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.

I'm reading M.E.Taylor's PDE, Vol I, Chapter 5 Linear elliptic equations. I have some problem on Proposition 1.7. I will quote it here:

Consider the following boundary problem for $u$: $$ \Delta u=0 \text{ on } \Omega, \quad u|_{\partial \Omega}=f, $$ where $f\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega)$ is given. We denote the solution to it by $$ u=\mathrm{PI} \,\,f. \tag{1} $$

Proposition 1.7. The map $(1)$ has a unique continuous extension $$ \mathrm{PI}: H^s(\partial\Omega)\rightarrow H^{s+1/2}(\Omega),\quad s\geqslant \frac{1}{2}. $$

Proof. It suffices to prove this for $s=k+1/2,\,k=0,1,2,\cdots$, by interpolation. Given $f\in H^{k+1/2}(\partial \Omega)$, there exists $F\in H^{k+1}(\Omega)$ such that $F|_{\partial\Omega}=f$, by the property of trace operator. Then $\mathrm{PI}\,\,f=F+v$, where $v$ is defined by $$ \Delta v=-\Delta F\in H^{k-1}(\Omega),\quad v\in H_0^1(\Omega). $$ The regularity result gives $v\in H^{k+1}(\Omega)$, which establishes the result for $s=k+1/2$. $\blacksquare$

Now, I know there is an extension, but where is the "continuous"?

I know $$ \Vert u\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}\leqslant \Vert F\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}+\Vert v\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)} $$ $$ \leqslant \Vert F\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}+C\Vert \Delta F\Vert_{H^{k-1}(\Omega)}+C\Vert v\Vert_{H^k(\Omega)} $$ $$ \leqslant C\Vert F\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}+C\Vert v\Vert_{H^k(\Omega)} $$ $$ \leqslant C\Vert f\Vert_{H^{k+1/2}(\partial\Omega)}+\Vert v\Vert_{H^k(\Omega)}. $$

Without the second term $\Vert v\Vert_{H^k(\Omega)}$ I can see the "continuous". But I can't remove it! So, why is it continuous?

Any advice will be appreciated!

Edit

I should assume $\Omega$ is bounded with smooth boundary before. I think $$ \Vert u\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}\leqslant \Vert F\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}+\Vert v\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}\leqslant \Vert F\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}+C\Vert \Delta F\Vert_{H^{k-1}(\Omega)}+C\Vert v\Vert_{H^k(\Omega)} $$ Can be rewrite as $$ \Vert u\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}\leqslant \Vert F\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}+\Vert v\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}\leqslant \Vert F\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}+C(k)\Vert \Delta F\Vert_{H^{-1}(\Omega)}. $$ Since $$ \Vert v\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}\leqslant C(k)\Vert v\Vert_{H^1(\Omega)}\leqslant \underbrace{C(k) \Vert \Delta F\Vert_{H^{-1}(\Omega)}\leqslant C(k) \Vert F\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}.}_{\text{I'm not sure about this}} $$ Hence we have $\Vert u\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}\leqslant C(k)\Vert f\Vert_{H^{k+1/2}(\partial\Omega)}$, which implies the "continuous"! But Here we have a constant depends on $k$(and also the diameter of $\Omega$). Can we have a uniform constant?

Edit(about $\Vert \Delta F\Vert_{H^{-1}(\Omega)}\leqslant \Vert F\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)}$)

I think this follows from $$ \Vert \Delta F\Vert_{H^{-1}(\Omega)}=\sup_{\Vert v\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}=1} \int_{\Omega}v\Delta F \leqslant \Vert \nabla F \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\leqslant \Vert F\Vert_{H^{k+1}(\Omega)} $$

share|improve this question
    
I guess it depends on elliptic estimates for solutions. –  Siminore May 7 '12 at 16:55
add comment

1 Answer

You said any advice will be appreciated, so I'll try to give you a hint, not more.

If you have a solution of a linear elliptic PDE $Lu = f$ with $u$ in $H^1_0$ and $f\in L^2$ then $$||u||_{H^1} \le C \left(||f||_{L^2} + ||u||_{L^2} \right)$$ If, however, $u$ is the unique solution of that equation, then the last term on the right hand side (the $L^2$ -norm of $u$) can be omitted, because in that case there is an estimate $$||u||_{L^2} \le C || f ||_{L^2}$$

If you don't know this here is an idea how to see that: if this were not true, there would exist sequences $u_k\in H^1_0, f_k \in L^2$ such that $L u_k = f_k$ but $$||u_k||_{L^2} \ge k || f_k ||_{L^2} $$

Wlog $||u_k||_{L^2}=1$. Now show that:

i) $f_k \rightarrow 0 $ in $L^2$

ii) a subsequence of $u_k$ converges weakly in $H^1_0$, strongly in $L^2$ (show it's bounded in $H^1_0$)

iii) the limit of $u_k$ satisfies $Lu=0$ weakly.

Conclude there is a contradiction to $||u_k||_{L2}=1$ and uniqueness.

Now check what this means for your solution of $\Delta v = - \Delta F$ with $v\in H^1_0$

(note: this is a special case of the boundedness of the inverse of $I-T$ for compact T in case $I-T$ is invertible. See e.g. Gilbarg and Trudinger's Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order, Thm 5.3)

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks very much! You show me the case $k=0$. I see $\Delta$ is a bijection form $H_0^1(\Omega)$ to $H^{-1}(\Omega)$, and $\Vert u\Vert_{H^1(\Omega)}\leqslant\Vert \Delta u\Vert_{H^{-1}(\Omega)}$. I should assume $\Omega$ is bounded with smooth boundary before. I add an edit to my question because it is a little long for the comment space. –  Y.Z May 8 '12 at 5:51
add comment

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.