Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Convexity of the Berezin range of operators on $\mathcal{H}_\gamma (\mathbb{D})$

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 On the weighted Hardy space $H_\gamma(\mathbb{D})$, the Berezin range of a monomial rank-one operator $T(f)=\langle f,z^m\rangle z^n$ is always convex, with an explicit interval or centered disc; other finite-rank operators can be…

desk verdict The rank-one formulas are correct and the gamma-extension is real, but Theorem 3.4's compactness assumption is false and the examples have errors, so the paper needs revision before it is trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24495 v1 pith:6L2O7JIM submitted 2025-05-30 math.FA

Sandip Kumar Maiti , Satyajit Sahoo , Gorachand Chakraborty This is my paper
classification math.FA MSC 47B3252A10
keywords weightedHardyspaceBerezinrangetransformconvexityfinite-rankoperatorsrank-onemultiplicationreproducingkernelHilbert
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 investigates whether the Berezin range of a finite-rank operator---the set of values $\langle T\hat{k}_\lambda,\hat{k}_\lambda\rangle$ traced by normalized reproducing kernels---is convex on the weighted Hardy spaces $H_\gamma(\mathbb{D})$. Its main positive result is that the rank-one monomial operators $T(f)=\langle f,z^m\rangle z^n$ always have convex Berezin ranges: an explicit interval when $m=n$, and an explicit disc centered at the origin when $m\ne n$. The same computation gives exact ranges for $T(f)=\langle f,z\rangle z$, for $T(f)=\langle f,z^n\rangle z^n$, and for the compact self-adjoint sum $T(f)=\sum_{n\ge1}\langle f,az^n\rangle az^n$. The paper also proves that multiplication operators satisfy $\mathrm{Ber}(M_\phi)=\phi(\mathbb{D})$, so their convexity is exactly the convexity of the image set, and that sums $\sum\langle f,g_i\rangle g_i$ have real-interval Berezin ranges. A rank-one example shows convexity can fail for mixed finite-rank operators, so the geometry depends on both the operator and the weight $\gamma$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the normalized reproducing kernel $\hat{k}_\lambda(z)=(1-|\lambda|^2)^{\gamma/2}(1-\bar{\lambda}z)^{-\gamma}$ of the weighted Hardy space $H_\gamma(\mathbb{D})$. Substituting monomial rank-one operators into the Berezin transform turns the computation into a one-variable calculus problem on the radial factor $(1-r^2)^\gamma r^k$; its critical point $r=\sqrt{k/(k+2\gamma)}$ supplies the explicit maxima and hence the exact disc radii and interval endpoints. For self-adjoint finite sums, connectedness of the disk and continuity of the transform force the image to be an interval on the real line. For mixed rank-one operators, the same kernel calculation yields a planar parametrization whose convexity is then examined through real and imaginary parts.

What would settle it

Sample the map $\lambda\mapsto (1-|\lambda|^2)^\gamma\,\bar{\lambda}^{\,m}\lambda^n$ on a fine grid in the unit disk for fixed $\gamma,m,n$: if any computed modulus exceeds $(2\gamma/(m+n+2\gamma))^\gamma((m+n)/(m+n+2\gamma))^{(m+n)/2}$, the disc formula in Theorem 3.7 fails. For the non-convexity example, compute the global maximum of $\operatorname{Re}\widetilde{T}(\lambda)$ over the whole disk for $\gamma=0.1$; if the maximum is attained off the real axis or exceeds the published real-axis value $1.17222$, the written contradiction collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On $H_\gamma(\mathbb{D})$, the normalized reproducing kernel is $\hat{k}_\lambda(z)=(1-|\lambda|^2)^{\gamma/2}(1-\bar{\lambda}z)^{-\gamma}$. For $T(f)=\langle f,z^m\rangle z^n$, the paper derives $\widetilde{T}(\lambda)=(1-|\lambda|^2)^\gamma\,\bar{\lambda}^{\,m}\lambda^n$, whose modulus is the radial function $(1-r^2)^\gamma r^{m+n}$ and whose argument winds as $(n-m)\theta$. Maximizing this radial factor gives, when $m=n$, the interval $[0,\gamma^\gamma n^n/(n+\gamma)^{n+\gamma}]$, and when $m\ne n$, the centered disc of radius $(2\gamma/(m+n+2\gamma))^\gamma\,((m+n)/(m+n+2\gamma))^{(m+n)/2}$. These sets are convex, and the same method yields endpoints for the finite sum $\sum_{i=1}^n\langle f,a_i z^i\rangle a_i z^i$ and for $T(f)=\sum_{n\ge1}\langle f,az^n\rangle az^n$, whose endpoint depends on whether $\gamma>1$, $\gamma=1$, or $0<\gamma<1$. The paper further shows that $T(f)=\sum\langle f,g_i\rangle g_i$ has a real-interval Berezin range and that $M_\phi$ has Berezin range $\phi(\mathbb{D})$. It presents the rank-one operator $T(f)=\langle f,1-z\rangle(1-z^2)$ on $H_{0.1}(\mathbb{D})$ as evidence that general finite-rank operators need not have convex Berezin ranges.

Load-bearing premise

The classification depends on the exact kernel formulas for $H_\gamma(\mathbb{D})$, and the non-convexity example further depends on the unproved assertion that the real-axis maximum of the real part of the Berezin transform bounds the real part over the whole disk.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On every $\gamma>0$, each monomial rank-one Berezin range is convex and exactly known, so the earlier Hardy-space and Bergman-space results follow as the cases $\gamma=1$ and $\gamma=2$.
  • For $T(f)=\sum_{i=1}^n\langle f,g_i\rangle g_i$, the Berezin range is always a real interval, hence convex, with no dependence on the particular $g_i$ beyond the fact they lie in $H_\gamma(\mathbb{D})$.
  • For multiplication operators, $\mathrm{Ber}(M_\phi)=\phi(\mathbb{D})$ is independent of $\gamma$; convexity of the Berezin range is equivalent to convexity of the image of the disk under $\phi$.
  • As $\gamma\to\infty$, every monomial range collapses toward the origin, so the same operator has different Berezin geometry on different weighted Hardy spaces.
  • The $\gamma=0.1$ example shows finite rank alone is not enough: convexity of the Berezin range is a joint property of the operator and the space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the Berezin range is always a subset of the numerical range, the closed-form radii give a ready-made family for measuring how much of $W(T)$ the Berezin range can miss; one can compute the ratio of Berezin radius to numerical radius exactly for these operators.
  • The general finite-rank question reduces to the geometry of the planar sets $\{(1-|\lambda|^2)^\gamma\,\overline{g(\lambda)}h(\lambda):\lambda\in\mathbb{D}\}$, so a complete characterization would require convexity criteria for parametrized families of analytic curves rather than radial optimization only.
  • A testable extension is to replace the monomials with any orthonormal basis of $H_\gamma(\mathbb{D})$; the radial-factor method suggests convexity will survive for diagonal operators but fail once off-diagonal terms with different winding numbers are summed.
  • If the non-convexity example is repaired by a genuine global real-part maximization, it would strengthen the paper's conclusion that smaller $\gamma$ amplifies non-convexity; if not, the question of whether some mixed rank-one operators are convex would remain open.
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 studies the Berezin range Ber(T) of finite-rank and multiplication operators on the weighted Hardy space H_γ(D), the RKHS with reproducing kernel k_λ(z)=(1-λz)^{-γ}. For the rank-one operator T(f)=⟨f,z^m⟩z^n it claims that Ber(T) is a centered disc when m≠n and an interval on the positive real axis when m=n, with explicit radii depending on γ. For diagonal sums of the form T=Σ⟨f,az^n⟩az^n it gives a three-case formula depending on γ, and for multiplication operators it claims Ber(M_φ)=φ(D). The proofs are direct Berezin-transform computations, supplemented by numerical plots and two comparison tables.

Significance. If the central computations were correct, the paper would give a clean parameter-dependent classification and would extend the recent results of Augustine, Garayev, and Shankar from the Hardy and Bergman spaces to the family H_γ. The explicit rank-one computation e_T(λ)=(1-|λ|²)^γ \bar λ^m λ^n and the resulting interval/disc formula in Theorems 3.1, 3.2, and the m≠n part of Theorem 3.7 are essentially correct and are verified by direct calculation; no parameters are fitted and no external numerical data are used. However, the manuscript contains serious operator-theoretic errors in Theorem 3.4 and Example 3.2, a false assertion in the proof of Theorem 3.7, and a false bound in Example 3.1. These defects do not destroy the main rank-one computation, but they do invalidate the claimed classification as written and require substantial correction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 3.4 and the paragraph preceding it] The operator T(f)=Σ_{n=1}^∞ ⟨f,az^n⟩az^n is not compact for the stated parameter range. In H_γ the monomial norms satisfy ||z^n||²=n!/(γ)_n, so T acts on the monomials as a diagonal operator with eigenvalues |a|² n!/(γ)_n. For γ=1 the eigenvalues are all |a|², so T is |a|² times the noncompact projection onto span{z^n:n≥1}; for 0<γ<1 the eigenvalues grow like n^{1-γ}, so T is unbounded and is not a bounded operator on H_γ; only for γ>1 is T compact. Consequently the premise 'compact self-adjoint operator' in Theorem 3.4 is false for γ≤1. Moreover, in the γ=1 case e_T(λ)=|a|²|λ|² with |λ|<1 gives Ber(T)=[0,|a|²), not the closed interval. The theorem and its proof, as well as the corresponding line in Table 1, need to be corrected.
  2. [Example 3.2] The claimed projection formula is wrong. The orthogonal projection of H_γ(D) onto span{z^k} is P f = ||z^k||^{-2}⟨f,z^k⟩z^k = ((γ)_k/k!)⟨f,z^k⟩z^k, not (k+1)⟨f,z^k⟩z^k. The coefficient k+1 is correct only when γ=2, since (2)_k/k!=k+1. Thus the assertion ∥P∥=1 for P f=(k+1)⟨f,z^k⟩z^k is false in H_γ for general γ, and the example does not describe a projection except in the Bergman case. The figure caption 'P(f)=⟨f,z²⟩3z²' is therefore valid only for γ=2. This is an illustrative example, but it concerns a central object of the paper and should be repaired.
  3. [Theorem 3.7, proof, Case 1] The proof of the disc statement contains a false converse. It claims that for every ρ∈[0,1) one can find r∈[0,1) with ρ=(1-r²)^γ r^{m+n}. This is not true when ρ exceeds the maximum of F(r)=(1-r²)^γ r^{m+n}, which is the positive quantity (2γ/(m+n+2γ))^γ ((m+n)/(m+n+2γ))^{(m+n)/2} exhibited later in the same proof. The conclusion is nevertheless repairable: F is continuous on [0,1), F(0)=0, F attains its maximum R, and F(r)→0 as r→1^{-}, so by the intermediate value theorem every radius in [0,R] is attained. With that replacement the disc description is correct, but the proof as written is not.
  4. [Example 3.1] The non-convexity proof contains a false bound that is contradicted by the paper's own computation. After maximizing Re e_T on the real axis, the text asserts that for every z∈D one has Re e_T(z)<1.18<1.2; two lines later it gives Re e_T(-0.1+0.5i)=1.27502, which exceeds this bound. The intended argument can be repaired by using the fact that Im e_T(λ)=0 for λ=x+iy inside D forces y=0 because (x-1)²+y²>0, so any point of Ber(T) with a given real value must come from a real λ. With that replacement the contradiction works, but the written proof contains an explicit false statement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, introductory paragraph] The statement that a multiplication operator M_φ is finite rank when φ is a nonconstant polynomial is false; multiplication by z^n on H_γ is unitarily equivalent to a shift and has infinite rank. This claim is not used in the proofs that follow, but it should be corrected.
  2. [Theorem 3.4, Case 3] The case label '0<λ<1' should read '0<γ<1'. Also the γ=1 case should use the half-open interval [0,|a|²), not a closed interval, as noted above.
  3. [Theorem 3.3, proof] The sentence 'e_{T_n} is a real continuous function in the complex plane' is imprecise: e_{T_n} is defined on the unit disc D, not on the whole complex plane. The conclusion of the proof is unaffected.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'Berezin range' misspelled as 'Berzin range', 'finite-rank' as 'finite-tank', and 'finie-rank'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Berezin-range computations follow directly from the RKHS kernel and the definition of the Berezin transform, with no fitted inputs, predictions, or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central results are direct computations from the definition of the Berezin transform and the reproducing kernel k_lambda(z) = (1 - lambda z)^(-gamma). For example, Theorem 3.1 computes e_T(lambda) = (1 - |lambda|^2)^gamma |lambda|^2, and Theorem 3.7 computes e_T(lambda) = (1 - |lambda|^2)^gamma |lambda|^{2m} lambda^{n-m}, then identifies the range geometrically. These are not predictions fitted to data and no parameter is adjusted to force the stated interval or disc. Theorems 3.3 and 3.5 reduce the range to a real interval via continuity and connectedness, which is a standard argument, not an input-equivalent construction. Example 3.1's non-convexity proof uses Corollary 3.1, but that corollary is derived from the same Berezin definition and the assumption of convexity; any flaw there is a mathematical or computational error, not circularity. The authors cite earlier work by Augustine et al. and Cowen-Felder for context and for the multiplication-operator result, but the present proofs are self-contained computations; the cited results are not used to justify the main rank-one classifications. The only overlapping-author reference is [31] (Sahoo is a coauthor), cited in a background list of Berezin-radius inequality studies; it is not load-bearing in any theorem or proof. Thus the claimed derivation chain is not equivalent to its own inputs. Separate correctness concerns, such as the compactness claim in Theorem 3.4 and the projection normalization in Example 3.2, are substantive but belong to correctness review, not circularity analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is self-contained apart from standard RKHS facts; it introduces no new entities. The only hand-chosen parameter is γ=0.1 in the counterexample.

free parameters (1)
  • γ in Example 3.1 = 0.1
    Chosen by hand to produce a concrete non-convex Berezin range; the paper claims non-convexity disappears for larger γ, so this value is an ad hoc choice for the counterexample.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption H_γ(D) is an RKHS with kernel k_λ(z) = (1-λz)^(-γ) and ||k_λ||² = (1-|λ|²)^(-γ) for all γ>0
    Section 1 defines the space; all Berezin computations use this normalization.
  • standard math Reproducing property: ⟨f,k_λ⟩ = f(λ) for f in H_γ
    Used throughout, e.g., in proofs of Theorems 3.1 and 3.8.
  • standard math A real-valued continuous function on a connected domain has an interval as its range
    Used implicitly in Theorems 3.3 and 3.5 to conclude convexity from realness and continuity.
  • domain assumption Finite Blaschke products map the unit disk onto itself
    Used in Theorem 3.9 to conclude Ber(M_B) = D.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Convexity of the Berezin range of operators on $\mathcal{H}_\gamma (\mathbb{D})$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6L2O7JIM

@misc{pith2026250524495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Convexity of the Berezin range of operators on $\mathcalH_\gamma (\mathbbD)$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6L2O7JIM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24495}
}
abstract

In this paper, we characterize the convexity of the Berezin range for finite-rank operators acting on the weighted Hardy space $\mathcal{H}_\gamma (\mathbb{D})$ over the unit disc $\mathbb{D}$. We provide a complete classification in terms of convexity for concrete operators. Additionally, we address dynamical properties of finite-rank operators on Hardy and Bergman spaces. Several illustrative examples are discussed to support our theoretical findings. Additionally, geometrical interpretations have also been employed.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A UGUSTINE , M

    A. A UGUSTINE , M. G ARAYEV and P. S HANKAR , On the Berezin range and the Berzin radius of some operators, arxiv:2411.1077v1 [math.FA], 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [10]

    C. C. C OWEN and C. F ELDER , Convexity of the Berezin range, Linear Algebra Appl. 647 (2022), 47–63

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    A UGUSTINE , M

    A. A UGUSTINE , M. G ARAYEV and P. S HANKAR , Composition operators, convexity of their Berezin range and related questions, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory 17 (8) (2023) Paper No. 126, 22 pp

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    A XLER and D

    S. A XLER and D. Z HENG , Compact operators via the Berezin transform, Indiana Univ. Math. J.47 (2) (1998), 387–400

    work page 1998

  5. [4]

    C. A. B ERGER and L. A. C OBURN , A symbol calculus for Toeplitz operators, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 83 (10) (1986), 3072–3073

    work page 1986

  6. [5]

    F. A. B EREZIN , Covariant and contravariant symbols of operators, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Mat., 36, 1134-1167, 1972, in: Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, vol. 15, Americal Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1973

    work page 1972

  7. [6]

    B HUNIA , M

    P. B HUNIA , M. T. G ARAYEV, K. P AUL and R. T APDIGOGLU , Some new applications of Berezin symbols, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory, 17 (6), 2023, Paper No. 96, 15 pp

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    B HUNIA , M

    P. B HUNIA , M. G ÜRDAL , K. P AUL, A. S EN and R. T APDIGOGLU , On a new norm on the space of reproducing kernel Hilbert space operators and Berezin radius inequalities, Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 44 (2023), no. 9, 970–986

    work page 2023

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    J. W. B ROWN and R.V. C HURCHILL , Complex Variables and Applications, McGraw-Hill Inc., (2009)

    2009

  2. [9]

    C. C. C OWEN and B. D. M ACCLUER , Composition operators on spaces of analytic functions, Studies in Advanced Mathematics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1995

    1995

  3. [11]

    D AEPP, P

    U. D AEPP, P. GORKIN , A. S HAFFER and K. V OSS, Finding ellipses: what Blaschke products, Pon- celet’s theorem, and the numerical range know about each other, No. (34), American Mathematical Soc., 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    R. G. D OUGLAS , Banach algebra techniques in the theory of Toeplitz operators, American Mathe- matical Soc. (15) 1980

    1980

  5. [13]

    G ARAYEV, M

    M. G ARAYEV, M. B AKERHEAD and R. T APDIGOGLU , The weighted and the Davis-Wielandt Berezin number, Oper. Matrices 17 (2023), no. 2, 469–484

