6
$\begingroup$

In my PDE courses I've come across two different definitions or coercivity of a functional $\mathit{F}: \mathit{H} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ where $\mathit{H}$ is a Hilbert space.

Definition 1: For the product space $\mathit{H} \times \mathit{H}$ for some Hilbert space $\mathit{H}, \mathit{F}: \mathit{H} \times \mathit{H} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, $\mathit{F}$ is coercive means that there exists a positive constant $K$, so that $\mathit{F}(x,x) \geq K (x,x)$ with $(.,.)$ being the inner product. (It can also be defined more generally for a normed space, https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CoerciveFunctional.html).

Definition 2: $\mathit{F}$ is called coercive, if for some $a \in \mathbb{R},$ the corresponding sublevel set is non-empty and bounded.

Question 1: Are these two definitions equivalent in some way?

Question 2: I've seen another definition where the Hilbert space is $\mathbb{R}^n$ where coercivity is defined as the property in Definition 2, but holding for every $a \in \mathbb{R}.$ Why is this difference?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It would be best to write down Definition 1 without relying only on providing a weblink. It's not that MathWorld is unsafe or anything, though security problems can be a factor sometimes, but hyperlinks can "die" or the webpage you linked to might disappear or be erased or heavily modified in the future, and that would mean that a literal half of your question would disapear too. You can have a link, no problem, but writing down the key information you extract or want to emphasize in your question will make it so that your question is ensured to be self-contained for future users. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 26, 2024 at 16:19
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the feedback, I'll edit my question accordingly. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 26, 2024 at 18:44

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

I think that the usual definition for a function $F \colon X \to \mathbb R$ to be coercive is that $$\lim_{\|x\| \to \infty } F(x) =\infty .$$ Now, for (proper) convex lower semi-continuous functions, the following are equivalent:

  1. $f$ is coercive.

  2. $\exists a>0,\ b \in \mathbb R$ such that $f \ge a \|\cdot\| +b$.

  3. $\liminf_{\|x\| \to \infty } f(x)/\|x\|>0$, where $$ \liminf_{\|x\| \to \infty } \frac{f(x)}{\|x\|} = \lim_{r\to\infty} \sup_{\|x\| \ge r} \frac{f(x)}{\|x\|}.$$

  4. The sublevel sets of $f$ are bounded.

Here is a proof: a) $\implies$ b): We may assume that $f(0)=0$ (if not, look at $g=f-f(0)$). Pick $r>0$ so that $$ \|x \| \ge r \implies f(x) \ge 1. $$ Then $$ 1 \le f \big ( \frac{r}{\|x\|} x\big) \le \frac{\|x\|-r}{\|x\|} f(0) + \frac{r}{\|x\|} f(x) $$ so that $f(x) \ge \tfrac 1r \|x\|$ for $\|x\| \ge r$. Notice that $$ \inf_{\|x\| <r} f(x) > - \infty $$ for if not, then there exists $(x_n)$ in $rB_X$ such that $f(x_n) \to - \infty.$ By passing to a subsequence if necessary we may assume that $$ f(x_n) < -n^2 $$ so that $$ f(\tfrac 1n x_n) \le \tfrac 1n f(x_n) < -n \to - \infty. $$ But $\tfrac 1n x_n \to 0$ so that by lsc $$ \liminf_{n \to \infty} f(\tfrac 1n x_n) \ge 0. $$ Hence, there exists $M>0$ such that $$ \|x\|<r \implies f(x) > -M. $$ Pick $a=1/r$ and $b = -M-1<0$. Then for $\|x\| \ge r$ $$ f(x) \ge \tfrac 1r \|x\| \ge a\|x\| +b $$ and for $\|x\|<r$ $$ \tfrac 1r \|x\| -M -1 <1- f(x) -1 =f(x). $$ b) $\implies$ c): If $f\ge a\|\cdot\|+b$ then $$ \liminf_{\|x\| \to \infty } \frac{f(x)}{\|x\|}\ge a>0. $$ c) $ \implies $ d): Suppose that there exists $\lambda$ such that the sublevel set $(f\le \lambda )$ is unbounded. Then there exists $(x_n)$ in $(f \le \lambda) $ with $\|x_n\| \to \infty$. Since $f(x_n) \le \lambda $ we obtain $$ \liminf_{n\to \infty} \frac{f(x_n)}{\|x_n\|} \le 0 $$ but $$ \liminf_{n\to \infty} \frac{f(x_n)}{\|x_n\|} \ge \liminf_{\|x\| \to \infty } \frac{f(x)}{\|x\|}>0. $$ d) $\implies$ a): If $f$ is not coercive then there exist $(x_n) \subset X$, $\lambda \in \mathbb R$ such that $\|x_n\| \to \infty$ and $f(x_n) \le \lambda$. This is not possible since $(f\le \lambda)$ is bounded.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your response. Could you recommend a reference of the proof of your statement? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 26, 2024 at 14:37
  • $\begingroup$ Statement in Dal Maso's book on Gamma convergence - Example 1.14 $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 1, 2025 at 23:52
2
$\begingroup$

Regarding question 1, the two notions are not equivalent because the first functional is a bilinear form, so is not like in the second definition for $f:H \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. The first notion is for $B: H \times H \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ bilinear. If a bilinear form $B: H \times H \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is continuous e coercive $(B(u,u) \geq c \|u\|^2$ for all $u \in H$, then for every given linear and continuous functional $\ell: H \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, the equation $B(u,v) = \ell(v),\;\forall v \in H$, has a unique solution in $H$. If the bilinear form is symmetric, then the unique solution also solves $(1/2)B(u,u) - \ell(u)=min!$ in $H$.

(the point being that a minimum problem appears this way).

Regarding definition 2, there is a third notion of coercive functional: $f(x)$ goes to infinity as $\|x\| \rightarrow +\infty$. It is a key assumption in a well-known theorem: a weakly sequentially lower semi-continuous and coercive (in this third sense) functional is bounded below on H and has a global minimum in H [This coerciveness 3 ensures that the infimum of $F$ on H is the same as the infimum of $F$ over a sufficiently large closed ball (a weakly sequentially compact set), and this fact allows one to use another result that establishes the previous conclusion under the assumptions of existing a (non-empty) subset of H weakly sequentially compact with F weakly sequentially lower semi-continuous.]

Back to definition 2, it shown at On coercivity and compactness that for $f:\mathbb{R}^{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ continuous, this third notion of coercitivity is equivalent to every sublevel set being compact. So, in $\mathbb{R}^n$, under the assumption of f continuous one has boundedness of every sublevel set [implies Def. 2] being equivalent to coercitivity 3.

However, it is known that (in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$) coercivity 3 is too strong and one can prove the existence of a global minimizer using Def. 2 (in the proof one needs only one such level subset being bounded (thus compact).)

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.