arxiv: v2 [math.dg] 5 Apr 2017

Transcription

1 GEOETRIC SINGULARITIES AND A FLOW TANGENT TO THE RICCI FLOW LASHI BANDARA, SAJJAD LAKZIAN, AND ICHAEL UNN arxiv: v2 [math.dg] 5 Apr 2017 Abstract. We consider a geometric flow introduced by Gigli and antegazza which, in the case of a smooth compact manifold with a smooth metric, is tangential to the Ricci flow almost-everywhere along geodesics. To study spaces with geometric singularities, we consider this flow in the contet of a smooth manifold with a rough metric possessing a sufficiently regular heat kernel. On an appropriate non-singular open region, we provide a family of metric tensors evolving in time and provide a regularity theory for this flow in terms of the regularity of the heat kernel. When the rough metric induces a metric measure space satisfying a Riemannian Curvature Dimension condition, we demonstrate that the distance induced by the flow is identical to the evolving distance metric defined by Gigli and antegazza on appropriate admissible points. Consequently, we demonstrate that a smooth compact manifold with a finite number of geometric conical singularities remains a smooth manifold with a smooth metric away from the cone points for all future times. oreover, we show that the distance induced by the evolving metric tensor agrees with the flow of RCD(K, N) spaces defined by Gigli-antegazza. Contents 1. Introduction 1 Acknowledgements 4 2. Geometric singularities 5 3. ain results and applications Elliptic problems and regularity The flow for rough metrics with Lipschitz kernels Regularity of the flow for sufficiently smooth metrics RCD(K, N) spaces and singularities 34 References Introduction Nearly ten years ago, using the tools of optimal transportation, Lott-Villani [21] and Sturm [28, 29] etended the notion of lower Ricci curvature bounds to the setting of general metric measure spaces. Among other things, they showed that this socalled curvature-dimension condition, denoted CD(K, N) for K R, N [1, ], is stable under measured Gromov-Hausdorff limits and consistent with the notion of Ricci curvature lower bounds for Riemannian manifolds. That is to say, for smooth Date: April 6, athematics Subject Classification. 53C44, 58J05, 35J15, 58J60. Key words and phrases. Ricci flow, rough metrics, Wasserstein space, geometric singularity, RCD space. 1

2 2 LASHI BANDARA, SAJJAD LAKZIAN, AND ICHAEL UNN Riemannian manifolds, the CD(K, N) condition is equivalent to having the Ricci curvature tensor bounded below by K and dimension of the manifold at most N. In a similar way, for a metric measure space (X, d, µ), the CD(K, N) condition is understood to say that X has N-dimensional Ricci curvature bounded below by K. Although CD(K, N) spaces enjoy many favourable properties, Villani shows in [30] that such spaces also allow for Finsler structures. This is a somewhat unsettling fact as it is known that Finsler manifolds cannot arise as the Gromov-Hausdorff limit of Riemannian manifolds with lower Ricci curvature bounds. Even more so, classical results such as the Cheeger-Gromoll splitting theorem were known to fail for general metric measure spaces which are merely CD(K, N). In order to retain these nice properties while also ruling out Finsler geometries, Ambrosio-Gigli-Savaré introduced a further refined version of the curvature-dimension bound requiring that in addition, the Sobolev space W 1,2 (X ) is a Hilbert space. Combining this condition of infinitesimally Hilbertian structure with the classical curvature dimension condition, they define the Riemannian Curvature Dimension condition, denoted RCD(K, N). In recent years there has been an increased interest in better understanding the fine geometric and analytic consequences of this Riemannian curvature dimension condition. There has been a great deal of progress in this direction and a number of very deep results describing the structure of these spaces. See, for eample, recent work of Ambrosio, Cavalletti, Gigli, ondino, Naber, Rajala, Savaré, Sturm in [2, 3, 9, 15, 13, 16, 23]. We emphasise that this list is by no means ehaustive, and encourage the reader to consult the references within. The starting point of our considerations is the paper [15] by Gigli and antegazza, where they define a geometric flow for spaces that are possibly singular. There, the authors consider a compact RCD(K, N) space (X, d, µ) and define a family of evolving distance metrics d t for positive time. They build this via the heat flow of d and µ in Wasserstein space, the space of probability measures on X with the so-called Wasserstein metric. The essential feature of this flow is when the triple (X, d, µ) arises from a smooth compact manifold (, g). In this setting, the evolution d t is given by an evolving smooth metric tensor which satisfies t g t ( γ(s), γ(s)) t=0 = 2Ric g ( γ(s), γ(s)), for almost-every s [0, 1] along g-geodesics γ. That is, g t is tangential to the Ricci flow in this weak sense. This work of Gigli-antegazza gives one direction in which one could possibly define a Ricci flow for general metric measure spaces for all t > 0. The latter correspondence is obtained by writing an evolving metric tensor via a partial differential equation. First, at each t > 0, and v T, they consider the continuity equation (CE) div g (ρ g t (, y) ϕ t,,v (y)) = (d ρ g t (, y))(v) ϕ t,,v (y) dµ g (y) = 0.

3 GEOETRIC SINGULARITIES AND A FLOW TANGENT TO THE RICCI FLOW 3 For smooth metrics, the eistence and regularity of solutions to this flow are immediate and they define a smooth family of metrics evolving in time by (G) g t (u, v)() = g( ϕ t,,u (y), ϕ t,,v (y)) ρ g t (, y) dµ g (y). While the formulation of this flow for RCD(K, N) spaces gives the eistence of a time evolving distance metric for a possible singular space, it reveals little regularity information in positive time. On the other hand, the evolving metric tensor is only specified when both the initial metric and underlying manifold are smooth. One of the motivating questions of the current paper is to better understand the behaviour of this flow on manifolds with geometric singularities and hence, the question of regularity will be a primary focus. Since there are few tools in the setting of RCD(K, N) spaces that are sufficiently mature to etract regularity information, we restrict ourselves eclusively to compact manifolds that are smooth, by which we assume only that they admit a smooth differential structure. While this may seem a potentially severe restriction, we vindicate ourselves by allowing for the metric tensor to be rough, i.e., a symmetric, positive-definite, (2, 0)-tensor field with measurable coefficients. Rough metrics and their salient features are discussed in 2.1. Such metrics allow a wide class of phenomena, so large that such a metric may not even induce a length structure, only an n-dimensional measure. oreover, they may induce spaces that are not RCD. However, this potentially outrageous behaviour is redeemed by the fact that they are able to capture a wide class of geometric singularities, including Lipschitz transformations of C 1 geometries, conical singularities, and Euclidean boes. These objects are considered in 3.2. Our primary concern is when a metric ehibits singular behaviour on some closed subset S, but has good regularity properties on the open set \ S. This is indeed the case for a Euclidean bo, or a smooth compact manifold with finite number of geometric conical singularities. In this situation, away from the singular part, we are able to construct a metric tensor g t evolving according to (G). We say that two points, y \ S are g t -admissible if for any absolutely continuous curve γ : I connecting these points, there is another absolutely continuous curve γ : I between and y with length (measured via d t ) less than γ and for which γ (s) \ S for almost-every s. For such a pair of points, we assert that the distance d t (, y), given by the RCD(K, N)-flow of Gigli and antegazza, is induced by the metric tensor g t. The following is a more precise showcasing of our main theorem. It is proved in 7. Theorem 1.1. Let be a smooth, compact manifold with rough metric g that induces a distance metric d g. oreover, suppose there eists K R and N > 0 such that (, d g, µ g ) RCD(K, N). If S is a closed set and g C k ( \ S), there eists a family of metrics g t C k 1,1 on \ S evolving according to (G) on \ S. For two points, y that are g t -admissible, the distance d t (, y) given by the RCD(K, N) Gigli-antegazza flow is induced by g t.

4 4 LASHI BANDARA, SAJJAD LAKZIAN, AND ICHAEL UNN The divergence form structure is an essential feature that allows for the analysis of the defining continuity equation (CE). In the compact case, it turns out that near every rough metric g, there is a smooth metric g in a suitable L -sense. Coupling this with the divergence structure, we are able to perturb this problem to the study of a divergence form operator with bounded, measurable coefficients on g of the form div g ρ g t (, )Bθ ϕ t,,v = θd (ρ g t (, ))(v), where B is a bounded, measurable (1, 1)-tensor transforming g to g and θ the Raydon-Nikodym derivative of the two induced measures µ g and µ g. This trick of hiding singularities in an operator has its origins to the investigations of boundary value problems with low regularity boundary. For us, this philosophy has a geometric reincarnation arising from investigations of the Kato square root problem on manifolds, with its origins in a seminal paper [4] by Aelsson, Keith and cintosh and more recently by orris in [24], and Bandara and cintosh in [7]. In 4, we study the eistence and regularity of solutions to such continuity equations by using spectral methods and PDE tools. We further emphasise that such equations allow for a certain disintegration - that is, at each point, we solve a differential equation in the y variable. Eventually, we are concerned with objects involving an integration in y, and hence, we are able to allow weak solutions in y while being able to prove stronger regularity results in. While the reduction of a nonlinear problem to a pointwise linear one is a tremendous boon to the analysis that we conduct in this paper, there is a price to pay. The equation (CE) is nonlinear in, and this nonlinear behaviour requires the analysis in of the family of operators div g ρ g t (, )Bθ. This is not as significant a disadvantage as one initially anticipates as this opens up the possibility to attacking regularity questions by the means of operator theory. One of the main points of this paper is to illustrate how the regularity properties of the flow (G) relate to the regularity properties of the heat kernel. Theorem 1.1 allows for the possibility of the evolving metric to become less regular than the original metric on the non-singular subset. An inspection of the continuity equation (CE) shows that the solution at a point depends on sets of full measure potentially far away from this point. Thus, it is possible that singularities may resolve from smoothing properties emerging from the heat kernel. However, it is also possible that potentially unruly behaviour somewhere in heat kernel forces the flow to introduce additional singularities. That being said, we show that for k 1, C k metrics will continue to be C k under the flow. We discuss these results and surrounding issues in greater depth in 3. Acknowledgements This research was conducted during the Junior Trimester Program on Optimal Transport at the Hausdorff Research Institute for athematics in Bonn, Germany.

5 GEOETRIC SINGULARITIES AND A FLOW TANGENT TO THE RICCI FLOW 5 The authors acknowledge the gracious support of this institution as well as the program. The authors would like to thank Nicola Gigli for encouraging conversation as well as Christian Ketterer, artin Kell and Ale Amenta for helpful conversations and suggestions. 2. Geometric singularities Throughout this paper, by the term geometric singularity, we shall mean singularities that arise in the metric g of a smooth manifold. We allow such singularities to be a lack of differentiability or even the lack of continuity. To emphasise this point, we contrast this to pure topological singularities, which are singularities that live in the topology and cannot be smoothed and transferred into the metric. Let to be a smooth manifold (possibly non-compact) of dimension dim = n. By this, we mean a second countable, Hausdorff space that is locally Euclidean, with the transition maps being smooth. On an open subset Ω, we write C k,α (Ω) (k 0 and α [0, 1]) to mean k-times continuously differentiable functions bounded locally in coordinate patches inside Ω, and where the k-th partial derivatives are α-hölder continuous locally. We write C k (Ω) instead of C k,0 (Ω). Let T (p,q) denote the tensors of covariant rank p and contravariant rank q. We write T = T (1,0) and T = T (0,1), the cotangent and tangent bundles respectively. The bundle of differentiable k-forms are given by Ω k and the eterior algebra is given by Ω = n k=0 Ωk, where R = Ω 0 (the bundle of functions), and T = Ω 1. The differentiable structure of the smooth manifold affords us with a differential operator d : C (Ω k ) C (Ω k+1 ). Indeed, this differential operator is dependent on the differentiable structure we associate to the manifold. We remark on this fact since, in dimensions higher than 4, there are homeomorphic differentiable structures that are not diffeomorphic (cf. [22] by ilnor and [12] by Freedman). From this point onward, we fi a differentiable structure on. We shall only eercise interest in the case of k = 0 where d : C () C (T ) and sometimes use the notation to denote d. We emphasise that a smooth manifold also affords us with a measure structure. We say that a set A is measurable if for any chart (ψ, U) with U A, we obtain that ψ(u A) R n is Lebesgue measurable. By second countability, this quantification can be made countable. By writing Γ(T (p,q) ) we denote the sections of the vector bundle T (p,q) with measurable coefficients Rough metrics. In connection with investigating the geometric invariances of the Kato square root problem, Bandara introduced a notion of a rough metric in [5].

6 6 LASHI BANDARA, SAJJAD LAKZIAN, AND ICHAEL UNN This notion is of fundamental importance to the rest of this paper and therefore, in this sub-section, we will describe some of the important features of such metrics. We do not assume that is compact until later in this section. Let us first recall the definition of a rough metric. Definition 2.1. We say that a real-symmetric g Γ(T (2,0) ) is a rough metric if for each, there eists some chart (ψ, U) containing and a constant C 1 (dependent on U), such that, for y-a.e. in U, C 1 u ψ δ(y) u g(y) C u ψ δ(y), where u T y, u 2 g(y) = g(u, u) and ψ δ is the pullback of the Euclidean metric inside ψ(u) R n. Such a chart is said to satisfy the local comparability condition. It is easy to see that by taking U to be the pullback of a Euclidean ball contained in a chart near, every C k,α metric (for k 0 and α [0, 1]) is a rough metric. Two rough metrics g and g are said to be C-close (for C 1) if C 1 u g() u g() C u g() for almost-every. If we assume that is compact, then it is easy to see that for any rough metric g, there eists a constant C 1 and a smooth metric g such that g and g are C-close. Two continuous metrics are C-close if the C-close condition above holds everywhere. oreover, we note the following. Its proof is given in Proposition 10 in [5]. Proposition 2.2. Let g and g be two rough metrics that are C-close. Then, there eists B Γ(T T) such that it is real, symmetric, almost-everywhere positive, invertible, and g (B()u, v) = g (u, v) for almost-every. Furthermore, for almost-every, C 2 u g() B()u g() C 2 u g(), and the same inequality holds with g and g interchanged. If g C k and g C l (with k, l 0), then the properties of B are valid for all and B C min{k,l} (T T). A rough metric always induces a measure described by the epression dµ g () = det(g ij ()) dl () inside a locally comparable chart. The well-definedness of this epression is verified just as in the case of a C k,α metric. This measure can easily be proven to be Borel and finite on compact sets. The notion of measurable which we have defined agrees with the notion of µ g -measurable obtained via a rough metric. oreover, the following holds for two C-close metrics. Proposition 2.3. Let g and g be C-close for some C 1. Then, the measure dµ g () = det B() dµ g () for -a.e., and C n 2 µ g µ g C n 2 µ g. oreover, if g is continuous, then the measure µ g is Radon.

7 GEOETRIC SINGULARITIES AND A FLOW TANGENT TO THE RICCI FLOW 7 Proof. The first part of the statement is proved as Proposition 11 in [5]. We prove that µ g is Radon by using the fact that µ g is inner regular. That is, for a Borel B and every ε > 0 there eists K ε B such that µ g (B) µ g (K ε ) ε. Therefore, µ g (B) µ g (K ε ) = (χ B χ Kε ) dµ g C n/2 (χ B χ Kε ) dµ g C n/2 (µ g (B) µ g (K ε )) C n/2 ε, where the first inequality follows from the fact that χ B χ Kε 0. Thus, µ g (B) = sup K B µ g (K). We remark that throughout the paper, when we say that (, g) induces a length structure, we mean that between any two points, y there eists an absolutely continuous curve γ : I with γ(0) =, γ(1) = y such that 0 < γ(t) 2 g(γ(t)) <. I Then, the induced distance d g (, y) is simply given as in the smooth case by taking an infimum over all curves between such points of the square root of this quantity L -metrics and metrics of divergence form operators. The goal of this subsection is to illustrate the connections of rough metrics to other low-regularity metrics that are often mentioned in folklore. In fact, we shall see that as a virtue of compactness, these notions are indeed equivalent. This section is intended as motivation for us considering rough metrics and can be safely omitted. First, we highlight the following simple lemma. Lemma 2.4. Suppose that g Γ(T (2,0) ) is symmetric and that there eists a smooth metric h and C 1 such that C 1 u h() u g() C u h() for almost-every. Then g is a rough metric. Proof. Fi and let (ψ, U) be a chart near. Let V = ψ 1 (B r (ψ())), where B r (ψ()) R n is a Euclidean ball with r > 0 chosen such that B r (ψ()) ψ(u). Then, by virtue of the smoothness of h and since V is compact, we obtain some C V 1 such that C 1 V u ψ δ(y) u h(y) C V u ψ δ(y), for all y V. On combining this with our hypothesis, we find that for almost-every y V, (C V C) 1 u h(y) u g(y) C V C u h(y). That is, g is a rough metric. Net, we define the following notion of an L -metric.

8 8 LASHI BANDARA, SAJJAD LAKZIAN, AND ICHAEL UNN Definition 2.5. We say that a real-symmetric g Γ(T (2,0) ) is an L -metric on if: (i) there eists a g 1 Γ(T (0,2) ) inverse to g, by which we mean that writing G = (g ij ()) and G = (g 1 ij ()), GG = G G = I for almost-every, and (ii) there eists a smooth metric h and constants Λ 1, Λ 2 > 0 such that g h Λ 1 and g 1 h Λ 2. We prove that an L -metric is indeed a rough metric. Proposition 2.6. An L -metric g is a rough metric. It is (ma {Λ 1 n, Λ 2 n})-close to a smooth metric h. Proof. Fi in which the inequalities in the definition of an L -metric is valid. Let {e i } be a frame for T so that h ij () = δ ij. Let G = (g ij ()) Then, note that Λ 1 g() 2 h() = g ij ()g mn ()h im ()h jn = ij g ij 2. Now, let u T, and then u 2 g() = g()(u, u) = g ij u i u j j i g ij u i u j j ( ) 1 ( ) g ij u j 2 u i 2, where the last inequality follows form the Cauchy Schwarz inequality. Now, by our previous calculation, we have that g ij 2 Λ 1, and hence, g ij u j 2 Λ 1 n u j 2 = Λ 1 n u 2 h(). j i j That is, u g() Λ 1 n u h(). Applying this with g 1 in place of g and h 1 in place of h, we further obtain that u g 1 () Λ 1 n u h 1 (). Now, we note that G = (g 1 ij ()) = G 1. Since G is symmetric, let G = P DP tr, its eigenvalue decomposition. Indeed, D = diag(λ i ) and λ i > 0 since G is invertible. On letting D 1 = diag(σ i ), note that σ n = λ 1 and we have that σ n Λ 2 n, which means that λ 1 1 Λ 2. So, now n u 2 g() = u tr Gu = u tr P DP tr u = (P tr u) tr D(P tr u) = ũ tr Dũ = λ i ũ i min {λ i } ũ i 1 Λ i i 2 n P tr u = 1 Λ 2 n u 2, since P is an orthonormal matri. That is, we have shown that for almost-every, and every u T, (Λ 2 n) 1 u g() u h() (Λ 1 n) 1 u h(). Thus, by Lemma 2.4, g is a rough metric. i i

