1
$\begingroup$

What's the motivation for cascade operator $C_{u}, C_{d}$ (and then the dyadic version of operator $B=(u\cdot \nabla)u$), which is

$(C_{u}(u,v))_{Q} = 2^{\frac{5}{2}j}u_{\tilde{Q}}v_{\tilde{Q}}$,

$(C_{d}(u,v))_{Q} = 2^{\frac{5}{2}(j+1)}u_{Q}(\Sigma_{Q'\in C^1(Q)}v_{Q'})$he

where $j = j(Q)$,$\tilde{Q}$ is the unique parent of $Q$, $C^1(Q)$ is the set of children of $Q$

then dyadic version of $B$ is defined as

$B = C_{u}-C_{d}$

in the dyadic model of Navier Stokes equation?

Thanks for help!

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ terrytao.wordpress.com/tag/dyadic-models $\endgroup$ Commented May 4, 2016 at 10:06
  • $\begingroup$ See the introduction of Kiselev-Zlatos, "On discrete models of the Euler equations," which has a nice description. See also Katz-Pavlovic, "A cheap Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg inequality for Navier-Stokes equations with hyper-dissipation." Note that the model in the "cheap" Katz-Pavlovic paper is slightly different than the model in their "Finite time blow-up" paper, which I think you are looking at now. $\endgroup$
    – user70229
    Commented May 4, 2016 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ @dalbrit, I can't find the motivation -- I mean why the dyadic version of B is the cascade difference. All the paper around these I checked didn't talk about this, they simply write down the definition of cascade operator only. $\endgroup$
    – user91210
    Commented May 5, 2016 at 6:43

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .