Timeline for How can I prove this special version of the Poincaré inequality?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Feb 26 at 16:45 | history | suggested | psmears | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Improve wording and grammar; improve formatting
|
| Feb 26 at 14:30 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 26 at 16:45 | |||||
| Feb 26 at 12:45 | vote | accept | Sébastien André-sloan | ||
| Feb 26 at 12:12 | vote | accept | Sébastien André-sloan | ||
| Feb 26 at 12:45 | |||||
| Feb 26 at 7:56 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Feb 26 at 6:11 | comment | added | Willie Wong | That said, the Poincare inequality itself is not one of my concerns. At least if we are willing to put some additional standard assumptions on the domain, the claimed Poincare inequality actually holds. | |
| Feb 26 at 6:10 | comment | added | Willie Wong | Like @PiotrHajlasz I am not 100% convinced by the arguments in the paper; parts of Lemma A.4 seems very strange, specifically the arguments concerning the extension from $(u,f)$ to $(\hat{u},\hat{f})$. I don't see how after the truncation one still solves the PDE $\mathcal{L}_0 \hat{u} = \hat{f}$; there is potentially a jump discontinuity in $\hat{u}$ at time $t = T$. And the assertion that $\hat{u}$ is in $W^{2,p}(\mathbb{R}^n\times \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0})$ also feels problematic to me, since the boundary conditions for the heat equation says nothing about the Neumann data. | |
| Feb 26 at 5:59 | answer | added | Willie Wong | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 26 at 5:47 | history | edited | David Roberts♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Typo in Q title; paper title and abstract link
|
| Feb 26 at 5:29 | comment | added | Piotr Hajlasz | I briefly looked at the paper and I have doubts that what they wrote is correct. Even, if it is correct, the presentation severly lacks explanations (I only spent a couple of minutes looking at the paper so I might be missing something). | |
| Feb 26 at 4:44 | comment | added | Willie Wong | (I removed my earlier objections because it became clear after looking at sections A.2 and A.3 of the paper that their $W^{k,p}$ space only involves spatial derivatives.) | |
| Feb 26 at 2:29 | answer | added | Iosif Pinelis | timeline score: 1 | |
| S Feb 25 at 22:14 | review | First questions | |||
| Feb 26 at 4:47 | |||||
| S Feb 25 at 22:14 | history | asked | Sébastien André-sloan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |