Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 25 references

$C_0$-Semigroups on d.m.o. linear relations

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 A family of closed maximal d.m.o. linear relations is a semigroup if and only if its operator parts form a classical operator semigroup, reducing relation semigroup theory to the classical case.

desk verdict Clean dictionary between a restricted class of relation semigroups and operator semigroups, but a definitional bug in 'densely d.m.o.' makes the main Hille–Yosida/Lumer–Phillips claims false as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19641 v1 pith:AFVNQKLG submitted 2026-07-22 math-ph math.MP

Luis D. Regalado-Hernández , Josué I. Rios-Cangas This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MP MSC 47A0647D0647D60
keywords linearrelationsdomain-multivaluedorthogonalC0-semigroupsinfinitesimalgeneratorsanti-accumulativeHille-YosidatheoremLumer-Phillipsmultivaluedoperators
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

Linear relations—multivalued linear operators—arise naturally in singular differential equations, boundary value problems, and adjoints of non-densely defined operators. This paper develops a semigroup theory for them by restricting to domain-multivalued orthogonal (d.m.o.) relations, whose domains are orthogonal to their multivalued parts. The central result is a reduction: a family of closed maximal d.m.o. relations with a common multivalued subspace K is a semigroup exactly when the operator parts form a semigroup of bounded operators on K^⊥. This reduction lets the authors translate the classical generation theorems: generators of uniformly continuous semigroups are maximal d.m.o.; generators of C0-semigroups are densely d.m.o. with a positive resolvent ray; and generators of C0-semigroups of contractions are precisely maximal anti-accumulative relations. The paper thus gives a complete characterization of relation semigroups, with the multivalued part appearing as a fixed vertical component.

What carries the argument

The central object is the d.m.o. relation and its canonical decomposition T = T_⊙ ⊕ T_∞ into an operator part (a closed linear operator on (mul T)^⊥) and a purely multivalued part T_∞ = {0}⊕mul T. For closed maximal d.m.o. relations, dom T = (mul T)^⊥, so T_⊙ is everywhere defined on that subspace and, by the closed graph theorem, bounded. Theorem 2.4 shows that products of such relations decompose in the same way, which is the mechanism: the semigroup law T_{t+s} = T_t T_s becomes the operator semigroup law T_{t+s}^⊙ = T_t^⊙ T_s^⊙, reducing the entire theory to classical bounded-operator semigroups.

What would settle it

Check the resolvent equality ||R_A(λ)|| = ||R_{A_⊙}(λ)|| for a concrete relation A = A_⊙ ⊕ K with K ≠ {0}; for example, take H = C^2, K = span{(0,1)}, and A_⊙ = [[0,1],[-1,0]] on the first coordinate, computing both norms at λ=1. If they differ—say by using a non-d.m.o. relation where mul A is not orthogonal to dom A—the reduction in Theorem 2.7 breaks, demonstrating that the d.m.o. condition is essential and that such a relation cannot be part of the semigroup theory developed here.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On a Hilbert space, a linear relation is a subspace of H⊕H; a relation is d.m.o. when its domain is orthogonal to its multivalued part. The paper proves that every semigroup {T_t} of closed maximal d.m.o. relations with common multivalued part K decomposes as T_t = T_t^⊙ ⊕ T_0∞, where {T_t^⊙} is a C0-semigroup (or uniformly continuous semigroup, as appropriate) of bounded operators on K^⊥. Consequently the infinitesimal generator of the relation semigroup is A = A_⊙ ⊕ T_0∞, the sum of the generator of the operator semigroup and the constant multivalued part. The main generation theorems state that a closed relation generates a uniformly continuous semigroup iff it is maximal d.m.o.; a strong

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Definition 5.1, which fixes the multivalued subspace K for all times and requires each relation to be closed and maximal d.m.o.; this is what makes the operator part everywhere defined and bounded, collapsing the semigroup theory to the classical bounded case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Hille-Yosida theorem holds verbatim for relations: a closed relation generates a C0-semigroup of relations with growth bound Me^{ωt} iff it is densely d.m.o., (ω,∞) ⊂ ρ(A), and ||R_A(λ)^n|| ≤ M/(λ−ω)^n for all n.
  • Lumer-Phillips for relations: a closed relation generates a C0-semigroup whose operator parts are contractions iff it is maximal anti-accumulative; this is a purely dissipative-geometric generator condition.
  • Unitary analogue of Stone's theorem: generators of C0-semigroups with unitary operator parts are exactly anti-selfadjoint relations; equivalently T_t = e^{itL} for a maximal dissipative or selfadjoint relation L, computed via Yosida approximation.
  • The generator of any d.m.o. relation semigroup is unique and has the form A_⊙ ⊕ T_0∞, so the multivalued part is a constant, inactive component that does not affect evolution on the domain.
  • The one-dimensional perturbation constructions show how to build explicit contractive and unitary relation semigroups from differential operators with boundary conditions, and classify all maximal anti-dissipative and anti-accumulative extensions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The constant-multivalued-subspace assumption is more than a convenience: it forces the operator parts to be bounded, so the whole theory lives on K^⊥. Relaxing it to a time-varying multivalued subspace would break the reduction, and the paper's examples suggest that such generality may be needed for systems with changing constraints.
  • Because generators are characterized geometrically as maximal anti-accumulative relations, the framework opens a path to perturbation and approximation results for relation semigroups, mirroring the operator case; the paper does not pursue these.
  • The one-dimensional perturbation construction—where a multivalued relation emerges only at the parameter value τ=∞—could be transferred to concrete quantum-mechanical models, suggesting a physical interpretation of the multivalued part as an ideal boundary or zero-capacity degree of freedom.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a theory of one-parameter semigroups for linear relations in Hilbert space, introducing the class of domain-multivalued orthogonal (d.m.o.) relations. It claims characterizations for generators of uniformly and strongly continuous semigroups: maximal d.m.o. relations generate uniformly continuous semigroups (Theorem 5.8), densely d.m.o. relations with Hille–Yosida resolvent bounds generate C0-semigroups (Theorem 5.12), and maximal anti-accumulative relations generate C0-semigroups with contractive operator part (Theorem 5.17), with unitary analogs (Corollary 5.18). The central reduction, Theorem 5.3, asserts that a family of closed maximal d.m.o. relations with common multivalued part is a semigroup iff its operator parts form a classical operator semigroup on the orthogonal complement of the multivalued part.

