This paper establishes quantitative bounds on how closely maps approximate volume preservation, linking deviations in derivatives to overall map deviations, with applications to elastic material deformations.
Contribution
It introduces a Brenier decomposition-based method to quantify deviations from volume preservation and connects it to matrix nearness problems in elasticity theory.
Findings
01
Bound on deviation of maps from volume preservation
02
Relation between derivative deviation and map deviation
03
Application to incompressible elastic deformations
Abstract
A quantitative Brenier decomposition shows that the deviation of a map from volume preserving is bounded by the deviation of the derivative from volume preserving. A study of the matrix nearness problem for SL(n) and Sp(2n) relates the estimate to incompressible deformations of elastic materials.
{detDw(y)=detDu(u−1(w(y)))w(u(U))⊂u(U) for y∈u(U).
{detDw(y)=detDu(u−1(w(y)))w(u(U))⊂u(U) for y∈u(U).
∫Av∘sdx=∫Bvdy
∫Av∘sdx=∫Bvdy
ωu(y):=⎩⎨⎧0∑x∈Pu(y)detDu(x)1∞ for Pu(y) empty for Pu(y) nonempty, countable for Pu(y) uncountable
ωu(y):=⎩⎨⎧0∑x∈Pu(y)detDu(x)1∞ for Pu(y) empty for Pu(y) nonempty, countable for Pu(y) uncountable
(0,1)×Sn−1∋(r,θ)→(21−nr,2θ)∈R>0×Sn−1
(0,1)×Sn−1∋(r,θ)→(21−nr,2θ)∈R>0×Sn−1
(−1,1)n∋(xi)i=1n→(21∣xi∣)i=1n∈Rn
(−1,1)n∋(xi)i=1n→(21∣xi∣)i=1n∈Rn
B1(0)∋x→∣x∣x(2n−1+∣x∣n)1/n∈Rn
B1(0)∋x→∣x∣x(2n−1+∣x∣n)1/n∈Rn
∫U∣s−S∣pdx≤ε.
∫U∣s−S∣pdx≤ε.
s−1(N)=∣N∩V∣≤∣N∣=0.
s−1(N)=∣N∩V∣≤∣N∣=0.
Dψ∗(Dψ(x))=x for a.e. x∈U
Dψ∗(Dψ(x))=x for a.e. x∈U
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Mathematical Modeling in Engineering · Advanced Numerical Analysis Techniques · Composite Material Mechanics
Full text
Integral estimates for approximations by
volume preserving maps
Christopher Policastro
University of California, Berkeley, Department of Mathematics, 958 Evans Hall #3840, Berkeley, CA 94720
A quantitative Brenier decomposition shows that the deviation of a map from volume preserving is bounded by the deviation of the derivative from volume preserving. A study of the matrix nearness problem for SL(n) and Sp(2n) relates the estimate to incompressible deformations of elastic materials.
A deformation u:U→Rn of a homogeneous hyperelastic material can be understood through an energy function W:Matn×n→R measuring the stored energy of u(U). The derivative DW relates the pressure of the deformation to the displacement of the material under the deformation. If v:U→Rn satisfies W(Dv)≡0, then the deformation does no work on the material. We can try to approximate u by v with a bound by W(Du) on the difference. For small deformations, we have the energy function
[TABLE]
Note that Wso(A)=dist2(A,so(n)) where so(n)={A∈Matn×n:AT=−A}. An esimtate of Korn implies that for u∈W1,p(U,Rn) with 1<p<∞, there exist A∈so(n) and c∈Rn such that
[TABLE]
For large deformations, we have the energy function
[TABLE]
Note that WSO(A)=dist2(A,SO(n)) for detA>0 where SO(n)={A∈Matn×n:AT=A−1 and detA=1}. An estimate of Kohn [20, p. 134] and Friesecke-James-Müller [13, p. 1468] implies that for u∈W1,p(U,Rn) with 1<p<∞, there exist A∈SO(n) and c∈Rn such that
[TABLE]
We can split the energy function into an isochoric part measuring the stored energy of volume preserving deformations and a dilational part measuring the stored energy of volume changing deformations
[TABLE]
If the bulk modulus κ is large, then Wdil contributes more to the stored energy meaning the material is nearly incompressible. We can try to approximate a compressible deformation by an incompressible deformation with a bound by Wdil on the difference. For small deformations, we have the energy functions
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.3 shows that for u∈W1,p(U,Rn) with 1≤p<∞, there exists v∈W1,p(U,Rn) with divv=0 such that
[TABLE]
where C:=C(n,p,diamU). For large deformations, we have the energy functions
[TABLE]
where detA>0. Corollary 2.6 shows that for 1<p<∞ and u∈W1,∞(U,Rn) injective, there exists v∈W1,∞(U,Rn) incompressible such that
[TABLE]
where C:=C(n,p,d,λ,Λ). We treat the degenerate case of p=1 in Corollary 2.8. Note that
[TABLE]
where sl(n):={A∈Matn×n:trA=0}. The relation between dist(⋅,sl(n)) and WHookeandil suggests that the energy function
[TABLE]
might satisfy an estimate comparable to (1.3) where SL(n):={A∈Matn×n:detA=1}. For 1≤p<∞ and u∈W1,p(U,R) we have
[TABLE]
where c:=\fintUu−xdx. However, (1.5) does not hold for n>1. The energy functions WSL and Wneo-Hookeandil are not equivalent. Example 3.2 shows that WSL is small and Wneo-Hookeandil is large for certain ill-conditioned matrices. Corollary 3.6 provides bounds on WSL that suggest a modified energy function
[TABLE]
Here the distance to SL(n) is weighted by a ratio reflecting the ill-conditioning of the matrix. Proposition 4.2 shows that (1.5) holds for n>1 with the modified energy function.
We can understand Wneo-Hookeaniso as measuring stretching and shrinking along lines and Wneo-Hookeandil as measuring change of volume. We can incorporate stretching and shrinking along planes into the energy function. The Mooney-Rivlin energy function makes the modification to model more accurately deformations arising from forces in several directions (cf. Example 5.1). For A∈Mat2n×2n and
[TABLE]
the quantity ATJA−J2 controls the stretching and shrinking along coordinate planes Rxk×Rxk+n. A deformation u:U→R2n that preserves the area of coordinate planes is called symplectic. These deformations are incompressible because they correspond to Sp(2n)⊂SL(2n) (cf. Definition 4.4). While incompressible deformations are symplectic for n=1, symplectic deformations are more rigid than incompressible deformations for n>1 because they neither stretch nor shrink the area of coordinate planes. Lemma 4.6 shows that incompressible deformations can be approximated by symplectic deformations. The observation allows us to treat (1.4) for symplectic deformations in Proposition 4.7 and to treat Corollary 4.2 for Sp(2n) in Corollary 4.8. Proposition 4.11 shows the analogue of (1.3) for sp(2n).
We apply the estimates for 0≪κ to understand the trend of compressible deformations to incompressible deformations. Consider an energy function W=Wiso+κWdil. Firstly, we study deformations subject to boundary conditions. For boundary condition v:∂U→Rn, we want to minimize ∫UW(Du)dx subject to u∣∂U=v. Assume that v extends to U with ∣v(U)∣=∣U∣. Suppose
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We expect the minimizer uκ to relate to the minimizer u∞. Indeed, Dacorogna et al. [6] showed uκκ→∞→u∞ for energy functions with certain convexity and coercivity properties. We apply (1.4) in Proposition 5.3 to determine an incompressible deformation sκ:U→Rn such that
[TABLE]
where C:=C(U,v,W).
Secondly, we study the dynamics of deformations over time. For initial conditions v(x;κ),v(x;κ):U→Rn, the equations of motion are
[TABLE]
If v(x;κ) is incompressible, then we expect the compressible dynamics {u(x,t;κ)}t∈[0,T] to relate to the incompressible dynamics {u(x,t;∞)}t∈[0,T]. Indeed, Schochet [24] used observations about singular limits of hyperbolic systems of equations to show convergence u(x,t;κ)κ→∞→u(x,t;∞). We apply (1.4) in Proposition 5.4 to determine incompressible deformations {s(x,t;κ)}t∈[0,T] such that for 0≪κ<∞
[TABLE]
where C:=C(U,v,v,W).
The approach to (1.4) should be compared with the approach to (1.2). Heuristically, Friesecke-James-Müller decompose u:U→Rn as u=w+v where
[TABLE]
Here w minimizes ∫U∣Dz∣2dx subject to a boundary constraint involving u. They remove Dv because average distance of Du to SO(n) controls Dv. They determine A∈SO(n) nearest to Dw on average among distance preserving maps. This implies dist(Dw,SO(n))≈∣Dw−A∣≈dist(A−1Dw−I,so(n)). The estimate reduces to (1.1) for A−1Dw−I.
Heuristically, we use the Brenier decomposition to express u:U→Rn as u=Dψ∘v where
[TABLE]
in a weak sense [4, p. 3]. Here v is nearest to u on average among incompressible maps. This implies that ψ minimizes ∫u(U)∣Dφ(y)−y∣2dy subject to a determinant constraint involving u. We remove v because ∫U∣u−v∣2dx=∫u(U)∣Dψ−y∣2dy. We bound ∫u(U)∣Dψ−y∣2dy by ∫u(U)∣w−y∣2dy where
[TABLE]
Here w is constructed from the flow of a vector field z:u(U)→Rn. We can control w by z≈w−y. The estimate reduces to (1.3) for z.
