$\newcommand{\v}{\boldsymbol}$ To make the problem easier, simply consider a smooth simply-connected domain $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^2$. $\overline{\Omega} = \overline{\Omega}_1\cup\overline{\Omega}_2$, $\partial\Omega_1\cap\partial\Omega_2 = \Sigma$ is an interior boundary curve. $\v{n}_i$ is the unit outward normal with respect to $\Omega_i$, $i=1,2$.

Now construct $u_1$ and $u_2$ satisfying the following problem: $$ \left\{ \begin{aligned} -\Delta u_i &= 0 &\quad \text{ in } &\Omega_i, \\ \nabla u_i \cdot \v{n}_i & = \alpha_i g &\text{ on } & \partial \Omega_i\backslash \partial \Omega, \\ u_i &= 0 &\text{ on } &\partial \Omega_i\cap \partial \Omega. \end{aligned} \right. $$ Let $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ be two constants and their sum equal to $1$. Also consider another function $u$, of which the restriction in $\Omega_i$ is $u_i$: $u|_{\Omega_i} = u_i$. Then for any test function $v\in H^1_0(\Omega)$: $$ \begin{aligned} \int_{\Omega}\nabla u\cdot \nabla v &= \sum_i \int_{\Omega_i} \nabla u\cdot \nabla v \\ &= -\sum_i \int_{\Omega_i} v \Delta u + \sum_i \int_{\partial \Omega_i} (\nabla u\cdot \v{n}_i) v \\ &= \int_{\Sigma} (\alpha_1+\alpha_2)gv = \int_{\Sigma} gv. \end{aligned} $$ Hence $\displaystyle \int_{\Omega}\nabla u\cdot \nabla v = \int_{\Sigma} gv$ is the variational problem $u$ satisfies. The three conditions in Lax-Milgram theorem are met:

  • $B(u,v) = \displaystyle \int_{\Omega}\nabla u\cdot \nabla v $ is continuous w.r.t. $H^1$-seminorm (equivalent to $H^1$-norm in $H^1_0(\Omega)$).

  • $B(\cdot,\cdot)$ is also coercive thanks to Poincare inequality for $H^1_0(\Omega)$.

  • $\displaystyle \int_{\Sigma} gv \leq \|g \|_{H^{-1/2}(\Sigma)}\, \|v \|_{H^{1/2}(\Sigma)} \leq c\|g \|_{H^{-1/2}(\Sigma)}\, \|v \|_{H^1(\Omega)}$ implies the right hand side is a bounded linear functional for $v\in H^1_0(\Omega)$.

Therefore, $u\in H^1_0(\Omega)$ in spite of being piecewisely defined.

Paradoxical part: now we can set a new pair of $\widetilde\alpha_1$ and $\widetilde\alpha_2$, as long as $\widetilde\alpha_1+\widetilde\alpha_2=1$. Apparently $\widetilde{u}_1$ and $\widetilde{u}_2$ will be different because the Neumann boundary conditions change. But if $\widetilde{u}$ is defined like $u$ above: $\widetilde{u}|_{\Omega_i} = \widetilde{u}_i$. $\widetilde{u}$ satisfies exactly the same variational problem with $u$. Moreover $\|\nabla(\widetilde{u} - u)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} = 0$ implies $\|\widetilde{u} - u\|_{H^1(\Omega)} = 0$ because $\widetilde{u}=u =0$ on $\partial \Omega$.

My question: where does this argument go wrong?


To make the problem even simpler, turn to the one-dimensional case: $\Omega=(-1,1)$ and $\Sigma=\{0\}$. The function $u$ must be $0$ at $\pm 1$, have prescribed one-sided derivatives at $0$, and be linear in between ($u''=0$). Now it is clear that in general $u$ is not continuous across $\Sigma$, and does not belong to $H_0^1(\Omega)$. Its distributional gradient $u'$ has a singular component on $\Sigma$ and the distributional Laplacian $\Delta u$ is even more singular than that, a distribution of order $1$. Such a function does not solve the elliptic problem that you posed.

The issue is that the equality $\int \nabla u\cdot \nabla v = \int gv$ does not qualify $u$ as a weak solution, unless $\nabla u$ is the weak (distributional) gradient of $u$. We must already know that $u$ is in some Sobolev class, in order for the integral form of the equation to be of any use. Here is an example that works in any dimension: consider the Dirichlet problem on the unit ball $B_1$ with zero boundary data: $$\Delta u=0 \text{ on }B_1, \quad u=0 \text{ on } \partial B_1\tag1$$ Let $u=\chi_{B_{1/2}}$, the characteristic function of a smaller ball. For any test function $v$ the equality $\int \nabla u\cdot \nabla v=0$ holds, because $\nabla u=0$ a.e. If $u$ were a weak solution of (1), it would contradict the uniqueness theorem for the Dirichlet problem. But it is not a solution because its pointwise gradient $\nabla u$ is rubbish; it is not a representative of the distributional gradient. Which is just another way of saying that $u$ is not a Sobolev function.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for making a new account to answer the question. $\endgroup$ – Shuhao Cao Mar 16 '13 at 20:14

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.