Timeline for A question on the proof of unique continuation for the case $u\in H^{2}$ in Le Rousseau, Lebeau and Robbiano book on Carleman estimates
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun 3 at 4:08 | comment | added | monotone operator | Thanks!@WillieWong, I get it. Your answers and comments are invaluable for me! | |
Jun 3 at 4:03 | comment | added | Willie Wong | Yes. The analogy with bootstrap arguments is apt. In fact, it may be easier to think in terms of the "closed" case where the extension is $u = 0$ on $\overline{\mathscr{B}_{t}}$ implies $u = 0$ on $\mathscr{B}_{t+\epsilon}$. The difference exposed is then that $u = 0$ is a closed condition, and when $u$ is by assumption continuous, you have that $u$ vanishing on the open ball implies it vanishes on the closed ball. This inability to take closures is fundamentally what breaks when you look at the ODE case. | |
Jun 3 at 4:02 | vote | accept | monotone operator | ||
Jun 3 at 4:00 | comment | added | monotone operator | thank you for your answer, according to your explanation, Lebeau's argument is like the bootstrap in spirit, right? Proposition5.1 tell us that if $u$ is equal to $0$ on one side of hypersurface then $u$ will also equal to $0$ on a small neighborhood of that hypersurface($u$ satisfy the above partial differential inequalities). Your explanation about the relation between the proof of Lebeau and extension of solution of ode is really excellent! | |
Jun 3 at 3:49 | history | answered | Willie Wong | CC BY-SA 4.0 |