Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 38 references

Every convex body has a unique Faber–Krahn position, enforced by log-convexity of the first eigenvalue along linear flows.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 07:10 UTC pith:ATWQWKSG

load-bearing objection Strong spectral-geometry paper; the main theorem is new and the proof is credible, with the quasi-stationary estimate as the main thing to check.

arxiv 2607.21539 v1 pith:ATWQWKSG submitted 2026-07-23 math.SP math.FAmath.MG

The Faber-Krahn position of convex bodies and Gaussian measure inequalities

Dmitry Faifman , Iosif Polterovich This is my paper
classification math.SP math.FAmath.MG MSC 35P1552A4060J65
keywords first Dirichlet eigenvaluelog-convexityFaber–Krahn positionconvex bodiesBrownian motionquasi-stationary distributionGaussian measure inequalitiesaffine position
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper establishes a new convexity law for the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of a convex body: as the body is deformed by powers P^t of a positive-definite matrix, the value λ₁(P^t K) is log-convex in t. From this one-parameter rigidity the authors extract a global geometric fact: every convex body has a Faber–Krahn position—a volume-preserving linear image that minimizes λ₁—and that position is unique up to rotations, answering a question raised in 2011. The eigenvalue version needs no symmetry hypothesis because the proof replaces the Gaussian B-theorem with a quantitative analysis of Brownian motion conditioned to stay inside the deforming body; a uniform exponential-mixing estimate makes the obstruction to convexity vanish in the long-time limit. If correct, the result supplies a spectral counterpart to John's ellipsoid, recovers the classical triangle and simplex minimization theorems, and shows regular polygons are extremal within their own linear orbits. A second line uses a Gaussian Rogers–Shephard inequality to sharpen the classical intersection bound for centrally symmetric bodies to λ₁(K∩L)+λ₁(K+L) ≤ λ₁(K)+λ₁(L).

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for any convex body K and positive-definite P, t ↦ λ₁(P^t K) is log-convex on R, and strictly so when P preserves volume and is not the identity. This says the first eigenvalue never prefers an interpolated linear deformation over the interpolation of its own values. The centrally symmetric case follows from the Gaussian B-theorem; general bodies are handled by sampling Brownian motion at discrete times and conditioning on survival, with a uniform exponential-mixing estimate that makes the barycenter obstruction sublinear in time and lets Kac's formula pass to the limit. From this they derive Theorem 2.4: existence and uniqueness (up to orthogonal transforma

What carries the argument

The engine is the one-parameter family K_t = P^t K. For centrally symmetric K, log-convexity drops out of the Gaussian B-theorem applied to sampled Brownian paths. For general K, the proof rests on a uniform discrete quasi-stationary mixing estimate (Theorem 3.4): a Brownian path conditioned to stay in K_t at discrete times has conditional mean at time kh exponentially close to the quasi-stationary mean, uniformly over compact t-intervals. Together with an L² estimate for the second derivative of the sampled Gaussian log-volume and a discrete Kac formula, this makes the barycenter obstruction only o(T), so dividing by T restores convexity of λ₁.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that log-convexity holds for all convex bodies rests on the uniform discrete quasi-stationary mixing estimate: Brownian motion sampled at discrete times and conditioned to stay inside the deforming body must mix exponentially fast to its quasi-stationary law, uniformly on compact parameter intervals; if that rate were only polynomial, the barycenter term would not become sublinear and the convexity limit would fail.

What would settle it

Numerically compute, for a fixed non-symmetric K (say a right triangle) and P = diag(e^s, e^{-s}) with s ≠ 0, the second derivative of log λ₁(P^t K) at t = 0; log-convexity predicts it is nonnegative for every s and strictly positive when s ≠ 0, so one negative value refutes Theorem 1.1. Alternatively, simulate the discretely conditioned Brownian motion and check whether the conditional mean in Theorem 3.4 converges exponentially; observing only polynomial convergence would invalidate the proof.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Every convex body admits a Faber–Krahn position, and the minimizer is unique up to orthogonal transformations; the extremal condition is the isotropic energy identity ∫_K ∇ψ⊗∇ψ = (λ₁(K)/n) I for the first eigenfunction.
  • Bodies whose symmetry group acts irreducibly—regular simplex, regular polygons, regular cross-polytopes, Platonic solids—are automatically in Faber–Krahn position, so they minimize λ₁ among all their volume-preserving linear images.
  • The regular simplex minimizes λ₁ among all n-simplices of fixed volume in every dimension, giving a new proof of the triangle and simplex cases of Pólya–Szegő; regular N-gons likewise minimize among their area-normalized linear images.
  • For centrally symmetric K, L, the improved Schmuckenschläger inequality λ₁(K∩L)+λ₁(K+L) ≤ λ₁(K)+λ₁(L) holds, and the same inequality holds for the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck operator.
  • Log-convexity also holds for the inverse inradius and for the planar Cheeger constant; for centrally symmetric bodies, the heat trace of P^t K is log-concave in t.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Faber–Krahn position is as canonical as John's position, it gives a GL-equivariant way to attach a Euclidean metric (a 'spectral ellipsoid') to a convex body; this could serve as a shape-normalization tool in computational geometry and image analysis.
  • The same quasi-stationary machinery might transfer to other spectral quantities, such as the first nonzero Neumann eigenvalue, if its conjectured log-concavity (Question 5.5) holds; the paper's open list explicitly invites this.
  • The p-Laplacian version is open; a positive answer would interpolate between the John position (p=∞, inradius) and the spectral position (p=2), suggesting a continuous family of affine positions.
  • The improved Schmuckenschläger inequality is derived from a Gaussian inequality with no Brownian conditioning; the same inequality may strengthen other survival-probability bounds for nonsymmetric bodies once centering conditions are understood.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves that for any convex body K in R^n and any positive definite matrix P, the first Dirichlet eigenvalue f(t)=λ1(P^tK) is log-convex on R, and strictly log-convex when P∈SL(n) is non-orthogonal. From this it derives that every convex body admits a unique (up to orthogonal transformations) Faber–Krahn position: a volume-preserving linear image minimizing λ1 over the SL(n)-orbit. This answers a question of Schmuckenschläger. Further applications include affine-orbit minimization results for simplices, centrally symmetric polytopes with 2n vertices, and regular polygons; log-convexity of the inverse inradius and planar Cheeger constant; heat-trace log-concavity in the centrally symmetric case; convexity for the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck first eigenvalue; and an improved Schmuckenschläger-type inequality λ1(K∩L)+λ1(K+L)≤λ1(K)+λ1(L) for centrally symmetric convex bodies, using the Gaussian conjugate Rogers–Shephard inequality.

Significance. The main theorem is a new and striking spectral- geometric convexity property: log-convexity of λ1 under positive definite linear flows. It resolves the existence and uniqueness of the Faber–Krahn position, a natural spectral analogue of John's position, and gives clean proofs of several affine-orbit eigenvalue minimization results. The proof is substantial and mostly self-contained: it introduces a uniform discrete quasi-stationary mixing estimate (Theorem 3.4), a discrete Kac formula (Proposition 3.9), and a quantitative L2 estimate extending the Cordero–Erausquin–Fradelizi–Maurey method. I found the central derivation coherent and the key estimate internally consistent. The paper is not machine-checked, but the main argument is presented with explicit quantitative statements and locally uniform constants, which is a notable strength. The main advertised results are falsifiable and likely to inspire further work on affine positions and p-Laplacian analogues.

minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.10 / Theorem 2.21] The proof of heat-trace log-concavity is only a sketch: the Brownian-loop discretization is stated without derivation, and the regularization step 'adding η∑|x_j|²' followed by η↓0 is not justified in detail. Since Theorem 2.21 is not used in the main Faber–Krahn argument, this does not affect the central claim, but the authors should either expand the proof or explicitly downgrade the statement to a remark/conjecture with a heuristic proof.
  2. [§4.1 / Theorem 1.3] Theorem 1.3 is an advertised consequence, but its proof is a direct application of inequality (6) from the external preprint [32] (Milman–Nakamura–Tsuji), which is not proved in the manuscript. I recommend the authors state explicitly in the introduction that this part is conditional on [32], or include a proof of (6). This does not affect the correctness of the central Faber–Krahn result.
  3. [Corollary 2.3] There is a typo in the final reduction step: the definition of P′ should read P′ = ((1−t0)In+t0P)^{-1}((1−t1)In+t1P). The matrix AM-GM step leading to c_{t,s}P^s would also benefit from a brief explanation, since it is central to the proof of the displayed inequality.
  4. [§3.3.5 / Theorem 3.4] The absorption of the boundary cases kh≤TK or (m−k)h≤TK into the constant CK is correct, but a one-sentence justification would improve readability: in these cases the exponential sum is bounded below by e^{-c_K T_K}, so CK can be enlarged to dominate the O(1) L1 error. The current wording 'can be accommodated by adjusting CK' is a little terse for such a technical step.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central derivation self-contained; self-citation only background.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. Theorem 1.1 is proved from the external Gaussian B-theorem in the centrally symmetric case and, for general convex bodies, from a quantitative Brownian discretization culminating in the uniform quasi-stationary estimate (Theorem 3.4). The latter is proved in the paper from spectral-gap and Perron-eigenfunction estimates (Lemmas 3.5–3.8), with the discrete-to-continuous convergence established by min-max arguments in Proposition 3.5. The L2 estimate (Lemmas 3.10–3.11) is a Brascamp-Lieb-type inequality whose proof is included. Strict log-convexity follows from properness (Proposition 3.12) and real analyticity (Lemma 3.13), not from the desired conclusion. Uniqueness of the Faber-Krahn position is a consequence of strict log-convexity, not an input. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The only self-citation is [30], a book co-authored by one of the present authors, used to point to a stated conjecture as background and not load-bearing. The main risk is the complexity of Theorem 3.4, which is a verifiability concern rather than circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 10 axioms · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted. No new physical entities are postulated; the Faber–Krahn position and ellipsoid are derived definitions. The central theorem rests on external results: the B-theorem, Kac's formula, Krein-Rutman, Kato perturbation theory, and for the applications the Gaussian conjugate Rogers–Shephard inequality (a very recent preprint).

axioms (10)
  • standard math Strong B-theorem: for a centrally symmetric convex body A in Gaussian space and any symmetric S, t↦γ(e^{tS}A) is log-concave.
    Used in Lemma 3.2 and Theorem 3.3 to prove the centrally symmetric case of Theorem 1.1, and in Theorem 2.21; cited to [9] and [20].
  • standard math Kac's formula linking first exit time survival probability to λ1 (equation (1)).
    Bridges Brownian survival and the first Dirichlet eigenvalue throughout Sections 2 and 3.
  • domain assumption Gaussian conjugate Rogers–Shephard inequality (6) of Milman–Nakamura–Tsuji [32]: for centrally symmetric convex sets A,B and centered Gaussian γ, γ(A)γ(B)≤γ(A∩B)γ(A+B).
    Black-box input for Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 4.1; a very recent preprint not proved in this paper.
  • standard math Payne–Stakgold lower bound λ1(K)≥π^2/(4 r(K)^2) for convex K.
    Used in Proposition 3.12 to prove properness of the SL(n)-orbit, needed for existence and strict log-convexity.
  • standard math Brascamp–Lieb Brunn–Minkowski inequality for λ1 (eq. (3)): λ1^{-1/2} is concave under Minkowski addition.
    Used in Corollary 2.3, Theorem 4.3 and Section 5; cited [10].
  • standard math John's theorem on the unique maximal volume ellipsoid.
    Used in Proposition 2.16 for uniqueness of the inradius-maximizing position.
  • standard math Kawohl–Lachand-Robert planar Cheeger set characterization |Ω⊖r|=πr^2.
    Used in Proposition 2.19 for log-convexity of the planar Cheeger constant.
  • standard math Kato analytic perturbation theory for simple eigenvalues of holomorphic families of forms.
    Used in Lemma 3.13 to show t↦λ1(P^tK) is real analytic, needed for strict log-convexity.
  • standard math Krein–Rutman theorem: a positivity improving compact operator has a positive principal eigenfunction.
    Used in §3.3.3 to justify the quasi-stationary distribution φ_h.
  • standard math Andrews–Clutterbuck log-concavity/fundamental gap estimate giving unique maximum of the first eigenfunction.
    Used in Lemma 2.10 to define the Faber–Krahn ellipsoid.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28650 in / 38285 out tokens · 331430 ms · 2026-08-01T07:10:31.280958+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We say that a convex body is in Faber-Krahn position if it minimizes the first Dirichlet eigenvalue within its volume-preserving linear orbit. We prove that this position is unique up to orthogonal transformations, answering a question of Schmuckenschlaeger from 2011. This is a corollary of a new log-convexity property of the first eigenvalue under positive definite linear deformations. While the centrally symmetric case follows from the Gaussian B-theorem, the extension to arbitrary convex bodies requires a quantitative analysis of conditioned Brownian motion. As consequences, we obtain a new proof of the Polya-Szego theorem for triangles and its analogue for simplices, and show that regular polygons minimize the first eigenvalue within their linear orbits of fixed volume. We also prove related convexity results for the first eigenvalue of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator, the inverse inradius and the planar Cheeger constant. In a different direction, we show using similar ideas that the Gaussian conjugate Rogers--Shephard inequality due to Milman-Nakamura-Tsuji yields improved Schmuckenschlaeger-type bounds for intersections and Minkowski sums of centrally symmetric convex bodies.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Proof of the fundamental gap conjecture.J

    Ben Andrews and Julie Clutterbuck. Proof of the fundamental gap conjecture.J. Amer. Math. Soc., 24(3):899–916, 2011

    2011

  2. [2]

    M´ endez-Hern´ andez

    Rodrigo Ba˜ nuelos, Rafa l Lata la, and Pedro J. M´ endez-Hern´ andez. A Brascamp-Lieb- Luttinger-type inequality and applications to symmetric stable processes.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 129(10):2997–3008, 2001

    2001

  3. [3]

    Volume ratios and a reverse isoperimetric inequality.J

    Keith Ball. Volume ratios and a reverse isoperimetric inequality.J. London Math. Soc. (2), 44(2):351–359, 1991. 40 DMITRY F AIFMAN AND IOSIF POLTEROVICH

    1991

  4. [4]

    Distances between non-symmetric convex bodies: optimal bounds up to polylog, 2026

    Pierre Bizeul and Boaz Klartag. Distances between non-symmetric convex bodies: optimal bounds up to polylog, 2026. arXiv:2510.20511

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    On the polygonal Faber-Krahn inequality.Journal de l’ ´Ecole polytechnique—Math´ ematiques, 11:19–105, 2024

    Beniamin Bogosel and Dorin Bucur. On the polygonal Faber-Krahn inequality.Journal de l’ ´Ecole polytechnique—Math´ ematiques, 11:19–105, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Hitting probabilities of killed Brownian motion: a study on geometric regularity.Ann

    Christer Borell. Hitting probabilities of killed Brownian motion: a study on geometric regularity.Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4), 17(3):451–467, 1984

    1984

  7. [7]

    Diffusion equations and geometric inequalities.Potential Anal., 12(1):49–71, 2000

    Christer Borell. Diffusion equations and geometric inequalities.Potential Anal., 12(1):49–71, 2000

    2000

  8. [8]

    B¨ or¨ oczky and´Agnes Kov´ acs

    K´ aroly J. B¨ or¨ oczky and´Agnes Kov´ acs. The isoperimetric problem for 3-polytopes with six vertices.Ann. Univ. Sci. Budapest. E¨ otv¨ os Sect. Math., 61:55–67, 2018

    2018

  9. [9]

    Herm Jan Brascamp and Elliott H. Lieb. Some inequalities for Gaussian measures and the long-range order of the one-dimensional plasma. In A. M. Arthurs, editor, Functional Integration and Its Applications, pages 1–14, Oxford, 1975. Clarendon Press

    1975

  10. [10]

