Viscosity solutions to complex Hessian equations

The proof can be found in [CIL92]. For convenience, we reproduce it here. Observe that if z_j\to z then

Fix x_0\in \Omega and q a \mathcal{C}^2 function in a neighborhood of x_0, say B(x_0,r)\subset \Omega which touches \varphi from above at x_0. We can choose a sequence (x_j)\subset B=\bar{B}(x_0,r/2) converging to x_0 and a subsequence of (\varphi_j) (still denoted by (\varphi_j)) such that

Fix \epsilon>0. For each j, let y_j be the maximum point of \varphi_j-q-\epsilon\vert x-x_0\vert^2 on B. Then

We claim that y_j\to x_0. Indeed, assume that y_j\to y\in B. Letting j\to +\infty in (Proof) and noting that \limsup\varphi_j(y_j)\leq \varphi(y), we get

Remember that q touches \varphi above in B at x_0 and y\in B. Thus, the above inequality implies that y=x_0, which means y_j\to x_0. Then again by (Proof) we deduce that \varphi_j(y_j)\to \varphi(x_0).

For j large enough, the function

touches \varphi_j from above at y_j. Thus

It suffices now to let j\to+\infty.

Assume that u is m-subharmonic in \Omega and let u_{\epsilon} be its standard smooth regularization. Then u_{\epsilon} is m-subharmonic and smooth, hence u_{\epsilon} is a classical subsolution of (3.7). Thus, it follows from Lemma 3.6 that u is a viscosity subsolution of (3.7).

Conversely, assume that u is a viscosity subsolution of (3.7). Fix \alpha_1,...,\alpha_{m-1} m-positive (1,1)-forms with constant coefficients such that

is strictly positive. Let x_0\in \Omega and q\in \mathcal{C}^2(V_{x_0}) such that u-q has a local maximum at x_0. Then for any \epsilon>0, q+\epsilon \vert z-z_0\vert^2 also touches u from above. By the definition of viscosity subsolutions, we have

which means that the Hessian matrix \dfrac{\partial^2q }{\partial z_j\partial \bar{z}_k}(x_0) is m-positive. Hence

holds at x_0.

This implies L_{\alpha} u\geq 0 in the viscosity sense. In appropriate complex coordinates this constant coefficient differential operator is the Laplace operator. Hence, [Hor94] Proposition 3.2.10’ p. 147 implies that u is L_{\alpha}-subharmonic hence is L^1_{\rm loc}(V_{x_0}) and satisfies L_{\alpha} u\geq 0 in the sense of distributions. Since \alpha_1,...,\alpha_{m-1} were taken arbitrarily, by continuity we have

in the sense of distributions for any m-positive (1,1)-forms \alpha. Therefore, u is m-subharmonic.

For each j, set

Since the notion of viscosity subsolution is stable under taking the maximum, we deduce that v_l is a viscosity subsolution of (3.6). Observe that u_j=(\sup_{l\geq 0} v_l)^* and the sequence (v_l) is monotone. It follows from what we have done before that u_j is a viscosity subsolution of (3.6). By Lemma 3.7 each \varphi_j is m-subharmonic. Hence, u_j\downarrow \varphi and the proof is complete.

We follow [EGZ11].

Proof of (i): Let x_0\in \Omega and assume that q is a \mathcal{C}^2 functions which touches \varphi from above at x_0. Suppose that H_m(q(x_0))<f(x_0)\beta^n. There exists \epsilon>0 such that H_m(q_{\epsilon})<f\beta^n in a neighborhood of x_0 since f is continuous, here q_{\epsilon}=q+\epsilon \vert z-x_0\vert^2. It follows from the proof of Lemma 3.7 that q_{\epsilon} is m-subharmonic in a neighborhood of x_0, say B. Now, for \delta>0 small enough, we have q_{\epsilon}-\delta \geq \varphi on \partial B but it fails at x_0 which contradicts the potential comparison principle (see Theorem 1.14 and Corollary 1.15 in [Cuo12]).

Proof of (ii): We proceed steps by steps.

Step 1: Assume that 0<f is smooth. Let x_0\in \Omega and assume that q is a \mathcal{C}^2 functions which touches \varphi from above at x_0. Fix \alpha_1,...,\alpha_{m-1}\in U_m.

