2011
DOI: 10.1007/s00020-011-1882-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Essential Self-adjointness of Magnetic Schrödinger Operators on Locally Finite Graphs

Abstract: We give sufficient conditions for essential self-adjointness of magnetic Schrödinger operators on locally finite graphs. Two of the main results of the present paper generalize recent results of Torki-Hamza. Mathematics Subject Classification (2000). Primary 35J10, 47B25; Secondary 05C63.

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
50
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
(58 reference statements)
0
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While the first reference does not allow magnetic fields and negative potentials, the second one assumes a uniformly bounded vertex degree, a condition that we will avoid by using the concept of intrinsic metrics. The proof works analogously to [34]. We refer also to [36] for results in this direction.…”
Section: Remark 217 (A) Theorem 216 Is a Generalization Of [23 Cormentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…While the first reference does not allow magnetic fields and negative potentials, the second one assumes a uniformly bounded vertex degree, a condition that we will avoid by using the concept of intrinsic metrics. The proof works analogously to [34]. We refer also to [36] for results in this direction.…”
Section: Remark 217 (A) Theorem 216 Is a Generalization Of [23 Cormentioning
confidence: 90%
“…and [34,Theorem 1.5]. While the first reference does not allow magnetic fields and negative potentials, the second one assumes a uniformly bounded vertex degree, a condition that we will avoid by using the concept of intrinsic metrics.…”
Section: Remark 217 (A) Theorem 216 Is a Generalization Of [23 Cormentioning
confidence: 98%
“…It is easy to see that for every k ∈ R, there exists a function u ∈ C c (V ) such that the inequality (10) is not satisfied. Thus, the operator H is not semi-bounded from below, and we cannot use [11,Theorem 1.3]. Turning to hypotheses of Theorem 1, note that W satisfies (7) with q(n) = n 2 .…”
Section: Remarkmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Thanks to assumption (10), the proof of [11,Theorem 1.3] reduced to showing that if u ∈ Dom(H max ), with H max as in Section 3, and (H + λ)u = 0 with sufficiently large λ > 0, then u = 0. To this end, a sequence of cut-off functions was constructed and a ''summation by parts'' method was used.…”
Section: Remarkmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation