I am given this definition of quasi convexity:

$g: \mathbb{R}^{N\times n} \rightarrow [0,+\infty)$ a $C^0$ function is said quasi convex if for every $A\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times n} $

$$f(A)\; m(\Omega)\leq \int_{\Omega} f(A+\nabla \phi)dx$$

for every open bounded set $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\forall \phi \in W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega, \mathbb{R}^N)$.

The book I'm looking at consider next the following functional:

let be $f:\mathbb{R}^{N\times n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ quasi convex and $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ open and bounded it considers

$F:W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)\rightarrow [0,\infty)$ given by $F(u)=\int_{\Omega}f(\nabla u)dx.$

I was wondering about this functional and these are my doubts:

  • Why is this functional well defined? How can I say that $F<+\infty$ ?Do I need the condition of quasi convex to claim that or only the fact that the gradient is bounded and f continuos?

  • Can I generalize in this case the definition of $f$ and consider an $f$ with values in all $\mathbb{R}$? Does $F$ remai well defined?

Thank you!


If $f$ is quasiconvex it is continuous. If $u \in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ then $\nabla u$ is bounded, hence $f(\nabla u)$ is bounded too. Since $\Omega$ is a bounded set it follows that $f(\nabla u) \in L^1(\Omega)$. The full assumption of quasiconvexity isn't required.

I'm not sure what your second question is asking.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! If in the initial definition of quasi convex I consider function with values in $\mathbb{R}$ nothing of what you said changes, is it right? Thank you! $\endgroup$ – Gggl. Sep 1 '16 at 20:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ All that is needed for $F$ to be finite is that $f$ is bounded on bounded sets and $f(\nabla u)$ measurable for all $u \in W^{1,\infty}$. $\endgroup$ – Umberto P. Sep 1 '16 at 20:38

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.