alphaFeedback

WorksMathematics

A counterexample to the fractional Michael-Simon inequality

AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details

Abstract

We show that the fractional Michael-Simon inequality does not hold for general smooth hypersurfaces and for the range of 0 < s < (n-1)/n in the case p=1. We construct a family of smooth hypersurfaces, whose fractional mean curvature is nonnegative everywhere, which violates the inequality in the limit. The same construction yields a counterexample for every 1 \leq p < \infty for the range s < (n-1)/(np).

Introduction

The classical Michael-Simon-Allard inequality states that, for a smooth mm-dimensional submanifold MM without boundary in Euclidean space and 1≤p<m1 \le p < m,

∥u∥Lp∗(M)≤C(∥∇Mu∥Lp(M)+∥Hu∥Lp(M)),p∗=mpm−p,\|u\|_{L^{p^*}(M)} \le C\left(\|\nabla_M u\|_{L^p(M)}+\|Hu\|_{L^p(M)}\right), \qquad p^*=\frac{mp}{m-p},

for every compactly supported smooth function uu on MM. Here HH is the mean curvature of MM. This inequality was proved independently by Allard [1] and Michael and Simon [12], and the optimal constant in the case p=1p=1 in codimension at most two is due to Brendle [4].

We consider the nonlocal counterpart for boundaries of sets in Rn\mathbb{R}^n, n≥2n \ge2. Let s∈(0,1)s \in(0,1), for a measurable set E⊂RnE \subset\mathbb{R}^n, the fractional perimeter Ps(E)P_s(E) is given by

Ps(E)=∫E∫Rn∖Edy dx∣x−y∣n+s.P_s(E)=\int_E\int_{\mathbb{R}^n\setminus E}\frac{dy\,dx}{|x-y|^{n+s}}.

see [7]. If EE is bounded and open with C2C^2 boundary, its fractional mean curvature HsE(x)H_s^E(x) at x∈∂Ex \in\partial E is

HsE(x)=p.v.⁡∫RnχRn∖E(y)−χE(y)∣x−y∣n+s dy(1)H_s^E(x)=\operatorname{p.v.}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\frac{\chi_{\mathbb{R}^n\setminus E}(y)-\chi_E(y)}{|x-y|^{n+s}}\,dy \tag*{(1)}

where p.v. stands for principal value. As customary, we denote by P(E)P(E) the perimeter of EE. For bounded Lipschitz domains it holds P(E)=Hn−1(∂E)P(E)=\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial E). We also write ωn=∣B1∣\omega_n=|B_1|. The natural fractional analogue of (MS) of order (s,p)(s,p) for 0<s<10<s<1 and 1≤p<∞1 \le p < \infty such that sp<n−1sp<n-1 reads as, for a constant C=C(n,s,p)C=C(n,s,p) independent of EE,

∥u∥Lps∗(∂E)≤C([u]Ws,p(∂E)p+∫∂E∣HsE∣p∣u∣p dHn−1)1p,\|u\|_{L^{p_s^*}(\partial E)} \le C\left([u]_{W^{s,p}(\partial E)}^p+\int_{\partial E}|H_s^E|^p|u|^p\,d\mathcal{H}^{n-1}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}},

for u∈C∞(∂E)u \in C^\infty(\partial E) when ∂E\partial E is bounded and u∈Cc∞(∂E)u \in C^\infty_c(\partial E) in general see e.g. [6], where ps∗=(n−1)pn−1−spp_s^*=\frac{(n-1)p}{n-1-sp} and

[u]Ws,p(∂E)p=∫∂E∫∂E∣u(x)−u(y)∣p∣x−y∣n−1+sp dHn−1(y) dHn−1(x);[u]_{W^{s,p}(\partial E)}^p=\int_{\partial E}\int_{\partial E}\frac{|u(x)-u(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{n-1+sp}}\,d\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(y)\,d\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(x);

2020 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 26D10; Secondary 46E35, 49Q20, 53A07.

Key words and phrases. Michael–Simon inequality, Allard inequality, fractional perimeter, nonlocal mean curvature.

