Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 1 cited by

Optimal measures for p-frame energies on spheres

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that tight designs are global minimizers of p-frame energies over all probability measures.

desk verdict This paper deserves serious peer review: the measure-theoretic LP extension is new, the 600-cell proof is sound, and the soft spots are minor and clearly labeled as conjectural. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00885 v3 pith:74SW7RT2 submitted 2019-08-02 math.MG math.CAmath.CO

Dmitriy Bilyk , Alexey Glazyrin , Ryan Matzke , Josiah Park , Oleksandr Vlasiuk This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.MGmath.CAmath.CO MSC 52A4052C1741A05
keywords p-frameenergytightsphericaldesignsprojectiveminimizationlinearprogrammingboundsHermiteinterpolationpositivedefinitefunctions600-cell
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 solves a variational placement problem: where to put unit mass on a sphere so that the integral of $|\langle x,y\rangle|^p$ over pairs of points is as small as possible. It proves that whenever a tight spherical $(2t+1)$-design exists, the uniform measure on that configuration minimizes the $p$-frame energy for every $p$ in $[2t-2,2t]$, among all Borel probability measures, not just among point sets. The same conclusion holds for tight projective $t$-designs over the real, complex, and quaternionic projective spaces. The method also shows that the 600-cell, a 120-vertex regular polytope on $S^3$, minimizes the energy for $8 \le p \le 10$. For $p$ strictly inside these intervals, all minimizers must themselves be tight designs, hence discrete, supporting the paper's conjecture that for $p$ not an even integer the minimizing measures are always discrete.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Hermite interpolating polynomial $H[f,g]$, the unique low-degree polynomial that matches $f$ and its derivatives at the inner-product values occurring among pairs of points of the candidate configuration. The polynomial $g$ is chosen so that its roots are exactly those inner-product values, with double roots away from $\pm 1$, which forces $H[f,g]=f$ on the configuration while $H[f,g]\le f$ everywhere by a divided-difference remainder formula. Positive definiteness of $H[f,g]$ is proved by expanding it through Newton's interpolation formula into products of root factors; a quoted theorem gives nonnegative orthogonal-polynomial coefficients for those factors, and a supplementary positivity lemma for adjacent orthogonal polynomials handles the odd-strength case. Once $H[f,g]$ is positive definite, the linear programming bound yields $I_f(\mu) \ge I_{H[f,g]}(\sigma)=I_f(\mu_C)$ for every probability measure $\mu$, which is exactly the optimality statement.

What would settle it

For a concrete instance, take the icosahedron on $S^2$ at $p=3$ and compute the Hermite interpolant through its five distance values; if any Jacobi coefficient of the interpolant with respect to the measure associated with $\mathbb{RP}^2$ is negative, the positive-definiteness step fails. Equivalently, a numerical search over probability measures that beats the value $0.241202265916660$ at $p=3$ would disprove the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the kernel $f(t)=|t|^p$, the $p$-frame energy $I_f(\mu)=\int\int f(\langle x,y\rangle)\,d\mu(x)d\mu(y)$ over Borel probability measures is minimized, on spheres and projective spaces, by the uniform measure on certain highly symmetric finite configurations. Specifically, Theorem 1.1 states that a tight spherical $(2t+1)$-design minimizes the energy for $2t-2 \le p \le 2t$, a tight projective $t$-design over $\mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{C}$, or $\mathbb{H}$ does the same in the same range, and the 600-cell minimizes it on $S^3$ for $8 \le p \le 10$. When $p$ lies strictly inside the interval, every minimizer is itself a tight design, so the minimizing measure is discrete. At even integers the uniform surface measure is also a minimizer, but the paper argues that for non-even $p$ the optimal distributions are discrete and, in the cases studied, coincide with classical symmetric codes and designs.

Load-bearing premise

The entire tight-design optimality proof leans on a quoted theorem that partial products of the design's distance polynomial expand into orthogonal polynomials with nonnegative coefficients, and if that positivity failed for the Jacobi parameters arising from projective spaces the proof would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any tight design that exists in a given dimension is a genuine global optimum: no measure, discrete or continuous, can do better on the stated $p$-interval.
  • For $p$ strictly inside the interval, all optimizers are discrete tight designs; in particular, continuous measures such as surface measure are strictly suboptimal.
  • For discrete energies, repeating the tight design $k$ times minimizes the $N$-point $p$-frame energy whenever $N$ is a multiple of the design size.
  • The same certificates carry over to non-compact spaces $\mathbb{F}^d$ when measures are normalized to have fixed second moment, giving the same minimizing configurations.
  • In convex geometry, the cube minimizes the mixed-volume ratio $V_1(K,\Pi K)/|\partial K|^2$ among symmetric convex bodies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the discreteness conjecture is correct, each even integer acts as a phase transition: the uniform measure is optimal at the even integer, while any neighbouring non-even $p$ forces a discrete optimizer; the paper's proofs establish this only at the specific scales where tight designs exist, not in general.
  • The certificate method could be turned into a proof for the numerically conjectured configurations in Tables 1 and 2: for each named set one would construct an interpolating polynomial with nonnegative Jacobi coefficients, as was done rigorously for the 600-cell.
  • The 85-vector weighted 3-design in $\mathbb{CP}^4$, which improves the smallest known size from 320 to 85, is a natural test case: if its interpolating polynomial can be certified positive definite, the numerical optimality would become a theorem.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies probability measures on spheres and projective spaces that minimize p-frame energies, i.e., energies with kernel f(t)=|t|^p or, projectively, f(t)=((1+t)/2)^{p/2}. The main results are: (i) if a tight spherical (2t+1)-design exists, then the uniform measure on it minimizes the p-frame energy for 2t-2 <= p <= 2t over all Borel probability measures; (ii) an analogous statement holds for tight projective t-designs over R, C, and H; and (iii) the 600-cell minimizes the p-frame energy on S^3 for 8 <= p <= 10, with a computer-assisted proof. The paper also contains a uniqueness statement for minimizers in the tight-design cases, extensions to non-compact spaces and mixed-volume inequalities, and a numerical study suggesting several other conjectured minimizers, including a new weighted projective 3-design of 85 vectors in CP^4 that improves previous size bounds.

Significance. If the results hold, they give the first exact global minimizers of p-frame energies over all probability measures for non-even p, establishing discreteness of minimizers in several concrete cases. The linear-programming framework is cleanly transported from the discrete setting of Cohn-Kumar to the measure setting, and the proof for the 600-cell is a non-trivial computer-assisted argument with interval arithmetic. The paper is careful to label numerical claims as conjectural, and the main theorems are supported by rigorous proofs. The auxiliary results for the 600-cell are reproducible from the distributed SageMath notebook, and the new 85-vector weighted design in CP^4 is verified by an accompanying Magma script. These are concrete strengths of the manuscript.

minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4, Proposition 3.8] The proof refers to 'Lemma 3.3' for the inequality f(t) >= H[f,g](t), but this inequality follows from Lemma 3.6 (the Hermite remainder formula), not from Lemma 3.3 (the strengthened Krein condition). The same mis-citation appears in the first sentence of the proof of Proposition 3.9; there Lemma 3.3 is used later for positive definiteness, while the first inequality again requires Lemma 3.6.
  2. [§4, Theorem 4.2] The node t_2 is misprinted: it should read t_2 = -(1+sqrt(5))/4, not -(sqrt(5)-1)/4. With the printed value, the interpolating conditions do not correspond to the distance set of the 600-cell in RP^3. The value t_4 = (sqrt(5)-1)/4 is correct. Also, the proof uses the letter p both for the exponent and for the polynomial p(t); please rename one of them to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [§3.4, Proposition 3.9] The summation limits in the final Newton-type formula for H[f,g] appear to start at k=2, and the definitions of a_k and b_k are given only for 1 <= k <= m. Please reconcile the indexing with the multiplicities of the roots t_1,...,t_{m+1} and state the correct range of summation.
  4. [§11.3.2 (Appendix)] The displayed factorization 'H(t) = 5/32 (5-sqrt(5))(t+1)(t-1/sqrt(5))(t+1/sqrt(5))' is inconsistent with the quartic definition of H(t) given a few lines earlier; a quartic cannot equal a cubic. Please correct the factorization or explain the intended interpolation conditions, since the subsequent sign analysis of F-H relies on the actual roots of H.
  5. [§3.5, Theorem 3.13] The proof of uniqueness is terse: equality in Ih(mu) >= Ih(sigma) only forces the moments integral Y dmu = 0 for indices n with strictly positive Jacobi coefficient of h. Please justify explicitly that the set of such indices contains all n up to the design order, or state this as a clearly needed condition; otherwise the assertion that every minimizer is a tight design is not fully established from the displayed inequalities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained given standard linear programming bounds and external theorems from Cohn-Kumar and Levenshtein.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 1.1, is derived through the linear programming framework of Lemma 3.1 together with Hermite interpolation and positivity arguments in Section 3.4. The key technical ingredients are Proposition 3.4, quoted from Cohn-Kumar [CK, Theorem 3.1], and Lemma 3.3, proved in the paper as a special case of Levenshtein's strengthened Krein condition. These are external, general orthogonal-polynomial facts; they do not assume the target optimality result and are not supplied by the present authors. The proof then constructs the Hermite interpolant H[f,g] and verifies its positive definiteness by expressing it through positive combinations of Jacobi polynomials and their products; no parameter is fitted to the energy values being predicted. The 600-cell result in Section 4 uses a computer-assisted interval-arithmetic check of nonnegativity of Jacobi coefficients, with the harmonic-vanishing properties cited from Andreev and from Cohn-Kumar; this is independent verification, not a restatement of the conclusion. Self-citations appear only in auxiliary roles: [BGM+] is cited to support the conjecture that non-even p-frame minimizers have empty interior, and [BiD] is cited for the standard fact that positive-definite kernels are minimized by surface measure. Neither carries the proof of Theorem 1.1, and neither is used to forbid alternatives or to import a uniqueness theorem. The numerical tables and conjectured minimizers are explicitly labeled as conjectural and do not enter the proof of the main theorems. No equation in the paper is shown to be equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The claimed optimality of tight designs and of the 600-cell therefore has independent mathematical content beyond the assumptions used to derive it.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorems introduce no fitted numbers: the weights in the weighted designs are exact rational values solving the cubature conditions, and the energy comparisons are exact or interval-verified. All listed axioms are either standard results from orthogonal polynomial theory or explicit hypotheses about the kernel and the design.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Compact connected two-point homogeneous spaces admit the L2 decomposition into irreducible representations with the addition formula (2.2).
    Section 2.1; the foundation of the linear programming method.
  • standard math Positive definiteness on Ω is equivalent to nonnegative Jacobi coefficients (Proposition 2.2).
    Section 2.2, cited to Bochner, Schoenberg, Gangolli.
  • standard math Proposition 3.4 from Cohn-Kumar: subproducts of zeros of p_n + γ p_{n-1} are nonnegative linear combinations of orthogonal polynomials.
    Section 3.4, cited as [CK, Theorem 3.1]; used to prove positive definiteness of the Hermite interpolant in Propositions 3.8 and 3.9.
  • standard math Lemma 3.3 (strengthened Krein condition): (t+1)Q^{1,1}_n(t) is positive definite for n≥0.
    Section 3.2, cited to Levenshtein [Le2, Lemma 3.22]; used in the odd-strength design case.
  • domain assumption The p-frame kernel f(t)=((1+t)/2)^{p/2} is absolutely monotonic of degree M with f^{(M+1)} ≤ 0 on (-1,1) for p ∈ [2M-2, 2M].
    Section 2.4 and 3.4; verified by direct derivative computation; this is the hypothesis of Theorem 3.7.
  • domain assumption Known existence of the specific tight designs and the 600-cell with their stated distance sets.
    Table 3 and Section 4; the theorems are conditional on these configurations, which are classical (icosahedron, 600-cell, Leech roots, etc.).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal measures for p-frame energies on spheres." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/74SW7RT2

