COMMUNICATIONS ON PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS, VOI..

xx, 721-747 (1967)

On Harnack Type Inequalities and Their

Application to Quasilinear Elliptic Equations*
NEIL S. TRUDINGER

Introduction
This is the first of two papers dealing with certain local properties of weak
solutions of quasilinear elliptic and parabolic equations. This paper treats the
elliptic situation, the second will extend the methods and results to parabolic
equations.
I n these two papers, we shall establish certain Harnack type inequalities for
weak solutions, subsolutions, and supersolutions of quasilinear second order partial
differential equations of the form

(0.1) div a(x, u, ux) + a(%,u, uJ =0,

(0.2) diva(x, t, u, uz) + a(x, t , u, ux) - ut = 0 .

The inequalities to be proved generalize theorems of J. Moser [IZ], [13] for
weak solutions of linear elliptic equations of the form

(0.3) div uiJ(x)u,, = 0

and linear parabolic equations of the form

(0.4) div ai"(x, t)uxi - ut = 0 .

For solutions of (0.1) we show a Harnack inequality (Theorem l . l ) , under
certain structural assumptions on the coefficients of (0.1). For supersolutions we
obtain a weak Harnack inequality (Theorem 1.2). As an application of the latter
result we derive the Ladyzhenskaya-Ural'tseva estimates (see [5]-[8]) for the
Holder coefficients of weak solutions of (0.1) (Theorem 2.2), and for the Holder
coefficients of the derivatives of strong solutions of quasilinear elliptic equations of

* This research was partially supported by Contract AF 49(638)1345, Stanford University,

and partially by a Ford Foundation Post-Doctoral Grant, Courant Institute of Mathematical
Sciences, New York University. Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of
the United States Government.
72 1
722 NEIL S. TRUDINGER

(Theorem 2.3).
The importance of the estimates for solutions of (0.5) is illustrated by their
application in establishing existence theorems for the Dirichlet problem for (0.5).
We prove an existence theorem (Theorem 3.1) demonstrating at the same time a
technique which requires only interior derivative estimates.
We consider also the extensions of our Harnack inequalities a t the boundary
of the domain of definition of the equation (Theorem 4.1, Corollary 4.1). By-
products of these extensions include the derivation of the Ladyzhenskaya-
Ural’tseva global Holder estimates and a global modulus of continuity estimate
for weak solutions of (0.1) which are only assumed continuous a t the boundary
(Theorem 4.2, Corollary 4.2).
This paper is divided into five sections. Section 1 contains the derivation of
the Harnack type inequalities for equation (0.1). I n Section 2, we consider the
application of the weak Harnack inequality to Holder estimates. The existence
theorem for the Dirichlet problem for an equation of the form (0.5) is given in
Section 3. In Section 4 we return to estimates and discuss the extensions of the
estimates in Sections 1 and 2 to the boundary. Finally in Section 5, we indicate
how our estimates may have been carried out under more general hypotheses,
that is we allow certain functions in the structure (1.2) imposed on equation (0.1)
which were previously assumed bounded-( 1.3)-to possess certain integrability
properties.
We shall present the notation, definitions, lemmas and historical remarks
relevant to this paper a t the appropriate spots throughout it rather than assemble
them all at the beginning. We mention, however, the books [7] and [lo] as
excellent sources of reference for related material.
The author would like to express his profound gratitude to Professors David
Gilbarg and Jurgen Moser for their helpful interest and advice in this work.

1. The Haraack Inequality

The centraI theorem of this section is a Harnack inequality for weak solutions
of the equation

(1.1) div A ( x , u, u,) + B(x, u, u,) =0 .

This inequality is established under certain structural assumptions on (1.1).
-- -
We let x = (xl , * , x n ) , p = (PI, * ,pn) denote vectors in E n and u, =
-
(uZ1 , * . , u,,). A ( x , u, p ) and B ( x , u, p ) are, respectively, vector and scalar
measurable functions defined in l2 x E x En,where l2 is a domain in En. By
div A(x, u, u,) we mean the divergence of A(x, u ( x ) , u E ( x ) ) with respect to x.
 ON HARNACK TYPE INEQUALITIES 723

T h e structure of (1.1) throughout this paper is assumed to be the following:

For all A4 < co and for all ( x , u, p ) E Q x ( - M , M ) x E", the conditions

hold, where 01 > 1, a , , b , are constants, a,(x), b , ( x ) are non-negative measurable

functions; M, a,, b , , a,(x), b,(x) may possibly depend on M.
For simplicity, it will be assumed in Sections 1, 2 and 4 that the a i ( x ) , b , ( x ) are
bounded, i.e., that

where p is a positive constant. I n Section 5, we allow the a,(x), b j ( x ) to be in

certain subspaces of L p c ( Q ) ,where k = max ( M , n ) .
T o formulate our theorems we need to define the concept of weak solution for
equation (1.1). For this purpose we introduce the Sobolev spaces

where p 2 1, m is a non-negative integer and B = (PI, - - , pn) is a multi-index

*

with = Zr pi.
W r ( Q )is a Banach space under the norm

For m = 0, we write lIu[lo,,;, = IIuIIB,,. We note that the derivatives above are
to be taken in the sense of distribution theory.
W e define also the local spaces

W:,'Oc(Q) = { ~ ( x ) DBu
; E L',oc(Q), 5 m>
and we let Wg, be the space of functions in W r ( Q )having compact support in Q.
A function u ( x ) is then said to be a weak solution (subsolution,supersolution) of (1 . l )
in Q if u ( x ) E W:*'Oc(Q)and
c

for all bounded + ( x ) 2 0, + ( x ) E W:,,.

724 NEIL S. TRUDINGER

We note in passing that if (1.4) holds for all $ ( x ) 2 0, $ ( x ) E Ct(Q) and a i ( x ) ,

b,(x) E L:'((R), u ( x ) E L',O'((R), then an approximation argument shows that it
continues to hold for + ( x ) as given in the definition. If b , = 0, then (1.4) will hold
for $ ( x ) not necessarily bounded. The reader interested mainly in applications to
the classical Dirichlet problem, such as that of Section 3, may in fact consider a
weak solution (subsolution, supersolution) of (1.1) as a C1(Q) function satisfying
(1.4) for all $ ( x ) 2 0, $ ( x ) ECA(R). I n this case, one can dispense with the
WF(Q)spaces.
The estimates to be proved in this paper will be of a local nature. For con-
venience we shall work in cubes. Estimates in more general sets would then follow
by standard covering arguments. We let K,& p ) denote the cube in E n of side p
and center x , whose sides are parallel to the coordinate axes. I n general we write
K ( p ) = K z 0 ( p )assuming the center x o to be understood. This abbreviation will
not be made, of course, if the cubes under immediate consideration are not
necessarily concentric.
As is common practice, C(Al, * will denote a function of the quantities
a)

-
A,, * , but not of u ( x ) . C is generally understood to be non-decreasing in its
arguments. I n proofs we shall often write just C instead of C(A, , * .) assuming the
arguments of C to be clear.
For the Harnack inequality we need to assume a 3 ( x ) , a 4 ( x ) , b 3 ( x ) = 0 . T h e
following theorem then expresses this inequality.

THEOREM1.1. L e t u ( x ) be a weak solution of (1.1) in a cube K = K ( 3 p ) c !2

with 0 u < A4 in K . Then

max u ( x ) C min u ( x ) ,
Kfp) Kfp)

where C = C(a, n, a,, boM,,up).

By max u, min u we always mean the essential maximum and minimum of u.

For the case b , = 0, Theorem 1.1 is due to Serrin [16]. I n this case, provided
the functions in the structure conditions do not depend on M , there is no need to
assume boundedness of u as above, [161. Our proof will be a modification of that
of Serrin which in turn is an extension of the method introduced by Moser [12] for
the linear case (0.3).
For weak supersolutions of (1.1) we have the weak Harnack inequality.

1.2. Let u ( x ) be a weak supersolution of (1.1) in K , 0

THEOREM 5 u <M in K .
Then

for any y < n(a - l ) / ( n - a ) ;fa S n, y 5 co ;fa > n.

 ON HARNACK TYPE INEQUALITIES 725
The important Ladyzhenskaya-Ural'tseva results follow from Theorem 1.2, as
will be demonstrated in the next section. When u ( x ) is a subsolution of (1.1) a n
interior estimate for max u results. This is

THEOREM
1.3. Let u ( x ) be a weak subsolution of (1.1) in K , 0 u <M in K .
Then

f o r any y > a - 1.
Theorem 1.3 holds for a = 1. Its proof is not as complicated as that of
Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. The constant C in (1.6), (1.7) depends on the same argu-
ments as that in (1.5) as well as on y. Theorem 1.1 is of course a consequence of
Theorems 1.2 and 1.3.
When a 3 ( x ) , a p ( x ) , b 3 ( x ) # 0 we have, as a consequence ofTheorems 1.1, 1.2
and 1.3,

COROLLARY 1.1. Let (1.1) satisfy the structure (1.2), (4.3) and u ( x ) satisfy the
hypotheses of Theorem 1.1 (w of Theorems 1.2, 1.3). Then the function

G ( x ) = U(X) + p p + (pp)u'(U-l)
satisJies (1.5) (or (1.6), (1.7)), where in C, ,up is replaced by ,up + 1.
The proofs of the above the6rems are based on the Moser technique, [12].
Note that it suffices to prove (1.5), (1.6),(1.7) for the special case p = 1. The
general case follows by application of linear transformations y = px. We define
the functionals

so that

+( co, 1) = max u ( x ) ,
KW
(1.9)
$( - 00, 1) = min u ( x ) ,
K(1)

and inequalities (1.5), (1.6), (1.7) for p = 1 may be written as

') 2 c$(-OO> '1 >

(1.10) $(r,2) 6 C$(- *, 1) >

'> c$(rJ2, *
726 NEIL S. TKUDINGER

The Moser method is to derive from (1.4) estimates of the form

+( P', h') _I C+( P, h ) Y

where 00 > p' > p > - 00, 1 5 h, h' 5 2. Inequalities (1.8) are then deduced by
iterating inequalities of this type.
The following two important calculus lemmas are vital.
LEMMA1.1 (Sobolev). Let u ( x ) E W:,o(C2), then u ( x ) EL,,(Q), where a* =
un/(n - u)f o r a <
n, u* = 00 f o r u > n and
(1.1 1) I141z*;rl 5 c /l"zlln;* ,
with C = C ( x , .)for u < n and C = C(u,n) (diam Q ) l - - n / a j i o r cc > n.
LEMMA1.2 (PoincarC, John-Nirenberg). Let K Obe a cube in En,u ( x ) E W:(K,,)
and suppose that, for all parallel subcubes K of K O, there exists a constant y such that
(1.12) IJu,J]n;K y IKJ'" a ) / a n .
Then there exist constants P o > 0 and C depending on y , u, n such that

(1.13)

In the proof of (1.5), (1.6), Lemma 1.2 guarantees the crucial iteration step
from negative to positive P. The Sobolev lemma is used for the remainder of the
iteration procedure. We discuss these lemmas further in the appendix to this
section.

Details of the Proof: I t may be assumed without loss of generality that

u ( x ) 2 E > 0. For otherwise, we may replace u by u E and let E -+ 0 in the +
final results. As test functions in (1.4) we take

(1.14) +(4 = r " ( x ) u f l ( x )p i g n f l ) b o u ( z ) J

where p # 0 and q ( x ) >= 0, q ( x ) ECA(K) is to be further specified. From (1.14)

we have
(1.15) +z = (sign ,4) qae(SiRnfllbou ( b o d + \PI ufl -l) u, + xqa-'qzufle(Rignfl)hu.
Substituting ( 1.14), ( I . 15) in (1.4) we obtain

(1.16)

I0 if u is a subsolution ,
)= 0 if u is a supersolution .
 O N HARNACK TYPE INEQUALITIES 727
Inequalities (1.16) thus yield nontrivial information for subsolutions only when
/3 > 0 and for supersolutions only when /3 < 0. I n the following calculations it
will therefore be understood that fl > 0 if u satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 1.3
and /3 < 0 if u satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 1.2.
From (1.16) we have, using the structure (1.2), the inequalities

(1.17)

T h e term

may be cancelled from each side of (1.17). To simplify (1.17) further we use
Young's inequality

(1.18) aba-l s + (1 - u-I) Ed(l--cr)ba

and the given estimate 0 2 bou < b,M. Use of (1.18) enables the terms on the
right-hand side containing u, to be absorbed by the left-hand side. The result is

+ & a / ( l - a ) 17,(a)u~+B-l dX
for any E 5 1.
No restriction has been placed on the functions a,, a , , b , , b, in (1.19).
Assuming now (1.3) and taking E = 1, we have

(1.20) 7auB-1 Iu,lOL dx 5 C(l + lB1-l)a (qa + lqzla)ua+P-l dx .

