A multi-point maximum principle to prove the global Harnack inequality for the doubly nonlinear heat equation

We only give a detailed proof in the case \lambda >0. Following this, we briefly describe the necessary modifications to adapt the proof to the cases \lambda =0 and \lambda < 0.

The \lambda > 0 case:

Let u be a positive viscosity solution of (?) and set v= \frac{m}{\lambda}u^{\lambda}. Then, as already shown, v is a viscosity solution of (2.4).

Fix \varepsilon > 0 and define a function Z on \overline{\Omega} \times \overline{\Omega} \times S by

Identically as in the case for classical solutions, we know that Z>0 whenever s is sufficiently small, or s is sufficiently close to t. In particular, Z>0 in a small enough neighbourhood of (0,0). Suppose there is a point P_{0}:=(x_{0},y_{0};t_{0},s_{0}) such that Z=0 for the first time at P_0 in the sense of Definition 2.6. We first assume that x_{0},y_{0} \in \Omega.

Applying Corollary 2.3 with u_{1}(x,t)=\beta^{\lambda}(t)v(x,t), u_{2}(y,s)=-\beta^{\lambda}(s)v(y,s), and \varphi= - \omega(x,y;t,s) - \frac{\varepsilon}{2}(t-s)^2 - \varepsilon for (x,y,t,s) \in \Omega \times \Omega \times (s_{0},t_{0}]\times (0,s_{0}], we deduce that for every \kappa>0, there exist matrices X,Y \in \operatorname{Sym}_{d} such that

and

where H= D^{2}_{(x,y)}\varphi(P_{0}) = -D^{2}_{(x,y)}\omega(P_{0}). Computing the first-order derivatives of \varphi explicitly and applying the product rule in Lemma 3.1 (iii), the condition (?) implies

Using that v is a supersolution of (2.4), this implies

However, since \beta^{\lambda}(t_{0}) >0, we may apply (1.1) to obtain

In a similar way, one may derive from (?) using the product rule, that

Since v is also a subsolution of (2.4), we have

which because of (1.1) becomes

Taking a linear combination of the inequalities (?) and (?) with the coefficients A(t_{0})^{2} and A(s_{0})^{2} yields

We first work to estimate the quantity

Setting

we may express Q by

If we set

where

then it is equivalent to write

According to (?), we have G \geq -D^{2}_{(x,y)}\omega(P_{0}) - \kappa(D^{2}_{(x,y)}\omega(P_{0}))^{2}, and therefore

We may now take \kappa \to 0 to obtain

Inserting this in (?) with the products written out and using (1.1), we have

which is a contradiction, as before. Therefore, if such a point P_{0} exists, it must occur with at least one of x_{0} or y_{0} on the boundary \partial \Omega.

We now make no assumption regarding whether x_{0},y_{0} \in \Omega or x_{0},y_{0} \in \partial \Omega. Proceeding in the same manner as in the proof of Theorem 1.2, we choose a point z_{0} \in \Omega with \delta:=d(z_{0},\partial \Omega) >0 and define

for all x \in \overline{\Omega}. Letting

for (x,t) \in \overline{\Omega} \times (0,T) and \theta>0 small, we have that v^{\theta} satisfies

and v_{\theta} satisfies

both in the sense of viscosity solutions.

We again modify the function Z by defining

where

for all (x,y;t,s) \in \tilde{K}:= \overline{\Omega} \times \overline{\Omega} \times (t_{0}-\eta,t_{0}] \times (s_{0} - \eta , s_{0}] and \theta>0, where 0 < \eta < t_{0}-s_{0}. By the same argument as before, we can find a sequence of points (P_{\theta_{n}})_{n \geq 1} \subseteq \tilde{K}, such that P_{\theta_{n}} minimises \tilde{Z_{\theta _{n}}} over \tilde{K} for each n \geq 1 and P_{\theta _{n}} \to P_{0} in \tilde{K}. Applying Corollary 2.3 to \tilde{Z}_{\theta _{n}} at P_{\theta _{n}}, we find that for all \kappa>0, there exist X_n,Y_n \in \operatorname{Sym}_d such that

and also

where H_{n}:= D^{2}\varphi(P_{\theta _{n}}). Using the product rule and evaluating the derivatives of \varphi, this implies

Since v^{\theta_{n}} is a viscosity subsolution of (?), we have that

if x_{\theta _{n}} \in \Omega and

if x_{\theta _{n}} \in \partial \Omega. By the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 1.2, we conclude that

and in particular \xi^{n} -\theta _{n}\nabla h(x_{\theta _{n}}) \ne 0. Therefore, we have

which implies (?) holds whether x_{\theta _{n}} \in \Omega or x_{\theta _{n}} \in \partial\Omega. By the same argument, we can also show that

Taking n\to \infty in (?), (?) and (?) yields that

hold as before and we arrive to a contradiction from here.

The \lambda =0 case: The proof closely follows the procedure used to prove the linear case in Theorem 1.2, repeating the modifications used in the \lambda > 0 to accommodate the nonlinearity.

The \lambda < 0 case: The proof is carried out identically as in the case \lambda > 0, except one replaces the \varepsilon(t-s)^2 term occurring in the definition of Z by

Let u be a positive viscosity solution of (?) and set v=\log u. Then v is a viscosity solution of

Fix \varepsilon > 0 and define a function Z on \overline{\Omega} \times \overline{\Omega} \times S by

Identically as in the case for classical solutions, we know that Z>0 whenever s is sufficiently small, or s is sufficiently close to t. In particular, Z>0 in a small enough neighbourhood of (0,0). Suppose there is a point P_{0}:=(x_{0},y_{0};t_{0},s_{0}) such that Z=0 for the first time at P_0 in the sense of Definition 2.6. We first assume that x_{0},y_{0} \in \Omega.

Applying Corollary 2.3 with u_{1}(x,t)=v(x,t), u_{2}(y,s)=-v(y,s), and

for (x,y,t,s) \in \Omega \times \Omega \times (s_{0},t_{0}]\times (0,s_{0}], we deduce that for every \kappa>0, there exist matrices X,Y \in \operatorname{Sym}_{d} such that

where H= D^{2}_{(x,y)}\varphi(P_{0}) = -D^{2}_{(x,y)}\omega(P_{0}). Computing the first-order derivatives of \varphi explicitly, the condition (?) implies

Using that v is a supersolution of (?), this implies

However, by (1.2), this reduces to

In a similar way, we understand (?) to mean that

which is equivalent to

Since v is also a subsolution of (?), we have

which, because of (1.2) becomes

Taking a linear combination of the inequalities (?) and (?) with the coefficients A(t_{0})^{2} and A(s_{0})^{2} yields

Analysing first the expression A(t_{0})^{2}\operatorname{tr} X- A(s_{0})^{2}\operatorname{tr} Y using inequality (?), we note that

Therefore

for all \kappa>0. Taking \kappa \to 0 and applying (1.2) leads to

which is a contradiction. Therefore, if such a point P_{0} exists, it must occur with at least one of x_{0} or y_{0} on the boundary \partial \Omega. We proceed in this case with an approach similar to the one applied in [li-wang-mod, Section 6.2].

By definition of the point P_{0}=(x_{0},y_{0};t_{0},s_{0}), there exists 0 < \eta < t_{0}-s_{0} such that

for all (x,y;t,s) \in K:= \overline{\Omega}\times \overline{\Omega} \times [t_{0}- \eta] \times [s_{0}- \eta , s_{0}], that is, Z attains its minimum on K at P_{0}. We can ensure that P_{0} is the unique minimiser of Z on K by modifying this function. We define

for all (x,y;t,s) \in K.

Before we can begin the main step of the argument, we first perturb the solution v, and in doing so, we perturb the equation satisfied by v as well. Fix a point z_{0} \in \Omega so that \delta:= d(z_{0},\partial \Omega)>0 and define

Then for \theta >0 small, we define

for all (x,t) \in \overline{\Omega} \times (0,T). A simple calculation shows that v^{\theta} satisfies

and v_{\theta} satisfies

both in the sense of viscosity solutions. Using the functions v^{\theta} and v_{\theta}, we then define an approximation of \tilde{Z} by setting

for all (x,y;t,s) \in K. Since for each \theta>0, \tilde{Z}_{\theta} is a continuous function on the compact set K, there exists P_{\theta}:=(x_{\theta},y_{\theta};t_{\theta},s_{\theta}) \in K such that

