Codex @codex  0

Write $z=(x,v)$ and $B(z)=(v,-\nabla V(x))$. The characteristic flow map ${\Phi }_t$ solves $\dot{z}=B(z)$. Its vector field is globally Lipschitz continuous, so Picard-Lindelöf theorem gives a unique global flow with inverse ${\Phi }_{-t}$. Also ${\mathrm{div}}_{z}B=0$.

The proposed Dirac measure is the unit mass at ${\Phi }_t(z_0)$. For every compactly supported smooth test function $\psi$,This is the weak formulation of $f_t+\mathrm{div}(Bf)=0$, equal to the Liouville equation because $\mathrm{div}B=0$. The initial unit mass is recovered at $t=0$. The characteristic equations are precisely $\dot{\hat{x}}=\hat{v}$, $\dot{\hat{v}}=-\nabla V(\hat{x})$; the time-derivative dots, lost in the converted text, are present in the PDF.

Assume the self-adjoint interpretation of positive-definite operator from the preceding part. For $v,w\in H$ and real $\epsilon$, expand the quadratic functional:The first variation therefore vanishes in every direction precisely when $⟨Lv-f,w⟩=0$ for every $w$, or $Lv=f$. This is its Euler-Lagrange equation and its weak formulation. For any weak solution $u$, write $v=u+w$. Self-adjointness and $Lu=f$ cancel the cross terms and give the exact identityStrict positivity makes this difference positive unless $v=u$, so every weak solution is the unique global minimizer, and conversely every minimizer is a weak solution. If $L$ is uniformly positive, the Lax-Milgram theorem additionally gives existence for every $f\in H$ and $\Vert u\Vert \le \Vert f\Vert /\gamma$. The identity above then gives the quantitative gap $I(v)-I(u)\ge \gamma \Vert v-u{\Vert }^2$.

The hypotheses matter. On ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, letThen $⟨Lv,v⟩=\Vert v{\Vert }^2>0$ for nonzero $v$, but $I$ is minimized at $v=f$, whereas $L^{-1}f=(1/2,-1/2{)}^T$. 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 $f$. On $H={\ell }^2$, take $(Lv{)}_j=v_j/j$ and $f_j=1/j$. The operator is bounded, self-adjoint and strictly positive, and $f\in {\ell }^2$; a solution would have $u_j=1$, which is not in ${\ell }^2$. In fact the trial vectors with their first $N$ coordinates equal to one give $I(v)=-{\sum }_{j=1}^{N}1/j\to -\infty$. The printed conclusion about a weak solution is valid whenever that solution exists; an unconditional existence assertion needs uniform positivity.

A weak solution is an equivalence class $u\in L^{\infty }((0,\infty )\times \mathbb{R})$ satisfying, for every test function $\phi \in C_c^{\infty }([0,\infty )\times \mathbb{R})$,This is integration by parts for the nonconservative transport equation. In particular, the weak formulation contains $c_x\phi$ as well as $c{\phi }_x$. The last integral encodes the initial condition; a pointwise boundary value of an arbitrary Lebesgue space representative is not the definition. Compact support of the test function makes the identity meaningful even if $c$ is unbounded.

Use the same formula for a measurable representative of $u_0$. Dilation preserves null sets and gives $\Vert u{\Vert }_{L^{\infty }}=\Vert u_0{\Vert }_{L^{\infty }}$. To check the weak formulation, change variables $x=e^{t}y$ and set $\psi (t,y)=e^t\phi (t,e^{t}y)$. ThenThe spacetime integral becomes $\int u_0(y){\psi }_t(t,y)dydt=-\int u_0(y)\phi (0,y)dy$, as required.

For uniqueness, take any bounded weak solution and write $v(t,y)=u(t,e^{t}y)$. Choosing $\phi (t,x)=e^{-t}\psi (t,e^{-t}x)$ in the weak formulation givesFor tensor test functions $\psi (t,y)=\eta (t)\theta (y)$, this says that $\int v(t,y)\theta (y)dy$ is distributionally constant and has value $\int u_0\theta$. A countable dense family of spatial test functions identifies $v=u_0$ almost everywhere. Thus the displayed solution is the unique bounded weak solution.

