Weak Maximum Principle Explained

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PeteSampras
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Maximum Principle Weak
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Weak Maximum Principle as applied to the equation w_t - D w_{xx} = f, where f < 0. It establishes that if w is strictly negative on the boundary ∂_p Q_T, then it remains strictly negative in the closure of Q_T. The claim that the maximum of the function u = w - εt occurs on the boundary ∂_p Q_{T-ε} is verified using conditions on t_0 and the implications of Taylor's theorem, leading to a contradiction when analyzing the behavior of u_t. The participants express confusion regarding the conditions at t = 0 and t_0 = T - ε, particularly in relation to the signs of the derivatives.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of partial differential equations, specifically the heat equation.
  • Familiarity with the Weak Maximum Principle in the context of PDEs.
  • Knowledge of Taylor series expansion and its application in mathematical analysis.
  • Basic concepts of boundary conditions in the context of PDEs.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Weak Maximum Principle in detail, focusing on its applications in various types of PDEs.
  • Explore the implications of boundary conditions on the solutions of partial differential equations.
  • Learn about Taylor series and their role in analyzing the behavior of functions near specific points.
  • Investigate the properties of the heat equation and its solutions under different conditions.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of applied mathematics, and researchers focusing on partial differential equations and their properties, particularly those interested in the Weak Maximum Principle and its implications in mathematical analysis.

PeteSampras
Messages
43
Reaction score
2
Hello,I am reading the link http://math.mit.edu/~jspeck/18.152_Fall2011/Lecture%20notes/18152%20lecture%20notes%20-%204.pdfSays :
[tex]w_t-D w_{xx}=f[/tex] with f<0w at [tex]\bar{Q}_T[/tex] has its maximum in [tex]\partial_p {Q}_T[/tex]. If w is strictly negative at [tex]\partial_p {Q}_T[/tex] then also is strictly negative in [tex]\bar{Q}_T[/tex](it is OK)Says [tex]u=w-\epsilon t[/tex] , [tex]u \leq w[/tex], [tex]w \leq u + \epsilon T[/tex], T is cota,
then [tex]u_{t}-Du_{xx}=f-\epsilon <0[/tex] (1)(it is OK)Says: Claim that the maximum of u in [tex]\bar{Q}_{T-\epsilon}[/tex] is on [tex]\partial_p {Q}_{T-\epsilon}[/tex]. To verify the claim we use [tex](t_0,x_0) \in \bar{Q}_{T-\epsilon}[/tex].Says: [tex]t_0 \in (0,T-\epsilon][/tex] since if [tex]t=0[/tex] the claim is true I don't understand this .Says [tex]u_t=0[/tex] if [tex]t_0 \in (0,T-\epsilon)[/tex] (it is OK), but says [tex]u_t \geq 0[/tex] if [tex]t_0 =T-\epsilon[/tex] I don't understand this .Then using Taylor and claims:[tex]u_{t}-Du_{xx}>0[/tex] (2) and says "which contradicts (1)" I don't understand thisBest regard.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PeteSampras said:
since if
t=0​
t=0 the claim is true I don't understand this .
because ##t=0## corresponds to the boundary (bottom)
PeteSampras said:
but says
ut≥0​
u_t \geq 0 if
t0=T−ϵ​
t_0 =T-\epsilon I don't understand this .
##0\ge u(t,x_0)-u(t_0,x_0)=u_t(t_0,x_0)(t-t_0)+o(t-t_0),\quad t<t_0##

the last question: the left hand side of (1.0.3) is ##\le 0## by assumption and the sign in (1.0.4) is ##\ge##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeteSampras

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 98 ·
4
Replies
98
Views
16K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K