    Herm Jan Brascamp and Elliott H. Lieb. On extensions of the Brunn–Minkowski and Pr´ ekopa–Leindler theorems, including inequalities for log-concave functions, and with an application to the diffusion equation.Journal of Functional Analysis, 22(4):366–389, 1976

    1976

  11. [11]

    Lieb, and John M

    Herm Jan Brascamp, Elliott H. Lieb, and John M. Luttinger. A general rearrangement inequality for multiple integrals.Journal of Functional Analysis, 17:227–237, 1974

    1974

  12. [12]

    Blaschke–Santal´ o and Mahler inequalities for the first eigenvalue of the Dirichlet Laplacian.Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 113(3):387–417, 2016

    Dorin Bucur and Ilaria Fragal` a. Blaschke–Santal´ o and Mahler inequalities for the first eigenvalue of the Dirichlet Laplacian.Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 113(3):387–417, 2016

    2016

  13. [13]

    A reverse Faber–Krahn inequality for the Cheeger constant.Journal of Geometric Analysis, 26:1132–1149, 2016

    Dorin Bucur and Ilaria Fragal` a. A reverse Faber–Krahn inequality for the Cheeger constant.Journal of Geometric Analysis, 26:1132–1149, 2016

    2016

  14. [14]

    Criteria for exponential convergence to quasi-stationary distributions and applications to multi-dimensional diffusions

    Nicolas Champagnat, Kol´ eh` e Abdoulaye Coulibaly-Pasquier, and Denis Villemonais. Criteria for exponential convergence to quasi-stationary distributions and applications to multi-dimensional diffusions. InS´ eminaire de Probabilit´ es XLIX, volume 2215 of Lecture Notes in Math., pages 165–182. Springer, Cham, 2018

    2018

  15. [15]

    Exponential convergence to quasi- stationary distribution for absorbed one-dimensional diffusions with killing.ALEA Lat

    Nicolas Champagnat and Denis Villemonais. Exponential convergence to quasi- stationary distribution for absorbed one-dimensional diffusions with killing.ALEA Lat. Am. J. Probab. Math. Stat., 14(1):177–199, 2017

    2017

  16. [16]

    Uniform convergence to the Q-process

    Nicolas Champagnat and Denis Villemonais. Uniform convergence to the Q-process. Electron. Commun. Probab., 22:Paper No. 33, 7, 2017

    2017

  17. [17]

    Brunn-Minkowski inequalities for variational functionals and related problems.Adv

    Andrea Colesanti. Brunn-Minkowski inequalities for variational functionals and related problems.Adv. Math., 194(1):105–140, 2005

    2005

  18. [18]

    Brunn–Minkowski inequalities for two functionals involving the p-Laplace operator.Applicable Analysis, 85(1–3):45–66, 2006

    Andrea Colesanti, Paolo Cuoghi, and Paolo Salani. Brunn–Minkowski inequalities for two functionals involving the p-Laplace operator.Applicable Analysis, 85(1–3):45–66, 2006

    2006

  19. [19]

    Concavity principles for weighted marginals, 2025

    Dario Cordero-Erausquin and Alexandros Eskenazis. Concavity principles for weighted marginals, 2025. arXiv:2506.16941

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    The (B) conjecture for the Gaussian measure of dilates of symmetric convex sets and related problems

    Dario Cordero-Erausquin, Matthieu Fradelizi, and Bernard Maurey. The (B) conjecture for the Gaussian measure of dilates of symmetric convex sets and related problems. Journal of Functional Analysis, 214(2):410–427, 2004

    2004

  21. [21]

    Frank and Simon Larson

    Rupert L. Frank and Simon Larson. An inequality for the normal derivative of the Lane–Emden ground state.Advances in Calculus of Variations, 17(2):255–276, 2024

    2024

  22. [22]

    A. A. Giannopoulos and V. D. Milman. Extremal problems and isotropic positions of convex bodies.Israel J. Math., 117:29–60, 2000

    2000

  23. [23]

    Gruber.Convex and discrete geometry, volume 336 ofGrundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]

    Peter M. Gruber.Convex and discrete geometry, volume 336 ofGrundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer, Berlin, 2007. THE F ABER–KRAHN POSITION AND GAUSSIAN INEQUALITIES 41

    2007

  24. [24]

    Hadwiger.Vorlesungen ¨ uber Inhalt, Oberfl¨ ache und Isoperimetrie

    H. Hadwiger.Vorlesungen ¨ uber Inhalt, Oberfl¨ ache und Isoperimetrie. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-G¨ ottingen-Heidelberg, 1957

    1957

  25. [25]

    Manfredi

    Petri Juutinen, Peter Lindqvist, and Juan J. Manfredi. The ∞-eigenvalue problem. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 148(2):89–105, 1999

    1999

  26. [26]

    Classics in Mathematics

    Tosio Kato.Perturbation theory for linear operators. Classics in Mathematics. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1980 edition, 1995

    1980

  27. [27]

    Kawohl and V

    B. Kawohl and V. Fridman. Isoperimetric estimates for the first eigenvalue of the p- Laplace operator and the Cheeger constant.Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin., 44(4):659– 667, 2003

    2003

  28. [28]

    Characterization of Cheeger sets for convex subsets of the plane.Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 225(1):103–118, 2006

    Bernd Kawohl and Thomas Lachand-Robert. Characterization of Cheeger sets for convex subsets of the plane.Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 225(1):103–118, 2006

    2006

  29. [29]

    Royen’s proof of the Gaussian correlation inequality

    Rafa l Lata la and Dariusz Matlak. Royen’s proof of the Gaussian correlation inequality. InGeometric aspects of functional analysis, volume 2169 ofLecture Notes in Math., pages 265–275. Springer, Cham, 2017

    2017

  30. [30]

    American Mathematical Society, 2023

    Michael Levitin, Dan Mangoubi, and Iosif Polterovich.Topics in spectral geometry, volume 237. American Mathematical Society, 2023

    2023

  31. [31]

    J. M. Luttinger. Generalized isoperimetric inequalities.J. Mathematical Phys., 14:586– 593, 1973

    1973

  32. [32]

    The Gaussian conjugate Rogers-Shephard inequality, 2026

    Emanuel Milman, Shohei Nakamura, and Hiroshi Tsuji. The Gaussian conjugate Rogers-Shephard inequality, 2026. arXiv:2602.07981

    arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    The Gaussian correlation inequality for centered convex sets and the case of equality, 2025

    Shohei Nakamura and Hiroshi Tsuji. The Gaussian correlation inequality for centered convex sets and the case of equality, 2025. arXiv:2504.04337

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Springer Monographs in Mathematics

    Jindˇ rich Neˇ cas.Direct methods in the theory of elliptic equations. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, Heidelberg, 2012. Translated from the 1967 French original by Gerard Tronel and Alois Kufner, Editorial coordination and preface by ˇS´ arka Neˇ casov´ a and a contribution by Christian G. Simader

    2012

  35. [35]

    L. E. Payne and I. Stakgold. On the mean value of the fundamental mode in the fixed membrane problem.Applicable Anal., 3:295–306, 1973

    1973

  36. [36]

    M. H. Protter. A lower bound for the fundamental frequency of a convex region.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 81(1):65–70, 1981

    1981

  37. [37]

    A simple proof of the Gaussian correlation conjecture extended to multivariate gamma distributions.Far East Journal of Theoretical Statistics, 48(2):139– 145, 2014

    Thomas Royen. A simple proof of the Gaussian correlation conjecture extended to multivariate gamma distributions.Far East Journal of Theoretical Statistics, 48(2):139– 145, 2014

    2014

  38. [38]

    Schmuckenschl¨ ager

    M. Schmuckenschl¨ ager. Inequalities for exit times and eigenvalues of balls.Potential Anal., 35(3):287–300, 2011. D´epartement de Math´ematiques et de Statistique, Universit´e de Montr ´eal, CP 6128 succ Centre-Ville, Montr ´eal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada Email address:dmitry.faifman@umontreal.ca, iosif.polterovich@umontreal.ca

    2011