0
$\begingroup$

Consider the divergence form uniformly elliptic operator $\nabla \cdot a(x) \nabla$ where the coefficient $a$ are smooth and bounded and $D$ is a bounded and smooth domain of $\mathbb R^d$ $$ \begin{cases} \nabla \cdot a(x) \nabla f (x)=g \text{ in } D \\ f(x) = 0 \text{ in } \partial D, \end{cases} $$ where $g$ for some $g$. Consider now $x_0\in D$ and $\delta < d(x,\partial D)$ and the function $f_{x_0}$ which solves $$ \begin{cases} \nabla \cdot a(x_0) \nabla f^\delta_{x_0} (x)=g \text{ in } B(x_0,\delta)\\ f^\delta_{x_0}(x) = f(x) \text{ in } \partial B(x_0,\delta). \end{cases} $$

I was wondering whether it is possible to bound quantities such as $$ M(x_0,\delta,r,p):=r^{-d}\|f-f^\delta_{x_0}\|_{L^p(B(x_0,r))} $$ for $r < \delta$ and for some $p \in [1,\infty]$. In particular, I was wondering about the case asymptotic behaviour for $r \to 0^+$. That is, can I show that $$ M(p, \gamma):= \sup_{x_0 \in D} \sup_{\delta < d(x,\partial D)\wedge c_a} \sup_{r \le \delta} \frac{M(x_0,\delta,r,p)}{r^\gamma}, $$ is finite for some $\gamma>0$ and some constant $c_a >0$? If so, does that bound depends on the smoothness of $g$?

The idea being that if $\delta$ is sufficiently small, $a(x)\approx a(x_0)$ in the ball $B(x_0,\delta)$ and therefore the two equations should behave similarly. I am not sure if this is indeed enough or if I would need to ask $\delta$ to vanish as well.

I would appreciate any references or even what are the keywords to find such type of estimates.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If I am parsing things right, for $\gamma > 0$, if $M(p,\gamma)$ is finite this would require that $f(x_0) = f^{\delta}_{x_0}(x_0)$ for every $x_0$ and every compatible $\delta$. (This is just using the inner most $\sup$.) I don't think this can be expected. $\endgroup$ May 10, 2021 at 17:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ On the probability side, such "freezing coefficients" approach is known as the parametrix method. But I do not know if it is really related to your question. $\endgroup$ May 10, 2021 at 18:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In regularity theory of PDEs and for minimization problems in calcvar similar ideas also occur. A related concept might also be that of a "blow up-limit", i.e. if you take the solution to the variable $a$ problem and rescale it around $x_0$, then in the limit will usually be a solution to the constant $a$-problem. (though on $\mathbb{R}^d$, instead of with the boundary data you requested). $\endgroup$
    – mlk
    May 10, 2021 at 19:07
  • $\begingroup$ @mlk Do you have a reference for this? $\endgroup$
    – Kernel
    May 11, 2021 at 13:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Kernel I haven't read the book myself, but I think "Elliptic regulary theory" by Lisa Beck might be worth a read. At least from a quick glance there is a section on blow up and the book uses Morrey and Campanato spaces, which are extremely related to your definition of $M$. $\endgroup$
    – mlk
    May 11, 2021 at 14:14

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

As Willie Wong pointed out, there are issues with the quantity you are looking at. But you can fine-tune your question in the one dimensional case, as you cannot expect better regularity than in $1$-d case. Not trying to insult anyone's intelligence, but the solution is in that case an explicit function of $a$ and $g$.

Take $\Omega=(-\ell,\ell)\subset\mathbb{R},$ and $g=1$. The solution in $H_{0}^{1}\left(\Omega\right)$ of $$ \textrm{div}\left(a\nabla f\right)=1\text{ in }\left(-\ell,\ell\right) $$ is $$ f=\int_{-\ell}^{x}\frac{t-z_{\ell}}{a(t)}dt, $$ and $$ f^{\prime}\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{a(x)}\left(x-z_{\ell}\right), $$ with $$ z_{\ell}=\frac{\int_{-\ell}^{\ell}\frac{t}{a(t)}dt}{\int_{-\ell}^{\ell}\frac{1}{a(t)}dt} $$ The solution $f-f_{x_{0}}^{\delta}$ satisfy \begin{align*} \textrm{div}\left(a\left(x_{0}\right)\nabla\left(f-f_{x_{0}}^{\delta}\right)\right) & =\textrm{div}\left(\left(a\left(x_{0}\right)-a\right)\nabla f\right)\text{when }\left|x-x_{0}\right|<\delta.\\ f-f_{x_{0}} & =0\text{ when }\left|x-x_{0}\right|=\delta \end{align*} in other words $f-f_{x_{0}}^{\delta}\in H_{0}^{1}\left(x_{0}-\delta,x_{0}+\delta\right)$ satisfies $$ \left(f-f_{x_{0}}^{\delta}\right)^{\prime\prime}=\left(\left(\frac{1}{a\left(x\right)}-\frac{1}{a\left(x_{0}\right)}\right)\left(x-z_{\ell}\right)\right)^{\prime}, $$ that is, $$ f\left(x\right)-f_{x_{0}}^{\delta}\left(x\right)=\int_{x_0-\delta}^{x}\left(\left(\frac{1}{a\left(t\right)}-\frac{1}{a\left(x_{0}\right)}\right)\left(t-z_{\ell}\right)-\kappa\right)dt, $$ with $$ \kappa=\frac{1}{2\delta}\int_{x_0-\delta}^{x_0+\delta}\left(\frac{1}{a\left(t\right)}-\frac{1}{a\left(x_{0}\right)}\right)\left(t-z_{\ell}\right)dt. $$

If for example $a=\frac{1}{2\ell+x}$, $z_\ell=\frac16 \ell$, $\kappa=\frac13 \delta^2$, $$ f\left(x\right)-f_{x_{0}}^{\delta}\left(x\right)=\frac{(2x_0-\ell+4x)(x_0+\delta-x)(x_0-\delta-x)}{24\delta}. $$ At $x=x_0$, $f\left(x_0\right)-f_{x_{0}}^{\delta}\left(x_0\right)=\frac{\delta}{24}(\ell-6x_0)$, which is not null anywhere on the interval.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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