Timeline for Singular integral bounded by Dirichlet form?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 25 at 21:25 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | @ChristianRemling : Those were some typos, kind of, and they should now be fixed. Thank you for your comments. | |
| Feb 25 at 21:23 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 25 at 21:17 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Feb 25 at 20:54 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | @AntónioBorgesSantos : I will look at that question. | |
| Feb 25 at 20:23 | comment | added | António Borges Santos | @IosifPinelis there is now an extension of the question in a more operator theoretic framework mathoverflow.net/questions/465888/… | |
| Feb 25 at 20:20 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | @ChristianRemling : That is for dimension $n=1$. For $n=2$, any $a>0$ will do -- see this. | |
| Feb 25 at 19:54 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | @AntónioBorgesSantos : I would have to think about the Laplacian. | |
| Feb 25 at 19:37 | comment | added | António Borges Santos | Since it seems you have a lot of intuition for this. Do you think the answer to my question could be positive if I replace the gradient by the Laplacian on the right hand side? | |
| Feb 25 at 19:24 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Feb 25 at 19:20 | vote | accept | António Borges Santos | ||
| Feb 25 at 19:19 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Feb 25 at 19:13 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1361 characters in body
|
| Feb 25 at 18:15 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | @AntónioBorgesSantos : Sorry, I misread your question -- did not notice that you square $[-L,L]$. I'll try to see if this answer can be appropriately modified. | |
| Feb 25 at 18:02 | comment | added | António Borges Santos | sorry that ask this again, but if $x_1-x_2 \in \mathbb R^2$, then why do you say that $u,v \in \mathbb R$? | |
| Feb 25 at 18:00 | vote | accept | António Borges Santos | ||
| Feb 25 at 18:01 | |||||
| Feb 25 at 17:46 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | @AntónioBorgesSantos : I have added the details. | |
| Feb 25 at 17:46 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1429 characters in body
|
| Feb 25 at 17:39 | comment | added | António Borges Santos | thank you for your answer anyway already, but the reduction to the 1D case that you are not using is not quite evident to me, but maybe it is also due to the use of $u$ both as the 1D variable and the difference $x_1-x_2 \in \mathbb R^2.$ | |
| Feb 25 at 17:02 | comment | added | António Borges Santos | if you would not mind, absolutely! | |
| Feb 25 at 16:59 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | Yes, your two-dimensional case reduces to the one-dimensional one. Do you want me to provide details on this? | |
| Feb 25 at 16:53 | comment | added | António Borges Santos | thanks, though $x_1,x_2 \in \mathbb R^2$ in my case? It seems you covered the case $x_1 \in \mathbb R$? I have to confess $x_1,x_2$ was probably not the best notation, sorry about that! | |
| Feb 25 at 16:43 | history | answered | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |