arxiv: v1 [math.fa] 22 Jan 2014

Transcription

1 RELXTION ND INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS OF LINER GROWTH ON METRIC MESURE SPCES HEIKKI HKKRINEN, JUH KINNUNEN, PNU LHTI, PEKK LEHTELÄ arxiv: v1 [math.f] 22 Jan 2014 bstract. This article studies an integral representation of functionals of linear growth on metric measure spaces with a doubling measure and a Poincaré inequality. Such a functional is defined through relaxation, and it defines a Radon measure on the space. For the singular part of the functional, we get the expected integral representation with respect to the variation measure. new feature is that in the representation for the absolutely continuous part, a constant appears already in the weighted Euclidean case. s an application we show that in a variational minimization problem related to the functional, boundary values can be presented as a penalty term. 1. Introduction Let f : R + R + be a convex, nondecreasing function that satisfies the linear growth condition mt f(t) M(1+t) with some constants 0 < m M <. Let be an open set on a metric measure space (X,d,µ). Throughout the work we assume that the measure is doubling and that the space supports a Poincaré inequality. For u L 1 loc (), we define the functional of linear growth via relaxation by F(u,) { } = inf lim inf f(g ui )dµ : u i Lip loc (), u i u in L 1 loc (), where g ui is the minimal 1-weak upper gradient of u i. For f(t) = t, this is the definition of functions of bounded variation, or BV functions, on metric measure spaces, see [1], [3] and [18]. For f(t) = 1+t 2, we get the generalized surface area functional, see [14]. Our first result shows thatiff(u,) <, thenf(u, )isaborelregularoutermeasureon Mathematics Subject Classification. 49Q20, 30L99, 26B30. The research was supported by the cademy of Finland and the Finnish cademy of Science and Letters, Vilho, Yrjö and Kalle Väisälä Foundation. Part of the work was done during a visit at the Institut Mittag-Leffler (Djursholm, Sweden). 1

2 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 2 This result is a generalization of [18, Theorem 3.4]. For corresponding results in the Euclidean case with the Lebesgue measure, we refer to [2], [7], [10], [11], and [12]. Our second goal is study whether the relaxed functional F(u, ) can be represented as an integral. To this end, let u L 1 loc () with F(u,) <. Then the growth condition implies that u BV(). We denote the decomposition of the variation measure Du into the absolute continuous and singular parts by d Du = adµ + d Du s, where a L 1 (). Similarly, we denote by F a (u, ) and F s (u, ) the absolutely continuous and singular parts of F(u, ) with respect to µ. For the singular part, we obtain the integral representation F s (u,) = f Du s (), where f = lim t f(t)/t. This is analogous to the Euclidean case. However, for the absolutely continuous part we only get an integral representation up to a constant f(a)dµ F a (u,) f(ca)dµ, where C depends on the doubling constant of the measure and the constants in the Poincaré inequality. Furthermore, we give a counterexample which shows that the constant cannot be dismissed. We observe that working in the general metric context produces significant challenges that are already visible in the Euclidean setting with a weighted Lebesgue measure. In overcoming these challenges, a key technical tool is an equi-integrability result for the discrete convolution of a measure. s a by-product of our analysis, we are able to show that a BV function is actually a Newton-Sobolev function in a set where the variation measure is absolutely continuous. s an application of the integral representation, we consider a minimization problem related to functionals of linear growth. First we define the concept of boundary values of BV functions, which is a delicate issue already in the Euclidean case. Let be bounded open subsets of X, and assume that h BV( ). We define BV h () as the space of functions u BV( ) such that u = h µ-almost everywhere in \. function u BV h () is a minimizer of the functional of linear growth with boundary values h, if F(u, ) = inff(v, ), where the infimum is taken over all v BV h (). It was shown in [14] that this problem always has a solution. By using the integral representation, we can express the boundary values as a penalty term. More precisely, under suitable conditions on the space and, we establish equivalence between the above minimization problem and minimizing

3 the functional INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 3 F(u,)+f T u T X\ h θ dh over all u BV(). Here T u andt X\ u areboundarytraces andθ is a strictly positive density function. This is the main result of the paper, and it extends the Euclidean results in [11, p. 582] to metric measure spaces. careful analysis of BV extension domains and boundary traces is needed in the argument. 2. Preliminaries In this paper, (X,d,µ) is a complete metric measure space with a Borel regular outer measure µ. The measure µ is assumed to be doubling, meaning that there exists a constant c d > 0 such that 0 < µ(b(x,2r)) c d µ(b(x,r)) < for every ball B(x,r) with center x X and radius r > 0. For brevity, we will sometimes write λb for B(x,λr). On a metric space, a ball B does not necessarily have a unique center point and radius, but we assume every ball to come with a prescribed center and radius. The doubling condition implies that (2.1) µ(b(y,r)) µ(b(x,r)) C ( r R for every r R and y B(x,R), and some Q > 1 and C 1 that only depend on c d. We recall that a complete metric space endowed with a doubling measure is proper, that is, closed and bounded sets are compact. SinceX isproper, foranyopenset X wedefinelip loc () as the space of functions that are Lipschitz continuous in every (and other local spaces of functions are defined similarly). Here means that is open and that is a compact subset of. For any set X, the restricted spherical Hausdorff content of codimension 1 is defined as H R () = inf { i=1 µ(b(x i,r i )) r i : ) Q } B(x i,r i ), r i R, where 0 < R <. The Hausdorff measure of codimension 1 of a set X is H() = lim R 0 H R (). The measure theoretic boundary E is defined as the set of points x X in which both E and its complement have positive density, i.e. lim sup r 0 µ(b(x,r) E) µ(b(x,r)) i=1 > 0 and lim sup r 0 µ(b(x,r)\e) µ(b(x,r)) > 0. curve γ is a rectifiable continuous mapping from a compact interval to X. The length of a curve γ is denoted by l γ. We will assume every

4 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 4 curve to be parametrized by arc-length, which can always be done (see e.g. [13, Theorem 3.2]). nonnegative Borel function g on X is an upper gradient of an extended real-valued function u on X if for all curves γ in X, we have (2.2) u(x) u(y) gds whenever both u(x) and u(y) are finite, and gds = otherwise. γ Herexandy aretheendpointsofγ. Ifg isanonnegative µ-measurable function on X and (2.2) holds for 1-almost every curve, then g is a 1- weak upper gradient of u. property holds for 1-almost every curve if it fails only for a curve family with zero 1-modulus. family Γ of curves is of zero 1-modulus if there is a nonnegative Borel function ρ L 1 (X) such that for all curves γ Γ, the curve integral ρds is γ infinite. We consider the following norm u N 1,1 (X) = u L 1 (X) +inf g g L 1 (X), where the infimum is taken over all upper gradients g of u. The Newtonian space is defined as N 1,1 (X) = {u : u N 1,1 (X) < }/, where the equivalence relation is given by u v if and only if u v N 1,1 (X) = 0. In the definition of upper gradients and Newtonian spaces, the whole space X can be replaced by any µ-measurable (typically open) set X. It is known that for any u N 1,1 loc (), there exists a minimal 1-weak upper gradient, which we always denote g u, satisfying g u g µ-almost everywhere in, for any 1-weak upper gradient g L 1 loc () of u [4, Theorem 2.25]. For more on Newtonian spaces, we refer to [20] and [4]. Next we recall the definition and basic properties of functions of bounded variation on metric spaces, see [1], [3] and [18]. For u L 1 loc (X), we define the total variation of u as Du (X) { = inf lim inf X γ g ui dµ : u i Lip loc (X), u i u in L 1 loc (X) }, where g ui is the minimal 1-weak upper gradient of u i. We say that a function u L 1 (X) is of bounded variation, and write u BV(X), if Du (X) <. Moreover, a µ-measurable set E X is said to be of finite perimeter if Dχ E (X) <. By replacing X with an open set X in the definition of the total variation, we can define Du (). For an arbitrary set X, we define Du () = inf{ Du () :, X is open}.

5 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 5 If u BV(), Du ( ) is a finite Radon measure on by [18, Theorem 3.4]. The perimeter of E in is denoted by P(E,) = Dχ E (). We have the following coarea formula given by Miranda in [18, Proposition 4.2]: if X is an open set and u L 1 loc (), then (2.3) Du () = P({u > t},)dt. For an open set X and a set of locally finite perimeter E X, we know that (2.4) Dχ E () = θ E dh, E where θ E : X [α,c d ], with α = α(c d,c P ) > 0, see [1, Theorem 5.3] and [3, Theorem 4.6]. The constant c P is related to the Poincaré inequality, see below. The jump set of a function u BV loc (X) is defined as S u = {x X : u (x) < u (x)}, where u and u are the lower and upper approximate limits of u defined as { } u µ({u < t} B(x,r)) (x) = sup t R : lim = 0 r 0 µ(b(x,r)) and u (x) = inf { } µ({u > t} B(x,r)) t R : lim = 0. r 0 µ(b(x,r)) Outside thejumpset, i.e. in X\S u, H-almost every point isalebesgue point of u [16, Theorem 3.5], and we denote the Lebesgue limit at x by ũ(x). We say that X supports a (1, 1)-Poincaré inequality if there exist constants c P > 0 and λ 1 such that for all balls B(x,r), all locally integrable functions u, and all 1-weak upper gradients g of u, we have u u B(x,r) dµ c P r gdµ, where B(x,r) u B(x,r) = udµ = B(x,r) B(x,λr) 1 udµ. µ(b(x,r)) B(x,r) If the space supports a (1, 1)-Poincaré inequality, by an approximation argument we get for every u L 1 loc (X) u u B(x,r) dµ c P r Du (B(x,λr)), µ(b(x,λr)) B(x,r)

6 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 6 where the constant c P and the dilation factor λ are the same as in the (1,1)-Poincaréinequality. When u = χ E fore X, we gettherelative isoperimetric inequality (2.5) min{µ(b(x,r) E),µ(B(x,r)\E)} 2c P r Dχ E (B(x,λr)). Throughout the work we assume, without further notice, that the measure µ is doubling and that the space supports a (1, 1)-Poincaré inequality. 3. Functional and its measure property In this section we define the functional that is considered in this paper, and show that it defines a Radon measure. Let f be a convex nondecreasing function that is defined on [0, ) and satisfies the linear growth condition (3.1) mt f(t) M(1+t) for all t 0, with some constants 0 < m M <. This implies that f is Lipschitz continuous with constant L > 0. Furthermore, we define f = sup t>0 f(t) f(0) t f(t) f(0) f(t) = lim = lim t t t t where the second equality follows from the convexity of f. From the definition of f, we get the simple estimate (3.2) f(t) f(0)+tf for all t 0. This will be useful for us later. Now we give the definition of the functional. For an open set and u N 1,1 (), we could define it as u f(g u )dµ, whereg u istheminimal1-weakupper gradientofu. Foru BV(), we need to use a relaxation procedure as given in the following definition. Definition 3.1. Let X be an open set. For u L 1 loc (), we define F(u,) = inf { } lim inf f(g ui )dµ : u i Lip loc (), u i u in L 1 loc (), where g ui is the minimal 1-weak upper gradient of u i. Note that we could equally well require that g ui is any 1-weak upper gradient of u i. We define F(u,) for an arbitrary set X by (3.3) F(u,) = inf{f(u,) : is open, }.,

7 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 7 In this section we show that if u L 1 loc () with F(u,) <, then F(u, ) is a Borel regular outer measure on, extending [18, Theorem 3.4]. The functional clearly satisfies (3.4) m Du () F(u,) M(µ()+ Du ()) for any X. This estimate follows directly from the definition of the functional, the definition of the variation measure, and (3.1). It is also easy to see that F(u,B) F(u,) for any sets B X. In order to show the measure property, we first prove a few lemmas. The first is the following technical gluing lemma that is similar to [2, Lemma 5.44]. Lemma 3.2. Let U, U, V, V be open sets in X such that U U and V V. Then there exists an open set H (U\U ) V, with H U, such that for any ε > 0 and any pair of functions u Lip loc (U) and v Lip loc (V), there is a function φ Lip c (U) with 0 φ 1 and φ = 1 in a neighborhood of U, such that the function w = φu+(1 φ)v Lip loc (U V ) satisfies f(g w )dµ f(g u )dµ+ f(g v )dµ+c u v dµ+ε. U V U V H Here C = C(U,U,M). Proof. Let η = dist(u,x \U) > 0. Define { H = x U V : η 3 < dist(x,u ) < 2η 3 Now fix u Lip loc (U), v Lip loc (V) and ε > 0. Choose k N such that (3.5) M (1+g u +g v )dµ < εk H if the above integral is finite otherwise the desired estimate is trivially true. For i = 1,...,k, define the sets { } H i = x U V (k +i 1)η : < dist(x,u (k +i)η ) <, 3k 3k so that H k i=1h i, and define the Lipschitz functions 0, dist(x,u ) > k+i η, 3k 1 φ i (x) = η ((k +i)η 3kdist(x,U k+i 1 )), η dist(x,u ) k+i 3k 1, dist(x,u ) < k+i 1 }. 3k η. 3k η, Now g φi = 0 µ-almost everywhere in U V \ H i [4, Corollary 2.21]. Let w i = φ i u+(1 φ i )v on U V. We have the estimate g wi φ i g u +(1 φ i )g v +g φi u v,

8 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 8 see [4, Lemma 2.18]. By also using the estimate f(t) M(1 +t), we get f(g wi )dµ f(g u )dµ+ f(g v )dµ+ f(g wi )dµ U V U V H i f(g u )dµ+ f(g v )dµ U V +M (1+g u +g v )dµ+ 3Mk u v dµ. H i η H i Now, since H k i=1 H i, we have 1 k f(g wi )dµ k i=1 U V f(g u )dµ+ f(g v )dµ+ M (1+g u +g v )dµ U V k H + 3M u v dµ η H f(g u )dµ+ f(g v )dµ+c u v dµ+ε. U V In the last inequality we used (3.5). Thus we can find an index i such that the function w = w i satisfies the desired estimate. In the following lemmas, we assume that u L 1 loc ( B). Lemma 3.3. Let X be open with F(u,) <. Then F(u,) = supf(u,b). B Proof. TakeopensetsB 1 B 2 B 3 andsequencesu i Lip loc (B 3 ), v i Lip loc (\B 1 ) such that u i u in L 1 loc (B 3), v i u in L 1 loc (\B 1), F(u,B 3 ) = lim f(g ui )dµ, B 3 and F(u,\B 1 ) = lim f(g vi )dµ. \B 1 By using Lemma 3.2 with U = B 3, U = B 2, V = V = \ B 1 and ε = 1/i, we find a set H B 3 \ B 2, H B 3, and a sequence w i Lip loc () such that w i u in L 1 loc (), and f(g wi )dµ f(g ui )dµ+ f(g vi )dµ+c u i v i dµ+ 1 B 3 \B 1 H i for every i N. In the above inequality, the last integral converges to zero as i, since H B 3 and H \B 1. Thus F(u,) liminf f(g wi )dµ F(u,B 3 )+F(u,\B 1 ). H

9 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 9 Exhausting with sets B 1 concludes the proof, since then F(u, \ B 1 ) 0 by (3.4). Lemma 3.4. Let,B X be open. Then F(u, B) F(u,)+F(u,B). Proof. First we note that every C B can be presented as C = B, where and B B. Therefore, according to Lemma 3.3, it suffices to show that F(u, B ) F(u,)+F(u,B) for every and B B. If F(u,) = or F(u,B) =, the claim holds. ssume therefore that F(u,) < and F(u,B) <. Take sequences u i Lip loc () and v i Lip loc (B) such that u i u in L 1 loc (), v i u in L 1 loc (B), and F(u,) = lim f(g ui )dµ, F(u,B) = lim f(g vi )dµ. B By using Lemma 3.2 with U =, U =, V = B, V = B and ε = 1/i, we find a set H, H B B, and a sequence w i Lip loc ( B ) such that w i u in L 1 loc ( B ), and f(g wi )dµ f(g ui )dµ+ f(g vi )dµ+c u i v i dµ+ 1 B B H i for every i N. By the properties of H, the last integral in the above inequality converges to zero as i, and then F(u, B ) F(u,)+F(u,B). Lemma 3.5. Let,B X be open and let B =. Then F(u, B) F(u,)+F(u,B). Proof. If F(u, B) =, the claim holds. Hence we may assume that F(u, B) <. Take a sequence u i Lip loc ( B) such that u i u in L 1 loc ( B) and F(u, B) = lim f(g ui )dµ. B Then, since and B are disjoint, F(u, B) = lim B liminf f(g ui )dµ f(g ui )dµ+liminf F(u,)+F(u,B). B f(g ui )dµ

10 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 10 Now we are ready to prove the measure property of the functional. Theorem 3.6. Let X be an open set, and let u L 1 loc () with F(u,) <. Then F(u, ) is a Borel regular outer measure on. Proof. First we show that F(u, ) is an outer measure on. Obviously F(u, ) = 0. s mentioned earlier, clearly F(u,) F(u,B) for any B. Take open sets i, i = 1,2,... Let ε > 0. By Lemma 3.3 there exists a set B i=1 i such that ( ) F u, i < F(u,B)+ε. i=1 Since B i=1 i is compact, there exists n N such that B B n i=1 i. Then by Lemma 3.4, ( ) n n F(u,B) F u, i F(u, i ), i=1 i=1 and thus letting n and ε 0 gives us ( ) (3.6) F u, i F(u, i ). i=1 For general sets i, we can prove (3.6) by approximation with open sets. The next step is to prove that F(u, ) is a Borel outer measure. Let,B satisfy dist(,b) > 0. Fix ε > 0 and choose an open set U B such that i=1 F(u, B) > F(u,U) ε. Define the sets { V = x : dist(x,) < dist(,b) } U, 3 { V B = x : dist(x,b) < dist(,b) } U. 3 Then V,V B are open and V, B V B. Moreover V V B =. Thus by Lemma 3.5, F(u, B) F(u,V V B ) ε F(u,V )+F(u,V B ) ε F(u,)+F(u,B) ε. Now letting ε 0 shows that F(u, ) is a Borel outer measure by Carathéodory s criterion.

11 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 11 The measure F(u, ) is Borel regular by construction, since for every we may choose open sets V i such that V i and F(u,V i ) < F(u,)+ 1 i, and by defining V = i=1 V i, we get F(u,V) = F(u,), where V is a Borel set. s a simple application of the measure property of the functional, we show the following approximation result. Proposition 3.7. Let X be an open set, and let u L 1 loc () with F(u,) <. Then for any sequence of functions u i Lip loc () for which u i u in L 1 loc () and f(g ui )dµ F(u,), we also have f(g ui )dµ df(u, ) in. Proof. For any open set U, we have by the definition of the functional that (3.7) F(u,U) liminf f(g ui )dµ. On the other hand, for any relatively closed set F we have F(u,) = limsup f(g ui )dµ limsup f(g ui )dµ+liminf f(g ui )dµ F \F limsup f(g ui )dµ+f(u,\f). F The last inequality follows from the definition of the functional, since \ F is open. By the measure property of the functional, we can subtract F(u,\F) from both sides to get lim sup f(g ui )dµ F(u,F). F ccording to a standard characterization of the weak* convergence of Radon measures, the above inequality and(3.7) together give the result [8, p. 54]. 4. Integral representation In this section we study an integral representation for the functional F(u, ). First we show the estimate from below. Note that due to (3.4), F(u,) < always implies Du () <. U

12 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 12 Theorem 4.1. Letbean openset, andletu L 1 loc () with F(u,) <. Let d Du = adµ + d Du s be the decomposition of the variation measure into the absolutely continuous and singular parts, where a L 1 () is a Borel function and Du s is the singular part. Then we have F(u,) f(a)dµ+f Du s (). Proof. Pick a sequence u i Lip loc () such that u i u in L 1 loc () and (4.1) f(g ui )dµ F(u,) as i. Using the linear growth condition for f, presented in (3.1), we estimate lim sup g ui dµ 1 m limsup f(g ui )dµ <. Picking a suitable subsequence, which we still denote g ui, we have g ui dµ dν in, where ν is a Radon measure with finite mass in. Furthermore, by the definition of the variation measure, we necessarily have ν Du, which can be seen as follows. For any open set U and for any ε > 0, we can pick an open set U U such that Du (U) < Du (U )+ε; see e.g. Lemma 3.3. We obtain Du (U) < Du (U )+ε liminf g ui dµ+ε U limsup g ui dµ+ε ν(u )+ε ν(u)+ε. U On the first line we used the definition of the variation measure, and on the second line we used a property of the weak* convergence of Radon measures, see e.g. [2, Example 1.63]. By approximation we get ν() Du () for any. The following lower semicontinuity argument is from [2, p ]. First we note that as a nonnegative nondecreasing convex function, f can be presented as f(t) = sup(d j t+e j ), t 0, j N for some sequences d j,e j R, with d j 0, j = 1,2,..., and furthermore sup j d j = f [2, Proposition 2.31, Lemma 2.33]. Given any pairwise disjoint open subsets of, denoted 1,..., k, k N, and functions ϕ j C c ( j ) with 0 ϕ j 1, we have (d j g ui +e j )ϕ j dµ f(g ui )dµ. j j

13 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 13 for every j = 1,...,k and i N. Summing over j and letting i, we get by the weak* convergence g ui dµ dν ( k ) d j ϕ j dν + e j ϕ j dµ liminf f(g ui )dµ. j j j=1 Since we had ν Du, this immediately implies ( k ) d j ϕ j d Du + e j ϕ j dµ liminf j j j=1 f(g ui )dµ. We recall that d Du = adµ+d Du s. It is known that the singular part Du s is concentrated on a Borel set D that satisfies µ(d) = 0 and Du s (\D) = 0, see e.g. [8, p. 42]. Define the Radon measure σ = µ+ Du s, and the Borel functions { d j a+e j, on \D, φ j = d j, on D for j = 1,...,k, and φ = { f(a), on \D, f, on D. s mentioned above, we now have sup j φ j = φ, and we can write the previous inequality as k φ j ϕ j dσ liminf f(g ui )dµ. j j=1 Since the functions ϕ j C c ( j ), 0 ϕ j 1, were arbitrary, we get k φ j dσ liminf f(g ui )dµ. j j=1 Since this holds for any pairwise disjoint open subsets 1,..., k, by [2, Lemma 2.35] we get φdσ liminf f(g ui )dµ. However, by the definitions of φ and σ, this is the same as f(a)dµ+f Du s () liminf f(g ui )dµ. Combining this with (4.1), we get the desired estimate from below. It is worth noting that in the above argument, we only needed the weak* convergence of the sequence g ui dµ to a Radon measure that

14 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 14 majorizes Du. Then we could use the fact that the functional for measures ν f(ǎ)dµ+f ν s (), dν = ǎdµ+dν s, is lower semicontinuous with respect to weak* convergence of Radon measures. This lower semicontinuity is guaranteed by the fact that f is convex, but in order to have upper semicontinuity, we should have that f is also concave (and thus linear). Thus there is an important asymmetry in the setting, and for the estimate from above, we will need to use rather different methods where we prove weak or strong L 1 - convergence for the sequence of upper gradients, instead of just weak* convergence of measures. To achieve this type of stronger convergence, we need to specifically ensure that the sequence of upper gradients is equi-integrable. The price that is paid is that a constant C appears in the final estimate related to the absolutely continuous parts. n example that we provide later shows that this constant cannot be discarded. Werecallthatforaµ-measurablesetF X,theequi-integrabilityof a sequence of functions g i L 1 (F), i N, is defined by two conditions. First, for any ε > 0, there must be a µ-measurable set F with µ() < such that g i dµ < ε for all i N. F\ Second, for any ε > 0 there must be δ > 0 such that if F is µ-measurable with µ() < δ, then g i dµ < ε for all i N. We will need the following equi-integrability result that partially generalizes [9, Lemma 6]. For the construction of Whitney coverings that are needed in the result, see e.g. [5, Theorem 3.1]. Lemma 4.2. Let X be open, let F be µ-measurable, and let ν be a Radon measure with finite mass in. Write the decomposition of ν into the absolutely continuous and singular parts with respect to µ as dν = adµ+dν s, and assume that ν s (F) = 0. Take a sequence of open sets F i such that F F i and ν s (F i ) < 1/i, i N. For a given τ 1 and every i N, take a Whitney covering {Bj i = B(x i j,rj)} i j=1 of F i such that rj i 1/i for every j N, τbj i F i for every j N, every ball τbk i meets at most c o = c o (c d,τ) balls τbj i, and if τbi j meets τbk i, then ri j 2ri k. Define the functions g i = j=1 χ B i j ν(τb i j ) µ(b i j ), i N.

15 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 15 Then the sequence g i is equi-integrable in F. Moreover, a subsequence of g i converges weakly in L 1 (F) to a function ǎ that satisfies ǎ c o a µ-almost everywhere in F. Remark 4.3. If the measure ν is absolutely continuous in the whole of, then we can choose F = F i = for all i N. Proof. To check the first condition of equi-integrability, let ε > 0 and take a ball B = B(x 0,R) with x 0 X and R > 0 so large that ν(\b(x 0,R)) < ε/c o. Then, by the bounded overlap property of the Whitney balls, we have g i dµ c o ν(f i \B(x 0,R)) < ε F\B(x 0,R+2τ) for all i N. To check the second condition, assume by contradiction that there is a sequence of µ-measurable sets i F with µ( i ) 0, and i g i dµ > η > 0 for all i N. Fix ε > 0. We know that there is δ > 0 such that if and µ() < δ, then adµ < ε. Note that by the bounded overlap property of the Whitney balls, we have for every i N (4.2) i g i dµ = j=1 c o ν s (F i )+ µ( i B i j) µ(b i j ) ν(τb i j ) µ( i Bj i) j=1 µ(b i j ) τb i j adµ. Fix k N. We can divide the above sum into two parts: let I 1 consist of those indices j N for which µ( i Bj)/µ(B i j) i > 1/k, and let I 2 consist of the remaining indices. We estimate ( ) µ τbj i C µ(bj) i Ck µ( i Bj) i Ckµ( i ) < δ, j I 1 j I 1 j I 1 when i is large enough. Now we can further estimate (4.2): g i dµ c o ν s (F i )+ c o adµ+c o ε i k F i for large enough i N. By letting first i, then k, and finally ε 0, we get a contradiction with i g i dµ > η > 0, proving the equi-integrability. Finally, let us prove the weak convergence in L 1 (F). Possibly by taking a subsequence which we still denote g i, we have g i ǎ weakly in L 1 (F) for some ǎ L 1 (F), by the Dunford-Pettis theorem (see e.g. [2, Theorem 1.38]). By this weak convergence and the bounded

16 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 16 overlap property of the Whitney balls, we can estimate for any x F and 0 < r < r ǎdµ = limsup g i dµ B(x, r) F B(x, r) F = limsup limsup µ(bj i B(x, r) F) µ(b i j=1 j ) ν(τbj) i ν(τbj) i j N:Bj i B(x, r) F limsupc o ν(b(x,r)). By letting r ր r, we get ǎdµ c o ν(b(x,r)). B(x,r) F B(x,r) F By the Radon-Nikodym theorem, µ-almost every x F satisfies ν s (B(x,r)) lim ǎdµ = ǎ(x) and lim r 0 r 0 µ(b(x,r)) = 0. Byusingtheseestimatesaswellasthepreviousone, wegetforµ-almost every x F ǎ(x) = lim ǎdµ r 0 B(x,r) F c o limsup r 0 B(x,r) adµ+c o limsup r 0 ν s (B(x,r)) µ(b(x,r)), wherethefirsttermontheright-handsideisc o abytheradon-nikodym theorem, and the second term is zero. Thus we have ǎ c o a µ-almost everywhere in F. Now we are ready to prove the estimate from above. Theorem 4.4. Letbean openset, andletu L 1 loc () with F(u,) <. Let d Du = adµ+d Du s be the decomposition of the variation measure, where a L 1 () and Du s is the singular part. Then we have F(u,) f(ca)dµ+f Du s (), with C = C(c d,c P,λ). Proof. Since the functional F(u, )is a Radonmeasure by Theorem 3.6, we can decompose it into the absolutely continuous and singular parts as F(u, ) = F a (u, )+F s (u, ). gain, the singular parts Du s and F s (u, ) are concentrated on a Borel set D that satisfies µ(d) = 0 and Du s (\D) = 0 = F s (u,\d),

17 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 17 see e.g. [8, p. 42]. First we prove the estimate for the singular part. Let ε > 0. Choose an open set G with D G, such that µ(g) < ε and Du (G) < Du (D) + ε. Take a sequence u i Lip loc (G) such that u i u in (G) and L 1 loc G g ui dµ Du (G) as i. Thus for some i N large enough, we have g ui dµ < Du (G)+ε and G F(u,G) < G f(g ui )dµ+ε. The last inequality necessarily holds for large enough i by the definition of the functional F(u, ). Now, using the two inequalities above and the estimate for f given in (3.2), we can estimate F(u,D) F(u,G) f(g ui )dµ+ε G f(0)dµ+f g ui dµ+ε G f(0)µ(g)+f Du (G)+f ε+ε f(0)ε+f ( Du (D)+ε)+f ε+ε. In the last inequality we used the properties of the set G given earlier. Letting ε 0, we get the estimate from above for the singular part, i.e. (4.3) F s (u,) = F(u,D) f Du (D) = f Du s (). Next let us consider the absolutely continuous part. Let D be defined as above, and let F = \D. Let ε > 0. Take an open set G such that F G, and Du (G) < Du (F)+ε. For every i N, take a Whitney covering {Bj i = B(x i j,rj)} i j=1 of G s.t. rj i 1/i for every j N, 5λBj i G for every j N, every ball 5λBk i meets at most C = C(c d,λ) balls 5λBj i, and if 5λBi j meets 5λBi k, then rj i 2ri k. Then take a partition of unity {φi j } j=1 subordinate to this cover, such that 0 φ i j 1, each φi j is a C(c d)i-lipschitz function, and supp(φ i j ) 2Bi j for every j N (see e.g. [5, Theorem 3.4]). Define discrete convolutions with respect to the Whitney coverings by u i = G u B i j φ i j, i N. j=1

18 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 18 We know that u i u in L 1 (G) as i, and that each u i has an upper gradient Du (5λBj i g i = C χ ) B i j µ(bj i) j=1 with C = C(c d,c P ), see e.g. the proof of [16, Proposition 4.1]. We can of course write the decomposition g i = gi a +gs i, where adµ gi a 5λBj = C χ i B i j µ(bj i) and g s i = C j=1 j=1 χ B i j Du s (5λB i j ) µ(b i j ). By the bounded overlap property of the coverings, we can easily estimate (4.4) gi s dµ C Du s (G) < Cε G for every i N, with C = C(c d,c P,λ). Furthermore, by Lemma 4.2 we know that the sequence g a i is equi-integrable and that a subsequence, which we still denote g a i, converges weakly in L1 (G) to a function ǎ Ca, with C = C(c d,λ). By Mazur s lemma we have for certain convex combinations, denoted by a hat, N i ĝi a = d i,j gj a ǎ in L1 (G) as i, j=i where d i,j 0 and N i j=i d i,j = 1 for every i N [19, Theorem 3.12]. We note that û i Lip loc (G) for every i N (the hat always means that we take the same convex combinations), û i u in L 1 loc (G), and gûi ĝ i µ-almost everywhere for every i N (recall that g u always means the minimal 1-weak upper gradient of u). Using the definition of F(u, ), the fact that f is L-Lipschitz, and (4.4), we get F(u,F) F(u,G) liminf f(gûi )dµ G ( ) liminf f(ĝ i )dµ liminf f(ĝi a)dµ+ Lĝi sdµ G G G ( ) liminf f(ĝi a)dµ+l Cε = f(ǎ)dµ+l Cε G G f(ca)dµ+l Cε f(ca)dµ+l Cε. G

19 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 19 By letting ε 0 we get the estimate from above for the absolutely continuous part, i.e. F a (u,) = F(u,F) f(ca)dµ. By combining this with (4.3), we get the desired estimate from above. Remark 4.5. By using Theorems 4.1 and 4.4, as well as the definition of the functional for general sets given in (3.3), we can conclude that for any µ-measurable set X with F(u,) <, we have and F s (u,) = f Du s () f(a)dµ F a (u,) f(ca)dµ, where F a (u, ) and F s (u, ) are again the absolutely continuous and singular parts of the measure given by the functional. Since locally Lipschitz functions are dense in the Newtonian space N 1,1 () with open [4, Theorem 5.47], from the definition of total variation we know that if u N 1,1 (), then u BV() with Du absolutely continuous, and more precisely Du () g u dµ. Weobtain, tosomeextent asaby-productofthelatterpartoftheproof of the previous theorem, the following converse, which also answers a question posed in [16]. later example will show that the constant C is necessary here as well. Theorem 4.6. Let X be an open set, let u BV(), and let d Du = adµ+d Du s be the decomposition of the variation measure, where a L 1 () and Du s is the singular part. Let F be a µ- measurable set for which Du s (F) = 0. Then, by modifying u on a set of µ-measure zero if necessary, we have u F N 1,1 (F) and g u Ca µ-almost everywhere in F, with C = C(c d,c P,λ). Proof. We pick a sequence of open sets F i such that F F i and Du s (F i ) < 1/i, i = 1,2,... Then, as described in Lemma 4.2, we pick Whitney coverings {Bj i} j=1 of the sets F i, with the constant τ = 5λ. Furthermore, as we did in the latter part of the proof of Theorem 4.4 with the open set G, we define for every i N a discrete convolution u i of the function u with respect to the Whitney covering {Bj i} j=1. Every u i has an upper gradient g i = C j=1 χ B i j Du (5λB i j ) µ(b i j )

20 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 20 in F i, with C = C(c d,c P ), and naturally g i is then also an upper gradient of u i in F. We have u i u in L 1 (F) (see e.g. the proof of [16, Proposition 4.1]) and, according to Lemma 4.2 and up to a subsequence, g i ǎ weakly in L 1 (F), where ǎ Ca µ-almost everywhere in F. We nowknowby[13, Lemma7.8]thatbymodifyinguonasetofµ-measure zero, if necessary, we have that ǎ is a 1-weak upper gradient of u in F. Thus we have the result. Remark 4.7. s in Lemma 4.2, if Du is absolutely continuous on the whole of, we can choose simply F =, and then we also have the inequality g u dµ C Du () with C = C(c d,c P,λ). Note also that the proof of [13, Lemma 7.8], whichweusedabove, isalsobasedonmazur slemma, sothetechniques used above are very similar to those used in the proof of Theorem 4.4. Finally we give the counterexample which shows that in general, we can have F a (u,) > f(a)dµ and Du () < g u dµ. The latter inequality answers a question raised in [18] and later in [3]. Example 4.8. Take the space X = [0,1], equipped with the Euclidean distance andameasure µ, which we will next define. First we construct a fat Cantor set as follows. Take 0 = [0,1], whose measure we denote α 0 = L 1 ( 0 ) = 1, where L 1 is the 1-dimensional Lebesgue measure. Then in each step i N we remove from i 1 the set B i, which consists of 2 i 1 open intervals of length 2 2i, centered at the middle points of the intervals that make up i 1. We denote α i = L 1 ( i ), and define = i=1 i. Then we have α = L 1 () = lim α i = 1/2. Now, equip the space X with the weighted Lebesgue measure dµ = wdl 1, where w = 2 in and w = 1 in X \. Define g = 1 α χ = 2χ and g i = 1 α i 1 α i χ Bi, i N. The unweighted integral of g and each g i over X is 1. Next define the function u(x) = x 0 gdl 1. Now u is in N 1,1 (X) and even in Lip(X), since g is bounded. The minimal 1-weak upper gradient of u is g this can be seen e.g. by the

21 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 21 representation formulas for minimal upper gradients, see [4, Theorem 2.50]. pproximate u with the functions u i (x) = x 0 g i dl 1, i N. The functions u i are Lipschitz, and they converge to u in L 1 (X) and even uniformly. This can be seen as follows. Given i N, the set i consists of 2 i intervals of length α i /2 i. If I is one of these intervals, we have 2 i = gdl 1 = g i+1 dl 1, I and also gdl 1 = 0 = g i+1 dl 1. X\ i X\ i Hence u i+1 = u at the end points of the intervals that make up i, and elsewhere u i+1 u is at most 2 i. Clearly the minimal 1-weak upper gradient of u i is g i. However, we have 1 gdµ = 2 > 1 = lim g i dµ Du ([0,1]). 0 1 Thus the total variation is strictly smaller than the integral of the minimal 1-weak upper gradient, demonstrating the necessity of the constant C in Theorem 4.6. On the other hand, any approximating sequence u i u in L 1 (X) converges, up to a subsequence, also pointwise µ- and thus L 1 -almost everywhere, and then we necessarily have for some such sequence (4.5) Du ([0,1]) = lim I g ui dµ limsup 1 0 g ui dl 1 1. Hence we have Du ([0, 1]) = 1. Let us show that more precisely, d Du = adµ with a = χ. The fact that u is Lipschitz implies that Du is absolutely continuous with respect to µ. Since u i converges to u uniformly, for any interval (d,e) we must have lim (d,e) g i dl 1 = (d,e) gdl 1, and since for the weight we had w = 1 where g i > 0, and w = 2 where g > 0, we now get lim i dµ = (d,e)g 1 gdµ. 2 (d,e) By the definition of the variation measure, we have at any point x X for r > 0 small enough Du ((x r,x+r)) liminf i dµ = (x r,x+r)g 1 gdµ. 2 (x r,x+r)

22 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 22 Now, if x, we can estimate the Radon-Nikodym derivative lim sup r Du (B(x,r)) µ(b(x,r)) 1, and when x X \, we clearly have that the derivative is 0. On the other hand, if the derivative were strictly smaller than 1 in a subset of of positive µ-measure, we would get Du (X) < 1, which is a contradiction with the fact that Du (X) = 1. Thus d Du = adµ with a = χ. 1 To show that we can have F a (u,x) > f(a)dµ note that X F a (u,x) = F(u,X) assume that f is given by { t, t [0,1], f(t) = 2t 1, t > 1. (We could equally well consider other nonlinear f that satisfy the earlier assumptions.) Since a = χ, we have f(a)dµ = adµ = 2 χ dl 1 = 1. X X On the other hand, for some sequence of Lipschitz functions v i u in L 1 (X), we have X (4.6) F(u,X) = lim X = lim ( 2 f(g vi )dµ f(g vi )dl 1 + X\ f(g vi )dl 1 ). By considering a subsequence, if necessary, we may assume that v i u pointwise µ- and thus L 1 -almost everywhere. By Proposition 3.7, we have for any closed set F X \ lim sup f(g vi )dµ F(u,F) F(u,X \) f(g u )dµ = 0, F which implies that lim F X\ f(g vi )dl 1 = 0 = lim g vi dl F 1. 1 We can further show that g i dµ adµ in X, but we do not have g i a weakly in L 1 (X), demonstrating the subtle difference between the two types of weak convergence.

23 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 23 pplying these two equalities together with the inequality f(t) 2t 1, we obtain lim sup f(g vi )dl 1 = limsup f(g vi )dl 1 X\ X\( F) limsup (2g vi 1)dL 1 X\( F) limsup 2g vi dl 1 L 1 (X \( F)) X\( F) = limsup 2g vi dl 1 L 1 (X \( F)). X\ The last term on the last line can be made arbitrarily small. Inserting this into (4.6), we get ( ) F(u,X) = limsup 2 f(g vi )dl 1 + f(g vi )dl 1 X\ 2liminf f(g vi )dl 1 +2limsup g vi dl 1 2liminf 1 0 g vi dl 1 2. The last inequality follows from the pointwise convergence of v i to u L 1 -almost everywhere. Roughly speaking, we note that the total variation Du (X) is found to be unexpectedly small because the growth of the approximating functions u i is concentrated outside the Cantor set, where it is cheaper due to the smaller value of the weight function. However, when we calculate F(u,X), the same does not work, because now the nonlinear function f places extra weight on upper gradients that take values larger than Minimization problem Let us consider a minimization problem related to the functional of linear growth. First we specify what we mean by boundary values of BV functions. Definition 5.1. Let and be bounded open subsets of X such that, and assume that h BV( ). We define BV h () as the space of functions u BV( ) such that u = h µ-almost everywhere in \. X\ Now we give the definition of our minimization problem. Definition 5.2. function u BV h () is a minimizer of the functional of linear growth with the boundary values h BV( ), if F(u, ) = inff(v, ),

24 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 24 where the infimum is taken over all v BV h (). Note that if u L 1 loc ( ) and u = h in \, then u L 1 ( ). Furthermore, if F(u, ) <, then Du ( ) < by (3.4). Thus it makes sense to restrict u to the class BV( ) in the above definition. Observe that the minimizers do not depend on, but the value of the functional does. Note also that the minimization problem always has a solution and that the solution is not necessarily continuous, see [14]. Remark 5.3. Wepointoutthatanyminimizerisalsoalocalminimizer in the following sense. minimizer u BV h () of F(, ) with the boundary values h BV( ) is a minimizer of F(, ) with the boundary values u BV u ( ) for every, with. This can be seen as follows. Every v BV u ( ) can be extended to by defining v = u in \. The minimality of u and the measure property of the functional (Theorem 3.6) then imply that F(u, \ )+F(u, ) F(v, \ )+F(v, ). Since u = v µ-almost everywhere in \, the first terms on both sides of the inequality cancel out, and we have F(u, ) F(v, ). Now we wish to express the boundary values of the minimization problem as a penalty term involving an integral over the boundary. To this end, we need to discuss boundary traces and extensions of BV functions. Definition 5.4. n open set is a strong BV extension domain, if for every u BV() there is an extension Eu BV(X) such that Eu = u, there is a constant 1 c < such that Eu BV(X) c u BV() and D(Eu) ( ) = 0. Note that our definition differs from the conventional definition of a BV extension domain, since we also require that D(Eu) ( ) = 0. This can be understood as an additional regularity condition for the domain. Definition 5.5. We say that a µ-measurable set satisfies the weak measure density condition if for H-almost every x, we have lim inf r 0 µ(b(x,r) ) µ(b(x,r)) > 0. These are thetwo conditions we will impose in order to have satisfactory results on the boundary traces of BV functions. Based on results found in [6], we prove in the upcoming note [17] that every bounded uniform domain is a strong BV extension domain and satisfies the weak measure density condition. n open set is -uniform, with constant

25 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 25 1, if for every x,y there is a curve γ in connecting x and y such that l γ d(x,y), and for all t [0,l γ ], we have dist(γ(t),x \) 1 min{t,l γ t}. Now we give the definition of boundary traces. Definition 5.6. For a µ-measurable set and a µ-measurable function u on, a real-valued function T u defined on is a boundary trace of u if for H-almost every x, we have lim r 0 B(x,r) u T u(x) dµ = 0. OftenwewillalsocallT u(x)aboundarytraceiftheabovecondition is satisfied at the point x. If the trace exists at a point x, we clearly have T u(x) = lim udµ = aplim u(y), r 0 B(x,r) y, y x where ap lim denotes the approximate limit. Furthermore, we can show that the trace is always a Borel function. Let us recall the following decomposition result for the variation measure of a BV function from [3, Theorem 5.3]. For any open set X, any u BV(), and any Borel set that is σ-finite with respect to H, we have u (x) (5.1) Du () = Du (\)+ θ {u>t} (x)dtdh(x). u (x) The function θ and the lower and upper approximate limits u and u were defined in Section 2. In particular, by [3, Theorem 5.3] the jump set S u is known to be σ-finite with respect to H. The following is our main result on boundary traces. Theorem 5.7. ssume that is a strong BV extension domain that satisfies the weak measure density condition, and let u BV(). Then the boundary trace T u exists, that is, T u(x) is defined for H-almost every x. Proof. Extend u to a function Eu BV(X). By the fact that D(Eu) ( ) = 0 and the decomposition (5.1), we have H(S Eu ) = 0 recall that the function θ is bounded away from zero. Here S Eu = {x X : (Eu) (x) < (Eu) (x)}, as usual. On the other hand, by [16, Theorem 3.5] we know that H-almost every point x \ S Eu is a Lebesgue point of Eu. In these points we define T u(x) simply as the Lebesgue limit Ẽu(x). For

26 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 26 H-almost every x the weak measure density condition is also satisfied, so that lim inf r 0 µ(b(x,r) ) µ(b(x,r)) = c > 0. Thus for H-almost every x we can estimate lim sup u T u(x) dµ r 0 B(x,r) limsup r 0 1 cµ(b(x,r)) B(x,r) Eu Ẽu(x) dµ = 0. Due to the Lebesgue point theorem [16, Theorem 3.5], we have in fact lim sup u T u(x) Q/(Q 1) dµ = 0 r 0 B(x,r) for H-almost every x, where Q > 1 was given in (2.1). However, we will not need this stronger result. Let us list some general properties of boundary traces. Proposition 5.8. ssume that is a µ-measurable set and that u and v are µ-measurable functions on. The boundary trace operator enjoys the following properties for any x for which both T u(x) and T v(x) exist: (i) T (αu+βv)(x) = αt u(x)+βt v(x) for any α,β R. (ii) If u v µ-almost everywhere in, then T u(x) T v(x). In particular, if u = v µ-almost everywhere in, then T u(x) = T v(x). (iii) T (max{u,v})(x) = max{t u(x),t v(x)} andt (min{u,v})(x) = min{t u(x),t v(x)}. (iv) Let h > 0 and define the truncation u h = min{h,max{u, h}}. Then T u h (x) = (T u(x)) h. (v) Ifisaµ-measurablesetsuch thatboth andits complementsatisfy the weak measure density condition, and w is a µ-measurable function on X, then for H-almost everywhere x for which both traces T w(x) and T X\ w(x) exist, we have {T w(x),t X\ w(x)} = {w (x),w (x)}. Proof. ssertions (i) and (ii) are clear. Since minimum and maximum can be written as sums by using absolute values, property (iii) follows from(i) andtheeasily verified fact thatt u (x) = T u(x). ssertion

27 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 27 (iv) follows from (iii). In proving assertion (v), due to the symmetry of the situation we can assume that T w(x) T X\ w(x). By using the definition of traces and Chebyshev s inequality, we deduce that for every ε > 0, µ({ w T w(x) > ε} B(x,r) ) lim = 0 r 0 µ(b(x,r) ) and µ({ w T X\ w(x) > ε} B(x,r)\) lim = 0. r 0 µ(b(x,r)\) To determine the lower and upper approximate limits, we use these results to compute µ({w > t} B(x,r)) lim sup r 0 µ(b(x,r)) [ ] µ({w > t} B(x,r) ) µ({w > t} B(x,r)\) = limsup + r 0 µ(b(x,r)) µ(b(x,r)) = 0+0, if t > T w(x), µ(b(x,r) ) = limsup r 0 +0, if T µ(b(x,r)) X\ w(x) < t < T w(x), [ ] = limsup µ(b(x,r) ) r 0 + µ(b(x,r)\), if t < T µ(b(x,r)) µ(b(x,r)) X\ w(x), = 0, if t > T w(x), (0,1), if T X\ w(x) < t < T w(x), = 1, if t < T X\ w(x). Toobtaintheresult (0,1) above, weusedtheweakmeasuredensity conditions. Weconcludethatw (x) = T w(x), andsince limsup can be replaced by liminf in the above calculation, we also get w (x) = T X\ w(x). minor point to be noted is that any function that is in the class BV(X), such as an extension Eu for u BV(), is also in the class BV(), and thus T Eu = T u. Eventually we will also need to make an additional assumption on the space, as described in the following definition which is from [3, Definition 6.1]. The function θ E was introduced earlier in (2.4). Definition 5.9. We say that X is a local space if, given any two sets of locally finite perimeter E 1 E 2 X, we have θ E1 (x) = θ E2 (x) for H-almost every x E 1 E 2. Forsomeexamplesoflocalspaces, see[3]andtheupcomingnote[17]. The assumption E 1 E 2 can, in fact, be removed as follows. Note that for a set of locally finite perimeter E, we have Dχ E = Dχ X\E, i.e. the two measures are equal [18, Proposition 4.7]. From this it follows that θ E (x) = θ X\E (x) for H-almost every x E. Now, if E 1 and E 2 are arbitrary sets of locally finite perimeter, we know that E 1 E 2

28 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 28 and E 1 \ E 2 are also sets of locally finite perimeter [18, Proposition 4.7]. For every x E 1 E 2 we have either x (E 1 E 2 ) or x (E 1 \E 2 ). Thus by the locality condition, we have for H-almost every x E 1 E 2 either or θ E1 (x) = θ E1 E 2 (x) = θ E2 (x) θ E1 (x) = θ E1 \E 2 (x) = θ X\E2 (x) = θ E2 (x). Thus we have θ E1 = θ E2 for H-almost every x E 1 E 2. In a local space the decomposition (5.1) takes a simpler form, as proved in the following lemma. Lemma If X is a localspace, is a setof locallyfinite perimeter, u BV(X), and is a Borel set, then we have u (x) θ {u>t} (x)dtdh(x) = (u (x) u (x))θ dh(x). u (x) Note that since is a set of locally finite perimeter, is σ-finite with respect to H. Proof. We have u (x) θ {u>t} (x)dtdh(x) = = = u (x) χ {(u (x),u (x))}(t)θ {u>t} (x)dtdh(x) χ {(,t)} (u (x))χ {(t, )} (u (x))θ {u>t} (x)dh(x)dt {u>t} χ {(,t)} (u (x))χ {(t, )} (u (x))θ {u>t} (x)dh(x)dt. On the third line we used Fubini s theorem. On the fourth line we used the fact that if u (x) < t < u (x), then x {u > t}. This follows from the definitions of the lower and upper approximate limits. By the locality condition we see that the right-hand side above equals to χ {(,t)} (u (x))χ {(t, )} (u (x))θ (x)dh(x)dt {u>t} = = = χ {(,t)} (u (x))χ {(t, )} (u (x))θ (x)dh(x)dt χ {(u (x),u (x))}(t)dtθ (x)dh(x) (u (x) u (x))θ (x)dh(x).

29 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 29 Now we prove two propositions concerning boundary traces that are based on [2, Theorem 3.84] and [2, Theorem 3.86]. Proposition Let and be open sets such that and \ satisfy the weak measure density condition,, and is of finite perimeter. Let u,v BV( ), and let w = uχ + vχ \. Then w BV( ) if and only if (5.2) T u T \v dh <. In the above characterization, we implicitly assume that the integral is well-defined in particular, this is the case if and \ are also strong BV extension domains, due to Theorem 5.7. Furthermore, if X is a local space, we then have Dw ( ) = Du ()+ Dv ( \)+ T u T \ v θ dh. Proof. First note that by the weak measure density conditions, we have H( \ ) = 0, and thus H( ) <. This further implies that µ( ) = 0 [15, Lemma 6.1], and by this and the weak measure density conditions again, H( \ ) = 0 and T \ = T \. To prove one direction, let us assume (5.2). In particular, we assume that T u(x) and T \v(x) exist for H-almost every x. For h > 0, define the truncated functions u h = min{h,max{u, h}} and v h = min{h,max{v, h}}. Clearly u h,v h,χ,χ \ BV( ) L ( ). Then w h = u h χ +v h χ \ BV( ) L ( ), see e.g. [16, Proposition 4.2]. Based on the decomposition of the variation measure given in (5.1), (5.3) Dw h ( ) = Du h ()+ Dv h ( \)+ Du ()+ Dv ( \)+ w h (x) w h (x) θ {wh >t}(x)dtdh(x) c d w h (x) w h (x) dh(x). By Proposition 5.8 (iv), the boundary traces T of u, u h, w h, and T \ of v, v h, w h, exist H-almost everywhere on the boundary. For w h this fact follows from the definition of boundary traces, by

30 INTEGRL REPRESENTTION FOR FUNCTIONLS 30 which we have that T w h = T u h, and similarly T \ w h = T \ v h. Proposition 5.8 (v) now gives (5.4) {w h(x),w h(x)} = {T w h (x),t \ w h(x)} = {T u h (x),t \ v h(x)} for H-almost every x. Using Proposition 5.8 (iv) again, for H- almost every x we have (5.5) T u h (x) = min{h,max{t u(x), h}}, T \ v h(x) = min{h,max{t \ v(x), h}}. By the lower semicontinuity of the total variation as well as (5.3), (5.4) and (5.5), we now get Dw ( ) liminf h Dw h ( ) Du ()+ Dv ( \)+liminf c d T u h T h \ v h dh = Du ()+ Dv ( \)+c d T u T \v dh <. Thus w BV( ). Toprove theconverse, assume thatw BV( ). Herewecansimply again write the decomposition of the variation measure > Dw ( ) Du ()+ Dv ( \)+α w w dh, where α = α(c d,c P ) > 0, and just as earlier, note that (5.6) w (x) w (x) = T w(x) T \ w(x) = T u(x) T \ v(x) for H-almost every x. This combined with the previous estimate gives the desired result. If X is a local space, we combine the decomposition of the variation measure (5.1), Lemma 5.10, and (5.6) to obtain the last claim. Next we show that if a set (which could be e.g. the boundary ) is in a suitable sense of codimension one, traces of BV functions are indeed integrable on. Let us first recall the following fact from the theory of sets of finite perimeter. Given any set of finite perimeter E X, for H-almost every x E we have (5.7) γ liminf r 0 µ(e B(x,r)) µ(b(x,r)) limsup r 0 µ(e B(x,r)) µ(b(x,r)) 1 γ, where γ (0, 1/2] only depends on the doubling constant and the constants in the Poincaré inequality [1, Theorem 5.4]. Proposition Let X be open, let u BV( ), and let be a bounded Borel set that satisfies dist(,x \ ) > 0 and (5.8) H( B(x,r)) c µ(b(x,r)) r