    2023

  6. [14]

    S. R. G ARCIA , J. M ASHREGHI and W. T. ROSS , Finite Blaschke Products: A Survey

  7. [15]

    S. R. G ARCIA , J. M ASHREGHI and W. T. R OSS , Finite Blaschke products and their connections. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, (2018). 25

    2018

  8. [16]

    H. L. G AU and P. Y. WU, Numerical ranges of Hilbert space operators, 179, Cambridge University Press, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    G USTAFSON , The Toeplitz-Hausdorff theorem for linear operators, Proc

    K. G USTAFSON , The Toeplitz-Hausdorff theorem for linear operators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 25 (1970), 203–204

    1970

  10. [18]

    K. E. G USTAFSON and D. K. M. R AO, Numerical Range: The field of values of linear operators and matrices, Universitext, Springer, New York, NY , USA,1997

    1997

  11. [19]

    P. R. H ALMOS , A Hilbert space problems book, Springer Verlag, New York, 1982

    1982

  12. [20]

    M. T. K ARAEV , Berzin symbol and invertibility of operators on the functional Hilbert spaces, J. Oper. Theory, 83 (2) (2006), 181–192

    2006

  13. [21]

    M. T. K ARAEV , Berezin set and Berezin number of operators and their applications, The 8th Work- shop on Numerical Ranges and Numerical Radii (WONRA -06), University of Bremen, July 15-17, 2006

    2006

  14. [22]

    M. T. K ARAEV , Reproducing kernels and Berezin symbols techniques in various questions of oper- ator theory, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory7(4) (2013), 983–1018

    2013

  15. [23]

    K IPPENHAHN , On the numerical range of a matrix , Linear Multilinear Algebra , 56 (1-2) (2008), 185– 225

    R. K IPPENHAHN , On the numerical range of a matrix , Linear Multilinear Algebra , 56 (1-2) (2008), 185– 225. Translated from the German by Paul F. Zachlin and Michiel E. Hochstenbach [MR0059242]

    2008

  16. [24]

    L E, Self-adjoint, unitary, and normal weighted composition operators in several variables, J

    T. L E, Self-adjoint, unitary, and normal weighted composition operators in several variables, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 395 (2012), 596–607

    2012

  17. [25]

    N ORDGREN and P

    E. N ORDGREN and P. ROSENTHAL , Boundary values of Berezin symbols. Nonselfadjoint operators and related topics (Beersheva, 1992), Oper. Theory Adv. Appl. 73 Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel (1994), 362–368

    1994

  18. [26]

    V. I. P AULSEN and M. R AGHUPATHI , An introduction to the theory of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 152. Cambridge University Press, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    J. H. S HAPIRO , Composition operators and classical function theory, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993

    1993

  20. [28]

    T APDIGOGLU , New Berezin symbol inequalities for operators on the reproducing kernel Hilbert space, Oper

    R. T APDIGOGLU , New Berezin symbol inequalities for operators on the reproducing kernel Hilbert space, Oper. Matrices, 15, 15 (2021), no. 3, 1031–1043

    2021

  21. [29]

    V. A. T OLOKONNIKOV , Estimates in the Carleson corona theorem, ideals of the algebraH∞, a prob- lem of Sz.-Nagy, Zap. Nauchn. Sem. Leningrad. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (LOMI), 113:178–198, 267, 1981. Investigations of Linear Operators and the theory of functions, XI

    1981

  22. [30]

    T. H. W OLFF, Counterexamples to two variants of the Helson-Szego theorem in Cn, J. Anal. Math. 88 (2002), 41-62

    2002

  23. [31]

    Z AMANI , S

    A. Z AMANI , S. S AHOO , R. T APDIGOGLU and M. G ARAYEV , A-Berezin number inequalities for 2 × 2 operators matrices, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 47 (2024), no. 4, Paper No. 114, 20 pp

    2024

  24. [32]

    Z HAO and K

    R. Z HAO and K. Z HU., Theory of Bergman spaces in the unit ball of Cn, Mem Soc. Math. Fr, 115, (2008) 1-103

    2008

  25. [33]

    Z HU, Operator theory in function spaces, American Mathematical Soc

    K. Z HU, Operator theory in function spaces, American Mathematical Soc. 138, 2007. (MAITI ) D EPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS , P ANCHAKOT MAHAVIDYALAYA , P URULIA , W EST BENGAL 723121, I NDIA Email address: pq.deep@gmail.com (SAHOO ) D EPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS , S CHOOL OF BASIC SC...

    2007

Pith tools

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