1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Heat equation on a ring

  1. Mar 6, 2013 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    I have to give a seminar to my math class about the heat equation on the ring. I will be introducing the heat kernel on the circle to the class, which is as follows:

    [itex]H_{t} (x) = \sum ^{-\infty}_{\infty} e^{-4 \pi ^{2} n^{2} t} e^{2 \pi i n x} .[/itex]

    I basically will decide what I am presenting to the class, so I don't have any "homework" questions in that sense. My questions stem from what I would like to present to the class.

    After introducing the heat kernel on the circle, I will also state that if we are given an initial condition at time = 0, u(x, 0) = f(x), then the convolution

    [itex]u(x, t) = \sum ^{-\infty}_{\infty} a_{n} e^{-4 \pi ^{2} n^{2} t} e^{2 \pi i n x} = (f \ast H_{t}) (x).[/itex]

    How do I show u(x,t) = the convolution of f and H? Basically I would like to derive the formula but because the convolution involves introducing a new variable y, and then integrating w.r.t. it, I can't really "show" that this statement is true. How do I go about proving this?

    I would also like to show that the heat kernel is a good kernel. The definition of a good kernel is given in the image I have attached. Now my textbook gives a proof of this. However, it is located in the next chapter. My seminar specifically says I am presenting on section 4.4, the heat equation on the circle. In section 4.4, it says I require the use of "celebrated Poisson summation" which is taken up in chapter 5. So strictly speaking, I am not required to show that H is a good kernel. But this is the "meat of the sandwich"; if I present this without a proof, I know I won't get a good mark.

    I read the section in the following chapter. I contemplated using these tools to show it is a good kernel. First I would need to define the heat kernel on the real numbers, which appears to be a lot different than the one for a circle. Then I would need to introduce the concept of, and define the Poisson summation formula. This definition says that a Poisson summation of a function is called the periodization of that function. Then I would need to show that the heat kernel for the circle is a periodization of the heat kernel for the real numbers. Once I have these on the table, I can show that the heat kernel for the circle is a good kernel.

    These above concepts are out of the scope of section 4.4, the section I am to present. Is there any way to show it is a good kernel without the use of the concepts in the above paragraph? The textbook states specifically in an exercise for chapter 4 that "The fact that the kernel Ht(x) is a good kernel ... is not easy to prove."

    Also, the textbook constantly says that if a kernel is greater than or equal to zero, then (b) from the image attached is a consequence of (a). But wouldn't (b) be a consequence of (a) no matter what? Because if the kernel is integrable from (a), then it must be bounded. Isn't (b) a redundant criterion?

    My seminar is tomorrow so I doubt I will get any answers in time. It's my fault for leaving things so late but I also have 3 assignments due tomorrow so there's not really enough time for anything in my life these days.

    If anyone can help out, I would appreciate it. Even if you read this far, thank you.


    2. Relevant equations



    3. The attempt at a solution
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?



Similar Discussions: Heat equation on a ring
  1. Heat equation Urgent (Replies: 0)

Loading...