Exact sequences on Powell-Sabin splits
J. Guzman, A. Lischke, M. Neilan

TL;DR
This paper develops exact sequence finite element spaces on Powell-Sabin triangulations, including $C^1$ spaces and divergence-free pairs, with commuting projections for stable Stokes problem discretization.
Contribution
It introduces new finite element spaces forming an exact sequence on Powell-Sabin splits, with compatible degrees of freedom and projections for fluid dynamics applications.
Findings
Constructed smooth finite element spaces forming an exact sequence
Developed degrees of freedom inducing commuting projections
Provided stable divergence-free pairs for the Stokes problem
Abstract
We construct smooth finite elements spaces on Powell-Sabin triangulations that form an exact sequence. The first space of the sequence coincides with the classical Powell-Sabin space, while the others form stable and divergence-free yielding pairs for the Stokes problem. We develop degrees of freedom for these spaces that induce projections that commute with the differential operators.
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 Numerical Analysis Techniques · Advanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics · Geometric and Algebraic Topology
\usetkzobj
all
Exact sequences on Powell-Sabin splits
J. Guzmán, A. Lischke, M. Neilan
Abstract.
We construct smooth finite elements spaces on Powell-Sabin triangulations that form an exact sequence. The first space of the sequence coincides with the classical Powell–Sabin space, while the others form stable and divergence–free yielding pairs for the Stokes problem. We develop degrees of freedom for these spaces that induce projections that commute with the differential operators.
1. Introduction
In the finite element exterior calculus [3, 4], sequences of discrete spaces that conform to the continuous de Rham complex are used to approximate solutions of the Hodge–Laplacian. While this framework has been successfully applied to the de Rham complex with minimal smoothness, recent progress has extended this methodology to higher order Sobolev spaces, i.e., spaces with greater smoothness. Such constructions naturally lead to structure–preserving discretizations for the Stokes/Navier–Stokes problem as well as problems in linear elasticity. For example, in recent work [9, 5] specific mesh refinements were used to build spaces of continuous piecewise polynomial -forms with continuous exterior derivative. In particular, it is shown in [9] that locally, smooth finite element spaces form an exact sequence on so–called Alfeld splits in any spatial dimension and for any polynomial degree. Global spaces in three dimensions are also constructed in [9], leading to stable finite element pairs for the Stokes problem (also see [18]). On the other hand, Christiansen and Hu [5] considered low-order approximations in any dimension. However they use different splits as they move along the de Rham sequence. For zero forms they use the finest split (e.g. in two dimensions it is the Powell-Sabin split). For forms, where is the dimension, they use the Alfeld split.
In this paper we construct smooth finite element spaces on Powell–Sabin splits that form an exact sequence. In the lowest order case, the first space in the sequences coincides with the piecewise quadratic Powell–Sabin space [16, 14]. However, we construct these spaces for any polynomial degree which appears to be new (cf. [10, 11]). We also define smooth spaces on Powell-Sabin splits for vector-valued polynomial spaces, define commuting projections onto the finite element spaces, and characterize the range and kernel of differential operators acting on the finite element spaces. The last two spaces in the sequence form stable finite element pairs for the Stokes problem that enforce the incompressibility constraint exactly; see [13].
A potential advantage of the use of Powell-Sabin splits is that the minimal polynomial degree of the global spaces is not expected to increase with respect to the spacial dimension. For example, the lowest polynomial degree of spaces on Powell–Sabin splits is two in both two and three dimensions. In contrast, the polynomial degree of smooth piecewise polynomials must necessarily increase with dimension on Alfeld splits. In two dimensions, piecewise polynomials have degree of at least three, whereas in three dimensions the minimal polynomial degree is five [1, 14]. These degree restrictions for conforming spaces also dictate the polynomial degrees of other finite element spaces on Alfeld splits. For example, finite element spaces that approximate the velocity in the Stokes problem must have degree of at least the spatial dimension [2, 18, 12].
Let us describe the Powell-Sabin split here. Let be a polyhedral domain, and let be a simplicial, shape–regular triangulation of . Then the Powell-Sabin triangulation is obtained as follows. We select an interior point of each triangle and adjoin this point with each vertex of . Next, the interior points of each adjacent pair of triangles are connected with an edge. For any that shares an edge with the boundary of , an arbitrary point on the boundary edge is selected to connect with the interior point of , so that each is split into six triangles. See Figure 1. In order for the resulting refinement to be well-defined, the interior points must be selected such that their adjoining edge intersects the edge shared by their respective triangles in , in which case is the Powell-Sabin refinement of . One common choice of interior points that produces a well-defined triangulation is the incenter of each , i.e., the center point of the largest circle that fits within [14]. We define the set to be the points of intersection of the edges of with the edges that adjoin interior points. An interesting fact about the meshes constructed is that the points in are singular vertices of the mesh ; see [17]. Hence, the last space in our sequence has to be modified accordingly; see the global space below.
Related to the current work is [19, 20], where conforming finite element pairs are proposed and studied for the Stokes problem on Powell–Sabin meshes. There it is shown that if the discrete velocity space is the linear Lagrange finite element space, and if the pressure space is the image of the divergence operator acting on the discrete velocity space, then the resulting pair is inf–sup stable. Note that, by design, the discrete pressure spaces in [19, 20], and correspondingly the range of the divergence operator, is not explicitly given. Practically, this issue is bypassed by using the iterative penalty method to solve the finite element method without explicitly constructing a basis of the discrete pressure space. In this paper we explicitly construct the discrete pressure space and characterize the space of divergence–free functions for any polynomial degree.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section we state some preliminary definitions and results on a single macro-triangle. In Section 3 we show that the smooth finite element spaces form an exact sequence on macro-triangles, and in Section 4 we develop degrees of freedom and projections for these spaces, and prove commutative properties of these projections. We extend these results to the global setting in Section 5 and derive similar results. We end the paper in Section 6 with some concluding remarks.
2. Spaces on one macro-triangle
Let be a triangle with vertices and , labelled counter–clockwise, and let be an interior point of . Denote the edges of by , labelled such that is not a vertex of , i.e., . We denote the outward unit normal of restricted to as and the tangent vector by . Let be an interior point of edge . We then construct the triangulation by connecting each to for ; see Figure 2. We let be the set containing the six boundary edges of . We also let and use the notation for , , where have as a vertex. We also set . Let and suppose that with common edge then we define the jump as follows
[TABLE]
where and is the outward pointing normal to perpendicular to . We see then that .
Let be the unique piecewise linear function on the mesh such that and on . We use the notation and note that
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
2.1. Local finite element spaces
In this section we consider three classes of finite element spaces each with varying smoothness on . First we define the differential operators
[TABLE]
and corresponding spaces, for an open bounded domain ,
[TABLE]
where denotes the outward unit normal of . We also denote by the space of square integrable functions on with vanishing mean.
For , let denote the space of polynomials of degree with domain , and we use the convention for . Define the piecewise polynomial space on the Powell–Sabin split as
[TABLE]
Remark 2.1*.*
For any satisfying , there exists such that .
Definition 2.2**.**
Let . The Nédélec spaces (of the second-kind) with and without boundary conditions are given by [15]
[TABLE]
Definition 2.3**.**
The Lagrange space (resp., ) is the subspace of (resp., ) consisting of continuous piecewise polynomials, i.e.,
[TABLE]
Remark 2.4*.*
Note the redundancies in notation, and .
Definition 2.5**.**
We define the smooth spaces with and without boundary conditions as
[TABLE]
3. Exact sequences on a macro triangle
The goal of this section is to derive exact sequences consisting of the piecewise polynomial spaces defined in the previous section. As a first step, we state a well-known result, that the Nédélec spaces form exact sequences [3, 4].
