TheoremBase

Slicing the doubled function at the maximum point produces C2C^2 test functions for the subsolution and the supersolution; the resulting test data are shown to be R-bounded and admissible, the shift modulus moves both gradient arguments onto the common doubling gradient, the structure triple compares the two shifts there, and the properness constant converts the comparison into the asserted estimate.

Proof

Each result cited is universally quantified over the data in its own statement. Write Θ:V×V→R\Theta:V\times V\to\mathbb{R} for the function in the hypothesis, so that Θ\Theta attains a maximum at (x^,y^)(\hat{x},\hat{y}).

Step 1 (test functions). Let φ:H→R\varphi:H\to\mathbb{R} be given by φ(x)=α2∣x−y^∣H2+⟨p,x⟩H\varphi(x)=\tfrac{\alpha}{2}|x-\hat{y}|_{H}^{2}+\langle p,x\rangle_{H}. By claims 3 and 1 of Affine and Quadratic Functions on a Real Hilbert Space are of Class C2C^2 its two summands belong to C2(H)C^{2}(H), with gradients α(x−y^)\alpha(x-\hat{y}) and pp and Hessians αIH\alpha I_{H} and 0Sym0_{\mathrm{Sym}} at every x∈Hx\in H, so by Constants, Sums, Scalar Multiples and Differences of Differentiable Functions on an Open Subset of a Real Inner Product Space (ii) φ∈C2(H)\varphi\in C^{2}(H) with

Dφ(x^)=α(x^−y^)+p,D2φ(x^)=αIH.D\varphi(\hat{x})=\alpha(\hat{x}-\hat{y})+p,\qquad D^{2}\varphi(\hat{x})=\alpha I_{H}.

Let ψ:H→R\psi:H\to\mathbb{R} be given by ψ(y)=−α2∣y−x^∣H2−⟨q,y⟩H\psi(y)=-\tfrac{\alpha}{2}|y-\hat{x}|_{H}^{2}-\langle q,y\rangle_{H}; by the same two lemmas together with Constants, Sums, Scalar Multiples and Differences of Differentiable Functions on an Open Subset of a Real Inner Product Space (iii), ψ∈C2(H)\psi\in C^{2}(H) with

Dψ(y^)=−α(y^−x^)−q=α(x^−y^)−q,D2ψ(y^)=−αIH.D\psi(\hat{y})=-\alpha(\hat{y}-\hat{x})-q=\alpha(\hat{x}-\hat{y})-q,\qquad D^{2}\psi(\hat{y})=-\alpha I_{H}.

For x∈Vx\in V one has Θ(x,y^)=(uδ−(x)−φ(x))−vδ+(y^)−⟨q,y^⟩H\Theta(x,\hat{y})=\bigl(u^{-}_{\delta}(x)-\varphi(x)\bigr)-v^{+}_{\delta}(\hat{y})-\langle q,\hat{y}\rangle_{H}, and Θ(x,y^)≤Θ(x^,y^)\Theta(x,\hat{y})\le\Theta(\hat{x},\hat{y}); hence the function on VV with value uδ−(x)−φ(x)u^{-}_{\delta}(x)-\varphi(x) at xx satisfies

uδ−(x)−φ(x)≤uδ−(x^)−φ(x^)for every x∈V,u^{-}_{\delta}(x)-\varphi(x)\le u^{-}_{\delta}(\hat{x})-\varphi(\hat{x})\qquad\text{for every }x\in V,

and so has a local maximum relative to VV at x^\hat{x}, the condition of Local Maximum of a Function Relative to a Subset of a Metric Space holding with any positive radius. Likewise, for y∈Vy\in V one has Θ(x^,y)=uδ−(x^)−⟨p,x^⟩H−(vδ+(y)−ψ(y))\Theta(\hat{x},y)=u^{-}_{\delta}(\hat{x})-\langle p,\hat{x}\rangle_{H}-\bigl(v^{+}_{\delta}(y)-\psi(y)\bigr), so the function with value vδ+(y)−ψ(y)v^{+}_{\delta}(y)-\psi(y) at yy has a local minimum relative to VV at y^\hat{y}.

Step 2 (test data). Applying Viscosity Subsolution, Supersolution and Solution of a Second-Order Equation on a Hilbert Triple (i) with δ\delta, the test function φ\varphi, the point x^\hat{x} and the number ε\varepsilon yields x1∈D(A)x_{1}\in D(A), s1∈Rs_{1}\in\mathbb{R}, p1∈Hp_{1}\in H and X1∈Sym(H)X_{1}\in\mathrm{Sym}(H) with

∣x1−x^∣H<ε,∣uδ−(x1)−uδ−(x^)∣<ε,∣s1−uδ−(x^)∣<ε,∣p1−Dφ(x^)∣H<ε,∥X1−αIH∥<ε,|x_{1}-\hat{x}|_{H}<\varepsilon,\quad |u^{-}_{\delta}(x_{1})-u^{-}_{\delta}(\hat{x})|<\varepsilon,\quad |s_{1}-u^{-}_{\delta}(\hat{x})|<\varepsilon,\quad |p_{1}-D\varphi(\hat{x})|_{H}<\varepsilon,\quad \lVert X_{1}-\alpha I_{H}\rVert<\varepsilon,

and Fδ−(x1,s1,p1,X1)≤εF^{-}_{\delta}(x_{1},s_{1},p_{1},X_{1})\le\varepsilon. Applying Viscosity Subsolution, Supersolution and Solution of a Second-Order Equation on a Hilbert Triple (ii) with δ\delta, ψ\psi, y^\hat{y} and ε\varepsilon yields y1∈D(A)y_{1}\in D(A), t1∈Rt_{1}\in\mathbb{R}, q1∈Hq_{1}\in H and Y1∈Sym(H)Y_{1}\in\mathrm{Sym}(H) with

∣y1−y^∣H<ε,∣vδ+(y1)−vδ+(y^)∣<ε,∣t1−vδ+(y^)∣<ε,∣q1−Dψ(y^)∣H<ε,∥Y1+αIH∥<ε,|y_{1}-\hat{y}|_{H}<\varepsilon,\quad |v^{+}_{\delta}(y_{1})-v^{+}_{\delta}(\hat{y})|<\varepsilon,\quad |t_{1}-v^{+}_{\delta}(\hat{y})|<\varepsilon,\quad |q_{1}-D\psi(\hat{y})|_{H}<\varepsilon,\quad \lVert Y_{1}+\alpha I_{H}\rVert<\varepsilon,

and −ε≤Fδ+(y1,t1,q1,Y1)-\varepsilon\le F^{+}_{\delta}(y_{1},t_{1},q_{1},Y_{1}).

Step 3 (the data are admissible). By Basic Properties of the δ\delta-Envelopes: Semicontinuity, Duality, Closed Superlevel Sets, Bounds and Monotonicity (iv), uδ−(x1)≤C−δh(x1)u^{-}_{\delta}(x_{1})\le C-\delta h(x_{1}), so, using C≤BC\le B, −uδ−(x^)≤B-u^{-}_{\delta}(\hat{x})\le B and ε≤1\varepsilon\le1,

δh(x1)≤C−uδ−(x1)≤C−uδ−(x^)+ε≤2B+1,\delta h(x_{1})\le C-u^{-}_{\delta}(x_{1})\le C-u^{-}_{\delta}(\hat{x})+\varepsilon\le 2B+1 ,

whence h(x1)≤2B+1δ<Rh(x_{1})\le\frac{2B+1}{\delta}<R. By the same claim −C+δh(y1)≤vδ+(y1)-C+\delta h(y_{1})\le v^{+}_{\delta}(y_{1}), so δh(y1)≤vδ+(y1)+C≤vδ+(y^)+ε+C≤2B+1\delta h(y_{1})\le v^{+}_{\delta}(y_{1})+C\le v^{+}_{\delta}(\hat{y})+\varepsilon+C\le2B+1 and h(y1)<Rh(y_{1})<R. Next ∣s1∣≤∣uδ−(x^)∣+ε≤B+1<R|s_{1}|\le|u^{-}_{\delta}(\hat{x})|+\varepsilon\le B+1<R and ∣t1∣≤B+1<R|t_{1}|\le B+1<R, because B+1≤3B+2<RB+1\le3B+2<R and 0≤B0\le B.

Since ∣IH(x,y)∣=∣⟨x,y⟩H∣≤∣x∣H∣y∣H|I_{H}(x,y)|=|\langle x,y\rangle_{H}|\le|x|_{H}|y|_{H} for x,y∈Hx,y\in H by The Cauchy–Schwarz Inequality in a Real Inner Product Space, claim 2 of Elementary Properties of Bounded Symmetric Bilinear Forms: Norm, Quadratic Form, Order and Continuity gives ∥IH∥≤1\lVert I_{H}\rVert\le1, and hence ∥αIH∥≤α\lVert\alpha I_{H}\rVert\le\alpha and ∥−αIH∥≤α\lVert-\alpha I_{H}\rVert\le\alpha by the homogeneity of the norm in Elementary Properties of Bounded Symmetric Bilinear Forms: Norm, Quadratic Form, Order and Continuity (iii). Therefore, by the triangle inequality of that same claim,

∥X1∥≤∥αIH∥+∥X1−αIH∥≤α+1<R,∥Y1∥≤α+1<R.\lVert X_{1}\rVert\le\lVert\alpha I_{H}\rVert+\lVert X_{1}-\alpha I_{H}\rVert\le\alpha+1<R,\qquad \lVert Y_{1}\rVert\le\alpha+1<R .

Finally, by The Norm Metric of a Real Inner Product Space: Triangle Inequalities, Limits and Continuity (i),

∣p1∣H≤∣Dφ(x^)∣H+ε≤α∣x^−y^∣H+∣p∣H+ε≤G+σ+ε≤G+2<G+2α<R,|p_{1}|_{H}\le|D\varphi(\hat{x})|_{H}+\varepsilon\le\alpha|\hat{x}-\hat{y}|_{H}+|p|_{H}+\varepsilon\le G+\sigma+\varepsilon\le G+2<G+2\alpha<R,

using 1<α1<\alpha, and likewise ∣q1∣H≤G+2<R|q_{1}|_{H}\le G+2<R. Thus ξ1=(x1,s1,p1,X1)\xi_{1}=(x_{1},s_{1},p_{1},X_{1}) and η1=(y1,t1,q1,Y1)\eta_{1}=(y_{1},t_{1},q_{1},Y_{1}) are RR-bounded test data, and

Fδ−(ξ1)−Fδ+(η1)≤ε+ε≤2<α+1<R.F^{-}_{\delta}(\xi_{1})-F^{+}_{\delta}(\eta_{1})\le\varepsilon+\varepsilon\le2<\alpha+1<R .

Hence ξ1∈Sδ,R−\xi_{1}\in S^{-}_{\delta,R} and η1∈Sδ,R+\eta_{1}\in S^{+}_{\delta,R} by Test Data for a Second-Order Equation Operator on a Hilbert Triple and the Admissible Sets (iii), each datum serving as the witness required for the other.

Step 4 (moving the gradient arguments). Put P=α(x1−y1)P=\alpha(x_{1}-y_{1}), τ1=∣P−p1∣H\tau_{1}=|P-p_{1}|_{H} and τ2=∣P−q1∣H\tau_{2}=|P-q_{1}|_{H}; these are nonnegative. By the triangle inequality,

τ1≤α∣(x1−y1)−(x^−y^)∣H+∣α(x^−y^)+p−p1∣H+∣p∣H≤α(ε+ε)+ε+σ=(2α+1)ε+σ,\tau_{1}\le\alpha\bigl|(x_{1}-y_{1})-(\hat{x}-\hat{y})\bigr|_{H}+\bigl|\alpha(\hat{x}-\hat{y})+p-p_{1}\bigr|_{H}+|p|_{H}\le\alpha(\varepsilon+\varepsilon)+\varepsilon+\sigma=(2\alpha+1)\varepsilon+\sigma ,

and the same bound holds for τ2\tau_{2}, since Dψ(y^)=α(x^−y^)−qD\psi(\hat{y})=\alpha(\hat{x}-\hat{y})-q and ∣q∣H≤σ|q|_{H}\le\sigma.

Apply the first condition of The Shift-Continuity Condition on Admissible Test Data (i) to ξ1\xi_{1} with the perturbations P−p1∈HP-p_{1}\in H and 0Sym∈Sym(H)0_{\mathrm{Sym}}\in\mathrm{Sym}(H): since p1+(P−p1)=Pp_{1}+(P-p_{1})=P, X1+0Sym=X1X_{1}+0_{\mathrm{Sym}}=X_{1} and ∥0Sym∥=0\lVert 0_{\mathrm{Sym}}\rVert=0,

Fδ−(x1,s1,P,X1)≤Fδ−(x1,s1,p1,X1)+ω(τ1)≤ε+ω(τ1).F^{-}_{\delta}(x_{1},s_{1},P,X_{1})\le F^{-}_{\delta}(x_{1},s_{1},p_{1},X_{1})+\omega(\tau_{1})\le\varepsilon+\omega(\tau_{1}).

Apply the second condition to η1\eta_{1} with the perturbations P−q1P-q_{1} and 0Sym0_{\mathrm{Sym}}:

−ε−ω(τ2)≤Fδ+(y1,t1,q1,Y1)−ω(τ2)≤Fδ+(y1,t1,P,Y1).-\varepsilon-\omega(\tau_{2})\le F^{+}_{\delta}(y_{1},t_{1},q_{1},Y_{1})-\omega(\tau_{2})\le F^{+}_{\delta}(y_{1},t_{1},P,Y_{1}).

Step 5 (the structure condition). We have x1,y1∈D(A)=Wx_{1},y_{1}\in D(A)=W, ∣t1∣≤B+1≤3B+2|t_{1}|\le B+1\le3B+2, 1<α1<\alpha, 0<δ<10<\delta<1 and P=α(x1−y1)P=\alpha(x_{1}-y_{1}), so The First-Order Structure Condition for a Second-Order Equation Operator on a Hilbert Triple (i), applied to the structure triple (ω1,ω2,ω3)(\omega_{1},\omega_{2},\omega_{3}) at 3B+23B+2 with the value argument t1t_{1} and the form arguments X1X_{1} and Y1Y_{1}, gives

Fδ+(y1,t1,P,Y1)−ω1(∣x1−y1∣H)−ω2(α∣x1−y1∣H2)−ω3(δα2∣x1−y1∣H2) ≤ Fδ−(x1,t1,P,X1).F^{+}_{\delta}(y_{1},t_{1},P,Y_{1})-\omega_{1}\bigl(|x_{1}-y_{1}|_{H}\bigr)-\omega_{2}\bigl(\alpha|x_{1}-y_{1}|_{H}^{2}\bigr)-\omega_{3}\bigl(\delta\alpha^{2}|x_{1}-y_{1}|_{H}^{2}\bigr)\ \le\ F^{-}_{\delta}(x_{1},t_{1},P,X_{1}).

Step 6 (properness and conclusion). Since ∣s1−uδ−(x^)∣<ε|s_{1}-u^{-}_{\delta}(\hat{x})|<\varepsilon and ∣t1−vδ+(y^)∣<ε|t_{1}-v^{+}_{\delta}(\hat{y})|<\varepsilon,

uδ−(x^)−vδ+(y^)≤(s1+ε)−(t1−ε)=s1−t1+2ε.(∗)u^{-}_{\delta}(\hat{x})-v^{+}_{\delta}(\hat{y})\le(s_{1}+\varepsilon)-(t_{1}-\varepsilon)=s_{1}-t_{1}+2\varepsilon . \tag{$*$}

Suppose first that t1≤s1t_{1}\le s_{1}. By Step 3 we have 0≤δh(x1)≤2B+10\le\delta h(x_{1})\le2B+1, ∣s1∣≤B+1|s_{1}|\le B+1 and ∣t1∣≤B+1|t_{1}|\le B+1, so both s1+δh(x1)s_{1}+\delta h(x_{1}) and t1+δh(x1)t_{1}+\delta h(x_{1}) lie between −(3B+2)-(3B+2) and 3B+23B+2, and t1+δh(x1)≤s1+δh(x1)t_{1}+\delta h(x_{1})\le s_{1}+\delta h(x_{1}). Applying Locally Strictly Proper Second-Order Equation Operator on a Hilbert Triple (i) at the level 3B+23B+2, with the point x1x_{1}, the gradient argument P+δAx1∈HP+\delta Ax_{1}\in H and the form argument X1∣V+δIV∈Sym(V)X_{1}|_{V}+\delta I_{V}\in\mathrm{Sym}(V), and reading the two resulting values of FF through Second-Order Equation Operator on an Open Subset of a Hilbert Triple and Its δ\delta-Shifts (ii), we obtain

λ(s1−t1)=λ((s1+δh(x1))−(t1+δh(x1)))≤Fδ−(x1,s1,P,X1)−Fδ−(x1,t1,P,X1).\lambda(s_{1}-t_{1})=\lambda\bigl((s_{1}+\delta h(x_{1}))-(t_{1}+\delta h(x_{1}))\bigr)\le F^{-}_{\delta}(x_{1},s_{1},P,X_{1})-F^{-}_{\delta}(x_{1},t_{1},P,X_{1}).

Combining this with Steps 4 and 5,

λ(s1−t1)≤ε+ω(τ1)−Fδ+(y1,t1,P,Y1)+ω1(∣x1−y1∣H)+ω2(α∣x1−y1∣H2)+ω3(δα2∣x1−y1∣H2)\lambda(s_{1}-t_{1})\le\varepsilon+\omega(\tau_{1})-F^{+}_{\delta}(y_{1},t_{1},P,Y_{1})+\omega_{1}\bigl(|x_{1}-y_{1}|_{H}\bigr)+\omega_{2}\bigl(\alpha|x_{1}-y_{1}|_{H}^{2}\bigr)+\omega_{3}\bigl(\delta\alpha^{2}|x_{1}-y_{1}|_{H}^{2}\bigr) ≤ 2ε+ω(τ1)+ω(τ2)+ω1(∣x1−y1∣H)+ω2(α∣x1−y1∣H2)+ω3(δα2∣x1−y1∣H2).\le\ 2\varepsilon+\omega(\tau_{1})+\omega(\tau_{2})+\omega_{1}\bigl(|x_{1}-y_{1}|_{H}\bigr)+\omega_{2}\bigl(\alpha|x_{1}-y_{1}|_{H}^{2}\bigr)+\omega_{3}\bigl(\delta\alpha^{2}|x_{1}-y_{1}|_{H}^{2}\bigr).

Multiplying (∗)(*) by the positive number λ\lambda and adding 2λε2\lambda\varepsilon to the previous display gives the asserted estimate.

Suppose now that s1<t1s_{1}<t_{1}. Then (∗)(*) gives uδ−(x^)−vδ+(y^)<2εu^{-}_{\delta}(\hat{x})-v^{+}_{\delta}(\hat{y})<2\varepsilon, so λ(uδ−(x^)−vδ+(y^))<2λε\lambda\bigl(u^{-}_{\delta}(\hat{x})-v^{+}_{\delta}(\hat{y})\bigr)<2\lambda\varepsilon, and the asserted estimate holds because its remaining right-hand terms are nonnegative: the values of the moduli of continuity ω\omega, ω1\omega_{1}, ω2\omega_{2}, ω3\omega_{3} are nonnegative by clause 1 of Modulus of Continuity, and 0<2ε0<2\varepsilon.

In both cases x1,y1∈D(A)x_{1},y_{1}\in D(A) satisfy ∣x1−x^∣H<ε|x_{1}-\hat{x}|_{H}<\varepsilon and ∣y1−y^∣H<ε|y_{1}-\hat{y}|_{H}<\varepsilon by Step 2, and τ1,τ2\tau_{1},\tau_{2} satisfy the stated bounds by Step 4.

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…