This paper establishes global bounds on the H"older norm of the gradient for solutions to graphic mean curvature flow with boundaries of any codimension, advancing understanding of boundary regularity in geometric flows.
Contribution
It provides new global boundary regularity estimates for mean curvature flows of higher codimension, a previously less understood area.
Findings
01
Derived global H"older norm bounds for gradient solutions
02
Extended boundary regularity results to arbitrary codimension
03
Improved understanding of geometric flow regularity at boundaries
Abstract
In this paper, we derive global bounds for the H\"older norm of the gradient of solutions of graphic mean curvature flow with boundary of arbitrary codimension.
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
TopicsGeometric Analysis and Curvature Flows · Geometry and complex manifolds · Advanced Differential Geometry Research
Full text
Boundary regularity for mean curvature flows of higher codimension
Qi Ding
Shanghai Center for Mathematical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200438, China
In this paper, we derive global bounds for the Hölder norm of the gradient
of solutions of graphic mean curvature flow with boundary of arbitrary codimension.
The first author is partially supported by NSFC 12371053, the second author is partially supported by COST Action CaLISTA CA21109 (European Cooperation
in Science and Technology, www.cost.eu), and the third author is partially supported by NSFC 11531012
1. Introduction
For an open set Ω⊂Rn, the
graph u=(u1,⋯,um):Ω→Rn+m is minimal if u satisfies a system of m quasilinear elliptic equations (see [10])
[TABLE]
where (gij) is the inverse matrix of gij=δij+∑α∂iuα∂juα. The Dirichlet problem is one of the classical problems in the field, that is, to find solutions with boundary data
[TABLE]
for some given ψ=(ψ1,⋯,ψm) on ∂Ω. As it turns out, in order to obtain the existence and the regularity of solutions, some conditions on the geometry of ∂Ω and on the boundary data are needed.
Analogously, we can consider a time dependent version, the mean curvature flow.
Let T be a positive constant.
Let u(x,t)=(u1(x,t),⋯,um(x,t)) for t∈(0,T), x=(x1,⋯,xn)∈Ω, and put
Ut(x1,⋯,xn)=(x1,⋯,xn,u1(x,t),⋯,um(x,t)). We consider the case where Mt=graphu(⋅,t)={(x,u(x,t))∣x∈Ω}⊂Rn+m moves along the mean curvature flow, i.e.,
[TABLE]
where HMt denotes the mean curvature of Mt. In coordinates, u satisfies the parabolic equations
[TABLE]
for each α=1,⋯,m on Ω×(0,T), that is, the parabolic analogue of (1.1). And we can then prescribe initial and boundary values. Obviously, the parabolic method provides also a possible approach to the original elliptic problem.
For codimension m=1, the elliptic problem is quite well understood from the classical paper [7] of Jenkins and Serrin. For higher codimension, that is, for m>1, the situation is more difficult and less well understood. A counterexample due to Lawson and Osserman in [8] tells us that the situation is fundamentally different from the case m=1. Of course, this implies similar difficulties for the parabolic case.
A crucial analytical step in the solution of the boundary value problems for C2 data consists in deriving a global C1,γ-estimate (for some γ∈(0,1)). An important step was taken by Thorpe [11], who showed
that for C3-boundary data on a bounded smooth domain, a solution with small C1-norm satisfies a C1,γ-estimate. It is more natural, however, to assume only a bound on the C2-norm of the boundary data.
In [4], the first author and the third author derived a global C1,γ-estimate for minimal graphs of arbitrary codimension in Euclidean space under the C2-norm of the boundary data
and some suitable conditions.
In this paper, we therefore derive uniform C1,γ-estimates for any solution u to the graphic mean curvature flow with an assumption only on the C2-norm of the boundary data, provided the gradient ∣Du∣ is bounded and the product of any two singular values of Du is between -1 and 1 (see Theorem 3.3). This condition on the product of any two singular values cannot be removed in view of the counterexample of Lawson and Osserman [8] (in the elliptic case). Our estimates will also play an important role in [2] and [12], where we provide general conditions for the existence of solutions to the Dirichlet problem.
The key ingredient
in the proof of Theorem 3.3 is to get the interior curvature estimates of mean curvature flow using Huisken’s monotonicity formula [6],
and the global C1,γ-estimates using uniform parabolic equations [9] of Lieberman.
2. Preliminary
Let Rn be the standard n-dimensional Euclidean space.
For a point x=(x,t)∈Rn×R=Rn+1, we set ∣x∣=max{∣x∣,∣t∣1/2} and the cylinder
[TABLE]
Denote QR=QR(0) for short.
For a domain W⊂Rn+1, we define the parabolic boundary PW to be the set of all points x∈∂W such that the cylinder Qϵ(x) contains points not in W for any ϵ>0.
Let us recall the standard Hölder norms for parabolic equations.
For every set V⊂Rn+1, γ1∈(0,1], and every (vector-valued) function f defined on V, we set
[TABLE]
and [f]γ1;V=supx∈V[f]γ1;V(x). For each γ2∈(0,2] and x=(x,t)∈V, put
[TABLE]
and ⟨f⟩γ2;V=supx∈V⟨f⟩γ2;V(x).
Denote ∣f∣V=supx∈V∣f(x)∣.
Now for any a>0, we write a=k+γ with a nonnegative integer k and γ∈(0,1]. Let D denote the spatial derivative and ∂t denote the time derivative. Set
[TABLE]
on V, and ∣f∣a;V=supx∈V∣f∣a;V(x).
We say f∈Ha(V) if ∣f∣a;V<∞.
For ϕ∈H1(V), we define 2-dilation of ϕ (w.r.t. the spatial derivative)
[TABLE]
where {μk(x)}k=1n are the singular values of Dϕ(x).
Let Ω be an open set in Rn, and T is a positive constant.
A (vector-valued) function f=(f1,⋯,fm) is said to be in C2(Ω×(0,T),Rm), if each fα is twice differentiable w.r.t. the variable x∈Ω, and each fα is differentiable w.r.t. the variable t∈(0,T).
Let Ft be of the form
Ft(x1,⋯,xn)=(x1,⋯,xn,f1(x,t),⋯,fm(x,t))
with t∈(0,T), x=(x1,⋯,xn)∈Ω such that Mt=graphf(⋅,t)={(x,f(x,t))∣x∈Ω}⊂Rn+m moves along the mean curvature flow, i.e.,
[TABLE]
where HMt denotes the mean curvature of Mt. Let ΔMt denote the Laplacian of Mt.
From ΔFt=HMt, it follows that f=(f1,⋯,fm) satisfies the parabolic equations
[TABLE]
for each α=1,⋯,m on Ω×(0,T),
where gij=δij+∑αfiαfjα, and (gij) is the inverse matrix of (gij).
Let L be the parabolic operator of the second order defined by
[TABLE]
for each ϕ=(ϕ1,⋯,ϕm)∈C2(Ω×[0,T),Rm),
where (gϕij) is the inverse matrix of (δij+∑α∂iϕα∂jϕα). For convenience, we denote gϕij by gij.
We say Lf=0 if Lfα=0 for each α.
Lf=0 implies that graphf(⋅,t) moves by mean curvature flow.
3. A priori Hölder gradient estimate for mean curvature flow
Lemma 3.1**.**
For R>0, let f=(f1,⋯,fm)∈C2(QR,Rm) satisfy Lf=0 in QR with f(0)=0, where 0 is the origin of Rn×R. If supQRΛ2Df<1−ϵ for some ϵ∈(0,1), then there is a constant c=c(n,m,ϵ,∣Df∣QR) depending only on n,m,ϵ,∣Df∣QR such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
By scaling, we only need to prove this Lemma with R=1. Put Q=Q1 and dQ(x)=infy∈PQ∣x−y∣.
Let us prove it by contradiction.
Let fi be a sequence of smooth solutions of the mean curvature flow in Q with fi(0)=0∈Rm, supΛ2Dfi≤1−ϵ and limsupi∣Dfi∣Q<∞ such that
[TABLE]
Denote Ri=supx∈QdQ(x)∣D2fi(x)∣. There are points xi=(xi,ti)∈Q such that Ri=dQ(xi)∣D2fi(xi)∣.
Set
[TABLE]
then fi still satisfies Lfi=0 and Ri=∣D2fi(0)∣. Moreover, supΛ2Dfi≤1−ϵ, limsupi∣Dfi∣Q<∞ and
[TABLE]
Let BR denote the ball in Rn+m centered at the origin with radius R>0.
Put Mti=graphfi(⋅,t).
Since Mti is a Lipschitz graph with uniformly bounded Lipschitz constants,
[TABLE]
is uniformly bounded independent of i,t∈[−1,0). For each tj∈(0,1] with tj→0 as j→∞, there is a sequence li,j→∞ as i→∞ such that {li,j}i is a subsequence of {li,j−1}i for each j≥2, and the limit
[TABLE]
exists for any j. Up to the choice of the subsequence of tj,li,j, we assume that the limit
[TABLE]
exists (and is not equal to ∞) as j→∞. By Huisken’s monotonicity formula [6] (see also formula (7) in [5] or (1.2) in [1] for example),
[TABLE]
where X denotes the position vector in Rn+m, and cn is a constant depending only on n.
Note that Mti is a Lipschitz graph with a uniform Lipschitz constant. With (3.7) we infer
[TABLE]
There is a sequence {lj} with lj∈{li,j}i, such that
[TABLE]
and limj→∞Rljtj=∞.
Set
[TABLE]
and Σti=graphfi(⋅,t). Then t∈[−Rli2,0]↦Σti is a sequence of mean curvature flows in BRli(0)×Rm such that supQRliΛ2Dfi≤1−ϵ, limsupi∣Dfi∣QRli<∞ and
[TABLE]
In particular, ∣D2fi(x)∣≤2 on QRli/2.
Hence, from (3.10) we have
[TABLE]
Since fi satisfies Lfi=0, then ∣∂tfi(x)∣≤2n from ∣D2fi(x)∣≤2 on QRli/2. By the Arzela-Ascoli Theorem, we can assume that
fi^ converges to f∞ on any bounded domain K⊂QRli/2. Furthermore, supQ∞Λ2Df∞≤1−ϵ, ∣Df∞∣Q∞<∞ and ∣D2f∞∣Q∞≤2 with Q∞=limR→∞QR. Denote Σt∞=graphf∞(⋅,t). By the Fatou Lemma, from (3.13) we conclude
[TABLE]
for any R>0. Hence Σt∞ are self-shrinkers (up to scalings) for all t<0. Therefore, they are smooth by Allard’s regularity theorem. From [3], Σt∞ is an n-plane for each t. Hence Σti converges to Σt∞ smoothly (see [13] for instance), but this contradicts to ∣D2fi(0)∣=1. This suffices to complete the proof.
∎
Lemma 3.2**.**
For each R>0, let f=(f1,⋯,fm)∈C2(QR,Rm) satisfy Lf=0 in QR with f(0)=0. If supQRΛ2Df<1−ϵ for some ϵ∈(0,1),
then there is a constant c=c(n,m,ϵ,∣Df∣QR) depending only on n,m,ϵ,∣Df∣QR such that
for any ξ∈Rn×Rm and ι∈Rm
where c=c(n,m,ϵ,∣Df∣QR) is a general constant depending only on n,m,ϵ,∣Df∣QR.
By contradiction and considering supy∈QdQ2(y)∣D3fi(y)∣ instead of supy∈QdQ(y)∣D2fi(y)∣ in (3.2), it is not hard to get
[TABLE]
Taking the derivative of the equation Lf=0, we have
[TABLE]
Set
[TABLE]
for each ξ∈Rn×Rm and ι∈Rm, then Dg=Df−ξ.
With an interpolation inequality (see Lemma 4.1 of [9] for instance), we have
[TABLE]
for any x∈QR/2 and any γ∈(0,1). Combining Lemma 3.1 and (3.16), we have
[TABLE]
which suffices to complete the proof.
∎
Denote Br=Br(0)⊂Rn, and Br+=Br∩R+n for short.
Let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn with ∂Ω∈C2, and ΩT=Ω×(0,T). Then its parabolic boundary is PΩT=(Ω×{0})∪(∂Ω×[0,T]).
Let κ1,Ω(x),⋯,κn−1,Ω(x) be
the principal curvatures of ∂Ω at each x∈∂Ω. Denote
[TABLE]
Theorem 3.3**.**
For any ϵ>0, T>0 and ψ=(ψ1,⋯,ψm)∈C2(Ω,Rm),
there are constants γ∈(0,1), C>0 depending only on n,m, ϵ, ∣Df∣ΩT, ∣ψ∣2,Ω, κΩ and diamΩ such that
if f=(f1,⋯,fm)∈H2(ΩT)∩H1+γ(ΩT) satisfies Lf=0 in ΩT with f(⋅,0)=ψ on Ω×{0}, f(⋅,t)=ψ on ∂Ω for each t∈[0,T], and supΩTΛ2Df<1−ϵ, then [Df]γ;ΩT≤C.
Proof.
From Lemma 4.1 in Appendix I, the flow Lf=0 has the short-time existence.
Hence, there are constants ϵ∗>0 and c>0 depending only on n,m,κΩ,diamΩ,∣ψ∣2,Ω such that
[TABLE]
In order to finish the proof, we only need to consider the case T≥ϵ∗.
We shall first derive Hölder estimates for Df on ∂Ω×(ϵ∗/2,T) by following the idea of the proof of Theorem 12.5 in [9].
For any x∗=(x∗,t∗)∈∂Ω×(ϵ∗/2,T), up to a translation we may assume that x∗ is the origin in Rn×R, and f is defined in Ω×(−t∗,T−t∗).
Let
[TABLE]
for each r>0. Let F be the map defined in Appendix II with its inverse F−1, and we choose r0=min{κΩ,ϵ∗/2} in Appendix II. Let
[TABLE]
be the function defined in Appendix II. Then f^=0 in ∂Qr0+∩Qr0.
Let
for all constants ρ,R>0.
For any set V∈Rn+1 and any function φ on V, denote oscVφ=supVφ−infVφ.
Denote y=(y′,yn,s)∈Rn−1×R×R.
From Lemma 7.47 in [9], there are constants γ′,ρ∗∈(0,21], and a constant c′ depending only on n,m, ∣Df∣ΩT, ∣ψ∣2;ΩT and κΩ such that
[TABLE]
for each α=1,⋯,m, and all 0<r<R≤r0.
For any fixed x=(x,t)=(x′,xn,t)∈Qr+ with r≤21ρ∗r0, and 1≤α≤m, put x′=(x′,0,t), ζ=Df^α(x′) and ζn=∂xnf^α(x′). By the definition of f^, ⟨ζ,y⟩=ζnyn for any y=(y1,⋯,yn)∈Rn.
We choose R=r0 in (3.21), then
[TABLE]
for all 0<r<21ρ∗r0,
which implies
[TABLE]
Denote F(y)=(F(y),ty) and y=F−1(F(y),ty) for each y=(y,ty).
From Lemma 3.2, there is a general constant C depending only on n,m, ϵ, diamΩ, ∣Df∣ΩT, ∣ψ∣2;ΩT and κΩ such that
[TABLE]
Here, δ is a positive constant ≤1 to be defined later. The bound of ∣ψ∣2;ΩT implies
[TABLE]
for all y∈Bδxn(F−1(x)). By the definition of F,
[TABLE]
for all y∈Bδxn(F−1(x)).
Denote z=(z,s′) for some s′∈R.
Combining the definition of f^ in Appendix II and (LABEL:Dfpsi**)(3.25)(3.26), we conclude that
[TABLE]
We choose a suitably small δ>0 depending on κΩ such that Qδxn(F−1(x))⊂F−1(Qxn(x)). Then it follows that
[TABLE]
Combining the two inequalities (3.23)(3.28) and r∈(0,1] yields
[TABLE]
for all x∈Qr+ and 0<r<21ρ∗r0.
From (3.22), it is clear that
Hence, [Df]γ′/2;Ω×(ϵ∗/2,T)≤C. Together with (3.19), we deduce
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.
∎
Remark 3.4**.**
If we remove the condition supΩTΛ2Df<1−ϵ in Theorem 3.3, then it’s almost impossible to control the Hessian of f.
In general, supΩΛ2Df(⋅,0)<1−ϵ does not preserved along mean curvature flow.
However, in [2] we find a class of parabolic boundary data ψ such that supΩΛ2Df(⋅,t)<1−ϵ does preserve in a suitable sense along mean curvature flow.
