Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 36 references

On least energy solutions for a nonlinear Schr\"odinger system with $K$-wise interaction

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For the K-wise coupled Schrödinger system, least energy solutions flip from semi-trivial to fully non-trivial at an explicit threshold β̄, and in the strong competition limit they partially segregate into one pair plus K−2 scalar ground…

desk verdict A new K-wise interaction model with a sharp threshold and a partial segregation limit; the results are largely correct but a key existence proposition is imported from the binary case and should be proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03480 v1 pith:BH3EDVOX submitted 2025-07-04 math.AP

Lorenzo Giaretto , Nicola Soave This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35R3535B2535J6135J47
keywords NonlinearSchrödingersystemsK-wiseinteractionNeharimanifoldgroundstatesstrongcompetitionlimitpartialsegregationradialsolutionsthresholdphenomenon
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper deals with ground states of a system of $K$ nonlinear Schrödinger equations whose coupling term involves the product of all $K$ components (a $K$-wise interaction), in all dimensions $d \ge 2$ with $K \ge 3$. The main claim is that, for attractive coupling ($\beta > 0$), there exists an explicit threshold $\bar\beta$—defined as an infimum over the data—such that below it every ground state is semi-trivial with exactly one non-trivial component, while above it every ground state is fully non-trivial and, up to sign changes and translations, is a positive radial solution. For repulsive coupling ($\beta < 0$), the minimization over fully non-trivial functions is not attained, but radial minimizers exist; as $\beta \to -\infty$ they converge to a limit problem whose minimizers exhibit partial segregation: the product of all components is identically zero, yet no pairwise full segregation is enforced. The limit profile consists of one fully segregated pair, whose difference is a least energy sign-changing radial solution of a scalar equation, together with $K-2$ scalar ground states. This gives a complete qualitative description of least energy solutions and highlights a phenomenon that has no counterpart in pairwise interaction models.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the Nehari manifold $\mathcal{N}_\beta$ (where the derivative of the energy along the full vector vanishes), the fully non-trivial constraint manifolds $\mathcal{M}_\beta$ and its radial version $\mathcal{M}^r_\beta$, and the explicit threshold $\bar\beta = \inf$ over trial functions of a ratio involving the sum of squared H1-norms, the sum of $L^{Kq}$-norms, and the $L^q$-norm of the product. The energy identity expresses $I_\beta$ on these manifolds as a constant times the sum of squared $H^1$-norms, which turns the threshold comparison into an energy comparison: below the threshold, any fully non-trivial competitor has higher energy than the best semi-trivial solution, while above it some fully non-trivial competitor has lower energy. The asymptotic analysis uses the fibering map and the limit manifold $\mathcal{M}^r_{-\infty}$ with constraint $\prod_i u_i \equiv 0$, leading to a variational characterization of the limit problem and to the structure theorem for its minimizers.

What would settle it

One could attempt to reproduce the proof of Proposition 3.1 for K ≥ 3 with the product coupling; a concrete check is whether the Palais–Smale condition holds for Iβ restricted to Nβ at the level ℓβ. If a bounded minimizing sequence can be found that loses one component in the limit (so the limit is semi-trivial), then ℓβ would be achieved by a semi-trivial solution and part (2) of Theorem 1.1 would fail for that data. Alternatively, one could compute β̄ numerically for a specific choice of K, q, λi, μi and compare with numerically computed ground states to see whether the nature of minimizers switches exactly at β̄.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that for the $K$-wise coupled system the ground-state level $\ell_\beta$ on the Nehari manifold is achieved for every $\beta > 0$, and the nature of the minimizers is decided by an explicit threshold $\bar\beta$ defined as an infimum over the data. For $\beta < \bar\beta$ every ground state is semi-trivial with exactly one non-trivial component; for $\beta > \bar\beta$ every ground state is fully non-trivial and, up to sign changes and translations, is a positive radial solution. In the repulsive regime, the infimum on the free (non-radial) fully non-trivial manifold is never achieved, while the radial constrained problem always has a non-negative fully non-trivial minimizer; as $\beta \to -\infty$ these minimizers converge strongly to a solution of the limit problem with the product constraint $\prod_i u_i \equiv 0$, and every limit minimizer has the form of one fully segregated pair (whose difference is a least energy sign-changing radial solution of a scalar equation) together with $K-2$ scalar ground states. This partial segregation—the product of all components vanishes identically, but no full pairwise segregation is required—is the qualitative difference from pairwise interaction models.

Load-bearing premise

The existence of a non-negative radial ground state on the Nehari manifold for every positive β (Proposition 3.1) is assumed from the two-component case in [19] and stated to extend in a straightforward way without proof; if that compactness argument does not carry over to the K-wise product coupling, the achievement of ℓβ—and with it the threshold dichotomy of Theorem 1.1—would lose its existence half.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $\beta > \bar\beta$, ground states are fully non-trivial and radially symmetric, so the fully non-trivial and ground-state energy levels coincide: $\ell_\beta = k_\beta = k^r_\beta$.
  • For $q > 2$, the threshold level $\ell_{\bar\beta}$ is attained by a fully non-trivial ground state, so at least in this range the semi-trivial/fully non-trivial dichotomy closes at the threshold itself.
  • In the competitive regime $\beta < 0$, no least-energy fully non-trivial solution exists without a radial constraint; the radial constraint restores existence, and the minimizer has all non-negative components.
  • In the strong competition limit, minimizers concentrate into a single fully segregated pair plus $K-2$ scalar ground states, so the $K$-wise interaction produces partial rather than full segregation—a phenomenon impossible in pairwise models.
  • In dimension $d = 1$ the same limit level is not attained and the asymptotic picture differs, showing that the result is dimension-sensitive, as the authors note in Remark 5.2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test the explicit threshold $\bar\beta$ in a two- or three-component optical or Bose-Einstein condensate model: the formula predicts whether the energetically stable multi-component state appears without any numerical search over the energy landscape.
  • The partial segregation structure suggests that similar 'one pair plus independent components' profiles might appear in other $K$-wise coupled variational problems, for instance in models of multicomponent liquids with higher-order interactions, where the same product-type coupling is natural.
  • The open question flagged by the authors—whether the small-$\beta$ coexistence result holds for $1 \le q < 2$—could be settled by a two-parameter shooting or continuation argument, since the obstruction is described as purely technical: the $K=2$ case reduces to a two-variable study that does not generalize directly.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the K-component nonlinear Schrödinger system (1.1) with a K-wise product interaction term, for K ≥ 3, d ≥ 2, and q in the subcritical range. The main claims are: an explicit threshold β̄ such that for 0 < β < β̄ every ground state on the Nehari manifold is semi-trivial with one active component, while for β > β̄ every ground state is fully non-trivial and, up to sign and translation, a positive radial solution; positivity of β̄ (Proposition 1.3); attainment at the threshold for q > 2 (Theorem 1.5); existence of least-energy positive radial solutions for small positive β when q ≥ 2 (Theorem 1.7); non-attainment on M_β and attainment on the radial manifold for β < 0 (Theorems 1.8 and 1.9); and a strong-competition limit β → −∞ in which radial minimizers converge strongly to a partially segregated limit, characterized as one fully segregated pair whose difference is a least-energy sign-changing radial solution of a scalar equation, together with K − 2 scalar ground states (Theorems 1.10 and 1.11).

