Abstract
In this section we prove the non-degeneracy of the solutions to the one-phase problem (2.1). Our main result is the following.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
In this section we prove the non-degeneracy of the solutions to the one-phase problem (2.1). Our main result is the following:
Suppose that D is a bounded open set in \(\mathbb {R}^d\) and u ∈ H 1(D) is non-negative and minimizes the functional \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \) in D, for some Λ > 0. Then, there is a constant κ > 0, depending on Λ and d, such that the following claim holds:
The non-degeneracy holds in particular for functions satisfying the following optimality condition:
For the sake of completeness, we notice that this optimality condition can also be expressed in a different way, at least when it comes to functions u, which are harmonic on their positivity set Ωu. In fact, the following result is analogous to Lemma 3.3. Moreover, as in Lemma 3.3 (see Remark 3.4), we can suppose that all the test functions v in (4.1), (4.3) and (4.2) are non-negative.
Let D be a bounded open set in \(\mathbb {R}^d\) and u ∈ H 1(D) be a given non-negative function. Then the following are equivalent:
-
(i)
u satisfies the inwards minimality condition
$$\displaystyle \begin{aligned} \mathcal F_\Lambda(u,D)\le \mathcal F_\Lambda(v,D)\quad & \mathit{\text{for every}}\quad v\in H^1(D)\quad \mathit{\text{such that}}\notag\\ & \qquad \qquad u-v\in H^1_0(D)\quad \mathit{\text{and}}\quad \Omega_u\supset\Omega_v.{} \end{aligned} $$(4.2) -
(ii)
u is harmonic in Ω u in the following sense:
(4.3)and satisfies the minimality condition (4.1).
The implication (i) ⇒ (ii) is immediate. In fact, (4.2) implies both (4.3) and (4.1). In order to prove that (ii) implies (i), we suppose that u satisfies (4.3) and (4.1) and we consider a (non-negative) function v ∈ H 1(D) such that \(u-v\in H^1_0(D)\) and Ωu ⊂ Ωv. As in the proof of Lemma 3.3, we consider the test functions u ∧ v and u ∨ v. Since u ∨ v = 0 on , the harmonicity of u (4.3) implies that
On the other hand, we can use u ∧ v as a test function in (4.2). Thus
Summing these inequalities and using that Ωv = Ωu∧v, we obtain
which concludes the proof of (4.1). □
FormalPara Remark 4.3 (On the Terminology: Inwards Optimality and Subsolutions; Outwards Optimality and Supersolutions)We will often call the optimality conditions (4.2) and (3.1) inwards and outwards optimality condition, respectively. This is justified by the fact that the admissible test functions in (4.2) and (3.1) have positivity sets contained in or containing Ωu. On the other hand, we will call (4.1) and (3.3) suboptimality condition and superoptimality condition, respectively, and the functions satisfying (4.1) and (3.3) will be called subsolutions and supersolutions. The terms inwards optimality and outwards optimality come from Geometric Analysis. The term subsolution was introduced in Shape Optimization by Bucur [8], originally to indicate inwards optimality with respect to shape functionals. The term supersolution appeared in the same context in several works (see for instance [51] and the references therein) to indicate outwards optimality. In the context of the functional \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \), it seems more appropriate to use the terms subsolution and supersolution, when the condition is on the test functions, and the terms inwards and outwards, when the condition is on their (superlevel) sets. Nevertheless, being partially justified by Lemmas 3.3 and 4.2, we will often abuse this terminology by using subsolution and inwards-minimizing, and supersolution and outwards-minimizing as synonyms.
We will give two different proofs of the non-degeneracy. Lemma 4.4 is due to Alt and Caffarelli (see [3]), while Lemma 4.5 is due to David and Toro, it requires the function to be Lipschitz continuous, but the argument is more versatile and can be easily adapted, for instance, to the case of almost-minimizers of the functional \(\mathcal F_\Lambda \) (see [19]).
