Comparison Principles for the Finsler Infinity Laplacian with Applications to Minimal Lipschitz Extensions

By Lemma 2, the proof reduces to establishing that, given any bounded open set V \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\} and any \epsilon > 0, if u \in USC(\overline{V}) satisfies

then

It is simplest to argue by contradiction: suppose that

In particular, since u is upper semicontinuous, there is an r > 0 such that if \overline{B}_{r}(\partial V) = \bigcup_{y \in \partial V} \overline{B}_{r}(y), then

Note that since 0 \notin V, it follows that V \setminus \overline{B}_{r}(\partial V) \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \overline{B}_{r}(0).

Let (\varphi_{\zeta})_{\zeta > 0} be the approximating norms of Theorem (5). Since \varphi_{\zeta} \to \varphi uniformly in \overline{V} as \zeta \to 0^{+}, it follows that there is a \zeta_{*} \in (0,1) such that, for any \zeta < \zeta_{*},

Fix an arbitrary \zeta < \zeta_{*}. In view of (?), u satisfies

Therefore, by Proposition 25 applied with W = V \setminus \overline{B}_{r}(\partial V), there is a triple (x_{*},X_{*},q_{*}) \in (V \setminus \overline{B}_{r}(\partial V)) \times \mathcal{S}_{d} \times \{\varphi_{\zeta} = 1\} such that

Here it is important to emphasize specifically that x_{*} \notin \overline{B}_{r}(\partial V) so \|x_{*}\| > r.

Due to the bound on X_{*} and the fact that q_{*} lies in its kernel, one can write

Harvesting the above inequalities, along with the bound \varphi^{*}(D\varphi_{\zeta}(x_{*})) \geq \kappa(\varphi) from Theorem 5, one finds

In view of the fact that \|x_{*}\| > r, this can be rearranged to give

In the limit \zeta \to 0^{+}, this last inequality becomes the conclusion that

but this contradicts the fact that \varphi is positive away from zero.

Let u_{*} and u^{*} be the upper and lower half-relaxed limits of (u^{\epsilon})_{\epsilon > 0} as defined in [barles, Section 6] or [chatterjee_souganidis, Proof of Theorem 3.1]. Since the barrier arguments above are \epsilon-independent and G is an extension of g, it follows that u_{*} = u^{*} = G = g on \partial U. Further, using Lemma 17, one readily deduces that

Therefore, by Theorem 8, u^{*} \leq u_{*} in \overline{U}. Yet the definitions imply u^{*} \geq u_{*}. Thus, equality holds u^{*} \equiv u_{*}, and u^{\epsilon} \to u uniformly in \overline{U}.

Fix x_{0} \in \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\} and let \psi be a smooth function defined in a neighborhood of x_{0}. Suppose that \varphi - \psi has a local minimum at x_{0}.

After a Taylor expansion at x_{0}, one finds

From this, it readily follows that D\psi(x_{0}) \in \partial \varphi(x_{0}), hence, by (?) and (?),

Notice that this implies x_{0} \in \mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(D\psi(x_{0}))).

Consider the cone \mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(D\psi(x_{0}))) determined by the direction D\psi(x_{0}). Observe that \varphi is linear in \mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(D\psi(x_{0}))), that is,

Indeed, if q \in \partial \varphi^{*}(D\psi(x_{0})) and \lambda \geq 0, then (?) and (?) together imply

Now (?) follows from this and the definition of \mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(D\psi(x_{0}))).

Next, notice that if q \in \partial \varphi^{*}(D\psi(x_{0})) and t > 0, then x_{0} + t q \in \mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(D\psi(x_{0}))). This is immediate from (?) since \{x_{0}\} \cup \partial \varphi^{*}(D\psi(x_{0})) \subseteq \mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(D\psi(x_{0}))).

Finally, setting x = x_{0} + tq with t > 0 and q \in \partial \varphi^{*}(D\psi(x_{0})), the identity (?) combines with (Proof) and (?) to yield

This proves that

and, thus, by the arbitrariness of q and the definition (?) of G_{\varphi}^{*},

Concerning (i), recall that E_{\zeta} = \{\varphi_{\zeta} \leq 1\} by definition. Thus, this is immediate from Proposition 6.

Next, statements (ii), (iii), and (iv) were proved in Propositions 8, 9, and 10, respectively.

Finally, concerning (v), it is clear that 0 \in \{\varphi < 1\} \subseteq \{\varphi_{\zeta} < 1\}, hence there is a \delta > 0 such that \overline{B}_{\delta}(0) \subseteq \{\varphi_{\zeta} \leq 1\} for all \zeta > 0. By boundedness, there is an R > 0 such that \{\varphi \leq 1\} \subseteq \overline{B}_{R}(0), hence Proposition 9 implies that \{\varphi_{\zeta} \leq 1\} \subseteq B_{CR}(0) for some C > 0 independent of \zeta \in (0,1). Thus, up to decreasing \delta, one has \overline{B}_{\delta}(0) \subseteq \{\varphi_{\zeta} \leq 1\} \subseteq \overline{B}_{\delta^{-1}}(0) for all \zeta \in (0,1).

The proof proceeds by contradiction. Fix an open set V \subset \subset U. Suppose that there is a point x_{0} \in V, constants \lambda,\mu > 0, and a vector v \in \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus V such that

Up to replacing u by \lambda^{-1} u, there is no loss of generality assuming that \lambda = 1. Further, it is safe to assume that v = 0 as otherwise one can replace U by U - v, x_{0} by x_{0} - v, u by u(\cdot + v), and so on.

Let (u^{\epsilon})_{\epsilon > 0} be the family defined by (1) and let \epsilon_{*} = \epsilon_{*}(u,\mu) > 0 be as in Lemma 1. Choose a family (x_{\epsilon})_{\epsilon > 0} \subseteq \overline{V} such that

By (Proof), there is no loss of generality assuming (i.e., up to extraction) that there is an x_{*} \in V such that x_{\epsilon} \to x_{*} as \epsilon \to 0^{+}. When \epsilon is small enough, there holds x_{\epsilon} \in V, and, thus, by the lemma,

At the same time, \varphi - u^{\epsilon} has a local minimum at x_{\epsilon}. Hence, by Proposition 1 and its proof,

(Here is where smoothness of u^{\epsilon} is used.) In particular,

which is absurd.

Henceforth, to lighten the notation, it will frequently be useful to denote by Q_{X} the quadratic form associated with a symmetric matrix X, hence Q_{X}(v) = \langle Xv, v \rangle for any v \in \mathbb{R}^{d}.

First, by Proposition 1,

Yet \psi is convex so D^{2}\psi(x_{*}) \geq 0. Therefore, the previous bound is actually equivalent to an apparently stronger statement:

Next, recall that (4) holds not only distributionally but also in the viscosity sense; the two are equivalent.(See [alvarez_lasry_lions, Lemma 1], [oberman, Theorem 1], or [bardi_dragoni, Proposition 5.1].) Thus, since \psi touches \varphi_{\zeta} from below at x_{*},

Finally, appeal to the definition of G_{\varphi}^{*} and (?):

Due to (?), if q \in \partial \varphi_{\zeta}(D\psi(x_{*})), then

Thus, by the Hessian bound on \psi at x_{*},

To see that (i) holds, first, observe that E_{\zeta} is convex. Indeed, suppose that q_{1},q_{2} \in E_{\zeta} and \lambda \in [0,1]. By construction, there are points \bar{q}_{1},\bar{q}_{2} \in \{\varphi \leq 1\} and \xi_{1},\xi_{2} \in \overline{B}_{\zeta} such that q_{i} = \bar{q}_{i} + \xi_{i} for i \in \{1,2\}. From this, one decomposes the convex combination (1 - \lambda) q_{1} + \lambda q_{2} as

Since \{\varphi \leq 1\} and \overline{B}_{\zeta} are both convex, it follows that (1 - \lambda) q_{1} + \lambda q_{2} \in E_{\zeta}, hence E_{\zeta} is convex.

Next, here is the proof that E_{\zeta} satisfies a uniform interior ball condition with radius \zeta, and, thus, is of class C^{1,1}. By definition, if q_{*} \in \partial E_{\zeta}, then there is a \bar{q}_{*} \in \{\varphi \leq 1\} such that \|q_{*} - \bar{q}_{*}\| = \zeta. From this, one readily deduces that \overline{B}_{\zeta}(q_{*} - \zeta e) = \overline{B}_{\zeta}(\bar{q}_{*}) \subseteq E_{\zeta} with e = \|q_{*} - \bar{q}_{*}\|^{-1} (q_{*} - \bar{q}_{*}).

Next, turn to (ii). By Lemma 6, for any x \in \mathbb{R}^{d}, there is a unique \bar{q}_{x} \in \{\varphi \leq 1\} such that \|x - \bar{q}_{x}\| = \text{dist}(x,\{\varphi \leq 1\}). It is also easy to check that \bar{q}_{x} \in \{\varphi = 1\} if \varphi(x) > 1. In particular, the function \mathcal{Q}_{\zeta} : \partial E_{\zeta} \to \{\varphi = 1\} given by setting \mathcal{Q}_{\zeta}(q) = \bar{q}_{q} is well-defined. Due to the fact that \{\varphi \leq 1\} is compact, uniqueness readily implies continuity.

Finally, consider (iii). Let \bar{q}_{*} = \mathcal{Q}_{\zeta}(q_{*}). A classical argument establishes that \varphi^{*}(q_{*} - \bar{q}_{*})^{-1} (q_{*} - \bar{q}_{*}) \in \partial \varphi(\bar{q}_{*}). Indeed, were this not the case, it would be possible to invoke (?) and (?) to find a \bar{q}_{**} \in \{\varphi \leq 1\} such that

However, this would contradict Lemma 6.

It only remains to show that

To see this, first, note that if N_{\partial E_{\zeta}}(q_{*}) \in S^{d-1} is the outward normal vector to \partial E_{\zeta} at q_{*}, then, by convexity, N_{\partial E_{\zeta}}(q_{*}) determines a supporting hyperplane:

At the same time, as observed already, there holds \overline{B}_{\zeta}(\bar{q}_{*}) \subseteq E_{\zeta} and q_{*} \in \partial B_{\zeta}(\bar{q}_{*}) \cap \partial E_{\zeta}, i.e., the ball \overline{B}_{\zeta}(\bar{q}_{*}) is tangent to E_{\zeta} from the inside. It necessarily follows that N_{\partial E_{\zeta}}(q_{*}) equals the normal vector to \partial B_{\zeta}(\bar{q}_{*}), that is, N_{\partial E_{\zeta}}(q_{*}) = \|q_{*} - \bar{q}_{*}\|^{-1} (q_{*} - \bar{q}_{*}). Combining this with (?) yields (?).

The “if" direction is a consequence of orthogonality. See [schneider, Lemma 1.3.1] for the proof of the “only if" direction.

Suppose that q \in \mathcal{Q}_{\zeta}^{-1}(\bar{q}). By Proposition 6, (iii), the vector p = \varphi^{*}(q - \bar{q})^{-1}(q - \bar{q}) is an element of \partial \varphi(\bar{q}). At the same time, \|q - \bar{q}\| = \zeta. Thus, since \varphi^{*}(q - \bar{q}) > 0, it follows that q = \bar{q} + \varphi^{*}(q - \bar{q}) p = \bar{q} + \zeta \|p\|^{-1} p. This proves one of the necessary inclusions.

Conversely, given a p \in \partial \varphi(\bar{q}), it remains to show that the vector q = \bar{q} + \zeta \|p\|^{-1} p is an element of the set \{\mathcal{Q}_{\zeta} = \bar{q}\}. It is clear that \|q - \bar{q}\| = \zeta so q \in E_{\zeta}. At the same time,

Thus, by Lemma 6, \|q - \bar{q}\| = \inf \left\{ \|q - \bar{q}_{1}\| \, \mid \, \bar{q}_{1} \in \{\varphi \leq 1\}\right\}. This proves q \in \partial E_{\zeta} and \mathcal{Q}_{\zeta}(q) = \bar{q}.

First, recall that \{\varphi \leq 1\} \subseteq \{\varphi_{\zeta} \leq 1\} for any \zeta > 0. This implies \varphi_{\zeta} \leq \varphi by positive one-homogeneity.

Define C(\varphi) = \max\{\varphi(y) \, \mid \, \|y\| = 1\}, and note that

Thus, for any \zeta > 0, there holds E_{\zeta} \subseteq \{\varphi \leq 1\} + \overline{B}_{\zeta}(0) \subseteq (1 + C(\varphi)\zeta) \{\varphi \leq 1\}. Since \varphi_{\zeta} is positively one-homogeneous, it follows that, for any y \in \mathbb{R}^{d} and any \zeta \in (0,1),

From this and the identity \varphi_{\zeta}(x) = \langle D\varphi_{\zeta}(x), x \rangle, one deduces that

Similarly, since \langle D\varphi_{\zeta}(x), y \rangle \leq \varphi_{\zeta}(y) for any x,y \in \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\},

This proves (9) holds, and it shows that (\varphi_{\zeta})_{\zeta > 0} is uniformly Lipschitz.

By the Arzelà-Ascoli Theorem, up to passing to a subsequence, there is a Finsler norm \tilde{\varphi} such that \varphi_{\zeta} \to \tilde{\varphi} locally uniformly as \zeta \to 0^{+}. The previous considerations show that, for any \zeta \in (0,1),

Therefore, \{\varphi \leq 1\} = \{\tilde{\varphi} \leq 1\}, which means \tilde{\varphi} = \varphi. Since the subsequence was arbitrary, this proves \varphi_{\zeta} \to \varphi locally uniformly.

Since \varphi^{*} is a Finsler norm, there is a constant m(\varphi^{*}) > 0 such that

Thus, the desired conclusion follows from Proposition 9.

By Lemma 2, to prove that \text{Sub}_{\varphi}(U) \subseteq CCA_{\varphi}(U), it suffices to show that if V is a bounded open set in \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\}, \epsilon > 0, and u is an upper semicontinuous function in \overline{V} such that \frac{1}{2} \epsilon \varphi^{*}(Du)^{2} -G_{\varphi}^{*}(Du,D^{2}u) \leq 0 in V, then

The proof proceeds by contradiction: suppose that there is an x \in V such that

Since x \in V \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\}, Proposition 2 implies there is a function \psi_{x}, which is smooth in a neighborhood of x, such that

Combining (?) and (?), one deduces that

In particular, u - \psi_{x} has a local maximum at x. By the subsolution property of u, this implies

Yet (?) implies that \varphi^{*}(D\varphi(x)) = 1, so this leads to the inequality 0 < \frac{1}{2} \epsilon \leq 0, which is absurd.

The lemma follows, in effect, from the fact that, at least in a small neighborhood of q, the level set \{\psi_{e,q,\zeta} = 1\} equals a sphere; see Proposition 13 below for a detailed proof of a more general statement.

Let x \in \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\}. Define q = \varphi(x)^{-1} x so that q \in \{\varphi = 1\} and x \in \mathcal{C}(\{q\}), and let e = \|D\varphi(q)\|^{-1} D\varphi(q). Define \psi_{x} by \psi_{x}(y) = \psi_{e,q,\zeta}(y), where \psi_{e,q,\zeta} is the positively homogeneous convex function defined in the preceding discussion. Condition (i) holds by (?) and (?), and condition (ii), by Lemma 7. Therefore, it only remains to check (iii).

Since \{\varphi \leq 1\} is strictly convex, the proof of (iii) amounts to a bit of a tautology. By the positive one-homogeneity of \psi_{e,q,\zeta}, the identity D^{2}\psi_{e,q,\zeta}(q)q = 0 holds, and, thus, again by homogeneity,

At the same time, since \{\varphi \leq 1\} is strictly convex, (?) implies that the set function \partial \varphi^{*} is single-valued away from the origin. Taken together with the fact that D\psi_{e,q,\zeta}(x) = D\varphi(x) by (?) and (?), this yields

Invoking the definition of G_{\varphi}^{*} and G_{*}^{\varphi}, one concludes

To lighten the notation, let F = \partial \varphi^{*}(p) and e = \|p\|^{-1} p. By (?), the outward normal vector to \{\varphi \leq 1\} equals e at each point of F. Thus, since, by hypothesis, \{\varphi \leq 1\} satisfies an interior ball condition of radius \zeta, for any q \in F, there holds

In particular, F_{(e,\zeta)} \subseteq \{\varphi \leq 1\} by definition. After a straightforward manipulation of the definition (?) of \psi_{e,F,\zeta}, this implies

Next, if q \in F, then q \in F_{(e,\nu)} and, thus, the definition of \psi_{e,F,\zeta} immediately implies that \psi_{e,F,\zeta}(q) \leq 1. On the other hand, since F \subseteq \{\varphi = 1\} by (?), there holds 1 = \varphi(q) \geq \psi_{e,F,\zeta}(q). Hence \varphi = \psi_{e,F,\zeta} = 1 in F, and, by homogeneity, \varphi = \psi_{e,F,\zeta} in \mathcal{C}(F).

Finally, in case \nu < \zeta, there holds \varphi \leq \psi_{e,F,\zeta} \leq \psi_{e,F,\nu}. Further, note that for an arbitrary q \in \mathbb{R}^{d}, one has

From this, it follows that \partial F_{(e,\nu)} \cap \partial F_{(e,\zeta)} = F. Thus, given x \in \{\psi_{e,F,\zeta} < +\infty\} \cap \{\psi_{e,F,\nu} < +\infty\}, there holds \psi_{e,F,\zeta}(x) = \psi_{e,F,\nu}(x) if and only if x \in F.

We will show that there is an r > 0 and a smooth function \tilde{\psi} : B_{r}(q) \to \mathbb{R} such that \tilde{\psi}(x) = \psi_{e,F,\nu}(x) for each x \in B_{r}(q).

Let V_{F} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{d} be the smallest linear subspace such that F \subseteq q + V_{F} (cf. Section ?). Let \tilde{F} be the corresponding tube, defined analogously to F_{(e,\nu)}, that is,

Let \tilde{\psi} be the Minkowski gauge of \tilde{F}:

Since q \in \text{rint}(F) by assumption, it follows that there is an r_{1} > 0 such that B_{r_{1}}(q) \cap F = B_{r_{1}}(q) \cap (q + V_{F}) and, thus,

This implies \psi_{e,F,\nu} = \tilde{\psi} in the cone \mathcal{C}(B_{r_{1}}(q)), and, in particular, in B_{r}(q) for an appropriate choice of r.

It only remains to show that \tilde{\psi} is smooth in a neighborhood of q. Since \tilde{\psi} is a positively homogeneous convex function, the results of the next section, particularly Propositions 16 and 17 (and their proofs), are applicable. Hence to see that \tilde{\psi} is smooth in a neighborhood of q, it suffices to prove that \partial \tilde{F} is a smooth hypersurface in a neighborhood of q.

Let V_{F}^{\perp} denote the orthogonal complement of V_{F}. To see that \tilde{F} is smooth in a neighborhood of q, it suffices to establish that

where, as before, H_{e} = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^{d} \, \mid \, \langle x,e \rangle \geq 0\}. Indeed, the right-hand side is a cylinder, hence its boundary is a smooth hypersurface; and q is an element of the boundary of the left-hand side. Therefore, it only remains to prove (?).

As far as (?) is concerned, suppose that x \in \tilde{F} and \langle x,e \rangle \geq \langle q, e \rangle - \nu. Fix a y \in q + V_{F} such that x \in \overline{B}_{\nu}(y - \nu e). Write x = y - \nu e + \xi_{F} + \xi_{F}^{\perp} with \xi_{F} \in V_{F} and \xi_{F}^{\perp} \in V_{F}^{\perp} to find

since y - q \in V_{F} and V_{F} \subseteq \langle e \rangle^{\perp} holds by (13). This proves

Conversely, fix \xi_{F} \in V_{F} and \xi_{F}^{\perp} \in \overline{B}_{\nu}(0) \cap H_{e} \cap V_{F}^{\perp}. Let y = q + \xi_{F}. Observe that if x = y - \nu e + \xi_{F}^{\perp}, then x \in \overline{B}_{\nu}(y - \nu e) \subseteq \tilde{F} and

This proves the remaining inclusion, and hence (?).

