Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:44:42.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On compactness results for multi-scale convergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2011

Erik J. Balder
Erik J. Balder
Affiliation:
Mathematical Institute, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two relative compactness results for two-scale convergence in homogenization, due to G. Nguetseng, were recently extended to the multi-scale case by G. Allaire and M. Briane. Whereas their extension of Nguetseng's first result, which is in L2, is straightforward, their extension of his second result, which takes place in the Sobolev space H1, is quite complicated, even though it follows Nguetseng by using the fact that the image of H1 under the gradient mapping is the orthogonal complement of the set of divergence-free functions. Here a much simpler proof is provided by deriving the H1-type result from combining the first extension result with the fact that the above-mentioned image space is also the space of all rotation-free fields. Moreover, this approach reveals that the two results can be seen as corollaries of a fundamental relative compactness result for Young measures.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Section A: Mathematics , Volume 129 , Issue 3 , 1999 , pp. 467 - 476
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Allaire, G.. Homogenization and two-scale convergence. SIAM J. Math. Analysis 23 (1992), 1482–1518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Allaire, G. and Briane, M.. Multi-scale convergence and reiterated homogenization. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. A 126 (1996), 297–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Alt, W.. Lineare Funktionalanalysis (Berlin: Springer, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Balder, E. J.. A general approach to lower semicontinuity and lower closure in optimal control theory. SIAM J. Control Optim. 22 (1984), 570–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Balder, E. J.. Fatou's lemma in infinite dimensions. J. Math. Analysis Appl. 136 (1988), 450–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Balder, E. J.. Lectures on Young measures. Cahiers du Centre de Recherche de Mathématiques de la Décision vol. 9517 (Paris: CEREMADE, Université de Paris-Dauphine, 1995).Google Scholar
7Dautray, R. and Lions, J.-L.. Mathematical analysis and numerical methods for science and technology, vol. 3 (Berlin: Springer, 1990).Google Scholar
8Dellacherie, C. and Meyer, J.-P.. Probabilités et potentiel (Paris: Hermann, 1975).Google Scholar
9Homogenization, W. E.of linear and nonlinear transport equations. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 45 (1992), 301–326.Google Scholar
10Neveu, J.. Bases mathématiques du calcul des probabilités (Paris: Masson, 1964).Google Scholar
11Nguetseng, G.. A general convergence result for a functional related to the theory of homogenization. SIAM J. Math. Analysis 20 (1989), 608–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Pfanzagl, J.. Convexity and conditional expectations. Ann. Prob. 2 (1974), 490–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Valadier, M.. Two-scale convergence and Young measures. Preprint 1995/02, Laboratoire d'Analyse Convexe, Université de Montpellier.Google Scholar
14Valadier, M.. Young measures. In Methods of nonconvex analysis (ed. Cellina, A.), pp. 152–188. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1446 (Berlin: Springer, 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar