Physically motivated variational problems involving non-convex energies are often formulated in a discrete setting and contain boundary conditions. The long-range interactions in such problems, combined with constraints imposed by lattice discreteness, can give rise to the phenomenon of geometric frustration even in a one-dimensional setting. While non-convexity entails the formation of microstructures, incompatibility between interactions operating at different scales can produce nontrivial mixing effects which are exacerbated in the case of incommensuration between the optimal microstructures and the scale of the underlying lattice. Unraveling the intricacies of the underlying interplay between non-convexity, non-locality and discreteness, represents the main goal of this study. While in general one cannot expect that ground states in such problems possess global properties, such as periodicity, in some cases the appropriately defined global solutions exist, and are sufficient to describe the corresponding continuum (homogenized) limits. We interpret those cases as complying with a Generalized Cauchy-Born (GCB) rule, and present a new class of problems with geometrical frustration which comply with GCB rule in one range of (loading) parameters while being strictly outside this class in a complementary range. A general approach to problems with such mixed behavior is developed.
Let f\colon\mathbb R\to\mathbb R. Then, the convex envelope of f is
Note that the problems defining f^{\ast\ast} are additive, in the sense that, setting
we have \mu(k,z)=\min\big\{\mu(k_1,z_1)+\mu(k_2,z_2): k_1+k_2=k, \ k_1z_1+k_2z_2=kz\big\}.
For all z\in\mathbb R we set
By Proposition 2.1, the convex envelope of f can be viewed as \widehat Q_{\bf 0}f, where \bf m=\bf 0 is the trivial kernel m_n=0 for any n\ge 1; that is,
More in general, again by Proposition 2.1, we obtain that \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)=(f(z)+2m_1z^2)^{**} if m_n=0 for any n\ge 2. Note that in these cases we have no non-additivity effects.
The fact that \widehat Q_{\bf m}f is well defined and some of its key properties follow by the fact that the functional F defined by F(u)=\int_{I} \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(u^\prime)\, dt for I bounded interval and u\in H^1(I) can be interpreted as the \Gamma-limit of a suitable sequence of discrete functionals F_\varepsilon. Indeed, consider the functionals
defined in \mathcal A_\varepsilon(I), with \mathcal I_\varepsilon(I) and \mathcal A_\varepsilon(I) as in (?). Such functionals can be rewritten as
where f^1(z)=f(z)+2 m_1z^2 and f^h(z)=2z^2h^2m_h if h>1. With this notation, functionals F_\varepsilon satisfy the hypotheses of [AC, Theorem 6.3]; that is, f^1(z)\geq c_1 z^2 with c_1>0, and f^h(z)\leq c_hz^2 with \sum_{h}c_h<+\infty. The lower bound follows by the growth hypothesis (?), and the upper bound by (?) and by hypothesis (?) on \bf m. Hence, the \Gamma-limit of F_\varepsilon with respect to the L^2-convergence is represented by the functional F(u,I)=\int_I f_{\rm hom}(u^\prime)\, dt, where f_{\rm hom} satisfies the homogenization formula
Rewriting this formula, we get that the function f_{\rm hom} coincides with the function \widehat Q_{\bf m}f introduced in Definition 2.3, which proves that it is well-defined as a limit.
Note that, while condition (?) can be relaxed by requiring that f has a superlinear growth (not necessarily quadratic), it cannot be dropped altogether. Indeed, if f=0, m_2\neq 0 and m_n=0 otherwise, then the limit in Definition 2.3 does not exist.
Let \bf m be as in (?) and let f\colon \mathbb R\to [0,+\infty) be a non-negative function satisfying (?) and (?). Then the function \widehat Q_{\bf m}f is convex.
The boundary conditions u_0=0 and u_k=kz can be replaced by conditions on a boundary layer. We state two different equivalent possibilities, that will both be used in the proofs. In the first one the boundary layer is a small portion of the whole domain, parameterized by a small \delta, which then we let tend to 0, as follows
where
In the second one the double limit is replaced by a k-depending boundary layer at a mesoscopic scale, as follows
with \alpha\in (-1,0).
These formulas can be proved by an argument which is customary to variational treatments of homogenization problems (see e.g. [AC]). In proving formulas (2.8) and (2.8), it is necessary to use the growth hypothesis (?). In case it does not hold, the limits in formulas (2.8) and (2.8) may be different from the limit in the definition of \widehat Q_{\bf m}f.
If \bf m=\bf m^\prime+\bf m^{\prime\prime}; that is, m_n=m^{\prime}_n+ m^{\prime\prime}_n for all n, and f=g+h, then we have
Let m_1>0, so that (?) is satisfied with f=0. Then we have \widehat Q_{\bf m}0(z)= a_{\bf m}z^2.
By using u_i=iz as a test function in the definition of \widehat Q_{\bf m}0(z) we get the inequality \widehat Q_{\bf m}0(z)\leq a_{\bf m}z^2, after noting that
It then suffices to prove that for all fixed N we have
With fixed \alpha\in(-1,0), let u be a test function for the problem in (2.8) with f=0 for k^{1+\alpha}>N. We then have
If n\in\{2,\ldots,N\} and \ell\in\{0,\ldots, n-1\}, let i_\ell=\lceil\frac{k-\ell}n\rceil. We can rewrite the energy due to interactions at distance n as
where we have used the convexity inequality and the boundary condition u_j=jz close to the boundary. Summing up for n\in\{2,\ldots,N\} and using (?), we prove the claim.
Let \bf m be as in (?) and let f\colon \mathbb R\to [0,+\infty) be a non-negative function satisfying (?) and (?). The inequalities
hold, where \overline f denotes the lower-semicontinuous envelope of f; i.e., the largest lower-semicontinuous function not larger than f.
By using u_i=iz as a test function in the definition of \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z) we get the inequality \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)\leq f(z)+a_{\bf m}z^2 as in the first part of the proof of Lemma 2.10. Since \widehat Q_{\bf m}f is continuous by Proposition 2.7, this ensures that \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)\leq \overline f(z)+a_{\bf m}z^2. Since \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z) is convex, we also obtain \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)\leq (f(z)+a_\mathbf m z^2)^{\ast\ast}. The lower bound is obtained by using Remark 2.9 with the choice g=f, h=0, \bf m^\prime=\bf 0 and \bf m^{\prime\prime}=\bf m. This gives
since \widehat Q_{\bf m}0(z)= a_{\bf m}z^2 by Lemma 2.10, and \widehat Q_{\bf 0}f(z)=f^{\ast\ast}(z).
If f is convex, then \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)=f(z)+a_{\bf m}z^2.
Let f be such that f_{2m_1} is convex. Then
More in general, for an arbitrary f this equality holds at all z such that f_{2m_1}(z)=f_{2m_1}^{**}(z).
Applying Remark 2.9 with g=f, h=0 and \bf m' defined as m'_1=m_1 and m'_n=0 if n\ge 2, for all z such that f_{2m_1}(z)=f_{2m_1}^{**}(z) we have
where we have used Remark 2.4, Lemma 2.10 and the convexity hypothesis. The converse inequality holds by Proposition 2.11.
Let M\geq 1. We say that a kernel \bf m is concentrated at M if m_n=0 if n\not\in\{1,M\}.
If \bf m is concentrated at M, then \widehat Q_{\bf m}f=(P^M\!f)^{\ast\ast}.
Remark 2.4 proves the claim for M=1. Now, assume M\geq 2. We can use formula (2.8) for the computation of \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z); in particular, we may suppose that test functions satisfy u_i=zi if i\le M and i\ge k-M. Let u be a minimizer; using the notation in the proof of Lemma 2.10 with i_\ell=\lceil\frac{k-\ell}M\rceil, we can write,
where C_z is a constant taking into account extra boundary interactions, with |C_z|\le M C(1+z^2) independent of k. We then estimate
Dividing by k and taking the limit as k\to +\infty we obtain the lower bound.
To prove that the lower bound is sharp it suffices to choose a minimizer z_1,\ldots, z_M for P^Mf(z), extend it by M-periodicity and define a test function u on \{0,\ldots, k\} with k=nM by setting u_0=0, u_i-u_{i-1}=z if i\in\{1,\ldots, M\}\cup \{k-M+1,\ldots, k\}, and u_i-u_{i-1}=z_i otherwise. Using this test function and letting k\to+\infty, we obtain \widehat Q_{\bf m}f\le P^Mf. Since \widehat Q_{\bf m}f is convex, we finally get \widehat Q_{\bf m}f\le (P^Mf)^{**}.
In the previous proposition we have considered quadratic interactions between Mth neighbours. Actually, it is not necessary to assume quadraticity or even convexity of these interactions, and the same proof shows that
where f,g\colon\mathbf R\to[0,+\infty) are such that f is of quadratic growth and g satisfies a quadratic bound from above, and \psi is defined by
Note that if P^Mf(z)=(P^Mf)^{**}(z) and \{z_i\} is a minimizer for P^Mf(z) extended by M-periodicity, a function u with u_0=0, u_i-u_{i-1}=z_i gives a recovery sequence for the \Gamma-limit of the functionals (2.5) at u(x)=zx. Note that u_i-zi is M-periodic.
We also observe that if \{z_1,\ldots, z_M\} is a minimizer, then any permutation of its values gives a minimizer.
Let \bf m be any kernel; then for any M the following estimate holds
and in particular we have \displaystyle \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)\geq\sup_{M\ge1}\biggl((P^M\!f)^{\ast\ast}(z)+2\sum_{\substack{n\ge 2\\ n\neq M}}n^2m_n z^2\biggr).
For all z\in\mathbb R we have \widehat R_{\bf m}f(z)=\lim\limits_{N\to+\infty}\widehat R^N_{\bf m}f(z)=\widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z).
Note that in general the equality in Proposition 2.20 is not attained at finite N. However, in some cases the knowledge of \widehat R^N_{\bf m}f for some finite N is sufficient for the description of \widehat Q_{\bf m}f. A notable case is that of nearest and next-to-nearest neighbor interactions, for which a general formula for \widehat Q_{\bf m}f can be proven using this approach. In the notation above that formula simply reads \widehat Q_{\bf m}f= (\widehat R^2_{\bf m}f)^{**} [BGS, PP]. In particular, if f is a double-well energy with minimum value 0 attained for z\in\{-1,1\} then in a neighbourhood of 0 we have \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)= \widehat R^2_{\bf m}f(z); that is, the minimum for \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z) is reached on functions with u_i-zi 2-periodic, up to an error due to the boundary conditions and vanishing as k\to+\infty. In this sense, such problems have ‘global’ solutions and are therefore solvable by the application of the GCB rule.
Let \bf m be as in (?) and let f\colon\mathbb R\to[0,+\infty) satisfy (?) and (?). The {\mathbf m}-transform of f is the function Q_{\bf m}f\colon\mathbb R\to[0,+\infty) defined as
Note that, when u_i=iz, then
Hence, we have the equality
If m_1>0, then the last sum in (2.23) is a measure of the distance from u_i to the affine function L_z(i)=iz. To show this, we first note that by Remark 2.8 we can restrict to test functions u such that u_{i}=iz for i\leq k^{\alpha+1} and i\geq k-k^{\alpha+1} for some \alpha\in (-1,0).
Now, for any \ell\in\{1,\dots, k\} we consider the sum of the terms with |i-j|=\ell, obtaining
where k_{r,\ell}=r+\ell \lfloor \frac{k-r}{\ell}\rfloor.
If \ell\leq k^{\alpha+1}, then r\leq k^{\alpha}k and k_{r,\ell}=r+\ell \lfloor \frac{k-r}{\ell}\rfloor\geq k-\ell \geq (1-k^{\alpha})k, so that u_{k_{r,\ell}}-u_{r}=\ell \lfloor \frac{k-r}{\ell}\rfloor=\ell \lfloor \frac{k}{\ell}\rfloor, and the last term in the sum vanishes, so that
Now, we fix \delta>0. Recalling the decay condition (?) on \bf m, there exists \ell_\delta such that for \ell>\ell_\delta we have m_\ell <\delta \ell^{-\beta}. If k is such that k^{\alpha+1}>\ell_\delta, then
Note that in our computations we limit to u satisfying \sum_{i=1}^k \! (u_i-u_{i-1})^2\le Ck by (?), so that this term is negligible as k\to+\infty. Likewise, we obtain
This double inequality shows that the quadratic part is equivalent to the square of the L^2 norm of the derivative of u-L_z, where u is identified with the piecewise-affine function on (0,1) with u'=u_i-u_{i-1} on ({i-1\over k}, {i\over k}).
(i) Q_{\bf m} (f+g)\ge Q_{s{\bf m}}f+ Q_{(1-s){\bf m}} g for all s\in(0,1);
(ii) if g is convex Q_{\bf m} (f+g)\ge (Q_{\mathbf m}f)+ g;
(iii) if g is affine then Q_{\bf m} (f+g)= (Q_{\bf m}f)+ g;
(iv) if r\geq 0, then Q_{\bf m}(rf)(z)= rQ_{{\bf m}/r}f(z);
(v) if r\in \mathbb R and (f\circ L_r)(z)= f(rz) then Q_{\bf m}(f\circ L_r)(z)= Q_{{\bf m}/r^2}f(rz);
(vi) if \lambda \in \mathbb R and we denote (f\circ T_\lambda)(z)= f(z-\lambda) then Q_{\bf m}(f\circ T_\lambda)(z)= Q_{\bf m}f(z-\lambda).
Properties (i)-(v) follow directly from the definition of Q_{\bf m} f. We give some details for the proof of (vi), since for this we have to modify the boundary condition of the test functions, using (2.8) in Remark 2.8. For any test function u for Q_{\bf m} (f\circ T_\lambda)(z) we consider u^\lambda given by u^\lambda_i=u_i-\lambda i, which is a test function for Q_{\bf m} f(z-\lambda) obtaining
Then, (vi) holds if we show that
Now, we note that in the sum \sum_{i,j=0}^k m_{|i-j|}(u_i-u_j)(i-j) we can regroup the terms with |i-j|=\ell and obtain a telescopic sum whose ending terms are in the boundary layer. Hence, since for each \ell these sums are exactly \ell, we have
concluding the proof of (vi).
We say that z is a point of \bf m-stability for f if Q_{\bf m}f(z)=f(z). If this equality holds for all z, we say that f is {\bf m}-stable.
Let z be a point of \bf m-stability for f. Then, the value of \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z) is realized by choosing the affine function u\in\mathcal A(k;z) given by u_i=iz in each minimum problem in Definition 2.3.
(i) if f is \bf m-stable then f_{a_{\bf m}} is convex;
(ii) if f_{2m_1} is convex then f is \bf m-stable.
Claim (i) follows from the definition of \bf m-stability since f_{a_{\bf m}}=\widehat Q_{\bf m}f. Claim (ii) is given by Proposition 2.14.
The proposition above implies that if f is ‘moderately non-convex’ then it is also \bf m-stable. This is valid in particular if f is twice differentiable and
By Remark 2.4 we get that
(i) if m_n=0 for any n\ge 1, then Q_{\bf m}f(z)=\widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)=f^{\ast\ast}(z);
(ii) if m_n=0 for any n\ge 2, then Q_{\bf m}f(z)=(f(z)+2m_1z^2)^{**}-2m_1z^2.
In the second case, we note that in general if m_1\neq 0 both inequalities in (?) may be strict for some values of z. For example, if f(z)=(1-z^2)^2 and m_1\leq 1, then
and both inequalities are strict for |z|<\sqrt{1-m_1} (see Fig. ?). Conversely, if m_1\geq 1 then Q_{\bf m}f(z)=f(z) for any z; in particular in this case f is \bf m-stable (but not convex).
From equality (2.22) we deduce that for any \bf m the operator Q_{\bf m} has the same regularity properties of \widehat Q_{\bf m}; that is, Q_{\bf m}f has the regularity properties of a convex function. In particular, Q_{\bf m}f is locally Lipschitz, which is then a necessary condition for f to be \bf m-stable. Note that by (?) the convexity of f is a sufficient condition for the stability with respect to any \bf m.
Let Q_{\bf m}^0f=f and define iteratively Q_{\bf m}^nf=Q_{\bf m}(Q_{\bf m}^{n-1}f). Then the sequence Q_{\bf m}^nf is non-increasing and its limit Q_{\bf m}^{\infty}f is \bf m-stable.
The sequence is non-increasing by (?). Moreover Q_{\bf m}^nf\ge f^{**} for all n. Since the functions Q_{\bf m}^nf are equi-Lipschitz continuous by Remark 2.31, they converge uniformly on compact sets to their limit Q_{\bf m}^{\infty}f by Ascoli-Arzelà’s Theorem. Since Q_{\bf m} is continuous with respect to the uniformly convergence on compact sets, we have Q_{\bf m}^{\infty}f= \lim_n Q_{\bf m}^nf = Q_{\bf m}(\lim_n Q_{\bf m}^{n-1}f)= Q_{\bf m}(Q_{\bf m}^{\infty}f).
Let \bf m be a non-trivial kernel concentrated at M\geq 2; that is, with m_M\neq 0. In this case:
(i) f is {\bf m}-stable if and only if f_{2m_1} is convex;
(ii) if f_{2m_1} is not convex then for any n, there exists z such that Q_{\bf m}^nf(z)>Q_{\bf m}^{n+1}f(z);
(iii) Q_{\bf m}^{\infty}f(z)=f_{2m_1}^{\ast\ast}(z)-2m_1z^2.
(i) By Proposition 2.28 we only have to prove that the convexity of f_{2m_1} is necessary for the {\bf m}-stability of f. We then suppose that f is \bf m-stable and f_{2m_1} is not convex, and show that there exists \overline z such that f(\overline z)>Q_{\bf m}f(\overline z), contradicting the {\bf m}-stability of f.
From Proposition 2.14 we have that \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)=f_{a_{\bf m}}(z) for all z such that f_{2m_1}(z)=f_{2m_1}^{\ast\ast}(z). We consider a maximal interval where f_{2m_1}>f_{2m_1}^{\ast\ast}. By the growth conditions on f and its continuity (since we suppose that it is \bf m-stable) this interval is a bounded open interval (S_0,S_M), and we have \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(S_0)=f_{a_{\bf m}}(S_0) and \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(S_M)=f_{a_{\bf m}}(S_M).
Note that, upon setting
for z\in [S_0,S_M] we have
with equality if and only if minimal z_j belong to \{S_0,S_M\} for all j, which implies that z\in\{S_h:h\in\{0,\dots, M\}\}, where
We then have
Since
and Q_{\bf m}f=(P^M\!f)^{\ast\ast} by Proposition 2.16, in particular we have
from which we get
If h\in\{1,\ldots,M-1\} we have
which implies
which contradicts the stability of f.
Note that indeed
To check this observe that, since \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)= (P^M\!f)^{\ast\ast}(z), there exist z_1,z_2\in [S_h,S_{h+1}] and t\in [0,1] such that z=tz_1+(1-t)z_2 and
and we get (?) unless z_1=z_2=z. The latter case is ruled out, as we would have \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)= t\,P^M\!f(z); that is, z\in\{S_h, S_{h+1}\}.
(ii) We fix h\in \{0,\ldots, M-1\} and consider any interval (S_h,S_{h+1}) as defined in the proof of claim (i) above. If z\in (S_h,S_{h+1}), by (?) we have
Hence, each (S_h,S_{h+1}) is an interval of non-convexity of Q_{\bf m}f(z)+2m_1z^2 and we may repeat the argument of the proof of claim (i) to show that Q_{\bf m}^f(z)> Q^2_{\bf m}f(z) in M-1 equi-spaced points in (S_h,S_{h+1}). The argument can be then used iteratively.
(iii) If f_{2m_1} is convex the claim is trivial. Suppose otherwise. By (?) we have
for z\in [S_0,S_M], and, iterating the argument also
for z\in [S_0,S_M] and n\ge1. As in the proof of claim (ii) above we have
for all k\leq M^n, and then
for some n and for all k\leq M^n. By density, the equality then extends to all z\in [S_0,S_M]. Arguing in this way in each interval of non-convexity of f_{2m_1} we conclude.
The same claims of the previous proposition hold if \bf m is such that M\geq 2 exists such that m_n=0 if n\not\in\{1, M\mathbb N\}.
The proof follows by noting that
where \tilde m_M= \sum_{j=1}^\infty j^2 m_{jM}, and arguing by comparison, applying the previous proposition to the kernel \bf \tilde m where \tilde m_1=m_1 and \tilde m_n=0 if n\not\in\{1, M\}
Let \bf m be such that m_n\neq 0 if and only if n\in\{2,3\}.
Let k\in \mathbb N and consider the quadratic function
defined on k periodic sequences \{z_i\}_{i\in\mathbb Z}. Noting that
we obtain that
for any c\in(0,\frac{\min\{m_2,m_3\}}{2}). Hence, since H_c is a symmetric non-negative 2-homogeneous polynomial of degree 2, it is convex. Then
Now, we suppose that f(z)+2cz^2 is convex for some c\in(0,\frac{\min\{m_2,m_3\}}{2}). Then for any k
Note that by Remark 2.8 in the definition of Q_{\bf m}f we can take u_i-u_{i-1}=z for i=1,2,3 and i=k,k-1,k-2, and consider the function u_i-u_{i-1} extended by k-periodicity. Indeed, the minimum problem in (2.8) is estimated from below by the periodic problem up to a term O(\frac{1}{k}). Hence, \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)\geq f(z)+a_{\bf m}z^2, and f is \bf m-stable, since the other inequality is true by (?). Note that this implies that in general the condition f_{2m_1} convex is not necessary for the \bf m-stability of f, since in this case it suffices that f_{2m_1+2c} be convex.
Let
defined on k-periodic sequences \{z_j\}_{j\in\mathbb Z}. We define the effective strength of nearest-neighbour interaction m_1^{\rm eff} for \bf m as the supremum of all constant c such that
for all k\in \mathbb N and for all \{z_j\}_{j\in\mathbb Z}.
Note that m_1^{\rm eff}\geq m_1. The two values coincide if and only if \bf m satisfies the generalized concentration hypothesis of Corollary 2.34. Repeating the argument in Example 2.35, we obtain that a sufficient condition for the \bf m stability of a function f is the convexity of f_{2m_1^{\rm eff}}. Moreover, we have the estimate
This can be achieved again following Example 2.35, estimating f_{2m_1^{\rm eff}} with its convex envelope.
Let m\colon[0,+\infty)\to[0,+\infty) be as above, and for all \sigma>0 consider the kernel {\bf m}^\sigma=\{m(\sigma n)\}_n. Let f\colon \mathbb R\to [0,+\infty) satisfy growth assumptions (?) and \eqref{crescitasotto}. Then,
Setting \displaystyle a_{{\mathbf m}^\sigma}=2\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}m(\sigma n) n^2, we obtain that
Then, the first equality in (2.38) follows directly from Proposition 2.11, as we have
where \psi_\sigma(z)= f(z)+ a_{{\mathbf m}^\sigma}z^2. Since a_{{\mathbf m}^\sigma} decreases to 0 as \sigma\to+\infty, then there exists a convex function \psi such that
Hence, \psi(z)=f^{\ast\ast}(z)=\lim\limits_{\sigma\to+\infty}Q_{{\bf m}^\sigma}f(z).
Now, we prove the second limit in (2.38). Since (2.11) holds, it is sufficient to show that \lim\limits_{\sigma\to 0} Q_{{\bf m}^\sigma} f(z)\geq\overline f(z). Up to scaling, we can suppose that \overline x=1 and m(1)=1. Since m is non-increasing, it is sufficient to prove the desired equality for m=\chi_{[0,1]}. The function a_{{\mathbf m}^\sigma} is non-increasing with respect to \sigma; hence, for any z there exists the limit of Q_{{\bf m}^\sigma} f(z) as \sigma\to 0. Let \sigma_k\to 0 as k\to+\infty and let u^k be a minimizer in [0,k] for the minimum problem in the formula of Q_{{\bf m}^{\sigma_k}} in Remark 2.23; that is, u^k is an admissible minimizer for G^{\sigma_k}(u) defined by
Let N_k=\lfloor\frac{1}{\sigma_k}\rfloor. By Remark 2.8, we can assume that the test functions u, defined for i\in\mathbb Z, satisfy u_i=iz for i\leq N_k and i\geq k-N_k. Reasoning as in Remark 2.24, for any \ell=1,\dots, N_k and r=1,\dots, \ell we have
We now define a discrete function w^k by setting w^k_i=u^k_i-u^k_{i-1}-z. For any 1\leq n\leq N_k, we can write
so that, by summing over n
recalling that m(\sigma_k n)=1 if \sigma_k n\leq 1 and 0 otherwise. Now, let \tilde u^k denote the piecewise-affine extension to [0,1] of the discrete function defined by \tilde u^k(\frac{i}{k})=\frac{1}{k}u^k_i, so that (\tilde u^k)^\prime-z=w^k_i in each interval (\frac{i-1}{k},\frac{i}{k}). Since \frac{4}{k} G^{\sigma_k}(u^k) is equibounded, we obtain that
Hence, \tilde u^k\to z x in H^1(0,1). We get
by the lower-semicontinuity of the functional w\mapsto \int_0^1\overline f(w^\prime)\, dt with respect to the strong H^1-convergence.
If \bf m is a kernel concentrated at some M\geq 2, with m_M\neq 0, we consider a different type of parameter dependence. In this case, we can set {\bf m}^\sigma=\{m_n^{\sigma}\}_n=\{\phi(\sigma) m_n\}_n, with \phi decreasing and such that \lim_{\sigma\to 0^+}\phi(\sigma)=+\infty and \lim_{\sigma\to+\infty}\phi(\sigma)=0; for instance, we may consider
Since m_n is not decreasing, this case cannot be treated directly by applying the result of the above proposition. However, the same argument as in the proof of Proposition 2.38 can be used as well giving
As for the limit as \sigma\to 0^+, we can follow the proof up to the definition of w_i^k, obtaining
and we can conclude exactly as above, proving that
Note that if m_1=0 equality (2.39) in general does not hold (while (2.39) is always valid). As an example, we refer to Remark 4.6.
Let f\colon \mathbb R\to [0,+\infty) be a continuous function satisfying growth assumptions (?) and \eqref{crescitasotto}. Let \{\bf m^{\sigma}\}_{\sigma>0} be a family of parameterized kernels. We define the critical transition value of \sigma by setting
We set \sigma_c=0 if Q_{\bf m^\sigma}f<f for any \sigma.
Let f(z)=(1-z^2)^2 and let \bf m be concentrated at some M\geq 2, as in Remark 2.39. We set m_1^\sigma=\frac{m_1}{\sigma} and m_M^\sigma=\frac{m_M}{\sigma}. By Remark 2.29, we have that \sigma_c=m_1 is the critical transition value. Note that, conversely, for any \sigma we have that Q_{{\bf m}^{\sigma}}f(z)>f^{\ast\ast}(z) for some values of z, hence the limit in (2.39) is only reached at +\infty.
To understand the role of the constrained minimization producing the function \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(\theta,z) and to reveal the link between the shape of the phase function \theta(z) and the structure of the relaxed energy \widehat Q_{\bf m}f, it will be instructive to consider first the case when only M-neighbour interactions are taken into account. We recall that in this case there exists M\geq 2 such that m_M\neq 0 and m_n=0 for any n\neq M.
Proposition 2.16 gives a formula for \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z). If f is bi-convex, we can subdivide its computation by introducing a dependence on the fraction \theta of z_i=u_i-u_{i-1} belonging to the convexity region A. More precisely, for any n=0,\dots, M we can first compute the minimum at a fixed fraction \theta_n=\frac{n}{M} of z_i belonging to A. Using the convexity, such minimum problems reduce to the computation of
The optimal bounds are then completely characterized by the functions P^{M,n}, in the sense that
We will show that all the M+1 values \theta_n are locking states in the sense above. These values of \theta are particularly relevant since the shape of \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z) will be shown to depend exclusively on ‘phase mixtures’ with ‘volume fraction’ \theta_n. Another property enjoyed by \theta_n is that the minimum problems corresponding to values of z for which \theta(z)=\theta_n admit periodic solutions.
The following equality holds:
It is sufficient to prove that \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)\geq \inf_{\theta\in\mathbb Q\cap[0,1]}\widehat Q_{\bf m}f(\theta,z). To this end, with \eta>0 fixed we choose \delta>0, k \in \mathbb N and u an admissible test function for the minimum in (2.8) such that
Setting
we extend u to \mathbb Z so that u_i-zi is k-periodic. Since u\in \mathcal A(Nk;z)\cap\mathcal V(Nk;\theta), we can use it as a test function for
in the computation of \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(\theta,z).
We subdivide the estimate of F_1(v;[0,Nk]) by grouping interactions in three (partially overlapping) different subsets taking into account the location of the interacting sites in the subintervals [(r-1)k, rk] for r\in\{1,\ldots, N\}.
i) (interactions within a single subinterval) i, j\in [(r-1)k, rk] for some r\in\{1,\ldots, N\}. Summing over all i,j and r gives the contribution
to (Proof).
ii) (interactions between different intervals, but not close to the endpoints) i\in I_r^\delta= [(r-1)k+k\delta, rk-k\delta]\cap \mathbb Z, j\in I_s =[(s-1)k, sk]\cap \mathbb Z for some r,s\in\{1,\ldots, N\} with r\neq s.
Let i'=i-(r-1)k and j'=j-(s-1)k. We can write
(we can suppose for simplicity that j'<i'). By (?) we have that
so that (u_i-u_j)^2\le 2Ck^2+2z^2(r-s)^2k^2.
We may suppose that k is large enough, so that m_l\le {\eta\over l^\beta} if l\ge k\delta, where \beta is the decay exponent of \bf m. Note that |i-j|\ge\big||s-r|+\delta-1\big|k\ge \delta k. Hence, summing over such i,j, r and s we obtain
iii) (interactions between different intervals, close to the endpoints) i,j\in J^\delta_r =[ rk-k\delta, rk+k\delta]\cap\mathbb Z for some r\in\{1,\ldots, N-1\}.
For such i,j we have u_i-u_j= z(i-j). Hence, we have
By (?)–(?) we obtain the estimate
Taking the liminf as N\to+\infty, by the arbitrariness of \eta and \delta we obtain the claim.
The following equality holds
for any \theta=\frac{p}{q}\in \mathbb Q\cap[0,1] and z\in\mathbb R.
Let z\in\mathbb R; we may suppose without loss of generality z\le z^\ast. Let u\in \mathcal V(kq;\theta) \cap {\mathcal A}(kq;z) be a test function. We modify u separately close to the two endpoints i=0 and i=kq. Let u^z be a function with u^z_0=0, and such that u^z_i-u^z_{i-1}=z^\ast if u_i-u_{i-1}\ge z^\ast and u^z_i-u^z_{i-1}=2z-z^\ast if u_i-u_{i-1}\le z^\ast. By a cut-off argument as in Remark 2.8 we can modify u on [0, 2kq{\delta}] in a function \widetilde u in such a way that \widetilde u_i= u^z on [0, kq{\delta}], and \widetilde u_i-\widetilde u_{i-1}\not \in \{u_i-u_{i-1}, u^z_i-u^z_{i-1}\} except for at most kq{\delta}/N for a given arbitrary N. Since u^z_i-u^z_{i-1}=z^\ast on a strictly positive percentage of points in [0, kq{\delta}] (hence, we can suppose larger than kq{\delta}/N), up to slightly modifying \widetilde u on such points we have that \widetilde u satisfies the constraint; i.e., \widetilde u\in\mathcal V(kq;\theta). The same argument can be repeated close to i=kq. Note that the energy of u^z is comparable to that of the affine function zi, so that we obtain an estimate for the energy of \widetilde u.
The function
is convex; more precisely,
for any t\in[0,1]\cap \mathbb Q, \theta_h=\frac{p_h}{q_h}\in [0,1]\cap \mathbb Q and z_h\in\mathbb R.
For any k\in\mathbb N and \delta>0 we define
With fixed \delta>0, we choose sequences k^1_N, k^2_N\to+\infty (omitting the dependence on \delta) such that
for h=1,2. We set M_N^h=k_N^h q_h. Recalling Lemma 3.3, for any fixed \eta>0 we find \delta_\eta>0 such that for 0<\delta<\delta_\eta small enough there exists a test function u^h\in\widetilde{\mathcal A}_\delta(M_N^h; z_h) (again omitting the dependencies) such that
Setting M_N=nM_N^1M_N^2, we define a test function u in [0,M_N]\cap\mathbb N by means of suitable translations of u^1 and u^2. More precisely, we set t=\frac{m}{n} and
where \widehat u^h\colon [0,M_N^h]\cap\mathbb N\to\mathbb R is given by
with j=1,\dots, (n-m)M_N^2 if h=1 and j=1,\dots, mM_N^1 if h=2. The function u is an admissible test function for \widehat Qf_{k_N^1k_N^2}(\theta,z), where
Indeed, M_N=k_N^1k_N^2q, and
the boundary conditions are satisfied since u_{M_N}=M_Nz. We get
Since u^h\in\widetilde{\mathcal A}_\delta(M_N^h; z), recalling that m_{|i-j|}=o(|i-j|^{-\beta}) with \beta>3 we obtain
Taking the \liminf as N\to+\infty and recalling (Proof) and (Proof) we get
Since \eta>0 is arbitrary and \delta\in (0,\delta_\eta), this concludes the proof.
We say that \theta is a locking state for f and {\bf m} if the set \{z : Q_{\bf m}f(\theta,z)=Q_{\bf m}f(z)\} contains an open interval.
We define the phase (multi)function \Theta(z) by
where sc(Q_{\bf m}f) denotes the lower semicontinuous envelope of Q_{\bf m}f(\theta,z) with respect to \theta. In order to define a phase function \theta(z), we select \theta(z) as the minimum of the set \Theta(z).
Note that in order to have \theta well defined we have made a choice of \theta(z) as a minimum in the case when \Theta(z) is not a singleton. This is an arbitrary choice and may lead to some difficulty in the interpretation of this value, for example in cases where the dependence on \theta\in[0,1] is symmetric, or in degenerate cases (see for instance items (b) and (c) with the corresponding examples in Section ?).
The definition of the phase function \theta(z) allows one to to interpret locking states as the values \overline\theta for which \theta^{-1}(\overline\theta) contains an open interval.
Note that \hbox{\rm sc} (Q_{\bf m}f)(\theta,z) differs from Q_{\bf m}f(\theta,z) only at most for \theta\in\{0,1\}, by the continuity of Q_{\bf m}f(\theta,z) in (0,1). If the function \theta\mapsto Q_{\bf m}(\theta,z) is lower semicontinuous in 0 and 1, then the multi-function \Theta(z) coincides with the set
In general, the set \overline\Theta(z) can be empty, in which case, by Definition 3.6, \Theta(z) is a singleton and \theta(z)=0 (or 1) if there exists \theta_n\to 0 (or 1, respectively) such that Q_{\bf m}f(\theta_n,z)\to Q_{\bf m}f(z) (see Example 3.15 below).
If \widehat Q_{\bf m}f is affine in an open interval I and \Theta(z)=\{\theta(z)\} for all z\in I, then \theta is affine in I.
Let z_1,z_2\in I, \theta_1=\theta(z_1), and \theta_2=\theta(z_2). For t\in (0,1), Proposition 3.2, the convexity of \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(\theta,z) and the hypothesis imply that
and the claim follows.
The definition of locking state is formally disconnected from the periodicity of the associated minimizers. However, the two notions are perhaps related. Indeed, if the value of the minimum energy \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z) is reached by some periodic minimizer with a given ‘pattern’ or microstructure (describing the arrangement of u_i-u_{i-1} in the two energy wells), then one can expect the same pattern to be optimal also for small perturbations of z (with of course, a small variation of the values of u). This would then entail that the corresponding \theta is a locking state, however, the formalization of this statement remains unproven even if it holds in all our examples.
The growth condition from below on f(z)+2m_1z^2 assumed in the previous sections, in this case would imply a growth condition on f. Nevertheless, for the results of this section it is not necessary, and below we also treat cases where it is not satisfied, showing some non-continuity effects.
For any t>1 we define
If \theta\in(0,1), we get
(see Fig. ? and Fig. ? for the graph of Q_{\bf 0}f^{t}(\theta,z) and \theta(z), respectively, with different values of \theta and {t} fixed).
In Fig. 3.13 we picture the graph for a fixed \theta and increasing values of {t}.
If f^{t} is defined as in Example 3.13, then for any fixed \theta\in(0,1)
This limit function is Q_{\bf 0}f(\theta,z) for f the truncated parabola (see Example 3.15 below with \tilde f(z)=z^2). This asymptotic behaviour is illustrated in Fig. 3.13 above.
From a mechanical standpoint, in the limit as t \to +\infty we can recover the case fracture as limit of phase-transitions problems as the second well gets moves to the right and its curvature diminishes. For a mechanical interpretation of this phenomenon, we refer to [Trusk]. In that perspective, also the energies at fixed \theta are of interest, because it is the case when something prevents cracks from localization. The resulting constrained material becomes ‘tension free’.
Let f be the truncated convex given by
where \tilde f is a convex function such that the only minimum point of \tilde f is 0 with \tilde f(0)=0, and z^\ast>0. In particular, we can take \tilde f(z)=z^2, in which case f is called a truncated quadratic potential. For \theta\in(0,1) we get
For all such f the graphs of Q_{\bf 0}f(\theta,z) and of Q_{\bf 0}f(z) have the form as those pictured in Fig. 3.15(a). In Fig. 3.15(b) the function \theta\mapsto Q_{\bf 0}f(\theta,z) is represented for two different values of z, highlighting the lack of lower semicontinuity in 0 if z>0. Note that for any \theta\in(0,1) we have Q_{\bf 0}f(\theta,z)> f(z) in (-\infty,\theta z^\ast]. Moreover, the optimal volume fraction \theta(z) is always equal to zero, even though Q_{\bf 0}f(\theta,z)=Q_{\bf 0}f(0,z) only if z\leq 0 (see Remark 3.17 below).
\bullet If f(z)=\min\{1, e^{-z}\}, then Q_{\bf 0}f(z)=0 and Q_{\bf 0}f(\theta,z)=1-\theta for \theta\in(0,1). Since Q_{\bf 0}f(0,z) and Q_{\bf 0}f(1,z) are strictly positive, then \overline\Theta(z)=\emptyset for any z. In this case, there is no locking state.
\bullet If f(z)=\max\{\min\{1,2e^{-z}-1\}, 0\}, then Q_{\bf 0}f(z)=0 and Q_{\bf 0}f(\theta,z)=1-\theta for \theta\in(0,1) as in the previous case. In this case, Q_{\bf 0}f(1,z)=0 if z\geq \log 2, hence \overline\Theta(z)=\emptyset for any z<\log 2 and \overline\Theta(z)=\{1\} if z\geq \log 2. The only locking state is \theta=1.
\bullet If f(z)=e^{-|z|}, then Q_{\bf 0}f(z)=Q_{\bf 0}f(\theta,z)=0 for any \theta\in(0,1) and z\in\mathbb R. The set \overline\Theta(z)=(0,1) for any z, while \Theta(z)=[0,1]. The only locking state is \theta=0.
While we still have that trivially Q_{\bf 0}f(z) is the convex envelope of \min\{Q_{\bf 0}f(0,z), Q_{\bf 0}f(1,z)\}, in the examples of cases (b) and (c) nor both values \theta=0 and \theta=1 are regarded as locking states. In the last of Examples 3.16 this is due to the arbitrary choice of defining \theta(z) as an infimum. As a consequence, the notion of locking state is not relevant in the computation of Q_{\bf 0}f, in the sense that we cannot recover Q_{\bf 0}f(z) from the only knowledge of Q_{\bf 0}f(\theta,z) for \theta locking states. In Example 3.15, indeed we have the only locking state \theta=0 but Q_{\bf 0}f(0,z)=+\infty for z>0.
For \theta\in(0,1), we have
We fix z<z^\ast. Let z_i be such that \sum_{i=1}^{kq}z_i= kqz, and
where I=\{i: z_i\ge z^*\} and \#I=\theta kq. Since f is convex, we get
since \overline z\ge z^* and \frac{z-\theta \overline z}{1-\theta}\le \frac{z-\theta z^\ast}{1-\theta}.
Let M\in \mathbb N and n\leq M be fixed. We define n partitions of the interval [0,kq] given by the set of points
Let u be an admissible test function for \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(\theta,z). Recalling Lemma 3.3, we can suppose u\in\mathcal V(kq;\theta)\cap \widetilde{\mathcal A}_\delta(kq;z). With fixed n and j, let \widetilde z and \widetilde\theta be defined by
Since u\in \widetilde{\mathcal A}_{\delta}(kq;z) and n\leq \delta kq, we obtain (kq-2n) |z - \widetilde z| \leq 4n|z| +2n |z|. Moreover (kq-2n)|\theta-\widetilde\theta|\leq 2n+2n \theta, so that (uniformly with respect to n and j)
In particular, if k is large enough then \widetilde z<z^\ast. By substituting to any z_i\geq z^\ast the value z^\ast and to any z_i<z^\ast the value \frac{\widetilde z-\widetilde\theta z^\ast}{1-\widetilde\theta}, the convexity of the square gives
Hence, recalling (?)
which, together with (Proof), gives the estimate
We obtain that
Since M is arbitrary, we conclude that
which gives the lower bound for (3.18) in the case z<z^\ast.
As for the upper estimate, we define a test function \overline u by setting
since m_n=o(n^{-\beta})_{n\to+\infty} with \beta>3 we obtain
which gives the upper bound for k\to+\infty. Similar arguments allow one to prove (3.18) for z>z^\ast or z=z^\ast.
Let \ell^\tau be defined as in (?). In the convex case \tau\geq 1, for any \theta\in(0,1) we have
These constructions are illustrated in Fig. 3.19.
If f_1 and f_{-1} are of class C^1(\mathbb R) then the function z\mapsto \widehat R^N_{\bf m}f(\underline{s},z) is of class C^1(\mathbb R) for any fixed \underline{s}\in \{-1,1\}^N. This is a direct consequence of the Euler-Lagrange equations characterizing the minumum points of F^\#.
The following equality holds:
In particular the function (\theta,z)\mapsto \Phi_{\bf m} f(\theta,z) is convex.
The inequality \Phi_{\bf m} f(\theta,z)\ge \widehat Q_{\bf m} f(\theta,z) directly follows by definition. Conversely, given a minimum point u for
we can extend it to \mathbb Z so that u_i-zi is Nq-periodic. Using this extended test function in the definition of \Phi^{Nq}_{\bf m} f(\theta,z), with the same computations as in the proof of Lemma 3.3 we obtain
as N\to+\infty and \delta\to 0.
Let f be as in (?) and let \Phi^N_{\bf m} be as in (?). The value \theta\in [0,1]\cap\mathbb Q is an energy well of f at z (related to the sequence {\bf m}) if there exists N such that N\theta\in\mathbb Z and
We say that \theta is an energy well of f in an open interval I if there exists N such that (3.22) holds for all z\in I; if such I exists, we say that \theta is a non-degenerate energy well of f. If I=\mathbb R, we simply say that \theta is an energy well of f.
By Proposition 3.21 we also have that if \theta\in [0,1]\cap\mathbb Q is an energy well of f at z then
This implies the existence of periodic minimizers; that is, of test function u_i minimizing \widehat Q_{\bf m} f(\theta,z) with u_i-zi N-periodic.
If \theta is an energy well of f at z, then there exists N such that
for any k\geq 1.
If \theta is an energy well of f in an open interval I, then the function z\mapsto \Phi_{\bf m} f(\theta,z) is differentiable at any z\in I.
Given \theta an energy well in I and the corresponding N as in Definition 3.22, note that z\mapsto \Phi_{\bf m} f(\theta,z) is the minimum of a finite number of C^1 functions, corresponding to \underline s\in \mathcal S_{N}(\theta). Since z\mapsto \Phi_{\bf m} f(\theta,z) is convex the derivatives of these functions must agree at the intersections.
Let X\subset[0,1]\cap \mathbb Q be such that
for all z, and let \theta^\ast\in X be an energy well that is essential in (3.26); that is, such that
for some z. Then, \theta^\ast is a locking state.
We recall that \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(\theta,z)=\Phi_{\bf m} f(\theta,z) by Proposition 3.21. Since \theta^\ast is an energy well, by Proposition 3.25, the function z\mapsto\Phi_{\bf m}f(\theta^\ast,z) is differentiable. By the essentiality condition (3.26), that function cannot be tangent to \widehat Q_{\bf m}f in an isolated point, nor can be transversal to it. Hence, it must coincide with \widehat Q_{\bf m}f in an interval.
The spin representation of a microstructure allows one to effectively parametrize periodic minimizers. Such a representation can be expected to exist for locking states which can be viewed as examples of ‘global’ solutions. We can also interpret such states as respecting the generalized Cauchy-Born (GCB) rule. To make the notion of the GCB rule more general we may refer to the possibility of computing the macroscopic energy by solving an appropriate boundary value problem on a finite representative ‘cell’. The question arises in which cases any minimizer can be viewed as a GCB state in the above sense or as a simple mixture (a convex combination) of such states. We will see in the next sections that for broad classes of physically interesting non-convex energies f and the penalization kernels \bf m only GCB states are relevant.
There exists an ordered family of disjoint intervals (s_n^-,s_n^+), where s_0^-=-\infty and s_M^+=+\infty, such that
(i) \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)=P^{M,n}(z) in (s_n^-,s_n^+) and it is affine in each of the remaining intervals; that is, between s_n^+ and s_{n+1}^- for each n;
(ii) \theta(z)=\theta_n in (s_n^-,s_n^+) and it is affine in each of the remaining intervals.
(iii) the set of the locking states of f is \{\theta_n\} and
The proof of (i) and (ii) will follow from Lemma 4.4 below, while (iii) is obtained by (?).
Note that if \theta(z)=\theta_n then the value of \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z) is attained on periodic minimizers. The phase function \theta can be explicitly written as
Moreover, if we write the convex envelope of the minimum of P^{M,n} and P^{M,n+1} as
where r^{M,n} is the interpolating affine function
then \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(z)=r^{M,n}(z) if z\in[s_n^+,s_{n+1}^-]. Note that this characterization of \widehat Q_{\bf m}f holds under assumption (?), while it may fail if this condition is dropped, as we show in Remark 4.6 below.
Let n\in[0,M-1]\cap \mathbb N. If \theta\in \big[\frac{n}{M},\frac{n+1}{M}\big], then there exist coefficients \alpha^n_k, k=0,\dots, M, such that \alpha^n_k\in [0,I_k] for any k and
The linear system (4.3) has infinitely many solutions depending on M-1 parameters. We have to show that there exists one solution in \Pi_{k=0}^M[0,I_k]. To this end, it is sufficient to show that the hyperplane given by the equation
intersects \Pi_{k=0}^M[0,I_k] for any \lambda\in\mathbb R, which happens if for any \lambda\in \mathbb R there exist two points v,w\in \mathbb R^{M+1} such that H_\lambda(v) \ H_\lambda(w)\leq 0. Since n\leq M\theta\leq n+1 and
we get H_\lambda(0,\dots, 0)\ H_\lambda(I_0^n, \dots, I_M^n) \leq 0 if \lambda\leq -(n+1) \ \hbox{ or } \lambda \geq -n.
For the remaining cases, we note that by (?)
Since (n+1)(M-k)- (M-(n+1))k=M(n+1-k)\leq 0 if k\geq n+1, we get
If we choose v=(v_0,\dots, v_k) with v_k=0 if k\leq n and v_k=I_k if k>n we obtain
Noting that
it follows that H_{\lambda}(v)\geq 0 for any \lambda\in (-(n+1),-n). Since H_{\lambda}(0, \dots, 0)\leq 0, this concludes the proof of Lemma 4.3.
Let \theta\in[\theta_n,\theta_{n+1}]\cap \mathbb Q, with n integer such that 0\leq n<M, and \theta_n=\frac{n}{M} as above. Then the following formula holds:
Up to scaling, we suppose m_M=1 for notational convenience. Since Lemma 3.3 holds, for u\in\mathcal A(Nq;z), if F_1 is the non-scaled functional given by (?), we can estimate F_1(u; [0,Nq]) as
where and z_i=u_i-u_{i-1}.
It is not restrictive to assume Nq\in M\mathbb N. For any i\geq M we define
Moreover, for any k=0,\dots, M we set
and we denote the cardinality of \mathcal I_k by I_k. Note that
Let \psi_{-1} and \psi_1 denote the restrictions of f_{2m_1} to (-\infty,z^\ast) and [z^\ast, +\infty) respectively. Then, by separating the contributions in each \mathcal I_k, thanks to the convexity of \psi_{-1}, \psi_1 and of the square we have
where w_M^-=w_0^+=0 and
otherwise.
We now may conclude the proof of the lower bound by applying Lemma 4.3 to (?), regrouping the terms therein so as to compare that expression with P^{M,n}. Noting that
we get by convexity that
where
Hence,
Correspondingly we obtain
where
Noting that
for \theta\in\big[\frac{n}{M},\frac{n+1}{M}\big] we then have, up to a negligible term,
which concludes the proof of the lower bound in (4.4).