Proposition 3.1**.**
The following sequences are exact, i.e., the range of each map is the kernel of the succeeding map
[TABLE]
The goal now is to extend Proposition 3.1 to incorporate smooth spaces. An integral component of this extension is a characterization of the range of the divergence operator acting on the (vector-valued) Lagrange space. For example, it is known [17, Proposition 2.1] that if then is continuous at the vertices . In particular, this is because each of these vertices is a singular vertex, i.e., the edges meeting at the vertex fall on exactly two straight lines. Hence, in order to extend Proposition 3.1 and to characterize the range of , we will consider the spaces
[TABLE]
We then have that . In this section we show that is surjective, i.e., .
The proof of this result is based on several preliminary lemmas. As a first step, we state the canonical degrees of freedom for the lowest order Nédélec –conforming finite element space on the unrefined triangulation [15].
Lemma 3.2**.**
Any is uniquely determined by the values
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let and , then there exists and such that for any .
Proof.
Let be the linear function such that vanishes at the end points of . Because vanishes at the endpoints and is continuous at , there exists such that and . Note that for .
Next, using (2.1) and the Nédélec degrees of freedom stated in Lemma 3.2, we construct a unique function such that
[TABLE]
We set ,
[TABLE]
We then see that, on ,
[TABLE]
Therefore the function vanishes on , which implies that for some ; see Remark 2.1.
Finally we compute
[TABLE]
The proof is complete upon setting . ∎
Lemma 3.4**.**
For any with , there exists and such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Given , we define uniquely by the conditions
[TABLE]
We clearly have . Setting we have
[TABLE]
and therefore, by the construction of , . Furthermore, we have for by (2.2), and so in . It then follows that
[TABLE]
∎
We combine the previous two lemmas to obtain the following.
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let and . Then there exists and such that for any .
Our last lemma handles the lowest order case which follows from [9, Lemma 3.11].
Lemma 3.6**.**
Let with . Then there exists such that for any .
We can now state and prove the main result.
Theorem 3.7**.**
For each , with , there exists a such that .
Proof.
Let and suppose we have found for and for such that
[TABLE]
We can then apply Lemma 3.5 to find and such that
[TABLE]
Hence, by induction we can find for and for such that (3.3) holds. Therefore,
[TABLE]
We have that and hence by Lemma 3.6 we can find such that . The result follows after setting . ∎
We have several corollaries that follow from Theorem 3.7. First we show that the analogous result without boundary conditions is satisfied.
Corollary 3.8**.**
For each there exists a such that .
Proof.
Let . By Lemma 3.4 there exists and with
[TABLE]
We let and hence . We then have
[TABLE]
By Theorem 3.7 there exists a such that . Therefore, we have
[TABLE]
The proof is complete after we set . ∎
Corollary 3.9**.**
For each (resp., ) there exists a (resp., ) such that . Likewise for each (resp., ) there exists a (resp., ) such that .
Proof.
Let and we can apply Theorem 3.7 to find such that . However, clearly .
Next, let be divergence–free. Proposition 3.1 shows that there exists such that . Since is continuous and vanishes on the boundary, we have and . Thus by definition.
This proof applies mutatis mutandis to the statements without boundary conditions. ∎
Remark 3.10*.*
To summarize, Proposition 3.1, Theorem 3.7, and Corollaries 3.8 and 3.9 show that the following two sets of sequences are exact:
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
3.1. Dimension Counting
We can easily count the dimensions of the smooth spaces via the rank–nullity theorem and the exactness of sequences ():
[TABLE]
Now we easily find
[TABLE]
Thus, we have
[TABLE]
Similar calculations also show that
[TABLE]
4. Commuting Projections on a Macro Triangle
In this section we define commuting projections. In order to do so, we give the degrees of freedom for polynomials on a line segment. Let , and define the space
[TABLE]
The classical degrees of freedom for is given in the next result.
