Liouville theorems for a family of very degenerate elliptic non linear operators
Isabeau Birindelli, Giulio Galise, Fabiana Leoni

TL;DR
This paper establishes Liouville-type nonexistence theorems for nonnegative solutions of certain fully nonlinear degenerate elliptic equations involving operators defined by eigenvalues of the Hessian, revealing different behaviors based on operator degeneracy.
Contribution
It provides new Liouville theorems for operators ${\
Findings
Liouville theorems analogous to Laplace in certain cases
Distinct results due to operator degeneracy
Nonexistence of solutions under specified conditions
Abstract
We prove nonexistence results of Liouville type for nonnegative viscosity solutions of some equations involving the fully nonlinear degenerate elliptic operators , defined respectively as the sum of the largest and the smallest eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix. For the operator we obtain results analogous to those which hold for the Laplace operator in space dimension . Whereas, owing to the stronger degeneracy of the operator , we get totally different results.
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.
Liouville theorems for a family of very degenerate elliptic non linear operators.
Isabeau Birindelli, Giulio Galise, Fabiana Leoni
Dipartimento di Matematica
Sapienza Università di Roma
P.le Aldo Moro 2, I–00185 Roma, Italy.
Abstract.
We prove nonexistence results of Liouville type for nonnegative viscosity solutions of some equations involving the fully nonlinear degenerate elliptic operators , defined respectively as the sum of the largest and the smallest eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix. For the operator we obtain results analogous to those which hold for the Laplace operator in space dimension . Whereas, owing to the stronger degeneracy of the operator , we get totally different results.
Key words and phrases:
Fully nonlinear degenerate elliptic equations, viscosity solutions, Liouville type results
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
35J60, 35J70, 35B53
1. Introduction
We study the existence of nonnegative viscosity either solutions or supersolutions of fully nonlinear elliptic equations of the form
[TABLE]
or
[TABLE]
or
[TABLE]
where , is any halfspace and is either or . Here and are second order degenerate elliptic operators defined, for a positive integer and any symmetric matrix , by the partial sums
[TABLE]
of the ordered eigenvalues of .
When these operators coincide with the Laplacian. In this case, for equation (1.1) the results go back to the classical ones of Cauchy and Liouville, whereas, for equations (1.2) and (1.3) where the reaction term is included, they have been started respectively by Gidas and Spruck in their acclaimed work [13] and by Berestycki, Capuzzo Dolcetta and Nirenberg in [4] and by Bandle and Levine in [3].
In the present paper we focus on the degenerate cases . We will see that the existence or lack of existence is quite different depending on whether one considers or . We collect our main results in the following statements and then we will give some comments.
The first theorem concerns equation (1.1).
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let be a positive integer.
- (1)
For , there exist nonnegative classical solutions of (1.1) which are not constants. 2. (2)
For if is a nonnegative viscosity supersolution of (1.1) and or , then is constant. If there are nonnegative classical supersolutions of (1.1) which are not constants.
For equation (1.2), we separate the results concerning and .
Theorem 1.2**.**
Let be a positive integer and let .
- (1)
For any there exist nonnegative viscosity solutions of (1.2). 2. (2)
For any there exist positive classical solutions of (1.2). 3. (3)
For there are no positive viscosity supersolutions of (1.2).
We observe that any nonnegative supersolution of (1.2) is in turn a supersolution of (1.1). Hence, the Liouville property for equation (1.2) with directly follows from Theorem 1.1-(2) in the cases and . For the remaining cases we have the following result.
Theorem 1.3**.**
Let be a positive integer and let .
- (1)
For the only nonnegative viscosity supersolution of (1.2) is . 2. (2)
For there exist positive classical supersolutions of (1.2). 3. (3)
For there exist positive classical solutions of (1.2). 4. (4)
For there are no radial positive classical solutions of (1.2).
As far as solutions in the halfspace are concerned, our results read as follows.
Without loss of generality, henceforth we set
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.4**.**
Let be a positive integer. For any there exist nonnegative bounded viscosity solutions of
[TABLE]
and such that
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.5**.**
Let be a positive integer. If and or and , then there does not exist positive viscosity supersolutions of the equation
[TABLE]
Let us recall that the operators have been initially introduced in connection with Riemannian geometry. In particular, they have been considered by Sha in [19] when studying convex manifolds, while the case of manifolds with partially positive curvature was seen by Wu in [20]. They have been exhibited also in [10, Example 1.8], as examples of fully nonlinear degenerate elliptic operators, and they also appear in the level set approach to mean curvature flow of manifolds with arbitrary codimension developed by Ambrosio and Soner in [2]. More recently, in a PDE context, we wish to recall the works of Harvey and Lawson [14, 15] that have given a new geometric interpretation of solutions, while Caffarelli, Li and Nirenberg in [7] in their study of degenerate elliptic equations, give some results concerning removable singularities along smooth manifolds for Dirichlet problems associated to . See also [1, 12] for the extended version of the maximum principle and [5] for regularity and existence of the principal eigenfunctions. We further recall that existence of entire sub/supersolutions of equations involving and having different lower order terms have been studied in [8, 9].
A connection between the existence of solutions relative to and the existence of solutions relative to Laplace operator in dimension may be expected by the definition of the operators itself. As a general fact, we notice that if is a function of variables and we consider it as a function of variables just by setting , then one has
[TABLE]
and if and only if is convex, as well as if and only if is concave. This remark does not lead to any immediate extension of existence/non existence results for Laplace operator in dimension to analogous results for operators . On the other hand, if is a function of variables satisfying (or ), then (respectively ). This implies that the nonexistence results relative to supersolutions of the Laplace operator immediately extend to nonexistence results for . In the present paper we prove stronger results. The thresholds we found for are those that correspond to the Laplace operator in dimension . Indeed, we can adapt the techniques developed in [11, 17] for fully nonlinear uniformly elliptic operators in to get our results of Theorem 1.1-(2), Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.5, each time paying attention to the order of the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix of the involved test functions.
On the other hand, the statements of Theorem 1.1-(1), Theorem 1.2 and Theorem 1.4 for operator drastically differ from the analogous ones in the uniformly elliptic case, and they are obtained by using ad hoc constructions of explicit solutions. The diversity of results for the two operators is not surprising if one takes into account the stronger degeneracy of the operator with respect to supersolutions, which causes for example the failure of the strong minimum principle, see e.g. [5].
Let us conclude with a final remark. In Theorem 1.3 we excluded the existence of radial solutions of equation (1.2) for , but the question of existence of non radial solutions is left open. This is clearly related to the more general question of radial symmetry of positive solutions for the equation
[TABLE]
Let us mention that the usual proof for semilinear elliptic equations based on the moving planes method, highly relying on the strong maximum principle, seems not to apply to the operator .
2. Preliminaries
The operators are elliptic second order operators which degenerate in any direction, i.e. for any such that then
[TABLE]
To prove (2.1) just take in the case of and for , then use the fact that . They can be equivalently defined either by the partial sums (1.4) or by the representation formulas
[TABLE]
see [7, Lemma 8.1]. It is then easy to see the superadditivity/subadditivity properties
[TABLE]
Theorem 2.1** (Strong Minimum Principle).**
Let be a domain and let be a viscosity supersolution of in . If achieves its minimum in the interior of , then is a constant.
Note that the previous theorem fails for , see [5].
We conclude the section with two lemmas. They will be used respectively in sections 3-4.
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let such that for . Then, for any and any solution of
[TABLE]
the radial function is a solution in of
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since
[TABLE]
using (2.3), we deduce that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
∎
In the section 4 we will use explicit classical subsolutions of type , whose Hessian is
[TABLE]
The computation of the eigenvalues is straightforward. We have (see also [17, 18])
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let such that and . Set
[TABLE]
Then the eigenvalues of the are:
- •
* with multiplicity (at least ) and eigenspace ;*
- •
* . *
In particular the ordered eigenvalue of are
[TABLE]
3. Entire solutions
3.1. Entire solutions of
In this subsection we prove Theorem 1.1. Concerning , the result is immediate since for any nonconstant convex function and , is an entire nontrivial solution of
[TABLE]
Instead, when the proof is more involved and uses the three circles of Hadamard principle. The fundamental solutions of the operator , namely the classical radial solutions of the equation
[TABLE]
are defined by
[TABLE]
with constants and . We notice that differently from the uniformly elliptic case , there are not concave and strictly increasing radial solutions of (3.1).
Henceforth for any supersolution of
[TABLE]
we set . By definition the function is nonincreasing and lower semincontinuous. Following [11, Theorem 3.1] we have a nonlinear version of Hadamard three circles theorem for .
Theorem 3.1**.**
Let be a viscosity supersolution of in a domain . Then for every fixed and any one has
[TABLE]
In the cases and the fundamental solutions blow down to for . This allows us to obtain the following Liouville type result, more general of that expressed in Theorem 1.1-(2) since we are not going to assume .
