10

Explain how to define $u \in H^1(U)$ to be a weak solution of Poisson's equation with Robin boundary conditions: \begin{align} \begin{cases} \, \, \, \, -\Delta u = f & \text{in }U \\ u+\frac{\partial u}{\partial v}=0 & \text{on } \partial U. \end{cases} \end{align} Discuss the existence and uniqueness of a weak solution for a given $f \in L^2(U)$.

This is Exercise 5 in Chapter 6 of PDE Evans, 2nd edition.

I would like to define the bilinear form $B[u,v]$, for all $u,v \in H_0^1(U)$. But they did not really give that to the reader, unlike in Exercises 3 and 4 in the textbook.

Should I still define $B[u,v]$? If so, then I can try to satisfy the hypotheses of the Lax-Milgram Theorem, which would allow me to assert the existence of a weak solution to this problem.

Cookie
  • 13,532

1 Answers1

12

It is not appropriate to work in the space $H^1_0(U)$ since nonzero boundary conditions are being considered. You will have to assume some regularity of the boundary of $U$.

One version of Green's theorem (see e.g. the appendix in Evans) is that $$- \int_U (\Delta u) v \, dx = \int_U Du \cdot Dv \, dx -\int_{\partial U} \frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} v \, dS.$$

A weak solution to the problem at hand can be proposed by setting $-\Delta u = f$ in $U$ and $\dfrac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} = -u$ on $\partial U$ so that $$\int_U fv = \int_U Du \cdot Dv + \int_{\partial U} uv \, dS \quad \forall v \in H^1(U)$$ or a bit more precisely $$\int_U fv = \int_U Du \cdot Dv + \int_{\partial U} \newcommand{\tr}{\mathrm{Tr}\ \! }( \tr u )(\tr v) \, dS \quad \forall v \in H^1(U)$$ where $\tr : H^1(U) \to L^2(\partial U)$ is the trace operator.

An appropriate bilinear form is thus given by $$B[u,v] = \int_U Du \cdot Dv + \int_{\partial U} \newcommand{\tr}{\mathrm{Tr}\ \! }( \tr u )(\tr v) \, dS, \quad u,v \in H^1(U).$$ $B$ is clearly bounded. As far as coercivity goes, it may be helpful to use the Rellich-Kondrachov theorem. I can follow up with a hint if you like.


It remains to show that there is a constant $\alpha > 0$ with the property that $\|u\|_{H^1}^2 \le \alpha B[u,u]$ for all $u \in H^1(U)$. This can be proven by contradition. Otherwise, for every $n \ge \mathbb N$ there would exist $u_n \in H^1(U)$ with the property that $\|u_n\|^2_{H^1} > n B[u_n,u_n]$. For each $n$ define $v_n = \dfrac{u_n}{\|u_n\|_{H^1}}$. Then $v_n \in H^1(U)$, $\|v_n\|_{H^1} = 1$, and $B[v_n,v_n] < \dfrac 1n$ and all $n$.

Here we can invoke Rellich-Kondrachov. Since the family $\{v_n\}$ is bounded in the $H^1$ norm, there is a subsequence $\{v_{n_k}\}$ that converges to a limit $v \in L^2(U)$. However, since $\|Dv_{n_k}\|_{L^2}^2 < \dfrac{1}{n_k}$ it is also true that $Dv_{n_k} \to 0$ in $L^2$. Thus for any $\phi \in C_0^\infty(U)$ you have $$\int_U v D \phi \, dx = \lim_{k \to \infty} \int_U v_{n_k} D \phi \, dx = - \lim_{k \to \infty} \int_U D v_{n_k} \phi \, dx = 0.$$ This means $v \in H^1(U)$ and $D v = 0$, from which you can conclude $v_{n_k} \to v$ in $H^1(U)$. Since $\|v_{n_k}\|_{H^1} = 1$ for all $k$ it follows that $\|v\|_{H^1} = 1$ as well.

Next, since $\|\tr v_{n_k}\|_{L^2(\partial U)}^2 < \dfrac{1}{n_k}$ and the trace operator is bounded there is a constant $C$ for which $$ \|\tr v\|_{L^2(\partial \Omega)} \le \|\tr v - \tr v_{n_k}\|_{L^2(\partial \Omega)} + \|\tr v_{n_k}\|_{L^2(\partial \Omega)} < \frac{1}{n_k} + C \|v - v_{n_k}\|_{H^1(U)}.$$ Let $k \to \infty$ to find that $\tr v = 0$ in $L^2(\partial U)$.

Can you prove that if $v \in H^1(U)$, $Dv = 0$, and $\tr v = 0$, then $v = 0$? Once you have established that fact you arrive at a contradiction, since $v$ also satisfies $\|v\|_{H^1} = 1$. It follows that $B$ is in fact coercive.

Umberto P.
  • 52,165
  • I tried to edit your response to fix (what I thought) were typos, and tried to clarify minor things, to avoid ambiguity and make it easier for me to follow. Lastly, I changed the $\Omega$ to $U$, just to stay consistent with Evans' notation. Are all modifications changes correct? Because, for example, we never had $\Delta u = f$ on $\partial U$, when we were given $-\Delta u = f$ in $U$ by the problem. – Cookie Feb 02 '15 at 16:37
  • Looks good. Thanks for pointing out the errors. – Umberto P. Feb 02 '15 at 17:03
  • There's another one (I didn't modify), I think. Shouldn't the trace operator $T$ be mapped from $H^1(U) \to L^2(\color{red}{\partial}U)$? – Cookie Feb 02 '15 at 19:38
  • Yeah, I just fixed it. – Umberto P. Feb 02 '15 at 19:46
  • Fundamental question, I know, but does the $\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu}$ in the "$u+\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu}=0$ on $\partial U$" suggest that $\partial U$ is $C^1$? I'm asking since the problem doesn't explicitly state this, and the Trace Theorem requires this in its hypothesis. I want to be absolutely sure that we can conclude $Tu=u\vert_{\partial U}$ from the Trace theorem, as you are doing so in the line after writing "a bit more precisely" in your answer. – Cookie Feb 03 '15 at 20:12
  • Also, is it better to define $$B[u,v] = \int_U Du \cdot Dv + \int_{\partial U} \newcommand{\tr}{\mathrm{Tr}\ ! }(Tu)(Tv) , dS \quad \forall v \in H^1(U)$$ instead of $$B[u,v] = \int_U Du \cdot Dv + \int_{\partial U} \newcommand{\tr}{\mathrm{Tr}\ ! }uv , dS \quad \forall v \in H^1(U)$$ because we know that $T$ is a bounded linear operator? – Cookie Feb 03 '15 at 20:14
  • Finally, I am trying to apply the Rellich-Kondrachov Compactness Theorem you mentioned. Since we are given that $U \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\partial U$ is $C^1$, can we conclude by the theorem that $H^1(U) \subset L^2(U)$ and $|u|{L^2(U)} \le C|u|{H^1(U)}$? I still have yet to understand how this applies to proving the coercivity property of $B[u,v]$. – Cookie Feb 03 '15 at 20:19
  • @dragon I'm sure the hypothesis is that $U$ is a bounded set with a smooth boundary. Evans probably states this explicitly at the beginning of the problem set. It is best to use $Tu$ instead of $u$ because $u$ isn't defined on $\partial U$. I will try to follow up with the coercivity when I have some time tomorrow. – Umberto P. Feb 03 '15 at 21:42
  • Is there a way to use Riesz representation theorem as a simpler proof, as we have that $B[u,v] = B[v,u]$ for all $u,v \in H^1(U)$? – Spudly Joe Apr 13 '16 at 19:02
  • @UmbertoP. How can I show that if $v \in H^1(U)$ is such that $Dv = 0$ and $\operatorname{Tr} v = 0$, then $v = 0$? I only know that $Dv = 0$ implies that $v$ is constant on $U$. Why does this constant have to be $0$? – user63841219 Dec 01 '17 at 23:10
  • @user63841219 The trace of a continuous function is precisely the ordinary definition of the function on the boundary. If the function is constant it is continuous, and if its trace is zero that must be the constant value. – Umberto P. Jan 03 '18 at 18:57