The Bubble Transform and the de Rham Complex

Richard S. Falk and Ragnar Winther

arXiv: 2111.08123v2 · PDF · 6 February 2022
Categories: math.NA, cs.NA
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss a generalization of the bubble transform to differential forms. The bubble transform was discussed in a previous paper by the authors for scalar valued functions, or zero-forms, and represents a new tool for the understanding of finite element spaces of arbitrary polynomial degree. The present paper contains a similar study for differential forms. From a simplicial mesh of the domain, we build a map which decomposes piecewise smooth k-forms into a sum of local bubbles supported on appropriate macroelements. The key properties of the decomposition are that it commutes with the exterior derivative and preserves the piecewise polynomial structure of the standard finite element spaces of k-forms. Furthermore, the transform is bounded in L^2 and also on the appropriate subspace consisting of k-forms with exterior derivatives in L^2.

Items 47

Lemma

Lemma 2.1

1R3I

Let f \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T}). The operators A_f^k satisfy

i) A_f^k (\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}_f)) \subset \Lambda^k({\mathcal S}_f^c),
ii) A_f^k ({\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}_f) ) \subset {\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^k({\mathcal S}_f^c) and A_f^k ({\mathcal P}_r^-\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}_f) ) \subset {\mathcal P}_r^-\Lambda^k({\mathcal S}_f^c),
iii) \operatorname{tr}_{f} L_f^*A_f^k u = \operatorname{tr}_f u for u \in \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}_f), k \le m \le n.

Used by Proof, Remark

Proof of Lemma 2.1

Assume that u \in \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}_f). From the definition of the operator A_f^k, we obtain

(A_f^k u)_{\lambda}(v_1, \ldots ,v_k) = |\Omega_f|^{-1}\sum_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_f)} \int_{T} u_{G(y, \lambda)}(DG(y, \cdot) v_1, \ldots, DG(y, \cdot )v_k) \, dy,

where |\Omega_f| denote the volume of \Omega_f. Also observe that if we fix y \in \Omega_f, then the subset of \Omega_f given by

\{ \, G(y, \lambda) \, : \, \lambda \in {\mathcal S}_f^c \, \}

belongs to a single n simplex of \Omega_f. Therefore, since G(y, \cdot) is a smooth function of \lambda and u is piecewise smooth, we can conclude that for each fixed y, the integrand appearing in the definition of (A_f^k u)_{\lambda} varies smoothly with \lambda. As a consequence, (A_f^k u)_{\lambda}(v_1, \ldots ,v_k) is a smooth function of \lambda, and therefore part i) is established.

If u \in {\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}_f), then the integrand

u_{G(y, \lambda)}(DG(y, \cdot) v_1, \ldots, DG(y, \cdot )v_k) \in {\mathcal P}_r({\mathcal S}_f^c)

as a function of \lambda. The same is true for the integral with respect to y, so A_f^k u \in {\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^k({\mathcal S}_f^c). To show the corresponding preservation of the {\mathcal P}_r^- spaces, we have to show that (A_f^k u )\lrcorner \lambda \in {\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^{k-1}({\mathcal S}_f^c) for u \in {\mathcal P}_r^-\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}_f). However, from the fact that

DG(y, \cdot) \lambda = \sum_{i \in I(f)} \lambda_i(x_i - y) = G(y, \lambda) - y,

we obtain

\begin{gathered} ((A_f^k u ) \lrcorner \lambda)_{\lambda} (v_1, \ldots ,v_{k-1}) \\ = {\int \hspace{- 10pt}- \hspace{- 5 pt}}_{\Omega_f} (u_{G(y, \lambda)} \lrcorner (G(y,\lambda) - y)) (DG(y, \cdot) v_1, \ldots, DG(y, \cdot )v_{k-1}) \, dy. \end{gathered}

If u \in {\mathcal P}_r^-\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}_f), we have that u_x \lrcorner (x- y) is an element of {\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^{k-1}({\mathcal T}_f) as a function of x for each fixed y, and therefore, by the linearity of G(\lambda,y) with respect to \lambda, we can conclude that the integrand above is in {\mathcal P}_r({\mathcal S}_f^c). In other words, we have established that A_f^k u \in {\mathcal P}_r^-\Lambda^k({\mathcal S}_f^c).

Finally, we have to show the trace property. However, for each fixed y,

L_f^* \circ G(y , \cdot)^* = (G(y , \cdot) \circ L_f)^*,

and by (?), the function G(y , \cdot) \circ L_f = G(y,L_f \cdot) is the identity on f. We can therefore conclude that

\operatorname{tr}_f L_f^* A_f^k u = \operatorname{tr}_f {\int \hspace{- 10pt}- \hspace{- 5 pt}}_{\Omega_f} (G(y , \cdot) \circ L_f)^*u \, dy = \operatorname{tr}_f u.

This completes the proof of the lemma.

Lemma

Lemma 2.2

GTXJ

Let u \in \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) and f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T}) for 0 \le m \le n and 0 \le j \le k. Then C_{m,f}^k u \in \0\Lambda_{m+j}^k({\mathcal T} ,f), while C_m^k u \in \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}). Furthermore, if k \le m \le n and f \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T}), then we also have \operatorname{tr}_f C_{m,f}^k u = \operatorname{tr}_f u, which gives

tr_f C_m^ku = \operatorname{tr}_f u, \quad f \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T}).

Used by Remark, Proof

Remark

IEYN

If f \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T}) and g \in \Delta(f), g \neq f, then g \subset f \cap \partial \Omega_f, where \partial \Omega_f denotes the boundary of \Omega_f. However, as a consequence of Lemma 2.2, we have \operatorname{tr}_f C_{m,f}^k u = \operatorname{tr}_f u, and if C_{m,f}^k u is smooth, we must also have \operatorname{tr}_{\partial \Omega_f} C_{m,f}^k u = 0, since C_{m,f}^k u vanishes on the complement of \Omega_f. This apparent contradiction is exactly why the space of rational differential forms, \0\Lambda_m^k({\mathcal T},f), appears as part of our construction. Furthermore, the statement C_m^k u \in \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) has the interpretation that there is a w \in \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) such that

w_x = \sum_{\substack {f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T})\\ 0 \le j \le k}} (C_{m,f}^k u)_x, \quad x \in \Omega \setminus \Delta_{m-1}, \quad \Delta_{m-1} = \bigcup_{g \in \Delta_{m-1}({\mathcal T})} g.

In particular, C_n^k is the identity operator.

Uses Lemma 2.2

Theorem

Theorem 2.3

TYTA

Let u \in \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}). Then we have

i) B_m^ku \in \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}), \quad 0 \le m\le n,
ii) d B_m^k u = B_m^{k+1} du, \quad 0 \le k \le n-1,
iii) B_{m,f}^k u \in \0\Lambda_{m+j}^k({\mathcal T} ,f), \quad f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T}), \, 0 \le m \le n, \, 0 \le j \le k,
iv) \operatorname{tr}_f \sum_{j=0}^{m}B_j^k u = \operatorname{tr}_f u, \quad f \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T}), \, k \le m \le n,

and the decomposition

u = \sum_{m=0} ^n B_m^k u = \sum_{m=0}^n \sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T})\\ 0 \le j \le k}} B_{m,f}^k u.

Proof of Theorem 2.3

Property i) is a consequence of a simple induction argument, based on the iteration (?), and the corresponding property for the operator C_m^k given in Lemma 2.2. The commuting property follows directly from (?) and the corresponding property for the cut–off operators C_m^k, while property iii) follows from i), (?), and the corresponding property for the operator C_{m,f}^k. Furthermore, for f \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T}), we have from (?) and Lemma 2.2 that

\operatorname{tr}_f B_m^k u = \operatorname{tr}_f (u - \sum_{j=0}^{m-1} B_j^k u), \quad k \le m \le n,

and this implies property iv). Finally, the decomposition of u is a special case of property iv), corresponding to m=n.

Uses Lemma 2.2

Theorem

Theorem 2.4

JOO7

The operators B_m^k satisfy

B_m^k ({\mathcal P}_r \Lambda^k({\mathcal T})) \subset {\mathcal P}_r \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) \quad \text{and} \quad B_m^k ({\mathcal P}_r^- \Lambda^k({\mathcal T})) \subset {\mathcal P}_r^- \Lambda^k({\mathcal T})

for 0 \le m \le n.

Proof of Theorem 2.4

This follows directly from the iteration (?) and the corresponding results for the operators C_m^k.

Lemma

Lemma 3.1

JEVF

Let u \in \Lambda^0({\mathcal T}_f) and f \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T}) for 0 \le m \le n. The function C_{m,f}^0u satisfies \operatorname{tr}_f C_{m,f}^0 u = \operatorname{tr}_f u and C_{m,f}^0 u \equiv 0 in \Omega \setminus \Omega_f.

Lemma

Lemma 3.2

O5AR

If u \in \Lambda^0({\mathcal T}_f) and \operatorname{tr}_{\partial f} u =0, then C_{m,f}^0u \in \Lambda^0({\mathcal T}). Furthermore, if in addition u \in {\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^0({\mathcal T}_f), then C_{m,f}^0 u \in {\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^0({\mathcal T}).

Proof of Lemma 3.2

It follows from Lemma 2.1 that A_f^0 u is a smooth function on {\mathcal S}_f^c. Furthermore, since L_f : f \to {\mathcal S}_f is an isomorphism, mapping \partial f to \partial S_f, it follows from part iii) of Lemma 2.1 that \operatorname{tr}_{\partial {\mathcal S}_f} A_f u = 0. In particular, for any g \in \Delta(f), g \neq f, we have \operatorname{tr}_{S_g} u = 0. Since {\mathcal S}_g has codimension one as a subset of {\mathcal S}_g^c, we can conclude that \operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal S}_g^c} b^{-1} A_f^0 u is a smooth function on {\mathcal S}_g^c, and as a consequence,

L_g^* (b^{-1} A_f^0u) = \rho_g^{-1} L_g^* A_f^0 u

is a smooth function on \Omega. Since this holds for all g \in \Delta(f), g \neq f, we can conclude that C_{m,f}^0 u is piecewise smooth. In addition, if u \in {\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^0({\mathcal T}_f), then \rho_g^{-1} L_g^* A_f^0 u \in {\mathcal P}_{r-1}\Lambda^0({\mathcal T}_f) by part ii) of Lemma 2.1, and hence C_{m,f}^0 u \in {\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^0({\mathcal T}).

Uses Lemma 2.1

Remark

4A4K

The result given in Lemma 3.2 was the key property used in [bubble-I] to show that the bubble transform for zero forms preserves piecewise smoothness and piecewise polynomials. Surprisingly, this result will not play a corresponding role for the discussion given in this paper. Instead, we will show below, cf. Section ?, that even if each individual operator C_{m,f}^0 maps piecewise smooth functions into rational functions, the complete operator, C_m^0, will indeed map both the space of piecewise smooth functions and piecewise polynomials into themselves.

Lemma

Lemma 4.1

DRRB

Let u \in \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}_f) and f \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T}) for 0 \le k,m \le n. Then C_{m,f}^ku \in \0\Lambda_m^k({\mathcal T},f) and \operatorname{tr}_f C_{m,f}^k u = \operatorname{tr}_f u for k \le m \le n.

Used by Proof

Lemma

Lemma 4.2

H3X5

Assume that for each f \in \Delta({\mathcal T}) and e \in \Delta_1(f), we can construct operators R_{e,f}^1 such that relation (?) holds. Define the operator C_m^1 by

C_m^1 u = \sum_{\substack {f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T})\\ 0 \le j \le 1}} C_{m,f}^1 u,

where C_{m,f}^1 is given by (?) if f \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T}), and by

C_{m,f}^1u = \sum_{e \in \Delta_1(f)} \sum_{g \in \bar \Delta(f \cap e^*)} (-1)^{|f| - |g|}\frac{\phi_{e}}{\rho_g^2} L_{g}^*R_{e,f}^1 u

if f \in \Delta_{m+1}({\mathcal T}). Then the commuting relation dC_m^0 u = C_m^{1}du holds.

Lemma

Lemma 5.1

1XQF

All the domains \Omega_{e,f}, for f \in \Delta({\mathcal T}) and e \in \Delta(f), are contractible.

Proof of Lemma 5.1

Since \Omega_{f,f} = \Omega_f^E is assumed to be contractible, it is enough to consider the case e \in \Delta(f), e \neq f. But then f \cap e^* is nonempty. Since \Omega_{e,f} is star-shaped with respect to any point in f \cap e^* it follows that \Omega_{e,f} is contractible.

Lemma

Lemma 5.2

WIZN

The operators \delta and \delta^+ satisfy

\delta \circ \delta = 0, \quad \delta^+ \circ \delta^+ = 0, \quad \text{and } \delta \circ \delta^+ = - \delta^+ \circ \delta.

Proof of Lemma 5.2

The two first properties are standard, so we omit the proofs.

To see the third identity, we compute the two expressions as

(\delta^+ \delta z)_{e,f} = \sum_{\substack{ i,p \in I(e)\\ i \neq p}}(-1)^{\sigma_e(x_i) + \sigma_{e(\hat x_i)}(x_p)} z_{e(\hat x_i,\hat x_p), f(\hat x_p)},

and

(\delta \delta^+ z)_{e,f} = \sum_{\substack{ i,p \in I(e)\\ i \neq p}}(-1)^{\sigma_e(x_p) + \sigma_{e(\hat x_p)}(x_i)} z_{e(\hat x_i,\hat x_p), f(\hat x_p)}.

However, we will always have

(-1)^{\sigma_e(x_p) + \sigma_{e(\hat x_p)}(x_i)} = - (-1)^{\sigma_e(x_i) + \sigma_{e(\hat x_i)}(x_p)},

which implies the desired identity.

Lemma

Lemma 5.3

VUW0

Assume that f \in \Delta({\mathcal T}) and e \in \Delta_j(f). The functions z_{e,f}, defined above by z_{e,f} = (\delta^+ w)_{e,f}, belong to \0{\mathcal P}_1^-\Lambda^{n-j}({\mathcal T}_{e,f}) and satisfy the two identities (?).

Proof of Lemma 5.3

The support property follows from the support property of the functions w_{e,f}, while \delta^+z = 0 follows from the complex property of the operator \delta^+. Finally, for e \in \Delta_j(f), we have

\begin{gathered} dz_{e,f} = d(\delta^+w)_{e,f} = (\delta^+ dw)_{e,f} = (-1)^{j} ((\delta^+ \circ \delta) w)_{e,f} \\ = (-1)^{j+1} ((\delta \circ \delta^+) w)_{e,f} = (-1)^{j+1} (\delta z)_{e,f}, \end{gathered}

and this completes the proof.

Proposition

Proposition 5.4

IISO

The operators R_{e,f}^k satisfy the two identities (?) and (?).

Used by Proof

Proof of Proposition 5.4

For any e \in \Delta_j(f), we have

(\delta^+ R^ku)_{e,f} = \operatorname{tr}_{{\mathcal S}_{f \cap e^*}^c}\int_{\Omega} (\Pi_{j-1} G^*u) \wedge (\delta^+ z)_{e,f},

and the relation (?) follows directly from the second identity of (?). To show (?), we use the first relation of (?), (?), and integration by parts to obtain

\begin{gathered} -(\delta R^{k} u)_{e,f } = (-1)^{j} \int_{\Omega} \Pi_{j-1} G^* u \wedge d_{\Omega }z_{e,f} \\ = \int_{\Omega} d_{\Omega }\Pi_{j -1}G^* u \wedge z_{e,f} = \int_{\Omega} \Big[(-1)^{j+1} d_{{\mathcal S} }\Pi_{j}G^* u + \Pi_jG^*du\Big] \wedge z_{e,f}, \end{gathered}

where we have used (?) to obtain the last equality. However, since

d R_{e,f}^k u = \int_{\Omega} d_S \Pi_j G^* u \wedge z_{e,f},

we see that the right hand side above is exactly equal to

(-1)^{j+1} dR_{e,f}^k u + R_{e,f}^{k+1} du ,

and hence the desired result is obtained.

