1
$\begingroup$

What's the motivation for cascade operator $C_{u}, C_{d}$ (and then the dyadic version of operator $B=(u\cdot \nabla)u$), which is

$(C_{u}(u,v))_{Q} = 2^{\frac{5}{2}j}u_{\tilde{Q}}v_{\tilde{Q}}$,

$(C_{d}(u,v))_{Q} = 2^{\frac{5}{2}(j+1)}u_{Q}(\Sigma_{Q'\in C^1(Q)}v_{Q'})$he

where $j = j(Q)$,$\tilde{Q}$ is the unique parent of $Q$, $C^1(Q)$ is the set of children of $Q$

then dyadic version of $B$ is defined as

$B = C_{u}-C_{d}$

in the dyadic model of Navier Stokes equation?

Thanks for help!

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ terrytao.wordpress.com/tag/dyadic-models $\endgroup$ May 4, 2016 at 10:06
  • $\begingroup$ See the introduction of Kiselev-Zlatos, "On discrete models of the Euler equations," which has a nice description. See also Katz-Pavlovic, "A cheap Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg inequality for Navier-Stokes equations with hyper-dissipation." Note that the model in the "cheap" Katz-Pavlovic paper is slightly different than the model in their "Finite time blow-up" paper, which I think you are looking at now. $\endgroup$
    – user70229
    May 4, 2016 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ @dalbrit, I can't find the motivation -- I mean why the dyadic version of B is the cascade difference. All the paper around these I checked didn't talk about this, they simply write down the definition of cascade operator only. $\endgroup$
    – user91210
    May 5, 2016 at 6:43

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.