Abstract
In this work, we give a characterization of Lipschitz operators on spaces of \(C^2(M)\) functions (also \(C^{1,1}\), \(C^{1,\gamma }\), \(C^1\), \(C^\gamma \)) that obey the global comparison property—i.e. those that preserve the global ordering of input functions at any points where their graphs may touch, often called “elliptic” operators. Here M is a complete Riemannian manifold. In particular, we show that all such operators can be written as a min–max over linear operators that are a combination of drift–diffusion and integro-differential parts. In the linear (and nonlocal) case, these operators had been characterized in the 1960s, and in the local, but nonlinear case—e.g. local Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman operators—this characterization has also been known and used since approximately since 1960s or 1970s. Our main theorem contains both of these results as special cases. It also shows any nonlinear scalar elliptic equation can be represented as an Isaacs equation for an appropriate differential game. Our approach is to “project” the operator to one acting on functions on large finite graphs that approximate the manifold, use non-smooth analysis to derive a min–max formula on this finite dimensional level, and then pass to the limit in order to lift the formula to the original operator.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alvarez, L., Guichard, F., Lions, P.-L., Morel, J.-M.: Axioms and fundamental equations of image processing. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 123(3), 199–257 (1993)
Barles, G., Imbert, C.: Second-order elliptic integro-differential equations: viscosity solutions’ theory revisited. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 25(3), 567–585 (2008)
Barles, G., Souganidis, P.E.: A new approach to front propagation problems: theory and applications. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 141(3), 237–296 (1998)
Bass, R.F., Levin, D.A.: Transition probabilities for symmetric jump processes. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 354(7), 2933–2953 (2002). (electronic)
Bellman, R.: Dynamic Programming. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1957)
Bony, J.-M., Courrège, P., Priouret, P.: Sur la forme intégro-différentielle du générateur infinitésimal d’un semi-groupe de Feller sur une variété différentiable. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A-B 263, A207–A210 (1966)
Caffarelli, L., Silvestre, L.: Regularity theory for fully nonlinear integro-differential equations. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 62(5), 597–638 (2009)
Caffarelli, L.A.: Interior a priori estimates for solutions of fully nonlinear equations. Ann. Math. (2) 130(1), 189–213 (1989)
Caffarelli, L. A., Cabré, X.: Fully Nonlinear Elliptic Equations. American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, vol. 43. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (1995)
Case, J.S., Alice Chang, S.-Y.: On fractional GJMS operators. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 69(6), 1017–1061 (2016)
Case, J.S., Wang, Y.: Boundary operators associated to the \(\sigma _k\)-curvature. Adv. Math. 337, 83–106 (2018)
Chang, S.-Y.A., del Mar Gonzalez, M.: Fractional Laplacian in conformal geometry. Adv. Math. 226(2), 1410–1432 (2011)
Lara, H.C., Dávila, G.: Regularity for solutions of non local parabolic equations. Calc. Var. PDE. published online (2012)
Lara, H.C., Dávila, G.: Regularity for solutions of nonlocal, nonsymmetric equations. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 29(6), 833–859 (2012)
Clarke, F.H.: Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis, vol. 5. Siam, Philadelphia (1990)
Courrege, P.: Sur la forme intégro-différentielle des opérateurs de \({C}^{\infty }_k\) dans \({C}\) satisfaisant au principe du maximum. Séminaire Brelot-Choquet-Deny. Théorie du Potentiel 10(1), 1–38 (1965)
Elliott, R.J., Kalton, N.J.: The Existence of Value in Differential Games. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, No. 126 (1972)
Evans, L.C., Ishii, H.: Differential games and nonlinear first order PDE on bounded domains. Manuscripta Math. 49(2), 109–139 (1984)
Evans, L.C.: On solving certain nonlinear partial differential equations by accretive operator methods. Isr. J. Math. 36(3–4), 225–247 (1980)
Evans, L.C.: Some min–max methods for the Hamilton–Jacobi equation. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 33(1), 31–50 (1984)
Evans, L.C., Souganidis, P.E.: Differential games and representation formulas for solutions of Hamilton–Jacobi–Isaacs equations. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 33(5), 773–797 (1984)
Fefferman, C., Israel, A., Luli, G.K.: Interpolation of data by smooth non-negative functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.02330 (2016)
Fleming, W.H.: The Cauchy problem for a nonlinear first order partial differential equation. J. Differ. Equ. 5, 515–530 (1969)
Fleming, W.H., Rishel, R.W.: Deterministic and Stochastic Optimal Control. Springer, Berlin, Applications of Mathematics, No. 1 (1975)
Friedman, A.: The Cauchy problem for first order partial differential equations. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 23, 27–40 (1974)
Gilboa, G., Osher, S.: Nonlocal operators with applications to image processing. Multiscale Model. Simul. 7(3), 1005–1028 (2008)
Guan, B.: Conformal metrics with prescribed curvature functions on manifolds with boundary. Am. J. Math. 129(4), 915–942 (2007)
Guillen, N., Schwab, R.W.: Neumann homogenization via integro-differential operators. Part 2: singular gradient dependence. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 50(2), 1679–1719 (2018)
Guillen, N., Schwab, R.W.: Min-Max formulas for nonlocal elliptic operators on Euclidean Space. Nonlinear Anal (2019)
Hebey, E.: Nonlinear Analysis on Manifolds: Sobolev Spaces and Inequalities, vol. 5. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2000)
Hsu, P.: On excursions of reflecting Brownian motion. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 296(1), 239–264 (1986)
Isaacs, R.: Differential games. A Mathematical Theory with Applications to Warfare and Pursuit, Control and Optimization. Wiley, New York (1965)
Jakobsen, E.R., Karlsen, K.H.: A “maximum principle for semicontinuous functions” applicable to integro-partial differential equations. NoDEA Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. 13(2), 137–165 (2006)
Kassmann, M., Rang, M., Schwab, R.W.: Hölder regularity for integro-differential equations with nonlinear directional dependence. Indiana Univ. Math. J. (to appear) (2014)
Katsoulakis, M.A.: A representation formula and regularizing properties for viscosity solutions of second-order fully nonlinear degenerate parabolic equations. Nonlinear Anal. 24(2), 147–158 (1995)
Kohn, R.V., Serfaty, S.: A deterministic-control-based approach to motion by curvature. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 59(3), 344–407 (2006)
Kohn, R.V., Serfaty, S.: A deterministic-control-based approach to fully nonlinear parabolic and elliptic equations. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 63(10), 1298–1350 (2010)
Koike, S., Święch, A.: Representation formulas for solutions of Isaacs integro-PDE. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 62(5), 1473–1502 (2013)
Krylov, N.V.: On the rate of convergence of finite-difference approximations for elliptic Isaacs equations in smooth domains. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 40(8), 1393–1407 (2015)
Kuo, H.-J., Trudinger, N.S.: New maximum principles for linear elliptic equations. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 56(5), 2439–2452 (2007)
Lee, J.M.: Riemannian manifolds, volume 176 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York. An introduction to curvature (1997)
Li, Y.Y., Li, A.: A fully nonlinear version of the Yamabe problem on manifolds with boundary. J. Eur. Math. Soc. 8(2), 295–316 (2006)
Lions, P.L., Papanicolaou, G., Varadhan, S.R.S : Homogenization of Hamilton–Jacobi equations. (unpublished), circa (1988)
Lions, P.-L., Souganidis, P.E.: Differential games, optimal control and directional derivatives of viscosity solutions of Bellman’s and Isaacs’ equations. SIAM J. Control Optim. 23(4), 566–583 (1985)
Pucci, C.: Su le equazioni ellittiche estremanti. Rend. Sem. Mat. Fis. Milano 35, 12–20 (1965)
Schwab, R.W.: Periodic homogenization for nonlinear integro-differential equations. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 42(6), 2652–2680 (2010)
Schwab, R.W.: Stochastic homogenization for some nonlinear integro-differential equations. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 38(2), 171–198 (2012)
Schwab, R.W., Silvestre, L.: Regularity for parabolic integro-differential equations with very irregular kernels. Anal. PDE 9(3), 727–772 (2016)
Silvestre, L.: On the differentiability of the solution to the Hamilton–Jacobi equation with critical fractional diffusion. Adv. Math. 226(2), 2020–2039 (2011)
Souganidis, P.E.: Max-min representations and product formulas for the viscosity solutions of Hamilton–Jacobi equations with applications to differential games. Nonlinear Anal. 9(3), 217–257 (1985)
Stein, E.M.: Singular Integrals and Differentiability Properties of Functions. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1971)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by A. Chang.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The work of N. Guillen was partially supported by NSF DMS-1201413. R. Schwab thanks Moritz Kassmann for introducing him to Courrège’s theorem. The authors would also like extend a special thanks to the anonymous referee for their detailed comments and suggestions that greatly improved this manuscript.
Appendices
Appendix A: Discretization of the gradient and the Hessian on M
First off, we shall construct proper discretizations for the covariant gradient and Hessian given M and \({\tilde{G}}_n\). Our point of view will be to think of a sufficiently smooth function \(u:M\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) as given. Then, the discrete gradient and Hessian of u will be defined at points in \({\tilde{G}}_n\) using only the values of u at points in \({\tilde{G}}_n\). We will see that the regularity of the original function u will control how far are these discrete operators from their continuum counterparts (Lemma A.14). Moreover, the regularity of u will control the regularity of discrete gradient and Hessian themselves, in a manner which is independent of the mesh size (Proposition A.15 and A.16).
Remark A.1
Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to note that the discrete gradient and Hessian defined below are standard, and that this appendix has been made with the chief purpose of making the paper as self contained as possible. In fact, as with the discussion of Whitney extension, we failed to find a direct reference where the discretization of the gradient and Hessian is done in the context of a Riemannian manifold. Furthermore, for the purposes of this paper, we only need rather minimal properties of our discretization—essentially, their “consistency”. As such, the arguments and estimates here are far less optimal than what may be found in the numerical analysis literature where subtler issues are considered.
As we can only use the values of u at points of \({\tilde{G}}_n\), our first order of business is to single out admissible directions at \(x\in {\tilde{G}}_n\) along which a (discrete) derivative may be computed. This is done in the following proposition.
Proposition A.2
Given \(x \in {\tilde{G}}_n\) there are vectors
Satisfying the following properties,
- (1)
For each k,
$$\begin{aligned} \exp _{x}(V_{n,k}(x)) \in {\tilde{G}}_n. \end{aligned}$$ - (2)
Also for each k,
$$\begin{aligned} 98 {\tilde{h}}_n \le |V_{n,k}(x)|_{g_x} \le 102 {\tilde{h}}_n. \end{aligned}$$ - (3)
Finally, the family \(\{V_{n,k}\}_{k=1}^{d}\) forms a basis which is “almost orthogonal”. To be concrete, for sufficiently large n, we have
$$\begin{aligned} |({\hat{V}}_{n,l}(x),{\hat{V}}_{n,k}(x))_{g_x}|\le \frac{1}{20},\;\;\text { if } k\ne l. \end{aligned}$$Here, \({\hat{V}}\) denotes the unit vector in the direction of V, that is \({\hat{V}}:= V/|V|_{g_x}\).
Proof
Let us recall the constant \(\delta \in (0,1)\) introduced in Remark 3.3, as well as \({\tilde{h}}_n\) (see (3.2)) which was given by
and which is such that \(\lim \limits _n {\tilde{h}}_n = 0\). Next, recall that by (3.2), we have
Fix \(x \in {\tilde{G}}_n\) and let \(e_1,\ldots ,e_d\) be an arbitrary orthonormal basis of \((TM)_x\). By definition of \({\tilde{h}}_n\),
In particular, for each x and each k, it is possible to pick a point \(x_k\) such that
Having made such a selection for each \(x \in {\tilde{G}}_n\), we define
Thus, the first property holds by construction. Next, observe that since \(100 {\tilde{h}}_n<\delta \), both \(x_k,x\) and \(\exp _{x}(100 {\tilde{h}}_n e_k)\) all lie in a ball of radius \(4\delta \sqrt{d}\). Therefore, using Remark 3.3 we can compare \(|V_{n,k}(x)|_{g_x}\) and \(|100{\tilde{h}}_n e_k|_{g_x}\). In particular, we have
Then, the triangle inequality yields,
This proves the second property. It remains to prove the third one. For the sake of brevity, let us omit the x dependence in the computations below.
Let us express the inner product \((V_{n,l},V_{n,k})_{g_x}\) in terms of the orthonormal basis \(e_k\),
Since the \(e_k\) are orthonormal, for \(k\ne l\) it follows that
We apply the estimate (A.1) to this last identity, it follows that
Since \(|V_{n,l}|_{g_x}^{-1}\ge 98 {\tilde{h}}_n\), it follows that
and the third property is proved. \(\square \)
From here on, for each n and for every \(x\in {\tilde{G}}_n\), we fix a selection of vectors \(\{V_{n,1}(x),\ldots ,V_{n,d}(x)\} \in (TM)_x\) as in the previous proposition. Moreover, we fix \(u \in C^\beta _b(M)\) for the rest of this section.
Definition A.3
(Discrete gradient) Given \(x\in {\tilde{G}}_n\) and u, define \((\nabla _n)^1u(x) \in (TM)_x\) by solving the system of linear equations
Note that, as the \(V_{n,k}(x)\) are linearly independent, the above system always has a unique solution.
Remark A.4
Let us illustrate the above definition in a simple case. Let us take,
and write \({\tilde{h}}_n = 2^{-n}\) and \(V_{n,l}(x) = h_ne_l\), where \(\{e_1,\ldots ,e_d\}\) denote the standard orthonormal basis of \({\mathbb {R}}^d\). Then,
Thus, in this case we have
and the vector \((\nabla _n)^1u(x)\) is nothing but a discretization of the gradient.
Definition A.5
Let \(x,y \in M\) be such that \(d(x,y)<r_0\). Then let \(\Gamma _{x,y}\) denote the linear map
given by parallel transport along the unique minimal geodesic connecting x to y. We should recall this map is an isometry with respect to the inner products \(g_x\) and \(g_{y}\). If the point y is understood from context, we shall simply write \(\Gamma _x\).
Definition A.6
Let V be a section of the tangent bundle TM. We say V is of class \(C^\alpha \) if
Likewise, if \(M:TM\rightarrow TM\), then
These seminorms, when applied to \(V=\nabla u\) and \(M=\nabla ^2u\) allows to define the \(C^\beta \) norm of u in the obvious manner.
Remark A.7
Let \(\beta \in [0,3)\) be given. The following is a useful characterization of Hölder continuity that will be used later on. Let x(t) denote a geodesic and e(t) a parallel vector field along it with \(|\dot{x}(t)|_{g_{x(t)}}=|e(t)|_{x(t)}=1\). Then,
and
Defining the discrete Hessian requires further preparation, we define first the following “second order difference”,
Here \(\Gamma _{x}\) denotes the operation of parallel transport, as introduced in Definition A.5.
Definition A.8
(Discrete Hessian) Given \(x\in {\tilde{G}}_n\) and u, we will define a linear transformation
Given \(k=1,\ldots ,d\), define \((\nabla _n)^2u(x)V_{n,k}(x) \in (TM)_x\) as the solution V to the linear system
Here, for the sake of brevity of notation, we have written
Having indicated how \((\nabla _n)^2u(x)\) acts on the basis \(\{V_{n,k}(x)\}_{k=1}^d\) of \((TM)_x\), the linear transformation is completely determined.
Let us elaborate on the linear algebra problem that was used to define \((\nabla _n)^2u\). Given a linear transformation \(D:(TM)_x\rightarrow (TM)_x\), and a family of pairs of vectors \(\{(V_k,W_k)\}_{k=1}^N\) for some N, we seek to recover the full matrix D from the values
We are given a basis \(V_k\) (\(k=1,\ldots ,d\)), and for each k another basis \(\{W_{k,l}\}\) (\(l=1,\ldots ,d\)). Then, we seek to completely determine a linear transformation M given the values
Remark A.9
Let us again see what this definition says in a simple case. Let \(M, {\tilde{G}}_n, {\tilde{h}}_n\) and \(\{V_{n,k}(x)\}\) be as in Remark A.4. Then, given \(x\in {\tilde{G}}_n\) and \(k,l=1,\ldots ,d\) we have
It follows that the components of \((\nabla _n)^2u(x)\) are given by
and the matrix \((\nabla _n)_{kl}^2u(x)\) is nothing but a discretization of the standard Hessian.
Remark A.10
Let \(x \in {\tilde{G}}_n\). Using the upper bound in part (2) of Proposition A.2, one notes that all the values of u taken in evaluating \(\nabla _n^1 u(x)\) and \(\nabla _n^2u(x)\) lie within a ball of radius \(<250{\tilde{h}}_n\) centered at x. In particular, if \(u\equiv 0\) in \(B_{250h_n}(x)\), then
The previous remark guarantees that the extension operator is somewhat “local”, the locality becoming more and more exact as n becomes larger, this is made rigorous in the following proposition.
Proposition A.11
Let \(u \in C^\beta \), and \(x_0 \in M\). Then,
Proof
First, we claim that
Let us see how (A.2) implies the proposition. Fix \(x \in B_{100 {\tilde{h}}_n}(x_0)\), with \(x\in M{\setminus } {\tilde{G}}_n\), then
Then, thanks to (A.2), we have that
In this case, Remark A.10 guarantees that
In other words,
Which proves the proposition. It remains to prove (A.2). Fix \(x \in B_{100 {\tilde{h}}_n}(x_0)\) and \(k\in K_x\). By the triangle inequality, and the definition of \({\hat{y}}_{n,k}\), we have
Then, thanks to Remark 3.11,
Furthermore,
We now recall that \(d(x,{\hat{x}}) = d(x,{\tilde{G}}_n) \le {\tilde{h}}_n\), and \(d(x,x_0)\le 100{\tilde{h}}_n\). Furthermore, as shown in (3.16) in the proof of Proposition we have \(d({\hat{y}}_{n,k},{\hat{x}}) \le 16 d(x,{\tilde{G}}_n)\) for \(k\in K_x\). Gathering these inequalities it follows that
From here, and the triangle inequality, we conclude that \(B_{250 {\tilde{h}}_n}({\hat{y}}_{n,k})\) lies inside \(B_{400{\tilde{h}}_n}(x_0)\), that is, (A.2). This proves the proposition. \(\square \)
In what follows, we will be using the functions l and q, introduced in Definition 3.14. In \({\mathbb {R}}^d\) this is a completely straightforward calculation using the Taylor polynomial. On a Riemannian manifold, we shall use the coordinates given by the exponential map. For the next proposition, we recall that the functions “linear” and “quadratic” functions l and q introduced in Definition 3.14 are defined in a ball of of radius \(4\delta \sqrt{d}\) around their base point, where \(\delta \) is as in Remark 3.3
Proposition A.12
Let \(x_0,x \in M\) with \(d(x,x_0)\le 4\delta \sqrt{d}\), and \(u \in C^\beta _b(M)\). Then,
(1) If \(C^{\beta }_b=C^1_b\), then
where the \(o(d(x,x_0))\) term is controlled by the modulus of continuity of \(\nabla u\).
(2) If \(\beta \in [1,2]\), then
(3) If \(C^\beta _b = C^2_b\), then
where the \(o(d(x,x_0))\) term is controlled by the modulus of continuity of \(\nabla ^2 u\).
(4) If \(\beta \in [2,3]\), then
We omit the straightforward proof of Proposition A.12.
Remark A.13
From Definition 3.14 it is immediate that Proposition A.12 has the following equivalent formulation which will also be useful: given a unit vector \(e \in (TM)_{x_0}\) and \(h\le 4\delta \sqrt{d}\), we have
Proof of Remark A.13
First estimate. Fix a unit vector \(e\in (TM)_{x_0}\). For \(h \in [0,r_0]\) let \(x(h) := \exp _{x_0}(he)\), and let
It is immediate that \(\varepsilon (0)=0\), \(d(x_0,x(h))=h\), and that
Since \(\dot{x}(0)= e\), we have \(\varepsilon '(0) = 0\). Keeping in mind that \(\dot{x}(h)\) is the parallel transport of e along x(h), the Hölder regularity of \(\nabla u(x)\) yields
Integrating this last inequality from 0 to h, we obtain the first estimate, since
Second estimate. Let x(h) be as before, with \(h \in [0,r_0]\). This time we consider the function
Then, as before it is clear that \(\varepsilon (0)=\varepsilon '(0)=0\) and
As before, we make use of the fact that \(\dot{x}(h)\) is a parallel vector along x(h), which leads to
Integrating this inequality twice (and using that \(\varepsilon (0)=\varepsilon '(0)=0\)) it follows that
which proves the second estimate.
\(\square \)
The next Lemma consists of a very important fact, namely, that the discrete difference operators \((\nabla _n)^1u\) and \((\nabla _n)^2u\) are “consistent” –i.e. they converge to the differential operators \(\nabla u\) and \(\nabla ^2 u\). Furthermore, we have that the error made when estimating the derivatives by the discrete operator is a quantity controlled by the \(C^\beta \) norm of \(u \in C^\beta _b(M)\).
Lemma A.14
Let \(x \in {\tilde{G}}_n\) and \(u\in C^\beta _b(M)\) then
Furthermore, if \(C^\beta _b = C^1_b\) or \(C^\beta _b = C^2_b\) then, we have, respectively
where K is an arbitrary compact subset of M.
Proof
First estimate. We may write
where the numbers \(\theta _1,\ldots ,\theta _d\) are determined from the system of equations
Now, Proposition A.12 says that
and, if \(C^\beta _b = C^1_b\), it says that for any compact K,
the convergence in the limit being determined by K, the continuity of \(\nabla u\), and M. Then,
The above holds for each \(l=1,\ldots ,d\). Combining these inequalities it is immediate that
and, for \(C^\beta _b = C^1_b\),
Second estimate. First, we need an elementary observation about geodesics. Observe that
Where the term \(\text {(Error)}_0\) is term appearing due to possibly non-zero curvature. It turns out that this error term is at least a cubic error in terms of \({\tilde{h}}_n\), which is proved as follows: let J(t) be the Jacobi field along the geodesic \(\gamma (t) = \exp _x(t {\hat{V}}_{n,k})\) determined by \(J(0)=0\) and \(J(|V_{n,k}|_{g_x}) = {\hat{V}}_{n,l}(x_k)\). Then, define \(\sigma (t,s) \in (TM)_x \) by
Note that \(\sigma \left( |V_{n,k}|_{g_x},|V_{n,l}(x_k)|_{g_x} \right) \) must be equal to the argument in the exponential on the right hand side of (A.3). Then, note that
Furthermore, \(\partial _t \sigma (0,0) = {\hat{V}}_{n,k}(x)\), so
Now, by contrasting the respective Jacobi and parallel transport equations, it can be shown that
Given that \(|V_{n,k}|_{g_x},|V_{n,l}(x_k)|_{g_x}\le h_n\), this leads to the bound
The constant C depending only on the metric of M.
Let us analyze the first three terms appearing in the second order difference \(\delta u_{x}(V_{n,k}(x),V_{n,l}(x_k))\). We consider the Taylor expansion and estimate the remainder via Proposition A.12. First of all, we have
The estimate (A.4) guarantees in particular that \(|V_{n,k}(x)+\Gamma _xV_{n,l}(x_k)+ \text {(Error)}_0|\le C{\tilde{h}}_n\). With this in mind, we apply Proposition A.12 in order to obtain the expansion
where \(\text {(Error)}\), which denotes the remainder in the Taylor expansion, satisfies the bound
Expanding, we see that
The terms involving a factor of \(\text {(Error)}_0\) may be absorbed into \(\text {(Error)}\). To see why, we use the estimate (A.4) and bound term by term
Since \(\beta \ge 2\), each of the above terms is bounded by \(C\Vert u\Vert _{C^\beta }{\tilde{h}}_n^\beta \). Then, absorbing the terms involving \(\text {(Error)}_0\) into \(\text {(Error)}\) we obtain
As for the other two terms, we have
and
In each case, \(|\text {(Error)}|\) is no larger than \(C\Vert u\Vert _{C^\beta }{\tilde{h}}_n^\beta \), thanks to Proposition A.12.
Combining the last three formulas, it follows that
is equal to
From the above, it is clear all but one of the terms in the first two lines above is cancelled out with a term in the last two lines. We then arrive at the formula
where—thanks to Proposition A.12, as pointed out earlier—we have
Then, solving the linear problem corresponding to \((\nabla _n)^2u(x)\) and \(\nabla ^2u(x)\) it follows that
Finally, if \(C^\beta _b = C^2_b\), the convergence of \((\nabla _n)^2u(x)\) to \(\nabla ^2u(x)\) follows analogously to the convergence of \(\nabla _n u(x)\) to \(\nabla u(x)\) for \(C^\beta _b = C^1_b\), we omit the details. \(\square \)
Given the proof of Lemma A.14 it should be clear that the \(L^\infty ({\tilde{G}}_n)\) norm of \((\nabla _n)^iu\) (\(i=1,2\)) is controlled by the appropriate \(C^\beta \) norm of u in a manner which is independent of n. This fact is the content of the next proposition.
Proposition A.15
Let \(x \in {\tilde{G}}_n\), then we have the estimates
Proof of Proposition A.15
This is an immediate consequence of the previous proposition. Indeed, fix \(u \in C^\beta _b(M)\) and \(x\in {\tilde{G}}_n\). Then, we have
Then, using the two estimates in Proposition A.12, we have
\(\square \)
The next proposition yields a quantitative control on the “continuity” of \((\nabla _n)^{i}u\) in terms of the regularity of the original function u. As one may expect, if \(\nabla u(x)\) and \(\nabla ^2u(x)\) are Hölder continuous in M, then \((\nabla _n)^1u\) and \((\nabla _n)^2u\) enjoy a respective modulus of “continuity” on \({\tilde{G}}_n\), this being uniform in n.
Proposition A.16
Consider points \(x,y \in M {\setminus } {\tilde{G}}_n\) and \({\hat{y}}\), \({\hat{x}}\) the corresponding points in \({\tilde{G}}_n\) with \(d(x,{\tilde{G}}_n)=d(x,{\hat{x}})\), \(d(y,{\tilde{G}}_n)=d(y,{\hat{y}})\), we have the following estimates with a universal C.
- (1)
For \(1\le \beta \le 2\),
$$\begin{aligned}&|(\nabla _n)_a^1 u({\hat{x}})-(\nabla _n)_a^1 u({\hat{y}})| \le C\Vert u\Vert _{C^\beta }d({\hat{x}},{\hat{y}})^{\beta -1}. \end{aligned}$$ - (2)
For \(2\le \beta \le 3\),
$$\begin{aligned}&| (\nabla _n)_{ab}^2 u({\hat{x}})-(\nabla _n)_{ab}^2u({\hat{y}})| \le C\Vert u\Vert _{C^\beta }d({\hat{x}},{\hat{y}})^{\beta -2}. \end{aligned}$$
Proof
If \({\hat{x}}={\hat{y}}\) both inequalities are trivial and there is nothing to prove, so let us assume \({\hat{x}},{\hat{y}}\) are two different points in \({\tilde{G}}_n\). In this case, and thanks to (3.3), we have
First estimate. The triangle inequality yields,
Let us estimate each of the three terms on the right. The middle term is straightforward,
For the first and third term, we use the first part of Lemma A.14, which says that
Using (A.5) it follows that
Combining the bounds for the three terms the first estimate follows.
Second estimate. As before, we start by breaking the difference in three parts, so
The middle term is bounded by
Next, thanks to the second part of Lemma A.14,
Using (A.5) again, we conclude that
As in the previous case, the combined bounds for the three terms yields the estimate. \(\square \)
Appendix B: The Proof of Proposition 3.22
This section is dedicated to proving Proposition 3.22, which we re-record right here for the reader’s convenience.
Proposition
Let \(x \in M{\setminus } {\tilde{G}}_n\) and \(u\in C^\beta \). There is a universal constant C such that the following bounds hold. First, if \(0\le \beta <1\),
If \(1\le \beta <2\), we have
Finally, if \(2\le \beta <3\), we have
Proof
As done throughout Sect. 3, for the sake of brevity we shall write \(f=\pi _n^\beta u\).
The case \(\beta \in [0,1)\). Since the sum defining f is locally finite, we may differentiate term by term, which yields
Using (3.13) with \(i=1\) we may rewrite the above as
Then, since the only non-zero terms are those with \(k \in K_x\) (\(K_x\) was introduced in Lemma 3.10),
For \(k\in K_x\), using Remark 3.11, and the Hölder regularity of u one can check that
From here, it follows that
The case \(\beta \in [1,2)\). This time, we shall compute the Hessian \(\nabla ^2f\) using a local system of coordinates \(\{x^{1},\ldots ,x^{d}\}\). Then, for any pair of indices a, b we have
Then
We expand each term using the Leibniz rule, and conclude \(\nabla ^2_{ab}f(x)\) is equal to
where, for the sake of brevity, we have written
Since \(x\in M {\setminus } {\tilde{G}}_n\), we can use (3.13) with \(i=1,2\) to obtain
and
Let us bound each of these. The triangle inequality says
By Proposition A.12 the first term on the right is no larger than \(C\Vert u\Vert _{C^\beta }d(x,{\hat{y}}_{n,k})^\beta \). On the other hand, from the definition of \(l(\cdot ,\cdot ;\cdot )\), it is immediate that the second term is no larger than
Now, Lemma A.14 says that \(|(\nabla _n)^1u ({\hat{y}}_{n,k})- \nabla u ({\hat{y}}_{n,k})|_{g_{{\hat{y}}_{n,k}}} \le C\Vert u\Vert _{C^\beta }{\tilde{h}}_n^{\beta -1}\). Noting that \(d(x,{\hat{y}}_{n,k})\) is no larger than \(C{\tilde{h}}_n\) for \(x\in P_{n,k}^*\), we obtain the estimate
Combining the last three estimates, we conclude that
Using the estimates for the size of \(\nabla ^2\phi _{n,k}\), the above implies that
Finally, let us recall that the only nonzero terms appearing in the sum \(\text {I}(x)\) are those with \(k\in K_x\) (i.e. \(x \in P_{n,k}^*\)), and that there at most N of these terms. Then, we conclude that
Let us now bound \(\text {II}(x)\), observe that
Therefore
As before, the only nonzero terms adding up to \(\text {II}(x)\) are those with \(x \in P_{n,k}^*\), therefore, the above bound implies that
Therefore,
It remains to bound \(\text {III}(x)\). According to Proposition 3.17 and Proposition A.15,
Therefore, using (3.9) (from Lemma 3.10) it follows that
Gathering the last three estimates, we conclude that
Moreover, since the indices a, b were arbitrary, and since \(d(x,{\tilde{G}}_n)\) is bounded from above for \(x \in M {\setminus } {\tilde{G}}_n\) by a constant C, we conclude that
The case \(\beta \in [2,3)\). The proof is entirely analogous to the previous case, and we only highlight the overall steps of the proof: as before, we pick a local system of coordinates \(\{x_1,\ldots ,x_d\}\) and use the identity
which holds for any three indices a, b, and c. The expression on the right may be expanded via Leibniz rule, resulting in terms mixing various derivatives of \(\phi _{n,k}\), \(l( \nabla ^1_n u ({\hat{y}}_{n,k}),{\hat{y}}_{n,k};\cdot )\), and \(q(\nabla ^2_n u ({\hat{y}}_{n,k}),{\hat{y}}_{n,k};\cdot )\).
It can then be checked that \(\nabla ^{3}_{abc}f(x)\) is given by a sum in k of terms involving \(\phi _{n,k}\) and values of u on \({\tilde{G}}_n\) –in a manner analogue to the case \(\beta \in [1,2)\). Now, to bound each of the resulting terms we will use (3.13) with \(i=1,2\) as before, but this time also with \(i=3\). The bounds will follow by applying at difference instances Propositions A.12 and A.15, as well as Lemma A.14. All throughout, we will make us of the fact that the only non-zero terms appearing in the sums are those with \(k\in P_{n,k}^*\). At the end, we arrive at the bound,
which holds for any choice of the indices a, b and c. This means that
where we have used again that \(d(x,{\tilde{G}}_n)\) is bounded from above for \(x \in M {\setminus } {\tilde{G}}_n\). \(\square \)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guillen, N., Schwab, R.W. Min–max formulas for nonlocal elliptic operators. Calc. Var. 58, 209 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-019-1631-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-019-1631-z