1
$\begingroup$

Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^3$ denote an open, bounded and simply connected set with smooth boundary. The Helmholtz decomposition $$ L^2(\Omega) = \nabla H^1_0(\Omega) \oplus L^2(\operatorname{div}=0; \Omega)$$ entails the existence of two linear and bounded natural projections $\pi_1 \in \mathcal{L}(L^2(\Omega); \nabla H_0^1(\Omega))$, $\pi_2 \in \mathcal{L}(L^2(\Omega); L^2(\operatorname{div=0}; \Omega))$, where the divergence is to be understood in the weak sense. Such decomposition can be extended to $$ H_0(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega) = \nabla H_0^1(\Omega) \oplus (H_0(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega) \cap H^0(\operatorname{div}; \Omega)) \qquad (*), $$

where the zero subscript in the curl space indicates null tangential component while the zero superscript in the div space the divergence-free condition. Again we have at disposal two bounded projections $\widehat\pi_1, \widehat \pi_2$. I was wondering if we can establish some kind of non-trivial relationship between $\| \widehat \pi_1 \mathbf u \|$ and $\| \widehat \pi_2 \mathbf u \|$ for $\mathbf u \in H_0(\operatorname{curl}; \Omega)$, say a bound not involving $\| \mathbf u \|$ itself?

It is clear that something like $\| \widehat \pi_1 \mathbf u \| \le C \| \widehat \pi_2 \mathbf u \| $ (and/or viceversa) for an absolute constant $C>0$ is not possible, indeed if for instance $\operatorname{div} \mathbf u = 0$ then the gradient part vanishes and the bound would lead to a contradiction. To get around this we may assume that $\operatorname{div} \mathbf u, \operatorname{curl} \mathbf u $ are nonzero, but in this case I cannot either find a counterexample or figure out a result. Thanks in advance for any suggestion and insight.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

I don't know much about the curl spaces but I think I can answer in the negative for pure Hilbert space reasons.

If indeed $\hat{\pi}_1$ and $\hat{\pi}_2$ are projections, denote their ranges by $V_1$ and $V_2$, which we'll assume are also Hilbert subspaces of $V = V_1 + V_2$ ($= H_0(curl;\Omega)$ for your specific problem.)

For any $u \in V_1$, $\hat{\pi}_1(u) = u$ because it's a projection, and so it had better be that $\hat{\pi}_2(u) = 0$, and vice-versa if $u \in V_2$. So $\hat{\pi}_1(u)$ has no hope of being comparable to $\hat{\pi}_2(u)$ in any meaningful way.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for you answer! In the last part of the question I am already mentioning the fact that a straightforward absolute estimate is not possible: I do so taking a divergence free vector, which is equivalent to say that it lies in the second subspace. In the very last lines I also suggest to assume $\operatorname{curl} \mathbf u \neq 0, \operatorname{div} \mathbf u \neq 0$ in order to precisely avoid the two limit cases... $\endgroup$
    – GaC
    Jan 22, 2021 at 21:00
  • $\begingroup$ $div$ and $curl$ are linear maps, so their kernels are subspaces, but the complement of the kernel is an open and dense subset, so you'll get arbitrarily close to the behavior when $div u=0$ and/or $curl u = 0$. $\endgroup$ Jan 23, 2021 at 12:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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