Guess the deleted question!
===
>**Q1: I need following books (soft copies)**
>I know this is not the place to ask for such help, but I cant find these books in my country and not even on line and the shipping is very expensive. If someone out there have any of these books (soft copies), please email me.
>A) A. H. Zemanian, "Generalized Integral Transforms", Intersciene, New York, 1968.
>B) A. H. Zemanian, "Distribution Theory and Transform Analysis", McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965.
---
>**Q2: Time decay for Hartree equation with Coulomb potential**
>Are there any time-decay results for the solution of the Hartree equation
\begin{equation}\frac{1}{i}\partial_t\phi-\Delta\phi=-(|x|^{-1}\ast|\phi|^2)\phi,\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^3\end{equation} in $L^p$-spaces which would ensure e.g. $\phi\in L^2((0,\infty);L^3(\mathbb{R}^3))$ or $\phi\in L^2((0,\infty);L^4(\mathbb{R}^3))$?
>According to the information at [DispersiveWiki](http://wiki.math.toronto.edu/DispersiveWiki/index.php/Hartree_equation),
Coulomb potential is the borderline case and there is no scattering results (in the sense of asymptotic compeleteness) (??) for the solutions of the above equation. There is a paper by [Hayashi and Ozawa](http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/956/art%253A10.1007%252FBF01160950.pdf?auth66=1398173816_1ce925b1f9b10edb0436ae5b3a508bf1&ext=.pdf) on time-decay for Hartree equation with Coulomb or more singular potentials which makes use of pseudo-conformal invariance. This work implies that one can get rates like $\|\phi\|_4\lesssim t^{-3/8}$ or $\|\phi\|_3\lesssim t^{-1/4}$ where $\phi$ is the solution of the above equation. Those are slower rates compared to the rates at which free solution decays. Is there more recent publication which might imply better rates? Do you know of any $L^\infty$-decay results (for the above equation) which might be interpolated by mass conservation to get faster $L^p$-decay?
**Hints:** Both were asked about a year ago. The first is closed and has score -5. The second is open and has score 0.
Since I ask, one might still have easily guessed that Q2 was the (auto-)deleted one, while Q1 would not get (auto-)deleted [under current rules and in current form].
(Comment: following this post, this got fixed by manual votes.)
Why? Well, because Q1 has an answer that reads:
>both books can be traced on amazon. there are rather cheap used copies available.
Somehow it got score 2, and that's it as regards auto-delete. (While in my opinion more likely than not it does not answer the question at all, as it is made clear that the shipping costs are the issue.)
---
Now, let me stop my attempts at humor.
I think by and large auto-delete works alright or essentially "good enough" and there is no reason for major activity or concern.
However, as the above examples show, I think, the situation is not perfect, either. This is also not a unique example; likely one could produce hundreds, but then "hundreds" are only around one percent so it is not that big a deal either. Still, a little manual fine-tuning here and there might not be entirely useless.
Now, somebody might wonder why I did not do anything about the above questions. Well, I did cast my votes. Somebody else did, too. But, we'd need a third vote, and none was coming... (until I wrote this post, see comments below).
The **undeletion and deletion process** seems for (almost) all practical purposes simply **broken.** If too few check (and to be sure, I have to confess I do not check often either), undeletions and deletions just cannot happen anymore. This is likely not a tragedy, but it seems not good, either.