Hölder continuity of harmonic quasiconformal mappings

Miloš Arsenović; Vesna Manojlović; Matti Vuorinen

doi:10.1186/1029-242X-2011-37

Impact Factor 0.791

Journal of Inequalities and Applications Cover Image

Research

Open Access

Hölder continuity of harmonic quasiconformal mappings

Miloš Arsenović¹Email author,
Vesna Manojlović² and
Matti Vuorinen³

Journal of Inequalities and Applications20112011:37

https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2011-37

Received: 29 December 2010

Accepted: 23 August 2011

Published: 23 August 2011

Abstract

We prove that for harmonic quasiconformal mappings α-Hölder continuity on the boundary implies α-Hölder continuity of the map itself. Our result holds for the class of uniformly perfect bounded domains, in fact we can allow that a portion of the boundary is thin in the sense of capacity. The problem for general bounded domains remains open.

MSC 2010: 30C65.

Keywords

quasi-conformal maps harmonic mappings Hölder continuity.

1. Introduction

The following theorem is the main result in [1].

Theorem 1.1. Let D be a bounded domain in ℝ ⁿ and let f be a continuous mapping of

\bar{D}

into ℝ ⁿ which is quasiconformal in D. Suppose that, for some M > 0 and 0 < α ≤ 1,

| f (x) - f (y) | \leq M | x - y |^{α}

(1.2)

whenever x and y lie on ∂D. Then

| f (x) - f (y) | \leq M^{'} | x - y |^{β}

(1.3)

for all x and y on $\bar{D}$ , where $β = min (α, K_{I}^{1 ∕ (1 - n)})$ and M' depends only on M, α, n, K(f) and diam(D).

The exponent β is the best possible, as the example of a radial quasiconformal map f(x) = |x| ^α-1x, 0 < α < 1, of $\bar{B^{n}}$ onto itself shows (see [2], p. 49). Also, the assumption of boundedness is essential. Indeed, one can consider g(x) = |x| ^ax, |x| ≥ 1 where a > 0. Then, g is quasiconformal in $D = ℝ^{n} \ \bar{B^{n}}$ (see [2], p. 49), it is identity on ∂D and hence, Lipschitz continuous on ∂D. However, $| g (t e_{1}) - g (e_{1}) | ≍ t^{a + 1}$ , t → ∞, and therefore, g is not globally Lipschitz continuous on D.

This paper deals with the following question, suggested by P. Koskela: is it possible to replace β with α if we assume, in addition to quasiconformality, that f is harmonic? In the special case $D = B^{n}$ this was proved, for arbitrary moduli of continuity ω (δ), in [3]. Our main result is that the answer is positive, if ∂D is a uniformly perfect set [4]. In fact, we prove a more general result, including domains having a thin, in the sense of capacity, portion of the boundary. However, this generality is in a sense illusory, because any harmonic and quasiconformal (briefly hqc) mapping extends harmonically and quasiconformally across such portion of the boundary. Nevertheless, it leads to a natural open question: is the answer positive for arbitrary bounded domain in ℝ ⁿ ?

In the case of smooth boundaries much better regularity up to the boundary can be deduced, see [5]; related results for harmonic functions were obtained by Aikawa [6] and Sugawa [7].

We denote by B(x, r) and S(x, r) the open ball, respectively sphere, in ℝ ⁿ with center x and radius r > 0. We adopt the basic notation, terminology and definitions related to quasiconformal maps from [2]. A condenser is a pair (K, U), where K is a non-empty compact subset of an open set U ⊂ ℝ ⁿ . The capacity of the condenser (K, U) is defined as

cap (K, U) = inf \int_{ℝ^{n}} | \nabla u |^{n} d V,

where infimum is taken over all continuous real-valued u ∈ ACL ⁿ (ℝ ⁿ ) such that u(x) = 1 for x ∈ K and u(x) = 0 for x ∈ ℝ ⁿ \ U. In fact, one can replace the ACL ⁿ condition with Lipschitz continuity in this definition. We note that, for a compact K ⊂ ℝ ⁿ and open bounded sets U₁ and U₂ containing K we have: cap(K, U₁) = 0 iff cap(K, U₂) = 0, therefore, the notion of a compact set of zero capacity is well defined (see [8], Remarks 7.13) and we can write cap(K) = 0 in this situation. For the notion of the modulus M(Γ)of a family Γ of curves in ℝ ⁿ we refer to Väisälä [2] and Vuorinen [8]. These two notions are related: by results of Hesse [9] and Ziemer [10] we have

cap (K, U) = M (Δ (K, \partial U; U)),

where Δ (E, F; G) denotes the family of curves connecting E to F within G, see [2] or [8] for details.

In addition to this notion of capacity, related to quasiconformal mappings, we need Wiener capacity, related to harmonic functions. For a compact K ⊂ ℝ ⁿ , n ≥ 3, it is defined by

ca p_{W} (K) = inf \int_{ℝ^{n}} | \nabla u |^{2} d V,

where infimum is taken over all Lipschitz continuous compactly supported functions u on ℝ ⁿ such that u = 1 on K. Let us note that every compact K ⊂ ℝ ⁿ which has capacity zero has Wiener capacity zero. Indeed, choose an open ball B_R = B(0, R) ⊃ K. Since n ≥ 2 we have, by Hölder inequality,

\int_{ℝ^{n}} | \nabla u |^{2} d V \leq | B_{R} |^{1 - 2 ∕ n} {(\int_{ℝ^{n}} | \nabla u |^{n} d V)}^{2 ∕ n}

for any Lipschitz continuous u vanishing outside U, our claim follows immediately from definitions.

A compact set K ⊂ ℝ ⁿ , consisting of at least two points, is α-uniformly perfect (α > 0) if there is no ring R separating K (i.e. such that both components of ℝ ⁿ \ R intersect K) such that mod(R) > α, for definition of the modulus of a ring see [8]. We say that a compact K ⊂ ℝ ⁿ is uniformly perfect if it is α-uniformly perfect for some α > 0.

We denote the α-dimensional Hausdorff measure of a set F ⊂ ℝ ⁿ by Λ_α(F).

2 The main result

In this section D denotes a bounded domain in ℝ ⁿ , n ≥ 3. Let

Γ_{0} = {x \in \partial D : cap (\bar{B} (x, ε) \cap \partial D) = 0 for some ε > 0},

and Γ₁ = ∂D \ Γ₀. Using this notation we can state our main result.

Theorem 2.1. Assume $f : \bar{D} \to ℝ^{n}$ is continuous on $\bar{D}$ , harmonic and quasiconformal in D. Assume f is Hölder continuous with exponent α, 0 < α ≤ 1, on ∂D and Γ₁is uniformly perfect. Then f is Hölder continuous with exponent α on $\bar{D}$ .

If Γ₀ is empty we obtain the following

Corollary 2.2. If $f : \bar{D} \to ℝ^{n}$ is continuous on $\bar{D}$ , Hölder continuous with exponent α, 0 < α ≤ 1, on ∂D, harmonic and quasiconformal in D and if ∂D is uniformly perfect, then f is Hölder continuous with exponent α on $\bar{D}$ .

The first step in proving Theorem 2.1 is reduction to the case Γ₀ = ø. In fact, we show that existence of a hqc extension of f across Γ₀ follows from well known results. Let D' = D ∪ Γ₀. Then D' is an open set in ℝ ⁿ , Γ₀ is a closed subset of D' and ∂D' = Γ₁.

Clearly cap(K ∩ Γ₀) = 0 for each compact K ⊂ D', and therefore, by Lemma 7.14 in [8], Λ_α(K ∩ Γ₀) = 0 for each α > 0. In particular, Γ₀ has σ-finite (n - 1)-dimensional Hausdorff measure. Since it is closed in D', we can apply Theorem 35.1 in [2] to conclude that f has a quasiconformal extension F across Γ₀ which has the same quasiconformality constant as f.

Since Γ₀ is a countable union of compact subsets K_j of capacity zero and hence of Wiener capacity zero we conclude that Γ₀ has Wiener capacity zero. Hence, by a classical result (see [11]), there is a (unique) extension $G : \bar{D^{'}} \to ℝ^{n}$ of f which is harmonic in D'. Obviously, F = G is a harmonic quasiconformal extension of f to $\bar{D^{'}}$ which has the same quasiconformality constant as f.

In effect, we reduced the proof of Theorem 2.1 to the proof of Corollary 2.2. We begin the proof of Corollary 2.2 with the following

Lemma 2.3. Let D ⊂ ℝ ⁿ be a bounded domain with uniformly perfect boundary. There exists a constant m > 0 such that for every y ∈ D we have

cap (\bar{B} (y, \frac{d}{2}), D) \geq m, d = dist (y, \partial D) .

(2.4)

Proof. Fix y ∈ D as above and z ∈ ∂D such that |y - z| = d ≡ r. Clearly diam(∂D) = diam(D) > 2r. Set

F_{1} = \bar{B} (z, r) \cap (\partial D)

and

F_{2} = \bar{B} (z, r) \cap \bar{B} (y, \frac{d}{2})

, F₃ = S(z, 2r). Let Γ _i,j = Δ (F_i , F_j ; ℝ ⁿ ) for i, j = 1, 2, 3. By Järvi and V

\overset{°}{u}

orinen [4, Thm 4.1(3)], there exists a constant a = a(E, n) > 0 such that

M (Γ_{1, 3}) \geq a

while by standard estimates [2, 7.5] there exists b = b(n) > 0 such that

M (Γ_{2, 3}) \geq b .

Next, by Vuorinen [8, Cor 5.41] there exists m = m(E, n) > 0 such that

M (Γ_{1, 2}) \geq m .

Finally, with

B = \bar{B} (y, d 2)

we have

cap (B, D) = M (Δ (B, \partial D; ℝ^{n})) \geq M (Γ_{1, 2}) \geq m .

In conclusion, from the above lemma, our assumption

| f (x_{1}) - f (x_{2}) | \leq C | x_{1} - x_{2} |^{α}, x_{1}, x_{2} \in \partial D,

and Lemma 8 in [1], we conclude that there is a constant M, depending on m, n, K(f), C and α only such that

| f (x) - f (y) | \leq M | x - y |^{α}, y \in D, x \in \partial D, dist (y, \partial D) = | x - y | .

However, an argument presented in [1] shows that the above estimate holds for y ∈ D, y ∈ ∂D without any further conditions, but with possibly different constant:

| f (x) - f (y) | \leq M^{'} | x - y |^{α}, y \in D, x \in \partial D .

(2.5)

The following lemma was proved in [12] for real valued functions, but the proof relies on the maximum principle which holds also for vector valued harmonic functions, hence lemma holds for harmonic mappings as well.

Lemma 2.6. Assume

h : \bar{D} \to ℝ^{n}

is continuous on

\bar{D}

and harmonic in D. Assume for each x₀ ∈ ∂D we have

sup_{B_{r} (x_{0}) \cap D^{'}} | h (x) - h (x_{0}) | \leq ω (r) f o r 0 < r \leq r_{0} .

Then |h(x) - h(y)| ≤ ω(|x - y|), whenever x, y ∈ D and |x - y| ≤ r₀.

Now we combine (2.5) and the above lemma, with r₀ = diam(D), to complete the proof of Corollary 2.2 and therefore of Theorem 2.1 as well.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

M. Arsenovic's work was supported by Ministry of Science, Serbia, project M144010, V. Manojlovic's work by Ministry of Science, Serbia, project M174024, and M. Vuorinen's work by the Academy of Finland, project 2600066611.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)

Department of Mathematics, University of Belgrade

(2)

Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade

(3)

Department of Mathematics, University of Turku

References

Martio O, Näkki R: Boundary Hölder continuity and quasiconformal mappings. J Lond Math Soc 1991,44(2):339–350. 10.1112/jlms/s2-44.2.339MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Väisälä J: Lectures on n -dimensional Quasiconformal Mappings. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1971, 229: Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Arsenović M, Božin V, Manojlović V:Moduli of continuity of harmonic quasiregular mappings in $B^{n}$ . Potential Anal 2011,34(3):283–291. 10.1007/s11118-010-9195-8MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Järvi P, Vuorinen M: Uniformly perfect sets and quasiregular mappings. J Lond Math Soc 1996,54(2):515–529.MATHView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Kalaj D: Quasiconformal and harmonic mappings between Jordan domains. Math Z 2008,260(2):237–252. 10.1007/s00209-007-0270-9MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Aikawa H: Hölder continuity of the Dirichlet solution for a general domain. Bull Lond Math Soc 2002,34(6):691–702. 10.1112/S0024609302001522MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Sugawa T: On boundary regularity of the Dirichlet problem for plane domains(preprint, 1999).Google Scholar
Vuorinen M: Conformal Geometry and Quasiregular Mappings. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1988, 1319: Springer, Berlin.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Hesse J: A p -extremal length and p -capacity equality. Ark Mat 1975, 13: 131–141. 10.1007/BF02386202MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Ziemer WP: Extremal length and p -capacity. Michigan Math J 1969, 16: 43–51.MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Carleson L: Selected Problems on Exceptional Sets. Van Nostrand Mathematical Studies Princeton 1967.Google Scholar
Caffarelli LA, Kinderlehrer D: Potential methods in variational inequalities. J Anal Math 1980, 37: 285–295. 10.1007/BF02797689MATHMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.