arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 18 Jan 2019

Transcription

1 Boundary Pointwise C 1,α C 2,α Regularity for Fully Nonlinear Elliptic Equations arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 18 Jan 2019 Yuanyuan Lian a, Kai Zhang a, a Department of Applied Mathematics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi an, Shaanxi, , PR China Abstract In this paper, we obtain the boundary pointwise C 1,α C 2,α regularity for viscosity solutions of fully nonlinear elliptic equations. I.e., If Ω is C 1,α (or C 2,α ) at x 0 Ω, the solution is C 1,α (or C 2,α ) at x 0. Our results are new even for the Laplace equation. Moreover, our proofs are simple. Keywords: Boundary regularity, Schauder estimate, Fully nonlinear elliptic equation, Viscosity solution 2010 MSC: 35B65, 35J25, 35J60, 35D40 1. Introduction Since 1980s, the fully nonlinear elliptic equations have been studied extensively (see [1] [3] the references therein). For the investigation on boundary behavior, there are usually two ways. One is to study the boundary regularity for viscosity solutions. Flattening the curved boundary by a transformation is widely applied (e.g. [9]). However, the lower order terms variant coefficients arise inevitably. Moreover, only local estimates can be derived rather than pointwise estimates. Another way is to obtain a priori estimates first then use the method of continuity to prove the existence This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No ), the Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (Program No. 2018JQ1039) the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No QD032). Corresponding author. ORCID: addresses: lianyuanyuan@nwpu.edu.cn; lianyuanyuan.hthk@gmail.com (Yuanyuan Lian), zhang_kai@nwpu.edu.cn; zhangkaizfz@gmail.com (Kai Zhang) Preprint submitted to Elsevier January 21, 2019

2 of classical solutions. It often requires more smoothness on the boundary the boundary value (e.g. [10]). In both cases, the proofs are usually complicated. We note that in [8], Ma Wang also proved the boundary pointwise C 1,α regularity by a barrier argument a complicated iteration procedure. In this paper, we study the boundary regularity for viscosity solutions prove the pointwise C 1,α C 2,α estimates under the corresponding pointwise geometric conditions on Ω. Our results are new even for the Laplace equation these geometric conditions are rather general. Moreover, the boundaries don t need to be flattened the proofs are simple. The perturbation compactness techniques are adopted here. We use solutions with flat boundaries to approximate the solution the error between them can be estimated by maximum principles. Then, we can obtain the necessary compactness for solutions (see Lemma 2.7). This basic perturbation idea is inspired originally by [1]. The application to boundary regularity is inspired by [7]. Based on the compactness result, we can obtain the desired estimates at the boundary if the boundary is almost flat (see Lemma 3.1 Lemma 4.1). This compactness technique has been inspired by [9] [11]. Then in aid of the scaling, the estimates on curved boundaries can be derived easily the perturbation is a matter of scaling in some sense. The treatment for the right h term the boundary value is similar. In this paper, we use the stard notations refer to Notation 1.9 for details. Before stating our main results, we introduce the following notions. Definition 1.1. Let A R n be a bounded set f be a function defined on A. We say that f is C k,α (k 0) at x 0 A or f C k,α (x 0 ) if there exist a polynomial P of degree k a constant K such that f(x) P(x) K x x 0 k+α, x A. (1.1) There may exist multiple P K (e.g. A = B 1 R n 1 ). Then we take P 0 with P 0 = min P K such that(1.1) holds with P K }, where P = k m=0 Dm P(x 0 ). Define D m f(x 0 ) = D m P 0 (x 0 ), 2

