arxiv: v1 [math.ca] 24 Jan 2019

Transcription

1 PERTURBATION OF EIPTIC OPERATORS IN -SIDED NTA DOMAINS SATISFYING THE CAPACITY DENSITY CONDITION arxiv:9.826v [math.ca] 24 Jan 29 MURAT AKMAN, STEVE HOFMANN, JOSÉ MARÍA MARTE, AND TATIANA TORO Abstract. et Ω R n+, n 2, be a -sided non-tangentially accessible domain (aka uniform domain), that is, a set which satisfies the interior corkscrew and Harnack chain conditions, which are respectively scale-invariant/quantitative versions of openness and path-connectedness. Assume also that Ω satisfies the so-called capacity density condition. et u = div(a u), u = div(a u) be two real symmetric uniformly elliptic operators, and write ω, ω for the respective associated elliptic measures. The goal of this paper is to find sufficient conditions guaranteeing that ω satisfies an A -condition or a RH q -condition with respect to ω. We show that if the discrepancy of the two matrices satisfies a natural Carleson measurecondition with respect to ω then ω A (ω ). Moreover,we obtain that ω RH q (ω ) for any given < q < if the Carleson measure condition is assumed to hold with a sufficiently small constant. This small constant case extends previous work of Fefferman-Kenig-Pipher and Milakis-Pipher together with the last author of the present paper who considered ipschitz and chord-arc domains respectively. Here we go beyond those settings, our domains satisfy a capacity density condition which is much weaker than the existence of exterior corkscrew balls. Moreover, the boundaries of our domains need not to be Ahlfors regular and the restriction of the n-dimensional Hausdorff measure to the boundary could be even locally infinite. The large constant case, that is, the one on which we just assume that the discrepancy of the two matrices satisfies a Carleson measure condition, is new even in the case of nice domains such as the unit ball, the upper-half space, or non-tangentially accessible domains. We emphasize that our results hold in the absence of a nice surface measure: all the analysis is done with the underlying measure ω, which behaves well in the settings we are considering. Date: January 24, Mathematics Subject Classification. Elliptic measure, Poisson kernel, Carleson measures, A Muckenhoupt weights, Reverse Hölder. Key words and phrases. 3B5, 35J8, 35J25, 42B99, 42B25, 42B37. The second author was partially supported by NSF grant number DMS The third author acknowledges that the research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/27-23)/ ERC agreement no. 652 HAPDEGMT. He also acknowledges financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, through the Severo Ochoa Programme for Centres of Excellence in R&D (SEV ). The fourth author was partially supported by the Craig McKibben & Sarah Merner Professor in Mathematics and by NSF grant number DMS This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMS-444 while the authors were in residence at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, California, during the Spring 27 semester.

2 2 Contents. Introduction 2 2. Preliminaries 8 3. Proofs of the main results 3 4. Auxiliary results Proof Proposition 3., part (a) Proof Proposition 3., part (b) Dyadic sawtooth lemma for projections 63 References 69. Introduction The purpose of this article is to study some perturbation problems for second order divergence form real symmetric elliptic operators with bounded measurable coefficients in domains with rough boundaries. et Ω R n+, n 2, be an open set and let u = div(a u) be a second order divergence form real symmetric elliptic operator defined in Ω. Here the coefficient matrix A = (a i,j ( )) n+ i,j= is real symmetric with a i,j (Ω) and is uniformly elliptic, that is, there exists a constant Λ such that (.) Λ ξ 2 A(X)ξ i ξ j Λ ξ 2 for all ξ R n+ and for almost every X Ω. Associated with one can construct a family of positive Borel measures {ω X} X Ω, defined on with ω X () for every X Ω, so that for each f C c () one can define its associated weak-solution (.2) u(x) = f(z)dω X (z), which satisfies u = in Ω in the weak sense. In principle, unless we assume some further condition, u needs not be continuous all the way to the boundary but still we think of u as the solution to the continuous Dirichlet problem with boundary data f. We call ω X the elliptic measure of Ω associated with the operator with pole at X Ω. For convenience, we will sometimes write ω and call it simply the elliptic measure, dropping the dependence on the pole. Given two such operators u = div(a u) and u = div(a u), one may wonder whether one can find conditions on the matrices A and A so that some good estimates for the Dirichlet problem or for the elliptic measure for might be transferred to the operator. Similarly, one may try to see whether A being close to A in some sense gives some relationship between ω and ω. In this

3 PERTURBATION OF EIPTIC OPERATORS 3 direction, a celebrated result of ittman, Stampacchia, and Weinberger in [3] states that the continuous Dirichlet problem for the aplace operator =, (i.e., A is the identity) is solvable if and only if it is solvable for any real elliptic operator. By solvability here we mean that the elliptic measure solutions as in (.2) are indeed continuous in Ω. It is well known that solvability in this sense is in fact equivalent to the fact that all boundary points are regular in the sense of Wiener, a condition which entails some capacitary thickness of the complement of Ω. Notice that, for this result, one does not need to know that is close to the aplacian in any sense (other than the fact that both operators are uniformly elliptic). On the other hand, if Ω = R 2 + is the upper-half plane and =, then the harmonic measure associated with is the Poisson-kernel which is mutually absolutely continuous with respect to the surface measure on the boundary. However, Caffarelli, Fabes, and Kenig in [] constructed a uniformly real elliptic operator in the plane the pullback of the aplacian via a quasiconformal mapping of the upper half plane to itself for which the associated elliptic measure ω is not even absolutely continuous with respect to the surface measure (see also [35] for such an example). Hence, in principle the good behavior of harmonic measure does not always transfer to any elliptic measure even in a nice domain such as the upper-half plane. Consequently, it is natural to see if those good properties can be transferred by assuming some conditions reflecting the fact that is close to or, in other words, imposing some conditions on the disagreement of A and A. To describe positive results in this direction, with and as above we define the disagreement of A and A as (A,A )(X) := sup A(Y) A (Y), X Ω, Y B(X,δ(X)/2) whereδ(x) = dist(x,) (thus, thesupremum istaken over awhitney ball). Define, for every x and < r < diam(), ( (A,A )(X) 2 ) 2 h(x,r) = dx, σ(b(x,r) ) δ(x) B(x,r) Ω where σ = H n (i.e, the n-dimensional Hausdorff measure restricted to the boundary). The study of perturbation of elliptic operators was initiated by Fabes, Jerison, and Kenig in [3] and later studied by Dahlberg [9] on ipschitz domains. Dahlberg in the case of Ω = B(,) observed that if lim sup h(x,r) = r x = and if ω σ with dω /dσ RH q (σ) (the classical reverse Hölder condition with respect to the surface measure) for some < q < then ω σ and dω /dσ RH q (σ). The importance of these reverse Hölder conditions comes from the fact that dω /dσ RH q (σ) is equivalent to the q -solvability of the Dirichlet problem, that

