Back to search
2208.07771

LARGE HYPERBOLIC CIRCLES

Emilio Corso, Davide Ravotti

correctmedium confidence
Category
math.DS
Journal tier
Strong Field
Processed
Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM

Audit review

The paper’s Theorem 1.8 explicitly bounds the coefficients and the remainder with a 1/θ factor, not θ: ∑_{μ>0}(||D^+_{θ,μ}f||_∞ + ||D^-_{θ,μ}f||_∞) ≤ C′_Spec C_{1,s−3} (1/θ) ||f||_{W^s} and |R_θ f(p,t)| ≤ C_Spec C_{1,s−3} (1/θ) ||f||_{W^s} (t+1)e^{-t} (eqs. (1.16)–(1.18)). This is repeatedly substantiated in the proofs (e.g., (4.11), (5.18)–(5.19), (5.22)–(5.25)). Hence the model’s purported contradiction (which relies on assuming a factor θ on the right-hand side) does not arise. The right–K–invariant test function is consistent with the paper’s results; the 1/θ scaling is natural since k_{f,θ} is an average with a prefactor 1/θ. Therefore, no correction is needed; the model misread the θ-dependence. See Theorem 1.8 and its bounds (1.16)–(1.18) and their derivation in Sections 4–5 of the paper , and the definition of the circle-arc average (1.6) .

Referee report (LaTeX)

\textbf{Recommendation:} no revision

\textbf{Journal Tier:} strong field

\textbf{Justification:}

The expansion and bounds in Theorem 1.8 are internally consistent and repeatedly derived with a 1/θ factor; there is no contradiction with right–K–invariant test functions. The model’s conclusion stems from misreading 1/θ as θ. The paper’s statements (1.16)–(1.18) and supporting derivations in Sections 4–5 make the θ-scaling explicit, e.g., (4.11), (5.18)–(5.19), (5.22)–(5.25)    .