arxiv: v2 [math.ap] 16 Oct 2017

Transcription

1 Unspecified Journal Volume 00, Number 0, Pages S????-????XX MINIMIZATION SOLUTIONS TO CONSERVATION LAWS WITH NON-SMOOTH AND NON-STRICTLY CONVEX FLUX CAREY CAGINALP arxiv: v2 [mah.ap] 16 Oc Absrac. Conservaion laws are usually sudied in he conex of sufficien regulariy condiions imposed on he flux funcion, usually C 2 and uniform convexiy. Some resuls are proven wih he aid of variaional mehods and a unique minimizer such as Hopf-Lax and Lax-Oleinik. We show ha many of hese classical resuls can be exended o a flux funcion ha is no necessarily smooh or uniformly or sricly convex. Alhough uniqueness a.e. of he minimizer will generally no longer hold, by considering he greaes or supremum, where applicable of all possible minimizers, we can successfully exend he resuls. One specific nonlinear case is ha of a piecewise linear flux funcion, for which we prove exisence and uniqueness resuls. We also approximae i by a smoohed, superlinearized version parameerized by ε and consider he characerizaion of he minimizers for he smooh version and limiing behavior as ε 0 o ha of he sharp, polygonal problem. In proving a key resul for he soluion in erms of he value of he iniial condiion, we provide a sepping sone o analyzing he sysem under sochasic processes, which will be explored furher in a fuure paper. Conservaion laws, generally expressed in he form and he relaed Hamilon-Jacobi problem Inroducion w + H w x = 0 in R 0, w x, 0 = g x on R = 0 u + H u x = 0 in R 0, u x, 0 = g x on R = 0 for a smooh flux funcion H have a wide range of applicaions, including modelling shocks mahemaical urbulence, and kineic heory [3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]. In Secion 2, we review some background, based on [9], regarding well-esablished classical resuls for he conservaion law 1.1 in he case of a flux wih sufficien regulariy condiions. We also show ha hese resuls can be exended in several ways, allowing new, broader applicaion for much of his well-esablished heory. For example, we are able o prove several resuls in [9] wih he much weaker condiion of non-sric convexiy assumed on he flux funcion raher han uniform convexiy. In addiion o relaxing some of he convexiy and regulariy assumpions, we consider he specific case of a polygonal flux, a non-sricly convex sequence of piecewise linear segmens. I has been sudied exensively as a mehod of approximaion and building up o he smooh case in Dafermos [6, 7]. This choice of flux funcion noably eliminaes several of he assumpions of he usual problem under consideraion in ha i is i no smooh, ii no sricly convex, and iii no superlinear. The Legendre ransform is also no finie on he enire real line. We consider some of he resuls for smooh H and heir possible exension o his case. Laer in his analysis, i will be key o consider a smooh, superlinear approximaion o H. We index his approximaion by wo parameers δ and ε, corresponding o smoohing and superlinearizing he flux funcion, respecively, and denoe i by H ε,δ. In Secion 3, we prove an exisence resul for he sharp, polygonal problem, in addiion o several oher resuls, wihou he properies of being uniformly convex or superlinear. We also consider he wo differen ypes of minimizers for he sharp problem, boh a a verex Received by he ediors July 22, Key words and phrases. Conservaion Laws, Hopf-Lax, Lax-Oleinik, Shocks, Variaional Problems in Differenial Equaions, Minimizaion. 1 c 2017 Carey Caginalp

2 2 CAREY CAGINALP of he Legendre ransform L or a a par of L where i is locally differeniable, and demonsrae how 1.3 will hold in various cases wih hese differen species of minimizers. For he smooh problem, i is well-known i.e. [9] ha he minimizer obain in closed-form soluions such as Hopf-Lax are unique a.e in x for a given ime. Far more inricae behavior surfaces when one akes a less smooh flux funcion, as in our case wih a piecewise linear flux. In paricular, he convexiy here is no longer uniform and no even sric. As a resul, one can have no only muliple minimizers, bu an infinie se of such poins. This involves in-deph analysis of he srucure of he minimizers used in mehods such as Hopf-Lax or Lax-Oleinik. In Secion 4, by considering he greaes of hese minimizers y x,, or is supremum if no aained, we show ha y x, is in fac increasing in x. Furher, by carefully considering he relaive changes in his infinie and possibly uncounable number of minima, we rigorously prove he ideniy 1.3 w x, = g y x,. This expression relaes he soluion of he conservaion law o he value of he iniial condiion evaluaed a he poin of he minimizer. This is a new resul even under classical condiions and requires a deeper examinaion of muliple minimizers in he absence of uniform convexiy. We also prove oher resuls including ha he soluion is of bounded variaion [24] under he appropriae assumpions on he iniial condiions. In Secion 5, we consider he smoohed and superlinearized flux funcion H ε,δ. By condensing hese wo parameers ino one and considering he minimizers of he smooh version, we obain resuls relaing o he convergence of hese soluions of he smooh flux equaion o he polygonal case. We can also define a paricular kind of uniqueness when consrucing he soluion from a cerain limi, as we ake he aforemenioned parameer ε 0. We show wo uniqueness resuls, he former using he smoohing approach of Secion 5 and he laer showing ha one has uniqueness under Lipschiz coninuiy of he iniial condiion g x. These resuls are elaboraed on in Secion 6. In Secion 7, we consider disconinuous iniial condiions. When H is polygonal and g is piecewise consan wih values ha mach he break poins of H, he conservaion law becomes a discree combinaorial problem. We prove ha 1.3 is valid, and w can also be obained as a limi of soluions o he smoohed problem. This provides a link beween he discree and coninuum conservaion laws. A furher applicaion of conservaion laws includes he addiion of randomness, such as ha in he iniial condiions. In doing compuaions and analysis relaing o hese sochasic processes, he ideniy 1.3 will be a key building block. We presen some immediae conclusions in Secion 8. For example, when applied o Brownian moion, we show ha he variance is he greaes minimizer y x, and increases wih x for each. In a second paper, we plan o develop hese ideas furher. 2. Classical and New Resuls For Smooh Flux Funcions We review briefly he basic heory see [9], and obain an expression ha will be more useful han he sandard resuls when we relax he assumpions in order o incorporae polygonal flux. For now we assume ha he flux funcion H q : R R is uniformly convex, coninuously differeniable, and superlinear, i.e., lim q H q / q =. The Legendre ransformaion is defined by 2.1 L p := sup pq H q. q R Here we use scrip L and H o indicae we are considering he problem wih a smooh flux funcion, and in Secion 3 we will use L and H when considering a piecewise linear flux funcion. An iniial value problem for he Hamilon-Jacobi problem, on R, is specified as 2.2a 2.2b u + H u x = 0 u x, 0 = g x We call he funcion w a weak soluion if i i u x, saisfies he iniial condiion 2.2a and he equaion 2.2b a.e. in x, and ii see p. 131 [9] for each, and a.e. x and x + z, u x, saisfies he inequaliy 2.3 u x + z, 2u x, + u x z, C z 2.

3 MINIMIZATION SOLUTIONS TO CONSERVATION LAWS 3 The Hopf-Lax formula is defined by 2.4 u x, = min y R L + g y. The following classical resuls can be found in [9], p. 128 and 145. Theorem 2.1. Suppose H is C 2, uniformly convex and superlinear, and g is Lipschiz coninuous. Then u x, given by he Hopf-Lax formula 2.4 is he unique weak soluion o Now we consider soluions o a relaed equaion, he general conservaion law w + H w x = 0 in R 0, w x, 0 = g x on R = 0 Theorem 2.2. Assume ha H is C 2, uniformly convex, and g L R. Then we have i For each > 0 and for all bu counably many values x R, here exiss a unique poin y x, such ha x, 2.6 min L + g y = L + g y x, y R ii The mapping x y x, is nondecreasing. iii For each > 0, he funcion w defined by 2.7 w x, := x is in fac given by [ min L y R ] + g y w x, = H 1 x, To illuminae he noion of a weak soluion, we briefly describe he moivaion of he definiion. Nominally, if we had a smooh funcion u ha saisfied 2.2a everywhere in x, and he iniial condiion 2.2b hen we could muliply 2.2a by he spaial derivaive of he es funcion φ Cc R 0, and inegrae by pars o obain 2.8 uφ x + H u x φ x dx d + gφ x =0 dx = 0. 0 Now we le w := u x and inegrae by pars in he x variable, see [9] p. 148 for deails and condiions. Noe ha u x, is by assumpion differeniable a.e. The es funcion is differeniable a all poins, and so he produc rule applies ouside of a se of measure zero. Hence, one can inegrae, and one hen has 2.9 wφ + H w φ x dx d + g φ =0 dx = 0. 0 We now say ha w is a weak soluion o he conservaion law if i saisfies 2.9 for all es funcions wih compac suppor. Remark 2.3. From classical heorems, we also know ha under he condiions ha g is coninuous and H is C 2 and superlinear, we have a unique weak soluion o 2.7 ha is an inegral soluion o he conservaion law 2.5. However, a his sage we do no know if here are oher soluions o 2.5 arising from a differen perspecive, where g is a differeniable funcion. In order o obain a unique soluion o he conservaion law, one imposes an addiional enropy condiion and makes he following definiion. Definiion 2.4. We call w x, an enropy soluion o 2.5 if: i i saisfies 2.9 for all es funcions φ : R [0, R ha have compac suppor and ii for a.e. x R, > 0, z > 0, we have 2.10 w x + z, w x, C z.

4 4 CAREY CAGINALP In order o prove ha w = u x is he unique soluion o 2.5, we noe he following: In Theorem 1, p. 145 of [9] i suffices for he iniial condiion o be coninuous. In he heorem, he only use of he L R condiion is ha is inegral is differeniable a.e. which is cerainly guaraneed by he coninuiy. Under he assumpions of Theorem 1, he Lemma of p. 148 of [9] saes ha, wih G := H 1, he funcion w = u x, i.e., 2.11 w x, = x u x, = x min y R saisfies he one-sided inequaliy L + g y = G 7 w x + z, w x, C z. x, Once we have esablished ha w is an enropy soluion, he uniqueness of he enropy soluion up o a se of measure zero is a basic resul ha is summarized in [9] Theorem 3, p 149: Theorem 2.5. Assume H is convex and C 2. Then here exiss up o a se of measure 0, a mos one enropy soluion of 2.5. Noe ha one only needs g o be L in his heorem. One has hen he classical resul: Theorem 2.6. Assume ha H is C 2, superlinear and uniformly convex. Then he funcion w x, given by 2.11 is he unique enropy soluion o he conservaion law 2.9. Noe ha we need he uniformly convexiy assumpion in order ha he one-sided condiion holds, which in urn is necessary for he uniqueness. A classical resul is ha if y x, is defined as a minimizer of 2.12 Q y; x, := L + g y hen i is unique and he mapping x y x, is non-decreasing, and hence, coninuous excep a counably many poins x for each and differeniable a.e., in x for each. The Lax-Oleinik formula above, which expresses he soluion w o he conservaion law as a funcion of H 1. This formula, of course, uilizes he fac ha H is sricly increasing, i.e., ha H C 2 and uniformly convex. Using similar ideas, we presen a more useful formula ha will be shown in laer heorems o be valid even when he inverse of H does no exis. For hese heorems we need he following noion o express he argumen of a minimizer. Definiion 2.7. Le B be a measurable se and suppose ha here is a unique minimizer y for a quaniy Q y such ha Q y = min y B Q y. Define he funcion arg o mean ha y =: arg min y B Q y. In he case ha he minimum is achieved over some collecion of poins in B, denoe by arg + he supremum of all such poins, regardless of wheher he supremum of his se is a minimizer iself. Theorem 2.8. Le H C 2 and convex and g C 1. Suppose ha for each x,, he quaniy 2.13 y x, = inf L + g y y R is well-defined, finie, and unique. Then 2.14 L x, = g y x, and w x, := x min y R L + g y is given by 2.15 w x, = g y x,.

5 MINIMIZATION SOLUTIONS TO CONSERVATION LAWS 5 Proof of Theorem 2.8. From Secion 3.4, Thm 1 of [9], we know ha a minimizer of L + g y if unique is differeniable a.e. in x. We hen have he following calculaions. Since we are assuming ha inf y R L + g y > and boh L and g are differeniable, here exiss a minimizer. Since L and g are differeniable, for any poenial minimizer one has he ideniy = y L + g y so ha for a.e. x a a minimum, y x,, one has 2.17 f y, x, := L x, = g y x,. We have hen a any poin x where y x, is differeniable, 2.18 w x, := x min L + g y y R = x L x, + g y x, = L x, x y x, g y x, x y x,. The previous ideniy implies cancellaion of he firs and hird erms, yielding 2.20 w x, = g y x, a.e. x R for each > 0. Noe ha he uniqueness of he minimizer is used in he second line of If here were wo minimizers, for example, hen as we vary x, one of he minima migh decrease more rapidly, and ha would be he relevan minimum for he x derivaive. We now explore he case wih wo minimizers. Using he noaion L =: f y; x, as defined above, we noe ha whenever we have a minimum of f y; x, + g y a some y 0 we mus have 2.21 y f y 0 ; x, + g y 0 = 0. We are ineresed in compuing w x, = x min y R f y; x, + g y. Suppose ha here are wo disinc minima, ŷ 0 and ỹ 0, wih ŷ 0 < ỹ 0 a some poin x 0. Then we can define ŷ x, and ỹ x, as disinc local minimizers ha are differeniable in x, and saisfy 2.22 lim x x 0 ŷ x, = ŷ 0 and lim x x 0 ỹ x, = ỹ 0. Then as we vary x, he minima will shif verically and horizonally. The relevan minima are hose ha have he larges downward shif, as he ohers immediaely cease o be minima. This means ha 2.23 w x, = min x [f ŷ x, ; x, + g ŷ x, ], x [f ỹ x, ; x, + g ỹ x, ] x=x0. Then, as he calculaions in he proof of he heorem above show, one has 2.24 w x, = min g ŷ 0, g ỹ 0 = min y f ŷ 0, x 0,, x f ỹ 0 ; x,. Since we are assuming ha ŷ 0 < ỹ 0 and f is increasing, we see ha he minimum of hese wo is y f ỹ 0 ; x 0,, yielding, 2.25 w x, = y f ỹ 0 ; x 0, = g ỹ 0. Now suppose ha for fixed x 0, we have a se of minimizers y α wih α A for some se A. Should A consis of a finie number of elemens, an elemenary exension of he above argumen generalizes he resul o he maximum of hese minimizers. Nex, suppose ha he se has an infinie number of members. The case where he supremum of his se is + is degenerae and will be excluded by our assumpions. Thus, assume ha for a given x,, he se

