Abstract
We investigate splitting-type variational problems with some linear growth conditions. For balanced solutions of the associated Euler–Lagrange equation, we receive a result analogous to Bernstein’s theorem on non-parametric minimal surfaces. Without assumptions of this type, Bernstein’s theorem cannot be carried over to the splitting case, which follows from an elementary counterexample. We also include some modifications of our main theorem.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
A famous theorem of Bernstein (see [1]) states that a smooth solution \(u=u(x), x=(x_{1},x_{2})\), of the non-parametric minimal surface equation
defined on the whole plane must be an affine function. Letting \(f_{0}(P):=\sqrt{1+|P|^2},P\in {\mathbb {R}}^2\), the validity of (1) on some domain \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^2\) just expresses the fact that u is a solution of the Euler–Lagrange equation associated to the area functional
For a general overview on minimal surfaces, variational integrals with linear growth, and for a careful analysis of Bernstein’s theorem, the reader is referred for instance to [4,5,6, 8, 11, 12] and the references quoted therein.
We ask the following question: does Bernstein’s theorem extend to the case when the area integrand \(f_{0}(\nabla u)\) is replaced by the energy density \(\sqrt{1+(\partial _{1}u)^2}+\sqrt{1+(\partial _{2}u)^2}\) being also of linear growth with respect to \(|\nabla u|\) but without any obvious geometric meaning?
We like to mention that in the case of superlinear growth it is a familiar question to study problems with anisotropic behaviour, see, e.g., the counterexample of [7] or the discussion of anisotropic stiff materials in [9], while there are only few contributions to linear growth energies of splitting type, see [10]. An extension to the mixed linear-superlinear splitting type case is given in [2].
Here we let for \(P=(p_{1},p_{2})\in {\mathbb {R}}^2,\)
with functions \(f_{i}\in C ^2({\mathbb {R}}), i=1,2\), satisfying
for numbers \(C_{i}>0\) and with exponents
Note that (4) implies the strict convexity of f and on account of (5), the density f is of linear growth in the sense that
for some constants \(a,b>0\). For a discussion of the properties of densities f satisfying (3)–(5), we refer to [10]. We then replace (1) by the equation
and observe that the non-affine function (\(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta \in {\mathbb {R}}\))
is an entire solution of Eq. (6), in other words: the classical version of Bernstein’s theorem does not extend to the splitting case. The behaviour of the function w defined in (7) is characterized in
Definition 1.1
A function \(u\in C ^{1}({\mathbb {R}}^2), u=u(x_{1},x_{2})\), is called unbalanced if and only if both of the following conditions hold:
Otherwise we say that u is of balanced form.
Remark 1.2
Condition (8) for example means that there exists a sequence of points \(x_{n}\in {\mathbb {R}}^2\) such that \(|x_{n}|\rightarrow \infty \) and for which
Remark 1.3
If for instance (8) is violated, no such sequence exists. Thus we can find constants \(R,M>0\) such that \(|\partial _{1}u(x)|\le M\left( 1+|\partial _{2}u(x)|\right) \) for all \(|x|\ge R\). Since u is of class \( C ^1({\mathbb {R}}^2)\), this just shows
with suitable new constants \(m,M>0\).
Now we can state the appropriate version of Bernstein’s theorem in the above setting:
Theorem 1.4
Let (3)–(5) hold and let \(u\in C ^2({\mathbb {R}}^2)\) denote a solution of (6) on the entire plane. Then u is an affine function or of unbalanced type.
Remark 1.5
We do not know if (7) is the only entire unbalanced solution of (6).
Before proving Theorem 1.4, we formulate some related results: in Theorem 1.7 below, we can slightly improve the result of Theorem 1.4 by adjusting the notation introduced in Definition 1.1 and by taking care of the growth rates of the second derivatives \(f''_{i}\) (compare (4)).
Definition 1.6
Let \(\mu :=(\mu _1,\mu _2)\) with numbers \(\mu _{i}>1\), \(i=1,2\). A function \(u\in C ^1({\mathbb {R}}^2)\) is called \(\mu \)-balanced if we can find a positive constant c and a number \(\rho >0\) such that at least one of the following inequalities holds:
where in case (11) we require \(\rho \in (1/\mu _2,1)\), whereas in case (12) \(\rho \in (1/\mu _1,1)\) must hold.
Note that for example (11) is a weaker condition in comparison to (10).
The extension of Theorem 1.4 reads as follows:
Theorem 1.7
Let (3)–(5) hold and let \(u\in C ^2({\mathbb {R}}^2)\) denote an entire solution of (6). If the function u is \(\mu \)-balanced, then it must be affine.
In Theorem 1.8, we suppose that \(|\partial _1u|\) is controlled in \(x_2\)-direction and from this, we derive a smallness condition in \(x_1\)-direction—at least for a suitable sequence satisfying \(|x_1|\rightarrow \infty \). The idea of proving Theorem 1.8 again is of Bernstein-type in the sense that the proof follows the ideas of Theorem 1.4 combined with a splitting structure of the test functions.
Theorem 1.8
Let (3)–(5) hold and let \(u\in C^2({\mathbb {R}}^2)\) denote a solution of (6) on the entire plane. Suppose that there exist real numbers \(\kappa _1>0\), \( 0\le \kappa _2<1\) such that
and such that, with a constant \(k>0\),
Then we have
More precisely, by (13), we choose \(\rho \) such that
Then the \(\sup \) in (14) is taken in the set
and the \(\liminf \) in (15) is taken with respect to sequences
such that \(|x_1^{(n)}| \rightarrow \infty \).
Our final Bernstein-type result is given in Theorem 1.9. Here a formulation in terms of the densities \(f_i\) is presented without requiring an upper bound for the second derivatives \(f_i''\) in terms of some negative powers (see (4)).
Theorem 1.9
Suppose that \(f_i \in C ^2({\mathbb {R}})\), \(i=1,2\), satisfies \(f_i''(t) > 0\) for all \(t\in {\mathbb {R}}\) and \(f_i' \in L^{\infty }({\mathbb {R}})\). Let \(u\in C ^2({\mathbb {R}}^2)\) denote an entire solution of (6), i.e., it holds
If
then u is an affine function.
In the next section, we prove our main Theorem 1.4 while in Section 3 the variants mentioned above are established.
2 Proof of Theorem 1.4
Our arguments make essential use of a Caccioppoli-type inequality involving negative exponents. This result was first introduced in [10]. We refer to the presentation given in [3, Section 6], where Proposition 6.1 applies to the situation at hand. Let us assume that the conditions (3)–(5) hold and that u is an entire solution of equation (6) being not necessarily of balanced type.
Lemma 2.1
(see [3, Prop. 6.1]). Fix \(l\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and suppose that \(\eta \in C _{0}^{\infty }(\Omega )\), \(0\le \eta \le 1\), where \(\Omega \) is a domain in \({\mathbb {R}}^2\). Then the inequality
holds for any \(\alpha >-1/2\) and for any fixed \(i=1,2\).
Here and in what follows, the letter c denotes finite positive constants whose value may vary from line to line but being independent of the radius.
Assume next that the solution u is balanced and without loss of generality let u satisfy (10). In order to show that u is affine, we return to inequality (17), choose \(i=1\) and fix some function \(\eta \in C^{\infty }_0(B_{2R}(0))\) according to \(\eta \equiv 1\) on \(B_{R}(0)\), \(|\nabla \eta |\le c/R\). Then (17) yields for any exponent \(\alpha \in (-1/2,\infty )\) and with the choice \(l=1\) (\(B_r:= B_r(0)\), \(r>0\)),
Recall (5) and choose \(\alpha \) according to
Here we note that – depending on the values of \(\mu _1\) and \(\mu _2\) – actually a negative exponent \(\alpha \) can occur. It follows from (10) that
recalling that c is independent of R. Combining (20) and (18), it is obvious that (by passing to the limit \(R\rightarrow \infty \))
for \(\alpha \) satisfying (19).
As in the proof of [3, Proposition 6.1] from (with \(l=1\)) and by applying the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we get
The second integral on the right-hand side is bounded on account of our previous calculations. Because of the validity of (21), the limit of the first integral for \(R\rightarrow \infty \) is 0. Thus (22) implies
In particular, (23) guarantees the existence of a number \(a\in {\mathbb {R}}\) such that
From (24), we obtain
implying
Considering (24) again, equation (6) reduces to
We set \(\varphi (t):= u(0,t)\) and interpret the PDE (26) as the ODE
implying
Since \(f_{2}'\) is strictly monotonically increasing, this just means
for some real number b, which consequently gives
completing our proof. \(\square \)
3 Remaining proofs
Ad Theorem 1.7. Let the assumptions of Theorem 1.7 hold and assume without loss of generality that we have inequality (11) from Definition 1.6. Consider the mixed term in the last line of (18) and note that on account of (11), we may estimate
The validity of \(\rho <1\) allows us to choose \(\alpha \) sufficiently close to \(-1/2\) such that \(1-2\rho (\alpha +1)>0\) which again yields (21) and allows us to proceed as before giving our claim.
\(\square \)
Ad Theorem 1.8. Suppose by contradiction that there exists a real number \({\hat{c}}>0\) such that, with respect to the set \(M_{1,\rho }\),
For intervals \(I_1,I_2\subset {\mathbb {R}}\) we let
We fix \(0<R_1<R_2\) and consider
Exactly as in (18), one obtains, using (31) and (32),
By definition, we have
Moreover, our assumption \(\kappa _2<1\) implies that \(\alpha \) can be chosen such that, in the case \(\kappa _1>0\),
In the case \(\kappa _2=0\), we do not need an additional condition. We apply assumption (14), which leads to
Let us consider the first integral on the right-hand side of (33) recalling that \(\alpha +1-\mu _1/2<0\). Assumption (30) implies
where we suppose that \(\mu _1>2(\alpha +1)\) by choosing \(\alpha \) sufficiently close to \(-1/2\). If we further suppose that
then by decreasing \(\alpha \), if necessary, still satisfying \(\alpha >-1/2\), we obtain from (36),
Using \(R_2=R_1^{1+\rho }\) (recall (37)), we return to (35) recalling that, by the choice (34), we have \(2\kappa _2(\alpha +1)-1<0\). We calculate
If we suppose that
then we may choose \(\alpha >-1/2\) sufficiently small such that the exponent on the right-hand side of (39) is negative, hence together with (35), we have
By (33), (38), and (41), it follows that
provided that we have (37) and (40), i.e., provided that we have (16) which is a consequence of (13). Hence we have (42) which exactly as in the proof of Theorem 1.4 shows that u has to be an affine function and this contradicts (30) which in turn proves Theorem 1.8.
\(\square \)
ad Theorem 1.9. Without loss of generality, we suppose that \(\Theta \in L^\infty ({\mathbb {R}}^2)\) and that \(u \in C ^3({\mathbb {R}}^2)\), \(f_1\), \(f_2 \in C ^3({\mathbb {R}})\). Otherwise we argue in a weak sense. Let
Then we have
hence
A direct calculation shows
and the weak form of (44) reads as
Inserting \(\varphi = \eta ^2 w_1\) with suitable \(\eta \in C^1_0(B_{2R})\) such that \(0 \le \eta \le 1\), \(\eta \equiv 1\) on \(B_R\), and \(|\nabla \eta | \le c/R\), we obtain
Applying Young’s inequality and using \(w_1\), \(\Theta \in L^{\infty }({\mathbb {R}}^2)\), we obtain that
We then return to (46) and apply the inequality of Cauchy-Schwarz to obtain
On the right-hand side of (48), we observe that for both parts the first integral is vanishing when passing to the limit \(R\rightarrow \infty \) since we have (47), while the remaining integrals stay uniformly bounded.
This gives \(\partial _1 w_1 = 0\) and \(\partial _2 w_1 = 0\) since we have \(\Theta >0\). Hence we obtain \(w_1 \equiv c_1\) for some constant \(c_1\). The monotonicity of \(f_1'\) then implies \(\partial _1 u \equiv {\tilde{c}}_1\) for some different constant \({\tilde{c}}_1\).
By (43), we then also have \(\partial _2 w_2 =0\). Since we have already observed above that \(\partial _1 w_2 = \Theta \partial _2 w_1\), we deduce \(\partial _2 u \equiv {\tilde{c}}_2\) for some other real number \({\tilde{c}}_2\) and in conclusion u must be an affine function which completes the proof of Theorem 1.9.
\(\square \)
References
Bernstein, S.: Über ein geometrisches Theorem und seine Anwendung auf die partiellen Differentialgleichungen vom elliptischen Typus. Math. Z. 26(1), 551–558 (1927)
Bildhauer, M., Fuchs, M.: Splitting-type variational problems with mixed linear- superlinear growth conditions. J. Math. Anal. Appl 501(1), Paper No. 124452, 29 pp. (2021)
Bildhauer, M., Fuchs, M.: On the global regularity for minimizers of variational integrals: splitting-type problems in 2D and extensions to the general anisotropic setting. J. Elliptic Parabol. Equ. 8(2), 853–884 (2022)
Dierkes, U., Hildebrandt, S., Tromba, A.J.: Global Analysis of Minimal Surfaces. Revised and enlarged second edition. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 341. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Dierkes, U., Hildebrandt, S., Tromba, A.J.: Regularity of Minimal Surfaces. Revised and enlarged second edition. With assistance and contributions by A. Küster. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 340. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Dierkes, U., Hildebrandt, S., Sauvigny, F.: Minimal Surfaces. Revised and enlarged second edition. With assistance and contributions by A. Küster and R. Jakob. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 339. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Giaquinta, M.: Growth conditions and regularity, a counterexample. Manuscripta Math. 59(2), 245–248 (1987)
Nitsche, J.C.C.: Lectures on Minimal Surfaces. Vol. 1. Introduction, Fundamentals, Geometry and Basic Boundary Value Problems. Translated from the German by Jerry M. Feinberg. With a German foreword. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989)
Kawohl, B., Sweers, G.: On the differential equation \(u_{xxxx}+u_{yyyy}=f\) for an anisotropic stiff material. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 37(6), 1828–1853 (2006)
Bildhauer, M., Fuchs, M.: Splitting type variational problems with linear growth conditions. J. Math. Sci. (N.Y.) 250(2), Problems in mathematical analysis. No. 105, 232–249 (2020)
Nitsche, J.C.C.: Elementary proof of Bernstein’s theorem on minimal surfaces. Ann. of Math. (2) 66, 543–544 (1957)
Osserman, R.: A Survey of Minimal Surfaces. Second Edition. Dover Publications Inc., New York (1986)
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
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
Bildhauer, M., Farquhar, B. & Fuchs, M. A small remark on Bernstein’s theorem. Arch. Math. 121, 437–447 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00013-023-01908-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00013-023-01908-4
Keywords
- Bernstein’s theorem
- Non-parametric minimal surfaces
- Two-dimensional variational problems
- Splitting-type functionals