The differences between the approach to (1.4) and the approach to (1.2) reflect the differences between the Laplace equation and the Monge-Ampère equation. Firstly, solutions to the Monge-Ampère equation are not unique because a solution can be composed with a volume preserving map to yield another solution. While distorted solutions can be treated by restricting to normalized domains [26, p. 138], we must treat the distortion through a bound on the diameter of the image. Secondly, the Monge-Ampère equation is degenerate elliptic. The treatment of existence and regularity of solutions requires control on the degeneracy through control on the determinant. We need bounds on the determinant for existence of weak solutions and Lp estimates on the weak solutions.
Notation. Throughout maps denoted with letters in the Greek alphabet are scalar valued and maps denoted with letters in the Latin alphabet are vector valued. The set U⊂Rn denotes an open, bounded, connected region with Lipschitz boundary [16, p. 12]. A function u∈W1,∞(U,Rn) is identified with its continuous representative. Take Lip(u):=∣∣Du∣∣L∞(U,Rn). Further notation is explained in Definition 2.1, Definition 2.4, Definition 3.1, and Definition 4.4.
2. Optimal transport maps
The main results of Section 2 are Proposition 2.5 for 1<p<∞ and Proposition 2.7 for p=1. For the degenerate case p=1, we must use a different approach. Restricting to injective maps gives Corollary 2.6 and Corollary 2.8 stated in (1.4). Throughout, we must distinguish between different notions of volume preserving.
Definition 2.1**.**
(1) Let A⊂Rn be measurable and s∈L∞(A,Rn). If there exists B⊂Rn measurable with s#(Hn└A)=Hn└B [11, p. 2], then call s measure preserving. We can characterize s as measure preserving from the property
[TABLE]
for all v∈L1(B).
(2) Let A⊂Rn be measurable. Take s∈L∞(A,Rn) differentiable at x [11, p. 81] for a.e. x∈A. If detDs(x)=1 for a.e. x∈A, then call the Jacobian equal to one.
(3) Take A⊂Rn and u:A→Rn. For y∈Rn set
[TABLE]
where Pu(y):={x∈A:u(x)=y and Du(x) exists with detDu(x)>0}.
For s∈W1,∞(A,Rn) injective, the area formula [11, p. 99] implies that s is measure preserving if and only if the Jacobian of s is equal to one. The equivalence may fail without the the assumption of injectivity.
Example 2.2**.**
(1) The map expressible as
[TABLE]
in polar coordinates is not measure preserving. However, the Jacobian is equal to one.
(2) The map
[TABLE]
is measure preserving. However, the Jacobian is not equal to one.
(3) The injective map
[TABLE]
lies in W1,p(B1(0),Rn) for 1≤p<n. It is measure preserving. Its Jacobian is a.e. equal to one. However, the image contains a cavity.
We should think of measure preserving maps as globally volume preserving, and maps with Jacobian identically equal to one as locally volume preserving. Nonetheless, we can relate the different notions with observations of Brenier-Gangbo [5].
Lemma 2.3**.**
Take U⊂Rn with n>1 and s∈L∞(U,Rn) measure preserving. Let 1≤p<∞. For any ε>0, there exists S∈Cdiff∞(Rn,Rn) with detDS≡1 such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since s is measure preserving, there exists V⊂Rn measurable such that
s#(Hn└U)=Hn└V. Note that V is contained in the essential image of s. For N⊂Rn with ∣N∣=0, we have
[TABLE]
Since s∈L∞(U,Rn), this implies the existence of s1:U→U measure preserving and ψ:Rn→R convex such that s(x)=Dψ∘s1(x) for a.e. x∈U [26, p. 120]. Take ψ∗(y):=supx∈Rnx⋅y−ψ(x). Note Dψ∗(V)⊂U with
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
[26, p. 66]. This implies that for A⊂U measurable, we have (Dψ∗)−1(A)=∣Dψ(A)∣ and Dψ−1(Dψ(A))=∣A∣. Therefore
[TABLE]
Set c:=(∣∣s∣∣L∞+x∈Usup∣x∣)i=1n. Note U∩(c+V)=∅. Let Q⊂Rn be an open cube containing U and c+V. We can take Q⊂Br(0) for r:=(1+n)(∣∣s∣∣L∞+x∈Usup∣x∣). For x∈Q take
[TABLE]
Note that s2:Q→Q is measure preserving because (Dψ∗)−1(A)=∣A∣ by (2.1). There exists sε∈C∞(Q,Q) such that
[TABLE]
with detDsε≡1 [5, p. 156]. Here we use n>1. By construction sε(x)=x in a neighborhood of ∂Q. Extend to sε∈C∞(Rn,Rn). Note
(1) Take B⊂A⊂Rn and u:A→Rn. If the mulitplicity function
[TABLE]
is essentially bounded, then denote its L∞-norm by multB(u). If multB(u)=1, then call u essentially injective on B.
(2) For A∈Matn×n with detA>0, set K(A):=detA∣A∣n.
Firstly, we note that for u∈W1,∞(U,Rn) the multiplicity function is measurable [11, p. 92]. Moreover, if UinfdetDu>0, then we can define multB(u) for any B⊂⊂U because UsupdetDu∣Du∣n=UsupK(Du)<∞ [17, p. 57]. Note that for u essentially injective, the area formula [11, p. 99] implies that u is measure preserving if and only if the Jacobian of u is equal to one. Secondly, we note that
[TABLE]
because
[TABLE]
where C:=C(n). Therefore we state Proposition 4.2 in terms of K rather than the energy function (1.6).
Proposition 2.5**.**
Let 1<p<∞. Take u∈W1,∞(U,Rn) with diam(u(U))≤d, multU(u)≤m, and 0<λ≤detDu(x)≤Λ for a.e. x∈U. There exists s∈W1,∞(U,Rn) measure preserving such that
[TABLE]
where C=C0m3p−2(λd)p(λΛ)2p−2 for a constant C0:=C0(n,p).
Proof.
Step (1) rephrases the estimate. Step (2) treats n=1. Step (3) through Step (7) treat n>1. Throughout Wp denotes Wasserstein distance [2, p. 151] and Pp denotes probability measures on Rn with finite pth moments [2, p. 106]. Set q:=p−1p.
(1) Note that u∈W1,∞(U,Rn) and 0<λ≤detDu(x) for a.e. x∈U imply that K(Du(x))≤λ∣∣Du∣∣L∞n for a.e. x∈U. Therefore u(U)⊂Rn is open [17, p. 43]. We have that u(U) is open, bounded, connected with diamu(U)>0 and ∣u(U)∣>0. Note that ∣u(U)∣≤∫UdetDudx≤Λ∣U∣ and mλ∣U∣≤∫Um1detDudx≤∣u(U)∣ [11, p. 99]. This implies that
[TABLE]
Take v:=(∣U∣∣u(U)∣)−n1u. Note that multU(v)=multU(u)≤m. Note that (2.3) implies
[TABLE]
for a.e. x∈U. Take V:=v(U). We have that V is open, bounded, connected with 0<diamV=(∣U∣∣u(U)∣)−n1d and ∣V∣>0. For N⊂U with ∣N∣=0, we have v(N)⊂V measurable with ∣v(N)∣≤∣∣Dv∣∣L∞n∣N∣=0 [11, p. 92]. Taking N:={x∈U:(\hyperref@@ii[OTMpropbdd15]\ref∗OTMpropbdd15) does not hold at x} shows that Pv(y)=v−1(y) for a.e. y∈V. This implies that 0<H0(Pv(y))≤m for a.e. y∈V. By (2.4)
[TABLE]
for a.e. y∈V. Note v#(Hn└U)≪Hn└V with density ωv [11, p. 81, p. 99]. This implies that
[TABLE]
for all N⊂V with ∣N∣=0. Therefore ωv(v)∈L∞(U) and ωv(v)1∈L∞(U). Note
[TABLE]
Set
[TABLE]
where C0:=C0(n,p) specified in Step (7). Note (∣U∣∣u(U)∣)ωu(u(x))=ωv(v(x)) for all x∈U. Therefore it suffices to show that
[TABLE]
for some s∈W1,∞(U,Rn) measure preserving. For y0∈V, we can replace v with v−v(y0) and we can replace s with s+v(y0) in (2.8). Therefore we can assume that 0∈V.
Note δ=0 if and only if ωv(v(x))=1 for a.e. x∈U. If δ=0, then set s=v. Otherwise, we can assume that δ>0.
(2) Assume n=1. Note λ≤detDu(x) for a.e. x∈U means that λ≤u′(x) for a.e. x∈U. We have
[TABLE]
for all x<y in U. This shows that u:U→R is injective. Therefore m=1 and ωv(v(x))1=v′(x) for a.e. x∈U. We have
[TABLE]
for c=\fintUv−xdx. Note (2.3) implies that (∣U∣∣u(U)∣)pλp1≥mp1=1. Since λ≤Λ, we have
[TABLE]
Since 1<C0, we have ∫U∣v−(x+c)∣pdx≤δ. This shows (2.8) for n=1.
(3) Assume n>1. Note that ωvHn└V and Hn└V are compactly supported. For N⊂V with ∣N∣=0, we have ∫Nωvdy(\hyperref@@ii[OTMpropbdd7]\ref∗OTMpropbdd7)=0. Note that Rn∋x→∣x∣p∈R is strictly convex because 1<p<∞. Therefore there exists T:Rn→Rn measurable with T#(ωvHn└V)=Hn└V and
[TABLE]
[2, p. 141]. The composition of v and T is defined a.e. in U. Set s=T∘v.
Note that s#(Hn└U)=T#(ωvHn└U)=Hn└U. Therefore s:U→Rn is measure preserving. We have
[TABLE]
(4) We bound (2.9) in Step (6) using an estimate of Benamou-Brenier. Step (4) and Step (5) are needed to apply the estimate of Benamou-Brenier.
Set W˙1,2(B2diamV(0))={ψ∈W1,2(B2diamV(0)):∫B2diamV(0)ψdy=0}. Note that W˙1,2(B2diamV(0)) is a Hilbert space with inner product
[TABLE]
For ψ∈W˙1,2(B2diamV(0)) we have
[TABLE]
because \fintB2diamV(0)ψdx=0 [15, p. 164]. This implies that the pairing
[TABLE]
is coercive. Note that the pairing is continuous. The map
[TABLE]
is bounded and linear because ∫V∣1−ωv∣2dx≤∣V∣1+λmΛ2<∞ by (2.5). Therefore Lax-Milgram implies the existence of a unique φ∈W˙1,2(B2diamV(0)) such that
[TABLE]
for all η∈W˙1,2(B2diamV(0)). Note that ∫V1−ωvdy(\hyperref@@ii[OTMpropbdd45]\ref∗OTMpropbdd45)=0 implies
[TABLE]
for all η∈W1,2(B2diamV(0)).
Recall that ωv(y)=0 for y∈V by Definition 2.1, and ωv∈L∞(V) by (2.5). This implies that (1−ωv)1V∈L∞(B2diamV(0)). For any 1<r<∞, the Neumann problem
[TABLE]
has a unique weak solution [14, p. 2149]. Here we use n>1. Therefore (2.10) implies that φ∈W1,p(B2diamV(0)). Set V:=2diamV1V,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
for all η∈W1,2(B1(0)). Observe that for any z∈Lq(B1(0),Rn), there exists Z∈Lq(B1(0),Rn) and ζ∈W1,q(B1(0)) such that z=Z+Dζ with
[TABLE]
for constant C1:=C1(n,p) and
[TABLE]
for all η∈W1,p(B1(0)) [14, p. 2150]. Here we use n>1. For any ε>0, we have
(7) Set C0:=1+2p+1C2. Note C0:=C0(n,p). By Lemma 2.3 there exists s∈Cdiff∞(Rn,Rn) with detDs≡1 such that ∫U∣s−s∣pdx≤2p+11δ. Here we use 1<n and 0<δ. We have
Let 1<p<∞. Take u∈W1,∞(U,Rn) essentially injective with diam(u(U))≤d and 0<λ≤detDu(x)≤Λ for a.e. x∈U. There exists S∈W1,∞(U,Rn) essentially injective, measure preserving such that
[TABLE]
where C=C3(λn1d)p(1+λp1(λΛ)2p−2) for a constant C3:=C3(n,p).
for a.e. y∈u(U). Note H0(u−1(y))=1 for a.e. y∈u(U) by essential injectivity. For N⊂u(U) with ∣N∣=0, we have
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
for a.e. x∈U. Observe that
[TABLE]
Take s∈W1,∞(U,Rn) from Proposition 2.5. Recall that for δ=0 we have s=u, and for δ>0 we have s∈Cdiff∞(Rn,Rn). Therefore s is essentially injective. Take x0∈U. Set S:=s+u(x0) and u:=u−u(x0). Note that ∣∣u∣∣L∞≤d, ∣u(U)∣=∣U∣ and Du=Du. We have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Note that (2.3) implies (∣U∣∣u(U)∣)−np≤λnp1. Divide by (∣U∣∣u(U)∣)np to obtain
[TABLE]
Set C3:=22p+1C0+2p. Note C3:=C3(n,p).
∎
Note (2.18) bounds the cost of transporting ωvHn└V to Hn└V by the cumulative cost of transporting μ0 to μ1 through small changes. For small changes, we can relate Wasserstein distance to H−1 norm. Indeed,
[TABLE]
for 0<ε≪1 [26, p. 234]. While we can relate μt and μt+ε for arbitrary ε, the relation is through an inequality [23, p. 211]. Note
[TABLE]
Therefore the approach to Proposition 2.5 and Corollary 2.6 does not extend to p=1. However, we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We use a different approach for p=1 obtaining constant (2.23) in Proposition 2.7 and constant (2.24) in Corollary 2.8. Neither constant depends on Λ. However, we use an upper bound on the determinant from Hadamard’s inequality detDu(x)∀x∈U≤∣∣Du∣∣L∞(U,Rn)n.
Proposition 2.7**.**
Let u∈W1,∞(U,Rn) with diam(u(U))≤d, multU(u)≤m, and 0<λ≤detDu(x) for a.e. x∈U. There exists s∈W1,∞(U,Rn) measure preserving such that
[TABLE]
where C=5λmd.
Proof.
Step (1) rephrases the estimate. Step (2) treats n=1. Step (3) through Step (7) treat n>1. Throughout W1 denotes Wasserstein distance [2, p. 151].
(1) Note that u∈W1,∞(U,Rn) and 0<λ≤detDu(x) for a.e. x∈U imply that K(Du(x))≤λ∣∣Du∣∣L∞n for a.e. x∈U. Therefore u(U)⊂Rn is open [17, p. 43]. We have that u(U) is open, bounded, connected with diamu(U)>0 and ∣u(U)∣>0. Note that
[TABLE]
[11, p. 99]. Take v:=(∣U∣∣u(U)∣)−n1u. Note that multU(v)=multU(u)≤m. Note
[TABLE]
Take V:=v(U). We have that V is open, bounded, connected with 0<diamV=(∣U∣∣u(U)∣)−n1d and ∣V∣>0. For N⊂U with ∣N∣=0, we have v(N)⊂V measurable with ∣v(N)∣≤∣∣Dv∣∣L∞n∣N∣=0 [11, p. 92]. Taking N:=\left\{x\in U~{}:~{}(\hyperref@@ii[OTM_prop_1_bdd4]{\ref*{OTM_prop_1_bdd4}})\text{ does not hold at }x\right\} shows that Pv(y)=v−1(y) for a.e. y∈V. This implies that 0<H0(Pv(y))≤m for a.e. y∈V. By (2.26), we have
[TABLE]
for a.e. y∈V. Note v#(Hn└U)≪Hn└V with density ωv [11, p. 81, p. 99]. This implies that
[TABLE]
for all N⊂V with ∣N∣=0. Therefore ωv(v)∈L∞(U) and ωv(v)1∈L∞(U). Note
[TABLE]
Set δ:=5diamV∫U1−ωv(v(x))1dx. Note (∣U∣∣u(U)∣)ωu(u(x))=ωv(v(x)) for all x∈U. Note
[TABLE]
Therefore it suffices to show
[TABLE]
for some s∈W1,∞(U,Rn) measure preserving.
Note δ=0 if and only if ωv(v(x))=1 for a.e. x∈U. If δ=0, then set s=v. Otherwise, we can assume that δ>0.
(2) Assume n=1. Note λ≤detDu(x) for a.e. x∈U means that λ≤u′(x) for a.e. x∈U. We have
[TABLE]
for all x<y in U. This shows that u:U→R is injective. Therefore m=1 and ωv(v(x))1=v′(x) for a.e. x∈U. We have
[TABLE]
for c=\fintUv−xdx. Therefore ∫U∣v−(x+c)∣dx≤51δ. This shows (2.30) for n=1.
(3) Assume n>1. Note Hn└U and ωvHn└V are compactly supported. For N⊂V with ∣N∣=0, we have \int_{N}~{}\omega_{v}\ dy\underset{(\hyperref@@ii[OTM_prop_1_bdd3]{\ref*{OTM_prop_1_bdd3}})}{=}0. Therefore there exists ψ:Rn→R∪∞ convex with Dψ(U)⊂V and s1:U→U measure preserving with v(x)=Dψ∘s1(x) for a.e. x∈U [26, p. 119]. Note that Dψ#(Hn└U)≪Hn└V with density ωv. We show that
[TABLE]
for some s2:U→Rn measure preserving. We use (2.31) in Step (7) to deduce (2.30).
(4) Recall that ωv(y)=0 for y∈V by Definition 2.1. Set Vε:={y∈V:dist(y,Rn−V)≥ε} and
[TABLE]
Note 21≤∣V∣1∫Vεωvdy for 0<ε≪1 with ∣V∣1∫Vεωvdyε→0↗1. By (2.27) this implies that
[TABLE]
for a.e. y∈Vε with ε≪1. Note
[TABLE]
This implies that for any η∈C0(Rn)∩L∞(Rn), we have
[TABLE]
Therefore ωv(ε)Hnε→0→ωvHn with respect to integration against bounded, continuous functions.
