Why is the laplacian a closed operator in $W^{2,p}(mathbb{R}^n)$?











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I have read that the laplacian is a closed operator in $W^{2,p}(Omega)$,(that is, $Delta : W^{2,p} to L^p$) where $Omega$ satisfies some conditions (I need the case $Omega = mathbb{R}^n$ so there shouldn't be any problems, since I think you don't need bounded domains). I need, in particular, to prove that the laplacian is closed in $W^{2,p}(mathbb{R}^n)$ with $p in (1,2)$. To do so, I would like t prove that the usual Sobolev norm and the norm defined by $|||u||| = ||u||_{L^p} +||Delta u||_{L^p}$ are equivalent, and so I would conclude by completeness of $W^{2,p}$. The fact is, when I have $p=2$ and $n=1$ I can see that, because I have:



$$int_{mathbb{R}} (u')^2 = int_{mathbb{R}} (u')(u') = - int_{mathbb{R}} u u'' leq ||u||_{L^2}^2 ||u''||_{L^2}^2 leq frac{1}{2} (||u||_{L^2}^2 + ||u''||_{L^2}^2)$$



and taking the square root I have:



$$||u'||_{L^2} leq frac{1}{sqrt{2}}(||u||_{L^2} + ||u''||_{L^2})$$



I think there shouldn't be any problem to generalise this to dimension $n$, if $p=2$. However, if $p neq 2$ I can't use the trick of writing $(u')^2$ as $(u')(u')$ and thus I don't know what to do.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Why do you want to show equivalence of these two norms? Isn't it enough to say that this is a bounded operator?
    – Michał Miśkiewicz
    Nov 18 at 23:41










  • Well, I know that if an operator is bounded then it is closed. I don’t know a proof of this fact, though. I would like the equivalence to conclude easily, but if the proof bounded $implies $ closed is easier I would use that, instead.
    – tommy1996q
    Nov 19 at 7:01










  • As far as I know, this is more of a tautology than a proof. What do you mean by closed here?
    – Michał Miśkiewicz
    Nov 19 at 9:28










  • Let $B_1$ and $B_2$ be Banach spaces. A linear operator $T: B_1 to B_2$ is closed if given a sequence ${x_n}$ converging in $B_1$ to $x$ such that ${Tx_n }$ converges in $B_2$ to $y$, then $x$ belongs to the domain of $T$ and $Tx=y$
    – tommy1996q
    Nov 19 at 13:04










  • Continuous implies closed should follow from the closed graph theorem, but I should prove boundedness then
    – tommy1996q
    Nov 19 at 13:04















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I have read that the laplacian is a closed operator in $W^{2,p}(Omega)$,(that is, $Delta : W^{2,p} to L^p$) where $Omega$ satisfies some conditions (I need the case $Omega = mathbb{R}^n$ so there shouldn't be any problems, since I think you don't need bounded domains). I need, in particular, to prove that the laplacian is closed in $W^{2,p}(mathbb{R}^n)$ with $p in (1,2)$. To do so, I would like t prove that the usual Sobolev norm and the norm defined by $|||u||| = ||u||_{L^p} +||Delta u||_{L^p}$ are equivalent, and so I would conclude by completeness of $W^{2,p}$. The fact is, when I have $p=2$ and $n=1$ I can see that, because I have:



$$int_{mathbb{R}} (u')^2 = int_{mathbb{R}} (u')(u') = - int_{mathbb{R}} u u'' leq ||u||_{L^2}^2 ||u''||_{L^2}^2 leq frac{1}{2} (||u||_{L^2}^2 + ||u''||_{L^2}^2)$$



and taking the square root I have:



$$||u'||_{L^2} leq frac{1}{sqrt{2}}(||u||_{L^2} + ||u''||_{L^2})$$



I think there shouldn't be any problem to generalise this to dimension $n$, if $p=2$. However, if $p neq 2$ I can't use the trick of writing $(u')^2$ as $(u')(u')$ and thus I don't know what to do.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • Why do you want to show equivalence of these two norms? Isn't it enough to say that this is a bounded operator?
    – Michał Miśkiewicz
    Nov 18 at 23:41










  • Well, I know that if an operator is bounded then it is closed. I don’t know a proof of this fact, though. I would like the equivalence to conclude easily, but if the proof bounded $implies $ closed is easier I would use that, instead.
    – tommy1996q
    Nov 19 at 7:01










  • As far as I know, this is more of a tautology than a proof. What do you mean by closed here?
    – Michał Miśkiewicz
    Nov 19 at 9:28










  • Let $B_1$ and $B_2$ be Banach spaces. A linear operator $T: B_1 to B_2$ is closed if given a sequence ${x_n}$ converging in $B_1$ to $x$ such that ${Tx_n }$ converges in $B_2$ to $y$, then $x$ belongs to the domain of $T$ and $Tx=y$
    – tommy1996q
    Nov 19 at 13:04










  • Continuous implies closed should follow from the closed graph theorem, but I should prove boundedness then
    – tommy1996q
    Nov 19 at 13:04













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











I have read that the laplacian is a closed operator in $W^{2,p}(Omega)$,(that is, $Delta : W^{2,p} to L^p$) where $Omega$ satisfies some conditions (I need the case $Omega = mathbb{R}^n$ so there shouldn't be any problems, since I think you don't need bounded domains). I need, in particular, to prove that the laplacian is closed in $W^{2,p}(mathbb{R}^n)$ with $p in (1,2)$. To do so, I would like t prove that the usual Sobolev norm and the norm defined by $|||u||| = ||u||_{L^p} +||Delta u||_{L^p}$ are equivalent, and so I would conclude by completeness of $W^{2,p}$. The fact is, when I have $p=2$ and $n=1$ I can see that, because I have:



$$int_{mathbb{R}} (u')^2 = int_{mathbb{R}} (u')(u') = - int_{mathbb{R}} u u'' leq ||u||_{L^2}^2 ||u''||_{L^2}^2 leq frac{1}{2} (||u||_{L^2}^2 + ||u''||_{L^2}^2)$$



and taking the square root I have:



$$||u'||_{L^2} leq frac{1}{sqrt{2}}(||u||_{L^2} + ||u''||_{L^2})$$



I think there shouldn't be any problem to generalise this to dimension $n$, if $p=2$. However, if $p neq 2$ I can't use the trick of writing $(u')^2$ as $(u')(u')$ and thus I don't know what to do.










share|cite|improve this question













I have read that the laplacian is a closed operator in $W^{2,p}(Omega)$,(that is, $Delta : W^{2,p} to L^p$) where $Omega$ satisfies some conditions (I need the case $Omega = mathbb{R}^n$ so there shouldn't be any problems, since I think you don't need bounded domains). I need, in particular, to prove that the laplacian is closed in $W^{2,p}(mathbb{R}^n)$ with $p in (1,2)$. To do so, I would like t prove that the usual Sobolev norm and the norm defined by $|||u||| = ||u||_{L^p} +||Delta u||_{L^p}$ are equivalent, and so I would conclude by completeness of $W^{2,p}$. The fact is, when I have $p=2$ and $n=1$ I can see that, because I have:



$$int_{mathbb{R}} (u')^2 = int_{mathbb{R}} (u')(u') = - int_{mathbb{R}} u u'' leq ||u||_{L^2}^2 ||u''||_{L^2}^2 leq frac{1}{2} (||u||_{L^2}^2 + ||u''||_{L^2}^2)$$



and taking the square root I have:



$$||u'||_{L^2} leq frac{1}{sqrt{2}}(||u||_{L^2} + ||u''||_{L^2})$$



I think there shouldn't be any problem to generalise this to dimension $n$, if $p=2$. However, if $p neq 2$ I can't use the trick of writing $(u')^2$ as $(u')(u')$ and thus I don't know what to do.







real-analysis pde sobolev-spaces integral-inequality laplacian






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 17 at 11:47









tommy1996q

564413




564413












  • Why do you want to show equivalence of these two norms? Isn't it enough to say that this is a bounded operator?
    – Michał Miśkiewicz
    Nov 18 at 23:41










  • Well, I know that if an operator is bounded then it is closed. I don’t know a proof of this fact, though. I would like the equivalence to conclude easily, but if the proof bounded $implies $ closed is easier I would use that, instead.
    – tommy1996q
    Nov 19 at 7:01










  • As far as I know, this is more of a tautology than a proof. What do you mean by closed here?
    – Michał Miśkiewicz
    Nov 19 at 9:28










  • Let $B_1$ and $B_2$ be Banach spaces. A linear operator $T: B_1 to B_2$ is closed if given a sequence ${x_n}$ converging in $B_1$ to $x$ such that ${Tx_n }$ converges in $B_2$ to $y$, then $x$ belongs to the domain of $T$ and $Tx=y$
    – tommy1996q
    Nov 19 at 13:04










  • Continuous implies closed should follow from the closed graph theorem, but I should prove boundedness then
    – tommy1996q
    Nov 19 at 13:04


















  • Why do you want to show equivalence of these two norms? Isn't it enough to say that this is a bounded operator?
    – Michał Miśkiewicz
    Nov 18 at 23:41










  • Well, I know that if an operator is bounded then it is closed. I don’t know a proof of this fact, though. I would like the equivalence to conclude easily, but if the proof bounded $implies $ closed is easier I would use that, instead.
    – tommy1996q
    Nov 19 at 7:01










  • As far as I know, this is more of a tautology than a proof. What do you mean by closed here?
    – Michał Miśkiewicz
    Nov 19 at 9:28










  • Let $B_1$ and $B_2$ be Banach spaces. A linear operator $T: B_1 to B_2$ is closed if given a sequence ${x_n}$ converging in $B_1$ to $x$ such that ${Tx_n }$ converges in $B_2$ to $y$, then $x$ belongs to the domain of $T$ and $Tx=y$
    – tommy1996q
    Nov 19 at 13:04










  • Continuous implies closed should follow from the closed graph theorem, but I should prove boundedness then
    – tommy1996q
    Nov 19 at 13:04
















Why do you want to show equivalence of these two norms? Isn't it enough to say that this is a bounded operator?
– Michał Miśkiewicz
Nov 18 at 23:41




Why do you want to show equivalence of these two norms? Isn't it enough to say that this is a bounded operator?
– Michał Miśkiewicz
Nov 18 at 23:41












Well, I know that if an operator is bounded then it is closed. I don’t know a proof of this fact, though. I would like the equivalence to conclude easily, but if the proof bounded $implies $ closed is easier I would use that, instead.
– tommy1996q
Nov 19 at 7:01




Well, I know that if an operator is bounded then it is closed. I don’t know a proof of this fact, though. I would like the equivalence to conclude easily, but if the proof bounded $implies $ closed is easier I would use that, instead.
– tommy1996q
Nov 19 at 7:01












As far as I know, this is more of a tautology than a proof. What do you mean by closed here?
– Michał Miśkiewicz
Nov 19 at 9:28




As far as I know, this is more of a tautology than a proof. What do you mean by closed here?
– Michał Miśkiewicz
Nov 19 at 9:28












Let $B_1$ and $B_2$ be Banach spaces. A linear operator $T: B_1 to B_2$ is closed if given a sequence ${x_n}$ converging in $B_1$ to $x$ such that ${Tx_n }$ converges in $B_2$ to $y$, then $x$ belongs to the domain of $T$ and $Tx=y$
– tommy1996q
Nov 19 at 13:04




Let $B_1$ and $B_2$ be Banach spaces. A linear operator $T: B_1 to B_2$ is closed if given a sequence ${x_n}$ converging in $B_1$ to $x$ such that ${Tx_n }$ converges in $B_2$ to $y$, then $x$ belongs to the domain of $T$ and $Tx=y$
– tommy1996q
Nov 19 at 13:04












Continuous implies closed should follow from the closed graph theorem, but I should prove boundedness then
– tommy1996q
Nov 19 at 13:04




Continuous implies closed should follow from the closed graph theorem, but I should prove boundedness then
– tommy1996q
Nov 19 at 13:04















active

oldest

votes











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',
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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3002260%2fwhy-is-the-laplacian-a-closed-operator-in-w2-p-mathbbrn%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown






























active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes
















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • 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.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3002260%2fwhy-is-the-laplacian-a-closed-operator-in-w2-p-mathbbrn%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater