Timeline for Inverse Problem for jet equations
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2012 at 13:37 | comment | added | Deane Yang | The two questions (the original one and the one in the answer) and therefore their answers are quite different. Could you edit your original question to reflect what you really want? | |
| Feb 27, 2012 at 12:06 | comment | added | Nevermind | I just did this because it looked to me, that you don't get the idea. But in you last comment (@Deane) you are right: The question is wether or not the Jacobians could be 'extended' (better lifted or even integrated) to functions, having theses these Jacobians at a given point. The point here is, that comments about 'solving the matrix equation' doesn't makes sense to me at all, so I gave another example that is a little more simple but of the same kind. | |
| Feb 27, 2012 at 12:01 | comment | added | Nevermind | No, I'm still looking for functions with given Jacobians. Here I'm looking for the functions $g$ with Jacobian $J$ at a point. Stating the the function $f_i$ and $h_i$ are known is not important. I just wrote it to point in the direction I'm looking at | |
| Feb 27, 2012 at 8:29 | comment | added | Deane Yang | But isn't this question different from the original one? In the original one, you say that only the 1-jets at a given point of $f_1$, $f_2$, $g$, and $h$ are given and ask whether they can be extended to functions. Here, you say that the functions $f_1$, $f_2$, and $h$ are given and ask if the $1$-jet solution to $g$ can be extended to a function. The two questions are rather different. | |
| Feb 26, 2012 at 22:41 | history | answered | Nevermind | CC BY-SA 3.0 |