As for the upper bound, let \theta=\frac{p}{q}\in[\frac{n}{M},\frac{n+1}{M}], z\in\mathbb R be fixed and (w_n,w_{n+1}) be a minimizer of (4.4). For all k\geq 1 we define a test function u\colon[0,kMq]\cap\mathbb Z\to\mathbb R constructed as follows. Let w_n^\pm be a minimizer of the problem defining P^{M,n}(w_n) in (?), and let w_{n+1}^\pm be a minimizer of the corresponding problem defining P^{M,n+1}(w_{n+1}). We set u_0=0, and
(see Fig. ?). Note that u(kMq)=kMqz and u\in\mathcal V(kMq;\theta), so that u is an admissible test function for the computation of \widehat Q_{\bf m}f(\theta,z), and the upper bound follows.
From formula (4.4) we deduce that for all z the function \theta\mapsto Q_{\bf m}f(\theta,z) is differentiable at any \theta\not\in\{\theta_1,\dots,\theta_{M-1}\}, whereas instead
except possibly for some critical values of z. Indeed, in the computation of the left-hand side derivative of Q_{\bf m}f at \theta=\theta_n we use P^{M,n-1} while for the right-hand side we use P^{M,n+1}, whose values are generically different at the minimum points of (4.4).
The computation of Q_{\bf m}f for the truncated quadratic potential f can be performed also in the degenerate case where the growth hypothesis (?) does not hold; that is, supposing m_1=0. Note that in this case there is no coercivity on the nearest-neighbour interactions.
The construction in Theorem 4.1 becomes degenerate, and we obtain the formula
where
The corresponding phase function is then given by \theta(z)=0 if z\leq z_M^-, \theta(z)=\frac{1}{M} if z\geq z_M^+ and affine otherwise, so that the locking states are \theta=0 and \theta=\frac{1}{M}. Hence, Q_{\bf m}f(z) is obtained as the convex envelope of the minimum of P^{M,1}(z) and P^{M,0}(z) only.
As for the description of \theta as in (4.2), note that
while we have that as m_1\to 0 then s_n^+(m_1,m_M)\to +\infty for any n\geq 1 and s_n^-(m_1,m_M)\to +\infty for any n\geq 2. This corresponds to the fact that the sets of z where \theta(z)>1/M tend to +\infty as m_1\to0. In Fig. ? we picture Q_{\bf m}f and \theta.
In this remark we highlight the dependence of \theta=\theta^M and Q_{\bf m}f=Q^Mf on M. We show that the limit of the functions \theta^M as M\to+\infty is the phase function of f when the only not vanishing coefficient is m_1, and correspondingly for Q^Mf(z).
Indeed, the following estimates hold
so that we can define two piecewise-constant functions by setting
obtaining that \underline \theta^{M}(z)\leq \theta^M(z)\leq\overline \theta^{M}(z). The claim follows noting that
and the same for \underline \theta^{M}(z). Correspondingly
(see Figure 4.7). In particular, we note that
where {\bf m^\prime}=\{m_1, 0,\dots\}.
We consider the functions \ell^\tau introduced in (?) in the non-convex case 0\leq\tau<1, as pictured in Figure ?, with nearest and next-to-nearest neighbour interactions; that is, with M=2. To simplify the computations, we fix m_1=\frac{1}{2} and m_2=\frac{1}{4}. The computation of Q_{\bf m}\ell^\tau(z) involves the values Q_{\bf m} \ell^\tau(\theta,z) in the three locking states \theta_0=0, \theta_1=\frac{1}{2} and \theta_2=1; more precisely, it is sufficient to consider Q_{\bf m}\ell^\tau(0,z)=\ell^\tau(z) for z\leq 1, Q_{\bf m}\ell^\tau(1,z)=\ell^\tau(z) for z\geq 1 and
for \frac{3}{4}\leq z\leq \frac{3}{2}. Hence
where r^\tau_1(z) is the common tangent (in s^{\tau,+}_0 and s^{\tau,-}_1) to the parabolas \widehat Q_{\bf m}\ell^\tau(0,z) and \widehat Q_{\bf m}\ell^\tau(\frac{1}{2},z), and correspondingly r^\tau_2(z) is the common tangent (in s^{\tau,+}_1 and s^{\tau,-}_2) to the parabolas \widehat Q_{\bf m}\ell^\tau(\frac{1}{2},z) and \widehat Q_{\bf m}\ell^\tau(1,z).
In Fig. ? we represent Q_{\bf m}\ell^\tau for two different values of \tau, also showing the three energies \widehat Q_{\bf m}\ell^\tau(\theta,z) when \theta\in \{0,\frac12,1\}, and the corresponding phase function \theta. The value of \tau in (b) is larger than that in (a). Note in particular that if \tau\to 1 then s_2^{\tau,-}-s_0^{\tau,+}\to 0; that is, the locking state \theta=\frac{1}{2} progressively disappears, and we recover the convex case (see Example 3.19), while for \tau=0 we recover the case of the truncated quadratic potential with M=2.
As in Remark 4.7, we highlight the dependence on M by writing \theta(z)=\theta^M(z) and Q_{\bf m}f(z)=Q^Mf(z). We show that also in this case the limit of \theta^M(z) as M\to+\infty is the phase function of f when the only not vanishing coefficient is m_1, and correspondingly for Q^Mf(z). Indeed, since the distribution of s_n^+ and s_n^- is uniform, we can directly deduce that
Correspondingly
(see Figure ?). Again, we note that \lim\limits_{M\to+\infty}Q^Mf(z)=Q_{\bf m^\prime}f(z), where {\bf m^\prime}=\{m_1, 0,\dots\}.
If m_1=0, Remark 2.39 does not apply. Taking the limit for \sigma\to 0^+, in this case we obtain
where we set
The limit function is then given by
or, equivalently,
Note that in this case the limit differs from f but coincides with the minimum among P^{M,n}(z)-2m_M M^2 z^2 (see Fig. 4.10), whose convexification still equals f^{**}.
In Fig. ? we picture in the z-{1\over\sigma}-plane the zones where \theta(z)=\theta_n for some n\in\{0,\ldots, M\} and those where \theta(z) is affine for fixed \sigma (in grey).
Let {\bf m} satisfy (?) and be such that the function n\mapsto m_n is not increasing for n large enough. Then, there exist a (k+1)\times (k+1)-dimensional matrix A^k_{\bf m} and a scalar s_{\bf m} such that, setting H^k_{\bf m}=H^k[A^k_{\bf m}, s_{\bf m}] in (?), the following equality holds
for all f\colon\mathbb R\to [0,+\infty) satisfying growth conditions (?) and (?).
We write
Let u^k denote a minimizer of the problem above, and note that \|u^k\|_k are equibounded in view of the growth condition on f(z)+m_1z^2. Note that thanks to Lemma A.1 we may suppose that the function u^k is constant on [0, k^\alpha] and [k-k^\alpha, k]. Then, applying Lemma 5.2 and Remark 5.3, we obtain the desired result.
Let {\bf m} satisfy (?) and be such that the function n\mapsto m_n is not increasing for n large enough. Let J_{\bf m}^k be as in (?). Then, there exist a (k+1)\times (k+1)-dimensional matrix A^k_{\bf m} and a scalar s_{\bf m} such that
for all u\colon\{0,\dots, k\}\to\mathbb R, where H_{\bf m}^k is defined in Theorem 5.1.
We introduce the (k+1)\times (k+1) matrix M^k_{\bf m}=(m_{ij}) given by m_{ij}=m_{|i-j|}, i,j=0,\dots, k. Note that the functional J^k_{\bf m} is independent of the choice of m_0, so that we can choose the value of m_0 arbitrarily. We assume that this value is such that the matrix M^{k}_{\bf m} is invertible.
As a first step, we write the functional J_{\bf m}^k, up to an infinitesimal term, as the sum of a suitable quadratic form depending on the whole series of m_n and a residual boundary term. By Lemma A.1 (see Appendix A), up to a change of variables with L=1 and \varepsilon=1/k, we can suppose that u is constant in [0,k^\alpha] and in [k-k^\alpha,k] with a fixed \alpha\in(\frac{3}{\beta},1), where \beta is the decay parameter of \bf m given by (?). Up to translations, we can assume u_0=0 and hence u_{i}=0 for i\leq k^{\alpha}. Setting
we get
so that, using the decay condition m_n=o(n^{-\beta}), we obtain
where t_{\bf m}=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}n\,m_n. Note that 2-\alpha\beta<-1 since \alpha>\frac{3}{\beta}.
The matrix A^k_{\bf m} will be obtained by modifying the matrix s_{\bf m} \big(M_{\bf m}^k\big)^{-1}-I, which gives a minimum for H^k_{\bf m} in v=\frac{1}{s_{\bf m}}M_{\bf m}^ku, so as to take into account the boundary contribution. This is done by changing the values (A^k_{\bf m})_{11} and (A^k_{\bf m})_{kk} in such a way that they compensate the boundary terms. We set
We can write
and we prove that the minimum of H^k_{\bf m}(u,v) coincides, up to an infinitesimal term, with J_{\bf m}^k(u). This minimum is attained for v^{k,\rm min} given by
Then, recalling the decay assumption on m_n, we get
concluding the proof of (5.2) since \alpha>\frac{3}{\beta}.
Let u^k be constant on [0, k^\alpha] and [k-k^\alpha, k]. Then the corresponding v^{k,\min} given by (?) satisfies |v^{k,\min}_0-u^k_0|+|v^{k,\min}_k-u^k_k|= o(k^{{1\over 2}-\alpha\beta})\|u^k\|_k. Hence it can be modified so as to obtain \widehat v^{k} equal to u^k in 0 and k and |v^{k,\min}_i-v^k_i|=o(k^{{1\over 2}-\alpha\beta})\|u^k\|_k for all i. By (?) we can estimate
If \|u^k\|_k are equibounded, then the last term is o(\frac{1}{k}) since \alpha>{3\over\beta}. Note that we may also construct \widehat v^{k} so that \widehat v^{k}_i=u^k_0 for i\le k^{\alpha^\prime} and \widehat v^{k}_i=u^k_k if i\ge k-k^{\alpha^\prime} with \alpha^\prime<\alpha.
Suppose that there exists C>0 such that for all v\in \mathcal A(k;z)
Then, by (5.1), we can bound \widehat Q_{\bf m} f(z) from below with limits of scaled minimum problems for energies of the form
We will see in the next section that this holds with some particular choices of the kernel \bf m; namely, the exponential kernels.
We have
The proof is obtained giving a lower bound for the minima
where
Consider a minimizer u for such problem. If u_i-u_{i-1}\le z^* for all i then by the convexity of f this minimum equals the value g_0(z). If otherwise u_i-u_{i-1}>z^* for some i, note that we can always suppose that this holds for i=1, by splitting the discrete interval \{0,\ldots, k\} into subsets \{i_{k_{j-1}}\ldots, i_{k_{j}}\}, j=1,\dots, r, in which u_i-u_{i-1}>z^* only for i=i_{k_{j-1}}+1, we obtain a lower estimate with
where N_j= k_j-k_{j-1} and z_j= {u_{k_j}- u_{k_{j-1}}\over N_j}, so that we have the convex combination
From this estimate (5.5) follows.
Let
and set E^\sigma_\varepsilon=E_\varepsilon as defined in (?) with a=a_\sigma and b=b_\sigma. Then the sequence E^\sigma_\varepsilon \Gamma-converges to the same \Gamma-limit as the sequence F^\sigma_\varepsilon.
Upper estimate. Let F^\sigma(u;[0,L]) be the \Gamma-limit of the sequence F_\varepsilon^\sigma. Let u\in L^2(0,L) be such that F^\sigma(u;[0,L])<+\infty and let u^\varepsilon\in \mathcal A_\varepsilon be a recovery sequence for the \Gamma-limit F^\sigma(u;[0,L]). Let \hat u^\varepsilon be the sequence given by Lemma A.1 and v^{\varepsilon, {\rm min}} be obtained by minimization of the minimum problem in (5.9) with u^\varepsilon=\hat u^\varepsilon. Recalling Lemma 5.9, we get
This gives the upper estimate for the \Gamma-limit of E^\sigma_\varepsilon.
