The zero Dirichlet boundary condition must be part of the definition. Thus is a weak solution precisely when , equivalently its Sobolev trace vanishes on , and
Here is the indicator function of the measurable set . One may initially require the identity only for test functions : both sides are continuous in the Sobolev norm, and the definition of the zero-trace Sobolev space then extends it to all . This formulation uses first weak derivatives and encodes without assuming classical second derivatives.
As printed, the answer is
The constant function has zero gradient and positive Lp norm for every such , including its supremum norm when .
The missing assumption is a zero Sobolev trace, which is present for the weak solutions in the surrounding parts. With in place of , the intended answer is
This is the three-dimensional Sobolev inequality at , followed by Holder inequality on the bounded ball for smaller ; it includes the zero-boundary Poincaré inequality at . The subsequent parts use this zero-boundary version.
By the definition in (i), itself is an admissible test in the weak formulation. Hence
The absolute value makes a proof of positivity unnecessary. Holder inequality with exponents and , followed by the zero-boundary Sobolev inequality, gives
Taking square roots of both estimates proves exactly the requested chain:
If , the zero-boundary Poincaré inequality gives and the conclusion follows. Otherwise divide the first-to-last estimate by and square, obtaining . Finally the same Poincaré inequality gives
All constants depend only on the fixed unit ball and the dimension, and are independent of and . If , testing the homogeneous equation with gives the same zero solution directly.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.