Zulip Chat Archive
Stream: new members
Topic: fderiv and mv_polynomial
rtertr (Sonia) (Apr 01 2023 at 18:44):
Hello everyone,
I am trying to somehow transform ‖fderiv ℝ (λ (y : E'), ↑‖y‖ ^ 2) x‖
with variables {E' : Type*} [normed_add_comm_group E'] [inner_product_space ℝ E']
into something I can work with. At best, I can transform it into ‖(fderiv ℝ coe (‖x‖ ^ 2)).comp (bit0 (⇑(innerSL ℝ) x))‖
. Is there a way to transform it into a mv_polynomial, or something else? Or perhaps a way to show it is bounded by some norms dependent on E'
? Any ideas would help :)
Moritz Doll (Apr 02 2023 at 10:12):
I think it suffices to show that you can bound the derivative by the norm and (deleted nonsense).
Moritz Doll (Apr 02 2023 at 10:54):
Am I right in assuming that this is for proving the Schwartz function bound for the Gaussian?
rtertr (Sonia) (Apr 02 2023 at 13:32):
Hello again,
Yes, I am indeed still working on that :smiling_face_with_tear:
I guess I could have something like ‖fderiv ℝ (λ (y : E'), ↑‖y‖ ^ 2) x‖ < 1+‖x‖ ^ 2
:thinking:
Moritz Doll (Apr 02 2023 at 13:52):
Having in mind that you want to apply this lemma from Sebastien's PR https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib/pull/18643/files#diff-1114505a9ffd6cfe324c241f491820d7cf97abc32c0894ade6b334af9e9ed929R2808
I would recommend on bounding the first derivative by 2 * (1+‖x‖)
.
Moritz Doll (Apr 02 2023 at 14:06):
by the way, this is what we call an #xy problem
rtertr (Sonia) (Apr 02 2023 at 14:09):
I tried quite a bit with that lemma, but I concluded that since ∀ i, 1 ≤ i → i ≤ n → ‖iterated_fderiv 𝕜 i f x‖ ≤ D^i
did not hold for i=1
when f = ‖x‖^2
then it would not really work.
But since I have ∃ (C : ℝ), ∀ (x : ?m_1), ‖↑‖x‖ ^ k * cexp (-a * ↑‖x‖ ^ 2)‖ ≤ C
, I can make the proof work as long as I can show ‖fderiv ℝ (λ (y : E'), ↑‖y‖ ^ 2) x‖
is bounded by some form of summation a * ‖x‖^k
, so for me it does not matter how big k
or a
is :)
Moritz Doll (Apr 02 2023 at 14:09):
The D
is allowed to depend on x
, but not on i
.
rtertr (Sonia) (Apr 02 2023 at 14:12):
oh, I thought D
had to be a constant? :)
Moritz Doll (Apr 02 2023 at 14:15):
if you look at the statement, first you have to give the theorem an x
and then an D
, so if you apply that theorem you choose D
according to you choice of x
.
Moritz Doll (Apr 02 2023 at 14:16):
Constants are overrated and usually depend on something :big_smile:
Last updated: Dec 20 2023 at 11:08 UTC