Misplaced Pages

Talk:Grunsky matrix: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:17, 19 December 2011 editMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits see SPI request← Previous edit Revision as of 07:09, 20 December 2011 edit undo94.196.201.70 (talk) Undid revision 466762999 by Mathsci (talk) - revert blanking per WP:TPONext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
==Comments==
* The current version of the introduction "Grunsky matrices, or "Grunsky operatosr" gives the impression that these are the same things under different names. That is not correct.
* It seems natural, having named the operators, to say something about the spaces on which those operators are defined.
* The introduction mentions the matrices, then the operators, introduces the inequalities, then goes back to the operators in the last couple of sentences. Why not group the concepts together?
* The section ''Grunsky inequalities'' states the inequality without explicitly saying that it may or may not hold for the Grunsky matrix of f. This would be a point at which to repeat as a formal statement that the inequality is equivalent to univalence of f.
* The section ''Milin's proof of Grunsky inequalities'' again needs to explicitly state what is being proved: here that univalence implies the inequality
* Under ''Pairs of univalent functions'' it might help to make clear that in this case the matrix is now doubly infinite.
* In ''Unitarity'' the first sentence reads as if it were a definition of unitarity. It needs to be stated explicitly as a theorem. Is it supposed to be obvious, or is the proof to be supplied, or in a reference? Similarly, the second sentence, beginning "So" needs a proof or a reference. "Quasicircle" is not defined in the article, nor is there any article to link it to. The logical status of the rest of the section is not clear: is it intended to prove unitarity, and if so, how exactly does it link to univalence?
* Under ''Beurling transform'' T sub Omega appears to change to T sub f without warning. This is especially confusing since f is noit uniquely determined by Omega. Is it the case that T sub f actually depends only on f, or simply that the statements are independent of the choice of f?
* Similar remarks apply to "the" Grunsky operator defined as such in the next section. If independent of f, say so explicitly.
* The final section ''Singular integral operators on a closed curve'' is clearly incomplete.
] (]) 22:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:09, 20 December 2011

Comments

  • The current version of the introduction "Grunsky matrices, or "Grunsky operatosr" gives the impression that these are the same things under different names. That is not correct.
  • It seems natural, having named the operators, to say something about the spaces on which those operators are defined.
  • The introduction mentions the matrices, then the operators, introduces the inequalities, then goes back to the operators in the last couple of sentences. Why not group the concepts together?
  • The section Grunsky inequalities states the inequality without explicitly saying that it may or may not hold for the Grunsky matrix of f. This would be a point at which to repeat as a formal statement that the inequality is equivalent to univalence of f.
  • The section Milin's proof of Grunsky inequalities again needs to explicitly state what is being proved: here that univalence implies the inequality
  • Under Pairs of univalent functions it might help to make clear that in this case the matrix is now doubly infinite.
  • In Unitarity the first sentence reads as if it were a definition of unitarity. It needs to be stated explicitly as a theorem. Is it supposed to be obvious, or is the proof to be supplied, or in a reference? Similarly, the second sentence, beginning "So" needs a proof or a reference. "Quasicircle" is not defined in the article, nor is there any article to link it to. The logical status of the rest of the section is not clear: is it intended to prove unitarity, and if so, how exactly does it link to univalence?
  • Under Beurling transform T sub Omega appears to change to T sub f without warning. This is especially confusing since f is noit uniquely determined by Omega. Is it the case that T sub f actually depends only on f, or simply that the statements are independent of the choice of f?
  • Similar remarks apply to "the" Grunsky operator defined as such in the next section. If independent of f, say so explicitly.
  • The final section Singular integral operators on a closed curve is clearly incomplete.

94.197.0.150 (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)