New characterizations of magnetic Sobolev spaces
Hoai-Minh Nguyen, Andrea Pinamonti, Marco Squassina, Eugenio Vecchi

TL;DR
This paper introduces two novel characterizations of magnetic Sobolev spaces using nonlocal functionals, extending classical results and analyzing convergence properties.
Contribution
It provides new nonlocal characterizations of magnetic Sobolev spaces for Lipschitz magnetic fields, linking to BBM formulas and classical Sobolev space work.
Findings
New characterizations of magnetic Sobolev spaces established
Convergence properties in almost everywhere and L^1 sense analyzed
Connections made to BBM formula and classical Sobolev spaces
Abstract
We establish two new characterizations of magnetic Sobolev spaces for Lipschitz magnetic fields in terms of nonlocal functionals. The first one is related to the BBM formula, due to Bourgain, Brezis, and Mironescu. The second one is related to the work of the first author on the classical Sobolev spaces. We also study the convergence almost everywhere and the convergence in appearing naturally in these contexts.
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.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Mathematical Physics Problems · Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations · Advanced Harmonic Analysis Research
New characterizations of magnetic Sobolev spaces
Hoai-Minh Nguyen
,
Andrea Pinamonti
,
Marco Squassina
and
Eugenio Vecchi
Department of Mathematics
EPFL SB CAMA
Station 8 CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
Dipartimento di Matematica
Università di Trento
Via Sommarive 14, 38050 Povo (Trento), Italy
Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Via dei Musei 41, I-25121 Brescia, Italy
Dipartimento di Matematica
Università di Bologna
Piazza di Porta S. Donato 5, 40126, Bologna, Italy
Abstract.
We establish two new characterizations of magnetic Sobolev spaces for Lipschitz magnetic fields in terms of nonlocal functionals. The first one is related to the BBM formula, due to Bourgain, Brezis, and Mironescu. The second one is related to the work of the first author on the classical Sobolev spaces. We also study the convergence almost everywhere and the convergence in appearing naturally in these contexts.
Key words and phrases:
Magnetic Sobolev spaces, new characterization, nonlocal functionals
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
49A50, 26A33, 82D99
A.P., M.S. and E.V. are members of Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM). E.V. receives funding from the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013/ under REA grant agreement No. 607643 (ERC Grant MaNET ‘Metric Analysis for Emergent Technologies’).
1. Introduction
In electromagnetism, a relevant role in the study of particles which interact with a magnetic field , , is played by the magnetic Laplacian [2, 26, 16]. This yields to nonlinear Schrödinger equations of the type which have been extensively studied (see e.g. [13, 1, 17, 15] and the references therein). The linear operator is defined weakly as the differential of the energy functional
[TABLE]
over complex-valued functions on . Here denotes the imaginary unit and the standard Euclidean norm of . Given a measurable function and given an open subset of , one defines as the space of complex-valued functions such that for the norm
[TABLE]
In [14], some physically motivated nonlocal versions of the local magnetic energy were introduced. In particular the operator is defined as the gradient of the nonlocal energy functional
[TABLE]
where . Recently, the existence of ground stated of was investigated in [12] via Lions concentration compactness arguments. In [28] a connection between the local and nonlocal notions was obtained on bounded domains, precisely, if is a bounded Lipschitz domain and , then for every it holds
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
being the unit sphere in and an arbitrary unit vector of . See also [23] for the general case of the -norm with as well as [24] where the limit as is covered. This provides a new characterization of the norm in terms of nonlocal functionals extending the results by Bourgain, Brezis and Mironescu [3, 4] (see also [11, 25]) to the magnetic setting. Let be a sequence of positive numbers converging to and less than and set
[TABLE]
where denotes the diameter of . We have and, for all
[TABLE]
Given a measurable complex-valued function, we denote
[TABLE]
The function also depends on but for notational ease, we ignore it. Assertion (1.1) can be then written as
[TABLE]
This paper is concerned with the whole space setting. Our first goal is to obtain formula (1.3) for and to provide a characterization of in terms of the LHS of (1.3) in the spirit of the work of Bourgain, Brezis and Mironescu.
Here and in what follows, a sequence of nonnegative radial functions is called a sequence of mollifiers if it satisfies the conditions
[TABLE]
In this direction, we have
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let be Lipschitz and let be a sequence of nonnegative radial mollifiers. Then if and only if and
[TABLE]
Moreover, for , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
In this paper, denotes the -Hausdorff measure of the unit sphere in .
The proof of Theorem 1.1 is given in Section 2.
Remark 1.1**.**
Similar results as in Theorem 1.1 hold for more general mollifiers with slight changes in the constants. See Remark 2.1 for details.
