Abstract
We consider a fully nonlinear partial differential equation associated to the intermediate \(L^p\) Christoffel–Minkowski problem in the case \(1<p<k+1\). We establish the existence of convex body with prescribed k-th even p-area measure on \(\mathbb S^n\), under an appropriate assumption on the prescribed function. We construct examples to indicate certain geometric condition on the prescribed function is needed for the existence of smooth strictly convex body. We also obtain \(C^{1,1}\) regularity estimates for admissible solutions of the equation when \( p\ge \frac{k+1}{2}\).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Convex geometry plays important role in the development of fully nonlinear partial differential equations. The classical Minkowski problem and the Christoffel–Minkowski problem in general, are beautiful examples of such interactions (e.g., [1, 3, 5, 10, 19,20,21]). The core of convex geometry is the Brunn–Minkowski theory, the Minkowski sum, the mixed volumes, curvature and area measures are fundamental concepts. The notion of the Minkowski sum was extended by Firey [6], he introduced the so-called p-sum (\(p>1\)) for convex bodies. Lutwak [16] further developed a corresponding Brunn–Minkowski–Firey theory based on Firey’s p-sums. Lutwak initiated the study of the Minkowski problem for p-sums and established the uniqueness of the problem, along with the existence in the even case. The regularity of the solution in the even case was proved subsequently by Lutwak–Oliker [17]. Chou–Wang [4] and Guan–Lin [9] studied this problem from the PDE point of view, extensive study was carried out by Lutwak–Yang–Zhang in a series of papers, we refer [2, 18] for further references in this direction.
This paper concerns the intermediate Christoffel–Minkowski problem related to p-sums, which we call it the \(L^p\)-Christoffel–Minkowski problem. While the \(L^p\)-Minkwoski problem corresponds to a Monge–Ampère type equations, the \(L^p\)-Christoffel–Minkowski problem corresponds to a fully nonlinear partial differential equation of Hessian type.
For a convex body K in \(\mathbb {R}^{n+1}\), we denote by \(h(K, \cdot )\) its support function. For any \(p\ge 1\), the p-sum of two convex bodies K and L, \(K+_p L\), is defined through its support function,
The mixed p-quermassintegrals for K and L are defined by
Here \(W_k(K)\) is the usual quermassintegral for K. It was shown by Lutwak [16] that \(W_{p,k}(K,L)\) has the following integral representation:
where \(dS_{k}(K,\cdot )\) is the k-th surface area measure of K. Thus \(h(K, x)^{1-p} dS_{k}(K, x)\) is the local version of the mixed p-quermassintegral. We call it k-th p-area measure. When \(p=1\), it reduces to the usual k-th area measures.
If K is a convex body with \(C^2\) boundary and support function h, then
Here \(\nabla ^2 h\) is the Hessian on \(\mathbb {S}^n\), \(\sigma _{n-k}\) is the \((n-k)\)-th elementary symmetric function. Therefore, to solve the Minkowski problem for p-sum is equivalent to solve the following PDE:
After the development of \(L^p\)-Minkowski problem, it is natural to consider the \(L^p\)-Christoffel–Minkowski problem, i.e., the problem of prescribing the k-th p-area measure for general \(1\le k\le n-1\) and \(p\ge 1\). As before, this problem can be reduced to the following nonlinear PDE:
A solution u to (1.2) is called admissible if \((\nabla ^2u+u g_{\mathbb {S}^n})\in \Gamma _k\) and u is (strictly) spherically convex if \((\nabla ^2u+u g_{\mathbb {S}^n})\ge 0\) \((>0)\). For \(k<n\) and \(p=1\), the above is exactly the equation for the intermediate Christoffel–Minkowski problem of prescribing k-th area measures. Note that admissible solutions to equation (1.2) is not necessary a geometric solution to \(L^p\)-Christoffel–Minkowski problem if \(k<n\). As in the classical Christoffel–Minkowski problem [10], one needs to deal with the convexity of the solutions of (1.2). Under a sufficient condition on the prescribed function, Guan–Ma [10] proved the existence of a unique convex solution. The key tool to handle the convexity is the constant rank theorem for fully nonlinear partial differential equations. Equation (1.2) has been studied by Hu et al. [13] in the case \(p\ge k+1\). In this case, there is a uniform lower bound for solutions if \(f>0\) and they proved the existence of convex solutions to (1.2) under some appropriate sufficient condition. The case \(1<p<k+1\) is different, Eq. (1.2) is degenerate even for \(f>0\) as there is no uniform lower bound for solutions in general.
The focus of this paper is to address two questions regarding equation (1.2) when \(1<p<k+1\).
-
(1)
When does there exist a smooth convex solution?
-
(2)
Regularity of general admissible solutions of Eq. (1.2).
Our first result is the following.
Theorem 1.1
Let \(1\le k\le n-1\) be an integer and \(1<p<k+1\) be a real number. For any positive even function \(f\in C^l({\mathbb S}^n)\) \((l\ge 2)\) satisfying
there is a unique even, strictly spherically convex solution u of the Eq. (1.2). Moreover, for each \(\alpha \in (0,1)\), there is some constant C, depending on \(n, k, p, l, \alpha , \min f\) and \(\Vert f\Vert _{C^l({\mathbb S}^n)}\), such that
An immediate consequence of the previous theorem is the following existence result for the \(L^p\) Christoffel–Minkowski problem for the case \(1<p< k+1\).
Corollary 1.1
Let \(1\le k\le n-1\) be an integer and \(1<p<k+1\) be a real number. For any positive even function \(f\in C^l({\mathbb S}^n)\) \((l\ge 2)\) satisfying (1.3). Then there is a unique closed strictly convex hypersurface M in \(\mathbb {R}^{n+1}\) of class \(C^{l+1,\alpha }\) (for all \(0<\alpha <1\)) such that the \((n-k)\)-th p-area measure of M is \(fd\mu _{{\mathbb S}^n}\).