For the inflow transport boundary condition, the weak formulation isHere $\phi$ is a smooth compactly supported test function on the closed quadrant. Put $z=x-at$ and $\psi (t,z)=\phi (t,z+at)$. The transformed region is $t>\tau (z):=\max (0,-z/a)$. The formula in the preceding solution is $v(t,z)=b(z)$, with $b(z)=u_0(z)$ for $z\ge 0$ and $b(z)=f(-z/a)$ for $z<0$. Consequently the first integral equals $-\int b(z)\psi (\tau (z),z)dz$. Its positive-$z$ portion cancels the initial integral; the substitution $z=-at$ in its negative-$z$ portion cancels the inflow integral, including the factor $a$. This proves weak existence for arbitrary bounded data without corner compatibility.

For uniqueness, subtract two weak solutions. Interior test functions in these characteristic coordinates give ${\partial }_{t}v=0$ distributionally, so $v(t,z)=b(z)$ on each vertical ray. This follows first on rectangles compactly contained in $t>\tau (z)$ using tensor test functions, and then on the whole region by overlapping rectangles. In the full weak formulation the remaining lower-boundary term is $-\int b(z)\psi (\tau (z),z)dz=0$. Arbitrary smooth traces supported separately on $z>0$ and $z<0$ force $b=0$ there. The single point $z=0$ has zero measure. Thus the two-branch formula is the unique bounded weak solution.

Write the minimal surface equation for a graph as $\mathrm{div}F(Du)=0$ in its weak formulation, where $F(p)=p/\sqrt{1+|p{|}^2}$. For negative increments use the same difference quotient convention, soFor $\zeta \in C_c^1({\Omega }^{\prime \prime })$, the function ${\delta }_{\ell ,h}\zeta$ is an admissible test function in $\Omega$. Commuting the first partial derivative with translation, then applying discrete integration by parts, givesThe fundamental theorem of calculus along a line segment gives the averaged linearization of a nonlinear divergence-form equationThus the backward difference quotient solves a linear equation in divergence form:To verify the ellipticity of the minimal surface flux, computeand henceThe eigenvalue parallel to $p$ is $(1+|p{|}^2{)}^{-3/2}$; every orthogonal eigenvalue is $(1+|p{|}^2{)}^{-1/2}$. The same lower and upper bounds pass to the averaged symmetric matrix $A_h$ whenever both endpoint gradients have norm at most $M$:The printed $C^1(\Omega )$ hypothesis supplies such an $M$ on each relatively compact subset, uniformly for sufficiently small $h$. It therefore establishes a locally uniformly elliptic operator. A single lower bound on all of ${\Omega }^{\prime \prime }$ additionally requires bounded gradients there and at the shifted points; this is automatic for bounded $\Omega$ and fixed $h$, but is not supplied on an arbitrary open set.

Test the weak formulation with $u$ itself. Uniform ellipticity and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality giveThe Poincaré inequality for the bounded shell with zero trace gives $\Vert u{\Vert }_2\le C_P\Vert \nabla u{\Vert }_2$. If the gradient is nonzero, divide to obtain $\Vert \nabla u{\Vert }_2\le C_P{\lambda }^{-1}\Vert f{\Vert }_2$; if it is zero the estimate is immediate and the zero trace forces $u=0$. ThusThe constant depends on the shell and $g$, not on $u$ or $f$. Subtracting two solutions with the same forcing gives a zero-forcing solution and hence proves uniqueness. This is a coercive energy argument, not an appeal to real analytic Cauchy solvability.

First prove the hinted Caccioppoli inequality. Testing the weak formulation with $u_k{\phi }^2$ is legitimate by approximation in the zero-boundary Sobolev space. Let ${\Lambda }_{\ast }=\mathrm{esssup}\Vert a(x){\Vert }_{\mathrm{op}}\le n\Lambda$. Thenby Young inequality. HenceNo derivative of the measurable coefficient matrix is taken.

Set $w_k=u_k/{\sup }_{B_1}|u_k|$. The denominator is finite and positive because $u_k$ is continuous on the compact closure and nonzero. Each $w_k$ solves the same linear equation and $|w_k|\le 1$. For every $\theta <1$, choose a cutoff function equal to one on $B_{\theta }$ and supported in a slightly larger interior Euclidean ball. The energy bound gives a uniform $W^{1,2}(B_{\theta })$ bound.

Take radii ${\theta }_j\uparrow 1$. Weak compactness and a diagonal subsequence argument produce one subsequence converging weakly in $W^{1,2}(B_{{\theta }_j})$ for every $j$, with consistent restrictions defining $v\in W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,2}(B_1)$. Part (b) and the Arzelà-Ascoli theorem allow a further subsequence converging uniformly on $\overline{B_{1/4}}$. Its uniform limit agrees almost everywhere with the weak limit and supplies its continuous representative there.

For every smooth compactly supported test function, choose $j$ containing its support. Since $a^{ij}{D}_i\phi \in L^2$ and $D{w}_k$ converges weakly there,Thus the compactness of normalized weak elliptic solutions givesThe diagonal step is needed to retain the equation beyond the small Euclidean ball of uniform convergence. The limit need not be nonzero: for the Laplacian in dimension at least two, the normalized harmonic functions $\mathrm{Re}(x_1+i{x}_2{)}^k$ tend uniformly to zero on each smaller Euclidean ball.

For any $R>0$, set $U_R(y)=u(Ry)$ and $a_R^{ij}(y)=a^{ij}(Ry)$. These coefficients retain the same bounds and ellipticity, and a change of variables in the weak formulation shows that $U_R$ is a nonnegative weak subsolution on $B_1$. Part (a) gives the scale-correct estimateThe constant is independent of $R$. Fix a Euclidean ball $B_s$ and let $R\to \infty$ with $R>2s$. The right side tends to zero, so $u=0$ almost everywhere on $B_s$. Since $s$ is arbitrary, the Liouville theorem for integrable nonnegative elliptic subsolutions provesThis is $u\equiv 0$ as a Sobolev space element. Any continuous representative is identically zero pointwise; an arbitrary measurable representative can be modified at isolated points without changing the weak equation. Integrability and the explicit scaling force the conclusion.

Let $T:H^1(U)\to L^2(\partial U)$ be the trace map from the Sobolev trace theorem. The weak Robin problem for a uniformly elliptic operator uses all of $H^1(U)$ as the test space, since a Robin boundary condition does not require a zero trace. DefineThe weak formulation isFor a classical solution, integration by parts produces the boundary term $-{\int }_{\partial U}(\sum a^{ij}{u}_{x_i}{\nu }_j)v$. Substituting the Robin boundary condition replaces it by ${\int }_{\partial U}\beta uv$, giving the displayed identity.

Conversely, if $u\in C^2(\overline{U})$ satisfies the identity, tests $v\in C_c^{\infty }(U)$ first show $(L+\lambda )u=f$ in the sense of distributions. Subtracting this interior equality after integration by parts givesEvery smooth boundary function is the trace of a smooth function on $\overline{U}$. The boundary residual is continuous, so this proves the boundary equation pointwise. Thus the formulations agree for $C^2$ solutions. If $f$ is continuous the interior equation holds pointwise; for merely $f\in L^2$, equality with that given representative of $f$ is understood almost everywhere.

Take the difference of two weak solutions, so $f={\psi }_0={\psi }_1=0$. At the stated $H^1(U_T)$ regularity, it is not justified simply to test by $u_t$, which need not belong to the spatial test space $H_0^1$. Instead use the antiderivative test underlying uniqueness of Sobolev weak solutions of a wave equation.

Fix $s\in (0,T]$ and defineThese are Bochner integrals in $H_0^1$. The function $v$ is an admissible space-time $H^1$ test, $v_t=-u$ before $s$, and $v(t)=z(s)-z(t)$. The time term in the weak formulation isbecause $u(0)=0$. Symmetry of $a^{ij}$ and integration by parts in time giveFor the lower-order part, integration by parts in space givesBounded coefficients, the Poincaré inequality for $v$, and the Young inequality now implySince $Dv(t)=Dz(s)-Dz(t)$,For $s$ in a sufficiently short fixed interval, absorb the last term into the left-hand side. The Gronwall inequality applied to $\Vert u(s){\Vert }_2^2+(\theta /2)\Vert Dz(s){\Vert }_2^2$ proves $u=0$ on that interval. The equation gives continuity of $u_t$ in $H^{-1}$, so both initial traces at its endpoint are again zero. Repeating with the same uniform coefficient bounds covers $[0,T]$. Therefore

For each $t$, letA weak energy solution of a variable-coefficient wave equation is a function $u\in H^1(U_T)$ with zero lateral trace, equivalently $u\in L^2(0,T;H_0^1(U))$, whose time trace satisfies $u(0)={\psi }_0$ in $L^2(U)$ and for whichfor every $v\in H^1(U_T)$ with zero lateral trace and $v(T)=0$. Here $u\in H^1(0,T;L^2(U))$ has a continuous $L^2$ representative, so the displacement trace is well defined.

The velocity condition is encoded by the boundary term in time; an arbitrary space-time $H^1$ function need not have an $L^2$ trace of $u_t$. The equation implies $u_{tt}=f-L(t)u\in L^2(0,T;H^{-1}(U))$, hence $u_t$ has a continuous $H^{-1}$ representative and $u_t(0)={\psi }_1$ in that sense. This is the weak formulation obtained by integration by parts once in time and once in space.

Work in the real zero-boundary Sobolev space $X=H_0^1(0,1)$, whose members have square-integrable weak derivatives and zero endpoint trace. Define the bounded bilinear form and linear functionalThe weak formulation is to find $u\in X$ with $a(u,v)=\ell (v)$ for every $v\in X$. Integration by parts recovers the differential equation for a smooth solution; conversely, this identity is the definition of its weak solution.

Use the full $H^1$ norm. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives $|a(u,v)|\le \Vert u{\Vert }_{H^1}\Vert v{\Vert }_{H^1}$ and $|\ell (v)|\le \Vert v{\Vert }_{H^1}/\sqrt{3}$. Also $a(v,v)=\Vert v{\Vert }_{H^1}^2$, so $a$ is a coercive bilinear form with constant one. The Lax-Milgram theorem states that a bounded, coercive bilinear form on a real Hilbert space determines a unique weak solution for every bounded linear functional. It therefore applies here.

The equivalent minimization problem isIf $u$ is the weak solution, symmetry and $a(u,v-u)=\ell (v-u)$ giveThis is positive unless $v=u$, proving a unique global minimizer. Conversely, differentiating $\mathcal{E}(u+tv)$ at $t=0$ gives the weak identity. Thus the unique energy minimizer is exactly the unique weak solution. As a check, the classical representative isIt satisfies both endpoint conditions and $-u^{\prime \prime }+u=x$.

The starting point of a conforming finite element method is a weak formulation in a Hilbert space $X$. For example, a homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition on a bounded Lipschitz domain gives $X=H_0^1(\Omega )$. One seekswhere $a$ is a bounded bilinear form, $|a(w,v)|\le L\Vert w{\Vert }_X\Vert v{\Vert }_X$, and $\ell \in X^{\ast }$ is a bounded linear functional. A conforming finite element space $X_h\subset X$ is finite dimensional and is typically built from functions that are polynomial on each element of a finite element mesh. With a basis ${\phi }_j$, the Galerkin method imposes the same identity only for $v_h\in X_h$, givingThe stiffness matrix is sparse when basis supports overlap only locally. Local element integrals assemble its entries; the mass matrix represents an $L^2$ term. This separates the choice of trial functions from the variational principle determining their coefficients.

The fundamental well-posedness theorem is the Lax-Milgram theorem: if $a(v,v)\ge \gamma \Vert v{\Vert }_X^2$ for some $\gamma >0$, there is a unique solution for each $\ell \in X^{\ast }$, with $\Vert u{\Vert }_X\le \Vert \ell {\Vert }_{X^{\ast }}/\gamma$. The same theorem on $X_h$ gives a unique discrete solution. The constants must be independent of the mesh for uniform stability of a numerical method. Boundary conditions are built into the trial space when they are essential constraints; flux conditions arise through boundary terms in integration by parts and are natural constraints in the weak formulation.

When $a$ is symmetric and a coercive bilinear form, the Ritz method minimizesover $X_h$. Its first variation is exactly the Galerkin method, so Ritz minimization and Galerkin testing coincide for symmetric coercive problems. The energy norm $\Vert v{\Vert }_a=\sqrt{a(v,v)}$ turns the approximation into an orthogonal projection. Indeed, subtracting the exact and discrete weak equations gives Galerkin orthogonality, $a(u-u_h,v_h)=0$. For every $v_h\in X_h$ the Pythagorean identity becomessoThis exact best-approximation property is the central advantage of the Ritz method.

Symmetry is unnecessary for the Galerkin method. For any bounded, coercive form, the Céa lemma givesTo prove it, put $e=u-u_h$. Galerkin orthogonality yields $a(e,e)=a(e,u-v_h)$, so coercivity and boundedness give $\gamma \Vert e{\Vert }_X^2\le L\Vert e{\Vert }_X\Vert u-v_h{\Vert }_X$. Divide when $e\ne 0$ and take the infimum. Thus approximation capability plus uniform coercivity gives convergence. In contrast, minimizing $\frac{1}{2}a(v,v)-\ell (v)$ for a nonsymmetric form differentiates its symmetric part and generally does not solve the original weak equation.

A concrete symmetric example is the one-dimensional reaction-diffusion problem from Question 5. Continuous piecewise-linear hat functions give the diffusion stiffness matrix $S$ with diagonal $2/h$ and neighbouring entries $-1/h$, and the mass matrix $M$ with diagonal $2h/3$ and neighbouring entries $h/6$. Therefore $K=S+M$ and $F_i=i{h}^2$. Its positive-definite matrix is the coordinate form of the continuous energy. The exact smooth solution $u(x)=x-\sinh (x)/\sinh 1$ makes this an explicit test of the method, not just an abstract existence result.

For a nonsymmetric example, take positive $\epsilon$, constant real $\beta$, andIts form is $a(u,v)=\epsilon \int u^{\prime }{v}^{\prime }+\beta \int u^{\prime }v+\int uv$. Since $\int v^{\prime }v=0$, it has coercivity constant $\min (\epsilon ,1)$ in the full $H^1$ norm, although it is not symmetric when $\beta \ne 0$. The Galerkin method remains well posed. On the uniform hat basis, $K=\epsilon S+\beta C+M$, where $C_{i,i+1}=1/2$, $C_{i,i-1}=-1/2$ and $C_{ii}=0$. The skew-symmetric matrix $C$ cancels from $c^{T}Kc$, proving nonsingularity. A Ritz energy would omit precisely this advection contribution. Small $\epsilon$ may nevertheless make the approximation constant large and produce poorly resolved layers; algebraic solvability is not an accuracy guarantee.

Quantitative convergence uses a finite element interpolation estimate. On a shape-regular mesh, for piecewise-linear conforming elements and $u\in H^2(\Omega )$ in the usual low-dimensional setting,The Céa lemma therefore gives an $O(h)$ energy error. The Aubin–Nitsche duality argument improves the L2 norm error when the dual elliptic problem has $H^2$ regularity: solve $a(v,z)=(e,v{)}_{L^2}$ and useConsequentlywith constants depending on the solution and regularity bounds. The second estimate is conditional on dual regularity; corners or insufficient data regularity can reduce the rate.

The same Galerkin method handles evolution equations. For the homogeneous heat equation, the semidiscrete finite element heat equation is $M\dot{c}+Sc=0$. Because $M$ is a positive-definite matrix and $S$ is a positive semidefinite matrix,The decreasing quadratic form is exactly the L2 norm squared of the finite-element function. This separates spatial stability of a numerical method from the subsequent time integrator, just as in the Schrödinger equation example. Conformity, coercivity and approximation estimates together explain convergence.

Consider a bounded Lipschitz domain $\Omega$ and homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions forAssume $A$ is a bounded real symmetric matrix field with ${\xi }^{T}A(x)\xi \ge a_0|\xi {|}^2$ uniformly, $c\ge 0$ is bounded, and $f$ defines a bounded linear functional on $V=H_0^1(\Omega )$, the zero-boundary Sobolev space. The weak formulation isThe Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives continuity $|a(u,v)|\le M\Vert u{\Vert }_V\Vert v{\Vert }_V$. Uniform ellipticity and the Poincaré inequality give a coercive bilinear form, $a(v,v)\ge \alpha \Vert v{\Vert }_V^2$. The Lax-Milgram theorem therefore supplies a unique weak solution, with $\Vert u{\Vert }_V\le \Vert \ell {\Vert }_{V^{\prime }}/\alpha$. Its proof represents $a$ by a bounded linear operator $T$ using the Riesz representation theorem; coercivity gives an injective operator with closed image, and a zero orthogonal complement makes that image all of $V$. This yields existence, uniqueness and the displayed estimate.

For a conforming finite element space $V_h\subseteq V$, the Galerkin method finds $u_h\in V_h$ such that $a(u_h,v_h)=\ell (v_h)$ for every $v_h\in V_h$. With a basis ${\varphi }_1,\dots ,{\varphi }_N$, this is the linear system $KU=F$, where the stiffness matrix is $K_{ij}=a({\varphi }_j,{\varphi }_i)$ and $F_i=\ell ({\varphi }_i)$. Its positive-definite matrix property proves unique discrete solvability. Local support gives a sparse matrix through elementwise assembly.

