2
$\begingroup$

Let $L$ be an elliptic linear operator on $\mathbb R^n, n\geq3$. For simplicity, let's stick to the following Schrodinger operator $$ Lu:=-\Delta u+V(x)u $$ where $V\geq0$ is the electric potential, and $V\in\mathscr{B}$ where $\mathscr{B}$ is some function space (say, for example, $L^{\infty}_{loc}(\mathbb R^n)$). Now let $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb R^n)$ be arbitrary. Suppose the space $\mathscr{B}$ is such that the equation $$ Lu=f $$ has a unique solution in a weak sense. In this case we can invert the operator $L$ and write $$ u=L^{-1}f $$ for $f\in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb R^n)$. A locally integrable function $\Gamma(x,y)$ is called the fundamental solution for operator $L$ if it satisfies $$ L\Gamma(\cdot,y)=\delta_y $$ in the sense of distributions. If the operator $L$ is invertible and the fundamental solution exists, then we can write \begin{equation} (L^{-1}f)(x)=\int\limits_{\mathbb R^n}\Gamma(y,x)f(y)\,dy. \end{equation}

I am interested in the following specific questions:

a) Does every invertible operator given by a PDE as in this case necessarily have a kernel? If so, is this kernel necessarily the fundamental solution?

b) Does existence of the fundamental solution imply invertibility of $L$?

These questions are motivated by an observation that in some research papers, the fundamental solution is simply said to be the "kernel of the operator $L^{-1}$", without any justification that such a kernel exists, or that such a kernel is necessarily the fundamental solution.

Thanks for your attention!

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Consider the bilinear form $\Gamma(u,v) = \langle u, L^{-1}v \rangle$. It is also a linear form on the tensor product $\Gamma(u,v) = \Gamma(u\otimes v)$. When $u$ and $v$ belong to a reasonable function space, so does their tensor product. As long as $\Gamma$ is bounded as a linear form, you can recover the integral kernel from a corresponding Riesz representation theorem. $\endgroup$ – Igor Khavkine Oct 15 '16 at 20:05
2
$\begingroup$

Following your assumptions, it seems that the mapping $L^{-1}$ sends linearly and continuously the smooth compactly supported functions into distributions and thus, from the Schwartz (Laurent) kernel theorem, has a distribution kernel $\Gamma(x,y)$. It means that your integral formula holds weakly: for $\phi,\psi\in \mathscr D(\mathbb R^n)$ $$ \langle L^{-1}\phi,\psi\rangle_{\mathscr D'(\mathbb R^n),\mathscr D(\mathbb R^n)}= \langle \Gamma(x,y),\psi(x)\otimes\phi(y)\rangle_{\mathscr D'(\mathbb R^{2n}),\mathscr D(\mathbb R^{2n})}. $$ N.B. You wrote $\Gamma(y,x)$ but I prefer the more traditional $\Gamma(x,y)$.

On the other hand every constant coefficient differential operator $P(D)$ (non-zero) has a fundamental solution (Malgrange-Ehrenpreis theorem), and that does not imply invertibility of all these operators: take just $\partial/\partial x_1$ with the huge kernel of distributions of $x_2,\dots, x_n$ and fundamental solution $$ H(x_1)\otimes \delta_0(x_2)\otimes \dots \delta_0(x_n),\quad (H=\mathbf 1_{\mathbb R_+}). $$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer; I don't have much experience with the tensor product, so could you please expand exactly what is meant by the RHS of your first equation? $\endgroup$ – Lentes Oct 16 '16 at 18:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The rhs of the first equation is simply the bracket of duality between the distribution $\Gamma$ and the smooth compactly supported function $(x,y)\mapsto \psi(x)\phi(y)$. $\endgroup$ – Bazin Oct 19 '16 at 13:24

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.