The limitations of the Poincar\'e inequality

Abstract

We examine the validity of the Poincar\'e inequality for degenerate, second-order, elliptic operators H in divergence form on L2(n×m). We assume the coefficients are real symmetric and a1Hδ≥ H≥ a2Hδ for some a1,a2>0 where Hδ is a generalized Grusin operator, \[ Hδ=-∇x1\,|x1|(2δ1,2δ1')\,∇x1-|x1|(2δ2,2δ2')\,∇x22 \;. \] Here x1∈n, x2∈m, δ1,δ1'∈[0,1, δ2,δ2'≥0 and |x1|(2δ,2δ')=|x1|2δ if |x1|≤ 1 and |x1|(2δ,2δ')=|x1|2δ' if |x1|≥ 1. We prove that the Poincar\'e inequality, formulated in terms of the Riemannian geometry corresponding to H, is valid if n≥ 2, or if n=1 and δ1δ1'∈[0,1/2 but it fails if n=1 and δ1δ1'∈[1/2,1. The failure is caused by the leading term. If δ1∈[1/2, 1 it is an effect of the local degeneracy |x1|2δ1 but if δ1∈[0, 1/2 and δ1'∈ [1/2,1 it is an effect of the growth at infinity of |x1|2δ1'. If n=1 and δ1∈[1/2, 1 then the semigroup S generated by the Friedrichs' extension of H is not ergodic. The subspaces x1≥ 0 and x1≤ 0 are S-invariant and the Poincar\'e inequality is valid on each of these subspaces. If, however, n=1, δ1∈[0, 1/2 and δ1'∈ [1/2,1 then the semigroup S is ergodic but the Poincar\'e inequality is only valid locally. Finally we discuss the implication of these results for the kernel of the semigroup S.

0

Turn this paper into a lesson

ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…