Using the Banach fixed point Theorem
$begingroup$
In Chapter 7, The Hille-Yosida Theorem,
Functional Analysis,
Sobolev Spaces and Partial
Differential Equations - Brezis, 2011.
Brezis showed the following claim (in Proposition 7.1).
Claim: Suppose that $A$ is a maximal monotone operator, $(I+lambda A): D(A) to R(I+lambda A)$ is a injective operator, and $|(I+lambda A)^{-1}u| leq |u| $ for all $u in R(I+lambda A)$ for all $lambda >0$. Then $R(I+lambda A) = H$.
The proof of Brezis:
We will prove that if $R(I+lambda_{0} A) = H$ for some $lambda_{0}>0$ then
$R(I+lambda A) = H$ for every $lambda > frac{1}{2}lambda_{0}$.
For some $f in H$, we try to solve the equation
$u+lambda Au = f$ with $lambda >0$. (1)
Equation (1) may be written as
$u+ lambda_{0}Au = frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}f+ big( 1- frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}u big)$
or alternatively
$u= (I+lambda A)^{-1}big[frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}f+ big( 1- frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}u big)big]$ $(2)$
If $|1-frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}|< 1$, i.e., $lambda > frac{1}{2}lambda_{0}$, we may apply the contraction mapping principle (the Banach Fixed point Theorem) and deduce that (2) has a solution.
My question: how to prove that (2) has a solution using the the Banach Fixed point Theorem?
Thanks
Definitions:
An unbounded linear operator $A: D(A)subseteq H to H$ is said to be monotone if it satisfies
$langle A u, u rangle geq 0$ for all $uin D(A)$.
It is called maximal monotone if, in addition, $R(I+A)=H$.
functional-analysis pde
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In Chapter 7, The Hille-Yosida Theorem,
Functional Analysis,
Sobolev Spaces and Partial
Differential Equations - Brezis, 2011.
Brezis showed the following claim (in Proposition 7.1).
Claim: Suppose that $A$ is a maximal monotone operator, $(I+lambda A): D(A) to R(I+lambda A)$ is a injective operator, and $|(I+lambda A)^{-1}u| leq |u| $ for all $u in R(I+lambda A)$ for all $lambda >0$. Then $R(I+lambda A) = H$.
The proof of Brezis:
We will prove that if $R(I+lambda_{0} A) = H$ for some $lambda_{0}>0$ then
$R(I+lambda A) = H$ for every $lambda > frac{1}{2}lambda_{0}$.
For some $f in H$, we try to solve the equation
$u+lambda Au = f$ with $lambda >0$. (1)
Equation (1) may be written as
$u+ lambda_{0}Au = frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}f+ big( 1- frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}u big)$
or alternatively
$u= (I+lambda A)^{-1}big[frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}f+ big( 1- frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}u big)big]$ $(2)$
If $|1-frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}|< 1$, i.e., $lambda > frac{1}{2}lambda_{0}$, we may apply the contraction mapping principle (the Banach Fixed point Theorem) and deduce that (2) has a solution.
My question: how to prove that (2) has a solution using the the Banach Fixed point Theorem?
Thanks
Definitions:
An unbounded linear operator $A: D(A)subseteq H to H$ is said to be monotone if it satisfies
$langle A u, u rangle geq 0$ for all $uin D(A)$.
It is called maximal monotone if, in addition, $R(I+A)=H$.
functional-analysis pde
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In Chapter 7, The Hille-Yosida Theorem,
Functional Analysis,
Sobolev Spaces and Partial
Differential Equations - Brezis, 2011.
Brezis showed the following claim (in Proposition 7.1).
Claim: Suppose that $A$ is a maximal monotone operator, $(I+lambda A): D(A) to R(I+lambda A)$ is a injective operator, and $|(I+lambda A)^{-1}u| leq |u| $ for all $u in R(I+lambda A)$ for all $lambda >0$. Then $R(I+lambda A) = H$.
The proof of Brezis:
We will prove that if $R(I+lambda_{0} A) = H$ for some $lambda_{0}>0$ then
$R(I+lambda A) = H$ for every $lambda > frac{1}{2}lambda_{0}$.
