Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Consider the space $H^s=H^s(\mathbb{R}^N)$, where $0<s<1$. Take any $u \in H^s$ and any smooth function $\varphi$ such that $\operatorname{supp}\varphi \subset B(0,R)$, for some radius $R>0$. Moreover, $\varphi(x)=1$ if $|x| < R/2$ and $|\nabla \varphi| \leq C/R$. Is it true that $$\lim_{R \to +\infty} \|u-\varphi u\|_{H^s}=0?$$

share|improve this question
    
You can assume that $\varphi=1$ on $B(0,R/2)$ and $\varphi=0$ outside $B(0,R)$, and that $|\nabla \varphi| \leq 2/R$. –  Siminore Apr 22 '12 at 16:12

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Edit: Well, I think I have it mostly.

First, it is true for $s=1$, which is pretty easy to verify.

Now choose $\tilde{u} \in H^1$ (or even $\tilde{u} \in C^\infty_c$) with $\| u - \tilde{u} \|_{H^s}< \epsilon$. We have by the triangle inequality $$\| u - \varphi u \|_{H^s} \le \| u - \tilde{u} \|_{H^s} + \| \tilde{u} - \varphi \tilde{u}\|_{H^s} + \| \varphi \cdot (u-\tilde{u}) \|_{H^s}.$$ The first term is at most $\epsilon$. The second term is bounded by $\| \tilde{u} - \varphi\tilde{u}\|_{H^1}$ (since $\| \cdot \|_{H^s} \le \| \cdot \|_{H^r}$ whenever $s < r$, which is easy to verify), and this goes to 0 as $R \to \infty$.

For the third term, I would like to claim $\|\varphi v\|_{H^s} \le C \|v\|_{H^s}$ whenever $\varphi \in C^\infty_c$, as is the case here (i.e. $v \mapsto \varphi v$ is continuous on $H^s$). Since it is true for $s=0$ and $s=1$, we should be able to invoke some interpolation theorem and get it for all $s \in (0,1)$. But there should be an easy way too, I just don't see it. It's worth noting that by the closed graph theorem, it would suffice to show $\varphi v \in H^s$ whenever $v \in H^s$.

share|improve this answer
    
Could you give the details for $s=1$? –  Davide Giraudo Apr 22 '12 at 16:50
2  
When $s=1$, it is a standard tool of PDE's. Just expand the gradient of the product $\varphi u$ and look at the integrals. –  Siminore Apr 22 '12 at 16:56
    
Actually, the suggested solution is wrong: we have a function in $H^s$, but we cannot assume it lies in $H^1$. Too easy to be correct, sorry. –  Siminore Apr 22 '12 at 17:35
    
@Siminore: Oh, good point. But I think a density argument will sort it out. I'll try and update later today. –  Nate Eldredge Apr 22 '12 at 17:40
    
@Siminore: I edited, though I don't see quite how to do the last step. –  Nate Eldredge Apr 22 '12 at 20:35

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.