Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Representations of noncommutative cubes and prisms

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the noncommutative triangular prism is completely determined by the joint numerical range of its canonical generators, via a pairing of the classical Halmos and Mirman dilation theorems.

desk verdict The Halmos-Mirman theorem is sound and the paper deserves serious refereeing, but Theorem 4.5's tensor-product irreducibility step is false and must be fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.16902 v2 pith:2UX6VJWR submitted 2026-01-23 math.OA

Douglas Farenick , Roghayeh Maleki , Sofia Medina Varela , Sushil Singla This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OA MSC 46L0746L0547A8047L25
keywords noncommutativeconvexsetsoperatorsystemsnumericalrangedilationtheoremsHalmos–MirmantheoremfreeproductC*-algebrastriangularprismextremepoints
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

Noncommutative convex sets are graded families of operator tuples that generalize classical convex bodies, and they are dual to operator systems via the Davidson–Kennedy duality. The paper's central result concerns the noncommutative triangular prism: the graded set P(3)^max of pairs (a,b) whose joint numerical range lies in the classical prism P(3) is exactly the noncommutative numerical range W_nc(w,v) of the canonical unitary generators of C*(Z_3 * Z_2). The proof pairs Halmos's dilation theorem (selfadjoint contractions dilate to symmetries) with Mirman's triangle dilation theorem (operators with numerical range in a triangle dilate to normals with spectrum at the vertices), and adds a new common-dilation lemma. The equality gives a complete description of the noncommutative triangular prism in terms of joint unitary dilations, and the same methods locate noncommutative extreme points at every finite level. A sympathetic reader should care because it shows that for the triangle, the maximal noncommutative geometry carries no extra data beyond the classical numerical range condition.

What carries the argument

The object at the centre is the noncommutative triangular prism P(3)^max = W_nc(w,v), the graded set of pairs whose joint numerical range is contained in the classical prism P(3) = Conv(C_3) × [-1,1], together with its dual operator system NCP(3) = Span{1,w,w^2,v} inside C*(Z_3 * Z_2), where w^3 = v^2 = 1. The argument's engine is a free-product common-dilation lemma: if a dilates to a unitary of order k and b dilates to a unitary of order 2, then a and b admit a joint dilation to such a pair of unitaries, constructed via a 2×2 operator matrix and the universal property of the free product C*(Z_k * Z_2). This lemma is what turns independent dilation theorems into a duality statement for the

What would settle it

Find a bounded operator a on an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space with numerical range contained in the triangle Conv C_3 but admitting no dilation to a normal operator with spectrum in {1, ω, ω^2}, or find a pair (a,b) with W_1(a) ⊆ Conv C_3 and b a selfadjoint contraction for which no pair of unitaries (u,v) with u^3 = v^2 = 1 on a common space compresses to (a,b).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's main discovery is the Halmos–Mirman theorem: P(3)^max = W_nc(w,v) ≅_NCConv S_nc(NCP(3)). In plain terms, a pair of bounded operators (a,b) on a Hilbert space belongs to the noncommutative triangular prism if and only if the numerical range of a is contained in the triangle Conv C_3 (vertices the cube roots of unity) and b is a selfadjoint contraction. The theorem is proved by writing the pair as a unital completely positive (ucp) image of the canonical generators w,v of C*(Z_3 * Z_2): Mirman's theorem gives a normal dilation of a with spectrum at the three roots of unity (hence a unitary of order 3), Halmos's theorem gives a symmetry dilation of b (a unitary of order 2), and a ne

