OPTIMALITY CONDITIONS AND ERROR ANALYSIS OF SEMILINEAR ELLIPTIC CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH L 1 COST FUNCTIONAL
|
|
- Cornelius O’Neal’
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 OPTIMALITY CONDITIONS AND ERROR ANALYSIS OF SEMILINEAR ELLIPTIC CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH L 1 COST FUNCTIONAL EDUARDO CASAS, ROLAND HERZOG, AND GERD WACHSMUTH Abstract. Semilinear elliptic optimal control problems involving the L 1 norm of the control in the objective are considered. Necessary and sufficient second-order optimality conditions are derived. A priori finite element error estimates for piecewise constant discretizations for the control and piecewise linear discretizations of the state are shown. Error estimates for the variational discretization of the problem in the sense of [13] are also obtained. Numerical experiments confirm the convergence rates. Key words. optimal control of partial differential equations, non-differentiable objective, sparse controls, finite element discretization, a priori error estimates AMS subject classifications. 35J61, 49K20, 49M25 1. Introduction. In this paper we consider an optimal control problem subject to a semilinear elliptic state equation. The objective functional contains the L 1 norm of the control and it is therefore non-differentiable. Problems of this type are of interest for two reasons. First, the L 1 norm of the control is often a natural measure of the control cost. Second, this term leads to sparsely supported optimal controls, which are desirable, for instance, in actuator placement problems [17]. In optimal control of distributed parameter systems, it may be impossible or undesirable to put the controllers at every point of the domain. Instead, we can decide to control the system by localizing the controls in small regions. The big issue is to determine the most effective location of the controls. An answer to this question is given by solving the control problem with an L 1 norm of the control. However, the non-differentiability of the objective leads to some difficulties. While first-order necessary optimality conditions can be derived in a standard way via Clarke s calculus of generalized derivatives, second-order conditions require additional effort. From the first-order optimality conditions, we deduce a representation formula see 3.5c)) for the sub-differential λ of the non-differentiable term at the optimal control ū, i.e., λ ū L 1 ). This formula is new and it has some important consequences. First, it proves the uniqueness of λ, which is not usually obtained for a non-differentiable optimization problem. Second, it proves that λ is not only an L ) function, but it is a Lipschitz function in, which implies, with formula 3.5a) for the optimal control, that ū is also Lipschitz in. This extra regularity for the optimal control is essential in deriving the error estimates. We should underline The first author was partially supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad under the project MTM Departmento de Matemática Aplicada y Ciencias de la Computación, E.T.S.I. Industriales y de Telecomunicación, Universidad de Cantabria, Av. Los Castros s/n, Santander, Spain eduardo.casas@unican.es). Faculty of Mathematics, Chemnitz University of Technology, Reichenhainer Strasse 41, Chemnitz, Germany roland.herzog@mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de) Faculty of Mathematics, Chemnitz University of Technology, Reichenhainer Strasse 41, Chemnitz, Germany gerd.wachsmuth@mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de) 1
2 2 E. CASAS, R. HERZOG AND G. WACHSMUTH that there are no error estimates if we do not have extra regularity of the optimal control. Moreover, the representation formulas 3.5a) and 3.5c), along with their discrete counterparts, allow us to derive L error estimates for ū ū h and λ λ h, which is important for this problem because it shows that we can identify in a precise way the region where the optimal control is vanishing by solving the discrete control problem. An important part of the paper is devoted to the second-order optimality conditions. Since the partial differential equation is not linear, the control problem is not convex in general, therefore we have to determine second-order conditions to deal with local minima. It is well known that the sufficient second-order condition is a crucial tool in proving error estimates. In the second-order analysis, due to the nonsmoothness of the problem, the most delicate point was to discover the correct cone of critical directions Cū, see 3.6). We found the correct one, allowing us to prove both second-order necessary and sufficient optimality conditions with the minimal gap. The second-order sufficient conditions are subsequently put to use to derive a priori error estimates for a finite element discretization of the problem at hand. We employ piecewise linear and continuous elements for the state and adjoint state and piecewise constants for the control. We obtain an estimate of order h w.r.t. the L norm for the control, state, and adjoint state. The proof of these estimates requires a deeper analysis than the one used in smooth optimal control problems, and it is not a straightforward extension of the techniques established for smooth problems. The proof exploits the W 2,p regularity of the optimal adjoint state, and the consequential Lipschitz regularity of the optimal control, which hold under the assumption of a smooth boundary of the domain. Since smooth domains cannot be triangulated exactly, the error estimate takes into account the additional error from replacing by a polygonal approximation h. As mentioned in Remark 2.4, all results remain also valid for a convex polygonal domain of R 2. Numerical experiments verify the theoretical convergence order for both cases, smooth and convex polygonal domains. Finally, we derive error estimates for a variational discretization of the control problem. More precisely, we discretize the states and the state equation, but there is no discretization of the control. This procedure suggested by Hinze [13] leads to optimal error estimates order h 2 ) and the discrete problem can still be solved numerically. Let us put this work into perspective. A problem with an L 1 -term in the objective was analyzed in [17], subject to a linear elliptic equation. Second-order conditions are not required there since this problem is convex. A priori and a posteriori error estimates for this case were provided in [19]. The authors in [9] analyze algorithms for optimal control problems which involve the norm of a non-reflexive control Banach space. This paper is organized as follows. We present the problem setting and some preliminary results in Section 2. Section 3 is devoted to the development of firstand second-order necessary and sufficient optimality conditions. We study the finite element error for the case of full discretization in Section 4 and in Section 5 for the case of variational discretization. We report on numerical experiments which confirm our results in Section Setting of the Problem and Preliminary Results. In this paper, will denote an open bounded subset of R n, n = 2 or 3, with a C 1,1 boundary Γ. In this
3 SEMILINEAR CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH L 1 COST FUNCTIONAL 3 domain we consider the following control problem P) { min Ju) α ux) β for a.a. x where Ju) = F u) + µ ju), with F : L 2 ) R and j : L 1 ) R defined by F u) = Lx, y u x)) dx + ν u 2 x) dx and ju) = ux) dx, 2 y u being the solution of the state equation 2.1) { Ay + ax, y) = u in, y = 0 on Γ. A is the linear operator Ay = n xj [a ij x) xi y] + a 0 x) y. i,j=1 We make the following assumptions on the functions and parameters involved in the control problem P). Assumption 1. The coefficients of A have the following regularity properties: a 0 L ), a ij C 0,1 ) and 2.2) a 0 x) 0 and n a ij x) ξ i ξ j Λ ξ 2 for a.a. x and ξ R n. i,j=1 Assumption 2. a : R R is a Carathéodory function of class C 2 with respect to the second variable, with a, 0) L p ) for some n < p, and satisfying 2.3) a x, y) 0 for a.a. x and y R y 2 M > 0 C M > 0 s.t. j a x, y) yj C M for a.a. x and y M. j=1 Assumption 3. We also assume < α < 0 < β < +, µ > 0, ν > 0, and L : R R is a Carathéodory function of class C 2 with respect to the second variable such that L, 0) L 1 ) and for every M > 0 there exists a function ψ M L p ), with n < p < +, satisfying 2.4) j L x, y) yj ψ M x) y M and for a.a. x, with j = 1, 2. In the sequel, we will denote the set of feasible controls by K = {u L ) : α ux) β for a.a. x }.
4 4 E. CASAS, R. HERZOG AND G. WACHSMUTH Let us notice that the usual function Lx, y) = 1 2 y y dx)) 2 satisfies Assumption 3 if y d L p ). Remark 2.1. In Assumption 3 we made the hypothesis α < 0 < β. In the case where 0 α β or α β 0, the L 1 norm is linear, hence the cost functional J is differentiable and the control problem P) falls into the framework of well studied optimal control problems. Here we are interested in analyzing the non-differentiable case. Moreover, since we are looking for sparsity of the optimal control, it does not make sense to consider 0 < α or β < 0. However, the cases α = 0 or β = 0 are frequent in practice. In these situations, the sparsity of the optimal control is also induced by the presence of the term µ u L1 ), see Remark 3.3. The next theorem states that the control-to-state map is well posed and differentiable. Theorem 2.2. The following statements hold. 1. For any u L p ), with n/2 < p p, there exists a unique solution of 2.1) y u W 2,p ). 2. The mapping G : L p ) W 2,p ) defined by Gu) = y u is of class C 2. Moreover, for v L p ), z v = G u) v is the unique solution of 2.5) Az + a x, y) z = v in, y z = 0 on Γ, and given v 1, v 2 L p ), w v1,v 2 = G u)v 1, v 2 ) is the unique solution of 2.6) Aw + a y x, y) w + 2 a y 2 x, y) z v 1 z v2 = 0 in, w = 0 on Γ, where z vi = G u) v i, i = 1, 2. The existence and uniqueness of a solution of 2.1) in H 1 0 ) L ) is obtained by classical arguments; see, for instance, [4]. The W 2,p ) regularity follows from the C 1,1 regularity of Γ, Assumptions 1 and 2 and the result of Grisvard [11, Theorem ]. The differentiability of G can be obtained from the implicit function theorem as follows. We define the nonlinear operator F : [W 2,p ) W 1,p 0 )] L p ) L p ), Fy, u) = Ay + a, y) u. Then, it is immediate to check that F is of class C 2 and FGu), u) = 0 for every u L p ). Using [11, Theorem ] again, we deduce that F y Gu), u) : W 2,p ) W 1,p 0 ) L p ) is an isomorphism. Thus, the assumptions of the implicit function theorem are fulfilled and some simple calculations prove 2.5) and 2.6). As an immediate consequence of the previous theorem, we get that the smooth part F of the objective functional enjoys the following differentiability result.
5 SEMILINEAR CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH L 1 COST FUNCTIONAL 5 Theorem 2.3. Functional F : L 2 ) R is of class C 2 and the first and second derivatives are given by 2.7) F u) v = ϕ u + ν u) v dx 2.8) F u)v 1, v 2 ) = { 2 L y 2 x, y u) z v1 z v2 2 a y 2 x, y u) ϕ u z v1 z v2 + ν v 1 v 2 } dx, where z vi = G u) v i, i = 1, 2, and ϕ u W 2,p ) is the adjoint state defined as the unique solution of A ϕ + a 2.9) y x, y u) ϕ = L y x, y u) in, ϕ = 0 on Γ, A being the adjoint operator of A. Finally, it is obvious that problem P) has at least one global solution, which belongs to L ) because of the control constraints. The reader is referred to the book by Tröltzsch [18, Chapter 4.4] for the proof of these results. Note that under some extra assumptions for L the existence of a solution of P) in L 2 ) can still be proved for α = or β = +. For instance, if L is bounded from below, i.e. Lx, y) C L, with C L R, then the cost functional J is coercive and consequently P) has again a global solution in L 2 ). Indeed, from the first-order optimality conditions we can deduce that this solution is not only in L 2 ) but it belongs also to L ). Remark 2.4. Theorem 2.2 is also valid for convex polygonal domains R 2. The only difference is that p is not only bounded above by p, it also depends on the angles of the polygon. Indeed, let ω be the biggest angle of. Using the results of Grisvard [11, Chapter 4], if ω π/2, then p can be chosen as in Theorem 2.2, only } is the correct interval. With this modification, also Theorem 2.3 is valid as well as the rest of the results in this paper. bounded by p. However, if ω > π/2, then n/2 < p < min{ p, 2 2 π/ω 3. First- and Second-Order Optimality Conditions. In this section, we will derive the necessary first- and second-order optimality conditions and also we will provide a sufficient second-order condition with a minimal gap with respect to the necessary ones. Since P) is not a convex problem we will deal with local solutions. As usual, ū is said to be a local solution of P) in the L q ) sense, 1 q +, if there exists ε > 0 such that ū is a solution of the problem P ε ) min Ju), u K B εū) where B ε ū) denotes the closed ball of L q ) with center at ū and radius ε. The solution is called strict if ū is the unique global solution of P ε ) for some ε > 0. It is immediate to check that if ū is a local solution in the L q ) sense for any 1 q <, then it is also a local solution in the L ) sense. On the other hand, since K is bounded in L ), if ū is a local solution in the L q ) sense, for some 1 q <, then ū is also a local solution in the L p ) sense for any 1 p <. Therefore, we can
6 6 E. CASAS, R. HERZOG AND G. WACHSMUTH distinguish two different notions of local minima: L 2 ) sense or L ) sense. The results proved in this paper will hold for either of these two notions of local minima. Therefore, we will not distinguish between these two notions and we will simply speak about local minima. In the study of the optimality conditions there is a difficulty coming from the nondifferentiability of the function ju) = u L1 ) involved in the objective function of P). Since j is convex and Lipschitz, we can apply some classical results to deduce the first-order conditions. However, the second-order necessary and sufficient optimality conditions, as presented here, are new to our best knowledge. The sufficient second-order conditions will be used in the next section to derive the error estimates of finite element approximations, which shows their utility. Before stating these optimality conditions we recall some properties of the function j. Since j is convex and Lipschitz, the subdifferential in the sense of convex analysis and the generalized gradients introduced by Clarke coincide. Moreover, a simple computation shows that λ ju) if and only if 3.1) λx) = +1 if ux) > 0, λx) = 1 if ux) < 0, λx) [ 1, +1] if ux) = 0 holds a.e. in. Also j has directional derivatives given by 3.2) j ju + ρ v) ju) u; v) = lim = v dx v dx + v dx, ρ 0 ρ + u u 0 u for u, v L 1 ), where + u, u and 0 u represent the sets of points where u is positive, negative or zero, respectively. Finally, the following relation holds 3.3) max λ v dx = j ju + ρ v) ju) u; v) λ ju) ρ 0 < ρ 1. We refer to Clarke [8, Chapter 2] and Bonnans and Shapiro [2, Section 2.4.3] for more details. Necessary optimality conditions can be deduced from the abstract results presented in these references and Theorem 2.3. Theorem 3.1. If ū is a local minimum of P), then there exist ȳ, ϕ W 2, p ) and λ jū) such that 3.4a) 3.4b) 3.4c) { Aȳ + ax, ȳ) = ū in, ȳ = 0 on Γ, A ϕ + a L x, ȳ) ϕ = x, ȳ) in, y y ϕ = 0 on Γ, ϕ + ν ū + µ λ)u ū) dx 0 u K. Corollary 3.2. Let ū, ϕ and λ be as in the previous theorem, then the following
7 SEMILINEAR CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH L 1 COST FUNCTIONAL 7 relations hold: 3.5a) 3.5b) 3.5c) ūx) = Proj [α,β] 1 ν ϕx) + µ λx) ) ), ūx) = 0 ϕx) µ, λx) = Proj [ 1,+1] 1 µ ϕx) ). Moreover, from the first and last representation formulas it follows that ū, λ C 0,1 ) and λ is unique for any fixed local minimum ū. Proof. The derivation of the formula 3.5a) is standard in control theory. Now, from 3.1), 3.5a) and the fact that α < 0 < β we get ūx) = 0 ϕx) + µ λx) = 0 ϕx) µ, ūx) > 0 λx) = +1 and ϕx) + µ λx) < 0 ϕx) < µ, and analogously we deduce that if ūx) < 0, then ϕx) > µ. These three properties are equivalent to 3.5b). Let us prove 3.5c). Taking into account 3.1), 3.5b) and 3.5a) we obtain ϕx) > µ ūx) < 0 λx) = 1 λx) = Proj [ 1,+1] 1 µ ϕx) ), ϕx) µ ūx) = 0 ϕx) + µ λx) = 0 λx) = Proj [ 1,+1] 1 µ ϕx) ). For the case ϕx) < µ we can proceed as for the case ϕx) > µ, which completes the proof of 3.5c). The Lipschitz property of λ follows from 3.5c) and from the fact that ϕ W 2, p ) C 1 ). Finally, 3.5a) leads to the Lipschitz regularity of ū. Remark 3.3. Let us point out that the relation 3.5b) implies the sparsity of local optimal controls. This property was observed by [17] and it continues to hold in the cases α = 0 or β = 0. Indeed, if α = 0, it is easy to deduce from 3.5a) that ūx) = 0 if and only if ϕx) µ, which also implies the sparsity. For β = 0, we have that ūx) = 0 if and only if ϕx) +µ. In order to address the second-order optimality conditions we need to introduce the critical cone. Given a control ū K for which there exists λ jū) satisfying 3.4), we define 3.6) Cū = {v L 2 ) satisfying 3.7) and F ū) v + µ j ū; v) = 0} with 3.7) { vx) 0 if ūx) = α, vx) 0 if ūx) = β. Proposition 3.4. The set Cū is a closed, convex cone in L 2 ). Before proving this proposition we have to establish the following lemma.
8 8 E. CASAS, R. HERZOG AND G. WACHSMUTH Lemma 3.5. Let ū K satisfy 3.4) along with some λ jū). Let v L 2 ) fulfill 3.7). Then 3.8) F ū) v + µ j ū; v) F ū) v + µ λx) vx) dx 0. Moreover, if v Cū, then 3.9) F ū) v + µ λx) vx) dx = 0 and j ū; v) = λx) vx) dx. Proof. The first inequality of 3.8) is an immediate consequence of 3.3). Let us prove the second inequality. For every k N we define 0 if α < ūx) < α + 1 v k x) = k or β 1 < ūx) < β, k Proj [ k,+k] vx)) otherwise, and ρ k = 1/k 2. Then it is easy to check that ū + ρ v k K for every 0 < ρ < ρ k. On the other hand, v k x) vx) and v k x) vx) hold for almost all x, therefore v k v in L 2 ). Now, from 3.4c) we infer ) ρ F ū) v k + µ λx) v k x) dx = ϕ + ν ū + µ λ)[ū + ρ v k ] ū) 0. Finally, dividing the previous expression by ρ and passing to the limit as k, we obtain the second inequality of 3.8). Identities 3.9) are an obvious consequence of 3.8) and the equality satisfied by the elements of Cū. Remark 3.6. Let us observe that for any v L 2 ) satisfying j ū; v) = λx) vx) dx, the relations 3.1) and 3.2) imply that vx) dx = λx) vx) dx 0 ū 0 ū 0 ū vx) λx) vx) ) dx = 0, which leads to vx) = λx) vx) for almost all x 0 ū. In particular, 3.9) implies that this identity holds for all the elements of Cū. Proof of Proposition 3.4. It is obvious that Cū is a closed cone of L 2 ). Let us prove that it is convex. Given v 1, v 2 Cū and 0 < t < 1, it is clear that v = t v t) v 2 satisfies 3.7) and using the convexity of j we get F ū) v + µ jū; v) t [ F ū) v 1 + µ j ū; v 1 ) ] + 1 t) [ F ū) v 2 + µ j ū; v 2 ) ] = 0. The contrary inequality is a consequence of Lemma 3.5, hence v Cū. Let us introduce some notation. We define 3.10) dx) = ϕx) + ν ūx) + µ λx) C 0,1 ),
9 SEMILINEAR CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH L 1 COST FUNCTIONAL 9 the Lipschitz regularity of d being a consequence of the regularity properties established in Corollary 3.2. From 3.5a) we deduce as usual ūx) = α dx) 0, { dx) 3.11) ūx) = β dx) > 0 ūx) = α, 0, and α < ūx) < β dx) dx) < 0 ūx) = β = 0, a.e. in. On the other hand, from 3.9) we have dx) vx) dx = F ū) v + µ λx) vx) dx = 0 v Cū. This identity along with 3.7) and 3.11) leads to 3.12) dx) vx) dx = dx) vx) dx = 0 dx) vx) 0 v Cū. Now, we can formulate the second-order necessary optimality conditions as follows. Theorem 3.7. Let us assume that ū is a local minimum of P), then F ū) v 2 0 for every v Cū. Proof. Given v Cū we define for every k N 0 if α < ūx) < α + 1 v k x) = k or β 1 k < ūx) < β or 0 < ūx) < 1 k, Proj [ k,+k] vx)) otherwise, and ρ k = 1/k 2. Then, as in the proof of Lemma 3.5, we have that ū + ρ v k K for every 0 < ρ < ρ k and v k v in L 2 ). On the other hand, it is obvious that v k x) = 0 whenever vx) = 0, and the sign of v k x) coincides with the sign of vx) whenever v k x) 0. Let λ be the unique element of jū) associated with ū, see Corollary 3.2. Then, by 3.9), j ū; v) = λx) vx) dx holds. Consequently, we have vx) = λx) vx) for x 0 ū, as observed in Remark 3.6. Moreover, dx) vx) 0 holds by 3.12). Owing to the sign condition for v k, we obtain 3.13) v k x) = λx) v k x) for a.a. x 0 ū and dx) v k x) 0 for a.a. x. Let us analyze the case where x + ū. In this situation, since ρ v k x) < ρ k k 1/k and v k x) = 0 if 0 < ūx) < 1/k, we necessarily have that ūx) + ρ v k x) 0 which, along with the fact that λx) = 1, leads to 3.14) ūx) + ρ v k x) ūx) = ρ v k x) = ρ λx) v k x). Analogously, we obtain that ūx) + ρ v k x) ūx) = ρ v k x) = ρ λx) v k x) when x ū. Thus, from this identity, 3.13) and 3.14) we conclude that 3.15) jū + ρ v k ) jū) = ρ λx) v k x) dx 0 < ρ < ρ k.
