Distributions Volume 3 1St Edition Jacques Simon Full Chapter

Distributions, Volume 3 1st Edition
Jacques Simon
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/distributions-volume-3-1st-edition-jacques-simon/
Distributions
To Laurent Schwartz,
For his Theory of Distributions, obviously,

without which this book could not have existed,
but also, and above all, for his kindness and courage.
The clarity of Schwartz’s analysis classes at the École

Polytechnique in 1968 made the dunce that I was there happy.
Even if I arrived late, even if I had skipped a few sessions,
everything was clear, lively and easy to understand.
His soft voice, benevolent smile, mischievous eye —
especially when, with an air of nothing, he was
watching for reactions to one of his veiled jokes,
“a tore, from the Greek toro, the tyre”—
he made people love analysis.
When master’s students at the university demanded

“a grade average for all” in 1969, most professors
either complied or slunk away. Not Schwartz.
When the results were posted—
I was there, to make up easily for the
calamitous grades I had earned at Polytechnique—
he came alone, frail, in front of a fairly excited horde.
He explained, in substance:
“An examination given to all, without any value, would

no longer allow one to rise in society through knowledge.
Removing selection on the basis of merit would leave
the field open to selection by money or social origin”.
Premonitory, alas.
Analysis for PDEs Set
coordinated by
Jacques Blum
Volume 3
Distributions
Jacques Simon
First published 2022 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as
permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced,
stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers,
or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the
CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the
undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

27-37 St George’s Road 111 River Street
London SW19 4EU Hoboken, NJ 07030
UK USA
www.iste.co.uk www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2022

The rights of Jacques Simon to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in
accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022936452
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-525-1
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Chapter 1. Semi-Normed Spaces and Function Spaces . . . . . . . . 1

1.1. Semi-normed spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Comparison of semi-normed spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Continuous mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4. Differentiable functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5. Spaces C m (Ω; E), Cbm (Ω; E) and Cm b (Ω; E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.6. Integral of a uniformly continuous function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Chapter 2. Space of Test Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.1. Functions with compact support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2. Compactness in their whole of support of functions . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3. The space D(Ω) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4. Sequential completeness of D(Ω) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.5. Comparison of D(Ω) to various spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.6. Convergent sequences in D(Ω) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.7. Covering by crown-shaped sets and partitions of unity . . . . . . . . . 33
m
2.8. Control of the CK (Ω)-norms by the semi-norms of D(Ω) . . . . . . . . 35
∞
2.9. Semi-norms that are continuous on all the CK (Ω) . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Chapter 3. Space of Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.1. The space D0 (Ω; E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2. Characterization of distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.3. Inclusion of C(Ω; E) into D0 (Ω; E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
vi Distributions
3.4. The case where E is not a Neumann space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

3.5. Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.6. Continuous functions and measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Chapter 4. Extraction of Convergent Subsequences . . . . . . . . . . 65

0
4.1. Bounded subsets of D (Ω; E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.2. Convergence in D0 (Ω; E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.3. Sequential completeness of D0 (Ω; E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.4. Sequential compactness in D0 (Ω; E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.5. Change of the space E of values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.6. The space E-weak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.7. The space D0 (Ω; E-weak) and extractability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Chapter 5. Operations on Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

5.1. Distributions fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.2. Derivatives of a distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.3. Image under a linear mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.4. Product with a regular function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.5. Change of variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5.6. Some particular changes of variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.7. Positive distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.8. Distributions with values in a product space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Chapter 6. Restriction, Gluing and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

6.1. Restriction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.2. Additivity with respect to the domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6.3. Local character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6.4. Localization-extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.5. Gluing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6.6. Annihilation domain and support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.7. Properties of the annihilation domain and support . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
0
6.8. The space DK (Ω; E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Chapter 7. Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

7.1. Weighting by a regular function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
7.2. Regularizing character of the weighting by a regular function . . . . . 144
7.3. Derivatives and support of distributions weighted by a regular weight . 148
7.4. Continuity of the weighting by a regular function . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
7.5. Weighting by a distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.6. Comparison of the definitions of weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.7. Continuity of the weighting by a distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
7.8. Derivatives and support of a weighted distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Contents vii
7.9. Miscellanous properties of weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Chapter 8. Regularization and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

8.1. Local regularization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
8.2. Properties of local approximations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
8.3. Global regularization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
8.4. Convergence of global approximations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.5. Properties of global approximations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
8.6. Commutativity and associativity of weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8.7. Uniform convergence of sequences of distributions . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Chapter 9. Potentials and Singular Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

9.1. Surface integral over a sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
9.2. Distribution associated with a singular function . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
9.3. Derivatives of a distribution associated with a singular function . . . . 196
9.4. Elementary Newtonian potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
9.5. Newtonian potential of order n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
9.6. Localized potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
9.7. Dirac mass as derivatives of continuous functions . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
9.8. Heaviside potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
9.9. Weighting by a singular weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Chapter 10. Line Integral of a Continuous Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

10.1. Line integral along a C 1 path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
10.2. Change of variable in a path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
10.3. Line integral along a piecewise C 1 path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
10.4. The homotopy invariance theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
10.5. Connectedness and simply connectedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Chapter 11. Primitives of Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

11.1. Primitive of a function field with a zero line integral . . . . . . . . . . 237
11.2. Tubular flows and concentration theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
11.3. The orthogonality theorem for functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
11.4. Poincaré’s theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Chapter 12. Properties of Primitives of Distributions . . . . . . . . . . 247

12.1. Representation by derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
12.2. Distribution whose derivatives are zero or continuous . . . . . . . . . 251
12.3. Uniqueness of a primitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
12.4. Locally explicit primitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
12.5. Continuous primitive mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
12.6. Harmonic distributions, distributions with a continuous Laplacian . . 261
viii Distributions
Chapter 13. Existence of Primitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

13.1. Peripheral gluing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
13.2. Reduction to the function case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
13.3. The orthogonality theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
13.4. Poincaré’s generalized theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
13.5. Current of an incompressible two dimensional field . . . . . . . . . . 277
13.6. Global versus local primitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
13.7. Comparison of the existence conditions of a primitive . . . . . . . . . 282
13.8. Limits of gradients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Chapter 14. Distributions of Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

14.1. Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
14.2. Bounded sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
14.3. Convergent sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
14.4. Extraction of convergent subsequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
14.5. Change of the space of values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
14.6. Distributions of distributions with values in E-weak . . . . . . . . . . 295
Chapter 15. Separation of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

15.1. Tensor products of test functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
15.2. Decomposition of test functions on a product of sets . . . . . . . . . . 301
15.3. The tensorial control theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
15.4. Separation of variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
15.5. The kernel theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
15.6. Regrouping of variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
15.7. Permutation of variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
Chapter 16. Banach Space Valued Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

16.1. Finite order distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
16.2. Weighting of a finite order distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
16.3. Finite order distribution as derivatives of continuous functions . . . . 328
16.4. Finite order distribution as derivative of a single function . . . . . . . 333
16.5. Distributions in a Banach space as derivatives of functions . . . . . . 335
16.6. Non-representability of distributions with values in a Fréchet space . 339
16.7. Extendability of distributions with values in a Banach space . . . . . 342
16.8. Cancellation of distributions with values in a Banach space . . . . . . 347
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
Introduction
Objective. This book is the third of seven volumes dedicated to solving partial dif-
ferential equations in physics:
Volume 1: Banach, Frechet, Hilbert and Neumann Spaces

Volume 2: Continuous Functions
Volume 3: Distributions
Volume 4: Integration
Volume 5: Sobolev Spaces
Volume 6: Traces
Volume 7: Partial Differential equations
This third volume aims to construct the space of distributions with real or vectorial
values and to provide the main properties that are useful in studying partial differential
equations.
Intended audience. We 1 have looked for simple methods that require a minimal
level of knowledge to make this tool accessible to as wide an audience as possible
— doctoral students, university students, engineers — without loosing generality and
even generalizing certain results, which may be of interest to some researchers.
This has led us to choose an unconventional approach that prioritizes semi-norms

and sequential properties, whether related to completeness, compactness or continuity.
1. We? We, it’s just “me”! There’s no intention of using the Royal We, dear reader, but this modest (?) “we”
is commonly used in scientific texts when an author wishes to speak of themselves. It is out of modesty
that the writers of Port-Royal made this the trend so that they could avoid, they say, the vanity of “me”
[Louis-Nicolas B ESCHERELLE, Dictionnaire universel de la langue française, 1845].
x Distributions
Utility of distributions. The main advantage of distributions is that they provide

derivatives of all continuous or integrable functions, even those which are not dif-
ferentiable, and thus broaden the scope of application of differential calculus. This is
especially useful for solving partial differential equations.
To this end, a family of objects, the distributions, is defined, with the following
properties.
— Any continuous function is a distribution.
— Any distribution has partial derivatives, which are distributions.
— For a differentiable function, we find the conventional derivatives.
— Any limit of distributions is a distribution.
— Any Cauchy sequence of distributions has a limit.
These properties may be roughly summarized by saying that the space D0 of

distributions is the completion with respect to derivation of the space C of continuous
functions. This construction, due to Laurent S CHWARTZ, [69] and [72], is completed
here for distributions on an open subset Ω of Rd with values in a Neumann space E,
i.e. a sequentially complete separable semi-normed space. This includes values in a
Banach or Fréchet space.
Originality. The quest for simple methods 2 giving general properties led us to pro-
ceed as follows.
— Directly consider vectorial values, i.e. constructing D0 (Ω; E) without any prior
study of real distributions.
— Assume that E is sequentially complete, i.e. a Neumann space.
— Use semi-norms to construct the topologies of E, D(Ω), D0 (Ω; E), etc.
— Equip D0 (Ω; E) with the simple topology.
— Introduce weighting to generalize the convolution to open domains.
— Explicitly construct the primitives.
— Separate the variables using a “basic” method.
— Only use integration for continuous functions.
Let us take a closer look at these points that lie off the beaten track.
Vector values. We consider distributions with values in a general Neumann space E

even though the partial differential equations in physics generally have real values.
This is useful in evolution equations to separate the time t from the variable of space x.
A distribution over t, x with real values is then identified with a distribution over t
with values in a space E of distributions on x, for example, with an element of
2. Focus and simplicity. This was one of Steve J OBS’ favourite mantras: “Simple can be harder than
complex: You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple. But it’s worth it in the end
because once you get there, you can move mountains.” [BusinessWeek, 1998].
Introduction xi
D0 ((0, T ); E) where E = D0 (Ω), which is itself a Neumann space. This identification

is made possible by the fundamental kernel theorem, p. 312.
A list of the most useful Neumann spaces is given on page 43.
For stationary equations, the real distributions (that is, the case where E = R) are
sufficient. We will directly work on the case where E is a Neumann space in order
to avoid repetitions, the generalization often consisting of replacing R with E and the
absolute value | | with a semi-norm of E in the statements and proofs, when using
appropriate methods.
Particular features in the case of vector values. The main differences as compared
to distributions with real values are as follows, for a general space E.
— The space D0 (Ω; E) is not reflexive and its topology of pointwise convergence on
D(Ω) does not coincide with its weak topology.
— The bounded subsets of D0 (Ω; E) are not relatively compact.
— The distributions over Ω are not of a finite order over its compact parts: they cannot
always be expressed as finite order derivatives of continuous functions.
— Variables may be separated by constructing a bijection from D0 (Ω1 × Ω2 ; E) onto
D0 (Ω1 ; D0 (Ω2 ; E)) (even for a real distribution, i.e. for E = R, this brings in vector
values, in this case in D0 (Ω2 )).
Sequential completeness. We assume that E is a Neumann space, i.e. that all its
Cauchy series converge, since this is an essential condition for continuous functions to
be distributions. That is, for C(Ω; E) ⊂ D0 (Ω; E), see section 3.4, The case where E
is not a Neumann space, p. 53.
This property is simpler than the completeness, i.e. the convergence of all the
Cauchy filters, and is especially more general: for example, if H is a Hilbert space
with infinite dimensions, H-weak is sequentially complete but is not complete [Vol. 1,
Property (4.11), p. 63].
It is also simpler and more general than quasi-completeness, i.e. the completeness
of bounded subsets, used by Laurent S CHWARTZ [72, p. 2, 50 and 52].
Semi-norms. We use families of semi-norms rather than locally convex topologies,

which are equivalent, in order to be able to define Lp (Ω; E) in Volume 4. Indeed, it is
possible to raise a semi-norm to a power p, but not a convex neighborhood!
The handling of semi-normed spaces is simple, although it is less familiar than

that of topological spaces: it follows the handling of normed spaces, the main dif-
ference being that there are several semi-norms or norms instead of a single norm.
For example, we bring in the topology of D(Ω) through the family of semi-norms
xii Distributions
kϕkD(Ω);p = supx∈Ω, |β|≤p(x) p(x)|∂ β ϕ(x)| indexed by p ∈ C + (Ω), which is much

simpler than its (equivalent) construction as the inductive limit of the DK (Ω).
Simply topology. We equip the space D0 (Ω; E) with the family of semi-norms
kf kD0 (Ω;E);ϕ,ν = khf, ϕikE;ν indexed by ϕ ∈ D(Ω) and ν ∈ NE (set indexing the
semi-norms of E), i.e. with the topology of simple convergence on D(Ω), as it is
well-suited to our study . . . and is simple. This simplicity is achieved without
restricting ourselves to a pseudo-topology as is done in several texts.
In addition, this topology has the same convergent sequences and the same
bounded sets as the topology of uniform convergence on the bounded subsets of
D(Ω) used by Laurent S CHWARTZ. The reasons for our choices are detailed on p. 45.
Open domain and weighting. We consider distributions defined on an open subset Ω

of Rd . As these do not necessarily have an extension to all of Rd , we introduce an
operation, we call it weighting, which plays a role for Ω that is similar to the role
played by convolution for Rd and which we constantly use.
The weighted distribution f µ of a distribution f , defined on an open set Ω, by a

weight µ, which is a real distribution on Rd with a compact support D, is a distribution
defined on the open set ΩD R= {x ∈ Rd : x + D ⊂ Ω}. When f and µ are functions,
it is given by (f µ)(x) = D̊ f (x + y)µ(y) dy. When Ω = Rd , the convolution is
recovered up to a symmetry on µ, and all its properties are recovered up to a possible
sign.
Primitives. We show that a field of distributions q = (q1 , . . . , qd ) has a primitive f ,

that is ∇f = q, if and only if it satisfies hq, ψi = 0E for all the test fields
ψ = (ψ1 , . . . , ψd ) such that ∇ . ψ = 0. It is the orthogonality theorem. We explicitly
determine all the primitives and among these determine one which depends
continuously on q.
We also demonstrate that when Ω is simply connected it is necessary and sufficient

that ∂i qj = ∂j qi for all i and j. It is the Poincaré’s generalized theorem.
Separation of variables. We show that the separation of variables is bijective from

D0 (Ω1 × Ω2 ; E) onto D0 (Ω1 ; D0 (Ω2 ; E)) by means of inequalities. These are cer-
tainly laborious to establish, but they avoid the difficult topological properties used by
Laurent S CHWARTZ in his diabolical proof of this kernel theorem.
The advantage of this method is laid out in the commentary Originality. . . , p. 317.
Integration. The integration of continuous functions

R is essential to identify them with
distributions through the equality hf, ϕi = f ϕ, for all test functions ϕ. Since the
Introduction xiii
theory of integration was not developed for values in a Neumann space, in Volume 2
we established results relative to uniformly continuous functions that meet our re-
quirements. We remind them before using them in this volume.
The general theory of integration with values in a Neumann space will be done
in a later volume in the context of integrable distributions, which play the role of the
usual classes of almost equal integrable functions. Indeed, it has seemed simpler to
thus construct general integration.
Prerequisite. The proofs in the main body of the text only use the definitions and
results already established in Volumes 1 and 2, recalled either in the Appendix or in
the text, with references to their proofs.
This book has been written such that it can be read in an out-of-order fashion by
a non-specialist: the proofs are detailed and include arguments that may be trivial
for an expert and the numbers of the theorems being used are systematically recalled.
These details are even more necessary 3 since the majority of the results are general-
izations, that are new, to functions and distributions with values in a Neumann space
of properties that are classic for values in a Banach space.
I request the reader to be lenient with how heavy this may make the text.
Comments. Unlike the main body of the text, the comments, appearing in smaller font, may refer to
external results or those not yet established. The appendix ‘Reminders’ is also written in smaller font as it
is assumed that the content is familiar.
Historical overview. Wherever possible, the origin of the concepts and results is
specified in footnotes 4.
3. Necessary details. As Laurent S CHWARTZ explained in the preamble to one of his articles [71, p. 88]:
“Although many proofs are relatively easy, we find it useful to write them in extenso, because whenever
topological vector spaces come into play there are so many ‘traps’ that great rigor is needed”.
Given that the great and rigorous Augustin C AUCHY has himself arrived at an erroneous result, we have
not treated any detail too lightly. Let us recall that, in 1821, in his remarkable Cours d’Analyse de l’École
Royale Polytechnique, he declared that he had ‘easily’ [18, p. 46] proven that if a real function with two
real variables is continuous with respect to both the variables, it is continuous with respect to their couple.
It was not till 1870 that Carl Johannes T HOMAE [89, p. 15] demonstrated that this was inexact.
4. Historical overview. Objective. This is first of all to honour the mathematicians whose work has
made this book possible and inspire it. Although some may be missing, either due to limited space or
knowledge. The other objective is to show that the world of mathematics is an ancient human construction,
not a “revealed truth”, and that behind each theorem there are one or more humans, our contemporaries or
distant ancestors who — including the Greeks — reasoned just as well as us, without internet, computers
or even printing and paper.
The forgotten. The French are probably over-represented here, as they are in all french libraries and
teaching and, often, in french hearts. Among the French, I am over-represented, because this book is the
result of thirty years of work I have carried out to simplify and generalize distributions with vectorial values.
xiv Distributions
Navigating this book.

— The table of contents, at the beginning of this book, lists the topics discussed.
— The index, p. 371, provides another thematic access.
— The table of notations, p. xv, specifies the meaning of the symbols used.
— The hypotheses are all stated within the theorems themselves.
— The numbering is common to all the statements, so that they can be easily found in
numerical order (for instance, Theorem 2.2 is found between statements 2.1 and 2.3,
which are definitions).
Acknowledgements. I am particularly grateful to Enrique F ERN ÁNDEZ -C ARA who

has proofread countless versions of this text, indefatigable, and who has given me
various friendly suggestions for equally countless improvements in each version.
Fulbert M IGNOT suggested (among other things) that each chapter should be pre-
ceded by a brief introduction. This was very helpful: in order to reveal the guiding
principle, I had to highlight it and re-write several sections.
The meticulous and knowledgeable readings carried out by Olivier B ESSON, Di-
dier B RESCH and Pierre D REYFUSS contributed substantial improvements to the text.
Jérôme L EMOINE, my disciple — a stigmata and a cross he’ll bear for life! —,
had the task of proofreading the demonstrations: he is, thus, entirely responsible for
any errors there may be . . . except, perhaps, those I may have added since.
Jacques B LUM was able to convince me that it was time to publish this. Indeed.
Thank you, my friends, for all your help and warm support.
Jacques S IMON
Chapdes-Beaufort, March 2021
Laurent S CHWARTZ, my primary source of inspiration and admiration, is also perhaps over-represented,
since, his treatises having no historical notes due to his great modesty, I have attributed to him the totality
of their contents. On the other hand, the Russians and Eastern Europeans are probably particularly under-
represented, due to the language barrier, aggravated by the mutual ignorance of the West and East during
the Cold War period.
Novelties. At the risk of sounding immodest (well, nobody is perfect) I have marked out a large number of
results that I believe are new, both to arouse the reader’s vigilance — it’s not impossible that this book may
contain some careless mistake — and to draw their attention to the new tools available to them.
Appeal to the reader. A number of important results lack historical notes because I am not familiar with
their origin. I beg the reader’s indulgence for these lacunae and, above all, the injustices that may result.
And I call upon the erudite among you to flag any improvements to me for future editions.
Notations
S PACES OF D ISTRIBUTION
D(Ω) space of test functions (infinitely differentiable with compact support) . . . 21
DK (Ω) id. with support in the compact set K ⊂ Ω (another notation for CK ∞ (Ω)) . . 24
D(Ω; Rd ) space of test fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
D0 (Ω) space of real distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
D0 (Ω; E) space of distributions with values in E . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
0 (Ω; E)
DK id. with support in the closed set K ⊂ Ω . . . . . . . . . . . 137
D0 (Ω; E d ) space of distribution fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
0 (Ω; E d )
D∇ space of gradients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
D0 (Ω)-weak D0 (Ω) equipped with its weak topology . . . . . . . . . . . 80
D0 (Ω; E-weak) space of distributions with values in E-weak . . . . . . . . . . 78
D0 (Ω; E)-unif D0 (Ω; E) with topology of uniform convergence on bounded subsets of D(Ω) . . 46
D0 (Ω1 ; D0 (Ω2 ; E))) space of distributions of distributions . . . . . . . . . . . 285
S ET OF DISTRIBUTIONS
D0+ (Ω) set of real positive distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
S PACE OF FUNCTIONS
B(Ω; E) space of uniformly continuous functions with bounded support . . . . . 14
C(Ω; E) space of continuous functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Cb (Ω; E) id. bounded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CK (Ω; E) id. with support in the compact set K ⊂ Ω . . . . . . . . . . 18
C + (Ω) set of real positive continuous functions . . . . . . . . . . . 19
C m (Ω; E) space of m times continuously differentiable functions; case of m = ∞ . 12, 13
Cbm (Ω; E) id. with bounded derivatives, case of m = ∞ . . . . . . . . . 12, 13
CKm (Ω; E) id. with support in the compact set K ⊂ Ω . . . . . . . . . . 18
C(Ω; E) space of uniformly continuous functions . . . . . . . . . . . 342
Cb (Ω; E) id. bounded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
CD (Ω; E) id. with support in the compact set D ⊂ Rd . . . . . . . . . . 18
Cmb (Ω; E) space C m with uniformly continuous and bounded derivatives . . . . . 13
K(Ω) space of real continuous functions with compact support . . . . . . . 57
K∞ (Ω) id. infinitely differentiable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
K(Ω; E) space of continuous functions with compact support . . . . . . . . 186
K∞ (Ω; E) space of infinitely differentiable functions with compact support . . . . 178
xvi Distributions
S ET OF FUNCTIONS
C m (Ω; Λ) set of functions of C m (Ω; Rd ) with values in the set Λ . . . . . . . 100
C 1 ([a, b]; Ω) set of “differentiable” functions on [a, b], with values in Ω . . . . . . 222
S PACE OF MEASURES
M(Ω) space of real measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
M(Ω; E) space of measures with values in E . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
O PERATIONS ON A DISTRIBUTION ( OR A FUNCTION ) f

hf, ϕi value of a distribution on a test function ϕ . . . . . . . . . . . 42
fe extension by 0E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
fˇ image under the symmetry x 7→ −x of the variable . . . . . . . . 184
f˘ image under permutation of variables; case of a distribution of distributions 109, 318
f image under grouping of variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
f image under separation of variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
f |ω restriction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
τx f translation by x ∈ Rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Rn f global regularization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Lf composition with a linear mapping L over E . . . . . . . . . . 91
f ◦T composition with a regular change of variable T . . . . . . . . . 101
f µ weighting by a weight µ; case of a regular weight; case of functions 153, 142, 144
f ρn local regularization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
f ?µ convolution with µ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
f ⊗g tensor product (of functions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
nihil f annihilation domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
supp f support; case of a function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131, 17
D ERIVATIVES OF A DISTRIBUTION ( OR OF A FUNCTION ) f

f 0 or df /dx derivative of a function of a real variable . . . . . . . . . . . .9
∂i f partial derivative: ∂i f = ∂f /∂xi ; case of a function . . . . . . . 85, 10
β
∂β f derivative of order β: ∂ β f = ∂1β1 . . . ∂d d f ; case of a function . . . . 85, 11
β positive multi-integer: β = (β1 , . . . , βd ), βi ≥ 0 . . . . . . . . 10
|β| derivation order: |β| = |β1 | + . . . |βd | . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
∂0f derivative of order 0: ∂ 0 f = f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
∇f gradient: ∇f = (∂1 f, . . . , ∂d f ); case of a function . . . . . . . .85, 9
∆f Laplacian: ∆f = ∂12 f + . . . + ∂d2 f . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
q field: q = (q1 , . . . , qd ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
∇.q divergence: ∇ . q = ∂1 q1 + . . . ∂d qd . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
∇−1 q primitive depending continuously on q . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
I NTEGRALS OF FUNCTIONS AND PATHS

R
ωf Cauchy integral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Snωf approximate integral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Rb
f completed integral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Rω
f ds surface integral over a sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
RSr
q . d` line integral of a vector field along a path . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Γ
Γ path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
[Γ] image of a path: [Γ] = {Γ(t) : ti ≤ t ≤ te } . . . . . . . . . . 221
Notations xvii
←−
Γ reverse path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
→
∪ concatenation of paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
H homotopy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
[H] image of a homotopy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
S EPARATED SEMI - NORMED SPACES
E separated semi-normed space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

k kE;ν semi-norm of E of index ν . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
NE set indexing the semi-norms of E . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
≡
↔ equality of families of semi-norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
=
↔ topological equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
⊂
→
topological inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
E-weak space E equipped with pointwise convergence on E 0 . . . . . . . . 77
E0 dual of E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
E
b sequential completion of E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Ed Euclidean product E × . . . × E . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
E1 × · · · × Ed product of spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
S UBSETS AND MAPPINGS OF SEMI - NORMED SPACES
Ů interior of a subset U of a semi-normed space . . . . . . . . . . 351

U closure of U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
∂U boundary of U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
Lin(E; F ) set of linear mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
L(E; F ) space of continuous linear mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
Ld (E1 ×. . .×Ed ; F ) space of continuous multilinear mappings . . . . . . . . . 360
P OINTS AND SUBSETS OF Rd
Rd Euclidean space: Rd = {x = (x1 , . . . , xd ) : ∀i, xi ∈ R} . . . . . . 354

|x| Euclidean norm: |x| = (x21 + · · · + x2d )1/2 . . . . . . . . . . 354
x.y Euclidean scalar product: x . y = x1 y1 + . . . + xd yd . . . . . . . 354
ei i-th basis vector in Rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Ω domain of definition of functions or of distributions . . . . . . . . .8
ΩD domain of the weighted distribution: ΩD = {x : x + D ⊂ Ω}; figure . 142, 143
Ω1/n Ω minus a neighborhood of its boundary: Ω1/n = {x : B(x, 1/n) ⊂ Ω} . . 171
(a)
Ω1/n connected component of Ω1/n containing a; figures . . . . . 235, 266, 268
Ωnr potato-shaped set: Ωnr = {x : |x| < n, B(x, r) ⊂ Ω} . . . . . . . 33
κn crown-shaped set: κn = Ωn+2 1/(n+2)
\ Ωn1/n . . . . . . . . . . 33
ω subset of Rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
|ω| measure of the open set ω . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
B(x, r) closed ball B(x, r) = {y ∈ Rd : |y − x| ≤ r} . . . . . . . . . 353
B̊(x, r) open ball B̊(x, r) = {y ∈ Rd : |y − x| < r} . . . . . . . . . 353
Ca,b open crown Ca,b = {x ∈ Rd : a < |x| < b} . . . . . . . . . . 364
υd measure of the unit ball: υd = |B̊(0, 1)| . . . . . . . . . . . 365
∆s,n closed cube of edge length 2−n centered on 2−ns . . . . . . . . 15
b compact inclusion in Rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
xviii Distributions
OTHER SETS 1
N set of natural numbers: N = {0, 1, 2, . . .} . . . . . . . . . . . 349
N∗ set of positive natural numbers: N∗ = {1, 2, . . .} . . . . . . . . . 349
Z set of integers: Z = {. . . , −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, . . .} . . . . . . . . . 349
Q set of rational numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
R space of real numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
Jm, nK integer interval: Jm, nK = {i ∈ N : m ≤ i ≤ n} . . . . . . . . 10
Jm, ∞K extended integer interval: Jm, ∞K = {i ∈ N : i ≥ m} ∪ {∞} . . . . 349
(a, b) open interval: (a, b) = {x ∈ R : a < x < b} . . . . . . . . . . 350
[a, b] closed interval: [a, b] = {x ∈ R : a ≤ x ≤ b} . . . . . . . . . 350
A ND ALSO
∅ empty set
⊂ algebraic inclusion
\ set difference: U \ V = {u ∈ U : u ∈
/ V}
× product: U × V = {(u, v) : u ∈ U, v ∈ V }
S PECIFIC FUNCTIONS AND DISTRIBUTIONS

det determinant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
δx Dirac mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
α, αn partition of unity; localizing function . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 175
ρn regularizing function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
ϕ or φ test function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
ψ divergence-free test field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
ξ elementary potential: ∆ξ = −δ0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
γ local elementary potential: γ = θξ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
η corrector term: η = 2∇ξ . ∇θ + ξ∆θ . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
e exponential number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [Vol. 1, p. 323]
log logarithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [Vol. 1, p. 321]
T YPOGRAPHY
end of statement
end of proof or comment
F IGURES
Paving of an open set ω by the cubes ∆s,n (to define the measure and integral) . . . . . . 15
Covering of Ω by crown-shaped sets κn and potato-shaped sets Ωn 1/n . . . . . . . . 34
Domain of definition ΩD of the weighted distribution f µ . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Domain ΩD going up to a part of the boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Graph of the functions in Dirac mass decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Intermediate closed paths Γn between two homotopic closed paths . . . . . . . . . 233
Divergence-free tubular flow Ψ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
(a)
Connected component Ω1/n of Ω1/n containing a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Connected open set Ω for which no Ω1/n is connected . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Field q with local primitive θ but no global primitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Decomposition of a “projection” on a closed subset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
1. Notation of natural numbers. The notation of N and N∗ follows the ISO 80000-2 standard, see p. 349.
Chapter 1
Semi-Normed Spaces
and Function Spaces
In this chapter, we provide definitions for the following essential notions.

— Semi-normed spaces and, in particular, Neumann, Fréchet and Banach spaces (§ 1.1).
— Topological equality and inclusion of semi-normed spaces (§ 1.2).
— Continuous mappings (§ 1.3) and differentiable functions (§ 1.4).
— Spaces of continuously differentiable functions and their semi-norms (§ 1.5).
— The integral of a uniformly continuous function with values in a Neumann space (§ 1.6).
We will make extensive use of their properties established in Volumes 1 and 2, and refer, as to make this
book self-contained, to their precise statements in the course of the text or in the Appendix with references
to their proofs.
1.1. Semi-normed spaces
Let us define separated semi-normed spaces 1 (the definitions of vector spaces and
of semi-norms are recalled in the Appendix, § A.2).
Definition 1.1.– A semi-normed space is a vector space E endowed with a family of

semi-norms {k kE;ν : ν ∈ NE }.
Any such space is said to be separated (or Hausdorff) if u = 0E is the only

element such that kukE;ν = 0 for all ν ∈ NE .
1. History of the notion of semi-normed space. John von N EUMANN introduced semi-normed spaces
in 1935 [56] (with an unnecessary countability condition). He also showed [56, Theorem 26, p. 19] that
they coincide with the locally convex topological vector spaces that Andrey KOLMOGOROV previously
introduced in 1934 [46, p. 29].
History of the notion of Hausdorff space. Felix H AUSDORFF had included the separation condition in its
original definition of a topological space in 1914 [40].
Distributions, First Edition. Jacques Simon.
© ISTE Ltd 2022. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2 Distributions
A normed space is a vector space E endowed with a norm k kE .
Caution. Definition 1.1 of a separated semi-normed space is general but not universal. For Laurent
S CHWARTZ [73, p. 240], a semi-normed space is a space endowed with a filtering family of semi-norms
(Definition 1.8). This definition is equivalent, since every family is equivalent to a filtering family [Vol. 1,
Theorem 3.15].
For Nicolas B OURBAKI [10, editions published after 1981, Chap. III, p. III.1] and Robert E DWARDS
[30, p. 80], a semi-normed space is a space endowed with a single semi-norm, which drastically changes its
meaning.
Let us define bounded subsets 2 of a separated semi-normed space.
Definition 1.2.– Let U be a subset of a separated semi-normed space E, whose family

of semi-norms is denoted by {k kE;ν : ν ∈ NE }. We say that U is bounded if, for
every ν ∈ NE ,
sup kukE;ν < ∞.
u∈U
Let us define convergent and Cauchy sequences 3 in a semi-normed space.
Definition 1.3.– Let (un )n∈N be a sequence in a separated semi-normed space E,

whose family of semi-norms is denoted by {k kE;ν : ν ∈ NE }.
(a) We say that (un )n∈N converges to a limit u ∈ E, and we denote un → u, if, for
every ν ∈ NE ,
kun − ukE;ν → 0 when n → ∞.
(b) We say that (un )n∈N is a Cauchy sequence if, for every ν ∈ NE ,
supm≥n kum − un kE;ν → 0 when n → ∞.
def def
CAUTION. We denote N = {0, 1, 2, . . .} and N∗ = {1, 2, . . .}, conforming to the ISO 80000-2 stan-
dard for mathematical and physics notation (edited in 2009).
Any possible confusion will be of no consequence, apart from surprising the reader used to the opposite
notation when seeing a term u0 of a series indexed by N, or the inverse 1/n of a number n in N∗ .
2. History of the notion of bounded set. Bounded sets in a semi-normed space were introduced in 1935
by John von N EUMANN [56]. Andrey KOLMOGOROV had introduced them in 1934 [46] for topological
vector spaces.
3. History of the notion of convergent sequence. Baron Augustin C AUCHY gave Definition 1.3 for
convergence in R, in 1821 [18, p. 19]. Niels A BEL contributed to the emergence of this notion.
History of the notion of Cauchy sequence. Augustin C AUCHY introduced the convergence criterion of
Definition 1.3 for real series, in 1821 [18, p. 115-116], admitting it (i.e. by implicitly considering R as the
completion of Q). Bernard B OLZANO previously stated this criterion in 1817 in [6], trying unsuccessfully
to justify it due to the lack of a coherent definition for R.
Semi-Normed Spaces and Function Spaces 3
Let us define several types of sequentially complete spaces.
Definition 1.4.– A separated semi-normed space is sequentially complete if all its

Cauchy sequences converge.
A Neumann space is a sequentially complete separated semi-normed space.
A Fréchet space is a sequentially complete metrizable semi-normed space.
A Banach space is a sequentially complete normed space.
Neumann spaces. We named these spaces in Volume 1 in homage to John VON N EUMANN, who intro-
duced sequentially complete separated semi-normed spaces in 1935 [56]. Thus, readers should recall the
definition before using it elsewhere. Examples of such spaces are given in the commentary Examples of
Neumann spaces, p. 43.
Completeness and sequential completeness. A semi-normed space is complete if every Cauchy fil-
ter converges [S CHWARTZ, 73, Chap. XVIII, § 8, Definition 1, p. 251]. We shall not use this notion
since sequential completeness is much simpler and more general (complete implies sequentially complete
[S CHWARTZ, 73, p. 251]) and especially since certain useful spaces are sequentially complete but not
complete. For example, it is the case of any reflexive Hilbert or Banach space of infinite dimension endowed
with its weak topology [Vol. 1, Property (4.11), p. 63].
Completeness and Metrizability. Recall that, for a metrizable space, completeness is equivalent to se-
quential completeness [S CHWARTZ, 73, Theorem XVIII, 8; 1, p. 251]. This is why some authors speak of
completeness for Banach or Fréchet spaces, while in reality they only use sequential completeness.
Let us give a definition of metrizability.
Definition 1.5.– A semi-normed space is metrizable if it is separated and if its family

of semi-norms is countable or is equivalent to a countable family of semi-norms.
Definitions of the equivalence of families of semi-norms and of their countability

are recalled on pages 4 and 350 (Definitions 1.6 and A.1).
Justification for the name “metrizable”. We refer here to a metrizable space since every countable family
or, what leads to the same thing, any sequence (k kk )k∈N of semi-norms can be associated with a distance,
or metric, d which generates the same topology, for instance
X ku − vkk
d(u, v) = 2−k .
k∈N
1 + ku − vkk
Definition 1.5 is, in fact, that of a separated countably semi-normable space. We shall abuse terminology
and speak of metrizable spaces since this equivalent notion is more familiar. To be precise, a metrizable
space is a space that is “topologically equal to a metric space”.
4 Distributions
Superiority of a sequence of semi-norms over a distance. The semi-norms of a metrizable space E allow
us to characterize its bounded subsets U by (Definition 1.2)
supu∈U kukE;k < ∞, for all k ∈ N.
On the contrary, if E is not normable and if d is a distance that generates its topology, its bounded subsets
are not characterized by
sup d(u, 0E ) < ∞.
u∈U
What is worse, is that no “ball” {u ∈ E : d(u, z) < r}, for r > 0, is bounded. Indeed, the existence of a
non-empty bounded open subset is equivalent to normability, due to Kolmogorov’s Theorem 4.
1.2. Comparison of semi-normed spaces
First, let us compare families of semi-norms on the same vector space.
Definition 1.6.– Let {k k1;ν : ν ∈ N1 } and {k k2;µ : µ ∈ N2 } be two families of

semi-norms on the same vector space E.
The first family dominates the second if, for every µ ∈ N2 , there exist a finite
subset N1 of N1 and c1 ∈ R such that for every u ∈ E,
kuk2;µ ≤ c1 sup kuk1;ν .
ν∈N1
Both families are equivalent if each one dominates the other. We also say that they
generate the same topology.
Terminology. The topology of E is the family of its open subsets. We can say that two families of semi-
norms generate the same topology instead of saying that they are equivalent, since the equivalence of the
families of semi-norms implies the equality of the families of open subsets [Vol. 1, Theorem 3.4], and
reciprocally [Vol. 1, Theorem 7.14 (a) and 8.2 (a), with L = T = Identity].
Let us see how we can compare two semi-normed spaces (the definition of a vector
subspace is recalled in the Appendix, § A.2).
Definition 1.7.– Let E and F be two semi-normed spaces, whose families of semi-
norms are denoted by {k kE;ν : ν ∈ NE } and {k kF ;µ : µ ∈ NF }.
≡ F if E = F and if their additions, multiplications and families of

(a) We denote E ↔
semi-norms coincide. That is to say, if they have the same vector space structure and
the same semi-norms.
4. History of Kolmogorov’s Theorem. Andrey KOLMOGOROV showed in 1934 [46, p. 33] that a
topological vector space is normable if and only if there exists a bounded convex neighborhood of the
origin, which is equivalent here to the existence of a bounded open set.
(b) We say that E is topologically equal to F and we denote E ↔ = F if E = F , if

their additions and multiplications coincide and if their families of semi-norms are
equivalent.
(c) We say that E is topologically included in F and we denote E →⊂ F if E is a vector

subspace of F and if the family of semi-norms of E dominates the family of restrictions
to E of the semi-norms of F .
That is to say if, for every semi-norm µ ∈ NF , there exist a finite subset N of NE
and c ∈ R such that, for every semi-norm u ∈ E,
kukF ;µ ≤ c sup kukE;ν .
ν∈N
(d) We say that E is a topological subspace of F if it is a vector subspace of F and

if it is endowed with the restrictions to E of the semi-norms of F or, more generally,
with a family equivalent to the family of these restrictions.
Caution. Suppose that E = F and that, for every µ ∈ NF , there exists ν ∈ NE such that, for every
u ∈ E,
kukF ;µ = kukE;ν .
This equality does not imply topological equality E ↔ = F : it only implies E → ⊂ F . Indeed, it does not
ensure the existence, for every ν ∈ NE , of a µ satisfying this equality or of a finite family of µ such that
kukE;ν ≤ c supµ∈M kukF ;µ , which is necessary for the converse inclusion F → ⊂ E.
Such an equality of semi-norms occurs for example in step 3, p. 28, of the proof of Theorem 2.12,
where we thus prove a converse inequality to get topological equality.
Let us finally define filtering families of semi-norms.
Definition 1.8.– A family {k kν : ν ∈ N } of semi-norms on a vector space E is fil-

tering if, for every finite subset N of N , there exist µ ∈ N such that, for every u ∈ E,
sup kukν ≤ kukµ .
ν∈N
Utility of filtering families. The use of filtering families simplifies some statements, by substituting a
single semi-norm to the upper envelope of a finite number of semi-norms. This is for example the case
with the characterization of continuous linear mappings from Theorem 1.12 where we consider both cases.
Definition 1.9 of continuous mappings could similarly be simplified with a filtering family.
Any family of semi-norms is equivalent to a filtering family [Vol. 2, Theorem 3.15], but this one is not
necessarily pleasant to use.
Spaces endowed with filtering families. The “natural” family of some spaces is filtering. For example,
D(Ω) is endowed (Definition 2.5) with the family, which is filtering (Theorem 2.7), of the semi-norms,
indexed by p ∈ C + (Ω),
kϕkD(Ω);p = sup sup p(x)|∂ β ϕ(x)|.
x∈Ω |β|≤p(x)
A single norm also constitutes, on its own, a filtering family of semi-norms.

6 Distributions
Utility of non-filtering families. The “natural” family of some spaces is not filtering. For example, D0 (Ω)
is endowed (Definition 3.1) with the non-filtering family of the semi-norms, indexed by ϕ ∈ D(Ω),
kf kD0 (Ω);ϕ = |hf, ϕi|.
If the aim was to consider filtering families only, then D0 (Ω) should be endowed with the semi-norms
|||f |||D0 (Ω);N = sup |hf, ϕi|
ϕ∈N
indexed by the finite subsets N of D(Ω). The maximum over finite subsets would of course disappear from
Definition 1.9 of continuous functions but it would reappear here.
1.3. Continuous mappings
We now define various notions of continuity 5 of a mapping from a semi-normed

space into another.
Definition 1.9.– Let T be a mapping from a subset X of a separated semi-normed

space E into another separated semi-normed space F , and let {k kE;ν : ν ∈ NE }
and {k kF ;µ : µ ∈ NF } be the families of semi-norms of E and F .
(a) We say that T is continuous at the point u of X if, for every ν ∈ NE and > 0,
there exist a finite subset M of NF and η > 0 such that:
v ∈ X, sup kv − ukF ;µ ≤ η ⇒ kT (v) − T (u)kE;ν ≤ .

µ∈M
We say that T is continuous if it is so at every point of X.
(b) We say that T is uniformly continuous if, for every ν ∈ NE and > 0, there exist
a finite subset M of NF and η > 0 such that:
u ∈ X, v ∈ X, sup kv − ukF ;µ ≤ η ⇒ kT (v) − T (u)kE;ν ≤ .

µ∈M
(c) We say that T is sequentially continuous at the point u of X if, for every sequence
(un )n∈N of X:
un → u in E ⇒ T (un ) → T (u) in F .
We say that T is sequentially continuous if it is so at every point of X.
5. History of the notions of continuity. Augustin C AUCHY defined sequential continuity for a real function
on a line segment in 1821, in [18]. Bernard Placidus Johann Nepomuk B OLZANO also contributed to the
emergence of this notion.
Eduard H EINE defined the uniform continuity of a function defined on a part of Rd in 1870, in [42]. It
had already been used implicitly by Augustin C AUCHY in 1823 to define the integral of a real function [19,
p. 122-126], and then explicitly by Peter D IRICHLET.
(d) We say that T is bounded if its image T (X) = {T (u) : u ∈ X} is bounded in F .

