1
$\begingroup$

Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be open,bounded and (I don't know if this matter) of class $C^{1+\alpha}$. Let $\varphi:\bar\Omega\times\partial\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ such that $\varphi(x,\cdot)$ is continuous on $\partial\Omega$ for all $x\in\bar\Omega$. Let this quantities be finite: \begin{equation} \sup_{x\in\bar\Omega}||\varphi(x,\cdot)||_{C^0(\partial\Omega)} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \sup_{x_1\neq x_2, x_1,x_2\in\bar\Omega} \frac{||\varphi(x_1,\cdot)-\varphi(x_2,\cdot)||_{C^0(\partial\Omega)}}{|x_1-x_2|^\alpha}. \end{equation}

It is true that $\sup_{x\in\Omega}\varphi(x,\cdot)$ is continuous on $\partial\Omega$?

I suppose that some hypothesis, like the second quantity requested to be finite, don't matter for my question.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You are right. Thank's. $\endgroup$ – foo90 Nov 10 '14 at 12:53
2
$\begingroup$

The finiteness of

$$M := \sup_{x_1\neq x_2, x_1,x_2\in\bar\Omega} \frac{\lVert\varphi(x_1,\cdot)-\varphi(x_2,\cdot)\rVert_{C^0(\partial\Omega)}}{\lvert x_1-x_2\rvert^\alpha},\tag{1}$$

assuming $\alpha > 0$, shows that $\varphi$ is actually continuous on $\overline{\Omega}\times \partial \Omega$:

\begin{align} \lvert\varphi(x_1,y_1) - \varphi(x_2,y_2)\rvert &= \lvert \varphi(x_1,y_1) - \varphi(x_1,y_2) + \varphi(x_1,y_2) - \varphi(x_2,y_2)\rvert\\ &\leqslant \lvert \varphi(x_1,y_1)-\varphi(x_1,y_2)\rvert + \lVert \varphi(x_1,\cdot) - \varphi(x_2,\cdot)\rVert_{C^0(\partial\Omega)}\\ &\leqslant \lvert \varphi(x_1,y_1)-\varphi(x_1,y_2)\rvert + M\cdot \lvert x_1-x_2\rvert^\alpha. \end{align}

Then, given $\varepsilon > 0$, the continuity of $\varphi(x_1,\cdot)$ says that there is a $\delta > 0$ such that $\lvert y_2 - y_1\rvert \leqslant \delta$ implies $\lvert \varphi(x_1,y_1)-\varphi(x_1,y_2)\rvert \leqslant \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$, and thus we have

$$\lvert \varphi(x_1,y_1) - \varphi(x_2,y_2)\rvert \leqslant \varepsilon$$

for $\lvert y_2 - y_1\rvert \leqslant \delta$ and $\lvert x_2 - x_1\rvert \leqslant \left(\frac{\varepsilon}{2M}\right)^{1/\alpha}$, so $\varphi$ is continuous at $(x_1,y_1)$.

Now we can use the fact that if $C,K$ are compact$^{(1)}$ spaces, and $f\colon C\times K \to \mathbb{R}$ is continuous, then

$$g\colon K\to \mathbb{R},\quad g(y) = \sup_{x\in C} f(x,y)$$

is also continuous.

Since any supremum of continuous functions [lower semicontinuous suffices] is lower semicontinuous, we only need to check upper semicontinuity of $g$. Now let $a\in\mathbb{R}$. We need to see that $W = g^{-1}((-\infty,a))$ is open. If $W$ is empty, we're done, otherwise pick an $y_0 \in W$. Then

$$U = f^{-1}((-\infty,a))$$

is an open set containing the compact set $C\times \{y_0\}$, and hence it contains an open set of the form $C\times V$, where $V$ is an open neighbourhood of $y_0$. But then we have $g(y) < a$ for all $y\in V$, so $V\subset W$, hence $W$ is a neighbourhood of $y_0$. Since $y_0\in W$ was arbitrary, it follows that $W$ is open, and since $a$ was arbitrary, $g$ is upper semicontinuous.

If we didn't have a condition like $(1)$ that ensures continuity of $\varphi$, we would basically have only a (uniformly bounded) family of continuous functions on $\partial\Omega$, and then we could only deduce lower semicontinuity of

$$\sigma := \sup_{x\in\overline{\Omega}} \varphi(x,\cdot),$$

so condition $(1)$ is not superfluous. Of course it could be replaced by other conditions ensuring the continuity of $\varphi$ on $\overline{\Omega}\times\partial\Omega$, or the continuity of $\sigma$ without the continuity of $\varphi$.

The regularity of $\partial \Omega$ on the other hand is irrelevant, except that it possibly was used to establish condition $(1)$.


$^{(1)}$ That means quasicompact and Hausdorff.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, you have been very clear. A last silly question: with all the hypothesis as in my question is true that $sup_{x\in\bar\Omega}||\varphi(x,\cdot)||_{C^0(\partial\Omega)}=||sup_{x\in \bar\Omega}\varphi(x,\cdot)||_{C^0(\partial\Omega)}$? $\endgroup$ – foo90 Nov 10 '14 at 13:49
  • $\begingroup$ Not necessarily. It is possible for example that $\sup \varphi(x,\cdot)$ is non-negative, but $\varphi(x,y) < - \lVert\sup \varphi(x,\cdot)\rVert_{C^0(\partial\Omega)}$ for some point(s) $(x,y)$ Also, if $\varphi(x,y) \leqslant 0$ for all $x,y$, equality only very rarely holds. If $\varphi$ is non-negative, however, then equality holds. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Nov 10 '14 at 14:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.