Zero is neither a weak nor a strong local minimizer. Take . It tends to zero in and has zero endpoint values. Since for ,
for sufficiently small positive . Thus even weakly close admissible competitors decrease the energy.
Zero is neither a weak nor a strong local minimizer. For any nonzero smooth zero-trace , Taylor expansion gives
The mixed integral by the endpoint values. Writing and , the quadratic coefficient is . The elementary estimate on makes this at most . Thus arbitrarily small variations decrease the energy. The separate coefficient one on is retained in this calculation.
Zero is a strict weak local minimizer, but is not a strong local minimizer. The derivative integrand has expansion , so for small it is at least . Concavity gives for every real . Therefore, when is small,
using . This proves strict weak minimality.
For the strong claim, let . Its amplitude tends to zero and its derivative is almost everywhere, so the derivative integrand is the constant . The other integrand term is at most . Hence
This disproves strong minimality. The same obstruction is detected by the Weierstrass necessary condition, since the supporting-tangent inequality at slope zero fails at .

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.