Suppose that $u\in W^{1,p}(B)$ where $B=B(0,1)\subset\mathbb{R}^N$ and $p\geq 1$. It was showed on this post (as an application of Fubini's theorem) that for almost $t\in (0,1]$ $$u_{|\partial B_t},(\nabla u)_{|\partial B_t}\in L^p(\partial B_t)$$

where $B_t=B(0,t)$. My question is: Is there any simple way to see that $u\in W^{1,p}(\partial B_t)$ for those balls where $u_{|\partial B_t},(\nabla u)_{\partial B_t}$ are defined and if $v\in L^p(\partial B_t)^N$ is the gradient of $u$ in the distributional sense, then $v=(\nabla u)_{|\partial B_t}$?

Update: I have an idea. Let $u_n\in C^1(\overline{B})$ such that $u_n\to u$ in $W^{1,p}(B)$. Note that byt Fatou's Lemma: $$\int_0^1\liminf\int_{\partial B}(|u_n(r\omega)-u(r\omega)|^p+|\nabla u_n(r\omega)-\nabla u(r\omega)|^p)r^{N-1}drd\Gamma\leq \\ \lim\int_B(|u_n(x)-u(x)|^p+|\nabla u_n(x)-\nabla u(x)|^p)dx \to 0$$

Hence, for almost $t\in (0,1]$, there exist a subsequence of $u_n$ not relabeled such that $$\int_{\partial B_t}(|u_n(y)-u(y)|^p+|\nabla u_n(y)-\nabla u(y)|^p)d\Gamma_t\to 0$$

Can I conclude what I have estated from the last convergence?

Thank you

  • $\begingroup$ So you wanna show something like $\nabla(u\big|_{\partial B_t}) = (\nabla u)\big|_{\partial B_t}$? If this is the case, then the gradient on a codimension 1 surface has to be delicately defined to match the restriction of gradient on this surface. $\endgroup$ – Shuhao Cao May 27 '13 at 20:37
  • $\begingroup$ I think they will differ only by a set of null measure @ShuhaoCao . Also, I have updated the question, please take a look on it. $\endgroup$ – Tomás May 27 '13 at 20:46

To avoid unnecessary complication, let me straigthen up the spheres. Then the problem becomes the following: $\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb R}$

If $u(x,y) \in W^{1,p}(\R^n \times \R^k)$, then $v_x := u(x,\cdot) \in W^{1,p}(\R^k)$ for a.e. $x \in \R^n$, with weak gradient $\nabla v_x (y) = \nabla_y u(x,y)$.

To see this, we first test the definition of weak gradient with functions of the form $\varphi(x)\eta(y)$, where $\varphi \in C_c^\infty(\R^n)$, $\eta \in C_c^\infty(\R^k)$, and consider only derivatives in the last $k$ directions: $$ \int_{\R^{n+k}} \nabla_y u(x,y) \varphi(x) \eta(y) \, dx dy = - \int_{\R^{n+k}} u(x,y) \varphi(x) \nabla \eta(y) \, dx dy $$ Let me rephrase it as follows: the function $$ I_\eta(x) := \int_{\R^k} \left( \nabla_y u(x,y) \eta(y) + u(x,y) \nabla \eta(y) \right) \, dy $$ satisfies $$ \int_{\R^n} I_\eta(x) \varphi(x) \, dx = 0 \quad \text{for every } \varphi \in C_c^\infty(\R^n). $$ By the fundamental lemma of Calc. Var., this means that for each $\eta \in C_c^\infty(\R^k)$ we have $I_\eta(x) = 0$ for a.e. $x \in \R^n$.

We would like to reverse the order of quantifiers. To this end we choose a countable subset $\eta_j \in C_c^\infty(\R^k)$ dense in the $C^1$ norm. Then for a.e. $x \in \R^n$ we have $$ \int_{\R^k} \nabla_y u(x,y) \eta_j(y) \, dy = - \int_{\R^k} u(x,y) \nabla \eta_j(y) \, dy \quad \text{for } j=1,2,\ldots $$ By density, we obtain this identity for the same set of $x$'s and all possible $\eta$'s.


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.