2
$\begingroup$
  1. Let $\zeta:\mathbb{R}\to [0,+\infty)$ be a continuous non-negative function such that $\zeta(0)=0$ and $\tau\mapsto \zeta(\tau)\tau$ is a non-decreasing differentiable function whose derivative is bounded on every compact subset of $\mathbb{R}$.

  2. Let $\{\phi_{k}, \lambda_{k}\}_{k \in \Bbb N}$ be the the Dirichlet eigenpairs of the n Laplace operator on an open bounded set $\Omega\subset \Bbb R^N$, i.e., $\phi_k\in H_0^1(\Omega)$ and $-\Delta \phi_k= \lambda_k\phi_k$. Recall $\{\phi_k\}_{k}$ is an orthonormal basis in $L^2(\Omega)$.

  3. Question: Let $\mathcal{V}_{k}= \operatorname{span}\{\phi_1,\dotsc, \phi_{k}\}$. According to page 5 Eq (3.3) of Starovoitov - Boundary value problem for a global in time parabolic equation, the Brouwer fixed-point theorem implies the existence of a vector $v_k\in \mathcal{V}_k$ such that \begin{equation}\label{Star-3.3} \int_\Omega \nabla v_{k}\cdot \nabla \phi dx + \int_\Omega\zeta(v_k)v_k\phi dx=\int_\Omega f\phi dx\quad\text{for all}\quad\phi\in \mathcal{V}_{k}. \end{equation}

How can one justify this claim?

My Taught and ideas

In fact, that $\phi_k\in L^\infty (\Omega)$ is the only important property needed from $\phi_k$. So that by assumption the function $\zeta(v_k)v_k$ is bounded. Since we are in finite-dimensional space and $\int_\Omega \nabla \phi_{i}\cdot \nabla \phi_j dx=\lambda_i\delta_{ij}$, the above equation reduces into finding $v_k=(v_{k,1}\phi_1+ \dotsb+v_{k,k}\phi_k)$ satisfying \begin{equation}\label{Star-3.v} \sum_{i=1}^k\lambda_iv_{k,i}\phi_i + \zeta(v_k)v_k = f_k\quad\text{in} \quad \mathcal{V}_{k}, \end{equation} where $f_k=(f_{k,1}\phi_1+ \dotsb+f_{k,k}\phi_k)$ is the projection of $f$ on $\mathcal V_k$. Note that by abuse of notation we again write $\zeta(v_k)v_k$ to denote its own projection on $\mathcal{V}_k$.

Recall Brouwer fixed-point theorem: Every continuous function from a closed ball of a Euclidean space into itself has a fixed point.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is $\varphi=\phi$ and does $\phi(v_k)$ mean the composition then? And what is the product $v_k\cdot b_k$ of a function with a vector? $\endgroup$ Feb 7 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinVäth $v_k\cdot b_k= \sum v_{k,i}\lambda_i$ is just the standard scalar product. $\endgroup$
    – Guy Fsone
    Feb 7 at 22:00
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinVäth I have changed the notations.. sorry for the confusion $\endgroup$
    – Guy Fsone
    Feb 7 at 22:34
  • $\begingroup$ How can you reduce to the last equation? Shouldn't you have the projection of $\zeta(v_k)v_k$ on ${\mathcal V}_k$ in it? $\endgroup$ Feb 8 at 4:07
  • $\begingroup$ @PietroMajer You are right. it is just an abuse of notation. the whole equation is projected in $\mathcal V_k$ $\endgroup$
    – Guy Fsone
    Feb 8 at 8:57
1
$\begingroup$

What is needed is an a-priori $L_\infty$ bound for the solution $v_k$. If you know such an a-priori bound, you can modify $\zeta$ outside of this bound, and you can assume without of generality that $\zeta(u)=0$ for large $|u|$. (More precisely, you need the same a-priori bounded for the modified equation, that is, you have to know that any solution of the modified equation is also a solution of the original equation.)

Then the finite-dimensional equation is of the form $$Av+F(v)=0$$ where $A$ is linear and positive definite, and $F$ is continuous and bounded. In particular, $A^{-1}$ exists, and the equation thus is equivalent to $$v=-A^{-1}F(v)\text.$$ The range of the map $G=-A^{-1}F$ is contained in some ball. In particular, $G$ maps this ball into itself, and so Brouwer's fixed point theorem implies that $G$ has a fixed point which thus is a solution of the finite-dimensional equation.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ The assumption says the derivative of $\zeta(t)t$ is locally bounded and not the function itself. But yes this assumption implies the local boundedness $\zeta(t)t$. $\endgroup$
    – Guy Fsone
    Feb 10 at 22:25
  • $\begingroup$ I know, but I guess that some assumption was forgotten, because it was used in the question e.g. that $\zeta(v_k)v_k$ is bounded. Moreover, I am quite sure that the assertion is not provable from the finite-dimensional reduction if practically nothing more than the continuity of $u\mapsto z(u)u$ is assumed - local boundedness of the derivative is practically an empty hypothesis concerning Brouwer. It is sufficient that $\frac{\lVert F(u)\rVert}{\lVert u\rVert}\to0$ as $\rVert u\rVert\to\infty$, though. This is a bit weaker than global boundedness. $\endgroup$ Feb 10 at 22:38
  • $\begingroup$ How to you get that the range of G is in a ball? I tough we have to find $G$ and $R>0$ such that $\|v\|\leq R\implies \|G(v)\|\leq R$? This would solve the problem. $\endgroup$
    – Guy Fsone
    Feb 10 at 22:40
  • $\begingroup$ If $u\mapsto\zeta(u)u$ is (globally) bounded, then $F$ (and thus $G$) is globally bounded, that is, there is some $R$ such that $\lVert G(v)\rVert\le R$ for every $v$. As mentioned in the previous comment, instead of the boundedness, sublinear growth near $\infty$ is suffiicient. $\endgroup$ Feb 10 at 22:42
  • $\begingroup$ Note that $\phi_k's\in L^\infty$ and thus $v_k\in L^\infty$ because $v_k\in \mathcal V_k$ that is why we have that $\zeta(v_k)v_k$ is bounded by assumption. $\endgroup$
    – Guy Fsone
    Feb 10 at 22:44
1
$\begingroup$

Only now I realize the condition that $\zeta$ is nonnegative. (Was it really there in the first formulation of the question?)

With this condition, it is possible to get the required a-priori bound required for my other reply by a simple sign argument:

Choose the test function $\varphi=v_k$ in the equation.

Then the first summmand in that equation is bounded from below by $c\lVert v_k\rVert_{L_2}^2$ where $c>0$ is a constant coming from Poincaré's inequality, the second summand is nonnegative, and the absolute value of the last summand is bounded from above by $\lVert v_k\rVert_{L_2}$ by Cauchy-Schwarz. Hence, the equation cannot hold if $\lVert v_k\rVert_{L_2}\ge R$, where $R>0$ is independent of the particular form of $\zeta$.

Hence, you can replace $\zeta$ by $\widetilde\zeta(v)=\lambda(\lVert v\rVert_{L_2})\zeta(v)$ where $\lambda\colon[0,\infty)\to[0,1]$ is continuous with $\lambda|_{[0,R]}=1$ and $\lambda_{[R+1,\infty)}=0$, and for both equations the solutions have $L_2$-norm at most $R$, where the equations coincide. In other words: The original equation with $\zeta$ and the modified equation with $\widetilde\zeta$ have the same solutions.

For the modified equation $v\mapsto\widetilde\zeta(v)v$ is globally bounded, and the argument from the other comment applies.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

First using Brouwer

Let $w\in \mathcal{V}_k$, necessarily $\zeta(w)$ is a bounded function since $\phi_k $'s are also bounded. The Lax-Milgram lemma implies there is a unique function $\widehat{w}\in \mathcal{V}_k$ such that \begin{align} \int_\Omega\nabla\widehat{w}\nabla\phi +\zeta(w)\widehat{w}\phi -f\psi dx=0\quad\text{for all}\quad\phi\in \mathcal{V}_{k}. \end{align}

The Poincar'{e}--Friedrichs inequality yields \begin{equation} \int_\Omega|\nabla\widehat{w}|^2dx + \int_\Omega \zeta(w )\widehat{w}^2\, d x\leq \|f\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}\,\|\widehat{w}\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}\leq C\|f\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}\, \|\widehat{w}\|_{H_0^1(\Omega )} \end{equation}

Thus, letting $R=C\,\|f\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}$, since $\varphi\geq0 $ we obtain the following estimates \begin{align}\label{eq:boundedmapT} &\|\widehat{w}\|_{H_0^1(\Omega )}\leq R \quad\text{ and }\quad \int_\Omega \zeta(w )\widehat{w}^2\,dx\leq R^2. \end{align} We let $ \mathcal{B}_R=\big\{ w\in \mathcal{V}_k: \|w\|_{H_0^1(\Omega)} \leq R\big\}$, be the closed ball in $\mathcal{V}_k$ of radius $R$ centered at the origin. Clearly, the mapping $T:\mathcal{V}_k\to \mathcal{B}_R$ with $Tw=\widehat{w}$ is well defined.

