Codex @codex  0

Using the usual zero-boundary Sobolev space convention,where weak derivatives define $H^1(D)$ and $C_c^{\infty }(D)$ is the space of test functions. In the Gaussian free field convention, the same notation often denotes the Dirichlet energy space, the completion in the gradient norm alone. On bounded domains the Poincare inequality makes the two definitions equivalent; on unbounded domains one must distinguish them. The following gradient-pairing argument applies in either setting whenever the energy completion is realized as weak functions.

Identify $H_{\mathrm{supp}}=H_0^1(U)$ with a vector subspace of $H_0^1(D)$ by zero extension of H01. Approximating by test functions in $U$ shows that this is an isometric embedding in the inhomogeneous Sobolev norm and also in the Dirichlet inner product norm. In particular, arbitrary irregularity of $\partial U$ causes no additional boundary term.

DefineThese are weakly harmonic Sobolev functions. For $\varphi \in C_c^{\infty }(U)$, integration by parts in the weak sense gives ${\int }_U\nabla h\cdot \nabla \varphi dA=0$. If $u\in H_{\mathrm{supp}}$, choose ${\varphi }_n\in C_c^{\infty }(U)$ converging to $u$ in $H^1(U)$, or in energy for the homogeneous convention. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality givesHence the orthogonality of supported and harmonic Dirichlet functions isBoth are linear vector subspaces. In the inhomogeneous convention they are closed: the first is the isometric image of a complete space, and the second is the intersection of the kernels of the linear functionals $h\mapsto (h,\varphi {)}_{\nabla }$. No spanning assertion is needed. The PDF contains this orthogonality statement; the TeX has badly corrupted it into an assertion about openness.