Skip to main content
DCM's user avatar
DCM's user avatar
DCM's user avatar
DCM
  • Member for 10 years, 1 month
  • Last seen more than a month ago
revised
Loading…
comment
Weird claims and conclusions in "Introduction to Shape Optimization"
One other constraint to think about if you prefer to obtain the shape derivative via quotients of the form $(J(T_t(\Omega))-J(\Omega))/t$ is that you need $T_t(\Omega)\in \mathscr{D}$ for all $\Omega\in \mathscr{D}$; I expect this is probably the main reason for insisting on spatial $C^{k,\alpha}$ regularity when $\mathscr{D}$ is (as I expect it usually will be) some family of $C^{k,\alpha}$ domains.
revised
Loading…
revised
Loading…
revised
Loading…
Loading…
comment
Weird claims and conclusions in "Introduction to Shape Optimization"
It does things the other way round (i.e. start with the vector field and define the 1-parameter family via solutions to the associated ODE with different initial conditions).
comment
Prove of the shape-derivative identity relating the shape and material derivative of a shape-dependent function
I feared it would put other people off answering. I can reinstate it if you like :)
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
comment
Prove of the shape-derivative identity relating the shape and material derivative of a shape-dependent function
Taking $C^\infty_c(D)$ as the space of test functions seems sensible because it gives you a way to take linear combinations and limits of the $y(\Omega_t)$ in $\mathscr{D}'(D)$. The other way natural way to do this is to choose your $E$ functor $\Omega\mapsto E_\Omega$ to be one for which $E_\Omega = \{f_{|\Omega}: f\in E_D\}$ for all $\Omega\in \mathcal{A}$, at which point you can do the same in $E_D$ (although this latter approach requires you to check that your limits are independent of which extensions you choose - your reference does it like this).
1 2 3
4
5
12