Solvability of the Neumann problem for elliptic equations in chord-arc domains with very big pieces of good superdomains

It is enough to show that, for 1<p<q, (N_{L^{p'},L^{p',\infty}}^R(\rho))_{{\mathcal L}^*} is solvable uniformly on \rho\in (0,{\rm diam}({\partial\Omega})). Indeed, then by interpolation, for any 1<p<q, (N_{L^{p'}}^R(\rho))_{{\mathcal L}^*} is solvable uniformly on \rho\in (0,{\rm diam}({\partial\Omega})), which implies the solvability of (N_{L^{p'}}^R)_{{\mathcal L}^*} and of (N_{L^p})_{\mathcal L}, by Lemma 3.4 (notice that the solvability of (R_q)_{{\mathcal L}} for some q>p implies the solvability of (D_{q'})_{{\mathcal L}^*} and thus of (D_{p'})_{{\mathcal L}^*}. See [MT]).

We will prove that (N_{L^{p'},L^{p',\infty}}^R(\rho))_{{\mathcal L}^*} is solvable with some finite constant C_*:=C_*(\rho) (i.e., C_* depends on \rho; see Lemma 3.3), with C_*(\rho) bounded uniformly on \rho. To this end, we will prove an estimate of the form C_*(\rho)\leq C + \delta\,C_*(\rho), for some fixed small \delta>0. by means of a good \lambda inequality. By the solvability of the Dirichlet problem for {\mathcal L}^* in L^{p',\infty} (which follows from the one of (D_{L^{q'}})_{{\mathcal L}^*} by interpolation), it suffices to prove that

for u:\Omega\to{\mathbb R} and a Lipschitz function g\in L^{p'}({\partial\Omega}) satisfying (?), for any fixed 1\leq j,k\leq n+1 and 0<\rho\leq {\rm diam}({\partial\Omega}), and C_*(\rho) as above. To shorten notation, we write \partial_t=\partial_{t,j,k}. Notice that the function u can be written as follows:

where N_x^T(y) = N(y,x), with N equal to the Neumann function for {\mathcal L} in \Omega.

To prove (?), for any \lambda>0, let

where {\mathcal M}_\sigma is the non-centered Hardy-Littlewood operator with respect to balls centered at {\partial\Omega}. For some fixed constant A>2 to be chosen below, we will estimate \sigma(V_{A\lambda}). To this end, we consider a partition of V_\lambda into Whitney cubes from {\mathcal D}_{\partial\Omega}, and we denote by {\mathcal W}_\lambda this family of Whitney cubes. We choose the parameters in the Whitney decomposition so that 10Q\subset V_\lambda for all Q\in{\mathcal W}_\lambda. We denote

Clearly,

Fix a cube Q\in{\mathcal D}_{\partial\Omega} and consider the ball B(x_Q,2K\ell(Q)) and the associated domain

Also, let G_{2Q} be as in Lemma 5.2.

From the properties of the Whitney decomposition, we know that CQ\cap V_\lambda^c\neq\varnothing for some fixed constant C>1. So by the definition of V_\lambda we deduce that

for some fixed constant C_7. Analogously, for any ball B centered in {\partial\Omega} intersecting Q\in{\mathcal W}_\lambda such that r(B)\geq \ell(Q)/4,

Consequently, assuming A>C_8, if x\in E_Q, it holds that {\mathcal M}_\sigma u(x) >A\lambda, and so there exists some ball B_x centered at {\partial\Omega} such that r(B_x)\leq \ell(Q)/4 and x\in B_x, satisfying

Thus,

where we wrote m_{\sigma,G_{2Q}}(u) = \;\mathchoice {{\setbox0=\hbox{-} \vcenter{\hbox{-}}\kern-.58\wd0}} {{\setbox0=\hbox{-} \vcenter{\hbox{-}}\kern-.58\wd0}} {{\setbox0=\hbox{-} \vcenter{\hbox{-}}\kern-.58\wd0}} {{\setbox0=\hbox{-} \vcenter{\hbox{-}}\kern-.58\wd0}} \!\int_{G_{2Q}}u\,d\sigma to shorten notation and we assumed A\geq C_7+1. Therefore,

By the weak (1,1) boundedness of {\mathcal M}_\sigma, it follows that

For a fixed Q\in{\mathcal W}_\lambda and for some big constant K>10 to be chosen below, let j_0\geq 0 be the least integer such that \ell(2^{j_0}KQ)\geq \rho. We split

The subindices “l" and “f" above stand for “local" and “far". Then,

Estimate of T_f We write(To estimate T_f as we do, it is important that we are working with the rough Neumann problem. Similar arguments for the usual Neumann problem do not work.)

To bound |u_f(x)-u_f(x')| for x,x'\in 2Q, we write

Then,

Denote by B(2^jKQ) a ball with radius \ell(2^jKQ) centered at x_Q, the center of Q. By standard estimates, Kolmogorov’s inequality (recall that p'>2), and the solvability of (N^R_{L^{p'},L^{p',\infty}}(\rho))_{{\mathcal L}^*} with constant C_*=C_*(\rho), we have that

where {\mathcal M}_{\sigma,p'} stands for the maximal p'-Hardy-Littlewood operator, defined by

Notice that u_j is {\mathcal L}-harmonic in \Omega and its conormal derivative vanishes \sigma-a.e. in {\partial\Omega}\cap 2^{j-1}KQ, since

by the choice of j_0. Then, by Moser type estimates (see Theorem 2.7) we infer that, for some fixed \alpha>0,

Thus, summing on j,

Consequently, by (?),

Estimate of T_l in the case j_0>0 Remark that in this case we have \ell(KQ)\leq \rho\approx \ell(2^{j_0}KQ). Then, from the properties of the kernel of S_\rho in Lemma 2.4, it follows that

Thus, for all x\in 2Q,

where N_\sigma^* is defined in (Proof). Therefore,

Estimate of T_l in the case j_0=0 In this case we have \ell(KQ)> \rho and we write

To estimate I_2, we use Kolmogorov’s inequality, Lemma 5.2, and that (N^R_{L^{p'},L^{p',\infty}}(\rho))_{{\mathcal L}^*} is solvable with constant C_*, and we obtain

where C(K) depends on K.

To deal with the integral I_1, recall that {\widetilde{\Omega}} = U_{x_Q,10 C_5K\ell(Q)}. We denote by {\widetilde{N}} the Neumann function of {\widetilde{\Omega}} and by {\widetilde{\sigma}} the surface measure on \partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}. We also consider the function {\widetilde{u}}_l:{\widetilde{\Omega}}\to{\mathbb R} defined by

where the tangential derivative is defined with respect to the tangent at {\partial\Omega}. In a sense, {\widetilde{u}}_l should be considered as an approximation of u_l. So we split

Estimate of I_{1,a}

Denote

so that we have

In view of the identity above, Fubini, and the fact that \sigma={\widetilde{\sigma}} on G_{2Q}\subset{\partial\Omega}\cap \partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}, we obtain

Denoting

and using Hölder’s inequality, we get

By Lemma 5.1 applied to |\nabla F({\varphi})|^q in {\widetilde{\Omega}} and to \mu={\mathcal H}^n|_{{\partial\Omega}\setminus{\partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}}} and the solvability of (N_q)_{\mathcal L} with constant {\widetilde{C}}_q in {\widetilde{\Omega}}, we infer that

where we denoted by \partial_{{\widetilde{\nu}}_A} the conormal derivative on \partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}. Recall now that {\varphi} is supported on G_{2Q}\subset{\partial\Omega}\cap \partial{\widetilde{\Omega}} and notice that

Since \partial_{{\widetilde{\nu}}_A} F({\varphi})=\chi_{G_{2Q}}\,({\varphi} - m_{\sigma,G_{2Q}}({\varphi})) and \|{\varphi}\|_\infty\leq 1, we have \|\partial_{t}F({\varphi})\|_{L^q(2KQ)}\lesssim {\widetilde{C}}_q\,\sigma(Q)^{1/q}. Thus, we obtain

Estimate of I_{1,b} Let

Notice that \psi is supported on G_{2Q} and |\psi(x)|\leq1 for all x\in G_{2Q}. Then we have, as in the estimate fo I_a,

Using Fubini, as above, we get

We denote

where to shorten notation, we set

and

Remark that both {\widetilde{h}} and h are solutions of Lu=0 in the respective domains {\widetilde{\Omega}} and \Omega, and recall that B(x_Q,10 C_5K\ell(Q)) \cap \Omega \subset {\widetilde{\Omega}}.

To bound I_{1,b}, we will apply the localization Lemma 4.3 and to do so, we first need to prove that \partial_{\nu_A} v \in L^{p,1}(4KQ). Estimating \|\partial_{\nu_A} v\|_{L^{p,1}(4KQ)} is one of the key points of this proof. To shorten notation, we write

and

Notice that |\psi_0| \leq 2\, \chi_{G_{2Q}}. Since \psi_0 is supported in G_{2Q}\subset {\partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}}, it vanishes on the relatively open set {\partial\Omega}\cap{\widetilde{\Omega}}, and Lemma A.1 gives \partial_{\nu_A}v=\psi_0=0 there. Thus,

since G_{2Q}\subset {\partial\Omega}\cap \partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}. Using also the solvability of (N_{q})_{\mathcal L} in {\widetilde{\Omega}} with constant {\widetilde{C}}_q and Lemma 5.1,

Although both (?) and (?) look very natural, they need a careful justification, since \partial_{\nu_A} v is only defined in a weak sense. We defer the justification to Appendix ?.

We choose \bar q=\frac{p+q}2, so that p<\bar q<q. Then, by Hölder’s inequality,

Since 4KQ\subset{\partial\Omega} and recalling that the conormal derivative \partial_{\nu_A} is defined with respect to the conormal at {\partial\Omega} and that

we may apply Hölder’s inequality to deduce that

with a_0: = \frac1{\bar q}-\frac1{q}>0. Plugging this estimate into (?) and using (?), we obtain

demonstrating that \partial_{\nu_A} v \in L^{p,1}(4KQ).

We will now show that

For the sake of brevity we denote

where A(x,r,R) stands for the open annulus with center x, inner radius r, and outer radius R. We use the triangle inequality and estimate the corresponding terms separately. To this end, by the zero mean of \psi(x)-m_{\sigma,G_{2Q}}(\psi) on G_{2Q} and Theorem 2.8, we infer that, for all y\in {\widetilde{A}}_Q \cap \Omega,

Then, since \partial_{\nu_A} h vanishes on {\widetilde{A}}_Q \cap {\partial\Omega}, by Caccioppoli’s inequality, we get

Arguing analogously, taking into account now that the conormal derivative of {\widetilde{h}} vanishes on {\widetilde{A}}_Q \cap {\partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}}, we also obtain

which, combined with the same estimate for h, readily proves (?).

Finally, using the solvability of (N_{L^{p,1},L^{p}}(\rho))_{\mathcal L} in \Omega with constant comparable to C_* and the localization Lemma 4.3, we get

with C_5 as in Lemma 4.3. Plugging (?) and (?) into (?), we conclude that

Final estimates for T_l Gathering the estimates obtained for I_{1,a} and I_{1,b}, we get

Combining this with (?) and (?), we derive

where a_1=\min(a_0,\frac1{p}).

End of the proof The above bound for T_l in conjunction with the one in (?) and the one for T_f in (?), implies

Recalling (?), we conclude that

Notice that, if we denote

then \gamma(K,{\varepsilon}) can be taken arbitrarily small, first choosing K large enough and then {\varepsilon} small enough. In this way, we have

By Kolmogorov’s inequality and the weak (p',p') boundedness of {\mathcal M}_{\sigma,p'}, we obtain

Using the inequality a^{1/p}\,b^{1/p'}\leq \frac ap + \frac b{p'} for a,b>0, we can write, for arbitrary constants \kappa\in (0,1) and d>0,

with C(\kappa) depending on p,p' besides \kappa. Therefore, choosing d={\widetilde{C}}_q\,C(K) + C_*\,\gamma(K,{\varepsilon}) (and changing \kappa by C\kappa if necessary), we derive

Multiplying by (A\lambda)^{p'}, we obtain

and, if we choose \kappa=1/(2A^{p'}) and take supremum in \lambda, we deduce

Moving the first term on the right hand side of the inequality above to the left, this implies that

Since this holds for any Lipschitz function g\in L^{p'}({\partial\Omega}) and for all tangent fields t=t_{j,k}, we get

As remarked above, \gamma(K,{\varepsilon}) can be taken arbitrarily small for suitable choices of K and {\varepsilon}, concluding that

for suitable choices of A,K,{\varepsilon}, uniformly with respect to \rho\in (0,{\rm diam}({\partial\Omega})). This completes the proof of the theorem.