Funding. V. Julin was supported by the Academy of Finland grant 347550. G. Palatucci has been supported by the INdAM project 2026 “Parabolic equations with drift: well posedness, gradient estimates and boundary effects” – CUP_E53C25002010001. see [10]. Related fractional Sobolev inequalities are known for nonlocal minimal surfaces ([5 Proposition 5.2]) and, more recently, for sets with vanishing fractional mean curvature ([14]). Eventually, Cabré, Cozzi, and Csató proved (MSps)(\mathrm{MS}_p^s) when EE is convex in an even more general formulation allowing the exponent in the curvature disagreeing with that of the fractional energy, in [6 Theorem 1.3] they use convexity in a pointwise estimate that combines the fractional Sobolev kernel with HαEH_\alpha^E. Csató and Roy subsequently extended this result to a fractional Caffarelli–Kohn–Nirenberg family on convex hypersurfaces [9 Theorem 1.1]. A weaker fractional Michael–Simon inequality on convex hypersurfaces under a subcritical fractional Willmore energy bound was obtained by Blatt, Giacomin, Schikorra, and Scheuer; see [2]. The extension of (MSps)(\mathrm{MS}_p^s) beyond convexity is explicitly left open in [6 p. 190, after Formula (1.13)], [9 Section 1, before Theorem 1.1] and [14 Section 1, after Formula (1.7)].

Observe that by considering (MSps)(\mathrm{MS}_p^s) with the choice u≡1u \equiv1, the inequality becomes

MS~psP(E)n−1−spn−1≤C∫∂E∣HsE∣p dHn−1.\widetilde{\mathrm{MS}}_p^s \qquad P(E)^{\frac{n-1-sp}{n-1}} \leq C \int_{\partial E} \lvert H_s^E\rvert^p \, \mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}.

In particular, if (MS~ps)(\widetilde{\mathrm{MS}}_p^s) would hold then a uniform bound on ∥HsE∥Lp(∂E)\lVert H_s^E\rVert_{L^p(\partial E)} would imply uniform bound on the perimeter. In this note we prove that the preceding inequality, and therefore (MS~ps)(\widetilde{\mathrm{MS}}_p^s), fails for general smooth sets whenever 0<s<(n−1)/(np)0<s<(n-1)/(np). The failure occurs even though HsE≥0H_s^E\geq0 at every point of the boundary. This gives a negative answer to the extension problem in this range. It also precludes extending the whole family of Csató and Roy [9 Theorem 1.1] to all smooth boundaries with constants independent of the hypersurface: the choice a=1a=1, α=s\alpha=s, γ=0\gamma=0 and τ=ps∗\tau=p^*_s in their notation gives indeed (MSps)(\mathrm{MS}_p^s).

For the construction of our counterexample, we maximize the fractional perimeter over a compact family of radial configurations, allowing coincident radii. Each configuration admits an open representative whose boundary is a finite union of concentric spheres. Homogeneity implies that the outermost boundary sphere of a maximizer has the prescribed radius. Radial variations give zero fractional mean curvature on every internal sphere, while a dilation computes the curvature on the outer sphere. The use of concentric annuli is inspired by the work of Cesaroni and Novaga ([8]). In Theorem 2.3 there, they balance the fractional mean curvature through the nonlocal interactions between concentric spheres to construct radial self-shrinkers. We use a similar type of interaction for a different purpose: we select the radii through a different variational problem to obtain the loss of coercivity between the classical perimeter and the fractional quantities.

The counterexample

Unless otherwise specified, all constants in this section depend only on nn, ss, and pp.

Theorem 2.1. Let n≥2n\geq2, 1≤p<∞1\leq p<\infty and 0<s<(n−1)/(np)0<s<(n-1)/(np). There exists a sequence of bounded open sets AN⊂B1A_N\subset B_1, N=4,6,8,…N=4,6,8,\ldots, with C∞C^\infty boundaries, such that

HsAN≥0on ∂AN,P(AN)n−1−spn−1∫∂AN∣HsAN∣p dHn−1⟶+∞.(2)H_s^{A_N}\geq0 \quad\text{on }\partial A_N,\qquad \frac{P(A_N)^{\frac{n-1-sp}{n-1}}}{\int_{\partial A_N}\lvert H_s^{A_N}\rvert^p\,\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}}\longrightarrow+\infty. \tag*{(2)}

In particular, the fractional Michael–Simon–Allard inequality cannot hold for all bounded smooth open sets.

In order to prove the result above, we need some preliminary results.

Lemma 2.2. For every set A⊂RnA\subset\mathbb{R}^n of finite measure and finite perimeter one has

Ps(A)≤C∣A∣1−sP(A)s.(3)P_s(A)\leq C\lvert A\rvert^{1-s}P(A)^s. \tag*{(3)}

If χAj→χA\chi_{A_j}\to\chi_A in L1(Rn)L^1(\mathbb{R}^n) and sup⁡jP(Aj)<∞\sup_j P(A_j)<\infty, then Ps(Aj)→Ps(A)P_s(A_j)\to P_s(A).

Proof. The inequality (3) is well-known, see e.g. [3 Corollary 4.3] or [13 Formula (1.4)]. Indeed, [3 Proposition 4.2] gives the following general interpolation inequality,

[u]Ws,1≤C∥u∥L11−s∣Du∣(Rn)s,(4)[u]_{W^{s,1}} \le C\|u\|_{L^{1}}^{1-s}|Du|(\mathbb{R}^{n})^{s}, \tag*{(4)}

for any u∈BV(Rn)∩L1(Rn)u \in BV(\mathbb{R}^{n}) \cap L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n}). Inequality (3) then follows by applying (4) to u=χAu=\chi_A and using [χA]Ws,1=2Ps(A)[\chi_A]_{W^{s,1}}=2P_s(A).

For the last assertion, lower semicontinuity of total variation gives P(A)<∞P(A)<\infty. Applying (4) to uj=χAj−χAu_j=\chi_{A_j}-\chi_A, whose total variations are uniformly bounded, we obtain

2∣Ps(Aj)−Ps(A)∣≤[χAj−χA]Ws,1≲∥χAj−χA∥L11−s⟶0.2\left|P_s(A_j)-P_s(A)\right| \le[\chi_{A_j}-\chi_A]_{W^{s,1}} \lesssim\|\chi_{A_j}-\chi_A\|_{L^1}^{1-s} \longrightarrow0.

Fix R∈(0,1]R\in(0,1] and an even integer N≥4N\ge4. Motivated by the concentric argument of Cesaroni and Novaga in [8 Theorem 2.3], we define

JR(N)={r=(r1,…,rN):0≤r1≤⋯≤rN=R}.\mathbf{J}^{(N)}_R=\left\{\mathbf{r}=(r_1,\ldots,r_N):0\le r_1\le\cdots\le r_N=R\right\}.

and to any r∈JR(N)\mathbf{r}\in\mathbf{J}^{(N)}_R we associate the set A(r)A(\mathbf{r}) defined by

A(r)=⋃j=1N/2(Br2j∖B‾r2j−1).(5)A(\mathbf{r})=\bigcup_{j=1}^{N/2}\left(B_{r_{2j}}\setminus\overline{B}_{r_{2j-1}}\right). \tag*{(5)}

Degenerate configurations are regarded as equivalence classes modulo negligible sets. Almost everywhere,

χA(r)=∑i=1N(−1)iχBri;P(A(r))≤∑i=1NP(Bri)≤nωnNRn−1.(6)\chi_{A(\mathbf{r})}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}(-1)^i\chi_{B_{r_i}}; \qquad P(A(\mathbf{r}))\le\sum_{i=1}^{N}P(B_{r_i})\le n\omega_nNR^{n-1}. \tag*{(6)}

Lemma 2.3. For a fixed NN, the function r↦Ps(A(r))\mathbf{r}\mapsto P_s(A(\mathbf{r})) attains its maximum on JR(N)\mathbf{J}^{(N)}_R. Every maximizer admits an open representative AN,RA_{N,R} with C∞C^\infty boundary consisting of at most NN concentric spheres, including ∂BR\partial B_R, and satisfying

HsAN,R=0on ∂AN,R∩BR.(7)H^{A_{N,R}}_s=0\quad\text{on }\partial A_{N,R}\cap B_R. \tag*{(7)}

Proof. By (6), for r,t∈JR(N)\mathbf{r},\mathbf{t}\in\mathbf{J}^{(N)}_R,

∥χA(r)−χA(t)∥L1≤ωn∑i=1N∣rin−tin∣.\|\chi_{A(\mathbf{r})}-\chi_{A(\mathbf{t})}\|_{L^1}\le\omega_n\sum_{i=1}^{N}|r_i^n-t_i^n|.

The perimeters are uniformly bounded by (6). Lemma 2.2 therefore gives the continuity of r↦Ps(A(r))\mathbf{r}\mapsto P_s(A(\mathbf{r})). Since JR(N)\mathbf{J}^{(N)}_R is compact, a maximum is attained.

Let r\mathbf{r} be a maximizing vector and set A=AN,R:=int⁡(A(r))A=A_{N,R}:=\operatorname{int}(A(\mathbf{r})). This representative coincides with A(r)A(\mathbf{r}) almost everywhere.

Notice that, since BRB_R belongs to the family modulo negligible sets, it holds

Ps(A)≥Ps(BR)>0.P_s(A)\ge P_s(B_R)>0.

The radial characteristic function has finitely many jumps, so

∂A=⋃j=1m∂Bρj,0<ρ1<⋯<ρm≤R,m≤N.\partial A=\bigcup_{j=1}^{m}\partial B_{\rho_j},\qquad0<\rho_1<\cdots<\rho_m\le R,\qquad m\le N.

In particular, ∂A\partial A is C∞C^\infty.

We claim that ρm=R\rho_m=R. Otherwise, choose 1<λ<R/ρm1<\lambda<R/\rho_m and set

r~i=min⁡{λri,R},1≤i≤N.\widetilde r_i=\min\{\lambda r_i,R\},\qquad1\le i\le N.

Then r~∈JR(N)\tilde{r} \in J_R^{(N)} and, almost everywhere,

A(r~)=(λA)∩BR=λA.A(\tilde{r})=(\lambda A)\cap B_R=\lambda A.

Consequently,

Ps(A(r~))=Ps(λA)=λ2n−(n+s)Ps(A)=λn−sPs(A)>Ps(A),P_s(A(\tilde{r}))=P_s(\lambda A)=\lambda^{2n-(n+s)}P_s(A)=\lambda^{n-s}P_s(A)>P_s(A),

which is a contradiction in view of the maximality of AA.

We are left to prove the equality (7). To that aim we fix one of the internal spheres ∂Bρj\partial B_{\rho_j}, choose a function ψ∈C1(∂A)\psi\in C^1(\partial A) such that ψ=1\psi=1 on ∂Bρj\partial B_{\rho_j} and ψ=0\psi=0 on ∂A∖∂Bρj\partial A\setminus\partial B_{\rho_j}. We construct a radial vector field X∈C01(U;Rn)X\in C_0^1(U;\mathbb{R}^n), where UU is a neighborhood of ∂Bρj\partial B_{\rho_j} and which does not intersect the set ∂A∖∂Bρj\partial A\setminus\partial B_{\rho_j}, such that X⋅νA=ψX\cdot\nu_A=\psi on ∂A\partial A. Consider the associated flow of diffeomorphisms Φt\Phi_t, i.e., ∂∂tΦt=X(Φt)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi_t=X(\Phi_t) and Φ0(x)=x\Phi_0(x)=x for all x∈Rnx\in\mathbb{R}^n. When ∣t∣|t| is small the sets Φt(A)\Phi_t(A) are admissible and the first-variation Formula (6.12) in [11], Theorem 6.1 implies

0=ddtPs(Φt(A))∣t=0=∫∂AHsA(x)ψ(x) dHn−1=∫∂BρjHsA(x) dHn−1.0=\left.\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}P_s(\Phi_t(A))\right|_{t=0}=\int_{\partial A}H_s^A(x)\psi(x)\,\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}=\int_{\partial B_{\rho_j}}H_s^A(x)\,\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}.

By the radial symmetry HsAH_s^A is constant on ∂Bρj\partial B_{\rho_j} and therefore we deduce that HsA=0H_s^A=0 on ∂Bρj\partial B_{\rho_j}. This proves the claim. □

We are now in the position to complete the construction of our counterexample.

Proof of Theorem 2.1. Let N≥4N\geq4 be even and let AN,RA_{N,R} be the open representative of a maximizer given by Lemma 2.3.

Step 1: Estimates on the perimeters. We first show that there are constants c∗,C∗>0c_*,C_*>0, depending only on nn and ss, such that the family (5) contains a competitor A∗A^* satisfying

Ps(A∗)≥c∗NsRn−s,P_s(A^*)\geq c_*N^sR^{n-s},

and every member AA of the family satisfies

Ps(A)≤C∗NsRn−s,P_s(A)\leq C_*N^sR^{n-s},

so that, as a consequence, any maximizer AN,RA_{N,R} in Lemma 2.3 satisfies

c∗NsRn−s≤Ps(AN,R)≤C∗NsRn−s.(8)c_*N^sR^{n-s}\leq P_s(A_{N,R})\leq C_*N^sR^{n-s}. \tag*{(8)}

Set h=12RN−1h=\frac{1}{2}\frac{R}{N-1} and choose

ri∗=R2+(i−1)h,1≤i≤N.r_i^*=\frac{R}{2}+(i-1)h,\qquad1\leq i\leq N.

Let

A∗=⋃j=1N/2(Br2j∗∖B‾r2j−1∗).A^*=\bigcup_{j=1}^{N/2}\left(B_{r_{2j}^*}\setminus\overline{B}_{r_{2j-1}^*}\right).

For 1≤j≤N/2−11\leq j\leq N/2-1, set qj=r2j−1∗q_j=r_{2j-1}^* and

Xj=Bqj+3h/4∖B‾qj+h/4⊂A∗.X_j=B_{q_j+3h/4}\setminus\overline{B}_{q_j+h/4}\subset A^*.

For x=rθ∈Xjx=r\theta\in X_j, with θ∈Sn−1=∂B1\theta\in S^{n-1}=\partial B_1, define

C(θ)={φ∈Sn−1:∣φ−θ∣<h10R},Hn−1(C(θ))≥c(hR)n−1,C(\theta)=\left\{\varphi\in S^{n-1}:|\varphi-\theta|<\frac{h}{10R}\right\},\qquad\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(C(\theta))\geq c\left(\frac{h}{R}\right)^{n-1},

and

Yj(x)={tφ:qj+5h4<t<qj+7h4, φ∈C(θ)}⊂Rn∖A∗.Y_j(x)=\left\{t\varphi:q_j+\frac{5h}{4}<t<q_j+\frac{7h}{4},\ \varphi\in C(\theta)\right\}\subset\mathbb{R}^n\setminus A^*.

Since all these radii lie between R/2R/2 and RR, polar coordinates give

∣Xj∣=nωn∫qj+h/4qj+3h/4rn−1 dr≥cRn−1h,|X_j| = n\omega_n \int_{q_j+h/4}^{q_j+3h/4} r^{n-1}\,\mathrm{d}r \ge cR^{n-1}h,
∣Yj(x)∣=Hn−1(C(θ))∫qj+5h/4qj+7h/4tn−1 dt≥chn.|Y_j(x)| = \mathcal{H}^{n-1}(C(\theta)) \int_{q_j+5h/4}^{q_j+7h/4} t^{n-1}\,\mathrm{d}t \ge ch^n.

Moreover, for x=rθ∈Xjx=r\theta\in X_j and y=tφ∈Yj(x)y=t\varphi\in Y_j(x),

∣x−y∣=∣(r−t)θ+t(θ−φ)∣≤∣r−t∣+t∣θ−φ∣≤3h2+h10≤2h.|x-y|=|(r-t)\theta+t(\theta-\varphi)|\le|r-t|+t|\theta-\varphi|\le\frac{3h}{2}+\frac{h}{10}\le2h.

The sets XjX_j are pairwise disjoint and N/2−1≥N/4N/2-1\ge N/4. Hence

Ps(A∗)≥∑j=1N/2−1∫Xj∫Yj(x)dy dx∣x−y∣n+s≥1(2h)n+s∑j=1N/2−1∫Xj∣Yj(x)∣ dx≥cNRn−1h1−s≥c∗NsRn−s,\begin{aligned} P_s(A^*)\ge\sum_{j=1}^{N/2-1}\int_{X_j}\int_{Y_j(x)}\frac{\mathrm{d}y\,\mathrm{d}x}{|x-y|^{n+s}} \\ &\ge\frac{1}{(2h)^{n+s}}\sum_{j=1}^{N/2-1}\int_{X_j}|Y_j(x)|\,\mathrm{d}x \\ &\ge cNR^{n-1}h^{1-s}\ge c_*N^sR^{n-s}, \end{aligned}

as desired.

For the upper bound, notice that, for any member AA of the family, (3) and (6) give

Ps(A)≤C∣A∣1−sP(A)s≤C(ωnRn)1−s(nωnNRn−1)s≤C∗NsRn−s.(9)P_s(A)\le C|A|^{1-s}P(A)^s\le C(\omega_nR^n)^{1-s}(n\omega_nNR^{n-1})^s\le C_*N^sR^{n-s}. \tag*{(9)}

Maximality then yields the estimates in (8).

Finally, such a maximizer AN,RA_{N,R} satisfies

cNRn−1≤P(AN,R)≤nωnNRn−1.(10)cNR^{n-1}\le P(A_{N,R})\le n\omega_nNR^{n-1}. \tag*{(10)}

Indeed, by construction, c∗NsRn−s≤CRn(1−s)P(AN,R)sc_*N^sR^{n-s}\le CR^{n(1-s)}P(A_{N,R})^s, and thus taking the ssth-root gives the lower bound in (10); whereas the upper bound is already contained in (6).

Step 2: Estimates on the nonlocal curvature. Write A=AN,RA=A_{N,R}. By radial symmetry and (7), there is a constant CN,RC_{N,R} such that

HsA(x)={0,x∈∂A∖∂BR,CN,R,x∈∂BR.H_s^A(x)= \begin{cases} 0, & x\in\partial A\setminus\partial B_R,\\ C_{N,R}, & x\in\partial B_R. \end{cases}

We choose the velocity vector field X∈C1(Rn;Rn)X\in C^1(\mathbb{R}^n;\mathbb{R}^n) such that X(x)=xX(x)=x in B2RB_{2R}. Then for x∈Ax\in A and for ∣t∣|t| sufficiently small it holds Φt(x)=etx\Phi_t(x)=e^tx. Therefore, it holds

Ps(Φt(A))=(et)n−sPs(A)=e(n−s)tPs(A).(11)P_s(\Phi_t(A))=(e^t)^{n-s}P_s(A)=e^{(n-s)t}P_s(A). \tag*{(11)}

Since X(x)⋅νA=RX(x)\cdot\nu_A=R on ∂BR\partial B_R and HsA=0H_s^A=0 on ∂A∖∂BR\partial A\setminus\partial B_R, the first-variation Formula (6.12) in [11 Theorem 6.1] and (11) imply

nωnRnCN,R=∫∂AHsA(x)X(x)⋅νA(x) dHn−1(x)=ddtPs(Φt(A))∣t=0=(n−s)Ps(A)>0.(12)\begin{aligned} n\omega_nR^nC_{N,R}=\int_{\partial A}H_s^A(x)X(x)\cdot\nu_A(x)\,\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(x) \\ &=\left.\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}P_s(\Phi_t(A))\right|_{t=0} \\ &=(n-s)P_s(A)>0. \tag*{(12)} \end{aligned}

Thus CN,R>0C_{N,R}>0 and HsA≥0H_s^A\geq0 on ∂A\partial A. Moreover, for every 1≤p<∞1\leq p<\infty we have by the above

∫∂A∣HsA∣p dHn−1=nωnRn−1CN,Rp=(n−s)p(nωn)p−1Rn(p−1)+1Ps(A)p.(13)\int_{\partial A} \lvert H_s^A\rvert^p\,\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}=n\omega_n R^{n-1}C_{N,R}^p =\frac{(n-s)^p}{(n\omega_n)^{p-1}R^{n(p-1)+1}}P_s(A)^p. \tag*{(13)}

Step 3: Completion of the proof. For each even N≥4N\geq4, take AN=AN,1A_N=A_{N,1} from Lemma 2.3. Then ANA_N is open, is contained in B1B_1, and has a C∞C^\infty boundary consisting of at most NN concentric spheres. Steps 1 and 2 yield

cN≤P(AN)≤CN,cN\leq P(A_N)\leq CN,
cNsp≤∫∂AN∣HsAN∣p dHn−1≤CNsp,cN^{sp}\leq\int_{\partial A_N}\lvert H_s^{A_N}\rvert^p\,\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}\leq CN^{sp},

where the constants may also depend on pp. Then, up to relabeling the constants,

P(AN)n−1−spn−1∫∂AN∣HsAN∣p dHn−1≥cNn−1−spn−1Nsp=cN1−nspn−1⟶+∞,\frac{P(A_N)^{\frac{n-1-sp}{n-1}}}{\int_{\partial A_N}\lvert H_s^{A_N}\rvert^p\,\mathrm{d}\mathcal{H}^{n-1}} \geq c\frac{N^{\frac{n-1-sp}{n-1}}}{N^{sp}} =cN^{1-\frac{nsp}{n-1}}\longrightarrow+\infty,

for 0<s<(n−1)/(np)0<s<(n-1)/(np), as claimed. □

(V. Julin) Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Jyväskylä, P. O. Box 35, FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Email address: [email protected]

(G. Palatucci) Department of Mathematical, Physical and Computer Sciences, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 53/A, 43124 Parma, Italy

Email address: [email protected]

References

  1. [1]W. K. Allard: On the first variation of a varifold. Ann. of Math. 95 (1972), 417–491.
  2. [2]S. Blatt, G. Giacomin, A. Schikorra, J. Scheuer: A fractional Willmore-type energy functional-subcritical observations. In MATRIX Book Series 6, Springer, Cham, 5–27, 2025.arxiv.org/abs/2306.16941
  3. [3]L. Brasco, E. Lindgren, E. Parini: The fractional Cheeger problem. Interfaces Free Bound. 16 (2014), no. 3, 419–458.arxiv.org/abs/1308.3975
  4. [4]S. Brendle: The isoperimetric inequality for a minimal submanifold in Euclidean space. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 34 (2021), 595–603.arxiv.org/abs/1907.09446
  5. [5]X. Cabré, M. Cozzi: A gradient estimate for nonlocal minimal graphs. Duke Math. J. 168 (2019), 775–848.DOI
  6. [6]X. Cabré, M. Cozzi, G. Csató: A fractional Michael–Simon Sobolev inequality on convex hypersurfaces. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 40 (2023), 185–214.arxiv.org/abs/2004.13129
  7. [7]L. Caffarelli, J.-M. Roquejoffre, O. Savin: Nonlocal minimal surfaces. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 63 (2010), 1111–1144.
  8. [8]A. Cesaroni, M. Novaga: Symmetric self-shrinkers for the fractional mean curvature flow. J. Geom. Anal. 30 (2020), 3698–3715.arxiv.org/abs/1812.01847
  9. [9]G. Csató, P. Roy: A fractional Hardy–Sobolev inequality of Michael–Simon type on convex hypersurfaces. Math. Ann. 395 (2026), Paper No. 14.DOI
  10. [10]E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci, E. Valdinoci: Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces. Bull. Sci. math. 136 (2012), 521–573.
  11. [11]A. Figalli, N. Fusco, F. Maggi, V. Millot, M. Morini: Isoperimetry and stability properties of balls with respect to nonlocal energies. Comm. Math. Phys. 336 (2015), 441–507.
  12. [12]J. H. Michael, L. M. Simon: Sobolev and mean-value inequalities on generalized submanifolds of ℝⁿ. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 26 (1973), 361–379.DOI
  13. [13]A. C. Ponce, D. Spector: A note on the fractional perimeter and interpolation. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 355 (2017), 960–965.DOI
  14. [14]J. Thompson: Density estimates and the fractional Sobolev inequality for sets of zero s-mean curvature. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 65 (2026), Article no. 2.arxiv.org/abs/2406.04618

Paper details

vlnc:W_tpzzu66v
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 0

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Mathematics

Not recorded for this paper · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents