Isoperimetric inequalities for Bergman analytic content
Stephen J. Gardiner, Marius Ghergu, Tomas Sj\"odin

TL;DR
This paper explores isoperimetric inequalities related to the Bergman p-analytic content of planar domains, linking it to torsional rigidity and characterizing cases of equality.
Contribution
It establishes new isoperimetric inequalities for Bergman p-analytic content and analyzes conditions for equality with bounds.
Findings
Derived inequalities connecting Bergman p-analytic content and torsional rigidity.
Characterized domains where equality holds in these inequalities.
Extended concepts to higher dimensions using harmonic vector fields.
Abstract
The Bergman -analytic content () of a planar domain measures the -distance between and the Bergman space of holomorphic functions. It has a natural analogue in all dimensions which is formulated in terms of harmonic vector fields. This paper investigates isoperimetric inequalities for Bergman -analytic content in terms of the St Venant functional for torsional rigidity, and addresses the cases of equality with the upper and lower bounds.
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.
Isoperimetric inequalities for Bergman analytic content
Stephen J. Gardiner, Marius Ghergu and Tomas Sjödin
Abstract
The Bergman -analytic content () of a planar domain measures the -distance between and the Bergman space of holomorphic functions. It has a natural analogue in all dimensions which is formulated in terms of harmonic vector fields. This paper investigates isoperimetric inequalities for Bergman -analytic content in terms of the St Venant functional for torsional rigidity, and addresses the cases of equality with the upper and lower bounds.
1 Introduction
00footnotetext: 2010 *Mathematics Subject Classification * 31B05. Keywords: harmonic vector field, Bergman space, isoperimetric inequality, torsional rigidity
The Bergman -analytic content () of a bounded planar domain was introduced by Guadarrama and Khavinson [15]. It is defined by the formula , where is the usual -norm and is the Bergman space of -integrable holomorphic functions on . In the case where , Fleeman and Khavinson [8] showed that, for any simply connected domain with piecewise smooth boundary,
[TABLE]
where denotes the torsional rigidity of and is Lebesgue measure. Subsequently, Fleeman and Lundberg [9] showed that the left hand inequality is actually an equality for any bounded simply connected domain, and this relationship has been further exploited by Fleeman and Simanek [10]. Bell, Ferguson and Lundberg [3] established related inequalities concerning torsional rigidity and the norm of the self-commutator of a Toeplitz operator. The limiting case of Bergman -analytic content where is the notion of analytic content, which has been studied for many years: see, for example, [11], [4], [1] for the case of the plane, and [16], [12] for its extension to higher dimensions.
Rewriting as , we see that a natural generalization to bounded domains in Euclidean space () is given by
[TABLE]
where denotes the space of harmonic vector fields in ,**
[TABLE]
and is the usual Euclidean norm on . Thus satisfies and , where the latter condition means that
[TABLE]
The gradient of any harmonic function is a harmonic vector field, and the converse assertion is also true when is simply connected. We will assume from now on that is smoothly bounded.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate isoperimetric inequalities for in all dimensions, and to examine the cases of equality with the upper and lower bounds (cf. Problem 3.4 of [5]). We denote by the dual exponent of , whence (or if ), and note that the dual space can be identified with . When we denote by the closure of in the Sobolev space ; these are the functions in that have trace zero on (see Section 5.5 of [7]). Since any function in has a Lipschitz representative, it is natural to denote by the subset of comprising those functions which vanish on . We define
[TABLE]
When , the quantity is known as the St Venant -functional of . Its relationship with the torsional rigidity will be discussed in Section 4.
We begin with the case , where we can add the following to the results of [8] and [9].
Theorem 1
If is a smoothly bounded domain, then . Further, if and only if is connected.
Next, we establish a lower bound for for all .
Theorem 2
If is a smoothly bounded domain and , then
[TABLE]
*Further, equality holds if and only if either
(a) , or
(b) is a ball or an annular region.*
The case of equality above when is a counterpart of a recent result of Abanov, Bénéteau, Khavinson and Teodorescu [1] concerning analytic content in the plane (that is, where and ).
It remains to establish an upper bound for . Let denote the open ball in of centre [math] and radius , and let . Further, let be chosen so that . Then, by the generalized Faber-Krahn inequality (cf. [6]), we have . The result below is new in all dimensions.
Theorem 3
If is a smoothly bounded domain and , then
[TABLE]
Further, equality holds if and only if is a ball.
We will see later, in Proposition 5, that the upper bound in (3) is given explicitly by****
[TABLE]
Recent work of the authors [12] shows that there is a harmonic function on satisfying , whence for general . We conjecture that balls are always the extremal domains for (3); that is, the sharper estimate of Theorem 3,
[TABLE]
remains valid for all .
Theorems 2 and 3 together yield the following isoperimetric inequality for Bergman -analytic content.
Corollary 4
If is a smoothly bounded domain and , then
[TABLE]
The remainder of the paper is devoted to proving the above results.
2 Existence and uniqueness of extremal functions
In the course of proving our results concerning and , we are led to consider the related domain constants
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Since we see that
[TABLE]
In this section we will prove existence and uniqueness results concerning the extremal functions for , , and .
Let denote the -Laplacian, given by , where . We define the -torsion function on to be the weak solution of
[TABLE]
and note from [19] that . Further, we define .
Proposition 5
*Let be a smoothly bounded domain and .
(i) There exists such that*
[TABLE]
*(ii) The functions which satisfy (6) are precisely the positive multiples of .
(iii) . Further, if .
(iv) *
Proof. (i) We choose a maximizing sequence for (1) such that for all . (The quotient in (1) is unaffected when is multiplied by a positive constant.)
Firstly, we suppose that . In view of the Banach-Alaoglu theorem we can arrange, by taking a subsequence, that converges weakly to some non-zero function . Further, by the Rellich-Kondrachov theorem (see, for example, Section 5.7 in [7]), we can arrange that strongly in . Clearly . By the weak lower semicontinuity of the -norm,
[TABLE]
and so equality holds throughout.
If , whence , then we instead appeal to the Arzelà-Ascoli theorem to see that there is a subsequence of that converges uniformly on , and make use of the fact that each can be represented by a Lipschitz function.
(ii) Suppose firstly that . For any we define
[TABLE]
Since is a maximizer for , we see that and , whence
[TABLE]
and so
[TABLE]
Thus is a negative constant in , and so is a positive multiple of .
Now let , so that . In the formula (1) we can normalize to consider only those functions such that , whence is majorized by the Lipschitz function. Further, the supremum can only be attained among functions satisfying by the function . More generally, the supremum can only be attained by a positive multiple of .
(iii) If , then we see from (5) that
[TABLE]
Hence, by parts (i) and (ii), .
If , then it is immediate that .
(iv) If , then is clearly a multiple of . Letting , we have and
[TABLE]
Thus, by parts (i) and (ii),
[TABLE]
As usual, we define
[TABLE]
and are defined analogously.
Proposition 6
*Let be a smoothly bounded domain and .
(i) There exists such that .
(ii) This function satisfies .
(iii) There exists such that .
(iv) The function is a positive multiple of , and*
[TABLE]
Proof. (i) We choose a sequence in such that . By weak compactness we can arrange, by choosing a suitable subsequence, that is weakly convergent to some in . Further, on in the sense of distributions, so . Finally, by the weak lower semicontinuity of the norm.
(ii) For any we can differentiate the function and then set to see that
[TABLE]
(iii) If , then by definition,
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
since, if does not belong to the above closure, the Hahn-Banach theorem would yield the existence of such that
[TABLE]
whence and so .
We claim next that
[TABLE]
Clearly the right hand side of (10) is contained in the right hand side of (9). To see the reverse inclusion, let be a sequence in such that converges in . Then is Cauchy in , by Poincaré’s inequality for . It follows that converges in to some function and . Hence (10) holds, and the desired conclusion now follows from part (ii).
(iv) By the divergence theorem, (10) and Hölder’s inequality,
[TABLE]
with equality precisely when is a negative multiple of . It now follows from (1) and Proposition 5(ii) that is a positive multiple of , and from part (i) and (10) that (7) holds.
The next result shows that (7) also holds when . Inequality (2) will follow from (11) in view of (4).
Proposition 7
If is a smoothly bounded domain and , then
[TABLE]
Proof. We know from Theorem 1 of [17] that uniformly on as . Since the function is increasing, we see from Propositions 6(iv) and 5(iii) that
[TABLE]
For large let be a mollification of that belongs to . Since by (8), and is boundedly convergent almost everywhere to , we see that . Thus, by the divergence theorem,
[TABLE]
Hence , and (11) follows in view of (12).
We note that
[TABLE]
Proposition 8
*Let .
(i) There exists such that ; equivalently, there exists such that in and .
(ii) The function satisfies .
(iii) The function satisfies
(iv) The function is unique up to an additive constant, and is uniquely determined by the properties*
[TABLE]
Proof. (i) We can choose a minimizing sequence for (13), where for each . By Poincaré’s inequality is bounded in , and by the Rellich-Kondrachov theorem we can arrange that converges strongly in to a function . Since the functions all have distributional Laplacian equal to , we can choose smooth representatives of these functions and arrange that and locally uniformly on for each . Now
[TABLE]
so we can let and use the density of in to see that . (When and so , we instead use the fact that, for any , there is a sequence in that converges pointwise almost everywhere to on and satisfies for all .) Similarly, , so and is a minimizer for (13).
(ii) Given any such that on , we differentiate with respect to and then put to see that
[TABLE]
(When , we know that , and the above equation still follows by dominated convergence, since .) Thus .
(iii) If we take in (15), then we find that
[TABLE]
Since , we obtain the desired equality.
(iv) In view of parts (i) and (ii) it only remains to check that (14) uniquely determines up to a constant. (When , the uniqueness of the gradient also follows from the strict convexity of the -norm.) To see this, let be another such function and consider the harmonic function . It follows from (15) that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Hölder’s inequality now shows that , and we deduce that . (If , then Hölder’s inequality is unnecessary.)
Proposition 9
*Let .
(i) There exists such that .
(ii) The function satisfies .
(iii) The function satisfies
(iv) The function is uniquely determined by the properties*
[TABLE]
Proof. (i) We choose a sequence in such that . Since is bounded and the functions are subharmonic (by Theorem 3.4.5 of [2]), the harmonic co-ordinate functions () are locally uniformly bounded. Thus, by taking a subsequence, we can arrange that converges locally uniformly to some function satisfying and on . Since
[TABLE]
we can let and use the density of in to see that . (When we make the same adjustments to this argument as in the proof of Proposition 8(i).) The reverse inequality is trivial.
(ii) - (iv) The arguments are analogous to those given for the previous proposition.
3 Proofs of Theorems 2 and 3
As noted previously, inequality (2) follows from (11) and (4). In this section we will complete the proofs of Theorem 2 (except where ) and Theorem 3. In view of (4) and Proposition 7, Theorem 3 is a consequence of the result below.
Theorem 10
If is a smoothly bounded domain and , then
[TABLE]
Further, equality holds if and only if is a ball.
Proof. Let be the Green potential satisfying on and on . Next, let , so that in and on . We make use of a result of Talenti [23] concerning spherical rearrangements. Theorem 1(v) of that paper tells us that, provided , we have . Hence
[TABLE]
by (13) and then Proposition 5(iv).
Finally, if , then Propositions 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of Kesavan [18] tell us that must be a ball.
Lemma 11
Let . If is either a ball or an annular region, then
[TABLE]
Proof. In view of (4) and Proposition 7 it is enough to show that when is either a ball or an annular region. If , then (cf. (17))
[TABLE]
Thus it remains to consider the case where and .
If , then it follows from spherical symmetry that there exists such that . Writing , we see that and so, by (13) and Proposition 5(iii),
[TABLE]
as required.
Now suppose that . By Proposition 5(iii) again,
[TABLE]
If we define
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
by (18).
Proposition 12
Let . If there exists satisfying , then .
Proof. First suppose that , so that . By (4) and Proposition 7,
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
the equality case of Hölder’s inequality implies that on for some constant . Hence has a continuous extension to , and on it is normal to . We now choose a function such that and on . (Such a function exists by [13], for example.) Thus we obtain a continuous extension of to by defining it to be on .
We claim that this extended function, which we also denote by , is curl-free in the sense of distributions. By using a partition of unity it is enough to show that, for some ,
[TABLE]
whenever and . This equation trivially holds when , so it is enough to consider the case where
[TABLE]
for some and .
Without loss of generality we may assume that
[TABLE]
for some smooth function . If and the co-ordinates () are fixed, then
[TABLE]
where are the components of and denotes two-dimensional measure. Two applications of Green’s theorem, together with the fact that on , show that this latter integral expression reduces to self-cancelling terms along the common boundary curve of . Hence (20) holds when . If , we apply a small rotation in the -plane to see similarly that
[TABLE]
whence (20) again follows.
We now use a rotationally invariant smoothing kernel supported by a ball of radius to obtain a mollification of , which is also curl-free since
[TABLE]
Further, since each component of is harmonic in , the functions and are equal on the set . Hence line integrals of in are path independent, so is of the form , where , and thus .
Finally, if , then (19) still holds, and now shows that on . We can thus apply the above argument to to deduce that for arbitrarily small , and so .
We now consider the overdetermined problem
[TABLE]
where denotes the exterior unit normal, and are the components of . (We use for the outer boundary component.) The following theorem, which generalizes earlier work of Serrin [21], is contained in Theorem 2 of Sirakov [22].
Theorem 13
Let , , and , . Then there exists satisfying (21) if and only if is a ball or an annular region. In either case, is a radial function.
The case of the equality statement in Theorem 2 is established in the next result. The case where will be addressed in Section 4.
Theorem 14
Let , where . Then if and only if is either a ball or an annular region.
Proof. For the “if” part we refer to Lemma 11. For the “only if” part it is enough, given Propositions 9 and 12, to show that, if there exists such that and , then is either a ball or an annular region.
If , then we see from Proposition 5 that
[TABLE]
where the last equality can be justified using the facts that and that is dense in . By Hölder’s inequality,
[TABLE]
where equality occurs if and only if are always parallel, does not change sign, and in for some constant . Further, on by Hopf’s lemma (see Theorem 5.5.1 of [20]). Thus the equality implies that each component of any level surface of is also a component of a level surface of . Hence, for each component of , there is a function such that near . Further, , so
[TABLE]
Since , we have and so . Thus is constant on each component of a level surface of (which is also a level surface of ).
Since on and does not change sign, we can apply the divergence theorem to to see that near and hence on . Now let be small and let be the component of which has as a boundary component. Since , and , it follows that and certainly . Thus has a (finite) constant value on each component of . Since on we conclude that (see Theorem 6.14 of [14]). Thus we can apply Theorem 13 to on to see that is a sphere and is a radial function. By the analyticity of , any other boundary of component of must be a concentric sphere. Thus is either a ball or an annular region.
The argument for the case is mostly similar. Since , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The equality implies that and are parallel. Thus, for each component of , there is a function such that near . We no longer claim that this equation holds on . However, as in the proof of Proposition 12, we can work instead with for small and now argue as before to conclude that is either a ball or an annular region.
4 The case where
It follows from Proposition 8(i) that there exist harmonic functions satisfying . We will now identify all such functions. (This was already done in [8] in the case of planar domains.)
Theorem 15
The harmonic functions which satisfy are precisely the functions of the form where is the solution to the Dirichlet problem on with boundary data , and .
Proof. Let be a harmonic function satisfying , and let k\in C^{1}(\overline{\Omega})\be harmonic on . Since the function has a minimum at , we see that
[TABLE]
Hence, by the divergence theorem,
[TABLE]
where denotes surface area measure. Since we can solve the Neumann problem
[TABLE]
for any smooth function satisfying , we see from (22) that is constant on
The torsional rigidity of is defined by
[TABLE]
where is the solution to the Dirichlet problem
[TABLE]
here is again the boundary of the unbounded component of , while are the bounded components of with boundaries and the constants are chosen so that
[TABLE]
From Proposition 5(iii) we see that
[TABLE]
when has no bounded components.
Theorem 1 is contained in the result below.
Theorem 16
If is a smoothly bounded domain, then
[TABLE]
Further, these quantities are equal to if and only if is connected.
Proof of Theorem 16. Let . By Theorem 15,
[TABLE]
where for the last step we applied the divergence theorem and noted that on . Hence
[TABLE]
Equation (26) now follows from Proposition 7 and (4).
We know from (25) that if is connected. Conversely, suppose that is not connected, and let . If , then the Hopf boundary point lemma (see Section 6.4.2 of [7]) would tell us that on , which contradicts (24). Thus in (23), so cannot be a multiple of , and it now follows from Proposition 5 that .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] A. Abanov, C. Bénéteau, D. Khavinson, and R. Teodorescu, “A free boundary problem associated with the isoperimetric inequality”, J. Anal. Math., to appear; ar Xiv: 1601.03885.
- 2[2] D. H. Armitage and S. J. Gardiner, Classical potential theory . Springer, London, 2001.
- 3[3] S. R. Bell, T. Ferguson and E. Lundberg, “Self-commutators of Toeplitz operators and isoperimetric inequalities”, Math. Proc. R. Ir. Acad. 114A (2014), 115–133.
- 4[4] C. Bénéteau and D. Khavinson, “The isoperimetric inequality via approximation theory and free boundary problems”, Comput. Methods Funct. Theory 6 (2006), 253–274.
- 5[5] C. Bénéteau and D. Khavinson, “Selected problems in classical function theory”, Invariant subspaces of the shift operator , pp.255–265, Contemp. Math., 638, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2015.
- 6[6] L. Brasco, G. De Philippis and B. Velichkov, “Faber-Krahn inequalities in sharp quantitative form”, Duke Math. J. 164 (2015), 1777–1831.
- 7[7] L. C. Evans, Partial Differential Equations . 2nd Edition. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2010.
- 8[8] M. Fleeman and D. Khavinson, “Approximating z ¯ ¯ 𝑧 \bar{z} in the Bergman Space”, Recent progress on operator theory and approximation in spaces of analytic functions, pp.79–90, Contemp. Math., 679, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2016.
