8

I've often seen people use the inequality $$\int_{\mathbb R^3} \frac{|u(x)|^2}{|x|^2}\,dx \leq 4\int_{\mathbb R^3}|\nabla u(x)|^2\,dx,\qquad u\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^3) $$ without proof, refering to it as "Hardy's inequality".

I struggled to find a direct proof of this in the literature and couldn't prove it myself. Does anyone know a straightforward proof of this or a book in which Hardy's inequality in this form is proved?

I would also be interested in the general form of this inequality, i.e. what happens if one replaces $\mathbb R^3$ with $\mathbb R^n$?

Frank
  • 607
  • Have you seen Evans? Its page 296 in the second edition – Calvin Khor Sep 06 '18 at 10:48
  • Oh, thank you so much! I only looked in the Index of Evans' book and there was no entry for "Hardy Inequality". This is exactly what I was looking for – Frank Sep 06 '18 at 10:58

2 Answers2

7

I learned the following integration by parts method to prove Hardy inequalities from Luca Fanelli.

Assume that all functions are real-valued and define operators on $C^{\infty}_c(\mathbb R^d\setminus\{0\})$ by $$ Su(x)=\frac{xu(x)}{|x|^2},\qquad Au(x)=\nabla u(x).$$ Notice that the sought inequality reads $$ \int_{\mathbb R^d} \lvert Su(x)\rvert^2\,dx \le C\int_{\mathbb R^d} \lvert Au(x)\rvert^2\, dx.$$ So, for a $k\in \mathbb R$ yet to be determined, consider $$\begin{split} 0&\le \int_{\mathbb R^d} \lvert Su+kAu\rvert^2\, dx\\&=\int_{\mathbb R^d} \lvert Su(x)\rvert^2\, dx +k^2\int_{\mathbb R^d} \lvert Au(x)\rvert^2\, dx+2k\int_{\mathbb R^d} Su(x)\cdot Au(x)\, dx. \end{split}$$ The last summand is $$ \int_{\mathbb R^d} Su\cdot Au\, dx=\int_{\mathbb R^d} \frac{x}{\lvert x\rvert^2}\cdot u\nabla u\, dx =\int_{\mathbb R^d} \frac{x}{\lvert x \rvert^2}\cdot \nabla \left(\frac{u^2}{2}\right)\, dx, $$ and since $$\nabla \cdot \frac{x}{\lvert x\rvert^2}=\frac{d-2}{\lvert x \rvert^2}, $$ integration by parts reveals that $$\tag{*} \int_{\mathbb R^d} Su(x)\cdot Au(x)\, dx = -\frac{d-2}{2}\int_{\mathbb R^d} \lvert Su(x)\rvert^2\,dx.$$ Going back to the first inequality, we have that $$ 0\le k^2\int_{\mathbb R^d} \lvert Au(x)\rvert^2\, dx+(1-(d-2)k)\int_{\mathbb R^d} \lvert Su(x)\rvert^2\, dx, $$ which is a second-degree polynomial in $k$, and it attains its minimal value for $k=\frac{d-2}{2}\frac{\int \lvert Su\rvert^2}{\int \lvert Au\rvert^2}$. Plugging this into the last inequality finally yields $$ \int_{\mathbb R^d} \lvert Su(x)\rvert^2\, dx \le \left( \frac{2}{d-2}\right)^2\int_{\mathbb R^d} \lvert Au(x)\rvert^2\, dx, $$ which is the result we wanted. $\Box$


Remark 1. The multiplicative constant $\left( \frac{2}{d-2}\right)^2$ turns out to be sharp, but proving this needs further work.

Remark 2. This method of proof is interesting because it has some robustness. Changing the definition of $S$ and $A$ may yield more inequalities, provided that some suitable replacement of the identity (*) holds. For example, taking $$ Su(x)=\frac{u(x)}{\lvert x \rvert}, \qquad Au(x)=\frac{x}{\lvert x\rvert}\cdot \nabla u(x)$$ yields the following refinement of the Hardy inequality; $$ \int_{\mathbb R^d} \frac{u^2(x)}{\lvert x \rvert^2}, dx \le \left( \frac{2}{d-2}\right)^2\int_{\mathbb R^d} \lvert \partial_r u(x)\rvert^2\, dx, $$ where $\partial_r$ stands for the radial derivative. This inequality is tighter than the previous one, because the right-hand side is smaller; indeed, here there are no angular derivatives.

  • +1, how to prove the sharpness of the constant? – partha Apr 18 '23 at 08:35
  • @partha: I wouldn't know how to do that off the top of my head. I can give a couple of link that are perhaps useful: we discussed a lot a very similar sharp constant here and here. The inequality considered in those questions is also called "Hardy's inequality", but it involves integrals rather than derivatives. I would guess that the proof for this derivative case is very similar. – Giuseppe Negro Apr 18 '23 at 09:39
  • Thank you for the help. I found somehow at $f(x)=\lvert x\rvert^{-\frac{n-2}{2}}$ we have the exact equality since $\nabla f(x)=(\frac{\partial f(x)}{\partial x_1}, \frac{\partial f(x)}{\partial x_2},\cdots, \frac{\partial f(x)}{\partial x_n})=\big(-\frac{n-2}{2}\big)\lvert x\rvert^{-\frac{n}{2}-1}x.$ – partha Apr 29 '23 at 19:24
  • That cannot be exactly correct, because both sides of the inequality are infinite when you plug in $f(x)=\lvert x \rvert^{-\frac{n-2}{2}}$. You need a limiting argument similar to the one of the linked questions and answers of my previous comment. – Giuseppe Negro Apr 30 '23 at 07:53
  • I have noticed that, but unable construct a sequence yet. – partha Apr 30 '23 at 09:04
  • +1 for this trick. I have also seen this trick applied to proving Carleman-type inequalities. – Math The Novice May 08 '23 at 02:15
4

This is in Evans' PDE book, page 296 in the second edition. The following discussions on this proof may also be useful,

  1. Hardy's inequality
  2. A technical step in proving Hardy's inequality

However, it doesn't seem like the constant 4 is explicitly computed in Evans, and moreover it may be improved if the domain of $u$ is not convex. In the dimension 1 variant, it is optimal, and you can refer to Computing the best constant in classical Hardy's inequality. In higher dimensions, you may want to look at this paper On the best constant for Hardy's inequality in $\mathbb R^n$ by Marcus, Mizel and Pinchover, and its references.

Calvin Khor
  • 34,903