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let . A function is uniquely determined by the following degrees of freedom.
[TABLE]
Other degrees of freedom are given in the next lemma. Its proof is found in the appendix.
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let . A function is uniquely determined by the following degrees of freedom.
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.3**.**
Suppose that with . Then for some , and , .
Proof.
The statement is a direct consequence of Remark 2.1. Because and are continuous, it follows that is continuous, i.e., . We also have , and therefore
[TABLE]
Since is constant on , we find that is continuous. Because is positive in the interior of , we conclude that is continuous on . ∎
We are now ready to give degrees of freedom (DOFs) for functions in .
Lemma 4.4**.**
A function , with , is uniquely determined by
[TABLE]
Proof.
The number of DOFs given is . We will show that the only function for which (4.2a)–(4.2e) are equal to zero must be zero on .
Combining (4.2a), (4.2b) and (4.2d), satisfies all conditions of Lemma 4.1 on each edge of , so on . By Lemma 4.3, there exists a which is a piecewise polynomial of degree , and is on edges, such that , and . Then (4.2a) yields for . Also (4.2c) yields for all and for all . Since is constant on each edge , we have for all , and using Lemma 4.2, it follows that on . Thus and condition (4.2e) yields on . Then is constant and so must be equal to zero on . ∎
Lemma 4.5**.**
A function is uniquely determined by
[TABLE]
Proof.
The number of degrees of freedom given is which equals the dimension of . We show that if vanishes on (4.3), then is identically zero.
Recall that is the union of two triangles that have as a vertex, and and are, respectively, the outward normal and unit tangent vectors of the edge . Let be a unit vector that is tangent to the interior edge , which is necessarily linearly independent of . Thus we may write
[TABLE]
for some . We then see that
[TABLE]
Because is continuous on we have that and hence . Therefore is on . To continue, we split the proof into two step.
*Case :
*By the first set of DOFs (4.3a), there holds for . Because is piecewise linear and , we conclude that on . Next, using (4.3b) yields
[TABLE]
Because , we conclude that . Since vanishes at the endpoints of , and since is piecewise linear on , we conclude that on , and therefore , i.e., . Corollary 3.8 and (4.3g) then shows that . Finally, Corollary 3.9 and (4.3f) yields .
*Case :
*Again, there holds by the first set of DOFs (4.3a). Combining Lemma 4.2 with the DOFs (4.3e), noting that is on , then yields on . Likewise the DOFs (4.3a), (4.3e), and (4.3d) show that on . We conclude that , and therefore, using (4.3f)–(4.3g) and the same arguments as the case, we get . ∎
Lemma 4.6**.**
A function is uniquely determined by
[TABLE]
Proof.
If is such that (4.4a) are zero then is continuous at for . Then (4.4b) yields that , and it follows from (4.4c) that on . ∎
Lemma 4.7**.**
A function is uniquely determined by the following degrees of freedom.
[TABLE]
Proof.
If vanishes at the DOFs, then vanishes on (4.3a)–(4.3e). The proof of Lemma 4.5 then shows that , and therefore . Using (4.5a),(4.5c), and (4.5e), we also find that , i.e., . The DOFs (4.5g) yield in , and therefore for some by Corollary 3.9. Finally (4.5f) gives . Noting that the number of DOFs is , the dimension of , we conclude that (4.5) form a unisolvent set over . ∎
Lemma 4.8**.**
Let with . Then is uniquely determined by the following degrees of freedom.
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let such that all DOFs (4.6) are equal to zero. The conditions (4.6a)–(4.6c) yield that on . Therefore, using (4.6d), , and by (4.6e), on . ∎
The next two theorems show that projections induced by the degrees of freedom given in Lemmas 4.4–4.8 commute.
Theorem 4.9**.**
Let be the projection induced by the DOFs (4.2), that is,
[TABLE]
Likewise, let be the projection induced by the DOFs (4.3), and let be the projection induced by the DOFs (4.4). Then for , the following diagram commutes
{\mathbb{R}}$${C^{\infty}(T)}$${{[C^{\infty}(T)]}^{2}}$${C^{\infty}(T)}$${0}$${\mathbb{R}}$${S_{r}^{0}(T^{{\rm ps}})}$${L_{r-1}^{1}(T^{{\rm ps}})}$${V_{r-2}^{2}(T^{{\rm ps}})}$${0.}$$\scriptstyle{\Pi^{r}_{0}}rot \scriptstyle{\Pi^{r-1}_{1}}$$\scriptstyle{{\mathop{\mathrm{div}\,}}}$$\scriptstyle{\Pi^{r-2}_{2}}rot
In other words, we have for
[TABLE]
Proof.
(i) Proof of (4.7a). We take . Since , we only need to prove that vanishes at the DOFs (4.4). For the jump condition at points for , we have
[TABLE]
where we have used the definitions of and along with the DOFs (4.4a) and (4.3c).
For the interior DOFs, we have,
[TABLE]
where we have used the definitions of and and DOFs (4.4b) and either (4.3b) if or (4.3e) if . Finally, for any ,
[TABLE]
by the definitions of and along with DOFs (4.4c) and (4.3g). By Lemma 4.6, is exactly zero on , and the projections in (4.7a) commute.
(ii) Proof of (4.7b). Let and set . We will show that vanishes for all DOFs (4.3).
First, for each vertex with ,
[TABLE]
by (4.2a) and (4.3a). Furthermore, at nodes , we have by (4.3c)
[TABLE]
For the DOFs on each edge , we will use that and . Then we have, for ,
[TABLE]
by (4.2b) and (4.3d). If (so that ),
[TABLE]
by (4.3b) and (4.2a), so (4.7b) is proved.
Now let . We have, for all and for all ,
[TABLE]
by (4.3e), (4.2b) and (4.2d). Likewise, for ,
[TABLE]
by (4.3e) and (4.2c). For the interior DOFs, for any , we have
[TABLE]
by (4.2e) and (4.3f). Finally, for any ,
[TABLE]
where we used the DOF (4.3g). Therefore is equal to zero on , and the identity (4.7b) is proved. ∎
The proof of the following result can be found in the appendix.
Theorem 4.10**.**
Let be the projection induced by the DOFs (4.2), that is,
[TABLE]
Likewise, let be the projection induced by the DOFs (4.5), and let be the projection induced by the DOFs (4.6). Then for , the following diagram commutes
{\mathbb{R}}$${C^{\infty}(T)}$${{[C^{\infty}(T)]}^{2}}$${C^{\infty}(T)}$${0}$${\mathbb{R}}$${S_{r}^{0}(T^{{\rm ps}})}$${S_{r-1}^{1}(T^{{\rm ps}})}$${L_{r-2}^{2}(T^{{\rm ps}})}$${0.}$$\scriptstyle{\Pi^{r}_{0}}rot \scriptstyle{\varpi^{r-1}_{1}}$$\scriptstyle{{\mathop{\mathrm{div}\,}}}$$\scriptstyle{\varpi^{r-2}_{2}}rot
In other words, we have for
[TABLE]
5. Global Spaces
In this section, we study the global finite element spaces induced by the degrees of freedom in Section 4. We let represent the simplicial triangulation of the polygonal domain , and represent the Powell-Sabin refinement of , as discussed in the introduction. We define the set to be the points of intersection of the edges of with the edges that adjoin interior points. We also let be the collection of all the new edges of that were obtained by sub-dividing edges of . We let be the edges of . By the construction of every belongs to edges that lie on two straight lines. Therefore, these vertices are singular vertices [17]. It is important to note that to make our global spaces to have the correct continuity it is essential to construct the meshes in such a way [14, 16]. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the divergence of continuous, piecewise polynomials have a weak continuity property at singular vertices, i.e., at the vertices in . In detail, let and suppose that is an interior vertex. Then it is a vertex of four triangles . For a function we define
[TABLE]
Then, if is a continuous piecewise polynomial with respect to , there holds [17].
The degrees of freedom stated in Lemmas 4.4–4.8 induce the following spaces
[TABLE]
Remark 5.1*.*
Let be an interior vertex and share a common edge where lies. Then if and only if where . Therefore, the local degrees of freedom for with the jump condition (4.4a) do indeed induce the global space above.
We list the degrees of freedom of these spaces. The global DOF come directly from the local DOF. We list them here to be precise.
It follows from Lemma 4.4 that a function , with , is uniquely determined by
[TABLE]
Remark 5.2*.*
The degrees of freedom for coincide with the known degrees of freedom of Powell-Sabin [16, 14]. Recently, results for polynomial degrees have appeared [10, 11].
Lemma 4.5 shows that a function is uniquely determined by the values
[TABLE]
A function , for , is uniquely determined by
[TABLE]
A function is determined by the following degrees of freedom.
[TABLE]
A function , if , is determined by the degrees of freedom
[TABLE]
Each of the following sequences of spaces forms a complex.
[TABLE]
Remark 5.3*.*
The spaces and were considered by Zhang [19] for approximating incompressible flows. In particular, he proved inf-sup stability of this pair. However, he does not explicitly write the relationship , which we know holds.
Additionally, we can define commuting projections. For example, for the sequences (5.2a) and (5.2b), we define such that, for , for all . By using Theorem 4.9, we find that following diagram commutes:
{\mathbb{R}}$${C^{\infty}(S)}$${{[C^{\infty}(S)]}^{2}}$${C^{\infty}(S)}$${0}$${\mathbb{R}}$${S_{r}^{0}(\mathcal{T}_{h}^{\text{ps}})}$${L_{r-1}^{1}(\mathcal{T}_{h}^{\text{ps}})}$${\mathcal{V}_{r-2}^{2}(\mathcal{T}_{h}^{\text{ps}})}$${0.}$$\scriptstyle{\pi^{r}_{0}}rot \scriptstyle{\pi^{r-1}_{1}}$$\scriptstyle{{\mathop{\mathrm{div}\,}}}$$\scriptstyle{\pi^{r-2}_{2}}rot
Similarly, defining the projections for , it follows from Theorem 4.10 that the following diagram commutes:
{\mathbb{R}}$${C^{\infty}(S)}$${{[C^{\infty}(S)]}^{2}}$${C^{\infty}(S)}$${0}$${\mathbb{R}}$${S_{r}^{0}(\mathcal{T}_{h}^{\text{ps}})}$${S_{r-1}^{1}(\mathcal{T}_{h}^{\text{ps}})}$${L_{r-2}^{2}(\mathcal{T}_{h}^{\text{ps}})}$${0.}$$\scriptstyle{\pi^{r}_{0}}rot \scriptstyle{\chi^{r-1}_{1}}$$\scriptstyle{{\mathop{\mathrm{div}\,}}}$$\scriptstyle{\chi^{r-2}_{2}}rot
The proofs that these projections commute are similar to the local cases. The top sequences (the non-discrete spaces) are exact if is simply connected [7]. In the next result, we will show that the bottom sequences (the discrete spaces) are also exact on simply connected domains.
Theorem 5.4**.**
Suppose that is simply connected. Then the sequence (5.2a) is exact for , and the sequence (5.2b) is exact for .
Proof.
Suppose that satisfies . Using the inclusion and standard results, there exists such that . Because is a piecewise polynomial of degree , it follows that is a piecewise polynomial of degree . Moreover, is continuous and therefore . Thus it follows that . Note that this result shows that if satisfies , then for some .
Thus to prove the result, it suffices to show that the mappings and are surjections. This will be accomplished by showing that and .
