5

I have troubles understanding a certain necessity in Evans' proof of a theorem on the estimates for derivatives of harmonic functions. So consider the following, (this is the same theorem as discussed here, however i am asking a different question)


Theorem 7 (Estimates on derivatives). Assume u is harmonic in U. Then \begin{align} |D^\alpha u(x_0)| \le \frac{C_k}{r^{n+k}} \|u\|_{L^1(B(x_0,r))} \tag{18} \end{align} for each ball $B(x_0,r) \subseteq U$ and each multiindex $\alpha$ of order $|\alpha| = k$.

Here \begin{align} C_0 = \frac{1}{\alpha(n)}, C_k = \frac{(2^{n+1}nk)^k}{\alpha (n)} \text{ for } k=1,2,\ldots \tag{19} \end{align}

Proof.

  1. We establish $(\text{18}), (\text{19})$ by induction on $k$, with the case $k=0$ being immediate from the mean value formula $u(x) = \frac{1}{\alpha(n)r^n} \int_{B(x_0,r)} u \, dx = \frac{1}{\alpha(n)r^{n-1}} \int_{\partial B(x,r)} u \, dS$ (which denote average values of $u$ over the ball and sphere, respectively). $$ \, $$ For $k = 1$, we note upon differentiating Laplace's equation that $u_{x_i}$ (for $i=1,...n$) is harmonic. Consequently, \begin{align} \left|u_{x_i}(x_0)\right| &\le \frac{2n}{r} \|u\|_{L^\infty(\partial B(x_0,\frac{r}{2})} \end{align} Now if $x \in \partial B(x_0,\frac{r}{2})$, then $B(x,\frac{r}{2}) \subseteq B(x_0,r) \subseteq U$, and so \begin{align} |u(x)| \le \frac{1}{\alpha(n)} \left(\frac{2}{r}\right)^n \|u\|_{L^1(B(x_0,r))} \end{align} by (18), (19) for $k=0$. Combining the inequalities above, we get \begin{align}|D^\alpha u(x_0)| &\le \frac{2^{n+1}n}{\alpha(n)} \frac{1}{r^{n+1}} \|u\|_{L^1(B(x_0,r))} \\ &= \frac{2^{n+1}n}{r^{n+1}} \|u\|_{L^1(B(x_0,r))} \\ \end{align} if $|\alpha| = 1$. This verifies $(\text{18})$ and $(\text{19})$ for $k = 1$. $$\,$$

  2. Now in the induction step we proceed analogously: assume $k \geq 2$ and (18), (19) are valid for all balls in $U$ and each multiindex of order less than or equal to $k-1$. Fix $B(x_0,r) \subset U$ and let $\alpha$ be a multiindex with $|\alpha| = k$. Then $D^\alpha u = (D^\beta u)_{x_i}$ for some $i \in \{1, \cdots,n\}$, $|\beta|=k-1$. By calculations similar to those in (20) we establish that $$|D^\alpha u(x)| \leq \frac{n\,k} r \, \|D^\beta u\|_{L^\infty(\partial B(x_0,\frac r k))}.$$ If $x \in \partial B(x_0,\frac r k)$ then $B(x,\frac {k-1} k \, r) \subset B(x_0,r) \subset U$. Thus (18), (19) for $k-1$ imply $$|D^\beta u(x)| \leq \frac{(2^{n+1} \, n \, (k-1) )^{k-1} } {\alpha(n) \, (\frac{k-1} k \, r)^{n+k-1} } \, \|u\|_{L^1(B(x_0,r))}.$$ Now combine the two results to conclude the theorem.


Question

  • Why don't we just use $\frac r 2$ (as before) instead of $\frac r k$ in the induction step?
  • What is the use of $\frac r k$?

I don't see any reason why $\frac r 2$ wouldn't work.

Im very glad for any thoughts on this!

  • I deleted my comments; I'm very sorrry; I misunderstood the sentence in the post about it being recycled. Please forgive me, for not having been more careful. – amWhy Jul 26 '17 at 17:08
  • that's okay, i guess it wasn't the best phrasing! – cesare borgia Jul 26 '17 at 17:08
  • Looks to me like the induction proceeds from $x_0$ towards $\partial B(x_0,r)$ in $k$ steps, so you need to make those steps small enough to fit. – Anthony Carapetis Jul 27 '17 at 00:46
  • i see, that was my original idea, but in the lecture our professor just took r/2 in the induction step, thats why i am confused; so im looking for an alternative way, if you can do that directly – cesare borgia Jul 27 '17 at 08:36
  • You have $\alpha $ as a multi-index and also $\alpha(n)$. Which is it? – zhw. Jul 31 '17 at 03:15
  • true, unfortunately thats bad notation; $n , \alpha(n) = \omega_n$ which is the surface area of the $n$-ball for radius $1$, whereas $\alpha$ is really just a multiindex – cesare borgia Jul 31 '17 at 08:00

1 Answers1

5

Assuming I didn't miscalculate, both options work. But before you can conclude that both options work, you will actually have to figure out the estimates they lead to. Such choices of radii can be crucial in some estimates, but less important in others.

Philosophically, it appears that each of the $k$ derivatives is given a step of length $r/k$. Therefore the $k-1$ derivatives in $\partial^\beta u$ are given the interval $[r/k,r]$ and the one derivative between $\partial^\beta u$ and $\partial^\alpha u$ is given the interval $[0,r/k]$.

The estimate is proven via studying $\partial^\beta u$ on $\partial B(x_0,r/k)$. Combining the two estimates you have gives $$ |D^\alpha u(x)| \leq \frac{n\,k} r \, \frac{(2^{n+1} \, n \, (k-1) )^{k-1} } {\alpha(n) \, (\frac{k-1} k\,\color{red}{r})^{n+k-1} } \, \|u\|_{L^1(B(x_0,r))}. $$ You were missing an $r$, indicated by red. There is a factor $r^{-n-k}$ as required and simplifying the constant gives $$ \frac12\left(\frac{k}{2(k-1)}\right)^n\times \frac{(2^{n+1}nk)^k}{\alpha (n)}. $$ This yields the desired estimate.

Now, if instead you study $\partial^\beta u$ on $\partial B(x_0,r/2)$, you get $$ |D^\alpha u(x)| \leq \frac{2n} r \, \|D^\beta u\|_{L^\infty(\partial B(x_0,\frac r 2))} $$ and $$ |D^\beta u(x)| \leq \frac{(2^{n+1} \, n \, (k-1) )^{k-1} } {\alpha(n) \, (\frac12r)^{n+k-1} } \, \|u\|_{L^1(B(x_0,r))}. $$ Combining these two leads to an otherwise similar estimate, but the factor that comes with $r^{-n-k}$ is $$ 2^{1-2n}(k-1)^{-1}\left(\frac{k-1}{2k}\right)^k \times \frac{(2^{n+1}nk)^k}{\alpha (n)}. $$ This also leads to the desired estimate.

  • so if i understand you correctly, both results are right; although the latter gives a somewhat sharper bound, no?

    $, \ ,$

    i just don't see the necessity of this $r/k$ business, if you can just simply use $r/2$ !

    $, \ ,$

    thanks a lot for your detailed write-up!

    – cesare borgia Aug 06 '17 at 20:24
  • @cesareborgia So it seems! But of course there is a chance of miscalculation on my part. Sometimes things like this make a huge difference, but I was surprised that nothing seemed to happen here. – Joonas Ilmavirta Aug 06 '17 at 20:27
  • that was my initial doubt (i had made the same calculations before, except for i didn't care about the constant $C = C(n,k)$ too much); but most times when you find an easier way than in a textbook, it's wrong, experience taught me ;-) – cesare borgia Aug 06 '17 at 20:29