$-$L^2$ dichotomy for flat symmetric spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5SFJRJW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15564}
}

abstract

For rank 1 flat symmetric spaces, continuous orbital measures admit absolutely continuous convolution squares, except for Cartan type AI. Hence $L^1$-$L^2$ dichotomy for these spaces holds true in parallel to the compact and non-compact rank 1 symmetric spaces. We also study $L^1$-$L^2$ dichotomy for flat symmetric spaces of ranks $p=2,3$ of type AIII, i.e.\ associated with $SU(p,q)/S(U(p)\times U(q))$ where $q\geq p$. For continuous orbital measures given by regular points $L^1$-$L^2$ dichotomy holds. We study such measures given by certain singular points when $p=2$, and show that $L^1$-$L^2$ dichotomy fails. This is the first time such results are observed for any type of symmetric spaces of rank 2.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Convolution of o rbital mea- sures in symmetric spaces, Bull

Anchouche, Boudjemaa; Gupta, Sanjiv Kumar. Convolution of o rbital mea- sures in symmetric spaces, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 83 (2011), 470– 485

work page 2011
[12]

The absolute continuit y of convolu- tions of orbital measures in symmetric spaces

Gupta, Sanjiv Kumar; Hare, Kathryn E. The absolute continuit y of convolu- tions of orbital measures in symmetric spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 450 (2017), 81–111

work page 2017
[14]

’The smoothness of or bital measures on noncompact symmetric spaces, J

Gupta, Sanjiv Kumar; Hare, Kathryn E. ’The smoothness of or bital measures on noncompact symmetric spaces, J. Aust. Math. Soc. 113 (2022 ), 188–207

work page 2022
[2]

Or bital mea- sures on SU (2)/SO(2)

Anchouche, Boudjemaa; Gupta, Sanjiv Kumar; Plagne, Alain. Or bital mea- sures on SU (2)/SO(2). Monatsh. Math. 178 (2015), 493–520

work page 2015
[3]

Analysis on ﬂat symmetric space s, J

Ben Sa ¨ ıd, Salem; Ørsted, Bent. Analysis on ﬂat symmetric space s, J. Math. Pures Appl. 84 (2005), 1393–1426

work page 2005
[4]

Bloom and H

W. Bloom and H. Heyer, Harmonic analysis of probability measures o n hyper- groups, De Gruyter Studies in Math 20, Berlin 1994

work page 1994
[5]

Random matrix theory and symme tric spaces, Physics Reports 394 (2004), 41–156

Caselle, Michelle; Magnea, Ulrika. Random matrix theory and symme tric spaces, Physics Reports 394 (2004), 41–156

work page 2004
[6]

Operators and harmonic analysis on the sphere, Trans

Dunkl, Charles. Operators and harmonic analysis on the sphere, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.125 (1966), 250-263

work page 1966

Show all 25 references

[7]

Absolute continuity of convo lutions of orbital measures on Riemannian symmetric spaces, J

Graczyk, Piotr; Sawyer, Patrice. Absolute continuity of convo lutions of orbital measures on Riemannian symmetric spaces, J. Func. Anal. 259 (201 0), 1759– 1770
[8]

Convolution of orbital measu res on symmetric spaces: a survey, Probability on Algebraic and geometric structur es, Cont

Graczyk, Piotr; Sawyer, Patrice. Convolution of orbital measu res on symmetric spaces: a survey, Probability on Algebraic and geometric structur es, Cont. Math. 668 (2016), 81–110

2016
[9]

Singularity of orbits in cla ssical Lie algebras, Geom

Gupta, Sanjiv Kumar; Hare, Kathryn E. Singularity of orbits in cla ssical Lie algebras, Geom. Funct. Anal. 13 (2003), 815–844

2003
[10]

L2-singular dichotomy for orbital measures of classical compact Lie groups, Adv

Gupta, Sanjiv Kumar; Hare, Kathryn E. L2-singular dichotomy for orbital measures of classical compact Lie groups, Adv. Math. 222 (2009) , 1521–1573

2009
[11]

L2-singular dichotomy for orbital measures on complex groups

Gupta, Sanjiv Kumar; Hare, Kathryn E.. L2-singular dichotomy for orbital measures on complex groups. Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. 9 (2010), 409— 419

2010
[13]

The smoothness of co nvolutions of singular orbital measures on complex Grassmannians

Gupta, Sanjiv Kumar; Hare, Kathryn E. The smoothness of co nvolutions of singular orbital measures on complex Grassmannians. J. Lie Theory 31 (2021), 335–349. ON L1-L2 DICHOTOMY 21

2021
[15]

L2-singular dichotomy for orbital measures of classical simple Lie algebras

Gupta, Sanjiv; Hare, Kathryn E.; Seyfaddini, Sobhan. L2-singular dichotomy for orbital measures of classical simple Lie algebras. Math. Z. 262 ( 2009), 91– 124

2009
[16]

The L2-singular dichotomy for exceptional Lie groups and algebras, J

Hare, Kathryn E.; Johnstone, Daniel L.; Shi, Fangyi; Yeung, Wa i-Kit. The L2-singular dichotomy for exceptional Lie groups and algebras, J. Au st. Math. Soc. 95 (2013), 362–382

2013
[17]

Smoothness of convolution produ cts of orbital measures on rank one compact symmetric spaces

Hare, Kathryn E.; He, Jimmy. Smoothness of convolution produ cts of orbital measures on rank one compact symmetric spaces. Bull. Aust. Math . Soc. 94 (2016), 131–143

2016
[18]

The absolute continuity of convolu tion prod- ucts of orbital measures in exceptional symmetric spaces, Monat sh

Hare, Kathryn E.; He, Jimmy. The absolute continuity of convolu tion prod- ucts of orbital measures in exceptional symmetric spaces, Monat sh. Math. 182 (2017), 619–635

2017
[19]

A geometric proof of the L2-singular dichotomy for orbital measures on Lie algebras and groups

Hare, Kathryn E.; He, Jimmy. A geometric proof of the L2-singular dichotomy for orbital measures on Lie algebras and groups. Boll. Unione Mat. I tal. 11 (2018), 573–580

2018
[20]

Diﬀerential geometry, Lie groups and sym metric spaces, Academic Press, New York, 1978

Helgason, Sigurdur. Diﬀerential geometry, Lie groups and sym metric spaces, Academic Press, New York, 1978

1978
[21]

Groups and Geometric analysis, American M ath Soc., Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 83, 2002

Helgason, Sigurdur. Groups and Geometric analysis, American M ath Soc., Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 83, 2002

2002
[22]

Central measures on compact simple Lie group s, J

Ragozin, David L. Central measures on compact simple Lie group s, J. Func. Anal. 10 (1972), 212–229

1972
[23]

Zonal measure algebras on isotropy irreducib le homogeneous spaces, J

Ragozin, David L. Zonal measure algebras on isotropy irreducib le homogeneous spaces, J. Func. Anal. 17 (1974), 355–376

1974
[24]

Harmonic Analysis on Commutative Spaces, Amer

Wolf, Jodeph A. Harmonic Analysis on Commutative Spaces, Amer . Math. Soc., Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 142, 2007

2007
[25]

Wright, Alex, Sums of adjoint orbits and L2 -singular dichotomy for SU (m), Adv. Math. 227 (2011), 253–266. Dept. of Mathematics, Sultan Qaboos University, P.O.Box 36 Al Khodh 123, Sultanate of Oman Email address : gupta@squ.edu.om Dept. of Pure Mathematics, University of W at...

2011

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Convolution of o rbital mea- sures in symmetric spaces, Bull

Anchouche, Boudjemaa; Gupta, Sanjiv Kumar. Convolution of o rbital mea- sures in symmetric spaces, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 83 (2011), 470– 485

work page 2011

[2] [12]

The absolute continuit y of convolu- tions of orbital measures in symmetric spaces

Gupta, Sanjiv Kumar; Hare, Kathryn E. The absolute continuit y of convolu- tions of orbital measures in symmetric spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 450 (2017), 81–111

work page 2017

[3] [14]

’The smoothness of or bital measures on noncompact symmetric spaces, J

Gupta, Sanjiv Kumar; Hare, Kathryn E. ’The smoothness of or bital measures on noncompact symmetric spaces, J. Aust. Math. Soc. 113 (2022 ), 188–207

work page 2022

[4] [2]

Or bital mea- sures on SU (2)/SO(2)

Anchouche, Boudjemaa; Gupta, Sanjiv Kumar; Plagne, Alain. Or bital mea- sures on SU (2)/SO(2). Monatsh. Math. 178 (2015), 493–520

work page 2015

[5] [3]

Analysis on ﬂat symmetric space s, J

Ben Sa ¨ ıd, Salem; Ørsted, Bent. Analysis on ﬂat symmetric space s, J. Math. Pures Appl. 84 (2005), 1393–1426

work page 2005

[6] [4]

Bloom and H

W. Bloom and H. Heyer, Harmonic analysis of probability measures o n hyper- groups, De Gruyter Studies in Math 20, Berlin 1994

work page 1994

[7] [5]

Random matrix theory and symme tric spaces, Physics Reports 394 (2004), 41–156

Caselle, Michelle; Magnea, Ulrika. Random matrix theory and symme tric spaces, Physics Reports 394 (2004), 41–156

work page 2004

[8] [6]

Operators and harmonic analysis on the sphere, Trans

Dunkl, Charles. Operators and harmonic analysis on the sphere, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.125 (1966), 250-263

work page 1966