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

Second-order asymptotics of the fractional perimeter as s → 1

  • In this note we provide a second-order asymptotic expansion of the fractional perimeter Ps(E), as s1, in terms of the local perimeter and of a higher order nonlocal functional.

    Citation: Annalisa Cesaroni, Matteo Novaga. Second-order asymptotics of the fractional perimeter as s → 1[J]. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(3): 512-526. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020023

    Related Papers:

    [1] Vito Crismale, Gianluca Orlando . A lower semicontinuity result for linearised elasto-plasticity coupled with damage in W1,γ, γ > 1. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(1): 101-118. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020006
    [2] Eleonora Cinti, Roberto Ognibene, Berardo Ruffini . A quantitative stability inequality for fractional capacities. Mathematics in Engineering, 2022, 4(5): 1-28. doi: 10.3934/mine.2022044
    [3] Manuel Friedrich . Griffith energies as small strain limit of nonlinear models for nonsimple brittle materials. Mathematics in Engineering, 2020, 2(1): 75-100. doi: 10.3934/mine.2020005
    [4] Luz Roncal . Hardy type inequalities for the fractional relativistic operator. Mathematics in Engineering, 2022, 4(3): 1-16. doi: 10.3934/mine.2022018
    [5] Catharine W. K. Lo, José Francisco Rodrigues . On an anisotropic fractional Stefan-type problem with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Mathematics in Engineering, 2023, 5(3): 1-38. doi: 10.3934/mine.2023047
    [6] Daniela De Silva, Ovidiu Savin . Uniform density estimates and Γ-convergence for the Alt-Phillips functional of negative powers. Mathematics in Engineering, 2023, 5(5): 1-27. doi: 10.3934/mine.2023086
    [7] Konstantinos T. Gkikas . Nonlinear nonlocal equations involving subcritical or power nonlinearities and measure data. Mathematics in Engineering, 2024, 6(1): 45-80. doi: 10.3934/mine.2024003
    [8] Zaffar Mehdi Dar, M. Arrutselvi, Chandru Muthusamy, Sundararajan Natarajan, Gianmarco Manzini . Virtual element approximations of the time-fractional nonlinear convection-diffusion equation on polygonal meshes. Mathematics in Engineering, 2025, 7(2): 96-129. doi: 10.3934/mine.2025005
    [9] Nicola Abatangelo, Sven Jarohs, Alberto Saldaña . Fractional Laplacians on ellipsoids. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(5): 1-34. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021038
    [10] Anoumou Attiogbe, Mouhamed Moustapha Fall, El Hadji Abdoulaye Thiam . Nonlocal diffusion of smooth sets. Mathematics in Engineering, 2022, 4(2): 1-22. doi: 10.3934/mine.2022009
  • In this note we provide a second-order asymptotic expansion of the fractional perimeter Ps(E), as s1, in terms of the local perimeter and of a higher order nonlocal functional.


    The fractional perimeter of a measurable set ERd is defined as follows:

    Ps(E)=ERdE1|xy|d+sdydxs(0,1). (1.1)

    After being first considered in the pivotal paper [4] (see also [15] where the definition was first given), this functional has inspired a variety of literature both in the community of pure mathematics, regarding for instance existence and regularity of fractional minimal surfaces, and in view of applications to phase transition problems and to several models with long range interactions. We refer to [17], and references therein, for an introductory review on this subject.

    The limits as s0+ or s1 are critical, in the sense that the fractional perimeter (1.1) diverges to +. Nevertheless, when appropriately rescaled, such limits give meaningful information on the set.

    The limit of the (rescaled) fractional perimeter when s0+ has been considered in [11], where the authors proved the pointwise convergence of sPs(E) to the volume functional dωd|E|, for sets E of finite perimeter, where ωd is the volume of the ball of radius 1 in Rd. The corresponding second-order expansion has been recently considered in [8]. In particular it is shown that

    Ps(E)dωds|E|EBR(x)E1|xy|ddxdyEEBR(x)1|xy|ddxdydωdlogR|E|,

    in the sense of Γ-convergence with respect to the L1-topology of the corresponding characteristic functions, where the limit functional is independent of R, and it is called the 0-fractional perimeter.

    The limit of Ps(E) as s1, in pointwise sense and in the sense of Γ-convergence, has been studied in [1,5], where it is proved that

    (1s)Ps(E)ωd1P(E),

    where P(E) stands for the classical perimeter of E.

