3
$\begingroup$

I'm reading Existence of solutions to a higher dimensional mean-field equation on manifolds and get stuck on Lemma6. When $\lambda>\Lambda_1$, with $\Lambda_1=(2 m-1) ! \operatorname{vol}\left(S^{2 m}\right)$. They proved that the following functional is not bounded below so they wanted to find the saddle point $$ I_\lambda(u)=\frac{1}{2} \int_M|\Delta_g^{m/2} u|^2 d \mu_g-\frac{\lambda}{2 m} \log \left(\int_M e^{2 m u} d \mu_g\right) $$ on $$ E:=\left\{u \in H^m(M): \int_M u d \mu_g=0\right\}. $$ And equip $E$ with the norm $\|u\|:=\left(\int_M\left|\Delta_g^{\frac{m}{2}} u\right|^2 d \mu_g\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$. The critical point of this functional is the solution of the mean-field equation $$\left(-\Delta_g\right)^m u+\lambda=\lambda \frac{e^{2 m u}}{\int_M e^{2 m u} d \mu_g}$$ on a unit volume closed Riemannian manifold $(M, g)$ of dimension $2 m$.

In Lemma5, they have proved that there exists a bounded sequence $\left(u_n\right)$ in $E$ such that $I_\mu^{\prime}\left(u_n\right) \rightarrow 0$ and $I_\mu\left(u_n\right) \rightarrow c_\mu$.

Then they assume that $u_n$ converges weakly in $E$ and almost everywhere to a function $u$, and proved that $e^{2 m u_n}$ and $e^{2 m u}$ are uniformly bounded in $L^4$.

My question arises in the next step, they wrote that :

by dominated convergence one has for $N>0$ $$\tag{1} \min \left\{e^{2 m u_n}, N\right\} \rightarrow \min \left\{e^{2 m u}, N\right\} \quad \text { in } L^2\left(M, d \mu_g\right) $$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$ and that $$ \sup _{n \in \mathbb{N}}\left\|\min \left\{e^{2 m u_n}, N\right\}-e^{2 m u_n}\right\|_{L^2}^2 \leq \frac{1}{N^2} \sup _{n \in \mathbb{N}}\left\|e^{2 m u_n}\right\|_{L^4}^4 \rightarrow 0 \quad \text { as } N \rightarrow \infty, $$ we infer that $e^{2 m u_n} \rightarrow e^{2 m u}$ in $L^2$.

I wonder why they need to choose a $N$ and wrote (1) ? Actually I don't even know how the dominated convergence is used here.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

As your title suggests, the dominated convergence theorem is a powerful tool, which often we can apply to cases to where the assumption of domination is not directly verified, or nor immediate to verify .

Let's call $f_n$ the non-negative function $f_n:=e^{2mu_n}$. The first statement is a direct application of the dominated convergence theorem: since $f_n$ converges a.e. to $f:=e^{2mu}$, for every given $N$ the sequence $f_n\wedge N$ converges a.e. to $f\wedge N$, and it is dominated by the constant function $N$ (which is in $L^2(M)$, just because here $M$ has finite measure). Therefore, $f_n\to f $ in $L^2(M)$. For the other statement, note that, since, quite obviously, $f_n>N$ in the set where $f_n$ is larger than $N$,

$$\|f_n\wedge N- f_n\|_2^2=\int_{\{f_n>N\}}f_n^2dx\le \int_{\{f_n>N\}}\frac{f_n^2}{N^2} f_n^2dx\le \frac1{N^2}\|f_n\|^4_4.$$ If now the conclusion is not clear to you, write
$$\|f-f_n\|_2\le \|f-f\wedge N\|_2+\|f\wedge N-f_n\wedge N\|_2+\|f_n\wedge N-f_n\|_2\le$$$$\le \|f-f\wedge N\|_2+\|f\wedge N-f_n\wedge N\|_2+\frac1N \sup_{n\in\mathbb N}\|f_n\|^2_4$$ which is true for every $n>0$ and every $N>0$. Keep $N$ fixed and let $n\to\infty$, so by the first statement the middle term vanishes in the limit, and this yields to $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\|f-f_n\|_2\le \|f-f\wedge N\|_2+\frac1N \sup_{n\in\mathbb N}\|f_n\|^2_4.$$ Since this is true for all $N>0$, you can take the infimum of the RHS, which is $0$, proving $f_n\to f$ in $L^2(M)$.

$$*$$

[edit] A more general statement: For a finite measure $\mu$, for $1<p\le \infty$, and for a bounded sequence $(u_n)_{n\ge0}\subset L^p(X,\mu)$ converging a.e. to $u$, one has $u_n\to u$ in $L^q$ for all $q<p$. One can prove it analogously --you can also easily reduce to the case $u_n\ge0$, $u=0$, $q=1$. (Incidentally, also $u_n\to u$ weakly* $L^p$).

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Here I'm referring to the dominated convergence in $L^p$ spaces, for $p=2$: for a sequence $(f_j)_{j\ge0}\subset L^p$, convergence a.e. to $f$ and $|f_j|\le g\in L^p$ implies convergence to $f$ in $L^p$ norm. This is a plain consequence of the case of $L^1$; it holds true for every $1\le p<\infty$. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 28, 2023 at 15:54
2
$\begingroup$

Given that $u_n$ converges almost everywhere (a.e.) to $u$, we have $$\big(\min (e^{2mu_n},N)-\min(e^{2mu},N)\big)^2\to0$$ a.e. (as $n\to\infty$). Also, $$\big|\big(\min (e^{2mu_n},N)-\min(e^{2mu},N)\big)^2\big|\le N^2$$ and $\int_M N^2\,d\mu_g<\infty$ (provided that the measure $\mu_g$ is finite). So, by dominated convergence $$\int_M d\mu_g\, \big(\min (e^{2mu_n},N)-\min(e^{2mu},N)\big)^2\to0; $$ that is, $\min (e^{2mu_n},N)\to\min(e^{2mu},N)$ in $L^2(M,\mu_g)$.


Here, given that the $e^{2 m u_n}$'s are uniformly bounded in $L^4$, essentially the paper proves a special case of the de la Vallée-Poussin theorem; cf. relation to convergence of random variables.

$\endgroup$

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.