Since my knowledge of functional analysis, $L^p$-, Sobolev- and Hilbert spaces is not very good, I thought I could ask...

Suppose we have a domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ which is continuously bounded. If we use a triangulation $T^h = \{\tau_1, \tau_2, .., \tau_m \}$ (with $h$ begin the smallest diameter of these triangles) so that $\Omega = \cup_{k=1}^{m} \tau_k$, we can define the space of all piecwise linear functions associated with the triangulation $T^h$ as

\begin{align} V^h_g = \{ v \in C^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}): \text{$v|_{\tau_k}$ is linear on $\tau_k$ for all $\tau_k \in T^h$ and $v|_{\partial \Omega}$ = g} \} \end{align}

where $g$ denotes the values on the boundary and is in "some good space so we don't get any problems" (maybe $L^2(\partial \Omega)$?).

Now I am not sure about some things and have questions:

Is $V^h_g \subset L^2(\Omega) \subset H^1(\Omega)$ and therefore a Hilber space? Would that mean that if I want to prove convergence in $V^h_g$ I can/should use the $H^1(\Omega)$-norm?

Background: Originally I am intersted in a function $u \in W^{1,p}_g{\Omega)}$, which is the solution of a specific functional. I know that there is a finite element solution $u_h \in V^h_g(\Omega)$ which is close to the real solution as long as $h$ gets small. To compute $u_h$ I want to use a general descent algorithm and show global convergence towards the finite elemet solution $u_h$.


I don't think this is the definition you want for $V_g^h$.

First of all, an unrelated technical point: the inclusion between $L^2(\Omega)$ and $H^1(\Omega)$ goes the other way: $H^1(\Omega) \subset L^2(\Omega)$. $H^1$ consists of the $L^2$ functions that have an $L^2$ weak derivative, so it is a strictly smaller space than $L^2$.

Second, $V_g^h$ is not even a vector space. The condition $v\big|_{\partial\Omega} = g$ is incompactible with a vector space structure unless $g = 0$.

Third, $V_g^h$ probably doesn't contain the functions you intend for it to contain. There are very few smooth functions that are piecewise linear over a triangulation: the only such functions are in fact globally affine. Smoothness implies that the restrictions of your functions to the triangulations need to match up at the boundaries in a smooth way, and if your functions are linear/affine on the triangulations then this is an extremely restrictive condition. Also, it's not clear that the piecewise linear/affine condition is compatible with the boundary condition: the space could well be empty if $g$ is not itself piecewise affine.

  • $\begingroup$ First of all, thank you for you answer! Of Course it should be $H^1 \subset L^2$ and clearly I forgot that $V^h_g$ is not even a vector space for $g \not= 0$. Nevertheless $V^h_g$ still contains the functions I Need, because it should contain all possible solution a PDE with boundary condition $g$ in $ \partial \Omega$. $\endgroup$ – superdave99 May 7 at 7:25
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding the boundary condition $g$: If I choose $g \in V^h$ then the space $V^h_g$ is not empty, or am I wrong? $\endgroup$ – superdave99 May 7 at 7:32

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.