6 6 CAREY CAGINALP y α is bounded, and call is supremum y. Then eiher y A, i.e., i mus be a minimizer, or here is a sequence y j in A converging o y. If y A, hen we have, similar o he asserion above, he ideniy 2.26 w x, = inf α A yf y α ; x,. Since f C 2 and y j y we see ha 2.27 w x, = y f y ; x, = g y. Noe ha 2.27 is valid wheher or no y is a minimizer. Suppose ha f C 2 is convex and ha we have a coninuum of minimizers again. Suppose furher ha f is nondecreasing, and here is an inerval [a, b] of minimizers of f y; x, + g y. Noe ha he form of f is such ha we can wrie i as 2.28 f y; x, = ˆf y x wih ˆf increasing. We can perform a calculaion similar o he ones above by drawing he graphs of ˆf and g as a funcion of y a x 0 as follows: 2.29 w x, = x min f y; x 0 + g y y [a,b] = lim δ 0 min y [a,b] ˆf y x0 δ + g y min y [a,b] ˆf y x0 + g y We are assuming ha here is an inerval y [a, b] of minimizers, such ha f y x 0 + g y = C 1 for some consan C 1. This means f y x 0 = g y. Since C 1 occurs on boh pars of he subracion, we can drop i. Using he mean value heorem we have 2.30 ˆf y x0 δ = ˆf y x 0 δ ˆf ζ where ζ is beween y x 0 and y x 0 δ. Using he ideniy ˆf y x 0 = g y we can wrie min y [a,b] δ ˆf ζ 0 w x, = lim δ 0 δ = lim min ˆf 2.31 ζ = ˆf b x 0 = f b δ 0 y [a,b] since f is nondecreasing, and he minimum of f y is aained a he righmos poin. Alhough we have only considered he cases where he se of minimizers is counable or an inerval, his argumen suffices for he general case. Indeed, he se A of minimizers will be measurable. If i has finie measure, i can be expressed as a counable union of disjoin closed inervals A j, i.e. A = j=1 A j. I is hen equivalen o apply he argumen for he counable se of minimizers o he poins y j = sup A j and proceed as above. To illusrae hese ideas, consider he following example. Example 2.9. Le f y; x := 2 and g y := y 2 for y [a, b] and increase rapidly ouside of [a, b], suppressing. We have f y; 0 + g y = y 2 y 2 = 0 so all poins in [a, b] are minimizers see Figure 1. We wan o calculae 2.32 x min y [a,b] f y; x + g y x=0, i.e., 2.33 min y [a,b] f y; δ + g y min y [a,b] f y; 0 + g y lim δ 0 δ = lim δ 0 δ 1 min y [a,b] y δ 2 y 2 = 2b. I.e., w x, := x min y [a,b] f y; x + g y x=0 is given by y f y; x a he righmos poin of he inerval [a, b]: 2.34 y f y; 0 = 2b a y = b. Noe ha by coninuiy, we have he same conclusion if he inerval is open a he righ endpoin b. δ.

7 MINIMIZATION SOLUTIONS TO CONSERVATION LAWS 7 Figure 1. Consider he case when f y; x akes he parabolic form 2 : a In some pahological cases, he iniial condiion may coincide in such a way ha for an enire inerval [a, b], he infimum on he righ-hand side of 2.35 is achieved. In Example 2.9, we illusrae he applicaion of Theorem 2.10; b Observe ha when f is shifed by a small amoun, here is a varying impac on he coninuum of minimizers where here δ < ε, affirming he sensiiviy of his special case. Using he calculaions in , we can improve Theorem 2.8 above by removing he unique minimizer resricion. Theorem Le H C 2 and convex and g C 1. Suppose ha for each x,, he quaniy 2.35 y x, = arg + inf L + g y y R is well-defined finie. Then 2.36 L x, = g y x, and w x, := x min y R L + g y is given by 2.37 w x, = g y x,. Remark The condiion 2.35 is no difficul o saisfy, as we simply need g o be well-defined on some inerval where L is finie. Remark Theorem 2.10 improves upon he classic heorem, which requires uniform convexiy. By uilizing he concep of he greaes minimizer y, we are able o deal wih non-unique minimizers and obain an expression for he soluion o he conservaion law using only convexiy and no requiring uniform or sric convexiy. 3. Exisence of Soluions For Polygonal Non-Smoohed Flux We use he general heme of [9] and adap he proofs o polygonal flux i.e., no smooh or superlinear. We define he Legendre ransform wihou he assumpion of superlineariy on he flux funcion H. Alhough his causes is Legendre ransform L o be infinie for cerain poins, one can sill perform compuaions and prove resuls close o hose of he previous secion under hese weaker assumpions, as L is used in he conex of minimizaion problems.. The firs maer is o make sure ha we have he key heorem ha H and L are Legendre ransforms of one anoher. We do no need o use any of he heorems ha rely on superlineariy. We only assume ha L is Lipschiz coninuous, which follows from he definiion of H. We also assume ha g he iniial condiion for he Hamilon-Jacobi equaion is Lipschiz on specific finie inervals.

8 8 CAREY CAGINALP Throughou his secion, we make he assumpion ha H q is polygonal convex wih he line segmens having slopes m 1 a he lef and m N+1 a he righ, wih break poins c 1 < c 2 <... < c N, wih c 1 < 0 < c N. The Legendre ransform, L q, defined below is hen also polygonal and convex on [m 1, m N+1 ] and infinie elsewhere. We will assume m 1 < 0 < m N+1. We illusrae his flux funcion and some of he properies of he Legendre ransform in Figure 2. Definiion 3.1. We define he usual Legendre ransform, denoed by L p, as follows: L p := sup pq H q q R A compuaion shows ha his is a convex polygonal shape such ha L p < if and only if p [m 1, m N + 1]. I has break poins a m 1 < m 2 <... < m N+1 and slopes c 1, c 2,.., c N. The las break poin of L is a m N+1 where he slope and L m N+1 become infinie. Noe ha L is Lipschiz on [m 1, m N+1 ]. Figure 2. a Illusraion of he piecewise linear flux funcion H q; b The Legendre ransform L p of he funcion H q; c The Legendre ransform evaluaed a a poin as used in he Hopf-Lax minimizaion problem. Noe ha he value of he Legendre ransform is infinie in he shaded regions; however, his pahology is miigaed since one generally is ineresed in a minimizaion problem, which limis he domain of his operaion o a cerain inerval.

9 MINIMIZATION SOLUTIONS TO CONSERVATION LAWS 9 Lemma 3.2. Dualiy Le L p be as defined above wih L p < iff p [m 1, m N+1 ]. Then he Legendre ransform L p of H p and he flux funcion H q iself saisfy he following dualiy condiion: L q := sup pq L q = H q. p R In oher words, if we define L p as polygonal, convex funcion beween p [m 1, m N+1 ] as in Figure 2, wih L p = for p [m 1, m N+1 ] hen he operaion sup p R pq L q yields he funcion H defined above. One can hen prove a se of lemmas ha are he analogs of hose in Secion 3.4 of [9]. The proofs are adaped in order o handle poenially infinie values. Lemma 3.3. Suppose L is defined as above and g is Lipschiz coninuous on bounded ses. Then u defined by he Hopf-Lax formula is Lipschiz coninuous in x, independenly of. Moreover, u x + z, u x, Lip g z. Proof of Lemma 3.3. Fix > 0, x, ˆx R. Choose y R depending on x, such ha x z 3.1 u x, = min L + g z = L + g y. z The minimum is aained since boh L and g are coninuous. Noe ha while here may be values of x z / such ha L x z / =, hese are irrelevan, as here are some finie values, and will be one of hose. Now use 3.1 o wrie ˆx z 3.2 u ˆx, u x, = inf L + g z L g y. z 3.3 We define z := ˆx x + y such ha = ˆx z and subsiue his z in place of z in 3.2 which can only increase he RHS. This yields he inequaliy ˆx z u ˆx, u x, L + g z L g y = L + g ˆx x + y L g y 3.4 = g ˆx x + y g y. Using he assumpion ha g is Lipschiz on bounded ses, one has 3.5 u ˆx, u x, Lip g ˆx x. Noe ha in obaining his inequaliy, x and ˆx were arbirary wihou any assumpion on order. Hence, we can inerchange hem. I.e., we sar by defining y such ha, insead of 3.1, i saisfies ˆ 3.6 u ˆx, = L + g y. Thus, we obain he same inequaliy as 3.5 wih he x and ˆx inerchanged, yielding 3.7 u ˆx, u x, Lip g ˆx x. Lemma 3.4. Suppose L is defined as above and g is Lipschiz coninuous on bounded ses. For each x R and 0 s < we have u x, = min s L + u y, s. y R s

10 10 CAREY CAGINALP Proof of Lemma 3.4. A. Fix y R, 0 < s <. Since u and L are coninuous, he minimum is aained on he inerval [m 1, m N+1 ] where L is finie. Thus we can find z R such ha y z 3.8 u y, s = sl + g z. s Noe ha since z is he minimizer of L y z /s, we know ha L y z /s is finie. By convexiy of L we can wrie x z = 1 s + s y z s s x z 3.9 L 1 s L + s y z s L. s Nex, we have from our basic assumpion ha u x, is defined by he Hopf-Lax formula, he ideniy x ẑ 3.10 u x, = min L + g ẑ ẑ so subsiuing he z defined above in 3.8 yields he inequaliy x z 3.11 u x, L + g z and now using 3.9 yields 3.12 u x, s L + sl s y z Now noe ha he las wo erms, by 3.8 are u y, s. This yields 3.13 u x, s L + u y, s. s s + g z. Noe ha y has been arbirary. Now we ake he minimum over all y R. We noe ha here are values of y for which he righ hand side of 3.13 is infinie, bu given 0 < s < and x R, here will be some y R such ha / s falls in he finie range of L. Thus, in aking he minimum, he values for which i is infinie are irrelevan, and we have 3.14 u x, min y R s L + u y, s. s B. Nex, we know again ha here exiss w R depending on x and ha we regard as fixed such ha x w 3.15 u x, = L + g w. We choose y := s x + 1 s w, which implies 3.16 s = x w = y w. s We know ha w is he minimizer and of course, g is finie in he domain [m 1, m N ] so ha L x w / is finie. Thus, by he ideniy 3.16 above, so are L x w / and L y w /s. Thus, using he basic definiion of u y, s in he equaliy, one has 3.17 s L s y ẑ + u y, s = s L + min sl s ẑ y w s L + sl s + g w + g ẑ where he inequaliy is obained simply by subsiuing a paricular value for ẑ, namely he w ha we defined above in 3.15.

11 MINIMIZATION SOLUTIONS TO CONSERVATION LAWS 11 We can use 3.16 in order o re-wrie he argumens of L in equivalen forms. By he equaliy and he fac ha L x w / is finie, so are L / s and L y w /s. Hence, replacing he wo expressions involving L on he RHS of 3.9 yields x w x w s L + u y, s s L + sl + g w s x w 3.18 = L + g w = u x, where he las ideniy follows from he expression 3.15 ha defines w. Thus 3.18 gives us an ideniy for a paricular y ha we defined, namely 3.19 s L + u y, s u x,. s If we replace y by he minimum over all ŷ we obain he inequaliy 3.20 min s L + u y, s u x,. ŷ R s Combining 3.14 and 3.20 proves Lemma 3.4. Lemma 3.5. If L and g are Lipschiz coninuous, one has u x, 0 = g x. Noe ha his is he analog of Lemma 2 - proof in par 2 of Evans. Par 2 is essenially he same; one needs only pay aenion o finieness of he erms. Proof of Lemma 3.5. Since 0 [m 1, m N+1 ], he inerval on which L is finie, one has 3.21 u x, = min L + g y L 0 + g x, y R upon choosing y = x. Also, 3.22 u x, = min y R min y R L + g y L + g x Lip g L Lip g Lip g L = g x + min y R = g x max y R = g x max z Lip g L z. z R Noe ha max z R z Lip g L z is a finie number since L z is bounded above and is ouside of he range [m 1, m N + 1]. Thus we define 3.23 C := max L 0, max z Lip g L z z R and combine 3.21 and 3.22 o wrie 3.24 u x, g x C for all x R and > 0.

