4
$\begingroup$

Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^3$ be a bounded smooth domain. In general, for a Poincare inequality of the type $$\|u\|_{L^2}\le C \|\nabla u\|_{L^2}$$ to hold for all $u\in X\subset H^1(\Omega)$ and $C$ independent of $u$, then $X$ needs to be such that it doesn't contain constant translates. That is, if we consider $u+M$ for large $M>0$, the left hand side of the inequality increases indefinitely while the right hand side is unchanged, so we need some extra constraint in the definition of $X$. So common choices are $X=H^1_0(\Omega)$ or $X=\{u\in H^1(\Omega)| \int_\Omega u\,dx=0\}$.

Here's my question. Suppose, we'd like to say that there exists $C$ such that for all $u\in X=\{u\in H^2(\Omega)|(\partial_n u+u)_{|\partial\Omega}=0\}\subset H^2(\Omega)$ we have $$\|u\|_{L^2}\le C\|\nabla u\|_{L^2}.$$ First, is this true? If so, how does one prove such a statement? Essentially the requirement that $u$ satisfies the homogeneous Robin condition $(\partial_n u+u)_{|\partial\Omega}=0$ should at least formally rule out constant translates, since $(\partial_n u+u)_{|\partial\Omega}=0$ is not invariant under translation of $u$ by constants.

My guess is that it IS true, however, the usual proof I know of such statements usually relies on some compactness argument. For example, if $X$ were simply $H_0^1(\Omega)$, then for the sake of contradiction, if we assume that there exists a sequence $u_n\in H_0^1$ such that $$\|u_n\|_{L^2}\ge n\|\nabla u_n\|_{L^2}$$ then, defining $v_n=u_n/\|u_n\|_{L^2}$, we have $$\frac{1}{n}\ge \|\nabla v_n\|_{L^2}.$$ Thus we have a bounded sequence in $H^1$ and a subsequence that converges strongly in $L^2$ and weakly in $H^1$ to some $v\in H^1$. Because $\|\nabla v_n\|_{L^2}\to 0$, $v$ is constant. And since the trace map is continuous (and weakly continuous) from $H^1(\Omega)$ to $H^\frac{1}{2}(\partial\Omega)$ we have that $v$ is in fact in $H^1_0(\Omega)$ and therefore $v=0$. Then we have a contradiction because $\|v_n\|_{L^2}=1$ for each $n$ implies that $\|v\|_{L^2}=1$.

Now this argument doesn't work for Robin boundary conditions because now the relevant (Robin) trace operator is continuous and weakly continuous from $H^2(\Omega)$ to $H^\frac{1}{2}(\partial\Omega)$. In particular, if $v$ is the weak $H^1$ limit of a sequence $v_n\in H^2$, then $v$ could be in $H^1$ but not $H^2$ and thus the notion of the normal derivative $(\partial_n v)_{|\partial\Omega}$ may not even make sense for $v$. And without being able to say $(\partial_n v+v)_{|\partial\Omega}=0$, we can't necessarily say that $v=0$ like we did in the previous paragraph. So this is where I'm stuck. Any help would be appreciated.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ You are not dense, I was wrong. The counterexample by gerw is fine. $\endgroup$
    – username
    Commented Jun 9, 2021 at 13:30
  • $\begingroup$ Fozz, you might want to check Section 6.16 in "Linear functional analysis" by Alt where a quite general theorem on the validity of Poincare inequalities for subsets $X$ of $W^{1,p}$ is proven. (There it is also required that $X$ is convex and closed, so weakly closed!) $\endgroup$
    – Hannes
    Commented Jun 9, 2021 at 14:44

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

This is not true. Take $\Omega = (-1,1)$ and functions $u_M$ like (I hope that I got the constants right) $$ u_M(x) =\begin{cases} -M^2 (|x|-1)(|x|-1+1/M) + M & \text{for } |x| > 1-1/(2M) \\ 1/4 + M & \text{else.}\end{cases} $$ Then, $\|u_M\|_{L^2}$ grows like $M$, whereas $\|\nabla u_M\|_{L^2}$ grows like $\sqrt{M}$. By modifying the definition of $u_M$ it should also be possible to get a bounded norm of the derivative.

The idea is to take an constant function and to modify it locally such that it satisfies the boundary condition. This is possible since $u \mapsto \partial_\nu u$ cannot be bounded on $H^1(\Omega)$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Is $u_M$ in $H^2$? $\endgroup$
    – username
    Commented Jun 9, 2021 at 13:06
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, if I did not introduce an error, $u_M$ should belong to $C^{1,1} = W^{2,\infty}$. $\endgroup$
    – gerw
    Commented Jun 9, 2021 at 13:07
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, you are right, $Du$ is piecewise linear. The factor to scale everything by is $\sqrt{M/6}$. $\endgroup$
    – username
    Commented Jun 9, 2021 at 13:27
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, looks good. Just a sanity check here: if we were simply going for a statement like $\|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}\le C(\|\nabla u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}+\|u\|_{L^2(\partial\Omega)})$, then I think we can take $X=H^1(\Omega)$? $\endgroup$
    – Fozz
    Commented Jun 9, 2021 at 15:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Fozz: Yes, this is possible. $\endgroup$
    – gerw
    Commented Jun 9, 2021 at 16:07

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.