Remark 3.5**.**
Under the assumption of Theorem 3.3, we can use the conclusion of Theorem 3.3 and Theorem 5.15 in [9] to deduce that for any γ∈(0,1)
there is a constant C>0 depending only on n,m, ϵ,γ, ∣Df∣ΩT, ∣ψ∣2,Ω, κΩ, diamΩ and T such that
[TABLE]
4. Appendix I
Let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn with ∂Ω∈C2, and ψ=(ψ1,⋯,ψm)∈C2(Ω,Rm).
Denote ΩT=Ω×(0,T) for some T>0.
Let us consider the flow
[TABLE]
where (gij) is the inverse matrix of gij=δij+∑α∂ifα∂jfα.
In general, Lψ=0 on ∂Ω×(0,T). Hence, we do not have the standard boundary estimate or the short-time existence of (4.1) immediately.
Now let us define certain weighted norms as follows (see page 47 in [9]).
For each x=(x,t)∈Rn×R, let
[TABLE]
and ρ(x,y)=min{ρ(x),ρ(y)}. Denote diamΩT=supx,y∈ΩT∣x−y∣. For any (vector-valued) function ϕ on ΩT, we define
[TABLE]
We further assume ϕ∈C2(ΩT).
For a=k+γ>0 with γ∈(0,1] and a+b≥0, we define
[TABLE]
Now let us state the short-time existence of mean curvature flows (see Theorem 8.2 in [9]).
Lemma 4.1**.**
For each 0<γ<1 and ψ=(ψ1,⋯,ψm)∈H1+γ(Ω), there are constants δ>0 and c>0 depending only on n,m,γ,κΩ,diamΩ,∣ψ∣1+γ,Ω and a function f=(f1,⋯,fm)∈C∞(Ωδ,Rm)∩H1+γ(Ωδ) with Lf=0 in Ωδ such that f(⋅,0)=ψ on Ω×{0}, f(⋅,t)=ψ on ∂Ω for each t∈[0,δ], and ∣f∣1+γ;Ωδ≤c.
Proof.
For any δ∈(0,diamΩ) and 0<θ<γ, let C0=1+∣ψ∣1+θ,Ω and
[TABLE]
Denote T=diamΩ. We extend ϕ=(ϕ1,⋯,ϕm) to be a (vector-valued) function in H1+θ(ΩT) by ϕ(⋅,t)=ϕ(⋅,δ) for all t∈(δ,T]. It follows that ∣ϕ∣1+θ;ΩT≤∣ϕ∣1+θ;Ωδ≤C0.
Let aijϕ=δij+∑α∂iϕα∂jϕα for each i,j=1,⋯,n, and (aϕij) be the inverse matrix of (aijϕ).
Then ∣aϕij∣θ;ΩT is bounded by a constant depending only on n,m,C0.
For every function φ∈C2(ΩT), we define
[TABLE]
Let ψ(x,t)=ψ(x,0) for each (x,t)∈ΩT.
From Theorem 5.15 in [9], for each α there is a unique function φα satisfying Lϕφα=0 with φα=ψα on PΩT.
Moreover, there is a general constant c depending on n,m,γ,κΩ,diamΩ and ∣ϕ∣1+θ;ΩT such that
[TABLE]
In particular, (diamΩT)−γsupΩT∣Dφα∣≤c∣ψα∣1+γ,Ω.
For any x,y∈ΩT, without loss of generality, we assume ρ(y)≤ρ(x).
We assume ρ(y)<21min{∣x−y∣,κΩ}, or else
it’s clear that
[TABLE]
where c′ is a general constant depending only on n,m,γ,κΩ,diamΩ.
There exists a point zy∈ΩT such that ∣zy−y∣=∣y−x∣ and ρ(zy)=ρ(y)+∣y−zy∣.
Then
[TABLE]
We choose a sequence of points y0=y,y1,⋯,yN−1,yN=yz
such that ∣yi−yi+1∣=21ρ(yi+1) and ρ(yi+1)=ρ(yi)+∣yi−yi+1∣ for i=0,⋯,N−1,
and ∣yN−1−yN∣≤21ρ(yN), ρ(yN)=ρ(yN−1)+∣yN−1−yN∣.
Then ρ(yi+1)=2ρ(yi) for i=0,⋯,N−1, and ρ(yN)≤2ρ(yN−1).
Hence from (4.7) one has
For ρ(x)<21min{∣x−y∣,κΩ}, there exists a point zx∈ΩT such that ∣zx−x∣=∣y−x∣ and ρ(zx)=ρ(x)+∣x−zx∣.
Then analogously to the above argument, it follows that
[TABLE]
Combining the definition of zx,zy,
[TABLE]
and then
[TABLE]
Combining (4.12) and (4.13), we get (4.11).
With (LABEL:Dfayzy)(4.11), we deduce
by interpolation (see Proposition 4.2 in [9] for instance).
Hence, ∣φ∣1+θ;Ωδ≤C0 for the sufficiently small δ>0.
Now we define a map J:B→H1+θ(Ωδ) by φ=(φ1,⋯,φm)=Jϕ (restricted on Ωδ).
Then ∣φ∣1+θ;Ωδ≤C0 implies JB⊂B.
Since B is a convex compact subset of H1+θ′(Ωδ) for any θ′∈(0,θ),
it follows that J has a fixed point f=(f1,⋯,fm)∈H1+γ(Ωδ) with
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.
∎
5. Appendix II
For studying the boundary regularity of parabolic systems, we usually only need to consider a similar system on a portion of a half space by a coordinate transformation.
Let Br be a ball with radius r and centered at the origin in Rn. Let Ω be a domain in Rn with C2-boundary ∂Ω∋0.
For any r0∈(0,1/κΩ), we assume that there is a coordinate change F:Br0→F(Br0)⊂Rn such that F,F−1 are C2-maps satisfying F(Br0∩∂Ω)⊂{y=(y1,⋯,yn)∈Rn∣yn=0}, F(Br0∩Ω)⊂{y=(y1,⋯,yn)∈Rn∣yn>0}, and the matrix DF(DF)T has eigenvalues between two constants ΛF−1 and ΛF, where ΛF>1 is a constant depending only on n,κΩ. Without loss of generality, we can assume
[TABLE]
For each C2 vector-valued function f=(f1,⋯,fm) in Ωt1t2=Ω×(t1,t2),
we define a new function f~ by
f~(y,t)=f(x,t) with y=(y1,⋯,yn)=F(x)=(F1(x),⋯,Fn(x)). Then Df=DF⋅Df~. Put
[TABLE]
Now we assume that f satisfies the flow
[TABLE]
with f=ψ on PΩt1t2,
where (gij) is the inverse matrix of gij=δij+∑αfiαfjα.
Then
[TABLE]
Set ψ~ by ψ=ψ~∘F, and f^=f~−ψ~ so that f^=0 on F(∂Ω∩Br0)×(t1,t2). Put
[TABLE]
Then f^ satisfies the parabolic system
[TABLE]
Hence there is a positive constant λf depending only on n,m, ΛF, ∣Df∣0;Ωt1t2 and ∣Dψ∣0;Ωt1t2 such that
[TABLE]
on F(Ω∩Br0)×(t1,t2). Here, cn is a positive constant depending only on n.
Bibliography13
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] Tobias H. Colding and William P. Minicozzi II, Generic Mean Curvature Flow I; Generic Singularities, Ann. of Math., 175 (2) (2012), 755-833.
2[2] Qi Ding, J. Jost and Y.L. Xin, Existence and non-existence of minimal graphs, J. Math. Pure Appl. 179 (2023), 391-424.
3[3] Qi Ding, Zhizhang Wang, On the self-shrinking systems in arbitrary codimensional spaces, ar Xiv:1012.0429 v 2, 2010.
4[4] Qi Ding and Y.L. Xin, Boundary regularity for minimal graphs of higher codimensions, Chin. Ann. Math. 43 B(5), 2022, 869-876.
5[5] Klaus Ecker and Gerhard Huisken, Mean curvature evolution of entire graphs, Ann. of Math. (2) 130 (1989), no. 3, 453-471.
6[6] G. Huisken, Asymptotic behavior of singularities for the mean curvature flow, J. Diff. Geom. 31 (1990), 237-266.
7[7] H. Jenkins and J. Serrin, The Dirichlet problem for the minimal surface equation in higher dimension, J. Reine Angew. Math. 229 (1968), 170-187.
8[8] H. Lawson and R. Osserman, Non-existence, non-uniqueness and irregularity of solutions to the minimal surface system, Acta Math. 139 (1977), 1-17.