Continuous map between $L^p$ spaces











up vote
6
down vote

favorite
3












The following theorem appears in Appendix B of Rabinowitz' book Minimax Methods in Critical Point Theory:



Let $Omega subset Bbb{R}^n$ be bounded and $gin C(overline{Omega}times Bbb {R},Bbb {R})$ such that there exist constants $r,sge 1$ and $a_1,a_2ge 0$ such that for all $x in overline{Omega}, yin Bbb{R}$ $$|g(x,y)|le a_1 + a_2|y|^{r/s}$$
Then the map $varphi(x)mapsto g(x,varphi(x))$ belongs to $C(L^r(Omega),L^s(Omega))$.



In the proof, he says "To prove the continuity of this map, observe that it is continuous at $varphi$ if and only if $f(x,z(x)) = g(x,z(x)+varphi(x))-g(x,varphi(x))$ is continuous at $z=0$. Therefore we can assume $varphi = 0$ and $g(x,0)=0$."



I don't understand how this assumpion can be made without loss of generality, and was unable to finish the proof without it. Any help would be appreciated.



Edit: I have found a partial answer in a different thread:
Continuity proof of a function between $L^p$ spaces



In the post it says:
Using the growth estimate, one can derive a similar estimate for $f$ of the form:
$$
|f(x,z(x))|leq A_1+A_2 |phi_0(x)|^{r/p}+A_3|z(x)|^{r/p}
$$



This would solve my problem, since the former two constants don't depend on $z$ and can be thrown together, leaving the case that was already proven. However, I couldn't derive this estimate.



edit2: I was wrong in assuming this solves the problem since, as pointed out by the users supinf and Peter Melech, the constant may not depend on x.










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    6
    down vote

    favorite
    3












    The following theorem appears in Appendix B of Rabinowitz' book Minimax Methods in Critical Point Theory:



    Let $Omega subset Bbb{R}^n$ be bounded and $gin C(overline{Omega}times Bbb {R},Bbb {R})$ such that there exist constants $r,sge 1$ and $a_1,a_2ge 0$ such that for all $x in overline{Omega}, yin Bbb{R}$ $$|g(x,y)|le a_1 + a_2|y|^{r/s}$$
    Then the map $varphi(x)mapsto g(x,varphi(x))$ belongs to $C(L^r(Omega),L^s(Omega))$.



    In the proof, he says "To prove the continuity of this map, observe that it is continuous at $varphi$ if and only if $f(x,z(x)) = g(x,z(x)+varphi(x))-g(x,varphi(x))$ is continuous at $z=0$. Therefore we can assume $varphi = 0$ and $g(x,0)=0$."



    I don't understand how this assumpion can be made without loss of generality, and was unable to finish the proof without it. Any help would be appreciated.



    Edit: I have found a partial answer in a different thread:
    Continuity proof of a function between $L^p$ spaces



    In the post it says:
    Using the growth estimate, one can derive a similar estimate for $f$ of the form:
    $$
    |f(x,z(x))|leq A_1+A_2 |phi_0(x)|^{r/p}+A_3|z(x)|^{r/p}
    $$



    This would solve my problem, since the former two constants don't depend on $z$ and can be thrown together, leaving the case that was already proven. However, I couldn't derive this estimate.



    edit2: I was wrong in assuming this solves the problem since, as pointed out by the users supinf and Peter Melech, the constant may not depend on x.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite
      3









      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite
      3






      3





      The following theorem appears in Appendix B of Rabinowitz' book Minimax Methods in Critical Point Theory:



      Let $Omega subset Bbb{R}^n$ be bounded and $gin C(overline{Omega}times Bbb {R},Bbb {R})$ such that there exist constants $r,sge 1$ and $a_1,a_2ge 0$ such that for all $x in overline{Omega}, yin Bbb{R}$ $$|g(x,y)|le a_1 + a_2|y|^{r/s}$$
      Then the map $varphi(x)mapsto g(x,varphi(x))$ belongs to $C(L^r(Omega),L^s(Omega))$.



      In the proof, he says "To prove the continuity of this map, observe that it is continuous at $varphi$ if and only if $f(x,z(x)) = g(x,z(x)+varphi(x))-g(x,varphi(x))$ is continuous at $z=0$. Therefore we can assume $varphi = 0$ and $g(x,0)=0$."



      I don't understand how this assumpion can be made without loss of generality, and was unable to finish the proof without it. Any help would be appreciated.



      Edit: I have found a partial answer in a different thread:
      Continuity proof of a function between $L^p$ spaces



      In the post it says:
      Using the growth estimate, one can derive a similar estimate for $f$ of the form:
      $$
      |f(x,z(x))|leq A_1+A_2 |phi_0(x)|^{r/p}+A_3|z(x)|^{r/p}
      $$



      This would solve my problem, since the former two constants don't depend on $z$ and can be thrown together, leaving the case that was already proven. However, I couldn't derive this estimate.



      edit2: I was wrong in assuming this solves the problem since, as pointed out by the users supinf and Peter Melech, the constant may not depend on x.










      share|cite|improve this question















      The following theorem appears in Appendix B of Rabinowitz' book Minimax Methods in Critical Point Theory:



      Let $Omega subset Bbb{R}^n$ be bounded and $gin C(overline{Omega}times Bbb {R},Bbb {R})$ such that there exist constants $r,sge 1$ and $a_1,a_2ge 0$ such that for all $x in overline{Omega}, yin Bbb{R}$ $$|g(x,y)|le a_1 + a_2|y|^{r/s}$$
      Then the map $varphi(x)mapsto g(x,varphi(x))$ belongs to $C(L^r(Omega),L^s(Omega))$.



      In the proof, he says "To prove the continuity of this map, observe that it is continuous at $varphi$ if and only if $f(x,z(x)) = g(x,z(x)+varphi(x))-g(x,varphi(x))$ is continuous at $z=0$. Therefore we can assume $varphi = 0$ and $g(x,0)=0$."



      I don't understand how this assumpion can be made without loss of generality, and was unable to finish the proof without it. Any help would be appreciated.



      Edit: I have found a partial answer in a different thread:
      Continuity proof of a function between $L^p$ spaces



      In the post it says:
      Using the growth estimate, one can derive a similar estimate for $f$ of the form:
      $$
      |f(x,z(x))|leq A_1+A_2 |phi_0(x)|^{r/p}+A_3|z(x)|^{r/p}
      $$



      This would solve my problem, since the former two constants don't depend on $z$ and can be thrown together, leaving the case that was already proven. However, I couldn't derive this estimate.



      edit2: I was wrong in assuming this solves the problem since, as pointed out by the users supinf and Peter Melech, the constant may not depend on x.







      real-analysis functional-analysis analysis lp-spaces






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 19 at 21:30

























      asked Nov 19 at 15:55









      J. Snow

      314




      314






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          4
          down vote













          For $xinoverline{Omega}$ and $frac{r}{s}geq 1$ You get
          $$|f(x,z(x))|=|g(x,z(x)+varphi(x))-g(x,phi(x))|leq a_1+a_2|z(x)+varphi|^{frac{r}{s}}+a_1+a_2|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}leq$$
          $$2a_1+a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}(|z(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}+|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}})+a_2|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}leq $$
          $$underbrace{2a_1}_{=A_1}+underbrace{(a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}+a_2)}_{=A_2}|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}+underbrace{a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}}_{=A_3}|z(x)|^frac{r}{s}$$
          where You used that $(frac{a+b}{2})^{frac{r}{s}}leqfrac{a^frac{r}{s}+b^frac{r}{s}}{2}$ which holds by the convexity of $xmapsto x^{frac{r}{s}}$ and Jensen's inequality. In the case $frac{r}{s}<1$ You can proceed analogously using $(a+b)^{frac{r}{s}}leq a^{frac{r}{s}}+b^{frac{r}{s}}$ valid in this range.






          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 2




            How would this help? You still have dependence on $x$ in the inequality for $f$, whereas you dont have dependence on $x$ in the assumption for $g$.
            – supinf
            Nov 19 at 19:48






          • 1




            Yes, I think so too and this is just an answer to the OP's question concerning the derivation of this estimate. To proceed further one has to argue via dominated convergence as in the question quoted by the OP and " Therefor we can assume $varphi=0$... in Rabinowitz's book seems to be not correct or at least quite sloppy
            – Peter Melech
            Nov 19 at 19:53












          • You are correct, this alone doesn't solve the problem.
            – J. Snow
            Nov 19 at 21:27











          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%2f3005105%2fcontinuous-map-between-lp-spaces%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          4
          down vote













          For $xinoverline{Omega}$ and $frac{r}{s}geq 1$ You get
          $$|f(x,z(x))|=|g(x,z(x)+varphi(x))-g(x,phi(x))|leq a_1+a_2|z(x)+varphi|^{frac{r}{s}}+a_1+a_2|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}leq$$
          $$2a_1+a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}(|z(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}+|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}})+a_2|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}leq $$
          $$underbrace{2a_1}_{=A_1}+underbrace{(a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}+a_2)}_{=A_2}|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}+underbrace{a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}}_{=A_3}|z(x)|^frac{r}{s}$$
          where You used that $(frac{a+b}{2})^{frac{r}{s}}leqfrac{a^frac{r}{s}+b^frac{r}{s}}{2}$ which holds by the convexity of $xmapsto x^{frac{r}{s}}$ and Jensen's inequality. In the case $frac{r}{s}<1$ You can proceed analogously using $(a+b)^{frac{r}{s}}leq a^{frac{r}{s}}+b^{frac{r}{s}}$ valid in this range.






          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 2




            How would this help? You still have dependence on $x$ in the inequality for $f$, whereas you dont have dependence on $x$ in the assumption for $g$.
            – supinf
            Nov 19 at 19:48






          • 1




            Yes, I think so too and this is just an answer to the OP's question concerning the derivation of this estimate. To proceed further one has to argue via dominated convergence as in the question quoted by the OP and " Therefor we can assume $varphi=0$... in Rabinowitz's book seems to be not correct or at least quite sloppy
            – Peter Melech
            Nov 19 at 19:53












          • You are correct, this alone doesn't solve the problem.
            – J. Snow
            Nov 19 at 21:27















          up vote
          4
          down vote













          For $xinoverline{Omega}$ and $frac{r}{s}geq 1$ You get
          $$|f(x,z(x))|=|g(x,z(x)+varphi(x))-g(x,phi(x))|leq a_1+a_2|z(x)+varphi|^{frac{r}{s}}+a_1+a_2|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}leq$$
          $$2a_1+a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}(|z(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}+|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}})+a_2|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}leq $$
          $$underbrace{2a_1}_{=A_1}+underbrace{(a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}+a_2)}_{=A_2}|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}+underbrace{a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}}_{=A_3}|z(x)|^frac{r}{s}$$
          where You used that $(frac{a+b}{2})^{frac{r}{s}}leqfrac{a^frac{r}{s}+b^frac{r}{s}}{2}$ which holds by the convexity of $xmapsto x^{frac{r}{s}}$ and Jensen's inequality. In the case $frac{r}{s}<1$ You can proceed analogously using $(a+b)^{frac{r}{s}}leq a^{frac{r}{s}}+b^{frac{r}{s}}$ valid in this range.






          share|cite|improve this answer

















          • 2




            How would this help? You still have dependence on $x$ in the inequality for $f$, whereas you dont have dependence on $x$ in the assumption for $g$.
            – supinf
            Nov 19 at 19:48






          • 1




            Yes, I think so too and this is just an answer to the OP's question concerning the derivation of this estimate. To proceed further one has to argue via dominated convergence as in the question quoted by the OP and " Therefor we can assume $varphi=0$... in Rabinowitz's book seems to be not correct or at least quite sloppy
            – Peter Melech
            Nov 19 at 19:53












          • You are correct, this alone doesn't solve the problem.
            – J. Snow
            Nov 19 at 21:27













          up vote
          4
          down vote










          up vote
          4
          down vote









          For $xinoverline{Omega}$ and $frac{r}{s}geq 1$ You get
          $$|f(x,z(x))|=|g(x,z(x)+varphi(x))-g(x,phi(x))|leq a_1+a_2|z(x)+varphi|^{frac{r}{s}}+a_1+a_2|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}leq$$
          $$2a_1+a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}(|z(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}+|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}})+a_2|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}leq $$
          $$underbrace{2a_1}_{=A_1}+underbrace{(a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}+a_2)}_{=A_2}|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}+underbrace{a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}}_{=A_3}|z(x)|^frac{r}{s}$$
          where You used that $(frac{a+b}{2})^{frac{r}{s}}leqfrac{a^frac{r}{s}+b^frac{r}{s}}{2}$ which holds by the convexity of $xmapsto x^{frac{r}{s}}$ and Jensen's inequality. In the case $frac{r}{s}<1$ You can proceed analogously using $(a+b)^{frac{r}{s}}leq a^{frac{r}{s}}+b^{frac{r}{s}}$ valid in this range.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          For $xinoverline{Omega}$ and $frac{r}{s}geq 1$ You get
          $$|f(x,z(x))|=|g(x,z(x)+varphi(x))-g(x,phi(x))|leq a_1+a_2|z(x)+varphi|^{frac{r}{s}}+a_1+a_2|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}leq$$
          $$2a_1+a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}(|z(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}+|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}})+a_2|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}leq $$
          $$underbrace{2a_1}_{=A_1}+underbrace{(a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}+a_2)}_{=A_2}|varphi(x)|^{frac{r}{s}}+underbrace{a_22^{frac{r}{s}-1}}_{=A_3}|z(x)|^frac{r}{s}$$
          where You used that $(frac{a+b}{2})^{frac{r}{s}}leqfrac{a^frac{r}{s}+b^frac{r}{s}}{2}$ which holds by the convexity of $xmapsto x^{frac{r}{s}}$ and Jensen's inequality. In the case $frac{r}{s}<1$ You can proceed analogously using $(a+b)^{frac{r}{s}}leq a^{frac{r}{s}}+b^{frac{r}{s}}$ valid in this range.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 19 at 19:30









          Peter Melech

          2,519813




          2,519813








          • 2




            How would this help? You still have dependence on $x$ in the inequality for $f$, whereas you dont have dependence on $x$ in the assumption for $g$.
            – supinf
            Nov 19 at 19:48






          • 1




            Yes, I think so too and this is just an answer to the OP's question concerning the derivation of this estimate. To proceed further one has to argue via dominated convergence as in the question quoted by the OP and " Therefor we can assume $varphi=0$... in Rabinowitz's book seems to be not correct or at least quite sloppy
            – Peter Melech
            Nov 19 at 19:53












          • You are correct, this alone doesn't solve the problem.
            – J. Snow
            Nov 19 at 21:27














          • 2




            How would this help? You still have dependence on $x$ in the inequality for $f$, whereas you dont have dependence on $x$ in the assumption for $g$.
            – supinf
            Nov 19 at 19:48






          • 1




            Yes, I think so too and this is just an answer to the OP's question concerning the derivation of this estimate. To proceed further one has to argue via dominated convergence as in the question quoted by the OP and " Therefor we can assume $varphi=0$... in Rabinowitz's book seems to be not correct or at least quite sloppy
            – Peter Melech
            Nov 19 at 19:53












          • You are correct, this alone doesn't solve the problem.
            – J. Snow
            Nov 19 at 21:27








          2




          2




          How would this help? You still have dependence on $x$ in the inequality for $f$, whereas you dont have dependence on $x$ in the assumption for $g$.
          – supinf
          Nov 19 at 19:48




          How would this help? You still have dependence on $x$ in the inequality for $f$, whereas you dont have dependence on $x$ in the assumption for $g$.
          – supinf
          Nov 19 at 19:48




          1




          1




          Yes, I think so too and this is just an answer to the OP's question concerning the derivation of this estimate. To proceed further one has to argue via dominated convergence as in the question quoted by the OP and " Therefor we can assume $varphi=0$... in Rabinowitz's book seems to be not correct or at least quite sloppy
          – Peter Melech
          Nov 19 at 19:53






          Yes, I think so too and this is just an answer to the OP's question concerning the derivation of this estimate. To proceed further one has to argue via dominated convergence as in the question quoted by the OP and " Therefor we can assume $varphi=0$... in Rabinowitz's book seems to be not correct or at least quite sloppy
          – Peter Melech
          Nov 19 at 19:53














          You are correct, this alone doesn't solve the problem.
          – J. Snow
          Nov 19 at 21:27




          You are correct, this alone doesn't solve the problem.
          – J. Snow
          Nov 19 at 21:27


















          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%2f3005105%2fcontinuous-map-between-lp-spaces%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

          Aardman Animations

          Are they similar matrix

          “minimization” problem in Euclidean space related to orthonormal basis