arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 17 Dec 2015

Transcription

1 Anisotropic Hardy inequalities rancesco ella Pietra, Giuseppina di Blasio, Nunzia Gavitone arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 17 ec 2015 Abstract. We study some Hardy-type inequalities involving a general norm in R n and an anisotropic distance function to the boundary. The case of the optimality of the constants is also addressed. MSC: 2610, 2615 Keywords: Hardy inequalities, anisotropic operators. 1 introduction Let be a smooth norm of R n. In this paper we investigate the validity of Hardy-type inequalities u) 2 dx C ) d 2 dx, u H 1 0 ), 1.1) where is a domain of R n, and d is the anisotropic distance to the boundary with respect the dual norm see Section 2 for the Università degli studi di Napoli ederico II, ipartimento di Matematica e Applicazioni R. Caccioppoli, Via Cintia, Monte S. Angelo Napoli, Italia. f.dellapietra@unina.it Seconda Università degli studi di Napoli, ipartimento di Matematica e isica, Via Vivaldi, Caserta, Italia. giuseppina.diblasio@unina2.it Università degli studi di Napoli ederico II, ipartimento di Matematica e Applicazioni R. Caccioppoli, Via Cintia, Monte S. Angelo Napoli, Italia. nunzia.gavitone@unina.it 1 1

2 1 introduction 2 precise assumptions and definitions). We aim to study the best possible constant for which 1.1) holds, in the sense that u) 2 dx C ) = inf u H 1 0 ). dx d 2 In the case of the Euclidean norm, that is when = E =, the inequality 1.1) reduces to u 2 dx C E ) dx, u H 1 0 ), 1.2) where d E x) = d 2 E inf x y, x y is the usual distance function from the boundary of, and C E is the best possible constant. The inequality 1.2) has been studied by many authors, under several points of view. or example, it is known that for any bounded domain with Lipschitz boundary of R n, 0 < C E ) 1 4 see [95, MMP98, BM97]). In particular, if is a convex domain of R n, the optimal constant C E in 1.2) is independent of, and its value is C E = 1 4, but there are smooth bounded domains such that C E ) < 1 4 see [MMP98, MS97]). urthermore, in [MMP98] it is proved that C E is achieved if and only if it is strictly smaller than 1 4. Actually, the value of the best constant C E ) is still 1 4 for a more general class of domains. This has been shown, for example, in [BT04], under the assumption that d E is superharmonic in, in the sense that d E 0 in ). 1.3) As proved in [LLL12], when is a C 2 domain the condition 1.3) is equivalent to require that is weakly mean convex, that is its mean curvature is nonnegative at any point. The fact that the constant C E ) = 1 4 is not achieved has lead to the interest of studying improved versions of 1.2), by adding remainder terms which depend, in general, on suitable norms of u. or instance, if is a bounded and convex set, in [BM97] it has been showed that u 2 dx 1 4 d 2 E dx + 1 4L 2 dx, u H 1 0 ), 1.4)

3 1 introduction 3 where L is the diameter of. Actually, in [HHL02] the authors showed that the value 1 can be replaced by a constant which 4L 2 depends on the volume of, namely cn) n 2 ; here cn) is suitable constant depending only on the dimension of the space see also [MT06]). When satisfies condition 1.3), several improved versions of 1.2) can be found for instance in [BT03, BT04, MT06]. More precisely, in [BT04] the authors proved that u 2 dx 1 4 u 2 d 2 dx 1 u 2 4 E d 2 log ) 2 0 dx, 1.5) d E E where 0 e sup{d E x, )} and u H 1 0 ). The aim of this paper is to study Hardy inequalities of the type 1.1), and to show improved versions in the anisotropic setting given by means of the norm, in the spirit of 1.5). or example, one of our main result states that for suitable domains of R n, and for every function u H 1 0 ), it holds that 2 u) dx 1 dx 1 log ) 2 dx, 1.6) 4 4 d d 2 d 2 where = e sup{d x, ), x }. The condition we will impose on in order to have 1.6) will involve the sign of an anisotropic Laplacian of d see sections 2 and 3). We will also show that such condition is, in general, not equivalent to 1.3). Actually, we will deal also with the optimality of the involved constants. Moreover, we will show that 1.6) implies an improved version of 1.1) in terms of the L 2 norm of u, in the spirit of 1.4). More precisely, we will show that if is a convex bounded open set then u) 2 dx 1 4 u 2 d 2 dx Cn) n 2 u 2 dx. We emphasize that Hardy type inequalities in anisotropic settings have been studied, for example, in [V06, PG15, B04], where, instead of considering the weight d 2, it is taken into account a function of the distance from a point of the domain see for example [BT04, GP98, BV97, HLP, VZ00, AV12, BCT07] and the reference therein for the Euclidean case). The structure of the paper is the following. In Section 2 we fix the necessary notation and provide some preliminary results

