5
$\begingroup$

There is an argument that I see is used often in Evans PDE book, that I don't really get. We take a bounded sequence, say $(u_m) \in W^{1,q}(\Omega)$. By some functional analysis results, we know that since this is a reflexive Banach space, there is a subsequence that converges weakly to some element, say $u_{m_j} \rightharpoonup u$ . But now, there is the claim that this subsequence converges strongly in $L^q$. Why is this? I'm assuming that it has to do with the Rellich compactness result, $W^{1,p} \subset \subset L^q$ for all $1\leq q< p^{*}=\frac{np}{n-p}$. How does this argument work then?

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

Let's begin with a weakly convergent sequence: $u_j \rightharpoonup u$ in $W^{1,p}$, $1<p<\infty$. A weakly convergent sequence is bounded. By the Rellich-Kondrachov theorem, it has a subsequence $u_{j_k}$ that converges strongly in $L^p$. How do we conclude that the entire sequence $u_j$ converges strongly in $L^p$?

Note that we also have $u_j \rightharpoonup u$ in $L^p$. Therefore, the limit of $(u_{j_k})$ is nothing but $u$, because strong convergence implies weak, and weak limits are unique (the weak topology is Hausdorff). It remains to invoke an easy fact from general topology: if $u,u_j$ are elements of a Hausdorff space and every subsequence of $(u_j)$ has a subsubsequence that converges to $u$, then $u_j\to u$. (Proof is by contradiction, and is left as an exercise).

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Compact linear operators on Banach spaces map weakly convergent sequences to strongly convergent sequences; such operators are also called completely continuous. The embedding $W^{1,q} \to L^q$ is such an operator.

$\endgroup$

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.