Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Semiregular and strongly irregular boundary points for nonlocal Dirichlet problems

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read The paper proves a trichotomy for boundary points of nonlocal fractional (s,p)-Laplacian Dirichlet problems: every point is regular, semiregular, or strongly irregular.

desk verdict A clean structural trichotomy for nonlocal Dirichlet problems, well proved and genuinely new, but the main risk is its load-bearing reliance on a Kellogg property quoted from the authors' own unpublished preprint. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23188 v1 pith:AF6FJZ4G submitted 2025-06-29 math.AP

classification math.AP MSC 35R1131C1531C4535J66
keywords fractionalp-LaplaciannonlocalDirichletproblemboundaryregularitysemiregularpointstronglyirregularSobolevcapacityPerronsolutionKelloggproperty
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

Boundary points of Dirichlet problems for nonlocal fractional $(s,p)$-Laplacian type equations need not behave classically: the solution may fail to converge to the prescribed boundary value. This paper proves that every irregular boundary point nevertheless belongs to one of two disjoint classes. A semiregular point is one where every solution has a limit at the point, but for some data that limit is not the prescribed value; a strongly irregular point is one where every prescribed value is attained along some sequence, though limits can oscillate. The main theorem, the trichotomy, says that no boundary point can be irregular and fail both behaviours. The proof rests on the Kellogg property (irregular points form a zero-capacity set) and on a new removability theorem for solutions and supersolutions in the fractional Sobolev space $V^{s,p}$.

What carries the argument

Two tools carry the argument. The Kellogg property, quoted from the authors' earlier work, says the set of irregular boundary points has zero Sobolev capacity $C_{s,p}$, the capacity defined by minimizing $\|u\|^p_{W^{s,p}(\mathbb{R}^n)}$ among functions that are $1$ on the set in question. The new removability theorem says that if $E \subset \Omega$ is relatively closed with $C_{s,p}(E)=0$, then any solution or supersolution of $Lu=f$ in $\Omega \setminus E$ belonging to $V^{s,p}$ extends to a solution or supersolution in all of $\Omega$. In the proof of the trichotomy, the removability theorem settles the case where some small ball around $x_0$ has complement of zero capacity, forcing all limits to exist; the Kellogg property and the density of regular points settle the opposite case, producing a sequence along which every continuous boundary value is attained. The test function $d_{x_0}(x)=\min\{1, |x-x_0|\}$ then reduces all three classes to one Dirichlet problem.

What would settle it

Find a bounded open set and a boundary point at which some continuous $V^{s,p}$ datum has no limit at the point and, for possibly different datum, no sequence inside the domain carries $H_g$ to the prescribed value; Theorem 1.1 says such a point cannot exist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is Theorem 1.1: for a bounded open set $\Omega$ and a kernel $k$ satisfying the fractional ellipticity bounds, each $x_0 \in \partial\Omega$ is exactly one of regular, semiregular, or strongly irregular. Regularity means that $\lim_{\Omega\ni x \to x_0} H_g(x) = g(x_0)$ for every $g \in V^{s,p}(\Omega) \cap C(\mathbb{R}^n)$; the two irregular classes are defined by the two conditions whose conjunction gives regularity, namely that every such limit exists (I) and that for every such $g$ some sequence $y_j \to x_0$ inside $\Omega$ carries $H_g(y_j)$ to $g(x_0)$ (II). The theorem's content is that an irregular point cannot fail both (I) and (II). The proof also shows that the set of semiregular points is the largest subset of $\Omega^c$ of zero Sobolev capacity for which $\Omega \cup S$ is open, and that the trichotomy can be read off from the single function $d_{x_0}(x)=\min\{1, |x-x_0|\}$: regular points have $\lim H_{d_{x_0}}=0$, semiregular points have $\liminf H_{d_{x_0}}>0$, and strongly irregular points have no limit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the Kellogg property quoted from the authors' earlier paper, that the set of irregular boundary points has zero Sobolev capacity, together with the related density of regular boundary points; the proof of the trichotomy uses both without reproving them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A boundary point can be classified by solving one Dirichlet problem: $\lim H_{d_{x_0}}=0$ means regular, $\liminf H_{d_{x_0}}>0$ means semiregular, and nonexistence of the limit means strongly irregular (Theorem 1.3).
  • The semiregular set has zero $C_{s,p}$ capacity and is removable, and semiregularity is a local property of the domain.
  • At a strongly irregular point there is a single universal sequence $y_j \to x_0$ that recovers $g(x_0)$ for all bounded continuous data at once; when $p=2$ the same sequence works for unbounded data.
  • Semiregularity is monotone in the parameters in an exact way: for $0<s_j\le 1<p_j$, the implication 'semiregular for $(s_1,p_1)$ implies semiregular for $(s_2,p_2)$' holds for all domains precisely in the three mutually disjoint cases of Proposition 1.5.
  • For $sp>n$ every boundary point is regular, while for $sp\le n$ both semiregular points (punctured ball) and strongly irregular points (Example 5.11) occur.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the proof uses only the Kellogg property and removability, the same trichotomy should be provable for other nonlocal operators for which those two ingredients are available, for example kernels with more general growth or Orlicz-type nonlinearities.
  • The one-function test suggests a numerical route to classify boundary points in concrete domains: solve the Dirichlet problem for $d_{x_0}$ and inspect the limit at each boundary point, which can be checked against the explicit punctured-ball example.
  • The removability theorem for supersolutions with a right-hand side may let future constructions first solve in a domain with a small zero-capacity set removed and then extend the solution automatically, effectively simplifying existence proofs.
  • The $p=2$ proof of the universal sequence for unbounded data uses linearity and a weak Harnack estimate; extending the same conclusion to $p\ne2$ would require a nonlinear analogue of that estimate, which the paper does not provide.
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 develops a boundary regularity classification for Dirichlet problems driven by nonlocal operators of fractional (s,p)-Laplacian type. It introduces two mutually exclusive classes of irregular boundary points: semiregular points, where limits of Sobolev solutions exist for every continuous admissible datum but do not necessarily match the datum, and strongly irregular points, where each datum is attained along some sequence. The main theorem (Theorem 1.1) asserts that every boundary point of a bounded open set is regular, semiregular, or strongly irregular, so that an irregular point cannot fail both existence and attainability. The proof combines a new removability result for solutions and supersolutions in the space V^{s,p} (Theorem 1.4) with the Kellogg property quoted from the authors' companion paper [6]. Sections 6 and 7 provide several characterizations of semiregular and strongly irregular points, including tests using the single function d_{x0}, and Section 8 determines precisely when semiregularity for one pair (s,p) implies semiregularity for another.

