A Visual Approach to the Regularity Theory for Fully Nonlinear Elliptic Equations

Let B_r(x_0)\subseteq \Omega. We will show that for some C\geq 1, depending only on \alpha and \mu,

The proof for the lower bound can be obtained in a similar way and is omitted.

For y\in B_{r/2}(x_0) we have B_{r/2}(y)\subseteq B_{r}(x_0)\subseteq\Omega and then

Let N := \lfloor 2/\mu\rfloor +1. Given y_0,y_1\in B_{r/2}(x_0), consider y_t := (1-t)y_0+ty_1 so that

We conclude after dividing by |y_0-y_1|^\alpha and taking the supremum in y_0,y_1\in B_{r/2}(x_0).

Given x_0 \in B_{1/2} let

Let us see that there exists some y_0 \in \operatorname*{argmin}_{B_{\delta}(x_0)}(u-\varphi), see Figure ?.

Notice that m := \min_{\overline{B_{\delta}(x_0)}}(u-\varphi)\leq 0 because \varphi(x_0)\geq u(x_0). If m = 0 we just take y_0=x_0. Otherwise, if m<0, then the non-empty set \operatorname*{argmin}_{\overline{B_{\delta}(x_0)}}(u-\varphi) must be disjoint from \partial B_{\delta}(x_0) where \varphi \leq u.

By applying the first derivative test at y_0 \in \operatorname*{argmin}_{B_{\delta}(x_0)}(u-\varphi) we obtain that

The conclusion now follows by taking the supremum over x_0\in B_{1/2}.

Let B_{r}(x_0)\subseteq\Omega, x,y \in B_{r/6}(x_0) distinct, and \rho=|x-y| \in (0,r/3). Notice that B_{r/6}(x_0) \subseteq B_{r/3}(x) \subseteq B_{r/2}(x_0)\subseteq \Omega. Consider v(z) := u((r/3)z+x) such that as z\in B_1 we have that (r/3)z+x \in B_{r/3}(x).

By applying Lemma 2.8 to v

By taking the supremum over x,y \in B_{r/6}(x_0) and multiplying by r^\alpha

Finally, we conclude by taking the supremum in B_r(x_0) and using Lemma 2.2.

Consider for r\in(0,1), the average of u over \partial B_r. By the change of variable formula

Then we compute its derivative with respect to r

The second equality follows by the divergence theorem. Given that p\geq1, Hölder’s inequality allow us to get

Notice that the function r\mapsto r^{1-n/p} is integrable in the interval (0,1) if and only if p>n/2. By integrating the inequality from r=0 to r=\rho\in(0,1)

We finally recover the desired formula by integrating from \rho=0 to \rho=1.

Our goal is to show that for some \rho,\theta \in (0,1) we see that \operatorname*{osc}_{B_{\rho^k}} u \leq (1-\theta)^k holds true for any integer k\geq 0, so that Lemma 2.1 settles the proof.

Let \delta,\theta\in(0,1) as in Lemma 2.7. Assume that \operatorname*{osc}_{B_1}u\leq 1 and \|\Delta u\|_{L^p(B_1)} \leq \delta, otherwise apply the following proof to the function \bar u:= u/\1\operatorname*{osc}_{B_1}u+\delta^{-1}\|\Delta u\|_{L^p(B_1)}\2 that satisfies the required conditions.

Assume by induction that for \rho:= \min\{1/3,(1-\theta)^{1/(2-n/p)}\} and some k\geq 1, we have \operatorname*{osc}_{B_{\rho^k}} u \leq (1-\theta)^k. The base case k=1 is just the conclusion of Lemma 2.7. Then consider v(x) := (1-\theta)^{-k}u(\rho^kx) such that

Using that \rho \leq (1-\theta)^{1/(2-n/p)}

Then by Lemma 2.7, \operatorname*{osc}_{B_\rho} v \leq \operatorname*{osc}_{B_{1/3}} v \leq (1-\theta). Equivalently,

which now shows that the geometric decay is valid for every k\geq 1.