Proposition

Proposition 5.5

NJK2

Assume that f \in \Delta({\mathcal T}), e \in \Delta_j(f).

i) If u \in \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}), then b^{-j}R_{e,f}^k u \in \Lambda^{k-j}({\mathcal S}_{f \cap e^*}^c),
ii) If u \in {\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) then b^{-j}R_{e,f}^k u \in {\mathcal P}_{r}\Lambda^{k-j}({\mathcal S}_{f \cap e^*}^c),
iii) if u \in {\mathcal P}_r^-\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) then b^{-j} R_{e,f}^k u \in {\mathcal P}_{r}^-\Lambda^{k-j}({\mathcal S}_{f \cap e^*}^c).

Used by Proof, Proof

Proof of Proposition 5.5

If e =f, then {\mathcal S}_{f \cap e^*}^c consists of a single point, the origin in \mathbb{R}^{N+1}, and in this case the conclusion of the proposition is obvious. Therefore, for the rest of the proof, we assume that e \neq f, such that f \cap e^* is nonempty. We recall that for f \in \Delta({\mathcal T}) and e \in \Delta_j(f), we have

R_{e,f}^k u = \int_{\Omega_{e,f}} \Pi_j G^*u \wedge z_{e,f}.

More precisely, R_{e,f}^ku is k-j form on S_{f \cap e^*}^c such that

(R_{e,f}^k u)_{\lambda}(v_1, \ldots , v_{k-j}) = \int_{\Omega_{e,f}} (\Pi_j G^* u \lrcorner v_1 \ldots \lrcorner v_{k-j})_{\lambda} \wedge z_{e,f},

where v_i \in T({\mathcal S}_{f\cap e^*}^c) and (\Pi_j G^* u \lrcorner v_1, \ldots \lrcorner v_{k-j})_{\lambda} is a j form on \Omega. In fact,

\begin{gathered} b(\lambda)^{-j} ((\Pi_j G^* u \lrcorner v_1 \ldots \lrcorner v_{k-j})_{\lambda})_y(t_1, \ldots ,t_j) \\ = u_{G(y,\lambda)}(t_1, \ldots ,t_j, D_{\lambda}Gv_1, \ldots ,D_{\lambda}Gv_{k-j}), \end{gathered}

where y \in \Omega_{e,f} and t_i \in T(\Omega_{e,f}).

Furthermore, for any fixed y \in \Omega_{e,f} \subset \Omega_{f \cap e^*}, the set

\{ \, G(y, \lambda) \, : \, \lambda \in {\mathcal S}_{f\cap e^*}^c \, \}

belongs to a single n simplex of \Omega_{e,f}, while the vectors of the form D_{\lambda} v are independent of \lambda. This shows that if u is a piecewise smooth k form on \Omega_{e,f}, then for each fixed y \in \Omega_{e,f}, the right hand side of (Proof) is a smooth function of \lambda \in {\mathcal S}_{f \cap e^*}^c. The same must be true for the integral with respect to y, and hence the first statement of the proposition is established.

The second property follows from almost the same argument, since if u is a piecewise polynomial, i.e., u \in {\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}), then the right hand side of (Proof) is a polynomial of degree r with respect to \lambda \in {\mathcal S}_{f \cap e^*}^c for each fixed y \in \Omega_{e,f}. Again, the same will hold for the integral with respect to y. To show that the {\mathcal P}_r^- spaces are also preserved, we will consider R_{e,f}^k u \lrcorner \lambda, where \lambda \in {\mathcal S}_{f \cap e^*}^c. Then

(R_{e,f}^k u)_{\lambda}(\lambda, v_1, \ldots , v_{k-j-1}) = \int_{\Omega_{e,f}} (\Pi_j G^* u \lrcorner \lambda \lrcorner v_1 \ldots \lrcorner v_{k-j-1})_{\lambda} \wedge z_{e,f},

where

\begin{gathered} b(\lambda)^{-j} ((\Pi_j G^* u \lrcorner \lambda \lrcorner v_1 \ldots \lrcorner v_{k-j-1})_{\lambda})_y(t_1, \ldots ,t_j) \\ = u_{G(y,\lambda)}(t_1, \ldots ,t_j, G(y,\lambda) - y, D_{\lambda}Gv_1, \ldots ,D_{\lambda}Gv_{k-j-1}). \end{gathered}

However, if u \in {\mathcal P}_r^-\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}), it follows from the linearity of G with respect to \lambda that for each fixed y \in \Omega_{e,f}, the right hand side above is in {\mathcal P}_r({\mathcal S}_{f \cap e^*}^c), and therefore the same holds for the integral with respect to y. As a consequence, we can conclude that b^{-j}R_{e,f}^k u \in {\mathcal P}_{r}^-\Lambda^{k-j}({\mathcal S}_{f \cap e^*}^c). This completes the proof of the proposition.

Lemma

Lemma 6.1

KU0B

Let u \in \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}_f) and f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T}) for 0\le m \le n and 0 \le j \le k. Then C_{m,f}^ku \in \0\Lambda_m^k({\mathcal T} ,f) and \operatorname{tr}_f C_m^k u = \operatorname{tr}_f u for f \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T}) and k \le m \le n.

Used by Remark, Proof

Proof of Lemma 6.1

We only have to consider the case j > 0, since the case j=0 is covered by Lemma 4.1. Let f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T}), 1 \le j \le k, be fixed. It is enough to consider each term in the sum of C_{m,f}^k u corresponding to e \in \Delta_j(f) fixed, i.e.,

C_{m,e,f}^k u := \sum_{g \in \bar \Delta(f \cap e^*)} (-1)^{|f| - |g|}\frac{\phi_{e}}{\rho_g} \wedge L_g^*b^{-j}R_{e,f}^k u.

By part (i) of Proposition 5.5, b^{-j}R_{e,f}^k u \in \Lambda^{k-j}({\mathcal S}_{f \cap e^*}^c). As a consequence, it follows that C_{m,e,f}^k u \in \Lambda_m^k({\mathcal T} ,f). To show that C_{m,e,f}^k u is supported in \Omega_f we will use a variant of the cancellation argument we have used before. Assume that i \in I(f) and let \Gamma be a subset of \Omega such that \lambda_i \equiv 0 on \Gamma. If i \in I(e), then \phi_e vanishes on \Gamma. On the other hand, if i \notin I(e), then i \in I(f \cap e^*) and we can use a cancellation argument to show that C_{m,e,f}^k u = 0. We compare two terms in the definition of C_{m,e,f}^k u corresponding to g and g^\prime, where g \subset g^\prime and g^\prime \setminus g = \{x_i \}. The two terms will cancel on \Gamma. Therefore we can conclude that C_{m,e,f}^k u = 0 on \Gamma, and this implies the support property of C_{m,e,f}^k u. To check the trace property of C_m^k u, we recall that if g \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T}) and f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T}), j \ge 0, where f \neq g, then g will not belong to the interior of \Omega_f. By combining this observation, the result above, and the trace property given in Lemma 4.1, we can conclude that \operatorname{tr}_f C_m^k u = \operatorname{tr}_f u for f \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T}) and m \ge k.

Uses Lemma 4.1, Proposition 5.5

Proposition

Proposition 7.1

BNZD

The operator C_m^k satisfies the commuting relation

d C_m^k = C_m^{k+1}d, \quad 0 \le k \le n-1.

