3
$\begingroup$

Let $\Omega$ be a nice bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and let $2^*=2n/(n-2)$ for $n>2$ or anything finite for $n\leq2$, i.e., the Sobolev exponent. Then, for any $p\leq 2^*$, one has $$ \|u\|_p\leq C\| u\|_{H^1}\leq C\|\nabla u\|_2+C\|u\|_2. $$ Furthermore, if $p<2^*$, then we have a strong inequality with epsilon: for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $C_\epsilon>0$ such that $$ \|u\|_p\leq \epsilon\|\nabla u\|_2+C_\epsilon\|u\|_2, \quad \quad \forall u\in H^1(\Omega). $$ See "Why is this estimate using a compact embedding in a sobolev space true?" Now, I wish to show that the above inequality continues to hold for $2^*$: for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $C_\epsilon>0$ such that $$ \|u\|_{2^*}\leq \epsilon\|\nabla u\|_2+C_\epsilon\|u\|_2, \quad \quad \forall u\in H^1(\Omega). \tag{C-S-I} $$ Note the continuity of $L^p$ norm: $\|u\|_p\rightarrow \|u\|_{2^*}$ as $p\rightarrow 2^*$ and the interpolation inequalities bwteen Sobolev spaces.I guess (C-S-I) is true. While, I do not know how to prove or disprove (C-S-I) (mainly one case $n>2$). I tried to argue it by contradiction, but not succeeded. Any help is greatly appreciated!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think this can really help you: mathoverflow.net/questions/81034/…. $\endgroup$ – Micael Jun 28 '15 at 6:00
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you Micael! Due to the lacking of compact embedding, (C-I-S) may be disproved via the example listed there. $\endgroup$ – teh Jun 29 '15 at 3:42
  • $\begingroup$ @1999. Yeah, you modified the example in Micael's link. Due to the lack of compact embedding from $H^1$ into $L^{2^*}$, (C-I-S) is indeed incorrect. I thus strengthened it to a new version, see math.stackexchange.com/questions/1342920/… Also, since $\|u_t\|_2=\|u\|_2$, why $\|u_t\|_2\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$ if $u\not\equiv 0$. $\endgroup$ – teh Jun 30 '15 at 5:00
1
$\begingroup$

For completeness, here is the counterexample for $p=2^*$. Let $u$ be any nice compactly supported function. For $t>0$, define $u_t(x) = t^{n/p} u(tx)$. This function has the same $L^2$ norm as $u$. Also, $\nabla u_t(x) = t^{1+n/p} \nabla u(tx)$ which implies $$\|\nabla u\|_2^2 = t^{2(1+n/p) - n}\|\nabla u\|^2=\|\nabla u\|^2$$ because $n/p = n(n-2)/(2n) = n/2-1$.

On the other hand, $\|u_t\|_{2}\to 0$ as $t\to\infty$. Fix $\epsilon<\|u\|_p/\|\nabla u\|_2$ and observe that the ratio $$\frac{\|u_t\|_p-\epsilon\|\nabla u_t\|_2}{\|u_t\|_2}$$ tends to $+\infty$ as $t\to\infty$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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