That is to say if, for every µ ∈ NF ,
sup kT (u)kF ;µ < ∞.
u∈X
Recall that continuity always implies sequential continuity [Vol. 1, Theorem 7.2] 6.
Theorem 1.10.– Any continuous mapping from a subset of a separated semi-normed

space into a separated semi-normed space is sequentially continuous.
The converse is true if the initial space is metrizable [Vol. 1, Theorem 9.1].
Theorem 1.11.– A mapping from a subset of a metrizable separated semi-normed

space into a separated semi-normed space is continuous if and only if it is sequentially
continuous.
For linear mappings, Definition 1.9 gives [Vol. 1, Theorem 7.14]:
Theorem 1.12.– Let L be a linear mapping from a separated semi-normed space E

into a separated semi-normed space F , and let {k kE;ν : ν ∈ NE } and
{k kF ;µ : µ ∈ NF } be the families of semi-norms of E and F . Then:
(a) L is continuous if and only if, for every µ ∈ NF , there exist a finite subset N of
NE and c ≥ 0 such that: for every u ∈ E,
kLukF ;µ ≤ c sup kukE;ν .
ν∈N
This is also equivalent to the statement: L is uniformly continuous.
(b) If the family of semi-norms of E is filtering, then L is continuous if and only if, for
every µ ∈ NF , there exist ν ∈ NE and c ≥ 0 such that: for every u ∈ E,
kLukF ;µ ≤ c kukE;ν .
Observe that topological inclusion is equivalent to the continuity of identity.
6. Numbering of statements. The numbering is common to all the statements — Definition 1.1, . . . ,
Definition 1.9, Theorem 1.10, Theorem 1.11, etc. —, to make it easier to find a given result by following
the order of the numbers. It is not worthwhile therefore to look for Theorems 1.1 to 1.9, as these numbers
have been assigned to definitions. There is also no need to look for Definitions 1.10, 1.11, etc.
8 Distributions
Theorem 1.13.– The topological inclusion E → ⊂ F of a separated semi-normed space

into another is equivalent to the continuity of the identity mapping from E into F .
Proof. Definition 1.7 (c) of topological inclusion coincides with the characterization
of continuity from Theorem 1.12 (a) applied to the identity, i.e. for Lu = u.
For semi-norms, Definition 1.9 gives [Vol. 1, Theorem 7.11]:
Theorem 1.14.– A semi-norm p on a separated semi-normed space E with a filter-

ing family {k kE;ν : ν ∈ NE } of semi-norms is continuous if and only if there exist
ν ∈ NE and c ≥ 0 such that: for every u ∈ E,
p(u) ≤ c kukE;ν .
Addition and multiplication by a real number t for mappings with values in a

vector space are defined by
def def
(T + S)(u) = T (u) + S(u), (tT )(u) = tT (u). (1.1)
1.4. Differentiable functions
We reserve the term function for a mapping defined on a subset of Rd , which in

general is denoted by Ω. Throughout the book, the dimension d is an integer ≥ 1.
Recall that a function is continuous if and only if it is sequentially continuous

(Theorem 1.11, since Rd is normed).
def
Gradient being defined in E d = {(u1 , . . . , ud ) : ui ∈ E, ∀i}, recall that this
product space is endowed with the semi-norms, indexed by ν ∈ NE ,
kukE d ;ν = (ku1 k2E;ν + · · · + kud k2E;ν )1/2 ,

def
(1.2)
which makes it a separated semi-normed space [Vol. 1, Theorem 6.11].

def
We denote by |z| = (z12 + · · · + zd2 )1/2 the Euclidean norm of z ∈ Rd and, for
u ∈ Ed,
def
z . u = z1 u1 + · · · + zd ud .
Observe that
kz . ukE;ν ≤ |z|kukE d ;ν . (1.3)
Indeed, from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in Rd , see (A.1), p. 354,

Xd d
X 1/2 X d 1/2
. 2 2
kz ukE;ν ≤ |zi |kui kE;ν ≤ zi kui kE;ν = |z|kukE d ;ν .
i=1 i=1 i=1
Let us define various levels of differentiability for a function with values in a

separated semi-normed space.
Definition 1.15.– Let f be a function from an open subset Ω of Rd into a separated

semi-normed space E, whose family of semi-norms is denoted by {k kE;ν : ν ∈ NE }.
We say that f is differentiable at the point x of Ω, if there exists an element of

E d , denoted by ∇f (x) and called the gradient of f at the point x, such that, for every
ν ∈ NE and > 0, there exists η > 0 such that, if z ∈ Rd , |z| ≤ η and x + z ∈ Ω,
then
kf (x + z) − f (x) − z . ∇f (x)kE;ν ≤ |z|.
We say that f is differentiable if it is differentiable at every point of Ω, and that it
is continuous differentiable if, moreover, ∇f is continuous from Ω into E d .
We say that f is m times differentiable, where m ∈ N∗ , if it has successive

2 m
gradients ∇f , ∇2 f , . . . , ∇m f (these are elements of E d , E d , . . . , E d respectively).
We say that f is m times continuously differentiable if, moreover, its successive

gradients are continuous. We extend this notion and the previous one to m = 0 by
denoting
∇0 f = f .
def
We say that f is infinitely differentiable if it is m times differentiable for every

m ∈ N∗ .
When d = 1, the differentiability of f at the point x reduces to the existence of

an element of E, denoted by f 0 (x) and called the derivative 7 at the point x, such
7. History of the notion of the derivative of a real function. E UCLIDE, in his Elements [31, Book III,
p. 16] was already looking for the tangent to a curve. Pierre de F ERMAT, in 1636, found the tangent for the
curve of equation y = xm with a calculation prefiguring that of the derivative. Isaac N EWTON introduced
in 1671 the fluxion of a function y = f (x) which he denoted by ẏ [57, p. 76]. Gottfried von L EIBNIZ
developed infinitesimal calculus in 1675 [51]. The notion of derivative was made rigorous in 1821 by
Augustin C AUCHY [18, p. 22].
History of the notation. The notation dy/dx was introduced by Gottfried von L EIBNIZ in 1675 [51]. This
was what Joseph Louis L AGRANGE denoted by f 0 x in 1772 [49].
The symbol ∇ was introduced by Sir William Rowan H AMILTON in 1847, by inverting the Greek letter
∆, which had already been used in an analogous context (to designate the Laplacian); the name nabla was
given to him by Peter Guthrie TAIT on the advice of William Robertson S MITH, in 1870, in analogy to the
form of a Greek harp which in Antiquity bore this name (ν άβλα).
10 Distributions
that, for every ν ∈ NE and > 0, there exists η > 0 such that, if t ∈ R, |t| ≤ η and
x + t ∈ Ω, then
kf (x + t) − f (x) − tf 0 (x)kE;ν ≤ |t|. (1.4)
The gradient here has only one component: ∇f (x) = f 0 (x). The derivative is often
denoted as df /dx instead of f 0 , in particular when we wish to specify the variable
with respect to which we are differentiating.
Utility of assuming that Ω is open. This hypothesis guarantees the uniqueness of the gradient at every
point where it exists [Vol. 2, Theorem 2.2]. If not, for example if Ω was just a point, then every function
would be differentiable and would admit every element of E as its gradient. However, the notion of
differentiability can be extended to the closure of an open set while preserving the uniqueness of the gradient
[Vol. 2, Definition 2.26].
Let us define partial derivatives 8, denoting by ei the i-th basis vector of Rd , i.e.
(ei )i = 1, (ei )j = 0 if j 6= i,
and denoting by Jm, nK the interval of integers {i ∈ N : m ≤ i ≤ n}.
Definition 1.16.– Let f be a function from an open subset Ω of Rd into a separated

semi-normed space E, whose family of semi-norms is denoted {k kE;ν : ν ∈ NE }.
We say that f has a partial derivative ∂i f (x) ∈ E at the point x of Ω, where

i ∈ J1, dK, if the function xi 7→ f (x) is differentiable at the point xi with derivative
∂i f (x).
That is to say, if, for every ν ∈ NE and all > 0, there exists η > 0 such that, if
t ∈ R, |t| ≤ η and x + tei ∈ Ω, then
kf (x + tei ) − f (x) − t∂i f (x)kE;ν ≤ |t|. (1.5)
Clarification. More precisely, f has a partial derivative ∂i f (x) at the point x if the function
s 7→ f (x1 , . . . , xi−1 , s, xi+1 , . . . , xd ),
which is defined on the open subset {s ∈ R : (x1 , . . . , xi−1 , s, xi+1 , . . . , xd ) ∈ Ω} of R, has the deriva-
tive ∂i f (x) at the point xi .
8. History of partial derivatives. Partial derivatives appeared in 1747 with Alexis Claude C LAIRAUT and
Jean le Rond D ’A LEMBERT [24], and in 1755 with Leonhard E ULER [32].
The symbol ∂ was introduced by Nicolas de Caritat, Marquis of C ONDORCET, in 1773 [22].
CAUTION. A function which has partial derivatives is not necessarily differentiable nor even continuous.
For example, the function defined on R2 by
x1 x2
f (x1 , x2 ) = 2 if x 6= (0, 0) and f (0, 0) = 0
(x1 + x22 )
has partial derivatives ∂1 f and ∂2 f at every point, but it is neither differentiable nor continuous at (0, 0).
On the other hand, a function whose partial derivatives are continuous is continuously differentiable
and continuous (Theorem A.55).
We often use the notation ∂f /∂xi instead of ∂i f , in particular when we wish to

emphasize the variable with respect to which we are differentiating.
Let us now recall Schwarz’s Theorem 9 [Vol. 2, Theorem 2.12]:
Theorem 1.17.– Let f be a twice differentiable function from an open subset of Rd

into a separated semi-normed space. Then, for every i and j in J1, dK,
∂j ∂i f = ∂i ∂j f.
Since they commute, we can reorder successive partial derivatives to express them
as follows. For any β ∈ Nd , we denote
∂ β f = ∂1β1 · · · ∂dβd f, ∂ 0 f = f.
def def
And we denote |β| = β1 + · · · + βd .
1.5. Spaces C m (Ω; E), Cbm (Ω; E) and Cm

b (Ω; E)
Let us define spaces 10 of functions that are m times differentiable with values in
a semi-normed space.
Definition 1.18.– Let Ω be an open subset of Rd , E a separated semi-normed space

whose family of semi-norms is denoted by {k kE;ν : ν ∈ NE }, and m ∈ N.
9. History of Schwarz’s Theorem. Karl W EIERSTRASS proved in his unpublished teachings of 1861 that
the second partial derivatives of a function f commute at every point x where they are continuous, namely
∂ 2 f /∂x1 ∂x2 (x1 , x2 ) = ∂ 2 f /∂x2 ∂x1 (x1 , x2 ).
Hermann Amandus S CHWARZ proved in 1873 that this result is valid as soon as one of the two members is
continuous.
10. History of the notion of function space. Bernhard R IEMANN introduced the concept of function
space (of infinite dimension) in 1892 in his inaugural lecture On the Hypotheses Which Lie at the Bases of
Geometry [64, p. 276], see the extract in french cited in [12, p. 176].
12 Distributions
(a) We denote by C m (Ω; E) the vector space of m-times continuously differentiable

functions from Ω into E endowed with the semi-norms, indexed by the compact sub-
sets K of Ω and by ν ∈ NE ,
sup k∂ β f (x)kE;ν .
def
kf kC m (Ω;E);K,ν = sup
0≤|β|≤m x∈K
We denote this space C(Ω; E) when m = 0, and C m (Ω) when E = R.
(b) We denote
Cbm (Ω; E) = {f ∈ C m (Ω; E) : ∂ β f is bounded, ∀β, 0 ≤ |β| ≤ m}
def
endowed with the semi-norms, indexed by ν ∈ NE ,
def
kf kCbm (Ω;E);ν = sup
0≤|β|≤m x∈Ω
We denote this space Cb (Ω; E) when m = 0, and Cbm (Ω) when E = R.
A shortcut. We write “the compact subsets K of Ω”, for “the compact subsets K of Rd included in Ω”.
However, this is not ambiguous.
Justification of Definition 1.18. 1. Vector structures. Addition and scalar multiplica-

tion of functions defined in (1.1), p. 8, make C m (Ω; E) and Cbm (Ω; E) into vector
spaces.
2. Semi-norms of C m (Ω; E). In (a), the mapping

f 7→ sup sup k∂ β f (x)kE;ν
0≤|β|≤m x∈K
is indeed a semi-norm on C m (Ω; E), because the upper envelope of semi-norms is a

semi-norm if it is everywhere finite (Theorem A.4) 11. This is the case here, since:
— for each x ∈ Ω and β ∈ Nd such that |β| ≤ m, the mapping f 7→ k∂ β f (x)kE;ν is
a semi-norm on C m (Ω; E);
— for each f ∈ C m (Ω; E),
sup sup k∂ β f (x)kE;ν < ∞,
0≤|β|≤m x∈K
since continuous functions are bounded on compact sets (Theorem A.32).
3. Semi-norms of Cbm (Ω; E). The mapping f 7→ sup|β|≤m supx∈Ω k∂ β f (x)kE;ν ,

in (b), is similarly a semi-norm on Cbm (Ω; E).
11. Theorem A.4. The theorems numbered as A.n can be found in the Appendix.
Let us now define spaces of infinitely differentiable functions.
Definition 1.19.– Let Ω be an open subset of Rd and E a separated semi-normed

space, whose family of semi-norms is denoted by {k kE;ν : ν ∈ NE }.
(a) We denote by C ∞ (Ω; E) the vector space of infinitely differentiable functions

from Ω into E endowed with the semi-norms, indexed by m ∈ N, by the compact
subsets K of Ω and by ν ∈ NE ,
def
kf kC ∞ (Ω;E);m,K,ν = sup
0≤|β|≤m x∈K
(b) We denote
def
Cb∞ (Ω; E) = {f ∈ C ∞ (Ω; E) : ∂ β f is bounded, ∀β ∈ Nd }
endowed with the semi-norms, indexed by m ∈ N and ν ∈ NE ,
def
kf kCb∞ (Ω;E);m,ν = sup
0≤|β|≤m x∈Ω
Justification. One shows that these semi-norms are well defined as in the justification
of Definition 1.18. For (a), it should be remarked that the ∂ β f are continuous, as is
every differentiable function (Theorem A.54), and hence bounded on compact sets.
Observe that Definitions 1.19 (b) and 1.18 (b) lead to

kf kCb∞ (Ω;E);m,ν = kf kCbm (Ω;E);ν .
For real values, this yields in particular, for every function f ∈ C ∞ (Ω),
kf kCb∞ (Ω);m = kf kCbm (Ω) . (1.6)
We will use kf kCbm (Ω) when we wish to remain in familiar territory, and we will use
kf kCb∞ (Ω);m when we wish to highlight that f belongs to Cb∞ (Ω).
Let us define the space of functions that are uniformly continuous along with their
derivatives.

and m ∈ J0, ∞K. We denote
def
Cm m β
b (Ω; E) = {f ∈ Cb (Ω; E) : ∂ f is uniformly continuous, 0 ≤ |β| ≤ m}
endowed with the semi-norms of Cbm (Ω; E).
We denote this space Cb (Ω; E) when m = 0, and Cm

b (Ω) when E = R.
Another shortcut. We write that Cm m

b (Ω; E) is “endowed with the semi-norms of Cb (Ω; E)”, when in
reality it is endowed with their restrictions to Cm
b (Ω; E). Here, there is also no possible ambiguity.
14 Distributions
1.6. Integral of a uniformly continuous function
Integration of continuous functions

R is essential for their identification with dis-
tributions by the equality hf, ϕi = f ϕ, for any test function ϕ. The theory of
integration not having been performed yet for values into a Neumann space, we did it
in the most basic way possible in Volume 2, for uniformly continuous functions which
were sufficient for our needs. Let us recall this construction.
Let us first define the vector space B(Ω; E) of functions for which the Cauchy
integral will be defined.
Definition 1.21.– Let Ω be an open subset of Rd and E a separated semi-normed

space. We denote by B(Ω; E) the set of uniformly continuous functions from Ω into E
that are zero ouside of a bounded set.
Utility of the space B(Ω; E). The integral of continuous functions is often introduced on the space
K(Ω; E) of functions with compact support, see for example [B OURBAKI, 9, Chap. III, § 3, Definition 1,
p. 75]. We prefer to define it on B(Ω; E) so that we are able to apply it to functions, such as constant
functions, that are not zero in a neighborhood of the boundary.
This space is not commonly used, and its notation B(Ω; E) is not standard. We do not endow it with
semi-norms, because we not need them.
Now we define the Cauchy integral 12 of a uniformly continuous function with

bounded support, with values in a Neumann space.
12. History of the integral of a continuous function. Real integral. Augustin C AUCHY defined the
integral of a real continuous function on a real interval in 1823 in his Leçons a l’Ecole Royale Polytechnique
sur le calcul infinitesimal [19, p. 122-126], by the method that we use in Definition 1.22. He showed [19,
p. 125] that the approximate sums Sn ω f converge to a limit using the uniform continuity of the function
(which was only shown later by Eduard H EINE [44] in 1872!). He also introduced the integral of a function
defined on R2 in 1827 [20].
Precursors. Johann B ERNOULLI wrote the first treatise on differential and integral calculus in 1691–1692
[3], whose part concerning the integral calculus was not published until 1742. In 1768, Leonhard E ULER
published his important treatise Institutionum calculi integralis, in which he used the sums Sn f [33, p. 178]
with the assumption that they converge. He calculated integrals on R2 in 1770 [34]. For more details, see
Histoire de l’intégration by Jean-Paul P IER [60, p. 79–86].
Vector-valued integral. The integral of an integrable function with values in a Banach space E was defined
in 1933 by Salomon B OCHNER [5] using a different method.
Nicolas B OURBAKI defined in 1966 [9, Chap. III, § 3, Definition 1, p. 75] the integral of a function in
K(Ω; E-weak), where E is a Hausdorff locally convex topological vector space, a notion that is equivalent
to a separated semi-normed space. If E-weak is sequentially complete, this integral coincides with the
Cauchy integral with values in E-weak; if not, it takes values in the completion E b of E, which coincides
with the completion of E-weak.
Originality. Extending the Cauchy integral to values in a Neumann space E seems new to us, although it
is straightforward.
Definition 1.22.– Let f ∈ B(Ω; E), i.e. a uniformly continuous function from Ω
into E that is zero ouside of a bounded set, where Ω is an open subset of Rd and E is
a Neumann space, and let ω be an open subset of Ω.
The approximate integral 13 of f over ω is the element of E defined, for n ∈ N, by

X
Snω f = 2−nd f (2−n s),
def
s∈Zd :∆s,n ⊂ω
where ∆s,n is the closed cube Rd of side length 2−n centered at 2−n s.
The integral over ω of f is the element of E defined by 14

Z
f = lim Snω f.
def
ω n→∞
x2
2−n
∆s,n
x1
2−n
Figure 1.1. Paving of ω by the cubes ∆s,n
Definition 1.22 is justified since, as was established in Volume 2 [Lemma 4.10,

p. 90], Snω f has a limit when n → ∞.
13. Paternity of the approximate integral. Approximate integrals Sn

ω f are sometimes called Riemann
sums with reference to a later generalization of Bernhard R IEMANN, in his habilitation thesis of 1854
published in 1867, after his death, [65, p. 239]. In the case of continuous functions, according to B OURBAKI
[12, p. 248], it would be better to name them Archimedes sums or Eudoxe sums.
R
14. History of the notation of the integral. The symbol , “a long s being the first letter of the word
summa”, was introduced by Siegfried von L EIBNIZ in R a letter in 1675 to Henry O LDENBURG, reproduced
by Florian C AJORI [14, Vol. 2, p. 243]. The notation ab f was introduced by Joseph F OURIER [35, p. 252]
in 1822. The term integral was introduced in 1690 by Jacob B ERNOULLI [2], see the facsimile in [60,
p. 78].
16 Distributions
Convention. The definition of the approximate integral does not make sense if none of the cubes ∆s,n is
included in ω, since the sum of zero element is not defined! We avoid this dilemma by agreeing that Sn
ωf
is zero in this case. In particular, Sn
∅
f = 0 E for all n and thus
Z
f = 0E .
∅
R
Notation. We use the notation ω f (x) dx Rwhen we wish to emphasize the variable with respect to which
we integrate, for example in the expression ω f (x, y) dx, for a function f of two variables.
The classical properties of the Cauchy integral with values in a Banach space (or
in a complete semi-normed space) extend to values in a Neumann space. This is the
case with all the properties that we use in this book. These were proven in Volume 2
and their precise statements are recalled in the Appendix or in the text, along with
references for their proofs.
The semi-norms of E play the role held by the norm in the case of a Banach
space. In particular, we have the following inequalities established respectively in
Theorems 4.11 and 4.15 of Volume 2 [82], that we will use very often.
Theorem 1.23.– Let f ∈ B(Ω; E), where Ω is an open subset of Rd and E is a

Neumann space, and let ω be an open subset of Ω and k kE;ν a semi-norm of E.
Then:
(a) kf kE;ν ∈ B(Ω) and

Z Z Z
f ≤ kf kE;ν ≤ kf kE;ν .
ω E;ν ω Ω
Z
(b) f ≤ |ω| sup kf (x)kE;ν .
ω E;ν x∈ω
The definition of the measure |ω| of an open subset ω of Rd is recalled in the

Appendix (Definition A.83).
Chapter 2
Space of Test Functions
In order to be able to build in the next chapter the space D0 (Ω; E) of distributions, i.e. of continuous linear
mappings from D(Ω) into E, we construct here the space D(Ω) of test functions.
We endow it with the semi-norms kϕkD(Ω);p = supx∈Ω sup0≤|β|≤p(x) p(x)|∂ β ϕ(x)| indexed by
p ∈ C + (Ω), and give the following properties.
— It is a Neumann space (Theorem 2.8) which is sequentially separable (Theorem 2.16) and in which
every bounded sequence has a convergent subsequence (Theorem 2.14).
— We give characterizations of its convergent sequences, including a new one (Theorem 2.13 (c)) which
will serve later (Theorem 4.14) to show that D0 (Ω; E-weak) = D0 (Ω; E).
— We establish an inequality (Theorem 2.22), also new, that allows us to “control” a series of norms of the
m (Ω) by one semi-norm of the D(Ω), which gives rise to properties usually obtained by resorting to the
CK
delicate inductive limit topology of the DK (Ω).
We begin with a condition for all functions of a family to have their support included in a same compact
set (Theorem 2.4).
2.1. Functions with compact support
Let us first define the support of a function.
Definition 2.1.– The support of a function f from a subset Ω of Rd into a separated

semi-normed space E is the set
def
supp f = {x ∈ Ω : f (x) 6= 0E } ∩ Ω.
We denote by X the closure of a set X, and X̊ its interior, see Definition A.8.
Let us give elementary conditions for the support of a function to be compact

(recall that, in Rd , a compact set is a closed and bounded set, due to the Borel–
Lebesgue Theorem (Theorem A.26 (b)).
Distributions, First Edition. Jacques Simon.
© ISTE Ltd 2022. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
18 Distributions
Theorem 2.2.– For every function f from a subset Ω of Rd into a separated semi-
normed space, each of the following properties are equivalent to:
The support of f is compact.
(a) The support of f is included in a compact subset of Ω.
(b) f is zero ouside of a compact subset of Ω.
Proof. The equivalences result from the three following implications:
1. supp f is compact ⇒ (a). Indeed, if the support of f is compact, then it is included

in a compact subset of Ω (itself).
2. (a) ⇒ (b). Indeed, by Definition 2.1, f is zero ouside of its support so, if this is
included in a compact subset of Ω, f is zero ouside of the said compact subset.
3. (b) ⇒ supp f is compact. Suppose that f is zero ouside of a compact subset K

of Ω. Then {x ∈ Ω : f (x) 6= 0E } ⊂ K, thus
{x ∈ Ω : f (x) 6= 0E } ⊂ K = K ⊂ Ω.
Definition 2.1 then gives
supp f = {x ∈ Ω : f (x) 6= 0E },
which is closed (by Definition) and bounded (as K is) in Rd and thus is compact by
the Borel–Lebesgue Theorem (Theorem A.26 (b)).
Let us now define spaces of differentiable functions with support in a given com-
pact.

and m ∈ N.
(a) Given a compact subset K of Ω, we denote

m
(Ω; E) = {f ∈ C m (Ω; E) : supp f ⊂ K}
def
CK
(b) Given a compact subset Q of Rd (not necessarily included in Ω), we denote
Cm m
def
Q (Ω; E) = {f ∈ Cb (Ω; E) : supp f ⊂ Q}

Space of Test Functions 19
Justification of (a). The semi-norms of Cbm (Ω; E) can be used for every function f
m
of CK (Ω; E) since f is bounded as well as its derivatives ∂ β f of order |β| ≤ m, as is
every continuous function which has a compact support (Theorem A.33).
We denote respectively these spaces by CK (Ω; E) and CQ (Ω; E) when m = 0,

m
and by CK (Ω) and Cm
Q (Ω) when E = R.
Caution about the behavior at the boundary. When Ω is open, every function in CK m (Ω; E) is zero in a
neighborhood of the boundary ∂Ω, since K is a compact subset of Ω. Indeed, there exists r > 0 such that
K + B(0, r) ⊂ Ω, according to the strong inclusion theorem (Theorem A.22).
In contrast, the functions of Cm
Q (Ω; E) are not necessarily zero in a neighborhood of ∂Ω, when Q is
not included in Ω.
We denote the compact subsets Q of Rd differently to those, K, of Ω, to emphasize this difference.
Remark. Every function of C m (Ω; E) with support included in Q and whose derivatives (of order
|β| ≤ m) are uniformly continuous belongs to Cm
Q (Ω; E). Indeed, its derivatives are bounded since every
uniformly continuous function with bounded support is itself bounded.
2.2. Compactness in their whole of support of functions
Let us give a condition 1 for a family of real functions to have all of their support
in a single compact set. For this, denote
C + (Ω) = {p ∈ C(Ω) : ∀x ∈ Ω, p(x) ≥ 0}.

def
Theorem 2.4.– Let F ⊂ C(Ω), where Ω ⊂ Rd , be such that, for every function p of
C + (Ω),
sup sup p(x)|f (x)| < ∞. (2.1)
f ∈F x∈Ω
Then all the functions of F have their support in a same compact subset of Ω.
Proof. Let
def
[
K = supp f .
f ∈F
1. History of the condition of compactness of the supports. Theorem 2.4, a new property, is equivalent
to the result of B OURBAKI [9, Chap. III, § 1, Proposition 2, (ii), p. 42] which states that: all the functions of
a bounded subset of K(Ω) endowed with the topology of inductive limit of the CK (Ω) have their support
in the same compact subset K of Ω.
The proof of B OURBAKI, which is based on topological arguments (infinite topological direct sums and
strict inductive limits), is quite different to ours.
20 Distributions
This set contains the support of every function in F, so it is sufficient to verify that it
is compact and included in Ω.
1. Inclusion in Ω. Let us show by contradiction that
K ⊂ Ω. (2.2)
If not, then since closures in Rd coincide with the set of limits of convergent sequences
(Theorem A.23 (b)), there would exist z and a sequence (ym )m∈N such that
[ 1
z ∈ K \ Ω, ym ∈ supp f, |ym − z| ≤ .
m
f ∈F
For every m ∈ N, there would exist fm ∈ F such that ym belongs to the support
of fm . By Definition 2.1 of the support,
ym ∈ {x ∈ Ω : fm (x) 6= 0}.
According again to the characterization of closure from Theorem A.23 (b), there
would exist zm such that
1
zm ∈ Ω, fm (zm ) 6= 0, |zm − ym | ≤ .
m
Thus, when m → ∞,
zm → z.
By passing to a subsequence if necessary, we could (because zm 6= z since z ∈

/ Ω),
for each m ∈ N, choose rm > 0 such that, by denoting
def
Bm = {x : |x − zm | ≤ rm },
the ball Bm does not contain z and is disjoint from Bi for all i ≤ m − 1.
We would then define a function p on all of Rd by

m |x − zm |

 1− on Bm ,
p(x) = |fm (zm )| rm

0 ouside of Bm .
It would be everywhere continuous except at z, thus its restriction to Ω would be
continuous. For every m ∈ N, it would satisfy
p(zm )|fm (zm )| = m.
This would contradict our hypothesis (2.1). Hence, (2.2) is satisfied, that is, K is
included in Ω.
2. Compactness. Let us now show, using contradiction again, that

K is bounded.
If not, we could choose ym , zm and rm , and then p, as before with |ym | → ∞ in
the place of ym → z. Thus, |zm | → ∞ takes the place of zm → z, so p would be
continuous everywhere, and again
p(zm )|fm (zm )| = m.
This would contradict once more our hypothesis (2.1). Thus, K is bounded.
Furthermore, by construction K is closed in Rd and is therefore compact by the

Borel–Lebesgue theorem (Theorem A.26 (b)).
2.3. The space D(Ω)
Let us define the space D(Ω) of test functions 2.
Definition 2.5.– Let Ω be an open subset of Rd . We denote by D(Ω) the vector space
of infinitely differentiable real functions on Ω with compact support, endowed with the
semi-norms, indexed by p ∈ C + (Ω),
p(x)|∂ β ϕ(x)|.
def
kϕkD(Ω);p = sup sup
x∈Ω 0≤|β|≤p(x)
We need to justify that this indeed defines a vector space and semi-norms. To this
end, we will use the following property.
Theorem 2.6.– Let ϕ ∈ D(Ω), where Ω is an open subset of Rd , and β ∈ Nd . Then,

∂ β ϕ ∈ D(Ω),
∂ β ϕ is continuous and is zero ouside of supp ϕ, and supp ∂ β ϕ ⊂ supp ϕ.
2. History of the space D(Ω). Laurent S CHWARTZ gave in 1945 [68, Definition 1, p. 60] Definition 2.5 of
the space of test functions on Rd , which he denoted by Φ at that time, without a topology but instead with
convergent sequences in the sense of Theorem 2.13. In 1950 [69], he endowed it with the inductive limit
topology of the DK (Rd ) and denoted it by (D).
Semi-norms on D(Ω). The semi-norms in Definition 2.5 were introduced by Jacques S IMON in 1996 [80],
see also [L EMOINE & S IMON, 52, p. 32].
In 1950, Laurent S CHWARTZ introduced [69, Chap. III, § 1, p. 65] another family of semi-norms on D(Rd ),
equivalent to this one and therefore generating the same topology. It is less simple, since it is indexed by
two increasing sequences, one of bounded open sets covering Rd and the other of integers.
22 Distributions
Proof. 1. Cancellation. Let K be the support of ϕ. By Definition 2.1 of the support,
Ω \ K = Ω \ {x ∈ Ω : ϕ(x) 6= 0} ∩ Ω = Ω ∩ Rd \ {x ∈ Ω : ϕ(x) 6= 0} .

