Nonlocal Lagrange multipliers and transport densities

Assis Azevedo, José Francisco Rodrigues and Lisa Santos

arXiv: 2208.14274v2 · PDF · 21 October 2023
Categories: math.AP
Licence: CC0 1.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

We prove the existence of generalised solutions of the Monge-Kantorovich equations with fractional s-gradient constraint, 0<s<1, associated to a general, possibly degenerate, linear fractional operator of the type,

\mathscr L^su=-D^s\cdot(AD^su+\bs b\,u)+\bs d\cdot D^su+c\,u ,

with integrable data, in the space \Lambda^{s,p}_0(\Omega), which is the completion of the set of smooth functions with compact support in a bounded domain \Omega for the L^p-norm of the distributional Riesz fractional gradient D^s in \R^d (when s=1, D^1=D is the classical gradient). The transport densities arise as generalised Lagrange multipliers in the dual space of L^\infty(\R^d) and are associated to the variational inequalities of the corresponding transport potentials under the constraint |D^su|\leq g. Their existence is shown by approximating the variational inequality through a penalisation of the constraint and nonlinear regularisation of the linear operator \mathscr L^su. For this purpose, we also develop some relevant properties of the spaces \Lambda^{s,p}_0(\Omega), including the limit case p=\infty and the continuous embeddings \Lambda^{s,q}_0(\Omega)\subset \Lambda^{s,p}_0(\Omega), for 1\le p\le q\le\infty. We also show the localisation of the nonlocal problems (0<s<1), to the local limit problem with classical gradient constraint when s\rightarrow1, for which most results are also new for a general, possibly degenerate, partial differential operator \mathscr L^1u only with integrable coefficients and bounded gradient constraint.

Items 45

Lemma

Lemma 2.1

WSND

Let I_\alpha be the Riesz kernel, 0<\alpha<1, p\in(1,\infty) and R>0. Then, denoting by \sigma_{d-1} the surface area of the unit sphere in \mathbb{R}^d, we have:

(i) \|I_\alpha\|_{L^1(B(0,R))}=\sigma_{d-1}\frac{\gamma_{d,\alpha}}{\alpha}R^\alpha;
(ii) If \alpha p<d then \|I_\alpha\|_{L^{p'}(\mathbb{R}^d\setminus B(0,R))}=\gamma_{d,\alpha}\Big(\sigma_{d-1}\frac{p-1}{d-\alpha p}\Big)^{\frac{1}{p'}}R^\frac{\alpha p-d}{p}.

As a consequence \displaystyle\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow 0}\|I_\alpha\|_{L^1(B(0,R))}=1 and \displaystyle\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow 0}\|I_\alpha\|_{L^{p'}(\mathbb{R}^d\setminus B(0,R))}=0.

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 2.1

We start by noticing that, if b\neq d, 0\leq R_1\leq R_2<+\infty, then

\int_{B(0,R_2)\setminus B(0,R_1)}\frac{1}{|x|^b}dx = \sigma_{d-1}\int_{R_1}^{R_2} r^{d-1-b}dr = \sigma_{d-1}\bigg[\frac{R_2^{d-b}}{d-b}-\frac{R_1^{d-b}}{d-b}\bigg].

Considering first b=d-\alpha, R_2=R and R_1=0 we obtain (i). Then choosing b=(d-a)\frac{p}{p-1}, R_1=R we obtain (ii) by letting R_2\rightarrow\infty and noticing that a p<d or equivalently d-b<0.

Since

\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow0} \frac{\gamma_{d,\alpha}}{\alpha}=\lim_{\alpha\longrightarrow0}\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d-\alpha}2)}{\pi^\frac{d}22^{\alpha+1}\frac{a}{2}\Gamma(\frac{\alpha}{2})}=\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow0}\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d-\alpha}2)}{\pi^\frac{d}22^{\alpha+1}\Gamma(\frac{\alpha}{2}+1)}=\frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}2)}{2\pi^\frac{d}2}=\frac{1}{\sigma_{d-1}},

the conclusions follows.

Theorem

Theorem 2.2

VKK0

If g\in L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)\cap L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)\cap C(\mathbb{R}^d), for p>1, is uniformly continuous in \mathbb{R}^d, then

\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow 0}\|I_\alpha * g-g\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}=0.

Proof of Theorem 2.2

Let \varepsilon>0 and 0<\delta<1 be such that

|z-x|\leq \delta\ \Rightarrow\ |g(z)-g(x)|\leq \varepsilon,\quad \forall x,z\in\mathbb{R}^d.

Using Lemma 2.1 consider \alpha_0 such that, for 0<\alpha<\alpha_0,

\big|\|I_\alpha\|_{L^1(B(0,\delta))}-1\big|\leq \varepsilon, \quad \|I_\alpha\|_{L^{p'}(\mathbb{R}^d\setminus B(0,\delta))}\leq \varepsilon.

Then, for all x\in\mathbb{R}^d,

\begin{aligned} (I_\alpha * g)(x)-g(x)=& \int_{B(0,\delta)}I_\alpha (y) g(x-y)\,dy+\int_{\mathbb{R}^d\setminus B(0,\delta)}I_\alpha (y) g(x-y)\,dy -g(x)\\ =& \int_{B(0,\delta)}I_\alpha (y)( g(x-y)-g(x))\,dy+ g(x)\Big(\int_{B(0,\delta)}I_\alpha (y) \,dy-1\Big)\\ &+ \int_{\mathbb{R}^d\setminus B(0,\delta)}I_\alpha (y) g(x-y)\,dy. \end{aligned}

Hence

\begin{aligned} |(I_\alpha * g)(x)-g(x)|\leq& \varepsilon \|I_\alpha\|_{L^1(B(0,\delta))}+\|g\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}\big(\|I_\alpha\|_{L^1(B(0,\delta))}-1\big)\\ &\hspace{3mm}+\|I_\alpha\|_{L^{p'}(\mathbb{R}^d\setminus B(0,\delta))}\|g\|_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)}\\ \leq & \varepsilon^2+\varepsilon\big(\|g\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}+\|g\|_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)}\big) \end{aligned}

and the conclusion follows.

Uses Lemma 2.1

Corollary

Corollary 2.3

HPC0

For w\in C^1_c(\mathbb{R}^d) we have

D^sw\underset{s\rightarrow1}{\longrightarrow}Dw\quad \text{in $\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)$.}

Used by Proof

Remark

Remark 2.4

O0FF

The convergence in (2.3) has been shown with a different proof for functions in C^2_c(\mathbb{R}^d) and, if w\in W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d), also in \boldsymbol L^p(\mathbb{R}^d) for 1\leq p< \infty, respectively in Proposition 4.4 and in Theorem 4.11 of [ComiStefani2019]. This property can be seen as a localization of the fractional gradient. It has also been shown for functions in W^{1,p}(\mathbb{R}^d) for 1<p<\infty, in [BellidoCuetoMora-Corral2021, Theorem 3.2].

Remark

Remark 2.5

1G6J

For u\in C^1_c(\Omega), from (?) we easily obtain

|D^s u(x)|\leq \frac{\mu_s }{d(x,\Omega)^{d+s}}\|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)}, \quad \forall x\in\mathbb{R}^d\setminus \overline{\Omega},

and, consequently, for all R>0

\lim_{s\rightarrow 1}\|D^s u\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d\setminus\Omega_R)}=0.

Used by Proof

Proposition

Proposition 2.6

D12F

Let \Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^d be a bounded open set. Then there exists a constant C_0=C_0(\Omega,d)>0 such that, for all 0<s<1 and 1\leq p\leq \infty,

\|u\|_{L^p(\Omega)}\le \tfrac{C_0}{s}\|D^s u\|_{\boldsymbol L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)},\quad \forall u\in \Lambda^{s,p}_0(\Omega).

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof

Proof of Proposition 2.6

For 1<p<\infty, this is Theorem 2.9 of [BellidoCuetoMora-Corral2021], but the same proof is still valid for p=1. Since C_0 is independent of p, the case p=\infty is obtained by letting p\rightarrow \infty in (2.6).

Theorem

Theorem 2.7

N6OA

Let \Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^d be a bounded open set, p\in[1,\infty) and 0<s<1. Then there exists a positive constant C=\big(1+\frac{1}{(p-1)d+ps}\big)C(d,\Omega), such that, for R\geq 1,

\int_{\mathbb{R}^d\setminus \Omega_R}|D^s u(x)|^pdx\leq \frac{\mu_s^pC}{R^{(p-1)d+ps}} \|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)}^p, \quad \forall u\in\Lambda_0^{s,p}(\Omega).

As a consequence, the following inclusions hold

\Lambda_0^{s,q}(\Omega)\subseteq \Lambda_0^{s,p}(\Omega),\quad 1\leq p< q<\infty,

and are continuous, since there exists C_{p,q}>0 such that

\|D^s u\|_{\boldsymbol L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq C_{p,q} \|D^s u\|_{\boldsymbol L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)},\quad u\in \Lambda_0^{s,q}(\Omega).

In addition, C_{1,q}=\frac{E}{s}, where E is independent of s, and C_{p,q} is independent of s, if p>1.

Used by Proof, Remark 2.10, Remark 2.11, Proof, Proof

Proof of Theorem 2.7

It is enough to consider u\in C^\infty_c(\Omega). If \delta(\Omega) denotes the diameter of \Omega, consider S=\frac{1}{2}\delta(\Omega)+R and z such that \Omega_R\subseteq B(z,S). Consider the annulus A_n=B(z,S+n+1)\setminus B(z,S+n), for each n\in\mathbb{N}_0.

Letting \omega_d=\big|B(0,1)\big| and \mu_s be as in (?), we have

\begin{aligned} \tfrac{1}{\mu_s^p} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d\setminus B(z,S)}|D^s u(x)|^pdx \leq&\int_{\mathbb{R}^d\setminus B(z,S)}\bigg|\int_\Omega \tfrac{|u(y)|}{|x-y|^{d+s}}dy\bigg|^pdx\\ =& \sum_{n=0}^\infty\int_{A_n}\bigg(\int_\Omega \tfrac{|u(y)|}{|x-y|^{d+s}}\,dy\bigg)^pdx\\ \leq& \sum_{n=0}^\infty\int_{A_n}\bigg(\int_\Omega \tfrac{|u(y)|}{(n+R)^{d+s}}\,dy\bigg)^pdx\\ =& \sum_{n=0}^\infty\tfrac{\omega_d\big[(S+n+1)^d-(S+n)^d\big]}{(n+R)^{p(d+s)}} \|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)}^p. \end{aligned}

By the Lagrange theorem, there exists \nu\in(n,n+1) such that (n+1+S)^d-(n+S)^d=d(\nu+S)^{d-1}\leq d(n+1+S)^{d-1} and then, as S\geq 1 and n+R\geq\frac{R}{S}(n+S),

\begin{aligned} \tfrac{1}{\mu_s^p} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d\setminus B(z,S)} & |D^s u(x)|^p dx \leq d\left(\tfrac{S}{R}\right)^{p(d+s)} \omega_d\sum_{n=0}^\infty \big(\tfrac{n+1+S}{n+S}\big)^{d-1}\frac{1}{(n+S)^{(p-1)d+ps+1}} \|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)}^p\\ &\leq d\left(\tfrac{S}{R}\right)^{p(d+s)} \omega_d2^{d-1}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{(n+S)^{(p-1)d+ps+1}} \|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)}^p\\ &\leq d\left(\tfrac{S}{R}\right)^{p(d+s)} \omega_d2^{d-1}\bigg[ \frac{1}{S^{(p-1)d+ps+1}}+\int_S^\infty \frac{1}{x^{(p-1)d+ps+1}}\,dx\bigg] \|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)}^p\\ &= d\left(\tfrac{S}{R}\right)^{p(d+s)} \omega_d2^{d-1}\bigg[\frac{1}{S^{(p-1)d+ps+1}}+\frac{1}{(p-1)d+ps}\frac{1}{S^{(p-1)d+ps}}\bigg] \|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)}^p\\ &\leq d\left(\tfrac{S}{R}\right)^{p(d+s)} \omega_d2^{d-1}\bigg(1+\frac{1}{(p-1)d+ps}\bigg)\frac{1}{S^{(p-1)d+ps}}\|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)}^p\\ &= d\left(\tfrac{S}{R}\right)^d \omega_d2^{d-1}\bigg(1+\frac{1}{(p-1)d+ps}\bigg)\frac{1}{R^{(p-1)d+ps}} \|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)}^p. \end{aligned}

On the other hand,

\begin{aligned} \tfrac{1}{\mu_s^p} \int_{B(z,S)\setminus \Omega_R}|D^s u(x)|^pdx \leq &\int_{B(z,S)\setminus \Omega_R}\bigg(\int_\Omega \tfrac{|u(y)|}{|x-y|^{d+s}}\,dy\bigg)^pdx\\ \leq&\int_{B(z,S)\setminus \Omega_R}\bigg(\int_\Omega \tfrac{|u(y)|}{R^{d+s}}\,dy\bigg)^pdx\\ \leq& \omega_d\big(\tfrac{S}{R}\big)^d \tfrac{1}{R^{(p-1)d+ps}} \|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)}^p. \end{aligned}

As \frac{S}{R}\leq 1+\tfrac{1}{2}\delta(\Omega) we have

\tfrac{1}{\mu_s^p} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d\setminus \Omega_R}|D^s u(x)|^pdx\leq \omega_d\big(1+\tfrac{1}{2}\delta(\Omega)\big)^d\left[d2^{d-1}\bigg(1+\frac{1}{(p-1)d+ps}\bigg)+1\right] \frac{1}{R^{(p-1)d+ps}} \|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)}^p,

from where we obtain (2.7).

For the inclusion (2.7), by considering R=1, there exists C_1 such that

\begin{aligned} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|D^s u(x)|^pdx & = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d\setminus \Omega_1}|D^s u(x)|^pdx+ \int_{\Omega_1}|D^s u(x)|^pdx\\ & \leq C\mu_s^p\|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)}^p+|\Omega_1|^{\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}}\|D^s u\|_{\boldsymbol L^q(\Omega_1)}^p\\ & \leq C(\max_{s\in[0,1)}\mu_s^p)\,|\Omega|^{\frac{1}{q'}}\|u\|_{L^q(\Omega)}^p+|\Omega_1|^{\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}}\|D^s u\|_{\boldsymbol L^q(\Omega_1)}^p\\ & \leq C_1 \|u\|_{\Lambda_0^{s,q}}^p \end{aligned}

by using Poincaré inequality (2.6), yielding the conclusion.

Uses Proposition 2.6

Proposition

Proposition 2.8

XQK0

There exists a constant C_{p,\infty}>0, which is independent of s\in [\sigma,1) for each \sigma>0, such that (2.7) holds for q=\infty. In particular the inclusion

\Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega)\subset \Lambda^{s,p}_0(\Omega)

is continuous for all p\geq 1, and \Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega) is a Banach space.

Proof of Proposition 2.8

From Theorem 2.7, for R\geq 1 there exists C>0 independent of R, such that for all u\in \Lambda_0^{s,\infty}(\Omega),

\begin{aligned} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|D^s u(x)|^pdx &\leq\int_{\Omega_R}|D^s u(x)|^pdx+\frac{C\mu_s^p}{R^{(p-1)d+ps}} \|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)}^p\\ &\leq |\Omega_R|\|D^s u\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}^p+\frac{C\mu_s^p|\Omega|^{p-1}}{R^{(p-1)d+ps}} \|u\|_{L^p(\Omega)}^p\\ &\leq |\Omega_R|\|D^s u\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}^p+\frac{C_0^p}{s^p}\frac{C\mu_s^p|\Omega|^{p-1}}{R^{(p-1)d+ps}} \|D^su\|_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^n)}^p \end{aligned}

by (2.6). Choosing

R=\max\left\{1,\left(\frac{2C_0^pC\mu_s^p|\Omega|^{p-1}}{s^p}\right)^{\frac{1}{(p-1)d+ps}}\right\}

we obtain

\|D^su\|_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq 2^{\frac{1}{p}} |\Omega_R|^{\frac{1}{p}} \|D^s u\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)},

which yields the continuity of the embedding \Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega)\subset \Lambda^{s,p}_0(\Omega).

Finally, since a Cauchy sequence (u_n) in \Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega) is also, for all 1<p<\infty, a Cauchy sequence in the nested Banach spaces \Lambda^{s,p}_0(\Omega), its common limit u\in{\bigcap_{1<p<\infty}\Lambda^{s,p}_0(\Omega)}. As D^s u_n are uniformly bounded, then D^s u is bounded, and therefore u\in\Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega).

Uses Theorem 2.7, Proposition 2.6

Remark

Remark 2.9

CTTO

The inclusion (2.7) was also obtained independently in [Campos2021, Corollary 2.4.1], as a consequence of an interesting variant of the Poincaré inequality, see [Campos2021, Theorem 2.4.3], for some constant C_1=C_1(\Omega,\Omega_1,d)>0,

\|u\|_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq \tfrac{C_1}{s}\|D^su\|_{\boldsymbol L^p(\Omega_1)},\quad \forall u\in \Lambda_0^{s,p}(\Omega),

for an open set \Omega_1\supset B(0,2R)\supset \Omega, with R>1, 1<p<\infty and 0<s<1.

Used by Proof

Remark

Remark 2.10

MSQW

We note that, for p\in[1,\infty) we have the inclusions W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\subset \Lambda^{s,p}_0(\Omega)\subset\Lambda^{\sigma,p}_0(\Omega), for 0<\sigma<s<1. We may conclude that, as a consequence of (2.7), for R\geq 1, as \displaystyle\lim_{s\rightarrow 1}\mu_s=0,

\lim_{s\rightarrow 1} \|D^s u\|_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^d\setminus\Omega_R)}=0, \quad\forall u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega).

Uses Theorem 2.7

Remark

Remark 2.11

FZMY

Also from Theorem 2.7, for R\ge1 we can take the limit as p\rightarrow\infty in (2.7), to conclude (compare with Remark 2.5):

\|D^su\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d\setminus\Omega_R)}\le\tfrac{\mu_s}{R^{d+s}}\|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)},\quad\forall u\in\Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega),\ 0<s<1.

Uses Theorem 2.7

Remark

Remark 2.12

CFZW

We denote by W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega) the space of Lipschitz functions vanishing on the boundary of \Omega. Extending a function u\in W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega) by zero outside \Omega and using definition (?), we have, for each x\in\mathbb{R}^d,

\begin{aligned}\left|D^s u(x)\right|&\le\mu_s\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|}{|x-y|^{d+s}}\,dy\\ &=\mu_s\|Du\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\Omega)}\int_{\{|x-y|\le 1\}}\frac{dy}{|x-y|^{d+s-1}}+\mu_s\, 2\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\int_{\{|x-y|>1\}}\frac{dy}{|x-y|^{d+s}}\\ &\le\mu_s\,C_s\|Du\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\Omega)}, \end{aligned}

for a finite C_s>0, by the Poincaré inequality and since both integrals are finite for s\in(0,1). Consequently,

W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)\subset\Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega),\quad\forall s\in(0,1).

Used by Proof

Proposition

Proposition 2.13

GLHU

Let 0<s<1, 1<p<\infty and F\in \Lambda^{-s,p'}(\Omega). Then there exist functions f_0\in L^{p'}(\Omega) and f_1,\ldots,f_d\in L^{p'}(\mathbb{R}^d) such that

[F,v]_{s,p}=\int_\Omega f_0v+\sum_{j=1}^d \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}f_jD^s_jv,\quad \forall v\in \Lambda_0^{s,p}(\Omega).

Proposition

Proposition 2.14

ZS2N

Let p>1 and \lambda\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)' be positive. Then

\big|\langle\lambda,\varphi\psi\rangle\big|\le\langle\lambda,|\varphi|^p\rangle^\frac1{p}\langle\lambda,|\psi|^{p'}\rangle^\frac1{p'},\quad\forall \varphi,\psi\in L^\infty(\Omega).

Theorem

Theorem 3.1

JQ0X

Assume (?), and suppose that

i) either assumptions (?), (?), and (?) hold,
ii) or assumptions (?), (?), and (?) hold.

Then, for 0<s\leq 1, there exists a solution of the s-gradient constraint variational inequality

u\in\mathbb{K}^s_g:\qquad\mathscr L^s(u,v-u)\ge[F,v-u]_s,\quad\forall v\in\mathbb{K}_g^s.