Significance. If the central theorems were correct, the d.m.o. framework would provide a clean reduction of semigroups of linear relations to classical operator semigroups on the orthogonal complement of the multivalued part, and the Lumer–Phillips analog (Theorem 5.17) would be a useful result. The paper uses standard tools from [5, 17, 19] and contains explicit statements of resolvent estimates and generator formulas. However, the current manuscript contains a definitional collapse (Section 2, Definition 2.3) and a false lemma (Lemma 2.2(i)) that directly affect the main theorems. The central claims are defensible in spirit, but the presentation is not acceptable as written and requires substantive repair.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Definition 2.3] The definitions of 'densely d.m.o.' and 'maximal d.m.o.' are identical as stated: both are given by domT=(mulT)^⊥. This conflation is not a typo: the proofs of Theorem 5.11(i) and Theorem 5.12 use the equality to conclude domA=domA⊙=(mulT0)^⊥, which would force the generator's operator part to be everywhere defined and hence bounded by the closed graph theorem. That contradicts Remark 5.10(ii), where A⊙ is correctly stated to be a closed densely defined, generally unbounded operator, and excludes standard examples such as the Schrödinger operator in §6.2. The intended notion for C0-generators is evidently density: 'densely d.m.o.' should mean domT is dense in (mulT)^⊥, while 'maximal d.m.o.' means equality. All subsequent statements and proofs involving this definition must be re-evaluated and corrected accordingly.
  2. [Lemma 2.2(i)] Lemma 2.2(i) is false as stated. The proof claims that from (h,k)∈TS and the hypothesis domT∩mulS={0} it follows that the intermediate vector f lies in the domain of S⊙. This is not valid: membership in S⊙ requires f⊥mulS, while domT∩mulS={0} only excludes f∈mulS; f may have a nonzero component in mulS. A concrete counterexample: in H=C^2 take S=span{(e2,e2),(0,e1)} and T=span{((e2+e1),e2)}. Then S is closed, domT∩mulS={0}, but (e2,e2)∈TS while (e2,e2)∉TS⊙. Since Lemma 2.2(i) is used in Theorem 2.4(ii) and hence in the proof of Theorem 5.3, the reduction to the operator part needs a corrected hypothesis (e.g., ranS∩domT⊂(mulS)^⊥) and a revised proof.
  3. [Theorem 5.12 and Corollaries 5.17–5.19] The proof of Theorem 5.12 contains the line 'domA=domA⊙=(mulT0)^⊥=(mulA)^⊥'. For a C0-semigroup whose generator has unbounded operator part, this equality is false; in fact domA⊙ is only dense in (mulT0)^⊥. Consequently the forward direction of the Hille–Yosida proof is invalid, and the theorem's statement 'A is densely d.m.o.' cannot be interpreted under the current Definition 2.3 without forcing A to be bounded. Since Theorem 5.17 and Corollaries 5.18–5.19 inherit this hypothesis through Theorem 5.12, the headline Lumer–Phillips and unitary characterizations are not acceptable as written. The statement may be salvageable by changing 'densely d.m.o.' to mean density and by using the resolvent bounds of the operator part, but the proofs must be rewritten.
  4. [Definition 5.1 and scope] Definition 5.1 restricts the semigroup to closed maximal d.m.o. relations with a common multivalued subspace K for all t. By Remark 5.2, this forces each Tt⊙ to be a bounded operator on K^⊥. Thus the theory covers semigroups whose elements are bounded-operator lifts with a fixed multivalued part, but not genuinely unbounded or time-varying multivalued dynamics. The paper does not compare this class with the m-dissipative relation semigroups of Arendt–Chalendar–Moletsane [1], where the multivalued part of the generator plays a more essential role. The claimed extension of the Hille–Yosida and Lumer–Phillips theorems should be framed as applying to this restricted class; as written, the scope is overstated.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Throughout §§3–5] The notation 'TT', 'LL', 'AA', 'SS', 'BB' is used inconsistently; it appears to denote the operator part (T⊙, L⊙, etc.) but is never defined. This makes statements such as Theorem 3.5 ('with LL a maximal dissipative operator') and Theorem 5.12 ('(ω,∞)⊂A A') difficult to parse. Please define and use a consistent notation for the operator part.
  2. [Proof of Theorem 5.3] Typo: 'if if there exists' should be 'if there exists'.
  3. [Corollary 5.4] Typo: 'a a semigroup' should be 'a semigroup'.
  4. [Equation (5.2)] The word 'exits' should be 'exists'.
  5. [Theorem 5.11 proof] The proof lists items (i), (ii), (iii), then repeats '(ii):' for the final item; it should be '(iv):'.
  6. [Theorem 4.5 proof] 'Lema 3.4' should be 'Lemma 3.4'.
  7. [Remark 5.10 and Theorem 5.12] The statement '(ω,∞)⊂A A' in the proof of Theorem 5.12 should almost certainly be '(ω,∞)⊂ρ(AA)' or '(ω,∞)⊂ρ(A⊙)'; the typo makes the argument hard to follow.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Definition-forced reduction: the semigroup class is defined so that every relation semigroup is a bounded-operator semigroup on K^⊥ plus a constant multivalued part, and the generator theorems largely unpack that definition; a second definitional conflation forces C0-generators to be bounded.

  1. self definitional [Definition 5.1, Remark 5.2, Theorem 5.8 (Section 5)]
    "Definition 5.1. A one parameter family of closed maximal d.m.o. linear relations {Tt}t≥0 is called semigroup if ... (i) mulTt=K ... (iii) Tt+s=TtTs. ... Remark 5.2. ... domTt = (mulTt)^⊥ = K^⊥. Thus, Tt⊙ is a closed operator with domain the whole space K^⊥; that is, Tt⊙∈B(K^⊥)."

    The object being classified is defined to be a family of closed maximal d.m.o. relations with a fixed multivalued part K. By Definition 2.3, maximal d.m.o. already means domT=(mulT)^⊥, so each Tt⊙ is a closed operator with full domain K^⊥ and hence bounded by the closed graph theorem. Thus a 'semigroup of relations' is, by construction, a constant multivalued part K lifted onto a bounded-operator semigroup on K^⊥. Theorem 5.8 then proves that a generator A is maximal d.m.o. exactly when domA=(mulA)^⊥, which is the same as saying A⊙∈B(K^⊥); the proof even writes domA=domA⊙=(mulT0)^⊥. The characterization is therefore an unpacking of Definition 5.1 rather than an independent derivation of a new generating condition.

  2. self definitional [Definition 2.3; Remark 5.10(ii); Theorem 5.12 proof]
    "we may say that T is densely d.m.o., if domT = (mulT)^⊥. Moreover, T is maximal d.m.o., if domT= (mulT)^⊥ ... domA= domA⊙ = (mulT0)^⊥ = (mulA)^⊥ ... A⊙ is a closed densely defined operator in (mulT0)^⊥."

    Definition 2.3 gives the same equality for 'densely d.m.o.' and 'maximal d.m.o.'. Inserting that equality into Theorem 5.12's proof makes domA⊙=(mulA)^⊥, so A⊙ is everywhere defined on K^⊥ and, being closed, is bounded. Under the printed definition every admitted 'C0' generator is actually a uniformly continuous generator, so Theorem 5.12 collapses into the bounded case of Theorem 5.8. The proof only works if 'densely d.m.o.' is silently given its usual meaning, domA⊙ dense in K^⊥, which is not the equality stated in Definition 2.3 and contradicts Remark 5.10(ii)'s assertion that A⊙ is generally unbounded. The claimed C0/Hille-Yosida characterization is thus forced by the definitional equality rather than derived for genuine unbounded generators.

full rationale

No fitted-input prediction and no self-citation chain are present. The self-citations [18,19,20] are prior published papers by the authors and are used as sources for extension-theoretic lemmas (e.g., Theorem 3.2 'adapted from [19, Thm. 3.1]', the von Neumann formulae in Theorem 4.9); these are external support, not a uniqueness premise smuggled in as a fact. The main body is a transparent translation of Pazy's operator semigroup theorems [17] to the d.m.o. class. That translation is legitimate mathematics but it is not an independent first-principles derivation; the central reduction is by construction of Definition 5.1 and Definition 2.3, so I score 4 rather than 0-2. I also flag a non-circular correctness issue: Lemma 2.2(i) appears false (its proof only establishes f∈ranS, not f∈(mulS)^⊥), and the equality in Definition 2.3/Theorem 5.12 contradicts Remark 5.10(ii); these should be corrected before the Hille-Yosida/Lumer-Phillips claims are accepted. Because the issue is definitional reduction rather than fitted data or a self-citation loop, the score is 4 rather than 6-8.

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

No free parameters are fitted; nothing physical is invented. The argument imports classical operator semigroup theorems and relation extension theory, and the only paper-specific input is the definitional choice of d.m.o. semigroups, which carries most of the conceptual weight.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Classical Hille-Yosida, Lumer-Phillips, and Stone theorems for C0-semigroups of operators on Hilbert spaces (Pazy [17], Weidmann [25]).
    Used essentially in Theorems 5.8, 5.12, 5.17, 5.18 and Corollary 5.19; no proof is given because these are imported.
  • standard math Closed graph theorem: a closed operator defined on the whole Hilbert space is bounded.
    Used to conclude that the operator part of a maximal d.m.o. relation is bounded and therefore that relation semigroups reduce to B(K^⊥)-valued operator semigroups.
  • domain assumption Extension theory and von Neumann formulae for dissipative/accumulative relations from [19] and [3], including the claim that maximal dissipative relations are densely d.m.o.
    Invoked in Theorem 3.5, Remark 3.8, Theorem 4.9, and Section 6; the paper relies on these results without re-deriving them.
  • ad hoc to paper Definition 5.1's notion of a semigroup of linear relations: closed maximal d.m.o. relations with a common multivalued subspace K.
    This is a restrictive modeling choice, not derived from prior work; it makes the theory a lift of bounded-operator semigroups and carries most of the conceptual weight.
  • domain assumption Resolvent and spectral equalities σ(T)=σ(T^⊙), ρ(T)=ρ(T^⊙) for closed d.m.o. relations, stated in Remark 2.5 and adapted from [19].
    Used to transfer resolvent bounds between a relation and its operator part, e.g., in Theorems 5.12 and 5.17.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $C_0$-Semigroups on d.m.o. linear relations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AFVNQKLG

@misc{pith2026260719641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $C_0$-Semigroups on d.m.o. linear relations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AFVNQKLG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19641}
}
abstract

This article develops a theory of one-parameter semigroups for linear relations, introducing the notion of domain-multivalued orthogonal (d.m.o.) relations. We establish complete characterizations for generators of uniformly and strongly continuous semigroups, showing them to be maximal and densely d.m.o. relations, respectively. Furthermore, the Hille-Yosida and Lumer-Phillips theorems are extended to this general setting, providing necessary and sufficient conditions for generating $C_0$-semigroups of contractions (identified as maximal anti-accumulative relations) and unitary operators (anti-selfadjoint relations). This rigorous framework sheds new light on the peculiarities of one-parameter semigroups for linear relations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arendt, I

    W. Arendt, I. Chalendar, and B. Moletsane,Semigroups generated by multivalued operators and domain convergence for parabolic problems, Integral Equations Operator Theory96(2024), no. 4, Paper No. 32,

    2024

  2. [2]

    Math.11(1961), 9–23

    Richard Arens,Operational calculus of linear relations, Pacific J. Math.11(1961), 9–23. MR 0123188 (23 #A517)

    1961

  3. [3]

    T. Ya. Azizov, A. Dijksma, and G. Wanjala,Compressions of maximal dissipative and self-adjoint linear relations and of dilations, Linear Algebra Appl.439(2013), no. 3, 771–792. MR 3057107

    2013

  4. [4]

    A. G. Baskakov,Linear relations as generators of semigroups of operators, Mat. Zametki84(2008), no. 2, 175–192. MR 2475046

    2008

  5. [5]

    108, Birkh¨ auser/Springer, Cham, [2020]©2020

    Jussi Behrndt, Seppo Hassi, and Henk de Snoo,Boundary value problems, Weyl functions, and differential operators, Monographs in Mathematics, vol. 108, Birkh¨ auser/Springer, Cham, [2020]©2020. MR 3971207

    2020

  6. [6]

    M. Sh. Birman and M. Z. Solomjak,Spectral theory of selfadjoint operators in Hilbert space, Mathematics and its Applications (Soviet Series), D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, 1987, Translated from the 1980 Russian original by S. Khrushch¨ ev and V. Peller. MR 1192782 (93g:47001)

    1987

  7. [7]

    Coddington,Extension theory of formally normal and symmetric subspaces, American Math- ematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1973, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, No

    Earl A. Coddington,Extension theory of formally normal and symmetric subspaces, American Math- ematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1973, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, No. 134. MR 0477855

    1973

  8. [8]

    213, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1998

    Ronald Cross,Multivalued linear operators, Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 213, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1998. MR 1631548

    1998

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Derkach, S

    V. Derkach, S. Hassi, M. Malamud, and H. de Snoo,Boundary relations and generalized resolvents of symmetric operators, Russ. J. Math. Phys.16(2009), no. 1, 17–60. MR 2486805 (2009m:47051)

    2009

  2. [10]

    V. A. Derkach and M. M. Malamud,The extension theory of Hermitian operators and the moment problem, J. Math. Sci.73(1995), no. 2, 141–242, Analysis. 3. MR 1318517

    1995

  3. [11]

    Dijksma and H

    A. Dijksma and H. S. V. de Snoo,Self-adjoint extensions of symmetric subspaces, Pacific J. Math.54 (1974), 71–100. MR 0361889 (50 #14331)

    1974

  4. [12]

    Nelson Dunford,On one parameter groups of linear transformations, Ann. of Math. (2)39(1938), no. 3, 569–573. MR 1503425

    1938

  5. [13]

    5, 781–805

    Angelo Favini and Marco Fuhrman,Approximation results for semigroups generated by multivalued linear operators and applications, Differential Integral Equations11(1998), no. 5, 781–805. MR 1666189

    1998

  6. [14]

    41(2021), no

    Christoph Fischbacher,Extensions of dissipative operators with closable imaginary part, Opuscula Math. 41(2021), no. 3, 381–393. MR 4302456

    2021

  7. [15]

    Matrix Anal

    Hannes Gernandt, Fr´ ed´ eric Enrico Haller, and Timo Reis,A linear relation approach to port-Hamiltonian differential-algebraic equations, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl.42(2021), no. 2, 1011–1044. MR 4275499 23

    2021

  8. [16]

    Seppo Hassi and Henk de Snoo,One-dimensional graph perturbations of selfadjoint relations, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math.22(1997), no. 1, 123–164. MR 1430397 (97m:47025)

    1997

  9. [17]

    Pazy,Semigroups of linear operators and applications to partial differential equations, Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol

    A. Pazy,Semigroups of linear operators and applications to partial differential equations, Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol. 44, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983. MR 710486

    1983

  10. [18]

    Josu´ e I. Rios-Cangas,Extensiones disipativas de relaciones sim´ etricas mediante tripletes fronterizos, P¨ adi Bolet´ ın Cient´ ıfico de Ciencias B´ asicas e Ingenier´ ıas del ICBI13(2025), no. Especial, 118–127, doi.org/10.29057/icbi.v13iEspecial.13520

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    Rios-Cangas and Luis O

    Josu´ e I. Rios-Cangas and Luis O. Silva,Dissipative extension theory for linear relations, Expo. Math.38 (2020), no. 1, 60–90. MR 4082306

    2020

  12. [20]

    ,Perturbation theory for selfadjoint relations, Ann. Funct. Anal.11(2020), no. 1, 154–170. MR 4091412

    2020

  13. [21]

    265, Springer, Dordrecht, 2012

    Konrad Schm¨ udgen,Unbounded self-adjoint operators on Hilbert space, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 265, Springer, Dordrecht, 2012. MR 2953553

    2012

  14. [22]

    M. H. Stone,On one-parameter unitary groups in Hilbert space, Ann. of Math. (2)33(1932), no. 3, 643–648. MR 1503079

    1932

  15. [23]

    von Neumann,¨ uber einen Satz von Herrn M

    J. von Neumann,¨ uber einen Satz von Herrn M. H. Stone, Ann. of Math. (2)33(1932), no. 3, 567–573. MR 1503076

    1932

  16. [24]

    John von Neumann,Functional Operators. II. The Geometry of Orthogonal Spaces, Annals of Mathematics Studies, no. 22, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1950. MR 0034514

    1950

  17. [25]

    68, Springer- Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1980, Translated from the German by Joseph Sz¨ ucs

    Joachim Weidmann,Linear operators in Hilbert spaces, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 68, Springer- Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1980, Translated from the German by Joseph Sz¨ ucs. MR 566954 Departamento de Matem´aticas, Universidad Aut´onoma Metropolitana, Iztapalapa Campus, S...

    1980

Pith tools

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