3
$\begingroup$
  • Can we find an explicit example of a sequence of functions $f_k \in H^1({\mathbf R}^3)$ such that, $f_k \rightharpoonup f$ weakly converges in $H^1({\mathbf R}^3)$ and $f_k \to f$ strongly converges in $L^6(R^3)$, but $f_k$ does not strongly converge to $f$ in $H^1({\mathbf R}^3)$?
  • What happens if one changes ${\mathbf R}^3$ into ${\mathbf T}^3$?
  • I know that we can use the orthogonal basis decomposition to get a abstract consturction of a sequence $\{f_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ such that $\|f_i\|_{H^1({\mathbf R}^3)}\leq M$ that does not have a limit in $H^1({\mathbf R}^3)$, similar in $H^1({\mathbf R}^3)$, and use the diagnoal take subsequence method we can find a sequence $\{f_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$, coverges weakly in $H^1(R^3)$, strongly in $L^6(R^3)$, but $f_i$ is not strong converges to $f$ in $H^1(R^3)$, if $f_i$ is not a cauchy sequence in $H^1(R^3)$
  • The question I can not understand is, is the a mechanism for PDE to make the sequence weak solution $\{u_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ come from a sequences of approximation to the original PDE, and a weak solution $u$ in $H^1(R^3)$) which is a weak limit of a subsequences of $\{u_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ satisfied weak converage in $H^1(R^3)$ and strong converage in $L^{q}, \forall q<q^*$, but by some reason (after take subsequence) it is finally strong converage in $H^1(R^3)$? or do there exists such an counterexample come from a particular system differential equations, i.e. if we can construct a sequence of systems partial differential equations $S=\{P_i(u,\nabla u,\nabla^2 u,...,\nabla^ku, f_1,...,f_{s_i})=0, 1\leq i\leq t\}$ and a sequence of approximation of it, said $S_1,.S_2,...,S_n,...$, for every $S_k$ we have a weak solution $u_k$ of $S_k$, and $u_k$ are uniformly bounded in some suitable space $H$, and by take subsequencese of $u_k$ we gain a weak solution $u$ of $S$ and $u$ is a strong limit of $u_k$ in $M $ for all $H \hookrightarrow M$, but we can not prove $u$ is in any higher regularity space than some $M,$ such that $H \hookrightarrow M$ by Rellich–Kondrachov theorem, and in fact $u_k$ is not strong converage to $u$ in $H$?

Let me give some example, from PDE

  • Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^{n}, a_{i j}$ be bounded functions in $\Omega,$ with $a_{j i}=a_{ji},$ and $c$ be an integrable function in $\Omega .$ consider a differential operator $L$ of the second order defined by \begin{equation*} L u=-\sum_{i, j=1}^{n} \partial_{j}\left(a_{i j}(x) \partial_{i} u\right)+c(x) u \end{equation*} we can consider weak solution of this equation, at least in $H^1(\Omega)$

For some $f \in L^{2}(\Omega),$ a function $u \in H_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1}(\Omega)$ is called a weak solution if $L u =f$ holds weakly in $\Omega,$ i.e., \begin{equation*} \int_{\Omega}\left(a_{i j} \partial_{i} u \partial_{j} \varphi+c u \varphi\right) d x = \int_{\Omega} f \varphi d x \end{equation*} for any $\varphi \in D(\Omega)$ the test function space with $\varphi \geq 0$, assume we can find weak solution $u_k \in H^2(\Omega)$ solve a relative equation $L_{k}u=f_k$ where $L_k \to L, f_k\to f$ as $k\to \infty$, than by take subsequence and use then by Rellich–Kondrachov campact embedding theorem we can only gain weak solution $u$ of $Lu=f$ is strong converage limit of $u_k$ in $L^{q}(\Omega), q<\frac{n^2}{(n-1)^2}$.

But in this case, beacuse of the equation ifself, we have a priori estimate, said, let $\Omega=B_{R}$ be a ball in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, for $a_{i j} \in L^{\infty}\left(B_{R}\right)$ uniformly elliptic and $c \in L^{q}\left(B_{R}\right),$ for some $q>n / 2 .$ Assume $u \in H^{1}\left(B_{R}\right)$ satisfies $L u = f$ weakly in $B_{R}$. If $f \in L^{q}\left(B_{R}\right),$ then $u^{+} \in L_{\text {loc }}^{\infty}\left(B_{R}\right)$ and \begin{equation*} \sup _{B_{R / 2}} u^{+} \leq C\left\{R^{-\frac{n}{2}}\left\|u^{+}\right\|_{L^{2}\left(B_{R}\right)}+R^{2-\frac{n}{\sigma}}\|f\|_{L^{0}\left(B_{R}\right)}\right\} \end{equation*} where $C$ is a positive constant depending only on $n, \lambda, \Lambda, q$ and $R^{2-n / q}\|c\|_{L^{q}\left(B_{R}\right)}$ This said, morally, in a smaller set of $\Omega$, we have $L^{\infty}$ estimate for the weak solution $u$, which is out of the scope of Rellich–Kondrachov campact embedding theorem, and the reason to make it hold is come from the structure of the equation. And the prove , roughly speaking, just use the structure of the equation to gain something can not hold if $u$ do not have enough regularity, i.e. \begin{equation*} \|u\|_{L^{p_{1}}\left(B_{r_{1}}\right)} \leq C\|u\|_{L^{p_{2}}\left(B_{r_{2}}\right)} \end{equation*} for $p_{1}>p_{2}$ and $r_{1}<r_{2} .$ This is a reversed Hölder inequality. And interaction with this inequality to get a $L^{\infty}$ bound of $u$.

  • In parobalic revolution equation, We intend to build a weak solution of the parabolic problem \begin{equation*} \left\{\begin{aligned} u_{t}+L u=f & \text { in } U_{T} \\ u=0 & \text { on } \partial U \times[0, T] \\ u=g & \text { on } U \times\{t=0\} \end{aligned}\right. \end{equation*} This can be done by construct weak solution of a sequence of finitespace approximation problem to the original parabolic problem, and proof these solution a uniformly bounded in a suitable space, then take a sub sequences to gain a weak solution of the original equation, said the solution is $u$, then by Rellich–Kondrachov campact embedding theorem, we can(by taken subsequence in the limit process to get $u$) assume $u$ in $L^{q}$, for $q<q^*, q^*$ is the critical exponent of compact embedding, but we have a refine priori estimate(which can not gain from Rellich), Assume $g \in H_{0}^{1}(U), \mathrm{f} \in L^{2}\left(0, T ; L^{2}(U)\right)$

Suppose also $\mathbf{u} \in L^{2}\left(0, T ; H_{0}^{1}(U)\right),$ with $\mathbf{u}^{\prime} \in L^{2}\left(0, T ; H^{-1}(U)\right),$ is the weak solution of \begin{equation*} \left\{\begin{aligned} u_{t}+L u=f & \text { in } U_{T} \\ u=0 & \text { on } \partial U \times[0, T] \\ u=g & \text { on } U \times\{t=0\} \end{aligned}\right. \end{equation*} Then in fact \begin{equation*} \mathbf{u} \in L^{2}\left(0, T ; H^{2}(U)\right) \cap L^{\infty}\left(0, T ; H_{0}^{1}(U)\right), \mathbf{u}^{\prime} \in L^{2}\left(0, T ; L^{2}(U)\right) \end{equation*} and we have the estimate \begin{equation*} \operatorname{ess} \sup _{0 \leq t \leq T}\|\mathbf{u}(t)\|_{H_{0}^{1}(U)}+\|\mathbf{u}\|_{L^{2}\left(0, T ; H^{2}(U)\right)}+\left\|\mathbf{u}^{\prime}\right\|_{L^{2}\left(0, T ; L^{2}(U)\right)} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \leq C\left(\|\mathbf{f}\|_{L^{2}\left(0, T ; L^{2}(U)\right)}+\|g\|_{H_{0}^{1}(U)}\right) \end{equation*} constant $C$ depending only on $U, T$ and the coefficients of $L$. $U\subset R^n$, in particuler $\mathbf{u} \in L^{\infty}\left(0, T ; H_{0}^{1}(U)\right)$ , this is already beyond the scope of Rellich–Kondrachov campact embedding theorem A similar situation happen in, $\left\{\begin{aligned} u_{tt}+L u &=f \text { in } U_{T} \\ u &=0 \text { on } \partial U \times[0, T] \\ u &=g \text { on } U \times\{t=0\} \end{aligned}\right.$

  • considering the following initial-value problem (IVP) for the gKdV equation on the real line $\mathbb{R}$ : \begin{equation*} \left\{\begin{array}{l} \partial_{t} u+\partial_{x}^{3} u+\partial_{x} F(u)=0 \\ u(0, x)=g(x) \end{array}\right. \end{equation*} where the solution $u(t, x)$ is a real-valued function of two real variables and the given function $g(x)$ is its initial profile. then with $F(u)=u^{5}$. Then there exists $\varepsilon_{0}>0$ such that if $g$ satisfies \begin{equation*} \|g\|_{1}+\|g\|_{H^{1}}<\varepsilon_{0} \end{equation*} the solution to the corresponding gKdVequation is dispersive; more precisely, it satisfies \begin{equation*} \sup _{t \in \mathbb{R}}\langle t\rangle^{1 / 3}\|u(t)\|_{\infty}<\infty \end{equation*} This is also out of the scope of Rellich–Kondrachov campact embedding theorem

