ScalingStacks

1. Introduction [04TJ]

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 · Original author HTML

1. Introduction

In this paper we investigate the Hausdorff dimension of the set where Alexandrov solutions (see Section 22 for the precise definition) to

detD2​u≥1\det D^{2}u\geq 1

are not strictly convex. Recall that we say that a convex function uu is strictly convex at x0x_{0} if there exists Lx0L_{x_{0}}, a supporting tangent plane at x0x_{0}, such that

{u=Lx0}=x0.\{u=L_{x_{0}}\}=x_{0}.

Our main theorem is:

Theorem 1.1.

Assume uu is an Alexandrov solution to

detD2​u≥1\det D^{2}u\geq 1

in B1⊂ℝnB_{1}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}. Then uu is strictly convex away from a singular set Σ\Sigma with

ℋn−1​(Σ)=0.\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\Sigma)=0.

We show this is optimal by constructing solutions to detD2​u=1\det D^{2}u=1 with singular set of Hausdorff dimension as close as we like to n−1n-1. This result is interesting especially for n≥3n\geq 3 since it is well-known that in two dimensions solutions to detD2​u≥1\det D^{2}u\geq 1 are strictly convex.

Theorem 1.1 has several applications to the regularity theory for singular solutions to the Monge-Ampère equation with bounded right hand side, which we now describe.

Caffarelli developed a regularity theory of solutions to

detD2​u=fin ​Ω,λ≤f≤Λ\det D^{2}u=f\quad\text{in }\Omega,\quad\quad\lambda\leq f\leq\Lambda

at points where uu is strictly convex. We briefly summarize the main results. We define a section of uu at xx with height hh and slope pp by

Sh,p​(x)={y∈Ω:u⁡(y)<u⁡(x)+p⋅(y−x)+h}S_{h,p}(x)=\{y\in\Omega:u(y)<u(x)+p\cdot(y-x)+h\}

for some subgradient pp at xx. If uu is strictly convex at xx then we can find a subgradient pp such that the supporting plane of this slope touches only at xx, and then take hh small enough that Sh,p​(x)⊂⊂ΩS_{h,p}(x)\subset\subset\Omega. In this setting, Caffarelli ([C1],[C2]) showed that

  1. (i)

    uu is strictly convex in Sh,p​(x)S_{h,p}(x) and u∈Cl​o​c1,α​(Sh,p​(x))u\in C^{1,\alpha}_{loc}(S_{h,p}(x)),

  2. (ii)

    If f∈Cα​(Ω)f\in C^{\alpha}(\Omega) then u∈Cl​o​c2,α​(Sh,p​(x))u\in C^{2,\alpha}_{loc}(S_{h,p}(x)), and

  3. (iii)

    For every p>1p>1 there is some ϵ⁡(p)>0\epsilon(p)>0 such that if |f−1|<ϵ|f-1|<\epsilon then u∈Wl​o​c2,p​(Sh,p​(x))u\in W^{2,p}_{loc}(S_{h,p}(x)).

However, these regularity theorems fail at points where uu is not strictly convex. Consider the famous Pogorelov examples on B1⊂ℝn,n≥3B_{1}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n},\quad n\geq 3 which degenerate along x′=(x1,…,xn−1)=0x^{\prime}=(x_{1},...,x_{n-1})=0. One constructs these examples by seeking solutions of the form |x′|+|x′|β​g​(xn)|x^{\prime}|+|x^{\prime}|^{\beta}g(x_{n}) and |x′|α​f​(xn)|x^{\prime}|^{\alpha}f(x_{n}). The first is

|x′|+|x′|n/2​(1+xn2),|x^{\prime}|+|x^{\prime}|^{n/2}(1+x_{n}^{2}),

which solves λ≤detD2​u≤Λ\lambda\leq\det D^{2}u\leq\Lambda but is merely Lipschitz. The second is

|x′|2−2/n​(1+xn2),|x^{\prime}|^{2-2/n}(1+x_{n}^{2}),

which solves detD2​u=f\det D^{2}u=f with ff strictly positive and smooth, but is only C1,αC^{1,\alpha} for α=1−2/n\alpha=1-2/n and W2,pW^{2,p} for p<n⁡(n−1)2p<\frac{n(n-1)}{2}.

In [C3], Caffarelli generalizes these examples to solutions that degenerate along subspaces of any dimension less than n2\frac{n}{2}, and shows that it is not possible to find solutions degenerating on subspaces of dimension n2\frac{n}{2} or higher. We provide a short proof in the next section (see Lemma 2.3). If uu agrees with a linear function LL on a kk-dimensional set, we say that {u=L}\{u=L\} is a kk-dimensional singularity. Our proof of Theorem 1.1 in fact shows that the collection of kk-dimensional singularities has Hausdorff n−kn-k dimensional measure zero (see Remark 3.4).

Since we cannot hope for C1C^{1} regularity or W2,pW^{2,p} regularity of singular solutions to λ≤detD2​u≤Λ\lambda\leq\det D^{2}u\leq\Lambda for large pp, it is natural to ask what we can show about the integrability of the second derivatives. De Philippis, Figalli and Savin ([DFS],[DF]) recently showed W2,1+ϵW^{2,1+\epsilon} regularity of strictly convex solutions to λ≤detD2​u≤Λ\lambda\leq\det D^{2}u\leq\Lambda, where ϵ\epsilon depends only on λ,Λ\lambda,\Lambda and nn. Our main theorem rules out the possibility that the second derivatives concentrate on Σ\Sigma:

Theorem 1.2.

Let uu be a solution to

λ≤detD2​u≤Λ\lambda\leq\det D^{2}u\leq\Lambda

in B1⊂ℝnB_{1}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}. Then u∈Wl​o​c2,1​(B1)u\in W^{2,1}_{loc}(B_{1}).

We also show that Theorem 1.2 is optimal by proving that the examples giving optimality of Theorem 1.1 are not in W2,1+ϵW^{2,1+\epsilon} for ϵ\epsilon as small as we like.

A second consequence of Theorem 1.1 is that the points of strict convexity for uu form a connected set when ff is bounded away from 00. If ff is sufficiently regular we obtain unique continuation for the Monge-Ampère equation:

Theorem 1.3.

Assume that

detD2​u=detD2​v=f\det D^{2}u=\det D^{2}v=f

in an open connected set Ω⊂ℝn\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}, with f∈C1,α​(Ω)f\in C^{1,\alpha}(\Omega) strictly positive. If u=vu=v on an open subset of Ω\Omega, then u≡vu\equiv v in Ω\Omega.

To our knowledge, these are the first Sobolev regularity and unique continuation results for singular solutions to the Monge-Ampère equation.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 22 we present basic geometric properties of the sections of solutions to detD2​u≥1\det D^{2}u\geq 1. In particular, we present an important estimate on the volume growth of sections that are not compactly contained and relate the volume of compactly contained sections to the Monge-Ampère mass of these sections. In section 33 we use these results at singular points together with the useful technique of replacing uu by u+12​|x|2u+\frac{1}{2}|x|^{2} to prove Theorem 1.1. In section 44 we construct, for any δ\delta, a solution to detD2​u=1\det D^{2}u=1 with a singular set of Hausdorff dimension n−1−δn-1-\delta, which shows that our main theorem is optimal. In section 55 we use Theorem 1.1 to prove Theorem 1.2 and we show that the examples constructed in section 44 are not in W2,1+ϵW^{2,1+\epsilon} for ϵ\epsilon as small as we like, which shows that W2,1W^{2,1} regularity is optimal. Finally, in section 66 we prove Theorem 1.3 by applying a classical unique continuation theorem in the set of strict convexity.

In future work we intend to present a more precise, quantitative version of our main theorem to obtain L​log⁡LL\log L estimates for the second derivatives of singular solutions to λ≤detD2​u≤Λ\lambda\leq\det D^{2}u\leq\Lambda.

Acknowledgements: This work is part of my forthcoming doctoral dissertation at Columbia University. I am very grateful to my thesis advisor Ovidiu Savin for his patient guidance and for his feedback on the drafts of this paper. I would also like to thank Nam Le and Yu Wang for helpful conversations about the subject.

The author was partially supported by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program under grant number DGE 11-44155.

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