Take y0∈V. Note Vε⊂B2diamV(y0) for any ε>0. Set μ(ε):=ωv(ε)Hn└B2diamV(y0) and ν:=1VHn└B2diamV(y0). Note that B2diamV(y0) is a closed convex set with
μ(ε)(B2diamV(y0))=ν(B2diamV(y0)). Therefore there exists T(ε):B2diamV(y0)→B2diamV(y0) defined μ(ε) a.e. such that T#(ε)μ(ε)=ν and
(5) Note Hn└U and μ(ε) are compactly supported. Since Vε is closed, the support of μ(ε) is contained in Vε. For N⊂Vε with ∣N∣=0, we have
[TABLE]
Therefore there exists ψ(ε):Rn→R∪∞ convex with Dψ(ε)(U)⊂Vε and Dψ#ε(Hn└U)=μ(ε) [26, p. 66]. Note that for N⊂Vε with ∣N∣=0, we have
[TABLE]
Therefore the composition of T(ε)∘Dψ(ε)(x) is defined for a.e. x∈U. Set s2(ε)=T(ε)∘Dψ(ε). Note that (s2(ε))#(Hn└U)=T#(ε)μ(ε)=ν. Therefore s2(ε):U→Rn is measure preserving. Note
[TABLE]
The bound on W1(μ(ε),ν) comes from comparison with the coupling that fixes
min{1V,ωv(ε)}Hn└B2diamV(y0). Any optimal coupling must fix
(6) Consider ε=k1. Note that ωv(k1)Hnk→∞→ωvHn implies for any t>0
[TABLE]
[26, p. 71]. Since Dψ(k1)L∞(U,Rn)≤∣y0∣+2diamV for all k>0, there exists a subsequence denoted by {Dψ(k1)}k>0 such that ∫UDψ(k1)−Dψdxk→∞→0. Therefore there exists k1>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all k1≤k. By (2.33), there exists k2>0 such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all k2≤k. Set k0:=k1+k2 and s2:=s2(k01). We have
(7) Note that s2∘s1:U→Rn is measure preserving because s2:=s2(k01) with s2(k01) measure preserving. By 2.3 there exists s∈Cdiff∞(Rn,Rn) with detDs≡1 such that ∫U∣s−s2∘s1∣dx≤51δ. Here we use n>1 and δ>0. Therefore
Take u∈W1,∞(U,Rn) essentially injective with diam(u(U))≤d and 0<λ≤detDu(x) for a.e. x∈U. There exists S∈W1,∞(U,Rn) essentially injective, measure preserving such that
for a.e. y∈u(U). Note H0(u−1(y))=1 for a.e. y∈u(U) by essential injectivity. For N⊂u(U) with ∣N∣=0, we have
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
for a.e. x∈U. Observe that
[TABLE]
Take s∈W1,∞(U,Rn) from Proposition 2.7. Recall that for δ=0 we have s=u, and for δ>0 we have s∈Cdiff∞(Rn,Rn). Therefore s is essentially injective. Take x0∈U. Set S:=s+u(x0) and u:=u−u(x0). Note that ∣∣u∣∣L∞≤d, ∣u(U)∣=∣U∣, and Du=Du. We have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Note that \left(\frac{\left|u(U)\right|}{\left|U\right|}\right)^{-\frac{1}{n}}\underset{(\hyperref@@ii[OTM_prop_1_bdd1]{\ref*{OTM_prop_1_bdd1}})}{\leq}\frac{1}{\lambda^{\frac{1}{n}}}. Divide by (∣U∣∣u(U)∣)n1 to obtain
[TABLE]
∎
We can make several observations regarding the dependence on constants.
Example 2.2 (3) suggests restricting to maps in W1,p for p>n. Following [20], we take p=∞. Note that the approaches to Proposition 2.5 and Proposition 2.7 rely on the change of variables formula [11, p. 99]. This precludes the use of Holder space norms.
The factor λn1d from the constants in Corollary 2.6 and Corollary 2.8 should be compared to Kn1 in Definition 2.4. Estimates related to (1.2) can incorporate K [12, p. 60]. However, we do not incorporate K because the dependence on ∣∣Du∣∣L∞.
For Brenier decomposition u=Dψ∘s, we cannot relate ∣∣Du∣∣L∞ and ∣∣Dψ∣∣L∞ through a rearrangement inequality [26, p. 109]. Instead, we incorporate the bound on diameter because diamDψ(U)=diamu(U)≤d.
We should relate (2.13) to Calderón-Zygmund estimates. Indeed, we can compare the factor λΛ from the constant in Proposition 2.5 to a Muckenhoupt weight [25, p. 35].
Solutions to the Monge-Ampère equation constructed from solutions to a continuity equation (2.17) are standard [8, p. 192]. However, the estimates involve constants depending on the region, in particular, the regularity of the boundary. Here the region is u(U), meaning any dependence on the region is a dependence on u. This precludes the use of estimates from the Monge-Ampère literature [22, p. 4].
3. Matrix nearness problems
Note that SL(n):={A∈Matn×n:detA=1} is the collection of linear measure preserving maps. For A∈Matn×n, we can understand the deviation of A from measure preserving as ∣1−detA∣ or dist(A,SL(n)). The main result of Section 3 is Corollary 3.6. It relates the different notions of deviation from measure preserving.
Definition 3.1**.**
For A∈Matn×n, set ∣∣A∣∣:=∣v∣=1sup∣Av∣. Observe that for A∈Matn×n, we have ∣∣A∣∣≤∣A∣≤n∣∣A∣∣.
The nonlinear constraint determining SL(n) leads to an unbounded collection of matrices that do not form a subspace of Matn×n. Therefore the matrix nearness problem for SL(n) differs from the matrix nearness problem for other collections of matrices [18].
Example 3.2**.**
Take A:=[m00m−2] for m>3. Set B:=det1/nA1A=[m3/200m−3/2] and B:=[m00m−1]. Note
[TABLE]
We have ∣A−B∣≤m2<m(m−1)≤∣A−B∣. Therefore
[TABLE]
Note that for 1≪m, we have ∣1−detA∣≈1 and dist(A,SL(n))≤A−B≈0.
Fact 3.3 is standard [2, p. 144]. Lemma 3.4 reduces the matrix nearness problem to diagonal matrices.
Fact 3.3**.**
Let A,B∈Matn×n be symmetric. If A is positive definite, then AB has real eigenvalues.
Proof.
Suppose ABv=λv with λ∈C and v∈Cn nonzero. Note
[TABLE]
Since A and B are symmetric, there exist M∈O(n) and N∈O(n) such that A=MTdiag(a1,…,an)M and B=NTdiag(b1,…,bn)N where {bj}j=1n⊂R and {aj}j=1n⊂R>0. This implies that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Therefore λ∈R.
∎
Lemma 3.4**.**
Take A∈Matn×n with detA>0. Let 0<a1≤⋯≤an be the singular values of A. We have
[TABLE]
Moreover, there exists a minimizer diag(d1,…,dn) with 0<d1≤⋯≤dn.
Proof.
(1) Note A=(AAT)21⋅(AAT)−21A where (AAT)−21A∈SO(n). This implies that for any B∈SL(n), we have
[TABLE]
where detB((AAT)−21A)−1=1. Therefore
[TABLE]
Since (AAT)21 is positive definite symmetric, there exists M∈O(n) such that
MT(AAT)21M=diag(a1,…,an). Recall that 0<a1≤…≤an are the singular values of A. This implies that for any B∈SL(n), we have
[TABLE]
where detMTBM=1. Therefore
[TABLE]
(2) Note that the derivative of Matn×n∋X→detX−1∈R at any B∈SL(n) is cofB=detB(B−1)T=(B−1)T. Note that the derivative of Matn×n∋X→∣diag(a1,…,an)−X∣2∈R at any B∈SL(n) is 2(B−diag(a1,…,an)). Take
[TABLE]
Observe that B is a critical point of Matn×n∋X→∣diag(a1,…,an)−X∣2∈R restricted to SL(n). Therefore there exists λ∈R such that
[TABLE]
Set S:=(BBT)21 and O:=(BBT)−21B. Note B=SO with O∈SO(n) and S positive definite symmetric with detS=1. Substituting, we have
[TABLE]
Rearranging, we have
[TABLE]
Note that S−λS−1 is symmetric. Note that diag(a11,…,an1) is positive definite symmetric. Therefore, Fact 3.3 implies that the eigenvalues of OT are real.
(3) Since O∈SO(n), we have OTO=I=OOT. This implies the existence of U∈U(n) such that UTOTU=diag(λ1,…,λn). Here {λj}j=1n⊂R are the eigenvalues of OT. Note that
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
This implies that λj=±1 for j=1,…,n. Note that
[TABLE]
Therefore OT=(OT)−1. Since O∈SO(n), we deduce OT=O. Since O is symmetric, we can take U∈O(n)⊂U(n). Moreover,
[TABLE]
Therefore O and diag(a1,…,an) are simultaneously diagonalizable with
[TABLE]
where σ:{1,…,n}→{1,…,n} is a permutation. Set S:=UTSU. Since S is positive definite symmetric with detS=1, we have S is positive definite symmetric with detS=1. Note that
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
Since S is positive definite symmetric, there exists N∈O(n) such that NTSN=diag(b1,…,bn) with 0<b1≤…≤bn. Since detS=1, we have ∏j=1nbj=1. Multiplying (3.7) by NT and N, we have
[TABLE]
Note diag(b1,…,bn)−λdiag(b11,…,bn1) diagonal implies that
[TABLE]
where σ:{1,…,n}→{1,…,n} is a permutation. Therefore
[TABLE]
Since 0<aj and 0<bj for 1≤j≤n, we have
[TABLE]
for 1≤j≤n because λσ−1(j)=±1. This implies that
[TABLE]
Since ∏j=1nbj=1, we have diag(bσ−1∘σ−1(1),…,bσ−1∘σ−1(n))∈SL(n). Therefore we can assume λj=1 for 1≤j≤n. We have
[TABLE]
This shows (3.1). Suppose that bσ−1∘σ−1(i)>bσ−1∘σ−1(j) for i<j. Since ai≤aj, we have
[TABLE]
Therefore we can assume that bσ−1∘σ−1(i)≤bσ−1∘σ−1(j) for i<j. Set dj:=bσ−1∘σ−1(j).
