Existence of solution to integral equation

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
[SOLVED] Existence of solution to integral equation

Homework Statement


There's k:[0,1]²-->R square integrable and the operator T from L²([0,1],R) to L²([0,1],R) defined by

T(u)(x)=\int_{0}^{1}k(x,y)u(y)dy

(a) Show that T is linear and continuous.

(b) If ||k||_2 < 1, show that for any f in L²([0,1],R) , there exists a u in L²([0,1],R) solution of the integral equation

u(x) = f(x)+\int_{0}^{1}k(x,y)u(y)dy

(almost everywhere on [0,1])

The Attempt at a Solution



I have done (a), and in demonstrating that T is continuous, I have shown that ||T(u)||_2\leq ||k||_2||u||_2

Therefor, the condition ||k||_2 < 1 in (b) + the fact that T is linear is equivalent to saying that T is a contraction. So by Banach's fixed point theorem, there exists a (unique) fixed point to T; call it u*:

u^*(x)=\int_{0}^{1}k(x,y)u^*(y)dy

Fine, but what about the equation

u(x) = f(x)+\int_{0}^{1}k(x,y)u(y)dy

? If we define an operator T_f by

T_f(u)(x)=f(x)+\int_{0}^{1}k(x,y)u(y)dy

this is not a contraction.

How do the dots connect?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why is T_f not a contraction?
 
You're right, I spoke too fast!

I wanted to look at ||T_f(u) - T_f(0)||=||T_(u)||, but I looked at ||T_f(u)|| instead.

Thank you morphism!
 
Wow, morphism's one line reply was enough to answer your lengthy post.
 
'Tis often so.

And often, the lengthy (and, hopefully, complete) first post results in the response being brief.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top