The zero Dirichlet boundary condition must be part of the definition. Thus is a weak solution precisely when , equivalently its Sobolev trace vanishes on , andHere 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 isThe 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 isThis 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. HenceThe absolute value makes a proof of positivity unnecessary. Holder inequality with exponents and , followed by the zero-boundary Sobolev inequality, givesTaking 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 givesAll 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
There are currently no matching articles.