1
$\begingroup$

I consider an analytic bounded domain $\Omega\subset \mathbb R^3$ and an the operator $L_a=-\Delta +a$ where $a$ is a function from $\Omega$ to $\mathbb R$. I assume the operator to be coercive, in particular there exists a Green function $G_a :\Omega\times \Omega \setminus D \rightarrow \mathbb R$ symmetric such that $$ L_a G_a(x,y)= \delta_y \text{ on } \Omega,$$ and $$G_a(x,y)=0 \text{ on } \partial \Omega,$$ where $D=\{ (x,x) \,\vert\, x \in \Omega \}$. I can write $$G_a(x,y)= \frac{c}{\vert x-y\vert} + H_a(x,y),$$ where $H_a \in L^\infty( \Omega \times \Omega, \mathbb R)$. We use to call $\rho_a(x)= H_a(x,x)$ the Robin function.

My question is, if $a$ analytic, is $\rho_a$ analytic ?

First it has to be noticed, it is false for $H_a$, since it is not hard to prove that locally $H(x,y)=d +d'\vert x-y\vert +...$.

But it is true for $\rho_a$ when $a$ is constant. The idea is quite simple, we first build a solution $S_a$ of $$ L_a S_a =-\frac{ac}{\vert x-y\vert}$$ by setting $$S_0(x,y)=\frac{ac \vert x-y\vert}{2}$$ which solves $$ -\Delta S_ 0 =-\frac{ac}{\vert x-y\vert}$$ then $$ -\Delta S_{n+1}= -ac S_n$$ it is not hard to show that $S_a =\sum_{n=0}^\infty S_n$ converges and solves the desired equations. Moreover $S_a(x,y)= \sum_{n=0}^\infty c_n \vert x-y \vert^{1+2n}$ is such that $S_a(x,y)$ is symmetric and $S_a(x,x)=0$. Hence $F_a = H_a -S_a$ solves $$L_a F_a =0$$ Hence it is analytic in $x$ in the interior( we just need $a$ analytic here) and symmetric in $x$ and $y$( because $H_a$ and $S_a$ are), hence $\rho_a(x)=F_a(x,x)$ is analytic.

The argument work well, since when $a$ is constant, we can almost explicitly solves

$$ L_aS_a =-\frac{ac}{\vert x-y\vert}$$

What we only need in the general case is to find any symmetric solution in $x$ and $y$ which vanishes on the diagonal. The end of the proof should work the same.

Despite the problem of the regularity of the Robin function seems quite natural, I found only few references... any idea or reference is welcome.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ when you try with the very same S_0, in the non constant case, why is the extra term bad? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 22, 2022 at 20:48
  • $\begingroup$ in this case $a(x)$ depends on $x$ so $S_0$ is no more a solution, moreover it is not symmetric in $x$ and $y$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 23, 2022 at 11:59

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.