What is the relationship between weak derivatives and the decay of the coefficients in the eigenfunction expansion?

59 Views Asked by At

Suppose we have a function $f: [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}$ that has $2\beta$, $\beta \in \mathbb{N}$, weak derivatives. Defining $e_k(x) := \sqrt{2}\sin(k \pi x)$ the orthonormal sine-basis of $L^2([0,1])$, we can write $f = \sum_{k = 1}^{\infty} f_k e_k$ with $f_k = \langle f, e_k \rangle$. I was wondering if there is a relationship between $\beta$ and the decay of the coefficients $f_k$ as $k \to \infty$.

Suppose we take $2\beta$ weak derivatives of $f$, then because the $e_k$ are an eigenfunction of $D^2$, we have $$\tag{1} D^{2\beta} f = (-1)^{\beta} \pi^{2\beta} \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} f_k k^{2\beta} e_k. $$ Since the left-hand-side is an element of $L^2([0,1]$ by assumption, the coefficients in the right-hand-side must be square-summable, i.e. $$\tag{2} \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} f_k^2 k^{4\beta} < \infty. $$

On the other hand, if we assume that the right-hand-side of Equation $2$ is finite, then one can easily check that the right-hand-side of Equation $1$ satisfies the definition of the $2\beta$ weak-derivative of $f$.

But when I for example take the analytic function $f(x) = x(x-1)$, I see that $f_k \sim k^{-3}$. Following the reasoning above, I would expect this to go to zero faster than any polynomial.

What's wrong with my proof and what is the actual relationship between the decay and the smoothness?

1

There are 1 best solutions below

2
On BEST ANSWER

The problem here is the following: the series converges in $L^2(0,1)$. (And if $u\in H^1_0(0,1)$ then in $H^1$ as well). However, taking derivatives is not a continuous linear map on $L^2$, so we cannot pull the derivative operator into the infinite sum.

A more extreme example is the function $f(x)=1$. Write it as an infinite sum, $f = \sum_k f_k e_k$. Now calculate the second derivative, and suppose we can interchange taking derivative and sum. This would imply $0=\sum (k\pi)^2 f_k e_k$. Since the $e_k$ are orthonormal, it follows $f_k=0$, which is absurd.