Higher order weak differentiability and Sobolev spaces between manifolds
Alexandra Convent
Alexandra Convent
Université catholique de Louvain
Institut de Recherche en Mathématique et Physique
Chemin du Cyclotron 2 bte L7.01.01
1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgium
[email protected]
and
Jean Van Schaftingen
Jean Van Schaftingen
Université catholique de Louvain
Institut de Recherche en Mathématique et Physique
Chemin du Cyclotron 2 bte L7.01.01
1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgium
[email protected]
Abstract.
We define the notion of higher-order colocally weakly differentiable maps from a manifold M to a manifold N.
When M and N are endowed with Riemannian metrics, p≥1 and k≥2, this allows us to define the intrinsic higher-order homogeneous Sobolev space W˙k,p(M,N).
We show that this new intrinsic definition is not equivalent in general with the definition by an isometric embedding of N in a Euclidean space; if the manifolds M and N are compact, the intrinsic space is a larger space than the one obtained by embedding. We show that a necessary condition for the density of smooth maps in the intrinsic space W˙k,p(M,N) is that π⌊kp⌋(N)≃{0}.
We investigate the chain rule for higher-order differentiability in this setting.
Contents
-
1 Introduction
-
2 Colocal weak differentiability
-
2.1 Double colocal weak differentiability on differentiable manifolds
-
2.2 Sequences of twice colocally weakly differentiable maps
-
2.3 Higher order colocal weak differentiability
-
3 Colocal weak covariant derivatives and Sobolev spaces
-
3.1 Geometric preliminaries
-
3.2 Definition and properties of colocal weak covariant derivatives
-
3.3 Sequences of second order Sobolev maps
-
3.4 Higher order weak covariant derivatives and Sobolev spaces
-
4 Chain rule for higher order colocally weakly differentiable maps
-
4.1 Failure of the chain rule for twice colocally weakly differentiable maps
-
4.2 Double norms for double vector bundles
-
4.3 Chain rule for second order colocally weakly differentiable maps
-
4.4 Sequences of maps having the chain rule property
-
4.5 Chain rule for higher order colocally weakly differentiable maps
-
5 Back to the definition by embedding
-
5.1 Comparison with the intrinsic definition
-
5.2 Gagliardo–Nirenberg property
-
5.3 Problem of density of smooth maps
1. Introduction
Higher-order Sobolev maps between manifolds are measurable maps that are at least twice weakly differentiable whose derivatives satisfy some summability condition.
As their first-order counterparts such maps are a natural framework to study geometrical objects as biharmonic \citelist[chang][gong][moser][struwe][urakawa] and polyharmonic \citelist[angels][gastel][gold][lamm] maps and some physical models as the Schrödinger–Airy and third order Landau–Lifschitz equations [sw].
For every k∈N∗ and every p∈[1,+∞), Sobolev maps between the manifolds M and N can be defined by first embedding the target manifold N in a Euclidean space Rν for some ν∈N through an isometric embedding ι∈Ck(N,Rν)
and then considering the set \citelist[angels][gong][moser]
[TABLE]
Since every Riemannian manifold N can be smoothly isometrically embedded in a Euclidean space \citelist[nash56]*theorem 3, this definition (1) is always possible.
In the first-order case k=1, this definition turns out to be independent of the embedding (see [cvs]*proposition 2.7).
However in the higher-order case k≥2, this definition is not intrinsic: it depends on the choice of the embedding ι (see proposition 5.3 below).
The goal of this work is to propose and study an intrinsic definition of higher-order Sobolev spaces.
In the first-order case k=1, the definition by embedding (1) is also equivalent to the definition of Sobolev spaces into metric spaces \citelist[hajlasz]*theorem 3.2[ht]*theorem 2.17[cvs]*proposition 2.2.
However definitions of Sobolev spaces into metric spaces do not provide any notion of weak derivative and thus do not seem adapted to a further definition of higher-order Sobolev spaces by iteration.
For first-order Sobolev maps between manifolds, an intrinsic definition in which weak differentiability plays a central role has been proposed in our previous work [cvs].
We thus follow this strategy in our aim to define and study intrinsic higher-order derivatives and Sobolev spaces.
Our definitions, results and methods apply to arbitrary order weak differentiation and Sobolev spaces, but in order to highlight the essential ideas and issues the exposition in the present introduction is focused on the second-order case.
We begin by defining twice colocally weakly differentiable maps as colocally weakly differentiable maps for which the colocal weak derivative is also colocally weakly differentiable (definition 2.1).
The notion of colocal weak differentiability was introduced in [cvs]: a measurable map u:M→N is colocally weakly differentiable if for every function f∈Cc1(N,R), the composite function f∘u:M→R is weakly differentiable [cvs]*§1 and its colocal weak derivative Tu:TM→TN is a bundle morphism between the tangent spaces such that for every function f∈Cc1(N,R), the chain rule T(f∘u)=Tf∘Tu holds.
The colocal weak derivative of Tu is for almost every x∈M, a double vector bundle morphism T2u(x):Tx2M→Tu(x)2N (proposition 2.1).
Although this second-order derivative T2u is a natural object from the point of view of differential geometry, it is not a vector bundle morphism that covers u and it does not appears directly in affine or Riemannian geometry or in geometric analysis or in physical models.
In order to remedy to this issue, we study how this object T2u is related to objects of affine and Riemannian geometry.
When M and N are affine manifolds, that is differentiable manifolds whose tangents manifolds are endowed with a Koszul connection which induces notion of parallel displacement and covariant derivative, the double colocal derivative is described completely by the colocal weak covariant derivative DK(Tu) (proposition 3.1).
Proposition 1**.**
Let KT∗M⊗TN be a connection on the vector bundle T∗M⊗TN. Let u:M→N be a twice colocally weakly differentiable map.
Then the map Tu:M→T∗M⊗TN has a colocal weak covariant derivative DK(Tu):M→T∗M⊗T∗M⊗TN
if and only if
the map Tu:M→T∗M⊗TN has a colocal weak derivative T2u:TM→T(T∗M⊗TN).
Furthermore, they are unique and almost everywhere in M
[TABLE]
Roughly speaking, colocal weak covariant differentiability consists in looking only at the vertical component associated to the connection in the chain rule and relying on the formula
[TABLE]
where Vert is the vertical lifting from T∗M⊗TN and HorK is the horizontal lifting associated to the connection KT∗M⊗TN (see definition 3.1).
Proposition 1 states the equivalence between a purely differential geometric derivative and an affine geometric one; differentiability turns out to be independent of the choice of the connection.
When M and N are Riemannian manifolds endowed with their Levi–Civita connections, the colocal weak covariant derivative is a natural concept in geometry and physics and is essentially equivalent to the weak covariant derivative of P. Hornung and R. Moser [hm]*definition 2.5 (proposition 3.2).
Furthermore, this notion of covariant derivative brings us in position to define for every p∈[1,+∞), the intrinsic second-order Sobolev space (definition 3.2)
[TABLE]
where the norm ∣⋅∣gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gN is induced by the Riemannian metrics on M and N.
Thanks to the iterative nature of our definition of the double colocal differentiability,
we deduce immediately compactness (proposition 3.3) and closure (proposition 3.4) properties for second-order Sobolev maps.
The intrinsic second-order Sobolev spaces might by different from the one by embedding (see proposition 5.3 below).
As a consequence, we compare the definition of higher-order Sobolev spaces by embedding (1) with the intrinsic one (definitions 3.2 and 3.3).
The latter definition is not intrinsic and has characterizations in terms of intrinsic spaces in several particular cases (propositions 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4).
Proposition 2**.**
Let p∈[1,+∞).
- (i)
If there exists C>0 such that for every v∈W˙2,p(M,R)∩L∞(M,R),
[TABLE]
and if N is compact, then for any isometric embedding ι∈C2(N,Rν)
[TABLE]
2. (ii)
For every isometric embedding ι∈C2(N,Rν),
[TABLE]
3. (iii)
There exists an isometric embedding ι∈C2(N,Rν) such that
[TABLE]
As a consequence of the latter proposition, we prove that for every r>0, if 1≤2p<m and if the manifold N is compact,
[TABLE]
by exhibiting a map u∈W˙2,p(Brm,N) such that
[TABLE]
that is, u∈/W˙ι2,p(Brm,N) (proposition 5.6).
This example implies the failure of the Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequalities \citelist[gagliardo][nirenberg] for those spaces.
In the general case where the target manifold N is not compact, this leads to an open question 5.1: does exist a constant C>0 such that for every u∈W˙2,p(M,N)∩L∞(M,N),
[TABLE]
The answer should involve in particular the geometry of M and N.
We consider also the question of density of the set of smooth maps Ck(M,N) in W˙k,p(M,N) when M and N are compact manifolds.
In the first-order case k=1, the density of smooth maps is known to be equivalent to some homotopy invariant of the pair (M,N) \citelist[hl][bethuel].
Although these results are proved for embedded manifolds, the Sobolev space and the convergence are intrinsic [cvs] and the density result is thus intrinsic.
In the higher-order case on the ball, the set of smooth maps C2(Bm,N) is dense in the space W˙ι2,p(Bm,N) if and only if
π⌊2p⌋≃{0} [bpvs]. Since the set W˙2,p(Bm,N) is larger than W˙ι2,p(Bm,N) but is endowed with a weaker notion of convergence (proposition 5.4), it is not immediate that the topological condition is either necessary or sufficient for the density of smooth maps.
We prove that the topological condition is still a necessary condition for the strong and weak-bounded approximation by smooth maps (proposition 5.7).
Proposition 3**.**
Let N be a smooth connected compact Riemannian manifold and let p∈[1,+∞) so that 1≤2p<m.
- (i)
If for every u∈W˙2,p(Bm,N), there exists a sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N in C∞(Bm,N) that is bounded in W˙2,p(Bm,N) and that converges almost everywhere, and if 2p∈/N, then π⌊2p⌋(N)≃{0}.
2. (ii)
If for every u∈W˙2,p(Bm,N), there exists a sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N in C∞(Bm,N) that converges strongly to u in W˙2,p(Bm,N), and if 2p∈N, then π2p(N)≃{0}.
Giving some sufficient condition for the approximation problems seems to require new intrinsic approximation tools that would go beyond the scope of the present work.
Since Sobolev spaces by embedding (1) are defined by composition with a map ι∈C2(N,Rν) which is an immersion, we investigate for the twice colocal weak differentiability the chain rule in view of the comparison of the definition by embedding and the intrinsic one.
Moreover, since the first-order colocal weak differentiability was defined by the chain rule,
another natural candidate definition for the second-order differentiability could have been some second-order chain-rule condition. Such a definition turns out to be stronger and ill-behaved.
Given a twice colocally weakly differentiable map u:M→N, we ask whether for every f∈Cc2(N,R), the map f∘u is twice weakly differentiable and whether the chain rule T2(f∘u)=T2f∘T2u holds.
The chain rule does not hold in general (example 4.1); however, it holds under an additional necessary and sufficient integrability condition on colocal weak derivatives of bundle morphism (proposition 4.3).
Proposition 4**.**
Let u:M→N be a twice colocally weakly differentiable map. The following statements are equivalent.
- (i)
For every f∈Cc2(N,R), the map f∘u is twice weakly differentiable and almost everywhere in M
[TABLE]
2. (ii)
for every compact sets K⊆M and L⊆N,
[TABLE]
3. (iii)
for every h∈C1(T∗M⊗TN,R) that is linear with respect to Tu and has compact support with respect to u, the map h∘Tu is weakly differentiable.
The condition (ii) involves a double norm [[⋅]] of the double vector bundle morphism T2u (definition 4.2).
Such a double norm is a seminorm on fibers over both vector bundle structures of the double vector bundle.
2. Colocal weak differentiability
2.1. Double colocal weak differentiability on differentiable manifolds
We assume that M and N are differentiable manifolds of class C2 of respective dimensions m and n.
As usual, the manifolds M and N satisfy the Hausdorff separation property and have a countable basis \citelist[docarmo]§0.5[hirsch]§1.5.
We study the notion of second-order differentiability for measurable maps from M to N.
As a preliminary we recall various definitions of local measure-theoretical notions on a manifold. A set E⊂M is negligible if for every x∈M there exists a local chart ψ:V⊆M→Rm – that is ψ:V⊆M→ψ(V)⊆Rm is a diffeomorphism – such that x∈V and the set ψ(E∩V)⊆Rm is negligible.
A map u:M→N is measurable if for every point x∈M there exists a local chart ψ:V⊆M→Rm such that x∈V and the map u∘ψ−1 is measurable \citelist[hirsch]§3.1[derham]§3.
A function u:M→R is locally integrable if for every x∈M there exists a local chart ψ:V⊆M→Rm such that x∈V and u∘ψ−1 is integrable on ψ(V) [hormander]*§6.3.
Similarly, a locally integrable map u:M→R is weakly differentiable if for every point x∈M there exists a local chart ψ:V⊆M→Rm such that x∈V and the map u∘ψ−1 is weakly differentiable.
All these notions are independent on any particular metric or measure on the manifold M and are invariant under diffeomorphisms of M.
Given a colocally weakly differentiable map u:M→N [cvs]*definition 1.1,
by existence and uniqueness of the colocal weak derivative [cvs]*proposition 1.5, there exists a unique measurable bundle morphism Tu:TM→TN such that for every f∈Cc1(N,R), T(f∘u)=Tf∘Tu almost everywhere in M, where (TM,πM,M) is the tangent bundle over M, that is,
[TABLE]
πM:TM→M is the natural projection and for every point x∈M, the fiber πM−1({x}) is isomorphic to the space Rm,
and where a map υ:TM→TN is a bundle morphism that covers the map u:M→N if the diagram
[TABLE]
commutes, that is, we have πN∘υ=u∘πM on TM, and for every x∈M, the map υ(x):πM−1({x})≃TxM→πN−1({u(x)})≃Tu(x)M is linear.
As a consequence, the map Tu can be viewed as a measurable map from M to the bundle
111The tensor product (T∗M⊗TN,πM×N,M×N) of the bundles T∗M and TN is a vector bundle over M×N such that for every (x,y)∈M×N, πM×N−1({(x,y)})=Tx∗M⊗TyN.
T∗M⊗TN, that is, for almost every x∈M, we have Tu(x)∈Tx∗M⊗Tu(x)N=L(TxM,Tu(x)N).
Since both M and N are manifolds of class C2, the vector bundle T∗M⊗TN has a manifold structure of class C1 and so we can define the notion of twice colocally weakly differentiable maps recursively.
Definition 2.1**.**
A map u:M→N is twice colocally weakly differentiable whenever u is colocally weakly differentiable and its colocal weak derivative Tu:M→T∗M⊗TN is itself colocally weakly differentiable.
If u∈Wloc2,1(Rm,Rn), that is, if the map u:Rm→Rn is twice weakly differentiable, then u is twice colocally weakly differentiable. Indeed, the weak derivative Du:Rm→L(Rm,Rn) is weakly differentiable and so for every f∈Cc1(L(Rm,Rn),R), the composite map f∘Du is weakly differentiable.
But, as in the case of colocally weakly differentiable maps, the converse is false.
For example, the function u:Rm→R defined for every x∈Rm∖{0} by u(x)=∣x∣−α does not belong to Wloc2,1(Rm) for any α>m−2, but is twice colocally weakly differentiable for every α∈R.
The boundedness of u is not essential: indeed for every α<m−1, the function (cos∘u,sin∘u):Rm→S1⊆R2 is twice colocally weakly differentiable but it does not belong to Wloc2,1(Rm,R2) if α>2m−2.
The natural framework of the colocal weak derivative of a bundle morphism involves the second-order tangent bundle T2M:=T(TM) \citelist[bertram]§7.1[michor]§8.13; the natural projection πM2:T2M→M is not a vector bundle but the tangent manifold T2M has two natural vector bundle structures as a bundle over TM \citelist[bertram]§9.1[dieudonne]§16.15.7[mackenzie]example 1.3[michor]§8.12, that is,
the canonical vector bundle structure of the tangent bundle πTM:T2M→TM,
the tangent vector bundle structure on the tangent fibration TπM:T(TM)→TM;
hence, T2M is a double vector bundle \citelist[gr]*theorem 3.1[mackenzie]*definition 1.1, that is, a system of four vector bundle structures such that the following diagram commutes
[TABLE]
and such that each of the four structure maps (namely, the bundle projection, the zero section, addition and scalar multiplication) of each vector bundle structure on T2M is a morphism of vector bundles with respect to the other structure;
the double vector bundle T2M has one more natural structure, the canonical flip κM:T2M→T2M which is a linear isomorphism from the bundle (T2M,TπM,TM) to the bundle (T2M,πTM,TM) [michor]*§8.13;
the space of all double vector bundle morphisms Mor(T2M,T2N) is defined by requiring that for every (x,y)∈M×N, the fiber Mor(T2M,T2N)x,y consists of maps υ:Tx2M→Ty2N and υ1,υ2∈L(TxM,TyN) such that πTN∘υ=υ1∘πTM and TπN∘υ=υ2∘TπM;
we note that Mor(T2M,T2N) is a double vector bundle with the following commutative diagram
\operatorname{Mor}(T^{2}M,T^{2}N)$$T^{*}M\otimes TN$$T^{*}M\otimes TN$$M\times N$$\pi^{1}_{T^{*}M\otimes TN}$$\pi^{2}_{T^{*}M\otimes TN}$$\pi_{M\times N}$$\pi_{M\times N}
where for every υ∈Mor(T2M,T2N), πT∗M⊗TN1∘υ=πTN∘υ∘0πTM and πT∗M⊗TN2∘υ=TπN∘υ∘0TπM, with the two zero sections 0πTM:TM→T2M and 0TπM:TM→T2M.
If u∈C2(M,N), then the second-order tangent map T2u:T2M→T2N and the maps Tu:TM→TN and u:M→N define a morphism of double vector bundles \citelist[mackenzie]*definition 1.2 such that the following diagrams commute.
T^{2}M$$TM$$M$$T^{2}N$$TN$$N$$TM$$TN$$T^{2}u$$T\pi_{M}$$\pi_{TM}$$T\pi_{N}$$\pi_{TN}$$Tu$$Tu$$\pi_{M}$$\pi_{M}$$\pi_{N}$$\pi_{N}$$u
T^{2}M$$T^{2}M$$TM$$T^{2}N$$T^{2}N$$TN$$TM$$TN$$T^{2}u$$T\pi_{M}$$\kappa_{M}$$\kappa_{M}$$T^{2}u$$\pi_{TM}$$Tu$$T\pi_{N}$$\kappa_{N}$$\kappa_{N}$$\pi_{TN}$$Tu
Moreover, the map T2u can be viewed as a section from M to Mor(T2M,u∗(T2M)), that is, for every x∈M, T2u(x)∈Mor(T2M,T2N)x,u(x).
However, twice colocally weakly differentiable maps are just measurable and so we say that a measurable map v:M→Mor(T2M,T2N) covers u:M→N whenever for almost every x∈M,
[TABLE]
If (E,πM,M) is a vector bundle, the vertical bundle VE→E is the subbundle of TE→E defined by [wendl]*definition 3.1
[TABLE]
and for every e∈E, the vertical lift Verte:E→TE defined
for ν∈πM−1({πM(e)}) by
[TABLE]
gives a natural isomorphism between EπM(e) and VeE.
This construction is independent of any connection.
Proposition 2.1**.**
If the map u:M→N is twice colocally weakly differentiable, then there exists a unique measurable map T2u:M→Mor(T2M,T2N) that covers the map u such that for every function f∈C1(T∗M⊗TN,R) such that f∘Tu∈Wloc1,1(M),
[TABLE]
almost everywhere in M.
Moreover, κN∘T2u=T2u∘κM and T2u∘VertTM=VertTN∘Tu almost everywhere in M.
In other words, the map T2u is the colocal weak derivative of the bundle morphism Tu.
Moreover, for almost every x∈M, the double vector bundle morphism T2u(x)∈ Mor(T2M,T2N)x,u(x) satisfies πT∗M⊗TN1∘T2u(x)=πT∗M⊗TN2∘T2u(x)=Tu(x) and
T2u(x)∘VertTM=VertTN∘Tu(x).
The first lemma recalls how these properties are obtained when the target manifold is a Euclidean space.
We remind the reader that a locally integrable map u:M→R is twice weakly differentiable if for every x∈M, there exists a local chart ψ:V⊆M→Rm such that x∈V and the map u∘ψ−1 belongs to Wloc2,1(ψ(V)).
Lemma 2.2**.**
If the locally integrable map v:M→Rn is twice weakly differentiable, then there exists a unique measurable map T2v:M→Mor(T2M,T2Rn) that covers the map v such that
for every local chart ψ:V⊆M→Rm,
[TABLE]
almost everywhere in ψ(V).
Moreover, TπRn∘T2v=Tv∘TπM, κRn∘T2v=T2v∘κM and T2v∘VertTM=VertTRn∘Tv almost everywhere in M.
Sketch of the proof.
First, if M is an open set of Rm, since the domain is flat, for almost every x∈M, T2v(x):Tx2M→Tv(x)2Rn is defined for every (e,μ,ν)∈Tx2M by
[TABLE]
and the conclusion follows.
Next, for a general manifold M, for every local chart ψ:V⊆M→Rm, the map v∘ψ−1:ψ(V)⊆Rm→Rn is twice weakly differentiable.
Since ψ∈C2(V,Rm), we have T2ψ∈Mor(T2V,ψ∗(T2Rm)), κRm∘T2ψ=T2ψ∘κM and T2ψ∘VertTM=VertTRm∘Tψ [michor]*§8.13.
As a consequence, since almost everywhere in V
[TABLE]
by the previous step, we can deduce that TπRn∘T2v=Tv∘TπM, κRn∘T2v=T2v∘κM and T2v∘VertTM=VertTRn∘Tv almost everywhere in V.
Since πTM=TπM∘κM on T2M and πTRn=TπRn∘κRn on T2Rn [michor]*§8.13, then πTRn∘T2v=Tv∘πTM almost everywhere in V
and so for almost every x∈V, T2v(x)∈Mor(T2M,T2N)x,v(x).
Finally, since the manifold M has a countable atlas of local charts, by a direct covering argument, the previous equalities are satisfied almost everywhere in M.
∎
The following lemma 2.3 allows to embed a local chart into a compactly supported function; its proof and its statement is similar to the one for C1–manifolds [cvs]*lemma 1.6.
Lemma 2.3** (Extended local charts).**
For every y∈N, there exist an open subset U⊆N such that y∈U, and maps φ∈C2(N,Rn) and φ∗∈C2(Rn,N) such that
- (i)
the set suppφ is compact,
2. (ii)
the set {x∈Rn:φ∗(x)=y} is compact,
3. (iii)
the map φ\arrowvertU is a diffeomorphism of class C2 onto its image φ(U),
4. (iv)
φ∗∘φ=id* in U.*
Proof.
By definition of manifold of class C2, there exists a local chart ψ:V⊆N→ψ(V)⊆Rn around y∈N such that ψ:V→ψ(V) is a diffeomorphism of class C2.
Without loss of generality, we assume that ψ(y)=0.
Since the set ψ(V)⊆Rn is open, there exists r>0 such that B2r⊆ψ(V). We choose a function θ∈Cc2(Rn,R) such that 0≤θ≤1 on Rn, θ=1 on Br and suppθ⊂B2r.
We take the set U=ψ−1(Br) and the maps φ:N→Rn defined for every z∈N by
[TABLE]
and φ∗:Rn→N defined for every x∈Rn by φ∗(x)=ψ−1(θ(x)x).
∎
Proof of proposition 2.1.