10 10 E. CASAS, R. HERZOG AND G. WACHSMUTH On the other hand, the second identity of 3.13) can be written as 3.16) F ū) v k + µ λx) v k x) dx = dx) v k x) dx = 0. Now, using the fact that ū is a local minimum and taking into account 3.15) and 3.16), we infer for all ρ > 0 sufficiently small 0 Jū + ρ v k ) Jū) = [ F ū) + ρ F ū) v k + ρ2 2 F ū) v 2 k + oρ 2 ) + µ jū + ρ v k ) ] [ F ū) + µ jū) ] = ρ F ū) v k + ρ2 2 F ū) v 2 k + oρ 2 ) + µ [ jū + ρ v k ) jū) ] = ρ2 2 F ū) v 2 k + oρ 2 ) + ρ { F ū) v k + µ = ρ2 2 F ū) v 2 k + oρ 2 ). λx)v k x) dx } Dividing the last expression by ρ 2 /2 and letting ρ 0, we obtain F ū) v 2 k 0. Finally, passing to the limit when k, we conclude that F ū) v 2 0. We finish the section by proving the sufficient condition in Theorem 3.9 with a minimal gap with respect to the necessary one proved in Theorem 3.7. Before we do so, we recall that a natural assumption would be the positivity of the second derivative F ū) on the critical cone Cū. Due to the L 2 regularization term, this already implies that F ū) is uniformly positive even on a larger cone. This is established in the next theorem. Moreover, this second equivalent condition will be used for the numerical analysis in section 4. Theorem 3.8. Let ū K and λ jū) such that 3.4) hold. Then the following statements are equivalent. 1. F ū) v 2 > 0 for all v Cū \ {0}. 2. There exist τ > 0 and δ > 0 such that F ū) v 2 δ v 2 L 2 ) for all v Cτ ū, where C τ ū = {v L 2 ) satisfying 3.7) and F ū) v + µ j ū; v) τ v L2 )}. Proof. Since Cū Cū, τ it is obvious that the second condition implies the first one. Let us prove the other implication. We will proceed by contradiction. Then, we assume that the first condition holds, but not the second. Hence, there exists a sequence {v k } k=1 such that v k C 1/k ū and F ū) v 2 k < 1 k v k 2 L 2 ). Since C 1/k ū is a cone, we can divide v k by its L 2 ) norm and, by taking a subsequence if necessary, we can assume that 3.17) v k C 1/k ū, F ū) v 2 k < 1 k and v k v in L 2 ). Since v k C 1/k ū, then v k satisfies the sign conditions 3.7), and therefore v also does. Then, 3.8) implies 3.18) F ū) v + µ j ū; v) 0.
11 SEMILINEAR CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH L 1 COST FUNCTIONAL 11 On the other hand, using again that v k C 1/k ū, we get 3.19) F ū) v + µ j { ū; v) lim inf F ū) v k + µ j ū; v k ) } 1 lim inf k k k = 0. Inequalities 3.18) and 3.19), along with the sign condition 3.7) satisfied by v, imply that v Cū. Now, we observe that Theorem 2.2 and the compactness of the embedding W 2,p ) C ) imply the compactness of the linear operator v L 2 ) z v = G ū)v C ). From this property along with the continuity and convexity of v L 2 ) v 2 L 2 ), and the expression 2.8), we conclude that F ū) : L 2 ) R is a weakly lower semi-continuous quadratic functional. Then, from 3.17) we infer F ū) v 2 lim inf k F ū) vk 2 lim sup F ū) vk 2 0, k which is only possible if v = 0 because of the condition 1 of the theorem, therefore F ū) vk 2 0. However, v k 0 in L 2 ) implies the strong convergence z vk 0 in W 1, p ). Therefore, { F ū) vk 2 2 } L = y 2 x, ȳ) z2 v k 2 a y 2 x, ȳ) ϕ z2 v k + ν vk 2 dx { 2 } L = y 2 x, ȳ) z2 v k 2 a y 2 x, ȳ) ϕ z2 v k dx + ν converges to ν, which is a contradiction. Finally, we prove the sufficient second-order optimality condition. Theorem 3.9. Let ū K and λ jū) such that 3.4) hold. Furthermore, let us assume that F ū) v 2 > 0 for all v Cū \ {0}, then there exist δ > 0 and ε > 0 such that 3.20) Jū) + δ 4 u ū 2 L 2 ) Ju) u K B εū), where B ε ū) denotes the L 2 ) ball of center ū and radius ε. Proof. Let ε > 0 and u K B ε ū) be given. We define ρ = u ū L2 ) ε, v = 1 u ū). ρ A second order Taylor expansion of F yields F u) = F ū) + ρ F ū) v + ρ2 2 F ū) v 2 + ρ t) F ū + t ρ v) F ū) ) v 2 dt. It follows from the continuity of F that the last term is of order oρ 2 ). Using the convexity of j, this shows Ju) Jū) ρ F ū) v + µ j ū, v) ) + ρ2 2 F ū) v 2 + oρ 2 ). In case v C τ ū, Theorem 3.8 and Lemma 3.5 imply Ju) Jū) ρ2 2 δ + oρ2 ),
12 12 E. CASAS, R. HERZOG AND G. WACHSMUTH where δ > 0. On the other hand, if v C τ ū, we have F ū) v + µ j ū, v) τ, since v satisfies 3.7). Hence, we have This shows 3.20) for ε sufficiently small. Ju) Jū) ρ τ ρ2 2 F ū) + oρ 2 ). 4. Finite Element Approximation of P). The goal of this section is to study the approximation of problem P) by finite elements. Both the state and the controls will be discretized. We prove the convergence of the discretization and derive some associated error estimates. To this aim, we consider a family of triangulations {T h } h>0 of, defined in the standard way, e.g. in [3, Chapter 3.3]. Due to the assumption that has a smooth boundary, the triangulation covers a polygonal approximation h. With each element T T h, we associate two parameters ρt ) and σt ), where ρt ) denotes the diameter of the set T and σt ) is the diameter of the largest ball contained in T. Define the size of the mesh by h = max T Th ρt ). To simplify the presentation of the results, in the sequel we suppose that is convex. We also assume that the following regularity assumptions on the triangulation are satisfied which are standard in the context of L error estimates. i) There exist two positive constants ρ and σ such that ρt ) σt ) σ, h ρt ) ρ hold for all T T h and all h > 0. ii) Define h = T Th T, and let h and Γ h denote its interior and its boundary, respectively. We assume that h is convex and that the vertices of T h placed on the boundary Γ h are points of Γ. From [15, estimate )] we know that \ h Ch 2. We will use piecewise linear approximations for the states, thus we set Y h = {y h C ) y h T P 1 for all T T h, and y h = 0 on \ h }, where P 1 is the space of polynomials of degree less or equal than 1. The discrete version of the equation 2.1) is defined as follows: Find y h Y h such that for all z h Y h, 4.1) n ] a ij xi y h xj z h + ax, y h ) z h dx = u z h dx. h h [ i,j=1 Thanks to the monotonicity of the nonlinear term of 4.1) and using Brouwer s fixed point theorem, it is easy to prove the existence and uniqueness of a solution y h u) of 4.1) for any u L 2 h ). Now, we define the space of discrete controls by U h = {u h L 2 h ) : u h T = constant for all T T h }.
13 SEMILINEAR CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH L 1 COST FUNCTIONAL 13 Every element u h U h can be written in the form u h = T T h u T χ T, where χ T is the characteristic function of T. The set of discrete feasible controls is given by K h = {u h U h : α u T β T T h }. Finally, the discrete control problem is formulated as follows P h ) { min Jh u h ) = F h u h ) + µ j h u h ) u h K h where F h : L 2 h ) R and j h : U h R are defined by F h u) = Lx, y h u h )) dx + ν u 2 h dx and j h u h ) = u h dx. h 2 h h It is immediate that P h ) has at least one solution and we have the following first-order optimality conditions analogous to those of problem P), see Theorem 3.1. Theorem 4.1. If ū h is a local minimum of problem P h ), then there exist ȳ h, ϕ h Y h and λ h j h u h ) such that 4.2a) h [ 4.2b) h [ 4.2c) n ] a ij xi ȳ h xj z h + ax, ȳ h ) z h dx = ū h z h dx z h Y h, h i,j=1 n i,j=1 a ij xi z h xj ϕ h + a y x, ȳ ] L h) ϕ h z h dx = h y x, ȳ h) z h dx z h Y h, h ϕ h + ν ū h + µ λ h )u h ū h ) dx 0 u h K h. It is an easy exercise to check that λ h can be written in the form 4.3) λh = λ T = +1 if ū T > 0, λt χ T with λ T = 1 if ū T < 0, T T h λ T [ 1, +1] if ū T = 0, where ū T are the coefficients of ū h ū h = T T h ū T χ T. Inequality 4.2c) can be written in the form ϕ h dx + T [ ν ū T + µ λ ] ) T u T ū T ) 0 α u T β, T T h T
14 14 E. CASAS, R. HERZOG AND G. WACHSMUTH which leads to the representation formula 4.4a) ū T = Proj [α,β] 1 [ 1 ν T T ϕ h dx + µ λ T ]). Using 4.3) and 4.4a) and arguing as in the proof of Corollary 3.2, we can prove 4.4b) ū T = 0 1 T ϕ h dx µ T T h T and 4.4c) λt = Proj [ 1,+1] 1 µ T T ) ϕ h dx T T h. As for the infinite dimensional case, this representation formula implies that λ h is unique for a given local minimum ū h. On the other hand, defining 4.5) dh x) = ϕ h x) + ν ū h x) + µ λ h x), we get the analogous relations to 3.11) 4.6) ū T = α d T h x) dx 0, ū T = β T d h x) dx 0, α < ū T < β d T h x) dx = 0, and { T d h x) dx > 0 ū T = α, T d h x) dx < 0 ū T = β. The rest of the section is divided into two parts. In the first part, we prove that the family of problems P h ) realizes a convergent approximation of problem P) in a two-fold sense: global solutions of P h ) converge to global solutions of P) and strict local solutions of P) can be approximated by local solutions of P h ). In the second part of the section, we prove some error estimates for these approximations Convergence of the Discretizations. Before proving the convergence of the solutions of P h ) to solutions of P) we need to establish some convergence properties of the finite element approximation of the state and adjoint state equations. The next result is well known; see [1], [5] and [16] and the references therein. Lemma 4.2. Let u, v L ) fulfill u L ) + v L ) M, and let y u, y h v), ϕ u and ϕ h v) be the solutions of 2.1), 4.1) with u replaced by v), 2.9) and 4.2b) with ȳ h replaced by y h v)), respectively. Then the following a priori estimates hold: 4.7a) y u y h v) H 1 h ) + ϕ u ϕ h v) H 1 h ) C h + u v L )) 2, 4.7b) y u y h v) L 2 h ) + ϕ u ϕ h v) L 2 h ) C h 2 + u v L )) 2, 4.7c) y u y h v) L h ) + ϕ u ϕ h v) L h ) C h 2 n/ p log h + u v L )) 2.
