0
$\begingroup$

Let $a(u,v)$ be a bilinearform on a hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ which satisfies all conditions for the Lax-Milgram Lemma.

Furthermore, $$a(u,v)=F(v),\ \forall v\in\mathcal{H}$$ for a bounded functional $F$ on $\mathcal{H}$.

I don't understand why a solution $u$ has to be unique.

Using Lax-Milgram we obtain a unique linear operator $T$ such that $$\langle Tu,v\rangle = F(v)$$ Then using the Riesz Theorem I can obtain another unique $w\in\mathcal{H}$ with $$\langle Tu,v\rangle = F(v)=\langle v,w\rangle$$

So we have that, since $w$ is unique that $Tu=w$. Why is $u$ then unique?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is the statement $a(u,v) = F(v)$ for all $v \in H$? $\endgroup$ – Umberto P. Jan 19 at 12:55
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. I will make an edit. $\endgroup$ – EpsilonDelta Jan 19 at 13:37
1
$\begingroup$

Coercivity of $a$ implies that if $a(u,u) = 0$ then $u = 0$.

Suppose that $a(u,v) = F(v)$ and $a(w,v) = F(v)$ both hold for all $v \in H$. Then $$a(u-w,v) = 0$$ for all $v \in H$ and in particular $$a(u-w,u-w) = 0.$$ Thus $u-w = 0$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I also know the LM-Lemma not involving coercivity, and if I am not mistaken, coercivity also implies invertibility of $T$ and then we have a unique solution. $\endgroup$ – EpsilonDelta Jan 19 at 14:53

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.