TheoremBase

Proof

Claims are cited by number from Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field (below, the order arithmetic lemma), Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, and, for the maximum and minimum of two real numbers, Elementary Properties of the Maximum of Two Elements and Elementary Properties of the Minimum of Two Elements (below, the maximum lemma and the minimum lemma), whose claim 1 bounds and whose claim 2 identifies the value with one of the two arguments.

Step 0: setup. Write K=Ω‾K=\overline{\Omega}. Since Ω\Omega is bounded in (Rn,dE)(\mathbb{R}^n,d_E), the set KK is compact in (Rn,TdE)(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathcal{T}_{d_E}) by The Closure of a Bounded Subset of Rn\mathbb{R}^n is Compact; and Ω⊆K\Omega\subseteq K by The Closure is the Smallest Closed Superset, so KK is nonempty. By Viscosity Subsolution and Supersolution up to the Boundary, uu is upper semicontinuous on KK and vv is lower semicontinuous on KK, and the restrictions u∣Ωu|_{\Omega} and v∣Ωv|_{\Omega} are respectively a viscosity subsolution and a viscosity supersolution of FF on Ω\Omega.

Equip Rn×Rn\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^n with the product metric dE×Ed_{E\times E} obtained from dEd_E and dEd_E, a metric by claim 1 of The Product Metric is a Metric, and with the collection of its subsets open in that metric, a topology by Metric Open Sets Form a Topology; by A Product of Compact Subsets is Compact in the Product Metric the set K×KK\times K is compact.

Let ψ:K×K→R\psi:K\times K\to\mathbb{R} be ψ(x,y)=dE(x,y)2\psi(x,y)=d_E(x,y)^2 and, for α∈R\alpha\in\mathbb{R} with 0<α0<\alpha, let

Φα(x,y)=u(x)−v(y)−α ψ(x,y)((x,y)∈K×K).\Phi_{\alpha}(x,y)=u(x)-v(y)-\alpha\,\psi(x,y)\qquad\bigl((x,y)\in K\times K\bigr).

By The Squared-Distance Penalization Limit on a Compact Set the function ψ\psi is lower semicontinuous on K×KK\times K, satisfies 0≤ψ0\le\psi, satisfies ψ(x,y)=0\psi(x,y)=0 if and only if x=yx=y, and claims 1 to 6 of Limits of Penalized Maxima on a Compact Set hold for these functions. In particular claim 1 provides the maximum value MM of u−vu-v on KK and, for each α\alpha with 0<α0<\alpha, the maximum value MαM_{\alpha} of Φα\Phi_{\alpha} on K×KK\times K; for each such α\alpha fix a point (xα,yα)∈K×K(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\in K\times K with Φα(xα,yα)=Mα\Phi_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})=M_{\alpha}, the remaining claims holding for any such choice.

Step 1: the contradiction hypothesis. Suppose, for contradiction, that there is z∈Kz\in K for which u(z)≤v(z)u(z)\le v(z) fails. Since ≤\le is a total order, this means v(z)<u(z)v(z)<u(z), so adding −v(z)-v(z) and using claim 1 of the order arithmetic lemma gives 0<u(z)−v(z)0<u(z)-v(z). By claim 1 of Limits of Penalized Maxima on a Compact Set we have u(z)−v(z)≤Mu(z)-v(z)\le M, so by claim 2 of the order arithmetic lemma

0<M.0<M .

Write δ=M\delta=M. By claim 4 of Limits of Penalized Maxima on a Compact Set,

δ≤u(xα)−v(yα)for every α with 0<α.(∗)\delta\le u(x_{\alpha})-v(y_{\alpha})\qquad\text{for every }\alpha\text{ with }0<\alpha. \tag{$*$}

Step 2: for large α\alpha both xαx_{\alpha} and yαy_{\alpha} lie in Ω\Omega. Let

B={(x,y)∈Rn×Rn: x∈∂RnΩ or y∈∂RnΩ}.B=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^n:\ x\in\partial_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Omega\ \text{or}\ y\in\partial_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Omega\}.

(a) BB is closed. By claim 2 of Decomposition of a Topological Space by the Boundary of a Subset the set ∂RnΩ\partial_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Omega is closed in (Rn,TdE)(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathcal{T}_{d_E}), so its complement N=Rn∖∂RnΩN=\mathbb{R}^n\setminus\partial_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Omega belongs to TdE\mathcal{T}_{d_E}. Let (a,b)(a,b) lie in the complement of BB, that is, a∈Na\in N and b∈Nb\in N. By Open Subset of a Metric Space there are r1,r2∈Rr_1,r_2\in\mathbb{R} with 0<r10<r_1, 0<r20<r_2 such that every xx with dE(a,x)<r1d_E(a,x)<r_1 lies in NN and every yy with dE(b,y)<r2d_E(b,y)<r_2 lies in NN. Let rr be the minimum of r1r_1 and r2r_2; by claims 2 and 1 of the minimum lemma, 0<r0<r, r≤r1r\le r_1 and r≤r2r\le r_2. If dE×E((a,b),(x,y))<rd_{E\times E}((a,b),(x,y))<r, then by the definition of the product metric and claim 1 of the maximum lemma we have dE(a,x)≤dE×E((a,b),(x,y))d_E(a,x)\le d_{E\times E}((a,b),(x,y)) and dE(b,y)≤dE×E((a,b),(x,y))d_E(b,y)\le d_{E\times E}((a,b),(x,y)), so by claim 2 of the order arithmetic lemma dE(a,x)<r1d_E(a,x)<r_1 and dE(b,y)<r2d_E(b,y)<r_2; hence x∈Nx\in N and y∈Ny\in N, that is, (x,y)(x,y) lies in the complement of BB. Therefore the complement of BB is open in dE×Ed_{E\times E} and BB is closed.

(b) A compact set of bad pairs. By claim 1 of Compactness of Intersections with Closed Sets and of Level Sets of Semicontinuous Functions, applied in the metric space (Rn×Rn,dE×E)(\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^n,d_{E\times E}) to the compact set K×KK\times K and the closed set BB, the set C=(K×K)∩BC=(K\times K)\cap B is compact. Let h:K×K→Rh:K\times K\to\mathbb{R} be h(x,y)=u(x)−v(y)h(x,y)=u(x)-v(y); by claim 4 of Negation, Restriction, and Separated Differences of Semicontinuous Functions the function hh is upper semicontinuous on K×KK\times K, and by claim 2 of that lemma its restriction to CC is upper semicontinuous on CC. Hence, by claim 2 of Compactness of Intersections with Closed Sets and of Level Sets of Semicontinuous Functions applied to the compact set CC, that restriction and the real number δ\delta, the set

D={(x,y)∈C: δ≤h(x,y)}D=\{(x,y)\in C:\ \delta\le h(x,y)\}

is compact.

(c) On DD the penalty is bounded below by a positive number. Suppose DD is nonempty. The function ψ\psi is lower semicontinuous on K×KK\times K, hence, by claim 2 of Negation, Restriction, and Separated Differences of Semicontinuous Functions and D⊆K×KD\subseteq K\times K, its restriction to DD is lower semicontinuous on DD. By claim 2 of Semicontinuous Functions Attain Their Extrema on a Compact Set there is (x∗,y∗)∈D(x^{*},y^{*})\in D with

ψ(x∗,y∗)≤ψ(x,y)for every (x,y)∈D.\psi(x^{*},y^{*})\le\psi(x,y)\qquad\text{for every }(x,y)\in D .

We claim θ=ψ(x∗,y∗)\theta=\psi(x^{*},y^{*}) satisfies 0<θ0<\theta. Since 0≤ψ0\le\psi, it suffices to exclude θ=0\theta=0. If θ=0\theta=0, then x∗=y∗x^{*}=y^{*} by the property of ψ\psi recorded in Step 0. As (x∗,y∗)∈B(x^{*},y^{*})\in B, either x∗∈∂RnΩx^{*}\in\partial_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Omega or y∗∈∂RnΩy^{*}\in\partial_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Omega, and in both cases x∗∈∂RnΩx^{*}\in\partial_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Omega. On the other hand δ≤h(x∗,y∗)=u(x∗)−v(x∗)\delta\le h(x^{*},y^{*})=u(x^{*})-v(x^{*}), and 0<δ0<\delta, so 0<u(x∗)−v(x∗)0<u(x^{*})-v(x^{*}) by claim 2 of the order arithmetic lemma, whence v(x∗)<u(x∗)v(x^{*})<u(x^{*}) by claim 1. This contradicts the boundary hypothesis u(x∗)≤v(x∗)u(x^{*})\le v(x^{*}) together with antisymmetry of ≤\le. Hence 0<θ0<\theta.

(d) Interiority. By claim 4 of Limits of Penalized Maxima on a Compact Set applied with ε=1\varepsilon=1 there is α1∈R\alpha_1\in\mathbb{R} with 0<α10<\alpha_1 such that

α ψ(xα,yα)≤1whenever α1≤α.\alpha\,\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\le 1\qquad\text{whenever }\alpha_1\le\alpha .

Define α3\alpha_3 as follows: if DD is empty, let α3=α1\alpha_3=\alpha_1; otherwise, with θ\theta as in (c), let α3\alpha_3 be the maximum of α1\alpha_1 and 2 θ−12\,\theta^{-1}, which is positive because θ−1\theta^{-1} is positive by claim 7 of the order arithmetic lemma and 0<20<2.

Let α\alpha satisfy α3≤α\alpha_3\le\alpha; then α1≤α\alpha_1\le\alpha and 0<α0<\alpha. We show (xα,yα)∉D(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\notin D. If DD is empty this is trivial. Otherwise 2 θ−1≤α2\,\theta^{-1}\le\alpha, so multiplying by the nonnegative θ\theta gives 2=(2 θ−1)θ≤α θ2=(2\,\theta^{-1})\theta\le\alpha\,\theta; since 0<10<1 gives 1<1+1=21<1+1=2 by claim 1 of the order arithmetic lemma, claim 2 yields 1<α θ1<\alpha\,\theta. If we had θ≤ψ(xα,yα)\theta\le\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}), then multiplying by the nonnegative α\alpha would give α θ≤α ψ(xα,yα)≤1\alpha\,\theta\le\alpha\,\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\le1, contradicting 1<α θ1<\alpha\,\theta. Hence ψ(xα,yα)<θ\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})<\theta, and since θ≤ψ(x,y)\theta\le\psi(x,y) for every (x,y)∈D(x,y)\in D, we conclude (xα,yα)∉D(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\notin D.

Now (xα,yα)∈K×K(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\in K\times K and, by (∗)(*), δ≤h(xα,yα)\delta\le h(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}). Were (xα,yα)∈B(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\in B, it would lie in CC and therefore in DD, which we have excluded. Hence xα∉∂RnΩx_{\alpha}\notin\partial_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Omega and yα∉∂RnΩy_{\alpha}\notin\partial_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Omega. By claim 5 of Decomposition of a Topological Space by the Boundary of a Subset the union of int⁡Rn(Ω)\operatorname{int}_{\mathbb{R}^n}(\Omega) and ∂RnΩ\partial_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Omega is KK, and int⁡Rn(Ω)=Ω\operatorname{int}_{\mathbb{R}^n}(\Omega)=\Omega by The Interior is the Largest Open Subset because Ω∈TdE\Omega\in\mathcal{T}_{d_E}. Therefore

xα∈Ωandyα∈Ωwhenever α3≤α.x_{\alpha}\in\Omega\quad\text{and}\quad y_{\alpha}\in\Omega\qquad\text{whenever }\alpha_3\le\alpha .

Step 3: the two viscosity inequalities. Fix α\alpha with α3≤α\alpha_3\le\alpha and write x^=xα\hat{x}=x_{\alpha}, y^=yα\hat{y}=y_{\alpha} and pα=(2α)(x^−y^)p_{\alpha}=(2\alpha)(\hat{x}-\hat{y}).

(a) Subsolution. Let q1:Ω→Rq_1:\Omega\to\mathbb{R} be q1(x)=α dE(x,y^)2q_1(x)=\alpha\,d_E(x,\hat{y})^2 and let k1:Ω→Rk_1:\Omega\to\mathbb{R} be the constant function with value −v(y^)-v(\hat{y}). By A Scaled Squared Distance to a Point is of Class C2C^2, with Gradient and Hessian, applied with U=ΩU=\Omega, a=y^a=\hat{y} and c=αc=\alpha, the function q1q_1 is of class C2C^2 on Ω\Omega with gradient Dq1(x)=(2α)(x−y^)Dq_1(x)=(2\alpha)(x-\hat{y}) at every x∈Ωx\in\Omega. By claim 2 of Differences and Constants for Functions of Class C2C^2 on a Euclidean Open Set the function k1k_1 is of class C2C^2 on Ω\Omega with gradient the origin of Rn\mathbb{R}^n at every point, and by claim 1 of that lemma the function φ=q1−k1\varphi=q_1-k_1 is of class C2C^2 on Ω\Omega with

Dφ(x)=Dq1(x)−0Rn=(2α)(x−y^),D\varphi(x)=Dq_1(x)-0_{\mathbb{R}^n}=(2\alpha)(x-\hat{y}),

where the identity z−0Rn=zz-0_{\mathbb{R}^n}=z holds because Rn\mathbb{R}^n is a real vector space by Euclidean Space Rn\mathbb{R}^n is a Real Vector Space. In particular Dφ(x^)=pαD\varphi(\hat{x})=p_{\alpha}. Note φ(x)=q1(x)+v(y^)=v(y^)+α ψ(x,y^)\varphi(x)=q_1(x)+v(\hat{y})=v(\hat{y})+\alpha\,\psi(x,\hat{y}) for x∈Ωx\in\Omega.

Since (x^,y^)(\hat{x},\hat{y}) maximizes Φα\Phi_{\alpha} on K×KK\times K and Ω⊆K\Omega\subseteq K, for every x∈Ωx\in\Omega

(u∣Ω−φ)(x)=u(x)−v(y^)−α ψ(x,y^)=Φα(x,y^)≤Φα(x^,y^)=(u∣Ω−φ)(x^),\bigl(u|_{\Omega}-\varphi\bigr)(x)=u(x)-v(\hat{y})-\alpha\,\psi(x,\hat{y})=\Phi_{\alpha}(x,\hat{y})\le\Phi_{\alpha}(\hat{x},\hat{y})=\bigl(u|_{\Omega}-\varphi\bigr)(\hat{x}),

so, taking δ=1\delta=1 in Local Maximum of a Function Relative to a Subset of a Metric Space, the function u∣Ω−φu|_{\Omega}-\varphi has a local maximum at x^\hat{x} relative to Ω\Omega. Since u∣Ωu|_{\Omega} is a viscosity subsolution of FF on Ω\Omega, Viscosity Subsolution and Supersolution of a Second-Order Equation gives

F(x^,u(x^),pα,X1)≤0,X1=D2φ(x^),F\bigl(\hat{x},u(\hat{x}),p_{\alpha},X_1\bigr)\le0,\qquad X_1=D^2\varphi(\hat{x}),

where X1∈S(n)X_1\in\mathcal{S}(n) by Equality of Mixed Second Partial Derivatives and Symmetry of the Hessian.

(b) Supersolution. Let q2:Ω→Rq_2:\Omega\to\mathbb{R} be q2(y)=α dE(y,x^)2q_2(y)=\alpha\,d_E(y,\hat{x})^2 and let k2:Ω→Rk_2:\Omega\to\mathbb{R} be the constant function with value u(x^)u(\hat{x}). By A Scaled Squared Distance to a Point is of Class C2C^2, with Gradient and Hessian, applied with a=x^a=\hat{x} and c=αc=\alpha, the function q2q_2 is of class C2C^2 on Ω\Omega with Dq2(y)=(2α)(y−x^)Dq_2(y)=(2\alpha)(y-\hat{x}), and by claims 1 and 2 of Differences and Constants for Functions of Class C2C^2 on a Euclidean Open Set the function χ=k2−q2\chi=k_2-q_2 is of class C2C^2 on Ω\Omega with

Dχ(y)=0Rn−(2α)(y−x^)=(2α)(x^−y),D\chi(y)=0_{\mathbb{R}^n}-(2\alpha)(y-\hat{x})=(2\alpha)(\hat{x}-y),

the last identity again holding in the real vector space Rn\mathbb{R}^n of Euclidean Space Rn\mathbb{R}^n is a Real Vector Space. In particular Dχ(y^)=pαD\chi(\hat{y})=p_{\alpha}. Since dEd_E is symmetric, χ(y)=u(x^)−α ψ(x^,y)\chi(y)=u(\hat{x})-\alpha\,\psi(\hat{x},y) for y∈Ωy\in\Omega.

For every y∈Ωy\in\Omega we have Φα(x^,y)≤Φα(x^,y^)\Phi_{\alpha}(\hat{x},y)\le\Phi_{\alpha}(\hat{x},\hat{y}), that is,

χ(y)−v(y)≤χ(y^)−v(y^),\chi(y)-v(y)\le\chi(\hat{y})-v(\hat{y}),

and adding v(y)+v(y^)−χ(y)−χ(y^)v(y)+v(\hat{y})-\chi(y)-\chi(\hat{y}) to both sides, which preserves the relation ≤\le by claim 3 (translation) of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field applied twice, gives

(v∣Ω−χ)(y^)≤(v∣Ω−χ)(y).\bigl(v|_{\Omega}-\chi\bigr)(\hat{y})\le\bigl(v|_{\Omega}-\chi\bigr)(y).

Hence, taking δ=1\delta=1 in the definition of a local minimum, the function v∣Ω−χv|_{\Omega}-\chi has a local minimum at y^\hat{y} relative to Ω\Omega. Since v∣Ωv|_{\Omega} is a viscosity supersolution of FF on Ω\Omega, Viscosity Subsolution and Supersolution of a Second-Order Equation gives

0≤F(y^,v(y^),pα,X2),X2=D2χ(y^),0\le F\bigl(\hat{y},v(\hat{y}),p_{\alpha},X_2\bigr),\qquad X_2=D^2\chi(\hat{y}),

with X2∈S(n)X_2\in\mathcal{S}(n) by Equality of Mixed Second Partial Derivatives and Symmetry of the Hessian.

(c) Removing the matrix arguments. Set Xα=X1X_{\alpha}=X_1. By hypothesis 1 of the theorem, F(y^,v(y^),pα,X2)=F(y^,v(y^),pα,Xα)F(\hat{y},v(\hat{y}),p_{\alpha},X_2)=F(\hat{y},v(\hat{y}),p_{\alpha},X_{\alpha}), so

F(x^,u(x^),pα,Xα)≤0≤F(y^,v(y^),pα,Xα).(∗∗)F\bigl(\hat{x},u(\hat{x}),p_{\alpha},X_{\alpha}\bigr)\le0\le F\bigl(\hat{y},v(\hat{y}),p_{\alpha},X_{\alpha}\bigr). \tag{$**$}

Step 4: strict properness and the structure condition. By (∗)(*) we have δ≤u(x^)−v(y^)\delta\le u(\hat{x})-v(\hat{y}), and 0<δ0<\delta, so 0<u(x^)−v(y^)0<u(\hat{x})-v(\hat{y}) and hence v(y^)≤u(x^)v(\hat{y})\le u(\hat{x}) by claim 3 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field. Condition 2 of Strictly Proper Second-Order Equation Operator, applied at the point x^\hat{x} with p=pαp=p_{\alpha}, X=XαX=X_{\alpha}, r=u(x^)r=u(\hat{x}) and s=v(y^)s=v(\hat{y}), gives

γ(u(x^)−v(y^))≤F(x^,u(x^),pα,Xα)−F(x^,v(y^),pα,Xα).\gamma\bigl(u(\hat{x})-v(\hat{y})\bigr)\le F\bigl(\hat{x},u(\hat{x}),p_{\alpha},X_{\alpha}\bigr)-F\bigl(\hat{x},v(\hat{y}),p_{\alpha},X_{\alpha}\bigr).

Multiplying δ≤u(x^)−v(y^)\delta\le u(\hat{x})-v(\hat{y}) by the nonnegative γ\gamma (claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field) and using transitivity,

γ δ≤F(x^,u(x^),pα,Xα)−F(x^,v(y^),pα,Xα).\gamma\,\delta\le F\bigl(\hat{x},u(\hat{x}),p_{\alpha},X_{\alpha}\bigr)-F\bigl(\hat{x},v(\hat{y}),p_{\alpha},X_{\alpha}\bigr).

Write the right-hand side as the sum

(F(x^,u(x^),pα,Xα)−F(y^,v(y^),pα,Xα))+(F(y^,v(y^),pα,Xα)−F(x^,v(y^),pα,Xα)),\Bigl(F\bigl(\hat{x},u(\hat{x}),p_{\alpha},X_{\alpha}\bigr)-F\bigl(\hat{y},v(\hat{y}),p_{\alpha},X_{\alpha}\bigr)\Bigr)+\Bigl(F\bigl(\hat{y},v(\hat{y}),p_{\alpha},X_{\alpha}\bigr)-F\bigl(\hat{x},v(\hat{y}),p_{\alpha},X_{\alpha}\bigr)\Bigr),

an identity of field arithmetic. By (∗∗)(**) the first summand is at most 00. Since x^,y^∈Ω\hat{x},\hat{y}\in\Omega and pα=(2α)(x^−y^)p_{\alpha}=(2\alpha)(\hat{x}-\hat{y}) with 0<2α0<2\alpha, hypothesis 3 of the theorem, applied with x=x^x=\hat{x}, y=y^y=\hat{y}, r=v(y^)r=v(\hat{y}), X=XαX=X_{\alpha} and β=2α\beta=2\alpha, bounds the second summand by ω(tα)\omega(t_{\alpha}), where

tα=2α ψ(x^,y^)+dE(x^,y^),t_{\alpha}=2\alpha\,\psi(\hat{x},\hat{y})+d_E(\hat{x},\hat{y}),

which satisfies 0≤tα0\le t_{\alpha} by claims 2 and 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field. Adding the two bounds by claim 3 of the order arithmetic lemma and using transitivity,

γ δ≤ω(tα)whenever α3≤α.(∗ ⁣∗ ⁣∗)\gamma\,\delta\le\omega(t_{\alpha})\qquad\text{whenever }\alpha_3\le\alpha. \tag{$*\!*\!*$}

Step 5: the contradiction. Since 0<γ0<\gamma and 0<δ0<\delta, claim 5 of the order arithmetic lemma gives 0<γ δ0<\gamma\,\delta. By claim 8 of that lemma there is ε∈R\varepsilon\in\mathbb{R} with 0<ε0<\varepsilon and ε+ε=γ δ\varepsilon+\varepsilon=\gamma\,\delta; adding ε\varepsilon to 0<ε0<\varepsilon gives ε<γ δ\varepsilon<\gamma\,\delta. Since ω\omega is a modulus of continuity, condition 2 of Modulus of Continuity provides σ∈R\sigma\in\mathbb{R} with 0<σ0<\sigma such that every tt with 0≤t≤σ0\le t\le\sigma satisfies ω(t)≤ε\omega(t)\le\varepsilon.

Applying claim 8 of the order arithmetic lemma twice, choose η∈R\eta\in\mathbb{R} with 0<η0<\eta and (η+η)+(η+η)=σ(\eta+\eta)+(\eta+\eta)=\sigma. By claim 4 of Limits of Penalized Maxima on a Compact Set, applied with η\eta in the role of its ε\varepsilon, there is α4\alpha_4 with 0<α40<\alpha_4 such that α ψ(xα,yα)≤η\alpha\,\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\le\eta whenever α4≤α\alpha_4\le\alpha; multiplying by the nonnegative 22 gives 2α ψ(xα,yα)≤η+η2\alpha\,\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\le\eta+\eta for such α\alpha. By claim 5 of Limits of Penalized Maxima on a Compact Set, applied with η+η\eta+\eta in the role of its η\eta, there is α5\alpha_5 with 0<α50<\alpha_5 such that dE(xα,yα)<η+ηd_E(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})<\eta+\eta whenever α5≤α\alpha_5\le\alpha.

Let α\alpha be the maximum of α3\alpha_3 and the maximum of α4\alpha_4 and α5\alpha_5; then 0<α0<\alpha and α3≤α\alpha_3\le\alpha, α4≤α\alpha_4\le\alpha, α5≤α\alpha_5\le\alpha by claim 1 of the maximum lemma and transitivity. For this α\alpha, adding the two displayed bounds by claim 3 of the order arithmetic lemma gives

tα=2α ψ(xα,yα)+dE(xα,yα)<(η+η)+(η+η)=σ,t_{\alpha}=2\alpha\,\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})+d_E(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})<(\eta+\eta)+(\eta+\eta)=\sigma ,

so 0≤tα≤σ0\le t_{\alpha}\le\sigma and therefore ω(tα)≤ε\omega(t_{\alpha})\le\varepsilon. Combining with (∗ ⁣∗ ⁣∗)(*\!*\!*) and ε<γ δ\varepsilon<\gamma\,\delta,

γ δ≤ω(tα)≤ε<γ δ,\gamma\,\delta\le\omega(t_{\alpha})\le\varepsilon<\gamma\,\delta ,

which contradicts antisymmetry of ≤\le.

Therefore no z∈Ω‾z\in\overline{\Omega} with u(z)≤v(z)u(z)\le v(z) failing exists, that is, u(x)≤v(x)u(x)\le v(x) for every x∈Ω‾x\in\overline{\Omega}.

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…