12 12 CAREY CAGINALP Lemma 3.6. a If L and g are Lipschiz, one has for any x R and 0 < ˆ < he inequaliies 3.25 u x, u x, ˆ C ˆ 3.26 C := max L 0, max z Lip g L z. z R b Under he condiions of Lemmas 3.3 and 3.6 one has for some C 3.27 u ˆx, ˆ u x, C ˆx, ˆ x, 2 where 2 is he usual Euclidean norm. c If L and g are Lipschiz coninuous hen u : R 2 R is differeniable on R 0, a.e. Proof of Lemma 3.6. a Le x R and 0 < ˆ <. By Lemma 3.3 one has 3.28 u x, u ˆx, Lip g x ˆx. From Lemma 3.4, we have for 0 s = ˆ <, he inequaliy u x, = min s L + u y, s y s min s L + u x, s Lip u y s = u x, s + min s L Lip g y s = u x, s + s min L Lip g y s s 3.29 = u x, s + s min L z Lip g z z where we have jus defined z := / s. We can also wrie his as 3.30 u x, u x, s s max Lip g z L z. z Using C 1 := max z Lip g z L z which, as discussed above, is clearly finie, one has hen 3.31 u x, u x, s C 1 s. The oher direcion in he inequaliy follows from Lemma 3.4 direcly. Subsiuing x in place of he y in he minimizer, we have u x, = min s L + u y, s y s x x s L + u x, s s 3.32 = s L 0 + u x, s yielding he inequaliy 3.33 u x, u x, s s L 0. Combining 3.32 and 3.33 yields he Lipschiz inequaliy in, namely, 3.34 u x, u x, s C s. b This follows from he riangle inequaliy, Lemma 3.3 and par a. c This follows from Rademacher s heorem and par b. Analogous o heorems in Secion 3.3, [9], we have he following hree heorems. The key idea here is ha our versions allow one o deal wih he inroducion of poenially infinie values of he Legendre ransform of he flux funcion. Theorem 3.7. Le x R and > 0. Le u be defined by he Hopf-Lax formula and differeniable a x, R 0,. Then u x, + H u x x, = 0.

13 MINIMIZATION SOLUTIONS TO CONSERVATION LAWS 13 Proof of Theorem 3.7. A. Fix q [m 1, m N+1 ] and h > 0. By Lemma 3.4, we have x + hq y 3.35 u x + hq, + h = min hl + u y,. y R h Once again since here are some finie values over which we are aking he minimum, he expression is well-defined. Upon seing y as x, we can only obain a larger quaniy on he RHS, yielding 3.36 u x + hq, + h hl q + u x,. Hence, for q [m 1, m N+1 ], we have he inequaliy u x + hq, + h u x, 3.37 L q. h Since we are assuming ha u is differeniable a x, we have he exisence of he limi of he LHS of 3.37 hereby yielding 3.38 u x, + qdu x, L q, i.e., u x, + qdu x, L q 0. We now use he equaliy, sup q R qw L q =: H w, wriing 3.39 H Du x, = sup qdu L q. q R Noe ha he values of q for which L q = are clearly no candidaes for he sup p since L q =. Hence, we can ake he sup over all q ha saisfy 3.38, which is equivalen o aking he sup over q [m 1, m N+1 ] o obain 3.40 B. Now use he definiion 3.41 u x, = min y R u x, + sup u x, + qdu x, L q 0, or q R u x, + H Du x, 0. L + g y. Since L and g are coninuous, he minimizer exiss and for some z R depending on x, we have x z 3.42 u x, = L + g z. Define s := h, y := s x + 1 s z so x z x z 3.43 u x, u y, s = L = y z s. Then we can wrie, using he definiion of u y, s, y ŷ + g z min sl + g ŷ. ŷ s By subsiuing z defined by 3.40 in place of ŷ in his expression, we subrac ou a leas as much and obain he inequaliy x z y z u x, u y, s L + g z sl + g z s x z 3.44 = s L by virue of he equaliy x z = y z s. Noe ha by definiion, L x z = L y z s <, so here is no divergence problem here. Now replace y wih is definiion above, and use s = h o wrie 3.44 as u x, u x + h z x, h x z 3.45 L. h Since we are assuming ha he derivaive exiss a x, we can ake he limi as h 0+ and obain x z x z 3.46 Du x, + u x, L

14 14 CAREY CAGINALP We use he definiion of H again, and wrie 3.47 u x, + H Du x, = u x, + max q R qdu L q x z u x, + x z Du x, L where we have chosen one value of q, namely x z / o obain he inequaliy. Noe, again, ha from he original definiion in 3.42, L x z mus be finie. Hence, he RHS of 3.47 is well-defined. Combining 3.46 and 3.47 yields he inequaliy 3.48 u x, + H Du x, 0. Combining 3.48 wih 3.42, we obain he resul ha u saisfies he Hamilon-Jacobi equaion a x,. Theorem 3.8. The funcion u x, defined by he Lax-Oleinik formula is Lipschiz coninuous, differeniable a.e. in R 0, and solves he iniial value problem u + H u x = 0 a.e. in R 0, u x, 0 = g x for all x R. Definiion 3.9. We say ha w L R 0, is an inegral soluion of w + H w x = 0 in R 0, w x, 0 = h x for all x R if for all es funcions φ : R [0, R i.e., φ ha are smooh and have compac suppor one has he ideniy wφ dxd + hxφdx =0 + H w φ x dxd = 0. 0 Theorem Under he assumpions ha g is Lipschiz and ha H is polygonal and convex as described above, he funcion w x, := x u x, where u is he Hopf-Lax funcion is an inegral soluion of he iniial value problem for he conservaion law above. This is he analog of Theorem 2, Secion 3.4 of [9], bu he saemen of he heorem here is somewha differen. Proof of Theorem From Theorem 3.8 above we know ha u is Lipschiz coninuous, differeniable a.e. in R 0, and solves he Hamilon-Jacobi iniial value problem subjec o iniial condiion h x where g x = x 0 h z dz. We muliply u + H u x = 0 wih a es funcion φ x and inegrae over 0...dxd. Upon inegraing by pars one obains he relaion above in he definiion of inegral soluion. The inegraion by pars operaions are jusified by he fac ha u x, is Lipschiz in boh x and. Also, 0 w x, 0 = x u x, 0 = g x. Noably, we have used he larges of he minimizers raher han he leas o improve on he resul of [9] by requiring only convexiy insead of uniform convexiy of he flux funcion. 4. Proof Tha Soluion is BV and Greaes Minimizer is Non-decreasing in x Theorem 4.1. Suppose H is polygonal wih finiely many break poins, convex, H 0 = 0, and g is differeniable. Then for any x, here exiss y x, ha is defined as he greaes minimizer, i.e., x, 4.1 min L + g y = L + g y x, y R and any oher number ŷ ha minimizes he lef hand side saisfies ŷ y.

15 MINIMIZATION SOLUTIONS TO CONSERVATION LAWS 15 Remark 4.2. By using he larges minimizer insead of he leas as in he classical heorems, we obain a paricular inequaliy below ha is a consequence of convexiy raher han from he sricer assumpion of uniform convexiy. Remark 4.3. Minimizers We firs illusrae he key idea. The minimizers mus eiher be on he verices of L or on he locally differeniable par of L. We suppress and suppose x = 0. For fixed x, in order o have a non-isolaed se of minimizers of f y; x, + g y, hey need o be on he differeniable par of f i.e. non-verex. This laer case means ha on some inerval, e.g., [a, b] one has f y; 0, + g y = 0 noe ha we can always shif up or down, so we can adjus he consan o 0. On his srech of y we can wrie f y; 0 = my and g y = my Thus all y [a, b] are minimizers. If we increase x slighly we obain so ha f y; x = m y x and g y = my f y; x + g y = m y x my = mx. This means ha he minimum is less if x > 0 bu again, all y are minimizers. In compuing he derivaive x min f y; x + g y y we see ha we can use any y and we will obain he same resul. I.e., if ŷ is any minimizer, hen we have as one can see graphically, or from compuaion, where g is differeniable, x min y f y; x + g y = y f ŷ; x = g ŷ. Hence, we can ake for example he larges of hese ŷ, or sup ŷ since he derivaives are consan and, f and g are C 1 so we can use coninuiy. Proof of Theorem 4.1. Noe firs ha by definiion of he Legendre ransform, L q, one has ha L q < if and only if q [m 1, m N+1 ]. Also, he inerval is closed, since one has for some c R, 4.2 L m N+1 = sup m N+1 q H q = c q for some consan c, and similarly a he m 1 endpoin. Hence, if we define, for fixed x and, 4.3 v y := L + g y and noe ha v is coninuous, since, by assumpion g and L are also coninuous. A coninuous funcion on a closed, bounded inerval aains a leas one minimizer, which we will call y 1 [x m N+1, x m 1 ] and denoe v y 1 =: b. Noe ha v is infinie ouside of his inerval. Now for any index se A, le y α α A be he se of poins such ha y α [x m N+1, x m 1 ] and v y α = v y 1. Le y := sup y α : α A which exiss since i is a bounded se of reals. Thus here is a sequence y j j=1 such ha lim j y j = y. By coninuiy of v one has hen ha 4.4 v y = lim j v y j = lim j b = b. Thus, y is a minimizer, here is no minimizer ha is greaer han y, and i is unique by definiion of supremum. We wrie y x, as he larges minimizer for a given x and. We define y 1 := y x 1, and y 2 = y x 2,. We have he following, analogous o [9] bu using convexiy ha may no be sric. Lemma 4.4. If x 1 < x 2, hen L x2 y 1 + g y 1 L x2 y + g y if y < y 1.

16 16 CAREY CAGINALP Proof of Lemma 4.4. For any λ [0, 1] and r, s R we have from convexiy 4.5 L λr + 1 λ s λl r + 1 λ L s. Now le x 1 < x 2 and for y y 1 define λ by 4.6 λ := y 1 y x 2 x 1 + y 1 y. By assumpion, x 1 < x 2 and y < y1 so ha λ 0, 1. Le r := x 1 y1 / and s := x 2 y /. A compuaion shows 4.7 λr + 1 λ s = x 2 y /. This yields 4.8 L x2 y1 x1 y 1 λl + 1 λ L x2 y Nex, we inerchange he roles of r and s, i.e, ˆr := x 2 y / and ŝ := x 1 y 1 / and noe ha 4.9 λˆr + 1 λ ŝ = x 1 y /. Thus, convexiy implies x1 y x1 y L 1 λ L + λl Adding 4.8 and 4.10 yields, 4.11 L x2 y 1 + L x1 y L x1 y1 + L x2 y.. x2 y By definiion of y1 := y x 1, as a minimizer for x 1 wih sill fixed we have x1 y L + g y x1 y 1 L + g y. Upon muliplying 4.11 by and adding o 4.12 we obain, as wo of he L erms cancel, x2 y L + g y x2 y 1 L + g y, provided, sill, ha y < y1. Hence, if y2 is he larges minimizer for x 2, i mus be greaer han or equal o y1. I.e., any value y < y1 saisfies 4.13 so i could no be a larger minimizer han y1. An immediae consequence of his resul is he following: Theorem 4.5. For each fixed,, as a funcion of x, y x, is non-decreasing and is equal a.e. in x o a differeniable funcion. Proof of Theorem From previous calculaions we know ha L is polygonal convex and is finie only in he closed inerval [m 1, m N+1 ]. Also, we have L 0. Now we apply Lemma 4.4 as follows. By definiion of y2 we have x2 y x2 y 2 x, 4.14 min L + g y = L + g y2 x,. y R By Proposiion 3.2, we have ha for any y < y1, he expression L x 2 y + g y is already equal o or x2 y greaer han L 1 + g y1, so here canno be a minimizer ha is less han y1. Hence, we conclude y2 y1. This means ha wih y x, defined as he larges value ha minimizes L x 2 y + g y, i.e. y x, = arg + x2 y min L + g y we have ha he funcion y is a non-decreasing funcion of x for any fixed > 0. This implies ha i is coninuous excep for counably many values of x. Also, for each > 0, one has ha y x, is equal.

17 MINIMIZATION SOLUTIONS TO CONSERVATION LAWS 17 a.e. o a funcion ŷ x such ha ŷ is differeniable in x and one has ŷ x = x 0 ŷ s ds + z x where z is non-decreasing and z = 0 excep on a se of measure zero [22], p Lemma 4.6. Le g be differeniable, v x, := L + g y, w x, := x v x, = x min L + g y. y R Suppose ha ŷ x, is he unique minimizer of v x, and ha L is differeniable a ŷ. Then x ŷ w x, = g ŷ x, = L. Remark 4.7. When we ake he derivaive of he minimum, noe ha he uniqueness of he minimizer is he key issue. If here is more han one minimizer, as we vary y in order o ake he derivaive, one of he minimizers may become irrelevan if he oher minimum moves lower. This issue will be aken up in he subsequen heorem. Proof of Lemma 4.6. Suppose ha x and are fixed and ha ŷ x, is he unique minimizer of v x,. Since L, g are differeniable, and ŷ x, is also differeniable since ŷ is he only minimizer we can apply he previous resul on he greaes minimizer, we have he calculaions: 0 = y L + g y, i.e. x ŷ x, L = g ŷ x,. Noe ha he minimum of v will no occur a he minimum of g unless L has slope zero. We have hen w x, := x min L + g y y R x ŷ x, = x L + g ŷ x, x ŷ x, = L x ŷ x, g ŷx, x ŷ x,. The previous ideniy implies cancellaion of he firs and hird erms, yielding w x, = g ŷ x,. Lemma 4.8. Le x, be fixed, and assume he same condiions on L and g. If ŷ x, is he unique minimizer of v x, and occurs a a verex of L, hen w x, = g ŷ x,. Proof of Lemma 4.8. Noe ha L z < if and only if z [m 1, m N+1 ],. Since he verical coordinae of he verex of L remains consan as one increases x, he change in he minimum is equal o g y a ha poin. I.e., one has w x, = x min y R L x ŷ x, = x L = g ŷ x,. + g y + g ŷ x, A he endpoins, y = x m N+1 and y = x m 1 he siuaion is he same, since as one varies x, he value of L on one side has an infinie slope see Figure 2. Noe ha his argumen does no depend on ŷ being differeniable.

