Interpret the paper's unspecified as containing , the domain on which the coefficients are used. Write , a real symmetric matrix. The strict ellipticity condition is pointwise positive definiteness:
The lower bound may depend on . By continuity, strict ellipticity gives a positive lower bound on each compact subset of , but does not require one bound throughout the whole open ball.
With the two-constant convention used in the next part, uniform ellipticity means
Both constants are independent of . Some terminology uses uniform ellipticity for just the lower bound and states coefficient boundedness separately; here the paper supplies both constants. The spectral theorem for the symmetric matrix gives . For example, satisfies strict ellipticity in but has no uniform positive lower bound as .
There is a small incompatibility in the printed cutoff function assumptions. No can equal one on and satisfy : for a unit vector , choose beyond its support. Continuity gives , while the fundamental theorem of calculus would give . Replace the number by a fixed sufficiently large absolute constant ; such a cutoff function exists, and the requested Caccioppoli inequality is unchanged apart from its constant. We keep in the calculation, which also yields the formal bound under the printed assumptions.
The weak formulation is for test functions . Since is bounded, this extends by density of smooth functions in a Sobolev space to every . Part (a)(ii), followed by mollification inside the compact support, makes an admissible choice. The product rule gives
Put and . The lower and upper uniform ellipticity bounds, together with Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, imply
If the conclusion is immediate. Otherwise divide by and square to obtain . Since on ,
For a fixed valid cutoff function, , this has the required constant independent of . Formally inserting the printed value gives . No derivative of was taken, so differentiability of the coefficients is unnecessary.
First repeat the Caccioppoli inequality calculation on two concentric balls. If is a harmonic function on , choose a cutoff function equal to one on , supported in , and with gradient bounded by . The argument of (ii), with and , gives
Here depends at most on the dimension. When is only known to be smooth inside and in , the weak formulation and all integrals involving the cutoff function are still legitimate, since its support is strictly inside .
Every classical partial derivative of the given smooth harmonic function is again a harmonic function, since constant-coefficient partial derivatives commute with the Laplacian. Choose indices representing the multi-index , and define
For each , the preceding Caccioppoli inequality yields
Starting with , these estimates also establish the integrability needed at each subsequent step. Iterating times gives
This is the desired interior derivative estimate for a harmonic function, with a constant depending only on and , uniformly over every multi-index of size .
Set , the positive part of . The allowed Sobolev chain rule gives
Use the admissible zero-boundary Sobolev space function in the weak formulation, with a valid cutoff function as explained in (ii). Its gradient is , so
Indeed the integrands vanish off , and on that set . The uniform ellipticity and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality estimates from (ii) now apply to and give
Fixing the cutoff function gives the required constant independent of . This is a superlevel Caccioppoli inequality; it uses the positive part as a test and does not require the truncated function itself to solve the original equation.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.