1
$\begingroup$

Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n, n\geq 3$ be a nice bounded domain and $2^*=2n/(n-2)$ the critical Sobolev exponent. One may expect that $\forall \epsilon>0$, $\exists C_\epsilon<\infty$ such that $$ \|u\|_{2^*}\leq \epsilon \|\nabla u\|_2+C_\epsilon \|u\|_2, \quad \forall u\in H^1(\Omega). $$ Due to the lack of compact embedding from $H^1$ into $L^{2^*}$, the above inequality is indeed not true by the example listed this question. Now, I wish to make it right by formulating it in a strengthened version as follows: given $p\in (2,2(n+2)/n)$ (or $p\in(2,2^*)$ in the worst case), $\forall \epsilon>0$, $\exists C_\epsilon<\infty$ such that $$ \|u\|_{2^*}\leq \epsilon (\|\nabla u\|_2+\|u\|_p^{p/2})+C_\epsilon(1+ \|u\|_2), \quad \forall u\in H^1(\Omega). \tag{MCIS} $$ I tried the example listed here, which does not give a counterexample. Also, arguing by contradiction seems not to work. Any help to prove or disprove (MCIS) is greatly acknowledged.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ For the example Pietro gave, doesn't $\|v_\epsilon\|_p$ for $p < 2^*$ (where $v_\epsilon = \epsilon^{-n/2^*} u(x / \epsilon)$) go to zero for $\epsilon \to 0$? How is adding $\|u\|_p^{p/2}$ supposed to help? (With the $\epsilon$ in front it can only help if it diverges...) $\endgroup$ Jun 30, 2015 at 7:48
  • $\begingroup$ @Wille Wong, yeah, $\|v_\epsilon\|_p\rightarrow 0$ as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ for $p<2^*$. The large constant term $C_\epsilon$ may help in this case. While, in the otherwise case, $\|u\|_p$ may contribute! $\endgroup$
    – teh
    Jun 30, 2015 at 8:26

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Start with Pietro's example in the linked question. Fix $u$. Define $$ v_{\delta,M} = M\delta^{-n/2^*} u(x/\delta) $$ We know that $\|\nabla v_{\delta,M}\|_2 = M\|\nabla u\|_2$ and $\|v_{\delta,M}\|_{2^*} = M\|u\|_{2^*}$. Choose $\epsilon < \frac12 (\|u\|_{2^*} / \|\nabla u\|_2 )$.

We also know that for $M$ fixed, as $\delta \to 0$ we have that $\|u\|_p \to 0$ in the range of $p$ you allow.

Now, let $\Lambda > 0$ be arbitrary. We show that for every fixed $\Lambda$ there exists $\delta$ and $M$ such that $$ \|v_{\delta,M} \|_{2^*} > \epsilon (\|\nabla v_{\delta,M}\|_2 + \|v_{\delta,M}\|_p^{p/2} ) + \Lambda (1 + \|v_{\delta,M}\|_2) $$ which will disprove your desired inequality.

By our choice of small $\epsilon$, it suffices to prove $$ \frac12 \|v_{\delta,M} \|_{2^*} = \frac{M}{2} \|u\|_{2^*} > \epsilon \|v_{\delta,M}\|_{p}^{p/2} + \Lambda + \Lambda \|v_{\delta,M}\|_2 = \epsilon M \|v_{\delta,1}\|_p^{p/2} + \Lambda M \|v_{\delta,1}\|_2 + \Lambda $$

First choose $M$ sufficiently large that $$ \frac{M}{4} \|u\|_{2^*} > \Lambda $$ then choose $\delta$ sufficiently small so that the first two terms on the right hand side of the desired inequality is negligible.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ thank you for your cute observation! This once again shows the compact embedding is vital to have $\epsilon$ in front of the highest order term. $\endgroup$
    – teh
    Jun 30, 2015 at 12:08

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.