Eigenvalues On Riemannian Manifolds

Eigenvalues
on Riemannian Manifolds
Publicaes Matemticas
Eigenvalues
on Riemannian Manifolds
Changyu Xia
UnB
29o Colquio Brasileiro de Matemtica
Copyright 2013 by Changyu Xia
Impresso no Brasil / Printed in Brazil

Capa: Noni Geiger / Srgio R. Vaz
29o Colquio Brasileiro de Matemtica
Anlise em Fractais Milton Jara

Asymptotic Models for Surface and Internal Waves - Jean-Claude Saut
Bilhares: Aspectos Fsicos e Matemticos - Alberto Saa e Renato de S
Teles
Controle timo: Uma Introduo na Forma de Problemas e Solues Alex L. de Castro
Eigenvalues on Riemannian Manifolds - Changyu Xia
Equaes Algbricas e a Teoria de Galois - Rodrigo Gondim, Maria
Eulalia de Moraes Melo e Francesco Russo
Ergodic Optimization, Zero Temperature Limits and the Max-Plus
Algebra - Alexandre Baraviera, Renaud Leplaideur e Artur Lopes
Expansive Measures - Carlos A. Morales e Vctor F. Sirvent
Funes de Operador e o Estudo do Espectro - Augusto Armando de
Castro Jnior
Introduo Geometria Finsler - Umberto L. Hryniewicz e Pedro A. S.
Salomo
Introduo aos Mtodos de Crivos em Teoria dos Nmeros - Jlio
Andrade
Otimizao de Mdias sobre Grafos Orientados - Eduardo Garibaldi e
Joo Tiago Assuno Gomes
ISBN: 978-85-244-0354-5
Distribuio: IMPA
Estrada Dona Castorina, 110
22460-320 Rio de Janeiro, RJ
E-mail: ddic@impa.br
http://www.impa.br
eigenvaluec
2013/9/2
page 3
i
Contents
1 Eigenvalue problems on Riemannian manifolds
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Some estimates for the first eigenvalue of the Laplacian
2 Isoperimetric inequalities for eigenvalues
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 The Faber-Krahn Inequality . . . . . . . .
2.3 The Szego-Weinberger Inequality . . . . .
2.4 The Ashbaugh-Benguria Theorem . . . .
2.5 The Hersch Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
14
16
17
19
23
3 Universal Inequalities for Eigenvalues

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Eigenvalues of the Clamped Plate Problem .
3.3 Eigenvalues of the Polyharmonic Operator
3.4 Eigenvalues of the Buckling Problem . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
29
34
46
57
4 P
olya Conjecture and Related Results
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 The Kr
ogers Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 A generalized Polya conjecture by Cheng-Yang
4.4 Another generalized Polya conjecture . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
73
73
77
81
85
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5 The Steklov eigenvalue problems

94
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.2 Estimates for the Steklov eigenvalues . . . . . . . . . . 95
3
i
i
4
Bibliography
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 4
i
CONTENTS
103
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 1
i
Chapter 1
Eigenvalue problems on
Riemannian manifolds
1.1
Introduction
Let (M, g) be an n-dimensional Reimannian manifold with boundary

(possibly empty). The most important operator on M is the Laplacian . In local coordinate system {xi }ni=1 , the Laplacian is given
by

n
ij
1 X
=
Gg
xj
G i,j=1 xi
where (g ij ) is the inverse matrix (gij )1 , gij = g( x

, ) are the
i xj
coefficients of the Riemannian metric in the local coordinates, and
G = det(gij ). In local coordinates, the Riemannian measure dv on
(M, g) is given by
dv = Gdx1 ...dxn .
Let C (M ) and set

||||21
|| +
||2 .
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 2
i
[CAP. 1: EIGENVALUE PROBLEMS ON RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS
Here and in the future, the integrations on M are always taken with
respect to the Riemannian measure on M . Let us denote by H12 (M )
o
and H12 (M ) the completion of C (M ) and C0 (M ) with respect to

o
|| ||. The theory of Sobolev spaces tells us that H12 (M ) = H12 (M )

when M is complete. Our purpose is to study some eigenvalue problems associated to the Laplacian operator on a compact manifold M .
When M = , we consider the closed eigenvalue problem:
u + u = 0.
(1.1)
When M 6= , we are interested in the following eigenvalue problems.

The Dirichlet problem:

u = u in M,
u|M = 0.
(1.2)
The Neumannn problem:

u = u in M,
u
M = 0,
(1.3)
The clamped plate problem:

2
u = u in M,

u|M = u
M = 0,
(1.4)
where is the unit outward normal to M .
The buckling problem:

2
u = u
in M,

u|M = u
M = 0,
The eigenvalue problem of poly-harmonic operator:

(
()l u = u in M,

l1
= = l1u
= 0, l 2.
u|M = u
M
(1.5)
(1.6)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 3
i
[SEC. 1.1: INTRODUCTION
The buckling problem of arbitrary order:

(
()l u = u in M,

l1 u

= 0, l 2.
u|M = u
=
=

l1
M
(1.7)
The Steklov problem of second order:

u = 0 in M,
u
= u on M.
The Steklov problem of fourth order:

2
u = 0 in M,
u = u u
= 0 on M.
(1.8)
(1.9)
Let us denote by 1 the first non-zero eigenvalue of the above problems. We can arrange the eigenvalues of these problems as follows:
0 < 1 2 +.
For many reasons in Mathematics and Physics, it is important to
obtain nice estimates for the s. We will concentrate our attention
on this problem. Let us list some basic facts in this direction.
Theorem 1.1 (Weyls asymptotic formula, [97]). In each of the
eigenvalue problems (1.1), (1.2), (1.3), let N () be the number of
eigenvalues, counted with multiplicity, . Then
N () n |M |n/2 /(2)n
(1.10)
as , where n is the volume of the unit ball in Rn and |M | is

the volume of M . In particular,
n/2
{(2)n /n }k/|M |
(1.11)
as +.
There are similar asymptotic formulas for the other eigenvalue
problems above (Cf. [1], [79], [80]).
Define a space H as follows:
i
i
eigenvaluec
2013/9/2
page 4
i
For the closed eigenvalue problem (1.1),

Z

H = f H12 (M )
f =0 .
(1.12)
For the Dirichlet eigenvalue problem (1.2),

o
H = H12 (M ).
For the Neumann eigenvalue problem (1.3),
Z

H = f H12 (M )
f =0 .
(1.13)
(1.14)
A fundamental fool in the theory of eigenvalues is the

Mini-Max principle. We can find a countable orthonormal basis {fi }, fi C (M ) for the problems (1.1), (1.2) and (1.3) such
that
o
nR
|f |2
1 = inf MR f 2 | f H ,
nR M 2
o (1.15)
R
|f |
i = inf MR f 2 | f H, M f fj = 0, j = 1, , i 1 .
M
In particular, we have the
Poincar
e inequality:
Z
Z
2
|f | 1
M
f 2 , f H.
(1.16)
For other eigenvalue problems above, similar mini-max principles

also hold.
Theorem 1.2 (The Co-Area formula, [17]). Let M be a compact
Riemannian manifold with boundary, f H 1 (M ). Then for any
non-negative function g on M ,
!
Z
Z Z
g
g=
d
(1.17)
M
{f =} |f |
i
i
[SEC. 1.2: SOME ESTIMATES FOR THE FIRST EIGENVALUE OF THE LAPLACIAN
1.2
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 5
i
Some estimates for the first eigenvalue

of the Laplacian
In this section, we will prove some estimates for the first eigenvalue
of the Laplacian.
Theorem 1.3 ([73]). Let M be an n-dimensional complete Riemannian manifold with Ricci curvature RicM n 1. Then the
first non-zero eigenvalue of the closed eigenvalue problem (1.1) of M
satisfies 1 (M ) n.
The proof of Theorem 1.3 can be carried out by substituting a
first eigenfunction into the Bochner formula and integrating on M
the resulted equality (see the proof of theorem 1.6 below).
An important classical result about eigenvalue is the following
Theorem 1.4 (Chengs Comparison Theorem, [18]). Let M be
an n-dimensional complete Riemannian manifold with Ricci curvature satisfying RicM (n 1)c and let BR (p) be an opengeodesic
ball of radius R around a point p in M , where R < / c, when
c > 0. Then the first eigenvalue of the Dirichlet problem (1.2) of
BR (p) satisfies
1 (BR (p)) 1 (BR (c)),
(1.18)
with equality holding if and only if BR (p) is isometric to BR (c), where

BR (c) is a geodesic ball of radius R in a complete simply connected
Riemannian manifold of constant curvature c and of dimension n.
An immediate application of Chengs eigenvalue comparison theorem is a rigidity theorem for compact manifolds of positive Ricci
curvature.
Theorem 1.5 (The Maximal Diameter Theorem, [18]). Let M
be an n-dimensional complete Riemannian manifold with Ricci curvature RicM n 1. If the diameter of M satisfies d(M ) , then
M is isometric to an n-dimensional unit sphere.
Proof. Take two points p, q M so that d(p, q) ; then
B/2 (p) B/2 (q) = . Let f and g be the first eigenfunctions corre-
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 6
i
sponding to the first Dirichlet eigenvalues of B/2 (p) and B/2 (q), respectively. We extend f and g on the whole M by setting f |M \B/2 (p) =
g|M \B/2 (q) = 0 and take two non-zero constants a and b such that
Z
(af + bg) = 0
Observe that the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of an n-dimensional unit

hemisphere is n. The mini-max principle and Chengs comparison
theorem then imply that
n 1 (M )
R
|(af + bg)|2
M
R
(af + bg)2
M
R
R
a2 B/2 (p) |f |2 + b2 B/2 (q) |g|2
R
R
=
a2 B/2 (p) f 2 + b2 B/2 (q) g 2
R
R
a2 1 (B/2 (p)) B/2 (p) f 2 + b2 1 (B/2 (q)) B/2 (q) g 2
R
R
=
a2 B/2 (p) f 2 + b2 B/2 (q) g 2
R
R
na2 B/2 (p) f 2 + nb2 B/2 (q) g 2
R
R
= n.
a2 B/2 (p) f 2 + b2 B/2 (q) g 2
We conclude from the equality case of the mini-max principle and

Chengs comparison theorem that each of B/2 (p) and B/2 (q) is
isometric to the n-dimensional unit hemisphere and
M = B/2 (p) B/2 (q)
Consequently, M is isometric to a unit n-sphere.
The maximal diameter theorem can be also used to prove the
Obata theorem below.
Theorem 1.6 ([76]). Let M be an n-dimensional complete Riemannian manifold with Ricci curvature RicM n 1. If the first
non-zero eigenvalue of the closed eigenvalue problem (1.1) of M is n,
then M is isometric to a unit n-sphere.
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 7
i
Proof. Let f be a first eigenfunction corresponding to the first

eigenvalue n of M . From the Bochner formula, we get
1
|f |2
2
= |2 f |2 + hf, (f )i + Ric(f, f )
(1.19)
(f )
n|f |2 + (n 1)|f |2 = nf 2 |f |2 .
n
R
Integrating on M and noticing M (nf 2 |f |2 ) = 0, we conclude
that the inequalities in 1.19 should take equality sign. Thus, we have
1
(|f |2 + f 2 )
2
1
1
|f |2 + f 2
2
2
= nf 2 |f |2 + f f + |f |2 = 0
=
and so |f |2 + f 2 is a constant. Without lose of generality, we can

assume that |f |2 + f 2 = 1 and so
|f |
p
= 1.
1 f2
Let p and q be points of M such that f (p) = f (q) = 1 and take a

unit speed minimizing geodesic : [0, l] M from p to q. Integrating
the above equation along , we obtain
l=
ds =
|f |
p
ds
1 f2
dt
= .
1 t2
It then follows from the maximal diameter theorem that M is isometric to an unit n-sphere.
Remark 1.1. Let M n be a compact Riemannian manifold with
Ricci curvature RicM n 1 and nonempty boundary. If the mean
curvature of M is nonnegative, then the first Dirichlet eigenvalue
of M satisfies 1 n with equality holding if and only if M n is
isometric to an n-dimensional unit hemisphere [82]. Similarly, if the
boundary of M is convex, then the first non-zero Neumann eigenvalue
of M must satisfy 1 n with equality holding if and only if M n is
isometric to an n-dimensional unit hemisphere [34, 100].
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 8
i
We now prove another rigidity theorem using the techniques of

eigenvalues.
Theorem 1.7 ([101]). Let M be an n-dimensional complete Riemannian manifold with Ricci curvature RicM n 1 and let N be a
closed minimal hypersurface which divides M into two disjoint open
domains 1 and 2 . If there exists a point p M such that d(p, N ),
the distance from p to N , is no less than /2, then the pair (M, N ) is
isometric to the pair (Sn (1), Sn1 (1), being Sn (1) the unit n-sphere.
Proof. Assume without lose of generality that p 1 . We know
from d(p, N ) /2 that B/2 (p) 1 . It then follows from the domain monotonicity [17] that the first Dirichlet eigenvalues of B/2 (p)
and 1 satisfy

1 B/2 (p) 1 (1 ).
(1.20)
On the other hand, Chengs comparison theorem tells us that

1 B/2 (p) n
(1.21)
and Reillys estimate implies that 1 (1 ) n. Thus, the inequalities

in (1.20) and (1.21) should be equalities. Consequently, B/2 (p) = 1
is isometric to an n-dimensional unit hemisphere and so N = 1 =
Sn1 (1) is totally geodesic. It then follows from a result of [39] that
2 is also isometric to an n-dimensional unit hemisphere.

Let 1 be the least nontrivial eigenvalue of an n-dimensional compact manifold M and let be the corresponding eigenfunction. By
multiplying with a constant it is possible to assume that
a 1 = inf ; a + 1 = sup
M
where 0 a() < 1 is the median of .

Suppose that M n is a compact manifold without boundary of
nonnegative Ricci curvature and of diameter d. Li-Yau [72] showed
that the first nontrivial eigenvalue satisfies
1
2
(1 + a)d2
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 9
i
and conjectured that

1
2
.
d2
(1.22)
Li-Yaus conjecture was proved by Zhong and Yang in [103]. Let us

provide a proof of (1.22) given by Li in [71].
Lemma 1.1. The function

p
2
z(u) =
arcsin(u) + u 1 u2 u
defined on [-1, 1] satisfies
uz + z (1 u2 ) + u = 0;
(1.23)
z 2zz + z 0;
(1.24)
2z uz + 1 0;
(1.25)
1 u2 2|z|.
(1.26)
and
Proof. Differentiating yields

z =
4p
4u
1 u2 1, z =
.
1 u2
Thus (1.23) is satisfied.

To see (1.24), we note that
p

4
4
2
2
2
1 u + u arcsin u (1 + u ) .
z 2zz + z =
1 u2
Since the right hand side is an even function, it suffices to check that

4 p
1 u2 + u arcsin u (1 + u2 ) 0
i
i
10
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 10
i
on [0, 1]. It is easy to see that

d 4 p
4
2
2
1 u + u arcsin u (1 + u ) = arcsin u 2u
du
which is nonpositive on [0, 1]. Hence

4 p
1 u2 + u arcsin u (1 + u2 )

4 p
2
2
1 u + u arcsin u (1 + u )
u=1
= 0.
Inequality (1.25) follows easily because

2z uz + 1 =
4
arcsin u + 1 u 0.
To see (1.26), let us consider the cases 1 u 0 and 0 u 1

separately. It is clearly that the inequality is valid at -1, 0 and 1.
Setting

p
4
arcsin u + u 1 u2 + 2u;
f (u) = 1 u2
then
f = 2u
4 p
(2 1 u2 ) + 2,
8u
f = 2 +
,
1 u2
and
f =
8
.
(1 u2 )3/2
When 1 u 0, f 0. Hence f (u) min{f (1), f (0)} = 0. For

the case 0 u 1, f 0. Thus

8
f max{f (0), f (1)} = max 2 , 0 = 0.
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 11
i
11
Therefore f (u) f (1) which proves (1.26).

Lemma 1.2. Suppose M is a compact manifold without boundary
of nonnegative Ricci curvature. Assume that a nontrivial eigenfunction corresponding to the eigenvalue is normalized so that for
0 a < 1, a + 1 = supM and a 1 = inf M . If u = a, then
||2 (1 u2 ) + 2az(u)
(1.27)
where
z(u) =

p
2
arcsin u + u 1 u2 u.
(1.28)
Proof. We need only to prove an estimate similar to (1.27) for

u = ( a) where 0 < < 1. The lemma will follow by letting
0. By the definition of u; we have
u = (u + a)
with u . We may assume a > 0. Consider the function
Q = |u|2 c(1 u2 ) 2az(u),
We can choose c large enough so that supM Q = 0. The lemma
follows if c ; for a sequence of 1, hence we may assume that
c > .
Let the maximizing point of Q be x0 . We claim that |u(x0 )| > 0
since otherwise u(x0 ) = 0 and
0 = Q(x0 ) = c(1 u2 )(x0 ) 2az(x0 ) (c a)(1 2 )
by (1.26), which is a contradiction.
Differentiating in the ei direction gives
1
Qi = uj uji + cuui az ui .
2
(1.29)
We can assume at x0 that u( x0 ) = |u(x0 )| and using Qi = 0, we

have
uji uji u211 = (cu az )2 .
(1.30)
i
i
12
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 12
i
Differentiating again, using the commutation formula, Q(x0 ) = 0,

(1.26), (1.29), and (1.30), we get
1
Q(x0 )
(1.31)
2
= uji uji + uj (u)j + Ric(u, u) + (c az ) + (cu az )u
(cu az )2 + (c az )(c(1 u2 ) + 2az)

(cu az )(u + a)
= ac((1 u2 )z + uz + u) + a2 2 (2zz + z 2 + z )
+a(c )(uz + 2z + 1) + (c )(c a).
However by (1.23), (1.24), and (1.25), we conclude that

0
ac(1 )u a2 2 (1 )z + (c )(c a)
(1.32)

4
ac(1 ) a2 2 (1 )
1 + (c )(c a)
(c + )(1 ) + (c )2 .
This implies that

c
2 + (1 ) +
)
p
(1 )(9 )
.
2
Taking 0 one gets the desired estimate.

Theorem 1.8. ([103]) Suppose M is a compact manifold without
boundary whose Ricci curvature is nonnegative. Let a u 0 be the
median of a normalized first eigenfunction with a + 1 = supM and
a 1 = inf M ; and let d be the diameter. Then the first non-zero
eigenvalue of M satisfies
d2 1 2 +
4
6
1 a2 2 (1 + 0.02a2 ).
2
(1.33)
Proof. Let u = a and let be the shortest geodesic from the

minimizing point of u to the maximizing point with length at most
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 13
i
13
d. Integrating the gradient estimate (1.27) along this segment with

respect to arc-length and using oddness, we have
Z
d1/2
ds
|u|ds
1 u2 + 2az

Z 1
1
1
+
du
1 u2 + 2az
1 u2 2az
0

Z 1
1
3a2 z 2
du
2+
1 u2
1 u2
0
Z 1
2
z
+ 3a2
1 u2
0

4
3a2
1 .
+ 2
Remark 1.2. It has been shown by Hang-Wang [40] that if the

equality holds in (1.33) then M is isometric to a circle.
Remark 1.3. Let M n be a compact manifold with smooth
boundary and nonnegative Ricci curvature. Suppose that the second fundamental form of M is nonnegative. Then the first nontrivial
eigenvalue of the Laplacian with Neumann boundary conditions also
satisfies the inequality (1.27). The proof runs the same as Lemma
1.1 except that the possibility of the maximum of the test function
Q at the boundary must be handled. In fact, the boundary convexity assumption implies that the maximum of Q cannot occur on the
boundary.
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 14
i
Chapter 2
Isoperimetric
inequalities for
eigenvalues
2.1
Introduction
In this chapter, we will prove some isoperimetric inequalities for eigenvalues on manifolds which have always been important problems in
geometric analysis. Owing to the limitation on the materials, we only
select some of the results in the area. For more interesting results,
we refer to [3] , [8], [17] and the references therein. The isoperimetric
inequalities to be proved are : the Faber-Krahn inequality for the first
eigenvalue of the Dirichlet eigenvalue; the Szego-Weinberger inequality for the first nontrivial Neumann eigenvalue; the Hersch theorem
for the first closed eigenvalue on a compact Riemannian surface of
genus zero; the Ashbaugh-Benguria theorem; etc. For the convenience of later use, we recall now the notion of spherically symmetric
rearrangement. Suppose that f is a bounded measurable function
on the bounded measurable set Rn . Consider the distribution
function f (t) defined by
f (t) = |{x ||f (x)| > t}|
(2.1)
14
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 15
i
15
where | | denotes Lebesgue measure. The distribution function can

be viewed as a function from [0,) to [0, ||] and is nonincreasing.
The decreasing rearrangement f of f , is the inverse of f and is
defined by
f (s) = inf{t 0|f (t) < s}.
(2.2)
It is a nonincreasing function on [0, ||]. For a bounded measurable

set Rn , its spherical rearrangement is defined as the ball
centered at the origin having the same measure as . The spherically
(symmetric) decreasing rearrangement f : R is defined by
f (x) = f (Cn |x|n ) for x
(2.3)

where Cn = n/2 / n2 + 1 is the volume of the unt ball in Rn . An
important fact we will use is that
Z
f2 =
||
(f (s))2 ds =
(f )2 .
(2.4)
It is known that for any function f in the Sobolev space H01 (),
f H01 ( ) and
Z
Z
2
|f |
|f |2 .
(2.5)
For two nonnegative measurable functions f and g on we have

Z
Z
fg
f g .
(2.6)
Let us recall the notion of spherically (symmetric) increasing rearrangement, which we denote by a lower . The definition is almost
identical to that of spherically decreasing rearrangement, except that
g should be radially increasing (in the weak sense) on . In this
case, we have
Z
Z
fg
f g .
(2.7)
i
i
16
2.2
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 16
i
[CAP. 2: ISOPERIMETRIC INEQUALITIES FOR EIGENVALUES
The Faber-Krahn Inequality
In this section, we will prove the Faber-Krahn inequality which is one

of the oldest isoperimetric inequalities for an eigenvalue.
Theorem 2.1 (Faber-Krahn [36],[61]). For a bounded domain
Rn , the first Dirichlet eigenvalue satisfies
1 () 1 ( )
(2.8)
with equality if and only if = .

Proof. Let u1 be a first Dirichlet eigenfunction for . We have
from (2.4), (2.5) and the mini-max principle that
R
|u1 |2
R
1 () =
(2.9)
u2
1
R
|u1 |2
= R
2
(u )
R 1 2
|u |
R 1
(u1 )2
1 ( ).
For the characterization of the case of equality, we refer to [56].

The Faber-Krahn inequality is valid for more general manifolds.
Let M be an n-dimensional complete Riemannian manifold and for a
fixed R, let M be the complete simply connected n-dimensional
space form of constant sectional curvature . To each bounded domain in M , associate the geodesic ball D in M satisfying
|| = |D|.
(2.10)
If > 0 then only consider those for which || < |M |.

Theorem 2.2. If, for all such in M , equality (2.10) implies
the isoperimetric inequality
|| |D|,
(2.11)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 17
i
17
[SEC. 2.3: THE SZEGO-WEINBERGER

INEQUALITY
with equality in (2.11) if and only if is isometric to D, then we also

have, for every bounded domain in M , that equality (2.10) implies
the inequality for the first Dirichlet eigenvalue
1 () 1 (D),
(2.12)
with equality holding if and only if is isometric to D.

For a proof of Theorem 2.2, we refer to [17].
2.3
The Szeg
o-Weinberger Inequality
In this section, we prove the Szego-Weinberger inequality which is a

counterpart to the first non-zero Neumann eigenvalue of the FaberKrahn inequality.
Theorem 2.3 ([96]). Let be a bounded domain in Rn . Then
the first non-zero Neumann eigenvalue of satisfies
1 () 1 ( )
(2.13)
with equality holding if and only if = .

Proof. Let R be the radius of and let g be the solution of the
equation
n1 n1
g + r g r2 g + 1 ( )g = 0
(2.14)
g(0) = 0, g (R) = 0
By aRtopological argument, we can take as trial functions Pi , such
that Pi = 0 for i = 1, , n, with
Pi (x) = h(r)
xi
,
r
where the xi s are Cartesian coordinates, x = (x1 , , xn ) Rn , r =

|x|, and

g(r) for 0 r R
h(r) =
g(R) for r R.
i
i
18
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 18
i
Observe that by an appropriate choice of sign, g(r) is increasing on

[0,R] and hence that h is everywhere nondecreasing for r 0. By
substituting our trial functions Pi into the mini-max inequality for
1 , we find
Z
Z
1 ()
Pi2
|Pi |2 .
Summing this in i for 1 i n, we arrive at

R Pn
2
i=1 |Pi |
R P
1 ()
n
2
i=1 Pi

R 2 n1
h (r) + r2 h(r)2
R
=
h(r)2
R
A(r)
= R
h(r)2
(2.15)
where
A(r) = h (r)2 +
n1
h(r)2 .
r2
(2.16)
A(r) is easily seen to be decreasing for 0 r R by differentiating

and using the differential equation (2.14). One finds
A (r) = 2(1 ( )hh + (n 1)(rh h)2 /r3 ) < 0, 0 < r < R.(2.17)
Also, A(r) = (n 1)g(R)2 /r2 for r R shows that A is decreasing
for r > R. Since A is continuous for all r 0, it is also decreasing
there. Observe that
Z
Z
A(r)
A(r)
(2.18)
since the volumes integrated over are the same in both cases, while in
passing from the left to right hand sides we are exchanging integrating
over \ for integrating over \ which are sets of equal volume.
Since A is (strictly) decreasing this clearly increases the value of the
integral unless = , when equality obtains. Similarly we find that
Z
Z
2
h(r)
h(r)2
(2.19)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 19
i
19
[SEC. 2.4: THE ASHBAUGH-BENGURIA THEOREM
since h is nondecreasing. Thus we arrive at

R
A(r)
1 () R
= 1 ( ),
2
h(r)
(2.20)
since each Pi is precisely a Neumann eigenfunction of with eigenvalue 1 (BR ) for the domain BR = . This completes the proof
of the Szeg
o-Weinberger inequality, including the characterization of
the case of equality.
2.4
The Ashbaugh-Benguria Theorem
In this section we consider the sharp upper bound for 2 /1 for the
Dirichlet eigenvalue problem proved by Ashbaugh-Benguria. In 1955
and 1956, Payne, Polya and Weinberger [77], [78], proved that
2
3
1
for
R2
and conjectured that

2
j1,1
2
2
=
2
1
1 disk
j0,1
with equality if and only if is a disk and where jp,k denotes the
k th positive zero of the Bessel function Jp (t). For general dimension
n 2, the analogous statements are
2
4
1+
1
n
for
Rn ,
and the PPW conjecture

2
jn/2,1
2
2
=
,
2
1
1 nball
jn/21,1
(2.21)
with equality if and only if is an n-ball. This important conjecture

was proved by Ashbaugh-Benguria (see [5], [6], [7]).
i
i
20
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 20
i
We proceed now with the proof of (2.21). Let us start from the
variational principle for 2
R
||2
R
,
(2.22)
2 () =
min
2
H01 (),06=u1
which, by integration by parts, leads to
2 () 1 ()
(2.23)
R
Z
2 2
|P | u1
R
, P u1 H01 (),
P u21 = 0, P 6= 0.
P 2 u21
To get the isoperimetric result out of (2.23), one must make very
special choices of the function P , in particular, choices for which
(2.23) is an equality
R if is a ball. Thus we shall use n trial functions
P = Pi , such that Pi u21 = 0 for i = 1, , n where
Pi = g(r)
xi
r
(2.24)
and
g(r) =
f (r) = right radial function on BR for 0 r R,

(2.25)
f (R) for r R.
The right R in this case turns out to be the unique R such that
1 (BR ) = 1 (). Substituting Pi into (2.23) and summing on i, we
find
R
B(r)u21
R
2 () 1 ()
(2.26)
f (r)2 u21
where
B(r) = f (r)2 +
n1
f (r)2 .
r2
(2.27)
Now the equation (2.26) does not depend on the Pi s and so we are
in a position to define the function f . The idea is to take f as a
properly quotient of Bessel functions so that the equality occur if
is a ball in Rn . This motivates the choice of :
f (r) = w(r),
(2.28)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 21
i
21
[SEC. 2.4: THE ASHBAUGH-BENGURIA THEOREM
where
(
jn/2 (x)
jn/21 (x) ,
if 0 x < 1,
w(1) limx1 w(x), if x 1,
with = jn/21,1 , = jn/2,1 and = 1 /.

w(x) =
(2.29)
Lemma 2.1. The equality occurs in (2.26) when is a ball with

1 as the first Dirichlet eigenvalue and f is given by (2.28).
Proof. If S1 is a closed ball of Rn of appropriate radius centered
in the origin in which the problem

z = z in S1 ,
(2.30)
z|S1 = 0.
has 1 as the first eigenvalue, then
p
S1 = {x Rn ; |x| / 1 = 1/}.
The second eigenvalue of the problem (2.30) is 2 =

eigenfunction of S1 is
p
z(x) = c|x|1n/2 jn/21 ( 1 |x|),
2
2 1 .
The first
and the eigenfunctions corresponding to 2 are:

q
xi
fi (x) = c|x|1n/2 jn/2 ( 2 |x|) , i = 1, , n,
|x|
where c is a non-zero constant.

Let

j
r
n/2 2 , if 0 r < 1/,

jn/21 ( 1 r)

Q(r) =
jn/2
2 r
lim
, if r 1/,
r1/ j
( r)
n/21
(2.31)
Observe that Q(r) = w(r) = g(r) and let

Qi (x) = Q(|x|)
xi
xi
= g(r) ,
|x|
|x|
i
i
22
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 22
i
then
Z
S1
Qi z 2 = 0, i = 1, , n
and Qi z are eigenfunctions of 2 . Thus, we have

R
|(Qi z)|2
2 = SR1
, i = 1, , n.
(Qi z)2
S1
Summing over i and simplifying, we get

R
2
(f (r))2 + (n 1) f r(r)
z2
2
S1
R
2 1 =
.
f 2 (r)z 2
S1
This completes the proof of Lemma 3.1.

Substituting (2.28) into (2.26), we get
R
1 B(r)u21
R
2 1
w2 (r)u21
(2.32)
(2.33)
where
B(x) = (w (x))2 + (n 1)
w2 (x)
.
x2
(2.34)
From the definition of w and the properties of Bessel functions one can
prove that w(t) is nondecreasing and B(t) is non-increasing. Therefore, we have
Z
Z
Z
B(r)u21
B(r) (u1 )2
B(r)(u1 )2
(2.35)
and
Z
w(r)2 u21
w(r) (u1 )2
w(r)(u1 )2
(2.36)
In order to continue the proof, we need a result of Chiti: If c is chosen

so that
Z
Z
Z
2
2
u1 =
u1 =
z2,
(2.37)
S1
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 23
i
23
[SEC. 2.5: THE HERSCH THEOREM
then
Z
f (r)(u1 )2
f (r)z 2 ,
(2.38)
S1
if f is increasing, and the reverse inequality if f is decreasing. It

follows from (2.38) and the monotonicity properties of B and w that
Z
Z
2
B(r)(u1 )
B(r)z 2
(2.39)
S1
and
Z
w(r)(u1 )2
w(r)2 z 2 .
(2.40)
S1
Combining (2.33), (2.35), (2.36), (2.39), (2.40), and using the definition of z, we finally get
R
1 S1 B(r)z 2
1
= 2 ( 2 2 ).
(2.41)
2 1 2 R
S1 w2 (r)z 2
From here the inequality
jn/2,1
2
2
1
jn/21,1
(2.42)
follows immediately. Also, it is clear from the proof that the equality
holding in (2.42) if and only if is a ball.
2.5
The Hersch Theorem
In 1974, Hersch proved an isoperimetric inequality for the first nontrivial eigenvalue on the 2-dimensional sphere S2 .
Theorem 2.5 ([48]). For any metric on S2 , the first non-trivial
eigenvalue satisfies
1
8
.
A(S2 )
(2.43)
i
i
24
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 24
i
Proof. For any metric d

s2 on S2 , we can construct a conformal map
2
2
2
2
: (S , d
s ) (S , ds0 ), here ds20 denotes the standard metric on S2 .
From the mini-max principle, we have
R
|f |2 d
v
SR2
1 = R inf
,
(2.44)
2
f d
v
f d
v =0
S2
S2
where d
v is the area element with respect to d
s2 . Take the coordii
2
2
nate functions x (i = 1, 2, 3) on (S , ds0 ); then xi , i = 1, 2, 3, are
functions on (S2 , d
s2 ).
Observe that is a conformal map and that in the case of surfaces,
the Dirichlet integral of a function is a conformal invariant. Thus we
have
Z
Z
Z
Z
8
|(xi )|2 d
v=
|xi |2 dv =
xi xi = 2
(xi )2 =
.
3
2
2
2
2
S
S
S
S
Since
Area(S2 ) =
d
v=
S2
3 Z
X
i=1
S2
(xi )2 d
v,
there exists at least one i such that

Z
Area(S2 )
.
(xi )2 d
v
3
S2
R
Also, we can choose satisfying S2 xi d
v = 0 [85]. Thus
R
i
2
v
8
2 |(x )| d
.
1 SR
i
2
A(S2 )
(x ) d
v
S2
For the discussion of equality case, we refer to [48].
(2.45)
Remark 2.1. S2 is a Riemann surface of genus g = 0. For

Riemannian surface g of genus g > 0, Yang-Yau obtained a similar
result.
Theorem 2.6 ([99]). For any metric on g , the first eigenvalue
satisfies
1
8(1 + g)
|g |
(2.46)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 25
i
25
Remark 2.2. Herschs theorem cant be generalized directly to

the case of higher dimensions [86]. That is, one cant expect that
1 Vol(M )2/n C,
with a constant depending only on n. It must depend also on other
geometric invariants of M .
Here is an interesting application of Herschs theorem.
Theorem 2.7 ([19]). Suppose that M is homeomorphic to S2 and
1 , 2 , 3 are three first eigenfunctions such that their square sum is
a constant. Then M is actually isometric to a sphere with constant
sectional curvature.
Proof. The assumption of Theorem 2.7 says that

Thus,
i + 1 (M )i = 0,
i = 1, 2, 3,
P3
2
=
c,
c
is
a constant.
i=1 i
3
X
i=1
3
X
i=1
2i
=2
3
X
i=1
|i |2 + 2
|i |2 21 (M )
3
X
3
X
i i
i=1
2i
i=1
which gives
3
X
i=1
|i |2 = c1 (M ).
(2.47)
Taking the Laplacian of both sides of (2.47) and using the Bochner
i
i
26
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 26
i
formula, we get
3
=
=
1X
|i |2
2 i=1
3
X
i=1
3
X
i=1
|2 i |2 +
3
X
i=1
i (i ) +
|2 i |2 1 (M )2
3
X
|i |2
i=1
(2.48)
3
X
2i + K
i=1
3
X
i=1
3
X
i=1
Ric(i , i )
|i |2
c1 (M )2 + Kc1 (M )
= 1 (M )2 /2 + Kc1 (M ),
where K is the sectional curvature of M . Thus we have
1 (M ) 2K.
(2.49)
Integrating (2.49) and using the Gauss-Bonnet formula, we have

1 (M ) area(M ) 8.
(2.50)
Combining (2.50) and Herschs theorem we know that M is a 2sphere.

We have an isoperimetric upper bound for the first eigenvalue of
the Laplacian of a closed (compact without boundary) hypersurface
embedded in Rn .
Theorem 2.8 ([92]). Let M be a connected closed hypersurface
embedded in Rn (n 3). Let be the region bounded by M . Denote
by V and A the volume of and the area of M , respectively. Then
the first non-zero eigenvalue 1 of the Laplacian acting on functions
on M satisfies
1
(n 1)A n 1/n
.
nV
V
(2.51)
with equality holding if and only if M is an (n 1)-sphere.
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 27
i
27
Proof. Let us denote by x1 , , xn , the coordinate functions on

Rn . By choosing the coordinates origin properly, we can assume that
Z
xi = 0, i = 1, , n.
M
Since M cannot be contained in any hyperplane, each xi is not a constant function, i = 1, , n. It follows from the Poincare inequality
that for each fixed i {1, , n}
Z
Z
2
1
xi
|xi |2 ,
M
with equality holding if and only if xi = 1 xi .

Summing over i from 1 to n, we get
1
n
X
M i=1
x2i
n
X
M i=1
|xi | =
(n 1) = (n 1)A,
(2.52)
with equality if and only if

xi = 1 xi , i {1, , n}.
(2.53)
Take a ball B in Rn of radius R centered at the origin so that vol(B) =

V ; then
R=
V
n
1/n
By using the weighted isoperimetric inequality proved in [14], we have

Z
n
X
M i=1
x2i
n
X
B i=1
x2i
(2.54)
area(B) R2
1/n
V
.
= nV
n
=
Substituting (2.54) into (2.52), one gets (2.51). If the equality holds in
(2.51), then the inequalities (2.52) and (2.54) must take equality sign.
i
i
28
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 28
i
It follows that the position vector x = (x1 , , xn ) when restricted

on M satisfies
x =: (x1 , , xn ) = 1 (x1 , , xn ).
Also, it is well known that
x = (n 1) H ,
where H is the mean curvature vector of M . Consider now the func
tion g = |x|2 : M R. Observing that H is normal to M , we infer

that
wf = 2hw, xi =
2(n 1)
hw, H i = 0, w (M ).
1
Thus f is a constant function and so M is a hypersphere.
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 29
i
Chapter 3
Universal Inequalities
for Eigenvalues
3.1
Introduction
Payne, P
olya and Weinberger proved that the Dirichlet eigenvalues
of the Laplacian for R2 satisfy the bound [77], [77].
k+1 k
k
2X
i , k = 1, 2,
k i=1
(3.1)
This result easily extends to Rn as

k
4 X
k+1 k
i , k = 1, 2,
kn i=1
(3.2)
Many interesting generalizations of (1.3) have been done during the

past years, e. g., in [3], [4], [9], [20], [21], [22], [23], [25], [26], [27], [29],
[30], [33], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [50], [52], [68], [69], [90],
[98]. In 1991, Yang [98] proved the following much stronger result:
29
i
i
30
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 30
i
[CAP. 3: UNIVERSAL INEQUALITIES FOR EIGENVALUES
Theorem 3.1. The Dirichlet eigenvalues of the Laplacian of

Rn satisfy the inequality

k
X
4
(k+1 i ) k+1 1 +
i 0, for k = 1, 2, . (3.3)
n
i=1
The inequality (3.3), as observed by Yang himself, and as later
proved, e. g., in [3], [4], [9], is the strongest of the classical inequalities that are derived following the scheme devised by Payne-PolyaWeinberger. Yangs inequality provided a marked improvement for
eigenvalues of large index. Recently, some Yang type inequalities on
eigenvalues of the clamped plate problem, the buckling problem, the
polyharmonic operator and some other type eigenvalue problems have
been proved. This chapter is devoted to prove some of the universal inequalities in this subarea. Since the method in proving Yangs
inequality has been widely generalized in obtaining various universal
inequalities for eigenvalues, we end this section by proving Yangs
inequality.
Proof of Theorem 3.1. Let uk be the orthonormal eigenfunction
corresponding to the k th eigenvalue k , i.e. uk satisfies
uk = k uk , in
uk | = 0,
(3.4)
R
u
u
=
.
i
j
ij
Let x1 , , xn be the standard coordinate functions in Rn . For any

fixed p = 1, , n, put g = xp and define i by
i = gui
k
X
aij uj , aij =
gui uj = aji .
(3.5)
j=1
It is easy to see that

Z
i uj = 0, for i, j = 1, , k.
(3.6)
Letting
bij =
uj g ui ,
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 31
i
31
from Greens formula, we derive

Z
j aij =
g(uj )ui = 2bij + i aij
and so
2bij = (i j )aij .
(3.7)
Since
i = i gui + 2g ui +
we have
|i | = i
2i
k
X
j aij uj ,
j=1
i g ui .
(3.8)
On the other hand, from the definition of i , (3.5) and (3.6), we

derive
Z
2
i g ui
(3.9)
= 2
=
1+
gg ui ui + 2
k
X
j=1
k
X
aij
j=1
uj g ui
(i j )a2ij .
From the mini-max principle, we obtain

Z
k
X
(i j )a2ij .
(k+1 i )
2i 1 +
(3.10)
j=1
Multiplying (3.9) by (k+1 i )2 and taking sum on i from 1 to k,

we obtain
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2 +
k
X
(i j )(k+1 i )2 a2ij
(3.11)
i,j=1
Z
k
X
2
= 2
(k+1 i )
i g ui .
i=1
i
i
32
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 32
i
By aij = aji , bij = bji , we have

k
X
2
=
i=1
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
(k+1 i )2 4
i g ui
k
X
i=1
(3.12)
(k+1 i )b2ij w.
Multiplying (3.10) by (k+1 i )2 and taking sum on i from 1 to k,

we infer
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )3
k
X
i=1
2i
(k+1 i )2 4
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )b2ij = w.
From ui j = 0 for all i, j = 1, , k, we have, for arbitrary constants dij ,

w2
2
=
4
k
X
i=1
k Z
X
i=1
k Z
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
i g ui
!2
(k+1 i )3 2i
(k+1 i )1/2 g ui
k
X
j=1
dij uj
2
k Z
k
X
X
2
dij uj
4w
(k+1 i )|g ui | +
i=1
j=1
k
X
j=1
dij (k+1 i )1/2 uj g ui .
i
i
eigenvaluec
2013/9/2
page 33
i
33
Then we have
w
k Z
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
+4 2
k
X
i,j=1
ui
xp
2
(k+1 i )1/2 bij +
k
X
i,j=1
d2ij .
Putting dij = (k+1 i )1/2 bij , we obtain

2
Z
k
k
X
X
ui
w4
(k+1 i )
(k+1 i )b2ij
4
x
p
i=1
i,j=1
(3.13)
and so we infer
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2 4
Summing over p, we obtain

k
X
(k+1 i )2
i=1
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
Z
ui
xp
4X
(k+1 i )
n i=1
2
(3.14)
|ui |2
(3.15)
4X
(k+1 i )i .
n i=1
Yangs inequality has been generalized to bounded domains in

complete submanifolds in Euclidean space. That is, we have
Theorem 3.2 ([20], [41]). Let be a bounded domain in an
n-dimensional complete Riemannian manifold M n isometrically immersed in RN . Then the Dirichlet eigenvalues of the Laplacian of
satisfy the inequality
k
X
i=1
(k+1 k )2
n2
4X
(k+1 k )(i +
||H||2 ),
n i=1
4
(3.16)
where H is the mean curvature vector field of M n and ||H||2 =

sup |H|2 .
i
i
34
3.2
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 34
i
Eigenvalues of the Clamped Plate

Problem
Let us generalize Yangs method to prove universal inequalities for

eigenvalues of the clamped plate problem on Riemannian manifolds.
Theorem 3.2 ([94]).
Let M be an n-dimensional complete
Riemannian manifold and let be a bounded domain with smooth
boundary in M . Denote by the outward unit normal of and let
i the i-th eigenvalue of the problem:
(
2 u = u
u| =
in ,

(3.17)
= 0.
i) If M is isometrically immersed in Rm with mean curvature

vector H, then
k
X
(k+1 i )2
(3.18)
i=1
1
n
( k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
( k
X
i=1
H02
(k+1 i ) n
H02
+ (2n +
1/2
4i
1/2
4)i
)1/2
)1/2
where H0 = sup |H|.
ii) If there exists a function : R and a constant A0 such

that
|| = 1, || A0 , on ,
(3.19)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 35
i
35
[SEC. 3.2: EIGENVALUES OF THE CLAMPED PLATE PROBLEM
then
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
( k
X
i=1
(3.20)

(k+1 i )2 A20 +
( k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
1/4
4A0 i
1/4
2i
+ A0
2
1/2
6i
)1/2
)1/2
iii) If there exists a function : R and a constant B0 such

that
|| = 1, = B0 , on ,
(3.21)
then
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
( k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
( k
X
i=1
1/2
(6i
(k+1 i )
)1/2
B02 )
1/2
4i
B02
(3.22)
)1/2
iv) If admits an eigenmap f = (f1 , f2 , , fm+1 ) : Sm (1)

corresponding to an eigenvalue , that is,
m+1
X
f = f , = 1, , m + 1,
f2 = 1,
=1
then
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
( k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
( k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
1/2
6i

+
1/2
4i
)1/2

+
(3.23)
)1/2
i
i
36
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 36
i
where Sm (1) is the unit m-sphere.

Theorem 3.2 can be deduced from a general result.
Lemma 3.1 ([89]). Let i , i = 1, , be the i-th eigenvelue of the
problem (3.17) and ui the orthonormal eigenfunction corresponding
to i , that is,
2
ui = i ui in ,
i
ui | = u
(3.24)
= 0,
R
u
u
=
i,
j
=
1,
2,
.
ij
M i j
Then for any smooth function h : R and any > 0, we have
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
k
X
i=1
u2i |h|2
(k+1 i )2
(3.25)
{u2i (h)2 2ui |h|2 ui
+4((h ui )2 + ui hh ui )}
2
Z
k
X
(k+1 i )
ui h
+
.
h ui +
i=1
Proof of Lemma 3.1. For i = 1, , k, consider the functions
i : R given by
i = hui
where
rij =
k
X
rij uj ,
j=1
hui uj .
Since i | =
= 0 and
uj i = 0, i, j = 1, , k,
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 37
i
37
it follows from the mini-max inequality that

k+1
We have
Z
i 2 i
2 i
R i
.
2
i
(3.26)
(3.27)
i 2 (hui )
k
X
j=1
i 2 (hui )
rij j uj
k
X
= i ||i ||2
+
hui ((ui h) + 2(h ui ) + 2h (ui ) + hui ),
where ||i ||2 =

sij =
rij sij
j=1
2i and
uj ((ui h) + 2(h ui ) + 2h (ui ) + hui ).
Multiplying the equation 2 ui = i ui by huj , we have

huj 2 ui = i hui uj .
(3.28)
Changing the roles of i and j, one gets

hui 2 uj = j hui uj .
(3.29)
Subtracting (3.28) from (3.29) and integrating the resulted equation
i
i
38
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 38
i
on , we get
(j i )rij
(3.30)
Z
(hui 2 uj huj 2 ui )
Z
((hui )uj (huj )ui )
Z
((ui h + 2h ui )uj (uj h + 2h uj )ui )
Z
uj ((ui h) + 2(h ui ) + hui + 2(ui ) h)
=
=
=
=
= sij ,
Observe that
Z
=
hui ((ui h) + 2(h ui ) + 2h (ui ) + hui )

(u2i (h)2 + 4(|h ui |2 + ui hh ui ) 2ui |h|2 ui ).
It follows from (3.26), (3.27) and (3.30) that

(k+1 i )||i ||2
(3.31)
Z
(u2i (h)2 + 4(|h ui |2 + ui hh ui ) 2ui |h|2 ui )
k
X
j=1
2
(i j )rij
.
Set
tij =
uj
ui h
h ui +
2
(3.32)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 39
i
39
then tij + tji = 0 and

ui h
(2)i h ui +
2
Z
k
X
=
(2hui h ui u2i hh) + 2
rij tij
Z
(3.33)
j=1
u2i |h|2 + 2
k
X
rij tij .
j=1
Multiplying (3.33) by (k+1 i )2 and using the Schwarz inequality,

we get
(k+1 i )2
u2i |h|2 + 2
k
X
j=1
rij tij
(3.34)

ui h
(2)i h ui +
2
M

X
Z
k
u
h
i
tij uj
= (k+1 i )2
(2)i h ui +
2
M
j=1
(k+1 i )2
(k+1 i )3 ||i ||2

2

Z
k
X

(k+1 i )
u
h
h ui + i

+
t
u
ij j

2
M

j=1
= (k+1 i )3 ||i ||2
2 X
Z
k
(k+1 i )
ui h
+
h ui +
t2ij
j=1
Substituting (3.31) into (3.34) and summing over i from 1 to k and
i
i
40
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 40
i
noticing rij = rji , tij = tji , we get

k
X
i=1
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
(k+1 i )2
2
2ui |h| ui ) +
k
X
u2i |h|2 2
k
X
i,j=1
(k+1 i )(i j )rij tij
(u2i (h)2 + 4((h ui )2 + ui hh ui )
Z
k
X
(k+1 i )
i=1
2
(k+1 i )(i j )2 rij
i,j=1
ui h
(h ui ) +
2
2
2
k
X
(k+1 i ) 2
tij ,
i,j=1
which implies (3.25).
Proof of Theorem 3.2. Let {ui }

i=1 be the orthonormal eigenfunctions corresponding to the eigenvalues {i }
i=1 of the problem (3.17).
i) Let x , = 1, , m, be the standard coordinate functions of
Rm . Taking h = x in (3.25) and summing over , we have
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
k+1
X
i=1
m Z
X
=1
(k+1 i )2
u2i |x |2
m Z
X
=1
(3.35)
(u2i (x )2 + 4((x ui )2
+ui x x ui ) 2ui |x |2 ui )
2
k
m Z
X
ui x
(k+1 i ) X
x ui +
,
+
2
=1
i=1
Since M is isometrically immersed in Rm , we have
m
X
=1
|x |2 = n
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 41
i
41
which implies that

m Z
X
=1
u2i |x |2 = n
(3.36)
Also, we have
(x1 , , xm ) (x1 , , xm ) = nH,
m
X
(x ui )2 =
=1
m
X
(3.37)
(ui (x ))2 = |ui |2
(3.38)
=1
and
m
X
=1
x x ui =
m
X
=1
x ui (x ) = nH ui = 0.
(3.39)
Substituting (3.36)-(3.39) into (3.35), we get

n
k
X
i=1
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
(k+1 i )2
k
X
i=1
(n2 u2i |H|2 + 4|ui |2 2nui ui )
Z
k
X
(k+1 i )
i=1
(3.40)
n2 u2i |H|2
|ui | +
4
2
1/2
(k+1 i )2 (n2 H02 + (2n + 4)i )

k
X
(k+1 i )
i=1
1/2
n2 H02
4
Here in the last inequality, we have used the fact that |H| H0 and
Z
|ui | =
ui ui
Z
u2i
1/2 Z
(ui )
1/2
1/2
= i .(3.41)
i
i
42
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 42
i
Taking

1/2
(
)
i +
k+1
i
i=1
Pk
n2 H02
4
1/2
Pk (k+1 i )2 (n2 H 2 + (2n + 4)1/2 )

0
i
i=1
one gets (3.18).

ii) Substituting h = into (3.25) and using (3.19) and the Schwarz
inequality, we get
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
2ui ui } +

k
X
i=1
(3.42)
i=1
{u2i ()2 + 4(( ui )2 + ui ui )
Z
k
X
(k+1 i )
i=1
(k+1 i )2
k
X
(k+1 i )
ui
ui +
2
2
(A20 u2i + 4(|ui |2 + A0 |ui ||ui |) 2ui ui )
Z
|ui |2 + A0 |ui ||ui | +
A20 u2i
4
Substituting (3.41) and

Z
1/2 Z
1/2
Z
1/4
|ui ||ui |
u2i
|ui |2
i
into (3.42), we get

k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
k
X
i=1
1/4
(k+1 i )2 (A20 + 4A0 i

k
X
(k+1 i )
i=1
1/4
i
A0
+
2
1/2
+ 6i )
2
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 43
i
43
Taking

1/4
+
i=1 (k+1 i ) i
Pk
A0
2
2
1/2
Pk
1/4
1/2
i=1 (k+1 i )2 (A20 + 4A0 i + 6i )
we obtain (3.20).
iii) Introducing h = into (3.25) and using (3.21), we have

k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
(B02 u2i + 4(|ui |2 + B0 ui ui ) 2ui ui )

B02 u2i
4
i=1

k
k
X
X
(k+1 i )
B02
1/2
1/2
2
2

(k+1 i ) (6i B0 ) +
i
,
4
i=1
i=1
+
k
X
(k+1 i )
Z
|ui |2 + B0 ui ui +
where in the last inequality, we have used the fact that

Z
Z
B2
1
u2i = 0 .
ui h, ui i =
2
2
Taking

1/2
P
B2
ki=1 (k+1 i ) 1/2
40
i
= Pk
,
1/2
2
B02 )
i=1 (k+1 i ) (6i
we obtain (3.22).
iv) Taking the Laplacian of the equation

m+1
X
f2 = 1
=1
i
i
44
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 44
i
and using the fact that

f = f , = 1, , m + 1,
we have
m+1
X
=1
|f |2 = .
It then follows by taking h = f in (3.25) and summing over that
k
X
i=1
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
(k+1 i )2
k
X
i=1
Z
k
X
(k+1 i )
i=1
2 u2i + 4
m+1
X
=1
m+1
X
(f ui )2 2ui ui
2 u2i
(f ui ) +
4
=1
2
1/2
(k+1 i )2 (2 + 6i )

k
X
(k+1 i )
i=1
1/2
i
2
+
4
We get (3.23) by taking

1/2
P
1/2
k
+ 4
i=1 (k+1 i ) i

= P
.
k (
2 61/2 +
i
i=1 k+1 i )
Here are some examples of manifolds supporting the functions on

the whole manifolds as stated in items ii)-v) of Theorem 1.1.
Example 3.1. Let M be an n-dimensional Hadamard manifold
with Ricci curvature satisfying RicM (n 1)c2 , c 0 and let
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 45
i
45
: [0, +) M be a geodesic ray, namely a unit speed geodesic

with d((s), (t)) = t s for any t > s > 0. The Busemann function
b corresponding to defined by
b (x) = lim (d(x, (t)) t)
t+
satisfies |b | 1(Cf. [10], [49]). Also, it follows from Theorem 3.5 in

[84] that |b | (n1)c2 on M . Thus any Hadamard manifold with
Ricci curvature bounded below supports functions satisfying (3.19).
Example 3.2. Let (N, ds2N ) be a complete Riemannian manifold
and define a Riemannian metric on M = R N by
ds2M = dt2 + 2 (t)ds2N ,
(3.43)
where is a positive smooth function defined on R with (0) = 1.

