Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $U$ be an open bounded subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with $C^{1}$ boundary. Let $1 \leq p < n$ and $p^{\ast} = pn/(n-p)$. Then the Sobolev space $W^{1,p}(U)$ is contained $L^{p^{\ast}}(U)$ and there is a constant $C$, depending only on $p$, $n$, and $U$, such that $$ ||u||_{L^{p^{*}}(U)} \leq C ||u||_{W^{1,p}(U)} $$ for every $u \in W^{1,p}(U)$ (cf. Theorem 2 in Section 5.6.1 of Partial Differential Equations by Evans).

The Rellich-Kondrachov Compactness Theorem says that $W^{1,p}(U)$ is compactly embedded into $L^{q}(U)$ for every $1 \leq q < p^{*}$. This means two things:

(i) There is a constant $C$, depending only on $p$, $n$, and $U$, such that $$ \displaystyle{ ||u||_{L^q(U)} \leq C||u||_{W^{1,p}(U)} } $$ for every $u \in W^{1,p}(U)$.

(ii) Every bounded sequence $(u_k)$ in $W^{1,p}(U)$ has a subsequence $(u_{k_j})$ that converges in $L^q(U)$.

Is there a standard counterexample that shows we cannot take $q=p^{\ast}$ in the Rellich-Kondrachov Compactness Theorem? In other words, I am asking for a sequence $(u_k)$ that is bounded in the $W^{1,p}(U)$ norm but has no convergent subsequence in ${L^{p^{\ast}}(U)}$. Note that such a sequence would have a subsequence that converges in $L^q(U)$ for every $1 \leq q < p^{\ast}$ but diverges in ${L^{p^{*}}(U)}$.

Thanks.

share|improve this question
    
Isn't the name Kondrashev? –  timur Mar 8 '12 at 17:49
    
The Russian is В.И.Кондрашов. Therefore, according with the BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian, the English transliteration should be "Kondrashov". Nevertheless, for some reason, "Rellich-Kondrachov theorem" gets more Google results than "Rellich-Kondrashov theorem" (small numbers, anyway) –  Pietro Majer May 25 '12 at 17:54
add comment

2 Answers

Yes, there is a standard way. Take any nonzero $u\in W^{1,p}(U)$, with support in a ball, say w.l.o.g $\operatorname{supp}(u)\subset B(0,r)\subset U$, and consider $$ u_\epsilon(x):= u\big(\frac{x}{\epsilon}\big)$$ Under this action by dilatations, the $L^q$ norm of $u$ and the $L^{p}$ norm of $\nabla u$ rescale with the same powers exactly for $q=p^*$: $$ \|u_ \epsilon\| _ q = \epsilon^{n/q} \|u\|_ q$$ $$ \| \nabla u_ \epsilon\|_p = \epsilon^{\frac{n-p}{p}} \|\nabla u\| _ p$$ This means that the normalized family , for all $0 < \epsilon \le 1$,

$$ \epsilon ^ { - \frac {n} {p ^ *} } u \Big( \frac{x} {\epsilon} \Big) \, , \quad 0 < \epsilon \le r $$

is bounded in $W^{1,p}$, and has a constant non-zero norm in $ L^{p*} $, and of course has no convergent subsequences there for $\epsilon \to 0$, since it converges a.e. to zero. Note also that it converges to $0 $ in $L^q$ for all $ q < p^*$, as it has to be.

share|improve this answer
add comment

This question has cropped up in a work of mine.When the p* norm is computed without using the gradient value of the sequence,the Gagliardo-Nirenberg default condition' 1-n/p + n/p* = 0 appears to impose a restriction on the sequence index epsilon,since the sequence index disappears.This has theeffect' that the W^(1,p) bound condition the sequence has to compulsorily verify is ignored and this sounds illogical,specially when the Rellich-Kondrachov theorem tacitly makes use of such a bound in its proof.On the other hand,since the gradient values of the sequence have to be used in integration to verify the W^(1,p) bound and keeping in mind that there is a formula that expresses a C^1 function of compact support in terms of its gradient(this by integration by parts of the fundamental solution of the Laplacian),it is possible to obtain estimates for the p* norm in terms of the L^infinity norm of the defining test function u and what is more,such an estimate involves positive powers of the sequence index epsilon even though the Gagliardo-Nirenberg default condition is used,showing that the sequence actually converges to zero in p* norm! The actual meaning therefore is that the p* norm computations,one without using the gradient of the sequence and the other using the gradient and its implied value in integration,are different and if forcibly compared,leads to the contradiction that u vanishes identically.We have worked out the proof that relies on nontrivial facts such as strong bounds for the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function. It is to be noted further that the condition q < p* is only a sufficient condition to establish the Rellich-Kondrachov theorem by interpolation and there is nothing to support that the theorem can not be established by a procedure that does not require interpolation. In summary,the counter-example seems vacuous,showing that compactness at p* may still be an open problem!

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.