11

While reading through a set of lectures on the Laplacian on manifolds, I encountered two descriptions of Sobolev spaces.

The first one, valid only for compact manifolds (because it needs to globalize a result using partitions of unity) claims that the Sobolev space $H^s$ can be defined as the completion in $L^2$ of $\mathcal C ^\infty$ under the norm $\| f \| = \left(\sum \limits _i \| (p_i f) \circ h_i ^{-1} \| ^2 _{H^s (U_i)}\right) ^\frac 1 2$, where $\{ (U_i, h_i) \mid i \in I\}$ is an atlas and $\{ p_i \mid i \in I\}$ is a subordinated partition of unity.

The second one, which works only for natural orders $k$, presents $H^k$ as the completion in $L^2$ of $\mathcal C ^\infty$ under the norm $\| f \| _k = \left( \| f \| _{k-1} ^2 + \| \nabla ^k f \| ^2 \right) ^\frac 1 2$. (This description is, in turn, shown to be equivalent to a third one that uses the eigenvalues of the Laplacian.)

My question is: do the first two constructions above produce the same space?

To make things worse, Grigoryan defines the same spaces slightly differently: only for even orders, $W^k = \{ u \in \mathcal D ' \mid u, \Delta u, \dots, \Delta ^k u \in L^2\}$. Is this yet another space?

Why isn't $H^k$ defined simply as $\{ u \in L^2 \mid X_1 \dots X_i u \in L^2 \forall i \le k \forall X_j \in \Gamma(TM) \}$?

Alex M.
  • 35,207
  • Hey were you able to find out how to reconcile the different definitions for Sobolev spaces on manifolds? I am also struggling a lot. Is the last definition you mentioned safe to use? – Tesla Jun 05 '19 at 16:33
  • 1
    Sadly, no, I haven't. But if you look at the right side of this page, at the questions that MSE believes to be related, you will find some interesting and helpful thoughts at https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3050956, at https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2843993 and at https://math.stackexchange.com/q/611961. – Alex M. Jun 05 '19 at 16:48
  • thanks alot for the effort! – Tesla Jun 07 '19 at 08:34
  • Just one little more question Can I go wrong by just defining the Sobolev space $H^1$ on a compact manifold like this on page 1:

    https://hebey.u-cergy.fr/NotesSharpSP.pdf

    It seems so "simple-defined", while other definitions include partition of unity etc..

    – Tesla Jun 07 '19 at 11:00
  • 1
    No, you can't go wrong: Hebey does what I describe in the paragraph that begins with "The second one". It is also the definition that I have seen used the most, and it works in general (i.e. on arbitrary Riemann manifolds). The approach with charts, an the other hand, works only on compact manifolds. I definitely prefer the one with completions. – Alex M. Jun 07 '19 at 12:18
  • Very last question if you don't mind: Analogously I can just define $H^1_0(\Sigma)= { u \in H^1(\Sigma) , \vert , \exists u_n \in C_0^{\infty}(\Sigma) \text{ such that } \lim_{n \to \infty} u_n=u \in H^1(\Sigma)}$ for a smooth manifold $\Sigma$? – Tesla Jun 10 '19 at 10:41

1 Answers1

1

My question is: do the first two constructions above produce the same space?

Yes, these two constructions produce the same space.

Why isn't $H^k$ defined simply as $ \{ u \in L^2 \mid X_1 \dots X_i u \in L^2 \forall i \le k \forall X_j \in \Gamma(TM) \} $?

To be more precise, even this third construction you have cited will also produce the same space.

After pondering about it for a few days, I believe I have succeeded in cooking up a proof after considering the outline of a stronger version of it which presented in the third chapter of the paper Sobolev spaces on Lie manifolds (...).

This equivalence is rather tricky.

We shall prove this result in a slightly more general setting, that of the Sobolev space $W^{k,p}(M)$ where $k$ is a non-negative integer and $p \in [1,\infty[$.

I'll first fix the notation.

Let $(M^n,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with $\nabla$ its associated Levi-Cività connection.

Fix $\tilde{\mathcal{U}}$ a finite smooth atlas for $M$.

Fix $\ \mathcal{U}=\{ (U_r, \psi_r) : 1 \leq r \leq N\}$ a finite smooth atlas for $M$ such that $$\forall r=1,...,N \ \exists (\tilde{U},\tilde{\psi}) \in \tilde{\mathcal{U}} \ \left( \overline{U_r} \subset \tilde{U} \ \& \ \psi_r = \left. \tilde{\psi} \right|_{U_r} \right)$$

Fix $\{ \rho_r : 1 \leq r \leq N\}$ a partition of unity strictly subordinate to $\mathcal{U}$.

Given $r=1,...,N$, we define $V_r=\psi_r(U_r) \subset \mathbb{R}^n$.

