I'm really surprised I can't seem to find this statement anywhere, even though it seems to follow from compactness theorems, I'm therefore wondering whether I made a mistake in my proof below.

Claim: Let $\Omega$ be a sufficiently nice bounded domain. Let $u_n \in H^1(\Omega)$ with $u_n \rightharpoonup u$ in $L^2$, where $\rightharpoonup$ denotes weak convergence. Assume further that $\| \nabla u_n\|_{L^2} \leq C$ for some $C > 0$ independent of $n$. Then $u_n \rightharpoonup u$ in $H^1$.

Proof: Since $u_n$ is bounded in $H^1$, it must have a $H^1$-weakly convergent subsequence to some $\tilde u \in H^1$ by the sequential Banach-Alaoglu theorem. Since this subsequence is also $L^2$-weakly convergent and weak limits are unique, it is true that $u = \tilde u$ and in particular $u \in H^1$. Now assume that the sequence $u_n$ does not converge weakly to $u$. Then there must be some subsequence that is completely outside of a neighborhood $U$ of $u$. By the same compactness argument, this subsequence again has a $H^1$-weakly convergent subsequence which must converge to $u$, and hence be in $U$ infinitely often, a contradiction.


The result is true and your argument is correct. A slightly better phrasing might be to show that every subsequence of $u_n$ has a further subsequence that converges weakly to $u$ in $H^1$. It is then a standard topological result that this implies that $u_n \rightharpoonup u$. In fact, the last part of your argument would essentially prove the general topological result.

Perhaps the reason that you cannot find this exact result anywhere is that it is a not too difficult instance of the well known criterion that says that a relatively compact sequence with a unique limit point must converge to that limit point.

  • $\begingroup$ thanks! Since strong $L^2$ convergence implies weak $L^2$ convergence, this in particular implies that the $H^1$-unit ball is $L^2$ closed? Moreover, by the Rellich-Kondrachev theorem, a similar argument should give that the $u_n \rightarrow u$ in $L^2$ (or, as a corollary: sequential weak $H^1$ convergence implies strong $L^2$ convergence). I guess I'm just surprised I haven't come across any of these results, but only versions that deal with subsequences and not the whole sequence. $\endgroup$ – Nathanael Schilling Jul 25 at 10:51
  • $\begingroup$ All the results mentioned in your comment are also true, yes. I feel like I must have seen a result like this written in a book but I can't think which one without actually finding and checking a bunch of them. $\endgroup$ – Rhys Steele Jul 25 at 11:00

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.