Arxiv:0810.4716V2 [Math.AP]

Home , Vitali covering lemma

arXiv:0810.4716v2 [math.AP] 23 Mar 2009 n o-iegnefr aaoi n litceutoswt edn c leading with equations elliptic and parabolic form non-divergence and e n h oomldrvtv rbe a salse n[]ad[] I [6]. and [5] in established was problem coefficients derivative D the consta the papers conormal Lipschitz of solvability the small the and a domain, flat with lem Reifenberg domain so-called Lipschitz a in a equations in equations elliptic form litceutostesrnetrslsu odt a efudi By in found be [17]. can Krylov date and to [6], up [5], Wang results and strongest the equations elliptic sdb .Sfnv eoeta,teslaiiyfrteDrcltan Dirichlet the we for coefficients solvability VMO for with [8] the equations in that, elliptic form com Before divergence weak lemm of the covering problems Safonov. are Vitali [6] M. the [5], by and [3], used in function, tools maximal main Hardy-Littlewood The the included. not are terms der umto ovnin vrrpae nie r nocd eas We and enforced. measurable, are and indices bounded pa are the repeated coefficients Throughout over coefficients. conventions leading rough summation with spaces Sobolev in M offiins ooe pcs ie norms. mixed spaces, Sobolev coefficients, BMO aiso rw nvriy S rn ubrDS0367fr DMS-0635607 number grant NSF DMS-0800129. University, Brown of matics hr aebe ayrsac ciiisi hsdrcin o diver For direction. this in activities research many been have There esuyteslaiiyo litcoeaosi iegneform divergence in operators elliptic of solvability the study We 1991 n[] the [3], In n[7,Kyo aeauie praho the of approach unified a gave Krylov [17], In .Dn a atal upre yasatu udn rmth from funding start-up a by supported partially was Dong H. e od n phrases. and words Key LITCEUTOSI IEGNEFR WITH FORM DIVERGENCE IN EQUATIONS ELLIPTIC ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics isht oan o qain ntewoesaeo afs half a or space whole sp the half coefficients in a equations space, For whole domain. the Lipschitz in equations elliptic order second M einrsi h te ietos o qain nabo a in that equations assume For we directions. additionally other the in semi-norms BMO netgt litceutosi ooe pcswt mixe coefficients. with the spaces on o pro Sobolev approach assumptions derivative unified same in conormal a equations the give elliptic We and investigate domain. problem the boundary of Dirichlet boundary the of hood Abstract. C 1 , 1 W oan,adi 1 for [1] in and domains, p 1 ovblt a bandfrteDrcltpolmo divergence of problem Dirichlet the for obtained was solvability a h ovblt nSblvsae spoe o iegnef divergence for proved is spaces Sobolev in solvability The ij ATAL M COEFFICIENTS BMO PARTIALLY r sue ob esrbei n ieto n aesmall have and direction one in measurable be to assumed are a ij L OGI OGADDYO KIM DOYOON AND DONG HONGJIE eododreutos aihn enoclain part oscillation, mean vanishing equations, Second-order u r sue ohv ml M einrsadlwror- lower and semi-norms BMO small have to assumed are ( = a ij 1. a u ij x Introduction i aesalBOsm-om naneighbor- a in semi-norms BMO small have + C 51,3J5 50,35J25. 35R05, 35J15, 35K15, a 1 j 1 domains. u ) x j a + ij b L i r nfrl elliptic. uniformly are u p x i ovblt fbt divergence both of solvability + mIS n S rn number grant NSF and IAS, om cu iiino ple Mathe- Applied of Division e c,adabounded a and ace, om ne the under norms d ae h leading the pace, lm ealso We blem. ne domain, unded ohthe both f e,teusual the per, uealthe all sume rcltprob- irichlet n[] Byun [3], un Neumann d orm originally a eobtained re ec form gence oefficients pactness, al small ially those n t For nt. (1.1) 2 H. DONG AND D. KIM

VMO in the spatial variables (and measurable in the time variable in the parabolic case). Unlike the arguments in [7], [8] and [11], which are based on certain estimates of Calderón-Zygmund theorem and the Coifman-Rochberg-Weiss com- mutator theorem, the proofs in [17] rely mainly on pointwise estimates of sharp functions of spatial derivatives of solutions. It is worth noting that although the results in [17] are stated for equations with VMO coefficients, the proofs there only require aij to have locally small BMO semi-norms. We also remark that for divergence form parabolic equations a similar result was also obtained in Byun [4] by adapting the approach in [3]. Krylov’s method was later improved and generalized in [9], [13]-[16], [18] and [19]. With the leading coefficients in the same class, Krylov [18] established the solvability of both divergence and non-divergence parabolic equations in mixed-norm Sobolev spaces. There are many other results in the literature regarding the Lp theory of second order parabolic and elliptic equations with discontinuous coefficients. For non- divergence form equations, we refer the reader to [2], [7], [20], [25], [27] and references therein. For divergence form equations, see also [26] and references therein. The theory of elliptic and parabolic equations with partially VMO coefficients is 2 originated in Kim and Krylov [13], where the authors proved the Wp solvability of elliptic equations in non-divergence form with leading coefficients measurable in a fixed direction and VMO in the others. Very recently, their result was generalized by Krylov [19], where the leading coefficients are assumed to be measurable in one direction and VMO in the orthogonal directions in each small ball with the direction 1,2 depending on the ball. For non-divergence parabolic equations, the Wq,p solvability was established in Kim [16], in which most leading coefficients are measurable in time variable as well as one spatial variable, and VMO in the other variables. We remark that to our best knowledge, at the time of this writing, all known results concerning Lp solvability of elliptic and parabolic equations with partially VMO/BMO coefficients are only for non-divergence form. In this paper we consider divergence form elliptic equations in the whole space, a half space and a Lipschitz domain with a small Lipschitz constant. We deal with equations with partially BMO leading coefficients with locally small BMO semi-norms (Theorem 2.2), a class of coefficients which is more general than those treated previously in [17], [3], [5] and [6]. More precisely, we assume the coefficients aij are measurable in x1 direction and BMO in the other directions with locally small BMO semi-norms (see Assumption 2.1 for a more rigorous definition). This is the same class of coefficients considered in [13], in which non-divergence form elliptic equations are studied. For equations in a Lipschitz domain, additionally we assume that aij have small BMO semi-norms in a neighborhood of the boundary 1 of the domain. Under these assumptions, we establish the unique Wp solvability of divergence form elliptic equations. We give a unified approach of both the Dirichlet boundary problem and the conormal derivative problem in a half space (Theorem 2.3, 2.4) and in a bounded Lipschitz domain (Theorem 2.7 and 2.8). We also investigate elliptic equations in Sobolev spaces with mixed norms under the same assumption on the coefficients. We point out that, as in [17] and [18], one feature of these results is that the matrix aij is not assumed to be symmetric. One of the motivations of the{ paper} is the following problem. Consider the ij i equation a ux xj = div g in B2, the ball of radius 2 centered at the origin, with zero Dirichlet boundary condition. The coefficients aij are assumed to be bounded, 3 uniformly elliptic and piecewise uniformly continuous on B1 and B2 B1. This is 1 \ a very natural problem and the W2 solvability of it follows immediately from the 1 Lax-Milgram lemma. However, for the Wp solvability when p = 2, it seems to us that none of the results above are applicable in this case. We6 will give a solution to the problem at the end of Section 2 as an application of our main results. Our approach is based on the aforementioned method from [17]. However, since aij are merely measurable in x1, we are only able to estimate the sharp function of ux′ , not the full gradient ux as in [17]. Here and throughout the paper, we denote 2 d d 1 x′ = (x , , x ) R − , so by u we mean one of u i , i =2, , d, or the whole ··· ∈ x′ x ··· 1 collection of them. Roughly speaking, the main difficulty is to bound ux by ux′ . One idea in the paper is to break the ‘symmetry’ of the coordinates so that x1 is 11 distinguished from x′. Another idea is to estimate the sharp of a ux1 instead of ux1 . This estimate together with a generalized Stein-Fefferman theorem proved in [19] enables us to bound ux1 . The main advantage of the approach is that here we can obtain the boundary estimate immediately from the estimate in the whole space since the leading coefficients are allowed to be just measurable in one direction. In a forthcoming paper, we will extend our results to systems with variably partially BMO coefficients. A brief outline of the paper: in the next section, we introduce the notation and state the main results, Theorem 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.7 and 2.8. Section 3 is devoted to several auxiliary results which will be used later, in which we estimate the Lp norm 1 ux by the Lp norm of ux′ (Theorem 3.7). Then in Section 4, we give an estimate of the sharp function of ux′ . By combining this with Theorem 3.7, we are able to prove Theorem 2.2 in Section 5. Theorem 2.3 and 2.4 are proved in Section 6, while Theorem 2.7 and 2.8 are proved in Section 7, Finally, the last four sections are devoted to the mixed norm estimate.

2. Main results Before we state our assumptions and main theorems, we introduce some neces- sary notations. By Rd we mean a d-dimensional Euclidean space and a point in Rd 1 d 1 is denoted by x = (x , , x ) = (x , x′). For given two positive integers d and d ··· 1 2 such that d1 + d2 = d, we set x = (x1, , xd1 ) Rd1 , x = (xd1+1, , xd) Rd2 . 1 ··· ∈ 2 ··· ∈ d That is, for example, x1 represents the ﬁrst d1 coordinates of x R . If Ω is an open subset in Rd, we deﬁne ∈

q/p 1/q p u := u x2 x1 = u(x) I (x) dx x . Lq,p(Ω) Lq Lp (Ω) Ω 1 2 k k k k Rd2 Rd1 | | Z Z ! x2 x1 Note that, in case p = q, Lp(Ω) = Lp,p(Ω) = Lp Lp (Ω). Set Rd = x Rd : x = (x1, , xd), x1 > 0 . + { ∈ ··· } 1 A function u belongs to Wq,p(Ω) if u,ux Lq,p(Ω). Unless specified otherwise, by Rd ∈ 1 Lp we mean Lp( ). Similarly, whenever we use Lq,p, Wp , Lp,loc, Wp,loc, and C0∞, we understand that Rd is omitted. For a function f in Rd, we set 1 (f) = f(x) dx = – f(x) dx, Ω Ω | | ZΩ Z Ω 4 H. DONG AND D. KIM where Ω is the d-dimensional Lebesgue measure of Ω. Throughout| | the paper we assume that the coefficients aij , ai, bi, and c are bounded by a constant K 1. Moreover, we assume the uniform ellipticity condition on aij , i.e., ≥ δ ξ 2 aij (x)ξiξj | | ≤ for all x and ξ Rd, where δ (0, 1). We need a very∈ mild regularity∈ assumption on the coefficients aij . To present this assumption, let

d d 1 B (x)= y R : x y < r , B′ (x′)= y′ R − : x′ y′ < r , r { ∈ | − | } r { ∈ | − | } 1 1 Γ (x) = (x r, x + r) B′ (x′). r − × r Set Br = Br(0), Br′ = Br′ (0), and Br′ is the d 1-dimensional volume of Br′ (0). Denote | | −

x1+r ij 1 ij 1 ij 1 1 oscx′ a , Γr(x) = – a (y ,y′) – a (y ,z′) dz′ dy′ dy , 2r x1 r B (x ) − B (x ) Z − Z r′ ′ Z r′ ′ where ij 1 1 ij 1 – a (y ,z′) dz′ = a (y ,z′) dz′. B′ Z Br′ (x′) | r| ZBr′ (x′) Then we set # ij aR = sup sup sup oscx′ a , Γr(x) . x Rd r R ij ∈ ≤ The following assumption contains a parameter γ > 0, which will be speciﬁed later.

# Assumption 2.1 (γ). There is a constant R0 (0, 1] such that a γ. ∈ R0 ≤ We state the main results concerning elliptic equations in divergence form in the 1 1 usual Sobolev spaces Wp . For equations in Sobolev spaces with mixed norms Wq,p, as indicated in the introduction, our results are presented in Section 9. Theorem 2.2 (Equations in the whole space). Let p (1, ) and f, g = (g , ,g ) ∈ ∞ 1 ··· d ∈ Lp. Then there exists a constant γ = γ(d,p,δ,K) such that, under Assumption 2.1 (γ), the following hold true. (i) For any u W 1 satisfying ∈ p u λu = div g + f, (2.1) L − we have λ u + √λ u N√λ g + N f , (2.2) k kLp k xkLp ≤ k kLp k kLp provided that λ λ0, where N and λ0 0 depend only on d, p, δ, K and R0. (ii) For any λ >≥ λ , there exists a unique≥ u W 1 satisfying (2.1). 0 ∈ p (iii) If ai = bi = c =0 and aij = aij (x1), i.e., measurable functions of x1 R only ∈ with no regularity assumptions, then one can take λ0 =0. The next two theorems are about the Dirichlet problem and the conormal derivative problem on a half space. 5

Theorem 2.3 (Dirichlet problem on a half space). Let p (1, ) and f, g = (g , ,g ) L (Rd ). Then there exists a constant γ = γ∈(d,p,δ,K∞ ) such that, 1 ··· d ∈ p + under Assumption 2.1 (γ), for any u W 1(Rd ) satisfying ∈ p + u λu = div g + f in Rd + , (2.3) Lu =0− on ∂Rd + we have √ √ λ ux L (Rd ) + λ u L (Rd ) N λ g L (Rd ) + N f L (Rd ), (2.4) k k p + k k p + ≤ k k p + k k p + provided that λ λ0, where N and λ0 0 depend only on d, p, δ, K, and R0. Moreover, for any≥ λ > λ and g,f L ≥(Rd ), there exists a unique u W 1(Rd ) 0 ∈ p + ∈ p + satisfying (2.3). Theorem 2.4 (Conormal derivative problem on a half space). Let p (1, ) and f, g = (g , ,g ) L (Rd ). Then there exists a constant γ = γ(d,p,δ,K∈ ∞) such 1 ··· d ∈ p + that, under Assumption 2.1 (γ), for any u W 1(Rd ) satisfying ∈ p + Rd u λu = div g + f in + Li1 − 1 d , (2.5) a u i + a u = g on ∂R x 1 + we have √ √ λ ux L (Rd ) + λ u L (Rd ) N λ g L (Rd ) + N f L (Rd ), (2.6) k k p + k k p + ≤ k k p + k k p + provided that λ λ0, where N and λ0 depend only on d, p, δ, K, and R0. Moreover, for any λ > λ ≥and g,f L (Rd ), there exists a unique u W 1(Rd ) satisfying 0 ∈ p + ∈ p + (2.5). Solutions of (2.5) are understood in the weak sense. More precisely, we say u W 1(Rd ) satisﬁes (2.5) if we have ∈ p + ij j i a uxi φxj a uφxj + b uxi φ + (c λ)uφ dx = ( gjφxj + fφ) dx Rd − − − Rd − Z + Z + (2.7) 1 d for any φ W (R ), where p′ satisfy 1/p +1/p′ = 1. For discussions about the ∈ p′ + conormal derivative problem, we refer the reader to [22] and [23]. Next we consider the solvability of divergence form elliptic equations in domains with the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition: u = div g + f in Ω . (2.8) Lu =0 on ∂Ω We shall impose a little bit more regularity assumption on aij near the boundary. For any x Rd, denote ∈ dist(x, ∂Ω) = inf x y . y ∂Ω | − | ∈ d Assumption 2.5 (γ). There is a constant R1 (0, 1] such that, for any x0 R with dist(x , ∂Ω) R and any r (0, R ], we have∈ ∈ 0 ≤ 1 ∈ 1 sup – aij (x) (aij ) dx γ. | − Br (x0)| ≤ ij Z Br (x0) 6 H. DONG AND D. KIM

We also impose the same assumption on domains as in [3], i.e. the boundary ∂Ω of the domain Ω is locally the graph of a Lipschitz continuous function with a small Lipschitz constant. More precisely, we make the following assumption containing a parameter θ (0, 1], which will be specified later. ∈ Assumption 2.6 (θ). There is a constant R2 (0, 1] such that, for any x0 ∂Ω ∈ d 1 ∈ and r (0, R ], there exists a Lipschitz function φ: R − R such that ∈ 2 → 1 Ω B (x )= x B (x ): x > φ(x′) ∩ r 0 { ∈ r 0 } and φ(y′) φ(x′) sup | − | θ x ,y B (x ),x =y y′ x′ ≤ ′ ′∈ r′ 0′ ′6 ′ | − | in some coordinate system. Note that all C1 domains satisfy this assumption for any θ > 0. Theorem 2.7 (Dirichlet problem on a bounded domain). Let p (1, ) and Ω be i ∈ ∞ a bounded domain. Assume axi + c 0 in Ω in the weak sense. Then there exist γ = γ(d,p,δ,K) and θ = θ(d,p,δ,K)≤such that, under Assumption 2.1 (γ), 2.5 (γ), and Assumption 2.6 (θ), for any f, g = (g1, ,gd) Lp(Ω) there exists a unique u W 1(Ω) satisfying (2.8). Moreover, we have··· ∈ ∈ p u 1 N f + N g , (2.9) k kWp (Ω) ≤ k kLp(Ω) k kLp(Ω) where N is independent of f,g and u. Our last result is about the solvability of divergence form elliptic equations in domains with the conormal derivative boundary condition: u = div g + f in Ω Lij j j j j , (2.10) a u i n + a un = g n on ∂Ω x j where n = (n1, ,nd) is the outward normal direction of ∂Ω, which is defined almost everywhere··· on ∂Ω. Like before, solutions of (2.10) are understood in the weak sense. More precisely, we say u W 1(Ω) satisfies (2.10) if we have ∈ p ij j i a u i φ j a uφ j + b u i φ + cuφ dx = ( g φ j + fφ) dx, (2.11) − x x − x x − j x ZΩ ZΩ for anyφ W 1 (Ω). ∈ p′ Theorem 2.8 (Conormal derivative problem on a bounded domain). Let p i ∈ (1, ) and Ω be a bounded domain. Assume axi + c 0 in Ω in the weak sense. Then∞ there exist γ = γ(d,p,δ,K) and θ = θ(d,p,δ,K) such≤ that, under Assumption 2.1 (γ), 2.5 (γ), and Assumption 2.6 (θ), (i) If in the weak sense ai + c 0 in Ω and aini = 0 on ∂Ω, then for any xi ≡ f, g = (g1, ,gd) Lp(Ω), the equation (2.10) has a unique up to a constant solution u ···W 1(Ω) provided∈ that bi = c =0 and f dx =0. Moreover, we have ∈ p Ω ux L (Ω) N f L (Ω) + NR g L (Ω). k k p ≤ k k p k k p (ii) Otherwise, the solution is unique and we have

u W 1(Ω) N f L (Ω) + N g L (Ω). k k p ≤ k k p k k p The constant N is independent of f,g and u. 7

Here, by ai + c 0 in Ω, we mean xi ≤ i ( a φ i + cφ) dx 0 − x ≤ ZΩ 1 i i i for any nonnegative φ C (Ω). By a i + c 0 in Ω and a n =0 on ∂Ω, we mean ∈ 0 x ≡ i ( a φ i + cφ) dx =0. (2.12) − x ZΩ 1 for any φ W2 (Ω). Restricted∈ to equations in Lipschitz domains, Theorem 2.7 and 2.8 improve the previous results in [3], [5] and [6] in two aspects: first we only assume that the leading coefficients have partially small BMO semi-norms in the interior of the domain; second we also allow lower order terms. At the time of this writing it is not clear to us whether our method can be extended to deal with equations in Reifenberg flat domains. We remark that for the Poisson equation in arbitrary Lipschitz domains but with a restricted range of p, the solvability result was established by Jerison and Kenig [12] (see also [26] for a generalization to equations with VMO coefficients). We end this section by giving an example dealing with elliptic equations with piecewise continuous leading coefficients on a bounded domain. This is another nice application of Theorem 2.2, showing the possibility that the results in this paper can be applied to many different equations with not necessarily continuous coefficients. For simplicity, consider ij a u i = div g in B , u =0, (2.13) x xj 2 |∂B2 ij where each a is piecewise uniformly continuous on B1 and B2 B1. As always, aij are assumed to be uniformly elliptic. For the solvability of the\ equation (2.13) 1 ij in Wp (B2), Theorem 2.7 is not applicable because the coefficients a do not have partially small BMO semi-norms in any fixed directions. However, upon having an appropriate partition of unity and change of variables, the interior estimate is derived from the Lp-estimate of equations with piecewise continuous coefficients. Here by ‘piecewise continuous coefficients’ we mean coefficients aij continuous on Rd Rd Rd + and on +. Needless to say, this class of coefficients satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 2.2.\ The interior and boundary estimates give us u N g + N u . k xkLp(B2) ≤ k kLp(B2) k kLp(B2) Then, for p > 2, one can use the argument in the proof of Theorem 2.7 below to absorb the term N u to the left-hand side. Thus we obtain an estimate as k kLp(B2) in Theorem 2.7. The estimate when p (1, 2) follows from the duality argument. Consequently, for a given g L (B ), 1 ∈

3. Auxiliary results for equations with measurable coefficients In this section we set ij u = a u i , L0 x xj and we do not impose any regularity assumptions on the coeﬃcients of the operator 11 11 1 0, except a . The coeﬃcient a is assumed to be a measurable function of x onlyL or satisfying 11,# Assumption 3.1 (γ). There is a constant R0 (0, 1] such that a γ. ∈ R0 ≤ 8 H. DONG AND D. KIM

Here γ > 0 is a constant to be specified, and 11,# 11 aR = sup sup oscx′ a , Γr(x) . x Rd r R ∈ ≤ However, in Theorem 3.2 all coefficients including a11 are measurable functions of x Rd with no regularity assumptions. ∈ The first result is the classical L2-estimate for elliptic operators in divergence form with measurable coefficients. Theorem 3.2. There exists N = N(d, δ) such that, for any λ 0, ≥ √λ u + λ u N √λ g + f , k xkL2 k kL2 ≤ k kL2 k kL2 provided that u W 1, f, g = (g , ,g ) L , and ∈ 2 1 ··· d ∈ 2 u λu = div g + f. (3.1) L0 − 1 Furthermore, for any λ> 0 and f, g L2, there exists a unique solution u W2 to the equation (3.1). ∈ ∈ Proof. We present a proof for the sake of completeness. Due to the method of continuity it is enough to prove the estimate. Moreover, by the denseness of C0∞ 1 in W2 it suffices to consider u C0∞. Then from the equation and the uniform ellipticity condition it follows that∈

= giuxi dx fu dx Rd − Rd Z Z 2 2 2 N 2 δ/2 uxi dx + N g dx + λ/2 u dx + f dx, ≤ Rd | | Rd | | Rd | | λ Rd | | Z Z Z Z where N = N(d, δ). This ﬁnishes the proof.

If the above operator 0 is replaced by the Laplace operator ∆, it is well known that the result as in TheoremL 3.2 holds true not only for p = 2 but also for p ∈ (1, ). More precisely, if λ> 0 and f, g Lp, then there exists a unique solution u ∞W 1 to the equation ∆u λu = div g ∈+ f. As above, we have ∈ p − 1/2 u + √λ u N g + λ− f k xkLp k kLp ≤ k kLp k kLp for all λ> 0. Using this result, we prove the following theorem. 1 Theorem 3.3. Let p (1, ), λ> 0, κ 4, and r > 0. Assume that u W loc, ∈ ∞ ≥ ∈ p, f, g = (g1, ,gd) Lp,loc, and ∆u λu = div g + f in Bκr. Then there exists a constant N ···= N(d, p∈) such that −

p p p p/2 p d p p/2 p – u (u ) dx Nκ− u + λ u +Nκ g + λ− f . x x Br x B | − | ≤ | | | | Bκr | | | | Bκr Z r Proof. We follow the idea in the proof of Theorem 7.1 in [18] taking into account the presence of λ. We can certainly assume that u, f, and g have compact supports. In addition, we assume that u, f, and g are infinitely differentiable. Indeed, if not, we take the standard mollifications and prove the estimate for the mollifications. Then we take the limit because the concerned constants are independent of the smoothness of the functions involved. 9

Take a ζ C∞ such that ∈ 0 ζ =1 on B , ζ =0 on Rd B . κr/2 \ κr Then we find a unique solution w W 1 to the equation ∈ p (∆ λ) w = div(ζg)+ ζf. − Set v := u w and observe that − (∆ λ) v = div((1 ζ)g)+(1 ζ)f. − − − The classical theory on elliptic equations in divergence form indicates that w and v are infinitely differentiable. In addition, in Bκr/2, (∆ λ) v =0. − Rd+1 Then if we view v as a function in Cloc∞ ( ) independent of t, by Lemma 7.4 in [18] p p p p/2 p vx (vx) Nκ− vx + λ v , (3.2) Br Br | − | ≤ | | | | Bκr where N depends only on d and p. On the other hand, we have 1/2 w + √λ w N ζg + λ− ζf , k xkLp k kLp ≤ k kLp k kLp which implies p d p p/2 p d p p/2 p ( w ) Nr− ζg + λ− ζf Nκ g + λ− f , x Br Lp Lp | | ≤ k k k k ≤ | | | | Bκr p p/2 p p p/2 p ( w ) + λ ( w ) N g + λ− f . x Bκr Bκr | | | | ≤ | | | | Bκr From these inequalities as well as (3.2), we see that

p p p – ux (ux) dx N ( vx (vx)B ) + N ( wx ) | − Br | ≤ | − r | Br | | Br Z Br p p p/2 p d p p/2 p Nκ− vx + λ v + Nκ g + λ− f . ≤ | | | | Bκr | | | | Bκr We also have p p/2 p p p/2 p p p/2 p vx + λ v N ux + λ u + N wx + λ w | | | | Bκr ≤ | | | | Bκr | | | | Bκr p p/2 p p p/2 p N ux + λ u + N g + λ− f . ≤ | | | | Bκr | | | | Bκr Combining the above two sets of inequalities we arrive at the desired inequality in the theorem. We frequently make use of the following change of variables to ‘break’ the symmetry of coordinates. Let u λu = div g + f L0 − in Rd. For a number µ 1, we set ≥ ij 1 ij 1 1 1 1 1 a¯ (x , x′)= a (µ− x , x′), u¯(x , x′)= u(µ− x , x′), (3.3) 1 1 1 1 1 1 f˜(x , x′)= f(µ− x , x′), g˜(x , x′) = (µg ,g , ,g )(µ− x , x′). (3.4) 1 2 ··· d Clearlyu ¯ satisﬁes 2 11 1j i1 ij µ a¯ u¯ 1 + µa¯ u¯ 1 + µa¯ u¯ i + a¯ u¯ i λu¯ x x1 x xj x x1 x xj − j>1 i>1 i,j>1 X X X 10 H. DONG AND D. KIM

= divg ˜ + f.˜ ¯ 11 d If we set 0w = (¯a wx1 )x1 + ∆d 1w, where ∆d 1w = wxixi , then L − − i=2 ¯ 2 ¯ 0u¯ µ− λu¯ = divg ¯ + f, P (3.5) L − where 2 2 1 i1 f¯ = µ− f,˜ g¯ = µ− g˜ µ− a¯ u¯ i , 1 1 − x i>1 X 2 1 1j 2 ij g¯ = µ− g˜ µ− a¯ u¯ 1 µ− a¯ u¯ i +¯u j j 2. j j − x − x x ≥ i>1 X We now assume that the coefficient a11 is a measurable function of x1 R. Under this condition on a11 (no regularity assumptions on aij if ij > 1) we prove∈ 11 an estimate fora ¯ u¯x1 . 1 11 11 1 Lemma 3.4. Let λ > 0, r > 0, κ > 8Kδ− , and a = a (x ). Assume that 1 u W loc and ∈ 2, u λu = div g + f, L0 − where f, g L loc. Then there exists a constant N = N(d, δ, K) such that ∈ 2, 1/2 11 11 2 1 d/2 1 2 1/2 a¯ u¯x1 a¯ u¯x1 N κ− + κ µ− u¯x1 Br Bκr | − | Br ≤ | | 1/ 2 d/2 2 2 2 1 ˜ 2 +Nκ u¯x′ + λ u¯ + g˜ + λ− f | | | | | | | | Bκr for all µ 1, where a¯ij , u¯, f˜, and g˜ are those defined in (3.3) and (3.4). In particular,≥ if λ = f =0, i.e., u = div g, we have L0 1/2 11 11 2 1 d/2 1 2 1/2 a¯ u¯x1 a¯ u¯x1 N κ− + κ µ− u¯x1 Br Bκr | − | Br ≤ | | d/2 2 2 1/2 +Nκ u¯x + g˜ | ′ | | | Bκr for all µ 1. ≥ Proof. The second inequality in the lemma follows easily from the first. Indeed, if we write u λu = div g λu, by the first inequality L0 − − 1/2 11 11 2 1 d/2 1 2 1/2 a¯ u¯x1 a¯ u¯x1 N κ− + κ µ− u¯x1 Br Bκr | − | Br ≤ | | d/2 2 2 2 1/2 +Nκ u¯x + λ u¯ + g˜ . | ′ | | | | | Bκr Then letting λ 0 gives the result. To prove theց first inequality in the lemma, recall thatu ¯ satisfies (see (3.5)) ¯ u¯ λu¯ = divg ¯ + f¯ , L0 − λ ¯ ¯ 2 1 where λ > 0 and fλ = f + (µ− 1)λu¯. Using Theorem 3.2 we find w W2 satisfying − ∈ ¯ w λw = div (I g¯)+ I f¯ , L0 − Bκr Bκr λ where I is the indicator function of a set Ω. Then v :=u ¯ w satisfies Ω − ¯ v λv = div ((1 I )¯g)+(1 I )f¯ . L0 − − Bκr − Bκr λ In particular, ¯ v λv = 0 in B . L0 − κr 11

Now we use the following change of variables. Set 1 x 1 y1 = φ(x1) := dr, yj = xj , j 2. a¯11(r) ≥ Z0 11 1 Since δ a¯ K, we readily see that the inverse φ− exists, φ is a bi-Lipschitz function,≤ and ≤ 1 1 1 K− φ(t)/t δ− , δ φ− (t)/t K (3.6) ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ for t = 0. We define 6 1 1 1 v¯(y ,y′)= v(φ− (y ),y′). 1 1 We also define r = √2δ− r and κ = κ/(2Kδ− ). Using the fact that ¯ v λv =0 1 1 L0 − in Bκr, κ1r1 = κr/(√2K), and (3.6), we find that, in Bκ1r1 , 11 1 11 1 v¯y1y1 +â (y )∆d 1v¯ λaˆ (y )¯v =0, − − 11 1 11 1 1 wherea ˆ (y )=¯a (φ− (y )). Equivalently, in Bκ1r1 , 11 1 11 1 ∆¯v λv¯ = 1 aˆ (y ) div 0, v¯ 2 , , v¯ d λ 1 aˆ (y ) v.¯ − − y ··· y − − Then by using the change of variables as well as Theorem 3.3 (note th at κ1 4) we obtain ≥

11 2 2 – a¯ vx1 v¯y1 dx N – v¯y1 v¯y1 dy Br Br B | − 1 | ≤ B | − 1 | Z r Z r1 2 2 d 2 2 Nκ− v¯ + Nκ v¯ + λ v¯ 1 y B 1 y′ B ≤ | | κ1r1 | | | | κ1r1 2 2 d 2 2 Nκ− vx + Nκ vx + λ v , (3.7) ≤ | | Bκr | ′ | | | Bκr where N = N(d, δ, K). We also need estimates for w. By Theorem 3.2

1/2 w + √λ w N I g¯ + λ− I f¯ . k xkL2 k kL2 ≤ k Bκr kL2 k Bκr λkL2 From this and the deﬁnition of f¯ it follows that (also note that µ 1) λ ≥ 2 d 2 1 2 2 wx Nκ g¯ + λ− f¯ + λ u¯ , (3.8) | | Br ≤ | | | | | | Bκr 2 2 2 1 2 2 wx + λ w N g¯ + λ− f¯ + λu¯ . (3.9) | | | | Bκr ≤ | | | | | | Bκr This together with u ¯ = w + vyields 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 vx + λ v N u¯x + λ u¯ + g¯ + λ− f¯ . (3.10) | ′ | | | Bκr ≤ | ′ | | | | | | | Bκr To combine all the inequalities shown above, we start with 1/2 11 11 2 11 2 1/2 I := a¯ u¯x1 a¯ u¯x1 a¯ u¯x1 C , Br Br | − | Br ≤ | − | which holds true for any constant C. Upon replacing C with (¯vx1 ) and using Br1 u¯ = w + v again, we arrive at 1/2 1/2 11 2 11 2 2 1/2 I a¯ u¯x1 (¯vx1 ) N a¯ vx1 (¯vx1 ) + N wx Br1 Br1 Br ≤ | − | Br ≤ | − | Br | | =: I1 + I2. From (3.7), (3.10), and (3.9)

1 2 1/2 d/2 2 2 2 1 2 1/2 I1 Nκ− u¯x + Nκ u¯x + λ u¯ + g¯ + λ− f¯ . ≤ | | Bκr | ′ | | | | | | | Bκr 12 H. DONG AND D. KIM

Here we also usedu ¯ = w + v and κ 1. From (3.8), ≥ d/2 2 2 1 2 1/2 I2 Nκ λ u¯ + g¯ + λ− f¯ . ≤ | | | | | | Bκr Finally, notice that

2 1/2 2 2 1/2 1 2 1/2 2 1/2 g¯ Nµ− g˜ + Nµ− u¯x1 + N u¯x , | | Bκr ≤ | | Bκr | | Bκr | ′ | Bκr 2 1/2 2 2 1/2 ( f¯ ) = µ− ( f˜ ) . | | Bκr | | Bκr Therefore, 1/2 1 d/2 1 2 1/2 d/2 2 2 2 1 ˜ 2 I N(κ− + κ µ− ) u¯x1 + Nκ u¯x + λ u¯ + g˜ + λ− f Bκr ′ ≤ | | | | | | | | | | Bκr for µ 1. The lemma is proved. ≥ We recall the maximal function theorem and the Feﬀerman-Stein theorem. Let the maximal and sharp functions of g deﬁned on Rd be given by

Mg(x) = sup – g(y) dy, | | r>0 Z Br(x)

# g (x) = sup – g(y) (g)Br(x) dy. r>0 | − | Z Br (x) Then g N g# , Mg N g , k kLp ≤ k kLp k kLp ≤ k kLp if g Lp, where 1

Lemma 3.6. Let γ > 0, µ 1, and τ, σ (1, ) such that 1/τ +1/σ = 1. 11 ≥ ∈ ∞ Assume that a satisfy Assumption 3.1 (γ) and g L2,loc. Also assume that 1 ∈ 1 u W2,loc vanishes outside Bµ− R, where R (0, R0], and satisﬁes 0u = div g. ∈ ∈1 L Then, for each C Cn, µ 1, and κ> 8Kδ− , there exists a measurable function a¯(x1)=¯a (x1)∈such that≥ δ a¯(x1) K and µ,κ,C ≤ ≤

– a¯u¯ 1 (¯au¯ 1 ) dx NF (x) | x − x C | ≤ Z C for all x C, where N = N(d, δ, K) and ∈ 1 d/2 1 2 1/2 d/2 2 1/2 F (x)= F (x) = (κ− + κ µ− ) M u¯ 1 + κ M u¯ µ,κ | x | | x′ | d/2 1/(2σ) 1/(2σ) 2τ 1/(2τ) d/2 2 1/2 +κ µ γ M u¯ 1 + κ M g˜ . | x | | | Recall that u¯ and g˜ are those in (3.3) and (3.4) .

Proof. Let Br(x0) be the smallest ball containing C. We split into two cases depending on whether κr

1 11 1 1 1 1 a(x )= – a (x ,y′) dy′, a¯(x )= a(µ− x ). B (x ) Z κr′ 0′ Since ij 11 (au 1 ) 1 + (a u i ) j = div g + (a a )u 1 , x x x x − x x1 ij>1 X by Lemma 3.4 with an appropriate translation 1/2 2 1 d/2 1 2 1/2 I := a¯u¯x1 (¯au¯x1 ) N(κ− + κ µ− ) u¯x1 Br (x0) Bκr (x0) | − | Br(x0) ≤ | | d/2 2 2 1/2 d/2 11 2 1/2 +Nκ u¯x + g˜ + Nκ (¯a a¯ )¯ux1 . | ′ | | | Bκr (x0) | − | Bκr (x0) Note that 11 2 1/2 11 2σ 1/(2σ) 2τ 1/(2τ) (¯a a¯ )¯ux1 a¯ a¯ u¯x1 , | − | Bκr (x0) ≤ | − | Bκr (x0) | | Bκr (x0) where a¯ a¯11 2σ N – a¯ a¯11 dx | − | Bκr (x0) ≤ | − | Z Bκr (x0) 1 x0+κr 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 N – – a (µ− x , x′) – a (µ− x ,y′) dy′ dx′ dx ≤ x1 κr B (x ) − B (x ) Z 0− Z κr′ 0′ Z κr′ 0′

11 1 1 # # Nµ osc a , Γ (µ− x , x′ ) Nµa Nµa Nµγ. ≤ x′ κr 0 0 ≤ κr ≤ R ≤ Also note that if x C, then B (x) B (x ) and, for example, ∈ 2κr ⊃ κr 0 2 d 2 d 2 u¯x1 2 u¯x1 2 M u¯x1 (x) | | Bκr (x0) ≤ | | B2κr (x) ≤ | | for all x C. From this observation as well as the above inequalities for I, we ∈ obtain I NFµ,κ(x) for all x C. If κr ≤R. Set ∈ ≥ 1 11 1 1 1 1 a(x )= – a (x ,y′) dy′, a¯(x )= a(µ− x ). B Z R′ 14 H. DONG AND D. KIM

1 Since u vanishes outside Bµ− R,u ¯ has a compact support in BR. Thus

11 2 1 11 2 (¯a a¯ )¯ux1 = (¯a a¯ )¯ux1 dx Bκr (x0) | − | Bκr B (x ) B | − | | | Z κr 0 ∩ R 1/σ 1 11 2σ 2 1/τ a¯ a¯ dx u¯x1 , ≤ B | − | | | Bκr (x0) | κr| ZBR where 1 a¯ a¯11 2σ dx B | − | | κr| ZBR R 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 N a (µ− x , x′) – a (µ− x ,y′) dy′ dx′ dx ≤ Bκr R B − B | | Z− Z R′ Z R′ d d 11 # Nµ(κr)− R osc a , Γ (0) Nµa Nµγ. ≤ x′ R ≤ R ≤ If we proceed as in the ﬁrst case, we come to I NFµ,κ(x) for all x C. Finally, observe that ≤ ∈

– a¯u¯x1 (¯au¯x1 ) dx 2 – a¯u¯x1 (¯au¯x1 ) dx NI, | − C | ≤ | − Br (x0) | ≤ Z C Z C where N is independent of r. The lemma is proved.

Now we are ready to prove that the Lp-norm of ux1 is controlled by that of g 11 1 R and ux′ if u is a solution to 0u = div g with a measurable in x and small d 1 L ∈ BMO in x′ R − . ∈ Theorem 3.7. Let p (2, ) and g Lp. There exist constants γ, µ, and N, depending on d,p,δ and∈K, such∞ that, if∈a11 satisﬁes Assumption 3.1 (γ), then for

1 u C0∞ satisfying 0u = div g and vanishing outside Bµ− R, where R R0, we have∈ L ≤ u N( u + g ). k xkLp ≤ k x′ kLp k kLp Proof. It is enough to prove

u 1 N( u + g ). k x kLp ≤ k x′ kLp k kLp 1 Fix τ in Lemma 3.6 such that p> 2τ > 2. Also take κ> 8Kδ− and µ 1 to be ≥ speciﬁed below. To use Theorem 3.5, we set U = δu¯x1 and V = K u¯x1 , whereu ¯ is C | | from Lemma 3.6. For each C Cn, we set U = a¯u¯x1 , wherea ¯ =a ¯µ,κ,C is also from Lemma 3.6. Since δ a¯ ∈ K, we have | | ≤ ≤ U U C V. | |≤ ≤ Note that

C C U U dx 2 a¯u¯ 1 (¯au¯ 1 ) dx N F (x) dx, | − C | ≤ | x − x C | ≤ µ,κ ZC ZC ZC where the second inequality is due to Lemma 3.6. Then by Theorem 3.5, p p 1 u¯x1 N Fµ,κ L u¯x1 − . k kLp ≤ k k p k kLp From this and using the maximal function theorem (it is essential to have p> 2τ) we get d/2 d/2 u¯ 1 N F Nκ u¯ + Nκ g˜ k x kLp ≤ k µ,κkLp ≤ k x′ kLp k kLp 1 d/2 1 d/2 1/(2σ) 1/(2σ) +N κ− + κ µ− + κ µ γ u¯ 1 , k x kLp 15 where N = N(d,p,δ,K). Choose a suﬃciently big κ, then µ, and ﬁnally a small γ so that 1 d/2 1 d/2 1/(2σ) 1/(2σ) N κ− + κ µ− + κ µ γ 1/2. ≤ Then

u¯ 1 N u¯ + g˜ . k x kLp ≤ k x′ kLp k kLp To ﬁnish the proof, we just return to u and g by using (3.3) and (3.4).

4. Equations in divergence form with simple leading coefficients In this section, we set ij ¯u = (a u i ) j , L x x where the coefficients are measurable functions of x1 R only, i.e., aij = aij (x1). We denote, as usual, ∈ u(x) u(y) [u]α,Ω = sup | − α |. x,y Ω x y ∈ | − | Lemma 4.1. Let p [1, ), λ 0. Assume u Cloc∞ and ¯u λu = 0 in B2. Then we have ∈ ∞ ≥ ∈ L − 1/2 [ux ] N ux L (B ) + λ u L (B ) , ′ α,B1 ≤ k k p 2 k k p 2 where (N, α) = (N, α)(d,p,δ,K). Proof. First assume that λ = 0. By the De Giorgi-Moser-Nash Hölder estimate, there exist N and α (0, 1), depending only on d, p, δ, and K, such that ∈ [u] N u L (B ). α,B1 ≤ k k p 2 Note that u also satisfies ¯u = 0 in B . Thus x′ L x′ 2 [ux ] N ux L (B ). ′ α,B1 ≤ k ′ k p 2 If λ> 0, we use an idea by S. Agmon. Let z = (x, y) be a point in Rd+1, where x Rd, y R, andu ˆ(z) and Bˆ be given by ∈ ∈ r uˆ(z)=û(x, y)= u(x)cos(√λy), Bˆ = z < r : z Rd+1 . r {| | ∈ } Sinceu ˆ satisfies, in Bˆ2, ¯uˆ +(û ) =0, L y y by the above result applied tou ˆ we have

[ˆux ] ˆ N uˆz ˆ (4.1) ′ α,B1 ≤ k kLp(B2) where N = N(d,p,δ,K). Observe that

[ux ] [ˆux ] ˆ ′ α,B1 ≤ ′ α,B1 and Dzuˆ is the collection consisting of cos(√λy)u , √λ sin(√λy)u. x − Thus the right-hand side of (4.1) is less than the right-hand side of the inequality in the lemma. The lemma is proved. 16 H. DONG AND D. KIM

Corollary 4.2. Let p [1, ), κ 2, r > 0, and λ 0. Assume u Cloc∞ and ¯u λu =0 in B . Then∈ we∞ have≥ ≥ ∈ L − κr p pα p p/2 p ux′ (ux′ ) Nκ− ux + λ u , Br Br | − | ≤ | | | | Bκr where (N, α) = (N, α)(d,p,δ,K). Proof. Thanks to the scaling argument it is enough to prove the estimate when r = 1. Set aˆij (x)= aij (κx/2), v(x)= u(κx/2).

Then v satisﬁes, in B2, ij 2 aˆ v i (κ/2) λv =0. x xj − By Lemma 4.1, 1/2 [vx ] N vx L (B ) + κλ v L (B ) ′ α,B1 ≤ k k p 2 k k p 2 p 1/p 1/2 p 1/p Nκ ( ux ) + Nκλ ( u ) . ≤ | | Bκ | | Bκ Note that [v ] = (κ/2)1+α [u ] . x′ α,B1 x′ α,Bκ/2 Using this and the above inequality, we see that

p p pα p p/2 p ux (ux ) N [ux ] Nκ− ux + λ u . ′ ′ B1 B ′ α,Bκ/2 | − | 1 ≤ ≤ | | | | Bκ

We prove a version of Theorem 3.3 when p = 2 and the Laplace operator is replaced by ¯. However, due to the fact that aij are measurable with respect to 1 R L x , we only have the estimate of the L2-oscillations of ux′ . In the proof we use Corollary∈ 4.2 for p = 2.

1 Theorem 4.3. Let λ> 0, κ 4, r> 0, u W loc and f, g L loc. Assume that ≥ ∈ 2, ∈ 2, ¯u λu = div g + f L − in Bκr. Then there exist positive constants N and α, depending only on d, δ, and K, such that 2 2α 2 2 d 2 1 2 ux (ux )Br Nκ− ux + λ u + Nκ g + λ− f . | ′ − ′ | Br ≤ | | | | Bκr | | | | Bκr (4.2) In particular, if λ = f =0, i.e., ¯u = div g, we have L 2 2α 2 d 2 ux (ux )Br Nκ− ux + Nκ g . | ′ − ′ | Br ≤ | | Bκr | | Bκr Proof. As in the proof of Lemma 3.4, it suffices to prove (4.2). We proceed adopting the same strategy as in the proof of Theorem 3.3. As noted there, we can assume that all the coefficients as well as u, f, and g are infinitely differentiable. Take a ζ C∞ such that ∈ 0 ζ =1 on B , ζ =0 on Rd B . κr/2 \ κr By Theorem 3.2, for λ> 0, there exists a unique solution w W 1 to the equation ∈ 2 ¯ λ w = div(ζg)+ ζf. L− 17

Since all functions and coefficients involved are infinitely differentiable, by the classical theory on elliptic equations in divergence form, w is infinitely differentiable. The function v := u w is also infinitely differentiable and satisfies − ¯ λ v = div((1 ζ)g)+(1 ζ)f, L− − − as well as ¯ λ v = 0 in B . Thus by Corollary 4.2 (note that κ/2 2) L− κr/2 ≥ 2 2α 2 2 vx′ (vx′ )B Nκ− vx + λ v . (4.3) | − r | Br ≤ | | | | Bκr Regarding w, by Theorem 3.2 we have

1/2 w + √λ w N ζg + λ− ζf , k xkL2 k kL2 ≤ k kL2 k kL2 In particular, 2 d 2 1 2 d 2 1 2 wx Nr− ζg L + λ− ζf L Nκ g + λ− f , (4.4) | | Br ≤ k k 2 k k 2 ≤ | | | | Bκr 2 2 2 1 2 wx + λ w N g + λ− f , (4.5) | | Bκr | | Bκr ≤ | | | | Bκr Now we prove (4.2). From (4.3), (4.4), and the fact that u= w + v, we obtain 2 2 2 ux′ (ux′ )B N vx′ (vx′ )Br + N wx′ | − r | Br ≤ | − | Br | | Br 2α 2 2 d 2 1 2 Nκ− vx + λ v + Nκ g + λ− f . ≤ | | | | Bκr | | | | Bκr From (4.5), we also get 2 2 2 2 2 2 vx + λ v N ux + λ u + N wx + λ w | | | | Bκr ≤ | | | | Bκr | | | | Bκr 2 2 2 1 2 N ux + λ u + N g + λ− f . ≤ | | | | Bκr | | | | Bκr Combining the above two sets of inequalities we come to the inequality (4.2).

5. Equations with partially small BMO coefficients We prove in this section Theorem 2.2, the first of our main results, where we consider the operator with coefficients in their full generality as given by Assumption 2.1. That is, we considerL ij j i u = (a u i + a u) j + b u i + cu, L x x x ij 1 where a are measurable in x and have locally small BMO semi-norms in x′ d 1 i i ∈ R − . All the other coefficients a , b , and c are only bounded and measurable. Theorem 5.1. Let ai = bi = c = 0, γ > 0, τ, σ (1, ), 1/τ +1/σ = 1, and ∈ ∞ R (0, R0]. Assume u C0∞ vanishing outside BR and u = div g, where g L2. Then∈ under Assumption∈ 2.1 (γ) there exists a positive constantL N, depending∈ only on d, δ, K, and τ, such that

2 2α 2 ux (ux )B (x ) Nκ− ux | ′ − ′ r 0 | Br (x0) ≤ | | Bκr (x0) d 2 1/σ 2τ 1/τ + Nκ (g )B (x ) + γ ( ux ) , (5.1) | | κr 0 | | Bκr (x0) for any r (0, ), κ 4, and x Rd, where α = α(d, δ, K) > 0. ∈ ∞ ≥ 0 ∈ 18 H. DONG AND D. KIM

Proof. The proof is similar to that of Lemma 3.6. Fix κ 4, r (0, ), and 1 d ≥ ∈ ∞ x = (x , x′ ) R . Then introduce, for all i, j =1, , d, 0 0 0 ∈ ··· ij 1 ij 1 a (x )= – a (x ,y′) dy′ if κr < R, B (x ) Z κr′ 0′ ij 1 ij 1 a (x )= – a (x ,y′) dy′ if κr R, B ≥ Z R′ ij and ¯u = a u i . We see that ¯u = divg ˆ, where L x xj L ij ij gˆ = a a u i + g . j − x j Then by Theorem 4.3 with an appropriate translation, 2 2α 2 d 2 – ux (ux ) dx Nκ− ux + Nκ gˆ , (5.2) | ′ − ′ Br (x0) | ≤ | ′ | Bκr (x0) | | Bκr (x0) Z Br (x0) where (N, α) = (N, α)(d, δ, K). Observe that

gˆ 2 dx N g 2 dx + NI, (5.3) | | ≤ | | ZBκr (x0) ZBκr (x0) where N = N(d) and

ij ij 2 ij ij 2 I = (a a )uxi dx = (a a )uxi dx. B (x ) − B (x ) B − Z κr 0 Z κr 0 ∩ R

By the H¨older’s inequality, we have I J 1/σJ 1/τ , (5.4) ≤ 1 2 where ij ij 2σ 2τ J1 = a a dx, J2 = ux dx. B (x ) B | − | B (x ) | | Z κr 0 ∩ R Z κr 0 If κr

N(κr)da# N(κr)da#, ≤ κr ≤ R where N depends only on d and K. In case κr R, ≥ J N a11 a11 dx 1 ≤ | − | ZBR R 11 1 11 1 1 N a (x , x′) – a (x ,z′) dz′ dx′ dx ≤ R B − B Z− Z R′ Z R′

NRda# N(κr)da#, ≤ R ≤ R where N = N(d, K). From the above estimates for J1 as well as the inequalities (5.2), (5.3), and (5.4), we prove

2 2α 2 d 2 – ux (ux ) dx Nκ− ux + Nκ g | ′ − ′ Br (x0) | ≤ | | Bκr (x0) | | Bκr (x0) Z Br(x0) d # 1/σ 2τ 1/τ +Nκ aR ux , | | Bκr (x0) 19 where N = N(d, δ, K, σ). It only remains to notice that a# γ. R ≤ i i Lemma 5.2. Let p (2, ), a = b = c = 0, g Lp and µ be the constant in Theorem 3.7. Then∈ there∞ exist positive constants γ∈ and N depending on d, p, δ and K such that, under Assumption 2.1(γ), for u C0∞ vanishing outside BR, 1 ∈ R µ− R and satisfying u = div g, we have ≤ 0 L u N g . k xkLp ≤ k kLp Proof. Choose τ (1, ) such that p> 2τ and set ∈ ∞ (x)= M( g 2)(x), (x)= M( u 2)(x), (x)= M( u 2τ ). A | | B | x| C | x| Then the inequality (5.1) implies 2 d 2α d 1/σ 1/τ ux (ux )B (x ) Nκ (x0)+ Nκ− (x0)+ Nκ γ (x0) | ′ − ′ r 0 | Br(x0) ≤ A B C d for all x0 R , κ 4, and r > 0. Taking the supremum of the left-hand side of the above∈ inequality≥ with respect to r> 0 and using 2 2 ux (ux )B (x ) ux (ux )B (x ) , | ′ − ′ r 0 | Br(x0) ≤ | ′ − ′ r 0 | Br (x0) we obtain the following pointwise estimate: # 2 d 2α d 1/σ 1/τ u (x) Nκ (x)+ Nκ− (x)+ Nκ γ (x) x′ ≤ A B C for all x Rdand κ 4. Again apply the Feﬀerman-Stein theorem on sharp functions and∈ the Hardy-Littlewood≥ maximal function theorem on the above inequality to get # d/2 2 1/2 ux L N u L Nκ M( g ) k ′ k p ≤ k x′ k p ≤ k | | kLp/2 α 2 1/2 d/2 1/(2σ) 2τ 1/(2τ) +Nκ− M( ux ) + Nκ γ M( ux ) k | | kLp/2 k | | kLp/(2τ) d/2 α d/2 1/(2σ) Nκ g + N κ− + κ γ u , ≤ k kLp k xkLp where the last inequality is possible due to p > 2τ > 2. On the other hand, since 1 R µ− R , by Theorem 3.7 we have ≤ 0 u N( u + g ) k xkLp ≤ k x′ kLp k kLp as long as γ is less than the constant with the same notation in Theorem 3.7. Therefore, d/2 α d/2 1/(2σ) u Nκ g + N κ− + κ γ u , k xkLp ≤ k kLp k xkLp where N = N(d,p,δ,K). Now we ﬁnish the proof by choosing a big enough κ and then a possibly smaller γ so that α d/2 1/(2σ) N κ− + κ γ 1/2. ≤

We now conclude this section by proving Theorem 2.2. Proof of Theorem 2.2. To prove the ﬁrst two assertions, by the method of continuity it is enough to prove the estimate. Moreover, due to the duality argument we only need to consider the case p (2, ). Then the estimate in the theorem follows from Lemma 5.2, a partition∈ of unity,∞ and the idea of Agmon shown, for example, in [17]. The last assertion is a consequence of the ﬁrst two via a scaling argument. 20 H. DONG AND D. KIM

6. Equations on a half space This section is devoted to the proofs of Theorem 2.3 and 2.4. We shall establish Rd the solvability of divergence form elliptic equations on the half space + with either the Dirichlet boundary condition or the conormal derivative boundary condition by using the idea of odd/even extensions. We will use the following well known results. Lemma 6.1. Let p, q (1, ). ∈ ∞1 Rd (i) A function u belongs to Wq,p( +) if and only if its even extension u˜ with respect 1 Rd to x1 belongs to Wq,p( ). Moreover, we have,

d d d u L (R ) u˜ Lq,p(R ) 2 u L (R ), (6.1) k k q,p + ≤k k ≤ k k q,p +

ux L (Rd ) u˜x L (Rd) 2 ux L (Rd ). (6.2) k k q,p + ≤k k q,p ≤ k k q,p + 1 Rd Rd (ii) A function u belongs to Wq,p( +) and vanishes on ∂ + if and only if its odd 1 Rd extension u˜ with respect to x1 belongs to Wq,p( +). Moreover, we have (6.1) and (6.2). Now we are ready to prove Theorem 2.3 and 2.4. Proof of Theorem 2.3. We define ij 1 ij 1 a˜ (x) = sgn(x )a ( x , x′) for i =1, j 2 or j =1,i 2, | | ≥ ≥ ij ij 1 a˜ (x)= a ( x , x′) otherwise, | | and 1 1 1 1 j j 1 a˜ (x) = sgn(x )a ( x , x′), a˜ (x)= a ( x , x′), j 2, | | | | ≥ 1 1 1 1 j j 1 ˜b (x) = sgn(x )b ( x , x′), ˜b (x)= b ( x , x′), j 2, | | | | ≥ 1 1 1 c˜(x)= c( x , x′), f˜(x) = sgn(x )f( x , x′), | | | | 1 1 1 g˜ (x)= g ( x , x′), g˜ (x) = sgn(x )g ( x , x′), j 2. 1 1 | | j j | | ≥ It is easily seen that if the original coefficients satisfy Assumption 2.1 (γ), then the new coefficientsa ˜ij satisfy Assumption 2.1 (2γ). Moreover, we have f,˜ g˜ L (Rd). ∈ p Let L˜ be the divergence form elliptic operator with coefficientsa ˜ij , a˜i, ˜bi, c˜. Due to Theorem 2.2, we can find γ > 0 and λ0 0 such that there exists a unique solution u W 1 solving ≥ ∈ p Lu˜ λu = divg ˜ + f˜ in Rd, (6.3) − provided that λ > λ0. By the definition of the coefficients and the data, we have 1 1 d Lu˜ ( x , x′) λu( x , x′)= divg ˜(x) f˜(x) in R . − − − − − 1 Consequently, u( x , x′) is also a solution to (6.3). By the uniqueness of the − − 1 Rd solution, we obtain u(x)= u( x , x′). This implies that, as a function on +, u − − Rd has zero trace on the boundary and clearly u satisfies (2.3) in +. This proves the existence of the solution. To prove the uniqueness, let v be another solution of (2.3) so that, for any φ W 1 (Rd ) with zero trace on ∂Rd , we have ∈ p′ + + ij j i a vxi φxj a vφxj + b vxi φ + (c λ)vφ dx = gjφxj + fφ dx. (6.4) Rd − − − Rd − Z + Z + 21

Denotev ˜ to be the odd extension of v with respect to x1. Then by the deﬁnition ofa ˜ij ,a ˜i, ˜bi,c ˜,g ˜, and f˜, for any ϕ W 1 we have ∈ p′ ij j ˜i a˜ v˜xi ϕxj a˜ vϕ˜ xj + b v˜xi ϕ + (˜c λ)˜vϕ dx Rd − − − Z ij j i = a vxi φxj a vφxj + b vxi φ + (c λ)vφ dx, Rd − − − Z + where φ(x) := ϕ(x) ϕ( x1, x). It is clear that φ W 1 (Rd ) and has zero trace p′ + Rd − − ∈ on ∂ +. By (6.4), the integral above is equal to

˜ gjφxj + fφ dx = g˜jϕxj + fϕ dx, Rd − Rd − Z + Z 1 which implies thatv ˜ Wp is a solution to (6.3). By the uniqueness, we get u =v ˜, ∈ Rd which implies that u = v in +. Finally, the estimate (2.4) follows from (2.2) and Lemma 6.1. The theorem is proved.

Proof of Theorem 2.4. We definea ˜ij ,a ˜i, ˜bi andc ˜ as in the proof of Theorem 2.3. Let L˜ be the divergence form elliptic operator with coefficientsa ˜ij , a˜i, ˜bi, c˜. Different from above, we define 1 f˜(x)= f( x , x′), | | 1 1 1 g˜ (x) = sgn(x )g ( x , x′), g˜ (x)= g ( x , x′), j 2. 1 1 | | j j | | ≥ Recall thata ˜ij satisfy Assumption 2.1 (2γ). Moreover, we have f˜,g ˜ L (Rd). ∈ p Due to Theorem 2.2, we can find γ > 0 and λ0 0 such that there exists a unique 1 Rd ≥ solution u Wp ( ) solving (6.3) provided that λ > λ0. By the definition of the coefficients∈ and the data, we have

1 1 d Lu˜ ( x , x′) λu( x , x′) = divg ˜(x)+ f˜(x) in R . − − − 1 Consequently, u( x , x′) is also a solution to (6.3). By the uniqueness of the − 1 solution, we obtain u(x)= u( x , x′). − 1 d Let p′ be such that 1/p +1/p′ = 1. For any φ W (R ), denote φ˜ to be its ∈ p′ + even extension with respect to x1. Since u satisﬁes (6.3), integrating by parts gives

ij ˜ j ˜ ˜i ˜ ˜ a˜ uxi φxj a˜ uφxj + b uxi φ +(˜c λ)uφ dx Rd − − − Z ˜ ˜˜ = g˜jφxj + fφ dx. (6.5) Rd − Z By the deﬁnition ofa ˜ij ,a ˜i, ˜bi,c ˜,g ˜, and f˜ as well as the evenness of u and φ˜, all terms inside the integrals in (6.5) are even with respect to x1. Thus, (6.5) implies

ij j i a uxi φxj a uφxj + b uxi φ + (c λ)uφ dx = gjφxj + fφ dx. (6.6) Rd − − − Rd − Z + Z + Since φ W 1 (Rd ) is arbitrary, by the deﬁnition of weak solutions, u solves (2.5). ∈ p′ + This proves the existence of the solution. 22 H. DONG AND D. KIM

For the uniqueness, let v be another solution of (2.5) so that, for any φ W 1 (Rd ), the equality (6.6) holds. Letv ˜ to be the odd extension of v with respect∈ p′ + to x1. Then by the deﬁnition ofa ˜ij ,a ˜i, ˜bi,c ˜,g ˜, and f˜, for any ϕ W 1 we have ∈ p′ ij j ˜i a˜ v˜xi ϕxj a˜ vϕ˜ xj + b v˜xi ϕ +(˜c λ)˜vϕ dx Rd − − − Z ij j i = a vxi ϕxj a vϕxj + b vxi ϕ + (c λ)vϕ dx Rd − − − Z + ij 1 j 1 i 1 + a vxi ϕxj ( x , x′) a vϕxj ( x , x′)+ b vxi ϕ( x , x′) Rd − − − − − Z + 1 + (c λ)vϕ( x , x′) dx. Rd − − Z + Due to (2.7), the sum above is equal to

1 1 gjϕxj + fϕ dx + gjϕxj ( x , x′)+ fϕ( x , x′) dx Rd − Rd − − − Z + Z + ˜ = g˜j ϕxj + fϕ dx. Rd − Z 1 This yields thatv ˜ Wp is a solution of (6.3). By the uniqueness, we get u =v ˜, ∈ Rd which implies that u = v in +. Finally, the estimate (2.6) follows from (2.2) and Lemma 6.1. The theorem is proved.

7. Equations in Lipschitz domains In this section we present the proofs of Theorem 2.7 and 2.8. Recall that we not only assume the leading coeﬃcients aij are partially small BMO, but also assume that they have small BMO semi-norms in some neighborhood of ∂Ω. First we have 1 the following classical W2 -solvability of the Dirichlet problem u = div g + f in Ω ; (7.1) Lu =0 on ∂Ω see, for example, [21]. i Theorem 7.1. Let Ω be a bounded domain. Assume axi + c 0 in Ω in the weak ≤ 1 sense. Then for any f, g = (g1, ,gd) L2(Ω) there exists a unique u W2 (Ω) solving (7.1). Moreover, we have··· ∈ ∈

u W 1(Ω) N f L (Ω) + N g L (Ω). (7.2) k k 2 ≤ k k 2 k k 2 In the sequel, we only focus on the case p (2, ), since the remaining case p (1, 2) follows immediately from the duality.∈ Because∞ Ω is bounded, under the ∈ conditions of Theorem 2.7, we have f,g Lp(Ω) L2(Ω). Owing to Theorem 7.1, 1 ∈ ⊂ there is a unique solution u W2 (Ω) to (7.1). As is well known, by the method of continuity, in order to prove∈ Theorem 2.7 it suﬃces to show the a priori estimate (2.9) for u W 1(Ω). We need the following local estimates. ∈ p Lemma 7.2. Let Ω′ ⋐ Ω, f,g = (g1, ,gd) Lp(Ω), and λ0 and γ are constants ··· ∈ 1 taken from Theorem 2.2. Then under Assumption 2.1 (γ), for any u Wp , we have ∈ √λ u N √λ g + f + λ u + u , (7.3) k xkLp(Ω′) ≤ k kLp(Ω) k kLp(Ω) k kLp(Ω) k xkLp(Ω) 23 provided that λ λ0 and ≥ u = div g + f in Ω, L where N = N(d, p, δ, K, R0, Ω′, Ω) > 0.

Proof. Fix a λ λ . We take a smooth cut-oﬀ function η C∞(Ω) such that η 1 ≥ 0 ∈ 0 ≡ in Ω′. It is easily seen that (ηu) ληu = divg ˜ + f˜ in Rd, L − where ij ij i i g˜ = ηg + a η i u, f˜ = ηf η i g + a u i η j + a uη i + b uη i ληu. (7.4) j j x − x i x x x x − Due to Theorem 2.2 (i), we have √λ u √λ (ηu) N√λ g˜ + N f˜ . (7.5) k xkLp(Ω′) ≤ k xkLp ≤ k kLp k kLp By (7.4), the right-hand side of (7.5) is less than the right-hand side of (7.3). The lemma is proved. For r> 0, we denote B+ = B Rd . r r ∩ + + Lemma 7.3. Let 0 0. Proof. The lemma follows immediately from the proof of Theorem 2.3 and Lemma 7.2. We omit the detail.

Remark 7.4. By an iteration argument, one actually can drop the ux Lp term on the right-hand side of (7.3) and (7.6). However, we will not use thisk inkour proof. Next we locally flatten the boundary of ∂Ω under Assumption 2.5 (γ) and 2.6 (θ). Let us choose a point x ∂Ω and a number r = min R , R , so that 0 ∈ 0 { 1 2} 1 Ω B (x )= x B (x ): x > φ(x′) . ∩ r0 0 { ∈ r0 0 } We define 1 j j j y = x φ(x′) := Φ (x), y = x := Φ (x), j 2. 1 1 − ≥ There exists a small r1 > 0 depending on r0 such that B Φ(B (x )), B+ Φ(Ω B (x )), r1 ⊂ r0 0 r1 ⊂ ∩ r0 0 where we assumed that, without loss of generality, 0 = y0 = Φ(x0). Denote v(y)= + 1 1 u(Ψ(y)) for any y B , whereΨ =Φ− . If u W (Ω) satisfies the equation (7.1), ∈ r1 ∈ p it is easily seen that v satisfies v =0 on B ∂Rd and r1 ∩ + ˆv = divg ˆ + fˆ in B+ , L r1 where for y B , ∈ r1 ij kl i j i k i aˆ (y)= a (Ψ(y))Φxk (Ψ(y))Φxl (Ψ(y)), aˆ (y)= a (Ψ(y))Φxk (Ψ(y)), î k i b (y)= b (Ψ(y))Φxk (Ψ(y)), cˆ(y)= c(Ψ(y)), 24 H. DONG AND D. KIM

î k i f (y)= f (Ψ(y))Φxk (Ψ(y)), gˆ(y)= g(Ψ(y)). These coefficients satisfy the boundedness and ellipticity conditions with possibly different but comparable constants. Following the argument in [3], we know that aîj satisfy sup – aîj (x) (âij ) dx N (θ + γ), (7.7) | − Br (x1)| ≤ 0 ij Z Br (x1) for any x1 Br1/2 and r (0, r1/2], where N0 is independent of θ and γ. We ∈ ∈ij Rd may change the values ofa ˆ outside Br1/8 and extend them to so that the boundedness and ellipticity condition are still satisfied with the same constants, d and (7.7) is satisfied for any x1 R and r (0, r2] with a possibly larger N0 and r = min 1/4,θ + γ r . Indeed,∈ this can be∈ done by considering 2 { } 1 aîj η( /r )+ δij (1 η( /r )), · 1 − · 1 where η C∞(B ) satisfying η = 1 in B . Now we choose sufficiently small θ ∈ 0 1/4 1/8 and γ such that N0(θ + γ) is less than the constant γ in Lemma 7.3. By Lemma 7.3, we get

√λ v + x Lp(B ) k k r1/16

N(√λ gˆ + + fˆ + + λ v + + v + ), Lp(B ) Lp(B ) Lp(B ) x Lp(B ) ≤ k k r1/8 k k r1/8 k k r1/8 k k r1/8 which implies

√λ ux L (Ω B ) N(√λ g L (Ω B ) + f L (Ω B ) k k p ∩ r3 ≤ k k p ∩ r0 k k p ∩ r0 +λ u L (Ω B ) + ux L (Ω B )), (7.8) k k p ∩ r0 k k p ∩ r0 for λ λ0, where r3 depends only on r0. Now≥ we are in the position to prove Theorem 2.7

Proof of Theorem 2.7. By using a partition of unity, we get from (7.3) and (7.8) that √λ u N (√λ g + f + λ u + u ) k xkLp(Ω) ≤ 2 k kLp(Ω) k kLp(Ω) k kLp(Ω) k xkLp(Ω) for λ λ . To absorb the u term on the right-hand side, we take and fix ≥ 0 k xkLp(Ω) a sufficiently large λ so that N √λ/2. Therefore, 2 ≤ u N ( g + f + u ). k xkLp(Ω) ≤ 3 k kLp(Ω) k kLp(Ω) k kLp(Ω) Take p1 (p, ) such that 1 d/p > d/p1. By Hölder’s inequality, Young’s inequality∈ and∞ Poincaré-Sobolev− inequality,− we get for any ǫ> 0,

u L (Ω) N(ǫ) u L (Ω) + ǫ u L (Ω) N(ǫ) u L (Ω) + N4ǫ ux L (Ω). k k p ≤ k k 2 k k p1 ≤ k k 2 k k p Choosing ǫ =1/(2N3N4) and using (7.2), we obtain (2.9). The theorem is proved.

Next we turn to study the conormal derivative problem: u = div g + f in Ω Lij j j j j . (7.9) a u i n + a un = g n on ∂Ω x j 25

1 Lemma 7.5. Let Ω be a bounded domain and u W2 (Ω). Assume in the weak i ij j∈ j j sense axi + c 0 in Ω, u =0 in Ω, and a uxi n + a un =0 on ∂Ω. ≤ Li i i (i) If in the weak sense axi + c 0 in Ω and a n =0 on ∂Ω, then we have u C for a constant C R. ≡ ≡ (ii) Otherwise, we∈ have u 0. ≡ Proof. Owing to the strong maximum principle for the conormal derivative problem (cf. [21] and [24]), under the assumption of the lemma, u is a constant in Ω. Now assertions (i) and (ii) follow from the deﬁnitions (2.11) and (2.12).

1 Owing to Lemma 7.5, we get the W2 -solvability for the conormal derivative problem. i Theorem 7.6. Let Ω be a bounded domain. Assume axi + c 0 in Ω in the weak sense. ≤ i i i (i) If in the weak sense axi + c 0 in Ω and a n = 0 on ∂Ω, for any f, g = ≡ 1 (g1, ,gd) L2(Ω) there exists a unique up to a constant u W2 (Ω) solving (7.9)···provided∈ that ∈ bi = c =0, f dx =0. (7.10) ZΩ Moreover, we have u N f + N g . (7.11) k xkL2(Ω) ≤ k kL2(Ω) k kL2(Ω) (ii) Otherwise, the solution is unique and we have

u W 1(Ω) N f L (Ω) + N g L (Ω). k k 2 ≤ k k 2 k k 2 Proof. We remark that for equations without lower order terms and f, this result was proved in [6]. 1 First we have the unique solvability in W2 (Ω) of u λu = div g + f with the same boundary condition for a suﬃciently large λ.L Indeed− this follows from the coercivity of the bilinear form

ij j i (u, v) := a u i v j + a uv j b u i v + (λ c)uv dx B x x x − x − ZΩ for large enough λ, and the Lax-Milgram lemma. We fix such a λ and denote 1 the corresponding resolvent operator to be λ− , which is bounded from L2(Ω) to 1 L W2 (Ω). Part (i): Let 1 1 H (Ω) = v W2 (Ω) (v)Ω =0 , 1 { ∈ | } and : H (Ω) L2(Ω) be the natural compact imbedding. Also we define : H1(Ω)I H1(Ω)→ by T → 1 1 v = − v ( − v) . T Lλ I − Lλ I Ω Clearly is a compact operator on H1(Ω). Bearing Lemma 7.5 in mind, to prove part (i),T it suffices to show the unique solvability of (7.9) in H1(Ω) and the bound (7.11). We claim that if u satisfies 1 1 u + λ u = − (div g + f) − (div g + f) , (7.12) T Lλ − Lλ Ω then u also solves (7.9). Indeed, clearly u solves u = div g + f + C in Ω Lij j j j j , (7.13) a u i n + a un = g n on ∂Ω x j 26 H. DONG AND D. KIM for some constant C. To see C = 0, we take φ 1 in the integral formulation of (7.13) and use (7.10). ≡ Therefore, any solution to u + λ u = 0 (7.14) T also solves (7.9) with gj f 0. Due to Lemma 7.5 (i) (7.14) has a unique solution u 0 in H1(Ω). This together≡ ≡ with the Fredholm alternative shows that there is a unique≡ u H1(Ω) satisfying (7.12). Moreover, we have the estimate ∈ u N f + N g . k xkL2(Ω) ≤ k kL2(Ω) k kL2(Ω) Part (i) of the theorem is proved. Part (ii): The proof is similar. Instead of the space H1(Ω), we solve the equation 1 1 in the usual Sobolev space W2 (Ω). Let : W2 (Ω) L2(Ω) be the natural compact imbedding. Also we define : W 1(Ω) I W 1(Ω) by→ T 2 → 2 1 v = − v. T Lλ I 1 1 Clearly is a compact operator on W2 (Ω). Notice that for any u W2 (Ω) (7.9) is equivalentT to ∈ 1 u + λ u = λ− (div g + f). T L 1 By the Fredholm alternative, the unique solvability in W2 (Ω) and the bound follow 1 from the uniqueness in W2 (Ω) of the trivial solution to u + λ u = 0, which is due to Lemma 7.5 (ii). This completes the proof of the theorem. T We also need a boundary estimate analogue to Lemma 7.3. + Lemma 7.7. Let 0 0. Proof. The lemma follows immediately from the proof of Theorem 2.4 and Lemma 7.2. Proof of Theorem 2.8. Notice that under the conditions of Theorem 2.8, we still have (7.8) by relying on Lemma 7.7 instead of Lemma 7.3. This together with Lemma 7.2 yields the conclusions of the theorem by the same reasoning as in the proof of Theorem 2.7.

8. Auxiliary results for the mixed norm case The results in this section are similar to those in [18] (speciﬁcally, Lemma 8.2, Corollary 8.3 and Corollary 8.4 in [18]). However, since the conditions on the operators considered here are more general than those in [18], it is not possible to refer to the results in [18] based on the idea that the elliptic case can be considered as the time independent parabolic case. In addition, contrary to the parabolic case where the Cauchy problem with zero initial condition is considered, we are not able 27

ij to use the solvability to the equation (a uxi )xj = div g in the whole space. Because of these diﬀerences, we present here complete proofs. Throughout the section, set ij u = a u i L0 x xj Lemma 8.1. Let r (0, R ], κ> 1, and q (1,p], p (1, ). Assume that ∈ 0 ∈ ∈ ∞ 1 1 1 . (8.1) q − p ≤ d Then there exists γ = γ(d,p,q,δ,K) > 0 such that, under Assumption 2.1 (γ), if 1 u W loc satisﬁes u =0 in B , then u, u L (B ) and ∈ q, L0 κr x ∈ p r 1 p 1/p p 1/p q q q 1/q r− ( u )B + ( ux )B N ux + r− u , (8.2) | | r | | r ≤ | | | | Bκr where N = N(d,p,q,δ,K,κ).

Proof. First we show that it is enough to prove (8.2) only for r = R0 = 1. To do 1 this, assume that (8.2) holds true for r = R0 = 1 and let u be a function in Wq,loc such that u = 0 in B . Thenu ˆ(x) := u(rx) satisfies L0 κr ij (â (x)ûxi )xj =0 ij ij ij in Bκ, wherea ˆ (x)= a (rx). The coefficientsa ˆ carry the same constants δ and ij ij K as a . Moreover,a ˆ satisfy Assumption 2.1 (γ) with R0 replaced by 1 because ij ij oscx′ aˆ , Γρ(x) = oscx′ a , Γrρ(rx) , which implies thata ˆ# = a# a# γ. Then by applying the estimate (8.2) with 1 r ≤ R0 ≤ r = R = 1 to the equation ˆ uˆ = 0 in B , we have 0 L0 κ p 1/p p 1/p q q 1/q ( uˆ ) + ( uˆx ) N ( uˆx + uˆ ) | | B1 | | B1 ≤ | | | | Bκ with the same constant N. Returning back to u proves the lemma for r (0, R ]. ∈ 0 To deal with the case r = R0 = 1, we fix λ > λ0 and γ, where λ0 and γ are from Theorem 2.2 which work for both p and q. First it follows from the Sobolev imbedding theorem that

p 1/p q q 1/q ( u ) N ( u + ux ) , (8.3) | | Bκ ≤ | | | | Bκ where N = N(d,p,q,κ). In particular, this shows that ( u p)1/p is controlled by the | | B1 right-hand side of (8.2). Let η C∞ be such that η =1 on B and η = 0 outside B . Then ∈ 0 1 κ ( λ)(ηu) = div g + f, L0 − where d d ij ij g = a uη i , f = a u i η j ληu. (8.4) j x x x − i=1 i,j=1 X X Since g has a compact support in Bκ, the inequality (8.3) implies q q 1/q g L N ( u + ux ) . (8.5) k k p ≤ | | | | Bκ Now using the fact that f Lq and the well-known Lp-theory for the Laplace operator, we ﬁnd a unique solution∈ w W 2 to the equation ∈ q ∆w λw = f. − 28 H. DONG AND D. KIM

By the Sobolev embedding theorem again and the Lq-estimate corresponding to the above equation, q q 1/q w L + wx L N w W 2 N f L N ( u + ux ) . (8.6) k k p k k p ≤ k k q ≤ k k q ≤ | | | | Bκ Deﬁne v := ηu w, which is in W 1 because ηu, w W 1. In addition, − q ∈ q ij ij v λv = div g ((a δ )w i ) j . (8.7) L0 − − − x x Note that g, w L . Thus, by Theorem 2.2, v is the unique solution in W 1 to x ∈ q q the above equation. On the other hand, by (8.5) and (8.6) we have g, wxi Lp. 1 ∈ Thus, again by Theorem 2.2, there exists a unique solution in Wp to the equation 1 (8.7). This implies that v has to be the unique solution in Wp to the equation (8.7). Moreover, v N g + w . k xkLp ≤ k kLp k xkLp From this, (8.5), (8.6), and ηu = w + v, p 1/p q q 1/q ( ux ) N (ηu)x L N ( u + ux ) . | | B1 ≤ k k p ≤ | | | | Bκ This ﬁnishes the proof. Assume that 1

Corollary 8.2. Let r (0, R0], κ > 1, and q (1,p], p (1, ). Assume that 1 ∈ ∈ ∈ ∞ u W loc satisﬁes u =0 in B . Then there exists γ = γ(d,p,q,δ,K) > 0 such ∈ q, L0 κr that, under Assumption 2.1 (γ), we have u, u L (B ) and x ∈ p r 1 p 1/p p 1/p q q q 1/q r− ( u )B + ( ux )B N ux + r− u , | | r | | r ≤ | | | | Bκr where N = N(d,p,q,δ,K,κ). As noted earlier, the corollary below corresponds to Corollary 8.4 in [18], but the statement is a little diﬀerent.

Corollary 8.3. Let p, q (1, ), λ 0, and 0 < r R0/√2. Assume that 1 ∈ ∞ ≥ ≤ u W loc and u λu =0 in B . Then there exists γ = γ(d,p,q,δ,K) > 0 such ∈ q, L0 − 2r that, under Assumption 2.1 (γ), we have u L (B ) and x ∈ p r 1/q ( u p)1/p N u q + λq/2 u q , (8.8) x Br x | | ≤ | | | | B2r where N = N(d,p,q,δ,K). Proof. It suﬃces to prove the case q 0, we set uˆ(z)= u(x) cos(√λy), 29 where z Rd+1, z = (x, y), x Rd, and y R. Then ∈ ∈ ∈ ij (a uˆxi )xj +ˆuyy =0 ˆ Rd+1 in B√2τ = z √2τ : z , τ = √2r (0, R0]. By the proof above for λ = 0, we obtain{| | ≤ ∈ } ∈ p 1/p q 1/q ( uˆz ) ˆ N ( uˆz ) ˆ . | | Bτ ≤ | | B√2τ Note that there exists a small constant N = N(p), independent of r and λ, such that r N – cos(√λy) p dy. ≤ r | | Z − Thus r p p p – ux(x) dx N – – ux(x)cos(√λy) dx dy N – uˆz dz. B | | ≤ r B | | ≤ Bˆ | | Z r Z − Z r Z τ Also we have 2r q q – uˆz dz N – – cos(√λy)ux(x) dx dy Bˆ | | ≤ 2r B | | Z √2τ Z − Z 2r 2r +N – – √λ sin(√λy)u(x) q dx dy N ( u q) + Nλq/2 ( u q) . x B2r B2r 2r B | | ≤ | | | | Z − Z 2r Using the above two sets of inequalities we complete the proof of (8.8).

9. Results for the mixed norm case

As introduced earlier, the mixed norm Lq,p of u means

q/p 1/q p x2 x1 d x x x x u Lq,p = u Lq Lp (R ) = u( 1, 2) d 1 2 . k k k k Rd2 Rd1 | | Z Z ! Throughout the section, by we mean the elliptic operator in (1.1), the coeﬃcients of which have the same conditionsL as in Section 2. We state the main results concerning elliptic equations in Sobolev spaces with mixed norms. The proof of the ﬁrst main result is presented at the end of Section 11.

Theorem 9.1. Let p, q (1, ), and f, g = (g1, ,gd) Lq,p. Then there exists a constant γ = γ(d,p,q,δ,K∈ )∞such that, under Assumption··· ∈ 2.1 (γ), the following hold true. (i) There exist constants λ1 and N, depending only on d1, d2, p, q, δ, K, and R0, such that √λ u + λ u N√λ g + N f , k xkLq,p k kLq,p ≤ k kLq,p k kLq,p provided that u W 1 , λ λ , and ∈ q,p ≥ 1 u λu = div g + f. (9.1) L − (ii) For any λ > λ , there exists a unique u W 1 satisfying (9.1). 1 ∈ q,p (iii) If ai = bi = c =0 and aij = aij (x1), i.e., measurable functions of x1 R only ∈ with no regularity assumptions, then one can take λ1 =0. 30 H. DONG AND D. KIM

The following two theorems are about the Dirichlet problem and the conormal derivative problem on a half space when Sobolev spaces with mixed norms are considered. Since their proofs are basically the same as those of Theorem 2.3 and 2.4, that is, we use Theorem 9.1, Lemma 6.1, and odd/even extensions, we only state the theorems. Rd Theorem 9.2. Let p, q (1, ) and f, g = (g1, ,gd) Lq,p( +). Then there exists a constant γ = γ∈(d,p,q,δ,K∞ ) such that,··· under Assumption∈ 2.1 (γ), the following hold true. There exist constants λ1 and N, depending only on d1, d2, p, q, δ, K, and R0, such that √ √ λ ux L (Rd ) + λ u L (Rd ) N λ g L (Rd ) + N f L (Rd ), k k q,p + k k q,p + ≤ k k q,p + k k q,p + 1 d provided that λ λ and u W (R ) satisfies u(0, x′)=0 and ≥ 1 ∈ q,p + u λu = div g + f in Rd . (9.2) L − + Moreover, for any λ > λ and g,f L (Rd ), there exists a unique u W 1 (Rd ) 1 ∈ q,p + ∈ q,p + satisfying (9.2) and u(0, x′)=0. Theorem 9.3 (Conormal derivative problem on a half space). Let p, q (1, ) Rd ∈ ∞ and f, g = (g1, ,gd) Lq,p( +). Then there exists a constant γ = γ(d,p,q,δ,K) such that, under··· Assumption∈ 2.1 (γ), the following hold true. There exist constants λ1 and N, depending only on d1, d2, p, q, δ, K, and R0, such that √ √ λ ux L (Rd ) + λ u L (Rd ) N λ g L (Rd ) + N f L (Rd ), k k q,p + k k q,p + ≤ k k q,p + k k q,p + provided that λ λ and u W 1 (Rd ) satisfies ≥ 1 ∈ q,p + Rd u λu = div g + f in + Li1 − 1 d , (9.3) a u i + a u = g on ∂R x 1 + Moreover, for any λ > λ and g,f L (Rd ), there exists a unique u W 1 (Rd ) 1 ∈ q,p + ∈ q,p + satisfying (9.3). Note that, similar to the homogeneous norm case, solutions of (9.3) are understood in the weak sense, i.e. u W 1 (Rd ) satisfies (9.3) if we have ∈ q,p + ij j i a uxi φxj a uφxj + b uxi φ + (c λ)uφ dx = ( gjφxj + fφ) dx Rd − − − Rd − Z + Z + 1 d for any φ W (R ), where q′,p′ satisfy 1/q +1/q′ =1 and 1/p +1/p′ = 1. ∈ q′ ,p′ +

10. Mixed norm estimate of ux1 In this section we set ij u = a u i L0 x xj 1 and prove that the mixed norm of ux is controlled by that of g and ux′ if 0u = div g and aij satisfy Assumption 2.1 (γ). L The ﬁrst result of this section is an Lp-version of Lemma 3.4. Since Theorem 2.2, more precisely, Theorem 2.2 (iii) is now available, the proof of the lemma is exactly the same as that of Lemma 3.4 with p in place of 2 and Theorem 2.2 in place of Theorem 3.2. 31

1 11 11 1 Lemma 10.1. Let p (1, ), λ > 0, r > 0, κ > 8Kδ− , and a = a (x ). 1 ∈ ∞ Assume that u W loc and ∈ p, u λu = div g + f, L0 − where f, g L loc. Then there exists a constant N = N(d,p,δ,K) such that ∈ p, 1/p 11 11 p 1 d/p 1 p 1/p a¯ u¯x1 a¯ u¯x1 N κ− + κ µ− ( u¯x1 ) Br Bκr | − | Br ≤ | | 1/p d/p p p/2 p p p/2 ˜ p +Nκ u¯x′ + λ u¯ + g˜ + λ− f , | | | | | | | | Bκr for all µ 1, where a¯ij , u¯, f˜, and g˜ are those in (3.3) and (3.4) . ≥ It is possible to derive a similar but more complicated estimate from the above ij 1 d 1 lemma if a are measurable in x and BMO in x′ R − . ∈ 1 Theorem 10.2. Let p (1, ). If u Wp,loc satisﬁes 0u = div g, where g ∈ ∞ ∈ L R ∈ L loc, then for each x Rd, µ 1, κ > 16Kδ 1, and r (0, 0 ], there exist p, 0 − √2κ ∈ ≥ 1 ∈ 1 γ0 = γ0(d,p,δ,K,µ) and a measurable function a¯(x )=a ¯x0,µ,κr(x ) such that δ a¯(x1) K and ≤ ≤ 1/p p d/p p p p p 1/p a¯u¯x1 (¯au¯x1 ) N1κ u¯x + R− u¯ + g˜ Br (x0) ′ 0 B (x0) | − | Br(x0) ≤ | | | | | | √2κr 1 d/p 1 d/p 1/(2p) p 1/p +N κ− + κ µ− + N1κ γ ( u¯x1 )B (x ) , | | √2κr 0 ij provided that a satisfy Assumption 2.1 (γ) and γ γ0. Here N = N(d,p,δ,K), ≤ independent of µ, and N1 = N1(d,p,δ,K,µ). Recall that u¯ and g˜ are those in (3.3) and (3.4).

Proof. First we prove the case when x0 is the origin. By a scaling, it suﬃces to 1 1 consider the case R = 1. For given µ 1, κ> 16Kδ− , and r (0, ], denote 0 ≥ ∈ √2κ µ 1 1 C = ( µ− r, µ− r) B′ , C = ( r, r) B′ . r − × r r − × r Fix a λ > λ0 and let γ0 γ, where λ0 = λ0(d,p,δ,K) and γ = γ(d,p,δ,K) are ≤ 1 taken from Theorem 2.2. By Theorem 2.2 there exists a unique solution w Wp to the equation ∈ w λw = div(I µ g)+ I µ f , L0 − Cκr Cκr λ where f = λu. It then follows that λ − 1/2 √λ w + w N I µ g + λ− I µ f , k kLp k xkLp ≤ k Cκr kLp k Cκr λkLp where N = N(d,p,δ,K) is independent of µ. The notations in (3.3) and (3.4) turn the above estimate into

√λ w¯ + µ w¯ 1 + w¯ k kLp k x kLp k x′ kLp 1 1/2 Nµ− I g˜ + N I g˜ + Nλ I u¯ , ≤ k Cκr 1kLp k Cκr j kLp k Cκr kLp j 2 X≥ where N = N(d,p,δ,K). This indicates that 1/p ( w¯ p)1/p Nκd/p g˜ p + λp/2 u¯ p , x Br B | | ≤ | | | | √2κr 1/p p p/2 p p p/2 p 1/p w¯x + λ w¯ N g˜ + λ u¯ B | | | | Bκr ≤ | | | | √2κr 32 H. DONG AND D. KIM since µ 1 and Cκr B√2κr. Observe≥ that v :=⊂u w satisfies − v λv = div (1 I µ )g + (1 I µ )f . L0 − − Cκr − Cκr λ 11 Define L0 to be the operator given by replacing the coefficients a of 0 with L 1 11 1 a(x )= – a (x ,y′) dy′. B Z κr/′ 2 1 1 1 We also seta ¯(x )= a(µ− x ). Then L v λv = div g + f, 0 − where 11 g = (a a )v 1 + (1 I µ )g , g = (1 I µ )g , j 2, 1 − x − Cκr 1 j − Cκr j ≥ f = (1 I µ )f . − Cκr λ 1 Note that κ/2 > 8Kδ− . By Lemma 10.1 applied to the above equation, we get

p p/2 ˜ p 2 11 p g˜ + λ− f = – µ (¯a a¯ )¯vx1 dx | | | | Bκr/2 B | − | Z κr/2 1/2 1/2 2p 11 2p 2p µ – a¯ a¯ dx – v¯ 1 dx . ≤ | − | | x | Z Bκr/2 ! Z Bκr/2 ! µ To estimate the last term in the above inequality, note that, in Cκr, v λv =0. L0 − Thusv ¯ satisfies, in C B , κr ⊃ κr ij 2 aˇ v¯ i µ− λv¯ =0, x xj − where 11 11 1j 1 1j i1 1 i1 ij 2 ij aˇ =¯a , aˇ = µ− a¯ , aˇ = µ− a¯ , aˇ = µ− a¯ , i,j 2. ≥ A calculation along with the fact µ 1 shows that ≥ 11 11 1 1 osc aˇ , Γ (x) µ osc a , Γ (µ− x , x′) . x′ r ≤ x′ r # # We have similar inequalities for the other coefficients, so we have a ˇR µaR . As to the boundedness and the uniform ellipticity constant of these coefficients,≤ we ij 2 see that they are bounded by K as a , but the ellipticity constant is µ− δ instead # 2 of δ. Find γ such thata ˇ γ, where γ = γ(d, p, 2p,µ− δ, K) is taken from 0 1 ≤ Corollary 8.3. Then by Corollary 8.3 along with κr 1/√2 there exists a constant ≤ N1 = N1(d,p,δ,K,µ) such that 1/2 2p p p p/2 p – v¯ 1 dx N – v¯ + µ− λ v¯ dx . | x | ≤ 1 | x| | | Z Bκr/2 ! Z Bκr 33

On the other hand,

11 2p 2p 1 – a¯ a¯ dx µ(2K) − γ. | − | ≤ Z Bκr/2 To finish the proof of the case x0 = 0, we combine all the inequalities above as in the proof of Lemma 3.4. We also bear in mind that the fixed λ is a constant 1 depending only on d, p, δ and K. For the general Br(x0), x0 = (x0, x0′ ), we use a 1 1 1 1 translation u(x , x′) u(x + µ− x , x′ + x′ ), which givesu ¯(x) u¯(x + x ). → 0 0 → 0 Recall that, for x = (x1, x2, , xd) Rd, x represents the first d coordinates ··· ∈ 1 1 of x and x2 represents the remaining d2 coordinates of x, where d1, d2 > 0 and d1 + d2 = d. Let Bd1 (x )= x y < r : y Rd1 , Bd2 (x )= x y < r : y Rd2 . r 1 {| 1 − 1| 1 ∈ } r 2 {| 2 − 2| 2 ∈ } d1 d1 d2 d2 Rd As before, we set Br = Br (0) and Br = Br (0). For a function f defined on , denote 1/p p f( , x2) p,d1 = f(x1, x2) dx1 . k · k Rd1 | | Z Note that f( , x ) is a function of x . k · 2 kp,d1 2 Corollary 10.3. Under the assumptions of Theorem 10.2, there exist constants N = N(d,p,δ,K) and N1 = N1(d,p,δ,K,µ) such that

p 1 1 – – u¯x ( , x2) p,d1 u¯x ( , y2) p,d1 dx2 dy2 d2 d2 |k · k −k · k | Z Br Z Br d p p p p N κ – u¯ ( , x ) + R− u¯( , x ) + g˜( , x ) dx 1 x′ 2 p,d1 0 2 p,d1 2 p,d1 2 ≤ Bd2 k · k k · k k · k Z 2κr p d p d 1/2 p +N κ− + κ µ− + N κ γ – u¯ 1 ( , x ) dx 1 x 2 p,d1 2 Bd2 k · k Z 2κr 1 R0 for all κ> 16Kδ− and r (0, ]. ∈ 2κ 1 R0 Proof. Fix κ> 16Kδ− and r (0, ]. Note that ∈ 2κ p p u¯x1 ( , x2) p,d u¯x1 ( , y ) p,d u¯x1 ( , x2) u¯x1 ( , y ) |k · k 1 −k · 2 k 1 | ≤k · − · 2 kp,d1 p = – u¯x1 (z1 + w1, x2) u¯x1 (z1 + w1, y ) dz1 dw1 d 2 1 Rd1 | − | Z Br Z p = – u¯x1 (w1, x2) u¯x1 (w1, y ) dw1 dz1. d 2 Rd1 1 | − | Z Z Br (z1) We use Theorem 10.2 to ﬁnda ¯ =a ¯ corresponding to B (z , 0). z1 (z1,0),µ,√2κr √2r 1 p Since δ a¯z K, the last term above is not greater than δ− times ≤ 1 ≤ p 1 1 – a¯z1 u¯x (w1, x2) a¯z1 u¯x (w1, y ) dw1 dz1. d 2 Rd1 1 | − | Z Z Br (z1) Thus the left-hand side of the inequality in the corollary, denoted by I, satisﬁes

p 1 1 I N – – – a¯z1 u¯x (w1, x2) a¯z1 u¯x (w1, y ) dw1 dx2 dy dz1. d d d 2 2 ≤ Rd1 2 2 1 | − | Z Z Br Z Br Z Br (z1) Observe that p 1 1 a¯z1 u¯x (w1, x2) a¯z1 u¯x (w1, y2) p | −p p | p 1 1 1 1 2 a¯z1 u¯x (w1, x2) (¯az1 u¯x )B (z ,0) +2 a¯z1 u¯x (w1, y2) (¯az1 u¯x )B (z ,0) ≤ | − √2r 1 | | − √2r 1 | 34 H. DONG AND D. KIM and Bd1 (z ) Bd2 B (z , 0). r 1 × r ⊂ √2r 1 Hence

p 1 1 I N – a¯z1 u¯x (x) (¯az1 u¯x ) dx dz1, B√2r (z1,0) ≤ Rd1 B (z ,0) | − | Z Z √2r 1 where N depends only on d and p. Then by Theorem 10.2 we have

d p p p p I N1κ u¯x + R− u¯ + g˜ dz1 ′ 0 B2κr (z1,0) ≤ Rd1 | | | | | | Z p d p d 1/2 p +N κ− + κ µ− + N κ γ ( u¯ 1 ) dz , 1 x B2κr (z1,0) 1 Rd1 | | Z where N is independent of µ. The same process as at the beginning of the proof yields, for example,

( g˜ p) dz = – g˜(z + w , x ) p dw dx dz B2κr (z1,0) 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 Rd1 | | Rd1 | | Z Z Z B2κr p N(d) – – g˜(z1 + w1, x2) dx2 dw1 dz1 d d ≤ Rd1 B 1 B 2 | | Z Z 2κr Z 2κr p p = N – g˜(z1, x2) dz1 dx2 = N – g˜( , x2) dx2. d d p,d1 B 2 Rd1 | | B 2 k · k Z 2κr Z Z 2κr Therefore, we obtain the inequality in the corollary.