Lower estimate. Let u\in H^1(0,L) and let u^\varepsilon, v^\varepsilon converge to u in L^2(0,L) and be such that \sup E^\sigma_\varepsilon(u^\varepsilon,v^\varepsilon; [0,L])\leq S<+\infty. Let \hat u^\varepsilon, \hat v^\varepsilon be the sequences given by Lemma A.1(B). Hence
Applying Lemma 5.9 we obtain
This concludes the proof.
We can interpret the extremal regimes of strong and weak additivity in terms of the parameters of the two-parameter energies (?). Let a_\sigma, b_\sigma be given by (5.6). As \sigma\to 0 we have both a_\sigma\to +\infty and b_\sigma\to +\infty, with an increasing strength of the effect of the term involving the distance of u from the affine function zi. Conversely, when \sigma\to+\infty we have a_\sigma\to 0, and the role of this distance term gradually diminishes.
The equivalence result in Theorem 5.6 can be extended to arbitrary pairs a,b>0 up to considering the non-local functionals with kernel m_n=\varrho e^{-\sigma n}; that is, the functionals given by
with the choices
Indeed, with this definition we get
so that we can apply Theorem 5.6 obtaining the equivalence between \frac{1}{\varrho}F_\varepsilon^{\varrho,\sigma} and \frac{1}{\varrho}E^{\sigma}_\varepsilon. The corresponding (trivial) generalization of Q_\sigma f in (?) can be obtained by defining
and setting Q_{\sigma,\varrho} f(z)=\widehat Q_{\sigma,\varrho} f(z)-a_\sigma \varrho z^2, with a_\sigma as in (5.6).
Let L>0 and k_\varepsilon=\lfloor\frac{L}{\varepsilon}\rfloor. We fix \alpha\in(0,1) and set n_\varepsilon=\lfloor (k_\varepsilon)^\alpha \rfloor. Let F^\sigma_\varepsilon be given by (?) and E^\sigma_\varepsilon be given by (?) with a_\sigma,b_\sigma as in (5.6) and I=[0,L]. Then, if u^\varepsilon\in\mathcal A_\varepsilon=\mathcal A_\varepsilon([0,L]) satisfies u^\varepsilon_i=u^\varepsilon_0 for i\leq n_\varepsilon, u^\varepsilon_i=u^\varepsilon_{k_\varepsilon} for i\geq k_\varepsilon-n_\varepsilon, we have
where \mathcal A_\varepsilon^{\#}(u^\varepsilon)=\{v\in \mathcal A_\varepsilon: v_0=v_1=u^\varepsilon_0, \ v_{k_\varepsilon}=v_{k_\varepsilon-1}=u^\varepsilon_{k_\varepsilon}\}.
For u,v\in \mathcal A_\varepsilon, we set
Up to translations, we can assume u^\varepsilon_0=0 (and hence u^\varepsilon_{i}=0 for i\leq L\varepsilon^{-\alpha}). We introduce the (k_\varepsilon+1)\times (k_\varepsilon+1) matrix M^\varepsilon_\sigma=(m_{ij}) given by m_{ij}=m^\sigma_{|i-j|}=e^{-\sigma |i-j|}, i,j=0,\dots, k_\varepsilon. Note that m_n^\sigma=e^{-\sigma n} satisfies m_n^\sigma=o(n^{-\beta}) for any \beta and in particular for \beta>\frac{3}{\alpha}. In order to apply Lemma 5.2, we compute s_\sigma=s_{\bf m^\sigma} and the matrix A_\sigma^\varepsilon=A^{k_\varepsilon}_{\bf m} given by formula (?), obtaining
where D^\varepsilon_\sigma is the (k_\varepsilon+1)\times(k_\varepsilon+1) diagonal matrix with diagonal \{1+e^{-\sigma}, s_\sigma, \dots, s_\sigma, 1+e^{-\sigma}\}. Moreover, in this case we can compute the inverse of the matrix M^\varepsilon_\sigma, which is the tridiagonal (k_\varepsilon+1)\times (k_\varepsilon+1) matrix given by
Now, to each u\in \mathcal A_\varepsilon we associate the corresponding function defined on \{0,\dots, k^\varepsilon\} by i\mapsto u(\varepsilon i); with a slight abuse of notation, we still denote this function by u. Setting
for u,v\colon \{0,\dots, k^\varepsilon\}\to\mathbb R, we can then apply Lemma 5.2 with k=k^\varepsilon, obtaining
We conclude by proving that, up to an infinitesimal term, the minimum of H_\sigma^{k_\varepsilon}(\tilde u^\varepsilon,\cdot) on \mathcal A_\varepsilon coincides with the minimum of H_\varepsilon(u^\varepsilon,\cdot) on \mathcal A^{\#}_\varepsilon. Indeed, given u,v\in\mathcal A_\varepsilon we can write
since \sum_{j=0}^{k_\varepsilon}(A_\sigma^\varepsilon)_{ij}=0 for any i by (Proof) and (Proof). This formula in particular implies
that is, estimate (5.4) with C=\frac{e^{-\sigma}}{(1-e^{-\sigma})^2}, which in this case is an equality.
Finally, recalling Remark 5.3 we obtain
and the claim follows by (?).
Formula (5.1) in Theorem 5.1 and equality (?) prove the following formula for the function \widehat Q_{\sigma}f defined in (?):
where E_1^\sigma is defined by (?) with \varepsilon=1 and a=a_\sigma,b=b_\sigma satisfying (5.6).
Formula (5.10) can be extended to constrained problems; namely, we have
where, accordingly with the notation above, \widehat Q_\sigma f(\theta,z) denotes the constrained relaxation \widehat Q_{{\bf m}_\sigma} f(\theta,z), and \mathcal V(kq;\frac{p}{q}) is the set of admissible constrained functions defined in (?). Indeed, we note that Theorem 5.1 also holds for constrained relaxation, since we can apply Lemma 5.2 to u satisfying a volume constraint (see Lemma 3.3).
For a general kernel \bf m the matrix M^k=(m_{ij})_{i,j=0}^k is a symmetric Toeplitz matrix. Under decay conditions on m_n we can apply the arguments in Section ?. However, since (M^k)^{-1} now is not of the form (Proof) (for some insight on the problem of the inversion of a general symmetric Toeplitz matrix we refer, e.g., to [BG]), the resulting functional H^k_\varepsilon does not depend on nearest neighbours only and the argument showing the optimality of the bounds can not be completed as above. However, for particular classes of kernels \bf m the resulting functionals H^k_\varepsilon may be still amenable to analysis, even if they involve next-to-nearest-neighbour interactions and beyond. The analytical transparency of such functionals will then allow one to extract useful information on the form of the corresponding \widehat Q_{\bf m}f.
Note that the condition \tilde f(0)=0 can be substituted by the hypothesis that \tilde f has a minimum point z_{\rm min}<z^*, since affine changes of variables are compatible with the definition of \widehat Q_{\bf m}f by Remark 2.25.
Fixed \sigma>0, let a=a_\sigma and b=b_\sigma be given by (5.6). If f is a truncated convex potential as in (?), then
The lower bound is a consequence of Proposition 5.5. To conclude the proof we show that \widehat Q_\sigma f(z)\leq(\inf_{n\in \mathbb N} \{g^\sigma_n\})^{\ast\ast}(z). Since \widehat Q_\sigma f is convex, it is sufficient to prove that \widehat Q_\sigma f(z)\leq\inf_{n\in \mathbb N} \{g^\sigma_n(z)\}.
We fix \delta>0. For z\in \mathbb R there exists \overline n\in \mathbb N such that g^\sigma_{\overline n}(z)\leq \inf_{n\in \mathbb N} \{g^\sigma_n(z)\}+\delta. If \overline n=1, then we can take as test functions u,v given by u_i=v_i=iz. For any N\geq 1 we get
and the result follows by taking the limit for N\to+\infty. Otherwise, let \overline u,\overline v\in\mathcal A_1([1,\overline n]) be such that \overline v_{\overline n}=\overline n z and
We extend \overline u and \overline v in 0 by setting \overline u_0=\overline n z-\overline u_{\overline n} and \overline v_0=0. It follows that
For any N\geq 1 we choose u^N and v^N as test functions in [0,\overline n N] defined by setting u^N_i equal to (j-1)\overline n z+\overline u_{i-(j-1)\overline n} in each [(j-1)\overline n, j\overline n), j\in\{1,\dots, N-1\} and in [(N-1)\overline n, N\overline n] and correspondingly v^N_i. We get
Letting N\to+\infty the claim follows by the representation formula for \widehat Q_\sigma f given in (5.10).
Note that, recalling Remark 5.8, Proposition 5.14 holds for any a,b>0 with g^{a,b}_N in place of g^\sigma_N and a in place of a_\sigma, up to substituting \widehat Q_{\sigma}f with \widehat Q_{\sigma_{a,b}, \varrho_{a,b}}f as defined in (5.8), with \sigma_{a,b} and \varrho_{a,b} given by (5.8).
Given u\in \mathcal A_1([0,N]), we say that i\in\{1,\dots, N\} belongs to \mathcal B(u) (the set of broken indices of u) if u_i-u_{i-1}>z^\ast.
For future reference we show that the solutions of
can be regrouped and rearranged. Let (u,v) solve (5.16). Note that in the union of the non-isolated ‘broken intervals’ we can assume that u and v are affine and equal. More precisely, the convexity of the square and a translation argument allow to prove that there exists z_0 such that if \underline i +k+1\in \mathcal B(u) for k\in\{0,\dots, \underline k\}, with \underline k\geq 1 then
(see Figure ?). As a second step, we show that if (u,v) solves (5.16) we can assume that there is at most one ‘broken zone’ for u with length greater than 1. To this end, we extend u and v by periodicity by setting u(N+j)=u(j)+Nz and u(-j)=u(N-j)-Nz for j=1,\dots, N, and correspondingly for v.
Now we show that the minimum is attained at (u,v) such that if i\in \mathcal B(u), then i-1\not\in \mathcal B(u) and i+1\not\in \mathcal B(u), or j\in \mathcal B(u) for all j\in \{i+1,\dots, N\}. To show this, we suppose that i_0,i_0+1, i_0+k and i_0+k+1 belong to \mathcal B(u) for some i_0\geq 1, k\geq 2 and i_0+k\leq N, while i_0+j+1\not\in \mathcal B(u) for j\in\{1,\dots, k-2\}.
We modify u and v by setting for j=0,\dots, k-1
(see Figure ?). With this definition
Thanks to the periodic extension of u and v, this proves that in minimum problem (5.16) we can assume that there exist n_0,n_1,..., n_r\in \mathbb N with n_{l}>1 for any l\in\{1,\dots, r\}, r+n_0=n(N,z) and n_0=N-\sum_{l=1}^r n_l, such that
(see Figure ?).
This reduces the problem of the computation of the minimum value (5.16) to the solution of the minimum problem on each (translated) island [0,n_j], j\in\{1,\dots, r\},
and in the broken island [0,n_0], where
with suitable boundary conditions z_j satisfying \sum_{j=0}^r n_jz_j=Nz.
Since E^\sigma_1(u,v;[0,n-1])=\tilde E^\sigma_1(u,v;[0,n-1])-b_\sigma(u_0-v_0)^2 if \#\mathcal B(u)=0, for n>1 and z\in\mathbb R we have
The functions g_N are uniformly strictly convex. More precisely, we have
for all z,z'\in\mathbb R and N\in\mathbb N.
If u,v and u',v' are minimizers for g_N(z) and g_N(z') we can use the functions {1\over2}(u+u'),{1\over2}(v+v') as test functions for g_N({1\over2}(z+z')). Using the convexity of \tilde f and the quadraticity of the other terms; more precisely, that for all i we have (after setting v_0=0)
we get
as desired.
From the previous proposition we deduce that g_N''(z)\ge 2a at all z where g_N is twice differentiable. In particular, we obtain that g_N(z)\ge {\tilde f(z^\ast)\over N} + az^2 for all N\ge 1.
The solutions u,v of the minimum problem
are symmetric with respect to the centre of the interval, in the sense that
for 1\le j\le N-1. Furthermore, if N=2M+1 is odd then
while, if N=2M is even then
Indeed, first note that we may state the boundary condition equivalently as v_N-v_1= V:=v^N-v^1. Then, condition (5.19) is a direct consequence of the strict convexity of the energy and is obtained using
as test functions. To check, e.g., (5.19), note that from (5.19)
from which the first equality in (5.19) follows. To check the second one, note that from (5.19) we obtain v_i+v_{2M+2-i}-2v_{M+1}=u_i+u_{2M+2-i}-2u_{M+1}=0 for all i, from which
Now, considering in place of u_i the function
as test functions, the only change in the problem in (5.19) is in the last sum, for which, using (?) and the already proved equality in (5.19) for v, we have
which contradicts the minimality of u,v if the second equality in (5.19) does not hold. The proof of (5.19) follows the same line with minor modifications.
