Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Universality of renormalisable mappings in two dimensions: the case of polar convex integrands

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 The paper proves that the renormalised energy of singular harmonic maps in two dimensions is universal across a broad class of convex approximating integrands.

desk verdict Solid, detailed universality result for renormalised energies under a strong but explicit concavity assumption; deserves refereeing, with the second-order claim flagged as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17520 v2 pith:J4WUFS2K submitted 2024-11-26 math.AP

Christopher Irving , Benoît Van Vaerenbergh This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 58E2049J45
keywords renormalisedenergysingularharmonicmapsvortexmapuniversalityconvexintegrandsp-harmonicapproximationGamma-convergenceSobolev
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 establishes that the renormalised energy of singular harmonic maps in two dimensions is universal: the leading-order cost of resolving a topologically obstructed boundary datum is the same for every approximating functional in a broad class. In particular, for any sequence of convex integrands converging to $|z|^2/2$ — p-energy with $p\nearrow 2$, rescaled area, truncated Dirichlet, and $L\log^{-2}L$ — the normalised infimum $V(f_n)^{-1}\inf\int_\Omega f_n(|Dv|)\,dx$ converges to the singular energy $E^{1,2}_{sg}([g])$, a homotopy invariant that depends only on the boundary datum. The paper also proves a second-order statement: asymptotically minimising sequences converge strongly in $W^{1,1}$ to a renormalisable singular harmonic map whose refined energy is $E^{1,2}_{ren}(u_*)+H([u_*,a_i])$, and in the model case of the unit disc with circle target the full sequence converges to the vortex map. The result matters because it shows the limiting object is intrinsic to the mapping problem rather than an artifact of a chosen approximation, and it suggests defining manifold-constrained harmonic extensions by minimising the renormalised energy.

What carries the argument

The engine is the merging-ball lower bound of Proposition 4.7: a finite-collection construction that starts from the energy carried by the singularities and produces disjoint balls of prescribed total radius while preserving a uniform lower bound in terms of $\Lambda_f(t)=\frac{1}{2\,\mathrm{sys}(N)^2}\int_0^t f(2/(\mathrm{sys}(N)s))s\,ds$. This is what transfers localised energy estimates into the asymptotic lower bound that matches the singular energy. The companion ingredient is the controlled decay condition that $t\mapsto f(\sqrt{t})$ be eventually concave, which is used in Lemma 2.13 to compare $f(\sigma)-f(\rho)$ by $\sigma^2-\rho^2$ and yields the upper bound Proposition 4.1. Together the two bounds produce the $\Gamma$-convergence-type limit and, through the asymptotic uniform convexity of the limiting $L^2$ scale, the strong convergence of gradients.

