This is the second of a series of posts dealing with the regularity theory of elliptic equations. My motivation in writing these is outlined in the first post.

**Some consequences of Harnack’s inequality the Mean value property**

The mean value property is characteristic of harmonic functions, but the fact that harmonic functions control their pointwise values by their local average is a general fact that is characteristic of elliptic equations (as we will see later, less sharp but more general theorems for nonlinear elliptic equations still have this flavor and are at the very heart of the regularity theory of fully nonlinear elliptic PDEs). Let me mention a few of its consequences, I already talked last time about Harnack’s inequality, as it follows from the mean value theorem, the mean value theorem (at least for harmonic functions) is more fundamental.

First, and perhaps the most important consequence, is the pointwise *a priori* estimate for the derivatives of a harmonic function in terms of its supremum:

Theorem 1 (A priori gradient estimate for harmonic functions)Let be a harmonic function in a ball , then

*Proof:* Let be a harmonic function in , by the mean value property, as long as , therefore

(Recall is called the symmetric difference of sets), now the set lies in the union of two annuli with radii and , thus its volume is not larger than for a dimensional constant . We then have

since the direction of is arbitrary and is , dividing both sides by and taking we obtain the a priori estimate.

One may iterate this to estimate higher derivatives (thanks to the fact that the derivatives of a harmonic function are themselves harmonic). To obtain the estimate

I emphasize that these are *a priori* estimates, one needs to know is already smooth to prove them, what they say is that the derivatives of all orders are all controlled by the supremum of !. In particular, a family of uniformly bounded harmonic functions is compact in every . Usually, the first time you learn about this phenomenon is when studying Montel’s theorem in a complex analysis.

The a priori estimates and Harnack’s inequality also give a quick proof (which I will omit) of another classical result, but in potential theory, which I mentioned because it was due to Harnack himself:

Theorem 2 (Harnack’s convergence theorem)Let be a decreasing sequence of functions which are continuous in and harmonic in the interior. Then they convergeuniformlyin compact sets of to a smooth function which is harmonic.

Since I just mentioned a priori estimates, I should recall the (one of many ) proofs of the fact that being harmonic even in some weak sense forces a function to be smooth and harmonic in the classical sense. Let’s say for instance, harmonic in the sense of distributions (we will revisit this theorem for other weak notions of harmonicity):

Theorem 3 (Weak harmonic implies harmonic)Let be a bounded measurable function in such that

for any smooth function with compact support in . Then (after modifying it in at most a set of measure zero) is smooth in the interior of and harmonic.

*Proof:* Let be an approximation to the identity given by a kernel which is radially symmetric and supported in . Let , then for each and any compact the functions ( small enough depending on the distance between and ) are smooth with bounded derivatives of any orders, moreover, they are all uniformly bounded in by the boundedness assumption on . Now, using the symmetry of the kernel and Fubini’s theorem, one can see that for any

and since each is smooth we have . Furthermore, by the a priori estimates the functions are also uniformly bounded , for any . Then we know (by Arzela-Ascoli) that a suitable subsequence of with converges uniformly in to a function which lies in (for *any* ), since they also must converge to a.e.(by Lebesgue’s differentiation theorem) we conclude that agrees a.e. with a smooth harmonic function, as we wanted to prove.

I think that I will stop here for now. Tomorrow: I will review the Poisson kernel to give the potential theoretic proof of the Mean value property, Harnack’s inequality and the (a priori) gradient estimates for harmonic functions, and after that, it will be the Calderón-Zygmund estimates.

## 0 Responses to “Reviewing the regularity theory of elliptics PDEs via the Laplace equation. Part II.”