On harmonic quasiconformal quasi-isometries

Miodrag Mateljević and Matti Vuorinen

arXiv: 0709.4546v2 · PDF · 9 April 2010
Categories: math.CV, math.CA
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore conditions which guarantee Lipschitz-continuity of harmonic maps w.r.t. quasihyperbolic metrics. For instance, we prove that harmonic quasiconformal maps are Lipschitz w.r.t. quasihyperbolic metrics.

Items 19

Proof

NKFQ

It is clear that f is harmonic in \Pi^+ = \{ z :\, {\rm Re\,} z > 0\}. Next f(z)= h(z) + \overline{g(z)}, where h(z)= {\mathrm{log} } z +z and g(z)= {\mathrm{log}} z - z. Since h'(z)= 1 + 1/z and g'(z)= -1 + 1/z, we have |\nu(z)| < 1 for z\in \Pi^+.

Moreover, f is quasiconformal on every compact subset D\subset\Pi^+ and \lambda_f, \Lambda_f are bounded from above and below on D. Therefore f is a quasi-isometry on D and by Theorem 2.2 below, f satisfies the local uniform boundedness property on D.

From now on we consider the restriction of f to V= \{z =x + i y : x > 1, 0<y<1\}. Then fV= \{w =(u,v) : u > \log(1+ v^2/4), 0<v<2\} \,.

We are going to show that:

\bullet f satisfies the local uniform boundedness property, but f is not quasiconformal on V .

We see that f is not quasiconformal on V\,, because |\nu(z)|\rightarrow 1 as z\rightarrow \infty, z \in V\, .

For s >1, define V_s= \{z : 1< x <s, 0<y<1\}. Note that f is qc on V_s and therefore f satisfies the property of local uniform boundedness on V_s for every s>1.

We consider separately two cases.

Case A. z\in V_4\,. If r>1 is big enough, then d(z, \partial V_{r})=d(z,\partial V) and d\big(f(z),\partial f(V_{r})\big)=d(f(z),\partial f(V)) and therefore f satisfies the property of local uniform boundedness on V_4 with respect to r_V.

Case B. It remains to prove that f satisfies the property of local uniform boundedness on V\setminus V_4 with respect to r_V.

Observe first that for z, z_1 \in V and |z_1|\geq |z|\ge 1\,, we have the estimate

\log \left ( \frac{|z_1|}{|z|}\right )\leq \frac{|z_1|}{|z|} -1\leq |z_1 - z|,

and therefore for z, z_1 \in V

|f(z_1) - f(z)| \leq 4 |z_1 - z| .

We write

\partial V= [1,1+i] \cup A \cup B\,; A= \{(x,0): x \ge 1\}\, , B= \{(x,1): x \ge 1\} \,.

Then

\partial (fV)= f(\partial V) \subset f[1,1+i] \cup (fA) \cup (fB)

and by the definition of f we see that

fA= \{(x,0): x \ge 0\}\,, \quad fB = \{(x,2): x \ge \log 2\}, \quad f[1,1+i] \subset [0, \log 2] \times [0, 2] \,.

Clearly for w\in fV

d(w) = \min \{ d(w, fA),d(w, fB),d(w, f[1,1+i]) \}\,,

and for {\rm Re} w>1+ \log{2} and w \in fV\,, we find

d(w) = \min \{ d(w, fA),d(w, fB) \}\,.

For z \in V \setminus V_4 we have {\rm Re} f(z)\ge \log (16) >1+ \log{2} and therefore, in view of the definition of f, (Proof) yields d(f(z))= 2 d(z). This together with (Proof) shows that f satisfies the property of local uniform boundedness on V\setminus V_4.

Proof

Q03T

Without loss of generality, we may suppose that a=0 and h(0)=0. Let

K(x,y)=K_y(x)= \frac{r^2-|x |^2}{n \omega_n \,r|x-y|^n},

where \omega_n is the volume of the unit ball \mathbb{B}^n in {\mathbb R}^n.

Then

h(x)=\int_{S^{n-1}(0,r)} K(x,t) h(t) d\sigma , \quad x\in {B}^n(0,r),

where d\sigma is the (n-1)-dimensional surface measure on S^{n-1}(0,r).

