Skip to main content
15 events
when toggle format what by license comment
S Nov 7, 2013 at 8:45 history unlocked CommunityBot
S Nov 7, 2013 at 8:45 history locked CommunityBot
S Nov 7, 2013 at 8:45 history closed Benoît Kloeckner
Stefan Kohl
Chris Godsil
David White
Willie Wong
Not suitable for this site
Nov 6, 2013 at 19:04 review Close votes
Nov 7, 2013 at 8:45
Nov 6, 2013 at 18:42 history edited Stefan Kohl CC BY-SA 3.0
Corrected spelling of the title.
Nov 6, 2013 at 16:17 vote accept bigheadliao
Nov 6, 2013 at 16:05 answer added Liviu Nicolaescu timeline score: 0
Nov 6, 2013 at 15:50 comment added Liviu Nicolaescu This is the third tiome I am giving you the Wikipedia link where you can find the result about the eigenvalues of $\Lambda$. All you have to do is click on it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics
Nov 6, 2013 at 14:45 comment added bigheadliao Thanks, I don't know the first nonzero e-value of $\Lambda$ is $(1-n)$. In fact Veron's paper has said that" Sachant que N-1 est la seconde valeur propre de -$\Lambda$", But I can't understand French.At last I translate the sentence to English by Google.But Why the first nonzero e-value of $\Lambda$ is (1-n), Can you point out some references for me?
Nov 6, 2013 at 14:42 comment added Liviu Nicolaescu I gave you a wikipedia link. Here it is again en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics
Nov 6, 2013 at 14:07 history edited bigheadliao CC BY-SA 3.0
added 250 characters in body
Nov 6, 2013 at 14:07 comment added Liviu Nicolaescu The question you asked is a simple exercise involving Ritz-Raleigh quotients, taking into accound that the first nozero e-value of $\Lambda$ is $(1-n)$. The inequality you're looking for states that $\int_{S^{n-1}} w \Lambda w dS \leq (1-n)\int_{S^{n-1}} w^2 dS$ provided that $\int_{S^{n-1}} w=0$. As explained in my previous comment, the inequality is not true if the mean of $w$ is not zero.
Nov 6, 2013 at 13:47 history edited bigheadliao CC BY-SA 3.0
added 328 characters in body
Nov 6, 2013 at 13:23 comment added Liviu Nicolaescu You need to define $\Lambda$ precisely because tehre are two different sign conventions, depending on whether you are a geometer or not. I assume you are not, so your Laplacian is negative semidefinite. As is, the inequality is not true. Suppose that $w=1$. The left hand side is $0$ while the right-hand side is negative for $n>1$. The inequality has to do with the first nonzero eigenvalue of the Laplacian on the round $(n-1)$-sphere which is $\pm(n-1$ depending on your conventions for $\Lambda$. Try wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics
Nov 6, 2013 at 13:01 history asked bigheadliao CC BY-SA 3.0