Work first in a real Hilbert space. A bounded linear operator is self-adjoint whenFor the variational interpretation, elliptic means uniformly coercive: some satisfiesThis is ellipticity of a bounded Hilbert-space operator, expressed through its quadratic form, rather than the principal-symbol definition for an elliptic differential operator. In the nonsymmetric case this condition concerns the symmetric part of and does not itself imply self-adjointness.
A positive-definite operator is self-adjoint and strictly positive:Some variational conventions use “positive definite” for the stronger combination of self-adjointness and ellipticity; we distinguish strict from uniform positivity explicitly. A uniformly positive definite symmetric operator is coercive, whereas strict positivity alone in infinite dimension need not give a bounded inverse or solvability for every forcing. If positivity is instead defined only by the displayed real quadratic inequality, symmetry must be added separately for the next part. In a complex Hilbert space, use a self-adjoint operator, the real quadratic form, and in the linear term.
Assume the self-adjoint interpretation of positive-definite operator from the preceding part. For and real , expand the quadratic functional:The first variation therefore vanishes in every direction precisely when for every , or . This is its Euler-Lagrange equation and its weak formulation. For any weak solution , write . Self-adjointness and cancel the cross terms and give the exact identityStrict positivity makes this difference positive unless , so every weak solution is the unique global minimizer, and conversely every minimizer is a weak solution. If is uniformly positive, the Lax-Milgram theorem additionally gives existence for every and . The identity above then gives the quantitative gap .
The hypotheses matter. On , letThen for nonzero , but is minimized at , whereas . Thus real quadratic positivity without symmetry does not imply the requested variational assertion: the symmetric part determines a real quadratic functional.
Also, strict self-adjoint positivity does not imply existence for arbitrary . On , take and . The operator is bounded, self-adjoint and strictly positive, and ; a solution would have , which is not in . In fact the trial vectors with their first coordinates equal to one give . The printed conclusion about a weak solution is valid whenever that solution exists; an unconditional existence assertion needs uniform positivity.
The appropriate bounded-operator formulation uses the zero-boundary Sobolev spaceThe Poincare inequality makes this a Hilbert space norm equivalent to the usual norm, and the zero endpoint traces encode the Dirichlet boundary conditions. Under the usual regular-coefficient assumptions, for example continuous on the closed interval with and , setIf , then Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the Poincare inequality giveBy the Riesz representation theorem, a unique bounded linear operator satisfies . Symmetry of makes self-adjoint, and the lower bound makes it elliptic and uniformly positive definite. The differential expression in the question is represented weakly by : for smooth functions, integration by parts giveswith the boundary term zero. A forcing becomes the bounded functional , or its Riesz representative in .
Equivalently, for sufficiently smooth coefficients one may realize the differential operator itself on with domain . Its regular Sturm-Liouville operator realization is self-adjoint andThis realization is an unbounded operator, so it should not be confused with the bounded weak operator used above.
The PDF states sign conditions without coefficient regularity. If only almost everywhere and are bounded, the same form is still bounded and strictly positive: a zero energy would force almost everywhere and the zero traces force . Uniform ellipticity, however, requires a positive lower bound. For instance for , , and satisfy literal pointwise positivity. Derivatives of unit norm supported in and of integral zero define functions in , with energy at most . Thus pointwise positivity without regularity does not imply coercivity in this norm. These distinctions supply the precise regularity and operator domain behind the intended positive-definiteness proof.
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.