Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^N$ be a bounded $C^1$ domain, $q\in L^{\infty}(\Omega;\mathbb{R}_+)$. A function $u\in H_0^1(\Omega)$ is called a weak solution to $$(*)\begin{cases}-\Delta u + qu = \lambda u &\text{in }\Omega\\ u=0& \text{in }\partial \Omega \end{cases} $$ for some $\lambda\in \mathbb{R}$, iff it satisfies $$\int \nabla u \nabla h= \int (\lambda-q)uh,\qquad \forall h\in H_0^1(\Omega) $$ I am looking for a Hilbert basis $\left\{v_n\right\}$ of $H_0^1$ such that each $v_n$ is an eigenvector of the linear operator $T:L^2(\Omega)\to L^2(\Omega)$, where $T$ maps each $f\in L^2(\Omega)$ to the unique weak solution $u\in H_0^1(\Omega)$ of the problem $$(**)\begin{cases}-\Delta u + qu = f& \text{in }\Omega\\ u=0& \text{in }\partial \Omega\end{cases} $$ I know that $T$ is compact and positive so by the Hilbert-Schmidt theorem, I have an orthonormal basis $\left\{\varphi_n\right\}$ of eigenvectors of $T$ for $L^2(\Omega)$, with positive eigenvalues $\left\{\lambda_n^{-1}\right\}$ with $\lambda_n\to +\infty$. Moreover, each $\varphi_n$ is in $H_0^1(\Omega)$, and it satisfies $$\int \nabla u \nabla h=\int (\lambda_n-q)uh ,\qquad \forall h\in H_0^1$$ i.e. it is a weak solution to (*) with $\lambda=\lambda_n$. The idea is to prove that $\left\{\varphi_n\right\}$ is also a basis for $H_0^1$, the issue is that the inner product is different, and poses a more restrictive condition to convergence. If $q=0$, then the solution is obvious, because the above equality says that $$\left \langle \nabla \varphi_n,\nabla \varphi_m\right\rangle=\lambda_n \left \langle \varphi_n,\varphi_m\right\rangle =\lambda_n \delta_{nm} $$ Therefore $\left\{\varphi_n\right\}$ is also a (non-orthonormal) basis for $H_0^1$. But how does one handle the case of a generic $q\in L^{\infty}(\Omega;\mathbb{R}_+)$, which messes up all the inner products?
2026-04-07 09:45:15.1775555115
Basis of $H_0^1$ of solutions to the time-independent Schrödinger equation
111 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in FUNCTIONAL-ANALYSIS
- On sufficient condition for pre-compactness "in measure"(i.e. in Young measure space)
- Why is necessary ask $F$ to be infinite in order to obtain: $ f(v)=0$ for all $ f\in V^* \implies v=0 $
- Prove or disprove the following inequality
- Unbounded linear operator, projection from graph not open
- $\| (I-T)^{-1}|_{\ker(I-T)^\perp} \| \geq 1$ for all compact operator $T$ in an infinite dimensional Hilbert space
- Elementary question on continuity and locally square integrability of a function
- Bijection between $\Delta(A)$ and $\mathrm{Max}(A)$
- Exercise 1.105 of Megginson's "An Introduction to Banach Space Theory"
- Reference request for a lemma on the expected value of Hermitian polynomials of Gaussian random variables.
- If $A$ generates the $C_0$-semigroup $\{T_t;t\ge0\}$, then $Au=f \Rightarrow u=-\int_0^\infty T_t f dt$?
Related Questions in PARTIAL-DIFFERENTIAL-EQUATIONS
- PDE Separation of Variables Generality
- Partial Derivative vs Total Derivative: Function depending Implicitly and Explicitly on Variable
- Transition from theory of PDEs to applied analysis and industrial problems and models with PDEs
- Harmonic Functions are Analytic Evan’s Proof
- If $A$ generates the $C_0$-semigroup $\{T_t;t\ge0\}$, then $Au=f \Rightarrow u=-\int_0^\infty T_t f dt$?
- Regular surfaces with boundary and $C^1$ domains
- How might we express a second order PDE as a system of first order PDE's?
- Inhomogeneous biharmonic equation on $\mathbb{R}^d$
- PDE: Determine the region above the $x$-axis for which there is a classical solution.
- Division in differential equations when the dividing function is equal to $0$
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
There are two key points that you are overlooking in your analysis of the case $q=0$ that actually solve the problem in general.
The issue first is that the set $\{\varphi_n\}$ is NOT an orthonormal basis, but just an orthogonal one. Indeed, we have that $$ \int \nabla \varphi_n \cdot \nabla \varphi_m + q \varphi_n \varphi_m = \lambda_n \int \varphi_n \varphi_m = \lambda_n \delta_{nm}. $$ In particular, when $n=m$ we have that $$ \int |\nabla \varphi_n|^2 + q |\varphi_n|^2 = \lambda_n, $$ which in general means that the functions are not normalized. To fix this we simply divide by $\sqrt{\lambda_n}$.
Now we arrive at the second issue: the choice of inner-product. Plugging in above shows that $\{\varphi_n /\sqrt{\lambda_n}\}$ is indeed an orthonormal basis of $H^1_0$ with respect to the inner-product $$ (u,v) = \int \nabla u \cdot \nabla v + q uv. $$ Since you are assuming that $q \ge 0$, the Poincare inequality tells us that this inner-product gives us a norm that is equivalent to the usual one on $H^1_0$. The take-away is that if we want orthonormality of the eigenfunctions, then we are forced to view this in the context of the inner-product related to the PDE. As we change $q$, we change the PDE and the inner-product, but this always generates a norm equivalent to the usual one, so we don't change the underlying topology.