Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Advances in Nonlinear Analysis

Editor-in-Chief: Radulescu, Vicentiu / Squassina, Marco

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 6.636

CiteScore 2018: 5.03

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 3.215
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 3.225

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2017: 1.89

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

On viscosity and weak solutions for non-homogeneous p-Laplace equations

Maria Medina
  • Facultad de Matemáticas, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avenida Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago, Chile
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Pablo Ochoa
Published Online: 2017-06-04 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/anona-2017-0005


In this manuscript, we study the relation between viscosity and weak solutions for non-homogeneous p-Laplace equations with lower-order term depending on x, u and u. More precisely, we prove that any locally bounded viscosity solution constitutes a weak solution, extending results presented in Juutinen, Lindqvist and Manfredi [9], and Julin and Juutinen [6]. Moreover, we provide a converse statement in the full case under extra assumptions on the data.

Keywords: weak solutions; viscosity solutions; non-homogeneous equation

MSC 2010: 35J92; 35J70; 35D40; 35D30

1 Introduction and main results

In this work, we consider the following degenerate (or singular) elliptic equations of p-Laplacian type:


defined in an open and bounded set Ωn and for 1<p<. The modulus of ellipticity of the p-Laplace operator is |u|p-2. When p>2, the modulus vanishes whenever u=0, and the equation is called degenerate at those points where that occurs. On the other hand, for p<2, the modulus becomes infinite when u=0, and the equation is called singular at those points. Observe that the case p=2 is just the linear case and corresponds to the Laplace operator.

Different notions of solutions have been formulated for equation (1.1). We are interested in the relation between Sobolev weak solutions and viscosity solutions. For the homogeneous p-Laplace equation, this relation has already been studied by Juutinen, Lindqvist and Manfredi in [9], via the notion of p-harmonic, p-subharmonic and p-superharmonic functions. Roughly speaking, a p-harmonic function is a continuous function which solves, weakly, the homogeneous p-Laplace equation, and a p-superharmonic (p-subharmonic) function is a lower (upper) semicontinuous function that admits comparison with p-harmonic functions from below (above).

In [9], Juutinen, Lindqvist and Manfredi showed that the notion of p-harmonic solution is equivalent to the notion of viscosity solution. Moreover, it was shown in [13] that locally bounded p-harmonic functions are weak solutions. Conversely, every weak solution to the homogeneous p-Laplace equation has a representative which is lower semicontinuous and it is p-harmonic. We refer the interested reader to [5] for further details. In this way, there is an equivalence between the notion of weak and viscosity solutions for the homogeneous framework. It is worth to mention that a different and simpler proof of this equivalence was stated by Julin and Juutinen in [6] by using inf and sup convolutions. In turn, this reasoning was extended in [10] to more general second-order differential equations.

For the non-homogeneous case, the notion of p-harmonic functions is lost and we need to study directly the link between viscosity and Sobolev weak solutions. In [6], the authors showed that viscosity solutions of (1.1) are weak solutions in the case where f is continuous and depends only on x.

Our main goal in the present manuscript is to prove the equivalence of these two notions of solutions for the general structure (1.1). The implication that viscosity solutions are weak solutions is partially based on the work [6], but the non-homogeneous nature of the equation under consideration requires some extra effort to deal with the lower-order term.

On the other hand, the converse statement relies on comparison principles for weak solutions. To the best of our knowledge, the available comparison results for the full case f=f(x,s,η) require additional limitations in the degenerate case which do not appear in the singular context (compare Theorem A.1 and Theorem A.2). Moreover, we believe that the assumption that weak subsolutions and weak supersolutions belong to 𝒞1 or to the Sobolev space Wloc1, in order to have comparison is not a strong limitation since we are interested in the equivalence of weak and viscosity solutions, and for weak solutions the 𝒞1,α-regularity holds (see [4, 16]). Finally, in the quasi-linear case f=f(x,u) there is no need to impose higher regularity than Wloc1,p𝒞 on the solutions. We refer the reader to [15] for a survey of maximum principles and comparison results for general structures in divergence form.

Finally, we stress that the equivalence between weak and viscosity solutions may be used to prove relevant properties on the solutions. As an example, in [7], Juutinen and Lindqvist prove a Radó’s-type theorem for p-harmonic functions. Roughly speaking, they state that if a function u solves, weakly, the homogeneous p-Laplace equation in the complement of the set where u vanishes, then it is a solution in the whole set. It is an open problem to obtain a similar result for equations like (1.1). We shall return to this issue in a subsequent paper.

We recall that the p-Laplace operator is defined as


Let us state the different type of solutions to (1.1) we will manage.

Definition 1.1 (Sobolev weak solution).

A function uWloc1,p(Ω) is a weak supersolution to (1.1) if


for all non-negative ψC0(Ω). On the other hand, u is a weak subsolution if -u is a weak supersolution of the equation -Δpu=-f(x,-u,-u). We call u a weak solution if it is both a weak subsolution and a weak supersolution to (1.1).

Due to the non-homogeneous nature of (1.1), viscosity solutions are stated as in [6], considering semicontinuous envelopes of the p-Laplace operator. More precisely, we have the following definition.

Definition 1.2.

A lower semicontinuous function u:Ω(-,+] is a viscosity supersolution to (1.1) if u+ and for every ϕC2(Ω) such that ϕ(x0)=u(x0), u(x)ϕ(x) and ϕ(x)0 for all xx0, there holds


A function u is a viscosity subsolution if -u is a viscosity supersolution to the equation -Δpu=-f(x,-u,-u), and it is a viscosity solution if it is both a viscosity sub- and supersolution.

Remark 1.3.

Notice that condition (1.2) is established this way to avoid the problems derived from having ϕ(x0)=0 in the case 1<p<2. If p2, this condition can be simply replaced by


We now list the main contributions of our work. The results are stated for supersolutions, but they hold for subsolutions as well.

Theorem 1.4.

Let 1<p<. Assume that f=f(x,s,η) is uniformly continuous in Ω×R×Rn, non-increasing in s, and satisfies the growth condition


where γ0 is continuous, and ϕLloc(Ω). Hence, if uLloc(Ω) is a viscosity supersolution to (1.1), then it is a weak supersolution to (1.1).

A converse of Theorem 1.4 is given below.

Theorem 1.5.

Assume that f=f(x,s,η) is continuous in Ω×R×Rn, non-increasing in s, and locally Lipschitz continuous with respect to η. Hence we have the following:

  • (i)

    If 1<p2 and if uWloc1,(Ω) is a weak supersolution to ( 1.1 ), then it is a viscosity supersolution to ( 1.1 ) in Ω.

  • (ii)

    If p>2, f(x,s,0)=0 for xΩ and s , and if u𝒞1(Ω) is a weak supersolution to ( 1.1 ), then it is a viscosity supersolution to ( 1.1 ) in Ω.

  • (iii)

    Finally, if p>2 and if uWloc1,(Ω) is a weak supersolution to ( 1.1 ), with u0 in Ω , then it is a viscosity supersolution to ( 1.1 ).

Remark 1.6.

According to recent results (see [11]), it is possible to weak the locally Lipschitz assumption in Theorem 1.5 when f takes some particular forms or it satisfies extra convexity and coercivity assumptions. For instance, as a consequence of the results in [11], if

f(x,η)=c|η|q+ϕ(x),ϕ>0,c,ηn, and q[1,p],

then Theorem 1.5 holds for bounded supersolutions u in W1,p(Ω)𝒞(Ω). It is also a consequence of [11, Theorem 1.3] that the same conclusion is obtained when


where h0 is decreasing and ϕ0.

In view of the available regularity theory for weak solutions of (1.1), we have the following equivalence.

Corollary 1.7.

Let 1<p<. Assume that f=f(x,s,η) is uniformly continuous, locally Lipschitz in η, non-increasing in s, and satisfies the growth condition (1.3). Additionally, assume that f(x,s,0)=0 for xΩ and sR when p>2. Then u is a weak solution to (1.1) if and only if it is a viscosity solution to (1.1).

We point out that, in the degenerate case, it is possible to remove the assumption f(x,s,0)=0 by imposing the non-vanishing of the gradient of the weak solution in the whole Ω. This is a straightforward consequence of Theorem 1.5 (iii).

In the particular case where f does not depend on η, we have the following converse to Theorem 1.4 which does not require the locally Lipschitz regularity of the solutions.

Theorem 1.8.

Let 1<p<. Suppose that f=f(x,s) is continuous in Ω×R and non-increasing in s. If uWloc1,p(Ω)C(Ω) is a weak supersolution to (1.1), then it is a viscosity supersolution to (1.1).

Let us briefly discuss the above hypotheses on f. Firstly, assuming that f is non-increasing and introducing the operator


we derive that F is proper, that is, F is non-increasing in 𝒳 and non-decreasing in s, which is a standard and useful assumption in the theory of viscosity solutions [1]. For instance, it allows to get the equivalence between classical solutions (𝒞2 functions which satisfy the equations pointwise) and 𝒞2 viscosity solutions. On the other hand, the growth property (1.3) implies the 𝒞1,α-regularity of weak solutions to (1.1) (see [4, 17, 16]). Moreover, under a regular Dirichlet boundary condition φ𝒞1,α, the 𝒞1,α-regularity up to the boundary of weak solutions follows. For further details, see the reference [12]. Finally, the extra assumption f(x,s,0)=0 appearing in Theorem 1.5 in the degenerate case is used to remove critical sets of points of the weak solution (see reference [8]). Hence, it allows the application of comparison results without assuming the non-vanishing of the gradients. We point out that other properties of f=f(x,s,η), as more regularity on s and η and convexity-like conditions, may be employed to ensure comparison for weak solutions. We refer the reader to [11] and the references therein for more details.

It is worth mentioning that many equations appearing in the literature have the structure of (1.1) with the lower-order term satisfying the above assumptions on f. We refer the reader to [14, 15, 3, 2] and the references therein for examples of such f.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we provide some preliminary results concerning properties of infimal convolutions (which will be the main tool in the proof of Theorem 1.4) and a convergence result. In addition, we prove a Caccioppoli-type estimate that will provide important uniform bounds, fundamental when using approximation arguments. This result is interesting in itself.

Section 3 contains the proof of the main result of the paper, Theorem 1.4, that states under which conditions on the non-homogeneous function f in (1.1) viscosity solutions are actually weak solutions. This proof is divided into two major cases: the singular and the degenerate scenario, thus, although both cases rely on the same idea, different approximations and estimates are needed depending on the range of p.

In Section 4, we prove the reverse statement, that is, weak solutions of (1.1) are viscosity solutions. This result is based on comparison arguments, and this will determine the conditions we will need to impose on f. Finally, in Appendix A we give, for the sake of completeness, precise references and state the comparison results that we use in Section 4.

2 Preliminary results

2.1 Infimal convolution

Let us define the infimal convolution of a function u as


where q2 and ε>0.

We recall some useful properties of uε. Let u:Ω be bounded and lower semicontinuous in Ω. It is well known that uε is an increasing sequence of semiconcave functions in Ω, which converges pointwise to u. Hence, uε is locally Lipschitz and twice differentiable a.e. in Ω. Moreover, it is possible to write


for r(ε)0 as ε0. For these and further properties, see [6, Lemma A.1.] and [1].

The next lemma is the counterpart of [6, Lemma A.1 (iii)] for our setting.

Lemma 2.1.

Suppose that u:ΩR is bounded and lower semicontinuous in Ω. Let f=f(x,s,η) be continuous in Ω×R×Rn and non-increasing in s. If u is a viscosity supersolution to


in Ω for 1<p<, then uε is a viscosity supersolution to


in Ωε:={xΩ:dist(x,Ω)>r(ε)}, where



We start by noticing that


Let us see first that for every zBr(ε)(0), the function


is a viscosity supersolution to -Δpϕz=fε in Ωε. Indeed, let x0Ωε and φ𝒞2(Ωε) so that


We assume that φ(x)0 for all xx0 if 1<p<2. Making y:=z+x, y0:=z+x0 and


we derive that u-φ~ has a local minimum at y0, and indeed (u-φ~)(y0)=0. Since u is a viscosity supersolution to (2.2), there follows




where we have used that f is non-increasing in the second variable. Let us see now that, since uε is an infimum of supersolutions, it is itself a supersolution (observe that uε is continuous, since it is locally Lipschitz). Let x0Ωε and ϕ𝒞2(Ωε) so that


Again, ϕ(x)0 for all xx0 in the singular scenario. Moreover, we may assume that the minimum is strict. For each n, there exists znBr(ε)(0) such that


Let xn be a sequence of points in B¯r(x0)Ωε so that


for all xB¯r(x0), i.e., (ϕzn-ϕ) has a minimum in B¯r(x0) at xn. Up to a subsequence, xny0 as n. Furthermore, by (2.5),


Taking liminf and using the lower semicontinuity of uε, we derive


Since the minimum in (2.4) is strict, we must have y0=x0. Moreover, taking


in (2.3), we have


Since f is non-increasing with respect to the second variable, by (2.6) we obtain


As n, there holds


for some zBr(0)¯. Therefore,


and we conclude that uε is a viscosity supersolution of

-Δpuε=fε(x,uε,uε)in Ωε,

as desired. ∎

The next lemma states the weak convergence of the lower-order terms in the particular situation of infimal convolutions.

Lemma 2.2.

Let f=f(x,s,η) be a uniformly continuous function, which satisfies the growth condition (1.3). Assume that uWloc1,p(Ω) is locally bounded and lower semicontinuous in Ω. For each ε>0 define uε as in (2.1) and fε as in Lemma 2.1. Then, if uε converges to u in Llocp(Ω), the following holds:


for every non-negative ψC0(Ω).


Let ψ𝒞0(Ω) and denote K:=spt(ψ). Consider ε>0 small enough so that


where K:=xKBr(ε)(x)¯. Since f is uniformly continuous in K××n, for every ρ>0 there exists δ>0 such that

|f(x,uε(x),uε(x))-f(y,uε(x),uε(x))|<ρif |x-y|<δ,x,yK.

Choose ε0>0 so that r(ε)<δ for every ε<ε0. Thus, from the previous inequality we get


for every xK and yBr(ε)(x). In particular,


and therefore


Hence we arrive at the estimate


On the other hand, due to the continuity of f and the convergences of uε and uε,

f(x,uε(x),uε(x))f(x,u(x),u(x))a.e. in Ω.

Observe that

uε0uεu for all εε0.

Since uε0, u belong to Lloc(Ω), there exists a uniform constant C>0 so that


Thus, in view of the growth estimate on f and the continuity of γ, we have, for an appropriate positive constant C,


Since |uε|p-1Llocp/(p-1)(Ω), Hölder’s inequality and the strong convergence of uε imply

K|uε|p-1CuεLp(K)p-1Cfor all ε.

By (2.7), (2.8) and the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, we conclude


2.2 A Caccioppoli’s estimate

In the next lemma we provide a Caccioppoli’s estimate for the Llocp-norm of the gradients of weak solutions.

Lemma 2.3.

Let uW1,p(Ω) be a locally bounded weak supersolution to (1.1). Assume that f is continuous in Ω×R×Rn and satisfies the growth bound (1.3). Then there exists a constant C=C(p,Ω,ϕ,γ)>0 such that for all test function ξC0(Ω), 0ξ1, we have


where oscKu:=supKu-infKu, and K:=spt(ξ).


Let ξ𝒞0(Ω) and KΩ be as in the lemma. Consider the test function






Observe that


which shows that |u|p-2uLp/(p-1)(Ω). Hence, Young’s inequality


where q and q are conjugate exponents, implies that the first integral on the right-hand side of (2.9) may be bounded by


Moreover, by (1.3) we have


for all x in the support of ξ, where γ:=supxK|γ(u(x))|. Therefore, the second integral in (2.9) is estimated from above by


where C(Ω,ϕ) is a positive constant. The assumption ξ1 and Young’s inequality yield




Taking δ<1/2, we derive Caccioppoli’s estimate. ∎

3 Proof of Theorem 1.4

3.1 Degenerate case

We begin with the range p2.

Proof of Theorem 1.4.

Let uε be the infimal convolution defined in (2.1) with q=2. Then


is concave in Ωr(ε) (see [6, Lemma A.2.]). By Aleksandrov’s Theorem, ϕ is twice differentiable almost everywhere in Ωr(ε), and so is uε. Therefore by Lemma 2.1,


a.e. in Ωr(ε). Furthermore,


for all non-negative test functions ψ (see the proof of [6, Theorem 3.1]). Hence, we derive


for all non-negative test functions ψ and all ε>0. We claim that, as ε0, there holds


To prove the claim, observe first that Caccioppoli’s estimate allows us to conclude that


converges weakly in Llocp/(p-1)(Ω). Indeed, for any compact set KΩ, choose an open set UΩ containing K and a non-negative test function 0ξ1 so that


and ξ=1 in K. Then


Observe that since f satisfies (1.3), the lower term fε verifies the bound (2.10). Therefore, Lemma 2.3 applies and the right-hand side of (3.1) is bounded from above by


Moreover, since uε is an increasing sequence and converges pointwise to u in Ω, we have


for all ε<ε0. Then in view of (3.1), (3.2) and the above comments, we can find a uniform bound for the integrals


Hence |uε|p-2uε converges weakly in Llocp/(p-1)(Ω), and uε converges weakly in Llocp(Ω). Since uε converges pointwise to u, we derive that uWloc1,p(Ω) and uε converges weakly in Wloc1,p(Ω) to u.

More can be said: uε converges strongly in Llocp(Ω) to u. Indeed, take


where θ is a non-negative smooth test function compactly supported in Ω. From


we get


By the weak convergence of uε to u in Wloc1,p(Ω), the last integral in (3.3) tends to 0 as ε0. The left-hand side is given by


The second integral in (3.4) is estimated in absolute value by


which tends to 0 as ε0. Moreover, since


with γ:=supxspt(θ)|γ(uε(x))|, does not depend on ε, it also holds that

lim supε0[-sptθfε(x,uε,uε)ϕ𝑑x]=0.



where we have used the fact that the integrand is always non-negative. Therefore, using the inequality


valid for all p2, and (3.5), we conclude the strong convergence of uε in Llocp(Ω). Finally, (3.5) together with [5, Lemma 3.73]), implies

|uε|p-2uε|u|p-2uin Llocp/(p-1)(Ω),

and, in turn, the strong convergence of the gradients uε and Lemma 2.2 gives


This ends the proof of the claim and we deduce that u is a weak supersolution. ∎

3.2 The singular case: 1<p<2

Consider now the infimal convolution given in (2.1) choosing q>p/(p-1), i.e.,


Notice that q>2 for 1<p<2.

We need the following auxiliary result, which is an adaptation of [6, Lemma 4.3].

Lemma 3.1.

Suppose that u is a bounded viscosity supersolution to (1.1). If there is x^Ωr(ε) such that uε is differentiable at x^ and uε(x^)=0, then fε(x^,uε(x^),uε(x^))0.


From [6, Lemma 4.3] we know that uε(x^)=u(x^), and hence

u(y)+|x^-y|qqεq-1u(x^)for every yΩ.



which satisfies ψ𝒞2(Ω), ψ(x^)=0 and


in view of q>p/(p-1). Since ψ(x^)=u(x^), ψ(y)u(y) for yΩ, ψ(x)0 for all xx^, and u is a viscosity supersolution to (1.1),


Noticing that ψ(x^)=uε(x^) and ψ(x^)=uε(x^)=0, by (3.7) we conclude


as desired. ∎

We can prove now Theorem 1.4 in the case 1<p<2.

Proof of Theorem 1.4.

Let uε be defined in (3.6). Proceeding as in the degenerate case, by Aleksandrov’s theorem and Lemma 2.1 we obtain


a.e. in Ωr(ε){uε=0}. Performing the same approximation argument as in the proof of [6, Theorem 4.1], we reach that


for every ψ𝒞0(Ω), ψ0. Therefore and since by Lemma 3.1 we know fε0 in the set {xΩ:uε(x)=0}, we get


Repeating the proof for the case p2 (and noticing that Lemma 2.3 works for every 1<p<), we obtain the uniform boundedness of uε in Llocp(Ω) and


for any compact set KΩ, and from here the convergence

|uε|p-2uε|u|p-2uin Llocp/(p-1)(Ω).(3.10)

Using Hölder’s inequality and the vector inequality (see [4, Chapter I])


with C=C(n,p) and a,bn, we obtain


Thus, from (3.9) we deduce that uε converges to u in Llocp(Ω). By (3.10) and Lemma 2.2 we can pass to the limit in (3.8) to conclude


4 Proofs of Theorem 1.5 and Theorem 1.8

Proof of Theorem 1.5 (i).

Let uWloc1,(Ω) be a weak supersolution to (1.1). To reach a contradiction, assume that u is not a viscosity supersolution. By assumption, there exist x0Ω and φ𝒞2(Ω) so that φ(x)0 for all xx0,

u(x0)=φ(x0),u(x)>φ(x)for all xx0,(4.1)



Moreover, by the Wloc1,-regularity of u, we may assume that u is continuous in Ω. Thus, the map


is continuous in Ω, and (4.1) yields


Hence, there exists some r0>0 so that




Then by (4.1) we have m>0. Consider


By (4.2), φ~ is a weak subsolution to


in Br0(x0), where f~(x,η):=f(x,u(x),η). Observe that f~ is continuous in Ω×n and locally Lipschitz in η. Moreover, in the weak sense, we have


which shows that u is a weak supersolution to (4.3). In addition, uφ~ on Br0(x0). By the comparison Theorem A.2, we conclude that uφ~ in Br0(x0). This contradicts (4.1). ∎

Proof of Theorem 1.5 (ii).

For a given weak supersolution u𝒞1(Ω), by following the lines above and appealing to the comparison Theorem A.1, we can show that u is a viscosity supersolution in the non-critical set


By [8, Corollary 4.4], which holds true for sub- and supersolutions, u is a viscosity supersolution in the whole set Ω. ∎

Proof of Theorem 1.5 (iii).

The proof follows similarly just by using the assumption u0 in Ω together with the comparison Theorem A.1. ∎

Remark 4.1.

Observe that the Wloc1,-regularity of u is only needed to apply the comparison principles. In the rest of the proof, the continuity of u would be enough.

Proof of Theorem 1.8.

The result follows by reproducing the proof of Theorem 1.5 using the comparison Theorem A.3 instead of Theorems A.2 and A.1. ∎

A Appendix

A.1 Comparison principles for weak solutions

In this section, we provide the comparison principles for weak solutions of (1.1) that we use in the proof of Theorem 1.5. As we pointed out in Section 1, other comparison results may be employed (see [11]).

The first one is contained in [15, Corollary 3.6.3].

Theorem A.1.

Assume that f=f(x,s,η) is continuous in Ω×R×Rn, non-increasing in s, and locally Lipschitz continuous with respect to η in Ω×R×Rn. Let uWloc1,(Ω) be a weak supersolution and let vWloc1,(Ω) be a weak subsolution to (1.1) in Ω for 1<p<. Assume that |u|+|v|>0 in Ω. If uv on Ω, then uv in Ω.

In the singular case, the assumptions on the gradients may be removed. See [15, Corollary 3.5.2].

Theorem A.2.

Let 1<p2. Assume that f=f(x,s,η) is continuous in Ω×R×Rn, non-increasing in s, and that it is locally Lipschitz continuous in η on compact subsets of its variables. Then if uWloc1,(Ω) is a weak supersolution and if vWloc1,(Ω) is a weak subsolution to (1.1) in Ω so that uv on Ω, then uv in Ω.

Finally, in the case where f does not depend on η, we have the following result (see [15, Corollary 3.4.2]).

Theorem A.3.

Suppose that f=f(x,s) is continuous in Ω×R and non-increasing in s. Let uWloc1,p(Ω)C(Ω) be a supersolution and vWloc1,p(Ω)C(Ω) a subsolution so that uv on Ω. Then uv in Ω.

Remark A.4.

In [15], Theorem A.1 is stated in a more general framework of equations in divergence form as


where the operator A=A(x,s,η) is assumed to be continuous in Ω××n, continuously differentiable with respect to s and η for all s and all η0, and elliptic in the sense that A(x,s,η) is positive definite in Ω××(n{0}). In the particular case of the p-Laplace operators

Ap(η)=|η|p-2η,p2,Ap(η)={|η|p-2ηif η0,0,for η=0,1<p2,

all of the assumptions above are satisfied. The positive definiteness of Ap is a consequence of


for a positive constant c. Finally, observe that A is uniformly elliptic for 0<|η|C if p2. This allows the improved comparison result in Theorem A.2.


The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for her/his comments.


  • [1]

    M. Crandall, H. Ishii and P.-L. Lions, User’s guide to viscosity solutions of second order partial differential equations, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 27 (1992), no. 1, 1–67.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [2]

    M. Cuesta and P. Takáč, A strong comparison principle for positive solutions of degenerate elliptic equations, Differential Integral Equations 13 (2000), no. 4–6, 721–746.  Google Scholar

  • [3]

    L. Damascelli and B. Sciunzi, Regularity, monotonicity and symmetry of positive solutions of m-Laplace equations, J. Differential Equations 206 (2004), 483–515.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [4]

    E. DiBenedetto, 𝒞1+α-local regularity of weak solutions of degenerate elliptic equations, Nonlinear Anal. 7 (1983), 827–850.  Google Scholar

  • [5]

    J. Heinonen, T. Kilpelainen and O. Martio, Non-Linear Potential Theory of Degenerate Elliptic Equations, Dover Publications, Mineola, 2006.  Google Scholar

  • [6]

    V. Julin and P. Juutinen, A new proof for the equivalence of weak and viscosity solutions for the p-Laplace equation, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 37 (2012), no. 5, 934–946.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [7]

    P. Juutinen and P. Lindqvist, A theorem of Radó’s type for the solutions of a quasi-linear equation, Math. Res. Lett. 11 (2004), 31–34.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [8]

    P. Juutinen and P. Lindqvist, Removability of a level set for solutions of quasilinear equations, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 30 (2005), no. 3, 305–321.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [9]

    P. Juutinen, P. Lindqvist and J. Manfredi, On the equivalence of viscosity solutions and weak solutions for a quasilinear equation, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 33 (2001), no. 3, 699–717.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [10]

    N. Katzourakis, Nonsmooth convex functionals and feeble viscosity solutions of singular Euler–Lagrange equations, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 54 (2015), no. 1, 275–298.  CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [11]

    T. Leonori, A. Porretta and G. Riey, Comparison principles for p-Laplace equations with lower order terms, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) (2016), 10.1007/s10231-016-0600-9.  Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [12]

    G. Lieberman, Boundary regularity for solutions of degenerate elliptic equations, Nonlinear Anal. 12 (1988), no. 11, 1203–1219.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [13]

    P. Lindqvist, On the definition and properties of p-superharmonic functions, J. Reine Angew. Math. 365 (1986), 67–70.  Google Scholar

  • [14]

    S. Merchán, L. Montoro and B. Sciunzi, On the Harnack inequality for quasilinear elliptic equations with a first order term, preprint (2016), https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.03863.  

  • [15]

    P. Pucci and J. Serrin, The Maximum Principle, Progr. Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl. 73, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2007.  Google Scholar

  • [16]

    P. Pucci and R. Servadei, Regularity of weak solutions of homogeneous or inhomogeneous elliptic equations, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 57 (2008), no. 7, 3329–3363.  CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [17]

    J. Rakotoson and W. Ziemer, Local behaviour of solutions of quasilinear elliptic equations with general structure, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 319 (1990), no. 2, 747–764.  CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-01-13

Revised: 2017-02-28

Accepted: 2017-03-02

Published Online: 2017-06-04

The first author was supported by the grant FONDECYT Postdoctorado 2016, No. 3160077. The second author was partially supported by CONICET and grant PICT 2015-1701 AGENCIA.

Citation Information: Advances in Nonlinear Analysis, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 468–481, ISSN (Online) 2191-950X, ISSN (Print) 2191-9496, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/anona-2017-0005.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License. BY 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in