How is the differential of a Sobolev function on a manifold regarded as an a.e. defined section of $T^*M$?
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Let $(M,g)$ be a smooth compact Riemannian manifold, and let $f in W^{1,p}(M)$ for $pge 1$. (I don't assume $p>dim M$).
I have seen in various sources that people refer to the weak derivative of $f$ as a linear functional $T_pM to mathbb{R}$, which is defined for almost every $p in M$. (an a.e.defined section of $T^*M$).
How exactly is this object defined? I couldn't find any precise details about this.
I define $W^{1,p}(M)$ to be the completion of the space of compactly supported smooth functions $C_c^{infty}(M)$ w.r.t the $|cdot|_{1,p}$ norm.
Optional: I suggest below $2$ approaches; I would like to know if they are compatible, i.e. if they both produce the same element in $(T_pM)^*$.
(Regarding the second approach, I am not even sure if it produces a well-defined functional).
Approach 1:
Given $f in W^{1,p}(M)$, there exist $f_n in C_c^{infty}(M)$, $f_n to f$ in $W^{1,p}$.
$df_n in Gamma(T^*M)$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^p(M,T^*M)$, where $L^p(M,T^*M)$ is the completion of the space of smooth sections $Gamma(T^*M)$ w.r.t the natural $p$-norm. By completeness, $df_n$ converges to an element in $L^p(M,T^*M)$, which we can realize as a measurable section $T^*M$. We set $df=lim_{n to infty} df_n$.
Approach 2 ("Local picture"):
Let $phi:Usubseteq M to mathbb{R}^n$ be a surjective coordinate chart around $p in M$, and $phi(p)=0$. Set $f_{phi}=f|_U circ phi^{-1} :mathbb{R}^n to mathbb{R}$. Then $f_{phi} in W^{1,p}(mathbb{R}^n)$ (we might need to shrink $U$ to ensure nothing will explode). We define $df_p$ by the equation
$$ df_p circ d(phi^{-1})_0(e_i):= d(f_{phi})_0(e_i)=(partial_i f_{phi})(0). tag{1}$$
Does equation $(1)$ well-defines an element in $T_p^*M$ independently of the coordinate chart? Does it coincide with $lim_{n to infty} df_n$ from the previous approach?
differential-geometry differential-topology sobolev-spaces smooth-manifolds weak-derivatives
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Let $(M,g)$ be a smooth compact Riemannian manifold, and let $f in W^{1,p}(M)$ for $pge 1$. (I don't assume $p>dim M$).
I have seen in various sources that people refer to the weak derivative of $f$ as a linear functional $T_pM to mathbb{R}$, which is defined for almost every $p in M$. (an a.e.defined section of $T^*M$).
How exactly is this object defined? I couldn't find any precise details about this.
I define $W^{1,p}(M)$ to be the completion of the space of compactly supported smooth functions $C_c^{infty}(M)$ w.r.t the $|cdot|_{1,p}$ norm.
Optional: I suggest below $2$ approaches; I would like to know if they are compatible, i.e. if they both produce the same element in $(T_pM)^*$.
(Regarding the second approach, I am not even sure if it produces a well-defined functional).
Approach 1:
Given $f in W^{1,p}(M)$, there exist $f_n in C_c^{infty}(M)$, $f_n to f$ in $W^{1,p}$.
$df_n in Gamma(T^*M)$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^p(M,T^*M)$, where $L^p(M,T^*M)$ is the completion of the space of smooth sections $Gamma(T^*M)$ w.r.t the natural $p$-norm. By completeness, $df_n$ converges to an element in $L^p(M,T^*M)$, which we can realize as a measurable section $T^*M$. We set $df=lim_{n to infty} df_n$.
Approach 2 ("Local picture"):
Let $phi:Usubseteq M to mathbb{R}^n$ be a surjective coordinate chart around $p in M$, and $phi(p)=0$. Set $f_{phi}=f|_U circ phi^{-1} :mathbb{R}^n to mathbb{R}$. Then $f_{phi} in W^{1,p}(mathbb{R}^n)$ (we might need to shrink $U$ to ensure nothing will explode). We define $df_p$ by the equation
$$ df_p circ d(phi^{-1})_0(e_i):= d(f_{phi})_0(e_i)=(partial_i f_{phi})(0). tag{1}$$
Does equation $(1)$ well-defines an element in $T_p^*M$ independently of the coordinate chart? Does it coincide with $lim_{n to infty} df_n$ from the previous approach?
differential-geometry differential-topology sobolev-spaces smooth-manifolds weak-derivatives
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Let $(M,g)$ be a smooth compact Riemannian manifold, and let $f in W^{1,p}(M)$ for $pge 1$. (I don't assume $p>dim M$).
