1
$\begingroup$

Let

  • $H$ be a $\mathbb R$-Hilbert space
  • $D(\mathfrak a)$ be a dense subspace of $H$
  • $\mathfrak a:D(\mathfrak a)\times D(\mathfrak a)\to\mathbb R$ be bounded, i.e. $\exists c\ge 0$ with $$\left|\mathfrak a(u,v)\right|\le c\left\|u\right\|_{\mathfrak a}\left\|v\right\|_{\mathfrak a}\;\;\;\text{for all }u,v\in D(\mathfrak a)$$ where $$\left\|u\right\|_{\mathfrak a}:=\sqrt{\mathfrak a(u,u)+\left\|u\right\|_H^2}\;\;\;\text{for all }u\in D(\mathfrak a)$$

Now, let $$D(A):=\left\{u\in D(\mathfrak a)\mid\exists v\in H:\mathfrak a(\;\cdot\;,u)=\left.\langle\;\cdot\;,v\rangle_H\right|_{D(\mathfrak a)}\right\}\;.\tag 1$$ It's easy to see that $$u\in D(A)\Leftrightarrow u\in D(\mathfrak a)\text{ and }\mathfrak a(\;\cdot\;,u)\text{ is }H\text{-continuous}\;.\tag 2$$

I've seen that many people write $$D(A)=\left\{u\in D(\mathfrak a):\mathfrak a(\;\cdot\;,u)\in H\right\}\;.\tag 3$$ So, my question is: Why are $(1)$ and $(2)$ equivalent?

I guess $(2)$ has to be interpreted in a suitable sense. Clearly, if $u\in D(A)$, we know that $u\in D(\mathfrak a)$ such that $\mathfrak a(\;\cdot\;,u)$ is $H$-continuous. Since $D(\mathfrak a)$ is dense in $H$, there is a unique $F\in H'$ with $$\mathfrak a(\;\cdot\;,u)=\left.F\right|_{D(\mathfrak a)}$$ by the bounded linear transformation theorem. Thus, there is a unique extension of $\mathfrak a(\;\cdot\;,u)$ to $H$. Since $H'\cong H$ we could justify the notation $\mathfrak a(\;\cdot\;,u)\in H$.

For the other direction, $\mathfrak a(\;\cdot\;,u)\in H$ would imply the existence of a unique extension $F\in H'$ of $\mathfrak a(\;\cdot\;,u)$ to $H$. Since $H'\cong H$, there is a unique $v\in H$ with $$F=\langle\;\cdot\;,v\rangle_H$$ and hence $$\mathfrak a(\;\cdot\;,u)=\left.\langle\;\cdot\;,v\rangle_H\right|_{D(\mathfrak a)}\;.$$

Is this the way we need to understand $(3)$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ can you simplify your questions ? you don't need all those details. $\endgroup$ – reuns Jul 9 '16 at 13:39
  • $\begingroup$ and in general, if $T : D(X) \to Y$ is bounded with $D(X)$ a dense subspace of $X$, then it can be extended to a bounded operator $X \to Y$ by considering for each $x \in X$ a sequence $x_n \in D(X)$ such that $x_n \to x$ $\endgroup$ – reuns Jul 9 '16 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ By the way: since $\mathfrak{a}$ is bilinear, your definition of "boundedness" is trivially satisfied by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality if $\mathfrak{a}$ is non-negative, i.e., $\mathfrak{a}(u,u) \ge 0$ for all $u \in D(\mathfrak{a})$. $\endgroup$ – gerw Jul 9 '16 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ @gerw It's the definition of continuity which you can find in Definition 1.4 (3) in Analysis of Heat Equations on Domains by El Maati Ouhabaz. $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Jul 9 '16 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ @user1952009 Which "details" are you talking about? The main part of my question is my interpretation of $(3)$. And if I want to ask how I need to interpret $(3)$, I should introduce the necessary objects. $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Jul 9 '16 at 17:53
0
$\begingroup$

If you would ask me, it is meant in the sense you mentioned. Since a Hilbert space is isometric isomorphic to its dual space due to the Riesz representation theorem you can identify the functionals in $H'$ with their riesz representers in $H$. I did that frequently in my bachelor thesis. It is not the most formal way but you can give shorter definitions and assumptions by using this identification.

$\endgroup$

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.