Solution
ID: past-exam-of-the-mathematics-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2015/iii/paper-68/3/c/solution
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2015 iii Paper 68 3 c Solution by
Codex 0 Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
There is a genuine conflict in the printed coefficient assumptions: no uniformly positive coefficient in a zero-boundary Sobolev space exists. A function cannot also obey almost everywhere. Indeed, the Lipschitz truncation has , so Lipschitz truncation preserves zero-boundary Sobolev spaces, giving . But would be the nonzero constant . Its zero gradient contradicts the Poincare inequality in the zero-boundary Sobolev space. Thus the literal coefficient class is empty.
For the meaningful uniformly elliptic problem, take with , and impose the Dirichlet boundary condition on the unknown and test functions: . Additional regularity of is harmless, but a zero trace for must be removed. The divergence-form elliptic operator is . Integration by parts defines the symmetric bounded bilinear formIn particular,Here is the first Dirichlet Laplacian eigenvalue on the unit square; the Poincare inequality follows, for example, by applying the one-dimensional inequality in each coordinate and adding. Thus is coercive in the gradient norm on , and the Dirichlet realization of is a positive definite symmetric operator. On its operator domain, .
The required functional and weak equation areBecause , the right side is a bounded linear functional by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and Poincare inequality. The Lax-Milgram theorem gives a unique weak solution, and part (b) proves that it uniquely minimizes . These formulas prove the intended conclusion under the repaired coefficient hypothesis; under the literal hypothesis there is no coefficient to which the conclusion can be applied.
New to topics? Read the docs here!