The second goal of this paper is to characterize in term of where, for ,
[TABLE]
This is motivated by the characterization of the Sobolev space provided in [5, 18] (see also [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22]) in terms of the family of nonlocal functionals which is defined by, for ,
[TABLE]
It was showed in [5, 18] that if , then if and only if ; moreover,
[TABLE]
Concerning this direction, we establish
Theorem 1.2**.**
Let be Lipschitz. Then if and only if and
[TABLE]
Moreover, we have, for ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Throughout the paper, we shall denote by a generic positive constant depending only on and possibly changing from line to line.
The proof of Theorem 1.2 is given in Section 3.
As pointed out in [13], a physically meaning example of magnetic potential in the space is
[TABLE]
which in fact fulfills the requirement of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 that is Lipschitz. Furthermore, in the spirit of [6], as a byproduct of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, for , if we have
[TABLE]
or
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
namely the direction of is that of the magnetic potential . In the particular case , this implies that is a constant function.
The versions of the above mentioned results are given in Sections 2 and 3. In addition to these results, we also discuss the convergence almost everywhere and the convergence in of the quantities appearing in Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 in Section 4.
The paper is organized as follows. The proof of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 are given in Sections 2 and 3 respectively. The convergence almost everywhere and the convergence in are investigated in Section 4.
2. Proof of Theorem 1.1 and its version
The proof of Theorem 1.1 can be derived from a few lemmas which we present below. The first one is on (1.7).
Lemma 2.1** (Upper bound).**
Let be Lipschitz and let be a sequence of nonnegative radial mollifiers. We have, for all ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since is dense in (cf. [16, Theorem 7.22]), using Fatou’s lemma, without loss of generality, one might assume that . Recall that
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
it suffices to prove that
[TABLE]
For a.e. , we have
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
This implies
[TABLE]
which yields, for with ,
[TABLE]
Since, for , in light of (1.4) and (2.1), we get
[TABLE]
we then derive from (2) that
[TABLE]
which is (2.2). ∎
We next establish the following result which is used in the proof of (1.6) and in the proof of Theorem 1.2.
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let , be Lipschitz, and let be a sequence of nonnegative radial mollifiers. Then
[TABLE]
Moreover, for any , there holds
[TABLE]
Throughout this paper, for , let denote the open ball in centered at the origin and of radius .
Proof.
Fix (arbitrary). Using the fact
[TABLE]
we have, for ,
[TABLE]
Here and in what follows, denotes a positive constant. On the other hand, we obtain, for ,
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
it follows from (2.7) that
[TABLE]
We have, by the definition of ,
[TABLE]
By the arbitrariness of we get
[TABLE]
which implies (2.5).
Assertion (2.6) can be derived as follows. We have, by Hölder’s inequality,
[TABLE]
Since, for every , there holds
[TABLE]
we get (2.6) from (2.9) and the arbitrariness of . ∎
We are ready to prove (1.6).
Lemma 2.3** (Limit formula).**
Let be Lipschitz and let be a sequence of nonnegative radial mollifiers. Then, for ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Lemma 2.1 and the density of in , one might assume that . From Lemma 2.2, it suffices to prove that, for ,
[TABLE]
Fix such that . Using (2.7) and (2.8), one derives that
[TABLE]
which yields
[TABLE]
On the other hand, we have
[TABLE]
and the fact that
[TABLE]
by the choice of . Combining (2.11), (2.12), and (2.13) yields (2.10). ∎
The following result is about uniform bounds for the integrals in (1.5).
Lemma 2.4**.**
Let be Lipschitz and let be a sequence of nonnegative radial mollifiers. Then if and
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be a sequence of nonnegative mollifiers with which is normalized by the condition . Set
[TABLE]
We estimate
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
By the change of variables and and using the inequality for all and applying Jensen’s inequality, we deduce that
[TABLE]
Since, for ,
[TABLE]
it follows that, for all ,
[TABLE]
Here and in what follows in this proof, denotes some positive constant independent of and . Taking into account the fact that , we obtain
[TABLE]
Combining (2.14), (2), (2.16) yields
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by Lemma 2.2 we have
[TABLE]
The conclusion now immediately follows from (2.17) and (2.18) after letting . ∎
We are ready to give the proof of Theorem 1.1.
Proof of Theorem 1.1. Theorem 1.1 is a direct consequence of Lemmas 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4. ∎
Remark 2.1**.**
Let be a sequence of non-negative radial functions such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.1 then holds for such a sequence provided that the constant in (1.7) is replaced by an appropriate positive constant independent of . This follows by taking into account the fact that, for ,
[TABLE]
For example, this applies to the radial sequence
[TABLE]
which provides a characterization of and yields
[TABLE]
Consider now the space (), endowed with the norm
[TABLE]
where is the Euclidean norm of and , denote the real and imaginary parts of respectively. We emphasize that this is not related to the -norm in . In what follows, we use this notation with and . Notice that whenever , which makes our next statements consistent with the case and being a real valued function. Also consistently with the previous definition. Define, for some ,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Using the same approach and technique, one can prove the following version of Theorem 1.1.
Theorem 2.1**.**
Let , be Lipschitz, and let be a sequence of nonnegative radial mollifiers. Then if and only if and
[TABLE]
Moreover, for , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for some positive constant depending only on and .
Remark 2.2**.**
Assume that is a positive constant such that, for all ,
[TABLE]
Then assertion (2.21) of Theorem 2.1 holds with .
3. Proof of Theorem 1.2 and its version
Let us set, for ,
[TABLE]
and denote by , . We have the following result which is a direct consequence of the theory of maximal functions, see e.g., [29, Theorem 1, page 5].
Lemma 3.1** (Maximal function estimate).**
There exists a universal constant such that, for all ,
[TABLE]
The following lemma yields an upper bound of in terms of the norm of in .
Lemma 3.2** (Uniform upper bound).**
Let be Lipschitz and . We have
[TABLE]
Proof.
By density of in , using Fatou’s lemma, we can assume that . For each , let us define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
Since and
[TABLE]
it follows that
[TABLE]
We are therefore interested in estimating the integral
[TABLE]
Let us now define
[TABLE]
Performing the change of variables , for and , yields
[TABLE]
where denotes the set
[TABLE]
Without loss of generality it suffices to prove that, for ,
[TABLE]
We have, by virtue of (2.3),
[TABLE]
Using the fact that if then either or , we derive that
[TABLE]
where the last inequality follows recalling that since then . As usual, by using the theory of maximal functions stated in Lemma 3.1, we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Assertion (3.1) follows from (3.3) and (3.4). The proof is complete. ∎
We next establish
Lemma 3.3** (Limit formula).**
Let be Lipschitz and . Then
[TABLE]
where is the constant defined in (1.2).
Proof.
By virtue of Lemma 3.2, for every and all , we have
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
it follows that, for every ,
[TABLE]
This implies, for and ,
[TABLE]
From (3.5) and (3.6), we derive that, for and ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Since is dense in , from (3.7) and (3.8), it suffices to prove the assertion for . This fact is assumed from now on.
Let be such that . We claim that, for every , there holds
[TABLE]
Without loss of generality, we can assume . Then, we aim to prove that
[TABLE]
where denotes the -th component of . To this end, we consider the sets
[TABLE]
Therefore, we obtain for a.e. (by (3.2) in the proof of Lemma 3.2) and
[TABLE]
where we have set
[TABLE]
and we have denoted the characteristic function. We have, by the theory of maximal functions,
[TABLE]
and, by a straightforward computation,
[TABLE]
The validity of Claim (3.9) with now follows from Dominated Convergence theorem since
[TABLE]
and, by a direct computation,
[TABLE]
Now, performing a change of variables we get
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Exploiting (3.9), we obtain
[TABLE]
On the other hand, since , we have
[TABLE]
Combining (3.10) and (3.11) yields
[TABLE]
In order to conclude, we notice the following, see (2.20),
[TABLE]
where is the constant defined in (1.2). ∎
We next deal with (1.8).
Lemma 3.4**.**
Let and let be Lipschitz. Then if
[TABLE]
Proof.
The proof is divided into two steps.
Step 1. We assume that . Set
[TABLE]
In light of (3.12), we obtain
[TABLE]
for some positive constant independent of . By Fubini’s theorem and by the definition of , we have
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
By virtue of inequality (2.6) of Lemma 2.4, we have
[TABLE]
which implies .
Step 2. We consider the general case. For , define by setting
[TABLE]
and denote
[TABLE]
Then, we have
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
Hence we obtain
[TABLE]
Applying the result in Step 1, we have and hence by Lemma 3.3,
[TABLE]
Combining (3.13) and (3.14) and letting , we derive that . The proof is complete. ∎
Remark 3.1**.**
Similar approach used for is given in [18].
Proof of Theorem 1.2. The limit formula stated in Theorem 1.2 follows by Lemma 3.3. Now, if , then (1.9) follows from Lemma 3.2. On the contrary, if and (1.8) holds, it follows from Lemma 3.4 that . ∎
Given a measurable complex-valued function, define, for ,
[TABLE]
We have the following -version of Theorem 1.2.
Theorem 3.1**.**
Let and let be Lipschitz. Then if and only if and
[TABLE]
Moreover, we have, for ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for some positive constant depending only on and .
Recall that is defined by (2.19).
Proof.
