Finding $suplimits_{lambdage 0}{lambda^ke^{-alambda^2/2}}$












4















c) Let $a>0$. Find, for each $k=0,1,cdots$,
$$sup_{lambdage 0}{lambda^ke^{-alambda^2/2}}.$$



d) Define, for $xinmathbb{R}$,



$$v(x) = int_{mathbb{R}}e^{ixlambda-alambda^2} dλ.$$



Show that $v$ belongs to the Gevrey class of order $1/2$ on $mathbb{R}$.




This question arises in context with $sup_K |partial^{alpha}u|le C^{|alpha|+1}alpha!^s$ then $u$ is analytic for $sle 1$ where the Gevrey class is defined.



I believe they are closely reated. I know that for d) I have to show that $suplimits_K |partial^{alpha}v|le C^{|alpha|+1}alpha!^s$ and I believe that the $1/2$ from c) will appear in the $s$ of the Gevrey class.



UPDATE:



$$frac{d}{dx}lambda^ke^{-alambda^2/2} =e^{-(a lambda^2)/2} lambda^{-1 + k} (k - a lambda^2)=0implies k = alambda^2implies lambda = pmfrac{sqrt{k}}{sqrt{a}},$$
so the sup is the value of $lambda^ke^{-alambda^2/2}$ at $-dfrac{sqrt{k}}{sqrt{a}}$? I think I need a stronger argument. How to show it is actually the sup?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    c) looks fairly easy by differentiating this function of $lambda$.
    – Olivier Moschetta
    Nov 27 at 19:15












  • @OlivierMoschetta please take a look at my update
    – Lucas Zanella
    Nov 27 at 19:55










  • Well $lambdageq 0$ by assumption so only the root $+sqrt{k/a}$ is of interest. You can show by examining the derivative that $f$ is increasing on $[0,sqrt{k/a}]$, then decreases so that the maximum is taken there.
    – Olivier Moschetta
    Nov 27 at 21:46
















4















c) Let $a>0$. Find, for each $k=0,1,cdots$,
$$sup_{lambdage 0}{lambda^ke^{-alambda^2/2}}.$$



d) Define, for $xinmathbb{R}$,



$$v(x) = int_{mathbb{R}}e^{ixlambda-alambda^2} dλ.$$



Show that $v$ belongs to the Gevrey class of order $1/2$ on $mathbb{R}$.




This question arises in context with $sup_K |partial^{alpha}u|le C^{|alpha|+1}alpha!^s$ then $u$ is analytic for $sle 1$ where the Gevrey class is defined.



I believe they are closely reated. I know that for d) I have to show that $suplimits_K |partial^{alpha}v|le C^{|alpha|+1}alpha!^s$ and I believe that the $1/2$ from c) will appear in the $s$ of the Gevrey class.



UPDATE:



$$frac{d}{dx}lambda^ke^{-alambda^2/2} =e^{-(a lambda^2)/2} lambda^{-1 + k} (k - a lambda^2)=0implies k = alambda^2implies lambda = pmfrac{sqrt{k}}{sqrt{a}},$$
so the sup is the value of $lambda^ke^{-alambda^2/2}$ at $-dfrac{sqrt{k}}{sqrt{a}}$? I think I need a stronger argument. How to show it is actually the sup?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    c) looks fairly easy by differentiating this function of $lambda$.
    – Olivier Moschetta
    Nov 27 at 19:15












  • @OlivierMoschetta please take a look at my update
    – Lucas Zanella
    Nov 27 at 19:55










  • Well $lambdageq 0$ by assumption so only the root $+sqrt{k/a}$ is of interest. You can show by examining the derivative that $f$ is increasing on $[0,sqrt{k/a}]$, then decreases so that the maximum is taken there.
    – Olivier Moschetta
    Nov 27 at 21:46














4












4








4


1






c) Let $a>0$. Find, for each $k=0,1,cdots$,
$$sup_{lambdage 0}{lambda^ke^{-alambda^2/2}}.$$



d) Define, for $xinmathbb{R}$,



$$v(x) = int_{mathbb{R}}e^{ixlambda-alambda^2} dλ.$$



Show that $v$ belongs to the Gevrey class of order $1/2$ on $mathbb{R}$.




This question arises in context with $sup_K |partial^{alpha}u|le C^{|alpha|+1}alpha!^s$ then $u$ is analytic for $sle 1$ where the Gevrey class is defined.



I believe they are closely reated. I know that for d) I have to show that $suplimits_K |partial^{alpha}v|le C^{|alpha|+1}alpha!^s$ and I believe that the $1/2$ from c) will appear in the $s$ of the Gevrey class.



UPDATE:



$$frac{d}{dx}lambda^ke^{-alambda^2/2} =e^{-(a lambda^2)/2} lambda^{-1 + k} (k - a lambda^2)=0implies k = alambda^2implies lambda = pmfrac{sqrt{k}}{sqrt{a}},$$
so the sup is the value of $lambda^ke^{-alambda^2/2}$ at $-dfrac{sqrt{k}}{sqrt{a}}$? I think I need a stronger argument. How to show it is actually the sup?










share|cite|improve this question
















c) Let $a>0$. Find, for each $k=0,1,cdots$,
$$sup_{lambdage 0}{lambda^ke^{-alambda^2/2}}.$$



d) Define, for $xinmathbb{R}$,



$$v(x) = int_{mathbb{R}}e^{ixlambda-alambda^2} dλ.$$



Show that $v$ belongs to the Gevrey class of order $1/2$ on $mathbb{R}$.




This question arises in context with $sup_K |partial^{alpha}u|le C^{|alpha|+1}alpha!^s$ then $u$ is analytic for $sle 1$ where the Gevrey class is defined.



I believe they are closely reated. I know that for d) I have to show that $suplimits_K |partial^{alpha}v|le C^{|alpha|+1}alpha!^s$ and I believe that the $1/2$ from c) will appear in the $s$ of the Gevrey class.



UPDATE:



$$frac{d}{dx}lambda^ke^{-alambda^2/2} =e^{-(a lambda^2)/2} lambda^{-1 + k} (k - a lambda^2)=0implies k = alambda^2implies lambda = pmfrac{sqrt{k}}{sqrt{a}},$$
so the sup is the value of $lambda^ke^{-alambda^2/2}$ at $-dfrac{sqrt{k}}{sqrt{a}}$? I think I need a stronger argument. How to show it is actually the sup?







real-analysis supremum-and-infimum






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 1 at 3:26









Saad

19.7k92252




19.7k92252










asked Nov 27 at 19:09









Lucas Zanella

93111330




93111330








  • 2




    c) looks fairly easy by differentiating this function of $lambda$.
    – Olivier Moschetta
    Nov 27 at 19:15












  • @OlivierMoschetta please take a look at my update
    – Lucas Zanella
    Nov 27 at 19:55










  • Well $lambdageq 0$ by assumption so only the root $+sqrt{k/a}$ is of interest. You can show by examining the derivative that $f$ is increasing on $[0,sqrt{k/a}]$, then decreases so that the maximum is taken there.
    – Olivier Moschetta
    Nov 27 at 21:46














  • 2




    c) looks fairly easy by differentiating this function of $lambda$.
    – Olivier Moschetta
    Nov 27 at 19:15












  • @OlivierMoschetta please take a look at my update
    – Lucas Zanella
    Nov 27 at 19:55










  • Well $lambdageq 0$ by assumption so only the root $+sqrt{k/a}$ is of interest. You can show by examining the derivative that $f$ is increasing on $[0,sqrt{k/a}]$, then decreases so that the maximum is taken there.
    – Olivier Moschetta
    Nov 27 at 21:46








2




2




c) looks fairly easy by differentiating this function of $lambda$.
– Olivier Moschetta
Nov 27 at 19:15






c) looks fairly easy by differentiating this function of $lambda$.
– Olivier Moschetta
Nov 27 at 19:15














@OlivierMoschetta please take a look at my update
– Lucas Zanella
Nov 27 at 19:55




@OlivierMoschetta please take a look at my update
– Lucas Zanella
Nov 27 at 19:55












Well $lambdageq 0$ by assumption so only the root $+sqrt{k/a}$ is of interest. You can show by examining the derivative that $f$ is increasing on $[0,sqrt{k/a}]$, then decreases so that the maximum is taken there.
– Olivier Moschetta
Nov 27 at 21:46




Well $lambdageq 0$ by assumption so only the root $+sqrt{k/a}$ is of interest. You can show by examining the derivative that $f$ is increasing on $[0,sqrt{k/a}]$, then decreases so that the maximum is taken there.
– Olivier Moschetta
Nov 27 at 21:46










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2





+50









$defd{mathrm{d}}defe{mathrm{e}}defi{mathrm{i}}defR{mathbb{R}}defpeq{mathrel{phantom{=}}{}}$For (c), if denoting $f(λ) = kln λ - dfrac{1}{2}aλ^2$ ($λ > 0$), then $f'(λ) = dfrac{k}{λ} - aλ$ implies that $f$ is increasing on $left( 0, sqrt{dfrac{k}{a}} right]$ and decreasing on $left[ sqrt{dfrac{k}{a}}, +∞ right)$. Thus,begin{align*}
&peq sup_{λ geqslant 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) = sup_{λ > 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right)\
&= sup_{λ > 0} exp(f(λ)) = expleft( fleft( sqrt{frac{k}{a}} right) right) = left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}}.
end{align*}



For (d), the dominated convergence theorem and induction imply that for $k geqslant 0$,$$
v^{(k)}(x) = i^k int_{R} λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right) ,d λ, quad forall x in R
$$

thus for $x in R$,begin{align*}
|v^{(k)}(x)| &= left| int_{R} λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right) ,d λ right| leqslant int_{R} |λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right)| ,d λ\
&= int_{R} |λ|^k e^{-aλ^2} ,d λ = 2 int_0^{+∞} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) · expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) ,d λ\
&leqslant 2 left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}} int_0^{+∞} expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) ,d λ = 2 left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}} sqrt{frac{a}{2π}}. tag{1}
end{align*}

It is easy to prove by induction that $left( dfrac{k}{e} right)^k leqslant k!$ for $k geqslant 0$, thus (1) implies that$$
|v^{(k)}(x)| leqslant sqrt{frac{2a}{π}} · (a^{-frac{1}{2}})^k · sqrt{k!}. quad forall x in R
$$

Therefore, $v$ belongs to the Gevrey class of order $dfrac{1}{2}$ on $R$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • thank you. I just opened two more bounties on thigns related to this question, would be nice if you could take a look math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018750/… math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018740/…
    – Lucas Zanella
    Dec 1 at 15:25










  • why $sup_{λ geqslant 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) = sup_{λ > 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right)$?
    – Lucas Zanella
    Dec 4 at 19:26












  • I cannot see $|v^{(k)}(x)|$ as less than $C^{k+1}k!^{1/2}$
    – Lucas Zanella
    Dec 4 at 20:09












  • I think the sup on $lambdage 0$ is the same as sup on $lambda>0$ is because of the open interval on the derivative, right?
    – Lucas Zanella
    Dec 4 at 20:11










  • @LucasZanella For your last question, the two sups are equal because the function equals $0$ for $λ=0$ and $sup A∪B=max(sup A,sup B)$.
    – Saad
    Dec 4 at 23:47



















1














I have nothing to add for (c) but for (d), given that the other problem ( Solution for Cauchy Problem $u_t-u_{xx} = 0$ belongs to the Gevrey class of order $1/2$ ) appears first, its not a bad idea to use that problem to solve this. The function in (d) is the inverse fourier transform of
$$ e^{-a lambda^2} $$
It is well known that this is of the form
$$ v(x) = B e^{-A x^2}$$
for some other constants $A,B$. There exists a fixed $t_0>0$ depending on $A$ such that we can recover this as a constant in $t_0$ times the solution to the heat equation with dirac mass at 0 initial condition(cf fundamental solution), evaluated at $t=t_0$:
begin{align}
u_{t} = u_{xx} , t>0 quad u|_{t=0} = delta_0\u(t_0,x) = v(x)
end{align}
The dirac mass isn't Schwartz, but since the heat equation doesnt depend explicitly on $t$, we can instead take $U_0(x) := u(x,t_0/2)$ as the initial condition which is Schwartz. $U_0$ generates a solution $U$ to the heat equation, and then by uniqueness of solutions $$U(x,t_0/2) = u(x,t_0) = c(t_0) v(x)$$
so by the previous problem, $v$ is Gevrey of order $1/2$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3016177%2ffinding-sup-limits-lambda-ge-0-lambdake-a-lambda2-2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2





    +50









    $defd{mathrm{d}}defe{mathrm{e}}defi{mathrm{i}}defR{mathbb{R}}defpeq{mathrel{phantom{=}}{}}$For (c), if denoting $f(λ) = kln λ - dfrac{1}{2}aλ^2$ ($λ > 0$), then $f'(λ) = dfrac{k}{λ} - aλ$ implies that $f$ is increasing on $left( 0, sqrt{dfrac{k}{a}} right]$ and decreasing on $left[ sqrt{dfrac{k}{a}}, +∞ right)$. Thus,begin{align*}
    &peq sup_{λ geqslant 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) = sup_{λ > 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right)\
    &= sup_{λ > 0} exp(f(λ)) = expleft( fleft( sqrt{frac{k}{a}} right) right) = left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}}.
    end{align*}



    For (d), the dominated convergence theorem and induction imply that for $k geqslant 0$,$$
    v^{(k)}(x) = i^k int_{R} λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right) ,d λ, quad forall x in R
    $$

    thus for $x in R$,begin{align*}
    |v^{(k)}(x)| &= left| int_{R} λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right) ,d λ right| leqslant int_{R} |λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right)| ,d λ\
    &= int_{R} |λ|^k e^{-aλ^2} ,d λ = 2 int_0^{+∞} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) · expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) ,d λ\
    &leqslant 2 left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}} int_0^{+∞} expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) ,d λ = 2 left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}} sqrt{frac{a}{2π}}. tag{1}
    end{align*}

    It is easy to prove by induction that $left( dfrac{k}{e} right)^k leqslant k!$ for $k geqslant 0$, thus (1) implies that$$
    |v^{(k)}(x)| leqslant sqrt{frac{2a}{π}} · (a^{-frac{1}{2}})^k · sqrt{k!}. quad forall x in R
    $$

    Therefore, $v$ belongs to the Gevrey class of order $dfrac{1}{2}$ on $R$.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • thank you. I just opened two more bounties on thigns related to this question, would be nice if you could take a look math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018750/… math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018740/…
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 1 at 15:25










    • why $sup_{λ geqslant 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) = sup_{λ > 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right)$?
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 4 at 19:26












    • I cannot see $|v^{(k)}(x)|$ as less than $C^{k+1}k!^{1/2}$
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 4 at 20:09












    • I think the sup on $lambdage 0$ is the same as sup on $lambda>0$ is because of the open interval on the derivative, right?
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 4 at 20:11










    • @LucasZanella For your last question, the two sups are equal because the function equals $0$ for $λ=0$ and $sup A∪B=max(sup A,sup B)$.
      – Saad
      Dec 4 at 23:47
















    2





    +50









    $defd{mathrm{d}}defe{mathrm{e}}defi{mathrm{i}}defR{mathbb{R}}defpeq{mathrel{phantom{=}}{}}$For (c), if denoting $f(λ) = kln λ - dfrac{1}{2}aλ^2$ ($λ > 0$), then $f'(λ) = dfrac{k}{λ} - aλ$ implies that $f$ is increasing on $left( 0, sqrt{dfrac{k}{a}} right]$ and decreasing on $left[ sqrt{dfrac{k}{a}}, +∞ right)$. Thus,begin{align*}
    &peq sup_{λ geqslant 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) = sup_{λ > 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right)\
    &= sup_{λ > 0} exp(f(λ)) = expleft( fleft( sqrt{frac{k}{a}} right) right) = left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}}.
    end{align*}



    For (d), the dominated convergence theorem and induction imply that for $k geqslant 0$,$$
    v^{(k)}(x) = i^k int_{R} λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right) ,d λ, quad forall x in R
    $$

    thus for $x in R$,begin{align*}
    |v^{(k)}(x)| &= left| int_{R} λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right) ,d λ right| leqslant int_{R} |λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right)| ,d λ\
    &= int_{R} |λ|^k e^{-aλ^2} ,d λ = 2 int_0^{+∞} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) · expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) ,d λ\
    &leqslant 2 left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}} int_0^{+∞} expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) ,d λ = 2 left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}} sqrt{frac{a}{2π}}. tag{1}
    end{align*}

    It is easy to prove by induction that $left( dfrac{k}{e} right)^k leqslant k!$ for $k geqslant 0$, thus (1) implies that$$
    |v^{(k)}(x)| leqslant sqrt{frac{2a}{π}} · (a^{-frac{1}{2}})^k · sqrt{k!}. quad forall x in R
    $$

    Therefore, $v$ belongs to the Gevrey class of order $dfrac{1}{2}$ on $R$.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • thank you. I just opened two more bounties on thigns related to this question, would be nice if you could take a look math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018750/… math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018740/…
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 1 at 15:25










    • why $sup_{λ geqslant 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) = sup_{λ > 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right)$?
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 4 at 19:26












    • I cannot see $|v^{(k)}(x)|$ as less than $C^{k+1}k!^{1/2}$
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 4 at 20:09












    • I think the sup on $lambdage 0$ is the same as sup on $lambda>0$ is because of the open interval on the derivative, right?
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 4 at 20:11










    • @LucasZanella For your last question, the two sups are equal because the function equals $0$ for $λ=0$ and $sup A∪B=max(sup A,sup B)$.
      – Saad
      Dec 4 at 23:47














    2





    +50







    2





    +50



    2




    +50




    $defd{mathrm{d}}defe{mathrm{e}}defi{mathrm{i}}defR{mathbb{R}}defpeq{mathrel{phantom{=}}{}}$For (c), if denoting $f(λ) = kln λ - dfrac{1}{2}aλ^2$ ($λ > 0$), then $f'(λ) = dfrac{k}{λ} - aλ$ implies that $f$ is increasing on $left( 0, sqrt{dfrac{k}{a}} right]$ and decreasing on $left[ sqrt{dfrac{k}{a}}, +∞ right)$. Thus,begin{align*}
    &peq sup_{λ geqslant 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) = sup_{λ > 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right)\
    &= sup_{λ > 0} exp(f(λ)) = expleft( fleft( sqrt{frac{k}{a}} right) right) = left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}}.
    end{align*}



    For (d), the dominated convergence theorem and induction imply that for $k geqslant 0$,$$
    v^{(k)}(x) = i^k int_{R} λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right) ,d λ, quad forall x in R
    $$

    thus for $x in R$,begin{align*}
    |v^{(k)}(x)| &= left| int_{R} λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right) ,d λ right| leqslant int_{R} |λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right)| ,d λ\
    &= int_{R} |λ|^k e^{-aλ^2} ,d λ = 2 int_0^{+∞} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) · expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) ,d λ\
    &leqslant 2 left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}} int_0^{+∞} expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) ,d λ = 2 left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}} sqrt{frac{a}{2π}}. tag{1}
    end{align*}

    It is easy to prove by induction that $left( dfrac{k}{e} right)^k leqslant k!$ for $k geqslant 0$, thus (1) implies that$$
    |v^{(k)}(x)| leqslant sqrt{frac{2a}{π}} · (a^{-frac{1}{2}})^k · sqrt{k!}. quad forall x in R
    $$

    Therefore, $v$ belongs to the Gevrey class of order $dfrac{1}{2}$ on $R$.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    $defd{mathrm{d}}defe{mathrm{e}}defi{mathrm{i}}defR{mathbb{R}}defpeq{mathrel{phantom{=}}{}}$For (c), if denoting $f(λ) = kln λ - dfrac{1}{2}aλ^2$ ($λ > 0$), then $f'(λ) = dfrac{k}{λ} - aλ$ implies that $f$ is increasing on $left( 0, sqrt{dfrac{k}{a}} right]$ and decreasing on $left[ sqrt{dfrac{k}{a}}, +∞ right)$. Thus,begin{align*}
    &peq sup_{λ geqslant 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) = sup_{λ > 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right)\
    &= sup_{λ > 0} exp(f(λ)) = expleft( fleft( sqrt{frac{k}{a}} right) right) = left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}}.
    end{align*}



    For (d), the dominated convergence theorem and induction imply that for $k geqslant 0$,$$
    v^{(k)}(x) = i^k int_{R} λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right) ,d λ, quad forall x in R
    $$

    thus for $x in R$,begin{align*}
    |v^{(k)}(x)| &= left| int_{R} λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right) ,d λ right| leqslant int_{R} |λ^k expleft( i xλ - aλ^2 right)| ,d λ\
    &= int_{R} |λ|^k e^{-aλ^2} ,d λ = 2 int_0^{+∞} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) · expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) ,d λ\
    &leqslant 2 left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}} int_0^{+∞} expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) ,d λ = 2 left( frac{k}{e a} right)^{frac{k}{2}} sqrt{frac{a}{2π}}. tag{1}
    end{align*}

    It is easy to prove by induction that $left( dfrac{k}{e} right)^k leqslant k!$ for $k geqslant 0$, thus (1) implies that$$
    |v^{(k)}(x)| leqslant sqrt{frac{2a}{π}} · (a^{-frac{1}{2}})^k · sqrt{k!}. quad forall x in R
    $$

    Therefore, $v$ belongs to the Gevrey class of order $dfrac{1}{2}$ on $R$.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Dec 1 at 3:23









    Saad

    19.7k92252




    19.7k92252












    • thank you. I just opened two more bounties on thigns related to this question, would be nice if you could take a look math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018750/… math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018740/…
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 1 at 15:25










    • why $sup_{λ geqslant 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) = sup_{λ > 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right)$?
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 4 at 19:26












    • I cannot see $|v^{(k)}(x)|$ as less than $C^{k+1}k!^{1/2}$
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 4 at 20:09












    • I think the sup on $lambdage 0$ is the same as sup on $lambda>0$ is because of the open interval on the derivative, right?
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 4 at 20:11










    • @LucasZanella For your last question, the two sups are equal because the function equals $0$ for $λ=0$ and $sup A∪B=max(sup A,sup B)$.
      – Saad
      Dec 4 at 23:47


















    • thank you. I just opened two more bounties on thigns related to this question, would be nice if you could take a look math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018750/… math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018740/…
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 1 at 15:25










    • why $sup_{λ geqslant 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) = sup_{λ > 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right)$?
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 4 at 19:26












    • I cannot see $|v^{(k)}(x)|$ as less than $C^{k+1}k!^{1/2}$
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 4 at 20:09












    • I think the sup on $lambdage 0$ is the same as sup on $lambda>0$ is because of the open interval on the derivative, right?
      – Lucas Zanella
      Dec 4 at 20:11










    • @LucasZanella For your last question, the two sups are equal because the function equals $0$ for $λ=0$ and $sup A∪B=max(sup A,sup B)$.
      – Saad
      Dec 4 at 23:47
















    thank you. I just opened two more bounties on thigns related to this question, would be nice if you could take a look math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018750/… math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018740/…
    – Lucas Zanella
    Dec 1 at 15:25




    thank you. I just opened two more bounties on thigns related to this question, would be nice if you could take a look math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018750/… math.stackexchange.com/questions/3018740/…
    – Lucas Zanella
    Dec 1 at 15:25












    why $sup_{λ geqslant 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) = sup_{λ > 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right)$?
    – Lucas Zanella
    Dec 4 at 19:26






    why $sup_{λ geqslant 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right) = sup_{λ > 0} λ^k expleft( -frac{1}{2} aλ^2 right)$?
    – Lucas Zanella
    Dec 4 at 19:26














    I cannot see $|v^{(k)}(x)|$ as less than $C^{k+1}k!^{1/2}$
    – Lucas Zanella
    Dec 4 at 20:09






    I cannot see $|v^{(k)}(x)|$ as less than $C^{k+1}k!^{1/2}$
    – Lucas Zanella
    Dec 4 at 20:09














    I think the sup on $lambdage 0$ is the same as sup on $lambda>0$ is because of the open interval on the derivative, right?
    – Lucas Zanella
    Dec 4 at 20:11




    I think the sup on $lambdage 0$ is the same as sup on $lambda>0$ is because of the open interval on the derivative, right?
    – Lucas Zanella
    Dec 4 at 20:11












    @LucasZanella For your last question, the two sups are equal because the function equals $0$ for $λ=0$ and $sup A∪B=max(sup A,sup B)$.
    – Saad
    Dec 4 at 23:47




    @LucasZanella For your last question, the two sups are equal because the function equals $0$ for $λ=0$ and $sup A∪B=max(sup A,sup B)$.
    – Saad
    Dec 4 at 23:47











    1














    I have nothing to add for (c) but for (d), given that the other problem ( Solution for Cauchy Problem $u_t-u_{xx} = 0$ belongs to the Gevrey class of order $1/2$ ) appears first, its not a bad idea to use that problem to solve this. The function in (d) is the inverse fourier transform of
    $$ e^{-a lambda^2} $$
    It is well known that this is of the form
    $$ v(x) = B e^{-A x^2}$$
    for some other constants $A,B$. There exists a fixed $t_0>0$ depending on $A$ such that we can recover this as a constant in $t_0$ times the solution to the heat equation with dirac mass at 0 initial condition(cf fundamental solution), evaluated at $t=t_0$:
    begin{align}
    u_{t} = u_{xx} , t>0 quad u|_{t=0} = delta_0\u(t_0,x) = v(x)
    end{align}
    The dirac mass isn't Schwartz, but since the heat equation doesnt depend explicitly on $t$, we can instead take $U_0(x) := u(x,t_0/2)$ as the initial condition which is Schwartz. $U_0$ generates a solution $U$ to the heat equation, and then by uniqueness of solutions $$U(x,t_0/2) = u(x,t_0) = c(t_0) v(x)$$
    so by the previous problem, $v$ is Gevrey of order $1/2$.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      1














      I have nothing to add for (c) but for (d), given that the other problem ( Solution for Cauchy Problem $u_t-u_{xx} = 0$ belongs to the Gevrey class of order $1/2$ ) appears first, its not a bad idea to use that problem to solve this. The function in (d) is the inverse fourier transform of
      $$ e^{-a lambda^2} $$
      It is well known that this is of the form
      $$ v(x) = B e^{-A x^2}$$
      for some other constants $A,B$. There exists a fixed $t_0>0$ depending on $A$ such that we can recover this as a constant in $t_0$ times the solution to the heat equation with dirac mass at 0 initial condition(cf fundamental solution), evaluated at $t=t_0$:
      begin{align}
      u_{t} = u_{xx} , t>0 quad u|_{t=0} = delta_0\u(t_0,x) = v(x)
      end{align}
      The dirac mass isn't Schwartz, but since the heat equation doesnt depend explicitly on $t$, we can instead take $U_0(x) := u(x,t_0/2)$ as the initial condition which is Schwartz. $U_0$ generates a solution $U$ to the heat equation, and then by uniqueness of solutions $$U(x,t_0/2) = u(x,t_0) = c(t_0) v(x)$$
      so by the previous problem, $v$ is Gevrey of order $1/2$.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        1












        1








        1






        I have nothing to add for (c) but for (d), given that the other problem ( Solution for Cauchy Problem $u_t-u_{xx} = 0$ belongs to the Gevrey class of order $1/2$ ) appears first, its not a bad idea to use that problem to solve this. The function in (d) is the inverse fourier transform of
        $$ e^{-a lambda^2} $$
        It is well known that this is of the form
        $$ v(x) = B e^{-A x^2}$$
        for some other constants $A,B$. There exists a fixed $t_0>0$ depending on $A$ such that we can recover this as a constant in $t_0$ times the solution to the heat equation with dirac mass at 0 initial condition(cf fundamental solution), evaluated at $t=t_0$:
        begin{align}
        u_{t} = u_{xx} , t>0 quad u|_{t=0} = delta_0\u(t_0,x) = v(x)
        end{align}
        The dirac mass isn't Schwartz, but since the heat equation doesnt depend explicitly on $t$, we can instead take $U_0(x) := u(x,t_0/2)$ as the initial condition which is Schwartz. $U_0$ generates a solution $U$ to the heat equation, and then by uniqueness of solutions $$U(x,t_0/2) = u(x,t_0) = c(t_0) v(x)$$
        so by the previous problem, $v$ is Gevrey of order $1/2$.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        I have nothing to add for (c) but for (d), given that the other problem ( Solution for Cauchy Problem $u_t-u_{xx} = 0$ belongs to the Gevrey class of order $1/2$ ) appears first, its not a bad idea to use that problem to solve this. The function in (d) is the inverse fourier transform of
        $$ e^{-a lambda^2} $$
        It is well known that this is of the form
        $$ v(x) = B e^{-A x^2}$$
        for some other constants $A,B$. There exists a fixed $t_0>0$ depending on $A$ such that we can recover this as a constant in $t_0$ times the solution to the heat equation with dirac mass at 0 initial condition(cf fundamental solution), evaluated at $t=t_0$:
        begin{align}
        u_{t} = u_{xx} , t>0 quad u|_{t=0} = delta_0\u(t_0,x) = v(x)
        end{align}
        The dirac mass isn't Schwartz, but since the heat equation doesnt depend explicitly on $t$, we can instead take $U_0(x) := u(x,t_0/2)$ as the initial condition which is Schwartz. $U_0$ generates a solution $U$ to the heat equation, and then by uniqueness of solutions $$U(x,t_0/2) = u(x,t_0) = c(t_0) v(x)$$
        so by the previous problem, $v$ is Gevrey of order $1/2$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 5 at 18:14









        Calvin Khor

        11.2k21438




        11.2k21438






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3016177%2ffinding-sup-limits-lambda-ge-0-lambdake-a-lambda2-2%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Wiesbaden

            Marschland

            Dieringhausen