Heisenberg Uniqueness Pairs for a Hyperbola Branch: Supercritical Nonuniqueness for Shifted Lattice Crosses

Zhiqiang Wan

Heisenberg Uniqueness Pairs for a Hyperbola Branch: Supercritical Nonuniqueness for Shifted Lattice Crosses

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that on the positive hyperbola branch, every shifted lattice cross with q>1 fails to be a Heisenberg uniqueness pair, because every bounded-variation density on the middle interval extends to a global pre-annihilator.

desk verdict A solid, genuinely new proof of arbitrary-shift supercritical nonuniqueness for a hyperbola branch; the external-lemma worry is a non-issue and the paper merits refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17159 v1 pith:6HKR6AEH submitted 2026-07-19 math.CA math.APmath.DS

Zhiqiang Wan This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.CAmath.APmath.DS MSC 42B1037C3037A4647A1047A53

keywords Heisenberguniquenesspairshiftedlatticecrosshyperbolabranchpre-annihilatorPerron-FrobeniusoperatorLasota-YorkeinequalityKlein-GordonequationGreendomain

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 studies Heisenberg uniqueness pairs: a curve and a frequency set such that any measure on the curve whose Fourier transform vanishes on the set must be zero. For the positive branch of the hyperbola and a lattice cross (two perpendicular lattices of frequencies, each possibly shifted), the question is whether the pair is unique when the product of the two lattice densities q=αγ exceeds 1. The paper proves that for every q>1 and for arbitrary shifts of both arms, the answer is no: the pre-annihilator is infinite-dimensional, so the pair is never a Heisenberg uniqueness pair. In fact, every bounded-variation function on the middle interval (1,q) extends to a global pre-annihilator; the extension is unique unless both twist phases are trivial, in which case the ambiguity is exactly one dimension. The proof reduces the annihilation conditions to a spectral problem for a twisted Perron–Frobenius operator, yielding an exact L^1 normal form in terms of a maximal Green convergence domain.

What carries the argument

The central object is the twisted Perron–Frobenius operator Q_{q,ζ,η} = L_{ζ,q} L_{η,q} associated with the Gauss-type map T_q(x)={q/x}, together with the forcing operator A_{q,ζ,η}v = −S_ζ v + L_{ζ,q}(S_η J_q v). The annihilation conditions on the shifted lattice cross are equivalent to the graph equation (I−Q)F₀ = A v on L¹((0,1)); the middle datum v is free, and the tail is then determined by the weighted inversion/periodization map B_{η,q}. The proof makes Q quasi-compact on BV via a phase-uniform Lasota–Yorke inequality (essential spectral radius ≤ q^{−2}) and rules out all unit-circle eigenvalues except the trivial phase case by iterating a full-branch phase equation. This yields the e

What would settle it

Take a compactly supported G∈L¹(R₊) and compute the one-sided sum S(x)=Σ_{k≥0} G(x+k); if the Fourier integrals over all integer frequencies vanish but S is nonzero on a positive-measure set, the periodization lemma is false and the bridge breaks. Alternatively, for q=2 and trivial shifts, test the constant function v=1 on (1,2) numerically: if it does not admit a global BV pre-annihilator satisfying both periodization identities, Theorem 1.1(i) is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1.1: for q=αγ>1 and arbitrary real shifts θ₁,θ₂, the restriction map from the BV core A^{BV}_{q,ζ,η} to BV((1,q)) is surjective; the extension is unique unless both twisting phases ζ,η equal 1, in which case the extensions form a one-dimensional affine line. Consequently the normalized pre-annihilator is infinite-dimensional and the pair (Γ₊, Λ_{α,γ,θ₁,θ₂}) is not a Heisenberg uniqueness pair. At the L¹ level, the full pre-annihilator is characterized exactly by the graph equation (I−Q)F₀ = A v, parameterized by the maximal Green domain; outside a countable set of algebraic q>1, the Green partial sums have norm 2N for every N≥1.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing bridge is the corrected one-sided periodization lemma, imported from the literature without proof, that converts the two Fourier-vanishing families into almost-everywhere identities; if this lemma fails, the operator reduction and Theorem 1.1 collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every q>1 and arbitrary real shifts of both arms, the positive hyperbola branch and the shifted lattice cross do not form a Heisenberg uniqueness pair; the infinite-dimensionality clause of the open problem is settled.
Every BV datum on the middle interval (1,q) admits a global BV pre-annihilator; when at least one twist phase is nontrivial the extension is unique, and in the untwisted case the ambiguity is exactly a one-dimensional affine line.
The full L¹ pre-annihilator is described exactly by the maximal Green domain, and outside a countable set of algebraic q the normalized Green sums have norm 2N for every N.
The operator Q has the closed unit disk as its spectrum on L¹((0,1)) and Ran(I−Q) is a proper dense subspace, explaining why the BV inverse does not extend boundedly to all of L¹.
The special one-arm rational case (α=1, θ₁=2/p, θ₂=0) is infinite-dimensional for every integer p≥2 and γ>1, including the previously unresolved range 1<γ≤p.

