8
$\begingroup$

Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^n$ be a bounded domain with a Lipschitz boundary and $n > p \ge 1$.

It is well known that up to the critical exponent $p^* = pn/(n − p)$, i.e. $q < p^*$, the Sobolev-to-Lebesgue space embedding $I \colon W^1_p \to L_q$ is continuous and compact. It is also well known, that in the limit case $q = p^*$, the embedding is continuous but not (ever) compact.

Now let

  • $\alpha$ denote Kuratowski's measure of noncompactness; defined on a metric space $(X,d)$ by $$\alpha(M) = \sup \{ \delta > 0 \colon \exists_{M_1, \dotsc, M_n \subset M} \colon M \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^n M_i\text, \operatorname{diam}(M_i) \le \delta\}$$ for any $M \subset X$ where $\operatorname{diam}(M) = \sup \{ d(x,y) \colon x, y \in y \}$.
  • $\beta$ denote Istrățescu's spreading measure of noncompactness; defined on a metric space $(X,d)$ by $$\beta(M) = \sup \{ \varepsilon > 0 \colon \exists_{(x_n)^{\mathbb N} \in X^{\mathbb N}} \forall_{m \ne n} \colon d(x_n,x_m) > \varepsilon \}$$ for any $M \subset X$,
  • $\gamma$ denote Hausdorff's measure of noncompactness; defined on a metric space $(X,d)$ by $$\gamma(M) = \sup \{ \varepsilon > 0 \colon \exists_{x_1, \dotsc, x_n \in X} \colon M \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^n B(x_i,\varepsilon) \}$$ for any $M \subset X$ where $B(x,\varepsilon) = \{ y \in X \colon d(x,y) < \varepsilon \}$, and

I'm interested in the quantity $$ [I \colon W^1_p \to L_{p^*}]_\phi = \inf \{ k > 0 \colon \phi(I(M)) \le k \phi(M)\ \text{for every bounded $M \subset W^1_p$} \} $$ with $\phi \in \{ \alpha, \beta, \gamma \}$.

Q: Since $I \colon W^1_p \to L_{p^*}$ is not compact, $[I]_\phi$ is non-zero (i.e. positive). What else is known about these (three) quantities? Can we compute or estimate $[I]_\phi$?

I've already found a few puzzle pieces that allow for answers in that direction but I'm not very confident about them (afraid I might be missing something), and the fact that this particular question appears never to have been explicitly addressed (not even in a corollary -- is the answer so obvious?) gives me the impression I could be missing something. Here's what I've found:

There is a connection between what V. Maz'ya calls localisation moduli, the essential operator norm of such embeddings, and the aforementioned noncompactness reduction quantity.

  • The essential operator norm $\operatorname{ess}\|T\|$ of an operator $T$ is the quotient norm in the space of bounded operators with the compact operators factored out. It satisfies $$ [T]_\phi \le \operatorname{ess}\|T\| \le \|T\| $$ (examples show that each inequality can be strict).
  • We have $[I \colon W^k_p \to L_p]_\gamma = \operatorname{ess}\|I \colon W^k_p \to L_p \|$ whenever the embedding is continuous (i.e., the smoothness of the boundary suffices for $k$). If this holds also for $q \ne p$, I do not know. [1; Theorem 3]
  • We have $$[I \colon W^k_p \to L_q/P_0]_\gamma = \limsup_{\lambda(D) \to 0} \sup_{\|u\|_{W^k_p} = 1} \|u\|_{L_q(D)}$$ whenever the embedding is continuous (i.e., the smoothness of the boundary suffices for $k$ and $q$ is not too large); here, $P_0$ denotes the space of constant functions and $\lambda$ stands for the $n$-dimensional Lebesgue measure. [1; Theorem 1]
  • We have $$[I \colon W^1_2 \to L_2]_\gamma = \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \sup_{\|u\|_{W^1_2} = 1} \|u\|_{L_2(\Omega_\varepsilon)}$$ with $\Omega_\varepsilon = \{ x \in \Omega \colon d(x, \partial \Omega) < \varepsilon \}$. If this holds for more general $p$ and $q$ I do not know. [2; Theorem 4] [1; Remark 3].
  • Whenever we have the Poincaré-type inequality $$ \|u - u_\Omega\|_{L_p} \le k \|\nabla u\|_{L_p} $$ with $u_\Omega = \int_\Omega u$ for every $u \in W^1_p$, then we have the bounds $$[I \colon W^1_p \to L_p]_\beta \le \left( 1 - \frac 1{1+k^p} \right)^{1/p}$$ and $$[I \colon W^1_p \to L_p]_\gamma = \operatorname{ess}\|I \colon W^1_p \to L_p \| \le \left( 1 - \frac 1{1+2^{p-1}k^p} \right)^{1/p}$$ with the same $k$. [1; Theorem 4, Remark 4]

  • For the related space $L^1_p$ of distributions with derivatives in $L_p$, equipped with the norm $\|u\|_{L^1_p} = \|\nabla u\|_{L_p} + \|u\|_{L_p(\omega)}$, where $\omega$ is a non-empty open subset of $\Omega$ with $\bar \omega \subset \Omega$ and $\partial \Omega$ is $C^1$-smooth, we have $$\operatorname{ess}\|I \colon L^1_p \to L_{p^*}\| = \lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \sup_{\substack{\|u\|_{L^1_p} = 1\\\text{$u = 0$ on $\Omega \setminus \Omega_\varepsilon$}}} \|u\|_{L_{p^*}} = \lim_{\rho \to 0} \sup_{x \in \partial \Omega} \sup_{\substack{\|u\|_{L^1_p} = 1\\\operatorname{supp} u \subset B(x, \rho)}} \|u\|_{L_{p^*}} $$ and $$\operatorname{ess}\|I \colon L^1_p \to L_{p^*}\| = 2^{1/n} c(p,n)$$ where $c(p,n)$ is the best constant in the Sobolev inequality $$ \|u\|_{L_{p^*}(\mathbb R^n)} \le c \|\nabla u\|_{L_p(\mathbb R^n)} $$ [3; Theorem 8.3].

Edit: If $\Omega$ has a $C^1$ boundary (which seems rather restrictive; one would expect this to hold for any extension domain), then [3; Theorem 8.3] thus tells us at least $$ [I \colon W^1_p \to L_{p^*}]_\phi \le \underbrace{\|I \colon W^1_p \to L^1_p \|}_1 [I \colon L^1_p \to L_{p^*}]_\phi \le \operatorname{ess}\|I \colon L^1_p \to L_{p^*}\| = 2^{1/n} c(p,n)\text. $$

[1] Yerzakova, Nina A. The measure of noncompactness of Sobolev embeddings. Integral Equations Operator Theory 19 (1994), no. 3, 349--359. MR1280128

[2] Amick, Charles J. Some remarks on Rellich's theorem and the Poincaré inequality. J. London Math. Soc. (2) 18 (1978), no. 1, 81--93. MR0502660

[3] Maz'ya, Vladimir. Sobolev spaces with applications to elliptic partial differential equations. Second, revised and augmented edition. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], 342. Springer, Heidelberg, 2011. xxviii+866 pp. ISBN: 978-3-642-15563-5 MR2777530

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I had already asked this question on math.stackexchange.com a long time ago (without receiving a reply or even a comment), when I had not looked into the issue properly myself. $\endgroup$ – anonymous Nov 28 '16 at 11:55
0
$\begingroup$

If only one can give-up using the à-priori given, generic Lebesgue norm and use instead the gradient estimated Lebesgue norm (from a reproducing kernel formula), the dilemma is resolved for good. Indeed, by a well known finite measure theoretic result of A. Villani, Rellich-Kondrachov compactness (RK) seen for $q < p^*$ is transferred to RK at $p^*$ by Cauchy Continuity.Thus any measure of non-compactness at $p*$ has to be zero. The inf.metric on $W^{(1,p)}$ on the bounded set is incomplete as well in respect of a uniform gauge.

$\endgroup$

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.