Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Self-shrinkers with any number of ends in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ by stacking $\mathbb{R}^{2}$

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For each half-integer $J$ and large $m$, an embedded self-shrinker with $2J+1$ ends and genus $2J(m-1)$ is built by stacking copies of the plane.

desk verdict New construction of self-shrinkers with any prescribed number of ends; the main theorem is plausible and important, but a load-bearing dislocation estimate is deferred to a thesis and needs checking. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18825 v1 pith:UJM3ZGMO submitted 2025-07-24 math.DG

Guanhua Shao , Jiahua Zou This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DG MSC 53C4253E10
keywords self-shrinkersmeancurvatureflowPDEgluinglineariseddoublingstackingconstructionscatenoidalbridgesendsofsurfacesasymptoticcones
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 constructs embedded self-shrinking surfaces for mean curvature flow in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. The main theorem says that for every half-integer $J$ and every sufficiently large integer $m$, there is a smooth embedded self-shrinker with $2J+1$ ends and genus $2J(m-1)$, obtained by stacking $2J+1$ parallel copies of the plane and joining adjacent levels by $m$ catenoidal bridges arranged with dihedral symmetry. If correct, this settles the existence of self-shrinkers with any prescribed number $k\geq 2$ of ends, a question previously open beyond the known one-, two-, and three-ended examples. The surfaces degenerate, as $m\to\infty$, to a multiplicity-$(2J+1)$ plane, and their asymptotic cones are explicit graphs with coefficients given by Kummer asymptotics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the linearised-doubling solution: a solution of the linearised self-shrinker operator $L=\Delta-\tfrac12 X\cdot\nabla+\tfrac12$ on $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ with prescribed logarithmic singularities at $D_{m}$-symmetric points on two concentric circles. Around this sits a three-part mechanism: rotationally averaged solutions reduce the problem to a one-dimensional ODE whose two independent solutions are Kummer and Tricomi confluent hypergeometric functions; matching conditions express the mismatch of gluing the graphs to catenoids in terms of four parameters per bridge, namely waist $\tau$, height $h$, radial location $r$, and tilt $\kappa$; and a $4J$-dimensional parameter map, proved invertible through a tridiagonal Toeplitz eigenvalue lemma, lets the unbalancing parameters absorb the mismatches. The global linear theory combines weighted H\"older spaces on the plane with separating-variables analysis on the catenoid, and Schauder's fixed point theorem closes the perturbation.

What would settle it

Compute the asserted expansion in Lemma 4.32 numerically for a concrete case, say $J=1/2$ with $m$ large and $\Delta r$ small, by solving the two-dimensional linearised equation with the explicit logarithmic Green's function; if $\frac1m \frac{\partial_{\omega}\tilde{\Phi}_i}{\partial r}(\tilde{q})$ does not equal $\frac1m \frac{\partial_{\omega}\Phi_i}{\partial r}(q)-\frac{\Delta r}{r^2}(\tfrac14+o(1))+O(\Delta r^2)$, then the horizontal balancing equations (5.32) are wrong. A purely algebraic check is to evaluate the determinant of the $4J\times 4J$ matrix $A$ defined in Lemma 6.28 for $J=1/2$ and $J=1$; it must be nonzero uniformly as $m\to\infty$ for the parameter map to be invertible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is Theorem 8.1: for each $J\in\frac12\mathbb{N}$ and $m$ large enough, there exists a $G[m,J]$-invariant embedded self-shrinker $\breve{M}[m,J]\subset\mathbb{R}^{3}$ of genus $2J(m-1)$ with $2J+1$ ends. The surface is assembled from $2J+1$ graphs of linearised-doubling solutions over copies of $\mathbb{R}^{2}$, connected by $2Jm$ catenoidal bridges in the Gaussian metric $g_{\mathrm{Shr}}$, with $m$ bridges between each adjacent pair of levels. As $m\to\infty$ the surfaces converge in the varifold sense to $(2J+1)\mathbb{R}^{2}$, and the asymptotic cone of $\breve{M}[m,J]$ is the union of the explicit cones $\cup_{j}\breve{C}_{j}$ described in Theorem 8.1. The construction solves the linearised self-shrinker equation with logarithmic singularities at points on concentric circles, estimates these solutions by their rotationally averaged profiles, glues catenoidal bridges, balances the resulting mismatches, and closes the nonlinear problem by a Schauder fixed point argument.

Load-bearing premise

The construction rests on an imported estimate about how one linearised-doubling solution behaves near the singularities of the adjacent level; the paper does not reproduce the proof, and a wrong leading coefficient there would break the balancing of the bridges and with it the fixed-point step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every integer $k\geq 2$ and every sufficiently large $m$, there is an embedded self-shrinker in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ with $k$ ends, so the construction covers all prescribed end counts rather than only the previously known one-, two-, and three-ended examples.
  • The genus of the shrinker grows linearly with $m$ at fixed $J$, yielding infinite families of high-genus self-shrinkers with the same small number of ends.
  • As $m$ tends to infinity the surfaces converge as varifolds to the plane with multiplicity $2J+1$, and each member has an explicit asymptotic cone, providing concrete high-multiplicity conical tangent objects for mean curvature flow.
  • When $J=1/2$ and $J=1$, the constructed surfaces are expected to reproduce the previously known two- and three-ended shrinkers, placing them in one unified family.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is whether the stacking construction can be run with unequal numbers of bridges between adjacent levels; the balancing system would then become a general tridiagonal eigenvalue problem rather than the uniform Toeplitz case used here.
  • If the link the authors cite to blow-ups of mean curvature flow holds, the new family supplies candidates for multi-ended singularity models with any prescribed number of ends, going beyond the usual one-ended or low-multiplicity examples.
  • The same linearised-doubling and stacking scheme is a plausible template for constructing embedded $f$-minimal surfaces of arbitrary end count for other ambient functions $f$, with the rotationally invariant ODE analysis replaced by the corresponding one-dimensional problem for that $f$.
  • Because the theorem produces both prism and antiprism symmetries depending on whether $J$ is half-integral or integral, the same construction with a different signature convention would give reflected shrinkers, which the authors note explicitly.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs, for each half-integer J and all sufficiently large integers m, a G[m,J]-invariant embedded self-shrinker in R^3 with 2J+1 ends and genus 2J(m-1). The construction stacks 2J+1 approximately planar levels connected by 2Jm catenoidal bridges in the Gaussian metric, following the Linearised Doubling (LD) methodology of Kapouleas. The main theorem (Theorem 8.1) asserts existence for large m, varifold convergence to (2J+1)R^2 as m tends to infinity, and an explicit asymptotic cone given as a union of graphs. The proof proceeds by constructing LD solutions with logarithmic singularities, matching them via catenoids, solving balancing and unbalancing equations, and then applying a Schauder fixed point argument using a global linear theory on the initial surface.

