Abstract
We provide necessary conditions on Euclidean domains for inclusions \(W^{1,p(\cdot )}(\Omega ) \hookrightarrow L^{q(\cdot )}(\Omega ) \) of variable exponent Sobolev spaces. The conditions on the exponent \( p(\cdot ) \) are log-Hölder and log-log-Hölder continuity, while those on the domain \( \Omega \) are the measure and the log measure density conditions. Restrictions on the exponents \( q(\cdot ) \) and \( p(\cdot )\) appearing in Górka et al. (J. Geom. Anal. 310: 7304-7319, 2021) are relaxed, improving the results obtained in that work.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Variable exponent Lebesgue-Sobolev and Hölder spaces are nowadays used in the description of non-linear phenomena in elastic [23] and fluid mechanics [18, 20], and in image restoration [14, 22], among other fields. Those situations are modelled in domains of Euclidean space, whose shape or form becomes part of the phenomena itself.
For classical Sobolev and Hölder spaces, the study of conditions on domains in \( {\mathbb {R}}^n \) relevant for the inclusions between these spaces of functions is a classical subject [1]; in turn, the importance of the shape and regularity of the domain is relevant in the description of some models in engineering [9].
This work is a continuation of [5], where inclusions of variable exponent Sobolev spaces on Euclidean domains are studied. In turn, some notions of continuity for the exponent used in [5] are motivated by problems mentioned in [3, 11] concerning the density of smooth functions in those spaces, where the interdependence between some types of continuity of the variable exponent and the regularity of the domain is addressed. In the same spirit as in [5], here we obtain conditions for the inclusions between these function spaces in terms of the continuity of the exponent and the regularity of the domain.
As highlighted in [5], an important progress concerning necessary conditions on the regularity of the domain to obtain inclusions in classical Sobolev spaces was achieved in [10]. Similar results have been obtained in fractional Slobodeckij-Sobolev spaces [7, 24], in Triebel-Lizorkin and Besov spaces [15, 16], and in Hajłasz-Sobolev spaces in metric-measure spaces [2, 6].
This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we provide a brief description of the spaces of functions,Footnote 1 of the continuity for the exponents, and of the regularity for domains relevant in this work. With those preliminaries we are ready for Sect. 3, where the main results are stated, and their proofs are provided. These results improve those in [5]: the hypothesis on the range of values and continuity of the exponents are weaker, as a conclusion less regularity on the domain is needed for the functional inclusions to hold, see Sect. 3 for the deatils. We conclude in Sect. 4 with a couple of questions that arose during this work.
2 Preliminaries
We denote by \({\mathcal {L}}^n\) the n-dimensional Lebesgue measure, and \(\Omega \) will be a Lebesgue measurable subset of \({\mathbb {R}}^n\). If A is a \({\mathcal {L}}^n\)-measurable subset of \(\Omega \), to abbreviate we write |A| instead of \(\int _A d {\mathcal {L}}^n(x) = {\mathcal {L}}^n(A)\). A variable exponent, or simply an exponent, is a bounded \({\mathcal {L}}^n\)-measurable function \(p: \Omega \rightarrow [1,\infty [\), usually written as \(p(\cdot )\). For such a \(p(\cdot )\), whenever A a \({\mathcal {L}}^n\)-measurable subset of \(\Omega \) define
If \(A = \Omega \), we simply write \(p^-\) and \(p^+\), respectively.
The Lebesgue space \(L^{{p( \cdot )}}(\Omega )\) is the vector space of measurable functions \(u: \Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) for which the functional
is finite. The functional \(\rho _{{p( \cdot )}}\) is convex, and \(L^{{p( \cdot )}}(\Omega )\) is a Banach space with the norm
The functionals \(\Vert \ \Vert _{L^{{p( \cdot )}}(\Omega )}\) and \(\rho _{{p( \cdot )}}(\ )\) can be compared using the inequalities
and the unit ball property follows: \(\Vert u \Vert _{L^{{p( \cdot )}}(\Omega )} \ge 1\) if and only if \(\rho _{{p( \cdot )}}(u) \ge 1\).
The Sobolev space \(W^{1,{p( \cdot )}}(\Omega )\) is the vector space of those functions u in \(L^{{p( \cdot )}}(\Omega )\) for which their distributional gradient (that we denote by \(\nabla u\) if no confusion arises) is also in \(L^{{p( \cdot )}}(\Omega )\). \(W^{1,{p( \cdot )}}(\Omega )\) is also a Banach space with the norm
As in the classical case, \(C^{0,\alpha (\cdot )}(\Omega )\) is the Hölder space of variable exponent \(\alpha (\cdot )\) over \(\Omega \), where now \(\alpha :\Omega \rightarrow ]0,1]\) is a measurable function: given a bounded and continuous function u on \(\Omega \) consider its seminorm
so that \(C^{0,\alpha (\cdot )}(\Omega )\) is the vector space made up of those u that are bounded, continuous, and for which the seminorm \([u]_{\alpha (\cdot )}\) is finite. \(C^{0,\alpha (\cdot )}(\Omega )\) is a Banach space for the norm
To describe the regularity or continuity of the exponent \( {p( \cdot )}\), many moduli of continuity can be used: given a continuous functionFootnote 2\(\phi : {\mathbb {R}}_+ \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}_+\) with \(\lim _{t\rightarrow 0^+}\phi (t) = 0\), the exponent \({p( \cdot )}: \Omega \rightarrow [1,\infty [\) is \(\phi \)-continuous if there exists a constant \(C_{\phi }\) such that
for every pair of points \(\{ x,y \}\) in \(\Omega \). If \(\phi _1(t) \le \phi _2(t)\) for t near 0, then \({p( \cdot )}\) is \(\phi _2\)-continuous whenever \({p( \cdot )}\) is \(\phi _1\)-continuous.
Distinguished notions of continuity for \( {p( \cdot )}\) are:
-
(1)
log-Hölder continuity, where
$$\begin{aligned} \phi (t):= 1 / \log (e+1/t), \end{aligned}$$and
-
(2)
log-log-Hölder continuity, with
$$\begin{aligned} \phi (t):= \log \log (e+1/t) / \log (e+1/t). \end{aligned}$$
One verifies that log-log-Hölder continuity is a weaker notion than log-Hölder continuity. These notions are important in the study of the density of the smooth functions in \( W^{1,{p( \cdot )}}(\Omega ) \) [3, 4, 11]: if the domain \( \Omega \) has a Lipschitz boundary and \( {p( \cdot )}\) is log-Hölder continuous, the smooth functions are dense in \( W^{1,{p( \cdot )}}(\Omega ) \); on the other hand, if \( \Omega \) is the unit disk in \( {\mathbb {R}}^2 \) and \( {p( \cdot )}\) is log-log-Hölder continuous, such density does not always occur [11]. Those results give a satisfactory but still partial answer to the mentioned density problem.
Concerning domainsFootnote 3, the following notion of regularity was used in [5]: a subset \( \Omega \) of \( {\mathbb {R}}^n \) satisfies the s-measure density condition for some \(s > 0\), if there exists a positive constant c such that for every x in \( {\overline{\Omega }} \) and each R in ]0, 1] one has
If \(s=n\) in the previous notion, one says that \( \Omega \) satisfies the measure density condition.
In [5] some standard notions of regularity for domains in \( {\mathbb {R}}^n \) were mentioned, with relations between them, including the notion of measure density condition. For the purpose of clarifying those relations, a picture or diagram was drawn, where we wrote \( A \Longrightarrow B \) if whenever \( \Omega \) is a domain with property \( A \), then \( \Omega \) also has property \( B \).
Besides the measure density condition, we consider the following notions of regularity (none of which appears in [5]) for domains in \( {\mathbb {R}}^n \):
-
(1)
The \((\epsilon ,\infty )\)-condition,
-
(2)
The \((\epsilon ,\delta )\)-condition,
-
(3)
The John condition, and
-
(4)
The log measure density condition.
The associated diagram for these notions is:
The first three notions in the list and the relationships between them and the measure density condition are well known to experts, and are scattered in the literature as well. The log measure density notion has been recently introduced in a different context (see the comments after its definition below). To make this work accessible to more readers, we spend some lines in the subject:
Definition 2.1
Assume that \(\epsilon \in (0,\infty )\) and \(\delta \in (0,\infty ].\) A domain \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\) is said to be an \((\epsilon , \delta )\)-domain if whenever \(x,y\in \Omega \) and \(|x-y|<\delta ,\) there is a rectifiable curve \(\gamma \subset \Omega \) joining x to y satisfying
and
where \(l(\gamma )\) denotes the length of \(\gamma \), and \(d(z,\partial \Omega )\) the Euclidean distance from z to the boundary of \(\Omega .\)
Definition 2.2
We say that \(\Omega \) is a John domain if there is a constant \(A\ge 1\) such that for every pair of points \(x,y\in \Omega \) there exists a rectifiable curve \(\gamma \) joining them with
where \(\gamma (x,z)\) is the part of \(\gamma \) between x and z, and \(\gamma (y,z)\) is the part between y and z.
John domains were first introduced by F. John in his work on elasticity [13], and the name was coined by Martio and Sarvas [17]. Our definition also includes the case of unbounded John domains, which is due to [19]. The class of John domains includes all smooth domains, Lipschitz domains and certain fractal domains (for instance snowflake-type domains).
Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 below show that \((\epsilon ,\delta )\)-domains and John domains satisfy the measure density condition.
Lemma 2.1
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\) be an \((\epsilon ,\delta )\)-domain for some \(\epsilon >0\) and \(\delta >0\). Then it satisfies the measure density condition.
Proof
Fix \(x\in \Omega \) andFootnote 4\(r\le 1\). Note that it is enough to assume that \(r\le \min \{1,\delta /2\}.\) If \(\Omega \subset B_r(x),\) then there is nothing to prove; so we assume that \(\Omega {\setminus } B_r(x)\ne \emptyset .\) ChooseFootnote 5\(y\in \Omega \cap (B_{2r}(x)\setminus B_r(x))\), and let \(\gamma \) be a curve joining x to y, and pick \(z\in \gamma \) such that \(|x-z|=r/4.\) Then
where \(d(z)={{\,\textrm{dist}\,}}(z,\partial \Omega ).\) The triangle inequality gives
Therefore \(d(z)\ge \frac{3\epsilon }{32}r\) and \(B_{\min \{d(z),3r/4\}}(z)\subset \Omega \cap B_r(x)\). Hence \(|B_r(x)\cap \Omega |\ge Cr^n\), and the measure density condition follows. \(\square \)
Lemma 2.2
Let \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\) be a John domain. Then it satisfies the measure density condition.
Proof
Let \(x\in \Omega \) and \(r\le 1.\) Note that if \(\Omega \subset B_r(x),\) then there is nothing to prove; so we assume that \(\Omega {\setminus } B_r(x)\ne \emptyset .\) Take \(y\in \Omega {\setminus } B_r(x)\), let \(\gamma \) be the curve joining x to y, and choose \(z\in \gamma \) such that \(|x-z|=r/4.\) Then from the John condition
On the other hand, we have \(B_{\min \{d(z),3r/4\}}(z) \subset \Omega \cap B_r(x)\). Therefore \(|B_r(x)\cap \Omega |\ge Cr^n.\) \(\square \)
The weakest notion in the diagram is the next one:
Definition 2.3
A subset \(\Omega \) of \({\mathbb {R}}^n\) is said to satisfy the log s-measure density condition if there exists two positive constants \( c \) and \( \alpha \) such that for every x in \({\bar{\Omega }}\) and each R in ]0, 1/2] one has
If \(s=n\), one says that \( \Omega \) satisfies the log measure density condition.
The notion appears in [12] (see Theorem 1.1 and Remark 1.2(c)) as a necessary condition for certain Orlicz-Sobolev embeddings. It is obvious that if \(\Omega \) satisfies the s-measure density condition, then \(\Omega \) satisfies the log s-measure density condition. The next example shows that the converse is not true.
Example 2.1
Fix some \(\alpha \ge 1\), and consider the function \(f: [0,1/\sqrt{2}] \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) given by
Note that there exists some \(r_0 \le 1/\sqrt{2}\) such that f(r) is increasing and \(f(r) \le r\) whenever \(r \le r_0\).
Consider the domain
given by a rotation of the area below the graph of f around the \(x_n\) axis, whose cusp is at the origin.
First we will show that \(\Omega \) does not satisfy the measure density condition. Consider the ball \(B_R(0)\) centered at the origin with radius \(R\le r_0\), and consider the positive real number \(r \equiv r(R)\) given by
since \(f(r) \le r\) it follows that \(R^2 \le 2 r^2\), therefore
Note that
where \(\omega _{k}\) is the volume of the k-dimensional unit ball, and compute
Now use (4), (5) and (6) to infer that
whose right hand side inequality says that \(\Omega \) does not satisfy the n-measure density condition.
Now we prove that the left hand side inequality also holds, up to a constant, for all the balls \(B_R(x)\) centered at \(x\in \Omega ,\) with radius \(R\le r_0/4\). For this purpose, it is enough to consider the points \(x\in \Omega \) which are near the origin: if \(x=(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\in \Omega \) is such that \(x_n\le r_0/4\), it suffices to prove that \(B_R(0)\cap \Omega + x\subset B_R(x)\cap \Omega ,\) where \(B_R(0)\cap \Omega + x=\{y+x:y\in B_R(0)\cap \Omega \}\) is the translation of \(B_R(0)\cap \Omega \) by x.
Assume that \(y=(y_1,\ldots ,y_n)\in B_R(0)\cap \Omega \), so that \(y+x\in B_R(x)\): we must check that \(y+x\in \Omega \). Since
we have that \(y+x\in \Omega \) if for all s and t in \((0,r_0/4]\)
namely if f is superadditive. In particular, if f is convex and \(f(0)=0\), then f is superadditive.
The proof of the convexity of f requires some computations that are left to the reader.
3 Main results
As explained in Sect. 1, the results in this work can be seen as an improvement and as an extension of the main results in [5]. Our first result in this section is the improvement of:
Theorem 3.1
(Theorem 3.1 in [5]) Let \(\Omega \) be an open subset of \({\mathbb {R}}^n\), and suppose that for some \(s>1\):
-
(1)
The exponent \(p(\cdot )\) is log-Hölder continuous, with \(p^+ <s\).
-
(2)
The exponent \(q(\cdot ):= \frac{p(\cdot ) s}{s - p(\cdot )}\) is such that \(\frac{1}{q^-} < \frac{1}{q^+} + \frac{1}{s}\).
-
(3)
\(W^{1,p(\cdot )}(\Omega ) \hookrightarrow L^{q(\cdot )}(\Omega )\), where \(q(\cdot ):= \frac{p(\cdot ) s}{s-p(\cdot )}\).
Conclusion: \(\Omega \) satisfies the s-measure density condition.
Such improvement consists in removing Hypothesis 2: this is achieved by modifying the proof given in [5] (see below). We have:
Theorem 3.2
Let \(\Omega \) be an open subset of \({\mathbb {R}}^n\), and suppose that:
-
(1)
The exponent \(p(\cdot )\) is log-Hölder continuous, with \(p^+ <s\) for some \(s>1\).
-
(2)
\(W^{1,p(\cdot )}(\Omega ) \hookrightarrow L^{q(\cdot )}(\Omega )\), where \(q(\cdot ):= \frac{p(\cdot ) s}{s-p(\cdot )}\).
Conclusion: \(\Omega \) satisfies the s-measure density condition.
The next result is similar to Theorem 3.2, but involves the weaker modulus of log-log-Hölder continuity for the exponents, and the weaker notion of log s-measure density condition for the domain (see Sect. 2 for the definitions).
Theorem 3.3
Let \(\Omega \) be an open subset of \({\mathbb {R}}^n\), and suppose that:
-
(1)
The exponent \(p(\cdot )\) is log-log-Hölder continuous, with \(p^+ <s\) for some \(s>1\).
-
(2)
\(W^{1,p(\cdot )}(\Omega ) \hookrightarrow L^{q(\cdot )}(\Omega ),\) where \(q(\cdot ):= \frac{p(\cdot ) s}{s-p(\cdot )}.\)
Conclusion: \(\Omega \) satisfies the log s-measure density condition.
Using the technique of Theorem 3.3 in [5], we also get the following result in the supercritical case:
Theorem 3.4
Let \(\Omega \) be an open and connected subset of \({\mathbb {R}}^n\), and suppose that:
-
(1)
The exponent \(p(\cdot )\) is log-log-Hölder continuous, with \(p^->s\) for some \(s>0\).
-
(2)
\(W^{1,p(\cdot )}(\Omega ) \hookrightarrow C^{0, \alpha (\cdot )}(\Omega )\), where \(\alpha (\cdot ):= 1- s / {p( \cdot )}\).
Conclusion: \(\Omega \) satisfies the log s-measure density condition.
In the rest of this Section we will prove Theorems 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. We start with the first one which is a modification of Theorem 3.1 in [5]; we give the details for the sake of completeness:
Proof of Theorem 3.2
For a fixed x in \({\bar{\Omega }}\) define \(A_R:=B_R (x) \cap \Omega \), and consider only the case when \(|A_R|\le 1\), otherwise \(|A_R|\ge 1 \ge R^s\) whenever \(R \le 1,\) and there is nothing to prove; moreover, it is enough to consider \(R \le r_0\) for some \(0<r_0\le 1/4\). For such an R, denote by \({\tilde{R}} < R\) the smallest real number such that
At this point we recall from [5] the following Lemma:
Lemma 3.1
Use the same assumptions and notation as in Theorem 3.2. Then there exists a constant \(c_1 > 0\) such that for all x in \({\bar{\Omega }}\) and every R in ]0, 1] one has the estimate
To continue with the proof of Theorem 3.2, given x in \({\bar{\Omega }}\) and R in \(]0, r_0]\), construct the sequence \(\{ R_i \}\) by setting \(R_0:=R\), and then define \(R_{i+1}:=\tilde{R_i}\) inductively for \(i \ge 0\). It follows that
with \(\lim _{i \rightarrow \infty } R_i=0\).
With those ingredients in Lemma 3.1 one observes that
where the abbreviation \(\eta _R:=\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{q_{A_R}^+}-\frac{1}{q_{A_R}^-}\) has been used.
Now, we would like to find a constant \({\tilde{\eta }}>0\), independent of x and R, such that \(\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{q_{A_R}^+}-\frac{1}{q_{A_R}^-} =: \eta _R\ge {\tilde{\eta }}>0\) for all \(R\le r_0.\) Towards this end, first note that the log-Hölder continuity of p gives the log-Hölder continuity of 1/q, probably with a different constant, that we also denote by \({C_{\text {log}}}\): this means that for any z and y in \(A_R\)
and taking the supremum over all pairs of points in \(A_R\) one gets
Suppose now that for some \(R\le 1/4\) we have that \(\eta _R\le 0\). Then (8) gives \( \frac{1}{s}\le \frac{C_{\text {log}}}{\log \left( \frac{1}{2R}\right) }\), or \(R\ge \frac{1}{2}e^{-sC_{\text {log}}}\).
The previous discussion allows us to conclude that:
-
If \(\frac{1}{2}e^{-sC_{\text {log}}}>\frac{1}{4}\), then there is no \(R\le \frac{1}{4}\) for which \(\eta _R\le 0\).
-
If \(\frac{1}{2}e^{-sC_{\text {log}}}\le \frac{1}{4}\), then \(\eta _R\le 0\) implies \(R\ge \frac{1}{2}e^{-sC_{\text {log}}}.\)
Therefore if we choose \(r_0=\frac{1}{2}\min \{\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2}e^{-sC_{\text {log}}}\}\), then \(\eta _{r_0}>0\), and also
But \(\eta _{r_0}\) may depend on the point x fixed at the beginning of the proof. To obtain the required \({\tilde{\eta }}\), we apply again log-Hölder continuity of 1/q on \(A_{r_0}\), to obtain
and (9) together with (10) give
Choosing \({\tilde{\eta }}:=\frac{1}{s}-\frac{C_{\text {log}}}{\log (1/(2r_0))},\) we get that \(\eta _R\ge \eta _{r_0}\ge {\tilde{\eta }}>0\) for all \(R\le r_0\). This is our desired \({\tilde{\eta }}.\)
Since \(\eta _R \ge {\tilde{\eta }}>0\), we deduce, from (7), that
Moreover, since \(c_2:=1/ \max \{1, \frac{c_1}{1-2^{-{\tilde{\eta }}}}\} \le 1\) one has
where \(\beta _R:= 1-s \eta _R\).
From (12) one sees that if a positive lower bound for \(R^{\beta _R / \eta _R}\) is provided, the proof of Theorem 3.2 is finished. To achieve such a lower bound, the log-Hölder continuity of \(p(\cdot )\) will be used: by the hypotheses on \(p(\cdot )\) and \(q(\cdot )\) one has that \({q( \cdot )}\) is log-Hölder continuous as well, hence
taking the supremum over pairs of points in \(A_R\) one gets
or
therefore
But
hence using (13) the required bound
follows, and the uniform estimate \(c R^s \le | B_R(x) \cap \Omega |\) is obtained, where \(c:= c_2^{1 / {\tilde{\eta }}} c_3\). \(\square \)
We continue with the proof of our second main result.
Proof of Theorem 3.3
For a fixed x in \({\bar{\Omega }}\) define \(A_R:=B_R (x) \cap \Omega \). It is enough to consider the case when \(|A_R|\le 1\), otherwise \(|A_R|\ge 1 \ge R^s\) whenever \(R \le 1/2\), and there is nothing to prove; moreover, it is enough to consider \(R \le r_1\), where \(r_1 \le \frac{1}{4}.\)
Consider \(R\le T_{\text {crit}}/2\), with \(T_{\text {crit}}:=1/(e^e-e) \thickapprox 0.08\ (< \frac{1}{4})\) such that
is increasing on \((0, T_{\text {crit}}].\)
It is easy to see that the log-log-Hölder continuity of \(p(\cdot )\) entails the log-log-Hölder continuity of \(1/q(\cdot )\), probably with a different constant, that we also denote by \(C_{\text {log-log}}\). Therefore
taking the supremum over all pairs of points in \(A_R\) one gets
hence
Suppose now that \(\eta _R:=\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{q_{A_R}^+}-\frac{1}{q_{A_R}^-}\le 0\) for some \(R\le T_{\text {crit}}/2\). Then
or
where \(C_1:=s\ C_{\text {log-log}}\). On the other hand
Combining (15) and (16) we see that there exists some \(r_0\), such that whenever \(R\le r_0\)
and \(R\ge 1/2\) follows. This contradicts our choice of R: however if we take \(R\le \min \{T_{\text {crit}}/2, r_0\}=:r_1\), then \(\eta _R\ge \eta _{r_1}>0\). But \(\eta _{r_1}\) may depend on x, and our aim is to obtain a positive lower bound of \(\eta _R\) which is independent of x and R.
To get the desired lower uniform bound, we apply log-log-Hölder continuity of \(1/q(\cdot )\) on \(A_{r_1}\), and
follows. Moreover, from (14) and the previous discussion we have
Therefore, using (17) and (18), we obtain
Choosing
we conclude that \(\eta _R\ge \eta _{r_1}\ge {\tilde{\eta }}>0\) for all \(R\le r_1\).
Consider now \(R\le r_1\); for such an R, denote by \({\tilde{R}} < R\) the smallest real number such that
Given x in \({\bar{\Omega }}\) and \(R\le r_1\), construct the sequence \(\{ R_i \}\) by setting \(R_0:=R\), and then define \(R_{i+1}:=\tilde{R_i}\) inductively for \(i \ge 0\). It follows that
with \(\lim _{i \rightarrow \infty } R_i=0\). Using the sequence \(\{ R_i \}\) in Lemma 3.1, one observes that
where \(\eta _R =\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{q_{A_R}^+}-\frac{1}{q_{A_R}^-}\) as before.
Note that \(\eta _R \ge {\tilde{\eta }} > 0\) for the \({\tilde{\eta }}\) in (19), to deduce, thanks to the previous observations, that
Moreover, since \(c_2:=1/ \max \{1, \frac{c_1}{1-2^{-{\tilde{\eta }}}}\} <1\) one has
where \(\beta _R:= 1-s \eta _R\).
To obtain a lower bound for \(R^{\beta _R / \eta _R}\), we make use of the fact that \(p(\cdot )\) is log-log-Hölder continuous. It is easy to see that the log-log-Hölder continuity of \(p(\cdot )\) entails the log-log-Hölder continuity of \(q(\cdot )\), probably with a different constant, that we also denote by \(C_{\text {log-log}}\). Therefore
and taking the supremum over all pairs of points in \(A_R\) one gets
or
therefore
But
hence using (21) and (22) we get
If \(c_3:={C_{\text {log-log}}s / ({\tilde{\eta }} (q^-)^2)}\) and \(c_4:= c_2^{1 / {\tilde{\eta }}}\frac{1}{2^{(q^+-q^-)s / ({\tilde{\eta }} (q^-)^2)}}\), we conclude that
whenever \(R\le r_1\), where the last inequality uses that \( r_1 \le T_{crit}/2 < 1/ (2 e)\), and the log s-measure density condition for the domain follows. \(\square \)
Finally, we give the details of the proof of Theorem 3.4 which, as mentioned above, uses the technique of Theorem 3.3 in [5] together with Theorem 3.3 in this work.
Proof of Theorem 3.4
We use the notations similar to that in Theorems 3.2 and 3.3. Fix x in \({\bar{\Omega }}\) and some \(R\le T_{\text {crit}}/2\), with \(T_{\text {crit}}:=1/(e^e-e) \thickapprox 0.08\ (< \frac{1}{4})\). We assume that \(\Omega {\setminus } B_R(x) \ne \emptyset \), since otherwise \(|A_R|=|\Omega |\). Let \(u(y):=\phi (y-x)\) be a function of \(y \in \Omega \), where \(\phi \) is a cut-off function satisfying:
-
(1)
\(\phi :{\mathbb {R}}^n \rightarrow [0,1]\),
-
(2)
\(\hbox {spt}\ \phi \subset B_R(0)\),
-
(3)
\(\phi (0)=1\), and
-
(4)
\(|\nabla \phi | \le {\tilde{c}} / R\) for some constant \({\tilde{c}}\).
The hypothesis \(W^{1,p(\cdot )} \hookrightarrow C^{0, \alpha (\cdot )}\) entails that whenever \(u \in W^{1, {p( \cdot )}}\) one has that
for every pair of points \(\{y, z\}\) in \(\Omega \). In (23) choose \(y=x\) and \(z \in (\Omega {\setminus } B_R(x)) \cap B_{2R}(x)\)Footnote 6: one gets
On the other hand
and
follows, therefore
where \(C= \min \{ 1, 1/ ( 2\ C_{\text {sob}}\ (1+{\tilde{c}}) ) \}\). Finally, we use inequality (22) (from the proof of Theorem 3.3) to obtain
hence the desired estimate
follows whenever \(R\le T_{crit}/2.\) \(\square \)
4 Remarks
Using the Lebesgue differentiation theorem one can prove that if \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\) satisfies the n-measure density condition, then \(|{\bar{\Omega }}\setminus \Omega |=0\), see [21]. We are led to:
Question 4.1
Assume that \(\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\) satisfies the log n-measure density condition. Is it true that \(|{\bar{\Omega }}\setminus \Omega |=0\)?
If a domain satisfies the cone condition, then it also satisfies the measure density condition, see [5] for example. The standard example of a domain which satisfies the measure density condition but not the cone condition is \(\Omega =\ ]-10,10\ [^2{\setminus } K,\) where K is the von Koch snowflake curve with Hausdorff dimension \(\log 4/\log 3.\) Furthermore, it turns out there exists an open subset \(\Omega \) in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\) satisfying the n-measure density condition such that \(\partial \Omega \) is a graph and \(\Omega \) does not satisfy the cone condition [8].Footnote 7
Notes
For a detailed description of these spaces the reader can consult [4].
If \( \phi \) is everywhere equal to zero, we recover the classical Sobolev spaces.
By a domain we understand an open and connected subset of \( {\mathbb {R}}^n\).
The case when \(x\in \partial \Omega \) follows easily from the case \(x\in \Omega \). Indeed, if \(x\in \partial \Omega \) there exists \({\tilde{x}} \in \Omega \) such that \(B_{R/2}({\tilde{x}}) \subset B_R(x)\) and then \(|B_R(x)\cap \Omega | \ge C(R/2)^n\).
Since \(\Omega \) is connected, \(\Omega \cap (B_{2r}(x)\setminus B_r(x))\) is not the empty set.
Since \(\Omega \) is connected we have \((\Omega \setminus B_R(x)) \cap B_{2R}(x) \ne \emptyset \).
The question about the existence of such a domain was asked to us by Victor Burenkov. The proof is not very difficult although it is somewhat technical.
References
Adams, R.A., Fournier, J.J.F.: Sobolev Spaces, second. Boston, Heidelberg, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2003)
Alvarado, R., Górka, P., Hajłasz, P.: Sobolev embedding for \(M^{1, p}\) spaces is equivalent to a lower bound of the measure. J. Funct. Anal. 279, 108628 (2020)
Diening, L., Hästö, P., Nekvinda, A.: Open problems in variable exponent Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces. In: Proceedings of the International Conference, Differential Operators and Nonlinear Analysis, Milovy, Czech Republic. Mathematical Institute Science, Czech Republic, Prague, pp. 38-58 (2004)
Diening, L., Harulehto, P., Hästö, P., Rŭẑiĉka, M.: Lebesgue and Sobolev Spaces with Variable Exponents. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Górka, P., Karak, N., Pons, D.J.: Variable exponent Sobolev spaces and regularity of domains. J. Geom. Anal. 31(7), 7304–7319 (2021)
Górka, P.: In metric-measure spaces Sobolev embedding is equivalent to a lower bound for the measure. Potential Anal. 47, 13–19 (2017)
Górka, P., Słabuszewski, A.: Embedding of fractional Sobolev spaces is equivalent to regularity of the measure. Stud. Math. 28, 333–343 (2023)
Górka, P., Lefelbajn, P.: Cone property and measure density condition, Preprint (2023)
Guo, B., Babuska, I.: Regularity of the solutions for elliptic problems on nonsmooth domains in \(\mathbb{R} ^3 \). Part II: regularity in neighborhoods of edges. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 127A, 517–545 (1997)
Hajłasz, P., Koskela, P., Tuominen, H.: Sobolev embeddings, extensions and measure density condition. J. Funct. Anal. 254, 1217–1234 (2008)
Hästö, P.: Counter-Examples of Regularity in Variable Exponente Sobolev Spaces, Contemporary Mathematics, The \(p\)-harmonic Equation and Recent Advances in Analysis, Contemporary Mathematics (370), pp. 133–143. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2005)
Heikkinen, T., Karak, N.: Orlicz-Sobolev embeddings, extensions and Orlicz-Poincaré inequalities. J. Funct. Anal. 282(2), 109292 (2022)
John, F.: Rotation and strain. Commun. Pure. Appl. Math. 14, 391–413 (1961)
Harjulehto, P., Hästo, P., Latvala, V., Toivanen, O.: Critical variable exponent functionals in image restoration. Appl. Math. Lett. 26, 56–60 (2013)
Karak, N.: Lower bound of measure and embeddings of Sobolev, Besov and Triebel-Lizorkin spaces. Math. Nachr. 293(1), 120–128 (2020)
Karak, N.: Measure density and embeddings of Hajlasz-Besov and Hajlasz-Triebel Lizorkin spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 475(1), 966–984 (2019)
Martio, O., Sarvas, J.: Injectivity theorems in plane and space. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 4(2), 383–401 (1979)
Mihılescu, M., Rụlescu, V.: A multiplicity result for a nonlinear degenerate problem arising in the theory of electrorheological fluids. Proc. R. Soc. A 462, 2625–2641 (2006)
Näkki, R., Väisälä, J.: John disks. Expo. Math. 9(1), 3–43 (1991)
Rŭẑiĉka, M.: Electrorheological Fluids: Modeling and Mathematical Theory. Springer-verlag, Berlin (2000)
Shvartsman, P.: On extensions of Sobolev functions defined on regular subsets of metric measure spaces. J. Approx. Theory 144(2), 139–161 (2007)
Wang, Y., Wang, Z.: Image denoising method based on variable exponent fractional-integer-order variation of tight frame sparse regularization. IET Image Process. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1049/ipr2.12010
Zhikov, V.V.: On Lavrientev’s Phenomenon. Russ. J. Math. Phys. 3, 219–269 (1995)
Zhou, Y.: Fractional Sobolev extension and imbedding. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 367(2), 959–979 (2015)
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the reviewers for the valuable comments and suggestions. P. G. has been supported by NCN grant 2018/02/X/ST1/02133. N. K. thanks DST-SERB (Project SRG/2021/000118) and BITS Pilani (BITS/GAU/RIG/2020/H0749) for financial support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declare have no competing interests that are relevant to the content of this article
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
Górka, P., Karak, N. & Pons, D.J. Variable exponent Sobolev spaces and regularity of domains-II. Rev Mat Complut 37, 695–711 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13163-023-00470-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13163-023-00470-5