MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top


They proved the $W^{2,1}$ estimate for standard monge-ampere equation $detD^{2}u=f$ with $f$ bounded from below and above. But there is one part I can not understand very well. In page 5, at the beginning of section 3, they said "By standard approximation arguments, it suffices to prove (1.2) when $u\in C^{2}$"

I guess what they mean is molify $f$, namely $f_{h}$, solve $detD^{2}u_{h}=f_{h}$, then use $u_{h}$ to approximate $u$. But the problem is when you try to prove $u_{h}$ has a subsequence converges in $W^{2,1}$, while one can see $u_{h}-u$ only satisfies an equation which is not uniformly elliptic, so there should be some problem for this kind of approximation?

I feel like: we assume $u$ is $W^{2,1}$, and then we prove some $W^{2,1}$ estimates. this is the so called a priori estimate?

But for monge ampere equation, I can not see this apriori estimate implies the solution is $W^{2,1}$

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

One possible approximation argument is spelt out in detail in section 5 of this paper of Schmidt.

There the author proves the stronger result that under your same assumption $0<\lambda\leq f\leq \Lambda$ then $u\in W^{2,1+\varepsilon}_{\rm loc}$ for some $\varepsilon(n,\lambda,\Lambda)>0$. This was also proved at the same time by De Philippis, Figalli and Savin.

share|cite|improve this answer
good, very interesting, thanks! – Mongeampere Jul 23 '12 at 21:15

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.