Self-adjoint differential operators assosiated with self-adjoint differential expressions

B.L. Voronov; D.M. Gitman; I.V. Tyutin

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Self-adjoint differential operators assosiated with self-adjoint differential expressions

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-28 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Self-adjoint extensions of differential operators can be specified directly by boundary conditions, skipping the usual deficiency-subspace calculation.

desk verdict Useful review with correct mathematics, but the advertised shortcut is not a shortcut—the boundary-condition method reproduces deficiency-subspace data in disguise. read the letter →

arxiv quant-ph/0603187 v2 pith:YAKQCKHX submitted 2006-03-21 quant-ph hep-thmath-phmath.MP

B.L. Voronov , D.M. Gitman , I.V. Tyutin This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phhep-thmath-phmath.MP MSC 47B2534B2081Q10

keywords self-adjointextensionsdifferentialoperatorsboundaryconditionsdeficiencyindicesasymmetryformsingularpotentialsquantumobservables

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

Formally self-adjoint differential expressions like momentum and the Hamiltonian define operators only after a domain is chosen, and on intervals with boundaries or singular potentials different domains produce genuinely different quantum observables. This paper argues that the family of self-adjoint operators associated with such an expression—a $U(m)$ family when the deficiency indices are equal and nonzero—can be specified directly by explicit self-adjoint boundary conditions. The central tool is the asymmetry form of the adjoint operator, which for differential expressions reduces to the boundary values of a local form in the functions and their derivatives. The paper's alternative method starts from $m$ vectors in the adjoint domain that are linearly independent modulo the closure domain and have mutually vanishing asymmetry form; such vectors define a self-adjoint extension without first computing deficiency subspaces and indices. This matters because boundary conditions are the natural physical language for fixing how a quantum system behaves at boundaries and singularities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the sesquilinear asymmetry form $\omega_*(\eta_*,\xi_*)=(\eta_*,\hat f^+\xi_*)-(\hat f^+\eta_*,\xi_*)$ on the domain of the adjoint, together with its quadratic version $\Delta_*(\xi_*)=\omega_*(\xi_*,\xi_*)$. For a symmetric operator the form vanishes exactly on the closure domain, and a self-adjoint extension is a maximal domain on which it vanishes. For ordinary differential expressions the integration-by-parts identity converts it into the boundary term $[\chi_*,\psi_*]|_a^b$ of a local form in the functions and their (quasi)derivatives, which is what turns abstract extension theory into boundary conditions. The key modification, stated as an addition to the main theorem, is that a self-adjoint extension is specified by any $m$ vectors $w_k$ in the adjoint domain that are linearly independent modulo the closure domain and satisfy $\omega_*(w_k,w_l)=0$; no explicit diagonalization of the adjoint into deficiency subspaces is needed.

What would settle it

For the expression $-d^2/dx^2-x^4$ on the real line, the paper itself shows the natural domain is not self-adjoint because a boundary value $[\psi_*,\psi_*](+\infty)=-2i$ occurs for one admissible function; if the alternative method cannot produce the required two vectors $w_1,w_2$ unless one first solves the deficiency equations, the claimed advantage fails in the paper's own example.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that every self-adjoint extension of a symmetric differential operator with equal nonzero deficiency indices $m_+=m_-=m$ can be written as a restriction of the adjoint to the domain $D_{f_U}=\{\psi_U\in D_{f^+}:\omega_*(w_k,\psi_U)=0,\ k=1,\ldots,m\}$, where the $w_k$ lie in the adjoint domain, are linearly independent modulo the closure domain, and satisfy $\omega_*(w_k,w_l)=0$. Conversely, any such $m$-tuple defines a self-adjoint extension. Because for an ordinary differential expression the sesquilinear asymmetry form $\omega_*(\chi_*,\psi_*)$ equals the boundary term $[\chi_*,\psi_*]|_a^b$ of the local form, these abstract conditions become explicit boundary conditions, interpreted asymptotically at singular ends. The paper demonstrates the route on momentum on a segment, which yields a one-parameter $U(1)$ family with boundary condition $\psi(l)=e^{i\vartheta}\psi(0)$, and on the free Hamiltonian on a half-line, which yields the $U(1)$ family $\psi'(0)=\lambda\psi(0)$ with $\lambda\in[-\infty,\infty]$.