If f \in \mathop\mathrm{Lip}({\partial\Omega}), then Lemma 2.2 follows from [MT, eq. (4.15)] and [MT, Lemma 6.3], where the implicit constants are independent of the Lipschitz constant of f. Let us now assume that f \in M^{1,p}({\partial\Omega}) and let {\varphi} \in C^\infty_c({\mathbb R}^{n+1}). By Lemma 2.4 (d) and (e), Hölder’s inequality, (2.2) for Lipschitz functions, and Lemma 2.5 (a), we obtain

which, by the definition of W^{1,p}(\partial^* \Omega), concludes the proof of the lemma.

Fix \rho\in(0,{\rm diam}(\Sigma)). Let x,x'\in\Sigma and suppose first that |x-x'|\geq \rho. Then we write

Since S_\rho1=1 and \operatorname{supp}(s_\rho(x,\cdot))\subset \bar B(x,2\rho), we have

where {\mathcal M}_\sigma is the Hardy-Littlewood maximal function with respect to \sigma. The same estimate holds with x' in place of x. Thus,

In case that |x-x'|< \rho, we write

Notice that the support of the integrand is contained in

Using also that {\mathrm Lip}(s_\rho(\cdot,y))\lesssim \rho^{-n-1}, we deduce

Hence, C({\mathcal M}_\sigma(\nabla_H g) + \nabla_H g) is an upper gradient of g with L^p(\sigma) norm bounded above by C'\|\nabla_Hg\|_{L^p(\sigma)}. This completes the proof of (a).

To prove (b), one readily checks that in the case that g \in \mathop\mathrm{Lip}(\Sigma), the above estimates hold replacing \nabla_H g and {\mathcal M}_\sigma(\nabla_H g) by \mathop\mathrm{Lip}(g).

This follows from [JW, Theorem 1, p.208] and by defining \textup{Ext}_{{\partial\Omega} \to \Omega} :=\textup{Tr}_{{\mathbb R}^{n+1} \to \Omega} \circ \textup{Ext}_{{\partial\Omega} \to {\mathbb R}^{n+1}}.

Set v={\varphi}\,u. By Theorem 2.8 (iii) applied to {\mathcal L}^* and N^T, and (iv), we have that

Writing N^x = N(x,\cdot), we have

By (?) with {\varphi} replaced by {\varphi}\,N^x, Theorem 2.8 (i), and a standard approximation argument, we infer that

The lemma readily follows once we plug this identity into (Proof).

The arguments are very similar to the ones for Proposition 3.1. However, we show the details for completeness. We will only prove the second statement since the first one is similar.

Suppose that (N_{L^{p,1},L^p}(\rho))_{\mathcal L} is solvable with constant C_4. We will check that (N^R_{L^{p'},L^{p',\infty}}(\rho))_{{\mathcal L}^*} is solvable with constant \lesssim C_4 as well. Let j,k,u,g,\rho be as in (?) with {\mathcal L}^* and A^T in place of {\mathcal L} and A and consider an arbitrary function {\varphi}\in L^{p,1}({\partial\Omega})\cap \mathop\mathrm{Lip}({\partial\Omega}). Let v:\Omega\to{\mathbb R} be the solution of the Neumann problem for {\mathcal L} with boundary data {\varphi}-m_{\sigma,{\partial\Omega}}{\varphi}. Then, we have that

Therefore,

where C_4 is the constant of (N_{L^{p,1},L^p}). By density and duality, we deduce that

Using that the Dirichlet problem is solvable from L^{p',\infty}({\partial\Omega}) to L^{p',\infty}({\partial\Omega}), we infer that

That is, (N^R_{L^{p'},L^{p',\infty}}(\rho))_{{\mathcal L}^*} is solvable with constant \lesssim C_4.

Suppose now that (N^R_{L^{p'},L^{p',\infty}}(\rho))_{{\mathcal L}^*} is solvable with constant C_* and let us prove that then (N_{L^{p,1},L^p}(\rho))_{\mathcal L} is solvable with constant \lesssim C_*. Let u be solution of (N_{L^{p,1},L^p}(\rho))_{\mathcal L} with boundary data \partial_{\nu_A} u=f, for some f\in L^{p,1}({\partial\Omega}) \cap \mathop\mathrm{Lip}_0({\partial\Omega}). We aim to show that for all 1\leq j,k\leq n+1,

To this end, consider an arbitrary Lipschitz function \psi\in L^{p'}({\partial\Omega}) and let w:\Omega\to{\mathbb R} be the solution of the rough Neumann problem for {\mathcal L}^* with \partial_{\nu_{A^T}} w= \partial_{t,k,j}S_\rho(\psi). Then we have

which gives (?) by duality.

Let u:\Omega\to{\mathbb R} be the variational solution of (?). Then

For brevity, we write

From the properties of the kernel of S_\rho in Lemma 2.4 and Schur’s lemma, it follows that \partial_{t,j,k} S_\rho is an operator bounded in L^{p}(\sigma) with norm \lesssim \rho^{-1}, for 1\leq p\leq\infty. On the other hand, since

and the same estimate holds for N(y,x), by Schur’s criterion again, we deduce that the operator N_\sigma is bounded in L^{p}(\sigma) with norm \lesssim {\rm diam}({\partial\Omega}). Therefore,

Suppose that (N^R_{p}) is solvable and let 0<\rho\leq{\rm diam}({\partial\Omega}). For g\in L^{p}({\partial\Omega}), let u_\rho:\Omega\to{\mathbb R} be the variational solution of (?). Then, by the solvability of (N^R_{p}) and the L^{p}(\sigma) boundedness of S_\rho with norm 1,

So (N^R_{p}(\rho))_{{\mathcal L}} is solvable uniformly on 0<\rho\leq{\rm diam}({\partial\Omega}).

Conversely, suppose that (N^R_{p}(\rho))_{{\mathcal L}} is solvable uniformly on 0<\rho\leq{\rm diam}({\partial\Omega}). For g\in L^{p}({\partial\Omega})\cap \mathop\mathrm{Lip}({\partial\Omega}), let u and u_\rho:\Omega\to{\mathbb R} be the respective variational solutions of (?) and (?). We claim that u and u_\rho are continuous in \overline \Omega and u_\rho converges to u in L^{p}(\sigma) as \rho\to0. Together with the L^{p} solvability of the Dirichlet problem, this implies that

which completes the proof of the lemma, modulo our claim.

To prove the claim, observe first that, from the fact that g is Lipschitz, by Lemma 2.5, it follows that S_\rho g is also Lipschitz uniformly on \rho. Hence, \partial_{t,j,k} g and \partial_{t,j,k} S_\rho g are in L^\infty(\sigma) uniformly in \rho. Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 3.3, it follows that N_\sigma is bounded in L^{\infty}(\sigma) (with norm depending on {\rm diam}({\partial\Omega})), and so u = N_\sigma(\partial_{t,j,k} g) and u_\rho = N_\sigma(\partial_{t,j,k} S_\rho g) are uniformly in L^\infty(\sigma). By the Hölder continuity of the Neumann function away from the diagonal given by Theorem 2.8 (vi) and the local integrability implied by (v) in the same theorem, using standard arguments, it follows that in fact, u and u_\rho are continuous in \overline\Omega.

By the dominated convergence theorem, since u_\rho and u are uniformly in L^\infty(\sigma), to prove the convergence of u_\rho to u in L^{p}(\sigma), it suffices to check that u_\rho converges to u pointwise in {\partial\Omega}. First we check the weak convergence of \partial_{t,j,k} S_\rho g to \partial_{t,j,k} g in L^{q}(\sigma), for all q\in (1,\infty). Indeed, if {\varphi} is a C^1 function in a neighborhood of {\partial\Omega}, then

because S_\rho(g) converges to g in L^q(\sigma). Since the L^q(\sigma) norms of \partial_{t,j,k}(S_\rho g) and \partial_{t,j,k}g are bounded uniformly in L^q(\sigma), (?) also holds for any {\varphi}\in L^{q'}(\sigma), by density. That is, \partial_{t,j,k} S_\rho g converges to \partial_{t,j,k} g weakly in L^{q}(\sigma) as \rho\to0.

Finally, from the fact that N^x\equiv N(x,\cdot)\in L^q(\sigma) for 1<q<n/(n-1), we deduce that, for any x\in\overline\Omega,

This finishes the proof of the claim.

Since (4.1) is scale invariant, we may assume that R = 1. If T_\Delta \subset \Omega is the Carleson box associated with the surface ball \Delta := B \cap \partial \Omega (see [HM, Eq. 3.59] for its definition), then by [HM, Eq. (3.60)], we have \frac{5}{4} B \cap \Omega \subset T_\Delta \subset CB \cap \Omega for some large constant C > 2 depending only on the uniformity constants of \Omega. Furthermore, according to [HM, Lemma 3.61], T_\Delta is a uniform domain, where the uniformity constants depend only on those of \Omega and are uniform with respect to B. It is evident that \text{diam}(T_\Delta) \approx 1.

By [Jo, Theorem 2], any uniform domain is a Sobolev extension domain for the homogeneous Sobolev space \dot W^{1,p} for any p \in (1, \infty). Therefore, since u \in \dot W^{1,p}(T_\Delta), we may extend it to a function {\widetilde{u}}\in \dot W^{1,p}({\mathbb R}^n), satisfying \| \nabla {\widetilde{u}} \|_{L^{p}({\mathbb R}^{n+1})} \lesssim \|\nabla u\|_{L^{p}(T_\Delta)}. If q:= \frac{(n+1)\,p}{n+1-p}, then by the Sobolev-Poincaré inequality, we have that

It is trivial to see that (4.1) follows by rescaling the inequalities above.

Consider first the case q=1. Denote by W_{B} the family of (Euclidean) Whitney cubes of \Omega that intersect B \cap \Omega. Adjusting suitably the parameters of the construction of the Whitney cubes, we can ensure that the cubes P\in W_{B} satisfy

Denote \Delta=B\cap{\partial\Omega}. Then we write

where m_P denotes the mean with respect to Lebesgue measure and {\widehat{P}}\in{\mathcal D}_{\partial\Omega} is a boundary cube associated with P such that {\rm dist}({\widehat{P}},P)\approx \ell(P) and \ell({\widehat{P}}) = \ell(P). Observe that we can assume that {\widehat{P}}\subset 2B. Thus, taking into account that \frac{n+1}{p} - n>0 (because p<1+\frac1n as q=1),

In the case q>1, we apply (Proof) to the function u=|v|^q. Then, for 1\leq s< 1+\frac1n, we get

Writing p=sq, we are done.

Let {\varphi} be a smooth function which equals 1 on 2.5B and vanishes on {\mathbb R}^{n+1} \setminus 3B. Denote u_B = \;\mathchoice {{\setbox0=\hbox{-} \vcenter{\hbox{-}}\kern-.58\wd0}} {{\setbox0=\hbox{-} \vcenter{\hbox{-}}\kern-.58\wd0}} {{\setbox0=\hbox{-} \vcenter{\hbox{-}}\kern-.58\wd0}} {{\setbox0=\hbox{-} \vcenter{\hbox{-}}\kern-.58\wd0}} \!\int_{\Omega_R} u and v=u-u_B, so that S_\rho(\partial_{t,j,k} u)=S_\rho(\partial_{t,j,k} ({\varphi}\,v)) on \Delta=B\cap {\partial\Omega}. Hence it suffices to estimate \|S_\rho(\partial_{t,j,k} ({\varphi}\,v))\|_{L^p(\sigma|_\Delta)} (recall that \operatorname{supp}(s_\rho(x,\cdot)\subset \bar B(x,2\rho) and \rho\leq R/4)). To this end, we consider an arbitrary smooth function \psi supported on \Delta, and for every j,k we write

where

and where we took into account that \int_{\partial\Omega}\partial_{t,k,j} S_\rho\psi\,d\sigma=0. Then, by Lemma 2.10, for all x\in \Omega, we have

In other words, if we denote

we have

Plugging this identity into (Proof), we obtain

where

Notice that (\nabla_2 N)_\sigma^*(\partial_{t,k,j} S_\rho\psi) is a vector field.

Next we claim that

where we wrote C_p:=C_{\mathcal L}(N_{L^{p,1},L^p}(\rho)) to shorten notation. Indeed, consider a Lipschitz function \theta\in L^{p,1}(\sigma). By the solvability of (N_{L^{p,1},L^p}(\rho))_{\mathcal L}, we have

which proves (?). Consequently, we can estimate the first term in (Proof) as follows

Now we turn our attention to the second term on the right hand side of (Proof). First we apply Hölder’s inequality to obtain

Notice now that

So N_\sigma^*(\partial_{t,k,j} S_\rho\psi) is an {\mathcal L}^*-harmonic function which is continuous in \overline\Omega and such that its conormal derivative vanishes on {\partial\Omega}\setminus \bar B(x_0,\tfrac32R). Then, by Moser type estimates and Lemma 4.2, it follows that

By Kolmogorov’s inequality (recall that p'\geq2), the L^{p',\infty} solvability of the Dirichlet problem for {\mathcal L}^*, and (?):

Therefore,

Finally we deal with the third term on the right hand side of (Proof). First we write

Notice that

Regarding the last term on the right hand side of (?), observe that N_\sigma^*(\partial_{t,k,j} S_\rho\psi) is {\mathcal L}^*-harmonic in \Omega and it has vanishing conormal derivative in {\partial\Omega}\setminus \bar B(x_0,\tfrac32R). Thus, by the Caccioppoli inequality and Lemma 4.2, for some q\in (1,2) (depending on n),

Then, by Kolmogorov’s inequality, the L^{p',\infty} solvability of the Dirichlet problem, and (?),

Plugging this estimate and (?) into (?), we obtain

Gathering the estimates obtained above, we derive

Therefore,

Then, denoting \sigma_\Delta = \frac1{\sigma(\Delta)}\sigma, we get

By the Poincaré inequality in Theorem 4.1, we have(In fact, we can obtain

with q_n= \frac{2n+2}{n+3}, so that at the end we get

so that at the end we get

Existence of \partial_{\nu_A} w and proof of (?). First we check that the conormal derivative \partial_{\nu_A} w exists locally in {\partial\Omega}\cap 2B in the weak sense and it belongs to L^q(\sigma|_{2B}). Let {\varphi}:{\partial\Omega}\to{\mathbb R} be a Lipschitz function supported on 2B\cap{\partial\Omega}, extend it to a Lipschitz function in \Omega, which we still denote by {\varphi}, so that it vanishes in \Omega\setminus 3B, and define

Using the fact that {\mathcal L} w =0 in 3B, it easily follows that the definition does not depend on the precise extension of {\varphi}.

To check that T_w extends to a bounded functional in L^{q'}(\sigma|_{2B}), consider a partition of \Omega into a family {\mathcal W}(\Omega) of dyadic Whitney cubes as in Section ?, and let \Omega_k be the interior of the closure of the cubes from {\mathcal W}(\Omega) with side length at least 2^{-k}. From the fact that {\mathcal N}_{{\widetilde{\Omega}}}(\nabla w)\in L^q({\widetilde{\sigma}}) (where {\widetilde{\sigma}} is the surface measure on \partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}), it follows that \nabla w\in L^q({\widetilde{\Omega}}), and thus by dominated convergence,

Since \nabla w is uniformly continuous in \Omega\cap 3B with modulus of continuity \theta(t):=\int_0^t \omega_A(r)\,\frac{dr}r (by [DK]), we can use the divergence theorem in [HMT, Theorem 2.8] applied to \Omega_k and {\varphi} A\nabla w to derive

Indeed, the assumptions in that theorem hold, since in the sense of distributions {\rm div}({\varphi} A\nabla w) = \nabla{\varphi} A\nabla w is continuous in a neighborhood of \overline{\Omega_k} (because A is continuous(In fact, in any compact set, A agrees a.e. with a uniformly continuous function.), and \nabla{\varphi} and \nabla w|_{3B} are continuous), and also {\mathcal N}_{\Omega_k}({\varphi} A\nabla w)\in L^p({\mathcal H}^n|_{{\partial\Omega}_k}) and the pointwise non-tangential trace of {\varphi} A\nabla w|_{{\partial\Omega}_k} exists, using again the continuity of A and of \nabla w in a neighborhood of \overline{\Omega_k}. Then we have

Now we intend to apply Lemma 5.1 with \mu_k={\mathcal H}^n|_{{\partial\Omega}_k\cap{\widetilde{\Omega}}} and {\widetilde{\Omega}} in place of \Omega. Remark that the maximal operator {\mathcal M}_{\mu_k} is bounded from L^{q'}(\mu_k) to L^{q'}({\widetilde{\sigma}}). Indeed, for any f\in L^{q'}(\mu_k) and x\in{\mathbb R}^{n+1}, by the Ahlfors regularity of {\partial\Omega}_k (implied by the Ahlfors regularity of {\partial\Omega}), we have

Using the Ahlfors regularity (or just the polynomial growth) of {\widetilde{\sigma}}, it follows easily that {\mathcal M}_n is bounded from L^1(\mu_k) to L^{1,\infty}({\widetilde{\sigma}}). Also, it is immediate that {\mathcal M}_{\mu_k} is bounded from L^\infty(\mu_k) to L^\infty({\widetilde{\sigma}}). By interpolation then, it is bounded in from L^{q'}(\mu_k) to L^{q'}({\widetilde{\sigma}}).

