The Heinz type inequality, Bloch type theorem and Lipschitz characteristic of polyharmonic mappings
Shaolin Chen

TL;DR
This paper investigates polyharmonic mappings satisfying specific boundary conditions, establishing inequalities, a Bloch type theorem, and Lipschitz continuity, thereby extending classical results and solving an open problem in the field.
Contribution
It introduces a Heinz type inequality and a Bloch type theorem for polyharmonic mappings with boundary conditions, and proves Lipschitz continuity for quasiconformal solutions, addressing an open problem.
Findings
Established a Schwarz type lemma for polyharmonic mappings.
Derived a Heinz type inequality for these mappings.
Proved Lipschitz continuity with asymptotically sharp constants.
Abstract
Suppose that satisfies the following: the polyharmonic equation , (2) the boundary conditions on ( for and denotes the boundary of the unit ball ), and , where and are integers. Initially, we prove a Schwarz type lemma and use it to obtain a Heinz type inequality of mappings satisfying the polyharmonic equation with the above Dirichlet boundary value conditions. Furthermore, we establish a Bloch type theorem of mappings satisfying the above polyharmonic equation, which gives an answer to an open…
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
TopicsAnalytic and geometric function theory · Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations · Point processes and geometric inequalities
††footnotetext: File: 1905.01807.tex, printed: 15-3-2024, 20.15
The Heinz type inequality, Bloch type theorem and Lipschitz characteristic of polyharmonic mappings
Shaolin Chen
S. L. Chen, College of Mathematics and Statistics, Hengyang Normal University, Hengyang, Hunan 421008, People’s Republic of China
Abstract.
Suppose that satisfies the following: the polyharmonic equation \Delta^{m}f=\Delta(\Delta^{m-1}f)$$=\varphi_{m} , (2) the boundary conditions on ( for and denotes the boundary of the unit ball ), and , where and are integers. Initially, we prove a Schwarz type lemma and use it to obtain a Heinz type inequality of mappings satisfying the polyharmonic equation with the above Dirichlet boundary value conditions. Furthermore, we establish a Bloch type theorem of mappings satisfying the above polyharmonic equation, which gives an answer to an open problem in [10]. Additionally, we show that if is a -quasiconformal self-mapping of satisfying the above polyharmonic equation, then is Lipschitz continuous, and the Lipschitz constant is asymptotically sharp as and for .
Key words and phrases:
Polyharmonic mapping, Heinz type inequality, Quasiconformal mapping, Lipschitz continuous.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary: 31A05, 31B05
1. Preliminaries and statements of main results
For an integer , let and be the set of real numbers and the usual real vector space of dimension , respectively. Sometimes it is convenient to identify each point with an column matrix so that , where ′ denotes the transposition of a matrix. For and , we define the Euclidean inner product by so that the Euclidean length of is defined by
[TABLE]
Denote a ball in with center and radius by . In particular, let and . For and , we denote by the set of all -times continuously differentiable functions from into , where and are subsets of and , respectively. In particular, let , the set of all continuous functions of into . For , we denote the derivative of by
[TABLE]
In particular, if , the Jacobian of is defined by and the Laplacian of is defined by
[TABLE]
For an matrix with and , the operator norm of is defined by
[TABLE]
and the matrix function is defined by
[TABLE]
1.1. Polyharmonic equation
For and , we define , and let
[TABLE]
Also, for with , we use to denote the Green function:
[TABLE]
where and \omega_{n-1}=2\pi^{\frac{n}{2}}/\Gamma\big{(}\frac{n}{2}\big{)} denotes the area of . The Poisson kernel is defined by
[TABLE]
We use
[TABLE]
to denote the gradient.
Of particular interest for our investigation is the following polyharmonic equation:
[TABLE]
with the following associated Dirichlet boundary value condition:
[TABLE]
where , , , , and for . Here the boundary condition in (1.3) are interpreted in the following distributional sense. For some fixed , let . Then for any ,
[TABLE]
where .
