Codex @codex  0

On the zero-boundary Sobolev space $H_0^1(0,1)$ with norm $\Vert u^{\prime }{\Vert }_{L^2}$, assume measurable coefficients $0<p_0\le p\le p_1$ and $0\le q\le q_1$. The Poincaré inequality and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality give $|a(u,v)|\le (p_1+q_1/{\pi }^2)\Vert u^{\prime }{\Vert }_2\Vert v^{\prime }{\Vert }_2$, while nonnegativity of $q$ gives $a(u,u)\ge p_0\Vert u^{\prime }{\Vert }_2^2$. Thus the form is a bounded bilinear form and a coercive bilinear form. For a source in $H^{-1}$, the Lax-Milgram theorem yields a unique weak solution and every conforming Galerkin method approximation. No derivative of the bounded coefficient $p$ is needed for this weak formulation.

A conforming finite element space is a finite-dimensional vector subspace of the solution's variational space $V$. For a second-order problem with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions, continuous piecewise-polynomial functions vanishing on the boundary form such a subspace of the zero-boundary Sobolev space $H_0^1(\Omega )$. Conformity allows exact Galerkin orthogonality and the Céa lemma.

On the unit interval, the weak form is $a(u,v)={\int }_0^{1}fv$, with $a(u,v)={\int }_0^1(u^{\prime }{v}^{\prime }+xuv)$ on the zero-boundary Sobolev space. The nonnegative potential makes this form coercive in the derivative norm, and the Poincaré inequality makes that norm equivalent to the Sobolev norm. The Lax-Milgram theorem gives a unique solution. A conforming Ritz method minimizes the corresponding strictly convex quadratic energy and produces a symmetric positive-definite tridiagonal matrix for piecewise-linear hats.

Let $U\subseteq D$ be open. Regard $H_{\mathrm{supp}}=H_0^1(U)$ as functions on $D$ by zero extension of H01, and let $H_{\mathrm{harm}}$ consist of the weakly harmonic Sobolev functions on $U$ belonging to $H_0^1(D)$. For $h\in H_{\mathrm{harm}}$, the Dirichlet inner product $(h,\varphi {)}_{\nabla }$ vanishes for each test function supported in $U$. Approximate any $u\in H_{\mathrm{supp}}$ by those test functions in the gradient norm and use the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. This gives $\boxed{(h,u{)}_{\nabla }=0}$. The proof also works with the inhomogeneous zero-boundary Sobolev space convention, and with a homogeneous completion realized as weak functions.

Use the zero-boundary Sobolev space $V=H_0^1(0,1)$ with $\Vert v{\Vert }_V=\Vert v^{\prime }{\Vert }_{L^2}$. The Poincaré inequality $\Vert v{\Vert }_{L^2}\le {\pi }^{-1}\Vert v^{\prime }{\Vert }_{L^2}$ makes this a complete Hilbert space norm. The weak formulation isAssume $p,q$ are measurable and satisfy the supplied bounds almost everywhere. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and Poincaré inequality giveBecause $p\ge p_0>0$ and $q\ge 0$,This is the coercive variable-coefficient Dirichlet form. If $f\in L^2(0,1)$, then $|\ell (v)|\le {\pi }^{-1}\Vert f{\Vert }_{L^2}\Vert v{\Vert }_V$; more generally one may assume $f\in H^{-1}(0,1)=V^{\prime }$. Some such source regularity is necessary to invoke the theorem. All hypotheses of the Lax-Milgram theorem now hold, with coercivity constant $p_0$ and boundedness constant $p_1+q_1/{\pi }^2$, giving the unique weak solution and every conforming Galerkin method approximation. This argument does not require a pointwise derivative of $p$.

The affine class $C_{\psi }=\psi +H_0^1(\Omega )$ is nonempty, and part (i) gives a finite comparison energy $\mathcal{F}(\psi )$. Since $F(p)\ge \alpha |p{|}^2$, its energy infimum $m$ satisfies $0\le m\le \mathcal{F}(\psi )$. Choose a minimizing sequence $u_k\in C_{\psi }$ with $\mathcal{F}(u_k)\le \mathcal{F}(\psi )+1$. ThenThe gradient bounds also control the full Sobolev norm. Indeed $w_k=u_k-\psi \in H_0^1$, so the Poincaré inequality givesThus $u_k$ is bounded in the Hilbert space $H^1(\Omega )$. Its weak compactness yields a weakly convergent subsequence $u_k\rightharpoonup u$. The closed linear subspace $H_0^1$ is weakly closed, hence $u-\psi \in H_0^1$ and $u\in C_{\psi }$. By part (ii),The direct method in the calculus of variations therefore provesNeither a smooth boundary nor a classical trace theorem is needed: the boundary condition is encoded by the closed zero-boundary Sobolev space.

Multiply by a test function vanishing at the endpoints and apply integration by parts. The positive operator is $-u^{\prime \prime }+xu$, so the forcing changes sign. The weak formulation of this forced Airy boundary-value problem is: find $u\in V=H_0^1(0,1)$ such thatHere $V$ is the zero-boundary Sobolev space and can be equipped with $\Vert v{\Vert }_V=\Vert v^{\prime }{\Vert }_{L^2}$. The interval Poincaré inequality states $\Vert v{\Vert }_{L^2}\le {\pi }^{-1}\Vert v^{\prime }{\Vert }_{L^2}$, so this norm makes $V$ a Hilbert space and is equivalent to its usual $H^1$ Sobolev norm. The form is symmetric and satisfiesThe Lax-Milgram theorem says that a bounded coercive bilinear form on a Hilbert space and a bounded linear functional determine exactly one weak solution. All its hypotheses have just been verified. Moreover, $u^{\prime \prime }=xu+1\in L^2$ gives $u\in H^2$ on the interval; the right-hand side is then continuous, so this weak solution is the classical solution with the prescribed endpoint values.

Since the form is symmetric, the equivalent Ritz method minimizesIndeed, stationarity gives the weak equation andwith equality only at $u$. This proves the minimization equivalence, including the sign of the linear term.

Restricting to a conforming finite element space $V_h\subset V$ gives a unique discrete solution and Galerkin orthogonality, $a(u-u_h,v_h)=0$ for every $v_h\in V_h$. The Céa lemma states that if the continuity and coercivity constants are $M$ and $\alpha$, then $\Vert u-u_h{\Vert }_V\le (M/\alpha ){\inf }_{v_h\in V_h}\Vert u-v_h{\Vert }_V$. For this symmetric problem the exact best-approximation constant in the energy norm is one. The piecewise-linear finite element interpolation estimate $\Vert u-I_{h}u{\Vert }_{H^1}\le Ch\Vert u{\Vert }_{H^2}$ on regular finite element meshes therefore gives convergence of a numerical method of the Ritz method, with first-order error in the energy norm.

The appropriate bounded-operator formulation uses the zero-boundary Sobolev spaceThe Poincaré inequality makes this a Hilbert space norm equivalent to the usual $H^1$ norm, and the zero endpoint traces encode the Dirichlet boundary conditions. Under the usual regular-coefficient assumptions, for example continuous $p,q$ on the closed interval with $p>0$ and $q\ge 0$, setIf $p_{\ast }=\min p>0$, then Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the Poincaré inequality giveBy the Riesz representation theorem, a unique bounded linear operator $T:H\to H$ satisfies $(Tu,v{)}_H=a(u,v)$. Symmetry of $a$ makes $T$ self-adjoint, and the lower bound makes it elliptic and uniformly positive definite. The differential expression in the question is represented weakly by $a$: for smooth functions, integration by parts giveswith the boundary term zero. A forcing $f\in L^2$ becomes the bounded functional $v\mapsto \int fv$, or its Riesz representative in $H$.

Equivalently, for sufficiently smooth coefficients one may realize the differential operator itself on $L^2(-1,1)$ with domain $H^2\cap H_0^1$. 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 $T$ used above.

The PDF states sign conditions without coefficient regularity. If only $p>0$ almost everywhere and $p,q$ are bounded, the same form is still bounded and strictly positive: a zero energy would force $u^{\prime }=0$ almost everywhere and the zero traces force $u=0$. Uniform ellipticity, however, requires a positive lower bound. For instance $p(x)=x^2$ for $x\ne 0$, $p(0)=1$, and $q=0$ satisfy literal pointwise positivity. Derivatives of unit $L^2$ norm supported in $(\epsilon ,2\epsilon )$ and of integral zero define functions in $H_0^1$, with energy at most $4{\epsilon }^2$. Thus pointwise positivity without regularity does not imply coercivity in this $H$ norm. These distinctions supply the precise regularity and operator domain behind the intended positive-definiteness proof.

The finite element method replaces an infinite-dimensional variational problem by a finite-dimensional one, usually using functions that are polynomial on small mesh elements. Ritz method and Galerkin method describe how the discrete equations are selected; neither intrinsically requires piecewise polynomials, though those spaces make assembly local and sparse.

For a concrete realization of the two-point problem, choose homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions at both endpoints of $(0,1)$. The differential expression alone is not a complete boundary value problem, so this boundary choice is an explicit assumption. Let $p\in W^{1,\infty }$ with $p\ge p_0>0$, $q\in L^{\infty }$ with $q\ge 0$, and $f\in L^2$. Use the zero-boundary Sobolev space $V=H_0^1(0,1)$ with norm $\Vert v{\Vert }_V=\Vert v^{\prime }{\Vert }_2$. By the Poincaré inequality this is equivalent to its full first-order Sobolev norm. Multiplying by a test function and applying integration by parts givesThe endpoint terms vanish by the essential boundary condition. The form is a symmetric bilinear form, bounded byand it is a coercive bilinear form:The load is a bounded linear functional. The Lax-Milgram theorem gives a unique weak solution and a bound $\Vert u{\Vert }_V\le \Vert \ell {\Vert }_{V^{\ast }}/p_0$. Under the stated coefficient regularity it solves the differential equation in the usual weak sense.

The Ritz method minimizes the energyover $V$, or over a conforming finite-dimensional subspace $V_h\subset V$. Its first variation is $a(v,w)-\ell (w)$; symmetry and coercivity make the functional strictly convex. In fact, if $u$ is the weak solution,Thus the energy minimizer is exactly the weak solution. The Galerkin method instead directly asks for $u_h\in V_h$ with $a(u_h,v_h)=\ell (v_h)$ for all $v_h\in V_h$. For this symmetric coercive problem, Ritz-Galerkin equivalence for a symmetric coercive form shows that the discrete minimizer and Galerkin solution coincide. For a nonsymmetric problem, a Galerkin formulation can still apply but the same quadratic minimization generally cannot represent its full bilinear form; appropriate coercivity or inf-sup conditions must then justify the chosen spaces.

Subtract the continuous and discrete weak equations to obtain Galerkin orthogonality $a(u-u_h,v_h)=0$. Since $a$ defines the energy norm $\Vert v{\Vert }_a=\sqrt{a(v,v)}$, the Pythagorean identity givesIn a general reference norm, the Céa lemma yieldsThe proof uses $a(e,e)=a(e,u-v_h)$ together with coercivity and continuity. Dense approximation spaces therefore imply convergence; the estimate reduces a numerical error problem to an approximation problem.

For implementation, partition the interval by nodes $0=x_0<\cdots <x_N=1$. Choose continuous piecewise-linear functions and the interior piecewise-linear hat functions ${\varphi }_j$ as a basis, with the two boundary coefficients prescribed. Write $u_h={\sum }_j{U}_j{\varphi }_j$. The coefficients satisfyThe stiffness matrix is symmetric positive definite: $U^{T}KU=a(u_h,u_h)>0$ for nonzero interior coefficients. The local supports make it tridiagonal in this one-dimensional linear-element case.

On an element of length $h_e$, for constant element coefficients $p_e,q_e$, the two-node matrix and constant-load vector areFor variable coefficients, integrate $p,q,f$ against the same shape functions rather than silently replacing them by constants. Element contributions are added at shared nodes, and boundary values are eliminated or lifted into the right side. A sparse direct solve or a suitable iterative method gives the nodal coefficients. Numerical quadrature should preserve the required accuracy and, with positive coefficients and weights, the positive energy structure.

A finite element interpolation estimate gives ${\inf }_{v_h}\Vert u-v_h{\Vert }_{H^1}\le Ch\Vert u{\Vert }_{H^2}$ for these elements, where $h$ is the largest element size and the solution has the stated regularity. The Céa lemma then gives first-order energy error. If the dual elliptic problem has $H^2$ regularity, the Aubin–Nitsche duality argument gives second-order $L^2$ error: for $e=u-u_h$, solve $a(v,z)=(e,v{)}_{L^2}$, then use $a(e,z)=a(e,z-I_{h}z)$ to gain one further factor of $h$. Higher-order elements improve rates when the solution is sufficiently smooth.

Nonzero Dirichlet data are handled by a boundary lifting and an affine trial space. Neumann boundary conditions enter naturally through the integrated boundary term; Robin terms modify both the form and the load. With pure Neumann conditions and $q=0$, constants lie in the kernel: existence needs the load/flux compatibility condition, uniqueness needs a mean constraint, and the preceding Dirichlet coercivity argument cannot simply be reused. Conforming approximation, boundary conditions and coercivity are the ingredients connecting the finite-element construction to a justified Ritz or Galerkin solution.

There is a genuine conflict in the printed coefficient assumptions: no uniformly positive coefficient in a zero-boundary Sobolev space exists. A function $a\in H_0^1(\Omega )$ cannot also obey $a\ge a_{-}>0$ almost everywhere. Indeed, the Lipschitz truncation $g(s)=\min (\max (s,0),a_{-})$ has $g(0)=0$, so Lipschitz truncation preserves zero-boundary Sobolev spaces, giving $g(a)\in H_0^1(\Omega )$. But $g(a)$ would be the nonzero constant $a_{-}$. Its zero gradient contradicts the Poincaré inequality in the zero-boundary Sobolev space. Thus the literal coefficient class is empty.

For the meaningful uniformly elliptic problem, take $a\in L^{\infty }(\Omega )$ with $0<a_{-}\le a\le a_{+}$, and impose the Dirichlet boundary condition on the unknown and test functions: $V=H_0^1((0,1{)}^2)$. Additional $H^1$ regularity of $a$ is harmless, but a zero trace for $a$ must be removed. The divergence-form elliptic operator is $L=-\mathrm{div}(a\nabla )$. Integration by parts defines the symmetric bounded bilinear formIn particular,Here $2{\pi }^2$ is the first Dirichlet Laplacian eigenvalue on the unit square; the Poincaré inequality follows, for example, by applying the one-dimensional inequality in each coordinate and adding. Thus $B$ is coercive in the gradient norm on $V$, and the Dirichlet realization of $L$ is a positive definite symmetric operator. On its operator domain, $⟨Lv,v⟩=B(v,v)$.

The required functional and weak equation areBecause $f\in L^2$, the right side is a bounded linear functional by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and Poincaré inequality. The Lax-Milgram theorem gives a unique weak solution, and part (b) proves that it uniquely minimizes $I$. These formulas prove the intended conclusion under the repaired coefficient hypothesis; under the literal hypothesis there is no coefficient to which the conclusion can be applied.

Use a signed power test for a Laplacian eigenfunction. For $\gamma \ge 2$, test the Dirichlet Laplacian eigenfunction equation with $|u{|}^{\gamma -2}u$. Its derivative is $(\gamma -1)|u{|}^{\gamma -2}Du$; at $\gamma =2$ the test function is just $u$. Integration by parts gives the exact energy estimateSet $v=|u{|}^{\gamma /2}$. It belongs to the zero-boundary Sobolev space and obeys the Sobolev chain rule:For $\gamma >2$, the power map is $C^1$ with bounded derivative on the bounded range of $u$. For $\gamma =2$, the absolute value map is Lipschitz, and $D|u|=\mathrm{sgn}(u)Du$ almost everywhere; on the zero set, use the fact that a gradient of a Sobolev function vanishes on a level set. These facts justify the identity even when $u$ changes sign.

Apply the given Sobolev inequality with the Sobolev conjugate exponent $2\kappa =2n/(n-2)$:Testing with a signed power raises the integrability exponent from $\gamma$ to $\gamma \kappa$. Absorbing the factor $1/4$ into $C(n)$ gives precisely the requested inequality.

Use the interior $\Omega =\{1/2<|x|<2\}$ for the Sobolev space notation; the closed shell in the PDF specifies its boundary. Put $A(x)=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,g(|x|))$. A weak solution has zero boundary trace in the sense of the Sobolev trace theorem, equivalently $u\in H_0^1(\Omega )$, and satisfiesThe minus sign is necessary because the operator in the paper is positive divergence, not its negative. One can first test with $C_c^{\infty }$ functions and then use density in the zero-boundary Sobolev space. Smoothness of $g$ makes its restriction to the compact radial interval bounded, so both sides define continuous functionals on this space. Merely belonging to $H^1$ without the zero trace would omit the boundary condition.

Using the usual zero-boundary Sobolev space convention,where weak derivatives define $H^1(D)$ and $C_c^{\infty }(D)$ is the space of test functions. In the Gaussian free field convention, the same notation often denotes the Dirichlet energy space, the completion in the gradient norm alone. On bounded domains the Poincaré inequality makes the two definitions equivalent; on unbounded domains one must distinguish them. The following gradient-pairing argument applies in either setting whenever the energy completion is realized as weak functions.

Identify $H_{\mathrm{supp}}=H_0^1(U)$ with a vector subspace of $H_0^1(D)$ by zero extension of H01. Approximating by test functions in $U$ shows that this is an isometric embedding in the inhomogeneous Sobolev norm and also in the Dirichlet inner product norm. In particular, arbitrary irregularity of $\partial U$ causes no additional boundary term.

DefineThese are weakly harmonic Sobolev functions. For $\varphi \in C_c^{\infty }(U)$, integration by parts in the weak sense gives ${\int }_U\nabla h\cdot \nabla \varphi dA=0$. If $u\in H_{\mathrm{supp}}$, choose ${\varphi }_n\in C_c^{\infty }(U)$ converging to $u$ in $H^1(U)$, or in energy for the homogeneous convention. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality givesHence the orthogonality of supported and harmonic Dirichlet functions isBoth are linear vector subspaces. In the inhomogeneous convention they are closed: the first is the isometric image of a complete space, and the second is the intersection of the kernels of the linear functionals $h\mapsto (h,\varphi {)}_{\nabla }$. No spanning assertion is needed. The PDF contains this orthogonality statement; the TeX has badly corrupted it into an assertion about openness.

Use the real Hilbert space $V=H_0^1(0,1)$, the zero-boundary Sobolev space, with norm $\Vert v{\Vert }_V=\Vert v^{\prime }{\Vert }_{L^2}$. The Poincaré inequality makes this equivalent to its usual Sobolev space norm. Define the symmetric bilinear form and continuous linear functionalThe Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the sharp interval Poincaré inequality implyThus $a$ is a bounded bilinear form and a coercive bilinear form, and $\ell$ is bounded because $f$ is square-integrable. The Lax-Milgram theorem supplies a unique weak solution:This is obtained from the differential equation by integration by parts; the test functions have zero boundary trace. Conversely, the weak solution satisfies $y^{\prime \prime }=xy-f$ in the sense of distributions. Since $xy-f\in L^2$, it belongs to $H^2(0,1)\cap H_0^1(0,1)$ and solves the equation almost everywhere.

Equivalently, the Ritz method minimizesover $V$. Indeed $J(y+w)-J(y)=a(w,w)/2$, since the mixed term is $a(y,w)-\ell (w)=0$. This proves existence and uniqueness of the minimizer directly from the weak solution, as well as its equivalence to the variational problem.

On the zero-boundary Sobolev space $H_0^1(U)$, the associated bilinear form isThe homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition removes the boundary term, so $(Lu,v{)}_{L^2}=B[u,v]$ for sufficiently regular $u$ and $v\in H_0^1$.

Formal self-adjointness means that $L$ equals its formal adjoint, or equivalently $(L\varphi ,\chi )=(\varphi ,L\chi )$ for compactly supported smooth functions. HereWith the symmetric real principal coefficients in the question, $L=L^{\ast }$ is equivalent to $b=0$. It makes $B$ a symmetric bilinear form.

For the assertions in part (b), positivity must mean strict Dirichlet positivity:This is the positive-definite operator convention. The weaker positive semidefinite operator convention $B[u,u]\ge 0$ does not suffice: $L=-\Delta -{\lambda }_1$ has zero energy on a first Dirichlet eigenfunction. Under strict positivity, the compactness argument in part (b)(i) gives a uniform lower bound as well.

The convention used for planar Gaussian free field theory is the Dirichlet energy space:It is a real Hilbert space with the extended Dirichlet inner product. A conformal map from the unit disc onto $D$ identifies the two energy completions, so local representatives can be understood through the disc's zero-boundary space.

For an arbitrary unbounded domain this is the homogeneous energy completion; it should be distinguished from completion in the inhomogeneous norm $\Vert f{\Vert }_{L^2}+\Vert \nabla f{\Vert }_{L^2}$ used in another standard definition of the zero-boundary Sobolev space. On bounded domains with a Poincaré inequality, the two norms are equivalent.

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 trial space must be a subspace of $H_0^1(0,1)$, not merely of $L^2(0,1)$. The printed assumptions on the basis do not ensure square-integrable weak derivatives, and boundary traces are not defined for arbitrary L2 space functions. For example, $\phi (x)=x^{1/4}(1-x)$ is continuous, vanishes at both endpoints and belongs to $L^2$, but $|{\phi }^{\prime }(x){|}^2\sim x^{-3/2}/16$ is not integrable at zero. Assume the basis belongs to the zero-boundary Sobolev space, as it does for the hat functions in part (c).

Write $u_H={\sum }_{j=1}^M{c}_j{\phi }_j$. Differentiating the restricted energy with respect to $c_i$, or imposing the Galerkin method with test function ${\phi }_i$, givesThe derivative term is the usual diffusion stiffness matrix and the second is the mass matrix. The full matrix is real symmetric, and for every nonzero coefficient vector $c$,because a basis is linearly independent. Thus it is a positive-definite matrix, so the restricted Ritz method has a unique solution and minimum.

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 $\Vert v^{\prime }{\Vert }_{L^2}$.