TheoremBase

The envelopes of WW are pinched to the boundary data on the boundary. The sup-of-subsolutions lemma makes the upper envelope of WW a competitor, so WW equals it and is a subsolution; if the lower envelope of WW failed the supersolution inequality, the bump construction would produce a strictly larger competitor. Comparison between WW and its lower envelope then closes the argument.

Proof

Conventions. From the setting we use the real numbers with their order, Euclidean space with its distance dEd_{E} and notion of openness, and the notions of semicontinuity and local extrema. Elementary order facts are those of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field; the non-strict compatibility of ≤\le with addition is an axiom of the ordered field R\mathbb{R}, whose order is a total order, so that its reflexivity, antisymmetry, transitivity and totality are axioms of that definition. If a<ba<b fails then b≤ab\le a: by totality a≤ba\le b or b≤ab\le a, and in the first case a≠ba\ne b would give a<ba<b, so a=ba=b and b≤ab\le a by reflexivity.

Throughout, Ω⊆Ω‾\Omega\subseteq\overline{\Omega} and ∂Ω=Ω‾∖Ω\partial\Omega=\overline{\Omega}\setminus\Omega, as recorded in Viscosity Sub- and Supersolutions and Solutions of the Dirichlet Problem; in particular Ω\Omega and ∂Ω\partial\Omega are disjoint. For w‾∈G\underline{w}\in\mathcal{G} the restriction w‾∣Ω\underline{w}|_{\Omega} is a viscosity subsolution of FF on Ω\Omega, by the definition of a subsolution up to the boundary.

Step 1: WW and its envelopes. Every x∈Ω‾x\in\overline{\Omega} satisfies u‾(x)≤W(x)≤u‾(x)\underline{u}(x)\le W(x)\le\overline{u}(x): the first because u‾∈G\underline{u}\in\mathcal{G}, the second because u‾(x)\overline{u}(x) is an upper bound of the set whose least upper bound is W(x)W(x). Hence −M≤W(x)≤M-M\le W(x)\le M for every x∈Ω‾x\in\overline{\Omega}, by claim 6 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field applied to the hypothesis Perron's Method: Existence of a Viscosity Solution of the Dirichlet Problem (ii) and transitivity. Taking any positive radius, this shows that WW is bounded above and below near each point of Ω‾\overline{\Omega}, so W∗W^{*} and W∗W_{*} are defined.

Step 2: the envelopes agree with the boundary data on ∂Ω\partial\Omega. The functions u‾\underline{u} and u‾\overline{u} are likewise bounded above and below near each point of Ω‾\overline{\Omega}, so all four envelopes occurring below are defined. From W(x)≤u‾(x)W(x)\le\overline{u}(x) for every xx and claim 6 of Properties of the Upper Semicontinuous Envelope we get W∗(x)≤u‾∗(x)W^{*}(x)\le\overline{u}^{*}(x), and from u‾(x)≤W(x)\underline{u}(x)\le W(x) and claim 7 of Properties of the Lower Semicontinuous Envelope, by Duality we get u‾∗(x)≤W∗(x)\underline{u}_{*}(x)\le W_{*}(x), for every x∈Ω‾x\in\overline{\Omega}. Let x∈∂Ωx\in\partial\Omega. By hypothesis Perron's Method: Existence of a Viscosity Solution of the Dirichlet Problem (ii),

g(x)=u‾∗(x)≤W∗(x)≤W(x)≤W∗(x)≤u‾∗(x)=g(x),g(x)=\underline{u}_{*}(x)\le W_{*}(x)\le W(x)\le W^{*}(x)\le\overline{u}^{*}(x)=g(x),

using claim 2 of Properties of the Lower Semicontinuous Envelope, by Duality and claim 1 of Properties of the Upper Semicontinuous Envelope for the two middle inequalities. By transitivity and antisymmetry,

(1)W∗(x)=W(x)=W∗(x)=g(x)for every x∈∂Ω.(1)\qquad W_{*}(x)=W(x)=W^{*}(x)=g(x)\qquad\text{for every }x\in\partial\Omega .

Step 3: the envelopes are computed inside Ω\Omega from the restriction. Let x∈Ωx\in\Omega. Since Ω\Omega is open, claim 4 of The Interior is the Largest Open Subset and claim 1 of Interior Points in the Metric Topology are Exactly the Centres of Contained Closed Balls give a positive rr with {y∈Rn:dE(y,x)≤r}⊆Ω\{y\in\mathbb{R}^{n}:d_{E}(y,x)\le r\}\subseteq\Omega; hence the set Sr={y∈Ω‾:dE(y,x)≤r}S_{r}=\{y\in\overline{\Omega}:d_{E}(y,x)\le r\} coincides with {y∈Ω:dE(y,x)≤r}\{y\in\Omega:d_{E}(y,x)\le r\} and W∣Sr=(W∣Ω)∣SrW|_{S_{r}}=(W|_{\Omega})|_{S_{r}}. Applying claim 4 of Semicontinuity and the Semicontinuous Envelopes are Local Notions twice, once with the ambient set Ω‾\overline{\Omega} and once with the ambient set Ω\Omega, and evaluating at y=xy=x, we obtain W∗(x)=(W∣Sr)∗(x)=(W∣Ω)∗(x)W^{*}(x)=(W|_{S_{r}})^{*}(x)=(W|_{\Omega})^{*}(x). The same argument with claim 5 of that lemma gives W∗(x)=(W∣Ω)∗(x)W_{*}(x)=(W|_{\Omega})_{*}(x). Thus

(2)W∗(x)=(W∣Ω)∗(x)andW∗(x)=(W∣Ω)∗(x)for every x∈Ω.(2)\qquad W^{*}(x)=(W|_{\Omega})^{*}(x)\quad\text{and}\quad W_{*}(x)=(W|_{\Omega})_{*}(x)\qquad\text{for every }x\in\Omega .

Step 4: WW is a viscosity subsolution of (F,g)(F,g). Let F\mathcal{F} be the set of the restrictions w‾∣Ω\underline{w}|_{\Omega} with w‾∈G\underline{w}\in\mathcal{G}, a nonempty set of viscosity subsolutions of FF on Ω\Omega. It is locally uniformly bounded above in the sense of The Upper Semicontinuous Envelope of a Supremum of Viscosity Subsolutions is a Viscosity Subsolution (i): given x∈Ωx\in\Omega, take c=Mc=M and any positive radius, since every w‾∈G\underline{w}\in\mathcal{G} satisfies w‾(y)≤u‾(y)≤M\underline{w}(y)\le\overline{u}(y)\le M at every y∈Ω‾y\in\overline{\Omega}, by the definition of G\mathcal{G}, hypothesis Perron's Method: Existence of a Viscosity Solution of the Dirichlet Problem (ii), claim 6 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field and transitivity. Its pointwise supremum is W∣ΩW|_{\Omega}, by the definition of WW. Hence The Upper Semicontinuous Envelope of a Supremum of Viscosity Subsolutions is a Viscosity Subsolution shows that (W∣Ω)∗(W|_{\Omega})^{*} is a viscosity subsolution of FF on Ω\Omega, and by (2) this function is W∗∣ΩW^{*}|_{\Omega}.

By claim 2 of Properties of the Upper Semicontinuous Envelope the function W∗W^{*} is upper semicontinuous on Ω‾\overline{\Omega}, so W∗W^{*} is a viscosity subsolution of FF up to the boundary of Ω\Omega; and W∗(x)=g(x)W^{*}(x)=g(x) for x∈∂Ωx\in\partial\Omega by (1). Therefore W∗W^{*} is a viscosity subsolution of (F,g)(F,g). By claim 1 of Properties of the Upper Semicontinuous Envelope and Step 1 we have u‾(x)≤W(x)≤W∗(x)\underline{u}(x)\le W(x)\le W^{*}(x) for every xx, and hypothesis Perron's Method: Existence of a Viscosity Solution of the Dirichlet Problem (i), applied to the subsolution W∗W^{*} and the supersolution u‾\overline{u}, gives W∗(x)≤u‾(x)W^{*}(x)\le\overline{u}(x). Hence W∗∈GW^{*}\in\mathcal{G}, so W∗(x)≤W(x)W^{*}(x)\le W(x) for every x∈Ω‾x\in\overline{\Omega}, W(x)W(x) being an upper bound of the values of the members of G\mathcal{G} at xx. With W≤W∗W\le W^{*} and antisymmetry this gives W=W∗W=W^{*}. In particular WW is a viscosity subsolution of (F,g)(F,g).

Step 5: W∗W_{*} restricted to Ω\Omega is a viscosity supersolution of FF. By claim 3 of Properties of the Lower Semicontinuous Envelope, by Duality the function W∗W_{*} is lower semicontinuous on Ω‾\overline{\Omega}, hence its restriction to Ω\Omega is lower semicontinuous on Ω\Omega by claim 2 of Negation, Restriction, and Separated Differences of Semicontinuous Functions. Suppose, seeking a contradiction, that W∗∣ΩW_{*}|_{\Omega} is not a viscosity supersolution of FF on Ω\Omega. By the definition of a viscosity supersolution the failure must then be of the test inequality: there are x^∈Ω\hat x\in\Omega and a function φ:Ω→R\varphi:\Omega\to\mathbb{R} of class C2C^{2} on Ω\Omega such that W∗∣Ω−φW_{*}|_{\Omega}-\varphi has a local minimum at x^\hat x relative to Ω\Omega and 0≤F(x^,W∗(x^),Dφ(x^),D2φ(x^))0\le F(\hat x,W_{*}(\hat x),D\varphi(\hat x),D^{2}\varphi(\hat x)) fails, hence, by the remark in the Conventions,

F(x^,W∗(x^),Dφ(x^),D2φ(x^))<0.F\bigl(\hat x,W_{*}(\hat x),D\varphi(\hat x),D^{2}\varphi(\hat x)\bigr)<0 .

The function W∣ΩW|_{\Omega} is a viscosity subsolution of FF on Ω\Omega by Step 4 and (2), being W∗∣ΩW^{*}|_{\Omega}; it is bounded below near each point of Ω\Omega by Step 1, and its lower semicontinuous envelope is W∗∣ΩW_{*}|_{\Omega} by (2). So The Bump Construction: Raising a Subsolution Whose Lower Envelope Fails the Supersolution Inequality applies to it at x^\hat x with the test function φ\varphi.

Since Ω\Omega is open, choose as in Step 3 a positive κ\kappa with {y∈Rn:dE(y,x^)≤κ}⊆Ω\{y\in\mathbb{R}^{n}:d_{E}(y,\hat x)\le\kappa\}\subseteq\Omega, and let Uκ:Ω→RU_{\kappa}:\Omega\to\mathbb{R} be as provided by The Bump Construction: Raising a Subsolution Whose Lower Envelope Fails the Supersolution Inequality for this κ\kappa. Define W^:Ω‾→R\widehat{W}:\overline{\Omega}\to\mathbb{R} by W^(x)=Uκ(x)\widehat{W}(x)=U_{\kappa}(x) for x∈Ωx\in\Omega and W^(x)=W(x)\widehat{W}(x)=W(x) for x∈∂Ωx\in\partial\Omega; this is well defined because Ω\Omega and ∂Ω\partial\Omega are disjoint and cover Ω‾\overline{\Omega}.

W^\widehat{W} agrees with WW off the ball of radius κ\kappa. If x∈Ωx\in\Omega and κ≤dE(x,x^)\kappa\le d_{E}(x,\hat x) then W^(x)=Uκ(x)=W(x)\widehat{W}(x)=U_{\kappa}(x)=W(x) by The Bump Construction: Raising a Subsolution Whose Lower Envelope Fails the Supersolution Inequality (iii). If x∈∂Ωx\in\partial\Omega then x∉Ωx\notin\Omega, so dE(x,x^)≤κd_{E}(x,\hat x)\le\kappa fails and hence κ<dE(x,x^)\kappa<d_{E}(x,\hat x) by the remark in the Conventions, while W^(x)=W(x)\widehat{W}(x)=W(x) by definition.

W^\widehat{W} is upper semicontinuous on Ω‾\overline{\Omega}. Let x∈Ω‾x\in\overline{\Omega}. If x∈Ωx\in\Omega, choose as in Step 3 a positive rr with {y∈Rn:dE(y,x)≤r}⊆Ω\{y\in\mathbb{R}^{n}:d_{E}(y,x)\le r\}\subseteq\Omega; then the set Sr={y∈Ω‾:dE(y,x)≤r}S_{r}=\{y\in\overline{\Omega}:d_{E}(y,x)\le r\} is contained in Ω\Omega, on which W^\widehat{W} agrees with UκU_{\kappa}, and UκU_{\kappa} is upper semicontinuous on Ω\Omega, being a viscosity subsolution there by The Bump Construction: Raising a Subsolution Whose Lower Envelope Fails the Supersolution Inequality (i); so W^∣Sr\widehat{W}|_{S_{r}} is upper semicontinuous at xx relative to SrS_{r} by claim 2 of Negation, Restriction, and Separated Differences of Semicontinuous Functions, and claim 1 of Semicontinuity and the Semicontinuous Envelopes are Local Notions gives that W^\widehat{W} is upper semicontinuous at xx relative to Ω‾\overline{\Omega}. If x∈∂Ωx\in\partial\Omega, put ε=dE(x,x^)−κ\varepsilon=d_{E}(x,\hat x)-\kappa, which is positive by the previous paragraph and claim 1 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, and let ρ=ε2\rho=\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}, positive by claim 8 of that lemma. Every y∈Ω‾y\in\overline{\Omega} with dE(y,x)≤ρd_{E}(y,x)\le\rho satisfies, by the triangle inequality of a metric,

dE(x,x^)≤dE(x,y)+dE(y,x^),d_{E}(x,\hat x)\le d_{E}(x,y)+d_{E}(y,\hat x),

so κ+ε−ρ≤dE(y,x^)\kappa+\varepsilon-\rho\le d_{E}(y,\hat x) and hence κ<dE(y,x^)\kappa<d_{E}(y,\hat x), whence W^(y)=W(y)\widehat{W}(y)=W(y) by the previous paragraph. Since W=W∗W=W^{*} is upper semicontinuous on Ω‾\overline{\Omega} by Step 4, claim 2 of Negation, Restriction, and Separated Differences of Semicontinuous Functions and claim 1 of Semicontinuity and the Semicontinuous Envelopes are Local Notions again give that W^\widehat{W} is upper semicontinuous at xx relative to Ω‾\overline{\Omega}.

W^\widehat{W} belongs to G\mathcal{G}. Its restriction to Ω\Omega is UκU_{\kappa}, a viscosity subsolution of FF on Ω\Omega, so W^\widehat{W} is a viscosity subsolution of FF up to the boundary of Ω\Omega; and W^(x)=W(x)=g(x)\widehat{W}(x)=W(x)=g(x) for x∈∂Ωx\in\partial\Omega by (1), so W^\widehat{W} is a viscosity subsolution of (F,g)(F,g). By The Bump Construction: Raising a Subsolution Whose Lower Envelope Fails the Supersolution Inequality (ii) we have W(x)≤W^(x)W(x)\le\widehat{W}(x) for x∈Ωx\in\Omega, and equality holds for x∈∂Ωx\in\partial\Omega; hence u‾(x)≤W(x)≤W^(x)\underline{u}(x)\le W(x)\le\widehat{W}(x) for every x∈Ω‾x\in\overline{\Omega}, and hypothesis Perron's Method: Existence of a Viscosity Solution of the Dirichlet Problem (i) applied to W^\widehat{W} and u‾\overline{u} gives W^(x)≤u‾(x)\widehat{W}(x)\le\overline{u}(x). So W^∈G\widehat{W}\in\mathcal{G} and therefore W^(x)≤W(x)\widehat{W}(x)\le W(x) for every x∈Ω‾x\in\overline{\Omega}.

But The Bump Construction: Raising a Subsolution Whose Lower Envelope Fails the Supersolution Inequality (ii) also provides x∈Ωx\in\Omega with W(x)<Uκ(x)=W^(x)W(x)<U_{\kappa}(x)=\widehat{W}(x), and with W^(x)≤W(x)\widehat{W}(x)\le W(x) the mixed transitivity of claim 2 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field gives W(x)<W(x)W(x)<W(x), contradicting the irreflexivity of the strict order. Hence W∗∣ΩW_{*}|_{\Omega} is a viscosity supersolution of FF on Ω\Omega.

Step 6: conclusion. By Step 5 and the lower semicontinuity of W∗W_{*} on Ω‾\overline{\Omega}, the function W∗W_{*} is a viscosity supersolution of FF up to the boundary of Ω\Omega, and W∗(x)=g(x)W_{*}(x)=g(x) for x∈∂Ωx\in\partial\Omega by (1); so W∗W_{*} is a viscosity supersolution of (F,g)(F,g). Hypothesis Perron's Method: Existence of a Viscosity Solution of the Dirichlet Problem (i), applied to the subsolution WW of Step 4 and to the supersolution W∗W_{*}, gives W(x)≤W∗(x)W(x)\le W_{*}(x) for every x∈Ω‾x\in\overline{\Omega}; and W∗(x)≤W(x)W_{*}(x)\le W(x) by claim 2 of Properties of the Lower Semicontinuous Envelope, by Duality. By antisymmetry W=W∗W=W_{*}, so WW is a viscosity supersolution of (F,g)(F,g) as well. Being both a viscosity subsolution and a viscosity supersolution of (F,g)(F,g), the function WW is a viscosity solution of the Dirichlet problem (F,g)(F,g). ■\blacksquare

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…