In my PDE courses I've come across two different definitions or coercivity of a functional $\mathit{F}: \mathit{H} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ where $H$ is a Hilbert space.
Definition 1: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CoerciveFunctional.html
Definition 2: $\mathit{F}$ is called coercive, if for some $a \in \mathbb{R},$ the corresponding sublevel set is non-empty and bounded.
Question 1: Are these two definitions equivalent?
Question 2: I've seen another definition where the Hilbert space is $\mathbb{R}^n$ where coercivity is defined as the property in Definition 2, but holding for every $a \in \mathbb{R}.$ Why is this difference?
Regarding question 1, the two notions are not equivalent because the first functional is a bilinear form, so is not like in the second definition for $f:H \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. The first notion is for $B: H \times H \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ bilinear. If a bilinear form $B: H \times H \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is continuous e coercive $(B(u,u) \geq c \|u\|^2$ for all $u \in H$, then for every given linear and continuous functional $\ell: H \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, the equation $B(u,v) = \ell(v),\;\forall v \in H$, has a unique solution in $H$. If the bilinear form is symmetric, then the unique solution also solves $(1/2)B(u,u) - \ell(u)=min!$ in $H$.
(the point being that a minimum problem appears this way).
Regarding definition 2, there is a third notion of coercive functional: $f(x)$ goes to infinity as $\|x\| \rightarrow +\infty$. It is a key assumption in a well-known theorem: a weakly sequentially lower semi-continuous and coercive (in this third sense) functional is bounded below on H and has a global minimum in H [This coerciveness 3 ensures that the infimum of $F$ on H is the same as the infimum of $F$ over a sufficiently large closed ball (a weakly sequentially compact set), and this fact allows one to use another result that establishes the previous conclusion under the assumptions of existing a (non-empty) subset of H weakly sequentially compact with F weakly sequentially lower semi-continuous.]
Back to definition 2, it shown at On coercivity and compactness that for $f:\mathbb{R}^{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ continuous, this third notion of coercitivity is equivalent to every sublevel set being compact. So, in $\mathbb{R}^n$, under the assumption of f continuous one has boundedness of every sublevel set [implies Def. 2] being equivalent to coercitivity 3.
However, it is known that (in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$) coercivity 3 is too strong and one can prove the existence of a global minimizer using Def. 2 (in the proof one needs only one such level subset being bounded (thus compact).)