Abstract
For a class of functionals having the (p, q)-growth, we establish an improved range of exponents p, q for which the Lavrentiev phenomenon does not occur. The proof is based on a standard mollification argument and Young convolution inequality. Our contribution is two-fold. First, we observe that it is sufficient to regularise only bounded functions. Second, we exploit the \(L^{\infty }\) bound on the function rather than the \(L^p\) estimate on the gradient. Our proof does not rely on the properties of minimizers to variational problems but it is rather a consequence of the underlying Musielak–Orlicz function spaces. Moreover, our method works for unbounded boundary data, the variable exponent functionals and vectorial problems. In addition, the result seems to be optimal for \(p\leqq d\).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
We consider a class of functionals with the so-called (p, q)-growth. The prominent example we have in mind is
Here, \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^d\) is a bounded Lipschitz domain, \(u: \Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) is an argument of the functional \({\mathcal {G}}\), \(a: \Omega \rightarrow [0,\infty )\) is a given nonnegative function and \(1 \leqq p< q <\infty \) are given numbers. Functional \({\mathcal {G}}\) is the interesting toy model for studying minimisation of functionals with the so-called non-standard growth. Indeed, depending on whether \(a = 0\) or \(a > 0\), \({\mathcal {G}}\) exhibits either the p- or the q-growth.
A well-known feature of functional \({\mathcal {G}}\) is the so-called Lavrentiev phenomenon. For instance, there exists a function \(a \in C^{\alpha }({\overline{\Omega }})\) with \(\alpha \in (0,1)\), exponents p, q fulfilling \(p<d<d+{\alpha }<q\) and boundary data \(u_0 \in W^{1,q}(\Omega )\) such that
On the other hand, it is known that if \(q \leqq p + \alpha \,\frac{p}{d}\), the Lavrentiev phenomenon does not occur for the toy model (1.1); see [21]. Under the additional assumption \(u_0 \in L^{\infty }(\Omega )\), the range of exponents has been improved to \(q \leqq p + \alpha \) [16, Proposition 3.6, Remark 5]. The latter work heavily depends on the properties of minimizers and the \(L^{\infty }\) bound for the minimizer of the functional (1.1) form a nontrivial part of the result in [16].
In this paper we prove that neither the assumption \(u_0 \in L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) nor any additional property of minimizer (higher integrability, continuity) is irrelevant for the absence of Lavrentiev phenomenon. More precisely, we prove that one does not observe Lavrentiev phenomenon if
and boundary data \(u_0 \in W^{1,q}(\Omega )\). In this case, we have
This significantly improves the available results for the case \(p < d\). Moreover, our proof is elementary as it is based on a simple regularisation argument together with Young’s convolution inequality. In particular, we do not use estimates on minimizers of functional (1.1). Consequently, our method easily extends to the vector-valued maps and cover variable-exponent functionals as well (see Section 3.2.)
The question of whether (1.2) or (1.4) holds true is related to the density of \(C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\) in the Musielak–Orlicz–Sobolev space \(W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega )\) corresponding to the functional (1.1), see (4.1)–(4.3) for definitions. In this context, we prove that the density result hold true for p, q satisfying (1.3) which is again better then so-far known regime of exponents announced in [1].
Let us discuss the result of the paper within the context of previous works related to this topic. The first studies concerning functionals changing their ellipticity rate at each point have been carried out by Zhikov [39,40,41,42]. In particular, in [41] he observed that it may happen that (1.4) does not hold, extending thus similar observations made by Lavrentiev [24] and Mania [26]. Another related direction of research is the regularity of minimizers. Although the fundamental results for minimizers were obtained by Marcellini [27,28,29,30] more than 20 years ago, it is in fact still an active topic of research; see for instance [2, 4,5,6,7, 10, 12, 16,17,18,19, 31,32,33, 35, 38].
Going back to the functional (1.1), the available results for boundary data \(u_0 \in W^{1,q}(\Omega )\) provide both positive and negative answers to the question whether (1.4) holds true. On the one hand, if \(q \leqq p + \frac{p\,\alpha }{d}\) then (1.4) is indeed valid [20, 21]. On the other hand, if \(q > p + \alpha \, \text{ max }\left( 1, \frac{p-1}{d-1}\right) \) then counterexample in [3, Theorem 34] shows that (1.4) is violated (see also [21, Lemma 7] for a weaker result concerning the case \(p< d< d +{\alpha } < q\) obtained with more elementary methods). In this paper we establish (1.4) for \(q \leqq p + \alpha \,\max {\left( 1, \frac{p}{d}\right) }\) which partially fills the gap between currently known positive and negative results concerning the Lavrentiev phenomenon. Moreover, in view of [3, Theorem 34], our result is sharp for \(p \leqq d\).
Next, we wish to address two issues that appeared in previous papers on this topic. First, in [17, Lemma 4.1] there is the following claim: for every \(\varepsilon > 0\) and ball \(B_r(x) \subset \Omega \), there exists \(p_{\varepsilon } < q_{\varepsilon }\) satisfying
a coefficient \(a_{\varepsilon } \in C^{\alpha }({\overline{\Omega }})\) and a boundary data \(u_0 \in W^{1,q}(B_r(x))\cap L^{\infty }(B_r(x))\) such that
Although this is a very nice result, it does not prove that range of exponents \(q \leqq p + \alpha \,\frac{p}{d}\) is optimal for absence of the Lavrentiev phenomenon and it does not contradict our result about the range stated in (1.3). In fact, authors refer to the counterexample from [21] constructed for exponents satisfying \(p< d< d+{\alpha } < q\) i.e. exponents that do not meet our range because the distance between p and q is greater than \(\alpha \). In fact, it is shown that there exists \(p_{\varepsilon }\) and \(q_{\varepsilon }\) but it follows also from the proof that they are constructed in the following way: for \(\delta > 0\) to be specified later, we define \(p_{\varepsilon }:=d-\delta \), \(q_{\varepsilon }:= d+{\alpha } + \delta \) and find a proper counterexample constructed in [21]. Then, when \(p_{\varepsilon } \geqq 1\), we have
so that (1.5) is satisfied if we let \(\delta := \frac{\varepsilon }{2\,\left( 2 + \alpha /d\right) }\). Consequently, \(p_{\varepsilon } \rightarrow d\) as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\), which is in perfect coincidence with (1.3).
Second, we also want compare our result with [16], where authors proved that the Lavrentiev phenomenon is not observed for \(q \leqq p + {\alpha }\) in the particular cases when minimizers of (1.1) are bounded, but this requires an extra assumption on the boundary data, namely that the boundary data \(u_0\) is bounded and apply the maximum principle [25]. In addition, reasoning in [16] is based on the so-called Morrey type estimate on the gradient of minimizer which is not an obvious result itself. Comparing to our work, we prove that the Lavrentiev phenomenon does not occur independently of the properties of minimizers or boundedness of boundary data. Our methods are elementary and are based on simple estimates on convolutions. We point out that one could naively think that our result is a consequence of [16] and a simple approximation argument (boundary data \(u_0 \in W^{1,q}(\Omega )\) is approximated with a sequence \(\{u_{0,n}\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset W^{1,q}(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\)) but it is not necessarily true that sequence of minimizers has then a subsequence converning again to a minimizer of the limit problem.
Finally, we want to point out and emphasize the main novelties of the paper. Standard methods [17, 20] for proving (1.4) are based on regularization of arbitrary function \(u \in W_0^{1,p}(\Omega )\) satisfying \({\mathcal {G}}(u) < \infty \) with a sequence of smooth functions \(u^{\varepsilon } = u *\eta _{\varepsilon }\) and passing to the limit \({\mathcal {G}}(u^{\varepsilon }) \rightarrow {\mathcal {G}}(u)\) as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\). The latter is not trivial because the integrand in (1.1) is x-dependent. More precisely, if the integrand is convex and autonomous (i.e. it does not depend on x) one can use Jensen’s inequality and Vitali convergence theorem to prove that \({\mathcal {G}}(u^{\varepsilon }) \rightarrow {\mathcal {G}}(u)\) whenever \({\mathcal {G}}(u) < \infty \). In particular, there is no Lavrentiev phenomenon in this case; see also [9].
The strategy to deal with the non-autonomous case is to approximate locally the integrand with autonomous function that does not depend on x (see Lemma 5.4) so that one can exploit Jensen’s inequality. The approximation requires good estimate on \(\left\| \nabla u^{\varepsilon }\right\| _{\infty }\) which results in constraint on exponents p and q. The estimate on gradient is obtained by writing \(\nabla u^{\varepsilon } = \nabla u *\eta _{\varepsilon }\) and using the fact that \(\nabla u \in L^p(\Omega )\). Our main contribution is an observation that it is sufficient to approximate only bounded functions u (i.e. \(u \in L^{\infty }(\Omega )\)). It turns out that for \(p < d\), it is a better strategy to write \(\nabla u^{\varepsilon } = u *\nabla \eta _{\varepsilon }\) and exploit the estimate \(u \in L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) rather that \(\nabla u \in L^p(\Omega )\). We remark that these observations have been already used in our recent paper on parabolic equations [11] but at that point we did not observe that similar ideas may bring new information to analysis of the Lavrentiev phenomenon.
The structure of the paper is as follows: in Section 2 we present the main result, Theorem 2.3. The theorem holds true under rather complicated assumption so in Section 3 we discuss two representative examples. In Section 4 we review the most important properties of the Musielak–Orlicz–Sobolev spaces. We explain here why it is sufficient to approximate only bounded functions, see Lemmas 4.2 and 4.3. Then, in Section 5 we present the proof of the main result in the particular case of functional \({\mathcal {G}}\) as in (1.1) and \(\Omega = B\) (i.e. a unit ball). In this case we may neglect many technical difficulties and clearly present main ideas. Section 6 is devoted to the proof of Theorem 2.3 in the general case. Finally, in Section 7 we briefly discuss how to extend our work to the case of vectorial problems.
2 Main result
Let us first set notation. We always assume that \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^d\) is a bounded Lipschitz domain and d is the dimension of the space. We write B for the unit open ball centered at 0. For balls with radius r we use \(B_r\) and if the center is at some general point x, we write \(B_r(x)\) so that \(B_1(0) = B\) and \(B_r(0) = B_r\). Concerning function spaces, we write \(C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\) for the space of smooth compactly supported functions, \(W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) and \(W^{1,p}_0(\Omega )\) are usual Sobolev spaces, \(W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\) and \(W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega )\) are the Musielak–Orlicz–Sobolev spaces defined in Section 4 while \(C^{\alpha }({\overline{\Omega }})\) is the space of Hölder continuous functions on \({\overline{\Omega }}\) with exponent \(\alpha \in (0,1]\). Finally, \(\eta _{\varepsilon }: {\mathbb {R}}^d \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) is a usual mollification kernel.
We already introduced the key motivation of the paper, i.e., the functional (1.1), but the main result concern more general cases. We focus in the paper on functionals being of the form
where \(\psi \) is the so-called \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function and it satisfies the following assumptions:
Assumption 2.1
We assume that an \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function \(\psi : \Omega \times {\mathbb {R}}^+ \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^+\) satisfies
-
(A1)
(vanishing at 0) \(\psi (x,\xi ) = 0\) if and only if \(\xi = 0\),
-
(A2)
(convexity) for each x, the map \({\mathbb {R}}^+ \ni \xi \mapsto \psi (x,\xi )\) is convex,
-
(A3)
(\(p-q\) growth) there exist exponents \(1 \leqq p< q < \infty \) and \(\xi _0 \geqq 1\) and constants \(C_1\) and \(C_2\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} C_1\, |\xi |^p \leqq \psi (x,\xi ) \text{ for } \xi \geqq \xi _0, \qquad \psi (x,\xi ) \leqq C_2 \, (1+|\xi |^q) \text{ for } \text{ all } \xi \geqq 0, \end{aligned}$$ -
(A4)
(\(\Delta _2\) condition) there exists a constant \(C_4\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} \psi (x, 2\xi ) \leqq C_4 \, \psi (x,\xi ). \end{aligned}$$ -
(A5)
(autonomous lower-bound) there is function \(m_{\psi }: {\mathbb {R}}^+ \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^+\) and \(\xi _0\) such that for \(\xi \geqq \xi _0\) we have \(m_{\psi }(\xi ) \leqq \psi (x,\xi )\) and \(\frac{m_{\psi }(\xi )}{\xi } \rightarrow \infty \) as \(\xi \rightarrow \infty \).
Assumption 2.2
Let \(\psi \) be an \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function satisfying Assumption 2.1. We assume that for all \(D>1\), there are constants \(M = M(p,q,D)\) and \(N = N(p,q,D)\) such that
for all balls \(B_{\gamma }(x)\), all \(y, z \in \overline{B_{\gamma }(x)} \cap {\overline{\Omega }}\), all \(\xi \in \left[ 0, D\gamma ^{-\min \left( 1,\, \frac{d}{p}\right) }\right] \) and all \(\gamma \in \left( 0,\frac{1}{2}\right) \).
Let us make few comments on Assumptions 2.1 and 2.2. Conditions (A1)–(A2) are standard in the theory of Orlicz spaces while (A3) reflects growth of the \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function being trapped between \(p-\) and \(q-\)growth. Condition (A4) ensures good functional analytic properties in \(W_0^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\) cf. Lemma 4.1. Finally, condition (A5) guarantees good behaviour of second conjugate on \(\psi \) and it is only necessary for Step 4 in the proof of Lemma 6.2. In particular, this condition is necessary only for the general \({\mathcal {N}}\)-functions so it is does not have to hold in the special case \(\varphi (x,\xi ) = |\xi |^p + a(x)\,|\xi |^q\).
Assumption 2.1 thus reflects the basic functional setting. The real cornerstone of the paper is however Assumption 2.2. It is in fact an abstractly formulated condition on continuity of \(\psi \). To understand it better, we note that it is always possible to estimate, for all \(x\in \Omega \),
Assumption 2.2 states that the above estimate can be inverted (with a suitable constant). As it seems to be hard to verify it directly, we provide two model examples of \({\mathcal {N}}\)-functions \(\psi \) satisfying this condition in Section 3. Nevertheless, we would like to emphasize that the prototypic functional (1.1) satisfying (1.3) fulfils also Assumption 2.1.
The main result of this paper is
Theorem 2.3
Let \({\mathcal {H}}\) be a functional defined with (2.1) with \(\psi \) satisfying Assumptions 2.1, 2.2. Then, for all \(u_0 \in W^{1,q}(\Omega )\) we have
Moreover, space \(C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\) is dense in the Musielak–Orlicz–Sobolev space \(W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega )\).
3 Examples of N-functions satisfying Assumption 2.2
3.1 Standard double phase functionals
In this section, we prove that the \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function
satisfies Assumption 2.2 provided that \(a \in C^{\alpha }({\overline{\Omega }})\) and \(q \leqq p +\alpha \,\max \left( 1,\, \frac{p}{d} \right) \). The related functional reads as
To show thus, we use the following lemma, whose assumptions are evidently satisfied by the example given above:
Lemma 3.1
Suppose that \(\psi \) satisfies Assumption 2.1 with exponents p and q. Moreover, assume that there is \(\alpha \in (0,1]\) and constant \(C_3\) such that, for all \(x_1, x_2 \in \Omega \) and \(\xi \geqq \xi _0\), we have that
Then, \(\psi \) satisfies Assumption 2.2 provided that \(q \leqq p + \alpha \, \max \left( 1, \frac{p}{d}\right) \).
Proof of Lemma 3.1
First, we may assume that \(\xi > \xi _0\) as for \(\xi \in [0,\xi _0]\) we have that
so the assertion follows with \(M=1\) and \(N=C_2 \, (1+|\xi _0|^q)\). Hence, we fix \(\xi > \xi _0\) and some ball \(B_{\gamma }(x)\) such that \(B_{\gamma }(x) \cap {\overline{\Omega }}\) is not empty. Thanks to (3.1), we have for all \(y, z \in \overline{B_{\gamma }(x)} \cap {\overline{\Omega }}\),
As \(\xi \geqq \xi _0 \geqq 1\), we have in fact that
To bootstrap this estimate, we fix \(\delta \in (0,1)\) and write
where we used (3.3) to estimate the first term and lower bound \(\psi (z,\xi ) \geqq C_1 \, |\xi |^p\) to estimate the second term. Now, we may write
where we used \(|\xi | \leqq D\,\gamma ^{-\min \left( 1,\, \frac{d}{p}\right) }\). As \(q - p \leqq \alpha \, \max \left( 1, \frac{p}{d}\right) \), we have
It follows that \( \gamma ^{\alpha - (q - p)\,\min \left( 1,\, \frac{d}{p}\right) } \leqq 1 \) for \(\gamma \in \left( 0, \frac{1}{2}\right) \). Hence, coming back to (3.4) we obtain
We choose \(\delta = \frac{C_1}{C_1 + 2\,C_3\,D^{q-p}}\) so that \(\left( (1 - \delta )\,C_2 - \delta \, C_3\,D^{q-p} \right) \, |\xi |^p = 0\). Hence, for all \(y, z \in \overline{B_{\gamma }(x)} \cap {\overline{\Omega }}\),
so combining this with (3.2), the proof is concluded with \(M = \max \left( 1/\delta , 1\right) \) and \(N = C_2\left( 1+|\xi _0|^q\right) \). \(\square \)
3.2 Variable exponent double phase functionals
In this section we prove that \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function
satisfies our Assumption 2.2. The related functional reads as
Assumption 3.2
We assume that
-
(B1)
(\(p-q\) growth) there exist p, q with \(1 < p \leqq q\) such that the functions \(p(x), q(x): \Omega \rightarrow [1, \infty )\) satisfy \(p \leqq p(x) \leqq q(x) \leqq q\),
-
(B2)
(\(\log \)-Hölder continuity) there are constants \(C_p, C_q\) such that for all \(x, y \in \Omega \) with \(|x-y| \leqq \min \left( \text{ diam }\, \Omega , \frac{1}{2} \right) \) we have
$$\begin{aligned} |p(x) - p(y)| \leqq -\frac{C_p}{\log |x-y|}, \qquad \qquad |q(x) - q(y)| \leqq -\frac{C_q}{\log |x-y|}. \end{aligned}$$ -
(B3)
(\(\alpha \)-Hölder continuity) \(a \in C^{\alpha }({\overline{\Omega }})\) with constant \(|a|_{\alpha }\).
Lemma 3.3
Under Assumption 3.2, \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function \(\phi \) defined with (3.6) satisfies Assumption 2.2 for q and p such that \(q \leqq p + \alpha \, \max \left( 1, \frac{p}{d}\right) \).