Finally, I state the question I wondering a answer

  • if we can construct a sequence of systems partial differential equations $S=\{P_i(u,\nabla u,\nabla^2 u,...,\nabla^ku, f_1,...,f_{s_i})=0, 1\leq i\leq t\}$ and a sequence of approximation of it, said $S_1,.S_2,...,S_n,...$, for every $S_k$ we have a weak solution $u_k$ of $S_k$, and $u_k$ are uniformly bounded in some suitable space $H$, and by take subsequencese of $u_k$ we gain a weak solution $u$ of $S$ and $u$ is a strong limit of $u_k$ in $M $ for all $H \hookrightarrow M$, but we can not prove $u$ is in any higher regularity space than some $M,$ such that $H \hookrightarrow M$ by Rellich–Kondrachov theorem?
  • if we can construct a sequence of systems partial differential equations $S=\{P_i(u,\nabla u,\nabla^2 u,...,\nabla^ku, f_1,...,f_{s_i})=0, 1\leq i\leq t\}$ and a sequence of approximation of it, said $S_1,.S_2,...,S_n,...$, for every $S_k$ we have a weak solution $u_k$ of $S_k$, and $u_k$ are uniformly bounded in some suitable space $H$, and by take subsequencese of $u_k$ we gain a weak solution $u$ of $S$ and $u$ is a strong limit of $u_k$ in $M $ for all $H \hookrightarrow M$, but in fact $u_k$ is not strong converage to $u$ in $H$?
$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Uh, $H^1$ is weakly closed, no? $\endgroup$ – Hannes Nov 18 '20 at 13:26
  • $\begingroup$ sorry, the original intention $f_k$ is not strong converage to $f$ in $H_1(R^3)$, already corrected. $\endgroup$ – katago Nov 18 '20 at 16:45
  • $\begingroup$ The last two points are somehow obscure. Could you make them more clear? $\endgroup$ – Pietro Majer Nov 18 '20 at 18:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Pietro Majer , I already make it more clear. thanks for point out. $\endgroup$ – katago Nov 19 '20 at 10:28
5
$\begingroup$

First, note that the embedding $H^1(\mathbf{R}^3)\hookrightarrow L^p_{\text{loc}}(\mathbf{R}^3)$ is compact only for $p<6$, and the "loc" is mandatory for this compactness to hold. I know that you did not wrote anything in contradiction with this, but your assumptions surprised me a bit.

Now, consider $f_n:(x_1,x_2,x_3)\mapsto \frac{1}{n}\cos(n x_1)$.

We have $\|f_n\|_\infty\leq \frac{1}{n}\rightarrow_n 0$ and $\|\nabla f_n\|_\infty \leq 1$. In particular, for $\varphi\in\mathscr{D}(\mathbf{R}^3)$ a test function equalling $1$ on the cube $C:=[0,2\pi]^3$, the sequence defined by $g_n:=\varphi f_n$ is bounded in $H^1(\mathbf{R}^3)$ and converges to $0$ in all $L^p(\mathbf{R}^3)$.

On the other hand $(g_n)_n$ weakly converges to $0$ in $H^1(\mathbf{R}^3)$ (for the gradient part, this is due to the Riemann-Lebesgue Lemma) but cannot converge strongly in this space, neither do any of its subsequences. Indeed, one has, on the cube $C$, $\partial_1 g_n = \cos(nx_1)$. For $n\neq p$, by Fubini's Theorem : \begin{align*} \|\partial_1 g_n -\partial_1 g_p\|_{L^2(C)}^2 = 4\pi^2 \int_0^{2\pi}|\cos(nz)-\cos(pz)|^2\mathrm{d}z. \end{align*} Using the orthogonality of the family $(z\mapsto \cos(kz))_k$ in $L^2(0,2\pi)$ we get \begin{align*} \|\partial_1 g_n -\partial_1 g_p\|_{L^2(C)}^2 &= 4\pi^2\left( \int_0^{2\pi}\cos^2(nz)\,\mathrm{d}z+\int_0^{2\pi}\cos^2(pz)\,\mathrm{d}z\right)\\ &=4\pi^3. \end{align*} Bottom line : $(\partial_1 g_n)_n$ does not have any (strongly) converging subsequence in $L^2(\mathbf{R}^3)$, so neither does $(g_n)_n$ in $H^1(\mathbf{R}^3)$.

For the torus the previous analysis applies verbatim, replacing $\cos(n x_1)$ by $\cos(2\pi n x_1)$ depending on the normalization you choose. In this case of course you can stick to $(f_n)_n$ (no need to multiply by a test function).

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ thanks for this answer, this is a very explict construnction to a sequence of functions $f_k\in H^1(R^3)$ such that, $f_k\to f$ weakly converges in $H^1(R^3)$ and $f_k\to f$ strongly converges in $L^6(R^3)$, and $f_k$ does not strongly converge to $f$ in $H^1(R^3)$. Could there still have a counterexample when $u_k$ is a weak solution of k-th approximation of a PDE(or system of PDE)? $\endgroup$ – katago Nov 19 '20 at 10:52

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.