Furthermore,

i) if u \in \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}), then C_m^k u \in \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}),
ii) if u \in {\mathcal P}_r \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}), then C_m^k u \in {\mathcal P}_r \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}),
iii) if u \in {\mathcal P}_r^- \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}), then C_m^k u \in {\mathcal P}_r^- \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}).

Used by Proof

Lemma

Lemma 7.2

HV4F

If u \in \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) and g \in \Delta_s(T), then

C_m^k(g,T)u - \frac{n-m}{n-s} \sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_m(T) \\ f \supset g}} L_g^* A_{f}^k u = d Q_m^k u + Q_{m}^{k+1} du,

where the operators Q_m^k = Q_m^k(g,T) are given by

Q_m^k u = \frac{1}{n-s} \sum_{j = 1}^k (-1)^{j }(j-1)! \sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_{m+j}(T)\\ f \supset g}} \sum_{e \in \Delta_j(f \cap g^*)} (\delta \phi)_{e} \wedge L_g^* b^{-j}R_{e,f}^k u,

with (\delta \phi)_e = \sum_{i \in I(e)} (-1)^{\sigma(x_i)} \phi_{e(\hat x_i)}. In particular, Q_m^0 = 0 and the case g =\emptyset corresponds to s = -1.

Used by Proof, Proof, Remark

Proof

9H3Z

(of Proposition 7.1) Recall that we only need to consider C_m^k(g,T) as an operator from \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) to the space of rational k forms on T. Since the operator A_f^k commutes with d, the commuting property will follow if the right hand side of (7.2) commutes with d. However, this follows since

d [dQ_m^k + Q_m^{k+1}d] u = d Q_m^{k+1}d u = [dQ_m^{k+1} + Q_m^{k+2}d] du.

From the properties of the operator R_{e,f}^k given in Proposition 5.5, we can conclude that the operator Q^k maps the space \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) to \Lambda^{k-1}(T) and {\mathcal P}_r \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) to {\mathcal P}_{r+1}\Lambda^{k-1}(T). The desired conclusion, that the operator C_m^k maps the spaces \Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) and {\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) into themselves, follows directly from the decomposition (7.2). To show the corresponding result for the {\mathcal P}_r^- spaces, we need to show that the operator C_m^k(g,T) preserves these spaces. However, it follows from the definition of the operator C_m^k(g,T), Proposition 5.5, and formula (3.16) of [acta] that C_m^k(g,T) maps {\mathcal P}_r^-\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) into \rho_g^{-1} {\mathcal P}_{r+1}^-\Lambda^k(T). Since {\mathcal P}_r^-\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) is a subspace of {\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) we therefore have that C_m^k(g,T) maps {\mathcal P}_r^-\Lambda^k({\mathcal T}) into

{\mathcal P}_r\Lambda^k(T) \cap \rho_g^{-1} {\mathcal P}_{r+1}^-\Lambda^k(T).

But elements of this space must be in {\mathcal P}_r^-\Lambda^k(T). To see this, let u \in {\mathcal P}_{r+1}^-\Lambda^k(T) be such that \rho_g^{-1}u \in {\mathcal P}_{r} \Lambda^{k}(T). For any x_j \in \Delta_0(T), we then have

u \lrcorner (x-x_j) \in {\mathcal P}_{r+1}\Lambda^{k-1}(T), \quad \text{and }\rho_g^{-1} (u \lrcorner (x-x_j)) \in {\mathcal P}_{r+1}\Lambda^{k-1}(T).

In other words, the polynomial form u \lrcorner (x-x_j) has \rho_g as a linear factor, and as a consequence, \rho_g^{-1} (u \lrcorner (x-x_j)) must be in {\mathcal P}_{r}\Lambda^{k-1}(T). This implies that \rho_g^{-1}u \in {\mathcal P}_{r}^- \Lambda^{k}(T).

Uses Proposition 7.1, Lemma 7.2, Proposition 5.5

Lemma

Lemma 7.3

GIT5

If g \in \Delta_s(T), then

C_{m,0}^k(g,T)u - \frac{n-m}{n-s} \sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_m(T) \\ f \supset g}} L_g^* A_{f}^k u = \frac{1}{n-s} \sum_{(f,e) \in \Delta(m,1)} \frac{(\delta \phi)_{e}}{\rho_g} \wedge L_g^* (\delta R^ku)_{e,f},

where the case g =\emptyset corresponds to s = -1.

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 7.3

We observe that the desired identity will follow if we can show that

\begin{gathered} \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,1)}(\delta \phi)_{e} \wedge L_g^* (\delta R^ku)_{e,f} - (n-s) \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,0)} \phi_e \wedge L_{g}^* R_{e,f}^ku \\ =(m-s) \rho_g \sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_{m}(T)\\ f \supset g}} L_g^*A_f^k u. \end{gathered}

By using the special definitions of \phi_e and R_{e,f}^k for e \in \Delta_0, it is straightforward to verify that

\begin{aligned} &\sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_{m+1}(T)\\ f \supset g}} \sum_{e \in \Delta_1(f \cap g^*)} (\delta \phi)_{e} \wedge L_g^* (\delta R^ku)_{e,f}\\ & = - \sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_{m+1}(T)\\ f \supset g}} \sum_{e \in \Delta_1(f \cap g^*)} \sum_{i \in I(e)} (-1)^{\sigma_e(x_i)}\lambda_{e(\hat x_i)} \sum_{p \in I(e)} (-1)^{\sigma_e(x_p)} \wedge L_g^* A_{f(\hat x_p)}^k \\ &=\sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_{m}(T)\\ f \supset g}} \sum_{ \substack{p \in I(f^*)\\i \in I(f\cap g^*)}} (\lambda_p - \lambda_i)\wedge L_g^*A_f^k u =\sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_{m}(T)\\ f \supset g}} \sum_{ \substack{p \in I(g^*)\\i \in I(f\cap g^*)}} (\lambda_p - \lambda_i)\wedge L_g^*A_f^k u, \end{aligned}

while

-(n-s) \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,0)} \phi_e \wedge L_{g}^* R_{e,f}^ku = \sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_{m}(T)\\ f \supset g}} \sum_{ \substack{p \in I(g^*)\\i \in I(f\cap g^*)}} \lambda_i \wedge L_g^*A_f^k u.

As a consequence, the left hand side of (Proof) is

\sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_{m}(T)\\ f \supset g}} \sum_{ \substack{p \in I(g^*)\\i \in I(f\cap g^*)}} \lambda_p \wedge L_g^*A_f^k u = (m-s) \rho_g \sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_{m}(T)\\ f \supset g}} L_g^*A_f^k u,

and this completes the proof.

Lemma

Lemma 7.4

UE2G

The identity

\begin{gathered} \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,j)} d \Big(\frac{(\delta \phi)_{e}}{\rho_g^j}\Big) \wedge L_g^* R_{e,f}^k u + \frac{j}{\rho_g^{j+1}} \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,j+1)} (\delta \phi)_e \wedge L_g^* (\delta R^k u)_{e,f} \\ = \frac{j}{\rho_g^{j+1}} (n-s) \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,j)} \phi_{e} \wedge L_g^* R_{e,f}^k u \end{gathered}

holds for any 0 \le j \le m.

Used by Proof, Proof

Proof

0Q18

(of Lemma 7.2) We introduce the operators

Q_{m,\ell}^k u = \frac{1}{n-s} \sum_{j = 1}^{\ell} (-1)^{j }(j-1)! \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,j)} (\delta \phi)_{e} \wedge L_g^* b^{-j} R_{e,f}^k u,

such that Q_{m,k}^k = Q_m^k, and Q_{m,0}^k = 0. We will now use induction with respect to \ell to show that

\begin{gathered} C_{m,\ell}^k(g,T)u - \frac{n-m}{n-s} \sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_m(T) \\ f \supset g}} L_g^* A_{f}^k u = d Q_{m,\ell}^k u + Q_{m,\ell}^{k+1} du \\ + \frac{(-1)^{\ell} \ell!}{n-s} \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,\ell +1)} \frac{(\delta \phi)_{e}}{\rho_g^{\ell +1}} \wedge L_g^* (\delta R^ku)_{e,f}, \quad \ell = 0, 1, \ldots k. \end{gathered}

For \ell = 0, this is exactly the identity given in Lemma 7.3. On the other hand, for \ell = k, we have that

\mathcal Q_{m,k}^{k+1} du + \frac{(-1)^k k!}{n-s} \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,k +1)} \frac{(\delta \phi)_{e}}{\rho_g^{k +1}} \wedge L_g^* (\delta R^ku)_{e,f} = Q_m^{k+1} du,

where we have used the facts that \rho_g = L_g^* b and (\delta R^ku)_{e,f} = - R_{e,f}^{k+1} du for e \in \Delta_{k+1}(f), cf. (?). So the desired identity, (7.2) , follows from (Proof) with \ell = k.

If we assume that (Proof) holds for \ell -1, then

\begin{aligned} C_{m,\ell}^k&(g,T) u - \frac{n-m}{n-s} \sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_m(T) \\ f \supset g}} L_g^* A_{f}^k u = (-1)^{\ell}\ell! \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,\ell )} \frac{\phi_{e}}{\rho_g^{\ell+1 }} \wedge L_g^* R_{e,f}^ku\\ &+ dQ_{m,\ell -1}^ku + Q_{m,\ell -1}^{k+1} du - \frac{(-1)^{\ell} (\ell-1)!}{n-s} \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,\ell )} \frac{(\delta \phi)_{e}}{\rho_g^{\ell }} \wedge L_g^* (\delta R^ku)_{e,f}\\ &= dQ_{m,\ell -1}^ku + Q_{m,\ell }^{k+1} du \\ &+ \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,\ell )} \Big[(-1)^{\ell}\ell! \frac{\phi_{e}}{\rho_g^{\ell +1}} \wedge L_g^* R_{e,f}^ku - \frac{ (\ell-1)!}{n-s} \frac{(\delta \phi)_{e}}{\rho_g^{\ell }} \wedge dL_g^* R_{e,f}^ku \Big], \end{aligned}

where we have used (?) for the last equality. However, by (7.4), the last sum can rewritten as

\frac{ (-1)^{\ell} (\ell-1)!}{n-s} \Big[ \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,\ell )} d \Big(\frac{(\delta \phi)_{e}}{\rho_g^{\ell }} \wedge L_g^* R_{e,f}^ku \Big) + \ell \hskip -7pt \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,\ell +1)} \frac{(\delta \phi)_{e}}{\rho_g^{\ell +1}} \wedge L_g^* (\delta R^ku)_{e,f} \Big],

and hence we obtain the identity (Proof) at level \ell. This completes the induction argument, and hence the proof of Lemma 7.2.

Uses Lemma 7.2, Lemma 7.3, Lemma 7.4

Proof

QV45

(of Lemma 7.4) We observe that if e \in \Delta_j(f \cap g^*), it follows from (?) and the identity \rho_g = \sum_{p \in I(g^*)} \lambda_p that

\begin{gathered} d \Big(\frac{(\delta \phi)_{e}}{\rho_g^j}\Big) = \frac{j}{\rho_g^{j+1}} \sum_{i \in I(e)} (-1)^{\sigma_e(x_i)} \sum_{p \in I(g^*)} \phi_{[x_p,e(\hat x_i)]} \\ = \frac{j}{\rho_g^{j+1}} \Big[ (j+1)\phi_e + \sum_{i \in I(e)} (-1)^{\sigma_e(x_i)} \sum_{p \in I(g^*\setminus e)} \phi_{[x_p,e(\hat x_i)]} \Big]. \end{gathered}

To proceed, we will treat the sum with respect to p above in the two cases p \in I ((g^* \setminus e) \cap f) and p \in I ((g^* \setminus e) \cap f^* = I(f^*) separately. In the first case, for any fixed f \in \Delta_{m+j}(T), consider

\begin{gathered} \sum_{e \in \Delta_j(f \cap g^*)} \sum_{i \in I(e)} (-1)^{\sigma_e(x_i)} \sum_{p \in I((g^* \setminus e)\cap f )} \phi_{[x_p,e(\hat x_i)]}\wedge L_g^* R_{e,f}^k u \\ = \sum_{e \in \Delta_{j+1}(f \cap g^*)} \sum_{p \in I(e)}\sum_{i \in I(e(\hat x_p))} (-1)^{\sigma_{e(\hat x_p)}(x_i) + \sigma_{e(\hat x_i)}(x_p)} \phi_{e(\hat x_i)} \wedge L_g^* R_{e(\hat x_p),f}^k u, \end{gathered}

where the identity is obtained by introducing e^\prime \in \Delta_{j+1} as the ordered version of the simplex [x_p,e], i.e., (-1)^{\sigma_{e^\prime}(x_p)}e^\prime = [x_p,e], and then dropping primes. However, it is easy to show that

\sigma_{e(\hat x_p)}(x_i) + \sigma_{e(\hat x_i)}(x_p) = \sigma_{e}(x_i) + \sigma_{e}(x_p) -1.

As a consequence, we can express the sum above as

\begin{aligned} &\sum_{e \in \Delta_j(f \cap g^*)} \sum_{i \in I(e)} (-1)^{\sigma_e(x_i)} \sum_{p \in I((g^* \setminus e)\cap f )} \phi_{[x_p,e(\hat x_i)]}\wedge L_g^* R_{e,f}^k u \\ &= - \sum_{e \in \Delta_{j+1}(f \cap g^*)} \sum_{p \in I(e)} \sum_{i \in I(e)} (-1)^{\sigma_{e}(x_i) + \sigma_{e}(x_p)} \phi_{e(\hat x_i)} \wedge L_g^* R_{e(\hat x_p),f}^k u\\ &\qquad + \sum_{e \in \Delta_{j+1}(f \cap g^*)} \sum_{p \in I(e)} \phi_{e(\hat x_p)} \wedge L_g^* R_{e(\hat x_p),f}^k u \\ &= - \sum_{e \in \Delta_{j+1}(f \cap g^*)} (\delta \phi)_e \wedge L_g^* (\delta^+ R^k u)_{e,f} + ( m-s-1 ) \sum_{e \in \Delta_{j}(f \cap g^*)} \phi_e \wedge L_g^* R_{e,f}^k u, \end{aligned}

where we have used the fact that for f \in \Delta_{m+j}(T) and g \in \Delta_s(f), |f \cap g^*| = m+j - s. Choosing an e \in \Delta_j(f \cap g^*) leaves m+j -s - j-1 = m-s-1 vertices that can be deleted from an e^\prime \in \Delta_{j+1}(f \cap g^*) to produce that same e.

However, the first term on the right hand side vanishes since (\delta^+ R u)_{e,f} = 0 by Proposition 5.4. Therefore, we can conclude that

In an analogous manner, and by using the identity (Proof) as above, we obtain

\begin{aligned} \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,j)}& \sum_{i \in I(e)} (-1)^{\sigma_e(x_i)} \sum_{p \in I(f^* )} \phi_{[x_p,e(\hat x_i)]}\wedge L_g^* R_{e,f}^k u \\ &= -\sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,j+1)} \sum_{p \in I(e)}\sum_{i \in I(e)} (-1)^{\sigma_{e}(x_i) + \sigma_{e}(x_p)} \phi_{e(\hat x_i)} \wedge L_g^* R_{e(\hat x_p),f(\hat x_p)}^k u\\ &+ \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,j+1)} \sum_{p \in I(e)} \phi_{e(\hat x_p)} \wedge L_g^* R_{e(\hat x_p),f(\hat x_p)}^k u, \end{aligned}

where as above we have introduced (-1)^{\sigma_{e^\prime}(x_p)} e^\prime = [x_p,e], and the corresponding extension of f to f^\prime \in \Delta_{m+j+1} by including x_p. However, the final right hand side above can rewritten as

-\sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,j+1)} (\delta \phi)_e \wedge L_g^* (\delta R^k u)_{e,f} + (n- m -j)\sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,j)} \phi_{e} \wedge L_g^* R_{e,f}^k u.