Proof
As in the proof of Lemma 3.1, we only need to consider \(\xi \geqq 1\). Let us estimate \(\frac{\phi (x,\xi )}{\phi (y,\xi )}\) for \(x, y \in \Omega \) such that \(|x-y| \leqq \min \left( \text{ diam }\, \Omega , \frac{1}{2} \right) \). Using \(a \geqq 0\), we have that
Now, let \(D> 1\) and \(\gamma \in \left( 0,\frac{1}{2}\right) \). Suppose that \(q \leqq p + \alpha \, \max \left( 1,\, \frac{p}{d}\right) \), \(|x-y| \leqq \gamma \) and \(\xi \in \left[ 1, D\gamma ^{-\min \left( 1,\, \frac{d}{p}\right) }\right] \). Let \(C>0\). Then,
Applying this estimate with \(C = C_p, C_q\) and finding a numerical constant E such that
for all \(\gamma \in \left( 0,\frac{1}{2}\right) \). It follows that
Using (3.8), we obtain
where we used \(\max \left( 1,\, \frac{p}{d} \right) \, \min \left( 1,\, \frac{d}{p}\right) = 1\) in the last line. We deduce that
\(\square \)
4 Musielak–Orlicz–Sobolev spaces
Our results are based on smooth approximation in the Musielak–Orlicz spaces, so we first recall their definitions and basic properties. For more details, we refer to monographs [13, 23]. We consider an \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function \(\psi :\Omega \times {\mathbb {R}}^+ \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) satisfying (A1)–(A4) in Assumption 2.1. For \(f: \Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^d\) such that \(\int _{\Omega } \psi (x, |f(x)|) \mathrm {d}x < \infty \), we define the related Luxembourg norm with
Finally, the Musielak–Orlicz–Sobolev spaces are defined as
the latter one corresponds to the space of functions vanishing at the boundary. These are normed spaces with norm
One can think of \(W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\) as the space of functions having gradient integrable with p or q power depending on whether \(a = 0\) or not.
We summarize some properties of the Musielak–Orlicz spaces in the following lemma. They are mainly consequences of (A4) in Assumption 2.1. The proof can be found in many texts on Orlicz spaces [13, 23], yet for the sake of completeness, we present the proof in “Appendix A.2”.
Lemma 4.1
Let \(\psi \) satisfy Assumption 2.1 and let \(f, f_n: \Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^d\). Then,
-
(C1)
\(\Vert f\Vert _{\psi }< \infty \iff \int _{\Omega } \psi (x,c|f(x)|) \mathrm {d}x < \infty \) for some \(c>0\) \(\iff \) \(\int _{\Omega } \psi (x,c|f(x)|) \mathrm {d}x < \infty \) for all \(c >0\),
-
(C2)
\(\Vert f_n - f\Vert _{\psi } \rightarrow 0 \iff \) for some \(c>0\) \(\int _{\Omega } \psi (x,c\,|f_n(x) - f(x)|) \mathrm {d}x \rightarrow 0\) \(\iff \) for all \(c >0\) \(\int _{\Omega } \psi (x,c|f_n(x) - f(x)|) \mathrm {d}x \rightarrow 0\),
-
(C3)
if \(\Vert f\Vert _{\psi } < \infty \) and any of the conditions in (C2) is satisfied, we have \(\int _{\Omega } \psi (x,|f_n(x)|) \mathrm {d}x \rightarrow \int _{\Omega } \psi (x,|f(x)|) \mathrm {d}x\),
-
(C4)
if \(f_n \rightarrow f\) a.e. on \(\Omega \), \(\Vert f\Vert _{\psi } < \infty \) and the sequence \(\{\psi (x,|f_n(x)|\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is uniformly integrable then \(\Vert f_n - f\Vert _{\psi } \rightarrow 0\),
-
(C5)
if \(\Vert f\Vert _{\psi } < \infty \) then \(f \in L^1(\Omega )\).
Next two lemmas show that to prove the absence of the Lavrentiev phenomenon, it is sufficient to demonstrate that every \(u\in W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) can be approximated in the topology of \(W^{1,\psi }\) by smooth function from \(C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\).
First lemma shows, that it is enough to consider only bounded functions. Notice that we do not impose any specific assumption on the \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function \(\psi \) here.
Lemma 4.2
Space \(W_0^{1,\psi }(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) is dense in \(W_0^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\).
Proof
Let \(u \in W_0^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\). Consider truncation of u defined as
Clearly, \(T_k(u) \in L^{\infty }(\Omega )\). Moreover, chain rule for Sobolev maps implies that \(\nabla T_k(u) = \nabla u \, \mathbbm {1}_{|u|\leqq k}\) so that \(\nabla T_k(u) \rightarrow \nabla u\) a.e. as \(k \rightarrow \infty \). As \(\psi (x,0) = 0\), we have
so that the sequence \(\left\{ \psi (x, \left| \nabla T_k(u))\right| \right\} _{k \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is uniformly integrable. Application of (C4) from Lemma 4.1 concludes the proof. \(\square \)
Lemma 4.3
Suppose that \(\psi \) satisfies (A1)–(A4) in Assumption 2.1. Let \(p < q\) be exponents as in (A3) in Assumption 2.1. Suppose that for every \(u\in W_0^{1,\psi }(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) there exists a sequence \(\{u^n\}_{n=1}^{\infty } \subset C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\) such that \(\Vert u^n-u\Vert _{1,\psi } \rightarrow 0\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). Then, the space \(C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\) is dense in \(W_0^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\) and the Lavrentiev phenomenon does not occur, i.e., for all \(u_0 \in W^{1,q}(\Omega )\) we have that
Proof
Thanks to Lemma 4.2, \(C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\) is dense in \(W_0^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\). Let \(u^* \in W^{1,p}(\Omega )\) be the minimizer of \({\mathcal {H}}\) i.e.
The minimizer exists by a usual application of direct method in calculus of variations, cf. [37, Theorem 2.7]. Note that we always have that
because \(p < q\). To prove the reversed inequality, we write \(u^* = u_0 + {\overline{u}}\) where \({\overline{u}} \in W_0^{1,p}\). Note that \(u_0 \in W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\) (because \(W^{1,q}(\Omega ) \subset W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\)) and \(u^* \in W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\) (because \({\mathcal {H}}(u^*) < \infty \) cf. Lemma 4.1 (C1)). It follows that \({\overline{u}} = u^* - u_0 \in W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega )\). Now, consider the sequence \(\{u_n\}_{n\in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\) such that \(u_n \rightarrow {\overline{u}}\) in \(W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\) which exists due to the assumptions. It follows that \(u_n + u_0 \rightarrow {\overline{u}} + u_0 = u^*\) in \(W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\). In particular, \({\mathcal {H}}(u_0 + u_n) \rightarrow {\mathcal {H}}(u^*)\) cf. Lemma 4.1 (C3). Note that \(u_0 + u_n \in u_0 + C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\). It follows that
\(\square \)
5 Proof of Theorem 2.3 in the special case
In this section we prove Theorem 2.3 in the case when \(\Omega = B\) (unit ball centered at 0) and the \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function is defined via the formula
The corresponding functional then takes the form
Note that, if \(a \in C^{\alpha }({\overline{B}})\) and \(q\leqq p + \alpha \, \max \left( 1, \,\frac{p}{d}\right) \), it follows from Lemma 3.1 that \(\varphi \) satisfies Assumption 2.2.
The main purpose of this section is that we avoid all technical difficulties and focus only on the main parts of the proof. More precisely, we do not need to take care of difficulties coming from
-
geometric properties of general Lipschitz domain \(\Omega \),
-
situation when for general \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function \(\psi \) there is no local minimizer of the map \(x \mapsto \psi (x,\xi )\) valid for all values of \(\xi \).
We start with introducing mollification that will be used to define the approximation.
Definition 5.1
(Mollification with squeezing) For \(\varepsilon \in (0, 1/4)\) we set \(\eta _{\varepsilon }(x) = \frac{1}{\varepsilon ^d} \eta \left( \frac{x}{\varepsilon }\right) \) where \(\eta \) is a usual mollification kernel. Then, for arbitrary \(u: {\mathbb {R}}^d \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\), we define \(u^{\varepsilon }: {\mathbb {R}}^d \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) as
Lemma 5.2
Let \(u \in W^{1,1}_0(B)\) and be extended by zero onto \({\mathbb {R}}^d\). Then, \(u^{\varepsilon } \in C_c^{\infty }(B)\). Moreover, \(\frac{x}{1-2 \varepsilon } - y \in B_{5\varepsilon }(x)\) for all y such that \(|y|\leqq \varepsilon \).
Proof
Smoothness follows from standard properties of convolutions cf. [22, Appendix C.4]. To see the compact support, let \(|x| \geqq 1 - \varepsilon \) and \(|y| \leqq \varepsilon \). Then,
so that \(u\left( \frac{x}{1-2 \varepsilon } - y \right) = 0\). It follows that \(u^{\varepsilon }\) is supported in \(B_{1-\varepsilon }\). To see the second property, we estimate
where we used \(\frac{1}{1 - 2\,\varepsilon } \leqq 2\), i.e. \(\varepsilon \leqq \frac{1}{4}\). \(\square \)
Before formulating the main theorem of this section, we state and prove two results: a technical lemma concerning approximating sequence and a simple observation concerning \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function \(\varphi \).
Lemma 5.3
Let \(u \in W^{1,1}_0(B)\) be such that \({\mathcal {G}}(u)<\infty \) and consider its extension to \({\mathbb {R}}^d\). Then,
-
(D1)
\(\varphi \left( \frac{x}{1-2\,\varepsilon }, \left| \nabla u\right| \left( \frac{x}{1-2\,\varepsilon }\right) \right) \rightarrow \varphi (x,\left| \nabla u(x)\right| )\) in \(L^1({\mathbb {R}}^d)\),
-
(D2)
\( \int _{{\mathbb {R}}^d} \varphi \left( \frac{x}{1-2\,\varepsilon }-y, \left| \nabla u\right| \left( \frac{x}{1-2\,\varepsilon }-y\right) \right) \eta _{\varepsilon }(y) \mathrm {d}y \rightarrow \varphi \left( x, \left| \nabla u\right| (x) \right) \) in \(L^1({\mathbb {R}}^d)\).
Proof
To see (D1), we note that the convergence holds in the pointwise sense. Moreover, the considered sequence is supported only for \(x \in B_{1-2\varepsilon }\). Therefore, to establish convergence in \(L^1({\mathbb {R}}^d)\), it is sufficient to prove equiintegrability of the sequence \(\left\{ \varphi \left( \frac{x}{1-2\,\varepsilon }, \left| \nabla u \right| \left( \frac{x}{1-2\,\varepsilon }\right) \right) \right\} _{\varepsilon }\) and apply the Vitali convergence theorem. To this end, we need to prove that
We fix \(\eta \) and arbitrary \(A \subset B\). Using change of variables we have that
where for \(c \in {\mathbb {R}}^+\), cA denotes a usual scaled set. By assumption, we have that \({\mathcal {G}}(u) < \infty \), so if we set
then \(\omega (\tau )\) is a non-decreasing function, continuous at 0. Therefore, we may find \(\tau \) such that \(\omega (\tau ) \leqq 2^{-q} \, \eta \). Then, we choose \(\delta = 2^{-d} \, \tau \) to conclude the proof of (D1). Finally, the convergence result (D2) follows from Young’s convolutional inequality and (D1). \(\square \)
Lemma 5.4
Let \(\varphi \) be given by (5.1). Then for all balls \(B_{\gamma }(x)\) such that \(\overline{B_{\gamma }(x)} \cap {\overline{B}}\) is nonempty, there exists \(x^* \in \overline{B_{\gamma }(x)} \cap {\overline{B}}\) such that, for all \(\xi \),
Proof
Using continuity of a and compactness of \(\overline{B_{\gamma }(x)} \cap {\overline{B}}\) we have that
and we choose \({y}^*\) such that \(\inf _{y \in \overline{B_{\gamma }(x)} \cap {\overline{B}}} a(y) = a({y}^*)\). \(\square \)
Theorem 5.5
(Theorem 2.3 in the special case) Let \(u \in W^{1,\varphi }_0(B) \cap L^{\infty }(B)\) with \(a \in C^{\alpha }({\overline{B}})\). Suppose that
Consider sequence \(u^{\varepsilon }\) as in Definition 5.1 with \( \varepsilon \in \left( 0, \frac{1}{4} \right) . \) Then,
-
(E1)
\(u^{\varepsilon } \in C_c^{\infty }(B)\),
-
(E2)
\({\mathcal {G}}\left( u^{\varepsilon }\right) \rightarrow {\mathcal {G}}(u)\) as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\),
-
(E3)
\(u^{\varepsilon } \rightarrow u\) in \(W^{1,\varphi }(B)\) as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\),
-
(E4)
\(C_c^{\infty }(B)\) is dense in \(W^{1,\varphi }_0(B)\) and Lavrentiev phenomenon does not occur, i.e. for all boundary data \(u_0 \in W^{1,q}(B)\)
$$\begin{aligned} \inf _{u \in u_0 + W_0^{1,p}(B)} {\mathcal {G}}(u) = \inf _{u \in u_0 + W_0^{1,q}(B)} {\mathcal {G}}(u) = \inf _{u \in u_0 + C_c^{\infty }(B)} {\mathcal {G}}(u). \end{aligned}$$
Proof
The first property follows from construction. To prove convergence, we note that
We would like to take mollification out of the function \(\varphi \) using its convexity and Jensen’s inequality. However, this is not possible as function \(\varphi \) depends also on x explicitly. To overcome this problem, we apply Assumption 2.2, which allows us to approximate the function \(\varphi (x,\xi )\) locally by a function depending only on \(\xi \). Notice that \(\varphi \) satisfies Assumption 2.2 thanks to Lemma 3.1 and the structural assumption (5.1).
\(\underline{{{\textbf {Case 1}}~p \leqq d.}}\) In this case we have \(q \leqq p + \alpha \). Using Young’s convolution inequality, we obtain
where we choose \(D:= 5\,\left\| u \right\| _{\infty } \,\left\| \nabla \eta \right\| _{1}\). Let \(x \in B\). Applying Assumption 2.2 with \(\gamma = 5\,\varepsilon \) and Lemma 5.4 we obtain \(x^* \in \overline{B_{5\varepsilon }(x)} \cap {\overline{B}}\) and constants M, N such that
Note that
where we used that \(\varphi \) is of the form (5.1). Then, Jensen’s inequality implies that
If \(\frac{x}{1-2\,\varepsilon }-y\) does not belong to \({\overline{B}}\) then \(\varphi \left( x^*, \left| \nabla u\right| \left( \frac{x}{1-2\,\varepsilon }-y\right) \right) = 0\). Otherwise, Lemma 5.2 implies \(\frac{x}{1-2\,\varepsilon }-y \in {\overline{B}} \cap \overline{B_{5\,\varepsilon }(x)}\), so that
due to the minimality of \(x^*\) and nonnegativity of a. As \(x \in B\) was fixed, we obtain inequality
valid for all \(x \in B\). Now, we observe that \(\varphi (x, \left| \nabla u^{\varepsilon }\right| (x) )\) converges a.e. to \(\varphi (x, \left| \nabla u\right| (x))\). Moreover, the (RHS) of (5.4) is convergent in \(L^1(B)\) cf. Lemma 5.3 (D2) so that \(\left\{ \varphi (x, \left| \nabla u^{\varepsilon }\right| (x) ) \right\} _{\varepsilon }\) is uniformly integrable in \(L^1(B)\). Therefore, Vitali convergence theorem implies
Thanks to triangle inequality we obtain (E2). To see (E3), we note a simple estimate \(|a+b|^q \leqq 2^{q-1} \left( |a|^q +|b|^q\right) \) so that
It follows that the sequence \(\left\{ \varphi \left( x,\left| \nabla u(x) - \nabla u^{\varepsilon }(x)\right| \right) \right\} _{\varepsilon }\) is again uniformly integrable and Vitali convergence theorem yields that
concluding the proof of (E3). This shows that any bounded function in \(W_0^{1,\varphi }(B)\) can be approximated with smooth compactly supported functions so that (E4) follows from Lemma 4.3.
\({\underline{{\textbf {Case 2}}~p > d.}}\) In this case we have \(q \leqq p + \alpha \,\frac{p}{d}\). Note that
Therefore, instead of (5.2), we can compute that
where \(p'\) is the usual Hölder conjugate exponent. Using change of variables we obtain
so that \( \left\| \eta _{\varepsilon } \right\| _{p'} = \varepsilon ^{-\frac{d}{p}} \Vert \eta \Vert _{p'}\). Using a change of variables again,
which is finite as \({\mathcal {G}}(u)<\infty \). Therefore, (5.5) boils down to
where \(D:= 5^{\frac{d}{p}}\,\left\| \nabla u \right\| _{p} \, \Vert \eta \Vert _{p'}\). Using Assumption 2.2 we obtain estimate (5.3). The rest of the proof is exactly the same. \(\square \)
6 Proof of Theorem 2.3 in the general case
In this section we generalize construction from Section 5 to prove Theorem 2.3 in the general case.
6.1 Second convex conjugate function
For general \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function \(\psi \) satisfying Assumption 2.1, Lemma 5.4 is not necessarily true. Therefore, to control mollifications, we need a different method to approximate \(\psi (x,\xi )\) with a function depending only on \(\xi \). The construction below is somehow standard and has appeared in many works before; see [14, 15].
We start more generally. Let \(f: {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\). We define convex conjugate \(f^*:{\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\cup \{+\infty \}\) of f as
Moreover, the second convex conjugate of \(f^{**}\) is defined as
We now list some basic properties of the convex conjugates cf. [37, Propositions 2.21, 2.28].
Lemma 6.1
Let \(f, g: {\mathbb {R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\). Then, the following holds true:
-
(F1)
\(f^*\) and \(f^{**}\) are convex functions,
-
(F2)
if \(f \leqq g\) on \({\mathbb {R}}\), then \(g^* \leqq f^*\) on \({\mathbb {R}}\),
-
(F3)
if \(f \leqq g\) on \({\mathbb {R}}\), then \(f^{**} \leqq g^{**}\) on \({\mathbb {R}}\),
-
(F4)
if f is convex then \(f^{**} = f\) on \({\mathbb {R}}\).
-
(F5)
\(f^{**}\) is the gratest convex minorant of f.
Now, we apply these notions to \({\mathcal {N}}\)-functions. Given \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function \(\psi (x,\xi )\) satisfying Assumption 2.1, we extend it by 0 for \(\xi < 0\) (hence this extension is surely convex), we consider a ball \(B_{\gamma }(x)\) such that \(\overline{B_{\gamma }(x)} \cap {\overline{\Omega }}\) is nonempty and we define
Lemma 6.2
Let \(\psi \) be as in Assumptions 2.1, 2.2 and \(\psi _{x, \, \gamma }\) be as in (6.1).
-
(G1)
Let \({\mathcal {D}}>1\). Then, there are constants \({\mathcal {M}} = {\mathcal {M}}(p,q,{\mathcal {D}})\), \({\mathcal {N}} = {\mathcal {N}}(p,q,{\mathcal {D}})\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} \psi (y,\xi ) \leqq {\mathcal {M}} \, \psi _{x,\, \gamma }^{**}(\xi ) + {\mathcal {N}} \end{aligned}$$(6.2)for all balls \(B_{\gamma }(x)\), all \(y \in \overline{B_{\gamma }(x)} \cap {\overline{\Omega }}\), all \(\xi \) such that \(\xi \leqq {\mathcal {D}}\, \gamma ^{-\min \left( 1,\, \frac{d}{p}\right) }\) and all \(\gamma \in \left( 0,\frac{1}{2}\right) \).
-
(G2)
It holds \(0 \leqq \psi _{x,\, \gamma }^{**}(\xi ) \leqq \psi (y, \xi )\) for all balls \(B_{\gamma }(x)\), all \(y \in \overline{B_{\gamma }(x)} \cap {\overline{\Omega }}\) and all \(\xi \in {\mathbb {R}}\).
One could try to prove Lemma 6.2 by applying property (F3) from Lemma 6.1 to the estimate appearing in Assumption 2.2. However, this estimate is valid only on some bounded interval rather than the whole real line. The correct argument is presented in [13] but since it contains some imperfections, we present it below.
Proof of Lemma 6.2
The proof of (G2) follows easily from (F3) and (F4) stated in Lemma 6.1. For (G1) we split the proof into several steps. Recall that a convex function has a supporting line so that for all \(\eta \in {\mathbb {R}}\), there exists supporting line \(h_{\eta }\) such that \(\psi _{x,\gamma }^{**}(\xi ) \geqq h_{\eta }(\xi )\) and \(\psi _{x,\gamma }^{**}(\eta ) = h_{\eta }(\eta )\). \(\square \)
Step 1. The map \({\mathbb {R}}\ni \xi \mapsto {\psi }_{x,\,\gamma }(\xi )\) is locally Lipschitz continuous.
Proof
Fix \(y \in B_{\gamma }(x)\) and interval \([-R,R] \subset {\mathbb {R}}\). The map \({\mathbb {R}}\ni \xi \mapsto {\psi }(y,\xi )\) is convex so its difference quotients are monotone. Hence, for \(\xi _1, \xi _2 \in [-R,R]\) with \(\xi _1 < \xi _2\) we have
Since \(|{\psi }(y,R + 1)| \leqq C_2\,(1+(R+1))^q\) cf. Assumption 2.1 (A3), the map \(\xi \mapsto {\psi }(y,\xi )\) is Lipschitz continuous with constant \(2\,C_2\,(1+(R+1))^q\). By triangle inequality we have that
Finding a sequence \(\{y_k\}\) such that \({\psi }(y_k,\xi _2) \rightarrow {\psi }_{x,\,\gamma }(\xi _2)\) we obtain
As \(\xi _1\) and \(\xi _2\) can be interchanged, the conclusion follows. \(\square \)
Step 2. For \(\xi \leqq 0\) we have \({\psi }_{x,\,\gamma }^{**}(\xi ) = 0\) and for \(\xi > 0\) we have \({\psi }_{x,\,\gamma }^{**}(\xi ) \geqq 0\). In particular, estimate (6.2) is satisfied for function \({\psi }\) and \(\xi \leqq 0\).
Proof
First, note that the function being identically zero is convex. As \(0 \leqq \psi _{x,\,\gamma }(\xi )\), we deduce
Finally, as \(\psi _{x,\,\gamma }^{**}(\xi ) \leqq \psi _{x,\,\gamma }(\xi )\), we deduce \(\psi _{x,\,\gamma }^{**}(\xi ) = 0\) for \(\xi \leqq 0\). \(\square \)
Step 3. Fix \(\eta \) such that \(0 \leqq \eta \leqq {\mathcal {D}}\, \gamma ^{-\min \left( 1,\, \frac{d}{p}\right) }\) and assume that \(h_{\eta }(\xi ) = \psi _{x,\,\gamma }^{**}(\xi )\) only for \(\xi = \eta \). Then, \(\psi _{x,\,\gamma }^{**}(\eta ) = \psi _{x,\,\gamma }(\eta )\) and estimate (6.2) is satisfied for \(\xi = \eta \).
Proof
Suppose that \(\psi _{x,\,\gamma }^{**}(\eta ) < \psi _{x,\,\gamma }(\eta )\) (we always have \(\psi _{x,\,\gamma }^{**}(\eta ) \leqq \psi _{x,\,\gamma }(\eta )\)!). Using Lipschitz continuity from Step 1, we find two lines such that \(\psi _{x,\,\gamma }\) is above them (see dotted lines in Fig. 1). Hence, we observe that \(\psi _{x,\,\gamma }^{**}\) is not the largest convex minorant of \(\psi _{x,\,\gamma }\), see Fig. 1. It follows that \(\psi _{x,\,\gamma }^{**}(\eta ) = \psi _{x,\,\gamma }(\eta )\) and estimate (6.2) follows directly from Assumption 2.2. \(\square \)
Step 4 Fix \(\eta \) such that \(0 \leqq \eta \leqq {\mathcal {D}}\, \gamma ^{-\min \left( 1,\, \frac{d}{p}\right) }\) and assume that \(h_{\eta }(\xi ) = \psi _{x,\,\gamma }^{**}(\xi )\) for some interval [a, b] containing \(\eta \) (so that \(h_{\eta }\) and \(\psi _{x,\,\gamma }^{**}\) have joint line interval). Then, estimate (6.2) is satisfied for \(\xi = \eta \).
Proof
First, from Step 2 we may assume that \(a \geqq 0\) and by assumption (A5) we can assume \(b < \infty \) (as \(\psi (x,\xi )\) is superlinear as \(\xi \rightarrow \infty \)). Second, the reasoning from Step 4 shows that
Moreover, by the assumption, there exists \(t \in [0,1]\) such that
By definition of \(\psi _{x,\,\gamma }\), there exist sequences \(\{x^a_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\), \(\{x^b_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset B_\gamma (x)\) such that
With these at hand, we proceed to the final proof. By definition and convexity,
To apply (6.4), we have to replace \(\psi (x^b_n, a)\) with \(\psi (x^a_n, a)\). This can be done with Assumption 2.2: we note that \(|x_n^a - x^b_n| \leqq 2\,\gamma \) so if we let \(D := 2^{\min \left( 1,\frac{d}{p}\right) } \, {\mathcal {D}}\) we have
and Assumption 2.2 implies existence of constants M(D), N(D) (we skip dependence of these constants on p and q as these exponents are fixed) such that
It follows from (6.5) that
Letting \({\widetilde{M}}(D) := \max (M(D),1)\) and exploiting (6.4) we have that
Sending \(n \rightarrow \infty \), we deduce that
Exploiting Assumption 2.2 once again, we obtain for all \(y \in B_{\gamma }(x)\)
The conclusion follows with \({\mathcal {M}}:= M({\mathcal {D}})\,{\widetilde{M}}({D})\) and \({\mathcal {N}} = N({\mathcal {D}}) + N({D})\). \(\square \)
Step 5 Cases considered in Steps 2-4 are the only possible ones.
Proof
Clearly, the tangent line \(h_{\eta }\) touches the epigraph of \(\psi _{x,\gamma }^{**}\) at least in one point. The case where it is touched exactly at one point was studied in Step 3 while the situation when it is touched along some interval [a, b] was analyzed in Step 4. Now, suppose that there are \(\eta< \eta _1 < \eta _2\) such that
Then, \(\psi _{x,\gamma }^{**}\) is not convex raising contradiction. \(\square \)
6.2 Geometric issues
As \(\Omega \) is not a ball in general, we cannot define compactly supported approximation by retracting the function to the interior part of \(\Omega \) as in Definition 5.1. However, one can still do that for star-shaped domains.
Definition 6.3
-
(1)
A bounded domain \(U \subset {\mathbb {R}}^d\) is said to be star-shaped with respect to \({\overline{x}}\) if every ray starting from \({\overline{x}}\) intersects with \(\partial U\) at one and only one point.
-
(2)
A bounded domain \(U \subset {\mathbb {R}}^d\) is said to be star-shaped with respect to the ball \(B_{\gamma }(x_0)\) if U is star-shaped with respect to all \(y \in B_{\gamma }(x_0)\).
The following lemma shows that star-shaped domains can be uniformly shrinked which allows for defining compactly supported approximations:
Lemma 6.4
Let \(U \subset {\mathbb {R}}^d\) be a star-shaped domain with respect to the ball \(B_R\). Let \(\kappa _{\varepsilon } = 1- \frac{4\,\varepsilon }{R}\). Then, \({{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}(\kappa _{\varepsilon } \, U, \partial U) \geqq 2\,\varepsilon \). In particular,
More generally, if U is star-shaped with respect to the ball \(B_R(x_0)\),
Proof
Let \(b \in \partial U\) and let \(c \in \partial (\kappa _{\varepsilon } U)\) such that c lies on the interval [0, b]. Let T be a sphere of radius R perpendicular to the interval [0, b] and let S be the cone with base T and apex b, see Fig. 2. First, we have
Let \(\alpha \) be a half of an apex angle of the cone C, see Fig. 2. It follows that
so it is sufficient to estimate \(\sin (\alpha )\) from below. Using notation from Fig. 2, the length of interval [d, b] equals \(\frac{b}{\cos (\alpha )}\). Therefore,
As \(\sin ^2(\alpha ) = \frac{\tan ^2(\alpha )}{1+\tan ^2(\alpha )}\) we have that
where we used \(R^2 \leqq |b|^2 \leqq 3\,|b|^2\). We conclude that \({{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}(\partial U, c) \geqq 2 \varepsilon \). As this argument can be repeated for all \(c \in \partial (\kappa _{\varepsilon } U)\), we obtain \({{\,\mathrm{dist}\,}}(\partial U, \kappa _{\varepsilon } U) \geqq 2\,\varepsilon \). The second statement follows from observation that the set \(U-x_0\) is star-shaped with respect to the ball \(B_R\). \(\square \)
On star-shaped domain we can define mollification with squeezing as in Definition 5.1.
Definition 6.5
(Mollification with squeezing on star-shaped domain) Let U be a star-shaped domain with respect to the ball \(B_R(x_0)\). Given \(u \in W^{1,1}_0(U)\) we extend it with 0 to \({\mathbb {R}}^d\) and define
where \(\kappa _{\varepsilon } = 1 - \frac{4\,\varepsilon }{R}\).
The reader may think about the case \(x_0 = 0\) first.
Lemma 6.6
Function \({\mathcal {S}}^{\varepsilon }_U u\) from Definition 6.5 belongs to \(C_c^{\infty }(U)\).
Proof
The smoothness is clear from standard properties of convolutions. Concerning compact support, we claim that \({\mathcal {S}}^{\varepsilon }_U u\) is supported in \(x_0 + \overline{\kappa _{\varepsilon } \, (U-x_0) + \varepsilon \, B }\) which is a compact subset of U due to Lemma 6.4. Indeed, let \(x \notin x_0 + \overline{\kappa _{\varepsilon } \, (U-x_0) + \varepsilon \, B }\) and suppose that there is y with \(|y| \leqq \varepsilon \) such that \(x_0 + \frac{x-x_0 -y}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }} \in U\). Then, we can write
so that \(x \in x_0 + \overline{\kappa _{\varepsilon } \, (U-x_0) + \varepsilon \, B}\) raising contradiction. It follows that for \(x \in x_0 + \overline{\kappa _{\varepsilon } \, (U-x_0) + \varepsilon \, B}\) we have either
so that the integral \(\int _{{\mathbb {R}}^d} u\left( x_0 + \frac{x-x_0 -y}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }} \right) \, \eta _{\varepsilon }(y) \mathrm {d}y = 0\). \(\square \)
To move from star-shaped domains to Lipschitz ones we will use the following decomposition cf. [34, Lemma 3.14]:
Lemma 6.7
Suppose that \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^d\) is a bounded Lipschitz domain. Then, there exist domains \(\{U_i\}_{i=1,\ldots ,n}\) such that
and \(\Omega \cap U_i\) is star-shaped with respect to some ball \(B_{R_i}(x_i)\).
6.3 Approximating sequence and proof of Theorem 2.3
We are in position to define the approximating sequence. Let \(\Omega \) be a Lipschitz bounded domain. From Lemma 6.7 we obtain a family of domains such that \({\overline{\Omega }} \subset \bigcup _{i=1}^n U_i\) where \(\{\Omega \cap U_i\}_{i=1,\ldots ,n}\) are star-shaped domains with respect to balls \(B_{R}(x_i)\) (without loss of generality, we may assume that the radii of the balls are the same by taking \(R := \min _{i=1,\ldots n} R_i\)). In particular, \(\{U_i\}_{i=1,\ldots ,n}\) is an open covering of \({\overline{\Omega }}\) so there exists partition of unity related to this covering: family of functions \(\{\theta _i\}_{i=1,\ldots ,n}\) such that
Given \(u \in W^{1,1}_0(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) we extend it with 0 as above and we set
where \(\kappa _{\varepsilon } = 1 - \frac{4\,\varepsilon }{R}\). We note that since u vanishes outside of \(\Omega \), function \(u\, \theta _i\) is supported in \(\Omega \cap U_i\) which is star-shaped.
Before formulating the main result of this section, we will state and prove two technical lemmas concerning approximating sequence.
Lemma 6.8
Let \(\kappa _{\varepsilon } = 1 - \frac{4\,\varepsilon }{R}\), \(x \in \Omega \) and \(|y| \leqq \varepsilon \). Then, there exists a constant \(C_{\Omega ,R}\) such that for \(\varepsilon \leqq \frac{R}{8}\) we have \(x_i + \frac{x-x_i - y}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }} \in B_{\varepsilon C_{\Omega ,R}}(x)\).
Proof
Note that for \(\varepsilon \leqq \frac{R}{8}\), we have \(\frac{1}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }} \leqq 2\). We compute that
As \(|x_i - x| \leqq \text{ diam }(\Omega )\) (the diameter of \(\Omega \)), we choose \(C_{\Omega , R} := \frac{8 \, \text {diam}(\Omega )}{R} + 2\). \(\square \)
Lemma 6.9
Let \(u \in W^{1,1}_0(\Omega )\) be such that \({\mathcal {H}}(u)<\infty \) and consider its extension to \({\mathbb {R}}^d\). Then,
-
(H1)
\(\psi \left( x_i + \frac{x-x_i}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }}, (\left| \nabla u\right| \, \theta _i)\left( x_i + \frac{x-x_i}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }}\right) \right) \rightarrow \psi (x,\left| \nabla u\right| \, \theta _i)\) in \(L^1({\mathbb {R}}^d)\),
-
(H2)
\( \int _{B_{\varepsilon }} \psi \left( x_i + \frac{x-x_i - y}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }}, (\left| \nabla u\right| \, \theta _i)\left( x_i + \frac{x-x_i - y}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }}\right) \right) \eta _{\varepsilon }(y) \mathrm {d}y \rightarrow \psi \left( x, \left| \nabla u\right| \, \theta _i \right) \) in \(L^1({\mathbb {R}}^d)\).
Proof
Concerning (H1), we note that the convergence holds in the pointwise sense. Moreover, the considered sequence is supported on \(\Omega \cap U_i\). Therefore, to establish convergence in \(L^1({\mathbb {R}}^d)\), it is sufficient to prove equiintegrability of the sequence \(\left\{ \psi \left( x_i + \frac{x-x_i}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }}, (\left| \nabla u\right| \, \theta _i)\left( x_i + \frac{x-x_i}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }}\right) \right) \right\} _{\varepsilon }\) and apply Vitali convergence theorem. To this end, we need to prove
We fix \(\eta \) and arbitrary \(A \subset \Omega \cap U_i\). Using convexity,
as \(0 \leqq \theta _i \leqq 1\). Second, using change of variables we have that
where \({\widetilde{A}}\) is a set obtained from A after the performed change of variables. Note that measures of these sets satisfy \( |{\widetilde{A}}|\leqq \frac{1}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }^d} |A| \leqq 2^d \, |A|. \) Having this in mind, we let
Function \(\omega (\tau )\) is a non-decreasing function, continuous at 0 because \({\mathcal {H}}(u) < \infty \). Therefore, we may find \(\tau \) such that \(\omega (\tau ) \leqq \eta \). Then, we choose \(\delta = 2^{-d} \, \tau \) to conclude the proof of (H1). Finally, (H2) follows from Young’s convolutional inequality and (H1). \(\square \)
Theorem 6.10
(Theorem 2.3 in the general case) Let \(u \in W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) where \(\psi \) satisfies Assumptions 2.1 and 2.2. Let \({\mathcal {H}}\) be given with (2.1). Suppose that
Consider sequence \(\left\{ {\mathcal {S}}^{\varepsilon } u\right\} _{\varepsilon > 0}\) as in (6.6) with \(\varepsilon \leqq \frac{R}{8}\). Then,
-
(I1)
\({\mathcal {S}}^{\varepsilon } u \in C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\),
-
(I2)
\({\mathcal {H}}\left( {\mathcal {S}}^{\varepsilon } u\right) \rightarrow {\mathcal {H}}(u)\) as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\),
-
(I3)
\({\mathcal {S}}^{\varepsilon } u \rightarrow u\) in \(W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\) as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\),
-
(I4)
space \(C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\) is dense in \(W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega ) \) and Lavrentiev phenomenon does not occur, i.e. for all boundary data \(u_0 \in W^{1,q}(\Omega )\):
$$\begin{aligned} \inf _{u \in u_0 + W_0^{1,p}(\Omega )} {\mathcal {H}}(u) = \inf _{u \in u_0 + W_0^{1,q}(\Omega )} {\mathcal {H}}(u) = \inf _{u \in u_0 + C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )} {\mathcal {H}}(u). \end{aligned}$$
Proof
The first property follows from Lemma 6.6. To prove (I2), we note that
To take mollification out of the function \(\psi \) we want to use Jensen’s inequality and Lemma 6.2. The latter requires estimate on \(\left\| \nabla {\mathcal {S}}^{\varepsilon } u \right\| _{\infty }\)
\({\underline{{\textbf {Case 1: }}p \leqq d.}}\) In this case we have \(q \leqq p + \alpha \). Using Young’s convolution inequality we obtain
where we choose \({\mathcal {D}}:= n\, \Vert u\Vert _{\infty } \,\left\| \nabla \eta \right\| _{1} \, C_{\Omega , R}\) and \(C_{\Omega , R}\) is a constant from Lemma 6.8. Let \(x \in \Omega \) be fixed. Applying Lemma 6.2 with \(\gamma = \varepsilon \,C_{\Omega , R}\) we obtain constants \({\mathcal {M}}\), \({\mathcal {N}}\) such that
where function \(\psi _{x,\,\gamma }^{**}\) is the second convex conjugate of the function defined in (6.1). Now, we want to estimate \(\psi _{x,\,\gamma }^{**}\left( \left| \nabla {\mathcal {S}}^{\varepsilon } u\right| \right) \). Due to its convexity, Jensen’s inequality implies
Concerning term Y, using upper bound from Lemma 6.2 and q-growth cf. Assumption 2.1 (A3) we can estimate as follows:
Here we used \(\frac{1}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }} \leqq 2\) for \(\varepsilon \leqq \frac{R}{8}\) in the second inequality. Therefore, using \(\int _{B_{\varepsilon }} \eta _{\varepsilon }(y) \mathrm {d}y = 1\),
Concerning term X, we use convexity so get that
so that we can study each summand independently. If \(x_i + \frac{x-x_i - y}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }}\) does not belong to \({\overline{\Omega }}\) then \(\psi _{x,\,\gamma }^{**}\left( \frac{2n}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }} \left| (\nabla u \, \theta _i)\left( x_i + \frac{x-x_i - y}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }}\right) \right| \right) = 0\) because \(\nabla u\) vanishes at this point cf. Lemma 6.2 (G2). Otherwise, \(x_i + \frac{x-x_i - y}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }} \in {\overline{\Omega }} \cap \overline{B_{C_{R,\Omega }\, \varepsilon }(x)}\) cf. Lemma 6.8 so that
due to Lemma 6.2. Applying Assumption 2.1 (A4) iteratively, we obtain
where k is the smallest natural number such that \(\frac{2\,n}{\kappa _{\varepsilon }} \leqq 2^k\) (see (A.2) in the proof of Lemma A.2). Using (6.8) and the fact that \(x \in \Omega \) was arbitrary, we obtain the inequality
valid for all \(x\in \Omega \). Now, we observe that \(\psi \left( x,\left| \nabla {\mathcal {S}}^{\varepsilon } u\right| \right) \) converges a.e. to \(\psi (x, \left| \nabla u\right| )\). Moreover, the last term on (RHS) of (6.9) is convergent in \(L^1(\Omega )\) cf. Lemma 6.9 (H2). Therefore, Corollary A.2 (Vitali convergence theorem) implies
Thanks to triangle inequality we obtain (I2). Now, (I3) follows from Lemma 4.1 (C4) while property (I4) follows from Lemma 4.3.
\({\underline{{\textbf {Case 2: }}p > d.}}\) In this case we have \(q \leqq p +\alpha \, \frac{p}{d}\). In this situation, instead of (6.7), we compute using change of variables
where \(p'\) is the usual Hölder conjugate exponent. Using change of variables we obtain
so that \( \left\| \eta _{\varepsilon } \right\| _{p'} = \varepsilon ^{-\frac{d}{p}} \Vert \eta \Vert _{p'}\). Concerning the term with function u,
which is finite as \({\mathcal {H}}(u)<\infty \) and \(u \in L^{\infty }(\Omega )\). Therefore, (5.5) boils down to
Now, we can apply Lemma 6.2 (G1) to obtain estimate (6.8). The rest of the proof is exactly the same. \(\square \)
7 Extension of Theorem 2.3 to vector-valued maps
Many authors consider variational problems with vector-valued functions. However, in our work functionals depend only on the length of the gradient so there is almost no difficulty in extending our result to the vector case setting. In this section, we write \({{\textbf {u}}}=(u^1, \ldots , u^n)\) for the map \(u: \Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^n\). For simplicity, we use the same notation for spaces of vector-valued functions as for spaces of scalar-valued ones.
The main point that needs explanation is a generalisation of Lemma 4.2, where we applied truncation to approximate functions from \(W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\) by functions from \(W^{1,\psi }(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\).
Lemma 7.1
Let \(u: \Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^n\), \({{\textbf {u}}}=(u^1, \ldots , u^n)\) where \(n \in {\mathbb {N}}\). Suppose that \(u \in W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\). Then, \(u^i \in W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\). Moreover, suppose that for each \(i = 1, \ldots , n\) we have \(u^i_k \rightarrow u^i\) in \(W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\). Let \({{\textbf {u}}}_{\mathbf{k}}:= (u^1_k, \ldots , u^n_k)\). Then, \({{\textbf {u}}}_{\mathbf{k}} \rightarrow {{\textbf {u}}}\) in \(W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\).
Proof
We observe that if we interpret \(|\nabla {{\textbf {u}}}|\) component-wisely, we have \(|\nabla u^i| \leqq |\nabla {{\textbf {u}}}|\). By convexity of \(\xi \mapsto \psi (x,\xi )\), we have that
To see the second statement, we note that
so that by convexity of the mapping \(\xi \mapsto \psi (x,\xi )\),
Using Lemma 4.1 (C2), we conclude that \({{\textbf {u}}}_{\mathbf{k}} \rightarrow {{\textbf {u}}}\) in \(W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\). \(\square \)
Theorem 7.2
Suppose that \(p \leqq q + \alpha \max \left( 1, \frac{p}{d} \right) \). Let \({\mathcal {H}}\) be a functional defined by (2.1) with \(\psi \) satisfying Assumptions 2.1 and 2.2. Then, for all \({{\textbf {u}}}_{\mathbf{0}} \in W^{1,q}(\Omega )\) we have that
Moreover, space \(C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\) is dense in the Musielak–Orlicz–Sobolev space \(W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega )\).
Proof
We first prove that \(C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\) is dense in the Musielak–Orlicz–Sobolev space \(W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega )\). This follows from the following facts:
-
\(W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\) is dense in \(W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega )\). Indeed, let \({{\textbf {u}}} \in W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega )\) and \({{\textbf {u}}}_{\mathbf{k}} := (T_k(u^1), \ldots , T_k(u^n))\) where \(T_k\) was defined in (4.4). It follows from Lemmas 4.2 and 7.1 that \({{\textbf {u}}}_{\mathbf{k}} \rightarrow {{\textbf {u}}}\) in \(W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\).
-
\(C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\) is dense in \(W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\). Indeed, let \({{\textbf {u}}} \in W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\). Then, each \(u^i \in W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega ) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega )\). By Theorem 2.3, we have a sequence \(\{u^i_k\}_{k \in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\) such that \(u^i_k \rightarrow u^i\) in \(W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\). Let \({{\textbf {u}}}_{\mathbf{k}}:= (u^1_k, \ldots u^n_k)\). By Lemma 7.1, \({{\textbf {u}}}_{\mathbf{k}} \rightarrow {{\textbf {u}}}\) in \(W^{1,\psi }(\Omega )\).
Having density of \(C_c^{\infty }(\Omega )\) in \(W^{1,\psi }_0(\Omega )\) in hand, the absence of Lavrentiev phenomenon follows as in the proof of Lemma 4.3. \(\square \)
References
Ahmida, Y., Chlebicka, I., Gwiazda, P., Youssfi, A.: Gossez’s approximation theorems in Musielak–Orlicz–Sobolev spaces. J. Funct. Anal. 275(9), 2538–2571, 2018
Alberti, G., Serra Cassano, F.: Non-occurrence of gap for one-dimensional autonomous functionals. In Calculus of Variations, Homogenization and Continuum Mechanics (Marseille, 1993), Volume 18 of Ser. Adv. Math. Appl. Sci., pp. 1–17. World Scientific Publishing, River Edge, 1994
Balci, A.K., Diening, L., Surnachev, M.: New examples on Lavrentiev gap using fractals. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ., 59(5): Paper No. 180, 34, 2020
Balci, A.K., Surnachev, M.: Lavrentiev gap for some classes of generalized Orlicz functions. Nonlinear Anal., 207: Paper No. 112329, 22, 2021
Baroni, P., Colombo, M., Mingione, G.: Harnack inequalities for double phase functionals. Nonlinear Anal. 121, 206–222, 2015
Baroni, P., Colombo, M., Mingione, G.: Regularity for general functionals with double phase. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ., 57(2): Paper No. 62, 48, 2018
Bella, P., Schäffner, M.: On the regularity of minimizers for scalar integral functionals with \((p, q)\)-growth. Anal. PDE 13(7), 2241–2257, 2020
Bogachev, V.I.: Measure Theory, vol. I, II. Springer, Berlin, 2007
Bousquet, P.: Non occurence of the Lavrentiev gap for multidimensional autonomous problems. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. 2022 (to appear)
Breit, D.: New regularity theorems for non-autonomous variational integrals with \((p, q)\)-growth. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 44(1–2), 101–129, 2012
Bulí\(\check{\rm c}\)ek, M., Gwiazda, P., Skrzeczkowski, J.: Parabolic equations in Musielak–Orlicz spaces with discontinuous in time \(N\)-function. J. Differ. Equ. 290, 17–56, 2021
Byun, S.-S., Oh, J.: Regularity results for generalized double phase functionals. Anal. PDE 13(5), 1269–1300, 2020
Chlebicka, I., Gwiazda, P., Wróblewska-Kamińska, A., Świerczewska-Gwiazda, A.: Partial Differential Equations in anisotropic Musielak–Orlicz spaces. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, Cham (2021)
Chlebicka, I., Gwiazda, P., Zatorska-Goldstein, A.: Parabolic equation in time and space dependent anisotropic Musielak–Orlicz spaces in absence of Lavrentiev’s phenomenon. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 36(5), 1431–1465, 2019
Chlebicka, I., Gwiazda, P., Zatorska-Goldstein, A.: Renormalized solutions to parabolic equations in time and space dependent anisotropic Musielak–Orlicz spaces in absence of Lavrentiev’s phenomenon. J. Differ. Equ. 267(2), 1129–1166, 2019
Colombo, M., Mingione, G.: Bounded minimisers of double phase variational integrals. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 218(1), 219–273, 2015
Colombo, M., Mingione, G.: Regularity for double phase variational problems. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 215(2), 443–496, 2015
De Filippis, C., Mingione, G.: On the regularity of minima of non-autonomous functionals. J. Geom. Anal. 30(2), 1584–1626, 2020
De Filippis, C., Palatucci, G.: Hölder regularity for nonlocal double phase equations. J. Differ. Equ. 267(1), 547–586, 2019
Esposito, A., Leonetti, F., Vincenzo Petricca, P.: Absence of Lavrentiev gap for non-autonomous functionals with \((p, q)\)-growth. Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 8(1), 73–78, 2019
Esposito, L., Leonetti, F., Mingione, G.: Sharp regularity for functionals with \((p, q)\) growth. J. Differ. Equ. 204(1), 5–55, 2004
Evans, L.C.: Partial Differential Equations. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1998
Harjulehto, P., Hästö, P.: Orlicz Spaces and Generalized Orlicz Spaces. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 2236. Springer, Cham, 2019
Lavrentieff, M.: Sur quelques problèmes du calcul des variations. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 4(1), 7–28, 1927
Leonetti, F., Siepe, F.: Maximum principle for vector valued minimizers. J. Convex Anal. 12(2), 267–278, 2005
Mania, B.: Sopra un esempio di Lavrentieff. Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. 13, 147–153, 1934
Marcellini, P.: Regularity of minimizers of integrals of the calculus of variations with nonstandard growth conditions. Arch. Ration. 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 for elliptic equations with general growth conditions. J. Differ. Equ. 105(2), 296–333, 1993
Marcellini, P.: Everywhere regularity for a class of elliptic systems without growth conditions. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) 23(1), 1–25, 1996
Mariconda, C., Treu, G.: Non-occurrence of a gap between bounded and Sobolev functions for a class of nonconvex Lagrangians. J. Convex Anal. 27(4), 1247–1259, 2020
Mariconda, C., Treu, G.: Non-occurrence of the Lavrentiev phenomenon for a class of convex nonautonomous Lagrangians. Open Math. 18(1), 1–9, 2020
Mingione, G.: Regularity of minima: an invitation to the dark side of the calculus of variations. Appl. Math. 51(4), 355–426, 2006
Novotný, A., Straškraba, I.: Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of Compressible Flow. Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. 27. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004
Ok, J.: Regularity for double phase problems under additional integrability assumptions. Nonlinear Anal. 194, 111408, 13, 2020
Pedregal, P.: Parametrized Measures and Variational Principles. Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, vol. 30. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1997
Rindler, F.: Calculus of Variations. Universitext. Springer, Cham, 2018
Schmidt, T.: Regularity of minimizers of \(W^{1, p}\)-quasiconvex variational integrals with \((p, q)\)-growth. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 32(1), 1–24, 2008
Zhikov, V.: Lavrentiev phenomenon and homogenization for some variational problems. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 316(5), 435–439, 1993
Zhikov, V.V.: Problems of convergence, duality, and averaging for a class of functionals of the calculus of variations. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 267(3), 524–528, 1982
Zhikov, V.V.: On Lavrentiev’s phenomenon. Russ. J. Math. Phys. 3(2), 249–269, 1995
Zhikov, V.V.: On some variational problems. Russ. J. Math. Phys. 5(1), 105–116, 1997
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by G. Dal Maso.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
M. Bulíček: was supported by the project No. 20-11027X financed by GAČR. P. Gwiazda: was supported by National Science Center, Poland through project no. 2018/31/B/ST1/02289. J. Skrzeczkowski: was supported by National Science Center, Poland through project no. 2017/27/B/ST1/01569. All authors are grateful to Iwona Chlebicka and Błażej Miasojedow for fruitful discussions and helpful suggestions. Moreover, they are grateful for the comments of the Anonymous Referees which greatly improved the paper.
Appendix A
Appendix A
1.1 Vitali convergence theorem
In this section we recall a convergence result that is used several times in this paper. For the proof, see [8, Theorem 4.5.4].
Theorem A.1
Let \((X,{\mathcal {F}},\mu )\) be a finite measure space (i.e. \(\mu (X)<\infty \)). Let \(\{f_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset L^1(X,{\mathcal {F}},\mu )\) and f be an \({\mathcal {F}}\)-measurable function. Then, \(f_n \rightarrow f\) in \(L^1(X,{\mathcal {F}},\mu )\) if and only if \(f_n \rightarrow f\) in measure and \(\{f_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is uniformly integrable, i.e.
In the proof of the main results, we have applied the following corollary.
Corollary A.2
Let \((X,{\mathcal {F}},\mu )\) be a finite measure space (i.e. \(\mu (X)<\infty \)). Let \(\{f_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}} \subset L^1(X,{\mathcal {F}},\mu )\) be a nonnegative sequence and f be an \({\mathcal {F}}\)-measurable function. Suppose that
-
(J1)
\(f_n \rightarrow f\) in measure,
-
(J2)
there exists a sequence of functions \(\{g_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) convergent in \(L^1(X,{\mathcal {F}},\mu )\) and function \(h \in L^1(X,{\mathcal {F}},\mu )\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} 0 \leqq f_n \leqq g_n + h. \end{aligned}$$
Then, \(f_n \rightarrow f\) in \(L^1(X,{\mathcal {F}},\mu )\).
Proof
In view of Theorem A.1, it is sufficient to prove that \(\{f_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is uniformly integrable. To this end, for an arbitrary set A, we have
Let \(\varepsilon > 0\). As \(\{g_n\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is convergent in \(L^1(X,{\mathcal {F}},\mu )\), the same is true for \(\{g_n + h\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\). It follows that \(\{g_n +h\}_{n \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) is uniformly integrable. Therefore, there exists \({\delta }>0\) such that if \(\mu (A) < {\delta }\), we have \(\int _{A} |g_n + h| \mathrm {d}\mu < \varepsilon \). It follows that
\(\square \)
Lemma A.3
Let \(\{f_n\}\) be a sequence of functions and \(\psi \) be an \({\mathcal {N}}\)-function satisfying (A1), (A2) and first inequality in (A3) in Assumption 2.1. Assume that
Then, \(f_n \rightarrow f\) in measure.
Proof
Let \(\{\mu _x\}\) be the Young measure generated by sequence \(\{f_n - f\}\) cf. [36, Theorem 6.2] (note that with \(p \geqq 1\)
due to (A3) in Assumption 2.1 so that assumptions of [36, Theorem 6.2] are satisfied). Hence,
so that for a.e. \(x \in \Omega \), \(\mu _x = \delta _0\). We conclude that \(f_n - f \rightarrow 0\) in measure [37, Lemma 4.12]. \(\square \)
1.2 Proof of Lemma 4.1
Proof
The first equivalence in (C1) follows directly from definition of the norm (4.1) so in fact it is sufficient to prove that if \( \int _{\Omega } \psi (x,c|f(x)|) \mathrm {d}x < \infty \) for some \(c>0\) then \( \int _{\Omega } \psi (x,d|f(x)|) \mathrm {d}x < \infty \) for all \(d>0\). First, if \(d < c\), this follows by convexity and Jensen’s inequality:
If \(d > c\), we find \(k \in {\mathbb {N}}\) such that \(d \leqq 2^k \,c\) and apply (A4) in Assumption 2.1:
where we used the first part.
Concerning (C2), we first prove equivalence:
To prove (\(\Rightarrow \)) we fix \(c>0\) and we note that there exists \(n_c\) such that for all \(n \geqq n_c\) we have \(c\,\Vert f_n - f \Vert _{\psi } < 1\). By definition (4.1), there exists a sequence \(\{\delta _k\}_{k \in {\mathbb {N}}}\) convergent to 0 such that \(c\,\Vert f_n - f \Vert _{\psi } + \delta _k < 1\) and
Using convexity of \(\psi \) and equality \(\psi (x,0) = 0\) we obtain
Letting \(k \rightarrow \infty \) (so that \(\delta _k \rightarrow 0\)) and \(n \rightarrow \infty \) we conclude the proof. For \((\Leftarrow )\), we note that for each \(c > 0\), there exists \(n_c\) such that for all \(n \geqq n_c\) we have \( \int _{\Omega } \psi (x, c\,|f_n - f|) \mathrm {d}x \leqq 1\), i.e. \(\Vert f_n - f\Vert _{\psi } \leqq \frac{1}{c}\). The conclusion follows by letting \(c \rightarrow \infty \). We are left to prove equivalence
This follows from (A.1) and (A.2).
To prove (C3) we assume that \(\int _{\Omega } \psi (x, |f_n - f|) \mathrm {d}x \rightarrow 0\) and \(\Vert f\Vert _{\psi } < \infty \) which implies \(\int _{\Omega }\psi (x,|f|) \mathrm {d}x < \infty \). First, thanks to Lemma A.3, we deduce that \(f_n \rightarrow f\) in measure. Second, we can estimate
Corollary A.2 implies that \(\psi (x, |f_n|) \rightarrow \psi (x, |f|)\) in \(L^1(\Omega )\) so in particular, \(\int _{\Omega }\psi (x,|f_n|) \mathrm {d}x \rightarrow \int _{\Omega }\psi (x,|f|) \mathrm {d}x\).
Concerning (C4), in view of Vitali convergence theorem cf. Theorem A.1, it is sufficient to prove that the sequence \(\{\psi (x, f_n - f)\}_n\) is uniformly integrable. Using convexity and \(\Delta _2\) condition we obtain
It follows that \(\psi (x, |f_n - f|) \rightarrow 0\) in \(L^1(\Omega )\) and the conclusion follows from (C2).
Finally, to show (C5), we have to prove that if \(\int _{\Omega } \psi (x,|f(x)|) \mathrm {d}x < \infty \) then \(\int _{\Omega } |f(x)|^p \mathrm {d}x < \infty \). To this end, we estimate
where we used (A3) in Assumption 2.1. \(\square \)
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
Bulíček, M., Gwiazda, P. & Skrzeczkowski, J. On a Range of Exponents for Absence of Lavrentiev Phenomenon for Double Phase Functionals. Arch Rational Mech Anal 246, 209–240 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-022-01816-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-022-01816-x