Reputation
8,125
Top tag
Next privilege 10,000 Rep.
Access moderator tools
Badges
1 32 65
Impact
~268k people reached

Jan
8
revised On the regularity of the Laplace equations and tensor products and such
added 1484 characters in body
Jan
8
comment On the regularity of the Laplace equations and tensor products and such
In any case, I have rewritten it slightly. I do not want people to assume I am that stupid that I think tensor spaces are that trivial.
Jan
8
revised On the regularity of the Laplace equations and tensor products and such
deleted 35 characters in body
Jan
8
comment On the regularity of the Laplace equations and tensor products and such
@WillieWong I will rewrite it if you still think it is a 'logical fallacy' after my comment!
Jan
8
comment On the regularity of the Laplace equations and tensor products and such
Oops - logical fallacy is for me more like a error in verbal reasoning -. Anyway, I meant to say that it is a dense set in the tensor product. That is, a Schauder basis. Is that not true? When we separate we can find sequences of basis functions and then we construct the basis for the solution space as a Schauder basis.
Jan
4
revised Does there exist a diagonal dominance concept for integral kernels?
added 735 characters in body
Jan
4
comment Does there exist a diagonal dominance concept for integral kernels?
On every inner product space every self-adjoint operator $P$is positive if for all non-zero $u$ we have $\langle Pu, u \rangle > 0$.
Jan
4
comment Does there exist a diagonal dominance concept for integral kernels?
@SimenK. But, I do not see understand why my decomposition would not be the way to proceed. Self-adjointness amounts to real eigenvalues and so on.
Jan
3
answered Does there exist a diagonal dominance concept for integral kernels?
Jan
3
comment Does there exist a diagonal dominance concept for integral kernels?
So, is the question about the positivity of Hilbert-Schmidt operators? Hit it with the spectral theorem to decouple your kernel in that case.
Jan
3
comment Growth $\beta X\setminus X$ of a Banach space $X$
Yes, thank you for the link. I had something like that in mind - Topologically dualize a test function space and sqeeuze the Banach space in between.
Jan
3
answered Fundamental solutions of PDEs
Jan
2
comment Growth $\beta X\setminus X$ of a Banach space $X$
Nothing. Does that answer your question 8-)? I would like to know what $\beta W_0^{m, p}\setminus W_0^{m, p}$ is nevertheless.
Jan
2
revised Growth $\beta X\setminus X$ of a Banach space $X$
added 236 characters in body
Jan
2
revised Growth $\beta X\setminus X$ of a Banach space $X$
added 1113 characters in body
Jan
2
comment Growth $\beta X\setminus X$ of a Banach space $X$
At least it was stupid enough for someone to downvote it! I will attempt to phrase the question in a more meaningful way.
Jan
2
comment Growth $\beta X\setminus X$ of a Banach space $X$
I wish to figure out how common this phenomenon is. It is clear that I cannot make $W^{m, p}$ larger in this sense as that would involve things having non-finite norm. But I can make $W_0^{m, p}$ --which is as much Banach as $W^{m, p}$-- larger. I am starting to wonder if the question would be of enough 'level' to ask on MO. I did not as I might need to be able to phrase it better...
Jan
2
comment Growth $\beta X\setminus X$ of a Banach space $X$
@JonasMeyer Yes. As in my Sobolev space, if I take the circle and functions with compact support on the circle and take the closure in the norm $W^{m, p}$ where the functions are at least $C^m$ then I get a different space than if I start with $C^m$ functions without the compact support. Namely, the first space will have functions with trace null, whereas the second one will have much more. They only coincide whenever the complement if their domain is $(m , q)$-polar. Both norms make sense. But $W_0^{m, p}$ is a strict subset.
Jan
2
comment Growth $\beta X\setminus X$ of a Banach space $X$
@JonasMeyer I had in mind the above Sobolev spaces on domains where one only can describe Dirichlet problems. I need to figure out how to characterize that.
Jan
2
comment Growth $\beta X\setminus X$ of a Banach space $X$
@JonasMeyer Yes, I think I must have misunderstood the reply. I do want $X$ to at least continuously be included in $Y$. It is quite a simple example and was not really what I had in mind. Showing that Banach spaces are not so easy to grasp intuitively! :-). So you have understood the question!