Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article Special Issues

Strict starshapedness of solutions to the horizontal p-Laplacian in the Heisenberg group

  • We examine the geometry of the level sets of particular horizontally p-harmonic functions in the Heisenberg group. We find sharp, natural geometric conditions ensuring that the level sets of the p-capacitary potential of a bounded annulus in the Heisenberg group are strictly starshaped.

    Citation: Mattia Fogagnolo, Andrea Pinamonti. Strict starshapedness of solutions to the horizontal p-Laplacian in the Heisenberg group[J]. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(6): 1-15. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021046

    Related Papers:

    [1] Luca Capogna, Giovanna Citti, Nicola Garofalo . Regularity for a class of quasilinear degenerate parabolic equations in the Heisenberg group. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(1): 1-31. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021008
    [2] Boumediene Abdellaoui, Ireneo Peral, Ana Primo . A note on the Fujita exponent in fractional heat equation involving the Hardy potential. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(4): 639-656. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020029
    [3] Nicola Abatangelo, Sven Jarohs, Alberto Saldaña . Fractional Laplacians on ellipsoids. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(5): 1-34. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021038
    [4] François Murat, Alessio Porretta . The ergodic limit for weak solutions of elliptic equations with Neumann boundary condition. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(4): 1-20. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021031
    [5] Alberto Farina . Some results about semilinear elliptic problems on half-spaces. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(4): 709-721. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020033
    [6] Daniela De Silva, Giorgio Tortone . Improvement of flatness for vector valued free boundary problems. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(4): 598-613. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020027
    [7] Joan Mateu, Maria Giovanna Mora, Luca Rondi, Lucia Scardia, Joan Verdera . A maximum-principle approach to the minimisation of a nonlocal dislocation energy. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(2): 253-263. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020012
    [8] Annalisa Cesaroni, Matteo Novaga . Second-order asymptotics of the fractional perimeter as s → 1. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(3): 512-526. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020023
    [9] Paola F. Antonietti, Chiara Facciolà, Marco Verani . Unified analysis of discontinuous Galerkin approximations of flows in fractured porous media on polygonal and polyhedral grids. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(2): 340-385. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020017
    [10] Simone Dovetta, Angela Pistoia . Solutions to a cubic Schrödinger system with mixed attractive and repulsive forces in a critical regime. Mathematics in Engineering, 2022, 4(4): 1-21. doi: 10.3934/mine.2022027
  • We examine the geometry of the level sets of particular horizontally p-harmonic functions in the Heisenberg group. We find sharp, natural geometric conditions ensuring that the level sets of the p-capacitary potential of a bounded annulus in the Heisenberg group are strictly starshaped.


    The study of the geometric properties of the level sets of solutions to elliptic or parabolic boundary value problems is a classical but still very fertile field of research. Let us focus, without aiming to be complete, on the works most deeply linked with the object of the present paper. Starting in the classical ambient Rn, consider bounded open sets Ω1Ω2 and let u be a p-harmonic function in Ω2¯Ω1 attaining in some sense the value 1 on Ω1 and 0 on Ω2. It is then quite natural to ask whether some geometric properties such as convexity or starshapedness of Ω2 and Ω1 are preserved by (the superlevel sets of) u. To the authors' knowledge, a first answer in the much easier case of p=2, and in the space R3 dates back to the 30s, when in [20] it was showed that the super level sets of u are starshaped if Ω1 and Ω2 are. Later, in [16,17,18] it was substantially shown that the same phenomenon occurs for the convexity issue. The nonlinear case was arguably first considered in [34], where it was shown that the p-capacitary potentials in starshaped rings are starshaped. It is important to point out that the proof provided in such paper relies on a suitable symmetrization technique, that despite being powerful enough to treat very general equations [38], does not seem to provide the strict starshapedness (a notion to be described in a while) of u from that of Ω1 and Ω2. We close this historical excursus mentioning the fundamental [26], where, in addition to the challenging extension of the aforementioned convexity results to the nonlinear setting, the author fine-tunes the maximum principle techniques we are adopting in the present work.

    Before venturing in a description of our main result, let us observe that the kind of issue we just briefly discussed has recently gained attention also in the context of sub-Riemannian geometries, that is actually the setting for this article. Indeed, in [10] it was shown that in the linear situation p=2 starshapedness of Ω1 and Ω2 is not only preserved by u, but actually improved to strict starshapedness. The nonlinear generalization appeared in [14]. However, as in the standard Euclidean situation, if p2 it is not clear whether strict starshapedness is preserved. A C1-domain containing the origin is said to be starshaped (with respect to the origin) in the Heisenberg geometry if its outer unit normal ν satisfies ν,Z0, while it is strictly starshaped if such inequality is strict. We are denoting by Z the dilation-generating vector field. To fix the ideas, we may think of Z as the natural replacement for the Euclidean position vector in the classical notion of starshapedness.

    The aim of the present paper is to explore the issue of strict starshapedness for the superlevel sets of p-capacitary potentials in the Heisenberg group Hn. Leaving the definitions and a brief introduction to the Heisenberg groups to the next section, let Ω1Ω2Hn be C1 domains containing the origin, and consider, for p>1, the solution u to

    {ΔHnpu=0inΩ2¯Ω1u=1on¯Ω1u=0onΩ2, (1.1)

    where by ΔHnp we indicate the horizontal p-Laplacian, that is the natural analogue in Hn of the classical p-Laplacian in Rn. Our main result substantially establishes that the strict starshapedness of Ω1 and Ω2 is preserved by u.

    Theorem 1.1. Let u be a C1-weak solution to (1.1) with p>1 for Ω1Hn and Ω2Hn bounded sets with C1 boundaries that are strictly starshaped with respect to the origin OHn and such that Ω1Ω2. Assume also that Ω1 satisfies an uniform exterior gauge ball condition and Ω2 satisfies an uniform interior gauge ball condition. Then, {ut}¯Ω1 is a bounded set with C1-boundary that is strictly starshaped with respect to O for any t[0,1]. Moreover, |u|0 in Ω2¯Ω1.

    We are actually going to fully prove Theorem 1.1 for pQ, with Q=2n+2 since, with the techniques adopted, the modifications needed to cover the case p=Q are straightforward, and illustrated in Remark 2.4 below.

    The above result will follow from a somewhat more general principle, Theorem 3.2 below, asserting that, if Ω1 and Ω2 satisfy the above conditions, then at any point where the classical gradient of the solution u to (1.1) exists we have u,Z uniformly bounded away from zero. Theorem 1.1 becomes then an immediate corollary of such statement. To the authors' knowledge, it is not clear whether weak solutions to (1.1) actually do enjoy classical C1-regularity for a general p>1. On the other hand, it has been established in [12] for p belonging to a neighbourhood of 2. It has been moreover recently discovered in [33] that at least the horizontal gradient is Hölder continuous for any p>1.

    It is worth pointing out that our result does not allow to conclude that the horizontal gradient of u does not vanish. This is actually sharp, since in the explicit, symmetric situation where Ω1 and Ω2 are two concentric gauge balls, i.e., defined with respect to the well known Koranyi norm of Hn, the level sets of u remain gauge balls, that in particular display a characteristic point where the horizontal gradient vanishes, while the vertical derivative does not. This is also the reason why we cannot, with the available technology, infer higher regularity of u and its level sets from the conclusion of Theorem 1.1. Indeed, it is known from the arguments in [36] that the nonvanishing of the horizontal gradient implies the smoothness of u, but it is not known whether the nonvanishing of the vertical derivative alone suffices to this aim.

    All in all, the issue of regularity for horizontally p-harmonic functions in Heisenberg groups has been and still is a fervid field of research, and we think our work could serve as an additional motivation to carry on with that. In addition to the aforementioned contributions about this topic, we cite the papers [5,28,30,37]. Let us recall briefly that the optimal C1,α-regularity of standard p-harmonic functions is well known, and established independently in [11,39].

    Let us now pass to discuss the last main assumption involved in Theorem 1.1, namely the tangent gauge ball condition we ask Ω1 and Ω2 to be subject to. Such property constitutes clearly a natural analogue of the round tangent ball conditions in the Riemannian geometry, that is indeed heavily used to deal with barrier arguments, as those performed here. On the other hand, differently from classical situations, a tangent gauge ball to the boundary of a set ΩHn is not ensured no matter the regularity of Ω. This is explicitly shown in [29].

    The proof of Theorem 1.1 is inspired by the barrier argument used in the proof [26,Lemma 2]. Indeed, such result can be substantially rephrased as the standard Euclidean version of Theorem 1.1. On the other hand, we emphasize that Lewis' paper deals with convexity assumptions, and thus this is, to our knowledge, the first place where the strict starshapedness is observed to be preserved even in the classical context. Let us point out that this type of argument has been also finely reworked in the Appendix of [2] to deal with the anisotropic p-Laplacian. Closing these brief comments on the proof, we observe that these ideas, at least from an heuristic point of view, seem to be exportable to more general Carnot groups. On the other hand, as often occurs, technical challenges could arise when dealing with such a generalization. We could come back on this topic in future works.

    Let us comment on possible geometric applications and perspectives of results such as Theorem 1.1. Problem (1.1) for the standard p-Laplacian, with Ω2 dilated away at infinity, has been recently utilized in [15] and [1] as a substitute for the Inverse Mean Curvature Flow [23,32] to infer geometric and analytical inequalities for hypersurfaces in Rn. In the earlier [15] the nonvanishing of |u| was assumed in order to establish suitable monotonicity formulas. In particular, by the aforementioned [26,Lemma 2], the results of [15] hold true for strictly starshaped domains. Theorem 1.1 can thus be read as a first indication about the viability of these techniques in the sub-Riemannian setting. More generally, the preserving of starshapedness along suitable evolutions of hypersurfaces is a highly desirable and thoroughly studied property in Geometric Analysis, let us cite for the mere sake of example [4,21,35,41].

    The present paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 we recall and discuss the preparatory material we are going to need for the proof of Theorem 1.1. More precisely, we review definitions and basic properties of the Heisenberg group, we discuss hypersurfaces that fulfil starshapedness and tangent gauge balls conditions, and recall some fundamental facts about horizontally p-harmonic functions. In Section 3 we work out the proof of Theorem 1.1, that as already mentioned will follow from the slightly more general Theorem 3.2.

    We summarize below some properties of the Heisenberg group that we will need throughout the paper. We follow here the presentation given in [31] and we address the interested reader to [3] for a complete overview.

    Let n1. We denote by Hn the Lie group (R2n+1,), where the group product between z=(x1,,xn,y1,,yn,t) and ˜z=(˜x1,,˜xn,˜y1,,˜yn,˜t) is defined by

    z˜z=(x1+˜x1,,xn+˜xn,y1+˜y1,,yn+˜yn,t+˜t2(ni=1xi˜yi+˜xiyi)).

    We denote by z1 the inverse of zHn with respect to the group law defined above. The Lie algebra g of left invariant vector fields of Hn is spanned by the vector fields

    Xi=xi+2yit,Yj=yj2xjt,T=ti,j=1,,n.

    It is easy to see that the Lie algebra of Hn is stratified of step 2, i.e., denoting by

    V1=span{Xi,Yi, i=1,,n},V2=span{T}

    it holds

    g=V1V2

    and [V1,V1]=V2, where [V1,V1]=span{[v,w],v,wV1}. As usual we refer to V1 as the horizontal layer and to Xi and Yj as horizontal vector fields.

    Given an open subset UHn, and a function fC1(U), we denote by Hnf the horizontal gradient of f defined as

    Hf=(X1f,,Xnf,Y1f,,Ynf)

    while we denote with the classical gradient in R2n+1.

    Given any two vector fields Z and W on Hn we are going to consider its classical scalar product in R2n+1 and to denote it by Z,W. Similarly, we indicate the R2n+1-norm of Z simply by |Z|.

    Various distances are usually considered in relation with Heisenberg groups, but we limit ourselves to the one induced by the Koranyi homogeneous norm. Given z,wHn with coordinates as above, we define the Koranyi homogeneous norm as follows

    ρ(z)=ρ(x1,,xn,y1,,yn,t)=[(ni=1x2i+y2i)2+t2]14

    and then the Koranyi, or gauge, distance between z and w is simply ρ(w1z). Accordingly, we denote by Bρ(z,R), for R>0, the open ball with respect to such metric, that is

    Bρ(z,R)={wHn|ρ(w1z)<R}.

    We refer to Bρ(z,R) as the gauge ball of center z and radius R.

    The proof of our main result, i.e., Theorem 1.1, requires suitable dilations of subsets and functions. To this end, let us recall the dilation δλ:HnHn of parameter λR defined by

    δλ(x1,,,xn,y1,,yn,t)=(eλx1,,eλxn,eλy1,,eλ,yn,e2λt).

    With such definition at hand, we introduce the following notations for dilated subsets and dilated functions. For a subset AHn and λR, we define its dilation as

    Aλ=δλ(A)={δλ(z)|zA}. (2.1)

    Moreover, for a function f:AR, we define its dilated fλ:AλR by

    fλ(z)=f(δλ(z)).

    The following is the definition we adopt for starshaped sets in the Heisenberg group, well posed for sets with C1-boundary. We address the reader to [13] and [14] for more extensive discussions on this geometric property in the more general context of Carnot groups and for some equivalent definitions.

    Definition 2.1 (Starshaped and strictly starshaped sets in Heisenberg groups). An open bounded set ΩHn with C1 boundary is starshaped with respect to the origin if it contains the origin and

    ν,Z(z)0 (2.2)

    for any zΩ, where ν is the Euclidean exterior unit normal to Ω, and

    Z=(x1,,xn,y1,,yn,2t)

    is the dilation-generating vector field. The set Ω is called strictly starshaped if inequality (2.2) holds with strict sign at any zΩ.

    It is worth observing the well-known relation between the vector field Z appearing above and the geometry of Hn. As the name of dilation-generating vector field suggests, the flow of Z is given by the dilation map Hn×RHn given by (z,λ)δλ(z). In other words, we have

    ddλδλ(z)=Z(δλ(z)),δ0(z)=z (2.3)

    for any zHn,λR.

    We now recall the definition of boundaries satisfying an interior or exterior gauge-ball condition.

    Definition 2.2 (Interior and exterior gauge-ball property). Let ΩHn be an open bounded set. Then, we say that Ω satisfies the exterior gauge ball property at a point zΩ if there exist z1Hn¯Ω and R1>0 such that Bρ(z1,R)Hn¯Ω and ¯Bρ(z1,R)Ω={z}. We say that Ω satisfies a uniform exterior gauge ball property if R is uniform for zΩ.

    Similarly we say that Ω satisfies the interior ball condition at a point zΩ if there exist z2Ω and R2>0 such that Bρ(z2,R2)Ω and ¯Bρ(z2,R2)Ω={z}. Again, we say that Ω satisfies a uniform interior gauge ball property if R is uniform for zΩ.

    It is worth pointing out that, strikingly differently from the Euclidean case, one can easily find in Hn sets with smooth boundary not satisfying exterior or interior gauge ball conditions. This is ultimately due to the lack of strict, uniform Euclidean convexity of gauge balls, that is, their boundaries display points where some principal curvature (with respect to the flat metric of R2n+1) vanishes. An explicit example of domains with smooth boundary not satisfying gauge ball conditions is shown in [29]. Indeed, in such paper it is shown, precisely in [29,Proposition 2.4], that an interior gauge ball condition at a point zΩ, for some open set Ω, suffices to prove a Hopf boundary point lemma for harmonic functions at z. On the other hand, the authors provide in [29,Counterexample 2.3] a set with paraboloidal boundary in H1 with the Hopf property failing on the vertex, that in particular does not admit a gauge ball touching from the inside.

    It is also important to remark that while it is very easy to find sets with characteristic boundary points satisfying gauge ball condition (gauge balls themselves provide such examples), non-characteristic points of C1,1 boundaries enjoy exterior and interior touching ball condition. This is shown in [19,Theorem 8.4]. In particular, the conditions of Definition 2.2 are strictly weaker than being non-characteristic. Finally, we address the interested reader to [8,24,25,40] and references therein for some discussions on the importance of the gauge-ball property from the regularity standpoint.

    In the proof of Theorem 1.1, we are using the following natural property of (strictly) starshaped sets. It substantially consists in a refinement, holding true under the additional assumptions of exterior or interior gauge ball conditions, of similar properties described in the more general context of Carnot groups in [14,Proposition 4.2].

    Proposition 2.3. Let ΩHn be a strictly starshaped open bounded set with C1-boundary. Assume that Ω satisfies the exterior gauge ball condition at zΩ, and let Bρ(z1,R) the exterior tangent gauge ball at z. Then, there exists ¯λ>0 such that for any 0<λ¯λ we have δλ(z)Bρ(z1,R).

    Analogously if Ω admits an interior tangent gauge ball B(z2,R) at zΩ, then there exists ¯λ>0 such that any ¯λ<λ<0 we have δλ(z)Bρ(z2,R). In both cases, the constant ¯λ depends continuously on R, on the center of the ball and on the point of tangency.

    Proof. Let Bρ(z1,R) be a gauge ball of center z1 and radius R, and let zBρ(z1,R). If ν,Z>0, where ν is the interior normal to Bρ(z,R), as in the first case of the statement we are proving, then this means that Z points towards the interior of the gauge ball, and thus, since δλ satisfies (2.3), we infer the existence of ¯λ>0 such that δλ(z)Bρ(z1,R) for any 0<λ<¯λ. From the continuity of the map (z,λ)δλ(z), following from (2.3), we also deduce that ¯λ changes continuously with respect to the data. The statement about interior tangent balls is shown the very same way.

    Let 1<p<, we denote the horizontal p-Laplacian with ΔHnp. It acts on a C2 function f of Hn as

    ΔHnpf=ni=1Xi(|Hnf|p2Xif)+Yi(|Hnf|p2Yif). (2.4)

    Consequently, we say that a C2-function f:UHnR is horizontally p-harmonic in an open set U if ΔHnpf=0 in U.

    Explicit solutions

    We immediately exhibit explicit horizontally p-harmonic functions, that will serve us both as model solutions to (1.1) and to construct the barriers functions employed in the proof of Theorem 1.1. We have that, if pQ, for any wHn, the function

    vw(z)=ρQpp1(w1z) (2.5)

    is horizontally p-harmonic for any zHn{w}. This was established in [7,Theorem 2.1], where the authors showed that, up to a normalizing constant, the function G:Hn×HnDiagHn defined by G(z,w)=vw(z) constitutes the fundamental solution for the horizontal p-Laplacian with singularity at DiagHn={(z,z)Hn×Hn}. In particular, as pointed out in the same paper, the (unique) solution to problem (1.1) in the model situation where Ω1=Bρ(O,r) and Ω2=Bρ(O,R) for some R>r, is given by

    ur,R(z)=ρ(z)Qpp1RQpp1rQpp1RQpp1 (2.6)

    for any pQ.

    Remark 2.4. In the case p=Q, the analogue of (2.5), again according to [7], is given by

    vw(z)=logρ(w1z). (2.7)

    In particular, the proof of the analogue of Theorem 1.1 in the case p=Q is obtained simply by modelling the barrier functions employed in our proof on (2.7) rather than on (2.6). We address the interested reader to [27] for more details on how to handle this situation in the case of Rn with the standard notion of p-Laplacian.

    Let us recall now some functions spaces suited to define the weak solutions to (2.4). We follow [6] and [9]. We let, for an open subset UHn, for p1, the horizontal (1,p)-Sobolev space HW1,p(U) be defined as the metric completion of C1(U) in the norm

    ||f||HW1,p(U)=U|f|p+|Hnf|pdz.

    Analogously, we define the space HW1,p0(U) as the metric completion of C10(U) under the same norm.

    We say that fHW1,p(U) is horizontally weakly p-harmonic if

    ni=1U(|Hnf|p2Xif)Xiφ+(|Hnf|p2Yif)Yiφdz=0

    for any φC10(U). From now on, we will frequently indicate horizontally weakly p-harmonic functions simply as p-harmonic, since no confusion can occur.

    By arguing exactly as in the Euclidean case, one recovers the fundamental Comparison Principle even for horizontally weakly p-harmonic functions in the Heisenberg group. We address the reader to [9,Lemma 2.6] for a statement in the more general context of quasilinear equations in Carnot groups. It actually holds also comparing subsolutions to supersolutions of the p-Laplacian, but being here concerned only with p-harmonic functions, we state it in the simplified version for solutions.

    Proposition 2.5 (Comparison Principle for p-harmonic functions). Let UHn be an open set, and let u,vHW1,p(U) be p-harmonic functions. Then, if min(uv,0)HW1,p0(U), then uv on the whole U.

    The above result roughly asserts that if two p-harmonic functions u and v satisfy uv on the boundary of U then the same inequality holds true in the interior on U. Actually, this is exactly what happens when boundary data are attained with some regularity.

    Finally, let us recall that as an immediate consequence of the Harnack inequality for p-harmonic functions in Heisenberg groups [6,Theorem 3.1] we get the following special form of a Strong Maximum/Minimum Principle, highlighted also in [9,Theorem 2.5].

    Proposition 2.6 (Strong Maximum Principle for p-harmonic functions). Let UHn be an open bounded subset, and let uHW1,p(U) be p-harmonic. Then, u cannot achieve neither its maximum nor its minimum in U.

    Existence and uniqueness for (1.1)

    In the following statement we resume an existence-uniqueness theorem for problem (1.1), recalling also a suitable definition of weak solutions. It is well known that such solution exists, and can be proved exactly as in the Euclidean case, considered in full details in [22,Appendix I], see in particular Corollary 17.3 there, and compare also with [9,Section 3]. The uniqueness immediately follows from the Comparison Principle recalled in Proposition 2.5.

    Theorem 2.7 (Existence and uniqueness of weak solutions to problem (1.1)). Let Ω1 and Ω2 and Ω2Hn be open bounded subsets of Hn satisfying Ω1Ω2. Then, there exists an unique weak solution u to (1.1), that is uHW1,p(Ω2¯Ω1) is horizontally weakly p-harmonic and, letting ϑC0(Ω2) satisfy ϑ1 on ¯Ω1, we have uϑHW1,p0(Ω2¯Ω1).

    It is important to point out that, again as a straightforward application of the Comparison Principle, if ˜u is another such function satisfying the properties in the statement of Theorem 2.7 relatively to another boundary datum ˜ϑ fulfilling the same assumptions asked for ϑ, then u coincides with ˜u on Ω2¯Ω1. This is observed with some more details for example in [22,p. 115].

    For what it concerns the continuous attainment of the boundary datum, we point out that in [9,Theorem 3.9] continuity up to the boundary for Dirichlet problems involving the horizontal p-Laplacian is proved for domains with boundary with a so-called corkscrew on any point of the boundary.

    Let us finally observe that as a consequence of Propositions 2.5 and 2.6 we have 0<u<1 on Ω2¯Ω1. Indeed, first observe that, since u=ϑ+f for some fHW1,p0 we can find by approximating f a sequence {uk}kN of functions in C1(Ω2¯Ω1) approximating u in HW1,p-norm, and satisfying ukϑC1c(Ω2¯Ω1). In particular, for any kN, uk satisfies min(uk,0)HW1,p0(Ω2¯Ω1), and thus, passing to the limit as k, we infer that the same holds for u. Thus, being u p-harmonic, we get from the Comparison Principle recalled in Proposition 2.5 that u0 on the annulus. Arguing in the same way for the p-harmonic function 1u, we also find that u1 on Ω2¯Ω1. However by the Strong Maximum Principle of Proposition 2.6, the inequalities 0u1 must be strict, as claimed. We record what has just been said in the following corollary.

    Corollary 2.8. Let u be the solution to (1.1), in the sense of Theorem 2.7. Then, we have 0<u<1 in Ω2¯Ω1.

    It is quite straightforward, but fundamental for our arguments, to observe that if a function f is p-harmonic, then so does the dilated fλ defined as fλ(z)=f(δλ(z)).

    Lemma 3.1 (Dilation-invariance of p-harmonicity). Let UHn, and fHW1,p(U) be a p-harmonic function. Then, the function fλ(x) belongs to HW1,p(δλ(U)) and it is p-harmonic.

    Proof. It is obvious from the definition of δλ(U) that fλ is well defined on such set. In order to prove the other assertions, the main computation is the following. We have, for j=1,,n,

    Xj(fλ(z))=eλ[fxj(δλ(z))+2eλyft(δλ(z))]=eλ(Xjf)λ(z), (3.1)

    and analogously

    Yj(fλ(z))=eλ[fyj(δλ(z))2eλxft(δλ(z))]=eλ(Yjf)λ(z). (3.2)

    The inclusion of fλ in HW1,p(δλ(U)) is a direct consequence of (3.1) and (3.2), while the p-harmonicity is shown as follows. We have, again as a consequence of the above relations

    ni=1δλ(U)(|Hnfλ|p2Xifλ)Xiφ+(|Hnfλ|p2Yifλ)Yiφdz==eλ(p1)ni=1δλ(U)[|Hnf|p2λ(Xif)λ]Xiφ+[|Hnf|p2λ(Yif)λ]Yiφdz=eλ(p1)Qni=1U[|Hnf|p2(Xif)](Xiφ)λ+[|Hnf|λp2(Yif)](Yiφ)λdz=eλ(p2)Qni=1U[|Hnf|p2(Xif)]Xiφλ+[|Hnf|λp2(Yif)]Yiφλdz=0

    for any φC1c(δλ(U)). The last step follows from the p-harmonicity of f in U, since φλ clearly belongs to C1c(U).

    We are finally in position to prove the statement in turn implying Theorem 1.1.

    Theorem 3.2. Let u be a weak solution to (1.1) with p>1 for Ω1Hn and Ω2Hn bounded sets with C1 boundaries that are strictly starshaped with respect to the origin OHn and such that Ω1Ω2. Assume also that Ω1 satisfies an uniform exterior gauge ball condition and Ω2 satisfies an uniform interior gauge ball condition. Then, there exists a positive constant M such that

    u,Z<M<0

    at any point where u exists.

    Proof. As already declared, we prove the result for pQ, addressing the reader to Remark 2.4 for indications about the straightforward extension to the case p=Q. Consider, for any zΩ1 the gauge ball Bρ(z1,R) contained in Hn¯Ω1 and touching Ω1 in z. Similarly, for zΩ2, consider Bρ(z2,R) contained in Ω2 and touching Ω2 in z. These tangent gauge balls, with uniform radius R, exist by assumption, see Definition 2.2. On Bρ(z1,R), define a function v1 satisfying v=1 on Bρ(z1,R/2) and

    v1()=αρ(z11)Qpp1+β,

    on Bρ(z1,R)¯Bρ(z1,R/2), where the constants α and β are chosen so that v1=0 on Bρ(z1,R) and v1=1 on Bρ(z1,R/2). Analogously, define on Bρ(z2,R) a function v2 satisfying v2=1 on Bρ(z2,R/2) and

    v2()=αρ(z12)Qpp1+β,

    on Bρ(z2,R)¯Bρ(z2,R/2), where the constants α and β are chosen so that v2=0 on Bρ(z2,R) and v2=1 on Bρ(z2,R/2). Explicitly, we have

    α=RQpp12Qpp11,β=12Qpp11.

    Observe now that the function v1 and v2 are smooth up to the boundary in ¯Bρ(z1,R)Bρ(z1,R/2) and ¯Bρ(z2,R)Bρ(z2,R/2) respectively, and they both enjoy nonvanishing gradient in these sets. Actually, a direct computation shows that

    |v1|(w1)C,|v2|(w2)C (3.3)

    for any w1¯Bρ(z1,R)Bρ(z1,R/2) and any w2¯Bρ(z2,R)Bρ(z2,R/2), where the constant C does not depend on w1 nor on w2. Such gradients being nonvanishing, combined with Bρ(z1,R) and Bρ(z2,R) being regular level sets of v1 and v2, imply, on the one hand, that

    limBρ(z,R)wzv1|v1|(w)=νΩ1(z), (3.4)

    where zΩ1 and νΩ1(z) is the Euclidean outward unit normal to Ω1, and on the other hand that

    limBρ(z,R)wzv2|v2|(w)=νΩ2(z), (3.5)

    where this time zΩ2 and νΩ2(z) is the Euclidean outward unit normal to Ω2. In getting (3.4) and (3.5), we again used the tangency property of the gauge balls with respect to the boundaries of Ω1 and Ω2. Observe now that there exists K>0 such that

    ν,Z(z)K (3.6)

    for any zΩ1Ω2, as follows from the strict starshapedness of Ω1 and Ω2, their boundedness and the C1-regularity of their boundaries. Now, Proposition 2.3, the limits (3.4) and (3.5), the uniform lower bounds on the gradients of v1 and v2 (3.3), and (3.6), imply that

    v1(δλ(z))v1(z)λ=v1(δλ(z))λ12CK, (3.7)

    for any zΩ1 and analogously

    v2(δλ(z))λ12CK

    for any zΩ2, for any 0<λ<¯λ. Importantly, observe that ¯λ can be made independent of zΩ1Ω2, as it immediately follows from the continuity properties of such parameter stated in Proposition 2.3 and the compactness of Ω1Ω2.

    As observed in Corollary 2.8, 0<u<1 in the open annulus, and thus, combining this information with the continuity of such function, we deduce that there exists a constant 0<L<1 such that

    1Lu(w)1L (3.8)

    for any wBρ(z,R/2). A straightforward compactness argument involving the continuity of u shows that L can be chosen independently of z. Consider now, for zΩ1, the p-harmonic functions u and 1Lv1 on Bρ(z,R)¯Bρ(z,R/2). Observe that u1=1Lv1 on Bρ(z,R), since u1 on the whole annulus ¯Ω2Ω1 and v1=0 on Bρ(z,R) by construction. Moreover, u1L=1Lv1 on Bρ(z,R/2) in light of the second inequality in (3.8) and again by construction of v1. Then, the comparison principle for p-harmonic functions recalled in Proposition 2.5 combined with (3.7) implies

    1u(δλ(z))λLv1(δλ(z))λ12LCK (3.9)

    for any 0<δ<¯λ.

    Arguing very similarly in comparing the functions u and Lv2 in the annulus Bρ(z,R)¯Bρ(z,R/2) with zΩ2, we get, using the first inequality in (3.8) and the definition of v2, that

    u(δλ(z))λLv2(δλ(z))λ12LCK, (3.10)

    again for any 0<λ<¯λ.

    Consider then the function uλ(w)=u(δλ(w)) on Ωλ2¯Ω1. Recall that by Ωλ2 we denote the contraction of Ω2 through dilations, as defined in (2.1). By Lemma 3.1, uλ is p-harmonic and observe that on Ω1 we have

    uλλ1λ12LCK=uλ12LCK

    by (3.9), and on Ωλ2 we have

    0=uλλuλ12LCK,

    by (3.10). Thus, applying the Comparison Principle to the p-harmonic functions uλ/λ and u/λLCK/2 we get, for any wΩ2¯Ω1, that

    u(δλ(w))u(w)λ12LCK (3.11)

    for any 0<λ<¯λ. Assume now that u exists at w. Then, we have

    limλ0+u(δλ(w))u(w)λ=u(w),ddλδλ(w)|λ=0=u,Z(w), (3.12)

    where in the last step we used (2.3). We thus conclude, coupling (3.11) with (3.12), that

    u,Z(w)<12LCK<0 (3.13)

    at wΩ2¯Ω1. Observe that the upper bound in (3.13) does not depend on the particular point w where u exists, and thus it completes the proof of Theorem 3.2.

    Let us finally briefly show how Theorem 1.1 follows as a corollary.

    Proof of Theorem 1.1. The uniform negative upper bound for u,Z holding true at any point of standard diffentiability for u implies that if in addition such function is C1, we have

    u,Z<0 (3.14)

    on the whole Ω2¯Ω1. In particular, u never vanishes in the open annulus, and thus the sets {ut}¯Ω1 for t(0,1) are bounded by the C1 submanifolds {u=t} with exterior pointing unit normal at any wt{u=t} given by νt=u/|u| computed at such point. This information, plugged in (3.14), yields

    νt,Z>0,

    that is, according to Definition 2.1, the sets {ut}¯Ω1 are strictly starshaped for any t(0,1).

    The authors are grateful to C. Bianchini, G. Ciraolo, F. Dragoni and D. Ricciotti for useful discussions during the preparation of the manuscript. The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her detailed comments that helped us to improve the manuscript. The authors are members of Gruppo Nazionale per l'Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA), which is part of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM), and they are partially funded by the GNAMPA project "Aspetti geometrici in teoria del potenziale lineare e nonlineare".

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.



    [1] V. Agostiniani, M. Fogagnolo, L. Mazzieri, Minkowski inequalities via nonlinear potential theory, 2019. Available from: https://arXiv.org/abs/1906.00322.
    [2] C. Bianchini, G. Ciraolo, Wulff shape characterizations in overdetermined anisotropic elliptic problems, Commun. Part. Diff. Eq., 43 (2018), 790-820.
    [3] A. Bonfiglioli, E. Lanconelli, F. Uguzzoni, Stratified Lie groups and potential theory for their sub-Laplacians, Springer, 2007.
    [4] S. Brendle, P. K. Hung, M. T. Wang, A Minkowski inequality for hypersurfaces in the Antide Sitter-Schwarzschild manifold, Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 69 (2016), 124-144.
    [5] L. Capogna, Regularity of quasi-linear equations in the heisenberg group, Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 50 (1997), 867-889.
    [6] L. Capogna, D. Danielli, N. Garofalo, An embedding theorem and the harnack inequality for nonlinear subelliptic equations, Commun. Part. Diff. Eq., 18 (1993), 1765-1794.
    [7] L. Capogna, D. Danielli, N. Garofalo, Capacitary estimates and the local behavior of solutions of nonlinear subelliptic equations, Am. J. Math., 118 (1996), 1153-1196.
    [8] L. Capogna, N. Garofalo, D. M. Nhieu, A version of a theorem of Dahlberg for the subelliptic Dirichlet problem, Math. Res. Lett., 5 (1998), 541-549.
    [9] D. Danielli, Regularity at the boundary for solutions of nonlinear subelliptic equations, Indiana U. Math. J., 44 (1995), 269-286.
    [10] D. Danielli, N. Garofalo, Geometric properties of solutions to subelliptic equations in nilpotent lie groups, In: Reaction diffusion sytems, New York: Dekker, 1998, 89-105.
    [11] E. DiBenedetto, C1+α local regularity of weak solutions of degenerate elliptic equations, Nonlinear Anal., 7 (1983), 827-850.
    [12] A. Domokos, J. Manfredi, c1, α-regularity for p-harmonic functions in the heisenberg group for p near 2, Contemp. Math., 370 (2005), 2126699.
    [13] F. Dragoni, D. Filali, Starshaped and convex sets in carnot groups and in the geometries of vector fields, J. Convex Anal., 26 (2019), 1349-1372.
    [14] F. Dragoni, N. Garofalo, P. Salani, Starshapedeness for fully non-linear equations in Carnot groups, J. Lond. Math. Soc., 99 (2019), 901-918.
    [15] M. Fogagnolo, L. Mazzieri, A. Pinamonti, Geometric aspects of p-capacitary potentials, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire, 36 (2019), 1151-1179.
    [16] R. M. Gabriel, An extended principle of the maximum for harmonic functions in 3- dimensions, J. London Math. Soc., 30 (1955), 388-401.
    [17] R. M. Gabriel, Further results concerning the level surfaces of the Green's function for a 3-dimensional convex domain (I), J. London Math. Soc., 32 (1957), 295-302.
    [18] R. M. Gabriel, A result concerning convex level surfaces of 3-dimensional harmonic functions, J. London Math. Soc., 32 (1957), 286-294.
    [19] N. Garofalo, N. C. Phuc, Boundary behavior of p-harmonic functions in the heisenberg group, Math. Ann., 351 (2011), 587-632.
    [20] J. J. Gergen, Note on the green function of a star-shaped three dimensional region, Am. J. Math., 53 (1931), 746-752.
    [21] C. Gerhardt, Flow of nonconvex hypersurfaces into spheres, J. Differ. Geom., 32 (1990), 299-314.
    [22] J. Heinonen, T. Kilpeläinen, O. Martio, Nonlinear potential theory of degenerate elliptic equations, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 2006.
    [23] G. Huisken, T. Ilmanen, The inverse mean curvature flow and the Riemannian Penrose inequality, J. Differ. Geom., 59 (2001), 353-437.
    [24] D. S. Jerison, The Dirichlet problem for the Kohn Laplacian on the Heisenberg group. I, J. Funct. Anal., 43 (1981), 97-142.
    [25] D. S. Jerison, The Dirichlet problem for the Kohn Laplacian on the Heisenberg group. Ⅱ, J. Funct. Anal., 43 (1981), 224-257.
    [26] J. L. Lewis, Capacitary functions in convex rings, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 66 (1977), 201-224.
    [27] J. L. Lewis, Regularity of the derivatives of solutions to certain degenerate elliptic equations, Indiana U. Math. J., 32 (1983), 849-858.
    [28] J. J. Manfredi, G. Mingione, Regularity results for quasilinear elliptic equations in the heisenberg group, Math. Ann., 339 (2007), 485-544.
    [29] V. Martino, G. Tralli, On the hopf-oleinik lemma for degenerate-elliptic equations at characteristic points, Calc. Var., 55 (2016), 115.
    [30] G. Mingione, A. Z. Goldstein, X. Zhong, On the regularity of p-harmonic functions in the heisenberg group, Bollettino dell'Unione Matematica Italiana, 1 (2008), 243-253.
    [31] R. Monti, Isoperimetric problem and minimal surfaces in the heisenberg group, In: Geometric measure theory and real analysis, Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 2014, 57-129.
    [32] R. Moser, The inverse mean curvature flow and p-harmonic functions, J. Eur. Math. Soc., 9 (2007), 77-83.
    [33] S. Mukherjee, X. Zhong, c1, α-regularity for variational problems in the heisenberg group, arXiv: 1711.04671, 2017.
    [34] J. A. Pfaltzgraff, Radial symmetrization and capacities in space, Duke Math. J., 34 (1967), 747-756.
    [35] G. Pipoli, Inverse mean curvature flow in complex hyperbolic space, Annales scientifiques de l'ENS, 52 (2019), 1107-1135.
    [36] D. Ricciotti, p-Laplace equation in the Heisenberg group, Cham: Springer, 2015.
    [37] D. Ricciotti, On the c1, α regularity of p-harmonic functions in the heisenberg group, P. Am. Math. Soc., 146 (2016), 2937-2952.
    [38] P. Salani, Starshapedness of level sets of solutions to elliptic PDEs, Appl. Anal., 84 (2005), 1185-1197.
    [39] P. Tolksdorf, Regularity for a more general class of quasilinear elliptic equations, J. Differ. Equations, 51 (1984), 126-150.
    [40] F. Uguzzoni, E. Lanconelli, On the Poisson kernel for the Kohn Laplacian, Rend. Mat. Appl., 17 (1998), 659-677.
    [41] J. I. E. Urbas, On the expansion of starshaped hypersurfaces by symmetric functions of their principal curvatures, Math. Z., 205 (1990), 355-372.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Serena Dipierro, Luca Lombardini, Partial differential equations from theory to applications: Dedicated to Alberto Farina, on the occasion of his 50th birthday, 2023, 5, 2640-3501, 1, 10.3934/mine.2023050
    2. Kazuhiro Ishige, Paolo Salani, Asuka Takatsu, Riemannian starshape and capacitary problems, 2025, 85, 14681218, 104368, 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2025.104368
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(4562) PDF downloads(678) Cited by(2)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog