Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

For Sturm-Liouville problems whose boundary condition depends linearly on the eigenparameter, minimality of the root-function system after deleting one or two functions is decided by simple ratios of derivatives of the characteristic functi

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

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

Minimality of root-function systems after removing one function is characterized by inequalities such as C ≠ -ω'''/(3ω'') and D ≠ C^2 + ... in terms of derivatives of the characteristic function.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection A competent reformulation paper whose derivative-based minimality criteria are useful and check out, but whose 'only if' direction leans on an unstated theorem from the authors' own [5] and needs to be made explicit before the claims are fully verifiable. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.21965 v4 pith:HOTSZG7W submitted 2026-06-20 math.CA math.SP

Minimality of the root functions of Sturm-Liouville problems with a boundary condition depending linearly on an eigenparameter

Yagub N. Aliyev , Narmin N. Aliyeva This is my paper
classification math.CA math.SP MSC 34B2434L10
keywords Sturm-Liouville problemeigenparameter-dependent boundary conditionscharacteristic functionroot functionsassociated functionsbiorthogonal systemminimalitymultiple eigenvalues
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

This paper studies Sturm–Liouville problems where the spectral parameter appears linearly in one boundary condition. It shows that the delicate question of whether the root-function system stays minimal in L^2 after deleting one or two functions reduces to evaluating the characteristic function and its derivatives at the multiple eigenvalue. For a double eigenvalue, deleting the eigenfunction gives a non-minimal system exactly when a constant in the associated function equals -ω'''/(3ω''); for a triple eigenvalue, analogous explicit ratios involving fourth and fifth derivatives decide the two deletion cases. This turns an abstract minimality problem into a routine calculation, and the paper verifies the criteria on two worked examples.

Core claim

The central claim is that minimality of the root-function system with one or two functions removed can be read directly off the characteristic function. In case (ii), where there is exactly one double eigenvalue λ_k, the system {y_n : n≠k} is minimal iff C ≠ -ω'''(λ_k)/(3ω''(λ_k)). In case (iii), where there is exactly one triple eigenvalue, {y_n : n≠k+1} is minimal iff C ≠ -ω^IV(λ_k)/(4ω'''(λ_k)), and {y_n : n≠k} is minimal iff D ≠ C^2 + (ω^IV/(4ω'''))(C + ω^IV/(4ω''')) - ω^V/(20ω'''). The sufficiency direction is constructive: explicit biorthogonal systems in terms of ω and the boundary functionals A(·) are written down whenever the relevant denominator is nonzero. The necessity direction

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the characteristic function ω(λ) of the boundary value problem, together with boundary functionals A(·) defined by dividing boundary values by the denominator factors cλ+d or aλ+b. Derivatives of ω up to fifth order at the multiple eigenvalue, divided by the first nonvanishing derivative, produce exact thresholds for the free constants in the associated functions. The biorthogonal systems are given in closed form as linear combinations of root functions with normalizations A(y_n)ω'(λ_n), and the special associated functions y*_{k+1}, y#_{k+1}, y#_{k+2} are chosen so that their A(·) functional vanishes exactly at the non-minimality threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The necessity ('only if') direction of the three theorems assumes that when the specially selected associated function has zero boundary functional A(·)=0, the deleted system is automatically non-minimal—a conclusion drawn from a basis criterion the authors proved earlier for this class of problems; if that criterion does not apply here, the necessity claims collapse.

What would settle it

In a concrete problem with a double eigenvalue λ_k, set the free constant C in the first associated function to exactly -ω'''(λ_k)/(3ω''(λ_k)) and test whether {y_n : n≠k} is minimal; if it is minimal, or if the vector y*_{k+1} is not orthogonal to the closed span of the remaining root functions, the theorem's necessity direction is refuted.

