This paper establishes Poisson upper bounds and gradient estimates for heat kernels and Green functions related to Dirichlet-to-Neumann and elliptic operators on C 1+$
abla$-domains, advancing understanding of boundary behavior and operator estimates.
Contribution
It provides new Poisson bounds, gradient estimates, and L p-estimates for Dirichlet-to-Neumann and elliptic operators on domains with C 1+$
abla$ boundaries, extending previous results.
Findings
01
Poisson upper bounds for heat kernels on C 1+$
abla$-domains
02
Gradient estimates for Green functions up to the boundary
03
L p-estimates for commutators of Dirichlet-to-Neumann operators
Abstract
We prove Poisson upper bounds for the heat kernel of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator with variable H{\"o}lder coefficients when the underlying domain is bounded and has a C 1+κ-boundary for some κ > 0. We also prove a number of other results such as gradient estimates for heat kernels and Green functions G of elliptic operators with possibly complex-valued coefficients. We establish H{\"o}lder continuity of ∇ x ∇ y G up to the boundary. These results are used to prove L p-estimates for commutators of Dirichlet-to-Neumann operators on the boundary of C 1+κ-domains. Such estimates are the keystone in our approach for the Poisson bounds.
\begin{array}[]{ll}\mathop{\rm Re}\langle C(x)\,\xi,\xi\rangle\geq\mu\,|\xi|^{2}&\mbox{for all }x\in\Omega\mbox{ and }\xi\in\mathds{C}^{d}\mbox{, and,}\\[5.0pt]
\|C(x)\|\leq M&\mbox{for all }x\in\Omega.\end{array}
\begin{array}[]{ll}\mathop{\rm Re}\langle C(x)\,\xi,\xi\rangle\geq\mu\,|\xi|^{2}&\mbox{for all }x\in\Omega\mbox{ and }\xi\in\mathds{C}^{d}\mbox{, and,}\\[5.0pt]
\|C(x)\|\leq M&\mbox{for all }x\in\Omega.\end{array}
\begin{array}[]{ll}c_{kl}\in C^{\kappa}(\Omega)&\mbox{for all }k,l\in\{1,\ldots,d\}\mbox{, and}\\[5.0pt]
|||c_{kl}|||_{C^{\kappa}(\Omega)}\leq M&\mbox{for all }k,l\in\{1,\ldots,d\}.\end{array}
\begin{array}[]{ll}c_{kl}\in C^{\kappa}(\Omega)&\mbox{for all }k,l\in\{1,\ldots,d\}\mbox{, and}\\[5.0pt]
|||c_{kl}|||_{C^{\kappa}(\Omega)}\leq M&\mbox{for all }k,l\in\{1,\ldots,d\}.\end{array}
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 Harmonic Analysis Research · Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations · Advanced Mathematical Modeling in Engineering
Full text
**Dirichlet-to-Neumann and elliptic operators
on C1+κ-domains: Poisson and Gaussian bounds
A.F.M. ter Elst1 and E.M. Ouhabaz2**
Abstract
We prove Poisson upper bounds for the heat kernel of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator
with variable Hölder coefficients
when the underlying domain
is bounded and has a C1+κ-boundary for some κ>0.
We also prove a number of other results such as gradient estimates for heat kernels and
Green functions G of elliptic operators with possibly complex-valued coefficients.
We establish Hölder continuity
of ∇x∇yG up to the boundary.
These results are used to prove Lp-estimates for commutators of
Dirichlet-to-Neumann operators
on the boundary of C1+κ-domains.
Such estimates are the keystone in our approach for the Poisson bounds.
May 2017
AMS Subject Classification: 35K08, 58G11, 47B47.
Keywords: Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator, Poisson bounds,
elliptic operators with complex coefficients, heat kernel bounds,
gradient estimates for Green functions, commutator estimates.
Home institutions:
Department of Mathematics
2.
Institut de Mathématiques de Bordeaux
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be a bounded connected open set with
Lipschitz boundary and d≥2.
Denote by Γ=∂Ω the boundary of Ω,
endowed with the
(d−1)-dimensional Hausdorff measure.
Note that Γ is not connected in general.
Let C:=(ckl)1≤k,l≤d be real-valued matrix satisfying the usual
ellipticity condition and ckl=clk∈L∞(Ω) for all
k,l∈{1,…,d}.
Let V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR).
The Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator NV is an unbounded operator on
L2(Γ) defined as follows.
Given φ∈L2(Γ),
we solve (if possible) the Dirichlet problem
[TABLE]
with u∈W1,2(Ω).
We define the weak conormal derivative ∂νCu, which is
formally equal to
[TABLE]
where (n1,…,nd) is the outer normal vector to Ω.
If u has a weak conormal derivative in
L2(Γ), then we say that φ∈D(NV) and
NVφ=∂νCu.
If V=0 we write N instead of N0.
See the beginning of Section 2 for more details on this definition.
In particular, we shall always assume that
0∈/σ(AD+V), where
AD:=−∑k,l=1d∂l(ckl∂k) and subject
to the Dirichlet boundary condition.
The Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator, also known as voltage-to-current map,
arises in the problem of electrical impedance tomography and in various
inverse problems (e.g., Calderón’s problem).
It is also used in the theory of homogenization and analysis of elliptic systems with rapidly
oscillating coefficients (see Kenig, Lin and Shen [KLS] and the references there).
Our aim in the present paper is to address another problem,
namely upper bounds for the heat kernel associated with the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator.
Heat kernel bounds (mainly Gaussian bounds) for various differential operators on
domains of \mathdsRd as well as on Riemannian manifolds have attracted
a lot of attention in recent years.
It turns out that they are a powerful tool to
attack problems in harmonic analysis, such as Calderón-Zygmund operators,
Riesz transforms, spectral multipliers as well as other problems in spectral theory
and evolution equations.
See for example the monograph [Ouh] and the references therein.
It is well known that NV is a lower-bounded and self-adjoint operator on L2(Γ)
with compact resolvent.
Therefore, −NV generates a C0-semigroup SV on L2(Γ).
If Ω has C∞-boundary, ckl=δkl and V≥0,
then it was shown by ter Elst and Ouhabaz [EO2] that
SV is given by a kernel which satisfies Poisson upper bounds.
In the present paper we extend considerably this result to deal with variable
Hölder-continuous coefficients ckl and less regular domains.
Our main result in this direction reads as follows.
Theorem 1.1**.**
Suppose Ω⊂\mathdsRd is bounded connected with a C1+κ-boundary
Γ for some κ∈(0,1).
Suppose also each ckl=clk is real valued and
Hölder continuous on Ω.
Let V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR) and suppose that
0∈/σ(AD+V).
Denote by NV the corresponding Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator.
Then the semigroup generated by −NV has a kernel KV and there exists a c>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all z,w∈Γ and t>0, where λ1 is the
first eigenvalue of the operator NV.
One immediate consequence of this result is that the semigroup SV acts as a
holomorphic semigroup on L1(Γ).
Even the existence of such semigroup on L1(Γ) as a C0-semigroup is new in this generality.
The holomorphy of the semigroup follows as in Theorem 7.1 in [EO2].
We can also draw further information, for example NV has a holomorphic
functional calculus on Lp(Γ) for all p∈(1,∞) with angle
μ∈(2dπ(d−1),π), see Theorem 7.2 in [EO2].
The previous theorem has another consequence.
It allows to establish existence results for evolution equations on C(Γ) (the space
of continuous functions on Γ).
This subject will be addressed in a forthcoming paper.
The strategy of proof is similar to [EO2] in the sense that we prove appropriate
Lp–Lq estimates for iterated commutators of
the semigroup SV=(e−tNV)t>0 with Mg,
a multiplication operator by a Lipschitz continuous function
g on Γ.
In [EO2] these estimates are essentially deduced from Lp–Lq estimates
of S together with
commutator estimates of Coifman–Meyer for pseudo-differential operators and this
is the reason why we assumed there that the boundary is C∞.
One cannot use these commutator results of Coifman–Meyer on C1+κ-domains and
this is the major difficulty here.
We shall instead rely solely on a recent L2–L2 estimate for the commutator
[N,Mg] proved by Shen [She]. The result of [She] is valid even for
Ω with Lipschitz boundary.
We extend this commutator estimate to Lp(Γ) for all p∈(1,∞) under
the assumption that Ω has a C1+κ-boundary by appealing to
Calderón–Zygmund theory. In order to do so we need appropriate bounds for the
Schwartz kernel KNV of NV, namely
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all z,z′,w,w′∈Γ with z=w and ∣z−z′∣+∣w−w′∣≤21∣z−w∣.
It turns out that one can express the Schwartz kernel KNV in terms of the
trace on the boundary of second order derivatives ∂k(1)∂l(2)GV
of the Green function GV of AD+V.
Therefore, we need appropriate bounds and Hölder continuity for
∂k(1)∂l(2)GV.
We take the opportunity to prove these bounds in the general setting of
elliptic operators with complex-valued coefficients.
We prove that the heat kernel Ht of AD+V satisfies bounds
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all x,y∈Ω and h,k∈\mathdsRd with x+h,y+k∈Ω,
∣h∣+∣k∣≤τt+τ′∣x−y∣ and all ∣α∣,∣β∣≤1.
These bounds are proved using Morrey and Campanato spaces.
The idea of using these spaces in order to obtain Gaussian upper bounds together with
Hölder regularity for heat kernels of elliptic operators on \mathdsRd originates in a work of
Auscher [Aus], see also ter Elst and Robinson [ERo2]
and for derivatives of the kernel on Lie groups see [ERo1].
Here the new difficulty is that we have boundary conditions and the approach needs to
be adjusted to this setting.
In addition, not only Gaussian upper bounds for the heat kernel are proved here
but also Gaussian upper bounds and Hölder continuity for the derivatives
∂xα∂yβHt with ∣α∣,∣β∣≤1.
In order to obtain the necessary De Giorgi or energy estimates
for derivatives of weak solutions, we use estimates of Campanato [Cam].
The previous bounds on the heat kernel readily imply for the Green function
GV the bounds
[TABLE]
for all x,x′,y,y′∈Ω with x=y and
∣x−x′∣+∣y−y′∣≤21∣x−y∣ if d≥3.
If ReV≥0, we have uniform constants c (with respect to the
coefficients ckl and V), a very useful fact when using approximation by smooth coefficients
as we shall do in our proofs.
If d=2, then the estimates are the same when ∣α∣+∣β∣=0.
Otherwise a logarithmic term appears.
These estimates on the
Green function are used to prove the previous estimates on the Schwartz kernel
KNV of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator.
We emphasize that if ckl=clk are real-valued then upper bounds for
∇x∇yG are known
(see for example Avellaneda and Lin [AL] and Kenig, Lin and Shen [KLS]).
Note however that
Hölder continuity of ∇x∇yG as stated above seems to be missing
in the literature.
We return now to final step used in the proof of the Poisson bounds.
Once Lp–Lp estimates for the commutator [NV,Mg] are proved we obtain
Lp–Lq bounds for iterated commutators
δgj(NV):=[Mg,[…,Mg,NV]…]] for all j∈{1,…,d}.
This together with Lp–Lq
estimates for the semigroup SV is used to estimate the L1–L∞ norm
of the iterated commutator δgd(StV):=[Mg,[…,[Mg,StV]…]].
We then optimize over g and obtain the Poisson bounds.
Notation
Throughout this paper we use the following notation.
For a function R of two variables we denote by
∂k(j)R the kth-partial derivatives with respect to the
jth variable with j=1,2.
We identify a uniformly continuous function
on Ω with a uniformly continuous function on Ω.
We emphasise that a function in C1(Ω)
is not bounded in general, nor
it is an element of L1(Ω) in general, even if Ω is bounded.
We define
[TABLE]
For a bounded domain Ω with Lipschitz boundary Γ, let
C0,1(Γ) denote the space of Lipschitz continuous functions on Γ.
It is endowed with the norm
[TABLE]
For all g∈C0,1(Γ) we use the notation
LipΓ(g)=supz,w∈Γ,z=w∣z−w∣∣g(z)−g(w)∣.
If f∈L∞(Ω) and p∈[1,∞], then we denote by Mf the
multiplication operator by the function f on Lp(Ω).
Finally, the Lp–Lq norm of an operator T will be denotes by ∥T∥p→q.
2 Preliminaries and the first auxiliary results
We assume throughout this section that Ω is a bounded
Lipschitz domain of \mathdsRd with d≥2.
We assume that ckl=clk∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR) such that
[TABLE]
for all ξ∈Cd and a.e. x∈Ω, where μ>0 is a
positive constant.
Let V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR) be a real-valued potential.
We define the space HV of harmonic functions for the operator
−∑k,l=1d∂l(ckl∂k)+V by
[TABLE]
Here and in what follows
−∑k,l=1d∂l(ckl∂ku)+Vu=0weakly on Ω means that u∈W1,2(Ω) and
[TABLE]
for all χ∈Cc∞(Ω).
Define the continuous sesquilinear form
\gothicaV:W1,2(Ω)×W1,2(Ω)→\mathdsC by
[TABLE]
It is clear that HV is a closed subspace of W1,2(Ω)
and
[TABLE]
where Tr:W1,2(Ω)→L2(Γ) is the trace operator.
Define the form \gothicaVD:W01,2(Ω)×W01,2(Ω)→\mathdsC by
\gothicaVD=\gothicaV∣W01,2(Ω)×W01,2(Ω).
Then the associated operator is AD+V, where
AD is the operator associated to the form \gothica0D.
Formally, AD=−∑k,l=1d∂l(ckl∂k),
subject to the Dirichlet boundary condition.
As in Section 2 in [EO2], one proves easily that if 0∈/σ(AD+V),
then the space W1,2(Ω) has the decomposition
[TABLE]
In particular
[TABLE]
A direct corollary is that Tr is
injective as an operator from HV into L2(Γ).
Thus, we may define the form
\gothicbV:Tr(W1,2(Ω))×Tr(W1,2(Ω))→\mathdsC by
[TABLE]
where u,v∈HV are such that Tru=φ and Trv=ψ.
One obtains as in [EO2] that \gothicbV
is bounded from below and is a closed symmetric form.
Hence there exists an associated self-adjoint operator NV associated with \gothicbV.
This is the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator.
Let u∈W1,2(Ω) and f∈L2(Ω).
We say that Au=f if \gothica0(u,v)=(f,v)L2(Ω)
for all v∈W01,2(Ω).
In particular, u∈HV if and only if Au=−Vu.
If u∈W1,2(Ω), then we say that Au∈L2(Ω)
if there exists an f∈L2(Ω) such that Au=f.
Let u∈W1,2(Ω) with Au∈L2(Ω).
Then we say that u has a weak conormal derivative
if there exists a ψ∈L2(Γ) such that
[TABLE]
for all v∈W1,2(Ω).
In that case ψ is unique and we write ∂νCu=ψ.
We next present a couple of equivalent descriptions for the
Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator NV.
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let φ,ψ∈L2(Γ).
Then the following are equivalent.
(i)
φ∈D(NV)* and NVφ=ψ.*
(ii)
There exists a u∈HV such that Tru=φ and ∂νCu=ψ.
(iii)
There exists a u∈W1,2(Ω) such that Tru=φ and
[TABLE]
for all v∈W1,2(Ω).
Proof*.*
‘(i)⇒(ii)’.
By definition there exists a u∈HV such that Tru=φ and
[TABLE]
for all v∈HV.
Since u∈HV obviously (5) is valid for all
v∈W01,2(Ω).
Then by (2) one deduces that (5) is valid
for all v∈W1,2(Ω).
Moreover, since Au+Vu=0 it follows from (3)
that ∂νCu=ψ.
‘(ii)⇒(iii)’.
Since u∈HV it follows that Au+Vu=0.
Then (3) implies that (5) is
valid for all v∈W1,2(Ω).
But this is just (4).
‘(iii)⇒(i)’.
Now (5) with v∈W01,2(Ω) gives
Au+Vu=0, that is u∈HV.
By definition of \gothicbV one deduces that
\gothicbV(φ,τ)=(ψ,τ)L2(Γ)
for all τ∈Tr(HV).
Hence Condition (i) is valid.
∎
For additional information regarding Condition (iii) we refer to
[AE1].
The self-adjoint operator −NV generates a quasi-contraction holomorphic semigroup
SV on L2(Γ).
When V=0 we write for simplicity N=N0 and S=S0.
We also denote by λ1 the first eigenvalue of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator
NV without specifying the dependence on V.
We summarize in the following two theorems some important properties of the
semigroups SV and S.
The proofs are the same as in
[EO2] Section 2, where these results are proved in the case
ckl=δkl.
Theorem 2.2**.**
Suppose that Ω is bounded Lipschitz, ckl=clk∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR)
satisfying the ellipticity condition and V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR) with
0∈/σ(AD+V).
(a)
If AD+V≥0
then the semigroup SV is positive (it maps positive functions on
Γ into positive functions).
(b)
If V≥0 then SV is sub-Markovian.
Therefore SV acts as a contraction C0-semigroup on Lp(Γ) for all
p∈[1,∞).
(c)
If V≥0 then StVφ≤Stφ for all t≥0 and all
positive φ∈L2(Γ).
We note that in the first assertion, if the assumption AD+V≥0 is not satisfied
then the semigroup SV may not be positive for all t>0 (see [Dan]).
This is the reason why our Poisson bound in the main theorem is formulated for
∣KtV(x,y)∣ and not for KtV(x,y).
Now we state Lp–Lq estimates for the semigroup SV.
Note that λ1≥0 in the next theorem.
Theorem 2.3**.**
Let 0≤V∈L∞(Ω) and let
λ1∈σ(NV) be the first eigenvalue of NV.
Then for all 1≤p≤q≤∞ and t>0 the operator
StV is bounded from Lp(Γ) into Lq(Γ).
Moreover, there exists a C>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all t>0 and p,q∈[1,∞] with p≤q.
Actually, it will follow from Theorem 1.1 that
this theorem is also valid for general
V∈L∞(Ω), possibly with λ1<0.
We finish this section with a known formula.
Again let V∈L∞(Ω) with 0∈/σ(AD+V).
Define the harmonic liftingγV:Tr(W1,2(Ω))→H1(Ω)
as follows.
Given φ∈H1/2(Γ):=Tr(W1,2(Ω))
it follows from (2) that
there exists a unique u∈HV with Tru=φ.
We define
[TABLE]
There is a simple relation between γV and γ0, where the latter is
the harmonic lifting in case V=0.
Let φ∈Tr(W1,2(Ω)).
Write u0=γ0φ and u=γVφ.
Then u−u0∈W01,2(Ω).
Moreover, (A+V)u=0 and Au0=0.
So (AD+V)(u−u0)=(A+V)(u−u0)=−Vu0.
Therefore u−u0=−(AD+V)−1MVu0
and
3 Heat kernel bounds for elliptic operators on C1+κ-domains
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open set.
Let μ,M>0.
We define E(Ω,μ,M)
to be the set of all measurable C:Ω→\mathdsCd×d such that
[TABLE]
where ∥C(x)∥ is
the ℓ2-norm of C(x) in \mathdsCd and ⟨⋅,⋅⟩ is the
inner product on \mathdsCd.
Here and in the sequel ckl(x) is the appropriate
matrix coefficient of C(x).
We define E(Ω)=⋃μ,M>0E(Ω,μ,M).
For all C∈E(Ω) define the closed sectorial form
[TABLE]
by
[TABLE]
and let ADC be the associated operator.
Note that ADC has Dirichlet boundary conditions.
If no confusion is possible then we drop the C and write
AD=ADC.
Let κ∈(0,1).
The space Cκ(Ω) is the space of all Hölder continuous functions
of order κ on Ω with semi-norm
[TABLE]
Let μ,M>0.
We define Eκ(Ω,μ,M)
to be the set of all continuous C∈E(Ω,μ,M) such that
[TABLE]
Define Eκ(Ω)=⋃μ,M>0Eκ(Ω,μ,M).
The main theorem of this section is the following.
Theorem 3.1**.**
Let κ,τ′∈(0,1) and μ,M,τ>0.
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary.
Then there exist a,b>0 and ω∈\mathdsR such that for every C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M)
and V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR) with ∥V∥∞≤M there exists
a function (t,x,y)↦Ht(x,y) from
(0,∞)×Ω×Ω into \mathdsC
such that the following is valid.
(a)
The function (t,x,y)↦Ht(x,y) is continuous
from (0,∞)×Ω×Ω into \mathdsC.
(b)
For all t∈(0,∞) the function Ht is the kernel of
the operator e−t(AD+V).
(c)
For all t∈(0,∞) the
function Ht is once differentiable in each variable and the
derivative with respect to one variable is differentiable in the
other variable.
Moreover, for every multi-index α,β with
0≤∣α∣,∣β∣≤1 one has
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all x,y∈Ω and h,k∈\mathdsRd with x+h,y+k∈Ω and
∣h∣+∣k∣≤τt+τ′∣x−y∣.
(d)
If ReV≥0, then ω<0.
The proof requires a lot of preparation.
First we introduce the pointwise Morrey and Campanato semi-norms
as in [ERe].
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be open.
For all x∈\mathdsRd and r>0 define Ω(x,r)=Ω∩B(x,r).
For all γ∈[0,d], Re∈(0,1] and x∈Ω define
∥⋅∥M,γ,x,Ω,Re:L2(Ω)→[0,∞] by
[TABLE]
Next, for all γ∈[0,d+2], Re∈(0,1] and x∈Ω define
∣∣∣⋅∣∣∣M,γ,x,Ω,Re:L2(Ω)→[0,∞] by
[TABLE]
where for an L2 function v we denote by
⟨v⟩D=∣D∣1∫Dv
the average of v over a bounded measurable subset D of the domain of v with ∣D∣>0.
If no confusion is possible, then we drop the dependence of Ω.
As for Morrey and Campanato spaces, one has the following
connections.
Lemma 3.2**.**
**
(a)
For all γ∈[0,d), c~>0 and Re∈(0,1]
there exist c1,c2>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all open Ω⊂\mathdsRd, x∈Ω and u∈L2(Ω)
such that ∣Ω(x,r)∣≥c~rd for all r∈(0,Re].
(b)
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be open,
γ∈(d,d+2), c~>0, x∈Ω, u∈L2(Ω)
and Re∈(0,1].
Assume that ∣∣∣u∣∣∣M,γ,x,Re<∞ and
∣Ω(x,r)∣≥c~rd for all r∈(0,Re].
Then limR↓0⟨u⟩Ω(x,R) exists.
Write u^(x)=limR↓0⟨u⟩Ω(x,R).
Then
[TABLE]
for all R∈(0,Re].
(c)
Let γ∈(d,d+2) and c~>0.
Then there exists a c>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all open Ω⊂\mathdsRd,
x,y∈Ω, Re∈(0,1] and u∈L2(Ω) such that
∣∣∣u∣∣∣M,γ,x,Re<∞,
∣∣∣u∣∣∣M,γ,y,Re<∞, ∣x−y∣≤2Re
and, in addition, ∣Ω(x,r)∣≥c~rd
and ∣Ω(y,r)∣≥c~rd for all r∈(0,Re], where
u^(x) and u^(y) are as in (b).
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be open and C∈E(Ω.
Let u∈W1,2(Ω).
Then we say that
ACu=0** weakly on Ω** if
[TABLE]
for all v∈Cc∞(Ω).
Then by density (7) is valid for all v∈W01,2(Ω).
We need various De Giorgi estimates.
First we need interior De Giorgi estimates.
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be open and μ,M>0.
Then there exists a cDG>0
such that
[TABLE]
for all k∈{1,…,d},
x∈Ω, R∈(0,1], r∈(0,R], u∈W1,2(B(x,R)) and
constant coefficient
C∈E(Ω,μ,M) satisfying B(x,R)⊂Ω and
ACu=0 weakly on B(x,R).
Proof*.*
The estimate (8) was first proved by De Giorgi.
For a proof, see Corollario [7.I] in Campanato [Cam].
The estimate (9) is in Corollario [7.II]
of the same paper.
The uniformity of the constants follows from the proof.
Note that the coefficients can be complex and non-symmetric.
The proofs in [Cam] also work for complex and non-symmetric
coefficients with obvious modifications.
∎
We also need De Giorgi estimates on the boundary.
Define
[TABLE]
the open cube in \mathdsRd and
its lower half E−.
The midplate is P=E∩{x∈\mathdsRd:xd=0}
We also need the cubes, lower halfs and midplates with half and a quarter
sizes, denoted by 21E, 21E−, 21P, etc.
Recall that E−(x,r)=E−∩B(x,r) for all x∈\mathdsRd and r>0.
Lemma 3.4**.**
There exists a cDG>0
such that
[TABLE]
for all i∈{1,…,d−1},
x∈21P, R∈(0,1], r∈(0,R], u∈W1,2(E−(x,R)) and
constant coefficient
C∈E(E−,μ,M) satisfying (Tru)∣P∩E(x,R)=0 and
ACu=0 weakly on E−(x,R).
Proof*.*
Estimate (10) is Corollario [11.I] and the other two
are in Lemma [11.II] in [Cam].
Again the uniformity of the constants follows from the proof and the
coefficients can be complex.
∎
We now turn to regularity.
Close to the boundary we have to take a coordinate transformation.
For good bounds we have to combine the coordinate transformation
together with the regularity improvement theorem.
In the next lemma we first collect some easy estimates.
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let κ∈(0,1) and K≥1.
Let Ω,U⊂\mathdsRd open.
Let Φ be a C1+κ-diffeomorphism from U onto E such that
Φ(U∩Ω)=E− and Φ(U∩∂Ω)=P.
Suppose that K is larger than the Lipschitz constant for Φ and Φ−1.
Moreover, suppose that ∣∣∣(DΦ)ij∣∣∣Cκ≤K and
∣∣∣(D(Φ−1))ij∣∣∣Cκ≤K for all i,j∈{1,…,d},
where DΦ denotes the derivative of Φ.
Then one has the following.
(a)
Let μ,M>0.
Let C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M).
Define CΦ:E−→\mathdsCd×d by
[TABLE]
Then CΦ∈Eκ(E−,(d!Kd+2)−1μ,d!d2Kd+2M).
Moreover, if u,v∈W1,2(U∩Ω), then
[TABLE]
(b)
If x,x′∈U∩Ω, then ∣Φ(x)−Φ(x′)∣≤K∣x−x′∣.
Conversely, if y,y′∈E−, then ∣Φ−1(y)−Φ−1(y′)∣≤K∣y−y′∣.
(c)
If u∈W1,2(Ω), then
[TABLE]
possibly both norms are infinite.
(d)
If u∈W01,2(Ω), then (Tr(u∘Φ−1))∣P=0.
Proof*.*
Statements (a)–(c) are elementary.
For the proof of Statement (d), first note that the
map v↦v∘Φ−1 is continuous from W1,2(Ω) into
W1,2(E−) and the map v↦\mathds1P⋅Trv is continuous
from W1,2(E−) into L2(∂E−).
So the map v↦\mathds1P⋅Tr(v∘Φ−1) is continuous
from W1,2(Ω) into L2(∂E−).
Obviously \mathds1P⋅Tr(v∘Φ−1)=0 for all v∈Cc∞(Ω).
Then Statement (d) follows from the density of Cc∞(Ω)
in W01,2(Ω).
∎
The first regularity lemma is with half-balls and points on the boundary.
It is a variation of Teorema [13.I] in [Cam], with an additional
term (f0,v)L2(Ω).
The most interesting case occurs for δ=0 in the next lemma,
but we also need the lemma with δ>0 to avoid a technical
complication in the proof of Proposition 3.13.
Lemma 3.6**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), K≥1, δ∈[0,κ] and μ,M>0.
Then there exists a c≥1 such that the following is valid.
Let Ω,U⊂\mathdsRd open.
Let Φ be a C1+κ-diffeomorphism from U onto E such that
Φ(U∩Ω)=E− and Φ(U∩∂Ω)=P.
Suppose that K is larger than the Lipschitz constant for Φ and Φ−1.
Moreover, suppose that ∣∣∣(DΦ)ij∣∣∣Cκ≤K and
∣∣∣(D(Φ−1))ij∣∣∣Cκ≤K for all i,j∈{1,…,d},
where DΦ denotes the derivative of Φ.
Let C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M), u∈W01,2(Ω) and
f0,f1,…,fd∈L2(Ω) and suppose that
[TABLE]
for all v∈W01,2(Ω).
Define u~:E−→\mathdsC by u~=u∘Φ−1.
Let x∈21P.
For all ρ∈(0,1] define
[TABLE]
set γ=d+2κ−δ
and
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
for all r,R∈(0,1] with 0<r≤R.
Proof*.*
Let cDG>0 be as in Lemma 3.4, but with μ replaced by
(d!Kd+2)−1μ and M replaced by d!d2Kd+2M.
Let R∈(0,1].
Let CΦ be as in (13).
Since CΦ is Hölder continuous, it extends uniquely to a continuous function
on E−, which we also denote by CΦ.
We will freeze the coefficients of CΦ at x.
There exists a unique v^∈W01,2(E−(x,R)) such that
[TABLE]
for all τ∈W01,2(E−(x,R)).
Define v:Ω→\mathdsC by
[TABLE]
Then v∈W01,2(Ω).
Set w=u−v, v~=v∘Φ−1 and w~=w∘Φ−1.
Clearly w∈W01,2(Ω) and Trw~∣P=0 by Lemma 3.5(d).
Moreover, A(CΦ)(x)(w~)=0 weakly on E−(x,R) by (15).
Let r∈(0,R].
Using (12), one deduces that
We next estimate ∫B(x,R)∣∇v~∣2.
Ellipticity, the equality v~∣E−(x,R)=v^∣E−(x,R),
(15), Lemma 3.5(a)
and (14) give
[TABLE]
We estimate the terms separately.
First
[TABLE]
where cD is the constant in the Dirichlet type Poincaré inequality
in the unit half-ball.
Secondly, since v∈W01,2(Ω) and has compact support in \mathdsRd, it follows that
∫Φ−1(E−(x,R))∂kv~=∫Ω∂kv=0 and therefore
[TABLE]
Finally, since
∣(CΦ)kl(x)−(CΦ)kl(y)∣≤∣∣∣(CΦ)kl∣∣∣Cκ∣x−y∣κ≤d!d2Kd+2MRκ
for all k,l∈{1,…,d} and y∈E−(x,R), one deduces that
for all 0<r≤R≤1.
These bounds can be improved by use of Lemma III.2.1 of [Gia].
It follows that there exists an a>0, depending only of cDG, γ
and d, such that
[TABLE]
for all 0<r≤R≤1, as required.
∎
We next turn to interior regularity.
Proposition 3.7**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), δ∈[0,κ] and μ,M>0.
Then there exists a c≥1 such that the following is valid.
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open set.
Let C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M), u∈W1,2(Ω) and
f0,f1,…,fd∈L2(Ω).
Suppose that
[TABLE]
for all v∈W01,2(Ω).
Let r,R,Re∈(0,1] and x∈Ω and suppose that
0<r≤R≤Re and
B(x,Re)⊂Ω.
Then
[TABLE]
where γ=d+2κ−δ, for all ρ∈(0,1] we define
[TABLE]
and where
[TABLE]
Moreover,
[TABLE]
Proof*.*
Let cDG>0 be as in (9).
Let R∈(0,Re].
There exists a unique v∈W01,2(B(x,R)) such that
[TABLE]
for all τ∈W01,2(B(x,R)).
Extend v by zero to a function from Ω into \mathdsC, still denoted by v.
Set w=u−v.
Then w∈W1,2(Ω).
Moreover, AC(x)w=0 weakly on B(x,R).
Let r∈(0,R].
If k∈{1,…,d}, then it follows as in the proof of
(16), but now using (9) instead of
(12), that
[TABLE]
Then the remaining part of the proof is very similar to the proof of
Lemma 3.6.
This time one has to use the Dirichlet type Poincaré inequality on the
full unit ball.
∎
We combine the last lemma and proposition to obtain estimates close to the
boundary.
Proposition 3.8**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), K≥1, δ∈[0,κ] and μ,M>0.
Then there exists a c≥1 such that the following is valid.
Let Ω,U⊂\mathdsRd open.
Let Φ be a C1+κ-diffeomorphism from U onto E such that
Φ(U∩Ω)=E− and Φ(U∩∂Ω)=P.
Suppose that K is larger than the Lipschitz constant for Φ and Φ−1.
Moreover, suppose that ∣∣∣(DΦ)ij∣∣∣Cκ≤K and
∣∣∣(D(Φ−1))ij∣∣∣Cκ≤K for all i,j∈{1,…,d},
where DΦ denotes the derivative of Φ.
Let C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M), u∈W01,2(Ω) and
f0,f1,…,fd∈L2(Ω) and suppose that
[TABLE]
for all v∈W01,2(Ω).
Define u~:E−→\mathdsC by u~=u∘Φ−1.
Then
[TABLE]
for all x∈21E−, where γ=d+2κ−δ.
Proof*.*
Let c≥1 be as in Lemma 3.6.
Set u~=u∘Φ−1.
For all x∈21E− and ρ∈(0,1] define
If follows as in the proofs of Proposition 3.7 and
Lemma 3.6 that there exists a c~≥1,
depending only on κ, K, δ, μ and M, such that
[TABLE]
for all r,R∈(0,1] with r≤R≤∣xd∣.
Define y=(x1,…,xd−1,0).
Then y∈21P.
Let r∈(0,1].
We distinguish four cases.
Case 1. Suppose that r≤∣xd∣≤41.
Then (19), the inclusion E−(x,∣xd∣)=B(x,∣xd∣)⊂E−(y,2∣xd∣),
Lemma 3.6 and the inclusion E−(y,21)⊂E−(x,1) give
[TABLE]
Case 2. Suppose that ∣xd∣≤r≤41.
Then the inclusion E−(x,∣xd∣)⊂E−(y,2r)
and Lemma 3.6 give
[TABLE]
Case 3. Suppose that r≥41.
Then Ψ0(x,r)≤∥∇u~∥L2(E−(x,1))2≤4d+2c02rγ.
Case 4. Suppose that r≤41≤∣xd∣.
Then (19) gives
Ψ0(x,r)≤c(4r)γΨ0(x,41)+c~c02rγ≤4γ+1cc~c02rγ.
The four cases together complete the proof of the proposition.
∎
Using the De Giorgi estimates (8) one also has interior
regularity for AC in the Morrey-region.
The proposition is a modification of a proposition which appears at many places
in the literature ([Mor], [GM] Theorem 5.13, [Aus] Theorem 3.6,
[AT] Lemma 1.12,
[ERo2] Proposition 4.2, [DER] Proposition A.3.1, [ERe] Proposition 3.2.)
Proposition 3.9**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), μ,M>0,
γ∈[0,d) and δ∈(0,2] with
γ+δ<d.
Then there exists an c>0, such that
the following is valid.
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open set.
Let C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M), u∈W1,2(Ω) and
f0,f1,…,fd∈L2(Ω).
Suppose that
[TABLE]
for all v∈W01,2(Ω).
Let x∈Ω, Re∈(0,1] and suppose that
B(x,Re)⊂Ω.
Then
[TABLE]
for all ε∈(0,1].
Similarly, using the De Giorgi estimates (10) and (11)
one also has boundary regularity in the Morrey region.
Proposition 3.10**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), K≥1, μ,M>0,
γ∈[0,d) and δ∈(0,2] with
γ+δ<d.
Then there exists an c>0, such that
the following is valid.
Let Ω,U⊂\mathdsRd open.
Let Φ be a C1+κ-diffeomorphism from U onto E such that
Φ(U∩Ω)=E− and Φ(U∩∂Ω)=P.
Suppose that K is larger than the Lipschitz constant for Φ and Φ−1.
Moreover, suppose that ∣∣∣(DΦ)ij∣∣∣Cκ≤K and
∣∣∣(D(Φ−1))ij∣∣∣Cκ≤K for all i,j∈{1,…,d},
where DΦ denotes the derivative of Φ.
Let C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M), u∈W01,2(Ω) and
f0,f1,…,fd∈L2(Ω) and suppose that
[TABLE]
for all v∈W01,2(Ω).
Define u~:E−→\mathdsC by u~=u∘Φ−1.
Then
[TABLE]
for all x∈21E− and ε∈(0,1].
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open set,
let C∈E(Ω) and V∈L∞(Ω).
Let T be the semigroup generated by −(AD+V).
We omit the dependence of T on C and V in our notation, since that will be
clear from the context.
We also need the Davies perturbation.
Let
[TABLE]
For all ρ∈\mathdsR and ψ∈D define the
multiplication operator Uρ by Uρu=e−ρψu.
Note that Uρu∈W01,2(Ω) for all
u∈W01,2(Ω).
Let Ttρ=UρTtU−ρ be the Davies perturbation
for all t>0.
Let −A(ρ) be the generator of (Ttρ)t>0.
Then A(ρ) is the operator associated with the form
\gothicl(ρ) with form domain D(\gothicl(ρ))=W01,2(Ω) and
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We start with L2-estimates for the perturbed semigroup.
Lemma 3.11**.**
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be a bounded open set.
For all μ,M>0 there exist c0,ω0,ω1>0
such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all κ∈(0,1),
C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M),
V∈L∞(Ω),
u∈L2(Ω), t>0, ρ∈\mathdsR and ψ∈D.
Proof*.*
By the Dirichlet type Poincaré inequality there exists a λ>0
such that λ∫Ω∣u∣2≤∫Ω∣∇u∣2 for all
u∈W01,2(Ω).
Without loss of generality we may assume that μ≤1≤M.
Let u∈L2(Ω).
It follows from (20) that
[TABLE]
for all t>0.
So
[TABLE]
where ω1=3d2M2μ−1.
Hence
[TABLE]
for all t>0.
This implies that
[TABLE]
for all t>0.
The other estimates of the lemma follow as in the proof of Lemma 2.1 in [EO3].
∎
By a Neumann type Poincaré inequality there is a relation
between the Campanato norm and the Morrey norm of the gradient of a function.
Lemma 3.12**.**
There exists a cN>0 such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all γ∈[0,d), u∈W1,2(E−), x∈21E−,
open Ω⊂\mathdsRd, v∈W1,2(Ω), y∈Ω and
Re∈(0,1] with B(y,Re)⊂Ω.
Next we consider L2–W1+κ,∞ estimates
for the perturbed semigroup.
We start with bounds close to the boundary.
Proposition 3.13**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), K≥1 and μ,M>0.
Then there exist c,ω>0 such that
such that the following is valid.
Let Ω,U⊂\mathdsRd open.
Let Φ be a C1+κ-diffeomorphism from U onto E such that
Φ(U∩Ω)=E− and Φ(U∩∂Ω)=P.
Suppose that K is larger than the Lipschitz constant for Φ and Φ−1.
Moreover, suppose that ∣∣∣(DΦ)ij∣∣∣Cκ≤K and
∣∣∣(D(Φ−1))ij∣∣∣Cκ≤K for all i,j∈{1,…,d},
where DΦ denotes the derivative of Φ.
Let C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M),
V∈L∞(Ω),
t>0, u∈L2(Ω), ρ∈\mathdsR and ψ∈D,
with ∥V∥∞≤M.
Then ∇((Ttρu)∘Φ−1) is continuous on
21E−.
Moreover,
[TABLE]
for all x,y∈Φ−1(41E−) with ∣x−y∣≤4K1.
Proof*.*
For all γ∈[0,d−2) let P(γ) be the hypothesis
There exist c,ω>0, depending only on Ω, κ, μ and M, such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all t>0, u∈L2(Ω), ρ∈\mathdsR, ψ∈D
and x∈21E−.
Clearly P(0) is valid by Lemma 3.11.
Arguing as in the proof of Proposition 4.3 in [ERo2],
Lemma 3.3 in [EO1] or Lemma 7.1 in [ERe],
it follows from Lemma 3.11 and Proposition 3.10
that P(γ) is valid for all γ∈[0,d).
For all γ∈[0,d+2κ] let P′(γ) be the hypothesis
There exist c,ω>0, depending only on Ω, κ, μ and M, such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all t>0, u∈L2(Ω), ρ∈\mathdsR, ψ∈D
and x∈21E−.
If γ∈[0,d), then P(γ) and Lemma 3.2(a)
imply that P′(γ) is valid.
Then the Poincaré inequality of Lemma 3.12 and (24)
give that (25) is valid for all γ∈[0,d+2κ]
(even for all γ∈[0,d+2)).
Arguing similarly, using the regularity estimates of Proposition 3.8,
it follows that for all δ∈[0,κ] there exist c,ω>0,
depending only on Ω, κ, δ, μ and M, such that
[TABLE]
for all t>0, u∈L2(Ω), ρ∈\mathdsR, ψ∈D
and x∈21E−, where
γ=d+2κ−δ.
Choose δ=κ.
Then (24) gives
[TABLE]
for all t>0, u∈L2(Ω), ρ∈\mathdsR, ψ∈D
and x∈21E−,
for suitable c′,ω′>0.
So limR↓0⟨∇((Ttρu)∘Φ−1)⟩E−(x,R)
exists for all x∈21E− by Lemma 3.2(b).
Therefore the function ∇((Ttρu)∘Φ−1 is continuous on
21E−.
Choose R=t1/2e−t.
Then R≤1 and Lemma 3.2(b)
gives that there exists a c′′>0, depending only
on d and κ, such that
Finally use (26) with δ=0 and x∈41E−,
the quarter lower half of E.
It follows that there are suitable c′′′,ω′′>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all t>0, u∈L2(Ω), ρ∈\mathdsR, ψ∈D
and x∈41E−.
Then (23) follows from
Lemma 3.2(c).
∎
Similar estimates are valid far away from the boundary.
Proposition 3.14**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), Re∈(0,1] and μ,M>0.
Then there exist c,ω>0 such that
such that the following is valid.
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be open, x0∈Ω and suppose that
B(x0,Re)⊂Ω.
Let C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M) and V∈L∞(Ω)
with ∥V∥∞≤M.
Then
[TABLE]
for all t>0, u∈L2(Ω), ρ∈\mathdsR, ψ∈D
and x,y∈B(x0,41Re) with ∣x−y∣≤41Re.
Proof*.*
This follows similarly to the proof of Proposition 3.13,
using Propositions 3.7 and 3.9
instead of Propositions 3.8 and 3.10.
We leave the proof to the reader.
∎
Proposition 3.15**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), and μ,M>0.
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be a bounded open set with C1+κ-boundary.
Then there exist c,ω>0 such that
such that the following is valid.
Let C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M) and V∈L∞(Ω)
with ∥V∥∞≤M.
Then
[TABLE]
for all t>0, u∈L2(Ω), ρ∈\mathdsR and ψ∈D
Proof*.*
This follows from a compactness argument from Propositions 3.13
and 3.14.
∎
We can now prove the Gaussian Hölder kernel bounds of Theorem 3.1.
for all u∈L2(Ω), t>0, ρ∈\mathdsR and ψ∈D.
Then the semigroup (e+(ω1−∥(ReV)−∥∞)tTt)t>0 satisfies the
bounds of Proposition 3.15.
Therefore the Gaussian Hölder kernel bounds of Theorem 3.1
follows as in the proof of Lemma A.1 in [EO3].
∎
Since all our estimates are locally uniform, we also obtain the following
theorem which is valid for unbounded domains.
Theorem 3.16**.**
Let κ,τ′∈(0,1) and μ,M,τ,K>0.
Then there exist a,b>0 and ω∈\mathdsR such that
the following is valid.
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open set.
Suppose for all x∈∂Ω there exists an open
neighbourhood U of x and a
C1+κ-diffeomorphism Φ from U onto E such that
•
Φ(x)=0,
•
Φ(U∩Ω)=E−**
•
Φ(U∩∂Ω)=P,
•
K* is larger than the Lipschitz constant for Φ and Φ−1, and*
•
∣∣∣(DΦ)ij∣∣∣Cκ≤K* and
∣∣∣(D(Φ−1))ij∣∣∣Cκ≤K for all i,j∈{1,…,d}
where DΦ denotes the derivative of Φ.*
Let C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M)
and V∈L∞(Ω) with ∥V∥∞≤M.
Then there exists
a function (t,x,y)↦Ht(x,y) from
(0,∞)×Ω×Ω into \mathdsC
such that the following is valid.
(a)
The function (t,x,y)↦Ht(x,y) is continuous
from (0,∞)×Ω×Ω into \mathdsC.
(b)
For all t∈(0,∞) the function Ht is the kernel of
the operator e−t(AD+V).
(c)
For all t∈(0,∞) the
function Ht is once differentiable in each variable and the
derivative with respect to one variable is differentiable in the
other variable.
