I am reading the book Variational Problems in Geometry by Seiki Nishikawa. The main purpose of this book is to prove the existence of harmonic maps $M\to N$ between two compact Riemannian manifolds $M$ and $N$ with the target manifold being nonpositively curved. Since a harmonic map is defined as a minimizer for the energy functional $E$, the idea is to deform an existing map $u:M\to N$ along the gradient lines of $E$, which is equivalent to solving an equation: $$\frac{\partial u_t}{\partial t}=\tau(u_t)\quad\quad\text{Eq.(1)}$$ where $u_t$ is a smooth variation of some given $u_0$, and $\tau$ denotes the tension field (along this direction, $E$ decreases fastest). By embedding $N$ into $\mathbb R^q$ using the Nash embedding theorem, we can regard $N$ as a submanifold and $u$ as a vector-valued function to simplify certain statements. After this embedding, the above equation takes a new form: $$(\Delta-\partial_t)u_t=\Pi(u_t)\quad\quad\text{Eq.(2)}$$ I'll omit the definition of $\Pi(u_t)$. Just know that they are equivalent in the sense that their solutions coincide, if given identical initial conditions. The difference is:

  • Eq.(1) is intrinsic and is an equation in $\Gamma(u_t^{-1}TN)$;
  • Eq.(2) is an equation in $\mathbb R^q$.


One of the main theorems is the existence of a solution to any one of the equations above defined for $t\in[0,+\infty)$, given some $u_0$ as the initial condition. Suppose now we have already established:

  • local (w.r.t time) existence of a solution
  • certain estimates

The proof goes as follows:

Proof. (The part where there's no problem, so I'll give a sketch only) Since we have established the local existence, for a given $u_0$, we can find a smooth $u:M\times[0,T)\to N$ for some $T>0$ such that it solves (1) and (2) and $u(\cdot,0)=u_0$. Now suppose $T_0$ is the supremum of all such $T$. We wish to prove $T_0=+\infty$. If not, we take an increasing sequence $t_i\to T_0$. By certain estimates, we know that $\{u_{t_i}\}$ and $\{\partial_tu_{t_i}\}$ are uniformly bounded and equicontinuous, respectively in the Holder spaces $C^{2+\alpha}(M,\mathbb R^q)$ and $C^{\alpha}(M,\mathbb R^q)$, for some $0<\alpha<1$.

Proof. (The part where I am confused. I'll write exact words) By the Ascoli-Arzela theorem, there exists a subsequence $\{t_{i_k}\}$ of $\{t_i\}$ and functions$^1$ $$u(\cdot,T_0)\in C^{2+\alpha}(M,\mathbb R^q)\quad\text{and}\quad\partial_t u(\cdot,T_0)\in C^\alpha(M,\mathbb R^q)$$ such that the subsequences $$\{u(\cdot,t_{i_k})\}\quad\text{and}\quad\{\partial_tu(\cdot,t_{i_k})\}$$ respectively, converge uniformly to $u(\cdot,T_0)$ and $\partial_tu(\cdot,T_0)$, as $t_{i_k}\to T_0$. Since for each $t_{i_k}$, we have $$\partial_tu(\cdot,t_{i_k})=\tau(u(\cdot,t_{i_k}))\quad\quad\text{Eq.(3)}$$ we also get at$^2$ $T_0$ $$\partial_tu(\cdot,T_0)=\tau(u(\cdot,T_0))\quad\quad\text{Eq.(4)}$$ consequently$^3$, we see that (1) has a solution in $M\times[0,T_0]$. Using $u(\cdot,T_0)$ again as the initial condition to solve (1), we extend the solution to $M\times[0,T_0+\epsilon)$ for some $\epsilon>0$, contradicting $T_0$ being the supremum. Hence $T_0=\infty$.


  1. How do we know that the limits do not depend on the choice of $t_i$. I think it can be argued using the uniformly boundedness and equicontinuity. Am I right?

  2. How can we go from (3) to (4)? Eq. (3) is clearly obtained by (1), which is an equation in $\Gamma(u_t^{-1}TN)$. However, (3)$\implies$(4) would require the convergence of $\partial_tu(\cdot,t_{i_k})$ to $\partial_tu(\cdot,T_0)$. But this convergence is only in $C^{\alpha}(M,\mathbb R^q)$, not in $\Gamma(u_t^{-1}TN)$. Although I think I can fix this by writing them in the form of (2) to start with.

  3. How can we conclude from (4) that (1) has a solution in $M\times[0,T_0]$. Note that $\partial_tu(\cdot,T_0)$ is so far only a notation for the limit of $\partial_tu(\cdot,t_{i_k})$, we have not proved that it is actually the (one-sided) derivative of $u$ at $t=T_0$. How can I fix this?


1 Answer 1


$\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}\newcommand{\pa}{\partial}$Edit: The answer is now LaTeXified.

Below are my notes on this. I reworked the proof:

Proof. Let $S:=\big\{T\in[0,\infty):$ the equation has a solution in $C^{2+\alpha,1+\alpha/2}(M\times[0,T],N)\big\}$. Let $T_0:=\sup S$. By existence of local solution, $T_0>0$. We claim that $T_0=\infty$.

Suppose $T_0<\infty$. By uniqueness of solution and definition of $T_0$, we have a solution $u\in C^{2,1}(M\times[0,T_0),N)$. Take $\alpha<\alpha'<1$. By the a priori estimate above, $u_t$ is uniformly bounded in $t$ in $C^{2+\alpha'}(M,\R^L)$.

Define $$u(x,T_0):=\int_0^{T_0}\pa_tu(x,t)\,dt+u(x,0).$$ For any sequence $t_k\nearrow T_0$, $(u_{t_k})_{k=1}^\infty$ has a subsequence that converges in $C^{2+\alpha}(M,N)$ by Arzelà–Ascoli, and its limit is necessarily $u_{T_0}$. Thus $u_{T_0}\in C^{2+\alpha}(M,N)$, and any such sequence must in fact converge to $u_{T_0}$ in $C^{2+\alpha}(M,N)$. In other words, $u\in C^{2+\alpha,0}(M\times[0,T_0],N)$, or equivalently, $t\mapsto u_t$ is continuous as a map $[0,T_0]\to C^{2+\alpha}(M,N)$.

Since $\pa_tu_t=\tau(u_t)$, we see that $t\mapsto\pa_tu_t$ has a continuous extension $[0,T_0]\to C^{\alpha/2}(M,\R^L)$. So in fact $u\in C^{2+\alpha,1+\alpha/2}(M\times[0,T_0],N)$, i.e., $T_0\in S$. Now, existence of local solution implies that $u$ can be extended to a solution on $[0,T_0+\varepsilon]$, which is a contradiction. $\square$

The a priori estimate refers to the one as given in the book: For $0<\alpha<1$, $$\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\Big(\big\|u_t\big\|_{C^{2+\alpha}(M,\R^L)}+\big\|\pa_tu_t\big\|_{C^\alpha(M,\R^L)}\Big)\leq C(M,N,f,\alpha).$$


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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