Quasiconformal extension fields (Q635766): Difference between revisions

From the introduction: A continuous mapping \(f:\mathbb R^n\setminus A\to\mathbb R^n\), where \(A\) is an open annulus in \(\mathbb R^n\), can be extended, by classical methods, to a continuous mapping \(f:\mathbb R^n\to \mathbb R^n\). Although orientation preserving mappings do not need to admit an orientation preserving extension in general, for homeomorphisms this extension problem has a solution in the form of the annulus theorem. In the quasiconformal category, the annulus theorem is due to Sullivan and it states that given a quasiconformal embedding \(f :\mathbb R^n\setminus A\to\mathbb R^n\), where \(A\) is an annulus, there exists a quasiconformal mapping \(\bar f:\mathbb R^n\to\mathbb R^n\) so that \(\bar f|_{\mathbb R^n\setminus A'} =f\), where \(A\subset\text{int}A'\); the distortion of the extension is quantitatively controlled. A simple consequence of the annulus theorem is that a mapping \(f: \mathbb R^n\setminus A\to\mathbb R^n\), that is quasiconformal embedding in the components of \(\mathbb R^n \setminus A\), can be extended to a quasiconformal mapping \(\mathbb R^n\to\mathbb R^n\) if we are allowed to precompose \(f\) with a Euclidean similarity in one of the components of \(\mathbb R^n\setminus A\). For more general non-injective mappings of quasiconformal type, i.e., for quasi\-re\-gu\-lar mappings, extension results of this type are not known. In this article, the authors discuss quantitative estimates, in terms of the degree, for the non-existence of extensions. If we focus on matrix fields instead of the differential fields of mappings, it is easy to see that the extension problem admits an orientation preserving solution in the sense that the differential of an orientation preserving \(C^1\)-mapping \(f: \mathbb R^n\setminus A\to \mathbb R^n\) admits an extension to a continuous matrix field \(M\) on \(\mathbb R^n\) having non-negative determinant. This matrix field is not, in general, a differential field of a mapping, but one can obtain a \(C^1\)-mapping \(f:\mathbb R^n\to \mathbb R^n\), by using e.g. a Poincaré homotopy operator, so that \(\tilde f - f\) has bounded image. Then the difference \(M - D\tilde f\) can be viewed to measure the non-exactness of the extension field \(M\). The authors estimate the non-exactness of extensions for differential fields in the context of quasiconformal geometry, i.e., they consider matrix fields satisfying the quasiconformality condition \[ |M(x)|^n\leq K\det M(x)\quad \text{a.e. in}\,\, A, \tag{1} \] where \(|M(x)|\) is the operator norm of the matrix \(M(x)\). The main theorem of the paper gives a quantitative estimate for the non-exactness of the extension in terms of the degree information on the underlying mappings. Let \(B^n(r)\) be a Euclidean ball of radius \(r > 0\) about the origin. Denote \(A(r, R) = B^n(R)\setminus\bar B^n(r)\) for \(0 < r < R\). Consider 1-forms and 1-(co)frames instead of vectors and matrix fields. We say that an \(n\)-tuple \(\rho = (\rho_1,\dots, \rho_n)\) of measurable 1-forms on a domain \(\Omega\) is a measurable frame. Moreover, for \(p \geq 1\) and \(q \geq 1\), we say that \(\rho\) is a \(W_{p,q}\)-frame if \(\rho_i\in L^p(\bigwedge^1 \Omega)\) and \(d\rho_i\in L^q(\bigwedge^2\Omega)\) for every \(i = 1,\dots, n\). The local space \(W^{\text{loc}}_{p,q}\) of frames is defined similarly. A frame \(\rho\) is said to be \(K\)-quasiconformal in \(A(r, R)\) if \[ |\rho|^n\leq K\star(\rho_1\wedge\cdots\wedge\rho_n)\quad \text{a.e. in}\,\, A(r, R), \tag{2} \] where \(|\rho|\) is the operator norm of \(\rho\). After the natural identification of frames and matrix fields, the two conditions (1) and (2) coincide. Let \(0 < r < R\), and let \(\rho_0\) and \(\rho_1\) be frames defined on \(B^n(r)\) and \(\mathbb R^n\setminus \bar B^n(R)\), respectively. We say that a frame \(\rho\) \(K\)-quasiconformally connects \(\rho_0\) and \(\rho_1\) in \(A(r, R)\) if \(\rho\) is \(K\)-quasiconformal in \(A(r, R)\) and satisfies \(\rho|B^n(r) =\rho_0|B^n(r)\) and \(\rho|(\mathbb R^n\setminus\bar B^n(R)) =\rho_1\). In the main theorem the authors assume that \(\rho_0\) and \(\rho_1\) are (the restrictions of) \(df_0\) and \(dx\), respectively, where \(f_0: \mathbb R^n\to\mathbb R^n\) is a continuous \(W^{1,n}_{\text{loc}}\)-mapping and \(dx\) is the standard frame \(dx=(dx_1,\dots, dx_n)\). \textbf{Theorem 1} Let \(f_0\in W^{1,n}_{\text{loc}}(\mathbb R^n, \mathbb R^n)\) be a continuous mapping, \(0 < r < \infty\), \(p > n\), and \(n\geq 3\). Suppose that a \(W_{p,n/2}^{\text{loc}}\)-frame \(\rho\) \(K\)-quasiconformally connects \(df_0\) and \(dx\) in \(A(r/2, r)\). Then \[ \int_{\mathbb R^n}\max\{\text{deg}(y, f_0, B^n(r/2)) - 1, 0\}\, dy\leq C\| d\rho\|^n_{n/2}, \tag{3} \] where \(C = C(n, K) > 0\). Similar results also hold in the plane, but with the \(L^{n/2}\)-norm replaced by other norms. We would like to emphasize the role of the degree in Theorem 1 as a global obstruction for the boundary value problem related to the equation \(df =\rho\). This is different in nature from the obstructions that arise in the literature on approximative local solutions. The estimate (3) can be interpreted as a lower bound for the minimal energy of the extension frame. For the statement of the next result, let \(A\) be an open annulus in \(\mathbb R^n\). Given \(W_{n,q}^{\text{loc}}\) -frames \(\rho_0\) and \(\rho_1\) in \(\mathbb R^n\), denote by \(\mathcal E_{q,K} (\rho_0 ,\rho_1; A)\) the set of \(W_{n,q}^{\text{loc}}\)-frames \(\rho\) \(K\)-quasiconformally connecting \(\rho_0\) and \(\rho_1\) in \(A\). \textbf{Theorem 2} Let \(q > n/2\), \(n \geq 2\), \(A\) an annulus in \(\mathbb R^n\), and let \(\rho_0\) and \(\rho_1\) be \(K\)-quasiconformal \(W_{n,q}^{\text{loc}}\) -frames in \(\mathbb R^n\) that can be \(K\)-quasiconformally connected in \(A\). Then there exists a \(W_{n,q}^{\text{loc}}\)-frame \(\rho\in \mathcal E_{q,K} (\rho_0 ,\rho_1; A)\) so that \[ \int_A|d\rho|^q_2 =\inf_{\rho'} \int_A|d\rho'|_2^q, \] where the infimum is taken over \(\rho'\in\mathcal E_{q,K} (\rho_0 ,\rho_1; A)\), and the norm \(|\cdot|_2\) is the Hilbert-Schmidt norm in \(\bigwedge^2\mathbb R^n\). Moreover, there exists \(p = p(n,K) > n\) so that \(\rho\in L_{\text{loc}}^p(\bigwedge^1 A)\). The authors discuss the \(L^p\)-Poincaré homotopy operator \(T\) of Iwaniec and Lutoborski. This operator plays a crucial role in both of the theorems by providing a Sobolev-Poincaré inequality for \(W_{p,q}\)-frames. The interplay between degree of the potential \(T\rho\) and the energy of \(\rho\) is then discussed. A continuity estimate for \(T\rho\) is proven. The variational problem for the energy is also considered.