Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Stable invariant manifold for generalized ODEs with applications to measure differential equations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 proves that sufficiently small nonlinear perturbations of an exponential dichotomy in generalized ODEs possess a stable invariant manifold.

desk verdict The generalized Lyapunov-Perron setup is a real technical contribution, but the IDE application is unproven as stated because it smuggles in a smallness condition on the integral of γ. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02874 v2 pith:ENRGK46D submitted 2025-06-03 math.CA

Weijie Lu , Paolo Piccione , Yonghui Xia This is my paper
classification math.CA MSC 34A3634D0937D10
keywords generalizedordinarydifferentialequationsKurzweilintegralstableinvariantmanifoldexponentialdichotomyLyapunov-PerronequationmeasureimpulsiveBanachspace
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

Generalized ordinary differential equations are not differential equations in the usual sense; they are integral equations written in derivative notation through the Kurzweil integral, so they can describe discontinuous objects such as measure differential equations and impulsive differential equations. This paper proves that when the linear part $dz/d\tau=D[\Lambda(t)z]$ has an exponential dichotomy and the nonlinear perturbation $F$ is small in a precise total-variation sense, the nonlinear equation $dz/d\tau=D[\Lambda(t)z+F(z,t)]$ has a stable invariant manifold: a Lipschitz graph over the stable subspaces that is forward invariant, with every solution starting off the graph unbounded on $[s,\infty)$. The argument establishes a generalized Lyapunov-Perron integral equation and solves it by a contraction mapping. A sympathetic reader should care because this extends a cornerstone of dynamical systems theory to a framework that unifies several classes of equations with jumps and measures.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the proof is the generalized Lyapunov-Perron integral equation (3.3), formed from the fundamental solution $V(t,s)$ of the linear equation and the dichotomy projection $P(t)$. For a bounded solution it reads $$z(t)=V(t,s)P(s)z(s)+\int_s^t DF(z(\tau),\gamma)-\int_s^t d_\$\sigma$[V(t,\$\sigma$)P(\$\sigma$)]\int_s^\$\sigma$ DF(z(\tau),\gamma)+\$int_t^{{\infty}}$ d_\$\sigma$[V(t,\$\sigma$)(\mathrm{Id}-P(\$\sigma$))]\int_s^\$\sigma$ DF(z(\tau),\gamma).$$ Lemma 3.5 converts this equation into a fixed-point problem for an operator $J_\zeta$ on the space of bounded functions $z:[s,\infty)\to\mathscr{Z}$; the contraction estimate yields $$\sup\|J_\zeta z_1-J_\zeta z_2\|\le 2V_h(1+K(1+2K))$C_a^{3}$ $e^{{3C_a V_\Lambda}}$V_\$Lambda^{2}$ \sup\|z_1-z_2\|,$$ which is why the hypothesis that $V_h$ be small is load-bearing. The Lyapunov-Perron equation is the bridge that lets the stable manifold be recovered as the initial data of bounded solutions.

What would settle it

Compute the contraction constant $L=2V_h(1+K(1+2K))C_a^3 e^{3C_aV_\Lambda}V_\Lambda^2$ for any concrete system satisfying (H1)-(H2); if $L\ge 1$, Lemma 3.5 does not produce the manifold, so such an example determines whether the smallness threshold is genuinely needed. For the impulsive application, the decisive test is whether the stated integrability of $\gamma$ can force $\int_{\tilde t}^t \gamma(s)ds$ below $M_\gamma$; choosing $\gamma$ with $\int_0^1\gamma(s)ds=1$ while all stated IDE hypotheses hold shows it cannot, isolating the extra smallness assumption the proof silently adds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorem 3.1, is that under hypotheses (H1)-(H2) the nonlinear generalized ODE (3.1) has a stable invariant manifold $M_{gra}$ whenever the linear equation (2.1) admits an exponential dichotomy and $V_h$ is sufficiently small. The manifold is the graph $M_{gra}=\{(s,\zeta+m(s,\zeta)): s\in\mathbb{R},\zeta\in E^s(s)\}$, where $m$ is Lipschitz in $\zeta$, $m(s,0)=0$, and $m(s,\zeta)\in E^u(s)$. The theorem further asserts forward invariance of $M_{gra}$ and that every solution of (3.1) whose initial value $(s,z(s))$ is not on $M_{gra}$ is unbounded on $[s,\infty)$. In the Kurzweil framework this is achieved by a generalized Lyapunov-Perron equation whose key extra term $\int_s^t DF(z(\tau),\gamma)$ does not vanish, and by solving that equation with a contraction whose constant is proportional to $V_h$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof requires the nonlinearity's time-variation $V_h$ to be smaller than a threshold set by the dichotomy constants and by $\Lambda$; if that fails, the Lyapunov-Perron map is not a contraction and the manifold-building argument collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the theorem is correct, every nonlinear generalized ODE whose linear part has an exponential dichotomy and whose nonlinearity has sufficiently small $V_h$ has a forward-invariant stable graph; in particular the set of bounded forward solutions is exactly that graph.
  • Measure differential equations of the form $Dz=A(t)z+C(t)zDu+H(t,z)Du$ inherit a stable invariant manifold when the linear MDE has an exponential dichotomy and $H$ has sufficiently small Lipschitz constant (Theorem 4.4).
  • Impulsive differential equations with an exponentially dichotomic linear part and an integrable nonlinearity $f$ satisfying $\|f(t,z)-f(t,w)\|\le \gamma(t)\|z-w\|$ inherit a stable invariant manifold when the associated smallness condition is met (Theorem 4.8).
  • When the Kurzweil integral is replaced by the Riemann integral, the generalized Theorem 3.1 collapses to the classical stable manifold theorem for ordinary differential equations.
  • Off-manifold orbits being unbounded gives a practical characterization: a bounded forward solution must start on $M_{gra}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the proof's contraction constant grows exponentially with $V_\Lambda$ and with the inverse-jump bound $C_a$, the practical smallness required of the nonlinearity may be extremely restrictive for systems with large impulses; this is a consequence of the proof technique, not a claim the paper makes.
  • The theorem represents every bounded solution as a graph over the stable subspace, so the same Lyapunov-Perron setup could plausibly be iterated to produce an unstable manifold and, under a spectral gap, an invariant foliation; the paper stops at the stable manifold.
  • In the impulsive application, the stated hypotheses only guarantee $\int\gamma$ is finite; the proof silently needs that integral to be small, so a sharper formulation of Theorem 4.8 should list $\int_{\tilde t}^t\gamma(s)ds\le M_\gamma$ with $M_\gamma$ small as an explicit hypothesis, or prove the smallness from the dichotomy data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper establishes a stable invariant manifold theorem for nonlinear generalized ODEs of the form dz/dτ = D[Λ(t)z + F(z,t)] under the assumption that the linear part admits an exponential dichotomy. The proof introduces a generalized Lyapunov-Perron equation (Lemma 3.2), proves a contraction fixed-point theorem for this equation (Lemma 3.5), constructs the stable manifold as the graph of a Lipschitz map m(s,ζ), proves invariance of the manifold, and claims that all solutions outside the manifold are unbounded on [s,∞). The paper then applies this result to measure differential equations (Theorem 4.4) and impulsive differential equations (Theorem 4.8) through the standard correspondence between these equations and generalized ODEs.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it extends stable-manifold theory from classical ODEs to Kurzweil-integral generalized ODEs and provides a unified framework for MDE and IDE stable manifolds. The paper's strengths include the explicit generalized Lyapunov-Perron equation and a concrete smallness threshold for the Lipschitz-type constant Vh in Lemma 3.5. However, the applications contain load-bearing smallness gaps, and the contraction space in Lemma 3.5 is not aligned with the integrability requirements of the Kurzweil integral, so the result should be viewed as conditional pending repair.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Lemma 3.5] The contraction map Jζ is defined on Θ, the set of all bounded functions z:[s,∞)→Z, but the expression (Jζ z)(t) contains the Kurzweil integrals ∫_s^t DF(z(τ),γ), ∫_s^t dσ[V(t,σ)P(σ)]∫_σ^s DF(z(τ),γ), and the analogous improper integral. For F∈F(Ω,h) these integrals are standard when z is regulated; for arbitrary bounded z they are not established, and the proof uses the integral sums without first proving integrability. Since the fixed point of Jζ is used to represent solutions of (3.1), the space Θ should be replaced by the space of bounded regulated functions, or an explicit integrability argument should be supplied. As written, the map Jζ need not be well-defined on Θ, so Lemma 3.5 does not support Theorem 3.1.