Significance. If established, the paper gives a substantially complete qualitative description of least energy solutions for a K-wise interaction system, generalizing the binary case and exhibiting a new partial-segregation phenomenon in the strong competition limit. The main strengths are the explicit threshold definition (1.9), the direct energy comparison in Theorem 1.1, the positivity estimate for β̄ in Proposition 1.3, the Gershgorin-based negative-definiteness in Lemma 4.3, and the strong convergence result in Theorem 1.10. The threshold and limit levels are derived from the variational problem itself rather than assumed, so the sharp-threshold argument is not circular. However, the existence half of the threshold dichotomy rests on one imported external result (Proposition 3.1), and the q = 1 endpoint of the stated range is not handled by the C^1 variational framework; these issues need to be resolved before the results are fully established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Proposition 3.1] The proof of Proposition 3.1 consists of a reference to [19, Theorem 2.1] for the binary system and the assertion that the extension to the K-wise product nonlinearity is straightforward. This proposition is the only place in the paper where attainment of ℓβ on Nβ for β > 0 is established, and it is load-bearing for both halves of Theorem 1.1 and for Theorem 1.5. For K ≥ 3 the interaction term β ∫ ∏|u_i|^q couples all components, and the fibering-map and compactness analysis in [19] does not reduce to the binary case by a notational change. Please provide a self-contained proof or a detailed line-by-line adaptation of [19, Theorem 2.1] to the present system.
  2. [Section 1, first paragraph, and definitions (1.3), (1.6)] The stated admissible range includes q = 1. For q = 1 the map u_i ↦ ∫|u_i|, and hence the functional Iβ, is not Gateaux-differentiable at functions that vanish on a set of positive measure; therefore Iβ is not C^1 on H^1(R^d, R^K). Consequently the Nehari-manifold natural-constraint argument, the Lagrange multiplier step in Proposition 4.7, the Palais-Smale analysis in Lemma 4.6, and the definitions of Mβ and M^r_β via partial derivatives are not justified at q = 1. The authors should either restrict the general results to q > 1 and state that q = 1 remains open, or supply a nonsmooth variational treatment covering q = 1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1, proof of Theorem 1.8] In the line 'Passing to the infimum, ℓβ = inf_{Mβ} I ≥ ...', the symbol ℓβ should be kβ, the level defined for Mβ in (1.6).
  2. [Section 4, Lemma 4.5(b), equation (4.9)] The constant L in (4.9) is written with S^K, but S is not defined in the paper; the proof uses the constant ar S from (1.8). Please align the notation.
  3. [Section 5, Theorem 1.11(ii)] The statement 'vj > 0 in RN' should read 'in R^d'; the dimension variable is d throughout the paper.
  4. [Section 5, proof of Theorem 1.10, Step 4] In the convergence argument, the expression |u_{1,n}|^{Kq}_{Kq,i} should be |u_{1,n}|^{Kq}_{Kq,1}; the index i is otherwise ambiguous.
  5. [Remarks 1.4 and 3.2] Remark 1.4 states that numerical estimates suggest the lower bound for ar β, and Remark 3.2 says the infimum equals K^{Kq/2-1}-1 'computed through numerical optimization algorithms'. Since this is not a proof, please state clearly that this identity is conjectural rather than asserted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the threshold and limit levels are derived from the variational problem itself, and the main imported existence result is external rather than self-referential.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from the variational formulation rather than assumed. The threshold β̄ in Theorem 1.1 is defined as an explicit infimum over H^1 data in equation (1.9), and the dichotomy is proved by direct energy comparison using that definition; this is a legitimate sharp-threshold argument, not a circular reduction. The existence of the Nehari ground state is imported from Maia–Montefusco–Pellacci [19] in Proposition 3.1, but that is an external theorem for the binary case, not a self-citation, and the asserted 'straightforward' extension is a gap or completeness risk rather than a circular step. The strong-competition characterization in Theorem 1.11 uses the known full-segregation/sign-changing correspondence [2,9,22,30,33] as an external input; although one of those references has overlapping authorship, it is a separate published result with its own proof, so it does not make the derivation circular. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The paper explicitly flags open problems and omitted proofs in Remark 5.2 and Remark 1.12(3); those are limitations, not evidence of circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained up to standard external theorems, with the notable caveat that Proposition 3.1 is not proved in detail; that is a correctness concern, not circularity.

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

The central claims rest on standard scalar theory and on a small number of imported external theorems ([5], [15], [19], [20], [21], [2,9,22,30,33]). No free parameters enter the derivation: the thresholds are explicit variational infima of the data, and the numerical lower bound in Remark 1.4 is flagged as conjectural. The only imported result whose adaptation is not shown is Proposition 3.1 ([19, Theorem 2.1]). This is a modest external footprint for a proof paper.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ground state existence on the Nehari manifold N_β for β > 0, imported from [19, Theorem 2.1] with the asserted 'straightforward' extension to the K-wise product nonlinearity (Proposition 3.1).
    Load-bearing for Theorems 1.1 and 1.5; the extension is not demonstrated in the manuscript.
  • domain assumption Radial symmetry of positive solutions of cooperative (β > 0) systems of the form (1.1), cited to [5] (Busca-Sirakov).
    Used in Proposition 3.1 and in the proof of Theorem 1.7 to identify the radial minimizer with the unconstrained least energy positive solution.
  • domain assumption Uniqueness and variational characterization of the positive scalar solution of (1.2), cited to [15] (Kwong).
    Used throughout Section 2 to build semi-trivial solutions and scalar energy levels.
  • domain assumption Least energy sign-changing radial solutions of (1.12) are obtained from the full segregation problem, cited to [2,9,22,30,33].
    Used in the final step of Theorem 1.11 to identify v_{i1} - v_{i2} as a least energy sign-changing radial solution.
  • standard math Compactness of H^1_rad(R^d) in L^p for 2 < p < 2^*, d ≥ 2 (radial Strauss/Lions embedding).
    Used for convergent subsequences in Lemma 4.6, Theorem 1.5, and Theorem 1.10; the failure for d = 1 is handled separately in Remark 5.2.
  • standard math Lagrange multiplier rule for manifolds of codimension K and Gershgorin's circle theorem.
    Used in Lemma 4.3 and Proposition 4.7 to prove the constraints are natural, so that minimizers solve (1.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On least energy solutions for a nonlinear Schr\"odinger system with $K$-wise interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BH3EDVOX

