PARTIAL SCHAUDER ESTIMATES FOR SECOND-ORDER ELLIPTIC AND PARABOLIC EQUATIONS: A REVISIT arxiv: v2 [math.ap] 26 Nov 2016

Transcription

1 PARTIAL SCHAUDER ESTIMATES FOR SECOND-ORDER ELLIPTIC AND PARABOLIC EQUATIONS: A REVISIT arxiv: v2 [math.ap] 26 Nov 216 HONGJIE DONG AND SEICK KIM Abstract. Under various conditions, we establish Schauder estimates for both divergence and non-divergence form second-order elliptic and parabolic equations involving Hölder semi-norms not with respect to all, but only with respect to some of the independent variables. A novelty of our results is that the coefficients are allowed to be merely measurable with respect to the other independent variables. 1. Introduction The classical Schauder theory was established by J. Schauder about eighty years ago and since then plays an important role in the existence theory for linear and non-linear elliptic and parabolic equations. Roughly speaking, the Schauder theory for second-order elliptic equations in non-divergence or divergence form says that if all the coefficients and data are Hölder continuous in all variables, then the same holds for the second or the first, respectively derivatives of the solution. For second-order parabolic equations in non-divergence or divergence form, the Schauder theory reads that if the coefficients and data are Hölder continuous in both space and time variables, then the same holds for the second spatial derivatives and the first time derivative of the solution or the solution itself and the first spatial derivatives, respectively. Such results were proved both in the interior of the domain and near the boundary with appropriate boundary conditions, as well as for higher-order equations and systems. See, for instance, [1]. For higher-order elliptic equations with smooth coefficients, by using the potential theory as in [1], P. Fife [1] established certain Schauder estimates involving Hölder semi-norms not with respect to all, but only with respect to some of the independent variables. It was also observed by B. Knerr [14] and G. Lieberman [24] that, for second-order parabolic equations in both divergence and non-divergence form, the regularity assumption on the coefficients and data with respect to the time variable can sometimes be dropped, which is also known as intermediate Schauder theory. The proofs in [14] are based on the maximum principle, while in [24] both the maximum principle and the Campanato s approach are used. See [26, 2] and references therein for other more recent results in this direction. These are some earlier work on what we shall hereafter refer to partial Schauder estimates, which is the subject of the current paper. Partial Schauder estimates have attracted many 21 Mathematics Subject Classification. 35B45, 35J15, 35K1. Key words and phrases. partial Schauder estimates, second-order elliptic equations, second-order parabolic equations. H. Dong was partially supported by the NSF under agreements DMS and DMS S. Kim is partially supported by NRF-214R1A1A

2 2 H. DONG AND S. KIM attentions due to their important applications, for instance, in problems arising from linearly elastic laminates and composite materials cf. [3, 21, 22]. To be more precise, we first fix some related notation. Let x=x 1,...,x d be a point inr d, with d 2, and q be an integer such that 1 q<d. We distinguish the first q coordinates of x from the rest and write x=x, x, where x = x 1,..., x q and x = x q+1,...,x d. Roughly speaking, x denotes good coordinate variables while x represents bad coordinate variables. For a function u on a domainω R d, naturally we define a partial Hölder semi-norm with respect to x as ux, x uy, x [u] x,δ;ω := sup. x,x, y,x Ω x y δ x y Throughout this article, we assume <δ<1unless explicitly otherwise stated. Let us mention some recent work on partial Schauder estimates in [5, 27, 9, 13], which are closely related the current paper. In [5], we considered both divergence and non-divergence form second-order scalar elliptic and parabolic equations. Among other results, we proved that if the coefficients are independent of x and the data are Hölder continuous with respect to x, then derivatives of solutions with respect to x are Hölder continuous in x. By using a different method, G. Tian and X.-J. Wang [27] proved similar results for non-divergence form elliptic equations with data Dini continuous in some variables. Under certain conditions, their results also extend to second-order fully nonlinear equations. We note that for non-divergence form equations, in both [5] and [27] the coefficients are assumed to be continuous in x, even though the estimates are independent of the moduli of continuity with respect to x. In [9], the first named author studied second-order divergence form elliptic and parabolic systems as well as non-divergence scalar equations, with coefficients and data Hölder or Dini continuous in the time variable and all but one spatial variable, i.e., q=d 1. In particular, it is proved that for non-divergence form equations if the coefficients and data are Dini continuous in z := t, x and merely measurable in x d, then any solution u is C 1 in t, C 1,1 in x, and u t and D xx u are continuous. Under the stronger condition that the coefficients and data are Hölder continuous in z, u t and D xx u are Hölder continuous in all variables. In a very recent paper [13], Y. Jin, D. Li, and X.-J. Wang obtained the following results for non-divergence form elliptic equations: If the coefficients are independent of a directionξand the data is analytic inξ, then any strong solution is analytic in ξ; if the leading coefficients are continuous, and the coefficients and data are analytic in a directionξ, then any strong solution is analytic inξ; if the leading coefficients are continuous, and the coefficients and data are Hölder continuous in ξ, then for any strong solution u, D xξ u is Hölder continuous. The main objective of this paper is to study the regularity of solutions for both divergence and non-divergence form elliptic and parabolic equations when the coefficients are merely measurable in the bad directions, which are allowed to be more than one. We give a brief account of our main results as follows. In the elliptic case, we assume that data is Hölder continuous in x and treat the following three classes of coefficients: 1. The coefficients are independent of x and with no regularity assumption with respect to x.

3 PARTIAL SCHAUDER ESTIMATES 3 2. The coefficients are Hölder continuous in x and with no regularity assumption with respect to x. 3. The coefficients are uniformly continuous in x 1,..., x d 1, merely measurable in x d, and Hölder continuous in x. In the first case, we show that for any W 2 d strong solution or W1 2 weak solution u of non-divergence or divergence form equations, D 2 x u or D x u, respectively are Hölder continuous in x. This result improves the aforementioned results in [5, 27] by removing the continuity condition with respect to x see Theorem 2.2. The main novelty of our paper lies in the second case, in which we prove that for any Wp 2 strong solution or any W1 p weak solution with a sufficient large p, D 2 x u or D x u are Hölder continuous in all the variables see Theorem 2.6. In the particular case when q=d 2, one can actually estimate the Hölder norm of D xx u for non-divergence form equations, and the Hölder norm of D x u for divergence form strongly elliptic systems see Theorem 2.1. In the last case, we show that for any strong solution or any weak solution, D xx u or D x u are Hölder continuous in all the variables see Theorem Analogous results for parabolic equations are also established. As mentioned before, for non-divergence elliptic equations, an estimate similar to Theorem 2.12 was recently proved in [13]. Compared to [13], our proof is technically different and we also obtain a sharper Hölder exponent. Our proofs are all based on the Campanato s approach, but with various techniques in the three different cases. They work equally well for both divergence and non-divergence elliptic and parabolic equations. Let us give a short descriptions of the proofs in the elliptic case. For Theorem 2.2, we mainly follow the outline of the argument in [5], which in turn adopts an idea of decomposition by M. V. Safonov and the mollification method of N. Trudinger. In the proof, we emphasize how to use an approximation argument to remove the continuity condition and also how to localize the estimates by using an iteration argument. The main idea of the proof of Theorem 2.6 is to apply an L ε version of Campanato s characterization of Hölder continuous functions cf. Lemma To the best of our knowledge, such application is new, as the Campanato s approach is usually used in the L p setting for p 1 mostly in the case p=2 or p=. The proof also relies on the Krylov Safonov estimate, the De Giorgi Nash Moser estimate, and an Wε 2 estimate due to F. Lin [23]. In the proof of Theorem 2.1, we exploit the reverse Hölder s inequality for elliptic systems and a recent result in [6] by the first named author and N. V. Krylov about the W 2 estimates for non-divergence form elliptic equations with 2+ε coefficients measurable in two directions. Finally, for Theorem 2.12 we appeal to some recent work in [17, 4, 8] on Wp 2 or Wp 1 estimates for elliptic equations with coefficients measurable in one direction, from which we obtain an interior C 1,α or C α estimate for solutions to homogeneous equations. The organization of this paper is as follows. We state our main results for elliptic equations in Section 2. Section 3 is devoted to the proofs of these results. The main results for parabolic equations are stated in Section 4 and their proofs are given in Section 5, where we also use a special type of interpolation inequalities proved in the Appendix for parabolic Hölder semi-norms, which might be of independent interest.

4 4 H. DONG AND S. KIM 2. Main Results for elliptic equations We consider elliptic operators in non-divergence form and in divergence form Lu := a ij xd ij u, Lu := D i a ij xd j u, where the coefficients a ij x are measurable functions onr d satisfying the uniform ellipticity condition ν ξ 2 a ij xξ i ξ j ν 1 ξ 2, x R d, ξ R d, 2.1 for some constantν, 1]. We assume the symmetry of the coefficients i.e., a ij = a ji for the operators L in non-divergence form. For the operatorslin divergence form, we do not require coefficients to be symmetric but instead assume that they are bounded; to avoid introducing a new constant, we simply assume that d i,j=1 aij x 2 ν 2 for all x R d instead of the second inequality in 2.1. For k=1, 2,..., we set [u] x,k+δ;ω= [D k x u] x,δ;ω= max α Z q +, α =k [ D α u] x,δ;ω, where we used the usual multi-index notation and D α := D α 1 1 Dα q q. We also use the notation u ;Ω = sup u. Ω WhenΩ=R d, we will drop the reference to the domain and simply write [u] x,δ=[u] x,δ;rd, etc. We denote C k x Ω the set of all bounded measurable functions u onωwhose derivatives D α u forα Z q + with α k are continuous and bounded inω. We denote by C k+δ x Ω the set of all functions u C k x Ω for which the partial Hölder semi-norm [u] x,k+δ;ω is finite. We use the notation Wp k Ω, k=1, 2,..., for the Sobolev spaces inω. For p 1,, we say that u W 2 Ω is a strong solution of Lu= f inωif p; loc u satisfies the equation Lu= f a.e. inω. In the first theorem below, we assume that a ij are independent of x and merely measurable in x. We denote by B r x the Euclidean ball with radius r centered at x. When the center is the origin, we simply write B r for B r. Theorem 2.2. Assume that a=[a ij ] are independent of x. i Let u W 2 be a bounded strong solution of the equation d; loc Lu= f inr d, where f C δ x. Then u C 2+δ x and there is a constant N=Nd, q,ν,δ such that [u] x,2+δ N[ f ] x,δ. 2.3 ii Let u W 2 d; loc B 1 be a bounded strong solution of the equation Lu= f in B 1,

5 PARTIAL SCHAUDER ESTIMATES 5 where f C δ x B 1. Then u C 2+δ x B 1/2 and there is a constant N=Nd, q,ν,δ such that [u] x,2+δ; B 1/2 N [ f ] x,δ; B 1 + u ; B iii Let u W 1 2 B 1 be bounded weak solution of the equation Lu=div f in B 1 where f = f 1,..., f d C δ x B 1. Then u C 1+δ x B 1/2 and there is a constant N= Nd, q,ν,δ such that [u] x,1+δ; B 1/2 N [f] x,δ; B 1 + u ; B1. Remark 2.5. Under the additional assumption that a ij are uniformly continuous with respect to x, results similar to Theorem 2.2 were proved in [5] and [27]. In the next theorem, we assume that a ij are Hölder continuous in x and merely measurable in x. Theorem 2.6. Letδ, 1] and p d, be such thatδ d/p>. Assume that a=[a ij ] areδ-hölder continuous in x and merely measurable in x. Then, there exists a constantδ =δ d,ν> such that the following assertions hold with any ˆδ,δ satisfying ˆδ δ d/p. i Let u W 2 p B 1 be a strong solution of the equation Lu= f in B 1, where f C ˆδ x B 1. Then D 2 x u C ˆδ B 1/2 and there is a constant N= Nd, q,ν, p,δ such that [D 2 x u] ˆδ; B 1/2 N [ f ] x, ˆδ; B [a] x,δ; B 1 D 2 u Lp B ii Let u W 1 pb 1 be a weak solution of the equation Lu=div f in B 1, where f = f 1,..., f d C ˆδ x B 1. Then D x u C ˆδ B 1/2 and there is a constant N= Nd, q,ν, p,δ such that [D x u] ˆδ; B 1/2 N [f] x, ˆδ; B [a] x,δ; B 1 Du Lp B Remark 2.9. For non-divergence elliptic equations, an estimate similar to 2.7 was obtained in [27] under the assumption that a ij are independent of x and continuous in x. Our next result is regarding the special case when q=d 2. Theorem 2.1. Assume d 3and q=d 2 so that x = x d 1, x d. Letδ, 1] and p d, be such thatδ d/p>. Assume a=[a ij ] areδ-hölder continuous in x but merely measurable in x. Then, there exists a constantδ =δ d,ν> such that the following assertions hold with any ˆδ,δ satisfying ˆδ δ d/p. i Let u W 2 p B 1 be a strong solution of the equation Lu= f in B 1, where f C ˆδ x B 1. Then DD x u C ˆδ B 1/2 and there is a constant N=Nd,ν, p,δ such that [DD x u] ˆδ; B 1/2 N [ f ] x, ˆδ; B [a] x,δ; B 1 D 2 u Lp B

6 6 H. DONG AND S. KIM ii The statement of Theorem 2.6 ii still holds for strongly elliptic systems. We obtain better regularity for u when the coefficients are assumed to be uniformly continuous in x 1,..., x d 1, i.e., all but one independent variable. Theorem Letδ, 1] and p d, be such that ˆδ :=δ d/p>. Assume that a=[a ij ] are uniformly continuous in x 1,...,x d 1, merely measurable in x d, and δ-hölder continuous in x. Letω a denote a modulus of continuity of a=[a ij ] with respect to x 1,...,x d 1. i Let u W 2 pb 1 be a strong solution of the equation Lu= f in B 1, where f C ˆδ x B 1. Then DD x u C ˆδ B 1/2 and there is a constant N depending only on d, q,ν, p,δ, andω a such that [DD x u] ˆδ; B 1/2 N [ f ] x, ˆδ; B [a] x,δ; B 1 D 2 u Lp B ii Let u W 1 pb 1 be a weak solution of the equation Lu=div f in B 1, where f= f 1,..., f d C ˆδ x B 1. Then D x u C ˆδ B 1/2 and there is a constant N depending only on d, q,ν, p,δ, andω a such that [D x u] ˆδ; B 1/2 N [f] x, ˆδ; B [a] x,δ; B 1 Du Lp B Remark By the interior L p estimates established in [17] and [4], in Theorem 2.12 i we may assume that u W 2ˆp B 1 for some small ˆp>1, and the term D 2 u Lp B 1 on the right-hand side of 2.13 can be replaced by the sum of a weaker norm of u and the L p norm of f ; for example, we would obtain an estimate like [DD x u] ˆδ; B 1/2 N [ f ] x, ˆδ; B 1 + f Lp B 1 + u L ˆp B 1, where N depends only on d, q,ν, p, ˆp,δ, [a] x,δ; B 1 andω a. Similarly, in Theorem 2.12 ii we may assume that u W 1ˆp B 1 for some small ˆp>1, and the term Du Lp B 1 on the right-hand side of 2.14 can be replaced by the sum of a weaker norm of u and the L p norm of f. Remark For non-divergence elliptic equations, an estimate similar to 2.13 was recently shown in [13] by using a different proof. It should be pointed out that in [13] it is assumed that ˆδ is strictly less thanδ d/p. Remark We only consider operators without lower-order terms for the sake of simplicity of the presentation. In Section 3.5, we will illustrate how to extend our results to equations with lower-order terms. 3. The proofs: Elliptic estimates 3.1. Proof of Theorem 2.2. We prove the theorem in essence by following M. V. Safonov s idea of applying equivalent norms and representing solutions as sums of small and smooth functions. However, his argument as reproduced in the proof of [15, Theorem 3.4.1] is not directly applicable in our case by several technical reasons and to get around this difficulty we also make use of the mollification method of Trudinger [28].

