$W^{2,p}$ interior estimates of fully nonlinear elliptic equations
Dongsheng Li, Kai Zhang

TL;DR
This paper extends $W^{2,p}$ interior estimates for fully nonlinear elliptic equations by relaxing coefficient regularity conditions and broadening the range of $p$, enhancing the applicability of these estimates.
Contribution
It generalizes previous $W^{2,p}$ estimates by reducing regularity assumptions on coefficients and expanding the range of $p$ for which estimates hold.
Findings
Relaxed regularity conditions on coefficients.
Broadened the valid range of $p$ in estimates.
Enhanced applicability of interior regularity results.
Abstract
In this paper, we generalize the interior estimates of fully nonlinear elliptic equations that were obtained by Caffarelli in [1]. The generalizations are carried out in two directions. One is that we relax the regularity requirement on the "constant coefficients" equations and the other one is that we broaden the range of .
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.
\newnumbered
assertionAssertion \newnumberedconjectureConjecture \newnumberedhypothesisHypothesis
\newnumberednoteNote
\newnumberedobservationObservation
\newnumberedproblemProblem
\newnumberedquestionQuestion
\newnumberedalgorithmAlgorithm
\newnumberedexampleExample
\newunnumberednotationNotation
\classno35J60, 35B65 (primary), 35B20, 35D40 (secondary).
\extralineThis research is supported by NSFC 11171266.
interior estimates of fully nonlinear elliptic equations
Dongsheng Li and Kai Zhang
[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
Abstract
In this paper, we generalize the interior estimates of fully nonlinear elliptic equations that were obtained by Caffarelli in [1]. The generalizations are carried out in two directions. One is that we relax the regularity requirement on the ”constant coefficients” equations and the other one is that we broaden the range of .
1 Introduction
This paper deals with the following equation:
[TABLE]
where is the unit ball in and is uniformly elliptic, i.e., there exist such that for ,
[TABLE]
where denotes the set of symmetric matrices and the spectral radius, and means the nonnegativeness.
estimates will be obtained by using perturbation method. Roughly speaking, suppose that all solutions to have sufficient regularity for all and the oscillation of in is small enough, then the desired regularity can be obtained for in . This was done by Caffarelli in his celebrated work [1] (see also Chapter 7 [2]), where he required that satisfied interior estimates and obtained estimates of (1) for . Here we will generalize this result to less of a requirement on the regularity of and a larger range of .
In this paper, we will use viscosity solutions and viscosity solutions whose definitions can be found in many papers. For instance, see Definition 2.3 in [2] for the former (called viscosity solutions there) and Definition 2.1 in [3] for the later (called viscosity solutions there). In order to state our results clearly, we need the following definitions.
Definition 1.1
We say that has interior estimates with constant if for any , there exists a viscosity solution of
[TABLE]
such that
[TABLE]
Weaker interior estimates requirement will be used in this paper:
Definition 1.2
We say that has interior estimates with constant if for any , there exists a viscosity solution of
[TABLE]
such that
[TABLE]
To measure the oscillation of in , we need the following definition.
Definition 1.3
We define
[TABLE]
and denote
[TABLE]
In 1989, Caffarelli proved the following (Theorem 7.1[2], see also Theorem 1[1]):
Proposition 1.4
Let be a viscosity solution of (1). Assume that in and that has interior estimates with constant for any . Let and suppose that .
Then there exist positive constants and depending only on , , , and , such that if
[TABLE]
then and
[TABLE]
We will relax the condition that has interior estimates to that has interior estimates. Of course, we need a closer connection between (1) and in the sense that for the integrability of . Actually, we have:
Theorem 1.5
Let and
[TABLE]
Let be a viscosity solution of (1). Assume that in and that has interior estimates with constant for . Suppose that .
Then there exist positive constants and depending only on , , , , , and , such that if
[TABLE]
then and
[TABLE]
Remark 1.6
(i) Since , we see that Proposition 1.4 is a special case of Theorem 1.5.
(ii) It should be noted that the viscosity solutions of do not necessarily lie in . In fact, Nadirashvili et al. formulated equations who have solutions in for some and not in (see [8]- [10]).
(iii) The condition is not essential since we may consider .
(iv) Proposition 1.4 requires that is continuous in whereas we don’t need this assumption.
To prove Proposition 1.4 and Theorem 1.5, the Aleksandrov-Bakelman-Pucci maximum principle and Harnack inequality will be used essentially, where with is needed. Relying on Fok’s results (Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 5.20 in [6]), we see that the range of can be enlarged to , where depends only on , and . Accordingly, we generalize Theorem 1.5 to the following.
Theorem 1.7
Let and
[TABLE]
where originates from Theorem 3.1 in [6] and depends only on , and . Let be a viscosity solution of (1). Assume that in and that has interior estimates with constant for . Suppose that .
Then there exist positive constants and depending only on , , , , , , and such that if
[TABLE]
then and
[TABLE]
A priori estimates for were obtained by Escauriaza [5] in 1993 where can be traced back to [4]. In 1996, Fok in [6] generalized the Aleksandrov-Bakelman-Pucci maximum principle of (1) to allowing for . At almost the same time, Caffarelli et al. (see Theorem B.1 in [3]) obtained analogous estimates for strong solutions instead of classical solutions in [5]. This allowed authors to treat equations in measurable functions space. Furthermore, [3] generalized the equation to the full form, i.e., , where a structure condition was needed. In 1997, Świech gave the estimates for viscostiy solutions for (see Theorem 3.1 [12]), but our method is different from his. Recently, Winter [14] obtained the global estimates analogous to interior estimates in [12]. We also note that Wang [13] gave the estimates of fully nonlinear parabolic equations.
It should be noted that all mentioned papers above depend on the estimates for equations with constant coefficients whereas we only need a weaker interior estimates.
This paper is organized as follows: We prepare some preliminaries in Section 2. Theorem 1.7 will be proved in Section 3 and it is clear that Theorem 1.5 is an easy consequence of Theorem 1.7. The main technique of the proof is borrowed from [2]. That is, we use polynomials of degree 2 to touch solutions and estimate the decay of the measure of the set on which touching polynomials have large aperture. We use the following notations in this paper, many of which are standard.
{notation}
-
: the Euclidean norm of .
-
or : a ball of radius centered at in and : .
-
or : a cube of side-length centered at in and : .
-
: the Lebesgue measure of a measurable set .
-
: the set of symmetric matrices.
-
: the spectral radius of .
-
, : the positive and the negative parts of .
-
: the trace of .
-
, the maximal function of .
2 Preliminaries
For the reader’s convenience, we collect some preliminaries related to fully nonlinear elliptic equations and viscosity solutions. In addition, we present here some results which will be used in the next section.
First, we introduce the Pucci extremal operators (see Section 2.2[2] or [11]). Let and be given. We define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Let denote the set of viscosity subsolutions of Similarly, let denote the set of viscosity supersolutions of We also define
[TABLE]
Next, since the idea of the proof of Theorem 1.7 is to use polynomials of degree 2 to touch the solutions, we present here some preliminaries about this technique.
Definition 2.1
A paraboloid is a polynomial in of degree 2. We call a paraboloid of opening if
[TABLE]
where is a positive constant, a constant and a linear function. is convex if we have in above equation and concave when we have .
Definition 2.2
Given two continuous functions and defined in an open set and a point , we say that touches by above at in whenever
[TABLE]
We also have the analogous definition of touching by below.
Definition 2.3
Let be bounded and . For , we define
[TABLE]
Analogously, we define
[TABLE]
Finally, we define .
can be used to represent the second derivatives of . Here, we have the following two results. The first was proved by Caffarelli and Cabré (see Proposition 1.1[2]):
Proposition 2.4
Let and be a continuous function in . Let be a positive constant and define
[TABLE]
Assume that . Then and
[TABLE]
In fact, the converse is also true:
Lemma 2.5
Let be a bounded domain and . If , then
[TABLE]
where depends only on , and .
Proof 2.6**.**
Let be the extension of to . Take and . Let be a Lebesgue point of , and . We define
[TABLE]
Let , and . Then by Morrey’s inequality, we have
[TABLE]
From Poincare’s inequality, we have
[TABLE]
where denotes the maximal function of . On the other hand, from Appendix C in [3], we have
[TABLE]
Hence, from (4), (5) and (6), we have
[TABLE]
Note that in , we have
[TABLE]
Hence, for ,
[TABLE]
We have the corresponding inequality for . Therefore,
[TABLE]
From the viewpoint of which polynomials touch a solution, we have the following definition.
Definition 2.7**.**
Let be bounded and . For any , we define
[TABLE]
and Analogously, we define
[TABLE]
and We finally define and .
Remark 2.8**.**
From above definitions, it is clear that
[TABLE]
We also use the following Calderón-Zygmund cube decomposition. Let be the unit cube. We split it into cubes of half side. We do the same splitting with each one of these cubes and we iterate this process. The cubes obtained in this way are called dyadic cubes. If is a dyadic cube different from , we say that is the predecessor of if is one of the cubes obtained from dividing .
Proposition 2.9**.**
*Let be measurable sets and such that
(i) ,
(ii) If is a dyadic cube such that , then .*
Then .
Proof 2.10**.**
See Lemma 4.2[2].
We also need the following proposition whose proof is left to the reader.
Proposition 2.11**.**
Let be a nonnegative and measurable function defined in and be its distribution function, i.e.,
[TABLE]
Let and be constants. Then, for ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where is a constant depending only on , and .
3 interior estimates
In this section, we will prove Theorem 1.7. By scaling and covering arguments, we only need to prove the following:
Theorem 3.1**.**
Let and be the same as in Theorem 1.7. Let be a viscosity solution of
[TABLE]
Suppose that and has interior estimates with constant for any . Assume that
[TABLE]
Then and
[TABLE]
where and are positive constants depending only on , , , , , , , and .
Furthermore, combining with Proposition 2.4, (7) and Proposition 2.11, we only need to prove
[TABLE]
for some constants and depending only on , , , , , and .
The outline of the proof of (9) follows that in [2]. First, we prove that has a power decay in for . Second, we use an approximation to accelerate the power decay corresponding to . From now on, unless otherwise stated, and are fixed.
Lemma 3.2**.**
Let be a bounded domain such that and be continuous in . Assume that and in with for some . Then
[TABLE]
where and are positive constants depending only on , , and .
Proof 3.3**.**
We adopt the idea from Lemma 4 in [5]. It follows from Corollary 3.10[3] that there exists a unique viscosity solution of
[TABLE]
By the generalized Aleksandrov-Bakelman-Pucci maximum principle (see Theorem 3.1 and Remark 3.2[6]), we have
[TABLE]
Clearly, in the viscosity sense. Extend continuously in such that . Hence, in . Then by Lemma 7.8[2], we have
[TABLE]
where depends only on , and . Similarly, since , we have
[TABLE]
Next, we show that there exists a constant such that, for any ,
[TABLE]
where is a set of measure zero. Equivalently, we show that
[TABLE]
On the one hand, since is differentiable almost everywhere, for , we have
[TABLE]
In particular, is nonnegative and in wherever . By the Harnack inequality (see Theorem 5.20[6]), we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, since , we have . Hence,
[TABLE]
or
[TABLE]
Taking in (15) where is chosen such that , and noting that and , we get
[TABLE]
Therefore, combining with (16), we have
[TABLE]
Hence, , i.e., (14) holds. Finally, from (11), (12) and (13), we have
[TABLE]
By the similar argument, we have
[TABLE]
This implies (10).
Remark 3.4**.**
(10) implies that for some . This was first proved by Lin [7], where is needed.
We will use the following approximation lemma to accelerate the power decay of .
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let and be a viscosity solution of
[TABLE]
Suppose that and has interior estimates with constant . Assume that
[TABLE]
Then there exists such that (for a constant depending only on ) and
[TABLE]
where , and and are positive constants depending only on , , , , , and .
Proof 3.6**.**
Let be the viscosity solution of
[TABLE]
Using the interior estimates and a covering argument, we have
[TABLE]
By interior Hölder estimates (see Theorem 5.21[6]), we know that and
[TABLE]
where and depend only on , , and . From the interior Hölder estimates, we easily get the following global Hölder estimates (see Proposition 4.12 and Proposition 4.13 in [2]):
[TABLE]
where depends only on , and .
Let and . Then and we apply the scaled version of interior estimates in to where ; we get
[TABLE]
by (19). By a standard covering argument, we have
[TABLE]
From the definition of , we have
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
recall . On the other hand, since on , we have, by (18) and (19), that
[TABLE]
Finally, since in where , combining with (20), (21) and (22), we conclude that
[TABLE]
Take to get (17) with (note that ).
Lemma 3.7**.**
Take and satisfying that
[TABLE]
where is a constant which will be determined below and depends only on , and , and is a constant depending only on n which will be determined in (27).
Let be a bounded domain such that and be a viscosity solution of in . Suppose that and has interior estimates with constant . Assume that
[TABLE]
where depends only on , , , , , , and .
Then
[TABLE]
Proof 3.8**.**
Take to be chosen later. Let be given by Lemma 3.5 applied with . Recall that and we extend outside continuously such that in and . Since (by maximum principle), we have and hence, in . Combining with Lemma 2.5, (7) and where depends only on and , we have
[TABLE]
where depends only on , and .
Consider
[TABLE]
where and are the constants in (17). It is easy to check, using Lemma 3.5, that satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma 3.2 in . We apply Lemma 3.2 and get
[TABLE]
Thus, , for a constant depending only on , , , , , and .
Therefore, combining with (25), we have
[TABLE]
Taking , and small enough, then we have proved the lemma.
Lemma 3.9**.**
Let be a bounded domain such that and be a viscosity solution of in . Suppose that and has interior estimates with constant . Assume that , . Then
[TABLE]
where and are the same as in Lemma 3.7, and (see (23)).
Proof 3.10**.**
Let . It follows that there is an affine function such that
[TABLE]
Define
[TABLE]
where is a large number depending on such that and
[TABLE]
Apply Lemma 3.7 to , which is the viscosity solution of
[TABLE]
and get . Hence
Lemma 3.11**.**
Under the hypothesis of Theorem 3.1 where is small enough and depends only on , , , , , , and , extend by zero outside and let, for
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Where and are the same as in Lemma 3.9, and depends only on , , and .
Proof 3.12**.**
We use Proposition 2.9 with . Clearly, . Without loss of generality, we assume that has interior estimates. Since and , Lemma 3.7 applied with , gives that
[TABLE]
by taking small enough such that (We will always take small enough so that we can apply Lemma 3.7 and Lemma 3.9.). Hence, . It remains to check that if is a dyadic cube of such that
[TABLE]
then (recall that is the predecessor of ).
First, we assume that has interior estimates. Suppose and take such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Consider the transformation
[TABLE]
and the function
[TABLE]
Let us check that satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma 3.9 with replaced by , the image of under the translation above; here .
Since , we have that . Clearly is a viscosity solution of in where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Also we have that and has interior estimates with constant . Next, since
[TABLE]
and , our assumptions on imply that .
Note that implies . Hence
[TABLE]
by (30); we have taken small enough such that the last inequality is true. Finally, by (29), . Then Lemma 3.9 gives
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
This is a contradiction with (28).
If doesn’t have interior estimates, then for any , we take a cube such that and . Then we can process the proof as above with noting that also implies (see (26)). Since is arbitrary, we draw the conclusion.
Now, we give the main result Theorem 1.7’s
Proof 3.13**.**
Recall that we only need to prove (9). We define, for ,
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3.11,
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
Since , we have that and
[TABLE]
Hence, by Proposition 2.11,
[TABLE]
Finally, combining with (23), (31) and (32), we obtain (recall ):
[TABLE]
where is a constant depending only on , , , , , , and .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] L. A. Caffarelli, ‘Interior a priori estimates for solutions of fully nonlinear equations’, Ann. Math. 130 (1989) 189-213.
- 2[2] L. A. Caffarelli and X. Cabré, Fully nonlinear elliptic equations , American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications Series 43 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1995).
- 3[3] L. A. Caffarelli, M. G. Crandall, M. Kocan and A. Świech, ‘On viscosity solutions of fully nonlinear equations with measurable ingredients’, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. (4) 49 (1996) 365-397.
- 4[4] R. R. Coifman and C. Fefferman, ‘Weighted norm inequalities for maximal functions and singular integrals’, Studia Math. 51 (1974) 241-250.
- 5[5] L. Escauriaza,‘ W 2 , n superscript 𝑊 2 𝑛 W^{2,n} a priori estimates for solutions to fully non-linear equations’, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 42 (1993) 413-423.
- 6[6] P. K. Fok, Some maximum principles and continuity estimates for fully nonlinear elliptic equations of second order , Ph.D. Thesis (Univ. California, Santa Barbara, 1996).
- 7[7] F. H. Lin, ‘Second derivative L p superscript 𝐿 𝑝 L^{p} -estimates for elliptic equations of nondivergent type’, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. (3) 96 (1986) 447-451.
- 8[8] N. Nadirashvili and S. Vladut, ‘Octonions and singular solutions of Hessian elliptic equations’, Geom. Funct. Anal. 21 (2011) 483-498.
