FINITE ELEMENT EXTERIOR CALCULUS WITH LOWER-ORDER TERMS arxiv: v1 [math.na] 22 Sep 2015

Transcription

1 FINITE ELEMENT EXTERIOR CALCULUS WITH LOWER-ORDER TERMS arxiv: v1 [mat.na] 22 Sep 2015 DOUGLAS N. ARNOLD AND LIZAO LI Abstract. Te scalar and vector Laplacians are basic operators in pysics and engineering. In applications, tey sow up frequently perturbed by lowerorder terms. Te effect of suc perturbations on mixed finite element metods in te scalar case is well-understood, but tat in te vector case is not. In tis paper, we first sow tat surprisingly for certain elements tere is degradation of te convergence rates wit certain lower-order terms even wen bot te solution and te data are smoot. We ten give a systematic analysis of lower-order terms in mixed metods by extending te Finite Element Exterior Calculus (FEEC) framework, wic contains te scalar, vector Laplacian, and many oter elliptic operators as special cases. We prove tat stable mixed discretization remains stable wit lower-order terms for sufficiently fine discretization. Moreover, we derive sarp improved error estimates for eac individual variable. In particular, tis yields new results for te vector Laplacian problem wic are useful in applications suc as electromagnetism and acoustics modeling. Furter our results imply many previous results for te scalar problem and tus unifies tem all under te FEEC framework. 1. Introduction Te vector Laplace equation, and, more generally, te Hodge Laplace equation associated to a complex, arise in many applications. Te discretization of suc equations is a basic motivation of te Finite Element Exterior Calculus(FEEC)[1, 2]. In many applications te equations include variable coefficients and lower-order terms. Wile te former is included in te standard FEEC framework troug weigted inner products, te latter is not, wic is te subject of tis work. One migt expect tat lower-order perturbations degrade neiter te stability nor te convergence rates of stable Galerkin metods. However, tis need not to be true. Wile stable coices of finite elements for te unperturbed Hodge Laplacian remain stable for te perturbed equation, we find tat certain lower order perturbations result in decreased rates of convergence. Oter coices of element pairs or perturbations do not lower te convergence rate. Te situation is subtle. First, to fix ideas, we consider a simple example taken from magnetoydrodynamics [11, Capter 3]: given vector fields f,v on a domain Ω R 3, find a vector field B satisfying: curlcurlb curl(v B) = f, divb = 0, in Ω, B n = 0, (curlb v B) n = 0, on Ω. Date: September 21, Matematics Subject Classification. Primary 65N30. Key words and prases. finite element exterior calculus, lower order terms. Te work of bot autors were supported in part by NSF grant DMS

2 2 DOUGLAS N. ARNOLD AND LIZAO LI Pysically, B is te non-dimensionalized magnetic field inside a conductor moving wit a velocity field v. Te system admits a solution only wen divf = 0. In tat case, te solution also satisfies te following vector Laplace equation, wic is solvable for any data and ence more suitable for discretization: (1.1) graddivb +curlcurlb curl(v B) = f. For a mixed metod, we introduce σ = curlb v B and solve te coupled system: σ curlb +v B = 0, curlσ graddivb = f. A common stable coice of mixed elements, at least wen v = 0, is to seeks B in te space of Nédélécface element of te second kind of degree r 1, and σ in te space of Nédéléc edge element of te second kind of degree (r +1) [13, 14]. In tis case, for te unperturbed problem, tat is wen v = 0, te convergence for te L 2 -error in σ is of optimal order O( r+2 ) if te solution is smoot enoug. However, as we sow in Section 3 and verify by numerical computation in Section 7, wen v does not vanis, te L 2 -convergence for σ is reduced to order O( r+1 ). A similar penomenon was observed in mixed metods for te scalar Laplacian by Demlow[6]. But te vector case we study as more surprises. For example, consider te vector Laplacian perturbed by a zerot-order term: for some real coefficient A, graddivu+curlcurlu+au = f, in Ω, u n = 0, divu = 0, on Ω. Tis problem arises, for example in electromagnetism were u is te electric field and A is te conductivity coefficient. If we use te same mixed finite element metod just considered, ere wit σ = curlu, ten te L 2 error in σ is one order suboptimal forageneralmatrixcoefficient A, but optimal ifais ascalarcoefficient. We now summarize convergence rates derived from our main abstract teorems applied to te perturbed Hodge Laplace problem, of wic te previous vector Laplace problem is an instance. Tese are important in and directly applicable to many applications. In particular, our results for te vector cases, tat is, 1-form in 2D and 1,2-forms in 3D, are new. On a domain Ω in R n, a k-form as ( ) n k coefficients and te meaning of te exterior derivative d and te codifferential δ depends on k. For example, wen n = 3 and k = 2, we ave te case considered before wit δd+dδ = graddiv+curlcurl. For any 0 k n, te k-form Hodge Laplace equation seeks a k-form u satisfying: (1.2) L 0 u := (dδ +δd)u = f, wit proper boundary conditions. Our abstract teory applies to equation (1.2) perturbed by general lower order terms: Lu = [(d+l 3 )(δ +l 2 )+(δ +l 4 )(d+l 1 )+l 5 ]u = f, wit proper boundary conditions. In Section 3, we allow l i to be general linear operators, but ere we assume tat tey are multiplication by smoot coefficient fields. For example, l 1 takes a k-form to (k + 1)-form, tus may be viewed as a ( n k+1) ( n k) matrix field. Te mixed formulation solves simultaneously for u and for σ = (δ +l 2 )u, wic is a (k 1)-form. On a simplicial triangulation of Ω, for any r 1, we ave four canonical pairs of mixed finite elements for (σ, u): P r+1 Λ k 1 P r Λ k, P r+1 Λk 1 P r Λ k, P r Λ k 1 P r Λ k, P r Λ k 1 P r Λ k.

3 FEEC WITH LOWER-ORDER TERMS 3 In dimension 3, all tese are classical mixed finite elements. For example, te pairnédélécface elementofte secondkind andnédélécedgeelement ofte second kind before is P r+1 Λ 1 P r Λ 2. For more, te Periodic Table of te Finite Elements (ttp://femtable.org/) collect all tese elements and teir correspondence to classical elements. A main result in FEEC is tat te above four pairs lead to stable mixed finite element metods for te unperturbed Hodge Laplace problem. Furter, te rates of convergence for te L 2 -errors in σ, dσ, u, and du are optimal, as determined by te approximation properties of te spaces. Tus, for example, if te pair P r+1 Λ k 1 P r Λ k is used, te order of convergence for te L 2 -error in σ, dσ, u, and du are r+2, r+1, r+1, and r, respectively, wile, for P r Λ k 1 P r Λ k all four L 2 -errors converge wit order r. For te perturbed system, our discrete stability result(teorem 3.2) implies tat wen te perturbed problem is uniquely solvable at te continuous level (wic is te generic case, as we will prove), ten te mixed discretization of tis problem using any of te four stable pairs before is still stable for sufficiently fine discretization. Furter, if we ave full elliptic regularity (for example on a smoot domain [10]), ten our improved error estimate (Teorem 3.4) implies tat te L 2 convergence rates for te unperturbed Hodge Laplacian still old for te perturbed problem wit a few exceptions, as summarized in Table 1: Table 1. L 2 -error rates for FEEC elements solving Hodge Laplace equation elements σ dσ u du P r+1 Λ k 1 P r Λ k r+2, if no l 2, l 4, l 5, r+1, if no l 4, r+1 r r+1, oterwise. r, oterwise. Pr+1 Λk 1 P r Λ k r+1, if no l r+1 4, r+1 r r, oterwise. P r Λ k 1 Pr r+1, if no l 2, l 5, Λk r r r r, oterwise. Pr Λk 1 Pr Λk r r r r For example, in our first example, B is a 2-form and equation (1.1) as an l 2 lower-order term, wic leads to reduced L 2 -error rates for σ. In practice, tis suggests tat te smaller space P r+1 Λk sould be used for σ = curlb, because te use of te bigger space P r+1 Λ k does not improve te convergence rates for σ or any oter quantity. In our second example, te zerot-order term is a generic l 5 term, ence it also degrades te L 2 -error rate in σ. We observe tat some lower-order terms, namely l 1 and l 3 terms, do not degrade te error rates in any of te cases above and tat te L 2 -convergence rates for u and du are unaffected by te lowerorder terms. We also note tat, most surprisingly, te lower-order term l 4 as te worst effect on te convergence rates of te error in σ, degrading te L 2 -error rates in bot σ and dσ, yet σ as no apparent dependence on l 4. Historically, te effect of lower-order terms on te convergence of finite element metods was first studied by Scatz [18], for te scalar Laplace equation wit Lagrange elements. Te key tool in tat analysis was te Aubin-Nitsce duality argument, wic was introduced to prove L 2 -error estimates in bot non-mixed [15] and mixed metods [9]. Tese ideas guide te current tecniques. Directly

4 4 DOUGLAS N. ARNOLD AND LIZAO LI relevant to tis work are te studies by Douglas and Roberts [7, 8] and Demlow [6] on mixed finite element discretization of te scalar Laplace equation, wic is te Hodge Laplace equation for n-forms in n dimensions. Te primary mixed finite elements for tis problem are te Raviart Tomas (RT) family P r Λn 1 [17] and te BDM family P r Λ n 1 [5, 4]. Douglas and Roberts proved te optimal L 2 convergence rates for bot variables wen RT family is used. Demlow sowed tat for BDM elements, even for constant coefficients and smoot solutions, tere is degradationofte convergenceratefor σ in te problem div(gradu+ bu)+cu = f wile tere is no degradation if te same problem is formulated as divgradu+ b gradu+cu = f. All tese classical results on non-mixed and mixed finite elements for scalar Laplace problem wit lower-order terms can be read off directly from Table 1. Our approac ere gives a uniform derivation of all classical L 2 -estimates for te scalar/vector Laplacian perturbed by lower-order terms under te extended abstract FEEC framework. Te rest of tis paper is organized as follows. We first briefly review te basic FEEC framework for te unperturbed abstract Hodge Laplacian in Section 2. Ten we lay out our extended abstract framework and state our two main discrete result: stability teorem (Teorem 3.2) and improved error estimates (Teorem 3.4) in Section 3. After tat, we prove te well-posedness teorems at te continuous level in Section 4. Ten we prove te two main discrete results in Section 5 and Section 6 respectively. Finally, in Section 7, we sow tat te estimates are sarp for te Hodge Laplacian case troug numerical examples. 2. Review of te abstract FEEC fraemwork FEEC is an abstract framework for analyzing mixed finite element metods[1, 2]. A Hilbert complex (W k,d k ) is a sequence of Hilbert spaces W k and closed denslydefinedlinearoperatorsd k : W k W k+1 witclosedrangesatisfyingd k+1 d k = 0. We use (, ) to denote te W-inner product and to denote te W-norm. Let d k+1 be te adjoint of dk, V k = D(d k ), and Vk+1 := D(d k+1 ). From tis definition, (d k u,v) = (u,d k+1 v), for all u V k and v Vk+1. One important structure is te Hodge decomposition: W k = Z k (Z k ) W = B k H k (Z k ) W = B k H k B k, were Z k = kerd k, B k = imd k 1, H k = Z k (B k ), and B k = imd k+1 = (Zk ) W. We assume te Hilbert complex satisfies te compactness property, tat V k Vk is a compact densely embedded subspace of W. Tis is true for all te cases we are interested in. For example, te de Ram complex on Lipscitz domains in R n satisfies tis property [16]. TeabstractHodgeLaplacianisteunboundedoperatorL k 0 : Wk W k defined byl k 0 = d k 1 d k +d k+1 dk wittedomaind(l k 0) = {u V k Vk du V k+1,d u V k 1 }. In te following, we drop te index k wen it is clear from te context. For example, L 0 = dd +d d. It is known tat for any f W k, tere exists a unique u D(L 0 ) suc tat L 0 u = f mod H, u H. Let K 0 : f u be te solution operator above. It is known tat K 0 is self-adjoint and compact as a map W W. Te mixed discretization of te abstract Hodge Laplacian is well-understood. Te problem abovecan be formulatedin te mixed weak formulation: givenf W,

5 FEEC WITH LOWER-ORDER TERMS 5 find (σ,u,p) V k 1 V k H k suc tat (2.1) (σ,τ) (u,dτ) = 0, τ V k 1, (dσ,v)+(du,dv)+(p,v) = (f,v), v V k, (u,q) = 0, q H k. For eac k, let V k be a sequence of discrete subspaces of V k indexed by. V k is called dense if u V k, lim inf u v V = 0. 0 v V Clearly, density is necessary for V k to be good approximations of V k. However, it is known tat tis alone is not sufficient for te Galerkin projection to be a convergent metod. Te key additional properties are te subcomplex property tat dv k V k+1 and te existence of V-bounded cocain projections, tat is, bounded projections π k : V k V k satisfying dπ = π d. Te main result in FEEC states tat te Galerkin projection of system(2.1) using dense discrete subspace admitting bounded cocain projections is stable. More precisely, Teorem 3.8 of[2] states tat te bilinear form associated wit te system (2.1) B 0 ((σ,u,p),(τ,v,q)) := (σ,τ) (u,dτ)+(dσ,v)+(du,dv)+(p,v) (u,q), satisfies te inf-sup condition on (V k 1 V k Hk )2. Tis implies quasi-optimal convergence rates in te V-norm. Furter if te bounded projections can be extended to W-bounded cocain projections, tat is, te extension to π k : Wk V k exists and π k W W are bounded uniformly in, ten we get decoupled error estimates estimates for eac variable in te W-norm. To state tis precisely, we need some notations. We use a b to express tat a Cb for some generic constant C. Following [2], we let (2.2) δ 0 = (I π )K 0 Wk W k, µ 0 = (I π )P H Wk W k, η 0 = max j=0,1 { (I π )dk 0 W k j W k j+1, (I π )d K 0 W k+j W k+j 1}, α 0 = η 2 0 +δ 0 +µ 0. All tese quantities converge to 0 as 0 due to te compactness and density. For example on smoot or convex polyedral domains for te de Ram complex, it is known tat η 0 = O(), δ 0 = O( min(2,r+1) ), µ 0 = O( r+1 ), were r is te largest degree of complete polynomials in V. We use te following notation for te best approximation: for w V k, E(w) := inf w v. v V k Teorem 3.11 of [2] bounds te W-norm error of eac variable in terms of best approximation errors: (2.3) σ σ E(σ)+η 0 E(dσ), d(σ σ ) E(dσ), u u E(u)+(η 2 0 +δ 0 )[E(dσ)+E(p)]+η 0 [E(du)+E(σ)], d(u u ) E(du)+η 0 [E(dσ)+E(p)], p p E(p)+µ 0 E(dσ).