9 GEOETRIC SINGULARITIES AND A FLOW TANGENT TO THE RICCI FLOW 9 Another class of metrics we consider are metrics arising from coefficients of elliptic operators in divergence form. In particular, see the paper [27] by Saloff-Coste, where the author eplicitly considers this class of metrics, although he makes a qualitative assumption that the coefficients are smooth. Fi some smooth metric h and let A Γ(T (1,1), h) be real-symmetric. Consider the real-symmetric form J A [u, v] = A u, v h. In order for this to define an elliptic operator, the natural assumption is to ask that there eist κ 1, κ 2 > 0 such that h(au, u)() κ 1 u 2 h() and A h() κ 2, for almost-every. For the sake of nomenclature, let us say that the coefficients A are elliptic if this condition is met. Under these conditions, the self-adjoint operator associated to J A is L A u = div h A u. Such operators have been amply studied in the literature. Let us now define a metric associated to elliptic coefficients A by writing g(u, v) = h(au, v). Then, we have the following proposition. Proposition 2.7. A metric g induced from elliptic coefficients A via a smooth metric h is a rough metric. The metric g is (ma {κ 1, κ 2 })-close to h. Proof. By virtue of the fact that A are elliptic coefficients, we immediately obtain that for almost-every, u 2 g() = h(au, u) κ2 1 u 2 h() for every u T. For the upper bound, fi an where the ellipticity inequality is valid, and choose a frame so that let h ij () = δ ij. Then, we have that A 2 h() = ij Ai j 2. Then, Now, Thus, u 2 g() metric. Au 2 h() = j i u 2 g() = h (Au, u) Au h() u h(). A i ju i 2 j ( ) ( A i j 2 i i u i 2 ) κ 4 2 u 2 h(). κ 2 2 u 2 h(). By invoking Lemma 2.4, we obtain that g is a rough As a finale, on collating our results here, we present the following proposition. Proposition 2.8. We have the following: (i) every rough metric that is close to a smooth one is an L -metric, (ii) every L -metric is a metric induced via elliptic coefficients, (iii) every metric induced via elliptic coefficients is an L -metric. If is compact, then all these notions are equivalent. Proof. For (i), suppose that g is a rough metric and that it is C-close to a smooth metric h. Then, by Proposition 2.2, we obtain a B Γ(T (1,1) ) so that g(u, v) =

10 10 LASHI BANDARA, SAJJAD LAKZIAN, AND ICHAEL UNN h(bu, v) and C 2 u h() B()u h() C 2 u h(), for almost-every. Fi an where this inequality is valid and choose a h orthonormal frame {e i } at. Then, g() 2 h() = ij g ij () 2 = ij h(be i, e j ) ij Be i h() e j h() n 2 C 2. So, g h n 2 C 2 almost-everywhere. Since g 1 (u, v) = h 1 (B 1 u, v), a similar calculation shows that g 1 h 1 n 2 C 2. To prove (ii), suppose that g is an L -metric. Then, we have shown in Proposition 2.6 that it is a rough metric that is close to a smooth metric h. Hence, by Proposition 2.2, we have B Γ(T (1,1) ) which can easily be checked to satisfy ellipticity. Hence, g(u, v) = h(bu, v), i.e., it is a metric induced by elliptic coefficients. Then, it is a rough metric that is C-close to a smooth one and by (i), we obtain that it is an L -metric. If further we assume that is a compact manifold, then near every rough metric g, there is a smooth metric h, and hence, by (i), we obtain that every rough metric is L or equivalently, defined via elliptic coefficients. In particular, this proposition gives credence to the notion of a rough metric since it is a sufficiently general notion that is able to capture the behaviour of these other aforementioned low regularity metrics Lebesgue and Sobolev space theory. A more pertinent feature of rough metrics is that they admit a Sobolev space theory. In order to make our eposition shorter and more accessible, from here on, we assume that is compact. First, we note that since (, µ g ) is a measure space, we obtain a Lebesgue theory. Let L p (T (p,q), g) denote the p-integrable Lebesgue spaces over the bundle of (p, q) tensors. We write L p (, g) for the case that p = q = 0. We quote the following result which is listed as Proposition 8 in [5]. Proposition 2.9. For a rough metric g, p : C L p () C L p (T ) and c : C c () C c (T ) given by p = d and c = d on the respective domains are closable, densely-defined operators. As a consequence, we define the Sobolev spaces as function spaces by writing W 1,p () = D( p ) and W 1,p 0 = D( c ). Proposition Let g and g be two C-close rough metrics on a compact manifold. Then, (i) whenever p [1, ), L p (T (r,s), g) = L p (T (r,s), g) with C (r+s+ n 2p) u p, g u p,g C r+s+ n 2p u p, g,

11 GEOETRIC SINGULARITIES AND A FLOW TANGENT TO THE RICCI FLOW 11 (ii) for p =, L (T (r,s), g) = L (T (r,s), g) with C (r+s) u, g u,g C r+s u, g, (iii) the Sobolev spaces W 1,p (, g) = W 1,p (, g) = W 1,p 0 (, g) = W 1,p 0 (, g) with C (1+ n 2p) u W 1,p, g u W 1,p,g C 1+ n 2p u W 1,p, g, (iv) the Sobolev spaces W d,p (, g) = W d,p (, g) with C (n+ n 2p) u W d,p, g u W d,p,g C n+ n 2p u W d,p, g, (v) the divergence operators satisfy div g = θ 1 div g θb. (vi) the Laplacians satisfy g = θ 1 div g θb. We emphasise (iii), which demonstrates that W 1,2 (, g) = W 1,2 (, g) for any rough metric g, since, as we have aforementioned, compactness guarantees the eistence of a smooth metric g that is C-close to g. 3. ain results and applications 3.1. Eistence and regularity of the flow. The broader perspective underpinning our analysis in this paper is to relate the regularity of the heat kernel to the regularity of the Gigli-antegazza flow. Indeed, this is to be epected simply from inspection of the main governing equation (CE) for this flow. In 4, we consider L -coefficient differential operators on smooth manifolds, and we obtain solutions to more general equations similar to (CE). Furthermore, we conduct operator theory on operators of the type div g ω in order to define a notion of derivative that is weak enough to account for the lack of regularity of the coefficients ω but sufficiently strong enough to be useful to demonstrate the regularity of the the flow (G). In 5, we prove some auiliary facts needed to ensure that (G) indeed does define a Riemannian metric, and on coupling our main results from 4, we obtain the following theorem. It is the most general geometric result that we showcase in this paper. Its proof can be found in 5.2. Theorem 3.1. Let be a smooth, compact manifold and g a rough metric. Suppose that the heat kernel (, y) ρ g t (, y) C 0,1 ( 2 ) and that on an open set N, (, y) ρ g t (, y) C k (N 2 ) where k 2. Then, for t > 0, g t is a Riemannian metric on N of regularity C k 2,1. We remark that allowing for a Lipschitz heat kernel is neither a restriction nor is it too general. We will see in the following section that the most important class of objects we consider, namely when (, g) is an RCD(K, N) space, will admit such a heat kernel. The reader may find it curious that, even though we assume that the heat kernel is C k away from the singular region, and only a single derivative of the heat kernel appears in the source term of (CE), we are only able to assert that the resulting flow is C k 2,1. In a sense, it is because the global regularity of the heat kernel, which is

12 12 LASHI BANDARA, SAJJAD LAKZIAN, AND ICHAEL UNN only Lipschitz, becomes significant in proving the continuity of the (k 1)-th partial derivatives. We remark that it may be possible to assert this continuity performing the operator theory of div g ρ g t (, ) with greater care than we have done. For a C 1 global heat kernel, we are able to assert that the (k 1)-th partial derivatives are indeed continuous. This is the content of the following theorem. Note that, unlike Theorem 3.1 where we assumed that the heat kernel was at least twice continuously differentiable on the non-singular part, we allow for heat kernels with only a single derivative on the non-singular region. This theorem is an immediate consequence of Theorem 6.3 in 6.1. Theorem 3.2. Let be a smooth, compact manifold and g a rough metric. Suppose that the heat kernel (, y) ρ g t (, y) C 1 ( 2 ) and that on an open set N, (, y) ρ g t (, y) C k (N 2 ) where k 1. Then, for t > 0, g t is a Riemannian metric on N of regularity C k 1. We remark that for the case k = 1, Bandara in [6] asserts the continuity of g t () on N without imposing any global regularity assumptions on (, y) ρ g t (, y). This is accomplished by reducing this assertion to a homogeneous Kato square root problem that he proves in this contet. Typically, in an open region where the metric is C k for k 1, we epect the heat kernel to improve to C k+1. This is an immediate consequence of the fact that the region is open, and because we can write the Laplacian via a change of coordinates as a non-divergence form equation with C k 1 coefficients. We then obtain regularity via Schauder theory. This analysis is conducted in 6.2. By considering the situation where a rough metric improves to a C k metric away from a closed singular set, Theorem 3.1 yields a metric tensor away from the singular set that is of regularity C k 1,1. That is, the resulting flow may be more singular than the initial metric inside such a region. However, by coupling the results of 6.2 with Theorem 3.2, we are able to assert that the flow remains at least as regular as the initial metric. Theorem 3.3. Let be a smooth, compact manifold and g C k for k 1. Then, the flow g t C k for each t > 0. We emphasise that we are not providing sharp regularity information via these theorems. That is, we are unable to assert that if the initial metric is C k \ C k 1, then the resulting flow is also C k \ C k 1. In fact, this may not be the case, it may be possible that in some instances, the flow g t improves in regularity. These are interesting open questions beyond the scope of this paper Applications to geometrically singular spaces. In this subsection, we consider geometric applications of Theorem 3.1, particular to spaces with geometric singularities.

13 GEOETRIC SINGULARITIES AND A FLOW TANGENT TO THE RICCI FLOW 13 As a start, we describe our notion of a geometric conical singularity. For that, let us first describe the n-cone of radius r and height h by C(r, h) = {(, t) R n+1 : = r } h (h t) : t [0, h]. With this notation in hand, we define the following. Definition 3.4 (Geometric conical singularities). Let be a smooth manifold and g a rough metric. Let {p 1,..., p k } and suppose there eists a charts (ψ i, U i ) mutually disjoint such that g C k ( \ i U i ). oreover, suppose for each i, there is a Lipeomorphism F i : U i C(r i, h i ) R n+1 which improves to a C k+1 diffeomorphism (for k 1) on U i \{p i } and that g = Fi, R n+1 inside U i. Then, we say that (, g) is C k -geometry with geometric conical singularities at points {p 1,..., p k }. A direct consequence of Theorem 1.1 is then the following. Corollary 3.5. Let (, g) be a C k -geometry for k 1 with geometric conical singularities at {p 1,..., p k }. Then, the flow g t C k 1,1 ( \ {p 1,..., p k }) and the induced metric coincides everywhere with the flow of the metrics d t for RCD(K, N) spaces defined by Gigli-antegazza. oreover, we are able to flow the sphere with a conical pole. construction and proof. See 7.2 for the Corollary 3.6 (Witch s hat sphere). Let (S n, g witch ) be the sphere with a cone attached at the north pole. Then, the flow g t C at least on the region away from the north pole and the induced metric agrees with the flow of the metrics d t for RCD(K, N) spaces defined by Gigli-antegazza. Also, as a consequence of Theorem 1.1, we are able to consider the n-dimensional bo in Euclidean space. Again, its proof is contained in 7.2. Corollary 3.7. Let (B, g) be an n-bo. Then, the flow g t C ( \ S), where S is the set of edges and corners, induces the same distance as d t, the RCD(K, N) Gigli-antegazza flow, for g t -admissible points. We remark that a shortcoming of our analysis of the flow for the bo is that we have not classified the g t -admissible points. We do not epect this analysis to be straightforward since it involves understanding whether the flat pieces are preserved in some way under d t. However, since we have supplied a metric g t away from a set of measure zero, we epect it to be possible to induce d t via this metric on a very large part of the bo. 4. Elliptic problems and regularity Throughout this section, let us fi N to be an open subset of. To study the flow of Gigli-antegazza, we study a slightly more general elliptic problem than (CE). Let ω C 0,1 ( 2 ) be a function satisfying ω(, y) > 0 for all, y. oreover, let ω(, ) C k (N ) where k 1. For convenience,

14 14 LASHI BANDARA, SAJJAD LAKZIAN, AND ICHAEL UNN we write ω(, ) = ω. Then, for η L 2 () we want to solve for ϕ W 1,2 () satisfying the equation (F) div g ω ϕ = η. In this section, we establish eistence, uniqueness and regularity (in ) for this equation L -coefficient divergence form operators on smooth metrics. Due to the lack of regularity of an arbitrary rough metric, we are forced to solve the the problem (F) via perturbation to a smooth metric. Indeed, this is not a small perturbation result as we are not guaranteed the eistence of arbitrarily close smooth metrics to a rough metric. Instead, we will have to contend ourselves to studying elliptic PDE of the form div A, where A are only bounded measurable coefficients defining an elliptic problem. ore precisely, throughout this subsection, we fi to be a smooth compact manifold and g to be a smooth metric. Let A L (T (1,1) ) = L (L(T (1,0) )) be real-symmetric. That is, for almost-every, in coordinates, A() can be written as a symmetric matri with real coefficients. Further, we assume that there eists κ > 0 such that Au, u κ u 2. That is, A is bounded below. oreover, we quantify the L bound for A via assuming there eists Λ > 0 satisfying Au, u = A 2 Λ Let J A : W 1,2 () W 1,2 () R + be given by J A [u, v] = A u, v = g (A() u(), v()) dµ g (). Then, by the lower bound on A, we obtain that J A [u, u] κ u 2. The La- ilgram theorem then yields a unique, closed, densely-defined self-adjoint operator L A with domain D(L A ) W 1,2 () such that J A [u, v] = L A u, v for u D(L A ) and v W 1,2 (). oreover, since the form J A is real-symmetric due to the fact that A are real-symmetric coefficients, this theorem further yields that D( L A ) = W 1,2 () and J A [u, v] = L A u, L A v. The uniqueness then allows us to assert that L A = div g A. For the remainder of this section, we rely on some facts from the spectral theory of sectorial and, more particularly, self-adjoint operators. We refer the reader to [18] by Kato, [1] by Albrecht, Duong and cintosh, [17] by Gilbarg and Trudinger and [10] by Cowling, Doust, cintosh and Yagi for a more detailed eposition on the connection between PDE and spectral theory. As a first, we establish a spectral splitting for L A. We recall that for u L 1 loc (), u B = ffl B u dµ g for B a Borel set. Proposition 4.1. The space L 2 () = N (L A ) R(L A ) and the operator L A restricted to either N (L A ) or R(L A ) preserves each space respectively. oreover, N (L A ) = N ( ) and R(L A ) = { u W 1,2 () : u dµ g = 0 }.

15 GEOETRIC SINGULARITIES AND A FLOW TANGENT TO THE RICCI FLOW 15 Proof. The fact that the operator splits the space orthogonally to N (L A ) and R(L A ), and that its restriction to each of these spaces preserves the respective space is a direct consequence of the fact that L A is self-adjoint. See Theorem 3.8 in [10]. First, let us apply this same argument to the operator L A, so that we obtain the splitting L 2 () = N ( L A ) R( L A ). Now, fi u N ( L A ). Then, L A u = 0 which implies that u D(L A ) and L A u = L A ( L A u) = 0. Hence, u N (L A ). For the reverse inclusion, suppose that 0 u N (L A ). Then, L A LA u = 0. That is, L A u N ( L A ). But since L A preserves N ( L A ), u N ( L A ). Thus, N (L A ) = N ( L A ). Now, since we have that for all u W 1,2 (), κ u 2 L A u 2 Λ u 2, we obtain that N ( ) = N ( L A ) and hence, N ( ) = N (L A ). Now, recall that (, g) admits a Poincaré inequality: there eists C > 0 such that u u C u, for every u W 1,2 (). Note then that, if u W 1,2 () and u dµ g = 0, then u C u. Thus, if we further assume that u N ( ) then we obtain that u = 0. On letting Z = { u L 2 () : u dµ g = 0 }, that is precisely {0} = N (L A ) W 1,2 () Z = N (L A ) Z, since N (L A ) W 1,2 (V). Therefore, Z N (L A ) = R(L A ). For the reverse inclusion, let u R(L A ). Then, there eists a sequence v n D(L A ) such that u = lim n L A v n in L 2 (). Then, u dµ g = u, 1 = lim L A v n, 1 n = lim n div g A v n, 1 = lim n A v n, (1) = 0. Net, we note that since L A preserves the spaces N (L A ) and R(L A ), we obtain that the restricted operator and with D(J R A ) = W1,2 () R(L A ). L R A = L A R(LA ) : R(L A) R(L A ), J R A = J A R(LA ) W 1,2 (), Proposition 4.2. The operator L R A is a closed, densely-defined operator with associated form JA R. Proof. By definition, we obtain that D(L R A ) = D(L A) R(L A ). Now, let DA R be the operator given via the form JA R. We note that J A R is both densely-defined and closed. Now, note that { } D(DA) R = u R(L A ) : W 1,2 () R(L A ) v JA R [u, v] is continuous. It is easy to see that D(L A ) R(L A ) D(D R A ).

16 16 LASHI BANDARA, SAJJAD LAKZIAN, AND ICHAEL UNN For the reverse inclusion, assume that u D(D R A ), and v R(L A) W 1,2 () so that v A u, v is continuous. Now, we have that R(L A ) is dense in L 2 () as well as in W 1,2 () = D( L A ) (by a functional calculus argument). Thus, this continuity is valid for every v W 1,2 () and hence, u D(L A ). Since we have by assumption that u R(L A ), we have that D(D R A ) D(L A) R(L A ). It is easy to see that L R A = DR A La-ilgram theorem. which is a closed, densely-defined operator by the We compute the spectrum of L A via the spectrum for L R A. Proposition 4.3. The spectra of the operators L A and L R A relate by: σ(l A ) = {0} σ(l R A) {0} [κλ 1 (, g), ). Proof. Fi ζ 0 and ζ ρ(l R A ), That is, ζ LR A : D( LR A) = R(L A ) D(L A ) R(L R A ) is invertible. Thus, for any u R(L A) D(L A ), there eists a v R(L A ) such that u = (ζ L R A ) 1 v or equivalently, v = (ζ L R A )u. But we have that L R A = L A R(LA ) D(L A ) and therefore, we obtain that v = (ζ L A)u. That is, u = (ζ L R A ) 1 (ζ L A )u. From this, we also obtain that v = (ζ L A )u = (ζ L A )(ζ L R A ) 1 v. That is, on R(L A ), (ζ L A ) 1 = (ζ L R A ) 1. Now, fi u N (L A ). Then, we have that (ζ L A )u = ζu. Since we assume ζ 0, we obtain that (ζ L 1 A )u = ζ 1 u. This proves that ρ(l R A ) \ {0} ρ(l A) or σ(l A ) σρl R A {0} Now, suppose that ζ ρ(l A ). Then, for u R(L A ) there eists a v R(L A ) D(L A ) such that u = (ζ L A )v. But (ζ L A )v = (ζ L R A )v. By the invertibility of (ζ L A) we obtain the invertibility of (ζ L R A ). Thus, ρ(l A) ρ(l R A ) and σ(lr A ) σ(l A). Since we already know that 0 σ(l A ), we obtain that σ(l R A ) {0} σ(l A). Net, note that since L R A is self-adjoint, σ(lr A ) nr(lr A ) where nr(l R A) = { L A u, u : u D(L R A), u = 1 }, is the numerical-range of L R A. oreover, via the Poincaré inequality, we obtain that J R A [u, u] κ u 2 κλ 1 (, g) u 2 for u R(L A ) W 1,2 (), and where λ 1 (, g) is the first nonzero eigenvalue for the smooth Laplacian g. This shows that ρ(l R A ) C \ [κλ 1(, g), ). oreover, we obtain that the operator L A has discrete spectrum. Proposition 4.4. The spectrum σ(l A ) = {0 < λ 1 λ 2 <... } is discrete and λ 1 κλ 1 (, g).

17 GEOETRIC SINGULARITIES AND A FLOW TANGENT TO THE RICCI FLOW 17 Proof. Fi δ > 0 and write L A,δ u = L A u + δu. It is easy to see that σ(l A,δ ) = {δ} [κλ 1 (, g) + δ, ). oreover, the operator L A,δ is invertible, in fact, L 1 A,δ is a resolvent of L A and thus L 1 A,δ : L2 () L 2 () boundedly. Furthermore, note that L 1 A,δ u L A,δ L 1 A,δ u = 1 L 2 A,δu u. Thus, we can obtain that L 1 A,δ : L2 () W 1,2 () boundedly. Let us call this operator L 1 A,δ,W. 1,2 Now, on a compact manifold, the inclusion map E : W 1,2 () L 2 () is compact. Thus, we can write L 1 A,δ = EL 1 A,δ,W. This shows that L 1 1,2 A,δ is compact. That is, σ(l 1 A,δ ) is discrete with 0 as the only accumulation point. Hence, by combining with our previous bound for the spectrum of σ(l A ), we obtain the claim. By the invertibility of L R A on R(L A), and by our previous characterisation of R(L A ), we obtain the following first eistence result. Proposition 4.5. For every f L 2 () satisfying f dµ g = 0, we obtain a unique solution u W 1,2 () with u dµ g = 0 to the equation L A u = f. This solution is given by u = (L R A ) 1 f. Proof. The operator L R A is invertible by the fact that the associated form is bounded and coercive. oreover, it is easy to see that L R A : D(L A) R(L A ) R(L A ) and hence, (L R A ) 1 : R(L A ) D(L A ) R(L A ). The uniqueness is by virtue of the fact that N (L R A ) = {0}. The fact that the solution u W1,2 () easily follows since (D(L A ), LA ) W 1,2 () is a continuous embedding Eistence and uniqueness for a similar problem. Let us return to the situation where g is a rough metric on. Recall that in this situation, there eists a constant C 1 and a smooth metric g that is C-close to g. Let B L (T (1,1) ) be real-symmetric such that g (u, v) = g (B()u, v) for almost-every. Let θ() = det B() for almost-every so that g() = θ()dµ g (). For the sake of convenience, we write D = div g ω. It is easy to see that J [u, v] = ω u, v g is the real-symmetric form associated to D. First, we note the following. Proposition 4.6. There eist κ > 0 such that J [u, u] κ u 2 g uniformly for. oreover, J [u, v] = ω Bθ u, v g and J [u, u] κc 1+ n 4 u g. A function ϕ W 1,2 () solves (F) if and only if div g (θbω ϕ) = θη.

18 18 LASHI BANDARA, SAJJAD LAKZIAN, AND ICHAEL UNN Proof. First, we note that ω(, y) > 0 for all, y. Secondly, since we assume that ω C 0,1 ( 2 ), for k 1, by the virtue of compactness of, we obtain that inf,y ω(, y) = min,y ω(, y) > 0. That is, set κ = min,y ω(, y) and we re done. The description of J in g and its ellipticity estimate in g follow from Proposition 2.10 (i) with p = 2, and r = 1, s = 0. The equivalence of solutions for the (F) simply follows from Proposition 2.10 (vi). This is the crucial observation which allows us to reduce the (CE) to solving a divergence form equation with bounded, measurable coefficients on the nearby smooth metric g. With the aid of this, we demonstrate eistence and uniqueness of solutions to (CE). Proposition 4.7. Let η L 2 () satisfy η dµ g = 0. Then, there eists a unique solution ϕ W 1,2 () satisfying (F) such that ϕ dµ g = 0. Proof. Let f = θη. Then, note that f dµ g = ηθ dµ g = η dµ g = 0. Set A = θbω and by what we have proved about f, we are able to apply Proposition (4.5) to the operator L A in, g to obtain a unique solution ϕ satisfying L A ϕ = f = θη with ϕ dµ g = 0. Define ϕ(y) = ϕ(y) ffl ϕ(y) dµ g which satisfies J[ϕ, f] = η, f g and we also find that ϕ(y) dµ g (y) = ϕ(y) dµ(y) ( ϕ(y) dµ g (y)) dµ g (y) = 0. Thus, ϕ solves (F). To prove uniqueness, let us fi two solutions ϕ 1 and ϕ 2 solving (F) with ϕi dµ g = 0. Then, on writing ψ = ϕ 1 ψ 2, we obtain that ψ satisfies div g ω ψ = 0 with ψ dµ = 0. Now, define ψ(y) = ψ(y) ffl ψdµ g. It is easy to see that ψ satisfies L A ψ = 0. with ψ dµ g = 0. Thus, by the uniqueness guaranteed by Proposition 4.5, we obtain that ψ = 0. That is, ψ(y) = ffl ψ(y) dµ g(y), and on integrating this with respect to g, we obtain that That is, ψ = ψ = 0. 0 = µ g () ψ(y) dµ g (y).

19 GEOETRIC SINGULARITIES AND A FLOW TANGENT TO THE RICCI FLOW Operator theory of D. Let us return to the PDE (F), and recall the operator D = div g ω where (, y) ω (y) C 0,1 ( 2 ), and ω C k,α (N ). Let J [u, v] be its associated real-symmetric form, J [u, v] = ω u, v. In order to understand the regularity ϕ t,,v of solutions to (CE), we need to prove some preliminary regularity results about the operator family D. First, we obtain the constancy of domain as well as the following formula. Proposition 4.8. The family of operators D satisfies D(D ) = D( g ) and D u = ω g u g( u, ω ). Proof. Fi and u, v W 1,2 (). Then, note that ω v W 1,2 () and that, u, (ω v) g = u, ω v + v ω g = ω u, v g + g( u, ω ), v g. That is, ω u, v g = u, (ω v) g g( u, ω ), v g. First we show that for any u W 1,2 (), v g( u, ω ), v g is continuous. Observe that g( u, ω ), v g g( u, ω ) g v g by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. oreover, g( u, ω ) 2 g = g( u, ω ) 2 dµ g u 2 ω 2 dµ g. However, since y ω (y) C 0,1 () and is compact, we have that esssup y ω (y) C, and hence, g( u, ω ) g C u g. This proves that v g( u, ω ), v g is continuous. Now, suppose that u D( g ), then u, (ω v) g = g u, ω v and hence, v u, (ω v) g is continuous. Since we have already shown that v g( u, ω ), v g is continuous, we obtain that v ω u, v is continuous. Hence, u D(D ) which proves that D( g ) D(D ). Similarly, for u D(D ), we find that v u, (ω v) g is continuous. Hence, u D(ω g ) = D( g ). This shows that D(D ) D( g ). Remark 4.9. We note that an immediate consequence of this is that the unique solution ϕ to (F) satisfies ϕ D( g ) as D( g ) = D(D ) = D(L ). This observation is essential in our approach to regularity. We also obtain the following uniform boundedness for the operator family parametrised in N. Proposition The family of operators D : (D( g ), g ) L 2 () is a uniformly bounded family of operators. oreover, u D u g holds with the implicit constant independent of.

20 20 LASHI BANDARA, SAJJAD LAKZIAN, AND ICHAEL UNN Proof. We show that D u u g = g u + u, where the implicit constant is independent of. Fi, and note that D u ω g u + g( u, ω ) ( ) sup ω (y) g u + ( esssup y ω (y) ) u. y But since (, y) ω (y) C 0,1 ( 2 ), the Lipschitz constant is in both variables, and hence, there is a C > 0 such that esssup y ω (y) C. The quantity sup y ω (y) is also independent of C simply by coupling the continuity of (, y) ω (y) with the compactness of. Now, note that by ellipticity, u 2 g u, u g u u g u 2 + u 2. This complete the proof. The reverse inequality is argued similarly on noting that ω (y) > 0 for all, y. Remark Note that the two previous propositions are valid on all of, not just on N where ω enjoys higher regularity. Let v T and γ : ( ε, ε) such that γ(0) = and γ(0) = v. Let f : N V, where V where V is some normed vector space. Then, we write the difference quotient as Q v f() f(γ(s)) sf() =. s We define the directional derivative of f (when it eists and it is independent of the generating curve γ) to be (d f())(v) = lim s 0 Q v sf(). In our particular setting, we consider V = L 2 () with the weak topology for the choice f() = D. ore precisely, if there eists D : D( g ) L 2 () satisfying lim s 0 Qv sd u, w = D u, w, for every w W 1,2 (), we say that D has a (weak) derivative at and write (d D ) = D. In what is to follow, we will see that this is a sufficiently strong enough notion of derivative to obtain regularity properties for the flow defined by (G). With this notation at hand, we prove the following important proposition. Proposition The operator valued function N D : D( g ) L 2 () is weakly differentiable k times. At each N and for every v T, (d D )(v) = div g ((d ω )(v)) : D( g ) L 2 () is densely-defined and symmetric. oreover, inside a chart Ω N containing for which the vector v is constant, there is a constant C Ω such that (d D )(v)u C Ω u g.

21 GEOETRIC SINGULARITIES AND A FLOW TANGENT TO THE RICCI FLOW 21 Proof. Fi N and a chart Ω N with a constant vector v T, and note that because of the higher regularity of ω at, we have (, y) (d ω (y))(v) C 0 (Ω ) and (d ω (y))(v) C 0,1 (). Coupling this with the compactness of and Ω, there eists Λ > 0 such that Λ < (d ω (y))(v) < Λ, for all Ω and y. Thus, let f,ε = (d ω )(v) + Λ + ε and define K ε [u, w] = f,ε u, w. By the La-ilgram theorem, the operator associated to the form K ε is eactly D,ε = div g [((d ω )(v)) + (Λ + ε)], and is guaranteed to be non-negative self-adjoint. Since we have that ω is k times differentiable at our chosen, the map y f,ε (y) is still Lipschitz and hence, we are able to apply Proposition 4.8 with f,ε in place of ω to obtain that D( D,ε ) = D( g ). Consequently, we obtain that D,ε (Λ + ε) g has domain D( g ) and so, an easy calculation via the defining form, demonstrates that D u = div g (d ω )(v) u = D,ε u (Λ + ε) g u, from which its clear that the operator is densely-defined. A repetition of the argument in Proposition 4.10, utilising the higher regularity of ω on N, there eists a constant C Ω > 0 such that (d ω (y))(v) C Ω for all Ω and almost-every y. Thus, D,ε u C Ω u g and the estimate in the conclusion follows. Now we show that the formula in the conclusion is valid. Fi w W 1,2 (), u D( g ) and compute lim s 0 Qv sd u, w = lim div Q v s 0 sω u, w = lim Q v s 0 sω u, w = lim Q s 0 v sω (y)g y ( u(y), w(y)) dµ g (y). Now, note that Q v sω (y) ω (y) ω γ(s) (y) s C since (, y) ω (y) C 0,1 ( 2 ) and ω C 1 (). So, we are able to apply the dominated convergence theorem to obtain lim s 0 Qv sd u, w = lim s 0 Qs vω (y)g y ( u(y), w(y)) dµ g (y) = (d D )(v) u, w = div g (d D )(v) u, w, where the last equality follows from the fact that we assume that u D( g ) and we have already shown that D( div g ((d ω )(v)) ) = D( g ). The equality of operators in the conclusion follows from the fact that w C c () is dense in L 2 (). Remark Let v 1,..., v l T, with k l, and note that the map (, y) (d l ω )(v 1,..., v l ) C 0,1 ( 2 ), where (d 2 ω )(v 1, v 2 ) = (d (d ω )(v 1 ))(v 2 ). Thus, on applying this proposition repeatedly, we can assert that (d l D )(v 1,..., v l ) = div g ((d l ω )(v 1,..., v l )) : D( g ) L 2 ()