Overdetermined elliptic problems on model Riemannian manifolds

Jaqueline de Lima; Jo\~ao Marcos do \'O; M\'arcio Santos

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 19 references

Overdetermined elliptic problems on model Riemannian manifolds

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that annular sector-like domains in Euclidean space, the sphere, and hyperbolic space admitting a C² solution of the mixed overdetermined Helmholtz problem must be spherical sectors centered at the pole, with explicit…

desk verdict A plausible and useful extension of Serrin rigidity to annular sectors in space forms, but the central Lemma 1 is false as stated and the proof as written does not establish the theorems. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00697 v1 pith:XQNE35MV submitted 2025-05-31 math.AP math.DG

João Marcos do Ó , Jaqueline de Lima , Márcio Santos This is my paper

classification math.APmath.DG MSC 35R0135B5035N2553C2458J0558J32

keywords OverdeterminedellipticproblemsMixedboundaryconditionsMaximumprincipleSpaceformsP-functionRigidityAnnularsector-likedomainsHelmholtzequation

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 proves a rigidity theorem for annular sector-like domains, that is, regions inside a convex cone bounded by two smooth caps and a lateral surface, in the three space forms (Euclidean space, the sphere, and hyperbolic space). It considers solutions of the inhomogeneous Helmholtz equation $\Delta u=-k\,n\,u-n$ that vanish with constant normal derivative on one cap, have zero normal derivative on the lateral boundary, and have constant Dirichlet and Neumann data on the other cap. The conclusion is that any such domain must be a spherical sector, meaning the two caps are geodesic spheres centered at the pole, and the solution is the explicitly displayed radial function, for example $u=(R_1^2-r^2)/2$ in Euclidean space. This extends the classical rigidity phenomenon for overdetermined boundary-value problems from balls and cones to domains with two boundary components, showing that overdetermined data continue to force symmetry when the domain is annular and the lateral boundary carries only a homogeneous Neumann condition.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two devices. First, a maximum principle for annular sector-like domains (Proposition 1) shows that any function with $\Delta v\ge 0$, constant values on the two caps, and $\partial v/\partial \nu\le 0$ on the lateral boundary takes its maximum on the caps; together with a divergence theorem adapted to the non-smooth corners (Theorem 6), this controls where the auxiliary $P$-function $P=|\nabla u|^2+2u+ku^2$ can peak. Second, boundary computations of the normal derivatives of $P$ and of a harmonic companion function (built from the radial vector field $\psi\partial_r$) force $P$ to be constant; constancy of $P$ is equivalent to the Hessian identity $\nabla^2 u=-(1+ku)g$. A rigidity lemma (Lemma 1) then shows that this Hessian identity, with $u$ constant on $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_2$, implies both caps are geodesic spheres centered at the pole and $u$ depends only on distance from the pole. In the Euclidean case the same conclusion is reached directly from the standard identity relating $\Delta|\nabla u|^2$ to the Hessian and Ricci curvature, without introducing $P$.

What would settle it

Check Lemma 1 directly: in Euclidean space every solution of $\nabla^2 u=-g$ has the form $u=-|x|^2/2+b\cdot x+c$, and requiring $u$ to be constant on two spheres forces both spheres to have the same center $b$, so non-concentric caps cannot occur. The corresponding test in the sphere or hyperbolic space is to solve $\nabla^2 u=-(1+ku)g$ on an annular sector whose two caps are geodesic spheres with distinct centers and compare the initial-value problem along geodesics; a successful solution with constant values on both caps would break the pole-centered conclusion and falsify the main theorems.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated as Theorems 1 through 5, is that mixed overdetermined boundary data force full radial symmetry in all three constant-curvature settings. If the outer cap $\Gamma_0$ carries $u=0$ with constant Neumann data, the lateral cone boundary $\Gamma_1$ carries zero Neumann data, and the inner cap $\Gamma_2$ carries $u=a$ with constant Neumann data, then $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_2$ are spherical caps centered at the pole and the domain is $\Omega=\{x\in\Sigma : R<d(x,O)<R_1\}$, with the explicit radial solutions $u=(R_1^2-r^2)/2$ in Euclidean space, $u=(\cos r-\cos R_1)/\cos R_1$ on the sphere, and $u=(\cosh R_1-\cosh r)/\cosh R_1$ in hyperbolic space. The proof works by showing that a suitable auxiliary function is constant, which forces the Hessian of $u$ to be proportional to the metric, $\nabla^2 u=-(1+ku)g$; a rigidity lemma then converts this Hessian identity, together with the boundary values, into the spherical-sector geometry and the displayed formulas.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the geometric classification inside Lemma 1: a boundary surface that curves uniformly in every direction (totally umbilical) in one of the space forms must be part of a geodesic sphere centered at the pole $O$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In each of the three space forms, annular sector-like domains admitting such solutions are classified exactly: they are spherical sectors between two concentric geodesic caps, so the overdetermined data determine the radii $R$ and $R_1$ once the boundary constants are fixed.
The solution is always the displayed explicit radial function, so the boundary data fix the entire solution and rule out any non-radial behavior in the interior.
Zero Neumann data on the lateral cone boundary, together with constant data on the two caps, is already enough to force radial symmetry; no overdetermined condition on the full outer boundary is required.
The same $P$-function argument covers curvature $k=0,1,-1$ uniformly, so the three classical geometries are treated with one proof template.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: a quantitative stability version should hold—if the boundary data are nearly constant and the domain is nearly an annular sector, the domain should be nearly a spherical sector, with the distance controlled by the size of the slack in the maximum-principle inequalities.
Inference: the same method, with a $P$-function built from a solution of the Jacobi equation $\psi''=-k\psi$, likely transfers to other warped-product 'model' manifolds beyond the three space forms, so the paper's title points at a broader class than the theorems themselves cover.
Inference: the rigidity suggests a practical identifiability statement for inverse problems: constant Dirichlet and Neumann measurements on two caps plus zero flux on a cone side uniquely determine the annular region, which could be useful in shape identification.
Inference: the harmonic companion function used to rule out the nonconstant case behaves like a first integral of the Hessian equation; identifying analogous first integrals may yield rigidity for nonlinear right-hand sides $f(u)$ beyond the linear Helmholtz term $ku$.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Jo, quick take on arXiv:2506.00697. The idea is a natural mash-up: put the annular-domain overdetermined problem from Lee-Seo inside a cone sector, extend to space forms, and use the standard P-function machine. That combination is new and worth a look. The maximum principle (Prop 1) and divergence theorem (Thm 6) for annular sector-like domains with corner-type boundaries are handled with genuine care, and the Pohozaev identity in Proposition 6 is useful. I believe those parts are solid.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader says it is. Lemma 1 jumps from 'Γ0 and Γ2 are totally umbilical' to 'so they are spheres centered at the cone vertex O.' That is false in general. In Euclidean space, take p≠O, set Ω=(B_{R1}(p)\B_R(p))∩Σ; u=(R1^2−|x−p|^2)/2 satisfies ∇²u=−g with constant Dirichlet on both spherical caps, but the caps are centered at p, not O. So Lemma 1 as stated is simply wrong. The later IVP part doesn't fix it because it already assumes the radii R and R1 are measured from O and that geodesics from O stay in the domain—exactly the kind of star-shapedness that is not available in Lemma 1's hypotheses.

The main theorems may still be true, since each one includes the extra hypothesis Ω2=B_R(O). That gives you one level set already centered at O; from ∇²u=−(1+ku)g, the other level sets are spheres with the same center, so the intended conclusion would follow with a different argument. But the paper does not supply that argument, and Lemma 1 as used in every theorem does not establish it. On top of that, the theorem statements have labeling problems: Theorem 3 and 4 conclude 'Γ0=∂B_R∩Σ' when they mean ∂B_{R1}, and the hyperbolic theorems have Ω2=B_R(O) with 0

Bottom line: the intended result is plausible and probably repairable, the technical tools are mostly good, but the current write-up does not prove its main rigidity claims. I would not accept it as is; I would send it to a referee anyway, because the flaws are specific, and the paper is built on a real question.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies a Serrin-type overdetermined problem on annular sector-like domains in Euclidean space, the sphere, and hyperbolic space. For a solution of Δu = -knu - n satisfying constant Dirichlet and Neumann conditions on two boundary components Γ0 and Γ2, and zero Neumann condition on the lateral boundary Γ1, the authors claim rigidity: the domain must be a spherical sector centered at the cone pole O and the solution must be the displayed radial function. The strategy is to prove via maximum principles and P-function identities that ∇²u = -(1+ku)g, and then to invoke an Obata-type lemma (Lemma 1) asserting that the boundary components are concentric geodesic spheres centered at O.

Significance. If correct, the results would extend the known partially overdetermined Serrin rigidity in cones (Pacella–Tralli, Ciraolo–Roncoroni) to annular sector-like domains with two controlled boundary components in the three space forms. The paper contains useful technical ingredients, including a maximum principle for sector-like domains with corner regularization (Proposition 1), a divergence theorem adapted to such domains (Theorem 6), and extensive P-function computations with explicit radial solution candidates. However, the central geometric classification lemma is false as stated, and the hyperbolic theorems are not compatible with the paper's own definitions. These issues are load-bearing rather than cosmetic, so the claimed results are not established by the written proofs.

major comments (3)

[Lemma 1, after Eq. (15)] The assertion 'Therefore, since M is a space form we have Γ0=∂B_{R1}(O)∩Σ and Γ2=∂B_R(O)∩Σ' is false. Total umbilicity of a constant-Dirichlet level set in a space form only classifies it as a geodesic sphere with some center, or in hyperbolic space also a horosphere or equidistant hypersurface; it does not force the center to be the cone vertex O. For example, in Euclidean space take a convex cone Σ containing the relevant balls, choose p≠O, set Ω2=B_R(p), Ω1=B_{R1}(p), Ω=(Ω1\Ω2)∩Σ, and u(x)=(R1²-|x-p|²)/2. Then ∇²u=-g, u=0 on Γ0, and u is constant on Γ2, so (14) holds, but Γ0 is a sphere centered at p, not at O. The subsequent IVP in Lemma 1 does not repair this gap, because it assumes that the radial geodesic γ_i from O satisfies γ_i(R)∈Γ2, which is exactly the pole-centeredness that needs to be proved. Since Theorems 1–5 each invoke Lemma 1 after deriving ∇²u=-(1+ku)g, the main rigidity conclusions do not follow from the written proof.
[Theorems 4–5 and Lemma 1(iii)] The hyperbolic statements are not compatible with Definition 2. If Ω={x∈Σ:R1<d(x,O)<R}, then Definition 2 gives Γ0=∂Ω1∩Σ as the outer sphere ∂B_R∩Σ and Γ2=∂Ω2∩Σ as the inner sphere ∂B_{R1}∩Σ. The paper's displayed solution u=(coshR1−coshr)/coshR1 vanishes at r=R1 and equals 1−coshR/coshR1 at r=R; hence u=0 would hold on the inner boundary and u=a<0 on the outer boundary, the reverse of the stated conditions 'u=0 on Γ0' and 'u=a on Γ2'. The proofs in §3.3 consistently use Γ0 as the radius-R1 boundary and Γ2 as the radius-R boundary, opposite to the standing definitions. Moreover, with Ω2=B_R(O) as stated, Ω=Ω1\Ω2 lies outside B_R, so the conclusion Ω={x∈Σ:R1<d(x,O)<R} cannot hold. The hyperbolic theorems and Lemma 1(iii) need to be reformulated with a consistent labeling of Γ0/Γ2 and the radii before they are well-posed.
[§3.1, Eq. (19)] The identity ∫Ω⟨∇f,∇u⟩Δu = n∫Ω⟨∇f,∇u⟩ has the wrong sign. In Theorem 1, Δu=-n, so the left side equals -n∫Ω⟨∇f,∇u⟩. The subsequent displayed chain also writes n∫∂Ω u⟨∇f,ν⟩ while omitting the term -n∫Ω uΔf (which vanishes because Δf=0, but the equality as printed is false). This identity is part of the derivation of ∫Ω uΔ⟨∇f,∇u⟩≤0, so the proof of Theorem 1 needs correction even after Lemma 1 is repaired.

minor comments (7)

[Theorem 3] The displayed conclusion Γ0=∂B_R∩Σ conflicts with the accompanying description Ω={x∈Σ:R<d(x,O)<R1}; for that annulus the outer boundary is ∂B_{R1}∩Σ, so the statement should read Γ0=∂B_{R1}∩Σ (with Γ2=∂B_R∩Σ).
[§3.1, proof of Theorem 1] The text says 'By the Divergence Theorem, Proposition 6'; the divergence theorem is Theorem 6, while Proposition 6 is the Pohozaev-type identity.
[Proposition 1] The final line states that ξ^+=0 in Γ1∪Γ2; from the boundary conditions it is ξ^+=0 on Γ0∪Γ2, while on Γ1 only the sign of ∂ξ^+/∂ν is used.
[Introduction] The paragraph beginning 'Subsequently, J. Lee and K. Seo in [13]' appears twice in near-identical form; one copy should be deleted.
[Definitions 3 and 4] Definitions 3 and 4 are redundant: both define star-shapedness with respect to a point p as a graph condition over geodesic spheres centered at p. One of them should be removed.
[Lemma 2 proof] In the proof of Lemma 2, one display writes div(fX+g∇u) where the statement (33) and the surrounding computations use div(fX−g∇u); the sign in the display should be corrected.
[Title and abstract] The title and abstract promise results on model Riemannian manifolds, but the main theorems and Lemma 1 are proved only for constant-curvature space forms; the scope should be described accurately.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the proof chain has no fitted input renamed as prediction and no load-bearing self-citation; the Lemma 1 pole-centered sphere step is a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The main theorems are reached in two stages: first, maximum-principle and P-function arguments show that any solution of the stated overdetermined problem satisfies the Hessian identity ∇²u=-(1+ku)g; second, Lemma 1 is invoked to convert this identity into the spherical-sector conclusion. In the first stage, the boundary constants a, c0, c2, R and R1 are hypotheses rather than parameters fitted to the asserted radial solution, and no prediction is forced by construction from its inputs. In the second stage, Lemma 1 contains the only potentially suspicious inference: after deriving total umbilicity of Γ0 and Γ2 in Eq. (15), the proof states 'Therefore, since M is a space form we have Γ0=∂B_R1(O)∩Σ and Γ2=∂B_R(O)∩Σ.' Total umbilicity of a constant-Dirichlet level set in a space form does not by itself force the hypersurface to be centered at the pole O, so this inference is a mathematical gap and, as stated, is false in general. This is a correctness or omitted-proof concern, not a circularity concern: the pole-centered conclusion is not an input of the Hessian identity, and the step is not produced by defining a quantity in terms of the target or by self-citation. The later IVP argument has ingredients that could prove radiality, but as written it begins only after the concentric identification is already asserted, so Theorems 1-5 are not fully established as written. The only self-citation, reference [3] in Remark 1, concerns the Γ2=∅ limiting case and is not load-bearing for the main results. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. The main axiomatic load is the unsupported geometric classification in Lemma 1, which is stronger than the classical statement that umbilical hypersurfaces in space forms are spheres. The other assumptions are standard background or explicit geometric hypotheses on the cone and domain.

assumptions (5)

standard math Standard elliptic maximum principle, Hopf lemma, Bochner formula, and divergence theorem on piecewise-smooth domains
Relied on throughout the proofs and treated as background in this field.
domain assumption Convexity of the cone Σ, meaning the second fundamental form of ∂Σ satisfies A(X,X)≥0
Stated in Definition 1 and used to control the sign of boundary integrals on Γ1, for example in equation (22) and in Propositions 3 and 7.
ad hoc to paper A totally umbilical hypersurface with constant mean curvature in a space form, arising as a boundary component of Ω, must be a geodesic sphere centered at the pole O
Invoked in Lemma 1 after equation (15). Total umbilicity gives a sphere with some center; the pole-centered conclusion is not proved and is part of the target statement.
domain assumption Star-shapedness with respect to O fixes the sign of ⟨ν,∂r⟩ on Γ0 and Γ2
Used in the proofs of Theorems 2 and 5 to control the signs of the normal derivatives of the auxiliary functions P and eP.
domain assumption Annular sector-like domains have smooth boundary pieces with positive Hausdorff measure and smooth lower-dimensional edges
Definition 2; needed for the divergence theorem, the approximation argument in Proposition 1, and Theorem 6.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Overdetermined elliptic problems on model Riemannian manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQNE35MV

@misc{pith2026250600697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Overdetermined elliptic problems on model Riemannian manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQNE35MV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00697}
}

read the original abstract

We establish a rigidity theorem for annular sector-like domains in the setting of overdetermined elliptic problems on model Riemannian manifolds. Specifically, if such a domain admits a solution to the inhomogeneous Helmholtz equation satisfying both constant Dirichlet and constant Neumann boundary conditions, then the domain must be a spherical sector, and the solution must be radially symmetric. This result underscores the strong geometric constraints imposed by overdetermined boundary conditions, extending classical rigidity phenomena to this more general framework.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Alexandrov

A. Alexandrov. Vestnik leningrad univ. 13, 5–8.Am. Math. Soc. Transl.(Ser. 2), 21:412–416, 1958. 1

work page 1958
[2]

A. D. Alexandrov. A characteristic property of spheres.Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata, 58(1):303–315,

work page
[3]

Serrin's type Problems in convex cones in Riemannian manifolds

M. Ara´ ujo, A. Freitas, M. Santos, and J. Sindeaux. Serrin’s type problems in convex cones in riemannian manifolds.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05551, 2025. 22

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[4]

Ciraolo and A

G. Ciraolo and A. Roncoroni. Serrin’s type overdetermined problems in convex cones.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 59:1–21, 2020. 2, 3

work page 2020
[5]

Ciraolo and L

G. Ciraolo and L. Vezzoni. A rigidity problem on the round sphere.Communications in Contemporary Mathematics, 19:1–11, 2017. 1, 20

work page 2017
[6]

Ciraolo and L

G. Ciraolo and L. Vezzoni. On serrin’s overdetermined problem in space forms.manuscripta mathematica, 159:445–452, 2019. 1

work page 2019
[7]

M. M. Fall, I. A. Minlend, and T. Weth. Serrin’s overdetermined problem on the sphere.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 57:1–24, 2018. 1

work page 2018
[8]

Federer.Geometric Measure Theory, volume 153 ofDie Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften

H. Federer.Geometric Measure Theory, volume 153 ofDie Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1969. 10

work page 1969

Show all 19 references

[9]

Gilbarg and N

D. Gilbarg and N. S. Trudinger.Elliptic partial differential equations of second order. Classics in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001. Reprint of the 1998 edition. 2

2001
[10]

Hebey.Nonlinear analysis on manifolds: Sobolev spaces and inequalities, volume 5 ofCourant Lecture Notes in Mathematics

E. Hebey.Nonlinear analysis on manifolds: Sobolev spaces and inequalities, volume 5 ofCourant Lecture Notes in Mathematics. New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York; American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999. 2

1999
[11]

Kumaresan and J

S. Kumaresan and J. Prajapat. Serrin’s result for hyperbolic space and sphere.Duke Mathematical Journal, 91(1):17–28, 1998. 1

1998
[12]

Lee and K

J. Lee and K. Seo. Overdetermined problems in annular domains with a spherical-boundary component in space forms.Journal of Inequalities and Applications, 2023(1):45, 2023. 2, 4

2023
[13]

Lee and K

J. Lee and K. Seo. Radial symmetry and partially overdetermined problems in a convex cone.Mathematische Nachrichten, 296(3):1204–1224, 2023. 2, 16

2023
[14]

R. Molzon. Symmetry and overdetermined boundary value problems.Forum Mathematicum, 3(2):143–156, 1991. 1

1991
[15]

Pacella and G

F. Pacella and G. Tralli. Overdetermined problems and constant mean curvature surfaces in cones.Revista Matem´ atica Iberoamericana, 36(3):841–867, 2020. 2, 3, 8

2020
[16]

Qiu and C

G. Qiu and C. Xia. Overdetermined boundary value problems inS n.J. Math. Study, 50(2):165–173, 2017. 1 OVERDETERMINED ELLIPTIC PROBLEMS 29

2017
[17]

Roncoroni

A. Roncoroni. A serrin-type symmetry result on model manifolds: an extension of the weinberger argument. Comptes Rendus. Math´ ematique, 356(6):648–656, 2018. 1

2018
[18]

J. Serrin. A symmetry problem in potential theory.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 43:304–318,
[19]

H. F. Weinberger. Remark on the preceding paper of Serrin.Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 43:319–320, 1971. 1 (J.M. do ´O)Department of Mathematics, Federal University of Para ´ıba 58051-900, Jo˜ao Pessoa-PB, Brazil Email address:jmbo@mat.ufpb.br (J. de Lima)Department of Mathemat...

1971

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Alexandrov

A. Alexandrov. Vestnik leningrad univ. 13, 5–8.Am. Math. Soc. Transl.(Ser. 2), 21:412–416, 1958. 1

work page 1958

[2] [2]

A. D. Alexandrov. A characteristic property of spheres.Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata, 58(1):303–315,

work page

[3] [3]

Serrin's type Problems in convex cones in Riemannian manifolds

M. Ara´ ujo, A. Freitas, M. Santos, and J. Sindeaux. Serrin’s type problems in convex cones in riemannian manifolds.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05551, 2025. 22

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

Ciraolo and A

G. Ciraolo and A. Roncoroni. Serrin’s type overdetermined problems in convex cones.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 59:1–21, 2020. 2, 3

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Ciraolo and L

G. Ciraolo and L. Vezzoni. A rigidity problem on the round sphere.Communications in Contemporary Mathematics, 19:1–11, 2017. 1, 20

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Ciraolo and L

G. Ciraolo and L. Vezzoni. On serrin’s overdetermined problem in space forms.manuscripta mathematica, 159:445–452, 2019. 1

work page 2019

[7] [7]

M. M. Fall, I. A. Minlend, and T. Weth. Serrin’s overdetermined problem on the sphere.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 57:1–24, 2018. 1

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Federer.Geometric Measure Theory, volume 153 ofDie Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften

H. Federer.Geometric Measure Theory, volume 153 ofDie Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1969. 10

work page 1969