Theorem 3.2**.**
Let be a viscosity supersolution of
[TABLE]
for or . Assume that
[TABLE]
Then is constant.
Proof..
Send in (3.3) and use the assumption (3.5) to obtain for any . By lower semicontinuity , hence the strong minimum principle yields . ∎
To finish the proof of Theorem 1.1-(2) we exhibit nontrivial bounded supersolutions of (3.4) in the case :
[TABLE]
Remark 3.3**.**
The assumption (3.5) cannot be weakened. As a matter of fact for any the functions
[TABLE]
are respectively nontrivial classical solutions of in for and . Nevertheless
[TABLE]
We finally observe that Theorem 3.1 gives (for ) the following
Proposition 3.4**.**
Let be a nonnegative supersolution of (3.4). Then for the map
[TABLE]
is nondecreasing.
3.2. Entire solutions of .
Proof of Theorem 1.2.
(1) Let and let . We prove that the radial function
[TABLE]
is a nonnegative viscosity solution of (1.2).
First we note that and if . Moreover by a straightforward computation is a classical solution of
[TABLE]
Now we prove that satisfies this equation also in in the viscosity sense. Fix such that .
u is a subsolution. If there are no test functions touching by above at , so we have nothing to prove. If otherwise and is such that
[TABLE]
for some positive , then has a local minimum point at and hence . It follows
[TABLE]
u is a supersolution. Suppose instead that
[TABLE]
for some positive . We claim that
[TABLE]
from which the conclusion follows. To prove (3.7) we use the variational characterization (Courant-Fischer minmax theorem)
[TABLE]
where the minimum is taken over all possible -dimensional subspaces of . Let . Clearly . Moreover for any such that and , we have
[TABLE]
Here we have used the facts that and since touches by below at . Dividing by and letting , we deduce that for any such that . Then
[TABLE]
as we wanted to show. The case is included in (2).
(2) For we make use of Lemma 2.2 with . Indeed for the function
[TABLE]
satisfies (2.3) for any . A similar conclusion holds in the case with
[TABLE]
(3) By contradiction let be a positive viscosity supersolution of (1.2) and . Let as in [6]. Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
This in particular implies that for any the unique solution of
[TABLE]
satisfies for any . But this is a contradiction since . ∎
Remark 3.5**.**
Concerning Theorem 1.2-(3), it is worth to point out that the nonexistence of entire supersolutions continues to hold for . By contradiction let be a positive supersolution of (1.2). Then satisfies in the viscosity sense
[TABLE]
and, using the monotonicity of ,
[TABLE]
Since , we obtain a contradiction to the the Keller-Osserman type result of [8, Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 3.6].
3.3. Entire solutions of .
Proof of Theorem 1.3.
(1) Let and let . Following [11, Theorem 4.1], we suppose by contradiction that is a viscosity supersolution of
[TABLE]
For let . The difference attains its minimum at a point such that . Using (3.6),(3.8) we have
[TABLE]
where . If we obtain the contradiction
[TABLE]
If then from (3.9)
[TABLE]
with , and again we get a contradiction if , since the right hand side of (3.10) tends to 0 while is a positive nondecreasing function. For we have the bound
[TABLE]
Let us consider the smooth radial function , where and are to be suitably chosen in order to compare and in . First note that for the function is convex and decreasing. Hence, it is a solution for of the equation
[TABLE]
Moreover
[TABLE]
We pick
[TABLE]
In this way in and on . By comparison we have
[TABLE]
Taking into account that , as a consequence of the bound (3.11), and sending in (3.13) we obtain
[TABLE]
with . This inequality is in contradiction with (3.11).
(2) Let , and let , where is a positive constant to be determined. Since , satisfies
[TABLE]
if .
(3) For let be a radial solution of in , namely
[TABLE]
We first note that for any . In fact setting and using (3.14)
[TABLE]
where in the last inequality we used that , being in particular a radial superharmonic function. Hence the function is nondecreasing and for any .
Since , then for any
[TABLE]
In the case let us explicitly remark that
[TABLE]
where and .
(4) Assume by contradiction that such a solution exists. If for some the inequality holds, then by the equation we have . Reasoning as in the Lemma 2.2 we immediately obtain the contradiction . Hence and
[TABLE]
Now observe that a positive solution of (3.15) would be an entire radial solution in of
[TABLE]
which do not exists for by the classical result of Gidas and Spruck [13, Theorem 1.1]. ∎
4. Solutions in the half space
Proof of Theorem 1.4.
