Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Function theory of the hexablock and applications to the tetrablock and Euclidean biball

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that functions on the hexablock in the Schur-Agler class are exactly those with a unitary colligation realization, yielding interpolation, extension, and Toeplitz corona theorems for the hexablock, the Euclidean biball, and

desk verdict New and mostly solid Agler-package for the hexablock, but the corona results rest on unproved vector-valued analogues and the geometric input is borrowed from the authors' earlier work. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00819 v1 pith:KNQT7XCO submitted 2026-08-01 math.CV math.FAmath.OA

Sourav Pal , Nitin Tomar This is my paper
classification math.CVmath.FAmath.OA MSC 32A7047A1347A5746E2247B32
keywords hexablockSchur-AglerclassunitarycolligationrealizationformulainterpolationextensiontheoremToeplitzcoronatetrablock
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's central claim is a complete Agler-style function theory for the hexablock, a four-complex-variable domain that arises from mu-synthesis in H-infinity control. It identifies the Schur-Agler class SA(H), meaning functions whose norm is bounded by 1 under every commuting operator quadruple satisfying the hexablock's defining inequalities, and proves that membership is equivalent to three seemingly different conditions: a positivity condition against a family of admissible kernels, an explicit algebraic decomposition of 1 - f(z) overline(f(w)), and a realization formula f(z) = A + B X(z) (I - D X(z))^{-1} C by a unitary colligation. Because the Euclidean biball and the tetrablock embed holomorphically into the hexablock, these four results (realization, interpolation, extension, Toeplitz corona) transfer to those domains as well. The significance is that one kernel test on the hexablock organizes a family of function-theoretic theorems that had previously been proved one domain at a time.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the unitary colligation built from the test functions E(z)(alpha1, alpha2) = z1 sqrt((1 - |alpha1|^2)(1 - |alpha2|^2)) / (1 - z2 alpha1 - z3 alpha2 + z4 alpha1 alpha2) and e(z)(alpha) = (alpha z4 - z2)/(alpha z3 - 1), which encode the hexablock's defining inequalities. X(z) is the block-diagonal operator obtained by applying unital *-representations rho1 of C(Dbar^2) and rho2 of C(Dbar) to these functions, plus multiplication by z3. The theorem proves that every SA(H) function is such a colligation and every colligation function is in SA(H). The admissible kernels are the positivity witnesses: k is admissible when multiplying it by each of the three 1-minus-product factors p

What would settle it

Check Theorem 2.8 on a concrete candidate: pick two points z1, z2 in H and target values lambda1, lambda2 for which a function in SA(H) is known to exist by explicit construction, but for some admissible kernel k the 2x2 matrix [(1 - lambda_i overline(lambda_j)) k(z_i, z_j)] has a negative eigenvalue. Since the implication from interpolability to kernel positivity is part of the theorem, such a matrix would disprove the equivalence and the realization theorem behind it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 2.7 is the load-bearing result: for a holomorphic function f on the hexablock, f lies in SA(H) if and only if the kernel (1 - f(z) overline(f(w))) k(z,w) is positive semidefinite for every admissible kernel k on H; equivalently, 1 - f(z) overline(f(w)) splits as a sum of three such terms built from the test functions E(z) and e(z); equivalently, f is associated to a unitary colligation with block diagonal X(z) = diag(rho1(E(z)), rho2(e(z)), z3 I). From this one theorem the paper derives an interpolation criterion, a norm-preserving extension criterion involving the quantized hexablock, and a Toeplitz corona theorem with the usual 1/epsilon bound. The earlier tetrablock results re-eme

Load-bearing premise

The proof that the kernel positivity condition follows from membership in SA(H) requires that functions in SA(H) can be scaled to the closed hexablock and uniformly approximated by polynomials, which depends on the hexablock being (1,1,1,2)-quasi-balanced and polynomially convex.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The interpolation theorem on H becomes a finite-matrix test: prescribed values lambda_i at points z_i are interpolable in SA(H) exactly when every admissible kernel k satisfies positivity of the matrix [(1 - lambda_i overline(lambda_j)) k(z_i, z_j)].
  • Every function in SA(H) admits an explicit transfer-function form, so function-theoretic questions on H can be attacked by operator-theoretic dilation and colligation methods.
  • Embedding the Euclidean biball as the slice z3 = z4 = 0 and the tetrablock as the slice z1 = 0 turns the hexablock realization into realization theorems for the corresponding classes C(B2) and SA(E).
  • The extension theorem characterizes when a function on a subset W of H extends without increasing sup-norm: exactly when its norm is preserved under every subordinate operator quadruple in the quantum hexablock QH.
  • The Toeplitz corona theorem gives existence of f_j with sum phi_j f_j = 1 and [f_j]^t in (1/epsilon) SA_H(C, C^d) iff the same three-kernel decomposition holds for sum phi_j overline(phi_j) - epsilon^2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because both the biball and the tetrablock appear as slices of the hexablock, the hexablock may serve as a master domain: any future function-theoretic theorem proved for SA(H) that respects these embeddings would automatically yield the corresponding theorem for both domains.
  • The realization formula suggests that SA(H) functions are precisely the contractive transfer functions of a system whose state space is a direct sum of three pieces; this might make interpolation problems on H solvable by finite-dimensional linear matrix inequalities once the representations rho1 and rho2 are suitably discretized.
  • A natural test is whether the admissible-kernel family AK(H) can be replaced by a proper subfamily, for example using only finitely many test functions, without changing SA(H); if so, the interpolation and corona criteria would become computationally checkable.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops an Agler-type function theory for the hexablock H, a domain in C^4 arising from μ-synthesis. The central result (Theorem 2.7) characterizes the Schur-Agler class SA(H) by three equivalent conditions: operator-von-Neumann boundedness on the class M_H, positivity against all admissible kernels, and a unitary-colligation realization f(z)=A+B X(z)(I-D X(z))^{-1}C with X(z)=diag(ρ1(E(z)), ρ2(e(z)), z3 I). From this, the paper derives an interpolation theorem (Theorem 2.8), a norm-preserving extension theorem (Theorem 2.9), and a Toeplitz corona theorem (Theorem 2.19). It then applies these results to the Euclidean biball B2 (Theorems 3.2–3.6) and recovers tetrablock realization, interpolation, extension, and corona theorems in terms of admissible kernels on H (Theorems 4.1–4.5).

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, this is a substantial contribution: it gives the first realization and interpolation theory for the hexablock, and it exhibits H as a unifying domain for the tetrablock and the Euclidean biball. The scalar proofs are generally detailed and follow the well-established Agler–Dritschel–McCullough framework. The admissible-kernel formalism is explicit and the applications are natural. However, several load-bearing points are not fully established: the proof of (1)=>(2) in Theorem 2.7 depends on nontrivial geometric facts cited from the authors' prior work; Lemma 2.13 contains a conjugation error; the vector-valued analogues used for the corona theorem are stated without proof; and the extension theorems for B2 and E rely on unproved von Neumann inequalities. These issues are local and appear repairable, but they currently prevent the paper from being accepted as is.

major comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 2.7, implication (1)=>(2), proof around \hat f and Oka-Weil] The scaling argument f_r(z)=f(r z1,r z2,r z3,r^2 z4) and the polynomial approximation by Oka-Weil require that H be (1,1,1,2)-quasi-balanced and that the closed hexablock be polynomially convex. These facts are cited from the authors' prior paper [26] (Theorem 6.7 and Section 2) but are not proved or even stated as explicit assumptions here. Since the whole direction (1)=>(2) collapses if these geometric properties fail, the manuscript should either state them as hypotheses or reproduce the necessary statements. In addition, the displayed definition \hat f(z)=f(\bar z) is inconsistent with the later use of \hat f(S)=f(S^*)^*; the intended definition is \hat f(z)=\overline{f(\bar z)}. The typo is minor, but together with the missing geometric input it makes this key step not self-contained.
  2. [Lemma 2.13] There is a sign/conjugation error in the spectral argument. With S_i^* κ(.,j)=z_j^{(i)} κ(.,j), the correct identity is g(S^*)κ(.,j)=g(z_j)κ(.,j)=λ_jκ(.,j), not g(S)^*κ(.,j)=λ_jκ(.,j). Consequently, the equality \|g(S)\|=ρ does not follow from equation (2.15) as written. Moreover, (2.15) writes the quadratic form as ∑(ρ^2-λ_i \bar λ_j)κ(i,j)y_i y_j; for a Hermitian matrix the correct form is ∑(ρ^2-λ_i \bar λ_j)κ(i,j)\bar y_i y_j. The argument can likely be repaired by using g(S^*) and setting the test vector to h=∑ \bar y_j κ(.,j), but as written the proof of the existence of S with \|g(S)\|=ρ is invalid. This is load-bearing for the extension theorem (Theorem 2.9).
  3. [Theorems 2.16 and 2.17; proof of Theorem 2.18] The vector-valued versions of the decomposition theorem and of the realization theorem are stated without proof, with the comment that they are routine adaptations. These results are then used essentially in the proof of the Toeplitz corona theorem (Theorem 2.18), specifically in the implications (2)=>(3) and (3)=>(1), and hence in Theorem 2.19. Since the scalar proof of Theorem 2.7 itself contains nontrivial steps (scaling, Oka-Weil, net convergence), the assertion that the vector-valued case follows by routine modification is not sufficient. The paper should provide at least a careful reduction or full proofs of Theorems 2.16 and 2.17.
  4. [Examples 3.4 and 4.3] In Example 3.4 the proof uses the inequality \|h_r(T_1,T_2)\| ≤ \|h_r\|_{∞,B_2} for (T_1,T_2) ∈ M_{B_2}. This is a von Neumann inequality for arbitrary holomorphic functions h_r in a neighbourhood of the closed ball; it does not follow from the definition of M_{B_2} or from the earlier realization theorem, which only gives the inequality for functions in C(B_2). A similar unjustified inequality appears in Example 4.3 with E in place of B_2. These inequalities are essential to the claims that the embedded subsets have the extension property, and hence to Theorems 3.5 and 4.4. Please provide a proof or a reference for these spectral-set inequalities, or modify the argument.
  5. [Theorem 2.7, proof of (4)=>(1), Step (4)] The proof says that from the net {f_β} one can extract a subsequence converging uniformly to f. A net in a compact space need not have a subsequence. The intended conclusion can be recovered by choosing a carefully constructed sequence β_k (e.g., with ε_k→0 and finite sets exhausting a countable dense subset of H) and then applying Montel's theorem, or by using a convergent subnet and the pointwise convergence already established. As written, the step is technically incorrect, although it is readily fixable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, text before Corollary 2.14] The phrase 'quantum pentablock' should be 'quantum hexablock'; 'M_H is contained in the quantum pentablock' is a typo.
  2. [Example 4.3] In the displayed computation, 'r^2 T_3' appears twice; the second should be 'r^2 T_4'.
  3. [Theorem 2.8, proof] The implication (2)=>(3) is said to follow from 'Theorem 2.2'; the intended reference is Theorem 2.3.
  4. [Theorem 2.3, proof] The phrase 'Kurosh’s theorem' is unusual in this context; the argument from finite subsets to H×H is a standard compactness/maximality argument and should be cited or described appropriately.
  5. [Theorem 2.7, proof of (3)=>(4)] In the line after defining V, 'f(z)=A1+B X(z)...' should presumably be 'f(z)=A+B X(z)...'.
  6. [Theorems 3.6 and 4.5] The proofs of these theorems are left entirely to the reader. Since they are claimed applications of Theorem 2.19, a short reduction would improve verifiability, especially because the vector-valued classes and the maps θ are involved.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hexablock realization is proved from the operator inequalities defining SA(H) and standard Agler-kernel machinery; self-citations supply independent geometric lemmas.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained with respect to circularity. The central result Theorem 2.7 proves SA(H)=UC(H) via the standard Agler/Dritschel-McCullough kernel-positivity route: (1) to (2) uses the defining operator inequalities of M_H and the cited geometric facts that H is quasi-balanced and polynomially convex; (2) to (3) is a cone-separation argument with admissible kernels; (3) to (4) constructs the unitary colligation from the kernel decomposition; (4) to (1) approximates arbitrary representations by simple ones via spectral measures and Tychonoff. None of these steps defines UC(H) in terms of SA(H) or fits a parameter to the predicted conclusion. The geometric inputs from the authors' earlier paper [26] (quasi-balancedness, polynomial convexity, projection lemmas) are parameter-free facts about H independent of the realization theorem; although they are self-citations, they are supporting lemmas rather than the target equivalence. The applications to B2 and E are genuine transfers via embeddings (B2 as H intersect {z3=z4=0}, E as H intersect {z1=0}); they are consistency checks, not the source of the hexablock realization. Several vector-valued results are stated with proofs omitted or left to the reader, and there is a minor typo in the definition of the function 'f hat', but these are completeness or correctness issues, not instances of a prediction reducing to its inputs. No load-bearing step renames a known result or imports a uniqueness theorem to forbid alternatives.

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

The paper's central results rely on the prior geometric characterization of the hexablock (quasi-balanced, polynomially convex, test-function description (2.2)) from [26], which the paper cites but does not prove. The Agler test-function framework is used as a black box. The operator-valued generalizations are assumed routine without proof.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The hexablock H is (1,1,1,2)-quasi-balanced and polynomially convex, and its boundary description (2.2) holds.
    Used throughout Theorem 2.7 for scaling by r and polynomial approximation via Oka-Weil; cited from [26] (Theorem 6.7 and Section 2).
  • standard math The Agler test-function framework of Dritschel-McCullough applies to the test functions E(z), e(z), z3; specifically Theorem 2.3's cone C_F is closed with non-empty interior.
    Invoked in the proof of Theorem 2.3; the non-empty interior argument relies on positive matrices belonging to C_F via the specific factor 1-z3 wbar3.
  • domain assumption Vector-valued analogues (Theorems 2.16, 2.17) are routine and hold without essential modification.
    Stated without proof; used for Toeplitz corona Theorem 2.19 and its applications.
  • standard math Standard functional calculus and spectral mapping for commuting operator tuples (Taylor spectrum).
    Used to show sigma_T(T) subset H for T in M_H and to define f(T).
  • domain assumption E embeds in H via (z2,z3,z4) -> (0,z2,z3,z4) and B2 embeds via (z1,z2) -> (z1,z2,0,0).
    Used in Sections 3 and 4; follows from [26, Theorem 10.14].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Function theory of the hexablock and applications to the tetrablock and Euclidean biball." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KNQT7XCO

@misc{pith2026260800819,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Function theory of the hexablock and applications to the tetrablock and Euclidean biball},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KNQT7XCO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00819}
}
abstract

The realization, interpolation, extension and Toeplitz corona problems are amongst the central themes in function theory of a domain in $\mathbb{C}^d$. The present work addresses these four problems for the hexablock $\mathbb{H}$, a domain in $\mathbb{C}^4$ arising in connection with a special case of $\mu$-synthesis in $H^{\infty}$ control theory. We determine Schur-Agler class $SA(\mathbb{H})$ for $\mathbb{H}$ and find a realization formula for $\mathbb H$. With the help of this realization formula we state and prove interpolation, extension and Toeplitz corona theorems for the hexablock. As an application, we obtain analogous theorems for the Euclidean unit ball in $\mathbb{C}^2$. Moreover, we recover the existing same results for the tetrablock $\mathbb E$, another domain associated with the $\mu$-synthesis, as consequences of the hexablock theory and in terms of the Schur-Agler class $SA(\mathbb{H})$ and admissible kernels on $\mathbb{H}$.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    The Hexablock: a domain associated with the $\mu$-synthesis in $M_2(\mathbb C)$

    I. Biswas, S. Pal and N. Tomar,The hexablock: a domain associated with theµ-synthesis in M 2(C), arXiv: 2506.15149

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [1]

    A. A. Abouhajar, M. C. White and N. J. Young,A Schwarz lemma for a domain related toµ-synthesis, J. Geom. Anal., 17 (2007), 717 – 750

    work page 2007

  3. [2]

    M. B. Abrahamse,The Pick interpolation theorem for finitely connected domains, Michigan Math. J., 26 (1979), 195 – 203

    work page 1979

  4. [3]

    Agler,On the representation of certain holomorphic functions defined on a polydisc, In: Topics in operator theory: Ernst D

    J . Agler,On the representation of certain holomorphic functions defined on a polydisc, In: Topics in operator theory: Ernst D. Hellinger memorial volume, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 48 (1990), 47 – 66

    work page 1990

  5. [4]

    Agler, Z

    J. Agler, Z. A. Lykova and N. J. Young,The complex geometry of a domain related toµ-synthesis, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 422 (2015), 508 – 543

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Agler and J

    J. Agler and J. E. McCarthy,Nevanlinna-Pick interpolation on the bidisk, J. Reine Angew. Math., 506 (1999), 191 – 204

    work page 1999

  7. [6]

    Agler and J

    J. Agler and J. E. McCarthy,Pick interpolation and Hilbert function spaces, Grad. Stud. Math., 44, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002; MR1882259

    work page 2002

  8. [7]

    Agler and J

    J. Agler and J. E. McCarthy,Norm preserving extensions of holomorphic functions from subvarieties of the bidisk, Ann. of Math., 157 (2003), no. 1, 289–312. FUNCTION THEORY OF THE HEXABLOCK 33

    work page 2003

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    Agler and N

    J. Agler and N. J. Young,A commutant lifting theorem for a domain inC 2 and spectral interpolation, J. Funct. Anal., 161 (1999), 452 – 477

    1999

  2. [9]

    Agler and N

    J. Agler and N. J. Young,Operators having the symmetrized bidisc as a spectral set, Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc., 43 (2000), 195 – 210

    2000

  3. [10]

    Agler and N

    J. Agler and N. J. Young,The two-point spectral Nevanlinna-Pick problem, Integral Equations Operator Theory, 37 (2000), 375 – 385

    2000

  4. [11]

    Agler and N

    J. Agler and N. J. Young,A model theory forΓ-contractions, J. Operator Theory, 49 (2003), 45 – 60

    2003

  5. [12]

    Agler and N

    J. Agler and N. J. Young,Realization of functions on the symmetrized bidisc, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 453 (2017), 227 – 240

    2017

  6. [13]

    Amar,On the Toeplitz corona problem, Publ

    E. Amar,On the Toeplitz corona problem, Publ. Mat., 47 (2003), 489 – 496

    2003

  7. [14]

    Ambrozie,Remarks on the operator-valued interpolation for multivariable bounded analytic functions, Indiana Univ

    C.-G. Ambrozie,Remarks on the operator-valued interpolation for multivariable bounded analytic functions, Indiana Univ. Math. J., 53 (2004), 1551 – 1576

    2004

  8. [15]

    A. V . Arkhangel’skii and L. S. Pontryagin,General topology-I, Springer, Berlin, 1990

    1990

  9. [16]