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Mirman's classical dilation theorem, cited from the literature rather than proved here: every bounded operator whose numerical range is contained in a triangle dilates to a normal operator whose spectrum sits at the triangle's vertices; if that theorem fails on infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, the equality P(3)^max = W_nc(w,v) collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The noncommutative triangular prism carries no extra noncommutative data at the maximal level: membership is equivalent to the classical joint numerical range condition, so the operator system NCP(3) and the noncommutative convex set P(3)^max are dual objects in the categories OpSys and NCConv.
  • Noncommutative extreme points of P(3)^max occur at every finite level n of the grading, and such points are restrictions of irreducible representations of C*(Z_3 * Z_2); for k,d ≥ 3, the injective envelopes of NCP(k) and NC(d) are AW*-factors of type III.
  • The scaled Halmos–Mirman theorem (Theorem 7.1) yields explicit constants: if x has numerical range in Conv C_3 and y is a selfadjoint contraction, there are commuting unitaries u,v (u^3 = v^2 = 1) on a larger space such that Cu and Cv are joint dilations of x and y, for any C ≥ 3/(2√2).
  • For operator systems R,T among noncommutative cubes and prisms (d,k ≥ 3), the minimal, commuting, and maximal tensor products are pairwise distinct, and the operator systems do not have the double commutant expectation property; the 4-dimensional diagonal system S_{3,2} is exact but lacks the lifting property.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cited extension of Mirman's theorem to simplicial sets in any dimension suggests an analogous duality for noncommutative simplices; the paper does not develop this, but the common-dilation lemma appears robust enough to support it.
  • The scaled theorem's constant 3/(2√2) is a lower bound; a natural open question is whether it is sharp and whether the dilation can be achieved with the minimal scaling constant for P(3).
  • The 4-dimensional diagonal system S_{3,2} -- exact but lacking the lifting property -- provides a concrete low-dimensional seed for constructing further examples through operator system quotients.
  • Treating the equality P(3)^max = W_nc(w,v) as a rigidity statement suggests that for non-simplicial polytopes (e.g., squares or k-prisms with k≥4) the maximal noncommutative convex set strictly exceeds the noncommutative numerical range of the generator tuple; the paper establishes only the sandwich P(k)^min ⊆ W_nc(w,v) ⊆ P(k)^max, leaving strictness open.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies operator systems NC(d) and NCP(k) determined by the canonical unitaries of C*(*_d Z_2) and C*(Z_k * Z_2), and their dual noncommutative convex sets. The central result (Thms 2.3 and 4.1) identifies the maximal noncommutative triangular prism P(3)^max with the matrix range of the universal pair (w,v), i.e. a pair (a,b) belongs to P(3)^max iff it is a ucp image of (w,v). The proof combines Mirman's dilation theorem for numerical ranges in a triangle with Halmos's dilation theorem for selfadjoint contractions, and a free-product common dilation construction (Thm 4.2). The paper then studies noncommutative extreme points, quotients and duals, automatic complete positivity, tensor products, exactness, and the lifting property, with applications to a four-dimensional operator system without the lifting property.

Significance. The central Halmos-Mirman theorem is a valuable result; its proof is coherent and rests on standard dilation theorems and a self-contained free-product argument. The paper also gives interesting structural consequences (OMAX/OMIN behavior, strict tensor product inequalities, concrete systems without the lifting property). However, the auxiliary extreme-point analysis contains a false tensor-product claim in Theorem 4.5 that requires repair; as written, the proof of 'extreme points at every finite level' is not valid.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4.3, proof of Theorem 4.5] The proof states: 'Since the tensor product of irreducible representations of a C*-algebra is an irreducible representation' and uses this to produce irreducible representations of C*(Z3*Z2) at composite levels. This statement is false. For example, let ρ be the two-dimensional irreducible representation from S_3 used in the paper. Because ρ is finite-dimensional and irreducible, ρ(C*(Z3*Z2)) = M_2(C); hence (ρ⊗ρ)(C*(Z3*Z2)) = {X⊗X : X∈M_2(C)}. The flip operator F on C^2⊗C^2 commutes with every X⊗X and is not scalar, so ρ⊗ρ is reducible. Thus the construction of extreme points at levels n=4,6,8,... by tensoring lower-dimensional irreps is invalid. This is load-bearing for the theorem's claim that noncommutative extreme points occur at every finite level; a different argument is needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4, Theorem 4.2 proof] The definition of \tilde y contains '1_{H⊕3}' in the second diagonal block; since \tilde y acts on K⊕K, this should be 1_K. The error is local but should be corrected because the displayed formula is not a well-defined operator as written.
  2. [§7, Corollary 7.3] The proof says 'its dual, NC(3)' but Theorem 5.3 gives NCP(3)^δ ≅ S_{3,2}; hence 'NC(3)' should be 'NCP(3)'.
  3. [§7, Corollary 7.4] The displayed definitions of R_d and S_{k,2} have indexing/dimension errors: R_d is a subspace of C^{2d}, not 'C^d'; and S_{k,2} should be read as {(z_1,...,z_{k+2})∈C^{k+2}: z_1+...+z_k = z_{k+1}+z_{k+2}}.
  4. [§7, Theorem 7.2] The set {NC(d), NP(k)} should be {NC(d), NCP(k)}; NP(k) is otherwise undefined.
  5. [General] Typos and minor wording issues should be corrected: 'susbspace', 'homomorpshim', 'opereator', 'hypotheis'. Also, Theorem 6.5 relies on Lemma 6.7 of the unpublished preprint [22]; the authors should either provide a proof or clarify its status.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Halmos–Mirman theorem is derived from external classical dilation theorems and a self-contained common-dilation argument.

