arXiv:1504.01206v1 [math.AP] 6 Apr 2015

arXiv:1504.01206v1 [math.AP] 6 Apr 2015

AN INTERIOR ESTIMATE FOR CONVEX SOLUTIONS AND A RIGIDITY THEOREM

MING LI, CHANGYU REN, AND ZHIZHANG WANG

Abstract. We establish an interior C² estimate fork+ 1 convex solutions to Dirichlet problems ofk-Hessian equations. We also use such estimate to obtain a rigidity theorem for k+ 1 convex entire solutions of k-Hessian equations in Euclidean space.

1. introduction

In this paper, we consider an interior C² estimate for the following Dirichlet problem for k-Hessian equations,

σ_k(D²u) = f(x, u,∇u), in Ω,

u = 0, on ∂Ω.

(1.1)

Here, u is a function defined in some domain Ω. ∇u is the gradient of u and D²u is the Hessian of u. We also require f > 0 and smooth enough respect to every variables.

The interior C² estimates for Monge-Amp`ere equations were studied at first by A.V. Pogorelov [14], [9]. Then, K.S. Chou and X.-J. Wang extended Pogorelov’s estimates to the case of k-Hessian equations of [8], [16]. Explicitly, in their paper, for any function f not depending∇u in (1.1), they have proved that, for any small positive constantε, the following estimates hold,

(−u)^1+ε∆u 6 C.

(1.2)

Here, constantC depends on the domain Ω,k, f and sup_Ω|∇u|.

Maybe a natural question is whether these interior estimates are still valid for that f does depend on the gradient term ∇u, namely, interior estimates for (1.1).

For the 2-Hessian equation, we can get this type of interior estimates.

Theorem 1. For 2-Hessian equations, i.e. k= 2 in (1.1), there is some constant β >0, such that

(−u)^β∆u 6 C.

(1.3)

Here positive constants β and C depend on the domain Ω, the function f, sup_Ω|u|

and sup_Ω|∇u|.

1991Mathematics Subject Classification. 53C23, 35J60, 53C42.

Research of the last author is supported by an NSFC Grant No.11301087.

By some reasons, the small constantεshould not be zero in Chou-Wang’s proof.

On the other hand, for Monge-Amp`ere equation case, namely, k = n in (1.1), we can drop the smallε[14], [9]. It reminds us that if the convexity is better, estimate (1.2) can be improved. Using techniques developing in [11], we can get the following theorem,

Theorem 2. Suppose that function u is a k+ 1 convex solution for the Dirichlet problem of k-Hessian equations (1.1). Namely, function u is in k+ 1 convex cone.

We have,

(−u)∆u 6 C.

(1.4)

Here, positive constant C depends on sup_Ω|∇u|, sup_Ω|u|, the function f and the domain Ω.

Here the definition of the k-convex cone is following Caffarelli-Nirenberg-Spruck [3],

Definition 3. For a domainΩ⊂Rⁿ, a function v∈C²(Ω)is calledk-convex if the eigenvaluesκ(x) = (κ₁(x),· · · , κ_n(x)) of the hessian ∇²v(x) is in Γ_k for all x∈Ω, where Γk is the Garding’s cone

Γ_k={κ∈Rⁿ | σ_m(κ)>0, m= 1,· · ·, k}.

Note that the constant β is large in Theorem 1. We can not improve β to be 1 or 1 +εas Chou-Wang’s paper [8] or Theorem 2.

An application of the interior estimates may to prove rigidity theorems for k- Hessian equations. Consider the entire solutionsuinn-dimensional Euclidean spaces of the following equations,

σk(D²u) = 1.

(1.5)

S.-Y. A. Chang and Y. Yuan in [6] proposed a problem that: Are the entire solutions of (1.5) with lower bound only quadratic polynomials ?

Let’s review known results related the above problem. Fork= 1, (1.5) is a linear equation. It is a obvious result coming from the Liouville property of the harmonic functions. For k = n, Monge-Amp`ere equation case, it is a well know theorem.

For n = 2, K. J¨orgens [12] proved that every entire strictly convex solution is a quadratic polynomial. Then, E. Calabi [4] obtained the same result for n= 3,4,5.

At last, A.V. Pogorelov [13],[14] gave a proof for all dimensions. Then, S.Y. Cheng and S.T. Yau [7] gave another more geometry proof. In 2003, L. Caffarelli and Y.

Li, [5] extended the theorem of J¨orgens, Calabi and Pogorelov.

Fork= 2, S.-Y. A. Chang and Y. Yuan [6] have proved that, if D²u>δ−

r 2n n−1,

for any δ > 0, then the entire solution of the equation (1.5) only have quadratic polynomials. For generalk, it is still open, but J. Bao, J.Y. Chen, B. Guan and M.