Setting

where aq= u + /3 - 1 for /3 # 1 - cc,

(1.21) u ( x ) =
B=l-a,
728 NEIL S. TRUDINGER

we may write (1.20) as

We examine first the case ,6 # 1 -a in (1.22). Applying Lemma 1 . 1 we

obtain
(1.23) I I ~ u I t ~5
a ; CIqI
~ (1 + IPI-’) lI(r~+ 1~zl)’Ila;K >

where x = n/(n - a ) if a < n, xis arbitrarily large if u = n, and x = 00 if a > n.

Let now h’, h” satisfy 1 5 h’ < h” 2 and choose q { x ) as a cutoff function for
K(h‘) such that ~ ( x 5
) 1, ~ ( x =
) 1 in K(h’), ~ ( x =) 0 outside K(h”) and lqzl 5
2/(h” - h’). Then

(1.24) IIUIIXa;K(h’) 5 C IqI ( 1 + IBI-’)(h’’ - “)-’ IIUlla;K(h”) *

Taking the q-th root of each side of (1.24) and settingp = aq = a + ,6 - 1, we

obtain for positive p

(1.25) 4(xp, h’) I[Cp(l + p1-Y (h” - h’)-1Ia’94( P , h”) Y

and for negative p

(1.26) $(xp, h’) )= [-Cp(h” - h’)-l]“’”4( p , h”) .
These are the inequalities which we wish to iterate. For some p o > 0, define
p, = %‘Po, h=1 + 24, v = 1,2,.-..
We must assume that p o is such that no iteratep, coincides with a - 1, since for
p = a - 1, p= 0. This guarantees an estimate 1 +
1pI-l < C for all v.
Hence from (1.25), we have

$(#”+I 9 hV+d s [ ~ ( 2 x ) v l a ~ - v ’ ” ~ 4h,)~ P v

>

(1.27) 5 Cr.-v[(2X)”’”]rv”-’4( p , , 2)
sincex >1.

Taking Po = y > u - 1 establishes Theorem 1.3. If U ( X ) is a supersolution,

(1.27) holds for any p o > 0 and p, < u - 1 and hence (choosing h, slightly
differently)
(I -29) 4(Y, 2) 5 W P O $1 Y
 ON HARNACK TYPE INEQUALITIES 729
for any P o > 0, y < n ( a - I ) / ( . - a) if a 5n and y m if a > n. Also,
iteration of (1.26) yields
(1 3 0 )

for any lo > 0. Thus to complete the proof of Theorem 1.1 or 1.2 it remains to
show the existence of a p o > 0 such that

(1.31) $(Po J i) d c#(-pO > 2) *

This follows immediately from Lemma 1.2 and the case p = 1 - a in (1.22).
For, let K,,(h) be any parallel subcube of K ( 2 ) and choose q ( x ) so that q ( x ) 1,
q ( x ) = 1 in K , ( h ) , q ( x ) = 0 outside K,(2h) and 1q.J 5 2/h. Then we have

and the result follows by Lemma 1.2.

Theorem 1.2 is, in a certain sense, the central theorem of this paper. Its
applications to Holder estimates are treated in the next section. In Section 4 we
study the analogue of Theorem i .2 when the cube K intersects the boundary afi.
Finally, in Section 5 we show that the theorems of this section and their applications
continue to hold when the condition (1.3) is relaxed.

Appendix 1
Some further remarks concerning Lemmas 1.1 and I .2 are in order. For a >R
in Lemma 1.1 we have the estimate of Morrey

(1-32)

where A = 1 - n l a .
Equation (1.2) automatically guarantees Holder estimates for solutions of (1.1)
when a > n.
Lemma 1.2 is a consequence of the John-Nirenberg lemma, [2]. W e state
this lemma in the following form.

LEMMA 1.2a. Let K O be a cube in En,u ( x ) E L l ( K o ) , and suppose that f o r all

parallel subcubes K of K O ,there exists y > 0 such that

(1.33) 1;. - 4ffx 5 y IKI >

where ulg =J$/l KI.
Then there exists P o > 0 such that ( 1.13) holds.
730 NEIL S. TRUDINGER

For proofs of Lemmas 1.1 and 1.2a, see [2] and [lo].
The author (see [21]) has recently found a direct simple proof of Lemma 1.2.
This means that the Harnack inequalities and their applications are not dependent
on the more complicated John-Nirenberg lemma (Lemma 1.2a).

2. Application to Holder Estimates

We exhibit in this section some important consequences of the study in the
preceding section of weak supersolutions of the equation

(2.1) divA(x, u, uz) + B(x, u, uz) = 0 .

I n the structure conditions (1.2), (1.3) it is convenient for us to consider the
terms in a,, a 2 , b, , b, as absorbed into the other terms on the right-hand sides;
that is we may take instead of (1.2) the inequalities

I&, u, P)I s I
a0 + a;-' 2

(2.2) P A ( & .,PI 2 I PI" - a: >

1% u, P)I 5 60 1 PI" - 6; >

where a3 , a4 , b, satisfy (1.3).

Let us define the function

Then in Section 1 we have proved

2.1. Let u ( x ) be a locally bounded positive weak supersolution of (2.1) in

THEOREM
K(3p) c a. Then

where C = C(a, n, a , , b , , supK u ) .

As applications of Theorem 2.1 we shall prove two important theorems of

Ladyzhenskaya-Ural'tseva. The first of these theorems provides a Holder estimate
for weak solutions of (2.1), the second theorem gives Holder estimates for the
derivatives of strong solutions of the general quasilinear equation (0.5). T h e
derivation of these theorems from (2.4) proceeds via a simple lemma concerning
modulus of continuity estimates for arbitrary functions. The statement and proof
of this lemma are given in the appendix to this section.
The first theorem is
 ON HARNACK TYPE INEQUALITIES 73 1

2.2. Let u ( x ) be a local& bounded weak solution of (2.1) in R. Then

Holder continuous i n i1 (after redejinition on a set o f nieasure zero) and, if
Q,

(2.5)

f o r all p 5 p o , where 6 > 0 and C: depend on 2, n , a , , b , , supIi u.