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

If this is right

  • For any concrete Sturm–Liouville problem in cases (ii) or (iii), checking minimality after deleting one or two root functions now requires only computing a few derivatives of the characteristic function at the multiple eigenvalue.
  • The explicit biorthogonal formulas provide a ready-made dual system whenever the non-minimality thresholds are avoided.
  • The exceptional non-minimal cases are characterized by one or two scalar equalities, confirming that they are rare in the parameter space of boundary conditions.
  • The two worked examples reproduce the results previously obtained by the authors through special associated functions, showing that the reformulation preserves the original spectral conclusions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same derivative-ratio structure likely extends to higher-multiplicity eigenvalues for boundary conditions depending polynomially on λ, with minimality thresholds governed by successive derivatives of ω in a predictable pattern.
  • Beyond the paper: because the non-minimality conditions depend explicitly on the free constants C and D, reparametrizing the Jordan chain shifts the thresholds; the derivative formulation makes this gauge dependence transparent and could guide choices of normalization in applications.
  • Beyond the paper: one could test the necessity direction independently by verifying that at the threshold values the constructed vectors y*_{k+1}, y#_{k+1}, or y#_{k+2} are orthogonal to the closed span of the remaining root functions; exhibiting such orthogonality is a concrete, checkable consequence.
  • Beyond the paper: computer-algebra routines for eigenvalue problems could automate the symbolic evaluation of ω and its derivatives, turning the minimality check into a routine algebraic test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Sturm–Liouville problem (1.1)–(1.3) in which the spectral parameter appears linearly in one boundary condition. For the four eigenvalue configurations described in §1, the authors derive explicit representations, in terms of the characteristic function ω and its derivatives at the eigenvalue λ_k, for the biorthogonal systems of the root-function systems with one element omitted. The main results, Theorems 6.1–6.3, give necessary and sufficient conditions for minimality of the systems (6.12), (6.23), and (6.28) in the double- and triple-eigenvalue cases, expressed as inequalities on the arbitrary constants C and D in the associated functions. The paper closes with two worked examples illustrating the derivative criterion.

Significance. The paper's contribution is a practical reformulation of minimality criteria: instead of constructing the special associated functions y*_{k+1}, y#_{k+1}, y#_{k+2}, one evaluates ω and its derivatives at the multiple eigenvalue. The biorthogonal formulas in §6 are explicit, and the algebraic identities in Lemmas 2.1–5.3 are presented in enough detail that the sufficiency of the conditions can be spot-checked. The two examples show the method reproduces known thresholds, apart from typographical errors. If the necessity ('only if') directions were fully proved, this would be a genuinely useful tool for concrete boundary value problems. The main weakness is that the necessity halves of the central theorems are not self-contained: they rely on a Bari-type criterion imported from the authors' earlier paper [5], which is neither stated nor verified for the specific index-removal configurations. The paper would be a solid contribution if that gap is closed.

major comments (2)
  1. [§6.2, proof of Theorem 6.1; §6.3, Theorems 6.2–6.3] The 'only if' direction of Theorems 6.1–6.3 is not proved in the manuscript. In the proof of Theorem 6.1, after showing that A(y*_{k+1})=0 makes y*_{k+1} orthogonal to every element of (6.12), the authors write that (6.12) is not minimal because otherwise 'as in [5]' minimality plus quadratic closeness via (1.4) would make it a basis, contradicting non-completeness. This inference requires a Bari-type theorem that is not stated, and whose hypotheses (in particular, quadratic closeness of these root-function systems with one vector removed to an orthonormal basis) are not verified in the paper. Orthogonality of a vector to the closed span proves only non-completeness; non-minimality does not follow from it alone. The proofs of Theorem 6.2 and 6.3 repeat or abbreviate the same step, and in Theorem 6.3 the 'only if' is a bare assertion. Since these are the central claims of the paper, the n
  2. [§6.3, proof of Theorem 6.3] The proof of Theorem 6.3 is incomplete even relative to the argument used in Theorem 6.1. The concluding paragraph says, with no orthogonality computation and no appeal to a named theorem: 'If A(y#_{k+2})=0, then the system (6.28) is not minimal in L^2(0,1).' No reason is given: the proof does not show that y#_{k+2} is orthogonal to all elements of (6.28), nor does it invoke the Bari-type criterion. The 'only if' half of Theorem 6.3 is therefore missing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorems 6.1–6.3 statements] The constants C and D are not defined in the theorem statements. The reader must infer from §§3–4 that y_{k+1} = \tilde y_{k+1} + C y_k and y_{k+2} = \tilde y_{k+2} + C \tilde y_{k+1} + D y_k. Please state this explicitly when the theorems are formulated.
  2. [§6.2] After (6.9), 'For system (6.9) the biorthogonal system...' appears to be a mis-reference; it should presumably be 'For system (6.7)'. The formula numbers in this paragraph are confusing.
  3. [Lemma 4.1 proof] In the last sentence of the proof, the second case in the λ_k = -d/c scenario should read 'If λ_n = -b/a', not 'If λ_n ≠ -b/a'.
  4. [§§6.2–6.3] The word 'biortogonal' appears twice; it should be 'biorthogonal'.
  5. [§7, Example 2] The stated value ω^IV(0) = -1/1485 is inconsistent with the expansion ω(λ) = -12/35 λ^3 + 23/945 λ^4 - 1/1485 λ^5 + O(λ^6); the correct value is 184/315. The threshold 23/324 used in the same paragraph corresponds to the correct value, so the text is internally inconsistent. Also, the D-threshold contains '23/3244', which should be '23/324'.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged

Central minimality iff theorems are explicit restatements of the authors' own preprint [6]; their 'only if' directions rely on an unstated criterion from [5], so the main necessity claims reduce to self-citation rather than to a derivation.

specific steps
  1. renaming known result [Section 6.2, before Theorem 6.1]
    "The following theorem gives an explicit form for the necessary and sufficient condition in [6]."

    Theorems 6.1-6.3 are announced as the 'explicit form' of a result from the authors' own preprint [6]; the abstract similarly says previously established criteria are 'reformulated' in terms of omega and its derivatives. The new inequalities such as C != -omega'''/(3omega'') are algebraic rewrites of the A(y*) != 0 / A(y#) != 0 conditions taken from [6]. Thus the central iff statements are equivalent by construction to the self-cited prior result, not independently derived.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 6.2, proof of Theorem 6.1]
    "Also, (6.12) is not a minimal system in space L2(0,1), because otherwise as in [5] we could use its minimality, combine with the quadratic closeness through asymptotic formula (1.4), and prove that (6.12) is a basis in space L2(0,1), which contradicts with the above fact that (6.12) is not a minimal system in space L2(0,1)."

    This sentence is the only argument for the 'only if' direction of Theorem 6.1. The non-minimality conclusion is not derived from the current paper's lemmas; it is delegated to the authors' own earlier work [5]. The [5] criterion is neither stated nor proved here, and its hypotheses are not checked for the index-deleted system (6.12). Thus the necessity claim rests on a load-bearing self-citation.

  3. self citation load bearing [Section 6.3, proof of Theorem 6.2]
    "If A(y# k+1)=0, then y# k+1(x) is orthogonal to all the functions in (6.23). Therefore, (6.23) is neither complete nor minimal in L2(0,1)."

    The 'only if' direction of Theorem 6.2 is a bare assertion of non-minimality. No proof is supplied in the paper; the only available support is the same 'as in [5]' argument used in Theorem 6.1, which is omitted here. Hence the theorem's necessity claim is imported from the authors' prior work rather than derived from the new omega-calculus.

  4. self citation load bearing [Section 6.3, proof of Theorem 6.3]
    "If A(y# k+2)=0, then the system (6.28) is not minimal in L2(0,1)."

    The necessity conclusion is stated with no justification at all in this proof. Since the surrounding text advertises the theorem as an explicit form of the condition in [6], the non-minimality claim is exactly the prior self-authored result being rewritten; the current paper supplies no independent argument for it.

full rationale

The paper's genuinely self-contained part is the algebraic derivation in Lemmas 2.1-5.3 and the displayed biorthogonal systems (6.3)-(6.39): those formulas are checked directly from the characteristic function, and they genuinely support the sufficiency direction of the minimality criteria. The examples likewise recompute omega derivatives and compare the outcome with [6]. However, the central iff statements themselves are not independently established. The opening of Section 6 says the minimality facts were proved in [6] and that the theorems give 'an explicit form for the necessary and sufficient condition in [6]'; the abstract says previously established criteria are 'reformulated'. Consequently the criteria C != -omega'''/(3omega''), C != -omega^IV/(4omega'''), and (6.29) are algebraic rewrites of the A(y*) != 0 / A(y#) != 0 conditions inherited from [6]. The 'only if' direction of Theorem 6.1 is the only place where a reason is even attempted, and it says 'as in [5]' without stating the criterion or checking its hypotheses. Theorems 6.2 and 6.3 simply assert non-minimality. Since [5] and [6] are works by the same authors, with [6] being an unreviewed preprint, the necessity claims reduce to a self-citation chain rather than to a derivation from the characteristic-function calculus that is new here. This is a partial circularity: the sufficiency construction is independent, but the iff result as a prediction is equivalent by construction to the authors' prior criteria.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The special functions y*_{k+1}, y#_{k+1}, y#_{k+2} are linear combinations of the original root functions, not new postulates. The only true free choices are the constants C and D, which parameterize the non-unique associated functions; the theorems state minimality as a function of those choices.

free parameters (2)
  • C
    Arbitrary constant in the first associated function y_{k+1} = \tilde y_{k+1} + C y_k. The minimality conditions in Theorems 6.1–6.3 are stated as inequalities involving C.
  • D
    Arbitrary constant in the second associated function y_{k+2} = \tilde y_{k+2} + C \tilde y_{k+1} + D y_k. Enters the condition (6.29) in Theorem 6.3.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Exactly one of the spectral cases (i)–(iv) holds: all real simple; one double; one triple; or one complex-conjugate pair.
    Imported from [11] (Binding–Browne), invoked in Section 1 to set up the case split.
  • standard math Asymptotic eigenvalue distribution: λ_n = (n-1)^2π^2+O(1) for β≠0 and (n-1/2)^2π^2+O(1) for β=0.
    Taken from [12]; used in the quadratic-closeness/minimality-to-basis argument in the proof of Theorem 6.1.
  • domain assumption Minimality plus quadratic closeness of the root-function system implies it is a basis (Bari-type criterion).
    Attributed to the authors' own paper [5]; this is the load-bearing premise in the converse of Theorems 6.1–6.3.
  • standard math y(x,λ) is the unique solution of (2.1)–(2.2), entire in λ, and Lagrange's identity applies.
    Standard ODE theory, used throughout Sections 2–5 to derive the inner-product formulas.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Minimality of the root functions of Sturm-Liouville problems with a boundary condition depending linearly on an eigenparameter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HOTSZG7W

@misc{pith2026260621965,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Minimality of the root functions of Sturm-Liouville problems with a boundary condition depending linearly on an eigenparameter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HOTSZG7W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.21965}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We consider a Sturm--Liouville problem in which the spectral parameter appears linearly in one of the boundary conditions. The study focuses on the root functions of the problem, including eigenfunctions and associated functions corresponding to multiple eigenvalues. By employing the characteristic function of the boundary value problem, explicit representations are obtained for the biorthogonal system and for several special associated functions that play a crucial role in the spectral analysis. These representations allow previously established criteria for the basis and minimality properties of the system of root functions to be reformulated directly in terms of the characteristic function and its derivatives at the eigenvalues. As a consequence, the investigation of particular boundary value problems becomes considerably simpler. Several illustrative examples are analyzed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach and to show its agreement with known results in the literature.

Review history (4 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Equivalence of the minimality conditions for the root functions of Sturm-Liouville problems with a boundary condition depending linearly on an eigenparameter

    math.CA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The paper establishes equivalence between two minimality criteria for root functions of Sturm-Liouville problems with eigenparameter-dependent boundary conditions and unifies the description of cases where minimality ...

  2. Equivalence of the minimality conditions for the root functions of Sturm-Liouville problems with a boundary condition depending linearly on an eigenparameter

    math.CA 2026-06 conditional novelty 5.0

    The two minimality criteria for root functions of Sturm-Liouville problems with a linearly eigenparameter-dependent boundary condition are equivalent, with a unified description of the exceptional associated-function ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    N. B. Kerimov, Y. N. Aliyev, The basis property in L_p of the boundary value problem rationally dependent on the eigenparameter, Studia Mathematica 174(2) (2006), 201--212

    2006

  2. [2]

    Y. N. Aliyev, Minimality of the system of root functions of Sturm-Liouville problems with decreasing affine boundary conditions, Colloquium Mathematicum 109(1) (2007), 147-162

    2007

  3. [3]

    Aliyev, Minimality Properties of Sturm-Liouville Problems with Increasing Affine Boundary Conditions

    Y.N. Aliyev, Minimality Properties of Sturm-Liouville Problems with Increasing Affine Boundary Conditions. In: Bastos M.A., Castro L., Karlovich A.Y. (eds) Operator Theory, Functional Analysis and Applications. Operator Theory: Advances and Applications, Birkhäuser, Cham. vol 282 (2021) 33-49

    2021

  4. [4]

    Y. N. Aliyev, N. B. Kerimov, The Basis Property Of Sturm–Liouville Problems With Boundary Conditions Depending Quadratically On The Eigenparameter, The Arabian Journal For Science And Engineering 33(1) (2008),123-136

    2008

  5. [5]

    Y. Aliyev, Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Basis Properties of the System of Root Functions of Sturm-Liouville Boundary Value Problems with Eigenparameter Dependent Boundary Conditions. In: Ashyralyev, A., Ruzhansky, M., Sadybekov, M.A. (eds) Analysis and Applied Mathematics. AAM 2022. Trends in Mathematics, vol 6. Birkhäuser, Cham. (2024) 21-32

    2022

  6. [6]

    Aliyev, N

    Y. Aliyev, N. Aliyeva Sturm-Liouville problems with a boundary condition depending linearly on an eigenparameter. Preprint (2026) . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.14817

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.14817 2026

  7. [7]

    Aliyev, E.A

    Z.S. Aliyev, E.A. Aghayev, The basis properties of the system of root functions of Sturm-Liouville problem with spectral parameter in the boundary condition, Proceedings of IMM of NAS of Azerbaijan. 32 (2010), 63-72

    2010

  8. [8]

    and Kocinac, L, On Some Spectral Problems for Sturm–Liouville Equation With Operator Coefficients, Math

    Aslanova, N., Aslanov, K. and Kocinac, L, On Some Spectral Problems for Sturm–Liouville Equation With Operator Coefficients, Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.10893

    doi:10.1002/mma.10893 2025

  9. [9]

    Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, (2025) https://doi.org/10.22055/jacm.2025.48681.5422

    Aslanova, N., Aslanov, K., On the Operator Sturm-Liouville Problem with Unbounded Operator Coefficients in Boundary Condition. Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, (2025) https://doi.org/10.22055/jacm.2025.48681.5422

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Benedek and R

    A.I. Benedek and R. Panzone, On inverse eigenvalue problems for a second-order differential equation with parameter contained in the boundary conditions, Notas de Algebra y Analisis, INMABB - CONICET, Universidad Nacional Del Sur Bahia Blanca - Argentina, 9 (1980), 1–13

    1980

  11. [11]

    P. A. Binding and P. J. Browne, Application of two parameter eigencurves to Sturm-Liouville problems with eigenparameter-dependent boundary conditions, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 125A (1995), 1205-1218

    1995

  12. [12]

    P. A. Binding, P. J. Browne and B. A. Watson, Equivalence of inverse Sturm-Liouville problems with boundary conditions rationally dependent on the eigenparameter, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 291 (2004), 246-261

    2004

  13. [13]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2023.11.008

    Chein-Shan Liu, Yung-Wei Chen, Chih-Wen Chang, Precise eigenvalues in the solutions of generalized Sturm–Liouville problems, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 217, 2024, 354-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2023.11.008

    doi:10.1016/j.matcom.2023.11.008 2024

  14. [14]

    Charles T. Fulton, Two-point boundary value problems with eigenvalue parameter contained in the boundary conditions,Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Section A: Mathematics, 77(3-4) (1977), 293-308

    1977

  15. [15]

    10, 2 (2020)

    Guliyev, N.J., Riesz basis criterion for Schrödinger operators with boundary conditions dependent on the eigenvalue parameter, Anal.Math.Phys. 10, 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13324-019-00348-0

    doi:10.1007/s13324-019-00348-0 2020

  16. [16]

    N. B. Kerimov and Y. N. Aliyev, The basis property in L_p of the boundary value problem rationally dependent on the eigenparameter, Studia Math. 174(2) (2006), 201-212

    2006

  17. [17]

    N. B. Kerimov, Basis Properties in Lp of a Sturm-Liouville Operator with Spectral Parameter in the Boundary Conditions., Diff Equat . 55(2) (2019), 149–158

    2019

  18. [18]

    N. B. Kerimov and V. S. Mirzoev, On the basis properties of one spectral problem with a spectral parameter in boundary conditions, Siberian Math. J. 44 (2003), 813-816

    2003

  19. [19]

    Zhang, Y., Properties of Eigenvalues and Generalized Eigenfunctions for Sturm–Liouville Problem with Eigenparameter-Dependent Boundary Conditions., Mediterr

    Li, Z., Zheng, Z. Zhang, Y., Properties of Eigenvalues and Generalized Eigenfunctions for Sturm–Liouville Problem with Eigenparameter-Dependent Boundary Conditions., Mediterr. J. Math. , 22, 222 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00009-025-02987-z

    doi:10.1007/s00009-025-02987-z 2025

  20. [20]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/math12081265

    Liu, C.-S.; Chang, C.-W.; Kuo, C.-L., Numerical Analysis for Sturm–Liouville Problems with Nonlocal Generalized Boundary Conditions.,Mathematics 2024, 12, 1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12081265

    doi:10.3390/math12081265 2024

  21. [21]

    E. I. Moiseev and N. Yu. Kapustin, On the singularities of the root space of a spectral problem with a spectral parameter in the boundary condition, Dokl. Akad. Nauk, 66(1) (2002), 14-18

    2002

  22. [22]

    Maris, E. A., Göktaş, S., On the spectral properties of a Sturm-Liouville problem with eigenparameter in the boundary condition,Hacettepe Journal of Mathematics and Statistics, 49(4), 1373-1382. https://doi.org/10.15672/hujms.479445

    doi:10.15672/hujms.479445

  23. [23]

    , Minimality of eigenfunctions and associated functions of ordinary differential operators,Adv

    Möller, M. , Minimality of eigenfunctions and associated functions of ordinary differential operators,Adv. Oper. Theory 5, 1014–1025 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43036-020-00065-7

    doi:10.1007/s43036-020-00065-7 2020

  24. [24]

    M. A. Naimark, Linear differential operators, 2nd edn, Nauka, Moscow, 1969 (in Russian); English trans. of 1st edn, Parts I,II, Ungar, New York, 1967, 1968

    1969

  25. [25]

    Olǧar, O

    H. Olǧar, O. Sh. Mukhtarov, and K. Aydemir. , Some Properties of Eigenvalues and Generalized Eigenvectors of One Boundary Value Problem, Filomat 32, no. 3 (2018): 911–20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27381776

    arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Russakovskii, Operator treatment of a boundary-value problem with the spectral parameter appearing rationally in the boundary conditions (in Russian)

    E.M. Russakovskii, Operator treatment of a boundary-value problem with the spectral parameter appearing rationally in the boundary conditions (in Russian). Theory Funct. Funct. Anal. Appl. 30, (1978) 120-128

    1978

  27. [27]

    A. A. Shkalikov, Boundary value problems for ordinary differential equations with a parameter in the boundary conditions (Russian. English summary), Tr. Semin. Im. I. G. Petrovskogo 9 (1983) 190-229

    1983

  28. [28]

    A. A. Shkalikov, Basis Properties of Root Functions of Differential Operators with Spectral Parameter in the Boundary Conditions, Diff. Equat., 55:5 (2019), 631–643

    2019

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.