<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Polymath7 discussion thread</title>
	<atom:link href="http://polymathprojects.org/2012/06/09/polymath7-discussion-thread/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://polymathprojects.org/2012/06/09/polymath7-discussion-thread/</link>
	<description>Massively collaborative mathematical projects</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:42:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: nilimanigam</title>
		<link>http://polymathprojects.org/2012/06/09/polymath7-discussion-thread/#comment-9865</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nilimanigam]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:54:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://polymathprojects.org/?p=268#comment-9865</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nice! An analytic approach would be great.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice! An analytic approach would be great.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Evans</title>
		<link>http://polymathprojects.org/2012/06/09/polymath7-discussion-thread/#comment-9853</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Evans]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:18:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://polymathprojects.org/?p=268#comment-9853</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I just wanted to say that Bartlomiej and I are at a stochastic analysis conference at the moment and we are discussing ideas for the problem (the discussion has been restricted to analytic approaches though) along with some other interested people (Mihai Pascu, Rodrigo Banuelos, Chris Burdzy, etc) at the conference.

My internet access is limited (I am on a public computer at the moment) but I/we will try to write a summary of our discussion after the conference!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just wanted to say that Bartlomiej and I are at a stochastic analysis conference at the moment and we are discussing ideas for the problem (the discussion has been restricted to analytic approaches though) along with some other interested people (Mihai Pascu, Rodrigo Banuelos, Chris Burdzy, etc) at the conference.</p>
<p>My internet access is limited (I am on a public computer at the moment) but I/we will try to write a summary of our discussion after the conference!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nilimanigam</title>
		<link>http://polymathprojects.org/2012/06/09/polymath7-discussion-thread/#comment-8882</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nilimanigam]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2012 04:30:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://polymathprojects.org/?p=268#comment-8882</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Apologies about the delay from my end- I&#039;ve been writing up some notes to summarize the numerical strategy, include some validation experiments, and discuss the results so far. 

The conjecture has been (numerically) examined and (numerically) verified on a fine, non-uniform, grid in parameter space away from the equilateral triangle. The grid spacing is chosen so that the variation of the eigenfunctions is controlled to 0.001. At each of these points, we have numerical upper and lower bounds on the second eigenvalue; these bounds provide an interval of width 1e-7 around the true eigenvalue. The eigenfunctions are computed so the Ritz residual is under 1e-11. 

 I have *something* coded up which uses the bounds near the equilateral triangle, but am not confident enough about these yet to present them.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apologies about the delay from my end- I&#8217;ve been writing up some notes to summarize the numerical strategy, include some validation experiments, and discuss the results so far. </p>
<p>The conjecture has been (numerically) examined and (numerically) verified on a fine, non-uniform, grid in parameter space away from the equilateral triangle. The grid spacing is chosen so that the variation of the eigenfunctions is controlled to 0.001. At each of these points, we have numerical upper and lower bounds on the second eigenvalue; these bounds provide an interval of width 1e-7 around the true eigenvalue. The eigenfunctions are computed so the Ritz residual is under 1e-11. </p>
<p> I have *something* coded up which uses the bounds near the equilateral triangle, but am not confident enough about these yet to present them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terence Tao</title>
		<link>http://polymathprojects.org/2012/06/09/polymath7-discussion-thread/#comment-8877</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Terence Tao]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2012 03:07:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://polymathprojects.org/?p=268#comment-8877</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just a short note to say that I&#039;m still interested in this problem, but am preparing for a two-week vacation starting on Saturday and so unfortunately have had to prioritise my time.  But I will definitely return to this project afterwards...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a short note to say that I&#8217;m still interested in this problem, but am preparing for a two-week vacation starting on Saturday and so unfortunately have had to prioritise my time.  But I will definitely return to this project afterwards&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nilimanigam</title>
		<link>http://polymathprojects.org/2012/06/09/polymath7-discussion-thread/#comment-8098</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nilimanigam]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2012 04:44:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://polymathprojects.org/?p=268#comment-8098</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve posted something twice on the research thread- my first attempt did not show up after refreshing the page. Would it be possible to remove the duplicate post? I&#039;m not sure how to do this.

&lt;i&gt;[Done.   - T.]&lt;/i&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve posted something twice on the research thread- my first attempt did not show up after refreshing the page. Would it be possible to remove the duplicate post? I&#8217;m not sure how to do this.</p>
<p><i>[Done.   - T.]</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nilimanigam</title>
		<link>http://polymathprojects.org/2012/06/09/polymath7-discussion-thread/#comment-8000</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nilimanigam]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:42:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://polymathprojects.org/?p=268#comment-8000</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, this is certainly one way to analyze the overlapping strategy: the partitions of unity will assure convergence of the Schwartz iteration in one step.

 In the set-up I tried using numerically, the domains have non-trivial overlap. Solving boundary value problems this way would ensure nice convergence of the iteration. My misgiving came from the conditioning of the eigenvalue problems on the sub-domains; since the computations were in floating-point arithmetic, poor conditioning is worrying.

 My thinking was that since the actual eigenfunction is C^2 in the interior, the non-standard eigenvalue problem for the disk will have smooth coefficients. My rationale for not using the partition of unity was that the approximation functions I used in each region satisfy  $-\Delta u = \Lambda u$ exactly (but potentially not the boundary data). However, for the purpose of an analytical treatment, the partition of unity strategy may be easier to work with.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, this is certainly one way to analyze the overlapping strategy: the partitions of unity will assure convergence of the Schwartz iteration in one step.</p>
<p> In the set-up I tried using numerically, the domains have non-trivial overlap. Solving boundary value problems this way would ensure nice convergence of the iteration. My misgiving came from the conditioning of the eigenvalue problems on the sub-domains; since the computations were in floating-point arithmetic, poor conditioning is worrying.</p>
<p> My thinking was that since the actual eigenfunction is C^2 in the interior, the non-standard eigenvalue problem for the disk will have smooth coefficients. My rationale for not using the partition of unity was that the approximation functions I used in each region satisfy  $-\Delta u = \Lambda u$ exactly (but potentially not the boundary data). However, for the purpose of an analytical treatment, the partition of unity strategy may be easier to work with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terence Tao</title>
		<link>http://polymathprojects.org/2012/06/09/polymath7-discussion-thread/#comment-7998</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Terence Tao]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:25:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://polymathprojects.org/?p=268#comment-7998</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#039;s one possibility.  You&#039;re dividing the triangle into three sectors and a disk, and on each of these regions one can create an exact eigenfunction with Neumann conditions on the original boundary (and some garbage on the new boundaries).  Now with some explicit C^2 partition of unity, one can splice together these exact eigenfunctions on the subregions into an approximate eigenfunction on the whole triangle, and the residual will be controlled by the H^1 error between the exact eigenfunctions on the intersection between the subregions.

To illustrate what I mean by this, let us for simplicity assume that the triangle $latex \Omega$ is covered into just two subregions $latex \Omega_1, \Omega_2$ instead of four.  Let $latex u_1, u_2$ be exact eigenfunctions on $latex \Omega_1,\Omega_2$ respectively with the same eigenvalue $latex \lambda$, and obey the Neumann condition exactly on $latex \partial \Omega \cap \Omega_1$ and $latex \partial \Omega \cap \Omega_2$ respectively.  We then glue these together to create a function $latex u := \eta u_1 + (1-\eta) u_2$ on the entire triangle $latex \Omega$, where $latex \eta$ is a C^2 bump function that equals 1 outside of $latex \Omega_2$ and equals 0 outside of $latex \Omega_1$.  Then we may compute

$latex -\Delta u = \lambda u + 2 \nabla \eta \cdot \nabla (u_1-u_2) + \Delta \eta \cdot (u_1-u_2)$.

Also u obeys the Neumann conditions exactly.  Thus if u_1 and u_2 are close in H^1 norm on the common domain $latex \Omega_1 \cap \Omega_2$, the global residual $latex \&#124; -\Delta u - \lambda u \&#124;_{L^2}$ will be small.

One advantage of this approach is that we don&#039;t need to care too much about the boundary traces of u_1,u_2.  But one does need a certain margin of overlap between the subregions so that the cutoffs $latex \eta$ lie in C^2 with reasonable bounds, it&#039;s not enough for them to be adjacent.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s one possibility.  You&#8217;re dividing the triangle into three sectors and a disk, and on each of these regions one can create an exact eigenfunction with Neumann conditions on the original boundary (and some garbage on the new boundaries).  Now with some explicit C^2 partition of unity, one can splice together these exact eigenfunctions on the subregions into an approximate eigenfunction on the whole triangle, and the residual will be controlled by the H^1 error between the exact eigenfunctions on the intersection between the subregions.</p>
<p>To illustrate what I mean by this, let us for simplicity assume that the triangle <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5COmega&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;Omega' title='&#92;Omega' class='latex' /> is covered into just two subregions <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5COmega_1%2C+%5COmega_2&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;Omega_1, &#92;Omega_2' title='&#92;Omega_1, &#92;Omega_2' class='latex' /> instead of four.  Let <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=u_1%2C+u_2&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='u_1, u_2' title='u_1, u_2' class='latex' /> be exact eigenfunctions on <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5COmega_1%2C%5COmega_2&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;Omega_1,&#92;Omega_2' title='&#92;Omega_1,&#92;Omega_2' class='latex' /> respectively with the same eigenvalue <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Clambda&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;lambda' title='&#92;lambda' class='latex' />, and obey the Neumann condition exactly on <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpartial+%5COmega+%5Ccap+%5COmega_1&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;partial &#92;Omega &#92;cap &#92;Omega_1' title='&#92;partial &#92;Omega &#92;cap &#92;Omega_1' class='latex' /> and <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cpartial+%5COmega+%5Ccap+%5COmega_2&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;partial &#92;Omega &#92;cap &#92;Omega_2' title='&#92;partial &#92;Omega &#92;cap &#92;Omega_2' class='latex' /> respectively.  We then glue these together to create a function <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=u+%3A%3D+%5Ceta+u_1+%2B+%281-%5Ceta%29+u_2&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='u := &#92;eta u_1 + (1-&#92;eta) u_2' title='u := &#92;eta u_1 + (1-&#92;eta) u_2' class='latex' /> on the entire triangle <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5COmega&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;Omega' title='&#92;Omega' class='latex' />, where <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ceta&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;eta' title='&#92;eta' class='latex' /> is a C^2 bump function that equals 1 outside of <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5COmega_2&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;Omega_2' title='&#92;Omega_2' class='latex' /> and equals 0 outside of <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5COmega_1&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;Omega_1' title='&#92;Omega_1' class='latex' />.  Then we may compute</p>
<p><img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=-%5CDelta+u+%3D+%5Clambda+u+%2B+2+%5Cnabla+%5Ceta+%5Ccdot+%5Cnabla+%28u_1-u_2%29+%2B+%5CDelta+%5Ceta+%5Ccdot+%28u_1-u_2%29&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='-&#92;Delta u = &#92;lambda u + 2 &#92;nabla &#92;eta &#92;cdot &#92;nabla (u_1-u_2) + &#92;Delta &#92;eta &#92;cdot (u_1-u_2)' title='-&#92;Delta u = &#92;lambda u + 2 &#92;nabla &#92;eta &#92;cdot &#92;nabla (u_1-u_2) + &#92;Delta &#92;eta &#92;cdot (u_1-u_2)' class='latex' />.</p>
<p>Also u obeys the Neumann conditions exactly.  Thus if u_1 and u_2 are close in H^1 norm on the common domain <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5COmega_1+%5Ccap+%5COmega_2&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;Omega_1 &#92;cap &#92;Omega_2' title='&#92;Omega_1 &#92;cap &#92;Omega_2' class='latex' />, the global residual <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5C%7C+-%5CDelta+u+-+%5Clambda+u+%5C%7C_%7BL%5E2%7D&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;| -&#92;Delta u - &#92;lambda u &#92;|_{L^2}' title='&#92;| -&#92;Delta u - &#92;lambda u &#92;|_{L^2}' class='latex' /> will be small.</p>
<p>One advantage of this approach is that we don&#8217;t need to care too much about the boundary traces of u_1,u_2.  But one does need a certain margin of overlap between the subregions so that the cutoffs <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ceta&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;eta' title='&#92;eta' class='latex' /> lie in C^2 with reasonable bounds, it&#8217;s not enough for them to be adjacent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nilimanigam</title>
		<link>http://polymathprojects.org/2012/06/09/polymath7-discussion-thread/#comment-7887</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nilimanigam]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:21:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://polymathprojects.org/?p=268#comment-7887</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve updated http://www.math.sfu.ca/~nigam/polymath-figures/Schwarz.pdf to include the implementation details. As a numerical method, this is OK (not great because of conditioning issues!)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve updated <a href="http://www.math.sfu.ca/~nigam/polymath-figures/Schwarz.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.math.sfu.ca/~nigam/polymath-figures/Schwarz.pdf</a> to include the implementation details. As a numerical method, this is OK (not great because of conditioning issues!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nilimanigam</title>
		<link>http://polymathprojects.org/2012/06/09/polymath7-discussion-thread/#comment-7884</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[nilimanigam]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:13:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://polymathprojects.org/?p=268#comment-7884</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The challenge with this is in how I compute the residual. Numerically, my strategy was to approximate $u_i$ (in the notes) by finite linear combinations of Fourier-Bessel functions. The trace of the approximations on the arcs can be written down readily; the application of the Laplacian on the sub-domains is also OK. However, to compute the L2 inner products, I used a quadrature. This is how I assemble the matrices to get the approximate eigenfunctions.  Also, the conditioning of the eigenvalue problems wasn&#039;t great. Since one is looking at minimizing the residual in $L^2$, the all-critical traces of $u_i^n \frac{\partial u_0^n}{\partial \nu}$ on the common interfaces play a role, but not as important as one may want.  While I want to believe this method gives a good approximation by looking at the numerical residual, I am not 100% convinced.

One I got the approximate eigenfunction by this method, I still have to locate the extrema. I do this by interpolating the function by piecewise linears onto a mesh of the triangle, and then doing a search. This can be improved. 

Let me add in some of the details of the implementation in the notes. Perhaps some collective trouble-shooting will help.

Using the finite element method, the quadratures are exact (since I use piecewise polynomials). The search proceeds as above. Since I&#039;m using a quasi-regular discretization, both the Galerkin errors and the Lanczos errors are well-understood and the methods are provably convergent. This is a reliable, if not super-fast, work-horse.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The challenge with this is in how I compute the residual. Numerically, my strategy was to approximate $u_i$ (in the notes) by finite linear combinations of Fourier-Bessel functions. The trace of the approximations on the arcs can be written down readily; the application of the Laplacian on the sub-domains is also OK. However, to compute the L2 inner products, I used a quadrature. This is how I assemble the matrices to get the approximate eigenfunctions.  Also, the conditioning of the eigenvalue problems wasn&#8217;t great. Since one is looking at minimizing the residual in $L^2$, the all-critical traces of $u_i^n \frac{\partial u_0^n}{\partial \nu}$ on the common interfaces play a role, but not as important as one may want.  While I want to believe this method gives a good approximation by looking at the numerical residual, I am not 100% convinced.</p>
<p>One I got the approximate eigenfunction by this method, I still have to locate the extrema. I do this by interpolating the function by piecewise linears onto a mesh of the triangle, and then doing a search. This can be improved. </p>
<p>Let me add in some of the details of the implementation in the notes. Perhaps some collective trouble-shooting will help.</p>
<p>Using the finite element method, the quadratures are exact (since I use piecewise polynomials). The search proceeds as above. Since I&#8217;m using a quasi-regular discretization, both the Galerkin errors and the Lanczos errors are well-understood and the methods are provably convergent. This is a reliable, if not super-fast, work-horse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terence Tao</title>
		<link>http://polymathprojects.org/2012/06/09/polymath7-discussion-thread/#comment-7883</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Terence Tao]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:53:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://polymathprojects.org/?p=268#comment-7883</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, perhaps we don&#039;t need a rigorous guarantee that the numerical algorithm converges, but instead go with a numerical recipe that in practice gives a numerical eigenfunction $latex \tilde u_2$ and numerical eigenvalue $latex \tilde \lambda_2$ with very good residual $latex \&#124; -\Delta \tilde u_2 - \tilde \lambda_2 \tilde u_2 \&#124;_{L^2}$, and then do some a posteriori analysis to rigorously conclude that the error is small.  Indeed, if one has a demonstrable gap between the numerical eigenvalue $latex \tilde \lambda_2$ and the true third eigenvalue $latex \lambda_3$, then some simpleplaying around with eigenvalue decomposition (computing the inner product of $latex -\Delta \tilde u_2 -\tilde \lambda \tilde u_2$ against other true eigenfunctions $latex u_k$ via integration by parts) shows that the residual controls the error $latex \&#124; \tilde u_2 - u_2 \&#124;_{H^2}$ in H^2 norm (and hence in L^infty norm, by the Sobolev inequality in my notes), at least if one can ensure that $latex \tilde u_2$ obeys the Neumann condition exactly.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, perhaps we don&#8217;t need a rigorous guarantee that the numerical algorithm converges, but instead go with a numerical recipe that in practice gives a numerical eigenfunction <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde+u_2&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;tilde u_2' title='&#92;tilde u_2' class='latex' /> and numerical eigenvalue <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde+%5Clambda_2&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;tilde &#92;lambda_2' title='&#92;tilde &#92;lambda_2' class='latex' /> with very good residual <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5C%7C+-%5CDelta+%5Ctilde+u_2+-+%5Ctilde+%5Clambda_2+%5Ctilde+u_2+%5C%7C_%7BL%5E2%7D&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;| -&#92;Delta &#92;tilde u_2 - &#92;tilde &#92;lambda_2 &#92;tilde u_2 &#92;|_{L^2}' title='&#92;| -&#92;Delta &#92;tilde u_2 - &#92;tilde &#92;lambda_2 &#92;tilde u_2 &#92;|_{L^2}' class='latex' />, and then do some a posteriori analysis to rigorously conclude that the error is small.  Indeed, if one has a demonstrable gap between the numerical eigenvalue <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde+%5Clambda_2&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;tilde &#92;lambda_2' title='&#92;tilde &#92;lambda_2' class='latex' /> and the true third eigenvalue <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Clambda_3&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;lambda_3' title='&#92;lambda_3' class='latex' />, then some simpleplaying around with eigenvalue decomposition (computing the inner product of <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=-%5CDelta+%5Ctilde+u_2+-%5Ctilde+%5Clambda+%5Ctilde+u_2&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='-&#92;Delta &#92;tilde u_2 -&#92;tilde &#92;lambda &#92;tilde u_2' title='-&#92;Delta &#92;tilde u_2 -&#92;tilde &#92;lambda &#92;tilde u_2' class='latex' /> against other true eigenfunctions <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=u_k&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='u_k' title='u_k' class='latex' /> via integration by parts) shows that the residual controls the error <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5C%7C+%5Ctilde+u_2+-+u_2+%5C%7C_%7BH%5E2%7D&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;| &#92;tilde u_2 - u_2 &#92;|_{H^2}' title='&#92;| &#92;tilde u_2 - u_2 &#92;|_{H^2}' class='latex' /> in H^2 norm (and hence in L^infty norm, by the Sobolev inequality in my notes), at least if one can ensure that <img src='http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Ctilde+u_2&amp;bg=ffffff&amp;fg=000000&amp;s=0' alt='&#92;tilde u_2' title='&#92;tilde u_2' class='latex' /> obeys the Neumann condition exactly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>