0
$\begingroup$

Let $X,Y,Z$ be $\mathbb R$-Banach spaces and $\mathfrak b:X\times Y\to Z$ be bilinear. $\mathfrak b$ is called bounded $:\Leftrightarrow$ $\exists C\ge0$ with $$\left\|\mathfrak b(x,y)\right\|_Z\le C\left\|x\right\|_X\left\|y\right\|_Y\;\;\;\text{for all }(x,y)\in X\times Y\;.\tag1$$

If $X=Y$ is a $\mathbb R$-Hilbert space and $Z=\mathbb R$, such $\mathfrak b$ are considered in the Lax-Milgram theorem. In that case, suppose we have $$\left|\mathfrak b(x,y)\right|\le C\left\|x\right\|_X^{\color{red}2}\left\|y\right\|_X\;\;\;\text{for all }x,y\in X\tag2$$ instead of $(1)$. Moreover, assume that $\mathfrak b$ is coercive and $\ell$ is a bounded linear functional on $X$. Are we still able to show that $$\mathfrak b(x,y)=\ell(y)\;\;\;\text{for all }y\in Y\tag3$$ for some unique $x\in X$?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ My first impression is that your modified condition is equivalent to boundedness for a bilinear form $b(x,y)$. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Mar 3 '17 at 20:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A simple homogeneity argument shows that if $\mathfrak b$ satisfies (2) then it vanishes identically. $\endgroup$ – Umberto P. Mar 3 '17 at 20:52
  • $\begingroup$ @hardmath $\mathfrak b$ is bilinear. And I don't think that $(1)$ and $(2)$ are equivalent. $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Mar 3 '17 at 20:56
  • $\begingroup$ As @UmbertoP. shows, (2) implies (1) in an especially strong way. So strongly that (1) does not imply (2), and in that sense they are not equivalent. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Mar 3 '17 at 21:16
  • $\begingroup$ @hardmath What? The especially strong way is that the bilinear form must be identically $0$. $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Mar 3 '17 at 21:19
1
$\begingroup$

Suppose that $\newcommand{\b}{\mathfrak b} \b$ is a bilinear form satisfying $$|\b(x,y)| \le C \|x\|^2 \|y\|.$$ Let $x,y \in X$ be arbitrary and let $t > 0$. Then $$|\b(tx,y)| \le C \|tx\|^2 \|y\|$$ from which it follows that $$t|\b(x,y)| \le Ct^2 \|x\|^2 \|y\|$$ and $$|\b(x,y)| \le Ct\|x\|^2 \|y\|.$$ Now let $t \to 0^+$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Let $$\mathfrak b(u,v,w):=\mathfrak b(u,v,w):=\langle((u\cdot\nabla)v,w\rangle_{L^2(\Lambda,\:\mathbb R^d)}\;\;\;\text{for }u,v,w\in H_0^1(\Lambda,\mathbb R^d)$$ for a suitable $\Lambda\subseteq\mathbb R^d$ such that $\mathfrak b$ is well-defined. It's well-known that $\mathfrak b$ is a bounded trilinear form on $H_0^1(\Lambda,\mathbb R^d)$. So, $$\left|\mathfrak b(u,u,v)\right|\le C\left\|u\right\|_{H^1(\Lambda,\:\mathbb R^d)}^2\left\|v\right\|_{H^1(\Lambda,\:\mathbb R^d)}\;\;\;\text{for all }u,v\in H_0^1(\Lambda,\mathbb R^d)$$ for some $C\ge0$. $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Mar 3 '17 at 21:01
  • $\begingroup$ $(u,v)\mapsto\mathfrak b(u,u,v)$ (call it $\tilde{\mathfrak b}$) is the inertia term occurring in the weak form of the Navier-Stokes equation and this bilinear form motivated my question. It's not identically zero. So, what am I missing? $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Mar 3 '17 at 21:02
  • $\begingroup$ If $b$ is trilinear you get $t^2$ on the left side, obviously. $\endgroup$ – Umberto P. Mar 3 '17 at 21:03
  • $\begingroup$ $\tilde{\mathfrak b}$ is bilinear with $(2)$. With your argumentation, $\tilde{\mathfrak b}=0$. $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Mar 3 '17 at 21:04
  • $\begingroup$ I disagree that $\tilde{\mathfrak b}$ is bilinear. $\endgroup$ – Umberto P. Mar 3 '17 at 21:08

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.