3 [f] C k,α (x 0 ) = min K (1.1) holds with P0 K } f C k,α (x 0 ) = P 0 +[f] C k,α (x 0 ). Next, we give the definitions of the geometric conditions on the domain. Definition 1.2. Let Ω be a bounded domain x 0 Ω. We say that Ω is C k,α (k 1) at x 0 or Ω C k,α (0) if there exist a coordinate system x 1,...,x n }, a polynomial P(x ) of degree k a constant K such that x 0 = 0 in this coordinate system, B 1 (x,x n ) xn > P(x )+K x k+α } B 1 Ω (1.2) Then, define B 1 (x,x n ) xn < P(x ) K x k+α } B 1 Ω c. (1.3) [ Ω] C k,α (x 0 ) = inf K (1.2) (1.3) hold for K } In addition, we define Ω C k,α (x 0 ) = P +[ Ω] C k,α (x 0 ). osc B r Ω = sup x Ω B r x n inf x Ω B r x n. Remark 1.3. Throughout this paper, we always assume that 0 Ω study the boundary behavior at 0. When we say that Ω is C k,α at 0, it always indicates that(1.2) (1.3) hold. Furthermore, without loss of generality, we always assume that P(0) = 0 DP(0) = 0. Remark 1.4. In this definition, Ω doesn t need to be the graph of a function near x 0. For example, let Ω = B(e n,1)\ (x,x n ) xn = x 2 /2, x 1/2 }. Then Ω is C 2,α at 0 by the definition. We will prove that the solution is C 2,α at 0. Hence, our results are new even for the Laplace equation. 3

4 Since we consider the viscosity solutions, the stard notions notationsforviscosity solutionsareused, suchas S(λ,Λ,f),S(λ,Λ,f),S(λ,Λ,f), M + (M,λ,Λ), M (M,λ,Λ) etc. For the details, we refer to [1], [2] [3]. Without loss of generality, we always assume that the fully nonlinear operator F is uniformly elliptic with ellipticity constants λ Λ, F(0) = 0. We call a constant C universal if it depends only on n,λ Λ. We use the Einstein summation convention in this work, i.e., repeated indices are implicitly summed over. Now, we state our main results. For the boundary pointwise C 1,α regularity, we have Theorem 1.5. Let 0 < α < α 1 where α 1 is a universal constant (see Lemma 2.1). Suppose that Ω is C 1,α at 0 u satisfies u S(λ,Λ,f) in Ω B1 ; u = g on Ω B 1, where g C 1,α (0) f L n (Ω B 1 ) satisfies for some constant K f f L n (Ω B r) K f r α, 0 < r < 1. (1.4) Then u C 1,α (0), i.e., there exists a linear polynomial L such that u(x) L(x) C x 1+α( u L (Ω B 1 ) +K f + g C 1,α (0)), x Ω Br1, (1.5) Du(0) C ( u L (Ω B 1 ) +K f + g C 1,α (0)), (1.6) where C depends only on n,λ,λ α, r 1 depends also on [ Ω] C 1,α (0). Remark 1.6. In [8], Ma Wang only proved the boundary pointwise C 1, α regularity for some α with 0 < α min(α,α 1 ) since the Harnack inequality was used. For instance, for the Laplace equation, we can obtain the C 1, α regularity for any 0 < α < 1, which can not been inferred from [8]. For the boundary pointwise C 2,α regularity, we have Theorem 1.7. Let 0 < α < α 2 where α 2 is a universal constant (see Lemma 2.2). Suppose that Ω is C 2,α at 0 u satisfies F(D 2 u) = f in Ω B 1 ; u = g on Ω B 1, 4

5 where g C 2,α (0) f C α (0). Then u C 2,α (0), i.e., there exists a quadratic polynomial P such that u(x) P(x) C x 2+α( u L (Ω B 1 ) + f C α (0) + g C 1,α (0)), x Ω Br1, (1.7) Du(0) + D 2 u(0) C ( u L (Ω B 1 ) + f C α (0) + g C 1,α (0)), (1.8) where C depends only on n,λ,λ α, r 1 depends also on Ω C 2,α (0). Remark 1.8. Note that the convexity of F is not needed here, which is different from the interior C 2,α regularity. In the next section, we prepare some preliminaries. In particular, we prove the compactness the closedness for a family of viscosity solutions. We obtain the boundary C 1,α regularity in Section 3 the boundary C 2,α regularity in Section 4. Notation e i } n i=1 : the stard basis of Rn, i.e., e i = (0,...0, 1 i th,0,...0). 2. x = (x 1,x 2,...,x n 1 ) x = (x 1,...,x n ) = (x,x n ). 3. S n : the set of n n symmetric matrices A = the spectral radius of A for any A S n. 4. R n + = x R n xn > 0}. 5. B r (x 0 ) = x R n x x0 < r}, B r = B r (0), B + r (x 0) = B r (x 0 ) R n + B + r = B+ r (0). 6. T r (x 0 ) = (x,0) R n x x 0 < r} T r = T r (0). 7. A c : the complement of A Ā: the closure of A, A Rn. 8. Ω r = Ω B r ( Ω) r = Ω B r. 9. ϕ i = D i ϕ = ϕ/ x i Dϕ = (ϕ 1,...,ϕ n ). Similarly, ϕ ij = D ij ϕ = 2 ϕ/ x i x j D 2 ϕ = (ϕ ij ) n n. 2. Preliminaries In this section, we introduce two lemmas stating the C 1,α C 2,α regularity on flat boundaries. We will use them to approximate the solutions 5

6 on curved boundaries. In addition, we prove the compactness closedness for a family of viscosity solutions. The following lemma concerns the boundary C 1,α regularity. It was first proved by Krylov [6] further simplified by Caffarelli (see [4, Theorem 9.31] [5, Theorem 4.28]). Lemma 2.1. Let u satisfy u S(λ,Λ,0) in B + 1 ; u = 0 on T 1. Then there exists a universal constant 0 < α 1 < 1 such that u C 1,α 1 (0) for some constant a, u(x) ax n C 1 x 1+α 1 u L (B + 1 ), x B+ 1/2 a C 1 u L (B + 1 ), where C 1 is universal. The next lemma concerns the boundary C 2,α regularity. We refer [9, Lemma 4.1] for a proof. Lemma 2.2. Let u satisfy F(D 2 u) = 0 in B + 1 ; u = 0 on T 1. Then there exists a universal constant 0 < α 2 < 1 such that u C 2,α 2 (0) for some constants a b in (1 i n), u(x) ax n b in x i x n C 2 x 2+α 2 u L (B + 1 ), x B+ 1/2, (2.1) F(b in ) = 0 (2.2) a + b in C 2 u L (B + 1 ), where C 2 is universal. 6

7 Remark 2.3. In(2.1), the Einstein summation convention is used (similarly hereinafter). In(2.2), b in denotes the matrix a ij whose elements are all 0 except a in = b in for 1 i n (similarly hereinafter). The following lemma presents a uniform estimate for solutions, which is a kind of equicontinuity up to the boundary. Lemma 2.4. Let 0 < δ < 1/4. Suppose that u satisfies u S(λ,Λ,f) in Ω1 ; u = g on ( Ω) 1, with u L (Ω 1 ) 1, f L n (Ω 1 ) δ, g L (( Ω) 1 ) δ osc B 1 Ω δ. Then u L (Ω δ ) Cδ, where C is universal. Proof. Let B 1 + = B+ 1 δe n T 1 = T 1 δe n. Then ( Ω) 1/4 B 1 +. Let v solve M + (D 2 v,λ,λ) = 0 in B 1 + ; v = 0 on T 1 ; v = 1 on B 1 + \ T 1. Let w = u v then w satisfies (note that v 0) w S(λ/n,Λ,f) in Ω B 1 + ; w g on Ω B 1 + ; w 0 on B 1 + Ω. By Lemma 2.1, v L ( B + 4δ ) Cδ, where C is universal. For w, by the Alexrov-Bakel man-pucci maximum principle, we have sup Ω B + 1 where C is universal. Hence, w g L ( Ω B + 1 ) +C f L n (Ω B + 1 ) Cδ, supu sup u v L ( B + Ω δ Ω B + 4δ ) + sup 4δ Ω B w Cδ.

8 The proof for infu Cδ Ω δ is similar we omit it here. Hence, the proof is completed. Remark 2.5. The proof shows the idea that approximating the general solution u by a solution v with a flat boundary. This idea is inspired by [7]. Based on the above lemma, the following corollary follows easily: Corollary 2.6. For any 0 < r < 1 ε > 0, there exists δ > 0 (depending only on n,λ,λ,r ε) such that if u satisfies u S(λ,Λ,f) in Ω1 ; u = g on ( Ω) 1, with u L (Ω 1 ) 1, f L n (Ω 1 ) δ, g L (( Ω) 1 ) δ osc B 1 Ω δ, then u L (Ω B(x 0,δ)) ε, x 0 Ω B r. Next, we prove the equicontinuity of the solutions, which provides the necessary compactness. Lemma 2.7. For any Ω Ω B 1 ε > 0, there exists δ > 0 (depending only on n,λ,λ,ω ε) such that if u satisfies u S(λ,Λ,f) in Ω1 ; u = g on ( Ω) 1, with u L (Ω 1 ) 1, f L n (Ω 1 ) δ, g L (( Ω) 1 ) δ osc B 1 Ω δ, then for any x,y Ω with x y δ, we have u(x) u(y) ε. Proof. By Corollary 2.6, for any ε > 0, there exists δ 1 > 0 depending only on n,λ,λ,ε Ω such that for any x,y Ω with dist(x, Ω) δ 1 x y δ 1, we have u(x) u(y) u(x) + u(y) ε. (2.3) 8

9 If dist(x, Ω) > δ 1, by the interior Hölder estimate, u(x) u(y) C x y α, (2.4) δ1 α where C 0 < α < 1 are universal. Take δ small enough such that C δα ε. δ1 α Then by combining(2.3) (2.4), the conclusion follows. Now, we give a closedness result for viscosity solutions. Lemma 2.8. Let u k C( Ω k B 1 ) (k 1) satisfy Fk (D 2 u k ) ( )f k in Ω k B 1 ; u k = g k on Ω k B 1. Supposethat F k F uniformlyoncompactsubsets of S n, f k L n (Ω k B 1 ) 0, g k L ( Ω k B 1 ) 0 osc B 1 Ω k 0. In addition, assume that for any Ω Ω B 1, u k u uniformly on Ω. That is, for any ε > 0, there exists k 0 such that for any k k 0 x Ω Ω k, we have u k (x) u(x) ε. Then u C(B + 1 T 1) F(D 2 u) ( )0 in B + 1 ; u = 0 on T 1, Proof. We only prove the case for a subsolution. From [2, Theorem 3.8], F(D 2 u) 0 in B + 1 holds. For any x 0 T 1 ε > 0, let δ > 0 be small to be specified later x B + (x 0,δ) B 1. Since u k converges to u uniformly, there exists k 0 such that for any k k 0 x B + (x 0,δ) Ω k, we have u k (x) u(x) ε/2. Take k large enough such that x Ω k g k L ( Ω k B 1 ) ε/4. Note that u k C( Ω k B 1 ). Then we can take δ small such that u k ( x) ε/2. Hence, u( x) = u( x) u k ( x)+u k ( x) u( x) u k ( x) + u k ( x) ε. Therefore, u is continuous up to T 1 u 0 on T 1. 9

10 3. Boundary C 1,α regularity In this section, we give the proof of the boundary C 1,α regularity. First, we prove that the solution in Theorem 1.5 can be approximated by a linear function provided that the prescribed data are small enough. Lemma 3.1. Let α 1 C 1 be as in Lemma 2.1. For any 0 < α < α 1, there exists δ > 0 such that if u satisfies u S(λ,Λ,f) in Ω1 ; u = g on ( Ω) 1, with u L (Ω 1 ) 1, f L n (Ω 1 ) δ, g L (( Ω) 1 ) δ osc B 1 Ω δ, then there exists a constant a such that u ax n L (Ω η) η 1+α a C 1, where η depends only on n,λ,λ α. Proof. We prove the lemma by contradiction. Suppose that the lemma is false. Then there exist 0 < α < α 1 sequences of u k,f k,g k,ω k such that uk S(λ,Λ,f k ) in Ω k B 1 ; u k = g k on Ω k B 1 with u k L (Ω k B 1 ) 1, f k L n (Ω k B 1 ) 1/k, g k L ( Ω k B 1 ) 1/k osc B 1 Ω 1/k, u k ax n L (Ω k B η) > η 1+α, a C 1, (3.1) where 0 < η < 1 is taken small such that C 1 η α 1 α < 1/2. (3.2) Note that u k are uniformly bounded. In addition, by Lemma 2.7, u k are equicontinuous. More precisely, for any Ω B + 1 T 1, ε > 0, there exist δ > 0 k 0 such that for any k k 0 x,y Ω Ω k with x y < δ, 10

11 u(x) u(y) ε. Hence, there exists a subsequence (denoted by u k again) such that u k converges uniformly to some function u on compact subsets of B + 1 T 1. By the closedness (Lemma 2.8), u satisfies u S(λ,Λ,0) in B + 1 ; u = 0 on T 1. By Lemma 2.1, there exists ā such that u(x) āx n C 1 x 1+α 1, x B + 1/2 ā C 1. Hence, by noting(3.2), we have u āx n L (B η + ) η1+α /2. (3.3) By Lemma 2.7, for δ small k large, we have u k āx n L (Ω k B η x n δ}) < η 1+α. Hence, from(3.1), u k āx n L (Ω k B η x n>δ}) > η 1+α. Let k, we have u āx n L (B η x n>δ}) > η 1+α, which contradicts with(3.3). Remark 3.2. As pointed out in [11, Chapte 1.3], the benefits of the method of compactness are that it doesn t need the solvability of some equation, the difference between the solution the auxiliary function doesn t need to satisfy some equation. Now, we can prove the boundary C 1,α regularity. Proof of Theorem 1.5. We make some normalization first. Let K Ω = [ Ω] C 1,α (0). Then x n K Ω x 1+α, x ( Ω) 1. (3.4) 11

12 Next, we assume that g(0) = 0 Dg(0) = 0. Otherwise, we may consider v(x) = u(x) g(0) Dg(0) x. Then the regularity of u follows easily from that of v. Let K g = [g] C 1,α (0). Then g(x) K g x 1+α, x ( Ω) 1. (3.5) Let δ be as in Lemma 3.1. We assume that u L (Ω 1 ) 1, K f δ, K g δ/2 K Ω δ/c 0 where C 0 is a constant (depending only on n,λ,λ α) to be specified later. Otherwise, we may consider v(y) = u(x) u L (Ω 1 ) +δ 1 (K f +2K g ), where y = x/r. By choosing R small enough (depending only on n,λ,λ K Ω ), the above assumptions can be guaranteed. Without loss of generality, we assume that R = 1. To prove that u is C 1,α at 0, we only need to prove the following. There exists a sequence a k (k 1) such that for all k 0 u a k x n L (Ω η k) η k(1+α) (3.6) a k a k 1 C 1 η kα, (3.7) where C 1 is the universal constant as in Lemma 2.1 η, depending only on n,λ,λ α, is as in Lemma 3.1. We prove the above by induction. For k = 0, by setting a 0 = a 1 = 0, the conclusion holds clearly. Suppose that the conclusion holds for k = k 0. We need to prove that the conclusion holds for k = k Let r = η k 0, y = x/r v(y) = u(x) a k 0 x n r 1+α. (3.8) Then v satisfies v S(λ,Λ, f) in Ω B1 ; where v = g on Ω B 1, f(y) = f(x) r α 1, g(y) = g(x) a k 0 x n r 1+α Ω = Ω r. 12

13 By(3.7), there exists a constant C 0 depending only on n,λ,λ α such that a k C 0 /2 ( 0 k k 0 ). Then it is easy to verify that v L ( Ω B 1 ) 1, (by(3.6) (3.8)) f L n ( Ω B 1 ) = f L n (Ω B r) K r α f δ, (by(1.4)) g L ( Ω B 1 ) 1 (K r 1+α g r 1+α + C ) 0K Ω r 1+α δ (by(3.4) (3.5)) (3.9) 2 osc B 1 Ω = 1 r osc B r Ω K Ω r α δ. By Lemma 3.1, there exists a constant ā such that v āy n L ( Ω η) η1+α ā C 1. Let a k0 +1 = a k0 +r α ā. Then(3.7) holds for k Recalling(3.8), we have u a k0 +1x n L (Ω η k 0 +1) = u a k0 x n r α āx n L (Ω ηr) = r 1+α v r 1+α āy n L ( Ω η) r 1+α η 1+α = η (k 0+1)(1+α). Hence,(3.6) holds for k = k By induction, the proof is completed. Remark 3.3. From the above proof, it shows clearly that the reason for the requirement of Ω C 1,α (0) is to estimate x n on Ω (see(3.9)). This observation is originated from [7] is key to the C 2,α regularity below. 4. C 2,α regularity In the following, we prove the boundary C 2,α regularity. From the proof for the C 1,α regularity, it can be inferred that if osc B r Ω Cr 2+α, 0 < r < 1, 13

