Light rays of Lorentzian graphs and the Born-Infeld model

If \mathcal S_{\texttt{i},u}=\varnothing, there is nothing to prove. We therefore fix z\in\mathcal S_{\texttt{i},u}.

Step 1: A close-to-lightness estimate. We may choose a light segment \overline{y_zx_z} such that z is its midpoint, and label its endpoints so that u(y_z)>u(x_z). Set \textnormal{\texttt{l}}_z:=|x_z-y_z|>0, \textnormal{\texttt{e}}_z:=(y_z-x_z)/\textnormal{\texttt{l}}_z, so that y_z=z+\textnormal{\texttt{l}}_z\textnormal{\texttt{e}}_z/2, x_z=z-\textnormal{\texttt{l}}_z\textnormal{\texttt{e}}_z/2, and u(y_z)=u(x_z)+\textnormal{\texttt{l}}_z. Fix 0<\varrho<\textnormal{\texttt{l}}_z/2^{3}. We now decompose

and define

The notation here is obvious: \textnormal{\texttt{e}}_z^\perp denotes the space orthogonal to \textnormal{\texttt{e}}_z. The 1-Lipschitz regularity of u, together with the elementary inequality \sqrt{a^2+b^2}\le a+b^2/(2a) valid whenever a>0, gives cc.0

Indeed,

and, similarly,

Merging the inequalities in the last two displays leads to (?). Next, for every x_\perp\in B_\varrho^{n-1}, define \mathcal f_{x_\perp}(t) := u(z+t\textnormal{\texttt{e}}_z+x_\perp) for t\in[-\varrho,\varrho]. Since u is 1-Lipschitz, \mathcal f_{x_\perp} is 1-Lipschitz, and hence absolutely continuous, for every x_\perp\in B_\varrho^{n-1}. Moreover, by the slicing properties of Sobolev functions, for a.e. x_\perp\in B_\varrho^{n-1}, \mathcal f_{x_\perp}'(t)=\left\langle Du(z+t\textnormal{\texttt{e}}_z+x_\perp),\textnormal{\texttt{e}}_z \right\rangle for a.e. t\in(-\varrho,\varrho). By (?),

Since 1-|Du|^2\le2(1-|Du|)\le2(1-\mathcal f_{x_\perp}'), we obtain the following close-to-lightness estimate: cc.2

Step 2: Consequences of higher integrability. Define choice

Since s\longmapsto s^{-q/2} is convex on (0,\infty), Jensen’s inequality and (?) give higher.light

for a.e. x_\perp\in B_\varrho^{n-1}\setminus\{0\}. Consequently, for every 0<\delta<\varrho, Fubini’s theorem and the inclusion \mathcal C_\varrho(z)\Subset B_{2\varrho}(z) yield

Assume first that q\ge n-1. Letting \delta\downarrow0 in (?), we obtain

which is a contradiction. Thus \mathcal S_{\texttt{i},u}=\varnothing and hence \mathcal S_{u}=\varnothing=\mathcal{K}_{u}=\overline{\mathcal S_{u}}=\varnothing. This proves the second conclusion in (?). Assume now that 1\le q<n-1. Letting \delta\downarrow0 in (?), we find findy

Define

Estimate (?) shows that \mathcal S_{\texttt{i},u}\subset E_q. Since \mathcal h_u^q\in L^1_{\operatorname{loc}}(\mathbb R^n) we have \mathcal H^{n-q/2}(E_q)=0 by [eg15, Theorem 2.10], and therefore \mathcal H^{n-q/2}(\mathcal S_{\texttt{i},u})=0. This implies, via Lemma 7.1 below, that \mathcal H^{n-q/2} (\mathcal S_{u}) =0 and the proof is complete.

The first estimate follows from [dm23, Lemma 4.1]. For completeness, we sketch the proof of the second estimate, a version of which already appears in [bm20, Section 2]. Denote by J the quantity in the left-hand side of (?). By (?), J\lesssim_\alpha \lVert w \rVert_{L^2(\log L)^\alpha(\mathbb R^2)}^2. The Hardy–Littlewood rearrangement inequality, the change of variables s=\pi\varrho^2 and the use of (?) give

Note that the last integral appearing in the display is finite because \alpha>2. Taking the supremum over x\in\mathbb R^2 completes the proof.

By (?), with the choice \mathcal s=2n, and by (?), recalling that (u)_{B_1(0)}=0 when n=2, it is enough to prove (?). Using that \mathcal E_{\mu}(u)\le\mathcal E_{\mu}(0)=0, we find

from which (?) follows immediately.

For the content of the first bullet see [bi23, Lemma 5.2]. Let us focus on (?)-(?), which are probably well-known under different assumptions, but we couldn’t locate them in the literature. So we report the proof for completeness. In the following the denoted constant c\equiv c_{n} depends only on the dimension n. Let x\in\mathbb R^{2} and r>0, then we have

and here we have used Jensen and Hölder’s inequalities. By further using Poincaré’s inequality and exploiting that n=2 we conclude with

Choose k\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\} such that 2^{k-1}<1+\lvert x\rvert\leq 2^{k}. With R:=2^{k} we have k+1\leq c\log(e+\lvert x\rvert) and B_R(x)\subset B_{2R}(0). Iterating (Proof) yields eq:chain-x

Moreover, since B_R(x)\subset B_{2R}(0), arguing as for (Proof) we find eq:overlapping-balls

Combining (?) and (?), we obtain eq:mean-log-growth

On the other hand, since w is 1-Lipschitz, \lvert w(x)-(w)_{B_1(x)}\rvert\leq1. This and (?) imply that

Since \log(e+\lvert x\rvert)\geq\log2, dividing (Proof) by \log(e+\lvert x\rvert), and recalling that x\in\mathbb R^2 is arbitrary, proves the estimate for the first quantity in (?). We next estimate the second, which follows by observing that the Lipschitz continuity of w gives \lvert w(x)\rvert \leq \lvert w(0)\rvert+\lvert x\rvert and \lvert w(0)\rvert \leq \lvert (w)_{B_1(0)}\rvert+1. The property in (?) now easily follows from (Proof).

We start with the proof of (h_1). Inclusion B_{s}(x_{0})\subset K_{s}(x_{0}) is trivial by the very definition of Lorentz distance. Since |Du(x_0)|<1 and Du is continuous, there exist \delta_0\in(0,1) and \varrho_0>0, depending on 1-|Du(x_0)| and on the local modulus of continuity of Du, such that \|Du\|_{L^\infty(B_{\varrho_0}(x_0))}\le\delta_0. We then bound

so, reabsorbing terms, we obtain that

We set

and deduce from the above displays that K_{s}(x_{0})\subset B_{r_{0}}(x_{0}). In particular, if s\in (0,1] by definition we can further estimate

Concerning the final claim in (h_1), we notice that \mathcal{h}_{-}>0 implies that \lVert Du \rVert_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}^{2}\le 1-\mathcal{h}_{-}^{2}, thus

and \lvert x-x_{0}\rvert\le s/\mathcal{h}_{-}. For assertion (h_2), see [bi23, Lemma 2.8(i)]. We now turn to the proof of (h_3). The idea is that Lorentz balls centered far away from a given compact set do not “grow” fast enough to reach it. Being \Omega compact, there exists \bar{r}\equiv \bar{r}(\Omega) such that \Omega\Subset B_{\bar{r}}(0). Moreover by (?) applied with \varepsilon=1/2^{4}, we can find a radius r_{2^{-4}}>0 such that 24.6

Now set 24.7

For x\in\Omega and y\in\mathbb R^2\setminus B_{r_*}(0), we have

and

We then control

so \,{\rm dist}(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{2}\setminus B_{r_{*}}(0))\ge \,{\rm dist}_{L}(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{2}\setminus B_{r_{*}}(0))\ge 10\max\{s,1\} and \Omega\cap K_{s}(y)=\varnothing for all y\in \mathbb{R}^{2}\setminus B_{r_{*}}(0).

All balls appearing below are taken sufficiently small to be compactly contained in \Omega. By the argument in [fm02, Lemma 10], u is classically differentiable at every interior point z of \overline{xy} and, since u(x)>u(y), valore

Moreover, we have aff.0

We next show that every such z is also a Lebesgue point of the weak gradient Du (that we identify via its precise representative) and that Du(z)=D_{\mathrm{cl}}u(z). Fix z\in\overline{xy}\setminus\{x,y\} and set q:=D_{\mathrm{cl}}u(z) so that |q|=1, and consider the affine map \ell(w):=\langle q,w-z\rangle+u(z) for every w \in \mathbb R^n. Integration by parts gives

where \nu_r(w):=(w-z)/r is the outward Euclidean unit normal to \partial B_r(z), and therefore (Du)_{B_r(z)}\to q as r\to 0. Using \lvert Du\rvert\le1 and \lvert q\rvert=1, we obtain

Thus z is a Lebesgue point of Du, and its precise value is the one displayed in (?). To prove (?)_2 and differentiability at the endpoints, we now consider an endpoint, say x, which is a Lebesgue point of Du. Since u is locally Lipschitz, the argument in [eg15, proof of Theorem 6.2] yields contr

In our setting this implies classical differentiability at x. By contradiction, we assume that there is \delta\in(0,1) and a sequence of vectors \{h_{k}\}_{k\in \mathbb{N}}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n} with \varrho_{k}:=\lvert h_{k}\rvert\to 0 such that aff.1

Set x_{k}:=x+h_{k}. For any z\in B_{\delta\varrho_{k}/4}(x_{k}) we bound

As for all k\in \mathbb{N} it is B_{\delta\varrho_{k}/4}(x_{k})\subset B_{2\varrho_{k}}(x), we find

which contradicts (?). Hence u is classically differentiable at every Lebesgue point of Du, and the classical differential agrees there with the precise representative of Du. We look back at (?), and notice that

which, combined with the classical differentiability of u at x, implies that (\langle Du(x),(y-x)\rangle)/\lvert x-y\rvert=-1. Similarly, if also y is a Lebesgue point of Du, we gain that (\langle Du(y),(y-x)\rangle)/\lvert x-y\rvert=-1. Recalling that \|Du\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\le1 we deduce that (?)_2 holds, and the proof is complete.

Since \mathcal S_{\texttt{i},u}\subset\mathcal S_u, it is sufficient to prove that \mathcal H^s(\mathcal S_{\texttt{i},u})=0 implies \mathcal H^s(\mathcal S_u)=0, and therefore we assume that walter

The idea of the proof is that every midpoint of a light segment determines its two endpoints once the length is fixed. Since the directions depend Lipschitz continuously on the midpoints, this association has Lipschitz character too. This implies that the endpoints do not spread too much, so that the information in (?) extends to the endpoints too. Choose a countable covering U=\bigcup_{j\ge1}B_j by balls B_j\Subset U. For \delta>0, let M_{\delta,j} be the set of midpoints of light segments of length 2\delta contained in B_j. Clearly, M_{\delta,j}\subset\mathcal S_{\texttt{i},u}. For y\in M_{\delta,j}, choose the corresponding increasing unit direction \textnormal{\texttt{e}}_y, i.e., u(y\pm\delta \textnormal{\texttt{e}}_y)=u(y)\pm\delta. This direction is unique by Lemma 5.4. Next, consider the endpoint maps F_{\delta,j}^\pm:M_{\delta,j}\to\mathcal S_u defined by F_{\delta,j}^\pm(y):=y\pm\delta \textnormal{\texttt{e}}_y. Upon extending the restriction u|_{B_j} to 1-Lipschitz extension to \mathbb R^n, we can use [cfm02, Lemma 16, Remark 17 and the proof of Lemma 22], to deduce that the dependence of \textnormal{\texttt{e}}_y on y\in M_{\delta,j} is Lipschitz continuously on y, for every fixed \delta>0. It follows that the maps F_{\delta,j}^\pm are Lipschitz too. Now, every point p\in \mathcal S_u is an endpoint of a nondegenerate light subsegment \ell contained in some B_j and, up to shorten \ell, we can assume \,{\rm diam}(\ell)=2/k for some integer k. The midpoint of \ell belongs to M_{1/k,j}. As p was generic, we conclude with

By (?), since M_{1/k,j}\subset\mathcal S_{\texttt{i},u}, the Lipschitz continuity of the maps F_{1/k,j}^{\pm} yields

Countable subadditivity of Hausdorff measure then yields \mathcal H^s(\mathcal S_u)=0.

Note that assumption (?) automatically implies n\geq 3. Assume by contradiction that z\in\mathcal S_{\texttt{i},u}. Using the notation and the close-to-lightness estimate from the proof of Theorem 1.11, restart from (?) (there we replace q by m and observe that the whole argument remains unchanged). Then |x_\perp|^{-m} \lesssim \mathcal h_{u;\varrho}^{m} for a.e. x_\perp\in B_\varrho^{n-1}\setminus\{0\}; integrating then yields lefty

By the assumption on \mathcal h_u^m and Fubini’s theorem, \mathcal h_{u;\varrho}^{m}\in W^{1,p}(B_\varrho^{n-1}). Sobolev embedding in dimension n-1 gives \mathcal h_{u;\varrho}^{m}\in L^{p^*}(B_\varrho^{n-1}), so that the last integral in (?) is finite. On the other hand, the assumption (1+m)p\ge n-1 is equivalent to mp^*\ge n-1, and hence the last integral diverges, a contradiction. Therefore \mathcal S_{\texttt{i},u}=\varnothing, and consequently \mathcal S_{u}=\mathcal{K}_{u}=\varnothing.

Assume by contradiction there exists z\in\mathcal S_{\texttt{i},u}. This time it is natural to define

which replaces the choice in (?). Again Fubini’s theorem yields \ell\mathcal h_{u;\varrho} \in W^{1,p}(B_\varrho^{n-1}). Moreover, Jensen’s inequality and (?) give zz.0

for a.e. x_\perp\in B_\varrho^{n-1}\setminus\{0\}. When p>n-1, Morrey’s embedding theorem gives a locally bounded continuous representative of \ell\mathcal h_{u;\varrho}, contradicting (?) as x_\perp\to0. Therefore it remains to consider the borderline case p=n-1. If n=2, then p=1, and \ell\mathcal h_{u;\varrho}\in W^{1,1}(-\varrho,\varrho) has an absolutely continuous, bounded representative. This again contradicts (?). We may therefore assume that n\ge3, so that p=n-1>1. If \left\| \partial_{x_\perp}\ell\mathcal h_{u;\varrho} \right\|_{L^p(B_\varrho^{n-1})}=0, then \ell\mathcal h_{u;\varrho} is constant almost everywhere, contradicting (?). Otherwise we apply (?) of Lemma 2.11, in dimension n-1=p, to obtain zz.1

where c_*>0 depends on n,p, \left\| \partial_{x_\perp} \ell\mathcal h_{u;\varrho} \right\|_{L^p(B_\varrho^{n-1})}. Choose \varrho_\perp\in(0,\varrho) so small that

Then (?) implies that

holds for a.e. x_\perp\in B_{\varrho_\perp}^{n-1}. Set c_1:=c_*2^{-p/(p-1)} and c_2:=\sqrt{3\varrho\textnormal{\texttt{l}}_z/8}. Using polar coordinates and then changing variables via t=\log (c_2/s), we obtain

Since p/(p-1)>1, the last integral is infinite, contradicting (?).

The proof follows by combining the above propositions. The first two assertions follow from Proposition 7.8, which gives the disjoint decomposition \mathcal{K}_{u} = \mathcal S_{u}\,\dot\cup\,\mathcal {L}_{u} and the stated discontinuity property outside an exceptional set of zero p-capacity. Finally, Propositions 7.7 and 7.9 imply the third point.

The integrability assumption implies that 0<\mathcal h_u^{-1}\le1 almost everywhere. By Jensen’s inequality applied to the convex function t\mapsto-\log t,

The right-hand side tends to +\infty as r\to0, which proves the assertion.

It suffices to prove the assertions about capacity. By Remark 7.5, fix an arbitrary ball B\subset\mathbb R^n and prove that \textnormal{Cap}_{p}(\mathcal I_u^B)=\textnormal{Cap}_{p}(\mathcal S_u^B)=0. Let E_0:=E_0(Du) and E_1:=E_1(\log\mathcal h_u) be the exceptional sets of non-Lebesgue points from Remark 7.5. Then \textnormal{Cap}_{p}(E_0^B)=\textnormal{Cap}_{p}(E_1^B)=0. If z\in\mathcal I_u^B\setminus E_0^B, then z is a Lebesgue point of Du, hence also of |Du|, and |Du(z)|=1. Since t\mapsto\sqrt{1-t^2} is Hölder continuous on [0,1], it follows that

By (?) we infer \lim_{r\to0}(\log\mathcal h_u)_{B_r(z)}=\infty, so z\in E_1^B. Therefore, \mathcal I_u^B\subset E_0^B\cup E_1^B. By (?)_{1,2}, every point of a light segment which is a Lebesgue point of Du satisfies |Du|=1, including the endpoints. Hence \mathcal S_u^B\setminus E_0^B\subset\mathcal I_u^B, and consequently \mathcal I_u^B\cup\mathcal S_u^B \subset E_0^B\cup E_1^B. Monotonicity and subadditivity of the p-capacity give the desired conclusion on B. Since B is arbitrary, Remark 7.5 yields (?). Finally, if \mathcal h_u^m\in W^{1,p}_{\operatorname{loc}}(\mathbb R^n) for some m>0, then \mathcal h_u^m\ge1 almost everywhere. Composition with the Lipschitz function t\mapsto m^{-1}\log\max\{1,t\} gives \log\mathcal h_u\in W^{1,p}_{\operatorname{loc}}(\mathbb R^n), so the preceding argument applies.

Since \mathcal S_u\subset\mathcal K_u by definition and \mathcal S_u\cap\mathcal L_u=\varnothing by (?), it remains to prove the inclusions \mathcal L_u\subset\mathcal K_u and \mathcal K_u\setminus\mathcal S_u\subset\mathcal L_u. Let first z\in\mathcal L_u. There exist light rays \ell_k such that \,{\rm dist}(z,\ell_k)\to0 and \,{\rm diam}(\ell_k)\to0. Choose z_k\in\ell_k such that |z-z_k| \le \,{\rm dist}(z,\ell_k)+1/k. It follows that z_k\in\mathcal S_u. Hence z\in\overline{\mathcal S_u}=\mathcal K_u. Conversely, let z\in\mathcal K_u\setminus\mathcal S_u. Choose z_k\in\mathcal S_u such that z_k\to z, and let \ell_k be the light ray containing a light segment through z_k. Then \,{\rm dist}(z,\ell_k)\le|z-z_k|\to0. We claim that \,{\rm diam}(\ell_k)\to0. Otherwise, after passing to a subsequence, there exists \rho>0 such that \,{\rm diam}(\ell_k)\ge4\rho for every k. Since \ell_k is an interval of a straight line and z_k\in\ell_k, we may choose w_k\in\ell_k such that |w_k-z_k|=\rho. The segment \overline{z_kw_k} is obviously a light segment. After passing to a further subsequence, \rho^{-1}(w_k-z_k)\to \textnormal{\texttt{e}} for some \textnormal{\texttt{e}}\in \mathbb R^n, |\textnormal{\texttt{e}}|=1, and therefore w_k\to w:=z+\rho \textnormal{\texttt{e}}. By continuity of u, |u(w)-u(z)| =|w-z|=\rho. Thus \overline{zw} is a nondegenerate light segment, contradicting z\notin\mathcal S_u. Consequently, \,{\rm diam}(\ell_k)\to0, and hence z\in\mathcal L_u. This proves (?). Since \mathcal K_u\mathbin{\triangle}\mathcal L_u=\mathcal S_u, the capacity assertion follows immediately. Finally, let z\in\mathcal L_u\setminus E_0 with |Du(z)|<1, and let \ell_k be as in (?). We can choose \tilde z_k\in\mathcal S_{\texttt{i},u}\cap\ell_k such that |\tilde z_k-z| \le \,{\rm dist}(z,\ell_k)+\,{\rm diam}(\ell_k)+1/k. Then \tilde z_k\to z, and Lemma 5.4 gives |Du(\tilde z_k)|=1. Since z\notin E_0 and |Du(z)|<1, the precise representative of |Du| is discontinuous at z.

Condition (?) and the definition in (?) immediately give \mathcal L_u=\varnothing. The identity \mathcal K_u=\mathcal S_u then follows from Proposition 7.8. The remaining assertions are immediate.

As pointed out in Remark 4.6, we may assume that x_0=0 and u(0)=0, namely \Phi(0)=(0,u(0))=0. Throughout the proof, we write L_s:=L_s^u(0), K_s:=K_s^u(0), and \ell(\Phi(x))=\ell_u(x,0). Proposition 4.5 gives diffy

for all s\in(0,r), with c_\star=c_\star(n)>0. We leave the term c_{\star}\mathbb E(s) as it is for the moment. In the following we shall use the basic relations basic

for which we refer to [bi23, (2.9) and (3.14)]. Set \varphi_s:=(s^2-\ell^2)/2. By Lemma 4.3(Strictly speaking, we apply Lemma 4.3 to a smooth approximation of \varphi_s\mathds 1_{L_s}; no boundary term appears since \varphi_s=0 on \partial L_s.), with w=\mathcal h_u^{-(\gamma+1)}\mu, and since \textnormal{\texttt{H}}_u=\mu,

Hence, using 0\le \varphi_s\le s^2/2 on L_s,

Again using (?) we gain

By Young’s inequality we continue to bound

Similarly, again by Young’s inequality, we find you2

The last two integrals appearing in (Proof)-(?) can be estimated using the coarea formula (Lemma 4.4) as follows:

and

Combining the last four displays with (?) we obtain

Next, denote recapp

With this notation, (Proof) implies 0.9

Since u\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb R^n) is strictly spacelike, by Lemma 4.8 we find lim1

and, moreover,

for |x| small enough. It follows that

and

Recalling (?) we conclude with lim2

Using (?) and (?), and recalling that \mathcal h_u^{-1}\le1, we integrate (?) over (\varepsilon,r) and let \varepsilon\downarrow0 to obtain

We now proceed as in [bs82, p. 140]. Note that for any function w\in L^{1}(\mathfrak{M}) it holds that

Therefore, also using Fubini’s theorem, we have

where

We also used that \mathcal{J}(\ell,r)\ge c_{n}r^{2-n} whenever \ell\in (0,r/2]. Recalling that \mathcal{A}(r)\ge 0, combining the preceding estimates gives

Translating the previous estimate back to (x_0,u(x_0)), we obtain

Recalling that B_{r}(x_{0})\subset K_{r}(x_{0}) and that \gamma\in (0,1), we obtain

which proves (8.1). Finally, the choice in (?) is admissible in the computation leading to [bi23, (3.8)]: applying the trace inequality and Young’s inequality with parameter 1/4 in [bi23, (3.6)] yields c_\star=1/(8n) and a coefficient at most 1/4 for the term \mathcal h_u^{-\gamma}\mu^2.

Apply the comparisons in (?) with (\sigma,\vartheta,w)=(2,1,\mu^2) and (1,1,\mu) to the two potential terms in (8.1). This gives (8.2). When \mathcal h_->0, the uniform comparison applies with c_0=\mathcal h_-^{-1} for every centre and radius, proving the final assertion.

We strongly rely on (8.1). For this, we first recall that by Proposition 21.1, u is strictly spacelike and solves (?) in the classical sense. Let \gamma be the exponent in Proposition 8.1. Fix a dimensional constant c_0(n)\ge4. We first prove (?) using only the equation and the fact that Du\in L^2(\mathbb R^n). Fix \tau>1 and choose R>0 such that barry

By Lemma 3.2 and Lemma 4.7 (h_2) when n\ge3, and by Lemma 4.7 (h_3) when n=2, there exists R_1\equiv R_1(\tau)>R such that K_1(x_0)\cap\overline{B_R(0)}=\varnothing whenever |x_0|\ge R_1. Indeed, in dimensions n\ge3 the function u is bounded, so the Euclidean radii containing K_1(x_0) can be chosen independently of x_0. In dimension two, apply (h_3) with the compact set \overline{B_R(0)} and s=1. Since K_s(x_0)\subset K_1(x_0) for 0<s\le1, both potentials involving \mu in (8.1) vanish at such centers when r=1. Further discarding the nonnegative Hessian term, we obtain

Here we used 0<(\gamma+1)/2<1 and B_1(x_0)\subset K_1(x_0). We deduce that \mathcal h_u(x_0)\le\tau whenever |x_0|\ge R_1(\tau). Since \tau>1 is arbitrary and \mathcal h_u\ge1, this proves (?). Taking \tau=2, we obtain \mathcal h_u(x_0)\le2 \le\mathcal h_\infty(\mu)/2 whenever |x_0|\ge R_1(2). This proves (?) with \textnormal{\texttt{r}}_\mu:=2R_1(2). Note that since u is uniquely determined by \mu, this radius depends only on n and \mu. Moreover, \,{\rm supp }\,(\mathcal h_u-\mathcal h_\infty(\mu))_+ \subset\overline{B_{R_1(2)}(0)} \Subset B_{\textnormal{\texttt{r}}_\mu}(0), which proves (?). It remains to establish (?). By (?) we have

Thus \|Du\|_{L^2(\mathbb R^n)} \le \|\mu\|_{\mathcal D^{1,2}(\mathbb R^n)^*}, and, finally jenny

Set E_0:=\{x\in\mathbb R^n: \mathcal h_u(x)>\mathcal h_\infty(\mu)\}. Since \mathcal h_\infty(\mu)\ge4, on E_0 we have |Du|^2=1-\mathcal h_u^{-2}\ge1/2. Therefore,

Using (?), we conclude

This proves (?).

The exterior bound established in the first part of the proof of Proposition 9.1 uses only the classical equation and u\in\mathbb X(\mathbb R^n). It therefore applies here and gives \mathcal h_u\le2 outside a sufficiently large ball. Together with the continuity of Du and strict spacelikeness on compact sets, this implies \mathcal h_u\in L^\infty(\mathbb R^n). Since Du\in L^2(\mathbb R^n), it follows that F:=\mathcal h_uDu \in L^2(\mathbb R^n;\mathbb R^n). If n=2, choose R>0 such that \,{\rm supp }\, \mu\Subset B_R(0). To prove \mu\in L^1_0(\mathbb R^2), fix a nonincreasing function \vartheta\in C^\infty(\mathbb R) such that 0\le\vartheta\le1, \vartheta=1 on (-\infty,1], and \vartheta=0 on [2,\infty). For T>\max\{e^2,R+e\}, define logatau

Then \eta_T\in C^\infty_0(\mathbb R^2), \eta_T=1 in B_{T-e}(0), and \eta_T=0 outside B_{T^2-e}(0). In particular, \eta_T=1 on \,{\rm supp }\, \mu. Moreover,

for every x\in \mathbb R^2, so that

Testing -\,{\rm div} F=\mu directly with \eta_T, we obtain

which establishes \mu\in L^1_0(\mathbb R^2). In every dimension, the equation gives

for all \varphi\in C^\infty_0(\mathbb R^n). Hence \mu\in\mathcal D^{1,2}_{\#}(\mathbb R^n)^*, and a standard density argument, together with Remark 2.7, gives \langle\mu,w\rangle = \int_{\mathbb R^n}\langle F, Dw\rangle\,dx for every w\in\mathcal D^{1,2}_{\#}(\mathbb R^n). Finally, another standard argument: the convexity of H(\xi)=1-\sqrt{1-|\xi|^2} implies that, for every v\in\mathbb X(\mathbb R^n),

This proves the minimality of u.

In the following we shall repeatedly pass to subsequences without relabeling them. We first observe that every function satisfying the assumptions of the lemma is weakly spacelike along every segment contained in \overline\Omega, namely equi

Indeed, set \gamma(t):=x+t(y-x) for t\in[0,1]. If \gamma((0,1))\subset\Omega, the claim follows from \lvert Du\rvert<1 and continuity up to the endpoints. Otherwise, setting a:=\min\{t\in[0,1]:\gamma(t)\in\partial\Omega\},, b:=\max\{t\in[0,1]:\gamma(t)\in\partial\Omega\}, we have, by \lvert Du\rvert<1 in \Omega and continuity, \lvert u(x)-u(\gamma(a))\rvert \le \lvert x-\gamma(a)\rvert, \lvert u(\gamma(b))-u(y)\rvert \le \lvert \gamma(b)-y\rvert. Moreover, since u=\textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0 on \partial\Omega and \lVert D\textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0 \rVert_{C^0(\overline\Omega)}\le1-\sigma_0, \lvert u(\gamma(a))-u(\gamma(b))\rvert \le (1-\sigma_0)\lvert \gamma(a)-\gamma(b)\rvert. Since the points are collinear and ordered along the segment, the triangle inequality gives (?).

We argue by contradiction. Then there exist sequences of functions \{u_i\}\subset C^2(\Omega)\cap C^0(\overline\Omega), \{\textnormal{\texttt{u}}_{0;i}\}\subset C^2(\overline\Omega), and points \{x_{0;i} \},\{x_{1;i}\}\subset \overline\Omega such that \lvert Du_i\rvert<1 in \Omega, [-\mathcal Mu_i]_{n,1;\Omega}\le\Lambda_0, u_i=\textnormal{\texttt{u}}_{0;i} on \partial\Omega, with ww.unif.bd

and \overline{x_{1;i}x_{0;i}}\subset\overline\Omega, \textnormal{\texttt{l}}/4 \le\lvert x_{1;i}-x_{0;i}\rvert\le \textnormal{\texttt{l}}, while pp.0

By compactness of \overline\Omega, we may assume that x_{0;i}\to x_0, and x_{1;i}\to x_1. It follows that \textnormal{\texttt{l}}/4 \le \lvert x_1-x_0\rvert \le \textnormal{\texttt{l}}, and hence x_0\ne x_1. Moreover, since \overline{x_{1;i}x_{0;i}}\subset\overline\Omega for every i and \overline\Omega is closed, we have \overline{x_1x_0}\subset\overline\Omega. The uniform C^2-bound in (?) and the compactness of \overline\Omega allow us, after passing to a further subsequence, to find \textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0\in C^1(\overline\Omega) such that ww.bd.conv

In particular, \lVert D\textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0 \rVert_{C^0(\overline\Omega)}\le1-\sigma_0. By defining u_0:=\left.\textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0\right|_{\partial\Omega}, we also have \left.\textnormal{\texttt{u}}_{0;i}\right|_{\partial\Omega} \to u_0 uniformly in \partial\Omega. Furthermore, whenever y_0,y_1\in\partial\Omega and \overline{y_1y_0}\subset\overline\Omega, we have ww.bd.strict