    In this paper we are interested in the analysis of next order expansion. In particular we will prove in Theorem 2.1 that

    ωd1P(E)1sPs(E)H(E)as s1

    in the sense of Γ-convergence with respect to the L1-convergence, and the limit functional is defined as

    H(E):=E(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+1dxdHd1(y)EEB1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+1dxdHd1(y)ωd1P(E) (1.2)

    for sets E with finite perimeter, and H(E)=+ otherwise. Here we denote by E the reduced boundary of E, by ν(y) the outer normal to E at yE and by H(y) the hyperplane

    H(y):={xRd | (yx)ν(y)>0}. (1.3)

    We observe that, in dimension d=2, the functional H(E) coincides with the Γ-limit as δ0+ of the nonlocal energy

    2|logδ|P(E)ER2Eχ(δ,+)(|xy|)|xy|3dxdy,

    as recently proved by Muratov and Simon in [16,Theorem 2.3].

    We also mention the recent work [6], where the authors establish the second-order expansion of appropriately rescaled nonlocal functionals approximating Sobolev seminorms, considered by Bourgain, Brezis and Mironescu [2].

    As for the properties of the limit functional H, first of all we observe that it is coercive in the sense that it provides a control on the perimeter of the set, see Proposition 3.1. Moreover it is bounded on C1,α sets, for α>0, and on convex sets C such that for some s(0,1) the boundary integral CHs(C,x)dHd1(x) is finite, where Hs(C,x) is the fractional mean curvature of C at x, which is defined as

    Hs(C,x):=RdχRdC(y)χC(y)|xy|d+sdy,

    see Proposition 3.3. In particular when E has boundary of class C2, in Proposition 3.5 we show that the limit functional H(E) can be equivalently written as

    H(E)=1d1EE(ν(x)ν(y))22|xy|d1dHd1(x)dHd1(y)dωd1d1P(E)+1d1EE1|xy|d1|(yx)|yx|ν(x)|2((d1)log|xy|1)dHd1(x)dHd1(y)+EEH(E,x)ν(x)(yx)|yx|d1log|xy|dHd1(x)dHd1(y)

    where H(E,x) denotes the (scalar) mean curvature at xE, that is the sum of the principal curvatures divided by d1. Notice that the first term in the expression above is the (squared) L2-norm of a nonlocal second fundamental form of E (see e.g. [7,Appendix B]). We recall also that an analogous representation formula for the same functional in dimension d=2 has been given in [16].

    Some interesting issues about the limit functional remain open, for instance existence and rigidity (at least for small volumes) of minimizers of H among sets with fixed volume, see the discussion in Remark 2.7.

    The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is devoted to the proof of the main result, which is Theorem 2.1. The result is based on two main steps: the pointwise limit of ωd1P(E)1sPs(E) on smooth sets proved in Proposition 2.4, and the monotonicity of a related functional showed in Lemma 2.5. In Section 3 we analyze some properties of the limit functional H.

    We introduce the following functional on sets ERd of finite Lebesgue measure:

    Ps(E)={ωd11sP(E)Ps(E) if P(E)<++otherwise. (2.1)

    We now state the main result of the paper.

    Theorem 2.1. There holds

    Ps(E)H(E)as s1

    in the sense of Γ-convergence with respect to the L1-topology, where the functional H(E) is defined in (1.2).

    Remark 2.2. Observe that H(E) can be also expressed as

    H(E)=ωd1P(E)+E(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+1dxdHd1(y)+EEB1(x)1|xy|d+1dydxEB1(x)EdHd1(y)dx. (2.2)

    Indeed by the divergence theorem and by the fact that divy(yx|yx|d+1)=1|yx|d+1 we get

    EEB1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+1dxdHd1(y)=EEB1(x)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+1dHd1(y)dx=EEB1(x)1|xy|d+1dydx+EB1(x)E(yx)xy|yx||xy|d+1dHd1(y)dx=EEB1(x)1|xy|d+1dydxEB1(x)EdHd1(y)dx. (2.3)

    First of all we recall some properties of the functional Ps.

    Proposition 2.3 (Coercivity and lower semicontinuity). Let s(0,1). If En is a sequence of sets such that |En|m for some m>0 and Ps(En)C for some C>0 independent of n, then P(En)C for some C depending on C,s,d,m.

    In particular, the sequence En converges in L1loc, up to a subsequence, to a limit set E of finite perimeter, with |E|m.

    Moreover, the functional Ps is lower semicontinuous with respect to the L1-convergence.

    Proof of Proposition 2.3. Let E with |E|m. By the interpolation inequality proved in [3,Lemma 4.4] we get

    Ps(E)dωd2ss(1s)P(E)s|E|1sdωd2ss(1s)P(E)sm1s.

    For a sequence En as in the statement, this gives

    C(1s)ωd1P(En)(1s)Ps(En)ωd1P(En)dωd2ssP(En)sm1s. (2.4)

    From this we conclude that necessarily P(En)C, where C is a constant which depends on C,s,d,m. As a consequence, by the local compactness in L1 of sets of finite perimeter (see [14]) we obtain the local convergence of En, up to a subsequence, to a limit set E of finite perimeter.

    Now, assume that EnE in L1 and that c1sP(En)Ps(En)C. By the previous argument, we get that P(En)C, where C is a constant which depends on C,s,d,|E|. By the compact embedding of BV in Hs/2, see [10,15], we get that limnPs(En)=Ps(E), up to passing to a suitable subsequence. This, along with the lower semicontinuity of the perimeter with respect to local convergence in L1 (see [14]) gives the conclusion.

    The proof of Theorem 2.1 is based on some preliminary results. First of all we compute the pointwise limit, then we show that the functional sPs(E) is given by the sum of the functional Fs(E), defined in (2.13), which is lower semicontinuous and monotone increasing in s, and of a continuous functional. This will permit to show that the pointwise limit coincides with the Γ-limit.

    Proposition 2.4 (Pointwise limit). Let ERd be a measurable set such that |E|<+ and P(E)<+. Then

    lims1[ωd11sP(E)Ps(E)]={H(E)if E(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+1dxdHd1(y)<++otherwise

    where H(E) is defined in (1.2) and H(y) in (1.3).

    Proof. We can write Ps(E) as a boundary integral observing that for all 0<s<1

    divy(yx|yx|d+s)=s1|yx|d+s. (2.5)

    So, by the divergence theorem, (1.1) reads

    Ps(E)=1sEE(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdxdHd1(y)=1sEEB1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdxdHd1(y)+1sEEB1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdxdHd1(y) (2.6)

    where ν(y) is the outer normal at E in y.

    We fix now yE and we observe that

    EB1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdx=H(y)B1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdx+(EH(y))B1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdx(H(y)E)B1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdx=H(y)B1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdx(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+sdx. (2.7)

    Now we compute, denoting by B1 the ball in Rd1 with radius 1 (and center 0),

    H(y)B1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdx={xd0}B1xd|x|d+sdx=B11|x|20xd(x2d+|x|2)(d+s)/2dxd=B112ds(1|x|2ds)dx=ωd111s. (2.8)

    If we substitute (2.8) in (2.7) we get

    EB1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdx=ωd11s(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+sdx. (2.9)

    By (2.6) and (2.9) we obtain

    ωd1P(E)(1s)Ps(E)=ωd1P(E)(1s)ωd1P(E)s(1s)+1sE(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+sdxdHd1(y)1sE EB1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdxdHd1(y). (2.10)

    Now we observe that, by Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem, there holds

    lims11sEEB1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdxdHd1(y)=EEB1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+1dxdHd1(y). (2.11)

    Moreover, by the monotone convergence theorem,

    lims1(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+sdx=(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+1dx (2.12)

    if |(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+1L1((EΔH(y))B1(y)) and lims1(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+sdx=+ otherwise. The conclusion then follows from (2.10), (2.11), (2.12) sending s1.

    Lemma 2.5. For s(0,1) and ERd of finite measure, we define the functional

    Fs(E):={s[ωd11sP(E)Ps(E)EEB1(x)1|xy|d+sdydx]if P(E)<++otherwise. (2.13)

    Then the following holds:

    (1) The map sFs(E) is monotone increasing as s1. Moreover, for every E of finite perimeter

    lims1Fs(E)=ωd1P(E)+E(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+1dxdHd1(y)EB1(x)EdHd1(y)dx.