A simple calculation yields

\frac{\partial }{ \partial x_j} K(x, \xi) = \frac{1}{n \omega_n \,r} \left( \frac {-2x_j }{|x-\xi |^n} - n(r^2 - |x|^2) \frac{x_j - \xi_j} { |x-\xi |^{n+2}}\right).

Hence, for 1 \leq j \leq n, we have

\frac{\partial }{ \partial x_j} K(0, \xi) = \frac{ \xi_j}{\omega_n\, r^{n+1}}\,.

Let \eta \in S^{n-1} be a unit vector and |\xi|=r. For given \xi, it is convenient to write K_\xi (x)=K(x,\xi) and consider K_\xi as a function of x.

Then

K_\xi' (0) \eta= \frac{1}{\omega_n\, r^{n+1}}(\xi,\eta)\,.

Since |(\xi,\eta)|\leq |\xi| |\eta|= r, we see that

|K_\xi' (0) \eta|\leq \frac{1}{\omega_n\, r^{n}} \,, \textrm{ and therefore\,}\quad |\nabla K^\xi (0)|\leq \frac{1}{\omega_n r^n}\,.

This last inequality yields

|h'(0)({\eta})|\leq \int_{{S^{n-1}(a,r)} } |\nabla K^y(0)|\, |h(y)|\, d\sigma(y) \leq \frac{M_0^*\, n \omega_n r^{n-1} }{\omega_n r^n} =\frac{M_0^* n}{r}

and the proof is complete.

Remark

Remark 2.1

SA38

Suppose that h: {\mathbb D} \to {\mathbb R}^2 is harmonic and satisfies the weak uniform boundedness property.

(c) Then h :({\mathbb D}, k_{\mathbb D}) \to ( h({\mathbb D}), k_{h({\mathbb D}) }) is Lipschitz.
(d) If, in addition, h is a qc mapping, then h :({\mathbb D}, k_{\mathbb D}) \to ( h({\mathbb D}), k_{h({\mathbb D}) }) is a quasi-isometry.

Proof of Remark 2.1

The part (d) is proved in [ma4].

For the proof of part (c) fix x\in \mathbb{D} and y \in B_x=B(x,\frac{1}{4} d(x) ). Then d(y) \geq \frac{3}{4}d(x) and therefore r(x,y)< 1/2. By the hypotheses |h(y)-h(x)|\leq c\, d (h(x)).

The Schwarz lemma, applied to B_x\,, yields in view of (?)

\frac{1}{4} d(x) |h'(x)| \leq 2 M_x \leq 2 c \, d(h(x))

The proof of part (c) follows from Lemma ?.

Remark

Remark 2.2

6TNG

Suppose that G is a proper subdomain of \mathbb{R}^n and h : G \to \mathbb{R}^n is a harmonic mapping. Then the following conditions are equivalent

(1) h satisfies the weak uniform boundedness property.
(2) h :({G}, k_{G}) \to ( h({G}), k_{h({G}) }) is Lipschitz.

Proof of Remark 2.2

Let us prove that (1) implies (2).

By the hypothesis (1) f satisfies the weak uniform boundedness property: for every x\in G and t\in B_x

|f(t) -f(x)|\leq c_2\, d(f(x))\,.

This inequality together with Lemma ?

gives d(x) |f'(x)|\leq c_3\, d(f(x)) for every x\in G. Now an application of Lemma ? shows that (1) implies (2).

It remains to prove that (2) implies (1).

Suppose that f is Lipschitz with the multiplicative constant c_2. Fix x,y \in G with r_G(x,y)\leq 1/2. Then |y-x| \leq d(x)/2 and therefore by Lemma ?

k_G(x,y)\leq 2 j_G(x,y)\leq 2\,r_G(x,y)\leq 1 .

Hence k_{G'}(fx,fy)\leq c_2. Since j_{G'}(fx,fy)\leq k_{G'}(fx,fy)\leq c_2,

we find j_{G'} (fx,fy) = \log ( 1 + r_{G'}(fx,fy)) \leq c_2 and therefore r_{G'}(fx,fy)\leq e^{c_2} -1.

Remark

Remark 2.3

7PMN

Suppose that G \subset \mathbb{R}^n, f :G\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n is K-qr and G'=f(G). Let \partial G' be a continuum containing at least two distinct points. If f is a harmonic mapping, then f: ({G}, k_{G}) \to ({G'}, k_{G'}) is Lipschitz.

Proof of Remark 2.3

Fix x\in G and let B_x=B^n(x,d(x)/4).

If |y-x|\leq d(x)/4, then d(y)\geq 3d(x)/4 and therefore,

r_G(y,x)\leq\frac{4}{3} \frac{|y-x|}{d(x)}.

Because j_G(x,y)=\log (1+r_G(x,y))\leq r_G(x,y), using Lemma ?(a), we find

k_G(y,x)\leq 2\,j_G(y,x)\leq 2/3 <1.

By [vu2, Theorem 12.21] there exists a constant c_2>0 depending only on n and K such that

k_{G'}(fy,fx)\leq c_2 \max \{k_G(y,x)^{\alpha}, k_G(y,x)\}, \alpha=K^{1/(1-n)},

and hence, using Lemma ?(b) and k_G(y,x)\leq 1, we see that

|fy-fx|\leq e^{c_2} d(fx),\quad \mbox{i.e.} \quad M_x= \omega_f(x) \leq e^{c_2}\, d(fx).

By (?) applied to B_x=B^n(x,d(x)/4), we have

\frac{1}{4} d(x) |f'(x)| \leq 2 M_x

and therefore using the inequality (Proof), we have

\frac{1}{4} d(x) |f'(x)| \leq 2\, c \,d(f(x)),

where c=e^{c_2}; and the proof follows from Lemma ?.

Remark

Remark 2.4

U8O6

Suppose that G and G' are domains in R^n: If f : G\rightarrow G' is K- quasiconformal, then

\frac{1}{c}\frac{d (fx,\partial G')}{d(x,\partial G)} \leq a_{f,G} (x) \leq c \frac{d (fx,\partial G')}{d(x,\partial G)}, \quad x\in G,

where c is a constant which depends only on K and n.

Used by Proof, Proof

Remark

Remark 2.5

FIXR

Suppose f: \Omega\rightarrow \Omega' is a C^1 qc homeomorphism. The following conditions are equivalent:

a)f is bi-Lipschitz with respect to quasihyperbolic metrics on \Omega and \Omega' \,,

b) \sqrt[n]{J_f} \approx d_*/d\,,

c) \sqrt[n]{J_f} \approx a_f\,,

d) \sqrt[n]{J_f} \approx A_f,

where d (x)= d (x,\partial \Omega) and d_* (x)= d (f(x),\partial \Omega').

Used by Proof

Proof of Remark 2.5

It is known that a) is equivalent to b) (see for example [mm.unpub2]).

In [mm.unpub2], using Gehring’s result on the distortion property of qc maps (see [Ge], p.383; [v], p.63), the first author gives short proofs of a new version of quasiconformal analogue of Koebe’s theorem; it is proved that A_f \approx d_*/d.

By Theorem 2.4, a_f \approx d_*/d and therefore b) is equivalent to c). The rest of the proof is straightforward.

Uses Remark 2.4

Remark

Remark 2.6

89IQ

Suppose D and D' are proper domains in \mathbb{R}^2. If h : D \rightarrow D' is K- qc and harmonic, then it is bi-Lipschitz with respect to quasihyperbolic metrics on D and D'.

Proof of Remark 2.6

Without loss of generality, we may suppose that h is preserving orientation. Let z\in D and h=f + \overline{g} be a local representation of h on B_z, where f and g are analytic functions on B_z, \Lambda_h(z)= |f'(z)|+ |g'(z)|, \lambda_h(z)= |f'(z)|- |g'(z)| and k= \frac{K-1}{K +1}.

Since h is K- qc, we see that

(1-k^2) |f'|^2\leq J_h \leq K |f'|^2

on B_z and since {\textrm{log}} \, |f' (\zeta)| is harmonic,

{\textrm{ log}} \, |f' (z)|= \frac{1 }{2|B_z|} \int_{B_z} \textrm{ log} \, |f' (\zeta)|^2 d\xi\, d\eta\,.

Hence, using the right hand side of (Proof), we find

\begin{aligned} {\textrm{log}}\, a_{h,D} (z)\leq \frac{1}{2}\, {\textrm{ log} }K + \frac{1 }{2|B_z|} \int_{B_z} {\textrm{ log}} \, |f'(\zeta)|^2 d\xi\, d\eta\\ = {\textrm{ log}}\,\sqrt{K}\,|f'(z)|\,. \end{aligned}

Hence,

a_{h,D} (z)\leq \sqrt{K}\,|f'(z)|

and in a similar way using the left hand side of (Proof), we have

\sqrt{1-k^2}\, |f'(z)|\leq a_{h,D} (z)\,.