full rationale

The central claim P(3)^max = W_nc(w,v) is not circular. The forward inclusion is immediate from the numerical ranges of the canonical unitaries w and v; the reverse inclusion is proved by applying Mirman's theorem to dilate a to a normal operator with spectrum at the cube roots of unity (hence a unitary of order 3) and Halmos's theorem to dilate b to a symmetry, and then Theorem 4.2, whose proof is given in the paper, combines the two dilations into a common joint unitary dilation via the universal property of the free product C*(Z3*Z2). The common-dilation construction is self-contained and does not presuppose the equality being proved. The categorical isomorphisms W_nc(x) ≅ S_nc(O_x) are the standard Webster–Winkler/Davidson–Kennedy duality, invoked as an external theorem. The paper does cite the authors' earlier work ([12,13,15]) for secondary facts about cubes, quotients, and purity, but these are independently published theorems rather than restatements of the present claims, and they are not needed for the central Halmos–Mirman identification. The questionable assertion in Theorem 4.5 that a tensor product of irreducible representations is irreducible is mathematically false in general, but this is a correctness issue in a peripheral construction, not a circular dependency.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on classical dilation theorems, categorical duality, and group C*-algebra facts. No free parameters are fitted. The main external inputs are Halmos and Mirman dilation theorems, the Webster-Winkler/Davidson-Kennedy duality, finite group representation facts for PSL_2(F_q), and the resolution of the CEP (MIP*=RE). Several cited results are from the authors' earlier papers but are independently published.

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Webster-Winkler/Davidson-Kennedy duality: the categories NCConv and OpSys are dual via A_nc(S_nc(R)) ≅ R and S_nc(R) ≅ W_nc(x).
    Used throughout (e.g., Theorems 2.1 and 2.3) to equate noncommutative convex sets with operator systems. This is a deep external theorem from [9,38].
  • standard math Halmos dilation theorem: every selfadjoint contraction dilates to a selfadjoint unitary (symmetry); every contraction dilates to a unitary.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 2.3/4.1 and in Lemma 6.4.
  • standard math Mirman dilation theorem: if a bounded operator has numerical range contained in a triangle with nonempty interior, it dilates to a normal operator whose spectrum is the triangle's vertices.
    Load-bearing for the Halmos-Mirman theorem; without it the inclusion P(3)^max ⊆ W_nc(w,v) fails. Cited as [30,6].
  • standard math Macbeath generation theorem: PSL_2(F_q) is generated by the two matrices U (order 3) and V (order 2) if and only if q ≠ 9.
    Used in Theorem 4.5 to construct irreducible representations of C*(Z3*Z2) at prime-power dimensions; cited as [29].
  • standard math PSL_2(F_q) has an irreducible representation of dimension q for prime powers q > 3.
    Used in Theorem 4.5; cited to Fulton-Harris [16] and used to get irreducible reps at dimension q.
  • domain assumption C*(Z_k*Z_2) and C*(*_{j=1}^d Z_2) are primitive for k,d ≥ 3.
    Used in Theorem 2.5 and Theorem 4.4 to conclude injective envelopes are type III AW*-factors; cited to Bédos-Omland [4].
  • standard math C*(F_2) ⊗_min C*(F_2) ≠ C*(F_2) ⊗_max C*(F_2), equivalently the Connes Embedding Problem is false (MIP*=RE).
    Used in Corollary 6.3 to derive R ⊗_min T ≠ R ⊗_c T for cubes and prisms; cited to [17,21,26].
  • domain assumption Kavruk's embeddings lemma: there exist complete order embeddings NC(2) → R and ucp left inverses R → NC(2) for R ∈ {NC(d),NCP(k)|d,k≥3}.
    Used in Theorem 6.5 to reduce R ⊗_c T ≠ R ⊗_max T to the known NC(2) case; cited as an unpublished lemma [22, Lemma 6.7].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Representations of noncommutative cubes and prisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2UX6VJWR

@misc{pith2026260116902,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Representations of noncommutative cubes and prisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2UX6VJWR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.16902}
}
abstract

Representations of the operator system determined by the canonical generators of the free product of two cyclic groups of order $2$ and $k$, or $d$ cyclic groups of order $2$, are studied for the purpose of shedding light on the noncommutative geometry of noncommutative $d$-cubes and $k$-prisms. By way of the duality of the categories NCConv and OpSys of noncommutative convex sets and operator systems, respectively, an analysis of noncommutative extreme points, exactness, the lifting property, automatic complete positivity, controlled completely positive extensions, tensor products, and operator system duality is undertaken. Of note is the pairing of two classical dilation theorems of Halmos and Mirman to give a complete description of the noncommutative triangular prism in terms of joint unitary dilations.

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. On Subhomogeneous Operator Systems

    math.OA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Characterizes subhomogeneous finite-dimensional operator systems via multiple equivalent conditions and proves that their duals are quotients of subhomogeneous systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [22]

    Kavruk,The weak expectation property and Riesz interpolation, arXiv:1201.1514 (2012)

    Ali S. Kavruk,The weak expectation property and Riesz interpolation, arXiv:1201.1514 (2012)

    arXiv 2012

  2. [1]

    Operator Theory59(2008), no

    Mart ´ın Argerami and Douglas Farenick,Local multiplier algebras, injective envelopes, and type IW ∗- algebras, J. Operator Theory59(2008), no. 2, 237–245. MR 2411044 (2009j:46122)

    2008

  3. [2]

    Mart ´ın Argerami, Douglas Farenick, and Pedro Massey,The gap between local multiplier algebras of C∗-algebras, Q. J. Math.60(2009), no. 3, 273–281. MR 2533657

    2009

  4. [3]

    MR MR0253059 (40 #6274)

    William Arveson,Subalgebras ofC ∗-algebras, Acta Math.123(1969), 141–224. MR MR0253059 (40 #6274)

    1969

  5. [4]

    Omland,Primitivity of some full groupC ∗-algebras, Banach J

    Erik B ´edos and Tron ˚A. Omland,Primitivity of some full groupC ∗-algebras, Banach J. Math. Anal.5 (2011), no. 2, 44–58. MR 2780868

    2011

  6. [5]

    Angshuman Bhattacharya,Relative weak injectivity of operator system pairs, J. Math. Anal. Appl.420 (2014), no. 1, 257–267. MR 3229823

    2014

  7. [6]

    Paul Binding, Douglas Farenick, and Chi-Kwong Li,A dilation and norm in several variable operator theory, Canad. J. Math.47(1995), no. 3, 449–461. MR 1346148

    1995

  8. [7]

    Blackadar,Operator algebras, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol

    B. Blackadar,Operator algebras, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 122, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006, Theory ofC ∗-algebras and von Neumann algebras, Operator Algebras and Non- commutative Geometry, III. MR MR2188261 (2006k:46082)

    2006

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    Effros,Injectivity and operator spaces, J

    Man Duen Choi and Edward G. Effros,Injectivity and operator spaces, J. Functional Analysis24 (1977), no. 2, 156–209. MR 0430809 (55 #3814)

    1977

  2. [9]

    Kenneth Davidson and Matthew Kennedy,Noncommutative Choquet Theory, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.316(2025), no. 1608, v+83. MR 5009783

    2025

  3. [10]

    Chandler Davis,Generators of the ring of bounded operators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.6(1955), 907–972. MR 73138

    1955

  4. [11]

    William Helton, Igor Klep, and Scott McCullough,Extreme points of matrix convex sets, free spectrahedra, and dilation theory, J

    Eric Evert, J. William Helton, Igor Klep, and Scott McCullough,Extreme points of matrix convex sets, free spectrahedra, and dilation theory, J. Geom. Anal.28(2018), no. 2, 1373–1408. MR 3790504 REPRESENTATIONS OF NONCOMMUTATIVE CUBES AND PRISMS 27

    2018

  5. [12]

    Kavruk, Vern I

    Douglas Farenick, Ali S. Kavruk, Vern I. Paulsen, and Ivan G. Todorov,Operator systems from discrete groups, Comm. Math. Phys.329(2014), no. 1, 207–238. MR 3207002

    2014

  6. [13]

    Math.24A(2018), 107–135

    ,Characterisations of the weak expectation property, New York J. Math.24A(2018), 107–135. MR 3904873

    2018

  7. [14]

    Paulsen,Operator system quotients of matrix algebras and their tensor products, Math

    Douglas Farenick and Vern I. Paulsen,Operator system quotients of matrix algebras and their tensor products, Math. Scand.111(2012), no. 2, 210–243. MR 3023524

    2012

  8. [15]

    Math.317(2022), no

    Douglas Farenick and Ryan Tessier,Purity of the embeddings of operator systems into theirC ∗- and injective envelopes, Pacific J. Math.317(2022), no. 2, 317–338. MR 4452503

    2022

  9. [16]

    129, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991, A first course, Readings in Mathematics

    William Fulton and Joe Harris,Representation theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 129, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991, A first course, Readings in Mathematics. MR 1153249

    1991

  10. [17]

    Isaac Goldbring,The Connes embedding problem: a guided tour, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.)59 (2022), no. 4, 503–560. MR 4478032

    2022

  11. [18]

    Halmos,Normal dilations and extensions of operators, Summa Brasil

    Paul R. Halmos,Normal dilations and extensions of operators, Summa Brasil. Math.2(1950), 125–134. MR 44036

    1950

  12. [19]

    Masamichi Hamana,Injective envelopes of operator systems, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci.15(1979), no. 3, 773–785. MR 566081

    1979

  13. [20]

    Harris,Four-dimensional opereator systems without the lifting property, arXiv:2508.00113v1 (2025)

    Samuel J. Harris,Four-dimensional opereator systems without the lifting property, arXiv:2508.00113v1 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Zhengfeng Ji, Anand Natarajan, Thomas Vidick, John Wright, and Henry Yuen,MIP ∗=RE, arXiv:2001.04383 (2022)

    2001 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Operator Theory71(2014), no

    ,Nuclearity related properties in operator systems, J. Operator Theory71(2014), no. 1, 95–156. MR 3173055

    2014

  16. [24]

    Kavruk, Vern I

    Ali S. Kavruk, Vern I. Paulsen, Ivan G. Todorov, and Mark Tomforde,Tensor products of operator systems, J. Funct. Anal.261(2011), no. 2, 267–299. MR 2793115

    2011

  17. [25]

    Math.235(2013), 321–360

    ,Quotients, exactness, and nuclearity in the operator system category, Adv. Math.235(2013), 321–360. MR 3010061

    2013

  18. [26]

    Math.112(1993), no

    Eberhard Kirchberg,On nonsemisplit extensions, tensor products and exactness of groupC ∗-algebras, Invent. Math.112(1993), no. 3, 449–489. MR 1218321 (94d:46058)

    1993

  19. [27]

    Eberhard Kirchberg and Simon Wassermann,C ∗-algebras generated by operator systems, J. Funct. Anal.155(1998), no. 2, 324–351

    1998

  20. [28]

    Tom-Lukas Kriel,An introduction to matrix convex sets and free spectrahedra, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory13(2019), no. 7, 3251–3335. MR 4020034

    2019

  21. [29]

    Alexander M Macbeath,Generators of the linear fractional groups, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, American Mathematical Society, 1969, pp. 14–32

    1969

  22. [30]

    B. A. Mirman,The numerical range of a linear operator, and its norm, Vorone ˇz. Gos. Univ. Trudy Sem. Funkcional. Anal. (1968), no. 10, 51–55. MR 417814

    1968

  23. [31]

    Paschke and Norberto Salinas,C ∗-algebras associated with free products of groups, Pacific J

    William L. Paschke and Norberto Salinas,C ∗-algebras associated with free products of groups, Pacific J. Math.82(1979), no. 1, 211–221. MR 549845

    1979

  24. [32]

    Benjamin Passer, Orr Moshe Shalit, and Baruch Solel,Minimal and maximal matrix convex sets, J. Funct. Anal.274(2018), no. 11, 3197–3253. MR 3782992

    2018

  25. [33]

    Pedersen,Approximating derivations on ideals ofC ∗-algebras, Invent

    Gert K. Pedersen,Approximating derivations on ideals ofC ∗-algebras, Invent. Math.45(1978), no. 3, 299–305. MR 0477792

    1978

  26. [34]

    Sinclair,TheC ∗-algebra generated by two projections, Math

    Iain Raeburn and Allan M. Sinclair,TheC ∗-algebra generated by two projections, Math. Scand.65 (1989), no. 2, 278–290. MR 1050869

    1989

  27. [35]

    10, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1996

    Barry Simon,Representations of finite and compact groups, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 10, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1996. MR 1363490

    1996

  28. [36]

    V . S. Sunder,Nsubspaces, Canad. J. Math.40(1988), no. 1, 38–54. MR 928213

    1988

  29. [37]

    London Math

    Simon Wassermann,Tensor products of free-groupC ∗-algebras, Bull. London Math. Soc.22(1990), no. 4, 375–380. MR 1058315

    1990

  30. [38]

    Corran Webster and Soren Winkler,The Krein-Milman theorem in operator convexity, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.351(1999), no. 1, 307–322. MR 1615970 (99d:46079)

    1999

  31. [39]

    Wilson,The finite simple groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol

    Robert A. Wilson,The finite simple groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 251, Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London, 2009. MR 2562037 28 D. FARENICK, R. MALEKI, S. MEDINA VARELA, S. SINGLA DEPARTMENT OFMATHEMATICS ANDSTATISTICS, UNIVERSITY OFREGINA, REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN S...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.