This paper investigates properties of anisotropic Orlicz-Sobolev spaces for vector functions, establishing a variational framework for Lagrangian systems with conditions ensuring well-defined and differentiable functionals.
Contribution
It introduces a variational setting for Lagrangian systems within anisotropic Orlicz-Sobolev spaces and provides conditions for the functional's proper mathematical behavior.
Findings
01
Properties of anisotropic Orlicz and Orlicz-Sobolev spaces are characterized.
02
A variational framework for certain Lagrangian systems is developed.
03
Conditions for the functional to be well-defined and differentiable are established.
Abstract
In this paper we study some properties of anisotropic Orlicz and anisotropic Orlicz-Sobolev spaces of vector valued functions for a special class of G-functions. We introduce a variational setting for a class of Lagrangian Systems. We give conditions which ensure that the principal part of variational functional is finitely defined and continuously differentiable on Orlicz-Sobolev space.
Equations372
dtdLv(t,u(t),u˙(t))=Lx(t,u(t),u˙(t)),t∈(a,b)
dtdLv(t,u(t),u˙(t))=Lx(t,u(t),u˙(t)),t∈(a,b)
I(u)=∫IF(t,u,u˙)dt
I(u)=∫IF(t,u,u˙)dt
LG(I,RN)={u:I→RN:∫IG(u)dt≤∞}.
LG(I,RN)={u:I→RN:∫IG(u)dt≤∞}.
∥u∥LG=inf{α>0:∫IG(αu)dt≤1}.
∥u∥LG=inf{α>0:∫IG(αu)dt≤1}.
W1LG(I,RN)={u∈LG(I,RN):u˙∈LG(I,RN)}
W1LG(I,RN)={u∈LG(I,RN):u˙∈LG(I,RN)}
∥u∥W1LG=∥u∥LG+∥u˙∥LG
∥u∥W1LG=∥u∥LG+∥u˙∥LG
∥u∥1,G,Ω=∥(u,Du)∥G,Ω.
∥u∥1,G,Ω=∥(u,Du)∥G,Ω.
WA1(Ω)={u∈Ω→R measurable :u,∣∇u∣∈LA},
WA1(Ω)={u∈Ω→R measurable :u,∣∇u∣∈LA},
∣x∣→∞lim∣x∣G(x)=∞,
∣x∣→∞lim∣x∣G(x)=∞,
Δ2
Δ2
∇2
∇2
G(x)={0∣x∣2−1∣x∣≤1∣x∣>1
G(x)={0∣x∣2−1∣x∣≤1∣x∣>1
G(αx)≤αG(x),
G(αx)≤αG(x),
αG(x)≤G(αx),
0<α≤β⟹G(αx)≤G(βx).
0<α≤β⟹G(αx)≤G(βx).
⟨a,x0⟩+b=G(x0) and ⟨a,x⟩+b≤G(x).
⟨a,x0⟩+b=G(x0) and ⟨a,x⟩+b≤G(x).
G(μ(I)1∫Iudt)≤μ(I)1∫IG(u)dt.
G(μ(I)1∫Iudt)≤μ(I)1∫IG(u)dt.
G(αx)≤K1(α)G(x)
G(αx)≤K1(α)G(x)
G(αx)≤Cα+K1(α)G(x).
G(αx)≤Cα+K1(α)G(x).
G∗(y):=x∈RNsup{⟨x,y⟩−G(x)}.
G∗(y):=x∈RNsup{⟨x,y⟩−G(x)}.
∀x,y∈RN⟨x,y⟩≤G(x)+G∗(y).
∀x,y∈RN⟨x,y⟩≤G(x)+G∗(y).
g(x)={0∞∣x∣≤1∣x∣>1
g(x)={0∞∣x∣≤1∣x∣>1
G∗(x,y)=41x2+43(x+y)(4x+y)31.
G∗(x,y)=41x2+43(x+y)(4x+y)31.
G1≺G2⟺∃M≥0∃K>0∀∣x∣≥MG1(x)≤G2(Kx)
G1≺G2⟺∃M≥0∃K>0∀∣x∣≥MG1(x)≤G2(Kx)
G1≺≺G2⟺∀α>0∣x∣→∞limG1(x)G2(αx)=∞.
G1≺≺G2⟺∀α>0∣x∣→∞limG1(x)G2(αx)=∞.
G1≺G2⇒G2∗≺G1∗.
G1≺G2⇒G2∗≺G1∗.
∣x∣p≺G≺∣x∣q.
∣x∣p≺G≺∣x∣q.
G(x)≤CK1M1−q∣x∣q,q=log2(K1).
G(x)≤CK1M1−q∣x∣q,q=log2(K1).
G(x)≥C(2K2)−q∣x∣q,p=1+log2(K2)1
G(x)≥C(2K2)−q∣x∣q,p=1+log2(K2)1
LG(I,Rn)={u:I→Rn:u - measurable ∫IG(u)dt<∞}.
LG(I,Rn)={u:I→Rn:u - measurable ∫IG(u)dt<∞}.
∥u∥LG=inf{α>0:∫IG(αu)dt≤1}.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Full text
Anisotropic Orlicz-Sobolev spaces of vector valued functions and Lagrange equations
M. Chmara
and
J. Maksymiuk
Department of Technical Physics and Applied Mathematics, Gdańsk University of
Technology, Narutowicza 11/12, 80-952 Gdańsk, Poland
In this paper we study some properties of anisotropic Orlicz and anisotropic Orlicz-Sobolev spaces
of vector valued functions for a special class of G-functions. We introduce a variational setting
for a class of Lagrangian Systems. We give conditions which ensure that the principal part of
variational functional is finitely defined and continuously differentiable on Orlicz-Sobolev space.
In this paper we make some preliminary steps for variational analysis in anisotropic
Orlicz-Sobolev spaces of vector valued functions. We consider the Euler-Lagrange equation
[TABLE]
where Lagrangian is of the form L(t,x,v)=F(t,x,v)+V(t,x).
If F(v)=21∣v∣2 then the equation (1) reduces to u¨(t)+∇V(t,u(t))=0.
One can
consider more general case F(v)=ϕ(∣v∣), where ϕ is convex and nonnegative. In the above
cases F does not depend on v directly but rather on its norm ∣v∣ and the growth of F is the
same in all directions, i.e. F has isotropic growth. Equation (1) with Lagrangian
L(t,x,v)=p1∣v∣p+V(t,x) has been studied by many authors under different conditions. The
classical reference is [1]. The isotropic Orlicz-Sobolev space setting was considered in
[2].
We are interested in anisotropic case. This means that F depends on all components of v not only
on ∣v∣ and has different growth in different directions. A simple example of such function is
F(v)=∑i=1N∣vi∣pi or F(v)=∑i=1Nϕi(∣vi∣), where ϕi are
N-functions. We wish to consider more general situation. We assume that F:[a,b]×RN×RN→R satisfies
(F1)
F∈C1,
2. (F2)
∣F(t,x,v)∣≤a(∣x∣)(b(t)+G(v)),
3. (F3)
∣Fx(t,x,v)∣≤a(∣x∣)(b(t)+G(v)),
4. (F4)
G∗(Fv(t,x,v))≤a(∣x∣)(c(t)+G∗(∇G(v))).
where a∈C(R+,R+), b,c∈L1(I,R+) and G:RN→R is a G-function.
Conditions (F1)–(F4) are direct generalization of standard growth conditions from
[1] (see also [2]).
We show (see Theorem 5.7) that under these conditions the functional
I:W1LG→R given by
[TABLE]
is continuously differentiable.
We restrict our considerations to a special class of G-functions. Here G:Rn→[0,∞)
is convex, G(−x)=G(x), supercoercive, G(0)=0 and satisfies Δ2 and ∇2
conditions. We define the anisotropic Orlicz space to be
[TABLE]
The Orlicz space LG equipped with the Luxemburg norm
[TABLE]
is a reflexive Banach space. An important example of Orlicz space is classical Lebesgue Lp
space, defined by G(x)=p1∣x∣p. In this case, the Luxemburg norm and the standard Lp
norm are equivalent. Therefore, Orlicz spaces can be viewed as a straightforward generalization of
Lp spaces.
Properties of N-functions and of Orlicz spaces of real-valued functions has been studied in great
details in monographs [3, 4, 5] and [6]. The standard references
for vector-valued case are [7, 8, 9] and [10, 11] for
Banach-space valued functions. In [7, 8] author considers a class of G-functions
together with a uniformity conditions which, for example excludes the function G(x)=∑∣xi∣pi unless 1<p1=⋯=pN<∞. Moreover G is not neccessairly assumed to be an even
function. As was pointed out in [11], if G is not even then LG is no longer a
vector space (see also [10, Example 2.1]).
Our strong conditions on G allow us to work in Orlicz spaces without worry about some
technical difficulties arising in general case. For example, it is well known that the set
LG(I,RN) is a vector space if and only if G satisfies Δ2 condition. Otherwise
LG is only a convex set. Another difficulty is the convergence notion. In Lebesgue spaces
∥un−u∥Lp→0 means simply ∫∣un−u∣p→0. For arbitrary G-function G, convergence
in Luxemburg norm is not equivalent to ∫G(un−u)dt→0 unless G satisfies Δ2. The
Δ2 condition is also crucial for separability and reflexivity of LG.
The main consequence of anisotropic nature of G is the lack of monotonicity of the norm. It is no
longer true that ∣u∣≤∣v∣ implies ∥u∥LG≤∥v∥LG. In anisotropic case, standard
dominance condition ∣un∣≤f does not implies convergence in LG norm and must be
replaced by G(un)≤f (see Theorem 3.14).
Following [10] we show that for every G we consider there exist p,q∈(1,∞) such
that Lq↪LG↪Lq. If G(x)=∑∣xi∣pi
then LG can be identified with the product of Lpi but in many cases an
anisotropic Orlicz Space is not equal to the space Lp1×Lp2×...×LpN (see Example 3.23).
To give a proper variational setting for equation (1) we introduce a notion of an
anisotropic Orlicz-Sobolev space W1LG of vector-valued functions. It is defined to be
[TABLE]
with the norm
[TABLE]
To the authors best knowledge there is no reference for the case of anisotropic norm and
vector-valued functions of one variable. The references for other cases are
[2, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19].
In [9] and [18] the space H0(G,Ω), Ω⊂Rn is defined
as a completion of C01(Ω,Rn) under norm ∥u∥H0(G,Ω)=∥Du∥G,Ω.
It is classical result due to Trudinger H0(G,Ω)↪LA(Ω), where A is
some N-function (see also Cianchi [14]).
In [17] and [19] the anisotropic Orlicz-Sobolev space W1LG is defined for
G-function G:Rn+1→[0,∞] as a space of weakly differentiable functions
u:Rn⊃Ω→R such that (u,D1u,D2u,...,Dnu) belongs to the Orlicz space
generated by G. A norm for W1LG is given by
[TABLE]
In [12] we can find definition of isotropic Orlicz-Sobolev space of real valued
functions
[TABLE]
where LA is Orlicz Space and A is an N-function.
In [2] the isotropic Orlicz-Sobolev space if vector-valued functions is
defined to be a space of absolutely continuous functions u:[0,T]→Rd such that u and
u˙ belongs to Orlicz space generated by an N-function. Similar treatment can be found in
[20].
