On the uniqueness of energy-minimizing curves in constrained spaces

The result follows from Theorem A, Lemma 3.1, and the fact that \mathbf{u}''=0 holds away from the obstacle, as stated in (?).

For any point q in \mathcal{S}_2, Lemma 5.1 implies the existence of a line segment contained in \mathcal{S}_1. Therefore, q\in \partial \mathcal{S}_1. The assertion \operatorname{int}\mathcal{S}_2=\emptyset naturally follows from \mathcal{S}_2\subseteq \partial \mathcal{S}_1.

The proof follows from Lemma 4.1-Lemma 4.4.

Since \mathcal{O} is bounded, any two points outside \mathcal{O} are connected by a smooth curve in \mathcal{O}^c, which induces that \mathcal{A} is not empty. We now take a minimizing sequence \mathbf{u}_k \in \mathcal{A} such that

Let c:I\rightarrow \mathcal{O}^c be a smooth curve connecting two points p and q. Since c\in \mathcal{A}, we have \inf_{\mathbf{v}\in\mathcal{A}}E(\mathbf{v})\le E(c)<\infty, and thus E(\mathbf{u}_k) is uniformly bounded. Using the Poincarè inequality, \left\lVert\mathbf{u}_k\right\rVert_{H^1} is also uniformly bounded. Then there exists a function \mathbf{u}\in H^1(I;{\mathbb R}^n) such that a subsequence of \mathbf{u}_k converges weakly to \mathbf{u} in H^1(I;{\mathbb R}^n) and converges (strongly) to \mathbf{u} almost everywhere in I. We still denote by \mathbf{u}_k the converging subsequence.

Clearly, \mathbf{u}\in \mathcal{A} since \mathbf{u}_k(0)=p, \mathbf{u}_k(1)=q, and \mathbf{u}_k(I) is contained in the closed set \mathcal{O}^c. Moreover, since E is weakly lower semicontinuous on H^1(I;{\mathbb R}^n), we have

which conclude that \mathbf{u} is a minimizer of E on \mathcal{A}.

Since the non-coincidence set \Omega=\{t\in[0,1]: \mathbf{u}(t)\in {\mathbb R}^n\setminus \overline{\mathcal{O}}\} is open in [0,1] and \{0,1\}\subset \Omega, the non-coincidence set \Omega is of the form

for some m\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0,\infty\}. We claim that m=0. If m>0, then for each (a_k,b_k), it holds

Let \mathbf{v}:[a_k,b_k]\rightarrow \partial \mathcal{O} be the projected curve of \mathbf{u}\vert_{[a_k,b_k]} into \partial\mathcal{O}. Then, we can express \mathbf{u} as \mathbf{u}=\mathbf{v}+hN, where N is the outward unit normal to \partial\mathcal{O} and h:[0,1] \rightarrow {\mathbb R} is a nonnegative function satisfying h(a_k)=h(b_k)=0 and h(t)>0 for a_k<t<b_k so that

Hence, noting \mathbf{v}'\cdot N=0 and N'\cdot N=0, we have

since \mathbf{v}'\cdot N'=-\mathbf{v}''\cdot N \ge 0 by the convexity of the obstacle \mathcal{O} and h> 0 in (a_k,b_k).

Let \tilde{\mathbf{u}} be the function derived from \mathbf{u} by replacing \mathbf{u} with \mathbf{v} over the interval (a_k,b_k). Then it follows from (?) that E(\tilde{\mathbf{u}}) < E(\mathbf{u}). This contradicts the assumption that \mathbf{u} minimizes energy. Therefore, we must have m=0, which implies that \Omega = [0, a) \cup (b,1] and \Lambda=[a,b], as desired.

On the non-coincidence set [0,a), it follows from the Euler–Lagrange equation that \mathbf{u}''=0. Thus \mathbf{u}([0,a]) is the line segment connecting p and \mathbf{u}(a).

To prove \mathbf{u}(a)\in \Gamma_p, we note that \Gamma_p divides \partial\mathcal{O} into two parts. Let us denote the piece that is closer to the point p as \partial\mathcal{O}_p. If \mathbf{u}(a)\not\in \Gamma_p, then \mathbf{u}(a)\in \partial\mathcal{O}_p. Since l_{pq}\cap \mathcal{O}\not=\emptyset, we see that \mathbf{u}(b) lies in the other piece of \partial\mathcal{O}. Thus there exists t_0\in (a,b) such that \mathbf{u}(t_0)\in \Gamma_p. However, replacing \mathbf{u}([0,t_0]) with the line segment connecting p and \mathbf{u}(t_0) reduces energy, which is a contradiction. Therefore, \mathbf{u}(a)\in \Gamma_p.

The same argument shows the similar statement for q.

Suppose a=b. Given the smoothness of \partial \mathcal{O}, \mathbf{u}(a) has a unique tangent plane of \partial\mathcal{O} at \mathbf{u}(a). By virtue of Lemma 4.2, both points p and q are situated on this tangent plane. This, however, leads to a contradiction, as it implies that the line segment l_{pq} has no intersection with \mathcal{O}.

Let f:[a,b]\rightarrow{\mathbb R} be a function with f(t)>0 in (a,b) and f(a)=f(b)=0, and let V(t)=f(t) \nabla_{\mathbf{u}'}\mathbf{u}'. Consider a variation F:(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)\times [a,b]\rightarrow \partial\mathcal{O} of \mathbf{u}\vert_{[a,b]} having V(t) as variational field, i.e., F(0,t)=\mathbf{u}\vert_{[a,b]}, F(\cdot,a)\equiv\mathbf{u}(a), F(\cdot,b)\equiv\mathbf{u}(b), and \frac{\partial F}{\partial s}(0,\cdot)=V.

Let E(s) be the energy of the perturbed curve F(s,\cdot). By differentiating

with respect to s, we have

Using the integration by parts, we obtain

Taking s=0, we conclude that

Therefore, we have \nabla_{\mathbf{u}'}\mathbf{u}'=0 in (a,b), meaning that \mathbf{u} is indeed a geodesic.

The fact that this geodesic is minimizing follows from the equality condition given in (?). This completes the proof.

Consider the vision boundaries \Gamma_q and \Gamma_{q'}. Note that \Gamma_q partitions \partial\mathcal{O} into two distinct regions, with \Gamma_{q'}\setminus \mathbf{u}(b) contained in one of these regions. Furthermore, observe that \mathbf{u}(b) lies in the intersection of \Gamma_q and \Gamma_{q'}.

We begin by noting that

Select a point x' in \Gamma_{q'}, distinct from \mathbf{u}(b), and let x denote the intersection of \Gamma_q and the geodesic starting at x', directed towards x'-q'. Define l as the length of the minimizing geodesic that connects x' and x. By the triangle inequality in the triangle xqq', we find

By comparing (Proof) with (?), and using Theorem 1.4, we deduce the uniqueness of the energy minimizer for the given fixed points p and q', thereby concluding the proof.