For some $f in H$, we try to solve the equation
$u+lambda Au = f$ with $lambda >0$. (1)
Equation (1) may be written as
$u+ lambda_{0}Au = frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}f+ big( 1- frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}u big)$
or alternatively
$u= (I+lambda A)^{-1}big[frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}f+ big( 1- frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}u big)big]$ $(2)$
If $|1-frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}|< 1$, i.e., $lambda > frac{1}{2}lambda_{0}$, we may apply the contraction mapping principle (the Banach Fixed point Theorem) and deduce that (2) has a solution.
My question: how to prove that (2) has a solution using the the Banach Fixed point Theorem?
Thanks
Definitions:
An unbounded linear operator $A: D(A)subseteq H to H$ is said to be monotone if it satisfies
$langle A u, u rangle geq 0$ for all $uin D(A)$.
It is called maximal monotone if, in addition, $R(I+A)=H$.
functional-analysis pde
$endgroup$
In Chapter 7, The Hille-Yosida Theorem,
Functional Analysis,
Sobolev Spaces and Partial
Differential Equations - Brezis, 2011.
Brezis showed the following claim (in Proposition 7.1).
Claim: Suppose that $A$ is a maximal monotone operator, $(I+lambda A): D(A) to R(I+lambda A)$ is a injective operator, and $|(I+lambda A)^{-1}u| leq |u| $ for all $u in R(I+lambda A)$ for all $lambda >0$. Then $R(I+lambda A) = H$.
The proof of Brezis:
We will prove that if $R(I+lambda_{0} A) = H$ for some $lambda_{0}>0$ then
$R(I+lambda A) = H$ for every $lambda > frac{1}{2}lambda_{0}$.
For some $f in H$, we try to solve the equation
$u+lambda Au = f$ with $lambda >0$. (1)
Equation (1) may be written as
$u+ lambda_{0}Au = frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}f+ big( 1- frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}u big)$
or alternatively
$u= (I+lambda A)^{-1}big[frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}f+ big( 1- frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}u big)big]$ $(2)$
If $|1-frac{lambda_{0}}{lambda}|< 1$, i.e., $lambda > frac{1}{2}lambda_{0}$, we may apply the contraction mapping principle (the Banach Fixed point Theorem) and deduce that (2) has a solution.
My question: how to prove that (2) has a solution using the the Banach Fixed point Theorem?
Thanks
Definitions:
An unbounded linear operator $A: D(A)subseteq H to H$ is said to be monotone if it satisfies
$langle A u, u rangle geq 0$ for all $uin D(A)$.
It is called maximal monotone if, in addition, $R(I+A)=H$.
functional-analysis pde
functional-analysis pde
asked Nov 30 '18 at 22:42
Joao MaiaJoao Maia
1586
1586
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are some typos in your derivation. Specifically the correct form of $(2)$ is:
$$u=(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1} left[frac{lambda_0}lambda fright]+(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1}left[(1-frac{lambda_0}lambda)uright].$$
Your equation is of the form
$$u=v + Bu$$
for a constant $v$ and a linear map $B$. In the case that $B$ is a contraction then $v+Bu$ is a contraction and you are done. So why is $B=(1-frac{lambda_0}lambda)(I+lambda_0A)^{-1}$ a contraction? Here note that $|(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1}|≤1$, use the positivity of $A$ if you wish. This gives you
$$|B|≤|1-frac{lambda_0}lambda|<1,$$
now you are finished.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Banach's fixed point theorem states that if an operator $T colon X to X$ on the non-empty complete metric space $(X, d)$ is a contraction, then $T$ has a unique fixed point $x^* in X$ such that $Tx^* = x^*$. This means that if you can show that $T$ is a contraction, i.e. $d(Tx, Ty) leq Kd(x, y)$ for some constant $0 leq K < 1$, then $T$ has a fixed point. If you can show that (2) is indeed a contraction, then there will exist a unique solution.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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%2f3020747%2fusing-the-banach-fixed-point-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There are some typos in your derivation. Specifically the correct form of $(2)$ is:
$$u=(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1} left[frac{lambda_0}lambda fright]+(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1}left[(1-frac{lambda_0}lambda)uright].$$
Your equation is of the form
$$u=v + Bu$$
for a constant $v$ and a linear map $B$. In the case that $B$ is a contraction then $v+Bu$ is a contraction and you are done. So why is $B=(1-frac{lambda_0}lambda)(I+lambda_0A)^{-1}$ a contraction? Here note that $|(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1}|≤1$, use the positivity of $A$ if you wish. This gives you