For the symmetric problem, the Ritz method minimizes $J(v)=a(v,v)/2-\ell (v)$ over $V_h$. Differentiating in every direction $v_h$ gives precisely the Galerkin method equations. Conversely, if $u_h$ solves them, $J(u_h+w_h)-J(u_h)=a(w_h,w_h)/2$, proving it is the unique minimum. The same argument over $V$ gives $J(v)-J(u)=\Vert v-u{\Vert }_a^2/2$, where $\Vert v{\Vert }_a=\sqrt{a(v,v)}$ is the energy norm. Thus the Ritz method chooses the best trial function in that norm.

Subtracting the continuous and discrete equations gives Galerkin orthogonality, $a(u-u_h,v_h)=0$. For arbitrary $v_h\in V_h$ and $e=u-u_h$, it follows that $a(e,e)=a(e,u-v_h)$. Coercivity and continuity prove the Céa lemma:In the symmetric energy norm, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality improves the constant to one. Equivalently, Galerkin orthogonality gives the Pythagorean identity $\Vert u-v_h{\Vert }_a^2=\Vert u-u_h{\Vert }_a^2+\Vert u_h-v_h{\Vert }_a^2$. These estimates establish stability and show that approximation properties of the trial space determine convergence.

For continuous piecewise-linear elements on a shape-regular mesh in dimensions at most three, a finite element interpolation estimate gives $\Vert u-I_{h}u{\Vert }_{H^1}\le Ch\Vert u{\Vert }_{H^2}$ when $u\in H^2(\Omega )$. Combining it with the Céa lemma yields $O(h)$ energy norm error. More generally, degree-$p$ elements give $O(h^p)$ error in $H^1$ under the corresponding regularity and approximation assumptions. Mere mesh refinement cannot supply an order whose required solution regularity is absent.

An additional order in the L2 norm follows under a dual elliptic regularity assumption. Solve $a(v,z)=(e,v{)}_{L^2}$ and assume $\Vert z{\Vert }_{H^2}\le C\Vert e{\Vert }_{L^2}$. The Aubin–Nitsche duality argument uses Galerkin orthogonality to obtainTherefore $\Vert e{\Vert }_{L^2}\le Ch\Vert e{\Vert }_{H^1}$, giving $O(h^2)$ for the piecewise-linear case with $u\in H^2$. This improvement explicitly requires regularity of the dual problem.

As a concrete example, solve $-u^{\prime \prime }=1$ on $(0,1)$ with zero endpoint values. On a uniform mesh of spacing $h$, the piecewise-linear hat functions give $K_{jj}=2/h$, $K_{j,j\pm 1}=-1/h$ and $F_j=h$. The discrete equations are $2U_j-U_{j-1}-U_{j+1}=h^2$, whose solution is $U_j=x_j(1-x_j)/2$. The exact solution is $u(x)=x(1-x)/2$, so $u_h$ is its piecewise-linear nodal interpolant. On each interval $[x_j,x_{j+1}]$,Integrating the squared error and squared derivative error gives the explicit rateswhere the $H_0^1$ norm here is $\Vert v^{\prime }{\Vert }_{L^2}$.

For nonsymmetric coercive problems, the Galerkin method, Galerkin orthogonality and the Céa lemma still apply, but the symmetric quadratic minimization interpretation of the Ritz method generally does not. Nonconforming trial spaces, inexact integration and noncoercive equations need additional arguments beyond the conforming coercive theory proved here.

Put $H=H_0^1(\Omega )$ with its usual Hilbert space inner product, and defineThe Cauchy-Schwarz inequality shows that this is a bounded bilinear form. For $u\in H$, Young inequality givesand thereforeBecause $|A{|}_2<2$, this is a coercive bilinear form.

The map $u\mapsto {\int }_{\Omega }uf$ is a bounded linear functional on $H$. By the Riesz representation theorem, it equals $⟨u,F{⟩}_H$ for some $F\in H$. Applying part (b) produces one and only one $v\in H$ such thatThis is precisely the weak formulation of the stated Dirichlet problem, obtained by integration by parts in the Laplace operator term. Thus $v$ is its unique weak solution; this is the constant-drift massive-Laplacian Dirichlet problem.