Blow-up phenomena for the constant scalar curvature and constant boundary mean curvature equation (after Chen and Wu)
Pak Tung Ho, Jinwoo Shin

TL;DR
This paper investigates the blow-up phenomena in solutions to the constant scalar curvature and boundary mean curvature equation, extending known counterexamples to higher dimensions and analyzing solution compactness.
Contribution
It extends the existence of counterexamples for solution non-compactness to dimensions not less than 35, improving previous results for dimensions 62 and above.
Findings
Counterexamples exist for dimensions ≥35.
Solution compactness fails in high dimensions.
Extends previous results by Chen and Wu.
Abstract
In this paper, the compactness of the solutions to the constant scalar curvature and constant boundary mean curvature equation is considered. Chen and Wu constructed a smooth counterexample showing that the compactness of the set of ``lower energy" solutions to the above equation fails when the dimension of the manifold is not less than 62. We prove that a smooth counterexample still exists when the dimension of the manifold is not less than 35.
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
TopicsNonlinear Partial Differential Equations · Geometric Analysis and Curvature Flows · Navier-Stokes equation solutions
Blow-up phenomena for the constant scalar curvature and constant boundary mean curvature equation
(after Chen and Wu)
Pak Tung Ho
Department of Mathematics, Tamkang University, Tamsui, New Taipei City 251301, Taiwan
and
Jinwoo Shin
Department of Mathematics & Research Institute of Natural Science, Sookmyung Women’s University, Cheongpa-ro 47-gil 100, Youngsan-gu, Seoul, 04310, Korea
(Date: 29th of September, 2022.)
Abstract.
In this paper, the compactness of the solutions to the constant scalar curvature and constant boundary mean curvature equation is considered. Chen and Wu constructed a smooth counterexample showing that the compactness of the set of “lower energy” solutions to the above equation fails when the dimension of the manifold is not less than 62. We prove that a smooth counterexample still exists when the dimension of the manifold is not less than 35.
Key words and phrases:
Yamabe problem; compactness; manifolds with boundary
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 53C21, 35J20 ; Secondary 35B33
1. Introduction
Given an -dimensional closed (i.e. compact without boundary) Riemannian manifold with , the Yamabe problem is to find a metric conformal to such that the scalar curvature of is constant. If we write with , then has constant scalar curvature if and only if
[TABLE]
The Yamabe problem is solved by Aubin [6], Trudinger [34], and Schoen [31]. In other words, there exists at least one solution to (1.1).
Solutions to (1.1) are usually not unique. In [29], Pollack has used gluing techniques to prove the following: given any conformal class with positive Yamabe constant and any positive integer , there exists a new conformal class which is close to the original one in the -norm and contains at least metrics of constant scalar curvature.
It is an interesting question whether the set of all solutions to (1.1) is compact in the -topology. A conjecture due to Schoen states that this should be true unless is conformally equivalent to the standard sphere (see [30, 32, 33]). This conjecture has been verified in low dimensions [16, 26, 27] and in the locally conformally flat case [32, 33]. In particular, Khuri, Marques and Schoen [24] proved that the compactness conjecture is true up to dimension , assuming that the positive mass theorem holds.
It turns out that the conjecture is false in higher dimension. Brendle [7] constructed Riemannian manifolds such that the set of constant scalar curvature metrics in the conformal class of is non-compact, when the dimension . Modifying the arguments in [7], Brendle and Marques [9] were able to construct such Riemannian manifold when the dimension .
Now suppose that is an -dimensional compact Riemannian manifold with boundary . The Yamabe problem can also be formulated on Riemannian manifolds with boundary. And there are two types:
(I) Find conformal to such that the scalar curvature of is constant in and the mean curvature of is zero on .
(II) Find conformal to such that the scalar curvature of is zero in and the mean curvature of is constant on .
If we write with , then
[TABLE]
Here is the outward normal derivative with respect to , and (and respectively) is the mean curvature of (and respectively). Therefore, the Yamabe problem with boundary (I) is equivalent to solving (1.2) with and , i.e.
[TABLE]
and the Yamabe problem with boundary (II) is equivalent to solving (1.2) with and , i.e.
[TABLE]
The Yamabe problem with boundary (I) and (II) have been studied intensively. See [3, 8, 14, 17, 18, 28] and the references therein.
Inspired by the compactness conjecture in the closed case, one can ask if the set of all solutions to (1.3) (and to (1.4) respectively) is compact in -topology. This was studied in [1, 3, 15, 19, 20, 21, 25]
More generally, one can try to find a metric conformal to such that the scalar curvature of is equal to in and the mean curvature of is equal to on , for some constants and . This includes the Yamabe problem with boundary (I) and (II) as special cases. In view of (1.2), it is equivalent to solving the following:
[TABLE]
where and . This problem of finding conformal metric of constant scalar curvature and constant boundary mean curvature has been studied in [10, 11, 12, 22, 23].
Similar to the Yamabe problem on closed manifolds and the Yamabe problem with boundary (I) and (II), it would be interesting to study the compactness and non-compactness of (1.5). Almaraz and Wang [5] obtained a compactness result of (1.5) when the dimension . Chen and Wu [13] were able to construct Riemannian manifolds with boundary such that the set of all solutions to (1.5) is non-compact, when the dimension . In order to state their result, we need some notations. We define the functional
[TABLE]
for any , where . Let be a single bubble in , i.e.
[TABLE]
and the energy of , i.e.
[TABLE]
The following theorem was proved in [13, Theorem 1.1].
Theorem 1.1**.**
*Let and , there exists a metric on such that the Yamabe constant with boundary , and a sequence of positive smooth functions with the following properties:
(i) is not locally conformally flat,
(ii) is umbilic with respect to ,
(iii) is a positive smooth solution to (1.5) with and ,
(iv) , and
(v) as .*
In this paper, by following and modifying the arguments of Chen and Wu in [13], we can lower the dimension further to . The following is our main theorem.
Theorem 1.2**.**
Let . There exists a constant depending only on , such that for all with , there exist a metric on whose Yamabe constant with boundary , and a sequence of positive smooth functions with properties (i)-(v) in Theorem 1.1.
We would like to emphasize the main difference between Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2. Chen and Wu were able to prove that Theorem 1.1 holds for all , while we are only able to prove that Theorem 1.2 holds for all less than a particular value .
In Section 2, we will summarize the argument of Chen and Wu used in the proof of Theorem 1.1. In Section 3, we will then point out the exact place we need to modify the argument of Chen and Wu in order to prove Theorem 1.2.
2. Summary of the proof of Theorem 1.1
In this section, we provide a concise exposition of the principal arguments employed by Chen and Wu in the proof of Theorem 1.1. This overview serves to clarify the framework within which the subsequent modifications will be introduced.
From now on, we let and , where is given in (1.5). Given a pair , we define
[TABLE]
where . Define
[TABLE]
for , and
[TABLE]
Define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We define a norm on by Clearly, .
We introduce a multi-linear form satisfying the same algebraic properties of the Weyl tensor on . Moreover, we assume
[TABLE]
If , we identify with and define
[TABLE]
as well as , where is a polynomial of degree for and to be determined.
We then define
[TABLE]
for , where satisfying
[TABLE]
for all test function .
If , for , then are constants defined as
[TABLE]
Also, we define
[TABLE]
Then we have
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
In order to show that has a strict local minimum at , Chen and Wu showed that it suffices to show that , , and . By choosing , i.e. is a polynomial of degree , Chen and Wu was able to show this when .
Proposition 2.1** (Proposition 5.9 in [13]).**
Let . There exists a polynomial such that , , and . This implies that has a strict local minimum at the point .
Using Proposition 2.1, Chen and Wu proved the following:
Proposition 2.2** (Proposition 6.1 in [13]).**
For and , let be a smooth Riemannian metric in , where is a symmetric trace-free two tensor in satisfying
[TABLE]
where , , , and is defined as in (2.1). Assume that for all . If and are sufficiently small, then there exists a positive smooth solution of
[TABLE]
Moreover, there exists such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Sketch of the Proof.
For the sake of completeness, we provide the proof here. However, this is only a sketch, and for the full proof, the reader is referred to [13].
Step 1. If satisfies the conditions of Proposition 2.2 and , then we can establish the following: Given any pair , there exists a unique function such that , and
[TABLE]
for all . Moreover, there exists a positive constant , depending only on and such that
[TABLE]
Step 2. Given a pair , we define the following energy functional
[TABLE]
Then the functional is continuously differentiable. Moreover, if is a critical point of , then the function is a positive smooth solution of
[TABLE]
Step 3. Applying Step 1 to each pair , we choose to be the unique element of such that and
[TABLE]
for all . Let . We define the function as the unique element of satisfying
[TABLE]
for all . Then we can establish the following: For any , there holds
[TABLE]
Step 4. It follows from Proposition 2.1 that is a strict local minimum point of . Hence, we can find an open set such that and . By Step 3 with , we have
[TABLE]
for all , equivalently,
[TABLE]
for all . If is sufficiently small, then we have
[TABLE]
Consequently, there exists such that
[TABLE]
It follows from Step 2 that that the function obtained in Step 1 is a positive smooth solution to (2.7). By definition of we have
[TABLE]
whence
[TABLE]
Using (2.8), we estimate
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Hence, if is sufficiently small, then we obtain
[TABLE]
This completes the proof. ∎
We remark that in the original statement of Proposition 6.1 in [13], it is assumed that and . However, one can see from the proof of Proposition 6.1 in [13] that Proposition 2.2 is still true.
With Proposition 2.2, one can follow the proof of Theorem 6.2 in [13] to prove the following:
Theorem 2.3** (Theorem 6.2 in [13]).**
*For and , there exists a smooth Riemannian metric in with the following properties:
(i) for ,
(ii) is not locally conformally flat,
(iii) is totally geodesic with respect to ,
(iv) there exists a sequence of positive smooth functions satisfying*
[TABLE]
for all . Moreover, there hold
[TABLE]
for all , i.e. , and as .
Now Theorem 1.1 is a direct consequence of Theorem 2.3 by taking .
3. Proof of Theorem 1.2
In order to lower the dimension further, we are going to choose to be a polynomial of degree . In addition, we will establish the corresponding version of Proposition 2.1. More precisely, we prove in this section the following:
Proposition 3.1**.**
Let . There exists a polynomial such that , , and , provided that is sufficiently close to [math]. This implies that has a strict local minimum at the point .
With Proposition 3.1, Theorem 1.2 now follows from Proposition 2.2 and Theorem 2.3 with . Thus it boils down to proving Proposition 3.1.
Now we choose such that , where are negative constants and are positive constants to be chosen later. It follows from (2.2) that
[TABLE]
Differentiating (2.4) with respect to yields
[TABLE]
Combining this with (3.1), one can see that can be considered as a quadratic polynomial in . More precisely, where
[TABLE]
Note that it follows from (2.3) that is a continuous function of , i.e. . Hence, , , and can also be regarded as continuous functions of . Let , which is the discriminant of , the quadratic polynomial in . We will show that . By continuity, this implies that when is sufficiently close to [math]. When , the explicit value of can be computed by using (2.3):
[TABLE]
where denotes the gamma function.
Now we choose , , , , , and . By (3.3) and (3.4), a direct computation with the help of Mathematica shows that for (c.f. [35]). This tells us that there exists such that , when is sufficiently close to [math].
Differentiating (3.2) with respect to yields
[TABLE]
Combining this with (3.1), we have the following:
[TABLE]
Note that can also be regarded as a continuous function of . We will show that , which implies that when is close to [math]. Let be the largest root of the quadratic polynomial when , i.e.
[TABLE]
We remark that, unlike other ’s that have a fixed value, depends on . For example, we have
[TABLE]
when , while
[TABLE]
when . Then direct computations with the help of Mathematica show that for (c.f. [35]), which by continuity implies that for when is sufficiently close to [math]. Likewise, with the help of Mathematica, we can show that when (c.f. [35]), which implies that when is sufficiently close to [math].
It remains to show that when is sufficiently close to [math]. It follows from (2.5) that
[TABLE]
Combining this with (2.6), we have
[TABLE]
Viewing as a continuous function of , with our choice of , we can show that for with the help of Mathematica (c.f. [35]). This implies that, by continuity, when is sufficiently close to [math]. This finishes the proof of Proposition 3.1.
Acknowledgement
The first author was supported by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), Taiwan, with grant Number: 112-2115-M-032-006-MY2.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] S. Almaraz, A compactness theorem for scalar-flat metrics on manifolds with boundary. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 41 (2011), no. 3-4, 341–386
- 2[2] S. Almaraz, Blow-up phenomena for scalar-flat metrics on manifolds with boundary. J. Differential Equations 251 (2011), no. 7, 1813–1840.
- 3[3] S. Almaraz, An existence theorem of conformal scalar-flat metrics on manifolds with boundary. Pacific J. Math. 248 (2010), no. 1, 1–22.
- 4[4] S. Almaraz, O. de Queiroz, and S. Wang, A compactness theorem for scalar-flat metrics on 3-manifolds with boundary. J. Funct. Anal. 277 (2019), no. 7, 2092–2116.
- 5[5] S. Almaraz and S. Wang, A compactness theorem for conformal metrics with constant scalar curvature and constant boundary mean curvature in dimension three. (2023), preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.07088
- 6[6] T. Aubin, Équations différentielles non linéaires et problème de Yamabe concernant la courbure scalaire. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 55 (1976), no. 3, 269–296.
- 7[7] S. Brendle, Blow-up phenomena for the Yamabe equation. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 21 (2008), no. 4, 951–979.
- 8[8] S. Brendle and S. S. Chen, An existence theorem for the Yamabe problem on manifolds with boundary. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 16 (2014), no. 5, 991–1016.
