ScalingStacks

4.4. Regularity and asymptotics for Poisson equation [03HP]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context Β· Original author HTML

4.4. Regularity and asymptotics for Poisson equation

With the above lemmas, the following estimate for the solutions of the non-homogeneous equation immediately follows.

Lemma 4.12.

Let (π’ž,gπ’ž)(\mathcal{C},g_{\mathcal{C}}) be the model space with a fixed fiber (Y3,h0)(Y^{3},h_{0}). Let K0β‰₯1K_{0}\geq 1 and let ξ∈C2​K0​(π’ž)\xi\in C^{2K_{0}}(\mathcal{C}) satisfy the expansion

(4.123) ξ⁑(z,π’š)=βˆ‘k=1∞ξk​(z)β‹…Ο†k​(π’š).\xi(z,\bm{y})=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\xi_{k}(z)\cdot\varphi_{k}(\bm{y}).

In addition, assume that there is some Ξ·0β‰ 0\eta_{0}\neq 0 such that for every 0≀m≀2​K00\leq m\leq 2K_{0},

(4.124) |βˆ‡mξ​(z,π’š)|=O⁑(eΞ·0​z),|\nabla^{m}\xi(z,\bm{y})|=O(e^{\eta_{0}z}),

then for every zβ‰₯1z\geq 1 and kβˆˆβ„€+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+},

(4.125) |ΞΎk​(z)|≀C​eΞ·0​z(Ξ›k)K0,|\xi_{k}(z)|\leq\frac{Ce^{\eta_{0}z}}{(\Lambda_{k})^{K_{0}}},

where the constant C>0C>0 is independent of kk and zz.

Proof.

The estimate will be proved by the standard integration by parts. Since the eigenfunctions Ο†k\varphi_{k} satisfy

(4.126) βˆ’Ξ”h0​φk=Ξ›k​φk-\Delta_{h_{0}}\varphi_{k}=\Lambda_{k}\varphi_{k}

and β€–Ο†kβ€–L2​(Y3)=1\|\varphi_{k}\|_{L^{2}(Y^{3})}=1, we have that

|ΞΎk​(z)|\displaystyle\Big|\xi_{k}(z)\Big| =|∫Y3ΞΎβ‹…Ο†k|=|∫Y3ΞΎβ‹…(βˆ’Ξ”h0)K0​φk(Ξ›k)K0|\displaystyle=\Big|\int_{Y^{3}}\xi\cdot\varphi_{k}\Big|=\Big|\int_{Y^{3}}\xi\cdot\frac{(-\Delta_{h_{0}})^{K_{0}}\varphi_{k}}{(\Lambda_{k})^{K_{0}}}\Big|
(4.127) ≀1(Ξ›k)K0β€‹βˆ«Y3|Ξ”h0K0​ξ|β‹…|Ο†k|≀Q2​K0β‹…Volh0⁑(Y3)1/2β‹…eΞ·0​z(Ξ›k)K0,\displaystyle\leq\frac{1}{(\Lambda_{k})^{K_{0}}}\int_{Y^{3}}|\Delta_{h_{0}}^{K_{0}}\xi|\cdot|\varphi_{k}|\leq\frac{Q_{2K_{0}}\cdot\Vol_{h_{0}}(Y^{3})^{1/2}\cdot e^{\eta_{0}z}}{(\Lambda_{k})^{K_{0}}},

where Q2​K0Q_{2K_{0}} depends only on the asymptotic bound of βˆ‡2​K0ΞΎ\nabla^{2K_{0}}\xi. The proof is done.

∎

Lemma 4.13.

Consider the inhomogeneous ordinary differential equation

(4.128) d2​uk​(z)d​z2βˆ’(jk2​z2+Ξ»k)​uk​(z)=ΞΎk​(z)β‹…z,zβ‰₯106,\frac{d^{2}u_{k}(z)}{dz^{2}}-(j_{k}^{2}z^{2}+\lambda_{k})u_{k}(z)=\xi_{k}(z)\cdot z,\ z\geq 10^{6},

where δ¯>0\underline{\delta}>0 is the constant defined in (4.106). Assume that the function ΞΎk​(z)\xi_{k}(z) satisfies the following property: there are constants

(4.129) Ξ·0∈(βˆ’Ξ΄Β―/2,δ¯/2)βˆ–{0}\eta_{0}\in(-\underline{\delta}/2,\underline{\delta}/2)\setminus\{0\}

and Qk>0Q_{k}>0 such that

(4.130) |ΞΎk​(z)|≀Qkβ‹…eΞ·0​z.|\xi_{k}(z)|\leq Q_{k}\cdot e^{\eta_{0}z}.