Load-bearing premise

The shortcut assumes one can explicitly construct the $m$ boundary-behavior vectors $w_k$ in the adjoint domain, linearly independent modulo the closure domain and with mutually vanishing asymmetry form, without first solving the deficiency equations; the paper states this is not guaranteed for all singular boundaries.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a differential expression of order $n$ on a finite interval with two regular ends, the deficiency indices are $n$, so the self-adjoint operators form a $U(n)$ family specified by boundary conditions; the free Hamiltonian on a segment is a four-parameter $U(2)$ family containing Dirichlet, Neumann, periodic, and other boundary conditions.
For an even-order real-coefficient expression the deficiency indices are always equal, so an associated self-adjoint operator always exists, though generally not uniquely; for odd expressions such as $\mathrm i\,d/dx$ on a half-line the indices differ and no self-adjoint momentum operator exists.
The alternative boundary-condition method produces the extension family in the form physicists use for spectral problems, avoiding the intermediate construction of the closure domain and the solution of the deficiency eigenvalue equations $\hat f^+\psi_\pm=\pm\mathrm i\kappa\psi_\pm$.
Parameters absent from the formal expression enter through the extension choice, as the dimensional parameter $\kappa$ does in the half-line Hamiltonian example, showing how quantization of a system with boundaries can break a naive scale invariance.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper's worked examples, the criterion of the addition to the main theorem suggests that extension classification for strongly singular potentials, such as $V=-\alpha/r^\beta$ with $\beta>2$, could reduce to a finite linear algebra problem in the space of asymptotic boundary values, once those values are known.
The method offers a practical diagnostic for essential self-adjointness: evaluate the quadratic asymmetry form on a candidate domain; if a function with nonzero boundary value exists, the natural domain is not self-adjoint, as the paper's $V=-x^4$ example shows, and an extension problem is genuinely present.
A likely natural next step is to apply the same asymmetry-form boundary conditions to systems of differential equations, such as radial Dirac or spinor Hamiltonians, where the paper states matrix generalizations are direct but does not develop them in detail.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

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

Bottom line: this is a solid, useful review paper, but the advertised advantage is overblown. The alternative boundary-condition method in Theorem 15 is a repackaging of von Neumann's deficiency-subspace theory, not an independent shortcut.

What the paper does well: it gives a self-contained account of self-adjoint extensions for ordinary differential operators using asymmetry forms rather than the usual Cayley transform, and it works through concrete examples—momentum on the line, half-line, and finite interval; free Hamiltonian on a finite interval and half-line—with explicit U(1) and U(2) families of boundary conditions. That is genuinely handy for physicists who need to see what the abstract extension theorems mean in practice. The examples check out, the exposition is careful, and the paper is honest enough to state limitations in Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 3.7.

The soft spot is the central claim. The abstract says the method avoids evaluating deficiency subspaces and deficiency indices. Theorem 15 requires a set {w_k} in the adjoint domain that is linearly independent modulo the closure domain and satisfies the asymmetry-form condition, with m equal to the deficiency index. To produce those vectors you need boundary-behavior information of exactly the kind you would need to find the deficiency subspaces. The paper itself concedes the method is not universal and depends on how well you can establish boundary behavior, and Sec. 3.7 restricts to the case where the deficiency indices are already known and equal. For singular boundaries, the w_k "generally have an asymptotic form," but getting that form is the same analytic problem as solving the equations whose square-integrable solutions define D_+ and D_-. So the comparative advantage stated in the abstract does not hold. This is a framing problem rather than a mathematical error: Theorem 15 is fine, the examples are correct, but the novelty claim should be revised.

Who is this for? Anyone who wants a clearly organized map of how self-adjoint boundary conditions arise from extension theory, and a reference for explicit boundary-condition parametrizations of momentum and Hamiltonian on intervals. The paper deserves a serious referee; I would send it to review, with a request to rewrite the abstract and soften the "avoiding deficiency subspaces" language.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a comparative review of methods for specifying self-adjoint (s.a.) operators generated by formally s.a. ordinary differential expressions, based on von Neumann's theory and on the authors' asymmetry-form formalism. It develops the general theory of s.a. extensions, derives boundary-condition descriptions for regular and singular endpoints, and illustrates the methods on the momentum operator and on the free-particle Hamiltonian on finite intervals and semiaxes. In addition to the standard approaches, the paper proposes an alternative method, formalized in Theorem 15, for specifying s.a. extensions directly by conditions ω*(w_k, ψ_U)=0 on a set of m vectors w_k in the adjoint domain, claiming that this avoids evaluating deficiency subspaces and deficiency indices. The paper is explicitly presented as a review, with self-contained derivations and worked examples.

Significance. If the main claim were fully established, the proposed alternative would be a useful practical shortcut for quantum mechanics with boundaries and singular potentials. The paper has genuine strengths: it is largely self-contained, it gives a coherent treatment of asymmetry forms, it converts the von Neumann description into explicit s.a. boundary conditions for several nontrivial examples, and it correctly reproduces known results such as the U(1) family for momentum on an interval and the one-parameter family of self-adjoint Hamiltonians on the semiaxis. The examples are concrete and checkable, and the exposition is pedagogically valuable. However, the load-bearing advertised advantage—that the new method avoids evaluation of deficiency subspaces and deficiency indices—is not supported by the paper's own hypotheses and limitations. The paper therefore needs substantial revision to bring the abstract and conclusions in line with what Theorem 15 actually delivers.

major comments (4)

[Abstract and §3.7, Theorem 15] The advertised comparative advantage is not established. Theorem 15 requires the deficiency indices to be known and equal, m_+=m_-=m>0, and requires a set {w_k}_{k=1}^m in D_f+ that is linearly independent modulo Dbar_f and satisfies ω*(w_k,w_l)=0. The theorem provides no independent criterion for determining m; in differential-operator examples, m is obtained by solving the equations (f-check ∓ iκ)ψ=0 and counting square-integrable solutions, which is exactly the deficiency-subspace computation described in (100)–(101). The paper itself concedes in §3.7 that the construction applies only 'provided that the deficient indices are known and equal.' Thus the claim that the method avoids evaluating deficiency indices goes beyond what Theorem 15 supports.
[§3.4, §3.7, and Lemma 8] Verifying the hypotheses of Theorem 15 still requires the boundary-behavior analysis that the method claims to bypass. Lemma 8 characterizes the closure domain Dbar_f by the boundary conditions [ψ_*, ψ](a)=[ψ_*, ψ](b)=0 for all ψ_* in D_*, given in (108)–(109). Consequently, checking that the w_k are linearly independent modulo Dbar_f requires knowledge of asymptotic boundary values of the type expressed in (88)–(91). For singular endpoints, the proposed w_k 'generally have an asymptotic form,' but obtaining that form is precisely the analytic problem of determining the asymptotic behavior of solutions near the singular points. The method is therefore best described as a reformulation of the standard deficiency-subspace construction in terms of boundary conditions, not an independent shortcut.
[§3.7, semiaxis example after Theorem 14] The illustrative example for the free Hamiltonian on the semiaxis does not demonstrate avoidance of deficiency subspaces. The construction of the boundary matrix E_{1/2,θ}(0) and of the boundary condition ψ'_θ(0)=λψ_θ(0) uses the explicit functions e_± = (2κ)^{1/4} exp[(±i−1)√(κ/2)x], which are obtained by solving −ψ'' = ±iκψ and selecting the square-integrable solution. These are exactly the deficiency-subspace basis vectors. The example is correct and useful as an illustration of the boundary-condition formalism, but it undercuts the abstract's claim that the method avoids evaluating deficient subspaces.
[§3.1 and §2.8] The paper's own limitations statements are in tension with the abstract. Section 3.1 explicitly says the method 'is not universal at present' and that its applicability depends on 'to what extent we can establish the boundary behavior of functions involved.' Section 2.8, in the general step-by-step programme, also lists evaluation of deficiency subspaces as a required step. These caveats should be reflected in the abstract and in the concluding claims; as written, the abstract's unqualified statement of a 'comparative advantage' is not supported by the body of the paper.

minor comments (4)

[Title] The title contains a typo: 'assosiated' should be 'associated.'
[Throughout] The phrase 'deﬁcient indices' appears in several places, e.g., in §3.7; the standard term is 'deficiency indices' and should be used consistently.
[Abstract] The abstract would be more accurate if it stated the method's limitation explicitly, e.g., 'when the deficiency indices are known and equal, the formulation can avoid explicit construction of deficiency-subspace bases.'
[§3.4, natural-domain discussion] The discussion of ψ_*(x) not necessarily vanishing at infinity is correct and important, but the wording around the statement 'we show this later' could be cross-referenced with the relevant equation number (the proof appears in the discussion preceding (95) and in §3.5).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 15 is an internally proved equivalent characterization, and the paper's own caveats qualify the advertised shortcut.

full rationale

This is a self-contained mathematical exposition; there are no fitted data, no empirical predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations. The central new item, Theorem 15 (Sec. 3.7), claims that any set {w_k} in D_f+ that is linearly independent modulo the closure domain and satisfies ω*(w_k,w_l)=0 defines a self-adjoint extension by (144). The theorem is proved in the paper from the von Neumann decomposition: the three hypotheses are shown to imply nonsingular matrices X and Y and hence a unitary U = YX^{-1}, which reduces the construction to the already-proved main theorem. The conclusion is therefore not an input of the theorem; the conditions are proved equivalent to the standard U(m) data, not defined as those data. The paper also checks the method on concrete operators (momentum on intervals, free Hamiltonian on a finite interval and semiaxis, with explicit boundary conditions (52), (130)-(133), and (140)), and those checks are independent calculations. The only tension is that the abstract's unqualified phrase 'allows avoiding an evaluation of deficient subspaces and deficiency indices' is stronger than the body supports: Sec. 3.7 says the algebraic shortcut works only 'provided that the deficient indices are known and equal,' and Sec. 3.1 concedes that the method 'is not universal at present' and that its applicability depends on establishing the boundary behavior of the functions involved. That is an overclaim or limitation of the proposed shortcut, not a circular derivation: the paper does not define the target extension in terms of itself, does not fit a parameter and call it a prediction, and does not rely on a self-citation for the main argument. Standard background references are used for the classical theory, while Theorem 15 is proved in the text from the first von Neumann formula and the main theorem. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard operator theory and differential-equations background. The only chosen parameter is κ, which cancels. The proposed method's applicability is an assumption, not an entity.

free parameters (1)

κ
Arbitrary dimensional parameter introduced in the deficiency equations (100); the authors note it cancels from the final explicit boundary conditions, so it is not fitted to data.

assumptions (4)

standard math von Neumann theory of self-adjoint extensions of symmetric operators (Theorems 1-3).
The paper's main theorems rely on the first and second von Neumann formulas and the decomposition of the adjoint domain, presented in Sec. 2.
domain assumption Standard regularity conditions on coefficients of the differential expression: f2k-1 and f2k are k-time differentiable, f0 locally integrable, etc.
Sec. 3.2 states these conditions are sufficient for the Lagrange identity and generalized solutions; the paper later claims extension to weaker conditions.
domain assumption Smoothness assumption V in C^infty(a,b) for the proof of the generalized-solution lemma (Lemma 7).
Sec. 3.3 says this is a technical assumption that can be extended to locally bounded potentials, but the detailed proof is not given in full.
domain assumption Constructibility of m vectors wk satisfying (143) and linear independence modulo Df, without prior deficiency computation.
The proposed alternative method in Sec. 3.7 is only applicable if such wk can be found; the paper states the method is not universal.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-adjoint differential operators assosiated with self-adjoint differential expressions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YAKQCKHX

@misc{pith2026quant-ph0603187,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-adjoint differential operators assosiated with self-adjoint differential expressions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YAKQCKHX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:quant-ph/0603187}
}

read the original abstract

Considerable attention has been recently focused on quantum-mechanical systems with boundaries and/or singular potentials for which the construction of physical observables as self-adjoint (s.a.) operators is a nontrivial problem. We present a comparative review of various methods of specifying ordinary s.a. differential operators generated by formally s.a. differential expressions based on the general theory of s.a. extensions of symmetric operators. The exposition is untraditional and is based on the concept of asymmetry forms generated by adjoint operators. The main attention is given to a specification of s.a. extensions by s.a. boundary conditions. All the methods are illustrated by examples of quantum-mechanical observables like momentum and Hamiltonian. In addition to the conventional methods, we propose a possible alternative way of specifying s.a. differential operators by explicit s.a. boundary conditions that generally have an asymptotic form for singular boundaries. A comparative advantage of the method is that it allows avoiding an evaluation of deficient subspaces and deficiency indices. The effectiveness of the method is illustrated by a number of examples of quantum-mechanical observables.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (Berlin 1932)

J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (Berlin 1932)

work page 1932
[2]

Faddeev, O.A

L.D. Faddeev, O.A. Yakubovsky, Lectures on Qunatum Mechanic s (Leningrad State Uni- versity Press, Leningrad 1980)

work page 1980
[3]

Berezin and M.A

F.A. Berezin and M.A. Shubin, Schr¨ odinger Equation(Kluwer Publ., New York, Amster- dam 1991)

work page 1991
[4]