15 SEMILINEAR CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH L 1 COST FUNCTIONAL 15 Moreover, if u h u weakly in L p ), with p > n/2, then y h u h ) y u and ϕ h u h ) ϕ u in H 1 0 ) C ) strongly and Ju) lim inf h 0 J h u h ) holds. Remark 4.3. Given a sequence {u h } h>0, with u h L q h ) and 1 q +, we say that u h u weakly in L q ) respectively, weakly in L ) if q = ) if u L q ) and g u h dx g u dx g L q ). h The above definition is equivalent to the weak or weak ) convergence of any extension {ũ h } h>0 L q ) ) of {u h } h>0 such that ũ h \h 0 when h 0. Since \ h 0 when h 0, this is in particular the case if we extend u h by an L q ) function independent of h. We also say that {u h } h>0 is bounded in L q ) if there exists a bounded extension {ũ h } h>0 L q ), which is equivalent to the boundedness u h Lq h ) C for all h > 0 and some C > 0. Now we have the first convergence theorem. Theorem 4.4. For every h > 0 let ū h be a global solution of problem P h ), then the sequence {ū h } h>0 is bounded in L ) and there exist subsequences, denoted in the same way, converging to a point ū in the weak L ) topology. Any of these limit points is a solution of problem P). Moreover, we have 4.8) lim h 0 { ū ūh L h ) + λ λ h L h ) } = 0 and lim h 0 J h ū h ) = Jū), where λ jū) is given by 3.5c) and λ h j h ū h ) is given by 4.4c). Proof. The sequence {ū h } h>0 is clearly bounded in L ). Let us assume that, for a subsequence denoted in the same way, ū h ū weakly in L ) when h 0. Let ũ be a solution of P) and take ũ h K h defined by ũ T = 1 T T ũx) dx T T h. Since ũ C 0,1 ) see Corollary 3.2), we know that ũ ũ h L h ) 0. Then, using that ū K, ũ h K h, ū h is a solution of P h ) and ũ is a solution of P), we get with the help of Lemma 4.2 that Jũ) Jū) lim inf h 0 J hū h ) lim sup h 0 J h ū h ) lim sup J h ũ h ) = Jũ). h 0 The above inequalities imply that ū is a solution of P) and J h ū h ) Jū). On the other hand, from Lemma 4.2 we infer lim Lx, ȳ h ) dx = Lx, ȳ) dx, h 0 h where ȳ h and ȳ are the states associated with ū h and ū, respectively. Therefore { ν 2 ū h 2 L 2 h) + µ ū h L 1 h )} = ν 2 ū 2 L 2 ) + µ ū L 1 ). lim h 0 From this convergence and the weak convergence ū h ū for an arbitrary extension of ū h to ) in L 2 ) we deduce that ū h ū strongly in L 2 ). Now, Lemma 4.2
16 16 E. CASAS, R. HERZOG AND G. WACHSMUTH implies that ȳ h ȳ and ϕ h ϕ in H 1 ) C ). From formula 4.4c), for every T T h we deduce the existence of x T T such that λ T = Proj [ 1,+1] 1 ) ϕ h dx = Proj µ T [ 1,+1] 1 ) µ ϕ hx T ), and therefore λ λ h L h ) = max λ λ h L T T T ) h max max T T h x T Proj [ 1,+1] + max Proj [ 1,+1] and thus T T h T 1 µ ϕx) ) Proj [ 1,+1] 1 µ ϕx T )) 1 ) µ ϕx T ) Proj [ 1,+1] 1 µ ϕ hx T )) 4.9) λ λ h L h ) 1 µ L ϕh + 1 µ ϕ ϕ h L h ) 0, where L ϕ is the Lipschitz constant of ϕ. Finally, using 4.4a) and 3.5a), we can argue in a similar way to conclude that ū ū h L h ) 0. The next theorem is a kind of reciprocal result to the previous one for local solutions. It is important from a practical point of view because it states that every strict local minimum of problem P) can be approximated by local minima of problems P h ). Theorem 4.5. Let ū be a strict local minimum of P), then there exists a sequence {ū h } h>0 of local minima of problems P h ) such that 4.8) holds. Proof. Let ū be a strict local minimum of P), then there exists ε > 0 such that ū is the unique solution of 4.10) min Ju), u K B εū) where B ε ū) is a ball in L q ) and all the elements of U h are extended to by taking u h x) = ūx) for any x \ h. We will distinguish two cases: q = 2 or q = ; recall the comments made at the beginning of section 3. Let us consider the discrete problems P εh ) min J h u). u K h B εū) For every h sufficiently small, the problem P εh ) has at least one solution. Indeed, the only delicate point is to check that K h B ε ū) is not empty. To this end, we define û h U h by û T = 1 ūx) dx T T h. T T Then, thanks to the Lipschitz regularity of ū, we have ū û h L ) 0, therefore û K h B ε ū) for any h h 0 and some h 0 > 0 sufficiently small. Let ū h be a solution of P εh ) for h h 0. Then we can argue as in the proof of Theorem 4.4 to deduce that any subsequence of {ū h } h h0 converges strongly in
17 SEMILINEAR CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH L 1 COST FUNCTIONAL 17 L 2 ) to a solution of P ε ). Since this problem has a unique solution, we have ū ū h L2 ) 0 for the whole sequence as h 0. If q = 2, this implies that the constraint ū h B ε ū) is not active for h small, and hence ū h is a local solution of P h ) and 4.2) is fulfilled. Therefore we proceed as in the proof of Theorem 4.4 to deduce 4.8). If q =, then 4.2a) and 4.2b) hold and 4.2c) has to be replaced by 4.11) ϕ h + ν ū h + µ λ h )u h ū h ) dx 0 u h K h B ε ū). h Let us define α ε x) = max{α, ūx) ε}, β ε x) = min{β, ūx) + ε} and α εt = max x T α εx), β εt = min x T β εx) T Y h. Then 4.11) is equivalent to ϕ h dx + T [ ν ū T + µ λ ] ) T u T ū T ) 0 α εt u T β εt T T h, T which leads to the representation formula analogous to 4.4a) ū T = Proj [αεt,β εt ] 1 [ ]) 1 ϕ h dx + µ ν T λ T T = Proj [αεt,β εt ] 1 [ ϕh x T ) + µ ν λ ] ) T T T h. The representation formula 4.4c) still is valid, which leads to the convergence λ λ h L h ) 0 as proved in Theorem 4.4. On the other hand, it is obvious that Proj [α,β] 1 ) [ ϕx) + µ λx)] = Proj ν [αεx),β εx)] 1 [ ] ) ϕx) + µ λx) x. ν Also we have α ε x) α εt max ūx) min ūx) L ūh x T, T T h, x T x T where Lū is the Lipschitz constant of ū. An analogous inequality is valid for β ε x) β εt. Finally, we have for any x T, with T T h, ūx) ū h x) ūx) ūx T ) + ūx T ) ū T Lūh + Proj [αεx T ),β εx T )] Proj [αεt,β εt ] 1 ν [ ϕxt ) + µ λx T ) ]) 1 ν [ ϕh x T ) + µ λ T ] ) Lūh + α ε x T ) α εt + β ε x T ) β εt + 1 { ϕxt ) ϕ h x T ) + µ λx T ) ν λ T } 3Lūh + 1 { ϕ ϕh L ν h ) + µ λ λ } h L h ) 0. Hence, we have that ū ū h L h ) 0 as h 0, therefore the constraint ū h B ε ū) is not active for small h. Consequently ū is a local minimum of P h ).
18 18 E. CASAS, R. HERZOG AND G. WACHSMUTH 4.2. Error Estimates. In this section, {ū h } h>0 denotes a sequence of local minima of problems P h ) such that ū ū h L h ) 0 when h 0, ū being a local minimum of P); see Theorems 4.4 and 4.5. The goal of this section is to obtain estimates of ū ū h in the L 2 and L norms. As we did in the proof of Theorem 4.5, we extend all the functions u h U h to by taking u h x) = ūx) for every x \ h. Analogously we extend λ h to by setting λ h x) = λx) for x \ h. Now, we recall that Corollary 3.2 implies that ū, λ C 0,1 ), where λ jū) and ū, λ) satisfies 3.4) along with the state ȳ and the adjoint state ϕ associated with ū. To derive the error estimates we are going to begin by invoking the first-order optimality conditions 3.4c) and 4.2c). Taking u = ū h in 3.4c), we get 4.12) F ū)ū h ū) + µ λ ū h ū) dx = ϕ + ν ū + µ λ)ū h ū) dx 0. Now, for any u h K h, we deduce from 4.2c) F hū h )u h ū h ) + µ λ h u h ū h ) dx = ϕ h + ν ū h + µ λ h )u h ū h ) dx 0. h From here we get 4.13) F ū h )ū ū h ) + [ F hū h ) F ū h ) ] ū ū h ) + [ F hū h ) F ū) ] u h ū) + F ū)u h ū) + µ λh u h ū h ) dx 0. h Adding 4.12) and 4.13) we deduce [ 4.14) F ū h ) F ū) ] ū h ū) [ F hū h ) F ū h ) ] ū ū h ) + [ F hū h ) F ū) ] u h ū) + F ū)u h ū) + µ λ u h ū) dx + µ λ λ h )ū h ū) dx + µ λ h λ)u h ū) dx for any u h K h. This inequality is crucial in the proof of error estimates. To deal with the left hand side of 4.14) we need ū to satisfy the sufficient second-order condition F ū) v 2 > 0 for every v Cū \ {0}, or equivalently see Theorem 3.8) 4.15) δ > 0 and τ > 0 such that F ū) v 2 δ v 2 L 2 ) for all v C τ ū. 4.16) Lemma 4.6. Let us assume that 4.15) holds. Then, there exists h δ > 0 such that δ 2 ū ū h 2 L 2 h ) [ F ū h ) F ū) ] ū h ū) h h δ. Proof. Using the mean value theorem we obtain [ F ū h ) F ū) ] ū h ū) = F ū + θ h ū h ū))ū h ū) 2. On the other hand, since F is of class C 2 in L 2 ), there exists ε > 0 such that [ F ū) F v) ] ū h ū) 2 δ 2 ū h ū 2 L 2 h ) if ū v L 2 ) < ε.
19 SEMILINEAR CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH L 1 COST FUNCTIONAL 19 From the convergence ū ū h L h ) 0, we deduce the existence of h ε > 0 such that ū ū h L2 ) < ε for h h ε. Then, the last two relations lead to [ F ū h ) F ū) ] ū h ū) F ū)ū h ū) 2 [ F ū + θ h ū h ū)) F ū) ] ū h ū) 2 F ū)ū h ū) 2 δ 2 ū h ū 2 L 2 h ) h h ε. If we prove that ū h ū C τ ū for every h small enough, then 4.16) follows from 4.15) and the previous inequality. Therefore, the rest of the proof is devoted to showing that ū h ū C τ ū for every h sufficiently small. Let us define ū h ū v h =, ū h ū L 2 ) then there exists an element v L 2 ) and a sequence h k 0 such that v hk v in L 2 ). It is obvious that each v h satisfies 3.7), and thus v also does. On the other hand, 4.8) and Lemma 4.2 imply that d d h L h ) 0, where d and d h are defined by 3.10) and 4.5), respectively. From 3.11), we know that ūx 0 ) = α whenever dx 0 ) > 0. Moreover, there exists ρ > 0 and h ρ > 0 such that d h x) > 0 for almost all x satisfying x x 0 < ρ and h h ρ < ρ. Then, 4.6) implies that ū h x 0 ) = α too, hence v h x 0 ) = 0 for h h ρ and almost all x 0 satisfying dx 0 ) > 0. Analogously, we can prove that v h x 0 ) = 0 for h small enough if dx0 ) < 0. We have that v hk v in L 2 0 ), where 0 = {x : dx) 0}. And also we have v hk x) 0 pointwise for almost every x 0. Consequently, v = 0 in 0 holds, see [12, p.207], and therefore 4.17) F ū) v + µ λ v dx = d v dx = d v dx = 0. Now, we study the limit of j ū; v hk ). First we observe that { } 4.18) lim v hk dx v hk dx = v dx k + ū ū + ū ū v dx. The limit in the integral over 0 ū is more complicated. First, we observe that 3.5b) implies 0 ū = {x : ϕx) µ}. If ϕx 0 ) < µ, then arguing as above we have that ϕ h x) < µ for x x 0 < ρ and h h ρ < ρ, hence 4.4b) implies that ū h x 0 ) = 0 for h h ρ. Thus, we have that v hk x) 0 for ϕx) < µ, which leads to vx) = 0 in the same set. If ϕx 0 ) = µ, then 3.5c) implies that λx 0 ) = 1, consequently λ h x) < 0 in a neighborhood of x 0 for every h small, hence with 4.3) we get that ū h x 0 ) 0 for every small h. Thus v hk x) 0 whenever ϕx) = µ and h is small, and hence vx) 0 in the same set. Analogously we obtain that v hk x) 0 whenever ϕx) = µ and h is small, and consequently vx) 0. All together leads to 4.19) lim k = lim k 0 ū { v hk dx = lim + µ k v hk dx + { µ + µ v hk dx + } v hk dx µ } v hk dx = v dx + + µ µ v dx = 0 ū v dx,
20 20 E. CASAS, R. HERZOG AND G. WACHSMUTH where + µ = {x 0 ū : ϕx) = +µ} and µ = {x 0 ū : ϕx) = µ}. From 4.18), 4.19) and the fact that λx) = +1 respectively, 1) for x µ respectively, + µ ), we deduce 4.20) lim k j ū; v hk ) = j ū; v) = λ v dx. From identities 4.17) and 4.20) it follows lim {F ū) v hk + µ j ū; v hk )} = F ū) v + µ j ū; v) = 0. k This equality holds for any weakly convergent subsequence of {v h } h>0, therefore { F ū) v h + µ j ū; v h ) } = 0. lim h 0 Consequently, given τ > 0 satisfying 4.15), there exists h τ > 0 such that F ū) v h + µ j ū; v h ) τ h h τ. From this inequality and the definition of v h we conclude F ū)ū h ū) + µ j ū; ū h ū) τ ū h ū L 2 ), which concludes the proof of ū h ū Cū. τ h h δ = min{h ε, h τ }. Thus, inequality 4.16) holds for any Combining 4.14) and 4.16), and assuming that ū satisfies the second-order sufficient condition 4.15), we get 4.21) δ 2 ū ū h 2 L 2 h ) [ F hū h ) F ū h ) ] ū ū h ) + [ F hū h ) F ū) ] u h ū) + F ū)u h ū) + µ λ u h ū) dx + µ λ λ h )ū h ū) dx + µ λ h λ)u h ū) dx for any u h K h. The rest of the section is devoted to estimating the right hand side of the above inequality. To deal with the first two terms we give the following lemma. Lemma 4.7. Let u, v L ) bounded by a constant M > 0 and w L 2 ), with wx) = 0 in \ h. Then, there exists C M > 0 such that 4.22) [F hv) F u)] w C M h 2 + u v L2 )) w L2 ). Proof. If we denote by ϕ h v) and ϕ u the discrete and continuous adjoint states associated with v and u, respectively, we have [F h v) F u)] w = ϕ h v) + ν v) w dx ϕ u + ν u) w dx ϕ h v) ϕ u L 2 ) + ν v u L 2 )) w L 2 ).
21 SEMILINEAR CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH L 1 COST FUNCTIONAL 21 Now, it is enough to use 4.7b) to deduce 4.22) from the above inequality. by Using 4.22) and Young s inequality we can estimate the first two terms in 4.21) [ F h ū h ) F ū h ) ] ū ū h ) + [ F hū h ) F ū) ] u h ū) C { h 2 ū h ū L 2 h ) + [ h 2 } + ū h ū L 2 h )] uh ū L 2 h ) δ { } 4 ū h ū 2 L 2 h ) + C h 4 + u h ū 2 L 2 h ). From this inequality and 4.21) we infer δ { } 4 ū ū h 2 L 2 h ) C h 4 + u h ū 2 L 2 h ) + F ū)u h ū) + µ λ u h ū) dx 4.23) + µ λ λ h )ū h ū) dx + µ λ h λ)u h ū) dx for any u h K h. Let us introduce a convenient element ũ h K h which approximates ū. We define 1 ũ h = ūx) dx if I T 0, I T T ũ T χ T, where ũ T = 1 T T h ūx) dx otherwise, T with I T = T dx) dx. Now ũ h is extended to by setting ũ h x) = ūx) for x \ h. Lemma 4.8. The following statements hold. 1. ũ h K h, 2. ũ h ū L h ) Ch, 3. F ū)ũ h ū) + µ λ ũ h ū) dx = d ũ h ū) dx = 0. The proof of this lemma follows the steps of [6, Lemma 4.8]. Indeed, λ does not play any role in the proof. The only thing to take into account is that ū and d are Lipschitz functions. Inserting this control ũ h into 4.23) we get δ 4.24) 4 ū ū h 2 L 2 h ) C [ h 2 + h λ h λ ] L 2 h ) + µ λ λ h )ū h ū) dx. Let us estimate λ λ h. By the estimates 4.9) and 4.7c) we infer λ λ h L h ) C [ h + ū h ū L 2 h )]. Inserting this estimate into 4.24) and using once again Young s inequality we get δ 4.25) 8 ū ū h 2 L 2 h ) Ch2 + µ λ λ h )ū h ū) dx. T
22 22 E. CASAS, R. HERZOG AND G. WACHSMUTH Finally, we estimate the last term. Lemma 4.9. The following inequality holds: 4.26) λ λ h )ū h ū) dx 0. Proof. By 3.1), 4.3) and the property ū h = ū in \ h, we get λ λ h )ū h ū) dx = λ ū h ū) dx + λh ū ū h ) dx h ū h L1 ) ū L1 ) + ū L1 h ) ū h L1 h ) = 0. With 4.25) and 4.26) we have proved the following theorem. Theorem Let ū be a local minimum of problem P) and let {ū h } h>0 be a sequence of local minima of problems P h ) such that ū ū h L h ) 0. Let us assume that 4.15) holds. Then there exists a constant C > 0 independent of h such that ū h ū L 2 h ) Ch. Finally, combining this theorem with 4.7c) and 4.9) and the representation formulas for ū and ū h we get the following result. Corollary Under the assumptions of Theorem 4.10, we have ū h ū L h ) + λ h λ L h ) + ȳ h ȳ L h ) + ϕ h ϕ L h ) Ch, for some constant C > 0 independent of h. 5. A Variational Discretization of P). In this section we consider a partial discretization of P). As in Section 4, we consider a triangulation of under the same hypotheses, Y h is defined in the same way leading to the same discrete state equation 4.1). However, we do not discretize the controls and we set U h = L ). Rather, the controls are implicitly discretized by the representation formula, see 5.1). This idea was introduced by Hinze [13] and it was called variational discretization of the control problem. This discretization is numerically implementable although the discretized problem continues to be an infinite dimensional optimization problem) thanks to the fact that the optimal control ū h is a projection of the adjoint state, which is piecewise linear, translating this property to ū h. This incomplete discretization leads to an error estimate of ū ū h of order h 2 in the L 2 h ) norm as we will prove in this section. The problem Q h ) is defined as follows { min Jh u h ) = F h u h ) + µ j h u h ) Q h ) u h K where F h : L 2 h ) R and j h : L 1 h ) R are defined as in Section 4. The proof of the existence of a solution ū h of Q h ) is the same as for the problem P). The optimality conditions satisfied by a local minimum of Q h ) are given by Theorem 4.1 with K h replaced by K. This change leads to the same relations formulas proved in
23 SEMILINEAR CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH L 1 COST FUNCTIONAL 23 Corollary 3.2, i.e., 5.1a) 5.1b) 5.1c) ū h x) = Proj [α,β] 1 ν ϕh x) + µ λ h x) )), ū h x) = 0 ϕ h x) µ, λ h x) = Proj [ 1,+1] 1 ) µ ϕ hx). These expressions are valid for every x h. Also we have λ h x) = +1 if ū h x) > 0, λ h x) = 1 if ū h x) < 0, λ h x) [ 1, +1] if ū h x) = 0 Theorem 4.4 is valid for the problem Q h ). Let us mention the only two changes in the proof. First, given a solution ũ of P), we do not need to introduce ũ h as we did in the proof, we just take ũ h = ũ because now K h = K. On the other hand, using 3.5c) and 5.1c) we have that λ λ h L h ) = Proj [α,β] 1 ) µ ϕ Proj [α,β] 1 ) µ ϕ h L h) 1 µ ϕ ϕ h L h ) and ū ū h L h ) 1 ϕ + µ λ) ϕh + µ ν λ h ). L h ) With these changes the proof follows the same steps. Theorem 4.5 is also valid. In fact, its proof is easier for the new problem Q h ) by using the properties 5.1). For instance, in the definition of P ε ) we have to replace K h by K, then it is obvious that ū is a feasible control of P ε ). We consider the functions α ε and β ε and we get from 4.11) that ū h x) = Proj [αε,β ε] 1 ν [ ϕ hx) + µ λ ) h x))]. Moreover, from the definition of α ε and β ε also we have ūx) = Proj [αε,β ε] From the last two inequalities we deduce that 1 ) [ ϕx) + µ λx))]. ν ū ū h L h ) 1 ν ϕ + µ λ) ϕ h + µ λ h ) L h ). With these observations the proof of Theorem 4.5 is immediate. Finally, we have the following error estimates. Theorem 5.1. Let ū be a local minimum of problem P) and let {ū h } h>0 be a sequence of local minima of problems Q h ) such that ū ū h L h ) 0. Let us assume that 4.15) holds. Then there exists a constant C > 0 independent of h such
24 24 E. CASAS, R. HERZOG AND G. WACHSMUTH that 5.2a) 5.2b) 5.2c) 5.2d) ū ū h L 2 h ) + λ λ h L 2 h ) Ch 2, ū ū h L h ) + λ λ h L h ) Ch 2 n p log h, ȳ ȳh L2h) + ϕ ϕh L2h) + h ȳ ȳ h H1 h ) + ϕ ϕ h H1 h )) Ch 2, ȳ ȳ h L h ) + ϕ ϕ h L h ) Ch 2 n p log h. Proof. Arguing as in the previous section we see that the inequality 4.14) is valid for any u h K. Then we select u h = ū and 4.14) becomes [ F ū h ) F ū) ] ū h ū) [ F hū h ) F ū h ) ] ū ū h ) + µ λ λ h )ū h ū) dx. Obviously Lemmas 4.6, 4.7 and 4.9 are still valid, then applied to the previous inequality we obtain the estimate ū ū h L 2 h ) Ch 2. This estimate combined with 4.7a) and 4.7b) prove 5.2c). Now 5.2d) is an immediate consequence of 4.7c) and the estimate obtained for the controls. The L h ) estimate for the controls follows from 5.2d) and the representation formulas 3.5a) and 5.1a). Finally, the estimates for λ λ h are consequences of the estimates 5.2c) and 5.2d) and the representation formulas 3.5c) and 5.1c). 6. Numerical Validation. The purpose of the numerical examples is to verify the theoretical results of the full discretization Section 4) and variational discretization approaches Section 5). Let us fix the parameters of Problem P). The domain = B 1 0) R 2 is the unit circle and the state equation 2.1) is given by y + y 3 = u in, y = 0 on Γ. The part L of the objective is the standard tracking type functional, i.e. Lx, y) = 1 2 y y dx)) 2 with y d x 1, x 2 ) = 4 sin2 π x 1 ) sinπ x 2 ) e x1. For the remaining parameters we choose ν = , α = 12 µ = , β = 12. The adjoint equation 3.4b) is now given by ϕ + 3 ȳ 2 ϕ = ȳ y d in, ϕ = 0 on Γ. The FEM library FEniCS [10, 14] and the Computational Geometry Algorithms Library CGAL) [7] were used for all discretization related aspects of the implementation.
25 SEMILINEAR CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH L1 COST FUNCTIONAL Full Discretization. As described above, we employ continuous piecewise linear P1 ) discretizations of the state y and adjoint state ϕ and a piecewise constant approximation P0 ) of the control u. Now, the discretized optimality conditions for Ph ) are 6.1) Find yh, ϕh, uh ) Yh Yh Uh such that Z Z 3 yh zh + yh zh dx = uh zh dx Ωh Ωh Z Z 2 ϕh zh + 3 yh ϕh zh dx = yh yd ) zh dx Ωh Ωh i 1h ut = Proj[α,β] ϕt Proj[ µ,µ] ϕt ) ν for all zh Yh for all zh Yh on all T Th, R where ϕt = T1 T ϕh dx is the mean value of ϕh on T. Note that we have inserted 4.4c) into 4.4a). The nonlinear system 6.1) is solved via a semi-smooth Newton method and for a sequence of different meshes, similar as in [17]. An example for the discretized optimal control on two different meshes is displayed in Figure 6.1. The error with respect to the solution on the finest grid h = 2 8 ) is shown in Table 6.1 and Figure 6.2a). It confirms the linear rate of convergence w.r.t. h. The error in the L norm falls below 12 = β 0 = 0 α only as soon as the relatively small margin between the parts of the domain where u {α, 0, β} is resolved by the mesh. Note also that the meshes for this example are not nested. Fig Optimal control u h for the case of full discretization on the unit circle, h = 2 3 and h = 2 8. Dark blue and dark red areas correspond to u h = ±12 and gray areas to u h = 0. We remark that the analysis above carries over to problems defined on a convex polygonal domain Ω; see Remark 2.4. Indeed, we observe the same convergence rates for the case Ω = 0, 1)2 R2 with all other problem data unchanged, see Table 6.1 and Figure 6.2b). The finest grid in this case was h = Variational Discretization. As described above, we employ continuous piecewise linear P1 ) discretizations of the state y and adjoint state ϕ and a variational approximation of the control u, i.e., Uh = L Ω). Now, the discretized optimality
PARABOLIC CONTROL PROBLEMS IN SPACE-TIME MEASURE SPACES
ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations URL: http://www.emath.fr/cocv/ Will be set by the publisher PARABOLIC CONTROL PROBLEMS IN SPACE-TIME MEASURE SPACES Eduardo Casas and Karl Kunisch
More informationSUPERCONVERGENCE PROPERTIES FOR OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS DISCRETIZED BY PIECEWISE LINEAR AND DISCONTINUOUS FUNCTIONS
SUPERCONVERGENCE PROPERTIES FOR OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS DISCRETIZED BY PIECEWISE LINEAR AND DISCONTINUOUS FUNCTIONS A. RÖSCH AND R. SIMON Abstract. An optimal control problem for an elliptic equation
More informationHamburger Beiträge zur Angewandten Mathematik
Hamburger Beiträge zur Angewandten Mathematik Numerical analysis of a control and state constrained elliptic control problem with piecewise constant control approximations Klaus Deckelnick and Michael
More informationOptimal Control of PDE Theory and Numerical Analysis
Optimal Control of PDE Theory and Numerical Analysis Eduardo Casas To cite this version: Eduardo Casas. Optimal Control of PDE Theory and Numerical Analysis. 3rd cycle. Castro Urdiales (Espagne), 2006,
More informationError estimates for the finite-element approximation of a semilinear elliptic control problem
Error estimates for the finite-element approximation of a semilinear elliptic control problem by Eduardo Casas 1 and Fredi röltzsch 2 1 Departamento de Matemática Aplicada y Ciencias de la Computación
More informationNecessary conditions for convergence rates of regularizations of optimal control problems
Necessary conditions for convergence rates of regularizations of optimal control problems Daniel Wachsmuth and Gerd Wachsmuth Johann Radon Institute for Computational and Applied Mathematics RICAM), Austrian
More information1. Introduction. In this paper, we consider optimal control problems for a quasilinear elliptic equation of the type
FIRST- AND SECOND-ORDER OPTIMALITY CONDITIONS FOR A CLASS OF OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH QUASILINEAR ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS EDUARDO CASAS AND FREDI TRÖLTZSCH Abstract. A class of optimal control problems
More informationError estimates for the discretization of the velocity tracking problem
Numerische Mathematik manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Error estimates for the discretization of the velocity tracking problem Eduardo Casas 1, Konstantinos Chrysafinos 2 1 Departamento
More informationAn introduction to Mathematical Theory of Control
An introduction to Mathematical Theory of Control Vasile Staicu University of Aveiro UNICA, May 2018 Vasile Staicu (University of Aveiro) An introduction to Mathematical Theory of Control UNICA, May 2018
More informationOptimal Control of PDE. Eduardo Casas
Optimal Control of PDE Eduardo Casas Dpto. Matemática Aplicada y Ciencias de la Computación Universidad de Cantabria, Santander (Spain) CIMPA-UNESCO-GUADELOUPE School Pointe-à-Pitre January 3 18, 2009
More informationContents: 1. Minimization. 2. The theorem of Lions-Stampacchia for variational inequalities. 3. Γ -Convergence. 4. Duality mapping.
Minimization Contents: 1. Minimization. 2. The theorem of Lions-Stampacchia for variational inequalities. 3. Γ -Convergence. 4. Duality mapping. 1 Minimization A Topological Result. Let S be a topological
More informationWEAK LOWER SEMI-CONTINUITY OF THE OPTIMAL VALUE FUNCTION AND APPLICATIONS TO WORST-CASE ROBUST OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS
WEAK LOWER SEMI-CONTINUITY OF THE OPTIMAL VALUE FUNCTION AND APPLICATIONS TO WORST-CASE ROBUST OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS ROLAND HERZOG AND FRANK SCHMIDT Abstract. Sufficient conditions ensuring weak lower
More informationEXISTENCE RESULTS FOR QUASILINEAR HEMIVARIATIONAL INEQUALITIES AT RESONANCE. Leszek Gasiński
DISCRETE AND CONTINUOUS Website: www.aimsciences.org DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS SUPPLEMENT 2007 pp. 409 418 EXISTENCE RESULTS FOR QUASILINEAR HEMIVARIATIONAL INEQUALITIES AT RESONANCE Leszek Gasiński Jagiellonian
More informationRobust error estimates for regularization and discretization of bang-bang control problems
Robust error estimates for regularization and discretization of bang-bang control problems Daniel Wachsmuth September 2, 205 Abstract We investigate the simultaneous regularization and discretization of
More informationREGULAR LAGRANGE MULTIPLIERS FOR CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH MIXED POINTWISE CONTROL-STATE CONSTRAINTS
REGULAR LAGRANGE MULTIPLIERS FOR CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH MIXED POINTWISE CONTROL-STATE CONSTRAINTS fredi tröltzsch 1 Abstract. A class of quadratic optimization problems in Hilbert spaces is considered,
More informationOn second order sufficient optimality conditions for quasilinear elliptic boundary control problems
On second order sufficient optimality conditions for quasilinear elliptic boundary control problems Vili Dhamo Technische Universität Berlin Joint work with Eduardo Casas Workshop on PDE Constrained Optimization
More informationNEW REGULARITY RESULTS AND IMPROVED ERROR ESTIMATES FOR OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH STATE CONSTRAINTS.
ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations URL: http://www.emath.fr/cocv/ Will be set by the publisher NEW REGULARITY RESULTS AND IMPROVED ERROR ESTIMATES FOR OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH
More informationFunctional Analysis. Franck Sueur Metric spaces Definitions Completeness Compactness Separability...
Functional Analysis Franck Sueur 2018-2019 Contents 1 Metric spaces 1 1.1 Definitions........................................ 1 1.2 Completeness...................................... 3 1.3 Compactness......................................
More informationCalculus of Variations. Final Examination
Université Paris-Saclay M AMS and Optimization January 18th, 018 Calculus of Variations Final Examination Duration : 3h ; all kind of paper documents (notes, books...) are authorized. The total score of
More informationON GENERALIZED-CONVEX CONSTRAINED MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION
ON GENERALIZED-CONVEX CONSTRAINED MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION CHRISTIAN GÜNTHER AND CHRISTIANE TAMMER Abstract. In this paper, we consider multi-objective optimization problems involving not necessarily
More informationON GAP FUNCTIONS OF VARIATIONAL INEQUALITY IN A BANACH SPACE. Sangho Kum and Gue Myung Lee. 1. Introduction
J. Korean Math. Soc. 38 (2001), No. 3, pp. 683 695 ON GAP FUNCTIONS OF VARIATIONAL INEQUALITY IN A BANACH SPACE Sangho Kum and Gue Myung Lee Abstract. In this paper we are concerned with theoretical properties
More informationAdaptive methods for control problems with finite-dimensional control space
Adaptive methods for control problems with finite-dimensional control space Saheed Akindeinde and Daniel Wachsmuth Johann Radon Institute for Computational and Applied Mathematics (RICAM) Austrian Academy
More informationK. Krumbiegel I. Neitzel A. Rösch
SUFFICIENT OPTIMALITY CONDITIONS FOR THE MOREAU-YOSIDA-TYPE REGULARIZATION CONCEPT APPLIED TO SEMILINEAR ELLIPTIC OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH POINTWISE STATE CONSTRAINTS K. Krumbiegel I. Neitzel A. Rösch
More informationON WEAKLY NONLINEAR BACKWARD PARABOLIC PROBLEM
ON WEAKLY NONLINEAR BACKWARD PARABOLIC PROBLEM OLEG ZUBELEVICH DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS THE BUDGET AND TREASURY ACADEMY OF THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 7, ZLATOUSTINSKY MALIY PER.,
More informationSYMMETRY RESULTS FOR PERTURBED PROBLEMS AND RELATED QUESTIONS. Massimo Grosi Filomena Pacella S. L. Yadava. 1. Introduction
Topological Methods in Nonlinear Analysis Journal of the Juliusz Schauder Center Volume 21, 2003, 211 226 SYMMETRY RESULTS FOR PERTURBED PROBLEMS AND RELATED QUESTIONS Massimo Grosi Filomena Pacella S.
More informationProblem Set 6: Solutions Math 201A: Fall a n x n,
Problem Set 6: Solutions Math 201A: Fall 2016 Problem 1. Is (x n ) n=0 a Schauder basis of C([0, 1])? No. If f(x) = a n x n, n=0 where the series converges uniformly on [0, 1], then f has a power series
More informationLecture Notes in Advanced Calculus 1 (80315) Raz Kupferman Institute of Mathematics The Hebrew University
Lecture Notes in Advanced Calculus 1 (80315) Raz Kupferman Institute of Mathematics The Hebrew University February 7, 2007 2 Contents 1 Metric Spaces 1 1.1 Basic definitions...........................
More informationEXISTENCE OF SOLUTIONS TO ASYMPTOTICALLY PERIODIC SCHRÖDINGER EQUATIONS
Electronic Journal of Differential Equations, Vol. 017 (017), No. 15, pp. 1 7. ISSN: 107-6691. URL: http://ejde.math.txstate.edu or http://ejde.math.unt.edu EXISTENCE OF SOLUTIONS TO ASYMPTOTICALLY PERIODIC
More informationRecall that if X is a compact metric space, C(X), the space of continuous (real-valued) functions on X, is a Banach space with the norm
Chapter 13 Radon Measures Recall that if X is a compact metric space, C(X), the space of continuous (real-valued) functions on X, is a Banach space with the norm (13.1) f = sup x X f(x). We want to identify
More informationA CHARACTERIZATION OF STRICT LOCAL MINIMIZERS OF ORDER ONE FOR STATIC MINMAX PROBLEMS IN THE PARAMETRIC CONSTRAINT CASE
Journal of Applied Analysis Vol. 6, No. 1 (2000), pp. 139 148 A CHARACTERIZATION OF STRICT LOCAL MINIMIZERS OF ORDER ONE FOR STATIC MINMAX PROBLEMS IN THE PARAMETRIC CONSTRAINT CASE A. W. A. TAHA Received
More informationA LOCALIZATION PROPERTY AT THE BOUNDARY FOR MONGE-AMPERE EQUATION
A LOCALIZATION PROPERTY AT THE BOUNDARY FOR MONGE-AMPERE EQUATION O. SAVIN. Introduction In this paper we study the geometry of the sections for solutions to the Monge- Ampere equation det D 2 u = f, u
More informationSecond Order Elliptic PDE
Second Order Elliptic PDE T. Muthukumar tmk@iitk.ac.in December 16, 2014 Contents 1 A Quick Introduction to PDE 1 2 Classification of Second Order PDE 3 3 Linear Second Order Elliptic Operators 4 4 Periodic
More informationi=1 α i. Given an m-times continuously
1 Fundamentals 1.1 Classification and characteristics Let Ω R d, d N, d 2, be an open set and α = (α 1,, α d ) T N d 0, N 0 := N {0}, a multiindex with α := d i=1 α i. Given an m-times continuously differentiable
More informationFUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS LECTURE NOTES: WEAK AND WEAK* CONVERGENCE
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS LECTURE NOTES: WEAK AND WEAK* CONVERGENCE CHRISTOPHER HEIL 1. Weak and Weak* Convergence of Vectors Definition 1.1. Let X be a normed linear space, and let x n, x X. a. We say that
More informationSECOND-ORDER SUFFICIENT OPTIMALITY CONDITIONS FOR THE OPTIMAL CONTROL OF NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS
1 SECOND-ORDER SUFFICIENT OPTIMALITY CONDITIONS FOR THE OPTIMAL CONTROL OF NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS fredi tröltzsch and daniel wachsmuth 1 Abstract. In this paper sufficient optimality conditions are established
More informationOPTIMALITY CONDITIONS FOR STATE-CONSTRAINED PDE CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH TIME-DEPENDENT CONTROLS
OPTIMALITY CONDITIONS FOR STATE-CONSTRAINED PDE CONTROL PROBLEMS WITH TIME-DEPENDENT CONTROLS J.C. DE LOS REYES P. MERINO J. REHBERG F. TRÖLTZSCH Abstract. The paper deals with optimal control problems
More informationCONVERGENCE THEORY. G. ALLAIRE CMAP, Ecole Polytechnique. 1. Maximum principle. 2. Oscillating test function. 3. Two-scale convergence
1 CONVERGENCE THEOR G. ALLAIRE CMAP, Ecole Polytechnique 1. Maximum principle 2. Oscillating test function 3. Two-scale convergence 4. Application to homogenization 5. General theory H-convergence) 6.
More information3 (Due ). Let A X consist of points (x, y) such that either x or y is a rational number. Is A measurable? What is its Lebesgue measure?
MA 645-4A (Real Analysis), Dr. Chernov Homework assignment 1 (Due ). Show that the open disk x 2 + y 2 < 1 is a countable union of planar elementary sets. Show that the closed disk x 2 + y 2 1 is a countable
More information2 A Model, Harmonic Map, Problem
ELLIPTIC SYSTEMS JOHN E. HUTCHINSON Department of Mathematics School of Mathematical Sciences, A.N.U. 1 Introduction Elliptic equations model the behaviour of scalar quantities u, such as temperature or
More informationEquilibria with a nontrivial nodal set and the dynamics of parabolic equations on symmetric domains
Equilibria with a nontrivial nodal set and the dynamics of parabolic equations on symmetric domains J. Földes Department of Mathematics, Univerité Libre de Bruxelles 1050 Brussels, Belgium P. Poláčik School
More information1 Lyapunov theory of stability
M.Kawski, APM 581 Diff Equns Intro to Lyapunov theory. November 15, 29 1 1 Lyapunov theory of stability Introduction. Lyapunov s second (or direct) method provides tools for studying (asymptotic) stability
More informationContinuity of convex functions in normed spaces
Continuity of convex functions in normed spaces In this chapter, we consider continuity properties of real-valued convex functions defined on open convex sets in normed spaces. Recall that every infinitedimensional
More informationThe Dirichlet s P rinciple. In this lecture we discuss an alternative formulation of the Dirichlet problem for the Laplace equation:
Oct. 1 The Dirichlet s P rinciple In this lecture we discuss an alternative formulation of the Dirichlet problem for the Laplace equation: 1. Dirichlet s Principle. u = in, u = g on. ( 1 ) If we multiply
More information1. Bounded linear maps. A linear map T : E F of real Banach
DIFFERENTIABLE MAPS 1. Bounded linear maps. A linear map T : E F of real Banach spaces E, F is bounded if M > 0 so that for all v E: T v M v. If v r T v C for some positive constants r, C, then T is bounded:
More informationSobolev spaces. May 18
Sobolev spaces May 18 2015 1 Weak derivatives The purpose of these notes is to give a very basic introduction to Sobolev spaces. More extensive treatments can e.g. be found in the classical references
More informationASYMPTOTICALLY NONEXPANSIVE MAPPINGS IN MODULAR FUNCTION SPACES ABSTRACT
ASYMPTOTICALLY NONEXPANSIVE MAPPINGS IN MODULAR FUNCTION SPACES T. DOMINGUEZ-BENAVIDES, M.A. KHAMSI AND S. SAMADI ABSTRACT In this paper, we prove that if ρ is a convex, σ-finite modular function satisfying
More informationEXISTENCE OF THREE WEAK SOLUTIONS FOR A QUASILINEAR DIRICHLET PROBLEM. Saeid Shokooh and Ghasem A. Afrouzi. 1. Introduction
MATEMATIČKI VESNIK MATEMATIQKI VESNIK 69 4 (217 271 28 December 217 research paper originalni nauqni rad EXISTENCE OF THREE WEAK SOLUTIONS FOR A QUASILINEAR DIRICHLET PROBLEM Saeid Shokooh and Ghasem A.
More informationMetric Spaces and Topology
Chapter 2 Metric Spaces and Topology From an engineering perspective, the most important way to construct a topology on a set is to define the topology in terms of a metric on the set. This approach underlies
More information(convex combination!). Use convexity of f and multiply by the common denominator to get. Interchanging the role of x and y, we obtain that f is ( 2M ε
1. Continuity of convex functions in normed spaces In this chapter, we consider continuity properties of real-valued convex functions defined on open convex sets in normed spaces. Recall that every infinitedimensional
More informationReview of Multi-Calculus (Study Guide for Spivak s CHAPTER ONE TO THREE)
Review of Multi-Calculus (Study Guide for Spivak s CHPTER ONE TO THREE) This material is for June 9 to 16 (Monday to Monday) Chapter I: Functions on R n Dot product and norm for vectors in R n : Let X
More informationOptimization and Optimal Control in Banach Spaces
Optimization and Optimal Control in Banach Spaces Bernhard Schmitzer October 19, 2017 1 Convex non-smooth optimization with proximal operators Remark 1.1 (Motivation). Convex optimization: easier to solve,
More informationConvex Functions and Optimization
Chapter 5 Convex Functions and Optimization 5.1 Convex Functions Our next topic is that of convex functions. Again, we will concentrate on the context of a map f : R n R although the situation can be generalized
More informationSYMMETRY OF POSITIVE SOLUTIONS OF SOME NONLINEAR EQUATIONS. M. Grossi S. Kesavan F. Pacella M. Ramaswamy. 1. Introduction
Topological Methods in Nonlinear Analysis Journal of the Juliusz Schauder Center Volume 12, 1998, 47 59 SYMMETRY OF POSITIVE SOLUTIONS OF SOME NONLINEAR EQUATIONS M. Grossi S. Kesavan F. Pacella M. Ramaswamy
More information1 Directional Derivatives and Differentiability
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 1 Directional Derivatives and Differentiability Let E R N, let f : E R and let x 0 E. Given a direction v R N, let L be the line through x 0 in the direction v, that is, L :=
More informationLecture notes on Ordinary Differential Equations. S. Sivaji Ganesh Department of Mathematics Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
Lecture notes on Ordinary Differential Equations S. Ganesh Department of Mathematics Indian Institute of Technology Bombay May 20, 2016 ii IIT Bombay Contents I Ordinary Differential Equations 1 1 Initial
More information1. Introduction Boundary estimates for the second derivatives of the solution to the Dirichlet problem for the Monge-Ampere equation
POINTWISE C 2,α ESTIMATES AT THE BOUNDARY FOR THE MONGE-AMPERE EQUATION O. SAVIN Abstract. We prove a localization property of boundary sections for solutions to the Monge-Ampere equation. As a consequence
More informationTheory of PDE Homework 2
Theory of PDE Homework 2 Adrienne Sands April 18, 2017 In the following exercises we assume the coefficients of the various PDE are smooth and satisfy the uniform ellipticity condition. R n is always an
More informationWeak Topologies, Reflexivity, Adjoint operators
Chapter 2 Weak Topologies, Reflexivity, Adjoint operators 2.1 Topological vector spaces and locally convex spaces Definition 2.1.1. [Topological Vector Spaces and Locally convex Spaces] Let E be a vector
More information(c) For each α R \ {0}, the mapping x αx is a homeomorphism of X.
A short account of topological vector spaces Normed spaces, and especially Banach spaces, are basic ambient spaces in Infinite- Dimensional Analysis. However, there are situations in which it is necessary
More informationGEOMETRIC APPROACH TO CONVEX SUBDIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS October 10, Dedicated to Franco Giannessi and Diethard Pallaschke with great respect
GEOMETRIC APPROACH TO CONVEX SUBDIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS October 10, 2018 BORIS S. MORDUKHOVICH 1 and NGUYEN MAU NAM 2 Dedicated to Franco Giannessi and Diethard Pallaschke with great respect Abstract. In
More information2. Function spaces and approximation
2.1 2. Function spaces and approximation 2.1. The space of test functions. Notation and prerequisites are collected in Appendix A. Let Ω be an open subset of R n. The space C0 (Ω), consisting of the C
More informationAdaptive discretization and first-order methods for nonsmooth inverse problems for PDEs
Adaptive discretization and first-order methods for nonsmooth inverse problems for PDEs Christian Clason Faculty of Mathematics, Universität Duisburg-Essen joint work with Barbara Kaltenbacher, Tuomo Valkonen,
More informationSPECTRAL PROPERTIES OF THE LAPLACIAN ON BOUNDED DOMAINS
SPECTRAL PROPERTIES OF THE LAPLACIAN ON BOUNDED DOMAINS TSOGTGEREL GANTUMUR Abstract. After establishing discrete spectra for a large class of elliptic operators, we present some fundamental spectral properties
More informationOverview of normed linear spaces
20 Chapter 2 Overview of normed linear spaces Starting from this chapter, we begin examining linear spaces with at least one extra structure (topology or geometry). We assume linearity; this is a natural
More informationAn introduction to Birkhoff normal form
An introduction to Birkhoff normal form Dario Bambusi Dipartimento di Matematica, Universitá di Milano via Saldini 50, 0133 Milano (Italy) 19.11.14 1 Introduction The aim of this note is to present an
More informationu( x) = g( y) ds y ( 1 ) U solves u = 0 in U; u = 0 on U. ( 3)
M ath 5 2 7 Fall 2 0 0 9 L ecture 4 ( S ep. 6, 2 0 0 9 ) Properties and Estimates of Laplace s and Poisson s Equations In our last lecture we derived the formulas for the solutions of Poisson s equation
More informationSome SDEs with distributional drift Part I : General calculus. Flandoli, Franco; Russo, Francesco; Wolf, Jochen
Title Author(s) Some SDEs with distributional drift Part I : General calculus Flandoli, Franco; Russo, Francesco; Wolf, Jochen Citation Osaka Journal of Mathematics. 4() P.493-P.54 Issue Date 3-6 Text
More informationConvexity in R n. The following lemma will be needed in a while. Lemma 1 Let x E, u R n. If τ I(x, u), τ 0, define. f(x + τu) f(x). τ.
Convexity in R n Let E be a convex subset of R n. A function f : E (, ] is convex iff f(tx + (1 t)y) (1 t)f(x) + tf(y) x, y E, t [0, 1]. A similar definition holds in any vector space. A topology is needed
More informationChapter 1. Measure Spaces. 1.1 Algebras and σ algebras of sets Notation and preliminaries
Chapter 1 Measure Spaces 1.1 Algebras and σ algebras of sets 1.1.1 Notation and preliminaries We shall denote by X a nonempty set, by P(X) the set of all parts (i.e., subsets) of X, and by the empty set.
More informationPIECEWISE LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT METHODS ARE NOT LOCALIZED
PIECEWISE LINEAR FINITE ELEMENT METHODS ARE NOT LOCALIZED ALAN DEMLOW Abstract. Recent results of Schatz show that standard Galerkin finite element methods employing piecewise polynomial elements of degree
More informationMEASURE VALUED DIRECTIONAL SPARSITY FOR PARABOLIC OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS
MEASURE VALUED DIRECTIONAL SPARSITY FOR PARABOLIC OPTIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS KARL KUNISCH, KONSTANTIN PIEPER, AND BORIS VEXLER Abstract. A directional sparsity framework allowing for measure valued controls
More informationRolle s Theorem for Polynomials of Degree Four in a Hilbert Space 1
Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 265, 322 33 (2002) doi:0.006/jmaa.200.7708, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Rolle s Theorem for Polynomials of Degree Four in a Hilbert
More informationNon-degeneracy of perturbed solutions of semilinear partial differential equations
Non-degeneracy of perturbed solutions of semilinear partial differential equations Robert Magnus, Olivier Moschetta Abstract The equation u + FV εx, u = 0 is considered in R n. For small ε > 0 it is shown
More informationAN EXTENSION OF THE NOTION OF ZERO-EPI MAPS TO THE CONTEXT OF TOPOLOGICAL SPACES
AN EXTENSION OF THE NOTION OF ZERO-EPI MAPS TO THE CONTEXT OF TOPOLOGICAL SPACES MASSIMO FURI AND ALFONSO VIGNOLI Abstract. We introduce the class of hyper-solvable equations whose concept may be regarded
More informationSobolev Spaces. Chapter 10
Chapter 1 Sobolev Spaces We now define spaces H 1,p (R n ), known as Sobolev spaces. For u to belong to H 1,p (R n ), we require that u L p (R n ) and that u have weak derivatives of first order in L p
More informationMath 699 Reading Course, Spring 2007 Rouben Rostamian Homogenization of Differential Equations May 11, 2007 by Alen Agheksanterian
. Introduction Math 699 Reading Course, Spring 007 Rouben Rostamian Homogenization of ifferential Equations May, 007 by Alen Agheksanterian In this brief note, we will use several results from functional
More informationHamburger Beiträge zur Angewandten Mathematik
Hamburger Beiträge zur Angewandten Mathematik A finite element approximation to elliptic control problems in the presence of control and state constraints Klaus Deckelnick and Michael Hinze Nr. 2007-0
More information2 (Bonus). Let A X consist of points (x, y) such that either x or y is a rational number. Is A measurable? What is its Lebesgue measure?
MA 645-4A (Real Analysis), Dr. Chernov Homework assignment 1 (Due 9/5). Prove that every countable set A is measurable and µ(a) = 0. 2 (Bonus). Let A consist of points (x, y) such that either x or y is
More informationWe denote the space of distributions on Ω by D ( Ω) 2.
Sep. 1 0, 008 Distributions Distributions are generalized functions. Some familiarity with the theory of distributions helps understanding of various function spaces which play important roles in the study
More informationConvergence and sharp thresholds for propagation in nonlinear diffusion problems
J. Eur. Math. Soc. 12, 279 312 c European Mathematical Society 2010 DOI 10.4171/JEMS/198 Yihong Du Hiroshi Matano Convergence and sharp thresholds for propagation in nonlinear diffusion problems Received
More information1 Continuity Classes C m (Ω)
0.1 Norms 0.1 Norms A norm on a linear space X is a function : X R with the properties: Positive Definite: x 0 x X (nonnegative) x = 0 x = 0 (strictly positive) λx = λ x x X, λ C(homogeneous) x + y x +
More informationSome Background Material
Chapter 1 Some Background Material In the first chapter, we present a quick review of elementary - but important - material as a way of dipping our toes in the water. This chapter also introduces important
More informationA convergence result for an Outer Approximation Scheme
A convergence result for an Outer Approximation Scheme R. S. Burachik Engenharia de Sistemas e Computação, COPPE-UFRJ, CP 68511, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 21941-972, Brazil regi@cos.ufrj.br J. O. Lopes Departamento
More informationOptimality Conditions for Constrained Optimization
72 CHAPTER 7 Optimality Conditions for Constrained Optimization 1. First Order Conditions In this section we consider first order optimality conditions for the constrained problem P : minimize f 0 (x)
More informationA-posteriori error estimates for optimal control problems with state and control constraints
www.oeaw.ac.at A-posteriori error estimates for optimal control problems with state and control constraints A. Rösch, D. Wachsmuth RICAM-Report 2010-08 www.ricam.oeaw.ac.at A-POSTERIORI ERROR ESTIMATES
More informationAnalysis in weighted spaces : preliminary version
Analysis in weighted spaces : preliminary version Frank Pacard To cite this version: Frank Pacard. Analysis in weighted spaces : preliminary version. 3rd cycle. Téhéran (Iran, 2006, pp.75.
More informationThe small ball property in Banach spaces (quantitative results)
The small ball property in Banach spaces (quantitative results) Ehrhard Behrends Abstract A metric space (M, d) is said to have the small ball property (sbp) if for every ε 0 > 0 there exists a sequence
More informationNOTES ON CALCULUS OF VARIATIONS. September 13, 2012
NOTES ON CALCULUS OF VARIATIONS JON JOHNSEN September 13, 212 1. The basic problem In Calculus of Variations one is given a fixed C 2 -function F (t, x, u), where F is defined for t [, t 1 ] and x, u R,
More informationNONTRIVIAL SOLUTIONS TO INTEGRAL AND DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS
Fixed Point Theory, Volume 9, No. 1, 28, 3-16 http://www.math.ubbcluj.ro/ nodeacj/sfptcj.html NONTRIVIAL SOLUTIONS TO INTEGRAL AND DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS GIOVANNI ANELLO Department of Mathematics University
More informationFunctional Analysis Exercise Class
Functional Analysis Exercise Class Week 2 November 6 November Deadline to hand in the homeworks: your exercise class on week 9 November 13 November Exercises (1) Let X be the following space of piecewise
More informationA NEW ITERATIVE METHOD FOR THE SPLIT COMMON FIXED POINT PROBLEM IN HILBERT SPACES. Fenghui Wang
A NEW ITERATIVE METHOD FOR THE SPLIT COMMON FIXED POINT PROBLEM IN HILBERT SPACES Fenghui Wang Department of Mathematics, Luoyang Normal University, Luoyang 470, P.R. China E-mail: wfenghui@63.com ABSTRACT.
More informationINTRODUCTION TO REAL ANALYTIC GEOMETRY
INTRODUCTION TO REAL ANALYTIC GEOMETRY KRZYSZTOF KURDYKA 1. Analytic functions in several variables 1.1. Summable families. Let (E, ) be a normed space over the field R or C, dim E
More informationConvergence of a finite element approximation to a state constrained elliptic control problem
Als Manuskript gedruckt Technische Universität Dresden Herausgeber: Der Rektor Convergence of a finite element approximation to a state constrained elliptic control problem Klaus Deckelnick & Michael Hinze
More informationExistence and Uniqueness
Chapter 3 Existence and Uniqueness An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect
More informationFIXED POINT THEOREMS OF KRASNOSELSKII TYPE IN A SPACE OF CONTINUOUS FUNCTIONS
Fixed Point Theory, Volume 5, No. 2, 24, 181-195 http://www.math.ubbcluj.ro/ nodeacj/sfptcj.htm FIXED POINT THEOREMS OF KRASNOSELSKII TYPE IN A SPACE OF CONTINUOUS FUNCTIONS CEZAR AVRAMESCU 1 AND CRISTIAN
More informationFinite difference method for elliptic problems: I
Finite difference method for elliptic problems: I Praveen. C praveen@math.tifrbng.res.in Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Center for Applicable Mathematics Bangalore 560065 http://math.tifrbng.res.in/~praveen
More informationOn duality theory of conic linear problems
On duality theory of conic linear problems Alexander Shapiro School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 3332-25, USA e-mail: ashapiro@isye.gatech.edu
More information1.2 Fundamental Theorems of Functional Analysis
1.2 Fundamental Theorems of Functional Analysis 15 Indeed, h = ω ψ ωdx is continuous compactly supported with R hdx = 0 R and thus it has a unique compactly supported primitive. Hence fφ dx = f(ω ψ ωdy)dx
More informationChapter 2 Convex Analysis
Chapter 2 Convex Analysis The theory of nonsmooth analysis is based on convex analysis. Thus, we start this chapter by giving basic concepts and results of convexity (for further readings see also [202,
More informationNon-degeneracy of perturbed solutions of semilinear partial differential equations
Non-degeneracy of perturbed solutions of semilinear partial differential equations Robert Magnus, Olivier Moschetta Abstract The equation u + F(V (εx, u = 0 is considered in R n. For small ε > 0 it is
More information