The manifold (M, ds2M ) is called a warped product and denoted by
M = R N . It is known that M is a complete Riemannian manifold.
Set = et and consider the warped product M = R et N .
Define : M R by (x, t) = t. One can show that
|| = 1, = 1 n.
(3.44)
That is, a warped product manifold M = R et N admits functions

satisfying (3.21).
Let Hn be the n-dimensional hyperbolic space with constant curvature 1. Using the upper half-space model, Hn is given by
Rn+ = {(x1 , x2 , , xn )|xn > 0}
(3.45)
with metric
ds2 =
dx21 + + dx2n
x2n
(3.46)
One can check that the map : R et Rn1 given by

(t, x) = (x, et )
is an isometry. Therefore, Hn admits a warped product model, Hn =

R et Rn1 .
Example 2.3. Any compact homogeneous Riemannian manifold
admits eigenmaps to some unit sphere for the first positive eigenvalue
of the Laplacian [70].
i
i
46
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 46
i
3.3
Eigenvalues
Operator
of
the
Polyharmonic
The method of proving universal bounds for eigenvalues of the clamped

plate problem can be generalized to the eigenvalue problem of polyharmonic operators.
Theorem 3.3 ([55]). Let M be an n-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold with boundary M (possibly empty) Let l be a
positive integer and let i , i = 1, , be the i-th eigenvalue of the
problem (1.7) and ui be the orthonormal eigenfunction corresponding
to i , that is,
() ui = i ui in M, l1
ui
i
= = l1
= 0,
ui |M = u
(3.47)

M
R
u u = ij , for any i, j = 1, 2, .
M i j
Then for any function h C l+2 (M ) C l+1 (M ) and any positive
integer k, we have
Z
k
X
(k+1 i )2
u2i |h|2
(3.48)
M
i=1
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
k
X
i=1

hui ()l (hui ) i hui )

2
(k+1 i )
ui h
hh, ui i + 2 ,
where is any positive constant.

by
Proof. For i = 1, , k, consider the functions i : M R given

i = hui
where
rij =
k
X
rij uj ,
(3.49)
j=1
hui uj .
(3.50)
i
i
[SEC. 3.3: EIGENVALUES
OF
Since
POLYHARMONIC
47
OPERATOR

l1 i
i
= =
=0
=
M
l1 M
i |M
and
THE
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 47
i
uj i = 0, i, j = 1, , k,
it follows from the mini-max inequality that

Z
k+1
2i
M
Z
i ()l i
M
Z

2
= i ||i || +
i ()l i i hui
ZM

2
= i ||i || +
i ()l (hui ) i hui
(3.51)
= i ||i ||2 +
where
sij =
u|M
then
u|M
=
=
and
u|M
=
=
j=1

()l (hui ) i hui uj .
(M ) C l+1 (M ) satisfies

u
l1 u
=
= =
= 0,
M
l1 M
Notice that if u C
l+2
k
X
hui ()l (hui ) i hui
rij sij ,
u|M = u|M = (u)|M =

m1 uM = (m1 u)M = 0, when
(3.52)
l = 2m

u|M = u|M = (u)|M = = m1 uM

(m1 u)M = m u|M = 0, when l = 2m + 1.
i
i
48
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 48
i
We can then use integration by parts to conclude that

Z
uj () (hui ) =
hui ()l (uj ) = j rij ,
which gives
sij = (j i )rij .
(3.53)
Set
pi (h) = ()l (hui ) i hui ;
then we have from (3.51) and (3.53) that
(k+1 i )||i ||2
i pi (h)
(3.54)
hui pi (h) +
k
X
j=1
2
(i j )rij
.
Set
tij =
uj
ui h
h ui +
2
(3.55)
then tij + tji = 0 and

k
X
ui h
(2)i h ui +
= wi + 2
rij tij ,
2
M
j=1
(3.56)
where
wi =
(hu2i h 2hui h ui ).
(3.57)
i
i
OF
THE
POLYHARMONIC
OPERATOR
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 49
i
49
Multiplying (3.56) by (k+1 i )2 and using the Schwarz inequality

and (3.54), we get
k
X
(k+1 i )2 wi + 2
rij tij
j=1
(k+1 i )2

X
k
u
h
i
(2)i h ui +
tij uj
2
M
j=1
(k+1 i )3 ||i ||2

2

Z
k
X

(k+1 i )
h ui + ui h

+
t
u
ij j

2
M

j=1
= (k+1 i )3 ||i ||2

2
k
X
ui h
(k+1 i )
t2ij
+
h ui + 2
j=1
Z
k
X
2
(k+1 i )2
hui pi (h) +
(i j )rij
M
j=1

2
k
X
(k+1 i )
ui h
+
t2ij .
h ui + 2
j=1
Summing over i and noticing rij = rji , tij = tji , we infer

k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2 wi 2
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
k
X
(k+1 i )(i j )rij tij
i,j=1
hui pi (h)

2
k
X
ui h
(k+1 i )
+
hh, ui i + 2
i=1
k
X
(k+1 i )(i
i,j=1
2
j )2 rij
k
X
(k+1 i ) 2
tij .
i,j=1
i
i
50
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 50
i
Using (3.48), we can obtain universal inequalities for eigenvalues

of the problem (1.7) when M is a bounded domain in Rn or Sn (1).
Theorem 3.4 ([55]). Let be a bounded domain in Rn and
Denote by i the i-th eigenvelue of the eigenvalue problem:
(
()l u = u in ,

l1
(3.58)
u| = u = = l1u = 0.

Then we have
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
4l(n + 2l 2)
n2
k
X
i=1
(3.59)
1/2
(k+1
k
X
i=1
1/l
i ) i
(k+1 i )
(l1)/l
i
!1/2
!1/2
Proof. Let x1 , x2 , , xn be the standard Euclidean coordinate

functions of Rn . Let ui be the i-th orthonormal eigenfunction corresponding to the eigenvalue i of the problem (3.58), i = 1, ;
then
()l (x ui ) = i x ui + 2l(1)l x (l1 ui )
(3.60)
Taking h = x in (3.48), we infer for any > 0 that

k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
2l(1)l x ui x (l1 ui )
1X
(k+1 i ) ||x ui ||2 .
i=1
i
i
OF
THE
POLYHARMONIC
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 51
i
51
OPERATOR
Summing over , we have

k
X
i=1
k
X
2l
+
(k+1 i )2
i=1
(k+1 i )
k
X
i=1
(3.61)
2
(k+1 i )
n Z
X
=1
(1)l x ui x (l1 ui )
|ui |2 .
By induction, we infer
Z
k/l
ui ()k ui i , k = 1, , l.
(3.62)
Since
l1 (x ui ) = 2(l 1)x (l2 ui ) + x l1 ui ,
we have
Z
=
=
=
x ui x (l1 ui )
x ui l1 x ui
(3.63)
l1 (x ui )x ui

2(l 1)x (l2 ui ) + x l1 ui x ui .
On the other hand,

Z
x ui x (l1 ui )
Z
=
l1 ui div(x ui x )
Z
=
l1 ui (|x |2 ui + x x ui ).
(3.64)
i
i
52
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 52
i
Combining (3.63) and (3.64), we obtain

Z
x ui x (l1 ui )
(3.65)

Z
1 l1
l2
2
=
(l 1)x ( ui )x ui ui |x | ui
2
M
Observe that
n Z
X
=1
(1)l x ui x (l1 ui )
(3.66)
o
n
n
(1)l (l 1)(l2 ui ) ui ui l1 ui
2
Z

n
l1
=
l1+
ui () ui
2

n (l1)/l
l1+
i
.
2
=
Substituting (3.62) and (3.66) into (3.61), one gets

n
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
l(n + 2l 2)
k
X
i=1
(3.67)
k
(l1)/l
(k+1 i ) i
1X
1/l
(k+1 i ) i .
i=1
Taking
=
Pk
1/l
i=1 (k+1 i ) i
Pk
2 (l1)/l
l(n + 2l 2) i=1 (k+1 i ) i
we get (3.59).
)1/2
,
Let l be a positive integer and for p = 0, 1, 2, ..., define the polynomials Fp (t) inductively by

F0 (t) = 1, F1 (t) = t n,
Fp (t) = (2t 2)Fp1 (t) (t2 + 2t n(n 2))Fp2 (t), p = 2, .
i
i
OF
THE
POLYHARMONIC
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 53
i
53
OPERATOR
(3.68)
Set
Fl (t) = tl al1 tl1 + + (1)l1 a1 t + (n)l .
(3.69)
Theorem 3.4 ([55]). Let i be the i-th eigenvalue of the eigenvalue problem:
(
()l u = u in ,

u
= = l1
u| = u
= 0,
l1

where is a compact domain in Sn (1). Then we have

k
X
i=1
1
n
(k+1 i )
( k
X
i=1
k
X
i=1
(3.70)
(k+1 i )
l1
l
a+
l1 i
(k+1 i ) n2 +
1/2
4i
+ +

)1/2
1
l
a+
1 i
a+
0
)1/2
where a+
j = max{0, aj }.
Proof. As before, let x1 , x2 , , xn+1 be the standard coordinate
functions of Rn+1 ; then
Sn (1) = {(x1 , . . . , xn+1 ) Rn+1 ;
n+1
X
x2 = 1}.
=1
It is well known that

x = nx ,
= 1, , n + 1.
(3.71)
Pn+1 2
Taking the Laplacian of the equation =1 x = 1 and using (3.71),
we get
n+1
X
=1
|x |2 = n.
(3.72)
i
i
54
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 54
i
Let ui be the i-th orthonormal eigenfunction corresponding to the

eigenvalue i , i = 1, 2, . For any > 0, by taking h = x in
(3.48), we have
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
k+1
X
i=1
u2i |x |2
(k+1 i )
x ui (()l (x ui ) i x ui )

2
k

ui x
1X

(k+1 i ) x ui +
+
i=1
2
Taking sum on from 1 to n + 1 and using (3.72), we get

n
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
k+1
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
k
X
i=1
(3.73)
n+1
XZ
=1
(k+1 i )
n+1
X
2

x ui + ui x .

2
=1
2

x ui + ui x
(3.74)

2
=1

Z n+1
X
n2 u2i x2
2
=
(x ui ) nx ui ui x +
4
=1
Z
n2
=
+
|ui |2
4
n2
1/l
+ i .
4

n+1
X
For any smooth functions f, g on , we have from the Bochner for-
i
i
OF
THE
POLYHARMONIC
OPERATOR
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 55
i
55
mula that
(f g)
= 22 f 2 g + f (g) + g (f )
+2(n 1)f g,
(3.75)
where
2
f g =
n
X
s,t=1
2 f (es , et )2 g(es , et ),
being e1 , , en orthonormal vector fields locally defined on . Since

2 x = x I,
we infer from (3.75) by taking f = x that
(x g)
= 2x g + x (g) + (n 2)x g
(3.76)
= 2x g + x (( + (n 2))g).
For each q = 0, 1, , thanks to (3.71) and (3.76), there are polynomials Bq and Cq of degrees less than or equal to q such that
q (x g) = x Bq ()g + 2x (Cq ()g).
(3.77)
It is obvious that
B0 = 1, B1 = t n, C0 = 0, C1 = 1.
(3.78)
It follows from (3.71), (3.76) and (3.77) that

q (x g)
= (q1 (x g))
= (x Bq1 ()g + 2x (Cq1 ()g))
(3.79)
= x (( n)Bq1 () 4Cq1 ())g

+2x ((Bq1 () + ( + (n 2))Cq1 ())g).
Thus, for any q = 2, , we have

Bq () = ( n)Bq1 () 4Cq1 (),
Cq () = Bq1 () + ( + (n 2))Cq1 ().
(3.80)
(3.81)
i
i
56
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 56
i
Consequently,
Bq ()
(3.82)
= (2 2)Bq1 () ( + n 2)Bq1 () 4Cq1 ()

= (2 2)Bq1 () (2 + 2 n(n 2))Bq2 ()
+4[Bq2 () + ( + n 2)Cq2 () Cq1 ()]
=
(2 2)Bq1 () (2 + 2 n(n 2))Bq2 (), q = 2, .
Since (3.78) and (3.82) hold, we know that Bq = Fq , q = 0, 1, .

It follows from (3.77) and the divergence theorem that
Z
=
=
(3.83)
x ui (1)l (x Bl ()ui + 2x (Cl ()ui )) i x ui

x ui (1)l x (l al1 l1 + + (n)l )ui
+2x (Cl ()ui )) i x ui )

Z

=
(1)l x ui x (al1 l1 + + (n)l )ui + 2x (Cl ()ui )
Summing on , one has

Z
(3.84)
ui (1)l (al1 l1 + + (n)l a0 )ui
Z
Z
Z
= al1
ui ()l1 ui + + a1
ui ()ui + nl
u2i
=
(l1)/l
+
al1 i
+ +
1/l
a+
1 i
+n .
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 57
i
57
[SEC. 3.4: EIGENVALUES OF THE BUCKLING PROBLEM
Substituting (3.74) and (3.84) into (3.73), we infer

n
k
X
i=1
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
(l1)/l
(k+1 i )2 (a+
l1 i
1/l
+ + a+
1 i
+ nl )

k
1X
n2
1/l
(k+1 i ) i +
.
+
i=1
4
Taking
= Pk

1/l
(
)
i +
k+1
i
i=1
Pk
i=1 (k+1
(l1)/l
i )2 (a+
l1 i
n2
4
1/l
+ + a+
1 i
we get (3.70).
3.4
1/2
+ nl )
,
Eigenvalues of the Buckling Problem
Let Rn and consider the problem

2
u = u,

u| = u
= 0
(3.85)
which is used to describe the critical buckling load of a clamped plate

subjected to a uniform compressive force around its boundary.
Payne, P
olya and Weinberger [77] proved
2 /1 < 3
for R2 .
For Rn this reads

2 /1 < 1 + 4/n.
Subsequently Hile and Yeh [51] reconsidered this problem obtaining
the improved bound
n2 + 8n + 20
2
1
(n + 2)2
for Rn .
i
i
58
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 58
i
Ashbaugh [3] proved :

n
X
i=1
i+1 (n + 4)1 .
(3.86)
This inequality has been improved to the following form [54]:

n
X
i+1 +
i=1
4(2 1 )
(n + 4)1 .
n+4
Cheng and Yang introduced a new method to construct trial functions

for the problem (3.85) and obtained the following universal inequality
[28]:
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
4(n + 2) X
(k+1 i )i .
n2
i=1
(3.87)
It has been proved in [88] that for the problem (1.5) if M is a bounded
connected domain in an n-dimensional unit sphere, then the following
inequality holds
2
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
k
X
(3.88)
2 (i (n 2))
(k+1 i ) i +
4(i + n 2)
i=1

k
(n 2)2
1X
+
(k+1 i ) i +
,
i=1
4
2
where is any positive constant.

The inequality (3.87) has been generalized to eigenvalues of buckling problem of arbitrary orders. That is, we have
Theorem 3.5 ([54]). Let l 2 and let i be the i-th eigenvalue
of the following eigenvalue problem:
(
()l u = u in ,

l1
(3.89)
u| = u = = l1u = 0.

i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 59
i
59
where is a bounded domain with smooth boundary in Rn . Then for

k = 1, , we have
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
(3.90)
( k
)1/2
1/2
X
2(2l2 + (n 4)l + 2 n)
2 (l2)/(l1)
(k+1 i ) i
n
i=1
( k
)1/2
X
1/(l1)
.
(k+1 i )i
i=1
Before proving theorem 3.5, let us recall a method of constructing

trial functions developed by Cheng-Yang (Cf. [28], [54]). Let M be an
n-dimensional complete submanifold in an m-dimensional Euclidean
space Rm . Denote by the canonical metric on Rm as well as that
induced on M . Let and be the Laplacian and the gradient
operator of M , respectively. Let be a bounded connected domain
of M with smooth boundary and let be the outward unit normal
vector field of . For functions f and g on , the Dirichlet inner
product (f, g)D of f and g is given by
Z
(f, g)D =
f g.
The Dirichlet norm of a function f is defined by

||f ||D = {(f, f )D }1/2 =
Z
|f |2
Consider the eigenvalue problem

(
()l u = u in ,

l1
u| = u = = l1u

1/2
= 0.
(3.91)
Let
0 < 1 2 3 ,
i
i
60
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 60
i
denote the successive eigenvalues, where each eigenvalue is repeated

according to its multiplicity.
Let ui be the i-th orthonormal eigenfunction of the problem (3.91)
corresponding to the eigenvalue i , i = 1, 2, , that is, ui satisfies
i ui in ,
() ui =

l1
ui
ui | = = l1u = 0,
(3.92)
(ui , uj )D = hui , uj i = ij , i, j.
For k = 1, , l, let k denote the k-th covariant derivative operator

on M , defined in the usual weak sense via an integration by parts
formula. For a function f on , the squared norm of k f is defined
as
n
X
k 2
2
f =
k f (ei1 , , eik ) ,
(3.93)
i1 , ,ik =1
where e1 , , en are orthonormal vector fields locally defined on .

Define the Sobolev space Hl2 () by

Hl2 () = {f : f, |f |, , l f L2 ()}.
Then Hl2 () is a Hilbert space with respect to the norm || ||l,2 :
!!1/2
Z
l
X
k 2
.
(3.94)
| f |
||f ||l,2 =
k=0
2
Consider the subspace Hl,D
() of Hl2 () defined by

f
l1 u
2
Hl,D
() = f Hl2 () : f | =
=
=
0
.

l1
2
The operator ()l defines a self-adjoint operator acting on Hl,D
()
with discrete eigenvalues 0 < 1 k for the buckling
problem (3.91) and the eigenfunctions {ui }
i=1 defined in (3.92) form
2
a complete orthonormal basis for the Hilbert space Hl,D
(). If
2
Hl,D () satisfies (, uj )D = 0, j = 1, 2, , k, then the RayleighRitz inequality tells us that
Z
2
k+1 ||||D
()l .
(3.95)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 61
i
61
For vector-valued functions F = (f1 , f2 , , fm ), G = (g1 , g2 , , gm ) :

Rm , we define an inner product (F, G) by
(F, G) =
Z X
m
f g .
=1
The norm of F is given by

1/2
||F || = (F, F )
(Z m
X
=1
f2
)1/2
Let H21 () be the Hilbert space of vector-valued functions given by

H2 ()
1

=
F = (f1 , , fm ) : Rm ; f , |f | L2 (), = 1, , m
with norm
||F ||1 =
||F || +
Z X
m
=1
|f |
!1/2
Observe that a vector field on can be regarded as a vector-valued

function from to Rm . Let H21,D () H2l () be a subspace of
H2l () spanned by the vector-valued functions {ui }
i=1 , which form
2
a complete orthonormal basis of H21,D (). For any f Hl,D
(), we
2
2
have f H1,D () and for any X H1,D (), there exists a function
2
f Hl,D
() such that X = f .
Proof of Theorem 3.5. With notations as above, we consider now
the special case that is a bounded domain in Rn . Let us decompose
the vector-valued functions x ui as
x ui = hi + Wi ,
(3.96)
l
where hi H2,D
(), hi is the projection of x ui in H21,D ()
and Wi H21,D (). Thus we have
Wi | = 0,
2
Wi u = 0, u Hl,D
()
(3.97)
i
i
62
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 62
i
and from the discussions in [28] and [88] we know that

div Wi = 0.
(3.98)
For each = 1, , n, i = 1, , k, consider the functions i :

R, given by
i = hi
k
X
aij uj ,
(3.99)
j=1
where
aij =
x ui uj = aji .
(3.100)
We have
i |

l1 i
i
=
= 0,
=

l1
(i , uj )D =
i uj = 0, j = 1, , k.
(3.101)
(3.102)
It follows from the Rayleigh-Ritz inequality that

Z
k+1
|i |2
i ()l i , = 1, , n, i = 1, , k.
(3.103)

l
l1
() i = (1)
(ui, + x ui ) +
k
X
aij j uj
j=1
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 63
i
63
and so
Z
i ()l i
(3.104)
i (1)l l1 (ui, + x ui )
hi (1)l l2 (ui, + x ui )
hi (1)l ((l2 ui ), + l2 (x ui )) +
hi (1)l l1 (ui, + x ui )
k
X
aij
uj ()l hi
j=1
k
X
aij
j=1
hi ()l uj
k
X
j aij
j=1
hi uj
(1)l (ui, + x ui )((l2 ui ), + l2 (x ui ))
k
X
hhi , uj i
(1)l (ui, + x ui )((2l 3)(l2 ui ), + x l1 ui ))
k
X
j=1
j=1
j aij
j aij
hhi , uj i
(1)l ((2l 3){ui, (l2 ui ), + x ui (l2 ui ), )
+ui, x l1 ui + x2 ui l1 ui }
k
X
j a2ij
j=1
Since
l1 (x ui ) = 2(l 1)(l2 ui ), + x l1 ui ,
i
i
64
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 64
i
we have
Z
x ui (l1 ui ),
x ui l1 ui,
(3.105)
l1 (x ui )ui,

2(l 1)(l2 ui ), + x l1 ui ui, .
On the other hand, it holds

Z
Z
l1
x ui ( ui ), =
l1 ui (ui + x ui, ).
Combining (3.105) and (3.106), we obtain

Z
x ui (l1 ui ),

Z
1
l1
l2
=
(l 1)( ui ), ui, ui ui
2
M
Hence
Z
x ui, l1 ui
(3.106)
(3.107)
ui (l1 ui + x (l1 ui ), )
(3.108)

Z
1
=
(l 1)(l2 ui ), ui, + ui l1 ui
2
M
=
and consequently, we have

Z
Z
x ui (l2 ui ), =
x ui l2 ui,
(3.109)
Z
=
l2 (x ui )ui,
Z

=
ui, 2(l 2)(l2 ui ), + x l1 ui

Z
1
l2
l1
=
(l 3)( ui ), ui, ui ui .
2
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 65
i
65
Also, one has

Z
ui x2 ui
Z
Z
=
x2 |ui |2 2
x ui ui,
Z
Z
=
x2 |ui |2 +
u2i ,
=
=
(3.110)
x2 ui l1 ui
(3.111)
ui (x2 l1 ui )
ui (2l1 ui + x2 l ui + 4x (l1 ui ), )
ui (2l1 ui + (1)l1 i x2 ui + 4x (l1 ui ), ).
Combining (3.107), (3.110) and (3.111), we get

Z
Z
x2 ui l1 ui = 4(l 1) (l2 ui ), ui,
(3.112)
Z

Z
+(1)l1 i
x2 |ui |2 +
u2i .
Substituting (3.109), (3.111) and (3.112) into (3.104), one gets

Z
i ()l i
(3.113)
Z

=
(1)l (l + 1)ui l1 ui + (2l2 4l + 3)(l2 ui ), ui,
+i
Z
x2 |ui |2
u2i
k
X
j a2ij .
j=1

||x ui ||2 = ||hi ||2 + ||Wi ||2
(3.114)
i
i
66
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 66
i
and
||hi ||2 = ||i ||2 +
k
X
a2ij ,
(3.115)
j=1
Combining (3.103), (3.113), (3.114) and (3.115), we infer

(k+1 i )||i ||2
(3.116)
Z

(1)l (l + 1)ui l1 ui + (2l2 4l + 3)(l2 ui ), ui,
i (||ui ||2 ||Wi ||2 ) +
k
X
j=1
(i j )a2ij ,
Observe that (x ui ) = ui x + x ui H21,D (). For Ai =

(x ui hi ), we have
ui x = Ai Wi
(3.117)
and so
||ui ||2 = ||ui x ||2 = ||Wi ||2 + ||Ai ||2 .
Because of (ui, , Wi ) = 0, it follows that

Z
2||ui, ||2 = 2
Ai ui,
1/(l1)
i
||Ai ||2
1/(l1)
i
||ui, ||2
which gives
l2
l3
i ||Ai ||2 2il1 ||ui, ||2 + il1 ||ui, ||2
(3.118)
Introducing (3.118) into (3.116), we get

(k+1 i )||i ||2
(3.119)
Z

(1)l (l + 1)ui l1 ui + (2l2 4l + 3)(l2 ui ), ui,
(l2)/(l1)
2i
k
X
j=1
(l3)/(l1)
||ui, ||2 + i
||ui, ||2
(i j )a2ij ,
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 67
i
67
Since
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Z
2
x ui ui,
Z
Z
2
u2i, + 2
x ui, ui
Z
Z
2
u2i, + 2
ui (x ui, )
Z
Z
Z
2
u2i, + 2
ui x (ui ), + 4
ui x ui,
Z
Z
Z
2
u2i, 2
ui (ui + x ui, ) 4
ui, div(ui x )
Z
Z
Z
2
u2i, + 2 2
x ui, ui 4
u2i,
Z
Z
2
u2i, + 2 + 2
ui (x ui, )
Z
2+2
x ui ui, ,
we have
2
x ui ui, = 1.
(3.120)
Set
dij =
ui, uj ;
then dij = dji and we get

1
= 2
= 2
= 2
x ui ui,
(3.121)
hi ui,
i ui, 2
k
X
aij dij .
j=1
i
i
68
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 68
i
Thus, we have
(k+1 i )2 1 + 2
=
k
X
j=1
aij dij
(k+1 i )2 2i , ui,
(3.122)
k
X
j=1
dij uj
k
X
1
(k+1 i )3 ||i ||2 + (k+1 i ) ||ui, ||2
d2ij ,
j=1
where is any positive constant. Substituting (3.119) into (3.122),

we get
(k+1 i )2 1 + 2
2
(k+1 i )
Z
2i
j=1
aij dij
ui ), ui, }
l3
l1
||ui, ||2 + i
(1)l {(l + 1)ui l1 ui
l2
+(2l2 4l + 3)(
l2
l1
k
X
||ui, ||2 +
k
X
j=1
(i j )a2ij
k
X
1
+ (k+1 i ) ||ui, ||2
d2ij ,
j=1
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 69
i
69
Summing on i from 1 to k, we infer
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2 2
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
k
X
i,j=1
Z
(k+1 i )(i j )aij dij
(1)l {(l + 1)ui l1 ui
+(2l2 4l + 3)(l2 ui ), ui, }

(l2)/(l1)
2i
k
X
i,j=1
(l3)/(l1)
||ui, ||2 + i
||ui, ||2
(k+1 i )(i j )2 a2ij
k
k
X
1 X
+
(k+1 i )||ui, ||2
(k+1 i )d2ij ,
i=1
i,j=1
which gives
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )
2
Z
l2
+(2l 4l + 3)(
l2
l1
2i

(1)l (l + 1)ui l1 ui
ui ), ui,
l3
l1
||ui, || + i
||ui, ||
1X
(k+1 i )||ui, ||2 ,
i=1
i
i
70
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 70
i
Taking sum for from 1 to n, we get

n
k
X
i=1
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
2
(k+1 i )
Z

(1)l n(l + 1)ui l1 ui
l2
+(2l 4l + 3)(
l2
l3
2il1 + il1
+
k
X
i=1
k
X
i=1
n
X
=1
(k+1 i )
(k+1 i )2
ui ) ui
!
||ui, ||2
n
X
=1
||ui, ||2
l2
l3
2il1 + il1
+(2l + (n 4)l + 3 n)
n
X
=1
||ui, ||2
l1
ui ()
ui
k
n
X
1X
(k+1 i )
||ui, ||2 .
+
i=1
=1
But
k
X
=1
||ui, ||2
=
=
=
Z X
k
ui, ui,
=1
Z X
k
ui, (ui ),
=1
Z X
k
ui, ui
=1
(ui )2
ui 2 ui ,
i
i
71
where ui, =
2 ui
x2 .
Therefore,
k
X
i=1
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 71
i
(k+1 i )2

Z
k
l2
l3
X
l1
l1
2
ui 2 ui

(k+1 i ) 2i + i
i=1
+(2l + (n 4)l + 3 n)
k
1X
(k+1 i )
i=1
l1
ui ()
ui
ui 2 ui .
Observe that
Z
Z
l2
1
ui ()l1 ui il1 ,
ui 2 ui il1 .
Thus we have
n
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
(2l2 + (n 4)l + 2 n)
+
k
X
i=1
k
X
i=1
l2
(k+1 i )2 il1
(k+1 i )il1 .
Taking
=

Pk
l1
i=1 (k+1 i )i
(2l2 + (n 4)l + 2 n)
we get (3.90).
Pk
1/2
i=1 (k+1
l2
l1
i )2 i
1/2 ,
i
i
72
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 72
i
Recently, Cheng-Yang have strengthened the inequality (3.87) to

the following form:
k
X
4 n+
(k+1 i )
n2
i=1
2
4
3
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )i .
(3.123)
The inequality (3.90) has been improved by Cheng-Qi-Wang-Xia very

recently in [24]:
n
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
(3.124)

l2

8
14
l + n il1
i (k+1 i )2 2l2 + n
3
3
i=1
k
X
k
X
1
1
(k+1 i )il1 ,
i=1 i
where {i }ki=1 is any positive non-increasing monotone sequence.

For eigenvalues of the buckling problem on spherical domains, the
inequality (3.88) has also been improved (Cf. [28])) and generalized
to buckling problem of arbitrary orders (Cf. [54], [24]).
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 73
i
Chapter 4
P
olya Conjecture and
Related Results
4.1
Introduction
Let Rn be a bounded open set and consider the eigenvalue

problem of the Dirichlet Laplacian on :

u + u = 0 in ,
(4.1)
u| = 0.
In 1960, P
olya [81] showed that for any plane covering domain
in R2 (those that tile R2 ) the Weyl asymptotic relation (1.) is in fact
a one-sided inequality (his proof also works for Rn -covering domains)
and conjectured, for any bounded domain Rn , the inequality

2/n
k
(2)2
k C(n)
k, with C(n) =
.
(4.2)
2
||
nn
P
olyas conjecture has been a central problem about eigenvalues and
many important developments have been made during the past years.
In 1982, Li-Yau [72] showed the lower bound

2/n
k
X
nkC(n)
k
i
(4.3)
n+2
||
i=1
73
i
i
74
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 74
i
[CAP. 4: POLYA
CONJECTURE AND RELATED RESULTS
which yields an individual lower bound on k in the form

2/n
k
nC(n)
.
k
n + 2 ||
(4.4)
Similar bounds for eigenvalues with Neumann boundary conditions

have been proved in [62], [63] and [65]. It was pointed out in [66]
that (4.3) also follows from an earlier result by Berezin [11] by the
Legendre transformation. The inequality (4.3) has been improved by
Melas:
Theorem 4.1 ([75]). For any bounded domain Rn and any
k 1, the eigenvalues of the problem (4.1) satisfy the inequality

2/n
k
X
nkC(n)
k
||
i
+ d(n)k
(4.5)
n+2
||
I()
i=1
where theR constant dn depends only on the dimension and I() =
minaRn |x a|2 dx is the moment of inertia of .
Proof. Fix a k 1 and let u1 , , uk be an orthonormal set

of eigenfunctions of (4.1) corresponding to the set of eigenvalues
1 , , k . We consider the Fourier transform of each eigenfunction
Z
n/2
fj () = u
j () = (2)
uj (x)eix dx.
(4.6)
From Plancherels Theorem, we know that f1 , , fk is an orthonormal set in Rn . Bessels inequality implies that for every Rn
Z
k
X
2
n
|fj ()| (2)
|eix |dx = (2)n ||
(4.7)
j=1
and
k
X
j=1
|fj ()|2 (2)n
|ixeix |dx = (2)n I().
Since uj | = 0 it is easy to see that

Z
Z
2
2
|| |fj ()| d =
|uj |2 = j .
Rn
(4.8)
(4.9)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 75
i
75
Setting
F () =
k
X
j=1
|fj ()|2 ;
(4.10)
then 0 F () (2)n ||,

|F ()|
k
k
X
X
2(
|fj ()|2 )1/2 (
|fj ()|2 )1/2
j=1
2(2)n
Z
(4.11)
j=1
p
||I(), Rn ,
F ()d = k
(4.12)
Rn
and
Z
Rn
|| F ()d =
k
X
j .
(4.13)
j=1
Let F () = (||) denote the decreasing radial rearrangement of F .

By approximating F we may assume that the function : [0; +)
[0, (2)n ||] is absolutely continuous. Setting (t) = |{F > t}| =
|{F > t}| the co-area formula (1.17) implies that
(t) =
(2)n ||
{F =s}
|F |1 ds ds.
(4.14)
Observe that F is radial and so ((s)) = |{F > (s)}| = n sn

which gives nn sn1 = ((s)) (s) a.e. It follows from (4.11),
(4.14) and the isoperimetric inequality that
Z
((s)) =
|F |1 ds
(4.15)
{F =(s)}
1
|{F = (s)}|
1 nn sn1
i
i
76
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 76
i
[CAP. 4: POLYA
and so for almost every s

(s) 0,
(4.16)
where
= 2(2)n
||I().
From (4.12) and (4.13), we have

Z
Z
k=
F ()d =
F ()d
Z
= nn
sn1 (s)ds
Rn
(4.17)
Rn
and
k
X
Rn
j=1
|xi|2 F ()d
(4.18)
|xi|2 F ()d
Z
= nn
sn+1 (s)ds.
Rn
We need an elementary lemma.

Lemma 4.1([75]) Let n 1, , A > 0 and : [0, +) [0, +)
be decreasing (and absolutely continuous) such that
Z
(s) 0,
sn1 (s)ds = A.
(4.19)
0
Then
Z
sn+1 (s)ds
n+2
2
1
A(0)2
(nA) n (0) n +
.
n+2
6(n + 2)2
(4.20)
1
Applying
p Lemma 4.1 to the function with A = (nn ) k, =
n
2(2)
||I() we get in view of (4.12) and (4.13) that
X
j=1
2
ck(0)2
n
2 n+2
n n k n (0) n +
n+2
(n + 2)2
(4.21)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 77
i
77
[SEC. 4.2: THE KROGERS

THEOREM
where c is any constant such that 0 < c < 61 . Observe that 0 <
(0) (2)n || and that if R is such that n Rn = ||, then I()
R
n+2
nR
|x|2 dx = nn+2
and so
B(R)
n
2(2)
n
n+2
2
n n || n +1
n+2
(2)n n n ||
n+1
n
(4.22)
.
1
Let us choose c independent of n satisfying c < (2)2 n n . It is easy

to see that the function
g(t) =
2
n
ckt2
2 n+2
n n k n t t +
n+2
(n + 2)2
is decreasing on (0, (2)n ||]. We can replace (0) by (2)n || in

(4.21) which gives the inequality (4.5).
4.2
The Kr
ogers Theorem
Let k be the k th eigenvalue for the Neumann boundary value problem with respect to the Laplace operator on a bounded domain
with piecewise smooth boundary in Rn . Polys conjecture states that
n2
k
k Cn ||
. With respect to this conjecture, Kroger proved the
following result.
Theorem 4.2 ([62]). The first k + 1 Neumann eigenvalues of a a
bounded domain with piecewise smooth boundary in Rn satisfy the
inequality
Pk
r n+2
n
j=1 j
n+2 (n1 ||) (2)

k+1 inf
(4.24)
1/n
rn
nk
r>2 nk ||
||
(2)
n1
n n1
where n1 denotes the area of the (n 1)-unit sphere in Rn .

Taking
r = 2
n(k + 1)
n1 ||
1/n
i
i
78
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 78
i
[CAP. 4: POLYA
one gets
Corollary 4.1. Under the assumptions of the Theorem the following inequality holds for every k:
k
X
j=1
n
(2)2
n+2
n2
n+2
1
n1 ||
k n
n
(4.25)
Proof of Theorem 4.2. Let {j }kj=1 be the set of orthonormal

eigenfunctions for the eigenvalues 1 , ..., k . Fix z RRn and consider
hz : R C given by hz (y) = eiyz . Letting aj = hz (x)uj (x)dx;
then the projection of hz (y) eizy into the subspace of L2 ()
spanned by 1 , ..., k can be written as
k Z
X
hz (y)|span{ui }ki=1

hz (x)uj (x)dx uj (y)
j=1
k
X
aj uj (y).
(4.26)
j=1
It is clear that the function gz (y) hz (y)

onal to uj , j = 1, , k. Thus we have
k+1
Pk
j=1
|gz (y)|2 dy
R
.
g 2 dy
z
aj uj (y) is orthog-
(4.27)
Elementary computation sows that

Z
|gz (y)| dy = |z| ||
k
X
j=1
|aj |2 j
(4.28)
and
Z
gz2 dy
= ||
k
X
j=1
|aj |2 .
(4.29)
i
i
79
[SEC. 4.2: THE KROGERS

THEOREM
Assuming that r > 2
k+1
nk
n1 ||
Br
Since
Br
Br
1/n
Z
Z
=
; then

|gz (y)|2 dy dz

g (y)2 dy dz
z
|gz (y)| dy dz
Z
|z| ||dz
k
X
Br j=1
k
rn+2 n1 || X
j
n+2
j=1
(4.30)
Br
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 79
i
(4.31)
j |aj |2 dz
Br
|aj |2 dz
and
Z
Br
Br
Z

(gz (y))2 dy dz
||dz
Br j=1
k
k
X
rn n1 || X
n
j=1
(4.32)
|aj |2 dz
Br
|aj |2 dz,
we get
k+1
R
Pk
r n+2 n1 ||
j=1 j Br |aj |2 dz
n+2
.
Pk R
r n n1 ||
j=1 Br |aj |2 dz
n
(4.33)
Recall that the Fourier transform uj of uj is given by

Z
n
2
uj (z) = (2)
eiyz uj (y)dy
Rn
and we know from the Plancherel Theorem that
Rn
|ubj |2 (z)dz =
i
i
80
R
Rn
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 80
i
[CAP. 4: POLYA
|uj |2 (y)dy. Hence we have

Z
Br
Z
2

hz uj dy dz

=
=
Z
2

hz uj dy dz

Rn
Z
(2)n
|ubj (z)|2 dz
n
ZR
n
(2)
|uj (y)|2 dy
Rn
(2)n .
Let us prove by induction that

Pk
r n+2 n1 ||
(2)n j=1
n+2
r n n1 ||
(2)n k
n
k+1
(4.34)
Suppose that (4.34) is true for k 1, that is

r n+2 n1 ||
n+2
r n n1 ||
n
(2)n
Pk1
j=1
(2)n (k 1)
We then have that

k
Pk
r n+2 n1 ||
(2)n j=1
n+2
r n n1 ||
(2)n k
n
A
,
B
where
A=
k
X
rn+2 n1 ||
(2)n
j
n+2
j=1
and
B=
Setting Cl = (2)n
rn n1 ||
(2)n k.
n
Br
|al |2 dz and observing
rn n1 ||
(2)n k > 0,
n
i
i
[SEC. 4.3: A GENERALIZED POLYA

CONJECTURE BY CHENG-YANG
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 81
i
81
we get
k+1
A+
Pk
l=1
B+
Pk
l Cl
l=1
Pk
Cl
A + k l=1 Cl
Pk
B + l=1 Cl
Pk
A
A+ B
l=1 Cl
Pk
B + l=1 Cl
A
.
B
This completes the proof of Theorem 4.2.
4.3
A generalized P
olya conjecture by
Cheng-Yang
In [31], Cheng-Yang investigated eigenvalues of the Dirichlet Laplacian on a bounded domain in an n-dimensional complete Riemannian
manifold M and proposed a generalized Polya conjecture.
Cheng-Yangs Conjecture ([31]). Let be a bounded domain
in an n-dimensional complete Riemannian manifold M . Then, there
exists a constant c(M, ), which only depends on M and such that
eigenvalue i s of the eigenvalue problem

u = u in ,
(4.35)
u| = 0.
satisfy
k
2
1X
n
4 2
n , k = 1, ,
i + c(M, )
2 k
k i=1
n + 2 (n ||) n
i + c(M, )
4 2
(n ||) n
k n , k = 1, ,
(4.36)
(4.37)
i
i
82
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 82
i
[CAP. 4: POLYA
Remark 4.1. Cheng-Yang believed that in the above conjecture,

2
when M is the unit sphere Sn (1), c(M, ) = n4 , when M is the hyper2
bolic space Hn (1), c(M, ) = (n1)

and when M is a complete
4
minimal submanifold in RN , c(M, ) = 0. Cheng-Yang obtained a
partial solution to the above conjecture.
Theorem 4.3 ([31]). Let be a bounded domain in an n-dimensional
complete Riemannian manifold M . Then, there exists a constant
H 2 > 0, which only depends on M and such that eigenvalue i s of
the problem (4.35) satisfy
k
2
n
4 2
1X
n , k = 1, , (4.38)
i + H02 p
2 k
k i=1
(n + 2)(n + 4) (n ||) n
2
Moreover, when M is the unit sphere Sn (1), one can take H02 = n4
and when M is a complete minimal submanifold in RN , one can take
H02 = 0.
A crucial result in the proof of Theorem 4.3 is the following
Lemma 4.2 ([25]). Let 1 k+1 be any non-negative real

numbers satisfying
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
4X
i (k+1 i ).
t i=1
(4.39)
Define

k
k
1X
1X 2
2
Gk =
i , Tk =
, Fk = 1 +
G2k Tk .
k i=1
k i=1 i
t
(4.40)
Then, we have
Fk+1 C(t, k)
k+1
k
4t
Fk ,
(4.41)
i
i
[SEC. 4.3: A GENERALIZED POLYA

CONJECTURE BY CHENG-YANG
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 83
i
83
where t is any positive real number and

1
C(t, k) = 1
3t
k
k+1

1 + 2t 1 + 4t
< 1.
(k + 1)3
4t
(4.42)
Proof of Theorem 4.3. From Nashs theorem, we know that M can

be isometricly immersed into a Euclidean space RN , that is, there
exists an isometric immersion:
: M RN .
(4.43)
Thus, M can be seen as a complete submanifold isometricly immersed

into RN . We denote by |H| the mean curvature of the immersion .
From (3.16), we have
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
n2
4X
(k+1 i )(i +
sup |H|2 ).
n i=1
4
(4.44)
Since eigenvalues are invariants of isometries, the above inequality

holds for any isometric immersion from M into a Euclidean space.
Let us define
= {; is an isometric immersion from M into a Euclidean space}.
Putting
H0 = inf sup |H|2 ;

then
k
X
i=1
(k+1 i )2
Letting i = i +
k
X
i=1
n2
2
4 H0 ;
4X
n2 2
(k+1 i )(i +
H ).
n i=1
4 0
(4.45)
then
k
(k+1 i )2
4X
i (k+1 i ).
n i=1
(4.46)
i
i
84
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 84
i
[CAP. 4: POLYA
From theorem 2.1 with t = n of [25], we have

Fk+1 C(n, k)
n1
k+1
k
Fk
k+1
k
n1
Fk .
Therefore, we infer
Fk+1
(k + 1)
4
n
Fk
4
kn
For any positive integers l and k, we have

Fk+l
(k + l)
4
n
Fk
4
kn
From the Weyls asymptotic formula (1.10)

l
lim
2
n
4 2
2
(n ||) n
we get
lim
Pl
1
l
i=1
2
n
n
4 2
n + 2 (n ||) n2
16 4
n
.
n + 4 (n ||) n4
and
lim
1
l
Pl
i=1
4
n
2i
Hence
lim
Fk+l
(k + l)
4
n
16 4
2n
.
(n + 2)(n + 4) (n ||) n4
According to (4.46), we have, for any positive integer k,

Fk
k
4
n
2n
16 4
.
(n + 2)(n + 4) (n ||) n4
(4.47)
i
i
[SEC. 4.4: ANOTHER GENERALIZED POLYA

CONJECTURE
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 85
i
85
Since
Fk =

2
2
G2k Tk G2k ,
1+
n
n
we get
2 G2k
Fk
2n
16 4
4
4
n kn
(n + 2)(n + 4) (n ||) n4
kn
which implies (4.38).
In order to finish the proof of Theorem 4.3, we need only to observe that Sn (1) can be seen as a compact hypersurface in Rn+1 with
mean curvature 1 and that a complete minimal submanifold in RN
has mean curvature |H| = 0.
4.4
Another generalized P
olya conjecture
Let be a bounded domain in Rn and let L be the elliptic operator

of order 2t defined by
Lu =
t
X
m=r+1
amr ()m u, u C ()
where r 0 is an integer, amr s are constants with amr 0, r+1

m t, atr = 1, t a fixed positive integer. Consider the following
eigenvalue problem about L which is important in the study of various
branches of mathematics, such as differential equations, differential
geometry and mathematical physics:

Lu = ()r u,
u C (),
(4.48)
j
(/) u| = 0,
j = 0, 1, 2, , t 1.
Let
0 < 1,r 2,r k,r .
(4.49)
be the eigenvalues of the problem (4.48). In [58], the following conjecture was proposed :
i
i
86
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 86
i
[CAP. 4: POLYA
Generalized P
olya Conjecture. The eigenvalues k,r , k =
1, 2, , of the eigenvalue problem (1.7) of the operator L satisfies
the inequality
k,r
tr
X
am C m
m=1
k
||
2m/n
(4.50)
With respect to the above generalized Polya conjecture, Ku-KuTang showed in [58] that if r is even, then
k,r
tr
X
nam
Cm
n
+
2m
m=1
k
||
2m/n
k = 1, 2, .
(4.51)
This section provides comparison theorems between the k-th eigenvalues of the problem (4.1) and that of the problem (4.48) which shows
that if the P
olya conjecture (4.2) is true then so is the generalized
P
olya conjecture (4.50).
Theorem 4.3 ([93]). Let M be an n( 2)-dimensional compact
Riemannian manifold with boundary. Denote by the Laplacian
operator on M and let L be the elliptic operator given by
Lu =
t
X
m=r+1
amr ()m u, u C (M ),
(4.52)
where r 0 is an integer, amr s are constants with amr 0, r +

1 m t, atr = 1, t a fixed positive integer. Consider the following eigenvalue problems:

Lu = ()r u,
u C (M ),
(4.53)
j
(/) u|M = 0,
j = 0, 1, 2, , t 1,

()r+1 u = ()r u,
(/)j u|M = 0,

u
u|M
= u
= 0.
u C (M ),
j = 0, 1, 2, , r,
in
M,
(4.54)
(4.55)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 87
i
87

CONJECTURE
Denote by
0 < 1,r 2,r
(4.56)
0 < 1,r 2,r
(4.57)
0 < 1 < 2
(4.58)
and
the successive eigenvalues for (4.53), (4.54) and (4.55), respectively.

Here each eigenvalue is repeated according to its multiplicity. Then
for any k = 1, 2, , we have
t(r+1)
k,r a1 k,r + a2 2k,r + + at(r+1) k,r
+ tr
k,r
(4.59)
and
k,r k .
(4.60)
Remark 1.1. If M is a bounded domain in Rn , we know from

the inequality
t(r+1)
k,r a1 k + a2 2k + + at(r+1) k
+ tr
k
(4.61)
which is a combination of (4.59) and (4.60) that if the Polya conjecture (4.2) is true then so is the generalized Polya conjecture (4.50).
Proof of Theorem 4.3. Let {ui }ki=1 be a set of orthonormal eigenfunctions of the problem (4.53) corresponding to {i,r }ki=1 , that is,
Lui = i,r ()r ui , in M,
t1
ui
= 0,
ui |M = = t1

M
R
r
u () uj = ij , i, j = 1, , k.
M i
Similarly, let {vi }ki=1 be a set of orthonormal eigenfunctions of the

problem (4.54) corresponding to {i,r }ki=1 , that is,
r+1
r
() vi = i,r ()r vi in M,
vi
vi |M = = r
= 0,
M
R
r
v () vj = ij , i, j = 1, , k.
M i
i
i
88
Let w =
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 88
i
[CAP. 4: POLYA
Pk
j=1
j uj 6= 0 be such that
w()r vj = 0, j = 1, , k 1.
(4.62)
Such an element w exists because {j |1 j k} is a non-trivial

solution of a system of (k 1)-linear equations
k
X
j=1
uj ()r vi = 0,
1 i k 1,
(4.63)
in k unknowns. Notice that if u C (M ) satisfies

u
t1 u
=
=
= 0,
u|M =
M
t1 M
then
u|M
=
=
and
u|M = u|M = (u)|M = =

p1 uM = (p1 u)M = 0,
when t = 2p

u|M = u|M = (u)|M = = k1 uM

= (p1 u)M = p u|M = 0,
when t = 2p + 1.
R
Observe that M w()r w 6= 0. In fact, from divergence theorem,
we have
(
R
Z
(r/2 w)2 , if r is even,
r
M

R
w() w =
((r1)/2 w)2 , if r is odd.
M
M
R
Thus, if M w()r w = 0, then r/2 w = 0 when r is even and
(r1)/2 w = 0 when r is odd. It then follows from the maximum
principle for harmonic functions that r/21 w = 0 when r is even and
(r1)/21 w = 0 when r is odd. ContinuingRthis process, we conclude
that w = 0. This is a contradiction. Thus M w()r w 6= 0. Let us
assume without loss of generality that
Z
w()r w = 1.
(4.64)
u|M
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 89
i
89

CONJECTURE
Hence we infer from the Rayleigh-Ritz inequality that
k,r
w()r+1 w
(4.65)
We claim that for any j = 1, , t r,
Z
w()r+j w
j+1
Z
w()r+j+1 w
j
(4.66)
Let us first prove that (4.66) holds when j = 1. In fact, if r = 2h is

even, then one deduces from the divergence theorem and the Holders
inequality that
Z
w()
2
2
()h w()h+1 w
ZM
Z

h
2
h+1
2
(() w)
(()
w)
M
Z M
=
w()r+2 w.
=
Z
r+1
i
i
90
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 90
i
[CAP. 4: POLYA
On the other hand, if r = 2h + 1 is odd, then

Z
w()r+1 w
Z
h+1
(()
=
=
=
Z
2
2
w)()(() w)
h
2
(()h+1 w)(()h w)
ZM
Z

|(()h+1 w|2
|(()h w)|2
M
ZM
Z

h
h+1
() w()
w
()h+1 w()h+2 w
M
ZM
Z

r
w() w
w()2h+3 w
M
Z M
r+2
w() w.
M
Thus (4.66) holds when j = 1. Suppose now that (4.66) holds for
j 1, that is
Z
w()r+j1 w
j
Z
w()r+j w
j1
(4.67)
When r + j is even, we have

Z
w()r+j w
M
Z

=
(r+j)/21 w (r+j)/2 w
M
Z

=
(r+j)/21 ui (r+j)/2 ui
Z
Z

2 1/2 Z

(r+j)/21
w

r+j1
w()
1/2 Z
(4.68)

2 1/2

(r+j)/2
w

r+j+1
w()
1/2
i
i
91

CONJECTURE
On the other hand, when r + j is odd,

Z
w()r+j w
M
Z
=
()(r+j1)/2 w()(r+j+1)/2 w
M
Z
Z
(r+j1)/2
()
r+j1
w()
2 1/2 Z
1/2 Z
(4.69)
(r+j+1)/2
()
r+j+1
w()
Thus we always have

Z
w()r+j w
Z
()r+j1 w
1/2
2 1/2
(4.70)
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 91
i
1/2 Z
w()r+j+1 w
1/2
Combining (4.67) and (4.70), we know that (4.66) is true for j. Using
(4.67) repeatedly, we get
Z
1/s
Z
w()r+1 w
w()r+s w
, s = 1, , t (r + 1).
which, combining with (4.65), gives

Z
sk,r
w()r+s w, s = 1, 2, , t (r + 1).
M
Thus we have
t(r+1)
a1 k,r + a2 2k,r + + at(r+1) k,r

+ tr
k,r
Z
w(a1 ()r+1 + a2 ()r+2 + + ()t )w

M
wLw =
k
X
i,j=1
k
X
i,j=1
i j
i j
ui Luj
M
r
ui j,r () uj =
k
X
i=1
i2 i,r k,r ,
i
i
92
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 92
i
[CAP. 4: POLYA
where in the last equality, we have used the fact that

k
X
i2
i=1
w()r w = 1.
This proves (4.59).

In order to prove (4.60), let us take a set of orthonormal eigenfunctions {zi }ki=1 of the problem (4.55) corresponding to {i }ki=1 , that
is,
zi = i zi in M,
zi |M = 0,
(4.71)
R
z
z
=
,
i,
j
=
1,
,
k.
i
j
ij
M
Let =
Pk
j=1
j vj be such that
Z
= 1 and
zj = 0, j = 1, , k 1.
It follows from the Rayleigh-Ritz inequality that

Z
k
()
(4.72)
(4.73)
Using the same arguments as in the proof of (4.59), we have

Z
()
j+1
Z
j+1
()
j
j = 1, , r. (4.74)
Thus we have
Z
()r
r1
k
X
j=1
r1
j2
(4.75)
On the other hand, taking j = r in (4.73), we get

Z
()
r+1
Z
r+1
()
r
(4.76)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 93
i
93

CONJECTURE
which implies that

k
X
j=1
j2
Z
r+1
()
k
X
k
X
M i,j=1
M i,j=1
k
X
j=1
r
r+1
k,r
Thus we have
k
X
j=1
r
r+1
(4.77)
r
r+1
i j vi ()r+1 vj
r
r+1
i j vi j,r ()r vj
r
r+1
j,r j2
r+1
k
X
.
j2
j=1
j2 rk,r .
Combining (4.75) and (4.78), one gets (4.60).
(4.78)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 94
i
Chapter 5
The Steklov eigenvalue

problems
5.1
Introduction
Let M be an n-dimensional compact Riemannian manifold with boundary. The Stekloff problem is to find a solution of the equation

u = 0 in M,
(5.1)
u
= pu on M,
where p is a real number. This problem was first introduced by
Steklov for bounded domains in the plane in [87]. His motivation
came from physics. The function u represents the steady state temperature on M such that the flux on the boundary is proportional
to the temperature. Problem (5.1) is also important in conductivity
and harmonic analysis as it was initially studied by Calderon (Cf.
[15]). This connection arises because the set of eigenvalues for the
Steklov problem is the same as the set of eigenvalues of the wellknown Dirichlet-Neumann map. This map associates to each function u defined on the boundary M , the normal derivative of the
harmonic function on M with boundary data u. The Steklov eigenvalue problem has appeared in quite a few physical fields, such as
fluid mechanics, electromagnetism, elasticity, etc., and received in94
i
i
[SEC. 5.2: ESTIMATES FOR THE STEKLOV EIGENVALUES
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 95
i
95
creasing attention [53], [64]. It has applications, for instance, in the

investigation of surface waves [12], the analysis of stability of mechanical oscillators immersed in a viscous fluid [32], and the study of
the vibration modes of a structure in contact with an incompressible
fluid [13]. Numerical methods have been developed for this problem. For instance, its optimal error estimates of linear finite element
approximations have been obtained in [2]. Interesting estimates for
eigenvalues of the Steklov problem have been obtained some of which
will be introduced in this chapter.
5.2
Estimates for the Steklov eigenvalues
In this section, we prove some estimates for the Steklov eigenvalues.

Let us recall firstly the Reillys formula. Let M be n-dimensional
compact manifold M with boundary M . We denote by h, i the
Riemannian metric on M as well as that induced on M . Let and
be the connection and the Laplacian on M , respectively. Let
be the unit outward normal vector of M . The shape operator of
M is given by S(X) = X and the second fundamental form of
M is defined as II(X, Y ) = hS(X), Y i, here X, Y T M . The
eigenvalues of S are called the principal curvatures of M and the
1
tr S, here tr S denotes
mean curvature H of M is given by H = n1
the trace of S. For a smooth function f defined on an n-dimensional
compact manifold
M with boundary M , the following identity holds

f
if u = , z = f |M and Ric denotes the Ricci tencor of M , then
M
(see [82], p. 46):

Z
=
ZM

(f )2 |2 f |2 Ric(f, f )
(5.2)

((n 1)Hu + 2z)u + II(z, z) .
Here f is the Hessian of f ; and represent the Laplacian

and the gradient on M with respect to the induced metric on M ,
respectively.
Theorem 5.1 ([35]). Let M be an n-dimensional compact connected Riemannian manifold with non-negative Ricci curvature and
i
i
96
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 96
i
[CAP. 5: THE STEKLOV EIGENVALUE PROBLEMS
boundary. Assume that the principal curvatures of M are bounded

from below by a positive constant c. Then the first non-zero eigenvalue of the problem (5.1) satisfies p1 > 2c .
Proof. Let f be the first eigenfunction
of the Steklov problem

(5.1). Setting z = f |M , u = u
and
using
Reillys formula we
M
find after integration by parts that
Z
Z
Z
2 2
0>
| f | 2
z u + c
|z|2 .
M
0 > 2p1
|z|2 + c
|z|2 .
(5.3)
Since z 6= constant, otherwise f =constant on M which is a contradiction, we have

Z
(5.4)
|z|2 > 0.
M
Thus (5.3) implies that p1 > c/2.

In view of Theorem 5.1, Escobar conjectured that under the same
conditions as in Theorem 5.1, p1 c.
Theorem 5.2. Let the conditions be as in Theorem 5.1. Then
we have
i) The non-zero eigenvalue of the Laplacian of M satisfies
1 (n 1)c2
(5.5)
with equality holding if and only if M is isometric to a ball of radius

1/c in Rn ([102]).
ii) The non-zero eigenvalue of the Steklov problem (5.1) satisfies

p
1 p
p1
1 + 1 (n 1)c2
(5.6)
(n 1)c
Moreover, the equality holds in (5.6) if and only if M is isometric to
a ball of radius 1/c in Rn ([89]).
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 97
i
97
Proof. Let z be an eigenfunction corresponding to the first nonzero

eigenvalue 1 of the Laplacian of M :
z + 1 z = 0.
Let f in C (M ) be the solution of the Dirichlet problem

f = 0 in M,
f |M = z.
(5.7)
It then follows from (5.2) and the nonnegativity of the Ricci curvature
of M that
Z

0
(f )2 |2 f |2 Ric(f, f )
(5.8)
ZM

=
((n 1)Hh + 2z)h + II(z, z)
ZM
(2(1 z)u + (n 1)cu2 + c|z|2 )

ZM
(21 zu + (n 1)cu2 + c1 z 2 )
M
(

2
)
Z
21
1 z
+ c1
z2
(n 1)c u +
(n 1)c
(n 1)c
M

Z
21
c1
z2 .
(n
1)c
M
Thus we have
c1
or
21
0
(n 1)c
1 (n 1)c2 .
If M is isometric to an n-dimensional Euclidean ball of radius 1c , it is
well known that 1 (M ) = (n 1)c2 . Now we assume conversely that
1 (M ) = (n 1)c2 . In this case the inequalities in (5.8) must take
equality sign. In particular, we have
2 f = 0, H = c, u =
1 z
= cz.
(n 1)c
(5.9)
i
i
98
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 98
i
From 2 f = 0, we know that |f |2 is a constant and is not zero

since f is not a constant. Without loss of generality, we can assume
|f |2 = 1. Thus for any point p M , we have
1 = |f |2 (p) = |z 2 |(p) + u2 (p).
It follows from (5.10) by integration and u = cz, that
Z
A(M ) =
(|z|2 + u2 )
M
Z
=
(1 z 2 + u2 )
ZM
=
(nu2 ).
(5.10)
(5.11)
On the other hand, from

1
(f 2 ) = |f |2 + f f = 1
2
(5.12)
and the divergence theorem we have

Z
Z
Z
1
u2
V (M ) =
(f 2 ) =
zu =
,
M 2
M
M c
which, combining with (5.11), gives
H=c=
1 A(M )
.
n V (M )
(5.13)
It then follows from a result in [83] that M is isometric to a ball in

Rn . Since 1 (M ) = (n 1)c2 , the radius of M is easily seen to be
1
c . This proves item i) of Theorem 5.1.
Now let us prove (5.6). Let f and z be as in the proof of item i).
We have from the Rayleigh-Ritz inequality that (Cf. [59])
R
h2
p1 R M 2
(5.14)
|f |
M
and
R
|f |2
R
p1 M
,
z2
M
(5.15)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 99
i
99
which gives
p21
R
h2
RM 2 .
z
M
(5.16)
It then follows by substituting f into the Reillys formula that

Z

0
(f )2 |2 f |2 Ric(f, f )
(5.17)
M
Z
Z
Z
(n 1)c
h2 21
hz + c
|z|2
M
M
M
Z
Z
Z
2
= (n 1)c
h 21
hz + c1
z2
(n 1)c
h2 21
Z
h2
21 Z
z2
12
+ c1
Z
z2
z2.
Hence, we have
Z
Hence
h2
21

p
1 p
1 + 1 (n 1)c2
(n 1)c
21

p
1 p
p1
1 + 1 (n 1)c2 .
(n 1)c
Assume now that
p1 =

p
1 p
1 + 1 (n 1)c2 .
(n 1)c
Then the inequalities in (5.17) should take equality sign. We infer

therefore
2 f = 0,
H=c
(5.18)
and
h=

p
1 p
1 + 1 (n 1)c2 z.
(n 1)c
(5.19)
i
i
100
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 100
i
Take a local orthonormal fields {ei }n1

i=1 tangent to M . We infer
from (5.18) and (5.19) that
0
n1
X
i=1
2 f (ei , ei ) = z + (n 1)Hh
= 1 z + (n 1)c
(5.20)

p
1 p
1 + 1 (n 1)c2 z,
(n 1)c
which gives 1 = (n 1)c2 and so M is isometric to an n-dimensional

Euclidean ball of radius 1c .

We consider now a fourth order Steklov eigenvalue problem on
an n-dimensional compact connected Riemannian manifold (M, h, i)
given by
2 u = 0 in M,
u
= 0 on M,
u = u q
(5.21)
wher q is a real number. Let q1 be the first non-zero eigenvalue of the

problem (5.21). As pointed by Kuttler [63], q1 is the sharp constant
for a priori estimates for the Laplace equation
v = 0
in M,
v=g
on M,
(5.22)
where g L2 (M ).
It has been proven by Payne that if R2 is a bounded convex domain with smooth boundary then q1 () 20 with equality
holding if and only if is a disk, where 0 is the minimum geodesic
curvature of . This Paynes theorem has been extended to higher
dimensional Euclidean domains by Ferrero, Gazzola and Weth [38].
Theorem 5.3 ([91]). Let (M, h, i) be an n( 2)-dimensional compact connected Riemannian manifold with boundary M and nonnegative Ricci curvature. Assume that the mean curvature of M is
bounded below by a positive constant c. Let q1 be the first eigenvalue
of the following Stekloff eigenvalue problem :
2 u = 0 in M,
u
u = u q
= 0 on M.
(5.23)
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 101
i
101
Then q1 nc with equality holding if and only if M is isometric to a

ball of radius 1c in Rn .
Proof. Let w be an eigenfunction corresponding to the first eigenvalue q1 of the problem (5.23), that is
2 w = 0 in M,
w
w = w q1
= 0 on M.
Set =
w
M ;
(5.24)
then
R
(w)2
.
2
M
R
q1 = M
Substituting w into Reillys formula, we have

Z

(w)2 |2 w|2
ZM
Z
=
Ric(w, w) +
(n 1)H 2
M
M
Z
2
(n 1)c
.
(5.25)
(5.26)
The Schwarz inequality implies that

|2 w|2
1
(w)2
n
(5.27)
with equality holding if and only if 2 w = w

n h, i. Combining (5.25)(5.27), we have q1 nc. This completes the proof of the first part of
Theorem 1.2. Assume now that q1 = nc. In this case, the inequalities
(5.26) and (5.27) must take equality sign. In particular, we have
2 w =
w
h, i.
n
(5.28)
Take an orthornormal frame {e1 , , en1 , en } on M such that when

restricted to M , en = . From 0 = 2 w(ei , en ), i = 1, , n 1,
and w|M = 0, we conclude that = = const. and so w|M =
i
i
102
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 102
i
q1 = nc is also a constant. Since (5.26) takes equality sign and

is constant, we infer that H c. Also, we conclude from the fact
that w is a harmonic function on M and the maximum principle
that w is constant on M . Suppose without loss of generality that
w = 1 and so we have
2 w =
1
h, i.
n
(5.29)
It then follows by deriving (5.29) covariantly that 3 w = 0 and from

the Ricci identity,
R(X, Y )w = 0,
(5.30)
for any X, Y tangent vector to M , where R is the curvature tensor

of M . From the maximum principle w attains its minimum at some
point x0 in the interior of M . From (5.29) it follows that
w =
1
r ,
n r
(5.31)
where r is the distance function to x0 . Using (5.30), (5.31), Cartans

theorem and w|M = 0, we conclude that M is an Euclidean ball
whose center is x0 , and f is given by
w(x) =
1
(|x x0 |2 b2 )
n
in M , b being the radius of the ball. Since the mean curvature of M

is c, the radius of the ball is 1c .

For more recent developments about Steklov eigenvalues, we refer
to [37, 74, 95] and the references therein.
i
i
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 103
i
Bibliography
[1] S. Agmon, On kernels, eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of operators related to elliptic problems, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 18
(1965), 627-663.
[2] M. G. Armentano, The effect of reduced integration in
the Steklov eigenvalue problem, Math. Model. Numer. Anal.
38(2004) 27-36.
[3] M. S. Ashbaugh, Isoperimetric and universal inequalities for
eigenvalues, in Spectral theory and geometry (Edinburgh, 1998),
E. B. Davies and Yu Safalov (eds.), London Math. Soc. Lecture
Notes, vol. 273, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1999, pp.
95-139.
[4] M. S. Ashbaugh, Universal eigenvalue bounds of Payne-PolyaWeinberger, Hile-Protter and H C Yang, Proc. India Acad. Sci.
Math. Sci. 112 (2002), 3-30.
[5] M. S. Ashbaugh and R. D. Benguria, Proof of the Payne-PolyaWeinberger conjecture, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 25 (1991), 19-29.
[6] M. S. Ashbaugh and R. D. Benguria, A sharp bound for the ratio
of the first two eigenvalues of Dirichlet Laplacian and extensions,
Ann. of Math. 135 (1992), 601-628.
[7] M. S. Ashbaugh and R. D. Benguria, A second proof of the
Payne-P
olya-Weinberger conjecture, Commun. Math. Phys. 147
(1992), 181-190.
103
i
i
104
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 104
i
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[8] M. S. Ashbaugh, R. D. Benguria, Isoperimetric inequalities for

eigenvalues of the Laplacian, Spectral Theory and Mathematical
Physics: a Festschrift in honor of Barry Simons 60th birthday,
Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 76 Part 1, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence 2007, 105-139.
[9] M. S. Ashbaugh, L. Hermi, A unified approach to universal inequalities for eigenvalues of elliptic operators, Pacific J. Math.
217 (2004), 201-219.
[10] W. Ballmann, M. Gromov and V. Schroeder, Manifolds of Nonpositive Curvature, Birkhauser, 1985.
[11] F. A. Berezin, Covariant and contravariant symbols of operators,
Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 36 (1972), 1134-1167.
[12] S. Bergmann, M. Schiffer, Kernel Function and Elliptic Differential Equations in Mathematical Physics. Academic, New York,
1953.
[13] A. Berm
udez, R. Rodrguez, D. Santamarina, A finite element
solution of an added mass formulation for coupled fluid-solid
vibrations. Numer. Math. 87(2000) 201-227.
[14] M. F. Betta, F. Brock, A. Mercaldo, M. R. Posterar, A weighted
isoperimetric inequality and applications to symmetrization, J.
Inequal. and Appl. 4 (1999), 215-240.
[15] A. P. Calder
on, On a inverse boundary value problem, in Seminar in Numerical Analysis and Its Applications to Continuum
Physics, pp. 65-73, Soc. Brasileira de Matematica, Rio de
Janeiro, 1980.
[16] M. P. do Carmo, Q. Wang, C. Xia, Inequalities for eigenvalues of
elliptic operators in divergence form on Riemannian manifolds,
Ann Mat. Pura App. 189(2010), 643-660.
[17] I. Chavel, Eigenvalues in Riemannian geometry. Including a
chapter by Burton Randol. With an appendix by Jozef Dodziuk. Pure and Applied Mathematics, 115. Academic Press, Inc.,
Orlando, FL, 1984. xiv+362 pp.
i
i
BIBLIOGRAPHY
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 105
i
105
[18] S. Y. Cheng, Eigenvalue comparison theorem and its geometric

applications, Math. Z. 143(1975), 289-297.
[19] S. Y. Cheng, A characterization of the 2-sphere by eigenfunctions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 55(1976), 379-381.
[20] D. Chen and Q. -M. Cheng, Extrinsic estimates for eigenvalues
of the Laplace operator, J. Math. Soc. Japan, 60(2008), 325-339.
[21] Q. M. Cheng, T. Ichikawa and S. Mametsuka, Inequalities for
eigenvalues of Laplacian with any order, Commun. Contemp.
Math., 11(2009), 639-655.
[22] Q. M. Cheng, T. Ichikawa and S. Mametsuka, Estimates for
eigenvalues of the poly-Laplacian with any order in a unit sphere,
Calculus of Variation and Partial Differential Equations, 36
(2009), 507-523.
[23] Q. M. Cheng, T. Ichikawa and S. Mametsuka, Estimates for
eigenvalues of a clamped plate problem on Riemannian manifolds, J. Math. Soc. Japan, 62 (2010), 673-686.
[24] Q. M. Cheng, X. Qi, Q. Wang, C. Xia, Inequalities for
eigenvalues of the buckling problem of arbitrary order, arXiv:
1010.2327v1.
[25] Q. M. Cheng and H.C. Yang, Estimates on eigenvalues of Laplacian, Math. Ann. 331 (2005), 445-460.
[26] Q. M. Cheng and H. C. Yang, Inequalities for eigenvalues of
Laplacian on domains and compact complex hypersurfaces in
complex projective spaces, J. Math. Soc. Japan, 58 (2006), 545561.
[27] Q. M. Cheng and H. C. Yang, Inequalities for eigenvalues of a
clamped plate problem, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 358 (2006),
2625-2635.
[28] Q. M. Cheng and H. C. Yang, Universal bounds for eigenvalues of
a buckling problem, Commun. Math. Phys. 262 (2006), 663-675.
i
i
106
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 106
i
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[29] Q. M. Cheng and H. C. Yang, Bounds on eigenvalues of Dirichlet

Laplacian, Math. Ann., 337 (2007), 159-175.
[30] Q. M. Cheng and H. C. Yang, Universal inequalities for eigenvalues of a system of elliptic equations , Proc. Royal Soc. Edinburgh,
139 A(2009), 273-285.
[31] Q. M. Cheng and H. C. Yang, Estimates for eigenvalues on Riemannian manifolds , J. Differential Equations, 247(2009), 22702281
[32] C. Conca, J. Planchard, M. Vanninathan, Fluid and Periodic
Structures. Wiley, New York, 1995.
[33] M. P do Carmo, Q. Wang and C. Xia, Inequalities for eigenvalues
of elliptic operator in divergence form, Annali di Matematica,
189(2010), 643-660.
[34] J. F. Escobar, Uniqueness theorems on conformal deformation
of metrics, Sobolev inequalities, and an eigenvalue estimate.
Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 43 (1990), 857-883.
[35] J. F. Escobar, The geometry of the first non-zero Stekloff eigenvalue, J. Funct. Anal. 150(1997), 544-556.
[36] G. B. Faber, dass unter allen homogenen Membranen von gleicher Fl
ache und gleicher Spannung die kreisformige den tiefsten Grundton gibt, Sitzungsber. Bayr. Akad. Wiss. Munchen,
Math.-Phys. Kl. 1923, 169-172.
[37] A. Fraser, R. Schoen, The first Steklov eigenvalue, conformal
geometry, and minimal surfaces, Adv. Math. 226 (2011) 40114030.
[38] A. Ferreero, F. Gazzola, T. Weth, On a fourth order Stekloff
eigenvalue problem, Analysis, 25(2005), 315-332.
[39] F. Hang and X. Wang, Rigidity theorems for compact manifolds with boundary and positive Ricci curvature, J. Geom. Anal.
19(2009), 628-642.
i
i
BIBLIOGRAPHY
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 107
i
107
[40] F. Hang and X. Wang, A remark on Zhong-Yangs eigenvalue

estimate, IMRN, 2007.
[41] E. M. Harrell II, A. El Soufi, and S. Ilias, Universal inequalities for the eigenvalues of Laplace and Schrodinger operator on
submanifolds, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 361 (2009), no. 5, 2337
2350.
[42] E. M. Harrell, Some geometric bounds on eigenvalue gaps, Commun. Part. Differ. Equ. 18 (1993), 179-198.
[43] E. M. Harrell, Commutators, eigenvalue gaps, and mean curvature in the theory of Schrodinger operators. Comm. Part. Differ.
Equ 32 (2007), 401413.
[44] E. M. Harrell and P. L. Michael, Commutator bounds for eigenvalues, with applications to spectral geometry, Commun. Part.
Differ. Equ. 19 (1994), 2037-2055.
[45] E. M. Harrell and P. L. Michael, Commutator bouds for eigenvalues of some differential operators, Lecture Notes in Pure and
Applied Mathematics, vol. 168(eds) G Ferreyra, G R Goldstein
and F Neubrander (New York: Marcel Dekker) (1995) pp. 235244.
[46] E. M. Harrell and J. Stubbe, On trace inequalities and the universal eigenvalue estimates for some partial differential operators, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 349 (1997), 1797-1809.
[47] E. M. Harrell, S. Y. Yolcu, Eigenvalue inequalities for KleinGordon operators, J. Funct. Anal. 256 (2009), 39773995.
[48] J. Hersch, Sur la frequence fondementale dune membrane vibrante: evaluations par defaunt et principe de maximum, ZAMP.
11 (1960), 387-413.
[49] E. Heintz and H. C. Im Hof, Goemetry of horospheres, J. Diff.
Geom. 12 (1977), 481-489.
[50] G. N. Hile and M. H. Protter, Inequalities for eigenvalues of the
Laplacian, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 29 (1980), 523-538.
i
i
108
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 108
i
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[51] G. N. Hile and R. Z. Yeh, Inequalities for eigenvalues of the

biharmonic operator, Pacific J. Math. 112(1984), 115-133.
[52] S. M. Hook, Domain independent upper bounds for eigenvalues
of elliptic operator, Trans. Amer. Math. soc. 318 (1990), 615-642.
[53] R. Ibrahim, Liquid sloshing dynamics. Theory and applications,
Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[54] J. Jost, X. Q. Li-Jost, Q. Wang, C. Xia, Universal inequalities for
eigenvalues of the buckling problem of arbitrary order, Commun.
PDE. 35(2010), 1563-1589.
[55] J. Jost, X. Q. Li-Jost, Q. Wang, C. Xia, Universal bounds for
eigenvalues of the polyharmonic operators. Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 363(2011), 1821-1854.
[56] B. Kawohl, Rearrangements and Convexity of Level Sets in PDE,
Lect. Notes in Math., vol. 1150, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.
[57] B. Kawohl and G. Sweers, Remarks on eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of a special elliptic system, Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 38
(1987), 730-740.
[58] H. T. Ku, M. C. Ku, D. Y. Tang, Inequalities for eigenvalues of
elliptic equations and the generalized Polya conjecture, J. Diff.
Equations 97 (1992), 127-139.
[59] J. R. Kuttler, V. G. Sigillito, Inequalities for membrane and
Stekloff eigenvalues, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 23(1968), 148-160.
[60] J. R. Kuttler, Dirichlet eigenvalues, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 16
(1979), 332338.
[61] E. Krahn, Uber

eine von Rayleigh formulierte Minimaleigenschaft des Kreises, Math. Ann. 94 (1925), 97-100.
[62] P. Kr
oger, Upper bounds for the Neumann eigenvalues on a
bounded domain in Euclidean space. J. Funct. Anal. 106 (1992),
353-357.
[63] P. Kr
oger, Estimates for sums of eigenvalues of the Laplacian,
J. Funct. Anal. 126 (1994) 217-227.
i
i
BIBLIOGRAPHY
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 109
i
109
[64] R. S. Lakes, Foam structures with a negative Poissons ratio,

Science 235 (1987) 1038-1040.
[65] A. Laptev, Dirichlet and Neumann eigenvalue problems on domains in Euclidean spaces, J. Funct. Anal. 151 (1997), 531-545.
[66] A. Laptev, T. Weidl, Recent results on Lieb-Thirring inequal
ities. Journes Equations
aux Derivees Partielles (La Chapelle
sur Erdre, 2000), Exp. No. XX, 14 pp., Nantes: Univ. Nantes,
2000.
[67] M. Levitin, Commutators, spectral trace identities, and universal
estimates for eigenvalues, J. Funct. Anal. 192, 425-445 (2002)
[68] H. A. Levine and M. H. Protter, Unrestricted lower bounds for
eigenvalues of elliptic equations and systems of equations with
applications to problems in elasticity, Math. Methods Appl. Sci.
7 (1985), 210-222.
[69] M. Levitin and L. Parnovski, Commutators, spectral trance
identities, and universal estimates for eigenvalues, J. Functional
Analysis, 192 (2002), 425-445.
[70] P. Li, Eigenvalue estimates on homogeneous manifolds, Comment. Math. Helv. 55 (1980), 347-363.
[71] P. Li, Lecture Notes on Geometric Analysis, in: Lecture Notes
Series, vol. 6, Research Institute of Mathematics and Global
Analysis Research Center, Seoul National University, Seoul,
1993.
[72] P. Li, S. T. Yau, Eigenvalues of a compact Riemannian manifold,
AMS Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 36 (1980), 205-239.
[73] A. Lichnerowicz, Geometrie des Groups des Transformationes,
Dunod, Paris, 1958.
[74] G. Liu, The Weyl-type asymptotic formula for biharmonic
Steklov eigenvalues on Riemannian manifolds, Adv. Math. 228
(2011), 2162-2217.
i
i
110
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 110
i
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[75] A. D. Melas, A lower bound for sums of eigenvalues of the Laplacian, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 131 (2003), 631-636.
[76] M. Obata, Certain conditions for a Riemannian manifold to be
isometric with a sphere, J. Math. Soc. Japan, 14(1962), 333-340.
[77] L. E. Payne, G. P
olya and H. F. Weinberger, Sur le quotient
de deux frequences propres cosecutives, Comptes Rendus Acad.
Sci. Paris 241 (1955), 917-919.
[78] L. E. Payne, G. P
olya and H. F. Weinberger, On the ratio of
consecutive eigenvalues, J. Math. and Phys. 35 (1956), 289-298.
[79] A. Pleijel, Proprietes asymptotique des fonctions fondamentales
du problems des vibrations dans un corps elastique, Arkiv f. Mat.
Astr. o. Fysik 26 (1939), 1-9.
[80] A. Pleijel, On the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of elastic plates,
Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 3 (1950), 1-10.
[81] G. P
olya, On the eigenvalues of vibrating membranes, Proc. London MAth. Soc. 11(1961), 419-433.
[82] R. Reilly, Applications of the Hessian operator in a Riemannian
manifold, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 26 (1977), no. 3, 459-472.
[83] A. Ros, Compact hypersurfaces with constant higher order mean
curvature, Revista matematica Iberroamericana 3 (1987), 447453.
[84] T. Sakai, On Riemannian manifolds admitting a function whose
gradient is of constant norm, Kodai Math. J. 19 (1996), 39-51.
[85] R. Schoen, S. T. Yau, Lectures on differential geometry, Academic Press, 1984.
[86] H. Urakawa, Bounded domains which are isospectral but not
Norm. Sup., 15(1982), 441-456.
congruent, Ann. Sci. Ec.
[87] M. W. Steklov, Sur les probl`emes fondamentaux de la physique
mathematique, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. 19 (1902) 455-490.
i
i
BIBLIOGRAPHY
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 111
i
111
[88] Q. Wang, C. Xia, Universal bounds for eigenvalues of the buckling problem on spherical domains, Comm. Math. Phy. 270
(2007), 759-775.
[89] Q. Wang, C. Xia, Universal bounds for eigenvalues of the biharmonic operator on Riemannian manifolds, J. Funct. Anal. 245
(2007), 334-352.
[90] Q. Wang, C. Xia, Universal bounds for eigenvalues of
Schrodinger operator on Riemannian manifolds, Ann. Acad. Sci.
Fen. Math. 33 (2008), 319-336.
[91] Q. Wang, C. Xia, Sharp bounds for the first non-zero Stekloff
eigenvalues, J. Funct. Anal. 257(2009) 2635-2654.
[92] Q. Wang, C. Xia, Isoperimetric bounds for the first eigenvalue
of the Laplacian, ZAMP. 61(2010), 171-175.
[93] Q. Wang, C. Xia, Comparison theorems for eigenvalues of elliptic operators and the generalized Polya conjecture, Math. Phy.
Anal. Geom. 13(2010), 235-253.
[94] Q. Wang, C. Xia, Inequalities for eigenvalues of a clamped plate
problem, Cal. Var. PDE. 40(2011), 273-289.
[95] Q. Wang, C. Xia, Inequalities for the Steklov eigenvalues. Chaos,
Solitons and Fractals, 48(2013), 61-67.
[96] H. F. Weinberger, An isoperimetric inequality for the ndimensional free membrane problem, J. Rational Mech. Anal.
5 (1956), 633-636.
[97] H. Weyl, Der Asymptotishe Verteilungsgesetz der Eigenwerte
Linearer partieiler Differentialgleichungen, Math. Ann. 71(1912),
441-469.
[98] H. C. Yang, An estimate of the difference between consecutive
eigenvalues, preprint IC/91/60 of ICTP, Trieste, 1991.
[99] P. Yang, S. T. Yau, Eigenvalues of the Laplacian of compact
Riemannian surfaces and minimal submaifolds, Ann. Sci. Ec.

Norm. Sup. Pisa 7(1980), 55-63.
i
i
112
eigenvaluecm
2013/9/2
page 112
i
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[100] C. Xia, The first nonzero eigenvalue for manifolds with Ricci
curvature having positive lower bound. Chinese mathematics
into the 21st century (Tianjin, 1988), 243-249, Peking Univ.
Press, Beijing, 1991.
[101] C. Xia, Rigidity and sphere theorem for manifolds with positive
Ricci curvature, manuscripta math. 85(1994), 79-87.
[102] C. Xia, Rigidity for compact manifolds with boundary and nonnegative Ricci curvature, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 125 (1997),
1801-1806.
[103] J. Q. Zhong and H. C. Yang, On the estimate of first eigenvalue
of a compact Riemannian manifold, Sci. Sinica Ser. A 27(1984),
1265-1273.
i
i

Eigenvalues On Riemannian Manifolds

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Eigenvalues On Riemannian Manifolds

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Eigenvalues

29o Colquio Brasileiro de Matemtica

Copyright 2013 by Changyu Xia

Impresso no Brasil / Printed in Brazil

29o Colquio Brasileiro de Matemtica

Anlise em Fractais Milton Jara

3 Universal Inequalities for Eigenvalues

5 The Steklov eigenvalue problems

Let (M, g) be an n-dimensional Reimannian manifold with boundary

where (g ij ) is the inverse matrix (gij )1 , gij = g( x

Let C (M ) and set

[CAP. 1: EIGENVALUE PROBLEMS ON RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS

and H12 (M ) the completion of C (M ) and C0 (M ) with respect to

|| ||. The theory of Sobolev spaces tells us that H12 (M ) = H12 (M )

When M 6= , we are interested in the following eigenvalue problems.

The Neumannn problem:

The clamped plate problem:

where is the unit outward normal to M .

The buckling problem:

The eigenvalue problem of poly-harmonic operator:

[SEC. 1.1: INTRODUCTION

The buckling problem of arbitrary order:

The Steklov problem of second order:

The Steklov problem of fourth order:

as , where n is the volume of the unit ball in Rn and |M | is

[CAP. 1: EIGENVALUE PROBLEMS ON RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS

For the closed eigenvalue problem (1.1),

For the Dirichlet eigenvalue problem (1.2),

A fundamental fool in the theory of eigenvalues is the

In particular, we have the

For other eigenvalue problems above, similar mini-max principles

Some estimates for the first eigenvalue

with equality holding if and only if BR (p) is isometric to BR (c), where

[CAP. 1: EIGENVALUE PROBLEMS ON RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS

Observe that the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of an n-dimensional unit

We conclude from the equality case of the mini-max principle and

Proof. Let f be a first eigenfunction corresponding to the first

and so |f |2 + f 2 is a constant. Without lose of generality, we can

Let p and q be points of M such that f (p) = f (q) = 1 and take a

[CAP. 1: EIGENVALUE PROBLEMS ON RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS

We now prove another rigidity theorem using the techniques of

and Reillys estimate implies that 1 (1 ) n. Thus, the inequalities

where 0 a() < 1 is the median of .

and conjectured that

Li-Yaus conjecture was proved by Zhong and Yang in [103]. Let us

defined on [-1, 1] satisfies

Proof. Differentiating yields

Thus (1.23) is satisfied.

[CAP. 1: EIGENVALUE PROBLEMS ON RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS

on [0, 1]. It is easy to see that

which is nonpositive on [0, 1]. Hence

Inequality (1.25) follows easily because

To see (1.26), let us consider the cases 1 u 0 and 0 u 1

When 1 u 0, f 0. Hence f (u) min{f (1), f (0)} = 0. For

f max{f (0), f (1)} = max 2 , 0 = 0.

Therefore f (u) f (1) which proves (1.26).

Proof. We need only to prove an estimate similar to (1.27) for

We can assume at x0 that u( x0 ) = |u(x0 )| and using Qi = 0, we

[CAP. 1: EIGENVALUE PROBLEMS ON RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS

Differentiating again, using the commutation formula, Q(x0 ) = 0,

= uji uji + uj (u)j + Ric(u, u) + (c az ) + (cu az )u

(cu az )2 + (c az )(c(1 u2 ) + 2az)

However by (1.23), (1.24), and (1.25), we conclude that