@misc{pith2026190800885,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal measures for p-frame energies on spheres},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/74SW7RT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00885}
}
abstract

We provide new answers about the placement of mass on spheres so as to minimize energies of pairwise interactions. We find optimal measures for the $p$-frame energies, i.e. energies with the kernel given by the absolute value of the inner product raised to a positive power $p$. Application of linear programming methods in the setting of projective spaces allows for describing the minimizing measures in full in several cases: we show optimality of tight designs and of the $600$-cell for several ranges of $p$ in different dimensions. Our methods apply to a much broader class of potential functions, those which are absolutely monotonic up to a particular order as functions of the cosine of the geodesic distance. In addition, a preliminary numerical study is presented which suggests optimality of several other highly symmetric configurations and weighted designs in low dimensions. In one case we improve the best known lower bounds on a minimal sized weighted design in $\mathbb{CP}^4$. All these results point to the discreteness of minimizing measures for the $p$-frame energy with $p$ not an even integer.

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. Energy on spheres and discreteness of minimizing measures

    math.CA 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For non-even p, every minimizer of the p-frame energy on the sphere has support with empty interior, and for potentials with finitely many positive Gegenbauer coefficients a discrete minimizer always exists.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    N. N. Andreev. A spherical code. Russian Mathematical Surveys 54 (1999), 251--253. 1706807

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    N. N. Andreev. A minimal design of order 11 on the three-dimensional sphere. (Russian) Mat. Zametki 67 (2000), 489--497; Translation in Math. Notes 67 (2000), 417--424. 1769895

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    J. C. Baez. The octonions. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 39 (2001), 145--206, 1886087 ; see errata in Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 42 (2005), 213. arXiv:math/0105155 2132837

    arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    Balagu \'e , J

    D. Balagu \'e , J. Carrillo, T. Laurent, and G. Raoul. Nonlocal interactions by repulsive--attractive potentials: radial ins/stability. Phys. D 260 (2013), 5--25. arXiv:1109.5258 3143991

    arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Bannai and R

    E. Bannai and R. Damerell. Tight spherical designs I. J. Math. Soc. Japan 31 (1979), 199--207. 0519045

    work page 1979

  6. [6]

    Bannai and R

    E. Bannai and R. Damerell. Tight spherical designs II. J. London Math. Soc. 21 (1980), 13--30. 0576179

    work page 1980

  7. [7]

    Bannai and S

    E. Bannai and S. Hoggar. Tight t -designs and squarefree integers. European J. Combin. 10 (1989), 113--135. 0988506

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    Bannai, A

    E. Bannai, A. Munemasa, and B. Venkov. The nonexistence of certain tight spherical designs . Algebra i Analiz 16 (2004), 1--23. 2090848

    work page 2004

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    J. J. Benedetto and M. Fickus. Finite normalized tight frames. Adv. Comput. Math 18 (2003), 357--385. 1968126

    2003

  2. [10]

    Bilyk and F

    D. Bilyk and F. Dai. Geodesic distance riesz energy on the sphere . Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., To appear. arXiv:1612.08442

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bilyk, A

    D. Bilyk, A. Glazyrin, R. Matzke, J. Park, and O. Vlasiuk. Energy on spheres and discrete minimizers . pre-print. arXiv:1908.10354

    1908 arXiv

  4. [12]

    S. Bochner. Hilbert distances and positive definite functions . Ann. of Math. 42 (1941), 647--656. 0005782

    1941

  5. [13]

    Bourgain and J

    J. Bourgain and J. Lindenstrauss. Projection Bodies. Geometric aspects of functional analysis, Lecture Notes in Math. 1317 (1988), Springer, Berlin, 250--270. 950986

    1988

  6. [14]

    Carrillo, A

    J. Carrillo, A. Figalli, and F. S. Patacchini. Geometry of minimizers for the interaction energy with mildly repulsive potentials. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\'e Anal. Non Lin\'eaire 34 (2017), 1299--1308. arXiv:1607.08660 3742525

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J. A. Carrillo, R. J. McCann, and C. Villani. Kinetic equilibration rates for granular media and related equations: entropy dissipation and mass transportation estimates. Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 19 (2003), 971--1018. 2053570

    2003

  8. [16]

    Cohn and A

    H. Cohn and A. Kumar. Universally optimal distribution of points on spheres. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 20 (2007), 99--149. arXiv:math/0607446 2257398

    2007 arXiv

  9. [17]

    H. Cohn, J. Conway, N. Elkies, and A. Kumar. The D_4 root system is not universally optimal. Experimental Mathematics 16 (2007), 313--320. arXiv:math/0607447 2367321

    2007 arXiv

  10. [18]

    H. Cohn, A. Kumar, and G. Minton. Optimal simplices and codes in projective spaces. Geom. Topol. 20 (2016), 1289--1357. arXiv:1308.3188 3523059

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    S. B. Damelin and P. J. Grabner. Energy functionals, numerical integration and asymptotic equidistribution on the sphere. J. Complexity 19 (2003), 231--246. 1984111

    2003

  12. [20]

    Delsarte

    P. Delsarte. An algebraic approach to the association schemes of coding theory. Philips Res. Rep. Suppl. 10 (1973). 0384310

    1973

  13. [21]

    Delsarte, J

    P. Delsarte, J. M. Goethals, and J. J. Seidel. Spherical codes and designs. Geometriae Dedicata 6 (1977), 363--388. 0485471

    1977

  14. [22]

    R. A. DeVore and G. G. Lorentz. Constructive Approximation . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (1993). 1261635

    1993

  15. [23]

    Ehler and K

    M. Ehler and K. A. Okoudjou. Minimization of the probabilistic p-frame potential . J. Statist. Plann. Inference 142 (2012), 645--659. arXiv:1101.0140 2853573

    2012 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Finster and D

    F. Finster and D. Schiefeneder. On the Support of Minimizers of Causal Variational Principles . Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 210 (2013), 321--364. arXiv:1012.1589 2719559

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Freudenthal

    H. Freudenthal. Zur ebenen Oktavengeometrie . Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Ser. A. 56 (1953), 195-–200. 0056306

    1953

  18. [26]

    Gangolli

    R. Gangolli. Positive definite kernels on homogeneous spaces and certain stochastic processes related to L \' e vy's B rownian motion of several parameters . Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\' e Sect. B (N.S.) 3 (1967), 121--226. 0215331

    1967

  19. [27]

    Glazyrin

    A. Glazyrin. Moments of isotropic measures and optimal projective codes . preprint. arXiv:1904.11159

    1904 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. G. Hoggar. t-designs in projective spaces. European J. Combin. 3 (1982), 233--254. 0679208

    1982

  21. [29]

    S. G. Hoggar. Tight 4 - and 5 -designs in projective spaces. Graphs Combin. 5 (1989), 87--94. 0981234

    1989

  22. [30]

    Hughes and S

    D. Hughes and S. Waldron. Spherical (t,t)-designs with a small number of vectors. Published electronically at https://math.auckland.ac.nz/ waldron/Preprints/Numerical-t-designs/numerical-t-designs.html

  23. [31]

    https://gforge.inria.fr/projects/mpfi/

    InriaForge : MPFI . https://gforge.inria.fr/projects/mpfi/

  24. [32]

    Koldobsky

    A. Koldobsky. Fourier analysis in convex geometry. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 116 , American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, (2005). 2132704

    2005

  25. [33]

    Kolokolnikov, H

    T. Kolokolnikov, H. Sun, D. Uminsky, and A. L. Bertozzi. Stability of ring patterns arising from two-dimensional particle interactions . Phys. E 84 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    A. V. Kolushov and V. A. Yudin . On the Korkin-Zolotarev construction. Discrete Math. Appl. 4 (1994), 143--146. 1273240

    1994

  27. [35]

    A. V. Kolushov and V. A. Yudin. Extremal dispositions of points on the sphere. Anal. Math. 23 (1997), 25--34. 1630001

    1997

  28. [36]

    Lehrer and D

    G. Lehrer and D. Taylor. Unitary Reflection Groups . Australian Mathematical Society Lecture Series 20 , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2009). 2542964

    2009

  29. [37]

    V. I. Levenshtein. Designs as maximum codes in polynomial metric spaces . Acta Appl. Math. 29 (1992), 1--82. 1192833

    1992

  30. [38]

    V. I. Levenshtein. Universal Bounds for Codes and Designs . Handbook of coding theory, Vol. I, II, North-Holland, Amsterdam, (1998), 499--648. 1667942

    1998

  31. [39]

    Lutwak, D

    E. Lutwak, D. Yang, and G. Y. Zhang. L_p affine isoperimetric inequalities . J. Differential Geom. 56 (2000), 111--132. 1863023

    2000

  32. [40]

    Y. I. Lyubich. On tight projective designs. Des. Codes Cryptogr. 51 (2009), 21--31. arXiv:math/0703526 2480685

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Y. I. Lyubich and O. A. Shatalova. A recursive construction of projective cubature formulas and related isometric embeddings. preprint. arXiv:1310.4562v2

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    A. A. Makhnev. On the nonexistence of strongly regular graphs with the parameters (486,165,36,66) . Ukra\" n. Mat. Zh. 54 (2002), 941--949. 2015515

    2002

  35. [43]

    Y. Mimura. A construction of spherical 2 -designs. Graphs Combin. 6 (1990), 369--373. 1092586

    1990

  36. [44]

    Mogilner, L

    A. Mogilner, L. Edelstein-Keshet, L. Bent, and A. Spiros. Mutual interactions, potentials, and individual distance in a social aggregation. J. Math. Biol. 47 (2003), 353--389. 2024502

    2003

  37. [45]

    Nesterov

    Y. Nesterov. Squared functional systems and optimization problems. High performance optimization, Appl. Optim. 33 (2000), 405--440. 1748764

    2000

  38. [46]

    Nebe and N

    G. Nebe and N. Sloane. Lattices. Published at http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/ Gabriele.Nebe/LATTICES/

  39. [47]

    Nozaki and M

    H. Nozaki and M. Sawa. Remarks on hilbert identities, isometric embeddings, and invariant cubature. St. Petersburg Math. J. 25 (2014), 615--646. arXiv:1204.1779 3184620

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Rains and N

    E. Rains and N. J. A. Sloane. The shadow theory of modular and unimodular lattices. J. Number Theory 73 (1998), 359--389. arXiv:math/0207294 1657980

    1998 arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. M. Renes, R. Blume-Kohout, A. J. Scott, and C. M. Caves. Symmetric informationally complete quantum measurements. J. Math. Phys. 45 (2004), 2171--2180. arXiv:quant-ph/0310075 2059685

    2004 arXiv

  42. [50]

    B. Reznick. Sums of Even Powers of Real Linear Forms . Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 463 (1992). 1096187

    1992

  43. [51]

    http://www.sagemath.org/

    SageMath Mathematical Software System . http://www.sagemath.org/

  44. [52]

    I. J. Schoenberg. Positive definite functions on spheres . Duke Math. J. 9 (1941), 96--108. 0005922

    1941

  45. [53]

    Schneider

    R. Schneider. Convex Bodies: the Brunn-Minkowsi theory . Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications 44 , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1993). 1216521

    1993

  46. [54]

    J. J. Seidel. A survey of two-graphs . in: Colloquio I nternazionale sulle T eorie C ombinatorie ( R ome, 1973), T omo I (1973), 481–-511. 0550136

    1973

  47. [55]

    A. J. Scott, M. Grassl. Symmetric informationally complete positive- operator-valued measures: a new computer study . J. Math. Phys. 51 (2010). arXiv:0910.5784 2662471

    2010 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Shatalov

    O. Shatalov. Isometric Embeddings l_2^m l_p^n and Cubature Formulas Over Classical Fields . Ph.D. thesis, Technion--Israel Institute of Technology, (2001)

    2001

  49. [57]

    V. M. Sidel'nikov. New estimates for the closest packing of spheres in n -dimensional Euclidean space . Mat. Sb. 24 (1974), 148--158. 0362060

    1974

  50. [58]

    M. M. Skriganov. Point distribution in compact metric spaces, III . Two -point homogeneous spaces. preprint. arXiv:1701.04545

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Souvignier

    B. Souvignier. Irreducible finite integral matrix groups of degree 8 and 10. Math. Comp. 63 (1994), 335--350. 1213836

    1994

  52. [60]

    Stillwell

    J. Stillwell. The story of the 120-cell . Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 48 (2001), 17--24. 1798928

    2001

  53. [61]

    A. Stroud. Some seventh degree integration formulas for symmetric regions. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 4 (1967), 37--44. 0214282

    1967

  54. [62]

    G. Szeg o . Orthogonal Polynomials . American Mathematical Society, Colloquium Publications, Vol. XXIII. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., (1975). 0372517

    1975

  55. [63]

    Sz o ll o si

    F. Sz o ll o si. All complex equiangular tight frames in dimension 3 . preprint. arXiv:1402.6429

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    B. B. Venkov. R\' e seaux euclidiens, designs sph\' e riques et formes modulaires: R\' e seaux et ``designs'' sph\' e riques . Monogr. Enseign. Math. 37 (2001), 87--111. 1878746

    2001

  57. [65]

    J. H. Von Brecht, D. Uminsky, T. Kolokolnikov, and A. L. Bertozzi. Predicting pattern formation in particle interactions . Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 22 (2012). 2974182

    2012

  58. [66]

    H.-C. Wang. Two- Point Homogeneous Spaces . Ann. of Math. 55 (1952), 177--191. 0047345

    1952

  59. [67]

    L. Welch. Lower bounds on the maximum cross correlation of signals. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor. 20 (2006), 397--399

    2006

  60. [68]

    J. Wolf. Harmonic Analysis on Commutative Spaces . Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 142 , American Mathematical Soc., Providence, RI, (2007). 2328043

    2007

  61. [69]

    Wu and D

    L. Wu and D. Slep c ev. Nonlocal interaction equations in environments with heterogeneities and boundaries. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 40 (2015), 1241--1281. 3341204

    2015

  62. [70]

    V. A. Yudin. Minimum potential energy of a point system of charges. Diskret. Mat. 4 1992, 115--121. 1181534

    1992

  63. [71]

    V. A. Yudin. Lower bounds for spherical designs. Izv. Math. 61 (1997), 673--683. 1478566

    1997

  64. [72]

    G. Zauner. Grundz \"u ge einer nichtkommutativen Designtheorie. PhD thesis, University of Vienna, 1999. Published in English translation: Int. J. Quantum Inf. 9 (2011), 445--507. 2931102

    2011

  65. [73]

    Zimmermann, A

    P. Zimmermann, A. Casamayou, N. Cohen, G. Connan, T. Dumont, L. Fousse, F. Maltey, M. Meulien, M. Mezzarobba, C. Pernet, N. M. Thi \'e ry, E. Bray, J. Cremona, M. Forets, A. Ghitza, and H. Thomas. Computational Mathematics with SageMath . Society for Industrial and Applied Mat...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.