Using also the solvability of (N_q)_{\mathcal L} in {\widetilde{\Omega}} and (?), we can now use Lemma 5.1 to get

Using that {\varphi} is a Lipschitz function in \overline{\Omega}, it follows easily that \limsup_{k\to\infty}\|{\varphi}\|_{L^{q'}(\mu_k)}\lesssim \|{\varphi}\|_{L^{q'}(\sigma)}. Consequently,

and by the Hahn-Banach theorem, T_w extends to a bounded functional in L^{q'}(\sigma|_{2B}), as wished. Then, by the Riesz representation theorem, there exists some function g\in L^{q}(\sigma|_{2B}) such that

for any Lipschitz function {\varphi}:{\partial\Omega}\to{\mathbb R} supported on 2B\cap{\partial\Omega}, whose Lipschitz extension is supported in 3B, and moreover

which proves (?).

Proof of (A.1).

The n-rectifiability and n-Ahlfors regularity of {\partial\Omega}\cup{\partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}} also implies the existence of tangents {\mathcal H}^n-a.e. in {\partial\Omega}\cup{\partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}}. That is, for any {\mathcal H}^n-a.e. \xi\in{\partial\Omega}\cup{\partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}} there exists a hyperplane L_\xi through \xi such that following holds. For any \theta\in (0,1), there exists r(\xi,\theta)>0 such that

where X(\xi,L_\xi,\theta) stands for the closed cone

The existence of tangents for {\mathcal H}^n-a.e. \xi\in{\partial\Omega}\cup{\partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}} follows from the fact that, being {\partial\Omega}\cup{\partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}} n-rectifiable, there exists an approximate tangent for {\mathcal H}^n-a.e. \xi\in{\partial\Omega}\cup{\partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}} (see [Mattila, Chapter 15], for example), and then the Ahlfors regularity of {\partial\Omega}\cup{\partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}} implies that any approximate tangent is also a tangent in the sense above.

For a small \theta>0 to be fixed below, let G_k =\{x\in G: r(x,\theta)\geq 1/k\}, so that

with {\mathcal H}^n(Z)=0.

To prove (A.1), it suffices to show that \partial_{\nu_A} w(y) = \psi_0(y) for \sigma-a.e. y\in G_k. To this end, we will prove that for any compact set F\subset G_k,

For a compact set F\subset G_k, let {\varphi}_{F,\delta}:\partial{\widetilde{\Omega}}:\to{\mathbb R} be a Lipschitz function such that

where U_\delta(F):=\{x \in {\mathbb R}^{n+1}: {\rm dist}(x,F) < \delta\} is the \delta-neighborhood of F. Notice that we have that F\subset \overline{B} because G_k\subset G\subset \overline{B}. We denote by {\mathcal C}_{{\widetilde{\Omega}}} the following Carleson operator, acting over functions or vector fields F:{\widetilde{\Omega}}\to{\mathbb R}:

Assume this claim for the moment and let us see how (?) follows. By the properties of the Neumann function {\widetilde{N}} and the definition of \partial_{\nu_A} w, we have

By the definition of {\varphi}_{F,\delta} and by (b) and the fact that \|\partial_{\nu_A} w\|_{L^q(\sigma|_{2B})}<\infty, we have, as \delta\to0,

To bound the last integral on the right hand side of (?) we use the duality result of Hytönen and Rosén as proved in [MPT, Proposition 2.4] (see [HR] for the case when \Omega={\mathbb R}^{n+1}_+) and the solvability of (N_q)_{\mathcal L}. Indeed,

By (c) in the claim above, \|{\mathcal C}_{{\widetilde{\Omega}}}(\chi_{{\widetilde{\Omega}}\setminus\Omega}\nabla{\widetilde{{\varphi}}}_{F,\delta})\|_{L^{q'}({\widetilde{\sigma}})}\to0 as \delta \to 0, and so

as \delta\to0. So letting \delta\to0 in the identity (?), we obtain (?), which proves the lemma, modulo Claim ?.