Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 107 5 a Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
Adopt the sign convention that a weak supersolution for satisfies , or for every nonnegative compactly supported test function. For a nonnegative supersolution, the Weak Harnack inequality gives some and , depending only on , such thatHere denotes the average over ; equivalently the right side gives a lower bound for the essential infimum. One may take a sufficiently small positive exponent, so no assumption is needed. The inequality is unchanged under translations and dilations of the Euclidean balls.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 107 5 b Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
Work first with essential bounds. On a Euclidean ball , put , and . The functions and are nonnegative weak solutions, hence weak supersolutions. In , at least one of the sets and has at least half the measure.
In the first case, the Weak Harnack inequality applied to givesIn the second case, applying it to gives the same lower bound for the improvement of the minimum. Thus the oscillation decay estimate isThis measure argument works even when , avoiding a false use of the triangle inequality in that range.
Iteration yields , with, for example, . At Lebesgue points the shrinking oscillations define a unique continuous representative, and the estimate extends to every point by continuity. For at distance less than , apply the estimate to a Euclidean ball centred at with initial radius and final radius comparable to . This Euclidean ball stays in . Larger distances use the trivial bound . We obtainThe constants depend only on . This derives the relevant conclusion of the De Giorgi-Nash-Moser theorem directly from part (a).
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 107 5 c Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
First prove the hinted Caccioppoli inequality. Testing the weak formulation with is legitimate by approximation in the zero-boundary Sobolev space. Let . Thenby Young inequality. HenceNo derivative of the measurable coefficient matrix is taken.
Set . The denominator is finite and positive because is continuous on the compact closure and nonzero. Each solves the same linear equation and . For every , choose a cutoff function equal to one on and supported in a slightly larger interior Euclidean ball. The energy bound gives a uniform bound.
Take radii . Weak compactness and a diagonal subsequence argument produce one subsequence converging weakly in for every , with consistent restrictions defining . Part (b) and the Arzela-Ascoli theorem allow a further subsequence converging uniformly on . Its uniform limit agrees almost everywhere with the weak limit and supplies its continuous representative there.
For every smooth compactly supported test function, choose containing its support. Since and converges weakly there,Thus the compactness of normalized weak elliptic solutions givesThe diagonal step is needed to retain the equation beyond the small Euclidean ball of uniform convergence. The limit need not be nonzero: for the Laplacian in dimension at least two, the normalized harmonic functions tend uniformly to zero on each smaller Euclidean ball.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 107 6 a Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
For the divergence-form elliptic operator use the weak subsolution convention for nonnegative test functions. Set and test with , where . The Sobolev chain rule makes this test admissible; boundedness and the positive regularization control the derivative of its power. Ellipticity and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality give, with and ,Division when , and the trivial case , establish the power Caccioppoli inequality. Letting givesFor this limit uses the Fatou lemma; the gradient of a Sobolev function vanishes on a level set, so the weighted integrand is assigned zero on . The same regularization justifies differentiating in .
The PDF bounds individual entries by . Then : dimensional factors are included in the ellipticity constants when the first estimate is written as . With literal entrywise bounds, the explicit valid constant displayed here is . If bounds the operator norm instead, it is . This distinction does not alter any later conclusion, whose constants explicitly depend on .
For , put . Apply the Sobolev inequality to and useFor , , so the resulting constant is uniform in . Taking a cutoff equal to one on , supported in , with , yieldsAt a compactly supported cutoff can still be chosen with this bound by leaving an outer margin; alternatively pass to the limit from smaller radii.
For Moser iteration, set and . Repeated use of the preceding estimate bounds the successive norms byThis product is finite becauseAs the exponents tend to infinity, their norms on the Euclidean ball of radius tend to its essential supremum. ThereforeThe power is independent of the exponents of Hölder continuity in earlier questions.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 107 6 b Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
For any , set and . These coefficients retain the same bounds and ellipticity, and a change of variables in the weak formulation shows that is a nonnegative weak subsolution on . Part (a) gives the scale-correct estimateThe constant is independent of . Fix a Euclidean ball and let with . The right side tends to zero, so almost everywhere on . Since is arbitrary, the Liouville theorem for integrable nonnegative elliptic subsolutions provesThis is as a Sobolev space element. Any continuous representative is identically zero pointwise; an arbitrary measurable representative can be modified at isolated points without changing the weak equation. Integrability and the explicit scaling force the conclusion.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 340 5 c Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
Absolute values are missing in the printed formula. For signed real blocks, the intended block mixed norm must beWithout them, at a block has value zero although it is nonzero, and a negative scalar has negative value. For nonintegral , a negative component may not even have a real power. The literal expression therefore is not a norm and does not define the claimed general convex problem. Even integer exponents do not fix all other in the stated range.
With the corrected norm, let be the Holder conjugate exponent: for and for . Blockwise Holder inequality, with equality from a norming block, givesThe duality of block mixed norms identifies the closed compact convex set and the projection residual from the Moreau decompositionFor , the dual blocks are Euclidean balls; for , they are cubes given by componentwise bounds . No injectivity or surjectivity of is required: compactness of the block product makes its linear image compact, and the strictly convex fidelity still gives a unique primal minimizer. For general , the Euclidean projection onto a dual block ball is not generally obtained by radial scaling, so the special clipping formula from the isotropic case should not be reused without further analysis.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2021 ii Paper 1 31J Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-25
For points , the restriction of to those points is the set of binary vectorsThe shattering coefficient isThe VC dimension iswith value infinity when arbitrarily large finite sets are shattered.
Now put and suppose that are shattered byConsider the linear mapIf , the rank-nullity theorem shows that is a proper subspace of . Choose a nonzeroand replace by if necessary so that at least one coordinate is positive.
Ask for the labeling that assigns label zero when and label one when ; coordinates with may be labeled arbitrarily. Shattering would supply such thatEvery product is then nonnegative, and at least one is strictly positive. Hencecontradicting . Therefore , provingThis is the VC dimension of a vector space argument.
Finally, a closed Euclidean ball with center and radius iswhereEvery such function lies inwhose dimension is at most . Applying the result just proved gives the VC dimension upper bound for Euclidean balls
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2023 ii Paper 4 12F b Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-25
Write each polynomial of degree at most as and defineThis is a continuous function, and the reverse triangle inequality together with part (a) givesConsequently is a coercive function. Choose so large that outside the closed Euclidean ball of radius . That ball is compact, so the extreme value theorem supplies a minimizer there. Then is a best uniform approximation to among polynomials of degree at most .
VC dimension upper bound for Euclidean balls Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
The indicators of closed Euclidean balls in have VC dimension at most . Indeed,wherebelongs to the span of .
Volumetric bound for Euclidean metric nets 2026-10-06
A subset of the radius- Euclidean ball admits an -metric net of size at most . Take a maximal separated set: its disjoint radius- Euclidean balls lie in the radius- ball. Comparing Lebesgue measures gives the estimate. In particular, the unit sphere admits a net of radius one with at most points.