Significance. If the construction is correct, the paper settles the existence of embedded self-shrinkers in R^3 with any prescribed number of ends at least two, a qualitative advance over the previously known classes with one, two, or three ends. The stacking ansatz is new in the self-shrinker setting, and the paper provides explicit parameter formulas, a detailed analysis of the linearized problem, and a clear fixed-point framework. The authors also give credit for the systematic LD machinery from [11,13,14,17,30] and adapt it to a multilevel stacking configuration. However, the paper is not self-contained at several load-bearing points: the dislocation estimates in Section 4 are imported from a thesis with the critical case not fully covered in a published reference, and the derivation of the balancing formulas (5.18)-(5.19) is explicitly omitted. These gaps are verification gaps rather than demonstrated errors, but they make the central existence theorem depend on unpublished or insufficiently documented material.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Lemmas 4.31 and 4.32] The dislocation estimates in Lemmas 4.31 and 4.32 are load-bearing: Lemma 4.31 is stated to follow from [14, Lemma 9.26] with one sentence, yet the text immediately notes that the relevant case m_i=2m 'was not fully studied' in [14], deferring to the thesis [30, Section 5.2.5]. No proof is reproduced. Lemma 4.32 then derives the horizontal balancing formulas (5.32) using the second derivative of G_∞ at (0,π), and (5.32) is the sole input for the invertibility of the linear map A in Lemma 6.28, which is needed for the fixed-point step in Theorem 8.1. If Lemma 4.32 has a wrong constant or an unaccounted O(1) term, the matching analysis for μ'_{j,±} collapses and the fixed-point argument no longer goes through. The authors should reproduce the proof of Lemma 4.31 in the m_i=2m case, or at least provide a detailed derivation of Lemma 4.32 that does not depend on the unpublished case, so that the central existence theorem is verifiable from the paper alone.
  2. [Section 5, equations (5.18)-(5.19)] The paper explicitly states 'We omit this part here and check both balancings in 5.28' before introducing the waist and height formulas (5.18)-(5.19). This is an admitted omission of the derivation of the vertical balancing conditions. Lemma 5.28 uses (5.18)-(5.19) as input to compute the mismatches, rather than deriving these formulas from the matching equations or showing that they are uniquely determined up to the unbalancing freedom. The formulas are compared to similar ones in [29] and [3], but no derivation is given. Since the fixed-point argument relies on the explicit structure of these parameters, the authors should include the linearized vertical balancing analysis (e.g., the eigenvalue problem in A.1) or otherwise demonstrate how (5.18)-(5.19) arise from the matching conditions.
  3. [Proposition 7.18] The global linear theory on the initial surface is stated with 'The proof is the same as [14, Proposition 4.18]', with only the remark that the subscript j for multiple levels replaces the ± notation. This proposition is central to the Schauder fixed-point argument, and the initial surface here has 2J+1 levels and a more complicated catenoid region structure. It is not immediate that the proof in [14] carries over verbatim; in particular, the decomposition into low/high modes on the catenoids, the handling of the kernel, and the constant estimates may depend on the multilevel geometry. The authors should spell out at least the modifications and identify the precise statements in [14] that are used, or give a more complete proof if the differences are nontrivial.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Notation throughout] The notation φj is used both for the LD solutions in (5.20) and for the graph functions φgl_j in Definition 6.10; this is confusing and should be changed, for example by renaming the latter to ψj or g_j.
  2. [Definitions 4.3 and 4.6] The correspondence between the index sets L_0,L_1 and the notation L_± used later (e.g., in Definition 4.6 and (5.20)) is not stated explicitly; please clarify which set plays the role of L_+ and which plays the role of L_- depending on the level index.
  3. [Lemma 4.11] In the proof of Lemma 4.11, the limits ε1→0 and ε2→0 are taken in a specific order, but the justification for interchanging limits is not given; a brief remark on the logarithmic singularities would make the argument rigorous.
  4. [Theorem 8.1] In the formula for the asymptotic cones, the case j=0 when J is an integer gives a cone that is O(˘τ^{1+α/4}_{1/2})r, which is sublinear; please clarify whether this is a degenerate cone or whether the leading term vanishes in this case.
  5. [Title and abstract] The notation for the constructed surface is inconsistent: the abstract uses ˘M[J,m] while the body (e.g., Theorem 8.1) uses ˘M[m,J]; please standardize the order of the arguments.
  6. [References] Reference [30] is a PhD thesis that is not publicly available in the usual channels; the authors should include the relevant chapter or a preprint version in the bibliography, since a key lemma is deferred to this thesis.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Self-cited dislocation estimate is load-bearing; otherwise no fit-based circularity.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4, 'Dislocation estimates on Φ0 and Φ1', preamble to Lemma 4.31 and proof of Lemma 4.31; used in Lemma 4.32, Lemma 5.28, and Lemma 6.28.]
    "However, the case we encounter in this paper corresponds to the case mi = 2m in [14, Definition 9.1 and Lemma 9.16], which was not fully studied there. The general treatment of this problem was done in JZ's thesis in [30, Section 5.2.5], and we are in a much simpler situation here. ... Proof. The same as [14, Lemma 9.26]."

    Lemma 4.32's coefficient 1/4 in the dislocation expansion is obtained solely from Lemma 4.31, whose proof is a one-line citation to [14, Lemma 9.26], while the preamble admits the mi = 2m case 'was not fully studied' in [14] and delegates it to the same author's thesis [30]. Lemma 5.28 then uses 4.32 to derive the horizontal-balancing formula (5.32), and Lemma 6.28 defines the linear map A using (5.31)-(5.32); the invertibility of A is the input to the Schauder fixed-point step in Theorem 8.1. Thus the central existence proof rests on a load-bearing, unverified same-author citation rather than on an independently established result. This is a self-citation gap, not a fit disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

The construction is not circular in the fitting sense: the LD solutions are solved from Green's functions, the parameters (ζ, κ) are unknowns determined by matching conditions, and the fixed-point argument solves an equation rather than fitting a target. The asymptotic cone and end count follow from the asymptotic expansion of the graphical pieces, not from the desired conclusion. The only significant concern is the dislocation estimate imported from [30]/[14]; this is a verification gap and a load-bearing self-citation, but the surrounding derivation has substantial independent content. Score 4 reflects a central step whose support is a same-author citation, without the whole derivation reducing to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction is built on the standard apparatus of elliptic gluing (weighted Hölder and cone spaces, Schauder fixed point, hypergeometric functions) plus domain-specific tools imported from the authors' previous work. The main ad hoc choices are the parameter formulas and the unbalancing parameters; these are legitimate construction ingredients in gluing methodology, not fitted constants.

free parameters (1)
  • Unbalancing parameters (ζ,κ) = (ζ,ζ_i,ζ',ζ'_i,κ_ℓ,κ⊥_ℓ) = (ζ̆,κ̆) fixed point in Theorem 8.1, with |(ζ̆,κ̆)| ≤ c
    These 4J parameters are introduced in Sections 5-6 to adjust heights and tilts of the catenoidal bridges and to kill the kernel of the linearized problem. They are determined by the Schauder fixed point argument, not by external data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Schauder estimates and solvability for the linearized self-shrinker operator L on R^2 in weighted Hölder and cone spaces (Lemma 3.19)
    Imported from [12, Theorem 8.9] and [5, Corollary 3.17]; used to construct LD solutions in Lemma 4.9.
  • standard math Properties of Kummer and Tricomi confluent hypergeometric functions used in Lemma 3.9
    Used to establish asymptotics, root locations, and monotonicity of the radial solutions φ_m and φ_u.
  • domain assumption The linearised doubling (LD) methodology and its general theory as developed in Kapouleas-McGrath [14]
    The perturbation scheme in Section 7 is stated to be 'the same as [14, Proposition 4.18]'; the global linear theory and approximate right inverse are assumed to adapt to multiple levels.
  • domain assumption Dislocation estimates for LD solutions, Lemmas 4.31-4.32, taken from [14, Lemma 9.26] and the same author's thesis [30, Section 5.2.5]
    These estimates control Φ near singularities of the other circle and underpin the horizontal balancing formulas (5.32). The paper notes the case m_i=2m was not fully studied in [14].
  • ad hoc to paper The parameter formulas (5.15), (5.18), (5.19) for radii, waists, and heights are chosen and verified only through the matching estimates in Lemma 5.28
    The text says the linearization 'will be reduced to a linear eigenvalue problem' and 'we omit this part here'; the formulas are motivated by [29,3] and are not derived in full in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-shrinkers with any number of ends in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ by stacking $\mathbb{R}^{2}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UJM3ZGMO

@misc{pith2026250718825,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-shrinkers with any number of ends in $\mathbbR^3$ by stacking $\mathbbR^2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UJM3ZGMO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18825}
}
abstract