This is an analogue result of Lutwak–Oliker [17]. We use method of continuity to prove Theorem 1.1. The strictly convexity can be preserved along the continuity method by the constant rank theorem as in [10, 13]. Unlike the case \(p\ge k+1\), the lower bound of u is not true in general if \(p<k+1\). The crucial step is to show a uniform positive lower bound for u under evenness assumption. In contrast to the \(L^p\)-Minkowski problem [17], the evenness assumption does not directly yield the lower bound of u when \(k<n\) as we do not have direct control of the volume of the associated convex body. The most technical part in this paper is to obtain a refined gradient estimate Proposition 3.1 and to use it to prove Proposition 4.1 with the assumption of evenness and spherical convexity of u. One would like to ask that would condition (1.3) guarantee the positivity of u? We will exhibit some examples in section 5 to indicate that condition (1.3) is not sufficient (see Proposition 5.1).
As in the case of the \(L^p\)-Minkowski problem [9], one has \(C^2\) estimate if \(p\ge \frac{k+1}{2}\).
Theorem 1.2
Let \(1\le k\le n-1\) be an integer and \(\frac{k+1}{2}\le p<k+1\) be a real number. For any positive function \(f\in C^2({\mathbb S}^n)\) there exists a solution u to (1.2) with \((\nabla ^2 u+ug_{{\mathbb S}^n})\in {{\bar{\Gamma }}}_k\). Moreover,
where C depends on \(n, k, p, \Vert f\Vert _{C^2({\mathbb S}^n)}\) and \(\min _{{\mathbb S}^n} f\). Furthermore, solution is \(C^2\) continuous (i.e., \(\nabla ^2 u\) is continuous) if \(p>\frac{k+1}{2}\).
From next section on, the range for p is \(1<p<k+1\) unless otherwise specified.
2 Preliminaries
We recall the basic notations.
Let \(\sigma _k(A)\) be the k-th elementary symmetric function defined on the set \({\mathcal {M}}_{n}\) of symmetric \(n\times n\) matrices and \(\sigma _k(A_1, \ldots , A_k)\) be the complete polarization of \(\sigma _k\) for \(A_i\in {\mathcal {M}}_{n}, i=1,\ldots , k\), i.e.
Let \(\Gamma _k\) be Garding’s cone
Let \(({\mathbb S}^n, g_{\mathbb {S}^n})\) be the unit round n-sphere and \(\nabla \) be the covariant derivative on \({\mathbb S}^n\). For a function \(u\in C^2(\mathbb {S}^n)\), we denote by \(W_u\) the matrix
In the case \(W_u\) is positive definite, the eigenvalue of \(W_u\) represents the principal radii of a strictly convex hypersurface with support function u.
Let \(u^i \in C^2(\mathbb {S}^n)\), \(i=1,\ldots , n+1.\) Set
We collect the following properties which have been proved in [12].
Lemma 2.1
([12]) (1) \(V_{k}(u^1, u^2, \ldots , u^{k})\) is a symmetric multilinear form on \((C^2({\mathbb S}^n))^{n+1}\). In particular,
Therefore, the Minkowski’s integral formula holds:
(2) Let \(u^i\in C^2({\mathbb S}^n), i=1, 2, \ldots ,k\) be such that \(u^i>0\) and \(W_{u^i}\in \Gamma _k\) for \(i=1,2,\ldots , k\), Then for any \(v\in C^2({\mathbb S}^n)\),the Alexandrov–Fenchel inequality holds:
the equality holds if and only if \(v = au^1+\sum _{l=1}^{n+1} a_lx_l\) for some constants \(a, a_1, \ldots , a_{n+1}\). In particular, there are some sharp constant \(C_{n,k}\) such that
Inequality (2.3) in Lemma 2.1 follows from Alexandrov–Fenchel’s inequality (2.2) and Minkowski’s formula (2.1) via an iteration argument.
We remark that in Lemma 2.1 (2), it is sufficient to assume \(W_{u^i}\in \Gamma _k\) instead that \(W_u\) is positive definite which is the classical assumption from convex geometry.
We list some other known results which will be used in the rest of the sections.
The following theorem was proved for (1.2) by Hu–Ma–Shen in [13], a generalization of the constant rank theorem in [10].
Theorem 2.1
( [13]) Let \(p>1\). Let u be a positive solution to (1.2) such that \(W_u\) is positive semi-definite. Then if \(f^{-\frac{1}{p-1+k}}\) is spherically convex, then \(W_u\) is positive definite.
The following lemma is a special case of Lemma 1 in [8], we state it for \(W_u\in C^{1}(\mathbb S^n)\).
Lemma 2.2
Let \(e_1, \ldots , e_n\) be a local orthonormal frame on \(\mathbb {S}^n\), denote \(\nabla _s=\nabla _{e_s}, \forall s=1,\ldots , n\), then \(\forall W=W_u\in \Gamma _k\cap C^{1}(\mathbb S^n)\), \(k\ge 2\),
3 A priori estimate for admissible solutions
In this section we establish \(C^1\) a priori estimates for the admissible solutions of (1.2).
3.1 A gradient estimate
Proposition 3.1
Let u be a positive admissible solution to (1.2). Set \(m_u=\min u\) and \(M_u=\max u\). Then there exist some positive constants A and \(0<\gamma <1\), depending on \(n, k, p, \min f\) and \(\Vert f\Vert _{C^1}\), such that
Proof
Let \(\Phi =\frac{|\nabla u|^2}{(u-m_u)^\gamma }\), where \(0<\gamma <1\) is to be determined. First we claim \(\Phi \) is well-defined, in other words, \(\Phi \) can be defined at the minimum points. Consider \(\Phi _\epsilon =\frac{|\nabla u|^2}{(u-m_u+\epsilon )^\gamma }\) for \(\epsilon >0\). Then at a maximum point of \(\Phi _\epsilon \), we have
Hence
where \(\lambda _{max}(W_u)\) is the largest eigenvalue of \(W_u\). Thus when \(\gamma <1\), we have \(\Phi _\epsilon (y)\rightarrow 0\) for \(u(y)=m_u\) as \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0\). Therefore, it make sense to define \(\Phi =0\) at the minimum point of u.
Assume \(\Phi \) attains its maximum at \(x_0\). Then \(u(x_0)>m_u\). By using the orthonormal frame and rotating the coordinate, we can assume \(g_{ij}(x_0)=\delta _{ij}\), \(u_1(x_0)=|\nabla u|(x_0)\) and \(u_i(x_0)=0\) for \(i=2,\ldots , n\). In the following we compute at \(x_0\). By the critical condition,
Thus \(u_{1i}=0\) for \(i=2,\ldots , n\) and
By rotating the remaining \(n-1\) coordinates, we can assume \((u_{ij})\) is diagonal. Consequently, \(F^{ij}=\frac{\partial \sigma _k}{\partial W_{ij}}\) is also diagonal.
We may assume \(\Phi \ge AM_u^{2-\gamma }\), where A is a large constant to be determined. Then
Since \(u\le M_u\), for \(\delta >0\), we may choose A with \(A>> \frac{2}{\gamma }\) such that
As \(W_{ii}\ge u_{ii}\), by the maximal condition and (3.1),
By (3.1) and (3.2), if \(A\ge \frac{4}{\gamma ^2}\),
Using the definition of \(\Phi \), we have
For \(N>1\) to be determined later, denote
When A is large enough, by (3.3),
Hence
Let’s denote \(W_{mm}=\max \{W_{ii}| i=1,\ldots , n\}\). We have
If \(\sigma _k(W|m)\le 0\), then
Let’s assume \(\sigma _k(W|m)> 0\), that implies \((W|m)\in \Gamma _k\). In turn, \(\sigma _{k-1}(W|mi)>0, \forall i\ne m\) and
Combining the above inequalities, we have
If \(K\ne \emptyset \), then \(m\in K\), and
If \(K= \emptyset \), then \(0\le W_{11}\le W_{mm}\le N W_{11}\), as \(F^{11}\ge F^{mm}\),
Combining (3.7), (3.9) and (3.10),
if we pick \(N=n(1+2\delta )\), \(\gamma =\frac{2}{N^2+2}\), and A sufficiently large (for any \(\delta >0\) fixed, e.g, \(\delta =\frac{1}{10^{10}}\)). This is a contradiction. Thus for our choice of \(\gamma \) and A, we must have \(\Phi \le AM_u^{2-\gamma }\) at its maximum. \(\square \)
When \(k=n\), similar result was proved in [14, 15] where upper bound of u was readily available. We note the proof of Proposition 3.1 also works for certain range of \(p<1\).
3.2 Upper bound of u
We now use raw \(C^1\) estimate in Proposition 3.1 to get an upper bound of u.
Proposition 3.2
Let u be a positive admissible solution to (1.2). Then there exist some positive constants \(c_0\) and \(C_0\), depending on \(n, k, p, \min f\) and \(\int _{{\mathbb S}^n}f\), such that
Proof
Let \(x_0\) be a maximum point of u. Then \(\nabla ^2 u(x_0)\le 0\). It follows that
and in turn we have
From Proposition 3.1, we know \(|\nabla u|^2(x)\le AM_u^2=Au(x_0)^2\) for any \(x\in {\mathbb S}^n\), we have
Thus
On the other hand, using Minkowski’s integral formula (2.1), Alexandrov–Fenchel’s inequality (2.3), Hölder’s inequality and (1.2), we have
Since \(p<k+1\), it follows from (3.15) that
Combining (3.14) and (3.16), we obtain \(u\le u(x_0)\le C\). \(\square \)
Combining Propositions 3.1 and 3.2 we get full \(C^1\) estimate.
Proposition 3.3
Let u be an admissible solution to (1.2). Set \(m_u=\min u\). Then there exist some positive constants \(0<\gamma <1\) and C, depending on \(n, k, p-1, \min f\) and \(\Vert f\Vert _{C^1}\), such that
4 Convex solutions
So far, we have been dealing with general admissible solutions of equation (1.2). In order to solve the \(L^p\)-Christoffel–Minkowski problem, we need to establish the existence of convex solutions, i.e., solutions to (1.2) with \(W_u\ge 0\). As in the case of the classical Christoffel–Minkowski problem [10], one needs some sufficient conditions on the prescribed function f in equation (1.2) when \(k<n\). Unlike the classical Christoffel–Minkowski problem, Eq. (1.2) may degenerate when \(p>1\) in general. We first derive lower bound of convex solutions.
4.1 Lower bound for u
To get a uniform positive lower bound, we need to impose evenness assumption together with \(W_u\ge 0\). We remark that such estimate was straightforward when \(k=n\) since the equation implies a positive lower bound of volume. For \(k<n\), a lower bound on quermassintegral \(V_{k+1}\) does not guarantee the non-degeneracy of the convex body. We need some extra effort.
Proposition 4.1
Let u be a positive, even, spherically convex solution to (1.2). Then there exists some positive constant C, such that
Proof
Since u is even, we can assume without loss of generality that \(u(x_1)=\max u=: M\) and \(u(x_2)=\min u\) and \(dist(x_1,x_2)=: 2d\le \frac{\pi }{2}\). So \(d\le \frac{\pi }{4}\). Let \(\gamma : [-d,d]\rightarrow {\mathbb S}^n\) be the arc-length parametrized geodesic such that \(\gamma (-d)=x_1\) and \(\gamma (d)=x_2\). Let \(u: [-d, d]\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be the function \(u(t)=u(\gamma (t))\) and denote
It follows from the critical condition of u at \(x_1\) and \(x_2\) that
Let us explore the boundary value problem for the ODE, (4.1) and (4.2). It is easy to check that \(A\cos t+B\sin t\) is the general solutions to homogeneuous ODE
and a special solution to (4.1) is given by \(\cos t\int _{-d}^t \frac{1}{\cos ^2 \tau }\int _{-d}^\tau g(s)\cos s ds d\tau \), which can be obtained by writing \(u=\cos (t)v(t)\) and solving first order ODE for \(v^{'}\). Also, by Fubini’s theorem, one sees this special solution is equal to \(\int _{-d}^t \sin (t-s)g(s)ds\). Combining with the boundary condition (4.2), we see all the solutions to (4.1) and (4.2) are
For simplicity, we denote by \(G(\tau )=\int _{-d}^\tau g(s)\cos s ds\). It follows from (4.3) that
Our aim is to derive a positive lower bound of \(\min u=u(d).\) We divide the proof into two cases.
Case 1. \(2d\le \frac{\pi }{4}\).
Note that \(g(t)\ge 0\) as \(W_u\ge 0\), hence \(G(\tau )\ge 0, \forall \tau \in [-d,d]\). One see from (4.4) that \(u(d)\ge \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}M\).
Case 2. \(2d\ge \frac{\pi }{4}\).
From the definition of \(G(\tau )\), by performing integration by parts, we have
where facts \(u{'}(-d)=0, u(-d)=M\) are used. In particular, as \(u{'}(d)=0\),
Since \(\sin d\ge \sin \frac{\pi }{8}\) and \(u\ge 0\), we see
By Proposition 3.3, such that for \(\tau \in [-d, d]\),
Therefore, \(G(\tau )\) is continuous as a function of \(\tau \) from (4.5), and
for some \(C^{*}\ge 0\) under control. Take \(\delta =\min \{d, (\frac{G(d)}{2C^{*}})^{\frac{2}{\gamma }}\)}. It follows from (4.3), (4.6), (4.7) and \(d\in [0,\frac{\pi }{4}]\) that
\(\square \)
4.2 Higher regularity
Proposition 4.2
Let u be a positive, even, spherically convex solution to (1.2). For any \(l\in \mathbb {R}\) and \(0<\alpha <1\), there exists some positive constant C, depending on \(n, k, p, l, \min f\) and \(\Vert f\Vert _{C^l}\), such that (1.4) holds.
Proof of Proposition 4.2
From Proposition 3.2 and 4.1, we see u is bounded from above and below by uniform positive constants. When \(k=1\), as we already have \(C^1\) bounds for u, higher regularity follows from elliptic linear PDE. We may assume \(k\ge 2\). Let
Differentiating the equation twice, we have
where we used the concavity of \({\tilde{F}}\).
Note that \(|\Delta (u^p f)^{\frac{1}{k}}|\le C\sigma _1\) and \(\sum _i {\tilde{F}}^{ii}=\frac{n}{k}\sigma _k^{\frac{1-k}{k}}\sigma _{k-1}\ge C_{n,k}\sigma _k^{-\frac{1}{k(k-1)}}\sigma _1^{\frac{1}{k-1}}\). Applying the maximum principle on (4.8), we see that \(\sigma _1\le C\). Thus \(\Vert u\Vert _{C^2}\le C\). Since \(W_u\ge 0\), we see that the equation is uniformly elliptic. Our assertion follows now from the standard Evans–Krylov and Schauder estimates. \(\square \)
Remark 4.1
The conditions that u is even and \(W_u\ge 0\) have been only used in Proposition 4.1.
4.3 Existence
In the following we use the continuity method to prove the existence and uniqueness of strictly convex solutions.
Proof of Theorem 1.1.
We first show that the solution is unique. The uniqueness of strictly spherically convex solution was showed by Lutwak [16]. For convenience of readers, we give a proof on the uniqueness of admissible solutions.
Assume u, v are two admissible solutions to (1.2). Then we have
Multiplying v to the first equation in (4.9) and integrating over \({\mathbb S}^n\), we have by using the Alexandrov-Fenchel inequality (2.2)
On the other hand, using Hölder’s inequality,
Combining (4.10) and (4.11), in view of \(1<p<k+1\), we obtain
Similar argument by interchanging the role of u and v gives
Thus all the above inequalities are equalities. In particular, equality holds in (4.10). That is, equality holds in (2.3). In view of (4.9), we must have \(u\equiv v.\)
We now prove the existence. Denote
Then \(f_t\) is even and satisfies (1.3). Consider the equation
Let
It is clear that \(u_0\equiv 1\) is a positive, even solution of (4.12) with \(W_{u_0}> 0\) for \(t=0\). Thus S is non-empty.
Next we show S is open. The linearized operator at u is given by
Suppose \(L_u(v)=0\). Then
Multiplying (4.13) with u and integrating over \({\mathbb S}^n\), we have
Since \(k\ne p-1\), we have \(\int _{{\mathbb S}^n} v\sigma _k(W_u)=0\). On the other hand, Multiplying (4.13) with v and integrating over \({\mathbb S}^n\), we have
Since \(V(v, u, \ldots , u)=\int _{{\mathbb S}^n} v\sigma _k(W_u)=0\), by using the Alexandrov–Fenchel inequality (2.2), we see
Thanks to \(p>1\), we have \(\int _{{\mathbb S}^n} u^{-1}v^2\sigma _k(W_u) \le 0\), which implies \(v\equiv 0\). Hence the kernel of the linearized operator of the equation is trivial. By the implicit function theorem, for each \(t_0\in S\), there exists a neighborhood \({\mathcal {N}}\) of \(t_0\) such that there exists a positive solution \(u_t\) of (4.12) with \(W_{u_t}> 0\) for \(t\in {\mathcal {N}}\). Since \(f_t\) is even, it follows from the uniqueness result that \(u_t\) must be even. Hence, \({\mathcal {N}}\subset S\) and S is open.
We now prove the closedness of S. Let \(\{t_i\}_{i=1}^\infty \subset S\) be a sequence such that \(t_i\rightarrow t_0\) and \({u_{t_i}}\) be a positive even solution to (4.12) with \(W_{u_{t_i}}>0\) for \(t=t_i\). By virtue of the a priori estimate in Theorem 4.2, there exists a subsequence, still denote by \(u_{t_i}\), converges to some function u in \(C^{l+1}\) norm. In particular, u is an even solution to (4.12) for \(t=t_0\). Suppose \(W_u\) is not positive definite, then \(W_u\) is positive semi-definite and \(\det (W_u)(x_0)=0\) for some \(x_0\in {\mathbb S}^n\). Since \(f_{t_0}\) satisfies (1.3), we know from the constant rank theorem that \(W_u\) must be positive definite. A contradiction. Therefore, \(t_0\in S\) and S is closed.
We conclude that \(S=[0,1]\) and (4.12) with \(t=1\), which is (1.2), has a positive even solution u with \(W_u>0\). The proof is completed. \(\square \)
5 Examples
For the Minkowski problem for p-sum with \(1< p< n+1\), a \(C^2\) convex hypersurface to the \(L^p\) Minkowski problem does not always exist even if f is a smooth positive function. A series of counterexamples have been constructed in [9]. The arguments in [9] can be extended to construct similar examples for equation (1.2).
Let \(\alpha =\frac{k}{k-p+1}\). Set \(u(x)=(1-x_{n+1})^\alpha \), where \(x= (x_1,\ldots , x_n, x_{n+1})=:(x', x_{n+1})\in {\mathbb S}^n\subset \mathbb {R}^{n+1}.\) We view the open hemisphere \({\mathbb S}^n_+\), centered at the north pole, as a graph over \(\{x'\in \mathbb {R}^n: |x'|^2<1\}\). The metric g and its inverse \(g^{-1}\) on \({\mathbb S}^n_+\) are
and the Christoffel symbol is
In this local coordinates, \(u(x)=(1-\sqrt{1-|x'|^2})^\alpha \). By a direct computation, we have
Using \((\alpha -1)k=\alpha (p-1)\), we see
where
It is clear that the eigenvalues of the matrix \((\delta _{ij}+b\frac{x_ix_j}{|x|^2})\) are 1 with multiplicity \(n-1\) and \(1+b\) with multiplicity 1. Thus
Since
we have
Since \(\alpha >1\), it is direct to see that
Hence \(\nabla ^2 f^{-\frac{1}{p-1+k}}+f^{-\frac{1}{p-1+k}} I\ge 0\) is satisfied near the north pole. As in [9], using a lemma in [7], one may patch a global convex solution to Eq. (1.2) with some positive function f such that solution is equal to \((1-x_{n+1})^\alpha \) near the north pole. That is \(u=0\) at the north pole and condition (1.3) is satisfied near the north pole.
Next, we will construct a solution to (1.2) for some positive smooth function f satisfying condition (1.3) everywhere but u touches 0. This shows that, a \(C^2\) convex hypersuface to the k-th Christoffel–Minkowski problem for p-sum with \(1< p< k+1\) does not always exist even if f is a smooth positive function such that (1.3) holds. Hence, the evenness assumption on f cannot be dropped in Theorem 1.1.
Proposition 5.1
There exists some \(0<{{\bar{p}}}<k\), such that for \(0<p-1\le {{\bar{p}}}\), there is some positive function \(f\in C^\infty ({\mathbb S}^n)\) satisfying (1.3) and a solution u to (1.2) such that \((\nabla ^2 u+u g_{\mathbb {S}^n})\ge 0\) and \(u=0\) at some point. Moreover, u is not \(C^3\).
Proof
Choose an orthonormal basis \(\{e_i\}_{i=1}^n\) on \({\mathbb S}^n\). For coordinate functions \(x_l, l=1, 2, \ldots , n+1\), we know \(\nabla ^2_{ij} x_{l}+x_l \delta _{ij}=0\). Since \(|\nabla x_l|^2+x_l^2= |\nabla x_j|^2+x_j^2\) for any \(j\ne l\) and \(|\nabla x|^2+|x|^2= \sum _{i=1}^n |e_i|^2+|x|^2=n+1\), we get \(|\nabla x_l|^2+x_l^2=1\) for any \(l=1, 2, \ldots , n+1\).
Let \(u(x)=(1-x_{n+1})^\alpha .\) By direct computations,
Thus
Therefore
In the second equality we used the fact \(|\nabla x_{n+1}|^2=1-x_{n+1}^2\).
Let \(f(x)=\frac{(n-1)!}{k!(n-k)!}(1+(\alpha -1)x_{n+1})^{k-1}\left[ n+k\alpha (\alpha -1)+(n+k\alpha )(\alpha -1)x_{n+1}\right] \) and \(\alpha =\frac{k}{k-p+1}\). Then \(u(x)=(1-x_{n+1})^\alpha \) with \(\alpha =\frac{k}{k-p+1}\) is a solution to
Now let us analyze the function f on \({\mathbb S}^n\). First, f is smooth. Second it is direct to check that when \(\alpha <2\), i.e. \({p-1}<\frac{k}{2}\), \(f>0\).
We claim that when \(0<\alpha -1\) lies in certain range, i.e., \({p-1}\le {{\bar{p}}}\), f satisfies the convexity condition \((\nabla ^2 f^{-\frac{1}{k+{p-1}}}+ f^{-\frac{1}{k+{p-1}}} I)>0\).
Let \({{\tilde{g}}}={{\tilde{f}}}^{-\frac{1}{k+{p-1}}}\), where
We need to show \(\left( \frac{\nabla ^2_{ij}{{\tilde{g}}}}{\tilde{g}}+\delta _{ij}\right) >0\). To simplify the notation, we denote \(y=x_{n+1}\). Direct computations give
Using \(\nabla ^2_{ij} y=-y\delta _{ij}\), we have
Notice that the coefficient of \(\nabla _{i} y\nabla _j y\) on the RHS of above equation is always positive. To ensure \(\left( \frac{\nabla ^2_{ij} \tilde{g}}{{{\tilde{g}}}}+\delta _{ij}\right) \) is positive definite, we only need the coefficient of \(\delta _{ij}\) on the RHS of above equation is positive, i.e.,
Note \(k+{p-1}=k+\frac{k(\alpha -1)}{\alpha }=k\frac{2\alpha -1}{\alpha }\) and the denominator is always positive when \(\alpha <2\). Inequality (5.2) is equivalent to say the quadratic form
By regrouping,
By computation, we see that when \(0<\alpha -1\) is close to 0, i.e., \({{\bar{p}}}\) is sufficiently small,
Therefore when \({p-1}\le {{\bar{p}}}\), we have Q(y) is positive for \(y\in [-1, 1]\).
In conclusion, for \(0<p-1\) small, we construct a globally defined function u which is a solution of \(\sigma _k(\nabla ^2_{ij} u+u\delta _{ij})=u^{p-1} f\) with a smooth, positive function f with \((\nabla ^2 f^{-\frac{1}{k+{p-1}}}+ f^{-\frac{1}{k+{p-1}}} I)>0\). However, u has a zero.\(\square \)
In this example, \((\nabla ^2 u+u g_{\mathbb {S}^n})\) is not of full rank at some point. This implies that for such f, the Gauss map fails to be regular and the convex body with support function u is not \(C^2\). However, in the next section we will show that the solution to the PDE (1.2) for \(\frac{k+1}{2}\le p<k+1\) is always \(C^{2}\) when f is \(C^2\).
6 \(C^2\) estimate for \(p\ge \frac{k+1}{2}\)
To prove Theorem 1.2, we consider the following perturbed equation
for \(\epsilon >0\).
First of all, we prove the following existence for an auxilliary equation below.
Proposition 6.1
For any \(v \in C^4({\mathbb S}^n)\) with \(v>0\) and \(f\in C^4({\mathbb S}^n)\), there exists a unique solution \(u\in C^{5,\alpha }({\mathbb S}^n)\) (\(0<\alpha <1\)) with \((\nabla ^2 u+vg_{{\mathbb S}^n})\in \Gamma _k\), which we denote by \(T_f(v)\), to
Moreover, there exists some constant C, depending on \(n, k, p-1, \alpha ,\Vert v\Vert _{C^4}, \Vert f\Vert _{C^4}, \min v, \min f\), such that
Proof
Step 1 A priori estimate for (6.2).
Let \(u(x_0)=\min u\). Then
It follows that \(u\ge u(x_0)\ge c>0.\) Similarly, we have \(u\le C\).
Denote \(w_{ij}=u_{ij}+v\delta _{ij}.\) Note that \(w_{iiss}=w_{ssii}+2w_{ii}-2w_{ss}-v_{ii}+v_{ss}\) for any i, s. For \(C^2\) estimate, we can apply the same argument as in the proof of Proposition 4.2 to \(\mathrm {tr}(w)= \Delta u+nv\). Once we get the \(C^2\) estimate and the positive lower bound of u, (6.2) is uniformly elliptic. By the Evans–Krylov and the Schauder theory, we have higher order estimate.
Step 2 Existence and uniqueness for (6.2).
To prove the uniqueness, let u and \({\tilde{u}}\) be two solutions. Then the difference \(h= u-{\tilde{u}}\) satisfies \(a_{ij}(x)h_{ij}+c(x)h=0,\) where \(a_{ij}(x)\) is an elliptic operator and \(c(x)<0\). Thus \(h\equiv 0\) by strong maximum principle.
We use continuity method to prove the existence. We set \(f_0:=\frac{1}{v^{p-1}}\sigma _k(\nabla ^2 v+vg_{{\mathbb S}^n})\) and \(f_t=(1-t)f_0+tf\). Consider (6.2) with \(f=f_t\). It is easy to see \(u_0\equiv v\) is the unique solution to (6.2) for \(f=f_0\). Next, the kernel of the linearized operator \(L_{u_t}\) is trivial and self-adjoint. Thus the openness follows from standard implicit function theorem. The closeness follows from the a priori estimates in Step 1. Therefore, we have the existence of (6.2) via continuity method. \(\square \)
Next we show the existence for the perturbed Eq. (6.1).
Proposition 6.2
Let \(\epsilon >0\) and \(\frac{k+1}{2}\le p<k+1\). There exists a solution \(u\in C^4({\mathbb S}^n)\) with \((\nabla ^2 u+(u+\epsilon )g_{{\mathbb S}^n})\in \Gamma _k\) to (6.1). Moreover, there exist some positive constants \(c_\epsilon \) and \(C_\epsilon \), depending on \(n, k, p-1, \Vert f\Vert _{C^4}, \min f\) and \(\epsilon \), such that
Proof
Step 1 A priori estimate for (6.1).
From the equation, \(u>0\) automatically. Let \(u(x_0)=\min u\), then
A positive lower bound \(u\ge c_\epsilon \) follows. One may follow the same argument in the previous section to prove the \(C^1\) and the \(C^2\) estimate depending on \(c_\epsilon \). We remark that for these arguments one needs only assume \((\nabla ^2 u+(u+\epsilon )g_{{\mathbb S}^n})\in \Gamma _k\), see Remark 4.1.
Step 2 Existence for (6.1).
We use the degree theory to prove the existence. Denote by \(f_t=(1-t)\left( {\begin{array}{c}n\\ k\end{array}}\right) (1+\epsilon )^k+tf\) for \(t\in [0,1]\). For any \(\omega \in C^4({\mathbb S}^n)\) and \(f_t\) we consider
From Proposition 6.1, there exists a unique positive solution \(T_{f_t}(e^\omega +\epsilon )\) to (6.3). Define an operator
It follows from the a priori estimate in Proposition 6.1 that \({\tilde{T}}_t\) is compact.
It is easy to see that \(\omega \) is a fixed point of \({\tilde{T}}_t\), i.e., \(\omega ={{\tilde{T}}}_t(\omega )\), if and only if \(u=e^\omega \) is a solution to (6.1) with \((\nabla ^2 u+(u+\epsilon ) g_{{\mathbb S}^n})\in \Gamma _k\). Therefore, by using the a priori estimates in Proposition 6.2, we see that any fixed point of \({{\tilde{T}}}_t\) is not on the boundary of
when K is sufficient large, depending on \(\epsilon \).
By the degree theory, \(\deg (I-{{\tilde{T}}}_t, S_K, 0)\) is well defined and independent of t.
Claim For \(t=0\), \(u_0\equiv 1\) is the unique solution to (6.1) with \(f=f_0\) and the linearized operator \(L_{u_0}\) at \(u_0\equiv 1\) is injective.
To show this claim, we need the a priori estimate from Propositions 6.3 and 6.4 below, where we assume \(p\ge \frac{k+1}{2}\).
First, there is no other solutions of (6.1) near \(u_0\equiv 1\). The linearized operator for the Eq. (6.1) at \(u_0\equiv 1\) is given by
Since the first eigenvalue of \(\Delta \) on \({\mathbb S}^n\) is n, we see that the kernel of \(L_{u_0}\) is trivial, namely, \(L_{u_0}\) is injective. Thus the assertion follows by the implicit function theorem.
Second, for \(\epsilon >0\) small, there exist no other solutions than \(u_0\equiv 1\). Suppose there are \(\epsilon _l\rightarrow 0\) and non-constant solutions \(u_l\) for each \(\epsilon _l\). By the a priori estimate independent of \(\epsilon \) by Propsitions 6.3 and 6.4, there is a subsequence, still denote by \(\{u_{l}\}\), with \(u_l \rightarrow {{\tilde{u}}}\) in \(C^{1,\alpha }\), where \({{\tilde{u}}}\in C^{1,1}({\mathbb S}^n)\) is a solution of the un-perturbed Eq. (1.2) with \(f=f_0\). It follows from the previous step that \(u_l\) is uniformly away from \(u_0\equiv 1\), so \({{\tilde{u}}}\) is not the constant 1, which contradicts to the uniqueness of (1.2).
Third, for any \(\epsilon >0\) such that \(u>0\) solves (6.1) with \(f=f_0\), the uniqueness is true. This follow immediately from previous two steps. We finish the proof of the claim.
We turn back to the proof of the existence. Since \(L_{u_0}\) is injective, the derivative \(\tilde{T_0}'\) in \(C^4\) is injective. The degree can be computed as \(\deg (I-T_0, S_K, 0)=(-1)^\beta \) where \(\beta \) is the number of eigenvalues of \(\tilde{T_0}'\) greater than one. In any case \(\deg (I-T_t, S_K, 0)=\deg (I-T_0, S_K, 0)=(-1)^\beta \) is not equal to zero. Therefore we have the existence for (6.1) for any \(t\in [0,1]\), in particular for \(t=1\). The assertion follows. \(\square \)
We now show the a priori estimate independent of \(\epsilon \). The arguments in the proof for \(C^1\) estimate in previous section yield the \(C^1\) estimate for solutions to (6.1).
Proposition 6.3
Let \(\epsilon \ge 0\). Let u be a solution to (6.1) with \((\nabla ^2 u+(u+\epsilon )g_{{\mathbb S}^n})\in \Gamma _k\). Then there exists some positive constant C, depending on \(n, k, p, \min f\) and \(\Vert f\Vert _{C^1}\), but independent of \(\epsilon \), such that
Next, we show that, in the case \(\frac{k+1}{2}\le p<k+1\), Eq. (6.1) admits a \(C^2\) estimate independent of \(\epsilon \).
Proposition 6.4
Let \(\epsilon \ge 0\). Assume \(\frac{k+1}{2}\le p<k+1\). Let u be a solution to (6.1) with \((\nabla ^2 u+(u+\epsilon )g_{{\mathbb S}^n})\in \Gamma _k\). Then there exists a nonnegative constant \(\alpha =\alpha (p-1,k,n)\) depending only on p, k, n with \(\alpha (p-1,k,n)> 0\) if \(\frac{k+1}{2}< p\), and there is some positive constant C depending on \(n, k, p-1, \min f\) and \(\Vert f\Vert _{C^2}\), but independent of \(\epsilon \), such that
Proof
For \(k=1\), the standard theory of linear elliptic PDE gives us the \(C^2\) estimate. Hence we consider \(k\ge 2\). In the following proof we denote by \(W_u^\epsilon =\nabla ^2 u+(u+\epsilon )I\). It is sufficient to prove the upper bound of \(\frac{\sigma _1(W_u^\epsilon )}{u^{\alpha }}\) since \(W_u^\epsilon \in \Gamma _2\).
Let \(y_0\in {\mathbb S}^n\) be a maximum point of \(\frac{|\nabla u|^2}{u^{1+\alpha }}\). Then
It follows that
Thus \(\left( \frac{(1+\alpha )|\nabla u|^2}{2u^{1+\alpha }}+\frac{(u+\epsilon )}{u^{\alpha }}\right) (y_0)\) is an eigenvalue of \(\frac{(\nabla ^2 u+(u+\epsilon )I)}{u^{\alpha }}(y_0)\). Since \(W_u^\epsilon \in \Gamma _2\), we have
Let \(x_0\) be a maximum point of \(\frac{\sigma _1 (W_u^\epsilon )}{u^{\alpha }}\) and by a choice of local frame and a rotation of coordinates we assume \(g_{ij}=\delta _{ij}\) and \(W_u^\epsilon \) is diagonal at \(x_0\). By the maximal condition, at \(x_0\),
In the following we compute at \(x_0\). Assuming \(0\le \alpha \le 1\), and using Ricci’s identity,
From the Eq. (6.1), we have
Since \(\nabla \sigma _1=\alpha \sigma _1\frac{\nabla u}{u}\), \(\sigma _k=u^{p-1}f\) and \(\nabla \sigma _k=(p-1)u^{p-2}f\nabla u+u^{p-1}\nabla f\), we deduce from (2.4) in Lemma 2.2 that
where \(c_1, c_2\) are constants under control and
It follows from (6.6) and (6.7) that
where C depends on \(k, p, n, \Vert f\Vert _{C^2}\) and \(\min f\).
Note that from (6.4) we have
As u is bounded from above, we deduce from (6.10) and (6.11) that
In view of (6.8), if \(p\ge \frac{k+1}{2}\), we may choose \(\alpha \ge 0\) such that \(p-1-k\alpha \ge 0\) and
Moreover, if \(p> \frac{k+1}{2}\), \(\alpha \) can be picked positive. By the Newton–Maclaurin inequality
it follows from (6.12),
Since \(p\ge \frac{k+1}{2}\), we can choose \(\alpha \ge 0\) such that \((p-1)\frac{k-2}{k-1}\le p-\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{k-1}+\frac{1}{2})\alpha .\) Moreover, if \(p> \frac{k+1}{2}\), \(\alpha \) can be picked positive. By virtue of the uniform upper bound of u, we obtain \(\frac{\sigma _1}{u^\alpha }\le C\). The proof is completed. \(\square \)
Now we are ready to prove Theorem 1.2.
Proof of Theorem 1.2
For \(\epsilon >0\), let \(u_\epsilon \) be the solution of (6.1) with \((\nabla ^2 u_\epsilon + (u_\epsilon +\epsilon )g_{{\mathbb S}^n})\in \Gamma _k\). From the a priori \(C^2\) estimate independent of \(\epsilon \), there is a subsequence \(u_{\epsilon _i}\rightarrow u\) in \(C^{1,\alpha }\) for any \(\alpha <1\). The bound gives \(u\in C^{1,1}({\mathbb S}^n)\) and \(\sigma _k(\nabla ^2 u+ug_{{\mathbb S}^n})=u^{p-1}f\) with \((\nabla ^2 u+ u g_{{\mathbb S}^n})\in {{\bar{\Gamma }}}_k\).
We note that solution u is \(C^2\) continuous if \(p>\frac{k+1}{2}\). This follows from Proposition 6.4, \(|\nabla ^2u(x)|\le Cu^{\alpha }(x), \forall x\in \mathbb S^n\), because \(u\in C^{\infty }\) away from the null set \(\{u=0\}\) and \(\nabla ^2u\) is continuous at every point of \(\{u=0\}\) when \(\alpha >0\). \(\square \)
We discuss a special case of equation (1.2) when \(k=1\). This is the equation corresponding to the \(L^p\)-Christoffel problem. In this case, equation is semilinear:
From the \(C^1\) estimate established for admissible solutions of Eq. (6.1) in the previous section and standard semilinear elliptic theory, we immediately have
Theorem 6.1
For any positive function \(f\in C^2({\mathbb S}^n)\) there exists a nonnegative solution u to (6.14) with
for some \(0<\alpha <1\) and C depending on \(n, k, p, \alpha , \Vert f\Vert _{C^2({\mathbb S}^n)}\) and \(\min _{{\mathbb S}^n} f\).
If condition (1.3) is imposed, one may obtain a sperically convex solution u. Though \(u\in C^{2,\alpha }\), the corresponding hypersurface with u as its support function may not be in \(C^{1,1}\) as \(W_u\) may degenerate on the null set of u. Equation (6.14) has variational structure, it is of interest to develop corresponding potential theory as in the classical Christoffel problem [1, 5].
To end this paper, we would like to raise the following two questions.
-
1.
Using compactness argument as in [11], together with the a priori estimates in Proposition 4.2 and the Constant Rank Theorem 2.1, one can prove that if \(\Vert f\Vert _{C^2}+\Vert \frac{1}{f}\Vert _{C^0}\le M\) and (1.3) holds, there exists a uniform positive constant C depending only on n, M such that
$$\begin{aligned} W_u\ge C g_{\mathbb {S}^n}. \end{aligned}$$Is there a direct effective estimate of \(W_u\) from below under the same convexity conditions, without use of the constant rank theorem?
-
2.
Under the condition of evenness, a positive lower bound of u in Proposition 4.1 has been derived via an ODE argument and a bound on \(\nabla u\) which depends on \(\nabla f\). In the case of \(L^p\)-Minkowski problem (i.e., \(k=n\)), one may obtain a bound of volume of the associated convex body \(\Omega _u\) from below if f is positive. Is it possible to derive such a priori a positive lower bound of \(Vol(\Omega _u)\) for solutions of Eq. (1.2) in general? This would give a positive lower bound of u.
References
Berg, C.: Corps convexes et potentiels spheriques, Mat.-Fys. Medd. Danske Vid. Selsk. 37 (1969)
Böröczky, K.J., Lutwak, E., Yang, D., Zhang, G.: The logarithmic Minkowski problem. J. AMS 26, 831–852 (2013)
Cheng, S.Y., Yau, S.T.: On the regularity fo the solution of the n-dimensinal Minkowski problem. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 24, 495–516 (1976)
Chou, K.S., Wang, X.J.: The \(L^p\)-Minkowski problem and the Minkowski problem in centroaffine geometry. Adv. Math. 205(1), 33–83 (2006)
Firey, W.J.: The determination of convex bodies from their mean radius of curvature functions. Mathematik 14(1), 1–14 (1967)
Firey, W.: p-means of convex bodies. Math. Scand. 10, 17–24 (1962)
Guan, P.: Extremal function associated to intrinsic norms. Ann. Math. 156, 197–211 (2002)
Guan, P., Li, J., Li, Y.Y.: Hypersurfaces of prescribed curvature measure. Duke Math. J. 161(10), 1927–1942 (2012)
Guan, P., Lin, C.S.: On equation \(\det (u_{ij} + {ij} u)=u^pf\) on \({{\mathbb{S}}}^n\). preprint No 2000-7, NCTS in Tsing-Hua University, 2000
Guan, P., Ma, X.: The Christoffel–Minkowski problem. I. Convexity of solutions of a Hessian equation. Invent. Math. 151(3), 553–577 (2003)
Guan, P., Ma, X.: Convex solutions of fully nonlinear elliptic equations in classical differential geometry, “Geometric Evolution Equations” In: Chang S., Chow, B., Chu, S., Lin, C.S., Workshop on Geometric Evolution Equations, Contemp Math. vol. 367, pp. 115–128. AMS (2004)
Guan, P., Ma, X., Trudinger, N., Zhu, X.: A form of Alexandrov–Fenchel inequality. Pure Appl. Math. Q. 6, 999–1012 (2010)
Hu, C., Ma, X., Shen, C.: On the Christoffel–Minkowski problem of Firey’s \(p\)-sum. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 21(2), 137–155 (2004)
Huang, Y., Lu, Q.: On the regularity of the \(L^p\) Minkowski problem. Adv. Appl. Math. 50(2), 268–280 (2013)
Lu, Q.: The Minkowski problem for p-sums. Master thesis. McMaster University (2004)
Lutwak, E.: The Brunn–Minkowski–Firey theory. I. Mixed volumes and the Minkowski problem. J. Differ. Geom. 38(1), 131–150 (1993)
Lutwak, E., Oliker, V.: On the regularity of solutions to a generalization of the Minkowski problem. J. Differential Geom. 41(1), 227–246 (1995)
Lutwak, E., Yang, D., Zhang, G.: On the \(L_p\)-Minkowski problem. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 356, 4359–4370 (2004)
Nirenberg, L.: The Weyl and Minkowski problems in differential geometry in the large. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 6, 337–394 (1953)
Pogorelov, A.V.: Regularity of a convex surface with given Gaussian curvature. Mat. Sb. 31, 88–103 (1952)
Pogorelov, A.V.: The Minkowski Multidimensional Problem. Wiley, New York (1978)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by J. Jost.
Research of the first author is supported in part by an NSERC Discovery grant, the research of the second author is supported in part by NSFC (Grant No. 11501480) and the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province of China (Grant No. 2017J06003). Part of this work was done while CX was visiting the department of mathematics and statistics at McGill University. He would like to thank the department for its hospitality.