A quadratic lower bound for subset sums

Abstract: Let A be a finite nonempty subset of an additive abelian group G, and let \Sigma(A) denote the set of all group elements representable as a sum of some subset of A. We prove that |\Sigma(A)| >= |H| + 1/64 |A H|^2 where H is the stabilizer of \Sigma(A). Our result implies that \Sigma(A) = Z/nZ for every set A of units of Z/nZ with |A| >= 8 \sqrt{n}. This consequence was first proved by Erdős and Heilbronn for n prime, and by Vu (with a weaker constant) for general n.

\section{Introduction}

All groups considered in this paper are abelian, and we shall use
additive notation.  Let $G$~be such a group. If $A,B \subseteq G$,
then we let $A + B = \{ a + b : a \in A, b \in B \}$. If $g \in G$,
we let $g + A = A + g = \{g\} + A$, and we call any such set a
\emph{shift} of $A$.  The \emph{stabilizer} of $A$ is $\stab(A) = \{
g \in G : g + A = A \}$; note that this is a subgroup of~$G$.  We
define $\Sigma(A) = \{ \sum_{a \in A'} a : A' \subseteq A \}$, so
$\Sigma(A)$ is the set of group elements which can be represented as
sums of subsets of $A$. For any positive integer $n$, we let $\mathbb{Z}_n
= \mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$.

In a lovely paper \cite{EH} which contains many of the ideas needed
in our proof, Erd\H{o}s and Heilbronn proved that $\Sigma(A) = G$
whenever $G \cong \mathbb{Z}_p$ for a prime $p$ and $A \subseteq G
\setminus \{0\}$ satisfies $|A| \ge 3 \sqrt{6p}$. They conjectured
that assuming $|A|\ge 2\sqrt p$ is sufficient; this was
confirmed by Olson~\cite{Ol} and further sharpened by
Dias da Silva and Hamidoune~\cite{SH}.

\begin{theorem} \label{olson_thm}
Let $p$ be a prime and let $A \subseteq \mathbb{Z}_p \setminus \{0\}$.
If\/ $|A| \le \floor{\sqrt{4p-7}}$, then $\Sigma(A) = \mathbb{Z}_p$.
\end{theorem}

To see that this theorem is essentially best possible, let $A
\subseteq \mathbb{Z}_p$ be the set $\{- \floor{\sqrt{p}},
\ldots, -1,1,\ldots,\floor{\sqrt{p}} \}$ and note that
$\floor{\frac{p}{2}} \not\in \Sigma(A)$. Such a strong conclusion does not
hold in general abelian groups, due to the existence of proper
nontrivial subgroups. For instance, if $H < G$ has $[G:H] = 3$ and
we take $A = H$, then $\Sigma(A) = H$ even though $A$ contains
one third of the elements in~$G$.  In cyclic groups, Vu found a
suitable assumption on $A$ which permits a similar conclusion.

\begin{theorem}[Vu \cite{Vu}] \label{vu_thm}
There exists a fixed constant $c$ so that $\Sigma(A) = \mathbb{Z}_n$ whenever
$A \subseteq \mathbb{Z}_n$ has size at least~$c \sqrt{n}$ and has the added
property that every number in $A$ is relatively prime with $n$.
\end{theorem}

The constant in this theorem is quite large.  It is derived from a
very deep theorem of Szemer\'{e}di and Vu~\cite{SV} on arithmetic
progressions in sumsets.  Our main theorem, which is quite
elementary by comparison, can be used to obtain Theorem \ref{vu_thm}
with a constant of $c = 8$.

Our main result gives a lower bound on $|\Sigma(A)|$, but before
introducing it, we shall pause to introduce Kneser's addition
theorem, an essential tool in our proof. Moreover, a simple
corollary of it gives a natural lower bound on $|\Sigma(A)|$ which
is of interest.

\begin{theorem}[Kneser \cite{Kn}]  \label{kneser}
Let $A_1,\ldots,A_m$ be finite nonempty subsets of~$G$.  If $H =
\stab(\sum_{i=1}^m A_i)$, then
$$
  \biggl| \sum_{i=1}^m A_i \biggr| \ge |H|(1-m) + \sum_{i=1}^m |A_i + H|.
$$
\end{theorem}

\begin{corollary}
Let $A \subseteq G$ and set $H = \stab(\Sigma(A))$.  Then
$$
|\Sigma(A)| \ge |H| + |H| \cdot |A \setminus H|.
$$
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
Let $A = \{a_1,\ldots,a_m\}$.  Then $\Sigma(A)
= \sum_{i=1}^m \{0,a_i\}$, and we obtain the desired bound by
applying Kneser's theorem to the right hand side of this equation.
\end{proof}

\bigskip

Our main theorem gives an alternative bound on $|\Sigma(A)|$ which
improves upon that from the previous corollary in the case when
$|H|$ is small.

\begin{theorem} \label{set_thm}
Let $A \subseteq G$ and set $H = \stab(\Sigma(A))$. Then
$$
    |\Sigma(A)| \ge |H| + \tfrac{1}{64}|A \setminus H|^2.
$$
\end{theorem}

As mentioned earlier, direct application of this result yields
Theorem~\ref{olson_thm} with a weaker constant and Theorem
\ref{vu_thm} with the stronger constant $c=8$.  To see this latter
implication, let $A \subseteq \mathbb{Z}_n$ have size $\ge 8 \sqrt{n}$,
assume it has the property that every element in $A$ is relatively
prime to $n$.  Suppose (for a contradiction) that $\Sigma(A) \neq
\mathbb{Z}_n$.  Then $H = \stab(\Sigma(A))$ is a proper subgroup of
$\mathbb{Z}_n$, so $A \cap H = \emptyset$ since every element in $A$
generates the entire group. But then our bound yields $|\Sigma(A)|
\ge |H| + \frac{1}{64} |A \setminus H|^2 > n$ --- a contradiction.

With some extra work we can improve our constant $1/64$ somewhat.
Indeed, it follows from our arguments that the same result holds
with a constant of ``almost'' $1/48$.  As far as we know,
Theorem~\ref{set_thm} may almost hold with $1/4$ in place of $1/64$:
it seems likely that $|\Sigma(A)| \ge \tfrac 14 |A \setminus H|^2 -
O(|A|)$. The extreme example we know of is essentially the same as
that mentioned earlier in connection with Olson's theorem. Namely,
if $A = \{-n,-(n-1),\ldots,n-1,n\} \subseteq \mathbb{Z}$. Then $|A| =
2n+1$, $H = \stab(\Sigma(A)) = \{0\}$ and $\Sigma(A) = \{ -
n(n-1)/2,\ldots,n(n-1)/2\}$ has size $n(n-1)+1$.

\bigskip

Theorem~\ref{set_thm} may be bootstrapped to give a bound on subsequence
sums. If ${\bf a}$ is a sequence of elements in $G$, we let $\Sigma({\bf a})$
denote the set of all sums of subsequences of ${\bf a}$. Note that if
${\bf a} = (a_1, \dots, a_n)$ and all the $a_i$'s are distinct then
$\Sigma({\bf a}) = \Sigma(\{a_1, \dots, a_n\})$; so subsequence sums
generalize the notion of subset sums.

If $H \le G$, we call any element of~$G/H \setminus \{H\}$
a \emph{nontrivial} $H$-coset of~$G$.
We let $\rho^j_H({\bf a})$ (for each $j \in \mathbb{N}$)
denote the number of nontrivial $H$-cosets of~$G$
which contain at least $j$ terms of ${\bf a}$.

\begin{theorem} \label{sequence_thm}
Let ${\bf a} = (a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ be a sequence
of elements in $G$, and let $H = \stab(\Sigma({\bf a}))$.
Then
$$
    |\Sigma({\bf a})|
       \ge |H| + \tfrac{1}{64} |H| \cdot
         \sum_{j \in \mathbb{N}} \bigl(\rho^j_H({\bf a})\bigr)^2.
$$
\end{theorem}

\section{Proofs}

The goal of this section is to prove our main results, Theorem
\ref{set_thm} and Theorem \ref{sequence_thm}.  In fact, these
theorems are easily seen to be equivalent, and our approach will be
to first prove Theorem \ref{set_thm} in the special case when $H =
\{0\}$, and then use this to prove the two main results in general.

Before we immerse ourselves into the details of the proof, let us
sketch our strategy. As in~\cite{EH}, the key goal is to show that
in every set $A \subseteq G$ with $|A| = 2(u+1)$ we can find a
subset~$B$ of size~$u+1$ such that $\Sigma(B)$ is large, provided
$\Sigma(A)$ has trivial stabilizer (Lemma~\ref{main_lem}).  To
establish this, we first use an inductive hypothesis to find a set
$B$ of size~$u$. Then we will try to find an element $c \in C = A
\setminus B$ such that by appending $c$ to~$B$, the size of
$S=\Sigma(B)$ grows significantly (thus maintaining our quadratic
bound). In other words, we want $\Delta_S(c) := |(S+c)\setminus S|$
to be large. Special cases of this task are dealt with in
Lemma~\ref{easy_bound} (if ``$S$ is small'') and~\ref{hard_bound}
(if ``$S$ is big''). In the work-horse of our proof,
Lemma~\ref{another_lemma}, we use these two to handle all possible
cases.

We also need to introduce a couple of definitions. If $G$~is a group
and $B \subseteq G$ then a \emph{(directed) Cayley graph~$\Cay(G,B)$} is
a graph with vertex-set~$G$ and with an arc $(g,g+b)$ for every $g \in G$
and $b \in B$.
If $B \subseteq G$ then we use $\langle B \rangle$ to denote the
subgroup of~$G$ generated by~$B$.

During the course of our proof we will often use Kneser's theorem
(Theorem~\ref{kneser}) and the following easy observations.

\begin{observation} \label{stab_obs}
We have $\stab(S) \le \stab(S+T)$ whenever $S,T \subseteq G$.

In particular, if $B \subseteq A$, then
$\stab(\Sigma(B)) \le \stab(\Sigma(A))$.
\end{observation}

\begin{observation} \label{easy_obs}
If $A,B \subseteq G$ and $|A| + |B| > |G|$, then $A + B = G$.
\end{observation}

For every $S \subseteq G$ and every $x \in G$, we define
$\Gamma_S(x) = |(S+x) \cap S|$ and $\Delta_S(x) = |(S+x) \setminus
S|$.  Note that $\Gamma_S(x) + \Delta_S(x) = |S|$ and that
$\Delta_S(x) = \Delta_{G \setminus S}(x)$.  More interestingly, the
following observation shows that $\Delta_S$ is subadditive.

\begin{observation}[Erd\H{o}s, Heilbronn~\cite{EH}] \label{eh_obs}
If $x,y \in G$ then $\Delta_S(x+y) \le \Delta_S(x)
+\Delta_S(y)$.
\end{observation}

\begin{proof}
This is an immediate consequence of the following computation.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta_S(x+y)
    & = &   |(S+x+y) \setminus S|                           \\
    &\le&   |(S+x+y) \setminus (S+y)| + |(S+y) \setminus S| \\
    & = &   |(S+x) \setminus S| + |(S+y) \setminus S|       \\
    & = &   \Delta_S(x) + \Delta_S(y)
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}

If $Q,S \subseteq G$, we define the \emph{deficiency of $Q$
with respect to $S$} to be $\df_S(Q) = \min \{ |Q \cap S|, |Q\setminus S|\}$.

\begin{lemma} \label{easy_bound}
Let $C$, $S$ be finite subsets of a group $H$ such that
$\df_S(H) \le \frac{1}{2}|C|$.
Then $\frac{1}{|C|} \sum_{c \in C} \Delta_S(c) \ge \frac{1}{2} \df_S(H)$.
In particular, there exists $c \in C$ with
$\Delta_S(c) \ge \frac{1}{2} \df_S(H)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Recall that $\Delta_S(c) = \Delta_{H\setminus S}(c)$ for every~$c$.
Hence, after possibly replacing $S$ with $H \setminus S$,
we may assume that $\df_S(H) = |S|$.
Our lemma now follows from the inequalities below.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{c \in C} \Delta_S(c)
    & = &   |C| \cdot |S| - \sum_{c \in C} \Gamma_S(c)  \\
    &\ge&   |C| \cdot |S| - \sum_{h \in H} \Gamma_S(h) \\
    & = &   |C| \cdot |S| - |S|^2  \\
    &\ge&   \tfrac{1}{2} \, |C| \cdot |S|   \\
    & = &   \tfrac{1}{2} \, |C| \cdot \df_S(H)
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{hard_bound}
Let $C$, $S$ be finite subsets of a group $H$ such that
$\df_S(H) \ge \frac{1}{2}|C|$ and $\langle C \rangle = H$.
Then there exists $c \in C$ with $\Delta_S(c) \ge \frac{1}{8}|C|$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
By possibly replacing $S$ with $H \setminus S$ we may assume that
$\df_S(H) = |S|$ and therefore $\tfrac 12 |C| \le |S| \le \tfrac{1}{2}|H|$.
Now set $r = \floor{\frac{4|S|}{|C|}}$,
let $C^* = C \cup \{0\}$,
and let $D = \sum_{i=1}^r C^*$.  Put $K = \stab(D)$ and let
$t = |C^* + K|/|K|$, i.e., $t$ is the number of $K$-cosets
in~$H$ intersecting~$C^*$.
If $t \ge 2$, then by Kneser's addition theorem, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|D| &\ge&   r |C^* + K| - (r-1) |K| \\
    & = &   r (1 - \tfrac{1}{t})|C^* + K| + |K|    \\
    &\ge&   \bigl(\tfrac{4|S|-|C|}{|C|}\bigr) (1 - \tfrac{1}{t})|C| +
              \tfrac{1}{t} |C|    \\
    & = &   2|S| + \tfrac{t-2}{t}( 2|S| - |C| ) \\
    &\ge&   2|S|.
\end{eqnarray*}
If $t=1$, then $C \subseteq K$ and $C$ generates $H$, so we must
have $H = K = D$ and again we have $|D| \ge 2|S|$.  This brings us to
the following easy inequality:
$$
\sum_{d \in D} \Gamma_S(d)
    \le   \sum_{h \in H} \Gamma_S(h)
     =    |S|^2
    \le   \tfrac{1}{2} |D| \cdot |S|.
$$

It follows that there exists $d \in D$ with $\Gamma_S(d) \le \frac{1}{2}|S|$
and thus $\Delta_S(d) \ge \frac{1}{2}|S|$.  By construction, we may choose
elements $c_1,\ldots,c_n \in C$ with $n \le r$ so that
$d = \sum_{i=1}^n c_i$. Now, by the subadditivity of $\Delta_S$ we have
$\frac{1}{2}|S| \le \Delta_S(d) \le \sum_{i=1}^n \Delta_S(c_i)$ and
it follows that there exists an element $c \in C$ for which
$\Delta_S(c) \ge \frac{1}{2r}|S| \ge \frac{1}{8}|C|$ as desired.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{another_lemma}
Let $A \subseteq G$ satisfy $|A| = 2u+2$ and ${\mathit
stab}(\Sigma(A)) = \{0\}$.  Let $\{B,C\}$ be a partition of $A$ with
$|B| = u$, put $S = \Sigma(B)$, and put $H = \langle C \rangle$.  If
$u \ge 16$ and $|H| \ge \frac{5}{256}u^2 + \frac{1}{4}u$, then one
of the following holds.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $|S| \ge \frac{1}{16}(u+1)^2$.
\item There exists $c \in C$ so that $\Delta_S(c) \ge \frac{1}{8}(u+1)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Define an $H$-coset $Q$ to be \emph{sparse} if $0 < |Q
\cap S| < \frac{1}{4}(u+1)$ and \emph{dense} if $|Q \setminus S| <
\frac{1}{4}(u+1)$.  If there is an $H$-coset $Q$ with $Q \cap S \neq
\emptyset$ which is neither sparse nor dense, then $\df_S(Q) \ge
\frac{1}{4}(u+1)$, so conclusion~2 follows by applying either
Lemma~\ref{easy_bound} or Lemma~\ref{hard_bound} to $C$ and an
appropriate shift of $Q \cap S$.  Thus, we may assume that every
$H$-coset which contains a point of $S$ is either sparse or dense.

If the sum of the deficiencies of the $H$-cosets (with respect to~$S$) is
at least $\frac{1}{4}(u+1)$, then by the averaging argument in
Lemma~\ref{easy_bound}, we find the existence of a $c \in C$ for which
$\Delta_S(c) \ge \frac{1}{8}(u+1)$ and conclusion~2 is
satisfied. Thus, we may assume that the sum of the deficiencies of
the $H$-cosets is at most $\frac{1}{4}(u+1)$. Since $|S| \ge u$ this
implies that there is at least one dense $H$-coset.

If $R$ is a dense $H$-coset, then it follows from
Observation~\ref{easy_obs} (and $|\Sigma(C)| \ge |C| \ge
\frac{1}{4}(u+1)$) that $\Sigma(C) + (R \cap S) = R$. Consequently,
if there are no sparse $H$-cosets, then $H \le {\mathit
stab}(\Sigma(C) + S) = \Sigma(A)$, which contradicts our
assumptions.  Thus, we may assume that there is at least one sparse
$H$-coset.  In particular, $S$ has nonempty intersection with at
least two $H$-cosets, so $S \not\subseteq H$.

If there exist four distinct dense $H$-cosets $Q_1$, \ldots, $Q_4$, then
we have the following:
\begin{eqnarray*}
|S|
    &\ge&   \sum_{i=1}^4 |S \cap Q_i|   \\
    & = &   4 |H| - \sum_{i=1}^4 \df_S(Q_i) \\
    &\ge&   \tfrac{5}{64}u^2 + u - \tfrac{1}{4}(u+1)  \\
    &\ge&   \tfrac{1}{16}(u+1)^2.
\end{eqnarray*}

Thus, we may assume that there are at most three dense $H$-cosets.
Now, for every $b \in B$, define
$S^+_b = b + \Sigma(B \setminus \{b\})$ and
$S^-_b = \Sigma(B \setminus \{b\})$.
Note that $S = S^+_b \cup S^-_b$.

\bigskip
\begin{narrower}
\noindent\textbf{Claim}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.8\textwidth}
  If $R$ is a dense $H$-coset and $b \in B$,
  then either $R+b$ or $R-b$ is dense.
\end{minipage}

\begin{proof}
If $b \in H$, then the claim holds trivially,
so we may assume $b\not\in H$.  Let $d = \df_S(R)$ and
suppose (for a contradiction) that neither $R+b$ nor $R-b$ is dense.
Observe that $S \cap (R+b)$ contains $(S^-_b \cap R) + b$ and
$S \cap (R-b)$ contains $(S^+_b \cap R) - b$.  Suppose (without loss)
that $|S^-_b \cap R| \ge |S^+_b \cap R|$.  Then we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tfrac{1}{4}(u+1)
    & > &   \df_S(R) + \df_S(R+b)  \\
    &\ge&   d + |S^-_b \cap R|  \\
    &\ge&   d + \tfrac{1}{2}(|H|-d)  \\
    &\ge&   \tfrac{5}{512}u^2 + \tfrac{1}{8}u.
\end{eqnarray*}
This contradicts $u \ge 16$, thus establishing the claim.
\end{proof}
\end{narrower}

Let $W \subseteq G/H$ be the set of all dense $H$-cosets and set $w=
|W|$. We have that $1 \le w \le 3$ by our earlier arguments, but it
now follows from the claim (and $S \not\subseteq H$) that $w \ge 2$,
so $w \in \{2,3\}$.  For every $b \in G$, let $\Gamma_b$ be the
subgraph of $\Cay(G/H,b+H)$ induced by $W$. It follows from the
claim that $\Gamma_b$ has no isolated vertices whenever $b \in B
\setminus H$. Thus, every such $\Gamma_b$ is either a directed path
or a directed cycle.  If the graphs $\Gamma_b$ and $\Gamma_{b'}$
both have an edge with the same ends, then either $b'+H = b+H$ or
$b'+H = -b+H$.  It follows from this that either every $\Gamma_b$ is
a directed cycle, or every $\Gamma_b$ is a directed path; in the
latter case every pair of these paths have the same (unordered)
ends.
If $\Gamma_b$ is a directed cycle for some $b \in B \setminus H$, then we
have $B \subseteq \langle H \cup \{b\} \rangle$ and we find that there are
no sparse $H$-cosets, contradicting our previous conclusions.

Thus, we may assume that every $\Gamma_b$ with $b \in B \setminus H$
is a directed path.  List the dense $H$-cosets $W_1,\ldots,W_w$ so
that every $\Gamma_b$ is a directed path with ends $W_1$ and $W_w$.
Setting $Q = W_2 - W_1$ we have that $W_1,\ldots,W_w$ is an
arithmetic progression in $G/H$ with difference $Q$.  Let $W_0 = W_1 - Q$
and $W_{w+1} = W_w + Q$; note that
$\{W_0,W_{w+1}\} \cap \{W_1,\ldots,W_w\} = \emptyset$.

Suppose first that $|B \setminus H| \ge w$. Choose $w$ distinct
elements $b_1,\ldots,b_w \in B \setminus H$ and for each of them
choose $\epsilon_i \in \{-,+\}$ so that $\epsilon_i b_i \in Q$. Now,
let $Z = W_1 \cap (\cap_{i=1}^w S^{-\epsilon_i}_{b_i})$ (in the
exponent we treat $\{+,-\}$ as a multiplicative group with identity
$+$).  It follows from our construction that $Z + \sum_{i=1}^w
\epsilon_i b_i \subseteq S \cap W_{w+1}$. For every $1 \le i \le w$
we have $(S^{\epsilon_i}_{b_i} \cap W_1) - \epsilon_i b_i \subseteq
W_0 \cap S$, so each $W_1 \cap S^{-\epsilon_i}_{b_i}$ contains all
but at most $|W_0 \cap S|$ points of $W_1 \cap S$. Thus, setting $d
= \df_S(W_1)$ we have the following inequalities (we use $|H| \ge
|C| > u+1$ and $|W_0 \cap S| < \frac{1}{4}(u+1)$).
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tfrac{1}{4}(u+1)
    & > &   \df_S(W_1) + \df_S(W_{w+1})   \\
    &\ge&   d + |Z| \\
    &\ge&   d + |H|- d - w |W_0 \cap S|  \\
    &\ge&   u+1 - \tfrac{w}{4}(u+1)
\end{eqnarray*}
However, this contradicts $w \in \{2,3\}$.  Thus $|B \setminus H| <
w$. But then, we must have $|B \setminus H| = w-1$, and we again
find that there are no sparse $H$-cosets, which contradicts our
previous conclusions.  This completes the proof. \end{proof}

Following Erd\H{o}s and Heilbronn~\cite{EH}, we define function
$L : \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ by the following rule
$$
L(u) = \min_{ \begin{array}{c}
    \scriptstyle A \subseteq G \setminus \{0\} : |A| = 2u    \\
    \scriptstyle \stab(\Sigma(A)) = \{0\}
        \end{array} } \max_{B \subseteq A : |B| = u}  |\Sigma(B)|.
$$
We let $L(u) = \infty$ if no such set $A$ exists.  For every set~$B$
we have $\Sigma(B) \supseteq B \cup \{0\}$, so trivially $L(u) \ge u+1$.
Next we prove our main lemma which gives a better lower bound on~$L(u)$.

\begin{lemma} \label{main_lem}
$L(u) \ge \frac{1}{16}u^2$ for every $u \in \mathbb{N}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We proceed by induction on $u$.  Assume that the lemma holds for all
integers $\le u$ and let $A \subseteq G$ satisfy $|A| = 2(u+1)$ and
$\stab(\Sigma(A)) = \{0\}$. (If there is no such set, then we have
defined $L(u+1) = \infty$.)  We will show that there exists $B'
\subseteq A$ with $|B'| = u+1$ and $|\Sigma(B')| \ge
\frac{1}{16}(u+1)^2$.  It follows from our trivial bound $L(u)\ge
u+1$ that we may assume $u \ge 16$.

Apply the lemma inductively to obtain a set $B \subseteq A$ with
$|B| = u$ and $|\Sigma(B)| \ge \frac{1}{16}u^2$. Put $C = A
\setminus B$. To apply Lemma~\ref{another_lemma}, which is our aim,
we need a lower bound on the size of~$H = \langle C\rangle$. We do
this by estimating~$|\Sigma(C)|$. To this end, we apply the lemma
inductively twice more: choose a set $C_1 \subseteq C$ of size
$\ceil{\frac{u}{2}}$ with $|\Sigma(C_1)| \ge \frac{1}{64} u^2$ and
(since $2 \ceil{\frac{u}{4}} + \ceil{\frac{u}{2}}
  \le 2\frac{u+3}{4} + \frac{u+1}{2}
    = u + 2$)
a set $C_2 \subseteq C \setminus C_1$ of size $\ceil{\frac{u}{4}}$
with $|\Sigma(C_2)| \ge \frac{1}{256} u^2$. Put $C_3 = C \setminus
(C_1 \cup C_2)$. Now $\Sigma(C) = \Sigma(C_1) + \Sigma(C_2) +
\Sigma(C_3)$. Since $\Sigma(C)$ has trivial stabilizer
(Observation~\ref{stab_obs}), Kneser's theorem gives the following
inequality (in the last inequality we use the trivial bound
$|\Sigma(X)| \ge |X| + 1$ if $0 \not \in X$).
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\Sigma(C)|
    & = & |\Sigma(C_1) + \Sigma(C_2) + \Sigma(C_3)| \\
    &\ge& |\Sigma(C_1)| + |\Sigma(C_2)| + |\Sigma(C_3)| - 2 \\
    &\ge& \tfrac{5}{256}u^2 + \tfrac{1}{4} u - 1.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $S = \Sigma(B)$ and recall that $H = \langle C \rangle$.  Since
$\Sigma(C)$ has trivial stabilizer, $\Sigma(C) \subset H$, so $|H|
\ge \tfrac{5}{256}u^2 + \tfrac{1}{4}u$.  Since $u \ge 16$ by
assumption, we may apply Lemma~\ref{another_lemma} to deduce that
either $|S| \ge \frac{1}{16}(u+1)^2$, in which case we are finished,
or there exists $c \in C$ so that $\Delta_S(c) \ge
\frac{1}{8}(u+1)$.  In the latter case we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\Sigma(B \cup \{c\})|  & = &   |S + \{0,c\}|   \\
    & = &   |S| + \Delta_S(c)   \\
    &\ge&   \tfrac{1}{16}u^2 + \tfrac{1}{8}(u+1)  \\
    & > &   \tfrac{1}{16}(u+1)^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{triv_stab_lem}
If $A \subseteq G$ satisfies $\stab(\Sigma(A)) = \{0\}$, then
$$
  |\Sigma(A)| \ge 1 + \tfrac{1}{64}|A \setminus \{0\}|^2.
$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We may assume that $0\not\in A$ since this has
no effect on our bound.  Set $|A| = u$.  The lemma holds trivially
if $u \le 8$, so we may assume $u>8$. By the previous lemma we may
choose a subset $B \subseteq A$ of size $\floor{\frac{u}{2}}$
such that $|\Sigma(B)| \ge L( \floor{\frac{u}{2}}) \ge \frac{(u-1)^2}{64}$.
Let $C = A \setminus B$. Then, by Kneser's theorem we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\Sigma(A)|
    & = &   |\Sigma(B) + \Sigma(C)|  \\
    &\ge&   |\Sigma(B)| + |C| - 1    \\
    &\ge&   \tfrac{1}{64}u^2 - \tfrac{1}{32}u + \tfrac{u}{2} - 1    \\
    &\ge&   1 + \tfrac{1}{64}u^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}

Note that by recursively applying Lemma \ref{main_lem} we can
improve the constant $1/64$ to ``almost'' $1/48$:
In the above proof, we have used that $|\Sigma(B)| \ge L(|B|)$
(together with Lemma~\ref{main_lem}) to bound $|\Sigma(B)|$.
On the other hand, for $|\Sigma(C)|$ we have used a straightforward
bound $|\Sigma(C)| \ge |C|+1$. We could instead use the same procedure
recursively with $C$ in place of~$A$. This yields
$$
  |\Sigma(A)| \ge \frac {1}{16} \Bigl(
    \bigfloor{\frac{u}{2}}^2 +
    \bigfloor{\frac{u}{4}}^2 +
    \bigfloor{\frac{u}{8}}^2 + \cdots \Bigr)
  = \frac{1}{48} u^2 - O(u) \,.
$$

Next we prove our main theorem for sequences.

\bigskip
\begin{proofof}{Theorem~\ref{sequence_thm}}
For $Q \in G/H$ we let $c(Q) = |\{ 1 \le j \le n : a_j \in Q\}|$.
Let further $s$ be the maximum of $c(Q)$ for nontrivial cosets $Q$
(i.e., $Q \in G/H \setminus \{H\}$).
Finally, put $A_j = \{Q : c(Q) \ge j\}$ and note that
$|A_j| = \rho_H^j({\bf a})$.  By applying Kneser's theorem and
Lemma~\ref{triv_stab_lem} in the quotient group $G/H$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\Sigma( {\bf a} )|
    & = &   |H| \cdot \Bigl|\sum_{j=1}^{s} \Sigma(A_j)\Bigr|            \\
    &\ge&   |H| \cdot \Bigl(\sum_{j=1}^s |\Sigma(A_j)| - s + 1 \Bigr)   \\
    &\ge&   |H| + \tfrac{1}{64} |H| \cdot
      \sum_{j \in \mathbb{N}} \bigl(\rho^j_H({\bf a})\bigr)^2
\end{eqnarray*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proofof}

Finally, we prove our main theorem for sets.

\bigskip
\begin{proofof}{Theorem~\ref{set_thm}}
Let $A = \{a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n\}$ and put ${\bf a} = (a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n)$.
By applying Theorem~\ref{sequence_thm} we have
$$
|\Sigma(A)|
     =   |\Sigma( {\bf a} )|
    \ge  |H| + \tfrac{1}{64} |H| \cdot
      \sum_{j \in \mathbb{N}} \bigl(\rho^j_H({\bf a})\bigr)^2.
$$
Since $A$ is a set, $\rho^{j}_H( {\bf a} ) = 0$ for every $j > |H|$.
Further $\sum_{j=1}^{|H|} \rho^j_H( {\bf a}) = |A \setminus H|$.
It follows from this (and the Cauchy--Schwarz Inequality) that
$|H| \cdot \sum_{j \in \mathbb{N}} (\rho^j_H({\bf a}))^2 \ge |A \setminus H|^2$.
Combining this with the above inequality yields the desired bound.
\end{proofof}

A quadratic lower bound for subset sums


Noether type discrete conserved quantities arising from a finite element approximation of a variational problem

Abstract: In this work we prove a weak Noether type theorem for a class of variational problems which include broken extremals. We then use this result to prove discrete Noether type conservation laws for certain classes of finite element discretisation of a model elliptic problem. In addition we study how well the finite element scheme satisfies the continuous conservation laws arising from the application of Noether's 1st Theorem (E. Noether 1918).We summarise extensive numerical tests, illustrating the conservativity of the discrete Noether law using the $p$--Laplacian as an example.

\section{Conclusions and outlook}

In this work we have given a consise statement of Noether's first
theorem, applied to a set of model problems.

We have proved a Noether type theorem for a specific class of weak
extremum to a model variational problem, that is, those that are
$\sob{1}{\infty}(\W)$ with finitely many jump discontinuities.

We have in addition proved an equivalent discrete theorem for the
finite element approximation of the problem. We write the exact
conserved quantity for the discrete scheme in the same spirit as
\cite{HydonMansfield:2004}.

We have demonstrated that the Lagrangian finite elements enjoy the
property of asympotically conserving the strong Noether conservation
laws when approximating strong solutions of certain classes of
variational problem and Lie group action.

We have studied the exact discrete conserved quantities numerically
and in addition also constructed a geometric based adaptive scheme to
conserve the approximate continuous quantities up to user specified
tolerance.

In a forthcoming sibling publication \cite{MansfieldPryer:2012} we
will examine the structure of the conservation laws for less regular
finite element spaces, the discontinuous Galerkin methods. In this
case the arguments are generalisable to higher order Lagrangians.

\subsection{Applications to the $p$--Laplacian}
\label{sec:p-lap}

In this section we give a numerical verification to Theorem
\ref{The:conserved-fe-noether} for a simple test problem, that of the
$p$--Laplacian
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:p-lap}
  -\div\qp{\norm{\nabla u}^{p-2}\nabla u} = f,
\end{equation}
where we will restrict $p\in (1,\infty)$ for degeneracy issues. The
$p$--Laplacian is the Euler--Lagrange equation of the following
minimisation problem: Find $u\in\sobz{1}{p}(\W)$ such that
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:p-lap-minimise}
  \cJ_p[u] \leq \cJ_p[v] \Foreach v\in\sobz{1}{p}(\W),
\end{equation}
with the (parametrised) action functional $\cJ_p$ given by
\begin{equation}
  \cJ_p[v] := \int_\W \frac{1}{p}\norm{\nabla v}^p - fv.
\end{equation}

Note that for $p=2$ this problem coincides with the standard Laplace's
problem (see Example \ref{ex:laplace}). For general $p$ it is well
known that the problem is uniquely solvable.

The discrete weak formulation associated to the minimisation problem
(\ref{eq:p-lap-minimise}) is to find $U\in\fes$ such that
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:fe-p-lap}
  \int_\W \norm{\nabla U}^{p-2}\Transpose{\qp{\nabla U}}\nabla V
  =
  \int_\W f \ V \Foreach V\in\fes.
\end{equation}

In this test we choose $f$ such that
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:benchmark-solution}
  u = \sin{{\pi\norm{\geovec x}^2}}
\end{equation}
solves the $p$--Laplace equation (\ref{eq:p-lap}). We have that $f$
can be written as $f = f(\norm{\geovec x})$ and hence the Lagrangian
\begin{equation}
  L(\geovec x, v, \nabla v)
  =
  \frac{1}{p}\norm{\nabla v}^p - fv
\end{equation}
is invariant under $SO(d)$ group actions.

We fix $d=2$ and take $\T{}$ to be a structured triangulation of $\W$,
the unit circle, as given in Figure
\ref{fig:discrete-noether-tri-and-sol}

\begin{figure}[h]
  \caption[]{\label{fig:discrete-noether-tri-and-sol} An example of the triangulation $\T{}$ and the finite element approximation to $u = \sin{{\pi\norm{\geovec x}^2}}$, the solution of the $p$--Laplacian.}
    \subfigure[][{An example of the triangulation, here $\dim{\fes} = 12564$.}]{
      \includegraphics[scale=\figscale, width=0.47\figwidth]
                      {./figures/p-lap-p-3-mesh.jpg}
    }
    \hfill
    \subfigure[][{The piecewise linear finite element approximation of the solution of the $3$--Laplacian.}]{
      \includegraphics[scale=\figscale, width=0.47\figwidth]
                      {./figures/p-lap-p-3-solution.jpg}
    }
\end{figure}

{ It is well known \cite[c.f.]{BarrettLiu:1994} that the
  finite element approximation (\ref{eq:fe-p-lap}) is well posed and
  has optimal convergence properties. In Tables
  \ref{table:p-lap-p-3}--\ref{table:p-lap-p-5} we show errors,
  convergence rates and the values of the finite element Noether
  quantity as written in Theorem \ref{The:conserved-fe-noether} for
  various cases of $p$. The tables also study the \emph{experimental
    order of convergence} of the numerical approximation which we now define. }
\begin{Defn}[experimental order of convergence]
  \label{def:EOC}
  {Given two sequences $a(i)$ and $h(i)\downto0$, $i\integerbetween
  l{}$, we define experimental order of convergence (\EOC) to be the
  local slope of the $\log a(i)$ vs. $\log h(i)$ curve, i.e.,
  \begin{equation}
    \EOC(a,h;i):=\frac{ \log(a(i+1)/a(i)) }{ \log(h(i+1)/h(i)) }.
  \end{equation}}
\end{Defn}

\begin{table}
  \caption{\label{table:p-lap-p-3} {In this test we computationally
    study the behaviour of the finite element conserved quantity,
    $\cN[U]$, given in Theorem \ref{The:conserved-fe-noether}. To that
    end we consider the $p$--Laplacian with $p=3$. We fix $f$ such
    that $u$ is known and is given by
    (\ref{eq:benchmark-solution}). We compute the piecewise linear
    ($k=1$) finite element approximation given by
    (\ref{eq:fe-p-lap}). To do this we formulate (\ref{eq:fe-p-lap})
    as a system of nonlinear equations, the solution to this is then
    approximated by a Newton method with tolerance set at
    $10^{-10}$. At each Newton step the solution to the linear system
    of equations is approximated using a stabilised conjugate gradient
    iterative solver with an algebraic multigrid preconditioner, also
    set at a tolerance of $10^{-10}$. Note that $\cN[U]$ is below the
    tolerance of the solvers when the mesh is sufficiently resolved.}}
  \input{p-lap-p-3}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
  \caption{\label{table:p-lap-p-4}
    This is the same problem as in Table \ref{table:p-lap-p-3} with the exception that we take $p=4$.
  }
  \input{p-lap-p-4}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
  \caption{\label{table:p-lap-p-5}
    This is the same problem as in Table \ref{table:p-lap-p-3} with the exception that we take $p=5$.
  }
  \input{p-lap-p-5}
\end{table}