We can find h\in \mathcal{C}^2(\{x_0\}) such that L_{\alpha} h=f^{1/m}\beta^n. As in the proof of Lemma 3.7, we can prove that \varphi-h is L_{\alpha}-subharmonic, which gives L_{\alpha} \varphi \geq L_{\alpha} h=f^{1/m}\beta^n in the potential sense.

Consider the standard regularization \varphi_{\epsilon} of \varphi by convolution with a smoothing kernel. Then

in the potential sense and hence in the usual sense. Now, use Lemma 3.9, we obtain

Letting \epsilon \to 0 and noting that the Hessian operator is continuous under decreasing sequence, we get

Step 2: Assume that 0<f is only continuous. Note that

Now, if H_m(\varphi)\geq f\beta^n in the viscosity sense then we also have H_m(\varphi)\geq h\beta^n in the viscosity sense provided that f\geq h. Thus, by Step 1,

for every 0<h\leq f\in \mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\Omega). This yields

in the viscosity sense.

Step 3: 0\leq f is merely continuous. We consider \varphi_{\epsilon}=\varphi+\epsilon \vert z\vert^2. Then

in the viscosity sense. By Step 2 we have

in the potential sense and the result follows by letting \epsilon go to 0.

Let us prove the first implication. Assume that (3.11) holds in the viscosity sense. Consider the sup-convolution of \varphi:

where \Omega_{\delta}:=\{x\in \Omega \ /\ d(x,\partial \Omega)>A\delta\}, and the positive constant A is chosen so that A^2>\text{osc}_{\Omega}\varphi. Then \varphi^{\delta}\downarrow \varphi and as in [Ish89] (see also [EGZ11]) it can be shown that

in the viscosity sense, where F_{\delta}(x,t)=\inf_{\vert y-x\vert\leq A\delta} F(y,t).

It follows from Proposition 3.10 that (Proof) holds in the potential sense and the result follows by letting \delta go to 0.

Let us prove the other implication. Suppose that \varphi satisfies (3.11) in the potential sense. As in [EGZ11] it can be shown that

in the potential sense. Now, applying Proposition ? to \varphi^{\delta} we see that (?) holds in the viscosity sense. It suffices to let \delta\to 0.

By considering u-\epsilon, \epsilon>0 and then letting \epsilon\to 0 noting that F is non-decreasing in the second variable, we can assume that u<v near the boundary of \Omega. Assume by contradiction that there exists x_0\in \Omega such that

Let u^{\epsilon}, v_{\epsilon} be the sup-convolution and inf-convolution (which is defined similarly as in (Proof)). They are semiconvex and semiconcave functions respectively. By Dini’s Lemma w_{\epsilon}:=v_{\epsilon}-u_{\epsilon}\geq 0 near the boundary \partial \Omega for \epsilon>0 small enough. Thus, we can fix some open subset U\Subset \Omega such that w_{\epsilon}\geq 0 on \Omega\setminus U.

Fix \epsilon>0 small enough. Denote by E_{\epsilon} the set of all points in U where w_{\epsilon},u^{\epsilon},v_{\epsilon} are punctually second order differentiable. Then by Theorem 4.3, the Lebesgue measure of U\setminus E_{\epsilon} is 0. Fix some r>0 such that \Omega\subset B_r\subset B_{2r}. Define

Since w_{\epsilon}\geq 0 on \partial U and w_{\epsilon}(x_0)\leq a<0, using Alexandroff-Bakelman-Pucci (ABP) estimate (see also [YW10, Lemma 4.7]) we can find x_{\epsilon}\in E_{\epsilon} such that

(i) w_{\epsilon}(x_{\epsilon})=G_{\epsilon}(x_{\epsilon})<0,

(ii) G_{\epsilon} is punctually second order differentiable at x_{\epsilon} and det_{\mathbb{R}}(D^2 G_{\epsilon}(x_{\epsilon}))\geq \delta, where \delta>0 depends only on a,n and diam(\Omega).

Since G_{\epsilon} is convex, we also have det_{\mathbb{C}} (dd^c G_{\epsilon})(x_{\epsilon})\geq \delta^{1/2}. It follows from Gårding’s inequality [Ga59] that

where \delta_1 does not depend on \epsilon. On the other hand,

Moreover G_{\epsilon}+u^{\epsilon} touches v_{\epsilon} from below at x_{\epsilon}. Since G_{\epsilon}+u^{\epsilon} is m-subharmonic and punctually second order differentiable at x_{\epsilon} it follows that

Since F is non-decreasing in the second variable and since w_{\epsilon}(x_{\epsilon})<0, the above inequality implies that

where \delta_2>0 is another constant which does not depend on \epsilon. Letting \epsilon\to 0, after a subsequence if necessary we obtain a contradiction.

Assume that \varphi is (\omega,m)-subharmonic and let \varphi_{\epsilon} be the smooth regularizing sequence of \varphi as in [Chi12]. Then \varphi_{\epsilon} is (\omega,m)-subharmonic in the viscosity sense.

Fix x_0\in X, \delta>0 and q a \mathcal{C}^2 function which touches \varphi from above at x_0. Let B be a small closed ball where the touching appears and let x_{\epsilon} be a maximum point of \varphi_{\epsilon}-q-\delta \rho in B. Here \rho=\vert z-x_0\vert^2. Then due to the uniform convergence of \varphi_{\epsilon} and Dini’s Lemma we have x_{\epsilon}\to x_0 as \epsilon\downarrow 0. Also, for small \epsilon>0, q+\delta\rho+\varphi_{\epsilon}(x_{\epsilon})-q(x_{\epsilon}) touches \varphi_{\epsilon} from above at x_{\epsilon}. This implies that

holds at x_{\epsilon} which, in turn, implies one implication by letting \epsilon\downarrow 0 and \delta\downarrow 0.

Let us prove the other implication. Assume that \varphi satisfies (5.1) in the viscosity sense. Fix \alpha=\alpha_1\wedge...\wedge\alpha_{m-1}, where \alpha_i are smooth (\omega,m)-positive closed (1,1)-forms. By Gårding’s inequality we see that

in the viscosity sense. Thanks to [HKM93, Corollary 7.20] the same arguments as in [Hor94, page 147] show that the above inequality also holds in the sense of currents. Thus, \varphi is (\omega,m)-subharmonic.

Set

Assume that \varphi satisfies (5.2) in the potential sense. Let x_0\in X and q\in \mathcal{C}^2(U) which touches \varphi from above at x_0 in U, a small neighborhood of x_0. Suppose by contradiction that

holds at x_0. Then for \epsilon small enough we have

in a small ball B containing x_0. Here q_{\epsilon}=q+\epsilon\vert x-x_0\vert^2 defined in a local chart near x_0. Since q touches \varphi from above at x_0 in B, we can find \delta>0 small enough such that q_{\epsilon}-\delta\geq \varphi on \partial B. But q_{\epsilon}(x_0)-\delta< \varphi(x_0) which contradicts the potential comparison principle.

Now, we prove the other implication. Assume that \varphi satisfies (5.2) in the viscosity sense. Then from Proposition 5.1 we see that \varphi is (\omega,m)-subharmonic.

We consider two cases.

Case 1: F does not depend on the second variable. We denote f (x) = F (x,0) for x \in X.

We first treat the case when f>0 . Fix \tilde{f} a smooth function such that 0<\tilde{f}\leq f. Then \varphi satisfies

in the viscosity sense.

Fix \alpha=\alpha_1\wedge...\wedge\alpha_{m-1}, where \alpha_i are smooth (\omega,m)-positive closed (1,1)-forms and set

From Gårding’s inequality we see that

in the viscosity sense. As in the proof of Proposition 5.1 it also holds in the potential sense. Let \varphi_{\epsilon} be the smooth regularization of \varphi constructed in [Chi12]. We claim that

in the usual sense pointwise on X. Indeed, recall the definition of \varphi_{\epsilon}:

where by \mathcal{L}_g we denote the left translation by g, i.e \mathcal{L}_g(x)=g.x, \ \forall x\in X. We compute

Thus, the claim is proved. By choosing \alpha_j=(\omega+dd^c\varphi_{\epsilon}),\ j=1,...,m-1 it follows that

By letting \epsilon\downarrow 0 we get

in the potential sense. Since \tilde{f} was chosen arbitrarily, we deduce that

in the viscosity sense.

If 0\leq f is continuous we consider \varphi_t:=(1-t)\varphi+t\psi where \psi is a smooth strictly (\omega,m)-subharmonic function and 0<t<1. Then for each fixed t\in (0,1), \varphi_t satisfies

in the viscosity sense with f_t continuous and strictly positive:

We then can apply what we have done above to infer that \varphi_t verifies (?) in the potential sense. It suffices now to let t\downarrow 0.

Case 2: F depends on the second variable. Since \varphi is continuous, the function f: X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}, f(x)= F(x,\varphi(x)) is continuous. We can apply Case 1 to complete the proof.

We only need to prove the result for u^{\epsilon} since for v_{\epsilon} it follows similarly. Consider a smooth section s: \Omega \rightarrow K such that \pi\circ s(x)=x, \forall x\in \Omega, where \pi is the projection of K onto X.

For simplicity we identify a point in \Omega with its image in B(0,2).

Put

where C>0 is a big constant to be specified later.

We claim that for any x\in B(0,1) there exists \delta>0 such that

It is classical that this property implies the convexity of \rho. Let us prove the claim. Let x_0\in B(0,1) and y_0=g_0.x_0 be such that

By considering \epsilon>0 small enough we can assume that y_0\in B(0,3/2). For h\in \mathbb{C}^{n} small enough such that x_0+h, x_0-h\in B(0,1), set

Then it is easy to see that \theta(h).(x_0+h)=y_0. By definition of u^{\epsilon} we thus get

and

From (?), (?) and (?) we obtain

Since s is smooth and K is compact we can choose C>0 big enough (does not depend on x_0) such that

for h\in \mathbb{C}^n small enough. This proves the claim. The last statement follows from Alexandroff-Buselman-Feller’s theorem (Theorem 4.3).

We only need to prove the first assertion since the second one follows similarly. Let q be a function of class \mathcal{C}^2 in a neighborhood of x_0\in X that touches u^{\epsilon} from above at x_0. Let g_0\in K be such that

Consider the function Q defined by

Then Q touches u from above at g_0.x_0. Since u is a subsolution of (?), we have

Since \mathcal{L}^*_{g_0}\omega=\omega we get

From the definition of u^{\epsilon} we know that u^{\epsilon}(x_0)=u(g_0.x_0)-\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}d^2(g_0,e)\geq u(x_0). Thus d(g_0,e)\leq \epsilon\sqrt{\text{osc}(u)} and the result follows.

We consider the sup-convolution and inf-convolution of u,v as in (?) and (?). These functions read in local coordinates as semiconvex and semiconcave functions which are punctually second order differentiable almost everywhere. For each \epsilon>0 let x_\epsilon be a maximum point of u^\epsilon-v_\epsilon on X.

We first treat the case when u^{\epsilon}, v_\epsilon are punctually second order differentiable at x_\epsilon. In this case, by the classical maximum principle we have

The form (\omega+ dd^c u^{\epsilon}) is (\omega,m)-positive at x_{\epsilon}. Thus,

and hence Lemma 5.4 yields

We can assume that x_\epsilon\to x_0\in X. By extracting a subsequence (twice), there exists a sequence \epsilon_j\downarrow 0 such that

converge when j\to+\infty. We thus deduce from (?) that

Since F is increasing in the second variable the latter implies that

Since u^{\epsilon}\downarrow u and v_{\epsilon}\uparrow v we have

Then (?) implies that \sup_X(u-v)\leq 0.

Now, if u^{\epsilon}, v_\epsilon are not punctually second order differentiable at x_\epsilon for fixed \epsilon, we proceed as in [EGZ11] to prove that (?) still holds. Consider a local holomorphic chart centered at x_\epsilon. For simplicity we identify a point near x_{\epsilon} with its image in \mathbb{C}^n. For each k\in \mathbb{N}^*, the semiconvex function u^{\epsilon}-v_{\epsilon}-\frac{1}{2k}\Vert x-x_{\epsilon}\Vert^2 attains its strict maximum at x_{\epsilon}. By Jensen’s lemma ([Jen88]; see also [CIL92, Lemma A.3, page 60]), there exist sequences (p_k), (y_k) converging to 0 and x_{\epsilon} respectively such that the functions u^{\epsilon}, v_\epsilon are punctually second order differentiable at y_k and the function

attains its local maximum at y_k. We thus get

Since v_\epsilon is semi-concave, and u^{\epsilon} is (\omega,m)-subharmonic we get

This together with (5.4) and (5.4) yield

Now, let k\to +\infty we obtain (?) which completes the proof.