Understanding the motivation for the answer in Generalizing ODEs to Banach Spaces
I am trying to understand this Answer: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2366187/597047 as I am curious about it.
- I do not fully understand what $Phi$ represents. What is the analogue of $Phi$ in the finite-dimensional case? What is meant by "solution mapping"?
- I do not know what the motivation is for setting $||A||_k$, $||B||_k$, and $l_1, ; l_2$ the way they are written. Why does /u/fourierwho write them this way? What is the motivation?
I greatly appreciate any help.
real-analysis differential-equations
add a comment |
I am trying to understand this Answer: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2366187/597047 as I am curious about it.
- I do not fully understand what $Phi$ represents. What is the analogue of $Phi$ in the finite-dimensional case? What is meant by "solution mapping"?
- I do not know what the motivation is for setting $||A||_k$, $||B||_k$, and $l_1, ; l_2$ the way they are written. Why does /u/fourierwho write them this way? What is the motivation?
I greatly appreciate any help.
real-analysis differential-equations
add a comment |
I am trying to understand this Answer: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2366187/597047 as I am curious about it.
- I do not fully understand what $Phi$ represents. What is the analogue of $Phi$ in the finite-dimensional case? What is meant by "solution mapping"?
- I do not know what the motivation is for setting $||A||_k$, $||B||_k$, and $l_1, ; l_2$ the way they are written. Why does /u/fourierwho write them this way? What is the motivation?
I greatly appreciate any help.
real-analysis differential-equations
I am trying to understand this Answer: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2366187/597047 as I am curious about it.
- I do not fully understand what $Phi$ represents. What is the analogue of $Phi$ in the finite-dimensional case? What is meant by "solution mapping"?
- I do not know what the motivation is for setting $||A||_k$, $||B||_k$, and $l_1, ; l_2$ the way they are written. Why does /u/fourierwho write them this way? What is the motivation?
I greatly appreciate any help.
real-analysis differential-equations
real-analysis differential-equations
asked Nov 6 at 20:02
Nalt
686
686
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
This is the map of the Picard iteration, for $dot x(t)=f(t,x(t))$ it is
$$ Phi(x)(t)=x(t_0)+int_{t_0}^tf(s, x(s)),ds $$
$|cdot|_K$ indicates that the norm is the supremum/maximum over the time segment $K$. $$|F|_K=sup_{tin K}|F(t)|$$ where $|F(t)|$ is the norm of the space that $F(t)$ belongs to.
As solutions of linear ODE and also their differences may grow exponentially in time, this might be an obstacle in the proof that $Phi$ is a contraction mapping. Thus this kind of proof needs a restriction of the time domain of the function space it considers $Phi$ over. The introduction of $R$ is unnecessary, there is no need for the metric space to be bounded in the Banach fixed-point theorem.
Another kind of proof counters the (potentially) exponential growth of the solutions (as predicted by the bound of the Grönwall lemma) by a faster falling exponential weight factor in a modified maximum norm, $$|x|_L=max_{tin K}e^{-2L|t-t_0|}|x(t)|,~~~L=|A|_K.$$ In this norm $Phi$ has contraction factor $frac12$ over the space ${scr C}=C(K,E)$ and thus a fixed point in that space that the same way then turns out to also be both in $C^1(K,E)$ and a solution of the ODE, no further assembly necessary.
Why does the modified norm work: For prior detailed computations see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/838568/115115 or Inequality in the proof of unique solution of an ODE.
More generally using the Lipschitz property in the localized form, here $L(t)=|A(t)|$, you get for the local differences of the Picard iteration the inequality
$$|Φ(z)(t)-Φ(y)(t)|leint_{t_0}^t L(s)|z(s)-y(s)|.$$
To bound the local differences in the integrand on the right side against a global constant use some weighted sup norm $$|x|_w=sup_{tin I}frac{|x(t)|}{w(t)}.$$ Then the right side is further bounded by
$$...leint_{t_0}^t L(s)w(s),ds;|z-y|_w.$$
Now the norm estimate would be complete if the last expression were just smaller than $q,w(t);|z-y|_w$ with some $0<q<1$, as then $$|Φ(z)-Φ(y)|_wle q;|z-y|_w.$$ Make $w$ the solution to $qdot w(t)=L(t)w(t)$, $w(t_0)=1$, so that $w(t)=exp(int_{t_0}^tL(s)ds/q)$. Then the integral value is $$int_{t_0}^t L(s)w(s),ds=q(w(t)-1)<qw(t)$$ as required.
Usually one would take $L$ a constant maximizing the individual $L(t)$ values over bounded sub-intervals. However, this is often not necessary, see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2973201/115115 where a non-constant $L(t)$ is used to get a different, better adapted weight function.
Can you explain to me why the potential exponential growth of solution would be a bad thing for the contraction mapping theorem? Why do we care?
– Nalt
Nov 8 at 18:48
The standard proof uses that $f$ is bounded over some rectangular/cylindrical domain so that possible solutions stay in a cone. Then on that region you get a local Lipschitz constant and restrict the region even more so that Banach fixed-point theorem assumptions are satisfied. Then you need to splice together all these small solution patches to get a more global solution. In some cases one can avoid all that nastiness by, among other methods, using this modified norm that gives contraction independent of the length of the time interval.
– LutzL
Nov 8 at 19:00
I see your edit and it seems I've found the rabbit hole. Thank you so much. This is all very interesting.
– Nalt
Nov 8 at 22:23
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2987629%2funderstanding-the-motivation-for-the-answer-in-generalizing-odes-to-banach-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is the map of the Picard iteration, for $dot x(t)=f(t,x(t))$ it is
$$ Phi(x)(t)=x(t_0)+int_{t_0}^tf(s, x(s)),ds $$
$|cdot|_K$ indicates that the norm is the supremum/maximum over the time segment $K$. $$|F|_K=sup_{tin K}|F(t)|$$ where $|F(t)|$ is the norm of the space that $F(t)$ belongs to.
As solutions of linear ODE and also their differences may grow exponentially in time, this might be an obstacle in the proof that $Phi$ is a contraction mapping. Thus this kind of proof needs a restriction of the time domain of the function space it considers $Phi$ over. The introduction of $R$ is unnecessary, there is no need for the metric space to be bounded in the Banach fixed-point theorem.
Another kind of proof counters the (potentially) exponential growth of the solutions (as predicted by the bound of the Grönwall lemma) by a faster falling exponential weight factor in a modified maximum norm, $$|x|_L=max_{tin K}e^{-2L|t-t_0|}|x(t)|,~~~L=|A|_K.$$ In this norm $Phi$ has contraction factor $frac12$ over the space ${scr C}=C(K,E)$ and thus a fixed point in that space that the same way then turns out to also be both in $C^1(K,E)$ and a solution of the ODE, no further assembly necessary.
Why does the modified norm work: For prior detailed computations see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/838568/115115 or Inequality in the proof of unique solution of an ODE.
More generally using the Lipschitz property in the localized form, here $L(t)=|A(t)|$, you get for the local differences of the Picard iteration the inequality
$$|Φ(z)(t)-Φ(y)(t)|leint_{t_0}^t L(s)|z(s)-y(s)|.$$
To bound the local differences in the integrand on the right side against a global constant use some weighted sup norm $$|x|_w=sup_{tin I}frac{|x(t)|}{w(t)}.$$ Then the right side is further bounded by
$$...leint_{t_0}^t L(s)w(s),ds;|z-y|_w.$$
Now the norm estimate would be complete if the last expression were just smaller than $q,w(t);|z-y|_w$ with some $0<q<1$, as then $$|Φ(z)-Φ(y)|_wle q;|z-y|_w.$$ Make $w$ the solution to $qdot w(t)=L(t)w(t)$, $w(t_0)=1$, so that $w(t)=exp(int_{t_0}^tL(s)ds/q)$. Then the integral value is $$int_{t_0}^t L(s)w(s),ds=q(w(t)-1)<qw(t)$$ as required.
Usually one would take $L$ a constant maximizing the individual $L(t)$ values over bounded sub-intervals. However, this is often not necessary, see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2973201/115115 where a non-constant $L(t)$ is used to get a different, better adapted weight function.
Can you explain to me why the potential exponential growth of solution would be a bad thing for the contraction mapping theorem? Why do we care?
– Nalt
Nov 8 at 18:48
The standard proof uses that $f$ is bounded over some rectangular/cylindrical domain so that possible solutions stay in a cone. Then on that region you get a local Lipschitz constant and restrict the region even more so that Banach fixed-point theorem assumptions are satisfied. Then you need to splice together all these small solution patches to get a more global solution. In some cases one can avoid all that nastiness by, among other methods, using this modified norm that gives contraction independent of the length of the time interval.
– LutzL
Nov 8 at 19:00
I see your edit and it seems I've found the rabbit hole. Thank you so much. This is all very interesting.
– Nalt
Nov 8 at 22:23
add a comment |
This is the map of the Picard iteration, for $dot x(t)=f(t,x(t))$ it is
$$ Phi(x)(t)=x(t_0)+int_{t_0}^tf(s, x(s)),ds $$
$|cdot|_K$ indicates that the norm is the supremum/maximum over the time segment $K$. $$|F|_K=sup_{tin K}|F(t)|$$ where $|F(t)|$ is the norm of the space that $F(t)$ belongs to.
As solutions of linear ODE and also their differences may grow exponentially in time, this might be an obstacle in the proof that $Phi$ is a contraction mapping. Thus this kind of proof needs a restriction of the time domain of the function space it considers $Phi$ over. The introduction of $R$ is unnecessary, there is no need for the metric space to be bounded in the Banach fixed-point theorem.
Another kind of proof counters the (potentially) exponential growth of the solutions (as predicted by the bound of the Grönwall lemma) by a faster falling exponential weight factor in a modified maximum norm, $$|x|_L=max_{tin K}e^{-2L|t-t_0|}|x(t)|,~~~L=|A|_K.$$ In this norm $Phi$ has contraction factor $frac12$ over the space ${scr C}=C(K,E)$ and thus a fixed point in that space that the same way then turns out to also be both in $C^1(K,E)$ and a solution of the ODE, no further assembly necessary.
Why does the modified norm work: For prior detailed computations see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/838568/115115 or Inequality in the proof of unique solution of an ODE.
More generally using the Lipschitz property in the localized form, here $L(t)=|A(t)|$, you get for the local differences of the Picard iteration the inequality
$$|Φ(z)(t)-Φ(y)(t)|leint_{t_0}^t L(s)|z(s)-y(s)|.$$
To bound the local differences in the integrand on the right side against a global constant use some weighted sup norm $$|x|_w=sup_{tin I}frac{|x(t)|}{w(t)}.$$ Then the right side is further bounded by
$$...leint_{t_0}^t L(s)w(s),ds;|z-y|_w.$$
Now the norm estimate would be complete if the last expression were just smaller than $q,w(t);|z-y|_w$ with some $0<q<1$, as then $$|Φ(z)-Φ(y)|_wle q;|z-y|_w.$$ Make $w$ the solution to $qdot w(t)=L(t)w(t)$, $w(t_0)=1$, so that $w(t)=exp(int_{t_0}^tL(s)ds/q)$. Then the integral value is $$int_{t_0}^t L(s)w(s),ds=q(w(t)-1)<qw(t)$$ as required.
Usually one would take $L$ a constant maximizing the individual $L(t)$ values over bounded sub-intervals. However, this is often not necessary, see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2973201/115115 where a non-constant $L(t)$ is used to get a different, better adapted weight function.
Can you explain to me why the potential exponential growth of solution would be a bad thing for the contraction mapping theorem? Why do we care?
– Nalt
Nov 8 at 18:48
The standard proof uses that $f$ is bounded over some rectangular/cylindrical domain so that possible solutions stay in a cone. Then on that region you get a local Lipschitz constant and restrict the region even more so that Banach fixed-point theorem assumptions are satisfied. Then you need to splice together all these small solution patches to get a more global solution. In some cases one can avoid all that nastiness by, among other methods, using this modified norm that gives contraction independent of the length of the time interval.
– LutzL
Nov 8 at 19:00
I see your edit and it seems I've found the rabbit hole. Thank you so much. This is all very interesting.
– Nalt
Nov 8 at 22:23
add a comment |
This is the map of the Picard iteration, for $dot x(t)=f(t,x(t))$ it is
$$ Phi(x)(t)=x(t_0)+int_{t_0}^tf(s, x(s)),ds $$
$|cdot|_K$ indicates that the norm is the supremum/maximum over the time segment $K$. $$|F|_K=sup_{tin K}|F(t)|$$ where $|F(t)|$ is the norm of the space that $F(t)$ belongs to.
As solutions of linear ODE and also their differences may grow exponentially in time, this might be an obstacle in the proof that $Phi$ is a contraction mapping. Thus this kind of proof needs a restriction of the time domain of the function space it considers $Phi$ over. The introduction of $R$ is unnecessary, there is no need for the metric space to be bounded in the Banach fixed-point theorem.
Another kind of proof counters the (potentially) exponential growth of the solutions (as predicted by the bound of the Grönwall lemma) by a faster falling exponential weight factor in a modified maximum norm, $$|x|_L=max_{tin K}e^{-2L|t-t_0|}|x(t)|,~~~L=|A|_K.$$ In this norm $Phi$ has contraction factor $frac12$ over the space ${scr C}=C(K,E)$ and thus a fixed point in that space that the same way then turns out to also be both in $C^1(K,E)$ and a solution of the ODE, no further assembly necessary.
Why does the modified norm work: For prior detailed computations see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/838568/115115 or Inequality in the proof of unique solution of an ODE.
More generally using the Lipschitz property in the localized form, here $L(t)=|A(t)|$, you get for the local differences of the Picard iteration the inequality
$$|Φ(z)(t)-Φ(y)(t)|leint_{t_0}^t L(s)|z(s)-y(s)|.$$
To bound the local differences in the integrand on the right side against a global constant use some weighted sup norm $$|x|_w=sup_{tin I}frac{|x(t)|}{w(t)}.$$ Then the right side is further bounded by
$$...leint_{t_0}^t L(s)w(s),ds;|z-y|_w.$$
Now the norm estimate would be complete if the last expression were just smaller than $q,w(t);|z-y|_w$ with some $0<q<1$, as then $$|Φ(z)-Φ(y)|_wle q;|z-y|_w.$$ Make $w$ the solution to $qdot w(t)=L(t)w(t)$, $w(t_0)=1$, so that $w(t)=exp(int_{t_0}^tL(s)ds/q)$. Then the integral value is $$int_{t_0}^t L(s)w(s),ds=q(w(t)-1)<qw(t)$$ as required.
Usually one would take $L$ a constant maximizing the individual $L(t)$ values over bounded sub-intervals. However, this is often not necessary, see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2973201/115115 where a non-constant $L(t)$ is used to get a different, better adapted weight function.
This is the map of the Picard iteration, for $dot x(t)=f(t,x(t))$ it is
$$ Phi(x)(t)=x(t_0)+int_{t_0}^tf(s, x(s)),ds $$
$|cdot|_K$ indicates that the norm is the supremum/maximum over the time segment $K$. $$|F|_K=sup_{tin K}|F(t)|$$ where $|F(t)|$ is the norm of the space that $F(t)$ belongs to.
As solutions of linear ODE and also their differences may grow exponentially in time, this might be an obstacle in the proof that $Phi$ is a contraction mapping. Thus this kind of proof needs a restriction of the time domain of the function space it considers $Phi$ over. The introduction of $R$ is unnecessary, there is no need for the metric space to be bounded in the Banach fixed-point theorem.
Another kind of proof counters the (potentially) exponential growth of the solutions (as predicted by the bound of the Grönwall lemma) by a faster falling exponential weight factor in a modified maximum norm, $$|x|_L=max_{tin K}e^{-2L|t-t_0|}|x(t)|,~~~L=|A|_K.$$ In this norm $Phi$ has contraction factor $frac12$ over the space ${scr C}=C(K,E)$ and thus a fixed point in that space that the same way then turns out to also be both in $C^1(K,E)$ and a solution of the ODE, no further assembly necessary.
Why does the modified norm work: For prior detailed computations see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/838568/115115 or Inequality in the proof of unique solution of an ODE.
More generally using the Lipschitz property in the localized form, here $L(t)=|A(t)|$, you get for the local differences of the Picard iteration the inequality
$$|Φ(z)(t)-Φ(y)(t)|leint_{t_0}^t L(s)|z(s)-y(s)|.$$
To bound the local differences in the integrand on the right side against a global constant use some weighted sup norm $$|x|_w=sup_{tin I}frac{|x(t)|}{w(t)}.$$ Then the right side is further bounded by
$$...leint_{t_0}^t L(s)w(s),ds;|z-y|_w.$$
Now the norm estimate would be complete if the last expression were just smaller than $q,w(t);|z-y|_w$ with some $0<q<1$, as then $$|Φ(z)-Φ(y)|_wle q;|z-y|_w.$$ Make $w$ the solution to $qdot w(t)=L(t)w(t)$, $w(t_0)=1$, so that $w(t)=exp(int_{t_0}^tL(s)ds/q)$. Then the integral value is $$int_{t_0}^t L(s)w(s),ds=q(w(t)-1)<qw(t)$$ as required.
Usually one would take $L$ a constant maximizing the individual $L(t)$ values over bounded sub-intervals. However, this is often not necessary, see https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2973201/115115 where a non-constant $L(t)$ is used to get a different, better adapted weight function.
edited Nov 26 at 12:08
answered Nov 6 at 23:21
LutzL
55.8k42054
55.8k42054
Can you explain to me why the potential exponential growth of solution would be a bad thing for the contraction mapping theorem? Why do we care?
– Nalt
Nov 8 at 18:48
The standard proof uses that $f$ is bounded over some rectangular/cylindrical domain so that possible solutions stay in a cone. Then on that region you get a local Lipschitz constant and restrict the region even more so that Banach fixed-point theorem assumptions are satisfied. Then you need to splice together all these small solution patches to get a more global solution. In some cases one can avoid all that nastiness by, among other methods, using this modified norm that gives contraction independent of the length of the time interval.
– LutzL
Nov 8 at 19:00
I see your edit and it seems I've found the rabbit hole. Thank you so much. This is all very interesting.
– Nalt
Nov 8 at 22:23
add a comment |
Can you explain to me why the potential exponential growth of solution would be a bad thing for the contraction mapping theorem? Why do we care?
– Nalt
Nov 8 at 18:48
The standard proof uses that $f$ is bounded over some rectangular/cylindrical domain so that possible solutions stay in a cone. Then on that region you get a local Lipschitz constant and restrict the region even more so that Banach fixed-point theorem assumptions are satisfied. Then you need to splice together all these small solution patches to get a more global solution. In some cases one can avoid all that nastiness by, among other methods, using this modified norm that gives contraction independent of the length of the time interval.
– LutzL
Nov 8 at 19:00
I see your edit and it seems I've found the rabbit hole. Thank you so much. This is all very interesting.
– Nalt
Nov 8 at 22:23
Can you explain to me why the potential exponential growth of solution would be a bad thing for the contraction mapping theorem? Why do we care?
– Nalt
Nov 8 at 18:48
Can you explain to me why the potential exponential growth of solution would be a bad thing for the contraction mapping theorem? Why do we care?
– Nalt
Nov 8 at 18:48
The standard proof uses that $f$ is bounded over some rectangular/cylindrical domain so that possible solutions stay in a cone. Then on that region you get a local Lipschitz constant and restrict the region even more so that Banach fixed-point theorem assumptions are satisfied. Then you need to splice together all these small solution patches to get a more global solution. In some cases one can avoid all that nastiness by, among other methods, using this modified norm that gives contraction independent of the length of the time interval.
– LutzL
Nov 8 at 19:00
The standard proof uses that $f$ is bounded over some rectangular/cylindrical domain so that possible solutions stay in a cone. Then on that region you get a local Lipschitz constant and restrict the region even more so that Banach fixed-point theorem assumptions are satisfied. Then you need to splice together all these small solution patches to get a more global solution. In some cases one can avoid all that nastiness by, among other methods, using this modified norm that gives contraction independent of the length of the time interval.
– LutzL
Nov 8 at 19:00
I see your edit and it seems I've found the rabbit hole. Thank you so much. This is all very interesting.
– Nalt
Nov 8 at 22:23
I see your edit and it seems I've found the rabbit hole. Thank you so much. This is all very interesting.
– Nalt
Nov 8 at 22:23
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2987629%2funderstanding-the-motivation-for-the-answer-in-generalizing-odes-to-banach-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown