Let $(M,g)$ be a smooth compact Riemannian manifold, and let $f \in W^{1,p}(M)$ for $p\ge 1$. (I don't assume $p>\dim M$).

I have seen in various sources that people refer to the weak derivative of $f$ as a linear functional $T_pM \to \mathbb{R}$, which is defined for almost every $p \in M$. (an a.e.defined section of $T^*M$).

How exactly is this object defined? I couldn't find any precise details about this.

I define $W^{1,p}(M)$ to be the completion of the space of compactly supported smooth functions $C_c^{\infty}(M)$ w.r.t the $\|\cdot\|_{1,p}$ norm.

Optional: I suggest below $2$ approaches; I would like to know if they are compatible, i.e. if they both produce the same element in $(T_pM)^*$.

(Regarding the second approach, I am not even sure if it produces a well-defined functional).

Approach 1:

Given $f \in W^{1,p}(M)$, there exist $f_n \in C_c^{\infty}(M)$, $f_n \to f$ in $W^{1,p}$.

$df_n \in \Gamma(T^*M)$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^p(M,T^*M)$, where $L^p(M,T^*M)$ is the completion of the space of smooth sections $\Gamma(T^*M)$ w.r.t the natural $p$-norm. By completeness, $df_n$ converges to an element in $L^p(M,T^*M)$, which we can realize as a measurable section $T^*M$. We set $df=\lim_{n \to \infty} df_n$.

Approach 2 ("Local picture"):

Let $\phi:U\subseteq M \to \mathbb{R}^n$ be a surjective coordinate chart around $p \in M$, and $\phi(p)=0$. Set $f_{\phi}=f|_U \circ \phi^{-1} :\mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$. Then $f_{\phi} \in W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ (we might need to shrink $U$ to ensure nothing will explode). We define $df_p$ by the equation

$$ df_p \circ d(\phi^{-1})_0(e_i):= d(f_{\phi})_0(e_i)=(\partial_i f_{\phi})(0). \tag{1}$$

Does equation $(1)$ well-defines an element in $T_p^*M$ independently of the coordinate chart? Does it coincide with $\lim_{n \to \infty} df_n$ from the previous approach?

  • $\begingroup$ Concerning point 2: its well-definiteness relies on the validity of the chain rule for weak derivatives. This is, as far as I can tell, a bit subtle: mathoverflow.net/q/291992/13042 $\endgroup$ – Giuseppe Negro May 17 at 7:45

You have a notion of weak derivative in this case: An almost everywhere section of $T^*M$, denoted $df$, is a weak derivative of $f$ if for every smooth, compactly supported 1-form $\phi$ you have $$ \int_M g(df,\phi) \,\text{dVol} = \int_M f\,\delta\phi \,\text{dVol}. $$ where the pairing is with respect to the metric $g$. A function is in $W^{1,p}(M)$ if it is in $L^p$, and has a weak derivative in $L^p(T^*M)$. Since this definition of weak derivative is consistent with taking limits in $L^p$, it is consistent with your approach 1. I believe that taking $\phi$ to be supported in a coordinate patch and writing the definition above in coordinates would just yield your approach 2. The question why $W^{1,p}$ as defined here is actually the same as the completion should be very similar to the same question in Euclidean spaces (the classic $H=W$ question).


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.