4 4 M. AKMAN, S. HOFMANN, J. M. MARTE, AND T. TORO is, the non tangential maximal function for the solution u given in (.2) is controlled by f in the q (σ)-norm. Dahlberg s approach was to define A t = ( t)a + ta for t, obtaining a differential inequality for the best constant in the reverse Hölder inequality for dω t /dσ. ater, Fefferman in [4] made the first attempt to remove the smallness of the function h. Working again in the domain Ω = B(,), he showed than an A (σ) condition is still inherited from the first measure (that is, ω A (σ) implies ω A (σ)) provided that A( (A,A )) ( B(,)) (and the bound needs not to be small). Here, (.3) ( A( (A,A ))(x) := Γ(x) (A,A )(X) 2 ) 2 dx δ(x) n+ and Γ(x) is the non-tangential cone with vertex at x with angular aperture θ < π/2. Using Fubini s theorem one can easily see the connection between h(x,r) and A( (A,A ))(x): ( h(x,r) σ(b(x,cr) ) B(x,Cr) A( (A,A ))(x) 2 dσ ) 2. It was also noted in [5] that finiteness of A( (A,A )) ( B(,)) does not allow one to preserve the reverse Hölder exponent. Indeed it was shown that for a given < p <, there exist uniformly elliptic matrices A and A with the property that A( (A,A )) ( B(,)), ω RH p (σ) but ω / RH p (σ). On the other hand, one of the main results in the pioneering perturbation paper [5] established that if thecarlesonnormsup <r<, x = h(x,r)ismerelyassumedtobefinite(notnecessarily going to zero as r ) then ω A (σ) implies ω A (σ). In the same article, it was shown that the assumption that the previous Carleson norm sup <r<, x = h(r,x) being finite is also necessary and cannot be weakened. One of the ingredients in [5] was to see that if Ω is a ipschitz domain and if (.4) sup x <r<diam() ( ω (B(x,r) ) B(x,r) Ω (A,A ) 2 (X) G ) (X) δ(x) dx 2 < ε 2 for ε sufficiently small then ω RH 2 (ω ), where G (X) = G (X,X) is the Green function for in Ω with a pole at some fixed X Ω. We also remark that in [5] the authors also considered r -averages of the disagreement function (A,A ) as opposed to the supremum. Using that approach it was shown that there exists r (depending on ellipticity) such that for each q > there exists ε q so that ω RH q (ω ) provided that r -average of the disagreement function (A,A ) satisfies (.4) with ε q. Milakis, Pipher, and the fourth author of this article in [32] made the first attempt to study perturbation problems beyond the ipschitz setting. To describe their results we need more notions which will be described briefly here and made precise later. A domain is called non-tangentially accessible (NTA for short) if it satisfies quantitative

5 PERTURBATION OF EIPTIC OPERATORS 5 interior and exterior openness as well as quantitative (interior) path-connectedness. A boundary of a domain is called Ahlfors regular if the surface measure of balls with center on the boundary and radius r behaves like r n (in ambient dimension n + ). Note that NTA domains with Ahlfors regular boundaries (called chord-arc domains) are not necessarily ipschitz domains and in general they cannot be locally represented as graphs. The first result of Fefferman, Kenig, and Pipher discussed above was generalized in [32] to chord-arc domains. That is, if Ω is a chord-arc domain and if (.4) is satisfied for some ε > small then ω RH 2 (ω ) (see also [34]). Also, [32] established that if h(x,r) is small enough (uniformly in x and < r < diam())andw RH q (σ)forsome < q < thenw RH q (σ). Also, assuming thath(x,r)ismerelybounded(uniformlyinx and < r < diam()) then w RH q (σ) for some < q < implies that w RH p (σ) for some < p <. We also mention that Escauriaza in [] showed that if Ω is a ipschitz domain and h(x,r) is uniformly bounded for every x and < r < diam() then log(dω /dσ) VMO(dσ) if log(dω /dσ) VMO(dσ). This result was further generalized to chord-arc domains in [33]. In [4], Cavero, the second and the third authors of this article studied small and large perturbation of operators when the domain is -sided NTA domain with Ahlfors regular boundary (called -sided chord-arc domains). Here -sided NTA domains (aka uniform domains) satisfy only quantitative interior openness and pathconnectedness. In [4], the perturbation results of [5, 32] were generalized to -sided chord-arc domains. Again, smallness of h(x, r) allowed the authors to preserve the exponent in the reverse Hölder condition while finiteness yields only that the A condition is transferred from one operator to the other. It is relevant to mention that the approach in [4], which is different from [5, 32], uses the extrapolation of Carleson measure, originally introduced by ewis and Murray in [3] (but based on the Corona construction of [2, 3]) and later developed in [2, 23, 22], as well as good properties of sawtooth domains (following the sawtooth construction in []). The bottom line is that the large perturbation case can be reduced to the small perturbation in some sawtooth subdomains. We also mention [5] where the non-symmetric case is also considered by using a different method. One common feature in the previous perturbation results is that the surface measures of the boundary of the domains always have good properties, since in all cases the boundary is Ahlfors regular. For those results on which one is perturbing RH q (σ) or A (σ), this is natural as one implicitly needs to make sense of σ and to that extent the Ahlfors regularity is natural. However, if one carefully looks at (.4) and the conclusion derived from it, that is, ω RH 2 (ω ), there is no appearance of the surface measure, and these conditions make sense whether or not the surface measure is a well-behaved object. Another natural question that arises from (.4) is whether one can target some other reverse Hölder conditions by allowing ε to be larger, or ultimately to investigate what are the conclusions that can be obtained assuming that ε is just an arbitrary large finite constant.

6 6 M. AKMAN, S. HOFMANN, J. M. MARTE, AND T. TORO The goal of this paper is to answer these questions. Our setting is that of -sided NTA domains satisfying the so called capacity density condition (CDC for short), see Section 2 for the precise definitions. The latter is a quantitative version of the wellknown Wiener criterion and it is weaker than the Ahlfors regularity of the boundary or the existence of exterior corkscrews. This setting guarantees among other things that any elliptic measure is doubling, hence one can see that the boundary of the domain endowed with the Euclidean distance and with a given elliptic measure ω is a space of homogeneous type. In particular, classes like A (ω ) or RH p (ω ) have the same good features of the corresponding ones in the Euclidean setting. However, our assumptions do not guarantee that the surface measure σ has any good behavior and could even be locally infinite. Our main result considers both the case in which (.4) holds with small or largeε. The small constant case canbe seen asanextension of [5, 32] to a setting on which surface measure is not a good object. Furthermore, the large constant case is new even in nice domains such as balls, upper-half spaces, ipschitz domains or chord-arc domains. In this line, our main result is, to the best of our knowledge, the first one being able to establish perturbation results on sets with bad surface measures. Also, for the first time we are able to consider large perturbations in the sense of (.4). Our main result is formulated as follows: Theorem.5. et Ω R n+ be a -sided NTA domain satisfying the capacity density condition. et u = div(a u) and u = div(a u) be real symmetric elliptic operators. Define the disagreement between A and A in Ω by (.6) (A,A )(X) := A A (B(X,δ(X)/2)), X Ω, where δ(x) := dist(x,), and (.7) (A,A ) := sup sup B B ω X (A,A )(X) 2G (X,X ) δ(x) 2 ( ) B Ω where = B, B =, and the sups are taken respectively over all balls B = B(x,r) with x and < r < diam(), and B = B(x,r) with x 2 and < r < rc /4, and c is the Corkscrew constant. (a) If (A,A ) <, then ω A (,ω ), that is, there exists < q < such that ω RH q (,ω ). Here, q and the implicit constant depend only on dimension, the -sided NTA and CDC constants, the ellipticity constants of and, and (A,A ). (b) Given < p <, there exists ε p > (dependingonly on p, the -sided NTA and CDC constants and the ellipticity constants of and ) such that if one has (A,A ) ε p, then ω RH p (,ω ), with the implicit constant depending only on p, dimension, the -sided NTA and CDC constants, and the ellipticity constant of and. Remark.8. et us make a few remarks regarding the expression in (.6). First, the collection of B in the second sup is chosen so that X / 4B, hence the Green dx,

7 PERTURBATION OF EIPTIC OPERATORS 7 function is not singular in the domain of integration. But even if the domain of integration contained X this would not cause any problem, since the corresponding estimate near X becomes easy by invoking emma 2.48 below: (A,A ω X )(X) 2G (X,X ) dx ( ) B(X,δ(X )/2) δ(x) 2 ( A A (B(X,δ(X )/2))) 2 X X δ(x ) 2 n dx ( A A (B(X,δ(X )/2))) 2. B(X,δ(X )/2) Ω Second, at a first glance (.6) seems different than (.4), the condition imposed by Fefferman, Kenig, and Pipher in [5], which in the current case and if Ω is bounded (avoiding the pole as just mentioned) would read as (.9) (A,A ) := sup B ω X Ω ( ) B Ω (A,A )(X) 2G (X,X Ω ) δ(x) 2 where X Ω Ω is a center of Ω (say, X Ω is the Corkscrew point associated with the surface ball (x,diam()/2) for some fixed x Ω) so that δ(x Ω ) diam(); = B and the sup is taken over all balls B = B(x,r ) with x and < r < diam()c /4. We can easily see that (A,A ) (A,A ). First, using emma 2.57 below and possibly Harnack s inequality, one can see that for B = B(x,r) and B = B(x,r ) as in (.7) if X B then G (X,X ) ω X ( ) dx, G (X,X Ω ) ω X Ω ( ) Thus, (A,A ) (A,A ). Toobtaintheconverseinequality, letb = B(x,r ) with x and < r < diam()c /4. Pick max{ 2,4c r /diam()} < θ < and write r = θ diam() so that diam()/2 < r < diam() and r < rc /4. Set B = B(x,r) and note that the Harnack chain condition and Harnack s inequality easily yield ω X Ω ( ) ω X ( ), and also G (X,X Ω ) G (X,X ) for every X B Ω, where = B and = B. Allthesegiveatoncethat (A,A ) (A,A ). Hence, (A,A ) (A,A ) when Ω is bounded. In the unbounded case, one could use a similar argument working with a pole at infinity, which would require to normalize appropriately ω and G ; here we will simply work with the scale-invariant expression (.7) to avoid that issue. Finally, we also have a generalization of a result [4, 5, 32]: Theorem.. et Ω R n+ be a -sided NTA domain satisfying the capacity density condition, and let u = div(a u) and u = div(a u) be real symmetric elliptic operators. Given α >, set (.) ( A α ( (A,A ))(x) := Γ α(x) where Γ α (x) = {Y Ω : Y x < (+α)δ(y)}. (A,A )(X) 2 ) 2 dx, x, δ(x) n+.

8 8 M. AKMAN, S. HOFMANN, J. M. MARTE, AND T. TORO (a) If A α ( (A,A )) (ω ) then ω A (,ω ). (b) Given p, < p <, there exists ε p > depending only on p, dimension, the -sided NTA and CDC constants, and the ellipticity constant of and, such that if A α ( (A,A )) (ω ) with A α ( (A,A )) (ω ) ε p then ω RH p (,ω ). Remark.2. Notice that in the previous result we are not specifying the pole for the elliptic measure ω. However there is no ambiguity since, as a matter of fact, for any given X, Y Ω one has ω X ω Y and hence (,ω X ) = (,ω Y ) with (,ω X ) = (,ω Y ). The plan of this paper is as follows. Next section contains some of the preliminaries, definitions, and tools which will be used throughout the paper. Section 3 is devoted to proving ourmainresults. AsamatteroffactTheorem.5followsfromalocalversion, interesting on its own right, which is valid on bounded domains, see Proposition 3.. The proof of Theorem. is also in Section 3. Section 4 contains some auxiliary results. The proof of Proposition 3. is in Sections 5 and 6 which respectively handle the large and small constant cases. The proof of the large constant case is based on the extrapolation of Carleson measure technique mentioned above. Finally, Section 7 contains some dyadic version of the main lemma of [] which is needed in our arguments. 2.. Notation and conventions. 2. Preliminaries We use the letters c,c to denote harmless positive constants, not necessarily the same at each occurrence, which depend only on dimension and the constants appearing in the hypotheses of the theorems (which we refer to as the allowable parameters ). We shall also sometimes write a b and a b to mean, respectively, that a Cb and < c a/b C, where the constants c and C are as above, unless explicitly noted to the contrary. Unless otherwise specified upper case constants are greater than and lower case constants are smaller than. In some occasions it is important to keep track of the dependence on a given parameter γ, in that case we write a γ b or a γ b to emphasize that the implicit constants in the inequalities depend on γ. Our ambient space is R n+, n 2. Given E R n+ we write diam(e) = sup x,y E x y to denote its diameter. Given a domain Ω R n+, we shall use lower case letters x,y,z, etc., to denote points on, and capital letters X,Y,Z, etc., to denote generic points in R n+ (especially those in R n+ \).

9 PERTURBATION OF EIPTIC OPERATORS 9 The open (n + )-dimensional Euclidean ball of radius r will be denoted B(x,r) when the center x lies on, or B(X,r) when the center X R n+ \. A surface ball is denoted (x, r) := B(x, r), and unless otherwise specified it is implicitly assumed that x. If is bounded, it is always understood(unless otherwise specified) that all surface balls have radii controlled by the diameter of, that is, if = (x, r) then r diam(). Note that in this way = if diam() < r diam(). For X R n+, we set δ(x) := dist(x,). For a Borel set A R n+, we let A denote the usual indicator function of A, i.e. A (X) = if X A, and A (X) = if X / A. We shall use the letter I (and sometimes J) to denote a closed (n+)-dimensional Euclidean cube with sides parallel to the coordinate axes, and we let l(i) denote the side length of I. We use Q to denote dyadic cubes on. The latter exist as a consequence of emma 2.26 below Some definitions. Definition 2. (Corkscrew condition). Following [28], we say that a domain Ω R n+ satisfies the Corkscrew condition if for some uniform constant < c < and for every x and < r < diam(), if we write := (x,r), there is a ball B(X,c r) B(x,r) Ω. The point X Ω is called a corkscrew point relative to (or, relative to B). We note that we may allow r < Cdiam() for any fixed C, simply by adjusting the constant c. Definition 2.2 (Harnack Chain condition). Again following [28], we say that Ω satisfies the Harnack Chain condition if there are uniform constants C,C 2 > such that for every pair of points X,X Ω there is a chain of balls B,B 2,...,B N Ω with N C (2+log + 2 Π) where (2.3) Π := X X min{δ(x),δ(x )}. such that X B, X B N, B k B k+ Ø and for every k N (2.4) C 2 diam(b k ) dist(b k,) C 2 diam(b k ). The chain of balls is called a Harnack Chain. We note that in the context of the previous definition if Π we can trivially form the Harnack chain B = B(X,3δ(X)/5) and B 2 = B(X,3δ(X )/5) where (2.4) holds with C 2 = 3. Hence the Harnack chain condition is non-trivial only when Π >. Definition 2.5 (-sided NTA and NTA). We say that a domain Ω is a -sided NTA domain (aka uniform domain) if it satisfies both the Corkscrew and Harnack Chainconditions. Furthermore, wesaythatωisannta domainifitisa-sidednta domain and if, in addition, Ω ext := R n+ \Ω also satisfies the Corkscrew condition.

10 M. AKMAN, S. HOFMANN, J. M. MARTE, AND T. TORO Remark 2.6. The abbreviation NTA stands for non-tangentially accessible. In the literature, -sided NTA domains are also called uniform domains. We remark that the -sided NTA condition is a quantitative form of path connectedness. Definition 2.7 (Ahlfors regular). We say that a closed set E R n+ is n- dimensional Ahlfors regular (AR for short) if there is some uniform constant C > such that (2.8) C r n H n (E B(x,r)) Cr n, x E, < r < diam(e). Definition 2.9 (-sided CAD and CAD). A -sided chord-arc domain (-sided CAD) is a -sided NTA domain with AR boundary. A chord-arc domain (CAD) is an NTA domain with AR boundary. We next recall the definition of the capacity of a set. Given an open set D R n+ (where we recall that we always assume that n 2) and a compact set K D we define the capacity of K relative to D as { } Cap 2 (K,D) = inf v(x) 2 dx : v C (D), v(x) in K. D Definition 2. (Capacity density condition). An open set Ω is said to satisfy capacity density condition (CDC for short) if there exists a uniform constant c such that (2.) for all x and < r < diam(). Cap 2 (B(x,r)\Ω,B(x,2r)) c Cap 2 (B(x,r),B(x,2r)) The CDC is also known as the uniform 2-fatness as studied by ewis in [29]. Using [8, Example 2.2] one has that (2.2) Cap 2 (B(x,r),B(x,2r)) r n and hence the CDC is a quantitative version of the Wiener regularity, in particular boundary point is Wiener regular. It is easy to see that the exterior corkscrew condition implies CDC. Also, it was proved in [36, Section 3 ] and [9, emma 3.27] that a set with Ahlfors regular boundary satisfies the capacity density condition with constant c depending only on n and the Ahlfors regular constant Dyadic analysis. Throughout this section we will work with E R n+ and a countable collection of Borel sets D = {Q} Q D which is a dyadic grid on E. This means that D = k Z D k and the following properties hold: E = Q D k Q for every k Z. If Q D k and Q D j with k j then either Q Q or Q Q = Ø. If for every k > j and Q D k there exists (a unique) Q D j such that Q Q.

11 PERTURBATION OF EIPTIC OPERATORS Given a dyadic grid, every Q D there exists k Z such that Q D k, in that case we set l(q) = 2 k, which is called the length of Q. et us introduce the discretized Carleson region relative to Q, D Q = {Q D : Q Q}. et F = {Q i } D be a family of pairwise disjoint cubes. The global discretized sawtooth relative to F is the collection of cubes Q D that are not contained in any Q i F, that is, D F := D\ D Qi. For a given Q D, the local discretized sawtooth relative to F is the collection of cubes in D Q that are not contained in any Q i F or, equivalently, D F,Q := D Q \ D Qi = D F D Q. Q i F Q i F We also allow F to be the null set in which case D Ø = D and D Ø,Q = D Q. With a slight abuse of notation, let Q be either E, and in that case D Q := D, or a fixed cube in D, hence D Q is the family of dyadic subcubes of Q. et µ be a non-negative Borel measure on Q so that < µ(q) < for every Q D Q. Consider the operators A Q, B Q defined by (2.3) ( A µ Q α(x) := x Q D Q ) ( 2 µ(q) α2 Q, B µ Q α(x) := sup x Q D Q µ(q) Q D Q α 2 Q where α = {α Q } Q DQ is a sequence of real numbers. Note that these operators are discrete analogues of those used in[8] to develop the theory of tent spaces. Sometimes, we use a truncated version of A µ Q, defined for each k by ( ) 2 A µ,k Q α(x) := µ(q) α2 Q, x Q D k Q where D k Q := {Q D Q : l(q ) 2 k l(q)}. The following lemma is a discrete version of [8, Theorem ] and extends [4, emma 3.8]: emma 2.4. Under the previous considerations, given Q as above, and α = {α Q } Q DQ, β = {β Q } Q DQ sequences of real numbers, we have that (2.5) α Q β Q 4 A µ Q α(x)b µ Q β(x)dµ(x). Q Q D Q Proof. The proof follows the argument in [4, emma 3.8] which in turn is based on [8, Theorem ]. We first claim that it suffices to assume that l(q ) < or, what is ) 2,

12 2 M. AKMAN, S. HOFMANN, J. M. MARTE, AND T. TORO the same, that Q D. Indeed if Q = E we have α Q β Q = α Q β Q = sup α Q β Q N Q D Q Q D Q D N Q D Q 4sup A µ Q α(x)bµ Q β(x)dµ(x) 4 N Q D N Q E A µ Q α(x)b µ Q β(x)dµ(x), where in the first estimate we have used our claim for Q, which has finite length, and in the second one the fact that the cubes in D N are pairwise disjoint. From now on we assume that l(q ) <, hence Q D. We next claim that it suffices to consider the case on which β Q = when l(q) 2 N l(q ) for some N N, and in that scenario, we establish (2.5). To obtain the general case, for every N, we let β N = {β N Q } Q D Q where β N Q = β Q if 2 N l(q ) < l(q) l(q ) and β N Q = when l(q) 2 N l(q ). Then by our claim, (2.5) holds for β N. Observing that B µ Q β N B µ Q β we just need to let N and the desired estimate follows at once. Thus we fix β so that β Q = when l(q) 2 N l(q ) for some N N. For Q D Q, let k Q be so that l(q) = 2 k Q l(q ). Suppose that Q D Q satisfies l(q ) 2 k Q l(q ) = l(q) and Q Q Ø, then necessarily Q D Q and for every x Q ( µ,k (2.6) ξ Q := A Q Q β(y) ) 2 dµ(y) = Q (y) Q Q µ(q ) β2 Q dµ(y) Q D Q = µ(q) Q D Q β 2 Q ( B µ Q β(x) ) 2. Since β Q = for l(q) 2 N l(q ), we have that A µ Q β(x) C N < for every x Q and hence ξ Q CN 2 <. Now, define F := { x Q : A µ,k Q β(x) > 2B µ Q β(x), k }. In particular, using (2.6), we have A µ,k Q Q β(x) > 2ξ 2 Q for each x Q F. We claim that 4µ(Q F ) µ(q). Indeed, if ξ Q = then one can see that A µ,k Q Q β(y) = for every y Q and hence Q F = Ø, which trivially gives that 4µ(Q F ) µ(q). On the other hand, if ξ Q >, we have ( µ,kq 4ξ Q µ(q F ) A Q β(y) )2 dµ(y) ξ Q µ(q), Q F and the desired estimate follows since < ξ Q <. et us now consider (2.7) k(x) := min { k : A µ,k Q β(x) 2B µ Q β(x) }, x Q \F.

13 PERTURBATION OF EIPTIC OPERATORS 3 Setting F,Q := {x Q\F : k(x) > k Q } and using (2.6) we obtain F,Q {x Q\F : A µ,k Q Q β(x) > 2ξ } 2 Q. Applying Chebychev s inequality, it follows that µ(f,q ) 4ξ Q Q\F ( A µ,kq Q β(y) ) 2 dµ(y) 4 µ(q). Setting F 2,Q := {x Q \ F : k(x) k Q }, and gathering the above estimates, we have µ(f 2,Q ) = µ(q) µ(q F ) µ(f,q ) 2 µ(q). Hence, Cauchy-Schwarz s inequality and (2.7) yield α Q β Q 2 µ(f 2,Q ) α Qβ Q 2 µ(q) Q D Q Q D Q Q \F Q D Q α Q β Q µ(q) F 2,Q (x)dµ(x) ( ) 2 A µ Q α(x) Q \F µ(q) β2 Q 2 F 2,Q (x) dµ(x) Q D Q 2 A µ Q α(x)a µ,k(x) Q β(x)dµ(x) Q \F 4 A µ Q α(x)b µ Q β(x)dµ(x), Q where we have used that Q D k(x) Q for each x F 2,Q. This completes the proof of (2.5). For the rest of the section we will be working with µ which is dyadically doubling in Q where Q is above. This means that there exists C µ such that µ(q) C µ µ(q ) for every Q,Q D Q with l(q) = 2l(Q ). Definition 2.8 (A dyadic ). Given Q and µ, a non-negative dyadically doubling measure in Q, a non-negative Borel measure ν defined on Q is said to belong to A dyadic (Q,µ) if there exist constants < α,β < such that for every Q D Q and for every Borel set F Q, we have that µ(f) µ(q) > α = ν(f) ν(q) > β. It is well known (see [6], [7]) that since µ is a dyadically doubling measure in Q, ν A dyadic (Q,µ) if and only if ν µ in Q and there exists < p < such that ν RHp dyadic (Q,µ), that is, there is a constant C such that ( ) k(x) p p dµ(x) C k(x)dµ(x) = C ν(q) µ(q), Q Q

14 4 M. AKMAN, S. HOFMANN, J. M. MARTE, AND T. TORO for every Q D Q, and where k = dν/dµ is the Radon-Nikodym derivative. For each F = {Q i } D Q, a family of pairwise disjoint dyadic cubes, and each f loc (µ), we define P µ F f(x) = f(x) E\( Q i F Q i)(x)+ ( ) f(y)dµ(y) Qi (x). Q i F Q i If ν is a non-negative Borel measure on Q, we may naturally then define the measure P µ F ν as Pµ F ν(f) = E Pµ F F dν, that is, ) Q i (2.9) P µ F ν(f) = ν ( F \ for each Borel set F Q. Q i F + Q i F µ(f Q i ) ν(q i ), µ(q i ) The next result follows easily by adapting the arguments in [23, emma B.] and [2, emma 4.] to the current scenario. emma 2.2. Given Q, let µ be a non-negative dyadically doubling measure in Q, and let ν be a non-negative Borel measure in Q. (a) If ν is dyadically doubling on Q then P µ F ν is dyadically doubling on Q. (b) If ν A dyadic (Q,µ) then P µ F ν Adyadic (Q,µ). et γ = {γ Q } Q DQ be a sequence of non-negative numbers. For any collection D D Q, we define an associated discrete measure (2.2) m γ (D ) := Q D γ Q. We say that m γ is a discrete Carleson measure (with respect to µ) in Q, if m γ (D Q ) (2.22) m γ C(Q,µ) := sup = sup γ Q <. Q D Q µ(q) Q D Q µ(q) Q D Q For simplicity, when Q = E we simply write m γ C(µ). Given F = {Q i } D Q, a (possibly empty) family of pairwise disjoint dyadic cubes, we define m γ,f by (2.23) m γ,f (D ) = m γ (D D F ) = Q D D F γ Q, D D Q. Equivalently, m γ,f = m γf where γ F = {γ F,Q } Q DQ is given by { γq if Q D F,Q, (2.24) γ F,Q = if Q D Q \D F,Q. Notice that F = Ø we have that γ F = γ and hence m γ,ø = m γ.

15 PERTURBATION OF EIPTIC OPERATORS 5 The following result was proved in [23, emma 8.5] under the additional assumption that is AR, however a careful inspection of the proof shows that the same argument can be carried out under the current assumption. Notice that [23, emma 8.5] considered just the case Q D, but clearly that implies the case Q = E. emma 2.25 ([23, emma 8.5]). Given Q, let µ, ν be a pair of non-negative dyadically doubling Borel measures on Q, and let m be a discrete Carleson measure with respect to µ, with m γ C(Q,µ) M. Suppose that there exists ε such that for every Q D Q and every family of pairwise disjoint dyadic cubes F = {Q i } D Q verifying m γ (D F,Q) m γ,f C(Q,µ) = sup Q D Q µ(q) we have that P µ Fν satisfies the following property: ( µ(f) ζ (,), C ζ > such that F Q, µ(q ) ζ = Pµ F ν(f) P µ F ν(q ) ). C ζ ε, Then, there exist η (,) and < C < such that, for every Q D Q F Q, In other words, ν A dyadic (Q,µ). µ(f) µ(q ) η = ν(f) ν(q ) C Existence of a dyadic grid. In this section we introduce a dyadic grid along the lines of that obtained in [6]. More precisely, we will use the dyadic structure from [26, 27], with a modification from [25, Proof of Proposition 2.2]: emma 2.26 (Existence and properties of the dyadic grid ). et E R n+ be a close set. Then there exist constants C depending just on n such that for each k Z there is a collection of Borel sets (called cubes ) D k := { Q k j E : j J k}, where J k denotes some (possibly finite) index set depending on k, satisfying: (a) E = j J k Q k j for each k Z. (b) If m k then either Q k j Qm i or Q m i Q k j = Ø. (c) For each k Z, j J k, and m < k, there is a unique i J m such that Q k j Q m i. (d) For each k Z, j J k there is x k j E such that B(x k j,c 2 k ) E Q k j B(x k j,c2 k ) E.

16 6 M. AKMAN, S. HOFMANN, J. M. MARTE, AND T. TORO Proof. We first note that E is geometric doubling. That is, there exists N depending justonnsuch thatforevery x E andr > onecancover thesurfaceballb(x,r) E with at most N surface balls of the form B(x i,r/2) E with x i E observe that geometric doubling for E is inherited from the corresponding property on R n+ and that is why N depends only on n and it is independent of E. Besides, letting η =, 6 for every k Z it is easy to find a countable collection {x k j} j Jk E such that x k j xk j ηk, j,j J k, j j ; min j J k x x j < η k, x E. Invoking then [26, 27] on E with the Euclidean distance and c = C = one can construct a family of dyadic cubes associated with these families of points, say D k for k Z. These satisfy (a) (d) in the statement with the only difference that we have to replace 2 k by η k in (d). At this point we follow the argument in [25, Proof of Proposition 2.2] with η = 6. For any k Z we set D j = D k for every 3k j < 3(k +). It is straightforward to show that properties (a), (b) and (c) for the families D k follow at once from those for the families D k. Regarding (d), let Q i D j and let k Z such that 3k j < 3(k+) so that Q i D j = D k. Writing x i E for the corresponding point associated with Q i D k and invoking (d) for D k we conclude B(x i,c 2 j ) E B(x i,c η k ) E Q i B(x i,cη k ) E B(x i,8c2 j ) E, hence (d) holds. In what follows given B = B(x,r) with x E we will denote = (x,r) = B E. A few remarks are in order concerning this lemma. We shall denote by D(E) the collection of all relevant Q k j, i.e., D(E) := D k, where, if diam(e) is finite, the union runs over those k Z such that 2 k diam(e). For a dyadic cube Q D k, we shall set l(q) = 2 k, and we shall refer to this quantity as the length of Q. It is clear from (d) that diam(q) l(q) (we will see below that the converse holds in our setting). We write Ξ = 2C 2, with C being the constant in emma 2.26, which is a purely dimensional. For Q D(E) we will set k(q) = k if Q D k. Property (d) implies that for each cube Q D, there exist x Q E and r Q, with Ξ l(q) r Q l(q) (indeed r Q = (2C) l(q)), such that (2.27) (x Q,2r Q ) Q (x Q,Ξr Q ). We shall denote these balls and surface balls by (2.28) B Q := B(x Q,r Q ), Q := (x Q,r Q ), (2.29) BQ := B(x Q,Ξr Q ), Q := (x Q,Ξr Q ), and we shall refer to the point x Q as the center of Q. k

17 PERTURBATION OF EIPTIC OPERATORS 7 et Q D k and consider the family of its dyadic children {Q D k+ : Q Q}. Notice that for any two different children Q,Q, one has x Q x Q r Q = r Q = r Q /2, otherwise x Q Q Q Q Q, contradicting the fact that Q and Q are disjoint. Also x Q,x Q Q (x Q,r Q ), hence by the geometric doubling property we have apurely dimensional boundfor thenumber ofsuch x Q and hence the number of dyadic children of a given dyadic cube is uniformly bounded. emma 2.3. et E R n+ be a closed set and let D(E) be the dyadic grid as in emma Assume that there is a Borel measure µ which is doubling, that is, there exists C µ such that µ( (x,2r)) C µ µ( (x,r)) for every x E and r >. Then µ( Q) = for every Q D(E). Moreover, there exist < τ <, C and η > depending only on dimension and C µ such that for every τ (,τ ) and Q D(E) (2.3) µ ({ x Q : dist(x,e \Q) τl(q) }) C τ η µ(q)). Proof. The argument is a refinement of that in [23, Proposition 6.3] (see also [6, p. 43] where the Euclidean case was treated). Fix an integer k, a cube Q D k, and a positive integer m to be chosen. Fix τ > small enough to be chosen and write Σ τ = { x Q : dist(x,e \Q) < τl(q) }. We set {Q i } := D := D Q D k+m, and make the disjoint decomposition Q = Q i. We then split D = D, D,2, where Q i D, if Q i meets Σ τ, and Q i D,2 otherwise. We then write Q = R, R,2, where R, := Q i, R,2 := D, D,2Q i, and for each cube Q i D,, we construct Q i as follows. We enumerate the elements in D, as Q i,q i 2,...,Q i N, and then set (Q i) = Q i ( Q i Q) and Q i := (Q i ), Q i2 := (Q i 2 ) \(Q i ), Q i3 := (Q i 3 ) \((Q i ) (Q i 2 ) ),... so that R, covers Σ τ and the modified cubes Q i are pairwise disjoint. Notice that by (2.27) if 2 m < Ξ 2 /4 dist ( ) Q,E \Q r Q Ξ l(q), diam(q i ) 2Ξr Ξ Qi 2Ξl(Qi ) < 2 l(q). Then R, misses Q provided τ < Ξ /2. Otherwise, we can find x Q i Q with Q i D,. The latter implies that there is y Q i Σ τ. All these yield a contradiction: Ξ l(q) dist ( ) Q,E\Q x y +dist ( ) y,e\q diam(q i )+τl(q) < Ξ l(q). Consequently, by the doubling property, µ(q) µ(2 Q ) C µµ( Q ) C µµ(r,2 ).

18 8 M. AKMAN, S. HOFMANN, J. M. MARTE, AND T. TORO Since R, and R,2 are disjoint, the latter estimate yields ( µ(r, ) ) µ(q) =: θµ(q), C µ where we note that < θ <. et us now repeat this procedure, decomposing Q i for each Q i D,. We set D 2 (Q i) = D Q i D k+2m and split it into D 2, (Q i) and D 2,2 (Q i) where Q D 2, (Q i) if Q meets Σ τ. Associated to any Q D 2, (Q i ) we set (Q ) = (Q Q i ) ( Q ( Q Q i )). Then we make these sets disjoint as before and we have that R2, (Q i ) is defined as the disjoint union of the corresponding Q. Note that Q i = R 2, (Q i ) R2,2 (Q i ) and this is a disjoint union. As before, R 2, (Q i) misses Q i provided τ < 2 m Ξ /2 so that by the doubling property µ( Q i ) µ(2 Q i ) C µ µ( Q i ) C µ µ(r2,2 (Q i )) and then µ(r 2, (Q i)) θµ( Q i). Next we set R 2, and R 2,2 as the union of the corresponding R 2, (Q i) and R 2,2 (Q i) with Q i D,. Then, ( ) µ(r 2, ) := µ R 2, (Q i ) = ( R 2, (Q i )) Q i D, Q i D, µ θ Q i D, µ( Q i ) = θµ(r, ) θ 2 µ(q). Iterating this procedure we obtain that for every k =,,..., if τ < 2 km Ξ /2 then µ(r k+, ) θ k+ µ(q). et us see that this leads to the desired estimates. Fix τ < Ξ /2 and find k such that 2 (k+)m Ξ /2 τ < 2 km Ξ /2. By construction Σ τ R k+, and then µ(σ τ ) µ(r k+, ) θ k+ µ(q) (2Ξ) log 2 θ m which easily gives (2.3) with C = (2Ξ) log 2 θ m note that Q also Σ 2 (j+) Σ 2 j. Thus clearly, yielding that µ( Q) =. j:2 j <Ξ /2 τ log 2 θ m µ(q), and η = log 2 θ. On the other hand, m Σ 2 j, µ( Q) lim j µ(σ 2 j) lim j C 2 jη µ(q) =, Remark Notice that the previous argument is local in the sense that if we just want to obtain the desired estimates for a fixed Q we would only need to assume that µ is doubling in 2 Q. Indeed we would just need to know that µ( (x,2r)) C µ ( (x,r)) for every x Q and < r < Ξl(Q ), and the involved constants in the

19 PERTURBATION OF EIPTIC OPERATORS 9 resulting estimates will depend only on dimension and C µ. Further details are left to the interested reader Sawtooth domains. In the sequel, Ω R n+ (n 2) will be a -sided NTA domain satisfying the CDC. Write D = D() for the dyadic grid obtained from emma 2.26 with E =. In Remark 2.6 below we shall show that under the presentassumptionsonehasthatdiam( ) r foreverysurfaceball. Inparticular diam(q) l(q) for every Q D in view of (2.27). Given Q D we define the corkscrew point relative to Q as X Q := X Q. We note that δ(x Q ) dist(x Q,Q) diam(q). Much as we did in Section 2.3, given Q D and F a possibly empty family of pairwise disjoint dyadic cubes, we can define D Q, the discretized Carleson region ; D F, the global discretized sawtooth relative to F; and D F,Q, the local discretized sawtooth relative to F. Notice that if F to be the null set in which case D Ø = D and D Ø,Q = D Q. We also introduce the geometric Carleson regions and sawtooths. Given Q D we want to define some associated regions which inherit the good properties of Ω. et W = W(Ω) denote a collection of (closed) dyadic Whitney cubes of Ω R n+, so that the cubes in W form a covering of Ω with non-overlapping interiors, and satisfy (2.33) 4diam(I) dist(4i,) dist(i,) 4diam(I), I W, and diam(i ) diam(i 2 ), whenever I and I 2 touch. et X(I) denote the center of I, let l(i) denote the side length of I, and write k = k I if l(i) = 2 k. Given < λ < and I W we write I = (+λ)i for the fattening of I. By taking λ small enough, we can arrange matters, so that, first, dist(i,j ) dist(i,j) for every I,J W. Secondly, I meets J if and only if I meets J (the fattening thus ensures overlap of I and J for any pair I,J W whose boundaries touch, so that the Harnack Chain property then holds locally in I J, with constants depending upon λ). By picking λ sufficiently small, say < λ < λ, we may also suppose that there is τ (,) such that for distinct I,J W, we have that τj 2 I = Ø. In what follows we will need to work with dilations I = ( + 2λ)I or I = ( + 4λ)I, and in order to ensure that the same properties hold we further assume that < λ < λ /4. For every Q D we can construct a family WQ W(Ω), and define U Q := I, I W Q

20 2 M. AKMAN, S. HOFMANN, J. M. MARTE, AND T. TORO satisfying the following properties: X Q U Q and there are uniform constants k and K such that (2.34) k(q) k k I k(q)+k, I W Q, X(I) UQ X Q, I W Q, dist(i,q) K 2 k(q), I W Q. Here, X(I) UQ X Q means that the interior of U Q contains all balls in a Harnack Chain (in Ω) connecting X(I) to X Q, and moreover, for any point Z contained in any ball in the Harnack Chain, we have dist(z,) dist(z,ω\u Q ) with uniform control of the implicit constants. The constants k,k and the implicit constants in the condition X(I) UQ X Q, depend on at most allowable parameters and on λ. Moreover, given I W(Ω) we have that I W Q I, where Q I D satisfies l(q I ) = l(i), and contains any fixed ŷ such that dist(i,) = dist(i,ŷ). The reader is referred to [23, 24] for full details. For a given Q D, the Carleson box relative to Q is defined by ( ) T Q := int. Q D Q U Q For a given family F = {Q i } D of pairwise disjoint cubes and a given Q D, we define the local sawtooth region relative to F by ( ) ( ) (2.35) Ω F,Q = int = int, Q D F,Q U Q I W F,Q I where W F,Q := Q D F,Q WQ. Notice that in the previous definition we may allow F to be empty in which case clearly Ω Ø,Q = T Q. Similarly, the global sawtooth region relative to F is defined as ( ) ( ) (2.36) Ω F = int = int I, I W F Q D F U Q where W F := Q D F W Q. If F is the empty set clearly Ω Ø = Ω. Analogously, we can slightly fatten the Whitney boxes and use I to define new fattened Whitney regions and sawtooth domains. More precisely, for every Q D, ( ) ( ) TQ := int, Ω F,Q := int, UQ := I. Q D Q U Q Q D F,Q U Q I W Q Similarly, we can define TQ, Ω F,Q and U Q by using I in place of I. To define the Carleson box T associated with a surface ball = (x,r), let k( ) denote the unique k Z such that 2 k < 2r 2 k, and set (2.37) D := { Q D k( ) : Q 2 Ø }.

21 PERTURBATION OF EIPTIC OPERATORS 2 We then define ( (2.38) T := int Q D T Q We can also consider fattened versions of T given by ( ) ( ) T := int TQ, T := int TQ. Q D Q D Following [23, 24], one can easily see that there exist constants < κ < and κ 6Ξ(withΞtheconstantin(2.27)), dependingonlyontheallowableparameters, so that (2.39) (2.4) 5 and also ). κ B Q Ω T Q T Q T Q T Q κ B Q Ω =: 2 B Q Ω, 4 B Ω T T T T κ B Ω =: 2 B Ω, (2.4) Q κ B = 2 B =: 2, Q D, where B Q is defined as in (2.28), = (x,r) with x, < r < diam(), and B = B(x,r) is so that = B. From our choice of the parameters one also has that B Q B Q whenever Q Q. IntheremainderofthissectionweshowthatifΩisa-sidedNTAdomainsatisfying the CDC then Carleson boxes and local and global sawtooth domains are also -sided NTA domains satisfying the CDC. We next present some of the properties of the capacity which will be used in our proofs. From the definition of capacity one can easily see that given a ball B and compact sets F F 2 B then (2.42) Cap 2 (F,2B) Cap 2 (F 2,2B). Also, given two balls B B 2 and a compact set F B then (2.43) Cap 2 (F,2B 2 ) Cap 2 (F,2B ). On the other hand, [8, emma 2.6] gives that if F is a compact with F B then there is a dimensional constant C n such that (2.44) C n Cap 2 (F,2B) Cap 2 (F,4B) Cap 2 (F,2B). emma et Ω R n+ be a -sided NTA domain satisfying the CDC. Then all of its Carleson boxes T Q and T, and sawtooth regions Ω F, and Ω F,Q are -sided NTA domains and satisfy the CDC with uniform implicit constants depending only on dimension and on the corresponding constants for Ω. Proof. A careful examination of the proofs in [23, Appendices A.-A.2] reveals that if Ω is a -sided NTA domain then all Carleson boxes T Q and T, and local and global sawtooth domains Ω F,Q and Ω F inherit the interior Corkscrew and Harnack chain

22 22 M. AKMAN, S. HOFMANN, J. M. MARTE, AND T. TORO conditions, hence they are also -sided NTA domains. Therefore, we only need to prove the CDC. We are going to consider only the case Ω F,Q (which in particular gives the desired property for T Q by allowing F to be the null set). The other proofs require minimal changes which are left to the interested reader. Fix then Q D and F D Q a (possibly empty) family of pairwise disjoint dyadic cubes. et x F,Q and < r < diam(ω F,Q ) l(q). Case : δ(x) =. In that case we have that x and we can use that Ω satisfies the CDC with constant c, (2.42) and the fact that Ω F,Q Ω to obtain the desired estimate c r n Cap 2 (B(x,r)\Ω,B(x,2r)) Cap 2 (B(x,r)\Ω F,Q,B(x,2r)). Case 2: < δ(x) < r/m with M large enough to be chosen. In this case x Ω F,Q and hence there exist Q D F,Q and I W Q such that x I. Notice that by (2.34) x x Q diam(i )+dist(i,q )+diam(q ) l(q ) l(i) δ(x) < r M. et Q D Q be such that x Q Q and r 2M l(q ) < r < l(q) provided that M M is taken large enough. If Z B Q then taking M large enough Z x Z x Q + x Q x Q + x Q x l(q )+ r M r M < r andb Q B(x,r). Ontheotherhand, ifz B(x,2r), weanalogouslyhaveprovided M is large enough Z x Q Z x + x x Q + x Q x Q < 2r+C r M +Ξr Q < 6MΞr Q and thus B(x,2r) 6MΞB Q. Once M has been fixed so that the previous estimates hold, we use them in conjunction with the fact that Ω satisfies the CDC with constant c, (2.42) (2.44), and that Ω F,Q Ω to obtain c (2MΞ) n rn c r n Q Cap 2 (B Q \Ω,2B Q ) Cap 2 (B Q \Ω,6MΞB Q ) Cap 2 (B Q \Ω,B(x,2r)) Cap 2 (B(x,r)\Ω F,Q,B(x,2r)), which gives us the desired lower bound in the present case. T Q T Q Q x Q x B Q Figure. Case and Case 2 for T Q.

23 PERTURBATION OF EIPTIC OPERATORS 23 Case 3: δ(x) > r/m. Inthiscasex Ω F,Q andhencethereexistsq D F,Q and I WQ such that x I and int(i ) Ω F,Q. Also there exists J W, with J x such that J / WQ for any Q D F,Q which implies that τj Ω \ Ω F,Q for some τ (,) (see Section 2.5). Notice that l(i) l(j) δ(x) r, and more precisely 2 r/m < δ(x) < 4diam(J) by (2.33). et B = B(x,s) with s = r/(3m) and x being the point in the segment joining x and the center of J at distance 2s from x. It is easy to see that B B(x,r) B(x,2r) MB and also B int(j)\ω F,Q. We can then use (2.2) and (2.42) (2.44) to obtain the desired estimate: (3M) n rn = s n Cap 2 (B,2B ) Cap 2 (B,MB ) Cap 2 (B,B(x,2r)) Cap 2 (B(x,r)\Ω F,Q,B(x,2r)). B x Q T Q Figure 2. Case 3 for T Q. Collecting the 3 cases and using (2.2) we have been able to show that (2.46) Cap 2 (B(x,r)\Ω F,Q,B(x,2r)), x F,Q, < r < diam(ω F,Q ), Cap 2 (B(x,r),B(x,2r)) which eventually gives that Ω F,Q satisfies the CDC. This completes the proof PDE estimates. Next, we recall several facts concerning elliptic measure and Green functions. To set the stage let Ω R n+ be an open set. Throughout we consider ellipticoperatorsoftheformu = div(a u)witha(x) = (a i,j (X)) n+ i,j= being a real symmetric matrix such that a i,j (Ω) and there exists Λ such that the following uniform ellipticity condition holds (2.47) Λ ξ 2 A(X)ξ ξ Λ ξ 2 for every ξ R n+ and X Ω. We say that u is a weak solution to u = in Ω provided that u W,2 loc (Ω) satisfies A(X) u(x) φ(x)dx = whenever φ C (Ω). Associated with one can construct an elliptic measure {ω X } X Ω and a Green function G (see [24] for full details). Sometimes, in order to emphasize the dependence

24 24 M. AKMAN, S. HOFMANN, J. M. MARTE, AND T. TORO on Ω, we will write ω,ω and G,Ω. If Ω satisfies the CDC then it follows that all boundary points are Wiener regular and hence for a given f C c () we can define u(x) = f(z)dω X (z) whenever X Ω so that u W,2 loc (Ω) C(Ω) satisfying u = f on and u = in the weak sense. Moreover, if f ip(ω) then u W,2 (Ω). The proofs of the following two lemmas may be found in [24]. emma Suppose that Ω R n+ is an open set satisfying the CDC. Given a real symmetric elliptic operator = div(a ), there exist C > (depending only on dimension and on the ellipticity constant of ) and c θ > (depending on the above parameters and on θ (,)) such that G, the Green function associated with, satisfies (2.49) G (X,Y) C X Y n ; (2.5) c θ X Y n G (X,Y), if X Y θδ(x), θ (,); (2.5) (2.52) (2.53) G (X, ) C ( Ω\{X} ) and G(X, ) X Ω; G (X,Y), X,Y Ω, X Y; G (X,Y) = G (Y,X), X,Y Ω, X Y; and for every ϕ Cc (R n+ ) we have that ϕdω X ϕ(x) = A(Y) Y G (Y,X) ϕ(y)dy, for a.e. X Ω. Ω Remark If we also assume that Ω is bounded, following [24] we know that the Green function G coincides with the one constructed in [7]. Consequently, for each X Ω and < r < δ(x), there holds (2.55) G (X, ) W,2 (Ω\B(X,r)) W, (Ω). Moreover, for every ϕ Cc (Ω) such that ϕ and ϕ in B(X,r) with < r < δ(x), we have that (2.56) ( ϕ)g (X, ) W,2 (Ω). The following result lists a number of properties which will be used throughout the paper: emma Suppose that Ω R n+ is a -sided NTA domain satisfying the CDC. et = div(a ) and = div(a ) be two real symmetric elliptic operators, there exist C (depending onlyon dimension, the -sided NTA constants, the CDC constant, and the ellipticity of ) and C 2 (depending on the same parameters