Finding $suplimits_{lambdage 0}{lambda^ke^{-alambda^2/2}}$
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
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
real-analysis supremum-and-infimum
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$defd{mathrm{d}}defe{mathrm{e}}defi{mathrm{i}}defR{mathbb{R}}defpeq{mathrel{phantom{=}}{}}$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 $R$.
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
|
show 1 more comment
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 $1/2$.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$defd{mathrm{d}}defe{mathrm{e}}defi{mathrm{i}}defR{mathbb{R}}defpeq{mathrel{phantom{=}}{}}$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 $R$.
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
|
show 1 more comment
$defd{mathrm{d}}defe{mathrm{e}}defi{mathrm{i}}defR{mathbb{R}}defpeq{mathrel{phantom{=}}{}}$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 $R$.
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
|
show 1 more comment
$defd{mathrm{d}}defe{mathrm{e}}defi{mathrm{i}}defR{mathbb{R}}defpeq{mathrel{phantom{=}}{}}$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 $R$.
$defd{mathrm{d}}defe{mathrm{e}}defi{mathrm{i}}defR{mathbb{R}}defpeq{mathrel{phantom{=}}{}}$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 $R$.
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
|
show 1 more comment
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
|
show 1 more comment
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 $1/2$.
add a comment |
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 $1/2$.
add a comment |
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 $1/2$.
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 $1/2$.
answered Dec 5 at 18:14
Calvin Khor
11.2k21438
11.2k21438
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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