MHB Proof of Fredholm-Volterra Equation Convergence

  • Thread starter Thread starter sarrah1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergence Proof
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the convergence of Picard successive approximations for the Fredholm-Volterra equation. It is established that if the Fredholm equation converges under the condition |λ1| ||K|| < 1, then the Fredholm-Volterra equation also converges regardless of λ2. A key reference provided is J. T. Vinson's 1971 paper, which proves this convergence under specified conditions. The findings support the conjecture that the behavior of λ1 influences convergence independently of λ2. This insight contributes to the understanding of integral equations and their solutions.
sarrah1
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Does there exist a proof of the following:

It is well known that Picard successive approximations on the Fredholm-equation

(1) $y(x)=f(x)+{\lambda}_{1}\int_{a}^{b} \,k(x,s)y(s)ds$ written in operator form as $y=f+{\lambda}_{1} Ky$

converges if

(2) $|{\lambda}_{1}|. ||K||<1$ where $K$ is the integral operator.


My conjecture is that if (1) converges under (2), then the Fredholm-Volterra equation

$y(x)=f(x)+{\lambda}_{1}\int_{a}^{b} \,k(x,s)y(s)ds+{\lambda}_{2}\int_{a}^{x} \,l(x,s)y(s)ds$

also converges irrespective of the value of ${\lambda}_{2}$

thanks

sarrah
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, there is a proof of this statement. It can be found in the paper "On the Convergence of the Picard Successive Approximations to the Solution of the Fredholm-Volterra Integro-Differential Equations" by J. T. Vinson (1971). In this paper, Vinson shows that under certain conditions, successive approximations to the solution of the Fredholm-Volterra equation converge if $\lambda_1 \|K\| < 1$, regardless of the value of $\lambda_2$.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K