Let q_{*} = \varphi(x_{*})^{-1} x_{*} and fix a \zeta > 0 such that \{\varphi \leq 1\} satisfies a interior ball condition of radius \zeta. Argue by contradiction: assume there is a p \in \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\} such that

which is equivalent to x_{*} \in \text{rint}(\mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(p))). Setting e = \|p\|^{-1} p and applying (12), the test function \psi := \psi_{e,\partial \varphi^{*}(p),\zeta} is smooth in a neighborhood of x and u - \psi has a local maximum at x. Thus, by Proposition 13, the subsolution property of u, and (?),

which contradicts the fact that \epsilon > 0.

First, suppose that x_{*} \in \text{int}(\{\psi < +\infty\}) \setminus \{0\} and p \in \partial \psi(x_{*}). Since x_{*} is in the interior of \{\psi < +\infty\}, there is an \epsilon > 0 such that (1 + t)x_{*} \in \{\psi < +\infty\} \setminus \{0\} for any t \in (-\epsilon,\epsilon). Setting x = (1 + t) x_{*} for t \in (-\epsilon,\epsilon), one invokes (?) to obtain

Sending t \to 0^{+} yields \psi(x_{*}) \geq \langle p, x_{*} \rangle, while sending t \to 0^{-} gives \psi(x_{*}) \leq \langle p, x_{*} \rangle. Thus, \psi(x_{*}) = \langle p, x_{*} \rangle.

Revisiting (?) and substituting \psi(x_{*}) = \langle p, x_{*} \rangle, one obtains

This proves one of the inclusions involved in (15).

Finally, it remains to prove the opposite inclusion. Suppose that x_{*} \in \text{int}(\{\psi < +\infty\}) \setminus \{0\} and p \in \mathbb{R}^{d} is such that

To see that p \in \partial \psi(x_{*}), add and subtract \langle p,x_{*} \rangle to find, for any x \in \mathbb{R}^{d},

First, note that if p \in \partial \psi(x_{*}), then

Thus, each element of \partial \psi(x_{*}) determines a supporting hyperplane to \{\psi \leq 1\} through \psi(x_{*})^{-1} x_{*}.

Conversely, suppose that p \in \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\} determines such a hyperplane, that is, \langle p, q - \psi(x_{*})^{-1} x_{*} \rangle \leq 0 for each q \in \{\psi \leq 1\}. Replacing p by \lambda p for an appropriate choice of \lambda > 0, there is no loss of generality assuming that \langle p, x_{*} \rangle = \psi(x_{*}). Since \langle p, q \rangle \leq 1 for any q \in \{\psi \leq 1\}, one readily deduces by positive-homogeneity that \langle p, y \rangle \leq \psi(y) for any y \in \{\psi < +\infty\}. Thus, by Proposition 15, p \in \partial \psi(x_{*}).

The previous two paragraphs show that p \in \partial \psi(x_{*}) holds if and only if p determines a supporting hyperplane to \{\psi \leq 1\} through the point \psi(x_{*})^{-1}x_{*}. Finally, recall that \psi is differentiable at x_{*} if and only if there is a vector p \in \mathbb{R}^{d} such that \partial \psi(x_{*}) = \{p\}.(See [rockafellar_wets, Theorem 9.18] or [schneider, Theorem 1.5.15].) Therefore, \psi is differentiable at x_{*} if and only if there is a unique supporting hyperplane to \{\psi \leq 1\} through \psi(x_{*})^{-1}x_{*}.

Finally, if \psi is differentiable at a point x, then the positive one-homogeneity of \psi implies that \psi is differentiable at each point of \mathcal{C}(\{x\}) and

where \check{x} = \psi(x)^{-1} x and N(\check{x}) is the outward normal vector to \{\psi \leq 1\} at \check{x}. At the same time, by Proposition 15,

which implies that

Therefore,

From this, one readily deduces that if \{\psi \leq 1\} is a C^{k} hypersurface locally in the interior of \{\psi < +\infty\}, then D\psi is C^{k -1} in that set and hence \psi is C^{k} there. The converse follows immediately from the implicit function theorem.

The formula (17) follows directly from (?) and the chain rule.

In view of (?) and (17), it suffices to observe that the matrix functions A and B of the previous proposition are controlled by the trivial bounds

Thus, since \|D^{2}\psi(x)\| \leq \psi(x)^{-1} \|A(x)\| \|B(x)\|, the desired inequality follows.

Suppose that x \in \mathcal{C}(A) \setminus \{0\}, hence x \in \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\} and \psi(x)^{-1}x \in \overline{B}_{\delta^{-1}}(0). If D^{2}\psi(x) exists, then Proposition 18 applies to give, by hypothesis,

Since \max\{\zeta,\delta\} < 1, this yields the desired estimate with \Gamma(\delta) = 4 (1 + \delta^{-2})^{3}.

Assume that \overline{B}_{\delta}(0) \subseteq \{\varphi \leq 1\}, and fix p \in \{\varphi^{*} = 1\}. If q \in \partial B_{\delta}(0), then q \in \{\varphi \leq 1\} and, thus, by duality,

It follows that \|p\| \leq \delta^{-1}. This proves \{\varphi^{*} = 1\} \subseteq \overline{B}_{\delta^{-1}}(0), hence also \{\varphi^{*} \leq 1\} \subseteq \overline{B}_{\delta^{-1}}(0) by scaling.

Finally, if \varphi is C^{1} away from the origin and \overline{B}_{\delta}(0) \subseteq \{\varphi \leq 1\}, then, for any x \in \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\}, the variational formula (?) implies that

Thus, \|D\varphi(x)\| \leq \delta^{-1} for every x \in \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\}.

The point is to combine combine conclusion (i) from the approximation theorem, Theorem 5, with the key Hessian bound, Proposition 19.

In particular, recall from Proposition 9 that \|D\varphi_{\zeta}\| is uniformly bounded independently of \zeta \in (0,1). Further, as is well known, condition (i) implies that the derivative of the normal vector to \{\varphi_{\zeta} \leq 1\} is bounded above by \zeta^{-1} \text{Id}; see [lewicka_peres]. As a result of these two bounds, Proposition 19 implies the desired estimate.

To begin the proof, fix an x_{0} \in V such that

In view of the discussion of Section ?, there is a p \in \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\} such that if e = \|p\|^{-1} p and \psi_{\zeta} = \psi_{e,\partial \varphi_{\zeta}^{*}(p),\zeta}, then (?) and (?) hold. Given any \nu \in (0,\zeta), Proposition 21 implies there are sequences (\epsilon_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} \subseteq (0,+\infty) and (x_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} \subseteq V such that (?) and (?) hold for each j \in \mathbb{N}.

Define (X_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} \subseteq \mathcal{S}_{d} by setting X_{j} = D^{2}\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}}(x_{j}). By (?), for any j \in \mathbb{N}, there is a \tilde{q}_{j} \in \{\varphi = 1\} such that

By Proposition 22, there is no loss of generality assuming there is a limit (x_{*},X_{*},q_{**}) = \lim_{j \to \infty} (x_{j},X_{j},\tilde{q}_{j}) and a face F_{*} of \partial \varphi^{*}(D\varphi(x_{*})) such that (?) holds.

In particular, after defining q_{*} = \varphi(x_{*})^{-1} x_{*}, (?) says that

Note that u(x_{*}) = \lim_{j \to \infty} u(x_{j}) due to (?) and the local uniform convergence of \psi^{\epsilon_{j}}_{\nu} \to \psi_{\nu}. Thus, since \mathcal{H} is upper semicontinuous and \psi_{\nu} is C^{1}, sending j \to +\infty in (?) yields(Here is where one needs that D\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon} \to D\psi_{\nu} locally uniformly, as prescribed by Definition 8.)

Notice that since x_{*} \in \mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(p)), Proposition 12 implies that

Thus, the previous inequality can be rewritten in the form

Since x_{*} \in V \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\}, the positivity of \varphi away from zero implies \varphi(x_{*}) > 0, and, thus, by (?),

The combination of (?), (?), and (?) yields the desired conclusion in the limit \nu \to \zeta^{+} (i.e., after possibly extracting a limit point of the triples (x_{*},q_{**},X_{*})).

Let \epsilon_{*} and r_{*} be the parameters of Proposition 32 above, and let \mathcal{U}_{\nu} = \mathcal{U}_{p}(r_{*}) and r = 2r_{*}.

For \epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_{*}), define \psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon} as in (?). Otherwise, if \epsilon \geq \epsilon_{*}, simply set \psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon}(x) = \|x\| for all x \in \mathbb{R}^{d}. Since \overline{\mathcal{U}_{\nu}} is convex and (\underline{\psi}^{\epsilon}_{\nu})_{\epsilon \in (0,\nu)} are convex functions, the functions so defined are convex as well. Similarly, they are positively one-homogeneous.

Proposition 32 shows that condition (iii) in the definition of admissible perturbation (Definition 8) is satisfied with the parameters \epsilon_{*} and r.

Trivially, \{\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon} < + \infty\} = \overline{\mathcal{U}_{\nu}} for any \epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_{*}) and these functions are smooth in \mathcal{U}_{\nu}^{\epsilon} since \{\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon} = 1\} is a smooth graph for any \epsilon < \epsilon_{*}.

To conclude the proof of the existence of an admissible perturbation, it remains to show that \psi_{\nu} \leq \psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon} for any \epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_{*}) and that \psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon} \to \psi_{\nu} in C^{1}_{\text{loc}}(\mathcal{U}_{\nu}) as \epsilon \to 0^{+}. The first follows from the fact that g_{\nu}^{\epsilon} \leq g_{\nu} pointwise for any \epsilon, while the second follows readily from the fact that (g_{\nu}^{\epsilon},Dg_{\nu}^{\epsilon}) \to (g_{\nu},Dg_{\nu}) as \epsilon \to 0^{+}.

Finally, since \mathcal{U}_{\nu} is open and \psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon} \to \psi_{\nu} locally uniformly as \epsilon \to 0^{+}, the characterization of \{\psi_{\nu} = 1\} \cap \mathcal{U}_{\nu} in the final statement of the theorem follows directly from that for (\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon})_{\epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_{*})}.

Begin with the proof of (i), that is, the claim that the sequence ((x_{j},X_{j},\tilde{q}_{j}))_{j \in \mathbb{N}} is precompact in V \times \mathcal{S}_{d} \times \{\varphi = 1\} and (?) holds. Toward that end, since \overline{V} and \{\varphi = 1\} is compact, it suffices to show that (i) if x_{*} is any limit point of (x_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}}, then x_{*} \in V; and (ii) the matrices (X_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} are bounded.

Let x_{*} be an accumulation point of (x_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}}. Without loss of generality (passing to a subsequence if necessary), assume that x_{*} = \lim_{j \to \infty} x_{j}. Observe that (?) implies

Thus, by upper semicontinuity of u and the local uniform convergence \psi^{\epsilon}_{\nu} \to \psi_{\nu},

and then (?) implies that x_{*} \in V.

In fact, by Proposition 12 and the strict inequality \nu < \zeta, (?) and (?) together imply that x_{*} \in V \cap \mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(p)), and then x_{*} \neq 0 since V \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\}. It follows that one can define (q_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{d} by setting q_{j} = \psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}}(x_{j})^{-1} x_{j} for all j sufficiently large. Defining q_{*} = \psi_{\nu}(x_{*})^{-1} x_{*}, the local uniform convergence \psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}} \to \psi_{\nu} implies q_{*} = \lim_{j \to \infty} q_{j}. Further, by Proposition 24, if q_{j}' denotes the component of q_{j} orthogonal to e, then

Thus, the sequence ((q_{j},\tilde{q}_{j}))_{j \in \mathbb{N}} satisfies the assumptions (i)-(iii) of Proposition 23. Invoking that proposition, one deduces that if (Y_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} is given by

then (Y_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} satisfies (?). At the same time, observe that, by the definition (?) of X_{j} and homogeneity, one can write

Accordingly, since \psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}}(x_{j}) \to \psi_{\nu}(x_{*}) as j \to \infty, it follows that (X_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} is bounded, and the bound (?) can be converted directly into the bound (?). This completes the proof of (i).

It remains to prove (ii). Toward that end, suppose that (x_{*},X_{*},q_{**}) is any accumulation point of the sequence ((x_{j},X_{j},\tilde{q}_{j}))_{j \in \mathbb{N}}. Up to passing to a subsequence, there is no loss of generality assuming that (x_{*},X_{*},q_{**}) = \lim_{j \to \infty} (x_{j},X_{j},\tilde{q}_{j}).

As in the previous step of the proof, it is expedient to define (q_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} and (Y_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} such that, for all j sufficiently large,

Let q_{*} = \psi_{\nu}(x_{*})^{-1}x_{*} so that q_{*} = \lim_{j \to \infty} q_{j}. Let Y_{*} = \psi_{\nu}(x_{*}) X_{*}. Since X_{j} \to X_{*}, it follows that Y_{j} \to Y_{*} as j \to +\infty.

As before, one can invoke Proposition 23: this leads to the conclusion that there is a face F_{*} \subseteq \partial \varphi^{*}(p) such that

Since X_{*} = \psi_{\nu}(x_{*})^{-1} Y_{*}, it follows that X_{*} q = 0 for each q \in F_{*}.

Apply Lemma 11 with G equal to G_{p} = \partial \varphi^{*}(p) - \varphi^{*}(e) e (using the identification of \{e\}^{\perp} with \mathbb{R}^{d-1} to regard this as a convex set in \mathbb{R}^{d-1}) and the sequence (q_{j}')_{j \in \mathbb{N}} determined as usual by projecting (q_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} to \{e\}^{\perp}, see (?). The lemma asserts that there is a convex function d_{*} : \mathbb{R}^{d-1} \to [0,+\infty) such that

Further, note that the function g in the statement of the lemma coincides with g_{\nu} up to a constant, hence the conclusions concerning its derivatives imply the desired conclusions (?) and (?). In particular, there is a subsequence (j_{k})_{k \in \mathbb{N}} \subseteq \mathbb{N} such that

As in the discussion preceding this proof, see (?), denote this vector by w_{*}'.

It remains to show that

This is trivial if w_{*}' = 0; hence, in the rest of the proof, assume that w_{*}' \neq 0.

Start with q_{**}, the easier of the two: this part is a straightforward application of Lemma 10. Consider the convex set \{\varphi \leq 1\} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{d}. For any j \in \mathbb{N}, one knows that \tilde{q}_{j} \in \partial \varphi^{*}(D\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}}(q_{j})) by hypothesis and, thus, by inversion (?),

From this and Lemma 8, it follows that if one defines the sequence (\hat{p}_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} by letting \hat{p}_{j} = \|D\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}}(q_{j})\|^{-1} D\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}}(q_{j}), then

Furthermore, since q_{j} \to q_{*} as j \to +\infty and q_{*} \in \partial \varphi^{*}(p), Proposition 12 says that \varphi touches \psi_{\nu} from below at x_{*}. Thus,

It follows that \hat{p}_{j} \to e as j \to +\infty. At the same time, by the definition (?) of w_{*}' and the representation formula (?),

At last, by Lemma 10 applied to (\tilde{q}_{j_{k}},\hat{p}_{j_{k}})_{k \in \mathbb{N}}, plus another application of Lemma 8,

It remains to consider q_{*}. This boils down to yet another application of Lemma 10, except for the (nontrivial) complication that the convex set in question varies with j.

For any j, consider the convex set C_{j} = \{\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}} \leq 1\} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{d}. By assumption, q_{j} \in \partial C_{j} for any j and q_{j} \to q_{*} as j \to +\infty. By the discussion preceding Lemma 8,

At the same time, if the set [\partial \varphi^{*}(p)]^{(\mu)} is defined for \mu > 0 by

then it is not difficult to show that, for any \epsilon < \mu,

see Proposition 38 in Appendix ? for the proof. In particular, for any \mu > 0, there is a J(\mu) \in \mathbb{N} such that if j \geq J(\mu), then

Thus, by the monotonicity formula (?), for any j \geq J(\mu),

Dividing by \|\hat{p}_{j} - e\| and sending j \to +\infty, this becomes

In the limit \mu \to 0^{+}, this yields the remaining half of (?).

The Hessian bounds (?) follow from the estimates in Section ?. Indeed, at the limit point q_{*}, one knows that D\psi_{\nu}(q_{*}) = D\varphi(q_{*}), and control over D\varphi is furnished by the \delta-nondegeneracy condition (1). Similarly, control over the curvature of the level sets of the sequence \{\psi^{\epsilon_{j}}_{\nu}\}_{j \in \mathbb{N}} can be gleaned from the explicit formula for the second derivative of g_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}}. For the full details, the reader is referred to Lemma 18 in Appendix ?.

That only leaves the more interesting statement, namely, the Hessian constraint (?). Toward that end, it suffices to establish that

To see why, assume for the moment that (?) holds. Note that Y_{*}q_{*} = 0 since, by positive homogeneity,

Therefore, for any q \in F_{*},

At the same time, since F_{*} \subseteq \partial \varphi^{*}(p) = \partial \varphi^{*}(e), the representation (?) implies that q - q_{*} = (\text{Id} - e \otimes e) (q - q_{*}) for any q \in F_{*}. Thus, by the discussion preceding Lemma 12,

Since Y_{*} \geq 0 by convexity, the identity \langle Y_{*}q,q \rangle = 0 actually implies Y_{*}q = 0. Therefore, (?) implies (?) as claimed.

It only remains to prove (?). For the rest of the proof, G_{p} is treated as a subset of \mathbb{R}^{d-1} so that \mathcal{N}_{G_{p}}^{d-1} makes sense. In what follows, given a vector w' \in \mathcal{N}^{d-1}_{G_{p}}(q_{*}'), let \tilde{\mathcal{N}}(w') denote the face of \mathcal{N}^{d-1}_{G_{p}}(q_{*}') such that

By (?), there is a unique such face, hence the map w' \mapsto \tilde{\mathcal{N}}(w') is well-defined.

To ease the exposition, the proof will be presented arguing by cases.

Case: w_{*}' = 0 and \tilde{\mathcal{N}}(0) = \{0\}.

This case is particularly simple. By (11),

At the same time, since Dd_{*} \in \mathcal{N}^{d-1}_{G_{p}}(q_{*}') pointwise by (Proof), this last integral has the form described in Lemma 12. Applying that lemma with \mathcal{N} = \mathcal{N}^{d-1}_{G_{p}}(q_{*}'), \mathcal{N}' = \{0\}, and \mu the measure on \mathcal{N}^{d-1}_{G_{p}}(q_{*}') given by

one finds

It follows that D^{2}d_{*}(y') = 0 for a.e. y' \in B_{1}, and, thus, A_{*}' = 0 by (11). Hence (?) holds trivially in this case.

Case: w_{*}' = 0 and \tilde{\mathcal{N}}(0) \neq \{0\}.

First, it is useful to note that \tilde{\mathcal{N}}(0) has a special form: specifically, \tilde{\mathcal{N}}(0) is what is referred to in [rockafellar] as the lineality of \mathcal{N}^{d-1}_{G_{p}}(q_{*}'), that is, the maximal linear subspace of \mathbb{R}^{d-1} contained in \mathcal{N}^{d-1}_{G_{p}}(q_{*}'). At the same time, by the definition of normal cone, this is equivalent to saying that \tilde{\mathcal{N}}(0) is the maximal subspace of \mathbb{R}^{d-1} such that

Next, applying Lemma 12 as in the last case, observe that the inclusion w_{*}' = 0 \in \tilde{\mathcal{N}}(0) implies that

Since \tilde{\mathcal{N}}(0) is a linear space, the last inclusion can be differentiated to find

Integrating over B_{1} \cap \{d_{*} > 0\}, one finds from (11) that A_{*}' has the same property, that is, the range of A_{*}' is contained in \tilde{\mathcal{N}}(0). Hence, since A_{*}' is a symmetric matrix,

where \text{Ker}(A_{*}') denotes the kernel of A_{*}'.

Combining (?) and (?), one deduces that, for any q' \in G_{p},

Since \partial \varphi^{*}(p) = G_{p} + \varphi^{*}(e) e, this implies that

which is nothing but (?).

Case: w_{*}' \neq 0.

This case is very similar to the previous one in so far as the use of the map w' \mapsto \tilde{\mathcal{N}}(w') is concerned. By definition of F_{*} (i.e., (?)), one knows that

In particular,

In fact, this can be upgraded to

Indeed, to see that (?) holds, suppose that q \in F_{*} and let q' denote its orthogonal projection to \{e\}^{\perp} as usual. By (?),

At the same time, \mathcal{N}''(q) is an exposed face of \mathcal{N}^{d-1}_{G_{p}}(q_{*}') since, by the definition of normal cone and the fact that \mathbb{R}^{d-1} is being identified with \{e\}^{\perp},

Therefore, since w_{*}' \in \text{rint}(\tilde{\mathcal{N}}(w_{*}')) \cap \mathcal{N}''(q), the defining property of faces (Definition 6) implies

Since q was arbitrary, this leads to the inclusion \tilde{\mathcal{N}}(w_{*}') \subseteq \bigcap_{q \in F_{*}} \mathcal{N}''(q), which is equivalent to (?).

Finally, once again, Lemma 12 implies that

and hence

where \text{span}(\tilde{\mathcal{N}}(w_{*}')) denotes the linear span of \tilde{\mathcal{N}}(w_{*}'). In particular, combining this last observation with (?), one concludes as in the last step that

which is precisely (?). The proof of (?) is complete.

To begin the proof, fix a sequence (\epsilon_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} \subseteq (0,+\infty) such that

Since \overline{V} is compact, there is no loss of generality in assuming that the limit x_{*} = \lim_{j \to \infty} x_{\epsilon_{j}} exists. In particular, since u is upper semicontinuous, a classical argument shows that

Since \psi_{\nu} \geq \psi_{\zeta} and \psi_{\nu}(x_{0}) = \psi_{\zeta}(x_{0}) by Proposition 12,

Thus, by (?), x_{*} \in V \cap \mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(p)) and 0 < \psi_{\nu}(x_{*}) < +\infty. Further, since \psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon} \to \psi_{\nu} locally uniformly in a neighborhood of \mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(p)), the limit q_{*} = \lim_{j \to \infty} q_{\epsilon_{j}} exists. Since x_{*} \in \mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(p)), there holds q_{*} \in \partial \varphi^{*}(p).

The considerations of the previous paragraph show that q_{\epsilon_{j}}' \to q_{*}' as j \to +\infty and q'_{*} \in G_{p}. In particular, \text{dist}(q_{\epsilon_{j}}',G_{p}) \to 0 as j \to +\infty, and, up to passing to another subsequence, there is no loss of generality in assuming that

where \delta = \delta(\nu,\zeta) > 0 is the constant in Proposition 39.

Similarly, if \tilde{q}_{\epsilon_{j}} = \psi_{\zeta}(x_{\epsilon_{j}})^{-1} x_{\epsilon_{j}}, then Proposition 12 implies that

In particular, \text{dist}(\tilde{q}_{\epsilon_{j}}',G_{p}) \to 0 as j \to +\infty, and, thus, there is no loss of generality in assuming once more that

In particular, x_{\epsilon_{j}} satisfies the assumptions of Proposition 39 for every j \in \mathbb{N}.

On the one hand, x_{\epsilon_{j}} is a point where M + \psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}} - u is minimized in \overline{V}, that is,

Using Lemma 21 and (?), this implies

On the other hand, by Proposition 39 and (?),

In particular, combining the two estimates leads to the bound

Since x_{\epsilon_{j}} \to x_{*} and x_{0},x_{*} \in \mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(p)) \setminus \{0\}, Proposition 12 implies \psi_{\nu}(x_{0}) = \varphi(x_{0}) and \psi_{\zeta}(x_{*}) = \varphi(x_{*}) > 0, hence this last inequality leads to

This follows more-or-less immediately from (?) and the definition of the normal cone.

If v \in \limsup_{y \to x} \mathcal{N}^{m}_{C}(y), then there is a sequence ((x_{n},v_{n}))_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \subseteq C \times \mathbb{R}^{d} such that (x_{n},v_{n}) \to (x,v) as n \to +\infty and v_{N} \in \mathcal{N}^{m}_{C}(x_{N}) for all N. If y \in C, then the definition of the normal cone implies that

which implies that \langle v, x \rangle \geq \langle v, y \rangle. Since this is true for any y \in C, this proves v \in \mathcal{N}^{m}_{C}(x) by definition.

Suppose that y \in C and p \in \mathcal{N}^{m}_{C}(y). By the monotonicity formula (?),

Dividing by \|p_{n} - p\| is harmless here, hence, after doing so and sending n \to +\infty, one finds

Since y was arbitrary and p \in \mathcal{N}^{m}_{C}(x), the desired conclusion is now immediate.

Let \text{sppt}(\mu) denote the support of \mu, that is, v \in \text{sppt}(\mu) if and only if

Recall that \mu(\mathcal{N} \setminus \text{sppt}(\mu)) = 0. Let \mathcal{N}_{0} denote the convex cone generated by \text{sppt}(\mu), that is,

The closure \overline{\mathcal{N}_{0}} is also a convex cone, and \overline{\mathcal{N}_{0}} \subseteq \mathcal{N} since \mu is a measure on \mathcal{N}. To prove that \mu(\mathcal{N} \setminus \mathcal{N}') = 0, it suffices to show that \overline{\mathcal{N}_{0}} \subseteq \mathcal{N}'. Toward that end, since \mathcal{N}' is a face of \mathcal{N}, it enough to show that the mean m_{\mu} := \int_{\mathcal{N}} v \, \mu(dv) is an element of the relative interior of \overline{\mathcal{N}_{0}}.

It is clear that m_{\mu} \in \overline{\mathcal{N}_{0}} since \mu is a positive measure (e.g., by simple approximation). Let us argue by contradiction: suppose that m_{\mu} \in \text{bdry}(\overline{\mathcal{N}_{0}}). It follows that there is a vector w \in \mathbb{R}^{m} such that

Note that if v \in \text{rint}(\overline{\mathcal{N}_{0}}), then \langle w, v \rangle < \langle w, m_{\mu} \rangle necessarily holds. At the same time, since \overline{\mathcal{N}_{0}} is a cone, the maximum can only be zero: \langle w, m_{\mu} \rangle = 0.

Fix a v_{0} \in \text{rint}(\overline{\mathcal{N}_{0}}). Since \langle w, v_{0} \rangle < 0, the definition of \mathcal{N}_{0} implies there is a \tilde{v} \in \text{sppt}(\mu) such that \langle w, \tilde{v} \rangle < 0. In particular, there is an \epsilon > 0 such that

Thus, \mu(\{\langle w, \cdot \rangle < 0\}) \geq \mu(B_{\epsilon}(\tilde{v})) > 0. On the other hand, since \langle w, v \rangle \leq 0 for all v \in \overline{\mathcal{N}_{0}}, this leads to the observation that

a patent contradiction.

This is an application of Theorem 6. Indeed, reasoning as in Section ?, one observes that

Furthermore, \varphi_{\zeta} satisfies (1) with radius \zeta and (1) with constant \delta = \delta(\varphi) by Theorem 5. Taken together with the other hypotheses, these observations establish that Theorem 6 applies, and the theorem directly yields the desired conclusion with \tilde{\Gamma}(\varphi) := \Gamma(\delta(\varphi)).

Argue by contradiction, that is, assume that

Let \zeta = \zeta(\mathcal{H}) \in (0,1) be as in the hypotheses and let \varphi_{\zeta} be the regularized norm of Theorem 5.

Let \beta > 0. Assume that there is a \beta_{*} \in (0,1) such that, for any \beta \in (0,\beta_{*}),

The existence of \beta_{*} follows from (Proof), as will be verified at the end of this proof.

Taking \beta < \beta_{*} and applying Proposition 27, one obtains two triples

such that the conditions (?)-(?) all hold. As in the statement of the proposition, it is convenient to let T_{*} = \beta^{-1} \varphi_{\zeta}(x_{*} - y_{*})^{2}. The crux of the proof lies in establishing the following inequality

where \lambda = \lambda(\mathcal{H}) is as in the hypotheses and \omega_{C} is as in (?) for some well-chosen C.

If x_{*} = y_{*}, then this follows immediately from (?), (?), and (?). Indeed, here in the application of (?), one needs to observe that, by (Proof) and the choice of the point (x_{*},y_{*}),

Thus, if x_{*} = y_{*}, one invokes (?) and (?) (with an arbitrary C) to find

Hence, in what follows, assume x_{*} \neq y_{*}.

As explained in Remark 20, when x_{*} \neq y_{*}, (?) combines with (?) to yield the following inequality

where \mu_{*} = \beta^{-1} \varphi_{\zeta}(x_{*} - y_{*})^{3} D\varphi_{\zeta}(x_{*} - y_{*}). At this stage, the goal is to apply (?) and (?) to obtain (?).

Toward that end, note that, by (?), X_{*} and Y_{*} satisfy the following inequality

Furthermore, observe that since \{q_{**}^{u},q_{**}^{v}\} \subseteq \{\varphi_{\zeta} = 1\}, there holds

Thus, if C = C(\varphi) + \max \{ \|q\| \, \mid \, \varphi_{\zeta}(q) = 1\} + 1, then one can invoke (?) to find

Adding this last expression to (?) and invoking (?) and (?), one obtains

Thus, (?) holds, as claimed.

Here is the conclusion of the proof: by (?) and (?), one deduces that

In view of the running assumption (Proof), this leads to a contradiction provided

Toward that end, by definition of T_{*}, it suffices to establish that

Indeed, notice that, by definition of T_{*},

Thus, the proof is complete as soon as (?) and (?) are established. Both are fairly standard claims; nonetheless, the details are provided next for completeness.

In order to avoid confusion in what follows, make the dependence on \beta explicit by setting (x_{*}^{\beta},y_{*}^{\beta}) = (x_{*},y_{*}). Since \overline{U} is compact, there is no great loss of generality in assuming that the limits x_{\infty} = \lim_{\beta \to 0^{+}} x_{*}^{\beta} and y_{\infty} = \lim_{\beta \to 0^{+}} y_{*}^{\beta} exist; otherwise, pass to a subsequence. In view of the computation (?),

It follows that x_{\infty} = y_{\infty}.