Berezin, L.D

F.A. Berezin, L.D. Faddeev, A remark on Schr¨ odinger’s equation with a singular potential, Sov. Math. Dokl. 2 (1961) 372-375

work page 1961
[5]

von Neumann, , Allgemaine Eigenwerttheorie Hermitischer Functional Ope ratoren, Matematische Annalen, 102 (1929) 49-131

J. von Neumann, , Allgemaine Eigenwerttheorie Hermitischer Functional Ope ratoren, Matematische Annalen, 102 (1929) 49-131

work page 1929
[6]

Stone, Linear Transformations in Hilbert Space and their Applicat ions to Analysis , Amer

M.H. Stone, Linear Transformations in Hilbert Space and their Applicat ions to Analysis , Amer. Math. Soc., Colloquium Publications Vol. 15 (Amer. Math. Soc., N ew York 1932)

work page 1932
[7]

Akhiezer and I.M

N.I. Akhiezer and I.M. Glazman, Theory of Linear Operators in Hilbert Space (Pitman, Boston 1981)

work page 1981
[8]

Naimark, Theory of Linear Diﬀerential Operators (Nauka, Moscow 1969)

M.A. Naimark, Theory of Linear Diﬀerential Operators (Nauka, Moscow 1969)

work page 1969

Show all 33 references

[9]

Case, Singular potentials , Phys

K.M. Case, Singular potentials , Phys. Rev. 80 (1950) 797-806

1950
[10]

Mott, H.S.W

M.F. Mott, H.S.W. Massey, Theory of Atomic Collisions (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1933)

1933
[11]

Tamm, Mesons in a Coulomb ﬁeld , Phys

I.E. Tamm, Mesons in a Coulomb ﬁeld , Phys. Rev. 58 (1940) 952

1940
[12]

Corben, J

H.C. Corben, J. Schwinger, The electromagnetic properties of mesotrons , Phys. Rev. 58 (1940) 953-968

1940
[13]

Reed and B

M. Reed and B. Simon, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics , vol. II (Academic Press, New York 1972)

1972
[14]

Richtmyer, Principles of Advanced Mathematical Physics , Vol

R.D. Richtmyer, Principles of Advanced Mathematical Physics , Vol. 1(Springer-Verlag, New York 1978)

1978
[15]

Shin, On quasidiﬀerential operators in Hilbert space , Matematicheskii sbornik 13 (55) (1943) 39-70

D. Shin, On quasidiﬀerential operators in Hilbert space , Matematicheskii sbornik 13 (55) (1943) 39-70

1943
[16]

Everitt, Fourth order diﬀerential equations , Math

W.N. Everitt, Fourth order diﬀerential equations , Math. Ann. 149 (1963) 320-340

1963
[17]

Titchmarsh, Eigenfunction Expansions Associated with Second-order Di ﬀerential Equations (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1958)

E.C. Titchmarsh, Eigenfunction Expansions Associated with Second-order Di ﬀerential Equations (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1958)

1958
[18]

Kostuchenko, S.G

A.G. Kostuchenko, S.G. Krein, and V.I. Sobolev, Linear Operators in Hilbert Space , in Spravochnaya Matematicheskaya Biblioteka (Functional Analysis) Ed. S.G. Krein (Nauka, Moscow 1964) 90

1964
[19]

Maslov and L.D

B.P. Maslov and L.D. Faddeev, Operators in Quantum Mechanics , in Spravochnaya Matematicheskaya Biblioteka (Functional Analysis) Ed. S.G. Krein (N auka, Moscow 1964)

1964
[20]

Berezansky, Eigenfunction Expansions Associated with Self-adjoint Op erators, (Naukova Dumka, Kiev 1965)

Yu.M. Berezansky, Eigenfunction Expansions Associated with Self-adjoint Op erators, (Naukova Dumka, Kiev 1965)

1965
[21]

Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators , (Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York 1966)

T. Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators , (Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York 1966)

1966
[22]

Weyl, ¨Uber gew¨ onliche lineare Diﬀerentialgleichungen mit sing ul¨ aren Stellen und ihre Eigenfunctionen, G¨ otinger Nachrichten (1909) 37-64

H. Weyl, ¨Uber gew¨ onliche lineare Diﬀerentialgleichungen mit sing ul¨ aren Stellen und ihre Eigenfunctionen, G¨ otinger Nachrichten (1909) 37-64

1909
[23]

Weyl, ¨Uber gew¨ onliche Diﬀerentialgleichungen mit Singularit¨aten und zugeh¨ origen Entwiklungen Willk¨ urlicher Funktionen, Math

H. Weyl, ¨Uber gew¨ onliche Diﬀerentialgleichungen mit Singularit¨aten und zugeh¨ origen Entwiklungen Willk¨ urlicher Funktionen, Math. Annalen 68 (1910) 220-269

1910
[24]

Weyl, ¨Uber gew¨ onliche Diﬀerentialgleichungen mit singul¨ arenStellen und ihre Eigen- functionen, G¨ otinger Nachrichten, (1910) 442-467

H. Weyl, ¨Uber gew¨ onliche Diﬀerentialgleichungen mit singul¨ arenStellen und ihre Eigen- functionen, G¨ otinger Nachrichten, (1910) 442-467

1910
[25]

Titchmarsh, Eigenfunction Expansions Assosiated with Second-order Di ﬀerential Equations, (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1946 )

E.C. Titchmarsh, Eigenfunction Expansions Assosiated with Second-order Di ﬀerential Equations, (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1946 )

1946
[26]

Levitan, Eigenfunction Expansions Assosiated with Second-order Di ﬀerential Equa- tions, (Gostechizdat, Moscow 1950)

B.M. Levitan, Eigenfunction Expansions Assosiated with Second-order Di ﬀerential Equa- tions, (Gostechizdat, Moscow 1950)

1950
[27]

Weidmann, Spectral Theory of Ordinary Diﬀerential Operators (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York 1987)

J. Weidmann, Spectral Theory of Ordinary Diﬀerential Operators (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York 1987)

1987
[28]

Albeverio, F

S. Albeverio, F. Gesztesy, R. H / oegh-Krohn, H. Holden, Solvable models in quantum me- chanics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1988)

1988
[29]

Shilov, Mathematical Analysis

G.E. Shilov, Mathematical Analysis. Second Special Course , (Nauka, Moscow 1965)

1965
[30]

Putnam, On the spectra of certain boundary value problem, Amer

C.R. Putnam, On the spectra of certain boundary value problem, Amer. J. of Math. 71 (1949) 109-111

1949
[31]

Hartman, A

P. Hartman, A. Wintner, Criteria of non-degeneracy for the wave equations, Amer. J. Math. 70 (1948) 295-269

1948
[32]

Levinson, Criteria for the limit point case for second order linear diﬀ erential operators, Casopis Pˇ est

N. Levinson, Criteria for the limit point case for second order linear diﬀ erential operators, Casopis Pˇ est. Math. Fys.74 (1949) 17-20

1949
[33]

Boneau, J

G. Boneau, J. Faraut, and G. Valent, Self-adjoint extensions of operators and the teaching of quantum mechanics , Am. J. Phys. 69 (2001) 322-331 91

2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (Berlin 1932)

J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (Berlin 1932)

work page 1932

[2] [2]

Faddeev, O.A

L.D. Faddeev, O.A. Yakubovsky, Lectures on Qunatum Mechanic s (Leningrad State Uni- versity Press, Leningrad 1980)

work page 1980

[3] [3]

Berezin and M.A

F.A. Berezin and M.A. Shubin, Schr¨ odinger Equation(Kluwer Publ., New York, Amster- dam 1991)

work page 1991

[4] [4]

Berezin, L.D

F.A. Berezin, L.D. Faddeev, A remark on Schr¨ odinger’s equation with a singular potential, Sov. Math. Dokl. 2 (1961) 372-375

work page 1961

[5] [5]

von Neumann, , Allgemaine Eigenwerttheorie Hermitischer Functional Ope ratoren, Matematische Annalen, 102 (1929) 49-131

J. von Neumann, , Allgemaine Eigenwerttheorie Hermitischer Functional Ope ratoren, Matematische Annalen, 102 (1929) 49-131

work page 1929

[6] [6]

Stone, Linear Transformations in Hilbert Space and their Applicat ions to Analysis , Amer

M.H. Stone, Linear Transformations in Hilbert Space and their Applicat ions to Analysis , Amer. Math. Soc., Colloquium Publications Vol. 15 (Amer. Math. Soc., N ew York 1932)

work page 1932

[7] [7]

Akhiezer and I.M

N.I. Akhiezer and I.M. Glazman, Theory of Linear Operators in Hilbert Space (Pitman, Boston 1981)

work page 1981

[8] [8]

Naimark, Theory of Linear Diﬀerential Operators (Nauka, Moscow 1969)

M.A. Naimark, Theory of Linear Diﬀerential Operators (Nauka, Moscow 1969)

work page 1969