Proof: Equation (2.5) follows immediately from (2.4) and Lemma 2.2 (given
in Appendix 2 ) . l ' h e functions

uf = sup u - u , u- = ti - inf u
K(3p) K(3p)

will be supersolutions of (2.1) and hence satisfy (2.4). If we add the two resulting
estimates we get

osc u
K(p)
2 v osc u
K(3pl
+ Cm(p) for all p
Po
2-
3 '

from which (2.5) follows; q.e.d.

T o formulate the second theorem, consider the equation

(2.6) a i j ( x , u, uz)uziz, + a(x, u , uz) = 0 .

Repeated indices in (2.6) indicate summation from 1 to n. T h e coefficients
u i J ( x ,u, p ) , a ( x , u , p ) are defined in i1 x E x E".
Equation (2.6) is elliptic in l1 if

(2.7) a i j ( x , u , p ) E i t j > 0 for all t # 0, E E E n ,( x , u , p ) E R x E x E" .

Wc assume that a z j ( x , u , p ) , a ( x , u , p ) are differentiable in Q x E x E" and
we define for u ( x ) a W~,l"c(Q)solution of (2.6)

(2.8) f ( 4 = SUP {lat;j(x, %)I > IQYb, u, %)I 7 l 4 x , u, UJl) *

Then we have

THEOREM 2.3. Let + j be a l.t',2~'""(Q) solution of (2.6). L f i K = K(p,) c s1

and subpose
(i) (u,( 5 hf < 03 in K ,
(ii) ]El2 5 a a j ( x , u , u z ) t i E j 5 ?. I[12for all 6 E: R", .x E K ,
(iii) laiPj(x, u , uz)I 5 1 in K ,
(iv) f (x) 6 p in K .
732 NEIL S. TRUDINGER

Then u, is Holder continuous in K and, f o r any p < po ,

where 6 > 0 depends on M , n and A ; C 2 0 depends on h4, n, A and p.

Proof: The key idea in the proof of (2.9) is to show that certain combinations
of the uoi are weak subsolutions of a n equation of the form (2.1). Since IuXil M
in K , by a normalization of (2.6) we may assume that

0 6 us* 5 1 in K, i = l;..,n.
Following Ladyzhenskaya and Ural'tseva we define functions of the form

(2.10)

The constant y is to be chosen large enough so that the w T ( x ) , w ~ ( x behave )

in a certain sense similarly to u,,(x) and 1 - u , , ( x ) . It turns out that a convenient
choice of y is y = 10.
The crucial step in the proof is provided by

LEMMA2.1. Under the hypotheses o f Theorem 2.3, the functions w:(x), w;(x),
I = 1, -
* * , n, are weak subsolutions in K of equations of theform (2.1) with structure (2.2).

Proof: We repeat the proof of Ladyzhenskaya-Ural'tseva, [ 7 ] , pp. 383-386.

Consider the integral form of equation (2.6) :

(2.11) S , { a * j ( x , u, u,)uzzy + a ( x , u, u,)>t, = o for all E E w~,~(K).

Assume temporarily that u ( x ) EC3(K). Then integrating (2.1 1) by parts, we
obtain

where
,ii -
- aym(x,u, u,) - a%(%, U, u,) ,
ui = ai,j(x, u, ux)uxj + Q(x, u, uz) ,
b;* = af-.,(' u, u,)u,~ - a:(., u, u,) .
 ON HARNACK TYPE INEQUALITIES 733

By an approximation argument, (2.12) will continue to hold if u ( x ) E W~-loc(Q).

Now set t ( x ) = u ,#q ( x) , where q ( x ) 5 0, q ( x ) g C ; ( K ) , and sum the resulting
inequalities over s. I n this way, we get for u = 2; uzi the equation

+ &zfvx,q + bbjux,xjux,q + aAuq + auxSqxI>= 0 .

If we now add (2.13) to 3~ times (2.12) we obtain, after substituting s = I,
t = q in (2.11), for w = W: the equation

where

c,t = auxj + $ y as:.

Hence using hypotheses (i)) (ii) and (5)of Theorem 2.3, we have

and thus by Young's inequality, the terms in the last integral containing second
derivatives of u may be absorbed in the preceding integral. This gives

and hence w(x) is a subsolution of an equation of the form (2.1), where

734 NEIL S. TRUDINGER

Therefore by hypothesis (iv), A and B satisfy the structure (2.2) and (1.3),
for CI = 2.
It may be shown similarly that w;(x) satisfies a n inequality of the form (2.16).
T h e lemma is thus proved.

Proof of Theorem 2.3 continued: T h e proof is now completed using Theorem

2.1 and Lemma 2.2. This part of the proof is a generalization of the proof of
Theorem 2.2.
For any p < & P o , we choose r 5 n so that

(2.17) osc 21, I osc u,, , 1= 1,2,...,n .

K(3p) ' -K(3p)
I t is then easy to show that, if y = 10,

(2.18) 8 n osc uzr 5 osc wf 5 12n osc uXr .

K(3p) K(3p) K(3p)

Let us define
w*= sup w;.
K(3p)

Then from Lemma 2.1, the functions W* - w: will satisfy an inequality of the
form (2.3). We thus have, writing & ( x ) = w:(x) for brevity,

(2.19) (W* - w*) g c(w*- sup w* + m(p)) .

K (p)

Now
2 ( W* - w") 2 sup IOnuEr - inf IOnuXr
+.-
+ 2 inf 2 ui, - 2 sup 2 u : ~
2 6 n osc u,

by (2.18), and hence the inequality

(2.20)
 ON HARNACK TYPE INEQUALITIES 735

holds for either w + ( x ) or w-(x). Let us suppose (2.20) holds for w+(x). Then
from (2.19) kvc have

osc to+ 5 C(W+ - sup w + + m(p)

I;(S/d I<(p)

osc w+ - +
osc w+- nz(p)
K(3p) A'(p)

and consequently

(2.21) ose wf 5Y osc w+ + Crn(p) ,

Kfp) K(3p)

where Y = 1 - C-l.
We have thus shown that for any p < Q p o , there is a function w;(x) satisfying
(2.18) and (2.21). The conclusion of the theorem then follows from Lemma 2.2.
If equation (2.5) has the form (2.1), i.e., if it is of divergence structure, then
as is well known the derivatives urt satisfy linear divergence structure equations
and hence Holder estimates are a corollary of Theorem 2.2. For completeness
we state this corollary.

2.1.
COROLLARY Let u ( x ) be a W,'.'""(Q) solution of(2.5). Let K = K ( p o ) c Q
and suppose

(i) Iu,( s A4 < 00 in K ,

Then f o r any p < po ,

where 6 and C are positive constants detending on Af, n, A, ,u

Estimates for Holder norms on compact subsets Q' of Q would follow from
Theorems 2.2 and 2.3 by standard covering arguments. We leave such details
to the reader.
The main point of this section has been to provide alternative proofs to
Theorems 2.2 and 2.3, by utilizing the weak Harnack inequality, Theorem 2.1.
l h e o r e m 2.2 was first proved by Ladyzhenskaya and Ural'tseva in [5]. The
result had previously been obtained for the equation (0.3) by De Giorgi [l] and
Nash [ 141. The method in [5] is based on that in [11. Morrey [9] and Stampacchia
736 NEIL S. TRUDINOER

[19] had also extended the 13e Giorgi-Nash estimates to more general linear equa-
tions. A simpler, elegant proof of the De Giorgi-Nash result for equation (0.3)
was given by Moser in [ 111.
Using Moser's idea of estimating a logarithmic function of the solution to
obtain Holder continuity, Ladyzhenskaya and Ural'tseva [8] proposed proofs of
Theorem 2.1 simpler than their original proof. All of the method in [ll], may
in fact be extended to the general case, see [3] and [4].

Appendix 2
The following lemma generalizes lemmas of Ladyzhenskaya-Ural'tseva and
other authors concerning Holder continuity of functions. The general case we
consider allows us to prove continuity estimates for solutions of equations for which
Holder estimates are not necessarily known. We shall apply the lemma in this
greater generality in Sections 4 and 5.

LEMMA 2.2. I. Let U(X) be a bounded function on a cube K = Kz,(po) and suppose
thatfor any p < Qpo

(2.22) osc u _I v osc u + &(P) ,

K(p) K (3p)

where v < 1 is afixed constant and ~ ( p is) a non-decreasingfunction o f p . Then f o r anj1

p <Po, @
.< 1,
(2.23) osc u 2 c ( v ) ( ( q ous+
c +"pt")) ,
K(p) PO K

where 6 > 0 depends on v and a.

- -
11. Let u l , * * , uN and w1 , * * , w N be two systems of bounded functions on K and
suppose that f o r each p < Q p , a function w , can be found such that

(2.24) osc w , 2 6, osc Zll, i = I;*.,N,

K(3p) K(3p)
and

(2.25) osc w,
Ii(p)
2v osc w,
K(3p)
+ &(P) ,
where S o > 0 , v < 1 are fixed constants and ~ ( p is) a non-decreasingfunction o f p. Then
for any p < Po , a < 1,

(2.26) osc ui
K(p)
C(("Two
Po + &(p"p:-")J,
where C = C(v, S o , N 1 ) , 6 > 0 depends on v, Nl and u, and w o = max osc w1 .
Z=l;.., N 1 K
 ON HARNACK TYPE 1NEQUALITIES 737

Proof: Part I is of course a special case of part 11.

Mre prove I first and then show how our proof may be modified to give 11.
Set p o = 1 and choose some p1 < po . Then for any p 5 $ p l , we have

(2.27) osc u 5v osc u + &(PI)

K(p) K(3p)

since & ( p ) is non-decreasing.

We now iterate this inequality to get, for any integer nz,

osc
K(3-mpl)
u v m osc
K(PI)
u -t 4P1) c vi
i=O
(2.28)
-
5 v" osc u + 1 - v)-I&(pI) .
k-

Choose now p < &p, . Then there is an m such that

3-"-1
p1 s p < 3-mp,.
Hence
osc u
K(p)
s osc
K(3-51)
s v m osc u + (1 - v)-'&(pl)
K
Now

therefore,

osc u 5 v-l(i)
61
osc u + (1 - v)-l&(pl)
K(p) I<

This inequality holds for arbitrary p < p1 < 1. Let

P1 = Pa -
Then we have

K(p)
osc u g c p6 osc 21 + & ( p a ) ,
( I< I 6 = S1(1 - )%I

and eliminating the normalization p o = 1 gives (2.23).

738 NEIL S. TRUDINGER

For part 11, (2.27) holds for some w, for each p 5 $pl . If we take p = 3Vpl
and iterate mNl times, we get for some w,

osc w, 5 Y"W0 + (1 - Y)-l&(pl)

K ( 3-nzN1p

in place of (2.28). Then (2.26) follows in the same way that (2.23) follows from
(2.28) ; q.e.d.

3. Application to the Dirichlet Problem

The purpose of this section is to illustrate the application of Theorem 2.3 to
the existence theory for the Dirichlet problem for equation (0.3). At the same
time we exhibit an approach to the Dirichlet problem which does not require
boundary estimates for the derivatives and permits automatically fairly general
boundary data.
We introduce some terminology as a preliminary to the specific theorem we
have in mind.
For bounded domains S2, we denote by E(tc, Q) the space of functions con-
tinuous in Ll, having first derivatives which are locally Holder continuous in 0
with exponent tc. E(tc, L2) is a complete, locally convex topological space under
the topology generated by the seminorms

where 0' ranges over compact subsets of a.

all is said to satisfy an exterior sphere proper& if, for each x o E an, there exists a
sphere S, depending on x o , such that s n 0 = x o .
For simplicity we consider a special case of (0.3)-equations of the form

(3.2) a i i ( x , U,)U,,,, =0 .
Concerning (3.2) we assume
(i) unforrn ellipticity, i.e., for all ( x , @ ) E S2 x E n

1 IEI2 5 u i i ( x , p ) c i t i 5 1-1 for all E ET1,

where ;I > 0 is a fixed constant.

(ii) a i j ( x , p ) ECI(R x E")

and
 ON HARNACK TYPE INEQUALITIES 739

Condition (ii) asks that the coefficients a i j ( x , p ) behave in a certain sense as

rational functions of (p( .
Then we have

THEOREM 3.1. Let an sati$y an exterior sphere condition and $ ( x ) 80). Then
E Co(
there exiJts a CO(i3) n Cz(sZ) function u ( x ) satisfying

aij(x, U,)U,~,~ = 0 , u =4 on aQ .
Proof: For some a > 0, define a n operator T on E ( a ,a)
such that, for
~ ( x E) E ( a , a),U(X) = Tv is the uniquely determined solution of the linear
equation
&(x, u,)u,l,j = 0
satisfying u = 4 on aQ. Then,
(a) T is well defined and T E ( a , 0) c E ( a , Q),
(b) T i s compact; this is a consequence of the Schauder interior estimates and
an estimate for the modulus of continuity of ~ ( x ) .The latter is obtained by well
known barrier arguments.
From a special case of the Leray-Schauder theorem (see [15]), we can then
conclude that either the operator equation

u = CTU

is solvable for all G E [0, 11, or the set

S = { u ; u = CTU,c E [0, l]}

is unbounded in E( M, Q) .
Let us examine S. The equation u - CTUis precisely the Dirichlet problem

a23(x,U,)U,,,~ =0, u = G+ on an .
For S to be bounded in E ( a , a)we require that, for any a',the set of numbers
PO(S) 9 Pil,n,(S)
is bounded. That this condition holds for some a > 0 is then a consequence of
(a) the maximum principle,
(b) an interior estimate for Iu,I given in [ 5 ] (it is for this estimate that the
growth conditions (ii) are imposed),
(c) Theorem 2.3.
Here S is bounded in E ( M ,Q) for some a >
0 and the theorem is proved.
The Dirichlet problem for quasilinear elliptic equations is studied a t length
a)
in [7]. The technique of using the spaces E ( M , is explored more fully in 11201,
P21.
740 NEIL S. TRUDINGER

4. Estimates at the Boundary

It is our aim in this section to extend some of the results of Sections 1 and 2 to
cubes which intersect the boundary aR. We cannot expect to prove a Harnack
inequality at the boundary since such inequalities are not preserved additively.
However, results similar to Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 are true, as we shall show. Also
Theorems 2.2 and 2.3 admit extensions to the boundary.
Let S be a subset of aSl and u ( x ) E W~*'"'(a).Then we shall say that u 5 A4
on S if for every E > 0, there is a neighborhood of S,M s , such that u 5 M E +
a.e. in R n M s . I n this way we can define sups u, infs u and oscs u = sups u
- infs u.
We consider the equation

(4.1) div A ( x , u, uz) + B(x, u, uZ) = 0

under the structure conditions (2.2), (1.3).
The following may be regarded as an extension of Theorem 2.1.

4.1. Let u ( x ) be a weak subsolution of (4.1) in

THEOREM a.For K = Kz0(3p),let
L = sup ).(U , M = sup u(x) .
Knan KnR

Then the function u ( x ) , given by

M - SUP (u,L ) for R AK,
x E
for XEK-Q,
sat isjies

where C = C(a, n, a , , b , , M ) .

Proof: I t suffices to prove (4.2) for the case L = 0. The general case is then
obtained by replacing u by u - L. We also make the normalization p = 1.
For E > 0, we define the function

M + E - sup (u, + rn E) for x EK nS Z ,

6(x) =
for XEK-Q,

and consider as test functions in the weak form of (4.1), i.e., (1.4),

(4.3j 4(x) = qa(x)ebou(z){$ - ( M + rn)@},

where q ( x ) 2 0, q ECA(K), < 0.
 ON HARNACK TYPE INEQUALITIES 74 1

It is easily seen that + ( x ) is a valid test function in (1.4). (Note that a uniformly
Lipschitz continuous function of a strongly differentiable function is itself strongly
differentiable and that the chain rule applies.)
Furthermore, in the support of # x ) , we have
u, = -fi, a.e. ,
IA(x, u, u,)l 5 a , Iu,la-l + ta-l,
IW,u, %)I s 6 , I%I" +'if Y

u,A(x, u, u,) g 1u,p - P.

Hence, substituting + ( x ) into (1.4), inequalities (1.20) are found to hold for
the function ;with ,u = 1. Here we need the fact that < 0, to guarantee the
estimate
fip - ( M +
m)p 5 6 0 .
The function 6 therefore satisfies the weak Harnack inequality (1.6). Letting
E -+0, we then obtain (4.2) ; q.e.d.
To proceed further we introduce a condition on an. We shall say that a 0 is
regular at x , E aa if there exist positive constants p* and 8 such that for all p 5 p*

(4-4)
If aR is regular at each x, E an, we shall say that ai2 is regular and that it is
uniformb regular if the constants p* and 8 are independent of x , . Uniform
regularity is then the condition A of Ladyzhenskaya and Ural'tseva [ 5 ] .
From Theorem 4.1, we now have

COROLLARY 4.1. Let U ( X ) satidy the hypotheses of Theorem 4.1 and suppose that
xo E .
8 0 and aR is regular at x , Then f o r p p*,

(4.5) sup u - L 5 v(M - L) + Cm(p) ,

K(p)

where v < 1 and C are constants depending on a,n, a . , b , , M and 8.

We are now in a position to prove the foIlowing extension of Theorem 2.2 to
the boundary.

THEOREM 4.2. Let u ( x ) be a weak solution of (4.1) in R. Let x , E 8 0 and suppose

that an is regular at x o . Thenfor any p 5 p , , y < 1,
742 NEIL S. TRUDINGER

where C and 6 > 0 depend on u, n, a , , bo , supIc(po)U , 0 and p* and

&(P) = osc u.
J ~ ~ K ( ~ Y ~ , ' - Y )

Proof For p <fpo ) let

L= sup u , I= inf u ,
IC ( z P) A an K(3p)naR
set

u*(x) = 0

and extend u* to be zero in K ( 3 p ) -

Then from (4.5), we have
I
u-L

u-1

a.
for
for.
for
U ~ L ,
12 u 2 L ,
usl,

sup u * ( x )
K(p)
Y sup u * ( x )
K(3p)
+ Cm(p),
-infu*(x) 2 -Y inf u*(x) + Cm(p) ;
k'(p) K(3p)
therefore,
osc u * ( x ) 2Y osc u * ( x ) + Cm(p) ,
k ( p ) K(3p)
Observing that
osc U(X) 5 osc U*(X) +L -1
k'(P) K(p)

= osc u * ( x ) + osc u,
Ktp) k-(ap)nan
and applying Lemma 2.2, leads to the desired result (4.6).
As a consequence of Theorem 4.2 we have global modulus of continuity
estimates for weak solutions of (4.1).

COROLLARY
4.2. Let u ( x ) be a weak solution o f (4.1) in !2 and let u ( x ) = 4(x)
on aa.
(i) I f an is regular and $ ( x ) is continuous on a!2, then U ( X ) is continuous in 0 and
its modulus o f continuity at any point may be estimated i n terms o f the structure of (4.1),
8!2 and the modulus o f continuity o f q5(x).
(ii) I f 8C.I is unformb regular and + ( x ) is unformly Holder continuous on aQ, then
u ( x ) is unzformly Holder continuous i n fi and its Holder norm may be estimated in terms o f
the structure of (4.1)) aQ and the Holder norm of + ( x ) .

Part (ii) of the above corollary is due to Ladyzhenskaya and Ural'tseva.

 ON HARNACK TYPE INEQUALITIES 743

Note that we have not specified the meaning of u ( x ) = + ( x ) on aQ. I f u ( x ) is

continuous in a neighborhood of an, then the meaning is clear and the corollary
holds. But the reader may check that, if u ( x ) = 4 ( x ) on as2 means that u(.Y) is
) of smooth functions agreeing with + ( x ) on aQ, then the corollary
the W ~ ( s 2limit
still holds.
Estimates for the derivatives of strong solutions of equation (2.5) a t the
boundary also follow from Theorem 4.1. If we assume that as2 and u / a a are
sufficiently smooth, then it suffices to take K n as1 = K n ( x n = 0) and u c 0
on K n aQ. This means that the tangential derivatives u x l , * , uxn-l vanish
also on K n an. One may easily see that Lemma 2.1 holds for functions
71-1 n-1
q ( X ) = yux, + ZU:?
1
, w,(4 = Y ( 1 - UzJ +ZuZ '
1
XL

since the derivative uZnz, in (2.15) may be estimated by the equation itself. Holder
-
estimates for uz, , i = 1, . * , n - I , then follow as before. T h e remaining deriva-
tive uzn is estimated from the equation itself. T h e details are to be found in [7].
To complete this section we note that Theorem 1.3 carries over to the boundary.
We have, in fact,

THEOREM 4.3. Let equation (4.1) satisfy the structure (1.2), (1.3) and let U ( X ) be
a weak subsolution o f (4.1) in a domain K n Q, K = K(3p). SuFFose that u < M in
K n R and set
L = sup u ( x )
K n8fl
.
Then
(4.7) SUP
flnK(p)
.(XI S C(P-"'" IIUIIa;l<(tp)nfi + fiz(p)) + 7

where C = C(M,n, a , , boM, 1 + p p ) , f i ( p ) = m ( p ) + (pLp) + (pLp)"""".

Proof: As in Theorem 4.1, we need only prove (4.7) for the case p = 1, L = 0.
We take
z i = sup (u, E ) - E +m, E > O ,

and consider as test functions in (1.4)

(4.8) + ( x ) = T/yx)(nP - ma)ebol' , B > O ,
where ~ ( x 2) 0, T/ ECA(K).
$(x) is a valid test function in (1.4) and furthermore, in the support of + ( x ) ,

u, = '2 J

[ A ( x ,u, uX)l 5 a, IuxloL-l + ( I + p)"-laa-',

uzL4(x, u, ux) >= [u,p - (1 + p ) " a a ,
IB(x, u, Ux)[ 5 b, [u,I" + p /uzla-' + (1 + p)"Ca-'.
744 NEIL S. TRUDINGER

Hence if we substitute for + ( x ) in (1.4) we obtain, using the simple estimate

tip - rnp ti0 for B >0,

that inequalities of the form (1.20) hold for t i ( x ) with p replaced by p +
1 . Here
we extend ti to be na in K - SL. Therefore ti satisfies (1.7) and letting e -+ 0 gives
(4.7) with L = 0. Replacing u by u -
L gives the case of general L ; q.e.d.
When b , = 0, we have a global maximum principle on taking K 2 SL. This
is proved in [16], [17]. The maximum principle was first proved for linear
equations of the form (4.1) by Stampacchia [18].

5. Generalizations
The theorems of the preceding sections remain true when the condition of
boundedness (1.3) imposed on functions in the structure condition (1.2) is
weakened to certain integrability conditions.
) a smooth function defined for p > 0 and such that ~ ( p -+
Let ~ ( p be ) 0 as
p 0. We define the space Ln,ELp)(Q)
---f by

where

We now permit the functions a , ( x ) , b , ( x ) in (1.2) to be in spaces of this type

for certain ~ ( p ) .Specifically we require, if tc < n,

a i ( x ) , b j ( x ) E L,,pa(i2) for some 6 >0, i = 2, 4 ; j = 1, 2, 3 .

For a cube K = Kx0(3p) we set

 ON HARNACK TYPE INEQUALITIES 745

We now prove

5. i .
THEOREM Theorems 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, Corollary 1.1, Theorems 2.1, 4.1, Corollary
4.1, Theorem 4.3 continue to hold if the structure conditions are generalized as above and /L
and m are dejined by (5.2), (5.3) and (5.4). ( T h e constants in the estimates will also
depend on 6 when u s
n.)
Proof: Theorem 5.1 may be established by a modification of the calculations
in Section 1 using the following lemma.
LEMMA5.1. Let u ( x ) E W:,o(Q),f ( x ) E Ln,pd(Q) if u 2 n, f ( x ) E La(Q) ;S
a > n.Then for any E > 0,

(5.5) IIfulla;n S E Iluzllu;n + ‘(a, n>6, Q Ilf II)E-” I I u I I ~ ; ~ 9

where v > 0 depends on u, n (and S if u 5 n ) .

Lemma 5.1 is proved, for example in [lo] for the case tc = 2. The reader may
check that the proof for general a is similar.
If we now set u = uq, uq = u +
/l- 1 in inequalities (1.19) for # 1 - tc
and apply Lemma 5.1, we obtain

(5-6) 5
llrl~alla;K c 14“ (1 + [PI-? !(’I + l%l)~lla:K
for some fixed v > 0. Note that when u < n, we also need to use the estimate
Ilal(x)qUll 5 Ilallln;K II (7’) Ila;K
to absorb the term in al on the right-hand side of (1.19).
From the case 8, = 1 - u in (1.19) follows

(5.7) IIquzllu s Ilqf+ llu J

where
f = a1 + a2 + + 61 62 5 C(SUP11 II f I, + II I q X I IIa)

- C(SUP 7
5 + IIrz11,) -
Inequalities (5.6) and (5.7) now replace (1.22). The dependence on q in (5.6)
does not affect the convergence of the iteration process and the conclusions of
Theorem 5.1 follow.
746 NEIL S. TRUDINGER

We note here that for the inequality

to hold for somep > 0 we required only that ai , bi E L,(Q), where q = max ( a , n).
One may show in fact that (5.8) holds for any p > 0 with C depending on p , if u
is a solution of (1.1). The stronger condition imposed on ai , bi in Theorem 5.1
then guarantees that C can be taken independent o f t which of course implies the
Harnack inequality. We remark, without proof, that for this, p6 may be replaced

by e ( p ) satisfying
l* e ( p ) / p dp < co for some p* > 0.
As consequences of Theorem 5.1 we now have :

THEOREM a,
5.2. Lct u ( x ) be a locally bounded weak solution of (2.1) in where (2.1)
satisjies the structure (2.2) generalized as above. Then u ( x ) is continuous in Q and, ;f
K = K(p0) nQ,

(5.9)

for all p < P o , ,3 < 1, where C = C ( a , , 6 , , a, n, suph- IuI, S), y > 0 depends on the
same quantities as C as well as on ,3. I f u ( x ) is bounded in Q, u/aR is continuous and aQ
regular, then u ( x ) is continuous in 0 with

(5.10)

~ ( p is) as in (4.6). C and y depend on the same quantities as above with C depending also
on an n K ( p o ) .

THEOREM
5.3. Let condition (iv) in the hypotheses of Theorem 2.3 be replaced by

(iv)' f (x) E L,,pY(Q) > Y >0> and Ilf lln,pY;n <

=P .

Then Theorem 2.3 continues to hold with C, 6, depending also on y .

Note that if a,(x), u 3 ( x ) E Ln,pa(Q)we obtain local Hijlder continuity in

Theorem 5.2.
We remark also that Theorems 1.3 and 4.3 hold for a = 1 if b j ( x ) E L,(Q),
j = 1, 2, a 2 ( x ) , u4(x) E L , , p 6 ( Q ) , n > 1. (Note that we may take a, = a3 =
b, = 0.)
Finally we refer the reader to [7] for examples showing that the condition
ai , bj E L , , q = max ( a , n) is in a certain sense necessary for many estimates.
 ON HARNACK TYPE INEQUALITIES 747

Bibliography
[13 De Giorgi, E., Sulla dzxerenziabilita e l'analiticita delle estremali degli ititegrali multipli regolari,
Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino, Ser. 3a, Vol. 3, 1957, pp. 25-43.
[2] John, F., and Nirenberg, L., On functions of bounded mean oscillation, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.,
Vol. 14, 1961, pp. 415-426.
[3] Kruzkov, S. N., A priori estimates and some properties of solutions of elliptic and parabolic equations,
Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, Vol. I%, 1963, pp. 215-216. (In Russian.)
[4] Kruzkov, S. N., Sotne estimates for generalized solutions of elliptic and parabolic equations of second
order, Doklady Acad. Nauk SSSR, Vol. 150, 1963, pp. 748-751. (In Russian.)
[5] Ladyzhenskaya, 0. A. and Ural'tseva, N. N., Quasilinear elliptic equations and oariational problems
with m a y independent uariables, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, Vol. 16, 1961, pp. 19-92. (In Russian.
English Translation in Russian Math. Surveys, Vol. 16, 1961, pp. 17-91.)
[6] Ladyzhenskaya, 0. A. and Ural'tseva, N. N., Boundary value problems f o r linear and quasilinear
parabolic equations, I, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Mat., Vol. 26, 1962, pp. 5-52. ZZ, ibid.,
pp. 753-780. III, ibid., Vol. 27, 1963, pp. 161-240. (In Russian.)
[7] Ladyzhenskaya, 0. A. and Ural'tseva, N. N., Linear and Quasilinear Elligtic Equations, Izd.
Nauka, Moscow, 1964. (In Russian.)
[8] Ladyzhenskaya, 0. A. and Ural'tseva, N. N., O n Holder continuity of solutions and their dericatices
of linear and quasilinear elliptic and parabolic equations, Trudy Steklov Inst., Leningrad, Vol. 73,
1964, pp. 172-220. (In Russian.)
[9] Morrey, C. B., Second or-der elliptic equations in several variables and Holder continuio, Math. Z.,
Vol. 72, 1959, pp. 146-164.
[lo] Morrey, C. B., Multiple Integrals in the Calculus o f Variations, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1966.
[ I 11 Moser, J., A new proof of De Giorzi's theorem concerning the regularityproblem f o r elliptic differential
equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., Vol. 13, 1960, pp. 457-46%.
[ 121 Moser, J., On Harnack's theoremf o r elliptic differential equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., Vol. 14,
1961, pp. 577-591.
[13] Moser, J., A Harnack inequality f o r parabolic dzxerential equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., Vol.
17, 1964, pp. 101-134. Correction to same paper, ibid., Vol. 20, 1967, pp. 231-236
[14] Sash, J., Continuity ofsolutions of parabolic and elliptic equations, Amer. J. Math., Vol. 80, 1958,
pp. 931-954.
[15] Schaefer, H., Uber die Methode der apriori Schranken, Math. Ann., Vol. 129, 1955, pp. 415-416.
[16] Serrin, J., Local behauiour of solutions of quasilinear equations, Acta Math., Vol. 111, 1964, pp.
302-347.
[17] Serrin, J., Isolated singularities of solutions of quasilinear equations, Acta Math., Vol. 113, 1965,
pp. 2 19-240.
[18] Stampacchia, G., Contributi alla regolarizzazione delle soluzioni dei problemi a1 contotno per equasioni
del secondo ordine ellitiche, Ann. Scuola Norm Sup. Pisa, Ser. 3, Vol. 12, 1958, pp. 223-244.
[19] Stampacchia, G., Problemi a1 contorno ellittiche con dati discontinui dotati di soluzioni Holderiane,
Ann. of Math., Vol. 51, 1960, pp. 1-3%.
[20] Trudinger, N. S., Quasilinear ellipticpartial dzferential equations in 71 variables, Stanford University,
Dept. of Mathematics, July, 1966.
[21] Trudinger, N. S., On imbeddings into Orlicz spaces and some applications, J. Math. Mech., Vol. 16,
1967, to appear.
[22] Trudinger, N. S., The Dirichlet problem f o r quasilinear u n i f r m b elliptic equations in n variables,
Arch. Rat. Mech. Analysis, Vol. 24, 1967, to appear.
Received February, 1967.