We have the maximal function estimates in the form
[TABLE]
for all and , either complex or real valued. It is readily checked (repeat the proof of [16, Theorem 7.22] with straightforward adaptations) that is dense in . Lemma 3.2 holds in the modified form
[TABLE]
for all and . To achieve this conclusion, it is sufficient to observe that, see (3.2),
[TABLE]
The rest of the proof follows verbatim. Lemma 3.3 holds in the form
[TABLE]
for every . In fact, mimicking the proof of Lemma 3.3, one obtains
[TABLE]
The final conclusion follows from (2.20). Lemma 3.4 can be modified accordingly with minor modifications, replacing with . ∎
4. Convergence almost everywhere and convergence in
Motivated by the work in [9] (see also [27]), we are interested in other modes of convergence in the context of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. We only consider the case . Similar results hold for with similar proofs. We begin with the corresponding results related to Theorem 1.1. For , set
[TABLE]
We have
Proposition 4.1**.**
Let be Lipschitz, , and let be a sequence of radial mollifiers such that
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Before giving the proof of Proposition 4.1, we recall the following result established in [10, Lemma 1] (see also[9, Lemma 2] for a more general version).
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let , and . We have
[TABLE]
Here and in what follows, for and , let denote the open ball in centered at and of radius . Moreover, denotes the maximal function of ,
[TABLE]
As a consequence of Lemma 4.1, we have
Corollary 4.1**.**
Let and be a nonnegative radial function such that
[TABLE]
Then, for a.e. ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Using polar coordinates, we have
[TABLE]
Applying Lemma 4.1, we obtain, for a.e.
[TABLE]
It follows from (4.1) that, for a.e. ,
[TABLE]
which is the conclusion. ∎
We are ready to give the proof of Proposition 4.1.
Proof of Proposition 4.1.
We first establish that, for a.e. ,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Here and in what follows in this proof, denotes a positive constant independent of . Indeed, we have, as in (2), for a.e. with ,
[TABLE]
This implies, for a.e. ,
[TABLE]
Applying Corollary 4.1, we have, for a.e. ,
[TABLE]
On the other hand, we get
[TABLE]
A combination of (4.4) and (4.5) yields (4.2). Set, for and ,
[TABLE]
By (2.7), one has, for and ,
[TABLE]
Using the theory of maximal functions, see e.g., [29, Theorem 1 on page 5], we derive from (4.2) that, for any and for any with ,
[TABLE]
Fix and let with . We derive from (4.6) that
[TABLE]
Since is arbitrary, one reaches the conclusion that . The proof is complete. ∎
We next discuss the corresponding results related to Theorem 1.2. Given , set, for ,
[TABLE]
We have
Proposition 4.2**.**
Let be Lipschitz and let . We have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Proof.
For , set
[TABLE]
and denote
[TABLE]
We first establish a variant of (4.7) and (4.8) in which is replaced by . Using (3.2), as in the proof of Lemma 3.2, we have, for any ,
[TABLE]
We derive that, for , and ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
On the other hand, one can check that, as in the proof of Lemma 3.3, for ,
[TABLE]
We derive from (4.9), (4.10), and (4.11) that, for ,
[TABLE]
and, we hence obtain, by the Dominate convergence theorem,
[TABLE]
since . A straightforward computation yields
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
We also have, for ,
[TABLE]
where is such that . Using Lemma 3.2 and the density of in , we derive that,
[TABLE]
The conclusion now follows from (4.12), (4.13), (4.14) and (4.15). ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] G. Arioli, A. Szulkin, A semilinear Schrödinger equation in the presence of a magnetic field , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 170 (2003), 277–295.
- 2[2] J. Avron, I. Herbst, B. Simon, Schrödinger operators with magnetic fields. I. General interactions , Duke Math. J. 45 (1978), 847–883.
- 3[3] J. Bourgain, H. Brezis, P. Mironescu, Another look at Sobolev spaces , in Optimal Control and Partial Differential Equations. A Volume in Honor of Professor Alain Bensoussan’s 60th Birthday (eds. J. L. Menaldi, E. Rofman and A. Sulem), IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2001, 439–455.
- 4[4] J. Bourgain, H. Brezis, P. Mironescu, Limiting embedding theorems for W s , p superscript 𝑊 𝑠 𝑝 W^{s,p} when s ↑ 1 ↑ 𝑠 1 s\uparrow 1 and applications , J. Anal. Math. 87 (2002), 77–101.
- 5[5] J. Bourgain, H.-M. Nguyen, A new characterization of Sobolev spaces , C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 343 (2006), 75–80.
- 6[6] H. Brezis, How to recognize constant functions. Connections with Sobolev spaces , Russian Mathematical Surveys 57 (2002), 693–708.
- 7[7] H. Brezis, New approximations of the total variation and filters in imaging , Rend Accad. Lincei 26 (2015), 223–240.
- 8[8] H. Brezis, H.-M. Nguyen, Non-local functionals related to the total variation and connections with image processing , preprint. http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08204