By the existence and uniqueness of the colocal weak derivative [cvs]*proposition 1.5, there exists a unique measurable bundle morphism T2u:TM→T(T∗M⊗TN) such that for every f∈C1(T∗M⊗TN,R) such that f∘Tu∈Wloc1,1(M), we have T(f∘Tu)=Tf∘T2u almost everywhere in M.
As for the colocal weak derivative, the map T2u can be viewed as a measurable map from M to T∗M⊗T(T∗M⊗TN), which is a subset of Mor(T2M,T2N).
Let U⊆N, φ∈C2(N,Rn) and φ∗∈C2(N,Rn) be the extended local charts given by lemma 2.3.
For every y∈T∗M⊗TU, there exist two open sets V,W⊆T∗M⊗TU such that y∈V⊆W and then a map η∈Cc1(T∗M⊗TN,R) such that 0≤η≤1 on T∗M⊗TN, η=1 on V and supp(η)⊂W.
As a consequence, the function h defined for every z∈T∗M⊗TN by
[TABLE]
belongs to Cc1(T∗M⊗TN,Rn) and satisfies T(h∘Tu)=Th∘T2u almost everywhere in M.
Since η=1 on V, we have in particular T2(φ∘u)=T2φ∘T2u almost everywhere in u−1(πN(πM×N(V))).
Since T2φ∗∘T2φ=id on (πN2)−1(U), by lemma 2.2 and since φ∗∈C2(Rn,N) [michor]*§8.13, almost everywhere in u−1(πN(πM×N(V)))
[TABLE]
In particular, we have
[TABLE]
which gives a second bundle morphism structure to T2u so that T2u is a double vector bundle morphism in u−1(πN(πM×N(V))).
The facts that T2u∘VertTM=VertTN∘Tu and TπN∘T2u=Tu∘TπM almost everywhere in u−1(πN(πM×N(V))) can be proved along the same line.
Since πTM=TπM∘κM on T2M and πTN=TπN∘κN on T2N [michor]*§8.13,
[TABLE]
almost everywhere in u−1(πN(πM×N(V))).
So for almost every x∈u−1(πN(πM×N(V))),
[TABLE]
and πM×N∘Tu(x)=(x,u(x)).
Finally, by a direct covering argument, since the manifolds M and N have a countable basis, the measurable map T2u:M→Mor(T2M,T2N) satisfies the previous properties almost everywhere in M.
∎
2.2. Sequences of twice colocally weakly differentiable maps
In order to study the lower semi-continuity of functionals, it is interesting to have some sufficient conditions in the calculus for a limit of twice colocally weakly differentiable maps to be also twice colocally weakly differentiable.
In this part, we deduce from the closure property for first-order derivatives [cvs]*proposition 3.7 a closure property for second-order derivatives.
We first recall a notion of convergence in measure [cvs]*definition 3.5.
Definition 2.2**.**
A sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N of maps from M to N converges locally in measure to a map u:M→N whenever for every x∈M there exists a local chart ψ:V⊆M→Rm such that x∈V and for every open set U⊆N,
[TABLE]
The definition applies directly to a sequence (υℓ)ℓ∈N of bundle morphisms between TM and TN viewed as maps from M to T∗M⊗TN.
We then generalize the notion of uniform integrability [cvs]*definition 3.6 to any bundle morphisms.
Definition 2.3**.**
Let (F,πN,N) be a vector bundle.
A sequence (υℓ)ℓ∈N of bundle morphisms from TM to F that covers a sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N of maps from M to N is bilocally uniformly integrable whenever for every x∈M and every y∈N, there exist a local chart ψ:V⊆M→Rm and a bundle chart φ:πN−1(U)⊆F→Rq (φ:πN−1(U)⊆F→φ(πN−1(U))⊆Rq is a diffeomorphism and U⊆N is open) such that for every ε>0 there exists δ>0 such that if W⊆ψ(V), Lm(W)≤δ and ℓ∈N,
[TABLE]
This definition applies directly to a sequence (υℓ)ℓ∈N from TM to TN or from TM to T(T∗M⊗TN).
Proposition 2.4**.**
Let (uℓ)ℓ∈N be a sequence of twice colocally weakly differentiable maps from M to N.
If the sequence (Tuℓ)ℓ∈N converges locally in measure to a measurable map υ:M→T∗M⊗TN that covers a map u:M→N, if the sequences (Tuℓ)ℓ∈N and (T2uℓ)ℓ∈N are bilocally uniformly integrable, then the map u is twice colocally weakly differentiable.
This proposition is a direct consequence of the closure property for colocally weakly differentiable maps [cvs]*proposition 3.7, applied to the sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N and then to (Tuℓ)ℓ∈N .
2.3. Higher order colocal weak differentiability
In this part, we explain how previous notions and propositions extend to higher-order derivatives.
For k≥3, we assume that M and N are manifolds of class Ck.
Since the set T∗M⊗TN is a manifold of class Ck−1, we also proceed by induction.
A map u:M→N is 1 times colocally weakly differentiable whenever it is colocally weakly differentiable.
Definition 2.4**.**
Let k∈N∗. A map u:M→N is k times colocally weakly differentiable whenever u is (k−1) times colocally weakly differentiable and Tu:M→T∗M⊗TN is (k−1) times colocally weakly differentiable.
As for the notion of twice weak differentiability, there is some natural framework to work with, that is, we denote by TkM the kth order tangent bundle which is by induction TkM:=T(Tk−1M) [bertram]§7.1;
this manifold has k natural vector bundle structures πTk−1M1,…,πTk−1Mk over Tk−1M [bertram]§15.1 and it is a ktuple vector bundle \citelist[gm]*definition 3.1[gr]*definition 4.1 and theorem 5.1; the canonical flips correspond to any permutation of the bundle structures and
the space of ktuple vector bundle morphisms Mor(TkM,TkN) is defined by the condition that for every (x,y)∈M×N, the fiber Mor(TkM,TkN)x,y consists of maps υ:TxkM→TykN and υ1,…,υk∈Mor(Tk−1M,Tk−1N)x,y such that for every j∈{1,…,k}, πTk−1Nj∘υ=υj∘πTk−1Mj \citelist[gm]*definition 3.1[gr]*definition 4.1;
we note that Mor(TkM,TkN) has also a ktuple vector bundle structure.
If u:M→N is a k times colocally weakly differentiable map, then by existence and uniqueness of the colocal weak derivative [cvs]*proposition 1.5, and by induction, there exist unique measurable maps T2u,…,Tku such that for every j∈{3,…,k}, Tju:TM→T(Mor(Tj−1M, Tj−1N)) is the colocal weak derivative of Tj−1u; this derivative can also be viewed as a map from M to Mor(TjM,TjN) that covers u, that is, for almost every x∈M, Tju(x)∈Mor(TjM,TjN)x,u(x).
We have a closure property for higher-order colocally weakly differentiable maps similar to proposition 2.4 for twice colocally weakly differentiable maps.
Indeed, definition 2.2 applies directly to a sequence (υℓ)ℓ∈N of maps from M to Mor(TkM,TkN).
Moreover, definition 2.3 applies also to a sequence (υℓ)ℓ∈N from TM to T(Mor(Tk−1M,Tk−1N)) that covers a sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N from M to Mor(Tk−1M,Tk−1N).
Proposition 2.5**.**
Let (uℓ)ℓ∈N be a sequence of k times colocally weakly differentiable maps from M to N.
If the sequence (Tk−1uℓ)ℓ∈N converges locally in measure to a measurable map υ:M→Mor(Tk−1M,Tk−1N) that covers a map u:M→N and if for all j∈{1,…,k}, the sequence (Tjuℓ)ℓ∈N is bilocally uniformly integrable, then the map u is k times colocally weakly differentiable.
Propositon 2.5 is a direct consequence of the closure property for colocally weakly differentiable maps [cvs]*proposition 3.7, applied recursively to the sequences (uℓ)ℓ∈N, …,(Tk−1uℓ)ℓ∈N.
3. Colocal weak covariant derivatives and Sobolev spaces
In this section we study how differentiability can be characterized in covariant terms when the manifolds M and N have an affine structure.
3.1. Geometric preliminaries
We recall some concepts and tools of affine geometry of a vector bundle (E,πM,M).
A map KE:TE→E is a connection if KE is a bundle morphism from (TE,πE,E) to (E,πM,M) that covers πM and a bundle morphism from (TE,TπM,TM) to (E,πM,M) that covers πMTM:TM→M, and for every e∈E, (KE∘Vert)(e)=e [wendl]*definition 3.9.
If we endow E with a connection KE, the horizontal bundle HKE→E is the subbundle of TE→E defined by [gk]*definition 3.4
[TABLE]
then the direct decomposition TE=HKE⊕VE holds [gk]*proposition 3.5.
Equivalently, there exists a map called the horizontal lift HorK:TM→HKE⊂TE such that for each e∈TM, (TπM∘HorK)(e)=e.
Consequently, if idTE:TE→TE is the identity map, then
[TABLE]
If (M,gM) is a Riemannian manifold and if we endow E with a metric connection KE, then the Sasaki metric GES [sasaki] (see also [docarmo]*chapter 3, exercise 2) is defined for every ν∈TE by
[TABLE]
If KTM and KTN are connections on TM and on TN respectively, a connection KT∗M⊗TN:T(T∗M⊗TN)→T∗M⊗TN can be defined for every v∈T(T∗M) and w∈T(TN) by
[TABLE]
where KT∗M:T(T∗M)→T∗M is a connection on T∗M induced by KTM.
If u:M→N is a smooth map, the second-covariant derivative DK2u:M→T∗M⊗T∗M⊗TN with respect to the connection KT∗M⊗TN is defined by
[TABLE]
More specifically, for every x∈M, the map DK2u(x):TxM×TxM→Tu(x)N is bilinear [wendl]*equation (3.10) and for every e∈TxM, by equation (3.1), we have the decomposition
[TABLE]
where DK2u(x)[e]=KT∗M⊗TN(T2u(x)[e])∈L(TxM,Tu(x)N) and with the usual identification of M×TN with M×{0}×TN⊆TM×TN.
3.2. Definition and properties of colocal weak covariant derivatives
In this part, we assume that M and N are affine manifolds.
We first define the notion of colocal weak covariant derivatives.
Definition 3.1**.**
Let υ:M→T∗M⊗TN be a colocally weakly differentiable map that covers a map u:M→N.
A map DKυ:M→T∗M⊗T∗M⊗TN is a colocal weak covariant derivative of υ whenever DKυ is measurable, for almost every x∈M, the map DKυ(x):TxM×TxM→Tu(x)N is bilinear and for every f∈Cc1(T∗M⊗TN,R),
[TABLE]
almost everywhere in M.
Since the vertical lifting Vert is injective and since Tf can be taken to be injective at a given set of points, a map υ has at most one colocal weak covariant derivative.
The previous definition 3.1 requires the colocal weak differentiability of the map υ.
The main result of the current section is that the colocal weak derivative and the colocal weak covariant derivative are equivalent objects.
Proposition 3.1**.**
Let u:M→N be a twice colocally weakly differentiable map.
Then the map Tu:M→T∗M⊗TN has a colocal weak covariant derivative DK(Tu):M→T∗M⊗T∗M⊗TN
if and only if
the map Tu:M→T∗M⊗TN has a colocal weak derivative T2u:TM→T(T∗M⊗TN).
Furthermore, they are unique and almost everywhere in M
[TABLE]
Thus
the colocal weak covariant derivatives for two connections K1 and K2 can be related to each others via the identity
[TABLE]
Proof of proposition 3.1.
On the one hand, we assume that the colocal weak covariant derivative DK(Tu) exists.
Then for every f∈Cc1(T∗M⊗TN,R),
[TABLE]
and we can take
[TABLE]
for the second-order derivative of u.
Conversely, we assume that there is a colocal weak derivative T2u:TM→T(T∗M⊗TN) such that for every f∈Cc1(T∗M⊗TN,R), T(f∘Tu)=Tf∘T2u almost everywhere in M.
In view of the identity (3.1), almost everywhere in M
[TABLE]
and we can thus take DK(Tu)=KT∗M⊗TN∘T2u.
