Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

A characterization of uniqueness of purely atomic finite measures with central Cantor set range

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper characterizes when a purely atomic finite measure is uniquely determined by its range: for central Cantor sets no canonical term may be twice its successor, and for symmetric Cantor sets the representation must be irreducible…

desk verdict A genuinely useful central Cantor characterization, with a symmetric-set extension that is conditional on an unproved and miscounted gap-order observation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.14395 v1 pith:OYUE2FD3 submitted 2026-08-14 math.CA

Piotr Nowakowski , Franciszek Prus-Wiśniowski This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CA MSC 40A0511B0528A75
keywords atomicmeasurerangeofaachievementsetcentralCantorsymmetricCantorvalcenterdistancesuniqueachievability
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 settles, for two large families of self-similar ranges, when a finite purely atomic measure is the only measure with that range. The range of such a measure is the achievement set of its atom weights, the set of all subsums, and the question is whether that set determines the weights uniquely. For central Cantor sets with left endpoint $0$, uniqueness is equivalent to a single local condition on the canonical fast-convergent representation $(x_n)$: no term equals twice the next term. For symmetric Cantor sets, uniqueness is equivalent to the semi-fast representation $E(\alpha_n; M_n)$ being irreducible, with $\alpha_n \neq (M_{n+1}+1)\alpha_{n+1}$ for all $n$, and satisfying $M_n \leq 2$ for all $n$. The paper also proves a sufficient condition under which certain Cantorval ranges are uniquely achievable, producing new examples beyond the previously known one.

What carries the argument

The central object is the achievement set $E(x_n) = \{\sum_{n\in A} x_n : A \subseteq \mathbb{N}\}$ of a summable non-increasing sequence; the range of the measure is exactly this set. The main diagnostic used for central Cantor sets is the center of distances $C(E)$, the set of all $\alpha \geq 0$ such that from every point of $E$ there is another point of $E$ at distance $\alpha$. A known theorem characterizes when $C(E)$ is minimal for central Cantor sets in terms of three local ratio patterns, and that characterization is what forces $x_n = 2x_{n+1}$ in the non-unique case. For symmetric Cantor sets the proof mechanism is gap geometry: the longest dominating gap — a gap longer than every gap to its left — is principal, and the proof aligns any alternative representation against the canonical one by matching translated copies of remainder achievement sets, called pseudointervals, until the first block of terms coincides; an induction over the sequence of dominating gaps then forces all terms to coincide.

What would settle it

A concrete check: take a symmetric Cantor set satisfying irreducibility and $M_n \leq 2$ (for example multiplicities $M=(2,1,1,\ldots)$ with $\alpha_p$ chosen so that no $\alpha_p$ equals $(M_{p+1}+1)\alpha_{p+1}$), list the $E$-gaps of order at most $n$ in increasing order, and look for a gap shorter than $\alpha_n-R_n$ that is either the last such gap or is followed by a gap of a different length. One such example would refute the unproved Observation and break the supplied proof of the direction of Theorem 5 asserting that irreducibility with multiplicities at most two forces uniqueness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a necessary-and-sufficient criterion. A central Cantor set with left endpoint $0$, in its unique fast-convergent representation $(x_n)$, is the range of exactly one purely atomic finite measure if and only if $x_n \neq 2x_{n+1}$ for every $n$. If some $x_n = 2x_{n+1}$, the paper constructs an explicit different sequence with the same achievement set: the pair $(x_n,x_{n+1})$ is replaced by three copies of $x_{n+1}$. The converse is proved by passing through the center of distances: any alternative representation either forces a term to be repeated, which by the repeated-value lemma puts a multiple of that term into the center of distances and thereby produces the doubling, or makes the center of distances non-minimal, which by the known characterization also produces $x_n = 2x_{n+1}$. For symmetric Cantor sets the criterion is that the semi-fast representation $E(\alpha_n; M_n)$ be irreducible, meaning $\alpha_n \neq (M_{n+1}+1)\alpha_{n+1}$ for every $n$, and that every multiplicity satisfy $M_n \leq 2$; the harder direction is proved by aligning pseudointervals from the longest dominating gap outward and inducting over all dominating gaps.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the unproved Observation in Lemma 6, which says that in the ordered list of gaps of order at most $n$ every gap shorter than $\alpha_n-R_n$ is immediately followed by a gap of length exactly $\alpha_n-R_n$; if that adjacency pattern fails, the pseudointerval-alignment proof of the uniqueness direction of Theorem 5 collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For central Cantor sets, uniqueness of the range is equivalent to the local test $x_n \neq 2x_{n+1}$ for every $n$; no other global condition is needed.
  • Every symmetric Cantor range failing the criterion is explicitly non-unique: reducible values admit a split-and-merge substitution, and any multiplicity at least $3$ admits a replacement representation.
  • Every uniquely achievable symmetric Cantor range has an irreducible semi-fast representation with no value occurring more than twice.
  • The sufficient condition of Theorem 8 yields uniquely achievable Cantorval ranges beyond the standard two-term Cantorval, including some sequences whose topological type is unknown.
  • In the Cantorval family generated by Theorem 9, the standard two-term Cantorval is the only uniquely achievable member; every other member contains a doubled term.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The results point to a local-ratio dichotomy for all achievement sets: non-uniqueness may always come from a regrouping of terms into a doubled, tripled, or reducible pattern. If so, the paper's Problem 12 would have an affirmative answer, but that is an extrapolation, not proved here.
  • The pseudointerval-matching argument in Lemma 6 is a rigidity mechanism that could transfer to other centrally symmetric or self-similar sets; a testable extension is to symmetric Cantor sets with non-uniform dissection ratios.
  • The unproved Observation about gap ordering is computationally checkable for the Cantorval families generated in the paper; a failure there would not necessarily refute Theorem 5 but would require a different proof.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies unique achievability of achievement sets of summable positive non-increasing sequences, interpreted as ranges of purely atomic finite measures. The main results are: Theorem 4 characterizes uniquely achievable central Cantor sets by the condition x_n ≠ 2x_{n+1} for all n; Theorem 5 characterizes uniquely achievable symmetric Cantor sets as precisely those with an irreducible semi-fast representation (α_n; M_n) and M_n ≤ 2 for all n; and Theorem 8 gives a sufficient condition for unique achievability of a class of Cantorvals, yielding new examples beyond the Guthrie–Nymann Cantorval. The proof of Theorem 4 uses the Banakiewicz theorem on centers of distances, while Theorem 5 relies on a detailed geometric analysis of pseudointervals and a long Lemma 6. The paper closes with remarks and open problems on unique achievability of Cantorvals.

Significance. If correct, Theorem 4 is a clean complete characterization for central Cantor sets, and Theorem 5 is a substantial extension to the broader class of symmetric Cantor sets. Theorem 8 is a short, checkable argument that produces the first new uniquely achievable Cantorvals beyond the Guthrie–Nymann example. The center-of-distances argument in Theorem 4 is elegant, and the statement of Theorem 8 is falsifiable and clearly illustrated by the multigeometric examples. The main risk is in the proof of Theorem 5, which depends on Lemma 6 and on an induction over dominating gaps; several steps in that proof are not currently fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Lemma 6, 'Observation'] The Observation as stated cannot be correct. With M := ∏_{i=1}^n M_i, the list (L_j)_{j=1}^M cannot enumerate all E(y_i)-gaps of order at most n: for the central Cantor case M_i ≡ 1 and n = 2, there are three gaps of order at most 2 (one of order 1 and two of order 2), while M = 1. In general the number of such gaps is ∏_{i=1}^n(M_i+1) − 1. Moreover, the Observation is asserted without proof. It is used in two decisive places in the proof of (10), namely the case d ≤ s−2 and the induction step for the pseudointervals W_t, to conclude that the next pseudointerval gap has length exactly α_n − R_n. Until the Observation is corrected and proved, the alignment argument that establishes (10) is unsupported.
  2. [Section 2, proof of Theorem 5 (⇐)] The proof begins with the assertion 'Since E has infinitely many gaps, it has infinitely many dominating gaps.' This contradicts the definition of a dominating gap given in Section 1 (all E-gaps lying to the left are shorter). In a compact set, the lengths of gaps tend to 0 near the right endpoint, so there are only finitely many record highs from the left; for example, the ternary Cantor set E(1/3^n), which satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 5, has a unique dominating gap under this definition. The induction over the sequence (n_i) therefore needs a different construction: presumably the indices should be chosen recursively as the longest dominating gap of each successive tail E∩[0,R_{n_i}]. This must be stated and proved before the induction is valid.
  3. [Section 2, proof of Lemma 6, Case 2] Several steps in Case 2 are deferred to 'an argument analogous to the proof of (10)' and 'in a manner analogous to the final part of the proof that (6) and (7) cannot hold simultaneously'. Since the proof of (10) itself is not yet established (see the comments on the Observation), and since the arguments rely on visual inspection of Figures 1–3, this part of the case analysis is not sufficiently self-contained. The authors should either give a complete proof of (10) and then spell out the analogous arguments for Case 2, or restructure the proof so that every alignment of pseudointervals is justified by an explicit combinatorial statement rather than by reference to figures.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and OCR artifacts, for example 'PUREL Y A TOMIC' in the title, 'Gł¸ ab' in the references, and 'j∈s+1,...,s,' in Case 2 of Lemma 6. These should be cleaned up before publication.
  2. [Section 2, proof of Lemma 6] In the proof of (10), the sentence 'If min ˜P2 ∈ [min P^(2)_1, max P^(2)_1], then max ˜P2 ∈ P^(2)_2' does not address the case where min ˜P2 lies in the gap (max P^(2)_1, min P^(2)_2); this intermediate case appears to be excluded only implicitly, and the exclusion should be justified.
  3. [Section 3, Proposition 10] The proof that K ≠ {2n} forces the existence of m with m, m+1 ∉ K and m+2 ∈ K is stated in one sentence and deserves a short justification, since the preceding dichotomy only rules out consecutive elements of K and three consecutive non-elements of K.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new uniqueness characterizations are proved from published external lemmas, explicit alternative representations, and independent gap-structure arguments, not from their own conclusions.

full rationale

Theorems 4, 5, and 8 do not reduce to their inputs. Theorem 4 is proved by combining Banakiewicz's published characterization of non-minimal centers of distances with an explicit multiplicity/sum argument for the minimal-center case; neither ingredient assumes the target uniqueness statement, and the conclusion x_{n-1}=2x_n in the minimal case follows from fast convergence plus Proposition 3 rather than from the statement being proved. The (⇐) direction of Theorem 5 is an induction whose engine, Lemma 6, is a geometric analysis of pseudointervals; while Lemma 6 relies on several same-circle citations (e.g., the Third Gap Lemma from [4]), those are published, parameter-free lemmas whose assumptions do not include unique achievability, so they count as genuine evidence rather than circular imports. The most serious concern in the manuscript is not circularity but an omitted proof: the unproved 'Observation' inside Lemma 6 (Section 2), which asserts a gap-alignment property for 'all E(y_i)-gaps of order at most n' and appears miscounted as written (M=∏M_i cannot be the number of such gaps even in the central case). That observation is load-bearing for the proof of (10), so if false or unproved it would endanger the 'if' direction of Theorem 5; however, it is asserted as a structural fact about the given semi-fast representation, not as a restatement of the theorem, so it does not make the derivation circular. Theorem 8 is self-contained: it identifies principal gaps of the given representation and matches them one-by-one to any alternative representation, with no fitted parameters or conclusions built into the assumptions. No self-definitional, fitted-input, or renaming pattern is present. Accordingly the circularity score is 0.

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

The central theorems rest on a network of published theorems about achievement sets, semi-fast sequences, and centers of distances, plus one internally stated but unproved observation about gap lengths inside Lemma 6. No free parameters are fitted to data.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Every central Cantor set with min 0 has a unique fast convergent representation (x_n).
    Used in Theorem 4 to identify the representing sequence; stated in Section 1 and attributed to standard achievement set theory.
  • domain assumption Banakiewicz Theorem: the center of distances of a central Cantor set E(x_n) is non-minimal iff one of conditions (i)-(iii) holds.
    External theorem [2] used in Theorem 4 to cover the non-minimal center case.
  • domain assumption Third Gap Lemma: every dominating gap is principal.
    Used in Lemmas 6 and Theorem 8 to identify gaps in alternate representations; cited from [4].
  • domain assumption Proposition 3: if x_p = x_{p+1} = ... = x_{p+2j-2}, then j x_p ∈ C(E(x_n)).
    Used in Theorem 4 minimal-center case; cited from [9].
  • domain assumption Every symmetric Cantor set with left endpoint 0 equals E(α_k; N_k) for a semi-fast convergent sequence.
    Fundamental correspondence used in Section 2; cited from [7].
  • ad hoc to paper The Observation in Lemma 6: among E(y_i)-gaps of order at most n in natural order, any gap shorter than α_n − R_n is not the last and the next gap has length exactly α_n − R_n.
    Stated without proof inside Lemma 6 and relied upon for the pseudointerval matching argument; this is the paper's own unproved load-bearing claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A characterization of uniqueness of purely atomic finite measures with central Cantor set range." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OYUE2FD3

@misc{pith2026260814395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A characterization of uniqueness of purely atomic finite measures with central Cantor set range},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OYUE2FD3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.14395}
}
read the original abstract

We study purely atomic measures whose range is a central Cantor set and characterize those central Cantor sets that are the range of exactly one such measure. Next, we extend the characterization to the case of symmetric Cantor sets using a different method of proof. Finally, we make a few initial observations and remarks on recovering a measure whose range is a Cantorval.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.14395 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pseudointervals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The gaps on the left of P (1) d and on the right of P (2) d−1 must have the same length as the gap between P (1) s and P (2) 1 which is equal to αp−1 − Rp−1. Similarly, E ⊃ xk−l−1 + xk−l + Ek(xi) = Fs j=1 P ˜˜ j , where the pseudointervals P ˜˜ j are given by P ˜˜ j := xk−l−1 + xk−l + ej + Em(yi). By an argument fully analogous to the proof of (10), we obtain P ˜˜ i = ( P (2) d+i−1 for i ∈ {1, . . . , s − d + 1}; P … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. If the gap G between P (1) d and P (1) d+1 has length equal to αn − Rn, then also P˜ 1 contains a gap of such a length which leads to a contradiction with the fact that (Rn, αn) is dominating. If G is shorter, than, by Observation, the gap H between P (1) d+1 and P (2) d+2 has length equal to αn − Rn. If the left endpoint of P˜ 2 lies in P ( d+11) (black, upper variant), then the right endpoint must lie in P (1) d+2… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gaps G and H must have the same length. Thus, in the case xk−l−1 > xk−l , we must have xk−l−1 ∈ (αp, αp + Rp). Then, by considering the two translations xkl−1 + Ek−l(xi) and xk−l−1 + xk−l + Ek−l(xi), we arrive at a contradiction with the irreducibility of (αi ; Mi)i∈N …

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. Maximal Center of Distances of Finite Ultrametric Spaces and Perfect Binary Trees

    math.GN 2026-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    MCD-spaces (maximal center of distances) are exactly those with perfect binary representing trees, and two such spaces are isometric if and only if they have the same center of distances.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Banakh, A