4 2 notation and preliminaries 4 which will be needed later. Moreover, we discuss in some details the condition we impose on in order to be 1.6) and 1.1) true. In Section 3 we study the inequality 1.1) and we give some applications. In Section 4 the improved versions of 1.1) are investigated and, finally, Section 5 is devoted to the study of the optimality of the constants in 1.6). 2 notation and preliminaries Throughout the paper we will consider a convex even 1-homogeneous function ξ R n ξ) [0, + [, that is a convex function such that and such that tξ) = t ξ), t R, ξ R n, 2.1) α 1 ξ ξ), ξ R n, 2.2) for some constant 0 < α 1. Under this hypothesis it is easy to see that there exists α 2 α 1 such that Hξ) α 2 ξ, ξ R n. urthermore we suppose that 2 is strongly convex, in the sense that C 2 R n \ {0}) and 2 ξ 2 > 0 in R n \ {0}. In this context, an important role is played by the polar function of, namely the function o defined as x R n o ξ x x) = sup ξ 0 ξ). It is not difficult to verify that o is a convex, 1-homogeneous function that satisfies 1 ξ o ξ) 1 ξ, ξ R n. 2.3) α 2 α 1 Moreover, the hypotheses on ensures that o C 2 R n \ {0}) see for instance [S93]) x) = o ) o ξ x x) = sup ξ 0 o ξ).

5 2 notation and preliminaries 5 The following well-known properties hold true: ξ ξ) ξ = ξ), ξ 0, 2.4) ξ tξ) = sign t ξ ξ), ξ 0, t 0, 2.5) 2 ξ tξ) = 1 t 2 ξξ) ξ 0, t 0, 2.6) o ξ ξ)) = 1, ξ 0, 2.7) o ξ) ξ o ξ ξ) ) = ξ ξ ) Analogous properties hold interchanging the roles of and o. The open set W = {ξ R n : o ξ) < 1} is the so-called Wulff shape centered at the origin. More generally, we denote W r x 0 ) = rw + x 0 = {x R 2 : o x x 0 ) < r}, and W r 0) = W r. We recall the definition and some properties of anisotropic curvature for a smooth set. or further details we refer the reader, for example, to [ATW93] and [BP96]. efinition 2.1. Let A R n be a open set with smooth boundary. The anisotropic outer normal n A is defined as n A x) = ξ ν A x)), x A, where ν A is the unit Euclidean outer normal to A. Remark 2.1. We stress that if A = W r x 0 ), by the properties of it follows that n A x) = ξ ξ o x x 0 ) ) = 1 r x x 0), x A. inally, let us recall the definition of insler Laplacian defined for u H 1 0 ). u = div u) ξ u)), 2.9) efinition 2.2. Let u H 1 0 ), we say that u is -superharmonic if u 0 in, C H ) that is u) ξ u) ϕ dx 0, ϕ C 0 ), ϕ 0. Similarly, by writing that u is -superharmonic we will mean that u is superharmonic in the usual sense, that is u 0.

