Erratum: Propagation Effects on the Breakdown of a Linear Amplifier Model: Complex-Mass Schrodinger Equation Driven by the Square of a Gaussian Field

Abstract

The proof of the inequality ${\lambda }_q(x,t)\le (q{\mu }_{x,t}-0^{+}{)}^{-1}$ [p 750, below Eq. (29)] is based on the statement that $\mathcal{E}(x,t;s)$ is an entire function of $s\in {\mathbb{C}}^M$ [see below Eq. (30)]. But according to Equation (9) and Lemma 1, all we know is that $\mathcal{E}(x,t;s)$ is an entire function of $k(s)\in {\mathbb{R}}^N$. Nevertheless, the above inequality holds, hence the proposition 1.

REVTeX file, 3 pages, Erratum to Commun. Math. Phys. 264, 741-758 (2006) [math-ph/0505060]

References in corpus (1)

• Diffusion Effects on the Breakdown of a Linear Amplifier Model Driven by the Square of a Gaussian Field

Cited by in corpus (7)

• On the growth rate of a linear stochastic recursion with Markovian dependence
• Linear Amplifier Breakdown and Concentration Properties of a Gaussian Field Given that its ${\mathbf{L}}^2$-Norm is Large
• Schrödinger Equation Driven by the Square of a Gaussian Field: Instanton Analysis in the Large Amplification Limit
• Note on the Transition to Intermittency for the exponential of the Square of a Steinhaus Series
• Testing the Instanton Approach to the Large Amplification Limit of a Diffraction-Amplification Problem
• From the Rose-DuBois Ansatz of Hot Spot Fields to the Instanton Solution: a Pedestrian Presentation
• Wave localization does not affect the breakdown of a Schrödinger-type amplifier driven by the square of a Gaussian field