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof, Proof

Lemma

Lemma 3.2

JYJD

For 1\leq p\leq \infty and g\in L_{loc}^p(\mathbb{R}^d), with g\geq 0, the set \mathbb{K}^s_g is bounded in \Lambda^{s,p}_0(\Omega). More precisely, there exists R=R(p,s) such that, for u\in\mathbb{K}^s_g,

\|D^s u\|_{\boldsymbol L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)}\le 2^\frac1p \|g\|_{L^p(\Omega_R)},\ \text{if $p<\infty$}, \quad \|D^s u\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq \|g\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_R)}.

Used by Proof, Proof

Proof of Lemma 3.2

By the Theorem 2.7, when p<\infty, choosing R such that \frac{C\mu_s^p}{R^{(p-1)d+ps}}\frac{C_0^p}{s^p}|\Omega|^{p-1}\leq \frac{1}{2}, and using (2.7), we have

\begin{aligned} \|D^s u\|_{\boldsymbol L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)}^p&= \|D^s u\|_{\boldsymbol L^p(\mathbb{R}^d\setminus\Omega_{R})}^p+ \|D^s u\|_{\boldsymbol L^p(\Omega_{R})}^p\ \leq \ \frac{C\mu_s^p}{R^{(p-1)d+ps}}\|u\|_{L^1(\Omega)}^p+\int_{\Omega_{R}}|D^s u|^p\\ &\le\tfrac12 \|D^s u\|_{\boldsymbol L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)}^p+\int_{\Omega_R}g^p, \end{aligned}

from where we obtain the first inequality. Letting p\rightarrow\infty, the second inequality follows.

Uses Theorem 2.7

Proof

VTMV

(of Theorem 3.1) This existence result in the Hilbertian case i) is a consequence of a theorem of H. Brézis (see [{Brezis1968}] or [Lions1969, Theorem 8.1, p. 245]), since \mathbb{K}^s_g is a nonempty, closed and bounded convex set of H^s_0(\Omega) and the operator P:H^s_0(\Omega)\longrightarrow H^{-s}(\Omega) defined by

[Pu,v]_s=\mathscr L^s(u,v)-[F,v]_s,\quad u,v\in\mathbb{K}^s_g

is pseudo-monotone in \mathbb{K}^s_g, i.e., if u_n\underset{n}\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup u in H^s_0(\Omega), for u_n,u\in\mathbb{K}^s_g with \displaystyle\varlimsup_n[Pu_n,u_n-u]_s\le0 then

\varliminf_n[Pu_n,u_n-v]_s\ge[Pu,u-v]_s,\quad\forall v\in\mathbb{K}^s_g.

Indeed, taking u_n\underset{n}\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup u in H^s_0(\Omega), which by compactness of the embedding (?) (for p=2 and 1\le q<2^*=\frac{2d}{d-2s} if 2s<d, for all q\ge1 if 2s=d and for q=\infty if 2s>d), we may assume also that u_n\underset{n}\rightarrow u in L^q(\Omega). Write P in the form

[Pu,w]_s=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}AD^su\cdot D^sw+[Bu,w]_s

with

[Bu,w]_s=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}(\boldsymbol du-\boldsymbol f)\cdot D^sw+\int_\Omega(\boldsymbol b\cdot D^su+cu-f_{\#})w.

It is then clear that the assumptions (?) and (?) imply

[Bu_n,u_n-v]_s\underset{n}{\rightarrow}[Bu,u-v]_s,

as D^su_n\underset{n}\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup D^su in \boldsymbol L^2(\mathbb{R}^d), and we have

\int_\Omega(\boldsymbol b+\boldsymbol d)u_n\cdot D^su_n\underset{n}\longrightarrow\int_\Omega(\boldsymbol b+\boldsymbol d)u\cdot D^su\quad \text{ and }\ \int_\Omega cu_n^2\underset{n}\longrightarrow \int_\Omega cu^2.

Hence (Proof) follows easily by noting that the assumption (?) implies \displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}A D^s(u_n-u)\cdot D^s(u_n-u)\ge 0, and hence it suffices to take the limit inferior in

\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}AD^su_n\cdot D^s u_n\ge\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}AD^su_n\cdot D^su+\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}AD^su\cdot D^su_n-\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}AD^su\cdot D^su.

In the non-Hilbertian case, we start by approximating the data, in the respective spaces, by smooth functions with compact support A_m, \boldsymbol b_m, \boldsymbol d_m, c_m, f_{\# m} and \boldsymbol f_m and we let u_m be a solution of the variational inequality (3.1) with these data, which exists by the previous case.

As (D^su_m)_m is bounded in \boldsymbol L^ \infty(\mathbb{R}^d) by Lemma 3.2, using the compact embedding (?), there exist a u\in\Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega) and a G\in\boldsymbol L^ \infty(\mathbb{R}^d), such that, for some subsequence, u_m\underset m\longrightarrow u strongly in L^\infty(\Omega) and D^su_m\underset m\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup G in \boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)\text{-weak}^*. Using the distributional nature of D^s, we easily see that G=D^su. Thus, as \Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega) is continuously included in \Lambda^{s,p}_0(\Omega), we have D^su_m\underset{m}{\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup} D^su in \boldsymbol L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^d)\text{-weak}, for any p<\infty, in particular for p=p_1' and p=q_1'.

Using the above convergences, we immediately have, for any v\in\mathbb{K}^s_g,

\begin{gathered} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}(\boldsymbol d_m u_m-\boldsymbol f_m)\cdot D^s(v-u_m)+\int_\Omega(\boldsymbol b_m\cdot D^su_m+ cu_m-f_{\#}m)(v-u_m)\\ \underset m\longrightarrow\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}(\boldsymbol du-\boldsymbol f)\cdot D^s(v-u_m)+\int_\Omega(\boldsymbol b\cdot D^su+cu-f_{\#})(v-u_m). \end{gathered}

On the other hand, using the monotonicity of A_m, for any v\in\mathbb{K}^s_g we have

\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}A_m D^su_m\cdot D^s(v-u_m)\le \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}A_m D^sv\cdot D^s(v-u_m).

Since \displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}A_m D^sv\cdot D^s(v-u_m) \underset m\longrightarrow\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}A D^sv\cdot D^s(v-u) then we get that, for any v\in\mathbb{K}_g^s,

\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}A D^sv\cdot D^s(v-u)+ \int_{\Omega}\boldsymbol d u\cdot D^s(v-u)+\int_\Omega(\boldsymbol b\cdot D^su+cu)(v-u) \geq [ F,v-u].

Choosing v=u+t(w-u)\in\mathbb{K}^s_g, for t\in(0,1), as test function, we obtain

\mathscr L^s(u,w-u)\ge[F,w-u]_s,\quad\forall w\in\mathbb{K}_g^s,

after letting t\longrightarrow 0^+. Therefore u solves (3.1).

Uses Theorem 3.1, Lemma 3.2

Remark

Remark 3.3

FLD6

To obtain the uniqueness to (3.1) it suffices to require the strict positivity of the bilinear form

\mathscr L^s(u-\widehat u,u-\widehat u)>0,\quad\forall u,\widehat u\in\mathbb{K}_g^s: u\neq\widehat u,

which needs stronger assumptions on its coefficients.

Remark

Remark 3.4

8OI8

The constrained problem (3.1) for u\in\mathbb{K}_g^s determines the existence of an element \Gamma=\Gamma(u)\in H^{-s}(\Omega) belonging to the sub-differential of the indicatrix function I_{\mathbb{K}_g^s} of the convex set \mathbb{K}_g^s, i.e. I_{\mathbb{K}_g^s}(v)=0 if v\in\mathbb{K}_g^s, I_{\mathbb{K}_g^s}(v)=+\infty if v\in H^s_0(\Omega)\setminus\mathbb{K}_g^s, (see [Lions1969, p.203]), which is given by

\Gamma\equiv F-\mathscr L^su\in\partial I_{\mathbb{K}_g^s}\quad\text{ in } H^s_0(\Omega),

where \mathscr L^s:\mathbb{K}_g^s\longrightarrow H^{-s}(\Omega) is the linear operator defined by the bilinear form as in (?). A main question is to relate \Gamma to the solution u, for instance trough the existence of a Lagrange multiplier \lambda such that \Gamma=\lambda D^su. This has been shown only in very special cases with the classical gradient (s=1) (see [Brezis72] and [RodriguesSantos2019_0], for more references).

Theorem

Theorem 3.5

G1HM

Let A\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)^{d^2}, \boldsymbol b,\boldsymbol d\in\boldsymbol L^{\frac{d}s}(\Omega), c\in L^\frac{d}{2s}(\Omega) satisfy (?) and (?) for 2s<d, and g\in L^2_{loc}(\Omega). Then, for any f_{\#} and \boldsymbol f satisfying (?), there exists a unique solution to (3.1). If \widehat u denotes the solution to (3.1) for \widehat f_{\#} and \widehat{\boldsymbol f}, we have

\|u-\widehat u\|_{H^s_0(\Omega)}\le\tfrac{C_*}\delta\|f_{\#}-\widehat f_{\#}\|_{L^{2^\#}(\Omega)}+\tfrac1\delta\|\boldsymbol f-\widehat{\boldsymbol f}\|_{\boldsymbol L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}.

Used by Remark 5.3

Proof of Theorem 3.5

Using Hölder and Sobolev inequalities, we have that, for v\in H^s_0(\Omega),

\Big|\int_\Omega(\boldsymbol b+\boldsymbol d)vD^sv\Big| \le\|\boldsymbol b+\boldsymbol d\|_{\boldsymbol L^{\frac{d}{s}}(\Omega)}\|v\|_{L^{2^*}(\Omega)} \|D^sv\|_{\boldsymbol L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)} \le C_*\|\boldsymbol b+\boldsymbol d\|_{\boldsymbol L^\frac{d}s(\Omega)}\|D^sv\|^2_{\boldsymbol L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)},

and

-\int_\Omega cv^2\le\int_\Omega c^-v^2\le C_*^2\|c^-\|_{L^\frac{d}{2s}(\Omega)}\|D^sv\|^2_{\boldsymbol L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}.

Therefore, using (?) and (?), we obtain

\begin{aligned} \mathscr L^s(v,v)&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}AD^sv\cdot D^sv+\int_\Omega(\boldsymbol b+\boldsymbol d)v\cdot D^sv+\int_\Omega cv^2\\ &\ge a_*\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|D^sv|^2-\Big(C_*\|\boldsymbol b+\boldsymbol d\|_{\boldsymbol L^{\frac{d}{s}}(\Omega)}+C_*^2\|c^-\|_{L^\frac{d}{2s}(\Omega)}\Big)\|D^sv\|^2_{\boldsymbol L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}\\ &=\delta\|D^sv\|^2_{\boldsymbol L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}=\delta\|v\|^2_{H^s_0(\Omega)}. \end{aligned}

As L^{2^*}(\Omega)=L^{2^{\#}}(\Omega)', (?) implies that F\in H^{-s}(\Omega), with \|F\|_{H^{-s}(\Omega)}\le C_*\|f_{\#}\|_{L^{2^{\#}}(\Omega)}+\|\boldsymbol f\|_{\boldsymbol L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)} and Stampacchia’s theorem immediately yields the existence and uniqueness of the solution to (3.1).

Taking v=\widehat u in (3.1) for u and v=u in (3.1) for \widehat u, and using (Proof), we obtain

\delta\|u-\widehat u\|_{H^s_0(\Omega)}^2\le\mathscr L^s(u-\widehat u,u-\widehat u)\le[F-\widehat F,u-\widehat u]_s\le\|F-\widehat F\|_{H^{-s}(\Omega)}\|u-\widehat u\|_{H^s_0(\Omega)}

and (3.5) easily follows.

Uses Theorem 3.1

Remark

Remark 3.6

JGCU

We observe that the assumption (?) is slightly stronger than the integrability conditions in Theorem 3.5 for the case 2s<d, including s=1. However, for s\ge\frac{d}2, we may have the assumption (?) with any r>1, when s=1, d=2, and even \boldsymbol b, \boldsymbol d, c\in L^1 when s\ge\frac12, d=1, with the respective norms in the assumption (?). Note that Theorem 3.5 extends Theorem 2.1 of [AzevedoRodriguesSantos2022], in which the coefficients \boldsymbol b, \boldsymbol d and c are zero.

Theorem

Theorem 3.7

EA14

Let u_i denote the solution of (3.1) corresponding to the data A_i, \boldsymbol b_i, \boldsymbol d_i, c_i, f_{\# i}, \boldsymbol f_i, g_i, for i=1,2, satisfying (?), (?), (?), (?) and (?). Then the following estimate holds with p>\frac{d}s and 0<\gamma=s-\frac{d}p<s\le 1,

\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \|u_1-u_2\|^p_{C^{0,\gamma}(\overline\Omega)}&+\|u_1-u_2\|^2_{H^s_0(\Omega)}\le C_1\|g_1-g_2\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}\\ & +C_1'\Big(\|A_1-A_2\|_{L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R}^d)^{d^2}}+\|\boldsymbol b_1-\boldsymbol b_2\|_{\boldsymbol L^1(\Omega)}+\|\boldsymbol d_1-\boldsymbol d_2\|_{\boldsymbol L^1(\Omega)}\\ & +\|c_1-c_2\|_{L^1(\Omega)}+\|f_{\# 1}-f_{\# 2}\|_{L^1(\Omega)}+\|\boldsymbol f_1-\boldsymbol f_2\|_{\boldsymbol L^{q_1}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\Big), \end{aligned} \end{aligned}

where the positive constants C_1 and C_1' depend on \delta, g_*, g^*, d, s, \Omega and linearly on the L^1-norms of A_i, \boldsymbol b_i, \boldsymbol d_i, c_i, f_{\# i}, \boldsymbol f_i.

Used by Remark 3.9, Remark 3.10

Proof of Theorem 3.7

Since u_i\in\mathbb{K}^s_{g_i}\subset\Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega) and g_i satisfies (?) for each i=1,2, we have

\tfrac{s}{C_0}\|u_i\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\le\|D^su_i\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}\le g^*,

where C_0>0 is the Poincaré constant in (2.6).

Set \eta=\|g_1-g_2\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)} and \mu=\frac{g_*}{g_*+\eta}. Observe that u_{i_j}=\mu u_j\in\mathbb{K}^s_{g_i} (i\neq j, i,j=1,2) and so it can be used as test function in (3.1) for \mathscr L^s_i and f_{\# i}, \boldsymbol f_i. For i=1,2, we obtain

\mathscr L_i^s(u_i,u_{i_j}-u_i)\ge[F_i,u_{i_j}-u_i]_s,

or equivalently,

\mathscr L^s_i(u_i,u_i-u_j)\le[F_i,u_i-u_j]_s+\mathscr L^s_i(u_i,u_{i_j}-u_i)+[F_i,u_j-u_{i_j}]_s.

Since u_{i_j}-u_j=(\mu-1)u_j and 0\le 1-\mu\le\frac\eta{g_*}, setting M=\max\{g^*,\frac{C_0}s g^*\}, we may estimate the middle term of (Proof) by

\begin{aligned} \Big|\mathscr L_i^s(u_i,u_{i_j}-u_j)\Big|&=\Big|(\mu-1)\mathscr L_i^s(u_i,u_j)\Big|\le\tfrac\eta{g_*}\Big|\mathscr L_i^s(u_i,u_j)\Big|\\ &\le\tfrac{\eta}{g_*}M^2\Big(\|A_i\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)^{d^2}}+\|\boldsymbol b_i\|_{\boldsymbol L^1(\Omega)}+\|\boldsymbol d_i\|_{\boldsymbol L^1(\Omega)}+\|c_i\|_{L^1(\Omega)}\Big)=\eta\kappa_i \end{aligned}

and the last one by

\big|[F_i,u_j-u_{i_j}]_s\big|=(1-\mu)\big|[F_i,u_j]_s\big|\le\tfrac{\eta}{g_*}M\big(\|f_{\# i}\|_{L^1(\Omega)}+\|\boldsymbol f_i\|_{\boldsymbol L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)}\big)=\eta \nu_i.

Setting w=u_1-u_2 and

\begin{gathered} E_{21}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}(A_2-A_1)D^su_2\cdot D^sw+\int_\Omega(\boldsymbol d_2-\boldsymbol d_1)u_2\cdot D^sw\\ +\int_\Omega\big((\boldsymbol b_2-\boldsymbol b_1)\cdot D^su_2 +(c_2-c_1)u_2\big)w, \end{gathered}

by using (Proof) for i=2, we have

-\mathscr L_1^s(u_2,w)=\mathscr L_2^s(u_2,-w)+E_{21}\le[F_2,-w]_s+\eta(\kappa_2+\nu_2)+e_{21},

where

\begin{gathered} \big|E_{21}\big| \le 2M^2\Big(\|A_1-A_2\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)^{d^2}}+\|\boldsymbol d_1-\boldsymbol d_2\|_{\boldsymbol L^1(\Omega)}\\ +\|\boldsymbol b_1-\boldsymbol b_2\|_{\boldsymbol L^1(\Omega)}+\|c_1-c_2\|_{L^1(\Omega)}\Big) \equiv e_{21}. \end{gathered}

Summing (Proof) for i=1 with (Proof) and using the coercivity (Proof), we obtain

\begin{aligned} \delta\|w\|^2_{H^s_0(\Omega)}&\le\mathscr L_1^s(w,w)=\mathscr L^s_1(u_1,w)-\mathscr L_1^s(u_2,w)\\ &\le[F_1,w]_s+\eta(\kappa_1+\nu_1)+[F_2,-w]_s+\eta(\kappa_2+\nu_2)+e_{21}\\ &\le\eta(\kappa_1+\nu_1+\kappa_2+\nu_2)+e_{21}+\varphi_{12}, \end{aligned}

where \big|[F_1-F_2,w]_s\big|\le\varphi_{12}, with \varphi_{12}=2M\big(\|f_{\# 1}-f_{\# 2}\|_{L^1(\Omega)}+\|\boldsymbol f_1-\boldsymbol f_2\|_{\boldsymbol L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)}\big).

To conclude (3.7) it suffices to use the continuous embedding (?), which guarantees the existence of a constant C_\beta>0 and 0<\beta=s-\frac{d}{p}<s\le1, with p>\max\{2,\frac{d}s\} in

\big(\tfrac1{C_\beta}\big)^p\|w\|^p_{C^{0,\beta}(\overline\Omega)}\le\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|D^sw|^p\le \|D^sw\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}^{p-2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|D^sw|^2\le \big(g^*\big)^{p-2}\|w\|^2_{H^s_0(\Omega)}.

Uses Proposition 2.6, Theorem 3.1, Proof

Proposition

Proposition 3.8

YV3J

Let g\in L_{loc}^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d) be positively lower bounded in any compact set and such that

\lim_{|x|\rightarrow+\infty}g(x)|x|^{d+s}=\infty.

Then there exists h\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d), with positive lower bound in \mathbb{R}^d and such that \mathbb{K}_h^s=\mathbb{K}_g^s. More precisely, we can choose h=g\,\chi_{\Omega_R}+k\chi_{\mathbb{R}^d\setminus\Omega_R} for a certain R>0 and k\ge \|g\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_R)}.

Proof of Proposition 3.8

Using remarks 2.5, 2.9 and the inequality (3.2) for p=1, there exists R_0=R_0(s)>0, independent of g, such that, for R\geq R_0, and u\in\mathbb{K}_g^s, we have

|D^s u(x)|\leq \tfrac{C_0}{s}\frac{2\mu_s |\Omega_R|}{d(x,\Omega)^{d+s}}\|g\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_R)}, \qquad\forall x\not\in \Omega_R.

Using (3.8), fix R\geq R_0 such that

g(x)d(x,\Omega)^{d+s}\geq \tfrac{C_0}{s}2\mu_s |\Omega_{R_0}|\|g\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_{R_0})},\qquad \forall x\not\in \Omega_{R}

and

\tfrac{C_0}{s}\frac{2\mu_s |\Omega_{R}|}{d(x,\Omega)^{d+s}}\leq 1.

Let k\geq \|g\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_R)} and consider h:\mathbb{R}^d\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}

h(x)=\begin{cases} g(x)&\text{ if }x\in\Omega_R,\\ k&\text{ otherwise.} \end{cases}

Then h satisfies assumption (?) and \mathbb{K}_g^s=\mathbb{K}_h^s. Indeed, if u\in\mathbb{K}_g^s then, for x\not\in \Omega_{R},

|D^s u(x)|\leq \tfrac{C_0}{s}\frac{2\mu_s |\Omega_{R}|}{d(x,\Omega)^{d+s}}\|g\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_R)}\leq \tfrac{C_0}{s}\frac{2\mu_s |\Omega_R|}{R^{d+s}}\|g\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_R)}\leq k.

Reciprocally, if u\in\mathbb{K}_h then, for x\not\in \Omega_{R}, we have x\not\in \Omega_{R_0} and then, as \|h\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_{R_0})}=\|g\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_{R_0})},

|D^s u(x)| \leq \tfrac{C_0}{s}\frac{2\mu_s |\Omega_{R_0}|}{d(x,\Omega)^{d+s}}\|g\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_{R_0})}

and then, using (Proof), |D^s u(x)|\leq g(x).

Uses Remark 2.5, Remark 2.9, Lemma 3.2

Remark

Remark 3.9

VOIJ

Assuming only ?, Theorem 3.7 remains valid by taking R>0 sufficiently large and replacing \|g_1-g_2\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)} by \|g_1-g_2\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_R)} in (3.7).

This is true because in the proof of the last proposition for g_1 and g_2, we can define h_1 and h_2 as in (Proof) with the same R and h_1 equal to h_2 outside \Omega_R.

Uses Theorem 3.7

Remark

Remark 3.10

E21I

If we assume (?), \boldsymbol b=\boldsymbol d=0 and c\geq c_*>0 instead (?), keeping the other assumptions in Theorem 3.7, we still have a weaker continuous dependence result, replacing \|u_1-u_2\|^p_{C^{0,\gamma}(\overline\Omega)}+\|u_1-u_2\|^2_{H^s_0(\Omega)} by \|u_1-u_2\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)} in (3.7). In particular, with these assumptions we also have uniqueness of solution for the variational inequality.

Uses Theorem 3.7

Theorem

Theorem 4.1

P518

Assume g satisfies (?), \mathscr L^s is given by (?) with the assumptions (?), (?) and F\in \Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega)' is given by (?) if 0<s<1 (respectively F\in W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)', if s=1) with the assumption (?). Then problem (?) has a solution (u,\lambda)\in \Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega)\times L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)', for any 0<s<1 (respectively in W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)\times L^\infty(\Omega)' if s=1), and u solves the variational inequality (3.1).

Used by Proof

Theorem

Theorem 4.2

8TGW

Suppose the functions A_\nu, \boldsymbol b_\nu, \boldsymbol d_\nu, c_\nu, f_{\#,\nu}, \boldsymbol f_\nu and g_\nu, for each \nu, 0<\nu<1, satisfy (?) (?), (?), (?) and (?) and have limit functions as \nu\longrightarrow 0:

\begin{align} & A_\nu\longrightarrow A\ \text{in $L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R}^d)^{d^2}$},\quad c_\nu \longrightarrow c \ \text{in $L^1(\Omega)$},\\ &\boldsymbol b_\nu\longrightarrow \boldsymbol b\ \text{in $\boldsymbol L^1(\Omega)$},\quad \boldsymbol d_\nu \longrightarrow \boldsymbol d \ \text{in $\boldsymbol L^1(\Omega)$},\\ & f_{\#\nu}\longrightarrow f_\#\ \text{in $L^1(\Omega)$},\quad \boldsymbol f_\nu \longrightarrow \boldsymbol f \ \text{in $\boldsymbol L^{q_1}(\mathbb{R}^d)$},\\ & g_\nu\longrightarrow g\ \text{in $L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)$}. \end{align}

Then, if (u_\nu,\lambda_\nu) solves ??, there is a generalised sequence, still denoted by \nu\longrightarrow 0, and a solution (u,\lambda) to (?)(?) such that

\begin{align} &u_\nu\longrightarrow u\text{ in }C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega)\text{-strong}\\ & D^su_\nu\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup D^su\text{ in }L^\infty(\Omega)\text{-weak}^*,\\ &\lambda_\nu\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup\lambda\text{ in }L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)'\text{-weak}^*, \end{align}

where 0<\alpha<s\le1, with the convention \Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega)=W^{1,\infty}(\Omega) in the case s=1.

Used by Proof, Proof

Proof of Theorem 4.2

Since |D^su_\nu|\le g_\nu\le g^* a.e. in \mathbb{R}^d, for all 0<\nu<1, by recalling (?) and (?), respectively, we have the a priory estimates

\|D^s u_\nu\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}\le g^*,\quad\text{and}\quad\|u_\nu\|_{C^{0,\beta}(\overline\Omega)}\le C_\beta,\ \text{ for all }\ 0<\beta<s\le1.

Taking v=u_\nu in ? we get

\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \langle\lambda_\nu,|D^s u_\nu|^2\rangle&=\pmb{\langle}\lambda_\nu D^su_\nu,D^su_\nu\pmb{\rangle}=[F_\nu,u_\nu]_s-\mathscr L^s_\nu(u_\nu,u_\nu)\\ &\le C_1,\quad\text{for all } \sigma<s\le1, \end{aligned} \end{aligned}

where C_1>0 is a constant dependent on g^*, C_\beta and a common bound of the L^{p_1}, L^1, and L^{q_1} norms of (A_\nu)_{\nu}, (\boldsymbol b_\nu)_{\nu}, (\boldsymbol d_\nu)_{\nu}, (c_\nu)_{\nu}, ( f_{\#\nu})_{\nu} and {(\boldsymbol f_\nu)}_{\nu}, respectively, independent of \nu.

Observing that, as (u_\nu,\lambda_\nu) solves problem ??, we have \lambda_\nu(|D^su_\nu|-g_\nu)=0 in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)', which, multiplying by |D^su_\nu|+g_\nu, implies

\langle\lambda_\nu,|D^su_\nu|^2\rangle=\langle\lambda_\nu,g_\nu^2\rangle.

Using the assumption g_\nu\ge g_* and \lambda_\nu\ge0 we have

\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \|\lambda_\nu\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)'} & = \sup_{\|\zeta\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}\le1 }|\langle\lambda_\nu,\zeta\rangle|\leq \sup_{\|\zeta\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}\le1 }\langle\lambda_\nu,|\zeta|\rangle\leq\langle\lambda_\nu,1\rangle\leq\langle \lambda_\nu,\tfrac{g_\nu^2}{g_*^2}\rangle\\ &=\tfrac{1}{g_*^2}\langle\lambda_\nu,|D^su_\nu|^2\rangle \leq \tfrac{C_1}{g_*^2},\quad\text{ by \eqref{4_7} and \eqref{4.11}}. \end{aligned} \end{aligned}

As a consequence, letting \boldsymbol\Psi_\nu=\lambda_\nu D^su_\nu, we also have

\|\boldsymbol\Psi_\nu\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)'} =\sup_{\|\boldsymbol \xi\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}\le1}|\langle\lambda_\nu,D^s u_\nu\cdot\boldsymbol\xi\rangle|\le \|\lambda_\nu\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)'}\|D^su_\nu\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq\tfrac{C_1 g^*}{g_*^2}.

Then, by the above estimates, we may choose some generalised sequence \nu\longrightarrow0, such that: i) (4.2) holds with \alpha<\beta for some u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline\Omega) and (4.2) holds, using the distributional nature of D^s, since (Proof) is satisfied and ii) by the Banach-Alaoglu-Bourbaki theorem, (4.2) holds for some \lambda\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)' (by estimate (Proof)) and there exists a \boldsymbol\Psi\in\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)' (by (Proof)) with

\boldsymbol\Psi_\nu\underset{\nu}\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup\boldsymbol\Psi\quad\text{ in }\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)'.

Letting \nu\longrightarrow0 in ?, by the assumptions (4.2), (4.2), (4.2) and the convergences (4.2) and (4.2), we conclude that (u,\boldsymbol\Psi) solves:

\mathscr L^s(u,v)+\pmb{\langle}\boldsymbol\Psi,D^sv\pmb{\rangle}=[F,v]_s,\qquad\forall v\in \Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega).

Note that \lambda_\nu\ge0 implies \lambda\ge0. Given any measurable set \omega\subset\mathbb{R}^d with finite measure, taking \boldsymbol\xi\in\boldsymbol L^1(\mathbb{R}^d), defined by \boldsymbol\xi=\frac{D^su}{|D^su|} if x\in\omega\cap\{|D^su|\neq0\} and \boldsymbol\xi=0 elsewhere, since D^su_\nu\underset\nu\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup D^su in \boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)\text{-weak}^*, we have

\int_\omega g_\nu\geq\int_{\omega}|D^s u_\nu|\ge\int_\omega D^su_\nu\cdot\boldsymbol\xi\underset\nu\longrightarrow\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}D^su\cdot\boldsymbol\xi=\int_\omega|D^su|,

and so |D^s u|\le g a.e. in \mathbb{R}^d, by (4.2) and the arbitrariness of \omega\subset\mathbb{R}^d. Then, in order to complete the proof, it remains to show that

\boldsymbol\Psi=\lambda D^su\qquad\text{ in }\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)'

and

\lambda|D^su|=\lambda g\qquad\text{ in } L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)',

or equivalently, using the assumption (?),

\langle\lambda(g-|D^su|),\varphi\rangle=\langle\lambda,(g^2-|D^su|^2)\tfrac{\varphi}{g+|D^su|}\rangle=0,\quad\forall\varphi\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d).

Then we observe that, recalling |D^su|\le g and using (Proof),

\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \tfrac{1}{2} \langle\lambda_\nu ,|D^s (u_\nu -u)|^2\rangle&=\tfrac{1}{2}\Big(\langle\lambda_\nu ,|D^s u_\nu |^2\rangle-2\langle\lambda_\nu ,D^s u_\nu \cdot D^s u\rangle+\langle\lambda_\nu ,|D^s u|^2\rangle\Big)\\ &\leq \langle\lambda_\nu ,|D^s u_\nu |^2\rangle-\langle\lambda_\nu ,D^s u_\nu \cdot D^s u\rangle+\tfrac12\langle\lambda_\nu,g^2-g_\nu^2\rangle\\ &\le\langle\lambda_\nu D^s u_\nu , D^s (u_\nu -u)\rangle+\tfrac12\|\lambda_\nu\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)'}\|g^2-g_\nu^2\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}\\ &\le[F_\nu ,u_\nu -u]_s-\mathscr{L}^s_\nu (u_\nu ,u_\nu -u)+\tfrac{1}{2}\tfrac{C_1}{g_*^2}\|g^2-g_\nu^2\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}. \end{aligned} \end{aligned}

We have [F_\nu,u_\nu-u]_s\underset\nu\longrightarrow0 and \mathscr{L}^s_\nu (u_\nu,u)\underset\nu\longrightarrow\mathscr{L}^s(u,u), while, on the other hand,

\varliminf_\nu\mathscr{L}^s_\nu(u_\nu,u_\nu)\ge\mathscr{L}^s(u,u)

since, arguing as in (Proof) we have that, using (4.2),

\begin{aligned} \varliminf_\nu\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}A_\nu D^su_\nu\cdot D^su_\nu&\ge\varliminf_\nu\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} AD^su_\nu\cdot D^su_\nu+\lim_\nu\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}(A_\nu-A)D^su_\nu\cdot D^su_\nu\\ &\ge\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}AD^su\cdot D^su \end{aligned}

\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}(A_\nu-A)D^su_\nu\cdot D^su_\nu\Big|\le(g^*)^2\|A_\nu-A\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)^{d^2}}\underset\nu\longrightarrow0

and, using the convergences (4.2) with (4.2) and (4.2),

\int_\Omega\boldsymbol b_\nu\cdot D^su_\nu(u_\nu-u)+\boldsymbol d_\nu u_\nu\cdot D^s(u_\nu-u)+c_\nu u_\nu(u_\nu-u)\underset\nu\longrightarrow0.

Hence we conclude that

0\le\lim_\nu\langle\lambda_\nu,|D^s(u_\nu-u)|^2\rangle\le\varlimsup_\nu\langle\lambda_\nu,|D^s(u_\nu-u)|^2\rangle\le0.

By the Hölder inequality (see Proposition 2.14),

\begin{aligned} |\langle \lambda_\nu , D^s(u_\nu -u)\cdot \boldsymbol\xi\rangle| &\le \langle \lambda_\nu , |D^s(u_\nu -u)|| \boldsymbol\xi|\rangle\le\langle\lambda_\nu ,|D^s(u_\nu -u)|^2\rangle^\frac12\langle\lambda_\nu ,|\boldsymbol\xi|^2\rangle^\frac12\\ &\leq \langle\lambda_\nu ,|D^s(u_\nu -u)|^2\rangle^\frac12\|\lambda_\nu\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)'}^\frac{1}{2}\|\boldsymbol \xi\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)} \end{aligned}

which by (Proof) yields

\lim_\nu\langle\lambda_\nu,D^s(u_\nu-u)\cdot\boldsymbol\xi\rangle=0,\qquad\forall\boldsymbol\xi\in\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d).

Now, recalling (Proof), (Proof) follows now from (Proof), since

\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \pmb{\langle}\boldsymbol\Psi,\boldsymbol\xi\pmb{\rangle}&=\lim_\nu \pmb{\langle}\boldsymbol\Psi_\nu ,\boldsymbol\xi\pmb{\rangle}=\lim_\nu \langle \lambda_\nu , D^s u_\nu \cdot\boldsymbol\xi\rangle=\lim_\nu \langle \lambda_\nu , D^s u\cdot\boldsymbol\xi\rangle\\ &=\langle \lambda, D^s u\cdot\boldsymbol\xi\rangle=\pmb{\langle}\lambda D^s u,\boldsymbol\xi\pmb{\rangle}\qquad\forall\boldsymbol\xi\in\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d). \end{aligned} \end{aligned}

Using (Proof) and (Proof) with \boldsymbol\xi=D^su_\nu we obtain \lim_\nu\pmb{\langle}\lambda_\nu D^su_\nu,D^s(u_\nu-u)\pmb{\rangle}=0 and

\langle\lambda,g^2\rangle=\lim_\nu\langle\lambda_\nu,g_\nu^2\rangle=\lim_\nu\pmb{\langle}\lambda_\nu D^su_\nu,D^su_\nu\pmb{\rangle}=\lim_\nu\pmb{\langle}\lambda_\nu D^su_\nu,D^su\pmb{\rangle}=\langle\lambda,|D^su|^2\rangle,

which implies \langle\lambda(g^2-|D^su|^2),1\rangle=0.

Finally, (Proof) follows again by the Hölder inequality for charges, with an arbitrary \varphi\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d),

\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} |\langle\lambda(g-|D^su|),\varphi\rangle| & =\big|\langle\lambda(g^2-|D^su|^2),\tfrac{\varphi}{g+|D^su|}\rangle\big|\\ & \le\langle\lambda(g^2-|D^su|^2),1\rangle^\frac12\langle\lambda(g^2-|D^su|^2),\tfrac{|\varphi|^2}{(g+|D^su|)^2}\rangle^\frac12=0. \end{aligned} \end{aligned}

Proof

OZ2T

(of Theorem 4.1) It can be obtained with the following approximating problem. Let 0<\varepsilon<1 and fix q>1+\frac{d}s>2, so that \Lambda ^{s,r}_0(\Omega)\subset C(\overline\Omega), for 0<s\le1 and r=q-1>\frac{d}{s}, recalling the convention \Lambda^{s,r}_0(\Omega)=W^{1,r}_0(\Omega) if s=1. We firstly consider \mathscr{L}^s and F defined by (?) and (?) under the assumption (?) and, letting r'=\tfrac{r}{r-1},

A\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)^{d^2},\quad\boldsymbol b,\boldsymbol d\in \boldsymbol L^{r'}(\Omega),\quad \boldsymbol f\in \boldsymbol L^{q'}(\mathbb{R}^d),\quad c,\ f_{\#}\in L^1(\Omega),

with which we shall prove the existence of a solution (u,\lambda)\in\Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega)\times L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)', 0<s\le1 of (?).

The approximating problem is given, for \varepsilon>0, by

u_\varepsilon\in\Lambda^{s,q}_0(\Omega):\quad\mathscr{L}^s(u_\varepsilon,v)+[\widetilde k_\varepsilon(u_\varepsilon)+\varepsilon D_q^s u_\varepsilon,v]=[F,v],\qquad \forall v\in\Lambda^{s,q}_0(\Omega),

where \varepsilon>0 and the penalisation operator

[\widetilde k_\varepsilon(w),v]=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}k_\varepsilon(|D^sw|-g)D^sw\cdot D^sv,\qquad\forall v,w\in\Lambda^{s,q}_0(\Omega),

is defined with the continuous monotone function

k_\varepsilon(t)=0\ \text{ for }t\le0,\quad k_\varepsilon(t)=e^\frac{t}\varepsilon-1\ \text{ for } 0<t\le\tfrac1\varepsilon\quad\text{ and }\quad k_\varepsilon(t)=e^\frac1{\varepsilon^2}-1\ \text{ for }t\ge\tfrac1\varepsilon

and the nonlinear elliptic regularisation is given by

[\varepsilon D^s_qw,v]=\varepsilon\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|D^sw|^{q-2}D^sw\cdot D^sv,\qquad\forall v,w\in\Lambda^{s,q}_0(\Omega).

As in Lemma 3.2, the nonlinear operator [B_\varepsilon u,v]=\mathscr{L}^s(u,v)+[\widetilde k_\varepsilon(u)+\varepsilon D_q^s u_\varepsilon,v] is easily seen to be pseudo-monotone in \Lambda^{s,q}_0(\Omega) and also coercive (see [Lions1969] or [Roubicek2013]), since, setting \|v\|=\|D^sv\|_{\boldsymbol L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)},

\begin{aligned} \frac{[B_\varepsilon v,v]}{\|v\|}&=\frac1{\|v\|}\bigg(\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\big(\varepsilon|D^s_q v|^q+AD^sv\cdot D^sv+k_\varepsilon(|D^sv|-g)|D^sv|^2\big)\\ &\quad+\int_\Omega\big(v(\boldsymbol d+\boldsymbol b)\cdot D^sv+cv^2\big)\bigg)\\ &\ge \varepsilon\|D^sv\|^{q-1}_{\boldsymbol L^q(\Omega)}-\tfrac{\|v\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}}{\|v\|} \Big(\|\boldsymbol d+\boldsymbol b\|_{\boldsymbol L^{r'}(\Omega)}\|D^sv\|_{\boldsymbol L^r(\Omega)}+\|c\|_{L^1(\Omega)}\|v\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\Big)\\ &\ge \|v\|\big(\varepsilon\|v\|^{q-1}-\widetilde C_q\big)\longrightarrow\infty\quad\text{ as }\|v\|\longrightarrow\infty, \end{aligned}

with \widetilde C_q=C_{r,q}C_q\big(\|\boldsymbol d+\boldsymbol b\|_{\boldsymbol L^{r'}(\Omega)}+C_q\|c\|_{L^1(\Omega)}\big), where C_{r,q} is given by (2.7) and C_q>0 is given by the continuous embedding (?), i.e., such that \|v\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\le C_q\|D^sv\|_{\boldsymbol L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)}, v\in \Lambda^{s,q}_0(\Omega).

Then, by the theory of pseudo-monotone and coercive operators (see [Lions1969] or [Roubicek2013], for instance), since F\in\Lambda^{s,q}_0(\Omega)', there exists u_\varepsilon\in\Lambda^{s,q}_0(\Omega) solving (Proof). Taking v=u_\varepsilon in (Proof) and setting \widehat k_\varepsilon=k_\varepsilon(|D^su_\varepsilon|-g),

\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat k_\varepsilon |D^s u_{\varepsilon}|^2+\varepsilon & \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|D^s u_{\varepsilon}|^q\le \widetilde C_r\|D^su_\varepsilon\|_{\boldsymbol L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}^2\\ &+\Big(C_r\|f_\#\|_{L^1(\Omega)}+\|\boldsymbol f\|_{\boldsymbol L^{q'}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\Big)\|D^su_\varepsilon\|_{\boldsymbol L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)}\\ &\le \widetilde C_r'\|D^su_\varepsilon\|_{\boldsymbol L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}^2\le \widetilde C_r'C^2_{r,q}\|D^su_\varepsilon\|_{\boldsymbol L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)}^2 \end{aligned} \end{aligned}

with \widetilde C_r=C_r\big(\|\boldsymbol d+\boldsymbol b\|_{\boldsymbol L^{q'}(\Omega)}+C_r\|c\|_{L^1(\Omega)}\big) by assuming, without loss of generality, that \|D^su_\varepsilon\|_{\boldsymbol L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\ge1, which will allow the proof of the following a priori estimates independent of \varepsilon, \varepsilon sufficiently small,

\|D^su_\varepsilon\|_{\boldsymbol L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\le C,

\|\widehat k_\varepsilon|D^su_\varepsilon|^2\|_{ L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)}\le C\quad\text{ and }\quad \|k_\varepsilon\|_{ L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)}\le C,

\|\widehat k_\varepsilon D^su_\varepsilon\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)'}\le C.