$$|B|≤|1-frac{lambda_0}lambda|<1,$$
now you are finished.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are some typos in your derivation. Specifically the correct form of $(2)$ is:
$$u=(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1} left[frac{lambda_0}lambda fright]+(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1}left[(1-frac{lambda_0}lambda)uright].$$
Your equation is of the form
$$u=v + Bu$$
for a constant $v$ and a linear map $B$. In the case that $B$ is a contraction then $v+Bu$ is a contraction and you are done. So why is $B=(1-frac{lambda_0}lambda)(I+lambda_0A)^{-1}$ a contraction? Here note that $|(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1}|≤1$, use the positivity of $A$ if you wish. This gives you
$$|B|≤|1-frac{lambda_0}lambda|<1,$$
now you are finished.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are some typos in your derivation. Specifically the correct form of $(2)$ is:
$$u=(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1} left[frac{lambda_0}lambda fright]+(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1}left[(1-frac{lambda_0}lambda)uright].$$
Your equation is of the form
$$u=v + Bu$$
for a constant $v$ and a linear map $B$. In the case that $B$ is a contraction then $v+Bu$ is a contraction and you are done. So why is $B=(1-frac{lambda_0}lambda)(I+lambda_0A)^{-1}$ a contraction? Here note that $|(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1}|≤1$, use the positivity of $A$ if you wish. This gives you
$$|B|≤|1-frac{lambda_0}lambda|<1,$$
now you are finished.
$endgroup$
There are some typos in your derivation. Specifically the correct form of $(2)$ is:
$$u=(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1} left[frac{lambda_0}lambda fright]+(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1}left[(1-frac{lambda_0}lambda)uright].$$
Your equation is of the form
$$u=v + Bu$$
for a constant $v$ and a linear map $B$. In the case that $B$ is a contraction then $v+Bu$ is a contraction and you are done. So why is $B=(1-frac{lambda_0}lambda)(I+lambda_0A)^{-1}$ a contraction? Here note that $|(I+lambda_0 A)^{-1}|≤1$, use the positivity of $A$ if you wish. This gives you
$$|B|≤|1-frac{lambda_0}lambda|<1,$$
now you are finished.
answered Nov 30 '18 at 23:11
s.harps.harp
8,42812049
8,42812049
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Banach's fixed point theorem states that if an operator $T colon X to X$ on the non-empty complete metric space $(X, d)$ is a contraction, then $T$ has a unique fixed point $x^* in X$ such that $Tx^* = x^*$. This means that if you can show that $T$ is a contraction, i.e. $d(Tx, Ty) leq Kd(x, y)$ for some constant $0 leq K < 1$, then $T$ has a fixed point. If you can show that (2) is indeed a contraction, then there will exist a unique solution.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Banach's fixed point theorem states that if an operator $T colon X to X$ on the non-empty complete metric space $(X, d)$ is a contraction, then $T$ has a unique fixed point $x^* in X$ such that $Tx^* = x^*$. This means that if you can show that $T$ is a contraction, i.e. $d(Tx, Ty) leq Kd(x, y)$ for some constant $0 leq K < 1$, then $T$ has a fixed point. If you can show that (2) is indeed a contraction, then there will exist a unique solution.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Banach's fixed point theorem states that if an operator $T colon X to X$ on the non-empty complete metric space $(X, d)$ is a contraction, then $T$ has a unique fixed point $x^* in X$ such that $Tx^* = x^*$. This means that if you can show that $T$ is a contraction, i.e. $d(Tx, Ty) leq Kd(x, y)$ for some constant $0 leq K < 1$, then $T$ has a fixed point. If you can show that (2) is indeed a contraction, then there will exist a unique solution.
$endgroup$
Banach's fixed point theorem states that if an operator $T colon X to X$ on the non-empty complete metric space $(X, d)$ is a contraction, then $T$ has a unique fixed point $x^* in X$ such that $Tx^* = x^*$. This means that if you can show that $T$ is a contraction, i.e. $d(Tx, Ty) leq Kd(x, y)$ for some constant $0 leq K < 1$, then $T$ has a fixed point. If you can show that (2) is indeed a contraction, then there will exist a unique solution.
answered Nov 30 '18 at 23:03
Erik AndréErik André
857
857
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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%2f3020747%2fusing-the-banach-fixed-point-theorem%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