Timeline for Differentiability criterion in the Zygmund class
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 15, 2016 at 8:19 | history | edited | Longyearbyen |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 14, 2016 at 11:28 | comment | added | BS. | related question mathoverflow.net/q/143659/6451 | |
| Mar 14, 2016 at 9:30 | history | edited | Longyearbyen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 13 characters in body
|
| Mar 14, 2016 at 9:28 | comment | added | Longyearbyen | you are right. f has to be assumed to be continuous. I added it. | |
| Mar 14, 2016 at 9:22 | comment | added | Fedor Petrov | If we do not require additionally that $f$ is continuous or something like that, it may appear that $f$ is additive discontinuous function. | |
| Mar 14, 2016 at 9:13 | comment | added | Longyearbyen | No, it is just a modulus of continuity for this second order difference quotient. If $ \omega $ is a generic modulus of continuity you get the class of smooth functions in the sense of Zygmund, that are known to be non differentiable a.e. in general. | |
| Mar 14, 2016 at 9:08 | comment | added | Fedor Petrov | Is $\omega$ a modulus of continuity of function $f$ itself? This looks somehow strange. | |
| Mar 14, 2016 at 9:07 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 14, 2016 at 9:55 | |||||
| Mar 14, 2016 at 9:03 | history | asked | Longyearbyen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |