ScalingStacks

3 Proof of Theorem 1 [057D]

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

3 Proof of Theorem 1

For the proof, it is convenient to restate the theorem as follows. Under the above assumptions, if in each case we have

‖ef−eh‖L1​(ωn)≤γa​(r)​rn+3,\|e^{f}-e^{h}\|_{L^{1}(\omega^{n})}\leq\gamma_{a}(r)r^{n+3}, (3.1)

then there is a small r0>0r_{0}>0 such that for all 0<r≤r00<r\leq r_{0}

supX|ut−vt|≤C​r,\sup_{X}|u_{t}-v_{t}|\leq Cr,

for all tt listed in each case in (2) and CC depends only on n,k,ω,χn,k,\omega,\chi, K>0K>0 and the corresponding pap_{a} in each case. This is the version which we shall prove.

We begin with a lemma due to Kolodziej [12]. The proof is almost identical to that in [12], but since we would like to avoid the use of pluripotential theory, some additional smoothing is needed in the proof, and we provide a full proof of this lemma.

Choose a small r¯0∈(0,110)\bar{r}_{0}\in(0,\frac{1}{10}) such that γa​(r¯0)​r¯0n≤15\gamma_{a}(\bar{r}_{0})\bar{r}_{0}^{n}\leq\frac{1}{5}. We then fix an 0<r<r¯00<r<\bar{r}_{0}. We remark that all relevant constants are independent of rr. Later on we will choose an even smaller r0>0r_{0}>0.

By switching the roles of utu_{t} and vtv_{t} if necessary, we may assume

∫{vt≤ut}(ef+eh)ωn≤1.\int_{\{v_{t}\leq u_{t}\}}(e^{f}+e^{h})\omega^{n}\leq 1.

Denote Ej:={vt≤ut−jβ0r}E_{j}:=\{v_{t}\leq u_{t}-j\beta_{0}r\}. The next lemma states that over the set E2E_{2}, the integral of ehe^{h} is small.

Lemma 1

In each case a=a= I, II, III, we have

∫E2eh​ωn≤C0​γa​(r)​rn,\int_{E_{2}}e^{h}\omega^{n}\leq C_{0}\gamma_{a}(r)r^{n},

for some constant C0=1+2(32)1/k−1C_{0}=1+\frac{2}{(\frac{3}{2})^{1/k}-1}.

Proof. We calculate

∫E0eh​ωn=12​∫E0(ef+eh)+(eh−ef)​ωn≤12​(1+15)=35.\int_{E_{0}}e^{h}\omega^{n}=\frac{1}{2}\int_{E_{0}}(e^{f}+e^{h})+(e^{h}-e^{f})\omega^{n}\leq\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{1}{5})=\frac{3}{5}. (3.2)

Take a sequence of positive smooth functions τj\tau_{j} that converge uniformly to χE0\chi_{E_{0}} such that τj≡1\tau_{j}\equiv 1 on E0E_{0}. Consider a sequence of smooth positive functions

ehj=32​τj​eh+cj​(1−τj)​ehe^{h_{j}}=\frac{3}{2}\tau_{j}e^{h}+c_{j}(1-\tau_{j})e^{h}

where cj>0c_{j}>0 are chosen so that ∫Xehj​ωn=1\int_{X}e^{h_{j}}\omega^{n}=1. It is not hard to see from (3.2) that for j>>1j>>1, 120≤cj≤3.\frac{1}{20}\leq c_{j}\leq 3. Hence when j>>1j>>1

∙\bullet in case I, we have ‖ehj‖L1​(log​L)p1≤5​K\|e^{h_{j}}\|_{L^{1}(\,{\rm log}\,L)^{p_{1}}}\leq 5K,

∙\bullet in case II, we have ‖ehj‖Lp2≤5​K\|e^{h_{j}}\|_{L^{p_{2}}}\leq 5K,

∙\bullet in case III, we have ‖ehj‖Lp3≤5​K\|e^{h_{j}}\|_{L^{p_{3}}}\leq 5K.

We solve the following Hessian equations which admit known to admit unique smooth solutions [15, 5],

(ωt+i​∂∂¯​ρj)k∧ωn−k=ct​ehj​ωn,supXρj=0​ and ​ωt+i​∂∂¯​ρj∈Γk,(\omega_{t}+i\partial\bar{\partial}\rho_{j})^{k}\wedge\omega^{n-k}=c_{t}e^{h_{j}}\omega^{n},\quad\sup_{X}\rho_{j}=0\mbox{ and }\omega_{t}+i\partial\bar{\partial}\rho_{j}\in\Gamma_{k},

where Γk\Gamma_{k} is the usual open convex cone in kk-th Hessian equations. By the choice of β0\beta_{0}, we have −β0≤ρj≤0-\beta_{0}\leq\rho_{j}\leq 0 (see [9]). The following Newton inequality holds pointwise for any 1≤l≤k1\leq l\leq k

ωt,utl∧ωt,ρjk−l∧ωn−k≥(ωt,utk∧ωn−kωn)l/k​(ωt,ρjk∧ωn−kωn)(k−l)/k​ωn.\omega_{t,u_{t}}^{l}\wedge\omega_{t,\rho_{j}}^{k-l}\wedge\omega^{n-k}\geq\Big(\frac{\omega_{t,u_{t}}^{k}\wedge\omega^{n-k}}{\omega^{n}}\Big)^{l/k}\Big(\frac{\omega^{k}_{t,\rho_{j}}\wedge\omega^{n-k}}{\omega^{n}}\Big)^{(k-l)/k}\omega^{n}.

Then on the set E0\GE_{0}\backslash G where G={ef≤(1−r2)eh}G=\{e^{f}\leq(1-r^{2})e^{h}\}, we have

ωt,utl∧ωt,ρjk−l∧ωn−k≥ct​(1−r2)l/k​(32)(k−l)/k​eh​ωn.\omega_{t,u_{t}}^{l}\wedge\omega_{t,\rho_{j}}^{k-l}\wedge\omega^{n-k}\geq c_{t}(1-r^{2})^{l/k}(\frac{3}{2})^{(k-l)/k}e^{h}\omega^{n}.

It follows that on E0\GE_{0}\backslash G

ωt,r​ρj+(1−r)​utk∧ωn−k\displaystyle\omega_{t,r\rho_{j}+(1-r)u_{t}}^{k}\wedge\omega^{n-k} =\displaystyle= ∑l=0kk!l!​(k−l)!​rk−l​(1−r)l​ωt,utl∧ωt,ρjk−l∧ωn−k\displaystyle\sum_{l=0}^{k}\frac{k!}{l!(k-l)!}r^{k-l}(1-r)^{l}\omega_{t,u_{t}}^{l}\wedge\omega_{t,\rho_{j}}^{k-l}\wedge\omega^{n-k} (3.3)
≥\displaystyle\geq ct​∑l=0kk!l!​(k−l)!​rk−l​(1−r)l​(1−r2)l/k​(32)(k−l)/k​eh​ωn\displaystyle c_{t}\sum_{l=0}^{k}\frac{k!}{l!(k-l)!}r^{k-l}(1-r)^{l}(1-r^{2})^{l/k}(\frac{3}{2})^{(k-l)/k}e^{h}\omega^{n}
=\displaystyle= ct​((1−r)​(1−r2)1/k+r​(32)1/k)k​eh​ωn≥ct​(1+b0​r)​eh​ωn\displaystyle c_{t}\big((1-r)(1-r^{2})^{1/k}+r(\frac{3}{2})^{1/k}\big)^{k}e^{h}\omega^{n}\geq c_{t}(1+b_{0}r)e^{h}\omega^{n}

where b0=12​((32)1/k−1)>0b_{0}=\frac{1}{2}((\frac{3}{2})^{1/k}-1)>0, since rr is chosen to be small.

Note that by (3.1)

r2​∫Geh​ωn≤∫G(eh−ef)​ωn≤γa​(r)​rn+3,r^{2}\int_{G}e^{h}\omega^{n}\leq\int_{G}(e^{h}-e^{f})\omega^{n}\leq\gamma_{a}(r)r^{n+3},

which implies

∫Geh​ωn≤γa​(r)​rn+1.\int_{G}e^{h}\omega^{n}\leq\gamma_{a}(r)r^{n+1}. (3.4)

Adding the same constant to utu_{t} and vtv_{t}, we may assume without loss of generality −β0≤ut≤0-\beta_{0}\leq u_{t}\leq 0. The following inclusion relation holds from the definition

E2⊂E:={vt≤rρj+(1−r)ut−β0r}⊂E0.E_{2}\subset E:=\{v_{t}\leq r\rho_{j}+(1-r)u_{t}-\beta_{0}r\}\subset E_{0}.

All functions involved are smooth so by the comparison principle and (3.3),

ct​(1+b0​r)​∫E\Geh​ωn\displaystyle c_{t}(1+b_{0}r)\int_{E\backslash G}e^{h}\omega^{n} ≤\displaystyle\leq ∫Eωt,r​ρj+(1−r)​utk∧ωn−k\displaystyle\int_{E}\omega_{t,r\rho_{j}+(1-r)u_{t}}^{k}\wedge\omega^{n-k}
≤\displaystyle\leq ∫Eωvtk∧ωn−k=ct​∫E\Geh​ωn+ct​∫Geh​ωn\displaystyle\int_{E}\omega_{v_{t}}^{k}\wedge\omega^{n-k}=c_{t}\int_{E\backslash G}e^{h}\omega^{n}+c_{t}\int_{G}e^{h}\omega^{n}

Combined with (3.4) this implies

∫E\Geh​ωn≤1b0​γa​(r)​rn\int_{E\backslash G}e^{h}\omega^{n}\leq\frac{1}{b_{0}}\gamma_{a}(r)r^{n}

It follows that

∫E2eh​ωn≤∫E\Geh​ωn+∫Geh​ωn≤(1+1b0)​γa​(r)​rn.\int_{E_{2}}e^{h}\omega^{n}\leq\int_{E\backslash G}e^{h}\omega^{n}+\int_{G}e^{h}\omega^{n}\leq(1+\frac{1}{b_{0}})\gamma_{a}(r)r^{n}.

The Lemma is proved.

We now come to the proof of Theorem 1 proper. We normalize utu_{t} as in the proof of Lemma 1. For s≥0s\geq 0, we set Ωs={vt≤(1−r)ut−3β0r−s}\Omega_{s}=\{v_{t}\leq(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s\}. Note that Ωs⊂E2\Omega_{s}\subset E_{2} for any s≥0s\geq 0.

We follow the same strategy as in [9]. We choose a sequence of smooth positive functions ηj:𝐑→𝐑+\eta_{j}:{{\bf R}}\to{{{\bf R}}}_{+} such that

ηj​(x)=x+1j, when ​x≥0,\eta_{j}(x)=x+\frac{1}{j},\quad\mbox{ when }x\geq 0,

and

ηj​(x)=12​j, when ​x≤−1j,\eta_{j}(x)=\frac{1}{2j},\quad\mbox{ when }x\leq-\frac{1}{j},

and ηj​(x)\eta_{j}(x) lies between 1/2​j1/2j and 1/j1/j for x∈[−1/j,0]x\in[-1/j,0]. Clearly ηj→η∞​(x)=x⋅χ𝐑+​(x)\eta_{j}\to\eta_{\infty}(x)=x\cdot\chi_{{\bf R}_{+}}(x) pointwise as j→∞j\to\infty.

We solve the complex Monge-Ampère equations

(ωt+i​∂∂¯​ψj)n=ctn/k​ηj​(−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−s)As,j​enk​h​ωn,supψj=0.(\omega_{t}+i\partial\bar{\partial}\psi_{j})^{n}=c_{t}^{{n/}{k}}\frac{\eta_{j}(-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s)}{A_{s,j}}e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n},\quad\sup\psi_{j}=0.

As j→∞j\to\infty we have by the dominated convergence theorem

As,j=ctnkVt​∫X(ηj​(−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−s))​enk​h​ωn→AsA_{s,j}=\frac{c_{t}^{\frac{n}{k}}}{V_{t}}\int_{X}\big(\eta_{j}(-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s)\big)e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n}\to A_{s}

where the constant AsA_{s} is defined by

As:=ctnkVt​∫Ωs(−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−s)​enk​h​ωn.A_{s}:=\frac{c_{t}^{\frac{n}{k}}}{V_{t}}\int_{\Omega_{s}}(-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s)e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n}.

Consider Φ=−ε​(−ψj+Λ)nn+1+(−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−s)\Phi=-\varepsilon\big(-\psi_{j}+\Lambda\big)^{\frac{n}{n+1}}+\big(-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s\big) where

ε=(k⁡(n+1)n2)nn+1​c​(n,k)−1n+1​As,j1n+1,where c⁡(n,k) is the one in (3.5)\varepsilon=\Big(\frac{k(n+1)}{n^{2}}\Big)^{\frac{n}{n+1}}c(n,k)^{-\frac{1}{n+1}}A_{s,j}^{\frac{1}{n+1}},\quad\mbox{where $c(n,k)$ is the one in (\ref{eqn:str})}
Λ=(nn+1​εr)n+1=C⁡(n,k)​As,jrn+1\Lambda=\Big(\frac{n}{n+1}\frac{\varepsilon}{r}\Big)^{n+1}=C(n,k)\frac{A_{s,j}}{r^{n+1}}

Suppose supΦ=Φ⁡(x0)\sup\Phi=\Phi(x_{0}) for some point x0x_{0} in XX. If x0∉Ωs∘x_{0}\not\in\Omega_{s}^{\circ}, then by definition Φ⁡(x0)<0\Phi(x_{0})<0. Otherwise x0∈Ωs∘x_{0}\in\Omega_{s}^{\circ}. We calculate as in [9]. First note that for Gi​j¯=∂∂(ωt,vt)i​j¯​log​σk​(ωt,vt)G^{i\bar{j}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial(\omega_{t,v_{t}})_{i\bar{j}}}\,{\rm log}\,\sigma_{k}(\omega_{t,v_{t}})

det​Gi​j¯≥c⁡(n,k)​ct−nk​e−nk​h{\rm det}G^{i\bar{j}}\geq c(n,k)c_{t}^{-\frac{n}{k}}e^{-\frac{n}{k}h} (3.5)

for some computable constant c⁡(n,k)>0c(n,k)>0. It follows that at x0x_{0}

0\displaystyle 0 ≥\displaystyle\geq Gi​j¯​(Φ)i​j¯​(x0)\displaystyle G^{i\bar{j}}(\Phi)_{i\bar{j}}(x_{0})
≥\displaystyle\geq n2​εn+δ​(−ψj+Λ)−1n+1​(det​G⋅det​ωt,ψj)1/n−k+(r−n​εn+1​Λ−1n+1)​Gi​j¯​(ωt)i​j¯\displaystyle\frac{n^{2}\varepsilon}{n+\delta}(-\psi_{j}+\Lambda)^{-\frac{1}{n+1}}\Big({\rm det}G\cdot{\rm det}\omega_{t,\psi_{j}}\Big)^{1/n}-k+\Big(r-\frac{n\varepsilon}{n+1}\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{n+1}}\Big)G^{i\bar{j}}(\omega_{t})_{i\bar{j}}
≥\displaystyle\geq n2​εn+1​(−ψj+Λ)−1n+1​c​(n,k)1/n​(−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−sAs,j)1/n−k.\displaystyle\frac{n^{2}\varepsilon}{n+1}(-\psi_{j}+\Lambda)^{-\frac{1}{n+1}}c(n,k)^{1/n}\Big(\frac{-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s}{A_{s,j}}\Big)^{1/n}-k.

By the choice of ε\varepsilon and Λ\Lambda, we deduce that Φ⁡(x0)≤0\Phi(x_{0})\leq 0. Thus Φ≤0\Phi\leq 0 on XX and this implies

∫Ωsexp⁡{c0​(−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−sAs,j1/(n+1))n+1n}​ωn\displaystyle\int_{\Omega_{s}}\,{\rm exp}\,\Big\{c_{0}\Big(\frac{-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s}{A_{s,j}^{1/(n+1)}}\Big)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}\Big\}\omega^{n} ≤\displaystyle\leq ∫Ωsexp⁡(−α0​ψj+α0​Λ)​ωn\displaystyle\int_{\Omega_{s}}\,{\rm exp}\,\Big(-\alpha_{0}\psi_{j}+\alpha_{0}\Lambda\Big)\omega^{n} (3.6)
≤\displaystyle\leq C​exp​{As,jrn+1}\displaystyle C\,{\rm exp}\,\Big\{\frac{A_{s,j}}{r^{n+1}}\Big\}

for some small c0=c0​(n,k,ω,χ)>0c_{0}=c_{0}(n,k,\omega,\chi)>0, C=C⁡(n,k,ω,χ)>0C=C(n,k,\omega,\chi)>0, and α0\alpha_{0} a fixed number satisfying 0<α0<α⁡(X,ω)0<\alpha_{0}<\alpha(X,\omega), where α⁡(X,ω)\alpha(X,\omega) is the α\alpha-invariant of (X,ω)(X,\omega). Letting j→∞j\to\infty gives

∫Ωsexp⁡{c0​((−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−s)As1/(n+1))n+1n}​ωn≤C​exp​(Asrn+1).\int_{\Omega_{s}}\,{\rm exp}\,\Big\{c_{0}\Big(\frac{(-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s)}{A_{s}^{1/(n+1)}}\Big)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}\Big\}\omega^{n}\leq C\,{\rm exp}\,\Big(\frac{A_{s}}{r^{n+1}}\Big). (3.7)

To estimate Asrn+1\frac{A_{s}}{r^{n+1}} in (3.7), we need to consider separately the three cases I, II and III.

∙\bullet Case I. In this case k=nk=n and ct=Vtc_{t}=V_{t}. By Lemma 1 we deduce that

Asrn+1\displaystyle\frac{A_{s}}{r^{n+1}} =\displaystyle= ctn/kVt​1rn+1​∫Ωs(−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−s)​eh​ωn\displaystyle\frac{c_{t}^{n/k}}{V_{t}}\frac{1}{r^{n+1}}\int_{\Omega_{s}}(-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s)e^{h}\omega^{n}
≤\displaystyle\leq 1rn+1​∫Ωs(−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r)​eh​ωn\displaystyle\frac{1}{r^{n+1}}\int_{\Omega_{s}}(-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r)e^{h}\omega^{n}
≤\displaystyle\leq C⁡(n,β0)rn+1​∫E2eh​ωn≤C0​C​(n,β0)​γ1​(r)​r−1\displaystyle\frac{C(n,\beta_{0})}{r^{n+1}}\int_{E_{2}}e^{h}\omega^{n}\leq C_{0}C(n,\beta_{0})\gamma_{1}(r)r^{-1}
≤\displaystyle\leq C⁡(n,β0) by the choice of γ1​(r).\displaystyle C(n,\beta_{0})\quad\mbox{ by the choice of $\gamma_{1}(r)$.}

∙\bullet Case II. In this case, under our normalization, V1=c1=1V_{1}=c_{1}=1. As in Case I, we have

Asrn+1\displaystyle\frac{A_{s}}{r^{n+1}} =\displaystyle= 1rn+1​∫Ωs(−v1+(1−r)​u1−3​β0​r−s)​enk​h​ωn\displaystyle\frac{1}{r^{n+1}}\int_{\Omega_{s}}(-v_{1}+(1-r)u_{1}-3\beta_{0}r-s)e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n}
≤\displaystyle\leq 1rn+1​∫Ωs(−v1+(1−r)​u1−3​β0​r)​enk​h​ωn\displaystyle\frac{1}{r^{n+1}}\int_{\Omega_{s}}(-v_{1}+(1-r)u_{1}-3\beta_{0}r)e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n}
≤\displaystyle\leq C⁡(n,β0)rn+1​∫E2enk​h​ωn=C⁡(n,β0)rn+1​∫E2e(nk−1)​h​eh​ωn\displaystyle\frac{C(n,\beta_{0})}{r^{n+1}}\int_{E_{2}}e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n}=\frac{C(n,\beta_{0})}{r^{n+1}}\int_{E_{2}}e^{(\frac{n}{k}-1)h}e^{h}\omega^{n}
≤\displaystyle\leq C⁡(n,β0)rn+1​(∫E2eq2∗​(nk−1)​h​eh​ωn)1/q2∗​(∫E2eh)1/q2\displaystyle\frac{C(n,\beta_{0})}{r^{n+1}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{q_{2}^{*}(\frac{n}{k}-1)h}e^{h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{1/q_{2}^{*}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{h}\Big)^{1/q_{2}}
≤\displaystyle\leq C⁡(n,β0)rn+1​(∫E2ep2​h​ωn)1/q2∗​(∫E2eh)1/q2\displaystyle\frac{C(n,\beta_{0})}{r^{n+1}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{p_{2}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{1/q_{2}^{*}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{h}\Big)^{1/q_{2}}
≤\displaystyle\leq C⁡(n,k,β0,K)​γ2​(r)1q2​rnq2−n−1=C⁡(n,k,β0,K),\displaystyle C(n,k,\beta_{0},K)\gamma_{2}(r)^{\frac{1}{q_{2}}}r^{\frac{n}{q_{2}}-n-1}=C(n,k,\beta_{0},K),

where 1q2+1q2∗=1\frac{1}{q_{2}}+\frac{1}{q_{2}^{*}}=1 and in the last equation we use the choice of the function γ2​(r)\gamma_{2}(r).

∙\bullet Case III. We note that since [χ][\chi] is big, Vt≥∫Xχn>0V_{t}\geq\int_{X}\chi^{n}>0, hence ctn/kVt≤Cω,χ\frac{c_{t}^{n/k}}{V_{t}}\leq C_{\omega,\chi} for a uniform Cω,χ=Cω,χ​(n,k)>0C_{\omega,\chi}=C_{\omega,\chi}(n,k)>0 which we will fix throughout the proof below. Then we have

Asrn+1\displaystyle\frac{A_{s}}{r^{n+1}} =\displaystyle= ctn/kVt​1rn+1​∫Ωs(−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−s)​enk​h​ωn\displaystyle\frac{c_{t}^{n/k}}{V_{t}}\frac{1}{r^{n+1}}\int_{\Omega_{s}}(-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s)e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n}
≤\displaystyle\leq C⁡(n,ω,χ,k,β0)rn+1​(∫E2ep3​h​ωn)1/q3∗​(∫E2eh)1/q3\displaystyle\frac{C(n,\omega,\chi,k,\beta_{0})}{r^{n+1}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{p_{3}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{1/q_{3}^{*}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{h}\Big)^{1/q_{3}}
≤\displaystyle\leq C⁡(n,k,ω,χ,K)​γ3​(r)1q3​rnq3−n−1=C⁡(n,k,ω,χ,K),\displaystyle C(n,k,\omega,\chi,K)\gamma_{3}(r)^{\frac{1}{q_{3}}}r^{\frac{n}{q_{3}}-n-1}=C(n,k,\omega,\chi,K),

where 1q3+1q3∗=1\frac{1}{q_{3}}+\frac{1}{q_{3}^{*}}=1 and in the last identity we use the choice of the function γ3​(r)\gamma_{3}(r).

So for all cases I, II and III, we get from (3.7) that

∫Ωsexp⁡{c0​(−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−sAs1/(n+1))n+1n}​ωn≤C,\int_{\Omega_{s}}\,{\rm exp}\,\Big\{c_{0}\Big(\frac{-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s}{A_{s}^{1/(n+1)}}\Big)^{\frac{n+1}{n}}\Big\}\omega^{n}\leq C, (3.8)

for some constant C>0C>0 depending on n,k,χ,ω,Kn,k,\chi,\omega,K and the exponents p1,p2,p3p_{1},p_{2},p_{3} in each case, respectively. In particular this CC is independent of the choice of r∈(0,r¯0)r\in(0,\bar{r}_{0}).

We choose p>np>n as p=p1p=p_{1} in case I, and arbitrary and large p>np>n in cases II and III.

Define η:𝐑+→𝐑+\eta:{{\bf R}}_{+}\to{{\bf R}}_{+} by η⁡(x)=(log⁡(1+x))p\eta(x)=(\,{\rm log}\,(1+x))^{p}. Note that η\eta is a strictly increasing function with η⁡(0)=0\eta(0)=0, and let η−1\eta^{-1} be its inverse function. If we let

Ψ:=c02​(−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−sAs1/(n+1))n+1n\displaystyle\Psi:=\frac{c_{0}}{2}\Big(\frac{-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s}{A_{s}^{1/(n+1)}}\Big)^{\frac{n+1}{n}} (3.9)

then we have for any z∈Ωsz\in\Omega_{s}, by the generalized Young’s inequality with respect to η\eta,

Ψ​(z)p​enk​h​(z)\displaystyle\Psi(z)^{p}e^{\frac{n}{k}h(z)} ≤\displaystyle\leq ∫0exp⁡(nk​h​(z))η⁡(x)​𝑑x+∫0Ψ​(z)pη−1​(y)​𝑑y\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\,{\rm exp}\,({\frac{n}{k}h(z)})}\eta(x)dx+\int_{0}^{\Psi(z)^{p}}\eta^{-1}(y)dy
≤\displaystyle\leq enk​h​(z)​(1+|h⁡(z)|)p+C⁡(p)​e2​Ψ​(z)\displaystyle e^{\frac{n}{k}h(z)}(1+|h(z)|)^{p}+C(p)e^{2\Psi(z)}

We integrate both sides in the inequality above over z∈Ωsz\in\Omega_{s}, and get by (3.8) that

∫ΩsΨ​(z)p​enk​h​(z)​ωn≤‖eh‖Ln/k​(log​L)p+C,\displaystyle\int_{\Omega_{s}}\Psi(z)^{p}e^{\frac{n}{k}h(z)}\omega^{n}\leq\|e^{h}\|_{L^{n/k}(\,{\rm log}\,L)^{p}}+C,

where the constant C>0C>0 depends only on n,k,ω,χ,p,Kn,k,\omega,\chi,p,K. In view of the definition of Ψ\Psi, this implies

∫Ωs(−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−s)(n+1)​pn​enk​h​ωn≤C​Aspn​(‖eh‖Ln/k​(log​L)p+1).\int_{\Omega_{s}}(-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s)^{\frac{(n+1)p}{n}}e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n}\leq CA_{s}^{\frac{p}{n}}\big(\|e^{h}\|_{L^{n/k}(\,{\rm log}\,L)^{p}}+1\big). (3.10)

It follows from the Hölder inequality that

As\displaystyle A_{s} =\displaystyle= ctn/kVt​∫Ωs(−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−s)​enk​h​ωXn\displaystyle\frac{c_{t}^{n/k}}{V_{t}}\int_{\Omega_{s}}(-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s)e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega_{X}^{n}
≤\displaystyle\leq (ctn/kVt​∫Ωs(−vt+(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−s)(n+1)​pn​enk​h​ωn)n(n+1)​p⋅(ctn/kVt​∫Ωsenk​h​ωn)1/q\displaystyle\Big(\frac{c_{t}^{n/k}}{V_{t}}\int_{\Omega_{s}}(-v_{t}+(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-s)^{\frac{(n+1)p}{n}}e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{\frac{n}{(n+1)p}}\cdot\Big(\frac{c_{t}^{n/k}}{V_{t}}\int_{\Omega_{s}}e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{1/q}
≤\displaystyle\leq OPENC​As1n+1​(‖eh‖Ln/k​(log​L)p+1))n(n+1)​p⋅(ctn/kVt​∫Ωsenk​h​ωn)1/q\displaystyle CA_{s}^{\frac{1}{n+1}}\Big(\|e^{h}\|_{L^{n/k}(\,{\rm log}\,L)^{p}}+1)\Big)^{\frac{n}{(n+1)p}}\cdot\Big(\frac{c_{t}^{n/k}}{V_{t}}\int_{\Omega_{s}}e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{1/q}

where q>1q>1 satisfies np⁡(n+1)+1q=1\frac{n}{p(n+1)}+\frac{1}{q}=1, i.e. q=p⁡(n+1)p⁡(n+1)−nq=\frac{p(n+1)}{p(n+1)-n}. The inequality above yields

As≤C​(‖eh‖Ln/k​(log​L)p+1)1/p⋅(ctn/kVt​∫Ωsenk​h​ωn)1+nq​n=B0​(ctn/kVt​∫Ωsenk​h​ωn)1+δ0.A_{s}\leq C\Big(\|e^{h}\|_{L^{n/k}(\,{\rm log}\,L)^{p}}+1\Big)^{1/p}\cdot\Big(\frac{c_{t}^{n/k}}{V_{t}}\int_{\Omega_{s}}e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{\frac{1+n}{qn}}=B_{0}\Big(\frac{c_{t}^{n/k}}{V_{t}}\int_{\Omega_{s}}e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{1+\delta_{0}}. (3.11)

Observe that the exponent of the integral on the right hand of (3.11) satisfies

1+nq​n=p​n+p−np​n=1+δ0>1,for δ0:=p−np​n>0.\frac{1+n}{qn}=\frac{pn+p-n}{pn}=1+\delta_{0}>1,\quad\mbox{for $\delta_{0}:=\frac{p-n}{pn}>0$.}

We remark that δ0\delta_{0} can be chosen to be close to 1/n1/n in cases II and III by picking pp large enough. Furthermore, we note that

B0:=C​(‖eh‖Ln/k​(log​L)p+1)1/pB_{0}:=C\Big(\|e^{h}\|_{L^{n/k}(\,{\rm log}\,L)^{p}}+1\Big)^{1/p} (3.12)

is a constant depending only on n,k,ω,χ,Kn,k,\omega,\chi,K, and the exponents p1,p2,p3p_{1},p_{2},p_{3} in each case, respectively, and in particular, it is independent of rr with r∈(0,r¯0)r\in(0,\bar{r}_{0}).

If we define

ϕ⁡(s)=ctn/kVt​∫Ωsenk​h​ωn,\phi(s)=\frac{c_{t}^{n/k}}{V_{t}}\int_{\Omega_{s}}e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n},

then (3.11) shows that if Ωs+s′≠∅\Omega_{s+s^{\prime}}\not=\emptyset then

s′​ϕ​(s+s′)≤B0​ϕ​(s)1+δ0,for all ​s′≥0​ and ​s≥0.s^{\prime}\phi(s+s^{\prime})\leq B_{0}\phi(s)^{1+\delta_{0}},\quad\mbox{for all }s^{\prime}\geq 0\mbox{ and }s\geq 0. (3.13)

We now choose r0<r¯0r_{0}<\bar{r}_{0} small in each case as follows.

Case I. We choose r0>0r_{0}>0 small so that for r∈(0,r0)r\in(0,r_{0})

B0​ϕ​(0)δ0≤B0​(∫E2eh​ωn)δ0≤B0​C0δ0​(γ1​(r)​rn)δ0≤B0​C0δ0​(γ1​(r0)​r0n)δ0≤12\displaystyle B_{0}\phi(0)^{\delta_{0}}\leq B_{0}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{\delta_{0}}\leq B_{0}C_{0}^{\delta_{0}}(\gamma_{1}(r)r^{n})^{\delta_{0}}\leq B_{0}C_{0}^{\delta_{0}}(\gamma_{1}(r_{0})r_{0}^{n})^{\delta_{0}}\leq\frac{1}{2} (3.14)

and ϕ⁡(0)≤C0​γ1​(r)​rn<C¯​r1/δ0\phi(0)\leq C_{0}\gamma_{1}(r)r^{n}<\bar{C}r^{1/\delta_{0}} by Lemma 1 for some uniform C¯\bar{C}.

Case II. We choose r0>0r_{0}>0 small so that for all r∈(0,r0)r\in(0,r_{0})

B0​ϕ​(0)δ0\displaystyle B_{0}\phi(0)^{\delta_{0}} ≤\displaystyle\leq B0​(∫E2enk​h​ωn)δ0\displaystyle B_{0}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{\delta_{0}}
≤\displaystyle\leq B0​(∫E2ep2​h​ωn)δ0/q2∗​(∫E2eh​ωn)δ0/q2\displaystyle B_{0}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{p_{2}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{\delta_{0}/q_{2}^{*}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{\delta_{0}/q_{2}}
≤\displaystyle\leq B0​C0δ0/q2​(∫E2ep2​h​ωn)δ0/q2∗​(γ2​(r)​rn)δ0/q2\displaystyle B_{0}C_{0}^{\delta_{0}/q_{2}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{p_{2}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{\delta_{0}/q_{2}^{*}}(\gamma_{2}(r)r^{n})^{\delta_{0}/q_{2}}
≤\displaystyle\leq B0​C0δ0/q2​(∫E2ep2​h​ωn)δ0/q2∗​(γ2​(r0)​r0n)δ0/q2≤12\displaystyle B_{0}C_{0}^{\delta_{0}/q_{2}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{p_{2}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{\delta_{0}/q_{2}^{*}}(\gamma_{2}(r_{0})r_{0}^{n})^{\delta_{0}/q_{2}}\leq\frac{1}{2}

where 1q2+1q2∗=1\frac{1}{q}_{2}+\frac{1}{q^{*}_{2}}=1 and we also have

ϕ⁡(0)≤C01/q2​(∫E2ep2​h​ωn)1/q2∗​(γ2​(r)​rn)1/q2<C¯​r1/δ0\phi(0)\leq C_{0}^{1/q_{2}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{p_{2}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{1/q_{2}^{*}}(\gamma_{2}(r)r^{n})^{1/q_{2}}<\bar{C}r^{1/\delta_{0}}

for some uniform C¯>0\bar{C}>0 by the definition of γ2​(r)\gamma_{2}(r).

Case III. We choose r0>0r_{0}>0 small so that for r∈(0,r0)r\in(0,r_{0})

B0​ϕ​(0)δ0\displaystyle B_{0}\phi(0)^{\delta_{0}} ≤\displaystyle\leq B0​Cω,χδ0​(∫E2enk​h​ωn)δ0\displaystyle B_{0}C_{\omega,\chi}^{\delta_{0}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{\frac{n}{k}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{\delta_{0}}
≤\displaystyle\leq B0​Cω,χδ0​(∫E2ep3​h​ωn)δ0/q3∗​(∫E2eh​ωn)δ0/q3\displaystyle B_{0}C_{\omega,\chi}^{\delta_{0}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{p_{3}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{\delta_{0}/q_{3}^{*}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{\delta_{0}/q_{3}}
≤\displaystyle\leq B0​Cω,χδ0​C0δ0/q3​(∫E2ep3​h​ωn)δ0/q3∗​(γ3​(r)​rn)δ0/q3\displaystyle B_{0}C_{\omega,\chi}^{\delta_{0}}C_{0}^{\delta_{0}/q_{3}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{p_{3}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{\delta_{0}/q_{3}^{*}}(\gamma_{3}(r)r^{n})^{\delta_{0}/q_{3}}
≤\displaystyle\leq B0​Cω,χδ0​C0δ0/q3​(∫E2ep3​h​ωn)δ0/q3∗​(γ3​(r0)​r0n)δ0/q3≤12\displaystyle B_{0}C_{\omega,\chi}^{\delta_{0}}C_{0}^{\delta_{0}/q_{3}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{p_{3}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{\delta_{0}/q_{3}^{*}}(\gamma_{3}(r_{0})r_{0}^{n})^{\delta_{0}/q_{3}}\leq\frac{1}{2}

where 1q3+1q3∗=1\frac{1}{q}_{3}+\frac{1}{q^{*}_{3}}=1 and we also have

ϕ⁡(0)≤Cω,χ​C01/q3​(∫E2ep3​h​ωn)1/q3∗​(γ3​(r)​rn)1/q3<C¯​r1/δ0\phi(0)\leq C_{\omega,\chi}C_{0}^{1/q_{3}}\Big(\int_{E_{2}}e^{p_{3}h}\omega^{n}\Big)^{1/q_{3}^{*}}(\gamma_{3}(r)r^{n})^{1/q_{3}}<\bar{C}r^{1/\delta_{0}}

by the choice of γ3​(r)\gamma_{3}(r).

It is clear that in all cases, r0r_{0} and C¯\bar{C} depend only on the given data, namely, n,k,ω,χ,Kn,k,\omega,\chi,K and pap_{a}, and we have B0​ϕ​(0)δ0≤12B_{0}\phi(0)^{\delta_{0}}\leq\frac{1}{2} and ϕ⁡(0)≤C¯​r1/δ0\phi(0)\leq\bar{C}r^{1/\delta_{0}}.

Define a sequence of increasing real numbers (sj)(s_{j}) inductively such that s0=0s_{0}=0 and

sj+1=sup{s>sj|ϕ⁡(s)>12​ϕ​(sj)}.s_{j+1}=\sup\{s>s_{j}|\phi(s)>\frac{1}{2}\phi(s_{j})\}.

Then we can show that (see [9]) ϕ⁡(sj)≤2−j​ϕ​(s0)\phi(s_{j})\leq 2^{-j}\phi(s_{0}) and

sj+1−sj≤2​B0​2−j​δ0​ϕ​(0)δ0.s_{j+1}-s_{j}\leq 2B_{0}2^{-j\delta_{0}}\phi(0)^{\delta_{0}}.

Thus the limit S∞=limj→∞sjS_{\infty}=\lim_{j\to\infty}s_{j} satisfies

S∞≤2​B01−2−δ0​ϕ​(0)δ0≤2​B0​C¯δ01−2−δ0​r=C^​r.S_{\infty}\leq\frac{2B_{0}}{1-2^{-\delta_{0}}}\phi(0)^{\delta_{0}}\leq\frac{2B_{0}\bar{C}^{\delta_{0}}}{1-2^{-\delta_{0}}}r=\hat{C}r.

Hence the set ΩC^​r=∅\Omega_{\hat{C}r}=\emptyset, and we conclude that

vt≥(1−r)​ut−3​β0​r−C^​r,or equivalently vt−ut≥−C​r,v_{t}\geq(1-r)u_{t}-3\beta_{0}r-\hat{C}r,\quad\mbox{or equivalently }\quad v_{t}-u_{t}\geq-Cr,

for some uniform constant C>0C>0 depending only on the given data. By the normalization max⁡(ut−vt)=max⁡(vt−ut)\max(u_{t}-v_{t})=\max(v_{t}-u_{t}), it is clear that vt−ut≤C​rv_{t}-u_{t}\leq Cr. The proof of Theorem 1 is complete.

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