Impact
~3k
people reached
- 0 posts edited
- 0 helpful flags
- 93 votes cast
Sep
24 |
awarded | Autobiographer |
Feb
10 |
accepted | Is irreducibility sufficient for uniqueness of invariant distribution for a Feller Semigroup? |
Feb
3 |
comment |
semiclassical principal symbol
-1 is of top order in $h$... |
Jan
30 |
revised |
Is irreducibility sufficient for uniqueness of invariant distribution for a Feller Semigroup?
added tag |
Jan
30 |
asked | Is irreducibility sufficient for uniqueness of invariant distribution for a Feller Semigroup? |
Jun
25 |
awarded | Revival |
Feb
1 |
awarded | Yearling |
Oct
15 |
revised |
Applications of Hodge-de Rham Laplacian on p-forms ($p\neq 0,n$) in physics or engineering
added 12 characters in body |
Oct
15 |
comment |
Applications of Hodge-de Rham Laplacian on p-forms ($p\neq 0,n$) in physics or engineering
I like your answer too, just wanted to clarify some potential ambiguity! |
Oct
10 |
revised |
Applications of Hodge-de Rham Laplacian on p-forms ($p\neq 0,n$) in physics or engineering
added 7 characters in body |
Oct
10 |
answered | Applications of Hodge-de Rham Laplacian on p-forms ($p\neq 0,n$) in physics or engineering |
Oct
10 |
comment |
Applications of Hodge-de Rham Laplacian on p-forms ($p\neq 0,n$) in physics or engineering
Hmmm, isn't it the other way around? He uses supesymmetric quantum mechanics to prove Morse inequalities, as far as I understand! And he does not consider exactly the Hodge Laplacian, but a distorted version of it (now called Witten Laplacian). But I agree that indeed, the Witten Laplacian on the full algebra of forms is used. A bit more precisely: the Witten Laplacian is a Schroedinger type operator for every $p=0,\dots,n$ and he uses semiclassical spectral approximation (through Harmonic oscillators) of these Schroedinger operators to get the Morse inequalities. |
Oct
7 |
answered | Describe a topic in one sentence. |
Apr
24 |
comment |
Solutions to the eikonal equation
@Robert Bryant: hmm, this is what I thought at the beginning, but I'm not convinced. It seems to me that the quadratic approximation is not enough to decide. Why should $L^+\geq L$ imply $\phi^+\geq \phi$ near $p$? (We really have $L^+\geq L$ in general and not $L^+ > L$, otherwise it would be clear to me...). Do I miss something? |
Apr
22 |
comment |
Solutions to the eikonal equation
@Robert Bryant. Sorry, I was imprecise: I mean the first option you mentioned. |
Apr
22 |
comment |
Solutions to the eikonal equation
@Robert Bryant. Thanks for this answer. I was wondering if the solution you constructed, uniquely characterized among the smooth solutions by being $0$ in $p$ and nonnegative, could also be uniquely characterized among smooth solutions as the maximal solution. I'm pretty convinced this is true, but I don't see how to prove it. Does it follow somehow directly from your construction or are some other arguments needed? I would be very grateful if you or somebody else can comment on this! |
Mar
20 |
awarded | Scholar |
Mar
20 |
accepted | Symmetric Feller processes and Dirichlet Forms |
Mar
19 |
comment |
Additive Subgroups of the Reals.
@Syang Chen. Many thanks. |
Mar
14 |
comment |
weighted Poincare inequality
@Alekk. I'm wondering about your function $h$. What are the typical $h$'s you have in mind? What would be the meaning of $h$ for the Langevin diffusion you mentioned in "Motivations"? Is the $h$ in the paragraph between Example and Motivations the same $h$ of the Question? Could you say a bit more on this? |