    (2) For every family of sets Es such that Fs(Es)C, for some C>0 independent of s, and EsE in L1, there holds

    lim infs1Fs(Es)ωd1P(E)+E(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+1dxdHd1(y)EB1(x)EdHd1(y)dx.

    Proof. (1) Arguing as in (2.3) and using (2.5), we get

    Fs(E)=s[ωd11sP(E)Ps(E)+1sEEB1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdxdHd1(y)1sEB1(x)EdHd1(y)dx].

    Therefore from (2.6), and (2.9), we get for 0<ˉs<s<1

    1s(Fs(E)+EB1(x)EdHd1(y)dx)=ωd1P(E)(1s)Ps(E)+1sEEB1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdxdHd1(y)=ωd1P(E)(1s)1sEEB1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdxdHd1(y)=ωd1sP(E)+1sE(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+sdxdHd1(y)>ωd1sP(E)+1sE(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+ˉsdxdHd1(y)=1s(Fˉs(E)+EB1(x)EdHd1(y)dx),

    which gives the desired monotonicity.

    Now we observe that by Lebesgue's dominated convergence for every E with |E|<+ and P(E)<+,

    lims11sEEB1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdxdHd1(y)1sEB1(x)EdHd1(y)dx=EEB1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+1dxdHd1(y)EB1(x)EdHd1(y)dx

    So, we conclude by Proposition 2.4.

    (2) We fix a family of sets Es such that Fs(Es)C and EsE in L1 as s1. Fix ˉs<1 and observe that by the monotonicity property proved in item (ⅰ), we get

    lim infs1Fs(Es)lim infs1Fˉs(Es)lim infs1ˉs[ωd11ˉsP(Es)Pˉs(Es)]lims1ˉsEsEsB1(x)1|xy|d+ˉsdydxˉs[ωd11ˉsP(E)Pˉs(E)]ˉsEEB1(x)1|xy|d+ˉsdydy=Fˉs(E)

    where we used for the first limit the lower semicontinuity proved in Proposition 2.3, and Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem for the second limit.

    We conclude by item (1), observing that Fˉs(E)<C, and sending ˉs1.

    We are now ready to prove our main result.

    Proof of Theorem 2.1. We start with the Γ-liminf inequality. Let Es be a sequence of sets such that EsE in L1. We will prove that

    lim infs1s[ωd11sP(Es)Ps(Es)]H(E),

    which will give immediately the conclusion. Recalling the definition of Fs(E) given in (2.13), we have that

    lim infs1s[ωd11sP(Es)Ps(Es)]lim infs1Fs(Es)+lim infs1sEsEsB1(x)1|xy|d+sdydx.

    By Lemma 2.5, item (2) and by Fatou lemma, we get

    lim infs1s[ωd11sP(Es)Ps(Es)]ωd1P(E)+E(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+1dxdHd1(y)EB1(x)EdHd1(y)dx+EEB1(x)1|xy|d+1dydx=H(E)

    where the last equality comes from (2.3).

    The Γ-limsup is a consequence of the pointwise limit in Proposition 2.4.

    We conclude this section with the equi-coercivity of the family of functionals Ps, which is a consequence of the monotonicity property of Fs obtained in Lemma 2.5.

    Proposition 2.6 (Equi-coercivity). Let sn be a sequence of positive numbers with sn1, let m,CR with m>0, and let En be a sequence of measurable sets such that |En|m and Psn(En)C for all nN.

    Then P(En)C for some C>0 depending on C,d,m, and the sequence En converges in L1loc, up to a subsequence, to a limit set E of finite perimeter, with |E|m.

    Proof. Reasoning as in Proposition 2.3, we get that En has finite perimeter, for every nN. Recalling (2.13), we get that

    |C|snPsn(En)=Fsn(En)+snEnEnB1(x)1|xy|d+sndydxFsn(En).

    We fix now ˉn such that sˉn>12 and we claim that there exists C, depending on m,d but independent of n, such that P(En)C for every nˉn. If the claim is true, then it is immediate to conclude that eventually enlarging C, P(En)C for every n.

    For every nˉn, we use the monotonicity of the map sFs(En) proved in Lemma 2.5, and the fact that |En|m, to obtain that

    |C|Fsn(En)Fsˉn(En)=sˉnPsˉn(En)sˉnEnEnB1(x)1|xy|d+sˉndydxsˉnPsˉn(En)sˉnEnEnB1(x)dydxsˉnPsˉn(En)sˉn|En|2sˉnPsˉn(En)sˉnm2.

