In this question, for any function $f$, I will denote:

$$\operatorname{supt}(f)=\{f\neq0\}, \qquad \operatorname{supp}(f)=\overline{\operatorname{supt}(f)}.$$

The latter is called support of $f$, and $\mathcal{C}^1_c$ means continuously differentiable with compact support. Set:

$$I(v):=\int_\Omega L(x,\nabla v(x))dx,$$


  • $\Omega$ is an open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$;
  • $L$ is a nonnegative function satisfying Carathéodory conditions;
  • For any $M\geq0$ there exists $\alpha_M\in L^1(\Omega)$ such that $L(x,\xi)\leq\alpha_M(x)$ whenever $|\xi|\leq M$;
  • $L$ is convex in $\xi$.


  • $u$ is a solution to the problem:

    $$\min I(v)\qquad\text{where}\qquad v\in u^0+W^{1,1}_0(\Omega);$$

  • $u^0$ is any boundary datum;

  • $u$ is locally bounded, i.e. $L^\infty_{loc}(\Omega)$;
  • $I(u)<\infty$;
  • There exists $\overline v\in u^0+W^{1,1}_0(\Omega)$ such that $I(\overline v)<\infty$.

Known consequences of these hypotheses:

  • $\langle\nabla_\xi L(\nabla u),\nabla(\overline v-u)\rangle$ is integrable and has nonnegative integral;
  • $\langle\nabla_\xi L(\nabla u),\nabla u\rangle$ and $|\nabla_\xi L(\nabla u)|$ are both locally integrable ($L^1_{loc}(\Omega)$).

We then proceed to prove Euler-Lagrange, i.e. that, for $\eta\in\mathcal{C}^1_c(\Omega)$, we have:

$$\int_\Omega\langle\nabla_\xi L(\nabla u),\nabla\eta\rangle=0.$$

Since $u$ is locally bounded, there exists $R$ such that, for almost every $x\in\operatorname{supp}(\eta)$, we have $u(x)\in[-R,R]$. We set:

$$\overline v_t(x)= \begin{cases} \max\{t\eta(x)-R,u(x)\} & x\in\operatorname{supp}(\eta) \\ u(x) & \text{otherwise} \end{cases},$$


$$\underline v_t(x)= \begin{cases} \min\{t\eta(x)+R,u(x)\} & x\in\operatorname{supp}(\eta) \\ u(x) & \text{otherwise} \end{cases},$$

which gives that:

\begin{align*} \nabla\overline v_t(x)={}& \begin{cases} \nabla u(x) & u(x)\geq t\eta(x)-R\text{ or }x\in\Omega\smallsetminus\operatorname{supp}(\eta) \\ t\nabla\eta(x) & x\in\operatorname{supp}(\eta)\text{ and }t\eta(x)-R\leq u(x) \end{cases}, \\ \nabla\underline v_t(x)={}& \begin{cases} \nabla u(x) & u(x)\leq t\eta(x)-R\text{ or }x\in\Omega\smallsetminus\operatorname{supp}(\eta) \\ t\nabla\eta(x) & x\in\operatorname{supp}(\eta)\text{ and }t\eta(x)-R\geq u(x) \end{cases}. \end{align*}

Or does it? What I know is that:

$$\nabla|f|= \begin{cases} \nabla f & f>0 \\ -\nabla f & f<0 \\ 0 & f=0 \end{cases}.$$

Since $\max\{f,g\}=\frac12(f+g+|f-g|)$, we would get:

$$\nabla\max\{f,g\}=\frac12(\nabla f+\nabla g+\nabla|f-g|)= \begin{cases} \nabla f & f>g \\ \nabla g & f<g \\ \frac12(\nabla f+\nabla g) & f=g \end{cases},$$

which, concentrating on the $\overline v_t$'s, should give:

$$\nabla\overline v_t(x)= \begin{cases} \nabla u(x) & u(x)>t\eta(x)-R\text{ or }x\in\Omega\smallsetminus\operatorname{supp}(\eta) \\ t\nabla\eta(x) & x\in\operatorname{supp}(\eta)\text{ and }t\eta(x)-R>u(x) \\ \frac12(t\nabla\eta(x)+\nabla u(x)) & t\eta(x)-R=u(x)\text{ and }x\in\operatorname{supp}(\eta) \end{cases}.$$

Am I doing something wrong? Why does my teacher not have that branch with the equality? Let us go on. By the first known consequence, since these $\overline v_t$'s have gradients different from $\nabla u$ only on a bounded subset, and hence $L(x,\nabla\overline v_t(x))$ is integrable, we have:

$$\int_\Omega\langle\nabla_\xi L(x,\nabla u(x)),\nabla(\overline v_t-u)\rangle\mathrm{d}x\geq0,$$

and that is finite. Now we consider $A_t=\{\eta(x)>\frac{u(x)+R}{t}\}\cap\operatorname{supp}(\eta^+)$. Clearly, $\chi_{A_t}$ converges pointwise to $\chi_{\operatorname{supt}(\eta^+)}$. And now comes the problem:

$$0\leq\frac1t\cdot\int_\Omega\langle\nabla_\xi L(x,\nabla u(x)),\nabla(\overline v_t-u)(x)\rangle\mathrm{d}x=\int_{A_t}\left\langle\nabla_\xi L(x,\nabla u(x)),\nabla\eta(x)-\frac1t\nabla u(x)\right\rangle\mathrm{d}x.$$

This equality is the problem. Now, outside the support, we clearly have $\nabla\overline v_t=\nabla u$, so the integral over there is zero. Over $A_t$ the gradient is $t\nabla\eta$, hence, dividing by $\frac1t$, we get that integral. But what about the points where $t\eta(x)-R=u(x)$? Over those points, we should get an integral where the second entry of the scalar product is $\frac12\nabla\eta(x)-\frac{1}{2t}\nabla u(x)$. Where did that term go? Can I safely neglect it, perhaps because those points are a null set? For the time being, I can see how the characteristic of the set of those points converges pointwise to zero outside $\operatorname{supp}(\eta)\smallsetminus\operatorname{supt}(\eta)$, and I can find a domination thanks to the second known consequence and the boundedness of $\nabla\eta$, so the limit passes under the integral, and if $\operatorname{supp}(\eta)\smallsetminus\operatorname{supt}(\eta)$ has measure zero, that term tends to zero, which is enough for me to neglect it in the rest of the proof. But at the moment, I only know that the part of that set where $\nabla\eta\neq0$ has measure zero, because in those points I can find a local chart that straightens the boundary of $\operatorname{supt}(\eta)$ locally, but I cannot deal with $\{\eta=\nabla\eta=0\}\cap\operatorname{supp}(\eta)$. How do I solve this problem?

I bet that the analogous problem arising from $\min\{f,g\}=\frac12(f+g-|f-g|)$ with the $\underline v_t$'s will be handled in much the same way. If there is any difference, please "warn" me.



If $f,g$ are Sobolev, $\nabla f=\nabla g$ a.e. on $\{f=g\}$.


$\{f=g\}=\{f-g=0\}$, $f-g$ is Sobolev, so by this we have $\nabla(f-g)=0$ a.e. on that set, QED.

In our case, this means $t\nabla\eta=\nabla u$ a.e. on $t\eta-R=u$, meaning we can eliminate the $t\eta-R=u$ branch and turn the $u>t\eta-R$ into a $\geq$ branch, and the problem vanishes.


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.