Thus, Ω \ K is an open set, since every finite intersection of open sets (Theorem A.11)
is, and ϕ is zero on it. Definition 1.16 of the partial derivatives ∂i ϕ then shows that
they are zero there too. By successive partial differentiation, the same is also true of
the ∂ β ϕ, that is,
∂ β ϕ = 0 on Ω \ supp ϕ. (2.3)
2. Support. From (2.3), and again from Definition 2.1 of the support K of ϕ,
{x ∈ Ω : ∂ β ϕ(x) 6= 0} ⊂ K ⊂ {x ∈ Ω : ϕ(x) 6= 0},
thus
supp ∂ β ϕ = {x ∈ Ω : ∂ β ϕ(x) 6= 0E } ∩ Ω ⊂ {x ∈ Ω : ϕ(x) 6= 0} ∩ Ω = supp ϕ.
3. Test function. The function ∂ β ϕ belongs to D(Ω) since it is infinitely differentiable

(because ϕ is) and has a compact support (from Theorem 2.2 (b), because it is included
in that of ϕ which is compact and included in Ω).
4. Continuity. The function ∂ β ϕ is continuous, as is every differentiable function

(Theorem A.54).
Let us now justify the definition of D(Ω).
Justification of Definition 2.5. 1. Vector structure. The addition and multiplication of

functions defined by (1.1), p. 8, makes D(Ω) into a vector space; in particular, because
the support of a sum of two functions with compact support is also compact.
Indeed, if f1 and f2 both have compact support, then each is zero ouside of its
support, so f1 + f2 is zero ouside of the union of their supports, which is compact
(from the Borel–Lebesgue Theorem A.26 (b), since it is closed and bounded). The
support of f1 + f2 is thus compact by Theorem 2.2 (b).
2. Semi-norms. The mapping
ϕ 7→ sup sup p(x)|∂ β ϕ(x)|

x∈Ω |β|≤p(x)
is indeed a semi-norm on D(Ω), since the upper envelope of semi-norms is also a

semi-norm if it is everywhere finite (Theorem A.4). This is the case here, since:
— on one hand, for every x ∈ Ω and β ∈ Nd , the mapping ϕ 7→ p(x)|∂ β ϕ(x)| is a
semi-norm on D(Ω);
— on the other hand, for every ϕ ∈ D(Ω),

sup sup p(x)|∂ β ϕ(x)| ≤ m sup sup |∂ β ϕ(x)| < ∞,
x∈Ω |β|≤p(x) |β|≤m x∈K
where K is the support of ϕ and m is an upper bound of p over K. Indeed, as we

have just seen in Theorem 2.6, the ∂ β ϕ are zero ouside of K, and are continuous
and thus bounded on K as well as p, as is any continuous function on a compact set
(Theorem A.32).
Support of test functions. Due to Theorem 2.2 (a), Definition 2.5 of the set D(Ω) is equivalent to:
def
D(Ω) = {ϕ ∈ C ∞ (Ω) : supp ϕ is a compact subset of Rd included in Ω}.
The condition included in Ω added here is redundant with Definition 2.1 of support. But it needs to be
specified when we use a function ϕ defined on all of Rd as a test function on Ω, and we still denote it by ϕ
in the place of ϕ|Ω . Indeed, in such a case, the compactness of supp ϕ is not sufficient.
Existence of test functions. Let us give an example 3 of an infinitely differentiable function (this is estab-
lished in Volume 2 [82, proof of Theorem 3.19]) in Rd with compact support:
−1
def def
ρ(x) = exp if |x| ≤ 1, ρ(x) = 0 if |x| ≥ 1. (2.4)
1 − |x|2
More generally, D(Ω) does not reduce to the zero function if Ω is non-empty, as then the latter contains a
ball B(a, r) and the function x 7→ ρ(2(x − a)/r) belongs to D(Ω).
Let us prove that D(Ω) is separated.
Theorem 2.7.– The space D(Ω), where Ω is an open subset of Rd , is semi-normed

and separated, and its family of semi-norms is filtering.
Proof. 1. Separated. The space D(Ω) is semi-normed by Definition 2.5. It is sepa-

rated (Definition 1.1) since, if all the semi-norms of ϕ are zero, then ϕ = 0, because
its semi-norm indexed by the constant function p1/2 of value 1/2 equals
1
kϕkD(Ω);p1/2 = 2 sup |ϕ(x)| = 0.
x∈Ω
2. Filtering. The family of semi-norms of D(Ω) is filtering (Definition 1.8) since,

given functions p1 , p2 , . . . , and pn in C + (Ω), their sum p = p1 + · · · + pn belongs to
C + (Ω) and is greater than all the pi , thus
sup kϕkD(Ω);pi ≤ kϕkD(Ω);p .
1≤i≤n
3. History of the construction of a function C ∞ with support in the unit ball. Jean L ERAY introduced
the function ρ defined by (2.4) and proved that it is infinitely differentiable in 1934 [53, Note 1, p. 206].
24 Distributions
Interest of the semi-norms of D(Ω). The family of semi-norms in Definition 2.5 avoids appealing to the
delicate topology of inductive limit of the DK (Ω) introduced by Laurent S CHWARTZ [69, Chap. III, § 1,
p. 64]. Indeed, this family generates the said topology [S IMON, 84], since it is equivalent to the family of
semi-norms that S CHWARTZ considers in [69, p. 65].
Spaces DK (Ω). The spaces DK (Rd ) introduced by Laurent S CHWARTZ coincide algebraically and topo-
logically with the space CK∞ (Rd ) in our Definition 2.3 (a). He denotes it by D , since he used it as a
K
milestone in the construction of D [69, Chap. I, § 2, p. 24, or Chap. III, § 1, p. 64]. We prefer to denote it
by CK∞ (Ω), as we introduce it as a topological subspace of C ∞ (Ω), and not of D(Ω).
b
Another topology on D(Ω). In Volume 2 [82, Definition 2.15 (e)], we introduced the following family of
semi-norms on D(Ω), then denoted by K∞ (Ω), indexed by m ∈ N and p ∈ C + (Ω),
kf kK∞ (Ω);m,p = sup sup p(x)|∂ β f (x)|.
x∈Ω 0≤|β|≤m
(Here, the weight p(x) controls only the value |∂ β f (x)| of the derivatives whereas, in Definition 2.5 of the
semi-norms of D(Ω), it also controls their order by the inequality |β| ≤ p(x).)
These semi-norms define a topology on D(Ω) intermediate between those of D(Ω) and Cb∞ (Ω) since,
for every ϕ ∈ D(Ω), m ∈ N and p ∈ C + (Ω), denoting by mΩ the function of constant value m, we have
1
kϕkC ∞ (Ω);m ≤ kϕkK∞ (Ω);m,mΩ and kϕkK∞ (Ω);m,p ≤ kϕkD(Ω);p+mΩ .
b m
These semi-norms give rise to the same convergent sequences as the semi-norms of D(Ω). Indeed, on this
space, the semi-norms of Cb∞ (Ω) give rise to them as too by Theorem 2.13 (b).
We could therefore replace one family of semi-norms by the other one almost everywhere. However,
the family of D(Ω) facilitates certain proofs. Moreover, it generates the topology of inductive limit of the
DK (Ω) used by Laurent S CHWARTZ, and it makes D(Ω) reflexive, which is not the case of K∞ (Ω).
2.4. Sequential completeness of D(Ω)
Let us show that D(Ω) is sequentially complete 4.
Theorem 2.8.– The space D(Ω), where Ω is an open subset of Rd , is a Neumann

space.
The proof will use the following property.
Theorem 2.9.– The functions of a bounded subset of D(Ω), where Ω is an open

subset of Rd , all have their support in the same compact subset of Ω.
4. History of Theorem 2.8. Laurent S CHWARTZ proved in 1950 [69, chap. III, § 1, Theorem I, p. 66] that
D(Rd ) is complete, which results in sequentially complete.
Proof. Let B be a bounded subset of D(Ω), ϕ ∈ B and p ∈ C + (Ω). Since ∂ 0 ϕ = ϕ,

Definition 2.5 of the semi-norms of D(Ω) and Definition 1.2 of a bounded set give
sup sup p(x)|ϕ(x)| ≤ sup sup sup p(x)|∂ β ϕ(x)| = sup kϕkD(Ω);p < ∞.
ϕ∈B x∈Ω ϕ∈B x∈Ω 0≤|β|≤p(x) ϕ∈B
This holds for every function p of C + (Ω), so that, by Theorem 2.4, all the functions ϕ
of B have their support included in a same compact subset K of Ω.
We can now prove that D(Ω) is sequentially complete.
Proof of Theorem 2.8. 1. Preliminary. Given m ∈ N, Definition 1.19 (b) of the

semi-norms of Cb∞ (Ω) and Definition 2.5 of the semi-norms of D(Ω) give, for every
ϕ ∈ D(Ω),
kϕkCb∞ (Ω);m = sup sup |∂ β ϕ(x)| =

|β|≤m x∈Ω
1 1
= sup sup mΩ (x)|∂ β ϕ(x)| = kϕkD(Ω);mΩ , (2.5)
m x∈Ω |β|≤mΩ (x) m
where mΩ is the constant function with value m.
2. Sequential completeness. Let
(ϕn )n∈N be a Cauchy sequence in D(Ω).
By Definition 1.3 (b) of a Cauchy sequence, equality (2.5) implies that (ϕn )n∈N is
Cauchy in Cb∞ (Ω). Since this one is sequentially complete (Theorem A.53), there is a
limit, say
ϕn → ϕ in Cb∞ (Ω).
The sequence (ϕn )n∈N is bounded in D(Ω), as is every Cauchy sequence (Theo-
rem A.5), and thus, from Theorem 2.9,
all the ϕn have their support in a same compact subset K of Ω.
By Definition 2.1 of the support, the ϕn are zero in Ω \ K. Their limit ϕ is zero too
on this set. Its support is thus compact, as is the case for every function that is zero
ouside of a compact subset of Ω (Theorem 2.2 (b)). Hence,
ϕ ∈ D(Ω).
For every x ∈ Ω and β ∈ Nd , ∂ β ϕn (x) → ∂ β ϕ(x), thus
|∂ β ϕn (x) − ∂ β ϕ(x)| ≤ sup |∂ β ϕn (x) − ∂ β ϕ` (x)|.

`≥n
26 Distributions
Whence, again by Definition 2.5 of the semi-norms of D(Ω), for every p ∈ C + (Ω),
kϕn − ϕkD(Ω);p = sup sup p(x)|∂ β ϕn (x) − ∂ β ϕ(x)| ≤

x∈Ω |β|≤p(x)
≤ sup sup sup p(x)|∂ β ϕn (x) − ∂ β ϕ` (x)| = sup kϕn − ϕ` kD(Ω);p .

`≥n x∈Ω |β|≤p(x) `≥n
The last term tends to 0 when n → ∞, again by Definition 1.3 (b) of a Cauchy
sequence. Hence,
ϕn → ϕ in D(Ω).
This proves that D(Ω) is sequentially complete, that is to say Neumann.
2.5. Comparison of D(Ω) to various spaces
Let us compare D(Ω) to the spaces C ∞ (Ω), Cb∞ (Ω) and CK

∞
(Ω).
Theorem 2.10.– For every open subset Ω of Rd and every compact subset K of Ω,
∞
CK ⊂ Cb∞ (Ω) →
⊂ D(Ω) →
(Ω) → ⊂ C ∞ (Ω).
The proof will use the following inequality, which will also be used later.
Theorem 2.11.– Let p ∈ C + (Ω), where Ω is an open subset of Rd , and K be a

∞
compact subset of Ω. Then, for every ϕ ∈ CK (Ω),
kϕkD(Ω);p ≤ mkϕkCbm (Ω) ,
where m is any integer upper bound of p over K.
Proof of Theorem 2.11. 1. Existence of m. The existence of an upper bound m of p

over K results from the fact that any continuous function is bounded on any compact
set due to Heine’s theorem (Theorem A.32).
∞
2. Inequality. Let ϕ ∈ CK (Ω). Since the ∂ β ϕ are zero ouside of K according to
Theorem 2.6, Definition 2.5 of the semi-norms of D(Ω) gives
kϕkD(Ω);p = sup sup p(x)|∂ β ϕ(x)| ≤ m sup sup |∂ β ϕ(x)|,
x∈Ω |β|≤p(x) |β|≤m x∈K
which is bounded from above, by Definition 1.18 (b) of the semi-norms of Cbm (Ω), by
≤ m sup sup |∂ β ϕ(x)| = m kϕkCbm (Ω) .
|β|≤m x∈Ω
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
of negroes in Puerto Rico, the number being only about 30,000,
for whom some $11,000,000 was paid the owners. That statement
gives a fair idea of the character of the population as
respects numbers and race." Several small adjacent islands are
regarded as belonging to Porto Rico and were included in the
cession to the United States. One of these, named Viequez,
about 15 miles long and 3 or 4 miles wide, is very fertile,
and has about 7,000 inhabitants. On another, called Culebra,
there are some 600 or 700 people. The remaining islands are
smaller and unimportant.
56th Congress, 1st Session,

Senate Document Number 147, pages 1-2.
PORTO RICO:
The government as it was under Spanish rule.
"The civil government of the island was the Governor-General,

and the Governor-General was the civil government. All power
was lodged in his hands and he was accountable only to Madrid.
He was at once the executive, the legislative, and the judicial
head. As Captain-General, he had chief command of the military
forces, and made such disposition of them as he chose; as
Governor-General, he conducted civil affairs, whether insular
or municipal, according to his own pleasure. … If, as
occasionally happened, he was a wise and good man, seeking the
welfare of the people rather than his own personal enrichment
or the advancement of his political friends, there was less
cause for complaint from the people, who were completely
ignored. As the position was one of great power and of large
opportunities for pecuniary profit, it not infrequently went
to those who were prepared to exploit it in their own
interests. …
"The system of autonomy, which was proclaimed November 25,

1897 [see, in this volume, CUBA: A. D. 1897 (NOVEMBER)], was
never fully installed. The war intervened, and the provincial
legislature, which was its most important feature, was
dissolved when Sampson's fleet appeared, and the
Governor-General conducted the government practically on the
old plan, except that the ministry, as provided by the
autonomistic law, was retained, as follows: Secretary of
government or of state, secretary of the treasury, secretary
of the fomento or interior, including public works, public
instruction, public lands, mines, etc., agriculture and
commerce, and secretary of justice and worship. The last three
secretaries were subordinate to the secretary of government,
through whom all orders from the Governor-General and all
communications to or from him must pass. The autonomist law
allowed the secretaries or ministers to be members of one or
the other of the two legislative chambers. The
Governor-General with his council constituted the executive
power. No act of his was valid unless approved by one of the
secretaries, and the secretaries could issue no order which he
had not countersigned. He had the power to convoke or dissolve
the chambers, to refer objectionable bills to Madrid for
approval or disapproval, and to appoint or remove the
secretaries. All matters of a diplomatic character were in his
hands exclusively, and, constituted by the Pope patronato
real, he was the head of the church in the island and
practical director of ecclesiastical affairs. The legislature
consisted of two chambers, the council and the house of
representatives. The council was composed of fourteen members,
eight of whom were elected, and six appointed by the Crown;
the house of representatives of one representative for each
25,000 inhabitants, elected by the people. The liberality of
this law is further indicated by the fact that it gave the
right of suffrage to all males of 25 years of age and over.
The two chambers were empowered to legislate on all insular
questions, such as the estimates, which must be adopted by the
Cortes at Madrid, public instruction, public works,
sanitation, charities, etc. It will be seen that the reforms
granted by this autonomistic decree were large in the letter,
taking powers which the Governor-General had exercised
unquestioned and giving them to the people, who had never been
allowed to participate in the government of their own country.
Whether it would have proved liberal in practical operation is
not so certain. The Government invariably discriminated
against Porto Ricans in favor of Spaniards, and it is also to
be remembered that Spanish laws as written and Spanish laws as
administered are not always identical."
H. K. Carroll (Special Commissioner),

Report on Porto Rico, 1899, pages. 15-16.
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1898 (May).

American bombardment of forts at San Juan.
See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1898 (APRIL-JUNE).
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1898 (July-August).

American conquest of.

A. D. 1898 (JULY-AUGUST: PORTO RICO).
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1898 (July-December).

Suspension of hostilities.
Cession to the United States.

A. D. 1898 (JULY-DECEMBER).
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1898-1899 (August-July).

Popular feeling in the Island on the American occupation.
Welcome to the Stars and Stripes.
Expectations and desires of the people.
Their character.
Extent of illiteracy.
The Peones.
"All classes of natives of the island welcomed the American

Army, American occupation, and American methods, and accepted
without hesitation the Stars and Stripes in place of the red
and yellow bars. They had not been disloyal to the old flag;
but it had come to represent to them, particularly during the
present century, in which a class feeling developed between
the insular and the peninsular Spaniard, partiality and
oppression. In the short war, some of the natives occupying
official positions made demonstrations of loyalty to the Crown
of Spain, as was perfectly natural, but they were among the
first to submit to American rule when the protocol promised
cession of the island to the United States. On the other hand,
as the commissioner is informed, a Porto Rican who had hoped
and prayed for American intervention for fifty years enrolled
himself as a Spanish citizen some months after the war was
concluded, and his hopes had been realized. Porto Ricans
generally complained that the former Government discriminated
in favor of the Spaniard, who, in the distribution of the
offices, was preferred to the native, and who, aided by the
powerful influence of the authorities, prospered in business
as banker, merchant, manufacturer, or agriculturist. They also
insist that the internal improvement of the island was
neglected; that agriculture bore more than its share of the
burden of taxation; that the assessments were very inequitable
and unequal; that education was not fostered, and that in
general the welfare of the people was not the first concern of
their rulers.
{411}
"They expect under American sovereignty that the wrongs of

centuries will be righted; that they will have an honest and
efficient government; the largest measure of liberty as
citizens of the great Republic under the Constitution; home
rule as provided by the Territorial system; free access to the
markets of the United States and no customs duties on goods
coming from our ports; a school system modeled after that of
the United States; the adoption of the English language in due
time and the general adaptation to the island of all those
institutions which have contributed to the prosperity,
progress, and happiness of the American people. The largest
and most representative gathering, since American occupation,
was held in San Juan, October 30, 1898, without distinction of
party or class with the object of consultation and formulation of
a programme for the future. In brief, the propositions of the
congress as submitted to the commissioner for presentation to
the President of the United States were these: Immediate
termination of military and inauguration of civil government;
establishment of the Territorial system, with laws common to
other Territories of the Union; a legislature in two branches;
suffrage for all male citizens of 21 years of age or over, the
right to be surrendered at the end of the first two years by
those who do not then know how to read and write; judicial
reform; introduction of the jury system; autonomy for
municipal governments; taxation on the basis of valuation;
free and reciprocal commerce with the ports of the United
States; aid for agriculture; obligatory and universal
education; trade schools; savings banks. This programme of
reforms seems to have very general support, although there is
a difference of opinion on certain points. Many Porto Ricans
urged the commissioner to represent them as desiring that the
military regime be made as short as possible, not because the
military governors were in any way objectionable or their rule
oppressive, but because the civil status of the island should
be fixed with no unnecessary delay. There was no other opinion
except among foreign subjects, many of whom thought that the
people were not yet ready for self-government, and that the
firm hand of military power would be needed for probably two
years. …
"If the desire to assume the burdens of local self-government
may be taken as indicating some degree of capacity for
self-government, the people of Porto Rico certainly have the
desire. They may be poor, but they are proud and sensitive,
and would be bitterly disappointed if they found that they had
been delivered from an oppressive yoke to be put under a
tutelage which proclaimed their inferiority. Apart from such
qualifications as general education and experience constitute,
the commissioner has no hesitation in affirming that the
people have good claims to be considered capable of
self-government. Education and experience, although too high
a value can hardly be set upon them, do not necessarily make
good citizens. … The unswerving loyalty of Porto Rico to the
Crown of Spain, as demonstrated by the truth of history, is no
small claim to the confidence and trust of the United States.
The people were obedient under circumstances which provoked
revolt after revolt in other Spanish colonies. The habit of
obedience is strong among them. Their respect for law is
another notable characteristic. They are not turbulent or
violent. Riots are almost unknown in the island; so is
organized resistance to law; brigandage flourished only for a
brief period after the war and its object was revenge rather
than rapine. They are not a criminal people. The more violent
crimes are by no means common. Burglary is almost unknown.
There are many cases of homicide, but the number in proportion
to population is not as large as in the United States.
Thievery is the most common crime, and petty cases make up a
large part of this list of offenses. The people as a whole are
a moral, law-abiding class, mild in disposition, easy to
govern, and possess the possibilities of developing a high
type of citizenship."
H. K. Carroll (Special Commissioner),

Report on Porto Rico, 1899, pages 55-57.
"On the 25th day of July, 1899, an election was held in

Adjuntas for municipal officers, and the registration was made
in conformity to General Orders, No. 112, c. s., Headquarters
Department of Puerto Rico. The order imposed the following
qualifications for electors: Men over 21 years old, able to
read and write, or who were taxpayers of record, who had been
actual residents of the island for at least two years, and of
the municipality for six months preceding the date of the
election. The number who proved these qualifications before
the board of registration was 906, out of a population,
according to the census of 1897, of 18,505; that is, less than
5 per cent could vote under the conditions stated. There was
much public interest in this election, and it is believed that
about all who were eligible were registered. This incident
indicated that in the whole island there may be approximately
45,000 who could vote under the conditions of the order above
referred to. The class who can not fulfill these conditions,
say 75 per cent of the males over 21 years of age, are usually
in a state of abject poverty and ignorance, and are assumed to
include one-fifth of the inhabitants. They are of the class
usually called peones. This word in Spanish America, under old
laws, defined a person who owed service to his creditor until
the debt was paid. While those laws are obsolete, the
condition of these poor people remains much as before. So
great is their poverty that they are always in debt to the
proprietors or merchants. They live in huts made of sticks and
poles covered with thatches of palm leaves. A family of a
dozen may be huddled together in one room, often with only a
dirt floor. They have little food worthy of the name and only
the most scanty clothing, while children of less than 7 or 8
years of age are often entirely naked. A few may own a machete
or a hoe, but more have no worldly possessions whatever. Their
food is fruit, and if they are wage-earners, a little rice and
codfish in addition. They are without ambition and see no
incentive to labor beyond the least that will provide the
barest sustenance. All over the island they can be seen to-day
sitting beside their ruined huts, thinking naught of
to-morrow, making no effort to repair and restore their cabins
nor to replant for future food.
{412}
"The remarks of Mr. James Anthony Froude in his work on 'The

English in the West Indies' apply with full force to these
people: 'Morals in the technical sense they have none, but
they can not be said to sin because they have no knowledge of
law, and therefore they can commit no breach of the law. They
are naked and not ashamed. They are married but not parsoned.
The women prefer the looser tie, that they may be able to lose
the man if he treats her unkindly. Yet they are not
licentious. … The system is strange, but it answers. … There
is evil, but there is not the demoralizing effect of evil.
They sin, but they sin only as animals, without shame, because
there is no sense of doing wrong. They eat the forbidden
fruit, but it brings with it no knowledge of the difference
between good and evil. … They are innocently happy in the
unconsciousness of the obligations of morality. They eat,
drink, sleep, and smoke, and do the least in the way of work
they can. They have no ideas of duty, and therefore are not
made uneasy by neglecting it.' Between the negro and the peon
there is no visible difference. It is hard to believe that the
pale, sallow, and often emaciated beings are the descendants
of the conquistadores who carried the flag of Spain to nearly
all of South America, and to one-third of North America."
General George W. Davis,

Report on the Civil Government of Puerto Rico,
September 30, 1899
(Message and Documents: Abridgment, 1899-1900,
volume 2, pages 1293-1294).
"The educated class of Puerto Ricans are as well educated and

accomplished as the educated men of any country. They have had
the benefit of a liberal education, a few in the United
States, a good many in France, and a great many in Madrid and
Habana, where they have passed through the universities. The
lawyers and doctors are all graduates of either the university
in Habana or some university in Spain, with very few exceptions.
The merchants are largely Spanish, many of whom will probably
preserve their nationality under the provision of the Treaty
of Paris which gives them that right. A few may adopt American
citizenship, and ultimately possibly all will, but many of the
merchants who conduct the largest part of the business of
Puerto Rico will retain their Spanish citizenship. There are a
number of merchants who are natives, a few Germans, and a few
English. I do not remember any American merchant in business
there before the occupation. The schools in Puerto Rico
conducted under the Spanish system were few in number. The
amount allotted for education by the insular budget was
something like 300,000 pesos a year, as I now recall the
figures. The teachers were officers of the government, holding
life positions and receiving pensions when superannuated. They
belong to a civil-service class which is not dependent upon
any change of administration, only being removed for cause.
The lawyers, or judges, rather, of the island, occupy a
similar position."

Testimony before Senate Committee.
(56th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Document. No. 147).
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1898-1899 (October-October).

The military government instituted by the United States.
"The government of the island, its various civil institutions,

its codes and its courts, the systems of taxation, etc., have
been modified in very important particulars since the American
occupation began, October 18, 1898. It will be useful, perhaps,
to indicate the more important changes. Under General John R.
Brooke [in command of the Department, October 18 to December
5, 1898] orders were issued declaring
(1) That the political relations of Porto Rico with Spain were
at an end; that provincial and municipal laws were in force in
so far as not incompatible with the changed conditions, and
that they would be enforced substantially as they were before.
(2) Abolishing the use of all stamped paper and stamps of

every kind for documents, public and private.
(3) Exempting all conveyances and contracts from the payment

of royal dues.
(4) Discontinuing the diputacion provincial, and distributing

its duties among the secretaries or ministers.
(5) Directing that appeals should not be sent to the supreme

court in Madrid, but should be heard by the superior court at
San Juan.
(6) Abolishing the subdelegation of pharmacy which gave

degrees to pharmacists.
(7) Making the fisheries free to all.
Appropriations for the support of the church ceased with

American occupation, and the Government lottery was
discontinued.
"Under the military government of General Guy V. Henry

[December 6, 1898 to May 8, 1899], orders were issued:
(l) Appointing military commissions to try cases of arson and

murder which had accumulated in the civil courts.
(2) Closing public offices on Sunday, as far as possible.
(3) Suspending the municipal tax on fresh beef for use of the
Army.
(4) Making Christmas and New Year's holidays.
(5) Forbidding grants or concessions of public or corporate

rights or franchises without the approval of the commanding
general and the Secretary of War.
(6) Abolishing the municipal consumo tax on articles of food,

fuel, and drink, and providing for additional assessments on
the sale of liquors and tobacco.
(7) Separating the collection of customs duties from that of

direct taxes.
(8) Establishing a new system of land taxation, by which

agricultural lands should be taxed according to the several
classes instituted, from 1 peso down to 25 centavos per
cuerda, and levying 50 per cent additional on lands whose
owners reside abroad.
(9) Providing for the free vaccination of the people of the

island.
(10) Prohibiting the exhumation of bodies in the cemeteries,

recognizing the right of priests to control burials in
consecrated grounds, and requiring municipalities to keep
cemeteries in repair.
(11) Reducing notarial fees from $1.88 to $1, from $4.50 to

$1, from $11 to $1, and from $1 to 50 cents, according to
class of document, and canceling others.
(12) Reorganizing the cabinet, so as to make all the

secretaries directly responsible to the governor-general.
(13) Suspending the foreclosure of mortgages on agricultural

property and machinery for one year.
(14) Appointing February 22 a holiday.
(15) Prohibiting the sale of liquor to children under 14 years

of age.
(16) Modifying the civil marriage law.
(17) Declaring that eight hours shall constitute a day's work.
(18) Creating an insular police.
{413}
"Under the military government of General George W. Davis

[May 8, 1899, to May 1, 1900], orders were issued
(1) Modifying the order of
General Henry concerning hours of labor, so as to allow

agreements between employer and employee for longer or shorter
hours.
(2) Naming May 30 as a holiday.
(3) Allowing the writ of habeas corpus to be issued.
(4) Constituting a board of prison control and pardon.
(5) Continuing the observance as a holiday of June 24.
(6) Creating a provisional court on the basis of circuit and

district courts of the United States for the hearing of cases
not falling within the jurisdiction of local insular courts.
(7) Creating a superior board of health for the island.

(8) Reorganizing the bureau of public instruction and the
system of education.
(9) Relieving the judiciary from all control by the department

of justice, discontinuing the office of secretary of justice,
and appointing a solicitor-general.
(10) Abolishing the sale at auction of the privilege of

slaughter of cattle, and making it free.
(11) Reorganizing the judicial system of the island, with a

supreme court in San Juan and district courts in San Juan,
Ponce, Mayaguez, Arecibo, and Humacao, and with modifications
of civil and criminal procedure.
(12) Discontinuing the departments of state, treasury, and

interior, and creating bureaus of state and municipal affairs,
of internal revenue, and of agriculture, to be placed under
the direction of a civil secretary, responsible to the
governor-general, and continuing the bureaus of education and
public works, with an insular board of nine members to advise
the governor-general on matters of public interest referred to
them.
"The reductions in the budget of expenditures have been

extensive. That of 1898-99, adopted in June, 1898, amounted to
$4,781,920, native money. The appropriations for 'general
obligations,' which went to Madrid, $498,502, for the clergy,
$197,945; for the army, $1,252,378; for the navy, $222,668,
making a total of $2,171,493, ceased to be obligations,
leaving $2,610,428 for the fiscal year. A new budget was
adopted for the calendar year 1899, which still further
reduces expenditures, calling only for $1,462,276. This
budget, if carried out, would have involved a reduction from
the proposed budget of 1898-99 of $3,319,644; but a new budget
was formed, as already stated, for 1899-1900, which appears to
call for an increase over this very moderate sum. The revenues
were reduced by the abolition of stamped paper, personal
passports, export duties, royal dues on conveyances, the
lottery system, and other sources of income, amounting, all
told, to less probably than a million of pesos."
H. R. Carroll (Special Commissioner),

Report on Porto Rico, October 6, 1899, pages 53-55.
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1899 (August).

Destructive cyclone.
"On the morning of the 7th of August, 1899, the United States
Weather Bureau, through its branch establishment here,
announced the approach of a cyclonic disturbance, and the
danger signal was ordered to be hoisted at substations of the
Bureau at Ponce and Mayaguez. At the same time I directed that
the danger be reported to all commanding officers of posts
throughout the island. There had been no serious or
destructive storm in Puerto Rico since 1867, and the
inhabitants had ceased to feel great concern on account of
tropical tempests. Except at seaports, little heed was given
to the caution, and in some cases the telegraph operators
failed to receive or to promptly deliver the warning messages.
The vortex of the cyclone appears to have traversed the island
throughout its whole length, from about Humacao to Mayaguez,
and its path was a scene of very great devastation. … The gale
struck the island at Humacao about midnight of August 7, and
furiously blew all the rest of that night and well into the
next day, while at Mayaguez the violence was not great until 9
o'clock on the morning of the 8th. But as the latter town was
under the lee of high mountains, it suffered much less than it
would have done had it been higher or not thus protected. Most
of the habitations in the track of the center of the cyclone
were entirely smashed and the débris strewn all over the
country. The full reports of the loss of life bring the number
of deaths up to 2,700. The wind worked dreadful havoc with nearly
everything useful to man. Besides the mortality, which was
appalling, the material damage was almost beyond belief. But
the greatest loss of life resulted, not from the wind, but
from the terrible downfall of rain that immediately followed.
… Added to the horror of the situation there came with the
gale on the southern coast a tidal wave, which submerged large
areas with sea water and swept away what the wind and rain had
spared, in some places completing the destruction. Every river
bed or bottom of a land depression was a roaring torrent. The
wind uprooted myriads of trees, and the rain, entering and
permeating the soil, loosened it, and on steep declivities
resulted in avalanches of earth, mud, and water, covering wide
areas and piling up the debris in the ravines and gorges. … The
material loss to the coffee growers can as yet only be
estimated, but the most conservative figures received place
this year's crop at one-third of the normal. … Regard being
had to the fact that five years must elapse before the coffee
trees and their shade can be replanted and reach a normal
bearing condition, the total loss can not be safely placed
below 25,000,000 pesos for Puerto Rico on account of this
hurricane."

Report (Message and Documents: Abridgment, 1899-1900,
volume 2, pages 1343-1344).
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1899 (October).

Census of the Island taken under the direction of the
War Department of the United States.
"The population of Porto Rico shown by the schedules of the

present census taken with reference to the date of October 16,
1899, was 953,243. This was about nine-tenths of the
population of Maryland in 1890, the State whose population is
nearest to that of Porto Rico. … If the figures for … earlier
censuses may be accepted, it appears that the population of
Porto Rico has been growing through the last twelve years with
greater rapidity than before since 1860. Its present rate of
increase is about the same as that of Ohio, Tennessee, or the
Carolinas during the decade between 1880 and 1890. … It
appears that the average increase of population in the
interior has been more rapid than that on the coast. If the
figures for the coast cities of San Juan, Ponce, and Mayaguez
had been excluded, the difference would be yet more marked.
The depressed condition of sugar-cane growing in the West
Indies of recent years may have played an important part in
producing this difference, for the growing of sugar cane is
prevalent in the coast plains of Porto Rico.
{414}
"The area of Porto Rico, including the adjacent and dependent

islands of Vieques, Culebra, Mona, and Muertos, has been
measured in connection with this census and found to be 3,606
square miles. But owing to the imperfect surveys on which all
maps of Porto Rico are based there must be a considerable and
indeterminate margin of possible error in any such
measurement. The island is about three times the size of Long
Island, which was in 1890 perhaps the largest insular division
of the United States. It is also slightly greater than the
eastern shore of Maryland (3,461 square miles). … Porto Rico
has 264 persons to a square mile. This density of population
is about the same as in Massachusetts, twice that in New York
State, and thrice that in Ohio. It is more than seven times
that of Cuba and not much less than twice that of Habana
province. …
"The people of Porto Rico are, in the main, a rural community.

There are no large cities in the island, the two largest being
San Juan, which, regarding the entire municipal district as a
city, had a population of 32,048, and Ponce, which with its
port constituted practically one city, with a population of
27,952. These are the only two cities exceeding 25,000
inhabitants. The next city of magnitude is Mayaguez, on the
west coast, with a population of 15,187. The only other city
exceeding 8,000 inhabitants is Arecibo, with a population of
8,008. The total urban population of the island contained in
cities exceeding 8,000 inhabitants each is 83,195, or only 8.7
per cent of the population of the island. This is a much
smaller proportion than in Cuba, where the corresponding
figures are 32.3 per cent, or in the United States, where the
corresponding proportion in 1890 was 29.2 per cent. There are
in Porto Rico 57 cities, each having a population of 1,000 or
more. The total urban population of the island, under this
definition, numbers 203,792, or 21.4 per cent of the total
number of inhabitants of the island. Similar figures for Cuba
show 47.1 per cent of the population of that island."
Census of Porto Rico, Bulletin No.1.
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1899-1900.

The question of the tariff treatment of its new Territory
by the United States Government.
Writing in "The Forum," November, 1899, Mr. H. K. Carroll, who

had investigated the conditions in Porto Rico as a Special
Commissioner of the United States government, described the
obligation which, in his view, they imposed on the latter as
follows: "The only free market the Puertorican has for his
products is the island market. All the rest of the world is
closed to him. He cannot even buy in a free market; everything
he buys as well as everything he sells being subject to
duties. This is the penalty of independence; but Puerto Rico
is not, and does not want to be, independent. She wants such
commercial relations with us as Alaska, New Mexico, and
Arizona have, and desires a territorial form of government. I
am of the opinion that we cannot refuse these reasonable
requests without doing great injustice to Puerto Rico. It must
be remembered that we sought Puerto Rico; for Puerto Rico did
not seek us. We wrested her from the sovereignty of Spain,
without asking her if she desired to change her allegiance. We
were of the opinion that she was not justly treated by Spain;
that she was governed in the interests of the mother country
solely; that she was oppressed and overtaxed and denied a
proper measure of home rule; and that in consequence we were
serving the cause of humanity in breaking the chains that
bound her. This was what the Puertoricans thought also. They
welcomed our troops and our control. They were glad to turn
their backs on the history of the past, and begin under the
glorious Republic of the North a new and more prosperous
career. They are disappointed, perhaps unreasonably, that
their new life has not already begun; they are eagerly
expectant. They look to the President to recommend, and to
Congress to adopt, a system of government which will make the
island a Territory, equal in rank and rights and privileges to
existing Territories. They ought not to be disappointed
without the best and strongest of reasons. Three reasons are
mentioned in opposition to the granting of territorial
government to Puerto Rico. First, admission as a Territory
implies ultimate admission to statehood; and statehood for
islands separated as Hawaii and Puerto Rico are by from 1,200
to 2,500 miles from the United States is not to be thought of
for a moment. Second, territorial organization involves the
relinquishment of customs duties; and the cane and tobacco
growers of our West India possession would have free access to
the markets of the United States, and thus come into injurious
competition with our own farmers. Third, the people of Puerto
Rico are not competent for the measure of self-government
which the territorial system provides."
This most reasonable and just view of the duty of the American
people to their new fellow citizens received strong
endorsement from higher official authority in the subsequent
annual report of the Secretary of War, who said: "It is plain
that it is essential to the prosperity of the island that she
should receive substantially the same treatment at our hands
as she received from Spain while a Spanish colony, and that
the markets of the United States should be opened to her as
were the markets of Spain and Cuba before the transfer of
allegiance. Congress has the legal right to regulate the
customs duties between the United States and Porto Rico as it
pleases; but the highest considerations of justice and good
faith demand that we should not disappoint the confident
expectation of sharing in our prosperity with which the people
of Porto Rico so gladly transferred their allegiance to the
United States, and that we should treat the interests of this
people as our own; and I wish most strongly to urge that the
customs duties between Porto Rico and the United States be
removed."
Message and Documents:

Abridgment, 1899-1900, volume 2, page 757.
And, finally, the President of the United States, in his

Message to Congress, December 5, 1899, gave his high authority
to the declaration that this duty of his government to Porto
Rico was "plain": "It must be borne in mind," he said, "that
since the cession Porto Rico has been denied the principal
markets she had long enjoyed and our tariffs have been
continued against her products as when she was under Spanish
sovereignty. The markets of Spain are closed to her products
except upon terms to which the commerce of all nations is
subjected. The island of Cuba, which used to buy her cattle
and tobacco without customs duties, now imposes the same
duties upon these products as from any other country entering
her ports.
{415}
She has therefore lost her free intercourse with Spain and
Cuba, without any compensating benefits in this market. Her
coffee was little known and not in use by our people, and
therefore there was no demand here for this, one of her chief
products. The markets of the United States should be opened up
to her products. Our plain duty is to abolish all customs
tariffs between the United States and Porto Rico and give her
products free access to our markets."
Message and Documents: Abridgment,
volume 1, page 53.
Notwithstanding all which high official acknowledgments and

declarations of obligation and duty, on the part of the
Republic of the United States to the people of the island
which it had wrested from Spain, certain interests in the
former that objected to competition from the latter were able
to secure legislation which deferred the performance of the
"plain duty" required. An Act of Congress which the President
approved on the 12th of April, 1900, "temporarily to provide
revenues and a civil government for Porto Rico and for other
purposes," enacted as follows:
"SECTION 3.
That on and after the passage of this Act all merchandise
coming into the United States from Porto Rico and coming into
Porto Rico from the United States shall be entered at the
several ports of entry upon payment of fifteen per centum of
the duties which are required to be levied, collected, and
paid upon like articles of merchandise imported from foreign
countries; and in addition thereto upon articles of
merchandise of Porto Rican manufacture coming into the United
States and withdrawn for consumption or sale upon payment of a
tax equal to the internal-revenue tax imposed in the United
States upon the like articles of merchandise of domestic
manufacture; such tax to be paid by internal-revenue stamp or
stamps to be purchased and provided by the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue and to be procured from the collector of
internal revenue at or most convenient to the port of entry of
said merchandise in the United States, and to be affixed under
such regulations as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with
the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall
prescribe; and on all articles of merchandise of United States
manufacture coming into Porto Rico in addition to the duty
above provided upon payment of a tax equal in rate and amount
to the internal-revenue tax imposed in Porto Rico upon the

Distributions Volume 3 1St Edition Jacques Simon Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Distributions Volume 3 1St Edition Jacques Simon Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Distributions, Volume 3 1st Edition

For his Theory of Distributions, obviously,

The clarity of Schwartz’s analysis classes at the École

When master’s students at the university demanded

“An examination given to all, without any value, would

ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

© ISTE Ltd 2022

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022936452

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Chapter 1. Semi-Normed Spaces and Function Spaces . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 2. Space of Test Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter 3. Space of Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.4. The case where E is not a Neumann space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Chapter 4. Extraction of Convergent Subsequences . . . . . . . . . . 65

Chapter 5. Operations on Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Chapter 6. Restriction, Gluing and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Chapter 7. Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

7.9. Miscellanous properties of weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Chapter 8. Regularization and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Chapter 9. Potentials and Singular Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Chapter 10. Line Integral of a Continuous Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Chapter 11. Primitives of Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

Chapter 12. Properties of Primitives of Distributions . . . . . . . . . . 247

Chapter 13. Existence of Primitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Chapter 14. Distributions of Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

Chapter 15. Separation of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

Chapter 16. Banach Space Valued Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

Volume 1: Banach, Frechet, Hilbert and Neumann Spaces

This has led us to choose an unconventional approach that prioritizes semi-norms

Utility of distributions. The main advantage of distributions is that they provide

These properties may be roughly summarized by saying that the space D0 of

Vector values. We consider distributions with values in a general Neumann space E

D0 ((0, T ); E) where E = D0 (Ω), which is itself a Neumann space. This identification

A list of the most useful Neumann spaces is given on page 43.

Semi-norms. We use families of semi-norms rather than locally convex topologies,

The handling of semi-normed spaces is simple, although it is less familiar than

kϕkD(Ω);p = supx∈Ω, |β|≤p(x) p(x)|∂ β ϕ(x)| indexed by p ∈ C + (Ω), which is much

Open domain and weighting. We consider distributions defined on an open subset Ω

The weighted distribution f  µ of a distribution f , defined on an open set Ω, by a

Primitives. We show that a field of distributions q = (q1 , . . . , qd ) has a primitive f ,

We also demonstrate that when Ω is simply connected it is necessary and sufficient

Separation of variables. We show that the separation of variables is bijective from

Integration. The integration of continuous functions

Navigating this book.

Acknowledgements. I am particularly grateful to Enrique F ERN ÁNDEZ -C ARA who

O PERATIONS ON A DISTRIBUTION ( OR A FUNCTION ) f

D ERIVATIVES OF A DISTRIBUTION ( OR OF A FUNCTION ) f

I NTEGRALS OF FUNCTIONS AND PATHS

S EPARATED SEMI - NORMED SPACES

E separated semi-normed space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

S UBSETS AND MAPPINGS OF SEMI - NORMED SPACES

Ů interior of a subset U of a semi-normed space . . . . . . . . . . 351

P OINTS AND SUBSETS OF Rd

Rd Euclidean space: Rd = {x = (x1 , . . . , xd ) : ∀i, xi ∈ R} . . . . . . 354

S PECIFIC FUNCTIONS AND DISTRIBUTIONS

In this chapter, we provide definitions for the following essential notions.

1.1. Semi-normed spaces

Definition 1.1.– A semi-normed space is a vector space E endowed with a family of

Any such space is said to be separated (or Hausdorff) if u = 0E is the only

A normed space is a vector space E endowed with a norm k kE .

Let us define bounded subsets 2 of a separated semi-normed space.

Definition 1.2.– Let U be a subset of a separated semi-normed space E, whose family

Let us define convergent and Cauchy sequences 3 in a semi-normed space.

The weighted distribution f µ of a distribution f , defined on an open set Ω, by a

v ∈ X, sup kv − ukF ;µ ≤ η ⇒ kT (v) − T (u)kE;ν ≤ .

u ∈ X, v ∈ X, sup kv − ukF ;µ ≤ η ⇒ kT (v) − T (u)kE;ν ≤ .

kf (x + tei ) − f (x) − t∂i f (x)kE;ν ≤ |t|. (1.5)