Talk:Weak formulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Notation

What does "[Au](v) = f(v)" mean?. Please, provide relevant definitions. Sirix 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, f(v) is f applied to v, and [Au](v) is in the same way Au applied to v. That's because Au takes values in the dual, so Au is a function. I did not write this stuff, but I don't know how to explain it better. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lax–Milgram theorem?

Hi! I noticed the link to the articles in other languages are to Lax–Milgram theorem. Is this correct? In the Italian wikipedia there is an article 'Formulazione debole', which is the exact translation of 'Weak formulation'. Is Lax–Milgram theorem the same as 'Weak formulation'? Correct in case I'm wrong guys. Thanks! --Luca (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Lax-Migram theorem is not the same as 'Weak formulation'. However, this 'Weak formulation' does describe the Lax-Milgram theorem, and the link to Lax–Milgram theorem points back here. Therefore, things are OK. Idially somebody would write the Lax–Milgram theorem article, but until then we are stuck with what we have. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Where should 'Formulazione debole' (italian for 'Weak formulation') point to? Now it points to 'Weak formulation', is this ok? Thanks! --Luca (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's okay as it is now. Both it:Formulazione debole and it:Lemma di Lax-Milgram point to en:Weak formulation, and en:Weak formulation points to it:Formulazione debole, so every article points to its closest equivalent. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)