For each half-integer $J$ and large enough integer $m$ we construct by PDE gluing methods a self-shrinker $\breve{M}[J,m]$ with $2J+1$ ends and genus $2J(m-1)$. $\breve{M}[J,m]$ resembles the stacking of $2J+1$ levels of the plane $\mathbb{R}^2$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$ that have been connected by $2Jm$ catenoidal bridges with $m$ bridges connecting each pair of adjacent levels. It observes the symmetry of an $m$-gonal prism (when $J$ is a half integer) or an $m$-gonal antiprism (when $J$ is an integer). The construction is based on the Linearised Doubling (LD) methodology which was first introduced by Kapouleas in the construction of minimal surface doublings of $\mathbb{S}^2_{eq}$ in $\mathbb{S}^3$.

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. Self-expanders of positive genus

    math.DG 2025-07 reject novelty 8.0 of 10

    For a broad class of cones in R^3, complete connected self-expanders of any positive genus exist, providing mean curvature flows in which genus drops but does not reach zero.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [14]

    , Generalizing the linearized doubling approach, I: General theory and new minimal surfaces and self- shrinkers, Camb. J. Math.11 (2023), no. 2, 299–439. MR4600544

    work page 2023

  2. [30]

    Thesis, 2023

    Jiahua Zou,New gluing constructions of minimal surfaces, Ph.D. Thesis, 2023. Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, Pistaca w ay, NJ 08854 Email address: gs977@math.rutgers.edu Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, Pistaca w ay, NJ 08854 Email address: jiahua.zou@rutgers.edu 35

    work page 2023

  3. [29]

    Differential Geom.114 (2020), no

    David Wiygul,Minimal surfaces in the3-sphere by stacking Clifford tori, J. Differential Geom.114 (2020), no. 3, 467–549. MR4072204

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Schulz, and David Wiygul,Disc stackings and their morse index(2023), available at 2308.07138

    Alessandro Carlotto, Mario B. Schulz, and David Wiygul,Disc stackings and their morse index(2023), available at 2308.07138. 34

    arXiv 2023

  5. [1]

    Angenent,Shrinking doughnuts, Nonlinear diffusion equations and their equilibrium states, 3 (Greg- ynog, 1989), 1992, pp

    Sigurd B. Angenent,Shrinking doughnuts, Nonlinear diffusion equations and their equilibrium states, 3 (Greg- ynog, 1989), 1992, pp. 21–38. MR1167827

    work page 1989

  6. [2]

    Schulz,Noncompact self-shrinkers for mean curvature flow with arbitrary genus, J

    Reto Buzano, Huy The Nguyen, and Mario B. Schulz,Noncompact self-shrinkers for mean curvature flow with arbitrary genus, J. Reine Angew. Math.818 (2025), 35–52. MR4846020

    work page 2025

  7. [4]

    Xu Cheng, Tito Mejia, and Detang Zhou,Stability and compactness for completef-minimal surfaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.367 (2015), no. 6, 4041–4059. MR3324919

    work page 2015

  8. [5]

    J.170 (2021), no

    Otis Chodosh and Felix Schulze,Uniqueness of asymptotically conical tangent flows, Duke Math. J.170 (2021), no. 16, 3601–3657. MR4332673

    work page 2021

Show all 30 references
  1. [6]

    NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions. F. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. Schneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds

  2. [7]

    154 (2017), no

    Abigail Folha, Frank Pacard, and Tatiana Zolotareva, Free boundary minimal surfaces in the unit 3-ball, Manuscripta Math. 154 (2017), no. 3-4, 359–409. MR3713919

    2017

  3. [8]

    Trudinger,Elliptic partial differential equations of second order, Classics in Mathe- matics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001

    David Gilbarg and Neil S. Trudinger,Elliptic partial differential equations of second order, Classics in Mathe- matics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001. Reprint of the 1998 edition. MR1814364

    2001

  4. [9]