6 6 DOUGLAS N. ARNOLD AND LIZAO LI For example, using P r+1 Λ k 1 P r Λ k and assuming full elliptic regularity, we ave E(σ) = O( r+2 )ande(dσ) = O( r+1 ) foranyr 1. Terefore,wegette optimal rates σ σ = O( r+2 ). Similarly, te error rates for all variables can be sown to be optimal for all four canonical FEEC element pairs. Let P : W V be te W-ortogonal projection and K 0 : V k V k be te discrete solution operator K 0 : f u. Tese convergence estimates can be stated using operators (cf. Corollary 3.17 of [2]): (2.4) K 0 K 0 P W W α 0, dk 0 dk 0 P W W + d K 0 d K 0 P W W η 0. Te FEEC approac not only gives optimal error rates, but also captures te important structures of te Hodge Laplacian. We ave te discrete Hodge decomposition: V k = Z k B k, = B k H k B k,. Te map π k ensures tat Z Z and B B, but te discrete spaces H and B are generally not subspaces of teir continuous counterparts. At te continuous level, we ave (2.5) f W, f = dd K 0 f +d dk 0 f +P H f B B H, tat is, solving te Hodge Laplacian problem wit data f leads to te Hodge decomposition of f. At te discrete level, similarly, we ave: (2.6) f V, f = dd K 0 f +d dk 0 f +P H f B B H Tis ortogonality is te key ingredient in deriving decoupled W-norm error estimates for eac variable above and plays an important role in our analysis as well. 3. Main results We start by identifying W k wit its dual and form a Gelfand triple V k Vk W k (V k Vk ). We extend L 0 = dd +d d to an operator V V (V V ) wic is more suitable for studying perturbations: for all u,v V k Vk, L 0 u,v := (d u,d v)+(du,dv). Our main operator L : V k Vk (V k Vk ) is obtained by perturbing eac abstract differential: for all u,v V k Vk, (3.1) Lu,v := ((d +l 2 )u,(d +l3 )v)+((d+l 1)u,dv)+(l 4 du,v)+(l 5 u,v), were l i : W W are bounded linear maps between appropriate levels for i = 1,...,5. More succinctly, we write, L = (d+l 3 )(d +l 2 )u+d (d+l 1 )u+l 4 du+l 5 u. Te grouping is convenient for te mixed form later. We prove in Lemma 4.1 of te next section tat tis L satisfies a Gårding inequality. Ten standard tecniques in elliptic PDE teory imply tat L is invertible up to some arbitrarily small perturbation to l 5. Terefore, generically, it is reasonable to assume tat L is a bounded isomorpism. Let D be te natural domain on wic L maps W k W k : (3.2) D := {u V k V k (d +l 2 )u V k 1,(d+l 1 )u V k+1}. Our main perturbed problem is: given f W k, find u D suc tat (3.3) Lu = f.

7 FEEC WITH LOWER-ORDER TERMS 7 We reformulate it in te mixed form: given f W k find (σ,u) V k 1 V k satisfying (3.4a) (3.4b) (σ,τ) (u,dτ) (l 2 u,τ) = 0, τ V k 1, ((d+l 3 )σ,v)+((d+l 1 )u,dv)+(l 4 du,v)+(l 5 u,v) = (f,v), v V k. Te first equation (3.4a) is equivalent to u Vk and σ = (d +l 2 )u. Te second equation (3.4a) is equivalent to (d+l 1 )u Vk+1 and d (d+l 1 )u = f (d+l 3 )σ l 4 du l 5 u. Hence, if (σ,u) solves (3.4), ten u solves (3.3). Terefore, it makes sense to use tis mixed formulation to solve our problem. In addition to te assumption tat L is a bounded isomorpism, we need more regularityassumptionsonl i toensuretatl 1 (W) D sotat(3.3)asasolution. One of our main tool for analyzing te discretization is te duality argument, were te dual problem L z = g as to be solved as well. Here L : V k Vk (V k Vk ) is te dual of L. We collection te conditions under wic all tese continuous problems are well-posed in a teorem: Teorem 3.1 (Continuous well-posedness). Let (W, d) be a Hilbert complex wit te compactness property. Suppose L defined in equation (3.1) is a bounded isomorpism and (3.5) (d +l 2 )L 1 (W) V k 1, (d +l 3 )(L ) 1 (W) V k 1. Ten bot te perturbed problem 3.3 and its mixed formulation 3.4 are well-posed. Te proof is given in section 4. Te regularity assumption is very mild, witout wic te perturbed problem does not even make sense. Te solution operator to te dual problem L z = g will be used frequently, so we give it a name. Let K = (L ) 1 : (V k V k ) V k V k. Our first discrete result is te following fundamental teorem on mixed metods for problems perturbed by lower-order terms. Teorem 3.2 (Discrete stability). Under te assumptions of Teorem 3.1, suppose furter tat (dd +d d)k W W is bounded and te following operators are compact W W: dl3k, (l1d l 2d )K. Let V k be a sequence of dense subcomplexes of V k admitting W-bounded cocain projections. Ten te Galerkin projection of te mixed system (3.4) using te pair V k is stable in te sense tat tere exist positive constants 0,C 0 suc tat for any (0, 0 ], tere exists a unique discrete solution (σ,u ) V k 1 V k satisfying (3.4) for test functions in V k 1 V k and tat σ V + u V C 0 f. V k 1 Te proof is nontrivial and is given in Section 5. For te de Ram complex, suppose all te lower-order terms are multiplication by smoot coefficients and te domain as (1 + ǫ)-regularity tat Kf H 1+ǫ f L 2 for ǫ > 0. By definition, L = (d+l 2)(d +l 3)+(d +l 1)d+d l 4 +l 5 and K = (L ) 1, we ave (dd +d d)k = I (l 2 d +dl 3 +l 1 d+d l 4 +l 5 +l 2 l 3 )K is bounded L 2 L 2. Te compactness assumptions are satisfied due to te compact embedding of Sobolev space H s into L 2 for s > 0. Tis proves te statement on te stability of mixed discretization of Hodge Laplacian in te introduction. It is well-known tat stability guarantees optimal error rates in te energy norm:

8 8 DOUGLAS N. ARNOLD AND LIZAO LI Corollary 3.3. Under te assumptions of Teorem 3.2, if 0, te unique discrete solution (σ,u ) satisfies σ σ V + u u V (I π )σ V + (I π )u V. As is common for mixed metods, te energy norm estimate is crude because it couples errors of different variables. For example, for te unperturbed Hodge Laplaciansolvedwit te FEECpairP r+1 Λ k+1 P r Λ k, te convergenceratein σ is in fact 2 iger tan tat in du but is lumped togeter wit it. Our next finer discrete result gives te decoupled W-norm estimates for eac variable similar to estimates (2.3) for te unperturbed problem. For tat, we need more assumptions. To simplify te bookkeeping, we define some approximation quantities: (3.6) δ = max{δ 0, (I P )l 3 K, (I P )(l 5 l 2 l 3 )K, (I P )P B l 4 K,}, η = max{η 0,µ 0,δ, (I P )dl 3K, (I P )(l 1d l 2d )K,}, α = δ +η 2 +µ 0. were η 0,δ 0,µ 0 are defined in equation (2.2) and all te operator norms are in W W. As, before,duetotecompactnessassumptionsanddensity, allδ,η,α 0 as 0. Teorem 3.4. In addition to te assumptions of Teorem 3.2, assume tat d(l 1 d l 2 d +l 5 l 2 l 3 )K W W is bounded, ten we ave te following improved error estimates: σ σ E(σ)+(η +χ 45 α)e(dσ) d(σ σ ) E(dσ)+(χ 3 α+χ 4 +χ 5 η)e(du) +(χ 24 +χ 3 η +χ 5 η)e(u)+(χ3 α+χ 45 α)e(du), +(χ 45 +χ 3 η +χ 2 χ 3 )E(u)+(χ 3 +χ 4 η)e(σ), u u E(u)+ηE(du)+ηE(σ)+(α+χ 45 α)e(dσ), d(u u ) E(du)+ηE(dσ)+χ 1345 E(u)+(χ 3 +χ 145 η)e(σ), were χ i...j denote te presence of lower-order terms. For example, χ 125 = 1 if l 1 0 or l 2 0 or l 5 0, and χ 125 = 0 oterwise. Te proof is subtle and is given in Section 6. Here we apply tis to te de Ram complex to derive te errorestimates in Table 1 in te introduction. We assume te full 2-regularity Kf H s+2 f H s, s 0, (for example, on a smoot domain). Ten te addition assumption is clearly satisfied. Furter as we noted in Section 2, in tis case, we ave η 0 = O(), δ 0 = O( min(2,r+1) ), µ 0 = O( r+1 ), were r is te largest degree of complete polynomials in V. Using te best approximation estimates for FEEC elements, we see tat η = O() and δ = O( min(2,r+1) ) as well. Plugging tese and te best approximation estimates into te above teorem, we get te rates in Table Well-posedness at te continuous level In tis section, we establis well-posedness results for te continuous problem and its mixed formulation.

9 FEEC WITH LOWER-ORDER TERMS Well-posedness for te primal form. First, we prove tat te perturbed bounded operator is almost always an isomorpism. Lemma 4.1. Let (W k,d) be a Hilbert complex aving te compactness property wit domains V k. Let L be defined as in (3.1). Ten, L+λI as a bounded inverse for all λ C except at a discrete subset (so at most countable). Proof. Let M = max i l i W W and γ = 4M 2 +M +1/2. Ten L+γI is coercive on V k V k : Lu,u +γ(u,u) (1/2)[(u,u)+(d u,d u)+(du,du)]. Te compactness property ensures tat I : V k Vk (V k Vk ) is compact, wic makes I(L + γi) 1 compact on (V k Vk ). Spectral teory ten implies tat I + µi(l + γi) 1 as a bounded inverse for all µ C except at a discrete subset. Ten composing wit te bounded isomorpism L+γI on te rigt proves te claim. In particular, tis sows tat eiter L is invertible or L+ǫI is invertible for any small enoug nonzero ǫ. Ten, we prove te well-posedness of our main problem. Lemma 4.2. Suppose L defined in equation (3.1) is a bounded isomorpism and (d + l 2 )L 1 (W) V k 1. Ten L 1 (W) D, were D is defined in (3.2). In particular, problem (3.3) as a unique solution. Proof. Since L is already an isomorpism, we only need to sow tat L 1 (W) D. For any f W, let u = L 1 f. Ten by definition, ((d +l 2 )u,(d +l 3 )v)+((d+l 1)u,dv)+(l 4 du,v)+(l 5 u,v) = (f,v), By assumption, (d +l 2 )u V k 1. Tus, we ave, v V k V k. ((d+l 1 )u,dv) = (f (d+l 3 )(d +l 2 )u l 4 du l 5 u,v), v V k Vk. Tere is no d v in te above. By te density of V k Vk in Wk, we conclude tat te above olds for all v V k. Hence, (d +l 1 )u Vk+1. Tus u D proves te claim. We ten prove a similar result for te dual problem. Let D be te natural domain on wic L maps W k W k : D := {u V k V k (d +l 3 )u V k 1,(d+l 4 )u V k+1 }. Using te same argument, we get, Lemma 4.3. Suppose L defined in equation (3.1) is a bounded isomorpism and (d +l 3 )(L ) 1 (W) V k 1. Ten (L ) 1 (W) D Well-posedness for te mixed form. We ten turn to mixed system (3.4). Its associated bilinear form B : (V k 1 V k ) 2 R is: (4.1) B((σ,u),(τ,v)) := (σ,τ) +(du,dv)+(dσ,v) (u,dτ) (l 2 u,τ)+(l 3 σ,v)+(l 1 u,dv)+(l 4 du,v)+(l 5 u,v). We call tis bilinear form well-posed if and only for any (g,f) V exists a unique solution (σ,u) V k 1 V k satisfying: k 1 V B((σ,u),(τ,v)) = g,τ V V + f,v V V, (τ,v) V k 1 V k. k, tere

