Interpolation inequality for Holder continuous functions. The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InProving an operator is compactfunctions in Holder spaceApproximate Holder continuous functions by smooth functions$f$ is a real function and it is $alpha$-Holder continuous with $alpha>1$. Is $f$ constant?Inclusion of Holder SpacesHolder norms inequalityInterpolation inequality involving Holder seminorms and Lebesgue normsHolder continuity EquivalenceDimension of Holder spaceClosure of Continuously DifferentiableFunctions in Holder Space

Is bread bad for ducks?

Ubuntu Server install with full GUI

Is it okay to consider publishing in my first year of PhD?

Is it ok to offer lower paid work as a trial period before negotiating for a full-time job?

Did Scotland spend $250,000 for the slogan "Welcome to Scotland"?

How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?

Why didn't the Event Horizon Telescope team mention Sagittarius A*?

Star Trek - X-shaped Item on Regula/Orbital Office Starbases

Loose spokes after only a few rides

What do these terms in Caesar's Gallic Wars mean?

Geography at the pixel level

writing variables above the numbers in tikz picture

Kerning for subscripts of sigma?

Why “相同意思的词” is called “同义词” instead of "同意词"?

Output the Arecibo Message

Worn-tile Scrabble

Can a flute soloist sit?

Are there any other methods to apply to solving simultaneous equations?

What information about me do stores get via my credit card?

Is Cinnamon a desktop environment or a window manager? (Or both?)

How can I add encounters in the Lost Mine of Phandelver campaign without giving PCs too much XP?

Why does the nucleus not repel itself?

Correct punctuation for showing a character's confusion

How do you keep chess fun when your opponent constantly beats you?



Interpolation inequality for Holder continuous functions.



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InProving an operator is compactfunctions in Holder spaceApproximate Holder continuous functions by smooth functions$f$ is a real function and it is $alpha$-Holder continuous with $alpha>1$. Is $f$ constant?Inclusion of Holder SpacesHolder norms inequalityInterpolation inequality involving Holder seminorms and Lebesgue normsHolder continuity EquivalenceDimension of Holder spaceClosure of Continuously DifferentiableFunctions in Holder Space










2












$begingroup$


Let $Omega$ be a bounded open connected set in $mathbbR^n$ with $C^1$ boundary and let $0<alpha<1$. Then there exists a real number $sigma_0>0$ and a dimensional constant $C>0$ such that $$||Du||_L^infty(Omega)leq sigma^alpha [|Du|]_alpha,Omega+fracCsigma||u||_L^infty(Omega)$$ and $$[u]_alpha,Omegaleq sigma[|Du|]_alpha,Omega+fracCsigma^alpha||u||_L^infty(Omega)$$ hold for all $0<sigma<sigma_0$ and for all $uin C^1,alpha(barOmega)$. Here $||u||_C^1,alpha=||u||_L^infty(Omega)+||Du||_L^infty(Omega)+[|Du|]_alpha$ and $[u]_alpha=sup_xneq yfracx-y$.



N.B. I have proved the above results for balls and then for domain with $C^2$ boundary. I cant proceed for $C^1$ boundary domain. Any help will be great.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    It might help if you showed how you dealt with $C^2$ boundaries.
    $endgroup$
    – robjohn
    Mar 28 at 15:20










  • $begingroup$
    $C^2$ boundary have the interior ball property and i have the results for balls.
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 28 at 18:11















2












$begingroup$


Let $Omega$ be a bounded open connected set in $mathbbR^n$ with $C^1$ boundary and let $0<alpha<1$. Then there exists a real number $sigma_0>0$ and a dimensional constant $C>0$ such that $$||Du||_L^infty(Omega)leq sigma^alpha [|Du|]_alpha,Omega+fracCsigma||u||_L^infty(Omega)$$ and $$[u]_alpha,Omegaleq sigma[|Du|]_alpha,Omega+fracCsigma^alpha||u||_L^infty(Omega)$$ hold for all $0<sigma<sigma_0$ and for all $uin C^1,alpha(barOmega)$. Here $||u||_C^1,alpha=||u||_L^infty(Omega)+||Du||_L^infty(Omega)+[|Du|]_alpha$ and $[u]_alpha=sup_xneq yfracx-y$.



N.B. I have proved the above results for balls and then for domain with $C^2$ boundary. I cant proceed for $C^1$ boundary domain. Any help will be great.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    It might help if you showed how you dealt with $C^2$ boundaries.
    $endgroup$
    – robjohn
    Mar 28 at 15:20










  • $begingroup$
    $C^2$ boundary have the interior ball property and i have the results for balls.
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 28 at 18:11













2












2








2


0



$begingroup$


Let $Omega$ be a bounded open connected set in $mathbbR^n$ with $C^1$ boundary and let $0<alpha<1$. Then there exists a real number $sigma_0>0$ and a dimensional constant $C>0$ such that $$||Du||_L^infty(Omega)leq sigma^alpha [|Du|]_alpha,Omega+fracCsigma||u||_L^infty(Omega)$$ and $$[u]_alpha,Omegaleq sigma[|Du|]_alpha,Omega+fracCsigma^alpha||u||_L^infty(Omega)$$ hold for all $0<sigma<sigma_0$ and for all $uin C^1,alpha(barOmega)$. Here $||u||_C^1,alpha=||u||_L^infty(Omega)+||Du||_L^infty(Omega)+[|Du|]_alpha$ and $[u]_alpha=sup_xneq yfracx-y$.



N.B. I have proved the above results for balls and then for domain with $C^2$ boundary. I cant proceed for $C^1$ boundary domain. Any help will be great.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Let $Omega$ be a bounded open connected set in $mathbbR^n$ with $C^1$ boundary and let $0<alpha<1$. Then there exists a real number $sigma_0>0$ and a dimensional constant $C>0$ such that $$||Du||_L^infty(Omega)leq sigma^alpha [|Du|]_alpha,Omega+fracCsigma||u||_L^infty(Omega)$$ and $$[u]_alpha,Omegaleq sigma[|Du|]_alpha,Omega+fracCsigma^alpha||u||_L^infty(Omega)$$ hold for all $0<sigma<sigma_0$ and for all $uin C^1,alpha(barOmega)$. Here $||u||_C^1,alpha=||u||_L^infty(Omega)+||Du||_L^infty(Omega)+[|Du|]_alpha$ and $[u]_alpha=sup_xneq yfracx-y$.



N.B. I have proved the above results for balls and then for domain with $C^2$ boundary. I cant proceed for $C^1$ boundary domain. Any help will be great.







real-analysis pde holder-spaces interpolation-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Mar 24 at 5:43









mudokmudok

374315




374315











  • $begingroup$
    It might help if you showed how you dealt with $C^2$ boundaries.
    $endgroup$
    – robjohn
    Mar 28 at 15:20










  • $begingroup$
    $C^2$ boundary have the interior ball property and i have the results for balls.
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 28 at 18:11
















  • $begingroup$
    It might help if you showed how you dealt with $C^2$ boundaries.
    $endgroup$
    – robjohn
    Mar 28 at 15:20










  • $begingroup$
    $C^2$ boundary have the interior ball property and i have the results for balls.
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 28 at 18:11















$begingroup$
It might help if you showed how you dealt with $C^2$ boundaries.
$endgroup$
– robjohn
Mar 28 at 15:20




$begingroup$
It might help if you showed how you dealt with $C^2$ boundaries.
$endgroup$
– robjohn
Mar 28 at 15:20












$begingroup$
$C^2$ boundary have the interior ball property and i have the results for balls.
$endgroup$
– mudok
Mar 28 at 18:11




$begingroup$
$C^2$ boundary have the interior ball property and i have the results for balls.
$endgroup$
– mudok
Mar 28 at 18:11










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1





+100







$begingroup$

Since $Omega$ is bounded, its closure its compact. Also since $uin
C^1,alpha(overlineOmega)$
, you have that $Du$ is continuous. Hence
there exists $x_0inoverlineOmega$ such that
$$
|Du(x_0)|=max_xinoverlineOmega|Du(x)|.
$$

