Skip to main content
12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 5, 2013 at 14:45 vote accept timur
Nov 4, 2013 at 14:17 comment added timur @PietroMajer: That's a valid point. Thank you!
Nov 4, 2013 at 8:13 comment added Jean Van Schaftingen I think that your definition should be the standard definition of $H^1_0 (\Omega)$: it is quite natural in variational problems to take functions verifying the boundary conditions and then complete the space for analytical reasons. Having a large set which is completed might allows to construct counterexamples without having to pass to the limit. On the other hand I think that pedagogically, the compact support assumption somehow an overkill.
Nov 3, 2013 at 15:49 comment added Pietro Majer As to the pedagogical aspect, I'd not deviate from the standard definition, nor introduce new spaces, but I would certainly remark that an $H^1$ limit of functions with compact support in $\Omega$ may well have nonzero derivatives at the boundary. An example in one variable is enough to make it clear. I would rather insist on the beneficial aspects of the standard definition.
Nov 3, 2013 at 13:14 answer added Jean Van Schaftingen timeline score: 3
Sep 30, 2013 at 19:59 answer added Michael Renardy timeline score: 3
Sep 30, 2013 at 17:30 comment added Terry Tao This doesn't directly answer the question, but I'd like point out that even a very simple domain such as the exterior of the unit ball in R^3 can have a very subtle Sobolev space theory, see the recent preprint arxiv.org/abs/1205.5784 , and in particular the discussion of the distinction between $H^{s,p}_0(\Omega)$ and $H^{s,p}_{00}(\Omega)$.
Sep 30, 2013 at 13:29 answer added paul garrett timeline score: 2
Sep 29, 2013 at 15:30 history edited timur CC BY-SA 3.0
added 32 characters in body
Sep 29, 2013 at 15:16 answer added Michael Renardy timeline score: 5
Sep 29, 2013 at 14:59 history edited timur CC BY-SA 3.0
added 669 characters in body
Sep 29, 2013 at 14:32 history asked timur CC BY-SA 3.0