This question is from PDE by Evans, 1st edition, Chapter 5, Problem 14. It has been posted here previously, however, I cannot quite put all the information together from the responses there. Hopefully you can help me now. The problem is as follows:

Let $U$ be bounded with a $C^1$ boundary. Show that a ''typical'' function $u \in L^p(U) \ (1 \leq p < \infty)$ does not have a trace on $\partial U$. More precisely, prove there does not exist a bounded linear operator

\begin{equation} T:L^p(U) \to L^p(\partial U) \end{equation}

such that $Tu = \left. u \right|_{\partial U}$ whenever $u \in C(\overline{U}) \cap L^p(U)$.

So what we're trying to find is a bounded sequence of functions that go to infinity at the boundary, correct? Because then $Tu = \left. u \right|_{\partial U}$ is undefined.

I like the idea of using the $\mathrm{dist}(x, \partial U)$ function to do this. I was thinking about defining the function

\begin{equation} u(x) = \frac{1}{\mathrm{dist}(x,\partial U)}, \end{equation}

which must be in $L^p(U)$ since $U$ is bounded (hence integral of $\varepsilon$ over $U$ is finite, right?). But this function is not continuous at the boundary, and so $u \notin C(\overline{U})$. Can this be modified somehow?

Another option is to use that the boundary is $C^1$. So for each $x^0 \in \partial U$ there exists an $r > 0$ and a $C^1$ function $\gamma : \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \to \mathbb{R}$ such that $U \cap B(x^0,r) = \{ x \in B(x^0,r) \ | \ x_n > \gamma(x_1,\ldots, x_n) \}$. So around every point on the boundary we can find a ball where the n'th coordinate is greater than the $C^1$ function $\gamma$. How can we use this?


The key is that you can not find a bounded operator. Such an Operator is continuous. So what happen when you plug in a sequence of continuous functions?

Assume $\Omega=(0,1)$ and choose $$f_n (x):=\begin{cases} 1 &\text{ on } [0,1-1/n]\\ n-nx &\text{ on } [1-1/n,1]\end{cases}$$ So $f_n$ falls linearly to zero on $[1-1/n,1]$.

Each $f_n$ is a continuous function and has trace zero in $1$. Now we restrict the trace operator to $x=1$. Now $0=\lim_n T(f_n)\neq T(f)=1$ since $f_n\to 1$ in $L^2$.

  • $\begingroup$ Brilliant! So since our bounded operator is continuous (we have iff between these two notions), then a sequence of continuous functions should yield its values at the boundary when acted on by the trace operator $T$. But this construction of functions yields a limit value of $T(f_n)$ that is different from $T(f)$, which is in contradiction with the fact that $T$ is continuous, right? $\endgroup$ – Numbersandsoon Mar 17 '13 at 9:41
  • $\begingroup$ Exactly. And also not that $f_n$ is not uniformly bounded in $H^1$. In that case, due to the control of the norm of the derivatives, one has a continuous trace operator. $\endgroup$ – Quickbeam2k1 Mar 17 '13 at 10:16
  • $\begingroup$ Ahh, very nice! Thank you for your help! I learned a lot from just this problem and your explanations. $\endgroup$ – Numbersandsoon Mar 18 '13 at 4:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe what is also worth mentioning is that the example above does not work in $p=\infty$ since one does not have the uniform convergence of the sequence. Another point that you should note is that an $L^p$-function is precisely an element of an equivalence class of functions. Which means you can change the values of the $f_n$ on a set of measure zero without changing the trace of each of the $f_n$ (each $f_n$ is in $H^1$) $\endgroup$ – Quickbeam2k1 Mar 18 '13 at 9:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Quickbeam2k1 What you presented in your answer seems to be a counterexample. But doesn't the problem ask to prove the nonexistence of a bounded linear operator for all $\Omega$ with a $C^1$ boundary, not just with $\Omega=(0,1)$? Can we instead assume that there does exist a bounded linear operator $T : L^p(U) \to L^p(\partial U)$ with $Tu=u|_{\partial U}$, and find a contradiction? $\endgroup$ – Cookie Jan 11 '15 at 19:46

For completeness, I'll expand the idea in this comment. The construction does not require $C^1$ boundary, and works in every bounded domain. Let $$ u_n(x) = (1-n\operatorname{dist}(x,\partial U))^+$$ which is a continuous function on $\overline{U}$. Since the sequence $u_n^p$ is decreasing, it is dominated by $u_1^p$, which is integrable. Hence $$ \lim_{n\to\infty}\int_U u_n^p = \int_U \lim_{n\to\infty} u_n^p = 0 $$ On the other hand, $$\int_{\partial U}u_n^p = \int_{\partial U}1\not\to0$$ which yields the claim.

  • $\begingroup$ Is $u_n^p$ simply the $u_n(x)$ you defined and raised to the $p$ power? If so, then I am trying to see why $u_n(x)=[(1-n\operatorname{dist}(x,\partial U))^+]^p$ is decreasing. I think after that, you recognized that $|u_n|^p \le u_1^p$, one of the conditions that allow you to use the Dominated Convergence Theorem to assert $\lim_{n \to \infty} \int_U u_n^p = 0$. $\endgroup$ – Cookie Jan 14 '15 at 3:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Decreasing with respect to $n$, meaning $u_{n+1}^p\le u_n^p$. Because each $u_n$ takes values between $0$ and $1$, it suffices to check $u_{n+1}\le u_n$. Which is not hard: in $u_{n+1}$ we subtract more. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Jan 14 '15 at 3:28
  • $\begingroup$ Also, in your example, is it necessary to put in the "$+$" in $(1-n \operatorname{dist}(x,\partial U))^+$? Is that so $u_n(x)$ is postive for each $n$? I'm assuming that if I didn't put the $+$, then that function would no longer work. $\endgroup$ – Cookie Jan 14 '15 at 3:33
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, this is the main point. The function should be zero when the distance to boundary is more than $1/n$. Without $+$ it would be something negative. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Jan 14 '15 at 3:40
  • $\begingroup$ And we shouldn't use absolute values either because if $\operatorname{dist}(x,\partial U) > \frac 1n$, the function $u_n$ would be postive due to the absolute value and not $0$. If we just use the "$+$" like you introduced, then the negative part of the function $u_n$ would just simply be $0$. I hope that is correct. $\endgroup$ – Cookie Jan 14 '15 at 4:14

I like your idea of taking a function $\gamma:\mathbb R^+_0\to\mathbb R_0^+$ and composing with the function $d=\operatorname{dist}(\cdot,\partial U)$. This is how your idea will actually work:

You picked $\gamma(t)=1/t$ but that may be too singular to guarantee $L^p$, however $\gamma(t)=[\log 1/t]_+$ should work (possibly using the coarea formula).

To cure the fact that $\gamma(d(\cdot))$ has no trace, you may cut it off by defining the sequence $u_n(x)=n\wedge\gamma(d(x))$, whose trace is constant $n$ and by Lebesgue dominated convergence (or Fatou-Lebesgue theorem) all integrable with integral bounded by that of $\gamma(d(\cdot))$.


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.