Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Energy on spheres and discreteness of minimizing measures

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 The paper proves that for every $p>0$ that is not an even integer, any minimizer of the $p$-frame energy on $S^{d-1}$ has support with empty interior, and that many potentials with finitely many positive Gegenbauer coefficients admit…

desk verdict A substantial, likely correct paper on discreteness of minimizing measures on spheres, but Proposition 4.3 contains a concrete off-by-one Laplacian error that needs a computational fix before the proof is valid. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10354 v1 pith:OSGGBEMJ submitted 2019-08-27 math.CA math-phmath.MGmath.MP

Dmitriy Bilyk , Alexey Glazyrin , Ryan Matzke , Josiah Park , Oleksandr Vlasiuk This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CAmath-phmath.MGmath.MP MSC 52A4031E0558C3590C26
keywords p-frameenergyminimizationonspheresGegenbauerpolynomialssphericalharmonicspositivedefinitekernelsdiscreteminimizersdesignsempty-interiorsupport
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 establishes that certain energy-minimizing probability measures on the sphere cannot be spread out. For the $p$-frame energy $I_f(\mu)=\int\int |\langle x,y\rangle|^p\,d\mu(x)\,d\mu(y)$ with $p>0$ and $p\notin 2\mathbb{N}$, it proves that the support of any minimizer has empty interior: no minimizer can contain a spherical cap. This is a step toward the conjecture that every such minimizer is actually a finite discrete measure. The paper also proves that whenever a continuous potential has only finitely many positive Gegenbauer coefficients, a discrete minimizer always exists, with support size bounded by the dimension of the corresponding spherical-harmonic spaces; polynomial and real-analytic potentials are treated as special cases.

What carries the argument

The mechanism behind Theorem 1.3 is a family of differential operators $D^{(k)}$ on the sphere, built from the Laplace–Beltrami operator $\Delta$ by a product of linear factors in $\Delta$ designed so that, for $p$ in the interval $(2k-1,2k+1]\setminus 2\mathbb{N}$, applying $D^{(k)}$ to $\langle x,y\rangle^p$ has a fixed sign on the relevant region, while $D^{(k)}$ kills constants; combining these facts with the equilibrium identity $F_\mu\equiv I_f(\mu)$ on $\operatorname{supp}\mu$ yields $0=\int D^{(k)}_x\langle x,y\rangle^p\,d\mu(y)<0$, a contradiction. The discrete-minimizer theorem is carried instead by Karr's extreme-point theorem: among measures with prescribed spherical-harmonic moments, an extreme point has support of cardinality at most the number of constraints, and convexity of the negative-coefficient part of the energy pushes a minimizer onto an extreme point.

