Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Dual realizations of Bergman spaces on strongly convex domains

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Fantappiè transform with kernel exponent $n+1$ is a normed space isomorphism between Bergman spaces of a strongly convex domain and its dual, and the isomorphism fails on a simple convex domain in $\mathbb{C}^2$.

desk verdict New higher-dimensional duality results with a repairable injectivity gap; deserves peer review after a revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02913 v2 pith:AS7GZZLG submitted 2025-06-03 math.CV math.FA

Agniva Chatterjee This is my paper
classification math.CVmath.FA MSC 32A2644A1032A3632A55
keywords FantappiètransformLaplaceBergmanspacesstronglyconvexdomainsdualcomplementPaley-Wienertheoremsreproducingkernelssingularintegraloperators
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 asks whether the Fantappiè and Laplace transforms, which classically realize the duality between analytic functionals on a convex set and holomorphic functions on its dual complement, also realize isomorphisms when restricted to Bergman spaces. The main theorem answers yes in higher dimensions under a strong convexity hypothesis: for any bounded $C^2$-smooth strongly $\mathbb{C}$-convex domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}^n$ containing the origin whose dual $\Omega^*$ is strongly convex, the Fantappiè transform $F_{n+1}$ is a normed space isomorphism between $A^p(\Omega)$ and $A^p(\Omega^*)$ for every $p\in(1,\infty)$. A second theorem shows the Laplace transform $L$ is an isomorphism between $A^2(\Omega)$ and a weighted Bergman space on $\mathbb{C}^n$. A third theorem constructs a two-dimensional convex domain where both transforms are bounded and injective but not onto, proving the planar results cannot extend to all convex domains in higher dimensions. A careful reader should care because these transforms give an explicit, norm-preserving bridge between a domain and its dual, turning Bergman-space duality into an integral-representation statement.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a new reproducing formula for $p$-Bergman spaces on strongly convex domains (Lemma 3.3): each $f\in A^p(D)$ is recovered as $f(z)=(2\pi i)^{-n}\int_D f(\zeta)(\partial G)^n(\zeta,z)$ for the $(1,0)$-form $G(\zeta,z)=\partial\rho_D(\zeta)/\widetilde{K}_D(\zeta,z)$, where $\rho_D$ is the squared Minkowski functional minus one and $\widetilde{K}_D$ is a normalized Fantappiè kernel. The form $(\partial G)^n$ equals $h_D(\zeta)\widetilde{K}_D(\zeta,z)^{-(n+1)}\,dV(\zeta)$ with bounded coefficient $h_D$, so the reproducing operator is controlled by comparison with the singular integral operator $B_D(f)(z)=\int_D f(\zeta)B_D(\zeta,z)^{-(n+1)}\,dV(\zeta)$, whose $L^p$ boundedness is Lemma 3.1. Injectivity and surjectivity of $F_{n+1}$ then come from the duality $A^p(D)'\cong A^q(D)$ (Lemma 3.4) and from showing that the functional constructed from a target $g\in A^p(\Omega^*)$ maps back to $g$ through the reproducing formula. For the Laplace transform, the Borel transform $B_n(F)(z)=\int_0^\infty F(tz)t^n e^{-t}\,dt$ mediates between $L$ and $F_{n+1}$ in a commutative diagram, and its normed-space isomorphism property is established by slicing into one-dimensional sections.

What would settle it

Compute the operator norm of $B_D$ on the unit ball $\mathbb{B}^n$ at $p$ close to $1$ or $\infty$; a single strongly convex domain where $B_D$ is unbounded on $L^p(D)$ would invalidate Lemma 3.1 and hence Theorem 1.1. Alternatively, test directly whether $O(D)\cap C^1(D)$ is dense in $A^p(D)$ for a convex domain with nonsmooth boundary, such as the polydisc, since the lemma's extension step would fail if density fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a bounded $C^2$-smooth strongly $\mathbb{C}$-convex domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}^n$ containing the origin with strongly convex dual $\Omega^*$, the Fantappiè transform $F_{n+1}(g)(z)=\int_\Omega g(\zeta)(1-\langle\zeta,z\rangle)^{-(n+1)}\,dV(\zeta)$ is, for every $p\in(1,\infty)$, a normed space isomorphism from $A^p(\Omega)$ onto $A^p(\Omega^*)$. When $\Omega$ is additionally strongly convex, the Laplace transform $L(g)(z)=\int_\Omega g(\zeta)e^{\langle\zeta,z\rangle}\,dV(\zeta)$ is a normed space isomorphism from $A^2(\Omega)$ onto the weighted Bergman space $A^2(\mathbb{C}^n,\omega_\Omega)$ with weight $\omega_\Omega(z)=e^{-2H_\Omega(z)}\|z\|^{n+1/2}(dd^c H_\Omega)^n(z)$. On the non-smooth convex domain $\{|\zeta_1|+|\zeta_2|<1\}\subset\mathbb{C}^2$, both statements fail as surjectivity results: $F_3$ and $L$ are bounded injective operators with proper range. Thus the paper establishes that the planar duality of Napalkov Jr and Yulumukhamtov extends to higher dimensions exactly in the strongly convex regime and no further.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the reproducing formula in Lemma 3.3, whose proof assumes both that $C^1$-smooth holomorphic functions are dense in $A^p(D)$ for convex $D$ and that the auxiliary operator $B_D$ is bounded on $L^p(D)$; if either assumption fails on some strongly convex domain, the surjectivity half of Theorem 1.1 breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $p\in(1,\infty)$, $A^p(\Omega)$ and $A^p(\Omega^*)$ are normed-space isomorphic via the explicit kernel $(1-\langle\zeta,z\rangle)^{-(n+1)}$, giving a concrete integral representation of the duality.
  • The Laplace transform identifies $A^2(\Omega)$ with an explicitly weighted Bergman space on $\mathbb{C}^n$, so questions about $L^2$ holomorphic functions on a bounded convex domain translate to weighted $L^2$ entire functions with weight built from the support function.
  • Any circled strongly convex domain automatically satisfies the dual strong convexity hypothesis, so the two isomorphism theorems apply to all such domains.
  • The counterexample domain $\{|\zeta_1|+|\zeta_2|<1\}$ shows that in dimension two and higher, convexity alone is not enough: the range of each transform is a proper subspace, so the planar theorems have no direct higher-dimensional extension without a strong convexity assumption.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The normed-space isomorphism for $F_{n+1}$ suggests that the Bergman kernel of $\Omega^*$ could be expressed as the image of the Bergman kernel of $\Omega$ under a change of variables, giving an explicit kernel identity that the paper does not write down.
  • One could test whether the counterexample's failure is a boundary-regularity artifact: replacing the $\ell^1$ ball by a $C^2$-smooth strongly convex approximation might restore the isomorphism while approaching the failure domain in the Hausdorff limit, which would show the surjectivity result is open at the boundary of the hypothesis.
  • For $p\neq 2$, the Laplace transform side does not have a stated analogue; the paper's method via the Borel transform appears to rely on $L^2$, so proving $L$ is an isomorphism between $A^p(\Omega)$ and a suitable weighted space would require a new idea.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Fantappiè and Laplace transforms acting on the Bergman spaces A^p(Ω) of bounded strongly convex domains Ω ⊂ C^n. Theorem 1.1 claims that F_{n+1} is a normed space isomorphism between A^p(Ω) and A^p(Ω*), Theorem 1.2 claims that the Laplace transform maps A^2(Ω) isomorphically onto a weighted Bergman space A^2(C^n, ω_Ω), and Theorem 1.3 gives a concrete convex domain (the complex ℓ¹ ball) on which these transforms are bounded and injective but not surjective. The proof strategy is to push the Fantappiè kernel to Ω* via the map T_D of Lemma 2.2, compare the resulting integral operator with a singular integral operator B_D studied in Lemma 3.1, prove a new reproducing formula (Lemma 3.3), and use Bergman-space duality (Lemma 3.4). The Laplace result is derived via a Borel transform and a commutative diagram with F_{n+1}.

Significance. If the technical gaps are repaired, the paper would give a natural higher-dimensional generalization of the planar results of Napalkov–Yulmukhametov, with a clean positive theorem for strongly convex domains and a useful counterexample showing that full convexity is too much to ask in higher dimensions. The singular-integral comparison in Lemma 3.1 and the reproducing formula in Lemma 3.3 are promising tools. The counterexample in Theorem 1.3 is explicit and checkable: power-series characterizations reduce surjectivity to coefficient asymptotics, and the final divergence computations, although they need correction as written, appear to support the intended conclusion. The main theorems are substantial and of clear interest to the complex-analysis community if the current gaps in the proofs can be fixed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2 and (1.1)–(1.2)] The inclusion (1.1) and the injectivity argument in §4.2 are not justified: the map θ : L^p(Ω) → O'(Ω) given by (1.2) is not well-defined, because for f ∈ A^p(Ω) and g ∈ O(Ω) the integral ∫_Ω f g dV can diverge. For example, on the unit disk D, f(z)=(1-z)^{-0.9} ∈ A^2(D) and g(z)=(1-z)^{-2} ∈ O(D) give ∫_D |fg| dV = ∞. The statement in §4.2 that O(Ω) ⊂ A^q(Ω) is false for the same g. Consequently the Martineau–Aizenberg injectivity theorem on O'(Ω) cannot be applied to µg, and the injectivity of F_{n+1} on A^p(Ω) is not established as written. A plausible repair is to embed A^p(Ω) into O'(Ω̄), the space of analytic functionals on functions holomorphic in a neighborhood of the closure, where the pairing is finite, and then use the density of O(Ω̄) in A^q(Ω) via dilations; this would have to be stated and proved explicitly.
  2. [§5, last paragraph] The same defect appears in the surjectivity proof of Theorem 1.2. The functional µg is defined on O'(Ω) by µg(ψ) = ∫_Ω ψ(ζ)(g ∘ T_Ω)(ζ)(H ∘ T_Ω)(ζ) dV(ζ) for every ψ ∈ O(Ω). For ψ ∈ O(Ω) that is not in A^2(Ω), the integral can diverge, so µg need not be an analytic functional and ̂µ_g(z) = µg(e^{⟨·,z⟩}) is not defined. The proof must either restrict the pairing to O(Ω̄) or define µg directly as a bounded functional on A^2(Ω) and justify the passage to the Laplace transform separately.
  3. [Lemma 3.3 and (4.3)] The proof of Lemma 3.3 uses the assertion that O(D)∩C^1(D) is dense in A^p(D) for convex D, but no proof or citation is given; the assertion is not automatic for arbitrary bounded convex domains, and Lemma 3.3 does not state the hypothesis 0∈D that would allow a dilation argument. In addition, the chain (4.3) drops the constant n!/π^n: beginning with F_{n+1}(ϕ_g)(z) = (n!/π^n) ∫_Ω ϕ_g(ζ)(1-⟨ζ,z⟩)^{-n-1} dV(ζ), the displayed equalities end with ∫_{Ω*} g(η)(∂_η G)^n(η,z), which by Lemma 3.3 equals (2πi)^n g(z), not g(z). The normalization in (3.20) and (4.2) must be checked so that the final identity has the correct constant.
  4. [§6, Stirling estimates after (6.14) and (6.16)] The asymptotic estimates used to prove non-surjectivity in Theorem 1.3 are not correct as displayed. For the Fantappiè counterexample, the diagonal term in ∥f∥²_{A²(Ω)} is (2k+1)^{1/2} k!^4(4k+3)! / [4(2k+1)!^2(2k+2)], and Stirling's formula gives a term comparable to (2k/e)^{4k} k^{-1/2}, not 1/k. The displayed denominator (2k+1)!^4 appears to be a further typo. Similarly, in the Laplace counterexample after (6.16), the asserted ≈∑ 1/k is not the true asymptotic; an exponential factor is present. The divergence conclusion appears to survive, so the counterexample is probably repairable, but the computations must be redone and corrected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Lemma 6.1(ii)] In the formula following the integral over Ω*, the denominator is written as (m1+1)(m1+1); it should be (m1+1)(m2+1).
  2. [Theorem 1.3] The theorem states that F₃ and L are injective, but injectivity is not explicitly shown in Section 6; it follows from the coefficient formulas (6.13)–(6.16) and should be stated.
  3. [Lemma 2.1] In the proof of Lemma 2.1, the contradiction assumption is written with z0 instead of the fixed point z̃; this is confusing and should be corrected.
  4. [§2.1(5)] The definition of the notation g ≲ f is nonstandard; the phrase 'the existence of C₁ > 0 such that C₁ g(x) ≤ f(x)' would usually be written as g(x) ≤ C f(x), and the present wording invites confusion.
  5. [Lemma 3.3] Lemma 3.3 states only that D is a bounded strongly convex domain, but its proof uses the Minkowski functional ρ_D = m_D²−1 and the map T_D, so the hypothesis should explicitly include 0 ∈ D.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the isomorphisms are derived from external duality, L^p, and reproducing-kernel results, with the author's prior work used only for auxiliary weight estimates.

full rationale

The central claims are derived rather than assumed. Theorem 1.1 is proved by three independent steps: L^p-boundedness via the geometric change of variables of Lindholm ([10]) and the singular-integral bounds of Lanzani–Stein ([8]); injectivity via Martineau–Aizenberg duality plus the A^q-duality Lemma 3.4; and surjectivity via the Cauchy–Leray-based reproducing formula Lemma 3.3, which is established for O(D)∩C^1(D) by Stokes' theorem and extended to A^p(D) by the L^p-boundedness of the resulting integral operator. None of these lemmas assumes the target isomorphism. Theorem 1.2 follows from Theorem 1.1 and a Borel-transform equivalence, with the weight-comparison Lemma 3.5 quoting the author's earlier paper [6] only for exponential estimates and a Monge–Ampère computation; that citation is not a relabeling of the present result, and the main duality content is external ([10], [16], [8]). Theorem 1.3 is a separate coefficient computation producing explicit counterexamples. The proof does contain a genuine mathematical gap that is not circularity: the inclusion A^p(Ω) ↪ O'(Ω) in (1.1) is not well-defined because the pairing ∫ f g can diverge for f∈A^p(Ω) and g∈O(Ω), and the assertion O(Ω) ⊂ A^q(Ω) is false in general; this affects the injectivity argument in §4.2. That is a correctness risk, not a circular dependence of the conclusion on its hypothesis.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted numerical parameters. It relies on standard high-powered theorems (Martineau-Aizenberg duality, Paley-Wiener, Lanzani-Stein L^p bounds, Lindholm's geometry, the planar Napalkov-Yulumukhamtov theorems) plus two new technical constructs: the singular integral operator B_D and the reproducing form (∂G)^n. The main domain hypotheses (strong C-convexity, strong convexity of Ω*) are stated but not derived; the paper explicitly notes that Ω* strong convexity is not automatic. One internal assumption, the density of O(D)∩C^1(D) in A^p(D), is asserted without proof.

assumptions (9)
  • standard math Martineau-Aizenberg duality: F_k(O'(K)) is isomorphic to O(K*) for convex K
    Used in Section 4.2 to get injectivity of F_{n+1} on O'(Ω) and in the introduction to frame the problem.
  • standard math Pólya-Ehrenpreis-Martineau Paley-Wiener theorem for the Laplace transform on O'(K)
    Background for Theorem 1.2 and for identifying L(f) as an Oexp function in Section 5.
  • standard math L^p boundedness of the Bergman projection on bounded C^2-smooth strongly convex domains
    Invoked in Lemma 3.4 via [8] to prove A^p(D)' ≅ A^q(D); this duality is required for injectivity and surjectivity in Theorem 1.1.
  • standard math Bergman space duality A^p(D)' ≅ A^q(D) for strongly convex domains
    Lemma 3.4, attributed to [5] and [8]; used to lift bounded functionals to elements of A^p(Ω).
  • standard math Lindholm's geometric results on strongly C-convex domains, including the diffeomorphism T_D and change-of-variables formula (2.2)
    Lemma 2.2 depends on [10, Lemmas 9,24] and page 308; used throughout Section 4 for pullbacks of the Fantappiè transform.
  • standard math Planar duality theorems of Napalkov-Yulumukhamtov: F_2 and L are isomorphisms for planar convex domains
    Lemma 3.6 uses [16] for the planar Borel transform isomorphism; the paper generalizes these results to higher dimensions.
  • standard math Cauchy-Leray integral reproducing formula for smooth functions on convex domains
    Starting point for Lemma 3.3; cited from [17, Section 3].
  • domain assumption O(D)∩C^1(D) is dense in A^p(D) for bounded convex domains D
    Asserted without proof in Lemma 3.3 to extend the reproducing formula from smooth functions to all A^p(D); plausible but unstated in the cited literature.
  • domain assumption Ω satisfies the hypotheses of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2: bounded, C^2-smooth, strongly C-convex (or strongly convex), contains the origin, and Ω* is strongly convex
    These hypotheses activate Lemmas 2.2, 3.1-3.4 and the weight estimate; the paper notes Ω* strong convexity is not automatic, so this is a real restriction.
invented entities (2)
  • The singular integral operator B_D defined by B_D(f)(z) = ∫_D f(ζ) B_D(ζ,z)^{-n-1} dV(ζ) with B_D as in (3.1)
    purpose: Model operator used to control the L^p boundedness of the pushed-forward Fantappiè transform and the reproducing kernel operator in Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2.
    The operator is introduced in this paper; its boundedness is proven by comparison with the Kerzman-Stein type operator in [8], and it is a necessary technical tool rather than a physically motivated entity.
  • The (n,n)-form (∂G)^n where G(ζ,z)=∂ρ_D(ζ)/\tilde K_D(ζ,z)
    purpose: Provides the reproducing formula for A^p(D) in Lemma 3.3, which is the engine of the surjectivity proof of the Fantappiè transform.
    New construct specific to this paper; the paper proves its reproducing property using Stokes' theorem and compares it to B_D.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dual realizations of Bergman spaces on strongly convex domains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AS7GZZLG

@misc{pith2026250602913,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dual realizations of Bergman spaces on strongly convex domains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AS7GZZLG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02913}
}
abstract

The Fantappi\`e and Laplace transforms realize isomorphisms between analytic functionals supported on a convex compact set $K\subset{\mathbb C}^n$ and certain spaces of holomorphic functions associated with $K$. Viewing the Bergman space of a bounded domain in ${\mathbb C}^n$ as a subspace of the space of analytic functionals supported on its closure, the images of the restrictions of these transforms have been studied in the planar setting. For the Fantappi\`e transform, this was done for simply connected domains (Napalkov Jr--Yulumukhamtov, 1995), and for the Laplace transform, this was done for convex domains (Napalkov Jr--Yulumukhamtov, 2004). In this paper, we study this problem in higher dimensions for strongly convex domains, and establish duality results analogous to the planar case. We also produce examples to show that the planar results cannot be generalized to all convex domains in higher dimensions.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Holomorphic Interpolation of Multivariate Completely Monotone Functions

    math.FA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Develops holomorphic interpolation of multivariate completely monotone functions via non-commutative Radon transforms, matrix pencil realizations of Hankel kernels, and operational calculi, yielding directionally mono...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [8]

    Lanzani and E

    L. Lanzani and E. M. Stein. The Bergman projection inLp for domains with minimal smoothness.Illinois J. Math., 56(1):127–154, 2012.https://doi.org/10.1215/ijm/1380287464

    arXiv 2012

  2. [1]

    Abanin and L.H

    A.V. Abanin and L.H. Khoi. Mutual dualities betweenA−∞(Ω) and A∞( ˜Ω) for lineally convex domains.Complex Var. Elliptic Equ., 58(11):1615–1632, 2013.https://doi.org/10.1080/17476933.2012.699963

    arXiv 2013

  3. [2]

    Aizenberg

    L.A. Aizenberg. The general form of a continuous linear functional on the space of functions holomorphic in a convex region ofCn. Dokl. Akad. Nauk, 166(5):1015–1018, 1966

    work page 1966

  4. [3]

    Complex Convexity and Analytic Functionals, volume225.Springer Science & Business Media, 2004.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-7871-5

    M.Andersson, M.Passare, andR.Sigurdsson. Complex Convexity and Analytic Functionals, volume225.Springer Science & Business Media, 2004.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-7871-5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-7871-5 2004

  5. [4]

    Bedford and S

    E. Bedford and S. Ma’u. Complex Monge-Ampère of a Maximum.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 136(1):95–101, 2008. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20535064

    work page arXiv 2008

  6. [5]

    Chakrabarti, L

    D. Chakrabarti, L. D. Edholm, and J.D. McNeal. Duality and approximation of Bergman spaces.Adv. Math., 341:616–656, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2018.10.041

    doi:10.1016/j.aim.2018.10.041 2019

  7. [6]

    Chatterjee

    A. Chatterjee. The Laplace and Leray transforms on some (weakly) convex domains inC2. J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 31(36), 2025.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00041-025-10170-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00041-025-10170-x 2025

  8. [7]

    Gindikin and G.M

    S.G. Gindikin and G.M. Khenkin. Integral geometry for-∂- cohomology in q-linear concave domains in CPn. Funct. Anal. Appl., 12(4):247–261, 1978

    work page 1978

Show all 18 references
  1. [9]

    E. Ligocka. The Hölder continuity of the Bergman projection and proper holomorphic mappings.Studia Math, 80(2):89–107, 1984. https://doi.org/10.4064/sm-80-2-89-107. 22

    1984 doi

  2. [10]

    Lindholm

    N. Lindholm. A Paley–Wiener theorem for convex sets inCn. Bull. Sci. Math., 126(4):289–314, 2002. https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0007-4497(02)01124-7

    2002 doi

  3. [11]

    V. I. Lutsenko and R. S. Yulmukhametov. A generalization of Wiener–Paley theorem to functionals in Smirnov spaces. Proc. Steklov Inst. Math., 200:245–254, 1991.https://www.mathnet.ru/eng/tm1428

    1991

  4. [12]

    Martineau

    A. Martineau. Equations différentielles d’ordre infini.Bull. Soc. Math. France, 95:109–154, 1967

    1967

  5. [13]

    McCarthy and M

    J.E. McCarthy and M. Putinar. Positivity aspects of the Fantappie transform.J. Anal. Math., 97(1):57–82, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02807402

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    S. A. Merenkov. On Cauchy transforms in the Bergman space.Mat. Fiz. Anal. Geom, 4:23–31, 1999

    1999

  7. [15]

    Rus- sian Acad

    V.V.NapalkovJrandR.S., Yulumukhametov.OntheCauchytransformoffunctionalsonaBergmanspace. Rus- sian Acad. Sci. Sb. Math., 1995. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1070/SM1995v082n02ABEH003567/ pdf

    1995 doi

  8. [16]

    Napalkov Jr and R

    V.V. Napalkov Jr and R. S. , Yulumukhametov. Laplace transforms of functionals on Bergman spaces.Izv. RAN. Ser. Mat., 68:5–42, 2004.https://doi.org/10.1070/IM2004v068n01ABEH000465

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    R. M. Range. Holomorphic functions and integral representations in several complex variables, volume 108. Springer Science & Business Media, 1998.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-1918-5

    1998 doi

  10. [18]

    Znamenskii

    S.V. Znamenskii. Strong linear convexity. I. Duality of spaces of holomorphic functions.Sib. Math. J., 26(3):331– 341, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00968619. Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India Email address: agnivac@iisc.ac.in 23

    1985 doi

Pith tools

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