4
$\begingroup$

While reading the book Regularity Theory of Elliptic PDE I’m confused with a theorem:

Thm. 2.30.

Let $\alpha \in (0,1)$ and $k \in N$ with $k \leq 2$, and let $\Omega$ be a bounded $C^{k, \alpha}$ domain of $R^n$. Let $u \in H^1(\Omega)$ be a weak solution to

$$ \Delta u = f \hspace{2pt} \in \hspace{2pt} \Omega $$ $$ u=g \hspace{2pt} \text{ on } \hspace{2pt} \partial \Omega$$

for some $f\in C^{k-2, \alpha}(\bar{\Omega}), g\in C^{k, \alpha}(\partial\Omega)$.

Then, $ u \in C^{k, \alpha}(\bar{\Omega})$ and

$$ \|u\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(\Omega)} \leq C(\|f\|_{C^{k-2, \alpha}(\Omega)}+\|g\|_{C^{k, \alpha}(\partial \Omega)})$$

Where C depending only on $\alpha, n, k \text{ and } \omega$.

The book didn’t give the proof but it says that it can be shown by techniques like:

after a blow-up, points near the boundary behave like in a local problem in the half-space (that is, the blow-up flattens ∂Ω), and we can reach a contradiction with Liouville’s theorem in the half-space.

But I fell into trouble at first because I don’t know how to do the blow-up to get the harmonic function in the half space. I tried to do it starting from that g is identically 0 and try to prove it for a $C^{k, \alpha}$ boundary, but if I set $u_r(x)=\frac{1}{r^2}u(rx)$ then I can’t even bound $D^k(u_r)$. What should I do to get the blow-up? Is there any reference I can send to?

$\endgroup$
16
  • $\begingroup$ I recall seeing a paper (and he also had some notes) of Leon Simon from 90's that had a proof using blow up analysis. $\endgroup$
    – Math604
    Commented Aug 26, 2021 at 3:35
  • $\begingroup$ You can have a look at Regularity Theory for Elliptic PDE by Xavier Fernandez-Real and Xavier Ros-Oton (you can download it). In Chapter 2, the second proof of Proposition 2.25 they explain well the blow-up method in the case of interior points $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 26, 2021 at 8:11
  • $\begingroup$ @GiorgioMetafune Thank you very much for this reference but I’m still confused with a tricky problem: on the boundary condition we also assumed the boundary to be $C^{k, \alpha}$ and where would this assumption be used? I’m thinking that there may be some transform wish can remain the bound of the norm of C^{k, \alpha}$ but I can’t write it down clearly. $\endgroup$
    – Holden Lyu
    Commented Aug 27, 2021 at 23:01
  • $\begingroup$ Assme $k=2$. You can change coordinates from $\Omega$ to the half plane using the smoothness of the boundary. Then you get another ellipitc equation in the half-plane with Holder coefficients. This is the way how the smoothness of the boundary is generally used. I do not know if the authors had that in mind. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 28, 2021 at 14:28
  • $\begingroup$ @GiorgioMetafune I think you are right. But when I’m trying to write it down I’m faced with another problem: all the blow-up trick are based on one assumption—the solution is $C^{k, \alpha}$, which allows to consider $u-p$ where $p$ is a polynomial determined by the k-th derivative. And we would use the continuity method to determine the uniqueness of solution and therefore all the estimate can be done. $\endgroup$
    – Holden Lyu
    Commented Aug 28, 2021 at 19:36

0

You must log in to answer this question.