Let uk​(z)u_{k}(z) be the particular solution defined by

(4.131) uk​(z)≑𝒒k​(z)+π’Ÿk​(z)𝒲k​(z),u_{k}(z)\equiv\frac{\mathcal{G}_{k}(z)+\mathcal{D}_{k}(z)}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)},

where

(4.132) π’Ÿk​(z)≑ℱk​(z)β€‹βˆ«zβˆžπ’°k​(r)β‹…(ΞΎk​(r)β‹…r)​𝑑r,\mathcal{D}_{k}(z)\equiv\mathcal{F}_{k}(z)\int_{z}^{\infty}\mathcal{U}_{k}(r)\cdot\Big(\xi_{k}(r)\cdot r\Big)dr,
(4.133) 𝒒k​(z)≑𝒰k​(z)β€‹βˆ«1zβ„±k​(r)β‹…(ΞΎk​(r)β‹…r)​𝑑r\mathcal{G}_{k}(z)\equiv\mathcal{U}_{k}(z)\int_{1}^{z}\mathcal{F}_{k}(r)\cdot\Big(\xi_{k}(r)\cdot r\Big)dr

and 𝒲k\mathcal{W}_{k} is the Wronskian

(4.134) 𝒲k​(z)≑𝒲⁑(β„±k​(z),𝒰k​(z)).\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)\equiv\mathcal{W}\Big(\mathcal{F}_{k}(z),\mathcal{U}_{k}(z)\Big).

Then there are constants C0>0C_{0}>0 and η0<η<η0+δ¯/10\eta_{0}<\eta<\eta_{0}+\underline{\delta}/10 which are independent of kk such that the particular solution uku_{k} satisfies the uniform estimate

(4.135) |uk​(z)|≀C0β‹…Qkβ‹…eη​z.|u_{k}(z)|\leq C_{0}\cdot Q_{k}\cdot e^{\eta z}.
Proof.

We will prove that there exists some constant η0<η<η0+δ¯/10\eta_{0}<\eta<\eta_{0}+\underline{\delta}/10 such that

(4.136) π’Ÿk​(z)𝒲k​(z)≀C0β‹…Qkβ‹…eη​z\frac{\mathcal{D}_{k}(z)}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)}\leq C_{0}\cdot Q_{k}\cdot e^{\eta z}

and

(4.137) 𝒒k​(z)𝒲k​(z)≀C0β‹…Qkβ‹…eη​z,\frac{\mathcal{G}_{k}(z)}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)}\leq C_{0}\cdot Q_{k}\cdot e^{\eta z},

where the positive constant C0>0C_{0}>0 is independent of the index kk.

We prove (4.136) and (4.137) in two different cases.

In the first case, kβˆˆβ„€+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} satisfies jk=0j_{k}=0. The fundamental solutions have an explicit form

(4.138) β„±k​(z)≑eΞ»kβ‹…z\mathcal{F}_{k}(z)\equiv e^{\sqrt{\lambda_{k}}\cdot z}

and

(4.139) 𝒰k(z)≑eβˆ’Ξ»kβ‹…z.\mathcal{U}_{k}(z)\equiv e^{-\sqrt{\lambda_{k}}\cdot z}.

Immediately,

(4.140) 𝒲k​(z)=𝒲⁑(β„±k​(z),𝒰k​(z))=2​λk\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)=\mathcal{W}(\mathcal{F}_{k}(z),\mathcal{U}_{k}(z))=2\sqrt{\lambda_{k}}

and hence for Ξ·>Ξ·0\eta>\eta_{0},

(4.141) |π’Ÿk​(z)||𝒲k​(z)|=β„±k​(z)𝒲k​(z)β€‹βˆ«zβˆžπ’°k​(r)​|ΞΎk​(r)β‹…r|​𝑑r≀Qk​eΞ»kβ‹…zΞ»kβ€‹βˆ«z∞e(βˆ’Ξ»k+Ξ·)β‹…r​𝑑r≀C0β‹…Qk​eη​z.\displaystyle\frac{|\mathcal{D}_{k}(z)|}{|\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)|}=\frac{\mathcal{F}_{k}(z)}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)}\int_{z}^{\infty}\mathcal{U}_{k}(r)|\xi_{k}(r)\cdot r|dr\leq\frac{Q_{k}e^{\sqrt{\lambda_{k}}\cdot z}}{\sqrt{\lambda_{k}}}\int_{z}^{\infty}e^{(-\sqrt{\lambda_{k}}+\eta)\cdot r}dr\leq C_{0}\cdot Q_{k}e^{\eta z}.

Similarly,

(4.142) |𝒒k​(z)||𝒲k​(z)|=𝒰k​(z)𝒲k​(z)β€‹βˆ«z0zβ„±k​(r)​|ΞΎk​(r)β‹…r|​𝑑r≀Qkeβˆ’Ξ»kβ‹…zΞ»kβ€‹βˆ«z0ze(Ξ»k+Ξ·)β‹…r​𝑑r≀C0β‹…Qk​eη​z.\displaystyle\frac{|\mathcal{G}_{k}(z)|}{|\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)|}=\frac{\mathcal{U}_{k}(z)}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)}\int_{z_{0}}^{z}\mathcal{F}_{k}(r)|\xi_{k}(r)\cdot r|dr\leq\frac{Q_{k}e^{-\sqrt{\lambda_{k}}\cdot z}}{\sqrt{\lambda_{k}}}\int_{z_{0}}^{z}e^{(\sqrt{\lambda_{k}}+\eta)\cdot r}dr\leq C_{0}\cdot Q_{k}e^{\eta z}.

In the latter case jkβˆˆβ„€+j_{k}\in\mathbb{Z}_{+} and kβˆˆβ„€+k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}, we will prove the uniform estimates. A crucial point is to apply the monotonicity in Lemma 4.9. In fact,

π’Ÿk​(z)𝒲k​(z)\displaystyle\frac{\mathcal{D}_{k}(z)}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)} =β„±k​(z)𝒲k​(z)β€‹βˆ«zβˆžπ’°k​(r)​ξk​(r)β‹…r​𝑑r\displaystyle=\frac{\mathcal{F}_{k}(z)}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)}\int_{z}^{\infty}\mathcal{U}_{k}(r)\xi_{k}(r)\cdot rdr
(4.143) ≀C0​eF^k​(z)𝒲k​(z)β€‹βˆ«z∞eU^k​(r)​ξk​(r)β‹…r​𝑑r≀C0​eF^k​(z)𝒲k​(z)β€‹βˆ«z∞eU^k​(r)+η′​r​𝑑r,\displaystyle\leq\frac{C_{0}e^{\widehat{F}_{k}(z)}}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)}\int_{z}^{\infty}e^{\widehat{U}_{k}(r)}\xi_{k}(r)\cdot rdr\leq\frac{C_{0}e^{\widehat{F}_{k}(z)}}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)}\int_{z}^{\infty}e^{\widehat{U}_{k}(r)+\eta^{\prime}r}dr,

where Ξ·β€²>Ξ·0\eta^{\prime}>\eta_{0}. We choose ϡ∈(δ¯/100,δ¯/10)\epsilon\in(\underline{\delta}/100,\underline{\delta}/10) and denote η≑η′+Ο΅\eta\equiv\eta^{\prime}+\epsilon, then by Lemma 4.9

eF^k​(z)𝒲k​(z)β€‹βˆ«z∞eU^k​(r)+η′​r​𝑑r\displaystyle\frac{e^{\widehat{F}_{k}(z)}}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)}\int_{z}^{\infty}e^{\widehat{U}_{k}(r)+\eta^{\prime}r}dr =eF^k​(z)𝒲k​(z)β€‹βˆ«z∞eU^k​(r)+η​rβ‹…eβˆ’Ο΅β€‹r​𝑑r\displaystyle=\frac{e^{\widehat{F}_{k}(z)}}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)}\int_{z}^{\infty}e^{\widehat{U}_{k}(r)+\eta r}\cdot e^{-\epsilon r}dr
≀C0β‹…Qkβ‹…eF^k​(z)+U^k​(z)+η​z𝒲k​(z)β€‹βˆ«z∞eβˆ’Ο΅β€‹r​𝑑r\displaystyle\leq\frac{C_{0}\cdot Q_{k}\cdot e^{\widehat{F}_{k}(z)+\widehat{U}_{k}(z)+\eta z}}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)}\int_{z}^{\infty}e^{-\epsilon r}dr
(4.144) ≀C0β‹…Qkβ‹…eF^k​(z)+U^k​(z)+η​z𝒲k​(z)≀C0β‹…Qkβ‹…eη​z.\displaystyle\leq C_{0}\cdot Q_{k}\cdot\frac{e^{\widehat{F}_{k}(z)+\widehat{U}_{k}(z)+\eta z}}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)}\leq C_{0}\cdot Q_{k}\cdot e^{\eta z}.

The proof of (4.136) is done.

Next, for the estimate (4.137),

𝒒k​(z)𝒲k​(z)\displaystyle\frac{\mathcal{G}_{k}(z)}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)} =𝒰k​(z)𝒲k​(z)β€‹βˆ«1zβ„±k​(r)​ξk​(r)β‹…r​𝑑r\displaystyle=\frac{\mathcal{U}_{k}(z)}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)}\int_{1}^{z}\mathcal{F}_{k}(r)\xi_{k}(r)\cdot rdr
(4.145) ≀C0​eU^k​(z)𝒲k​(z)β€‹βˆ«1zeF^k​(r)+η′​r​𝑑r≀C0β‹…Qk​zβ‹…eU^k​(z)+F^k​(z)+η′​z𝒲k​(z)≀C0β‹…Qkβ‹…eη​z.\displaystyle\leq\frac{C_{0}e^{\widehat{U}_{k}(z)}}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)}\int_{1}^{z}e^{\widehat{F}_{k}(r)+\eta^{\prime}r}dr\leq\frac{C_{0}\cdot Q_{k}z\cdot e^{\widehat{U}_{k}(z)+\widehat{F}_{k}(z)+\eta^{\prime}z}}{\mathcal{W}_{k}(z)}\leq C_{0}\cdot Q_{k}\cdot e^{\eta z}.

This completes the proof of the proposition.

∎

Lemma 4.14 (Uniform estimate for eigenfunctions).

Let {Ο†k}k=1∞\{\varphi_{k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty} be the eigenfunctions of Ξ”h0\Delta_{h_{0}} on (Y3,h0)(Y^{3},h_{0}) with β€–Ο†kβ€–L2​(Y3)=1\|\varphi_{k}\|_{L^{2}(Y^{3})}=1, then there exists C>0C>0 which depends only on the metric h0h_{0} such that

(4.146) β€–Ο†kβ€–Lβˆžβ€‹(Y3)≀Cβ‹…Ξ›k.\|\varphi_{k}\|_{L^{\infty}(Y^{3})}\leq C\cdot\Lambda_{k}.
Proof.

The proof follows from the standard elliptic regularity. Indeed, the eigenfunction Ο†k\varphi_{k} satisfies the elliptic equation

(4.147) βˆ’Ξ”h0​φk=Ξ›kβ‹…Ο†k.-\Delta_{h_{0}}\varphi_{k}=\Lambda_{k}\cdot\varphi_{k}.

It follows from the standard elliptic regularity that there exists some constant C>0C>0 depending only the metric h0h_{0} such that

(4.148) β€–Ο†kβ€–W2,2​(Y3)≀Cβ‹…Ξ›kβ‹…β€–Ο†kβ€–L2​(Y3)=Cβ‹…Ξ›k.\|\varphi_{k}\|_{W^{2,2}(Y^{3})}\leq C\cdot\Lambda_{k}\cdot\|\varphi_{k}\|_{L^{2}(Y^{3})}=C\cdot\Lambda_{k}.

Applying the Sobolev embedding theorem,

(4.149) β€–Ο†kβ€–C0,12​(Y3)≀C​‖φkβ€–W2,2​(Y3)≀Cβ‹…Ξ›k,\|\varphi_{k}\|_{C^{0,\frac{1}{2}}(Y^{3})}\leq C\|\varphi_{k}\|_{W^{2,2}(Y^{3})}\leq C\cdot\Lambda_{k},

where C>0C>0 depends only on the metric h0h_{0}. The proof is complete. ∎

Proposition 4.15 (Sovability of Poisson Equation).

Let (π’ž,gπ’ž)(\mathcal{C},g_{\mathcal{C}}) be the Calabi space, there is some constant δ¯>0\underline{\delta}>0 which depends only on π’ž\mathcal{C} such that the following property holds: given any

(4.150) Ξ·0∈(βˆ’Ξ΄Β―,δ¯)βˆ–{0},\eta_{0}\in(-\underline{\delta},\underline{\delta})\setminus\{0\},

if v∈C3​K0,α​(π’ž)v\in C^{3K_{0},\alpha}(\mathcal{C}) for K0β‰₯3K_{0}\geq 3 and v⁑(z,𝐲)=O⁑(eΞ·0​z)v(z,\bm{y})=O(e^{\eta_{0}z}), then the equation

(4.151) Ξ”g0​u=v\Delta_{g_{0}}u=v

has a solution u∈C3​K0+2,α​(π’ž)u\in C^{3K_{0}+2,\alpha}(\mathcal{C}) with

(4.152) u⁑(z,π’š)=O⁑(eη​z)u(z,\bm{y})=O(e^{\eta z})

for any Ξ·>Ξ·0\eta>\eta_{0}.

Proof.

The proof of the proposition is constructive. The basic strategy is to apply separation of variables to construct a solution to the equation (4.151). Given a function vv and for any fixed zβ‰₯1z\geq 1, there is an expansion over the fiber Y3Y^{3},

(4.153) v⁑(z,π’š)=βˆ‘k=1∞vk​(z)​φk​(π’š).v(z,\bm{y})=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}v_{k}(z)\varphi_{k}(\bm{y}).

Separation of variables enables us to construct a formal solution

(4.154) u⁑(z,π’š)=βˆ‘k=1∞uk​(z)​φk​(π’š)u(z,\bm{y})=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}u_{k}(z)\varphi_{k}(\bm{y})

to the equation (4.151), where uku_{k} are the particular solutions in Lemma 4.13. Since a priori the above series is defined in the L2L^{2}-topology along each fiber Y3Γ—{z}Y^{3}\times\{z\}, we need to verify the higher order convergence of the series, which will indicate that uu is a regular solution to (4.151).

First, we will show that the above series converges in the C0C^{0}-topology and thus uu is a C0C^{0}-function. The main point is to reduce the uniform convergence to the convergence of certain numerical series involving only in the eigenvalues {Ξ›k}k=1∞\{\Lambda_{k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty} of a definite fiber (Y3,h0)(Y^{3},h_{0}). Indeed, Lemma 4.12 guarantees that the solutions satisfy all the conditions in Lemma 4.13. Since we have obtained in Lemma 4.13 the uniform estimate for the ODE solutions uku_{k} and also in Lemma 4.14 the uniform estimate for the eigenfunctions, the L2L^{2}-expansion has the following bound,

(4.155) |u⁑(z,π’š)|β‰€βˆ‘k=1∞|uk​(z)|β‹…|Ο†k​(π’š)|≀Cβ€‹βˆ‘k=1∞eη​z(Ξ›k)K0βˆ’1.\displaystyle|u(z,\bm{y})|\leq\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}|u_{k}(z)|\cdot|\varphi_{k}(\bm{y})|\leq C\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{e^{\eta z}}{(\Lambda_{k})^{K_{0}-1}}.

Since the spectrum of Laplacian {Ξ›k}k=1∞\{\Lambda_{k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty} obeys Weyl’s law on (Y3,h0)(Y^{3},h_{0}), it follows that for sufficiently large kk,

(4.156) C0βˆ’1​k23≀|Ξ›k|≀C0​k23,C_{0}^{-1}k^{\frac{2}{3}}\leq|\Lambda_{k}|\leq C_{0}k^{\frac{2}{3}},

where C0>0C_{0}>0 depends only on h0h_{0}. Plugging the above asymptotics into (4.155), we have that

(4.157) βˆ‘k=1∞1(Ξ›k)K0βˆ’1≀Cβ€‹βˆ‘k=1∞1k43<∞\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(\Lambda_{k})^{K_{0}-1}}\leq C\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k^{\frac{4}{3}}}<\infty

and hence

(4.158) |u⁑(z,π’š)|≀C​eη​z.|u(z,\bm{y})|\leq Ce^{\eta z}.

Therefore, u∈C0​(π’ž)u\in C^{0}(\mathcal{C}) and uu exponentially decays.

Next, we will apply the standard elliptic regularity on the Calabi manifold to show that u∈C2u\in C^{2} and thus uu is a regular solution. For the expansions

(4.159) u⁑(z,π’š)=βˆ‘k=1∞uk​(z)​φk​(π’š),v⁑(z,π’š)=βˆ‘k=1∞vk​(z)​φk​(π’š),\displaystyle u(z,\bm{y})=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}u_{k}(z)\varphi_{k}(\bm{y}),\ v(z,\bm{y})=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}v_{k}(z)\varphi_{k}(\bm{y}),

we denote by

(4.160) UN​(z,π’š)β‰‘βˆ‘k=1Nuk​(z)​φk​(π’š),VN​(z,π’š)β‰‘βˆ‘k=1Nvk​(z)​φk​(π’š)\displaystyle U_{N}(z,\bm{y})\equiv\sum\limits_{k=1}^{N}u_{k}(z)\varphi_{k}(\bm{y}),\ V_{N}(z,\bm{y})\equiv\sum\limits_{k=1}^{N}v_{k}(z)\varphi_{k}(\bm{y})

the partial sums of uu and vv respectively. Immediately,

(4.161) Ξ”gπ’žβ€‹UN=VN.\Delta_{g_{\mathcal{C}}}U_{N}=V_{N}.

For every 𝒙≑(z,π’š)βˆˆπ’ž\bm{x}\equiv(z,\bm{y})\in\mathcal{C}, we will apply the elliptic regularity on the ball B2​(𝒙)βŠ‚π’žB_{2}(\bm{x})\subset\mathcal{C} to obtain the higher regularity of uu. For this purpose, first we prove the following claim.

Claim 4.16.

As Nβ†’βˆžN\to\infty, β€–VNβˆ’vβ€–C0​(B2​(𝐱))β†’0\|V_{N}-v\|_{C^{0}(B_{2}(\bm{x}))}\to 0.

Proof.

The proof of the claim follows from basically from Weyl’s law. For the partial sum of vv,

(4.162) VNβ‰‘βˆ‘j=1Nvj​φj=βˆ‘j=1N(∫Y3vβ‹…Ο†j​dvolh0)​φj=βˆ‘j=1N(∫Y3vβ‹…(βˆ’Ξ”h0)K0​φj(Ξ›j)K0​dvolh0)​φj.V_{N}\equiv\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}v_{j}\varphi_{j}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}\Big(\int_{Y^{3}}v\cdot\varphi_{j}\dvol_{h_{0}}\Big)\varphi_{j}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}\Big(\int_{Y^{3}}v\cdot\frac{(-\Delta_{h_{0}})^{K_{0}}\varphi_{j}}{(\Lambda_{j})^{K_{0}}}\dvol_{h_{0}}\Big)\varphi_{j}.

Applying integration by parts,

β€–VNβ€–Lβˆžβ€‹(B1​(p0))\displaystyle\|V_{N}\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{1}(p_{0}))} β‰€βˆ‘j=1N(1(Ξ›j)K0β€‹βˆ«Y3|Ξ”h0K0​v|β‹…|Ο†j|​dvolh0)​‖φjβ€–Lβˆžβ€‹(B1​(p0))\displaystyle\leq\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}\Big(\frac{1}{(\Lambda_{j})^{K_{0}}}\int_{Y^{3}}|\Delta_{h_{0}}^{K_{0}}v|\cdot|\varphi_{j}|\dvol_{h_{0}}\Big)\|\varphi_{j}\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{1}(p_{0}))}
(4.163) ≀V0β‹…β€–vβ€–C2​K0​(Y3Γ—{z0})β‹…βˆ‘j=1N1(Ξ›j)K0βˆ’1,\displaystyle\leq V_{0}\cdot\|v\|_{C^{2K_{0}}(Y^{3}\times\{z_{0}\})}\cdot\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}\frac{1}{(\Lambda_{j})^{K_{0}-1}},

where V0=Volh0⁑(Y3)V_{0}=\Vol_{h_{0}}(Y^{3}). Notice that, the spectrum {Ξ›j}j=1∞\{\Lambda_{j}\}_{j=1}^{\infty} satisfies the Weyl’s law on (Y3,h0)(Y^{3},h_{0}), so in particular for sufficiently large jj,

(4.164) C0βˆ’1​j23≀|Ξ›j|≀C0​j23.C_{0}^{-1}j^{\frac{2}{3}}\leq|\Lambda_{j}|\leq C_{0}j^{\frac{2}{3}}.

Since K0β‰₯3K_{0}\geq 3,

(4.165) β€–VNβ€–Lβˆžβ€‹(B1​(p0))≀C​‖vβ€–C2​K0​(Y3Γ—{z0})β‹…βˆ‘j=1N1j43≀C.\|V_{N}\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{1}(p_{0}))}\leq C\|v\|_{C^{2K_{0}}(Y^{3}\times\{z_{0}\})}\cdot\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}\frac{1}{j^{\frac{4}{3}}}\leq C.

The proof of the claim is done. ∎

The proof of the higher order convergence is exactly the same. In fact, we just need to replace β€–vβ€–C2​K0\|v\|_{C^{2K_{0}}} with the higher order norm β€–vβ€–C2​K0+m\|v\|_{C^{2K_{0}+m}} with m≀K0m\leq K_{0}. Since Ξ”gπ’žβ€‹UN=VN\Delta_{g_{\mathcal{C}}}U_{N}=V_{N}, the standard W2,pW^{2,p}- implies that regularity for every 1<p<∞1<p<\infty, β€–UNβ€–W2,p​(B1​(𝒙))≀Cp,𝒙\|U_{N}\|_{W^{2,p}(B_{1}(\bm{x}))}\leq C_{p,\bm{x}}. By assumption v∈C3​K0​(π’ž)v\in C^{3K_{0}}(\mathcal{C}) with K0β‰₯3K_{0}\geq 3, we have β€–VNβ€–C2​(B2​(𝒙))≀C𝒙\|V_{N}\|_{C^{2}(B_{2}(\bm{x}))}\leq C_{\bm{x}}. Hence the regularity of uu will be improved as follows, for every 1<p<∞1<p<\infty,

(4.166) β€–UNβ€–W4,p​(B1​(𝒙))≀Cp,𝒙​(β€–UNβ€–W2,p​(B3/2​(𝒙))+β€–VNβ€–W2,p​(B2​(𝒙)))≀Cp,𝒙.\|U_{N}\|_{W^{4,p}(B_{1}(\bm{x}))}\leq C_{p,\bm{x}}(\|U_{N}\|_{W^{2,p}(B_{3/2}(\bm{x}))}+\|V_{N}\|_{W^{2,p}(B_{2}(\bm{x}))})\leq C_{p,\bm{x}}.

Now taking p>4p>4 and applying the Sobolev embedding,

(4.167) β€–UNβ€–C3,α​(B1​(𝒙))≀Cp,𝒙,α≑1βˆ’4p,\|U_{N}\|_{C^{3,\alpha}(B_{1}(\bm{x}))}\leq C_{p,\bm{x}},\ \alpha\equiv 1-\frac{4}{p},

which implies that UNU_{N} converges to a smooth solution uu. Then applying the standard Schauder estimate and bootstrapping, the statement of the proposition just follows.

∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.