Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 31 references

Limits at infinity for Haj{\l}asz-Sobolev functions in metric spaces

T0 review · 2 major / 2 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 Quasicontinuous representatives of homogeneous Hajlasz-Sobolev functions have a single basepoint-independent pointwise limit at infinity outside a thin exceptional set, whenever the product $sp$ is smaller than the measure's lower…

desk verdict A solid, genuinely useful paper whose main theorem has a fixable quantifier gap; worth reviewing but not accepting as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05037 v1 pith:DSSSLO33 submitted 2025-06-05 math.CA math.AP

Angha Agarwal , Antti V. Vähäkangas This is my paper
classification math.CAmath.AP MSC 46E3631C1531B1531B25
keywords Hajlasz-SobolevspacesmetricmeasurelimitsatinfinityvariationalrelativecapacityquasicontinuitymediansthinsetsfractionalSobolev
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

This paper proves that, on a uniformly perfect metric space carrying a doubling measure, every quasicontinuous representative of a homogeneous Hajlasz-Sobolev function has a genuine pointwise limit at infinity, provided the smoothness-integrability product $sp$ is smaller than the measure's reverse-doubling regularity exponent $\sigma$. The limit is the same constant for every basepoint, and it equals the limit of the function's median values on nested dyadic annuli. The only points where the function can fail to converge form an exceptional set whose thinness is measured by a new variational relative capacity, a refinement over earlier work that used Hausdorff content and therefore could only measure the exceptional set more coarsely. Because the homogeneous Hajlasz-Sobolev space contains (under suitable embeddings) homogeneous Newtonian and fractional Sobolev spaces, the theorem supplies a common explanation for the limit-at-infinity results known in those settings. A separate result shows that if the function is also in $L^p$, the limit at infinity is $0$ and the parameter restriction $sp<\sigma$ can be dropped.

What carries the argument

The machinery has three pieces. First, medians $m_u(E)$ replace integral averages, since homogeneous Hajlasz-Sobolev functions need not be integrable on balls; the key estimate Lemma 5.2 bounds median differences on two sets by the $s$-gradient $g$ through $|m_u(E)-m_u(F)|^p\le C\,D(E,F)^{sp}(\int_E g^p + \int_F g^p)$. Second, the new variational relative capacity ${\rm cap}_{s,p}(E,F)$, defined as the infimum over quasicontinuous test functions $v\ge1$ on $E$ of $\|v\|_{L^p(F)}^p/{\rm diam}(F)^{sp}+\inf_{g\in D_s(v)}\|g\|_{L^p(F)}^p$, is the smallness notion for exceptional sets; a set is $(s,p)$-thin at infinity when the tail sums of these capacities on the dyadic annuli $\Lambda A_{\kappa^j}(O)$ vanish. Third, the reverse doubling condition (4) with exponent $\sigma$ supplies the geometric growth control that makes the median-difference series $\sum_j \kappa^{j(sp-\sigma)}$ converge, which is exactly where $sp<\sigma$ enters.

What would settle it

Compute the dyadic-annulus medians $m_u(A_{\kappa^j}(O))$ for a quasicontinuous function $u\in\dot M^{s,p}(X)$ on a uniformly perfect doubling space with $sp<\sigma$; if they fail to form a Cauchy sequence for some basepoint, Lemma 5.3 and hence Theorem 7.9 collapse. Alternatively, exhibit a basepoint $O$ and an $(s,p)$-thin set $E(O)$ whose complement is bounded when $sp\le\sigma$, which would contradict Remark 7.4 and break the uniqueness of the limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is Theorem 7.9: for $0<s\le 1$, $0<p<\infty$ with $sp<\sigma$, every $M^{s,p}$-quasicontinuous function $u\in \dot M^{s,p}(X)$ satisfies $\lim_{d(x,O)\to\infty,\, x\in X\setminus E(O)} u(x)=c$ for every basepoint $O$, where $c$ is the basepoint-independent constant obtained as the limit of the dyadic-annulus medians $m_u(A_{\kappa^j}(O))$ in Lemma 5.3, and $E(O)\subset X$ is $(s,p)$-thin at infinity in the sense that the tail sums of its relative capacities on annuli tend to zero. In other words, the 'value at infinity' of such a function is not attached to any particular end of the space: it is a single number, and the function approaches it everywhere except on a set that is negligible in a capacity sense. The paper also proves the converse mechanism in Theorem 7.7, showing that medians converging to $c$ force pointwise convergence off a thin set, so the existence question is reduced to proving that dyadic-annulus medians converge, which is what Lemma 5.3 does under $sp<\sigma$ using the reverse doubling condition. Theorems 7.10 and 8.5 record the $L^p$ version, with limit zero and no $sp<\sigma$ requirement, and the Hausdorff-content smallness of the exceptional set.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on the assumption that the space's measure does not grow too slowly: the exponent $\sigma$ controlling its growth from below must satisfy $sp<\sigma$, since if the product of the smoothness $s$ and integrability $p$ reaches that exponent, the proof's median-difference series no longer converges and the theorem has nothing to say.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The value at infinity of a homogeneous Hajlasz-Sobolev function is a single basepoint-independent constant whenever $sp<\sigma$, regardless of how many 'ends' the metric space has.
  • For functions that are additionally in $L^p$, the limit at infinity is $0$ and no condition $sp<\sigma$ is needed; zero is forced already by the decay of median magnitudes along annuli.
  • Exceptional sets are not merely small in measure: for every $0<\alpha<sp$ they satisfy $\sum_{j\ge m} H_{\kappa^{j+1}}^{\mu,sp-\alpha}(E(O)\cap A_{\kappa^j}(O))/\kappa^{j\alpha}\to0$, so the result is quantitatively finer than one based on Hausdorff content alone.
  • Via bounded embeddings, the same theorem covers homogeneous Newtonian Sobolev functions (under a Poincar\'e inequality) and homogeneous fractional Sobolev functions $\dot W^{s,p}_q$, unifying and extending the earlier Euclidean and Ahlfors-regular results.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable refinement: the paper's proof constructs the exceptional set from superlevel sets of the deviation $|u-m_u(A_{\kappa^j})|$, so the limit should persist after deleting any countable union of such thin sets; whether the $(s,p)$-thin condition is necessary for convergence, rather than merely sufficient, is not settled here.
  • The restriction $sp<\sigma$ could be probed numerically: on a space where $\sigma$ is known explicitly, compare the dyadic medians of a non-$L^p$ Hajlasz-Sobolev function at the boundary $sp=\sigma$; Lemma 5.3's Cauchy-series argument degenerates exactly there.
  • Because the two-ended Example 7.8 is excluded only by non-membership in $\dot M^{s,p}$ for $sp\le1$ and by vacuous thinness for $sp>1$, the theorem suggests that genuine limits at infinity are controlled by the measure's lower regularity rather than by the topology of ends; this could be tested by constructing one-ended spaces with slow measure growth.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies the asymptotic behavior at infinity of quasicontinuous representatives of homogeneous Hajłasz–Sobolev functions on unbounded uniformly perfect metric measure spaces with a doubling measure. It introduces a variational relative capacity cap_{s,p}(E,F) and defines (s,p)-thin sets at infinity by requiring dyadic-annulus capacity tails to vanish for every Λ>1. The main results are: convergence of dyadic-annulus medians to a basepoint-independent constant under the parameter restriction sp<σ (Lemma 5.3); existence of a pointwise limit at infinity off an (s,p)-thin set (Theorems 7.7 and 7.9); a Hausdorff-content refinement of thinness (Theorem 8.4 and Theorem 8.5); and an application to fractional Sobolev spaces via an embedding (Section 9). The paper is clearly written, and the individual capacitary estimates and median lemmas appear internally consistent. However, the proof of Theorem 7.7 contains a genuine gap: the exceptional set is constructed for one fixed Λ, whereas Definition 7.2 requires thinness for all Λ>1, and the manuscript does not provide a diagonal argument. A second gap concerns the pointwise control on the spheres d(x,O)=κ^j, which are omitted from the open annuli. Both gaps are repairable but affect the main theorems as stated.

Significance. If the results hold, they provide a capacity-based refinement of earlier Hausdorff-content thinness conditions for limits at infinity, unifying and extending the Newtonian results of Kline–Koskela–Nguyen and the fractional results of Agarwal–Koskela–Mohanta. The use of medians is well suited to the non-L^p setting, and the relative capacity framework gives a sharper exceptional set than Hausdorff content. The honest treatment of the parameter restriction sp<σ, the instructive two-ended example (Example 7.8), and the embedding lemma for fractional Sobolev spaces are valuable contributions. The main statements are currently not fully established because of the Λ-dependence gap in Theorem 7.7, but the central ideas are sound and the gap appears fixable by a standard diagonal construction.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 7, Theorem 7.7] The proof of Theorem 7.7 fixes a single constant Λ>1 and constructs b_j and E_j using (22) for that Λ. It then shows that the capacity tail ∑_{j≥m} cap_{s,p}(E_j,ΛA_{κ^j}(O)) tends to zero for that fixed Λ, and concludes that E(O) is (s,p)-thin at infinity. This does not follow from Definition 7.2, which requires the tail to vanish for every Λ>1. The construction of E(O) depends on Λ through b_j, and the equality cap_{s,p}(E(O)∩A_{κ^j},ΛA_{κ^j}) = cap_{s,p}(E_j,ΛA_{κ^j}) is only valid for the fixed Λ used in the construction. The relative capacity is not monotone in the second argument, so one cannot pass from one Λ to another. A diagonal argument over a countable sequence Λ_n, with b_j chosen to control the integrals over all Λ_nA_{κ^j} simultaneously, appears to repair the proof, but it is absent from the manuscript. Since Theorems 7.9, 8.5, and 9.6 all rely on Theorem 7.7, this is a load-bearing gap.
  2. [Section 7, Theorem 7.7] The annuli A_{κ^j}(O) = B(O,κ^{j+1}) \ B(O,κ^j) are open and exclude the spheres {x : d(x,O)=κ^j}. In the final step of the proof, for x∈X\E(O) with d(x,O)>N, the argument selects n≥M with x∈A_{κ^n}; this is false when d(x,O)=κ^n. Since E(O)=⋃_j E_j with E_j⊂A_{κ^j}, the sphere points are not included in E(O), so the stated limit over X\E(O) is not established for them. This can be fixed by adding all points with d(x,O)=κ^n for large n to E(O); thinness is unaffected because such points do not belong to any A_{κ^j}. Alternatively the annuli could be redefined to be closed. As written, however, the proof does not cover these points.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Section 8, Lemma 8.3] In the proof of Lemma 8.3, the text cites 'Theorem 4.7 and Theorem 4.8 combined'; the first reference should be Lemma 4.7, as the paper contains no Theorem 4.7.
  2. [Section 9, Theorem 9.6] The proof of Theorem 9.6 ends with 'by applying Corollary 8.5', but the paper contains only Theorem 8.5. The reference should be corrected to Theorem 8.5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the main limit theorems are derived from self-contained lemmas, with prior citations serving as independent support rather than as inputs equivalent to the conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained at the level where it matters. The median limit in Lemma 5.3 is proved directly from Lemma 5.2 and the quantitative reverse doubling assumption sp < sigma; the constant c is not assumed or fitted but is shown to be the common limit of dyadic-annulus medians. The exceptional set in Theorem 7.7 is constructed from explicit superlevel sets E_j controlled by the capacity estimate in Lemma 6.3, which itself is derived from the s-gradient inequality and the doubling/reverse-doubling hypotheses; no prediction is used as an input. The relative capacity in Definition 6.1 is defined through test functions from the same Mdot^{s,p} class, but this is a standard definitional choice for capacity and fine-topology arguments, not an equivalence of a theorem with its conclusion; the capacity is anchored by independent estimates such as Lemma 6.3 and Lemma 8.3. Citations to prior work, including [1], [3], and [12], are external benchmarks or established tools (median lemmas, capacity comparisons, Hausdorff-content comparisons) that do not assert the paper's main theorem, so they are real evidence rather than load-bearing self-citation. The apparent gap noted by the skeptic -- Theorem 7.7 fixes one Lambda > 1 while Definition 7.2 requires all Lambda > 1 -- is a proof-completeness or uniformity concern, not circularity: it does not make any conclusion an input or rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters; its assumptions are the standard doubling and reverse doubling (uniform perfectness) hypotheses plus the explicitly flagged parameter restriction sp < sigma. The new mathematical objects are the relative capacity and the thinness notion, both anchored by proved estimates and comparisons to known quantities (Hausdorff content). Background theorems are cited to prior literature and are not load-bearing in a circular way.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Doubling condition (1) with constant c_mu >= 1
    Standing assumption, Section 2; implies the quantitative volume growth (3) used in capacity and Hausdorff content comparisons.
  • domain assumption Reverse doubling condition (2) with constants 0 < c_R < 1 and kappa > 1
    Standing assumption, Section 2; equivalent to uniform perfectness of X given doubling; yields the annulus measure bounds (5) used throughout the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Parameter restriction sp < sigma for the main homogeneous-space theorems
    Used in Lemma 5.3 to force convergence of medians on dyadic annuli; without it the median limit may fail to be basepoint-independent and thin sets may have bounded complements (Remarks 7.3 and 7.4, Example 7.8).
  • standard math Theorem 4.8 from [12]: a quasicontinuous representative via median limits exists for every u in Mdot^{s,p}
    Background result cited in Section 4; also used in Lemma 8.3 to control the sets F1 and F2 of points where median limits fail.
  • standard math [3, Theorem 5.3]: restricted Hausdorff content comparable to unrestricted content for codimension q = sp - alpha <= sigma
    Used in the proof of Theorem 8.4 to pass from H^{sp-alpha}_infinity to H^{sp-alpha}_{kappa^{j+1}}; note the author overlap with [3].
  • standard math Embeddings Ndot^{1,p} subset Mdot^{1,p} ([11, Theorem 9.4]) and Wdot^{s,p}_q subset Mdot^{s,p} (Lemma 9.2)
    Used in Remark 8.6 and Section 9 to transfer the main theorem to Newtonian and fractional Sobolev functions.
invented entities (2)
  • Variational relative capacity cap_{s,p}(E,F), Definition 6.1 independent evidence
    purpose: Measures the smallness of exceptional sets at infinity; replaces Hausdorff content as the thinness gauge
    Anchored by the lower bound mu(E)/diam(F)^{sp}, the weak-type estimate Lemma 6.3, and the comparison with Hausdorff content in Lemma 8.3; it produces falsifiable theorems (7.7, 7.9, 8.4) that can be checked against examples.
  • (s,p)-thin sets at infinity, Definition 7.2 independent evidence
    purpose: Defines the exceptional sets outside which the limit at infinity exists
    Characterized by summability of relative capacities over dyadic annuli; shown to imply Hausdorff-content thinness (Theorem 8.4) and to have unbounded complement when sp <= sigma (Remark 7.4), both checkable properties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Limits at infinity for Haj{\l}asz-Sobolev functions in metric spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DSSSLO33

@misc{pith2026250605037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Limits at infinity for Haj\lasz-Sobolev functions in metric spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DSSSLO33}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05037}
}
read the original abstract

We study limits at infinity for homogeneous Hajlasz-Sobolev functions defined on uniformly perfect metric spaces equipped with a doubling measure. We prove that a quasicontinuous representative of such a function has a pointwise limit at infinity outside an exceptional set, defined in terms of a variational relative capacity. Our framework refines earlier approaches that relied on Hausdorff content rather than relative capacity, and it extends previous results for homogeneous Newtonian and fractional Sobolev functions.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Large-scale behaviour of Sobolev functions in Ahlfors regular metric measure spaces.J

    Josh Kline, Pekka Koskela, and Khanh Nguyen. Large-scale behaviour of Sobolev functions in Ahlfors regular metric measure spaces.J. Geom. Anal., to appear

    work page

  2. [1]

    Limits at infinity for functions in fractional Sobolev spaces

    Angha Agarwal, Pekka Koskela, and Kaushik Mohanta. Limits at infinity for functions in fractional Sobolev spaces. arXiv:2501.03790, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    European Mathematical Society (EMS), Z¨ urich, 2011

    Anders Bj¨ orn and Jana Bj¨ orn.Nonlinear potential theory on metric spaces, volume 17 ofEMS Tracts in Mathematics. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Z¨ urich, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [3]

    V¨ ah¨ akangas

    Javier Canto, Lizaveta Ihnatsyeva, Juha Lehrb¨ ack, and Antti V. V¨ ah¨ akangas. Capacities and density conditions in metric spaces.Potential Anal., 62(2):303–329, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [4]

    Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces.Bull

    Eleonora Di Nezza, Giampiero Palatucci, and Enrico Valdinoci. Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces.Bull. Sci. Math., 136(5):521–573, 2012

    2012

  6. [5]

    D. E. Edmunds and W. D. Evans.Fractional Sobolev spaces and inequalities, volume 230 ofCambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    On limits at infinity of weighted Sobolev functions.J

    Sylvester Eriksson-Bique, Pekka Koskela, and Khanh Nguyen. On limits at infinity of weighted Sobolev functions.J. Funct. Anal., 283(10):Paper No. 109672, 40, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Convergence on almost every line for functions with gradient inL p(Rn).Ann

    Charles Fefferman. Convergence on almost every line for functions with gradient inL p(Rn).Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 24(3):vii, 159–164, 1974

    work page 1974

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    A condition for a two-weight norm inequality for singular integral operators.Studia Math., 98(3):175–190, 1991

    Nobuhiko Fujii. A condition for a two-weight norm inequality for singular integral operators.Studia Math., 98(3):175–190, 1991

    1991

  2. [9]

    Characterizations of Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces on metric measure spaces

    Amiran Gogatishvili, Pekka Koskela, and Yuan Zhou. Characterizations of Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces on metric measure spaces. InForum Mathematicum, volume 25, pages 787–819. Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2013

    2013

  3. [10]

    Sobolev spaces on an arbitrary metric space.Potential Anal., 5(4):403–415, 1996

    Piotr Haj lasz. Sobolev spaces on an arbitrary metric space.Potential Anal., 5(4):403–415, 1996

    1996

  4. [11]

    Sobolev spaces on metric-measure spaces

    Piotr Haj lasz. Sobolev spaces on metric-measure spaces. InHeat kernels and analysis on manifolds, graphs, and metric spaces (Paris, 2002), volume 338 ofContemp. Math., pages 173–218. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2003

    2002

  5. [12]

    Approximation and quasicontinuity of Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin functions.Trans

    Toni Heikkinen, Pekka Koskela, and Heli Tuominen. Approximation and quasicontinuity of Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin functions.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 369(5):3547–3573, 2017

    2017

  6. [13]

    Universitext

    Juha Heinonen.Lectures on analysis on metric spaces. Universitext. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001

    2001

  7. [14]

    Quasiconformal maps in metric spaces with controlled geometry.Acta Math., 181(1):1–61, 1998

    Juha Heinonen and Pekka Koskela. Quasiconformal maps in metric spaces with controlled geometry.Acta Math., 181(1):1–61, 1998

    1998

  8. [15]

    Tyson.Sobolev spaces on met- ric measure spaces

    Juha Heinonen, Pekka Koskela, Nageswari Shanmugalingam, and Jeremy T. Tyson.Sobolev spaces on met- ric measure spaces. An approach based on upper gradients, volume 27 ofNew Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015

    2015

  9. [16]

    V¨ ah¨ akangas

    Lizaveta Ihnatsyeva, Kaushik Mohanta, and Antti V. V¨ ah¨ akangas. Fractional Hardy inequalities and capacity density.Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 64(4):Paper No. 136, 2025

    2025

  10. [17]

    Jawerth and A

    B. Jawerth and A. Torchinsky. Local sharp maximal functions.J. Approx. Theory, 43(3):231–270, 1985

    1985

  11. [18]

    The Poincar´ e inequality is an open ended condition.Ann

    Stephen Keith and Xiao Zhong. The Poincar´ e inequality is an open ended condition.Ann. of Math. (2), 167(2):575–599, 2008

    2008

  12. [19]

    A remark on the uniqueness of quasi continuous functions.Ann

    Tero Kilpel¨ ainen. A remark on the uniqueness of quasi continuous functions.Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math., 23(1):261–262, 1998. 24 A. AGAR W AL AND A.V. V ¨AH ¨AKANGAS

    1998

  13. [20]

    Sobolev spaces with zero boundary values on metric spaces.Potential Anal., 12(3):233–247, 2000

    Tero Kilpel¨ ainen, Juha Kinnunen, and Olli Martio. Sobolev spaces with zero boundary values on metric spaces.Potential Anal., 12(3):233–247, 2000

    2000

  14. [21]

    American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2021

    Juha Kinnunen, Juha Lehrb¨ ack, and Antti V¨ ah¨ akangas.Maximal function methods for Sobolev spaces, volume 257 ofMathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Existence and uniqueness of limits at infinity for homogeneous Sobolev functions.J

    Pekka Koskela and Khanh Nguyen. Existence and uniqueness of limits at infinity for homogeneous Sobolev functions.J. Funct. Anal., 285(11):Paper No. 110154, 22, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Pointwise characterizations of Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces and quasiconformal mappings.Adv

    Pekka Koskela, Dachun Yang, and Yuan Zhou. Pointwise characterizations of Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces and quasiconformal mappings.Adv. Math., 226(4):3579–3621, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Existence and uniqueness of limits at infinity for bounded variation functions.J

    Panu Lahti and Khanh Nguyen. Existence and uniqueness of limits at infinity for bounded variation functions.J. Geom. Anal., 34(11):Paper No. 344, 38, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    V¨ ah¨ akangas

    Juha Lehrb¨ ack, Kaushik Mohanta, and Antti V. V¨ ah¨ akangas. Classifying Triebel–Lizorkin capacities in metric spaces.J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 31(2):Paper No. 15, 50, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2023

    Giovanni Leoni.A first course in fractional Sobolev spaces, volume 229 ofGraduate Studies in Mathemat- ics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    The Besov capacity in metric spaces.Ann

    Juho Nuutinen. The Besov capacity in metric spaces.Ann. Polon. Math., 117(1):59–78, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    V. R. Portnov. On the question of the emergence of functions belonging to the spaceW (1) p, νto a constant. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 215:550–553, 1974

    1974

  22. [30]

    III, volume 100 ofMonographs in Mathematics

    Hans Triebel.Theory of function spaces. III, volume 100 ofMonographs in Mathematics. Birkh¨ auser Verlag, Basel, 2006

    2006

  23. [31]

    S. V. Uspenski ˘ ı. Imbedding theorems for classes with weights.Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov., 60:282–303, 1961. (A.A.)University of Jyvaskyla, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014 University of Jyvaskyla, Finland Email address:angha.a.agarwal@jyu.fi (A....

    1961

Pith tools

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