Ji in [2] obtained that, strictly convex entire solutions of (1.5), satisfying a quadric

growth are quadratic polynomials. Here, the quadratic growth means that, there is some positive constantc, b and sufficiently large R, such that,

u(x)>c|x|²−b, for|x|>R.

(1.6)

Note that, our interior estimates Theorem 2 holds fork+ 1 convex solutions. Hence, we can relax their restriction. In deed, we have proved,

Theorem 4. The entire solutions ink+1convex cone of the equations (1.5)defined in Rⁿ with quadratic growth are quadratic polynomials.

In our proof, we don’t need the assumption of strictly convexity. Hence, we do not use the estimates of L. Caffaralli. Now, we give the following two Lemmas, which will be needed in our proof.

Lemma 5. Set k > l. For α= 1

k−l, we have,

−σ^pp,qq_k σk

u_pphu_qqh+σ_l^pp,qq σl

u_pphu_qqh (1.7)

>

(σ_k)_h σk

−(σ_l)_h σl

(α−1)(σ_k)_h σk

−(α+ 1)(σ_l)_h σl

. further more, for sufficiently small δ >0, we have,

−σ^pp,qq_k u_pphu_qqh+ (1−α+ α δ)(σk)²_h

σ_k (1.8)

> σ_k(α+ 1−δα) (σl)h

σ_l 2

−σk

σ_lσ_l^pp,qqu_pphu_qqh. The another one is,

Lemma 6. Denote Sym(n) the set of all n×n symmetric matrices. Let F be a C² symmetric function defined in some open subset Ψ⊂Sym(n). At any diagonal matrix A∈Ψ with distinct eigenvalues, let F¨(B, B) be the second derivative of C² symmetric function F in direction B ∈Sym(n), then

F¨(B, B) =

n

X

j,k=1

f¨^jkB_jjB_kk+ 2X

j<k

f˙^j−f˙^k κ_j −κ_kB_jk² . (1.9)

The proof of the first Lemma can be found in [10] and [11]. The second Lemma can be found in [1] and [3].

The paper is organized by three sections. The first section gives the interior estimates of 2-Hessian case. The second section gives the interior estimates fork+ 1 convex solutions. The last section proves the rigidity theorem.

2. An interior C² estimate for σ2 equations

In this section, we prove Theorem 1. We consider the following test function, M = max

|ξ|=1,x∈Ω(−u)^βexp{ε

2|Du|²+a

2|x|²}u_ξξ,

where β, ε and a are three constants which we will be determined later. Suppose that M achieve its maximum value in Ω at some point x₀ along some direction ξ.

We can assume that ξ = (1,0,· · · ,0). By rotating the coordinate, we diagonal the matrix (uij), and we also can assume that u₁₁>u₂₂· · ·>unn.

Hence, atx₀, differentiating the test function twice, we have

(2.1) βui

u +u11i

u₁₁ +εu_iu_ii+ax_i= 0, and,

βu_ii u −βu²_i

u² +u_11ii u₁₁ −u²_11i

u²₁₁ +X

k

εukukii+εu²_ii+a60.

In the above inequality, contracting withσⁱⁱ₂, we have, 2βσ₂

u −βσⁱⁱ₂u²_i

u² + σ₂ⁱⁱu_11ii

u₁₁ −σ₂ⁱⁱu²_11i u²₁₁ (2.2)

+X

k

εukσⁱⁱ₂ukii+εσ₂ⁱⁱu²_ii+ (n−1)aσ1 60.

Atx₀, differentiating equation (1.1) twice, we have, (2.3) σ₂ⁱⁱu_iij=f_j+f_uu_j+f_pju_jj, and

σ₂ⁱⁱuiijj+σ^pq,rs₂ upqjursj >−C−Cu²_jj+X

k

fp_ku_kjj. (2.4)

Inserting (2.4) into (2.2), we have, 0>2βσ₂

u −βσ₂ⁱⁱu²_i u² + 1

u₁₁[−C−Cu²₁₁+X

k

fp_ku_k11−K(σ₂)²₁+K(σ₂)²₁ (2.5)

−σ₂^pq,rsu_pq1u_rs1]−σⁱⁱ₂u²_11i u²₁₁ +X

k

εukσⁱⁱ₂ukii+εσⁱⁱ₂u²_ii+ (n−1)aσ₁. Using (2.1) and (2.3), we have,

1 u₁₁

X

k

f_pku_k11+X

k

εu_kσ_kⁱⁱu_kii>−C−X

k

βu_kf_pk u . Note that

−σ^pq,rs₂ u_pq1u_rs1=−σ₂^pp,qqu_pp1u_qq1+X

p6=q

u²_pq1

>−σ₂^pp,qqupp1uqq1+ 2X

i6=1

u²_11i.

Using Lemma 5, there exists some sufficiently large constant K depending on f, such that,

K(σ2)²₁−σ^pp,qq₂ upp1uqq1>0.

Using the above two formulas, inequality (2.5) becomes,

−C

u >−βσ₂ⁱⁱu²_i u² + 2

u₁₁ X

i6=1

u²_11i−σ₂ⁱⁱu²_11i

u²₁₁ +εσ₂ⁱⁱu²_ii (2.6)

+ (n−1)aσ₁−Cu₁₁−C.

Take a sufficiently largeasuch that,

(n−1)aσ1−Cu11−C >aσ1.

Here, we always assume thatu₁₁ is sufficiently large. Now we should divide into two cases to deal with other third order derivatives.

(A) Suppose

n−1

X

i=2

λi6λ₁/3. In this case, using (2.1), we have,

−βσⁱⁱ₂u²_i

u² >−2σⁱⁱ₂ β

u²_11i

u²₁₁ −2σⁱⁱ₂

β (εuiuii+axi)². (2.7)

Using (2.6) and (2.7), we have,

−C

u >− βσ¹¹₂ u²₁ u² + 2

u₁₁ X

i6=1

u²_11i−(1 + 2 β)X

i6=1

σⁱⁱ₂u²_11i u²₁₁ (2.8)

−σ¹¹₂ u²₁₁₁

u²₁₁ +εσⁱⁱ₂u²_ii−X

i6=1

2σ₂ⁱⁱ

β (εu_iu_ii+ax_i)²+aσ₁. Since,

n−1

X

i=2

λi 6 λ₁

3 , we have, for sufficiently large β, 2

u₁₁ X

i6=1

u²_11i−(1 + 2 β)X

i6=1

σⁱⁱ₂u²_11i u²₁₁ >0.

Again, using (2.1), we have,

−σ₂¹¹u²₁₁₁

u²₁₁ >−2σ₂¹¹(βu₁

u )²−2σ¹¹₂ (εu₁u₁₁+ax₁)². Then we obtain,

−C

u +(β+ 2β²)σ₂¹¹u²₁ u² (2.9)

>εσ₂ⁱⁱu²_ii−X

i6=1

2σⁱⁱ₂

β (εuiuii+axi)²−2σ¹¹₂ (εu₁u₁₁+ax₁)²+aσ₁

>X

i

εσ₂ⁱⁱu²_ii−X

i6=1

4σⁱⁱ₂

β ε²u²_iu²_ii−X

i6=1

4σ₂ⁱⁱ

β a²x²_i −4σ¹¹₂ ε²u²₁u²₁₁

−4σ¹¹₂ a²x²₁+au₁₁.

We chooseεand β, such that

ε >8ε²max

Ω |Du|², and β > a². Hence, (2.9) becomes,

−C

u + Cσ¹¹₂ u² > ε

2σ¹¹₂ u²₁₁−4σ₂¹¹a²x²₁+ (a−C)u₁₁. (2.10)

Takingaand u₁₁ sufficiently large, we obtain (1.3).

(B) If

n−1

X

i=2

λ_i > λ₁

3 , then we have λ₁

3(n−2) 6λ₂ 6λ₁. Using (2.7), (2.6) becomes,

−C u +X

i

(β+ 2β²)σ₂ⁱⁱu²_i u² (2.11)

>X

i

εσ₂ⁱⁱu²_ii−4X

i

σⁱⁱ₂ε²u²_iu²_ii−4X

i

σ₂ⁱⁱa²x²_i +aσ₁.

We should divide this case into two subcases, (B1)σ²²₂ >1 and (B2)σ₂²²<1. We also take a sufficiently smallε, such thatε >8ε²maxΩ|Du|². In both subcases, the right hand side of the above inequality always has high order termu²₁₁ or u³₁₁, then we have (1.3). See [11] for detail.

3. An interior C² estimate for k+ 1convex solutions

In this section, we consider the interior estimates for k Hessian equations (1.1).

We will prove Theorem 2. Before we start our proof, we need the following fact.

Lemma 7. Suppose u is a k+ 1 convex solution for equation (1.1). Then, there is some constant K0 >0 depending on the diameter of the domain Ω, sup_Ω|u| and sup_Ω|∇u|, such that,

D²u+K₀I >0.

Here ”>0” means the matrix is semi positive definite.

Proof. We choose K₀ satisfying (K0

n )^k >sup

Ω

f(x, u,∇u).

Supposeλ₁>λ₂ >· · ·>λ_n is the eigenvalues of the Hessian D²u. Then, we have, usingu∈Γ_k+1,

σ_k = σ_k−1(λ|1)λ₁+σ_k(λ|1)>σ_k−1(λ|1)λ₁

= σ_k−2(λ|12)λ₁λ₂+λ₁σ_k−1(λ|12)>σ_k−2(λ|12)λ₁λ₂

= · · ·>· · ·

= λ₁λ₂· · ·λk>λ^k_k. Hence,λ_k 6K₀/n. Since,u∈Γ_k, we have,

n

X

i=k

λi >0,

which implies that λn+K₀>0. We obtain the Lemma.

We use the m-polynomials. Here, m should be sufficiently large to give more convexity, since we have more negative terms. Let’s consider the following test function,

ϕ = mlog(−u) + logPm+mN 2 |Du|², (3.1)

where

P_m =X

j

κ^m_j , and κ_j =λ_j+K₀,

and N is some undetermined constant. The λ₁, λ₂,· · ·, λn are eigenvalues of the HessianD²u. By Lemma 7, κ₁, κ₂,· · · , κ_n are non negative. Suppose that function ϕachieves its maximum value in Ω at some pointx0. Rotating the coordinates, we assume that (uij) is diagonal matrix at x₀, and κ₁ >κ₂· · ·>κn.

Differentiating our test function twice and using Lemma 6, atx₀, we have,

(3.2)

X

j

κ^m−1_j ujji

Pm

+N uiuii+ui

u = 0, and,

0> 1 P_m[X

j

κ^m−1_j ujjii+ (m−1)X

j

κ^m−2_j u²_jji+X

p6=q

κ^m−1_p −κ^m−1_q κ_p−κ_q u²_pqi] (3.3)

− m P_m²(X

j

κ^m−1_j ujji)²+X

s

N ususii+N u²_ii+uii

u −u²_i u². Atx₀, differentiating the equation(1.1) twice, we have,

(3.4) σ_kⁱⁱu_iij=ψ_pju_jj+ψ_uu_j +ψ_j, and

(3.5) σ_kⁱⁱu_iijj+σ^pq,rs_k u_pqju_rsj >−C−Cu²₁₁+X

s

ψ_psu_sjj.

Here,C is a constant depending on f, the diameter of the domain Ω, sup_Ω|u| and sup_Ω|∇u|. Contacting σ_kⁱⁱin both side of (3.3), and using (3.4)(3.5), we get,

(3.6) 0 > 1

P_m[X

l

κ^m−1_l (−C−Cu²₁₁+X

s

ψpsu_sll−K(σ_k)²_l +K(σ_k)²_l −σ_k^pq,rsu_pqlu_rsl) +(m−1)σⁱⁱ_k X

j

κ^m−2_j u²_jji+σ_kⁱⁱX

p6=q

κ^m−1_p −κ^m−1_q κp−κq

u²_pqi]−mσ_kⁱⁱ P_m² (X

j

κ^m−1_j ujji)²

+X

s

N ususiiσ_kⁱⁱ+N u²_iiσ_kⁱⁱ+kσ_k

u −σ_kⁱⁱu²_i u² .

Using (3.2) and (3.4), we have, 1

Pm

X

l

X

s

κ^m−1_l ψpsusll+X

s

N usσ_kⁱⁱusii>−X

s

ψps

u_s u −C.

On the other hand, we have,

−σ_k^pq,rsupqlursl=−σ_k^pp,qquppluqql+σ_k^pp,qqu²_pql. Then, using the previous two formulas, (2.8) becomes,

(3.7) 0 > 1

Pm

[X

l

κ^m−1_l (−C−Cu²₁₁−Kψ_p²_lu²_ll+K(σk)²_l −σ_k^pp,qquppluqql+σ_k^pp,qqu²_pql) +(m−1)σ_kⁱⁱX

j

κ^m−2_j u²_jji+σⁱⁱ_k X

p6=q

κ^m−1_p −κ^m−1_q κ_p−κ_q u²_pqi]

−mσⁱⁱ_k P_m² (X

j

κ^m−1_j ujji)²+N u²_iiσ_kⁱⁱ+kσk

u −σ_kⁱⁱu²_i u² −X

s

ψps

us

u .

Let’s deal with the third order derivatives. Denote, Ai = κ^m−1_i

Pm

(K(σk)²_i −X

p,q

σ_k^pp,qquppiuqqi),Bi= 2κ^m−1_j Pm

X

j

σ_k^jj,iiu²_jji, Ci= m−1

P_m σⁱⁱ_k X

j

κ^m−2_j u²_jji,Di = 2σ_k^jj P_m

X

j6=i

κ^m−1_j −κ^m−1_i κ_j−κ_i u²_jji, Ei= mσ_kⁱⁱ

P_m² (X

j

κ^m−1_j ujji)².

We divide two cases to deal with the third order deriavatives, i6= 1 and i= 1.

Lemma 8. For anyi6= 1, we have

Ai+Bi+Ci+Di−(1 + 1

m)Ei>0, for sufficiently large m.

Proof. At first, by Lemma 5, for sufficiently large K, we have, (3.8) K(σ_k)²_l −σ_k^pp,qqu_pplu_qql>σ_k(1 +α

2)[(σ₁)_l σ₁ ]² >0.

