Weak limit of homeomorphisms in $W^{1,n-1}$ and (INV) condition

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2112.08041
• Title: Weak limit of homeomorphisms in $W^{1,n-1}$ and (INV) condition
• Authors: Anna Doležalová, Stanislav Hencl, Jan Malý
• Classification: math.FA (Functional Analysis)
• Publication Date: April 26, 2023
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.08041

Abstract

This paper investigates sequences of homeomorphisms $f_m:\Omega\to\Omega'$ on Lipschitz domains $\Omega,\Omega'\subset\mathbb{R}^3$ with prescribed Dirichlet boundary conditions. Under the condition $\sup_m \int_\Omega(|Df_m|^2+1/J^2_{f_m})<\infty$, the authors prove that the weak limit $f$ in $W^{1,2}$ is almost everywhere invertible, more precisely satisfying the (INV) condition of Conti and De Lellis, thereby possessing all desirable properties of this class of mappings. The paper also provides higher-dimensional generalizations and counterexamples demonstrating the sharpness of the condition $1/J^2_f\in L^1$. Using these counterexamples, the authors prove that unlike the planar case, the weak limit class and strong limit class of $W^{1,2}$ Sobolev homeomorphisms in $\mathbb{R}^3$ are not identical.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Background

The core problem studied in this paper originates from deformation mapping classes in nonlinear elasticity theory. In physics, the principle of "material non-interpenetration" requires deformations to be one-to-one, motivating researchers to seek mapping classes that are injective in some sense.

Research Motivation

1. Physical Significance: In nonlinear elasticity models, one needs to study function classes that can serve as deformation mappings, preserving material non-interpenetrability
2. Mathematical Challenge: Although pioneering work by Ball and Ciarlet-Nečas shows that finite-energy mappings are homeomorphisms under strong assumptions, cavitation or fracture may occur in practice, necessitating weaker conditions
3. Theoretical Gap: For $p>n-1$, the preservation of the (INV) condition under weak limits is known, but for the critical case $p=n-1$, a theoretical gap exists

Limitations of Existing Methods

• The work of Müller and Spector requires $f\in W^{1,p}$ with $p>n-1$, but practical models in $n=3$ commonly use the $|Df|^2$ term, yielding $p=2=n-1$, which does not satisfy this condition
• Although Conti and De Lellis generalized the (INV) condition to $W^{1,n-1}\cap L^\infty$, this class is not closed under weak convergence, limiting the application of variational methods

Core Contributions

1. Main Theorem: Proves that under appropriate energy control conditions, the weak limit of $W^{1,n-1}$ homeomorphism sequences satisfies the (INV) condition
2. Sharpness Results: Constructs counterexamples proving that the condition $1/J^{2}_{f}\in L^1$ (for $n=3$) is optimal for preserving the (INV) condition
3. Higher-Dimensional Generalization: Extends results to higher dimensions, providing corresponding theory for general dimension $n\geq 3$
4. Strong-Weak Limit Difference: First proves that in $\mathbb{R}^3$, the weak limit class of $W^{1,2}$ Sobolev homeomorphisms strictly contains the strong limit class

Methodology Details

Problem Formulation

Study the invertibility of weak limits of $W^{1,n-1}$ homeomorphism sequences $\{f_m\}$ under bounded energy conditions, specifically proving that the limit mapping satisfies the (INV) condition.

Core Concepts

(INV) Condition

For a mapping $f\in W^{1,n-1}(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^n)\cap L^\infty(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^n)$, it is said to satisfy the (INV) condition on a ball $B\subset\subset\Omega$ if:

1. Its trace on $\partial B$ belongs to $W^{1,2}\cap L^\infty$
2. For almost all $x\in B$: $f(x)\in \text{im}_T(f,B)$
3. For almost all $x\in\Omega\setminus B$: $f(x)\notin \text{im}_T(f,B)$

where $\text{im}_T(f,B)$ is the topological image of $B$ under $f$.

Energy Functional

Consider the energy functional: $\mathcal{F}(f) = \int_\Omega (|Df|^{n-1} + \varphi(J_f)) dx$

where $\varphi$ is a convex function satisfying specific conditions, and $J_f$ is the Jacobian determinant of $f$.

Main Theorem

Theorem 1.1: Let $n\geq 3$, $a = \frac{n-1}{n^2-3n+1}$, and $\Omega,\Omega'\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be Lipschitz domains. If $\varphi$ satisfies the stated conditions and $\varphi(t)\geq 1/t^a$, and $f_m$ is a sequence of homeomorphisms satisfying boundary conditions with $\sup_m \mathcal{F}(f_m)<\infty$, then the weak limit $f$ satisfies the (INV) condition.

Proof Strategy

Proof by Contradiction Framework

Assume $f$ does not satisfy the (INV) condition and derive a contradiction through the following steps:

1. Good Shape Construction: Utilize Lemma 3.6 to find a good shape $K$ such that the sets $U = \{x\in\Omega: \text{Deg}(f,K,f(x))\neq 0\}$ and $V = \{x\in\Omega: \text{Deg}(f,K,f(x)) = 0\}$ both have positive measure
2. Skeleton Construction: Construct an $(n-2)$-dimensional "skeleton" on $\partial K$ where the function is Hölder continuous
3. Energy Minimization Replacement: Replace the original mapping with minimizers of the tangential Dirichlet integral
4. Geometric Contradiction: Derive a geometric contradiction through the integrability conditions of distortion

Experimental Setup

Counterexample Construction (Theorem 1.2)

To prove the sharpness of the conditions, sophisticated counterexamples are constructed:

Geometric Design

• Define the mapping $f_\varepsilon$ in spherical coordinates $(r,\alpha,\beta)$
• Partition each sphere $\partial B(0,r)$ into interior $I_r$ and exterior $O_r$ parts
• The mapping transforms these parts into a "horseshoe" structure

Parameter Selection

• Fix parameter $\varepsilon>0$, then take $f_m = f_{1/m}$
• Choose $p\in(1/2,1)$ such that $a(1-3p)>-1$
• Define thickness function $\delta(\varepsilon,r)$ controlling the degree of deformation

Energy Estimates

Through refined integral estimates, prove that:

• $\int |Df_\varepsilon|^2$ is bounded
• $\int J_{f_\varepsilon}^{-a}$ is bounded (for $a<2$)
• But the limit does not satisfy the (INV) condition

Experimental Results

Main Results

Positive Results:

• Theorem 1.1 establishes the (INV) property of weak limits of $W^{1,n-1}$ homeomorphisms
• Generalization to arbitrary dimension $n\geq 3$
• Provides practical sufficient conditions

Sharpness:

• Theorem 1.2 proves that for $n=3$, the condition $J_f^{-2}\in L^1$ is optimal
• Any weaker integrability condition is insufficient to guarantee the (INV) property

Strong-Weak Limit Difference:

• Theorem 1.3 first proves that in three dimensions, the strong limit class is strictly contained in the weak limit class
• This contrasts sharply with the planar case

Technical Innovations

1. Extension of Degree Theory: Application of Brezis-Nirenberg degree theory to discontinuous mappings
2. Geometric Analysis Techniques: Clever skeleton construction and energy replacement strategies
3. Counterexample Construction: Sophisticated "horseshoe" deformation demonstrating the sharpness of critical exponents

Related Work

Historical Development

• Ball (1981): Establishes foundational theory of mapping invertibility in nonlinear elasticity
• Müller-Spector (1995): Introduces the (INV) condition, handling the case $p>n-1$
• Conti-De Lellis (2003): Generalizes theory to $W^{1,n-1}\cap L^\infty$

Planar Case

• Iwaniec-Onninen (2017): Proves that weak limit class equals strong limit class in the plane
• De Philippis-Pratelli (2020): Refines planar theory

Contributions of This Paper

Compared to existing work, this paper:

• Resolves the theoretical gap in the critical case $p=n-1$
• Provides optimal integrability conditions
• Reveals essential differences between higher and lower dimensions

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Theoretical Completion: Under appropriate conditions, weak limits of $W^{1,n-1}$ homeomorphisms preserve the (INV) property
2. Optimal Conditions: $J_f^{-2}\in L^1$ (for $n=3$) is the weakest condition preserving (INV)
3. Dimensional Effects: In higher dimensions, strong and weak limit classes differ, revealing geometric complexity

Limitations

1. Technical Conditions: Requires Lipschitz domains and specific boundary conditions
2. Dimensional Restriction: Main results focus on $n=3$; sharpness in higher dimensions requires further investigation
3. Construction Complexity: Counterexample construction is intricate; practical relevance needs verification

Future Directions

1. Higher-Dimensional Sharpness: Investigate optimal integrability conditions for $n>3$
2. Other Sobolev Spaces: Generalize to $W^{1,p}$ with $p\neq n-1$
3. Application Extensions: Verify theoretical predictions in practical elasticity theory

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Depth: Resolves an important open problem in the field
2. Technical Innovation: Cleverly combines harmonic analysis, geometric measure theory, and topological degree theory
3. Complete Results: Provides both positive results and sharp counterexamples
4. Mathematical Rigor: Sophisticated proof techniques with rigorous logic

Weaknesses

1. Limited Applications: Primarily theoretical results; connections to practical elasticity problems need strengthening
2. Technical Threshold: Proofs employ advanced techniques, requiring significant effort to understand and verify
3. Generalizability: Some techniques appear specifically designed for three dimensions, with limited generalizability

Impact

1. Academic Value: Provides important mathematical foundations for nonlinear elasticity theory
2. Methodological Contribution: Proof techniques offer insights for related problems
3. Theoretical Completion: Fills important theoretical gaps in the field

Applicable Scenarios

1. Mathematical Theory: Research in functional analysis and geometric measure theory
2. Numerical Analysis: Provides theoretical guarantees for related numerical methods
3. Physical Applications: Deformation analysis in nonlinear elasticity and materials science

References

The paper cites 40 important references, primarily including:

• Ball's pioneering work 3
• Müller-Spector's (INV) theory 31
• Conti-De Lellis's generalizations 11
• Iwaniec-Onninen's planar results 24,25
• Foundational literature in harmonic analysis and geometric measure theory

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality mathematical paper resolving an important problem in nonlinear elasticity theory. Although technically demanding, its theoretical contributions and methodological innovations hold significant value, establishing a solid foundation for further development in related fields.