For all N_1,N_2\ge1 such that N_1+N_2 is even and N_1\neq N_2, for all z_1,z_2\in\mathbb R\setminus \{0\} we have
where N=\frac{N_1+N_2}{2} \ \ \hbox{\rm and }\ z=\frac{N_1z_1+N_2z_2}{N_1+N_2}. In particular, we have the convexity property in N
We consider the case of N_1 and N_2 odd, the case of N_1 and N_2 even following the same line with minor modifications.
Let u^1,v^1 be minimizers for g_{N_1}(z_1) and let u^2,v^2 be minimizers for g_{N_2}(z_2). We define \overline u,\overline v by setting
(see Fig. Proof). Thanks to Remark 5.19 this is a good definition, \overline v_{(N_1+1)/ 2}=\overline u_{(N_1+1)/ 2}, and we have \overline v_N=\frac{1}{2}(N_1z_1+N_2z_2), so that these are test functions for g_N(z). Again, by the symmetry properties of v^1 and v^2 in Remark 5.19 we obtain (5.20). Note the strict inequality, which is proved by noting that \overline v_i, \overline u_i do not satisfy the properties of minimizers in Remark 5.19.
Let k, N\geq 2 be integers, and w_k,w_0\in\mathbb R\setminus \{0\}. Then
for some w_{k-1}, w_1 such that (N+1)w_{1}+(N+k-1)w_{k-1}=Nw_{0}+(N+k)w_k. Moreover w_{k-1}, w_1 belong to the interval with endpoints w_0 and w_k.
Let (w_1,\dots,w_{k-2}) be the solution of the linear system given by the equations
for h=2,\dots, k. We can repeat the application of (5.20) to each pair N_1=N+h, N_2=N+h-2 with h=2,\dots, k, by fixing at each step z_1=w_{h}, z_2=w_{h-2}, obtaining
The last part of the claim follow by induction.
If we define the auxiliary functions \widetilde g_N(z)= g_N(z)-{\eta\over N}, then we have \widetilde g_N(z)<\widetilde g_{N+1}(z) for all N\ge1 and z>0. This is proved by induction using Proposition 5.20 with N_1=N-1, N_2=N+1 and z_1=z_2=z, after noting that for N=1 the inequality \widetilde g_1(z)<\widetilde g_{2}(z) is implied by Proposition 5.17 since \widetilde g_1(z)=az^2.
Let f be as in (?) and let m_n^\sigma=e^{-\sigma n}. Then the set of locking states of Q_\sigma f is given by
Step 1. We prove by induction the monotonicity of the sequence g_N(z) for z large enough. By Proposition 5.20 we obtain that if g_N(z)\ge g_{N-1}(z) then
hence,
Hence, iterating this argument, we get that the sequence k\mapsto g_k(z) is not decreasing for k\ge N-1 and strictly increasing for k\ge N.
Step 2. Now we show that for z large enough then g_2(z)\geq g_1(z). By the growth hypothesis \tilde f(z)\geq c_1z^2-c_2 we get
By computing the minimum, we obtain
with
Hence for z large enough
From this property and Remark 5.18 we deduce that there exists a unique z_1 such that g_2(z_1)=g_1(z_1), and hence g_1(z)=\min_N g_N(z) in [z_1,+\infty) by Step 1.
Step 3. By Step 1 g_N(z_1)>g_2(z_1)=g_1(z_1) for all N\ge 3. Let [z_2,z_1] be the maximal interval containing z_1 where g_2(z)=\min_{N\ge 1} g_N(z)= \min_{N\ge 2} g_N(z). Since in particular g_3> g_2 in the interval (z_2,z_1] by Remark 5.22, we have g_N>g_4> g_3 for all N>4 in the closed interval [z_2,z_1] always by Step 1. This implies that g_3(z_2)=g_2(z_2). Moreover, note that g_4(z_2)>g_2(z_2), since otherwise we would have g_3(z_2)<g_2(z_2) by (5.20) with z=z_2, N_1=2 and N_2=4.
Step 4. We define z_3=\max\{z: g_4(z)\le\min\{g_3(z), g_2(z), g_1(z)\}. This is well defined since g_4(0)<\min\{g_3(0), g_2(0), g_1(0)\} and we have z_3<z_2. Note that in (z_4,z_3) we have \min\{ g_N(z): z\in\mathbb N\}\in\{ g_2(z),g_3(z)\}. We then define iteratively z_n=\max\{z: g_{n+1}(z)\le\min\{g_k(z): k\le n\}. Again, this is a good definition and z_n<z_{n-1}. In (z_n,z_{n-1}) we have that \min\{ g_N(z): N\in\mathbb N\}\in\{ g_n(z),g_{n-1}(z)\}. Indeed, by Corollary 5.21 if g_k(z)=g_\ell(z) at some z then |k-\ell|\le 1. Since \min\{ g_N(z_{n-1}): N\in\mathbb N\}=g_n(z_{n-1}) and we cannot have g_n(z)=g_{n+1}(z) if z\in (z_n,z_{n-1}), the claim follows.
Step 5. Inequality (5.20) shows that the graph of g_{N} lies below the graph of the convex envelope of the minimum between g_{N-1} and g_{N+1} in an open interval. By Proposition 5.14 this proves that 1\over N is a locking state.
The graph of the function Q_\sigma f(z) possesses infinitely many concave parabolic arcs, corresponding to the intervals where \widehat Q_\sigma f(z) is affine, which accumulates in \overline z_\ast(\sigma)=\inf_N z_N(\sigma)>0. Correspondingly, the phase function \theta(z) is affine, interpolating between consecutive values 1/N (see Fig. ?).
Summarizing, the behaviour of the penalized energy Q_\sigma f(z) in terms of the macroscopic gradient z has the following features:
\bullet (‘unfractured zone’) for z\le \overline z_\ast(\sigma) optimal sequences take into account only the convex part of f; i.e., there are no broken bonds;
\bullet (‘completely microfractured zone’) there exists \overline z^\ast(\sigma)=s_1^-(\sigma)>z_1(\sigma) such that for z\ge \overline z^\ast(\sigma) (that is, in I_1(\sigma)=[\overline z^\ast(\sigma),+\infty)) the part of the energy involving the function f is identically \tilde f(z^\ast); i.e., we have broken bonds for all values of the index i;
\bullet (increasingly segmented behavior of the relaxed energy) for values of the macroscopic gradient between \overline z_\ast(\sigma) and \overline z^\ast(\sigma) the energy \widehat Q_{\sigma}f behaves as a superposition of infinitely many ‘damaged materials’ indexed by the parameter N representing the microscopic optimal spacing of broken bonds. For the values z where \widehat Q_{\sigma}f(z) is affine, optimal sequences mix the damaged materials parameterized by N and N-1. The point \overline z_\ast(\sigma) is an accumulation point for the different behaviors as N\to+\infty.
By Proposition 2.38, highlighting the dependence on the parameter \sigma, we deduce that
(i) \displaystyle\lim_{\sigma\to 0} \overline z_\ast(\sigma)=\lim_{\sigma\to 0} \overline z^\ast(\sigma)=z^\ast, corresponding to the extreme non-additivity case,
(ii) \displaystyle\lim_{\sigma\to +\infty} \overline z_\ast(\sigma)=0 and \displaystyle\lim_{\sigma\to +\infty} \overline z^\ast(\sigma)=+\infty, corresponding to full additivity.
Note the generic non differentiability of \widehat Q_\sigma f(\theta,z) with respect to \theta at the locking states. This is due to the different definitions of this function in left and right neighbourhoods of each locking state \frac{1}{N}. Indeed, the definition of \widehat Q_\sigma f(\theta,z) uses g^\sigma_N(z), g^\sigma_{N+1}(z) in a left neighbourhood and g^\sigma_{N-1}(z), g^\sigma_{N}(z) in a right neighbourhood of \theta=\frac{1}{N}, respectively, in analogy with the case of concentrated kernels, as seen in Section ? (see Remark 4.5).
Let g_N^\sigma be defined as in (?) with a=a_\sigma and b=b_\sigma satisfying (5.6). The following equality holds for any N\in\mathbb N and z\in\mathbb R:
where \Phi^{N}_{\bf m}f is defined in (?) with A=[z^\ast, +\infty), f_{-1}=\tilde f, f_1=\tilde f(z^\ast) if z\in A and +\infty otherwise, and m_n=e^{-\sigma n}.
We first observe that \Phi^N_{\bf m}f(\frac{1}{N},z)=\widehat R^N_{\bf m}f(\underline s_N, z) where \underline s_N=(1,-1,-1,\ldots,-1) and \widehat R^N_{\bf m}f is defined in (?) with
By extending \underline s_N by N-periodicity, we have
the last equality being a consequence of (5.2), the equivalence result of Lemma 5.9 and the characterization of the minima given by (?), which ensures that also the minimizing v can be chosen periodic. Hence by the periodicity we get
Finally, noting that we can remove the periodicity condition on u and that we can rewrite the condition on v as a boundary condition, we get the claim.
Given \sigma>0, suppose that a=a_\sigma and b=b_\sigma are as in (5.6). Then, for any \theta\in\mathbb Q\cap(0,1) and for any z\in \mathbb R the following equality holds:
where
We divide the proof in two steps.
Step 1: \theta=\frac{1}{N}. In this case, the claim becomes (?) for all z\in\mathbb R. We note that for each N the formula is proved for z\in I_N. Moreover, for arbitrary z it can be further simplified as follows. Let k\in\mathbb N be fixed and let (u,v) be a minimizer in (5.11) with p=1 and q=N. Since \widehat Q_\sigma f(\frac{1}{N},z) can be expressed as in (5.11), it is sufficient to show that for all k
It is not restrictive to suppose that u_1-u_0\geq z^\ast. By grouping the interactions, we estimate
where \sum_{j=1}^kN_j=kN and \sum_{j=1}^kN_j z_j=kN z. By Proposition 5.20, we infer that all even N_j are equal to some N_{\rm e}, and the corresponding z_j coincide with some z_{\rm e}, and the same holds for odd N_j with N_{\rm o} and corresponding z_j with z_{\rm o}, so that there exist integers k_{\rm e} and k_{\rm o} such that
where
Since u\in \mathcal V(kN,\frac{1}{N}), we also have k_{\rm e}+k_{\rm o}=k. By (5.21) we deduce that |N_{\rm e}-N_{\rm o}|=1, and this is only possible if either k_{\rm e} or k_{\rm o} vanishes, from which we conclude.
Step 2: general case. We fix \theta=\frac{p}{q} with p and q coprime integers satisfying 1<p<q. Let k\in\mathbb N be fixed and let (u,v) be a minimizer in (5.11). By grouping the interactions as in the case \theta=\frac{1}{N}, thanks to (5.21) we obtain that there exists N\in\mathbb N such that
for some k_1,k_2\in\mathbb N, and
where z^\prime,z^{\prime\prime} satisfy k_1N z^\prime+k_2(N+1)z^{\prime\prime}=kqz. Since (?) implies \frac{q}{p}\geq N>\frac{q}{p}-1, we deduce that N=N_\theta is the unique integer solution of the equation (with k_1=k(p(N_\theta+1)-q)>0 and k_2=k(q-pN_\theta)>0). Hence
Noting that
since \widehat Qf_\sigma(\theta,z) can be expressed as in (5.11) we obtain, by using (?),
The opposite inequality follows by the equality g^\sigma_N(z)=\widehat Q_{\sigma}f(\frac{1}{N},z) proved in the case \theta=\frac{1}{N} and by the convexity of \widehat Q_{\sigma}f(\theta,z). Indeed, noting that
for all pairs (z^\prime,z^{\prime\prime}) such that t(\theta)z^\prime+(1-t(\theta))z^{\prime\prime}=z, we have
as desired.
Let f be as in (?). Then, for any \sigma>0 and z\in\mathbb R, the following equality holds:
For each N, we can suppose that the set where \widehat Q_\sigma f(z)=g^\sigma_N(z) is an interval I_N=[s_N^-, s_N^+]. Let z\in (s_{N+1}^+,s_N^-). Then, writing
we have that
Recalling the definition of the phase function \theta(z) (see Definition 3.6) and the fact that \theta(z) is affine in each open interval where \widehat Q_\sigma f is affine, as stated in Proposition 3.10, we deduce
where the link between z,t and N is given by (Proof). Hence, using the local representation given by (5.11), for all k\in A(\theta(z)) we can split the minimum
into the sum of the minima
where A(\theta(z))\cap [0,k]=\{i_0, i_1,\dots, i_{n_k}\} with 0=i_0<\dots <i_{n_k}=k, and z_j are such that \sum_{j=1}^{n_k}(i_j-i_{j-1})z_j=kz.
Furthermore, noting that M_j=(i_j-i_{j-1})g^\sigma_{i_j-i_{j-1}}(z_j), we obtain by convexity
Conversely, fixed k\in A(\theta(z)), let \mathcal I_N=\{j\leq n_k: i_j-i_{j-1}=N\} and \mathcal I_{N+1}=\{j\leq n_k: i_j-i_{j-1}=N+1\} and z_k^\pm be such that
and z_k^-\to s_N^-, z_k^+\to s_{N+1}^+ as k\to+\infty. Then, using the minimizers of g^\sigma_N(z_k^-) and of g^\sigma_{N+1}(z_k^+) to test the minimum problem in (?), we get the upper bound
Taking the limit as k\to+\infty, by (Proof) we obtain the claim.
The same proof shows that for any \theta
In the case of M-th only interactions, we focus first on \theta=\theta_k={k\over M}, with k\in\{0,\ldots, M\} , that is, on locking states, or, equivalently, on energy wells. The construction in Proposition 4.4 shows that all periodic spin configurations with period a submultiple of M compatible with \theta_k, correspond to optimal laminates. Indeed, the only requirement on minimizers is that for all intervals of length M we have an equal number of spins of either type (which is trivially true). Note in particular that we may choose minimizers with u_i-u_{i-1}>z^* exactly for i\in A(\theta) since this set is M-periodic. Now if \theta is not of the form k/M, we do not have periodic optimal minimizers. This is in contrast to the exponential case, where we do have periodic minimizers for all \theta\in \mathbb Q.
Let \tilde E_1 be defined as in (?) with \tilde f(z)=z^2 and a,b>0. Then, by the computations in [NT2016, Sec. 3] we get
where
By using (?), we obtain
where
and \zeta as in (5.32).
The \Gamma-limit of G_\varepsilon with respect to the convergence u_\varepsilon,v_\varepsilon\to v in L^2(I) is given by
The integrand g_{\rm hom} is characterized as
where
The function g_{\rm hom}(z) is strictly convex, and the following properties hold:
(i) \displaystyle g_{\rm hom}(z)=(\alpha+\gamma) z^2 in [0,z_c], where z_c=\sqrt \frac{2\eta\omega \alpha}{4\gamma(\alpha+\gamma)};
(ii) \displaystyle g_{\rm hom}(z)\sim \alpha z^2 +Cz^{2/3} as z\to+\infty, where C>0 depends only on \alpha,\beta, \gamma,\eta.
Note first that the critical value \overline z_\ast in the NT discrete model, defined in (?), is different from the corresponding critical value in the continuum problem discussed above. Indeed, if we choose \gamma=1 as in the discrete case, in order for the discrete and continuous energies to be equivalent up to \overline z_\ast we need to ‘correct’ the continuum fracture energy by substituting \eta with an effective fracture toughness \frac{\eta}{\cosh\zeta} with \zeta given by (5.32). However, such a correction will not extend the equality of the energy functions beyond the threshold. In particular, note the different scaling behavior of the two models as z diverges, see Fig. ?.
The sequence G^{\mathbb Z}_\varepsilon(u,v;I) \Gamma-converges with respect to the convergence u_\varepsilon,v_\varepsilon\to v in L^2(I) to
where
For any z\in\mathbb R the following equality holds:
We fix z\in\mathbb R and N\in\mathbb N; let (u_N, v_N) be the solution of the minimum problem defining \psi(N,z). We define \tilde u_N\in SBV(0,2N) by setting
and correspondingly \tilde v_N\in H^1(0,2N). Since u_N(\frac{N}{2})=v_N(\frac{N}{2})=\frac{N}{2}z, then S(\tilde u_N)=\{N\}, \tilde u_N(0)=\tilde v_N(0)=0 and \tilde u_N(2N)=\tilde v_N(2N)=2Nz; by construction
Let k\in\mathbb N. We define \tilde u in (0,2kN) by setting
and in the same way we define \tilde v. By construction, S(\tilde u)\subset \mathbb N and \# S(\tilde u)=k-1; hence, since the boundary conditions for \tilde u and \tilde v hold, we have
and, by taking the limit as k\to+\infty,
Hence, since g_{\rm hom}^{\mathbb Z} is convex,
Next we need to prove the opposite inequality. Let u\in SBV(0,N) and v\in H^1(0,N) be such that the boundary conditions u(0)=v(0)=0, u(N)=v(N)=Nz hold and S(u)\subset \mathbb N. We denote the jump points of u by N_i, i=1,\dots k, with N_i<N_{i+1} for any i=1,\dots, k-1. Setting N_0=0 and N_{k+1}=N, we define
for i=1,\dots k+1. We then have
for any i, so that
Since \sum_{i=1}^{k+1}n_i=N and \sum_{i=1}^{k+1}n_iz_i=Nz, an application of Carathéodory’s Theorem gives
Taking the \inf over the admissible functions and the limit for N\to+\infty we get the inequality
concluding the proof.
Choosing the coefficients as in (?), the sequence G_\varepsilon^{\mathbb Z} defined in (?) \Gamma-converges with respect to the L^2-convergence to the same \Gamma-limit of the sequence of discrete functionals E_\varepsilon in the truncated quadratic case.
Let L>0 and N_\varepsilon=\lfloor\frac{L}{\varepsilon}\rfloor. Let \alpha\in(\frac{2}{\beta},1). Assume that u\in L^2(0,L) and u^\varepsilon\in \mathcal A_\varepsilon=\mathcal A_\varepsilon(0,L) be such that (the piecewise-affine extension of) the sequence u^\varepsilon converges to u in L^2(0,L), and \sup_\varepsilon (F_\varepsilon(u^\varepsilon;[0,L])+\|u^\varepsilon\|^2_{L^2})=S<+\infty. Then, there exists \hat u^{\varepsilon}\in \mathcal A_\varepsilon converging to u such that
(i) \hat u^\varepsilon_i=\hat u^\varepsilon_0 for i\leq \varepsilon^{-\alpha}, \hat u^\varepsilon_i=\hat u^\varepsilon_{N_\varepsilon} for i\geq N_\varepsilon-\varepsilon^{-\alpha};
(ii) F_\varepsilon(\hat u^\varepsilon;[0,L])\leq F_\varepsilon(u^\varepsilon;[0,L])+r(\varepsilon), where the remainder r depends only on S and f(0), and r(\varepsilon)\to 0 as \varepsilon\to 0.
We choose \alpha^\prime\in(0,1-\alpha) and define \lambda_\varepsilon=\varepsilon^{\alpha^\prime} and M_\varepsilon=\lfloor \varepsilon^{\alpha+\alpha^\prime-1}\rfloor-1. For \varepsilon small enough we divide (0,\lambda_\varepsilon] and [L-\lambda_\varepsilon,L) in M_\varepsilon+1 intervals by setting
Since
then there exists k_\varepsilon^-\in\{1,\dots, M_\varepsilon\} such that
The same argument allows to find k_\varepsilon^+\in\{1,\dots, M_\varepsilon\} such that the same inequality holds for \varepsilon i\in J_\varepsilon^{k_\varepsilon^+}, \varepsilon j\in J_\varepsilon^{k_\varepsilon^+-1}. Setting j^-_\varepsilon=\min\{j: \varepsilon j\in I_\varepsilon^{k_\varepsilon^-}\} and j^+_\varepsilon=\max\{j: \varepsilon j\in J_\varepsilon^{k_\varepsilon^+}\}, we define \hat u^{\varepsilon} by setting
Since j_\varepsilon^{-}\geq L\varepsilon^{-\alpha} and j_\varepsilon^{+}\leq N_\varepsilon-L\varepsilon^{-\alpha}, then \hat u^\varepsilon satisfies claim (i). Moreover, \hat u^\varepsilon\to u as \varepsilon\to 0. To prove this, for simplicity we suppose that m_n is not increasing for n\geq 1. Then,
and correspondingly \varepsilon\sum_{i=j^+_\varepsilon}^{\lfloor L/\varepsilon\rfloor}(u^\varepsilon_i-\hat u^\varepsilon_{i})^2\leq \frac{S}{m_1}\lambda_\varepsilon^2. Setting, n_\varepsilon=\lfloor\frac{\lambda_\varepsilon}{\varepsilon (M_\varepsilon+1)}\rfloor, since
and recalling (?), we obtain
where C denotes a constant depending only on \sup_\varepsilon F_\varepsilon(u^\varepsilon;[0,L]) and \sup_\varepsilon\|u^\varepsilon\|_{L^2}. Setting
we conclude the proof since m_n=o(n^{-\beta}) and \alpha>\frac{2}{\beta}.
Let L>0 and N_\varepsilon=\lfloor\frac{L}{\varepsilon}\rfloor. Let \alpha\in(\frac{2}{\beta},1). Assume that u^\varepsilon, v^\varepsilon\in \mathcal A_\varepsilon be such that (the piecewise-affine extensions of) u^\varepsilon and v^\varepsilon converge to u in L^2(0,L) and \sup_\varepsilon (E_\varepsilon(u^\varepsilon;[0,L])+\|u^\varepsilon\|^2_{L^2})=S<+\infty. Then there exist \hat u^{\varepsilon}, \hat v^\varepsilon \in \mathcal A_\varepsilon converging to u such that
(i) \hat u^\varepsilon_i=\hat v^\varepsilon_i=\hat u^\varepsilon_0 for i\leq \varepsilon^{-\alpha}, \hat u^\varepsilon_i=\hat v^\varepsilon_i=\hat u^\varepsilon_{N_\varepsilon} for i\geq N_\varepsilon-\varepsilon^{-\alpha};
(ii) E_\varepsilon(\hat u^\varepsilon, \hat v^\varepsilon;[0,L])\leq E_\varepsilon(u^\varepsilon, v^\varepsilon;[0,L])+r(\varepsilon), where the remainder r depends only on S and f(0), and r(\varepsilon)\to 0 as \varepsilon\to 0.
We choose \lambda_\varepsilon and M_\varepsilon as in the proof of Lemma A.1, and divide (0,\lambda_\varepsilon] and [L-\lambda_\varepsilon,L) in M_\varepsilon+1 intervals, denoted by I^k_\varepsilon and J^k_\varepsilon respectively, as above. Then, there exist k_\varepsilon and h_\varepsilon in \{1,\dots, M_\varepsilon\} such that
Setting j^-_\varepsilon=\min\{j: \varepsilon j\in I_\varepsilon^{k_\varepsilon}\} and j^+_\varepsilon=\max\{j: \varepsilon j\in J_\varepsilon^{h_\varepsilon}\}, we define
so that \hat u^\varepsilon and \hat v^\varepsilon converge to u in L^2, and satisfy (i). Recalling (Proof), we get in particular that
where C denotes a positive constant depending only on a,b and S. The same bound holds for \frac{a}{2\varepsilon}(\hat v^\varepsilon_{j_{\varepsilon}^+}-\hat v^\varepsilon_{j_{\varepsilon}^+-1})^2. Hence
concluding the proof as above.
In the hypotheses of Lemma A.2, if there exists \alpha\in (0,1) such that u^\varepsilon_i=\hat u^\varepsilon_0 for i\leq \varepsilon^{-\alpha} and u^\varepsilon_i=\hat u^\varepsilon_{N_\varepsilon} for i\geq N_\varepsilon-\varepsilon^{-\alpha} for some \alpha>0, then the function \hat v^\varepsilon can be chosen such that it coincides with u^\varepsilon for i\leq \varepsilon^{-\alpha^{\prime\prime}} and for i\geq N_\varepsilon-\varepsilon^{-\alpha^{\prime\prime}} with \alpha^{\prime\prime}<\alpha.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2210.06147v2 by Andrea Braides, Andrea Causin, Margherita Solci and Lev Truskinovsky, 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/2210/2210.06147.jsonl.