Significance. If the results are correct, this is a substantial contribution to the nonlocal nonlinear Dirichlet problem: the trichotomy is new even for the linear case p=2, and the characterizations reduce seemingly all-data properties to a single test function. The removability theorem is proved with a natural sharpness discussion and is a useful standalone tool. The paper is generally careful and well organized, and it gives explicit credit to the companion paper [6] for the Kellogg property. The main caveat is that the central trichotomy is not self-contained: it relies on the Kellogg property and on density of regular boundary points, both quoted from the unpublished preprint [6].

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6, proof of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 5.9] The proof of Theorem 1.1, Case 2, uses the Kellogg property (Theorem 5.9) to conclude that if C_{s,p}(B_j cap partial Omega) > 0, then B_j cap partial Omega contains a regular boundary point. This is exactly the statement that the irregular set has capacity zero, quoted from the authors' unpublished preprint [6, Theorem 1.5]. Lemma 6.3 additionally uses the density of regular boundary points from [6, Remark 10.5]. Since these external results are load-bearing for the trichotomy and are not proved or independently verified here, the manuscript is not self-contained. I am not claiming a flaw in [6], but the refereed paper should either include a proof of the needed consequences of the Kellogg property or clearly state the results as conditional on [6] and make the companion available to the referee.
  2. [Section 6, proof of Lemma 6.3] The proof of Lemma 6.3 appears to contain a false assertion and a typographical error. The sentence 'R is dense in partial Omega, which does not have any isolated points' is false in general: a punctured ball has an isolated boundary point. The expression 'x0 in R \ partial Omega' also does not make sense. The lemma is true and can be proved from density of R in partial Omega, but the proof as written should be rewritten.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Proposition 1.2, equation (1.3)] In the second displayed identity in (1.3), the set notation appears to contain a repeated '\partial Omega' symbol; please clarify the intended set. The proof suggests the condition is that a small ball around x0 contains no exterior points and C_{s,p}(B(x0,r) cap partial Omega) = 0.
  2. [Theorem 6.1(d) and Theorem 7.1(e)] In the typeset version, the overline denoting the closure of the regular set is missing in condition (d) of Theorem 6.1 and in the expression 'R \ R' in Theorem 7.1(e). Please ensure the closure symbol is visible, since the mathematical meaning depends on it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the trichotomy is a substantive theorem; the quoted Kellogg property from the authors' earlier work is a load-bearing external dependency, not an assumed version of the conclusion.

full rationale

Theorem 1.1 is not self-definitional: 'semiregular' and 'strongly irregular' are defined as irregular points satisfying conditions (I) and (II), respectively, and the content of the theorem is precisely that an irregular point cannot fail both conditions. The proof in Section 6 supplies the missing implication: Case 1 uses the new removability result (Theorem 1.4) together with the Wiener criterion to establish condition (I), and Case 2 constructs sequences y_j from regular points x_j to establish condition (II). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no known result is repackaged as new. The main external input is the Kellogg property (Theorem 5.9, quoted from the authors' preprint [6, Theorem 1.5]), used in Case 2 of Theorem 1.1 and in Lemma 6.3, together with [6, Remark 10.5] for density of regular points. This self-citation makes the paper a continuation rather than fully self-contained, but it is not circular: [6] is a separate theorem with its own stated assumptions that do not include the trichotomy, and the trichotomy is not smuggled in through the citation. The proof is conditional on [6], but conditional dependence is not equivalence-by-construction, so the circularity score is 0.

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

No free parameters, fitted constants, or new physical entities are introduced. The concepts semiregular and strongly irregular are definitions of boundary-point types, not postulated entities. The central claim rests on a body of potential-theoretic theorems, several from the authors' own earlier work, which are cited explicitly.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The kernel k is symmetric, measurable, and satisfies Lambda^{-1}|x-y|^{-n-sp} <= k(x,y) <= Lambda|x-y|^{-n-sp} for all x,y, with 0<s<1 and Lambda>=1.
    This ellipticity condition defines the class of operators L studied throughout; all theorems are conditional on it, stated in Section 2 and equation (1.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Kellogg property: the set of irregular boundary points has C_{s,p} capacity zero.
    Theorem 5.9 is quoted from the authors' own previous preprint [6, Theorem 1.5] and used in the proof of Theorem 1.1, Lemma 6.3, and Corollary 8.4. It is not reproven here.
  • standard math Wiener criterion and regular point characterizations: a boundary point is regular iff the Wiener integral diverges, equivalently iff the limit of H_{d_{x0}} is zero, and several related equivalences hold.
    Theorem 5.7 combines results from Kim-Lee-Lee [22] and the authors' earlier paper [6]; it is used throughout Sections 6 and 7.
  • standard math Removability of capacity-zero sets for bounded L-harmonic functions.
    Theorem 4.2 is quoted from Kim-Lee [25, Theorem 1.1] and is used in the proof of Theorem 6.1(a)=>(f) for Perron solutions.
  • standard math Inclusion of zero sets of Bessel and Sobolev capacities: the inclusion {C_{s1,p1}=0} subset of {C_{s2,p2}=0} holds exactly in the cases listed in Theorem 8.3.
    Quoted from Adams-Meyers [2, Theorem 5.5] and Adams-Hedberg [1, Theorem 5.5.1]; it is the core input of Corollary 8.4.
  • standard math Capacity facts: nonempty open sets have positive C_{s,p} capacity, and singletons have zero capacity iff sp <= n.
    These facts are used in Lemma 3.4, Lemma 3.5, Proposition 1.2, and Example 5.11; they are standard or quoted from [6].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semiregular and strongly irregular boundary points for nonlocal Dirichlet problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AF6FJZ4G

@misc{pith2026250623188,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semiregular and strongly irregular boundary points for nonlocal Dirichlet problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AF6FJZ4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23188}
}
abstract

In this paper we study nonlocal nonlinear equations of fractional $(s,p)$-Laplacian type on $\mathbf{R}^n$. We show that the irregular boundary points for the Dirichlet problem can be divided into two disjoint classes: semiregular and strongly irregular boundary points, with very different behaviour. Two fundamental tools needed to show this are the Kellogg property (from our previous paper) and a new removability result for solutions in the $V^{s,p}$ Sobolev type space, which we deduce more generally also for supersolutions of equations with a right-hand side. Semiregular and strongly irregular points are also characterized in various ways. Finally, it is explained how semiregularity depends on $s$ and $p$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Capacitary estimates for solutions to nonlocal Dirichlet problems

    math.AP 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For nonlocal p-Laplace type equations with measurable coefficients, boundary Hölder regularity holds exactly when the exterior capacity density condition holds, with a quantitative modulus estimate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [6]

    and Kim, M., Perron solutions and boundary regularity for nonlocal nonlinear Dirichlet problems, Preprint, 2024

    Bj¨orn, A., Bj¨orn, J. and Kim, M., Perron solutions and boundary regularity for nonlocal nonlinear Dirichlet problems, Preprint, 2024. arXiv:2406.05994 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15

  2. [1]

    Adams, D. R. and Hedberg, L. I., Function Spaces and Potential Theory, Springer, Berlin–Heidelberg, 1996. 2, 16, 17, 20