For any positive consider the initial value problem
[TABLE]
Such a problem admits classical solutions depending on and , which are increasing in , where and , then decreasing in with and . Let us denote by the -periodic extension of .
Now fix and define for any . By construction on and
[TABLE]
uniformly with respect to . Hence satisfies (1.6). Moreover in the set , where , is a twice differentiable function such that
[TABLE]
Since then
[TABLE]
To complete the proof we show that satisfies equation (1.5) also in in the viscosity sense. By periodicity it is sufficient to treat only the case . First we notice that is trivially a viscosity subsolution since there are no test function touching from above at . Hence, we have only to prove the supersolution property. Let be a test function touching from below at . Since the restriction of to the -dimensional affine subspace orthogonal to the -axis through has a maximum point in equal to zero, i.e.
[TABLE]
for small enough and , we can use the Courant-Fischer formula, as in the proof of Theorem 1.2-(1), to conclude that the first eigenvalues of are nonpositive. Since , this implies
[TABLE]
It is worth to point out that by scaling the function by we obtain solutions of (1.5) satisfying for any the condition .
∎
Lemma 4.1**.**
For , the function is a classical subsolution of
[TABLE]
vanishing on .
Proof.
Using Lemma 2.3
[TABLE]
Since , then
[TABLE]
∎
Let us consider now nonnegative viscosity supersolution of
[TABLE]
By strong minimum principle Theorem 2.1, either or . Let us fix our attention on the case . Eventually replacing by for positive , we assume from now on that in . Let
[TABLE]
for . Since on , the infimum is in fact a minimum and there exists such that . We infer that . Indeed let us assume by contradiction that . Then the function is nonnegative in , and
[TABLE]
The strong minimum principle yields the contradiction . In particular cannot achieves an interior minimum point in , hence is a decreasing function for .
Let and let for . By Lemma 4.1, we have for . Choosing in such that on , we obtain by comparison the following version of Hadamard three circles theorem in the half space, see [17, Theorem 2.7] for details.
Theorem 4.2**.**
Let be a nonnegative viscosity supersolution of in . Then for every fixed and any one has
[TABLE]
In particular the map
[TABLE]
Proof of Theorem 1.5.
Observe that
[TABLE]
Hence for the nonexistence result is proved (see e.g. [16]).
Fix and assume by contradiction that in is a viscosity supersolution of
[TABLE]
For let
[TABLE]
Following [17, Theorem 3.1]
[TABLE]
where and . Using as test function in (4.5) we get
[TABLE]
where in the last inequality we used the monotonicity property expressed by Proposition 3.4. In this way
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
from (4.6) we obtain
[TABLE]
where , which is in contradiction with the monotonicity property (4.4) if or if and . ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] M.E. Amendola, G. Galise, A. Vitolo, Riesz capacity, maximum principle and removable sets of fully nonlinear second order elliptic operators , Differential and Integral equations, Vol. 26, 845-866 (2013).
- 2[2] L. Ambrosio, H. M. Soner, Level set approach to mean curvature flow in arbitrary codimension , J. Differential Geom. 43 (1996), 693-737.
- 3[3] C. Bandle, H.A. Levine, On the existence and nonexistence of global solutions of reaction–diffusion equations in sectorial domains , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 316 (1989), 595–622.
- 4[4] H. Berestycki, I. Capuzzo Dolcetta, L. Nirenberg, Superlinear indefinite elliptic problems and nonlinear Liouville theorems , Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 4 (1994), 59–78.
- 5[5] I. Birindelli, G. Galise, I. Ishii, A family of degenerate elliptic operators: maximum principle and its consequences , to appear in Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire.
- 6[6] H. Brezis, S. Kamin, Sublinear elliptic equations in ℝ n superscript ℝ 𝑛 \mathbb{R}^{n} , Manuscripta Math. 74 (1992), no. 1, 87-106.
- 7[7] L. Caffarelli, Y. Y. Li, L. Nirenberg, Some remarks on singular solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations. I , J. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 5 (2009), 353-395.
- 8[8] I. Capuzzo Dolcetta, F. Leoni, A. Vitolo, Entire subsolutions of fully nonlinear degenerate elliptic equations , Bull. Inst. Math. Acad. Sin. (N.S.) 9 (2014), no. 2, 147–161.