6 2 notation and preliminaries Anisotropic distance function ue to the nature of the problem, it seems to be natural to consider a suitable notion of distance to the boundary. Let us consider a domain, that is a connected open set of R n, with non-empty boundary. The anisotropic distance of x to the boundary of is the function d x) = inf y o x y), x. 2.10) We stress that when = then d = d E, the Euclidean distance function from the boundary. It is not difficult to prove that d is a uniform Lipschitz function in and, using the property 2.7), d x)) = 1 a.e. in. 2.11) Obviously, assuming sup d < +, d W 1, 0 ) and the quantity r = sup{d x), x }, 2.12) is called anisotropic inradius of. or further properties of the anisotropic distance function we refer the reader to [CM07]. The main assumption in this paper will be that d is -superharmonic in the sense of efinition 2.2. Remark 2.2. We emphasize that if is a convex set, the functions d E and d are respectively and -superharmonic. This can be easily proved by using the concavity of d E and d in see for instance [EG92], and [PG14] for the anisotropic case). Actually, in the Euclidean case there exist non-convex sets for which d E is still -superharmonic. An example can be obtained for instance in dimension n = 3, taking the standard torus see [AK85]). Similarly, in the following example we show that there exists a non-convex set such that the anisotropic distance function d is -superharmonic. Example 2.1. Let us consider the following insler norm in R 3 with a > 0; then x 1, x 2, x 3 ) = x x2 2 + a2 x 2 3 ) 1 2, o x 1, x 2, x 3 ) = ) 1 x x2 2 + x2 2 3 a 2.

7 2 notation and preliminaries 7 We consider the set R 3 obtained by rotating the ellipse γ = {0, x 2, x 3 ) : x 2 R) 2 + x2 3 a 2 < r2 } with R > r > 0, about the x 3 axis. Obviously is not convex. In order to show that C H ) holds, we first observe that if we fix a generic point x γ, then being isotropic with respect to the first two components the anisotropic distance is achieved in a point x of the boundary of γ. Moreover it is not difficult to show that the vector x x has the same direction of the anisotropic normal n see efinition 2.1, and see also [PG13]). Hence by Remark 2.1 d x) = r o x x 0 ), where x 0 = 0, R, 0) is the center of the ellipse. Now let us introduce a plane polar coordinates ρ, ϑ) such that to a generic point Q = x 1, x 2, x 3 ) R 3, it is associated the point Q = ρ cos ϑ, ρ sin ϑ, x 3 ), where ρ = x x2 2 and ϑ [0, 2π]. Then, by construction, = {Q R 3 : o Q C) < r}, where C = R cos ϑ, R sin ϑ, 0) and o Q C) 2 = R ρ) 2 + x2 3 a 2. Then as observed before, fixed Q d Q ) = r o Q C) = = r R ρ) 2 + x2 3 a 2 = r 2 R x 2 1 2) + x2 + x2 3 a 2. Now we are in position to prove C H ). We note that for all Q C d Q ) = div d ) ξ d )) = 2 d x d x a 2 2 d x 2 3 = 1 d ρ ρ + 2 d ρ 2 + a2 2 d x 2 3 R 2ρ = ρ o Q C). 2.13) Being ρ > R r, we get that d is -superharmonic in if R > 2r for all a > 0.

8 3 anisotropic hardy inequality 8 Remark 2.3. In general, if is not convex, to require that d is -superharmonic does not assure that d E is -superharmonic. Indeed, let be as in Example 2.1; if we take R 2r then, as showed before, d 0. On the other hand it is possible to choose a > 0 such that d E is not -superharmonic. To do that, it is enough to prove that the mean curvature of is negative at some points of the boundary for a suitable choice of a. Indeed in [LLL12] it is proved that d E is -superharmonic on if and only if the mean curvature H y) 0 for all y. The parametric equations of are x 1 = R + r cos ϑ) cos t = φϑ) cos t ϕt, ϑ) : x 2 = R + r cos ϑ) sin t = φϑ) sin t x 3 = ar sin ϑ = ψϑ), where t, ϑ [0, 2π]. Then for y = ϕt, ϑ) we have H y) = φφ ψ φ ψ ) ψ φ ) 2 + ψ ) 2 ) 2 φ φ ) 2 + ψ ) 2 ) 3 2 = ar2 R + 2r cos ϑ + r cos 3 ϑa 2 1)). 2 R + r cos ϑ r 2 sin 2 ϑ + a 2 r 2 cos 2 ϑ) ) inally we observe that if ϑ = π then H y) < 0, if a > 1. 3 anisotropic hardy inequality Theorem 3.1. Let be a domain in R n and suppose that condition C H ) holds. Then for every function u H 1 0 ) the following anisotropic Hardy inequality holds u) 2 dx 1 4 d 2 dx 3.1) where d is the anisotropic distance function from the boundary of defined in 2.10). Proof. irst we prove inequality 3.1). Being 2 convex, we have that ξ 1 ) 2 ξ 2 ) 2 + 2ξ 2 ) ξ ξ 2 ) ξ 1 ξ 2 ).

9 3 anisotropic hardy inequality 9 Hence putting ξ 1 = u and ξ 2 = Au d d, with A positive constant, recalling that d ) = 1, by the homogeneity of we get u) 2 dx A 2 d 2 2u dx + A ξ d ) u dx. d By the ivergence Theorem in a general setting, contained for example in [A83]) we have u) 2 dx A 2 A 2 d 2 d 2 dx A Being d 0 we get ξ d ) dx + A d d d dx + A u) 2 dx A A 2 ) d 2 dx. ) dx d 2 Then maximizing with respect to A we obtain that A = 1 2, and then 3.1) follows. dx Remark 3.1. We observe that if is a convex domain in R n, an inequality of the type 3.1) can be immediately obtained by using the following classical Hardy inequality involving the Euclidean distance function d E u 2 dx 1 dx. 3.2) 4 By 2.2) we easily get u) 2 dx α 2 u 2 dx α2 4 d 2 E d 2 E dx 1 α α 2 2 d 2 3.3) where the constant in the right-hand side is smaller than 1 4 since α 1 < α 2. We emphasize that if is not convex inequality 3.3) holds under the assumption that d E is E-superharmonic, since 3.2) is in force. On the other hand the assumption on d E is not related with the hypotesis required about d in the Theorem 3.1, as observed in Remark 2.3. Using Theorem 3.1 it is not difficult to obtain a lower bound for the first eigenvalue of defined in 2.9).,

10 4 hardy inequality with a reminder term 10 Corollary 3.1. Let be a bounded domain of R n and suppose that condition C H ) holds. Let λ 1 ) be the first irichlet eigenvalue of the insler Laplacian, that is [ u)] 2 dx Then λ 1 ) = min u H 1 0 ) u 0 λ 1 ) 1 4r 2, u 2 dx where r is the anisotropic inradius of defined in 2.12).. 3.4) Proof. Let v the first eigenfunction related to λ 1 ) such that v L 2 ) = 1. Then 3.4) and inequality 3.1) imply that is the claim. λ 1 ) = [ v)] 2 dx 1 4 v 2 d 2 dx 1 4r 2, 4 hardy inequality with a reminder term Theorem 4.1. Let be a domain of R n. Let us suppose also that condition C H ) holds, and sup{d x, ), x } < +. Then for every function u H 1 0 ) the following inequality holds: 2 u) dx 1 dx 1 log ) 2 dx, 4.1) 4 4 d d 2 where = e sup{d x, ), x }. d 2 Proof. We will use the following notation: Being 2 convex, we have that Let us consider Xt) = 1, t ]0, 1[. log t ξ 1 ) 2 ξ 2 ) 2 + 2ξ 2 ) ξ ξ 2 ) ξ 1 ξ 2 ). ξ 1 = u, ξ 2 = d d [ )] d 1 X.

11 4 hardy inequality with a reminder term 11 Being d x) e, by the 1-homogeneity of we get u) 2 dx 1 4 d 2 2 d) [ 1 X d) ξ d) )] 2 d + u u u d 2 d = 1 [ 4 d 2 1 X + u d [1 X d d [ 1 X [ 1 X d d )] )]) = )] 2 + )] d ξ d ) u 4.2) where last equality follows by d ) = 1, the 1-homogeneity of and property 2.4). Let us observe that, using the ivergence Theorem in a general setting, contained for example in [A83]), we have u d = [ 1 X = 2 )] d ξ d ) u dx = 2 div {[ 1 X [ 1 X d ) d + X 2 d 1 [ 2 d 2 1 X [ 1 X )] ξ d ) d ) dx = )] ξ d ) d + d d 2 )] d d ) d + X 2 d } dx )] dx, 4.3) where last inequality follows using the condition d 0. Integrating 4.2), and using 4.3) we easily get u) 2 dx { [ 1 X d 1 4 d 2 )] X = 1 4 and the proof is completed. d 2 ) d + 2 X 2 d dx d 2 ) } dx = X 2 d ) dx,

12 5 optimality of the constants 12 Remark 4.1. We observe that if is a convex domain in R n, arguing as in Remark 3.1, an inequality of the type 4.1) can be immediately obtained by using the following improved Hardy inequality involving d E contained in [BT04] u 2 dx 1 4 u 2 d 2 dx 1 u 2 4 E d 2 log ) 2 0 dx, 4.4) d E E where 0 e sup d E x, ) and u H 1 0 ). Obviously also in this case it is not possible to obtain the optimal constants. Corollary 4.1. Under the same assumptions of Theorem 4.1, the following anisotropic improved Hardy inequality holds u) 2 dx 1 4 u 2 d 2 dx 1 4r 2 u 2 dx, 4.5) where r is the anisotropic inradius defined in 2.12). Proof. By Theorem 4.1, to prove 4.2) it is sufficient to show that u 2 d 2 log ) 2 dx 1 d r 2 u 2 dx. This is a consequence of the monotonicity of the following function ) t ft) = t log, 0 < t r. e r Indeed f is strictly increasing and its maximum is r. This concludes the proof. An immediate consequence of the previous result is contained in the following remark. Remark 4.2. Let R n be a bounded convex domain. Then there exists a positive constant Cn) > 0 such that for any u H 1 0 ) we have u) 2 dx 1 u 2 4 d 2 dx Cn) n 2 u 2 dx. 5 optimality of the constants Here we prove the optimality of the constants and of the exponent which appear in the Hardy inequality 4.1). More precisely, we prove the following result:

13 5 optimality of the constants 13 Theorem 5.1. Let be a piecewise C 2 domain of R n. Suppose that the following Hardy inequality holds: 2 u) dx A d 2 dx B d 2 log ) γ dx, d u H 1 0 ), 5.1) for some constants A > 0, B 0, γ > 0, where = e sup{d x, ), x }. Then: T 1 ) A 1 4 ; T 2 ) If A = 1 4 and B > 0, then γ 2; T 3 ) If A = 1 4 and γ = 2, then B 1 4. Proof. The proof is similar to the one obtained in the Euclidean case by [BT04]. or the sake of completeness, we describe it in details. As before, let us denote by Xt) = 1, t ]0, 1[. log t In order to prove the results we will provide a local analysis. Hence, we fix a Wulff shape W δ of radius δ centered at a point x 0. Being piecewise smooth, we may suppose that for a sufficiently small δ, W δ is C 2. Let now ϕ be a nonnegative cut-off function in C 0 W δ ) such that ϕx) = 1 for x W δ/2. irst of all, we prove some technical estimates which will be useful in the following. or ε > 0 and β R let us consider J β ε) = ϕ 2 d 1+2ε X β d /) dx. 5.2) We split the proof in several claims. Claim 1. The following estimates hold: i) c 1 ε 1 β J β ε) c 2 ε 1 β, for β > 1, where c 1, c 2 are positive constants independent of ε; ii) J β ε) = 2ε β + 1 J β+1ε) + O ε 1), for β > 1; iii) J β ε) = O ε 1), for β < 1. Proof of Claim 1. By the coarea formula, δ J β ε) = r 1+2ε X β ϕ 2 ) r/) 0 d =r d dhn 1 dr

14 5 optimality of the constants 14 Being d ) = 1, by 2.2), 0 < α 1 d α 2 and ϕ 2 0 < C 1 d dhn 1 C 2. d =r Then if β < 1, iii) easily follows. Moreover, if β > 1, performing the change of variables r = s 1/ε, i) holds. As regards ii), let us observe that d dr Xβ = β Xβ+1. r Recalling that 1 = d ) ξ d ) d, then β + 1)J β ε) = ϕ 2 d 2ε d ) ξ d ) [X β 1 d /)]dx = = div ϕ 2 d 2ε d ) ξ d ) ) X β 1 d /) dx = =2 ϕd 2ε X β 1 d /) d ) ξ d ) ϕdx+ + 2ε ϕd 2ε 1 X β 1 d /) dx+ + ϕ 2 d 2ε X β 1 d /) d dx = = O ε 1) + 2εJ β+1 ε). We explicitly observe that ϕ 2 d 2ε X β 1 d /) d dx = O ε 1) being d a C 2 function in a neighborhood of the boundary see [CM07]). Then ii) holds. In the next claim we estimate the left-hand side of 5.1) when u = U ε, with U ε x) = ϕx)w ε x), w ε x) = d 1 2 +ε X θ d x)/), Let us define Q[U ε ] := U ε ) Claim 2. The following estimates hold: U 2 ε d 2 ) dx. 1 2 < θ < 1. Q[U ε ] θ 2 J 2θ 2ε) + O ε 1), as ε 0; 5.3) U ε ) 2 dx 1 4 J 2θε) + O ε ε 1 2θ ), as ε ) W δ

15 5 optimality of the constants 15 Proof of Claim 2. The convexity of implies that ξ + η) 2 ξ) 2 + 2ξ)η) + η) 2, ξ, η R n. Hence by the homogeneity of, = U ε ) 2 dx ϕ 2 2 w ε )dx + w 2 ε 2 ϕ)dx+ W δ W δ + 2ϕw ε ϕ) w ε )dx = W δ As matter of fact, I 2 C W δ ϕ 2 d 2ε 1 X 2θ d /) ε /)) 2 θxd dx + I 1 + I 2. W δ similarly, also I 1 = O ε 1). Then d 2ε X 2θ d /)dx = O ε 1); Q[U ε ] W δ + ϕ 2 d 2ε 1 X 2θ d /) W δ W δ [ ε θxd /) + O ε 1) = ) ] 2 1 dx 4 ϕ 2 d 2ε 1 X 2θ d /) ε θxd /)) 2 dx+ ϕ 2 d 2ε 1 X 2θ d /) ε θxd /)) + O ε 1) = Using ii) of Claim 1 with β = 1 + 2θ we get = a 1 + a 2 + O ε 1). 5.5) a 2 = O ε 1) ε ) As regards a 1, similarly, applying ii) of Claim 1 with β = 2θ 1 in the first time and β = 2θ 2 in the second time we obtain a 1 = θ ϕ 2 d 2ε 1 X 2 2θ d /) dx + O ε 1). 5.7) 2 W δ Then 5.3) follows by 5.5),5.6),5.7) and 5.2). inally observing that U ε ) 2 dx = Q[U ε ] J 2θε), 5.8) W δ

16 References 16 then the inequality 5.4) follows from 5.3) and ii) of Claim 1. Now we are in position to conclude the proof of the Theorem. Since inequality 5.1) holds for any u H 1 0 ) we take as test function U ε. Then by 5.4) and i) of Claim 1 we have A 1 U ε ) 2 dx 1 J 2θ ε) 4 + O εε). W δ Letting ε 0 we obtain T 1 ). In order to prove T 2 ) we put A = 1 4 and reasoning by contradiction we assume that γ < 2. As before by 5.3) and i) of Claim 1, we have 0 < B Q[U ε] ε1 2θ C J 2θ γ ε) ε γ 1 2θ = Cε2 γ 0 asε 0, which is a contradiction and then γ 2. To conclude the proof of the Theorem we just have to prove T 3 ). If A = 1 4 and γ = 2 then by 5.3) we have B Q[U θ ε] J 2θ 2 ε) 2 J 2θ 2ε) + O ε 1). J 2θ 2 ε) Then by assumption on θ and i) of Claim 1, letting ε 0 we get B θ 2. Hence T 3 ) follows by letting θ 1 2. Remark 5.1. We stress that Theorem 5.1 assures that the involved constants in 4.1) are optimal, and also in the anisotropic Hardy inequality 3.1). Actually, the presence of the remainder term in 4.1) guarantees that the constant 1 4 in 3.1) is not achieved. Acknowledgement. This work has been partially supported by the IRB 2013 project Geometrical and qualitative aspects of PE s and by GNAMPA of INAM. references [ATW93] Almgren Jr,.J., Taylor, J.E. and Wang, L., Curvature-driven flows: a variational approach, SIAM J. Control Optim ),

17 References 17 [AV12] Alvino, A., erone, A. and Volpicelli, R., Sharp Hardy inequalities in the half space with trace remainder term, Nonlinear Anal ), [A83] Anzellotti, G., Pairings between measures and bounded functions and compensated compactness, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 4) ), , 11 [AK85] Armitage,. H. and Kuran, Ü, The convexity of a domain and the superharmonicity of the signed distance function, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc ), [BP96] Bellettini, G. and Paolini, M., Anisotropic motion by mean curvature in the context of insler geometry, Hokkaido Math. J ), [BT03] Barbatis, G., ilippas, S. and Tertikas, A., Series expansion for L p Hardy inequalities, Indiana Univ. Math. J ), [BT04] Barbatis, G., ilippas, S. and Tertikas, A., A unified approach to improved L p Hardy inequalities with best constants, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc ), electronic). 2, 3, 12, 13 [BCT07] Brandolini, B., Chiacchio,., Trombetti, C., Hardy type inequalities and Gaussian measure, Comm. Pure Appl. Anal ), [B04] Brasco, L. and ranzina, G. Convexity properties of irichlet integrals and Picone-type inequalities, Kodai Math. J ), [BM97] Brezis, H. and Marcus, M., Hardy s inequalities revisited, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. 4) ), [BV97] Brezis, H. and Vazquez, J.-L., Blow-up solutions of some nonlinear elliptic problems, Rev. Mat. Univ. Complut. Madrid ), [CM07] Crasta G. and Malusa, A., The distance function from the boundary in a Minkowski space, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc ), , 14 [95] avies, E.B., The Hardy constant, Quart. J. Math. Oxford 2) ), [PG13] ella Pietra. and Gavitone N., Relative isoperimetric inequality in the plane: the anisotropic case, J. Convex. Anal ), [PG14] ella Pietra. and Gavitone N., aber-krahn inequality for anisotropic eigenvalue problems with Robin boundary conditions, Potential Anal ),

18 References 18 [PG15] ella Pietra. and Gavitone N., Sharp estimates and existence for anisotropic elliptic problems with general growth in the gradient, to appear on Zeitschrift für Analysis und ihre Anwendungen ZAA).3 [EG92] Evans, L.C. and Gariepy, R.., Geometric measure theory and fine properties of functions, CRC Press, [K08] erone, V. and Kawohl, B., Remarks on a insler-laplacian, Proc. Am. Math. Soc ), [MT06] ilippas, S., Maz ya, V. and Tertikas, A. On a question of Brezis and Marcus, Calc. Var ), [GP98] García Azorero, J. P. and Peral, I., Hardy inequalities and some critical elliptic and parabolic problems, J. ifferential Equations ), [HLP] Hardy G.H., Littlewood J.L., Pólya G., Inequalities, Cambridge Univ. Press, [HHL02] Hoffmann-Ostenhof, M., Hoffmann-Ostenhof, T. and Laptev, A., A Geometrical Version of Hardy s Inequality, J. unct. Anal ), [LLL12] Lewis, R., Li, J. and Li, Y., A geometric characterization of a sharp Hardy inequality, J. unct. Anal ), , 8 [MMP98] Marcus, M., Mizel, V. J. and Pinchover, Y., On the best constant for Hardy s inequality in R n, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc ), [MS97] Matskewich, T., Sobolevskii, Pavel E. The best possible constant in generalized Hardy s inequality for convex domain in R n, Nonlinear Anal ), [S93] Schneider, R.., Convex bodies: the Brunn-Minkowski theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, [V06] Van Schaftingen, J., Anisotropic symmetrization, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire ), [VZ00] Vazquez, J.L. and Zuazua, E., The Hardy inequality and the asymptotic behavior of the heat equation with an inverse-square potential, J. unct. Anal ),