Let \(D\subset \mathbb {R}^d\) be a bounded open set. Suppose that u ∈ H 1(D) satisfies the condition (4.1) and let x 0 ∈ D. If \(x_0\in \overline \Omega _u\cap D\) , then for every ball B r(x 0) ⊂ D, we have that \(\|u\|{ }_{L^\infty (B_r(x_0))}\ge \Lambda ^{{1}/{2}}c_d\, r\) , where c d > 0 is a dimensional constant.
FormalPara ProofWithout loss of generality we can suppose that x 0 = 0 and that Λ = 1. For r > 0, let ϕ r be the solution of
Then we have \(\phi _r(x)=\phi _1\left (\frac {x}r\right )\), for every . We consider the function \(\tilde u\in H^1_{loc}(\Omega )\) defined by
where \(M_{2r}=\|u\|{ }_{L^{\infty }(B_{2r})}\). By the optimality of u in B 2r, we have that
which means that
Since \(\{u>0\}=\{\tilde u>0\}\) in , we get that
and so, we can estimate
Now, since
by the definition of \(\tilde u\), we obtain
On the other hand, we have the following trace inequality
Thus, if \(\mathcal F_1(u,B_r)>0\), then we have
which gives the claim. □
FormalPara Lemma 4.5 (Non-degeneracy: David-Toro)Suppose that \(D\subset \mathbb {R}^d\) is a bounded open set and \(u:D\to \mathbb {R}\) is a non-negative Lipschitz continuous functions satisfying the optimality condition (4.1). Then, there is a constant κ 0 > 0, depending on the dimension d, the Lipschitz constant \(L=\|\nabla u\|{ }_{L^\infty (D)}\) and the constant Λ, such that:
The proof is a consequence of the following three claims: Claim 1 Suppose that . Then,
Claim 2 Suppose that u ≤ κ 1 r on B r∕2(x 0). Then,
Claim 3 Suppose that | Ωu ∩ B r∕2(x 0)| ≤ κ 2|B r| and \(\|u\|{ }_{L^\infty (B_{\frac {r}2}(x_0))}\le \kappa _1r\). Then, for every y 0 ∈ B r∕8(x 0), there is \(\rho \in \left [\frac {r}4,\frac {r}8\right ]\) such that
We first prove Claim 1. Let h be the harmonic extension of u in the ball B r(x 0). By the strong maximum principle, we have that u ≤ h on B r(x 0) (we notice that the optimality condition (4.1) trivially implies that the function u is subharmonic). On the other hand, the Poisson formula implies that
which gives Claim 1.
In order to prove Claim 2, we consider the function \(\phi \in C^\infty _c(B_r)\) such that
Consider the competitor v = (u − κ 1 rϕ)+. Then, the optimality of u in B r(x 0) implies that
which concludes the proof of Claim 2.
Let us now prove Claim 3. We first estimate
Now, taking y 0 ∈ B r∕8(x 0), we have , so there is ρ such that r∕8 ≤ ρ ≤ r∕4 and
which concludes the proof of Claim 3.
We are now in position to conclude the proof of the lemma. We first notice that
Choosing
we get that κ 3 ≤ κ 0. In particular, if , then for any y 0 ∈ B r∕8(x 0) there is a sequence ρ j, j ≤ 1, such that \(\displaystyle \frac {r}8\le \rho _1\le \frac {r}4\) and
In particular, this implies that u = 0 in B r∕8(x 0), which proves the claim. □
References
H.W. Alt, L.A. Caffarelli, Existence and regularity for a minimum problem with free boundary. J. Reine Angew. Math. 325, 105–144 (1981)
D. Bucur, Minimization of the k-th eigenvalue of the Dirichlet Laplacian. Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 206(3), 1073–1083 (2012)
G. David, T. Toro, Regularity for almost minimizers with free boundary. Calc. Var. PDE 54(1), 455–524 (2015)
B. Velichkov, Existence and Regularity Results for Some Shape Optimization Problems. Edizioni della Normale. Tesi, vol. 19 (Springer, Berlin, 2015). ISBN 978-88-7642-526-4
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Velichkov, B. (2023). Non-degeneracy of the Local Minimizers. In: Regularity of the One-phase Free Boundaries. Lecture Notes of the Unione Matematica Italiana, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13238-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13238-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-13237-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-13238-4
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)