What would settle it

Recompute $\Delta_x\langle x,y\rangle^p$ on $S^{d-1}$; the standard value is $p(p-1)\langle x,y\rangle^{p-2}-p(p+d-2)\langle x,y\rangle^p$. Insert this into the operator $D^{(k)}$ and evaluate the expression in (4.15) at, say, $d=3$, $p=\tfrac{5}{2}$, $t=\langle x,y\rangle=0.9$: for $p\in(2,3]$ the quantity must be strictly negative. If instead it is positive or zero, Proposition 4.3 fails at its decisive step and Theorem 1.3 is not established by this argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 1.3: fix $p>0$, $p\notin 2\mathbb{N}$, $f(t)=|t|^p$. If $\mu\in\mathcal{P}(S^{d-1})$ minimizes $I_f$, then $(\operatorname{supp}\mu)^\circ=\varnothing$. The proof forces a contradiction from any interior point $z$: Proposition 4.2 shows $\operatorname{supp}\mu\cap z^\perp=\varnothing$ by constructing, from points on a great circle through $z$, a matrix $[|\langle x_i,x_j\rangle|^p]$ that is not positive semidefinite, violating positive definiteness on the support; Proposition 4.3 shows $\operatorname{supp}\mu\cap z^\perp\neq\varnothing$ by applying a differential operator $D^{(k)}$ constructed from the Laplace–Beltrami operator, which annihilates constants and has a strict sign on $\langle x,y\rangle^p$, contradicting the constancy of the potential $F_\mu$ on the support. A second discovery, Theorem 3.3, is that for any $f$ with finitely many positive Gegenbauer coefficients there exists a discrete minimizer whose support has at most $\sum_{n\in N_+(f)\cup\{0\}}\dim H_d^n$ points.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise of the empty-interior theorem is a sign calculation: a differential operator built from the spherical Laplacian must make $|\langle x,y\rangle|^p$ strictly one-signed while killing constants; as printed, the key Laplacian formula has a dimension-dependent coefficient error ($p(p+d-1)$ where the standard computation gives $p(p+d-2)$), so the written proof must be repaired for the contradiction to be valid as stated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every non-even $p>0$, no minimizer of the $p$-frame energy can have an absolutely continuous part concentrated on an open region; in particular the normalized surface measure restricted to any spherical cap is never optimal.
  • For any polynomial potential with at least one negative Gegenbauer coefficient, all minimizers have empty-interior support, while a discrete minimizer with an explicit cardinality bound always exists.
  • For any real-analytic potential for which the uniform measure is not a minimizer, the support of every minimizer has empty interior; on the circle the support is finite.
  • Positive definiteness up to additive constants makes local and global minimizers coincide: any local minimizer of an even $p$-frame energy is global.
  • For potentials with finitely many positive Gegenbauer coefficients, there is always a discrete minimizer supported on at most $\sum_{n\in N_+(f)\cup\{0\}}\dim H_d^n$ points, generalizing the existence of weighted spherical designs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step suggested by the proof would be to adapt the differential-operator sign argument to other kernels with conjectured discretness, such as $\arccos|t|$ or the causal-variational kernel; the obstacle is obtaining a tractable formula for $\Delta_x f(\langle x,y\rangle)$.
  • The extreme-point theorem is constructive in principle: since a minimizer with at most $\sum\dim H_d^n$ support points exists, one could search for it by convex optimization over the moment polytope, which may give a practical algorithm for weighted designs with prescribed spherical-harmonic frequencies.
  • To reach Conjecture 1.1 one would need to rule out supports that are empty-interior but still infinite, such as Cantor-type sets; iterating the sign-contradiction on nested neighborhoods is a natural but nontrivial next step.
  • Because $|\langle x,y\rangle|^p$ behaves like a quadratic cusp $|x-y|^2$ at short distances, the paper's support restriction may be a spherical analogue of known results for mildly repulsive potentials at the endpoint case; testing the same question for $|x-y|^2$ interactions on $\mathbb{R}^d$ would connect the two literatures.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies continuous energy minimization on the sphere. Its main results are: (i) Theorem 3.3, a quantitative existence theorem for discrete minimizers whenever the kernel has only finitely many positive Gegenbauer coefficients; (ii) Theorem 1.3, stating that for the p-frame energy f(t)=|t|^p with p>0 and p not an even integer, every minimizer has support with empty interior, partially confirming Conjecture 1.1; (iii) Theorem 5.1, an analogous empty-interior statement for real-analytic kernels that are not positive definite up to a constant, with discreteness on S^1; and (iv) Proposition 7.2, showing that local minimizers of positive-definite kernels are global. The paper is largely clearly written, with self-contained treatments of the moment-theoretic tools in Section 3 and classical reduction arguments elsewhere.

