This question has already been addressed here and there's also a proof in Wikkipedia but to my frustration, I can't find any of these proofs to be coherent :| So I decided to come up with my own proof, albeit I admit I borrowed some ideas from here and there :) If you have the time, I'd be grateful if you checked my solution (particularly the bolded line) to see if it hits the nail on the head.

preliminary information:

Lemma 1. If $f_n \rightarrow f$ in $L^1$ then there exists a subsequence $f_{n_j}$ such that a.e $f_{n_j}\rightarrow f$.

Lemma 2 [The Dominated Convergence Theorem]. If $f_n$ is a sequence of integrable functions such that firstly, $f_n \rightarrow f$ a.e and secondly, there exists a function $g\in L^1$ such that a.e $\lvert f_n \rvert \leq g$ then $\int f = \lim_n \int f_n$.

(Both lemmas are proved in Folland's Real Analysis book.)

Problem. Define $$TV(u,\Omega):=\sup\left\{\int_\Omega u(x) \operatorname{div} \phi(x) \, \mathrm{d}x \colon \phi\in C_c^1(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^n),\ \Vert \phi\Vert_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\le 1\right\}$$ If $u\in W^{1,1}$ then $TV(u,\Omega) = \int_{\Omega} \lvert \nabla u(x) \rvert \, dx$.

Solution. By performing $n$ simple integrations by parts and summing up the results we easily see that $\int\limits_\Omega u\operatorname{div}\varphi = -\int_\Omega\nabla u\cdot\varphi$ therefore $$\int\limits_\Omega u\operatorname{div} \mathbf\phi = - \int\limits_\Omega \mathbf\phi\cdot\nabla u \leq \left| \int\limits_\Omega \mathbf\phi\cdot\nabla u \right|\leq \int\limits_\Omega \left|\mathbf\phi\right|\cdot\left|\nabla u\right|\leq \int\limits_\Omega \left|\nabla u\right|.$$ So in order to show that the supremum over $\phi$ of the leftmost term equals the rightmost term, it suffices to find a sequence $(\phi_n)_1^{\infty}$ such that $\int\limits_\Omega u\operatorname{div} \mathbf\phi_n$ tends to $\int\limits_\Omega \left|\nabla u\right| $.

Assume that $\nabla u \neq 0$ (otherwise the result follows trivially). Since $u\in W^{1,1}$ we have $ \nabla u \in L^1$ thus $\frac{-\nabla u}{\lvert \nabla u \rvert} \in L^1$ and since $C_c^1$ is dense in $L^1$ there is a sequence $(\phi_n)_1^{\infty} \subset C_c^1$ such that $\phi_n \rightarrow \frac{-\nabla u}{\lvert \nabla u \rvert}$ in $L^1$, and since the limit function $\frac{-\nabla u}{\lvert \nabla u \rvert}$ is a unit vector (function), we may assume $\phi_n$'s are unit vectors so that thay have norm 1.

By the first lemma above, there is a subsequence $(\phi_{n_j})$ such that a.e $ \phi_{n_j} \rightarrow \frac{-\nabla u}{\lvert \nabla u \rvert}$ thus $$ \nabla u \cdot \phi_{n_j} \rightarrow \frac{-\nabla u}{\lvert \nabla u \rvert }\cdot \nabla u \quad \text{a.e}.$$ Furthermore $$ \lvert \phi_{n_j}.\nabla u \rvert \leq \lvert \phi_{n_j} \rvert \lvert \nabla u \rvert \leq \lvert \nabla u \rvert \in L^1. $$ Henece both conditions of the second Lemma are met and this Lemma guarantees that we are eligible to take the $lim$ inside the integral: $$ \lim_j \int\limits_\Omega u\operatorname{div} \mathbf\phi_{n_j} = -\lim_j \int_{\Omega} \nabla u \cdot \phi_{n_j} = -\int_{\Omega} \lim_j \nabla u \cdot \phi_{n_j} = \int \frac{\nabla u}{\lvert \nabla u \rvert }\cdot \nabla u = \int_{\Omega} \lvert \nabla u \rvert. \quad \square $$


You are assuming that $\nabla u\ne0$ everywhere in $\Omega$. It could be that $\nabla u=0$ on a set $E$ of positive measure and $\nabla u\ne0$ in $\Omega\setminus E$.

Update Assume that $\Omega$ is bounded. Define $$g(x):=\begin{cases}-\frac{\nabla u(x)}{\lvert \nabla u(x) \rvert}&\text{if } \nabla u(x)\ne 0,\\0 &\text{otherwise.}\end{cases}$$ Then $g\in L^1(\Omega)$ and so you can find $(\phi_n)_1^{\infty} \subset C_c^1$ converging to $g$ in $L^1$. Consider a smooth function $F:\mathbb{R}^N\to \mathbb{R}^N$ such that $F(y)=y$ if $|y|\le 2$ and $F(y)=0$ if $|y|\ge 4$ and take $g_{n_j}(x):=F(\phi_{n_j}(x))$. Then $|g_{n_j}(x)|\le 4$ and $g_{n_j}(x)\to g(x)$ since if $\phi_{n_j}(x)\to g(x)$, then $|\phi_{n_j}(x)|\le 2$ for all $j$ large enough, since $|g(x)|\le 1$. You can now continue as in your proof.

  • $\begingroup$ I assumed $\nabla u \neq 0 $ so as to prevent the denominator of $\frac{\nabla u}{\lvert \nabla u \rvert}$ from vanishing. If I assume the gradient vanishes on set $ٍE$ of positive measure, does it affect the proof? Also, do you have any comments about the rest of the proof? Anything else wrong? Am I allowed to assume the $\phi_n$'s are unit vectors? $\endgroup$ – User32563 Jan 13 '18 at 16:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I added more details to my reply. You don't need unit vectors, just bounded. $\endgroup$ – Gio67 Jan 13 '18 at 16:44

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.