0
$\begingroup$

Let $r_n \to \infty$ as $n \to \infty$. We have that $$\lVert v \rVert_{L^{r_n}(\Omega)} \leq C\lVert v \rVert_{L^{r_0}(\Omega)} < \infty$$ for all $n$, where $C$ is independent of $v$ and $n$.

Can I not just take $n \to \infty$ in this inequality to conclude that $v \in L^\infty(\Omega)$? The reason I ask is, that the author of this paper (see page 300, where my $v$ is his $u^+$) proves after proving the above quoted statement that $v \in L^\infty(\Omega)$ by a proof by contradiction.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

You totally can, since $C$ is independent of $n$. Sometimes not doing so is illustratively useful, but you can.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks.. any idea why the paper doesn't just use this around the inequality (4.19) (I don't see why it's useful to do it differently in this csae ) $\endgroup$ – StopUsingFacebook Feb 13 '16 at 18:58
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, maybe the paper is just proving this fact (that the norm converges), and it has nothing to do with the particular problem in consideration. $\endgroup$ – StopUsingFacebook Feb 13 '16 at 19:03

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.