In this case, for each f \in \Delta_{m+j}(T), there are n-m-j vertices that can be deleted from f^\prime \in \Delta_{m+j+1}(T) to produce the same f. Deleting this same vertex from e^{\prime} \in \Delta_{j+1}(f^\prime \cap g^*) produces the above result.

By combining this result with (Proof) and (?), we obtain

\begin{gathered} \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,j)} d \Big(\frac{(\delta \phi)_{e}}{\rho_g^j}\Big) \wedge L_g^* R_{e,f}^k u \\ =\frac{j}{\rho_g^{j+1}} \Big[ (n-s) \sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,j)} \phi_e\wedge L_g^* R_{e,f}^k u -\sum_{(e,f) \in \Delta(m,j+1)} (\delta \phi)_e \wedge L_g^* (\delta R^k u)_{e,f} \Big], \end{gathered}

which is exactly the desired identity.

Uses Lemma 7.4, Proposition 5.4

Remark

U9M8

By a careful inspection of the proofs of Lemmas 6.1 and 7.2, we will discover that all properties of the operators A_f^k and R_{e,f}^k are used, except for the trace preserving property given by statement iii) of Lemma 2.1, i.e., that \operatorname{tr}_f A_f^k u = \operatorname{tr}_f u. In fact, this property is only used to establish the identity (?). In future work, we will consider the possibility of constructing approximations of a form u by using its decomposition by the bubble transform, cf. (?). One direct way to construct such an approximation is to approximate the operator C_m^k, studied above, by an operator of the form

\begin{gathered} \tilde C_m^k u = \sum_{f \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T})} \sum_{g \in \bar \Delta(f)}(-1)^{|f| -|g|}L_g^* \tilde A_f^k u \\ + \sum_{\substack{f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T})\\ 0 \le j \le k}} j! \sum_{g \in \bar \Delta(f)}(-1)^{|f| -|g|}\sum_{e \in \Delta_j(f \cap g^*)} \frac{\phi_e}{\rho_g} \wedge L_{g}^* b^{-j}\tilde R_{e,f}^ku, \end{gathered}

i.e., we have replaced the operators A_f^k and R_{e,f}^k by corresponding approximations \tilde A_f^k and \tilde R_{e,f}^k. By the observation above, we can conclude that if these operators satisfy the two relations (?) and (?), then the operator \tilde C_m^k commutes with the exterior derivative. Furthermore, piecewise polynomial properties of the functions \tilde C_m^ku and the support properties of the corresponding operators \tilde C_{m,f}^ku can be derived from similar properties of the operators \tilde A_f^k and \tilde R_{e,f}^k

Uses Lemma 6.1, Lemma 7.2, Lemma 2.1

Lemma

Lemma 8.1

XGFR

There exists a constant c, depending on the mesh {\mathcal T} only through the shape-regularity constant c_{{\mathcal T}}, such that for f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T}) and e \in \Delta_j(f), we have

\|C_{m,f}^k u\|_{L^2(\Omega_f)} \le c \|u\|_{L^2(\Omega_{f}^{E})},

where 0 \le m \le n and 0 \le j \le k.

Used by Proof, Proof

Lemma

Lemma 8.2

IUQ6

The overlap of the domains \{\Omega_f^E \}_{f \in \Delta({\mathcal T})} can be bounded by a constant which depends on the mesh {\mathcal T} only through the shape regularity constant c_{{\mathcal T}}.

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof

Theorem

Theorem 8.3

H18N

There exists a constant c, depending on the shape-regularity constant c_{{\mathcal T}}, such that for 0 \le m \le n, we have

\|B_{m}^k u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}, \Big(\sum_{j=0}^k \sum_{f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T})} \|B_{m,f}^k u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 \Big)^{1/2} \le c \|u\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.

Used by Proof

Proof of Theorem 8.3

We recall that the the operator C_m^k is defined by

C_m^k u = \sum_{f \in \Delta[m,k]} C_{m,f}^ku,

where, to simplify notation, we have introduced the set \Delta[m,k] = \{ f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T}) \, : \, 0 \le j \le k \,\}. We will first show that

\| C_m^k u \|_{L^2(\Omega)} \le c_1 \| u \|_{L^2(\Omega)},

where the constant c_1 depends on c_{{\mathcal T}}. To see this, let \kappa_f be the characteristic function of the set \Omega_f. Since the functions C_{m,f}^k u have support in \Omega_f, cf. Lemma 6.1, we have by repeated use of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, that

\begin{aligned} \| C_m^k u &\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2 = \sum_{f,g \in \Delta[m,k]} \int_{\Omega} \kappa_f \kappa_g |C_{m,f}^ku| \, |C_{m,g}^ku| \, dx\\ &\le \sum_{f,g \in \Delta[m,k]} (\int_{\Omega} \kappa_f \kappa_g |C_{m,f}^ku|^2 \, dx)^{1/2} (\int_{\Omega} \kappa_f \kappa_g |C_{m,g}^ku|^2 \, dx)^{1/2} \\ &\le \Big(\sum_{f,g \in \Delta[m,k]} \int_{\Omega} \kappa_f \kappa_g |C_{m,f}^ku|^2 \, dx \Big)^{1/2} \Big(\sum_{f,g \in \Delta[m,k]} \int_{\Omega} \kappa_f \kappa_g |C_{m,g}^ku|^2 \, dx \Big)^{1/2}\\ &\le \alpha_0 \sum_{f \in \Delta[m,k]} \| C_{m,f}^k u \|_{L^2(\Omega_f)}^2, \end{aligned}

where \alpha_0 is the overlap of set \{ \Omega_f \}_{f \in \Delta[m,k]}. However, by the bound (8.1), we have

\sum_{f \in \Delta[m,k]} \| C_{m,f}^k u \|_{L^2(\Omega_f)}^2 \le c^2 \sum_{f \in \Delta[m,k]} \| u \|_{L^2(\Omega_f^E)}^2 \le \alpha_1 c^2 \| u \|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2,

where \alpha_1 is the overlap of the set \{ \Omega_f^E \}_{f \in \Delta[m,k]}, cf. Lemma 8.2. Hence, we have verified the bound (Proof). The desired bound for the functions B_m^k u, 0 \le m \le n, now follows from this bound, the iteration (?), and a simple induction argument with respect to m. Finally, the L^2 bound the functions B_{m,f}^k u follows from the bound on the functions B_m^k u, (?), and (Proof).

Uses Lemma 6.1, Lemma 8.1, Lemma 8.2

Theorem

Theorem 8.4

J109

There exists a constant c, depending on the shape regularity constant c_{{\mathcal T}}, such that

\|B_{m}^k u\|_{H \Lambda(\Omega)} \le c \|u\|_{H \Lambda(\Omega)}, \quad 0 \le m \le n.

Proof of Theorem 8.4

Since d B_{m}^k u = B_{m}^{k+1} du, this is a direct consequence of the L^2 bounds given in Theorem 8.3.

Uses Theorem 8.3

Proof

P7BP

(of Lemma 8.2) For each x \in \Delta_0({\mathcal T}), we let N_x be the number of n simplices containing the vertex x. We will show that the number N_{x} can be bounded from above by a constant which only depends on {\mathcal T} though the shape-regularity constant c_{{\mathcal T}}. In fact, for any vertex x_0 we have

N_{x_0}= \sum_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{x_0})} \le \sum_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{x_0})} \frac{ |T|}{|\mathfrak{B}_T|} = \sum_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{x_0})} \frac{ h_T^n}{|\mathfrak{B}_T|} h_T^{-n}|T|,

where h_T is the diameter of the n simplex T and \mathfrak{B}_T is the largest ball contained in T. Next we use the fact that |\mathfrak{B}_T | = \beta_n (\operatorname{diam}(\mathfrak{B}_T)/2)^n, where \beta_n is the volume of the unit ball in \mathbb{R}^n to obtain

N_{x_0} \le \beta_n^{-1} 2^n \sum_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{x_0})} \frac{ h_T^n}{\operatorname{diam}(\mathfrak{B}_T)^n} h_T^{-n}|T| \le \beta_n^{-1} (2 c_{{\mathcal T}})^n \sum_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{x_0})} h_T^{-n}|T|,

where we have used the definition of c_{{\mathcal T}} for the last inequality. However, by substituting \theta(x) = (x - x_0)/h_T for x \in T, we obtain

\sum_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{x_0})} h_T^{-n}|T| \le \int_{|\theta| \le 1} \, d\theta = \beta_n.

Hence, we can conclude that

N_{x_0} \le (2 c_{{\mathcal T}})^n.

Note that it follows from (?) that if g \subset f then \Omega_g^E \subset \Omega_f^E. Therefore, to derive an upper bound for the overlap of the set \{ \Omega_f^E \}, it is enough to consider the sets \{\Omega_f^E \}_{f \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T})}. However, if T is any fixed n simplex, then T is a subset of \Omega_f^E if and only if T \cap f contains at least one vertex. As a consequence, T belongs to at most (n+1) \max_{x \in \Delta_0(T)} N_x domains of the set \{\Omega_f^E\}_{f \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T})}, and therefore the desired bound follows from (Proof).

Uses Lemma 8.2

Lemma

Lemma 8.5

P3RF

There is a constant c, depending on {\mathcal T} only through the shape-regularity constant c_{{\mathcal T}}, such that

\max_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{e,f})} h_T \le c \min_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{e,f})} h_T, \quad f \in \Delta({\mathcal T}), \, e \in \Delta(f).

Used by Proof, Proof

Proof of Lemma 8.5

We first prove that

\max_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{x_i})} h_T \le c \min_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{x_i})} h_T, \quad x_i \in \Delta_0({\mathcal T}).

To do so, let T_- and T_+ be two n-simplices in \Omega_{x_i}, and assume that there is a finite sequence of n simplexes \{T_j \}_{j=0}^s in \Omega_{x_i} such that T_- = T_0,\, T_s = T_+ and T_j \cap T_{j+1} contains at least one element e \in \Delta_1({\mathcal T}) containing x_i. By repeated use of the inequality (?) with m=1, we then obtain

\max(h_{T_-}, h_{T_+}) \le (2 c_{{\mathcal T}})^s \min(h_{T_-}, h_{T_+}).

However, since we have assumed that x_i^* is connected, any two n simplexes T_- and T_+ in \Omega_{x_i} can be connected by a sequence of the form above. Furthermore, as a consequence of Lemma 8.2, the number s can be bounded by a constant which only depends on {\mathcal T} through the shape-regularity constant.

Since \Omega_{e,f} \subset \Omega_{f,f} = \Omega_f^E, to prove (8.5), it is enough to prove the result for \Omega_{f,f}. Now for each f \in \Delta({\mathcal T}), we have

\bigcup_{i \in I(f)} \Omega_{x_i} = \Omega_f^E, \quad \text{and } \bigcap_{i \in I(f)} \Omega_{x_i} = \Omega_f \neq \emptyset.

Suppose \max_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{f,f})} h_T occurs for T \in {\mathcal T}_{x_i} and \min_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{f,f})} h_T occurs for T \in {\mathcal T}_{x_j}. Then by the result above for \Omega_{x_i},

\begin{gathered} \max_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{f,f})} h_T = \max_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{x_i})} h_T \le c \min_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{x_i})} h_T \le c \min_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{f})} h_T \\ \le c \max_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{f})} h_T \le c \max_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{x_j})} h_T \le c^2 \min_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{x_j})} h_T = c^2 \min_{T \in \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{f,f})} h_T. \end{gathered}

This completes the proof of the lemma.

Uses Lemma 8.2

Lemma

Lemma 8.6

1LRU

There exists a constant c, depending on the mesh {\mathcal T} only through the shape regularity constant c_{{\mathcal T}}, such that

\|z_{e,f}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega_{e,f})} \le c h_{e,f}^{j-n}, \qquad e \in \Delta_j(f),

where h_{e,f} = \max_{T \subset \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{e,f})} h_T.

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 8.6

Recall that the functions z_{e,f} are defined by z_{e,f} = (\delta^+w)_{e,f}, where w_{e,f} \in \0{\mathcal P}_1^-\Lambda^{n-j-1}({\mathcal T}_{e,f}) for e \in \Delta_j(f), j \ge 0. The desired bound on the functions z_{e,f} will be derived from a corresponding bound on the functions w_{e,f}, and to obtain this bound, we will use a scaling argument. For each e \in \bar \Delta(f), we define \tilde w_{e,f} = F_{e,f}^*w_{e,f}, such that w_{e,f} = L^*\tilde w_{e,f}. From the process defining the functions w_{e,f}, we obtain that the functions \tilde w_{e,f} are uniquely specified by a corresponding process on {\mathcal S}. In particular, the initial functions \tilde w_{\emptyset,f} are piecewise constants with integral equal to minus one,

d\tilde w_{e,f} =(-1)^{j}( (\delta - \delta^+)\tilde w)_{e,f},

and condition (?) translates to the corresponding relation

\int_{{\mathcal S}_{e,f}} \tilde w_{e,f} \wedge \star dq = 0, \quad q \in \0{\mathcal P}_1^-\Lambda^{n-j-2}({\mathcal S}_{e,f}).

Since the simplex {\mathcal S} is of unit size, and since the number of n simplexes belonging to the manifolds {\mathcal S}_{e,f} is bounded by the shape regularity constant, we can conclude that

\| \tilde w_{e,f} \|_{L^\infty({\mathcal S})} \le c, \quad f \in \Delta({\mathcal T}), e \in \Delta(f),

where the constant c depends on c_{{\mathcal T}}. Finally, we use the fact that for e \in \Delta_j(f), the n-j form z_{e,f} satisfies the relation

z_{e,f} = L^* (\delta^+\tilde w)_{e,f}.

By the definition of the pullback L^*, we then obtain from (?) and (Proof) that

\|z_{e,f}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega_{e,f})} \le c [\min_{T \subset \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{e,f})} h_T]^{j-n} \le c [\max_{T \subset \Delta_n({\mathcal T}_{e,f})} h_T]^{j-n},

where we have used the inequality (8.5) in the last step.

Uses Lemma 8.5

Proof

UIMK

(of Lemma 8.1) Recall that the operator C_{m,f}^k is defined by

C_{m,f}^ku = \sum_{g \in \bar \Delta(f )} (-1)^{|f| - |g|}\frac{\rho_f}{\rho_g} \wedge L_g^* b^{-j} A_f^k u,

if f \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T}), and by

C_{m,f}^ku = j! \sum_{e \in \Delta_j(f)} \sum_{g \in \bar \Delta(f \cap e^*)} (-1)^{|f| - |g|}\frac{\phi_{e}}{\rho_g} \wedge L_g^* b^{-j} R_{e,f}^k u,

if f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T}), 1\le j\le k. If m=n, such that f is an n simplex, then \operatorname{tr}_f C_{m,f}^k = \operatorname{tr}_f and the conclusion of the lemma obviously holds. Therefore, we can assume that 0 \le m \le n-1 in the rest of the proof.

The function C_{m,f}^ku has support on \Omega_f, and for x \in \Omega_f and g \in \bar \Delta(f), we have \rho_f/\rho_g \le 1. Furthermore, it is a consequence of (8.5) that

|\phi_e/\rho_g| \le c h_f^{-j}, \quad e \in \Delta_j(f \cap g^*),

where the constant c depends on the shape-regularity constant.

Therefore, since \Omega_f \subset \Omega_{e,f}, to prove an inequality of the form (8.1)

for the case f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T}), it will be sufficient to show that

\|L_g^*[b^{-j} R_{e,f}^ku]\|_{L^2(\Omega_f)} \le c h_{e,f}^j \|u\|_{L^2(\Omega_{e,f})}, \qquad e \in \Delta_j(f), \quad g \in \bar \Delta(f \cap e^*),

where h_{e,f} = \max_{T \subset {\mathcal T}_{e,f}} h_T. Here we recall from Section ? that the operator R_{e,f}^k is defined by

(R_{e,f}^k u)_{\lambda} = \int_{\Omega_{e,f}} (\Pi_j G^*u)_{\lambda} \wedge z_{e,f}.

However, for any e \in \Delta_0(f), R_{e,f}^k u corresponds to the operator A_f^k u, so the desired bound, (8.1), for the case f \in \Delta_m({\mathcal T}), will follow from (?) with j=0.

To show the bound (?), we assume that f \in \Delta_{m+j}({\mathcal T}), e \in \Delta_j(f) such that f \cap e^* \in \Delta_{m-1}({\mathcal T}) and g \in \Delta_s(f \cap e^*) for 0 \le s \le m-1. We also need to treat the case g = \emptyset, but this will be done as a special case below. We will use formula (?) with f replaced by g. In this case, it follows from (?) that the determinant J(g,q) = O(h^{s+1}), where here, and in the rest of this proof h = h_{e,f}. Furthermore, g^* is an n-s-1 dimensional manifold of size h, so its volume, |g^*| = O(h^{n-s-1}). Therefore, since \Omega_f \subset \Omega_{g}, and noting that b^{-j} R_{e.f}^ku only depends on \lambda, we have from (?) that

\| L_{g}^*[b^{-j} R_{e.f}^ku] \|_{L^2(\Omega_f)} \le c \Big[h^n \int_{{\mathcal S}_{g}^c} b(\lambda)^{n-s-1} \Big(b(\lambda)^{-j} |(R_{e,f}^k u)_{\lambda}|\Big)^2 \, d\lambda \Big]^{1/2},

where the constant c only depends on {\mathcal T} through the shape regularity constant c_{{\mathcal T}}. By using the fact that

D_{\lambda} G = \sum_{i \in I(g)} (x_i - y) d\lambda_i

is uniformly bounded for y \in \Omega_{e,f}, and that D_y G is b(\lambda) times the identity, we obtain

b(\lambda)^{-j}|(R_{e,f}^k u)_{\lambda}| \le c \int_{\Omega_{e,f}} |u_{G(y, \lambda)}| \, |(z_{e,f})_y| \, dy \le c h^{j-n} \int_{\Omega_{e,f}} |u_{G(y, \lambda)}| \, dy,

where we have used the result of Lemma 8.6 for the final inequality. Furthermore, since \Omega_{e,f} \subset \Omega_{f \cap e^*} \subset \Omega_g, we have from (?) and (?) that

b(\lambda)^{-j}|(R_{e,f}^k u)_{\lambda}| \le c h^{j +s+1-n} \int_{{\mathcal S}_{g}^c} b(\mu)^{n-s-1} \int_{g^* \cap \Omega_{e,f}} | u_{G(G(q,\mu), \lambda)} | \, dq \, d\mu.

By inserting this inequality into (?) and using Minkowski’s integral inequality, we obtain

\begin{aligned} &\| L_{g}^*[b^{-j} R_{e.f}^ku] \|_{L^2(\Omega_f)} \\ &\le c \Big[ h^n \int_{{\mathcal S}_{g}^c} b(\lambda)^{n-s-1} \Big(h^{j+s+1-n} \int_{{\mathcal S}_{g}^c} b(\mu)^{n-s-1} \int_{g^* \cap \Omega_{e,f}} \hskip -6pt | u_{G(G(q,\mu), \lambda)} | \, dq \, d\mu\Big)^2 \, d\lambda \Big]^{1/2}\\ \\ &\le c h^{j+s+1-n/2} \int_{{\mathcal S}_{g}^c} b(\mu)^{n-s-1} \Big[ \int_{{\mathcal S}_{g}^c}b(\lambda)^{n-s-1} \Big( \int_{g^* \cap \Omega_{e,f}} \hskip -6pt | u_{G(q, \lambda^\prime(\lambda,\mu))} | \, dq \Big)^2 \, d\lambda \Big]^{1/2} \, d\mu. \end{aligned}

Here we have used the fact that

G(G(q,\mu),\lambda) = G(q, \lambda^\prime), \quad \text{where } \lambda^\prime(\lambda,\mu) = \lambda + b(\lambda) \mu.

Next we introduce the change of variables \lambda \to \lambda^\prime, where \det (d\lambda^\prime/d\lambda) = b(\mu) and b(\lambda^\prime) = b(\lambda) b(\mu). We obtain

\begin{aligned} &\| L_{g}^*[b^{-j} R_{e.f}^ku] \|_{L^2(\Omega_f)} \\ &\le c h^{j+s+1-n/2} \int_{{\mathcal S}_{g}^c} b(\mu)^{(n-s-2)/2} \Big[ \int_{{\mathcal S}_{g}^c}b(\lambda^\prime)^{n-s-1} \Big( \int_{g^* \cap \Omega_{e,f}} \hskip -5pt| u_{G(q, \lambda^\prime)} | \, dq \Big)^2 \, d\lambda^\prime \Big]^{1/2} \, d \mu\\ &\le c h^{j+s+1-n/2} \Big[ \int_{{\mathcal S}_{g}^c}b(\lambda^\prime)^{n-s-1} \Big( \int_{g^* \cap \Omega_{e,f}} | u_{G(q, \lambda^\prime)} | \, dq \Big)^2 \, d\lambda^\prime \Big]^{1/2}, \end{aligned}

where we used that for s < m \le n, (n-s-2)/2 \ge -1/2, and hence the integral with respect to \mu is finite. To complete the argument, we apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to the integral over g^* \cap \Omega_{e,f}. Since the volume of g^* \cap \Omega_{e,f} is \textrm{O}(h^{n-s-1}), we obtain

\begin{gathered} \| L_{g}^*[b^{-j} R_{e.f}^ku] \|_{L^2(\Omega_f)} \le c h^{j} \Big[ h^{s+1}\int_{{\mathcal S}_{g}^c}b(\lambda)^{n-s-1} \int_{g^* \cap \Omega_{e,f}} | u_{G(q, \lambda} |^2 \, dq \, d\lambda \Big]^{1/2} \\ \le c h^{j} \| u \|_{L^2(\Omega_{e,f})} \le c h^{j} \| u \|_{L^(\Omega_f^E)}. \end{gathered}

This complete the verification of (?) when g \neq \emptyset.

When g = \emptyset, then L_g^*[b^{-j} R_{e,f}^ku] =0 for j <k. When j = k, we have

L_g^*[b^{-j} R_{e,f}^ku] = (R_{e,f}^ku)_0 = \int_{\Omega_{e,f}} (\Pi_j G^* u)_0 \wedge z_{e,f} = \int_{\Omega_{e,f}} u_y \wedge z_{e,f}.

Hence, by the bound on z_{e,f} given in Lemma 8.6, we have

\| L_{\emptyset}^*[b^{-j} R_{e.f}^ku] \|_{L^2(\Omega_f)} \le c h^{n/2} \Big|\int_{\Omega_{e,f}} u_y \wedge z_{e,f}\Big| \le c h^{k} \| u \|_{L^2(\Omega_{e,f})},

which shows that (?) also holds in this case. As a consequence, we have established the bound (8.1).

Uses Lemma 8.1, Lemma 8.5, Lemma 8.6

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2111.08123v2 by Richard S. Falk and Ragnar Winther, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2111/2111.08123.jsonl.