Reading between the lines

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

The corrected one-sided periodization lemma is imported without proof; if that lemma were false at any level of generality, the operator reduction and the theorem would lose their foundation. A self-contained proof of the lemma would make the result more robust.
The norm identity for the Green sums indicates a natural divergence boundary: in generic supercritical cases the maximal Green domain is meagre, so the L¹ pre-annihilator is typically not all of L¹((1,q)).
The explicit zero-middle generator Ψ_q in the untwisted case (two unit-mass lobes for integer q) provides a concrete function that could seed constructions of boundary HUP pairs at q=1 or in neighboring settings.
The phase-uniform Lasota–Yorke estimate should transfer to other partially filling countable-branch maps with a single truncated edge branch, giving analogous arbitrary-shift nonuniqueness results for other curves.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Zhiqiang Wan's paper is the real thing: it removes the shift restrictions in the supercritical regime q>1 for the positive hyperbola branch and proves the infinite-dimensionality clause of Giri–Manna's open problem. The main theorem is the BV extension dichotomy: every BV middle datum extends, uniquely unless both phases are trivial, with an affine line in the untwisted case. That is a substantive advance over the unshifted and specially shifted cases in [4,7,9]. The proof chain—periodization to a twisted graph equation, Lasota–Yorke with uniform phases, Fredholm index, peripheral spectral rigidity, and the Green-domain normal form—is coherent and detailed. The extra material in Section 5 (closed unit disk spectrum, non-closed range, norm 2N of the partial sums outside a countable algebraic set) is a genuinely nice operator-theoretic payoff.

The reader's flagged concern about the imported one-sided periodization lemma [15, Lemma 2.1] does not land. The lemma is elementary in the form used here; the paper's Tonelli argument proves the needed absolute convergence, and the equivalence is just Fourier coefficients of the periodized function on (0,1). The other imported result, [4, Theorem C], is invoked after explicit verification of its hypotheses in Lemma 4.5. I found no circularity and no parameter fitting.

Soft spots are mostly expository. The paper is long and terse in places; Lemma 3.1's proof of finiteness of cylinder images is a bit quick, and Lemma 3.2's coefficient inequalities are asserted without proof. Neither is load-bearing. The maximal Green domain is characterized only operator-theoretically, not in a standard function space; the authors say so themselves. The critical case q=1 remains open, and they do not overclaim it. The citation pattern is appropriate: the zero-middle generator is attributed to prior work, and the new contribution is clearly separated.

This paper deserves a serious referee. I would send it out. Minor suggestions: make the paper self-contained for the periodization lemma (it is two lines), and expand the two short proofs above. The result is important for the HUP subfield and the proof looks sound.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies Heisenberg uniqueness pairs for the positive hyperbola branch and shifted lattice crosses in the supercritical regime q=αγ>1. Theorem 1.1 states that every BV function on (1,q) is the middle restriction of a global BV pre-annihilator; that this extension is unique when (ζ,η)≠(1,1) and has a one-dimensional ambiguity in the untwisted case; and that the normalized pre-annihilator is infinite-dimensional, so the pair is not a Heisenberg uniqueness pair. The proof reduces the shifted annihilation conditions to a graph equation for a twisted Perron–Frobenius operator, proves a phase-uniform Lasota–Yorke inequality, classifies the unit-circle point spectrum, and derives an exact operator-theoretic normal form for the entire L^1 pre-annihilator via the maximal Green domain. Section 5 contains additional spectral results, including closed-disk L^1 spectrum, nonclosed range of I−Q, and exact norm 2N for the Green partial sums outside a countable exceptional set.