7 PARTIAL SCHAUDER ESTIMATES 7 For a function v defined onr d andε>, we define a partial mollification of v with respect to the first q coordinates x as ṽ ε x, x := 1 x ε R q vy, x y ζ dy = vx εy, x ζy dy, 3.1 ε q R q whereζx 1,...,x q = q i=1 ηxi andη=ηt is a smooth function onrwith a compact support in 1, 1 satisfying η=1, tη dt=, and t 2 η dt=. We assume further that the support ofηis chosen so small thatζ C c B 1. Then, by virtue of Taylor s formula, it is not hard to prove the following lemma for partial mollifications see, e.g., [15, Chapter 3]. Lemma 3.2. Letε>and x R d. i Suppose v C δ x B ε x. Then we have ε 1 δ D x ṽ ε x +ε 2 δ D 2 x ṽε x Nd, q,δ,η[v] x,δ; B ε x, ii Suppose v C k+δ x B ε x k=, 1, 2. Then we have vx ṽ ε x Nd, q,δ,ηε k+δ [v] x,k+δ; B ε x. For k=, 1, 2,..., denote by P k, which we shall refer to as the set of all kth-order partial polynomials in x, the set of all functions p=px, x onr d such that px, x is a polynomial of x R q of degree at most k for any x. We will also use the following notation for a partial Taylor s polynomial of order k with respect to x of a function v at a point x : T k x vx, x := α Z q +, α k 1 α! x x α D α vx, x. First we prove assertion i of the theorem and derive an a priori estimate for u assuming that u C 2+δ x R d. By mollification, we can find a sequence of coefficients a n = [a ij n], which are continuous, independent of x, satisfy 2.1, and a n a a.e. as n. Let L n be the corresponding operator with a n in place of a. Then we have L n u= f n, where f n = f+ a ij n a ij D ij u. Letκ>2 be a number to be chosen later. Since a ij n are independent of x, we have for any r>, L n ũ κr = f n κr. Let B r = B r x, where x is a point inr d, and let w = w n W 2 d; loc B κr C B κr be a unique solution of the Dirichlet problem see [12, Corollary 9.18] { L n w= in B κr, w=u ũ κr 3.3 on B κr. By the ABP maximum principle and Lemma 3.2 ii, we obtain sup w =sup w Nκr 2+δ [u] x,2+δ; B 2κr. 3.4 B κr B κr It follows from the theory of Krylov and Safonov that w is locally Hölder continuous in B κr with a Hölder exponentδ =δ d,ν, 1. Since a ij are independent of x, it is reasonable to expect from 3.3 a better interior estimate for w with respect to x. Indeed, by using a technique of the finite difference quotients and bootstrapping

8 8 H. DONG AND S. KIM see, e.g., [2, 5.3], one easily gets from the Hölder estimates of Krylov and Safonov that, for any integer j 1, where we used notation D j x w ; Bκr/2 κr j Nj, d, q,ν w ; Bκr, 3.5 D j x w ; Br = max D α w ; Br and w ; Br = sup w. α Z q +, α =j In particular, with j = 3, we get w T 2 x w ; Br Nr 3 D 3 x w ; B r Nr 3 D 3 x w ; B κr/2 3.6 Nκ 3 w ; Bκr Nκ δ 1 r 2+δ [u] x,2+δ; B 2κr, where the last inequality is due to 3.4. On the other hand, it is clear that v := u ũ κr w satisfies L n v= f n f n κr in B κr ; v= on B κr. Therefore, by the ABP maximum principle and Lemma 3.2 ii we have u ũ κr w ; Bκr = v ; Bκr Nκr f n f n κr Ld B κr Nκr 2+δ [ f ] x,δ; B 2κr + Nκr a ij n a ij D ij u Ld B 2κr. 3.7 By Lemma 3.2 i, we also get B r ũ κr T 2 x ũ κr ; Br Nr 3 D 3 x ũκr ; Br Nr 3 κr δ 1 [D 2 x u] x,δ; B 1+κr Take p= T 2 w+ T 2 x x ũ κr P 2. Then combining yields Nκ δ 1 r 2+δ [u] x,2+δ; B 2κr. 3.8 u p ; Br u ũ κr w ; Br + ũ κr T 2 x ũ κr ; Br + w T 2 x w ; Br Nκ δ 1 r 2+δ [u] x,2+δ; B 2κr + Nκr 2+δ [ f ] x,δ; B 2κr + Nκr a ij n a ij D ij u Ld B 2κr. 3.9 Letting n, this together with the dominated convergence theorem implies r 2 δ inf p P 2 u p ; Br x Nκ δ 1 [u] x,2+δ; B 2κr x + Nκ 2+δ [ f ] x,δ; B 2κr x, 3.1 for any x R d and r>. We take the supremum of the left-hand side 3.1 with respect to x R d and r>, and then apply [15, Theorem 3.3.1] to get [u] x,2+δ Nκ δ 1 [u] x,2+δ+ Nκ 2+δ [ f ] x,δ. To finish the proof of 2.3 for u Cx 2+δ R d, it suffices to choose a largeκ such that Nκ δ 1 < 1/2. Now we drop the assumption that u Cx 2+δ R d by another use of the partial mollification method. As noted earlier in the proof, since a ij are independent of x, we have Lũ 1/n = f 1/n, n=1, 2,... Since ũ 1/n C 2+δ x R d, by the argument above, we have a uniform estimate [ũ 1/n ] x,2+δ N[ f 1/n ] x,δ N[ f ] x,δ, n=1, 2,...

9 PARTIAL SCHAUDER ESTIMATES 9 Moreover, [ũ 1/n ] [u] and ũ 1/n converges locally uniformly to u as n tends to infinity. We thus conclude that u Cx 2+δ R d and 2.3 holds. This completes the proof of assertion i. Next we prove assertion ii. In view of the proof above, without loss of generality we may assume that a ij are continuous in B 1 and u C 2+δ x ; loc B 1. For n=1, 2,..., denote r n = 3/4 2 n 1 and B n = B rn. Note that r n+1 r n = 2 n 2 and B 1 = B 1/2. Now we fix a point x B n. Letκ>2 be a number to be fixed later. For any r 2 n 3 /κ, we have B 2κr x B n+1. It then follows from the proof of 3.1 in the previous step that r 2 δ inf p P 2 u p ; Br x Nκ δ 1 [u] x,2+δ; B n+1+ Nκ2+δ [ f ] x,δ; B On the other hand, for any r 2 n 3 /κ, 1/4, we have r 2 δ inf p P 2 u p ; Br x r 2 δ u ; Br x 2 n+3 κ 2+δ u ; B Combining 3.11 and 3.12, and then applying [15, Theorem 3.3.1], we get [u] x,2+δ; B n Nκδ 1 [u] x,2+δ; B n+1+ Nκ2+δ [ f ] x,δ; B 1 + N2 n+3 κ 2+δ u ; B We choose aκsufficiently large such that Nκ δ 1 1/1. By multiplying both sides of 3.13 by 1 n and then summing over n=1, 2,..., we reach 1 n [u] x,2+δ; B n n=1 1 n 1 [u] x,2+δ; B n+1+ N[ f ] x,δ; B 1 + N 1 n 2 n2+δ u ; B1 n=1 1 n 1 [u] x,2+δ; B n+1+ N[ f ] x,δ; B 1 + N u ; B n=1 Since u C 2+δ x B 3/4, the summations in 3.14 are finite. By absorbing the first term on the right-hand side of 3.14 to the left-hand side, we get 2.4. Finally, we prove assertion iii by combining the proof of [5, Theorem 2.14] with that of assertion ii. The theorem is proved Proof of Theorem 2.6. In order to prove the theorem, we need a slight generalization of the main result of [23], which can be proved in the same way as in [23] by using dilations and standard approximation arguments. Lemma Let r> and w W 2 d B r be a function such that w= on B r. Then there are constantsε, 1] and N, depending only on d andν, such that we have ε/d D 2 w ε dx N Lw d dx. B r B r Letδ =δ d,ν> be the Hölder exponent appearing in the Krylov Safonov estimate. We first assume that D 2 x u C ˆδ B 1/2. By mollification, we can find a sequence of coefficient matrices a ij n, which are continuous in x, δ-hölder continuous n=1

10 1 H. DONG AND S. KIM in x with [a ij n] x,δ [a ij ] x,δ, satisfy 2.1, and a ij n a ij a.e. as n. Let L n be the corresponding operator with a ij n in place of a ij. Then we have L n u= f n, where f n = f+ a ij n a ij D ij u. We take a point x B 1/2 and r, R, 1/4 such that <r<r/4. Clearly, u satisfies a ij nx, x D ij u= f n + g n, 3.16 where g n = a ij nx, x an ij Dij u. By the classical W 2 solvability for elliptic equations with continuous coefficients, there is a unique solution w W 2 d B Rx of the d equation a ij nx, x D ij w= f n f x, x + g n in B R x with the zero Dirichlet boundary condition. Thanks to Lemma 3.15, the triangle inequality, and Hölder s inequality, we have B R x D 2 w ε dx NR d NR d ε B R x f n f x, ε/d x d + g n dx B R x f n f d dx ε/d + NR d+ε ˆδ [ f ] ε x, ˆδ; B 1 + NR d+εδ d/p [a] ε x,δ; B 1 D 2 u ε L p B 1, 3.17 where N= Nd,ν. It is easily seen that v := u w W 2 d B Rx satisfies a ij nx, x D ij v= f x, x in B R x Note that both a ij x, x and f x, x are independent of x. By mollification with respect to x, without loss of generality, we may assume that v is smooth with respect to x. By differentiating 3.18 with respect to x twice, we see that ˆv := D 2 x v satisfies a ij nx, x D ij ˆv= in B R/2 x. Clearly, for any constant c R, the same equation is satisfied by ṽ := ˆv cin place of ˆv. Denote ˆv Br x = ˆv. By applying the Krylov Safonov estimate, we get B r x B r x ˆv ˆv Br x ε dx= B r x r d+εδ N R ṽ ṽ Br x ε dx Nr d+εδ [ṽ] ε δ ; B R/4 x r d+εδ ṽ ε dx=n ˆv c R ε dx B R/2 x B R/2 x Here, we recall the facts that for all a, b we have a+b ε a ε + b ε, a ε + b ε 2a+b ε.

11 PARTIAL SCHAUDER ESTIMATES 11 By 3.17, 3.19, and the above inequalities, we obtain D 2 x u D2 x v B r x ε B r x N D 2 x v D2 x v B r x ε + N B r x r d+εδ N R r d+εδ N R B R x B R x D 2 x v c ε + N D 2 x w ε B r x B R x D 2 x u c ε + NR d ε D 2 w ε ε/d f n f d B R x + NR d+ε ˆδ [ f ] ε x, ˆδ; B 1 + NR d+εδ d/p [a] ε x,δ; B 1 D 2 u ε L p B Taking n in 3.2, by the dominated convergence theorem, we reach D 2 x u D2 x v B r x ε r d+εδ N D R 2 x u c ε B r x B R x + NR d+ε ˆδ [ f ] ε + NR d+εδ d/p [a] ε x, ˆδ; B 1 x,δ; B 1 D 2 u ε L p B 1. We set φx, r := inf D 2 x c R u c ε. Bx,r Note that since c R is arbitrary, we get from the above inequality that r d+εδφx φx, r N, R R + NR d+ε ˆδ [ f ] ε + NR d+εδ d/p [a] ε x, ˆδ; B 1 x,δ; B 1 D 2 u ε L p B The following lemma is a is variant of [11, Lemma 2.1, p. 86], the main distinction from which is that the monotonicity ofφis not assumed below. Lemma Letφt be a nonnegative, bounded function on, R ] such that φρ A [ ρ/r α +ε ] φr+br β 3.23 for all <ρ R R, where A,α,βare nonnegative constants andβ<α. Then there exists a constantε =ε A,α,β such that ifε<ε, for all <ρ R we have φρ C R β sup φ ρβ + Bρ β,r ] with a constant C=CA,α,β. Proof. Letψt=sup <s t φs. Thenψis a nonnegative, nondecreasing function on, R ]. For anyτ, 1], we obtain from 3.23 that φτρ A [ ρ/r α +ε ] φτr+bτr β. Then by taking the supremum overτ, 1], we findψalso satisfies the inequality Therefore, by [11, Lemma 2.1, p. 86], for all <ρ R we have ψρ C [ ρ/r β ψr+bρ β], By abuse of notation, we use D 2 x u to denote the scalar D ij u for i, j=1,...,q.

12 12 H. DONG AND S. KIM where C=CA,α,β. Observe thatφx, r Bx,r D2 x u ε and thus we have sup { φx, r : x B 1/2, <r<1/2 } ε Nε D 2 u dx. B 1 Therefore, by Lemma 3.22, we get from 3.21 that for any x B 1/2 and any r, 1/16, there is a number c x,r such that D 2 x u c x,r ε Nr d+ε ˆδ [ f ] ε + 1+[a] ε x, ˆδ; B 1 x,δ; B 1 D 2 u ε L p B Bx,r By Campanato s characterization of Hölder continuous functions see Lemma 6.14, we obtain 2.7 from To remove the additional assumption D 2 x u C ˆδ B 1/2, we use a mollification argument. Taking the mollification of 3.16 with respect to x and then differentiating with respect to x twice, we get that for anyθ, 1/4, a ij nx, x D ij D 2 x ũ θ = D 2 x fθ n + D 2 x gθ n in B 3/4. Thanks to the Krylov Safonov estimate, D 2 x ũ θ C δ B 1/2. Then by the proof above with u θ, fθ n, fθ, and g θ n in place of u, f n, f, and g n, respectively, we get 3.24 with u replaced by ũ θ on the left-hand side. Therefore, by Lemma 6.14, [D 2 x ũθ ] ˆδ; B 1/2 N [ f ] x, ˆδ; B [a] x,δ; B 1 D 2 u Lp B 1, where N is independent ofθ. Since D 2 x ũ θ D 2 x u a.e. asθ by the Lebesgue lemma, we obtain 2.7. This completes the proof of assertion i. The proof of assertion ii is similar. We provide the details for the completeness. Take a point x B 1/2 and r, R, 1/4 such that <r<r/4. Let w W 1 2 B Rx be the weak solution of the equation D i a ij x, x D j w = div fx fx, x + D i a ij x, x a ij xd j u in B R x with the zero Dirichlet boundary condition. By the W 1 estimate and 2 Hölder s inequality, we have Dw 2 dx N fx fx, x + a ij x, x a ij x D j u 2 dx B R x B R x N R d+2 ˆδ [f] 2 + R d+2δ d/p [a] 2 x, ˆδ; B 1 x,δ; B 1 Du 2 L p B 1, 3.25 where N= Nd,ν. It is easily seen that v := u w W 1 2 B Rx satisfies D i a ij x, x D j v = div fx, x in B R x Note that both a ij x, x and fx, x are independent of x. By mollification with respect to x, without loss of generality, we may assume that v is smooth with respect to x. By differentiating 3.26 with respect to x, we see that ˆv := D x v satisfies D i a ij x, x D j ˆv = in B R/2 x The infimum in the definition ofφx, r is realized by some number c inr.

13 PARTIAL SCHAUDER ESTIMATES 13 Clearly, the above equation is still satisfied by ṽ := ˆv ˆv BR x in place of ˆv. Therefore, by applying the De Giorgi Nash Moser estimate, we get ˆv ˆv Br x 2 dx= ṽ ṽ Br x 2 dx Nr d+2δ [ṽ] 2 δ ; B R/4 x B r x B r x r d+2δ r d+2δ N ṽ R 2 dx=n ˆv ˆv BR x B R/2 x R 2 dx, 3.28 B R/2 x whereδ =δ n,ν> is the Hölder exponent appearing in the De Giorgi Nash Moser estimate. By 3.25, 3.28, and the triangle inequality, we obtain D x u D x u Br x 2 dx B r x N D x v D x v Br x 2 dx+n D x w 2 dx B r x B r x r d+2δ R N r d+2δ N R r d+2δ N R B R/2 x B R/2 x B R x D x v D x v BR x 2 dx+n D x u D x u BR x 2 dx+n Dw 2 dx B R x Dw 2 dx B R x D x u D x u BR x 2 dx +NR d+2 ˆδ [f] 2 + [a] 2 x, ˆδ; B 1 x,δ; B 1 Du 2 L p B By Lemma 3.22, we infer from 3.29 that, for all <r<1/16, we have D x u D x u Br x 2 dx B r x Nr d+2 ˆδ D x u 2 dx+[f] 2 + [a] 2 x B 1/4 x, ˆδ; B 1 x,δ; B 1 Du 2 L p B 1 Nr d+2 ˆδ [f] [a] 2 x, ˆδ; B 1 x,δ; B 1 Du 2 L p B 1 Then we get 2.8 from 3.3. The theorem is proved Proof of Theorem 2.1. For the simplicity of presentation, in Lemma 3.31 ii and the proof of Theorem 2.1 below, we slightly abuse the notation by still using u, a ij, andlto denote u 1,..., u m T, [a ij αβ ]m α,β=1, and D ia ij αβ D j, respectively, where m is a positive integer; that is, we keep using the scalar notation for the systems as well. The following lemma is a key for the proof. Lemma Assume that a ij x=a ij x =a ij x d 1, x d. There exist constantsδ = δ d,ν, 1 and N= Nd,ν such that the following hold. i If u W 2 2 B 1 is a strong solution of Lu= in B 1, then we have [Du] δ ; B 1/2 N u L2 B 1. ii If u W 1 2 B 1 is a weak solution of a strongly elliptic systemlu= in B 1, then we have [u] δ ; B 1/2 N u L2 B 1.

14 14 H. DONG AND S. KIM Proof. In the proof we shall denote I r = r, r d, I r = r, rd 2, and I r = r, r 2. We begin with assertion i. We recall that there exist constants p = p d,ν>2 and N=Nd,ν such that if u W 2 2 I 2 is a strong solution of Lu= in I 2, then u W 2 p I 1 and u W 2 p I 1 N u Lp I Indeed, for 1 s<t 2 fixed, let ˆη be a smooth function onrwith a compact support in s, s such that ˆη 1 on t, t, ˆη 2/s t, and ˆη 6/s t 2. By [6, Theorem 2.8] applied to v= ˆζu, where ˆζx= d i=1 ˆηxi, followed by an interpolation inequality for the Sobolev spaces, we have D 2 u Lp I t Ns t 2 u Lp I s + Ns t 1 Du Lp I s Then, by [11, Lemma 3.1, p. 161], we obtain Nε 1 s t 2 u Lp I s +ε D 2 u Lp I s. D 2 u Lp I 1 N u Lp I 2. This inequality and interpolation inequalities for the Sobolev spaces, we get Since we assume that a ij are independent of x, by using the argument of finitedifference quotients, the same inequality also holds for D j x u j=1, 2,... in place of u. Then by successive application of 3.32 together with standard covering argument, we obtain D 2 D j x u Lp I 1 + DD j x u Lp I 1 N u Lp I 3/2 N u L2 I 2, j=, 1, 2,..., 3.33 where we used Krylov Safonov estimate in the last inequality; that is, u L I 3/2 N u L2 I 2. Takeδ = 1 2/p and set v=du. By the Morrey-Sobolev inequality, we have sup x,y I 1 x y vx, x vx, y x y δ N Dvx, Lp I 1 + vx, Lp I On the other hand, by the Sobolev embedding, there exists k N such that vx, x and D x vx, x as functions of x I 1 satisfy sup vx, x + D x vx, x N v,x W kpi 1+ D x v,x W kp I 1. x I 1 This implies that for all x I we have 1 vx, x p + D x vx, x p dx N I 1 j k D j x v p L p I 1 + Dj x D x v p L p I 1. This combined with 3.34 and 3.33 shows that recall v=du [Du] x,δ ; I 1 N u L2 I Next, again by the Sobolev embedding theorem, we find a positive integer k such that vx, x, as a function of x I 1, satisfies vx, x vy, x sup N v,x x,y I x y δ W k p I x y

15 PARTIAL SCHAUDER ESTIMATES 15 By the Morrey-Sobolev inequality, for j=, 1,..., k, D j x vx, x, as a function of x I 1, satisfies sup x I 1 D j x vx, x N D j x vx, Lp I 1 + D x D j x vx, Lp I 1. This together with 3.36 and 3.33 gives recall v=du j [Du] x,δ ; I 1 N D x Du Lp I 1 + D x D j x Du Lp I 1 N u L2 I j k By combining 3.35 and 3.37 and using a standard covering argument, we get assertion i. The proof of assertion ii is similar. Recall that there exist constants p = p d,ν>2 and N=Nd,ν such that if u W 1 2 I 2 is a weak solution oflu= in I 2, then Du is p -integrable in I 1 and Du Lp I 1 N Du L2 I 3/2. Also, note that by the Sobolev embedding theorem, we have u L2d/d 2 I 1 N u W 1 2 I 1. Therefore, by the Caccioppoli inequality, we get by replacing p by 2d/d 2 and using Hölder s inequality if necessary u Lp I 1 + Du Lp I 1 N u L2 I 2. Since we assume a ij are independent of x, the same inequality also holds for D j x u j=1, 2,... in place of u. Then by successive application of the Caccioppoli inequality together with a standard covering argument, we obtain D j x u Lp I 1 + DD j x u Lp I 1 Nd,ν, j u L2 I 2, j=, 1, 2, Then by using 3.38 instead of 3.33 and repeating the same argument with u in place of v, we get assertion ii. The lemma is proved. We begin with the proof of assertion i. We follow exactly the same line of the proof of Theorem 2.6 i up to As before, by the mollification argument we may assume that DD x u C ˆδ B 1/2. Recall that x = x d 1, x d and observe that ˆv := D x v satisfies the equation By Lemma 3.31 with a scaling, we find that a ij nx, xd 1, x d D ij ˆv= in B R/2 x [D ˆv] δ ; B R/4 x NR d/2 1 δ ˆv L2 B 3R/8 x NR d/ε 1 δ ˆv Lε B R/2 x, 3.4 where we used Krylov Safonov estimate in the last inequality; that is, 1/ε ˆv L B 3R/8 x N ˆv ε. B R/2 x Note that 3.39 is still satisfied with ṽ := ˆv ˆv BR/2 x c x x

16 16 H. DONG AND S. KIM in place of ˆv, where c R d is an arbitrary constant vector. It should be noted that ṽ BR/2 x =. Therefore, by applying 3.4 and the Poincaré inequality, we get D ˆv D ˆv Br x ε dx= Dṽ Dṽ Br x ε dx B r x B r x Nr d+εδ [Dṽ] ε δ ; B R/4 x Nrd+εδ R d ε εδ ṽ ε dx B R/2 x r d+εδ N Dṽ R ε dx r d+εδ = N R B R/2 x B R/2 x D ˆv c ε dx Then by using 3.41 instead of 3.19 and proceed as in the proof of Theorem 2.6, we find, similar to 3.24, that for any x B 1/2 and any r, 1/16, there is a constant vector c x,r R d such that B r x DD x u c x,r ε dx Nr d+ε ˆδ [ f ] ε + 1+[a] ε x, ˆδ; B 1 x,δ; B 1 D 2 u ε L p B 1, from which 2.11 follows as before. This completes the proof of assertion i. We now turn to assertion ii, the proof of which is slightly different from that of Theorem 2.6 ii in a way that we dispense with the De Giorgi Nash Moser estimate so that the proof carries over to the case of strongly elliptic systems. First, we follow exactly the same proof of Theorem 2.6 ii up to Recall that we assumed that x = x d 1, x d and observe that 3.27 is still satisfied by ṽ := ˆv ˆv BR x. Therefore, by Lemma 3.31 with a scaling note that Lemma 3.31 ii holds for systems, we find that ṽ satisfies an estimate [ṽ] δ ; B R/4 x NR δ d/2 ṽ L2 B R/2 x withδ =δ d,ν>and N= Nd,ν. Then, by utilizing the above instead of De Giorgi Nash Moser estimate, we repeat the rest of proof of Theorem 2.6 ii and obtain 2.8. The theorem is proved Proof of Theorem For the proof of the theorem we need the following three lemmas. Lemma Let p 1, be a constant. Assume that a=[a ij ] are continuous with respect to x 1,..., x d 1 in B 2/3 with a modulus of continuityω a and continuous in B 1 \B 2/3 with a modulus of continuity ω a. Then for any f L p B 1, there is a unique strong solution u W 2 pb 1 to the equation a ij D ij u= f in B 1 with the Dirichlet boundary condition u= on B 1. Moreover, we have u W 2 p B 1 N f Lp B 1, where N depends only on d, p,ν,ω a, and ω a. Proof. By following the arguments in [16, Chapter 11], the lemma is a consequence of the a priori interior Wp 2 estimates proved in [17, 8] for elliptic equations with coefficients measurable in one direction and the classical boundary Wp 2 estimate for elliptic equations with continuous coefficients.

17 PARTIAL SCHAUDER ESTIMATES 17 Lemma Assume that a=[a ij ] are continuous with respect to x 1,..., x d 1 with a modulus of continuityω a. i Let p 1,. Assume that u W 2 pb 1 and satisfies a ij D ij u= f in B 1, where f L p B 1. Then we have u W 2 p B 1/2 N f Lp B 1 + u Lp B 1, where N depends only on d,ν, p, andω a. ii If in addition f L ˆp B 1 for some ˆp p,, then we have u W 2ˆp B 1/2 and u W 2 ˆp B 1/2 N f L ˆp B 1 + u Lp B 1, where N depends only on d,ν, p, andω a. In particular, if ˆp>d, it holds that whereγ=1 d/ ˆp. [Du] γ; B1/2 N f L ˆp B 1 + u Lp B 1, Proof. The first assertion follows from the main result of [8] by a standard localization argument. The second assertion is a consequence of the first one, the Sobolev embedding theorem, and a bootstrap argument to successively improve the integrability. Here is a counterpart of Lemma 3.43 for divergence form equations. Lemma Assume that a=[a ij ] are continuous with respect to x 1,..., x d 1 with a modulus of continuityω a. i Let p 1,. Assume that u W 1 p B 1 and satisfies D i a ij D j u=div f in B 1, where f= f 1,..., f d L p B 1. Then we have u W 1 p B 1/2 N f Lp B 1 + u Lp B 1, where N depends only on d,ν, p, andω a. ii If in addition f L ˆp B 1 for some ˆp p,, then we have u W 1ˆp B 1/2 and u W 1 ˆp B 1/2 N f L ˆp B 1 + u Lp B 1, where N depends only on d,ν, p, andω a. In particular, if ˆp>d, it holds that whereγ=1 d/ ˆp. [u] γ;b1/2 N f L ˆp B 1 + u Lp B 1, Proof. The proof is similar to that of Lemma 3.43 by appealing to [4, Theorem 2.2]. Now, we turn to the proof of the theorem. We begin with assertion i. We take a point x B 1/2 and r, R, 1/4 such that <r<r/8. Let ˆζ C B 1 be a smooth cut-off function such that ˆζ 1 in B 1, ˆζ=1 in B 1/2, and ˆζ= in B 1 \ B 2/3. Define â ij x= ˆζx x /R a ij x, x + 1 ˆζx x /R δ ij. Observe that â ij are continuous with respect to x 1,..., x d 1 in B 2R/3 x and continuous with respect to x in B R x \B 2R/3 x. By Lemma 3.42, there is a unique solution w W 2 pb R x of the equation â ij D ij w= f x f x, x +a ij x, x a ij xd ij u

18 18 H. DONG AND S. KIM in B R x with the zero Dirichlet boundary data. It is crucial to observe that the modulus of continuity of â=â ij only improves under the affine transformation of B R x to B 1 as R<1. Therefore, we have an estimate D 2 w Lp B R x N f x f x, x +a ij x, x a ij xd ij u Lp B R x NR ˆδ+d/p [ f ] x, ˆδ; B 1 + NR δ [a] x,δ; B 1 D 2 u Lp B R x 3.45 with a constant N= Nd, p,ν,ω a that is independent of R, 1/4. Since â ij x=a ij x, x in B R/2 x, it is easily seen that v := u w W 2 p B Rx satisfies a ij x, x D ij v= f x, x in B R/2 x Note that both a ij x, x and f x, x are independent of x. By mollification with respect to x, without loss of generality, we may assume that ˆv := D x v Wp 2B R/4x. By differentiating 3.46 with respect to x, we see that ˆv satisfies a ij x, x D ij ˆv= in B R/4 x. Clearly, the equation above still holds with ṽ := ˆv ˆv BR/4 x x i x i D i ˆv BR/4 x in place of ˆv. Take anyγ ˆδ, 1. By applying Lemma 3.43 with a scaling the modulus of continuity only improves! and the Poincaré inequality, we get cf above B r x D ˆv D ˆv Br x p r d+pγ dx N R B r x B R/4 x By 3.45 and 3.47, we reach cf above DD x u DD x u Br x p dx B r x N DD x v DD x v Br x p dx+n r d+pγ N R B R/4 x DD x u DD x u BR/4 x p dx +NR d+p ˆδ D ˆv D ˆv BR/4 x p dx DD x w p dx B r x [ f ] p + [a] p x, ˆδ; B 1 x,δ; B 1 D 2 u p L p B By Lemma 3.22, we infer from 3.48 that, for all <r<1/32 we have DD x u DD x u Br x p dx B r x Nr d+p ˆδ DD x u p dx+[ f ] p + [a] p x B 1/16 x, ˆδ; B 1 x,δ; B 1 D 2 u p L p B 1 Nr d+p ˆδ [ f ] p + 1+[a] p x, ˆδ; B 1 x,δ; B 1 D 2 u p L p B 1 Therefore, we obtain 2.13 by Campanato s theorem. This completes the proof of assertion i..

19 PARTIAL SCHAUDER ESTIMATES 19 The proof of assertion ii is similar, and actually simpler. We give the details for the completeness. We take a point x B 1/2 and r, R, 1/4 such that <r<r/4. Let w W 1 2 B Rx be the weak solution of the equation D i a ij x, x D j w = div fx fx, x + D i a ij x, x a ij x D j u in B R x with the Dirichlet boundary condition w= on B R x. By the classical L 2 estimate for divergence form equations and Hölder s inequality, we have Dw L2 B R x N fx fx, x +a ij x, x a ij xd j u L2 B R x NR ˆδ+d/2 [f] x, ˆδ; B 1 + NR ˆδ+d/2 [a] x,δ; B 1 Du Lp B R x, 3.49 where N depends only on d, p, andν. It is easily seen that v := u w W 1 2 B Rx satisfies D i a ij x, x D j v = div fx, x in B R x. 3.5 By mollification with respect to x, without loss of generality, we may assume that ˆv := D x v W 1 pb R/2 x. By differentiating 3.5 with respect to x, we see that ˆv satisfies D i a ij x, x D j ˆv = in B R/2 x. Clearly, the equation above still holds with ṽ := ˆv ˆv BR/2 x in place of ˆv. Take anyγ ˆδ, 1. By applying Lemma 3.44 with a scaling the modulus of continuity only improves! and the Poincaré inequality, we get cf above B r x ˆv ˆv Br x 2 dx= B r x ṽ ṽ Br x 2 dx r d+2γ Nr d+2γ [ṽ] 2 γ; B R/4 x N ṽ 2 dx R B R/2 x r d+2γ N ˆv ˆv BR/2 x R 2 dx B R/2 x Then, similar to 3.29, we get from 3.49 and 3.51 that D x u D x u Br x 2 r d+2γ dx N D x u D x u BR x B r x R 2 dx B R x + NR d+2 ˆδ [f] 2 + [a] 2 x, ˆδ; B 1 x,δ; B 1 Du 2 L p B By Lemma 3.22 and 3.52, for all <r<1/16 we have D x u D x u Br x 2 dx B r x Nr d+2 ˆδ D x u 2 dx+[f] 2 + [a] 2 x B 1/4 x, ˆδ;B 1 x,δ;b 1 Du 2 L p B 1 Nr d+2 ˆδ [f] [a] 2 x, ˆδ; B 1 x,δ; B 1 Du 2 L p B 1 Therefore, by Campanato s theorem, we get The theorem is proved..

20 2 H. DONG AND S. KIM 3.5. Remarks on equations with lower-order terms. In this subsection, we illustrate how to extend the results in Section 2 to operators with lower-order terms in non-divergence form and in divergence form Lu := a ij xd ij u+b i xd i u+cxu, Lu := D i a ij xd j u+ ˆb i xu+b i xd i u+cxu, where the lower-order coefficients are bounded and measurable, which satisfies b i, ˆb i, c Kfor some K. As in the classical Schauder theory, the idea is to move lower-order terms to the right-hand side. However, because we only have estimates of partial Hölder norms, the argument here is a bit more involved. Theorem 2.2 ii still holds if we assume, for instance, b=[b i ] are independent of x, and c C δ x. In this case, by using the Krylov Safonov estimate and the method of the finite difference quotients, it is easily seen that u C δ x B r for any r, 1, so one can move the zeroth-order term cu to the right-hand of the equation. Because b are independent of x and in the proofκr 1, the first-order term in the equation does not cause any trouble. In the same fashion, Theorem 2.2 iii can be extended to the case when b are independent of x, and ˆb=[ˆb i ] C δ x. Moreover, we can add g L p B 1 to the right-hand side of the equation, where p=d/1 δ. To see this, first the term cu can be absorbed to g. Now let w Wp 2B 1 be the unique solution to the equation w=g in B 1 with the zero Dirichlet boundary condition on B 1. Then by the classical Wp 2 estimate and the Sobolev embedding theorem, we have [Dw] δ; B1 N w W 2 p B 1 N g Lp B 1, so we can rewrite the right-hand side as divf+ w. Similar to the reasoning above, we have u C δ x B r for any r, 1. Thus the term D i ˆb i u can be absorbed to the right-hand side as well. In Theorem 2.6 i, we may assume that b, c C ˆδ x. Indeed, since 1 d/p δ d/p ˆδ, by the Sobolev embedding theorem, we have Du, u C ˆδ B 1. Therefore, we can move the lower-order terms to the right-hand side. Theorem 2.6 ii can be extended to the case when ˆb C ˆδ x with an additional term g L p B 1 on the right-hand side. By the Sobolev embedding theorem, u C ˆδ B 1. Thus, ˆb i u can be absorbed to f, and b i Du+cu can be absorbed to g. The same extension can be carried out in Theorems 2.1 and Main results for parabolic equations In this section, we consider parabolic operators in non-divergence form and in divergence form Pu := u t a ij t, xd ij u 4.1 Pu := u t D i a ij t, xd j u 4.2 where t R and x=x, x R d. Here, we assume the coefficients a ij t, x are bounded measurable functions onr d+1 and satisfy the uniform ellipticity condition ν ξ 2 a ij t, xξ i ξ j ν 1 ξ 2, t, x R d+1, ξ R d, 4.3

21 PARTIAL SCHAUDER ESTIMATES 21 for some constantν, 1]. As in the elliptic case we assume the symmetry of the coefficients for the non-divergence form operators P but for the operatorspin divergence form, we instead assume that d i,j=1 aij t, x 2 ν 2 for all t, x R d+1. For a function ut, x=ut, x, x on Q R d+1, we define a partial Hölder semi-norm with respect to x as ut, x, x ut, y, x [u] x,δ; Q := sup. t,x,x, t,y,x Q x y δ x y Similarly, we define the partial Hölder semi-norm with respect to t as ut, x us, x [u] t,δ; Q := sup, t,x, s,x Q t s δ t s and the partial Hölder semi-norms with respect to z := t, x as [u] z,δ/2,δ; Q := [u] t,δ/2; Q + [u] x,δ; Q, [u] z,1+δ/2,1+δ; Q := [u] t,1+δ/2; Q + [D x u] z,δ/2,δ; Q. It should be made clear that the above definitions for [u] z,δ/2,δ; Q and [u] z,1+δ/2,1+δ; Q are equivalent to those defined in [5] with Q=R d+1. Other related definitions such as [u] x,k+δ; Q, [u] t,k+δ; Q, and [u] z,k+δ/2,k+δ; Q k =, 1, 2,... are accordingly extended to functions u=ut, x on Q. The function spaces Cx k+δ Q, C k+δ t Q, and k+δ/2, k+δ C z Q are defined accordingly for k=, 1, 2,... We say that u Wp 1,2 Q for some p 1 if u and its weak derivatives Du, D 2 u, and u t are in L p Q. For p 1,, we say that u W 1,2 is a strong solution of p; loc Pu = f if u satisfies the equation Pu = f a.e. We also denoteh 1 p Q to be the space consisting of all functions u satisfying inf { g Lp Q+ h Lp Q : u=div g+h } <. It is easy to see thath 1 p Q is a Banach space. Naturally, for any u H 1 p Q, we define the norm We also define u H 1 p Q= inf { g Lp Q+ h Lp Q : u=div g+h }. H 1 p Q= { u : u, Du L p Q, u t H 1 p Q }. Finally, for z=t, x R d+1 andρ>, let Q ρ z=t ρ 2, t B ρ x and p Q ρ z be its parabolic boundary. We write Q r = Q r for simplicity. The next theorem is a parabolic counterpart of Theorem 2.2. Hereafter, we denote R d+1 :=, R d. Theorem 4.4. i Let u W 1,2 d+1; loc Rd+1 be a bounded strong solution of the equation Pu= f inr d+1. If a=[a ij ] are independent of x and f C δ x R d+1, then u C 2+δ is a constant N= Nd, q,δ,ν such that [u] x,2+δ;r d+1 N[ f ] x,δ;r. d+1 x R d+1 and there

22 22 H. DONG AND S. KIM If a=[a ij ] are independent of t and f C δ/2 is a constant N= Nd, q,δ,ν such that [u] t,1+δ/2;r d+1 t R d+1 N[ f ] t,δ/2;r d+1., then u C 1+δ/2 ii Let u W 1,2 d+1; loc Q 1 be a bounded strong solution of the equation Pu= f in Q 1. t R d+1 and there If a=[a ij ] are independent of x and f C δ x Q 1, then u C 2+δ x Q 1/2 and there is a constant N=Nd, q,δ,ν such that [u] x,2+δ; Q 1/2 N [ f ] x,δ; Q 1 + u ; Q1. If a=[a ij ] are independent of t and f C δ/2 t Q 1, then u C 1+δ/2 t Q 1/2 and there is a constant N = Nd, q, δ, ν such that [u] t,1+δ/2; Q1/2 N [ f ] t,δ/2; Q1 + u ; Q1. iii Let u H 1 2 Q 1 be a bounded weak solution of the equation Pu=div f in Q 1. If a=[a ij ] are independent of x and f C δ x Q 1, then u C 1+δ x Q 1/2 and there is a constant N=Nd, q,δ,ν such that [u] x,1+δ; Q 1/2 N [f] x,δ; Q 1 + u ; Q1. If a=[a ij ] are independent of t and f C δ/2 t Q 1, then u C 1+δ/2 t Q 1/2 and there is a constant N= Nd, q,δ,ν such that [u] t,1+δ/2; Q1/2 N [f] t,δ/2; Q1 + u ; Q1. We note that Theorem 4.4 i is an improvement of [5, Theorem 2.13], where continuity of the coefficients was assumed. By using an interpolation inequality in Lemma 6.1, Theorem 4.4 i also provides an improvement of [5, Theorem 2.15]. For the sake of record, we state it as a corollary. It should be also noted that the same can be said to other results in this section regarding estimates for [u] z. Corollary 4.5. Let u W 1,2 d+1; loc Rd+1 be a bounded strong solution of the equation Pu= f inr d+1. If a=[a ij ] are independent of z and f C δ/2,δ is a constant N=Nd, q,δ,ν such that [u] z,1+δ/2,2+δ;r d+1 z R d+1 z R d+1, then u C 1+δ/2,2+δ N[ f ] z,δ/2,δ;r. d+1 and there Next we consider parabolic equations in non-divergence form 4.1 and in divergence form 4.2 with coefficients depending on all the variables. Theorem 4.6. Letδ, 1] and p d+2, be such thatδ d+2/p>. Then, there exists a constantδ =δ d,ν> such that the following assertions hold with any ˆδ,δ satisfying ˆδ δ d+2/p.

23 PARTIAL SCHAUDER ESTIMATES 23 i Let u Wp 1,2 Q 1 be a strong solution of the equation Pu= f in Q 1. If a=[a ij ] areδ-hölder continuous in x and f C ˆδ x Q 1, then D 2 x u C ˆδ/2, ˆδ Q 1/2 and there is a constant N = Nd, q, ν, δ, p such that [D 2 x u] ˆδ/2, ˆδ; Q 1/2 N [ f ] x, ˆδ; Q [a] x,δ; Q 1 D 2 u Lp Q If a=[a ij ] areδ/2-hölder continuous in t and f C ˆδ/2 t Q 1, then u t C ˆδ/2, ˆδ Q 1/2 and there is a constant N=Nd,ν,δ, p such that [u t ] ˆδ/2, ˆδ; Q 1/2 N [ f ] t, ˆδ/2; Q 1 + f L1 Q [a] t,δ/2; Q1 D 2 u Lp Q ii Let u H 1 p Q 1 be a weak solution of the equation Pu=div f in Q 1. If a=[a ij ] areδ-hölder continuous in x and f C ˆδ x Q 1, then D x u C ˆδ/2, ˆδ Q 1/2 and there is a constant N = Nd, q, ν, δ, p such that [D x u] ˆδ/2, ˆδ; Q 1/2 N [f] x, ˆδ; Q [a] x,δ; Q 1 Du Lp Q If a=[a ij ] areδ/2-hölder continuous in t and f C ˆδ/2 t Q 1, then u C 1+ ˆδ/2 t Q 1/2 and there is a constant N=Nd,ν,δ, p such that [u] t,1+ ˆδ/2; Q 1/2 N [f] t, ˆδ/2; Q 1 + f L1 Q [a] t,δ/2; Q1 Du Lp Q For 4.1, the condition ˆδ,δ is not needed. Theorem Letδ, 1] and p d+2, be such that ˆδ :=δ d+2/p>. Assume that a=[a ij ] are uniformly continuous in t, x 1,...,x d 1 and merely measurable in x d. Letω a denote a modulus of continuity of a=[a ij ] with respect to t, x 1,..., x d 1. i Let u Wp 1,2 Q 1 be a strong solution of the equation Pu= f in Q 1. If a=[a ij ] areδ-hölder continuous in x and f C ˆδ x Q 1, then we have D x u C 1+ ˆδ/2,1+ ˆδ Q 1/2 and there is a constant N depending on d, p,δ,ν, andω a, such that [D x u] 1+ ˆδ/2,1+ ˆδ; Q 1/2 N [ f ] x, ˆδ; Q [a] x,δ; Q 1 D 2 u Lp Q If a=[a ij ] areδ/2-hölder continuous in t and f C ˆδ/2 t Q 1, then u t C ˆδ/2, ˆδ Q 1/2 and there is a constant N depending on d, p,δ,ν, andω a, such that [u t ] ˆδ/2, ˆδ; Q 1/2 N [ f ] t, ˆδ/2; Q 1 + f L1 Q [a] t,δ/2; Q1 D 2 u Lp Q ii Let u H 1 p Q 1 be a weak solution of the equation Pu=div f in Q 1. If a=[a ij ] areδ-hölder continuous in x and f C ˆδ x Q 1, then D x u C ˆδ/2, ˆδ Q 1/2 and there is a constant N depending on d, p,δ,ν, andω a, such that [D x u] ˆδ/2, ˆδ; Q 1/2 N [f] x, ˆδ; Q [a] x,δ; Q 1 Du Lp Q 1.