10 10 DOUGLAS N. ARNOLD AND LIZAO LI From te discussion after equation 3.4, we see tat te well-posedness of B implies tatl 1 (W) D. Butitalsoimpliestewell-posednessoftedualmixedproblem: given any (g,f) V k 1 V k, find (ξ,z) V k 1 V k satisfying B((ρ,w),(ξ,z)) = g,ρ V V + f,w V V, (ρ,w) V k 1 V k. A similar argument sows tat te well-posedness of B implies (L ) 1 (W) D as well. We collect tese results in a lemma: Lemma 4.4. Suppose B defined in (4.1) is well-posed and let L be defined as in (3.1). Ten L is a bounded isomorpism, L 1 (W) D, and (L ) 1 (W) D. Moreover, te converse is also true. Lemma 4.5. Suppose L defined in (3.1) is a bounded isomorpism. Ten B defined in (4.1) is well-posed if and only if condition (3.5) olds. Proof. Te only if part is clear from te previous lemmas. We only need to sow te if part. First, we sow tat B satisfies a Gårding-like inequality: tere exist positive constants a,b,c depending only on l i W W suc tat (4.2) B((σ,u),(σ,u+adσ)) b( σ V + u V ) 2 c u 2, (σ,u) V k 1 V k. Direct computation using Caucy-Scwarz inequality sows tat tere exist constants c 1,c 2 depending only on l i W W suc tat B((σ,u),(σ,u)) (1/2)( σ 2 + du 2 ) c 1 u 2, B((σ,u),(0,dσ)) (1/2) dσ 2 c 2 ( σ 2 + du 2 + u 2 ). Multiplying te second inequality by any positive a < 1/(2M 2 ) and adding it to te first inequality, we get te claim. Second, fix any (σ,u) V k 1 V k. We solve a dual problem using u as data: let z = cku and ξ = (d +l 3)z. By assumption, ξ V k 1. Direct computation sows tat B((ρ,w),(ξ,z)) = (cu,w), (ρ,w) V k 1 V k. Finally, we add (ξ,z) to our coice of test functions in te first step and get B((σ,u),(σ +ξ,u+adσ +z)) b( σ V + u V ) 2. Furter, from te definition of (ξ,z), we ave σ +ξ V + u+adσ +z V M σ V + u V, were te constant M depends only on a, d(d + l 3 )K W W, and dk W W. Tus B satisfies te inf-sup condition. Similarly, for any fixed nontrivial (τ, v) V k 1 V k, we let u = L 1 v and σ = (d +l 2 )u. By assumption, σ V k 1. Direct computation sows tat B((σ,u),(τ,v)) = (v,v) > 0. It is well-known tat tese two conditions imply tat B is well-posed [3]. Given tese lemmas, Teorem 3.1 is clearly true.

11 FEEC WITH LOWER-ORDER TERMS Discrete Stability troug new projections In tis section, we prove Teorem 3.2. Te idea of te proof is similar to te tat of te if part of Lemma 4.5. First, due to te subcomplex property, te estimate(4.2)still oldsatte discretelevelwitte sameconstantsa,b,c. Second, fix any (σ,u) V k 1 V k. We can again solve a dual problem using u as data: let z = cku and ξ = (d + l3)z. Ten we ave ξ V k 1, ξ V + z V u independent of, and B((ρ,w),(ξ,z)) = (cu,w), (ρ,w) V k 1 V k. But we can no longer add (ξ,z) to our coice of test functions because (ξ,z) is not discrete. Interestoftis section, weconstructadiscretepair(ξ,z ) V k 1 V k suc tat (5.1) ξ V + z V ξ V + z V uniformly in, and B((ρ,w),(ξ ξ,z z )) ǫ ( ρ V + w V )( ξ V + z V ), for all (ρ,w) V k 1 V k, were ǫ 0 as 0. Given suc a pair, we can add it to our coice of test functions: B((σ,u),(σ +ξ,u+adσ +z )) (b cǫ )( σ V + u V ) 2. Furter, tere also exists M > 0 bounded uniformly in, suc tat σ+ξ V + u+adσ +z V c ( σ V + u V ). Coose a sufficiently small 0 suc tat ǫ 0 < b/c. Ten for all < 0, te bilinear form B((σ,u),(τ,v)) satisfies te inf-sup condition on V k 1 V k wit te inf-sup constant bounded uniformly below by (b cǫ 0 )/M. Since V k 1 V k is of finite dimension, tis establises te well-posedness. Tus Teorem 3.2 is proved. An obvious coice for (ξ,z ) in (5.1) is te elliptic projection given by B((ρ,w),(ξ,z )) = B((ρ,w),(ξ,z)), (ρ,w) V k 1 V k. Ten ǫ = 0. But since we ave not proved te well-posedness of B on te discrete level, we neiter know a discrete solution exists nor can we sow te uniform estimates. Te next most obvious coice is obtained using te elliptic projection of te unperturbed problem: B 0 ((ρ,w,p),(ξ,z,q )) = B 0 ((ρ,w),(ξ,z)), (ρ,w,p) V k 1 V k H k. Ten we ave te existence and uniform bounds. But te second estimate in (5.1) fails. In wat follows, we develop two new projection operators to correct te elliptic projection for te unperturbed problem so tat bot conditions in (5.1) olds. In fact, we do a lot more. Our elaborately cosen (ξ,z ) will not only satisfy (5.1), but also ave explicit and optimal error rates in quantities like ξ ξ, z z, and B((ρ,w),(ξ ξ,z z ). Tis is made precise in Teorem 5.3. Tis result also form te basis of te improved error estimates later. Moreover, te two new projection operators enjoy many properties making tem interesting in teir own rigt.

12 12 DOUGLAS N. ARNOLD AND LIZAO LI 5.1. Generalized Canonical Projection. Tus far, we ave tree projections in FEEC: te ortogonal projection P, te cocain projection π wic commutes wit d but as no ortogonality property, and te elliptic projection K 0 P L 0 wic misses te armonic part and is only well-defined on te subspace D(L 0 ). Here, we introduce a new projection operator Π : V k V k given by Π := P Z +d K 0P d. Among oter properties, tis Π satisfies a commutation property generalizingtat of te canonical projection for classical elements like Raviart Tomas. Teorem 5.1. Suppose (W,d) is a Hilbert complex satisfying te compactness property and V k are dense discrete subcomplexes admitting W-bounded cocain projections. Ten Π is a projection uniformly bounded in te V-norm. Furter dπ = P B d. Let η 0,α 0 be defined as in equation (2.2). Ten, for any w V, Π w w +η 0 dw, (I Π )w (I π )w +η 0 dw. Moreover, it satisfies partial ortogonality : for any w, v V, ((I Π )w,v) ( (I π )w +η 0 dw )( (I π )v +η 0 dv )+α 0 dv dw. Proof. Te stability of te unperturbed discrete problem (2.1) implies tat Π is uniformly bounded in te V-norm. By subcomplex property, we ave P dv = dv for v V. Tus, Π v = P Z v +d K 0dv = P Z v +P B v = v, sowing tat Π is a projection. We know from equation (2.6) tat for te unperturbed problem dd K 0 = P B. Tis proves tat dπ = dd K 0P d = P B d. We ten prove te first two estimates. Fix any w V. We split w Π w = (P Z P Z )w + (P B w P B Π w). Te second term can be bounded using te error estimates (2.4) for K 0 : P B w P B Π w = d K 0 dw d K 0 P dw η 0 dw. We ten deal wit te first term. Te subcomplex property ensures Z Z and te cocain property of π ensures π Z Z. Tese two lead to (P Z P Z )w (I π )P Z w. But (I π )P Z w = (I π )w (I π )P B w and P B = d K 0 d. Tus, (P Z P Z )w (I π )w + (I π )d K 0 dw (I π )w +η 0 dw. Combining te estimates for te two parts, we get, (I Π )w = (P Z P Z )w+(p B w P B Π w) (I π )w +η 0 dw. By triangle inequality, we get Π w w + (I Π )w w +η 0 dw as well. Tis proves te first two estimates. Finally, for any w,v V, we ave ((I Π )w,v) = ((P Z P Z )w,v)+((p B P B Π )w,(i π )v) +((P B P B Π )w,π v). Te first two terms can be bounded as before. Te last term is bounded by (d K 0 dw d K 0P dw,π v) = ((K 0 K 0 P )dw,π dv) α 0 dw dv, were te error estimate (2.4) is used again. Tis finises te proof.

13 FEEC WITH LOWER-ORDER TERMS Modified elliptic projection. We modify te unperturbed elliptic projection sligtly to accommodate te armonic forms. Teorem 5.2. For any z D(L 0 ), let z = K 0 P L 0 z +P H P H z. Ten, z z α 0 L 0 z, d(z z ) + d z d z η 0 L 0 z, P (d dz +dd z) (d dz +dd z ) µ 0 L 0 z. Proof. By equation (2.5), we ave P H z = K 0 L 0 z. Tus we ave te splitting z z = (P H z P H z )+(P H z P H z ) = (K 0 K 0 P )L 0 z +(I P H )P H z. Te first term as been estimated by (2.4). For te second term, since P H P H = P Z P H and π Z Z, we ave (I P H )P H z W (I π )P H z W (I π )P H W W z = µ 0 z, wic proves te first estimate. Te second estimate follows from (2.4) directly. Finally for te last estimate, we use te continuous and discrete Hodge decomposition (2.5) (2.6), we get (d d+dd )z = (d d+dd )K 0P L 0 z = (P B +P B )P L 0 z. Moreover, by definition, P H L 0 z = 0. Tus, P (d dz +dd z d dz dd z ) = P L 0 z (P B +P B )P L 0 z = P H L 0 z. Te rigt-and side is just p p 0 for te unperturbed problem wit L 0 z as data. By (2.3), P H L 0 z = (P H P H )L 0 z 0+µ 0 P B L 0 z µ 0 L 0 z, wic proves te last estimate Projection of te dual solution. We are now ready to construct te discrete pair (ξ,z ) satisfying te conditions (5.1) in te proof of te discrete stability teorem. In fact, we prove a stronger result were te first variable ρ is allowed to be in V instead of V and derive explicit error estimates. Teorem 5.3. Under te assumption of Teorem 3.2, for any g W k, let z = Kg, ξ = (d +l 3)z, z = K 0 P L 0 z +P H P H z, and ξ = d z Π l 3z. Ten, z z α 0 g, d(z z ) η 0 g, ξ ξ η g. for sufficiently small. Furter, for any (ρ,w) V k+1 V k, we ave, B((ρ,w),(ξ ξ,z z )) [η ρ +α dρ +(µ 0 +χ 123 η+χ 5 α) w +χ 4 α dw ] g. Proof. Using te regularity assumption tat L 0 K W W is bounded, te estimate for z z and d(z z ) follows directly from Teorem 5.2. From te same teorem, for ξ, we ave ξ ξ d z d z + (I Π )l 3z η 0 g + (I Π )l 3Kg, For te second term, using quantities defined in (3.6), we ave: (I Π )l 3Kg (I π )l 3Kg +η dl 3Kg η g. Te last estimate is just a direct computation using te error estimates in Teorem 5.2, quantities defined in (3.6), and te Caucy-Scwarz inequality.

14 14 DOUGLAS N. ARNOLD AND LIZAO LI For te proof of Teorem 3.2 at te beginning of tis section, we get (ξ,z ) by applying tis teorem to g = cu V W. We note tat (ξ,z) ere is te same as te one defined tere. We ceck tat condition (5.1) is satisfied. First, z V = K 0 P L 0 z +P H P H z V z V, ξ V = d K 0 P L 0 z Π l 3z V dξ + z V ξ V + z V, were te constants depend only on te stability constant of te continuous and discrete unperturbed problem, wic is eiter independent of or bounded uniformly in. Second, as mentioned before, te compactness assumptions and density, α,η,µ 0 0 as 0. Tus condition (5.1) is verified. Tis finises te proof of Teorem Proof of Improved Error Estimates In tis section, we prove Teorem 3.4. To make te notation more compact, we use e u := u u and E u = (I π )u. Corresponding quantities for σ are similarly defined. Te Galerkin ortogonality equation reads: (6.1a) (6.1b) (e σ,τ) (e u,dτ) (l 2 e u,τ) = 0, τ V k 1, ((d+l 3 )e σ,v)+((d+l 1 )e u,dv)+(l 4 de u,v)+(l 5 e u,v) = 0, v V k Preliminary estimates for de σ and de u. Optimal estimates for tese two terms can be obtained directly from te error equations (6.1) wit carefully cosen test functions. Lemma 6.1. For any (σ,u) solving (3.4) and (σ,u ) solving its Galerkin projection, de σ de σ +χ 3 e σ +χ 4 de u +χ 5 e u. Proof. Restricting te test function space to B in equation (6.1b) leads to: (6.2) P B (de σ +l 3 e σ +l 4 de u +l 5 e u ) = 0. Tus, de σ = (I P B )de σ +P B de σ = (I P B )de σ P B (l 3 e σ +l 4 de u +l 5 e u ). Because π maps to B to B, we ave (I P B )de σ (I π )de σ = de σ proving te claim. Lemma 6.2. For any (σ,u) solving (3.4) and (σ,u ) solving its Galerkin projection, de u de u +η de σ +χ 145 e u +χ 3 e σ. Proof. Let v = P B (π u u ) in te second error equation (6.1b). We ave (6.3) (de u,dv ) = (de σ,v ) [(l 1 e u,dv )+(l 3 e σ +l 5 e u,v )] (l 4 de u,v ). By discrete Poincaré inequality v dv for v B, te second term in (6.3) becomes (l 1 e u,dv )+(l 3 e σ +l 5 e u,v ) (χ 15 e u +χ 3 e σ ) dv. Because de u = d(u π u+π u u ) = de u +dv, te last term in (6.3) satisfies (l 4 de u,v ) = (l 4 de u,v )+(l 4 dv,v ) ( de u + v ) dv. We finally estimate te first term in (6.3). Let v = P B v. Ten d(π v v ) = 0 implies π v v Z, so (v v) (π v v ). Tus, v v (I π )v = (I π )d Kdv η dv.

15 FEEC WITH LOWER-ORDER TERMS 15 Tis implies, (de σ,v ) = (de σ,v v ) η de σ dv. Combining all tese estimates and de u de u + dv gives te estimate in te claim Duality lemma. Te optimal W-norm estimates for e u and e σ require more work. Lemma 6.3. Under te assumptions of Teorem 3.4, for any g W, (Π e u,g) [η e σ +α de σ +(µ 0 +χ 123 η+χ 5 α) e u +(µ 0 η+χ α) de u ] g. Proof. Given g, let (ξ,z) and (ξ,z ) be defined as in Teorem 5.3. We ave, (Π e u,g) = B((e σ,π e u ),(ξ,z)) = B((e σ,π e u ),(ξ,z )) B((e σ,π e u ),(e ξ,e z )). Galerkin ortogonality (6.1) states tat B((e σ,e u ),(τ,v)) = 0 for all discrete (τ,v). Tus, (Π e u,g) = B((0,(I Π )e u ),(ξ,z )) B((e σ,π e u ),(e ξ,e z )). Te second term above can be estimated by te last inequality in Teorem 5.3 and Π e u e u +η de u, Te result is te following bound: dπ e u de u. B((e σ,π e u ),(e ξ,e z )) [η e σ +α de σ +(µ 0 +χ 123 η +χ 5 α) e u We bound te first term before by splitting it into tree parts: +(µ 0 η +χ 4 α) de u ] g. B((0,(I Π )e u ),(ξ,z )) ((I Π )e u,dξ )+(d(i Π )e u,dz ) + (l 2 (I Π )e u,ξ )+(l 1 (I Π )e u,dz )+(l 5 (I Π )e u,z ) + (l 4 d(i Π )e u,z ) =: Q 1 +Q 2 +Q 3. We ave Q 1 = 0 because P B Π = P B and dπ = P B d. Te second term is: Q 2 ((I Π )e u,l 2ξ +l 1dz +l 5z) + ((I Π )e u,l 2e ξ +l 1de z +l 5e z ). We note tat l2 ξ+l 1 dz+l 5 z = [ l 2 d +l1 d+(l 5 l 2 l 3 )]Kg. Te first term above can be bounded by te regularity assumptions and te last estimate in Teorem 5.1. Te second term can be bounded using estimates in Teorem 5.3. Te result is: For Q 3, we ave, Q 2 [(χ 12 η +χ 2 δ +χ 5 α) e u +χ 125 α de u ] g. Q 3 = ((I P B )de u,l 4 z ) ((I P B )de u,l 4 z) + ((I P B )de u,l 4 e z). For te first term ((I P B )de u,l 4z) = (de u,(p B P B )l 4z) can be bounded using 3.6. Te second term can be bounded by (de u,l 4 e z) and Teorem 5.3. Te final result is, Q 3 χ 4 α de u g. Combining te all estimates togeter, we get te estimate in te claim.

16 16 DOUGLAS N. ARNOLD AND LIZAO LI 6.3. Preliminary estimate for e u. Lemma 6.4. Under te assumptions of Teorem 3.4, we ave e u E u +η e σ +α de σ +η de u. Proof. Let g = Π e u in Lemma 6.3 we get an estimate for (Π e u,π e u ). Ten, e u Π e u + (I Π )e u Π e u + E u +η de u. For sufficiently small, we ide te e u term on te rigt in te left-and side. Te result is te estimate in te claim Preliminary estimate for e σ. Lemma 6.5. Under te assumptions of Teorem 3.4, e σ E σ +(η+χ 45 α) deσ +(χ 24 +χ 3 η+χ 5 η) eu +(χ 3 α+χ 45 α) deu. Proof. Equation (6.1a) implies: (e σ,e σ ) = (e σ,(i Π )e σ )+(e σ,π e σ ) Te first term above is bounded by: = (e σ,(i Π )e σ )+(l 2 e u,π e σ )+(e u,dπ e σ ). (e σ,(i Π )e σ ) e σ (I Π )σ ( E σ +η de σ ) e σ. Te second term is bounded using Π e σ e σ +η de σ from teorem 5.1, (l 2 e u,π e σ ) χ 2 e u ( e σ +η de σ ) Te last term is estimated by te duality lemma. Because P B Π = P B, we ave, (e u,dπ e σ ) = (e u,p B de σ ) = (P B e u,p B de σ ) = (Π e u,p B de σ ). We apply 6.3 wit g = P B de σ and get (Π e u,g) [η e σ +α de σ +(µ 0 +χ 123 η +χ 5 α) e u From equation (6.2), we ave, P B de σ χ 3 e σ +χ 4 de u +χ 5 e u. +(µ 0 η +χ α) de u ] P B de σ. Combining all tese estimates, we get te estimate in te claim Proof of Improved Error Estimates Teorem. Te estimates in Teorem 3.4 are derived from te four preliminary estimates Lemma 6.1, Lemma 6.2, Lemma 6.4, and Lemma 6.5. Using 1 for quantities wic are bounded and ǫ for quantities wic goes to zero as 0, te four preliminary estimates as te following structure: de σ de σ de σ de u ǫ de u de u e σ e u ǫ ǫ 0 1 ǫ ǫ ǫ 0 e σ e u + E σ E u For example, we can substitute te first line into te second and ide te ǫ de u term in te left-and side of te second line assuming is sufficiently small. Tis, in effect, switces de σ in te second line to de σ. Due te vanising diangonal and epsilon lower-triangle of te matrix above, tis procedure can be repeated to

17 FEEC WITH LOWER-ORDER TERMS 17 eliminateallunknownerrortermslike e u andswitctemwitknownerrorterms like E u. After tis linear algebra exercise, we get te estimates in Teorem Numerical examples In tis section, we sow troug numerical examples tat te error rates given by Teorem 3.4 in Table 1 are in fact acieved and cannot be improved. In 3D, tere are four cases of te Hodge Laplace problems for differential forms of degree 0,1,2,3. Te 0-form and 3-form cases lead to te scalar Laplace problem in te non-mixed form and mixed form respectively. Te numerical results in tese two cases are well-known [18, 7, 8] and will not be duplicated ere. We focus on te 1-form and 2-form case. Let Ω = [0,1] 3 be te unit cube in R 3. Te1-formmixed HodgeLaplaceproblem wit natural boundary conditions is: given f L 2, find u D satisfying: (grad+l 3 )( div+l 2 )u+curl(curl+l 1 )u+l 4 curlu+l 5 u = f, in Ω, u n = 0, (curlu+l 1 u) n = 0, on Ω. We coose te following smoot function as te exact solution: u = sinπxcosπz cosπxsinπy, cosπysinπz wit te coefficients: sinπysinπz sinπz sinπy l 1 = sinπz sinπxsinπz sinπx, l 2 = 2 0, sinπy sinπx sinπxsinπy 1 l 3 = 3 2, l 4 = , l 5 = At te discrete level, since σ = ( div+l 2 )u is a 0-form were P r Λ 0 = P r Λ0, we only ave two element pairs: P r Λ 0 P r 1 Λ 1 and P r Λ 0 P r Λ 1. On te same domain Ω = [0,1] 3 as before, te 2-form mixed Hodge Laplace problem wit natural boundary conditions is: given f L 2, find u D satisfying: (curl+l 3 )(curl+l 2 )u grad(div+l 1 )u+l 4 divu+l 5 u. in Ω, u n = 0, (div+l 1 )u = 0, on Ω. We coose te following smoot function as te exact solution in tis case: u = (cosπx+3)sinπysinπz sinπx(cosπy +2)sinπz, sinπxsinπy(cosπz +2) wit te coefficients l 1 = sinπx sinπy, l 2 = , l 3 = , l 4 = 1 2, l 5 =

18 18 DOUGLAS N. ARNOLD AND LIZAO LI At te discrete level, we ave all four canonical pairs: P r+1 Λ 1 P r Λ 2, P r+1 Λ1 P r Λ 2, P r Λ 1 P r Λ2, P r Λ1 P r Λ2. In all te numerical experiments, we obtain a quasi-uniform triangulation of size m for te unit cube Ω by first triangulating it uniformly wit an m m m mes and ten perturbing eac interior mes node randomly witin 20% of te mes size 1/m in all tree coordinate directions. All four pairs of te canonical FEEC elements in dimension 3 of all degrees are supported by te open source finite element package FEniCS [12], in wic all our numerical codes are implemented. For example, for te unperturbed 1-form problem, wit P 2 Λ 1 P 1 Λ 2, we get m σ σ rate d(σ σ ) rate u u rate d(u u ) rate e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Tus, for example, σ σ L 2 = on a mes. Te rates are computed between te two successive errors. Te optimal rates of 3,2,2,1 for σ,dσ,u,du are clear. Wit an l 4 lower-order perturbation, we get: m σ σ rate d(σ σ ) rate u u rate d(u u ) rate e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Clearly te convergence rates for σ and dσ in L 2 are reduced by 1 as predicted. Tere are too many cases for us to list all te detailed results. We instead only summarize te numerical results ere. First, te error rates in Table 1 are guaranteed for all FEEC elements for te Hodge Laplace problem. Second, for eac case wit a reduction in te error rates predicted in Table 1, tere is at least one Hodge Laplace problem wit a certain form degree wic can only converge at tat reduced rate. In tis sense, te rates in Table 1 is optimal. However, we note tat te rates in Table 1 do no represent an upper bound for all possible cases. For example, wen te l 5 term is given by multiplication by a smoot scalar coefficient, we do not observe a reduction of convergence rates in te L 2 -error of σ. We also observed tat for 1-forms in 3D, an l 2 -term given by multiplication by a generic smoot coefficient do not degrade te L 2 -error rate in σ. Te full numerical results along wit te pyton source code used in FEniCS can be found at te companion code repository at ttps://bitbucket.org/lzlarryli/feeclotexp. We note tat due to te randomness involved (random perturbation applied to te mes), te error numbers will not be exactly te same but very close to wat we ave listed ere. References 1. Douglas N. Arnold, Ricard S. Falk, and Ragnar Winter, Finite element exterior calculus, omological tecniques, and applications, Acta Numer. 15 (2006), MR (2007j:58002)

19 FEEC WITH LOWER-ORDER TERMS 19 2., Finite element exterior calculus: from Hodge teory to numerical stability, Bull. Amer. Mat. Soc. (N.S.) 47 (2010), no. 2, MR (2011f:58005) 3. Ivo Babuška, Error-bounds for finite element metod, Numer. Mat. 16 (1970), MR (44 #6166) 4. Franco Brezzi, Jim Douglas, Jr., Ricardo Durán, and Micel Fortin, Mixed finite elements for second order elliptic problems in tree variables, Numer. Mat. 51 (1987), no. 2, MR (88f:65190) 5. Franco Brezzi, Jim Douglas, Jr., and L. D. Marini, Two families of mixed finite elements for second order elliptic problems, Numer. Mat. 47 (1985), no. 2, MR (87g:65133) 6. Alan Demlow, Suboptimal and optimal convergence in mixed finite element metods, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 39 (2002), no. 6, (electronic). MR (2003e:65216) 7. Jim Douglas, Jr. and Jean E. Roberts, Mixed finite element metods for second order elliptic problems, Mat. Apl. Comput. 1 (1982), no. 1, MR (84b:65111) 8., Global estimates for mixed metods for second order elliptic equations, Mat. Comp. 44 (1985), no. 169, MR (86b:65122) 9. R. S. Falk and J. E. Osborn, Error estimates for mixed metods, RAIRO Anal. Numér. 14 (1980), no. 3, MR (82j:65076) 10. Mattew P. Gaffney, Te armonic operator for exterior differential forms, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 37 (1951), MR (13,987b) 11. Jean-Frédéric Gerbeau, Claude Le Bris, and Tony Lelièvre, Matematical metods for te magnetoydrodynamics of liquid metals, Numerical Matematics and Scientific Computation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, MR (2008i:76205) 12. Anders Logg, Kent-Andre Mardal, and Gart Wells (eds.), Automated solution of differential euqations by te finite element metod, Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, Springer, Nov J.-C. Nédélec, Mixed finite elements in R 3, Numer. Mat. 35 (1980), no. 3, MR (81k:65125) 14., A new family of mixed finite elements in R 3, Numer. Mat. 50 (1986), no. 1, MR (88e:65145) 15. J. Nitsce, Ein Kriterium für die Quasi-Optimalität des Ritzscen Verfarens, Numer. Mat. 11 (1968), MR (38 #1823) 16. Rainer Picard, An elementary proof for a compact imbedding result in generalized electromagnetic teory, Mat. Z. 187 (1984), no. 2, MR (85k:35212) 17. P.A.RaviartandJ.M.Tomas, A mixed finite element metod for 2nd order elliptic problems, Matematical aspects of finite element metods (Proc. Conf., Consiglio Naz. delle Ricerce (C.N.R.), Rome, 1975), Springer, Berlin, 1977, pp Lecture Notes in Mat., Vol MR (58 #3547) 18. Alfred H. Scatz, An observation concerning Ritz-Galerkin metods wit indefinite bilinear forms, Mat. Comp. 28 (1974), MR (51 #9526) Scool of Matematics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota address: arnold@umn.edu Scool of Matematics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota address: lixx1445@umn.edu