Significance. The result settles the infinite-dimensionality clause of [9, Open Problem 1.4] for arbitrary shifts and all q>1, a substantial extension of [4,7,8,9]. The proof is detailed and internally coherent: the chain from periodization to graph equation, twisted Lasota–Yorke, Fredholm index, peripheral rigidity, and BV extension is carefully executed. Strengths include the phase-uniform variation estimate, the complete peripheral spectral classification, the explicit invariant density for integer q, and the exact norm computation for Green sums. The Section 5 normal form is an interesting bonus, though not required for Theorem 1.1.

minor comments (4)

[§5.2, Proposition 5.5] D is defined as the open unit disk, but (42) asserts σ(Q;X)=σ_{e,F}(Q;X)=D. A spectrum is closed; the proof actually establishes σ(Q)=σ_{e,F}=overline{D}. Please correct the notation and the inclusion chain near the end of the proof (D⊂σ_{e,F}⊂σ(Q)⊂overline{D}, not ⊂D).
[§5.2, Eq. (43)] The equality should read \overline{\mathrm{Ran}(I−Q)}=\ker\Pi (with the displayed spaces). As written, equality without the closure contradicts the immediately following statement that Ran(I−Q) is a proper dense subspace.
[§2.4, Lemma 2.3] The load-bearing equivalence with the one-sided periodization is imported from [15, Lemma 2.1]. The paper proves the required absolute convergence by Tonelli, so the application is sound, but including a short proof or explicit statement of the corrected lemma would improve self-containedness.
[§4, Corollary 4.8] The phrase 'the new range in Corollary 4.8 is 1<γ≤b' is slightly misleading because the corollary yields nonuniqueness for all γ>1; the novelty is indeed the range up to b, but the sentence could be phrased more precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the derivation chain is self-contained apart from standard external lemmas that are not load-bearing in a circular sense.

full rationale

I walked the full derivation chain: the periodization reduction (Lemma 2.3), the graph equation (13), the twisted Lasota–Yorke estimate (Theorem 3.3), the peripheral spectral rigidity (Proposition 4.6), the BV extension theorem (Proposition 4.7), and the L1 normal form (Theorem 5.3 / Corollary 5.4). No step reduces to its own input by construction. The geometric/phase parameters q, ζ, η are fixed inputs, not fit parameters; the invariant density ρ_q is constructed from the dynamics and is not tuned to force the conclusion. The only imported results are [15, Lemma 2.1] (one-sided periodization) and [4, Theorem C] (existence of an invariant density for the untwisted Perron–Frobenius operator). Both are external, not authored by the present paper, and neither contains the arbitrary-shift conclusion. Moreover, the paper itself checks the hypotheses of [4, Theorem C] explicitly in Lemma 4.5 and supplies a Tonelli argument for the absolute convergence needed for [15, Lemma 2.1]. The paper also candidly states what remains open (intrinsic description of the maximal Green domain, the critical case q = 1), so there is no overclaim that would signal a hidden circular reduction. No self-citation chain is used; the single-author paper cites prior work by others, not itself. I therefore find no significant circularity.

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

No fitted free parameters or invented physical entities are used. The central claim rests on external harmonic-analysis and transfer-operator theorems rather than on adjustable constants; q, ζ, η are parameters of the problem, and the Green domain is a mathematical construction, not an extra physical ingredient.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Corrected one-sided periodization lemma [15, Lemma 2.1]
Invoked in Lemma 2.3 to convert the integer Fourier families (2)-(3) into the a.e. identities (7); if false, the graph equation (13) and Theorem 1.1 fail.
domain assumption [4, Theorem C] spectral theorem for the unshifted positive-branch Perron–Frobenius operator
Used in Lemma 4.5 to obtain the invariant density ρ_q with positive essential infimum and peripheral spectrum {1}; the paper checks its hypotheses but does not reprove it.
standard math Hennion's compactness criterion [20] and the Lasota–Yorke/Rychlik BV framework [23,27]
Convert the variation contraction into essential spectral-radius bounds and quasi-compactness in Theorems 3.3 and 5.1.
standard math Affine and scaling invariances of Heisenberg uniqueness pairs [16, (inv-1)-(inv-2)]
Used to normalize the first spacing to 2 and to encode the shifts as phase parameters ζ and η.
domain assumption Supercritical regime q>1 and measure class: finite complex measures on Γ+ absolutely continuous with respect to arc length are identified with L1(R+)
This is the problem setting: the three-piece decomposition F=F0+v+F∞ and the BV core all live in this regime; q=1 is explicitly excluded.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heisenberg Uniqueness Pairs for a Hyperbola Branch: Supercritical Nonuniqueness for Shifted Lattice Crosses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HKR6AEH

@misc{pith2026260717159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heisenberg Uniqueness Pairs for a Hyperbola Branch: Supercritical Nonuniqueness for Shifted Lattice Crosses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HKR6AEH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17159}
}

abstract

We study Heisenberg uniqueness for the positive hyperbola branch and shifted lattice crosses in the supercritical regime $q=\alpha\gamma>1$. We resolve the infinite-dimensionality clause of the arbitrary-shift problem posed by Giri and Manna: for arbitrary shifts on both arms, the normalized pre-annihilator is infinite-dimensional. More precisely, every $v\in BV((1,q))$ has a global $BV$ pre-annihilating extension; the extension is unique unless both twisting phases are trivial, in which case its ambiguity is one-dimensional. The proof reduces the annihilation conditions to a graph equation for a twisted Perron--Frobenius operator and combines a phase-uniform Lasota--Yorke estimate with peripheral spectral rigidity. We also give an exact operator-theoretic normal form for the entire $L^1$ pre-annihilator in terms of the maximal convergence domain of the associated Green series. Writing $Q$ for the twisted product and $A$ for the forcing operator, we show that $Q$ has the closed unit disk as its spectrum on $L^1((0,1))$, that $\Ran(I-Q)$ is not closed, and that, outside a countable set of algebraic values of $q>1$, the operator $\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}Q^jA:L^1((1,q))\to L^1((0,1))$ has norm $2N$ for every $N\ge1$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Bagchi,Heisenberg uniqueness pairs corresponding to a finite number of parallel lines, Adv

S. Bagchi,Heisenberg uniqueness pairs corresponding to a finite number of parallel lines, Adv. Math.325(2018), 814–823. doi:10.1016/j.aim.2017.12.012

work page doi:10.1016/j.aim.2017.12.012 2018
[2]

Bakan, H

A. Bakan, H. Hedenmalm, A. Montes–Rodríguez, D. Radchenko and M. Viazovska,Fourier uniqueness in even dimensions, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA118(2021), no. 15, Art. e2023227118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2023227118

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2023227118 2021
[3]

Blasi Babot,Heisenberg uniqueness pairs in the plane: three parallel lines, Proc

D. Blasi Babot,Heisenberg uniqueness pairs in the plane: three parallel lines, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.141(2013), no. 11, 3899–3904. doi:10.1090/S0002-9939-2013-11678-3

work page doi:10.1090/s0002-9939-2013-11678-3 2013
[4]

Canto-Martín, H

F. Canto-Martín, H. Hedenmalm and A. Montes–Rodríguez,Perron–Frobenius operators and the Klein–Gordon equation, J. Eur. Math. Soc.16(2014), no. 1, 31–66. doi:10.4171/JEMS/427

work page doi:10.4171/jems/427 2014
[5]

Ding,A closed range theorem for the Frobenius–Perron operator and its application to the spectral analysis, J

J. Ding,A closed range theorem for the Frobenius–Perron operator and its application to the spectral analysis, J. Math. Anal. Appl.184(1994), no. 1, 156–167. doi:10.1006/jmaa.1994.1191

arXiv 1994
[6]

J. Ding, Q. Du and T. Y. Li,The spectral analysis of Frobenius–Perron operators, J. Math. Anal. Appl.184(1994), no. 2, 285–301. doi:10.1006/jmaa.1994.1200

arXiv 1994
[7]

