Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

#4: Post edited by user avatar Snoopy‭ · 2024-09-07T18:42:18Z (about 1 month ago)
formatting for readability
Why $\gamma\cdot\operatorname{grad}u<0$ in the Theorem? (Nirenberg academic paper)
  • I am working on the following academic paper [Symmetry and Related Properties
  • via the Maximum Principle](https://typeset.io/pdf/symmetry-and-related-properties-via-the-maximum-principle-foyy5f1u5o.pdf), which is a classic by Louis Nirenberg. I am trying to understand the next theorem, which is on page 211 and 216.
  • I don't understand why the multiplication of the normal vector of the hyperplane by the gradient of u is less than zero.
  • I have doubts about the final conclusion. My interpretation is that if you are at a point on the border of $\Omega$, the cap is always zero or close to zero so its reflection will be zero too. Hence it is impossible that the join of cap and its reflection is equal to domain, $\Omega$. Is it true?
  • In the proof, it uses the theorem 2.1 that you can see in the link, $\Sigma=\Sigma_{\gamma}=\Sigma(\lambda_{1})$ is the maximal cap associated to the hyperplane $T_{\lambda_1}$ and
  • \begin{equation} \tag{1.1}
  • \Delta u + f(u)=0 \quad \text{with} \quad u=0 \quad \text{on} \quad |x|=R.
  • \end{equation}
  • is a equation from the theorem 1.
  • **Theorem 2**. Let $u>0$ be a $C^2$ solution of (1.1) in a ring-shaped domain
  • \begin{equation}
  • R' < |x| \leq R.
  • \end{equation}
  • Then
  • \begin{equation}
  • \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} < 0 \quad \text{for} \quad \frac{R'+R}{2} \leq |x| < R.
  • \end{equation}
  • **Proof**
  • We may again choose any direction $\gamma$ as positive $x_1$ axis. It follows from Theorem 2.1 that in the corresponding maximal cap $\Sigma_{\gamma}$, $\gamma\cdot\operatorname{grad}u < 0$.
  • The union of these maximal caps is the region $(R'+R)/2 < |x| < R$.
  • Suppose for some point $y$ with $|y|=(R' + R)/2$, $u_{r}(y)=0$. Then with $\gamma=y/|y|$ we conclude from the last assertion of Theorem 2.1 that $\Omega=\Sigma_{\gamma}\cup\Sigma'_{\gamma}$ which is impossible.
  • The proof also shows that for $|x| > (R'+R)/2$, $v\cdot\operatorname{grad}u(x) < 0$ for any vector $v$ making an angle less than $(\pi/2 - \theta)$ with the vector $x$.
  • I am working on the following academic paper [Symmetry and Related Properties
  • via the Maximum Principle](https://typeset.io/pdf/symmetry-and-related-properties-via-the-maximum-principle-foyy5f1u5o.pdf), which is a classic by Louis Nirenberg. I am trying to understand the next theorem, which is on page 211 and 216:
  • > **Theorem 2**. Let $u>0$ be a $C^2$ solution of (1.1) in a ring-shaped domain
  • \begin{equation}
  • R' < |x| \leq R.
  • \end{equation}
  • Then
  • \begin{equation}
  • \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} < 0 \quad \text{for} \quad \frac{R'+R}{2} \leq |x| < R.
  • \end{equation}
  • >**Proof**
  • >
  • >We may again choose any direction $\gamma$ as positive $x_1$ axis. It follows from Theorem 2.1 that in the corresponding maximal cap $\Sigma_{\gamma}$, $\gamma\cdot\operatorname{grad}u < 0$.
  • The union of these maximal caps is the region $(R'+R)/2 < |x| < R$.
  • >
  • >Suppose for some point $y$ with $|y|=(R' + R)/2$, $u_{r}(y)=0$. Then with $\gamma=y/|y|$ we conclude from the last assertion of Theorem 2.1 that $\Omega=\Sigma_{\gamma}\cup\Sigma'_{\gamma}$ which is impossible.
  • >
  • >The proof also shows that for $|x| > (R'+R)/2$, $v\cdot\operatorname{grad}u(x) < 0$ for any vector $v$ making an angle less than $(\pi/2 - \theta)$ with the vector $x$.
  • I don't understand why the multiplication of the normal vector of the hyperplane by the gradient of $u$ is less than zero.
  • I have doubts about the final conclusion. My interpretation is that if you are at a point on the border of $\Omega$, the cap is always zero or close to zero so its reflection will be zero too. Hence it is impossible that the join of cap and its reflection is equal to domain, $\Omega$. Is it true?
