Guest lectures and seminars - Page 161

Dongho Chae (Chung-Ang University, Korea) will give a seminar talk entitled

On the self-similar blow-up for the compressible Euler equations

Abstract: The problem of finite time blow-up/global regularity of the 3D incompressible Euler equations is an outstanding problem in mathematical fluid mechanics. On the other hand, the scenario of self-similar type blow-up is a natural candidate of blow-ups in various nonlinear partial differential equations such as the porous medium equation and the nonlinear Schrödinger equations. We also mention that for the closely related incompressible Navier-Stokes equations the question of self-similar blow-up was raised by J. Leray in 1930, and was negatively answered by J. Necas, M. Ruzicka and V. Sverak in 1996. In this talk we present the progress of study during the last several years on the self-similar blow-up for the Euler equations.

Johanna Ridder (University of Oslo) will give a talk about

Analysis of a finite difference method for two-dimensional incompressible magnetohydrodynamics

Abstract: We consider the magnetohydrodynamics equations for a viscous incompressible resistive fluid in two dimensions. For these equations we analyse a semi-discrete finite difference scheme that is based on a staggered grid and is energy preserving. We show an a priori H^1-bound and the convergence of the scheme.

Professor B. Rajeev (India Statistical Institute, Bangalore) holder et seminar med tittelen: The Monotonicity Inequality on Hermite-Sobolev spaces.

In 1980 R. W. Thomason published a proof that CAT, the category of small categories, is a proper closed model category that is Quillen equivalent to SSet, the category of simplicial sets, with the standard model structure defined by Quillen. D-C Cisinski has since corrected the proof of left properness by replacing the central term of Dwyer morphism - a class of morphisms that Thomason believed to be the cofibrations - with a rough analogue in CAT of the NDR-pairs. The cofibrations, then, which are all retracts of Dwyer morphisms, are really the NDR-pair analogues. I will go through the main parts of Thomason's argument, incorporating Cisinski's adjustment, point out Thomason's mistake and here and there use more recent terminology from M. Hovey's book Model Categories. Towards the end I'll compare Thomason's method with modern, standardized ways of confirming a cofibrantly generated (closed) model structure, like the necessary and sufficient conditions listed in Hovey's Model Categories (thm. 2.1.19) and transferring a model structure across an adjunction by using Kan's lemma on transfer and similar results