4

Consider a complete non-compact Riemannian manifold $M$ and the resolvent of the Laplacian $(-\Delta + \lambda I)^{-1}$. It is known that the resolvent is in general not a compact operator. I am trying to understand why not. I realize that the proof in the compact setting does not follow through for the non-compact case because of the failure of compact Sobolev embedding. I would be happy to see why the resolvent is not compact even for $M = \mathbb{R}^n$, and a justification for general non-compact $M$ would be excellent. Thanks.

  • The Laplacian is compact on $\mathbb H/ \Gamma$ for $\Gamma \subseteq \mathop{PSL}2(\mathbb R)$ a lattice, and this surface need not be compact. See e.g. Bump, _Automorphic forms and representations (1998), Theorem 2.3.5. – Bart Michels Aug 14 '18 at 18:57

2 Answers2

4

For $M=\mathbb R^n$ take a smooth function with compact support $\phi\in C_0^\infty(M)$.

Then $$ \phi = (-\Delta+\lambda I)^{-1}((-\Delta+\lambda I)\phi) $$ obviously. Now consider translations $\phi_k(x):=\phi(x+kv)$ for $v\in \mathbb R^n$, $k\in \mathbb N$. Take the norm of $v$ large enough such that the supports of different $\phi_k$'s are empty.

The set $$ X:=\{ (-\Delta+\lambda I)\phi_k,\ k\in\mathbb N\} $$ is bounded in $L^2$, but $$ (-\Delta+\lambda I)^{-1}X $$ is not relatively compact in $L^2$.

daw
  • 54,637
  • 2
  • 44
  • 85
  • As far as I can see, your logic goes over to non-compact manifolds as well, right? – anonymous May 25 '15 at 22:15
  • @anonymous: only when you have a "translation" on your manifold (which has to be an isometry to preserve the Laplacian). –  May 27 '15 at 01:01
-1

The simplest way to show that for a non-compact manifold the resolvent does not have to be compact is to give a counterexample. Following your (very good) choice of the manifold $M=\mathbb{R}^n$, lets show that $(-\Delta - \lambda I)^{-1}$ is not compact. For simplicity, assume $n=2$.


Assume $\vec{\mathbf{x}}, \vec{\mathbf{y}} \in \mathbb{R}^2$. Then the fundamental solution $\mathit{\Phi}$ of 2D Laplacian $\Delta = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} \ $ takes form

$$ \mathit{\Phi}\big(\vec{\mathbf{x}}, \vec{\mathbf{y}}\big) =- \frac{1}{2\pi}\ln \big|\vec{\mathbf{x}} - \vec{\mathbf{y}} \big| = - \frac{1}{4\pi}\ln \Big( (x_1 - x_2)^2 + (y_1-y_2)^2 \Big). \label{1}\tag{1} $$

Recall that the fundamental solution of a linear PDE, (which is equivalent to the Green's function) is the kernel of resolvent of the corresponding differential operator.

For example, see this link, page 4.

Denote the resolvent $R_\lambda = (-\Delta - \lambda I)^{-1}$. Then the resolvent of 2D Laplacian takes form $$ R_\lambda[u](\mathbf{x}) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \mathit{\Phi}\big(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}\big) u (\mathbf{y}).\label{2}\tag{2} $$ Substituting $\eqref{1}$ into $\eqref{2}$, we get

$$ R_\lambda[u](\mathbf{x}) = - \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \bigg( \ln \big|\vec{\mathbf{x}} - \vec{\mathbf{y}} \big| \!\cdot\! u (\mathbf{y}) \bigg)\,\mathrm{d}^2 \mathbf y.\label{3}\tag{3} $$ or, equivalently, $$ R_\lambda[u]\big(x_1, x_2\big) = - \frac{1}{4\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_{-\infty}^\infty \!\bigg(\! \ln\! \Big( (x_1 - x_2)^2 + (y_1-y_2)^2 \Big)\! \cdot\! u\big(x_1,x_2\big)\! \bigg)dy_1 dy_2, \label{4}\tag{4} $$ where $\mathbf{x} = \begin{bmatrix} x_1 \\ x_2 \end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^2$ and $\mathbf{y} = \begin{bmatrix} y_1 \\ y_2 \end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^2$.


Now, when we have the explicit expression \eqref{3}, it is easy to see that the resolvent $R_\lambda$ is not compact, since the integral kernel $\mathit{\Phi}\not\in L^2\big( \mathbb{R}^2\times \mathbb{R}^2\big) $.

Vlad
  • 6,938
  • It seems that you assumed $\lambda = 0$? –  May 23 '15 at 18:50
  • Also, by definition of a resolvent, it has to be bounded. –  May 24 '15 at 00:00
  • @John I took $\lambda = 1$, but occidentally omit this assumption while typing up the answer. Thank you for pointing it out – Vlad May 24 '15 at 22:19
  • @John Also, what is the definition of resolvent you are talking about? I only know that resolvent is continuous by definition, and equivalence of boundless and continuity only holds for linear operators. From what I know, in general resolvent of an operator on infinite dimensional domain does not have to be compact. Moreover, the resolvent of Laplace operator on bounded domain with Neumann BCs imposed need not be compact, see Corollary 3.5 page 19 in http://www.unc.edu/math/Faculty/met/chap8.pdf – Vlad May 24 '15 at 22:33
  • But now $(\Delta - \lambda I)^{-1}$ is linear. So continuity is the same as boundedness. The definition can be found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolvent_set . Also in Rudin's functional analysis (p.365) –  May 25 '15 at 00:29
  • Yes, you are right, sorry for misleading answer – Vlad May 27 '15 at 00:53