We next establish compactness of \{u_i\} in C^0(\overline\Omega). For every x\in\Omega, choose y_x\in\partial\Omega such that \lvert x-y_x\rvert=\,{\rm dist}(x,\partial\Omega). The open segment joining x to y_x is contained in \Omega, and therefore (?) gives \lvert u_i(x)-\textnormal{\texttt{u}}_{0;i}(y_x)\rvert \le \,{\rm dist}(x,\partial\Omega). Hence \sup_i\lVert u_i \rVert_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \le M+\,{\rm diam}(\Omega). Moreover, the functions u_i are locally uniformly 1-Lipschitz in \Omega. By the Ascoli-Arzelà theorem and a diagonal argument, they converge, after passing to a subsequence, locally uniformly in \Omega. The previous boundary estimate, together with (?), upgrades the convergence to ww.unif.conv

for some u\in C^0(\overline\Omega) satisfying u=u_0 on \partial\Omega. Passing to the limit in (?), we obtain ww.limit.sp

In particular, u\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega), with \lvert Du\rvert\le1 a.e. in \Omega. Set \mu_i:=-\mathcal Mu_i. Since [\mu_i]_{n,1;\Omega}\le\Lambda_0 and L(n,1)(\Omega)\hookrightarrow L^n(\Omega), the sequence \{\mu_i\} is uniformly bounded in L^n(\Omega). Since n\ge2, after passing to a subsequence we may assume that ww.weak.mu

for some \mu\in L^n(\Omega). By the weak lower semicontinuity properties of the Lorentz norm, \mu\in L(n,1)(\Omega), with [\mu]_{n,1;\Omega}\le\Lambda_0. We can now adapt the convergence argument of [bs82, Lemma 1.3](Indeed, each u_i minimizes \mathcal E_{\mu_i}(\,\cdot\,;\Omega) with its own boundary datum. To justify this without any control of the boost near the boundary, let v\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega) be weakly spacelike with v=u_i on \partial\Omega, and set v_\delta :=u_i+(v-u_i-\delta)_+-(u_i-v-\delta)_+, \delta>0. Then v_\delta is weakly spacelike and \,{\rm supp }(v_\delta-u_i)\Subset\Omega. Convexity of H and the equation for u_i, tested with v_\delta-u_i, give \mathcal E_{\mu_i}(u_i;\Omega) \le\mathcal E_{\mu_i}(v_\delta;\Omega). Since v_\delta\to v uniformly and Dv_\delta\to Dv a.e., letting \delta\downarrow0 yields the desired minimality by dominated convergence, using 0\le H\le1 on the unit ball and \mu_i\in L^1(\Omega). See also the argument at the end of the proof of Proposition 9.2.). The uniform L(n,1)-bound gives uniform L^n- and L^1-bounds for the charges, while (?) and (?) allow passage to the limit in the linear terms. In particular, the moving-set argument is unchanged: whenever E_i\to E in measure and v is bounded,

It follows that u is the variational minimizer of \mathcal E_\mu(\,\cdot\,;\Omega) with boundary datum u_0. By (?), letting i\to\infty in (?) gives ww.light.end

Set \gamma(t):=x_0+t(x_1-x_0), t\in[0,1] and we may assume that u(x_1)-u(x_0)=\lvert x_1-x_0\rvert. Then (?) and (?) imply ombra

If \overline{x_1x_0}\cap\Omega=\varnothing, then \overline{x_1x_0}\subset\partial\Omega, and (?), together with u=u_0 on \partial\Omega, gives \lvert u_0(x_1)-u_0(x_0)\rvert=\lvert x_1-x_0\rvert, contradicting (?). Assume therefore that \overline{x_1x_0}\cap\Omega\ne\varnothing. Then I:=\{t\in(0,1):\gamma(t)\in\Omega\} is a nonempty open subset of (0,1), and hence contains a nonempty open interval. By (?), the graph of u contains a nontrivial light segment entirely contained in \Omega. Since u is the variational minimizer with charge \mu\in L(n,1)(\Omega), the results of Section ? allow us to apply Theorem 1.1. The light segment therefore extends along the whole maximal connected component of the line through x_0,x_1 contained in \Omega. Let y_0,y_1\in\partial\Omega be the endpoints of this maximal component. By the definition of the component, \overline{y_1y_0}\subset\overline\Omega. By continuity, the light-ray identity extends to the endpoints and gives \lvert u(y_1)-u(y_0)\rvert = \lvert y_1-y_0\rvert. Since u=u_0 on \partial\Omega, we obtain \lvert u_0(y_1)-u_0(y_0)\rvert = \lvert y_1-y_0\rvert, which contradicts (?).

The proof splits into three steps.

Step 1: Linearized operator and nonlinear remainder. Set \textnormal{\texttt{H}}(x):=\partial^2H(D\mathcal w(x)). By (?), the matrix \textnormal{\texttt{H}}(\cdot) is symmetric and uniformly elliptic. More precisely, there exists c_{\mathcal s}=c_{\mathcal s}(n,\mathcal s)\geq1 such that ww.2

Moreover, ww.1

where c=c(n,\mathcal s). Expanding -\,{\rm div}(\textnormal{\texttt{H}}(x)D\varphi), define

Note that \lVert \textnormal{\texttt{J}} \rVert_{C^0(\mathcal{\overline U})}\le c(n,\mathcal{s})\lVert D^{2}\mathcal{w} \rVert_{C^0(\mathcal{\overline U})}. Using (?), (?), and the above bound on \textnormal{\texttt{J}}, we may apply [gt01, Theorem 9.15 and Lemma 9.17, pp. 241–242]. Thus, for every p\in(1,\infty) and every \textnormal{\texttt{f}}\in L^p(\mathcal U), we can uniquely solve \mathcal {L}_{\mathcal w}v=\textnormal{\texttt{f}} in the Dirichlet class W^{1,p}_0(\mathcal U) with dirip

where c depends only on n,p,\lVert D\mathcal w \rVert_{C^1(\mathcal{\overline U})}, \mathcal s, \mathcal U. With abuse of notation we denote by \mathcal {L}_{\mathcal w}^{-1} the linear operator such that \mathcal {L}_{\mathcal w}^{-1}\textnormal{\texttt{f}} =v (the abuse is linked to the fact that, in principle, such an operator should depend on the exponent p, which is in fact not the case). By (?) and standard real interpolation, we obtain ww.4

where c_{\rm inv}\geq 1 depends on n,\lVert D\mathcal w \rVert_{C^1(\mathcal{\overline U})}, \mathcal s, \mathcal U (see (?) for the definition of the right-hand side). We then linearize around ww.5

By (?) and (?), |D\mathcal{w}+tDv| \le 1-3\mathcal{s}/4 for every t\in[0,1]. Hence all the derivatives of H up to order four are uniformly bounded on the corresponding compact subset of the unit ball. Since -\mathcal M \mathcal w=\mathfrak f, we can write

Recalling that \partial^{3}_{ij,k}H is symmetric in all indices, we split the nonlinear remainder \mathcal{R}_{\mathcal{w}}(v) as

For the first term, the fundamental theorem of calculus gives

We conclude with del1

For the second term, Taylor’s formula with integral remainder yields

Therefore, del2

Combining the estimates in (?) and (?) with (?), we obtain rem

with c\equiv c(n,\mathcal{s}). By the endpoint Sobolev–Lorentz embedding [cp98], we have immersione

Using Young’s inequality in (?), we get

and therefore, by means of (?), we conclude with ww.10

where c_{\rm rem}\geq 1 depends on n,\mathcal{s},\,{\rm diam} (\mathcal U)\lVert D^2\mathcal{w} \rVert_{C^{0}(\bar{\mathcal{U}})},c_{\rm emb}(For such a constant dependence note that [\mathds 1_{\mathcal U}]_{n,1;\mathcal U} \leq c(n)|\mathcal U|^{1/n} \leq c(n)\,{\rm diam}(\mathcal U).). A similar argument then yields ww.13

which holds for all v_{1},v_{2}\in W^{2;n,1}(\mathcal{U})\cap W^{1;n,1}_{0}(\mathcal{U}) such that \lVert Dv_{i} \rVert_{L^{\infty}(\bar{\mathcal{U}})}\le \mathcal{s}/4, i\in \{1,2\}, where c_{\rm diff}\geq 1 again depends on n,\mathcal{s},\,{\rm diam} (\mathcal U)\lVert D^2\mathcal{w} \rVert_{C^{0}(\bar{\mathcal{U}})} and c_{\rm emb}.

Step 2: Fixed-point argument. Recall the meaning of the constants c_{\rm inv}, c_{\rm emb}, c_{\rm rem}, c_{\rm diff}; these have been defined in (?), (?), (?) and (?), respectively, and altogether ultimately depend on n,\mathcal{s},\lVert D\mathcal{w} \rVert_{C^1(\mathcal{\overline U})} and \mathcal{U}. Set X:= W^{2;n,1}(\mathcal U)\cap W^{1;n,1}_0(\mathcal U) and take a number \rho such that ww.rho

Consider the closed ball \mathbb B_{\rho}^X :=\{v\in X:\lVert v \rVert_{W^{2;n,1}(\mathcal U)}\le\rho\}. It is a complete metric space and, by (?),

For v\in\mathbb B_{\rho}^X, define

We choose the constant \widetilde c_* appearing in (?) as \widetilde c_*:=2c_{\rm inv}/\rho. With this choice, condition (?) becomes c_{\rm inv}[\mu_*]_{n,1;\mathcal U}\le \rho/2. Then, using (?), (?), and (?), we obtain ww.14

Thus \mathcal G_{\mathcal w} maps \mathbb B_{\rho}^X into itself. Similarly, by (?), (?), and (?),

holds whenever v_1,v_2\in\mathbb B_{\rho}^X. Hence \mathcal G_{\mathcal w} is a contraction on \mathbb B_{\rho}^X. The Banach–Caccioppoli fixed-point theorem gives a unique \mathcal b\in\mathbb B_{\rho}^X such that \mathcal b=\mathcal G_{\mathcal w}(\mathcal b;\mu_{*}). By (?), this is equivalent to (?). Proceeding as for (?), the fixed-point property and (?) also give

Since \lVert \mathcal b \rVert_{W^{2;n,1}(\mathcal U)}\le\rho and c_{\rm inv}c_{\rm rem}\rho\le1/8, the last term can be absorbed, yielding (?). The solution is unique in the class determined by the last gradient bound. Indeed, if \mathcal b_1,\mathcal b_2 are two such solutions, subtracting their weak formulations and testing with \mathcal b_1-\mathcal b_2 gives

The strict monotonicity of \partial H implies D\mathcal b_1=D\mathcal b_2 a.e. in \mathcal U, and the zero boundary trace gives \mathcal b_1=\mathcal b_2.

Step 3: Sign of the corrector. Finally, (?) follows from the weak comparison principle. Indeed, by (?) and (?), \lVert D\mathcal w+D\mathcal b \rVert_{L^\infty(\mathcal U)} \le 1-3\mathcal s/4, and, since \lVert D\mathcal w \rVert_{L^\infty(\mathcal U)}\le1-\mathcal s, we have \lvert D\mathcal w+tD\mathcal b\rvert \le 1-3\mathcal s/4 for every t\in[0,1]. Hence, setting

the matrix \textnormal{\texttt{H}}_{\mathcal b} is uniformly elliptic in \mathcal U. Subtracting -\mathcal M \mathcal w =\mathfrak f from -\mathcal M(\mathcal w+\mathcal b)=\mathfrak f+\mu_*, we obtain -\,{\rm div} \, (\textnormal{\texttt{H}}_{\mathcal b}D\mathcal b) = \mu_* in \mathcal U with \mathcal b=0 on \partial \mathcal U, and (?) follows by the weak comparison principle.

Since \partial\Omega is compact and the caps \mathcal U_{x_0} are constructed at the fixed scale r, their quantitative C^2-geometry is controlled uniformly with respect to x_0\in\partial\Omega. Consequently, the constant c_{\rm emb} in the endpoint Sobolev-Lorentz embedding (?) can be chosen independently of x_0\in \partial \Omega. On the other hand, by (?), it follows that the coefficient matrices \partial^2H(D\mathcal w_{x_0}) are uniformly elliptic, with ellipticity constants only depending on n and \mathcal s, and that their W^{1,\infty}-norms are bounded uniformly in x_0, in terms of n,\mathcal s,K/r. Similarly, the coefficients of the linearized operators \mathcal L_{\mathcal w_{x_0}} satisfy common ellipticity and regularity bounds. Therefore, the global W^{2,p}-estimates used in the proof of Lemma 10.2, at two fixed exponents 1<p_0<n<p_1<\infty, give a common inverse constant c_{\rm inv} via real interpolation. The estimates for the nonlinear remainder and its difference give common constants c_{\rm rem} and c_{\rm diff}. Summarizing, the constants c_{\rm inv}, c_{\rm rem}, and c_{\rm diff} can be chosen uniformly with respect to x_0\in\partial\Omega, only depending on n,\mathcal s,K/r,r,\Omega, while c_{\rm emb} depends only on n,r,\Omega. Here the dependence on r and \Omega accounts for the common quantitative geometry of the caps. With such a uniformized choice, define \rho_{\rm uni} as in (?), with the present uniform meaning, and finally define \varepsilon_{\rm \partial} := \rho_{\rm uni}/(2c_{\rm inv}). The fixed-point argument in Lemma 10.2 can then be performed on every \mathcal U_{x_0} with the same radius \rho_{\rm uni}. It yields (?) with c_{\rm uni}:=2c_{\rm inv} as in the statement of the Corollary.

Again, the proof goes in two steps.

Step 1: Constructing uniform caps. Fix a bounded C^2-extension operator to a tubular neighbourhood N_{\rho_{\rm ext}}(\overline\Omega) of size {\rho_{\rm ext}}, and continue to denote the extension of \textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0 by \textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0. Put M_2:= \lVert D^2\textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0 \rVert_{L^\infty (N_{\rho_{\rm ext}}(\overline\Omega))}. The extension may be fixed so that M_2 \leq C_{\rm ext}(\Omega) \lVert \textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0 \rVert_{C^2(\overline\Omega)}. Let r_\Omega>0 be the radius supplied by Corollary 10.3, and set

In particular, 0<\rho_0\leq r_0 and \rho_0\leq r_\Omega. Applying the construction in Corollary 10.3 at the fixed scale r=\rho_0, we choose, for every x_0\in\partial\Omega, a C^2-regular boundary cap \mathcal U_{x_0} such that ww.21

By the same corollary, the family \{\mathcal U_{x_0}\}_{x_0\in\partial\Omega} has uniformly controlled C^2-geometry at the scale \rho_0. In particular, the caps are fixed solely in terms of r_0,\sigma_0, \lVert \textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0 \rVert_{C^2(\overline\Omega)},\Omega, and are independent of f,\mu, and u. Finally, by the definition of r_*, for every x_0\in\partial\Omega and every x\in B_{\rho_0}(x_0), the fundamental theorem of calculus gives ww.24

Fix now x_0\in\partial\Omega; we shall often abbreviate \mathcal U_0:=\mathcal U_{x_0}. We first establish a quantitative spacelike inequality for the boundary values of u on \partial\mathcal U_0. Fix x\in\partial\mathcal U_0\cap\Omega, and define \gamma(t):=x_0+t(x-x_0) for t\in[0,1]. Since \gamma(1)=x\in\Omega, let (t_x,1], with t_x\in[0,1), be the connected component containing 1 of \{t\in(0,1]:\gamma(t)\in\Omega\}. Then \gamma(t_x)\in\partial\Omega, where possibly t_x=0, in which case \gamma(t_x)=x_0. Notice that, by (?), \rho_0/2\le\lvert x-x_0\rvert\le \rho_0. Since \Omega has finite measure, the embedding L^\infty(\Omega)\hookrightarrow L(n,1)(\Omega) gives a constant c_{\Omega}=c(n,\Omega) such that

Apply Lemma 10.1 once, at the already fixed scale \textnormal{\texttt{l}}=\rho_0, with M=1+\lVert \textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0 \rVert_{C^2(\overline\Omega)} and global charge bound \Lambda_{\rm tot}. Denote its constant by \sigma_{\rm ch} = \sigma_{\rm ch} ( n,\rho_0,\Lambda_{\rm tot},\sigma_0, \lVert \textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0 \rVert_{C^2(\overline\Omega)},\Omega ) \in(0,1). If t_x\le1/2, then \rho_0/4 \le \lvert x-\gamma(t_x)\rvert \le \rho_0, and the estimate supplied by Lemma 10.1 on \overline{x\,\gamma(t_x)} gives

Here we used the fact that x, \gamma(t_x), and x_0 are collinear and (?) in the third line. If t_x>1/2, the weak spacelike inequality on \overline{x\,\gamma(t_x)}, together with (?), gives

In any case we conclude with ww.23

where \widetilde\sigma := \min\{\sigma_{\rm ch},\sigma_0\}/4. We now construct a suitable extension of the boundary datum \left.u\right|_{\partial\mathcal U_0}. Define R_0 := \overline{\mathcal U}_0 \cap \{\rho_0/4\le\lvert x-x_0\rvert\le \rho_0\} and note that \partial R_0 := (\partial\mathcal U_0\cap R_0) \cup (\overline{\mathcal U}_0\cap \partial B_{\rho_0/4}(x_0)). On \partial R_0, set

The two definitions agree on their common domain. Indeed,

and hence u=\textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0 there. Thus \tau\in C^{0}(\partial R_0). Moreover, (?) applies on the artificial part of \partial\mathcal U_0, while (?) applies on its physical part. Hence \lVert \tau \rVert_{C^0(\partial R_0)} \le1-\widetilde\sigma. By the Tietze extension theorem, there exists \tau_0\in C^0(\overline{R_0}) such that ww.26

Define, for x\in\overline{\mathcal U}_0,

By the definition of \tau_0, the two expressions agree on \overline{\mathcal U}_0\cap \partial B_{\rho_0/4}(x_0), and hence \mathfrak{u}_0 \in C^{0}(\overline{\mathcal U}_0). Furthermore, \mathfrak{u}_0=u on \partial\mathcal U_0. Indeed, this follows from \mathfrak{u}_0=\textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0=u on \partial\mathcal U_0\cap B_{\rho_0/4}(x_0), and from \tau_0=\tau on the remaining part of \partial\mathcal U_0. By (?) and (?),

Moreover, \mathfrak{u}_0=\textnormal{\texttt{u}}_0 in \overline{\mathcal U}_0\cap B_{\rho_0/4}(x_0), and therefore

We now apply the quantitative barrier construction in [bs82, proof of Proposition 3.1], with curvature bound A=F_0, boundary datum \left.u\right|_{\partial\mathcal U_0}, extension \mathfrak u_0, cone gap \widetilde\sigma, and local C^2-bound M_2. The construction gives upper and lower barriers \mathcal w_{f,x_0}^{\pm} \in C^2(\overline{\mathcal U}_0) that solve solvef

and that satisfy ww.bs.f.sources

Note that \mathfrak f_{x_0}^{+} and \mathfrak f_{x_0}^{-} are precisely defined via (?). Since \rho_0,\widetilde\sigma,M_2,F_0, and the quantitative C^2-geometry of the caps are uniform with respect to x_0, the parameters in the same barrier construction can be chosen uniformly. Consequently, there exist \mathcal s_f\in(0,1) and K_f<\infty, only depending on n, \rho_0, \widetilde\sigma, M_2, F_0, \Omega, such that ww.bs.f.bounds

In particular, \mathfrak f_{x_0}^{\pm}\in L^\infty(\mathcal U_0). Moreover, ww.bs.f.boundary

Step 2: Correctors. Since x_0\in\partial\Omega was arbitrary, Step 1 produces two families \{\mathcal w_{f,x_0}^+\}_{x_0\in\partial\Omega} and \{\mathcal w_{f,x_0}^-\}_{x_0\in\partial\Omega}, defined on the corresponding caps \mathcal U_{x_0}, and satisfying (?) and (?) with the same constants \mathcal s_f and K_f. We are now ready to check the applicability of Corollary 10.3 to such a family. To this aim we also define \mu_+:=\max\{\mu,0\} and \mu_-:=\max\{-\mu,0\} and in the setting of Corollary 10.3 we choose \mu_{x_0}\equiv \pm\mu_{\pm}\lfloor_{\mathcal U_{x_0}}. Let \varepsilon_{\rm \partial} be the threshold supplied by Corollary 10.3, applied with r\equiv \rho_0, \mathcal s\equiv \mathcal s_f, and K\equiv K_f and this determines the number \varepsilon_{\partial} used here in (?). Hence (?) and (?) give ww.local.mu

In view of (?), Corollary 10.3 yields correctors \mathcal b_{x_0}^{\pm}\in W^{2;n,1}(\mathcal U_{x_0})\cap W^{1;n,1}_0(\mathcal U_{x_0}) such that ww.upper.corrector

Given a generic but fixed x_0, we abbreviate \mathcal w^\pm:=\mathcal w_{f,x_0}^\pm, \mathfrak f^\pm:=\mathfrak f_{x_0}^\pm, and \mathcal b^\pm:=\mathcal b_{x_0}^\pm, and we continue to denote the restrictions of \mu_\pm to \mathcal U_{x_0} by \mu_\pm. Define \mathcal W^\pm:=\mathcal w^\pm+\mathcal b^\pm. By (?) and (?), ww.corrected.gap

Since \mathcal b^\pm\equiv0 on \partial\mathcal U_{x_0}, (?) remains valid with \mathcal W^\pm in place of \mathcal w^\pm. Moreover, by (?) and (?), we have

For \delta>0, set v_\delta:=(u-\mathcal W^+-\delta)_+, so that \,{\rm supp }\,v_\delta\Subset\mathcal U_{x_0}. We may therefore test the difference of the equations with v_\delta, obtaining

Strict monotonicity gives Dv_\delta=0 almost everywhere, hence v_\delta=0. Letting \delta\downarrow0, we obtain u\leq\mathcal W^+. The analogous argument with (\mathcal W^--u-\delta)_+ gives \mathcal W^-\leq u. Therefore, \mathcal W^-\leq u\leq\mathcal W^+ in \overline{\mathcal U}_{x_0}. By the endpoint Sobolev–Lorentz embedding, \mathcal b^\pm\in C^1(\overline{\mathcal U}_{x_0}). At x_0, the tangential derivatives of \mathcal W^-, u, and \mathcal W^+ coincide. If \mathcal{v} denotes the common inward unit normal to \partial\Omega and \partial\mathcal U_{x_0} at x_0, then D_\mathcal{v}\mathcal W^-(x_0) \leq D_\mathcal{v} u(x_0) \leq D_\mathcal{v}\mathcal W^+(x_0). It follows from (?) that

Since x_0\in\partial\Omega was arbitrary, (?) follows with \sigma_*:=3\mathcal s_f/4.

Under the assumptions of the corollary, [bs82, Theorem 3.6] gives u\in C^{2,\beta}(\overline\Omega) and Du\in C^{0,\beta}(\overline\Omega). In view of (?), Proposition 10.4 applies and gives \lVert Du \rVert_{C^0(\partial\Omega)} \leq 1-\sigma_*. Set

If \,{\rm dist}(x,\partial\Omega)\leq\varepsilon_*, choose y\in\partial\Omega with \lvert x-y\rvert=\,{\rm dist}(x,\partial\Omega). Then \lvert Du(x)\rvert \leq \lvert Du(y)\rvert + M_{Du}\lvert x-y\rvert^{\beta} \leq 1-\sigma_*+\sigma_*/2 = 1- \sigma_*/2. This proves (?). This implies

in the corresponding boundary neighbourhood. Hence every truncation with \kappa\ge\mathcal h_{\partial\Omega}/2 vanishes there, and its support is contained in \{ x\in\overline\Omega: \,{\rm dist}(x,\partial\Omega)\ge\varepsilon_* \} \Subset \Omega.

Since \mu\in C^{\infty}_{0}(\mathbb{R}^{n}), by Proposition 21.1 we know that u is smooth. We can then differentiate (?) to achieve 0

for all \varphi\in C^{1}_{0}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) and any s\in \{1,\cdots,n\}. Note that, by a standard density argument, (?) remains valid for every compactly supported \varphi\in W^{1,2}(\mathbb R^n). Recalling (?), we shall repeatedly use the relations identitas

Let \eta\in W^{1,\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) be a non-negative, compactly supported function, m> -1 be a number, test (?) against \varphi:=\eta^{2}\mathcal{h}_{u}^{m+1}D_{s}u and sum over s\in \{1,\cdots,n\} to get, via (?)

We estimate via Cauchy-Schwarz and Young inequalities,

for some \varepsilon_{1}\in (0,1) to be fixed and c\equiv c_{n}. Finally,

Let us now take care of the terms involving \mu. Expanding \mathrm{(IV)}, we have

Using |Du|\le1, the identity \mathcal H(Du)Du=Du, the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality associated with \mathcal H(Du), and Young’s inequality, we obtain

for c\equiv c_{n}, and some \varepsilon_{2},\varepsilon_{3}\in (0,1). Merging the content of all previous displays after choosing \varepsilon_{1},\varepsilon_{2},\varepsilon_{3}\in (0,1) sufficiently small, and recalling \eqref{0.1}_{1}, we obtain (11.1).

Fix a ball B\subset\mathbb R^n; as clarified in Section ? we denote by 2B the concentric ball with twice the radius. Choose \eta\in W^{1,\infty}_0(2B) such that 0\le\eta\le1, \eta=1 in B, |D\eta|\le c|B|^{-1/n}. Using that |D\mathcal h_u^{-1}|^2 \le \mathcal h_u^2|Du|^2|D^2u|^2, since 1+\mathcal h_u^2|Du|^2=\mathcal h_u^2, it follows that |D\mathcal h_u^{-1}|^2+|D^2u|^2\le\mathcal h_u^2|D^2u|^2. Therefore, applying (11.1) with m=0, we obtain w22.aux

Assume first that n\ge3. By Hölder’s inequality and (?),

Note that we have used that \mathcal h_\infty(\mu)\ge2, and hence 1-\mathcal h_\infty(\mu)^{-2} \ge 3/4. Similarly,

Inserting the last two estimates into (?) gives (?). Similarly, when n=2 by (?) we have

Moreover, \log2\|\mu\|_{L^2(\mathbb R^2)} \le \|\mu\|_{L_x^2(\mathbb R^2)}. Combining these estimates with (?) yields (?).

With \eta as in the statement, triangle inequality and (11.1) yield

with c\equiv c(n,m). By (11.1), (Proof) and Sobolev embedding,

where \tilde{c}\equiv \tilde{c}(n,m). By absolute continuity of the integral, choose r_*=r_*(n,m,\textnormal{\texttt{g}})\in(0,1] such that

We can then absorb the last term on the right-hand side of (Proof) and obtain (?) by standard manipulations. As (?) holds for all non-negative \eta\in W^{1,\infty}_{0}(B_{5r/6}(x_{0})), we just select one such that \mathds{1}_{B_{3r/4}(x_{0})}\le \eta\le \mathds{1}_{B_{5r/6}(x_{0})} and \lvert D\eta\rvert\lesssim r^{-1}, and (?) follows directly from (?).

Fix p\in[1,\infty). Let \vartheta\in(0,1) be defined in (?), choosing \vartheta_0=1/4 when n=3, and set m_0:=n-2, so that m_0> 2\vartheta/(1-\vartheta). Define recursively 4.1

A direct induction gives 4

and hence m_i\to\infty. Choose

Here r_*(n,m_j,\textnormal{\texttt{g}}) is the threshold in (?) corresponding to m=m_j. This determines the number r_p appearing in (?). By the proof of Lemma 11.3, estimate (?) holds with m\equiv m_i, 0\le i\le i_p, for every 0<r\le r_p, at the fixed center x_0. Fix such a ball B_r(x_0), and choose r/8\le\tau_1<\tau_2\le 3r/4. In the following all the balls will be centered at x_0 and we shall omit to denote the center B_r\equiv B_r(x_0). For i\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}, define \varrho_i := \tau_1+(\tau_2-\tau_1)/2^{i}, B_i:=B_{\varrho_i}. Then \varrho_0=\tau_2, \varrho_i\searrow\tau_1, \varrho_i-\varrho_{i+1} = (\tau_2-\tau_1)/2^{i+1}. For i\in\{0,\ldots,i_p-1\}, apply Lemma 11.4 with v:=\mathcal h_u^{(m_{i+1}+2)/2}. Since \vartheta(m_{i+1}+2)=m_i by (?) and r/8\le\varrho_i\le r\le1, we obtain

where we are denoting \kappa:=(n-1)(1-\vartheta)/\vartheta. Applying (?) with m=m_{i+1} and taking the infimum over the admissible cutoff functions yields caccr.2

Set

Then (?) gives

Iterating this inequality, we obtain, for 1\le i\le i_p, 3

where c=c(n,i). We now choose \tau_1=r/8, and \tau_2=3r/4. By (?),

Since m_0+2=n, (?) gives

for some \gamma_i=\gamma_i(n,i)>0. By (?), the index i_p is finite and depends only on n and p. We apply the last estimate with i=i_p. Since \mathfrak{m}_{p}\ge p and \mathcal h_u\ge1, we have

Moreover, by Hölder’s inequality,

Consequently, 3.0.1

where \textnormal{\texttt{b}}_p:= n/(2\vartheta^{i_p}) and \gamma_p=\gamma_p(n,p)>0. Finally, by (?) with q=n, recalling that \mathcal h_\infty(\mu)\ge2 and r\le r_p\le1, we obtain

Inserting this bound into (?) and absorbing the additive constant by using \mathcal h_\infty(\mu)\ge2 yields (?), completing the proof.

Note that S_0>0 implies T(\kappa_0)>0, since otherwise (?) and Poincaré’s inequality would give (v-\kappa_0)_+=0 a.e. in B, contradicting S_0>0. Note also that we can always assume that \omega is strictly increasing. Otherwise, for \varepsilon>0, we replace it by s \mapsto \omega_\varepsilon(s):=\omega(s)+\varepsilon s. Estimate (?) remains valid with \omega_\varepsilon in place of \omega, and moreover (according to the case under consideration)

since \chi>1. Applying the lemma to \omega_{\varepsilon} and eventually letting \varepsilon\to0 in the resulting estimates, we therefore assume that the inverse \omega^{-1} exists.

Proof of (?). We can assume that the right-hand side of (?) is finite. Set T_0:=T(\kappa_0) and, for every i\ge1, define abstract.ti

Notice that t_1=T_0/(2\mathfrak{c}_0)\le\omega(S_0)/2, by (?), and hence each \textnormal{\texttt{b}}_i is well-defined. Define recursively abstract.di.power

This definition makes sense for every i\ge1. Thus, if T(\kappa_j)=0 for some j\ge0, then \kappa_i=\kappa_j for every i\ge j, while d_i=0 for every i\ge j+1. We claim that abstract.decay.power

The assertion is trivial for i=0. Fix i\ge1. If T(\kappa_{i-1})=0, then d_i=0, \kappa_i=\kappa_{i-1}, and therefore T(\kappa_i)=0, so the assertion follows. Suppose instead that T(\kappa_{i-1})>0. Then d_i>0 and \kappa_{i-1}<\kappa_i. By (?) and (?),

Therefore, by (?), ray0

This proves (?). We next estimate the sum of the increments. From (?),

for every i\ge1. If t\in[t_i/2,t_i], then \omega^{-1}(t) \le \omega^{-1}(t_i), and hence

Since t_i/2=t_{i+1}, the intervals (t_i/2,t_i] are pairwise disjoint and cover (0,t_1]. Consequently, walmart

In the equality above we used the change of variables t=\omega(s). Set kkkk

Hence \kappa_\infty<\infty. Moreover, by (?), T(\kappa_i)\to0. Since (v-\kappa_i)_+\in W^{1,2}_0(B), Poincaré’s inequality gives \lVert (v-\kappa_i)_+ \rVert_{L^2(B)} \le c(B)T(\kappa_i) \to0. Moreover, \kappa_i\uparrow\kappa_\infty and (v-\kappa_i)_+ \to (v-\kappa_\infty)_+ pointwise a.e. in B. Hence, by Fatou’s lemma,

We conclude that (v-\kappa_\infty)_+=0 a.e. in B. Estimate (?) now follows from (?).

Proof of (?). As before, we assume that the right-hand side of (?) is finite; the proof is a variant of the power case, and we shall partially use the same notation. Again set T_0:=T(\kappa_0) and define t_i and \textnormal{\texttt{b}}_i as in (?). We use the convention

For every i\ge1, define recursively abstract.di.exp

This is well-defined also when T(\kappa_{i-1})=0, because in that case \lvert E_{\kappa_{i-1}}\rvert=0 by (?) and Poincaré’s inequality, and our convention gives d_i=0. We again claim (?). The assertion is trivial for i=0. Fix i\ge1. If T(\kappa_{i-1})=0, then d_i=0, \kappa_i=\kappa_{i-1}, and T(\kappa_i)=0. Suppose therefore that T(\kappa_{i-1})>0. If \mathfrak{c}_{2}\lvert E_{\kappa_{i-1}}\rvert \le \textnormal{\texttt{b}}_{i}, then d_i=0, so that \kappa_i=\kappa_{i-1}, and \lvert E_{\kappa_i}\rvert = \lvert E_{\kappa_{i-1}}\rvert \le \mathfrak{c}_{2}^{-1}\textnormal{\texttt{b}}_{i} \le \textnormal{\texttt{b}}_{i}. Otherwise, d_i>0 and \kappa_{i-1}<\kappa_i. Hence (?) and (?) give

Thus, in every case, \lvert E_{\kappa_i}\rvert\le\textnormal{\texttt{b}}_{i}. Using (?), we obtain (?), which proves (?). Since \lvert E_{\kappa_{i-1}}\rvert\le S_0, estimate (?) gives

The function

is nonincreasing on (0,t_1]. Arguing as in the previous case, we obtain

Upon setting this time

the rest of the proof follows as in the proof of (?).

By Proposition 21.1, u is a classical solution to (?). Therefore, we can use all the results already proved for these ones. The proof splits in two steps.

Step 1: Level sets estimate for \log \mathcal h_u. If n\ge3, fix an arbitrary \tau>1. If n=2, set \tau:=\mathcal h_\infty(\mu). By (?), there exists a ball B centered at the origin such that \,{\rm supp }\,(\mathcal h_u-\tau)_+\Subset B. When n=2, we take B:=B_{\textnormal{\texttt{r}}_\mu}(0) as in Proposition 9.1. For \kappa\ge\tau, set \textnormal{\texttt{A}}_\kappa:=\{x\in B:\mathcal h_u(x)>\kappa\}. Then supporto

We test (?) against \varphi:=(\mathcal{h}_{u}-\kappa)_{+}D_{s}u and sum over s\in \{1,\cdots,n\} to get

Here we used (?) and the definition of \mathcal H in (?). Via (?)-(?) we bound from below as follows

Next, recalling (?), via Young’s inequality we find

Similarly, this time by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality relative to \mathcal H(Du) and using \mathcal H(Du)Du=Du, we obtain

Merging the content of all previous displays and reabsorbing terms, we obtain matrix

Recalling that \left\langle \mathcal H(Du)\xi,\xi \right\rangle \ge \mathcal h_u^{-2}\lvert \xi\rvert^2, (?) implies

Define ray10

By the classical Hardy–Littlewood rearrangement inequality,

so that (?) finally becomes og.cacc

The constant c_{n} appearing in the display is independent of \tau, \kappa\geq \tau, and B. In particular, the preceding estimates use only 0\le(\mathcal h_u-\kappa)_+/\mathcal h_u\le1 and are valid independently of any lower bound on \tau-1. Note that the function \omega_\mu is nondecreasing and absolutely continuous on [0,\lvert B\rvert], and \omega_\mu(0)=0. Before approaching the next step we record an estimate for \omega_\mu'. Since s \mapsto (\lvert \mu\rvert\mathds 1_B)^*(s) is nonincreasing, we have \omega_\mu(s)^2 \ge s(\lvert \mu\rvert\mathds 1_B)^*(s)^2. It follows that, for a.e. s\in(0,|B|) such that \omega_\mu(s)>0, boost.omega.derivative

Step 2: Iterations according to Lemma 12.1. The occurrence of (?) leads us to define the function v

to which we apply Lemma 12.1 with initial level \kappa_0:=0. Note that v is non-negative, continuous and belongs to W^{1,2}_0(B). For every \kappa\ge0, set

In particular, \tau e^\kappa\ge\tau and (v-\kappa)_+\in W^{1,2}_0(B). Following the notation of Lemma 12.1, define T(\kappa) := \lVert D(v-\kappa)_+ \rVert_{L^2(B)} and set ss00

If S_0=0, then v=0 in B and the estimates for v obtained below are immediate. To derive these estimates, we may therefore assume that S_0>0. Moreover, E_\kappa\subset E_0 for every \kappa\ge0, and hence \lvert E_\kappa\rvert\le S_0. Replacing \kappa by \tau e^\kappa in (?), we obtain T(\kappa) \le c_n\omega_\mu(\lvert E_\kappa\rvert) for every \kappa\ge0. Thus condition (?) holds with \kappa_0=0, \mathfrak c_0=c_n, and \omega=\omega_\mu on [0,S_0], where \omega_\mu is defined in (?).

Case n\ge3. We verify (?). Take the usual Sobolev embedding exponent 2^* := 2n/(n-2) and fix 0\le\kappa_1<\kappa_2. We have (v-\kappa_1)_+\in W^{1,2}_0(B), while (v-\kappa_1)_+ \ge \kappa_2-\kappa_1 a.e. on E_{\kappa_2}. This last fact, Chebyshev and Sobolev inequalities give

Thus (?) holds with \chi=2^* and \mathfrak c_1=c_{n}\ge1. All the assumptions in the first part of Lemma 12.1 are therefore satisfied. Since the initial level for v is \kappa_0=0, estimate (?) gives boost.abstract.high

Using (?) and the identity 1/2+1/2^*=1-1/n we find

Combining this estimate with (?), we obtain

The constant c_n in the above display is independent of \tau and B. By the definition of v, we obtain \mathcal h_u \le \tau\exp\left\{c_n[\mu]_{n,1}\right\} in B. Moreover, the choice of B gives \mathcal h_u\le\tau in \mathbb R^n\setminus B. Therefore,

Since \tau>1 is arbitrary, letting \tau\downarrow1 proves (?).

Case n=2. Again, we have to check (?). Fix 0\le\kappa_1<\kappa_2 such that T(\kappa_1)>0. Since \mathcal h_u is smooth, v is continuous and E_{\kappa_1} is open, so that (v-\kappa_1)_+ \in W^{1,2}_0(E_{\kappa_1}). Lemma 2.11 yields absolute constants \mathfrak c_2\ge1 and \mathfrak c_3>0 such that

On E_{\kappa_2} we have (v-\kappa_1)_+ \ge \kappa_2-\kappa_1. It follows that

Therefore we obtain the following inequality, which shows that (?) is also satisfied

All the assumptions in the second part of Lemma 12.1 hold with \kappa_0=0, and (?) gives boost.abstract.two

We now estimate the right-hand side of the above inequality as follows (recall S_0 in (?))

where c\equiv c(n,\alpha). We used the convention that (\lvert \mu\rvert\mathds1_B)^* is extended by zero outside [0,\lvert B\rvert]. Moreover, note that the last integral appearing in the latest display is finite precisely when \alpha >2. Combining this last estimate with (?), we obtain \lVert v \rVert_{L^\infty(B)}\le c(n,\alpha)\lVert \mu \rVert_{L^2(\log L)^\alpha} and, since this time \tau=\mathcal h_\infty(\mu), the definition of v and the bound \mathcal h_u\le\tau outside B yield (?).

Using (?), for every w\in\mathbb X(\mathbb R^n),

Since 0\in\mathbb X(\mathbb R^n) and \mathcal E_\mu(0)=0, it follows that -\infty < m_\mu := \inf_{w\in\mathbb X(\mathbb R^n)} \mathcal E_\mu(w) \le0. Let \{u_j\}_{j\in\mathbb N} \subset\mathbb X(\mathbb R^n) be a minimizing sequence so that (Proof) shows that \{u_j\} is bounded in \mathcal D^{1,2}_{\#}(\mathbb R^n). Therefore, after passing to a subsequence, there exists u\in\mathcal D^{1,2}_{\#}(\mathbb R^n) such that u_j\rightharpoonup u weakly in \mathcal D^{1,2}_{\#}(\mathbb R^n). The set \mathbb X(\mathbb R^n) is convex and strongly closed in \mathcal D^{1,2}_{\#}(\mathbb R^n), and, consequently, it is also weakly closed so that u\in\mathbb X(\mathbb R^n). Since H is convex and lower semicontinuous, the integral functional is weakly lower semicontinuous, while the linear term is weakly continuous. Therefore \mathcal E_\mu(u) \le \liminf_{j\to\infty}\mathcal E_\mu(u_j) = m_\mu, and hence u is a minimizer. As for uniqueness, let v \in \mathcal D^{1,2}_{\#}(\mathbb R^n) be another minimizer. Then (u+v)/2\in\mathbb X(\mathbb R^n) and the strict convexity of H implies Du=Dv a.e. in \mathbb R^n. Since w\mapsto Dw is injective on \mathcal D^{1,2}_{\#}(\mathbb R^n), we conclude that u=v. Notice that, in dimension two, this last conclusion follows from the condition (u-v)_{B_1(0)}=0. The validity of (?) for n=2 can be retrieved as in [bdp16, Proposition 2.7], and we briefly report the argument for completeness. For every t\in[0,1], one has tu\in\mathbb X(\mathbb R^n). If \psi(t):=\mathcal E_\mu(tu), then the minimality of u implies \psi(1)\le\psi(t) for every t\in[0,1]. The function \psi is convex and, for t\in(0,1),

By convexity,

Letting t\uparrow1 and using the monotone convergence theorem, we obtain (?). Fix R>1 and set B_R:=B_R(0). By Remark 2.9, u minimizes the corresponding Dirichlet functional in B_R, namely \mathcal E_\mu(u;B_R)\le\mathcal E_\mu(w;B_R) for every w\in\mathfrak X(u;B_R). Denote

It is then easy to see that \mathcal S_{u,\partial}(B_R) is relatively closed in B_R. Since u|_{\partial B_R} is bounded and admits a weakly spacelike extension to B_R, namely u itself, we can apply [bs82, Corollary 4.2]. It follows that u is strictly spacelike and solves (?) in B_R\setminus\mathcal S_{u,\partial}(B_R). Actually, we do have that vuotino

Assume by contradiction that this is not the case. Then there exist x,y\in\partial B_R, x\neq y, such that |u(x)-u(y)|=|x-y| (as usual we may assume that u(x)>u(y)). Since u is 1-Lipschitz we have mm.4

Now fix R_{1}>R. Since u minimizes the corresponding Dirichlet problem in B_{R_{1}}, and the segment \overline{xy}\Subset B_{R_{1}} satisfies (?), Theorem 1.1 implies that u(y+t(x-y)) = u(y)+t|x-y| for every t\in\mathbb R such that y+t(x-y)\in B_{R_{1}}. Here we recall that we are assuming that \mu is locally bounded. Since R_1>R is arbitrary, we conclude that u(y+t(x-y)) = u(y)+t|x-y| for every t\ge0. This means that u has linear growth at infinity which obviously contradicts the fact that u(x)\to 0 at infinity when n\geq 3 and (?) when n=2. This establishes (?) and therefore we infer that u is strictly spacelike in \mathbb R^n. By [bs82, Corollary 4.2] we have that u\in C^1_{\operatorname{loc}}(\mathbb R^n) \cap W^{2,2}_{\operatorname{loc}}(\mathbb R^n) and u solves (?) in every ball. Consequently, (?) holds for every smooth w with compact support. We finally extend the validity of (?) to compactly supported W^{1,\infty}-functions w. Choose R_w>1 such that \,{\rm supp }\, w \Subset B_{R_w}. By standard mollification, there exists \{\varphi_j\}\subset C_{0}^\infty(\mathbb R^n) such that \,{\rm supp }\, \varphi_j\Subset B_{2R_w} and \varphi_j\to w uniformly, and D\varphi_j\rightharpoonup^* Dw in L^\infty(B_{2R_w};\mathbb R^n). Obviously mm.99

Since u\in C^1_{\operatorname{loc}}(\mathbb R^n) is strictly spacelike, compactness gives \|Du\|_{L^\infty(B_{2R_w})}\le\theta_w<1. Hence \partial H(Du)=Du/\sqrt{1-|Du|^2}\in L^\infty(B_{2R_w};\mathbb R^n). We can therefore pass to the limit in (?) and obtain (?). If u\equiv0, then (?) yields \int_{\mathbb R^n}\mu\varphi\,dx=0 for every \varphi\in C^\infty_0(\mathbb R^n). By Remark 2.7 and density, this implies \mu=0 in \mathcal D^{1,2}_{\#}(\mathbb R^n)^*, proving the nontriviality assertion. Moreover, since u\in W^{2,2}_{\operatorname{loc}}(\mathbb R^n) and u is strictly spacelike, we conclude that \partial H(Du)\in W^{1,2}_{\operatorname{loc}}(\mathbb R^n;\mathbb R^n), so (?) holds almost everywhere. Thus u is a so-called strong solution. Finally, if \mu\in C^k(\mathbb R^n), the equation is uniformly elliptic on every compact subset of \mathbb R^n. Standard elliptic bootstrap therefore gives u\in C^{k+1}(\mathbb R^n); see also [bs82, Remark, pag. 147]. Hence, if k\ge1, u is a classical solution of (?).

The proof closely follows those in [bs82, Theorem 3.5], [haa20, Theorem 3.6] and [bi23, Proposition 4.2], where such statements are available, in a slightly different form, in the case n\geq3. Here we report the necessary modifications and the proof for the case n=2. By Proposition 21.1, u is smooth, strictly spacelike, and solves (?) classically. Conversely, for a smooth strictly spacelike solution satisfying the stated hypotheses, the support condition gives \mathcal h_u\in L^\infty(\mathbb R^n), hence \partial H(Du)\in L^2(\mathbb R^n;\mathbb R^n). By density and convexity, such a solution minimizes \mathcal E_\mu as well. The proof is based on the structural fact that the boost function \mathcal h_u satisfies an inhomogeneous subsolution inequality for a linear elliptic operator with coefficient matrix \mathcal H(Du) - see (?) below. When \mu\equiv0, this reduces to a genuine subsolution property. Throughout the proof, we set \eta:=(\mathcal h_u-\mathcal{h}_{\infty})_+ and \delta:=1-\mathcal{h}_{\infty}^{-2}\in(0,1). When q=2, every occurrence of \eta^{q-2} is understood as \mathds{1}_{\{\eta>0\}}, consistently with D\eta=\mathds{1}_{\{\eta>0\}}D\mathcal h_u almost everywhere. We use the notation in Section ?. Testing (?) with \varphi D_su instead of \varphi, where \varphi\ge0 is compactly supported, summing over s\in\{1,\ldots,n\}, recalling (?), and dropping the nonnegative term containing \partial^2H(Du)D_sDu, we obtain cz.aux

Case n\ge3. When n\geq 3 we essentially reproduce the arguments of [haa20, Theorem 3.6] and [bi23, Proposition 4.2]. Let q\in[2,\infty). Since \eta has compact support, we may use \varphi = u\mathcal h_u^{-1}\eta^q as a test function in (?) to get (recall (?))

Since 0\le \eta/\mathcal h_u\le1 and, using \mathcal H(Du)Du=Du with the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality cscs

we infer that cz.111

On the support of \eta, we have \mathcal h_u\ge\mathcal{h}_{\infty}, and hence cz.delta

By Young’s inequality, (?) yields cz.2

We next control the first integral on the right-hand side. Taking \varphi=\eta^{q-1} in (?), we obtain

Integrating by parts and using -\,{\rm div}\, (\mathcal h_uDu)=\mu, we find

Again using (?) and Young’s inequality we obtain cz.3

Combining (?) and (?), and recalling that \delta<1, gives

with c\equiv c(q). By (?),

Hölder’s inequality yields (not needed when q=2)

Consequently,

for c\equiv c(n,q). By Proposition 3.1, \|u\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb R^n)} \le c\,\mathfrak{m}_\mu, and hence (?) follows.

Case n=2. Here we deal with the two dimensional case, which is not available in the literature; we have to compensate for the logarithmic growth of u. In the following we abbreviate L_A(x):=\log(A+|x|), where A\ge e will be fixed below. We first derive a weighted estimate for D\mathcal h_u. Taking \varphi=L_A^2\eta in (?) we obtain cz.4

Note that D\eta=\mathds{1}_{\eta>0}D\mathcal h_u, thus I\geq 0. By the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality associated with \mathcal H(Du) - recall also that \langle \mathcal H(Du)\xi, \xi \rangle \leq |\xi|^2 - the first term on the right-hand side can be estimated by

Set g:=L_A^2\eta. Using

and integrating by parts, we obtain

Since D\eta=D\mathcal h_u a.e. on \{\eta>0\} and \eta=\mathcal h_u-\mathcal{h}_{\infty} there, the second and fourth terms combine into

Moreover, \eta/\mathcal h_u\le1, and |\langle D\mathcal h_u,Du\rangle| \le |Du| \langle \mathcal H(Du)D\mathcal h_u,D\mathcal h_u \rangle^{1/2}. Therefore Young’s inequality gives

Inserting this estimate into (?) and absorbing the fractions of I, we obtain the weighted Caccioppoli type estimate cz.5

We now test (?) with \varphi = u\mathcal h_u^{-1}\eta^2. Arguing exactly as in (?), with q=2, we obtain

Using (?)_2 and Young’s inequality gives, for every \sigma\in(0,1),

Using (?), we therefore find cz.6

By (?),

Choose a sufficiently large dimensional constant c_0\ge1, and set

With c_0 sufficiently large, the terms containing \int|Du|^2\eta^2 on the right-hand side of (?) can be absorbed into the left-hand side. We conclude that

Using once more (?), we obtain

Finally, since A\ge e, L_A(x)=\log(A+|x|)\le\log A\log(e+|x|), and our choice of A gives

Therefore

Recalling that \delta=1-\mathcal{h}_{\infty}^{-2}, this is precisely (?). The proof is complete.