∎
We assume that (M,gM) and (N,gN) are Riemannian manifolds with the respective Levi–Civita connection maps on TM and on TN.
Our concept of covariant derivative is, under some technical assumptions, equivalent to the notion of covariant derivative of P. Hornung and R. Moser [hm]*definition 2.5.
Indeed, the metrics on vectors of TM and TN induce a metric gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gN on T∗M⊗T∗M⊗TN.
This metric can be computed for every bilinear map ξ:TxM×TxM→TyN by
[TABLE]
where (ei)1≤i≤m is any orthonormal basis in πM−1({x}) with respect to the Riemannian metric gM.
Proposition 3.2**.**
Let u∈W˙loc1,1(M,N) and let f:T∗M⊗TN→T∗M⊗TN be defined for every ξ∈T∗M⊗TN by
[TABLE]
If f∘Tu is colocally weakly differentiable, then Tu is colocally weakly differentiable and almost everywhere in M
[TABLE]
Conversely if Tu is colocally weakly differentiable and if ∣DK(Tu)∣gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gN∈Lloc1(M), then f∘Tu is colocally weakly differentiable.
The advantage of this formulation is that f∘Tu is a bounded measurable bundle morphism, and thus if N is compact, its colocal weak differentiability is equivalent to its weak differentiability in local charts or in an isometric embedding. In Sobolev spaces, the additional integrability assumption for the converse implication is automatically satisfied.
Proof of proposition 3.2.
Let us first assume that the composite map f∘Tu is colocally weakly differentiable.
Since the map f is invertible on its image, for every h∈Cc1(T∗M⊗TN,R),
[TABLE]
where the map h∘f−1 can be extended to a compactly supported map.
By the definition of colocal weak differentiability of f∘Tu, the right-hand side is weakly differentiable and thus the left-side is also weakly differentiable and the map Tu is colocally weakly differentiable by definition. In particular we obtain that
[TABLE]
and the identity follows. Since the connection KT∗M⊗TN is metric, by geometric properties of f and uniqueness of colocal weak covariant derivatives, we can deduce the desired formula.
Conversely, almost everywhere in M
[TABLE]
Hence, Tu∈W˙loc1,1(M,T∗M⊗TN) and for every h∈Cc1(T∗M⊗TN,R), since the map h∘f∈C1(T∗M⊗TN,R) is Lipschitz-continuous, by the chain rule in Sobolev spaces for maps between manifolds [cvs]*proposition 2.6, the map (h∘f)∘Tu is weakly differentiable, and so f∘Tu is colocally weakly differentiable.
∎
3.3. Sequences of second order Sobolev maps
We now define intrinsic second-order Sobolev spaces.
Definition 3.2**.**
Let p∈[1,+∞).
A map u:M→N belongs to the second-order Sobolev space W˙2,p(M,N) whenever the map u is twice colocally weakly differentiable and
∣DK(Tu)∣gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gN∈Lp(M).
A classical technique in the calculus of variations is to extract from a minimizing sequence a subsequence that converges almost everywhere.
For that, we have a Rellich–Kondrashov type compactness theorem as follows.
Proposition 3.3** (Rellich–Kondrashov for second-order Sobolev maps).**
Let (uℓ)ℓ∈N be a sequence of twice colocally weakly differentiable maps from M to N and let v∈W˙1,p(M,N).
If (N,d) is complete, if there exists p∈[1,+∞) such that
[TABLE]
then there is a subsequence (Tuℓk)k∈N that converges to a measurable map υ:M→T∗M⊗TN almost everywhere in M.
In particular, if the map υ covers the map u:M→N, the subsequence (uℓk)k∈N converges to u almost everywhere in M.
For p∈(1,2), P. Hornung and R. Moser have a similar result [hm]*lemma 3.2 for their notion of second-order Sobolev spaces [hm]*definition 3.1.
Proof of proposition 3.3.
Since (N,d) is complete, the space (T∗M⊗TN,dS), where dS is the distance induced by the Sasaki metric GT∗M⊗TNS, is complete.
Next, there exists C>0 such that
[TABLE]
Since for every ℓ∈N,
[TABLE]
almost everywhere in M,
we have
[TABLE]
Hence, the sequence (Tuℓ)ℓ∈N satisfies all the assumptions of the Rellich–Kondrashov compactness property for Sobolev maps [cvs]*proposition 3.4 and so there exists a subsequence (Tuℓk)k∈N that converges to a measurable map υ:M→T∗M⊗TN almost everywhere in M.
∎
Before considering sequences of Sobolev maps, we rephrased the closure property (proposition 2.4) with the notion of colocal weak covariant derivative.
Proposition 3.4** (Closure property).**
Let (uℓ)ℓ∈N be a sequence of twice colocally weakly differentiable maps from M to N.
If the sequence (Tuℓ)ℓ∈N converges locally in measure to a measurable map υ:M→T∗M⊗TN that covers a map u:M→N, if the sequences (Tuℓ)ℓ∈N and (DK(Tuℓ))ℓ∈N are bilocally uniformly integrable, then the map u is twice colocally weakly differentiable.
It is a direct consequence of the following lemma and proposition 2.4.
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let (uℓ)ℓ∈N be a sequence of twice colocally weakly differentiable maps from M to N.
Then the sequence (T2uℓ)ℓ∈N is bilocally uniformly integrable if and only if
the sequence (DK(Tuℓ))ℓ∈N is bilocally uniformly integrable.
Proof.
For every y∈T∗M⊗TN, there exist an open set U⊆T∗M⊗TN such that y∈U and a map φ∈Cc1(T∗M⊗TN,Rq) such that φ\arrowvertU:U⊆T∗M⊗TN→Rq is a local chart [cvs]*lemma 1.6 (see also lemma 2.3 above).
Hence, for every local chart ψ:V⊆M→Rm, every ℓ∈N and almost everywhere on ψ(V∩(Tuℓ)−1(U)), by the relation between T2uℓ and DK(Tuℓ) (proposition 3.1),
[TABLE]
Since supp(φ) is compact, the second term is uniformly bounded for ℓ∈N, and so the conclusion follows using this equality and one or an other assumption.
∎
Assuming that there exists a subsequence that converges almost everywhere, it is important to have some closure property in the particular case of bounded sequences in Sobolev spaces.
Proposition 3.6** (Weak closure property for second-order Sobolev spaces).**
Let p∈[1,+∞).
Let (uℓ)ℓ∈N be a sequence of twice colocally weakly differentiable maps from M to N.
Assume that the sequence (Tuℓ)ℓ∈N converges locally in measure to a measurable map υ:M→T∗M⊗TN that covers a map u:M→N, that
[TABLE]
and, if p=1, that the sequences (Tuℓ)ℓ∈N and (DK(Tuℓ))ℓ∈N are bilocally uniformly integrable.
Then u∈W˙2,p(M,N) and
[TABLE]
For p∈(1,2), P. Hornung and R. Moser have a similar result [hm]*lemma 3.2 for their notion of second-order Sobolev spaces [hm]*definition 3.1.
We first prove the following lemma.
Lemma 3.7**.**
Let p∈[1,+∞).
If u∈W˙1,p(M,N)∩W˙2,p(M,N), then the map ∣Tu∣gM∗⊗gN belongs to W1,p(M) and almost everywhere in M
[TABLE]
where g1 is the Euclidean metric on R.
Proof.
Since Tu∈W˙1,p(M,T∗M⊗TN) (see proof of proposition 3.2 above) and since the map ∣⋅∣gM∗⊗gN is Lipschitz-continuous with respect to the distance induced by the Sasaki metric GT∗M⊗TNS, by the chain rule in Sobolev spaces between manifolds [cvs]*proposition 2.6, ∣Tu∣gM∗⊗gN∈W1,p(M).
Since the connection KT∗M⊗TN is metric, by the chain rule formula in Sobolev spaces [cvs2]*proposition 5.2 and by the relation between T2u and DK(Tu) (proposition 3.1), we have the desired inequality.
∎
Proof of proposition 3.6.
By weak closure property for Sobolev maps [cvs]*proposition 3.8, u∈W˙1,p(M,N) and Tu=υ.
Moreover, by closure property in terms of the colocal weak covariant derivative (proposition 3.4), the map u is twice colocally weakly differentiable.
We now need to prove that ∣DK(Tu)∣gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gN∈Lp(M).
By previous lemma 3.7, the sequence (∣Tuℓ∣gM∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N is bounded in W1,p(M).
By the classical Rellich–Kondrashov compactness theorem \citelist[aubin]*theorem 2.34 (a)[brezis]*theorem 9.16, and since (∣Tuℓ∣gM∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N converges to ∣Tu∣gM∗⊗gN in measure, the sequence (∣Tuℓ∣gM∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N converges to ∣Tu∣gM∗⊗gN in Llocp(M).
Up to a subsequence, the sequence (∣DK(Tuℓ)∣gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N converges weakly to some w in Llocp(M).
Since the sequence (Tuℓ)ℓ∈N converges to Tu locally in measure, for every f∈Cc1(T∗M⊗TN,Rq),
with q≥min(m,dim(T∗M⊗TN)),
[TABLE]
where gq is the Euclidean metric on Rq, almost everywhere in M.
By the characterization of the norm of the derivative [cvs]*proposition 2.2,
[TABLE]
almost everywhere in M and so \lvert D_{K}(Tu)\rvert_{g^{*}_{M}\otimes g^{*}_{M}\otimes g_{N}}$$\leq w.
Consequently, by lower semi-continuity of the norm under weak convergence, for each compact set Q⊆M,
[TABLE]
Finally, since M has a countable basis, there exists a set {Qi:i∈N} of compact sets such that for every i∈N, Qi⊆Qi+1 and M=⋃i∈NQi [lee]*proposition 4.76
and so by the monotone convergence theorem [bogachev]*theorem 2.8.2, we have the desired inequality.
∎
3.4. Higher order weak covariant derivatives and Sobolev spaces
First, we assume that M and N are affine manifolds.
In order to simplify the notations, we denote indifferently the connections K, the maps Vert and HorK related to the different bundles (section 3.1).
If k=2 and u is twice colocally weakly differentiable, then DK1u=Tu and DK2u=DK(Tu). As for the notion of twice colocally weakly differentiable maps, there is a relation between weak higher-order covariant derivative and higher-vector bundle morphism.
Proposition 3.8**.**
Let u:M→N be an k times colocally weakly differentiable map.
Then the colocally weakly differentiable map DKk−1u:M→(⊗k−1T∗M)⊗TN has a colocal weak covariant derivative DKku:M→T∗M⊗(⊗k−1T∗M)⊗TN
if and only if the map DKk−1u:M→(⊗k−1T∗M)⊗TN has a colocal weak derivative TDKk−1u:TM→T((⊗k−1T∗M)⊗TN), and almost everywhere in M
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover, for every j∈N∗, the map DKku is j times colocally weakly differentiable if and only if
the map DKk−1u is (j+1) times colocally weakly differentiable, and almost everywhere in M
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
In a second step, we assume that (M,gM) and (N,gN) are Riemannian manifolds with Levi–Civita connection maps respectively. The metrics on vectors of TM and TN induce a metric (⊗kgM∗)⊗gN on (⊗kT∗M)⊗TN. This metric can be computed for every k-linear map ξ:×kTxM→TyN by
[TABLE]
where (ei)1≤i≤m is an orthonormal basis in πM−1({x}) with respect to the Riemannian metric gM.
We are now able to define higher-order Sobolev spaces.
Definition 3.3**.**
Let p∈[1,+∞).
A map u:M→N belongs to the kth order Sobolev space W˙k,p(M,N) whenever u is k times colocally weakly differentiable and ∣DKku∣(⊗kgM∗)⊗gN∈Lp(M).
First, we have a Rellich–Kondrashov type compactness theorem.
Proposition 3.9**.**
Let (uℓ)ℓ∈N be a sequence of k times colocally weakly differentiable maps from M to N and let v∈⋂j=1k−1W˙j,p(M,N).
If (N,d) is complete, if there exists p∈[1,+∞) such that
[TABLE]
then there is a subsequence (Tk−1uℓi)i∈N that converges to a measurable map υ:M→Mor(Tk−1M,Tk−1N) almost everywhere in M.
By relying recursively on the formulas (3.2) and (3.3), the boundedness of (DKkuℓ)ℓ∈N is related to the boundedness of the sequence (Tkuℓ)ℓ∈N and
thus, the sequence (Tk−1uℓ)ℓ∈N satisfies all the assumptions of the Rellich–Kondrashov compactness property for Sobolev maps [cvs]*proposition 3.4 and so the conclusion follows directly.
We also have a closure property in the particular case of bounded sequences in Sobolev spaces.
Proposition 3.10** (Weak closure property for higher-order Sobolev spaces).**
Let p∈[1,+∞).
Let (uℓ)ℓ∈N be a sequence of k times colocally weakly differentiable maps from M to N.
Assume that the sequence (Tk−1uℓ)ℓ∈N converges locally in measure to a measurable map υ:M→Mor(Tk−1M,Tk−1N) that covers a map u:M→N, that
[TABLE]
and, if p=1, that for every j∈{1,…,k}, the sequence (DKjuℓ)ℓ∈N is bilocally uniformly integrable.
Then u∈W˙k,p(M,N) and
[TABLE]
By relying recursively on the formulas (3.2) and (3.3) and applying the weak closure property for Sobolev maps [cvs]*proposition 3.8 to the sequence (Tk−1uℓ)ℓ∈N, we have u∈W˙k−1,p(M,N) and Tk−1u=υ. For the last inequality, we can proceed as in the proof of proposition 3.6, and so by first proving a lemma similar to lemma 3.7.
Lemma 3.11**.**
Let p∈[1,+∞). If u∈W˙k−1,p(M,N)∩W˙k,p(M,N), then the map ∣DKk−1u∣(⊗k−1gM∗)⊗gN belongs to W1,p(M) and almost everywhere in M
[TABLE]
where g1 is the Euclidean metric on R.
4. Chain rule for higher order colocally weakly differentiable maps
Since the chain rule is central in the definition of first-order colocal weak differentiability and since composition is a crucial tool in the theory of Sobolev maps, in particular, in the definition by embedding (1), we investigate under which condition the chain rule holds for higher-order colocally weakly differentiable maps: whether
for a k times colocally weakly differentiable map u:M→N and for a function f∈Cck(N,R), the composite function f∘u is k times weakly differentiable and whether we have Tk(f∘u)=Tkf∘Tku almost everywhere on the manifold M.
4.1. Failure of the chain rule for twice colocally weakly differentiable maps
The starting point of the analysis is that that the higher-order chain rule does not hold in general.
Example 4.1**.**
Let m∈N with m≥2 and let α>0. We define the function u:Rm∖{0}→R2 for each x∈Rm∖{0} by
[TABLE]
For every x∈Rm∖{0}, ∣Du(x)∣gm∗⊗g2=α∣x∣−α−1 and ∣D2u(x)∣gm∗⊗gm∗⊗g2≥α∣x∣−2α−2.
If α−1<m<2(α+1), then the map u is twice colocally weakly differentiable but if we take f∈Cc2(R2,R2) such that f=id on B2, f∘u=u on Rm∖{0} and so ∣D2(f∘u)∣gm∗⊗gm∗⊗g2=∣D2u∣gm∗⊗gm∗⊗g2 does not belong to Lloc1(Rm).
The crucial point in this example is that ∣D2u∣ is integrable on bounded sets on which the derivative ∣Du∣ is bounded, but is not integrable on bounded sets on which the map u itself is bounded.
4.2. Double norms for double vector bundles
In order to characterize the maps for which a chain rule holds, we introduce a notion
of norm for colocal weak derivatives of a bundle morphism.
Since Mor(T2M,T2N) does not carry a vector bundle structure over M×N, we cannot define a notion of norm on this space with respect to each fiber over M×N.
However, we define a notion of double norm on this space which is compatible with the double vector bundle structure.
To fix the idea, since πM2:T2M→M is not a vector bundle \citelist[bertram]§9.3[dieudonne]§16.15.7 and T2M is a double vector bundle, we first define this notion on T2M.
Definition 4.1**.**
A map [[⋅]]:T2M→R is a double seminorm on T2M whenever
- (a)
the map x∈M↦[[⋅]]x is continuous, where for every x∈M, [[⋅]]x is the restriction of [[⋅]] to the space Tx2M,
2. (b)
[[⋅]] is a seminorm on fibers over both the bundles (T2M,TπM,TM) and (T2M,πTM, TM), that is, for every e∈TM, the restriction of [[⋅]] to the fibers (TπM)−1({e}) or (πTM)−1({e}) is a seminorm.
Consequently, if [[⋅]] is a double seminorm on T2M, for every ν,μ∈T2M such that πTM(ν)=πTM(μ) and every λ∈R,
[TABLE]
where ⋅πTM is the vector bundle multiplication of (T2M,πTM,TM) [mackenzie]*§1, and
[TABLE]
where +πTM is the vector bundle addition of (T2M,πTM,TM) [mackenzie]*§1; and it satisfies the same properties if we consider instead the vector bundle operations ⋅TπM and +TπM of (T2M,TπM,TM).
Definition 4.2**.**
A map [[⋅]]:T2M→R is a double norm on T2M whenever
- (a)
[[⋅]] is a double seminorm on T2M,
2. (b)
[[⋅]] is maximal: for every double seminorm [[⋅]]′ on T2M, there exists a positive continuous function β∈C(M,R) such that for every ν∈T2M,
[TABLE]
The maximality implies that all double norms are locally equivalent.
Proposition 4.1**.**
There exists a double norm on T2M.
Sketch of the proof.
If M=Rm, then T2M=Rm×Rm×Rm×Rm and a canonical double seminorm [[⋅]]∗:T2M→R can be defined for every ν=(x,e1,e2,e12)∈T2M by
[TABLE]
One concludes by noting that for any double seminorm [[⋅]] on T2M, there exists C>0 such that for every ν∈T2M, [[ν]]≤C[[ν]]∗.
For a general manifold M, since for every x∈M, there exists a local trivialization (V,ψ) such that x∈V, the set V⊆M is open and
[TABLE]
is a diffeomorphism [dieudonne]*§16.15.7, the argument above gives in each local trivialization a canonical double seminorm.
These local double seminorms can then be patched together by a partition of unity.
∎
Remark 4.1**.**
The reader will observe that a double norm is a norm on fibers over non zero elements.
This implies that if ν∈T2M satisfies κM(ν)=ν and if
[[ν]]=0, then ν=0πM2(ν),
where 0πM2(ν) is the double zero, that is, the vector such that 0πTM(ν)=0TπM(ν) [mackenzie]*definition 1.1.
We will not rely on these properties because they fail for ktuple norms on ktuple vector bundles, see section 4.5 below.
Since Mor(T2M,T2N) has a double vector bundle structure, the definition and the existence of double norms can be obtained in a similar way on Mor(T2M,T2N).
Motivated by the chain rule, we just remark how double norms behaves under composition of double vector bundle morphisms.
Proposition 4.2**.**
Let K be a manifold of class C2.
For every compact subsets QM⊆M, QN⊆N and QK⊆K, there exists a constant C>0 such that for every υ∈(πM×N2)−1(QM×QN) and every ξ∈(πN×K2)−1(QN×QK) such that πN∘πM×N∘πT∗M⊗TN1∘ υ=πN∘πN×K∘πT∗N⊗TK1∘ξ, then
[TABLE]
Sketch of the proof.
If M=Rm and N=Rn, a canonical double seminorm [[⋅]]∗ on Mor(T2M,T2N) can be defined for every f∈Mor(T2M,T2N) by
[TABLE]
since for every ν=(x,e1,e2,e12)∈T2M,
f(ν)=(y,f1[e1],f2[e2],f12[e12]+f^12[e1,e2]),
where f1,f2,f12:Rm→Rn are linear and f^12:Rm×Rm→Rn is bilinear.
Then if K=Rk, for every f∈Mor(T2M,T2N) and h∈Mor(T2N,T2K), we have
[TABLE]
For any manifolds M, N and K, it suffices to prove the composition property in each local trivialization by using the one of the canonical double seminorm and then the maximal property of double norms.
∎
4.3. Chain rule for second order colocally weakly differentiable maps
In order to have a chain rule for twice colocally weakly differentiable maps, we assume an additional integrability condition on colocal weak derivatives of bundle morphisms in terms of a double norm. We also identify the class of maps to compose with the colocal weak derivative in order to have a chain rule.
For every map h:T∗M⊗TN→Rq, we denote by suppN(h) the support of h with respect to N, that is,
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.3**.**
Let u:M→N be a colocally weakly differentiable map.
The following statements are equivalent.
- (i)
For every f∈Cc2(N,R), the map f∘u is twice weakly differentiable,
2. (ii)
for every bundle morphism h∈C1(T∗M⊗TN,R) such that suppN(h) is compact, the map h∘Tu is weakly differentiable,
3. (iii)
the map u is twice colocally weakly differentiable and for all compact subsets K⊆M and L⊆N and every double norm [[⋅]] on Mor(T2M,T2N),
[TABLE]
We prove an intermediate result in order to prove this proposition.
Lemma 4.4**.**
If v∈Wloc2,1(M,Rq)∩L∞(M,Rq), if the bundle morphism w∈C1(T∗M⊗TRq, R) is such that suppRq(w) is compact, then w∘Tv is weakly differentiable.
We recall that the operator norm is defined for every ξ∈L(TxM,TyN) by
[TABLE]
where gM and gN are some Riemannian metrics on TM and TN respectively [docarmo]*§1.2 proposition 2.10.
Proof of lemma 4.4.
Without loss of generality, we can assume that q=1.
First, we assume that M=Ω is an open set of Rm.
By regularization theorem \citelist[brezis]*theorem 4.22[bogachev]*theorem 4.2.4[willem]*theorem 4.3.9, there exists a sequence (vℓ)ℓ∈N in Cc∞(Ω,R) that converges to v in Wloc2,1(Ω).
Moreover, there exists C>0 such that for every ℓ∈N, almost everywhere in Ω
[TABLE]
where gm and gq are the Euclidean metrics on Rm and Rq respectively.
By the classical Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality \citelist[gagliardo][nirenberg], we have ∣Dv∣gm∗⊗gq2∈Lloc1(Ω) and so the sequence (∣Dvℓ∣gm∗⊗gq2)ℓ∈N converges to ∣Dv∣gm∗⊗gq2 in Lloc1(Ω).
Hence, by Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, the sequence (∣T(w∘Tvℓ)∣L)ℓ∈N converges in Lloc1(Ω) and then by closing lemma [willem]*lemma 6.1.5, the map w∘Tv is weakly differentiable.
For a general manifold M, we apply the previous argument to every v∘ψ−1:ψ(V)⊆Rm→R with any local chart ψ:V⊆M→Rm. By a direct covering argument, we have thus that w∘Tv is weakly differentiable.
∎
Proof of proposition 4.3.
We first prove that (i) implies (ii).
Let (Ui)i∈I be an open cover of the target manifold N by sets given by lemma 2.3.
Let h∈C1(T∗M⊗TN,R) be a bundle morphism such that suppN(h) is compact.
Then there exist ℓ∈N∗ such that suppN(h)⊆⋃i=1ℓUi and a partition of unity (ηi)1≤i≤ℓ subordinate to the family (Ui)1≤i≤ℓ such that
[TABLE]
almost everywhere in M. By lemma 4.4, every term in the right sum is weakly differentiable and so h∘Tu is weakly differentiable.
Next, we prove that (ii) implies (iii).
First, let (Ui)i∈I be an open cover of N by sets given by lemma 2.3.
Let h∈Cc1(T∗M⊗TN,R).
Since the set supp(h) is compact, in particular, there exist ℓ∈N∗ and a finite partition of unity (ηi)1≤i≤ℓ subordinate to (Ui)1≤i≤ℓ such that almost everywhere in M
[TABLE]
By assumption Tφi∘Tu is weakly differentiable, and thus by the chain rule for weakly differentiable functions (see for example \citelist[willem]*theorem 6.1.13[eg]*theorem 4.2.4 (ii)), each term in the right sum is weakly differentiable, and so h∘Tu is weakly differentiable.
By proposition 2.1, there exists a measurable map T2u:M→Mor(T2M,T2N) such that for every h∈C1(T∗M⊗TN,R) such that h∘Tu∈Wloc1,1(M), we have almost everywhere in M
[TABLE]
We now prove that the integrability condition is satisfied.
Let (Ui)i∈I be an open cover of N by sets given by lemma 2.3.
Let K⊆M and L⊆N be two compact subsets.
Since the set L is compact, there exists ℓ∈N∗ such that L⊆⋃i=1ℓUi.
By construction, for every i∈{1,…,ℓ}, we have T2(φi∘u)=T2φi∘T2u almost everywhere in M and, by lemma 2.3, T2φi∗∘T2φi=id on (πN2)−1(Ui), and so
T2u=T2φi∗∘T2(φi∘u)
almost everywhere in u−1(Ui).
Since for every i∈{1,…,ℓ} we have φi∈Cc2(N,Rn), by proposition 4.2, there exist constants C1,…,Cℓ>0 such that almost everywhere in u−1(L)∩K
[TABLE]
If (ηj)j∈J is a partition of unity subordinate to an atlas ((ψj,Vj))j∈J of local charts of M, by the maximality property of double norms, there exists a positive continuous function β∈C(M×Rn,R) such that for every i∈{1,…,ℓ}, almost everywhere in M
[TABLE]
where gm and gn are the Euclidean metrics on Rm and Rn respectively.
Since for every i∈{1,…,ℓ}, φi∘u∈Wloc2,1(M,Rn)∩L∞(M,Rn), by the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality \citelist[gagliardo][nirenberg], [[T2(φi∘u)]]∈L1(u−1(L)∩K) and so
[TABLE]
Finally, we prove that (iii) implies (i).
We take a function θ∈Cc1([0,+∞),R) such that 0≤θ≤1 and θ=1 on [0,1].
Then for every ℓ∈N, we define the map θℓ:T∗M⊗TN→R for every y∈T∗M⊗TN by
[TABLE]
where ∣⋅∣gT∗M⊗TN is a norm induced by a Riemannian metric on T∗M⊗TN [docarmo]*§1.2 proposition 2.10.
Let f∈Cc2(N,R) and let K⊆M be a compact set.
For every ℓ∈N, we define f~ℓ=θℓ⋅(Tf).
Since the map f~ℓ:T∗M⊗TN→R is Lipschitz-continuous and its support is compact, f~ℓ∘Tu is weakly differentiable [cvs]*proposition 2.2 and there exist constants \Cla,\Clb,\Clc>0 such that for every ℓ∈N and almost everywhere in u−1(supp(f))∩K
[TABLE]
Since the sequence (∣T(f~ℓ∘Tu)∣L)ℓ∈N is bounded and uniformly integrable and since (f~ℓ∘Tu)ℓ∈N converges almost everywhere to Tf∘Tu in K⊆M, in view of the weak compactness criterion in L1(K) \citelist[bogachev]*corollary 4.7.19[brezis]*theorem 4.30, the sequence (T(f~ℓ∘Tu))ℓ∈N converges weakly to T2(f∘u) in L1(K) and T(f∘u) is weakly differentiable. Hence, the map f∘u is twice weakly differentiable.
∎
4.4. Sequences of maps having the chain rule property
Since the property f∘u is twice weakly differentiable for every f∈Cc2(N,R) is stronger than double differentiability, one can wonder whether using this stronger property in the definition of Sobolev maps might not lead to better spaces.
Although there is a closure property for such maps in terms of double norms, the next example shows that there is no closure property in terms of covariant derivatives, which are the quantities that can be controlled and observed in Riemmanian geometry.
Example 4.2**.**
Let m∈N with m≥3 and let α>0.
Let (uℓ)ℓ∈N be a sequence such that for every ℓ∈N, the map uℓ:Rm→S1⊆R2 is defined by
uℓ=(cos∘vℓ,sin∘vℓ),
where the function vℓ:Rm→R is defined for every x∈Rm by
[TABLE]
For every ℓ∈N, ∣Duℓ∣gm∗⊗gS1=∣Dvℓ∣gm∗⊗g1 and ∣DK(Tuℓ)∣gm∗⊗gm∗⊗gS1=∣D2vℓ∣gm∗⊗gm∗⊗g1.
The sequence (vℓ)ℓ∈N converges locally in measure to the map v:Brm→R defined for every x∈Brm∖{0} by v(x)=∣x∣−α.
If α<m−2, then the sequences (Duℓ)ℓ∈N and (DK(Tuℓ))ℓ∈N are bilocally uniformly integrable.
Every term of the sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N satisfies the second-order chain rule property and the sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N converges locally in measure to the map u=(cos∘v,sin∘v):Brm→S1.
However, if α>2m−2, the map u does not satisfy the second-order chain rule.
Indeed, if we take f∈C2(S1,R2) such that f=id on S1⊆R2, then for every x∈Rm∖{0}, we have
∣D2(f∘u)(x)∣gm∗⊗gm∗⊗g2≥α∣x∣−2α−2 and so ∣D2(f∘u)∣gm∗⊗gm∗⊗g2 does not belong to Lloc1(Brm).
In other words, the previous example exhibits a sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N satisfying the same assumptions on the sequences (Tuℓ)ℓ∈N and (DK(Tuℓ))ℓ∈N together with a second-order chain rule than those of proposition 3.4 but with a limit that does not have the second-order chain rule property.
In fact, given a sequence of measurable maps (uℓ)ℓ∈N such that for every f∈Cc2(N,R), f∘uℓ is twice weakly differentiable, the sequence ([[T2uℓ]])ℓ∈N has to be uniformly integrable.
4.5. Chain rule for higher order colocally weakly differentiable maps
Given a k times colocally weakly differentiable map u:M→N, we can also investigate whether for every f∈Cck(N,R), f∘u is k times weakly differentiable.
In a first step, the notion of double norm can be generalized to a notion of ktuple norm on kth order tangent bundles.
A map [[⋅]]:TkM→R is a ktuple seminorm on TkM if
- (i)
the map x∈M↦[[⋅]]\arrowvertTxkM is continuous,
2. (ii)
[[⋅]] is a seminorm on fibers over each of the k vector bundle structure.
For example, if M=Rm and Ik=2{1,…,k}∖∅, then the canonical ktuple seminorm is defined for every ν=(x,(eλ)λ∈Ik)∈TkM by
[TABLE]
where Pℓ({1,…,k})={λ={λ1,…,λℓ}∈2Ik:∪˙i=1ℓλi={1,…,k},∅∈λ} is the set of all partitions of {1,…,k} of length ℓ.
As for the canonical double seminorm, for every ktuple seminorm [[⋅]] on TkM, there exists C>0 such that for every ν∈TkM, [[ν]]≤C[[ν]]∗.
As a consequence, for any manifold M, there exists a ktuple norm on TkM defined as follows.
Definition 4.3**.**
A map [[⋅]]:TkM→R is a ktuple norm on TkM whenever
[[⋅]] is a seminorm on TkM,
[[⋅]] is maximal: for every ktuple seminorm [[⋅]]′ on TkM, there exists a positive continuous function β∈C(M,R) such that for every ν∈TkM,
[TABLE]
where πMk:TkM→M is the canonical submersion.
Remark 4.2**.**
Unlike the double norm, the ktuple norm is not a norm on fibers over non zero elements.
For example, if M=Rm, for every ν=(x,e1,e2,e3,e12,e23,e13,e123)∈T3M,
[TABLE]
In particular, if ν=(x,0,0,0,e,e,e,0), then πT2M(ν)=TπTM(ν)=T2πM(ν) and
[[ν]]∗=0 but ν=0πM3(ν) whenever e=0.
Since Mor(TkM,TkN) has a ktuple vector bundle structure, we can also define the notion of ktuple norm on this space.
For example, if M=Rm and N=Rn, a canonical ktuple norm [[⋅]]∗ on Mor(TkM,TkN) can be defined for every f∈Mor(TkM,TkN) by
[TABLE]
since for every ν∈TkM,
[TABLE]
where for every Λ∈Ik, for every 1≤i≤∣Λ∣ and every λ∈Pi(Λ), the map fλ:×iRm→Rn is i-linear.
In a second step, we state equivalent assertions to the chain rule for higher-order colocally weakly differentiable maps.
We recall that a locally integrable map u:M→R is k times weakly differentiable if for every x∈M, there exists a local chart ψ:V⊆M→Rm such that x∈V and the map u∘ψ−1 belongs to Wlock,1(ψ(V)).
For every map h:Mor(TkM,TkN)→Rq, we denote by suppN(h) the support of h with respect to N, that is,
suppN(h)=πN(πM×Nk(supp(h))),
where πM×Nk:Mor(TkM,TkN)→M×N is a natural submersion.
Proposition 4.5**.**
Let j∈{2,…,k}. Let u:M→N be a j times colocally weakly differentiable map.
The following statements are equivalent.
- (i)
For every f∈Cck(N,R), f∘u is k times weakly differentiable,
2. (ii)
for every f∈Ccj(N,R), f∘u is j times weakly differentiable and for every h∈Mor(Mor(TjM,TjN),R) of class Ck−j such that suppN(h) is compact, the map h∘Tju is (k−j) times weakly differentiable,
3. (iii)
the map u is k times colocally weakly differentiable and for all compact subsets K⊆M and L⊆N, for all ℓ∈{2,…,k}, for all ℓtuple norm [[⋅]] on Mor(TℓM,TℓN),
[TABLE]
Moreover, if for every f∈Cck(N,R), f∘u is k times weakly differentiable, then for all compact subsets K⊆M and L⊆N, for all jtuple norm [[⋅]] on Mor(TjM,TjN),
[TABLE]
To prove this proposition, we need similar intermediate results to those of proposition 4.3. In fact, we can state every intermediate results (lemmas 4.4 and 2.3) with all higher-order notions and then the proof of proposition 4.5 has the same structure.
If M is an open set of Rm and N=R, it is well known that the left composition does not operate on higher-order Sobolev spaces \citelist[adams][bourdaud]*théorème 3 (i)[dahlberg].
Thanks to proposition 4.5, we have some examples for which the chain rule does not hold by giving maps that belong to Wlock,1(Rm) but that do not satisfy the integrability condition in assertion (iii).
Example 4.3**.**
Let β>α>0. The function u:Rm→R is defined for every x∈Rm by
[TABLE]
If 0<α<m and 31(α−m+3)<β<31(3α−m+3), the map u belongs to Wloc3,1(Rm) but there exist γ>0 and δ>0 such that for almost every x∈u−1([−1,1])∩Bδm,
[TABLE]
Since there exists C>0 such that [[T3u]]≥C∣Du∣gm∗⊗g13 and since the map x∈Rm∖{0}↦∣x∣β−α−1 does not belong to L3(u−1([−1,1])∩Bδm), the map u does not satisfy the integrability condition in assertion (iii).
5. Back to the definition by embedding
5.1. Comparison with the intrinsic definition
Given an isometric embedding of the target manifold, we compare the notion of higher-order Sobolev spaces by embedding (1) and the intrinsic one (definitions 3.2 and 3.3).
Let k≥2.
We assume that (M,gM) and (N,gN) are Riemannian manifolds with the respective Levi–Civita connection maps.
For every q≥1, we denote by gq the Euclidean metric on Rq.
If the target manifold is compact, we characterize higher-order Sobolev spaces by embedding (1).
A measurable map u:M→N belongs to L∞(M,N) if
[TABLE]
where dN is the geodesic distance on N induced by the Riemannian metric gN, and for every p∈[1,+∞), we say that M has the Gagliardo–Nirenberg property \citelist[gagliardo][nirenberg]
if there exists a constant C>0 such that for every v∈W˙k,p(M,R)∩L∞(M,R) and for every j∈{1,…,k−1},
[TABLE]
Proposition 5.1**.**
Let ι∈Ck(N,Rν) be an isometric embedding and let p∈[1,+∞).
If M has the Gagliardo–Nirenberg property and if N is compact, then
[TABLE]
Without any assumptions on the manifolds, we begin by proving a lemma that concerns the notion of k times colocally weakly differentiable maps.
Lemma 5.2**.**
Let ι∈Ck(N,Rν) be an isometric embedding and let u:M→N be a measurable map.
If the map ι∘u is k times weakly differentiable, then the map u is k times colocally weakly differentiable.
In contrast with proposition 4.3, the hypotheses involve only a single embedding of class Ck.
Proof of lemma 5.2.
If the map ι∘u is weakly differentiable, then u is colocally weakly differentiable and
T(ι∘u)=Tι∘Tu almost everywhere in M [cvs]*proposition 1.9.
We then proceed by iteration. Let j∈{1,…,k−1} and let f∈Cc1(Mor(TjM,TjN),R).
Since ι is an embedding, Tjι:TjN→TjRν is also an embedding.
Hence, Tjι(TjN) has a tubular neighborhood in TjRν: there exists a vector bundle (E,πTjN,TjN) and an embedding ι~:E→TjRν such that ι~\arrowvertTjN=Tjι and ι~(E) is open in TjRν [hirsch]*theorem 4.5.2.
Thanks to the tubular neighborhood, there exists a map f~∈Cc1(Mor(TjM,TjRν),R) such that f~∘Tjι=f on Mor(TjM,TjN) (see for example proof of proposition 1.9 in [cvs]). In particular, almost everywhere in M
[TABLE]
Since Tj(ι∘u) is weakly differentiable, the map Tj(ι∘u) is colocally weakly differentiable and so f∘Tju is weakly differentiable. Finally, since Tjι∘Tju is weakly differentiable, Tj+1(ι∘u)=Tj+1ι∘Tj+1u almost everywhere in M [cvs]*proposition 1.5.
∎
Proof of proposition 5.1.
\resetconstant
On the one hand, let u∈W˙ιk,p(M,N).
By lemma 5.2, the map u is k times colocally weakly differentiable.
For every j∈{2,…,k}, since Tj(ι∘u)=Tjι∘Tju almost everywhere in M, there exists a constant \Clixaye>0 such that
[TABLE]
almost everywhere in M. Since ι∘u∈W˙k,p(M,Rν)∩L∞(M,Rν), by the Gagliardo–Nirenberg property (5.1),
for every j∈{1,…,k}, ∣DKj(ι∘u)∣(⊗jgM∗)⊗gν∈Ljkp(M).
As a consequence, by iteration and the previous inequality, u∈⋂j=1kW˙j,jkp(M,N).
On the other hand, let u∈⋂j=1kW˙j,jkp(M,N).
By definition 4.3 of ktuple norms and by Young’s inequality, for every j∈{2,…,k} and every compact subset K⊆M, there exists a constant \Clbeta>0 such that
[TABLE]
almost everywhere in K and so [[Tju]]∈Lloc1(M). Since the manifold N is compact by assumption, by the chain rule for higher-order colocally weakly differentiable maps (proposition 4.5), the map ι∘u is k times weakly differentiable.
Moreover, there exists a constant \Clpyejp>0 such that
[TABLE]
almost everywhere in M and since N is compact, ι∘u∈W˙k,p(M,Rν).
∎
Without the compactness and Gagliardo–Nirenberg assumption, proposition 5.1 is not true. Indeed, the embedded space in the intersection already fails for classical Sobolev maps between Euclidean spaces.
However, there exists an embedding such one inclusion always occurs.
Proposition 5.3**.**
Let p∈[1,+∞). If either k=2 or M has the Gagliardo–Nirenberg property, then there exists an isometric embedding ι∈Ck(N,Rν) such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
\resetconstant
If M has the Gagliardo–Nirenberg property, for every u∈W˙ιk,p(M,N), by lemma 5.2, the map u is k times colocally weakly differentiable.
If ι∈Ck(N,Rν) is an isometric embedding such that ι(N) is bounded, then ι∘u∈W˙k,p(M,Rν)∩L∞(M,Rν) and so u∈⋂j=1kW˙jkp(M,N) (as in the first part of the proof of proposition 5.1).
For example, by the Nash embedding theorem \citelist[nash54][nash56], such an embedding ι always exists.
If k=2, let ι1∈C2(N,Rν) be an isometric embedding given by Nash embedding theorem \citelist[nash54][nash56].
We define an isometric embedding ι2:Rν→R3ν for every t∈Rν by
[TABLE]
with λ,γ,μ∈R such that λ2+γ2μ2=1.
Then ι=ι2∘ι1:N→R3ν is an isometric embedding and the second fundamental form Aι:TN×TN→R3ν of ι [docarmo]*§6.2 satisfies for every v1,v2∈TN,
[TABLE]
where (ei)1≤i≤ν is the canonical basis of Rν.
So there exists \Clmnxjb>0 such that for every v∈TN,
[TABLE]
Finally, for every u∈W˙ι2,p(M,N), since ι is an isometric embedding, by orthogonal decomposition of TR3ν into TN and its orthogonal complement in TR3ν [docarmo]*§6.2, for almost every x∈M and every e1,e2∈TxM,
[TABLE]
Consequently, u∈W˙2,p(M,N) and since for almost every x∈M,
[TABLE]
where (ei)1≤i≤m is an orthonormal basis in πM−1({x}), u∈W˙1,2p(M,N).
∎
It turns out that the definition by embedding (1) and the intrinsic one may be different.
In general, we do not even know if one or another inclusion does occur, except in the particular case of k=2.
Proposition 5.4**.**
Let ι∈C2(N,Rν) be an isometric embedding and let p∈[1,+∞).
Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
For every u∈W˙ι2,p(M,N), by lemma 5.2, u is twice colocally weakly differentiable.
Since ι is an isometric embedding, by orthogonal decomposition of TRν into TN and its orthogonal complement in TRν [docarmo]*§6.2,
∣DK2u∣gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gN≤∣DK2(ι∘u)∣gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gν almost everywhere in M, and so u∈W˙2,p(M,N).
∎
5.2. Gagliardo–Nirenberg property
In view of proposition 5.1, if the target manifold is compact, we may ask if there exist some Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequalities \citelist[gagliardo][nirenberg] for the spaces W˙k,p(M,N) that can lead to
[TABLE]
In general, even if the target manifold is compact, there are no such inequalities.
A first striking fact is that the second-order energy can vanish for a nontrivial map.
Proposition 5.5**.**
Let p∈[1,+∞).
If N has at least one nontrivial closed geodesic, then there exists u∈W˙k,p(S1,N)∩L∞(S1,N) such that ∣DKku∣(⊗kgS1∗)⊗gN=0 almost everywhere in M but ∫S1∣Tu∣gS1∗⊗gNkp>0.
In particular, since a compact manifold has always at least one nontrivial closed geodesic [klingenberg], if N is compact, there are no Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequalities \citelist[gagliardo][nirenberg] for the spaces W˙k,p(S1,N).
Proof of proposition 5.5.
Let ℓ∈N∗ and let uℓ:S1→S1⊆C be defined for every θ∈[0,2π] by
uℓ(eiθ)=eiℓθ.
Let γ:S1→N be a nontrivial closed geodesic.
Since γ is a geodesic, we assume that for all y∈S1, ∣Tγ(y)∣gS1∗⊗gN=1.
Then u=γ∘uℓ is k times colocally weakly differentiable, it belongs to L∞(S1,N) and
∣DKku∣(⊗kgS1∗)⊗gN=0 almost everywhere in M
but
[TABLE]
Proposition 5.6**.**
Let p∈[1,+∞) so that 1≤2p<m and let r>0.
If N has at least one nontrivial bounded geodesic, then there exists u∈W˙2,p(Brm,N)∩L∞(Brm,N) such that ∫Brm∣Tu∣gm∗⊗gN2p=+∞.
If ι∈C2(N,Rν) is an isometric embedding given by proposition 5.3, it follows that
[TABLE]
and if N is compact, by propositions 5.1 and 5.4, the strict inclusion occurs for any embedding ι.
Proof of proposition 5.6.
Let α>0.
We define the function v:Brm∖{0}→R for every x∈Brm∖{0} by
v(x)=∣x∣−α.
Let γ:R→N be a nontrivial bounded geodesic.
Since γ is a geodesic, we assume that for all y∈R, ∣Tγ(y)∣gS1∗⊗gN=1.
Then u=γ∘v is twice colocally weakly differentiable, ∣Tu∣gm∗⊗gN=∣Tv∣gm∗⊗g1 and since γ is a geodesic, almost everywhere in Brm∖{0}
[TABLE]
If (2+α)p<m<2p(α+1), then u∈W˙2,p(Brm,N) but u∈/W˙1,2p(Brm,N).
∎
For other manifolds M and N and p∈[1,+∞), it leads to the following open question and the answer involves in particular the geometry of M and N.
Open question 5.1**.**
If the manifolds M and N, k≥2 and p∈[1,+∞) do no satisfy the hypotheses of propositions 5.5 and 5.6, does exist a constant C>0 such that
for every u∈W˙k,p(M,N)∩L∞(M,N), for every j∈{1,…,k−1},
[TABLE]
5.3. Problem of density of smooth maps
In this part, we remark that intrinsic definitions 3.2 and 3.3 and proposition 5.1 give rise to new open questions whether the manifolds M and N are compact.
In view of proposition 5.1, given a map u∈W˙k,p(M,N), we may ask whether there exists a sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N⊆W˙ιk,p(M,N) that converges strongly to u in W˙k,p(M,N) [cvs]*definition 4.1, that is, the sequence (Tkuℓ)ℓ∈N converges to Tku locally in measure and the sequence (∣DKkuℓ∣(⊗kgM∗)⊗gN)ℓ∈N converges to ∣DKku∣(⊗kgM∗)⊗gN in Lp(M).
In view of the strong density in Sobolev spaces between manifolds (see for example \citelist[bethuel][bpvs][hl]), we may also ask whether there exists a map u∈W˙ιk,p(M,N) that cannot be approximated by smooth maps in W˙ιk,p(M,N) but that can be in W˙k,p(M,N).
For instance, the hedgehog map uh:Bm→Sm−1 defined for every x∈Bm∖{0} by uh(x)=∣x∣x belongs to Wιk,p(Bm,Sm−1) for kp<m but uh cannot be strongly approximated by maps in C∞(Bm,Sm−1) for kp≥m−1 since the identity map on Sm−1 does not have a continuous extension to Bm with values into Sm−1 \citelist[bz]§II[su]§4 example.
For the notion of intrinsic higher-order Sobolev maps, the space is larger than the one by embedding (proposition 5.1) but the notion of convergence is weaker. However, even if the question of strong density is still open, the necessary and sufficient condition that appears with definition by embedding [bpvs]*theorem 1 is necessary for the intrinsic one.
We prove the results for the case k=2 but we note that those results extend to higher-order.
For q∈[1,+∞), we denote by ⌊q⌋ the integer part of q and by π⌊q⌋(N) the ⌊q⌋th homotopy group of N. For instance, if π⌊q⌋(N)≃{0}, then every continuous map f:S⌊q⌋→N on the ⌊q⌋-dimensional sphere is homotopic to a constant map.
Proposition 5.7**.**
Let M,N be two smooth connected compact Riemannian manifolds and let p∈[1,+∞) so that 1≤2p<m.
- (i)
If for every u∈W˙2,p(M,N), there exists a sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N in C∞(M,N) such that the sequence (Tuℓ)ℓ∈N converges to Tu locally in measure and such that the sequence (∣DK2uℓ∣gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N is bounded in Lp(M), and if 2p∈/N, then π⌊2p⌋(N)≃{0}.