@misc{pith2026250703480,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On least energy solutions for a nonlinear Schr\"odinger system with $K$-wise interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BH3EDVOX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03480}
}
abstract

In this paper we establish existence and properties of minimal energy solutions for the weakly coupled system $$ \begin{cases} -\Delta u_i + \lambda_i u_i = \mu_i|u_i|^{Kq-2}u_i + \beta|u_i|^{q-2}u_i\prod_{j\neq i}|u_j|^q & \text{in }\mathbb{R}^d, \qquad u_i \in H^1(\mathbb{R}^d), \end{cases}\qquad i=1,\dots, K, $$ characterized by $K$-wise interaction (namely the interaction term involves the product of all the components). We consider both attractive ($\beta>0$) and repulsive cases ($\beta<0$), and we give sufficient conditions on $\beta$ in order to have least energy fully non-trivial solutions, if necessary under a radial constraint. We also study the asymptotic behavior of least energy fully non-trivial radial solutions in the limit of strong competition $\beta \to -\infty$, showing partial segregation phenomena which differ substantially from those arising in pairwise interaction models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    L. Maia, E. Montefusco, and B. Pellacci. Positive solutions for a weakly coupled nonlinear schr¨ odinger system.Journal of Differential Equations , 229(2):743–767, Oct. 2006

    work page 2006

  2. [1]

    Ambrosetti and E

    A. Ambrosetti and E. Colorado. Standing waves of some coupled nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations.J. Lond. Math. Soc., II. Ser. , 75(1):67–82, 2007

    work page 2007

  3. [2]

    Bartsch and M

    T. Bartsch and M. Willem. Infinitely many radial solutions of a semilinear elliptic problem on RN . Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 124(3):261–276, Nov. 1993

    work page 1993

  4. [3]

    Berestycki and P

    H. Berestycki and P. L. Lions. Nonlinear scalar field equations, i existence of a ground state. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 82(4):313–345, Dec. 1983

    work page 1983

  5. [4]

    Bozorgnia, M

    F. Bozorgnia, M. Burger, and M. Fotouhi. On a class of singularly perturbed elliptic systems with asymptotic phase segregation. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 42(7):3539–3556, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    Busca and B

    J. Busca and B. Sirakov. Symmetry results for semilinear elliptic systems in the whole space. Journal of Differential Equations, 163(1):41–56, 2000

    work page 2000

  7. [6]

    L. A. Caffarelli and J.-M. Roquejoffre. Uniform H¨ older estimates in a class of elliptic systems and applications to singular limits in models for diffusion flames. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 183(3):457–487, 2007

    work page 2007

  8. [7]

    Chen and W

    Z. Chen and W. Zou. Positive least energy solutions and phase separation for coupled Schr¨ odinger equations with critical exponent. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 205(2):515–551, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 36 references
  1. [8]

    Colin, T

    M. Colin, T. Colin, and M. Ohta. Stability of solitary waves for a system of nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with three wave interaction. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e, Anal. Non Lin´ eaire, 26(6):2211–2226, 2009

    2009

  2. [9]

    Conti, S

    M. Conti, S. Terracini, and G. Verzini. Nehari’s problem and competing species systems. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e, Anal. Non Lin´ eaire, 19(6):871–888, 2002. 26 L. GIARETTO AND N. SOA VE

    2002

  3. [10]

    Gidas, W.-M

    B. Gidas, W.-M. Ni, and L. Nirenberg. Symmetry of positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations in Rn. Adv. Math., Suppl. Stud. 7A, 369-402 , 1981

    1981

  4. [11]

    N. Ikoma. Uniqueness of positive solutions for a nonlinear elliptic system. Nonlinear Differential Equations and Appli- cations NoDEA, 16(5):555–567, Oct. 2009

    2009

  5. [12]

    Ikoma and K

    N. Ikoma and K. Tanaka. A local mountain pass type result for a system of nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. , 40(3-4):449–480, 2011

    2011

  6. [13]

    O. Kavian. Introduction ` a la th´ eorie des points critiques et applications aux probl` emes elliptiques, volume 13 of Math. Appl. (Berl.) . Paris: Springer-Verlag, 1993

    1993

  7. [14]

    Kowalczyk, A

    M. Kowalczyk, A. Pistoia, and G. Vaira. Phase separating solutions for two component systems in general planar domains. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. , 62(5):46, 2023. Id/No 142

    2023

  8. [15]

    M. K. Kwong. Uniqueness of positive solutions of ∆ u − u + up=0 in Rn. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 105(3):243–266, Sept. 1989

    1989

  9. [16]

    Lin and J

    T.-C. Lin and J. Wei. Ground state of N coupled nonlinear schr¨ odinger equations inRn, n ≤ 3. Commun. Math. Phys. , 255(3):629–653, 2005

    2005

  10. [17]

    Liu and Z.-Q

    Z. Liu and Z.-Q. Wang. Ground states and bound states of a nonlinear Schr¨ odinger system. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. , 10(1):175–193, 2010

    2010

  11. [18]

    C. Luo, Y. Qiang, and D. Zwicker. Beyond pairwise: Higher-order physical interactions affect phase separation in multicomponent liquids. Phys. Rev. Res. , 6:033002, Jul 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    R. Mandel. Minimal energy solutions for cooperative nonlinear schr¨ odinger systems. Nonlinear Differential Equations and Applications NoDEA , 22(2):239–262, July 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    R. Mandel. Minimal energy solutions for repulsive nonlinear schr¨ odinger systems. Journal of Differential Equations , 257(2):450–468, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Noris, H

    B. Noris, H. Tavares, S. Terracini, and G. Verzini. Uniform H¨ older bounds for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger systems with strong competition. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. , 63(3):267–302, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    D. S. Petrov. Three-body interacting bosons in free space. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 112:103201, Mar 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Pistoia and N

    A. Pistoia and N. Soave. On Coron’s problem for weakly coupled elliptic systems.Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3), 116(1):33– 67, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Pistoia, N

    A. Pistoia, N. Soave, and H. Tavares. A fountain of positive bubbles on a Coron’s problem for a competitive weakly coupled gradient system. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) , 135:159–198, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Pomponio

    A. Pomponio. Ground states for a system of nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations with three wave interaction. J. Math. Phys., 51(9):093513, 20, 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    B. Sirakov. Least energy solitary waves for a system of nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equations inRn. Commun. Math. Phys. , 271(1):199–221, 2007

    2007

  20. [28]

    N. Soave. On existence and phase separation of solitary waves for nonlinear Schr¨ odinger systems modelling simultaneous cooperation and competition. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. , 53(3-4):689–718, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Soave and H

    N. Soave and H. Tavares. New existence and symmetry results for least energy positive solutions of schr¨ odinger systems with mixed competition and cooperation terms. Journal of Differential Equations , 261(1):505–537, July 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Soave, H

    N. Soave, H. Tavares, S. Terracini, and A. Zilio. H¨ older bounds and regularity of emerging free boundaries for strongly competing Schr¨ odinger equations with nontrivial grouping.Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl., Ser. A, Theory Methods, 138:388–427, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Soave and S

    N. Soave and S. Terracini. On partially segregated harmonic maps: optimal regularity and structure of the free boundary. Preprint, arXiv:2410.23976 [math.AP] (2024), 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Soave and S

    N. Soave and S. Terracini. On some singularly perturbed elliptic systems modeling partial segregation: uniform H¨ older estimates and basic properties of the limits. Preprint, arXiv:2409.11976 [math.AP] (2024), 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Tavares and S

    H. Tavares and S. Terracini. Regularity of the nodal set of segregated critical configurations under a weak reflection law. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. , 45(3-4):273–317, 2012

    2012

  26. [34]

    Terracini and G

    S. Terracini and G. Verzini. Multipulse phases in k-mixtures of Bose-Einstein condensates. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 194(3):717–741, 2009

    2009

  27. [35]

    Wei and T

    J. Wei and T. Weth. Radial solutions and phase separation in a system of two coupled Schr¨ odinger equations. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 190(1):83–106, 2008

    2008

  28. [36]

    Giuseppe Peano

    J. Wei, X. Zhong, and W. Zou. On Sirakov’s open problem and related topics. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa, Cl. Sci. (5), 23(2):959–992, 2022. Lorenzo Giaretto and Nicola Soave Dipartimento di Matematica “Giuseppe Peano”, Universit`a di Torino, Via Carlo Alberto 10, 10123 Torino, ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.