In particular, $u$ is differentiable $x_0$. Thus,
$$
fracpartial upartialnu(x_0)=Du(x_0)cdotnu,
$$

where $fracpartial upartialnu$ is a directional derivative in an
admissible direction $nuinmathbbR^n$, with $|nu|=1$. Now since
$partialOmega$ is of class $C^1$, there is a cone $C$ such that every
point $xinoverlineOmega$ is the vertex of a cone $C_x$ congruent to $C$
and contained in $Omega$. Hence, if you consider the cone $C_x_0$, you
can find $n$ linearly independent directions $nu_1,ldots,nu_n$ such
that the segments $x_0+tnu_i$, $tinlbrack0,h]$ are contained in the
cone $C_x_0$, where $h>0$. If you consider the system of $n$ equations
$$
fracpartial upartialnu_i(x_0)=Du(x_0)cdotnu_i,
$$

in the $n$ unknowns $fracpartial upartial x_i(x_0)$, you have that
the determinant is different from zero since the vectors are linearly
independent. Hence, you can write
$$
fracpartial upartial x_i(x_0)=sum_j=1^nc_i,jfracpartial
upartialnu_j(x_0),
$$

where the numbers $c_i,j$ depent only on the directions $nu_1,ldots
,nu_n$
.



Along each segment $S_i=x_0+tnu_i$, $tinlbrack0,h]$ you can apply
your inequality for $n=1$ to the function $g_i(t):=u(x_0+tnu_i)$,
$tinlbrack0,h]$.



Now you have to prove that the coefficients $c_i,j$ depend only on $Omega$.
I have to think about this, but if you rotate the cone, your new directions
are $Rnu_1,ldots,Rnu_n$, where $R$ is your rotation, so the determinant
should not change.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Very nice argument. What you essentially use is the interior cone property for $C^1$ domain. Which escaped my mind. I also think your $c_i,j$ dependence only on domain since it's come from the linear independent direction vectors depending on domain. Am I correct?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 30 at 15:56










  • $begingroup$
    yes, you are correct
    $endgroup$
    – Gio67
    Mar 30 at 16:08










  • $begingroup$
    one question : you say " a cone Cx congruent to C and contained in Ω" why congruent?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 30 at 17:11










  • $begingroup$
    up to a translation and a rotation. And I should have said contained in the closure of $Omega$. You will need to rotate the cone.
    $endgroup$
    – Gio67
    Mar 31 at 12:40











  • $begingroup$
    $C^1$ boundary imply uniform cone property or only cone property?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 31 at 13:04











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3160154%2finterpolation-inequality-for-holder-continuous-functions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1





+100







$begingroup$

Since $Omega$ is bounded, its closure its compact. Also since $uin
C^1,alpha(overlineOmega)$
, you have that $Du$ is continuous. Hence
there exists $x_0inoverlineOmega$ such that
$$
|Du(x_0)|=max_xinoverlineOmega|Du(x)|.
$$

In particular, $u$ is differentiable $x_0$. Thus,
$$
fracpartial upartialnu(x_0)=Du(x_0)cdotnu,
$$

where $fracpartial upartialnu$ is a directional derivative in an
admissible direction $nuinmathbbR^n$, with $|nu|=1$. Now since
$partialOmega$ is of class $C^1$, there is a cone $C$ such that every
point $xinoverlineOmega$ is the vertex of a cone $C_x$ congruent to $C$
and contained in $Omega$. Hence, if you consider the cone $C_x_0$, you
can find $n$ linearly independent directions $nu_1,ldots,nu_n$ such
that the segments $x_0+tnu_i$, $tinlbrack0,h]$ are contained in the
cone $C_x_0$, where $h>0$. If you consider the system of $n$ equations
$$
fracpartial upartialnu_i(x_0)=Du(x_0)cdotnu_i,
$$

in the $n$ unknowns $fracpartial upartial x_i(x_0)$, you have that
the determinant is different from zero since the vectors are linearly
independent. Hence, you can write
$$
fracpartial upartial x_i(x_0)=sum_j=1^nc_i,jfracpartial
upartialnu_j(x_0),
$$

where the numbers $c_i,j$ depent only on the directions $nu_1,ldots
,nu_n$
.



