Especially, an existence result was obtained under the sublinear condition (F α ) and a partially coercive assumption: x - 2 α ∑ t = 0 T F ( t, x ) → ∞ as x → ∞ for all t ∈ Z [ 0, T ]. (2).
Roughly speaking, instead of coercive assumption (2), we suppose F has a suitable oscillating behavior at infinity: lim sup r → ∞ inf x ∈ R N, x = r ∑ t = 0 T F ( t, x ) = + ∞, (3) lim inf R → ∞ sup x ∈ R N, x = R x - 2 α ∑ t = 0 T F ( t, x ) = - ∞. (4).
Remark 1.6 In Theorem 1.5 we obtain the existence of solutions for problem (1) under the assumption that f ( x, u ) is indefinite and without any coercive assumptions respect to V such as ( V 1 ′ ).
Thus, the rejection of our assumption that coercive power can be seen to bring order and discipline into the relationship as well as be effective in changing behavior was unexpected.
In spite of our assumption that coercive power can be seen to bring order and discipline into the relationship as well as be effective in changing behavior, the effects of coercive power turned out to be negative on both coordination and cooperation.
That is not to diminish the rigor of academic work and process, but I think we haven't begun to realize how powerfully coercive our a priori assumptions (the glasses through which we already look at everything) are in dictating our openness in conversations about interpretations.
Note that estimate (17) for the differential operator (A^{x}) defined by formula (4) can be proved without using coercive inequality (3) under supplementary assumption for σ.
Now, we claim that (Phi_{r}) is coercive on E. Indeed, the assumption (H1)(iii), implies that, for all (varepsilonin 0,min(1,frac{pi^{2}{{T^{2}}))), there exists (delta _{varepsilon}>0) such that, for almost every (tin[0,T]), we have biglvert f_{r} t,u bigrvert leq2varepsilon u (3.6) whenever (vert uvert >delta _{varepsilon }).
It is well known that assumption (V0) implies a coercive condition on the potential V ( x ), which was firstly introduced in [14] and is used to overcome the lack of compactness of embedding of the working space.
The traditional assumption is that offers cannot be coercive, only threats can, but throffers can challenge this.
You can't solve the problem of aggrieved male entitlement by engineering some weird and at least semi-coercive program of "enforced monogamy" built on the assumption that men inherently deserve some sort of access to women's bodies regardless of what the women inhabiting these bodies want.