    Arveson,Interpolation problems in nest algebras, J

    W. Arveson,Interpolation problems in nest algebras, J. Funct. Anal., 20 (1975), 208 – 233

    1975

  10. [17]

    Arveson,Subalgebras of C ∗-algebras

    W. Arveson,Subalgebras of C ∗-algebras. III. Multivariable operator theory, Acta Math., 181 (1998), 159 – 228

    1998

  11. [18]

    J. A. Ball and V . Bolotnikov,A bitangential interpolation problem on the closed unit ball for multipliers of the Arveson space, Integral Equations Operator Theory, 46 (2003), 125 – 164

    2003

  12. [19]

    J. A. Ball, V . Bolotnikov and Q. Fang,Transfer-function realization for multipliers of the Arveson space, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 333 (2007), 68 – 92

    2007

  13. [20]

    J. A. Ball and M. D. Guerra Huam ´an,Test functions, Schur-Agler classes and transfer-function realizations: the matrix-valued setting, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory 7 (2013), 529 – 575

    2013

  14. [21]

    Bhattacharjee, K

    J. Bhattacharjee, K. D. Deepak and J. Sarkar,Commutant lifting and interpolation on the unit ball, arXiv: 2512.11349

    arXiv

  15. [22]

    Bhattacharyya,The tetrablock as a spectral set, Indiana Univ

    T. Bhattacharyya,The tetrablock as a spectral set, Indiana Univ. Math. J., 63 (2014), 1601 – 1629

    2014

  16. [23]

    Bhattacharyya, S

    T. Bhattacharyya, S. Pal and S. S. Roy,Dilations ofΓ-contractions by solving operator equations, Adv. Math., 230 (2012), 577 – 606

    2012

  17. [24]

    Bhattacharyya and H

    T. Bhattacharyya and H. Sau,Holomorphic functions on the symmetrized bidisk-realization, interpolation and extension, J. Funct. Anal., 274 (2018), 504 – 524

    2018

  18. [25]

    Bhattacharyya and H

    T. Bhattacharyya and H. Sau,Interpolating sequences and the Toeplitz-Corona theorem on the symmetrized bidisk, J. Operator Theory, 87 (2022), 435 – 459

    2022

  19. [27]

    Bolotnikov,Interpolation for multipliers on reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces, Proc

    V . Bolotnikov,Interpolation for multipliers on reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 131 (2003), 1373 – 1383

    2003

  20. [28]

    Carleson,Interpolations by bounded analytic functions and the corona problem, Ann

    L. Carleson,Interpolations by bounded analytic functions and the corona problem, Ann. of Math., 76 (1962), 547 – 559

    1962

  21. [29]

    Costara,The2×2spectral Nevanlinna-Pick problem, J

    C. Costara,The2×2spectral Nevanlinna-Pick problem, J. London Math. Soc., 71 (2005), 684 – 702

    2005

  22. [30]

    K. D. Deepak, D. K. Pradhan, J. Sarkar and D. Timotin,Commutant lifting and Nevanlinna-Pick interpolation in several variables, Integral Equations Operator Theory, 92 (2020), no. 3, Paper No. 27, 15 pp

    2020

  23. [31]

    K. D. Deepak and J. Sarkar,Commutant lifting, interpolation, and perturbations on the polydisc, arXiv: 2301.10020

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. C. Doyle and G. Stein,Multivariable feedback design: concepts for a classical/modern synthesis, IEEE Trans- actions on Automatic Control, 26 (1981), 4 – 16

    1981

  25. [33]

    M. A. Dritschel, S. Marcantognini and S. McCullough,Interpolation in semigroupoid algebras, J. Reine Angew. Math., 606 (2007), 1 – 40

    2007

  26. [34]

    M. A. Dritschel and S. McCullough,Test functions, kernels, realizations and interpolation, in: Operator theory, structured matrices, and dilations, Theta Ser. Adv. Math., 7 (2007), 153 – 179

    2007

  27. [35]

    S. W. Drury,A generalization of von Neumann’s inequality to the complex ball, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 68 (1978), 300 – 304

    1978

  28. [36]

    Eschmeier and M

    J. Eschmeier and M. Putinar,Spherical contractions and interpolation problems on the unit ball, J. Reine Angew. Math., 542 (2002), 219 – 236

    2002

  29. [37]

    Foias and A

    C. Foias and A. E. Frazho,The commutant lifting approach to interpolation problem, Birkh ¨auser, Berlin, 1990

    1990

  30. [38]

    B. A. Francis,A course in H ∞ Control Theory, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, V ol. 88, London: Springer-Verlag, 1987. 34 SOURA V PAL AND NITIN TOMAR

    1987

  31. [39]

    S. Jain, S. Kumar, M. K. Mal and P. Pramanick,Function theory on tetrablock: realization, interpolation, exten- sion and Toeplitz Corona theorem, arXiv: 2505.23492

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Kosi ´nski,Three-point Nevanlinna-Pick problem in the polydisc,Proc

    L. Kosi ´nski,Three-point Nevanlinna-Pick problem in the polydisc,Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., 111 (2015), 887 – 910

    2015

  33. [41]

    Kosi ´nski and W

    L. Kosi ´nski and W. Zwonek,Nevanlinna-Pick interpolation problem in the ball, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 370 (2018), 3931 – 3947

    2018

  34. [42]

    Mittal,Function theory on the quantum annulus and other domains, Thesis (Ph.D.)-University of Houston, ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2010, 141 pp

    M. Mittal,Function theory on the quantum annulus and other domains, Thesis (Ph.D.)-University of Houston, ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2010, 141 pp

    2010

  35. [43]

    Nevanlinna, ¨Uber beschr¨ankte Funktionen, die in gegebenen Punkten vorgeschriebene Werte annehmen, Ann

    R. Nevanlinna, ¨Uber beschr¨ankte Funktionen, die in gegebenen Punkten vorgeschriebene Werte annehmen, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A, 13 (1919), 1 – 71

    1919

  36. [44]

    Pal and N

    S. Pal and N. Tomar,Operators associated with the pentablock and their relations with biball and symmetrized bidisc, Ann. Fenn. Math., 51 (2026), 287 – 324

    2026

  37. [45]

    Pal and N

    S. Pal and N. Tomar,Operators associated with the hexablock, arXiv: 2507.14589

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Pal and N

    S. Pal and N. Tomar,Realization, interpolation and extension on the pentablock with applications toD 2,G 2, arXiv: 2606.00760

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Pal and N

    S. Pal and N. Tomar,A Toeplitz corona theorem for the pentablock and applications, arXiv: 2606.00850

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Pick, ¨Uber die Beschr¨ankungen analytischer Funktionen, welche durch vorgegebene Funktionswerte bewirkt werden, Math

    G. Pick, ¨Uber die Beschr¨ankungen analytischer Funktionen, welche durch vorgegebene Funktionswerte bewirkt werden, Math. Ann., 77 (1916), 7 – 23

    1916

  41. [49]

    Popescu,Interpolation problems in several variables, J

    G. Popescu,Interpolation problems in several variables, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 227 (1998), 227 – 250

    1998

  42. [50]

    Scheidemann,Introduction to complex analysis in several variables, Birkh¨auser Verlag, Basel, 2005

    V . Scheidemann,Introduction to complex analysis in several variables, Birkh¨auser Verlag, Basel, 2005

    2005

  43. [51]

    F. -H. Vasilescu,Analytic functional calculus and spectral decompositions, 1 (1982), Math. Appl. (East European Ser.), D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht. (Sourav Pal) MATHEMATICSDEPARTMENT, INDIANINSTITUTE OFTECHNOLOGYBOMBAY, POWAI, MUMBAI - 400076, INDIA. Email address:sour...

    1982

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.