Hence,Ai >0.

Then, we also have,

P_m²[Bi+Ci+Di−(1 + 1 m)Ei] (3.9)

= X

j6=i

Pm[2κ^m−1_j σ^jj,ii_k + (m−1)κ^m−2_j σⁱⁱ_k + 2σ_k^jj

m−2

X

l=0

κ^m−2−l_i κ^l_j]u²_jji +Pm(m−1)σⁱⁱ_kκ^m−2_i u²_iii

−(m+ 1)σ_kⁱⁱ(X

j6=i

κ^2m−2_j u²_jji+κ^2m−2_i u²_iii+X

p6=q

κ^m−1_p κ^m−1_q u_ppiu_qqi).

Note that (3.10)

κ_jσ_k^jj,ii+σ_k^jj = (λ_j+K₀)σ^jj,ii_k +σ^jj_k

= K₀σ_k^jj,ii+σⁱⁱ_k −σ_k−1(λ|ij) +λiσ_k−2(λ|ij) +σ_k−1(λ|ij)

= (K₀+λ_i)σ_k^jj,ii+σ_kⁱⁱ

> σ_kⁱⁱ.

For any indexj6=i, using the above inequality, we have, Pm[2κ^m−1_j σ_k^jj,ii+ (m−1)κ^m−2_j σⁱⁱ_k + 2σ_k^jj

m−2

X

l=0

κ^m−2−l_i κ^l_j]u²_jji (3.11)

−(m+ 1)σ_kⁱⁱκ^2m−2_j u²_jji

> Pm(m+ 1)σⁱⁱ_kκ^m−2_j u²_jji−(m+ 1)σ_kⁱⁱκ^2m−2_j u²_jji +2Pmσ^jj_k (

m−3

X

l=0

κ^m−2−l_i κ^l_j)u²_jji

> (m+ 1)(Pm−κ^m_j )σ_kⁱⁱκ^m−2_j u²_jji+ 2Pmσ^jj_k (

m−3

X

l=0

κ^m−2−l_i κ^l_j)u²_jji

Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities, we have, 2X

j6=i

X

p6=i,j

κ^m−2_j κ^m_p u²_jji (3.12)

= X

p6=i

X

q6=i,p

κ^m−2_p κ^m_q u²_ppi+X

q6=i

X

p6=i,q

κ^m−2_q κ^m_p u²_qqi

> 2 X

p6=q;p,q6=i

κ^m−1_p κ^m−1_q u_ppiu_qqi.

Hence, by (3.9), (3.11) and (3.12), we obtain, P_m²(Bi+Ci+Di−(1 + 1

m)Ei) (3.13)

> X

j6=i

(m+ 1)κ^m_i κ^m−2_j σⁱⁱ_ku²_jji+ ((m−1)(Pm−κ^m_i )−2κ^m_i )κ^m−2_i σⁱⁱ_ku²_iii

−2(m+ 1)σⁱⁱ_kκ^m−1_i uiii

X

j6=i

κ^m−1_j ujji+ 2Pm

X

j6=i

σ_k^jj(

m−3

X

l=0

κ^m−2−l_i κ^l_j)u²_jji

> X

j6=i

[(m+ 1)κ^m_i κ^m−2_j σ_kⁱⁱ+ 2κ^m₁ σ^jj_k

m−3

X

l=0

κ^m−2−l_i κ^l_j]u²_jji

+((m−1)(Pm−κ^m_i )−2κ^m_i )κ^m−2_i σ_kⁱⁱu²_iii−2(m+ 1)σⁱⁱ_kκ^m−1_i uiii

X

j6=i

κ^m−1_j ujji. We divide two cases to discuss.

Case(A) For λj > λi, we divide into two sub cases to discuss. If λi > K0, for 16l6m−3, we have,

2κ^m₁ σ^jj_k κ^m−2−l_i κ^l_j = 2κ^m₁ (λiσ^ii,jj_k +σ_k−1(λ|ij))κ^m−2−l_i κ^l_j (3.14)

> κ^m₁ (κ_iσ_k^ii,jj+σ_k−1(λ|ij))κ^m−2−l_i κ^l_j

> κ^m₁ (κjσ^ii,jj_k +σ_k−1(λ|ij))κ^m−l−1_i κ^l−1_j

> κ^m₁ (λ_jσ_k^ii,jj+σ_k−1(λ|ij))κ^m−l−1_i κ^l−1_j

= κ^m₁ κ^m−1−l_i κ^l−1_j σ_kⁱⁱ.

Here, we have usedσ_k−1(λ|ij)>0 since u is ak+ 1 convex solution.

Ifλ_i< K₀, for allk6l6k+ 8, we have,

κ^l+1₁ σ_k^jj >κ^l₁λ₁σ¹¹_k >c₀σkκ₁λ^l−1₁ >σ_kⁱⁱ

whenλ₁ is sufficiently large. Here, we have usedλ₁σ¹¹_k >c₀σ_k.Hence, we have, κ^m₁ σ^jj_k κ^m−2−l_i κ^l_j > κ^l+1₁ σ_k^jjκ^m−l−2₁ κ^l_jκ^m−l−2_i κ₁ >σⁱⁱ_kκ^m−2_j κ^m_i κ₁

κ^l+2_i (3.15)

> σⁱⁱ_kκ^m−2_j κ^m_i .

Sinceλi < K₀, we have usedκ₁ >κ^l+2_i for sufficiently large λ₁. Case (B) Forλ_j < λ_i, obviously, we have,

2κ^m₁ σ^jj_k κ^m−2−l_i κ^l_j >2κ^m₁ κ^m−2−l_i κ^l_jσ_kⁱⁱ. Combing the above two cases, we get, fork6l6k+ 8,

2κ^m₁ σ_k^jjκ^m−2−l_i κ^l_j > κ^m_i κ^m−2_j σⁱⁱ_k. (3.16)

Thus, (3.13) becomes,

P_m²(B_i+C_i+D_i−(1 + 1 m)E_i) (3.17)

> X

j6=i

(m+ 8)κ^m_i κ^m−2_j σⁱⁱ_ku²_jji+ ((m−1)(P_m−κ^m_i )−2κ^m_i )κ^m−2_i σ_kⁱⁱu²_iii

−2(m+ 1)σⁱⁱ_kκ^m−1_i uiii

X

j6=i

κ^m−1_j ujji

> (m+ 8)κ^m_i κ^m−2₁ σ_kⁱⁱu²_11i+ ((m−1)κ^m₁ −2κ^m_i )κ^m−2_i σ_kⁱⁱu²_iii

−2(m+ 1)σⁱⁱ_kκ^m−1_i uiiiκ^m−1₁ u11i

> (m+ 8)κ^m_i κ^m−2₁ σ_kⁱⁱu²_11i+ (m−3)κ^m₁ κ^m−2_i σⁱⁱ_ku²_iii

−2(m+ 1)σⁱⁱ_kκ^m−1_i u_iiiκ^m−1₁ u_11i

> 0.

Here, we have used, for m>10,

(m+ 8)(m−3)>(m+ 1)². So, we take

m= max{10, k+ 11},

which is sufficiently large.

The left case is i= 1. Let’s begin with the following Lemma which is modified from [11].

Lemma 9. For µ = 1,· · · , k−1, if there exists some positive constant δ 6 1, such that λ_µ/λ₁ >δ. Then there exits two sufficiently small positive constants η, δ^′ depending onδ, such that, if λ_µ+1/λ₁6δ^′, we have,

A1+B1+C1+D1−(1 + η

m)E1>0.

Proof. At first, we have,

P_m²(B₁+C₁+D₁−(1 + η m)E₁) (3.18)

> X

j6=1

((1−η)Pm+ (m+η)κ^m₁ )κ^m−2_j σ_k¹¹u²_jj1 +((m−1)(Pm−κ^m₁ )−(1 +η)κ^m₁ )κ^m−2₁ σ_k¹¹u²₁₁₁

−2(m+η)σ¹¹_k κ^m−1₁ u111

X

j6=1

κ^m−1_j ujj1+ 2Pm

X

j6=1

σ^jj_k (

m−3

X

l=0

κ^m−2−l₁ κ^l_j)u²_jj1. Sinceσ^jj_k >σ_k¹¹ for any j6= 1, form>5, it is obvious,

2P_mX

j6=1

σ^jj_k (

m−3

X

l=0

κ^m−2−l₁ κ^l_j)u²_jj1 >3X

j6=1

κ^m₁ κ^m−2_j σ¹¹_k u²_jj1+ 2P_mκ^m−2₁ X

j6=1

σ_k^jju²_jj1.

Hence, by (3.18), we obtain,

P_m²(B₁+C₁+D₁−(1 + η m)E₁) (3.19)

> X

j6=1

(m+ 4)κ^m₁ κ^m−2_j σ¹¹_k u²_jj1+ (m−1)X

j6=1

κ^m_j κ^m−2₁ σ¹¹_k u²₁₁₁

−2(m+η)σ_k¹¹κ^m−1₁ u₁₁₁X

j6=1

κ^m−1_j u_jj1

−(1 +η)κ^2m−2₁ σ_k¹¹u²₁₁₁+ 2Pmκ^m−2₁ X

j6=1

σ_k^jju²_jj1

> −(1 +η)κ^2m−2₁ σ_k¹¹u²₁₁₁+ 2Pmκ^m−2₁ X

j6=1

σ_k^jju²_jj1. Here, we have used

(m+ 4)(m−1)>(m+ 1)², form>5. By Lemma 5, we have,

A₁ > κ^m−1₁

P_m [σ_k(1 + α 2)(σµ)²₁

σ_µ² − σ_k

σ_µσ_µ^pp,qqu_pp1u_qq1] (3.20)

> κ^m−1₁ σk

Pmσ_µ² [(1 + α 2)X

a

(σ^aa_µ u_aa1)²+α 2

X

a6=b

σ_µ^aaσ^bb_µu_aa1u_bb1

+X

a6=b

(σ_µ^aaσ^bb_µ −σ_µσ^aa,bb_µ )u_aa1u_bb1].

Forµ= 1, notice thatσ₁^aa= 1 and σ₁^aa,bb= 0. Then, we have, (1 +α

2)X

a,b

u_aa1u_bb1 > 2(1 +α 2)X

a6=1

u_aa1u₁₁₁+ (1 + α 2)u²₁₁₁ (3.21)

> (1 +α

4)u²₁₁₁−C_αX

a6=1

u²_aa1.

Then, we get,

P_m²A₁ > P_mκ^m−1₁ σ_k σ²₁ (1 + α

4)u²₁₁₁−κ^m−1₁ P_mC_α σ₁²

X

a6=1

u²_aa1 (3.22)

> P_mκ^m−2₁ σ_k¹¹ (1 +P

j6=1λj/λ₁)²(1 +α

4)u²₁₁₁−CαPmκ^m−1₁ σ₁²

X

a6=1

u²_aa1

> (1 +η)Pmκ^m−2₁ σ¹¹_k u²₁₁₁−CαPmκ^m−1₁ σ²₁

X

a6=1

u²_aa1. The last two inequalities come from,

σk >λ1σ_k¹¹,

for sufficiently large λ₁, and 1 + α

4 > (1 +η)(1 + (n−1)δ^′)². (3.23)

Forµ>2, obviously, for a6=b, we have, σ_µ^aaσ_µ^bb−σµσ^aa,bb_µ

(3.24)

= (λbσµ−2(λ|ab) +σµ−1(λ|ab))(λaσµ−2(λ|ab) +σµ−1(λ|ab))

−(λaλbσ_µ−2(λ|ab) +λaσ_µ−1(λ|ab) +λbσ_µ−1(λ|ab) +σµ(λ|ab))σ_µ−2(λ|ab)

= σ²_µ−1(λ|ab)−σ_µ(λ|ab)σ_µ−2(λ|ab)

> 0.

The last inequality comes from Newton inequality. Sinceu∈Γ_k+1⊂Γ_µ+2, we have, for any a6µ,

(3.25) σ_µ^aa > λ₁· · ·λ_µ λa

. Fora, b6µ, we claim,

σ_µ−1(λ|ab)6Cλ₁· · ·λ_µ+1

λ_aλ_b , σµ(λ|ab)6Cλ₁· · ·λ_µ+2 λ_aλ_b (3.26)

σ_µ−2(λ|ab)6Cλ1· · ·λµ

λaλ_b .

The proof of the above three inequalities are same. We only give more detail for the first one. Since, u∈Γ_µ+2, then, for any indexi>µ+ 1, there is some constant C such that,

|λi|6Cλ_µ+1.

We write down the expression ofσ_µ and replace any λ_i fori>µ+ 1 by λ_µ+1, then we obtain the first inequality. Using (3.26) and (3.25), we get, for a, b6µ,

(3.27) σ_µ−1² (λ|ab)−σ_µ(λ|ab)σ_µ−2(λ|ab)6C₁(λ_µ+1 λ_b σ_µ^aa)². Then, by (3.27), we have, for any undetermined positive constantǫ,

X

a6=b;a,b6µ

(σ_µ^aaσ^bb_µ −σ_µσ_µ^aa,bb)u_aa1u_bb1 (3.28)

> − X

a6=b;a,b6µ

(σ²_µ−1(λ|ab)−σµ(λ|ab)σ_µ−2(λ|ab))u²_aa1

> − X

a6=b;a,b6µ

C₁(λµ+1

λ_b )²(σ_µ^aau_aa1)²

> −C2

δ²(λ_µ+1 λ₁ )²X

a6µ

(σ_µ^aauaa1)² > −ǫX

a6µ

(σ^aa_µ uaa1)². Here, we choose a sufficiently smallδ^′, such that,

δ^′ 6 δp ǫ/C2. (3.29)

By (3.27), we also have,

2 X

a6µ;b>µ

(σ^aa_µ σ_µ^bb−σµσ_µ^aa,bb)uaa1u_bb1 (3.30)

> −2 X

a6µ;b>µ

σ_µ^aaσ_µ^bb|u_aa1u_bb1|

> −ǫ X

a6µ;b>µ

(σ^aa_µ u_aa1)²−1 ǫ

X

a6µ;b>µ

(σ^bb_µu_bb1)². Again by (3.27), we have,

X

a6=b;a,b>µ

(σ_µ^aaσ^bb_µ −σµσ^aa,bb_µ )u_aa1u_bb1 > − X

a6=b;a,b>µ

σ^aa_µ σ_µ^bb|u_aa1u_bb1| (3.31)

> − X

a6=b;a,b>µ

(σ_µ^aau_aa1)².

Hence, combing (3.20), (3.28), (3.30) and (3.31), then taking α = 0 in (3.20), we get,

A₁ > κ^m−1₁ σ_k

P_mσ_µ² [(1−2ǫ)X

a6µ

(σ_µ^aau_aa1)²−C_ǫX

a>µ

(σ^aa_µ u_aa1)²].

(3.32)

Fora > µ, we have,

σ^aa_µ 6Cλ₁· · ·λ_µ−1, and σµ>λ₁· · ·λµ. Fora6µ, we have,

σµ(λ|a)6Cλ₁· · ·λ_µ+1 λ_a Then, we have, forλ₁ >K₀,

(3.33) P_m²A1

> Pmκ^m−1₁ λ1σ_k¹¹

σ²_µ (1−2ǫ)X

a6µ

(σ_µ^aau_aa1)²−Pmκ^m−1₁ σ_kCǫ

σ²_µ

X

a>µ

(σ_µ^aau_aa1)²

> P_mκ^m−1₁ σ¹¹_k

λ₁ (1−2ǫ)X

a6µ

(λaσ_µ^aa σµ

)²u²_aa1−Pmκ^m−3₁ λ²₁Cǫ

σ²_µ

X

a>µ

(σ^aa_µ uaa1)²

> κ^2m−2₁ σ¹¹_k (1−2ǫ)(1 +δ^m)X

a6µ

(1−C₃λ_µ+1 λa

)²u²_aa1−Pmκ^m−3₁ λ²_µCǫ

δ²σ²_µ

X

a>µ

(σ_µ^aauaa1)²

> κ^2m−2₁ σ¹¹_k (1−2ǫ)(1 +δ^m)(1− C₃λ_µ+1 δλ₁ )²X

a6µ

u²_aa1−Pmκ^m−3₁ Cǫ

δ²

X

a>µ

u²_aa1

> (1 +η)κ^2m−2₁ σ_k¹¹X

a6µ

u²_aa1−P_mκ^m−3₁ C_ǫ δ²

X

a>µ

u²_aa1.

Here, the last inequality comes from that we choose δ^′, η and ǫsatisfying δ^′C₃ 62ǫδ, (1−2ǫ)²(1 +δ^m)>1 +η.

(3.34)

Using (3.19) and (3.22) or (3.33), we have,

P_m²(A₁+B₁+C₁+D₁−(1 + η m)E₁) (3.35)

> 2Pmκ^m−2₁ X

j6=1

σ_k^jju²_jj1−C_ǫP_mκ^m−3₁ δ²

X

j>µ

u²_jj1.

Now, for k>j > µ, we have,

κ₁σ_k−1(κ|j)> λ₁· · ·λ_k·κ₁

λ_j > σ_kλ₁

C₄λ_j > σ_k C₄δ^′. Forj>k+ 1, we have,

κ₁σ_k−1(κ|j)> σkλ₁

C₄λ_k > σk

C₄δ^′. For both cases, chose δ^′ small enough such that,

δ^′ < σkδ² C₄Cǫ

,

then (3.35) is nonnegative. We complete the proof.

Hence, a directly corollary of Lemma 8 and Lemma 9 is the following.

Corollary 10. There exists two finite sequence of positive numbers {δi}^k_i=1 and {ε_i}^k_i=1, such that, if the following inequality holds for some index 16r6k−1,

λr

λ₁ > δ_r, and λ_r+1

λ₁ 6δ_r+1, then, for sufficiently large K, we have,

A₁+B₁+C₁+D₁−(1 +ε_r

m)E₁>0.

(3.36)

Proof. We use induction to find the sequence {δi}^k_i=1 and {εi}^k_i=1. Let δ₁ = 1/2.

Then λ₁/λ₁ = 1> δ₁. Assume that we have determinedδ_r for 16r 6k−1. We want to search forδr+1. In Lemma 9, we may chooseµ=r andδ =δr. Then there is someδ_r+1 and εr such that, if λ_r+1 6δ_r+1λ₁, we have (3.36). We have δ_r+1 and

εr.

Now, we continue to prove Theorem 2.

By Corollary 10, there exists some sequence{δ_i}^k_i=1. We divide two cases to deal with.

Case(A): λ_k>δ_kλ₁. Then, obviously we have,

f =σ_k> λ₁· · ·λ_k>δ^k−1_k λ^k₁, which impliesλ₁6C. Hence, we have proved Theorem 2.