Denote by , , and the number of vertices, edges, and triangles in , respectively. The degrees of freedom given above show that, for ,
[TABLE]
We then find, by the rank–nullity theorem and the Euler relation that
[TABLE]
Likewise, we have for ,
[TABLE]
and therefore
[TABLE]
∎
6. Conclusion
We have developed smooth finite element spaces on Powell-Sabin splits that form exact sequences in two dimensions. We plan to investigate the extension to higher-dimensions in the near future. Another interesting question is whether smoother finite element spaces (e.g., ) fit an exact sequence on Powell–Sabin triangulations.
Appendix A Proof of Lemma 4.2
Proof.
Suppose is such that (4.1a)–(4.1c) are all zero. We will show that must be identically zero on . Let be a degree polynomial on the interval satisfying
[TABLE]
We note that these conditions uniquely determine . Since is continuous at and equal to zero at and , and in view of (4.1b)–(4.1c), it follows that may be represented by
[TABLE]
Since is continuous at , it must hold that
[TABLE]
Furthermore, given the conditions (A.1) on , we can show that . Suppose that in addition to (A.1). Then for any with ,
[TABLE]
since . But is itself such a function , so it follows that
[TABLE]
Then , and is constant on . This contradicts (A.1), so . Furthermore, since , it follows that . Therefore on . ∎
Appendix B Proof of Theorem 4.10
Proof.
(i) Proof of (4.10a). Let and . We show that vanishes on (4.5).
First,
[TABLE]
by the definitions of and along with DOFs (4.2a) and (4.5a).
Next, if ,
[TABLE]
using (4.5b), (4.3b) and (4.7b). Similar arguments show that, for ,
[TABLE]
Next using (4.5c) gives
[TABLE]
and (4.5e) yields
[TABLE]
for all and . The same arguments, but using (4.5g), gives
[TABLE]
Applying Lemma 4.7 shows that , and so (4.10a) holds.
(ii) Proof of (4.10b). For some , we define . Then we need only show that is zero for all DOFs in (4.6). For the vertex DOFs, we have for each ,
[TABLE]
by (4.5a) and (4.6a). Next, for each ,
[TABLE]
where we have used (4.5a) and (4.6b). Similar arguments show that
[TABLE]
by (4.5e) and (4.6c), and that
[TABLE]
by (4.5g) and (4.6e). Using (4.6d) and (4.5b) if or (4.5d) if ,
[TABLE]
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] P. Alfeld, A trivariate Clough-Tocher scheme for tetrahedral data , Computer Aided Geometric Design, 1(2):169–181, 1984.
- 2[2] D. N. Arnold and J. Qin, Quadratic velocity/linear pressure Stokes elements , In R. Vichnevetsky, D. Knight, and G. Richter, editors, Advances in Computer Methods for Partial Differential Equations–VII, pages 28–34. IMACS, 1992.
- 3[3] D. N. Arnold, R. S. Falk, and R. Winther, Finite element exterior calculus, homological techniques, and applications , Acta Numerica, 1–155, 2006.
- 4[4] D. N. Arnold, R. S. Falk, and R. Winther, Finite element exterior calculus: from Hodge theory to numerical stability , Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.), 47(2):281–354, 2010.
- 5[5] S. Christiansen and K. Hu, Generalized finite element systems for smooth differential forms and Stokes’ problem , Numer. Math., DOI:10.1007/s 00211-018-0970-6, 2018.
- 6[6] R. W. Clough and J. L. Tocher, Finite Element Stiffness Matrices for Analysis of Plates in Bending , Proceedings of the Conference on Matrix Methods in Structural Mechanics, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, October 1965, 515–545.
- 7[7] M. Costabel and A. Mc Intosh, On Bogovskii and regularized Poincaré integral operators for de Rham complexes on Lipschitz domains , Math. Z., 265(2):297–320, 2010.
- 8[8] V. Girault and P.-A. Raviart, Finite element methods for Navier-Stokes equations , Theory and algorithms, Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, 5, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.
