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.

Assume $u\in H^1(U)$ is a bounded weak solution of $$-\sum_{i,j=1}^n(a^{ij}u_{x_i})_{x_j}=0 ~~~in~ U$$

Let $\phi:R\rightarrow R$ be convex and smooth,and set $w=\phi(u)$ Show $w$ is a weak subsolution; that is $$B[w,v]\leq 0$$

for all $v\in H^1_0(U),~v\geq0$ $$B=\int_U \sum_{i,j=1}^na^{ij}v_{x_i}w_{x_j}$$

I used integration by part and eliptic property, actually my problem is that I don't know when $\phi$ is convex $\phi'(u)$ is positive or not?or

$$\int_U \sum_{i,j=1}^na^{ij}u_{x_jx_j}v\phi'(u)dx$$ is positive?

share|improve this question
3  
Please define $B$. –  Tomás Dec 30 '12 at 14:43
1  
This is not the place to just ask people to do your homework. You should show some work of your own. And use homework tag if it's homework. –  tomasz Dec 30 '12 at 14:43
    
@Tomás I'm going to guess that $B[w,v]=\int_U a^{ij} w_{x_i} v_{x_j}$. And yes, user54688 should add something to the post, like the assumptions on $a^{ij}$ in addition to what tomasz said. –  user53153 Dec 31 '12 at 3:03
    
$\phi$ convex implies that $\phi''\geq 0$. Try to write $B[w,v]$ in terms of $\phi''$ and see what happens. –  Tomás Jan 1 '13 at 15:07

1 Answer 1

Im gonna use here the Einstein summation convention and $\frac{\partial v}{\partial x_i}=v_i$. Also, Im gonna assume ellipticity on $(a_{ij})$ and that $w\in H^1$, because that only with your hypothesis this is not always true. Note that $(v\in C_0^1(U),\ v\geq 0)$\begin{eqnarray} B[w,v] &=& \int_U a_{ij}v_iw_j \nonumber \\ &=& \int_U a_{ij}\phi'(u)u_iv_j \nonumber \\ &=& \int_U a_{ij}u_i(\phi'(u)v)_j-\int_U(a_{ij}u_iu_j)v\phi''(u) \end{eqnarray}

To conclude, you have to show that $\phi'(u)v\in H_0^1$ and $-(a_{ij}u_iu_j)v\phi''(u)\leq 0$, then you use the fact that $C_0^1$ is dense in $H_0^1$. Can you do this?

share|improve this answer
1  
The real pros of Einstein summation use sub-superscript pairing... –  user53153 Jan 2 '13 at 20:13
    
Please @PavelM, explain me the difference. –  Tomás Jan 2 '13 at 21:11
1  
I was mostly kidding, but anyway: it is useful and often necessary to distinguish between a vector space $V$ and its dual $V^*$, even though in finite dimensions they are isomorphic. So one has a basis $(e^i)$ for $V$ and a basis $(f_i)$ for $V^*$. The coordinates are set in opposite way: $x=x_i e^i$ and $f=f^i x_i$. This helps one visually identify the expressions that are invariant under change of basis: $f^i x_i$ is invariant while $x_i x_i$ is not. // As Wikipedia says, when working with fixed basis on $\mathbb R^n$ one may identify $V$ and $V^*$, but on manifolds this would make a mess. –  user53153 Jan 2 '13 at 21:29
    
Also, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariance_and_contravariance_of_vectors –  user53153 Jan 2 '13 at 21:30
    
Ok thank you @PavelM . Im really learning a lot from you and I really apreciate your efforts to help people improve their skills. –  Tomás Jan 2 '13 at 21:40

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.