D. K. Giri,Fourier nonuniqueness sets for the hyperbola and the Perron–Frobenius operators, arXiv:2009.09516v1 (2020). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2009.09516

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.09516 2009
[8]

Giri and R

D. Giri and R. Manna,Revisit on Heisenberg uniqueness pair for the hyperbola, Math. Z.306(2024), no. 3, Art. 39. doi:10.1007/s00209-024-03443-6

work page doi:10.1007/s00209-024-03443-6 2024

Show all 28 references

[9]

Giri and R

D. Giri and R. Manna,On the Heisenberg uniqueness pairs for a branch of the hyperbola, J. Math. Anal. Appl.561(2026), no. 1, Art. 130618. doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2026.130618. 30 ZHIQIANG WAN

2026
[10]

Giri and R

D. Giri and R. Rawat,Heisenberg uniqueness pairs for the hyperbola, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.53(2021), no. 1, 16–25. doi:10.1112/blms.12391

2021 doi
[11]

Giri and R

D. Giri and R. Rawat,Corrigendum: Heisenberg uniqueness pairs for the hyperbola, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.54(2022), no. 5, 2041–2043. doi:10.1112/blms.12730

2022 doi
[12]

Giri and R

D. Giri and R. K. Srivastava,Heisenberg uniqueness pairs for some algebraic curves in the plane, Adv. Math.310(2017), 993–1016. doi:10.1016/j.aim.2017.02.019

2017 doi
[13]

F.GonçalvesandJ.P.G.Ramos,AnoteondiscreteHeisenberguniquenesspairsfortheparabola,Bull.Sci.Math.174(2022), Art. 103095. doi:10.1016/j.bulsci.2021.103095

2022
[14]

Gröchenig and P

K. Gröchenig and P. Jaming,The Cramér–Wold theorem on quadratic surfaces and Heisenberg uniqueness pairs, J. Inst. Math. Jussieu19(2020), no. 1, 117–135. doi:10.1017/S1474748017000457

2020 doi
[15]

Hedenmalm,Corrigendum to The Klein–Gordon equation, the Hilbert transform, and dynamics of Gauss-type maps, J

H. Hedenmalm,Corrigendum to The Klein–Gordon equation, the Hilbert transform, and dynamics of Gauss-type maps, J. Eur. Math. Soc.28(2026), no. 1, 455–457. doi:10.4171/JEMS/1689

2026 doi
[16]

Hedenmalm and A

H. Hedenmalm and A. Montes–Rodríguez,Heisenberg uniqueness pairs and the Klein–Gordon equation, Ann. of Math. (2) 173(2011), no. 3, 1507–1527. doi:10.4007/annals.2011.173.3.6

2011 doi
[17]

Hedenmalm and A

H. Hedenmalm and A. Montes–Rodríguez,The Klein–Gordon equation, the Hilbert transform, and dynamics of Gauss-type maps, J. Eur. Math. Soc.22(2020), no. 6, 1703–1757. doi:10.4171/JEMS/954

2020 doi
[18]

Hedenmalm and A

H. Hedenmalm and A. Montes–Rodríguez,The Klein–Gordon equation, the Hilbert transform, and Gauss-type maps:𝐻∞ approximation, J. Anal. Math.144(2021), no. 1, 119–190. doi:10.1007/s11854-021-0173-4

2021 doi
[19]

Hedenmalm and A

H. Hedenmalm and A. Montes–Rodríguez,Hyperbolic Fourier series and the Klein–Gordon equation, arXiv:2401.06871v3 (2026). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2401.06871

2026 doi arXiv
[20]

Hennion,Sur un théorème spectral et son application aux noyaux lipchitziens, Proc

H. Hennion,Sur un théorème spectral et son application aux noyaux lipchitziens, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.118(1993), no. 2, 627–634. doi:10.1090/S0002-9939-1993-1129880-8

1993 doi
[21]

Jaming and K

P. Jaming and K. Kellay,A dynamical system approach to Heisenberg uniqueness pairs, J. Anal. Math.134(2018), no. 1, 273–301. doi:10.1007/s11854-018-0010-6

2018 doi
[22]

Kulikov, F

A. Kulikov, F. Nazarov and M. Sodin,Fourier uniqueness and non-uniqueness pairs, J. Math. Phys. Anal. Geom.21(2025), no. 1, 84–130. doi:10.15407/mag21.01.04

2025 doi
[23]

Lasota and J

A. Lasota and J. A. Yorke,On the existence of invariant measures for piecewise monotonic transformations, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.186(1973), 481–488. doi:10.1090/S0002-9947-1973-0335758-1

1973 doi
[24]

Radchenko and J

D. Radchenko and J. P. G. Ramos,Perturbed lattice crosses and Heisenberg uniqueness pairs, arXiv:2410.04557v1 (2024). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.04557

2024 doi arXiv
[25]

Radchenko and M

D. Radchenko and M. Viazovska,Fourier interpolation on the real line, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci.129(2019), 51–81. doi:10.1007/s10240-018-0101-z

2019 doi
[26]

J. P. G. Ramos and M. Sousa,Fourier uniqueness pairs of powers of integers, J. Eur. Math. Soc.24(2022), no. 12, 4327–4351. doi:10.4171/JEMS/1194

2022 doi
[27]

Rychlik,Bounded variation and invariant measures, Studia Math.76(1983), no

M. Rychlik,Bounded variation and invariant measures, Studia Math.76(1983), no. 1, 69–80. doi:10.4064/sm-76-1-69-80

1983 doi
[28]

School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, No

P.Sjölin,Heisenberguniquenesspairsfortheparabola,J.FourierAnal.Appl.19(2013),no.2,410–416.doi:10.1007/s00041- 013-9258-5. School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, No. 96 Jinzhai Road, Baohe District, Hefei, Anhui Province, China Email add...

2013 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bagchi,Heisenberg uniqueness pairs corresponding to a finite number of parallel lines, Adv

S. Bagchi,Heisenberg uniqueness pairs corresponding to a finite number of parallel lines, Adv. Math.325(2018), 814–823. doi:10.1016/j.aim.2017.12.012

work page doi:10.1016/j.aim.2017.12.012 2018

[2] [2]

Bakan, H

A. Bakan, H. Hedenmalm, A. Montes–Rodríguez, D. Radchenko and M. Viazovska,Fourier uniqueness in even dimensions, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA118(2021), no. 15, Art. e2023227118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2023227118

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2023227118 2021

[3] [3]

Blasi Babot,Heisenberg uniqueness pairs in the plane: three parallel lines, Proc

D. Blasi Babot,Heisenberg uniqueness pairs in the plane: three parallel lines, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.141(2013), no. 11, 3899–3904. doi:10.1090/S0002-9939-2013-11678-3

work page doi:10.1090/s0002-9939-2013-11678-3 2013

[4] [4]

Canto-Martín, H

F. Canto-Martín, H. Hedenmalm and A. Montes–Rodríguez,Perron–Frobenius operators and the Klein–Gordon equation, J. Eur. Math. Soc.16(2014), no. 1, 31–66. doi:10.4171/JEMS/427

work page doi:10.4171/jems/427 2014

[5] [5]

Ding,A closed range theorem for the Frobenius–Perron operator and its application to the spectral analysis, J

J. Ding,A closed range theorem for the Frobenius–Perron operator and its application to the spectral analysis, J. Math. Anal. Appl.184(1994), no. 1, 156–167. doi:10.1006/jmaa.1994.1191

arXiv 1994

[6] [6]

J. Ding, Q. Du and T. Y. Li,The spectral analysis of Frobenius–Perron operators, J. Math. Anal. Appl.184(1994), no. 2, 285–301. doi:10.1006/jmaa.1994.1200

arXiv 1994

[7] [7]

D. K. Giri,Fourier nonuniqueness sets for the hyperbola and the Perron–Frobenius operators, arXiv:2009.09516v1 (2020). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2009.09516

work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.09516 2009

[8] [8]

Giri and R

D. Giri and R. Manna,Revisit on Heisenberg uniqueness pair for the hyperbola, Math. Z.306(2024), no. 3, Art. 39. doi:10.1007/s00209-024-03443-6

work page doi:10.1007/s00209-024-03443-6 2024