• Aucun résultat trouvé

A quantitative version of the isoperimetric inequality : the anisotropic case

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "A quantitative version of the isoperimetric inequality : the anisotropic case"

Copied!
33
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

A quantitative version of the isoperimetric inequality:

the anisotropic case

LUCAESPOSITO, NICOLAFUSCO ANDCRISTINATROMBETTI

Abstract. We state and prove a stability result for the anisotropic version of the isoperimetric inequality. Namely ifEis a set with small anisotropic isoperimetric deficit, thenEis “close” to the Wulff shape set.

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000):52A40 (primary); 28A75 (secon- dary).

1.

Introduction and main results

Let:

R

N →[0,+∞)be a positively 1−homogeneous convex function such that (x) >0 for allx=0. TheWulff problemassociated tois

Min

E

E(x))d

H

N1:

L

N(E)=const

, (1.1)

whereEranges among all sets of finite perimeter satisfying the constraint

L

N(E)= const Here νE is the (generalized) outer normal to E and E is the (reduced) boundary of E (which equals the usual boundary ∂E if E is smooth). For an anisotropic function, one of the first attempts to solve this problem is contained in a paper by G. Wulff [22] dating back to 1901. However, it was only in 1944 that A.

Dinghas [9] proved that within the special class of convex polytopes the minimiser of (1.1) is a set homothetic to the unit ball of the dual norm of(x), i.e.,

W= {x

R

N : x, ν −(ν) <0 for allν

S

N1}, (1.2) which is known as theWulff shape set.

Introducing the quantity P(E)=

E

E(x))d

H

N1, (1.3) Pervenuto alla Redazione il 4 novembre 2004 e in forma definitiva il 25 ottobre 2005.

(2)

the minimality of W is expressed by saying that P(E)P(W)for all sets such that

L

N(E)=

L

N(W)or, equivalently, that

P(E)

L

N(E)

L

N(W)

N−1N

P(W) , (1.4)

for all sets Ewith finite measure. Thus, inequality (1.4) can be viewed as a natural extension of the classical isoperimetric inequality where the usual perimeter is re- placed by the ‘perimeter’ defined in (1.3). And in this respect the Wulff shape set W plays the same role or the unit ballB1in the isoperimetric inequality. In fact one can prove that equality occurs in (1.4) if and only if Eis equivalent toW(up to a translation and a homothety). This latter result was first proved by J. Taylor ([19, 20, 21]) using deep techniques of geometric measure theory and later on, with a more analytical and simpler proof, by I. Fonseca and S. M¨uller in [12] (see also the 2-dimensional proof given in [7]).

In this paper we give a quantitative version of inequality (1.4). Namely we prove that if Eis a set of finite perimeter with prescribed measure such thatP(E) is close to the minimum value in (1.1), then E is close (in a precise, quantitative sense) to a homothetic of the Wulff shape set.

In the special case (x) = |x|, i.e., when P coincides with the standard perimeter, this problem was first studied by T. Bonnesen [3] in the 2-dimensional case. For the generalN-dimensional case, recent results have been obtained by B.

Fuglede (see [13]) and R. Hall [15]. But before describing them with more details, let us introduce a quantity which plays a crucial role in our problem.

Given a set of finite perimeter E, with finite positive measure, we callisoperi- metric deficitofEwith respect tothe quantity

(E)= P(E) P(W)

L

N(W)

L

N(E)

NN−1

−1. (1.5)

The geometric meaning of(E)is clear when one rewrites the isoperimetric in- equality (1.4) in the equivalent form

P(E) P(W)

L

N(W)

L

N(E)

N−1N

≥1.

Thus,(E)measures how far is the setEfrom realizing equality in (1.4).

Denoting by(E)the isoperimetric deficit ofEreferred to the usual perimeter P(E), the theorem proved by Fuglede in [13] states that ifE is a convex subset of

R

N (N ≥4) such that

L

N(E)=

L

N(B1), then (up to a translation)

δH(E,B1)≤const

(E) 2

N+1

, (1.6)

(3)

where δH denotes the Hausdorff distance of two convex sets (see the definition (1.15) below). Later on, Hall in [15] extended Fuglede’s result to sets of finite perimeters. He proved that if

L

N(E)=

L

N(B1), then (up to a translation)

L

N(EB1)≤const

(E)1

4. (1.7)

However, the proof given by Fuglede heavily relies on the fact that the minimal set in the case of the usual perimeter is a ball. Indeed his argument is based on a careful estimate of the Poincar´e inequality for maps from

S

N1 into

R

N which is obtained via spherical harmonics and the use of Laplace-Beltrami operator. On the other hand, also Hall’s proof of (1.7) uses in an essential way the property that the usual perimeter decreases under Steiner symmetrization with respect to a line, a fact which is no longer true in our setting. Therefore, it is clear that both proofs fail in the anisotropic case, where the geometry of the optimal set plays no role (since W can be any open convex set) and thus one must try to extract all the relevant information from the smallness of(E)alone. Notice also that the exponent on the right-hand side of (1.7) does not seem to be optimal since, as observed in [15], the optimal exponent should be 1/2 in any dimension. Moreover, it is clear that if Eis not convex one cannot expect any better estimate than (1.7), while theLtype estimate (1.6) is due to the fact that Eis assumed to be convex.

In order to state our main result, which deals with the anisotropic perimeter (1.3), let us recall the assumptions on the convex function,

(t x)=t(x) forx

R

N,t ≥0, (x) >0 ifx=0, (1.8) and set

m= min

ν∈SN−1(ν), M = max

ν∈SN−1(ν) . (1.9) Notice that, denoting byBrthe open ball of radiusrcentered at the origin, from the definition (1.2) ofWand from (1.9) it follows easily that

BmWBM. (1.10)

Theorem 1.1. Let be a convex function satisfying (1.8). There exists a con- stant c0depending only onand N such that if E is a set of finite perimeter with

L

N(E)=

L

N(W), then there exists x0

R

N with the property that

L

N((x0+E)W)c0

(E)α(N)

, (1.11)

whereα(N)= 2

N(N+1) if N ≥3,α(2)=2/9.

(4)

Notice that the isoperimetric deficit(E)isinvariant under dilations. There- fore, the estimate (1.11) can be immediately extended to the case

L

N(E)=

L

N(W), provided that we replace EbyλE, whereλis such that

L

N(λE)=

L

N(W).

The key idea for the proof of Theorem 1.1 is that the isoperimetric deficit can be used to estimate the difference of the measures of the(N−1)-dimensional sections ofEandW, as stated by the next lemma.

Lemma 1.2. Under the same assumptions of Theorem1.1, there exists a constant c1, depending only on m, Mand N , such that there exists a point x0

R

N with the property that for allν

S

N1

+∞

−∞ |

H

N1({xx0+E:x, ν=s})−

H

N1({xW:x, ν=s})|ds

c1[(E)]β(N), (1.12)

whereβ(N)=1/N if N ≥3,β(2)=1/3.

The proof of this estimate uses two main ingredients. The first one, Theorem 2.4, is a sharp version of the classical Brunn–Minkowski inequality proved in [12].

This theorem allows us to estimate P(E)(hence(E)) from below by means of an integral expression involving the measures of the sections of E andWor- thogonal to a fixed direction ν (Lemma 2.7). However this estimate can be used for proving (1.12) only if the measures of these sections are bounded away from zero. To fulfill this requirement we must truncate the set E. More precisely, in Lemma 3.1 we show that if(E)is small, one may truncate Eby means of two hyperplanes orthogonal toνin such a way that the volume and the perimeter of the resulting set Ediffer very little from the corresponding quantities for E, and the measures of all sections of Eare greater than(E).

To understand better the role played by the estimate (1.12) notice that, by Fu- bini’s theorem, ifEandFare measurable sets, then for allν

S

N1

+∞

−∞ |

H

N1({xE:x, ν=s})−

H

N1({xF:x, ν=s})|ds

L

N(EF).

(1.13) Observe that Theorem 1.1 would follow at once from (1.12) if a reverse inequality, such as

L

N(EF)c sup

ν∈SN−1

+∞

−∞

|

H

N1({xE:x, ν=s})−

H

N1({xF:x, ν=s})|ds, (1.14) would hold. Since the function

(ν,s)

S

N1×

R

ν,

H

N1({xE:x, ν=s})

(5)

represents theRadon transformof the characteristic functionχE ofE, an inequality of the type (1.14) would imply the continuity of the inverse of the Radon transform of characteristic functions. Unfortunately, this continuity property is in general false (see [17]).

Neverthless, we are able to get an estimate of the type (1.14), withFreplaced byW, using the fact thatWis a convex set and that

L

N(E)=

L

N(W). To this aim, one needs to observe that whenFis a convex polytope andHνis a hyperplane orthogonal toν containing one of the of the(N−1)-dimensional facets of F and Hν+is the open half space determined by Hνnot containingF, then the measure of (E\F)Hν+can be estimated by

+∞

−∞ |

H

N1({xE:x, ν=s})−

H

N1({xF:x, ν=s})|ds. This fact, together with the equality

L

N(E)=

L

N(F), yields (1.14) with a constant c depending on the number of facets of F. Combining this observation with a quantitative approximation result of convex sets by polytopes (see Theorem 2.9), leads eventually to the proof of (1.11). However, this approximation argument is responsible for the fact that the exponent on the right-hand side of (1.11) is much worse than the one in (1.12).

We conclude the presentation of the main results contained in the paper observ- ing that whenEis convex (or, forN =2, connected (see [3])), theL1type estimate (1.11) can be replaced by an L one. In order to state this stronger estimate we recall that ifC1 andC2 are two open convex sets in

R

N theHausdorff distanceof the two sets is defined by

δH(C1,C2)=max

sup

xC1

yinfC2|xy|, sup

yC2

xinfC1|xy|

. (1.15)

Theorem 1.3. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, there exists a constant c2 depending only on and N , such that if E is an open convex set with

L

N(E) =

L

N(W), then there exists x0

R

N with the property that

δH(x0+E,W)c2

(E)α(NN)

, (1.16)

whereα(N)is the exponent appearing in(1.11).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We would like to thank Prof. Paolo Gronchi for some helpful discussions concerning the approximation of convex sets with polytopes.

(6)

2.

Background material

We collect in this section the definition and a few basic properties of sets of finite perimeter needed in the sequel. For all this material our main reference is the book [2]. The section contains also a few results on convex sets which are probably known only to the specialists in the field. However for all these properties we have preferred to refer to the books [4], [14] instead of referring to the original papers. Finally, the section contains a sharp form of the classical Brunn–Minkowski inequality proved in [12].

Let Ebe a measurable set in

R

N. We recall that Eis a set offinite perimeter if the distributional derivative E of its characteristic function χE is a Radon measure with values in

R

N having finite total variation|E|(

R

N). The quantity

|E|(

R

N)is called theperimeter of Eand denoted byP(E).

If Eis a set of finite perimeter, thereduced boundary∂EofEconsists of all pointsx ∈supp|E|such that the limit

νE(x)= −lim

0

E(B(x))

|E(B(x))| (2.1) exists and satisfies|νE(x)| = 1. The vectorνE(x)is called thegeneralized outer normalto E atx. From (2.1) it is clear that−νE(x)coincides with the derivative

DχE

|DχE|(x)of the Radon measure E with respect to its total variation. Notice also that the reduced boundary E is a (generally proper) subset of the topological boundary∂E. However, ifEis aC1open set, thenE =∂E. Moreover, a result due to De Giorgi (see, e.g., [2, Theorem 3.59]) states that if E is a set of finite perimeter, then

|E| =

H

N1 E. (2.2)

The following proposition is a generalization toPof a well known approximation result of sets of finite perimeter by smooth sets.

Proposition 2.1. Let E be a set of finite perimeter, with finite measure. Then, there exists a sequence Ej of Cbounded open sets such that

jlim→∞

L

N(EjE)=0, lim

j→∞P(Ej)= P(E) . (2.3) Moreover, if E is contained in a bounded open set

R

N and0is an open set such that⊂⊂0, the sets Ej can be chosen so that Ej0for all j

N

. Proof. If= |x|, i.e.,Pcoincides with the usual perimeter, the assertion is a well known property of sets of finite perimeter (see [2, Theorem 3.42]) stating that there exists a sequence ofCbounded open setsEj such that

jlim→∞

L

N(EjE)=0, lim

j→∞P(Ej)= P(E) . (2.4)

(7)

From equations (2.1) and (2.2) and from the definition (1.3) we have P(E)=

RN

E

|E|

d|E|. (2.5)

Thus, the second equality in (2.3) follows at once from (2.4) and from Reschet- nyak’s continuity theorem (see [2, Theorem 2.39]).

Remark 2.2. Notice that ifEis a measurable set with finite measure, then

λ→lim1

L

N(λEE) = lim

λ→1

RNλE(x)χE(x)|d x

= lim

λ→1

RNE(x/λ)χE(x)|d x =0, (2.6) where the last equality follows approximatingχE inL1(

R

N)by a continuous func- tion with compact supportϕand then letting ϕ−χEL1 go to zero. Thus, mul- tiplying the smooth sets Ej satisfying (2.3) byλj =

L

N(E)/

L

N(Ej)1/N

and using (2.6), we get that the sets Ej = λjE, satisfy the two equalities in (2.3) and the constraint

L

N(Ej)=

L

N(E)for all j.

The followingBrunn–Minkowski inequality(see [4, Theorem 8.1.1]) holds for all measurable subsets of

R

N (here and in the sequel

L

N stands for the Lebesgue measure).

Theorem 2.3 (Brunn–Minkowski inequality). If E and F are measurable sets in

R

N, then

L

N(E+F)(

L

N(E))1/N+(

L

N(F))1/NN

. (2.7)

Let us now introduce some quantities which are going to play an important role in the proof of Theorem 1.1.

Let Ebe a measurable set with positive, finite measure andν

S

N1a fixed direction. We set, for alls

R

,

Eν,s= {xE : x, ν =s}, Eν,s= {xE : x, ν<s}, hE(s)=

H

N1(Eν,s)

L

N(E) , gE(s)=

L

N(Eν,s)

L

N(E) .

In the sequel, we shall often takeν equal to theN-th coordinate vectoreN. In this case we shall simply write Es, Es,gE(s),hE(s), in place of Eν,s, Eν,s, gE(s), hE(s), and denote the generic pointx

R

N also by(x,s), withx

R

N1and s

R

.

(8)

A few remarks on the above definitions are in order. First, recall that the inter- section of two sets of finite perimeter is a set of finite perimeter (see [2, Proposition 3.38]). Therefore, ifEis bounded and has finite perimeter the same is true for each set Eν,s. Moreover, ifEis aCopen set, from the definition of reduced boundary one easily gets that for anys

R

Eν,s =(∂E∩ {x :x, ν<s})∪(E∩ {x :x, ν =s})∪ν,s, (2.8) whereν,sis a subset of(∂E)ν,s. Notice also thatgEis an absolutely continuous function and thatgE(s)=hE(s)for

L

1-a.e.s

R

.

The following sharp version of Brunn-Minkowski inequality can be found in [12, Lemma 3.2].

Theorem 2.4. Letν

S

N1and let E, F be bounded measurable sets such that

L

N(E)=

L

N(F). If the functions gEand gFsatisfy gE(s) >0, gF(s) >0 for

L

1-a.e. s in the sets{0<gE <1}and{0< gF <1}, respectively, then for allε >0

L

N(E+εF)≥

L

N(E) 1

0

1+ε

γF(t) γE(t)

N−11 N1

1+εγE(t) γF(t)

dt, (2.9) whereγE(t)=hE(gE1(t))for all t(0,1)andγFis defined similarly.

Notice that since gE is a strictly increasing absolutely continuous function withgE(s) >0 for

L

1-a.e.sin{0< gE<1}, thengE1is absolutely continu- ous in(0,1)and

γE(t)=hE(gE1(t))= 1

DgE1(t) for

L

1-a.e.t(0,1) . Next lemma contains some useful properties of the functionhE.

Lemma 2.5. Let E be a bounded open subset of

R

N and let ν

S

N1. Then hE :

R

R

is lower semicontinuous. Moreover, if E is Cand

H

N1({x∂E: νE(x)= ±ν})=0, (2.10) hEis continuous and for any s

R

P(Eν,s)=

{x∈∂E:x,ν<s}E(x))d

H

N1+(ν)

H

N1(Eν,s) . (2.11) Proof. To simplify the notation we assumeν=eN and

L

N(E)=1.

One can easily check that if E is any open subset of

R

N, then hE is lower semicontinuous.

(9)

Let us now assume thatEis smooth and that (2.10) holds. LetCR =(−R,R)N1× (α, β) be an open cylinder such that ECR; then the function s

R

H

N1((CR\E)s)is lower semicontinuous.

Moreover, since, by (2.10),

H

N1((∂E)s)=0 for alls

R

,

hE(s) = 2N1RN1

H

N1((CR\E)s)−

H

N1((∂E)s)

= 2N1RN1

H

N1((CR\E)s) . (2.12) ThushE is upper semicontinuous, hence continuous.

Let us now fixs

R

. As we have just observed, (2.10) implies that

H

N1((∂E)s)=

0. Thus, (2.11) follows at once from this equation and from equality (2.8).

Lemma 2.5 could be suitably extended to sets of finite perimeter (compare for instance with Proposition 1.2 in [6]). However this general version, which would require a more delicate proof, is not needed in the sequel.

Next lemma is a sharper version of the approximation result stated in Proposi- tion 2.1 and it is used in order to prove the estimate of P(E)provided by Lemma 2.7.

Lemma 2.6. Take E a bounded set of finite perimeter and letν

S

N1such that hE(s) > 0for

L

1-a.e. s ∈ {0 < gE < 1}. Then, there exists a sequence of Cequibounded open sets Ej, such that

L

N(EjE)→0, P(Ej)P(E)as

j → ∞, with the property that hEj(s) >0for all s∈ {0<gEj<1}.

Proof. Notice that for N ≥ 3 the result is trivial (even without the positivity as- sumption onhE). In fact, it is enough to add toEa sequence of thin cylinders in directionνwith arbitrarily small perimeters.

This argument clearly fails in dimension N = 2. In this case, let us assume for simplicity thatν =e2. By Proposition 2.1 there exists a sequence of equibounded C open sets Ej such that

L

N(EjE) → 0 and P(Ej)P(E). Let us set j, βj)= {s : 0< gE

j(s) < 1},Cj = {sj, βj): hE

j(s)= 0}and take an open set Aj containingCj such that

L

1(Aj) <

L

1(Cj)+1/j. Then, for any j,Aj is the union of countably many open intervals Ihj. Notice that

L

1(Cj)→0, hence

L

1(Aj)→0. To conclude the proof it is enough to set

Ej = Ej(∪hBhj) ,

where each Bhj is a suitably placed disk, corresponding to the interval Ihj, with the property that P(∪hBhj)c

L

1(Aj) and hEj(s) > 0 for all s such that 0<gEj(s) <1.

Next result is essentially contained in the proof of Theorem 3.3 of [12]. How- ever, since it provides an important tool for our proof of Theorem 1.1, for reader’s convenience we give the details of its proof.

(10)

Lemma 2.7. Let E be a bounded set of finite perimeter such that

L

N(E)=

L

N(W). Then, for anyν

S

N1such that hE(s) >0for

L

1-a.e. s∈ {0<gE <1},

P(E)

L

N(W) 1

0

(N−1)

γW(t) γE(t)

N−11

+ γE(t) γW(t)

dt, (2.13) whereγEWare defined as in Theorem 2.4.

Proof. Let us assumeν =eN. IfEis aCbounded open set, it is well known (see for instance Lemma 4.7 in [11]) that

P(E)= lim

ε→0

L

N(E+εW)

L

N(E)

ε .

From this equality, by applying (2.9) with F = W, with elementary calculations we get

P(E)

L

N(W)lim

ε→0

1 ε

1

0

1+ε

γW(t) γE(t)

1

N−1N1

1+ε γE(t) γW(t)

−1

dt

=

L

N(W) 1

0

(N −1)

γW(t) γE(t)

N−11

+ γE(t) γW(t)

dt,

hence the assertion follows. Notice also that (2.13), by means of the change of variablet =gE(s), can be restated as

P(E)

L

N(W) +∞

−∞

(N−1)

γW(gE(s)) hE(s)

N−11

+ hE(s) γW(gE(s))

hE(s)ds. (2.14) The general case of a set of finite perimeter then follows by a straightforward ap- proximation argument based on Lemma 2.6 and Remark 2.2.

Let us state a few results on convex sets that will be needed in the sequel. The first one, which is a consequence of the Brunn–Minkowski inequality (2.7), concerns the functionhE, whenEis convex.

Proposition 2.8. Let C be a bounded open convex subset of

R

N andν

S

N1. Then, the set I = {s

R

: hC(s) > 0}is an open interval and the function sIh1C/(N1)(s)is concave.

Proof. Let us assume, without loss of generality, that

L

N(C)=1 andν =eN. We claim that ifs1,s2I, then for anyt(0,1)

t h

1 N−1

C (s1)+(1−t)h

N−11

C (s2)h

N−11

C (ts1+(1−t)s2) . (2.15)

(11)

To this aim, we observe that sinceC is convex, any convex combination ofCs1and Cs2is contained inC. Therefore we have

tCs1+(1−t)Cs2Cts1+(1t)s2 for allt(0,1) .

From this inclusion, applying the Brunn–Minkowski inequality (2.7) in

R

N1and recalling that

L

N(C)=1, we get

h

N−11

C (ts1+(1−t)s2)

H

N1(tCs1+(1−t)Cs2)N−11

H

N1(tCs1)N−11 +

H

N1((1−t)Cs2)N−11

= t h

N−11

C (s1)+(1−t)h

1 N−1 C (s2) .

Hence, (2.15) follows and from (2.15) we get immediately thatI is an interval and thath

1 N−1

C is concave in I. The fact that I is open is a consequence of the lower semicontinuity ofhC stated in Lemma 2.5.

The following approximation result (see [14, Section 5.2] and [10]) states that any bounded open convex setCcan be approximated from outside by a convex polytope Pk with at mostkfacets such that the measure ofPk\C is estimated by a suitable power ofk.

Theorem 2.9. Let C be a bounded open convex subset of

R

N. Then, there exists a constant c3depending only on C, such that for any integer kN +1there exists a convex polytope Pkwith at most k facets, containing C, with the property that

L

N(Pk\C)c3 kN−12

. (2.16)

3.

Proof of Theorem 1.1

This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1.1. Throughout the section we assume thatEis a set of finite perimeter such that

L

N(E)=

L

N(W) . (3.1)

To simplify the notation we shall denote the isoperimetric deficit (1.5) of E by (E)or even byif the set Eto which we refer is understood. Notice that with assumption (3.1) in force,

(E)= P(E)P(W)

P(W) . (3.2)

(12)

We start with a technical lemma. We show that if the isoperimetric deficitof a set E is small then, given any directionν, we may truncate E by two hyperplanes orthogonal to ν, without changing much the volume and the perimeter, in such a way that almost any section orthogonal to ν of the truncate of E has measure bounded away from zero by.

Lemma 3.1. There exist a constant1, depending only on N , and two constants c4, c5, depending only on M and N , such that if E is a bounded set with finite perimeter and (E) < 1, then for allν

S

N1 there exist s1 < s2 with the property that

(i) hE(s)c4(E) for

L

1-a.e. s(s1,s2) ,

(ii)

L

N({xE: x, ν<s1 or x, ν>s2})≤ 4N

N −1

L

N(E)(E) , (iii) P({xE: s1<x, ν<s2})≤ P(E)(1+(E)) ,

(iv) s2s1c5.

Proof. STEP1. We start by proving the assertion under the additional assumption thatEis aCopen set and that

H

N1({x∂E: νE(x)= ±ν})=0. (3.3) Moreover, to simplify notation we assume thatν =eN and set

(α, β)= {s

R

: 0<gE(s) <1}.

Fors(α, β), by rescalingEsand using the minimality ofWwe have P(Es)=g

N−1 N E (s)P

Es g1E/N(s)

g

N−1N

E (s)P(W) . Similarly,

P(E\Es)(1−gE(s))NN−1P(W) .

Adding these two inequalities, and recalling (2.11) and (3.3), we get that for any s(α, β)

P(E)+hE(s)

L

N(E)[(−eN)+(eN)]≥ P(W) g

N−1N

E (s)+(1−gE(s))NN−1 .

(13)

This inequality, together with (3.1), (3.2) and (1.9) yields hE(s)P(W)

2M

L

N(W)

g

N−1 N

E (s)+(1−gE(s))N−1N −1−

(3.4)

= N 2M

g

N−1N

E (s)+(1−gE(s))N−1N −1− , where the last equality is a consequence of the well known equality

P(W)=N

L

N(W) , (3.5)

which, in turn, follows from the coarea formula and the properties of the convex function(see for instance [12, Proposition 2.6 (iii)]).

Letϕ: [0,+∞)→

R

be the function

ϕ(t)=tN−1N +(1−t)N−1N −1− N −1 N t. Notice thatϕ(0)=0 and that for anyt(0,1/3N)we have

ϕ(t)= N −1

N [t1/N(1−t)1/N−1] > N−1

N [t1/N −21/N−1]

> N−1

N [t1/N −3]>0. Therefore,

ϕ(t) >0 for all t ∈ 0, 1 3N

. (3.6)

Next, we set

1= 1 2

1 3N

N −1

N (3.7)

and prove the assertion for < 1. Lets(α, β)be the smallest point such that gE(s)=2 N

N −1.

Such a point exists, since gE is continuous, gE(α)=0 and gE(β)=1>1/3N >

2N/(N−1). Moreover, from (3.6) we have thatϕ(gE(s)) >0, hence g

N−1 N

E (s)+(1−gE(s))NN−1 −1> N −1

N gE(s)=2 . (3.8)

(14)

Similarly, let us denote bys the largest point in(α, β)such that gE(s)=1−2 N

N −1. Sinceϕ(1−gE(s)) >0, as before we get

(1−gE(s))NN−1 +g

N−1N

E (s)−1> N −1

N (1−gE(s))=2 . (3.9) Let us now set, fort(0,1),

ψ(t)=tN−1N +(1−t)N−1N −1. (3.10) The functionψ is strictly increasing in(0,1/2)and strictly decreasing in(1/2,1). Therefore, since by the choice of1 and the definition ofs,swe havegE(s)(0,1/2),gE(s)(1/2,1), from (3.8), (3.9), we get that

ψ(gE(s))ψ(gE(s))=ψ(gE(s)) >2 for alls(s,s) . (3.11) Thus, (3.4) and (3.11) yield

hE(s) > N

2M for alls(s,s) . (3.12) Finally, we choose the levelss1ands2as follows,

s1=sup

s(α,s):hE(s)< N

2M

, s2=inf

s(s, β):hE(s)< N

2M

, Notice that this definition is well posed sincehE is continuous (by assumption (3.3) and Lemma 2.5) andhE(s)=0 for alls < αands > β. Thus, from (3.12) we get

hE(s1)=hE(s2)= N

2M , (3.13)

hence, from (3.12) and the definition ofs1,s2, (i) follows.

STEP2. Assertion (ii) follows from the equalities in (3.8) and (3.9), since

L

N({xE: x, ν<s1 or x, ν>s2}) ≤

L

N(E)[gE(s)+(1−gE(s))]

=4

L

N(E) N N −1 .

(15)

To prove (iii), recall that assumption (3.3) implies that

H

N1((∂E)s) = 0 for all s

R

. Therefore from (2.11), (3.13), and (3.5) we get

P({xE :s1<x, ν<s2}) =

E∩{s1<x,ν<s2}E)d

H

N1

+[(−eN)hE(s1)+(eN)hE(s2)]

L

N(E)

P(E)+2M

L

N(W) N

2M

= P(E)+P(W)P(E)(1+) . To prove (iv) we argue as in the proof of Theorem 3.1 in [12]. Notice that from (3.4), (3.10), (3.11), we get for alls(s,s)

hE(s)N 2M

g

N−1 N

E (s)+(1−gE(s))NN−1 −1−

= N 4M

g

N−1 N

E (s)+(1−gE(s))NN−1 −1

+ N 4M

g

N−1 N

E (s)+(1−gE(s))N−1N −1−2

N 4M

g

N−1 N

E (s)+(1−gE(s))NN−1 −1

= N

4Mψ(gE(s)) Therefore, integrating on(s,s), we obtain

N

4M(ss)s

s

hE(s) ψ(gE(s))ds =

s

s

gE(s) ψ(gE(s))ds

1

0

1

ψ(t)dt =c(N) . (3.14) Thus,ssis bounded by a constant depending only on N andM. On the other hand, from the definition ofs1we obtain

N

2M(ss1)s

s1

hE(s)ds = s

s1

gE(s)dsgE(s)= 2N N −1. Hencess1≤4M/(N−1)and a similar estimate holds fors2s. From these inequalities and from (3.14), (iv) follows.

Références

Documents relatifs

According to our definition Rco E is the smallest rank one convex set which contains E (see [3]). This means that for a compact set, our notion of polyconvexity coincides with that

Looking for a mathematical modelling of the parametric roll, we first consider a model based on one ordinary differential equation describing isolated rolling motion with the

Finally, Bern- stein [2] has identified the obstruction for two smooth asymptotically conical expanding solutions to MCF coming out of the same cone to coincide: the obstruction can

In the special case when the boundary of the domain G is diffeomor- phic to a 3-dimensional sphere, the fact that the closed complex tangential curve ⊂ S ⊂ ∂ G mentioned above does

This section is devoted to the study of the polyconvex hull of an isotropic compact set of R 2×2 : this is useful to study the rank one convex hull, as we will see in the

Finally, let us point out that the obtained results are also rather immediate consequences of a quite different method pertaining to the potential theory that

18 Rather, in this case, a further process had to take place, most probably analogy across prepositions or, possibly, semantic levelling with a near-synonymous preposition,

Our main result gives sufficient conditions (in terms of finiteness properties) for a (homological) isoperimetric function of a subgroup to be bounded above by that of the