Search

The present paper investigates the following inhomogeneous generalized Hartree equation i u ˙ + Δ u = ± | u | p − 2 | x | b (I α ∗ | u | p | · | b) u , where the wave function is u : = u (t , x) : R × R N → C , with N ≥ 2 . In addition, the exponent b > 0 gives an unbounded inhomogeneous term | x | b and I α ≈ | · | − (N − α) denotes the Riesz-potential for certain 0 < α < N . In this work, our aim is to establish the local existence of solutions in some radial Sobolev spaces, as well as the global existence for small data and the decay of energy sub-critical defocusing global solutions. Our results complement the recent work (Sharp threshold of global well-posedness versus finite time blow-up for a class of inhomogeneous Choquard equations, J. Math. Phys. 60 (2019), 081514). The main challenge in this work is to overcome the singularity of the unbounded inhomogeneous term | x | b for certain b > 0 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Colebrook-White equation is often used for calculation of the friction factor in turbulent regimes; it has succeeded in attracting a great deal of attention from researchers. The Colebrook–White equation is a complex equation where the computation of the friction factor is not direct, and there is a need for trial-error methods or graphical solutions; on the other hand, several researchers have attempted to alter the Colebrook-White equation by explicit formulas with the hope of achieving zero-percent (0%) maximum deviation, among them Dejan Brkić and Pavel Praks. The goal of this paper is to discuss the results proposed by the authors in their paper:" Accurate and Efficient Explicit Approximations of the Colebrook Flow Friction Equation Based on the Wright ω-Function" and to propose more accurate formulas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author wishes to make the following correction to this paper [[1]]: Everywhere it occurs, the phrase "for every convex set HT ht dense in HT ht " should be replaced with "for every convex set HT ht dense in HT ht ". Then, in the conclusion of Theorem 1, we can replace " HT ht " with " HT ht ". Finally, in the proof of Theorem 3, we take HT ht , so that condition HT ht is actually enough to prove equality (1). [Extracted from the article]