Given $u \in C^\infty(M)$, we define

$$ ||u||^p_{W^{k,p}} = \sum_{l=0}^k \int_M |\nabla^l u|^p d\mu_g $$

$$ \lambda(u)^p=\sum_{r=1}^N ||\rho_r u||^p_{W^{k,p}} $$

$$ \nu_{k,p}(u)^p = \sum_{r=1}^N \lVert (\rho_r u) \circ \psi_r^{-1}\rVert^p_{W^{k,p}(V_r)} $$

We shall prove that those norms are equivalent, hence the completion of $C^\infty(M)$ endowed with any of them yields the same space $W^{k,p}(M)$.

We shall procede in two steps which employ (almost) the same tricks: first, we prove that $|| \cdot ||_{W^{k,p}}$ is equivalent to $\lambda$, then that $\lambda$ is equivalent to $\nu_{k,p}$.

First of all, $\{ |\nabla^l \rho_r| : 1 \leq r \leq N; \ 0 \leq l \leq k \}$ is a finite set of continuous functions in the compact space $M$. Therefore, there is $C>0$ such that

$$ \forall r=1,...,N \ \forall l=0,...,k \ \left( ||\nabla^l \rho_i||_{\infty} \leq C \right) $$

Let $L>0$ be such that $$ \forall l=1,...,k \ \left( || \cdot ||_{1, \mathbb{R}^{l}} \leq L || \cdot ||_{p, \mathbb{R}^{l}} \right) $$

Let $$ K = {{k}\choose{\lfloor k/2 \rfloor}} $$

Fix $u \in C^\infty(M)$, $r \in \{1,...,N\}$ and $l \in \{0,...,k\}$.

\begin{align*} \lvert \nabla^l (\rho_r u) \rvert &= \lvert \sum_{m=0}^l {{l}\choose{m}} \nabla^m \rho_r \otimes \nabla^{l-m}u \rvert \\ &\leq \sum_{m=0}^l {{l}\choose{m}} \lvert \nabla^m \rho_r \rvert \lvert \nabla^{l-m}u \rvert \\ &\leq CLK \left( \sum_{m=0}^l \lvert \nabla^m u \rvert^p \right)^{1/p} \end{align*}

We considered a generic $l$ in $\{0,...,k\}$, hence \begin{align*} \lVert \rho_r u \rVert^p_{W^{k,p}} &\leq (CLK)^p \sum_{l=0}^k \int_M \sum_{m=0}^l \lvert \nabla^m u \rvert^p \\ &\leq (CLK)^p \sum_{l=0}^k \lVert u \rVert_{W^{l,p}}^p \\ &\leq (k+1) (CLK)^p \lVert u \rVert_{W^{k,p}}^p \end{align*}

We considered a generic $r$ in $\{1,...,N\}$, hence $$ \lambda(u)^p \leq A \lVert u \rVert_{W^{k,p}}^p $$ where $A=(k+1) N (CLK)^p$.

We obtained our first inequality, so we're halfway there.

Let $T>0$ be such that $|| \cdot ||_{p, \mathbb{R}^N} \geq T || \cdot ||_{1, \mathbb{R}^N}$.

We then obtain \begin{align*} \lambda(u) &= \left( \sum_{r=1}^N \lVert \rho_r u \rVert^p_{W^{k,p}} \right)^{1/p} \\ &\geq T \sum_{i=1}^N \lVert \rho_r u \rVert_{W^{k,p}} \\ &\geq T \lVert \sum_{i=1}^N \rho_r u \rVert_{W^{k,p}} \\ &\geq T \lVert u \rVert_{W^{k,p}} \end{align*}

That is, we have established our first equivalence of norms.

To repeat all that we have done in the first step, we need to analyse the local form of the covariant derivatives of functions $u \in C^\infty(M)$.

Let $k$ be a positive integer, $l \in \{1,...,k\}$ and $(\tilde{U}, \tilde{\varphi}) \in \tilde{\mathcal{U}}$.

Then there exists a set indexed by multi-indices $\alpha$ $$ \{ P_\alpha : 1 \leq |\alpha| \leq k \} \subset C^\infty(\tilde{U}) $$ such that the $k$th covariant derivative of $u \in C^\infty(M)$ can be locally written at $\tilde{U}$ as $$ \nabla^k u = \sum_{1 \leq \lvert \alpha \rvert \leq k} (D^{\alpha} u) P_{\alpha} \ d x_{i_1} \otimes ... \otimes d x_{i_l} $$ where $\alpha=(i_1,...,i_l)$ is a multi-index.

This remark can be easily proved with an induction.

For each chart $(U_r,\psi_r)$, the $P_\alpha$s are continuous functions which have bounded covariant derivatives, so we can repeat the arguments for the first equivalence of norms.

gpr1
  • 491