Timeline for Is there something wrong with Hörmander's theorem on stationary phase method
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Jul 1, 2013 at 13:14 | comment | added | Zhi Qi | Thanks. I really have learned. I learned PDE by Evans' book with the conventional $D f = \nabla f$, so I did not realize the difference. I am a number and representation theorist. Bessel functions comes in naturally in my field, and I am trying to understand it via stationary phase method. That is why I encountered this "inconsistency". | |
| Jul 1, 2013 at 13:03 | vote | accept | Zhi Qi | ||
| Jul 1, 2013 at 13:00 | comment | added | Willie Wong | @ZhiQi As a side remark: in literature concerning harmonic/fourier analysis (including pseudo/para differential calculus), the normalisation $D = -i \partial$ is very common, as it has the advantage $\widehat{Df} = \xi \widehat{f}$ which is somewhat more convenient when you do algebraic manipulations of the symbol. | |
| Jul 1, 2013 at 12:50 | vote | accept | Zhi Qi | ||
| Jul 1, 2013 at 13:03 | |||||
| Jul 1, 2013 at 12:48 | comment | added | Zhi Qi | Thanks very much. I need this result for my research, but I am not an expect in analysis, so I took the conventional D for granted. | |
| Jul 1, 2013 at 11:59 | history | answered | Willie Wong | CC BY-SA 3.0 |