Let $w$ be the solution of the pde \begin{equation} \begin{cases} \Delta w = f(w) & \mbox{on } \Omega \\ w=g & \mbox{on } \partial \Omega\end{cases} \tag{1}\end{equation} where $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^N$ open, $w: \Omega \to \mathbb{C}$, $f: \mathbb{C} \to \mathbb{C}$ and $g:\Omega \to \mathbb{C}$.

Recently, I read that for some elliptic arguments it is convenient to decompose the solution of some pde as: \begin{equation} w=w_1+w_2 \end{equation} where \begin{equation} \begin{cases} \Delta w_1 =0 & \mbox{on } \Omega \\ w_1=w & \mbox{on } \partial \Omega \end{cases} \end{equation} and \begin{equation} \begin{cases} \Delta w_2 = f(w) & \mbox{on } \Omega \\ w_2=0 & \mbox{on } \partial \Omega \end{cases}. \end{equation}

I do understand that $w_1+w_2$ solves the original equation if there are such functions $w_1$ and $w_2$. But my question is:

Why can every solution of (1) be decomposed that way?

  • $\begingroup$ Is there a typo? For $w_1+w_2$ to solve (1) it seems you need $f(w_2) = f(w_1 + w_2)$. $\endgroup$ – Anthony Carapetis Aug 5 '13 at 8:42
  • $\begingroup$ @AnthonyCarapetis Yes, thank you! I corrected it. $\endgroup$ – mjb Aug 5 '13 at 9:03

Hopefully you're familiar with basic elliptic theory (Lax-Milgram theorem and Sobolev spaces is all you really need).

The equation for $w_1$ is simply Laplace's equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions $w$, and likewise the equation for $w_2$ is Poisson's equation with source term $f(w)$ and zero boundary condition. Since we have already fixed a solution $w$ to (1), there exists such a decomposition so long as $w$ and $f(w)$ are regular enough for the usual elliptic existence theory to apply; e.g. $w \in H^1(\Omega)$, $f(w) \in H^{-1}(\Omega)$.

In fact, all you really need is one of the above conditions: if for example $w \in H^1(\Omega)$ then we get a $w_1$ solving one equation, and $w_2 := w - w_1$ immediately solves the second. Since the boundary condition for (1) is $w=g$ on $\partial\Omega$, this reduces to just needing $g \in H^1(\Omega)$; hopefully this is required to solve (1) in the first place? If not then you may need some facts about the regularity of solutions to (1).

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is very useful for analyzing a solution when it is known to exist, and you have some pre-existing regularity for it. However, unlike the linear theory, this will not give you existence or uniqueness of a solution, and without some a priori bound on the solution (in some $L^p$ space, for example) you cannot use this method alone to get refinements. $\endgroup$ – Ray Yang Aug 5 '13 at 16:31
  • $\begingroup$ I agree with @RayYang , the nonlinear part of the equation with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition may even be ill-posed. Some a priori assumption has to be made. $\endgroup$ – Shuhao Cao Aug 5 '13 at 19:09

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.