(I) If , then all solutions to the equation (1.2) satisfying (1.3) are given by
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Here denotes the normalized Lebesgue surface measure on and is the Lebesgue volume measure on .
(II) If , then, by [20, p. 118–120] and the iterative procedure, we see that all solutions to the equation (1.2) satisfying (1.3) are given by
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
for , and
[TABLE]
Moreover, we call a polyharmonic mapping if satisfies (1.6).
We refer the reader to [12, 17, 37] etc for more discussions in this line. In particular, if ( resp.), then (1.2) is called the Poisson equation ( biharmonic equation resp.) (cf. [22, 27, 29, 32]).
1.2. Main results
Heinz in his classical paper [18] showed that the following result which is called the Schwarz Lemma of harmonic mappings: If is a harmonic mapping of the unit disk into with , then
[TABLE]
Later, Pavlović [39, Theorem 3.6.1] removed the assumption and obtained the following sharp form
[TABLE]
where is a harmonic mapping from into itself. The inequality (1.9) has been proved independently by Hethcote in [19]. For , the classical Schwarz lemma of harmonic mappings in infers that if is a harmonic mapping of into itself satisfying then
[TABLE]
where , and is a harmonic function of into defined by
[TABLE]
Here is the indicator function, and (see [2]). In [25], Kalaj showed that the following result for harmonic mappings of into itself:
[TABLE]
The first aim of the paper is to extend (1.10) to mappings satisfying the polyharmonic equation. More precisely, we shall prove the following.
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let , , and for . If satisfies (1.2) with the boundary condition: on , then for ,
[TABLE]
where , for .
In particular, if we choose for , then the inequality (1.1) is sharp in , where is a constant.
Let be a harmonic homeomorphism of onto itself with Heinz [18, Ineq. (18)] proved that, for any ,
[TABLE]
We refer to [25] for the extensive discussion on Heinz type inequalities for harmonic mappings in . On the applications of the Heinz type inequalities, see [13, 26]. In the following, by using Theorem 1.1, we establish a Heinz type inequality for mappings satisfying the polyharmonic equation.
Theorem 1.2**.**
For , and , suppose that and such that
[TABLE]
Let satisfying (1.2) with the Dirichlet boundary value condition: on . If and for some , then
[TABLE]
where and are the Gamma function and the hypergeometric function, respectively see the Section 2.2. In particular, if for , then this estimate (1.2) is sharp.
Next, we discuss an issue that is related to a classical result in geometric function theory: the theorem of Bloch. Recall that Bloch’s theorem says that an analytic function on the unit disk with univalently covers a disk of radius , where is a universal constant (see [42, 43]). However, for general class of functions, there is no Bloch’s Theorem. For example, consider for , where and . It is easy to see that each is univalent and . Furthermore, each contains no ball with radius bigger than . Hence, there does not exist an absolute constant which can work for all , such that is contained in the range . To establish analogs of the Bloch’s theorem for more general classes of functions, it is necessary to restrict our focus on certain subclasses (see [1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 42, 44, 48]). In our next result, we establish a Bloch type theorem for mappings satisfying the polyharmonic equation, which gives an answer to the open problem in [10, Remark 1.2].
Definition 1.1**.**
Let be a positive constant and .
- (1)
If in (1.2), then, for a given function , we use to denote the set of all mappings satisfying , and . 2. (2)
If in (1.2), then, for given functions and , we denote by the set of all mappings satisfying , , and (1.2) with the following Dirichlet boundary value condition:
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.3**.**
Let be a positive constant and .
- (a)
For , let . Then there is a positive constant depending only on and for such that . 2. (b)
For , let . Then contains a ball with the radius satisfying
[TABLE]
where is an unique solution of the equation:
[TABLE]
A homeomorphism between two open subsets and of will be called a -quasiconformal mapping if
- (1)
is an absolutely continuous function in almost every segment parallel to some of the coordinate axes, and there exist the partial derivatives which are locally integrable functions on (briefly, ), and 2. (2)
satisfies the condition
[TABLE]
at almost every in .
We remark that, for a continuous mapping , the condition (1) is equivalent to the condition that belongs to the Sobolev space (cf. [45, 47]).
Given a subset of , a function is said to be bi-Lipschitz if there is a constant such that for all ,
[TABLE]
Furthermore, is called Lipschitz if the right hand of (1.14) holds, and is said to be co-Lipschitz if it satisfies the left hand of (1.14).
It is well known that all sense-preserving bi-Lipschitz mappings are quasiconformal mappings (cf. [45]). But quasiconformal mappings are not necessarily bi-Lipschitz, not even Lipschitz (see [15, 23, 29]).
Pavlović [40] showed that harmonic quasiconformal mappings of the unit disk onto itself are bi-Lipschitz mappings. In [38], Partyka and Sakan improved Pavlović’s corresponding result and obtained an asymptotically sharp version. By using the regularity theory of elliptic PDE’s, Kalaj and Pavlović [22] generalized the Lipschitz-property of harmonic quasiconformal mappings to the quasiconformal solutions of Poisson’s equations. The same problem in the space is much more complicated because of the lack of the techniques of complex analysis. It is well known that the harmonic extension of a homeomorphism of the unit circle is always a diffeomorphism of the unit disk . However, in higher dimensions, the situation is quite different. Namely, Melas [36] constructed a homeomorphism of whose harmonic extension fails to be diffeomorphic. On the discussion of the related topic, we refer to [5, 7, 8, 11, 23, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35] and the references therein. By using Theorem 1.1 and Green’s potential theory, we obtain the asymptotically sharp Lipschitz constant which depends on the quasiconformal constant and the Dirichlet boundary value condition.
Theorem 1.4**.**
Let , , , and for . Suppose that is a -quasiconformal self-mapping of satisfying and (1.2) with the Dirichlet boundary value condition: on . Then there are nonnegative constants and with
[TABLE]
such that for all and in ,
[TABLE]
We will give several auxiliary results in Section 2. The proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 will be presented in Section 3, and the proof of Theorem 1.3 will be given in Section 4. Theorem 1.4 will be proved in the last Section.
2. Auxiliary results
2.1. Möbius Transformations of the Unit Ball
For , the Möbius transformation in is defined by
[TABLE]
The set of isometries of the hyperbolic unit ball is a Kleinian subgroup of all Möbius transformations of the extended spaces onto itself. In the following, we make use of the automorphism group consisting of all Möbius transformations of the unit ball onto itself. We recall the following facts from [3]: For and , we have , , ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
2.2. Gauss Hypergeometric Functions
For with the hypergeometric function is defined by the power series in the variable
[TABLE]
Here , for , and generally is the Pochhammer symbol, where is the Gamma function. In particular, for and , we have (cf. [41])
[TABLE]
The following result is useful in showing one of our main results of the paper.
Lemma A. ([24] or [41, 2.5.16(43)])* For and , we have*
[TABLE]
*where denotes the beta function and . *
2.3. The spherical coordinates
Throughout this article, by and we denote the spherical coordinates:
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
\big{(}S(r,\theta_{1},\cdots,\theta_{n-2},\theta_{n-1})=rT(\theta_{1},\cdots,\theta_{n-2},\theta_{n-1})\big{)}, defined by
[TABLE]
Then we have
[TABLE]
where .
3. The heinz type inequalities for mappings satisfying polyharmonic equations
The following result easily follows from [10, Theorem 1].