(4) Incorporating (3.9) into (3.8), we have dj−λσ−1(j)aj=djλ for 1≤j≤n. Since λσ−1(j)=1 for 1≤j≤n, we have
Take A∈Matn×n with 0<detA. Let 0<a1≤…≤an be the singular values of A. We can try to determine a minimizer diag(c1,…,cn) in (3.1) through matching the larger entries of diag(a1,…,an). Take
[TABLE]
Note c1=c2⋯cn1=a1⋯ana1. We have
[TABLE]
This implies that
[TABLE]
If the determinant of A is bounded away from 0, then we can show a lower bound.
Proposition 3.5**.**
Take 0<θ≤21. If A∈Matn×n with detA≥θ>0, then
[TABLE]
for a constant C4:=C4(n).
Proof.
Set R>0n:={(xj)j=1n∈Rn:xj>0 for 1≤j≤n} and
R1n:={(xj)j=1n∈R>0n:∏j=1nxj=1}. Step (1) rephrases the estimate. Step (2) and Step (3) correspond to two regions in R>0n.
(1) Let 0<a1≤⋯≤an be the singular values of A meaning the eigenvalues of (AAT)21. Set A:=diag(a1,…,an).
Note that
[TABLE]
Since (AAT)21 is positive definite symmetric, there exists M∈O(n) such that (AAT)21=MTAM. Note that
for D:=diag(d1,…,dn) with 0<d1≤…≤dn and ∏j=1ndj=1. By (3.16), (3.17), and (3.18) it suffices to show that
[TABLE]
for a constant C4:=C4(n).
(2) Take (aj)j=1n∈R>0n with 21≤detA. By Lemma 3.4,
[TABLE]
for a constant C:=C(n) is equivalent to
[TABLE]
for a constant C:=C(n). Suppose to the contrary that for all j>1 there exist (ai(j))i=1n⊂R>0n with 21≤∏i=1nai(j) such that
[TABLE]
Set Aj:=diag(a1(j),…,an(j)). Note
[TABLE]
This implies that Aj∈SL(n). By Lemma 3.4, we have
[TABLE]
for Dj:=diag(d1(j),…,dn(j)) with 0<d1(j)≤…≤dn(j) and ∏i=1ndi(j)=1. Therefore
[TABLE]
Since 0<a1(j), we obtain
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
for all j>1. By (3.12), we have di(j)−ai(j)=di(j)λ(j) for i=1,…,n where λ(j)∈R. This implies that
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Note 0(\hyperref@@ii[MNPpropeqn15]\ref∗MNPpropeqn15)<Dj−1(Aj−Dj). Divide both sides of (3.27) by ∣Dj−1(Aj−Dj)∣ to obtain
[TABLE]
Therefore we have
[TABLE]
This is a contradiction for j>4nn+2n+23. Since (3.22) is not valid, we deduce (3.21). Note C:=C(n) because (3.22) pertains to distance between sets in Rn. This shows (3.20).
(3) Take (aj)j=1n∈R>0n with θ≤detA≤21. By (3.12) we have dj−djλ=aj. By (3.13) we have aj<dj for j=1,…,n because 1>detA. We obtain
[TABLE]
Therefore 1≤ajdj≤a1d1 for 1≤j≤n. Note
[TABLE]
This implies (θ1/n1−1)a1≤d1−a1. We have
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
(4) Set C4:=21(1+C)+(2n1−1)−1. Note C4:=C4(n) because C:=C(n). By (3.20) and (3.28) we have
Set C:=n+C4. Note C:=C(n) because C4:=C4(n). We have
[TABLE]
∎
4. Special linear group and symplectic group
4.1. Special linear group
The main results of Section 4.1 are Corollary 4.2 and Proposition 4.3. We generalize Proposition 2.5 and Proposition 2.7 in Proposition 4.1 to remove dependence on the multiplicity function and the diameter of the image. Incorporating Proposition 3.5, we can show Corollary 4.2. Recall that Corollary 4.2 allows us to extend (1.5) beyond n=1 (cf. (2.2)). Proposition 4.3 treats (1.3).
Proposition 4.1**.**
Let 1≤p<∞. Take u∈W1,∞(U,Rn) with 0<λ≤detDu(x)≤Λ for a.e. x∈U. There exists s∈L∞(U,Rn) differentiable at a.e. x∈U with detDs(x)=1 such that
[TABLE]
where C=C5(λ1)np(1+λp1(λΛ)2p−2) for a constant C5:=C5(n,p).
Proof.
Step (1) rephrases the estimate. Step (2) provides a covering of U. Step (3) applies Corollary 2.6 and Corollary 2.8 to the sets in the cover.
(1) Let C(0):=C(0)(n) denote the constant from [11, p. 251]. Let
[TABLE]
denote the constant from Corollary 2.8 with d=1, and
[TABLE]
denote the constant from Corollary 2.6 with d=1. For 1≤p<∞, set δ:=C(p)∫U∣1−detDu∣pdx. Set C5:=(1+6⋅22p)(10+C3). Note that C5:=C5(n,p) because C3:=C3(n,p). It suffices to show that
[TABLE]
for some s∈L∞(U,Rn) differentiable for a.e. x∈U with detDs(x)=1. Note δ=0 if and only detDu(x)=1 for a.e. x∈U. If δ=0, then set s=u. Otherwise, we can assume that δ>0. Choose δ1>0 such that
[TABLE]
Choose δ2>0 such that
[TABLE]
Extend u:U→Rn to u:Rn→Rn with Lip(u)=Lip(u) [11, p. 80]. There exists v∈C1(Rn,Rn) with
(2) Set V:={x∈U:detDv>2λ}. Note that V⊂U open. Note that λ≤detDu(x) for a.e. x∈U implies
[TABLE]
Fix x0∈U such that u(x0)=v(x0). Choose M>0 such that
[TABLE]
For any x∈V, the inverse function theorem implies that v:Br(x)→Rn injective for 0<r≪1 because detDv(x)>0 [15, p. 447]. Set V(1):=V and
[TABLE]
The Vitali covering lemma [11, p. 27] implies the existence of a countable subset G(1)⊂F(1) of disjoint balls such that V(1)⊂Br(x)∈G(1)∪B5r(x). Note that
[TABLE]
This implies that 5n1V(1)≤Br(x)∈G(1)∪Br(x). Therefore V(1)−Br(x)∈G(1)∪Br(x)≤(1−5n1)V(1). Since G(1) is countable, there exist {Br1,j(x1,j)}j=1m1⊂G(1) such that
[TABLE]
Inductively, take V(k):=V(k−1)−∪i=1k−1∪j=1miBri,j(xi,j) for k>1. Set
[TABLE]
The Vitali covering lemma [11, p. 27] implies the existence of a countable subset G(k)⊂F(k) of disjoint balls such that V(k)−Br(x)∈G(k)∪Br(x)≤(1−5n1)V(k). Since G(k) is countable, there exist {Brk,j(xk,j)}j=1mk⊂G(k) such that
[TABLE]
This implies that
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
Note that ri,j≤2C(0)Lip(u)1 implies
[TABLE]
for all x,y∈Bri,j(xi,j). Therefore
[TABLE]
(3) By Corollary 2.6 and Corollary 2.8 there exist si,j∈W1,∞(Bri,j(xi,j),Rn) essentially injective measure preserving such that
[TABLE]
Note that detDsi,j(x)=1 for a.e. x∈Bri,j(xi,j) (cf. Definition 2.4). Set
[TABLE]
Note s∈L∞(U,Rn). Since ∪i=1M∪j=1mi∂Bri,j(xi,j)=0, this implies that detDs(x)=1 for a.e. x∈U and
Let 1≤p<∞. Take u∈W1,∞(U,Rn) with 0<λ≤detDu(x)≤Λ for a.e. x∈U. There exists s∈L∞(U,Rn) differentiable for a.e. x∈U with detDs(x)=1 such that
[TABLE]
for a constant C:=C(n,p,λ,Λ).
Proof.
(1) Take A∈Matn×n with λ≤detA≤Λ. Let 0≤a1≤…≤an denote the singular values of A. Note that
[TABLE]
Note λ≤a1⋯an≤ann implies λn1≤an. By
Proposition 3.5, we have
[TABLE]
Note
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
where C6:=C6(n,λ,Λ).
(2) By Proposition 4.1 there exists s∈L∞(U,Rn) differentiable for a.e. x∈U with detDs(x)=1 such that
[TABLE]
where C:=C(n,p,λ,Λ). Therefore
[TABLE]
where C:=C(n,p,λ,Λ).
∎
Recall that for A∈Matn×n we have det(I+εA)=1+εtrA+o(ε) because Ddet(I):A=cofI:A=trA. Therefore sl(n):={A∈Matn×n:trA=0} is a linear approximation to SL(n) near the identity matrix. Near the identity map we can approximate the collection of maps with Jacobian equal to one by flows of vector fields with divergence zero. Therefore an estimate comparable to Corollary 2.6 and Corollary 2.8 should bound the deviation of a map from divergence zero maps by the deviation of its derivative from trace zero matrices.
Proposition 4.3**.**
Take u∈W1,p(U,Rn).
(1) Let 1<p<∞. There exists v∈W1,p(U,Rn) with divv=0 such that
[TABLE]
where C:=C(n,p).
(2) Let p=1. There exists v∈W1,1(U,Rn) with divv=0 in U such that
[TABLE]
where C:=C(n,diamU).
Proof.
Note that sl(n) is subspace of Matn×n. For A∈Matn×n have orthogonal decomposition
[TABLE]
Therefore dist(A,sl(n))=n1∣tr(A)∣.
(1) There exists ψ∈W2,p(U) with Δψ(x)=divu(x) for a.e. x∈U [15, p. 230]. Moreover
[TABLE]
where C:=C(n,p). Set v:=u−Dψ. Note v∈W1,p(U,Rn) with divv=0. Note
[TABLE]
where C:=C(n,p).
(2) If n=1, then take v:=\fintUudx. Otherwise, we can assume that n>1. If divu=0 in U, then set v:=u. Otherwise, we can assume that 0<δ:=∫U∣divu∣dx. Choose w∈C∞(U,Rn) such that
and ψ(x):=∫UΓ(x−y)divw(y)dy. Note ψ∈C2(U) with Δψ=divw and
[TABLE]
[15, p. 55]. Since ∣Γxi(x−y)∣≤n∣B1(0)∣1∣x−y∣1−n, Young’s inequality [25, p. 271] implies that
[TABLE]
where C:=C(n,diamU). Set v:=w−Dψ. Note ψ∈W1,1(U,Rn) and
[TABLE]
∎
Note that Proposition 4.3 implies (1.3). The Calderón-Zygmund inequality does not hold for p=1. Therefore we do not expect a bound on derivatives to hold for p=1. Indeed, Korn’s inequality does not hold for p=1 [7].
Note that we do not obtain Proposition 4.3 from Corollary 2.6 or Corollary 2.8. Indeed, the Neumann boundary condition arises in Corollary 2.6 and Corollary 2.8, but does not arise in Proposition 4.3. Therefore a dependence on the region through the constant in the Poincaré inequality does not arise in Proposition 4.3. The construction in [15, p. 230] involving the fundamental solution allows for a constant C:=C(n,p) or C:=C(n,diamU).
4.2. Symplectic group
The main results of Section 4.2 are Corollary 4.8 and Proposition 4.11. We extend Lemma 2.3 in Lemma 4.6. After showing an analogue of Corollary 2.6 and Corollary 2.8 in Proposition 4.7, we deduce Corollary 4.8. Note that Corollary 4.8 is the analogue of Corollary 4.2. Proposition 4.11 treats (1.3) for sp(2n).
Definition 4.4**.**
(1) Define the matrix J:=[0n×n1n×n−1n×n0n×n]. Take Sp(2n):=
{A∈Mat2n×2n:ATJA=J}. Take sp(2n):={A∈Mat2n×2n:JA=(JA)T}.
(2) Let B⊂R2n be measurable and S∈L∞(B,R2n). If S is differentiable for a.e. x∈B with DS(x)∈Sp(2n), then call S a symplectic map.
Note A∈Sp(2n) if and only if JAv⋅Aw=Jv⋅w for all v,w∈R2n. For
[TABLE]
we have that ∣Jv⋅w∣ is the area of the rectangle determined by v,w. Therefore we can understand Sp(2n) as the collection of matrices preserving area in coordinate planes Rxk×Rxk+n.
Example 4.5**.**
Take γ∈C1(R2n,R). Consider the flow
[TABLE]
The map R2n∋x→φ(x,1)∈R2n is a symplectic map generated by the flow of Hamiltonian vector field Dγ⋅J. For example, γ(x):=21∑j=1nxk2+xk+n2 means φ(⋅,1) rotates each Rxk×Rxk+n clockwise. Note that the collection of symplectic maps generated by the flow of Hamiltonian vector fields is closed under composition. Indeed, for γ1,γ2∈C1(R2n,R) with flows φ1(⋅,1),φ2(⋅,1), the composition φ2(⋅,1)∘φ1(⋅,1) corresponds to the Hamiltonian vector field D(γ2(x)+γ1(φ2(x,−1)))⋅J.
Note Sp(2n)⊂SL(2n) implies symplectic maps have Jacobian equal to one. Maps with Jacobian equal to one may not be symplectic for n>1. However, we can use observations of Katok [19, p. 545] to obtain approximations in Lp for 1≤p<∞.
Lemma 4.6**.**
Take U⊂R2n and s:U→R2n measure preserving. Let 1≤p<∞. For any ε>0, there exists S∈Cdiff∞(R2n,R2n) symplectic generated by a Hamiltonian vector field such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
(1) Consider Q⊂Rn a cube. Suppose wi:Q→Q measure preserving and Si∈C1(Q,Q) for i=1,2. Note
[TABLE]
Therefore we have
[TABLE]
(2) Choose ε>0 such that 2p(ε+εp)≤ε. We can apply Lemma 2.3 because 1<2n. There exists a cube Q⊂Rn containing U and s2:Q→Q measure preserving such that s2(x)∀x∈U=c+s(x) where c∈Rn. There exists N>0 and a permutation σ:{1,…,N}→{1,…,N} such that ∫Q∣s2−w∣pdx≤ε where
[TABLE]
[5, p. 154]. Here {Qi}i=1N is a division of Q into parallel cubes of equal size with centers {xi}i=1N. Decomposing σ into transpositions shows that w=wM∘⋯∘w1 for
[TABLE]
where j:=j(i), k:=k(i). Therefore
[TABLE]
Note that a transposition of cubes Qj and Qk in Q can be decomposed into a composition of transpositions of adjacent cubes in Q. Therefore we can assume that xj and xk differ in a single entry denoted by ℓ:=ℓ(i). For any δi>0, there exists γi:R2→R with sptγi⊂Qj∪Qk such that ∫Q∣φi(⋅,1)−wi∣pdx≤δip [5, p. 151]. Here we use the notation from Example 4.5. Note that we can identify R2 with either Rxℓ×Rxℓ+n or Rxℓ−n×Rxℓ. Therefore we obtain Si∈Cdiff∞(R2n,R2n) symplectic generated by a Hamiltonian vector field such that sptSi⊂Qj∪Qk and
[TABLE]
Set δM:=2Mε. For i=M−1,…,1, choose 0<δi such that
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
Set S:=SM∘⋯S1−c. Note S∈Cdiff∞(R2n,R2n) symplectic generated by a Hamiltonian vector field. Here we use the observation from Example 4.5. Note
[TABLE]
∎
Note that we cannot extend Lemma 4.6 to L∞. The
L∞ limit of a sequence of symplectic maps is a symplectic map. Therefore approximations are restricted to Lp for 1≤p<∞.
Proposition 4.7**.**
Let 1≤p<∞. Take u∈W1,∞(U,R2n) essentially injective with diamu(U)≤d and 0<λ≤detDu(x)≤Λ for a.e. x∈U. There exists S∈W1,∞(U,R2n) essentially injective with DST(x)JDS(x)=J for a.e. x∈U such that
[TABLE]
where C=C7(1+(1+Λ)2n−1(λn1d)p(1+λp1(λΛ)2p−2)) for a constant C7:=C7(n,p).
Proof.
(1) Take A∈Mat2n×2n with λ≤detA≤Λ. We show that
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
Note that ∣1−detA∣≤1+Λ. If 1+Λ≤ATJA−J, then ∣1−detA∣≤ATJA−J. Otherwise, we can assume
[TABLE]
Note 1≤1+λ≤∣1+detA∣ implies
[TABLE]
Note that Mat2n×2n∋X→detX∈R is differentiable with Ddet(X)=cofX. We have
(2) If DuT(x)JDu(x)=J for a.e. x∈U, then take S:=u. Otherwise, we can assume ∫UDuTJDu−Jpdx>0. By Corollary 2.6 and Corollary 2.8, there exists s∈W1,∞(U,R2n) essentially injective measure preserving such that
[TABLE]
By Lemma 4.6 there exists S∈Cdiff∞(R2n,R2n) with DsTJDs≡J such that
[TABLE]
Set C7:=2p(2n)8n(10+C3) where C3 from Corollary 2.6. We have
[TABLE]
Note that C7:=C7(n,p) because C3:=C3(n,p).
∎
Corollary 4.8**.**
Let 1≤p<∞. Take u∈W1,∞(U,R2n) with 0<λ≤detDu(x)≤Λ for a.e. x∈U. There exists S∈L∞(U,Rn) differentiable for a.e. x∈U with DST(x)JDS(x)=J such that
[TABLE]
for a constant C:=C(n,p,λ,Λ).
Proof.
Note that Sp(2n)⊂SL(2n) implies dist(A,SL(2n))≤dist(A,Sp(2n)) for all A∈Mat2n×2n. Therefore
[TABLE]
If dist(Du(x),Sp(2n))=0 for a.e. x∈U, then DuT(x)JDu(x)=J for a.e. x∈U. Set S:=u. Otherwise, we can assume that 0<∫UKp(Du)distp(Du,Sp(2n))dx because 1\underset{(\hyperref@@ii[OTM_defn_mult_K_eqn]{\ref*{OTM_defn_mult_K_eqn}})}{\leq}K\left(Du\right). If detDu(x)=1 for a.e. x∈U, then set s:=u. Otherwise, we can follow Step (2) and Step (3) of Proposition 4.1. We have V⊂U open, and disjoint balls Bri,j(xi,j)⊂V for 1≤i≤M,1≤j≤mi. There exist si,j∈W1,∞(Bri,j(xi,j),R2n) essentially injective measure preserving. We set
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
where C:=C(n,p,λ,Λ). By Lemma 4.6, there exists
Si,j∈Cdiff∞(R2n,R2n) with DSTJDS≡J such that
[TABLE]
This implies that
[TABLE]
Set
[TABLE]
Note S∈L∞(U,Rn). Since ∪i=1M∪j=1mi∂Bri,j(xi,j)=0, this implies that DST(x)JDS(x)=1 for a.e. x∈U. We have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Set C:=2p+(2+2p)CC6p. Note that C:=C(n,p,λ,Λ) because C:=C(n,p,λ,Λ) and C6:=C6(n,λ,Λ).
∎
Recall that for A∈Matn×n we have (I+εA)TJ(I+εA)=J+ε(JA−(JA)T)+o(ε). Therefore sp(2n) is a linear approximation to Sp(2n) near the identity matrix. Near the identity map we can approximate the collection of symplectic maps by flows of Hamiltonian vector fields. Therefore an estimate comparable to Proposition 4.7 should bound the deviation of a map from flows of Hamiltonian vector fields by the deviation of its derivative from sp(2n).
Fact 4.9**.**
Let 1≤p<∞. Take V⊂Rn be open, bounded, and convex. Take z∈W1,p(V,Rn). If Dz(x)=DzT(x) for a.e. x∈V, then there exists α∈W2,p(V) such that z=Dα.
Proof.
Fix x0∈V. For 0≤T<1 take VT:={(1−t)x0+tx:x∈∂V,0≤t<T}. Note that VT⊂⊂V implies that dist(VT,∂V)>0. For 0<ε<dist(VT,∂V) take β(ε)∈Ccpt∞(Bε(0)) standard mollifier. Set zεi(x):=∫Vβ(ε)(x−y)zi(y)dy for x∈VT and zε:=(zεi)i=1n. We have
[TABLE]
for all x∈VT. Since VT is simply connected, the Poincaré lemma implies the existence of αT(ε)∈C∞(VT) such that DαT(ε)=zε. Assume ∫VTαT(ε)dx=0. Note ∣∣zε−z∣∣W1,p(VT)ε→0→0 implies the existence of αT∈W2,p(VT) such that αT(ε)−αTW2,p(VT)ε→0→0. For any 0≤T≤S<1, we have have DαT=Dz=DαS in VT. This implies that αS=αT+CT,S where CT,S∈R. Set
[TABLE]
for n>1.
∎
Lemma 4.10**.**
Take v∈W1,p(U,Rn) with 1<p<∞. If U⊂Rn is convex, then
[TABLE]
for a constant C8:=C8(p,U).
Proof.
Set p:=max{p,p−1p}. Set ε:=∫U∣divv∣p+Dv−DvTpdx+∫∂U∣v⋅ν∣pdS. Step (1) treats ε=0. Step (2) and Step (3) treat ε>0.
(1) Take ε=0. Fact 4.9 implies that v=Dα where α∈W2,p(U). Note
[TABLE]
The Neumann problem has a weak solution in U unique up to constant [14, p. 2147]. Therefore v≡0.
(2) Take ε>0. Assume v∈C∞(U,Rn) throughout Step (2). Suppose to the contrary that (4.31) does not hold for any C8>0. For all k>0, there exist v(k)∈C∞(U,Rn) such that
[TABLE]
Note 0<v(k)W1,p(U,Rn). Having scaled by v(k)W1,p(U,Rn)−p, we can assume that
[TABLE]
There exists w∈W1,p(U,Rn) and a subsequence denoted {v(k)}k=1∞ such that
[TABLE]
in Lp(U,Rn). For all γ∈C∞(U)
[TABLE]
where C:=C(U) [11, p. 133]. Note that k→∞lim∫UDγ⋅v(k)dx(\hyperref@@ii[SGlinearlemmaeqn3]\ref∗SGlinearlemmaeqn3)=∫UDγ⋅wdx.
Note that (4.32) implies v(k)⋅νLp(∂U)→0 and divv(k)Lp(U)→0. Therefore
[TABLE]
for all γ∈C∞(U). Note that for any N≤k1<…<kM and 0<ckj≤1 with ∑j=1Mckj=1, (4.32) implies
[TABLE]
By (4.34), Mazur’s theorem gives Dw=DwT. By Fact 4.9, we have w=Dα where α∈W2,p(U). Therefore (4.35) implies
[TABLE]
The Neumann problem has a weak solution in U unique up to constant [14, p. 2147]. Therefore w≡0. Note
[TABLE]
implies that {curlvxj(k)}k=1∞ lies in a compact subset of W−1,p(U,Rn×n) for j=1,…,n. Note
[TABLE]
implies the existence of a subsequence denoted {v(k)}k=1∞ such that divv(k)(x)→0 for a.e. x∈U. Note v(k)W1,p(U,Rn)(\hyperref@@ii[SGlinearlemmaeqn1]\ref∗SGlinearlemmaeqn1)=1 shows that k>0supdivv(k)Lp(U)<∞. Therefore dominated convergence implies that
[TABLE]
This implies that {divvxj(k)}k=1∞ lies in a compact subset of W−1,p−1p(U) for j=1,…,n. Therefore the div-curl lemma [10, p. 53] implies that for all γ∈Ccpt∞(U)
[TABLE]
where j=1,…,n. This implies that ∫UDv(k)2dxk→∞→0. Therefore there exists a subsequence denoted {v(k)}k=1∞ such that Dv(k)(x)→0 for a.e. x∈U. Note v(k)W1,p(U,Rn)(\hyperref@@ii[SGlinearlemmaeqn1]\ref∗SGlinearlemmaeqn1)=1 shows that k>0supDv(k)Lp(U,Rn×n)<∞. Therefore dominated converegence implies that ∫UDv(k)pdxk→∞→0. Since k→∞limv(k)(\hyperref@@ii[SGlinearlemmaeqn3]\ref∗SGlinearlemmaeqn3)=w≡0, we have ∫Uv(k)pdxk→∞→0. This contradicts (4.33).
(3) For any δ>0, there exists vδ∈C∞(U,Rn) such that ∣∣v−vδ∣∣W1,p(U,Rn)≤δ [11, p. 127]. This implies that
where C:=C(p,U). Take δ:=εp1. By (4.37), we have ∫U∣Dv∣pdx≤2Cε. Set C8:=2C. Note C8:=C8(p,U) because C:=C(p,U).
∎
Lemma 4.10 uses a compensated compactness argument. For v=(vi)i=1n∈W01,p(U,Rn), we can give a different argument. Extend v to Rn. Denote the Fourier transform of vxji by vxji. Note that
[TABLE]
Note that for all 1≤i,j,k≤n
[TABLE]
are homogeneous of degree 0, and C∞ away from the origin. Therefore the operators determined by multipliers (4.38) are bounded in Lp [25, p. 109]. This shows (4.31).
Proposition 4.11**.**
Let 1<p<∞. Take u∈W1,p(U,R2n). If U⊂R2n is convex with C1,1 boundary, then there exists ψ∈W2,p(U) such that
[TABLE]
where C:=C(p,U). Note that we can remove any assumption on ∂U for p=2.
Proof.
Note that sp(2n) is a subspace of Mat2n×2n. Suppose A∈Mat2n×2n. Recall that the nearest symmetric matrix to JA is 21(JA+(JA)T). This implies that
[TABLE]
There exists η∈W2,p(U) with −Δη=div(u⋅J) in U [15, p. 230]. Set v:=Dη+u⋅J. Note v∈W1,p(U,R2n) with divv=0. There exists φ∈W2,p(U) with
[TABLE]
[16, p. 126]. Note that a solution exists for p=2 without any assumption on ∂U [16, p. 149]. Set ψ=η−φ. We obtain
[TABLE]
Set C:=2pC8. Note C:=C(p,U) because C8:=C8(p,U).
∎
Fact 4.9 requires U to be simply connected. However, convexity is appropriate because convexity appears in the Neumann problem with p=2. Indeed, there exist Lipschitz domains where the Neumann problem cannot be solved for all 1<p<∞ without the convexity assumption [14, p. 2148]. Moreover, Desvillettes-Villani treat Lemma 4.10 for p=2 in a convex region with regular boundary [9, p. 617].
5. Incompressible limits
We apply the estimates of Section 2 to understand the trend of compressible deformations to incompressible deformatons for 0≪κ. The main result of Section 5.1 is Proposition 5.3. The main result of Section 5.2 is Proposition 5.4. Recall that the compressibility of a material is measured by the reciprocal of the bulk modulus
[TABLE]
where P denotes pressure, V denotes volume and ΔV denotes volume change caused by pressure. For rubber-like materials κ≈109N/m2 meaning a 1% volume decrease arises from 107N/m2 of pressure. Typically, the volume will change by less than 0.01% with fracture occuring for a change over 1%. Therefore rubber-like materials are nearly incompressible. For a nearly incompressible material, the energy function W is modified to treat volume change as a material constraint. We express W as
[TABLE]
Arising from the arrangement of molecules, Wiso measures a structural response to deformation. Arising from molecule-molecule interactions, Wdil measures a fluid response to deformation. Through experiments on the material U involving simple traction, simple shear, etc., we can determine Wiso. If we assume Wdil(A)=w(detA), then we can obtain a splitting
[TABLE]
[6, p. 72]. The assumption is appropriate for nearly incompressible materials.
5.1. Static limits
Assume that ∂U is C3. Take v∈C3(U,Rn) invertible with v−1∈C3(v(U),Rn) and ∣v(U)∣=∣U∣. For p>n, set
[TABLE]
and Aiso:={u∈A:detDu=1 in U}. Take Wiso∈C∞(Matn×n,R≥0) polyconvex with c1∣A∣p−c2≤Wiso(A)≤c1∣A∣p+c2 for all A∈Matn×n. Here c1,c2>0.
Example 5.1**.**
For n=3, we have Wneo-Hookeaniso(A)=detn1A1A2−n is polyconvex but WMooney-Rivliniso(A)=detn1A1A2−n+cof(detn1A1A)2−n is not polyconvex [6, p. 7].
Let 0<λ≤1≤Λ. Take w:R→R∪∞ convex with w(1)=0, and
[TABLE]
Here c3>0. Assume Wdil(A)=w(detA). Define Iκ:A∋u→∫UW(Du)dx∈R∪∞ and
[TABLE]
Lemma 5.2**.**
*There exists uκ∈argmin{Iκ(u):u∈A}. There exists
u∞∈argmin{I∞(u):u∈A}. Moreover κ→∞Γ−limIκ=I∞ in the weak topology on A.*
Proof.
(1) There exists v^∈C2(v(U),v(U)) invertible with v^−1∈C2(v(U),v(U)) such that
[TABLE]
[8, p. 191]. Here we use ∣U∣=∣v(U)∣. Set v:=v^∘v. Note v∈C2(U,v(U)) invertible with v−1∈C2(v(U),U). Note detDv≡1 and v∣∂U=v∣∂U. Therefore A=∅ with 0≤z∈AinfIκ(z)<∞, and Aiso=∅ with 0≤z∈AinfI∞(z)<∞.
Note Wiso polyconvex and w convex implies that Iκ is polyconvex. Note Wiso coercive and 0≤w implies that Iκ is coercive. Therefore Iκ is polyconvex and coercive. There exists uκ∈argmin{Iκ(u):u∈A} [10, p. 32].
(2) Take z∞∈A. Note that
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
Suppose that zκjκj→∞⇀z∞ in W1,p(U,Rn) where {zκj}j=1∞⊂A. There are two cases. If z∞∈Aiso, then
[TABLE]
Otherwise z∞∈A−Aiso. Note that zκjκj→∞⇀z∞ in W1,p(U,Rn) implies detDzκjκj→∞⇀detDz∞ in Lnp(U,Rn) [10, p. 31]. This implies that
[TABLE]
We obtain κj→∞liminfIκj(zκj)=∞=I∞(z∞). Therefore we have
[TABLE]
in both cases. By (5.2) and (5.3), we have that IκΓ-converges to I∞ on A in the weak topology.
(3) Note that
[TABLE]
This implies that 0<κsup∣∣uκ∣∣W1,p(U,Rn)<∞. Therefore there exists a subsequence {uκj}j=1∞ and u∞∈A such that uκjκj→∞⇀u∞ in W1,p(U,Rn). We have
[TABLE]
Therefore u∞∈Aiso. Take z∈A. We have
[TABLE]
Therefore u∞∈argmin{I∞(u):u∈A}
∎
Note that we do not have a growth condition on w. The determinant constraint requires that w be unbounded. Therefore we cannot apply partial regularity for polconvex functionals to show that the minimizers are Lipschitz [21].
Proposition 5.3**.**
If uκ∈W1,∞(U,Rn), then there exists sκ∈W1,∞(U,Rn) essentially injective measure preserving such that
[TABLE]
where C:=C(p,U,v,W).
Proof.
Note that Iκ(uκ)<∞ implies that 0<λ≤detDuκ≤Λ for a.e. x∈U. Recall that v∈C3(U,Rn) and uκ∈W1,∞(U,Rn) with uκ=v on ∂U. Therefore uκ is essentially injective with uκ(U)=v(U) [3, p. 3]. This implies that diamu(U)≤2∣∣v∣∣L∞(U,Rn). By Corollary 2.6, there exists sκ∈W1,∞(U,Rn) essentially injective measure preserving such that
[TABLE]
where C^:=C^(p,2∣∣v∣∣L∞(U,Rn),λ,Λ)=C^(p,U,v,W). We have
[TABLE]
Set C:=c3C^∫UWiso(Dv)dx. Note that C:=C(p,U,v,W,C^)=C(p,U,v,W).
∎
5.2. Dynamic limits
Take Wiso∈C∞(Matn×n,R). Assume that
[TABLE]
for all F∈Matn×n and A∈N⊂Matn×n. Here N∋I is an open set, and 0<θ. Take w∈C∞(R,R). Assume that Wdil(A)=w(detA) with
[TABLE]
Set ℓ:=2n+4. Take v(x;κ),v(x;κ)∈Wℓ,2(Rn,Rn) with v(x;κ) invertible and detDv≡1. Assume that
[TABLE]
By assumptions (5.6), (5.7), and (5.8) we can determine T:=T(v,v,W) and κ0:=κ0(v,v,W) such that for any κ>κ0 there exists u(x,t;κ)∈C2(Rn×[0,T],Rn) satisfying (1.7) [24, p. 212]. Here u(⋅,t;κ) is injective with
κ>κ0supt∈[0,T]sup∣∣u(x,t;κ)−x∣∣Wℓ,2(Rn,Rn)<∞.
Proposition 5.4**.**
For any κ>κ1:=κ1(U,v,v,W), there exist {s(x,t;κ)}t∈[0,T]⊂Wℓ,2(U,Rn) with detDs≡1 such that
[TABLE]
where C:=C(U,v,v,W).
Proof.
For all κ>κ0 and t∈[0,T], we have
[TABLE]
where C′:=C′(v,v,W) [24, p. 6]. Set r:=x∈Usup∣x∣. Since ℓ>2n+3, this implies
[TABLE]
where C:=C(C′,r)=C(U,v,v,W). Therefore
[TABLE]
for all y,z∈Br(0). This implies that
[TABLE]
for all κ>κ0. Set κ1:=κ0+4C2. We have
[TABLE]
for all κ>κ1. By Corollary 2.6 with λ=21, Λ=23, and d=2r(1+C), there exists s1(x,t;κ)∈W1,∞(U,Rn) essentially injective measure preserving such that
[TABLE]
where C^:=C^(U,C)=C^(U,v,v,W). If ∫U∣1−detDu(x,t;κ)∣2dx=0, then set s(x,t;κ):=u(x,t;κ). Otherwise, we can assume that ∫U∣1−detDu(x,t;κ)∣2dx>0. By Lemma 2.3, there exists s2(x,t;κ)∈Cdiff∞(Rn,Rn) with detDs2≡1 such that
[TABLE]
Set s(x,t;κ):=s2(x,t;κ). For any κ>κ1, we have
[TABLE]
Set C:=(4+4C^)∣U∣C2. Note that C:=C(U,v,v,W) because C:=C(U,v,v,W) and C^:=C^(U,v,v,W).
∎
Note that the convexity assumption on Wiso is restrictive. However, the addition of a null Lagrangian to the energy function may yield (5.6) without affecting the dynamics [24, p. 209].
Acknowledgements
Interest in the problem arose from discussions with J. Krishnan, M. Lewicka and M.R. Pakzad. The project benefited from suggestions of M. Christ, M. Fathi, and S. Govindjee. The research was supported through NSF RTG grant DMS-1344991 and NSF grant DMS-1301661.
Bibliography26
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] Ambrosio, L. Lecture notes on optimal transport problems. In Mathematical aspects of evolving interfaces (Funchal, 2000) , vol. 1812 of Lecture Notes in Math. Springer, Berlin, 2003, pp. 1–52.
2[2] Ambrosio, L., Gigli, N., and Savaré, G. Gradient flows in metric spaces and in the space of probability measures , second ed. Lectures in Mathematics ETH Zürich. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2008.
3[3] Ball, J. M. Global invertibility of Sobolev functions and the interpenetration of matter. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 88 , 3-4 (1981), 315–328.
4[4] Brenier, Y. Polar factorization and monotone rearrangement of vector-valued functions. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 44 , 4 (1991), 375–417.
5[5] Brenier, Y., and Gangbo, W. L p superscript 𝐿 𝑝 L^{p} approximation of maps by diffeomorphisms. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 16 , 2 (2003), 147–164.
6[6] Charrier, P., Dacorogna, B., Hanouzet, B., and Laborde, P. An existence theorem for slightly compressible materials in nonlinear elasticity. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 19 , 1 (1988), 70–85.
7[7] Conti, S., Faraco, D., and Maggi, F. A new approach to counterexamples to L 1 superscript 𝐿 1 L^{1} estimates: Korn’s inequality, geometric rigidity, and regularity for gradients of separately convex functions. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 175 , 2 (2005), 287–300.
8[8] Csató, G., Dacorogna, B., and Kneuss, O. The pullback equation for differential forms , vol. 83 of Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications . Birkhäuser/Springer, New York, 2012.