3
$\begingroup$

This is an old prelim problem. Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ open and bounded with smooth boundary. If $u\in C^3(\bar\Omega)$ solves $$ -\sum_{i,j=1}^n a_{ij}(x)\,u_{x_ix_j}(x)=f(x)\quad \mbox{in }\Omega $$ with a uniformly elliptic operator and $a_{ij},f\in C^1(\bar\Omega)$. Use the function $v=|\nabla u|^2+\lambda u^2$ with a constant $\lambda >0$ to be chosen, to show there exists a constant $C$ depends on $\Omega$ and $a_{ij}$ such that $$\sup_{\bar\Omega}|\nabla u|^2\leq C(\sup_{\Omega}u^2+\sup_{\Omega}f^2+\sup_{\Omega}|\nabla f|^2)+\sup_{\partial\Omega}|\nabla u|^2.$$

My attempt: I was trying to show that $Lv\leq 0$ for a certain $\lambda$ where $L= -\sum_{i,j=1}^n a_{ij} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_i \partial x_j}$, then apply maximum principle to have $\sup_{\bar\Omega}v\leq \sup_{\partial \Omega}v$. But if suppose we proved $Lv\leq 0$, then $\sup_{\bar\Omega}|\nabla u|^2\leq \sup_{\bar\Omega}v\leq \sup_{\partial\Omega}|\nabla u|^2+\lambda \sup_{\partial\Omega}u^2$ which for me doesn't look like it will help. Anyway, $$L(\lambda u^2)= -2\lambda \sum_{i,j=1}^n a_{ij} u_{x_i}u_{x_j}+2\lambda u f\leq -2\lambda \alpha |\nabla u|^2+2\lambda u f $$ where $\alpha>0$ is the ellipticity constant. \begin{align} L((u_{x_k})^2)&=-2 \sum_{i,j=1}^n a_{ij}u_{x_kx_i}u_{x_kx_j}-2u_{x_k}\sum_{i,j=1}^n a_{ij}u_{x_ix_jx_k}\\\\ &\leq -2\alpha |\nabla(u_{x_k})|^2+2u_{x_k}f_{x_k}+2u_{x_k}\sum_{i,j=1}^n (a_{ij})_{x_k}u_{x_ix_j}. \end{align} Thus, \begin{align} L(|\nabla u|^2)&\leq -2\alpha |D^2u|^2+2\sum_{k=1}^n u_{x_k}f_{x_k}+2C_0\sum_{k=1}^n u_{x_k}\sum_{i,j=1}^n u_{x_ix_j}\\\\ &\leq -2\alpha |D^2u|^2+2|\nabla u|\,|\nabla f|+2C_0 |\nabla u||D^2u| \end{align} where $D^2u$ is Hessian matrix and $C_0=\sup_{\bar\Omega}|\nabla(a_{ij})|$. Since $ab\leq \epsilon a^2+\frac{1}{4\epsilon}b^2$ for all $\epsilon>0$, with $a=|D^2u|$, $b=|\nabla u|$, and $\epsilon=\alpha/C_0$, we obtain \begin{align} L(|\nabla u|^2)&\leq 2|\nabla u|\,|\nabla f|+\frac{C_0^2}{2\alpha} |\nabla u|^2. \end{align} Hence, \begin{align} L(v)&\leq -2\lambda \alpha |\nabla u|^2+2\lambda u f+2|\nabla u|\,|\nabla f|+\frac{C_0^2}{2\alpha} |\nabla u|^2. \end{align} Then I don't know what to do. Any help is appreciated.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The trick is to introduce one more thing to hit with $L$. You may suppose without loss of generality (otherwise just translate your domain) that $$ \Omega \subseteq \{x \in \mathbb{R}^n : 0 < x \cdot \xi < d\}$$ for some $d>0$ and $\xi \in\mathbb{R}^n$ with $|\xi|=1$.

Then the step you're missing is to show that $$ L( |\nabla u|^2 + \lambda u^2 + e^{\beta x \cdot \xi}) \le 0$$ when you choose $\beta \in \mathbb{R}$ appropriately. You're on the right track with what you wrote above. You just need this extra term.

EDIT: Here is a hint for why you need the exponential term. You have: \begin{align} L(v)&\leq -2\lambda \alpha |\nabla u|^2+2\lambda u f+2|\nabla u|\,|\nabla f|+\frac{C_0^2}{2\alpha} |\nabla u|^2 \end{align} for any choice of $\lambda$. Apply Cauchy's inequality to bound $$ 2 |\nabla u| |\nabla f| \le | \nabla u|^2 + |\nabla f|^2 $$ and then choose $$ \lambda = \frac{1}{2\alpha } \left( 1 + \frac{C_0^2}{2\alpha} \right). $$ Plugging this in above then shows that $$ L(v) \le 2 \lambda |u| |f| + |\nabla f|^2. $$ Now we're stuck and we need to introduce a term $\psi$ such that $$ L (\psi) \le -(2 \lambda |u| |f| + |\nabla f|^2). $$ If you can find such a $\psi$ then you know that $$ L(v + \psi) \le 0 $$ and you can then apply the maximum principle. The exponential I suggest is such a $\psi$.

EDIT 2: Here are the last details.

I've realized that since your operator $L$ has no first or zeroth order terms, we can use a simpler $\psi$, though my original suggestion also works.

Consider the function $\psi(x) = \beta ( x \cdot \xi)^2/2$ for $\beta >0 $ to be determined. Here we are assuming my hint about the domain. We compute $$ L\psi(x) = -\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x) \partial_i \partial_j [\beta ( x \cdot \xi)^2/2] = - \beta \sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x) \xi_i \xi_j $$ and then use ellipticity to estimate $$ \sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x) \xi_i \xi_j \ge \alpha |\xi|^2 = \alpha $$ since $\xi$ is a unit vector. Hence $$ L\psi(x) \le -\alpha \beta. $$

Set $$ C_1(u,f) = \sup_{\Omega}[\lambda |u|^2 + \lambda |f|^2 + |\nabla f|^2] \ge 0 $$ where $\lambda$ is understood to have the value chosen above.

Combining the above inequalities, we find that $$ L(v + \psi) \le C_1(u,f) -\alpha \beta. $$ We then choose $$ \beta = \frac{C_1(u,f)}{\alpha} >0 $$ and deduce that with this choice of $\lambda$ and $\beta$, we have the inequality $$ L(|\nabla u|^2 + \lambda u^2 +\beta (x\cdot \xi)^2/2) \le 0. $$ Now the weak maximum principle tells us that $$ \sup_{x \in \bar{\Omega}} [|\nabla u(x)|^2 + \lambda u(x)^2 + \beta (x\cdot \xi)^2/2] \le \sup_{x \in \partial \Omega} [|\nabla u(x)|^2 + \lambda u(x)^2 + \beta (x\cdot \xi)^2/2]. $$ We estimate the right hand side by (using the fact that $0 < x\cdot \xi < d$) $$ \sup_{x \in \partial \Omega} |\nabla u(x)|^2 + \lambda \sup_{x\in \bar{\Omega}} u(x)^2 + \beta \frac{d^2}{2}. $$ Finally, by looking at the values of $C_1(u,f), \beta,\lambda$ we find that $$ \sup_{x \in \bar{\Omega}} |\nabla u(x)|^2 \le \sup_{x \in \partial \Omega} |\nabla u(x)|^2 + C(\Omega,\alpha,C_0) \left(\sup_{x \in \bar{\Omega}} |u(x)|^2 + \sup_{x \in \bar{\Omega}} (|f(x)|^2 + |\nabla f(x)|^2) \right) $$ and we're done.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for answering! I see what do you mean but let's try to do it without changing $\Omega$ or introducing the exponential term because I believe if that was part of the solution they would have suggested that in a hint. $\endgroup$ – Ruzayqat Jun 19 '15 at 21:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My suggestion for $\Omega$ is not "changing the domain" since you may prove the result under this assumption without loss of generality. The problem you wrote is translation-invariant, so you can always translate the domain to wherever you want. Also, the introduction of the exponential term in this situtation is a completely standard trick in elliptic estimates of this sort. Perhaps it was left out of the hint for this reason. I guarantee that if you pursue this route you will arrive at the answer. I can provide more details if you prefer. $\endgroup$ – Glitch Jun 20 '15 at 14:42
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your reply. I still cannot get to the final inequality. Could you please provide more details? $\endgroup$ – Ruzayqat Jun 22 '15 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ Added. See the second edit. $\endgroup$ – Glitch Jun 22 '15 at 15:07

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.