We essentially use Lemma 2.1 which is proved in . Accordingly, the set Ω must be “a bounded domain in () with boundary of class ”, instead of “an open bounded set in with boundary of class ”. This change does not affect the validity of the results stated in the paper. But, it affects the proof of Lemma 3.1. In this view, the only necessary modification is the following.
Proof of Lemma 3.1.
It suffices to show that in Ω. From (2.2), (3.4) and the integration by parts formula it follows
for all with . We denote
From [2, Theorem A.1] we have and in , in . So, taking in (1) and using hypothesis (H), it follows
If , then from (2) we get the contradiction
Consequently, and, as in , we get that a.e. on Ω. As Ω is a domain, we infer that , hence in Ω. This means in Ω. ∎
Corsato C., Obersnel F., Omari P. and Rivetti S., Positive solutions of the Dirichlet problem for the prescribed mean curvature equation in Minkowski space, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 405 (2013), 227–239. Google Scholar
Kinderlehrer D. and Stampacchia G., An Introduction to Variational Inequalities and Their Applications, Academic Press, New York, 1980. Google Scholar