Significance. If the proof of Theorem 1.3 is repaired, this is a meaningful step toward Conjecture 1.1 and a substantive contribution to the study of attractive-repulsive potentials on spheres. Theorem 3.3 is a clean, quantitative extension of earlier weighted-design results, and Theorem 5.1 gives a useful dichotomy for analytic kernels. The paper also contains a pleasant observation on local versus global minimizers for positive-definite kernels. The main techniques are standard but are applied with care, and the manuscript is honest about the limits of its results. The one substantial defect is in the proof of Proposition 4.3, where the Laplacian identity is misstated; the error is localized and repairable, but as printed the proof of Theorem 1.3 is incomplete.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, Eq. (4.12)] Equation (4.12) is incorrect. Since the Laplace–Beltrami operator on S^{d-1} acts on a zonal function of t=<x,y> as (1-t^2)∂_t^2-(d-1)t∂_t, the correct identity is Δ_x <x,y>^p = p(p-1)<x,y>^{p-2} - p(p+d-2)<x,y>^p, not p(p+d-1)<x,y>^p. This error propagates into (4.13)–(4.15): for example, the operator in (4.13) should use the factor p(p+d-2), and the bracket should read (p-3)-(p+d-4)t^2 rather than (p-3)-(p+d-3)t^2. As printed, the operator D(k) does not satisfy the displayed identity (4.15), and the strict-sign property (ii) used in the contradiction (4.10) is not established. The defect is localized: replacing p+d-1 by p+d-2 throughout and re-running the recurrence yields the bracket (p-2k-1)-(p+d-2k-2)t^2, whose sign on (δ,1] is exactly as claimed in the final paragraph of the proof. Nevertheless, the written proof of Proposition 4.3, and hence of Theorem 1.3, is incomplete as it stands.
  2. [§4, Eq. (4.14)] The definition of D(k) in (4.14) is not well specified as printed. The displayed product has unbalanced parentheses, and for k≥2 the factors do not match the iterative reduction that (4.15) claims. For instance, after the corrected Laplacian, the step from k=1 to k=2 requires a factor Δ+(p-2)(p+d-4), whereas the displayed first factor for k=2 contains the extra product p(p-1). I recommend giving an explicit recurrence, for example D(k)=(Δ+α_{k-1})D(k-1) with α_r=(p-2r)(p+d-2r-2) and D(0)=Δ, and verifying (4.15) from that recurrence. This would make the construction reproducible and would resolve the ambiguity in the present notation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4, proof of Proposition 4.3] There is a typo in the phrase "Propostion 4.3" near the end of the proof; it should read "Proposition 4.3."
  2. [§4, after Eq. (4.8)] In the sentence beginning "We now analyze the coefficient of εp", the exponent should be typeset as ε^p for consistency with the surrounding equations.
  3. [§3.2, proof of Theorem 3.3] The sentence "Without loss of generality, we shall assume that 0∈N_+(f)" would benefit from an explicit justification: adding a sufficiently large constant to f shifts only the n=0 Gegenbauer coefficient and does not change the minimization problem. As written, the WLOG is clear to an expert but is stated too abruptly.
  4. [§5, Theorem 5.1] In the S^1 case, the proof shows that the support cannot have an accumulation point; since S^1 is compact, it would be helpful to state explicitly that compactness implies the support is finite, not merely discrete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the p-frame support theorem and discrete-minimizer existence are derived from stated external tools, with only local correctness concerns.

full rationale

I traced the main derivation chains. Theorem 1.3 is obtained by combining Propositions 4.2 and 4.3, both proved from the stated assumptions via Bjorck's Lemma 2.4, the Vandermonde/inverse-difference kernel construction, the Laplace-Beltrami identity, and the real-analytic continuation argument; none of these inputs is defined in terms of the target conclusion. Proposition 4.3's operator D(k) is constructed from the Laplace-Beltrami operator and the explicit identity (4.12), and its sign is then computed, not imposed; this is the opposite of a self-definitional reduction. Theorem 3.3 uses Karr's extreme-point theorem and convexity in the standard way; the discretization bound is derived, not assumed. Section 5 uses analyticity and the potential-constancy Lemma 4.1, which is proved in the paper. The only self-citations, to [BGM+], appear as context for the conjecture and as examples; the central proofs do not invoke [BGM+] as a premise. I found no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no uniqueness claim imported from the authors' prior work. The reviewer-flagged off-by-one in (4.12) is a local correctness issue in a displayed computation, not a circularity: the intended induction is a genuine computation rather than an assumption of the conclusion.

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

The central claims rest on standard theorems from harmonic analysis, moment theory, and potential theory; no quantities are fitted to data and no new physical or mathematical entities are postulated. The proof of Proposition 4.3 contains a dimension-coefficient error in the Laplacian computation, which is a correctness issue rather than an axiom.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Karr's theorem on extreme points of moment-constrained measures (Theorem 3.2, from [K])
    Used in Section 3.2 to conclude the convexity-maximizing measure is an extreme point of K, hence discrete with the stated cardinality bound.
  • standard math Bjorck's support lemma: if mu minimizes I_f and I_f(mu) >= 0, then f is positive definite on supp mu (Lemma 2.4, from [Bj, FS])
    The engine of Proposition 4.2; converts the indefinite interaction matrix on a finite subset of supp mu into a contradiction.
  • standard math Schoenberg's characterization of positive definite functions on spheres and uniform convergence of their Gegenbauer expansions (Proposition 2.2 and Lemma 2.3)
    Basis for the expansion manipulation in Theorem 3.3 and for the fact that even-integer p-frame kernels are positive definite.
  • standard math Exponential-sum zero bound: a sum of k exponentials with distinct positive bases has at most k-1 real zeros, used to show the coefficient b_p is nonzero for p not even (Polya-Szego, Problems and Theorems in Analysis II, Ex. 75)
    In Proposition 4.2, this guarantees the quadratic form can be made negative for non-even p.
  • standard math Real-analytic identity theorem on connected real-analytic manifolds, including the sphere and circle (Quinto, Lemma 2.4)
    Used in Theorem 5.1 to extend constancy of the potential from an open set to the whole sphere.
  • standard math FitzGerald-Horn theorem on fractional Hadamard powers of positive definite matrices, used only in the remark after Proposition 4.2
    Explains why the 2k+2 point construction is necessary; not used in the main proofs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy on spheres and discreteness of minimizing measures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OSGGBEMJ

@misc{pith2026190810354,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy on spheres and discreteness of minimizing measures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OSGGBEMJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10354}
}
abstract

In the present paper we study the minimization of energy integrals on the sphere with a focus on an interesting clustering phenomenon: for certain types of potentials, optimal measures are discrete or are supported on small sets. In particular, we prove that the support of any minimizer of the $p$-frame energy has empty interior whenever $p$ is not an even integer. A similar effect is also demonstrated for energies with analytic potentials which are not positive definite. In addition, we establish the existence of discrete minimizers for a large class of energies, which includes energies with polynomial potentials.

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. Optimal measures for p-frame energies on spheres

    math.MG 2019-08 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    Tight designs minimize p-frame energies over all probability measures for p between consecutive even integers, and the 600-cell does so on S3 for p in [8,10].

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Nonlocal interactions by repulsive-attractive potentials: radial ins/stability

    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

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    Singular Support of Minimizers of the Causal Variational Principle on the Sphere

    L. B\" a uml, F. Finster, D. Schiefeneder, and H. von der Mosel. Singular Support of Minimizers of the Causal Variational Principle on the Sphere. arXiv:1808.09754

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

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

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Geodesic distance Riesz energy on the sphere

    D. Bilyk and F. Dai. Geodesic distance Riesz energy on the sphere . Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 372 , (2019) 3141--3166. arXiv:1612.08442 3988605

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Optimal measures for p-frame energies on spheres

    D. Bilyk, A. Glazyrin, R. Matzke, J. Park, and O. Vlasiuk. Optimal measures for p -frame energies on spheres . pre-print. arXiv:1908.00885

    work page Pith review arXiv 1908

  6. [6]

    On the Fejes T\'oth Problem about the Sum of Angles Between Lines

    D. Bilyk and R. W. Matzke. On the Fejes T\'oth problem about the sum of angles between lines. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 147 (2019), 51--59. arXiv:1801.07837 3876730

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    G. Bjorck. Distributions of positive mass, which maximize a certain generalized energy integral . Ark. f \" o r Mat. 3 (1956), 255--269. 0078470

    work page 1956

  8. [8]

    Borodachov, D

    S. Borodachov, D. Hardin, and E. Saff. Minimal Discrete Energy on Rectifiable Sets . To appear, Springer

    work page

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Boyer, A

    C. Boyer, A. Chambolle, Y. De Castro, V. Duval, F. de Gournay, and P. Weiss. On representer theorems and convex regularization. SIAM J. Optim. 29 (2019), 1260–1281. arXiv:1806.09810 3948246

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    Chandrasekaran, B

    V. Chandrasekaran, B. Recht, P. Parrilo, and A. Willsky. The convex geometry of linear inverse problems. Found. Comput. Math. 12 (2012), 805--849. arXiv:1012.0621 2989474

    2012 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dai and Y

    F. Dai and Y. Xu. Approximation Theory and Harmonic Analysis on Spheres and Balls . Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, New York (2013). 3060033

    2013

  6. [14]

    Delsarte, J

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

    1977

  7. [15]

    R. G. Douglas. On Extremal Measures and Subspace Density . Michigan Math. J. 11 (1964), 243--246. 0185427

    1964

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [17]

    Fejes T\' o th

    L. Fejes T\' o th. \"Uber eine Punktverteilung auf der Kugel . Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar. 10 (1959), 13--19. (German, Russian summary). 0105654

    1959

  10. [18]

    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 3101787

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    C. H. FitzGerald and R. A. Horn. On Fractional Hadamard Powers of Positive Definite Matrices . J. Math. Anal. Appl. 61 (1977), 47--50. 0506356

    1977

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    K. Kang, H. K. Kim, T. Lim, and G. Seo. Uniqueness and characterization of local minimizers for the interaction energy with mildly repulsive potentials . pre-print. arXiv:1907.07004

    1907 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A. F. Karr. Extreme Points of Certain Sets of Probability Measures, with Applications . Math. Oper. Res. 8 (1983), 74--85. 0703827

    1983

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    Kozlov, V

    V. Kozlov, V. G. Maz'ya, and J. Rossmann. Spectral Problems Associated with Corner Singularities of Solutions of Elliptic Equations . Mathematical surveys and monographs, 85 , American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, (2001). 1788991

    2001

  17. [25]

    D. E. Knuth. The art of computer programming. Vol. 1. Fundamental algorithms. Third edition. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, (1997). 3077152

    1997

  18. [26]

    N.S. Landkof. Foundations of Modern Potential Theory . Translated from the Russian by A. P. Doohovskoy. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 180 , Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, (1972). 0350027

    1972

  19. [27]

    P. W. H. Lemmens and J. J. Seidel. Equiangular lines . J. Algebra, 24 (1973), 494--512

    1973

  20. [28]

    Lim and R

    T. Lim and R. J. McCann. Isodiametry, variance, and regular simplices from particle interactions . pre-print. arXiv:1907.13593

    1907 arXiv

  21. [29]

    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

  22. [30]

    J. Mercer. Functions of positive and negative type and their connection with the theory of integral equations. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 209 (1909), 415--446

    1909

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    M \"u ller

    C. M \"u ller. Spherical Harmonics . Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 17 , Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, (1966). 0199449

    1966

  25. [33]

    P\' o lya and G

    G. P\' o lya and G. Szeg o . Problems and theorems in analysis, Vol. II . Revised and enlarged English translation by C. E. Billigheimer, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, (1976). 465631

    1976

  26. [34]

    E. T. Quinto. Mean value extension theorems and microlocal analysis. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 131 (2003), 3267--3274. 1992868

    2003

  27. [35]

    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

  28. [36]

    H. Richter. Parameterfreie Abschätzung und Realisierung von Erwartungswerten. (German) Bl. Deutsch. Ges. Versicherungsmath. 3 (1957), 147--162. 0088130

    1957

  29. [37]

    W. W. Rogosinski. Moments of non-negative mass. Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 245 (1958), 1--27. 0149217

    1958

  30. [38]

    W. W. Rogosinski. Non-negative linear functionals, moment problems, and extremum problems in polynomial spaces. Studies in mathematical analysis and related topics, Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, Calif, (1962), 316--324. 0146643

    1962

  31. [39]

    P. C. Rosenbloom. Quelques classes de probl\`emes extr\' e maux . Bull. Soc. Math. France 79 (1951), 1--58. 0057463

    1951

  32. [40]

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

    1941

  33. [41]

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

    2010 arXiv

  34. [42]

    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

  35. [43]

    J. A. Shohat and J. D. Tamarkin. The Problem of Moments . American Mathematical Society Mathematical surveys, vol. I. American Mathematical Society, New York, (1943). 0008438

    1943

  36. [44]

    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

  37. [45]

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

    1975

  38. [46]

    Tchakaloff

    V. Tchakaloff. Formules de cubatures m\' e caniques \`a coefficients non n\' e gatifs . Bull. Sci. Math. 81 (1957), 123--134. 0094632

    1957

  39. [47]

    Unser, J

    M. Unser, J. Fageot, and J. P. Ward. Splines are universal solutions of linear inverse problems with generalized TV regularization. SIAM Rev. 59 (2017), 769--793. arXiv:1603.01427 3720356

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    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

  41. [49]

    G. Winkler. Extreme points of moment sets. Math. Oper. Res. 13 (1988), 581--587. 0971911

    1988

  42. [50]

    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

  43. [51]

    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

  44. [52]

    Zuhovicki

    S. Zuhovicki . On the approximation of real functions in the sense of P . L . C eby s ev. Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. 19 (1962), 221--252. 0131706

    1962

Pith tools

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