1
$\begingroup$

My question mainly concern about how to construct a elliptic equation with Neumann boundary condition from a minimization problem.

Let $B=B_1 \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ and $E : H^1(B) \to \mathbb{R}$ $$E(u)= \int_{B}|\nabla u|^2+(u^2-1)^2 dx - \int_{\partial B}Q(u)d\mathcal{H}^2$$ We assume that $u_0 \in W^{1,2}$ to be the minimizer of the functional $E$ in the configuration space $$K=\{u\in W^{1,2}(B:\mathbb{R})\}.$$ Since $u_0$ is the critical point of the functional, we let $\xi \in K$, we obtain the equation $$\int_B \nabla u \cdot \nabla \xi + 4(u^2-1)u \xi dx - \int_{\partial B }Q'(u)\xi d\mathcal{H}^2 = 0. $$ If we further require that $\xi$ vanishes on the boundary, we have the EL equation $$\int_B \nabla u \cdot \nabla \xi + 4(u^2-1)u \,\xi dx = 0. $$ Suppose we also have that $u \in H^2(B)$, we have $$\int_B -\Delta u \, \xi + 4(u^2-1)u \xi dx + \int_{\partial B } \dfrac{\partial u}{\partial n}\xi- Q'(u)\xi d\mathcal{H}^2 = 0. $$ We finally obtain the equation $$\Delta u = 4(u^2-1)u \,\text{ in } B \,\text{ and }\, \dfrac{\partial u}{\partial n}=Q'(u) \,\text{ on }\, \partial B.$$

My main goal is to prove the minimizer $u_0$ solve the above equation weakly with the desried Neumann boundary condition. However, my question is how to obtain the $H^2$ bound of $u$? I think we can apply standard estimate to obtain $H^2_{loc}$. If we do not have the fact that $u \in H^2(B)$, we may hard to have the existence of $\dfrac{\partial u}{\partial n}$ on the boundary by trace theorem.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ From the context, it looks like your "$E:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$" (third line) should be "$E:H^1(B)\to \mathbb{R}$". $\endgroup$ – DCM May 27 at 23:16
  • $\begingroup$ Just to make sure I understand correctly: is the goal here to show that the minimising $u_0\in H^1(B)$ is a $H^2(B)$ function satisfying your Neumann problem? $\endgroup$ – DCM May 27 at 23:22
  • $\begingroup$ @DCM Thanks for pointing out my mistake! $\endgroup$ – mnmn1993 May 28 at 5:12
1
$\begingroup$

Let $u\in H^1(B)$ be a minimising value of $E:H^1(B)\to \mathbb{R}_+$. Then $E'(u)=0$ in the sense that

$$ E'(u)v = \int_B [\nabla u \cdot \nabla v + 4(u^2-1)uv ] dx - \int_{\partial B} Q'(u)v \hspace{.5pc}d\mathcal{H}^2 = 0 $$

for all $v\in H^1(B)$. This implies, in particular, that

$$ \int_B [-u \Delta v + 4(u^2-1)uv] \hspace{.5pc}dx = 0 $$

for $v\in \mathscr{D}(B)$ (this uses the fact that $v$ and all its derivatives vanish on $\partial B$ if it has compact support in $B$). Having this last equation hold for all $v\in \mathscr{D}(B)$ is exactly the statement that

$$ \Delta u = 4(u^2-1)u \hspace{1pc}\mbox{in $B$ } $$

in the sense of distributions. The interior equation in the distributional sense is therefore just what you get from regarding $E'(u)$ itself as a distribution (i.e. by restricting it to $\mathscr{D}(B))$.

For each compact subset $K$ of $B$, take $\psi_K\in \mathscr{D}(B)$ with $\psi_{|K}=1$. Then considering the action of $E'(u)$ on $\{v(1-\psi_K):v\in C^\infty(\bar B),\mbox{$K\subset B$ compact}\}$ should - I think - also give you a weak form of your boundary condition.

I might be wrong, but I think that it's only once you have your interior equation in a (weak or distributional) form which does a priori involve the assumption that $u\in H^2(B)$ that it's time time to start worrying about regularity. In particular, you may be able to establish that $u\in H^2(B)$ using the fact that it is a $H^1$ solution to your PDE.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, you are right. For a general $H^1(B)$ function, I think it may be have a well-defined derivative on the boundary and also the $\Delta u$ (ever in weak or distributional sense?). However my main goal is as the title, I do not know if I construct it in the correct way. I also look for another construction if mine is not good enough. $\endgroup$ – mnmn1993 May 28 at 5:16
  • $\begingroup$ I think the general pattern you follow is sound. Assuming $E:H^1(B)\to \mathbb{R}$ is differentiable, a necessary condition for $u\in H^1(B)$ to be a minimiser is that $E'(u)v = 0$ for all $v\in H^1(B)$. Choosing $v\in H^1_0(B)$ gives you your "EL" equation, for example. The key thing is that $u$ has to satisfy the $E'(u)v = 0$ whatever $v\in H^1(B)$ you choose, which is the main mechanism through which you're able to deduce things about its behaviour. $\endgroup$ – DCM May 28 at 8:46
  • $\begingroup$ In particular, I'd be inclined to see what you get by using Green's identity (thought of in a distributional sense, at least initially) in the equation in your third display, and seeing what drops out of that for different choices of $v$. $\endgroup$ – DCM May 28 at 8:47
  • $\begingroup$ I think the slickest way to get the interior equation and the boundary equation alone is by choosing test functions $v$ which satisfy a suitable PDE of their own (a PDE designed to make one of the two integrals vanish). $\endgroup$ – DCM May 28 at 9:15
  • $\begingroup$ I nice analogy here is 'plotting the graph of a function'. $E'(u)$ is a linear function(al) on $H^1(B)$; we learn about its `shape' behaviour by plugging in values and seeing what we get. The behaviour of $E'(u)$ then tells us things about $u$. $\endgroup$ – DCM May 28 at 9:18

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.