Abstract
In this paper we are concerned with the regularity of solutions to a nonlinear elliptic system of m equations in divergence form, satisfying p growth from below and q growth from above, with \(p \le q\); this case is known as p, q-growth conditions. Well known counterexamples, even in the simpler case \(p=q\), show that solutions to systems may be singular; so, it is necessary to add suitable structure conditions on the system that force solutions to be regular. Here we obtain local boundedness of solutions under a componentwise coercivity condition. Our result is obtained by proving that each component \(u^\alpha \) of the solution \(u=(u^1,...,u^m)\) satisfies an improved Caccioppoli’s inequality and we get the boundedness of \(u^{\alpha }\) by applying De Giorgi’s iteration method, provided the two exponents p and q are not too far apart. Let us remark that, in dimension \(n=3\) and when \(p=q\), our result works for \(\frac{3}{2} < p {\le } 3\), thus it complements the one of Bjorn whose technique allowed her to deal with \(p \le 2\) only. In the final section, we provide applications of our result.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
In this paper we are concerned with the regularity of solutions to a nonlinear elliptic system of m equations in divergence form
where \(x \in \Omega \) and \(\Omega \) is a bounded open set in \(\mathbb {R}^n\), \(n\ge 2\). The function \(u:\Omega \subset \mathbb {R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb {R}^m\), has components \((u^1,...,u^m)\); then Du(x) is the \(m \times n\) matrix \(\left( \displaystyle \frac{\partial u^\alpha }{\partial x_i}(x) \right) ^{\alpha =1,...,m}_{i=1,...,n}\).
We assume that \(A_i^{\alpha }:\Omega \times \mathbb {R}^{m \times n}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\), \(1\le i\le n\), \(1\le \alpha \le m\), are Carathéodory functions satisfying for every \(x\in \Omega \) and for every \(z=(z^1,\ldots , z^m)^T\in \mathbb {R}^{m \times n}\) the following p, q-growth assumptions:
where \(1<p\le q\), \({p \le n}\), \(\nu ,M>0\), \(a\in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{\tau _1}(\Omega )\) and \(b\in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{\tau _2}(\Omega )\) are non-negative functions, with \(1<\tau _i\le +\infty \), \(i=1,2\), and \(\tau _2\ge \frac{q}{q-1}\).
Let us recall that \(u\in W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,q}(\Omega ;\mathbb {R}^m)\) is a weak solution of (1.1) if
for every open set \(B \Subset \Omega \) and for every \(\psi \in W_{0}^{1,q}(B;\mathbb {R}^m)\).
As usual the Sobolev exponent is \(p^* = \frac{np}{n-p}\) if \(p<n\), and \(p^*\) is any real number \(\mu >p\) if \(p=n\). The Hölder conjugate exponent of p is \(p^\prime = \frac{p}{p-1}\). We use the position \(\frac{1}{+\infty }=0\).
Our regularity result is the following.
Theorem 1.1
Assume that (1.2) and (1.3) hold, with \(1 < {p \le n}\), \(p\le q\) and \(1<\tau _1,\tau _2\le +\infty \), satisfying
Then any weak solution \(u\in W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,q}(\Omega ;\mathbb {R}^m)\) of (1.1) is locally bounded.
In the vector-valued case, as suggested by well known counterexamples [11, 13, 14, 18,19,20, 23, 24, 28, 38, 43, 45, 49, 50], special structures on the operator are required for everywhere regularity, even under reasonable assumptions on the coefficients; see also the surveys [40, 41] and [25].
In the literature there are still few contributions about the boundedness of weak solutions to elliptic systems. Ladyzhenskaya and Ural’tseva ([27], Chapter 7) first proposed the local boundedness of solutions \(u=\left( u^{1},u^{2},\ldots ,u^{m}\right) \) to the linear elliptic system
with bounded measurable coefficients \(a_{ij}\,,b_{i}^{\alpha \beta }\,,c_{i}^{\alpha \beta }\,,d^{\alpha \beta }\) and given functions \( f_{i}^{\alpha }\,,f^{\alpha }\). Here the structure condition is stated in terms of the positive definite \(n\times n\) matrix \(\left( a_{ij}\right) \), which does not depend on \(\alpha ,\beta \). In [39] Meier extended these results to nonlinear elliptic systems of the form
under the following p-growth conditions, \(1<p\le n\),
for \(a>0\) and under suitable integrability assumptions on the nonnegative functions b, e, d, g. Meier introduces the so-called indicator function of the operator
and a pointwise assumption turns out to be crucial in Meier’s techniques, indeed a weak solution u of (1.7) is locally bounded if
holds for large values of |u|. Notice that (1.11) is satisfied in linear case (1.6). Assumption (1.11) is satisfied also by some nonlinear operators. For example:
when \(0 \le \sigma \), like in the case of Euler’s system of the functional
where F increases and we take \(\sigma (Du) = \frac{F^\prime (|Du|)}{|Du|}\). A third example, for which (1.11) holds true, is given when considering Euler’s system of the anisotropic integral
where \(g_i\) increases and we take
see section 4 in [30]. Let us look at another example: we set \(m=n\) and we consider the polyconvex integral
where h is convex, \(C^1\), bounded from below. In this case Euler’s system gives
where \(({\text {Cof}} Du)^\alpha _i\) is the determinant of the \((n-1) \times (n-1)\) matrix obtained from the \(n \times n\) matrix Du by deleting row \(\alpha \) and column i, with the sign given by \((-1)^{\alpha + i}\). It turns out that
then we get (1.11), provided \(h(0) = \inf \limits _{\mathbb {R}} h\); see Sect. 3, later in the present paper; see also [31].
The previous examples show that Meier’s condition allows us to deal with quite a large class of nonlinear systems. Boundedness results for weak solutions to nonlinear elliptic systems are proved by Krömer [26] under assumptions similar to (1.11), see also Landes [29].
Actually Meier’s regularity result is obtained under a weaker assumption, since \(I_A\) can be allowed to be negative, but not too much.
More precisely, under (1.7) and (1.8), there exist positive constants \(\lambda \) and L such that
for every \(\delta \in (0,1)\), for all \((x,u,z) \in \Omega \times \mathbb {R}^m \times \mathbb {R}^{m \times n}\), with \(|u| > L\).
Let us observe that the following linear decoupled system does not verify (1.19), see [32] and Sect. 3, later in the present paper:
where \(m=2\),
Now we consider another example, see [31], in which the equations are coupled and Meier’s condition (1.19) is not satisfied: it is Euler’s system of
where \(m=2\), h is convex, \(C^1\), bounded from below, so that
where
Meier’s condition (1.19) is not satisfied, provided \(h^\prime (0) \le -8\): for instance, \(h(t) = 16\sqrt{1+(t-1)^2}\); see Sect. 3 later in the present paper.
Combining coefficients \(\sigma ^\alpha (x)\) similar to (1.21) with the nonlinear part of (1.23), we are able to build an example with p growth that does not satisfy Meier’s condition (1.19). Indeed,
where \(2 \le p\), h is convex, \(C^1\), bounded from below; \(\hat{\alpha }\) and \(\delta _{i 1}\) are defined as before. Moreover, \(m=2\) and
Meier’s condition (1.19) is not satisfied, provided \(h^\prime (0) \le 0\): for instance, \(h(t) = \left( 1+t^2\right) ^{p/4}\); see Sect. 3 for the details.
In [2] Bjorn obtained boundedness of solutions u of systems without considering the indicator function but assuming componentwise coercivity:
Previous assumption (1.26) says that, even if row \(\alpha \) of the system contains all the components of \(z=Du\), after multiplying this row by component \(\alpha \) of \(z=Du\), from below we only see the \(\alpha \) component of \(z=Du\) and none of other components.
(1.26) is satisfied in system (1.20), provided \(\sigma ^\alpha (x) \ge \nu \) for some positive constant \(\nu \). Furthermore, the structure in (1.12) guarantees (1.26), provided \(\sigma (Du) \ge \nu |Du|^{p-2}\), for some constants \(p \ge 2\) and \(\nu >0\). Let us mention that polyconvex structure (1.17) enjoys (1.26), provided \(p \ge 2\), see Sect. 3. Finally, systems in (1.23) and (1.24) satisfy (1.26): details are in Sect. 3.
Let us observe that the interesting Bjorn’s technique allows to deal only with the subquadratic case \(1 < p \le 2\). When \(A^\alpha _i\) does not depend on u, in Theorem 1.1, we are able to deal with the case \(p_0 < {p \le } n\), for a suitable \(p_0=p_0(n)\); in the three dimensional case \(n=3\), \(p_0=3/2\), so our result complements the one of Bjorn and we get boundedness of solutions of elliptic systems under componentwise coercivity, see details at the end of this introduction.
It is worth pointing out that we study system satisfing p, q-growth, according to Marcellini [35]. Regularity in this case is obtained when q is not far from p, see the survey [40] and, more recently, [36, 37, 42]; inequality \(p \le q < p^*\frac{n}{p(n+1)}\) tells us that q cannot be too far from p.
We underline that the strategy for proving our vectorial regularity result is De Giorgi’s elegant and powerful method, see [10]. Precisely, we prove separately that each component \(u^\alpha \) satisfies a suitable Caccioppoli-type inequality, a decay of the “excess” on super-(sub-) level sets of \(u^\alpha \) that allow to apply iteration arguments and, eventually, the local boundedness of the \(\alpha \)-th component of u. A similar strategy has been successfully applied in [6] to prove the boundedness of local minimizers of polyconvex functionals satisfying a non-standard growth, see also [3, 4, 47]. Local boundedness of weak solutions to some elliptic systems with anisotropic or p, q growth has been proved in [7] by using Moser’s iteration technique. In [31, 48], a kind of maximum principle has been proved for systems verifying a condition similar to (1.26); see also [46]. Recent results on the regularity of minimizers of variational integrals or equations in the scalar framework are in [1, 21]; see also [22], where the boundedness of scalar local minimizers of variational integrals is proved under a sharp bound on the exponents p, q, in the light of the counterexamples in [16, 33, 34]. We also cite the interesting paper [9], where both the scalar and the vectorial case are considered, this last case under the so called Uhlenbeck assumption, i.e. the radial structure \(f(x,Du)=\tilde{f}(x,|Du|)\), where f is the energy density of the variational integral. Under this assumption, the usual condition on the exponents p and q to have the local boundedness of vectorial minimizers of functionals, or of weak solutions to systems, is \(q<p^*\), see e.g. [7, 8]. Our gap condition on p and q is more restrictive, but we do not require the strong Uhlenbeck assumption.
We try to explain why we are able to consider values of p larger than the ones considered in [2]. Bjorn uses Caccioppoli inequality on superlevel sets \(\{ v > k \}\) with the same exponent p both for Dv and \(v -k\). We use Caccioppoli inequality on superlevel sets with different exponents: p for Dv and \(p^*\) for \(v -k\). When p is close to n, then \(p^*\) is, by far, larger than p, and this helps a lot. Let us also mention that Bjorn takes \(v = \max \{|u^1|,...,|u^m|\}\), where \(u=(u^1,...,u^m)\) is the solution of the system; on the contrary, we take \(v=u^\alpha \), the component \(\alpha \) of u.
Let us discuss inequalities \(1 < p { \le n}\), \(p \le q < p^*\frac{n}{p(n+1)}\), as required in (1.5) of our Theorem 1.1. If \(p=n\) the condition on q is trivially satisfied. We have to solve \(p < p^*\frac{n}{p(n+1)}\) when \(1<p<n\). This means that \(0 < (n+1) p^2 - n(n+1) p + n^2\); when \(n=2\) this is satisfied for every p; when \(n=3\), it is true for \(p \ne \frac{3}{2}\); when \(n \ge 4\) the inequality is satisfied for \(1<p<p_{-}\) or \(p_{+}< p <n\), where
Note that
If we confine ourselves to the case \(p=q\), it is possible to make a comparison with Bjorn [2]. When \(n=2\), we recover Bjorn’s boundedness result for every \(1 < { p \le } n=2\). When \(n=3\), Bjorn’s result is limited to \(1<p \le 2\) and we complement it, since we are able to deal with \(2 < { p \le } n=3\). When \(n \ge 4\), Bjorn’s result holds true for \(1 < p \le 2\), our result is valid when \(p_{+} < { p \le n}\), so it remains open the case \(2 < p \le p_{+}\).
We conclude by observing that in the definition of weak solution of an elliptic equation or system with p, q-growth, the solution is assumed to be in \(W^{1,q}_{\mathrm{loc}}\) and not in \(W^{1,p}_{\mathrm{loc}}\), see e.g. [35] and [37]. Enforcing the assumptions on the structure of the nonlinear operator, it is possible to prove the existence of a solution in \(W^{1,q}_{\mathrm{loc}}\cap (W_0^{1,p}+u_0)\) of a Dirichlet problem with a sufficiently regular boundary datum \(u_0\), see [5]. On this topic we also refer to Theorem 4.1 in [35], where the scalar case is considered.
Our paper is organized as follows. In the next section we present the proof of Theorem 1.1. In Sect. 3 we give details for some of the previous examples.
2 Proof of Theorem 1.1
The proof of Theorem 1.1 is based on the DeGiorgi method, see [10], suitable for dealing with equations. Nevertheless we apply it in the vectorial framework, since we can apply it to each component \(u^{\alpha }\) of a weak solution u separately.
In what follows we limit ourselves to consider the case \(p<n\). The remaining case, \(p=n\), can be obtained by the previous one. Indeed, by using the inequality \(|z|^{n-\epsilon }-1\le |z|^n\), that holds true for any positive \(\epsilon \le n\), we get that the n, q-growth implies a \(n-\epsilon ,q\)-growth and that the assumptions on the exponents, see (1.5), are easily satisfied by choosing \(0<\epsilon <\epsilon _0\), with \(\epsilon _0=\min \left\{ \frac{n^2}{q(n+1)},n\left( 1-\frac{1}{\tau _1}\right) \right\} \).
2.1 STEP 1. Caccioppoli inequality
The particular growth conditions (1.2) and (1.3) guarantee a Caccioppoli inequality for any component \(u^{\alpha }\) of u on every superlevel set \(\{ u^{\alpha } > k \}\).
Proposition 2.1
Let us consider the system (1.1) and assume that (1.2), (1.3) hold. Let \(u\in W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,q}(\Omega ;\mathbb {R}^m)\) be a weak solution of (1.1). Let \(B_{R}(x_0)\Subset \Omega \) with \(|B_{R}(x_0)| \le 1\); for \(k\in \mathbb {R}\), \(\alpha = 1,...,m\) and \(0<\tau \le R\), denote
If \(q\le p^*\) then, there exists \(c=c(n,p,\nu ,M)>0\) such that, for every s, t with \(0<s<t\le R\), for every \(k \in \mathbb {R}\) and for every \(\alpha = 1,...,m\) we have
where
We can take \(c=\frac{1+M2^{1+p^*}}{\nu }\).
Proof
Fix \(\alpha \in \{1,\ldots ,m\}\). Consider a cut-off function \(\eta \in C_0^{1}(B_t(x_0))\) satisfying the following assumptions:
Define the test function \(\psi = (\psi ^1,...,\psi ^m) \in W^{1,q}_{0}(B_t(x_0);\mathbb {R}^m)\), where \(\psi ^{\beta } = 0\) if \(\beta \ne \alpha \) and \(\psi ^{\alpha } = (u^{\alpha }-k)_+ \, \eta \), where \(\tau _+=\max \{\tau ,0\}\). Notice that
where \(\chi _{E}(x) = 1\) if \(x \in E\) and \(\chi _{E}(x) = 0\) otherwise; moreover, \(f_{x_i}=D_if=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}\).
We insert such a \(\psi \) into (1.4) and we get
It is easy to estimate \(J_1\), indeed, using Hölder inequality
In order to estimate \(J_2\), we first use Young inequality with exponents \(p^*\) and \((p^*)^{\prime }\).
Since \(q< p^*\) then \((q-1)(p^*)^{\prime } < q\). Therefore we can use Hölder inequality with first exponent \(\frac{q'}{(p^*)^{\prime }} > 1\) to estimate the last integral, obtaining
Thus, if we keep in mind that \(|D \eta | \le 2/(t-s)\), then
In order to estimate \(J_3\), we first use Young inequality with exponents \(p^*\) and \((p^*)^{\prime }\):
note that \(\tau _2 \ge q^{\prime } > (p^*)^{\prime }\); so, we can use Hölder inequality with first exponent \(\frac{\tau _2}{(p^*)^{\prime }} > 1\) and we get
Once again we use that \(|D \eta | \le 2/(t-s)\), then
Collecting (2.4), (2.5), (2.7), (2.8), we get
We keep in mind that \(\eta = 1\) on \(B_{s}(x_0)\) and \(|A^\alpha _{k,t}| \le |B_{R}(x_0)| \le 1\): inequality (2.1) follows by taking \(c=\frac{1+M2^{1+p^*}}{\nu }\). \(\square \)
2.2 STEP 2: Decay of the “excess” on superlevel sets
In this step we consider a scalar Sobolev function \(v:\Omega \subset \mathbb {R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\), \(n\ge 2\).
Let us assume that \(\Omega \) is an open set in \(\mathbb {R}^n\) and v is a scalar function \(v \in W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,p}(\Omega ;\mathbb {R})\), \(p\ge 1\). Fix \(B_{R_0}(x_0) \Subset \Omega \), with \(R_0<1\) small enough so that
Here \(p^*=\frac{np}{n-p}\), since \(p<n\).
For every \(R\in (0,R_0]\) we define the decreasing sequences
Fixed a positive constant \(d \ge 1\), define the increasing sequence of positive real numbers
Moreover, define the sequence \((J_{v,h})\),
where \(A_{k,\rho } = \{ v>k \} \cap B_\rho \). The following result holds (see [6, Proposition 2.4], [15, 44]).
Proposition 2.2
Let \(v \in W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,p}(\Omega ;\mathbb {R})\), \(p\ge 1\). Fix \(B_{R_0}(x_0) \Subset \Omega \), with \(R_0<1\) small enough such that (2.10) holds. If there exists \(0\le \vartheta \le 1\) and \(c_0>0\) such that for every \(0<s<t\le R_0\) and for every \(k\in \mathbb {R}\)
then, for every \(R\in (0,R_0]\),
with the positive constant c independent of h.
2.3 STEP 3: Iteration and proof of Theorem 1.1
We now resume the proof of Theorem 1.1.
We need the following classical result, see e.g. [17].
Lemma 2.3
Let \(\gamma >0\) and let \((J_h)\) be a sequence of real positive numbers, such that
with \(A>0\) and \(\lambda >1\). If \(J_{0} \le A^{-\frac{1}{\gamma }}\lambda ^{-\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}}\), then \( J_h \le \lambda ^{-\frac{h}{\gamma }}J_{0} \) and \(\lim _{h\rightarrow \infty } J_h=0\).
Fix \(B_{R_0}(x_0) \Subset \Omega \), with \(R_0 < 1\) small enough such that \(|B_{R_0}(x_0)|< 1\) and \(\int _{B_{R_0}}|u|^{p^*}\,dx < 1\). By Proposition 2.1 we have that \(u^\alpha \) satisfies (2.1); i.e. for every \(0<s<t\le R_0\) and every \(k\in \mathbb {R}\),
where
and \(c=\frac{1+M2^{1+p^*}}{\nu }\).
Therefore the scalar function \(u^\alpha \) satisfies (2.11) of Proposition 2.2 with constant \(c_0\) depending on
Note that these integrals are finite.
As above, let us define
with \(d \ge 1\) (d will be fixed later) and, for every \(R\in (0,R_0]\), define
and
Proposition 2.2, applied to \(u^\alpha \), gives
with the positive constant c independent of h and, by (1.5), with the exponent \(\vartheta \frac{p^*}{p}\) greater than 1. Indeed, we notice that \(q < p^* \frac{n}{p(n+1)}\) is equivalent to \(\frac{q}{q-1} > \frac{p^*}{p^*-1} \frac{n}{p}\); therefore (1.5) implies
so we get \(1 < \vartheta \frac{p^*}{p}\).
Moreover, since
we can choose \(d \ge 1\) large enough, so that
Therefore, by Lemma 2.3, \(\lim _{h\rightarrow +\infty }J_{u^\alpha ,h}=0\). Thus, \(u^\alpha \le d\) a.e. in \(B_{\frac{R}{2}}(x_0)\). We have so proved that \(u^\alpha \) is locally bounded from above.
To prove that \(u^\alpha \) is locally bounded from below, we can observe that \(\tilde{u}=-u\) is a weak solution for
where \(\tilde{A}(x,z)=-A(x,-z)\). It is easy to check that \(\tilde{A}\) satisfies assumptions analogous to (1.2) and (1.3). Therefore, by what previously proved, there exists \(d'\) such that \(\tilde{u}^\alpha =-u^\alpha \le d'\) a.e. in \(B_{\frac{R}{2}}(x_0)\). We have so proved that \(u^\alpha \in L^{\infty }(B_{\frac{R}{2}}(x_0))\). Due to the arbitrariness of \(x_0\) and \(R_0\), we get \(u^\alpha \in L^\infty _{\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega )\).
3 Examples
Example 1
We consider example (1.17) that we rewrite for the convenience of the reader:
where \(m=n\), \(z \in \mathbb {R}^{n \times n}\), \(\det z = \sum _{i=1}^{n} z _i^\alpha ({\text {Cof}} z)_i^\alpha \); moreover, h is convex, bounded from below and \(C^1\). Exploiting the convexity of h, we get
so that
Let us compute the indicator function for this choice of A: we get
where we used the property \(\sum \limits _{i} ({\text {Cof}} z)_i^\alpha z_i^\beta = 0\) if \(\beta \ne \alpha \). When \(h(0) = \inf \limits _{\mathbb {R}} h\), then strong Meier’s condition (1.11) is satisfied; if \(h(0) > \inf \limits _{\mathbb {R}} h\), then weak Meier’s condition (1.19) is verified with \(\lambda = 1\), \(d(x)=0\) and \(g(x) = h(0) - \inf \limits _{\mathbb {R}} h\). Now, let us verify componentwise coercivity (1.26). We have
provided \(p \ge 2\); then (1.26) is verified with \(\nu = p\), \(a(x) = h(0) - \inf \limits _{\mathbb {R}} h\) and \(b(x) = 0\).
Example 2
We consider example (1.20) that we rewrite for the convenience of the reader:
where \(m=2\), \(\sigma ^1 (x) = 18 + 2\sin (|x|^2)\) and \(\sigma ^2 (x) = 2 + \sin (|x|^2)\). Since \(\sigma ^\alpha (x) \ge 1\), it is easy to check (1.26):
so, (1.26) is verified with \(p=2\), \(\nu = 1\), \(a(x) = 0\) and \(b(x) = 0\). We are going to show that (1.19) is not fulfilled. Indeed, we take \(u^1=u^2=s>0\) with s large enough (see (3.5) later); moreover, we take \(z_i^\alpha = 0\) if \(i \ge 2\), \(z_1^1=-s^2\), \(z_1^2=2s^2\). Then \(|z|^2 = 5 s^4\), \(|u|^2 = 2s^2\), \(\frac{u^\alpha u^\beta }{|u|^2} = \frac{1}{2}\) and
where (*) is guaranteed by the choice of s as follows
Example 3
Let us consider example (1.23) that we rewrite for the convenience of the reader:
where \(m=2\), \(\hat{\alpha } = 2\) if \(\alpha =1\) and \(\hat{\alpha } = 1\) if \(\alpha =2\); moreover, \(\delta _{i 1}=1\) if \(i=1\) and \(\delta _{i 1}=0\) otherwise. Here, h is convex, \(C^1\), bounded from below and \(h^\prime (0) \le -8\). For instance,
Let us first check (1.26):
since \(z_1^{\hat{\alpha }} z_1^\alpha = z_1^1 z_1^2\); then (1.26) is verified with \(\nu = 2\), \(p=2\), \(a(x) = h(0) - \inf \limits _{\mathbb {R}} h\) and \(b(x) = 0\). We are going to show that (1.19) is not fulfilled. Indeed, we take \(u^1=u^2=s>0\) with s large enough (see (3.5) as before); moreover, we take \(z_1^2 = s^2\) and \(z_i^\alpha = 0\) otherwise. Then \(|z|^2 = s^4\), \(|u|^2 = 2s^2\), \(\frac{u^\alpha u^\beta }{|u|^2} = \frac{1}{2}\) and
where (*) is guaranteed by the choice of s (3.5) as before. In order to show that we can use Theorem 1.1, we use formula (3.7) and we select \(n=3\). Then \(|h^\prime (t)| \le 16\) and we get
so (1.3) is satisfied with \(q=2\), \(M=54\) and \(b(x)=0\), \(\tau _2 = +\infty \). Note that previous calculations checked the validity of (1.2) with \(p=2\), \(\nu = 2\), \(a(x) = h(0) - \inf \limits _{\mathbb {R}} h = 16(\sqrt{2} - 1)\) and \(\tau _1 = +\infty \). Since we selected \(n=3\), \(q=p=2\), then \(\frac{3}{2} = p_0(n)< 2 = q= p < p^* \frac{n}{p(n+1)}\); this implies that (1.5) is satisfied and we can use our Theorem 1.1 and we get the following
Corollary 3.1
If \(\Omega \) is a bounded open subset of \(\mathbb {R}^3\), then all solutions \(u \in W^{1,2}_{loc}(\Omega ; \mathbb {R}^2)\) of system (1.1), with \(n=3\), \(m=2\), (3.6) and (3.7), are locally bounded in \(\Omega \).
Example 4
Let us consider example (1.24) that we rewrite for the convenience of the reader:
where \(m=2\), \(\sigma ^1 (x) = 48 + 3\sin (|x|^2)\) and \(\sigma ^2 (x) = 2 + \sin (|x|^2)\), \(\hat{\alpha } = 2\) if \(\alpha =1\) and \(\hat{\alpha } = 1\) if \(\alpha =2\); moreover, \(\delta _{i 1}=1\) if \(i=1\) and \(\delta _{i 1}=0\) otherwise. Here, \(2 \le p\), h is convex, \(C^1\), bounded from below and \(h^\prime (0) \le 0\). For instance,
Let us first check (1.26); since \(\sigma ^\alpha (x) \ge 1\) and \(z_1^{\hat{\alpha }} z_1^\alpha = z_1^1 z_1^2\),
then (1.26) is verified with \(\nu = p\), \(a(x) = h(0) - \inf \limits _{\mathbb {R}} h\) and \(b(x) = 0\). We are going to show that (1.19) is not fulfilled. Indeed, we take \(u^1=u^2=s>0\) with s large enough (see (3.11) later); moreover, we take \(z_1^1 = s^2\), \(z_1^2 = 0\), \(z_2^1 = -2 s^2\), \(z_2^2 = 3 s^2\) and \(z_i^\alpha = 0\) otherwise. Then \(|z|^2 = 14 s^4\), \(|u|^2 = 2s^2\), \(\frac{u^\alpha u^\beta }{|u|^2} = \frac{1}{2}\) and
where (**) is guaranteed by the choice (3.11) of s as follows.
In order to show that we can use Theorem 1.1, we use formula (3.10), we select \(n=3\) and we require \(p<3=n\). Then \(|h^\prime (t)| \le \frac{p}{2} \left( 1 + t^2 \right) ^\frac{p-2}{4}\) and we get
so (1.3) is satisfied with \(q=p\), \(M=p( 153 + 2^{1+\frac{p-1}{4}})\) and \(b(x)=1\), \(\tau _2 = +\infty \). Note that previous calculations checked the validity of (1.2) with \(\nu = p\), \(a(x) = h(0) - \inf \limits _{\mathbb {R}} h = 0\) and \(\tau _1 = +\infty \). Since we selected \(n=3\), \(q=p\in [2, 3)\), then \(\frac{3}{2} = p_0(n)< 2 \le q = p < p^* \frac{n}{p(n+1)}\); this implies that (1.5) is satisfied and we can use our Theorem 1.1 and we get the following
Corollary 3.2
If \(\Omega \) is a bounded open subset of \(\mathbb {R}^3\), then all solutions \(u \in W^{1,p}_{loc}(\Omega ; \mathbb {R}^2)\) of system (1.1), with \(2 \le p < 3 =n\), \(m=2\), (3.9) and (3.10), are locally bounded in \(\Omega \).
Data availability statment
data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Change history
22 July 2022
Missing Open Access funding information has been added in the Funding Note.
References
Bella, P., Schäffner, M.: On the regularity of minimizers for scalar integral functionals with \((p, q)\)-growth. Anal. PDE 13(7), 2241–2257 (2020)
Bjorn, J.: Boundedness and differentiability for nonlinear elliptic systems. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 353(11), 4545–4565 (2001)
Carozza, M., Gao, H., Giova, R., Leonetti, F.: A boundedness result for minimizers of some polyconvex integrals. J. Opt. Theory Appl. 178(3), 699–725 (2018)
Cupini, G., Focardi, M., Leonetti, F., Mascolo, E.: On the Hölder continuity for a class of vectorial problems. Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 9(1), 1008–1025 (2020)
Cupini, G., Leonetti, F., Mascolo, E.: Existence of weak solutions for elliptic systems with \(p, q\)-growth. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 40(2), 645–658 (2015)
Cupini, G., Leonetti, F., Mascolo, E.: Local boundedness for minimizers of some polyconvex integrals. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 224, 269–289 (2017)
Cupini, G., Marcellini, P., Mascolo, E.: Local boundedness of solutions to quasilinear elliptic systems. Manuscripta Math. 137, 287–315 (2012)
Cupini, G., Marcellini, P., Mascolo, E.: Local boundedness of solutions to some anisotropic elliptic systems, Recent trends in nonlinear partial differential equations. II. Stationary problems, 169-186, Contemp. Math., 595, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, (2013)
De Filippis, C., Mingione, G.: Lipschitz bounds and nonautonomous integrals. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 242(2), 973–1057 (2021)
De Giorgi, E.: Sulla differenziabilità e l’analiticità delle estremali degli integrali multipli regolari. Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino. Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Nat. 3, 25–43 (1957)
De Giorgi, E.: Un esempio di estremali discontinue per un problema variazionale di tipo ellittico. Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. 4(1), 135–137 (1968)
Fattorusso, L., Softova, L.: Precise Morrey regularity of the weak solutions to a kind of quasilinear systems with discontinuous data, Electron. J. Qual. Theory Differ. Equ., Paper No. 36, 13 pp (2020)
Frehse, J.: Una generalizzazione di un controesempio di De Giorgi nella teoria delle equazioni ellitiche. Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. (4) 3, 998–1002 (1970)
Frehse, J.: An irregular complex valued solution to a scalar uniformly elliptic equation. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 33, 263–266 (2008)
Fusco, N., Sbordone, C.: Some remarks on the regularity of minima of anisotropic integrals, Commu. P. D. E., 18, 153-167 (1993)
Giaquinta, M.: Growth conditions and regularity, a counterexample. Manuscripta Math. 59, 245–248 (1987)
Giusti, E.: Direct Methods in the Calculus of Variations. World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge (2003)
Giusti, E., Miranda, M.: Un esempio di soluzioni discontinue per un problema di minimo relativo ad un integrale regolare del calcolo delle variazioni. Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. 2, 1–8 (1968)
Hao, W., Leonardi, S., Necas, J.: An example of irregular solution to a nonlinear Euler-Lagrange elliptic system with real analytic coefficients. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) 23(1), 57–67 (1996)
Hao, W., Leonardi, S., Steinhauer, M.: Examples of discontinuous, divergence-free solutions to elliptic variational problems. Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 36(3), 511–517 (1995)
Hästö, P., Ok, J.: Regularity theory for non-autonomous partial differential equations without Uhlenbeck structure, Preprint (2021), arXiv:2110.14351
Hirsch, J., Scäffner, M.: Growth conditions and regularity, an optimal local boundedness result, Commun. Contemp. Math. 23, no. 3, Paper No. 2050029, 17 pp (2021)
John, O., Maly, J., Stara, J.: Nowhere continuous solutions to elliptic systems. Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 30(1), 33–43 (1989)
John, O., Necas, J., Stara, J.: Counterexample to the regularity of weak solution of elliptic systems. Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 21(1), 145–154 (1980)
Kristensen, J., Mingione, G.: Sketches of Regularity Theory from The 20th Century and the Work of Jindrich Necas. In: “Selected works of Jindrich Necas”. PDEs, continuum mechanics and regularity. Edited by Sarka Necasova, Milan Pokorny and Vladimir Sverak. Advances in Mathematical Fluid Mechanics. Birkhauser/Springer, Basel, (2015). xiv+785 pp
Krömer, S.: A priori estimates in \(L^\infty \) for non-diagonal perturbed quasilinear systems. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) 8, 417–428 (2009)
Ladyzhenskaya, O., Ural’tseva, N.: Linear and Quasilinear Elliptic Equations. Academic Press, New York (1968)
Landes, R.: Some remarks on bounded and unbounded weak solutions of elliptic systems. Manuscripta Math. 64, 227–234 (1989)
Landes, R.: On the regularity of weak solutions of certain elliptic systems. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 25, 247–255 (2005)
Leonetti, F., Mascolo, E.: Local boundedness for vector valued minimizers of anisotropic functionals. Z. Anal. Anwend. 31, 357–378 (2012)
Leonetti, F., Petricca, P.V.: Regularity for solutions to some nonlinear elliptic systems. Complex Var. Elliptic Equ. 56(12), 1099–1113 (2011)
Leonetti, F., Petricca, P.V.: Summability for solutions to some quasilinear elliptic systems. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 193, 1671–1682 (2014)
Marcellini, P.: Un example de solution discontinue d’un problème variationnel dans le cas scalaire, Preprint 11, Istituto Matematico “U.Dini”, Università di Firenze, (1987)
Marcellini, P.: Regularity of minimizers of integrals of the calculus of variations with nonstandard growth conditions. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 105(3), 267–284 (1989)
Marcellini, P.: Regularity and existence of solutions of elliptic equations with \(p, q\)-growth conditions. J. Differ. Equ. 90(1), 1–30 (1991)
Marcellini, P.: Regularity under general and \(p, q-\)growth conditions. Discrete Cont. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S 13, 2009–2031 (2020)
Marcellini, P.: Growth conditions and regularity for weak solutions to nonlinear elliptic PDES. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 501(1), 124408 (2021)
Maz’ja, V.G.: Examples of nonregular solutions of quasilinear elliptic equations with analytic coefficients. (Russian) Funkcional Anal. i Prilozen 2(3), 53–57 (1968)
Meier, M.: Boundedness and integrability properties of weak solutions of quasilinear elliptic systems. J. Reine Angew. Math. 333, 191–220 (1982)
Mingione, G.: Regularity of minima: an invitation to the dark side of the calculus of variations. Appl. Math. 51, 355–426 (2006)
Mingione, G.: Singularities of minima: a walk on the wild side of the calculus of variations. J. Global Optim. 40, 209–223 (2008)
Mingione, G., Radulescu, V.: Recent developments in problems with nonstandard growth and nonuniform ellipticity. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 501(1), 125197 (2021)
Mooney, C., Savin, O.: Some singular minimizers in low dimensions in the calculus of variations. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 221, 1–22 (2016)
Moscariello, G., Nania, L.: Hölder continuity of minimizers of functionals with non standard growth conditions. Ricerche Mat. 40, 259–273 (1991)
Ne\(\check{\text{c}}\)as, J.: Example of an irregular solution to a nonlinear elliptic system with analytic coefficients and conditions for regularity, Theory Nonlin. Oper., Abhand. der Wiss. der DDR (1977)
Palagachev, D., Softova, L.: Boundedness of solutions to a class of coercive systems with Morrey data. Nonlinear Anal. 191, 111630 (2020)
Shan, Y., Gao, H.: Holder continuity for vectorial local minimizers of variational integrals, Rocky Mountain Math. J. online-first https://projecteuclid.org/journals/rmjm/rocky-mountain-journal-of-mathematics/DownloadAcceptedPapers/210524-HongyaGao.pdf
Softova, L.: Boundedness of the solutions to non-linear systems with Morrey data. Complex Var. Elliptic Equ. 63(11), 1581–1594 (2018)
Soucek, J.: Singular solutions to linear elliptic systems. Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 25(2), 273–281 (1984)
Sveràk, V., Yan, X.: A singular minimizer of a smooth strongly convex functional in three dimensions. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 10(3), 213–221 (2000)
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the referees for useful remarks. The authors are members of the Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM). The authors gladly take the opportunity to thank GNAMPA, INdAM, UNIBO, UNIFI, UNIVAQ for the support.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Universitá degli Studi dell’Aquila within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Y. Giga.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Cupini, G., Leonetti, F. & Mascolo, E. Local boundedness for solutions of a class of nonlinear elliptic systems. Calc. Var. 61, 94 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-022-02204-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-022-02204-9