• Aucun résultat trouvé

INTRODUCTION One of the most important example of a singular differential operator (in mathematical physics) is the Schr¨odinger operator S(ψ


Academic year: 2022

Partager "INTRODUCTION One of the most important example of a singular differential operator (in mathematical physics) is the Schr¨odinger operator S(ψ"


Texte intégral




This paper is concerned with the weak solvability of the boundary value problems for Schr¨odinger type equations. For such equations with a real (admissible) spectral parameter µ, the nonhomogeneous Dirichlet, respectively, homogeneous Dirichlet-Neumann problem on a weak Stokes domain lying in a Riemann domain is shown to admit a unique weak solution by making use of aSchr¨odinger product.

If the parameter (denoted by λ) is complex-valued, the weak solvability (in a suitable sense) of a homogeneous Dirichlet-Neumann boundary value problem for a generalized Schr¨odinger equation withL2-density is proved in the case where λ does not belong to R.

AMS 2010 Subject Classification: Primary 35J10, 35J25; Secondary 32C30, 35A01.

Key words: generalized Schr¨odinger product, Schr¨odinger functional, weak Green’s operator.


One of the most important example of a singular differential operator (in mathematical physics) is the Schr¨odinger operator

S(ψ) :=− 4ψ+ (µ−V)ψ

in L2(Rn), where µ is a real constant (usually called the spectral parameter) and V a real-valued L2-function (the potential). For wider applications, one may wish to take µ and/or V to be complex-valued. In the following, let Y denote a complex space of pure positive dimension m and DbY a rela- tively compact open subset, and ˜D⊆Y an open neighborhood of D. Assume throughout this paper that ( ˜D, p) is a Riemann subdomain of Y, meaning that ˜D (as a subspace of Y) admits a holomorphic map p : ˜D → Cm with discrete fibers. Denote by 4p the pull-back under p of the Laplace operator of the Euclidean metric on Cm to (the largest) open dense subset D ⊆ D where p is locally biholomorphic. Observe that if ψ∈C2(D), theSchr¨odinger operator S˜p,λ,V[ψ] :=−4˜p[ψ] + (λ−V) [ψ] associated with a constant λ∈C and V ∈ L1loc(D), regarded as acting on Cc2(D), is induced on D by the function

MATH. REPORTS15(65),4(2013), 497–510


(1.1) Sp,λ,V(ψ) :=− 4pψ+ (λ−V)ψ.

If D is a weak Stokes domain ([6], p. 568) lying in a Riemann domain, for the Schr¨odinger equation

(1.2) Sp,λ,V(Ψ) =− 4pΨ + (λ−V) Ψ = g

in D with a real spectral parameter λ and density g ∈ L2(D) (or more generally, g ∈ H−1(D)), sufficient conditions can be given for the solvability, in a weak sense, of the equation (1.2) subject to a boundary condition (Theo- rem 4.1). Similarly, one may consider, for a generalized Schr¨odinger equation, a mixed homogeneous Dirichlet-Neumann problem relative to a partition

(1.3) ∂D\A= (∂D)D∪(∂D)N,

where A is a thin analytic subset of X (see Theorems 4.2 and 4.3). This is done by making use of a Schr¨odinger product Sλ,h defined on a (suitable) Sobolev space Hλ,h1 (D).

For the metaharmonic operator Mp,λ := Sp,λ,0 with a real spectral pa- rameter λ, it is possible to construct a Green’s operator (with explicitly de- termined kernel) (at least) on suitable pseudoballs in a complex space. The general question remains as to for what parameters λ the equation (1.2) ad- mits a classical or a weak solution (in a suitable sense). If D is a domain in the complex plane, Garnir [4] proved by an ingenious method that the equation

”Mp,λ(Ψ) =g” admits a distributional solution, provided λ belongs to C\R. This method can be extended to the case of ageneralized Schr¨odinger operator Pλ,hw, defined for complex parameters λand elements w of a linear subspace of L1loc(D) (see (3.6)), by making use of a generalized Poincar´e’s inequality (Lemma 3.1) and introducing a Schr¨odinger map and itsweak Green’s opera- torfor a real (admissible) spectral parameter µ(compare [4]). The solvability of a homogeneous Dirichlet-Neumann problem (see (4.9)) for an (admissible) L2-density g can then be ascertained, in the case λ∈C\R, in a weak sense, namely, there exists an element w (in a Sobolev space) satisfying suitable boundary conditions such that the associated Schr¨odinger functional satisfies the equation

(1.4) hPλ,hw, viD = h[g], viD,

where v ranges over a (suitable) test space (Theorem 5.1). For Neumann prob- lems for related Schr¨odinger type equations in a (possibly) irregular domain in Rn, see [1, 2]. The author is indebted to the referee for suggestions which led to improvements of this paper.



In what follows, every complex space is assumed to be reduced and has a countable topology. For the definition and basic properties of differential forms on a complex space, see ([5],§4.1). In particular, the exterior differentiationd, the operators ∂, ∂¯ and dc:= (1/4πi)(∂−∂) are well-defined ([5], Chap. 4).¯ Denote by kzk the Euclidean norm of z = (z1,· · · , zm) ∈ Cm, where zj = xj +i yj. Let the space Cm be oriented so that the form υm := (ddckzk2)m is positive. If p:Y →Cm is a holomorphic map, set a0 :=p(a), p[a]:=p−a0 and ra:=kp[a]k, for a∈Y. Clearly the form

υp :=ddcra2 = ( i

2π)∂∂ r¯ a2 is nonnegative and independent of a.

For an open subset G of Y, denote by Ckν(G) the set of C-valued k- forms of classCν on G, Ck,cν (G) the subspace of compactly supportedk-forms (dropping the degree if k= 0), with ν =β to mean locally bounded, ν =m measurable, and ν = λ locally Lipschitzian ([5], §4). Similarly, for Ckλ(G).

A measurable function ψ on Y is said to be locally integrable (f ∈L1loc(Y)) if so is every 2m-form ψχ with χ ∈ C2m0 (Y). Denote by dυ the Euclidean volume element of Cm and define the semivolume form d˜υ := p(dυ) on Y.

If f, ψ∈L1loc(D), set

(f, ψ)D :=



f ψd˜υ,

provided the integral exists. Each element f ∈L1loc(D) gives rise naturally to a top-dimensional current, T = [f] :χ7→R

f∧χ, with induced functional h[f], φi:= (−1)m(m−1)2 πm



T ∧φ υmp = (f, φ)D, ∀φ∈Cc1(D).


In ([5],§3) theDirichlet productof locally Lipschitz functions ψ, η:D→ C is defined:

[ψ, η][D] :=



dψ∧dcη¯∧υm−1p ,

provided the integral exists. It is shown in ([7], (3.6)) that the Dirichlet product is Hermitian symmetric. The Hilbert scalar product on L2(D) is defined by the pairing (f, g)7→(f,g)¯ D (with induced norm k kL2(D)). A generalization of both the Hilbert and Dirichlet product is considered below.


If ψ = v ∈ C1(D), denote by ∂νψ,1 ≤ ν ≤ 2m, the ν-th first order derivative ∂t∂ψ

ν on D, namely,


∂tν := ∂v

∂x˜k, ifν = 2k−1, ∂ψ

∂tν := ∂v

∂y˜k, if ν= 2k.

Define C1,1(D) := {φ ∈ C1(D)|φxj˜ and φyj˜ ∈ Cλ(D),1 ≤ j ≤ m}. If ψ∈L1loc(D), denote by (the same) ∂νψ theν-th distributionalweak derivative of ψ on D, provided it exists as an element of L1loc(D). Let MD be the subspace of L1loc(D) consisting of all elements w such that: (i) the first order weak derivatives ∂νw =φν, ν = 1,· · ·,2m, exist (as an element of L1loc(D)), namely,


ν[w], vi=−(w, ∂v


)D = (φν, v)D, ∀v∈Cc1(D);

(ii) each weak derivative ∂νw ∈ Cβ(D). In the following, let h denote an (2m+ 1)-tuple (h0,· · · , h2m), where each component hj is a locally integrable function on D, with hj ≥ 0 for 1 ≤ j ≤ 2m, and set V := −h0. Then it is easy to show that if w, v ∈ MD, then each of the forms hj(∂jw)(∂j¯v)d˜υ is integrable on D. It follows that for any given complex constant λ, the sesqilinear form

(3.1) Sλ,h(w, v) := ((λ−V)w,¯v)D+

















is well-defined on MD × MD. Since an element of C1(D) gives rise to a member of MD, the Schr¨odinger form Sλ,h : C1(D)×C1(D) → C is well- defined by (3.1). In the following, the reference to ”µ,h” will be abbreviated simply as ”µ, V” whenever h=h{1} := (−V,1,· · ·,1). Thus,

(3.2) Sλ,V(w, v) =S

λ,h{1}(w, v) = ((λ−V)w, ¯v)D +S0,(0,h

1,···,hm)(w, v).

Green’s first identity ([6], (5.9)) yields a relation between the operator S˜p,λ,V and the form Sλ,h:

(3.3) hS˜p,λ,V [w], vi = Sλ,V(w,¯v), ∀(w, v)∈C1(D)×Cc2(D).

In the following, let µ denote a real constant. Then Sµ,h defines a Hermi- tian symmetric, continuous form on C1(D) (with induced seminorm denoted accordingly by k kµ,h). Let ∆ be the branch locus of p and set ∆0 =p(∆).

If a ∈ D0 := D\p−1(∆0), a connected neighborhood U b D can be chosen so that p|U is a covering projection onto a ball U0 bCm[1] with sheets Uν. In terms of such U =Uα, a C-partition of unity {(Uνα, ραν)}, each Uνα be- ing a sheet of Uα, is said to be distinguished for D0, if, for any real-valued


φ∈C1(D), setting φαν :=ρανφ, one has Z











) d˜υ≥0.1

Definition 1. A pair (µ,h) (as above) is said to beadmissible for D if:

(i) hD := min{ess infDhj|j= 1,· · ·,2m}>0; (ii) D0 admits a distinguished partition of unity; and (iii) denoting by P

Cm[1] the Poincar´e’s constant for the Euclidean unit ball,

µ−ess supDV >− hD (PCm[1])2.

A pair (µ, V) is said to beadmissible for D if so is (µ,h{1}).

If the map p exhibits D as a covering space of an open all in Cm, then the condition (ii) above holds trivially; in which case, every pair (µ,0) with µ≥0 is admissible for D.

Lemma 3.1 (Generalized Poincar´e’s inequality). If (µ,h) is admissible for D, then there exists a positive constantcD,µ,h (depending on a distinguished covering of D) such that

(3.4) kφkL2(D) ≤ cD,µ,hkφkµ,h, ∀φ∈C1(D).

Proof. It suffices to consider a real-valued φ ∈ C1(D). In terms of a distinguished covering for D0, by the Poincar´e’s inequality for the Euclidean unit ball, one has

hD (PCm[1])2



kφk2d˜υ ≤ hD (PCm[1])2










k∇(φαν)0k2dυ≤ Z



α,ν 2m




∂tj k2d˜υ

≤ Z






α, β





) d˜υ=S0,(0,h

1,···,hm)(φ, φ), where (φαν)0 : (Uα)0 →C is induced by the restriction of φ to a sheet of Uα. Therefore, one has


µ,h ≥ µ−ess supDV + hD (PCm[1])2


L2(D) =:κD,µ,hkφk2


1This condition is likely to be superfluous by making judicious choice of the partition functions.


In the following, assume (unless otherwise mentioned) that (µ,h) is ad- missible for D. Then the Hermitian form Sµ,h is elliptic, hence defines a scalar product on C1(D). With respect to the induced norm k kµ,h the completion of C1(D) (respectively, Cc(D)) gives rise to theSobolev space Hµ:=Hµ,h1 (D) (respectively, Hµ,h,c1 (D)) equipped with the (naturally extended) scalar prod- uct Sµ,h given by the right-hand side expression of (3.1). It follows that, if φ∈Hµ, then the generalized Poincar´e’s inequality (3.4) holds for all φ∈Hµ. Clearly, this inequality implies that Hµ⊆L2(D). Taking (µ, V) = (1,0), the Sobolev spaces H1(D) and Hc1(D) are defined. Moreover, the Schr¨odinger form (3.2) extends to a scalar product [ , ]1,0,D =S1,(0,1,···,1) on H1(D) with associated energy norm denoted by k k1,0,D.

In what follows, let λ denote a complex (possibly real) constant, and (λ,h) a pair with h = {−V, h} where each hj ∈ Cλ(D) (unless otherwise mentioned). It can be shown that, if w∈ MD, the integral

(3.5) h∂k[hjjw],φi¯ =−(hjjw, ∂kφ)¯ D

exists for all φ∈Cc1(D) and j, k = 1,· · · ,2m ([8], §3, Remark 1). Therefore, each such element w gives rise to aSchr¨odinger functional Pλ,hw:Cc1(D)→C defined by

(3.6) hPλ,hw, viD := Sλ,h(w, v), ∀v∈Cc1(D).

Note also, that the right-hand side of (3.6) serves to extend (i) the action of the functional Pµ,hw to Hµ,h1 (D) and (ii) its definition to w∈Hµ,h1 (D). If w∈C1,1(D), the functional

(3.7) hSλ,h(w), φiD := ((λ−V)w,φ)¯ D−X




j(hjjw) ¯φd˜υ

is well-defined for all elements φ∈Cc1( ˜D). Consequently, the functional ”φ7→

hSµ,h(w), φiD” extends naturally to an operator (denoted by the same) on Hµ,h1 (D). In the following, assume that D⊆Y is a weak Stokes domain with nonempty (maximal) boundary manifold dD of Dreg (oriented to the exterior of the manifold Dreg of simple points of D) ([5], p. 218).

Proposition 3.1. Assume that w∈C1,1(D). Then for all φ∈C1,1(D), (3.8) hSλ,h(w), φiD +






φ¯nj(hjjw) dσ =Sλ,h(w, φ),

where dσ denotes the surface element of dD, n the unit outward normal to dD. If further λ = µ ∈ R, the above formula remains valid for all φ ∈ H1



Proof. For all w, φ ∈ C1,1(D), the formula (3.8) is a consequence of the Green’s formula. Assume now that λ = µ ∈ R. An arbitrary element φ∈Hµ,h,c1 (D) is approximable in the L2-norm on L2(D) by a sequence φn∈ Cc(D). Then

Sλ,h(w, φn)= ((µ−V)w,φ¯n)D+






φ¯nnj(hjjw) dσ− Z


φ¯nj(hjjw) d˜υ

=hSµ,h(w), φni







φ¯nnj(hjjw) dσ

→ hSµ,h(w), φiD +






φ¯nj(hjjw)dσ, as n→ ∞,

thus, proving formula (3.8).


A pair (µ,h) (with h as in (3.1)) is said to bestrictly admissible for D, if

(4.1) kφk1,0,D ≤Const.kφkµ,h, ∀φ∈Cc( ˜D),

(noting that Cc( ˜D)⊂Cc1(D)). To each such pair (µ,h) the associated ”Sµ,h” is positive definite, hence defines a scalar product on Hµ,h1 (D).

It is shown in ([8], §3) that the k-th partial derivatives ∂x˜kT and ∂y˜kT of a regular current T = [ψ] (where ψ∈L1loc(D)) can be defined as (2m−1)- dimensional quasicurrents on D (which are currents if D is nonsingular). As a consequence, given g= (g0, . . . , g2m) with gj ∈L2(D), j= 0,1,· · · ,2m, by extending each gj to ˜D by setting ˜gj = 0 on ˜D\D, there is an associated quasicurrent

(4.2) bgc := ˜g0+




˜xk[˜gj] +∂˜yk[˜gj]

on ˜D, and an induced functional (denoted by the same) acting on Cc( ˜D):

(4.3) hbgc, φiD := (g0,φ)¯ D




(gj, ∂φ¯


)D + (gj, ∂φ¯




Let H−1(D) denote the linear space of all such 2m-tuples g. It follows from (4.3) and H¨older’s inequality that, if (µ,h) is strictly admissible for D,



(4.4) |hbgc, φiD| ≤Const. max

0≤j≤2mkgjkL2(D)kφkµ,h, ∀φ∈Cc( ˜D).

Thus, the linear operator bgc is continuous on Cc(D) with respect to the norm k kµ,h (or k kµ,V, if h = h{1}). The subspace Cc(D) being dense in Hµ,{h},c1 (D), the operator bgc admits a unique continuous linear extension (denoted by the same) to the latter (relative to k kµ,h), hence also to Hµ,h1 (D), by the Hahn-Banach’s theorem. The operator bgc is said to be representableby an element η∈L2(D), if the action of bgc on Cc(D) agrees with the (conjugated) action of [η]. Note that if each gj has weak derivative

νgj belonging to L2(D) for ν= 1,· · · ,2m, then bgc is representable by an element of L2(D). The subspace of ”Schr¨odinger functions” of type (µ, V), namely,

Sµ,V(D) := {w∈H1


µ,h{1}w= 0},

is given precisely by the orthogonal complement of Hµ,V,c1 (D) (with respect to Sµ,V):

(4.5) H1

µ,V(D) =H1

µ,V,c(D)⊕ Sµ,V(D).

This is an easy consequence of the identity (3.3).

Definition 2. Let g ∈H−1(D) and f ∈C1,1(D). An element Ψ =w∈ Hµ,V1 (D) is called aweak solution of the Dirichlet problem

(4.6) Sp,µ,V(Ψ) =− 4pΨ + (µ−V) Ψ = bgc, Ψ = f on dD, provided that w≡f mod (Hµ,V,c1 (D)) and

Sµ,V(w, ρ) = ((µ−V)w, ρ)¯D +S0,0(w, ρ) = hbgc, ρiD, ∀ρ∈Hµ,V,c1 (D).

It is a consequence of Green’s first identity that, if g ∈ L2(D), every weak solution Ψ =ψ∈C1,1(D) of the Dirichlet problem

(4.7) Sp,µ,V (Ψ) = g in D, Ψ = 0 on dD, is a classical solution of the Schr¨odinger equation (1.2) in D.

Theorem 4.1. Assume that either (i) g ∈ L2(D) and (µ, V) is ad- missible for D or (ii) g ∈ H−1(D) such that bgc is representable by an element η ∈ L2(D) and (µ, V) is strictly admissible for D. Then for each f ∈C1,1(D)∩C2(D) with 4pf ∈L2(D), the Dirichlet problem (4.6)admits a unique weak solution in Hµ,V1 (D).

Proof. Let F := 4pf. The homogeneous Dirichlet problem (4.7) with

“g” replaced by “ ˆg:=η+F−(µ−V)f”, where η=g whenever g∈L2(D),


admits a weak solution ψ=w0 ∈Hµ,V,c1 (D), by Riesz’s representation theorem (applied to the functional bˆgc). Then the function Ψ :=w0+f gives a weak solution of the Dirichlet problem (4.6). For the equation (3.3) (with µ = 0) and the Hermitian symmetry of the Dirichlet product imply that

S0,0(f, φ) = −(4pf, φ)¯ D, ∀φ∈Cc(D), hence, by virtue of definition (3.2), one has

Sµ,V(Ψ, φ) =Sµ,V(w0, φ) +Sµ,V(f, φ)

=hbˆgc, φiD+ ((µ−V)f, φ)¯ D+S0,0(f, φ) =hbgc, φiD, thus, proving the above claim.

The difference ψ= Ψ1−Ψ2 of two solutions of (4.6) belongs to Hµ,V,c1 (D) and the functional ”Sµ,V(ψ, )” annihilates Hµ,V,c1 (D). Hence, the decomposi- tion (4.5) implies that ψ= 0.

To consider a mixed Dirichlet-Neumann boundary value problem with a partition (1.3) of∂D\A, let N be an open neighborhood of (∂D)N contained in ˜D and set ˆD := D∪ N. Denote by R0,D the closure in Hµ,h1 (D) of the subspace consisting of φ∈ Cc( ˆD) that vanishes in the intersection with D of some neighborhood of (∂D)D (possibly depending on φ). Let Aµ,h be a maximal linear subspace of Hµ,h1 (D) admitting a (Schr¨odinger) continuous linear mapping sµ,h :Aµ,h →L2(D) satisfying the equation

(4.8) hPµ,hw, viD = (sµ,h(w),v)¯ D, ∀v∈Cc(D).

It can be shown that, for each w ∈ C1,1(D)∩ Aµ,h, the (conjugated) action of [sµ,h(w)] on R0,D agrees with the action of [Sµ,h(w)]. Define

N0,Dµ :={w∈ Aµ,h∩R0,D|Sµ,h(w, φ) = (sµ,h(w),φ)¯ D, ∀φ∈R0,D}.

Definition 3.A weak solution to the Dirichlet-Neumann problem (4.9) Sµ,h(w) = bgc, w∈ N0,Dµ ,

where g∈H−1(D), is an element w∈ N0,Dµ satisfying the equation (4.10) hPµ,hw, φiD = hbgc, φiD, ∀φ∈R0,D.

Theorem4.2. Assume that either(i) g∈L2(D) and (µ,h) is admissible for D or (ii) g ∈ H−1(D) such that bgc is representable by an element of L2(D) and (µ,h) is strictly admissible for D. Then the Dirichlet-Neumann problem (4.9)admits a unique weak solution.


Proof. Let Bµ,h be the set of all elements w∈Hµ,h1 (D) such that the anti- linear form v 7→ hPµ,hw, viD is continuous on Hµ,h,c1 (D) with respect to the L2-norm on L2(D). Bµ,h is clearly a linear subspace of Hµ,h1 (D). According to the Hahn-Banach’s theorem, the said anti-linear form is extendable to a unique continuous anti-linear form on L2(D), and this extension is given by taking the scalar product of a unique element of L2(D), to be denoted by sµ,h(w), with v. Thus the equation (4.8) holds for all v∈Hµ,h1 (D). With g given as either in (i) or, in (ii), the functional φ 7→ hbgc, φiD is well-defined and bounded on R0,D (by the inequality (4.4)). Hence, the Riesz’s representation theorem implies that there is a unique element w0 ∈R0,D satisfying the equation (4.11) hbgc, φiD =Sµ,h(w0, φ), ∀φ∈R0,D


(4.12) kw0kµ,h ≤ Const. max


If bgc is representable (on Cc(D)) by an element η ∈ L2(D) (or, if g ∈ L2(D)), then by the formula (3.6), the equation (4.8) holds with sµ,h(w0) =η(or g), for all v∈Cc(D). One has, for such v, |hPµ,hw0, viD| ≤ kηkL2(D)kvkL2(D), thereby showing that w0 ∈ Bµ,h. Moreover, by the equation (4.11), this element w0 belongs to N0,Dµ , thus giving a weak solution to the problem (4.9).

The difference ψ = w1−w2 of two weak solutions of (4.9) satisfies the conditions ψ∈ N0,Dµ ⊂R0,D and hPµ,hψ, φiD = 0 on R0,D. Hence, it follows from the Poincar´e’s inequality (3.4) (or (4.1)) that kψkL2(D) = 0, and thus ψ= 0.

Theorem 4.3. If (µ,h) is admissible for D, then the Schr¨odinger map sµ,h : Aµ,h → L2(D) is invertible with inverse given by a continuous, self- adjoint and strictly positive isomorphism Gµ,h : L2(D) → N0,Dµ (called the weak Green’s operator for (4.9)); in particular, for g ∈ L2(D), the element w = Gµ,hg gives the unique weak solution to the Dirichlet-Neumann problem (4.9). Moreover, for admissible (µj,h), j= 1,2, the operators Gµj,h are com- mutative.

Proof. Given g ∈ L2(D), the association g 7→ Gµ,hg := w, the unique weak solution to Dirichlet-Neumann problem (4.9) is well-defined by Theo- rem 4.2. The equations (4.11)–(4.12) imply that

(4.13) Sµ,h(Gµ,hg, φ) = (g,φ)¯ D, ∀φ∈R0,D, with

(4.14) kGµ,hgkµ,h ≤Const.kgkL2(D).


Furthermore, the induced mapping Gµ,h : L2(D) → N0,Dµ is a bounded linear operator giving the left-inverse of sµ,h|N0,Dµ . Setting φ = Gµ,hf with f ∈L2(D) in (4.13) yields

(4.15) Sµ,h(Gµ,hg,Gµ,hf) = (g,Gµ,hf)D. Also, by (4.13) one has

Sµ,h(Gµ,hf,Gµ,hg) = (f,Gµ,hg)D. Consequently,

(4.16) (g,Gµ,hf)D = (f,Gµ,hg)D = (Gµ,hg,f)¯D,

thus proving that Gµ,h is a self-adjoint endomorphism of L2(D). Formula (4.15) shows that the integral (Gµ,hg,g)¯ D is real-valued, and thus, by virtue of (3.4), one has, by relations (4.15) and (4.16),

(Gµ,hg,g)¯ D ≥(cD,µ,h)−2kGµ,hgk2


On the other hand, the H¨older’s and the generalized Poincar´e inequalities imply that

(Gµ,hg,g)¯ D ≤Const.kGµ,hgkµ,hkgkL2(D). Therefore, by the inequality (4.14),


L2(D) ≤Const.kgk2


so that Gµ,h, is a continuous endomorphism of L2(D). Furthermore, Gµ,h is strictly positive, since in fact, the condition Gµ,hg= 0 gives g=s{µ,h}(Gµ,hg) = 0, so that, if g ∈ L2(D)\{0}, then (Gµ,hg, ¯g)D > 0. Finally, for admissible (µj,h), j= 1,2, one has


0,h(Gµ0,hg)) =Gµ1,h([sµ



1,h(Gµ0,hg))−(µ1−µ0)Gµ1,h(Gµ0,hg)), and thus, the identity

(4.17) Gµ1,h− Gµ0,h=−(µ1−µ0)Gµ1,hGµ0,h

holds. In particular, the commutativity of the Gµj,h follows.


In the rest of this paper, assume that h = (−V, h1,· · ·, h2m) is given (as in (3.1)) with hD > 0. The purpose of this section is to consider, for a given g∈L2(D), the solvability of the operator equation (1.4) with v ranging


over R0,D. If λ∈C\R, a positive number µ0 is called an admissible value for (V, D, λ), provided (µ0, V) is admissible for D and λ−µ0 ∈ C\R. The method of Garnir [4] (compare [3], 5.13.8) can be extended to yield the following:

Theorem 5.1 (Generalized Garnir’s Theorem). Let λ∈C\R and µ0

be an admissible value for (V, D, λ). Then there exists a continuous endomor- phism Gλ,h of L2(D) (independent of the choice of µ0) taking values in N0,Dµ0 , such that the element w:=Gλ,hg gives a weak solution, in the sense of (4.10), of the Dirichlet-Neumann Problem (4.9) (relative to a partition (1.3)), for each g∈L2(D).

Proof. The existence of the endomorphism Gλ,h, for each λ∈C\R, will be shown in Lemma 6.1 (of the Appendix). Observe that for such λ one has

hPλ,hGλ,hg, viD =λ(Gλ,hg,v)¯ D +hP0,hGλ,hg, viD

=λ(Gλ,hg,v)¯ D + (s0,h(Gλ,hg),¯v)D.

for all g, v ∈L2(D). As will be shown in Lemma 6.2, the terms on the right- hand side of this equation are holomorphic in C\R (as a function of λ). The equation (1.4) itself is known to hold for all v ∈ R0,D, in case λ = µ is a real ”admissible” spectral parameter, namely, µ≥ ess supDV. Therefore, the principle of analytic continuation ensures its validity for all λ∈C\R.


Lemma 6.1. Let λ∈C\R. Then for each admissible µ0 for (V, D, λ), the mapping

(6.1) Gλ,h :=Gµ

0,h[I+ (λ−µ0)Gµ


is a continuous endomorphism of L2(D) (independent of the choice of µ0), taking values in N0,Dµ0 .

Proof. Since Gµ0,h is a continuous, positive, self-adjoint endomorphism of L2(D), the inverse map [I+ (λ−µ0)Gµ0,h]−1 exists as a continuous endomor- phism of L2(D) (by [3], Lemma, p. 359). To show that the operator Gλ,h is well-defined by (6.1), choose admissible µj >0, j = 0,1 for (V, D, λ). Then, equivalent to the identity (4.17), one has

(6.2) [I+ (λ−µ0)Gµ0,h]Gµ1,h = [I+ (λ−µ1)Gµ1,h]Gµ0,h, One the other hand one has, clearly,

Gµ1,h[I+ (λ−µ0)Gµ0,h] = [I + (λ−µ0)Gµ0,h]Gµ1,h

= [I + (λ−µ1)Gµ1,h]Gµ0,h. (6.3)


Multiplying (6.3) on the right by [I+ (λ−µ0)Gµ0,h]−1 and on the left by [I+ (λ−µ1)Gµ1,h]−1 yields

[I+ (λ−µ1)Gµ1,h]−1Gµ1,h = Gµ0,h[I+ (λ−µ0)Gµ0,h]−1. It will be shown below that the following identity holds:

(6.4) [I+ (λ−µ1)Gµ1,h]−1Gµ1,h = [I+ (λ−µ0)Gµ0,h]−1Gµ0,h. It follows from this that

Gµ0,h[I+ (λ−µ0)Gµ0,h]−1 = [I+ (λ−µ0)Gµ0,h]−1Gµ0,h,

and the same identity holds with µ0 replaced by µ1. Consequently from this and (6.4) one concludes, as desired, that

Gµ0,h[I+ (λ−µ0)Gµ0,h]−1 = Gµ1,h[I+ (λ−µ1)Gµ1,h]−1.

To prove the identity (6.4), observe that the operators I + (µ−µ1)Gµ1 and I+ (µ−µ0)Gµ0 commute; hence, setting w:= [I+ (µ−µ1)Gµ1]−1v, one has

[I+ (µ−µ1)Gµ1][I+ (µ−µ0)Gµ0]w= [I+ (µ−µ0)Gµ0]v.


[I+ (µ−µ0)Gµ0][I+ (µ−µ1)Gµ1]−1v= [I+ (µ−µ1)Gµ1]−1[I+ (µ−µ0)Gµ0]v.


[I+ (µ−µ0)Gµ0][I+ (µ−µ1)Gµ1]−1 = [I+ (µ−µ1)Gµ1]−1[I+ (µ−µ0)Gµ0].

Consequently, the identity (6.4) will result from the relation Gµ0,h = [I+ (λ−µ0)Gµ0,h][I+ (λ−µ1)Gµ1,h]−1Gµ1,h

= [I+ (λ−µ1)Gµ1,h]−1[I+ (λ−µ0)Gµ0,h]Gµ1,h, namely, the above relation (6.2).

Lemma 6.2. Given a pair (g, ρ)∈L2(D)×L2(D), the function gh(λ) :=

(s0,h(Gλ,hg),ρ)¯D is holomorphic in C\R. The same is true for the function ˆ

gh(λ) := (Gλ,hg,ρ)¯D.

Proof. Let λ0 ∈ C\R be given and choose µ0 for (V, D, λ0) as in Lemma 6.1. Write λ00+ε. Taking ε with sufficiently small modulus, the same µ0 can be used in defining Gλ0,h. With K:= [I+ (λ0−µ0)Gµ0,h]−1, the definition (6.1) implies that

gh0)−gh0) = (s0,h(Gµ0,h(K−1+εGµ0,h)−1g),ρ)¯ D−(s0,h(Gµ0,hKg),ρ)¯ D

= (s0,h(Gµ0,h(I +εKGµ0,h)−1Kg),ρ)¯D −(s0,h(Gµ0,hKg),ρ)¯D.


If |ε| is so small that

|ε| kGµ0,hk

L2(D) ≤(kKk

L2(D))−1, then the series P

n≥0(−1)nεn(KGµ0,h)n) converges (relative to the L2 operator norm) and its sum is none other than (I+εKGµ0,h)−1. Consequently, one has

s0,h(gh0))−s0,h(gh0)) =X


(−1)nεn(s0,h◦ Gµ0,h) (KGµ0,h)nKg),ρ)¯D, the series on the right being necessarily convergent for ε with sufficiently small modulus. The holomorphy of gh(λ) in a neighborhood of λ0 is thereby established.


[1] Angelo Alvino, Andrea Cianchi, Vladimir Maz’ya and Anna Mercaldo,Well-posed elliptic Neumann problems involving irregular data and domains. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´e Anal.

Non Lin´eaire27(2010),4, 1017–1054.

[2] Andrea Cianchi and Vladimir Maz’ya,Boundedness of solutions to the Schr¨odinger equa- tion under Neumann boundary conditions. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 98 (2012), 6, 654–688.

[3] R.E. Edwards, Functional Analysis. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Chicago, Toronto, London, 1965.

[4] H.G. Garnir,Les Probl´emes aux Limites de la Physique Math´ematique.Birkh¨auser, Basel- Stuttgart, 1958.

[5] C. Tung, The first main theorem of value distribution on complex spaces. Memoire dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Serie VIII,XV(1979),1, 91–263.

[6] C. Tung, Semi-harmonicity, integral means and Euler type vector fields. Adv. Appl.

Clifford Algebr.17(2007), 555–573.

[7] C. Tung, Integral products, Bochner-Martinelli transforms and applications. Taiwanese J. Math. 13(2009),5, 1583–1608.

[8] C. Tung,On Wirtinger derivations of currents and conditions for weak holomorphy and harmonicity. Preprint (2013) 22 pp.

Received 1 August 2013 Minnesota State University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics,

Mankato, MN 56001 chia.tung@mnsu.edu


Documents relatifs

Some considerable difficulties arise at key turning points of our work, due to the nature of the system of nonlinear equations that we are dealing with, in particular in the

Its main result is an asymptotically deterministic lower bound for the PE of the sum of a low compressibility approximation to the Stokes operator and a small scaled random

We compute the whole spectrum of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator acting on differen- tial p-forms on the unit Euclidean ball.. The Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator on

This paper is devoted to the homogenization of a spectral problem for a singularly perturbed elliptic equation in a one-dimensional periodic medium with Neumann boundary

of the invariance criterion of [Ouh1] and then prove new criteria for invariance of closed convex sets which make a bridge between invariance on L 2 (Γ) for the

Besides in surjectivity problems, Phragmen-Lindelof conditions also arise in the investigations of Meise, Taylor, and Vogt [14], [15], concerning the existence of continuous

The main purpose of this work is to study and give optimal estimates for the Dirichlet problem for the biharmonic operator A 2 on an arbitrary bounded Lipschitz domain D in R\ with

In [14] the author added a lower order term growing as |u| r−1 u, and studied existence, regularity and uniqueness of solutions to problem (1).. Although the right hand side is