In terms of analysis on fractals, the Sierpinski gasket stands out as one of the most studied example.
The underlying aim of those studies is to determine a differential operator equivalent to the classic Laplacian.
The classically adopted approach is a bidimensional one, through a sequence of so-called prefractals, i.e. a sequence of graphs that converges towards the considered domain.
The Laplacian is obtained through a weak formulation, by means of Dirichlet forms, built by induction on the prefractals.
It turns out that the gasket is also the image of a Peano curve, the so-called Arrowhead one, obtained by means of similarities from a starting point which is the unit line.
This raises a question that appears of interest. Dirichlet forms solely depend on the topology of the domain, and not of its geometry.
Which means that, if one aims at building a Laplacian on a fractal domain as the aforementioned curve, the topology of which is the same as, for instance, a line segment, one has to find a way of taking account its specific geometry.
Another difference due to the geometry, is encountered may one want to build a specific measure.
For memory, the sub-cells of the Kigami and Strichartz approach are triangular and closed: the similarities at stake in the building of the Curve called for semi-closed trapezoids.
As far as we know, and until now, such an approach is not a common one, and does not appear in such a context.
It intererestingly happens that the measure we choose corresponds, in a sense, to the natural counting measure on the curve.
Also, it is in perfect accordance with the one used in the Kigami and Strichartz approach.
In doing so, we make the comparison -- and the link -- between three different approaches, that enable one to obtain the Laplacian on the arrowhead curve: the natural method; the Kigami and Strichartz approach, using decimation; the Mosco approach.
Laplacian, on the Arrowhead Curve
