4
$\begingroup$

On page 468 of Hamilton's Ricci Flow by Chow et al., the authors claim:

"The operator $-\Delta+1$ is invertible and its inverse $(-\Delta+1)^{-1}:L^2(M)\to W^{2,2}(M)\hookrightarrow L^2(M)$ is a compact operator by elliptic regularity (see for example Gilbarg and Trudinger)." Here, $M^n$ is a closed manifold.

Of course GT treats only PDE on $\Bbb R^n$, so there's some work to be done here. One solution would be to apply elliptic regularity in charts, as $-\Delta +1$ is an elliptic operator in a chart. But for this we need a boundary condition.

As far as I understand, the existence of $(-\Delta+1)^{-1}$ means that for any $f\in L^2(M)$, there is a $u\in W^{2,2}(M)$ with $(-\Delta+1)u=f.$ I think the result from GT that I want is 8.9, which says that under mild conditions on the coefficients, the Dirichlet problem can always be solved with $W^{1,2}\cap W^{2,2}_\text{loc}$ regularity of the solution. So if I apply this chartwise, then it would seem the global solution (which we would have to patch together somehow) would actually depend on the choice of charts. So the inverse wouldn't be unique.

Now, the other way would be to solve $(-\Delta+1)u=f$ weakly on $M$, in the global sense. Then reduce the weak equation on $M$ to a weak equation on charts, and then apply Corollary 8.11 from GT, which gives smoothness of weak solutions.

What's the correct approach here?

  • 0
    A couple of thoughts- (1) To patch together solutions use a partition of unity. (2) To find weak solutions you need to have a version of Rellich-Kondrachov for manifolds.2017-01-25
  • 0
    @Neal (1) is usually the answer for such things. (2) Ok, I have that from Hebey or Aubin. So the usual existence proof for weak solutions pushes through? I guess not much would change at least for compact manifolds since $W^{k,p}=W^{k,p}_0=W^{k,p}_\text{loc}$?2017-01-25
  • 0
    If you're working with the $-\Delta + 1$ then the weak energy form is exactly the Sobolev inner product on $W^{1,2}$. So pretty sure you can jump straight to the functional analysis and don't have to worry about doing the estimates GT do to show that the energy form from an elliptic operator in divergence form is bounded below and coercive.2017-01-25
  • 0
    @Neal Ahhh, that explains the mysterious choice of $+1$. Thanks, I'll get to working on this.2017-01-25
  • 1
    (Another reason for it is that $-\Delta$ is not positive on its domain in a closed manifold -- it annihilates constant functions. So you shift it to get a positive operator.)2017-01-25
  • 0
    @Neal It seems that I can directly apply Lax-Milgram to prove that the equation is always uniquely weakly solvable. Because I don't have to worry about boundary conditions and the estimate is really simple, is that all there is to it?2017-01-25
  • 0
    Lax-Milgram gives you a solution operator from $H^{-1}$ to $H^1$. You're looking for a solution operator from $L^2$ to $L^2$. So you map $L^2\to H^{-1}$ by pairing with the $L^2$ inner product. This is where Sobolev compactness enters the picture. I think it's in 8.2 of GT.2017-01-26
  • 0
    @Neal How does one use a partition of unity? The function $u\eta_i$ (where $\eta_i$ is one of the bump functions) does not satisfy the PDE, so what can we say about it or its regularity?2017-01-29

1 Answers 1

4

The first approach doesn't quite work because you can't tell in advance which boundary conditions to put locally on $u$. At the end, you'll need some sort of a global argument. Here is one way to do it:

In what follows, I'll assume that $M$ is closed.

  1. Develop first the theory of Sobolev spaces on manifolds. This can be done in variety of ways (more coordinate free or less coordinate free) but because $M$ is compact, all will turn out to be equivalent to each other. The advantage of working with manifolds without boundary is that all the subtle regularity results one needs to impose on the boundary of sets in order for the various embeddings between Sobolev spaces, Holder spaces, etc to hold become irrelevant. You never approach the boundary because there is no boundary so you only need to work with the local embeddings which hold under practically no assumptions.
  2. Define when a partial differential operator $D \colon C^{\infty}(M) \rightarrow C^{\infty}(M)$ (or more generally an operator between sections of vector bundles over $M$) is elliptic and show the basic a priori estimate. If $D$ is of order $k$, the estimate will look like this: $$ \| u \|_{H^{n + k}(M)} \leq C \left( \| Du \|_{H^n(M)} + \| u \|_{H^n(M)} \right). $$ This can be done by using a partition of unity and transferring the problem to $\mathbb{R}^m$. Again, the fact that $M$ has no boundary means that one can use the interior elliptic regularity estimates and one doesn't need to care about regularity up to the boundary (because globally there won't be any boundary). At this point we have elliptic regularity for weak solutions.

Given the results above, to prove that $-\Delta + I$ is invertible, we can proceed in one of two ways:

  1. Using the basic estimate, show that all elliptic operator are Fredholm. Then $\Delta$ is self-adjoint and so $-\Delta + I \colon H^2(M) \rightarrow L^2(M)$ will be a Fredholm operator of index zero. Such and operator is one-to-one iff it is onto so it is enough to show that $-\Delta + I$ is one-to-one which is easy because $\Delta$ is semi-negative-definite.

  2. Use the Lax-Milgram lemma globally to deduce existence and uniqueness of $H^1$ solutions to $-\Delta(u) + u = f$ and then upgrade them using elliptic regularity. Here there won't be any boundary conditions involved (the space we will work on will be $H^1(M) = H^1_0(M)$).

  • 0
    Why is part 3 necessary? Does 4 not give me an inverse directly?2017-01-26
  • 0
    I meant you can do either $3$ or $4$. Since the Fredholm property is extremely useful, it is often done anyway and then you can avoid $4$ if you want. Showing that the operator is Fredholm using the basic estimate doesn't involve any PDE techniques - only functional analysis and the notion of a formal adjoint for a partial differential operator.2017-01-26
  • 0
    Oops, I didn't see the comment. This is all pretty straightforward once one has 1, but I have a handle on that. So what's confusing me is why Chow et al. say "by elliptic regularity" when all you need is Lax-Milgram. After all, they want $(-\Delta+1)^{-1}:L^2\to L^2$ to be compact, it's enough to show that $(-\Delta+1)^{-1}:L^2\to W^{1,2}$ exists and then to use Rellich, no? Having $W^{2,2}$ regularity seems superfluous.2017-01-26
  • 0
    Well, naturally $(-\Delta + 1)$ is an operator from $H^2$ to $L^2$. If you use Lax-Milgram, you only get an $H^1$ solution so it doesn't immediately mean that $(-\Delta + 1)$ is surjective. Lax-Milgram gives you that $(-\Delta + 1)$ is an isomorphism from $H^1(M)$ to $H^{-1}(M)$. If you want to know that $(-\Delta + 1)$, considered as a self-adjoint unbounded operator on $L^2$ (defined on the natural domain $H^2(M)$) has an orthonormal basis of eigenfunctions in $L^2$ (at the end, they will belong anyway to $C^{\infty}(M)$), you need to know that the inverse of $(-\Delta + 1)$ as an operator2017-01-26
  • 1
    from $L^2$ to $L^2$ is compact. I mean, you have two different operators here: $\Delta_2 \colon H^2 \rightarrow L^2$ and $\Delta_1 \colon H^1 \rightarrow H^{-1}$ and $\Delta_1$ "extends" $\Delta_2$. Lax-Milgram gives you information about $\Delta_1$, not $\Delta_2$.2017-01-26
  • 0
    Ah, ok. Why do you say "If you want to know that $(-\Delta+1)$, considered as a self-adjoint unbounded operator on $L^2$?" Why is it defined on $L^2$ now? I'm looking at the eigenfunction proof in Evans, and he never extends the operator to $L^2$, just the inverse.2017-01-26
  • 0
    This is not necessary and Evans avoids it but if you know the theory of unbounded self-adjoint operators and their spectral properties, you can get some of the results such as the existence of an orthonormal system of eigenvalues more quickly.2017-01-26
  • 1
    Do you have a reference to the precise theorem on operators you wish to use? I want to prove similar results for the Dirichlet and Neumann problems, so I want to have all the tools I can.2017-01-26
  • 0
    The result I had in mind is stated at the bottom of the "Resolvent Formalism" article on wikipedia and offers Taylor's book as a reference.2017-01-26
  • 0
    As I understand, the theory is also built in ch 10-13 of Rudin's *Functional Analysis*2017-01-27