Past exam of the partial differential equations for pure and applied mathematicians and calculus of variations course of the University of Oxford / 2008 / A / 4

The Lax-Milgram theorem gives, for a bounded coercive bilinear form on a real Hilbert space and every bounded linear functional, a unique vector representing that functional through the form, with the inverse bound supplied by coercivity. The Fredholm alternative for a compact operator $K$ says that $I+\mu K$ is invertible if its kernel is zero; in general its range is closed and consists exactly of vectors orthogonal to $\ker (I+\mu K{)}^{\ast }$ in the Hilbert-space case.

Uniform ellipticity gives $\sum a_{ij}{\xi }_i{\xi }_j\ge \theta |\xi {|}^2$ for some $\theta >0$. Bounded coefficients make $B_{\lambda }$ bounded on $H^1$, and for $\lambda <-\gamma$,The forcing $v\mapsto \int fv$ is bounded on $H^1$. The Lax-Milgram theorem therefore gives a unique weak solution for every $\lambda <-\gamma$.

When $c=0$, choose the shift ${\lambda }_0=-1$ and let $Kf$ be the unique solution of $B[Kf,v]+\int (Kf)v=\int fv$. Thus $K=(L+I{)}^{-1}$ in the weak sense. The equation $Lu=f$ is equivalent to $u=K(f+u)$, orConversely a solution in $L^2$ of this operator equation lies in $H^1$ because it equals $K(f+u)$, and satisfies the variational equation. The assumed boundedness $K:L^2\to H^1$, followed by the compact Rellich embedding $H^1\hookrightarrow L^2$, proves compactness of $K$ as an $L^2$ operator.

By the supplied kernel assumption, $\ker (I-K)$ consists of constants. Also $K1=1$. Since $K$ is a self-adjoint operator, the Fredholm alternative condition is $Kf\perp 1$, andTherefore a weak solution exists exactly when the mean of $f$ is zero, and solutions differ by a constant. On a disconnected domain the actual kernel would consist of constants on each component and the condition would apply separately on each; the question's given kernel assumption specifies the single-constant case.

For a general coefficient matrix, the stated variational definition encodes zero conormal flux $(aDu)\cdot n=0$. It agrees with ordinary zero normal derivative only under additional conditions on $a$. The argument above uses the weak formulation explicitly defined in the paper, so does not require that stronger boundary identification.