2. G-functions
Let ⟨⋅,⋅⟩ denote the standard inner product on RN and ∣⋅∣ is the
induced norm. We assume that G:RN→[0,∞) satisfies the following conditions:
(G1)
G(0)=0,
2. (G2)
G is convex,
3. (G3)
G is even,
4. (G4)
G is supercoercive:
[TABLE]
5. (G5)
G satisfies the Δ2 condition:
[TABLE]
6. (G6)
G satisfies the ∇2 condition:
[TABLE]
A function G is a G-function in the sense of Trudinger [9]. In general, G-function can
be unbounded on bounded sets and need not satisfy conditions
(G4)–(G6) but only limx→∞G(x)=∞. A G-function of
one variable is called N-function. Some typical examples of G are
(1)
G(x)=p1∣x∣p, 1<p<∞
2. (2)
G(x)=∑i=1NGpi(xi), 1<pi<∞
3. (3)
G(x)=(x1−x2)2+x24
A function G can be equal to zero in some neighborhood of [math]. So that a function
[TABLE]
is also admissible. Conditions Δ2 and ∇2 implies that G is of polynomial growth
(see Lemma 2.4 below and [3]). A function f:R2→Rf(x)=e∣x∣−∣x∣−1 does not satisfy Δ2.
Since G is convex and finite on Rn, G is locally Lipschitz and therefore continuous. Note
that for every x∈RN
[TABLE]
We obtain immediately that G is non-decreasing along any half-line through the origin i.e. for
every x∈RN
[TABLE]
Our assumptions on G imply that for every x0∈RN there exists a∈RN and b∈R
such that for all x∈RN
[TABLE]
From this, we can easily obtain the Jensen integral inequality. Let I⊂R be a finite
interval and let u∈L1(I,RN). Then
[TABLE]
We will often make use of the following simple observation.
Proposition 2.1**.**
For all α∈R there exists K1(α)>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all ∣x∣≥M1.
In fact, the above proposition provides a characterization of Δ2 (see [7, 11]).
It follows that for every α∈R there exists Cα>0 such that for x∈RN
[TABLE]
We recall a notion of Fenchel conjugate. Define G∗:RN→[0,∞) by
[TABLE]
A function G∗ is called Fenchel conjugate of G. As an immediate consequence of definition we
have the so called Fenschel inequality:
[TABLE]
Consider arbitrary f:RN→[0,∞). It is obvious that the conjugate function
f∗ is always convex. But in general f∗ need not be continuous, finite or coercive, even
if f is. From the other hand, it is well known that if f is convex and l.s.c. then
f∗≡∞ and (f∗)∗=f.
Example 2.2**.**
(1)
If
[TABLE]
then g∗(x)=∣x∣.
Note that g and g∗ are G-functions but do not satisfy our assumptions.
2. (2)
If G(x)=p1∣x∣p, then G∗(x)=q1∣x∣q, p1+q1=1.
3. (3)
If G(x)=∑i=1NGi(xi) then G∗(x)=∑i=1NGi∗(xi).
4. (4)
If G(x,y)=(x−y)2+y4, then
[TABLE]
More information on general theory of conjugate functions can be found in standard books on convex
analysis, see for instance [21, 22].
If a function G:Rn→[0,∞) satisfies conditions (G1)–(G6) then
the same is true for its conjugate G∗. This is main reason we want to restrict class of
considered functions.
Theorem 2.3**.**
If G satisfies conditions (G1)–(G6) then G∗ also satisfies
(G1)–(G6) and (G∗)∗=G.
Proof.
It is evident that G∗ satisfies (G1), (G2) and (G3).
It is well known that under our conditions,
G∗ is finite (proposition 1.3.8, [21]),
G∗ is supercoercive (proposition 1.3.9, [21]) and
G∗ satisfies (G5) and (G6) (remark 2.3, [10]).
Corrollary [21, cor. 1.3.6] gives (G∗)∗=G.
∎
In order to compare growth rate of G-functions we define two relations. Let G1 and G2 be
G-functions. Define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
For conjugate functions we have (see [3, thm. 3.1])
[TABLE]
Obviously G1≺≺G2 implies G1≺G2. Assumption (G4) implies
∣x∣≺≺G. It is true that ∣x∣≺G holds under weaker assumption: G(x)→∞.
Note that, if p>1 then ∣x∣≺≺∣x∣p. Hence, if ∣x∣p≺G then ∣x∣≺≺G. Since G satisfies (G5) and (G6) we have the following bounds for the
growth of G.
Set C=G(M1). By induction, if ∣x∣≤2nM1 then G(x)≤K1nC. For ∣x∣≥M1 choose n such that 2n−1M1≤∣x∣≤2nM1. Then n−1≤log2(∣x∣/M1) and
G(x)≤CK11+log2(∣x∣/M1). Therefore, for ∣x∣≥M1,
[TABLE]
This proves that G≺∣x∣q. Choose r>0 such that if x∈G−1(G(M1)) then
∣x∣≤r. Set M=rM1. Again, by induction, for ∣x∣≥K2kM we have (2K2)kC≤G(x).
This implies
[TABLE]
whenever ∣x∣≥MK2. Hence ∣x∣p≺G.
∎
Immediately from the above we get ∣x∣q−1q≺G∗≺∣x∣p−1p.
3. Orlicz spaces
Let I⊂R be a finite interval. The Orlicz space LG=LG(I,Rn) is defined to
be
[TABLE]
As usual, we identify functions equal a.e. For an arbitrary G-function f:Rn→[0,∞)
which does not satisfies Δ2 the set Lf is not a linear space but only a convex
set. In fact, it is well known that the set Lf is linear space if and only if a
G-function f satisfies Δ2 condition.
For u∈LG define:
[TABLE]
The function ∥⋅∥LG is called the Luxemburg norm. It is easy to see that
[TABLE]
since G satisfies Δ2. Moreover
[TABLE]
Remark 3.1**.**
All properties of LG remains true for LG∗, since G and G∗
belongs to the same class of functions.
Theorem 3.2**.**
If G:Rn→[0,∞) satisfies (G1)–(G6), then
(LG(I,Rn),∥⋅∥LG) is a normed linear space.
Proof.
We first prove that LG is a linear space. Since G is continuous and satisfies Δ2,
we get
[TABLE]
where I1={t∈I:∣u(t)∣≤M1}. Hence, if u∈LG then αu∈LG for all α∈R. For every u,v∈LG and α,β∈R, by
(G2) and Proposition 2.1, we have
[TABLE]
Hence αu+βv∈LG.
Now we show that ∥⋅∥LG is a norm on LG.
It is evident that if u=0 then ∥u∥LG=0. Suppose u=0. There exists I1⊂I
with positive measure and ε>0 such that for all t∈I1, ∣u(t)∣≥ε.
For every t∈I1 there exists αt≥1 and yt∈Rn, ∣yt∣=ε such that
u(t)=αtyt. For all k>0 we have by (2) that G(αtyt/k)≥G(yt/k). Hence
[TABLE]
where G(ε/k)=inf{G(y):∣y∣=kε}. Since
G(ε/k)↗∞ as k↘0, there exists k0>0 such that for
all
k≤k0
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Finally, ∥u∥LG=0⟺u=0. Let u∈LG and α∈R. For α∈R:
[TABLE]
If ∥u∥LG=0 or ∥v∥LG=0, then it is obvious that
∥u+v∥LG≤∥u∥LG+∥v∥LG. Set α=∥u∥LG>0, β=∥v∥LG>0. Then
∫IG(αu)=1 and
∫IG(βv)=1. Thus
[TABLE]
As a consequence
[TABLE]
∎
An important example of Orlicz space is a classical Lebesgue space (Lp,∥⋅∥Lp),
p∈(1,∞) defined by G(x)=p1∣x∣p. It is easy to check that in this case
LG=Lp and the Luxemburg norm and standard Lp norm are equivalent. Two
important examples of Lebesgue spaces are not covered in our setting, namely L1 and
L∞. The space L1 is generated by f(x)=∣x∣ and the space
L∞ generated by f∗. We exclude these two spaces because we want to have only
reflexive spaces in the class of Orlicz spaces we consider.
It was pointed out by Schappacher [11, example 3.1] that if f is not bounded on bounded
sets (i.e. we allow f(x)=+∞ for some x∈Rn) then Lf need not be a linear
space, even if f satisfies Δ2 condition. To see this, consider
Let {un} be a Cauchy sequence in LG. Fix δ,ϵ>0 and choose α>0 such
that G(αx)>2/δ if ∣x∣≥ε. Let n0 be large enough so that
∥un−um∥LG≤α−1, i.e
[TABLE]
Put
E={t:G(α(un(t)−um(t)))>δ/2}.
Then
[TABLE]
that is μ(E)<2δ. It follows that
[TABLE]
Thus {un} is a Cauchy sequence in measure. This follows that there is a subsequence
{unk} convergent a.e. to some measurable function u.
Fix ε>0 and choose K such that for k,l>K, ∥unk−unl∥LG≤ϵ.
Then
[TABLE]
Letting nl→∞ we obtain by Fatou Lemma,
[TABLE]
Hence unk−u∈LG and consequently u∈LG. Since ε>0 is arbitrary,
∥unk−u∥LG→0 and ∥un−u∥LG→0.
∎
3.1. Convergence
Now we investigate relations between Luxemburg norm and the integral
[TABLE]
A functional RG is called modular. Theory of modulars is well known and is developed in more
general setting than ours. More information can be found in [23, 5].
For Lebesgue spaces a notions of modular and norm are indistinguishable because modular ∫I∣u∣pdt is equal to ∥u∥Lpp. But in Orlicz spaces relation between
RG and ∥⋅∥LG is more complex.
There is remarkable difference between isotropic and anisotropic spaces. It is clear that if
u,v∈Lp (or more generally in isotropic Orlicz space) then ∣u(t)∣≤∣v(t)∣ a.e.
implies ∥u∥Lp≤∥v∥Lp. In anisotropic case it is no longer true, even if
G(u(t))<G(v(t)). Next two examples illustrates this point.
Example 3.5**.**
Let G(x,y)=(x−y)2+y4, I=[0,1], u(t)=(2,0) and v(t)=(2,3/2). Then ∣u(t)∣<∣v(t)∣,
G(u(t))<G(v(t)) and RG(u)≤RG(v), but 2=∥u∥LG>∥v∥LG≃1.6.
Example 3.6**.**
Let G(x,y)=x2+y4, u(t)=(1,0) and v(t)=1011(cost,sint). In
LG([0,π],R2) we have
[TABLE]
but ∣u(t)∣<∣v(t)∣, G(u(t))<G(v(t)) for all t∈[0,π] and RG(u)<RG(v).
Definition 3.7**.**
We say that a subset K⊂LG is modular bounded if there exists C>0 such that
[TABLE]
Modular boundedness is sometimes called mean boundedness. It is evident that RG(u)≤∥u∥LG if ∥u∥LG≤1 and RG(u)>∥u∥LG if
∥u∥LG>1.
Lemma 3.8**.**
Let u∈LG.
(1)
If RG(u)≤C then ∥u∥LG≤max{C,1}.
2. (2)
If ∥u∥LG≤C then RG(u)≤μ(I)C+K1(C) for some
C>0.
Moreover, a set K⊂LG is modular bounded if and only if is norm bounded.
Proof.
Assume that RG(u)≤C. If C≤1 then ∥u∥LG≤1. If C>1 then
[TABLE]
This implies ∥u∥LG≤max{C,1}. For the second statement, assume ∥u∥LG≤C.
Then
[TABLE]
where I1={t∈I:∣u(t)∣≤M1C} and C>0. To finish the proof
observe that
[TABLE]
∎
Definition 3.9**.**
We say that a sequence of functions uk∈LG is modular convergent to u∈LG
if RG(uk−u)→0 as k→∞.
Modular convergence is sometimes called mean convergence. Norm convergence always implies modular
convergence. Let ∥uk∥LG→0 as k→∞. We can assume that ∀k∥uk∥LG≤1, then
[TABLE]
Hence 0≤RG(uk)≤∥uk∥LG. In general, converse is not true unless G satisfies
Δ2 condition. (see [3, 11]).
Theorem 3.10**.**
Norm convergence is equivalent to modular convergence.
Proof.
We need only to prove that modular convergence implies norm convergence. Fix ε>0 and
assume that {uk} is modular convergent to [math]. Define
[TABLE]
Since G satisfies Δ2, for all k>0 we have
[TABLE]
For sufficiently large k we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Finally, Lemma 3.8 shows that ∥uk∥LG≤Cε and hence
∥uk∥LG→0.
∎
It is standard result due to Riesz that for fn, f∈Lp
[TABLE]
Following lemmas establish Orlicz space version of this fact.
Lemma 3.11**.**
For every k>1 and 0<ε<k1 and x,y∈Rn
[TABLE]
where Cε=ε(k−1)1
Proof.
The proof is due to Brezis and Lieb [24] (see also [25]). We repeat the
proof. Let α=1−kε, β=ε, γ=ε(k−1).
Then α+β+γ=1 and x+y=αx+β(kx)+γ(Cεy). By convexity
[TABLE]
This implies that
[TABLE]
For the reverse inequality let
[TABLE]
Then x=α(x+y)+β(kx)+γ(−Cεy) and
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 3.12**.**
If un→u in LG then RG(un)→RG(u).
Proof.
In Lemma 3.11 set x+y=un, x=u, k=2. Then ε<1/2,
Cε=ε1 and
[TABLE]
Since un→u in LG, there exists n0 such that for n>n0 we have
∥un−u∥LG<ε2≤ε<1. Thus
[TABLE]
From this and inequality above we obtain
[TABLE]
Letting ε→0 we have RG(un)→RG(u).
∎
Norm convergence un→u in Lp implies that there exists a subsequence such that
unk→u a.e. and ∣unk∣≤∣h∣∈Lp. According to the above lemma, if un→u
in LG then:
(1)
Since LG↪L1 (see Lemma 3.20 below), we can
extract a subsequence unk such that
[TABLE]
2. (2)
Since RG(un−u)→0, G(un−u)→0 in L1. Thus we can extract a
subsequence {unk} such that
[TABLE]
3. (3)
Since RG(un)→RG(u), G(un)→G(u) in L1. Hence there exists a
subsequence {unk} such that
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.13**.**
Let {un}⊂LG and u∈LG. Suppose that
(1)
un→u a.e.
2. (2)
RG(un)→RG(u).
Then un→u in LG.
Proof.
This lemma was proved in [4, p. 83] for N-functions. Since G is convex, we get
21(G(un(t))+G(u(t)))−G(2un(t)−u(t))≥0. Continuity of G and un→u a.e.
implies
As a consequence we obtain dominated convergence theorem for anisotropic Orlicz spaces:
Theorem 3.14**.**
Suppose that {un}⊂LG and
(1)
un→u a.e.
2. (2)
there exists h∈L1 such that G(un)≤h a.e.
Then u∈LG and un→u in LG.
Proof.
Since G is continuous and un→u a.e., G(un)→G(u) a.e. It follows that G(u)≤h
a.e. Thus G(u)∈L1 and hence u∈LG. Since 0≥h±G(un) and h±G(un)→h±G(u) a.e., application of the Fatou Theorem yields
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
and RG(un)→RG(u). By the Lemma 3.13, un→u in LG.
∎
In the above theorem, assumption G(un)≤h can be replaced by G(un)≤G(h),
h∈LG.
Consider a sequence {un}⊂LG convergent pointwise to measurable function u. Under
standard dominance condition (i.e. ∣un∣≤∣g∣, g∈LG) it is not true in general
that un→u∈LG.
Example 3.15**.**
Let G(x,y)=x2+y4, I=(0,1), u(t)=(0,t−1/4) and h(t)=(t−3/8,0). Define
[TABLE]
Then un→u a.e., un,h∈LG and ∣un∣≤∣h∣ for every t. But
G(u(t))=t−1∈/L1(I,R). Hence u∈/LG.
Remark 3.16**.**
Modular RG is called monotone modular if ∣x∣≤∣y∣ implies RG(x)≤RG(y). If RG
is monotone modular then uk→u a.e and ∣uk∣≤∣g∣, g∈LG implies u∈LG and
∥uk−u∥LG→0. We refer the reader to [25] for more details.
3.2. Separability
For every u∈LG there exists a sequence of bounded functions {un}⊂LG
such that un→u in LG. For example, one can define
[TABLE]
In this case un→u a.e and G(un(t)−u(t))≤G(u(t)). Therefore, by Theorem
3.14 we get un→u in LG.
Fix ε>0. Suppose that u∈LG is bounded and ∣u(t)∣≤a. Set
C=sup{G(x/ε):∣x∣≤2a}.
By the Luzin theorem we can find a compact subset I1⊂I and a continuous function
u1:I→RN such that μ(I∖I1)≤1/C, u(t)=u1(t) for all t∈I1 and
∣u1(t)∣≤a. Now we get
[TABLE]
Hence ∥u−u1∥LG≤ε. For arbitrary v∈LG we can find a bounded u1∈LG such that ∥v−u∥LG≤ε/2. Thus
[TABLE]
For every continuous function there exists uniformly convergent sequence of polynomials with
rational coefficients. It is easy to check that uniform convergence implies norm convergence in
LG. This completes the proof.
∎
Remark 3.18**.**
It is well known that if G-function does not satisfies Δ2 condition then LG is
not separable. One can define a subspace EG as the closure of bounded functions
under Luxemburg norm. In this case, the space EG is a proper subset of LG and is always
separable (see [3, 11]).
3.3. Embeddings
We will use the symbols ↪ nad ↪↪ for, respectively,
continuous and compact embeddings. Recall that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Next two theorems provide a basic embeddings for Orlicz spaces.
Proposition 3.19**.**
Assume that F≺G. Then LG↪LF
and
[TABLE]
for some C>0.
Proof.
It is evident that LG⊂LF. Let u∈LG and set
[TABLE]
For every t∈I1, we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where C=sup{G(x):∣x∣≤M}. Since 1≤Cμ(I)+1, we have
[TABLE]
Finally,
[TABLE]
∎
It is easy to see that there exist constants C1,C2>0 such that ∥u∥L1≤C1∥u∥LG and ∥u∥LG≤C2∥u∥L∞.
Directly from Lemma 2.4 we obtain that Orlicz spaces can be viewed as
a spaces between two Lebesgue spaces determined by constants in Δ2 and ∇2
conditions.
Let {un} be a bounded sequence in LG. Since LG↪LF↪↪L1, {un} is bounded in LF and there
exists a subsequence, denoted again by {un}, convergent in L1. Hence
{un} converges in measure and thus is Cauchy in measure.
Fix ε>0 and let vn,k(t)=(un(t)−uk(t))/ε. Since {un} is bounded in
LF, there exist C>0 such that ∥un∥LF≤C. There exist M>0 such that if
∣x∣≥M, then
[TABLE]
Set F(M)=sup{F(x):∣x∣≤M},
[TABLE]
Since {un} is Cauchy in measure, there exists N such that if n, k≥N, then
μ(In,k′′)≤μ(In,k)≤2F(M)1. Observe that
(1)
if t∈I∖In,k then F(vn,k(t))≤1/2μ(I),
2. (2)
if t∈In,k′, then F(vn,k(t))≤41G(vn,k/C),
3. (3)
if t∈In,k′′, then F(vn,k(t))≤F(M).
It follows that for n, k≥N, we have
[TABLE]
Hence ∥un−uk∥LF≤ε and so {un} converges in LF.
∎
In some cases, LG is simply a product of Lpi(I,R), but there exists
Orlicz spaces which are not in the form Lp(I,R)×Lq(I,R) (cf. [9, pp.
18-20]).
Example 3.22**.**
Consider the Orlicz space LG=LG(I,R2) generated, by G(x)=∣x1∣p1+∣x2∣p2,
p1,p2>0. If u=(u1,u2)∈Lp1(I,R)×Lp2(I,R), then
[TABLE]
Conversely, if u=(u1,u2)∈LG then
[TABLE]
Hence u∈Lp1(I,R)×Lp2(I,R).
Example 3.23**.**
Consider the Orlicz space LG=LG(I,R2) generated, by G(x)=(x1−x2)4+x22.
From Lemmas 2.4 and 3.20 we obtain that
L4(I,R2)↪LG↪L2(I,R2). Let u1
be a function in L2(I,R) such that u1∈/Lp(I,R), for p>2. Set
u=(u1,u1), then
[TABLE]
but
[TABLE]
Therefore for every p>2 there exists u∈LG such that u∈/Lp(I,R2).
Moreover, u∈/Lp(I,R)×L2(I,R) for any p>2. From the other
hand if u=(u1,u2)∈L4(I,R)×L4(I,R) then u∈LG.
Therefore
[TABLE]
but LG cannot be identified with any
[TABLE]
3.4. Duality
Since LG↪Lp↪↪Lp0↪L1
(p given by ∇2) and 1<p0<p, it follows that LG is closed subspace of reflexive
space. Therefore LG is reflexive itself.
Theorem 3.24**.**
LG is a reflexive Banach space.
The rest of this section is devoted to proving that the general formula
for bounded linear operator F:LG→R is
[TABLE]
where v∈LG∗. We show that the dual space (LG)∗ can be identified
with the Orlicz space LG∗ generated by conjugate function G∗. On the other
hand, (G∗)∗=G and (LG)∗≃LG∗ implies reflexivity as well.
Lemma 3.25**.**
Every v∈LG∗ can be identified with the following functional Fv∈(LG)∗:
[TABLE]
Moreover ∥Fv∥≤2∥v∥LG∗.
Proof.
It is easy to see that Fv is linear. By the Hölder inequality we get
If v∈L1(I,Rn) is such that for each piecewise constant function u∈LG
satisfy
[TABLE]
then v∈LG∗ and ∥v∥LG∗≤M.
Proof.
Define an approximation
[TABLE]
Set vn=∑i=1nvn,iχEi. Let u∈LG be a simple function, define
approximation un of u in the same way. By Jensen inequality
[TABLE]
Hence ∥un∥LG≤∥u∥LG. A direct computation yields
[TABLE]
We can find for each vn,i a zn,i∈Rn such that
⟨zn,i,vn,i/M⟩=G(zn,i)+G∗(vn,i/M).
Suppose that ∑i=1nμ(Ei)G(zn,i)>1. Then there exists β<1 such that
∑i=1nμ(Ei)G(βzn,i)=1. Putting
[TABLE]
we obtain that ∫IG(u)dt≤1 and ∥u∥LG≤1. Therefore
[TABLE]
Now assume that μ(Ei)∑G(zn,i)≤1 and repeat the same computation with β=1 and
obtain
[TABLE]
In both cases we get
[TABLE]
Since vn→v a.e. we can conclude that G∗(v/M)≤limG∗(vn/M). By the Fatou
theorem we get
For every F∈(LG)∗ there exists unique v∈LG∗ such that for
every u∈LG
[TABLE]
Proof.
For a measurable subset E⊂I define χEN(x)=(χE,…,χE). Note that
χEN∈LG. Set
[TABLE]
For every sequence {Ei} of measurable and pairwise disjoint subsets of I such that
E=⋃Ei we have χEN=∑χEiN and
[TABLE]
Suppose that there exists a sequence {Ei} of measurable sets and δ>0 such that
μ(Ei)→0 and ∥χEiN∥LG>δ for all i. Then
[TABLE]
A contradiction. From inequality
[TABLE]
we obtain that if μ(Ei)→0 then ∣ϕ(Ei)∣→0. Thus a set function ϕ is
σ-additive and absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure.
It follows from the Radon-Nikodym theorem that there exists a function v∈L1(I,RN)
such that
[TABLE]
For every step function u=∑ciχEi, by linearity of F,
[TABLE]
By lemma 3.26 we get that v∈LG∗. Assume now that u is
bounded. Choose a sequence of step functions {un} such that
[TABLE]
where Ei are disjoint and
[TABLE]
Clearly, un→u a.e. and the sequence {un} is uniformly bounded. It follows that
[TABLE]
Suppose that u is an arbitrary function in LG. There exists a sequence {un} of
bounded functions which converges a.e. to u such that ∣un(t)∣≤∣u(t)∣ a.e. Thus
[TABLE]
It remains to show that
v is unique. Suppose that v1 and v2 represent F. Then we have
[TABLE]
for all u∈L∞. Thus v1=v2.
∎
As a consequence we obtain that LG∗≃(LG)∗.
Since G∗∗=G, we also get LG≃(LG∗)∗.
Remark 3.28**.**
If G-function does not satisfies Δ2 condition then
LG is not reflexive and (LG)∗ is not isomorphic to LG∗
(see
[3, 11]).
4. Orlicz-Sobolev spaces
The Orlicz-Sobolev space W1LG=W1LG(I,Rn) is defined to be
[TABLE]
For u∈W1LG we define
[TABLE]
Define W01LG=W01LG(I,Rn) as the closure of C01(I,Rn) in W1LG with
respect to the ∥⋅∥W1LG.
Theorem 4.1**.**
The space (W1LG,∥⋅∥W1LG) is a separable reflexive Banach space.
Proof is standard and will be omitted, see for instance [26]. If G(x)=p1∣x∣p, then
the Orlicz-Sobolev space W1LG coincides with the Sobolev space W1,p(I,Rn).
Observe that un→u in W1LG is equivalent to RG(un−u)→0 and
RG(u˙n−u˙)→0.
On W1LG one can introduce another norm (cf. [27]):
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.2**.**
A function ∥⋅∥1,W1LG is an equivalent norm on W1LG. Moreover
[TABLE]
Proof.
The proof that ∥⋅∥1,W1LG is a norm is similar to the proof of Theorem
3.2 and is left to the reader. For the other part, note that
[TABLE]
implies
[TABLE]
From this ∥u∥LG≤∥u∥1,W1LG and ∥u˙∥LG≤∥u˙∥1,W1LG and
finally, ∥u∥W1LG≤2∥u∥1,W1LG.
Let α=max{∥u∥LG,∥u˙∥LG}. Since ∥u∥LG,∥u˙∥LG≤α,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Using the above relations, we obtain
[TABLE]
This implies ∥u∥1,W1LG≤2α≤2∥u∥W1LG
∎
Since there exist p,q∈(1,∞) such that Lq↪LG↪Lp, the following continuous embeddings exist
[TABLE]
Using standard results from the theory of Sobolev spaces we get
(1)
W1LG(I,Rn)↪↪W1,1
2. (2)
W1LG(I,Rn)↪↪Lq, for all 1≤q≤∞
3. (3)
W1LG(I,Rn)↪↪C(I)
As a consequence we have
Theorem 4.3**.**
A function u∈W1LG is absolutely continuous. Precisely, there exist absolutely
continuous representative of u such that for all a,b∈I
[TABLE]
Directly from definition of W01LG we obtain important property of functions in W01LG.
Theorem 4.4**.**
If u∈W01LG then u=0 on ∂I.
Using embeddings mentioned above we have for every u∈W1LG
[TABLE]
Theorem 4.5** (Sobolev inequality).**
For every function u∈W1LG
[TABLE]
where uI=μ(I)1∫Iu.
Proof.
Since u is absolutely continuous, there exists t0∈I such that
u(t0)=μ(I)1∫Iu and for every t∈I we have
[TABLE]
By Jensen’s inequality,
[TABLE]
Integrating both sides over I we get
[TABLE]
Thus ∥u−uI∥LG≤μ(I)∥u˙∥LG
∎
In similar way we get
Theorem 4.6** (Poincare inequality).**
For every u∈W01LG
[TABLE]
It follows that one can introduce equivalent norm in W01LG:
[TABLE]
Every linear functional F on W01LG can be represented in the form
[TABLE]
Where v0,v1∈LG∗. Moreover,
[TABLE]
In the case of Sobolev space W1,p the proof is given in [26, proposition 8.14],
but it remains the same for Orlicz-Sobolev spaces. As was pointed out in [26], the first
assertion of the above proposition holds for every linear functional on W1LG.
5. Variational setting
In this section we examine the principal part
[TABLE]
of the variational functional associated with Euler-Lagrange equation
[TABLE]
where u:I→RN and the Lagrangian L:I×RN×RN→R is given by
L(t,x,v)=F(t,x,v)+V(t,x).
In definition of the Orlicz space we need not to assume that G is differentiable, but when we
consider the functional I we need it to show that I∈C1. Throughout this
section we will assume, in addition to (G1)–(G6), that G satisfies
(7)
G is of a class C1.
Remark 5.1**.**
Differentiability of f is not sufficient to differentiability of f∗. But if f is
finite, strictly convex, 1-coercive and differentiable then so is f∗. This result is in
close relation with Legendre duality (see [21, p. 239] and [1] for more
details).
It is well known that if G is continuously differentiable then for all x,y∈Rn
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Let y=x in (5). Then
⟨∇G(x),x⟩≤G(2x)−G(x).
Therefore, for all x∈RN
There exists a subsequence {unk} such that unk→u a.e., G(unk)→G(u)
a.e. and G(unk)≤h∈L1(I,R). By continuity of ∇G and G∗ we have
∇G(unk)→∇G(u) a.e. and
[TABLE]
Since G∗(∇G(x))≤G(2x),
[TABLE]
By dominated convergence theorem RG∗(∇G(unk))→RG∗(∇G(u)). Since
this holds for any subsequence of {un} we have that
[TABLE]
∎
As a direct consequence of the above lemma and Lemma 3.13 we obtain
Proposition 5.4**.**
[TABLE]
5.1. Case I
We shall first examine a special case F(t,x,v)=G(v), now functional (4) takes
the form
[TABLE]
Theorem 5.5**.**
I∈C1(W1LG,R). Moreover
[TABLE]
Proof.
The proof follows similar lines as [2, th. 3.2] (see also
[1, thm 1.4]).
First, note that u˙∈LG implies
[TABLE]
It suffices to show that I has at every point u directional derivative
I′(u)∈(W1LG)∗ given by (6) and that the mapping
I′:W1LG→(W1LG)∗, is continuous.
To finish the proof it suffices to show that if un→u in W1LG, then I′(un)→I′(u) in (W1LG)∗. Using Hölder inequality and
Proposition 5.4 we obtain
[TABLE]
∎
5.2. Case II
We turn to general case. Suppose that F:I×RN×RN→R satisfies
(F1)
F∈C1
2. (F2)
∣F(t,x,v)∣≤a(∣x∣)(b(t)+G(v)),
3. (F3)
∣Fx(t,x,v)∣≤a(∣x∣)(b(t)+G(v)),
4. (F4)
G∗(Fv(t,x,v))≤a(∣x∣)(c(t)+G∗(∇G(v))).
where a∈C(R+,R+), b,c∈L1(I,R+).
If G(v)=∣v∣p then conditions (F2), (F3) and (F4) take the standard
form (Theorem 1.4 from [1]). In [2] there are similar conditions
with G(v)=Φ(∣v∣), where Φ is an N-function. In this case, condition (F4) takes
the form ∣Fv(t,x,v)∣≤a~(∣x∣)(c~(t)+Φ′(∣u∣)). In
anisotropic case we need to use G∗, because vector valued G-function is not necessarily
monotone with respect to ∣⋅∣.
Directly from (F3), (F4) and Proposition 5.2 we have
Lemma 5.6**.**
If u∈W1LG, then Fx(⋅,u,u˙)∈L1
and Fv(⋅,u,u˙)∈LG∗.
It suffices to show that directional derivative I′(u)∈(W1LG)∗ exists, is
given by (8) and that the mapping I′:W1LG→(W1LG)∗ is
continuous.
Let u∈W1LG, φ∈W1LG∖{0}, t∈I, s∈[−1,1]. Define
[TABLE]
By (F3), continuity of φ, (7) and the
fact that u+sφ∈W1LG we obtain
[TABLE]
By the Fenchel inequality, (F4) and Lemma 5.6 we obtain
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
Consequently, I has a directional derivative and
[TABLE]
By Lemma 5.6, the Hölder inequality and (3) we get
[TABLE]
To finish the proof it suffices to show that I′ is continuous. Since un→u in
W1LG, it follows that un→u in LG, u˙n→u˙ in LG and
there exists M>0 such that ∥un∥W1LG<M.
By Lemma 3.12 we have G(u˙n)→G(u˙) in
L1(I,R). Hence
there exists a subsequence {unk} and h∈L1(I,R) such that
In the same way as in the proof of Lemma 5.3 we obtain
[TABLE]
By continuity of Fv we obtain
[TABLE]
for a.e t∈I and consequently
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
Application of Lemma 3.13 to RG∗ yields
∥Fv(⋅,un,un˙)−Fv(⋅,u,u˙)∥LG∗→0. By Hölder inequality
[TABLE]
Finally,
[TABLE]
∎
Bibliography27
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] J. Mawhin, M. Willem, Critical point theory and Hamiltonian systems, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989.
2[2] S. Acinas, L. Buri, G. Giubergia, F. Mazzone, E. Schwindt, Some existence results on periodic solutions of Euler-Lagrange equations in an Orlicz-Sobolev space setting, Nonlinear Anal. 125 (2015) 681–698.
3[3] M. A. Krasnoselskiĭ, J. B. Rutickiĭ, Convex functions and Orlicz spaces, P. Noordhoff Ltd., Groningen, 1961.
4[4] M. M. Rao, Z. D. Ren, Theory of Orlicz spaces, New York : M. Dekker, 1991.
5[5] M. M. Rao, Z. D. Ren, Applications of Orlicz spaces, M. Dekker, 2002.
6[6] R. A. Adams, Sobolev spaces, Academic Press, New York-London, 1975.
7[7] M. Skaff, Vector valued Orlicz spaces. I, Pacific J. Math. 28 (1969) 193–206.
8[8] M. Skaff, Vector valued Orlicz spaces. II, Pacific J. Math. 28 (1969) 413–430.