Search Results
Search type | Search syntax |
---|---|
Tags | [tag] |
Exact | "words here" |
Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
Views | views:250 |
Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
URL | url:"*.example.com" |
Saves | in:saves |
Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
Types |
is:question is:answer |
Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
For more details on advanced search visit our help page |
Partial differential equations (PDEs): Existence and uniqueness, regularity, boundary conditions, linear and non-linear operators, stability, soliton theory, integrable PDEs, conservation laws, qualitative dynamics.
1
vote
Accepted
Different Besov-Norm Definitions
In this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3418 one can find definitions for both inhomogenous and homogenous besov norms. The second definitions are the ones for the inhomogenous besov norms if you take …
1
vote
1
answer
91
views
Estimating sums with restrictions to different Frequencies
I have problems understanding two (for my research important) details in the Proof of Theorem 4 (page 14) in this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1518. Notation is very straightforward and is found o …
1
vote
1
answer
161
views
Different Besov-Norm Definitions
first some notation: $\langle x\rangle=\sqrt{1+x^2}$, $P_{j}$ is the Littlewood Paley Projector and $P_{\leq0}$ corresponds to the small frequencies.
I have a the following definition of the Besov no …
2
votes
1
answer
440
views
Strichartz Estimates for radial Klein-Gordon equation
I'm trying to prove global wellposedness for the Klein-Gordon-Equation with radial initial data. I'm therefore searching for/trying to prove strichartz estimates of the form: $$ ||e^{it\langle D\rangl …
2
votes
1
answer
189
views
Estimates for Klein-Gordon-Equation follow directly from Wave equation Estimates
in this paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.1626.pdf it says that Lemma 3.1/(3.1) follows from Theorem 1.3 in http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0402192.pdf without extra details. Can somebody please explain that? …