I have seen in various sources that people refer to the weak derivative of $f$ as a linear functional $T_pM to mathbb{R}$, which is defined for almost every $p in M$. (an a.e.defined section of $T^*M$).
How exactly is this object defined? I couldn't find any precise details about this.
I define $W^{1,p}(M)$ to be the completion of the space of compactly supported smooth functions $C_c^{infty}(M)$ w.r.t the $|cdot|_{1,p}$ norm.
Optional: I suggest below $2$ approaches; I would like to know if they are compatible, i.e. if they both produce the same element in $(T_pM)^*$.
(Regarding the second approach, I am not even sure if it produces a well-defined functional).
Approach 1:
Given $f in W^{1,p}(M)$, there exist $f_n in C_c^{infty}(M)$, $f_n to f$ in $W^{1,p}$.
$df_n in Gamma(T^*M)$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^p(M,T^*M)$, where $L^p(M,T^*M)$ is the completion of the space of smooth sections $Gamma(T^*M)$ w.r.t the natural $p$-norm. By completeness, $df_n$ converges to an element in $L^p(M,T^*M)$, which we can realize as a measurable section $T^*M$. We set $df=lim_{n to infty} df_n$.
Approach 2 ("Local picture"):
Let $phi:Usubseteq M to mathbb{R}^n$ be a surjective coordinate chart around $p in M$, and $phi(p)=0$. Set $f_{phi}=f|_U circ phi^{-1} :mathbb{R}^n to mathbb{R}$. Then $f_{phi} in W^{1,p}(mathbb{R}^n)$ (we might need to shrink $U$ to ensure nothing will explode). We define $df_p$ by the equation
$$ df_p circ d(phi^{-1})_0(e_i):= d(f_{phi})_0(e_i)=(partial_i f_{phi})(0). tag{1}$$
Does equation $(1)$ well-defines an element in $T_p^*M$ independently of the coordinate chart? Does it coincide with $lim_{n to infty} df_n$ from the previous approach?
differential-geometry differential-topology sobolev-spaces smooth-manifolds weak-derivatives
Let $(M,g)$ be a smooth compact Riemannian manifold, and let $f in W^{1,p}(M)$ for $pge 1$. (I don't assume $p>dim M$).
I have seen in various sources that people refer to the weak derivative of $f$ as a linear functional $T_pM to mathbb{R}$, which is defined for almost every $p in M$. (an a.e.defined section of $T^*M$).
How exactly is this object defined? I couldn't find any precise details about this.
I define $W^{1,p}(M)$ to be the completion of the space of compactly supported smooth functions $C_c^{infty}(M)$ w.r.t the $|cdot|_{1,p}$ norm.
Optional: I suggest below $2$ approaches; I would like to know if they are compatible, i.e. if they both produce the same element in $(T_pM)^*$.
(Regarding the second approach, I am not even sure if it produces a well-defined functional).
Approach 1:
Given $f in W^{1,p}(M)$, there exist $f_n in C_c^{infty}(M)$, $f_n to f$ in $W^{1,p}$.
$df_n in Gamma(T^*M)$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^p(M,T^*M)$, where $L^p(M,T^*M)$ is the completion of the space of smooth sections $Gamma(T^*M)$ w.r.t the natural $p$-norm. By completeness, $df_n$ converges to an element in $L^p(M,T^*M)$, which we can realize as a measurable section $T^*M$. We set $df=lim_{n to infty} df_n$.
Approach 2 ("Local picture"):
Let $phi:Usubseteq M to mathbb{R}^n$ be a surjective coordinate chart around $p in M$, and $phi(p)=0$. Set $f_{phi}=f|_U circ phi^{-1} :mathbb{R}^n to mathbb{R}$. Then $f_{phi} in W^{1,p}(mathbb{R}^n)$ (we might need to shrink $U$ to ensure nothing will explode). We define $df_p$ by the equation
$$ df_p circ d(phi^{-1})_0(e_i):= d(f_{phi})_0(e_i)=(partial_i f_{phi})(0). tag{1}$$
Does equation $(1)$ well-defines an element in $T_p^*M$ independently of the coordinate chart? Does it coincide with $lim_{n to infty} df_n$ from the previous approach?
differential-geometry differential-topology sobolev-spaces smooth-manifolds weak-derivatives
differential-geometry differential-topology sobolev-spaces smooth-manifolds weak-derivatives
edited Nov 13 at 15:02
asked Nov 12 at 13:45
Asaf Shachar
4,7843939
4,7843939
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
You have a notion of weak derivative in this case: An almost everywhere section of $T^*M$, denoted $df$, is a weak derivative of $f$ if for every smooth, compactly supported 1-form $phi$ you have
$$
int_M g(df,phi) ,text{dVol} = int_M f,deltaphi ,text{dVol}.
$$
where the pairing is with respect to the metric $g$.
A function is in $W^{1,p}(M)$ if it is in $L^p$, and has a weak derivative in $L^p(T^*M)$.
Since this definition of weak derivative is consistent with taking limits in $L^p$, it is consistent with your approach 1.
I believe that taking $phi$ to be supported in a coordinate patch and writing the definition above in coordinates would just yield your approach 2.
The question why $W^{1,p}$ as defined here is actually the same as the completion should be very similar to the same question in Euclidean spaces (the classic $H=W$ question).
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
You have a notion of weak derivative in this case: An almost everywhere section of $T^*M$, denoted $df$, is a weak derivative of $f$ if for every smooth, compactly supported 1-form $phi$ you have
$$
int_M g(df,phi) ,text{dVol} = int_M f,deltaphi ,text{dVol}.
$$
where the pairing is with respect to the metric $g$.
A function is in $W^{1,p}(M)$ if it is in $L^p$, and has a weak derivative in $L^p(T^*M)$.
Since this definition of weak derivative is consistent with taking limits in $L^p$, it is consistent with your approach 1.
I believe that taking $phi$ to be supported in a coordinate patch and writing the definition above in coordinates would just yield your approach 2.
The question why $W^{1,p}$ as defined here is actually the same as the completion should be very similar to the same question in Euclidean spaces (the classic $H=W$ question).
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
You have a notion of weak derivative in this case: An almost everywhere section of $T^*M$, denoted $df$, is a weak derivative of $f$ if for every smooth, compactly supported 1-form $phi$ you have
$$
int_M g(df,phi) ,text{dVol} = int_M f,deltaphi ,text{dVol}.
$$
where the pairing is with respect to the metric $g$.
A function is in $W^{1,p}(M)$ if it is in $L^p$, and has a weak derivative in $L^p(T^*M)$.
Since this definition of weak derivative is consistent with taking limits in $L^p$, it is consistent with your approach 1.
I believe that taking $phi$ to be supported in a coordinate patch and writing the definition above in coordinates would just yield your approach 2.
The question why $W^{1,p}$ as defined here is actually the same as the completion should be very similar to the same question in Euclidean spaces (the classic $H=W$ question).
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
You have a notion of weak derivative in this case: An almost everywhere section of $T^*M$, denoted $df$, is a weak derivative of $f$ if for every smooth, compactly supported 1-form $phi$ you have
$$
int_M g(df,phi) ,text{dVol} = int_M f,deltaphi ,text{dVol}.
$$
where the pairing is with respect to the metric $g$.
A function is in $W^{1,p}(M)$ if it is in $L^p$, and has a weak derivative in $L^p(T^*M)$.
Since this definition of weak derivative is consistent with taking limits in $L^p$, it is consistent with your approach 1.
I believe that taking $phi$ to be supported in a coordinate patch and writing the definition above in coordinates would just yield your approach 2.
The question why $W^{1,p}$ as defined here is actually the same as the completion should be very similar to the same question in Euclidean spaces (the classic $H=W$ question).
You have a notion of weak derivative in this case: An almost everywhere section of $T^*M$, denoted $df$, is a weak derivative of $f$ if for every smooth, compactly supported 1-form $phi$ you have
$$
int_M g(df,phi) ,text{dVol} = int_M f,deltaphi ,text{dVol}.
$$
where the pairing is with respect to the metric $g$.
A function is in $W^{1,p}(M)$ if it is in $L^p$, and has a weak derivative in $L^p(T^*M)$.
Since this definition of weak derivative is consistent with taking limits in $L^p$, it is consistent with your approach 1.
I believe that taking $phi$ to be supported in a coordinate patch and writing the definition above in coordinates would just yield your approach 2.
The question why $W^{1,p}$ as defined here is actually the same as the completion should be very similar to the same question in Euclidean spaces (the classic $H=W$ question).
answered Nov 13 at 16:08
C Maor
37114
37114
add a comment |
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%2f2995335%2fhow-is-the-differential-of-a-sobolev-function-on-a-manifold-regarded-as-an-a-e%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