If g is a function deﬁned on Rd2 , naturally its maximal and sharp functions are

Mg(x2) = sup – g(y2) dy2, r>0 d2 | | Z Br (x1) # x – y d y g ( 2) = sup g( 2) (g)B 2 (x ) d 2. r>0 d2 | − r 2 | Z Br (x2) We now come to the main result of this section. Theorem 10.4. Let 1

– d x u (u)B 2 (x¯ ) d 2 d2 | − r 2 | Z Br (x¯2) 35

d/p p 1/p 1 d/p 1 d/p 1/(2p) p 1/p N1κ (f ) d2 + N κ− + κ µ− + N1κ γ (u ) d2 ≤ B2κr (x¯2) B2κr (x¯2) d2 for all x¯2 R , where N is independent of µ. If r >R/(2κ), since u has a compact ∈ d2 support in BR2 , by the H¨older’s inequality 1 1/p − p 1/p – u (u) d2 dx2 N – I d2 x2 (u ) d Br (x¯2) B 2 d2 | − | ≤ d2 R2 Br (x¯2) Z Br (x¯2) Z Br (x¯2) !

2 d2(1 1/p) p 1/p d2(1 1/p) p 1/p N(R /r) − (u ) d2 N(κR) − (u ) d2 . ≤ Br (x¯2) ≤ Br (x¯2) Therefore, by the above two sets of inequalities as well as the fact that, for example, p p d x (f )B 2 (x¯ ) Mf (¯2), we obtain 2κr 2 ≤

d/p p 1/p – d x x u (u)B 2 (x¯ ) d 2 N1κ (Mf (¯2)) d2 | − r 2 | ≤ Z Br (x¯2)

1 d/p 1 d/p 1/(2p) d2(1 1/p) p 1/p +N κ− + κ µ− + N1κ γ + (κR) − (Mu (x¯2))

Rd2 for all r > 0 and x¯2 , where N is independent of µ. This implies the pointwise estimate that the∈ sharp function u# is bounded by the right-hand side of the inequality. Then using the maximal function theorem and the Feﬀerman-Stein theorem, we get (note that q>p) d/p u Rd N κ f Rd k kLq( 2 ) ≤ 1 k kLq( 2 )

1 d/p 1 d/p 1/(2p) d2(1 1/p) +N κ− + κ µ− + N κ γ + (κR) − u Rd . 1 k kLq( 2 ) Bearing in mind that N is independent of µ, we choose first a sufficiently big κ, then a sufficiently big µ, and finally sufficiently small γ and R3 so that 1 d/p 1 d/p 1/(2p) d (1 1/p) N κ− + κ µ− + N κ γ + (κR) 2 − 1/2 1 ≤ for all R R3. It then follows that ≤ u¯ 1 N u¯ + u¯ + g˜ , k x kLq,p ≤ k x′ kLq,p k kLq,p k kLq,p where N = N(d1, d2,p,q,δ,K). To finish the proof, we turn the above inequality into an inequality in terms of u and g.

11. Mixed norms

Finally, in this section we prove Theorem 9.1. First we present an Lp-version of Theorem 4.3. Now that we have proved Theorem 2.2 (iii), which is an Lp-version of Theorem 3.2 if aij are measurable functions of x1 R only, the following theorem is proved in the same manner as Theorem 4.3 using∈ Theorem 2.2 and Corollary 4.2. Theorem 11.1. Let p (1, ), λ> 0, κ 4, r> 0, and ai = bi = c =0. Assume ij ij 1 ∈ ∞1 ≥ that a = a (x ) and u W loc satisﬁes u λu = div g + f in B , where f, ∈ p, L − κr g Lp,loc. Then there exist positive constants N and α, depending only on d, p, δ, and∈ K, such that

p pα p p/2 p d p p/2 p ( u (u ) ) Nκ− u + λ u + Nκ g + λ− f . x′ x′ Br Br x | − | ≤ | | | | Bκr | | | | Bκr Based on Corollary 8.3 and Theorem 2.2, we prove an estimate of the Lp- oscillations of ux′ as follows. 36 H. DONG AND D. KIM

j i 1 Theorem 11.2. Let p (1, ) and a = b = c =0. Assume that u W loc satis- ∈ ∞ ∈ p, ﬁes u = div g, where g L loc. Then there exists a constant γ = γ (d,p,q,δ,K) L ∈ p, 0 0 such that, under Assumption 2.1 (γ), γ γ0, the following holds true. There exist positive constants N = N(d,p,δ,K) and≤α = α(d,p,δ,K) such that

p 1/p α d/p 1/(2p) p 1/p ux′ (ux′ )B N κ− + κ γ ( ux )B | − r | Br ≤ | | κr d/p p p p 1/p +Nκ g + R0− u | | | | Bκr for all κ 8, r (0, R0 ]. ≥ ∈ √2κ Proof. By a scaling, we may again assume R = 1. Fix a λ > λ and let γ γ, 0 0 0 ≤ where λ0 = λ0(d,p,δ,K) and γ = γ(d,p,δ,K) are from Theorem 2.2. Then there exists w W 1 such that ∈ p w λw = div(I g) λI u, L − Bκr − Bκr √λ w + w N I g + N√λ I u . k kLp k xkLp ≤ k Bκr kLp k Bκr kLp As before, this shows that ( w p) Nκd g p + λp/2 u p , x Br | | ≤ | | | | Bκr ( w p) + λ ( w p) N g p + λp/2 u p . x Bκr Bκr | | | | ≤ | | | | Bκr By setting v := u w we observe that v W 1 , − ∈ p,loc v λv = div ((1 I )g) λ(1 I )u, L − − Bκr − − Bκr and v λv = 0 in Bκr. LetL − ij 1 ij 1 ¯ ij a (x )= – a (x ,y′) dy′, ϕ = (a ϕxi )xj . B L Z κr/′ 2 Then due to the fact that v λv = 0 in B , L − κr ij ij ¯v λv = (a a )v i L − − x xj in B . Since κ/2 4, by Theorem 11.1 applied to the operator ¯ κr ≥ L p pα p p/2 p d p ( v (v ) ) Nκ− v + λ v + Nκ ( g¯ ) , x′ x′ Br Br x Bκr/2 | − | ≤ | | | | Bκr/2 | | ij ij whereg ¯ = (¯a a )v i . Note that j − x p ij ij 2p 1/2 2p 1/2 1/2 1/2 ( g¯ )B a a vx =: I1 I2 , | | κr/2 ≤ | − | Bκr/2 | | Bκr/2 where I Na# . Under the assumption that γ γ, where γ = γ(d, p, 2p, δ, k) 1 ≤ κr/2 0 ≤ in Corollary 8.3, we have by Corollary 8.3 applied to the fact that v λv = 0 in L − Bκr 2 p p/2 p I2 N vx + λ v . ≤ | | | | Bκr Here we also used the fact κr 1/√2. Now to ﬁnish the proof we proceed as in the proof of Theorem 3.3. ≤ Theorem 11.2 along with the argument in the proof of Corollary 10.3 yields 37

Corollary 11.3. Under the assumptions of Theorem 11.2, there exists a constant N = N(d,p,δ,K) such that

p – – ux′ ( , x2) p,d1 ux′ ( , y2, ) p,d1 dx2 dy2 d2 d2 |k · k −k · k | Z Br Z Br

pα d 1/2 p N κ− + κ γ – u ( , x ) dx x 2 p,d1 2 ≤ Bd2 k · k Z 2κr d/p p p p +Nκ – g( , x ) + R− u( , x ) dx . 2 p,d1 0 2 p,d1 2 Bd2 k · k k · k Z 2κr for all κ 8, r (0, R0 ]. ≥ ∈ √2κ By adopting the same strategy as in the proof of Theorem 10.4 as well as using the argument in the last part of the proof of Lemma 5.2, we obtain the following lemma from Corollary 11.3. Lemma 11.4. Let 1

Lemma 11.5. Let 1

λ u + √λ u N √λ g + f , k kLq,p k xkLq,p ≤ k kLq,p k kLq,p d2 provided that u(x1, x2)=0 for x2 / B 2 and λ > λ1. ∈ (R3R0) Proof of Theorem 9.1. If p = q, the theorem is a special case of Theorem 2.2. The case q

p. In this case, it suﬃces to prove the estimate in the theorem for u C0∞, which, by Lemma ∈ d2 11.5, holds true for u with a small compact support with respect to x2 R . Then we ﬁnish the proof by using a partition of unity (see the proofs of Th∈eorem 5.7 in [17] or Lemma 3.4 in [18]).

Acknowledgement The authors are sincerely grateful to Nicolai V. Krylov and the referees for very helpful suggestions and comments. 38 H. DONG AND D. KIM

References

[1] Auscher P., Qafsaoui M.: Observations on W 1,p estimates for divergence elliptic equations with VMO coefficients, Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. Sez. B Artic. Ric. Mat. 5 , 487–509 (2002). 1,2 [2] Bramanti M., Cerutti M.: Wp solvability for the Cauchy-Dirichlet problem for parabolic equations with VMO coefficients, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 18, no. 9-10, 1735– 1763 (1993). [3] Byun S.: Elliptic equations with BMO coefficients in Lipschitz domains, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 357, no. 3, 1025–1046 (2005). [4] Byun S.: Optimal W 1,p regularity theory for parabolic equations in divergence form, J. Evol. Equ. 7, no. 3, 415–428 (2007). [5] Byun S., Wang L.: Elliptic equations with BMO coefficients in Reifenberg domains, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 57, no. 10, 1283–1310 (2004). [6] Byun S., Wang L.: The conormal derivative problem for elliptic equations with BMO coefficients on Reifenberg flat domains, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 90, no. 1, 245–272 (2005). [7] Chiarenza F., Frasca M., Longo P.: W 2,p-solvability of the Dirichlet problem for nondiver- gence elliptic equations with VMO coefficients, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 336, no. 2, 841–853 (1993). [8] Di Fazio G. : Lp estimates for divergence form elliptic equations with discontinuous coefficients. (Italian summary) Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. A (7) 10, no. 2, 409–420 (1996). [9] Dong H., Kim D.: Parabolic and elliptic systems with VMO coefficients, submitted (2008). [10] Dong H., Kim D.: Parabolic and elliptic systems in divergence form with variably partially BMO coefficients, submitted (2009). [11] Haller-Dintelmann R., Heck H., Hieber M.: Lp–Lq-estimates for parabolic systems in non-divergence form with VMO coefficients, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 74, no. 3, 717–736 (2006). [12] Jerison D., Kenig C.: The inhomogeneous Dirichlet problem in Lipschitz domains, J. Funct. Anal. 130, no. 1, 161–219 (1995). [13] Kim D., Krylov N. V.: Elliptic differential equations with coefficients measurable with respect to one variable and VMO with respect to the others, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 39, no. 2, 489–506 (2007). [14] Kim D., Krylov N. V.: Parabolic equations with measurable coefficients, Potential Anal. 26, no. 4, 345–361 (2007). [15] Kim D.: Parabolic equations with measurable coefficients II, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 334, no. 1, 534–548 (2007). [16] Kim D.: Elliptic and parabolic equations with measurable coefficients in Lp-spaces with mixed norms, preprint, (2008). [17] Krylov N. V.: Parabolic and elliptic equations with VMO coefficients, Comm. Partial Dif- ferential Equations 32, no. 1-3, 453–475 (2007). [18] Krylov N. V.: Parabolic equations with VMO coefficients in spaces with mixed norms, J. Funct. Anal. 250, no. 2, 521–558 (2007). [19] Krylov N. V.: Second-order elliptic equations with variably partially VMO coefficients, preprint (2008). [20] Krylov N. V.: Lectures on elliptic and parabolic equations in Sobolev spaces, American Mathematical Society, 2008. [21] Gilbarg D., Trudinger N. S.: Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order, Springer, 2nd edition, 1983. [22] Lieberman G. M.: The conormal derivative problem for elliptic equations of variational type, J. Differential Equations 49, no. 2, 218–257 (1983). [23] Lieberman G. M.: The conormal derivative problem for equations of variational type in nonsmooth domains, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 330, no. 1, 41–67 (1992). [24] Lieberman G. M.: Second order parabolic differential equations, World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, 1996. [25] Lorenzi A.: On elliptic equations with piecewise constant coefficients.II, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa (3) 26, 839-870 (1972). [26] Shen Z.: Bounds of Riesz transforms on Lp spaces for second order elliptic operators, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 55, no. 1, 173–197 (2005). 39

[27] Weidemaier P.: Maximal regularity for parabolic equations with inhomogeneous boundary conditions in Sobolev spaces with mixed Lp-norm, Electron. Res. Announc. Amer. Math. Soc. 8, 47–51 (2002).

(H. Dong) Division of Applied Mathematics, Brown University, 182 George Street, Providence, RI 02912, USA E-mail address: Hongjie [email protected]

(D. Kim) Department of Mathematics, University of Southern California, 3620 South Vermont Avenue, KAP 108, Los Angeles, CA 90089-2532, USA E-mail address: [email protected]