    This implies in particular that Psˉn(En)|C|sˉn+m22|C|+m2, and we conclude by Proposition 2.3.

    Remark 2.7 (Isoperimetric problems). Let us consider the following isoperimetric-type problem for the functionals Ps and H:

    min|E|=mPs(E) (2.14)
    min|E|=mH(E), (2.15)

    where m>0 is a fixed constant. Observe that ˜E is a minimizer of (2.14) if and only if the rescaled set m1d˜E is a minimizer of

    min|E|=1ωd11sP(E)m1sdPs(E).

    Note in particular that the functional Ps is given by the sum of an attractive term, which is the perimeter functional, and a repulsive term given by the fractional perimeter with a negative sign.

    In general we cannot expect existence of solutions to these problems for every value of m. However, from [9,Thm 1.1,Thm 1.2] it follows that there exist 0<m2(s)m1(s) such that, for all m<m1(s), Problem (2.14) admits a solution and moreover, if m<m2(s), the unique solution (uo to translations) is the ball of volume m. Actually, the bounds m1(s),m2(s) tend to 0 as s1, hence these results cannot be extended directly to Problem (2.15).

    A weaker notion of solution, introduced in [13], are the so-called generalized minimizers, that is, minimizers of the functional iPs(Ei) (resp. of iH(Ei)), among sequences of sets (Ei)i such that |Ei|>0 and P(Ei)<+ for finitely many i's, and i|Ei|=m. Note that, if En is a minimizing sequence for (2.14) or (2.15), by reasoning as in Proposition 2.6, we get that there exists a constant C=C(m)>0 such that P(En)C for every n. Then, as it is proved in [12,Proposition 2.1], there exists C=C(m)>0, depending on C and m, such that supx|EnB1(x)|C. Using these facts, reasoning as in [13], it is possible to show existence of generalized minimizers both for (2.14) and (2.15), for every value of m>0.

    In this section we analyze the main properties of the limit functional H. Note that, since it is obtained as a Γ-limit, it is naturally lower semicontinuous with respect to L1 convergence.

    First of all we observe that by the representation of H in (2.2), for every E with finite perimeter there holds

    ωd1P(E)dωd|E|H(E)E(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+1dxdHd1(y)+dωd|E|E(EΔH(y))B1(y)1|xy|ddxdHd1(y)+dωd|E|. (3.1)

    We start with a compactness property in L1 for sublevel sets of H, which follows from a lower bound on H in terms of the perimeter.

    Proposition 3.1. Let ERd be such that H(E)C. Then there exists a constant C depending on C,|E|,d such that P(E)C.

    In particular, if En is a sequence of sets such that H(En)C, then there exists a limit set E of finite perimeter such that H(E)C and EnE in L1loc as n+, up to a subsequence.

    Proof. By Lemma 2.5, for s(0,1) there holds

    Fs(E)H(E)EEnB1(y)1|xy|d+1dxdyH(E)C.

    The estimate on P(En) then follows by Proposition 2.6.

    The second statement is a direct consequence of the lower semicontinuity of H, and of the local compactness in L1 of sets of finite perimeter.

    We point out the following rescaling property of the functional H, the will allow us to consider only sets with diameter less than 1.

    Proposition 3.2. For every λ>0 there holds

    H(λE)=λd1H(E)ωd1λd1logλP(E). (3.2)

    Proof. We observe that for every R>0, with the same computation as in (2.8) we get

    EBR(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdx=H(y)BR(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+sdx(EΔH(y))BR(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+sdx=ωd1R1s1s(EΔH(y))BR(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+sdx.

    Therefore, arguing as in Proposition 2.4, we can show that H(E) can be equivalently defined as follows, for all R>0

    H(E)=ωd1P(E)(1+logR)+E(EΔH(y))BR(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+1dxdHd1(y)EEBR(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+1dxdHd1(y). (3.3)

    This formula immediately gives the desired rescaling property (3.2).

    Now, we identify some classes of sets where H is bounded.

    Proposition 3.3. Let E be a measurable set with |E|<+ and P(E)<+.

