Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-5mhkq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-28T18:47:31.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A universal inequality for Neumann eigenvalues of the Laplacian on a convex domain in Euclidean space

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2023

Kei Funano*
Affiliation:
Division of Mathematics and Research Center for Pure and Applied Mathematics, Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku University, 6-3-09 Aramaki-Aza-Aoba, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8579, Japan
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We obtain a new upper bound for Neumann eigenvalues of the Laplacian on a bounded convex domain in Euclidean space. As an application of the upper bound, we derive universal inequalities for Neumann eigenvalues of the Laplacian.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Canadian Mathematical Society

1 Introduction

The purpose of this article is to give a new upper bound for Neumann eigenvalues of the Laplacian on a bounded convex domain in Euclidean space and a universal inequality for Neumann eigenvalues of the Laplacian.

Let $\Omega $ be a bounded domain in Euclidean space with piecewise smooth boundary. We denote by $\lambda _k(\Omega )$ the kth positive Neumann eigenvalues of the Laplacian on $\Omega $ . For a finite sequence $\{A_{\alpha }\}_{\alpha =0}^k$ of Borel subsets of $\Omega $ , we set

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal{D}(\{A_{\alpha}\}):=\min_{\alpha \neq \beta} d(A_{\alpha},A_{\beta}), \end{align*} $$

where $d(A_{\alpha },A_{\beta }):=\inf \{d(x,y) \mid x\in A_{\alpha },y\in A_{\beta }\}$ and d is the Euclidean distance function.

Throughout this paper, we write $\alpha \lesssim \beta $ if $\alpha \leq c\beta $ for some universal concrete constant $c>0$ (which means c does not depend on any parameters such as dimension and k, etc.).

One of the main theorems in this paper is as follows.

Theorem 1.1 Let $\Omega $ be a bounded convex domain in $\mathbb {R}^n$ with piecewise smooth boundary, and let $\{A_{\alpha }\}_{\alpha =0}^k$ be a sequence of Borel subsets of $\Omega $ . Then we have

(1.1) $$ \begin{align} \lambda_k(\Omega)\lesssim \frac{n^2}{(\mathcal{D}(\{A_{\alpha}\})\log (k+1))^2}\max_{\alpha=0,\ldots,k} \Big(\log \frac{\operatorname{vol}(\Omega)}{\operatorname{vol}(A_{\alpha})}\Big)^2. \end{align} $$

Remark 1.1 The above theorem also holds for Neumann eigenvalues of the Laplacian on bounded convex domains in a manifold of nonnegative Ricci curvature. The proof only uses Lemma 3.1, which follows from the Bishop–Gromov inequality.

In [Reference Chung, Grigor’yan and Yau3, Reference Chung, Grigor’yan and Yau4], Chung, Grigory’an, and Yau obtained

$$ \begin{align*} \lambda_k(\Omega)\lesssim \frac{1}{\mathcal{D}(\{A_{\alpha}\})^2}\max_{\alpha=0,\ldots,k} \Big(\log \frac{\operatorname{vol}(\Omega)}{\operatorname{vol}(A_{\alpha})}\Big)^2 \end{align*} $$

for a bounded (not necessarily convex) domain $\Omega $ and its Borel subsets $\{A_{\alpha }\}$ (see also [Reference Funano and Sakurai9, Reference Gozlan and Herry10]). Compared to their inequality, the inequality (1.1) is better for large k if we fix n. Their inequality is better for large n if we fix k. Theorem 1.1 also gives an answer to Question 5.1 in [Reference Funano6] up to $n^2$ factor.

As an application of Theorem 1.1, we obtain the following universal inequality for Neumann eigenvalues of the Laplacian.

Theorem 1.2 Let $\Omega $ be a bounded convex domain in $\mathbb {R}^n$ with piecewise smooth boundary. Then we have

(1.2) $$ \begin{align} \lambda_{k+1}(\Omega)\lesssim n^4 \lambda_k(\Omega). \end{align} $$

Related with (1.2), the author conjectured in [Reference Funano5, Reference Funano7] that

$$ \begin{align*} \lambda_{k+1}(\Omega)\lesssim \lambda_k(\Omega) \end{align*} $$

holds under the same assumption of Theorem 1.2. In [Reference Funano6, equation (1.3)], the author proved that

$$ \begin{align*} \lambda_{k+1}(\Omega)\lesssim (n\log k)^2\lambda_k(\Omega) \end{align*} $$

for a bounded convex domain $\Omega $ . The inequality (1.2) avoids the dependence of k for the upper bound of the ratios $\lambda _{k+1}(\Omega )/\lambda _k(\Omega )$ and gives a better inequality if $\log k \geq n$ . In [Reference Funano5, Reference Funano7], the author proved a dimension-free universal inequality $\lambda _k(\Omega )\lesssim c^k \lambda _1(\Omega )$ for a bounded convex domain in $\mathbb {R}^n$ and for some universal constant $c>1$ . In [Reference Liu13, Theorem 1.5], Liu showed an optimal universal inequality $\lambda _k(\Omega )\lesssim k^2\lambda _1(\Omega )$ under the same assumption. Thus, $n^2$ factor is not needed for small k (e.g., $k=2,3$ ) in (1.2). As mentioned in [Reference Funano6, equation (1.5)] combining Milman’s result [Reference Milman14] with Cheng and Li’s result [Reference Cheng and Li2], one can obtain $\lambda _k(\Omega )\gtrsim k^{2/n}\lambda _1(\Omega )$ under the same assumption. Together with Liu’s inequality, this shows

$$ \begin{align*} \lambda_{k+1}(\Omega)\lesssim k^{2-2/n}\lambda_k(\Omega). \end{align*} $$

The inequality (1.2) is better than this inequality for large k if we fix n. This inequality is better for large n if we fix k.

2 Preliminaries

We collect several results to use in the proof of our theorems.

Proposition 2.1 [Reference Buser1, Theorem 8.2.1]

Let $\Omega $ be a bounded domain in a Euclidean space with piecewise smooth boundary, and let $\{\Omega _{\alpha }\}_{\alpha =0}^{l}$ be a finite partition of $\Omega $ by subdomains in the sense that $\operatorname {vol} (\Omega _\alpha \cap \Omega _{\beta })=0$ for each different $\alpha ,\beta $ . Then we have

$$ \begin{align*} \lambda_{l+1}(\Omega)\geq \min_{\alpha}\lambda_1(\Omega_{\alpha}).\\[-18pt] \end{align*} $$

Refer to [Reference Gromov11, Appendix ${C}_{+}$ ] for a weak form of the above proposition.

Theorem 2.2 [Reference Payne and Weinberger15, equation $(1.2)$ ]

Let $\Omega $ be a bounded convex domain in a Euclidean space with piecewise smooth boundary. Then we have

$$ \begin{align*} \lambda_1(\Omega)\geq \frac{\pi^2}{\operatorname{Diam} (\Omega)^2}. \end{align*} $$

Combining Proposition 2.1 with Theorem 2.2 in order to give a “good” lower bound for Neumann eigenvalues of the Laplacian, it is enough to provide a “good” finite convex partition of the domain.

For an upper bound of Neumann eigenvalues, we mention the following theorem.

Theorem 2.3 [Reference Kröger12, Theorem 1.1]

Let $\Omega $ be a bounded convex domain in $\mathbb {R}^n$ with piecewise smooth boundary. For any natural number k, we have

$$ \begin{align*} \lambda_k(\Omega)\lesssim \frac{n^2k^2}{\operatorname{Diam} (\Omega)^2}. \end{align*} $$

In order to construct a “good” partition, we recall a Voronoi partition of a metric space. Let X be a metric space, and let $\{x_{\alpha }\}_{\alpha \in I}$ be a subset of X. For each $\alpha \in I$ , we define the Voronoi cell $C_{\alpha }$ associated with the point $x_{\alpha }$ as

$$ \begin{align*} C_{\alpha}:= \{x\in X \mid d(x,x_{\alpha})\leq d(x,x_{\beta}) \text{ for all }\beta\neq \alpha \}. \end{align*} $$

If X is a bounded convex domain $\Omega $ in a Euclidean space, then $\{C_{\alpha }\}_{\alpha \in I}$ is a convex partition of $\Omega $ (the boundaries $\partial C_{\alpha }$ may overlap each other). Observe also that if the balls $\{ B(x_{\alpha },r)\}_{\alpha \in I}$ of radius r cover $\Omega $ , then $C_{\alpha } \subseteq B(x_{\alpha },r)$ , and thus $\operatorname {Diam} (C_{\alpha } )\leq 2r$ for any $\alpha \in I$ .

3 Proof of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2

We use the following key lemma to prove Theorem 1.1.

Lemma 3.1 [Reference Funano8, Lemma 3.1]

Let $\Omega $ be a bounded convex domain in $\mathbb {R}^n$ with a piecewise smooth boundary. Given $r>0$ , suppose that $\{x_{\alpha }\}_{\alpha =0}^{l}$ is r-separated points in $\Omega $ , i.e., $d(x_{\alpha },x_{\beta })\geq r$ for distinct $\alpha $ , $\beta $ . Then we have

$$ \begin{align*} r\lesssim \frac{n}{\sqrt{\lambda_l(\Omega)}}. \end{align*} $$

Proof of Theorem 1.1

Suppose that there is a sequence $\{ A_{\alpha }\}_{\alpha =0}^{k}$ of Borel subsets such that

$$ \begin{align*} \lambda_k(\Omega)\geq \frac{c n^2}{(\mathcal{D}(\{A_{\alpha}\})\log (k+1))^2}\max_{\alpha=0,\ldots,k} \Big(\log \frac{\operatorname{vol} (\Omega)}{\operatorname{vol}(A_{\alpha})}\Big)^2 \end{align*} $$

for sufficiently large $c>0$ . Since $(k+1)\operatorname {vol}(A_{\alpha })\leq \operatorname {vol}(\Omega )$ for some $\alpha $ , we have

(3.1) $$ \begin{align} \mathcal{D}(\{A_{\alpha}\})\geq \frac{c n}{\sqrt{\lambda_k(\Omega)}}=:r_0. \end{align} $$

For each $\alpha $ , we fix a point $x_{\alpha }\in A_{\alpha }$ . The sequence $\{x_{\alpha }\}_{\alpha =0}^{k}$ is then $r_0$ -separated in $\Omega $ by (3.1). By virtue of Lemma 3.1, we get

$$ \begin{align*} \frac{c n}{\sqrt{\lambda_k(\Omega)}}= r_0 \lesssim \frac{n}{\sqrt{\lambda_k(\Omega)}}. \end{align*} $$

For sufficiently large c, this is a contradiction. This completes the proof of the theorem.

We can reduce the number of $\{A_{\alpha }\}$ in Theorem 1.1 as follows.

Lemma 3.2 Let $\Omega $ be a convex domain in $\mathbb {R}^n$ , and let $\{A_{\alpha }\}_{\alpha =0}^{k-1}$ be a sequence of Borel subsets of $\Omega $ . Then we have

$$ \begin{align*} \lambda_k(\Omega)\lesssim \frac{n^2}{(\mathcal{D}(\{A_{\alpha}\})\log (k+1))^2}\max_{\alpha=0,\ldots,k-1} \Big(\log \frac{\operatorname{vol}(\Omega)}{\operatorname{vol}(A_{\alpha})}\Big)^2. \end{align*} $$

The above lemma follows from Theorem 1.1 and [Reference Funano7, Theorem 3.4].

To prove Theorem 1.2, let us recall the Bishop–Gromov inequality in Riemannian geometry. See [Reference Funano8, Lemma 3.4] for the proof in the case of convex domains in $\mathbb {R}^n$ .

Lemma 3.3 (Bishop–Gromov inequality)

Let $\Omega $ be a convex domain in $\mathbb {R}^n$ . Then, for any $x\in \Omega $ and any $R>r>0$ , we have

$$ \begin{align*} \frac{ \operatorname{vol} (B(x,r)\cap \Omega)}{\operatorname{vol} (B(x,R)\cap \Omega)}\geq \Big(\frac{r}{R}\Big)^n. \end{align*} $$

In the proof of Theorem 1.2, we make use of a similar argument as in [Reference Funano6, Theorem 1.3].

Proof of Theorem 1.2

Let $R:=cn^2/\sqrt {\lambda _{k+1}(\Omega )}$ , where c is a positive number specified later. Suppose that $\Omega $ includes $k+1\ R$ -separated net $\{x_{\alpha }\}_{\alpha =0}^{k}$ in $\Omega $ . By Theorem 2.3, we have $\operatorname {Diam} (\Omega ) \leq c'n(k+1)/\sqrt {\lambda _{k+1}(\Omega )}$ for some universal constant $c'>0$ . Applying the Bishop–Gromov inequality, we have

$$ \begin{align*} \frac{\operatorname{vol}(B(x_{\alpha},R)\cap \Omega)}{\operatorname{vol}(\Omega)}\geq \frac{R^n}{(\operatorname{Diam} \Omega)^n}\geq \Big(\frac{c}{c'(k+1)}\Big)^n\geq \frac{1}{(k+1)^n} \end{align*} $$

for $c>c'$ . By Lemma 3.2, we obtain

$$ \begin{align*} \lambda_{k+1}(\Omega)\lesssim \frac{n^2(\log (k+1)^n)^2}{(\mathcal{D}(\{B(x_{\alpha},R)\cap \Omega\})\log (k+2))^2}\lesssim \frac{n^4}{R^2}=\frac{1}{c}\lambda_{k+1}(\Omega). \end{align*} $$

For sufficiently large c, this is a contradiction.

Let $x_0, x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_l$ be maximal R-separated points in $\Omega $ , where $l\leq k-1$ . By the maximality, we have $\Omega \subseteq \bigcup _{\alpha =0}^{l} B(x_{\alpha },R)$ . If $\{ \Omega _{\alpha } \}_{\alpha =0}^{l}$ is the Voronoi partition of $\Omega $ associated with $\{x_{\alpha }\}$ , then we have $\operatorname {Diam} (\Omega _{\alpha })\leq 2R$ . Theorem 2.2 thus yields $\lambda _1(\Omega _{\alpha })\gtrsim 1/R^2$ for each $\alpha $ . According to Proposition 2.1, we obtain

$$ \begin{align*} \lambda_k(\Omega)\geq \min_{\alpha}\lambda_1(\Omega_{\alpha})\gtrsim \frac{1}{R^2}\gtrsim \frac{\lambda_{k+1}(\Omega)}{n^4}. \end{align*} $$

This completes the proof of the theorem.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to express many thanks to the anonymous referees for their helpful and useful comments.

References

Buser, P., Geometry and spectra of compact Riemann surfaces. Reprint of the 1992 edition, Modern Birkhäuser Classics, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, S. Y. and Li, P., Heat kernel estimates and lower bound of eigenvalues . Comment. Math. Helv. 56(1981), no. 3, 327338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, F. R. K., Grigor’yan, A., and Yau, S.-T., Upper bounds for eigenvalues of the discrete and continuous Laplace operators . Adv. Math. 117(1996), no. 2, 165178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, F. R. K., Grigor’yan, A., and Yau, S.-T., Eigenvalues and diameters for manifolds and graphs . In: Tsing Hua lectures on geometry & analysis (Hsinchu, 1990–1991), International Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997, pp. 79105.Google Scholar
Funano, K., Eigenvalues of Laplacian and multi-way isoperimetric constants on weighted Riemannian manifolds. Preprint, 2013. arXiv:1307.3919 Google Scholar
Funano, K., Applications of the “ham sandwich theorem” to eigenvalues of the Laplacian . Anal. Geom. Metr. Spaces 4(2016), 317325.Google Scholar
Funano, K., Estimates of eigenvalues of the Laplacian by a reduced number of subsets . Israel J. Math. 217(2017), no. 1, 413433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funano, K., A note on domain monotonicity for the Neumann eigenvalues of the Laplacian, to appear in Illinois J. Math., 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funano, K. and Sakurai, Y., Upper bounds for higher-order Poincaré constants . Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 373(2020), no. 6, 44154436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gozlan, N. and Herry, R., Multiple sets exponential concentration and higher order eigenvalues. Potential Anal. 52(2020), no. 2, 203221.Google Scholar
Gromov, M., Metric structures for Riemannian and non-Riemannian spaces, Modern Birkhäuser Classics, Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 2007, Based on the 1981 French original. With appendices by M. Katz, P. Pansu, and S. Semmes. Translated from the French by Sean Michael Bates. Reprint of the 2001 English edition.Google Scholar
Kröger, P., On upper bounds for high order Neumann eigenvalues of convex domains in Euclidean space (English summary). Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 127(1999), no. 6, 16651669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, S., An optimal dimension-free upper bound for eigenvalue ratios. Preprint, 2014. arXiv:1405.2213v3 Google Scholar
Milman, E., On the role of convexity in isoperimetry, spectral gap and concentration . Invent. Math. 177(2009), no. 1, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, L. E. and Weinberger, H. F., An optimal Poincaré inequality for convex domains . Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 5(1960), pp. 286292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar