Throughout, Sym(V) and Sym(H) are vector spaces over R under the operations of Hilbert Triples: Standing Notation and Background §restriction (Elementary Properties of Bounded Symmetric Bilinear Forms: Norm, Quadratic Form, Order and Continuity §vector-space), so identities such as −(−X)=X, −(X−Z)=(−X)+Z and (−1)(λX)=(−λ)X hold for forms by Elementary Identities in a Vector Space, exactly as they hold in H and in R. Restriction is linear: (X+Z)∣V=X∣V+Z∣V and (λX)∣V=λ(X∣V) for X,Z∈Sym(H) by Elementary Properties of Bounded Symmetric Bilinear Forms: Norm, Quadratic Form, Order and Continuity §restriction. Real order facts are those of The Real Numbers: Standing Notation and Background; in particular s≤t if and only if −t≤−s (claim 4 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field). The lemma is stated for an arbitrary operator F and, in claims 4 and 5, an arbitrary function u; every claim is therefore proved for all such data at once, and once proved it may be applied to other data, in particular to the pair (F~,−u), with F~ an operator by claim 1. Such applications are marked below.
Claim 1. For (x,r,p,X)∈W×R×H×Sym(V) the quadruple (x,−r,−p,−X) lies in the same set, so F~(x,r,p,X)=−F(x,−r,−p,−X) is a well-defined real number and F~ is a second-order equation operator on U relative to (H,V,A). Applying the construction to F~ gives the operator (x,r,p,X)↦−F~(x,−r,−p,−X)=−(−F(x,−(−r),−(−p),−(−X)))=F(x,r,p,X).
Claim 2. Suppose F is degenerate elliptic, and let x∈W, r∈R, p∈H and X,Y∈Sym(V) with X⪯Y. Multiplying by −1≤0 (Elementary Properties of Bounded Symmetric Bilinear Forms: Norm, Quadratic Form, Order and Continuity §order-compatible) gives −Y⪯−X, so Degenerate Elliptic Second-Order Equation Operator on a Hilbert Triple §elliptic for F yields F(x,−r,−p,−X)≤F(x,−r,−p,−Y). Negating, F~(x,r,p,Y)=−F(x,−r,−p,−Y)≤−F(x,−r,−p,−X)=F~(x,r,p,X); hence F~ is degenerate elliptic. Conversely, if F~ is degenerate elliptic, then applying what was just proved to the operator F~ in place of F shows that the operator obtained from F~ by the same construction is degenerate elliptic, and that operator is F by claim 1.
Claim 3. Let δ>0 and (x,r,p,Y)∈W×R×H×Sym(H). By Second-Order Equation Operator on an Open Subset of a Hilbert Triple and Its δ-Shifts §shifted for F~ and the definition of F~,
F~δ+(x,r,p,Y)=F~(x,r−δh(x),p−δAx,Y∣V−δIV)=−F(x,−(r−δh(x)),−(p−δAx),−(Y∣V−δIV)).
Now −(r−δh(x))=(−r)+δh(x), −(p−δAx)=(−p)+δAx, and −(Y∣V−δIV)=−(Y∣V)+δIV=(−Y)∣V+δIV by the linearity of restriction. Hence the right side is −F(x,(−r)+δh(x),(−p)+δAx,(−Y)∣V+δIV)=−Fδ−(x,−r,−p,−Y), again by Second-Order Equation Operator on an Open Subset of a Hilbert Triple and Its δ-Shifts §shifted, now for F at (x,−r,−p,−Y). Similarly
F~δ−(x,r,p,Y)=−F(x,−(r+δh(x)),−(p+δAx),−(Y∣V+δIV))=−F(x,(−r)−δh(x),(−p)−δAx,(−Y)∣V−δIV)=−Fδ+(x,−r,−p,−Y).
Claim 4. Let u∈C2(U) and x∈W. By the preamble, −u∈C2(U) with D(−u)(x)=−Du(x) and D2(−u)(x)=−D2u(x), and (−D2u(x))∣V=−(D2u(x)∣V). Therefore
F~(x,(−u)(x),D(−u)(x),D2(−u)(x)∣V)=−F(x,u(x),Du(x),−(−(D2u(x)∣V)))=−F(x,u(x),Du(x),D2u(x)∣V).
Consequently F(x,u(x),Du(x),D2u(x)∣V)≤0 for every x∈W if and only if 0≤F~(x,(−u)(x),D(−u)(x),D2(−u)(x)∣V) for every x∈W; by Classical Subsolution, Supersolution and Solution of a Second-Order Equation on a Hilbert Triple §subsolution and Classical Subsolution, Supersolution and Solution of a Second-Order Equation on a Hilbert Triple §supersolution, u is a classical subsolution of F on U if and only if −u is a classical supersolution of F~ on U. The second equivalence follows by applying the first, proved for arbitrary data, to the pair (F~,−u), using claim 1 and −(−u)=u: −u is a classical subsolution of F~ if and only if u is a classical supersolution of F. The third is the conjunction of the first two (Classical Subsolution, Supersolution and Solution of a Second-Order Equation on a Hilbert Triple §solution).
Claim 5. We first prove the two forward implications.
(a) If u is a viscosity subsolution of F on U, then −u is a viscosity supersolution of F~ on U. By Viscosity Subsolution, Supersolution and Solution of a Second-Order Equation on a Hilbert Triple §subsolution, u is bounded above near each point of U, so by Basic Properties of the δ-Envelopes: Semicontinuity, Duality, Closed Superlevel Sets, Bounds and Monotonicity §duality −u is bounded below near each point of U and (−u)δ+=−uδ− on V∩U for every δ>0. Let δ>0, φ∈C2(U), ε>0, and let x^∈V∩U be a point at which (−u)δ+−φ has a local minimum relative to V∩U: there is a real ρ>0 with (−u)δ+(x^)−φ(x^)≤(−u)δ+(y)−φ(y) for every y∈V∩U with dH(x^,y)<ρ (Local Minimum of a Function Relative to a Subset of a Metric Space). Since (−u)δ+−φ=−(uδ−−(−φ)), negating this inequality shows that uδ−−(−φ) has a local maximum at x^ relative to V∩U (Local Maximum of a Function Relative to a Subset of a Metric Space, same ρ). As −φ∈C2(U) with D(−φ)(x^)=−Dφ(x^) and D2(−φ)(x^)=−D2φ(x^) (Constants, Sums, Scalar Multiples and Differences of Differentiable Functions on an Open Subset of a Real Inner Product Space §scalar), the subsolution property of u with the test function −φ provides y∈W, s∈R, q∈H and Y∈Sym(H) with
∣y−x^∣H<ε,∣uδ−(y)−uδ−(x^)∣<ε,∣s−uδ−(x^)∣<ε,∣q+Dφ(x^)∣H<ε,∥Y+D2φ(x^)∥<ε,Fδ−(y,s,q,Y)≤ε,
where we wrote q−(−Dφ(x^))=q+Dφ(x^) and Y−(−D2φ(x^))=Y+D2φ(x^). We claim that (y,−s,−q,−Y) witnesses the supersolution condition for −u, F~, φ, x^ and ε. Indeed y∈W and ∣y−x^∣H<ε are unchanged; ∣(−u)δ+(y)−(−u)δ+(x^)∣=∣−(uδ−(y)−uδ−(x^))∣<ε and ∣−s−(−u)δ+(x^)∣=∣−(s−uδ−(x^))∣<ε by claim 2 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field; ∣−q−Dφ(x^)∣H=∣−(q+Dφ(x^))∣H<ε by Elementary Identities in a Real Inner Product Space §homogeneity; ∥−Y−D2φ(x^)∥=∥−(Y+D2φ(x^))∥=∥Y+D2φ(x^)∥<ε by the identity ∥−Z∥=∥Z∥ recorded in the statement of the lemma; and by claim 3, F~δ+(y,−s,−q,−Y)=−Fδ−(y,s,q,Y)≥−ε. By Viscosity Subsolution, Supersolution and Solution of a Second-Order Equation on a Hilbert Triple §supersolution, −u is a viscosity supersolution of F~ on U.
(b) If u is a viscosity supersolution of F on U, then −u is a viscosity subsolution of F~ on U. The argument is the mirror image of (a). Now u is bounded below near each point of U, so −u is bounded above near each point of U and (−u)δ−=−uδ+ by Basic Properties of the δ-Envelopes: Semicontinuity, Duality, Closed Superlevel Sets, Bounds and Monotonicity §duality. Given δ, φ, ε and a local maximum x^ of (−u)δ−−φ=−(uδ+−(−φ)) relative to V∩U, the point x^ is a local minimum of uδ+−(−φ) relative to V∩U, and the supersolution property of u with the test function −φ provides (y,s,q,Y) with ∣y−x^∣H<ε, ∣uδ+(y)−uδ+(x^)∣<ε, ∣s−uδ+(x^)∣<ε, ∣q+Dφ(x^)∣H<ε, ∥Y+D2φ(x^)∥<ε and −ε≤Fδ+(y,s,q,Y). Then (y,−s,−q,−Y) satisfies the five closeness conditions for −u at x^: ∣y−x^∣H<ε is unchanged; using (−u)δ−=−uδ+, ∣(−u)δ−(y)−(−u)δ−(x^)∣=∣−(uδ+(y)−uδ+(x^))∣<ε and ∣−s−(−u)δ−(x^)∣=∣−(s−uδ+(x^))∣<ε (claim 2 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field); and ∣−q−Dφ(x^)∣H<ε and ∥−Y−D2φ(x^)∥<ε exactly as in (a). Finally F~δ−(y,−s,−q,−Y)=−Fδ+(y,s,q,Y)≤ε by claim 3. Hence −u is a viscosity subsolution of F~ on U.
Converses. Assertions (a) and (b) were proved for an arbitrary operator and an arbitrary function, so they may be applied to the pair (F~,−u), for which the construction returns F (claim 1) and −(−u)=u. If −u is a viscosity supersolution of F~ on U, then (b) for this pair shows that u is a viscosity subsolution of F on U. Likewise, if −u is a viscosity subsolution of F~ on U, then (a) for this pair shows that u is a viscosity supersolution of F on U. This proves the first two equivalences; the third is their conjunction (Viscosity Subsolution, Supersolution and Solution of a Second-Order Equation on a Hilbert Triple §solution). The final sentence of the claim is the content of Basic Properties of the δ-Envelopes: Semicontinuity, Duality, Closed Superlevel Sets, Bounds and Monotonicity §duality: u is bounded above near each point of U if and only if −u is bounded below, and u is bounded below if and only if −u is bounded above; for the third equivalence both statements are used together.