2
$\begingroup$

Let $f \in W^{1,p}(U)$, then how to prove that $|f| \in W^{1,p}(U)$, where $W$ means the sobolev space over some open subset $U \in \mathbb{R}^n$.

In Lieb's Analysis he prove that Let $f$ be in $W^{1, p}(\Omega)$. Then the absolute value of $f$, denoted by $|f|$ and defined by $|f|(x)=|f(x)|$, is in $W^{1, p}(\Omega)$ with $\nabla|f|$ being the function $$ (\nabla|f|)(x)= \begin{cases}\frac{1}{|f|(x)}(R(x) \nabla R(x)+I(x) \nabla I(x)) & \text { if } f(x) \neq 0 \\ 0 & \text { if } f(x)=0\end{cases} $$ here $R(x),I(X)$ denote the real part and imaginary part of $f(x)$.

In the proof he uses the inequality $|\frac{1}{|f|(x)}(R(x) \nabla R(x)+I(x) \nabla I(x))|^2 \leq |\nabla R(x)|^2+|\nabla I(x)|^2$ and chain rule to show that $\nabla|f| \in L^p$, but how it implies $\partial |f| \in L^p(U)$, do we have $|\frac{1}{|f|(x)}(R(x) \partial R(x)+I(x) \partial I(x))|^2 \leq |\partial R(x)|^2+|\partial I(x)|^2$ ?

In all, I have three question:

  1. How to prove that $|\frac{1}{|f|(x)}(R(x) \nabla R(x)+I(x) \nabla I(x))|^2 \leq |\nabla R(x)|^2+|\nabla I(x)|^2$

  2. How to prove that $\partial |f| \in L^p(U)$.

  3. I wonder whether or not $|f| \in W_0^{1,p}(U)$ when $f \in W_0^{1,p}(U)$. I can't find a counterexample

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The easy way to deal with absolute value of a function of Sobolev class, is approximating the function $x\to |f(x)|$ by $x\mapsto (f(x)^2+\epsilon^2)^{1/2}$, using the definition of the Sobolev space by weak derivatives, taking limits. $\endgroup$ Nov 30, 2022 at 14:54

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

Part 1 follows from the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, applied to the two vectors $(R(x), I(x))$, $(\nabla R(x), \nabla I(x))$.

Part 2 follows from the simple inequality $|\partial_j R(x)| \leq \sqrt {\sum_i (\partial_i R(x))^2 } = |\nabla R(x)|$ for all $j$ (and similarly for $I$).

I am not sure about part 3 myself.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ thanks, it helps me a lot $\endgroup$
    – user494763
    Dec 1, 2022 at 12:52
  • $\begingroup$ You're welcome! Do accept the answer if you're satisfied with it. $\endgroup$
    – Nate River
    Dec 1, 2022 at 13:32
2
$\begingroup$

Here is a result that proves part 3. It is copied from the paper:

P. Hajłasz, J. Maly, Approximation in Sobolev spaces of nonlinear expressions involving the gradient Ark. Mat. 40 (2002), 245--274.

enter image description here

Let me explain the ``easy to see'' statement: $\min\{\varphi_k,u\}\to\min\{v,u\}$ in $W^{1,p}$.

Since $\min\{f,g\}=f-(f-g)^+$ ($+$ stands for the positive part), it suffices to prove that $$ f_k\to f \quad \Rightarrow \quad f_k^+\to f^+ \quad \text{in } W^{1,p}. $$ Inequality $|f_k^+-f^+|\leq |f_k-f|$ yields convergence in $L^p$ and convergence of the gradients follows from the fact that $$ \nabla f^+= \begin{cases} \nabla f & \text{if} f\geq 0,\\ 0 & \text{if } f<0. \end{cases} $$ This equality follows from the characterization of Sobolev functions though absolute continuity on lines, see Corollary 2.31 in

P. Hajlasz, Lecture Notes

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ thanks, it's useful. But I dont understand why when the min function converges to u , then u is in the closure, Is the min already in the closure , or when take min on two smooth function we still get a smooth function? $\endgroup$
    – user494763
    Dec 1, 2022 at 12:52
  • $\begingroup$ @user494763 I added some explanations. $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2022 at 14:31

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.