  3. [2]

    Adams, D. R. and Meyers, N. G., Bessel potentials. Inclusion relations among classes of exceptional sets, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 22 (1973), 873–905. 20

  4. [3]

    W., On some nonlocal evolution equations arising in materials sci- ence, in Nonlinear Dynamics and Evolution Equations , Fields Inst

    Bates, P. W., On some nonlocal evolution equations arising in materials sci- ence, in Nonlinear Dynamics and Evolution Equations , Fields Inst. Commun. 48, pp. 13–52. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2006. 2 22 Anders Bj¨ orn, Jana Bj¨ orn and Minhyun Kim

  5. [4]

    Bates, P. W. and Chmaj, A., A discrete convolution model for phase tran- sitions, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 150 (1999), 281–305. 2

  6. [5]

    Bj¨orn, A., A regularity classification of boundary points for p-harmonic func- tions and quasiminimizers, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 338 (2008), 39–47. 3, 16, 20

  7. [7]

    and Hansen, W., Potential Theory, Universitext, Springer, Berlin, 1986

    Bliedtner, J. and Hansen, W., Potential Theory, Universitext, Springer, Berlin, 1986. 2

  8. [8]

    and Sol`a-Morales, J., Layer solutions in a half-space for bound- ary reactions, Comm

    Cabr´e, X. and Sol`a-Morales, J., Layer solutions in a half-space for bound- ary reactions, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 58 (2005), 1678–1732. 2

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    and Figalli, A., Regularity of solutions to the parabolic fractional obstacle problem, J

    Caffarelli, L. and Figalli, A., Regularity of solutions to the parabolic fractional obstacle problem, J. Reine Angew. Math. 680 (2013), 191–233. 2

  2. [10]

    and Silvestre, L., An extension problem related to the frac- tional Laplacian, Comm

    Caffarelli, L. and Silvestre, L., An extension problem related to the frac- tional Laplacian, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 32 (2007), 1245–1260. 2

  3. [11]

    and V asseur, A.,Drift diffusion equations with fractional dif- fusion and the quasi-geostrophic equation,Ann.of Math

    Caffarelli, L. and V asseur, A.,Drift diffusion equations with fractional dif- fusion and the quasi-geostrophic equation,Ann.of Math. 171 (2010), 1903–1930. 2

  4. [12]

    Di Castro, A., Kuusi, T.and Palatucci, G.,Local behavior of fractional p- minimizers, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire33 (2016), 1279–1299. 2, 5

  5. [13]

    and V aldinoci, E.,Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces, Bull

    Di Nezza, E., Palatucci, G. and V aldinoci, E.,Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces, Bull. Sci. Math. 136 (2012), 521–573. 5, 14

  6. [14]

    F arina, A.and V aldinoci, E.,Rigidity results for elliptic PDEs with uniform limits: an abstract framework with applications, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 60 (2011), 121–141. 2

  7. [15]

    and Voigt, P., The Dirichlet problem for nonlocal operators, Math

    Felsinger, M., Kassmann, M. and Voigt, P., The Dirichlet problem for nonlocal operators, Math. Z. 279 (2015), 779–809. 6

  8. [16]

    and Osher, S., Nonlocal operators with applications to image processing, Multiscale Model

    Gilboa, G. and Osher, S., Nonlocal operators with applications to image processing, Multiscale Model. Simul. 7 (2008), 1005–1028. 2

  9. [17]

    I., Non-linear potentials and approximation in the mean by an- alytic functions, Math

    Hedberg, L. I., Non-linear potentials and approximation in the mean by an- alytic functions, Math. Z. 129 (1972), 299–319. 21

  10. [18]

    Hedberg, L. I. and Wolff, T. H., Thin sets in nonlinear potential theory, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 33:4 (1983), 161–187. 21

  11. [19]

    and Martio, O., Nonlinear Potential Theory of Degenerate Elliptic Equations, 2nd ed., Dover, Mineola, NY, 2006

    Heinonen, J., Kilpel¨ainen, T. and Martio, O., Nonlinear Potential Theory of Degenerate Elliptic Equations, 2nd ed., Dover, Mineola, NY, 2006. 4, 21

  12. [20]

    Kassmann, M., A new formulation of Harnack’s inequality for nonlocal oper- ators, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 349 (2011), 637–640. 5

  13. [21]

    Kilpel¨ainen, T., Potential theory for supersolutions of degenerate elliptic equations, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 38 (1989), 253–275. 21

  14. [22]

    and Lee, S.-C., The Wiener criterion for nonlocal Dirichlet problems, Comm

    Kim, M., Lee, K.-A. and Lee, S.-C., The Wiener criterion for nonlocal Dirichlet problems, Comm. Math. Phys. 400 (2023), 1961–2003. 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12

  15. [23]

    and Lee, S.-C., Wolff potential estimates and Wiener criterion for nonlocal equations with nonstandard growth, J

    Kim, M., Lee, K.-A. and Lee, S.-C., Wolff potential estimates and Wiener criterion for nonlocal equations with nonstandard growth, J. Funct. Anal. 288 (2025), Art. 110690, 51 pp. 11, 12

  16. [24]

    and Lee, S.-C., Supersolutions and superharmonic functions for non- local operators with Orlicz growth, Preprint, 2023

    Kim, M. and Lee, S.-C., Supersolutions and superharmonic functions for non- local operators with Orlicz growth, Preprint, 2023. arXiv:2311.01246 10, 19

  17. [25]

    and Lee, S.-C., Singularities of solutions of nonlocal nonlinear equa- tions, Preprint, 2024

    Kim, M. and Lee, S.-C., Singularities of solutions of nonlocal nonlinear equa- tions, Preprint, 2024. arXiv:2410.13292 10 Semiregular and strongly irregular boundary points for nonlocal Dirichlet problems 23

  18. [26]

    and Palatucci, G., Fractional superharmonic functions and the Perron method for nonlinear integro-differential equations, Math

    Korvenp¨a¨a, J., Kuusi, T. and Palatucci, G., Fractional superharmonic functions and the Perron method for nonlinear integro-differential equations, Math. Ann. 369 (2017), 1443–1489. 5, 10, 11, 12

  19. [27]

    Kurzke, M., A nonlocal singular perturbation problem with periodic well potential, ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 12 (2006), 52–63. 2

  20. [28]

    and Lindqvist, P., Perron’s method and Wiener’s theorem for a nonlocal equation, Potential Anal

    Lindgren, E. and Lindqvist, P., Perron’s method and Wiener’s theorem for a nonlocal equation, Potential Anal. 46 (2017), 705–737. 2, 11

  21. [29]

    and Mal´y, J., On the boundary behaviour of the Perron generalized solution, Math

    Lukeˇs, J. and Mal´y, J., On the boundary behaviour of the Perron generalized solution, Math. Ann. 257 (1981), 355–366. 3

  22. [30]

    and Ziemer, W

    Mal´y, J. and Ziemer, W. P., Fine Regularity of Solutions of Elliptic Partial Differential Equations, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997. 20, 21

  23. [31]

    G., On the continuity at a boundary point of solutions of quasi- linear elliptic equations, Vestnik Leningrad

    Maz′ya, V. G., On the continuity at a boundary point of solutions of quasi- linear elliptic equations, Vestnik Leningrad. Univ. Mat. Mekh. Astronom. 25:13 (1970), 42–55 (Russian). Correction: ibid. 27:1 (1972), 160. English transl.: Vestnik Leningrad Univ. Math. 3 (1976), 225–242. 21

  24. [32]

    Maz′ya, V. G. and Shaposhnikova, T., On the Bourgain, Brezis, and Mironescu theorem concerning limiting embeddings of fractional Sobolev spaces, J. Funct. Anal. 195 (2002), 230–238. 6

  25. [33]

    C., An estimate in the spirit of Poincar´ e’s inequality,J

    Ponce, A. C., An estimate in the spirit of Poincar´ e’s inequality,J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS ) 6 (2004), 1–15. 6

  26. [34]

    111 (1964), 247–302

    Serrin, J., Local behavior of solutions of quasi-linear equations, Acta Math. 111 (1964), 247–302. 4

  27. [35]

    and V aldinoci, E., Weak and viscosity solutions of the frac- tional Laplace equation, Publ

    Servadei, R. and V aldinoci, E., Weak and viscosity solutions of the frac- tional Laplace equation, Publ. Mat. 58 (2014), 133–154. 6

  28. [36]

    Pure Appl

    Silvestre, L., Regularity of the obstacle problem for a fractional power of the Laplace operator, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 60 (2007), 67–112. 2

  29. [37]

    and V aldinoci, E., Fractional Laplacian phase transitions and boundary reactions: a geometric inequality and a symmetry result, J

    Sire, Y. and V aldinoci, E., Fractional Laplacian phase transitions and boundary reactions: a geometric inequality and a symmetry result, J. Funct. Anal. 256 (2009), 1842–1864. 2

  30. [38]

    Triebel, H., Interpolation Theory, Function Spaces, Differential Operators, 2nd ed., Barth, Heidelberg, 1995. 20

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.