3

I was reading about distributions from Rudin. I had 2 doubts in understanding space $\mathscr D(\Omega)$. Here is the relevant section:

6.2 The space $\mathscr{D}(\Omega)$ Consider a nonempty open set $\Omega \subset R^{n}$. For each compact $K \subset \Omega$, the Fréchet space $\mathscr{D}_{K}$ was described in Section 1.46. The union of the spaces $\mathscr{D}_{K}$, as $K$ ranges over all compact subsets of $\Omega$, is the test function space $\mathscr{D}(\Omega)$. It is clear that $\mathscr{D}(\Omega)$ is a vector space, with respect to the usual definitions of addition and scalar multiplication of complex functions. Explicitly, $\phi \in \mathscr{D}(\Omega)$ if and only if $\phi \in C^{\infty}(\Omega)$ and the support of $\phi$ is a compact subset of $\Omega$. Let us introduce the norms $$ \|\phi\|_{N}=\max \left\{\left|D^{\alpha} \phi(x)\right|: x \in \Omega,|\alpha| \leq N\right\}\tag1 $$ for $\phi \in \mathscr{D}(\Omega)$ and $N=0,1,2, \ldots$; see Section $1.46$ for the notations $D^{\alpha}$ and $|\alpha|$.

The restrictions of these norms to any fixed $\mathscr{D}_{K} \subset \mathscr{D}(\Omega)$ induce the same topology on $\mathscr{D}_{K}$ as do the seminorms $p_{N}$ of Section $1.46$. To see this, note that to each $K$ corresponds an integer $N_{0}$ such that $K \subset K_{N}$ for all $N \geq N_{0}$. For these $N,\|\phi\|_{N}=p_{N}(\phi)$ if $\phi \in \mathscr{D}_{K} .$ Since $$ \|\phi\|_{N} \leq\|\phi\|_{N+1} \quad \text { and } \quad p_{N}(\phi) \leq p_{N+1}(\phi)\tag2 $$ the topologies induced by either sequence of seminorms are unchanged if we let $N$ start at $N_{0}$ rather than at $1 .$ These two topologies of $\mathscr{D}_{K}$ coincide therefore; a local base is formed by the sets $$ V_{N}=\left\{\phi \in \mathscr{D}_{K}:\|\phi\|_{N}<\frac{1}{N}\right\} \quad(N=1,2,3, \ldots)\tag3 $$ The same norms (1) can be used to define a locally convex metrizable topology on $\mathscr{D}(\Omega)$; see Theorem $1.37$ and $(b)$ of Section $1.38$. However, this topology has the disadvantage of not being complete. For example, take $n=1, \Omega=R$, pick $\phi \in \mathscr{D}(R)$ with support in $[0,1], \phi>0$ in $(0,1)$, and define $$ \psi_{m}(x)=\phi(x-1)+\frac{1}{2} \phi(x-2)+\cdots+\frac{1}{m} \phi(x-m) $$ Then $\left\{\psi_{m}\right\}$ is a Cauchy sequence in the suggested topology of $\mathscr{D}(R)$, but $\lim \psi_{m}$ does not have compact support, hence is not in $\mathscr{D}(R)$.

(Trascribed from screenshots 1,2,3.)

Doubts:

  1. Why are the topologies on $\mathscr D(\Omega)$ and $\mathscr D_k $ the same?

  2. Why is $\{\psi_m\}$ a Cauchy sequnce but its limit doesn't have compact support?

I am studying functional analysis on my own with only the help of Math Stackexchange. Any help will be appreciated.

Calvin Khor
  • 36,192
  • 6
  • 47
  • 102
  • This is the definition : $U\subset D(\Omega)$ is open iff for all compact $K$, $U\cap D_K$ is open (in $D_K$).
  • – reuns Jan 16 '20 at 07:46
  • 1
    Here is my advise: do not read Rudin. There are many other good books with nice motivations from the field of PDEs, Physics books, etc. Rudin is written in a Bourbakist style, useful only if you know the contents beforehand and you are looking for some concrete proof/fact. – GReyes Jan 16 '20 at 08:18
  • @GReyes Thanks a lot, Sir. Please can you suggest some books. I am interested in field of pde. – Curious student Jan 16 '20 at 13:23
  • I really love this one: V. S. Vladimirov (2002), Methods of the theory of generalized functions, Analytical Methods and Special Functions, Vol. 6, London–New York: Taylor & Francis, pp. XII+353, ISBN 0-415-27356-0, MR2012831, Zbl 1078.46029. – Daniele Tampieri Jan 16 '20 at 16:08
  • 3
    (I can't resist commenting that Rudin does not even manage to be "Bourbakist"... and he would have been offended at any such label. His mathematical culture was a different, mostly peculiarly U.S.-centric, much-more-informal version of Bourbaki's idea to "be careful"...) – paul garrett Feb 28 '20 at 00:33