2
$\begingroup$

Let $\Omega=[0,1]^2$ be the unit square and $a>0$.

1) I would like to know one estimate of the constant $C(a)$ such that $$ \forall u\in W^{1,2}(\Omega)\quad \int_\Omega u^2\le C(a)\int_\Omega |\nabla u|^2, $$
under the weighted average and periodicity conditions $$ \int_\Omega e^{-ay}u(x,y)\, dx dy=0,\qquad u(0,y)=u(1,y). $$ Or, at least, a proof of existence.

2) How is the Euler-Lagrange equation of the associated variational problem? Is $$ \Delta u+\lambda u+\mu e^{-az}=0,\quad \int_\Omega u^2=1,\quad \int_\Omega e^{-ay}u=0 $$ correct?

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The first should be true (even without the periodicity condition) by expanding everything into the sines and cosines (aka eigenvalues of the laplacian). But I don't understand the second question. $\endgroup$ Apr 12, 2020 at 18:36
  • $\begingroup$ The second question is about the calculation of the optimal constant $C$ and the function $u$ realizing the infimum of $ \|\nabla u\|^2/ \|u\|^2$ $\endgroup$
    – DiegoG7
    Apr 12, 2020 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ Can you give an (even very rough) estimate of $C$ by means of the method of expansion you mentioned? $\endgroup$
    – DiegoG7
    Apr 12, 2020 at 18:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The first follows by contradiction (without the periodicity conditions) as for $a=0$. If false, you get a sequence $(u_n)$ of norm one functions and gradients tending to 0 in $L^2$. By compactness a subsequence converges in $L^2$ to a norm 1 function whose gradient is zero, hence to a constant. However, the mean zero condition (which is inherited by the limit) forces the constant to be 0 and contradicts norm 1. $\endgroup$ Apr 12, 2020 at 18:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My back of the envelope computation suggests that $C(a) = C\sqrt{a+1}$ works. $\endgroup$ Apr 12, 2020 at 19:03

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

For $u\in W^{1, 2}(\Omega)$ set $L(u) = \int_\Omega e^{-ay}u(x, y)dxdy$. We want to prove that if $L(u) = 0$ then $||u||_{L^2}\le C||\nabla u||_{L^2}$ for some universal constant $C$. We will first deal with the more interesting case $a \ge 1$ for simplicity.

Since $W^{1, 2}(\Omega)$ is a Hilbert space and $L$ is a continuous linear functional there exists $f\in W^{1, 2}(\Omega)$ such that $L(u) = \langle u, f\rangle_{W^{1, 2}}$. First of all let us prove that $||f||_{W^{1, 2}} \le \frac{C}{a}$. We have $||f||_{W^{1, 2}} = \sup_{||u||_{W^{1, 2}} = 1} |\langle u, f\rangle|_{W^{1, 2}}$.

$$\langle u, f\rangle_{W^{1, 2}} = \int_\Omega e^{-ay}u(x, y)dxdy = \int_\Omega \frac{\partial u}{\partial y}(x, y)\frac{1}{a}e^{-ay}dxdy + \int_0^1\frac{1}{a}u(x, 0)dx - \int_0^1\frac{e^{-a}}{a}u(x, 1)dx.$$

From this (and the boundedness of the trace map) we can easily see that $|\langle u, f\rangle_{W^{1, 2}}| \le \frac{C}{a}$ if $||u||_{W^{1, 2}} = 1$.

On the other hand we have $\langle 1, f\rangle_{W^{1, 2}} = \int_\Omega e^{-ay}dxdy = \frac{1-e^{-a}}{a} \ge \frac{1-e^{-1}}{a}$.

Let's expand everything into the eigenvectors of the Laplacian $v_0 = 1, v_1, v_2, \ldots $ with eigenvalues $0 = \lambda_0 < \lambda_1 \le \lambda_2 \le \ldots$(in our case they are sines and cosines but we do not need this). We normalize them so that $||v_n||_{L^2} = 1$.

Let $u = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty a_nv_n$, $f = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty b_nv_n$. We have $0 = \langle u, f\rangle_{W^{1, 2}} = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty (\lambda_n + 1)a_n \overline{b_n}$. Therefore

$$|a_0| = |-\frac{1}{\overline{b_0}} \sum_{n = 1}^\infty (\lambda_n + 1)a_n\overline{b_n}| \le \frac{1}{|b_0|} \sqrt{\sum_{n = 1}^\infty (\lambda_n + 1)|a_n|^2}\sqrt{\sum_{n = 1}^\infty (\lambda_n + 1)|b_n|^2} \le C\frac{1}{|b_0|}||\nabla u||_{L^2} *||f||_{W^{1, 2}},$$

where in the first inequality we used Cauchy-Schwarz and in the second we used the standard Poincare inequality for the zero-mean function $u - a_0$ (or the inequality $\frac{1+\lambda_n}{\lambda_n} \le \frac{1+\lambda_1}{\lambda_1} < \infty$).

Recall that $|b_0| = |\langle 1, f\rangle_{W^{1, 2}}| \ge \frac{c}{a}$ and $||f||_{W^{1, 2}} \le \frac{C}{a}$. Therefore we get (denoting all constants and their product by $C$) that

$$|a_0| \le C||\nabla u||_{L^2}.$$

Therefore we have

$$||u||_{L^2} = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty |a_n|^2 = |a_0|^2 + \sum_{n = 1}^\infty |a_n|^2 \le C^2||\nabla u||^2_{L^2} + C'||\nabla u||^2_{L^2} = C_1||\nabla u||^2_{L^2},$$

where in the inequality step we used the above bound for $|a_0|$ and once again standard Poincare inequality for $u-a_0$. This is exactly what we want.

In the case $0 < a < 1$ we can see directly from the definition (without integration by parts) that $|\langle u, f\rangle_{W^{1, 2}}| \le ||u||_{L^2} \le ||u||_{W^{1, 2}}$, therefore $||f||_{W^{1, 2}}\le 1$. On the other hand $\langle 1, f\rangle_{W^{1, 2}} = \frac{1-e^{-a}}{a} \ge c$ for some universal $c > 0$. The rest of the proof is exactly the same.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Ok. One more question: when you write $ \langle u, f\rangle_{W^{1, 2}} = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty (\lambda_n + 1)a_n \overline{b_n}$ I guess there has been an integration by parts on $\int\nabla u\cdot\nabla f$. What about the surface terms? $\endgroup$
    – DiegoG7
    Apr 13, 2020 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ @AlekseiKulikov I like the proof but I wonder what happens for $p \neq 2$ (also for similar situations). If $p>2$ one can use Sobolev embedding to deduce $L^p$ estimates from $L^2$ (hence also here $C$ does not depend on $a$) but I do not know for $p<2$. Do you see how to do? $\endgroup$ Apr 13, 2020 at 15:44
  • $\begingroup$ @DiegoG7 I don't think it is integration by parts... Like, we have $\langle v_n, v_m\rangle = \delta_{n, m} (\lambda_n + 1)$ by the definition of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors, I believe. I guess the right words here are Neumann eigenvalues $\endgroup$ Apr 13, 2020 at 15:45
  • $\begingroup$ @DiegoG7 Aleksei is using the Laplacian with Neumann boundary conditions. $\endgroup$ Apr 13, 2020 at 15:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @GiorgioMetafune Actually, there is a proof completely avoiding any eigenvalues and working for all $1\le p\le \infty$. Here is a sketch: we can decompose $u = c + u_0$ with $u_0$ zero-mean. Then we have $L(u) = L(c) + L(u_0) = cL(1) + L(u_0)$. Therefore $|c| = |-\frac{L(u_0)}{L(1)}| \le C||u_0||$ for some universal $C$ in our case (by the bounds for $||L||$ and $L(1)$ from the post). Thus $||u|| \le c + ||u_0|| \le (C+1)||u_0|| \le (C+1)C'||\nabla u_0|| = (C+1)C' ||\nabla u||$, where in the second step we used Poincare. $\endgroup$ Apr 13, 2020 at 15:56

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.