    T. Banakh, A. Bartoszewicz, M. Filipczak, E. Szymonik,Topological and measure properties of some self-similar sets, Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal.,46(2) (2015), 1013–1028

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Banakiewicz,The center of distances of central Cantor sets, Results Math.78(2023), art

    M. Banakiewicz,The center of distances of central Cantor sets, Results Math.78(2023), art. no. 234, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00025-023-02012-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00025-023-02012-3 2023

  3. [3]

    Banakiewicz, A

    M. Banakiewicz, A. Bartoszewicz, M. Filipczak, F. Prus-Wiśniowski,Center of distances and central Cantor sets, Results Math.77(2022), art. no. 196, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00025-022-01725-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s00025-022-01725-1 2022

  4. [4]

    Bartoszewicz, M

    A. Bartoszewicz, M. Filipczak, S. Gł¸ ab, F. Prus-Wiśniowski, J. Swaczyna,On generating regular Cantorvals connected with geometric Cantor sets, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals,114(2018), 468–473

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Bartoszewicz, M

    A. Bartoszewicz, M. Filipczak, G. Horbaczewska, S. Lindner, F. Prus-Wiśniowski,On the operator of center of distances between the spaces of closed subsets of the real line, Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal.63(2) (2024), 413–427

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Bartoszewicz, M

    A. Bartoszewicz, M. Filipczak, F. Prus-Wiśniowski,Topological and algebraic aspects of subsums of series, Tradi- tional and present-day topics in real analysis, 345–366, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science. University of Łódź, Łódź, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Bartoszewicz, M

    A. Bartoszewicz, M. Filipczak, F. Prus-Wiśniowski,Semi-fast convergent sequences andk-sums of central Cantor sets, Eur. J. Math.6(2020), 1523–1536

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Bartoszewicz, M

    A. Bartoszewicz, M. Filipczak, E. Szymonik,Multigeometric sequences and Cantorvals, Cent. Eur. J. Math.12(7) (2014), 1000–1007

    work page 2014

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Bartoszewicz, S

    A. Bartoszewicz, S. Gł¸ ab, J. Marchwicki,Recovering a purely atomic finite measure from its range, J. Math. Anal. Appl.467(2018), 825–841

    2018

  2. [10]

    Bielas, S

    W. Bielas, S. Plewik, M. Walczyńska,On the center of distances, Eur. J. Math.4(2018), 687–698

    2018

  3. [11]

    Dovgoshey, O

    O. Dovgoshey, O. Rovenska,Center of distances of ultrametric spaces generated by labeled trees, Mathematics 14(5) (2026), 865

    2026

  4. [12]

    Dovgoshey, O

    O. Dovgoshey, O. Rovenska,On the center of distances of finite ultrametric spaces, arXiv:2603.25850

  5. [13]

    Feng, D., Rao, H., Wu, J.,The net measure properties of symmetric Cantor sets and their applications, Progress in Natural Science7(2)(1997), 172–178

    1997

  6. [14]

    Gł¸ ab, M

    S. Gł¸ ab, M. Kula,Kenyon theorem revisited, arXiv:2508.19454

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gł¸ ab, J

    S. Gł¸ ab, J. Marchwicki,Set of uniqueness for Cantorvals, Results Math.78(2023), art. no. 9, DOI:10.1007/s00025-022-01777-3

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    S. Głąb, J. Marchwicki,On arithmetic sums of Cantor sets: P-sums vs. achievement sets, to appear in: Riv. Math. Univ. Parma

  9. [17]

    Guthrie, J.E

    J.A. Guthrie, J.E. Nymann,The topological structure of the set of subsums of an infinite series, Colloq. Math. 55(2) (1988), 323–327

    1988

  10. [18]

    S. Głąb, F. Prus-Wiśniowski,Achievement sets — current results and open problems, Real Anal. Exchange Advance Publication (2026), 1–25, DOI: 10.14321/realanalexch.1766383782

    2026 doi

  11. [19]

    Jones,Achievement sets of sequences, Am

    R. Jones,Achievement sets of sequences, Am. Math. Mon.118(6) (2011), 508–521

    2011

  12. [20]

    Kakeya,On the partial sums of an infinite series, Tôhoku Sc

    S. Kakeya,On the partial sums of an infinite series, Tôhoku Sc. Rep.3(1914), 159–164

    1914

  13. [21]

    Kakeya,On the set of partial sums of an infinite series, Proc

    S. Kakeya,On the set of partial sums of an infinite series, Proc. Tokyo Math.-Phys. Soc., 2nd series,7(1914), 250–251,https://doi.org/10.11429/ptmps1907.7.14_250

    1914 doi

  14. [22]

    et al.On the union of homogeneous symmetric Cantor set with its translations, Math

    Kong, D., Li, W., Wang, Z. et al.On the union of homogeneous symmetric Cantor set with its translations, Math. Z.307, (2024), art. no. 35

    2024

  15. [23]

    Kula,Center of distances and Bernstein sets, Real Anal

    M. Kula,Center of distances and Bernstein sets, Real Anal. Exchange50(1) (2025) 207–212, DOI: 10.14321/re- alanalexch.1739330962

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    M. Kula, P. Nowakowski,Achievement sets of series inR 2, Results Math.79(2024), art. no. 221, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00025-024-02239-8

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Exchange25(2) (1999/2000), 799–808

    Lu S.,The Hausdorff dimension and measure of some Cantor sets, Real Anal. Exchange25(2) (1999/2000), 799–808

    1999

  18. [26]

    Marchwicki, J

    J. Marchwicki, J. Miska,On Kakeya conditions for achievement sets, Results Math.76(2021), art. no. 181

    2021

  19. [27]

    Marchwicki, P

    J. Marchwicki, P. Nowakowski, F. Prus-Wiśniowski,Algebraic sums of achievable sets involving Cantorvals, arXiv:2309.01589

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Nitecki,Cantorvals and subsum sets of null sequences, Amer

    Z. Nitecki,Cantorvals and subsum sets of null sequences, Amer. Math. Monthly122(2015), 862–870

    2015

  21. [29]

    Nowakowski,On a new condition implying that an achievement set is a Cantorval and its applications, arXiv:2512.17761

    P. Nowakowski,On a new condition implying that an achievement set is a Cantorval and its applications, arXiv:2512.17761

  22. [30]

    Nowakowski, F

    P. Nowakowski, F. Prus-Wiśniowski,The Lebesgue measure of boundaries of multigeometric Cantorvals, arXiv:2510.21878

  23. [31]

    Nymann, R.A

    J.E. Nymann, R.A. Sáenz,On a paper of Guthrie and Nymann on subsums of infinite series, Colloq. Math.83 (2000), 1–4. 15

    2000

  24. [32]

    Pratsiovytyi, S

    M.V. Pratsiovytyi, S. Ratushniak,On the properties of a certain perturbed binary sequence(in Ukrainian), Bukovinian Math. J.13(2025), 109–117

    2025

  25. [33]

    Vinishin, V

    Y. Vinishin, V. Markitan, M. Pratsiovytyi, I. Savchenko,Positive series, whose sets of subsums are Cantorvals, Proc. International Geom. Center12(2) (2019), 26–42 (in Ukrainian)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Weinstein, B.E

    A.D. Weinstein, B.E. Shapiro,On the structure of a set ofα-representable numbers, Izv. Vysš. Učebn. Zaved. Matematika.24(1980), 8–11. F aculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Lodz, Banacha 22, 90-238 Łódź, Poland, ORCID: 0000-0002-3655-4991 Email address:pio...

    1980

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.