Moreover, for every multi-index α,β with
0≤∣α∣,∣β∣≤1 one has
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all x,y∈Ω and h,k∈\mathdsRd with x+h,y+k∈Ω and
∣h∣+∣k∣≤τt+τ′∣x−y∣.
By a small additional argument one can also add first-order terms to the
operator with Cκ-coefficients.
We do not need first-order terms in this paper.
4 Green function bounds and regularity properties
This section is devoted to estimates and regularity properties
of the resolvent operators (AD+V)−1.
We prove estimates for the Green function and its derivatives.
We emphasise that in the first theorem
the constants are uniform with respect to the complex coefficients C
if ReV is positive.
Theorem 4.1**.**
Let κ∈(0,1) and μ,M>0.
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary.
Then there exists a c>0 such that for all
C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M) and
V∈L∞(Ω) with ReV≥0 and ∥V∥∞≤M
the operator (AD+V)−1 has
a kernel GV:{(x,y)∈Ω×Ω:x=y}→\mathdsC,
which is differentiable in each variable and the derivative is
differentiable in the other variable.
Moreover, for every multi-index α,β with
0≤∣α∣,∣β∣≤1 the function
∂xα∂yβGV
extends to a locally κ-Hölder continuous function on
{(x,y)∈Ω×Ω:x=y}
with estimates
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all x,x′,y,y′∈Ω with x=y and
∣x−x′∣+∣y−y′∣≤21∣x−y∣.
Proof*.*
By Theorem 3.1 there are a,b,ω>0 such that
the operator e−t(AD+V) has a kernel Ht for all t>0,
which is once differentiable in each entry,
satisfying the bounds
[TABLE]
for all x,x′,y,y′∈Ω and multi-index α,β with
0≤∣α∣,∣β∣≤1 and
∣x−x′∣+∣y−y′∣≤21∣x−y∣.
Define
[TABLE]
for all x,y∈Ω with x=y.
Then GV is the kernel of the operator
where c1=∫0∞at−d/2t−(∣α∣+∣β∣)/2e−b/tdt<∞,
under the condition that d−2+∣α∣+∣β∣=0,
and
c2=∫0∞at−d/2t−(∣α∣+∣β∣)/2t−κ/2e−b/tdt<∞.
If d−2+∣α∣+∣β∣=0 one obtains a logarithmic term, as is well known.
∎
In the self-adjoint case and real valued V we next drop the condition
that V is positive.
In contrast to the previous theorem, in this case the constants are not uniform
with respect to the coefficients C.
Theorem 4.2**.**
Let κ∈(0,1) and μ,M>0.
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary.
Let
C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M) be real symmetric, k,l∈{1,…,d} and
V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR).
Suppose that 0∈σ(AD+V).
Then the operator (AD+V)−1 has
a kernel GV:{(x,y)∈Ω×Ω:x=y}→\mathdsR,
which is differentiable in each variable and the derivative is
differentiable in the other variable.
Moreover, for every multi-index α,β with
0≤∣α∣,∣β∣≤1 the function
∂xα∂yβGV
extends to a continuous function on
{(x,y)∈Ω×Ω:x=y}
with estimates
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all x,x′,y,y′∈Ω with x=y and
∣x−x′∣+∣y−y′∣≤21∣x−y∣.
Proof*.*
There exists a λ>0 such that V+λ≥0.
Replacing V by V+λ, it suffices to show that
for all λ>0 and V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR) with V≥0
and 0∈σ(AD+V−λI)
the operator (AD+V−λI)−1 has
a kernel, denoted by GV,
which is differentiable in each variable and the derivative is
differentiable in the other variable.
Moreover, for every multi-index α,β with
0≤∣α∣,∣β∣≤1 the function
∂xα∂yβGV
extends to a continuous function on
{(x,y)∈Ω×Ω:x=y}
and
[TABLE]
for all x,y∈Ω with x=y.
Since AD+V is a positive self-adjoint operator with compact resolvent,
there exist an orthonormal basis (un)n∈\mathdsN for L2(Ω)
of eigenfunctions for AD+V, and a sequence (λn)n∈\mathdsN
in [0,∞) such that (AD+V)un=λnun
for all n∈\mathdsN.
There exists an N∈\mathdsN such that λn>λ for all
n∈{N+1,N+2,…}.
Let ω1=min{λn:n∈{N+1,N+2,…}}.
Then λ<ω1.
Let P:L2(Ω)→L2(Ω) be the orthogonal projection
onto span{u1,…,uN}.
Write Tt=e−t(AD+V) for all t>0.
So T is the semigroup generated by −(AD+V).
Then ∥(I−P)Tt(I−P)∥2→2≤e−ω1t for all t>0.
Note that P commutes with Tt and the resolvent
(AD+V−λI)−1 for all t>0.
Hence on L2(Ω) one has the decomposition
[TABLE]
As a consequence
[TABLE]
We shall show that the terms on the right hand side of (30)
has a kernel with the appropriate bounds and which extends continuously to
{(x,y)∈Ω×Ω:x=y}.
Let t>0.
Then Tt maps L2(Ω) into C1+κ(Ω) by
Proposition 3.15.
Hence e−λntun=Ttun∈C1+κ(Ω)
for all n∈\mathdsN.
In particular, un∈C1+κ(Ω) and
∂αun∈Cκ(Ω)⊂C(Ω).
Since
[TABLE]
for all u∈L2(Ω), it follows that
[TABLE]
for all u∈W1,2(Ω), where we used that un∈W01,2(Ω)
for all n∈{1,…,N}.
Therefore the operator ∂αP(AD+V−λI)−1P∂β
has as kernel the function
[TABLE]
which is κ-Hölder continuous and extends to a continuous and bounded function
on Ω×Ω.
In particular, it can be estimated by c∣x−y∣−d for a suitable
c>0, since Ω is bounded.
This covers the first term on the right hand side of (30).
We split the integral in (30) in two parts: over
(0,3] and [3,∞).
We start with the integral over [3,∞).
We shall show that the operator
for all s>0 and u∈L2(Ω).
Therefore
e−sλn∥∂αun∥L∞(Ω)≤cs−Meωs
for all n∈\mathdsN and s>0, where M=4d+2∣α∣.
Choosing s=λn−1 gives
∥∂αun∥L∞(Ω)≤ceλnMeωλn−1≤ce1+ωω1−1λnM
if n≥N+1.
Let ε>0 be such that ω1(1−2ε)>λ.
There exists a c2>0 such that hM≤c2eεh
for all h∈(0,∞).
Then
[TABLE]
for all t∈[3,∞) and n∈\mathdsN,
where c3=cc2e1+ωω1−1.
If x,y∈Ω, then
[TABLE]
Next
[TABLE]
Hence one can define K:Ω×Ω→\mathdsC by
[TABLE]
Then K is the kernel of (31).
We already proved that K is bounded on Ω×Ω.
Using the Cκ-estimate in Proposition 3.15 instead of
(32), it follows similarly as above that
there exists a c4>0 such that
∣∣∣∂αun∣∣∣Cκ(Ω)≤c4eελnt
for all t∈[3,∞) and n∈\mathdsN.
Then
[TABLE]
for all n∈\mathdsN, t∈[3,∞) and
x,x′,y,y′∈Ω with ∣x−x′∣≤1 and ∣y−y′∣≤1.
Arguing as before we obtain that there exists a c5>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all x,x′,y,y′∈Ω with ∣x−x′∣≤1 and ∣y−y′∣≤1.
Since Ω is bounded, there exists a c6>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all x,x′,y,y′∈Ω with x=y and
∣x−x′∣+∣y−y′∣≤21∣x−y∣.
This completes the part of the integral in (30) over [3,∞).
We split the part of the integral in (30) over (0,3] in two parts
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
for all u∈W1,2(Ω) it follows that the kernel of the
second term in (33) is
[TABLE]
which again is κ-Hölder continuous and
can be extended once more to a continuous and bounded
function on Ω×Ω.
Finally, it follows from Theorem 3.1 that
there are a,b,ω>0 such that
the operator Tt has a kernel Ht for all t>0,
which is once differentiable in each entry,
satisfying the bounds
[TABLE]
for all t>0 and x,y∈Ω.
Moreover, (x,y)↦(∂xα∂yβHt)(x,y)
extends to a continuous
function on Ω×Ω.
Hence the operator ∫03eλt∂αTt∂βdt
has kernel
[TABLE]
on {(x,y)∈Ω×Ω:x=y}.
This kernel extends to a continuous function on
{(x,y)∈Ω×Ω:x=y}.
If x=y and d−2+∣α∣+∣β∣=0, then
[TABLE]
The Hölder bounds follows similarly.
If d−2+∣α∣+∣β∣=0, then the obvious adjustments are needed to obtain
a logarithmic term.
Then the resolvent kernel bounds follow by adding the terms.
∎
We next consider the operator ∂k(AD+V)−1.
We obtain uniform bounds if V=0.
Proposition 4.3**.**
Let κ∈(0,1) and μ,M>0.
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary.
Let p∈(d+2κ,∞).
Then there exists a c>0 such that the following is valid.
Let C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M) and k∈{1,…,d}.
Then the operator ∂kAD−1 is bounded from
Lp(Ω) into C2κ/p(Ω) with norm at most c.
Moreover, if V∈L∞(Ω) and 0∈σ(AD+V),
then the operator ∂k(AD+V)−1 is bounded from
Lp(Ω) into C2κ/p(Ω).
Proof*.*
Write Tt=e−tAD for all t>0.
Then it follows from Proposition 3.15 and Lemma 3.11
that there exist c,ω>0
such that the operator ∂kTt is bounded
from L2(Ω) into Cκ(Ω) with norm bounded by
ct−d/4t−1/2t−κ/2e−ωt, uniformly for
all t∈(0,∞).
The Gaussian kernel bounds with one derivative imply
that ∂kTt is bounded
from L∞(Ω) into L∞(Ω) norm with bounded by
ct−1/2e−ωt, possibly by increasing the value of c
and decreasing ω.
Hence by interpolation the operator ∂kTt
is bounded from Lp(Ω) into C2κ/p(Ω)
with norm bounded by ct−d/(2p)t−1/2t−κ/pe−ωt
for all t∈(0,∞).
Since p∈(d+2κ,∞), the latter bound is
integrable over (0,∞).
Hence ∂kAD−1 is bounded from Lp(Ω) into C2κ/p(Ω).
The norm is uniform for all C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M) by construction.
Finally, since ∂k(AD+V)−1=∂kAD−1AD(AD+V)−1 and
the operator AD(AD+V)−1=I−MV(AD+V)−1 is bounded from
Lp(Ω) into Lp(Ω), the last part follows.
∎
Lemma 4.4**.**
Let κ∈(0,1) and μ,M>0.
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary.
Then there exists a c>0 such that the following is valid.
Let C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M), p∈[1,∞] and
k∈{1,…,d}.
Then ∥∂kAD−1∥p→p≤c.
Moreover, if V∈L∞(Ω) and 0∈σ(AD+V),
then the operator ∂k(AD+V)−1 is bounded from Lp(Ω)
into Lp(Ω).
Proof*.*
Let T be the semigroup generated by −AD.
By Theorem 3.1 there exist c,ω>0, depending only of
κ, μ, M and Ω, such that
∥∂kTt∥p→p≤ct−1/2e−ωt
for all t>0, p∈[1,∞] and k∈{1,…,d}.
Then
[TABLE]
Finally, ∂k(AD+V)−1=∂kAD−1(I−MV(AD+V)−1)
is bounded on Lp(Ω) for all p∈[1,∞] and k∈{1,…,d}.
∎
Proposition 4.5**.**
Let κ∈(0,1) and μ,M>0.
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary
and let p∈(1,∞).
Then there exists a c>0 such that the following is valid.
Let C∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M) be real symmetric and
k,l∈{1,…,d}.
Then the operator ∂kAD−1∂l
extends to a bounded operator on Lp(Ω) with norm at most c.
Moreover, if V∈L∞(Ω) and 0∈σ(AD+V),
then the operator ∂k(AD+V)−1∂l
extends to a bounded operator on Lp(Ω).
Proof*.*
For p=2 the operator
∂kAD−1∂l=(∂kAD−1/2)(AD−1/2∂l)
extends to a bounded operator with norm at most μ−1.
By Theorem 4.1 it follows that
the kernel of ∂kAD−1∂l has Calderón–Zygmund estimates
uniformly in C.
Hence ∂kAD−1∂l extends to a bounded operator on Lp(Ω).
Let C∈Eκ(Ω) be real symmetric and V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR),
where Ω is a bounded Lipschitz domain.
Recall that the harmonic lifting γV:Tr(W1,2(Ω))→W1,2(Ω)
is defined by
[TABLE]
for all φ∈Tr(W1,2(Ω)), where
u∈W1,2(Ω) is such that (Au+V)u=0 and Tru=φ.
In this section we shall prove that γV has a kernel
and we obtain good kernel bounds if Ω has a C1+κ-boundary.
We also show that the map γV extends to a continuous map
from Lp(Γ) into Lp(Ω) for all p∈[1,∞].
For the proof of these results we need a delicate version of the
divergence theorem.
Lemma 5.1**.**
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be a bounded open set with C1-boundary.
Let F:Ω→\mathdsCd be a function.
Suppose F∈C(Ω,\mathdsCd)∩C1(Ω,\mathdsCd) and suppose that
divF∈L1(Ω).
Then ∫ΩdivF=∫Γn⋅F.
We use this divergence theorem to obtain a classical expression of the normal
derivative.
Lemma 5.2**.**
Let κ∈(0,1).
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary.
Let C∈E(Ω) be real symmetric and suppose that ckl∈C1+κ(Ω)
for all k,l∈{1,…,d}.
Let p∈(d,∞) and u∈C1(Ω).
Suppose that Au∈L2(Ω).
Then u has a weak conormal derivative and
[TABLE]
Proof*.*
Interior regularity gives u∈C2(Ω).
Let v∈Cb∞(Ω).
Define F=(F1,…,Fd):Ω→\mathdsCd by
Fk=∑l=1dckl(∂lu)v.
Then F∈C(Ω,\mathdsCd)∩C1(Ω,\mathdsCd).
Moreover,
Since ∑k,l=1dnk(ckl∂lu)∣Γ∈C(Γ)⊂L2(Γ),
this proves the lemma.
∎
Note that we required ckl∈C1+κ(Ω) in Lemma 5.2,
which is much more
than the condition ckl∈Cκ(Ω) in Theorem 1.1.
This is the reason why we use a regularisation of the coefficients below.
Proposition 5.3**.**
Let κ∈(0,1).
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary.
Let C∈Eκ(Ω) be real symmetric and V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR).
Suppose that 0∈σ(AD+V).
Let p∈(d+2κ,∞) and u∈Lp(Ω).
Then (AD+V)−1u has a weak conormal derivative and
[TABLE]
Proof*.*
Step 1.Suppose V=0 and ckl∈C1+κ(Ω)
for all k,l∈{1,…,d}.
Let u∈Lp(Ω).
Then AD−1u∈C1(Ω) by Proposition 4.3.
So by Lemma 5.2 one deduces that AD−1u has a conormal derivative
and (34) is valid.
Step 2.Suppose V=0.
We can extend the function ckl to a
Cκ-function c~kl:\mathdsRd→\mathdsR
such that c~kl=c~lk for all k,l∈{1,…,d}.
Let (ρn)n∈\mathdsN be a bounded approximation of the identity.
For all n∈\mathdsN and k,l∈{1,…,d} define
ckl(n)=(c~kl∗ρn)∣Ω and set
C(n)=(ckl(n))k,l.
Then there are μ,M>0 such that
C(n)∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M) for all large n∈\mathdsN
and without loss of generality for all n∈\mathdsN.
Define AD(n)=ADC(n) for all n∈\mathdsN.
Let u∈Lp(Ω).
Then it follows from from Step 5 that
[TABLE]
for all n∈\mathdsN and v∈W1,2(Ω).
Clearly limckl(n)=ckl uniformly on Ω for all
k,l∈{1,…,d}.
Let k∈{1,…,d}.
If w∈D(AD) and v∈L2(Ω), then
[TABLE]
Hence by density
(w,v)L2(Ω)=∑j,l=1d(cjl∂lw,∂jAD−1v)L2(Ω)
for all w∈W01,2(Ω) and v∈L2(Ω).
Substituting w=(AD(n))−1u, replacing v by ∂kv
and integration by parts gives
[TABLE]
for all v∈Cc∞(Ω).
Similarly and slightly easier one proves
[TABLE]
for all v∈Cc∞(Ω).
Therefore
[TABLE]
for all v∈Cc∞(Ω).
Let q be the dual exponent of p.
By Proposition 4.5 the operator
∂jAD−1∂k extends to a bounded operator Tjk on Lq(Ω)
for all j∈{1,…,d}.
Then
[TABLE]
for all v∈Cc∞(Ω).
Since the operators ∂l(AD(n))−1 are bounded on Lp(Ω)
uniformly in n by Lemma 4.4, one deduces that
[TABLE]
in Lp(Ω).
Therefore the left hand side of (35) converges to
∫Ω∑k,l=1dckl(∂kAD−1u)∂lv
for all v∈Cb∞(Ω).
Next we consider the right hand side of (35).
Let l∈{1,…,d}.
Then (∂l(AD(n))−1u)n∈\mathdsN is bounded in C2κ/p(Ω)
and in C(Ω) by Proposition 4.3.
So by the Arzelà–Ascoli theorem and passing to a subsequence if
necessary there exists a w∈C(Ω) such that
limn→∞∂l(AD(n))−1u=w in C(Ω).
Since limn→∞∂l(AD(n))−1u=∂lAD−1u
in Lp(Ω), one deduces that w=∂lAD−1u.
So
[TABLE]
for all v∈Cb∞(Ω).
Then the equality in (35) implies that
AD−1u has a weak conormal derivative and (34) is valid.
Step 3.Suppose V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR).
Let u∈Lp(Ω).
Then apply Step 5 to AD(AD+V)−1u∈Lp(Ω).
∎
Lemma 5.4**.**
Let κ∈(0,1).
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary.
Let C∈Eκ(Ω) be real symmetric and V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR).
Suppose that 0∈σ(AD+V).
Let p∈(d+2κ,∞) and v∈Lp(Ω).
Then
[TABLE]
for all φ∈Tr(W1,2(Ω)).
Proof*.*
It follows from Proposition 5.3 that
(AD+V)−1v has a weak conormal derivative.
Then the equality follows as in [BE] Corollary 5.4.
For more details, see [AE2] Proposition 6.4.
∎
Let κ∈(0,1), Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary,
C∈Eκ(Ω) and V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR).
Suppose that 0∈σ(AD+V).
Let GV be the Green kernel of (AD+V)−1.
Then GV is differentiable on {(x,y)∈Ω×Ω:x=y}
by Theorem 4.2 and the derivative extends to a continuous
function on {(x,y)∈Ω×Ω:x=y}.
Define the function KγV:Ω×Γ→\mathdsC by
[TABLE]
We next show that KγV is the kernel of γV.
Proposition 5.5**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary,
C∈Eκ(Ω) real symmetric and V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR).
Suppose that 0∈σ(AD+V).
Then one has the following.
(a)
The map KγV is continuous.
Define T:L1(Γ)→C(Ω) by
[TABLE]
(b)
If φ∈Tr(W1,2(Ω)), then
γVφ=Tφ a.e.
(c)
There exists a c>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all x,x′∈Ω and z,z′∈Γ with ∣x′−x∣+∣z′−z∣≤21∣x−z∣.
(d)
Let p∈[1,∞].
Then the map γV∣Lp(Γ)∩Tr(W1,2(Ω))
extends to a bounded map from Lp(Γ) into Lp(Ω).
Explicitly, the restriction T∣Lp(Γ) is continuous from
Lp(Γ) into Lp(Ω).
Since supz∈Γ∫Ω∣KγV(x,z)∣dx<∞
the operator T is bounded from L1(Γ) into L1(Ω).
Step 2.Suppose p=∞ and V=0.
We shall show that T∣L∞(Γ) is bounded from L∞(Γ)
into L∞(Ω).
The maximum principle, [GT] Theorem 8.1, gives that
∥γ0φ∥L∞(Ω)≤∥φ∥L∞(Γ)
for all φ∈C(Γ)∩Tr(W1,2(Ω)).
So ∥Tφ∥L∞(Ω)≤∥φ∥L∞(Γ)
for all φ∈C(Γ)∩Tr(W1,2(Ω)).
Now let φ∈L∞(Γ).
Since Ω has a Lipschitz boundary, one can regularise φ.
On a special Lipschitz domain one can regularise an L∞-function
ψ on the boundary to obtain a sequence of continuous Wloc1,2-functions
on the boundary which converges to ψ in the weak∗-topology on L∞
and such that the L∞-norm of the approximants is bounded by ∥ψ∥∞.
Since Ω is bounded and Lipschitz one can use a partition of the unity so
that Ω is split as a finite number, say N, of parts of special
Lipschitz domains.
Summing up the corresponding smooth approximants one obtains a sequence
(φn)n∈\mathdsN in W1,2(Γ)∩C(Γ) such that
limφn=φ weak∗ in L∞(Γ) and
∥φn∥L∞(Γ)≤N∥φ∥L∞(Γ)
for all n∈\mathdsN.
Now let x∈Ω.
Then z↦Kγ0(x,z) is an element of L1(Γ).
So
[TABLE]
So T∣L∞(Γ) is a bounded extension of
γ0∣L∞(Γ)∩Tr(W1,2(Ω)) from
L∞(Γ) into L∞(Ω).
Since γV=γ0−(AD+V)−1MVγ0 by (6)
the general case follows.
∎
As a consequence we deduce that NV is a perturbation of N.
Corollary 5.6**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary,
C∈Eκ(Ω) real symmetric and V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR).
Suppose that 0∈σ(AD+V).
Then NV=N+γ0∗MVγV.
Proof*.*
Let φ∈D(NV) and ψ∈D(N).
Write u=γVφ and v=γ0φ.
Then
[TABLE]
Since γ0∗MVγV is bounded on L2(Γ)
by Proposition 5.5(d) it follows that
φ∈D(N∗)=D(N) and similarly ψ∈D(NV∗)=D(NV).
Then
[TABLE]
Since D(N) is dense in L2(Γ) the corollary follows.
∎
6 The Schwartz kernel of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator
Our main aim in this section is to show that the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operators N and
NV are given by Schwartz kernels that satisfy Calderón–Zygmund-type bounds.
The principle step in the proof is that the Schwartz kernel of N
can be expressed in terms of the coefficients
ckl and partial derivatives of the Green kernel.
We start with a definition.
Let κ∈(0,1), Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary
and C∈Eκ(Ω) real symmetric.
Then by Theorem 4.1 the elliptic operator AD has a Green kernel G
which is differentiable in each entry and the partial derivatives extend to
a continuous function on
{(x,y)∈Ω×Ω:x=y}.
We define KN:{(z,w)∈Γ×Γ:z=w}→\mathdsR by
[TABLE]
Our first aim is to prove that KN is the Schwartz kernel of N.
In the literature sometimes KN is written as ∂νC∂ν′CG,
the conormal derivatives with respect to the two variables.
It far from clear, however, whether the weak conormal derivatives
of G exist in the sense of (3).
Even if these weak conormal derivatives would exist, then it is again unclear
whether they coincide with (37).
We use the definition of N by the symmetric form \gothica0,
see (4) and (1) with V=0.
Lemma 6.1**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary
and C∈E(Ω) real symmetric.
Suppose that ckl∈Cb∞(Ω) for all k,l∈{1,…,d}.
Let φ∈Tr(W1,2(Ω)).
Then
[TABLE]
for all v∈W1,2(Ω) with suppφ∩suppv=∅.
Proof*.*
Let τ∈Cc∞(\mathdsRd) be such that suppφ∩suppτ=∅.
Set v=τ∣Ω.
By definition
[TABLE]
Let k∈{1,…,d}.
Define Fk:Ω→\mathdsC by
Fk=∑l=1dvckl∂l(γ0φ).
Then Fk∈C1(Ω) by classical elliptic regularity and the fact that
A(γ0φ)=0 weakly in Ω.
We next show that
Fk∈C(Ω).
Indeed, by Proposition 5.5(b) we have
[TABLE]
for all x∈suppv.
This integral is actually taken over z∈suppφ.
Since suppφ∩suppv=∅ we can apply Theorem 4.1,
which shows immediately that Fk∈C(Ω).
Let F=(F1,…,Fd).
Then
divF=∑k,l=1dckl(∂kγ0φ)∂lv∈L2(Ω).
Hence we can apply Lemma 5.1 to write the RHS of (38)
by
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
which proves the lemma if
v=τ∣Ω with τ∈Cc∞(\mathdsRd).
This extends to all v∈W1,2(Ω) with
suppφ∩suppv=∅ by a standard approximation argument.
∎
Next we extend the previous lemma to the case of Hölder continuous coefficients.
Lemma 6.2**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary
and C∈E(Ω) real symmetric.
Let φ∈Tr(W1,2(Ω)).
Then
[TABLE]
for all v∈W1,2(Ω) with suppφ∩suppv=∅.
Proof*.*
As one expects, we proceed by a regularization argument.
For all n∈\mathdsN let C(n) be as in Step 5 in the proof
of Proposition 5.3.
There exist μ,M>0 such that
C(n)∈Eκ(Ω,μ,M) for all n∈\mathdsN.
We denote by A(n), \gothica0(n), γ0(n), KN(n), G(n)
the same quantities as before with ckl replaced by
the new coefficients ckl(n).
We apply Lemma 6.1 to obtain
[TABLE]
for all φ∈Tr(W1,2(Ω)) and
v∈W1,2(Ω) such that suppφ∩suppv=∅.
Since
[TABLE]
it follows from Proposition 6.6 below that
limn→∞KN(n)(z,w)=KN(z,w) uniformly in
z∈Γ∩suppv and w∈suppφ.
On the other hand, by (39) and again Proposition 6.6 we see that
limn→∞(∂kγ0(n)φ)(x)=(∂kγ0φ)(x)
uniformly for all x∈suppv.
Since
[TABLE]
for all n∈\mathdsN one deduces that
lim\gothica0(n)(γ0(n)φ,v)=\gothica0(γ0φ,v).
Hence passing to the limit in (40) gives the lemma.
∎
Corollary 6.3**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary
and C∈E(Ω) real symmetric.
Then KN is the Schwartz kernel of N.
Proof*.*
Let φ∈D(N) and v∈W1,2(Ω) with
suppφ∩suppv=∅.
Then by definition of N and Lemma 6.2 one deduces that
[TABLE]
This gives the corollary.
∎
Proposition 6.4**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary
and C∈E(Ω) real symmetric.
Then there exists a c>0
such that the Schwartz kernel KN of
N satisfies
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all z,z′,w,w′∈Γ with z=w and ∣z−z′∣+∣w−w′∣≤21∣z−w∣.
Proof.
We have seen in Corollary 6.3 that N has a Schwartz kernel KN
given by
[TABLE]
for all z,w∈Γ with z=w.
Here G is the Green kernel of the elliptic operator AD.
It follows immediately from (27) in Theorem 4.1
and the fact that the coefficients ckl are all bounded on Ω that
[TABLE]
for a suitable constant a>0 and all z,w∈Γ with z=w.
On the other hand, the bounds (28) of the same theorem show that
there exists a c>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all z,z′,w,w′∈Γ
with z=w, z′=w′ and ∣z−z′∣+∣w−w′∣≤21∣z−w∣.
Using the fact that Γ is bounded we obtain the bound
[TABLE]
for all z,z′,w,w′∈Γ
with z=w, z′=w′ and ∣z−z′∣+∣w−w′∣≤21∣z−w∣.
This shows the second bounds of the proposition.
∎
Next we extend the previous estimates to the Schwartz kernel KNV of the
Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator with a potential
V∈L∞(Ω).
Proposition 6.5**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary
and C∈E(Ω) real symmetric.
Let V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR)
and assume that 0∈/σ(AD+V).
Then there exists a constant c>0 such that the Schwartz kernel KNV of NV
satisfies
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all z,z′,w,w′∈Γ with z=w and
∣z−z′∣+∣w−w′∣≤21∣z−w∣.
Proof.
First we have NV=N+γV∗MVγ0 by Corollary 5.6.
We already have the desired estimates for the kernel KN.
It remains to prove the same estimates for the Schwartz kernel KQ of
Q=γV∗MVγ0.
Recall that KγV is the kernel of γV.
Obviously,
[TABLE]
for all z,w∈Γ with z=w.
We use Proposition 5.5(c).
There exists a constant c>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all z,w∈Γ with z=w.
We apply [Fri] (Lemma 2, Section 4, Chapter 1) to estimate the RHS by
∣z−w∣d−1c1, uniformly for all z,w∈Γ with z=w.
Next we prove Hölder bounds.
Let z,z′,w,w′∈Γ with z=w, z′=w′ and ∣z−z′∣≤21∣z−w∣.
We write
[TABLE]
The estimates of I and II are similar.
We spilt the integral I into two parts
[TABLE]
For the first term we use Proposition 5.5(c)
and it can be estimated by
[TABLE]
for a suitable c>0.
We apply again [Fri] (Lemma 2, Section 4, Chapter 1) to estimate the latter integral by
c′∣z−z′∣κ∣z−w∣d−2+κ1
for a suitable c′>0.
The second integral in (41) is more delicate.
If x∈Ω and ∣z−z′∣>21∣x−z∣, then ∣x−z′∣≤∣z−z′∣+∣x−z∣≤3∣z−z′∣.
Moreover, ∣z−w∣≤2∣z′−w∣, since ∣z−z′∣≤21∣z−w∣ by assumption.
Then by Proposition 5.5(c) and
[Fri] (Lemma 2, Section 4, Chapter 1) there are suitable c1,c2>0 such that
[TABLE]
The same estimate holds for II.
∎
We finish this section with the proof of the approximation property used in the
proof of Lemma 6.2.
Proposition 6.6**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary
and C∈E(Ω) real symmetric.
Let ckl(n), A(n), G(n),… be as in the proof of Lemma 6.2.
Let K1 and K2 be compact and disjoint subsets of Ω such that
K1˚×K2˚=K1×K2.
Let k,l∈{1,…,d}.
Then
[TABLE]
uniformly for all x∈K1 and y∈K2.
Proof*.*
Let u,v∈W1,2(Ω) be such that suppu⊂K1 and suppv⊂K2.
Then
[TABLE]
where the forth equality follows as in (36).
Hence
uniformly for all n∈\mathdsN and (x,y)∈K1×K2.
Note that we also have Hölder bounds for
(∂k(1)∂l(2)G(n))(x,y) which are uniform in n and
(x,y)∈K1×K2 by the same theorem.
Therefore (∂k(1)∂l(2)G(n))n∈\mathdsN is equicontinuous on
K1×K2.
By the Ascoli–Arzelà theorem there exists a
Φ∈C(K1×K2) such that after passing to a subsequence
if necessary
(∂k(1)∂l(2)G(n))n∈\mathdsN converges
to Φ uniformly on K1×K2.
Then (42) gives
[TABLE]
Note that by ∂k(1)∂l(2)G is continuous on K1×K2
by Theorem 4.1.
Hence
Φ(x,y)=(∂k(1)∂l(2)G)(x,y) for all
(x,y)∈(K1×K2)∘.
By continuity this equality extends to all
(x,y)∈K1×K2.
∎
7 Lp-commutator estimates
In this section we aim to derive good bounds on Lp(Γ) for the commutator of
the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator NV and a multiplication operator Mg,
where g is a Lipschitz continuous function on Γ.
A key ingredient is a commutator estimate by Shen [She].
If the boundary Γ is C∞ and ckl=δkl it is
well known that N is a pseudo-differential operator.
In this case
a well known result of Calderón shows that [N,Mg] acts boundedly on
Lp(Γ) with norm bounded by C∥∇g∥L∞(Γ) for
some constant C>0.
See also Coifman and Meyer [CM] for more results on commutators of
pseudo-differential operators.
It is our aim here to obtain similar results for less smooth domains and
variable coefficients ckl.
We start with the following recent result of Z. Shen who treated the case
of L2-estimates for bounded Lipschitz domains.
An additional problem is that it is unclear whether the domain of N is
invariant under the multiplication operator.
Also that is a consequence of the same theorem.
We formulate the commutator estimate of Shen, [She] Theorem 1.1,
in the quadratic form sense.
Theorem 7.1**.**
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with Lipschitz boundary.
Let C∈E(Ω) be real symmetric and suppose that each ckl is
Hölder continuous on Ω.
Then there exists a c>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all g,φ∈C0,1(Γ) and ψ∈H1/2(Γ).
The theorem gives invariance of the domain of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator
under multiplication with a Lipschitz function and commutator estimates. Recall that
[TABLE]
for every g∈C0,1(Γ).
Theorem 7.2**.**
Let Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with Lipschitz boundary.
Let C∈E(Ω) be real symmetric and suppose that each ckl is
Hölder continuous on Ω.
Then gφ∈D(N) for all g∈C0,1(Γ) and
φ∈D(N).
Moreover, there exists a c>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all g∈C0,1(Γ).
Proof*.*
Let c>0 be as in Theorem 7.1.
Let g∈C0,1(Γ).
Then Mg is bounded from L2(Γ) into L2(Γ)
and from H1(Γ) into H1(Γ).
Hence by interpolation the operator Mg is bounded from
H1/2(Γ) into H1/2(Γ).
Since C0,1(Γ) is dense in H1/2(Γ) it
follows that (43) extends to all
φ,ψ∈H1/2(Γ).
If φ∈D(N), then
[TABLE]
for all ψ∈H1/2(Γ)=D(\gothicbV),
where c′=∥Nφ∥L2(Γ)∥g∥L∞(Γ)+c∥g∥C0,1(Γ)∥φ∥L2(Γ).
Hence gφ∈D(N).
Then the extended version of (43) gives
[TABLE]
for all φ∈D(N).
So
[TABLE]
We next observe that one can replace ∥g∥C0,1(Γ) by
LipΓ(g).
Next we extend this result to Lp(Γ) for all p∈(1,∞) when the
underlying domain is more regular.
We even have the result for NV with V∈L∞(Ω).
Theorem 7.3**.**
Let κ∈(0,1), Ω⊂\mathdsRd be an open bounded set with a C1+κ-boundary
and C∈E(Ω) real symmetric.
Let V∈L∞(Ω,\mathdsR)
and assume that 0∈/σ(AD+V).
Then for all p∈(1,∞)
there exists a c>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all g∈C0,1(Γ).
In addition the operator [NV,Mg] is of weak type (1,1) with an estimate
cLipΓ(g) as before.
On the other hand, by Proposition 5.5(d)
the operators γV and γ0
have bounded extensions from
Lp(Γ) to Lp(Ω) for all p∈[1,∞].
Therefore [Q,Mg] is a bounded operator on Lp(Γ) with norm
∥[Q,Mg]∥p→p≤2∥Q∥p→p∥g∥L∞(Γ).
Then as in the proof of Theorem 7.2, we fix z0∈Γ and
apply the above estimate with the function
g−g(z0) and use the trivial bound
∥g−g(z0)∥L∞(Ω)≤diam(Ω)LipΓ(g) to obtain
[TABLE]
where c′=2∥Q∥p→pdiam(Ω).
Hence it remains to prove the correspond estimates for [N,Mg]
if p∈(1,∞).
The Schwartz kernel K of the commutator [N,Mg] is given by
K(z,w):=(g(w)−g(z))KN(z,w),
where KN denotes the Schwartz kernel of N.
It follows from Proposition 6.4 that there is a suitable c>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all z,w∈Γ with z=w.
On the other hand, using the second bounds in Proposition 6.4
we see that there exists a suitable c′>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all z,z′,w∈Γ
with z=w and ∣z−z′∣≤21∣z−w∣.
Again as in
the proof of Theorem 7.2, we fix z0∈Γ and
apply the above estimate with the function
g−g(z0) and use the trivial bound
∥g−g(z0)∥L∞(Γ)≤diam(Ω)LipΓ(g),
to deduce that there exists a suitable M>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all z,z′,w∈Γ with z=w and ∣z−z′∣≤21∣z′−w∣.
Similarly, one proves that
[TABLE]
for all z,w,w′∈Γ with z=w and ∣w−w′∣≤21∣z−w∣.
It follows form (45), (46) and (47) that K(⋅,⋅) is a
Calderón–Zygmund kernel.
We obtain from this and Theorem 7.2 that [N,Mg] acts as a
bounded operator on Lp(Γ) for all p∈(1,∞) with norm estimated by
c′′LipΓ(g).
This shows Theorem 7.3.
∎
8 Proof of Poisson bounds
Throughout this section we adopt the notation and assumptions of Theorem 1.1.
We start with a lemma.
Lemma 8.1**.**
For all p∈[1,∞) the semigroup SV extends consistently
to a C0-semigroup on Lp(Γ).
Proof*.*
By Theorem 2.2(b), the semigroup S generated by −N is sub-Markovian and
hence it acts as a contraction semigroup on
Lp(Γ) for all p∈[1,∞] and it is strongly continuous if p∈[1,∞).
We know from Proposition 5.5(d)
that the operator Q=γV∗MVγ0
is bounded on Lp(Γ) for all p∈[1,∞].
Since
NV=N+Q by Corollary 5.6 it follows from standard perturbation theory
that the semigroup SV generated by −NV acts as a C0-semigroup on Lp(Γ)
for all p∈[1,∞).
∎
Let SV be the semigroup generated by −NV on L2(Γ).
Lemma 8.2**.**
For all t>0 the operator StV has a kernel KtV.
In addition, there exist ω∈\mathdsR and c>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all t>0 and a.e. z,w∈Γ.
Proof*.*
If d≥3 the Sobolev embedding of
Tr(W1,2(Ω)) into Ld−22(d−1)(Γ)
of [Neč] Theorem 2.4.2
implies easily that there exist c,ω>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all φ∈Tr(W1,2(Ω)).
Since the semigroup SV acts on Lp(Γ) for all p∈[1,∞] it is well known
that the later inequality implies ultracontractivity estimates.
More precisely, there exist c,ω>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all t>0.
Note that (48) implies that StV is given by a kernel KtV such that
[TABLE]
for all t>0 and a.e. z,w∈Γ.
If d=2, then the proof is precisely the same as in the proof
of Theorem 2.6 in [EO2].
∎
Using the previous two lemmas, duality and interpolation one
deduces easily the next lemma.
Lemma 8.3**.**
There exists a c>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all t∈(0,1] and p,q∈[1,∞] with p≤q.
Let g∈C0,1(Γ).
Define δg(NV)=[Mg,NV] and for all j∈\mathdsN
define inductively δgj+1(NV)=[Mg,δj(NV)].
Define similarly δgj(StV).
Lemma 8.4**.**
Suppose either p,q∈(1,∞) with
p≤q and (d−1)(p1−q1)∈{0,1,…,d−1},
or p=1 and q=∞.
Then there exists a cp,q>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all g∈C0,1(Γ),
where j=1+(d−1)(p1−q1).
Proof*.*
The kernel K of δgj(N) is given by
K(z,w)=(g(w)−g(z))jKNV(z,w), where we use again KNV to
denote the Schwartz kernel of NV.
It follows immediately from Proposition 6.5 that there is a suitable c>0
such that
[TABLE]
for all z,w∈Γ with z=w.
If 1<p<q<∞, then (49) implies that
K is a Riesz potential.
Then the boundedness of δgj(NV) from Lp(Γ) to Lq(Γ)
follows from [Ste], Theorem V.1.
If 1<p=q<∞, then the statement of the lemma is given by
Theorem 7.3.
Finally, if p=1 and q=∞ then j=d.
In this case
[TABLE]
and hence δgd(NV) is bounded from L1(Γ) into L∞(Γ)
with norm estimates by
c(LipΓ(g))d.
∎
In order to prove the Poisson bound for the kernel KtV(x,y) we proceed
as in Section 4 of [EO2].
For the reader’s convenience, we repeat the arguments.
Let c>0 be as in Lemma 8.3.
Further let cp,q be as in Lemma 8.4.
Let t∈(0,1].
Then
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and dλk denotes Lebesgue measure of the k-dimensional surface Hk.
We estimate each term in the sum.
Let k∈{1,…,d}, (t1,…,tk+1)∈Hk,
g∈C0,1(Γ), t∈(0,1] and j1,…,jk∈\mathdsN with
j1+…+jk=d and LipΓ(g)≤1.
If k=1 then j1=d and we have for t∈(0,1] and each g with
LipΓ(g)≤1
[TABLE]
Suppose that k∈{2,…,d}.
There exists an M∈{1,…,k+1} such that tM≥k+11.
Note that ∑ℓ=1k(jℓ−1)=d−k<d−1.
First suppose M∈{1,k+1}.
Fix 1=q0<p1≤q1=p2≤q2=p3≤…≤qM−2=pM−1≤qM−1≤pM≤qM=pM+1≤qM+1≤…≤qk−1=pk≤qk<pk+1=∞
such that
[TABLE]
for all ℓ∈{1,…,k}.
Then
[TABLE]
where c′=ck+1∏ℓ=1kcpℓ,qℓ.
If M∈{1,k+1} then a similar estimate is valid with possibly
a different constant for c′.
Integration and taking the sum gives
[TABLE]
for a suitable c′′>0, uniformly for all t∈(0,1] and g∈C0,1(Γ) such that
LipΓ(g)≤1.
Therefore
[TABLE]
for all w,z∈Γ.
Note that the metric dΓ:Γ×Γ→[0,∞)
given by
[TABLE]
is equivalent to the Euclidean one.
Indeed, by the definition of LipΓ(g)≤1 one has
∣g(z)−g(w)∣≤∣z−w∣ for all z,w∈Γ.
Hence dΓ(z,w)≤∣z−w∣.
To obtain the reverse inequality, let k∈{1,…,d} and choose
g(z)=zk, where z=(z1,…,zd).
Then ∣zk−wk∣≤dΓ(z,w) and hence ∣z−w∣≤dd/2dΓ(z,w).
Using this fact and optimizing over g in (50) we obtain
[TABLE]
for all t∈(0,1] and z,w∈Γ.
We combine this with Lemma 8.2 and obtain that there is a c>0
such that
[TABLE]
for all t∈(0,1] and z,w∈Γ.
By [Ouh] Lemma 6.5 and the fact that Γ is bounded we improve
this bound and there is a c>0
[TABLE]
for all t>0 and z,w∈Γ.
This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1. □
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Christophe Prange for several interesting discussions.
This work was carried out when the second named author was visiting the University of
Auckland and the first named author was visiting the University of Bordeaux.
Both authors wish to thank the universities for hospitalities.
The research of A.F.M. ter Elst is partly supported by the
Marsden Fund Council from Government funding,
administered by the Royal Society of New Zealand.
The research of E.M. Ouhabaz is partly supported by the ANR
project ‘Harmonic Analysis at its Boundaries’, ANR-12-BS01-0013-02.
Bibliography27
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[Alt] Alt, H. W. , Analysis III, 2002. Lecture Winter Semester 2001/2002, Institute of Applied Mathematics, University of Bonn, http://www.iam.uni-bonn.de/ ~ ~ absent \widetilde{\>}\, alt/ws 2001/EN/analysis 3-hyp_79.html.
2[AE 1] Arendt, W. and Elst, A. F. M. ter , Sectorial forms and degenerate differential operators. J. Operator Theory 67 (2012), 33–72.
3[AE 2] , Ultracontractivity and eigenvalues: Weyl’s law for the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator. Integral Equations Operator Theory (2017). In press, doi 10.1007/s 00020-017-2353-2.
4[Aus] Auscher, P. , Regularity theorems and heat kernels for elliptic operators. J. London Math. Soc. 54 (1996), 284–296.
5[AT] Auscher, P. and Tchamitchian, P. , Square root problem for divergence operators and related topics. Astérisque 249 (1998), viii+172.
6[AL] Avellaneda, M. and Lin, F. , Compactness methods in the theory of homogenization. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 40 (1987), 803–847.
7[BE] Behrndt, J. and Elst, A. F. M. ter , Dirichlet-to-Neumann maps on bounded Lipschitz domains. J. Differential Equations 259 (2015), 5903–5926.
8[Cam] Campanato, S. , Equazioni ellittiche del II deg II degree {\rm{I}{I}}\deg ordine espazi 𝔏 ( 2 , λ ) superscript 𝔏 2 𝜆 \gothic{L}^{(2,\lambda)} . Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 69 (1965), 321–381.