2. (ii)
If for every u∈W˙2,p(M,N), there exists a sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N in C∞(M,N) such that the sequence (T2uℓ)ℓ∈N converges to T2u locally in measure and such that the sequence (∣DK2uℓ∣gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N converges to ∣DK2u∣gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gN in Lp(M), and if 2p∈N, then π2p(N)≃{0}.
As a consequence, if m−1<2p<m, since πm−1(Sm−1)≃{0}, there is no weakly bounded sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N in W˙2,p(Bm,Sm−1) such that (Tuℓ)ℓ∈N converges to Tuh locally in measure and if m−1≤2p<m, the map uh cannot be strongly approximated by smooth maps in W˙2,p(Bm,Sm−1).
Lemma 5.8**.**
Let N be a smooth connected compact Riemannian manifold and let p∈[1,k).
Let (uℓ)ℓ∈N be a sequence in C∞(Sk,N) and let u∈W˙2,p(Sk,N).
- (i)
If 2p≥k, if the sequence (Tuℓ)ℓ∈N converges to Tu locally in measure and if the sequence (∣DK2uℓ∣gk+1∗⊗gk+1∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N is bounded in Lp(Sk), then the sequence (∣Tuℓ∣gk+1∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N is bounded in L2p(Sk).
2. (ii)
If 2p≥k, if the sequence (T2uℓ)ℓ∈N converges to T2u locally in measure and if the sequence (∣DK2uℓ∣gk+1∗⊗gk+1∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N converges to ∣DK2u∣gk+1∗⊗gk+1∗⊗gN in Lp(Sk),
then the sequence (∣Tuℓ∣gk+1∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N converges to ∣Tu∣gk+1∗⊗gN in L2p(Sk).
Since Sobolev spaces between Riemannian manifolds do not form a vector space, it is not surprising that there is no some equivalence between both assertions in the previous lemma.
Lemma 5.9** (Poincaré inequalities).**
Let M be a smooth connected compact Riemannian manifold and let μ be the measure associated to the Riemannian metric on M.
Let p∈[1,m) and let q∈[1,m−pmp].
Let ε>0.
There exists C>0 such that for every map v∈W1,p(M) and every measurable subset A⊆M such that μ(A)>ε,
[TABLE]
Proof.
\resetconstant
By the classical Poincaré inequality on compact Riemannian manifolds [hebey]*proposition 3.9, there exists a constant \Clpoin>0 such that for every v∈W1,p(M),
[TABLE]
By Hölder’s inequality applied to the second term, for every measurable subset A⊆M such that μ(A)>ε, we have
[TABLE]
and so
[TABLE]
Proof of lemma 5.8.
\resetconstant
Let μ be the measure associated to the Riemannian metric on the sphere Sk⊆Rk+1.
Since the sequence (Tuℓ)ℓ∈N converges to Tu locally in measure in assertions (i) and (ii), there exist ε>0 and γ>0 such that for every ℓ∈N,
[TABLE]
For every ℓ∈N, by lemma 3.7, ∣Tuℓ∣gk+1∗⊗gN∈W1,p(Sk) and almost everywhere in Sk
[TABLE]
So by the Poincaré inequality (lemma 5.9), there exists \Clalpha>0 such that for every ℓ∈N,
if Aℓ={x∈Sk:∣Tuℓ(x)∣gk+1∗⊗gN≤γ},
[TABLE]
If assumptions of assertion (i) or (ii) are satisfied, by previous inequality (5.2), the sequence (∣Tuℓ∣gk+1∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N is bounded in L2p(Sk).
We assume now that assumptions of assertion (ii) are satisfied.
Since the sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N converges to u locally in measure, by weak closure property in Sobolev spaces [cvs]*proposition 3.8, u∈W˙1,2p(Sk,N). In particular, ∣Tu∣gk+1∗⊗gN∈L2p(Sk).
Since u∈W˙1,p(Sk,N)∩W˙2,p(Sk,N), by lemma 3.7, ∣Tu∣gk+1∗⊗gN∈W1,p(Sk) and so by Sobolev inequalities on compact Riemannian manifolds [hebey]*theorem 3.5,
there exists \Clsob>0 such that for every ℓ∈N,
[TABLE]
By inequality (5.2), the sequence (∣Tuℓ∣gk+1∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N is bounded in L2p(Sk), and so by Hölder’s inequality, bounded in Lp(Sk).
Since the sequence (∣DK2uℓ∣gk+1∗⊗gk+1∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N is bounded in Lp(Sk), and by lemma 3.7, the sequence (∣Tuℓ∣gk+1∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N is bounded in W1,p(Sk).
By Rellich–Kondrashov embedding theorem for Sobolev maps on compact Riemannian manifolds [aubin]*theorem 2.34 (a), and since the sequence (∣Tuℓ∣gk+1∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N converges to ∣Tu∣gk+1∗⊗gN in measure, the sequence (∣Tuℓ∣gk+1∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N converges to the map ∣Tu∣gk+1∗⊗gN in Lp(Sk).
Since (T2uℓ)ℓ∈N converges to T2u locally in measure, the sequence (T∣Tuℓ∣gk+1∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N converges to T∣Tu∣gk+1∗⊗gN locally in measure. Furthermore, for every ℓ∈N,
[TABLE]
By Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem [bogachev]*theorem 2.8.5, the sequence
(T(∣Tuℓ∣gk+1∗⊗gN−∣Tu∣gk+1∗⊗gN))ℓ∈N converges to [math] in Lp(Sk).
Hence, the sequence (∣Tuℓ∣gk+1∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N converges to ∣Tu∣gk+1∗⊗gN in W1,p(Sk), and so in L2p(Sk) by the Sobolev inequality.
∎
Proof of proposition 5.7.
We first give the proof when M=B⌊2p⌋+1×L.
If π⌊2p⌋(N)≃{0}, then there exists a smooth map f:S⌊2p⌋→N which is not homotopic to a constant map in C0(S⌊2p⌋,N).
We define the map u:M→N for every x=(x′,x′′)∈B⌊2p⌋+1×L by u(x)=f(∣x′∣x′).
We observe that there exists a constant C>0 such that for every x∈(B⌊2p⌋+1∖{0})×L, ∣DK2u(x)∣gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gN≤C/∣x′∣2, and thus u∈W˙2,p(M,N).
We first show that the assumptions of assertion (i) cannot be satisfied. Otherwise, since for every ℓ∈N,
[TABLE]
by Fatou’s lemma, for almost every x′′∈L and almost every r∈(0,1), up to a subsequence, the sequence ((∣DK2uℓ∣gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gN)\arrowvertSr⌊2p⌋×{x′′})ℓ∈N is bounded in Lp(Sr⌊2p⌋).
By lemma 5.8 (i), for almost every x′′∈L and almost every r∈(0,1), the sequence ((∣Tuℓ∣gM∗⊗gN)\arrowvertSr⌊2p⌋×{x′′})ℓ∈N is bounded in L2p(Sr⌊2p⌋).
Hence, for almost every x′′∈L and almost every r∈(0,1), the sequence ((uℓ)\arrowvertSr⌊2p⌋×{x′′})ℓ∈N is bounded in W˙1,2p(Sr⌊2p⌋,N) and since the homotopy classes are preserved by weakly bounded sequence in W˙1,2p(Sr⌊2p⌋, N) [whi]*theorem 2.1,
the map u\arrowvertSr⌊2p⌋×{x′′} is homotopic to a constant map, and so the map f also.
We now show that the assumptions of assertion (ii) cannot be satisfied. Otherwise, since for every ℓ∈N,
[TABLE]
up to a subsequence, for almost every x′′∈L and almost every r∈(0,1), the sequence
((∣DK2uℓ∣gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gN)\arrowvertSr2p×{x′′})ℓ∈N converges to (∣DK2u∣gM∗⊗gM∗⊗gN)\arrowvertSr2p×{x′′} in Lp(Sr2p).
By lemma 5.8 (ii), for almost every x′′∈L and almost every r∈(0,1), the sequence ((∣Tuℓ∣gM∗⊗gN)\arrowvertSr2p×{x′′})ℓ∈N converges to (∣Tu∣gM∗⊗gN)\arrowvertSr2p×{x′′} in L2p(Sr2p).
Hence, for almost every x′′∈L and almost every r∈(0,1), the sequence ((uℓ)\arrowvertSr2p×{x′′})ℓ∈N converges to u\arrowvertSr2p×{x′′} in W˙1,2p(Sr2p,N) [cvs]*proposition 4.4 and since the homotopy classes are preserved by strong convergence in W˙1,2p(Sr2p,N) [white], the map u\arrowvertSr2p×{x′′} is homotopic to a constant map, and so the map f also.
For a general manifold M, we start from a counterexample u:B⌊2p⌋+1×Sm−⌊2p⌋−1→N to a Sobolev map on the whole of M.
Indeed, there is a map Φ:Bm→Rm which maps diffeomorphically some subset A⊂Bm to B⌊2p⌋+1×Sm−⌊2p⌋−1 (A is a tubular neighborhood of an (m−⌊2p⌋−1)–dimensional sphere, with S0={−1,1}),
Φ(Bm∖A)⊂(R⌊2p⌋+1∖{0})×Rm−⌊2p⌋−1
and Φ is constant near ∂Bm. The map u∘Φ is constant near the boundary and can thus be transported and extended to any m–dimensional manifold, giving the required counterexample.
∎
For the notion of intrinsic higher-order Sobolev spaces, if the target manifold is compact, the space is also larger than the one by embedding (proposition 5.1). In this case, the condition π⌊kp⌋(N)≃{0} which is necessary and sufficient in the definition by embedding [bpvs]*theorem 1 is also necessary.
Proposition 5.10**.**
Let M,N be two smooth connected compact Riemannian manifolds and let p∈[1,+∞) so that 1≤kp<m.
- (i)
If for every u∈W˙k,p(M,N), there exists a sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N in C∞(M,N) such that the sequence (Tk−1uℓ)ℓ∈N converges to Tk−1u locally in measure and such that the sequence (∣DKkuℓ∣(⊗kgM∗)⊗gN)ℓ∈N is bounded in Lp(M), and if kp∈/N, then π⌊kp⌋(N)≃{0}.
2. (ii)
If for every u∈W˙k,p(M,N), there exists a sequence (uℓ)ℓ∈N in C∞(M,N) such that the sequence (Tkuℓ)ℓ∈N converges to Tku locally in measure and such that the sequence (∣DKkuℓ∣(⊗kgM∗)⊗gN)ℓ∈N converges to ∣DKku∣(⊗kgM∗)⊗gN in Lp(M), and if kp∈N, then πkp(N)≃{0}.
To prove this proposition, we can also state a similar lemma to lemma 5.8.
Lemma 5.11**.**
Let N be a smooth connected compact Riemannian manifold and let p∈[1,∞) so that (k−1)p<q.
Let (uℓ)ℓ∈N be a sequence in C∞(Sq,N) and let u∈W˙k,p(Sq,N).
- (i)
If kp≥q, if the sequence (Tk−1uℓ)ℓ∈N converges to Tk−1u locally in measure and if the sequence (∣DKkuℓ∣(⊗kgq+1∗)⊗gN)ℓ∈N is bounded in Lp(Sq), then the sequence (∣Tuℓ∣gq+1∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N is bounded in Lkp(Sq).
2. (ii)
If kp≥q, if the sequence (Tkuℓ)ℓ∈N converges to Tku locally in measure and if the sequence (∣DKkuℓ∣(⊗kgq+1∗)⊗gN)ℓ∈N converges to ∣DKku∣(⊗kgq+1∗)⊗gN in Lp(Sq), then the sequence (∣Tuℓ∣gq+1∗⊗gN)ℓ∈N converges to ∣Tu∣gq+1∗⊗gN in Lkp(Sq).
To prove such a lemma, we can use Poincaré inequalities (lemma 5.9) recursively and lemma 3.11. The structure of the proof of proposition 5.10 is then the same as the one of proposition 5.7.
References