Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Answer

added 88 characters in body
Source Link
Bombyx mori
Bombyx mori
  • 6.2k
  • 3
  • 34
  • 57

I take a very brief look at the paper and I did not see $\Psi DO$ on manifold with boundary being used heavily anywhere (no conormal distribution, multiple blow-ups, heavy handed symbol estimates, etc). The gist of the paper is not the non-compact setting but dispersive PDE.

I think the following notes I took may be helpful, but there are plenty of mistakes here and there. There are also notes by many othersother experts. Personally, I suggest against going into the field as an undergraduate. I think the right strategy should be to isolate pieces of mathematics you cannot understand in that paper, and try to prove it on your own by learning the machinery from books/notes, or from references papers cited whenever possible. The "bottom up" approach simply takes too much time, and you may be aware that there are many approaches for dealing with non-compact manifolds. So learning one may not be enough. The goal of your paper reading should be focusing on the content (dispersive PDE), not the form (the myriad array of techniques or technical detail presented in it). This is the advice offered to me by Atiyah.

I take a very brief look at the paper and I did not see $\Psi DO$ on manifold with boundary being used heavily anywhere (no conormal distribution, multiple blow-ups, heavy handed symbol estimates, etc). The gist of the paper is not the non-compact setting but dispersive PDE.

I think the following notes I took may be helpful, but there are plenty of mistakes here and there. There are also notes by others. Personally, I suggest against going into the field as an undergraduate. I think the right strategy should be to isolate pieces of mathematics you cannot understand in that paper, and try to prove it on your own by learning the machinery from books/notes, or from references papers cited whenever possible. The "bottom up" approach simply takes too much time, and you may be aware that there are many approaches for dealing with non-compact manifolds. So learning one may not be enough. The goal of your paper reading should be focusing on the content (dispersive PDE), not the form (the myriad array of techniques or technical detail presented in it). This is the advice offered to me by Atiyah.

I take a very brief look at the paper and I did not see $\Psi DO$ on manifold with boundary being used heavily anywhere (no conormal distribution, multiple blow-ups, heavy handed symbol estimates, etc). The gist of the paper is not the non-compact setting but dispersive PDE.

I think the following notes I took may be helpful, but there are plenty of mistakes here and there. There are also notes by many other experts. Personally, I suggest against going into the field as an undergraduate. I think the right strategy should be to isolate pieces of mathematics you cannot understand in that paper, and try to prove it on your own by learning the machinery from books/notes, or from references papers cited whenever possible. The "bottom up" approach simply takes too much time, and you may be aware that there are many approaches for dealing with non-compact manifolds. So learning one may not be enough. The goal of your paper reading should be focusing on the content (dispersive PDE), not the form (the myriad array of techniques or technical detail presented in it). This is the advice offered to me by Atiyah.

Post Made Community Wiki by Bombyx mori
Source Link
Bombyx mori
Bombyx mori
  • 6.2k
  • 3
  • 34
  • 57

I take a very brief look at the paper and I did not see $\Psi DO$ on manifold with boundary being used heavily anywhere (no conormal distribution, multiple blow-ups, heavy handed symbol estimates, etc). The gist of the paper is not the non-compact setting but dispersive PDE.

I think the following notes I took may be helpful, but there are plenty of mistakes here and there. There are also notes by others. Personally, I suggest against going into the field as an undergraduate. I think the right strategy should be to isolate pieces of mathematics you cannot understand in that paper, and try to prove it on your own by learning the machinery from books/notes, or from references papers cited whenever possible. The "bottom up" approach simply takes too much time, and you may be aware that there are many approaches for dealing with non-compact manifolds. So learning one may not be enough. The goal of your paper reading should be focusing on the content (dispersive PDE), not the form (the myriad array of techniques or technical detail presented in it). This is the advice offered to me by Atiyah.