    1. If E is uniformly of class C1,α for some α>0, then H(E)<+.

    2. If E is a convex set then, for every s(0,1), there holds

    H(E)(diamE)s2EHs(E,y)dHd1(y)ωd1P(E)(1s+log(diamE))

    where diamE:=supx,yE|xy|, and Hs(E,y) is the fractional mean curvature of E at y, which is defined as

    Hs(E,y):=RdχRdE(x)χE(x)|xy|d+sdx,

    in the principal value sense.

    Proof. (1) If E is uniformly of class C1,α, then there exists η>0 such that for all yE, EBη(y) is a graph of a C1,α function h, such that hC0,α(Bη(y))C, for some C independent of y. Up to a rotation and translation, we may assume that y=0, h(0)=0 and h(0)=0 and moreover C|x|1+αh(x)C|x|1+α for all xBη. Therefore recalling that EBη={(x,xd) | xdh(x)} and that H(0)={(x,xd) | xd0}, there holds

    (EΔH(0))BηCη:={(x,xd) |C|x|1+αxdC|x|1+α,|x|η}.

    We compute

    (EΔH(0))B11|x|ddx=(EΔH(0))Bη1|x|ddx+(EΔH(0))(B1Bη)1|x|ddxCη1|x|ddx+12B1Bη1|x|ddxCη1|x|ddx+12B1Bη1|x|ddx2CBη|x|1+α|x|ddx12dωdlog(η1)=2C(d1)ωd1ηαα12dωdlog(η1).

    Then, recalling (3.1) we get that

    H(E)(2C(d1)ωd1ηαα12dωdlog(η1))P(E)+dωd|E|<+.

    (2) Let R=diamE. Then by (3.3), we get

    H(E)=ωd1P(E)(1+logR)+E(EΔH(y))BR(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+1dxdHd1(y)ωd1P(E)(1+logR)+E(EΔH(y))BR(y)1|xy|ddxdHd1(y)ωd1P(E)(1+logR)+E(EΔH(y))BR(y)Rs|xy|d+sdxdHd1(y).

    By convexity for every yE, recalling that EBR(y), there holds

    (EΔH(y))BR(y)Rs|xy|d+sdx=Rs2BR(y)χRdE(x)χE(x)|xy|d+sdx=Rs2Hs(E,y)Rs2RdBR(y)1|xy|d+sdx=Rs2Hs(E,y)dωd2s.

    Therefore, substituting this equality in the previous estimate, we get

    H(E)Rs2EHs(E,y)dHd1(y)ωd1P(E)(1+logR)dωd2sP(E).

    Remark 3.4. Note that by Proposition 3.3, H(Q)<+ for every cube Q=Πdi=1[ai,bi].

    Indeed for yQ, there holds that Hs(Q,y)1(d(y,(QQ)))s for s(0,1) and so QHs(Q,y)dHd1(y)<+.

    Finally we provide some useful equivalent representations of the functional H.

    Proposition 3.5.

    (i) Let E be a set with finite perimeter such that H(E)<+. Then

    H(E)=dωd1d1P(E)limδ0+[1d1EEBδ(y)ν(y)ν(x)|xy|d1dHd1(x)dHd1(y)+ωd1logδP(E)].

    (ii) Let E be a compact set with boundary of class C2. Then

    H(E)=1d1EE(ν(x)ν(y))22|xy|d1dHd1(x)dHd1(y)dωd1d1P(E)+1d1EE1|xy|d1|(yx)|yx|ν(x)|2((d1)log|xy|1)dHd1(x)dHd1(y)+EEH(E,x)ν(x)(yx)|yx|d1log|xy|dHd1(x)dHd1(y).

    Proof. (i) If the diameter of E is less than 1, then EB1(y)= for all yE, and so

    H(E)=ωd1P(E)+E(EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+1dxdHd1(y).

    Using that

    1d1divx(ν(y)|xy|d1)=(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+1

    we compute the second inner integral for yE, recalling that EB1(y),

    (EΔH(y))B1(y)|(yx)ν(y)||xy|d+1dx=(H(y)E)B1(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+1dx(EH(y))(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+1dx=limδ0[(H(y)E)(B1(y)Bδ(y))(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+1dx(EH(y))Bδ(y)(yx)ν(y)|xy|d+1dx]=limδ0[1d1EBδ(y)ν(x)ν(y)|xy|d1dHd1(x)+1d1B1(y)H(y)ν(x)ν(y)dHd1(x)+1d1H(y)(B1(y)Bδ(y))1|xy|d1dHd1(x)1δd1Bδ(y)(H(y)ΔE)ν(x)ν(y)dHd1(x)].

    Now we observe that

    limδ01δd1Bδ(y)(H(y)ΔE)|ν(x)ν(y)|dHd1(x)limδ01δd1Bδ(y)(H(y)ΔE)dHd1(x)=limδ0B1(H(y)Δ(Ey)δ)dHd1(x)=0

    since, for yE, there holds that (Ey)δH(y) locally in L1 as δ0, see [14,Thm II.4.5]. We compute

    1d1B1(y)H(y)ν(x)ν(y)dHd1(x)=1d1xd=1|x|2xddHd1(x)=ωd1d1

    and

    1d1H(y)(B1(y)Bδ(y))1|xy|d1dHd1(x)=1d1B1Bδ1|x|d1dx=ωd1logδ.

    Therefore

    H(E)=dωd1d1P(E)limδ0+[1d1EEBδ(y)ν(y)ν(x)|xy|d1dHd1(x)dHd1(y)+ωd1logδP(E)].

    If E has diameter greater or equal to 1, we obtain the formula by rescaling, using (3.2).

    (ii) Let us fix yE and define for all xE, xy, the vector field

    η(x)=f(|xy|)(yx) where f(r):=logrrd1.

    By the Gauss-Green Formula (see [14,I.11.8]), for δ>0 there holds

    1d1EBδ(y)divτη(x)dHd1(x)=EBδ(y)H(E,x)ν(x)η(x)dHd1(x)+1d1Bδ(y)Eη(x)xy|xy|dHd2(x)=EBδ(y)H(E,x)ν(x)η(x)dHd1(x)ωd1logδ

    where divτη(x) is the tangential divergence, that is divτη(x)=divη(x)ν(x)Tη(x)ν(x). Therefore integrating the previous equality on E, we get that

    ωd1logδP(E)=EEBδ(y)H(E,x)ν(x)η(x)dHd1(x)dHd1(y)1d1EEBδ(y)divτη(x)dHd1(x)dHd1(y). (3.4)

    Now we compute

    divτη(x)=trη(x)ν(x)Tη(x)ν(x)=tr(f(|xy|)I+f(|xy|)|xy|yx|xy|yx|xy|)+ν(x)T(f(|xy|)I+f(|xy|)|xy|yx|xy|yx|xy|)ν(x)=f(|xy|)df(|xy|)|xy|+f(|xy|)+f(|xy|)|xy||yx|yx|ν(x)|2=1|xy|d1+1(d1)log|xy||xy|d1)|yx|yx|ν(x)|2

    where we used the equality rf(r)=1rd1(d1)f(r)=1(d1)logrrd1.

    If we substitute this expression in (3.4) we get

    ωd1logδP(E)=EEBδ(y)H(E,x)ν(x)(yx)|xy|d1log|xy|dHd1(x)dHd1(y)+1d1EEBδ(y)1|xy|d1dHd1(x)dHd1(y)1d1EEBδ(y)1(d1)log|xy||xy|d1)|yx|yx|ν(x)|2dHd1(x)dHd1(y).

    The conclusion then follows by substituting ωd1logδP(E) with the previous expression in the representation formula obtained in (i), and observing that 1ν(x)ν(y)=(ν(x)ν(y))2/2.

    The authors are members and were supported by the INDAM/GNAMPA.

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.



    [1] Ambrosio L, De Philippis G, Martinazzi L (2011) Gamma-convergence of nonlocal perimeter functionals. Manuscripta Math 134: 377-403. doi: 10.1007/s00229-010-0399-4
    [2] Bourgain J, Brezis H, Mironescu P (2001) Another look at Sobolev spaces, In: Optimal Control and Partial Differential Equations, Amsterdam: IOS, 439-455.
    [3] Brasco L, Lindgren E, Parini E (2014) The fractional Cheeger problem. Interface Free Bound 16: 419-458. doi: 10.4171/IFB/325
    [4] Caffarelli L, Roquejoffre JM, Savin O (2010) Nonlocal minimal surfaces. Commun Pure Appl Math 63: 1111-1144.
    [5] Caffarelli L, Valdinoci E (2013) Regularity properties of nonlocal minimal surfaces via limiting arguments. Adv Math 248: 843-871. doi: 10.1016/j.aim.2013.08.007
    [6] Chambolle A, Novaga M, Pagliari V (2019) On the convergence rate of some nonlocal energies. arXiv:1907.06030.
    [7] Dávila J, del Pino M, Wei J (2018) Nonlocal s-minimal surfaces and Lawson cones. J. Differ Geom 109: 111-175. doi: 10.4310/jdg/1525399218
    [8] De Luca L, Novaga M, Ponsiglione M (2019) The 0-fractional perimeter between fractional perimeters and Riesz potentials. arXiv:1906.06303.
    [9] Di Castro A, Novaga M, Ruffini B, et al. (2015) Nonlocal quantitative isoperimetric inequalities. Calc Var Partial Dif 54: 2421-2464. doi: 10.1007/s00526-015-0870-x
    [10] Di Nezza E, Palatucci G, Valdinoci E (2012) Hitchhiker's guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces. Bull Sci Math 136: 521-573. doi: 10.1016/j.bulsci.2011.12.004
    [11] Dipierro S, Figalli A, Palatucci G, et al. (2013) Asymptotics of the s-perimeter as s → 0. Discrete Cont Dyn Syst 33: 2777-2790. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2013.33.2777
    [12] Frank RL, Lieb E (2015) A compactness lemma and its application to the existence of minimizers for the liquid drop model. SIAM J Math Anal 47: 4436-4450. doi: 10.1137/15M1010658
    [13] Knüpfer H, Muratov CB, Novaga M (2016) Low density phases in a uniformly charged liquid. Commun Math Phys 345: 141-183. doi: 10.1007/s00220-016-2654-3
    [14] Maggi F (2012) Sets of Finite Perimeter and Geometric Variational Problems. An Introduction to Geometric Measure Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [15] Mazýa V (2003) Lectures on isoperimetric and isocapacitary inequalities in the theory of Sobolev spaces. Contemp Math 338: 307-340. doi: 10.1090/conm/338/06078
    [16] Muratov CB, Simon T (2019) A nonlocal isoperimetric problem with dipolar repulsion. Commun Math Phys 372: 1059-1115. doi: 10.1007/s00220-019-03455-y
    [17] Valdinoci E (2013) A fractional framework for perimeters and phase transitions. Milan J Math 81: 1-23. doi: 10.1007/s00032-013-0199-x
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. A. Cesaroni, L. De Luca, M. Novaga, M. Ponsiglione, Stability results for nonlocal geometric evolutions and limit cases for fractional mean curvature flows, 2021, 0360-5302, 1, 10.1080/03605302.2021.1875485
    2. A Kubin, M Ponsiglione, Attractive Riesz potentials acting on hard spheres, 2021, 34, 0951-7715, 350, 10.1088/1361-6544/abcb06
    3. 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
    4. Hans Knüpfer, Wenhui Shi, Second Order Expansion for the Nonlocal Perimeter Functional, 2022, 0010-3616, 10.1007/s00220-022-04549-w
    5. Denis Brazke, Hans Knüpfer, Anna Marciniak–Czochra, Γ–limit for a sharp interface model related to pattern formation on biomembranes, 2023, 62, 0944-2669, 10.1007/s00526-022-02413-2
    6. L. De Luca, A. Kubin, M. Ponsiglione, The core-radius approach to supercritical fractional perimeters, curvatures and geometric flows, 2022, 214, 0362546X, 112585, 10.1016/j.na.2021.112585
    7. Birger Brietzke, Hans Knüpfer, Onset of pattern formation in thin ferromagnetic films with perpendicular anisotropy, 2023, 62, 0944-2669, 10.1007/s00526-023-02459-w
    8. Wojciech Cygan, Tomasz Grzywny, Asymptotics of non-local perimeters, 2023, 202, 0373-3114, 2629, 10.1007/s10231-023-01332-z
    9. M. Goldman, B. Merlet, M. Pegon, Uniform C1,α-Regularity for Almost-Minimizers of Some Nonlocal Perturbations of the Perimeter, 2024, 248, 0003-9527, 10.1007/s00205-024-02048-x
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2020 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(3451) PDF downloads(348) Cited by(9)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog