Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Linear programming bounds in homogeneous spaces, I: Optimal packing density

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes a general linear programming upper bound on sphere-packing density in every 'convenient commutative space,' and derives the conjectured hyperbolic-space version as a special case.

desk verdict Unified LP packing bounds via autocorrelation measures are real, but the deterministic bridge rests on an unproved ergodic theorem in a companion paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23572 v1 pith:N2RN7FQD submitted 2025-05-29 math.MG math.GRmath.PR

Maximilian Wackenhuth This is my paper
classification math.MGmath.GRmath.PR MSC 52C1722E4643A8560G55
keywords spherepackinglinearprogrammingboundshyperbolicspaceGelfandpairshomogeneousspacespointprocessesautocorrelationmeasuresBowen-Radindensity
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 sphere-packing density in a broad class of homogeneous spaces is controlled by one linear programming inequality: for any convenient commutative space—a Gelfand pair (G, K) equipped with an invariant metric and a Schwartz-like function space—every admissible witness function f gives the bound △(r, G/K) ≤ m_{G/K}(B(x_0, r)) f(e)/bf(1). The main target is hyperbolic space, where this bound was conjectured but previously known only for periodic packings; the proof does not rely on approximating arbitrary packings by periodic ones. Instead, deterministic packings with well-defined density are viewed as generic instances of stationary random packings, so the bound becomes an intensity estimate i(Λ) ≤ f(e)/bf(1) for invariant point processes. If the theorems are correct, the same machinery yields explicit packing bounds in Riemannian symmetric spaces, Heisenberg groups, and any other space satisfying the needed ergodic hypothesis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reduced autocorrelation measure η_Λ of a stationary 2r-uniformly discrete point process Λ, together with its spherical transform, the spherical diffraction. The argument uses two facts: η_Λ and η_Λ^+ are positive-definite bi-K-invariant measures—invariant under the compact subgroup K from both sides—so the Plancherel-Godement theorem gives them positive spherical transforms; and the identity η_Λ^+ = η_Λ + i(Λ)^2 m_G becomes the spectral identity bη_Λ^+ = bη_Λ + i(Λ)^2 δ_1. Feeding a witness function f with bf ≥ 0 into these measures yields i(Λ)^2 bf(1) ≤ bη_Λ^+(bf) = η_Λ^+(f) ≤ f(e) i(Λ), where the last step uses the sign condition f ≤ 0 beyond distance 2r. A Schwartz-like function space and a spherical Bochner-Schwartz theorem extend the argument from compactly supported functions to the witness class, and the invariant pointwise ergodic theorem transfers the intensity bound to deterministic Bowen-Radin density.

What would settle it

Find a convenient commutative space and a witness function f for which the ratio m_{G/K}(B(x_0, r)) f(e)/bf(1) is strictly smaller than the density of an explicit generically measured packing; then the master inequality is false. Equivalently, exhibit a G-invariant probability measure on the space of 2r-uniformly discrete point sets with no conull set of invariantly generic point sets, which would break the link between deterministic and probabilistic packing density that the proof requires.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is a master inequality: whenever (G, K, d, S(G, K)) is a convenient Gelfand pair, every witness function f that is non-positive outside radius 2r and has nonnegative spherical transform with bf(1) > 0 satisfies △(r, G/K) ≤ m_{G/K}(B(x_0, r)) f(e)/bf(1). For the hyperbolic pair (SO(n, 1), SO(n)), the spherical transform is written through Gauss hypergeometric functions, and the theorem yields the conjectured hyperbolic linear programming bound. The same inequality also recovers the classical Euclidean linear programming bound and supplies new explicit bounds for Heisenberg groups with the Cygan-Koranyi metric and for Riemannian symmetric spaces of noncompact and compact type. The proof works by replacing Poisson summation with the fact that the spherical diffraction of a stationary point process has an atom at the trivial character, so applying the positive transform of a witness function isolates the intensity term.

Load-bearing premise

Everything depends on the bridge assumption that a deterministic packing with a well-defined density gives a stationary random packing whose intensity equals that density, and that the pointwise ergodic theorem supplies enough such packings; the proof of this bridge is deferred to the companion paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the master inequality holds, the hyperbolic linear programming conjecture is settled: for every n ≥ 2 and every admissible radial function h, △(r, H^n) ≤ C(r) h(0) / ∫_0^∞ h(t) sinh(t)^{n-1} dt.
  • The same bound applies to every irreducible Riemannian symmetric space of noncompact type, without needing to know whether optimal packings can be approximated by periodic ones.
  • Compact symmetric spaces, including spheres, inherit linear programming bounds for packings and codes as a special case.
  • Heisenberg groups with the Cygan-Koranyi metric acquire explicit linear programming bounds, showing the method reaches non-symmetric homogeneous spaces.
  • Since the proof never approximates general packings by periodic packings, it sidesteps the major open question of periodic approximation in high dimensions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The spectral mechanism suggests the inequality should extend beyond Gelfand pairs to any homogeneous space where point-process autocorrelations are positive definite and the trivial character is a spectral atom; the Gelfand-pair assumption mainly makes the Plancherel side explicit.
  • The deferred bridge is the part to scrutinize: if the invariant pointwise ergodic theorem or the density-intensity equality (Proposition 4.19, proved in the companion paper) fails for some non-amenable group, Theorem B still bounds probabilistic packing density but not deterministic density.
  • The printed equality in the hyperbolic theorem appears to be a typographical slip; the surrounding argument and the general theorem establish an upper bound, and the equality should be read as that upper bound.
  • Because cut-and-project model sets are generically measured, the same route likely yields packing bounds for quasicrystal-like packings in hyperbolic and other symmetric spaces, an application the paper mentions only in passing.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a general framework for linear programming upper bounds on sphere packing densities in homogeneous spaces G/K arising from convenient Gelfand pairs (G,K,d,S(G,K)). The main result, Theorem B, asserts that for every witness function f in a Schwartz-like space with nonnegative spherical transform and appropriate sign condition, the Bowen-Radin optimal packing density satisfies \Delta(r,G/K) \le m_{G/K}(B(x0,r)) f(e)/\hat f(1). The proof proceeds by associating to a 2r-uniformly discrete stationary point process its autocorrelation measures, applying the Plancherel-Godement theorem to pass to the spherical transform side, and then invoking a probabilistic formulation of packing density. A special case for hyperbolic spaces, Theorem A, is claimed to resolve a conjecture of Cohn and Zhao. The paper also gives explicit formula-level statements for Euclidean space, Heisenberg groups, and Riemannian symmetric spaces, and includes an appendix proving a spherical Bochner-Schwartz theorem for the Heisenberg group.

Significance. If the main theorem is established, it provides a common framework encompassing the Euclidean Cohn-Elkies bounds, hyperbolic packing bounds conjectured by Cohn and Zhao, and bounds for other homogeneous spaces, with a proof that does not rely on approximation by periodic packings. The use of positive-definite autocorrelation measures and the Plancherel-Godement theorem is elegant and, as far as Section 5.2 goes, internally coherent. The paper also ships a nontrivial self-contained appendix (Theorem A.1) for the Heisenberg case, and the explicit integral conditions in Examples 1.2 and 1.5 are directly usable by specialists. However, the deterministic content of the main theorems currently depends on results deferred to an in-preparation companion paper, and the stated equality in Theorem A is stronger than what the proof establishes; both issues must be resolved before the results can be fully credited.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Proposition 4.19 and Corollary 4.21] The central bridge between deterministic Bowen-Radin density and probabilistic point-process density is Proposition 4.19, which asserts that every generically measured point set P0 has a well-defined density equal to the intensity-based density of any stationary point process with distribution \mu_{P0}. The proof is deferred entirely to the companion paper [30], which is listed as 'In preparation'. Corollary 4.21, which identifies the deterministic optimal density \Delta(r,X) with \Delta_{prob}(r,X), depends directly on this proposition and on the invariant pointwise ergodic theorem. Since Theorem B is stated as an unconditional bound on \Delta(r,G/K), the absence of a proof of Proposition 4.19 is a load-bearing gap. The manuscript should either include a full proof or explicitly state the theorem as conditional on the companion paper, with Remark 5.6 serving only as a fallback for the probabilistic bound.
  2. [§4.2, Definition 4.15 and Example 4.16] The invariant pointwise ergodic theorem is asserted for the uncountable family F of all Riemann integrable compactly supported functions on UD_{2r}(X). A pointwise ergodic theorem typically yields a conull set of generic points for each fixed function, or for a countable separating family, and obtaining a single conull set simultaneously for all f in F and all h in G requires a separability and translation-invariance argument that is not supplied in the manuscript. Since the main theorem relies on this theorem to pass from generic point sets to stationary point processes, this is not a minor technicality. The author should either justify the existence of such a common conull set (for instance by proving that F admits a countable dense subfamily with the appropriate invariance properties for the specific groups in the examples) or replace F by a countable family for which the ergodic theorem is known.
  3. [Theorem A (Section 1.2)] Theorem A is printed with an equality, \Delta(r,\mathbb{H}^n) = m_{\mathbb{H}^n}(B(x0,r)) f(x0)/\hat f(1). The proof in Section 5.2 (see Theorem 5.5) yields only an upper bound, and there is no matching lower bound or construction of packings attaining the right-hand side. The equality is therefore an error and should be replaced by '\le'. This is a mathematical accuracy issue in the statement of the paper's headline result, not merely a typographical slip.
  4. [§5.2, Theorem 5.5, last sentence] The proof correctly establishes the bound for the intensity i(\Lambda) of a stationary point process and hence, by Proposition 4.10, for the probabilistic density D(\Lambda). The final sentence 'And thus by Corollary 4.21 we obtain the result' silently imports the full weight of the invariant pointwise ergodic theorem and Proposition 4.19. Because those ingredients are unproved here, the logical status of the theorem's conclusion about \Delta(r,X) should be flagged in the theorem statement itself, e.g. by stating the bound for \Delta_{prob}(r,X) unconditionally and for \Delta(r,X) conditional on the ergodic bridge.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Definition 4.17 vs Proposition 4.19] Definition 4.17 defines generically measured point sets in UD_{2r}(X), while Proposition 4.19 states its conclusion for P0 \in UD_r(X). The index r appears inconsistently; either the definition should use r-uniformly discrete sets or the proposition should use 2r. Please clarify.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical slips: 'paair' in Section 1.5, 'Randon' in Lemma 2.5, 'Proposiiton' in Section 3.1, and 'bounded support' for functions in Proposition 3.7 that should be 'bounded' or 'compact support' consistently. These do not affect the mathematics but should be corrected.
  3. [§1.2, Remark 1.1(iii)] The remark states that Cohn and Zhao conjectured the bound with f continuous and integrable, but it does not comment on how the stronger Schwartz-like regularity assumption in Theorem A affects the comparison with their proposed class. A short remark on whether the results of [21] imply the bound for a wider class of f in the hyperbolic case would help the reader.
  4. [§5.3, Proposition 5.7] The statement says the Abel transform Af is in W_r(a), but the proof only checks the sign condition and the Fourier nonnegativity. Please state explicitly which conditions of Definition 1.3 are verified and which are inherited from f \in W_r(G/K), or add the missing verification.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The core LP inequality is derived honestly from positive-definiteness, but the advertised deterministic Bowen-Radin bound rests on a load-bearing proof deferred to the same authors' unpublished companion [30].

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4.2, Definition 4.17, Proposition 4.19 and Corollary 4.21; used in the proof of Theorem B (Section 5.2, Theorem 5.5).]
    "For a proof of the following proposition see Bowen and Radin, [17]; in the specific form given here we give a proof in [30]. Proposition 4.19. If P0 ∈ UDr(X) is generically measured, then there exists a stationary point process Λ with distribution µP0, and for any such process Λ and every x ∈ X we have D(Λr) = Dr(P0, x). In particular, P0 has a well-defined r-density which is independent of the base point. ... Corollary 4.21. If the invariant pointwise ergodic theorem holds for ((Gt)t>0, F), then △(r, X) = △prob(r, X)."

    The advertised deterministic Bowen-Radin bound △(r, G/K) in Theorem B is reached through Corollary 4.21, which equates △(r, X) with △prob(r, X). That equality is justified by Proposition 4.19, whose proof is explicitly deferred to [30], an unpublished companion by Tobias Hartnick and the present author. Thus the central bridge from generically measured deterministic packings to stationary point-process intensities is carried entirely by an in-preparation self-citation rather than by a proof, a machine-checked result, or an independent external theorem. This is not equivalence-by-construction: the inequality for stationary point processes follows from positive-definiteness of the autocorrelation measures and the Plancherel-Godement theorem.

full rationale

The main linear-programming inequality is not circular: for a stationary 2r-uniformly discrete point process Λ, the bound η_Λ^+(f) ≤ f(e)i(Λ) is obtained from the autocorrelation representation of Björklund and Byléhn together with positivity of the reduced diffraction bη_Λ, and i(Λ) ≤ f(e)/bf(1) follows from Lemma 5.3 and the Plancherel-Godement theorem. No fitted parameter enters, and the inequality is not assumed among the inputs. The probabilistic bound △prob is therefore an honest consequence. The advertised deterministic bound for Bowen-Radin densities, however, passes through Corollary 4.21, which is justified only by Proposition 4.19 with proof deferred to the same authors' unpublished companion [30]. That is a load-bearing self-citation: the step identifying generically measured deterministic density with stationary-process intensity is not established in this paper, and no independent verification is supplied. The invariant pointwise ergodic theorem is made an explicit hypothesis in Definition 4.15, so the conditional theorem is not definitionally circular; the issue is that the unconditional-sounding hyperbolic and symmetric-space claims rest on an unverified companion. This warrants a moderate score rather than a charge that the derivation reduces to its own inputs. The paper also contains non-circular technical gaps: the equality sign in Theorem A should be an upper bound, the family F in Definition 4.15 is uncountable while pointwise ergodic theorems typically give conull sets for countable families, and the approximation step in Theorem 5.5 does not show that f_n := g_n f preserves the positivity condition bf_n ≥ 0. These are correctness risks, not circularity.

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

No free parameters and no invented entities. The main burden is an ergodic-theoretic hypothesis and an unpublished companion proof that equates generic and probabilistic packing densities.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption (G,K,d,S(G,K)) is a convenient Gelfand pair: G is a Lie group, K compact, (G,K) a Gelfand pair, d a complete proper G-invariant metric satisfying the invariant pointwise ergodic theorem, and S(G,K) a Schwartz-like function space.
    The theorem applies only to spaces satisfying this ergodic-theoretic condition; verification for the examples is delegated to references on amenable groups and Gorodnik-Nevo.
  • ad hoc to paper Proposition 4.19: generically measured packings have density equal to that of the associated stationary point process; proof given in the companion paper [30].
    This bridges deterministic and probabilistic density. Without it Theorem B only controls the probabilistic optimal density. The proof is not in this preprint and [30] is in preparation.
  • standard math Plancherel-Godement theorem and Bochner-Schwartz theorems for spherical transforms.
    Used in Lemma 5.3 and Theorem 5.5; cited to Godement, Barker, and Astengo-Blasio-Ricci.
  • standard math Positive-definiteness of the autocorrelation measures η_Λ and η+_Λ from Björklund-Byléhn.
    Ensures the spherical transforms are positive measures; established in Proposition 3.11.
  • standard math The invariant pointwise ergodic theorem for simple Lie groups from Gorodnik-Nevo [28].
    Example 4.16(iii) uses [28, Theorem 1.2] to verify Definition 4.15 for noncompact semisimple groups.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Linear programming bounds in homogeneous spaces, I: Optimal packing density." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N2RN7FQD

@misc{pith2026250523572,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Linear programming bounds in homogeneous spaces, I: Optimal packing density},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N2RN7FQD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23572}
}
read the original abstract

In this article we obtain linear programming bounds for the maximal sphere packing density of commutative spaces. A special case of our results solves a conjecture by Cohn and Zhao on linear programming bounds for sphere packings in hyperbolic space.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Tobias Hartnick and Maximilian Wackenhuth,Sphere packings in irreducible symmetric spaces of noncompact type after Bowen and Radin, In preparation

    work page

  2. [1]

    Aarnes,Distributions of positive type and representations of Lie groups, Math

    Johan F. Aarnes,Distributions of positive type and representations of Lie groups, Math. Ann.240 (1979), no. 2, 141–156. MR 524662

    work page 1979

  3. [2]

    Jean-Philippe Anker,An introduction to Dunkl theory and its analytic aspects, Analytic, algebraic and geometric aspects of differential equations, Trends Math., Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 3–58. MR 3706194

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    Scuola Norm

    Jean-Philippe Anker, Ewa Damek, and Chokri Yacoub, Spherical analysis on harmonic AN groups, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4)23 (1996), no. 4, 643–679. MR 1469569

    work page 1996

  5. [4]

    Francesca Astengo, Bianca Di Blasio, and Fulvio Ricci,Gelfand pairs on the Heisenberg group and Schwartz functions, J. Funct. Anal.256 (2009), no. 5, 1565–1587. MR 2490230

    work page 2009

  6. [5]

    Barker,The spherical Bochner theorem on semisimple Lie groups, J

    William H. Barker,The spherical Bochner theorem on semisimple Lie groups, J. Functional Anal- ysis 20 (1975), no. 3, 179–207. MR 399352

    work page 1975

  7. [6]

    MR 2940485

    William Henry Barker,Positive definite distributions on semi simple Lie groups, ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 1973, Thesis (Ph.D.)–Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MR 2940485

    work page 1973

  8. [7]

    Chal Benson, Joe Jenkins, and Gail Ratcliff,Bounded K-spherical functions on Heisenberg groups, J. Funct. Anal.105 (1992), no. 2, 409–443. MR 1160083

    work page 1992

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Michael Björklund and Mattias Byléhn,Hyperuniformity of random measures on Euclidean and hyperbolic spaces, 2024, arXiv:2405.12737

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Ann.389 (2024), no

    Michael Björklund and Tobias Hartnick,Hyperuniformity and non-hyperuniformity of quasicrys- tals, Math. Ann.389 (2024), no. 1, 365–426. MR 4735950

    2024

  3. [10]

    Michael Björklund, Tobias Hartnick, and Felix Pogorzelski,Aperiodic order and spherical diffrac- tion, I: auto-correlation of regular model sets, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 116 (2018), no. 4, 957–996. MR 3789837

    2018

  4. [11]

    , Aperiodic order and spherical diffraction, III: the shadow transform and the diffraction formula, J. Funct. Anal.281 (2021), no. 12, Paper No. 109265, 59. MR 4322286

    2021

  5. [12]

    Z.300 (2022), no

    Michael Björklund, Tobias Hartnick, and Felix Pogorzelski,Aperiodic order and spherical diffrac- tion, II: translation bounded measures on homogeneous spaces, Math. Z.300 (2022), no. 2, 1157–

    2022

  6. [13]

    Michael Björklund and Tobias Hartnick,Siegel-radon transforms of transverse dynamical systems, 2025

    2025

  7. [14]

    Pierre Bonnet, Transformation de Fourier des distributions de type positif sur un groupe de Lie unimodulaire, J. Funct. Anal.55 (1984), no. 2, 220–246. MR 733917

    1984

  8. [15]

    Dedicata102 (2003), 213–236

    Lewis Bowen,Periodicity and circle packings of the hyperbolic plane, Geom. Dedicata102 (2003), 213–236. MR 2026846 38 MAXIMILIAN W ACKENHUTH

    2003

  9. [16]

    Lewis Bowen and Charles Radin,Densest packing of equal spheres in hyperbolic space, Discrete Comput. Geom. 29 (2003), no. 1, 23–39. MR 1946792

    2003

  10. [17]

    Dedicata 104 (2004), 37–59

    , Optimally dense packings of hyperbolic space, Geom. Dedicata 104 (2004), 37–59. MR 2043953

    2004

  11. [18]

    Marcelo Campos, Matthew Jenssen, Marcus Michelen, and Julian Sahasrabudhe,A new lower bound for sphere packing, 2023, arXiv:2312.10026

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Henry Cohn and Noam Elkies,New upper bounds on sphere packings. I, Ann. of Math. (2)157 (2003), no. 2, 689–714. MR 1973059

    2003

  13. [20]

    Miller, Danylo Radchenko, and Maryna Viazovska, The sphere packing problem in dimension 24, Ann

    Henry Cohn, Abhinav Kumar, Stephen D. Miller, Danylo Radchenko, and Maryna Viazovska, The sphere packing problem in dimension 24, Ann. of Math. (2)185 (2017), no. 3, 1017–1033. MR 3664817

    2017

  14. [21]

    J.163 (2014), no

    Henry Cohn and Yufei Zhao,Sphere packing bounds via spherical codes, Duke Math. J.163 (2014), no. 10, 1965–2002. MR 3229046

    2014

  15. [22]

    D. J. Daley and D. Vere-Jones,An introduction to the theory of point processes. Vol. I, second ed., Probability and its Applications (New York), Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003, Elementary theory and methods. MR 1950431

    2003

  16. [23]

    , An introduction to the theory of point processes. Vol. II, second ed., Probability and its Applications (New York), Springer, New York, 2008, General theory and structure. MR 2371524

    2008

  17. [24]

    Dieudonné,éléments d’analyse

    J. Dieudonné,éléments d’analyse. Tome VI. Chapitre XXII, Cahiers Scientifiques [Scientific Re- ports], vol. Fasc. XXXIX, Gauthier-Villars Éditeur, Paris, 1975. MR 621690

    1975

  18. [25]

    Irene Gil Fernández, Jaehoon Kim, Hong Liu, and Oleg Pikhurko,New lower bound on ball packing density in high-dimensional hyperbolic spaces, 2024, arXiv:2405.07818

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    101, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988

    RameshGangolliandV.S.Varadarajan, Harmonic analysis of spherical functions on real reductive groups, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas], vol. 101, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988. MR 954385

    1988

  20. [27]

    Selberg, Séminaire Bourbaki, Vol

    Roger Godement,Introduction aux travaux de A. Selberg, Séminaire Bourbaki, Vol. 4, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1995, pp. Exp. No. 144, 95–110. MR 1610957

    1995

  21. [28]

    172, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010

    Alexander Gorodnik and Amos Nevo,The ergodic theory of lattice subgroups, Annals of Mathe- matics Studies, vol. 172, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010. MR 2573139

    2010

  22. [29]

    302, Springer, Cham, [2024]©2024

    Loukas Grafakos, Fundamentals of Fourier analysis, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 302, Springer, Cham, [2024]©2024. MR 4807386

    2024

  23. [31]

    83, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000, Integral geometry, invariant dif- ferential operators, and spherical functions, Corrected reprint of the 1984 original

    Sigurdur Helgason, Groups and geometric analysis, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 83, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000, Integral geometry, invariant dif- ferential operators, and spherical functions, Corrected reprint of the 1984 original. MR 1790156

    2000

  24. [32]

    34, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001, Corrected reprint of the 1978 original

    , Differential geometry, Lie groups, and symmetric spaces, Graduate Studies in Mathemat- ics, vol. 34, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001, Corrected reprint of the 1978 original. MR 1834454

    2001

  25. [33]

    Knapp,Lie groups beyond an introduction, second ed., Progress in Mathematics, vol

    Anthony W. Knapp,Lie groups beyond an introduction, second ed., Progress in Mathematics, vol. 140, Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2002. MR 1920389

    2002

  26. [34]

    Koornwinder,Jacobi functions and analysis on noncompact semisimple Lie groups, Special functions: grouptheoreticalaspectsandapplications, Math.Appl., Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984, pp.1–

    Tom H. Koornwinder,Jacobi functions and analysis on noncompact semisimple Lie groups, Special functions: grouptheoreticalaspectsandapplications, Math.Appl., Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984, pp.1–

    1984

  27. [35]

    87, Springer-Verlag, London, 2017

    Ilya Molchanov,Theory of random sets, second ed., Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling, vol. 87, Springer-Verlag, London, 2017. MR 3751326

    2017

  28. [36]

    Scand.109 (2011), no

    Gestur Ólafsson and Henrik Schlichtkrull,Fourier transforms of spherical distributions on compact symmetric spaces, Math. Scand.109 (2011), no. 1, 93–113. MR 2831149

    2011

  29. [37]

    Penney,Spherical distributions on Lie groups andC ∞ vectors, Trans

    R. Penney,Spherical distributions on Lie groups andC ∞ vectors, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.223 (1976), 367–384. MR 457632 LINEAR PROGRAMMING BOUNDS IN HOMOGENEOUS SPACES, I 39

    1976

  30. [38]

    159, Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1998

    Sundaram Thangavelu,Harmonic analysis on the Heisenberg group, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 159, Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1998. MR 1633042

    1998

  31. [39]

    Erik G. F. Thomas,The theorem of Bochner-Schwartz-Godement for generalised Gel’fand pairs, Functionalanalysis: surveysandrecentresults, III(Paderborn, 1983), North-HollandMath.Stud., vol. 90, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984, pp. 291–304. MR 761388

    1983

  32. [40]

    36, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 2009

    Gerrit van Dijk, Introduction to harmonic analysis and generalized Gelfand pairs, De Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, vol. 36, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 2009. MR 2640609

    2009

  33. [41]

    Viazovska,The sphere packing problem in dimension 8, Ann

    Maryna S. Viazovska,The sphere packing problem in dimension 8, Ann. of Math. (2)185 (2017), no. 3, 991–1015. MR 3664816

    2017

  34. [42]

    Maximilian Wackenhuth, Bounds on hyperbolic sphere packings: On a conjecture by cohn and zhao, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    I, Die Grundlehren der mathema- tischen Wissenschaften, vol

    Garth Warner,Harmonic analysis on semi-simple Lie groups. I, Die Grundlehren der mathema- tischen Wissenschaften, vol. Band 188, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1972. MR 498999

    1972

  36. [44]

    Wolf, Harmonic analysis on commutative spaces, Mathematical Surveys and Mono- graphs, vol

    Joseph A. Wolf, Harmonic analysis on commutative spaces, Mathematical Surveys and Mono- graphs, vol. 142, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2007. MR 2328043

    2007

  37. [45]

    Zimmer,Ergodic theory and semisimple groups, Monographs in Mathematics, vol

    Robert J. Zimmer,Ergodic theory and semisimple groups, Monographs in Mathematics, vol. 81, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1984. MR 776417 Institut für Algebra und Geometrie, KIT, Karlsruhe, Germany Email address: maximilian.wackenhuth@kit.edu

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.