Sign up ×
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.

Proposition 9.18 from Brezis' book mentions that if $u\in W_{0}^{1,p}(\Omega)$, then the extension of $u$ outside $\Omega$ by zero belongs to $W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ for $1<p<\infty$. I felt that this should be true for all $p\geq 1$.

Is there a counterexample where this does not hold in the case $p=1$?

The proof as given in Brezis uses the fact that $D(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is dense in $L^p(\mathbb{R}^n)$ for $1\leq p<\infty$.

Is my line of reasoning valid? We need only show that $D_{e_1}\bar{u}=\overline{(D_{e_1}u)}$


where $D_{e_i}$ represents the weak derivative on the i-th variable, $u_m$ is the sequence in $D(\Omega)$ converging to $u$ in the norm of $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ and $\phi$ belongs to $D(\mathbb{R^n})$. The overbar denotes extension of the subject outside its domain by zero.

share|cite|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Yes, you are right. Brezis excludes $p=1$ because of part (ii) of the proposition, which indeed breaks down when $p=1$. For completeness, here is a 1-dimensional example: $u=\chi_{(0,1)}$ satisfies (ii) on $\Omega=(0,1)$ but does not belong to $W^{1,1}_0(\Omega)$.

In fact, the implication you are asking about is more or less a tautology. An element $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ is represented by a sequence of $C^1_c(\Omega)$ functions $\{u_m\}$ which is Cauchy in the $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ norm. This same sequence, extended by zero, is Cauchy in the norm of $W^{1,p}(\mathbb R^n)$ and therefore represents an element of $W^{1,p}(\mathbb R^n)$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.