Since u is upper semicontinuous and v, lower semicontinuous, one finds

At the same time,

This proves u(x_{\infty}) = \limsup_{\beta \to 0^{+}} u(x_{*}^{\beta}) and v(x_{\infty}) = \liminf_{\beta \to 0^{+}} v(y_{*}^{\beta}). Therefore, after revisiting the last inequality, one finds

This proves (4 \beta)^{-1} \varphi_{\zeta}(x_{*}^{\beta} - y_{*}^{\beta})^{4} \to 0 as \epsilon \to 0, as claimed. Furthermore, the argument showed that

Finally, to establish (?), one repeats the previous arguments to show that

Combining this with the previous limit, one invokes (Proof) to deduce that (?) holds.

The proof boils down to an application of Propositions 22 and 29. In order to apply Proposition 29 directly, though, it would be necessary to know that the maximum of u(x) - v(y) - (4 \beta)^{-1} \varphi_{\zeta}(x - y)^{4} occurs away from the diagonal. Of course, this may not be true in general. Thus, the proof begins with the (ultimately trivial) case when the maximum is on the diagonal before proceeding to the more interesting situation.

Case: maximum on the diagonal.

Suppose that there is a point x_{0} \in U such that

This implies that

At the same time, since \varphi_{\zeta} sastisifes (5),

Therefore,

and, thus, since \|\cdot\|^{4} is smooth and vanishing to second order at zero,

This completes the proof with (x_{*},y_{*}) = (x_{0},y_{0}), (X_{*},Y_{*}) = (0,0), and q^{u}_{**}, q^{v}_{**} any arbitrary points in \{\varphi = 1\}, their values being completely irrelevant in this case.

Case: all maxima off the diagonal.

To complete the proof, it suffices to proceed under the assumption that there is an r > 0 such that

where M is the maximum

Due to (?) and (?), there are points (x_{0},y_{0}) \in U \times U such that

Let \xi_{0} = x_{0} - y_{0}. Since \|\xi_{0}\| > r, the vector p = D\varphi_{\zeta}(\xi_{0}) is well-defined, as is the direction e = \|p\|^{-1} p.

For \nu \in (0,\zeta], let \psi_{\nu} = \psi_{e,\partial \varphi_{\zeta}^{*}(p),\nu} be the conical test function associated with the triple (e,\partial \varphi_{\zeta}^{*}(p),\nu). By Proposition 12, the following statements all hold:

In particular, the hypotheses of Proposition 29 are satisfied.

Fix a \nu \in (0,\zeta); for instance, \nu = 2^{-1} \zeta, although the exact value is immaterial to the proof. By Proposition 29, there are sequences

such that (?)-(?) all hold with this value of \nu.

In what follows, it will be useful to define p_{j} = D\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}}(x_{j} - y_{j}) and A_{j} = \bar{A}_{j}(x_{j} - y_{j}), where \bar{A}_{j} is the matrix function defined in (?). Notice that if (H_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} is the sequence H_{j} = D^{2}\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}}(x_{j} - y_{j}), then

By compactness (up to passing to a subsequence), there are points (x_{*},y_{*}) \in \overline{U} \times \overline{U} such that (x_{j},y_{j}) \to (x_{*},y_{*}). Note that, by upper semicontinuity and Proposition 12,

and, thus, \|x_{*} - y_{*}\| > r by assumption (?). Since x_{*} \neq y_{*}, (?) implies \psi_{\nu}(x_{*} - y_{*}) = \varphi_{\zeta}(x_{*} - y_{*}) < +\infty and, thus, p_{j} \to D\psi_{\nu}(x_{*} - y_{*}) = D\varphi_{\zeta}(x_{*} - y_{*}) = p as j \to +\infty by (?) and Proposition 12. Additionally, by Proposition 22,

In particular, up to passing to yet another subsequence, there is an H_{*} \in \mathcal{S}_{d} such that H_{j} \to H_{*} as j \to +\infty. Note that this implies A_{j} \to A_{*}, where

Thus, by (?), Proposition 20, and the assumption \zeta < 1, upon writing T_{*} = \beta^{-1} \varphi_{\zeta}(x_{*} - y_{*})^{2}, one finds

Next, fix the y variable: observe that, for any j \in \mathbb{N},

hence there is a sequence (q^{u}_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} \subseteq \{\varphi_{\zeta} = 1\} such that

Since \{\varphi_{\zeta} = 1\} is compact, there is no loss of generality assuming there is a q^{u}_{**} \in \{\varphi_{\zeta} = 1\} such that q^{u}_{j} \to q^{u}_{**} as j \to +\infty. By Proposition 22, it follows that there is a face F_{*}^{u} \subseteq \partial \varphi_{\zeta}^{*}(p) such that

Similarly, fix the x variable: observe that, for any j \in \mathbb{N},

hence there is a sequence (q^{v}_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} \subseteq \{\varphi_{\zeta} = 1\} such that

Once again, after passing to a subsequence, there is a limit q_{**}^{v} = \lim_{j \to \infty} q_{j}^{v}. Further, by Proposition 22 (applied to supersolutions; cf. Lemma 3), there is a face F_{*}^{v} \subseteq \partial \varphi^{*}_{\zeta}(p) such that

Finally, notice that (?) implies that - 3 A_{j} \leq X_{j} \leq Y_{j} \leq 3 A_{j}. Thus, the sequence ((X_{j},Y_{j}))_{j \in \mathbb{N}} is pre-compact, and there is no loss of generality in assuming that there are matrices X_{*} and Y_{*} such that (X_{j},Y_{j}) \to (X_{*}, Y_{*}) as j \to +\infty. By (?) and (?), the inequality (?) holds with C(\varphi) = 3(\tilde{\Gamma}(\varphi) + 3 \delta(\varphi)^{-2}). To prove (?), first, observe that, on the one hand, since q_{**}^{u}, q_{**}^{v} \in \partial \varphi_{\zeta}^{*}(p), the variational formula (?) implies that

In view of (?), (?), and (?), this proves A_{*}(q_{**}^{u} - q_{**}^{v}) = 0. On the other hand, in the limit j \to +\infty, (?) implies -3A_{*} \leq X_{*} \leq Y_{*} \leq 3A_{*}. Accordingly, it is an exercise in linear algebra to convince oneself that also(Cf. the proof of [m_souganidis, Lemma 1].)

Argue as in Proposition 21 to obtain sequences (\epsilon_{j})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} and ((x_{j},y_{j}))_{j \in \mathbb{N}} such that (?) holds. Then apply Proposition 28 to obtain a sequence ((X_{j},Y_{j}))_{j \in \mathbb{N}} such that (?) and (?) hold.

As advertised, the proof begins with the case when g is more reuglar, then extends to the general case by approximation and monotonicity.

Step one: uniformly Hölder continuous boundary data.

First, assume that there is an \alpha \in (0,1) such that g is uniformly Hölder continuous on \partial U that is, there is a K > 0 such that

Notice that, by equivalence of norns, this implies there are constants K_{+} and K_{-} such that, for any x,y \in \partial U,

In particular, if x_{0} \in \partial U is fixed, then, for any x \in \partial U,

Let C > 0 be a large constant to be determined. Define functions u^{+}_{x_{0}} and u^{-}_{x_{0}} by

Due to Lemma 13, a routine argument shows that, at least if C > 1 is large enough,

Note that u^{+}_{x_{0}} \geq g \geq u^{-}_{x_{0}} also holds. Fix such a C henceforth.

It only remains to apply Perron’s Method. Let \mathcal{S} be the set of all subsolutions, that is,

We showed that \mathcal{S} is nonempty. Further, by the comparison principle (Theorem 8), for any v \in \mathcal{S} and any x_{0} \in \partial U,

This shows \mathcal{S} is pointwise bounded. In particular, let u : \overline{U} \to \mathbb{R} be the function

A standard computation shows that the upper semicontinuous envelope of u belongs to \mathcal{S}, from which it follows that u \in USC(\overline{U}) and u \in \mathcal{S}. Similarly, a standard construction shows that u is a supersolution in U, that is,

See [user, Section 4] for detailed proofs of both of these claims.

At the same time, for any x_{0} \in \partial U, u_{x_{0}}^{-} \leq u \leq u_{x_{0}}^{+} holds pointwise in \overline{U}, and, therefore, u = g on \partial U.

Step two: the general case.

It remains to prove existence even when g need not be uniformly Hölder continuous. To that end, observe that there is a sequence of functions (g_{n})_{n \in \mathbb{N}} with constants (K_{n})_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \subseteq (0,+\infty) such that, for any n,

and

Further, it is possible to fix a h \in C(\partial U) such that h \leq g pointwise on \partial U and |h(x) - h(y)| \leq K_{h} \|x - y\|^{\frac{1}{2}} for any x,y \in \partial U.

For any n, let u_{n} denote the solution of (?) with u_{n} = g_{n} on \partial U. Similarly, let u_{h} be the solution with u_{h} = h on \partial U. By the comparison principle (Theorem 8), u_{h} \leq u_{n + 1} \leq u_{n} for each n \in \mathbb{N}. Thus, if u : \overline{U} \to \mathbb{R} is the function given by u(x) = \min\{u_{n}(x) \, \mid \, n \in \mathbb{N}\}, then Dini’s Theorem implies that u \in C(\overline{U}), and the choice of (u_{n})_{n \in \mathbb{N}} implies that u = g on \partial U. Finally, by stability of viscosity solutions, u is the viscosity solution of (?).

In a manner similar to Lemma 3 above, the arguments for u_{+,\alpha} and u_{-,\alpha} are symmetrical. Therefore, only those for u_{+,\alpha} will be presented here.

In view of the fact that -G_{*}^{\varphi}(D\varphi,D^{2}\varphi) \geq 0 holds by Proposition 1, the following inequalities also hold

At the same time, since \varphi^{*}(D\varphi) \geq 1 in the viscosity sense, this implies

Finally, since \alpha < 2,

This follows from Lemma 13 by a well-known argument (cf. [jensen, Corollary 3.8]).

Let B(\overline{U}) denote the space of all bounded functions in \overline{U} and let T : B(\overline{U}) \to B(\overline{U}) denote the map

Notice that T is monotone nondecreasing in the sense that if u_{1} \leq u_{2} pointwise in \overline{U}, then Tu_{1} \leq Tu_{2} pointwise in \overline{U}. Furthermore, since \mu > 0 and c is bounded above in \overline{U}, T is a strict contraction with respect to the supremum norm. It follows that u - Tu \leq v - Tv holds pointwise in \overline{U} if and only if u \leq v pointwise in \overline{U}.

This is one place where the need for asymmetry in the definitinon of \mathcal{M}^{\varphi}_{\epsilon} becomes apparent. Up to translation, one can assume v = 0. Observe then that, for any x \in U_{\epsilon},

This proves \mathcal{M}_{\epsilon}^{\varphi} u(x) = u(x).

As in the proof of Lemma 14, let B(\overline{U}) denote the space of all bounded functions in \overline{U}. Let \mathcal{S} denote the space of all subsolutions, meaning

Note that the constant function u(x) = \min\{\mu^{-1} \inf F, \inf G\} is in \mathcal{S}, hence \mathcal{S} is nonempty. Further, the function v(x) = \max\{\mu^{-1} \sup F, \sup G\} is a supersolution, which, in view of Lemma 14, implies that any element of \mathcal{S} lies below it.

Defining u^{\epsilon}(x) = \sup_{u \in \mathcal{S}} u(x), one readily deduces that u^{\epsilon} \in \mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}. Furthermore, by maximality, u^{\epsilon} is also a supersolution. (If u^{\epsilon} fails to be a supersolution at some point x \in \overline{U}, one directly shows that the function u^{\epsilon} + \zeta 1_{\{x\}} is a subsolution provided \zeta > 0 is small enough, which would contradict the maximality of u^{\epsilon}.)

Only the details for the bound involving G_{\varphi}^{*} will be presented since the bound for G_{*}^{\varphi} follows via a transformation as in Lemma 3.

Recall that f is a smooth function defined in some neighborhood of a point x_{0} \in \mathbb{R}^{d} and (x_{\epsilon})_{\epsilon > 0} are points such that x_{\epsilon} \to x_{0} as \epsilon \to 0^{+}, the goal being to establish that

Given \epsilon > 0, define y^{+}_{\epsilon} and y_{\epsilon}^{-} such that \varphi(y^{+}_{\epsilon} - x) \leq \epsilon, \varphi(x_{\epsilon} - y^{-}_{\epsilon}) \leq \epsilon, and

By definition of \mathcal{M}^{\varphi}_{\epsilon},

At this stage, it is convenient to rescale: consider the function F_{\epsilon} given by

Notice that F_{\epsilon} converges locally uniformly to the linear function \xi \mapsto \langle Df(x_{0}), \xi \rangle as \epsilon \to 0^{+}. Thus,

Note that optimizers of F_{\epsilon} converge to optimizers of the limit, hence, by (?),

After Taylor expanding the two terms in the right-hand side of (?), one concludes

This is a relatively routine application of the results from Section ?, most notably Proposition 19. To begin, fix an arbitrary \delta_{*} \in (0,\delta).

First, note that since q_{*} \in \partial \varphi^{*}(p) \subseteq \{\varphi \leq 1\}, the nondegeneracy condition (1) implies that \|q_{*}\| \leq \delta^{-1}. Since \delta_{*} < \delta, one can fix an R > 0 such that

Next, note that, at the limit point q_{*}, one has that D\psi_{\nu}(q_{*}) = D\varphi(q_{*}) by Proposition 12 and, thus, by the nondegeneracy assumption (1) and Proposition 20,

Since D\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}} \to D\psi_{\nu} locally uniformly as j \to +\infty, up to making R smaller if necessary, one can fix a J \in \mathbb{N} such that, for any j \geq J,

Thus, the functions (\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}})_{j \in \mathbb{N}} satisfy a gradient bound, as required in Proposition 19.

It remains to check that the level set \{\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}} = 1\} satisfies a curvature bound near q_{*}. Toward that end, it will be convenient to fix a \rho \in (0,1). First, recall that the proof of Lemma 11 establishes that

Combining this with the explicit formula (?), one deduces that, for every q \in \mathbb{R}^{d-1} such that \text{dist}(q',G_{p}) \leq \rho \nu - \epsilon_{j},

At the same time, recall that the derivative of the outward normal vector N_{j} to the graph of g_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}} is given, at points q = q' + g_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}}(q') e, by the formula

Thus, up to making R smaller and J larger above, there is no loss of generality assuming that

This proves that \{\psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}}\}_{j \in \mathbb{N}} satisfy a uniform curvature estimate close to q, verifying the remaining hypothesis of Proposition 19.

At last, apply Proposition 19 to conclude that, for any j \geq J,

In particular, since q_{j} \to q_{*} as j \to +\infty and \psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon_{j}}(q_{j}) = 1 for all j, this implies

Finally, since \Gamma is a continuous function, the desired estimate (?) follows upon sending \rho \to 0 and \delta_{*} \to \delta.

Let r_{*} = r_{*}^{(2)} and \epsilon_{*} = \epsilon_{*}^{(2)}, where r_{*}^{(2)} and \epsilon_{*}^{(2)} are the parameters identified in Proposition 36.

Fix \epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_{*}). Suppose that x \in \mathcal{U}_{p}(r_{*}) and \alpha > 0.

Since x \in \mathcal{U}_{p}(r_{*}), Lemma 19 implies there is a unique \beta > 0 such that

On the one hand, this says that \beta^{-1}x \in \partial \mathcal{H}_{\nu}^{\epsilon}, hence, as a consequence of the definition (?) of \underline{\psi}_{\nu}^{\epsilon}, one deduces that \underline{\psi}_{\nu}^{\epsilon}(x) \leq \beta. On the other hand, the definition (?) implies that \underline{\psi}_{\nu}^{\epsilon}(x)^{-1} x \in \mathcal{H}^{\epsilon}_{\nu}. Consider the normal vector n to \mathcal{H}_{\nu}^{\epsilon} at \beta^{-1} x. By the convexity of \mathcal{H}^{\epsilon}_{\nu},

At the same time, by (?), \langle \beta^{-1}x, n \rangle > 0 holds. Hence the previous inequality directly implies that \beta \leq \underline{\psi}_{\nu}^{\epsilon}(x). This proves \beta = \underline{\psi}_{\nu}^{\epsilon}(x). In particular, \underline{\psi}_{\nu}(x) = 1 if and only if \beta = 1, completing the proof.

For convenience, set \Phi^{0} = \Phi and g_{\nu}^{0} = g_{\nu} so there is no need to treat \Phi and \Phi^{\epsilon} separately. Suppose that \epsilon \in [0,\epsilon_{*}^{(1)}) and r \in (0,r_{*}^{(1)}).

It is clear that \Phi^{\epsilon} is continuous. Further, the assumption (?) implies that, for each (t,x') \in U_{p}(r), the vector x' + g_{\nu}^{\epsilon}(x') e crosses the surface \mathcal{S}_{p}(r) transversely. It follows that \partial_{t} \Phi^{\epsilon}(t,x') is not in the span of \{\partial_{x_{1}'}\Phi^{\epsilon}(t,x'),\dots,\partial_{x_{d-1}'} \Phi^{\epsilon}(t,x')\}. Since these last vectors are readily shown to be linearly independent, this proves D\Phi^{\epsilon}_{\nu}(t,x') has full rank, hence \Phi^{\epsilon} maps open sets to open sets by the inverse function theorem. To prove that it is a homeomorphism, it thus only remains to show that \Phi^{\epsilon} restricts to an injective function in (0,+\infty) \times U_{p}(r).

To see this, suppose that \Phi(t_{1},x_{1}') = \Phi(t_{2},x_{2}') for some pair of points (t_{1},x_{1}), (t_{2},x_{2}) \in (0,+\infty) \times U_{p}(r). By definition, this implies

For convenience, denote the outward normal vectors to the graph of g^{\epsilon}_{\nu} at x_{1}' and x_{2}' respectively by n_{1} and n_{2}, i.e.,

At the level of the normal vectors, (?) leads to

At the same time, since g_{\nu}^{\epsilon} is concave, its hypograph is convex. Thus, by convexity, for each i, j \in \{1,2\},

Combining this with (?) and (?), one deduces that t_{j} - t_{i}\geq 0 for any i, j, or, in other words, t_{1} = t_{2}.

Since t_{1} = t_{2}, the identity (?) becomes

Projecting to \{e\}^{\perp}, this yields x_{1}' = x_{2}'. Therefore, (t_{1},x_{1}') = (t_{2},x_{2}'), proving \Phi^{\epsilon} restricts to an injective map on (0,+\infty) \times U_{p}(r).

By the previous result, the map \Phi maps (0,+\infty) \times U_{p}(r) homeomorphically onto \Phi((0,+\infty) \times U_{p}(r)). At the same time, by definition, \mathcal{U}_{p}(r) = \Phi((0,+\infty) \times U_{p}(r)). Therefore, \mathcal{U}_{p}(r) is open.

Define the constant D \geq 0 by

By Proposition 33, there is an \epsilon_{A} \in (0,\epsilon_{*}^{(1)}) and an r_{*}^{(2)} \in (0,2^{-1} r_{*}^{(1)}) such that

Further, since \langle q, e \rangle = \varphi^{*}(e) for each q \in \mathcal{S}_{p}(0) = \partial \varphi^{*}(p), up to shrinking r_{*}^{(2)} further, there is no loss of generality in assuming that

Next, let a_{*} = (D + 2 r_{*}^{(2)})^{-1} r_{*}^{(2)}. Observe that if x' \in U_{p}(r_{*}^{(2)}) and \alpha \in [1 - a_{*}, 1 + a_{*}], then

Finally, fix q \in \mathcal{S}_{p}(r_{*}^{(2)}). By definition of \mathcal{S}_{p}(r_{*}^{(2)}), it is possible to write q = q' + g_{\nu}(q') e for some q' \in U_{p}(r_{*}^{(2)}). Thus, given any \alpha \in [1 - a_{*}, 1 + a_{*}], the previous paragraph shows that the point \alpha^{-1} q' is in U_{p}(2r_{*}^{(2)}) \subseteq U_{p}(\nu). In particular, the number g_{\nu}^{\epsilon}(\alpha^{-1}q') is well-defined for any such \alpha. Differentiating with respect to \alpha and invoking (Proof) and (Proof), one finds

This proves f_{q} is strictly decreasing in the interval [1 - a_{*},1 + a_{*}].

Finally, observe that the C^{1} property of g_{\nu} implies there is a constant C > 0 depending on r_{*}^{(2)} and \nu such that if q \in \mathcal{S}_{p}(r_{*}^{(2)}) and \epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_{*}^{(2)}), then

Thus, if \epsilon_{B}, \epsilon_{*}^{(2)} \in (0,\nu) are given by

then one finds, for each q \in \mathcal{S}_{p}(r_{*}^{(2)}) and each \epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_{*}^{(2)}),

At the same time, by (?),

Therefore, the intermediate value theorem implies there is an \alpha_{*} \in [1,1 + a_{*}] such that f_{q}^{\epsilon}(\alpha_{*}) = 0. Since f_{q}^{\epsilon} is strictly decreasing, \alpha_{*} is unique.

If x \in \mathcal{U}_{p}(r_{*}^{(2)}), then there is a q \in \mathcal{S}_{p}(r_{*}^{(2)}) and an a > 0 such that x = a q. Therefore, it suffices to prove the result when q \in \mathcal{S}_{p}(r_{*}^{(2)}).

Suppose that q \in \mathcal{S}_{p}(r_{*}^{(2)}) and \epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_{*}^{(2)}). By Proposition 36, there is an \alpha > 0 such that

It remains to show that \alpha is unique.

To establish uniqueness, suppose that \beta > 0 is another candidate:

Define (t_{1},x_{1}'), (t_{2},x_{2}') \in (0,+\infty) \times U_{p}(2r_{*}^{(2)}) by

By construction,

Therefore, by Proposition 34, t_{1} = t_{2} and x_{1}' = x_{2}'. In particular, \alpha = \beta.

The definition immediately implies that \overline{\mathcal{U}_{p}(r)} is a cone, hence it only remains to show it is convex. Toward that end, since \mathcal{U}_{p}(r) is open, it suffices to prove that, for any x_{*} \in \partial \mathcal{U}_{p}(r), there is a v \in \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\} such that

Replacing x_{*} above by \frac{1}{\alpha} x_{*} for some \alpha > 0 does not change (Proof) since \overline{\mathcal{U}_{p}(r)} is a cone.(Indeed, the maximum is zero if it is finite.) Thus, up to replacing x_{*} by \frac{1}{\alpha} x_{*} for some suitable \alpha > 0, it is enough to show that if q_{*}' \in \partial U_{p}(r), then there is a v \in \mathbb{R}^{d} \setminus \{0\} such that

Toward that end, fix q_{*}' \in \partial U_{p}(r). Recall that since G_{p} is convex, the set U_{p}(r) is convex. Therefore, there is an n \in \{e\}^{\perp} \setminus \{0\} such that

In fact, in view of the formula (?) for g_{\nu} in terms of \text{dist}(\cdot,G_{p}), (?) holds if and only if n = - \alpha Dg_{\nu}(q_{*}') for some \alpha > 0. Hence, for definiteness, let \alpha = 1 and n = -Dg_{\nu}(q_{*}') from now on.

Let v = n + u e, where u is chosen such that

(In view of (?), there is no division by zero in the definition of u.) As a first step towards (Proof), define \ell_{v} : \overline{U_{p}(r)} \to \mathbb{R} by \ell_{v}(q') = \langle v, q' + g_{\nu}(q') e \rangle so that \ell_{v} is precisely the function being maximized in (Proof). Observe that, by the definition of v,

Further, if q' \in \partial U_{p}(r), then the definition of g_{\nu} implies g_{\nu}(q') = g_{\nu}(q_{*}'), hence

This proves

Finally, it remains to show that \ell_{v} achieves its maximum in \overline{U_{p}(r)} on the boundary. To see this, first note that if u \leq 0, then (?) implies that \ell_{v} is convex, and then, by convexity, \ell_{v} necessarily attains its maximum on the boundary.

On the other hand, if u > 0, then \ell_{v} is concave. To see that \ell_{v} is nonetheless still maximized at q_{*}', fix q' \in U_{p}(r) and consider the function H_{q'} : [0,1] \to \mathbb{R} given by

The goal now is to show that H_{q'} is maximized at t = 0. Toward that end, observe that since \ell_{v} is concave in U_{p}(r), the function H_{q'} is concave in [0,1]. Thus, since the derivative of a concave function is decreasing, it suffices to show that the derivative of H_{q'} is negative at zero.

Indeed, differentiating H_{q'} at zero leads to

Observe that, by (?),

so 1 - u > 0. At the same time, by the choice of n,

In particular, \langle n, q' - q_{*}' \rangle < 0 and then the previous computations imply that one has \frac{d}{dt}\{H_{q'}(t)\} \restriction_{t = 0} < 0, as claimed.

Fix q' \in [G_{p}]^{(\mu)} and let k = \text{dim}(G_{p}). After an affine change of coordinates, there is no loss of generality assuming that q' = 0 and G_{p} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{k} \times \{0\} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{d-1}.

In what follows, for a point x' \in \mathbb{R}^{d-1}, write x' = (\check{x}', \underline{x}') with \check{x}' \in \mathbb{R}^{k} \times \{0\} and \underline{x}' \in \{0\} \times \mathbb{R}^{d-1 - k}.

Since G_{p} has dimension k, the inequality \text{dist}(0, \text{bdry}(G)) \geq \mu is equivalent to the requirement that the closed k-dimensional ball \overline{B}_{\mu}(0) \cap (\mathbb{R}^{k} \times \{0\}) is contained in G_{p}. Thus, by comparing to \text{dist}(\cdot,\mathbb{R}^{k} \times \{0\}), one deduces that

After differentiating, this becomes, for k < d - 1,

and, for k = d - 1,

Applying these identities in the formulas (?) and (?), changing variables via the map T(\check{x}',\underline{x}') = (\check{x}',-\underline{x}'), and recalling that \epsilon < \mu and (?) holds, one finds

This proves Dg_{\nu}^{\epsilon}(0) = 0.

Fix x_{*} \in \mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(p)) \setminus \{0\}. Define q_{*} = \psi_{\nu}(x_{*})^{-1} x_{*}. Since q_{*} \in \mathcal{C}(\partial \varphi^{*}(p)) \cap \{\psi_{\nu} = 1\}, the inclusion q_{*} \in \partial \varphi^{*}(p) holds and, thus,

In the proof, there are two cases to consider: (i) q_{*}' \in \text{int}(G_{p}) and (ii) q_{*}' \in \partial G_{p}. (Here \text{int}(G_{p}) and \partial G_{p} are the interior and boundary of G_{p} relative to the topology of \mathbb{R}^{d-1}.)

In case (i), since q_{*}' \in \text{int}(G_{p}), there is a \mu > 0 such that \overline{B}_{\mu}(q_{*}') \cap \mathbb{R}^{d-1} \subseteq G_{p}. Thus, if \epsilon < \mu/2, then g^{\epsilon}_{\nu}(q') = \varphi^{*}(e) for each q' \in \overline{B}_{\mu/2}(q_{*}') \cap \mathbb{R}^{d-1}. In particular, for any \epsilon < \mu/2,

which implies \psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon}(x_{*}) = \psi_{\nu}(x_{*}) for all \epsilon \in (0,\mu/2), stronger than needed in (21).

To complete the proof, it remains to consider case (ii). In this case, q_{*}' \in \partial G_{p} so the convexity of G_{p} implies the existence of a p' \in \mathbb{R}^{d-1} such that

Considering g_{\nu}^{\epsilon} and Taylor expanding the function r \mapsto \sqrt{\nu^{2} - r} near r = 0, one finds, for all sufficiently small \epsilon,

At this stage, it is useful to note that

Assuming (?) for the moment, one deduces that, for any \epsilon > 0 small enough,

Since q_{*} \in \partial \varphi^{*}(p), the duality identity (?) implies \langle q_{*}, e \rangle = \varphi^{*}(e), hence

Since \lim_{\epsilon \to 0^{+}} Dg_{\nu}^{\epsilon}(q_{*}') = Dg_{\nu}(q_{*}') = 0 by Proposition 33, it follows that one can fix an \eta > 0 such that, for all \epsilon > 0 small enough,

In particular, as soon as \epsilon is small enough, one can invoke Proposition 36 to deduce that \psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon}(q_{*}) \leq 1 + \eta \epsilon^{2}, yielding the desired estimate (21) by homogeneity.

To check (?), let H_{p'} = \{x' \in \mathbb{R}^{d-1} \, \mid \, \langle p', x' \rangle \geq 0\} and use (?) to obtain

By homogeneity and (?), this leads to

Suppose that x \in \{\psi^{\epsilon}_{\nu} < + \infty\} \cap \{\psi_{\zeta}< + \infty\} and assume that (39) holds for some \delta > 0 to be determined below. As in Section ?, write x = \langle x, e \rangle e + x', where x' \in \{e\}^{\perp} \simeq \mathbb{R}^{d-1}.

To lighten the notation, define C, \gamma, \ell > 0 by

Note, in particular, that \psi_{\zeta}(x) = \gamma C. By Definition 8, \psi^{\epsilon}_{\nu} \geq \psi_{\zeta} and, thus, \gamma \leq 1.

By Taylor expanding the function r \mapsto \sqrt{\nu^{2} - r} at r = 0, we have, for \delta > 0 small enough,

This condition fixes \delta from now on.

In view of (39), the key property (8) of \psi_{\nu}^{\epsilon}, and the definition of C and \ell, one can write

At the same time, by definition of \gamma and M_{\zeta}(\delta),

Combining this with the bound (?), one deduces that

After rearrangement, this becomes

Reinterpreting this last inequality as a lower bound on \gamma^{-1} - 1, one arrives at the following lower bound on \psi^{\epsilon}_{\nu}(x):

Finally, observe that C^{-1} \|x'\| \leq R(\delta) and

hence (39) holds with the constant A given by