  2. [§4.1.2, Theorem 4.4] In the proof that N∈F(Ω,u), the first estimate gives ∥N(z,t)-N(z,\tilde t)∥ ≤ MH|u(t)-u(\tilde t)| and the second gives ≤ LH∥z-w∥|u(t)-u(\tilde t)|. Therefore the function h in Definition 2.7 must dominate both MH and LH, i.e. one may take h(t)=max(MH,LH)u(t), so Vh=max(MH,LH)Vu. Condition (c) only assumes LH is sufficiently small and places no smallness condition on MH. The final displayed contraction condition "2 LH Vu(...) < 1" therefore does not follow from the hypotheses; the theorem is unsupported unless an explicit smallness assumption is placed on max(MH,LH)Vu (or on MH) and the proof is adjusted.
  3. [§4.2.2, Theorem 4.8] The proof constructs Q(z,t)=∫_{t0}^t f(s,z(s))ds and correctly observes that Q∈F(Ω,µ) with Vh=∫_R γ(s)ds. It then says "Set ∫_{\tilde t}^t γ(s)ds ≤ Mγ for some sufficiently small Mγ > 0", but this is not a consequence of condition (c), which only gives finiteness of ∫_R γ(s)ds. Since the contraction threshold in Lemma 3.5 is of the form const·Vh<1, the argument needs the total mass ∫_R γ(s)ds to be small. As stated, Theorem 4.8 does not verify the hypotheses of Theorem 3.1, so the stable-manifold conclusion for (4.10) is unsupported. This can be repaired by adding an explicit smallness hypothesis on ∫_R γ(s)ds.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1, Theorem 3.1] The phrase "Lpschitz-type constant" should read "Lipschitz-type constant".
  2. [§2.3, Definition 2.7] In (2.7), the tuple list "(z,t2),(z,t1),(w,t2)(w,t2)" contains a duplicated entry and should read "(z,t2),(z,t1),(w,t2),(w,t1)".
  3. [§2.1] The definition of BVF([c,d],Z) writes "{g∈Z | ...}" but should be "{g:[c,d]→Z | ...}"; also "variation function" should be "bounded variation function".
  4. [§3.2, Lemma 3.2] The phrase "Set t → ∞" should be "Letting t → ∞", and the passage to the improper integral should explicitly mention that the preceding estimates justify the limit.
  5. [§4.1.2, proof of Theorem 4.4] The final inequality should display the actual smallness quantity, such as Vh=max(MH,LH)Vu, rather than "2 LH Vu(...)".
  6. [§4.2.2, proof of Theorem 4.8] The line "Set ∫_{\tilde t}^t γ(s)ds ≤ Mγ for some sufficiently small Mγ > 0" is not a statement of a hypothesis; if the theorem is revised, this smallness condition should become part of the assumptions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the stable-manifold derivation is self-contained; the IDE and MDE applications contain unsupported smallness assumptions, which are correctness gaps, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. Theorem 3.1 is proved from a stated hypothesis that the Lipschitz-type constant V_h is sufficiently small; this smallness is an input of the theorem, not a fitted output or a disguised prediction. The generalized Lyapunov-Perron equation (3.3) is obtained from the externally cited variation-of-constants formula in [12] and dichotomy estimates from [5], and the contraction argument in Lemma 3.5 explicitly requires 2V_h(1+K(1+2K))C_a^3 e^{3C_a V_Lambda} V_Lambda^2 < 1 as a hypothesis. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then called a prediction, and no definition smuggles the conclusion into the assumptions. The only self-citation is [28] (Lu and Xia), cited in the introduction as background on Hartman-Grobman linearization; it is not load-bearing in the proof of Theorem 3.1. However, the reviewer rule requires flagging missing support. In the IDE application, Theorem 4.8 assumes only that gamma is integrable and bounded in the sense of condition (c), yet the proof states 'Set ∫_{\tilde t}^t γ(s)ds ≤ M_γ for some sufficiently small M_γ > 0' (Section 4.2.2). This is an additional smallness hypothesis that is not a consequence of the stated assumptions, so Theorem 4.8 is not fully supported as written. Similarly, in Theorem 4.4, to place N in F(Ω,u), the auxiliary variation function must dominate both M_H and L_H, so making only L_H sufficiently small does not ensure V_h is small. These are genuine correctness gaps in the applications, but they are not circularity: they do not make the claimed conclusion equivalent to its inputs by construction. The core stable-manifold result remains an independent, externally based derivation, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper's central claim rests on standard Kurzweil integration theory, the exponential dichotomy hypothesis, and a smallness assumption on the perturbation. The main theorem is a structural result with no fitted parameters or new entities. The main risk is the unproven smallness assertion in the IDE application and the unspecified regularity of the contraction space.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption (H1)-(H2): Λ has finite total variation with uniform bounds on inverse jumps; F ∈ F(Ω,h) with V_h finite and small.
    These are the explicit hypotheses of Theorem 3.1; if violated, the Lyapunov-Perron integrals need not converge.
  • domain assumption The linear generalized ODE admits an exponential dichotomy with projection P and constants K, α.
    Defines hyperbolicity; all estimates in the stable manifold proof use bounds (2.4).
  • domain assumption The Perron-Stieltjes integral estimates from [5, Remark 4.11] are correct and bounded by the constants used.
    Lemma 3.2 and Lemma 3.4 rely on these bounds for convergence of future integrals.
  • ad hoc to paper Every bounded function in Θ is admissible for the Kurzweil integral, or the space Θ must be restricted to regulated functions.
    The contraction map J uses ∫_s^t DF(z(τ),γ) for arbitrary bounded z; the paper does not prove integrability for all such z.
  • ad hoc to paper For the IDE application, ∫_R γ(s)ds is small enough, although this is not stated in the theorem.
    The proof asserts ∫ γ ≤ M_γ for sufficiently small M_γ, which is not entailed by condition (c).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stable invariant manifold for generalized ODEs with applications to measure differential equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ENRGK46D

@misc{pith2026250602874,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stable invariant manifold for generalized ODEs with applications to measure differential equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ENRGK46D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02874}
}
abstract

This paper establishes the stable invariant manifold for a new kind of differential equations defined by Kurzweil integral, so-called {\em generalized ODEs} on a Banach space. The nonlinear generalized ODEs are formulated as $$ \frac{dz}{d\tau}=D[\Lambda(t)z+F(z,t)], $$ where $\Lambda(t)$ is a bounded linear operator on a Banach space $\mathscr{Z}$ and $F(z,t)$ is a nonlinear Kurzweil integrable function on $\mathscr{Z}$. The letter $D$ represents that generalized ODEs are defined via its solution, and $\frac{dz}{d\tau}$ only a notation. Hence, generalized ODEs are fundamentally a notational representation of a class of integral equations. Due to the differences between the theory of generalized ODEs and ODEs, it is difficult to extended the stable manifold theorem of ODEs to generalized ODEs. In order to overcome the difficulty, we establish a generalized Lyapunov-Perron equation in the frame of Kurzweil integral theory. Subsequently, we present a stable invariant manifold theorem for nonlinear generalized ODEs when their linear parts exhibit an exponential dichotomy. As effective applications, we finally derive results concerning the existence of stable manifold for measure differential equations and impulsive differential equations.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Collegari, M

    R. Collegari, M. Federson, M. Frasson, Linear FDEs in the frame of generalized ODEs: variation-of-constants formula, Czech. Math. J. , 68 (2018) 889–920

    work page 2018

  2. [5]

    Bonotto, M

    E. Bonotto, M. Federson, L. Santos, Dichotomies for generalized ordinary differential equations and applications, J. Differential Equations , 264 (2018) 3131–3173

    work page 2018

  3. [1]

    Afonso, E

    S. Afonso, E. Bonotto, M. Federson, ˘S. Schwabik, Discontinuous local semiflows for Kurzweil equations leading to LaSalle’s invariance principle for differential systems with impulses at variable times, J. Differential Equations, 250 (2011) 2936–3001

    work page 2011

  4. [2]

    Afonso, E

    S. Afonso, E. Bonotto, M. Federson, L. Gimenes, Boundedness of solutions for functional differential equations with variable impulses via generalized ordinary differential equations, Math. Nachr. , 285 (2012) 545–561

    work page 2012

  5. [3]

    Andrade da Silva, M

    F. Andrade da Silva, M. Federson, E. Toon, Stability, boundedness and controllability of solutions of measure functional differential equations, J. Differential Equations , 307 (2022) 160–210

    work page 2022

  6. [4]

    Bento, C

    A. Bento, C. Silva, Generalized nonuniform dichotomies and local stable manifolds, J. Dynam. Differential Equa- tions, 25 (2013) 1139–1158

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    Bonotto, M

    E. Bonotto, M. Federson, L. Santos, Robustness of exponential dichotomies for generalized ordinary differential equations, J. Dynam. Differential Equations , 32 (2020) 2021–2060

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Bonotto, M

    E. Bonotto, M. Federson, J. Mesquita, Generalized Ordinary Differential Equations in Abstract Spaces and Appli- cations, Wiley, Hoboken 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Bonotto, M

    E. Bonotto, M. Federson, C. Mesquita, Boundary value problems for generalized ODEs, J Geom Anal , 33 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12220-022-01090-z

    2023 doi

  2. [9]

    S. Chow, K. Lu, Invariant manifolds for flows in Banach spaces, J. Differential Equations , 74 (1988) 285–317

    1988

  3. [10]

    J. Chu, G. Meng, Z. Zhang, Minimizations of positive periodic and Dirichlet eigenvalues for general indefinite Sturm-Liouville problems, Adv. Math., 432 (2023) 109272

    2023

  4. [11]

    J. Chu, G. Meng, Sharp bounds for Dirichlet eigenvalue ratios of the Camassa-Holm equations, Math. Ann. , 388 (2024) 1205–1224

    2024

  5. [13]

    Federson, ˘S

    M. Federson, ˘S. Schwabik, Generalized ODE approach to impulsive retarded differential equations, Differential Integral Equations, 19 (2006) 1201–1234

    2006

  6. [14]

    Federson, C

    M. Federson, C. Mesquita, A. Slav ´ ık, Measure functional differential equations and functional dynamic equations on time scales, J. Differential Equations , 252 (2012) 3816–3847

    2012

  7. [15]

    Federson, R

    M. Federson, R. Grau, C. Mesquita, E. Toon, Permanence of equilibrium points in the basin of attraction and existence of periodic solutions for autonomous measure differential equations and dynamic equations on time scales via generalized ODEs, Nonlinearity, 35 (2022) 3118–3158

    2022

  8. [16]

    Fornæss, E

    J. Fornæss, E. Stout, Polydiscs in complex manifolds, Math. Ann., 227 (1977) 145–153

    1977

  9. [17]

    Fornæss, B

    J. Fornæss, B. Stensønes, Stable manifolds of holomorphic hyperbolic maps, Int. J. Math. , 15 (2004) 749–758

    2004

  10. [18]

    Gallegos, R

    C. Gallegos, R. Grau, J. Mesquita, Stability, asymptotic and exponential stability for various types of equations with discontinuous solutions via Lyapunov functionals, J. Differential Equations , 299 (2021) 256–283

    2021

  11. [19]

    Gallegos, G

    C. Gallegos, G. Robledo, Criterion for exponential dichotomy of periodic generalized linear differential equations and an application to admissibility, J. Dynam. Differential Equations , 36 (2024) 3949–3965. 22

    2024

  12. [20]

    Gallegos, G

    C. Gallegos, G. Robledo, On stability for generalized linear differential equations and applications to impulsive systems, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A , 154 (2024) 381–407

    2024

  13. [21]

    Hadamard, Sur l’it´ eration et les solutions asymptotiques des ´ equations diff´ erentielles,Bull

    J. Hadamard, Sur l’it´ eration et les solutions asymptotiques des ´ equations diff´ erentielles,Bull. Soc. Math. , 29 (1901) 224–228

    1901

  14. [22]

    Hale, Ordinary Differential Equations, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1969

    J. Hale, Ordinary Differential Equations, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1969

    1969

  15. [23]

    H¨ onig, Volterra Stieltjes–Integral Equations, North–Holland Publ, Comp, Amsterdam, 1975

    C. H¨ onig, Volterra Stieltjes–Integral Equations, North–Holland Publ, Comp, Amsterdam, 1975

    1975

  16. [24]

    Kurzweil, Generalized ordinary differential equations and continuous dependence on a parameter, Czechoslovak Math

    J. Kurzweil, Generalized ordinary differential equations and continuous dependence on a parameter, Czechoslovak Math. J. , 7 (1957) 418–448

    1957

  17. [25]

    Kurzweil, Generalized ordinary differential equations, Czechoslovak Math

    J. Kurzweil, Generalized ordinary differential equations, Czechoslovak Math. J. , 8 (1958) 360–388

    1958

  18. [26]

    M. Li, J. Wang, D. O’Regan, Stable manifolds for non-instantaneous impulsive nonautonomous differential equa- tions, Electron. J. Qual. Theory Differ. Equ. , 82 (2019) 1–28

    2019

  19. [27]

    M. Li, J. Wang, D. O’Regan, M. Feˇ ckan, Center manifolds for non-instantaneous impulsive equations under nonuni- form hyperbolicity, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris , 358 (2020) 341–364

    2020

  20. [28]

    W. Lu, Y. Xia, Linearization and H¨ older continuity of generalized ODEs with application to measure differential equations, J. Differential Equations , 438 (2025) 113358

    2025

  21. [29]

    Mallet-Paret, G

    J. Mallet-Paret, G. Sell, Inertial manifolds for reaction-diffusion equations in higher space dimensions, J. Amer. Math. Soc., 1 (1988) 805–866

    1988

  22. [30]

    G. Meng, M. Zhang, Dependence of solutions and eigenvalues of measure differential equations on measures, J. Differential Equations, 254 (2013) 2196–2232

    2013

  23. [31]

    Meng, Extremal problems for eigenvalues of measure differential equations, Proc

    G. Meng, Extremal problems for eigenvalues of measure differential equations, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 143 (2015) 1991–2002

    2015

  24. [32]

    Perron, ¨Uber stabilit¨ at und asymptotisches verhalten der integrale von differentialgleichungssystemen, Math

    O. Perron, ¨Uber stabilit¨ at und asymptotisches verhalten der integrale von differentialgleichungssystemen, Math. Z., 29 (1929) 129–160

    1929

  25. [33]

    Piccoli, Measure differential equations, Arch

    B. Piccoli, Measure differential equations, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 233 (2019) 1289–1317

    2019

  26. [34]

    Piccoli, F

    B. Piccoli, F. Rossi, Measure dynamics with probability vector fields and sources, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 39 (2019) 6207–6230

    2019

  27. [35]

    Schwabik, Generalized Ordinary Differential Equations, Ser

    ˘S. Schwabik, Generalized Ordinary Differential Equations, Ser. Real Anal., vol. 5, World Scientific, Singapore, 1992

    1992

  28. [36]

    Schwabik, Abstract Perron-Stieltjes integral, Math

    ˘S. Schwabik, Abstract Perron-Stieltjes integral, Math. Bohem. , 121 (1996) 425–447

    1996

  29. [37]

    Schwabik, Linear Stieltjes integral equations in Banach spaces, Math

    ˘S. Schwabik, Linear Stieltjes integral equations in Banach spaces, Math. Bohem. , 124 (1999) 433–457

    1999

  30. [38]

    J. Shen, K. Lu, W. Zhang, Smoothness of invariant manifolds and foliations for infinite dimensional random dynamical systems, Sci. China Math. , 63 (2020) 1877–1912

    2020

  31. [39]

    Z. Wen, M. Zhang, On the optimization problems of the principal eigenvalues of measure differential equations with indefinite measures, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B , 25 (2020) 3257–3274

    2020

  32. [40]

    Wen, On principal eigenvalues of measure differential equations and a patchy Neumann eigenvalue problem, J

    Z. Wen, On principal eigenvalues of measure differential equations and a patchy Neumann eigenvalue problem, J. Differential Equations, 286 (2021) 710–730

    2021

  33. [41]

    Zhang, Generalized exponential dichotomies and invariant manifolds for differential equations, Adv

    W. Zhang, Generalized exponential dichotomies and invariant manifolds for differential equations, Adv. Math. Chin., 22 (1993) 1–45

    1993

  34. [42]

    Zhang, W.N

    W.M. Zhang, W.N. Zhang, On invariant manifolds and invariant foliations without a spectral gap, Adv. Math., 303 (2016) 549–610. 23

    2016

Pith tools

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