Past exam of the functional analytic methods for partial differential equations course of the University of Oxford / 2023 / 3 / b

Let $w_m=|E_m{|}^{5/6}{u}_m$. By linearity of the weak formulation, $w_m$ is the zero-boundary weak solution with forcing ${\chi }_{E_m}$. The estimate in (a)(iii) therefore givesThe change of variables $x=r_{m}y$ gives $|E_m|=r_m^3|E|>0$, so the division is legitimate. Since $H^1(B)$ is a Hilbert space, weak sequential compactness in a Hilbert space now gives a subsequence and some $u\in H^1(B)$ such thatIn fact $u\in H_0^1(B)$: the Sobolev trace operator is continuous and linear, so its zero kernel is preserved by weak convergence.

The Lp norm of the forcing at the critical exponent is constant:To prove weak convergence in $L^{6/5}(B)$, the duality of Lp spaces says that we must test against an arbitrary $g\in L^6(B)$. Holder inequality, restricted to the shrinking measurable set $E_m$, givesThe last step is absolute continuity of the Lebesgue integral, since $|E_m|=r_m^3|E|\to 0$ and $|g{|}^6$ is integrable. ThusTesting only bounded or smooth functions would not by itself establish this weak convergence; the restricted Holder inequality handles every member of the full dual space.

Take the weakly convergent subsequence in (i), with limit $u\in H_0^1(B)$. For each $\varphi \in H_0^1(B)$, the weak formulation givesThe left side tends to $\int \nabla u\cdot \nabla \varphi$ by weak convergence in $H^1$. The zero-boundary Sobolev inequality gives $\varphi \in L^6(B)$, so (ii) makes the right side tend to zero. Taking $\varphi =u$ in the limiting identity yields ${\int }_B|\nabla u{|}^2=0$. The zero-boundary Poincaré inequality then gives $u=0$.

The same argument applies to a weakly convergent subsequence of any subsequence of $(u_m)$, because all remain bounded as in (i). To see why this proves convergence of the full sequence, suppose a continuous linear functional $F$ on $H^1(B)$ did not satisfy $F(u_m)\to 0$. Some subsequence would have $|F(u_{m_j})|\ge \epsilon >0$. Its boundedness gives a further weakly convergent subsequence, whose limit has just been proved to be zero; then $F$ tends to zero along it, a contradiction. ThereforeUniqueness of a possible limit alone is not enough without the weak sequential compactness in a Hilbert space used to extract a further subsequence.

The zero extension of H01 makes $v_m$ an element of $H^1({\mathbb{R}}^3)$. The chain rule and change of variables give the exact scaling identitiesIndeed $\nabla v_m(x)=r_m^{3/2}\nabla u_m(r_{m}x)$ inside the expanded ball, and there is no boundary jump because the Sobolev trace is zero.

First take the printed convergence assertion as an assumption, as the question requests. It would imply $\Vert \nabla v_m{\Vert }_2\to \Vert \nabla v{\Vert }_2>0$. The strict inequality follows because an $H^1({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ function with zero weak gradient is constant almost everywhere, and the only constant in $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ is zero; this contradicts the asserted positivity of $v$. If $u_m$ converged strongly in $H^1(B)$, its limit would have to be its weak limit zero from (iii), forcing $\Vert \nabla u_m{\Vert }_2\to 0$. The first scaling identity contradicts this. Thus the intended answer is

There is nevertheless a substantive printing error: the asserted strong convergence of $v_m$ in the full $H^1({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ is false for these positive sources. Here is a check that does not rely on any assertion about the limiting profile. Put $R_m=r_m^{-1}$ and $c=|E{|}^{-5/6}$. Rescaling the weak formulation givesThe spherical mean of a Poisson solution outside its source provides an exact obstruction. The total source is $M=c|E|=|E{|}^{1/6}>0$. Let $a_m(s)=(4\pi {)}^{-1}{\int }_{S^2}{v}_m(s\omega )d\omega$ be its spherical mean. On $1<s<R_m$ the function is a harmonic function. The radial flux identity, obtained by testing against radial test functions or by the divergence theorem, gives $-4\pi s^2{a}_m^{\prime }(s)=M$, while the zero boundary value gives $a_m(R_m)=0$. HenceCauchy-Schwarz inequality on each sphere, followed by spherical coordinates, now yieldsThus the printed sequence is not even bounded in the full $H^1$ norm. The result on Poisson convergence on expanding balls in a homogeneous Sobolev space gives the appropriate corrected convergence in the homogeneous Sobolev space ${\dot{H}}^1({\mathbb{R}}^3)$, which controls the gradient in $L^2$ and the function in $L^6$, without requiring it to belong to $L^2$.

For completeness, the desired nonconvergence of $u_m$ has a direct proof that needs neither the incorrect claim nor its correction. Choose a nonnegative nonzero test function $\eta \in C_c^{\infty }(E)$, which exists since $E$ is a domain containing the origin. The rescaled weak formulation and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality giveConsequently, for every $m$,Together with (iii), this rigorously proves failure of strong convergence for the actual sequence defined in the paper.