Ebook Nonlinear Elliptic Equations of The Second Order Graduate Studies in Mathematics 1St Edition Qing Han Online PDF All Chapter

Nonlinear Elliptic Equations of the
Second Order Graduate Studies in

Mathematics 1st Edition Qing Han
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/nonlinear-elliptic-equations-of-the-second-order-gradu
ate-studies-in-mathematics-1st-edition-qing-han/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Nonlinear Second Order Parabolic Equations 1st Edition

Mingxin Wang
https://ebookmeta.com/product/nonlinear-second-order-parabolic-
equations-1st-edition-mingxin-wang/
Partial Differential Equations III Nonlinear Equations

Third Edition Michael E. Taylor
https://ebookmeta.com/product/partial-differential-equations-iii-
nonlinear-equations-third-edition-michael-e-taylor/
Semigroup Approach to Nonlinear Diffusion Equations 1st

Edition Viorel Barbu
https://ebookmeta.com/product/semigroup-approach-to-nonlinear-
diffusion-equations-1st-edition-viorel-barbu/
Handbook of Exact Solutions to the Nonlinear

Schrödinger Equations 1st Edition Usama Al Khawaja
https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-exact-solutions-to-the-
nonlinear-schrodinger-equations-1st-edition-usama-al-khawaja/
The Moment Problem Graduate Texts in Mathematics Book
277 Schmüdgen Konrad
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-moment-problem-graduate-texts-
in-mathematics-book-277-schmudgen-konrad/
Numerical Methods for Elliptic and Parabolic Partial

Differential Equations 2nd Edition Peter Knabner
https://ebookmeta.com/product/numerical-methods-for-elliptic-and-
parabolic-partial-differential-equations-2nd-edition-peter-
knabner/
Advances In The History Of Mathematics Education

(International Studies in the History of Mathematics
and its Teaching) Alexander Karp (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/advances-in-the-history-of-
mathematics-education-international-studies-in-the-history-of-
mathematics-and-its-teaching-alexander-karp-editor/
Analytical Methods for Solving Nonlinear Partial

Differential Equations 2nd 2nd Edition Daniel Arrigo
https://ebookmeta.com/product/analytical-methods-for-solving-
nonlinear-partial-differential-equations-2nd-2nd-edition-daniel-
arrigo/
Decision Making A Psychophysics Application of Network

Science Studies of Nonlinear Phenomena in Life Science
https://ebookmeta.com/product/decision-making-a-psychophysics-
application-of-network-science-studies-of-nonlinear-phenomena-in-
life-science/
GRADUATE STUDIES
I N M AT H E M AT I C S 171
Nonlinear
Elliptic Equations
of the Second
Order
Qing Han
American Mathematical Society

https://doi.org/10.1090//gsm/171
GRADUATE STUDIES
I N M AT H E M AT I C S 171
Nonlinear
Elliptic Equations
of the Second
Order
Qing Han
American Mathematical Society

Providence, Rhode Island
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
Dan Abramovich
Daniel S. Freed
Rafe Mazzeo (Chair)
Gigliola Staffilani
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 35J60, 35J25, 35J93, 35J96.
For additional information and updates on this book, visit

www.ams.org/bookpages/gsm-171
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Han, Qing, 1964–
Title: Nonlinear elliptic equations of the second order / Qing Han.
Description: Providence, Rhode Island : American Mathematical Society, [2016] | Series: Gradu-
ate studies in mathematics; volume 171 | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2015043419 | ISBN 9781470426071 (alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Differential equations, Elliptic. | Differential equations, Nonlinear. | AMS:
Partial differential equations – Elliptic equations and systems – Nonlinear elliptic equations.
msc | Partial differential equations – Elliptic equations and systems – Boundary value problems
for second-order elliptic equations. msc | Partial differential equations – Elliptic equations and
systems – Quasilinear elliptic equations with mean curvature operator. msc | Partial differential
equations – Elliptic equations and systems – Elliptic Monge-Ampère equations. msc
Classification: LCC QA377 .H31825 2016 | DDC 515/.3533–dc23 LC record available at http://
lccn.loc.gov/2015043419
Copying and reprinting. Individual readers of this publication, and nonprofit libraries acting
for them, are permitted to make fair use of the material, such as to copy select pages for use
in teaching or research. Permission is granted to quote brief passages from this publication in
reviews, provided the customary acknowledgment of the source is given.
Republication, systematic copying, or multiple reproduction of any material in this publication
is permitted only under license from the American Mathematical Society. Permissions to reuse
portions of AMS publication content are handled by Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink
service. For more information, please visit: http://www.ams.org/rightslink.
Send requests for translation rights and licensed reprints to reprint-permission@ams.org.
Excluded from these provisions is material for which the author holds copyright. In such cases,
requests for permission to reuse or reprint material should be addressed directly to the author(s).
Copyright ownership is indicated on the copyright page, or on the lower right-hand corner of the
first page of each article within proceedings volumes.

c 2016 by the author. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.

∞ The paper used in this book is acid-free and falls within the guidelines
established to ensure permanence and durability.
Visit the AMS home page at http://www.ams.org/
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 21 20 19 18 17 16
To Yansu, Raymond, and Tommy
Contents
Preface vii
Introduction 1
Chapter 1. Linear Elliptic Equations 7
§1.1. The Maximum Principle 8
§1.2. Krylov-Safonov’s Harnack Inequality 23
§1.3. The Schauder Theory 42
Part 1. Quasilinear Elliptic Equations

Chapter 2. Quasilinear Uniformly Elliptic Equations 51
§2.1. Basic Properties 52
§2.2. Interior C 1 -Estimates 55
§2.3. Global C 1 -Estimates 58
§2.4. Interior C 1,α -Estimates 61
§2.5. Global C 1,α -Estimates 68
§2.6. Dirichlet Problems 73
Chapter 3. Mean Curvature Equations 79
§3.1. Principal Curvatures 80
§3.2. Global Estimates 87
§3.3. Interior Gradient Estimates 100
v
vi Contents
Chapter 4. Minimal Surface Equations 115

§4.1. Integral Formulas 116
§4.2. Differential Identities 127
§4.3. Interior Gradient Estimates 136
§4.4. Interior Curvature Estimates 141
§4.5. Differential Identities: An Alternative Approach 151
Part 2. Fully Nonlinear Elliptic Equations

Chapter 5. Fully Nonlinear Uniformly Elliptic Equations 163
§5.4. Interior C 2,α -Estimates 200
§5.5. Global C 2,α -Estimates 208
Chapter 6. Monge-Ampère Equations 219
§6.4. The Bernstein Problem 241
Chapter 7. Complex Monge-Ampère Equations 253
Chapter 8. Generalized Solutions of Monge-Ampère Equations 277
§8.1. Monge-Ampère Measures 278
§8.3. Global Hölder Estimates 313
§8.4. Interior C 1,α -Regularity 325
§8.5. Interior C 2,α -Regularity 340
Bibliography 355
Index 365
Preface
The theory of nonlinear elliptic partial differential equations of the second or-
der has flourished in the past half-century. The pioneering work of de Giorgi
in 1957 opened the door to the study of general quasilinear elliptic differ-
ential equations. Since then, the nonlinear elliptic differential equation has
become a diverse subject and has found applications in science and engi-
neering. In mathematics, the development of elliptic differential equations
has influenced the development of the Riemannian geometry and complex
geometry. Meanwhile, the study of elliptic differential equations in a geo-
metric setting has provided interesting new questions with fresh insights to
old problems.
This book is written for those who have completed their study of the
linear elliptic differential equations and intend to explore the fascinating field
of nonlinear elliptic differential equations. It covers two classes of nonlinear
elliptic differential equations, quasilinear and fully nonlinear, and focuses
on two important nonlinear elliptic differential equations closely related to
geometry, the mean curvature equation and the Monge-Ampère equation.
This book presents a detailed discussion of the Dirichlet problems for
quasilinear and fully nonlinear elliptic differential equations of the second
order: quasilinear uniformly elliptic equations in arbitrary domains, mean
curvature equations in domains with nonnegative boundary mean curvature,
fully nonlinear uniformly elliptic equations in arbitrary domains, and Monge-
Ampère equations in uniformly convex domains. Global solutions of these
equations are also characterized. The choice of topics is influenced by my
personal taste. Some topics may be viewed by others as too advanced for
a graduate textbook. Among those topics are the curvature estimates for
minimal surface equations, the complex Monge-Ampère equation, and the
vii
viii Preface
generalized solutions of the (real) Monge-Ampère equations. Inclusion of

these topics reflects their importance and their connections to many of the
most active current research areas.
There is an inevitable overlap with the successful monograph by Gilbarg
and Trudinger. This book, designed as a textbook, is more focused on basic
materials and techniques. Many results in this book are presented in special
forms. For example, the quasilinear and fully nonlinear uniformly elliptic
differential equations studied in this book are not in their most general
form. The study of these equations serves as a prerequisite to the study of
the mean curvature equation and the Monge-Ampère equation, respectively.
More notably, our discussion of the Monge-Ampère equations is confined
to the pure Monge-Ampère equations, instead of the Monge-Ampère type
equations.
This book is based on one-semester courses I taught at Peking Univer-
sity in the spring of 2011 and at the University of Notre Dame in the fall
of 2011. Part of it was presented in the Special Lecture Series at Peking
University in the summer of 2007, in the Summer School in Mathematics at
the University of Science and Technology of China in the summer of 2008,
and in a graduate course at Beijing International Center of Mathematical
Research in the spring of 2010.
During the writing of the book, I benefitted greatly from comments
and suggestions of many friends, colleagues, and students in my classes.
Chuanqiang Chen, Xumin Jiang, Weiming Shen, and Yue Wang read the
manuscript at various stages. Chuanqiang Chen and Jingang Xiong helped
write Chapter 8. Bo Guan, Marcus Khuri, Xinan Ma, and Yu Yuan provided
valuable suggestions on the arrangement of the book.
It is with pleasure that I record here my gratitude to my thesis advisor,
Fanghua Lin, who guided me into the fascinating world of elliptic differential
equations more than twenty years ago.
I am grateful to Arlene O’Sean, my editor at the American Mathematical
Society, for reading the manuscript and guiding the effort to turn it into a
book. Last but not least, I thank Sergei Gelfand at the AMS for his help in
bringing the book to press.
The research related to this book was partially supported by grants from
the National Science Foundation.
Qing Han
https://doi.org/10.1090//gsm/171/01
Introduction
The primary goal of this book is to study nonlinear elliptic differential equa-
tions of the second order, with a focus on quasilinear and fully nonlinear
elliptic differential equations. Chapter 1 is a brief review of linear elliptic
differential equations. Then in Part 1 and Part 2, we study quasilinear el-
liptic differential equations and fully nonlinear elliptic differential equations,
respectively.
In Chapter 1, we review briefly three basic topics in the theory of lin-
ear elliptic equations: the maximum principle, Krylov-Safonov’s Harnack
inequality, and the Schauder theory. These topics form the foundation for
further studies of nonlinear elliptic differential equations.
Part 1 is devoted to quasilinear elliptic differential equations and consists
of three chapters.
In Chapter 2, we discuss quasilinear uniformly elliptic equations. We
derive various a priori estimates for their solutions, the estimates of the L∞ -
norms of solutions and their first derivatives by the maximum principle, and
the estimates of the Hölder semi-norms of the first derivatives by Krylov-
Safonov’s Harnack inequality. As a consequence of these estimates, we solve
the Dirichlet boundary-value problem by the method of continuity.
In Chapter 3, we discuss equations of the prescribed mean curvatures,
or the mean curvature equations. We derive various a priori estimates for
their solutions, in particular, the boundary gradient estimates, the global
gradient estimates, and the interior gradient estimates. As a consequence,
we solve the Dirichlet boundary-value problem by the method of continuity.
Difficulties in studying the mean curvature equations are due to a lack of
1
2 Introduction
the uniform ellipticity. The structure of the equation plays an important

role.
In Chapter 4, we discuss minimal surface equations. Needless to say, the
minimal surface equation is a special class of the mean curvature equations;
namely, the mean curvature vanishes identically. It might appear that this
chapter should be included in the previous one. However, there is a reason
for an independent chapter. Results in this chapter are proved by analysis
“upon surfaces”. In other words, we treat minimal surfaces as submanifolds
in the ambient Euclidean spaces and write equations on these submanifolds.
In this chapter, we will derive an improved interior gradient estimate and
an interior curvature estimate for solutions of the minimal surface equation.
Part 2 is devoted to fully nonlinear elliptic differential equations and
consists of four chapters.
In Chapter 5, we discuss fully nonlinear uniformly elliptic equations. We
derive various a priori estimates for their solutions, the estimates of the L∞ -
norms of solutions and their first and second derivatives by the maximum
principle, and the estimates of the Hölder semi-norms of the second deriva-
tives by Krylov-Safonov’s Harnack inequality. As a consequence of these
estimates, we solve the Dirichlet boundary-value problem by the method of
continuity.
In Chapter 6, we discuss Monge-Ampère equations. We derive various
a priori estimates for their solutions, in particular, the boundary Hessian
estimates, the global Hessian estimates, and the interior Hessian estimates.
As a consequence, we solve the Dirichlet boundary-value problem by the
method of continuity. Difficulties in studying the Monge-Ampère equations
are due to a lack of the uniform ellipticity. The structure of the equation
plays an important role.
In Chapter 7, we extend results in the previous chapter to the complex
case and discuss complex Monge-Ampère equations.
In Chapter 8, we discuss generalized solutions of (real) Monge-Ampère
equations. Such solutions are defined only for convex functions, which are
not assumed to be C 2 to begin with. We prove various regularity results un-
der appropriate assumptions on the corresponding Monge-Ampère measures.
In particular, we prove the strict convexity and the interior C 1,α -regularity
for solutions if the Monge-Ampère measures satisfy a doubling condition.
We also derive the optimal interior C 2,α -regularity for solutions under the
condition that the Monge-Ampère measures are induced by positive Hölder
continuous functions. The discussion is based on the level set approach.
Introduction 3
Concerning the arrangement of this book, Part 1 is not a prerequisite for

Part 2. Those who are interested only in fully nonlinear elliptic equations
can skip Part 1 entirely.
We now list some basic notations to be used in this book.

We denote by x points in Rn and write x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) in terms of
its coordinates. For any x ∈ Rn , we denote by |x| the standard Euclidean
norm, unless otherwise stated. Namely, for any x = (x1 , . . . , xn ), we have
n 1
2
|x| = 2
xi .
i=1
Sometimes, we need to distinguish one particular direction and write points

in Rn as (x , xn ) for x = (x1 , . . . , xn−1 ) ∈ Rn−1 . We also denote by Rn+ the
upper half-space; i.e., Rn = {x ∈ Rn : xn > 0}.
Let Ω be a domain in Rn , that is, an open and connected subset in Rn .
We denote by L∞ (Ω) the collection of all bounded functions in Ω and define
the L∞ -norm by
|u|L∞ (Ω) = sup |u|.
Ω
We denote by C(Ω) the collection of all continuous functions in Ω, by C m (Ω)
the collection of all functions with continuous derivatives up to order m,
for any integer m ≥ 1, and by C ∞ (Ω) the collection of all functions with
continuous derivatives of arbitrary order. For any u ∈ C m (Ω), we denote by
∇m u the collection of all partial derivatives of u of order m. For m = 1 and
m = 2, we usually write ∇m u in special forms. For first-order derivatives,
we write ∇u as a vector of the form
∇u = (∂1 u, . . . , ∂n u).
This is the gradient vector of u. For second-order derivatives, we write ∇2 u
in the matrix form
⎛ ⎞
∂11 u ∂12 u · · · ∂1n u
⎜ ∂21 u ∂2n u · · · ∂2n u ⎟
⎜ ⎟
∇2 u = ⎜ . .. .. .. ⎟ .
⎝ .. . . . ⎠
∂n1 u ∂n2 u · · · ∂nn u
This is a symmetric matrix, called the Hessian matrix of u. For derivatives of
order higher than two, we need to use multi-indices. A multi-index β ∈ Zn+
is given by β = (β1 , . . . , βn ) with nonnegative integers β1 , . . . , βn . We write

n
|β| = βi .
i=1
4 Introduction
The partial derivative ∂ β u is defined by
∂ β u = ∂1β1 · · · ∂nβn u,
and its order is |β|. For any positive integer m, we define
⎛ ⎞1

2
|∇ u| =
m ⎝ β 2⎠
|∂ u| ,
|β|=m
and the C m -norm by

m
|u|C m (Ω) = |∇k u|L∞ (Ω) .
k=0
For a constant α ∈ (0, 1), we denote by C α (Ω) the collection of all Hölder
continuous functions in Ω with the Hölder exponent α and by C m,α (Ω) the
collection of all functions in C m (Ω) whose derivatives of order m are Hölder
continuous in Ω with the Hölder exponent α. We define the Hölder semi-
norm by
|u(x) − u(y)|
[u]C α (Ω) = sup ,
x,y∈Ω |x − y|α
x=y
and the C α -norm by

|u|C α (Ω) = |u|L∞ (Ω) + [u]C α (Ω) .
For any positive integer m and a contant α ∈ (0, 1), we also define the
C m,α -norm by

|u|C m,α (Ω) = |u|C m (Ω) + [∇β u]C α (Ω) .
|β|=m
Accordingly, we can define C(Ω̄), C α (Ω̄), C m (Ω̄), C m,α (Ω̄), and C ∞ (Ω̄) if
∂Ω is appropriately regular and define [ · ]C α (Ω̄) , | · |C α (Ω̄) , | · |C m (Ω̄) , and
| · |C m,α (Ω̄) similarly.
We adopt the summation convention on repeated indices throughout the
book. The general form of the linear equations of the second order is given
by
aij (x)∂ij u + bi (x)∂i u + c(x)u = f (x) in Ω,
where aij , bi , c, and f are given functions in Ω. Very often, we write deriva-
tives as ui = ∂i u and uij = ∂ij u for brevity. In this way, we can express
linear equations in the following form:
aij uij + bi ui + cu = f in Ω.
Introduction 5
Subscripts here have different meanings for coefficients and solutions. Sim-
ilarly, the general forms of the quasilinear equations and the fully nonlinear
equations of the second order are given, respectively, by
aij (x, u, ∇u)uij = f (x, u, ∇u) in Ω
and
F (x, u, ∇u, ∇2 u) = 0 in Ω.
A significant portion of the book is devoted to the derivation of a priori
estimates, where certain norms of solutions are bounded by a positive con-
stant C depending only on a set of known quantities. In a given context,
the same letter C will be used to denote different constants depending on
the same set of quantities.
https://doi.org/10.1090//gsm/171/02
Chapter 1
Linear Elliptic
Equations
In this chapter, we review briefly three basic topics in the theory of lin-
ear elliptic equations: the maximum principle, Krylov-Safonov’s Harnack
inequality, and the Schauder theory.
In Section 1.1, we review Hopf’s maximum principle. The maximum
principle is an important method to study elliptic differential equations of
the second order. In this section, we review the weak maximum principle and
the strong maximum principle and derive several forms of a priori estimates
of solutions.
In Section 1.2, we review Krylov-Safonov’s Harnack inequality. The
Harnack inequality is an important result in the theory of elliptic differential
equations of the second order and plays a fundamental role in the study of
nonlinear elliptic differential equations.
In Section 1.3, we review the Schauder theory for uniformly elliptic linear
equations. Three main topics are a priori estimates in Hölder norms, the
regularity of arbitrary solutions, and the solvability of the Dirichlet problem.
Among these topics, a priori estimates are the most fundamental and form
the basis for the existence and the regularity of solutions. We will review
both the interior Schauder theory and the global Schauder theory.
These three sections play different roles in the rest of the book. In the
study of quasilinear elliptic equations in Part 1, the maximum principle
will be used to derive estimates of derivatives up to the first order, the
Harnack inequality will be used to derive estimates of the Hölder semi-
norms of derivatives of the first order, and the Schauder theory will be used
7
8 1. Linear Elliptic Equations
to solve the linearized equations. In the study of fully nonlinear elliptic

equations in Part 2, the maximum principle will be used to derive estimates
of derivatives up to the second order, the Harnack inequality will be used to
derive estimates of the Hölder semi-norms of derivatives of the second order,
and the Schauder theory will be used to solve the linearized equations.
It is not our intention to present a complete review of the linear theory.
Notably missing from this short review are the W 2,p -theory for linear equa-
tions of the nondivergence form and the H k -theory and the de Giorgi-Moser
theory for linear equations of the divergence form. Refer to Chapters 2–9 of
[59] for a complete account of the linear theory.
1.1. The Maximum Principle

The maximum principle is an important method to study elliptic differential
equations of the second order. In this section, we review the weak maximum
principle and the strong maximum principle and derive several forms of a
priori estimates of solutions. Refer to Chapter 3 of [59] for details.
Throughout this section, we let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn and let
aij , bi , and c be bounded and continuous functions in Ω, with aij = aji . We
consider the operator L given by
(1.1.1) Lu = aij ∂ij u + bi ∂i u + cu in Ω,
for any u ∈ C 2 (Ω). The operator L is always assumed to be strictly elliptic
in Ω; namely, for any x ∈ Ω and ξ ∈ Rn ,
(1.1.2) aij (x)ξi ξj ≥ λ|ξ|2 ,
for some positive constant λ. For later reference, L is called uniformly elliptic
if, for any x ∈ Ω and ξ ∈ Rn ,
(1.1.3) λ|ξ|2 ≤ aij (x)ξi ξj ≤ Λ|ξ|2 ,
for some positive constants λ and Λ, which are usually called the ellipticity
constants.
1.1.1. The Weak Maximum Principle. In this subsection, we review

the weak maximum principle and its corollaries. We first introduce subso-
lutions and supersolutions.
Definition 1.1.1. For some f ∈ C(Ω), a C 2 (Ω)-function u is called a sub-
solution (or supersolution) of Lw = f if Lu ≥ f (or Lu ≤ f ) in Ω.
If aij = δij , bi = c = 0, and f = 0, subsolutions (or supersolutions) are

subharmonic (or superharmonic).
Now we prove the weak maximum principle for subsolutions. Recall that
u+ is the nonnegative part of u, defined by u+ = max{0, u}.
1.1. The Maximum Principle 9
Theorem 1.1.2. Let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn and L be given by

(1.1.1), for some aij , bi , c ∈ L∞ (Ω) ∩ C(Ω) satisfying c ≤ 0 in Ω and
(1.1.2). Suppose that u ∈ C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω) satisfies Lu ≥ 0 in Ω. Then, u
attains on ∂Ω its nonnegative maximum in Ω̄; i.e.,
max u ≤ max u+ .
Ω̄ ∂Ω
Proof. We first consider the special case Lu > 0 in Ω. If u has a local

nonnegative maximum at a point x0 in Ω, then u(x0 ) ≥ 0, ∇u(x0 ) = 0,
and the Hessian matrix ∇2 u(x0 ) is negative semi-definite. By (1.1.2), the
matrix aij (x0 ) is positive definite. Then,
Lu(x0 ) = (aij ∂ij u + bi ∂i u + cu) (x0 ) ≤ 0.
This leads to a contradiction. Hence, the nonnegative maximum of u in Ω̄
is attained only on ∂Ω.
Now we consider the general case Lu ≥ 0 in Ω. For any ε > 0, consider
w(x) = u(x) + εeμx1 ,
where μ is a positive constant to be determined. Then,
Lw = Lu + εeμx1 (a11 μ2 + b1 μ + c).
Since b1 and c are bounded and a11 ≥ λ > 0 in Ω, by choosing μ > 0 large
enough, we get
a11 μ2 + b1 μ + c > 0 in Ω.
This implies Lw > 0 in Ω. By the special case we just discussed, w attains
its nonnegative maximum only on ∂Ω and hence,
max w ≤ max w+ .
Ω̄ ∂Ω
Then,
max u ≤ max w ≤ max w+ ≤ max u+ + ε max eμx1 .
Ω̄ Ω̄ ∂Ω ∂Ω x∈∂Ω
We have the desired result by letting ε → 0 and using the fact that ∂Ω ⊂ Ω̄.

If c ≡ 0 in Ω, we can draw conclusions about the maximum of u rather

than its nonnegative maximum. A similar remark holds for the strong max-
imum principle.
A continuous function in Ω̄ always attains its maximum in Ω̄. Theorem
1.1.2 asserts that any subsolution continuous up to the boundary attains its
maximum on the boundary ∂Ω, but possibly also in Ω. Theorem 1.1.2 is
referred to as the weak maximum principle. A stronger version asserts that

subsolutions attain their maximum only on the boundary, unless they are
constant.
As a simple consequence of Theorem 1.1.2, we have the following result.
Corollary 1.1.3. Let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn and L be given by
(1.1.2). Suppose that u ∈ C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω) satisfies Lu ≥ 0 in Ω and u ≤ 0 on
∂Ω. Then, u ≤ 0 in Ω.
More generally, we have the following comparison principle.

(1.1.2). Suppose that u, v ∈ C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω) satisfy Lu ≥ Lv in Ω and u ≤ v
on ∂Ω. Then, u ≤ v in Ω.
The comparison principle provides a reason that functions u satisfying

Lu ≥ f are called subsolutions. They are less than a solution v of Lv = f
with the same boundary value.
In the following, we simply say by the maximum principle when we apply
Theorem 1.1.2, Corollary 1.1.3, or Corollary 1.1.4.
A consequence of the maximum principle is the uniqueness of solutions
of Dirichlet problems.
(1.1.2). Then for any f ∈ C(Ω) and ϕ ∈ C(∂Ω), there exists at most one
solution u ∈ C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω) of
Lu = f in Ω,
u=ϕ on ∂Ω.
1.1.2. The Strong Maximum Principle. The weak maximum principle

asserts that subsolutions of linear elliptic equations attain their nonnegative
maximum on the boundary under suitable conditions. In fact, these subso-
lutions can attain their nonnegative maximum only on the boundary, unless
they are constant. This is the strong maximum principle.
For any C 1 -function u in Ω̄ that attains its maximum on ∂Ω, say at
x0 ∈ ∂Ω, we have ∂u ∂ν (x0 ) ≥ 0, where ν is the exterior unit normal to Ω at
x0 . The Hopf lemma asserts that this normal derivative is in fact positive if
u is a subsolution in Ω.
Theorem 1.1.6. Let B be an open ball in Rn with x0 ∈ ∂B and L be given
by (1.1.1), for some aij , bi , c ∈ L∞ (B) ∩ C(B) satisfying c ≤ 0 in B and
(1.1.2). Suppose that u ∈ C 1 (B̄)∩C 2 (B) satisfies Lu ≥ 0 in B, u(x) < u(x0 )

for any x ∈ B, and u(x0 ) ≥ 0. Then,
∂u
(x0 ) > 0,
∂ν
where ν is the exterior unit normal to B at x0 .
Proof. Without loss of generality, we assume B = BR for some R > 0. By

the continuity of u up to ∂BR , we have, for any x ∈ B̄R ,
u(x) ≤ u(x0 ).
For positive constants μ and ε to be determined, we set
w(x) = e−μ|x| − e−μR

2 2
and
v(x) = u(x) − u(x0 ) + εw(x).
We consider w and v in D = BR \ B̄R/2 .
A direct calculation yields

Lw = e−μ|x| 4μ2 aij xi xj − 2μaij δij − 2μbi xi + c − ce−μR
2 2

≥ e−μ|x|
2
4μ2 aij xi xj − 2μ aij δij + bi xi + c ,
where we used c ≤ 0 in BR . By the strict ellipticity (1.1.2), we have

1
aij (x)xi xj ≥ λ|x|2 ≥ λR2 in D.
4
Hence,

Lw ≥ e−μ|x|
2
μ2 λR2 − 2μ aij δij + bi xi + c ≥ 0 in D
if we choose μ sufficiently large. By c ≤ 0 and u(x0 ) ≥ 0, we obtain, for any

ε > 0,
Lv = Lu + εLw − cu(x0 ) ≥ 0 in D.
Next, we discuss v on ∂D in two cases. First, on ∂BR/2 , we have u−u(x0 ) <
0, and hence u−u(x0 ) < −ε for some ε > 0, by the continuity of u on ∂BR/2 .
Note that w < 1 on ∂BR/2 . Then for such an ε, we obtain v < 0 on ∂BR/2 .
Second, on ∂BR , we have w = 0 and u ≤ u(x0 ). Hence, v ≤ 0 on ∂BR and
v(x0 ) = 0. Therefore, v ≤ 0 on ∂D.
In conclusion, Lv ≥ 0 in D and v ≤ 0 on ∂D. By the maximum principle,
we have
v≤0 in D.
In view of v(x0 ) = 0, v attains at x0 its maximum in D̄. Hence, we obtain

∂v
(x0 ) ≥ 0,
∂ν
and then
∂u ∂w
(x0 ) = 2εμRe−μR > 0.
2
(x0 ) ≥ −ε
∂ν ∂ν
This is the desired result.
Theorem 1.1.6 still holds if we substitute for B any bounded C 1 -domain

which satisfies an interior sphere condition at x0 ∈ ∂Ω, namely, if there
exists a ball B ⊂ Ω with x0 ∈ ∂B. This is because such a ball B is tangent
to ∂Ω at x0 . We note that the interior sphere condition always holds for
C 2 -domains.
Now, we are ready to prove the strong maximum principle due to Hopf
[84].
(1.1.1), for some aij , bi , c ∈ C(Ω) satisfying c ≤ 0 in Ω and (1.1.2). Suppose
that u ∈ C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω) satisfies Lu ≥ 0 in Ω. Then, u attains only on ∂Ω
its nonnegative maximum in Ω̄ unless u is constant.
Proof. Let M be the nonnegative maximum of u in Ω̄ and set

D = {x ∈ Ω : u(x) = M }.
We prove either D = ∅ or D = Ω by contradiction. Suppose D is a nonempty
proper subset of Ω. It follows from the continuity of u that D is relatively
closed in Ω. Then, Ω \ D is open and we can find an open ball B ⊂ Ω \ D
such that ∂B ∩ D = ∅. In fact, we may choose a point x∗ ∈ Ω \ D with
dist(x∗ , D) < dist(x∗ , ∂Ω) and then take the ball centered at x∗ with the
radius dist(x∗ , D). Suppose x0 ∈ ∂B ∩ D. Obviously, we have
Lu ≥ 0 in B
and
u(x) < u(x0 ) for any x ∈ B and u(x0 ) = M ≥ 0.
By Theorem 1.1.6, we have
∂u
(x0 ) > 0,
∂ν
where ν is the exterior unit normal to B at x0 . On the other hand, x0 is
an interior maximum point of u in Ω. This implies ∇u(x0 ) = 0, which leads
to a contradiction. Therefore, either D = ∅ or D = Ω. In the first case, u
attains only on ∂Ω its nonnegative maximum in Ω̄, while in the second case,
u is constant in Ω.
The following result improves Corollary 1.1.3.

(1.1.1), for some aij , bi , c ∈ C(Ω) satisfying c ≤ 0 in Ω and (1.1.2). Suppose
that u ∈ C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω) satisfies Lu ≥ 0 in Ω and u ≤ 0 on ∂Ω. Then, either
u < 0 in Ω or u ≡ 0 in Ω.
1.1.3. A Priori Estimates. As Corollary 1.1.5 shows, an important ap-

plication of the maximum principle is to prove the uniqueness of solutions
of boundary-value problems. Equally or more important is to derive a priori
estimates. In derivations of a priori estimates, it is essential to construct
auxiliary functions. We will provide proofs of all results in this subsection,
as constructing auxiliary functions is an important technique we will develop
in this book. We point out that we need only the weak maximum principle
in this subsection.
We first derive an estimate for subsolutions. In the next result, we write
u+ = max{u, 0} as before and f − = max{−f, 0}.
(1.1.2). Suppose that u ∈ C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω) satisfies
Lu ≥ f in Ω,
for some f ∈ L∞ (Ω) ∩ C(Ω). Then,
sup u ≤ max u+ + Cd2 sup f − ,
Ω ∂Ω Ω
where d = diam(Ω) and C is a positive constant depending only on n, λ,

and d|bi |L∞ (Ω) , for i = 1, . . . , n.
Proof. Set
F = sup f − , Φ = max u+ .
Ω ∂Ω
Then, Lu ≥ −F in Ω and u ≤ Φ on ∂Ω. Without loss of generality, we

assume Ω ⊂ {0 < x1 < d} for some constant d > 0. For some constant
μ > 0 to be chosen later, set
μx1

v = Φ + d2 eμ − e d F.
We note that v ≥ Φ in Ω̄. Next, by a straightforward calculation and c ≤ 0

in Ω, we have
μx1
μx1

Lv = −(a11 μ2 + db1 μ)F e d + cΦ + cd2 eμ − e d F
≤ −(a11 μ2 + db1 μ)F.
Note that a11 ≥ λ in Ω by the strict ellipticity (1.1.2). We choose μ large

so that
a11 μ2 + db1 μ ≥ 1 in Ω.
Then, Lv ≤ −F in Ω. Therefore,
Lu ≥ Lv in Ω,
u≤v on ∂Ω.
By the maximum principle, we obtain
u≤v in Ω,
and hence, for any x ∈ Ω,
μx1

u(x) ≤ Φ + d2 eμ − e d F.
This yields the desired result.
The function v in the proof above is what we called an auxiliary function.

In fact, auxiliary functions were already used in the proof of Theorem 1.1.6.
If L in Theorem 1.1.9 does not involve the lower-order terms, i.e., L =
aij ∂ij , we may take
1
v =Φ+ F (d2 − x21 ).
2λ
In this case, a simple calculation yields
1
Lv = − a11 F ≤ −F,
λ
where we used the strict ellipticity (1.1.2).
By replacing u with −u, Theorem 1.1.9 extends to supersolutions and
solutions of the equation Lu = f .

(1.1.2). Suppose that u is a C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω)-solution of
Lu = f in Ω,
u=ϕ on ∂Ω,
for some f ∈ L∞ (Ω) ∩ C(Ω) and ϕ ∈ C(∂Ω). Then,
sup |u| ≤ max |ϕ| + C sup |f |,
Ω ∂Ω Ω
where C is a positive constant depending only on n, λ, diam(Ω), and the

sup-norms of bi .
Next, we construct barrier functions for a large class of domains Ω and

discuss global properties of solutions. The geometry of ∂Ω plays an impor-
tant role. We consider the case where Ω satisfies an exterior sphere condition
at x0 ∈ ∂Ω in the sense that there exists a ball BR (y0 ) such that
Ω ∩ BR (y0 ) = ∅, Ω̄ ∩ B̄R (y0 ) = {x0 }.
Lemma 1.1.11. Let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn satisfying an exterior
sphere condition at x0 ∈ ∂Ω and L be given by (1.1.1), for some aij , bi ,
c ∈ L∞ (Ω) ∩ C(Ω) satisfying c ≤ 0 in Ω and (1.1.3). Then, there exists a
function wx0 ∈ C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω) such that
Lwx0 ≤ −1 in Ω
and, for any x ∈ Ω̄ \ {x0 },
wx0 (x0 ) = 0, wx0 (x) > 0,
where wx0 depends only on n, λ, Λ, the L∞ -norms of bi , diam(Ω), and R
in the exterior sphere condition.
Proof. Set D = diam(Ω). For the given x0 ∈ ∂Ω, consider an exterior ball
BR (y) with B̄R (y) ∩ Ω̄ = {x0 }. Let d(x) be the distance from x to ∂BR (y);
i.e.,
d(x) = |x − y| − R.
Then, for any x ∈ Ω,
0 < d(x) < D.
Consider a C 2 -function ψ defined in [0, D), with ψ(0) = 0 and ψ > 0 in
(0, D). Set
w = ψ(d) in Ω.
We now calculate Lw. A direct calculation yields
xi − yi
∂i d(x) = ,
|x − y|
δij (xi − yi )(xj − yj )
∂ij d(x) = − .
|x − y| |x − y|3
Hence, |∇d| = 1, aij ∂i d∂j d ≥ λ, and
1 1
aij ∂ij d = aij δij − aij ∂i d∂j d
|x − y| |x − y|
nΛ λ nΛ − λ nΛ − λ
≤ − = ≤ .
|x − y| |x − y| |x − y| R
Next,
∂i w = ψ ∂i d, ∂ij w = ψ ∂i d∂j d + ψ ∂ij d.
Then,
Lw = ψ aij ∂i d∂j d + ψ (aij ∂ij d + bi ∂i d) + cψ.
We now require ψ > 0 and ψ < 0. Hence,

nΛ − λ
Lw ≤ λψ + + b0 ψ ,
R
where
1

n 2
b0 = sup b2i .
Ω i=1
We write this as
Lw ≤ λ ψ + aψ + b − 1,
where
nΛ − λ b0 1
a= + , b= .
λR λ λ
We need to find a function ψ in [0, D) such that
ψ + aψ + b = 0 in (0, D),

ψ < 0, ψ > 0 in (0, D), and ψ(0) = 0.
First, general solutions of the ordinary differential equation above are given
by
b C2 −ad
ψ(d) = − d + C1 − e ,
a a
for some constants C1 and C2 . For ψ(0) = 0, we need C1 = C2 /a. Hence
we have, for some constant C,
b C
ψ(d) = − d + (1 − e−ad ),
a a
which implies

b b
ψ (d) = Ce−ad − = e−ad C − ead ,
a a
ψ (d) = −Cae−ad .
b aD
In order to have ψ > 0 in (0, D), we need C ≥ e . Then, ψ > 0 in
a
(0, D), and hence ψ > ψ(0) = 0 in (0, D). Therefore, we take
b b
ψ(d) = − d + 2 eaD (1 − e−ad )
a
a
b 1 aD −ad
= e (1 − e ) − d .
a a
Such a ψ satisfies all the requirements we imposed.
Now we estimate the modulus of continuity of solutions with the help of

barrier functions constructed in Lemma 1.1.11.
Theorem 1.1.12. Let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn satisfying an exterior

c ∈ L∞ (Ω) ∩ C(Ω) satisfying (1.1.3). Suppose that u is a C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω)-
solution of
Lu = f in Ω,
u=ϕ on ∂Ω,
for some f ∈ L∞ (Ω) ∩ C(Ω) and ϕ ∈ C(∂Ω). Then, for any x ∈ Ω,
|u(x) − u(x0 )| ≤ ω(|x − x0 |),
where ω is a nondecreasing continuous function in (0, D), with D = diam(Ω)
and limr→0 ω(r) = 0, depending only on n, λ, Λ, the L∞ -norms of bi and c,
diam(Ω), R in the exterior sphere condition, supΩ |u|, max∂Ω |ϕ|, supΩ |f |,
and the modulus of continuity of ϕ on ∂Ω.
Proof. Set
L0 = aij ∂ij + bi ∂i .
Then, L0 u = f − cu in Ω. Let w = wx0 be the function in Lemma 1.1.11 for
L0 , i.e.,
L0 w ≤ −1 in Ω,
and, for any x ∈ ∂Ω \ {x0 },
w(x0 ) = 0, w(x) > 0.
We set
F = sup |f − cu|, Φ = max |ϕ|.
Ω ∂Ω
Then,
L0 (±u) ≥ −F in Ω.
Let ε be an arbitrary positive constant. By the continuity of ϕ at x0 , there
exists a positive constant δ such that, for any x ∈ ∂Ω ∩ Bδ (x0 ),
|ϕ(x) − ϕ(x0 )| ≤ ε.
We then choose K sufficiently large so that K ≥ F and
Kw ≥ 2Φ on ∂Ω \ Bδ (x0 ).
We point out that K depends on ε through the positive lower bound of w
on ∂Ω \ Bδ (x0 ). Then,
L0 (Kw) ≤ −F in Ω,
and
|ϕ − ϕ(x0 )| ≤ ε + Kw on ∂Ω.
Therefore,
L0 ± (u − ϕ(x0 )) ≥ L0 (ε + Kw) in Ω,
± u − ϕ(x0 ) ≤ ε + Kw on ∂Ω.
By the maximum principle, we have ± u−ϕ(x0 ) ≤ ε +Kw in Ω, and hence
|u − ϕ(x0 )| ≤ ε + Kw in Ω.
Note that the second term in the right-hand side converges to zero as x → x0 .
Then, there exists a positive constant δ < δ such that
|u − ϕ(x0 )| ≤ 2ε in Ω ∩ Bδ (x0 ).
This yields the desired result.
Remark 1.1.13. It is clear from the proof that Theorem 1.1.12 is a local
result. If we assume that ϕ is continuous at x0 ∈ ∂Ω and, in addition, u
is bounded in a neighborhood of x0 , then we can estimate the modulus of
continuity of u at x0 .
By a similar method as in the proof of Theorem 1.1.12, we can derive a

boundary gradient estimate.
Theorem 1.1.14. Let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn satisfying an exterior

c ∈ L∞ (Ω) ∩ C(Ω) satisfying (1.1.3). Suppose that u is a C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω)-
solution of
Lu = f in Ω,
u=ϕ on ∂Ω,
for some f ∈ L∞ (Ω) ∩ C(Ω) and ϕ ∈ C 2 (Ω̄). Then, for any x ∈ Ω,

|u(x) − u(x0 )| ≤ C sup |u| + |ϕ|C 2 (Ω̄) + sup |f | |x − x0 |,
Ω Ω
where C is a positive constant depending only on n, λ, Λ, the L∞ -norms of

bi and c, diam(Ω), and R in the exterior sphere condition.
If ∂Ω is C 1 at x0 and u is C 1 at x0 , taking the normal derivative at x0 ,

we obtain

∂u
(x0 ) ≤ C sup |u| + |ϕ| 2 + sup |f | .
∂ν C (Ω̄)
Ω Ω
Proof. Set
Then, L0 u = f − cu in Ω. By setting v = u − ϕ, we have
L0 v = f − cu − L0 ϕ in Ω,
v = 0 on ∂Ω.
Next, we set
F = sup |f − cu − L0 ϕ|.
Ω
Then,
L0 (±v) ≥ −F in Ω,
±v = 0 on ∂Ω.
Let w = wx0 be the function in Lemma 1.1.11 for L0 , i.e.,
L0 w ≤ −1 in Ω,
and, for any x ∈ ∂Ω \ {x0 },
w(x0 ) = 0, w(x) > 0.
Then,
L0 (±v) ≥ L0 (F w) in Ω,
±v ≤ F w on ∂Ω.
By the maximum principle, we have ±v ≤ F w in Ω, and hence
|v| ≤ F w in Ω.
With v = u − ϕ and u(x0 ) = ϕ(x0 ), we obtain
|u − u(x0 )| ≤ |u − ϕ| + |ϕ − ϕ(x0 )| ≤ F w + |ϕ − ϕ(x0 )|.
This implies the desired result.
A remark similar to Remark 1.1.13 holds for Theorem 1.1.14.

It does not seem optimal to require ϕ to be C 2 in Theorem 1.1.14. It
is natural to ask whether the result holds if ϕ ∈ C 1 (∂Ω). However, C 1 -
boundary values in general do not yield boundary gradient estimates, even
for harmonic functions in balls. It is a good exercise to derive the best
modulus of continuity for harmonic functions in balls with C 1 -boundary
values.
To end this section, we derive an estimate of the Hölder semi-norms near
the boundary.
Theorem 1.1.15. Let α ∈ (0, 1) be a constant, Ω be a bounded domain in

Rn satisfying an exterior sphere condition at x0 ∈ ∂Ω, and L be given by
(1.1.1), for some aij , bi , c ∈ L∞ (Ω) ∩ C(Ω) satisfying (1.1.3). Suppose that
u is a C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω)-solution of
Lu = f in Ω,
u=ϕ on ∂Ω,
for some f ∈ L∞ (Ω) ∩ C(Ω) and ϕ ∈ C(∂Ω) satisfying, for any x ∈ ∂Ω,
|ϕ(x) − ϕ(x0 )| ≤ Φα |x − x0 |α ,
for some positive constant Φα . Then, for any x ∈ Ω,

α
|u(x) − u(x0 )| ≤ C sup |u| + Φα + sup |f | |x − x0 | 1+α ,
Ω Ω
where C is a positive constant depending only on n, α, λ, Λ, the L∞ -norms

of bi and c, diam(Ω), and R in the exterior sphere condition.
Proof. Set
Then, L0 u = f − cu in Ω. Next, we set
M = sup |u|, F = sup |f − cu|.
Ω Ω
Hence,
L0 ± (u − u(x0 )) ≥ −F in Ω.
Now, we take a ball BR (y0 ) ⊂ Rn
such that Ω̄ ∩ B̄R (y0 ) = {x0 }. Then, for
any r ∈ (0, R], we take y ∈ R such that Ω̄ ∩ B̄r (y) = {x0 }. Note that
n
r < |x − y| < 2r for any x ∈ Ω ∩ B2r (y).

For any x ∈ ∂Ω ∩ B2r (y), we have
|u(x) − u(x0 )| ≤ Φα |x − x0 |α ≤ (3r)α Φα ,
where we used the triangle inequality |x − x0 | ≤ |x − y| + |y − x0 | ≤ 3r. On
Ω ∩ ∂B2r (y), we simply have
|u − u(x0 )| ≤ 2M.
Therefore,
L0 ± (u − u(x0 )) ≥ −F in Ω ∩ B2r (y),
± u − u(x0 ) ≤ (3r) Φα α
on ∂Ω ∩ B2r (y),
± u − u(x0 ) ≤ 2M on Ω ∩ ∂B2r (y).
It is worth pointing out that r will vary later on.
Set, for some positive constant μ to be determined,

rμ
v(x) = 1 − .
|x − y|μ
Then, 0 < v < 1 in Ω ∩ B2r (y). A straightforward calculation yields, for any
i, j = 1, . . . , n,
∂i v = μrμ |x − y|−μ−2 (xi − yi ),

(xi − yi )(xj − yj )
∂ij v = μrμ |x − y|−μ−2 −(μ + 2) + δ ij ,
|x − y|2
and hence,

−μ−2 aij (xi − yi )(xj − yj )
L0 v = μr |x − y|
μ
− (μ + 2)
|x − y|2

+ δij aij + bi (xi − yi ) .
By the uniform ellipticity (1.1.3), we get

μrμ
L0 v ≤ − (μ + 2)λ + nΛ + 2rb0 in Ω ∩ B2r (y),
|x − y|μ+2
where

n 1
2
b0 = sup b2i .
Ω i=1
By choosing μ ≥ 1 sufficiently large, depending only on n, λ, Λ, b0 , and R,
we have
rμ 1 1
L0 v ≤ − ≤ − μ+2 2 ≤ − μ+2 2 in Ω ∩ B2r (y).
|x − y| μ+2 2 r 2 R
For some positive constant A to be determined, we set
w = Av + (3r)α Φα .
First, we have
A
L0 w = AL0 v ≤ − in Ω ∩ B2r (y).
2μ+2 R2
To have L0 ± (u − u(x0 )) ≥ L0 w in Ω ∩ B2r (y), we require A ≥ 2μ+2 R2 F .
Next, it is obvious that ±(u − u(x0 )) ≤ w on ∂Ω ∩ B2r (y) for any A > 0
since v ≥ 0 there. Last, for any x ∈ Ω ∩ ∂B2r (y), we have
rμ 1 1
v(x) = 1 − =1− μ ≥ ,
|x − y|μ 2 2
as long as μ ≥ 1. Hence, to have ±(u − u(x0 )) ≤ w on Ω ∩ ∂B2r (y), we
require A ≥ 4M . Therefore, we take
A = 2μ+2 R2 F + 4M.
Then,
L0 ± (u − u(x0 )) ≥ L0 w in Ω ∩ B2r (y),
± u − u(x0 ) ≤ w on ∂(Ω ∩ B2r (y)).
By the maximum principle, we obtain ± u − u(x0 ) ≤ w in Ω ∩ B2r (y), and
hence
|u − u(x0 )| ≤ w in Ω ∩ B2r (y).
This implies, for any x ∈ Ω ∩ B2r (y),

rμ
|u(x) − u(x0 )| ≤ A 1 − + 3rα Φα .
|x − y|μ
By the inequality 1 − tμ ≤ μ(1 − t) for any t ∈ (0, 1), we obtain, for any
x ∈ Ω ∩ B2r (y),

rμ r μ(|x − y| − r)
1− ≤ μ 1 − ≤
|x − y|μ |x − y| |x − y|
μ|x − x0 | μ|x − x0 |
≤ ≤ ,
|x − y| r
where we used the triangle inequality and |x0 − y| = r. Therefore, for any
x ∈ Ω ∩ B2r (y),
|x − x0 |
|u(x) − u(x0 )| ≤ μA + 3rα Φα .
r
Now, we fix an x ∈ Ω and set R0 = min{1, R}. If |x − x0 | < R01+α , take

r such that |x − x0 | = r1+α . Obviously, r < R0 . With the ball Br (y) chosen
as above with Ω̄ ∩ B̄r (y) = {x0 }, we have
|x − y| ≤ |x − x0 | + |x0 − y| ≤ r1+α + r < 2r.
Therefore, x ∈ Ω ∩ B2r (y) and hence

α
|u(x) − u(x0 )| ≤ (μA + 3Φα )rα = (μA + 3Φα )|x − x0 | 1+α .
If |x − x0 | ≥ R01+α , then
2M α
|u(x) − u(x0 )| ≤ 2M ≤ α |x − x0 | 1+α .
R0
Hence, we have the desired estimate.
The power α/(1 + α) does not seem optimal. However, the present form
is sufficient for applications later on.
1.2. Krylov-Safonov’s Harnack Inequality 23
1.2. Krylov-Safonov’s Harnack Inequality

The Harnack inequality is an important result in the theory of elliptic dif-
ferential equations of the second order and plays a fundamental role in the
study of nonlinear elliptic differential equations. In this section, we review
the Harnack inequality due to Krylov and Safonov. Refer to Chapter 9 of
[59] for details.
1.2.1. Aleksandrov’s Maximum Principle. We first prove a maximum

principle due to Aleksandrov, which yields an estimate of solutions in terms
of integral norms of nonhomogeneous terms. To do this, we need to introduce
the concept of contact sets.
For any u ∈ C(Ω), we define
Γ+ = y ∈ Ω : u(x) ≤ u(y) + p · (x − y)

for any x ∈ Ω and some p = p(y) ∈ Rn .
The set Γ+ is called the upper contact set of u. Clearly, u is concave if and
only if Γ+ = Ω. If u ∈ C 1 (Ω), then p(y) = ∇u(y) for y ∈ Γ+ . In this case,
any support hyperplane must be a tangent plane to the graph, and
Γ+ = {y ∈ Ω : u(x) ≤ u(y) + ∇u(y) · (x − y) for any x ∈ Ω} .
If u ∈ C 2 (Ω), the Hessian matrix ∇2 u = (∂ij u) is negative semi-definite in

Γ+ . Lower contact sets can be defined similarly.
We first prove a result on the maximum of positive parts of C 2 -functions.
Lemma 1.2.1. Let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn and g ∈ L1loc (Rn ) be

nonnegative. Then, for any u ∈ C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω),

g(p) dp ≤ g(∇u)| det ∇2 u| dx,
BM/d Γ+
where Γ+ is the upper contact set of u, M = supΩ u − max∂Ω u+ , and

d = diam(Ω).
Proof. Without loss of generality, we assume u ≤ 0 on ∂Ω. Set Ω+ =

{u > 0}. By the area-formula for ∇u in Γ+ ∩ Ω+ ⊂ Ω, we have

(1) g(p) dp ≤ g(∇u)| det(∇2 u)| dx,
∇u(Γ+ ∩Ω+ ) Γ+ ∩Ω+
where | det(∇2 u)| is the Jacobian of the map ∇u : Ω → Rn . In fact, we may

consider χε = ∇u−εId : Ω → Rn , where Id is the identity map in Rn . Then,
∇χε = ∇2 u − εI, which is negative definite in Γ+ and hence injective. By a
change of variables, we have

g(p) dp = g(χε )| det(∇2 u − εI)| dx.
χε (Γ+ ∩Ω+ ) Γ+ ∩Ω+
This implies (1) if we let ε → 0.

We assume M = supΩ u > 0. Now, we claim
(2) BM/d ⊂ ∇u(Γ+ ∩ Ω+ ).
In other words, for any a ∈ Rn with |a| < M/d, there exists an x ∈ Γ+ ∩ Ω+
such that a = ∇u(x).
We assume u attains its maximum M at 0 ∈ Ω; i.e.,
u(0) = M.
For any a ∈ Rn with |a| < M/d, consider
ua (x) = u(x) − a · x.
First, we have ua (0) = M and, for any x ∈ ∂Ω,
ua (x) ≤ −a · x < M.
Hence, ua attains its maximum at some xa ∈ Ω, with ua (xa ) ≥ M . Then,
u(xa ) = ua (xa ) + a · xa ≥ M + a · xa > 0,
and, for any x ∈ Ω,
u(x) = ua (x) + a · x ≤ ua (xa ) + a · x = u(xa ) + a · (x − xa ).
Hence, xa ∈ Γ+ ∩ Ω+ and a = ∇u(xa ).
By combining (1) and (2), we have

g(p) dp ≤ g(∇u)| det(∇2 u)| dx.
BM/d Γ+ ∩Ω+
This is the desired result.
In fact, the proof above can be interpreted geometrically. For any a ∈

Rn \ {0} with |a| < M/d, we consider the affine function l(x) = M − a · x;
the graph of l has the slope a and the value M at the origin. Note that l
assumes positive values on the boundary by the choice of a. By moving the
graph of l upward vertically, we assume it touches the graph of u at xa for
the last time. In other words, if we move the graph of l further upward,
then it will never touch the graph of u. Then, xa ∈ Γ+ .
We note that the integral domain Γ+ in Lemma 1.2.1 can be replaced
by
Γ ∩ x ∈ Ω : u(x) > max u .
+ +
∂Ω
This is clear from the proof.
A special case of Lemma 1.2.1 is given by the following result.

Corollary 1.2.2. Let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn . Then, for any u ∈
C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω),
1
d n
sup u ≤ max u + √
+
| det ∇ u| dx
2
,
Ω ∂Ω n ωn Γ+
where Γ+ is the upper contact set of u, d = diam(Ω), and ωn is the volume

of the unit ball B1 in Rn .
Proof. The desired result follows from Lemma 1.2.1 by taking g = 1.
In Corollary 1.2.2, we estimated the sup-norm of a function. We now

improve such an estimate for values at any point in terms of its distance to
the boundary. For simplicity, we consider only concave functions in convex
domains.
Lemma 1.2.3. Let Ω be a bounded convex domain in Rn and u be a concave
C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω)-function with u = 0 on ∂Ω. Then, for any x0 ∈ Ω,

n
u(x0 ) ≤ C(diam(Ω))n−1 dist(x0 , ∂Ω) | det ∇2 u| dx,
Ω
where C is a positive constant depending only on n.
Proof. By the concavity, we have u ≥ 0 in Ω. We assume u > 0 in Ω. By

taking g = 1 in (1) in the proof of Lemma 1.2.1, we have

(1) |∇u(Ω)| ≤ | det(∇2 u)| dx.
Ω
For any given x0 ∈ Ω, let v be the concave function whose graph is the cone
with vertex (x0 , u(x0 )) and base ∂Ω, with v = 0 on ∂Ω. In fact, v can be
defined in the following way. For any x ∈ ∂Ω and t ∈ [0, 1], define
v tx0 + (1 − t)
x = tu(x0 ).
In particular, v(x0 ) = u(x0 ). By the concavity of u and u = v = 0 on ∂Ω,
we have v ≤ u in Ω. Set
S = {p ∈ Rn : v(x) ≤ v(x0 ) + p · (x − x0 ) in Ω}.
In other words, S is the collection of slopes of the supporting planes of the
graph of v at (x0 , v(x0 )). As in the proof of Lemma 1.2.1, we can prove
(2) S ⊂ ∇u(Ω).
Set D = diam(Ω) and d = dist(x0 , ∂Ω). We claim

v(x0 ) n−1 v(x0 )
(3) · ≤ C|S|,
D d
where C is a positive constant depending only on n. Then, the desired result

follows from (1), (2), and (3).
We now prove (3). First, by the definition of v, we have, for any p ∈
Bv(x0 )/D and any x ∈ Ω,
v(x) ≤ v(x0 ) + p · (x − x0 ).
Hence,
(4) Bv(x0 )/D ⊂ S.
Next, we note that
(5) there exists a p0 ∈ S such that |p0 | = v(x0 )/d.
To see this, we take a x ∈ ∂Ω with | x − x0 | = d and a supporting plane
H of Ω at x in Rn . The existence of such an H follows from the convexity
of Ω. The hyperplane in Rn+1 generated by H and the point (x0 , v(x0 )) is
a supporting plane of the graph of v with the slope p0 . This verifies (5).
Last, by the definition of S, we note that S is a convex set. By combining
(4), (5), and |p0 | ≥ v(x0 )/D, we conclude that S contains the convex hull
of Bv(x0 )/D and p0 . A geometric argument yields

v(x0 ) n−1
C · |p0 | ≤ |S|.
D
This proves (3).
Next, we relate det ∇2 u in Lemma 1.2.1 to subsolutions of linear differ-

ential equations.
Lemma 1.2.4. Let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn and g ∈ L1loc (Rn ) be
nonnegative. Assume aij ∈ C(Ω), with aij = aji , such that aij (x) is

positive definite for any x ∈ Ω, with D ∗ = n det(aij ). Suppose that u ∈
C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω) satisfies
aij ∂ij u ≥ f in Ω,
for some f ∈ C(Ω) with f /D ∗ ∈ Ln (Ω). Then,
−
− n
f
g(p) dp ≤ g(∇u) ,
BM/d Γ+ nD ∗
where Γ+ is the upper contact set of u, M = supΩ u − max∂Ω u+ , and
d = diam(Ω).
Proof. Since the matrix A = (aij ) is positive definite, we have

−aij ∂ij u n
det(A) · det(−∇ u) ≤
2
on Γ+ .
n
Then, the desired result follows from Lemma 1.2.1.
Now, we are ready to prove the maximum principle due to Alexandrov

[1], [2], which yields an estimate of the L∞ -norms of solutions in terms of
Ln -norms of nonhomogeneous terms. This is different from the maximum
principle we discussed in Section 1.1, where we estimated the L∞ -norms of
solutions in terms of L∞ -norms of nonhomogeneous terms.
Theorem 1.2.5. Let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn . Assume aij ∈ C(Ω),
with aij = aji , such that aij (x) is positive definite for any x ∈ Ω, with

D ∗ = n det(aij ). Suppose that u ∈ C(Ω̄) ∩ C 2 (Ω) satisfies
aij ∂ij u ≥ f in Ω,
for some f ∈ C(Ω) with f − /D ∗ ∈ Ln (Ω). Then,
−
f
sup u ≤ max u + Cd
+
D∗ n + ,
Ω ∂Ω L (Γ )
where Γ+ is the upper contact set of u, d = diam(Ω), and C is a positive

constant depending only on n.
Proof. We simply take g = 1 in Lemma 1.2.4.

Remark 1.2.6. (i) The integral domain Γ+ in Theorem 1.2.5 can be re-
placed by
Γ ∩ x ∈ Ω : u(x) > max u .
+ +
∂Ω
(ii) The uniform ellipticity is not needed in Theorem 1.2.5. This is

important in applications to certain nonlinear elliptic equations, including
the mean curvature equation and the Monge-Ampère equation.
1.2.2. The Harnack Inequality. In this subsection, we derive the Har-

nack inequality for positive solutions of uniformly elliptic differential equa-
tions and discuss its corollaries. We will focus on a priori estimates instead
of the regularity. Our assumptions are more than what we need.
We let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn and let aij be continuous functions
in Ω, with aij = aji . We consider the linear differential operator L given by
(1.2.1) Lu = aij ∂ij u in Ω,
for any u ∈ C 2 (Ω). The operator L is always assumed to be uniformly
elliptic in Ω; namely, for any x ∈ Ω and ξ ∈ Rn ,
(1.2.2) λ|ξ|2 ≤ aij (x)ξi ξj ≤ Λ|ξ|2 ,
for some positive constants λ and Λ, which are usually called the ellipticity
constants. This means that all eigenvalues of the matrix aij (x) are between
√
λ and Λ. We also set D = det(aij ) and D ∗ = n D. Hence, D ∗ is the
geometric mean of the eigenvalues of (aij ). The uniform ellipticity (1.2.2)

implies
(1.2.3) λ ≤ D ∗ ≤ Λ.
First, we derive an upper bound for subsolutions.

Theorem 1.2.7. Let BR be a ball in Rn and L be given by (1.2.1) in BR , for
some aij ∈ C(BR ) satisfying (1.2.2). Suppose that u ∈ L∞ (BR ) ∩ C 2 (BR )
satisfies Lu ≥ f in BR , for some f ∈ Ln (BR )∩C(BR ). Then, for any p > 0,
n
−
sup u ≤ C R p u+ Lp (BR ) + R f − Ln (BR ) ,
BR/2
where C is a positive constant depending only on n, p, λ, and Λ.
Proof. Without loss of generality, we consider R = 1. We first introduce a

cutoff function. For any constant β ≥ 1, we define
η(x) = (1 − |x|2 )β in B1 .
By simple differentiations, we obtain
∂i η(x) = −2βxi (1 − |x|2 )β−1
and
∂ij η(x) = −2βδij (1 − |x|2 )β−1 + 4β(β − 1)xi xj (1 − |x|2 )β−2 .
Hence,
1− β1
|∇η(x)| = 2β|x|(1 − |x|2 )β−1 ≤ 2βη ,
and
Lη = 4β(β − 1)aij xi xj (1 − |x|2 )β−2 − 2βaij δij (1 − |x|2 )β−1 .
Setting w = ηu, we have
Lw = ηLu + uLη + 2aij ∂i η∂j u.
Consider the upper contact set Γ+ of w in B1 . We clearly have w > 0 in Γ+
since w = 0 on ∂B1 . Hence, for any x ∈ Γ+ ,
w(x) 2w(x)
|∇w(x)| ≤ ≤ ,
1 − |x| 1 − |x|2
which implies

1 1 2w −1− β1
|∇u(x)| = |∇w − u∇η| ≤ + u|∇η| ≤ 2(1 + β)η w.
η η 1 − |x|2
Then in Γ+ , we have
− β2
|aij ∂i η∂j u| ≤ Λ|∇u||∇η| ≤ 4β(1 + β)Λη w.
Note that we also have u > 0 in Γ+ . Hence,

uLη = −2βuaij δij (1 − |x|2 )β−1 + 4β(β − 1)uaij xi xj (1 − |x|2 )β−2
≥ −2βuaij δij (1 − |x|2 )β−1
1− β1 − β1
≥ −2βnΛuη = −2nΛβwη
− β2
≥ −2nΛβwη .
Therefore, we obtain
− β2 − β2
Lw ≥ −Cη w − ηf − ≥ − Cη w + f− on Γ+ ,
where C is a positive constant depending only on n, β, λ, and Λ. For β ≥ 2,
by applying Theorem 1.2.5, we obtain

−2
sup w+ ≤ C η β w+ Ln (B1 ) + f − Ln (B1 ) .
B1
1− 2 2
Now writing w+ = (w+ ) β (w+ ) β , we have
1− 2
β 2
sup w ≤ C
+
sup w +
(u+ ) β Ln (B1 ) + f− Ln (B1 ) .
B1 B1
By choosing β > 2 and applying Young’s inequality, we get

2 β
−
sup w ≤ C (u ) Ln (B1 ) + f Ln (B1 )
+ + β 2
B1

+ −
=C u 2n + f Ln (B1 ) .
L β (B )
1
For β > 2, we have 2n/β ∈ (0, n). Hence, for any p ∈ (0, n),

sup w+ ≤ C u+ Lp (B1 ) + f − Ln (B1 ) .
B1
We apply the Hölder inequality to get the desired result for p ≥ n.
By replacing u with −u, Theorem 1.2.7 extends to supersolutions and

solutions of the equation Lu = f.
Corollary 1.2.8. Let BR be a ball in Rn and L be given by (1.2.1) in BR ,
for some aij ∈ C(BR ) satisfying (1.2.2). Suppose that u is an L∞ (BR ) ∩
C 2 (BR )-solution of
Lu = f in BR ,
for some f ∈ Ln (BR ) ∩ C(BR ). Then, for any p > 0,
n
−
|u|L∞ (BR/2 ) ≤ C R p u Lp (BR ) + R f Ln (BR ) ,
where C is a positive constant depending only on n, p, λ, and Λ.

Now, we turn our attention to supersolutions. We first introduce the

Calderon-Zygmund decomposition. For any x ∈ Rn and r > 0, we define
r
Qr (x) = y ∈ Rn : |yi − xi | ≤ for any i = 1, . . . , n .
2
For x = 0, we simply write Qr instead.
Take the unit cube Q1 . Cut it equally into 2n cubes, which we take as the
first generation. Do the same cutting for these small cubes to get the second
generation. Continue this process. These cubes (from all generations) are
called dyadic cubes. Any cube Q in the (k + 1)th-generation arises from
some cube Q in the kth-generation, which is called the predecessor of Q.
Lemma 1.2.9. Suppose that f is a nonnegative L1 (Q1 )-function and that

δ is a constant such that

1
f dx < δ.
|Q1 | Q1
Then, there exists a sequence of (nonoverlapping) dyadic cubes {Qj } in Q1
such that
f ≤ δ a.e. in Q1 \ Qj
j
and
1
δ≤ f dx < 2n δ.
|Qj | Qj
Proof. Cut Q1 into 2n dyadic cubes and keep the cube Q if

1
(1) f dx ≥ δ.
|Q| Q
Continue cutting for others, and always keep the cube Q if (1) is satisfied
and cut the rest. Let {Qj } be the cubes we have kept during this infinite
process. We need only verify

(2) f ≤ δ a.e. in Q1 \ Qj .
j

For any x ∈ Q1 \ j Qj , from the way we collect {Qj }, there exists a sequence

of cubes Qj containing x such that

1
f dx < δ
|Qj | Qj
and

diam(Qj ) → 0 as j → ∞.
Then, (2) follows from the Lebesgue density theorem.
Next, we prove a consequence of the Calderon-Zygmund decomposition,

which will be needed in the proof of the weak Harnack inequality.
Lemma 1.2.10. Suppose that A and B are measurable sets such that A ⊂
B ⊂ Q1 and
(1) |A| < δ for some δ ∈ (0, 1);
⊂ B for the
(2) for any dyadic cube Q, |A ∩ Q| ≥ δ|Q| implies Q
of Q.
predecessor Q
Then,
|A| ≤ δ|B|.
Proof. We apply Lemma 1.2.9 to f = χA . By the assumption (1), we

obtain a sequence of dyadic cubes {Qj } such that

A⊂ Qj except for a set of measure zero,
j
|A ∩ Qj |
δ≤ < 2n δ,
|Qj |
j of Qj ,
and, for any predecessor Q
j |
|A ∩ Q
< δ.
j |
|Q
j ⊂ B for each j. Hence,
By the assumption (2), we have Q

A⊂ j ⊂ B except for a set of measure zero.
Q
j
j } so that they are nonoverlapping. Then, we get

We relabel {Q

|A| ≤ |A ∩ Qj | ≤ δ j | ≤ δ|B|.
|Q
j j
This yields the desired estimate.
Now we are ready to prove the weak Harnack inequality for nonnegative
supersolutions.
Theorem 1.2.11. Let BR be a ball in Rn and L be given by (1.2.1) in BR ,
for some aij ∈ C(BR ) satisfying (1.2.2). Suppose that u ∈ L∞ (BR )∩C 2 (BR )
satisfies u ≥ 0 and Lu ≤ f in BR , for some f ∈ Ln (BR ) ∩ C(BR ). Then,

−n
R p u Lp (B2τ R ) ≤ C inf u + R f Ln (BR ) ,
Bτ R
√
where τ = (8 n)−1 and p and C are positive constants depending only on
n, λ, and Λ.
The proof consists of several steps. In the first step, we prove that if
a positive supersolution is small somewhere in Q3 , then it has an upper
bound in a good portion of Q1 . This step is the key ingredient in the weak
Harnack inequality. In the second step, we iterate to get a power decay of
distribution functions for positive supersolutions.
√
Proof. We consider the case R = 2 n and prove

u Lp (B1/2 ) ≤ C inf u + f Ln (B2√n ) .
B1/4
The proof consists of several steps.

Step 1. We prove that there exist constants ε0 > 0, μ ∈ (0, 1), and
M > 1, depending only on n, λ, and Λ, such that if
(1) inf u ≤ 1, f Ln (B2√n ) ≤ ε0 ,
Q3
then
|{u ≤ M } ∩ Q1 | > μ.
The basic idea of the proof is to construct a function ϕ, which is very concave
outside Q1 , such that if we correct u by ϕ, the lower contact set of u + ϕ
occurs in Q1 and occupies a large portion of Q1 . In other words, we localize
where the contact occurs by choosing suitable functions.
Note that B1/4 ⊂ B1/2 ⊂ Q1 ⊂ Q3 ⊂ B2√n . For some large constant
β > 0 to be determined and some M > 0, define
β
|x|2
ϕ(x) = −M 1 − in B2√n .
4n
Then, ϕ = 0 on ∂B2√n . We choose M , according to β, such that
(2) ϕ ≤ −2 in Q3 .
Set
w = u + ϕ in B2√n .
We will prove, by choosing β large,
(3) Lw ≤ f + η in B2√n ,
for some η ∈ C0∞ (Q1 ) and 0 ≤ η ≤ C, for a positive constant C depending
only on n, λ, and Λ. To do this, we calculate the Hessian matrix of ϕ. A
straightforward calculation yields
β−1
M |x|2
∂ij ϕ(x) = βδij 1 −
2n 4n
β−2
M |x|2
− β(β − 1)xi xj 1 − ,
(2n)2 4n
and hence
β−2
M |x|2 |x|2 1
Lϕ = β 1− 1− aij δij − (β − 1)aij xi xj
2n 4n 4n 2n
β−2
M |x|2 |x|2 1
≤ β 1− 1− nΛ − (β − 1)λ|x| .
2
2n 4n 4n 2n
Therefore for |x| ≥ 1/4, we have Lϕ ≤ 0 if we choose β large, depending
only on n, λ, and Λ. Hence,
Lw ≤ f in B2√n \ Q1 .
This finishes the proof of (3).
Now we apply Theorem 1.2.5 to −w in B2√n . Note that inf Q3 w ≤ −1
by (1) and (2) and w ≥ 0 on ∂B2√n . In view of Remark 1.2.6(i), we obtain
1 ≤ C |f | + η Ln (B2√n ∩Γ− ∩Ω− )
+ C|Γ− ∩ Ω− ∩ Q1 | n ,
1
≤C f Ln (B2√n )
where Γ− is the lower contact set of w and Ω− = {x ∈ B2√n : w(x) < 0}.
Choosing ε0 small enough, we get
1 1
≤ C|Γ− ∩ Ω− ∩ Q1 | n ≤ C {u ≤ M } ∩ Q1 n
1
2
since w(x) ≤ 0 implies u(x) ≤ −ϕ(x) ≤ M in Ω− .
Step 2. We prove that there exist positive constants ε0 , γ, and C,
depending only on n, λ, and Λ, such that if (1) holds, then, for any t > 0,
|{u > t} ∩ Q1 | ≤ Ct−γ .
In fact, under the assumption (1), we will prove, for any k = 1, 2, . . .,

(4) {u > M k } ∩ Q1 ≤ (1 − μ)k ,
where M and μ are as in Step 1.
For k = 1, (4) is implied by Step 1. Now suppose (4) holds for k − 1, for
some k ≥ 2. Set
A = {u > M k } ∩ Q1 , B = {u > M k−1 } ∩ Q1 .
Clearly, A ⊂ B ⊂ Q1 and |A| ≤ |{u > M } ∩ Q1 | ≤ 1 − μ by Step 1. We
claim that if Qr (x0 ) is a cube in Q1 , with r ∈ (0, 1/2), such that
(5) |A ∩ Qr (x0 )| > (1 − μ)|Qr (x0 )|,
then Q3r (x0 ) ∩ Q1 ⊂ B. Assuming the claim, we are in a position to apply
Lemma 1.2.10 to get
|A| ≤ (1 − μ)|B|.
Then, (4) follows.
To prove the claim, we consider the transform

x = x0 + ry for y ∈ Q1 and x ∈ Qr (x0 ).
Set
r2

aij (y) = aij (x), f(y) = f (x),
M k−1
and
1
(y) =
u u(x).
M k−1
≥ 0 and
Then, u
≤ f in B2√n .
aij ∂yi yj u
Moreover,
r
f Ln (B2√n ) ≤ f Ln (B2√n ) ≤ f Ln (B2√n ) ≤ ε0 .
M k−1
, we get
Writing (5) in terms of u

u(y) > M } ∩ Q1 | = r−n {u(x) > M k } ∩ Qr (x0 ) > 1 − μ,
|{
and hence,
u(y) ≤ M } ∩ Q1 | ≤ μ.
|{
, we have
By applying what we proved in Step 1 to u
> 1.
inf u
Q3
Hence, u > M k−1 in Q3r (x0 ), and in particular Q3r (x0 ) ∩ Q1 ⊂ B. This
finishes the proof of the claim.
Step 3. We prove that there exist positive constants γ and C, depending
only on n, λ, and Λ, such that, for any t > 0,
γ
−γ
|{x ∈ Q1 : u(x) > t}| ≤ Ct inf u + f Ln (B2√n ) .
Q3
To prove this, we consider, for any δ > 0,

−1
1
uδ = inf u + δ + f Ln (B2√n ) u.
Q3 ε0
By applying Step 2 to uδ and then letting δ → 0, we obtain the desired
result. We point out that δ is introduced only for the case f ≡ 0 and
inf Q3 u = 0.
Step 4. Now we prove

u Lp (Q 1)
≤ C inf u + f Ln (B2√n ) ,
Q3
where p and C are positive constants depending only on n, λ, and Λ.

Set, for any t > 0,

A(t) = {x ∈ Q1 : u(x) > t} .
First, we have, for any p > 0 and τ > 0,
∞
p
u dx = p tp−1 |A(t)| dt
Q1 0
τ ∞
=p t |A(t)| dt + p
p−1
tp−1 |A(t)| dt = I + II.
0 τ
For I, we have easily
τ
I ≤ p |Q1 | tp−1 dt = τ p .
0
For II, we get, by Step 3,
∞
II = p tp−1 |A(t)| dt
τ
∞ γ
≤ Cp t p−γ−1
dt inf u + f Ln (B2√n )
τ Q3
γ
p−γ
= Cτ inf u + f Ln (B2√n )
Q3
if we choose p < γ. Combining these two estimates, we obtain

γ
u dx ≤ C τ + τ
p p p−γ
inf u + f Ln (B2√n ) .
Q1 Q3
Next, we choose
τ = inf u + f Ln (B2√n ) .
Q3
This implies the desired result.
We point out that p in Theorem 1.2.11 may be less than 1.

Now, we can prove the Harnack inequality due to Krylov and Safonov
[99], [100].
Theorem 1.2.12. Let BR be a ball in Rn and L be given by (1.2.1) in BR ,
for some aij ∈ C(BR ) satisfying (1.2.2). Suppose that u is a nonnegative
L∞ (BR ) ∩ C 2 (BR )-solution of
Lu = f in BR ,
for some f ∈ Ln (BR ) ∩ C(BR ). Then,

sup u ≤ C inf u + R f Ln (BR ) ,
BR/2 BR/2
where C is a positive constant depending only on n, λ, and Λ.

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
study to resemble your office, or for your dining-room to resemble
the Automat, or for every bedroom in your house to bear on its door
printed directions to ring twice for your wife to bring you hot water
and three times for a clean collar.
The crowning virtue of the successful private library is
inefficiency. As an example closely approaching the ideal, as a
model to householders who have been allowed a closet or vault in
which to keep books, I respectfully present my own library. And in
order that the radiance of its inefficiency may be as penetrating as
possible, I wish my library to be considered in comparison with its
efficient rivals.
Let us therefore assume that the spectacled young gentleman
already several times celebrated in this treatise has, without
acquiring more sense, got married, and perhaps thereby acquired a
sufficient competency to warrant his establishing a library. Let us
begin our survey of his books with the shelves of poetry. Where is
there a good basis for comparison? Ah, here we have it—here is
Milton in the efficient library, and here the long-winded old gentleman
is found again in my own! Is any comparison between these volumes
possible? Would any real bibliophile hesitate a moment in making his
choice between the two? The efficient Milton is a tall, sombre-looking
volume with a long biographical preface by a man who used to be a
poet before he became a college professor, a preface which proves
that Milton never went blind, lived in Wales rather than in England,
had only one daughter and knew no Latin. At the foot of every page
there is a thick sprinkling of notes conveying unnecessary
information. There is an appendix of variant readings and an
exhaustive, monumental bibliography.
Could anything be more depressing? The only illustration in the
book is John himself, in a black cloak, with what seems to be a
baby’s bib under his chin, and this picture can scarcely be called a
decoration. My “Milton’s Poetical Works,” which was published in
New York in 1857 and purchased by me from a stall on Twenty-third
Street for a quarter, is more entertaining in every respect. In the first
place, it has no notes—which alone makes it worth the price of
admission. In the second place, the only biographical introduction is
“The Life of Milton, by His Nephew, Edward Philips,” a most
estimable piece of writing, which begins, “Of all the several parts of
history, that which sets forth the lives, and commemorates the most
remarkable actions, sayings or writings of famous and illustrious
persons, whether in war or peace—whether many together, or any
one in particular—as it is not the least useful in itself, so it is in the
highest vogue and esteem among the studious and reading part of
mankind.” Doesn’t a biography of this sort promise more flavours
and exciting things than one written by a college professor, and
beginning, “John Milton was born in London, England, December
9th, 1608”?
Furthermore, my Milton is bound in black cloth, with stars and
wreaths and baskets of flowers stamped in gold all over it.
Furthermore, my Milton has all sorts of highly entertaining steel
engravings, most delightfully 1857—Lycidas being shipwrecked on
St. Michael’s Mount, and the Warring Angels mustering for battle,
and skeletons and devils and angels and “wood nymphs, deck’d with
daisies trim,” keeping “their merry wakes and pastimes,” and
Melancholy, who looks like Queen Victoria in her old age, and the
“Goddess fair and free, in heaven yclep’d Euphrosyne,” wearing a
very becoming white frock. Furthermore, my Milton was “Presented
to Mifs Ellen R. Baxter, by Her Resp’t’l friend, J. Stuart, Oswego,
May 4, 1859”—so the violet ink inscription on the flyleaf tells me. And
some one has drawn in pencil a very attractive cat on the blank page
opposite the opening of “Samson Agonistes.” The efficient library’s
copy of Milton lacks all these amiable associations.
My efficient friend possesses a Byron, it is true. But not to be
mentioned in the same breath with the volume which stands in my
study between Witter Bynner and Bliss Carman. My Byron contains
eight contemporary memoirs of the poet, by distinguished fellow-
craftsmen, and sixteen pictures—himself, his birthplace, his
Newfoundland dog, his daughter, and a dozen landscapes which the
publisher happened to have on hand. Also, in the preface of my
Byron I find this sentence: “Thus died Lord Byron at the early age of
thirty-seven, leaving behind him a name second only to that of the
renowned Emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte, and a memory which the
sublime effusions of his muse will endear to all posterity.” My friend’s
Byron has nothing to compare with this.
The trouble with my friend’s library is that it has no surprises.
Any one who has seen his waistcoat—the V of which is edged with
heavy white cord—and his cuff links—which are oval and bear,
engraven on their golden surfaces, his initials—could describe his
library to a volume. It is obvious; its obviousness is a part of its
efficiency.
I suppose Benvenuto Cellini is on a shelf of the efficient library.
He must be, since he is in the public library. Probably my efficient
friend has also Benjamin Franklin’s “Autobiography” and the
“Complete Works of Mrs. Humphry Ward.” He has a limp-leather
tissue-paper encyclopedia, and an obese dictionary, and a
magnificent atlas. And in a corner of his study he has a map of the
world in the form of a great globe on a pivot.
I envy him this last possession, for one may amuse himself by
spinning a geographical globe, as one entertains himself by spinning
a piano stool. But aside from this, there is nothing in my friend’s
library that I desire. And my own triumphantly inefficient library—
what treasures it contains!
You mention French literature. Do I overwhelm you with a
sumptuous Voltaire, or sicken you with a sentimentally illustrated
“Paul et Virginie”? I do not. I exhibit to you yellow-back volumes of
the later verse of Francis Jammes—which are supposed to be going
to be bound one of these days—or I show you a play or two of
Rostand’s. If you desire to have further dealings with the literature of
France, the French department of the university is, for a
consideration, at your service. You mention Fraser’s “Golden
Bough”? I show you something equally informing and more
entertaining, comfortable volumes in which the mythology of Ireland
is narrated to us by Jeremiah Curtin and by Seumas MacManus, and
I show you a stray volume of Louis Ginzberg’s “The Legends of the
Jews.”
I should not try to make the possessors of efficient libraries
unhappy. But I do it for their own good, in the hope that I may
eventually reform them. And when I look upon my two volumes of
“The Evergreen,” a quarterly published in Edinburgh some twenty
years ago, numbering among its contributors Fiona MacLeod, Nora
Hopper, Douglas Hyde, Standish O’Grady and Rosa Mulholland, and
“The Squire’s Recipes,” by Kendall Banning, and “Scottish Heraldry
Made Easy,” and Shaemas O’Sheel’s “The Dear Old Lady of Eighty-
sixth Street,” and a bound volume of The Gentleman’s Magazine for
1761 and “L. Annsei Senecae et Aliorum Tragoediae (Amsterodami,
Apud Guiljel: Ians: Caesium)” and a battered edition of Scott’s
“Marmion,” enriched by the comments of a Louise Cogswell who
owned it in 1810 and wrote approvingly, “and very well told too”
under the sub-title “A Tale of Flodden Field,” and Joseph Forster’s
“Studies in Black and Red” (very ghastly), and both of Ernest
Dowson’s novels and his translations from the French, as well as his
poems, and “The American Annual of Photography” for 1916, and
“Miss Thackeray’s Works,” complete in one volume, and Layton
Crippen’s “Clay and Fire,” and Bithell’s “Contemporary Belgian
Poetry,” and Sir Francis Burnand’s “More Happy Thoughts,” and a
volume containing “The Poetical Works of Rogers, Campbell, J.
Montgomery Lamb, and Kirke White,” and an inscribed copy of
Palmer Cox’s “The Brownies, Their Book”—when I contemplate,
among the more commonplace inhabitants of my shelves, these
books, then I cannot keep from feeling a sense of superiority to all
those who have laboriously “built up” their libraries in accordance
with the mandates of strict utility.
My library is inefficient and impractical, entertaining and
unexacting. Its members have come to me by chance and by
momentary inclination. For if a man’s books are to be, as the old
phrase has it, his friends, they must be allowed to him because of
some fitness on his part subtly felt by them. A man does not
deliberately select his friends; there must be a selection by them as
well as by him. Unless he is applying the principles of efficiency to
friendship. And in that case he has no friends at all.
THE POETRY OF HILAIRE BELLOC
FAR FROM the poets being astray in prose-writing (said Francis
Thompson), it might plausibly be contended that English prose, as
an art, is but a secondary stream of the Pierian fount, and owes its
very origin to the poets. The first writer one remembers with whom
prose became an art was Sir Philip Sidney. And Sidney was a poet.
This quotation is relevant to a consideration of Hilaire Belloc,
because Belloc is a poet who happens to be known chiefly for his
prose. His Danton and Robespierre have been read by every
intelligent student of French history, his Path to Rome, that most
high-spirited and engaging of travel books, has passed through
many editions, his political writings are known to all lovers—and
many foes—of democracy, his whimsically imaginative novels have
their large and appreciative audience, and his exquisite brief essays
are contemporary classics. And since the unforgetable month of
August of the unforgetable year 1914, Hilaire Belloc has added to
the number of his friends many thousands who care little for belles
lettres and less for the French Revolution—he has become certainly
the most popular, and by general opinion the shrewdest and best
informed, of all chroniclers and critics of the Great War.
There is nothing, it may be said, about these achievements to
indicate the poet. How can this most public of publicists woo the shy
and exacting Muse? His superabundant energy may now and again
overflow in little lyrical rivulets, but how can he find time to turn it into
the deep channels of song?
Well, what is the difference between a poet who writes prose and
a prose-writer who writes verse? The difference is easy to see but
hard to describe. Mr. Thomas Hardy is a prose writer. He has
forsaken the novel, of which he was so distinguished a master, to
make cynical little sonnet portraits and to pour the acid wine of his
philosophy—a sort of perverted Presbyterianism—into the graceful
amphora of poetic drama. But he is not a poet. Thackeray was a
prose-writer, in spite of his delicious light verse. Every novelist writes
or has written verse, but not all of them are poets.
Of course, Sir Walter Scott was first of all a poet—the greatest
poet who ever wrote a novel. And no one who has read Love in the
Valley can hesitate to give Meredith his proper title. Was Macaulay a
poet? I think so—but perhaps I am in a hopeless minority in my
belief that the author of The Battle of Naseby and The Lays of
Ancient Rome was the last of the great English ballad makers.
But this general truth cannot, I think, honestly be denied; there
have been many great poets who have devoted most of their lives to
writing prose. Some of them have died without discovering their
neglected talent. I think that Walter Pater was one of these; much
that is annoyingly subtle or annoyingly elaborate in his essays needs
only rhyme and rhythm—the lovely accidents of poetry—to become
graceful and appropriate. His famous description of the Mona Lisa is
worthless if considered as a piece of serious æsthetic criticism. But it
would make an admirable sonnet. And it is significant that Walter
Pater’s two greatest pupils—Lionel Johnson and Father Gerard
Hopkins, S.J.,—found expression for their genius not in prose, the
chosen medium of their “unforgetably most gracious friend,” but in
verse.
From Walter Pater, that exquisite of letters, to the robust Hilaire
Belloc may seem a long journey. But there is, I insist, this similarity
between these contrasting writers, both are poets, and both are
known to fame by their prose.
For proof that Walter Pater was a poet, it is necessary only to
read his Renaissance Studies or his interpretations—unsound but
fascinating—of the soul of ancient Greece. Often his essays, too
delicately accurate in phrasing or too heavily laden with golden
rhetoric, seem almost to cry aloud for the relief of rhyme and rhythm.
Now, Hilaire Belloc suggests in many of his prose sketches that
he is not using his true medium. I remember a brief essay on sleep
which appeared in The New Witness—or, as it was then called, The
Eye Witness—several years ago, which was not so much a complete
work in itself as it was a draft for a poem. It had the economy of
phrase, the concentration of idea, which is proper to poetry.
But it is not necessary in the case of Hilaire Belloc, as it is in that
of Walter Pater, to search pages of prose for proof that their author is
a poet. Now and then—all too seldom—the idea in this man’s brain
has insisted on its right, has scorned the proffered dress of prose,
however fine of warp and woof, however stiff with rich verbal
embroidery, and has demanded its rhymed and rhythmed wedding
garments. Therefore, for proof that Hilaire Belloc is a poet it is
necessary only to read his poetry.
II
Hilaire Belloc is a poet. Also he is a Frenchman, an Englishman,
an Oxford man, a Roman Catholic, a country gentleman, a soldier, a
democrat, and a practical journalist. He is always all these things.
One sign that he is naturally a poet is that he is never
deliberately a poet. No one can imagine him writing a poem to order
—even to his own order. The poems knock at the door of his brain
and demand to be let out. And he lets them out, carelessly enough,
setting them comfortably down on paper simply because that is the
treatment they desire. And this happens to be the way all real poetry
is made.
Not that all verse makers work that way. There are men who
come upon a waterfall or mountain or an emotion and say: “Aha!
here is something out of which I can extract a poem!” And they sit
down in front of that waterfall or mountain or an emotion and think up
clever things to say about it. These things they put into metrical form,
and the result they fondly call a poem.
There’s no harm in that. It’s good exercise for the mind, and of it
comes much interesting verse. But it is not the way in which the sum
of the world’s literature is increased.
Could anything, for example, be less studied, be more clearly
marked with the stigmata of that noble spontaneity we call
inspiration, than the passionate, rushing, irresistible lines “To the
Balliol Men Still in Africa”? Like Gilbert K. Chesterton and many
another English democrat, Hilaire Belloc deeply resented his
country’s war upon the Boers. Yet his heart went out to the friends of
his university days who were fighting in Africa. They were fighting, he
thought, in an unjust cause; but they were his friends and they were,
at any rate, fighting. And so he made something that seems (like all
great writing) an utterance rather than a composition; he put his love
of war in general and his hatred of this war in particular, his devotion
to Balliol and to the friends of his youth into one of the very few
pieces of genuine poetry which the Boer War produced. Nor has any
of Oxford’s much-sung colleges known praise more fit than this
“House that armours a man

With the eyes of a boy and the heart of a ranger,
And a laughing way in the teeth of the world,
And a holy hunger and thirst for danger.”
But perhaps a more typical example of Hilaire Belloc’s wanton

genius is to be found not among those poems which are, throughout,
the beautiful expressions of beautiful impressions, but among those
which are careless, whimsical, colloquial. There is that delightful, but
somewhat exasperating Dedicatory Ode. Hilaire Belloc is talking—
charmingly, as is his custom—to some of his friends, who had
belonged, in their university days, to a youthful revolutionary
organisation called the Republican Club. He happens to be talking in
verse, for no particular reason except that it amuses him to talk in
verse. He makes a number of excellent jokes, and enjoys them very
much; his Pegasus is cantering down the road at a jolly gait, when
suddenly, to the amazement of the spectators, it spreads out great
golden wings and flashes like a meteor across the vault of heaven!
We have been laughing at the droll tragedy of the opium-smoking
Uncle Paul; we have been enjoying the humorous spectacle of the
contemplative freshman—and suddenly we come upon a bit of
astonishingly fine poetry. Who would expect, in all this whimsical and
jovial writing, to find this really great stanza?
“From quiet homes and first beginning

Out to the undiscovered ends,
There’s nothing worth the wear of winning
But laughter and the love of friends.”
Who having read these four lines, can forget them? And who but
a poet could write them? But Hilaire Belloc has not forced himself
into this high mood, nor does he bother to maintain it. He gaily
passes on to another verse of drollery, and then, not because he
wishes to bring the poem to an effective climax, but merely because
it happens to be his mood, he ends the escapade he calls an Ode
with eight or ten stanzas of nobly beautiful poetry.
There is something almost uncanny about the flashes of
inspiration which dart out at the astonished reader of Hilaire Belloc’s
most frivolous verses. Let me alter a famous epigram and call his
light verse a circus illuminated by lightning. There is that
monumental burlesque, the Newdigate Poem—A Prize Poem
Submitted by Mr. Lambkin of Burford to the Examiners of the
University of Oxford on the Prescribed Poetic Theme Set by Them in
1893, “The Benefits of the Electric Light.” It is a tremendous joke;
with every line the reader echoes the author’s laughter. But without
the slightest warning Hilaire Belloc passes from rollicking burlesque
to shrewd satire; he has been merrily jesting with a bladder on a
stick, he suddenly draws a gleaming rapier and thrusts it into the
heart of error. He makes Mr. Lambkin say:
“Life is a veil, its paths are dark and rough

Only because we do not know enough:
When Science has discovered something more
We shall be happier than we were before.”
Here we find the directness and restraint which belong to really great
satire. This is the materialistic theory, the religion of Science, not
burlesqued, not parodied, but merely stated nakedly, without the
verbal frills and furbelows with which our forward-looking leaders of
popular thought are accustomed to cover its obscene absurdity.
Almost these very words have been uttered in a dozen “rationalistic”
pulpits I could mention, pulpits occupied by robustuous practical
gentlemen with very large eyes, great favourites with the women’s
clubs. Their pet doctrine, their only and most offensive dogma, is not
attacked, is not ridiculed; it is merely stated for them, in all kindness
and simplicity. They cannot answer it, they cannot deny that it is a
mercilessly fair statement of the “philosophy” that is their stock in
trade. I hope that many of them will read it.
III
Hilaire Belloc was born July 27, 1870. He was educated at the
Oratory School, Edgbaston, and at Balliol College, Oxford. After
leaving school he served as a driver in the Eighth Regiment of
French Artillery at Toul Meurthe-et-Moselle, being at that time a
French citizen. Later he was naturalised as a British subject, and
entered the House of Commons in 1906 as Liberal Member for
South Salford. British politicians will not soon forget the motion which
Hilaire Belloc introduced one day in the early Spring of 1908, the
motion that the Party funds, hitherto secretly administered, be
publicly audited. His vigorous and persistent campaign against the
party system has placed him, with Cecil Chesterton, in the very front
ranks of those to whom the democrats of Great Britain must look for
leadership and inspiration. He was always a keen student of military
affairs; he prophesied, long before the event, the present
international conflict, describing with astonishing accuracy the details
of the German invasion of Belgium and the resistance of Liège. Now
he occupies a unique position among the journalists who comment
upon the War, having tremendously increased the circulation of Land
and Water, the periodical for which he writes regularly, and lecturing
to a huge audience once a week on the events of the War in one of
the largest of London’s concert halls—Queen’s Hall, where the same
vast crowds that listen to the War lectures used to gather to hear the
works of the foremost German composers.
IV
Hilaire Belloc, as I have said, is a Frenchman, an Englishman,
an Oxford man, a country gentleman, a soldier, a democrat, and a
practical journalist. In all these characters he utters his poetry. As a
Frenchman, he is vivacious and gallant and quick. He has the noble
English frankness, and that broad irresistible English mirthfulness
which is so much more inclusive than that narrow possession, a
sense of humour. Democrat though he is, there is about him
something of the atmosphere of the country squire of some
generations ago; it is in his heartiness, his jovial dignity, his deep
love of the land. The author of The South Country and Courtesy has
made Sussex his inalienable possession; he owns Sussex, as
Dickens owns London, and Blackmore owns Devonshire. And he is
thoroughly a soldier, a happy warrior, as brave and dexterous, no
one can doubt, with a sword of steel as with a sword of words.
He has taken the most severe risk which a poet can take: he has
written poems about childhood. What happened when the late
Algernon Charles Swinburne bent his energies to the task of
celebrating this theme? As the result of his solemn meditation on the
mystery of childhood, he arrived at two conclusions, which he
melodiously announced to the world. They were, first, that the face of
a baby wearing a plush cap looks like a moss-rose bud in its soft
sheath, and, second, that “astrolabe” rhymes with “babe.” Very
charming, of course, but certainly unworthy of a great poet. And
upon this the obvious comment is that Swinburne was not a great
poet. He took a theme terribly great and terribly simple, and about it
he wrote ... something rather pretty.
Now, when a really great poet—Francis Thompson, for example
—has before him such a theme as childhood, he does not spend his
time making far-fetched comparisons with moss-rose buds, or
hunting for words that rhyme with “babe.” Childhood suggests Him
Who made childhood sacred, so the poet writes Ex Ore Infantium, or
such a poem as that which ends with the line:
“Look for me in the nurseries of Heaven.”
A poet may write pleasingly about mountains, and cyclones and

battles, and the love of woman, but if he is at all timid about the
verdict of posterity he should avoid the theme of childhood as he
would avoid the plague. For only great poets can write about
childhood poems worthy to be printed.
Hilaire Belloc has written poems about children, and they are
worthy to be printed. He is never ironic when he thinks about
childhood; he is gay, whimsical, with a slight suggestion of elfin
cynicism, but he is direct, as a child is direct. He has written two
dedicatory poems for books to be given to children; they are slight
things, but they are a revelation of their author’s power to do what
only a very few poets can do, that is, to enter into the heart and mind
of the child, following that advice which has its literary as well as
moral significance, to “become as a little child.”
And in many of Hilaire Belloc’s poems by no means intended for
childish audiences there is an appealing simplicity that is genuinely
and beautifully childish, something quite different from the adult and
highly artificial simplicity of Professor A. E. Housman’s A Shropshire
Lad. Take that quatrain The Early Morning. It is as clear and cool as
the time it celebrates; it is absolutely destitute of rhetorical
indulgence, poetical inversions or “literary” phrasing. It is, in fact,
conversation—inspired conversation, which is poetry. It might have
been written by a Wordsworth not painfully self-conscious, or by a
Blake whose brain was not as yet muddled with impressionistic
metaphysics.
And his Christmas carols—they are fit to be sung by a chorus of
children. Can any songs of the sort receive higher praise than that?
Children, too, appreciate The Birds and Our Lord and Our Lady. Nor
is that wonderful prayer rather flatly called In a Boat beyond the
reach of their intelligence.
Naturally enough, Hilaire Belloc is strongly drawn to the almost
violent simplicity of the ballad. Bishop Percy would not have enjoyed
the theological and political atmosphere of The Little Serving Maid,
but he would have acknowledged its irresistible charm. There is that
wholly delightful poem The Death and Last Confession of Wandering
Peter—a most Bellocian vagabond. “He wandered everywhere he
would: and all that he approved was sung, and most of what he saw
was good.” Says Peter:
“If all that I have loved and seen

Be with me on the Judgment Day,
I shall be saved the crowd between
From Satan and his foul array.”
Hilaire Belloc has seen much and loved much. He has sung
lustily the things he approved—with what hearty hatred has he sung
the things he disapproved!
V
Hilaire Belloc is not the man to spend much time in analysing his
own emotions; he is not, thank God, a poetical psychologist. Love
songs, drinking songs, battle songs—it is with these primitive and
democratic things that he is chiefly concerned.
But there is something more democratic than wine or love or
war. That thing is Faith. And Hilaire Belloc’s part in increasing the
sum of the world’s beauty would not be the considerable thing that it
is were it not for his Faith. It is not that (like Dante Gabriel Rossetti)
he is attracted by the Church’s pageantry and wealth of legend. To
Hilaire Belloc the pageantry is only incidental, the essential thing is
his Catholic Faith. He writes convincingly about Our Lady and Saint
Joseph and the Child Jesus because he himself is convinced. He
does not delve into mediæval tradition in quest of picturesque
incidents, he merely writes what he knows to be true. His Faith
furnishes him with the theme for those of his poems which are most
likely to endure; his Faith gives him the “rapture of an inspiration.”
His Faith enables him, as it has enabled many another poet, to see
“in the lamp that is beauty, the light that is God.”
And therein is Hilaire Belloc most thoroughly and consistently a
democrat. For in this twentieth century it happens that there is on
earth only one genuine democratic institution. And that institution is
the Catholic Church.
THE CATHOLIC POETS OF
BELGIUM
AT A recent meeting of the English Poetry Society, Mlle. Coppin,
a distinguished Belgian poetess, who now, like so many of her
compatriots, is a refugee in London, said: “I believe we have been
too prosperous, too fond of pleasure. We are being purged, and in
our adversity we have found our nationality. If ever England, France,
and Russia make a new Belgium, we shall be more simple and hard-
working.”
Those of us who believe that the character of a nation is, to a
great extent, revealed in its literature cannot doubt that Mlle.
Coppin’s words are true. Surely the sick fancies of Maurice
Maeterlinck (to mention the most conspicuous of Belgian men of
letters) could come into being only in a land suffering from over-
much civilisation, in a land whose citizens are too sophisticated for
common and wholesome delights. Even more than the elaborate
obscenities of Iwan Gilkin and Albert Giraud, Maeterlinck’s morbid
studies of mental, spiritual, and physical degradation belong to that
sort of literature which is called “decadent.” And decadent literature
usually is produced for and by people who need to be, in Mlle.
Coppin’s words, “more simple and hard-working.”
That the great tragedy which has overtaken Belgium will have a
beneficial effect upon its literature is not to be doubted. Of course,
the first result is an almost total cessation of creative activity; one
cannot handle a rifle and a pen at the same time. But with the return
of peace must come the development of a new Belgian literature, a
literature which is not an echo of the salon-philosophies of Paris and
Berlin, but a beautiful expression of the soul of a strong and brave
race.
It is possible that when the poets of a re-created Belgium are
singing their clear songs, the world, comparing them with Gilkin,
Giraud, Maeterlinck, and the Verhaeren of Les Débâcles and Les
Flambeaux Noirs, will say: “Now, for the first time, Belgian poetry
deserves the attention of those who are interested in other than the
pathological aspects of literature! Not until the land had been purified
by blood and flame did the Spirit of Beauty come to dwell in
Flanders!”
But this criticism will be unjust. Great literary movements do not
spontaneously come into being; they develop slowly and surely
through the centuries. If all the poetry of Belgium were the work of
charlatans and vicious men, then, not even this tremendous war
could stimulate it into healthy life. The fame of Maeterlinck’s dismal
dramas, and of the least worthy poems of Emile Verhaeren, should
not make us oblivious of the fact that Belgium has, and has always
had, its small, but brilliant, company of sincere and gifted writers,
men who have not debased their art, but have held in honour the
sacred traditions of their high calling. He who, neglecting the
productions of the symbolists, decadents, and similar phantasists,
turns his attention to the authentic literature of the Belgian people,
finds a strain of poetry white and beautiful, and as fervently Catholic
as the immortal songs of Crashaw and Francis Thompson. It is not
the disciples of Baudelaire and Mallarmé who have planted the
seeds of poetry that soon shall burst into splendid bloom, but men
like Thomas Braun and Georges Ramaekers, men who, serving
faithfully their Muse, have never wavered in their allegiance to the
Mistress of all the Arts, the Catholic Church.
It must not be thought that these poets write only religious
poems. They have, indeed, produced such masterpieces of
devotional verse as Braun’s Livre des Bénédictions and Ramaekers’
Le Chant des Trois Regnes. But when their poetry is not religious it
is not, at any rate, irreligious; they “utter nothing base.” And surely
even the lightest of secular poems may do its author’s Catholicism
no discredit. As Francis Thompson said of poetry in the eloquent
appeal to the “fathers of the Church, pastors of the Church, pious
laics of the Church” with which his most famous essay begins, “Eye
her not askance if she seldom sing directly of religion: the bird gives
glory to God though it sings only of its own innocent loves.... Suffer
her to wanton, suffer her to play, so she play round the foot of the
Cross!”
Indeed, what is true of much modern English verse is true also of
that of Belgium, there are Catholic poets who seldom in their work
refer directly to their faith, and there are infidel poets who have laid
impious hands on the Church’s treasures and decorate their rhymes
with rich ecclesiastical imagery and the fragrant names of the Saints.
So we find, for example, Emile Verhaeren using the first chapters of
Genesis as the theme of a poem that is anything but edifying, while
that pious Catholic, Thomas Braun, writes a volume of verses about
postage stamps.
There are certain optimistic persons who believe that the general
use in literature of sacred names and traditions augurs well for the
spread of faith. A member of an Anglican religious order, who two
years ago delivered a series of lectures in New York City, prophesied
a mighty recrudescence of religion among the poets of England, and
based his prophecy, apparently, on the fact that Mr. Lascelles
Abercrombie and other brilliant young writers have made ballads out
of some of the most picturesque of the legends about the Saints. He
did not see that Mr. Abercrombie selected his themes solely because
of their literary value. There are many poets who eagerly avail
themselves of the stores which are the Church’s heritage, who
introduce the name of the Blessed Virgin into their verses exactly as
they would introduce that of Diana, or Venus or any creature of fable.
Personally, I have never been able to enjoy the recital, however
skillful, of a sacred story by a poet who did not believe in it, and
therefore I cannot grow enthusiastic over the knowledge that many
Belgian poets, whose philosophies are hostile to the Church, like to
write about monstrances and chalices and altars, and to tell
ostentatiously “human” stories about sacred people in general and
St. Mary Magdalen in particular. I find Thomas Braun’s poems about
postage stamps more edifying.
The modern Catholic poets of Belgium may be roughly divided
into two groups, the mystics and the primitives. These terms are
here used merely for the purposes of this classification, and cannot
perhaps be justified by scientific criticism. Among the mystics I would
include such writers as Georges Ramaekers, the brilliant editor of Le
Catholique, and perhaps Max Elskamp, who use elaborate and
complicated symbols, and, in general, may be said to do in verse
what the late Joris Karl Huysmans, after his conversion to
Catholicism, did in prose. Among the primitives I would place such
poets as Victor Kinon and Thomas Braun, who look for their
inspirations to the ancient religious life of Flanders, in all its
picturesque simplicity, and are more concerned with celebrating the
piety of simple Flemish peasants than with endeavouring to
penetrate high mysteries.
It is to that valued friend of Belgian letters, Mr. Jethro Bithell, of
Birbeck College, London, whose translation of Stefan Zweig’s book
on Verhaeren has recently earned him the gratitude of the English-
speaking public, that we owe this excellent version of Thomas
Braun’s The Benediction of the Nuptial Ring, taken from this poet’s
The Book of the Benedictions. The directness and sincerity of this
poem suggest the work of George Herbert.
THE BENEDICTION OF THE NUPTIAL KING

“That she who shall wear it, keep faith unchanged with her husband and ever live
in mutual love.”
Almighty God, bless now the ring of gold

Which bride and bridegroom shall together hold!
They whom fresh water gave to You are now
United in You by the marriage vow.
The ring is of a heavy, beaten ore,
And yet it shall not make the finger sore,
But easefully be carried day and night,
Because its secret spirit makes it light.
Its perfect circle sings into the skin,
Nor hurts it, and the phalanx growing thin
Under its pressure molds itself ere long,
Yet keeps its agile grace and still is strong.
So love, which in this symbol lies, with no
Beginning more nor ending here below,
Shall, if You bless it, Lord, like gold resist,
And never show decay, nor flaw, nor twist,
And be so light, though solid, that the soul,
A composite yet indivisible whole,
Shall keep its tender impress to the last,
And never know the bonds that bind it fast.
In many of Thomas Braun’s poems is to be found a quality

suggestive of the folk song. Like the Verhaeren of Les Flamandes,
Braun writes of those huge, boisterous farmers and merchants who
live for us on the canvases of Brauwer and Jan Steen. But he writes
of them, it need scarcely be said, in a very different spirit. Verhaeren
saw only their gluttony, drunkenness, and coarseness; Braun sees
their courage, industry, good-nature, piety. In fact, Verhaeren saw
their bodies, Braun sees their souls.
In an essay on Verhaeren recently printed, I called attention to
the fact that while Verhaeren wrote of the Flemings with enthusiasm,
and with repulsively careful attention to detail, he did not write of
them with sympathy. He does not join in the revels about which he
writes; he is interested in his loud purple-faced peasants, but with his
interest is mingled a certain scorn. Thomas Braun, on the other
hand, is thoroughly in sympathy with the life of which he writes; the
reader feels that such a poem as The Benediction of Wine, for
example, was written by a man who is artist enough to share actually
in the strong simple piety of the keeper of the vineyard. The
quaintness of Thomas Braun’s poems, which is emphasized by the
woodcuts made to accompany them by his brother who is a
Benedictine monk, is not an affectation, it is a quality proper to the
work of a man who, like Wordsworth, sees beauty chiefly in
simplicity. Like Coventry Patmore, he has “divine frivolity,” he is
acquainted with the mirth of the Saints. In his own beautiful words,
he knows how to play in the straw with the Child of Bethlehem.
Georges Ramaekers is a poet whose verse is for the most part
too obscure to lend itself readily to translation. He will write a poem,
for example, on mushrooms, and the reader will think after several
minutes that he is being told merely about the common fungi. Then it
comes to him that it is the Tree of Life that these maleficent growths
are attacking; then they cover the columns of the Church and
actually reach the Host Itself. The poem is, it seems, a denunciation
of certain heresies, or of sloth, indifference, and other spiritual evils,
but its meaning cannot adequately be given in an English translation.
Here is a similar poem, which, in Mr. Bithell’s translation, shows
Georges Ramaeker’s symbolic method at its best and clearest.
THE THISTLE
Rooted on herbless peaks, where its erect

And prickly leaves, austerely cold and dumb,
Hold the slow, scaly serpent in respect,
The Gothic thistle, while the insects’ hum
Sounds far off, rears above the rock it scorns
Its rigid virtue for the Heavens to see.
The towering boulders guard it. And the bee
Makes honey from the blossoms on its thorns.
Victor Kinon, like that very different poet, Albert Giraud, the chief
Belgian disciple of Baudelaire, is of Walloon descent. Mr. Bithell calls
this poet a “fervent Roman Catholic,” but the poems which he has
selected for translation are entirely secular in theme and treatment.
They show, however, that their author is free from the vices of
extreme realism and hysteria, which afflict many of his
contemporaries. Sometimes it is fair to judge a poet’s whole attitude
toward life from his love poems. When decadence and feverish
eroticism are in fashion, it is refreshing to come upon a poet sane
enough to write so honest and delicate a poem as this of Victor
Kinon.
HIDING FROM THE WORLD
Shall not our love be like the violet, Sweet,

And open in the dewy, dustless air

Ebook Nonlinear Elliptic Equations of The Second Order Graduate Studies in Mathematics 1St Edition Qing Han Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ebook Nonlinear Elliptic Equations of The Second Order Graduate Studies in Mathematics 1St Edition Qing Han Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebook Nonlinear Elliptic Equations of The Second Order Graduate Studies in Mathematics 1St Edition Qing Han Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nonlinear Elliptic Equations of the

Second Order Graduate Studies in

Nonlinear Second Order Parabolic Equations 1st Edition

Partial Differential Equations III Nonlinear Equations

Semigroup Approach to Nonlinear Diffusion Equations 1st

Handbook of Exact Solutions to the Nonlinear

Numerical Methods for Elliptic and Parabolic Partial

Advances In The History Of Mathematics Education

Analytical Methods for Solving Nonlinear Partial

Decision Making A Psychophysics Application of Network

American Mathematical Society

American Mathematical Society

2010 Mathematics Subject Classiﬁcation. Primary 35J60, 35J25, 35J93, 35J96.

For additional information and updates on this book, visit

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Part 1. Quasilinear Elliptic Equations

Chapter 4. Minimal Surface Equations 115

Part 2. Fully Nonlinear Elliptic Equations

generalized solutions of the (real) Monge-Ampère equations. Inclusion of

the uniform ellipticity. The structure of the equation plays an important

Concerning the arrangement of this book, Part 1 is not a prerequisite for

We now list some basic notations to be used in this book.

Sometimes, we need to distinguish one particular direction and write points

The partial derivative ∂ β u is deﬁned by

and the C m -norm by

and the C α -norm by

to solve the linearized equations. In the study of fully nonlinear elliptic

1.1. The Maximum Principle

1.1.1. The Weak Maximum Principle. In this subsection, we review

If aij = δij , bi = c = 0, and f = 0, subsolutions (or supersolutions) are

Theorem 1.1.2. Let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn and L be given by

Proof. We ﬁrst consider the special case Lu > 0 in Ω. If u has a local

If c ≡ 0 in Ω, we can draw conclusions about the maximum of u rather

referred to as the weak maximum principle. A stronger version asserts that

More generally, we have the following comparison principle.

The comparison principle provides a reason that functions u satisfying

1.1.2. The Strong Maximum Principle. The weak maximum principle

(1.1.2). Suppose that u ∈ C 1 (B̄)∩C 2 (B) satisﬁes Lu ≥ 0 in B, u(x) < u(x0 )

Proof. Without loss of generality, we assume B = BR for some R > 0. By

For positive constants μ and ε to be determined, we set

w(x) = e−μ|x| − e−μR

where we used c ≤ 0 in BR . By the strict ellipticity (1.1.2), we have

if we choose μ suﬃciently large. By c ≤ 0 and u(x0 ) ≥ 0, we obtain, for any

In view of v(x0 ) = 0, v attains at x0 its maximum in D̄. Hence, we obtain

Theorem 1.1.6 still holds if we substitute for B any bounded C 1 -domain

Proof. Let M be the nonnegative maximum of u in Ω̄ and set

The following result improves Corollary 1.1.3.

1.1.3. A Priori Estimates. As Corollary 1.1.5 shows, an important ap-

where d = diam(Ω) and C is a positive constant depending only on n, λ,

Then, Lu ≥ −F in Ω and u ≤ Φ on ∂Ω. Without loss of generality, we

We note that v ≥ Φ in Ω̄. Next, by a straightforward calculation and c ≤ 0

Note that a11 ≥ λ in Ω by the strict ellipticity (1.1.2). We choose μ large

This yields the desired result.

The function v in the proof above is what we called an auxiliary function.

Theorem 1.1.10. Let Ω be a bounded domain in Rn and L be given by

where C is a positive constant depending only on n, λ, diam(Ω), and the

Next, we construct barrier functions for a large class of domains Ω and

We now require ψ > 0 and ψ < 0. Hence,

j } so that they are nonoverlapping. Then, we get