    David Hoffman, Francisco Martin, and Brian White,Generating shrinkers by mean curvature flow(2025), avail- able at 2502.20340

    2025

  5. [10]

    Tom Ilmanen and Brian White,Fattening in mean curvature flow, Ars Inven. Anal. (2025), Paper No. 4, 32. MR4888468

    2025

  6. [11]

    Differential Geom

    Nikolaos Kapouleas, Minimal surfaces in the round three-sphere by doubling the equatorial two-sphere, I, J. Differential Geom. 106 (2017), no. 3, 393–449. MR3680553

    2017

  7. [12]

    Reine Angew

    Nikolaos Kapouleas, Stephen James Kleene, and Niels Martin Møller, Mean curvature self-shrinkers of high genus: non-compact examples, J. Reine Angew. Math.739 (2018), 1–39. MR3808256

    2018

  8. [13]

    Pure Appl

    Nikolaos Kapouleas and Peter McGrath,Minimal surfaces in the round three-sphere by doubling the equatorial two-sphere, II, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.72 (2019), no. 10, 2121–2195. MR3998638

    2019

  9. [15]

    Differential Geom.123 (2023), no

    Nikolaos Kapouleas and David Wiygul,Free boundary minimal surfaces with connected boundary in the 3-ball by tripling the equatorial disc, J. Differential Geom.123 (2023), no. 2, 311–362. MR4571804

    2023

  10. [16]

    Nikolaos Kapouleas and Seong-Deog Yang,Minimal surfaces in the three-sphere by doubling the Clifford torus, Amer. J. Math.132 (2010), no. 2, 257–295. MR2654775

    2010

  11. [17]

    Nikolaos Kapouleas and Jiahua Zou,Minimal hypersurfaces inS4(1) by doubling the equatorialS3 (2024), avail- able at 2405.18283

    2024 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Daniel Ketover,Self-shrinking platonic solids(2016), available at1602.07271

    2016 arXiv

  13. [19]

    , Self-shrinkers whose asymptotic cones fatten(2024), available at2407.01240

    2024 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Stephen Kleene and Niels Martin Møller, Self-shrinkers with a rotational symmetry, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 366 (2014), no. 8, 3943–3963. MR3206448

    2014

  15. [21]

    Tang-Kai Lee and Xinrui Zhao,Closed mean curvature flows with asymptotically conical singularities(2024), available at2405.15577

    2024 arXiv

  16. [22]

    6, 065215

    Zhong-Xuan Mao and Jing-Feng Tian,Monotonicity of three functions involving the confluent hypergeometric functions of the second kind, Physica Scripta100 (2025may), no. 6, 065215

  17. [23]

    I, Trans

    Xuan Hien Nguyen,Construction of complete embedded self-similar surfaces under mean curvature flow. I, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.361 (2009), no. 4, 1683–1701. MR2465812

    2009

  18. [24]

    , Construction of complete embedded self-similar surfaces under mean curvature flow. II, Adv. Differential Equations 15 (2010), no. 5-6, 503–530. MR2643233

    2010

  19. [25]

    , Construction of complete embedded self-similar surfaces under mean curvature flow, Part III, Duke Math. J. 163 (2014), no. 11, 2023–2056. MR3263027

    2014

  20. [26]

    Linear Algebra Appl.20 (2013), no

    Silvia Noschese, Lionello Pasquini, and Lothar Reichel,Tridiagonal Toeplitz matrices: properties and novel ap- plications, Numer. Linear Algebra Appl.20 (2013), no. 2, 302–326. MR3021439

    2013

  21. [27]

    Oskar Riedler,Closed embedded self-shrinkers of mean curvature flow, J. Geom. Anal.33 (2023), no. 6, Paper No. 172, 27. MR4567573

    2023

  22. [28]

    Lu Wang,Uniqueness of self-similar shrinkers with asymptotically conical ends, J. Amer. Math. Soc.27 (2014), no. 3, 613–638. MR3194490

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.