Now, an application of the Astala-Gehring result gives

\Lambda_h(z) \asymp \frac{d(hz,\partial D' )}{d(z,\partial D} \asymp \lambda_h(z)\,.

This pointwise result, combined with Lemma ? (integration along curves), easily gives

k_{D'} (h(z_1), h(z_2)) \asymp k_D(z_1, z_2),\quad z_1, z_2 \in D\,.

Remark

Remark 2.7

T9G5

Under the hypothesis of the lemma, if \overline{G}\subset \Omega, then f is bi-Lipschitz with respect to Euclidean and quasihyperbolic metrics on G and G'=f(G).

Proof of Remark 2.7

Since \overline{G} is compact J_f attains minimum on \overline{G} at a point x_0\in \overline{G}. By Lemma ?, m_0=J_f >0 and therefore since f\in C^{1,1} is a K- quasiconformal, we conclude that functions |f_{x_k}|, 1\leq k \leq n are bounded from above and below on \overline{G}; hence f is bi-Lipschitz with respect to Euclidean metric on G.

By Theorem 2.4, we find a_{f,G} \approx d_*/d, where d (x)= d (x,\partial G) and d_* (x)= d (f(x),\partial G'). Since we have here \sqrt[n]{J_f} \approx a_f, we find \sqrt[n]{J_f} \approx d_*/d on G. An application of Theorem 2.5 completes the proof.

Uses Remark 2.4, Remark 2.5

Remark

Remark 2.8

24YL

If h is a quasiconformal p-harmonic mapping of the upper half space \mathbb{H}^n onto itself and h(\infty)= \infty, then both h: (\mathbb{H}^n, |\cdot|) \to (\mathbb{H}^n, |\cdot|)

and h: (\mathbb{H}^n, \rho_{\mathbb{H}^n}) \to (\mathbb{H}^n, \rho_{\mathbb{H}^n}) are bi-Lipschitz where \rho= \rho_{\mathbb{H}^n} is the Poincar\acute{e} distance.

Proof

VSB4

It suffices to deal with the case n=3 as the proof for the general case is similar. Let h=(h_1, h_2, h_3).

By Theorem B, we get h_3(x)=a x_3, where a is a positive constant. Without loss of generality we may suppose that a=1.

Since h_3(x)=x_3, we have \partial_{x_3} h_3(x)=1, and therefore |h'_{x_3}(x)|\geq 1. In a similar way, |g'_{x_3}(x)|\geq 1, where g=h^{-1}. Hence, there exists a constant c=c(K),

|h'(x)|\leq c \quad {\rm and} \quad 1/c \leq l(h'(x))\,.

Therefore partial derivatives of h and h^{-1} are bounded from above; and, in particular, h is Euclidean bi-Lipschitz.

Since h_3(x)=x_3,

\frac{|h'(x)|}{h_3(x)}\leq \frac{c}{x_3};

and hence, by Lemma ?, \rho(h(a), h(b)) \leq c \rho (a, b)\,.

Remark

Remark 3.9

2A53

Suppose that G \subset \mathbb{R}^n, f :G\rightarrow G', f\in OC^1(G) and it satisfies the weak property of uniform boundedness with a constant c on G. Then

(e) f: ({G}, k_{G}) \to ({G'}, k_{G'}) is Lipschitz.
(f) In addition, if f is K-qc, then f is pseudo-isometry w.r.t. quasihyperbolic metrics on G and f(G).

Proof of Remark 3.9

By the hypothesis f satisfies the weak property of uniform boundedness: |f(t) -f(x)|\leq c_2\, d(f(x) for every t\in B_x, that is

{\rm osc}_{B_x} f\leq c_2\, d(f(x))

for every x\in G. This inequality together with (?) gives d(x) |f'(x)|\leq c_3\, d(f(x)). Now an application of Lemma ? gives part (e). Since f^{-1} is qc, an application of [gos, Theorem 3] on f^{-1} gives part (f).

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:0709.4546v2 by Miodrag Mateljević and Matti Vuorinen, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/0709/0709.4546.jsonl.