Mixing
How to choose the Testfunction-Space?
Every time I want to transform a boundary-value-problem of the form $-u'' + ... = f$ to it's weak formulation, I have problems choosing the testfunction-space.
I have the feeling that in scripts the standard testfct-space is $H_0^1(Omega)$ (of course just if $u(x)=0 forall x in partialOmega$).
Maybe it is a silly question, but why do we choose $H_0^1(Omega)$ and not just $W_0^{1,1}$?
Is it because we want to use the great properties of Hilbert-Spaces, especially of $L^2$ and also because we have reflexiveness then, ...?
I hope some of you can give me some answers and help me understanding the theory of differential equations better!
differential-equations hilbert-spaces sobolev-spaces lp-spaces boundary-value-problem
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:21
Spinnennetz
214
add a comment |
Every time I want to transform a boundary-value-problem of the form $-u'' + ... = f$ to it's weak formulation, I have problems choosing the testfunction-space.
I have the feeling that in scripts the standard testfct-space is $H_0^1(Omega)$ (of course just if $u(x)=0 forall x in partialOmega$).
Maybe it is a silly question, but why do we choose $H_0^1(Omega)$ and not just $W_0^{1,1}$?
Is it because we want to use the great properties of Hilbert-Spaces, especially of $L^2$ and also because we have reflexiveness then, ...?
I hope some of you can give me some answers and help me understanding the theory of differential equations better!
differential-equations hilbert-spaces sobolev-spaces lp-spaces boundary-value-problem
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:21
Spinnennetz
214
add a comment |
Every time I want to transform a boundary-value-problem of the form $-u'' + ... = f$ to it's weak formulation, I have problems choosing the testfunction-space.
I have the feeling that in scripts the standard testfct-space is $H_0^1(Omega)$ (of course just if $u(x)=0 forall x in partialOmega$).
Maybe it is a silly question, but why do we choose $H_0^1(Omega)$ and not just $W_0^{1,1}$?
Is it because we want to use the great properties of Hilbert-Spaces, especially of $L^2$ and also because we have reflexiveness then, ...?
I hope some of you can give me some answers and help me understanding the theory of differential equations better!
differential-equations hilbert-spaces sobolev-spaces lp-spaces boundary-value-problem
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:21
Spinnennetz
214
Every time I want to transform a boundary-value-problem of the form $-u'' + ... = f$ to it's weak formulation, I have problems choosing the testfunction-space.
I have the feeling that in scripts the standard testfct-space is $H_0^1(Omega)$ (of course just if $u(x)=0 forall x in partialOmega$).
Maybe it is a silly question, but why do we choose $H_0^1(Omega)$ and not just $W_0^{1,1}$?
Is it because we want to use the great properties of Hilbert-Spaces, especially of $L^2$ and also because we have reflexiveness then, ...?
I hope some of you can give me some answers and help me understanding the theory of differential equations better!
differential-equations hilbert-spaces sobolev-spaces lp-spaces boundary-value-problem
differential-equations hilbert-spaces sobolev-spaces lp-spaces boundary-value-problem
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:21
Spinnennetz
214
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:21
Spinnennetz
214
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:21
Spinnennetz
214
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:21
Spinnennetz
214
asked Nov 21 '18 at 17:21
Spinnennetz
214
214
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Working on a Hilbert space is nice of course, but arguably the most important property is reflexiveness, which $W_0^{1,1}$ lacks.
Indeed, reflexive normed spaces are characterized by the property that the closed unit ball is weakly compact. This is known as Kakutani's theorem. Moreover, by the Eberlein-Smulian theorem, weak compactness and sequential weak compactness are equivalent on a Banach space, so it also follows that on a reflexive Banach space bounded sequences admit a weakly converging subsequence.
A typical approach in proving existence results for (weak) solutions to boundary value problems is to construct a functional $J$ on some function space $X$ whose minimizers are the (weak) solutions to the boundary value problem. You then consider a minimizing sequence $left{u_nright}$, i.e. such that
$$lim_{nto +infty}J(u_n)=inf_XJ $$
and prove that it is bounded. If $X$ is reflexive, then by the above property $left{u_nright}$ has a weakly converging subsequence $left{u_{n_k}right}to u_0in X$. Then, if you also prove that $J$ is weakly lower semicontinuous (which is not particularly restrictive - for instance the norm is always weakly lower semicontinuous), you get that
$$inf_X J=liminf_{kto +infty}J(u_{n_k})geq J(u_0) $$
which implies that $u_0$ is a minimizer for $J$, and hence a (weak) solution to the associated boundary value problem.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:15
Lorenzo Quarisa
3,201517
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3008060%2fhow-to-choose-the-testfunction-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Working on a Hilbert space is nice of course, but arguably the most important property is reflexiveness, which $W_0^{1,1}$ lacks.
Indeed, reflexive normed spaces are characterized by the property that the closed unit ball is weakly compact. This is known as Kakutani's theorem. Moreover, by the Eberlein-Smulian theorem, weak compactness and sequential weak compactness are equivalent on a Banach space, so it also follows that on a reflexive Banach space bounded sequences admit a weakly converging subsequence.
A typical approach in proving existence results for (weak) solutions to boundary value problems is to construct a functional $J$ on some function space $X$ whose minimizers are the (weak) solutions to the boundary value problem. You then consider a minimizing sequence $left{u_nright}$, i.e. such that
$$lim_{nto +infty}J(u_n)=inf_XJ $$
and prove that it is bounded. If $X$ is reflexive, then by the above property $left{u_nright}$ has a weakly converging subsequence $left{u_{n_k}right}to u_0in X$. Then, if you also prove that $J$ is weakly lower semicontinuous (which is not particularly restrictive - for instance the norm is always weakly lower semicontinuous), you get that
$$inf_X J=liminf_{kto +infty}J(u_{n_k})geq J(u_0) $$
which implies that $u_0$ is a minimizer for $J$, and hence a (weak) solution to the associated boundary value problem.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:15
Lorenzo Quarisa
3,201517
add a comment |
Working on a Hilbert space is nice of course, but arguably the most important property is reflexiveness, which $W_0^{1,1}$ lacks.
Indeed, reflexive normed spaces are characterized by the property that the closed unit ball is weakly compact. This is known as Kakutani's theorem. Moreover, by the Eberlein-Smulian theorem, weak compactness and sequential weak compactness are equivalent on a Banach space, so it also follows that on a reflexive Banach space bounded sequences admit a weakly converging subsequence.
A typical approach in proving existence results for (weak) solutions to boundary value problems is to construct a functional $J$ on some function space $X$ whose minimizers are the (weak) solutions to the boundary value problem. You then consider a minimizing sequence $left{u_nright}$, i.e. such that
$$lim_{nto +infty}J(u_n)=inf_XJ $$
and prove that it is bounded. If $X$ is reflexive, then by the above property $left{u_nright}$ has a weakly converging subsequence $left{u_{n_k}right}to u_0in X$. Then, if you also prove that $J$ is weakly lower semicontinuous (which is not particularly restrictive - for instance the norm is always weakly lower semicontinuous), you get that
$$inf_X J=liminf_{kto +infty}J(u_{n_k})geq J(u_0) $$
which implies that $u_0$ is a minimizer for $J$, and hence a (weak) solution to the associated boundary value problem.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:15
Lorenzo Quarisa
3,201517
add a comment |
Working on a Hilbert space is nice of course, but arguably the most important property is reflexiveness, which $W_0^{1,1}$ lacks.
Indeed, reflexive normed spaces are characterized by the property that the closed unit ball is weakly compact. This is known as Kakutani's theorem. Moreover, by the Eberlein-Smulian theorem, weak compactness and sequential weak compactness are equivalent on a Banach space, so it also follows that on a reflexive Banach space bounded sequences admit a weakly converging subsequence.
A typical approach in proving existence results for (weak) solutions to boundary value problems is to construct a functional $J$ on some function space $X$ whose minimizers are the (weak) solutions to the boundary value problem. You then consider a minimizing sequence $left{u_nright}$, i.e. such that
$$lim_{nto +infty}J(u_n)=inf_XJ $$
and prove that it is bounded. If $X$ is reflexive, then by the above property $left{u_nright}$ has a weakly converging subsequence $left{u_{n_k}right}to u_0in X$. Then, if you also prove that $J$ is weakly lower semicontinuous (which is not particularly restrictive - for instance the norm is always weakly lower semicontinuous), you get that
$$inf_X J=liminf_{kto +infty}J(u_{n_k})geq J(u_0) $$
which implies that $u_0$ is a minimizer for $J$, and hence a (weak) solution to the associated boundary value problem.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:15
Lorenzo Quarisa
3,201517
Working on a Hilbert space is nice of course, but arguably the most important property is reflexiveness, which $W_0^{1,1}$ lacks.
Indeed, reflexive normed spaces are characterized by the property that the closed unit ball is weakly compact. This is known as Kakutani's theorem. Moreover, by the Eberlein-Smulian theorem, weak compactness and sequential weak compactness are equivalent on a Banach space, so it also follows that on a reflexive Banach space bounded sequences admit a weakly converging subsequence.
A typical approach in proving existence results for (weak) solutions to boundary value problems is to construct a functional $J$ on some function space $X$ whose minimizers are the (weak) solutions to the boundary value problem. You then consider a minimizing sequence $left{u_nright}$, i.e. such that
$$lim_{nto +infty}J(u_n)=inf_XJ $$
and prove that it is bounded. If $X$ is reflexive, then by the above property $left{u_nright}$ has a weakly converging subsequence $left{u_{n_k}right}to u_0in X$. Then, if you also prove that $J$ is weakly lower semicontinuous (which is not particularly restrictive - for instance the norm is always weakly lower semicontinuous), you get that
$$inf_X J=liminf_{kto +infty}J(u_{n_k})geq J(u_0) $$
which implies that $u_0$ is a minimizer for $J$, and hence a (weak) solution to the associated boundary value problem.
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:15
Lorenzo Quarisa
3,201517
edited Nov 21 '18 at 19:21
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:15
Lorenzo Quarisa
3,201517
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:15
Lorenzo Quarisa
3,201517
answered Nov 21 '18 at 19:15
Lorenzo Quarisa
3,201517
3,201517
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3008060%2fhow-to-choose-the-testfunction-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
