revised
Weird claims and conclusions in "Introduction to Shape Optimization"
added 38 characters in body
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
Weird claims and conclusions in "Introduction to Shape Optimization"
deleted 167 characters in body
Loading…
revised
Weird claims and conclusions in "Introduction to Shape Optimization"
added 66 characters in body
Loading…
revised
Weird claims and conclusions in "Introduction to Shape Optimization"
deleted 1 character in body
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
Weird claims and conclusions in "Introduction to Shape Optimization"
I think this is the original paper: core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82336011.pdf
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 :)
revised
Prove of the shape-derivative identity relating the shape and material derivative of a shape-dependent function
added 418 characters in body
Loading…
revised
Prove of the shape-derivative identity relating the shape and material derivative of a shape-dependent function
deleted 911 characters in body
Loading…
revised
Prove of the shape-derivative identity relating the shape and material derivative of a shape-dependent function
deleted 1316 characters in body
Loading…
revised
Prove of the shape-derivative identity relating the shape and material derivative of a shape-dependent function
deleted 1578 characters in body
Loading…
revised
Prove of the shape-derivative identity relating the shape and material derivative of a shape-dependent function
added 56 characters in body
Loading…
revised
Prove of the shape-derivative identity relating the shape and material derivative of a shape-dependent function
added 330 characters in body
Loading…
revised
Prove of the shape-derivative identity relating the shape and material derivative of a shape-dependent function
added 745 characters in body
Loading…
revised
Prove of the shape-derivative identity relating the shape and material derivative of a shape-dependent function
added 745 characters in body
Loading…
revised
Prove of the shape-derivative identity relating the shape and material derivative of a shape-dependent function
added 457 characters in body
Loading…
revised
Prove of the shape-derivative identity relating the shape and material derivative of a shape-dependent function
added 285 characters in body
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).