Along each segment $S_i=x_0+tnu_i$, $tinlbrack0,h]$ you can apply
your inequality for $n=1$ to the function $g_i(t):=u(x_0+tnu_i)$,
$tinlbrack0,h]$.



Now you have to prove that the coefficients $c_i,j$ depend only on $Omega$.
I have to think about this, but if you rotate the cone, your new directions
are $Rnu_1,ldots,Rnu_n$, where $R$ is your rotation, so the determinant
should not change.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Very nice argument. What you essentially use is the interior cone property for $C^1$ domain. Which escaped my mind. I also think your $c_i,j$ dependence only on domain since it's come from the linear independent direction vectors depending on domain. Am I correct?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 30 at 15:56










  • $begingroup$
    yes, you are correct
    $endgroup$
    – Gio67
    Mar 30 at 16:08










  • $begingroup$
    one question : you say " a cone Cx congruent to C and contained in Ω" why congruent?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 30 at 17:11










  • $begingroup$
    up to a translation and a rotation. And I should have said contained in the closure of $Omega$. You will need to rotate the cone.
    $endgroup$
    – Gio67
    Mar 31 at 12:40











  • $begingroup$
    $C^1$ boundary imply uniform cone property or only cone property?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 31 at 13:04















1





+100







$begingroup$

Since $Omega$ is bounded, its closure its compact. Also since $uin
C^1,alpha(overlineOmega)$
, you have that $Du$ is continuous. Hence
there exists $x_0inoverlineOmega$ such that
$$
|Du(x_0)|=max_xinoverlineOmega|Du(x)|.
$$

In particular, $u$ is differentiable $x_0$. Thus,
$$
fracpartial upartialnu(x_0)=Du(x_0)cdotnu,
$$

where $fracpartial upartialnu$ is a directional derivative in an
admissible direction $nuinmathbbR^n$, with $|nu|=1$. Now since
$partialOmega$ is of class $C^1$, there is a cone $C$ such that every
point $xinoverlineOmega$ is the vertex of a cone $C_x$ congruent to $C$
and contained in $Omega$. Hence, if you consider the cone $C_x_0$, you
can find $n$ linearly independent directions $nu_1,ldots,nu_n$ such
that the segments $x_0+tnu_i$, $tinlbrack0,h]$ are contained in the
cone $C_x_0$, where $h>0$. If you consider the system of $n$ equations
$$
fracpartial upartialnu_i(x_0)=Du(x_0)cdotnu_i,
$$

in the $n$ unknowns $fracpartial upartial x_i(x_0)$, you have that
the determinant is different from zero since the vectors are linearly
independent. Hence, you can write
$$
fracpartial upartial x_i(x_0)=sum_j=1^nc_i,jfracpartial
upartialnu_j(x_0),
$$

where the numbers $c_i,j$ depent only on the directions $nu_1,ldots
,nu_n$
.



Along each segment $S_i=x_0+tnu_i$, $tinlbrack0,h]$ you can apply
your inequality for $n=1$ to the function $g_i(t):=u(x_0+tnu_i)$,
$tinlbrack0,h]$.



Now you have to prove that the coefficients $c_i,j$ depend only on $Omega$.
I have to think about this, but if you rotate the cone, your new directions
are $Rnu_1,ldots,Rnu_n$, where $R$ is your rotation, so the determinant
should not change.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Very nice argument. What you essentially use is the interior cone property for $C^1$ domain. Which escaped my mind. I also think your $c_i,j$ dependence only on domain since it's come from the linear independent direction vectors depending on domain. Am I correct?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 30 at 15:56










  • $begingroup$
    yes, you are correct
    $endgroup$
    – Gio67
    Mar 30 at 16:08










  • $begingroup$
    one question : you say " a cone Cx congruent to C and contained in Ω" why congruent?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 30 at 17:11










  • $begingroup$
    up to a translation and a rotation. And I should have said contained in the closure of $Omega$. You will need to rotate the cone.
    $endgroup$
    – Gio67
    Mar 31 at 12:40











  • $begingroup$
    $C^1$ boundary imply uniform cone property or only cone property?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 31 at 13:04













1





+100







1





+100



1




+100



$begingroup$

Since $Omega$ is bounded, its closure its compact. Also since $uin
C^1,alpha(overlineOmega)$
, you have that $Du$ is continuous. Hence
there exists $x_0inoverlineOmega$ such that
$$
|Du(x_0)|=max_xinoverlineOmega|Du(x)|.
$$

In particular, $u$ is differentiable $x_0$. Thus,
$$
fracpartial upartialnu(x_0)=Du(x_0)cdotnu,
$$

where $fracpartial upartialnu$ is a directional derivative in an
admissible direction $nuinmathbbR^n$, with $|nu|=1$. Now since
$partialOmega$ is of class $C^1$, there is a cone $C$ such that every
point $xinoverlineOmega$ is the vertex of a cone $C_x$ congruent to $C$
and contained in $Omega$. Hence, if you consider the cone $C_x_0$, you
can find $n$ linearly independent directions $nu_1,ldots,nu_n$ such
that the segments $x_0+tnu_i$, $tinlbrack0,h]$ are contained in the
cone $C_x_0$, where $h>0$. If you consider the system of $n$ equations
$$
fracpartial upartialnu_i(x_0)=Du(x_0)cdotnu_i,
$$

in the $n$ unknowns $fracpartial upartial x_i(x_0)$, you have that
the determinant is different from zero since the vectors are linearly
independent. Hence, you can write
$$
fracpartial upartial x_i(x_0)=sum_j=1^nc_i,jfracpartial
upartialnu_j(x_0),
$$

where the numbers $c_i,j$ depent only on the directions $nu_1,ldots
,nu_n$
.



Along each segment $S_i=x_0+tnu_i$, $tinlbrack0,h]$ you can apply
your inequality for $n=1$ to the function $g_i(t):=u(x_0+tnu_i)$,
$tinlbrack0,h]$.



Now you have to prove that the coefficients $c_i,j$ depend only on $Omega$.
I have to think about this, but if you rotate the cone, your new directions
are $Rnu_1,ldots,Rnu_n$, where $R$ is your rotation, so the determinant
should not change.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Since $Omega$ is bounded, its closure its compact. Also since $uin
C^1,alpha(overlineOmega)$
, you have that $Du$ is continuous. Hence
there exists $x_0inoverlineOmega$ such that
$$
|Du(x_0)|=max_xinoverlineOmega|Du(x)|.
$$

In particular, $u$ is differentiable $x_0$. Thus,
$$
fracpartial upartialnu(x_0)=Du(x_0)cdotnu,
$$

where $fracpartial upartialnu$ is a directional derivative in an
admissible direction $nuinmathbbR^n$, with $|nu|=1$. Now since
$partialOmega$ is of class $C^1$, there is a cone $C$ such that every
point $xinoverlineOmega$ is the vertex of a cone $C_x$ congruent to $C$
and contained in $Omega$. Hence, if you consider the cone $C_x_0$, you
can find $n$ linearly independent directions $nu_1,ldots,nu_n$ such
that the segments $x_0+tnu_i$, $tinlbrack0,h]$ are contained in the
cone $C_x_0$, where $h>0$. If you consider the system of $n$ equations
$$
fracpartial upartialnu_i(x_0)=Du(x_0)cdotnu_i,
$$

in the $n$ unknowns $fracpartial upartial x_i(x_0)$, you have that
the determinant is different from zero since the vectors are linearly
independent. Hence, you can write
$$
fracpartial upartial x_i(x_0)=sum_j=1^nc_i,jfracpartial
upartialnu_j(x_0),
$$

where the numbers $c_i,j$ depent only on the directions $nu_1,ldots
,nu_n$
.



Along each segment $S_i=x_0+tnu_i$, $tinlbrack0,h]$ you can apply
your inequality for $n=1$ to the function $g_i(t):=u(x_0+tnu_i)$,
$tinlbrack0,h]$.



Now you have to prove that the coefficients $c_i,j$ depend only on $Omega$.
I have to think about this, but if you rotate the cone, your new directions
are $Rnu_1,ldots,Rnu_n$, where $R$ is your rotation, so the determinant
should not change.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Mar 30 at 15:30









Gio67Gio67

12.8k1627




12.8k1627











  • $begingroup$
    Very nice argument. What you essentially use is the interior cone property for $C^1$ domain. Which escaped my mind. I also think your $c_i,j$ dependence only on domain since it's come from the linear independent direction vectors depending on domain. Am I correct?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 30 at 15:56










  • $begingroup$
    yes, you are correct
    $endgroup$
    – Gio67
    Mar 30 at 16:08










  • $begingroup$
    one question : you say " a cone Cx congruent to C and contained in Ω" why congruent?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 30 at 17:11










  • $begingroup$
    up to a translation and a rotation. And I should have said contained in the closure of $Omega$. You will need to rotate the cone.
    $endgroup$
    – Gio67
    Mar 31 at 12:40











  • $begingroup$
    $C^1$ boundary imply uniform cone property or only cone property?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 31 at 13:04
















  • $begingroup$
    Very nice argument. What you essentially use is the interior cone property for $C^1$ domain. Which escaped my mind. I also think your $c_i,j$ dependence only on domain since it's come from the linear independent direction vectors depending on domain. Am I correct?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 30 at 15:56










  • $begingroup$
    yes, you are correct
    $endgroup$
    – Gio67
    Mar 30 at 16:08










  • $begingroup$
    one question : you say " a cone Cx congruent to C and contained in Ω" why congruent?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 30 at 17:11










  • $begingroup$
    up to a translation and a rotation. And I should have said contained in the closure of $Omega$. You will need to rotate the cone.
    $endgroup$
    – Gio67
    Mar 31 at 12:40











  • $begingroup$
    $C^1$ boundary imply uniform cone property or only cone property?
    $endgroup$
    – mudok
    Mar 31 at 13:04















$begingroup$
Very nice argument. What you essentially use is the interior cone property for $C^1$ domain. Which escaped my mind. I also think your $c_i,j$ dependence only on domain since it's come from the linear independent direction vectors depending on domain. Am I correct?
$endgroup$
– mudok
Mar 30 at 15:56




$begingroup$
Very nice argument. What you essentially use is the interior cone property for $C^1$ domain. Which escaped my mind. I also think your $c_i,j$ dependence only on domain since it's come from the linear independent direction vectors depending on domain. Am I correct?
$endgroup$
– mudok
Mar 30 at 15:56












$begingroup$
yes, you are correct
$endgroup$
– Gio67
Mar 30 at 16:08




$begingroup$
yes, you are correct
$endgroup$
– Gio67
Mar 30 at 16:08












$begingroup$
one question : you say " a cone Cx congruent to C and contained in Ω" why congruent?
$endgroup$
– mudok
Mar 30 at 17:11




$begingroup$
one question : you say " a cone Cx congruent to C and contained in Ω" why congruent?
$endgroup$
– mudok
Mar 30 at 17:11












$begingroup$
up to a translation and a rotation. And I should have said contained in the closure of $Omega$. You will need to rotate the cone.
$endgroup$
– Gio67
Mar 31 at 12:40





$begingroup$
up to a translation and a rotation. And I should have said contained in the closure of $Omega$. You will need to rotate the cone.
$endgroup$
– Gio67
Mar 31 at 12:40













$begingroup$
$C^1$ boundary imply uniform cone property or only cone property?
$endgroup$
– mudok
Mar 31 at 13:04




$begingroup$
$C^1$ boundary imply uniform cone property or only cone property?
$endgroup$
– mudok
Mar 31 at 13:04

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3160154%2finterpolation-inequality-for-holder-continuous-functions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye