3
$\begingroup$

Definition. Let $u:\Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R} $. A function $u$ is called semiconvex if $u=v+w$ for some $v\in C^{1,1}(\Omega)$ and a convex function $w$.

Note. Saying that $u$ is semiconvex is equivalent to say that there exists a $\lambda$ such that the function $$ z(x)=u(x)+\dfrac{|x|^2}{2\lambda}\text{ is convex}.$$

Consider the elliptic operator of the form $$Lu=a^{ij}D_{ij}u+b^iD_iu$$ and let $L$ be uniformly elliptic.

I want to prove the following statement:

Theorem (Aleksandrov maximum principle): Let $u$ be semiconvex in $\Omega$ and suppose $Lu+f\geq0$ almost everywhere in $\Omega$ for some $f\in L^{n}(\Omega)$. We then have the following estimates: $$ \sup_{\Omega}u \leq \sup_{\partial\Omega}u+ C \Vert f\Vert_{L^n(\Gamma^+)}$$

where $\Gamma^+$ is upper contact set of $u$ (a sub domain of $\Omega$ where the Hessian of $u$ is negative define).

I know that this result holds for subsolutions $u\in W^{2,n}(\Omega)$, as it can be shown by extending the same result for the case $u\in C^2(\Omega)$ through mollification. So I thought that I can deduce the validity of my Aleksandrov maximum principle from its validity for classical subsolution, by mollification or something like this. Could this be true? Can somebody please help me?

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I do not understand. The usual Alexandrov principle holds without any convexity assumption on $u$. What is the question? $\endgroup$ Mar 17, 2020 at 14:41
  • $\begingroup$ @GiorgioMetafune I know proofs of Aleksandrov principle when the function $u$ has some useful regularity, as $C^2$ or $W^{2,n}$. In my question all these regularity are not assumed. The only think you know is that $u$ is semiconvex and this implie that $u$ is twice differentiable a.e.. You know some proofs that not use the regularity? $\endgroup$ Mar 17, 2020 at 14:52
  • $\begingroup$ So the question is about the regularity of $u$; for example $u$ could be just a convex function? $\endgroup$ Mar 17, 2020 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ No, I don't think. $\endgroup$ Mar 17, 2020 at 16:18
  • $\begingroup$ Still I do not undestand your answer. For $C^2$ functions we agree that Alexandrof maximum principle holds. Then the question is meaningful for less regular $u$ (or $z$, which is the same). Did I understand correctly or convexity palys other roles? $\endgroup$ Mar 17, 2020 at 16:45

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

The ABP estimate indeed holds in your setting. The key is that the concave envelope of $u$ is in $C^{1,\,1}$, so the area formula is valid for its gradient. Assuming for simplicity that $L = \Delta$, that $\Omega = B_1$ and that $\sup_{\partial B_1} u = 0$, the way I would argue is:

Let $\Gamma$ be the concave envelope (the infimum of linear functions larger than $u$ in $B_1$ and, say, larger than $0$ on $\partial B_2$). Using that $u$ is touched from below by a paraboloid with Hessian $-\lambda^{-1}I$ at every point, one can show (see e.g. the book of Caffarelli-Cabre on fully nonlinear equations) that $\Gamma$ is touched from above by a linear function and from below by a paraboloid of opening $-\lambda^{-1}I$ at every point. In particular, $\Gamma \in C^{1,\,1}$, so we can apply the area formula to $\nabla \Gamma$. By elementary geometry $\Gamma$ is touched from above on the set $K := \{u = \Gamma\}$ by a linear function of slope $p$ for every $p \in B_{\frac{\sup_{B_1}u}{5}},$ so $$(\sup_{B_1}u)^n \leq C(n)|\nabla \Gamma(K)|.$$ Using the area formula and that $D^2u \leq D^2\Gamma \leq 0$ at almost every point in $K$ we conclude that $$(\sup_{B_1}u)^n \leq C(n) \int_{K} |\det D^2\Gamma(x)|\,dx \leq C(n)\int_K |\det D^2u(x)|\,dx.$$ Finally, by the AGM inequality and the equation, the last term is controlled by $C(n)\|f\|_{L^n(K)}^n$, completing the proof.

Remark: The classic example where the semi-convexity (and $W^{2,\,n}$ regularity) and conclusion fail is $u = 1-|x|^{\gamma}$ in $B_1 \subset \mathbb{R}^n,$ with $\gamma \in (0,\,1)$ and $n \geq 2$. Indeed, $u \in W^{2,\,p}$ for $p < \frac{n}{2-\gamma}$ and solves a uniformly elliptic equation of the form $a_{ij}(x)u_{ij} = 0$ away from the origin, but the maximum principle fails.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you @ConnorMooney , there are a lot of thing that I never used (as the concave envelope, area formula). My book suggests to deduce it, from its validity for classical subsolution, by mollification since the Hessian matrices of the mollification of a semiconcave function will be bounded from below. Can you tell me something about these facts? $\endgroup$ Mar 17, 2020 at 16:15

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.