Prove that $W_0^{1,p}$ is a Banach space
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
$textbf{Problem}$ Prove that $W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$ is a Banach space where $Omega$ be an open and bounded set in $mathbb{R}^n$
$textbf{Proof}$ $quad $Let ${u_n}$ be the Cauchy Sequence in $W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$. Then, ${u_n}$ be also the Cacuhy Sequence in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$. Since $W^{1,p}(Omega)$ is a Banach space, there exists $u in W^{1,p}(Omega)$ such that $Vert u-u_n Vert _{W^{1,p}(Omega)} rightarrow 0 $ as $n rightarrow infty$. We suffices to show that $u in W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$.
Since $u_n in W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$, there exists $phi_{n_j} in C^{infty}_{0}(Omega)$ such that $Vert u_n - phi_{n_j}Vert _{W^{1,p}(Omega)} rightarrow 0 $ as $n_j rightarrow 0$.
Thus,
begin{align*}
Vert u - phi_{n_j} Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}leq Vert u-u_k Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}+Vert u_k-u_nVert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}+Vert u_n-phi_{n_j}Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}
end{align*}
(i) There exists $N_1>0$ such that
begin{align*}
Vert u-u_kVert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}<epsilon/3
end{align*}
for $k>N_1$. ($u_n$ converge to $u$ in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$)
(ii) There exists $N_2>0$ such that
begin{align*}
Vert u_k-u_n Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}<epsilon/3
end{align*}
for $n,k>N_2$. ($u_n$ Cauchy sequence in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$)
(iii) There exists $N_3>0$ such that
begin{align*}
Vert u_n-phi_{n_j}Vert _{W^{1,p}(Omega)}<epsilon/3
end{align*}
for $n_j>N_3$. ($u_n in W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$)
Consequently, $phi_{n_j} in C^{infty}_0(Omega)$ converge to $u$ in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$. i.e, $uin W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$.
I'm not sure my proof is right....
I want to know where my proof is wrong..
Any help is appreciated....
Thank you!
pde banach-spaces sobolev-spaces
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
$textbf{Problem}$ Prove that $W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$ is a Banach space where $Omega$ be an open and bounded set in $mathbb{R}^n$
$textbf{Proof}$ $quad $Let ${u_n}$ be the Cauchy Sequence in $W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$. Then, ${u_n}$ be also the Cacuhy Sequence in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$. Since $W^{1,p}(Omega)$ is a Banach space, there exists $u in W^{1,p}(Omega)$ such that $Vert u-u_n Vert _{W^{1,p}(Omega)} rightarrow 0 $ as $n rightarrow infty$. We suffices to show that $u in W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$.
Since $u_n in W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$, there exists $phi_{n_j} in C^{infty}_{0}(Omega)$ such that $Vert u_n - phi_{n_j}Vert _{W^{1,p}(Omega)} rightarrow 0 $ as $n_j rightarrow 0$.
Thus,
begin{align*}
Vert u - phi_{n_j} Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}leq Vert u-u_k Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}+Vert u_k-u_nVert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}+Vert u_n-phi_{n_j}Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}
end{align*}
(i) There exists $N_1>0$ such that
begin{align*}
Vert u-u_kVert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}<epsilon/3
end{align*}
for $k>N_1$. ($u_n$ converge to $u$ in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$)
(ii) There exists $N_2>0$ such that
begin{align*}
Vert u_k-u_n Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}<epsilon/3
end{align*}
for $n,k>N_2$. ($u_n$ Cauchy sequence in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$)
(iii) There exists $N_3>0$ such that
begin{align*}
Vert u_n-phi_{n_j}Vert _{W^{1,p}(Omega)}<epsilon/3
end{align*}
for $n_j>N_3$. ($u_n in W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$)
Consequently, $phi_{n_j} in C^{infty}_0(Omega)$ converge to $u$ in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$. i.e, $uin W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$.
I'm not sure my proof is right....
I want to know where my proof is wrong..
Any help is appreciated....
Thank you!
pde banach-spaces sobolev-spaces
It seems that what you're proving here is the following general fact: if $B$ is a metric space and $A subseteq B$, then the closure $bar{A}$ (defined as the set of all possible limits of sequences in $A$) is a closed set.
– Michał Miśkiewicz
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
$textbf{Problem}$ Prove that $W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$ is a Banach space where $Omega$ be an open and bounded set in $mathbb{R}^n$
$textbf{Proof}$ $quad $Let ${u_n}$ be the Cauchy Sequence in $W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$. Then, ${u_n}$ be also the Cacuhy Sequence in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$. Since $W^{1,p}(Omega)$ is a Banach space, there exists $u in W^{1,p}(Omega)$ such that $Vert u-u_n Vert _{W^{1,p}(Omega)} rightarrow 0 $ as $n rightarrow infty$. We suffices to show that $u in W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$.
Since $u_n in W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$, there exists $phi_{n_j} in C^{infty}_{0}(Omega)$ such that $Vert u_n - phi_{n_j}Vert _{W^{1,p}(Omega)} rightarrow 0 $ as $n_j rightarrow 0$.
Thus,
begin{align*}
Vert u - phi_{n_j} Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}leq Vert u-u_k Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}+Vert u_k-u_nVert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}+Vert u_n-phi_{n_j}Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}
end{align*}
(i) There exists $N_1>0$ such that
begin{align*}
Vert u-u_kVert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}<epsilon/3
end{align*}
for $k>N_1$. ($u_n$ converge to $u$ in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$)
(ii) There exists $N_2>0$ such that
begin{align*}
Vert u_k-u_n Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}<epsilon/3
end{align*}
for $n,k>N_2$. ($u_n$ Cauchy sequence in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$)
(iii) There exists $N_3>0$ such that
begin{align*}
Vert u_n-phi_{n_j}Vert _{W^{1,p}(Omega)}<epsilon/3
end{align*}
for $n_j>N_3$. ($u_n in W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$)
Consequently, $phi_{n_j} in C^{infty}_0(Omega)$ converge to $u$ in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$. i.e, $uin W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$.
I'm not sure my proof is right....
I want to know where my proof is wrong..
Any help is appreciated....
Thank you!
pde banach-spaces sobolev-spaces
$textbf{Problem}$ Prove that $W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$ is a Banach space where $Omega$ be an open and bounded set in $mathbb{R}^n$
$textbf{Proof}$ $quad $Let ${u_n}$ be the Cauchy Sequence in $W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$. Then, ${u_n}$ be also the Cacuhy Sequence in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$. Since $W^{1,p}(Omega)$ is a Banach space, there exists $u in W^{1,p}(Omega)$ such that $Vert u-u_n Vert _{W^{1,p}(Omega)} rightarrow 0 $ as $n rightarrow infty$. We suffices to show that $u in W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$.
Since $u_n in W_0^{1,p}(Omega)$, there exists $phi_{n_j} in C^{infty}_{0}(Omega)$ such that $Vert u_n - phi_{n_j}Vert _{W^{1,p}(Omega)} rightarrow 0 $ as $n_j rightarrow 0$.
Thus,
begin{align*}
Vert u - phi_{n_j} Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}leq Vert u-u_k Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}+Vert u_k-u_nVert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}+Vert u_n-phi_{n_j}Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}
end{align*}
(i) There exists $N_1>0$ such that
begin{align*}
Vert u-u_kVert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}<epsilon/3
end{align*}
for $k>N_1$. ($u_n$ converge to $u$ in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$)
(ii) There exists $N_2>0$ such that
begin{align*}
Vert u_k-u_n Vert_{W^{1,p}(Omega)}<epsilon/3
end{align*}
for $n,k>N_2$. ($u_n$ Cauchy sequence in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$)
(iii) There exists $N_3>0$ such that
begin{align*}
Vert u_n-phi_{n_j}Vert _{W^{1,p}(Omega)}<epsilon/3
end{align*}
for $n_j>N_3$. ($u_n in W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$)
Consequently, $phi_{n_j} in C^{infty}_0(Omega)$ converge to $u$ in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$. i.e, $uin W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$.
I'm not sure my proof is right....
I want to know where my proof is wrong..
Any help is appreciated....
Thank you!
pde banach-spaces sobolev-spaces
pde banach-spaces sobolev-spaces
edited yesterday
asked yesterday
w.sdka
30919
30919
It seems that what you're proving here is the following general fact: if $B$ is a metric space and $A subseteq B$, then the closure $bar{A}$ (defined as the set of all possible limits of sequences in $A$) is a closed set.
– Michał Miśkiewicz
yesterday
add a comment |
It seems that what you're proving here is the following general fact: if $B$ is a metric space and $A subseteq B$, then the closure $bar{A}$ (defined as the set of all possible limits of sequences in $A$) is a closed set.
– Michał Miśkiewicz
yesterday
It seems that what you're proving here is the following general fact: if $B$ is a metric space and $A subseteq B$, then the closure $bar{A}$ (defined as the set of all possible limits of sequences in $A$) is a closed set.
– Michał Miśkiewicz
yesterday
It seems that what you're proving here is the following general fact: if $B$ is a metric space and $A subseteq B$, then the closure $bar{A}$ (defined as the set of all possible limits of sequences in $A$) is a closed set.
– Michał Miśkiewicz
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I think your proof is right.
But according to the definition of $W^{1,p}_0{Omega}$, which is $W^{1,p}_0{Omega}$ is the completion of $C_c^{infty}(Omega)$ in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$. So I think it's no need to proof $W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$ is a Banach space, because it's natural.
New contributor
I also agree with your answer... But, in our homework, we can't use that $W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$ is the completion of $C^{infty}_c(Omega)$ and the closed subspace of Banach space is a Banach space... Anyway, thank you!!
– w.sdka
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I think your proof is right.
But according to the definition of $W^{1,p}_0{Omega}$, which is $W^{1,p}_0{Omega}$ is the completion of $C_c^{infty}(Omega)$ in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$. So I think it's no need to proof $W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$ is a Banach space, because it's natural.
New contributor
I also agree with your answer... But, in our homework, we can't use that $W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$ is the completion of $C^{infty}_c(Omega)$ and the closed subspace of Banach space is a Banach space... Anyway, thank you!!
– w.sdka
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I think your proof is right.
But according to the definition of $W^{1,p}_0{Omega}$, which is $W^{1,p}_0{Omega}$ is the completion of $C_c^{infty}(Omega)$ in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$. So I think it's no need to proof $W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$ is a Banach space, because it's natural.
New contributor
I also agree with your answer... But, in our homework, we can't use that $W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$ is the completion of $C^{infty}_c(Omega)$ and the closed subspace of Banach space is a Banach space... Anyway, thank you!!
– w.sdka
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I think your proof is right.
But according to the definition of $W^{1,p}_0{Omega}$, which is $W^{1,p}_0{Omega}$ is the completion of $C_c^{infty}(Omega)$ in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$. So I think it's no need to proof $W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$ is a Banach space, because it's natural.
New contributor
I think your proof is right.
But according to the definition of $W^{1,p}_0{Omega}$, which is $W^{1,p}_0{Omega}$ is the completion of $C_c^{infty}(Omega)$ in $W^{1,p}(Omega)$. So I think it's no need to proof $W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$ is a Banach space, because it's natural.
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
chloe hj
411
411
New contributor
New contributor
I also agree with your answer... But, in our homework, we can't use that $W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$ is the completion of $C^{infty}_c(Omega)$ and the closed subspace of Banach space is a Banach space... Anyway, thank you!!
– w.sdka
yesterday
add a comment |
I also agree with your answer... But, in our homework, we can't use that $W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$ is the completion of $C^{infty}_c(Omega)$ and the closed subspace of Banach space is a Banach space... Anyway, thank you!!
– w.sdka
yesterday
I also agree with your answer... But, in our homework, we can't use that $W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$ is the completion of $C^{infty}_c(Omega)$ and the closed subspace of Banach space is a Banach space... Anyway, thank you!!
– w.sdka
yesterday
I also agree with your answer... But, in our homework, we can't use that $W^{1,p}_0(Omega)$ is the completion of $C^{infty}_c(Omega)$ and the closed subspace of Banach space is a Banach space... Anyway, thank you!!
– w.sdka
yesterday
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3000820%2fprove-that-w-01-p-is-a-banach-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
It seems that what you're proving here is the following general fact: if $B$ is a metric space and $A subseteq B$, then the closure $bar{A}$ (defined as the set of all possible limits of sequences in $A$) is a closed set.
– Michał Miśkiewicz
yesterday