Lemma B. * Let be the Green function defined in (1.1). Then for ,*
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let be the Green function defined in (1.1). Then for ,
[TABLE]
Proof. Let
[TABLE]
For with and , let , where . Then and
[TABLE]
It follows from (2.1) that
[TABLE]
which gives
[TABLE]
By (2.2), we have
[TABLE]
which, together with (3.2), implies that
[TABLE]
Using the spherical coordinates and Lemma A, we obtain
[TABLE]
By (3.1), (3.2), (3.3), (3) and the change of variables, we obtain
[TABLE]
The proof of this lemma is complete. ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.1
By (1.6), we have
[TABLE]
where , are defined in (1.1) for , and is defined in (1.1). Next, we estimate and for .
and .
By Lemma B, we have
[TABLE]
and .
It follows from (3) and Lemma 3.1 that
[TABLE]
Now we estimate , where .
By (3) and Lemma 3.1, we see that
[TABLE]
Therefore, it follows from (1.10), (3), (3) and (3) that
[TABLE]
The proof of the theorem is complete. ∎
Lemma C. ([25, Lemma 2.3])* For , let Then is decreasing on and*
[TABLE]
Proof of Theorem 1.2
By (1.6), we have
[TABLE]
where are defined in (1.1) for , and is defined in (1.1). By the assumption, we see that
[TABLE]
which, together with (3), (3) and Theorem 1.1, implies that
[TABLE]
where . On the other hand, for , there is a such that
[TABLE]
where . It follows from (3), (3.9) and Lemma C that
[TABLE]
At last, we prove the sharpness part. Especially, if for , then the sharpness part easily follows from [25, Theorem 2.5]. The proof of this theorem is complete. ∎
4. Bloch type theorem for mappings satisfying polyharmonic equations
The main purpose of this section is to prove Theorem 1.3. We start with some lemmas which are useful to the proof of Theorem 1.3.
Theorem D. (see [21, Theorem 2.7])* For , let be a harmonic function of into itself. Then*
[TABLE]
A matrix-valued function A(x)=\big{(}a_{ij}(x)\big{)}_{n\times n}is called matrix-valued harmonic function if each of its entries is a harmonic function from an open subset into .
Lemma E. ([9, Lemma 3.1])* For , let A(x)=\big{(}a_{ij}(x)\big{)}_{n\times n} be a matrix-valued harmonic function defined on . If and in then*
[TABLE]
*where is a positive constant. *
Lemma F. ([29, Lemma 2.5] or [46, p. 24-26])* Let be a bounded (absolutely) integrable function defined on a bounded domain . Then the potential type integral*
[TABLE]
belongs to the space , where Moreover,
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.1**.**
Suppose that and are defined in (1.1), where , and Then, for ,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Moreover, has a continuous extension to the boundary and, for ,
[TABLE]
Proof. We divide the proof of this lemma into two steps.
Step 4.1**.**
We first prove (4.2).
and .
For and , let
[TABLE]
Then, by (3), we have
[TABLE]
where
Applying Lemma F to
[TABLE]
we see that, for any fixed ,
[TABLE]
By calculations, we obtain
[TABLE]
which gives
[TABLE]
where It follows from (4.4), (4.5), (4.6), Lemma F and the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem that, for ,
[TABLE]
Next, we estimate By (4.4) and (4), we have
[TABLE]
which implies that
[TABLE]
and .
Using the spherical coordinates and Proposition 2.2, we obtain
[TABLE]
which yields that
[TABLE]
Step 4.2**.**
Next, we show that (4.1).
and .
In order to estimate we first show that, for
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
In order to prove (4.8), we let , where . Then, by (3.1) and (3.2), we have
[TABLE]
which, together with (2.3), gives that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
By computations, we obtain
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
which, together with (3), imply that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
It follows from (3) and the inequality
[TABLE]
that
[TABLE]
Then combining (4.9) and (4.10) gives the estimate for (4.8). Therefore, we conclude from (4.4), (4.5) and (4.8) that
[TABLE]
which yields that
[TABLE]
and .
By [24, Theorem 2.1],
[TABLE]
which implies that
[TABLE]
The proof of this lemma is finished. ∎
Lemma 4.2**.**
Suppose that and are defined in (1.1), where and Then, for ,
[TABLE]
where is defined in Lemma 4.1.
Moreover, has a continuous extension to the boundary and, for ,
[TABLE]
Proof. Let
[TABLE]
By Lemma B and (3), we have
[TABLE]
which, together with (4.6), Lemma F and the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem, implies that, for any fixed ,
[TABLE]
and has a continuous extension to the boundary.
Next we estimate for , and for , respectively.
It follows from (4.8), (4) and (4.13) that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The proof of this lemma is complete. ∎
Lemma G. ([33, Lemma 4])* Let be an real or complex matrix with . Then for any unit vector , the inequality*
[TABLE]
*holds. *
Proof of Theorem 1.3
We first prove (a). By (1.6), we have
[TABLE]
where . Then
[TABLE]
We split the remaining proof into six steps to complete it.
Step 4.3**.**
The estimate of for , where .
For , by Theorem D, we have
[TABLE]
which, together with Lemma E, implies that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Step 4.4**.**
The estimate of for , where .
Claim 4.1**.**
[TABLE]
and , where
[TABLE]
and .
Now we prove the Claim 4.1. For , let
[TABLE]
Then, by (4), Lemma F and the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem, we have
[TABLE]
where is defined in (4.11).
On the other hand, by Lemma F and (4.6), we see that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The proof of Claim 4.1 is complete.
Step 4.5**.**
For and , we estimate for .
Claim 4.2**.**
For and , we have
[TABLE]
and , where
[TABLE]
and .
In order to prove Claim 4.2, we divide it into two cases. For , let
[TABLE]
and .
It follows from (4.4), Lemma F and the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem that
[TABLE]
where is defined in (4).
Next we prove .
By Lemma F and (4.6), we see that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
and .
In this case, we have
[TABLE]
It follows from Lemma F and (4.6) that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The proof of Claim 4.2 is finished.
Step 4.6**.**
The estimate of , where .
By Theorem D, Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2, we have
[TABLE]
where and is defined in Lemma 4.1.
For any , it follows from (4.15) and Lemma G that
[TABLE]
Step 4.7**.**
We will show that there is a constant such that is injective in .
In order to prove the injection of in , let
[TABLE]
. Since is monotonous and continuous in
[TABLE]
we see that there is an unique constant such that . For any , we use to denote the segment from to with the endpoints and . Hence by (4.14), Claims 4.1, 4.2 and (4.16), we have
[TABLE]
which yields that . Thus, from the arbitrariness of and , the injection of follows.
Step 4.8**.**
We will prove that the image contains a ball , where
[TABLE]
To reach this goal, let . Then we infer from (4.14), Claims 4.1, 4.2 and (4.16) that
[TABLE]
which implies that contains a ball with
[TABLE]
Next we prove (b). If , then, by (1.4), we have
[TABLE]
where and is defined in (1.5). In the following, we will use the similar reasoning as in the proof of (a) to prove (b). Let be an unique solution of the following equation:
[TABLE]
Then, for any , we have
[TABLE]
which yields that is injective in . Therefore, for any , we see that
[TABLE]
The proof of this theorem is complete. ∎
5. The Lipschitz continuity of quasiconformal self-mappings satisfying polyharmonic equations
Lemma 5.1**.**
Suppose that , , and for . Let be a mapping of onto itself satisfying (1.2) and the boundary conditions on . In addition, let be Lipschitz continuous in satisfying as , where . Then, for almost every , the following limits exist:
[TABLE]
Further, for and , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where and are the square roots of Gram determinants of and , respectively.
Before the proof of Lemma 5.1, let us recall the following result.
Lemma H. ([29, Lemma 2.1])* Let be a harmonic mapping of into , and assume that its derivative is bounded in (or equivalently, let be Lipschitz continuous), where . Then there exists a mapping defined in the such that and for almost every there holds the relation*
[TABLE]
Moveover, the function is differentiable almost everywhere in and there holds
[TABLE]
*where , and are defined in the part of 2.3. *
The proof of Lemma 5.1
We first prove the existence of the two limits in (5.1). By Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2, we see that for any ,
[TABLE]
and are Lipschitz continuous in , where . Since is Lipschitz continuous in , we see that
[TABLE]
are also Lipschitz continuous in , where . It follows from Lemma H that, for almost every ,
[TABLE]
does exist, which, together with (5.4), guarantees that for almost every ,
[TABLE]
also exists.
By (5.5) and we conclude that
[TABLE]
exists for almost every .
Next we estimate . It follows from (5.5) that the mapping , , defines the outer normal vector field almost everywhere in at the point by the formula
[TABLE]
where , , and is defined in the part of 2.3. Let , where is defined in 2.3.
By (5.5), for and , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
which imply that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
by (5), we see that
[TABLE]
In the following, we will demonstrate the estimate of for .
. Then, by (5.7), we get
[TABLE]
which implies that
[TABLE]
and . In this case, by (5.7), we have
[TABLE]
which, together with (4.4), gives that
[TABLE]
where is defined in (4).
. Then it follows from (4) and (5.7) that
[TABLE]
where is defined in (4.11). Hence (5.1) and (5.1) follow from (5.8), (5), (5), (5) and
[TABLE]
The proof of this lemma is complete. ∎
Lemma I. ([29, Lemma 2.2])* Let be a harmonic Lipschitz continuous mapping defined in . Suppose that exists almost everywhere in . Then for ,*
[TABLE]
Lemma J. ([27, Lemma 4.8])* Let be a linear operator such that . If is -quasiconformal, then the following sharp inequalities hold:*
[TABLE]
Lemma K. ([27, Corollary 3.7])* Assume that is a -quasiregular, twice differentiable mapping, continuous on , and that . If, in addition, satisfies the differential inequality*
[TABLE]
*for some positive constants and , then is bounded and is Lipschitz continuous. *
The following is the so-called Mori’s Theorem of quasiconformal mappings defined in (see [15]).
Theorem L. * If is a -quasiconformal self-mapping of with , then there exists a constant , satisfying the condition as , such that, for any ,*
[TABLE]
*Moreover, the mapping shows that the exponent is optimal in the class of arbitrary -quasiconformal homeomorphism from onto itself. *
The proof of Theorem 1.4
Let’s begin the proof of this theorem with the following claim.
Claim 5.1**.**
The limits
[TABLE]
exist almost everywhere in .
In order to prove the existence of these two limits, we need to obtain the upper bound of in , and we divide it into two cases to estimate.
By [20, pp. 118-120] (see also [27, 28]), we have that for ,
[TABLE]
It follows from Lemma B that
[TABLE]
By (1.6), we have that for ,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
for , and
[TABLE]
For and , by (3), we obtain
[TABLE]
and, by (3), we have
[TABLE]
which imply that
[TABLE]
Since is a -quasiconformal self-mapping of , we see that can be extended to the homeomorphism of onto itself. Hence Claim 5.1 follows from (5), Lemmas K and 5.1.
In the following, for convenience, let
[TABLE]
Since for almost all and ,
[TABLE]
we see that, to prove the Lipschitz continuity of , it suffices to estimate the quantity . To reach this goal, we first show that the quantity satisfies an inequality which is stated in the following claim.
Claim 5.2**.**
C_{2}(K,\varphi_{1},\cdots,\varphi_{n})\leq\big{(}C_{2}(K,\varphi_{1},\cdots,\varphi_{n})\big{)}^{1-K^{1/(1-n)}}\mu_{1}+\mu_{2},* where*
[TABLE]
* is from Theorem L, *
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
To prove the claim, we need the following preparation. Firstly, we prove that
[TABLE]
almost everywhere in , where .
Since is -quasiconformal mapping, by Claim 5.1, we see that
[TABLE]
exists almost everywhere in . By Lemma H, we obtain
[TABLE]
exists almost everywhere in . It follows from (5.17), Lemma J and
[TABLE]
that
[TABLE]
where and are defined in Lemma 5.1. From (5.1) in Lemma 5.1, (5.16) and (5.18), we infer that
[TABLE]
almost everywhere in , which yields that (5.15).
Secondly, we show that for any , there exists such that
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
is harmonic, by Lemma I, we see that
[TABLE]
which, together with Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2, gives that
[TABLE]
Hence (5.19) follows from (5) and Claim 5.1.
For , let
[TABLE]
Then by Theorem L, we have
[TABLE]
which, together with (5.15) and (5.19), gives that
[TABLE]
By letting , we get from (5) that
[TABLE]
which yields that
[TABLE]
Claim 5.3**.**
If \big{(}1-K^{1/(1-n)}\big{)}\mu_{1}<1, then
[TABLE]
where \mu_{5}=\frac{K^{1/(1-n)}\mu_{1}+\mu_{2}}{1-\big{(}1-K^{1/(1-n)}\big{)}\mu_{1}}.
The proof of this claim easily follows from [24, Lemma 2.9].
In the following, an upper bound of will be established. By Claims 5.2 and 5.3, we obtain that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
In the following, we will break down into the form we need. By (5.23), we have
[TABLE]
where , , , M_{1}^{{}^{\prime\prime}}(n,K)=\frac{K^{1/(1-n)}\mu_{1}}{1-\big{(}1-K^{1/(1-n)}\big{)}\mu_{1}}, , and N_{1}^{{}^{\prime\prime}}(K,\varphi_{1},\cdots,\varphi_{n})=\frac{\mu_{2}}{1-\big{(}1-K^{1/(1-n)}\big{)}\mu_{1}}.
Let
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
It follows from the facts
[TABLE]
that these two constants are what we need. The proof of this theorem is complete. ∎
6. Acknowledgments
This research was partly supported by the National Science Foundation of China (grant no. 12071116), the Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 2022JJ10001), the Key Projects of Hunan Provincial Department of Education (grant no. 21A0429); the Double First-Class University Project of Hunan Province (Xiangjiaotong [2018]469), the Science and Technology Plan Project of Hunan Province (2016TP1020), and the Discipline Special Research Projects of Hengyang Normal University (XKZX21002)
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] T. Adamowicz, J. Jääskeläinen and A. Koski, The Radó-Kneser-Choquet theorem for p-harmonic mappings between Riemannian surfaces, Rev. Math. Iberoam., 36 (2020), 1-38.
- 2[2] S. Axler, P. Bourdon and W. Ramey, Harmonic function theory , Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.
- 3[3] A. F. Beardon, The geometry of discrete groups , Springer-Verlag, New York Inc. 1983.
- 4[4] M. Bonk and A. Eremenko, Covering properties of meromorphic functions, negative curvature and spherical geometry, Ann. Math., 152 (2000), 551–592.
- 5[5] M. Bonk and J. Heinonen, Smooth quasiregular mappings with branching, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci., 100 (2004), 153–170.
- 6[6] H. Chen and P.M. Gauthier, Bloch constants in several variables. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. , 353 (2001), 1371–1386.
- 7[7] S. L. Chen and D. Kalaj, On asymptotically sharp bi-Lipschitz inequalities of quasiconformal mappings satisfying inhomogeneous polyharmonic equations, J. Geom. Anal. , 31 (2021), 4865–4905.
- 8[8] S. L. Chen, P. J. Li, and X. T. Wang, Schwarz-type Lemma, Landau-type Theorem, and Lipschitz-type space of solutions to inhomogeneous biharmonic equations, J. Geom. Anal. , 29 (2019), 2469–2491.