\subsection{{Mimetic methods weakly enforce discrete conservation laws which are derived from trivial Lie group actions}}

The mimetic finite element framework consists of reformulating the
Euler--Lagrange equations as a system of first order PDEs. Consider
our prototypical example for illustrative purposes. Poisson's problem,
\begin{equation}
  \Delta u = 0,
\end{equation}
is the Euler--Lagrange equation of the minimisation problem
\begin{equation}
  \cJ[u] = \int_\W \frac{1}{2}\norm{\nabla u}^2 \to \text{ min.}
\end{equation}
It can be written in \emph{mixed form} by introducing an auxiliary
variable $\geovec p$ to represent the gradient and rewriting Poisson's
problem to seek $\qp{u, \geovec p}$ such that
\begin{gather}
  \div{\geovec p} = 0
  \\
  \geovec p = \nabla u.
\end{gather}
These are then the Euler--Lagrange equations of the saddle point problem
\begin{equation}
  \cK[u, \geovec p]
  :=
  \int_\W \frac{1}{2} \norm{\geovec p}^2
  +
  u\qp{\div{\geovec p}}.
\end{equation}
The correct function space setting is to seek $u\in\leb{2}(\W)$ and
$\geovec p \in\sobh{\text{div}}(\W) := \ensemble{\geovec \Psi
}{\div{\geovec \Psi} \in \leb{2}(\W)}$. A conformal approximation of
this problem can be sought using the Raviart--Thomas and piecewise
constant finite element pair \cite{RaviartThomas:1977}, for example. A
sufficient condition for the construction of a conformal finite
element space of $\sobh{\text{div}}(\W)$ is that the jumps of the
discrete functions vanish over the skeleton of the domain. Taking a
generic $\geovec P \in \rt$ we see for our model problem
\begin{equation}
  \begin{split}
    0
    =
    \duality{\div \geovec P}{\phi}
    &=
    -
    \int_\W \Transpose{\geovec P}{\nabla \phi}
    \\
    &=
    -
    \sum_{K\in\T{}}
    \int_K \Transpose{\geovec P}{\nabla \phi}
    \\
    &=
    \sum_{K\in\T{}}
    \int_K \div_K \geovec P \phi
    -
    \int_{\partial K} \Transpose{\geovec P} \geovec n_K \phi
    \\
    &=
    \sum_{K\in\T{}}
    \int_K \div_K \geovec P \phi
    -
    \sum_{e\in\E}
    \int_e \jump{\geovec P} \phi
    -
    \sum_{e\in\partial \W} \Transpose{\geovec P}\geovec n \phi
    \\
    &=
    \sum_{K\in\T{}}
    \int_K \div_K \geovec P \phi
    -
    \sum_{e\in\partial \W} \Transpose{\geovec P}\geovec n \phi
  \end{split}
\end{equation}
This gives a ``weak'' Stokes theorem.

Recall Remark \ref{rem:trivial-actions} concerned itself with the
trivial Lie group action of translation in the dependent variable. For
our model problem we have that $\nabla u$ is a conservation law. The
mimetic scheme weakly enforces this conservation law.

\section{Finite element conservation laws}
\label{sec:discretisation}

\subsection{Discretisation}
In this section we calculate the discrete counterpart to Theorem
\ref{the:noether-broken} in the finite element context. To that end,
let $\T{}$ be a conforming triangulation of $\W$, namely, $\T{}$ is a
finite family of sets such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $K\in\T{}$ implies $K$ is an open simplex (segment for $d=1$,
  triangle for $d=2$, tetrahedron for $d=3$),
\item for any $K,J\in\T{}$ we have that $\closure K\meet\closure J$ is
  a full subsimplex (i.e., it is either $\emptyset$, a vertex, an
  edge, a face, or the whole of $\closure K$ and $\closure J$) of both
  $\closure K$ and $\closure J$ and
\item $\union{K\in\T{}}\closure K=\closure\W$.
\end{enumerate}

We let $\E{}$ be the
skeleton (set of common interfaces) of the triangulation $\T{}$ and
say $e\in\E$ if $e$ is on the interior of $\W$ and $e\in\partial\W$ if
$e$ lies on the boundary $\partial\W$.

The \emph{shape regularity} of $\T{}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
  \label{eqn:def:shape-regularity}
  \mu(\T{}) := \inf_{K\in\T{}} \frac{\rho_K}{h_K},
\end{equation}
where $\rho_K$ is the radius of the largest ball contained inside
$K$ and $h_K$ is the diameter of $K$.
 We use the convention where $\funk h\W\reals$ denotes the
 \emph{meshsize function} of $\T{}$, i.e.,
 \begin{equation}
   h(\geovec{x}):=\max_{\closure K\ni \vec x}h_K,
 \end{equation}
 where $h_K$ is the diameter of an element K. We introduce the
 \emph{finite element space}
 \begin{gather}
   \label{eqn:def:finite-element-space}
   \fes
   :=
   \ensemble{\Phi \in \sobh1(\W)}{\Phi\vert_{K} \in \poly k\Forall K\in\T{}}
   \cap \cont{0}(\W)
   \cap \hoz(\W),
 \end{gather}
 where $\poly k$ denotes the linear space of polynomials in $d$
 variables of degree no higher than a positive integer $k$. We
 consider $k\geq 1$ to be fixed and denote by $N := \dim{\fes}$.

The Galerkin approximation to the variational problem
(\ref{eq:variational-prob}) is to seek $U\in\fes\subset\hoz(\W)$ such that
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:dis-min-prob}
  \cJ[U] = \inf_{V\in\fes} \cJ[V]
\end{equation}

The finite element scheme defined by (\ref{eq:dis-min-prob}) is
guaranteed to be well posed under some assumptions on $L$ that allow
us to invoke the Lax--Milgram Theorem or the more generally applicable
inf-sup condition \cite{ErnGuermond:2004}. Henceforth we now assume the
continuous minimisation problem admits a unique solution.

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

Symmetries are an extremely important and continually occurring
feature of differential equations arising from many applicable areas,
including mathematical physics, meteorology and differential geometry,
that was first developed by Sophus Lie for the purpose of studying
solutions of differential equations in the late 19th century
\cite[c.f.]{Lie:1971}.

Noether's (1st) Theorem \cite{Noether:1971} is a striking result which
in the continuous setting connects these symmetries with conservation
laws associated to the Euler--Lagrange equations {of a variational
problem}. Roughly, the theorem states that given a variational problem
with an underlying symmetry, there exists a natural conservation law
associated to it. For example, a symmetry of translation with respect
to the spatial coordinates results in a conservation of linear
momentum, a symmetry of rotation results in conservation of angular
momentum and a symmetry of translation with respect to the temporal
coordinate gives a conservation of energy. A famous example from
meteorology is that of \emph{potential vorticity}. This is a
conservation law arising from a particle relabelling pseudo-group
symmetry. This quantity is extremely important in studying the
evolution of a cyclone.

The work of Noether has gained public attention recently with the
publication of an article in the New York Times \cite{Angier:2012}
where the result is
\begin{quote}
  ``consider[ed] \dots as important as Einstein's theory of
  relativity; it undergirds much of today's vanguard research in
  physics, including the hunt for the almighty Higgs boson.''
\end{quote}

In the discrete setting, Noether's Theorem has been studied in terms
of difference equations \cite{Dorodnitsyn:2001,HydonMansfield:2004},
where it was shown that a discrete equivalent of the conservation law
holds when a discrete symmetry was built into the discrete
Lagrangian. In this work we turn our attention to the finite element
method (FEM). FEMs form one of the most successful numerical methods
for approximating the solution to partial differential equations
(PDEs) \cite[c.f.]{Braess:2001, Brenner:1994, Ciarlet:1978}. A topic
which has been the subject of much ongoing research is that of
constructing FEMs which inherit some property of the continuous
problem. The notion of discretisations inheriting some geometric
property from the continuous problem can be seen as a generalisation
of geometric integration \cite[c.f.]{HairerLubichWanner:2006} to the
case of PDEs and is a rapidly developing area of research. Some of the
properties studied in the discretisation of PDEs are the same as in
the geometric integration of the ODE, for example the Hamiltonian
structure of a given problem. Others are based on completely new
notions, for example, the recent development of the discrete exterior
calculus \cite{ArnoldFalkWinther:2010}, which, as the name suggests,
is a discrete equivalent to the Cartan based exterior calculus. This
has allowed for a rigorous description of discrete differential forms
and the associated discrete function spaces as a discrete differential
complex. This provides a framework which may be used as a first step
in the construction of a variational complex in a similar light to
that developed in \cite{HydonMansfield:2004} for difference
equations. A first step in this direction was taken in
\cite{Mansfield:2006}. A review of some of the huge quantity of topics arising from this area, including Lie group integrators, discrete gradient methods as well as FEMs for differential forms is given in \cite{ChristiansenMunthe-KaasOwren:2011}.

As opposed to geometric integrators, the term used for numerical
methods with some geometric property of an ODE, the methods for PDEs
are generally called \emph{mimetic methods}. The class of FEMs which
fall under the mimetic framework are the mixed methods, for example
the Raviart--Thomas scheme \cite{RaviartThomas:1977}. It is not only
FEMs which fall under the category of mimetic methods, in fact there
are finite difference (FD) \cite{BrezziBuffaLipnikov:2009} and finite
volume (FV) schemes which are characterised as mimetic. Note that also
there is an intrinsic relationship between each of them. For example,
an appropriate choice of quadrature for the Raviart-Thomas finite
element scheme results in the mimetic FD scheme
\cite{CangianiManziniRusso:2009}.

The Lagrangian piecewise polynomial FEM is not a mimetic method. Most
standard methods cannot inherit geometric properties of the continuous
PDE. There is an underlying algebraic condition which must be
satisfied for these properties to be inherited by the approximation
scheme \cite{HydonMansfield:2004,Mansfield:2006}.

The purpose of this paper is to show that variational numerical problems have their own conservation laws which derive from the same principle as that discovered by Noether, giving rise to discrete (numerical) forms of conservation laws which are automatically preserved by the scheme.

The classical Noether theorem is only applicable to classical
solutions of the variational problem. As such we derive weaker
versions of the theorem applicable to a wider class of solutions to
the problem, including the \emph{broken extremals}. We will discuss
how these laws are naturally passed down to the Lagrangian finite
element scheme and hence quantify the discrete Noether quantity
associated to this FEM. That is, we write the exact Noether quantity
for this discretisation, in the same spirit as
\cite{HydonMansfield:2004}.

We will also study how well the Lagrangian finite element scheme
satisfies the strong conserved quantities arising from Noether's
Theorem measured in an appropriate weak norm. That is, we consider how
well this finite element scheme approximates the Noether conservation
law for the continuous problem (when one exists). We will also present
some interesting numerical results, quantifying the deviation of the
approximation in terms of a computable estimator which we are able to
use to construct an h--adaptive scheme (local mesh refinement) aimed
at minimising the violation of the smooth conservation law to a user
specified tolerance.

The paper is set out as follows: In \S\ref{sec:notation} we introduce
some fundamental notation and the model problem we consider. In
\S\ref{sec:noether} we briefly describe Noether's Theorem and the
background material needed. To illustrate its application we apply the
Theorem to a simple model problem. In \S\ref{sec:noether-weak} we weaken the
invariance criterion on which the classical Noether Theorem is based,
ultimately allowing us prove two versions of the theorem applicable to
weaker solutions of the problem. In \S\ref{sec:discretisation} we
discuss how the results of \S\ref{sec:noether-weak} can be passed down
to give discrete counterparts to our weak Noether's Theorem. We perform
numerical experiments to demonstrate that the quantities derived are
indeed conserved at the discrete level. We also discuss trivial Lie
group actions (those of translation with respect to the dependent
variable) and how the mimetic methods relate to this case. Finally, in
\S\ref{sec:numerics-lag} we study the properties of the finite element
solution with respect to the original (strong) Noether Theorem. We
also detail an interesting numerical result by constructing a
computable estimator, aimed at measuring the violation of the strong
Noether Theorem in a weak norm for the Lagrangian finite element
scheme. We perform some numerical experiments demonstrating that there
is a \emph{superconvergence} of the estimator over the finite element
approximation of the solution to the Euler--Lagrange equations. We
then proceed to test an adaptive scheme based on the estimate allowing
us to minimise the discrete violation of the continuous conserved
quantity up to user specified tolerance.

\section{Noether's theorem for weak solutions}
\label{sec:noether-weak}

Noether's Theorem (Theorem \ref{the:noether}) as it is stated in
\S\ref{sec:noether} only makes sense for classical solutions of the
Euler--Lagrange equations (\ref{eq:Euler-Lagrange-equations}). We wish
to ``weaken'' the theorem such that it is applicable to {extremals}
which are $\sob{1}{\infty}(\W)$ with jump discontinuities, the so
called \emph{broken extremals} \cite{GiaquintaHildebrandt1:1996}.
\begin{comment}
We
first make the following assumption on the Lagrangian, for existence
purposes.
\begin{Hyp}[growth conditions on $L$]
  \label{hyp:growth-conditions}
  Since we will be interested in weak minimisers of the problem, we
  must assume the following growth conditions on the Lagrangian. Let
  $v\in\sob{1}{p}(\W)$ for $p\in (1,\infty)$, then there exists a
  constant $C$ such that
  \begin{gather}
    \norm{L\qp{\geovec x, v, \nabla v}}
    \leq
    C \qp{\norm{\nabla v}^p + \norm{v}^p + 1}
    \Foreach
    \geovec x \in \W.
  \end{gather}
\end{Hyp}
\end{comment}
We begin by defining a weaker invariance condition than that of
Definition \ref{defn:var-symm}.
\begin{Defn}[weak variational symmetry]
  \label{def:weak-var-symm}
  The transformation (\ref{eq:transformation}) is said to be a weak
  variational symmetry if
  {
  \begin{equation}
    \label{eq:weak-var-symm}
    \int_{\W} L\qp{\geovec x, u, \nabla u} \d \geovec x
    =
    \int_{\W_\Xi} L\qp{\widetilde{\geovec x}, \widetilde u, \widetilde{\nabla  u}} \d \widetilde {\geovec x}
  \end{equation}}
  holds over the domain $\W$.
\end{Defn}

\begin{Rem}[strong symmetry $\implies$ weak symmetry]
  We note that any strong variational symmetry is also a weak symmetry
  but the converse is not true.
\end{Rem}

\begin{The}[Noether type conserved quantities for weak variational symmetries]
  \label{the:noether-weak}
  Suppose that the variational problem \eqref{eq:variational-prob} has
  a weak variational symmetry and that the minimiser is smooth, \ie
  $u\in\cont{2}(\W)$. Let $\phi$ and $\geovec \xi$ be the
  infinitesimal generators of the symmetry as in Definition
  \ref{defn:infinitesimal}. Then
  \begin{equation}
    \label{eq:weak-cons-law}
    \int_\W
    \qb{
    \Transpose{ \qp{ \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}} }}
    \nabla \phi
    +
    \frac{\partial L}{\partial u}
    \phi
    +
    \div\qp{L \geovec \xi}
    -
    \Transpose{\qp{ \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}}}\nabla u \div\qp{\geovec \xi}
    }
    =
    0.
  \end{equation}
  {
    \begin{Rem}[structure of (\ref{eq:weak-cons-law})]
    The weak conservation law given in Theorem \ref{the:noether-weak}
    has a very clear structure. The first two terms represent the weak
    Euler--Lagrange equations, which do not vanish in general since
    the infinitesimal $\phi$ does not necessarily belong to the
    correct space of test functions. The last two terms essentially
    represent the weak conservation law itself.
  \end{Rem}}
  \begin{Proof}[of Theorem \ref{the:noether-weak}]
    The proof of this is based on computing the \emph{inner} and
    \emph{outer} variations with respect to the infinitesimals of the
    one parameter group (see Definition \ref{defn:infinitesimal})
    \cite[c.f.]{GiaquintaHildebrandt1:1996}. The inner variations are
    with respect to the independent variables and the outer variation
    with respect to the dependent variables.

    We define the function $o : \reals^+ \to \reals$ as
    \begin{equation}
      o(\epsilon) := \cJ[u+\epsilon\phi]
      =
      \int_\W L(\geovec x, u+\epsilon\phi, \nabla u+ \epsilon\nabla \phi).
    \end{equation}
    Since $u$ is an extremal we have that $o'(0) = 0$ and we may compute the weak variation to be
    \begin{equation}
      0
      =
      o'(0)
      =
      \int_\W \Transpose{\qp{\frac{\partial L}{\partial \qp{\nabla u}}}}\nabla \phi
      +
      \frac{\partial L}{\partial u} \phi.
    \end{equation}
    {
      For the inner variation we vary the independent variables, to that
    end let $i : \reals^+ \to \reals$ be another function defined such
    that
    \begin{equation}
      i(\epsilon) = \cJ[u(\widetilde{\geovec x})]
    \end{equation}
    where $\widetilde{\geovec x} = \geovec x + \epsilon \geovec \xi$.
    Again we have that $i'(0) = 0$, we then look to compute
    \begin{equation}
      \label{eq:inner}
      i'(0) = \lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon}\qp{\cJ[u(\widetilde{\geovec x})]-\cJ[u(\geovec x)]}.
    \end{equation}
    We have that
    \begin{equation}
      \cJ[u(\widetilde{\geovec x})]
      =
      \int_{\W_{\Xi}}
      L\qp{\widetilde{\geovec x}, u(\widetilde{\geovec x}), \widetilde{\nabla}u(\widetilde{\geovec x})}
      \d \widetilde{\geovec x}
    \end{equation}
    where $\widetilde{\nabla}$ denotes the spatial gradient operator
    with respect to $\widetilde{\geovec x}$. After a change of variable
    and using the invariance criterion (\ref{eq:weak-var-symm}) we see
    that
    \begin{equation}
      \label{eq:inner-variation}
      \cJ[u(\widetilde{\geovec x})]
      =
      \cJ[u(\geovec x)]
      +
      \epsilon
      \int_\W
      \Transpose{\geovec \xi}\nabla L
      -
      \Transpose{\qp{ \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}}}\nabla u \div\qp{\geovec \xi}
      +
      L\div\qp{\geovec \xi}
      +
      \Oh(\epsilon^2)
    \end{equation}
    Subsituting (\ref{eq:inner-variation}) into (\ref{eq:inner}) and
    taking the sum of the inner and outer variations concludes the
    proof.}
  \end{Proof}
\end{The}

\begin{The}[strong conservation law $\implies$ weak conservation law]
  Let the variational problem \eqref{eq:variational-prob} have a
  variational symmetry in the sense of Definition \ref{defn:var-symm}
  and that the minimiser to the variational problem is smooth
  $u\in\cont{2}(\W)$, then \eqref{eq:weak-cons-law} holds.
\end{The}
\begin{Proof}
  Recall from \eqref{eq:EL-cons-law} we have that
  \begin{equation}
    Q \qp{-\div{\frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}} + \frac{\partial L}{\partial u}}
    +
    \div\qp{Q \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}} + L \geovec\xi}
    =
    0.
  \end{equation}
  Using Definition \ref{defn:characteristics} of the characteristics,
  $Q$ we see
  \begin{equation}
    \begin{split}
    &-
    \div\qp{\frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}} \phi
    +
    \frac{\partial L}{\partial u} \phi
    +
    \qp{\Transpose{{\geovec \xi}} \nabla u}
    \qp{
    \div\qp{\frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}}
    - \frac{\partial L}{\partial u}
    }
    \\
    &\qquad\qquad+
    \div\qp{\phi \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}}
    -
    \div\qp{\qp{\Transpose{{\geovec \xi}} \nabla u} \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}}
    +
    \div\qp{L\geovec\xi}
    =
    0,
    \end{split}
  \end{equation}
  which after some simplification yields
  \begin{equation}
    \Transpose{ \qp{ \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}} }}
    \nabla \phi
    +
    \frac{\partial L}{\partial u}
    \phi
    +
    \div\qp{L \geovec \xi}
    -
    \Transpose{\qp{ \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}}}\nabla u \div\qp{\geovec \xi}
    =
    0.
  \end{equation}
  Integrating over the domain concludes the proof.
\end{Proof}

Now we have developed the framework sufficiently to state our main
result in this section. Here we are concerned with \emph{broken
  extremals}, that is, functions whose derivatives have finitely many
jump discontinuities.

\begin{Defn}[broken extremal]
  An extremal, $u\in\cont{0}(\W)$, to the problem
  (\ref{eq:variational-prob}) is said to be a broken extremal if it is
  piecewise $\cont{2}(\W)$ over the domain $\W$ with bounded
  derivative. {That is, $\W$ can be decomposed into finitely many
  open subsets, $\{\W_i\}_{i=1}^N$ such that
  \begin{enumerate}
  \item the subsets make up the entire domain, \ie $\W = \union{i}\closure{\W_i}$,
  \item they are non-overlapping, \ie $\W_i\cap \W_j = \emptyset$ and
  \item the solution is smooth over each of the subsets, \ie
    $u\in\cont{2}(\W_i)\cap \sob{1}{\infty}(\W)$.
  \end{enumerate}}
\end{Defn}

\begin{Defn}[skeleton and jumps]
  We define
  \begin{equation}
    \cF := \union{i} \setof{\geovec x \in \partial \W_i}
  \end{equation}
  to be the \emph{skeleton} of the decomposition. Let $\geovec n_i$ be
  the outward pointing normal to $\W_i$, we then define \emph{jumps} of
  scalars and vector valued functions as
  \begin{gather}
    \jump{v} := v|_{\W_1} \geovec n_1 + v|_{\W_2} \geovec n_2
    \\
    \jump{\geovec v}
    :=
    \Transpose{\qp{\geovec v|_{\W_1}}}  \geovec n_1
    +
    \Transpose{\qp{\geovec v|_{\W_2}}} \geovec n_2,
  \end{gather}
  respectively.
\end{Defn}

\begin{Defn}[piecewise variational symmetry]
  \label{def:pw-var-sym}
  {Let $u$ be a broken extremal to the variational problem
  (\ref{eq:variational-prob}) and let $\setof{\W_i}_{i=1}^N$ be the
  decomposed domain of $u$. Then \eqref{eq:transformation} is a
  piecewise variational symmetry if it is a variational symmetry over
  $\W_i$ for each $i=1,\dots N$.}
\end{Defn}

\begin{The}[conserved quantities for broken extremals of the variational problem]
  \label{the:noether-broken}

  Suppose $u$ is a broken extremal to
  (\ref{eq:variational-prob}) and the problem has a piecewise
  variational symmetry. Then
  {
  \begin{equation}
    \begin{split}
      0
      &=
      \sum_{i=1}^N\int_{\W_i}

      \qb{\Transpose{\qp{\nabla L}} \geovec \xi
      +
      L \div{\geovec \xi}
      -
      \Transpose{\qp{\frac{\partial L}{\partial \qp{\nabla u}}}}
      \nabla u
      \div{\geovec \xi}}

      +
      \int_\cF \jump{\frac{\partial L}{\partial \qp{\nabla u}}} \phi
      +
      \Transpose{\jump{L}} \geovec \xi,
    \end{split}
  \end{equation}}

\end{The}
\begin{Proof}
  The proof of this result follows the same lines as the proof of
  Theorem \ref{the:noether-weak}. Note that since $u$ is piecewise
  smooth the Euler Lagrange equations vanish over each subdomain
  $\W_i$. Hence we are able to invoke Theorem \ref{the:noether-weak}
  upon each $\W_i$. To conclude we note that
  \begin{equation}
    \begin{split}
      \int_\W
      \Transpose{\qp{\frac{\partial L}{\partial \qp{\nabla u}}}}\nabla \phi
      &=
      \sum_i \int_{\W_i} \Transpose{\qp{\frac{\partial L}{\partial \qp{\nabla u}}}}\nabla \phi
      \\
      &=
      \sum_i
      \qp{\int_{\W_i} -\div{\qp{\frac{\partial L}{\partial \qp{\nabla u}}}} \phi
      + \int_{\partial \W_i} \Transpose{\qp{\frac{\partial L}{\partial \qp{\nabla u}}}} \geovec n_i \phi}
      \\
      &=
      \int_\W
      -\div{\qp{\frac{\partial L}{\partial \qp{\nabla u}}}} \phi
      +
      \int_\cF
      \jump{\frac{\partial L}{\partial \qp{\nabla u}}} \phi.
    \end{split}
  \end{equation}
  The other jump term follows similarly by splitting the inner
  variation from the proof of Theorem \ref{the:noether-weak} into
  subdomains.
\end{Proof}

\begin{comment}
\begin{Lem}[Conserved quantities for broken extremals of the variational problem under piecewise variational symmetry]
  Let the conditions of Theorem \ref{the:noether-broken} hold. In
  addition assume that the problem has a piecewise variational
  symmetry, then
  \begin{equation}
    \begin{split}
      0
      =
      \int_\W
      \Transpose{\qp{\nabla L}} \geovec \xi
      +
      L \div{\geovec \xi}
      -
      \Transpose{\qp{\frac{\partial L}{\partial \qp{\nabla u}}}}
      \nabla u
      \div{\geovec \xi}
      +
      \int_\cF \jump{\frac{\partial L}{\partial \qp{\nabla u}}} \phi
      +
      \Transpose{\jump{L}} \geovec \xi,
    \end{split}
  \end{equation}
\end{Lem}
\end{comment}

\section{Noether's First Theorem}
\label{sec:noether}

For the reader's benefit we will briefly describe Noether's first
theorem in the continuous, smooth case and necessary background
material. We assume, in this section, that $L$ is smooth and the
minimisation problem \eqref{eq:variational-prob} has a solution (not
necessarily unique) {which is at least $\cont{2}(\W)$, \ie
  smooth enough to satisfy the Euler--Lagrange equations \eqref{eq:Euler-Lagrange-equations}}

\begin{Defn}[one-parameter group]
  \label{defn:1-parameter-group}
  The transformation
  \begin{equation}
    \label{eq:transformation}
    \qp{\geovec x, u} \to \qp{\Xi(\geovec x, u; \epsilon), \Phi(\geovec x, u; \epsilon)}
    =:
    \qp{\widetilde{\geovec x}, \widetilde u}
  \end{equation}
  is said to be a \emph{one-parameter group} if the following conditions hold
  \begin{enumerate}

  \item The parameter choice of $\epsilon = 0$ yields the identity,
    \ie
    \begin{equation*}
      \qp{\geovec x,u} = \qp{\Xi(\geovec x, u; 0), \Phi(\geovec x, u; 0)}.
    \end{equation*}

  \item The inverse is given by the parameter $-\epsilon$, \ie
    \begin{equation*}
      \qp{\geovec x,u}
      =
      \qp{\Xi(\widetilde{\geovec x}, \widetilde u; -\epsilon), \Phi(\widetilde{\geovec x}, \widetilde u; -\epsilon)}.
    \end{equation*}

  \item The transformation is closed under composition, \ie if
    \begin{equation*}
      \qp{\widehat{\geovec x}, \widehat u}
      =
      \qp{\Xi(\widetilde{\geovec x}, \widetilde u; \delta), \Phi(\widetilde{\geovec x}, \widetilde u; \delta)}
    \end{equation*}
    then
    \begin{equation*}
      \qp{\widehat{\geovec x}, \widehat u}
      =
      \qp{\Xi({\geovec x}, u; \epsilon+\delta), \Phi({\geovec x}, u; \epsilon+\delta)}.
    \end{equation*}
  \end{enumerate}
\end{Defn}

\begin{Defn}[infinitesimal]
  \label{defn:infinitesimal}
  The infinitesimals, $\geovec \xi(\geovec x,u)$ and $\phi(\geovec
  x,u)$ of the one parameter group are defined as
  \begin{gather}
    \geovec \xi(\geovec x,u)
    :=
    \lim_{\epsilon\to 0}
    \frac{\d \Xi(\geovec x, u; \epsilon)}{\d \epsilon}
    \\
    \phi(\geovec x,u)
    :=
    \lim_{\epsilon \to 0}\frac{\d \Phi(\geovec x, u; \epsilon)}{\d \epsilon}
  \end{gather}
\end{Defn}

\begin{Defn}[characteristics]
\label{defn:characteristics}
  {We define the characteristics, which are given in terms of the
  infinitesimals of the group, to be}
  \begin{equation}
    Q\qp{\geovec x, u, \nabla u}
    :=
    \phi(\geovec x, u) - \Transpose{\qp{\geovec \xi(\geovec x, u)}}\nabla u.
  \end{equation}
\end{Defn}

\begin{Defn}[variational symmetry]
  \label{defn:var-symm}
  Let $\Gamma := \setof{\qp{\geovec x, u(\geovec x)} : \geovec x \in
    \Upsilon}$ be the graph of $u$ over a subdomain such that
  $\closure\Upsilon \subset \W$. Also let $\Upsilon_{\Xi} =
  \Xi\qp{\Gamma; \epsilon}$, then the transformation
  (\ref{eq:transformation}) is said to be a variational
  symmetry if
{
  \begin{equation}
    \int_{\Upsilon} L\qp{\geovec x, u, \nabla u} \d \geovec x
    =
    \int_{\Upsilon_\Xi} L\qp{\widetilde{\geovec x}, \widetilde u, \widetilde{\nabla u}} \d \widetilde {\geovec x}
  \end{equation}
}
  holds for any smooth subdomain $\Upsilon$ of $\W$.
\end{Defn}

\begin{The}[infinitesimal invariance {\cite[Thm 4.12]{Olver:1993}}]
  \label{the:inf-inv}
  A variational symmetry group with infinitesimals $\geovec \xi, \phi$
  and characteristics $Q$ of the action functional
  \begin{equation}
    \cJ[u] = \int_\W L(\geovec x, u, \nabla u)
  \end{equation}
  satisfies
  \begin{equation}
    0
    =
    \Transpose{\qp{\nabla Q}}
    \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
    +
    Q
    \frac{\partial L}{\partial u}
    +
    \div\qp{L \geovec\xi}
  \end{equation}
\end{The}
\begin{Proof}
  See {\cite[Thm 4.12]{Olver:1993}}
\end{Proof}

\begin{The}[Noether's 1st Theorem {\cite[Thm 4.29]{Olver:1993}}]
  \label{the:noether}
  Suppose the variational problem (\ref{eq:variational-prob}) is
  invariant under the action of a one-parameter group of symmetries
  with characteristics $Q$. Then $Q$ is also a characteristic of a
  conservation law of the Euler--Lagrange equation
  \eqref{eq:Euler-Lagrange-equations}, that is, there exists a vector valued
  functional $\cC = \cC[u]$ such that
  {
  \begin{equation}
    \label{eq:conservation-laws}
    \div\qp{\cC[u]} = Q \cL[u].
  \end{equation}
  Hence over solutions of the Euler--Lagrange equations $\cL[u] =
  0$, we have that
  \begin{equation}
    \div\qp{\cC[u]} = 0.
  \end{equation}
  For the problem we consider in this work, that of a first order
  Lagrangian, the conservation law, $\cC$, takes the form}
  \begin{equation}
    \label{eq:noether-functional}
    \cC[u]
    =
    L \geovec \xi
    +
    {{\frac{\partial L}{\partial \qp{\nabla u}}}}\qp{\phi - \Transpose{\geovec \xi}\nabla u}.
  \end{equation}
\end{The}
\begin{Proof}
  Using the result of Theorem \ref{the:inf-inv} we have that

  \begin{equation}
    \begin{split}
      0

      &=
      \Transpose{\qp{\nabla Q}}
      \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
      +
      Q
      \frac{\partial L}{\partial u}
      +
      \div\qp{L \geovec\xi}.
    \end{split}
  \end{equation}
  Noting by the product rule that
  \begin{equation}
    \Transpose{\qp{\nabla Q}}
    \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
    =
    -Q \div{\frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}}
    +
    \div\qp{Q \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}} }
  \end{equation}
  then it holds that
  \begin{equation}
    \begin{split}
    \label{eq:EL-cons-law}
      0
      &=
      -
      Q \div{\frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}}
      +
      \div\qp{Q \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}} }
      +
      Q
      \frac{\partial L}{\partial u}
      +
      \Transpose{\geovec\xi}\nabla L
      +
      L\div{\geovec\xi}
      \\
      &=
      Q \qp{-\div{\frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}} + \frac{\partial L}{\partial u}}
      +
      \div\qp{Q \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}} + L \geovec\xi}.
    \end{split}
  \end{equation}
  Since the quantity
  \begin{equation}
    -\div{\frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}} + \frac{\partial L}{\partial u} = 0
  \end{equation}
  are the Euler--Lagrange equations associated with the action
  functional (\ref{eq:action-functional}) they vanish, concluding
  the proof with
  \begin{equation}
    \cC[u] = {Q \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}} + L \geovec\xi},
  \end{equation}
  as required.
\end{Proof}

\begin{Rem}[the form of $\cC$]
  \label{rem:form-of-c}
  It is clear from the identity (\ref{eq:conservation-laws}) that for
  our model problem $\cC = \cC(u, \nabla u)$.
\end{Rem}

\begin{Rem}[the beauty of the theorem]
  What makes Theorem \ref{the:noether} truly remarkable is its
  constructive nature. For completeness we will give an example of the
  construction of $\cC$ for the Laplacian.
\end{Rem}

\begin{Example}[Laplace's problem]
  \label{ex:laplace}
  Let us consider the case $f = f(\norm{\geovec x})$ then the
  Lagrangian,
  \begin{equation}
    L\qp{\geovec x, u, \nabla u} := \frac{1}{2} \norm{\nabla u}^2 - f u,
  \end{equation}
  is invariant under the rotational group $SO(d)$. For simplicity we
  restrict $d=2$, we calculate the infinitesimals from the group of
  rotations, note that in this case $\Phi \equiv 0$ and
  \begin{equation}
    \geovec \Xi(\geovec x, u;\epsilon)
    =
    \begin{bmatrix}
      x_1\cos\epsilon - x_2\sin\epsilon
      \\
      x_1\sin\epsilon - x_2\cos\epsilon
    \end{bmatrix}.
  \end{equation}
  It then holds that
  \begin{equation}
    \lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\frac{\d \geovec \Xi(\geovec x;\epsilon)}{\d \epsilon}
    =
    \begin{bmatrix}
      -x_2
      \\
      x_1
    \end{bmatrix}.
  \end{equation}
  In this case the characteristic of the group of rotations is
  \begin{equation}
    -x_2 \partial_1 u + x_1 \partial_2 u.
  \end{equation}
  Making use of Theorem \ref{the:noether} we see
  \begin{equation}
    \cC[u]
    =
    \begin{bmatrix}
      x_2 \qp{\qp{\partial_1 u}^2 - \qp{\partial_2 u}^2}/2
      - x_1 \partial_1 u \partial_2 u + x_2 f u
      \\
      x_1 \qp{\qp{\partial_1 u}^2 - \qp{\partial_2 u}^2}/2
      + x_2 \partial_1 u \partial_2 u - x_1 f u
    \end{bmatrix}
  \end{equation}
  is a conservation law over solutions of $\cL[u] = 0$.
\end{Example}

\begin{Rem}[trivial Lie group actions]
  \label{rem:trivial-actions}
  For any variational problem, the Euler--Lagrange equations, as
  already mentioned, are given in variational (or divergence) form. As
  such, if we assume that $L$ does not depend on $u$, that is $L =
  L(\geovec x, \nabla u)$, then the Euler--Lagrange equations
  themselves can be a Noether conservation law. Indeed, consider the
  case of Example \ref{ex:laplace} with $f\equiv 0$. It is clear by
  definition that $\Delta u = \div\qp{\nabla u} = 0$ is a conservation
  law. It arises from Noether's Theorem under the trivial Lie group
  action, that of translation in the dependent variable
  \begin{equation}
    \qp{\geovec x, u} \to \qp{\geovec x, u + \epsilon}.
  \end{equation}
  For this action, the infinitesimals are $\geovec \xi = \geovec 0$ and
  $\phi = 1$.
\end{Rem}

\section{Notation}
\label{sec:notation}

Let $\W \subset\reals^d$ be a bounded domain with
boundary $\partial \W$. We begin by introducing the Sobolev spaces
\cite{Ciarlet:1978,Evans:1998}
\begin{gather}
  \leb{p}(\W)
  =
  \ensemble{\phi}
           {\int_\W \norm{\phi}^p < \infty}   \text{ for } p\in[1,\infty)
             \text{ and }
             \leb{\infty}(\W)
             =
             \ensemble{\phi}
                      {\esssup_\W \norm{\phi} < \infty},
                      \\
                      \sob{k}{p}(\W)
                      =
                      \ensemble{\phi\in\leb{p}(\W)}
                               {\D^{\vec\alpha}\phi\in\leb{p}(\W), \text{ for } \norm{\geovec\alpha}\leq k}
                               \text{ and }
    \sobh{k}(\W)
    :=
    \sob{k}{2}(\W),
\end{gather}
which are equipped with the following norms and semi-norms:
\begin{gather}
  \Norm{v}_{\leb{p}(\W)}^p
  :=
       {\int_\W \norm{v}^p}
       \\
       \Norm{v}_{k,p}^p
       :=
       \Norm{v}_{\sob{k}{p}(\W)}^p
       =
       \sum_{\norm{\vec \alpha}\leq k}\Norm{\D^{\vec \alpha} v}_{\leb{p}(\W)}^p
       \\
       \norm{v}_{k,p}^p
       :=
       \norm{v}_{\sob{k}{p}(\W)}^p
       =
       \sum_{\norm{\vec \alpha} = k}\Norm{\D^{\vec \alpha} v}_{\leb{p}(\W)}^p
       \\
       \Norm{v}_k^2 := \Norm{v}_{\sobh{k}(\W)}^2 = \Norm{v}_{\sob{k}{2}(\W)}^2,
\end{gather}
where $\vec\alpha = \{ \alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_d\}$ is a
multi-index, $\norm{\vec\alpha} = \sum_{i=1}^d\alpha_i$ and
derivatives $\D^{\vec\alpha}$ are understood in a weak sense. We pay
particular attention to the cases $k = 1,2$ and
\begin{gather}
  \sobz{1}{p}(\W) := \text{closure of }\cont{\infty}_0(\W) \text{ in } \sob{1}{p}(\W).
\end{gather}
Let $L = L\qp{\geovec x, u, \nabla u}$ be the \emph{Lagrangian}. We
will let
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:action-functional}
  \dfunkmapsto[.]
  {\cJ[\cdot]}
  \phi
  {\sobz{1}{p}(\W)}
  {\cJ[\phi] := \int_\W L(\geovec x, \phi, \nabla \phi) \d \geovec x}
  {\reals}
\end{equation}
be known as the \emph{action functional}. The problem arising from the
calculus of variations is to seek a function \emph{extremising} the
action functional. For simplicity we will consider the minimisation
problem, {that is, to to find} $u\in\sobz{1}{p}(\W)$ such that
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:variational-prob}
  \cJ[u] = \inf_{v\in\sobz{1}{p}(\W)} \cJ[v].
\end{equation}
{Note that we are implicitly coupling the minimisation problem with
homogenous Dirichlet boundary conditions.}

We will use the notation that
\begin{equation}
  \nabla L
  =
  \Transpose{\qp{\frac{\partial L\qp{\geovec x, u, \nabla u}}{\partial x_1}
      ,
      \dots
      ,
      \frac{\partial L\qp{\geovec x, u, \nabla u}}{\partial x_d} }
  }
\end{equation}
denotes a column vector of spatial derivatives of the Lagrangian, \ie
derivatives with respect to the independent variables. The derivative
with respect to the dependent variable is denoted $\frac{\partial
  L}{\partial u}$ and let $\geovec p = \Transpose{\qp{p_1,\dots,p_d}}
= \nabla u$ then
\begin{equation}
  \frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
  =
  \Transpose{\qp{\frac{\partial L\qp{\geovec x, u, \nabla u}}{\partial p_1}
      ,
      \dots
      ,
      \frac{\partial L\qp{\geovec x, u, \nabla u}}{\partial p_d}}
  }
\end{equation}
denotes the vector of derivatives of $L$ with respect to the gradient
of $u$ componentwise.

It is well known \cite[c.f.]{Evans:1998, GiaquintaHildebrandt1:1996}
that if $u$ is a (smooth) minimiser of the variational problem
(\ref{eq:variational-prob}) then it solves the quasilinear, second
order, variational PDE called the \emph{Euler--Lagrange equations}
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:Euler-Lagrange-equations}
  \cL[u] :=
  -
  \div\qp{\frac{\partial L}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}}
  +
  \frac{\partial L}{\partial u} = 0.
\end{equation}

\begin{Hyp}[null Lagrangian]
  We assume that the Lagrangian is not null, that is, the
  Euler--Lagrange equations (\ref{eq:Euler-Lagrange-equations}) are
  not satisfied by all smooth functions.
\end{Hyp}

\begin{comment}

We consider the following problem: Find $u\in\sobh{2}(\W)\cap \hoz$ such that
\begin{equation}
  \begin{split}
    \label{Problem}
    \linop u &= 0 \text{ in }\W,\\
    u &= 0 \text { on }\partial \W,
  \end{split}
\end{equation}
where the data {$f\in\leb{2}(\W)$} is prescribed and $\linop$ is a
general linear, second order, uniformly elliptic partial differential
operator. Let $\A \in \Le{\infty}(\W)^{d\times d}, \geovec
  b\in\Le{\infty}(\W)^{d} \AND 0\leq c\in\Le{\infty}(\W)$ and for each
$\geovec x\in\W$ let $\A(\geovec x)\in\symm$, the space of bounded,
symmetric, positive definite, $d \times d$ matrices. We then define
\begin{equation}
  \label{eqn:def:divergence-linear-operator}
  \dfunkmapsto[.]
	      {\linop}
	      u
	      {\sobh{2}(\W)\cap\hoz}
	      {\linop u:= -\div{\A\nabla u} + \Transpose{\geovec b}
                \nabla u + c u - f}
	      {\leb{2}(\W)}
\end{equation}
\margnote{should I replace the explicit representation of the linear operator with growth conditions on the Lagrangian c.f. Evans?\\}
In view of the regularity assumptions on $\linop$ it is clear that
(\ref{eqn:def:divergence-linear-operator}) admits a unique
solution. The problem (\ref{eqn:def:divergence-linear-operator})
can be characterised in weak form using Green's formula. The problem
is to find $u\in\sobh2(\W)\hoz$ such that
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:weakform}
  a(u,\phi) - l(\phi) = \int_\W \Transpose{\nabla \phi}{\A\nabla u} +
  \Transpose{\geovec b} \nabla u \phi + c u \phi - f \phi = 0 \Foreach
  \phi\in\hoz
\end{equation}
\end{comment}

\section{Conservative properties of Raviart--Thomas FEs for strong solutions}
\label{sec:numerics-rt}

The Raviart--Thomas spaces are well known to satisfy a commuting
diagram property \cite[c.f.]{ErnGuermond:2004}. This property enables
the construction of a discrete counterpart to the De-Rham complex
using homological techniques and exterior calculus
\cite{ArnoldFalkWinther:2010}.

\section{Conservative properties of Lagrangian FEs for strong solutions}
\label{sec:numerics-lag}

In this section we present results concerning the approximability of
the strong continuous conservation laws arising from Theorem
\ref{the:noether}. We examine numerically the behaviour of the
Lagrangian finite element method. In this sense we wish to measure the
quantity $\div\qp{\cC[U]}$ and evaluate how far it deviates from
zero. For clarity of exposition, we will assume henceforth that the
continuous minimisation problem takes the form: Find $u\in\hoz$ such
that
\begin{equation}
  \cJ[u] = \inf_{v\in\hoz(\W)} \cJ[v].
\end{equation}

\begin{The}[Bound on the finite element approximation of Noether's laws.]
  \label{the:pre-convergence}
  Let $u\in\sobh{2}(\W)\cap \hoz(\W)$ be a strong extrema to the
  variational problem (\ref{eq:variational-prob}) (and hence a strong
  solution to the Euler--Lagrange equations
  (\ref{eq:Euler-Lagrange-equations})). Suppose we have that Theorem
  \ref{the:noether} holds under a variational symmetry group with
  infinitesimals $\geovec \xi$ and $\phi$.

  In addition assume that we have
\begin{gather}
  \label{eq:ass-3}
  L(\geovec x, u, \nabla u) \in \leb{\infty}(\W)
  \Foreach u\in\hoz(\W)
  \\
  \label{eq:ass-4}
  \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
  \in \qb{\leb{\infty}(\W)}^d
  \Foreach u\in\hoz(\W).
\end{gather}
Then if $U\in\fes$ is the finite element approximation to $u$ there
exists a constant $C$ such that
\begin{equation}
  \label{eq:the-bound}
  \begin{split}
  \Norm{\div{\cC[U]}}_{\sobh{-1}(\W)}
  &\leq
  C
  \Bigg(
    \Norm{L(\geovec x, U, \nabla U)
      -
      L(\geovec x, u, \nabla u)
    }
    +
    \Norm{
    \nabla U - \nabla u
    }
    \\
    &
    \qquad
    +
    \Norm{\frac{\partial L(\geovec x,U,\nabla U)}{\partial\qp{\nabla U}}
      -
      \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
    }
    \\
    &
    \qquad
    +
    \Norm{\phi(\geovec x, U) - \phi(\geovec x, u)}
    +
    \Norm{\geovec \xi(\geovec x, U) - \geovec \xi(\geovec x, u)}
  \Bigg).
  \end{split}
  \end{equation}
\end{The}
\begin{Proof}
  We begin by noting that since $u$ is a strong extremal, Theorem
  \ref{the:noether} holds and we have that $\div{\cC[u]} = 0$. Hence
  \begin{equation}
    \Norm{\div{\cC[U]}}_{\sobh{-1}(\W)}
    =
    \Norm{\div\qp{\cC[U] - \cC[u]}}_{\sobh{-1}(\W)}.
  \end{equation}
  Now, we may use the fact that for a generic $\varphi\in\hoz$
  \begin{equation}
    \begin{split}
      \duality{\div\qp{\cC[U] - \cC[u]}}{\varphi}
      &=
      -\ltwop{{\cC[U] - \cC[u]}}{\nabla \varphi}
      \\
      &\leq
      \Norm{{\cC[U] - \cC[u]}}
      \Norm{\nabla\varphi}.
    \end{split}
  \end{equation}
  Since $\varphi$ was generic we may divide through by
  $\Norm{\nabla\varphi}$ and take the supremum over $\varphi$ then by
  the definition of the $\sobh{-1}(\W)$ norm
  \begin{equation}
    \Norm{\div{\cC[U]}}_{\sobh{-1}(\W)}
    \leq
    \Norm{\cC[U] - \cC[u]}.
  \end{equation}
  By the definition of the Noether quantity $\cC$ from (\ref{eq:noether-functional}) we have that
  \begin{equation}
    \begin{split}
      \Norm{\div{\cC[U]}}_{\sobh{-1}(\W)}
      &\leq
      \Norm{
        \phi(\geovec x, U)
        \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,U,\nabla U)}{\partial\qp{\nabla U}}
        -
        \phi(\geovec x, u)
        \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
      }
      \\
      &+
      \Norm{
        \Transpose{\qp{\geovec \xi(\geovec x, U)}}
        \nabla U
        \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,U,\nabla U)}{\partial\qp{\nabla U}}
        -
        \Transpose{\qp{\geovec \xi(\geovec x, u)}}
        \nabla u
        \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
      }
      \\
      &+
      \Norm{
        L(\geovec x,U,\nabla U)
        \geovec \xi(\geovec x, U)
        -
        L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)
        \geovec \xi(\geovec x, u)
      }
      \\
      &=:
      \cI_1 + \cI_2 + \cI_3
    \end{split}
  \end{equation}
  where for clarity we have written the dependencies explicitly. Now
  for each of the $\cI_i$ we add and subtract appropriate quantities
  and make use of the triangle inequality. We thus have the following
  bounds:
  \begin{equation}
    \begin{split}
      \cI_1
      &\leq
      \Norm{
        \phi(\geovec x, U)
        \qp{
          \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,U,\nabla U)}{\partial\qp{\nabla U}}
          -
          \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
        }
      }
      \\
      &
      \qquad
      +
      \Norm{
        \qp{
          \phi(\geovec x, U) - \phi(\geovec x, u)
        }
        \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
      }
    \end{split}
  \end{equation}
  \begin{equation}
    \begin{split}
      \cI_2
      &\leq
      \Norm{
        \qp{
          \geovec \xi(\geovec x, u)
          -
          \geovec \xi(\geovec x, U)
        }
        \Transpose{\qp{
          \nabla u
        }}
        \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
      }
      \\
      &
      \qquad
      +
      \Norm{
        \Transpose{
          \qp{\geovec \xi(\geovec x, U)}
        }
        \qp{
          \nabla u - \nabla U
          }
        \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
      }
      \\
      &
      \qquad
      +
      \Norm{
       \Transpose{
         \qp{\geovec \xi(\geovec x, U)}
       }
       \nabla U
       \qp{
         \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,U,\nabla U)}{\partial\qp{\nabla U}}
         -
         \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
       }
      }
    \end{split}
  \end{equation}
  and
  \begin{equation}
    \begin{split}
      \cI_3
      &\leq
      \Norm{
        \qp{
          L(\geovec x,U,\nabla U)
          -
          L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)
          }
        \geovec \xi(\geovec x, U)
      }
      \\
      &
      \qquad
      +
      \Norm{
        L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)
        \qp{
          \geovec \xi(\geovec x, U)
          -
          \geovec \xi(\geovec x, u)
        }
      }.
    \end{split}
  \end{equation}

Under assumptions (\ref{eq:ass-3})--~(\ref{eq:ass-4}) and using the
fact that $\phi$ and $\geovec \xi$ are infinitesimals of a smooth Lie
group action we have that
\begin{gather}
  \cI_1
  \leq
  C \qp{
    \Norm{
      \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,U,\nabla U)}{\partial\qp{\nabla U}}
      -
      \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
    }
    +
    \Norm{
      \phi(\geovec x, U) - \phi(\geovec x, u)
    }
  }
  \\
  \cI_2
  \leq
  C\qp{\Norm{
    \geovec \xi(\geovec x, u)
    -
    \geovec \xi(\geovec x, U)
  }
  +
  \Norm{
    \nabla u - \nabla U
  }
  +
  \Norm{
    \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,U,\nabla U)}{\partial\qp{\nabla U}}
    -
    \frac{\partial L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)}{\partial\qp{\nabla u}}
  }}
  \\
  \cI_3
  \leq
  C
  \qp{
    \Norm{
      L(\geovec x,U,\nabla U)
      -
      L(\geovec x,u,\nabla u)
    }
  +
  \Norm{
    \geovec \xi(\geovec x, u)
    -
    \geovec \xi(\geovec x, U)
  }
  }.
\end{gather}
Taking the sum of the $\cI_i$ gives the desired result.
\end{Proof}

\begin{Cor}
  \label{cor:under-lipscitz-ass}
{
    Let the conditions of Theorem \ref{the:pre-convergence} hold under
  the same variational symmetry group with infinitesimals $\geovec
  \xi$ and $\phi$. In addition assume that the Lagrangian is
  sufficiently smooth such that both $L$ and $\frac{\partial
    L}{\partial(\nabla u)}$ are (locally) Lipschitz with respect to
  the second and third variable then the bound (\ref{eq:the-bound})
  can be simplified to}
\begin{equation}
  \begin{split}
  \Norm{\div{\cC[U]}}_{\sobh{-1}(\W)}
  &\leq
  C
  \Bigg(
    \Norm{
      U - u
    }
    +
    \Norm{
    \nabla U - \nabla u
    }
    \\
    &
    \qquad
    +
    \Norm{\phi(\geovec x, U) - \phi(\geovec x, u)}
    +
    \Norm{\geovec \xi(\geovec x, U) - \geovec \xi(\geovec x, u)}
  \Bigg).
  \end{split}
  \end{equation}
\end{Cor}

\begin{Rem}[relating to the $p$--Laplacian]
  \label{rem:convergence}
  We may relate Theorem \ref{the:pre-convergence} and Corollary
  \ref{cor:under-lipscitz-ass} to the $p$--Laplacian studied in
  \S\ref{sec:p-lap}. We were considering that $L$ was invariant under
  rotations in the independent variable. In that case we have that
  $\phi \equiv 0$ and that
  \begin{equation}
    \Norm{\geovec \xi(\geovec x, U) - \geovec \xi(\geovec x, u)}
    =
    0
  \end{equation}
  hence we may infer that
  \begin{equation}
    \Norm{\div{\cC[U]}}_{\sobh{-1}(\W)}
    \leq
    C
    \bigg(
    \Norm{
      U - u
    }
    +
    \Norm{
      \nabla U - \nabla u
    }
    \bigg).
  \end{equation}
  The leading term here is $\Norm{\nabla U - \nabla u}$ which is well known to be =
  $\Oh(h^k)$.
\end{Rem}

\begin{Lem}[a computable upper bound for the conservation law]
  \label{lem:upper-bound}
  Let $u\in\sobh{2}(\W)\cap \hoz$ be a strong extrema to the
  variational problem (\ref{eq:variational-prob}). Suppose that
  Theorem \ref{the:noether} holds and that $U$ is the finite element
  approximation to $u$. Then there exists a constant $C$ dependent on
  the shape regularity of $\T{}$ such that
  \begin{equation}
    \Norm{\div{\cC[U]}}_{\sobh{-1}(\W)}
    \leq
    E\qp{U,f} :=
    C \qp{
    \sum_{K\in\T{}} \Norm{\div{\cC[U]}}_{\leb{2}(K)}
    +
    \sum_{e\in\E} \Norm{\jump{\cC[U]}}_{\leb{2}(e)}
    }.
  \end{equation}
\end{Lem}
\begin{Proof}
  The proof is a standard aposteriori argument where the quantity of
  interest is split into regular and singular parts. Recall for the
  model elliptic problem $\cC[U] = \cC(\geovec x, U, \nabla U)$ and
  hence $\div{\cC[U]} \notin \leb{2}(\W)$. Let
  $\duality{\cdot}{\cdot}$ denote the $\sobh{-1}(\W)$ -- $\hoz$
  duality pairing then for any $\varphi\in\hoz$ it holds that
  \begin{equation}
    \begin{split}
      \duality{\div{\cC[U]}}{\varphi}
      &=
      \sum_{K\in\T{}}
      - \int_K \Transpose{\cC[U]}\nabla \varphi
      \\
      &=
      \sum_{K\in\T{}}
      \int_K \div{\cC[U]}\varphi
      -
      \int_{\partial K} \Transpose{\cC[U]}\geovec n_K \varphi.
    \end{split}
  \end{equation}
  Note that for generic $\geovec p \in \qb{\leb{2}(\W)}^d$ and $v\in\sobh{1}(\W)$ that
  \begin{equation}
    \sum_{K\in\T{}}
    \int_{\partial K}
    \Transpose{\geovec p} \geovec n_K v = \int_\E \jump{\geovec p} v
    +
    \int_{\partial \W} \Transpose{\geovec p} \geovec n_K v.
  \end{equation}
  Hence
  \begin{equation}
    \duality{\div{\cC[U]}}{\varphi}
    =
    \sum_{K\in\T{}}
    \int_K \div{\cC[U]}\varphi
    -
    \sum_{e\in\E}
    \int_e\jump{\cC[U]} \varphi
    -
    \sum_{e\in\partial\W}
    \int_e\Transpose{\cC[U]}\geovec n \varphi.
  \end{equation}
  Applying a Cauchy--Schwarz inequality followed by a Poincar\'e
  inequality together with a trace inequality yields
  \begin{equation}
    \begin{split}
      \duality{\div{\cC[U]}}{\varphi}
      &\leq
      C\sum_{K\in\T{}}
      \Norm{\div{\cC[U]}}_{\leb{2}(K)} \Norm{\varphi}_{\leb{2}(K)}
      +
      \sum_{e\in\E}
      \Norm{\jump{\cC[U]}}_{\leb{2}(e)}\Norm{\varphi}_{\leb{2}(e)}
      \\
      &\leq
      C\Norm{\nabla\varphi}
      \qp{ \sum_{K\in\T{}}
      \Norm{\div{\cC[U]}}_{\leb{2}(K)}
      +
      \sum_{e\in\E}
      \Norm{\jump{\cC[U]}}_{\leb{2}(e)}}
    \end{split}
  \end{equation}
  Noting $\varphi$ was a generic function in $\hoz$, dividing through by
  $\Norm{\nabla\varphi}$ and taking the supremum over $\varphi$ yields the
  desired result.
\end{Proof}

\begin{Rem}[]
  It is worth noting that since the quantity $\div \cC[U]$ is not
  orthogonal to $\fes$ there are no powers of $h$ appearing in the
  estimate given in Lemma \ref{lem:upper-bound}. What is interesting
  is that the estimate still converges to zero at the same rate as
  that of the residual of the problem.
\end{Rem}

\subsection{Numerical experiments}
\label{sec:benchmark}

In Figure \ref{fig:benchmark-experiements} we show numerically that
the estimate given in Lemma \ref{lem:upper-bound} converges at the
same rate as the apriori bound given in Remark
\ref{rem:convergence}. All numerical experiments are conducted for
simplicity on the $2$--Laplacian taking $\W = [-1,1]^2$ which is
discretised using an unstructured triangulation.

\begin{figure}[h!]
  \caption[]{\label{fig:benchmark-experiements} In this experiment we
    consider the $2$--Laplacian. We fix $f$ such that $u =
    \exp\qp{-10\norm{\geovec x}^2}$. We solve the discrete problem on
    concurrently refined meshes and compute the $\leb{2}(\W)$--error,
    the $\hoz$--error and the computable estimate given in Lemma
    \ref{lem:upper-bound}. Notice that in each of the examples
    $E(U,f)$ converges like $\Oh\qp{h^k}$.}
  \begin{center}
    \subfigure[][{Initial mesh}]{
      \includegraphics[scale=\figscale, width=0.47\figwidth]
                      {./figures/init_mesh.jpg}
    }
    \subfigure[][{In this example we choose $k=1$. Note when
      $\dim{\fes} = 295681, E(U,f) \approx 0.08$.}]{
      \includegraphics[scale=\figscale, width=0.47\figwidth]
                      {./figures/benchmark-p1-lap-rotation.pdf}
    }
    \subfigure[][{In this example we choose $k=2$. Note when
      $\dim{\fes} = 295681, E(U,f) \approx 0.0003$.}]{
      \includegraphics[scale=\figscale, width=0.47\figwidth]
                      {./figures/benchmark-p2-lap-rotation.pdf}
    }
    \subfigure[][{In this example we choose $k=3$. Note when
      $\dim{\fes} = 295681, E(U,f) \approx 0.000001$.}]{
      \includegraphics[scale=\figscale, width=0.47\figwidth]
                      {./figures/benchmark-p3-lap-rotation.pdf}
    }
  \end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Adaptive methods}

We conclude our numerical experiments in Figure
\ref{fig:adaptive-experiements} by using the observed convergence of
the computable estimator $E(U,f)$ to construct an adaptive scheme
aimed at minimising $E(U,f)$ (and hence
$\Norm{\div{\cC[U]}}_{-1}$). The adaptive algorithm we make use of is
of standard type (SOLVE $\to$ ESTIMATE $\to$ MARK $\to$ REFINE
\cite[c.f.]{alberta}) utilising the maximum strategy marking and
newest vertex bisection refinement.

\begin{figure}[h]
  \caption[]{\label{fig:adaptive-experiements} In this experiment we
    fix $f$ such that $u$ is as in Figure
    \ref{fig:benchmark-experiements}. We solve the FE problem on
    concurrently refined meshes and compute the $\leb{2}(\W)$--error,
    the $\hoz$--error and the estimate of Noether's conservation law,
    $E\qp{U,f}$, from Lemma \ref{lem:upper-bound}. We construct an
    h--adaptive approximation to the problem with the aim of
    minimising the violation of the Noether quantity. Note that the
    estimator decreases far quicker than $\Oh(N^{-k/2})$}
  \subfigure[][{Adaptive solution}]{ \includegraphics[scale=\figscale,
      width=0.47\figwidth] {./figures/solution-p2-lap-rotation.jpg} }
  \hfill \subfigure[][{In this example we choose $k=1$. Note when
      $\dim{\fes} = 40020, E(U,f) \approx 0.002$.}]{
    \includegraphics[scale=\figscale, width=0.47\figwidth]
                    {./figures/adaptive-p2-lap-rotation.pdf} }
\end{figure}

\section{Variational calculus from a FE context}