From (Proof), there exists C>0, independent of \varepsilon, such that \|D^su_\varepsilon\|_{\boldsymbol L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)}\le C\varepsilon^{-1/(q-2)} and consequently also

g_*^2 \|\widehat k_\varepsilon\|_{ L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)}\le\|\widehat k_\varepsilon|D^su_\varepsilon|^2\|_{ L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)}\le C\varepsilon^{-\frac{2}{q-2}},

since, as \widehat k_\varepsilon=0 if |D^su_\varepsilon|<g, we have \widehat k_\varepsilon|D^su_\varepsilon|^2\ge g^2\widehat k_\varepsilon\ge g_*^2\widehat k_\varepsilon.

Now we split \mathbb{R}^d in two subsets,

U_{\varepsilon} = \{x\in \mathbb{R}^d: |D^s u_{\varepsilon}|-g\leq \sqrt\varepsilon\}\quad\text{and}\quad V_{\varepsilon}=\mathbb{R}^d\setminus U\varepsilon

and we observe that, as k_\varepsilon is a monotone function, in V_{\varepsilon} we have \widehat k_\varepsilon =k_\varepsilon (|D^s u_{\varepsilon }|-g)\geq k_\varepsilon (\sqrt\varepsilon)=e^\frac1{\sqrt\varepsilon}-1 and

\begin{aligned} &|V_{\varepsilon}|=\int_{V_{\varepsilon}}1\leq \int_{V_{\varepsilon}}\frac\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}{e^\frac1{\sqrt\varepsilon}-1}\le\tfrac1{e^\frac1{\sqrt\varepsilon}-1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}\le \tfrac{C}{\varepsilon^{\frac2{q-2}}\big(e^\frac1{\sqrt\varepsilon}-1\big)}\underset{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}{\longrightarrow}0,\\[2mm] &\int_{V_\varepsilon}|D^s u_{\varepsilon}|^{r}\le\bigg(\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|D^s u_{\varepsilon}|^{q}\bigg)^\frac{r}{q}|V_\varepsilon|^\frac{q-r}{q}\le C\Big(\varepsilon^{-\frac1{q-2}}\Big)^\frac{r}{q}\bigg(\tfrac{1}{\varepsilon^{\frac2{q-2}}\big(e^\frac1{\sqrt\varepsilon}-1\big)}\bigg)^\frac{q-r}{q} \underset{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}{\longrightarrow}0. \end{aligned}

Given R>0,

\begin{aligned} &\int_{U_{\varepsilon}\cap \Omega_R}|D^s u_{\varepsilon}|^{r}\leq \int_{U_{\varepsilon}\cap \Omega_R}(g+\sqrt\varepsilon)^{r}\le \big(g^*+1\big)^{r}|\Omega_R|,\\[2mm] &\int_{U_{\varepsilon}\setminus \Omega_R}|D^s u_{\varepsilon}|^r\leq C(R)\|u_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^1(\Omega)}^r\leq C(R)C_{r,1}^r \|D^s u_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}^r, \end{aligned}

using (?) and (2.7), with C representing different constants. Then, for \varepsilon small enough,

\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|D^s u_{\varepsilon}|^r\le \big(g^*+1\big)^{r}|\Omega_R|+ C(R)C_{r,1}^r \|D^s u_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}^r+1.

Choosing R_0>0 such that C(R_0)C_{r,1}^r\leq \frac{1}{2} we get (Proof) from

\|D^s u_{\varepsilon}\|_{\boldsymbol L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\le 2^{\frac{1}{r}}\big((g^*+1)^{r}|\Omega_{R_0})|+1\big)^{\frac{1}{r}}.

Hence, also from (Proof) we immediately obtain that \|\widehat k_\varepsilon |D^s u_{\varepsilon}|^2\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)} \le C, and (Proof) follows from the first inequality in (Proof).

As a consequence, (Proof) now easily follows from (Proof):

\begin{aligned} \|\widehat k_\varepsilon D^s u_{\varepsilon}\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)'}&=\sup_{ \|\boldsymbol\xi\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}\le1}\bigg|\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon} D^s u_{\varepsilon}\cdot\boldsymbol \xi\bigg|\\ &\leq \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}}|D^s u_{\varepsilon}|\leq \|\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)}^{\frac{1}{2}} \|\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}|D^s u_{\varepsilon}|^2\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)}^{\frac{1}{2}}. \end{aligned}

By compactness, from the estimates (Proof), (Proof) and (Proof), using the Rellich-Kondrachov and the Banach-Alaoglu-Bourbaki theorems, there exist u\in\Lambda^{s,r}_0(\Omega)\cap C^{0,\gamma}(\overline{\Omega}), \lambda\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)' and \boldsymbol\Psi\in\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)' and a generalised sequence \varepsilon\rightarrow0 such that

\begin{aligned} D^su_\varepsilon\underset{\varepsilon}\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup D^su \text{ in } \ \boldsymbol L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)\text{-weak},\quad u_\varepsilon\underset{\varepsilon}\longrightarrow u \text{ in } \ C^{0,\gamma}(\overline{\Omega}) \text{ strong},\\ \widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}\underset{\varepsilon}\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup \lambda \text{ in } \ L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)'\text{-weak}^*,\quad \widehat{k}_{\varepsilon} D^su_\varepsilon\underset{s}\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup \boldsymbol\Psi\ \text{ in } \ \boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)'\text{-weak}^*. \end{aligned}

Now, arguing as in the proof of Theorem 4.2, we show that u\in\mathbb{K}^s_g, \boldsymbol\Psi=\lambda D^su and (u,\lambda) satisfies (?).

Firstly we conclude that |D^su|\leq g a.e. in \mathbb{R}^d, from

\begin{aligned} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}(|D^su |-g)^+&\le\varliminf_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}(|D^s u_\varepsilon|-g-\sqrt\varepsilon)^+ =\varliminf_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \int_{V\varepsilon}(|D^su_\varepsilon|-g-\sqrt\varepsilon)\\ &\leq\varliminf_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \int_{V\varepsilon}|D^s u_\varepsilon| \leq\varliminf_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\|D^s u_\varepsilon\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}|V_\varepsilon|^{\frac{1}{r'}}=0, \end{aligned}

since \xi\mapsto (|\xi|-g)^+ is a convex lower semicontinuous function and V_\varepsilon, defined in (Proof), has vanishing measure as \varepsilon\rightarrow 0 by (Proof).

Observing that

\bigg|\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}|D^su_\varepsilon|^{q-2}D^su_\varepsilon\cdot D^sv\bigg|\leq \|D^su_\varepsilon\|^r_{\boldsymbol L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\|D^s v\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^r)},

taking the generalised limit in (Proof) with an arbitrarily v\in \Lambda_0^{s,\infty}(\Omega)\subset \Lambda_0^{s,q}(\Omega), we obtain

\pmb{\langle} \boldsymbol\Psi,D^sv\pmb{\rangle} =[F,v]-\mathscr{L}^s(u,v),\quad \forall v\in \Lambda_0^{s,\infty}(\Omega),

and, since \widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}\geq 0 implies \lambda\geq 0, it remains to show that \boldsymbol\Psi=\lambda D^su and \lambda|D^su|=\lambda g.

Taking v=u_\varepsilon in (Proof) and using (Proof) and the semicontinuity (Proof) for u_\varepsilon\underset{\varepsilon}{\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup}u in \Lambda^{s,r}_0(\Omega), we easily obtain

\varlimsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}|D^su_\varepsilon|^2\leq \pmb{\langle}\boldsymbol\Psi,D^su\pmb{\rangle}.

Comparing the inequality

\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} 0 & \leq \varlimsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}|D^s(u_\varepsilon-u)|^2\\ & = \varlimsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\bigg(\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}|D^su_\varepsilon|^2-2\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon} D^su_\varepsilon\cdot D^su+\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}|D^su|^2\bigg) \\ & \leq \pmb{\langle}\boldsymbol\Psi,D^su\pmb{\rangle}-2 \lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\pmb{\langle}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon} D^su_\varepsilon,D^su\pmb{\rangle}+\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\langle \widehat{k}_{\varepsilon},|D^su|^2\rangle\\ & \leq \langle \lambda,|D^su|^2\rangle-\pmb{\langle}\boldsymbol\Psi,D^su\pmb{\rangle}, \end{aligned} \end{aligned}

with (recall that \widehat{k}_{\varepsilon} g^2\leq \widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}|D^su_\varepsilon|^2 by definition of \widehat{k}_{\varepsilon})

\langle\lambda,|D^su|^2\rangle\leq \langle\lambda,g^2\rangle= \lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}\,g^2 \leq \varlimsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}|D^su_\varepsilon|^2\leq \pmb{\langle}\boldsymbol\Psi,D^su\pmb{\rangle},

we conclude that

\langle\lambda,|D^su|^2\rangle= \langle\lambda,g^2\rangle= \varlimsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}|D^su_\varepsilon|^2= \pmb{\langle}\boldsymbol\Psi,D^su\pmb{\rangle}

and, afterwards from (Proof), also

\varlimsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}|D^s(u_\varepsilon-u)|^2=0.

Then \boldsymbol\Psi=\lambda D^su since, for an arbitrary \boldsymbol\xi\in\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d),

\begin{aligned} |\pmb{\langle}\boldsymbol\Psi-\lambda D^su,\boldsymbol\xi\pmb{\rangle}| & = \lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\bigg|\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon} D^s(u_\varepsilon-u)\cdot\boldsymbol\xi\bigg|\\ & \leq \varlimsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\bigg(\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}|D^s(u_\varepsilon-u)|^2\bigg)^\frac12\|\widehat{k}_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^1(\mathbb{R}^d)}^\frac12\|\xi\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}=0. \end{aligned}

From (Proof) it follows \langle\lambda,|D^su|^2-g^2\rangle=0 and we conclude, as in (Proof), that

\lambda(|D^su|-g)=0\quad\text{in }L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)'.

The general case follows by Theorem 4.2, by approximating with solutions of ?, ? with data A_\nu, \boldsymbol b_\nu, \boldsymbol d_\nu, c, f_\#, \boldsymbol f_\nu and g satisfying (?), (Proof) and (?) and converging strongly in L^{p_1}, L^1 and L^{q_1}, for instance by using \boldsymbol f_\nu=\sup(-\frac{1}{\nu},\inf(\frac{1}{\nu},\boldsymbol f))\chi_{B(0,\frac{1}{\nu})}, where \chi_{B(0,\frac{1}{\nu})} denotes the characteristic function of B(0,\frac{1}{\nu}).

Finally, since u\in\mathbb{K}^s_g, given v\in\mathbb{K}^s_g, taking v-u as test function in (?) and noting that

\begin{aligned} \pmb{\langle}\lambda D^su,D^s(v-u)\pmb{\rangle}&=\langle\lambda,D^su\cdot D^s(v-u)\rangle=\langle\lambda, D^su\cdot D^sv-|D^su|^2\rangle\\ & \leq \langle\lambda,|D^s u|(|D^sv|-|D^su|)\rangle \leq \langle\lambda,|D^s u|(g-|D^su|)\rangle\\ &=\langle\lambda(g-|D^su|),|D^su|\rangle=0, \end{aligned}

it is clear that u solves the variational inequality (3.1), which concludes the proof of Theorem 4.1.

Uses Theorem 4.1, Theorem 2.7, Proof, Theorem 4.2, Theorem 3.1

Remark

Remark 4.3

V3X8

Theorem 4.2, as a weak continuous dependence result, generalises Theorem 3.5 to the case of degenerate operators, including the case A\equiv 0, with L^1-data. In fact, if A satisfies (?) and (?) holds with the strictly coercive assumption (?), it is clear that u solving problem (?) is unique. On the other hand, the uniqueness of \lambda is an open problem, even in the local case of s=1, which was considered first for the Laplacian in [AzevedoSantos2017] in the special case f_\#\in L^2(\Omega) and \boldsymbol f=0.

Remark

Remark 4.4

JT6L

As in Section 3, we may assume in Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 that g and g_\nu satisfy (?) instead (?), with uniform limit in \nu.

Theorem

Theorem 5.1

SPTJ

For any 0<\sigma<1, let (u_s,\lambda_s)\in\Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega)\times L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)' solve ?-? for any s, 0<\sigma<s<1, under the assumptions (?), (?), (?) and (?), (?). Then, there is a generalised sequence denoted by s\rightarrow 1, such that, for any 0<\alpha<1,

\begin{aligned} & u_s\underset{s}\rightarrow u\ \text{ in } \ \Lambda^{\sigma,p}_0(\Omega)\cap C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega}),\\ & D^su_s\underset{s}\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup Du\ \text{ in } \ \boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)\text{-weak}^*,\\ & (\lambda_s)_\Omega\underset{s}\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup \lambda \text{ in } \ L^\infty(\Omega)'\text{-weak}^*, \end{aligned}

where (u,\lambda)\in W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)' is a solution to the local problem 11?-11?, in \Omega.

Proof of Theorem 5.1

We adapt the steps of the proof of Theorem 4.2: i) a priori estimates with respect to s; ii) existence of limits of generalised sequences, by compactness, and iii) characterization of those limits as solutions of the local problem 11?- 11?. For 0<\sigma<s<1, using the Poincaré inequality (?), we have \frac{\sigma}{C_0}\|u_s\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\leq \|D^su_s\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}. Then by the assumption (?) we obtain for any u_s\in\mathbb{K}^s_{g_s} solution of ?-?, we get that

\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} & C^{-1}_{p,\infty}\|D^su_s\|_{\boldsymbol L^p(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq \|D^su_s\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq g^*,\ 1\leq p<\infty,\\ & \|u_s\|_{ C^{0,\beta}(\overline{\Omega})}\leq C_\beta,\ \text{for any $\beta$, $0<\beta<s<1$}, \end{aligned} \end{aligned}

where the constant C_\beta is independent of s.

Letting \boldsymbol\Psi_s=\lambda_s D^s u_s, arguing exactly as in (Proof)-(Proof) and (Proof), by replacing the label \nu by s, we obtain that

\begin{aligned} \|\lambda_s\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}'\leq \tfrac{C_1}{g_*^2} \quad\text{and}\quad \|\boldsymbol\Psi_s\|_{\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)}'&\leq \tfrac{C_1 g^*}{g_*^2}, \end{aligned}

where C_1>0 is a constant independent of s, \sigma<s<1

Therefore, by compactness, in particular, by (Proof) and (?), there are u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega})\cap\Lambda^{\sigma,p}(\Omega), for 0<\alpha<\beta, 0<\sigma<1 and 1<p<\infty, \boldsymbol\chi\in\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d), \widetilde{\lambda} \in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)', \boldsymbol\Psi\in\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)' and a generalised sequence s\rightarrow 1, such that

\begin{aligned} & u_s\underset{s}\longrightarrow u\ \text{ in } \ \Lambda^{\sigma,p}_0(\Omega)\cap C^{0,\alpha}(\overline{\Omega}),\\ & D^su_s\underset{s}\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup \boldsymbol\chi\ \text{ in } \ \boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)\text{-weak}^*,\\ & (\lambda_s)_\Omega\underset{s}\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup \lambda \text{ in } \ L^\infty(\Omega)'\text{-weak}^*,\\ & \boldsymbol\Psi_s\underset{s}\relbar\joinrel\rightharpoonup \boldsymbol\Psi\ \text{ in } \ \boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d)\text{-weak}^*. \end{aligned}

Letting by \widetilde{u} be the extension of u by zero to \mathbb{R}^d, and applying Corollary 2.3 componentwise to an arbitrarily \boldsymbol\varphi\in C^\infty_c(\mathbb{R}^d)^d, we have, by (?),

\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\boldsymbol \chi\cdot \boldsymbol\varphi =\lim_s\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}D^su^s\cdot\boldsymbol\varphi=-\lim_s\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widetilde{u}^sD^s\cdot \boldsymbol\varphi =-\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\widetilde{u}D\cdot\boldsymbol\varphi,

which means that \boldsymbol\chi=D\widetilde{u}\in\boldsymbol L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^d) and u\in W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega), and therefore D\widetilde{u}=\widetilde{Du}.

Arguing as in (Proof) with an arbitrarily measurable subset w\subset\mathbb{R}^d with finite measure and with \boldsymbol \xi=\frac{Du}{|Du|}\chi_V, V=w\cap\{|Du|\neq 0\}, we obtain

\int_w|D\widetilde{u}|=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}D\widetilde{u}\cdot\boldsymbol\xi=\lim_s \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}D^s\widetilde{u}_s\cdot\boldsymbol\xi\leq \varlimsup_s\int_w|D^su_s|\leq\lim_s\int_wg_s=\int_wg_1

and so |Du|\leq g_1 a.e. in \Omega, i.e. u\in \mathbb{K}_{g_1}.

Observe that we still have the lower semicontinuity property

\varliminf_s\mathscr{L}^s(u_s,u_s)\geq \mathscr{L}^1(u,u)

as we easily see by using (?) and taking \varliminf_s in

\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}AD^su_s\cdot D^su_s\geq \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}AD^su_s\cdot D\widetilde{u}+\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}AD\widetilde{u}\cdot D^su_s-\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}AD\widetilde{u}\cdot D\widetilde{u}.

On the other hand, recalling (2.12), we have C^\infty_c(\Omega)\subset W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega)\subset \Lambda^{s,\infty}_0(\Omega). Taking the limit s\rightarrow 1 in ? with v\in C^\infty_c(\Omega) we get

\mathscr{L}^1(u,v)+\pmb{\langle} \boldsymbol\Psi_\Omega,Dv\pmb{\rangle}=[F,v]_1.

Since for each v\in W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega) we may take a sequence v_n\in C^\infty_0(\Omega) such that v_n\underset{n}{\longrightarrow}v in H^1_0(\Omega) with Dv_n\underset{n}{\longrightarrow}Dv in \boldsymbol L^\infty(\Omega)\text{-weak}^*, the equation (Proof) also holds for any v\in W^{1,\infty}_0(\Omega), as \boldsymbol\Psi_\Omega\in\boldsymbol L^\infty(\Omega)'. So 11? will follows if we show \boldsymbol\Psi_\Omega=\lambda Du, with \lambda=\widetilde{\lambda}_\Omega, which can be done exactly as in the proof of (Proof), by replacing the subscript \nu by s in (Proof) and in (Proof).

Similarly, the corresponding limit (Proof) as s\rightarrow 1 implies \langle\lambda(g^2-|Du|^2) ,1\rangle=0 and the same argument of (Proof) yields \lambda(g-|Du|)=0 in L^\infty(\Omega)', showing that (u,\lambda) also satisfies 11? in \Omega.

Uses Theorem 4.2, Corollary 2.3, Remark 2.12, Proof

Remark

Remark 5.2

C7AQ

In the coercive case, i.e., if (?) and (?) hold, it is clear that u_s and u_1 are also the unique solutions of the respective variational inequalities (3.1), with s\leq 1. In this case, in particular, with c=f_\#=0 and \boldsymbol b=\boldsymbol d=\boldsymbol 0, the result was given in [AzevedoRodriguesSantos2022] only with the convergence u_s\underset{s}{\longrightarrow}u in H^\sigma_0(\Omega), 0< \sigma<1.

Remark

Remark 5.3

50JW

Under the assumptions of Theorem 3.5 it is easy to obtain the estimates, similarly to (3.5),

\|u_s\|_{H^s_0(\Omega)}\leq \tfrac{C_*}{\delta}\|f_*\|_{L^{2^\#}(\Omega)}+\tfrac{1}{\delta}\|\boldsymbol f\|_{\boldsymbol L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}

and, denoting \Gamma^s\in \partial I_{\mathbb{K}^s_{g_s}(u_s)}, as in Remark 3.4, it is easy to conclude that \Gamma^s is also uniformly bounded in H^{-s}(\Omega), independently of \sigma<s<1. This allows us to take subsequences u_s\underset{s}{\longrightarrow} u in H^\sigma_0(\Omega) and \Gamma^s\underset{s}{\longrightarrow}\Gamma in H^{-\sigma}(\Omega), \forall \sigma <1, with u\in H^1_0(\Omega), \Gamma\in H^{-1}(\Omega) satisfying the local problem s=1.

Uses Theorem 3.5

Remark

Remark 5.4

XPOY

As in Remark 4.4, in Theorem 5.1 we may replace the assumptions on g_s by the weaker assumption g_s\in L^\infty_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^d), with positive lower bound in any compact set, and \displaystyle\lim_{|x|\rightarrow\infty}g_s(x)|x|^{d+s}=\infty uniformly in s.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2208.14274v2 by Assis Azevedo, José Francisco Rodrigues and Lisa Santos, under the licence CC0 1.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2208/2208.14274.jsonl.