18 18 CAREY CAGINALP Figure 3. The wo ypes of minima ha can occur for a piecewise flux funcion and general iniial daa: a a a verex of he Legendre ransform L q of he flux funcion H q; b a a poin where he Legendre ransform L q of he flux funcion H q is locally differeniable. Theorem 4.9. Le g be differeniable and L convex polygonal as above. For fixed > 0 and a.e. x one has 4.15 w x, = g y x,. Proof of Theorem 4.9. Since g is differeniable for all x any minimum of L + g y mus occur on a poin, ŷ x, where L has a verex including he endpoins, see Figure 3 or a a poin where v y = 0. There are wo possible ypes of minimizers, Type A occurring a he verices of L, and Type B ha occur a he differeniable i.e., fla par of L. These wo ypes are illusraed in Figure 3. From he lemmas above, we know ha when here is a single minimizer, ŷ, he conclusion follows. Thus we consider he possibiliy of more han one minimizer, ŷ j. For a given x, i is clear ha here can only be finiely many minimizers of Type A, i.e., he number of verices. Alhough here may be infiniely many minimizers, ŷ j of he Type B we know ha g ŷ x, = L x ŷ so ha here are only finiely many values of g ŷ x, regardless of he ype of minimizer. For any x, we le y x, be he larges of he minimizers, which is cerainly well-defined since here are only finiely many minimizers. From he earlier heorem, we know ha y x, is increasing in x for fixed > 0 and differeniable for a.e. x. In fac, if we focus on any minimizer, ŷ j x, we see ha x ŷ j x, exiss for eiher ype of minimum. If i is Type A hen as we vary x, he verex moves and he minimum shifs along he curve of g. Since g is differeniable, he locaion of he minimum varies smoohly in x, so x ŷ j x, exiss. If i is Type B hen boh L and g are differeniable, so i is cerainly rue ha x ŷ j x, exiss. For fixed x, and each of he finiely many values of g ŷ x, we can deermine he minimum of g ŷ x, =: m i.e., m depending on x,. Firs, hey may correspond o verices. There are a mos M of hose, since here can only be one minimizer for each verex. Then we have a class of minimizers for each segmen of L, i.e. M + 1 of hose. We can ake he larges minimizer in each class, since g will be he same in each class. When we differeniae wih respec o x, we compare each of he J which is an ineger beween 1 and 2M + 1 minimizers. I is he leas of hese ha will be relevan, since we are aking x ŷj x min L + g ŷ j. y R In oher words, as we vary x, we wan o know how his minimum varies. Thus a minimizer is irrelevan if L + g ŷ j does no move down as much as anoher of he ŷ j as x increases. If l k and x ŷj g ŷ k x, > g ŷ l x, hen ŷ k x, is irrelevan for poins beyond x. On he oher hand, if we have

19 MINIMIZATION SOLUTIONS TO CONSERVATION LAWS 19 g ŷ k x, = g ŷ l x, hen we obain he same change in he minimum, and we can jus ake he larger of he wo. If we have minimizers ha are of Type B hen i is he furhes righ segmen ha corresponds o he leas g since we have he ideniy see Lemma 4.6 above L x ŷx, = g ŷ x,. In oher words, eiher he g values are idenical on some inerval, in which case we have w x, = g ŷ j x, = g ŷ l x, for example, and we can ake eiher minimizer and obain he same value for w x,,or one value is greaer and is hus irrelevan. Alernaively, if he derivaives are differen, hen he smaller g is he only one ha is relevan. In eiher case we can ake he larges value of ŷ and we have w x, = g y x,. One remaining quesion is wheher we have a larges minimizer y x,. The segmens i.e., lines of L are on closed and bounded inervals, he supremum of poins ŷ x, exiss, and here is a sequence of poins, ỹ m ha converges o his supremum, ỹ. Since L and g are coninuous lim m L x ỹm + g ỹ m x ỹ = L Thus, we mus have ha ỹ = y and is he greaes of he minimizers. + g ỹ. Theorem Suppose ha g is BV. Then w x, is BV in x for fixed. Proof of Since g is BV i can be wrien as he difference of wo increasing funcions, h 1 and h 2. Then h i y x, are increasing since hey are increasing funcions of increasing funcions and hence g y x, is BV. 5. Approximaion Soluions of he Sharp Verex Problem Wih he Smoohed Version I is imporan o relae he soluions of he conservaion law wih he polygonal flux H o he soluions w ε corresponding o he smoohed and superlinearized flux funcion H ε. In paricular, H ε is also uniformly convex, and he hypoheses of he classical heorems are saisfied. Throughou his secion we will assume g C 1. There are wo basic pars o his secion. Firs, we show ha H and H ε have Legendre ransforms ha are poinwise separaed by Cε, i.e., L p L ε p Cε also, and hence a similar ideniy for f y; x, = L. We will also show ha if here is a unique pair of minimizers, y ε x, and y x, hen hey also separaed by a mos Cε. Second, we analyze w ε x, w x, for a single minimizer of L + g y and demonsrae ha he resul can be exended for a minimum ha is aained by muliple, even uncounably many, minimizers y α Consrucion of smoohed and uniformly convex H. Given a funcion ha is locally inegrable, one can mollify i using a sandard convoluion [9], p Alernaively, we will use a mollificaion as in [11] in which he difference beween a piecewise linear funcion and is mollificaion vanishes ouside a small neighborhood of each verex. Lemma 5.1 Smoohing. Suppose ha G y is piecewise linear and saisfies 5.1 G α < 0 if y < ym y = γ > 0 if y > y m, g y = βy for some β α, γ and G ε y is any funcion ha saisfies 5.2 sup G ε y G y C 1 ε y A for any given compac se A. Le y ε m := arg min G ε y g y. Then one has y m := arg min G y g y and 5.3 y ε m y m C 2 ε where C 2 depends on A, α, β, γ.

20 20 CAREY CAGINALP Figure 4. Sandard mollificaion of he flux funcion Φ. The mollifiaion Φ ε is shown in solid ligh blue, and remains wihin he bounds Φ±ε, shown in dashed red and dashed blue. Oher mollificaions are also possible, such as in [11] where he values of Φ ε and Φ coincide exacly ouside an inerval of measure ε. Proof of Lemma 5.1. The firs asserion ha y m is he argmin follows from immediaely from he properies assumed for g and G. To prove he second asserion, i.e., he bound y ε m y m Cε, one defines Φ y := G y g y and Φ ε y := G ε y g y. The graph of Φ := G g is a v-shape wih Φ 0 = 0. We can draw parallel lines Cε above and below Φ and observe ha εφ ε lies wihin hese lines, as illusraed in Figure 4. Noe ha a necessary condiion for y ε m o be he argmin of Φ ε is ha 5.4 Φ ε y ε m Φ ε y m since Φ ε y ε m mus be below all Φ ε y. Boh of he quaniies Φ ε y ε m and Φ ε y m are wihin he bounds in he graph above so ha we can wrie his inequaliy in he form 5.5 Φ y ε m Cε Φ ε y ε m Φ ε y m Φ y m + Cε Thus Φ y ε m Φ y m 2Cε, i.e., by definiion of Φ one has 5.6 α β y ε m y m 2Cε. So for y ε m > y m we have he resricion 5.7 y ε m y m 2C α β ε. In a similar way we obain a resricion in he oher direcion and prove he lemma. As discussed above, given any H q ha is piecewise linear wih finiely many break poins, one can consruc an approximaion H ε q ha has he following properies:

21 MINIMIZATION SOLUTIONS TO CONSERVATION LAWS 21 a H ε q H q C 1 ε for all q R, and b H ε q H q = 0 if q c i > C 2 ε where c i is any break poin of H. Subsequenly, all references o smoohing will mean ha condiions a and b are saisfied. Noe ha H ε q is convex bu no necessarily uniformly convex. Since i is smooh, we have H ε q 0. In order o have uniform convexiy we can add o H ε a erm δq 2 where 0 < δ ε and define 5.8 H ε,δ q := H ε q + δq 2. Then H ε,δ q > δ > 0 so ha H ε,δ is uniformly convex and has wo coninuous derivaives. Lemma 5.2 Approximae Legendre Transform. Le 5.9 L p := sup pq H q, q R and le A be a compac se in R. For any p A one has 5.10 L ε,δ p L p Cε. L ε,δ p := sup pq H ε,δ q. q R Remark 5.3. Noe ha since H has finie max and min slopes, ouside his range we have L p := sup q R pq H q =. For L ε,δ p we will have a very large, hough no infinie value when p exceeds his range, so p ouside his range is also irrelevan in erms of minimizers. Thus, wihou loss of generaliy we can resric our aenion o p in a compac se. Proof of Lemma 5.2. Noe ha arg max q pq H q = arg min q H q pq and similarly for H ε,δ q. We hen use he Lemma above by defining G ε q := H ε,δ q pq wih δ := ε 2 < 1. We can hen apply he previous Lemma, noing ha Hε,ε 2 q H q Cε implies G ε q G q Cε, o conclude ha wih q m := arg min G q and q ε m := arg min G ε q Since G and G ε are Lipschiz, one has Lε,ε 2 p L p = sup q R q m q ε m Cε. pq Hε,ε 2 q sup pq H q q R = pqm ε H ε,ε 2 qm ε pq m H q m p q ε m q m + H ε,ε 2 q ε m H q m p q ε m q m + H ε,ε 2 q ε m H q ε m + H q ε m H q m Cε since we noed above ha Hε,ε 2 q H q Cε and H is Lipschiz. This proves he Lemma Proving Convergence of Soluions w ε w. We define f y; x, = L, f ε,δ y; x, = L ε,δ and consider any fixed [0, T ] for some T R + and x, y on bounded inervals. The bounds on L and L ε,δ hen imply f y; x, f ε,δ y; x, Cε. Nex, we claim ha if here is a single minimizer for f y; x, + g y, denoed by y x, and y ε x, for f ε y; x, + g y, hen y ε x, y x, a.e. in x. This is proven in he same way as Lemma 5.2, and analyzed in Secion 4. Noe ha if he minimum is no wihin Cε of he verex i.e. no near a minimum of g, hen he conclusion will be immediae since he mollificaion does no exend more han a disance Cε from he verex.

22 22 CAREY CAGINALP Now, we wan o compare he soluion w x, wih w ε x, and asser ha for any > 0 and a.e. x one has lim ε 0 wε x, = w x,. If we assumed ha here is a single minimizer, y x, hen he resul would be clear from he relaions w x, = g y x,, w ε x, = g y ε x,, and he fac ha g is coninuous in x and yε x, y x,. The subley is when we have more han one minimizer. Noe from he earlier maerial on he sharp problem, we only need o consider finiely many minimizers, since here are only finiely many verices, and only finiely many segmens of L. The minimizers can be a he verices, or hey may be on he segmens. Bu if hey are on he segmens, he minimizers are in finiely many classes ha correspond o he same value of g ŷ x, = L x ŷx,. Thus we can choose he larger of hese wo minimizers, for example. We consider he wo Types A and B and suppose firs ha here are wo minimizers of he same ype. Type A. Suppose ha for some x 0, we have ŷ 1 and ŷ 2 ha are boh Type A minimizers, i.e., a differen verices of L. If g ŷ 1 < g ŷ 2 hen a some ε, he mollified versions will also saisfy g ŷ ε 1 < g ŷ ε 2. This means ha for x x 0 only ŷ 1 and ŷ ε 1 will be relevan. Analogously, we have he opposie inequaliy. If we have g ŷ 1 = g ŷ 2, hen we may no have g ŷ ε 1 = g ŷ ε 2. However, since g is coninuous, and we know ha ŷ ε 1 ŷ 1 and ŷ ε 2 ŷ 2 we have hen g ŷ ε 1 g ŷ 1 and g ŷ ε 2 g ŷ 2. Thus we have from our basic resuls w x, = g y x, and w ε x, = g y ε x,, ha w ε x, w x,. In Figure 5a, we illusrae he case where g y 1 = g y 2. Type B. In his case we are on he sraigh porion of L, and he minimum mus occur as discussed in he earlier secion when y L x0 y + g y = 0. This means ha any minimum ŷ mus saisfy L x0 ŷ = g ŷ. If here are wo minima a differen segmens, he one corresponding o he lowes value of g will be relevan. To see his, recall from Figure 2 ha we sar wih break poins c 1 <... < c N+1 and c 1 < 0, c N+1 > 0. These become he slopes for L and, when we define f y; x, := L he slopes are c N+1 < 0 on he lef up o he las one, c 1 > 0 on he righ. Any minimizer, ŷ, of f y; x, + g y = L + g y on he fla par of f mus saisfy f ŷ+g ŷ = 0. On he las segmen, for example we have he requiremen g ŷ = c 1 = c 1 < 0. For any of he previous segmens we obain g y = c j > c 1. Hence if here are minimizers on previous segmens, hey become irrelevan as soon as we increase x. The slope of he sraigh line, f, will be posiive, i.e., c 1 and he minimum in he illusraion above will be jus o he lef of he minimum of g. Hence, in he case of a minimum of Type B we see ha i is only he minimizers on his righmos segmen ha are relevan excep on a se of measure zero. Alhough here may be infiniely many minimizers on his segmen, hey all yield he same g ŷ j value of c k where k is he minimum index for which he slope c k corresponds o a minimizer, so we can ake he larges of hem, y and wrie w x, = g y x, = c k. Thus one has w x, = c k. This is illusraed in Figure 5b. If we have a combinaion of minimizers of he wo ypes, hen he siuaion is similar. Excep on a se of measure zero in x, we need only consider hose values for which g is minimum, he oher values cease o become a minimum as x is varied. As discussed above, we only need o consider finiely many of hese minimizers. Esimaing w e w is simpler in he Type B case since we only have finiely many values for g. When we ake he smoohed version, H ε yielding he smoohed L ε each of hese poins ŷ j x, is approximaed by ŷ ε j x, ha will correspond o he same g. Noe ha on he fla par non-verex of L, he smoohing