  • In the proof, it uses the theorem 2.1 that you can see in the link, $\Sigma=\Sigma_{\gamma}=\Sigma(\lambda_{1})$ is the maximal cap associated with the hyperplane $T_{\lambda_1}$ and
  • \begin{equation} \tag{1.1}
  • \Delta u + f(u)=0 \quad \text{with} \quad u=0 \quad \text{on} \quad |x|=R.
  • \end{equation}
  • is an equation from the theorem 1.
#3: Post edited by user avatar Derek Elkins‭ · 2024-09-03T20:37:00Z (about 1 month ago)
fix typo I introduced, cap -> cup, tweak title, remove symm tag
  • Why $\gamma\cdot\text{grad}u<0$ in the Theorem ? (Nirenberg academic paper)
  • Why $\gamma\cdot\operatorname{grad}u<0$ in the Theorem? (Nirenberg academic paper)
  • I am working on the following academic paper [Symmetry and Related Properties
  • via the Maximum Principle](https://typeset.io/pdf/symmetry-and-related-properties-via-the-maximum-principle-foyy5f1u5o.pdf), which is a classic by Louis Nirenberg. I am trying to understand the next theorem, which is on page 211 and 216.
  • I don't understand why the multiplication of the normal vector of the hyperplane by the gradient of u is less than zero.
  • I have doubts about the final conclusion. My interpretation is that if you are at a point on the border of $\Omega$, the cap is always zero or close to zero so its reflection will be zero too. Hence it is impossible that the join of cap and its reflection is equal to domain, $\Omega$. Is it true?
  • In the proof, it uses the theorem 2.1 that you can see in the link, $\Sigma=\Sigma_{\gamma}=\Sigma(\lambda_{1})$ is the maximal cap associated to the hyperplane $T_{\lambda_1}$ and
  • \begin{equation} \tag{1.1}
  • \Delta u + f(u)=0 \quad \text{with} \quad u=0 \quad \text{on} \quad |x|=R.
  • \end{equation}
  • is a equation from the theorem 1.
  • **Theorem 2**. Let $u>0$ be a $C^2$ solution of (1.1) in a ring-shaped domain
  • \begin{equation}
  • R' < |x| \leq R.
  • \end{equation}
  • Then
  • \begin{equation}
  • \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} < 0 \quad \text{for} \quad \frac{R'+R}{2}\ leq |x| < R.
  • \end{equation}
  • **Proof**
  • We may again choose any direction $\gamma$ as positive $x_1$ axis. It follows from Theorem 2.1 that in the corresponding maximal cap $\Sigma_{\gamma}$, $\gamma\cdot\operatorname{grad}u < 0$.
  • The union of these maximal caps is the region $(R'+R)/2 < |x| < R$.
  • Suppose for some point $y$ with $|y|=(R' + R)/2$, $u_{r}(y)=0$. Then with $\gamma=y/|y|$ we conclude from the last assertion of Theorem 2.1 that $\Omega=\Sigma_{\gamma}\cap\Sigma'_{\gamma}$ which is impossible.
  • The proof also shows that for $|x| > (R'+R)/2$, $v\cdot\operatorname{grad}u(x) < 0$ for any vector $v$ making an angle less than $(\pi/2 - \theta)$ with the vector $x$.
  • I am working on the following academic paper [Symmetry and Related Properties
  • via the Maximum Principle](https://typeset.io/pdf/symmetry-and-related-properties-via-the-maximum-principle-foyy5f1u5o.pdf), which is a classic by Louis Nirenberg. I am trying to understand the next theorem, which is on page 211 and 216.
  • I don't understand why the multiplication of the normal vector of the hyperplane by the gradient of u is less than zero.
  • I have doubts about the final conclusion. My interpretation is that if you are at a point on the border of $\Omega$, the cap is always zero or close to zero so its reflection will be zero too. Hence it is impossible that the join of cap and its reflection is equal to domain, $\Omega$. Is it true?
  • In the proof, it uses the theorem 2.1 that you can see in the link, $\Sigma=\Sigma_{\gamma}=\Sigma(\lambda_{1})$ is the maximal cap associated to the hyperplane $T_{\lambda_1}$ and
  • \begin{equation} \tag{1.1}
  • \Delta u + f(u)=0 \quad \text{with} \quad u=0 \quad \text{on} \quad |x|=R.
  • \end{equation}
  • is a equation from the theorem 1.
  • **Theorem 2**. Let $u>0$ be a $C^2$ solution of (1.1) in a ring-shaped domain
  • \begin{equation}
  • R' < |x| \leq R.
  • \end{equation}
  • Then
  • \begin{equation}
  • \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} < 0 \quad \text{for} \quad \frac{R'+R}{2} \leq |x| < R.
  • \end{equation}
  • **Proof**
  • We may again choose any direction $\gamma$ as positive $x_1$ axis. It follows from Theorem 2.1 that in the corresponding maximal cap $\Sigma_{\gamma}$, $\gamma\cdot\operatorname{grad}u < 0$.
  • The union of these maximal caps is the region $(R'+R)/2 < |x| < R$.
  • Suppose for some point $y$ with $|y|=(R' + R)/2$, $u_{r}(y)=0$. Then with $\gamma=y/|y|$ we conclude from the last assertion of Theorem 2.1 that $\Omega=\Sigma_{\gamma}\cup\Sigma'_{\gamma}$ which is impossible.
  • The proof also shows that for $|x| > (R'+R)/2$, $v\cdot\operatorname{grad}u(x) < 0$ for any vector $v$ making an angle less than $(\pi/2 - \theta)$ with the vector $x$.
#2: Post edited by user avatar Derek Elkins‭ · 2024-09-03T07:05:52Z (about 1 month ago)
Correct typo and formatting errors, also ^{\prime} -> '
Why $\gamma\cdot\text{grad}u<0$ in the Theorem  ? (Nirenberg academic paper)
  • I am working on the following academic paper [Symmetry and Related Properties
  • via the Maximum Principle](https://typeset.io/pdf/symmetry-and-related-properties-via-the-maximum-principle-foyy5f1u5o.pdf), which is a classic by Louis Nirenberg. I am trying to understand the next theorem, which is on page 211 anad 216.
  • I don't understand why the multiplication of the normal vector of the hyperplane by the gradient of u is less than zero.
  • I have doubts about the final conclusion. My interpretation is that if you are at a point on the border of $\Omega$, the cap is always zero or close to zero so its reflection will be zero too. Hence it is impossible that the join of cap and its reflection is equal to domain, $\Omega$. Is it true?
  • In the proof, it uses the theorem 2.1 that you can see in the link, $\Sigma=\Sigma_{\gamma}=\Sigma(\lambda_{1})$ is the maximal cap associated to the hiperplane $T_{\lambda_1}$ and
  • \begin{equation} \tag{1.1}
  • \Delta u + f(u)=0 \quad \text{with} \quad u=0 \quad \text{on} \quad |x|=R.
  • \end{equation}
  • is a equation from the theorem 1.
  • **Theorem 2**. Let $u>0$ be a $C^2$ solution of (1.1) in a ring-shaped domain
  • \begin{equation}
  • R^{\prime} < |x| \leq R.
  • \end{equation}
  • Then
  • \begin{equation}
  • \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} \quad \text{for} \quad \frac{R^{\prime}+R}{2}\leq |x|< R.
  • \end{equation}
  • **Proof**
  • We may again choose any direction $\gamma$ as positive $x_1$ axis. It follows from Theorem 2.1 that in the corresponding maximal cap $\Sigma_{\gamma}$, $\gamma\cdot\text{grad}u<0$.
  • The union of these maximal caps is the region $(R^{\prime}+R)/2 <|x|<R $. \\
  • Suppose for some point $y$ with $|y|=(R^{\prime} + R)/2$, $u_{r}(y)=0$. Then with $\gamma=y/|y|$ we conclude from the last assertion of Theorem 2.1 that $\Omega=\Sigma_{\gamma}\cap\Sigma^{\prime}_{\gamma}$ which is impossible. \\
  • The proof also shows that for $|x|>(R^{\prime}+R)/2$, $v\cdot\text{grad}u(x)<0$ for any vector $v$ making an angle less than $(\pi/2 -\theta)$ with the vector $x$.
  • I am working on the following academic paper [Symmetry and Related Properties
  • via the Maximum Principle](https://typeset.io/pdf/symmetry-and-related-properties-via-the-maximum-principle-foyy5f1u5o.pdf), which is a classic by Louis Nirenberg. I am trying to understand the next theorem, which is on page 211 and 216.
  • I don't understand why the multiplication of the normal vector of the hyperplane by the gradient of u is less than zero.
  • I have doubts about the final conclusion. My interpretation is that if you are at a point on the border of $\Omega$, the cap is always zero or close to zero so its reflection will be zero too. Hence it is impossible that the join of cap and its reflection is equal to domain, $\Omega$. Is it true?
  • In the proof, it uses the theorem 2.1 that you can see in the link, $\Sigma=\Sigma_{\gamma}=\Sigma(\lambda_{1})$ is the maximal cap associated to the hyperplane $T_{\lambda_1}$ and
  • \begin{equation} \tag{1.1}
  • \Delta u + f(u)=0 \quad \text{with} \quad u=0 \quad \text{on} \quad |x|=R.
  • \end{equation}
  • is a equation from the theorem 1.
  • **Theorem 2**. Let $u>0$ be a $C^2$ solution of (1.1) in a ring-shaped domain
  • \begin{equation}
  • R' < |x| \leq R.
  • \end{equation}
  • Then
  • \begin{equation}
  • \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} < 0 \quad \text{for} \quad \frac{R'+R}{2}\ leq |x| < R.
  • \end{equation}
  • **Proof**
  • We may again choose any direction $\gamma$ as positive $x_1$ axis. It follows from Theorem 2.1 that in the corresponding maximal cap $\Sigma_{\gamma}$, $\gamma\cdot\operatorname{grad}u < 0$.
  • The union of these maximal caps is the region $(R'+R)/2 < |x| < R$.
  • Suppose for some point $y$ with $|y|=(R' + R)/2$, $u_{r}(y)=0$. Then with $\gamma=y/|y|$ we conclude from the last assertion of Theorem 2.1 that $\Omega=\Sigma_{\gamma}\cap\Sigma'_{\gamma}$ which is impossible.
  • The proof also shows that for $|x| > (R'+R)/2$, $v\cdot\operatorname{grad}u(x) < 0$ for any vector $v$ making an angle less than $(\pi/2 - \theta)$ with the vector $x$.
#1: Initial revision by user avatar Richard‭ · 2024-09-02T11:24:03Z (about 2 months ago)
Why $\gamma\cdot\text{grad}u<0$ in the Theorem  ? (Nirenberg academic paper)
I am working on the following academic paper [Symmetry and Related Properties
via the Maximum Principle](https://typeset.io/pdf/symmetry-and-related-properties-via-the-maximum-principle-foyy5f1u5o.pdf), which is a classic by Louis Nirenberg. I am trying to understand the next theorem, which is on page 211 anad 216.


I don't understand why the multiplication of the normal vector of the hyperplane by the gradient of u is less than zero.
I have doubts about the final conclusion. My interpretation is that if you are at a point on the border of $\Omega$, the cap is always zero or close to zero so its reflection will be zero too. Hence it is impossible that the join of cap and its reflection is equal to domain, $\Omega$. Is it true?

In the proof, it uses the theorem 2.1 that you can see in the link, $\Sigma=\Sigma_{\gamma}=\Sigma(\lambda_{1})$ is the maximal cap associated to the hiperplane $T_{\lambda_1}$ and
\begin{equation}  \tag{1.1}
	\Delta u + f(u)=0 \quad \text{with} \quad u=0 \quad \text{on} \quad |x|=R.
\end{equation}
is  a equation from the theorem 1. 


**Theorem 2**. Let $u>0$ be a $C^2$ solution of (1.1) in a ring-shaped domain
		\begin{equation}
			R^{\prime} < |x| \leq R.
		\end{equation}
Then
		\begin{equation}
			\frac{\partial u}{\partial r} \quad \text{for} \quad \frac{R^{\prime}+R}{2}\leq |x|< R.
		\end{equation}
**Proof**

We may again choose any direction $\gamma$ as positive $x_1$ axis. It follows from Theorem 2.1 that in the corresponding maximal cap $\Sigma_{\gamma}$, $\gamma\cdot\text{grad}u<0$. 
The union of these maximal caps is the region $(R^{\prime}+R)/2 <|x|<R $. \\
Suppose for some point $y$ with $|y|=(R^{\prime} + R)/2$, $u_{r}(y)=0$. Then with $\gamma=y/|y|$ we conclude from the last assertion of Theorem 2.1 that $\Omega=\Sigma_{\gamma}\cap\Sigma^{\prime}_{\gamma}$ which is impossible. \\
The proof also shows that for $|x|>(R^{\prime}+R)/2$, $v\cdot\text{grad}u(x)<0$ for any vector $v$ making an angle less than $(\pi/2 -\theta)$ with the vector $x$.