What would settle it

Construct a sequence of Young functions that converges pointwise to $t^2/2$, has finite vortex energy, satisfies the weaker natural decay condition but not eventual concavity of $t\mapsto f(\sqrt{t})$, and compute the limit of $V(f_n)^{-1}\inf\int_\Omega f_n(|Dv|)\,dx$; if it differs from $E^{1,2}_{sg}([g])$, the concavity assumption is necessary. The paper's Example 2.7 provides exactly such integrands, so the calculation is a concrete check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for any approximating family of Young functions satisfying the controlled subquadratic decay condition, finite vortex energy, and pointwise convergence to $t^2/2$, the variational limit of $V(f_n)^{-1}\inf\int_\Omega f_n(|Dv|)\,dx$ equals the singular energy $E^{1,2}_{sg}([g])$. Along asymptotically minimising sequences this is upgraded to compactness and convergence: a subsequence converges strongly in $W^{1,1}$ to a map $u_*$ with finitely many point singularities forming a minimal topological resolution of the boundary datum; $u_*$ is $W^{1,2}$-regular and harmonic away from its singularities; and the second-order expansion $\lim_n[\int_\Omega f_n(|Du_n|)-V(f_n)E^{1,2}_{sg}(g)]=E^{1,2}_{ren}(u_*)+\sum_i\frac{\lambda([u_*,a_i])^2}{4\pi}\log\frac{2\pi}{\lambda([u_*,a_i])}$ holds. In the unit ball with $N=S^1$ and identity boundary datum, the whole sequence converges to the vortex map $x/|x|$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the approximating integrands are uniformly concave after the change of variables $t\mapsto\sqrt{t}$; if that concavity fails, even with finite vortex energy and pointwise convergence to $t^2/2$, the paper's upper-bound argument and its second-order convergence can break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $p$-harmonic functionals the result recovers the known limit $(2-p)\inf\int_\Omega |Dv|^p/p\to E^{1,2}_{sg}([g])$ as $p\nearrow 2$.
  • For rescaled area functionals, $(1/\log(1/\delta))\inf\int_\Omega(\sqrt{1+\delta^2|Dv|^2}-1)/\delta^2\to E^{1,2}_{sg}([g])$ as $\delta\searrow 0$.
  • Almost minimisers have equi-integrable gradients converging strongly in $L^1$ to $Du_*$, and $f_n(|Du_*-Du_n|)\to 0$ away from a finite set of point singularities.
  • In the unit-disc/circle case with winding-one boundary datum, the full sequence of almost minimisers converges to the vortex map, not merely a subsequence.
  • The second-order expansion identifies the singular harmonic extension as the minimiser of $E^{1,2}_{ren}+H$ over renormalisable maps with the given boundary datum.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the first-order universality probably extends beyond the concavity class, since the paper sketches a route under the weaker natural decay condition; a natural test is whether the singular-energy limit persists for all subquadratic Young functions with finite vortex energy.
  • Editorial extension: because the result covers area-type and truncated integrands, the same limiting object should arise from discrete or mesh-based approximations; checking universality numerically against a discretisation would give a practical route to renormalised harmonic extensions.
  • Editorial extension: the concavity assumption's role in the second-order expansion is the main frontier; finding a non-concave family where the first-order limit holds but the second-order constant changes would show exactly where universality breaks.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a general variational framework for approximating the Dirichlet energy of maps from a planar domain into a compact manifold by functionals ∫_Ω f_n(|Du|) dx. It introduces a class of approximating integrands (Definition 2.1) satisfying finite vortex energy, pointwise convergence to t^2/2, and the uniform concavity condition that t ↦ f_n(√t) is concave on [t_0,∞). The main results are Theorem 1.1, giving first-order asymptotics of the minimal energy in terms of the universal singular energy E_sg^{1,2}; Theorem 1.2, giving the second-order expansion and strong W^{1,1} convergence of almost minimisers to a renormalisable map u_* whose singularities form a minimal topological resolution; and Theorem 1.3, showing in the disk/circle case that the full sequence converges to the vortex map x/|x|. The proofs are built on a Jerrard–Sandier ball-merging construction for general convex integrands, a compactness theorem under renormalised energy bounds, and an asymptotic uniform-convexity argument. The paper also includes a detailed treatment of the assumptions, with examples covering p-energy, rescaled area, truncated Dirichlet, and L log^{-2} L integrands, and with counterexamples clarifying the relations among the decay conditions.

Significance. If the proof issues identified below are repaired, this is a substantial contribution. It unifies several previously separate approximation schemes, including the p-harmonic approximation p↗2, area-type functionals, truncated Dirichlet energies, and L log^{-2} L energies, and identifies the renormalised energy as a universal limit object that is independent of the approximating sequence. The paper is carefully structured, with explicit estimates and a transparent account of the role of the concavity condition (Dec)^c_2; the authors honestly record in Example 2.7 and Remark 6.5 that their second-order theorem is not extended to the weaker condition (Dec)^n_2. The main derivation is not circular, since the singular and renormalised energies are defined from geodesic lengths and Dirichlet energies away from singularities, not from the approximating sequence. The conditional character of the second-order universality is a limitation, but it is explicitly acknowledged rather than hidden.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2, Lemma 4.8] The proof states: “since E ↦ E Λ_f(σ/E) is non-increasing by Lemma 4.5 (with ρ=0)”, and derives (4.26) from this. Lemma 4.5 actually gives that E ↦ EΛ_f(σ/E) is non-decreasing in E; the function s ↦ Λ_f(s)/s is non-increasing. As written, the monotonicity direction is wrong and the displayed derivation of (4.26) does not follow. The inequality claimed in (4.25) is nevertheless true, but the proof must be rewritten with the correct monotonicity statement.
  2. [§4.2, Proposition 4.7, Step 3, equations (4.36)–(4.40)] The application of Lemma 4.8 to the merged ball is not justified as written. The balls B_i^F satisfy r(B_i^F) ≥ E_i t_j (4.36), which violates the hypothesis σ_i ≤ E_i T of Lemma 4.8; the inequality in (4.39) is then attributed to (4.37), but (4.37) has the opposite direction. A correct argument should apply Lemma 4.8 to the sub-collection {tilde B_i^F} ∪ {B_i^G}, for which the radius bounds (4.37) and (4.38) do satisfy the lemma’s hypotheses, and then use the monotonicity of E ↦ EΛ(σ/E) together with subadditivity (3.4) to pass from the sum of the energies to E_sg^{1,2}(tr_{∂B} u). This is a load-bearing step in the ball-merging lower bound, so the proof needs to be corrected.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.4, Step 2] In the paragraph beginning “For each B ∈ BTop_n(η_n)”, the symbol η_n has not been defined; the argument appears to be for a fixed η, and the notation should be adjusted.
  2. [§6.2, Lemma 6.4] The lemma is stated for “a ∈ R”, but the proof treats a as an element of R^d; the statement should be corrected to a ∈ R^d.
  3. [§6.2, proof of Proposition 6.2] The proof cites “Proposition 6.3” for the almost-everywhere convergence of gradients; the reference should be to Lemma 6.3.
  4. [§6.3, equation (6.14)] In the displayed computation for Theorem 6.1(iii), the first integrand is written as f(|Du_*|); it should be f_n(|Du_*|), since the limit passage uses the dominated convergence theorem for f_n.
  5. [§4.1, Proposition 4.1] The constant H([u,a_i])^κ_{i=1} is written with κ although u is said to have k distinct singularities; the notation should be made consistent.
  6. [§4.1, equation (4.12)] The intermediate inequality omits a factor 1/2 in the coefficient of the integral, although the final bound in (4.12) is correct; aligning the intermediate line with Lemma 2.13 would prevent confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the universal renormalised-energy limits are derived from independent definitions and prior published results, not from fitted inputs or self-referential assumptions.

full rationale

The central claims are not circular. The limiting objects E_{sg}^{1,2}([g]) and E_{ren}^{1,2}(u_*) are defined from geodesic lengths and Dirichlet energies away from singularities, with no dependence on the approximating integrands (f_n)_n. The normalisation V(f_n) is the vortex energy computed for each integrand and is not fitted to the boundary datum or to the limit energy. The upper bound in Proposition 4.1 derives the constants H([u,a_i]) directly from V(f_n) via Lemma 4.2 and dominated convergence, while the lower bound Proposition 4.7 is a genuine ball-merging construction following Jerrard and Sandier, using only (Dec)^n_2 and (vInt). The compactness theorem, strong L^1 convergence, and the second-order expansion are proved from these estimates with standard measure and trace arguments. The uniform concavity condition (Dec)^c_2 is an explicit assumption in Definition 2.1, and the four examples are verified by computation rather than assumed; the paper even identifies a counterexample family satisfying (Dec)^n_2 but not (Dec)^c_2, and Remark 6.5 explains how far the weaker condition reaches. Citations to [29] and [40], including one co-authored by the present second author, supply prior definitions and special cases, but these are published independent results with stated assumptions that do not include the present theorem, and the central universality statement does not reduce to them. There are no fitted parameters renamed as predictions and no definitional equivalence between the inputs and the outputs.

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

The central claims rest on the class of integrands satisfying (Dec)_c^2 and (vInt), and on the renormalised-energy framework of [29] and [40]. No free parameters are fitted: V(f_n) is determined by f_n. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The integrands (f_n) satisfy (Dec)_c^2 uniformly, i.e., t maps to f_n(sqrt(t)) is concave on [t0, infinity), have finite vortex energy V(f_n), and converge pointwise to t^2/2.
    Definition 2.1; the entire theory is built for this class, and the upper bound Proposition 4.1 and compactness Theorem 5.1 rely on it.
  • domain assumption The target N is a smooth compact connected Riemannian manifold isometrically embedded in some R^nu, and the domain Omega is bounded and Lipschitz.
    Section 3 and throughout; isometric embedding via Nash's theorem [30] is fixed.
  • domain assumption The prior framework of singular energy, renormalisable maps and geometric energy from Monteil-Rodiac-Van Schaftingen [28,29] and the p-harmonic approximation result [40] are accepted as background.
    Definitions 3.4-3.7 and Proposition 3.6 are quoted from [29,40]; Lemma 7.3 and E_geom are used in Section 7.
  • standard math Standard analytic tools (Dunford-Pettis, Vitali-Hahn-Saks, Scheffé's lemma, Vitali convergence, Reshetnyak's theorem, Gagliardo trace theorem) are used without proof.
    Used in Sections 5 and 6.
  • standard math The systole of N is positive and the length spectrum is discrete (Lemma 3.2, quoted from [28]).
    Used to ensure ball radii can be chosen and singular energy quantized.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universality of renormalisable mappings in two dimensions: the case of polar convex integrands." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J4WUFS2K

@misc{pith2026241117520,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universality of renormalisable mappings in two dimensions: the case of polar convex integrands},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J4WUFS2K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17520}
}
abstract

We establish universality of the renormalised energy for mappings from a planar domain to a compact manifold, by approximating subquadratic polar convex functionals of the form $\int_\Omega f(|\mathrm{D} u|)\,\mathrm{d} x$. The analysis relies on the condition that the vortex map ${x}/{\lvert x\rvert}$ has finite energy and that $t\mapsto f (\sqrt{t})$ is concave. We derive the leading order asymptotics and provide a detailed description of the convergence of $\mathrm{W}^{1,1}$-almost minimisers, leading to a characterization of second-order asymptotics. At the core of the method, we prove a ball merging construction (following Jerrard and Sandier's approach) for a general class of convex integrands. We therefore generalize the approximation by $p$-harmonic mappings when $p\nearrow 2$ and can also cover linearly growing functionals, including those of area-type.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17520 by the authors.

Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Flowchart of the inductive process We claim that if B±(t) satisfies (a), (b) for all t ∈ (tj−1, tj ), then the claimed properties (i)–(vi) hold for all t in this range. Indeed, property (i) holds for t < tj by Case 1 of tj and by the fact that the only expanding balls are those in B + G (t) = B − G (t). Similarly Case 2 of tj ensures (iv) holds provided t < tj , noting the inequality for balls in B − F (t) weakens a… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ambrosio and G

    L. Ambrosio and G. Dal Maso. On the relaxation inBV(Ω; Rm) of quasi-convex integrals.J. Func. Anal., 109(1):76–97, Oct. 1992

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    Attouch, G

    H. Attouch, G. Buttazzo, and G. Michaille.Variational analysis in Sobolev and BV spaces, volume 17 of MOS-SIAM Series on Optimization. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadel- phia, PA; Mathematical Optimization Society, Philadelphia, PA, second edition, 2014. Applications to PDEs and optimization

    2014

  3. [3]

    Beaufort, J

    P.-A. Beaufort, J. Lambrechts, F. Henrotte, C. Geuzaine, and J.-F. Remacle. Computing cross fields : A PDE approach based on the Ginzburg-Landau theory.Procedia Engineering, 203:219–231, 2017. 26th International Meshing Roundtable, IMR26, 18-21 September 2017, Barcelona, Spain

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    F. Bethuel. The approximation problem for Sobolev maps between two manifolds.Acta Math., 167:153– 206, 1991

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    Bethuel, H

    F. Bethuel, H. Brezis, and F. Hélein. Ginzburg-Landau vortices. Modern Birkhäuser Classics. Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham, 1994

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    Bethuel and F

    F. Bethuel and F. Demengel. Extensions for Sobolev mappings between manifolds.Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 3(4):475–491, 1995

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Bildhauer

    M. Bildhauer. Convex Variational Problems, volume 1818 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Bourgain, H

    J. Bourgain, H. Brezis, and P. Mironescu. Another look at Sobolev spaces. InOptimal control and partial differential equations, pages 439–455. IOS, Amsterdam, 2001

    2001

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    H. Brezis. Convergence inD ′ and in L1 under strict convexity. InBoundary value problems for partial differential equations and applications, volume 29 ofRMA Res. Notes Appl. Math., pages 43–52. Masson, Paris, 1993

    1993

  2. [10]

    H. Brezis. Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations. Springer New York, New York, NY, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Brezis and P

    H. Brezis and P. Mironescu. Sobolev maps to the circle—from the perspective of analysis, geome- try, and topology, volume 96 of Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications. Birkhäuser/Springer, New York, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Brezis and L

    H. Brezis and L. Nirenberg. Degree theory and BMO; part I: Compact manifolds without boundaries. Sel. Math., 1(2):197–263, Sept. 1995

    1995

  5. [13]

    Bulanyi and J

    B. Bulanyi and J. Van Schaftingen. Singular extension of critical Sobolev mappings under an exponential weak-type estimate.J. Func. Anal., 288(1), Jan. 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Canevari and A

    G. Canevari and A. Segatti. Defects in nematic shells: aΓ-convergence discrete-to-continuum approach. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 229(1):125–186, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    L. C. Evans and R. F. Gariepy. Measure Theory and Fine Properties of Functions. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Fonseca and G

    I. Fonseca and G. Leoni.Modern Methods in the Calculus of Variations:Lp Spaces. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2007

    2007

  9. [17]

    Goffman and J

    C. Goffman and J. Serrin. Sublinear functions of measures and variational integrals.Duke Math. J., 31(1):159–178, Mar. 1964. 52 CHRISTOPHER IR VING AND BENOÎT V AN V AERENBERGH

    1964

  10. [18]

    Grisvard.Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains

    P. Grisvard.Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Jan. 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    Hardt, F

    R. Hardt, F. Lin, and C. Wang. Thep-energy minimality ofx/|x|. Comm. Anal. Geom., 6(1):141–152, 1998

    1998

  12. [20]

    Hardt and F.-H

    R. Hardt and F.-H. Lin. Mappings minimizing theLp norm of the gradient.Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 40(5):555–588, 1987

    1987

  13. [21]

    Harjulehto and P

    P. Harjulehto and P. Hästö.Orlicz Spaces and Generalized Orlicz Spaces. Springer International Pub- lishing, Cham, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    R. L. Jerrard. Lower Bounds for Generalized Ginzburg–Landau Functionals. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 30(4):721–746, Jan. 1999

    1999

  15. [23]

    J. M. Lee. Introduction to Riemannian manifolds, volume 176 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    G. Leoni. A First Course in Sobolev Spaces. Number 181 in Graduate Studies in Mathematics. AMS, Providence, 2nd ed edition, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    G. G. Lorentz. Some new functional spaces.Ann. of Math. (2), 51:37–55, 1950

    1950

  18. [26]

    Maligranda.Orlicz Spaces and Interpolation

    L. Maligranda.Orlicz Spaces and Interpolation. Number 5 in Seminars in Mathematics. Departamento de Matemática, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 1989

    1989

  19. [27]

    Marcinkiewicz

    J. Marcinkiewicz. Sur l’interpolation d’opérations.CR Acad. Sci. Paris., 208:1272–1273, 1939

    1939

  20. [28]

    Monteil, R

    A. Monteil, R. Rodiac, and J. Van Schaftingen. Ginzburg–Landau Relaxation for Harmonic Maps on Planar Domains into a General Compact Vacuum Manifold.Arch Rational Mech Anal, 242(2):875–935, Nov. 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Monteil, R

    A. Monteil, R. Rodiac, and J. Van Schaftingen. Renormalised energies and renormalisable singular har- monic maps into a compact manifold on planar domains.Math. Ann., 383(3):1061–1125, Aug. 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    J. Nash. The imbedding problem for Riemannian manifolds, 1956

    1956

  23. [31]

    Palmer, A

    D. Palmer, A. Chern, and J. Solomon. Lifting directional fields to minimal sections.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 43(4):1–20, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Petrache and J

    M. Petrache and J. Van Schaftingen. Controlled singular extension of critical trace Sobolev maps from spheres to compact manifolds.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (12):3647–3683, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Pólya and G

    G. Pólya and G. Szegö.Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics. Number 27 in Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1951

    1951

  26. [34]

    Rindler.Calculus of variations

    F. Rindler.Calculus of variations. Universitext. Springer Cham, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Convex analysis, volumeNo.28of Princeton Mathematical Series.PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, NJ, 1970

    R.T.Rockafellar. Convex analysis, volumeNo.28of Princeton Mathematical Series.PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, NJ, 1970

    1970

  28. [36]

    E. Sandier. Lower Bounds for the Energy of Unit Vector Fields and Applications. J. Func. Anal., 152(2):379–403, Feb. 1998

    1998

  29. [37]

    Schoen and K

    R. Schoen and K. Uhlenbeck. Boundary regularity and the Dirichlet problem for harmonic maps.J. Diff. Geom., 18(2):253–268, Jan. 1983

    1983

  30. [38]

    M. Solci. Nonlocal-interaction vortices.SIAM J. Math. Anal., 56(3):3430–3451, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Van Schaftingen

    J. Van Schaftingen. The extension of traces for Sobolev mappings between manifolds.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18738, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Van Schaftingen and B

    J. Van Schaftingen and B. Van Vaerenbergh. Asymptotic behavior of minimizingp-harmonic maps when p ↗ 2 in dimension 2.Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 62(8):Paper No. 229, 45, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Willem.Functional analysis

    M. Willem.Functional analysis. Cornerstones. Birkhäuser/Springer, New York, 2013. Fundamentals and applications. F aculty of Mathematics, Technical University Dortmund, Vogelpothsweg 87, 44227, Dort- mund, Germany Email address: christopher.irving@tu-dortmund.de Université cat...

    2013

Pith tools

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