2007.14260
Corrigendum to “Center Manifolds without a Phase Space”
Grégory Faye, Arnd Scheel
correcthigh confidence
- Category
- math.DS
- Journal tier
- Specialist/Solid
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:55 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
The paper defines a translation-equivariant cutoff χ via [χ(u)](x)=∫ χ(‖θ(·−y)u‖_{H^1}) θ(x−y) u(x) dy and proves properties (i)–(v) for χ and their scaled versions for χ_ε(u)=εχ(u/ε), including mapping H^1_{−η}→H^1_{−η}, χ ◦ τ=τ ◦ χ, identity on small H^1_u balls, uniform H^1_u bounds, and a global Lipschitz bound independent of ε (Lemma 2 and Corollary 3) . The candidate solution implements the same operator in the equivalent form χ_ε(u)=A_ε(u)u with A_ε=θ*α_{u,ε} and establishes (i)–(v) by a different route: a W^{1,∞} amplitude/product estimate, a Schur-type integral bound, and a uniform Fréchet-derivative estimate to deduce global Lipschitz continuity. This approach is consistent with the paper’s definition and conclusions, though the technical details differ from the paper’s patchwise H^1 estimates and direct Lipschitz splitting arguments for χ (and scaling to χ_ε) . The only minor point to flag in the paper is that part (i) sketches a bound using H^1_u notation while the domain is H^1_{−η}; this is a presentation choice, not a substantive gap. Overall, both are correct.
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions
\textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid
\textbf{Justification:}
The corrigendum proposes a technically appropriate cutoff for H\^1\_{−η}-based analyses, restoring the contraction framework needed in the original work. The construction is natural, translation-equivariant, and yields small Lipschitz constants. The arguments are sound; a couple of presentation tweaks would improve readability but do not affect correctness.