It remains to prove that $T$ is a continuous mapping. Indeed, let $\{w_n\}$ be a sequence in $\mathcal{V}_k$ with $w_n= \lambda_{1,n}\phi_1+\cdots+ \lambda_{k,n}\phi_k$ converging in $\mathcal{V}_k$ to a function $w= \lambda_1\phi_1+\cdots+ \lambda_k\phi_k$; i.e., $\lambda_{\ell,n}\xrightarrow{n\to\infty } \lambda_\ell$, $\ell=1,2,\cdots,k$. By continuity we have $ \varphi(w_n)\xrightarrow{n\to \infty}\varphi(w)$ almost everywhere. In addition, the convergence in $L^2(\Omega)$ also holds, since the continuity gives $\sup_{n\geq 0} \|\varphi(w_n) \|_{L^\infty(\Omega)} <\infty$ because $\sup_{n\geq 0}\|w_n\|_{L^\infty(\Omega) } <\infty$.

On the other side, in virtue of the first estimate above the sequence $\{Tw_n\}$ is bounded in finite dimensional space $\mathcal{V}_k$ and thus converges $\mathcal{V}_k$ up to a subsequence to some $w_*\in \mathcal{V}_k$. Altogether, it follows that, for all $\phi\in \mathcal{V}_k\subset L^\infty(\Omega)$ % \begin{align*} (f,\phi)= \lim_{n\to \infty} \int_\Omega\nabla\widehat{w}_n\nabla\phi +\zeta(w_n)\widehat{w}_n\phi dx= \int_\Omega\nabla\widehat{w}\nabla\phi +\zeta(w)w_* \phi. \end{align*}

The uniqueness of $\widehat{w}$ entails $w_*=\widehat{w}=Tw$ and hence the whole sequence $\{Tw_n\}$ converges in $Tw$ in $\mathcal V_k$, which gives the continuity of $T$.

Therefore, by the Brouwer fixed-point theorem, $T$ has a fixed point $v_k\in \mathcal V_k$, i.e., $v_k=Tv_k$ which clearly satisfies the announced relation.

An alternative.

The given problem is equivalent to the minimization problem \begin{align} \mathcal{J}(v_k)= \min_{v\in \mathcal{V}_k} \mathcal{J}(v)\quad \text{with}\quad \mathcal{J}(v):= \frac12 \int_\Omega|\nabla v|^2 dx + \int_\Omega G(v)d x + \int_\Omega fvd x \end{align} and we define the function $G(v)= \int_0^v\zeta(\tau)\tau d \tau $. Note that $G$ is non-negative since $\zeta(\tau)\geq 0$ and that $\mathcal J$ is continuous on $\mathcal V_k$. Using the Poincaré-Friedrichs inequality we find that $\mathcal{J}(v)\to \infty$, as $\|v\|_{L^2(\Omega)} \to \infty$ and $v\in \mathcal{V}_k$. Which implies the existence of a minimizer $v_k\in \mathcal{V}_k$ of \mathcal{J}, since we are in finite dimension space.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Why is $G$ non-negative? $v$ can be negative. $\endgroup$ Feb 14 at 13:17
  • $\begingroup$ for the negative $v \leq 0$ you have to reverse the integral \int_v^0 you will get $G\geq0$ $\endgroup$
    – Guy Fsone
    Feb 14 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ I haven't calculated carefully, but I think that if you have $G(v)=G(|v|)$ the the derivative for e.g. strictly negative $v$ has the wrong sign. My reason to assume this without calculation is that in case $\zeta(0)\ne0$ the derivative at $0$ does not exist while I think that this should be the case for the "correct" definition of $G$. $\endgroup$ Feb 15 at 20:26
  • $\begingroup$ If $v\geq 0$ then $G(v)\geq 0$ this is clear. If $v\leq 0$ then $\zeta(t)t\leq 0$ for all $v\leq t\leq 0$ which implies $\int_v^0 \zeta(t)td t\leq 0$ that is $G(v)=\int_0^v \zeta(t)tdt\geq 0$ $\endgroup$
    – Guy Fsone
    Feb 15 at 22:59
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, stupid me! Thank you! I was already so confused that the positive definitness of the derivative (which I had used in my proof) and the boundedness of the functional from below (which you had used) seemed unrelated to me at a first glance... Of course, the former must imply the latter (and actual convexity of the functional). $\endgroup$ Feb 16 at 18:55

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.