Assume without loss of generality that 0\leq u\leq 1 in B_1. If

we apply a rescaling of Lemma 3.12 to get u\geq \theta := C^{-1/\varepsilon}2^{-(1+2\varepsilon)/\varepsilon} in B_{\rho}\subseteq Q_{1/\sqrt n}, provided that \delta := C^{-1/\varepsilon}2^{-(1+2\varepsilon)/\varepsilon} and \rho:=1/(2\sqrt n). Otherwise, we apply Lemma 3.12 to (1-u) to get a similar improvement of the upper bound of u.

Consider the family of paraboloids

Letting \theta := 1/4, we get that for every y_0\in B_{1/4} we have \varphi_{y_0}(0) > \theta and \varphi_{y_0} < 0 in {\mathbb R}^n \setminus B_1. Together with the hypotheses u(0) \leq \theta and \inf_{B_1} u\geq 0, they imply that for every y_0\in B_{1/4}

(Figure ?). Therefore, the result would follow from a lower bound on the measure of the contact set A = \bigcup_{y_0\in B_{1/4}}\operatorname*{argmin} (u - \varphi_{y_0}).

Consider now the mapping T\colon A\to B_{1/4} defined such that T(x_0)=x_0+Du(x_0). Equivalently, y_0=T(x_0) is the center of the paraboloid \varphi_{y_0} such that x_0 \in \operatorname*{argmin}(u-\varphi_{y_0}). By (Proof) it also follows that T is surjective. We finally observe that DT = I+D^2u\geq 0 on the contact set A, just by definition of the contact set and the second derivative test.

Now we will use the uniform ellipticity over the contact set. For every x_0\in A we already have that the eigenvalues of D^2u(x_0) are bounded from below by -1, then for any positive eigenvalue e\in \operatorname{eig}(D^2u(x_0)) we must have \lambda e \leq (n-1)\Lambda + f(x_0). This means that \det(D^2u+I) \leq C(1+f^n) in A for some C\geq1 depending on the dimension n and the ellipticity constants.

By the area formula and the hypothesis \|f\|_{L^n(B_1)}\leq \delta,

By choosing \delta sufficiently small we can absorb the term C\delta^n on the left-hand side and get the desired estimate for \eta := |B_{1/4}|/(2C).

Consider the family of test functions (Figure ?)

where C_0,\alpha\geq 1 will be chosen sufficiently large. We see that for any y_0 \in B_{\rho/2}, we have \inf_{B_{1/2}}\varphi_{y_0} \geq 1, and \sup_{{\mathbb R}^n\setminus B_1}\varphi_{y_0} \leq 0.

Let M := \max_{{\mathbb R}^n} \varphi_{y_0}. If we assume by contradiction that \inf_{B_{\rho}}u > M we obtain that for each y_0\in B_{\rho/2}

Let A = \bigcup_{y_0 \in B_{\rho/2}} \operatorname*{argmin}(u-\varphi_{y_0}), and T:A\to B_{\rho/2} such that T(x_0)=y_0 if x_0 \in \operatorname*{argmin} (u-\varphi_{y_0}). This mapping is surjective due to (?) and gets computed from the tangency relation at the contact point

where C_1:= (q(1/2+\rho/2)-q(1-\rho/2))^{-1}.

Let \Phi(x) := D^2\varphi_0(x-T(x)). By the area formula

To estimate the integrand we use the following fact from linear algebra: For N_1,N_2 \in {\mathbb R}^{n\times n}_{\text{sym}} such that \det N_1\neq 0(For M\in {\mathbb R}^{n\times n}, we denote |M|_{\text{op}} := \sup_{|x|=1}|Mx|. If M is symmetric then we have that

For z \in {\mathbb R}^n\setminus \overline{B_{\rho/2}} we compute

From this we get that the eigenvalues of D^2\varphi_0(z) are: C_0C_1\alpha|z|^{-\alpha-2}(\alpha+1) with single multiplicity, and -C_0C_1\alpha|z|^{-\alpha-2} with multiplicity (n-1).

For x_0 \in A and y_0=T(x_0)

We can make the right-hand side positive by fixing \alpha:=\Lambda n/\lambda. Then we can also make the right-hand side \geq 1 by fixing C_0 large enough, depending on \rho and \alpha.

Once we have fixed the parameters \alpha, C_0, and hence also M; we notice that |D^2\varphi_{y_0}|_{\text{op}} and |(D^2\varphi_{y_0})^{-1}|_{\text{op}} are bounded over B_1\setminus \overline{B_{\rho}}\supseteq A, uniformly with respect to y_0\in B_{\rho/2}. The eigenvalues of D^2u(x_0) are bounded from below by -|D^2\varphi_{y_0}(x_0)|_{\text{op}}. On the other hand, the equation provides an upper bound for the positive eigenvalues e \in \operatorname{eig}(D^2u(x_0)) given by \lambda e \leq \Lambda (n-1)|D^2\varphi_{y_0}(x_0)|_{\text{op}} + f(x_0).

Putting together the information about the eigenvalues of N_1= \Phi = D^2\varphi_{y_0} and N_2= D^2u, and using that A\subseteq \{f\geq 1\}, we conclude that |DT| = |\det(I - \Phi^{-1} D^2u)| \leq Cf^n in A. Due to (?) we obtain |B_{\rho/2}|\leq C\|f\|_{L^n(B_1)}^n \leq C\delta^n, however this is a contradiction if we finally fix \delta sufficiently small.

Let M_0 be the constant from the localization Lemma 3.9 with respect to the radius \rho_0=\rho/2. By this lemma, we get u(x_0) \leq M_0 for some x_0 \in \overline{B_{\rho/2}}.

Let \theta and \eta_0 from Lemma 3.8. Applying this lemma to \theta M_0^{-1} u((\rho/2) x+x_0), we get |\{u\leq \theta^{-1}M_0\}\cap B_{\rho/2}(x_0)|\geq \eta_0(\rho/2)^n. Therefore, the desired result follows for M := \theta^{-1}M_0 and \eta := \eta_0/|B_2|.

Let \delta_0,\eta_0\in(0,1) and M_0\geq 1 be the constants from Corollary 3.10 with respect to \rho := 1/(6\sqrt n) and the same ellipticity constants. We will show that Lemma 3.11 holds for \delta := \delta_0/(3\sqrt{n}), \eta:= \eta_0|B_{1/2}|, and M:=M_0.

Let Q := \overline{Q_\ell(x_0)} be an arbitrary dyadic cube in the decomposition of \{u>1\}\cap \overline{Q_1}. Let r := \ell/(2\rho) = 3\sqrt{n}\ell, using that \delta = \delta_0/(3\sqrt{n}), we see that for the rescalings v(x) := u(r x+x_0) and g(x):= r^2f(r x+x_0) \geq \mathcal M_{\lambda,\Lambda}^-(D^2v(x)) we get

Given that the predecessor of Q intersects \{u\leq 1\}

Now we are in shape to apply Corollary 3.10 to v and g, obtaining in this way the following estimate for the distribution of u over Q

By adding this estimate to all the dyadic cubes in the decomposition of \{u>1\}\cap \overline{Q_1}

which concludes the proof.

Follows as in the proof of Lemma 2.8, assuming first that for \delta\in(0,1) from Lemma 3.11, we have \|f\|_{L^n(B_{3\sqrt n})} \leq \delta and \inf_{Q_3} u \leq 1. The goal is to show that for every \mu>0

Otherwise, we use the homogeneity of the Pucci operator and apply the following reasoning to the renormalized function

For M and \eta as in Lemma 3.11, it follows inductively and once again by the homogeneity of the operator, that for every integer k\geq 1,

To be precise, the inductive step follows by applying Lemma 3.11 to M^{-k}u. Notice that for \varepsilon := -\ln(1-\eta)/\ln M, we can replace (1-\eta)^{k} on the right-hand side with (M^k)^{-\varepsilon}.

Given \mu\geq 1, let k be a non-negative integer such that M^k \leq \mu <M^{k+1}. Then, once we fix C := M^\varepsilon, we obtain

If \mu \in (0,1), the desired estimate in the distribution is true because C\geq 1.

We show instead the result over the domain B_R with R=3\sqrt{n}, instead of B_1, so we assume \|f\|_{L^n(B_R)}\leq \delta. As in Lemma 4.4, we fix \mu=1/6 and r=1/12.

Let

From u(0)\leq \theta, we get m_0(0) \leq \theta and A_{\{0\}}^1\cap \overline{B_{(1-\mu)R}} \neq \emptyset.

We select a set of dyadic cubes according to the following algorithm: At the k^{th} stage of the algorithm, which starts from k=0, we consider a given subset of dyadic cubes from the k^{th} generation of dyadic cubes starting from Q_1. One of these cubes, say Q_{2^{-k}}(x_0), is selected if A_{\{x_0\}}^{2^k}\cap R_k(x_0)\neq \emptyset. Once a cube is selected, none of its descendants will be considered in the following stages. Otherwise, if the cube is not selected, its immediate descendants will be considered in the next stage.

By an inductive argument using a rescaling of Lemma 4.4, we obtain that for every cube Q_{2^{-k}}(x_0) that is considered in the k^{th} iteration we also have that A_{\{x_0\}}^{2^k}\cap \overline{B_{(1-\mu)2^{-k}R}(x_0)} \neq \emptyset.

Also by induction and using Lemma 4.4, we see that if Q_{2^{-(k+1)}}(x_1) is a cube considered in the (k+1)^{th} iteration, descendant of Q_{2^{-k}}(x_0), then

If y_0\in Q_1 is never covered by the selected cubes we find a nested sequence of dyadic cubes Q_1 \supseteq Q_{1/2}(x_1) \supseteq \ldots such that \bigcap_{k\geq 1}Q_{2^{-k}}(x_k) = \{y_0\} and

This implies by the continuity of u that u(y_0)\leq \theta+2R^2. If the measure of the set of points not covered is at least 1/2, the result would now follow for any \eta\leq 1/2 and M\geq \theta+2R^2.

On the other hand, using Lemma 4.3 we see that if Q_{2^{-k}}(x_0) is one of the selected cubes and now fix M:=\theta+3R^2, then

Assume that the measure of the union of all the selected cubes is at least 1/2 and let

By Vitali’s covering lemma there exists a disjoint collection of balls \mathcal B'\subseteq\mathcal B so that \sum_{B\in \mathcal B'} |B| \geq 5^{-n}\left|\bigcup_{B\in \mathcal B}B\right| \geq 5^{-n}/2. Given that for each B\in \mathcal B' one has |\{u\leq M\} \cap B|\geq \eta_0|B|, we obtain that

which conbcludes the proof.

Let x_0 \in A^1_{\{0\}}\cap R and consider for y_0 \in B_{\mu/10}(x_0)

For y_0 \in B_{\mu/10}(x_0) we have \varphi_{y_0}^{1}(x_0) + \mu^2/200>0 and \varphi_{y_0}^{1} + \mu^2/200<0 in {\mathbb R}^n\setminus B_{\mu/5}(x_0). Therefore

For every x_1 \in \operatorname*{argmin}(u-\varphi_{y_0/2}^{2}) we get that

Finally, by the same argument as in the proof of Lemma 3.8, using the uniform ellipticity at the contact points and the area formula, we conclude that

Let us see that the given choice of \mu and r guarantees that

Once this is done, we observe that the paraboloid \varphi^2_{x_0}+m is above \varphi_0^1 over \overline{B_\mu} and below \varphi_0^1 outside \overline{B_{(1-\mu)/2}(x_0)}. Hence, the hypotheses on u imply that \varphi_{x_0}^2+m must cross u in \overline{B_{(1-\mu)/2}(x_0)}. By lowering the paraboloid we find a contact point in \overline{B_{(1-\mu)/2}(x_0)}. See Figure ?.

We compute

The maximum of this convex paraboloid over \overline{B_\mu} is achieved at the furthest boundary point from 2x_0

Given that r \leq (1-\mu)/2, the vertex 2x_0 falls in \overline{B_{(1-\mu)/2}(x_0)}, then the minimum of (\varphi_0^1-\varphi_{x_0}^2) over the complement of \overline{B_{(1-\mu)/2}(x_0)} is attained at the closest boundary point from 2x_0. In particular it is less than 1

Moreover,

Finally we see that \mu+2r = 1/3 = \frac{1-\mu}{2}-r guarantees (Proof).