Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $$X = C^{k+2, \alpha}(S(T)),$$ $$Y = C^{k, \alpha}(S(T)),$$ where $S(T) = S^1 \times [0,T]$. Don't think of $T$ as fixed, but varying. So these Banach spaces contains functions with different time intervals. Suppose there is a map $F:X \to Y$ with $$F(u) = u_t - a(x,t,u,u_x,u_{xx})$$ where $a(x,t,z,p,q)$ is smooth in its arguments. We want to show that there is a unique $u^*$ such that $F(u^*) = 0.$ To do this, we can show that the derivative at $u$ $$DF(u)v = v_t - a_z(u)v - a_p(u)v_x - a_q(u)v_{xx}$$ is invertible (or bijective or linear isomorphism) at a particular function $u$. It is invertible, and we also know that the inverse mappings $DF(u)^{-1}$ are varying continuously and are uniformly bounded (for bounded $u$) regardless of the time interval in the domain.

Now can someone please explain these points I don't understand:

If there is a $u^0 \in X$ such that $F(u^0)$ is small, then the inverse function theorem implies that for all small $s \in Y$, there exists a unique $u$ such that $F(u) = s$, and $u$ depends continuously on $s$.

Is that right? By "small", I guess the author means close to zero. My understanding is, if $F(u^0)$ is in a neighbourhood of zero, for all functions $s$ in that same neighbourhood of $0$, we can find a $u$ in some neighbourhood of $u^0$ such that $F(u) = s$. Is that correct? Why does $u$ depend continuously on $s$?

Now if $u^0 = a(x,t,0,0,0)t \in X$, provided $T$ is small enough, $F(u^0)$ is as close to $0$ as required. This is the point when we take the time interval $[0,T]$ to be short.

It is true that $F(u^0) \to 0$ as $t \to 0$. But this is pointwise convergence, don't we need convergence in the $Y$ norm? Also, how can we be sure that 0 in fact lies in the neighbourhood of $Y$ that becomes invertible?

share|improve this question
    
What is the source of your quotes? My first reading was a bit hasty. There seems now to be a problem with the second statement. (The first statement is probably okay). –  Willie Wong Jul 18 '12 at 14:52
    
@WillieWong Thanks for your help. The source is "Curvature-Driven Flows: A variational approach" by Fred Almgren, Jean E. Taylor, and Lihe Wang. If you can't find it, here's the most relevant pages s14.postimage.org/9yhvzrs1d/image.jpg, s13.postimage.org/qv7c066vb/image.jpg and s17.postimage.org/tyhpehpb3/image.jpg. –  Court Jul 18 '12 at 15:32
    
@WillieWong Note that I changed the notation and some things are different since I am using this paper in conjunction with another paper ("The Curve Shortening Problem" by Xi-Ping Zhu and Chou). –  Court Jul 18 '12 at 15:33
    
Also, the paper is in the book "Selected Works of Frederick J Almgren, Jr." –  Court Jul 18 '12 at 15:34
    
Sorry I got the order wrong. It should be: s17.postimage.org/tyhpehpb3/image.jpg, s13.postimage.org/qv7c066vb/image.jpg, and s14.postimage.org/9yhvzrs1d/image.jpg, –  Court Jul 18 '12 at 15:39
show 7 more comments

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted
  1. Your interpretation is not quite right. Inverse function theorem (under your assumptions) states that for $u^0$, there exists a neighborhood $N^0 \ni F(u^0)$ such that $F$ is invertible on $N^0$ with continuous inverse (in fact continuously differentiable). By the uniform bound on $DF^{-1}$ you can take the size of $N^0$ to be uniform: in particular there exists a constant $\delta$ such that $N^0 \supseteq F(u_0) + B_\delta$. So if $\|F(u_0)\| < \delta$, $0\in N^0$ and there exists $\epsilon$ such that $B_\epsilon \subseteq N^0$, meaning that for $s\in B_\epsilon \subseteq N^0$ we have a continuous map $F^{-1}: B_\epsilon \to X$.

  2. Yes, you need convergence in the $Y$ norm. Note that (writing $a(x,t) = a(x,t,0,0,0)$) $$F(ta(x,t)) = a(x,t) + ta_t(x,t) - a(x,t,ta, ta_x, ta_{xx})$$ The first and third terms combine to give (using the differentiability of $a$) a quantity that is $O(t)$. This shows that in particular that all $x$ derivatives of $F(ta(x,t))$ are $O(t)$ and hence can be made as small as you want by making $t$ small.

    There is, however, a problem with the $t$ derivatives, if you take $F(ta(x,t))_t |_{t = 0}$ you get $$ a_t(x,0) + a_t(x,0) - a_t(x,0) - a_u(x,0) a(x,0) - a_p(x,0) a_x(x,0) - a_q(x,0) a_{xx}(x,0) $$ which is not in general 0. So whichever source you are quoting from is incomplete in its argument.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks a lot. I'm afraid I have a few questions: 1) I guess you used some variant of the bounded inverse theorem to say that $DF(u)$ is uniformly bounded (since we only know that $DF^{-1}(u)$ is uniformly bounded). 2) what do you mean by take the size of $N^0$ to be uniform? Is there some theorem that says that uniformly bounded derivative gives such a property about taking $N^0$ to be uniform? –  Court Jul 18 '12 at 12:37
    
3) In the last sentence of your first point (1.), I should read that as "So if $\lVert F(u_0) \rVert < \delta, then 0 \in N^0$, ...". I'll need to think more about what you wrote but just checking whether that's right. 4) Sorry about not defining $G$, $G$ is actually the smooth function $a$ that I defined. By "$G(x,t,0,0,0)$ lies in bounded ball inside Y" do you not mean that "$\lVert G(x,t,0,0,0)\rVert_Y \leq \text{const}$? Sorry for so many questions. –  Court Jul 18 '12 at 12:37
1  
(1) I meant $DF^{-1}$, not $DF$. Sorry about the typo. (3) Yes. (2) The meaning of uniform $N^0$ is after the colon in the same sentence. You need to use uniform boundedness of $DF^{-1}$ in addition to the fact that your $F$ is obviously continuously differentiable, and furtherore $DF$ is uniformly bounded on any bounded subset of $X$. These use the properties of $a$. With those bounds you can get an effective version of the Inverse Function Theorem. –  Willie Wong Jul 18 '12 at 14:26
    
Ah wait, sorry, I see where the confusion is with point 4. Let me edit the answer to fix that. –  Willie Wong Jul 18 '12 at 14:33
1  
@TagWoh: Uniformity is the statement that the $\delta$ is a constant (in particular should not depend on $F(u^0)$). In the usual statement of IFT (which requires only strong differentiability at a single point) the $\delta$ is allowed to depend on everything. –  Willie Wong Jul 20 '12 at 15:16
show 1 more comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.