We claim that since \tilde{Z}_{\theta} \to \tilde{Z} uniformly on K as \theta \to 0 and because P_{0} is the unique minimiser of \tilde{Z} in K, there is a sequence (\theta _{n})_{n \geq 1} of positive numbers such that P_{\theta_{n}} \to P_{0} as n \to \infty. Since (P_{\theta})_{\theta >0} is contained in the bounded set K, there is a sequence (\theta _{n})_{n \geq 1} and a point \hat{P} \in K such that P_{\theta _{n}} \to \hat{P} in K. Then \tilde{Z}_{\theta_{n}}(P_{\theta_{n}}) \to \tilde{Z}(\hat{P}) as n \to \infty since

because \tilde{Z}_{\theta _{n}} \to \tilde{Z} uniformly as n \to \infty and \tilde{Z} is continuous. Now, by the definition of P_{\theta _{n}}, one has that

for all points P \in K. Taking n \to \infty gives

for all P \in K, which expresses that \hat{P} minimises Z over K. However, \tilde{Z} was defined in such a way that P_{0} is the unique minimiser of \tilde{Z} over K, and \hat{P}= P_{0} and P_{\theta _{n}} \to P_{0} as claimed. Moreover, since (t_{\theta _{n}},s_{\theta _{n}}) \to (t_{0},s_{0}), we may assume the point P_{\theta _{n}} does not occur with t_{\theta _{n}} = t_{0}-\eta or s_{\theta _{n}} = s_{0}-\eta. Therefore, \tilde{Z}_{\theta _{n}} attains a minimum at P_{\theta _{n}} \in \tilde{K}:= \overline{\Omega} \times \overline{\Omega} \times (t_{0}- \eta] \times (s_{0}- \eta , s_{0}]. Thus, we may apply the parabolic maximum principle for semicontinuous functions (Corollary 2.3) to the function

at P_{\theta _{n}}, where

Then for every \kappa >0, there are matrices X_{n}, Y_{n} such that

where H_{n} = D^{2}_{(x,y)}\varphi(P_{\theta_{n}}). We now use that v^{\theta _{n}} is a viscosity supersolution of (?). If x_{\theta _{n}} \in \Omega, we have

whereas if x_{\theta _{n}} \in \partial \Omega, we have

However, \nabla_{x} \omega(P_{\theta _{n}})\cdot \nu(x_{\theta _{n}}) \geq 0 by assumption, (x_{\theta _{n}} - x_{0})\cdot \nu(x_{\theta _{n}}) \geq 0 since \Omega is convex, and finally

Therefore

Hence, in order for (?) to be satisfied, we must have that Q_{n} \geq 0, and so (?) holds regardless of whether x_{\theta _{n}} \in \Omega or x_{\theta _{n}} \in \partial \Omega. Applying a similar argument using that v_{\theta _{n}} is a viscosity subsolution of (?), we find that

Seeking to take n \to \infty in (?), (?), and (?), we note that

converges to D^{2}_{(x,y)}\omega(P_{0}) as n \to \infty, the sequences (X_{n})_{n \geq 1} and (Y_{n})_{n \geq 1} converge, possibly after taking a subsequence, because of (?), to some matrices X,Y \in \operatorname{Sym}_{d} respectively. It follows that

hold with H = -D^{2}_{(x,y)}\omega(P_{0}) as before. Therefore, we may continue using the same argument as when x_{0},y_{0} \not\in \partial \Omega to reach a contradiction once again. Thus, no such point P_{0} exists and the proof is complete.

By the definition of (a,p,X) \in \mathcal{P}^{2,+}u(x,t), one has

as (y,s) \to (x,t) such that s_{i} < t_{i} for all i=1,\ldots,k. More precisely, for every \eta>0, one can find a sufficiently small compact neighbourhood K_{i} of (x_{i},t_{i}) such that s_{i} \leq t_{i} whenever (y_{i},s_{i}) \in K_{i} and

for all (y,s) \in U_{1}\times\ldots\times U_{k}.

If we define functions \tilde{u}_{i}: \mathbb{R}^{d_{i}+1} \to \mathbb{R} \cup \{ -\infty \} by

then

holds on \mathbb{R}^{d+k}. In particular, since \tilde{u}_{i}(x_{i},t_{i})=0 for each i=1,\ldots,k, we see that equality is attained at the point (y,s)=(x,t). Therefore, the function

attains a maximum at the point (x,t). We note that the upper semicontinuity of u and the compactness of K_{i} will imply \tilde{u}_{i} \in \operatorname{USC}(\mathbb{R}^{d_{i}+1}) for all i=1,\ldots,k, and thus we may apply the maximum principle for semicontinuous functions by Crandall and Ishii [Crandall-Ishii-maximum-semicontinuous, Theorem 1] to conclude that for every \kappa>0, there exist matrices \tilde{X}_{i,\eta} \in \operatorname{Sym}_{d} such that

and

where

is the Hessian of \frac{1}{2}\langle X(\cdot-x),\cdot-x \rangle in all variables x_{1},t_{1},\ldots,x_{k},t_{k}. Here X_{ij} denotes the {ij}^{th} block of the matrix X \in \operatorname{Sym}_{d} when partitioned in the natural way according to the decomposition d=d_{1}+\ldots+d_{k}. By considering the appropriate principle minor of the above matrices, this condition implies

where we now use X_{i,\eta} to denote the truncation of the matrix \tilde{X}_{i,\eta}, which removes the last row and column. In addition, (0,\tilde{X}_{i,\eta}) \in \overline{J}^{2,+}\tilde{u}_{i}(x_{i},t_{i}) implies that (0,0,X_{i,\eta}) \in \overline{\mathcal{P}}^{2,+}\tilde{u}_{i}(x_{i},t_{i}). Indeed, by the definition of (0,\tilde{X}_{i,\eta}) \in \overline{J}^{2,+}\tilde{u}_{i}(x_{i},t_{i}), there are sequences

such that

as n \to \infty. Therefore

as (y_{i},s_{i}) \to (x_{i,\eta}^{(n)},t_{i}^{(n)}) in \mathbb{R}^{d_{i}+1}, where \tilde{p}_{i,\eta}^{(n)} = (p_{i,\eta}^{(n)},a_{i,\eta}^{(n)}) and X_{i,\eta}^{(n)} is the truncation of \tilde{X}_{i,\eta}^{(n)}, which removes the final row and column. In particular, for s_{i} \leq t_{i,\eta}^{(n)},

as y_{i} \to x_{i,\eta}^{(n)} in \mathbb{R}^{d_{i}} and s_{i} \to t_{i}^{(n)} in \mathbb{R} from below. We note that since \tilde{u}_{i}(x_{i},t_{i}) is finite and \tilde{u}_{i} was set to be -\infty outside of K_{i}, there must be a subsequence of (x_{i,\eta}^{(n)},t_{i,\eta}^{(n)})_{n \geq 1}, which lies in K_{i}. In particular, we have t_{i,\eta}^{(n)} \leq t_{i}. We work with this subsequence, again denoting it by (x_{i,\eta}^{(n)},t_{i,\eta}^{(n)})_{n \geq 1}. Then, it follows that (a_{i,\eta}^{(n)},p_{i,\eta}^{(n)},X_{i,\eta}^{(n)}) \in \mathcal{P}^{2,+}\tilde{u}(x_{i,\eta}^{(n)},t_{i,\eta}^{(n)}) for each n \geq 1, and so we have (0,0,X_{i,\eta}) \in \overline{\mathcal{P}}^{2,+}\tilde{u}_{i}(x_{i},t_{i}).

Since the points (x_{i,\eta}^{(n)},t_{i,\eta}^{(n)}) and (y_{i},s_{i}) can be taken to lie in K_{i}, we use the definition of \tilde{u}_{i} on K_{i}, to obtain

Rewriting \frac{\eta}{2}|y_{i}-x_{i}|^{2} - \frac{\eta}{2}|x_{i,\eta}^{(n)}-x_{i}|^{2} as

leads to

This expresses that

Considering the behaviour as n \to \infty, we find that

Taking \eta \to 0 as in the proof of Crandall and Ishii, we find that there is a matrix X_{i} \in \operatorname{Sym}_{d_{i}} such that X_{i,\eta} \to X_{i} and so we have that (a_{i},p_{i},X_{i}) \in \overline{\mathcal{P}}^{2,+}u_{i}(x_{i},t_{i}).

The premise of Corollary 2.2 is described by the inequality

holding for x \in \Omega and t with t_{i} \leq t_{0,i}. Since \varphi \in C^{2}(Q), we may apply the Taylor expansion of \varphi to obtain

as x \to x_{0} in \Omega and t_{i} \to t_{0i}^{-}, which exactly expresses that

The conclusion now follows immediately from Theorem 2.1.

2. We give the details of the proof for \mathcal{P}^{2+}u and the claim about \mathcal{P}^{2,-}u follows similarly. Since \mu is differentiable at t_{0},

   \mu(t) = \mu(t_{0}) + \mu'(t_{0})(t-t_{0}) + o(|t-t_{0}|)

   as t \to t_{0}, and since (a,\xi,X) \in \mathcal{P}^{2,+}u(x_{0},t_{0}),

   \begin{split} u(x,t) &\leq u(x_{0},t_{0}) + a(t-t_{0}) + \langle \xi ,x-x_{0}\rangle\\&\hspace{1cm}+ \frac{1}{2} \langle X(x-x_{0}),x-x_{0} \rangle + o(t_{0}-t + |x-x_{0}|^{2}) \end{split}

   as x\to x_{0} and t \to t_{0}^{-}. Since \mu \geq 0, it follows that

   \begin{aligned} \hspace{1.5cm}\mu(t)u(x,t) &\leq (\mu(t_{0}) + \mu'(t_{0})(t-t_{0}) + o(t_{0}-t))\times\\&\hspace{1cm}\bigg( u(x_{0},t_{0}) + a(t-t_{0}) + \langle \xi , x-x_{0}\rangle\\&\hspace{1.5cm}+ \frac{1}{2} \langle X(x-x_{0}),x-x_{0} \rangle + o(t_{0}-t + |x-x_{0}|^{2}) \bigg) \\ & = \mu(t_{0})u(x_{0},t_{0}) + (a\mu(t_{0}) + \mu'(t_{0})u(x_{0},t_{0}))(t-t_{0}) \\&\hspace{1cm}+ \mu(t_{0}) \langle \xi ,x-x_{0}\rangle+ \frac{1}{2}\langle \mu(t_{0})X(x-x_{0}),(x-x_{0}) \rangle \\&\hspace{1cm}+ o(|t_0 - t +|x-x_{0}|^{2}) \end{aligned}

   as x\to x_{0} and t \to t_{0}^{-} and so the claim is true.

3. By the definition of (a,\xi,X) \in \overline{\mathcal{P}}^{2,\pm}u(x_{0},t_{0}), one can find sequences (a_{n},\xi_n,X_n)_{n \geq 1} \subseteq \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{d} \times \operatorname{Sym}_{d} and (x_{n},t_{n})_{n \geq 1} \subseteq \Omega \times (0,T) such that t_{n} \leq t_{0} for n \geq 1, (a_{n},\xi_n,X_n) \in \mathcal{P}^{2,\pm}u(x_n,t_{n}), (a_{n},\xi_{n},X_{n}) \to (a,\xi,X), (x_{n},t_{n}) \to (x,t) and u(x_{n},t_{n}) \to u(x,t) as n \to \infty. By part (i),

   \hspace{1.5cm}(a_{n} \mu(t_{n}) + \mu'(t_{n})u(x_{n},t_{n}),\mu(t_{n})\xi_{n},\mu(t_{n})X_{n}) \in \mathcal{P}^{2,\pm}(\mu(t_{n})u(x_{n},t_{n})).

   In addition to the convergences we have already assumed, since \mu is continuously differentiable, we have \mu(t_{n}) \to \mu(t_{0}) and \mu'(t_{n}) \to \mu'(t_{0}) as n \to \infty. The claim now follows immediately.

4. The statement follows immediately by writing

   u(x_{0},t_{0}) = \frac{1}{\mu(t_{0})} (\mu(t_{0})u(x_{0},t_{0}))

   and applying part (ii).