14 the C 2,α regularity follows almost exactly as the C 1,α regularity. However, the above can t be guaranteed by choosing a proper coordinate system, which is different from the C 1,α regularity. As pointed above, the requirement for Ω is to estimate x n on Ω. If the term x n vanishes, the requirement for Ω may be relaxed. This is the key idea for the C 2,α regularity. The following lemma is similar to Lemma 3.1, but without the term x n in the estimate. Lemma 4.1. Let α 2 C 2 be as in Lemma 2.2. For any 0 < α < α 2, there exists δ > 0 such that if u satisfies F(D 2 u) = f in Ω 1 ; u = g on ( Ω) 1, with u L (Ω 1 ) 1, Du(0) = 0, f L (Ω 1 ) δ, [g] C 1,α (0) 1, g L (( Ω) 1 ) δ Ω C 1,α (0) δ, then there exist constants b in such that u b in x i x n L (Ω η) η 2+α, F(b in ) = 0 b in C 2 +1, where η depends only on n,λ,λ α. Proof. As before, we prove the lemma by contradiction. Suppose that the lemmaisfalse. Thenthereexist0 < α < α 2 sequences off k,u k,f k,g k,ω k such that Fk (D 2 u k ) = f k in Ω k B 1 ; u k = g k on Ω k B 1, with u k L (Ω k B 1 ) 1,[g k ] C 1,α (0) 1, g k L ( Ω k B 1 ) 1/k, f k L (Ω k B 1 ) 1/k, Ω k C 1,α (0) 1/k, Du k (0) = 0 u k b in x i x n L (Ω k B η) > η 2+α, b in C 2 +1 with F(b in ) = 0, (4.1) where 0 < η < 1 is taken small such that C 2 η α 2 α < 1/2. (4.2) 14

15 Since F k (0) = 0 F k are Lipschitz continuous with a uniform Lipschitz constant depending only on n,λ Λ, there exists F such that F k F on compact subsets of S n. On the other h, as before, u k are uniformly bounded equicontinuous. Hence, by Lemma 2.8, we can assume that u k converges uniformly to some function u on compact subsets of B + 1 T 1 u satisfies F(D 2 u) = 0 in B + 1 ; u = 0 on T 1. By the C 1,α estimate for u k (see Theorem 1.5) noting Du k (0) = 0, we have u k L (Ω k B r) Cr 1+ᾱ 0 < r < 1, where ᾱ < min(α,α 1 ) C is universal. Since u k converges to u uniformly, u L (B + r ) Cr1+ᾱ 0 < r < 1, Hence, Du(0) = 0. By Lemma 2.2, there exist b in such that u(x) b in x i x n C 2 x 2+α 2, x B + 1/2, F( b in ) = 0 b in C 2. Since F k ( b in ) F( b in ) = 0. For k large, there exists t k with t k η 2+α /4 t k 0 such that F k ( b in +t k δ nn ) = 0, where δ nn denotes the matrix a ij whose elements are all 0 except a nn = 1 (similarly hereinafter). By noting(4.2), we have u b in x i x n L (B + η ) η2+α /2. (4.3) By Lemma 2.7, for δ small k large, we have Hence, from (4.1), u k b in x i x n t k x 2 n L (Ω k B η x n δ}) < η 2+α. u k b in x i x n t k x 2 n L (Ω k B η x n>δ}) > η 2+α. 15

16 Let k, we have which contradicts with(4.3). u b in x i x n L (B η x n>δ}) > η 2+α, The following is the essential result for the C 2,α regularity. The key is that if Du(0) = 0, the C 2,α regularity holds even if Ω C 1,α (0). Theorem 4.2. Let 0 < α < α 2 Ω be C 1,α at 0. Assume that u satisfies F(D 2 u) = f in Ω 1 ; with Du(0) = 0. Suppose that u = g on ( Ω) 1, f(x) K f x α, x ( Ω) 1. (4.4) g(x) K g x 2+α, x ( Ω) 1. (4.5) Then u C 2,α (0), i.e., there exists a quadratic polynomial P such that u(x) P(x) C x 2+α( u L (Ω 1 ) +K f +K g ), x Ωr1, (4.6) Du(0) + D 2 u(0) C ( u L (Ω 1 ) +K f +K g ), (4.7) where C depends only on n,λ,λ α, r 1 depends also on [ Ω] C 1,α (0). Proof. As before, we make some normalization first. Let K Ω = [ Ω] C 1,α (0). Then x n K Ω x 1+α, x ( Ω) 1. (4.8) Let δ be as in Lemma 4.1. As before, we assume that u L (Ω 1 ) 1, K f δ, K g δ/2 K Ω δ/c 0 where C 0 is a constant (depending only on n,λ,λ α) to be specified later. To prove that u is C 2,α at 0, we only need to prove the following. There exist sequences (b k ) in (k 1) such that for all k 0, u (b k ) in x i x n L (Ω η k) η k(2+α), (4.9) 16

17 F((b k ) in ) = 0 (4.10) (b k ) in (b k 1 ) in (C 2 +1)η kα, (4.11) where C 2 is the universal constant as in Lemma 2.2 η, depending only on n,λ,λ α, is as in Lemma 4.1. We prove the above by induction. For k = 0, by setting (b 0 ) in = (b 1 ) in = 0, the conclusion holds clearly. Suppose that the conclusion holds for k = k 0. We need to prove that the conclusion holds for k = k Let r = η k 0, y = x/r v(y) = u(x) (b k 0 ) in x i x n r 2+α. (4.12) Then v satisfies F(D 2 v) = f in Ω B 1 ; where for M S n n, v = g on Ω B 1, F(M) = F(rα M +(b k0 ) in ), r f(y) = f(x) α r, g(y) = g(x) (b k 0 ) in x i x n α r Ω = Ω 2+α r. Then F isuniformlyelliptic withellipticity constants λλ F(0) = 0. By(4.11), there exists a constant C 0 depending only on n,λ,λ α such that (b k ) in C 0 /2 ( 0 k k 0 ). Then it is easy to verify that v L ( Ω B 1 ) 1, (by(4.9) (4.12)) f L ( Ω B 1 ) = f L (Ω B r) r α K f δ (by(4.4)) Ω B 1 C 1,α (0) K Ω r α δ. In addition, by(4.5) (4.8), we have g L ( Ω B 1 t) (K r 2+α g t 2+α r 2+α + C ) 0K Ω t 2 r 2+α δt 2. 2 Hence, [ g] C 1,α (0) δ 1 g L ( Ω B 1 ) δ. 17

18 By Lemma 4.1, there exists constants b in such that v b in y i y n L ( Ω η) η2+α, F( b in ) = 0 b in C Let (b k0 +1) in = (b k0 ) in + r α bin. Then(4.10) (4.11) hold for k Recalling(4.12), we have u (b k0 +1) in x i x n L (Ω η k 0 +1) = u (b k0 ) in x i x n r α bin x i x n L (Ω ηr) = r 2+α v r 2+α bin y i y n L ( Ω η) r 2+α η 2+α = η (k 0+1)(2+α). Hence,(4.9) holds for k = k By induction, the proof is completed. Proof of Theorem 1.7. In fact, Theorem 4.2 has contained the essential ingredients for the C 2,α regularity. The following proof is just the normalization in some sense. Assume that Ω satisfies(1.2) (1.3) with P(x ) = x T Ax for some A S n n. By scaling, we can assume that Ω C 2,α (0) 1. Let F 1 (M) = F(M) f(0) for M S n n. (In the following proof, M always denotes a symmetric matrix.) Then F 1 is uniformly elliptic with the same ellipticity constants u satisfies F1 (D 2 u) = f 1 in Ω 1 ; u = g on ( Ω) 1, where f 1 (x) = f(x) f(0). Next, let u 1 (x) = u(x) g(0) Dg(0) x x T D 2 g(0)x F 2 (M) = F 1 (M + D 2 g(0)). Then F 2 is uniformly elliptic with the same ellipticity constants u 1 satisfies F2 (D 2 u 1 ) = f 1 in Ω 1 ; u 1 = g 1 on ( Ω) 1, 18

19 where g 1 (x) = g(x) g(0) Dg(0) x x T D 2 g(0)x. Hence, f 1 (x) [f] C α (0) x α, x Ω 1, g 1 (x) [g] C 2,α (0) x 2+α, x ( Ω) 1 F 2 (0) = F 1 (D 2 g(0)) = F(D 2 g(0)) f(0) C ( D 2 g(0) + f(0) ), where C is universal. Note that (see [1, Proposition 2.13]), u 1 S(λ/n,Λ,f 1 F 2 (0)). Then by Theorem 1.5, u 1 C 1,ᾱ (0) for ᾱ = min(α 1,α 2 )/2, Du 1 (0) = (0,...,0,(u 1 ) n (0)) (u 1 ) n (0) C ( ) u 1 L (Ω B 1 ) +[f] C α (0) + F 2 (0) +[g] C 2,α (0) C ( u L (Ω B 1 ) + f C α (0) + g C 2,α (0) + F 2 (0) ) C ( (4.13) ) u L (Ω B 1 ) + f C α (0) + g C 2,α (0), where C is universal. Letu 2 (x) = u 1 (x) (u 1 ) n (0) ( x n x T Ax ) F 3 (M) = F 2 (M (u 1 ) n (0)A). Then F 3 is uniformly elliptic with the same ellipticity constants u 2 satisfies F3 (D 2 u 2 ) = f 1 in Ω 1 ; u 2 = g 2 on ( Ω) 1, where g 2 = g 1 (u 1 ) n (0) ( x n x T Ax ). Next, let u 3 (x) = u 2 (x)+tx 2 n F 4(M) = F 3 (M 2tδ nn ). Then F 4 (0) = 0 for some t R (note that A Ω C 2,α (0) 1) t F 3 (0) /λ C F(D 2 g(0) (u 1 ) n (0)A) f(0) C ( D 2 g(0) + (u 1 ) n (0) A + f(0) ) C ( (4.14) ) u L (Ω B 1 ) + f C α (0) + g C 2,α (0), where C is universal. Moreover, u 3 satisfies F4 (D 2 u 3 ) = f 1 in Ω 1 ; u 3 = g 3 on ( Ω) 1, 19

20 where g 3 = g 2 +tx 2 n. Then it is easy to verify that F 4 (0) = 0, Du 3 (0) = 0 ( ) g 3 (x) [g] C 2,α (0) + (u 1 ) n (0) [ Ω] C 2,α (0) + t Ω 2 C 2,α (0) x 2+α C ( u L (Ω B 1 ) + f C α (0) + g C 2,α (0)) x 2+α, x ( Ω) 1, where C is universal. By Theorem 4.2, u 3 hence u is C 2,α at 0, the estimates(1.7) (1.8) hold. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Professor Dongsheng Li for useful discussions. References References [1] Caffarelli, L.A., Cabré, X.. Fully nonlinear elliptic equations. volume 43 of American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, doi: /coll/043. [2] Caffarelli, L.A., Crall, M.G., Kocan, M., Świȩch, A.. On viscosity solutions of fully nonlinear equations with measurable ingredients. Comm Pure Appl Math 1996;49(4): doi: /(sici) (199604)49:4<365::aid-cpa3>3.0.co;2-a. [3] Crall, M.G., Ishii, H., Lions, P.L.. User s guide to viscosity solutions of second order partial differential equations. Bull Amer Math Soc (NS) 1992;27(1):1 67. doi: /s [4] Gilbarg, D., Trudinger, N.S.. Elliptic partial differential equations of second order. Classics in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, [5] Kazdan, J.L.. Prescribing the curvature of a Riemannian manifold. volume 57 of CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics. Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC; by the American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, doi: /cbms/

21 [6] Krylov, N.V.. Boundedly inhomogeneous elliptic parabolic equations in a domain. Izv Akad Nauk SSSR Ser Mat 1983;47(1): [7] Li, D., Zhang, K.. Regularity for fully nonlinear elliptic equations with oblique boundary conditions. Arch Ration Mech Anal 2018;228(3): doi: /s x. [8] Ma, F., Wang, L.. Boundary first order derivative estimates for fully nonlinear elliptic equations. J Differential Equations 2012;252(2): URL: doi: /j.jde [9] Silvestre, L., Sirakov, B.. Boundary regularity for viscosity solutions of fully nonlinear elliptic equations. Comm Partial Differential Equations 2014;39(9): URL: doi: / [10] Trudinger, N.S.. Fully nonlinear, uniformly elliptic equations under natural structure conditions. Trans Amer Math Soc 1983;278(2): URL: doi: / [11] Wang, L.. Regularity theory. URL: 21