Timeline for Ill-posedness of a generalized heat equation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2016 at 13:24 | answer | added | user21574 | timeline score: 0 | |
| S May 7, 2016 at 20:05 | history | suggested | Amir Sagiv | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
english and latex
|
| May 7, 2016 at 19:59 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 7, 2016 at 20:05 | |||||
| May 7, 2016 at 19:18 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 18:54 | answer | added | Piero D'Ancona | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 13:42 | answer | added | Bazin | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 16:06 | comment | added | user105554 | For example I could suppose $g(x,t)<0$ well defined on an interval $(-a,a)$ and for a short time $t>0$. Then the problem is ill posed as for the backward heat equation? Thanks Michael. | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 16:02 | comment | added | user105554 | Is just a first step for a a more complicated problem I should solve. I just dont know how to express the solution $u(x,t)$ when I got this $g(x,t)$. I know how to deal with if for example i got some constant $\kappa$ where the sign of $\kappa$ would say if the problem is ill/well posed. However I do not have a constant, but a more generic function $g(x,t)$. | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 15:56 | comment | added | Michael Renardy | Why do you "need to" prove this? | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 11:49 | vote | accept | user105554 | ||
| Apr 6, 2016 at 14:09 | |||||
| Apr 6, 2016 at 10:51 | answer | added | ACV | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 10:36 | history | edited | Stefan Kohl♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Language editing; added top-level tag.
|
| Apr 6, 2016 at 10:34 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 6, 2016 at 10:38 | |||||
| Apr 6, 2016 at 10:33 | history | asked | user105554 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |