text:
The Matrix panel
Life & Health Sciences
Digital ICT
Advanced Manufacturing, Materials and Engineering
The Northern Ireland Science Industry Panel.
Matrix is an industry led panel advising government and informing academia and industry on the commercial exploitation of R&D and science and technology.
HomeMATRIX NI2019-08-02T15:47:36+01:00
The MATRIX website is home to the latest Northern Ireland science & technology news, the most relevant reports and of course our own studies on Northern Ireland's tech sectors and how best to grow them.
MATRIX NI2020-01-16T17:06:14+00:00
New report on Digital Education in NI Primary Schools published
MATRIX NI2020-01-16T17:06:14+00:00January 16th, 2020|
Research by Ulster University has shown that Primary Schools teachers have reported low levels of confidence when using computers and digital devices. The report "Digital Education in Primary Schools" authored by Professor Linda Clarke shows that just 57% of Teachers participating in the study reported that they felt fairly confident when using computers and digital devices. A further 10% reporting [...]
Applications for Tech Cyber 2.0 are now open
Tech Nation has opened applications for its cyber security growth programme Cyber 2.0. After the resounding success of last year's inaugural Cyber sector programme, with companies such as CybSafe, Red Sift and ISMS.Online among the graduating cohort, they are looking for the next tranche of pre-Series A Cyber stars looking to accelerate their growth. The Cyber 2.0 programme will help [...]
READ ALL THE LATEST NEWS
What is Matrix?
MATRIX, the Northern Ireland Science Industry Panel, is a business led expert panel, formed primarily to advise government, industry and academia on the commercial exploitation of R&D and science and technology in Northern Ireland.
We produce regular, in depth reports which outline the work, findings and recommendations of our specialist panels. These reports are an invaluable resource for anyone interested in how new technologies and market opportunities can be developed within the Northern Ireland economy and beyond.
We have a main panel of nineteen business and academic leaders, supported by a small secretariat team based in the Department for the Economy. The Chair of the panel is Dr. Rob Grundy. Other panel members include Professor Jim McLaughlin OBE, Patricia O'Hagan MBE and Bombardier's Gavin Campbell.
Find out more about the panel
Latest science and technology events
Big Data for Health Policy Symposium – 20-21 Jan 2020
Salon: 'Data Rich and Information Poor?' Unlocking your data
Digital Skills to Reduce the Energy Footprint in the Built Environment
What Matrix does
The MATRIX panel commissions research, analysis and studies, to help DfE build the evidence base for future science and R&D policies within wider innovation policy.
The Matrix panel advises in three main areas:
Key R&D and science & technology issues affecting business innovation
The emerging strategic technology priorities impacting on Northern Ireland's economy
The promotion of a culture of innovation and the importance of R&D and science & technology in the future, particularly with business and in regard to commercial exploitation activities.
Find out more about what MATRIX does
The Matrix library
This library is a collection of Matrix reports as well as documents that the Matrix panel and secretariat have used in their research. The most recent additions to the library are here – if you want to see the full collection, arranged by topic, please visit the library section.
Study into the development of digital education in Primary Schools in NI
The Digital Education in Primary Schools Baseline Study was developed and overseen by representatives from all the Initial Teacher Education providers in Northern Ireland, under the auspices of UCETNI (The Universities Council for the Education of Teachers NI).
The immersive economy in the UK 2019
This report, co-authored by Immerse UK and Digital Catapult, provides an overview of the scale, nature and economic value of the virtual, augmented and mixed reality ecosystem, its key drivers and barriers.
Lawtech: a comparative analysis of legal technology in the UK and in other jurisdictions
A comparative analysis of public, private and third sector accelerators to lawtech innovation and adoption in the UK and in other jurisdictions. This study is based on data available up to August 2019.
GO TO THE LIBRARY
Live SBRIs and other funding competitions
The Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) connects public sector challenges with innovative ideas from industry, supporting companies to generate economic growth and enabling improvement in achieving government objectives.
SBRI provides innovative solutions to challenges faced by the public sector and generates new business opportunities for companies, providing SMEs with a route to market for their ideas and bridging the seed funding gap experienced by many early stage companies. It supports economic growth and enables the development of innovative products and services through the public procurement of research and development (R&D).
The Open Data NI Innovation and Outreach Fund
Department of Finance The NI Government Department of Finance
Subsea autonomous systems: next generation technologies
Innovate UK The UK's innovation agency
APC 15: developing the UK's low carbon automotive capability
APC The Advanced Propulsion Centre
ISCF smart sustainable plastic packaging: feasibility studies and industrial research
SBRI rail demonstrations: first of a kind 2020
SBRI
See all live competitions
Keep up with the latest NI Science & Technology news!
Sign up to our newsletter to get regular updates on funding opportunities, news and events.
Matrix, Department for the Economy, Netherleigh, Massey Avenue Belfast BT4 2JP
Email: info@matrixni.org
Web: https://matrixni.org
New report on Digital Education in NI Primary Schools published 16th January 2020
Applications for Tech Cyber 2.0 are now open 14th January 2020


The Cromer Golf Club is a private championship course with first class facilities situated on Sydney's Northern Beaches adjacent to the Narrabeen Lakes and the surrounding Garigal National Park.
The course has classic bushland settings. It is an excellent course that has been upgraded to meet future demands. Native flora, an abundance of bird life and a cool breeze from the calming water of the lakes, creeks and ponds equally match this impeccable presentation.
The Clubhouse offers excellent dining and snack bar facilities. Special occasions, corporate days and weddings in a selection of function rooms provide excellent viewing of the course. The bar area includes an open fireplace for winter and an open deck and BBQ area for fresh country air and drinks in the summer.
The relaxed pace and friendly atmosphere all contribute to an escape that is surprisingly only 25 minutes drive from the Sydney CBD. Cromer Golf Club takes pride in ensuring that the overall package caters to your needs as a friend of our golfing community. Cromer Golf Club invites you to visit the club where relaxation and friendliness are foremost.
Cromer deserves more than 3.5 star rating. It has some of the best greens in sydney. With a few more garden beds and wastelands, lifting the general presentation this could be one of the best courses in sydney.
Reviewed this course a few years back and it was horrible, but.... What a change has been made there now. These are the best greens in Sydney!! That's not a small statement. The new greens keeper was told to rip up all the old greens (a metre deep) and seed and grow brand new greens. The new greens are fantastic. Add to this the new par 3 on the back 9 near the lake and I would favour Cromer over all the other private courses on the Northern Beaches bar Elanora. Great fairways and tees. All they lacked was a proper practice area. Happy to go back there when invited.
Played Cromer two Sundays ago course was in good condition greens extremely soft especially on a 33 degree hot summers day maybe the green staff were trying to protect them so hence the speed of the greens weren't slick at all. Not a bad course played the back nine as my front nine and front nine as my back. I found my last four holes very mundane that being the 6 7 8 & 9th holes basically oing up and down that traditional old style course. Overall it wasn't too bad an experience mixed grass couch & kikuyu a little annoying. I think the course would struggle for drainage in winter or wet days but all in all It was ok.
Great spot for a game if you can get a hit there.
Nice setting and some quite challenging Par 4s. Trees aren't really tall enough or dense enough to get over/around. Greens are tough but generally fair. Layout is tad all over the place / up and down. Overall condition needs some attention.
I played Cromer yasterday as a guest and was really impressed with the course. It was in very good condition overall and was very tough. The tee shots are crucial as the fairways are tree lined and bunkered so you have to really think about what your doing off the tee. Also the greens are big and different pin positions can make the hole play totally different. I would love to play the course again now I know to play for position more often with an iron from the tee. Even though I never scored well it was such a beautiful setting I really enjoyed it. Hats off to the lucky members!
nice course and worth playing if you can get a game. Some great tee spots and some good holes. fairways and greens were not in great condition, a bit disappointing but not too bad. i'd play again.
Played Cromer twice in the past year. It's a fantastic course, which can challenge golfers of all abilities.
Plenty of great risk / reward holes, with some clever bunker placings, and water obstacles. Local knowledge important, especially for approach shots to greens. Pin placement can also change the nature of the course dramatically.
The course could be a little better sign posted, as the holes jump around all over the place. The tee next to green you've just hit to isn't always the next hole to play off!
Recently played Cromer and was very impressed with the new course, certainly was hard but a very beautifully put together track which covers all aspects that a good course should have.
Played Cromer recently for the first time in years.
They have done renos and added bunkers and creeks and stuff making it super hard as the course was already narrow and tree lined.
Good place but you will need to play well to enjoy.
Played here recently as a guest and found the general condition of the course to be pretty average. Apparently its a Group 1 course. The course looked fantastic, but on closer inspection found the greens to be in poor condition and slow. The bunkers are bad in so man ways. My ball plugged in 3 fairway bunkers and I had to play a tough sand wedge out! The course is now really difficult. I hope they can get the course back in good condition soon.
Played in their Open Day today, course was in fine nick. Greens were firm and fast. fairways were in great nick. Very impressed overall, would love to go back and have another go at playing this course.


Online casinos have now been around for more than twenty years and it is widely accepted that the world's very first true online casino established in 1994. Gradually, more software providers started to emerge and they began developing their own exciting new style of games and supplying them to a steady stream of new online casinos. The very first online casinos were extremely primitive when compared to modern day online casinos and although many of those much older games are now quite hard to track down, some of these games can still be found in online casinos today.
Back in the day there were very few online payment options available to players. Most players could only deposit using their Visa or Mastercard. There were no e-wallets available like NETELLER or Skrill and there were no prepaid cards available. Deposits weren't always processed instantly either and withdrawals could take much longer than 48 hours.
Over the years even more perfectly secure online payment solutions have become available and most of today's online casinos now accept somewhere in the region of 50 different payment methods. Whereas US dollars used to be the one and only accepted currency at online casinos, today's online casinos now accept Australian dollars, New Zealand dollars, Canadian dollars, Euros, UK Pound Sterling and most other major global currencies.
Since that very first casino appeared online, this number has incredibly grown to more than 2,000 different online casinos and most of these casinos accept real cash wagers from Australian players. We have carefully handpicked some of the very best Australian online casinos for you and you can find out more about what these casinos have to offer by heading over to our online casino review section now.
Computing technology is constantly evolving and the internet has also dramatically improved since the mid 1990's. Gone are the days of dial-up internet and it seems as though everyone today has superfast fibre optic internet speed. Powerful modern computing capabilities along with an extraordinary increase in average internet speeds have made gambling at online casinos more exciting than ever before.
Back in the 90s it was easy to keep track of the new online casino games as and when they were launched, but nowadays it seems as though lots of new games arrive in casinos almost every week and it's much harder to keep track of all the new games. We can also now find some stunning new 3D slot machines that are available in HD and widescreen and players can now enjoy the same great experience (in terms of quality) whether they are playing instantly in their web browser, from within a casino download client, or from their smartphone or tablet device.
Traditionally, online casinos have been powered by just one software provider, but now you can find equally as many online casinos that are powered by more than one software provider. In some cases, many of the newer online casinos are packed with hundreds of different games from as many as ten different software providers. Progressive jackpots also seem to keep on getting bigger and bigger with new world records being broken all the time and it takes very little time for these jackpots to climb to such vast amounts. This is due to the millions of players around the world who are all playing for these same jackpots on a daily basis.
As we look towards the future of online casinos, we can safely say that even bigger jackpots will be come and go and that lots more new online casino games will continue to arrive on a regular basis, but with more frequency. There have been so many exciting changes in the relatively short history of online casinos and this makes it's quite difficult to say what might happen over the next 20 years. All we can say is that the future definitely looks bright.


text:
Nipah: New Deadly Virus on WHO's Top 10 for Likely Major Outbreak
At least 10 people have died from the deadly Nipah virus in India recently, according to a report published by Time. The report also states that 9 more have tested positive for the infection.
The Nipah virus is a deadly disease that's on the rise in Bangladesh and India. Currently, the virus has no cure or vaccine and is easily passed from human to human.
In the current outbreak, the BBC reports that one nurse who treated several sick patients has also died from the virus.
The virus is thought to be spread by fruit bats who may be natural hosts for the disease. However, one of the first outbreaks of Nipah involved infection of pigs which was then passed onto humans.
Currently, Nipah is one of the top 10 diseases that the World Health Organization deems a possible source for major outbreak, says the BBC. It's certainly one to watch for.
How Did Nipah Begin?
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the first contact with the Nipah virus happened in 1999 in Malaysia and Singapore. The virus was found during an outbreak of encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) among pig farmers.
During this outbreak, nearly 300 people were infected, and 100 people died. Since then, neither Malaysia nor Singapore have reported infection. However, authorities killed over one million pigs to keep the disease from spreading.
Several outbreaks have occurred in Bangladesh and India since then. In Bangladesh, Nipah virus cases occur almost every year.
Interestingly, the strain identified in Bangladesh only 2 years after the first outbreak in Malaysia was identified as a different strain.
Rather than spreading the virus through contact with pigs, people became infected by drinking date palm sap contaminated by bats.
In the most recent outbreak, authorities found mangoes bitten by bats in the house of 3 people suspected to have Nipah. These cases resulted in death, BBC reports.
Because of Nipah's quick onset and dangerous symptoms, the virus does hold a high fatality rate.
WHO has reported various outbreaks in India and Bangladesh, and fatality rates in these locations have reached up to 77 percent.
The average fatality for Nipah right now stands at 75 percent, a scary number that's unlikely to fall without a cure.
What We Know about Nipah
The Nipah virus does seem to present different symptoms in different people. Again, people with the virus commonly show signs of encephalitis, an inflammation of the brain.
When a person comes into contact with the disease, symptoms of fever and headache begin presenting after 5-14 days. Some people have also showcased a respiratory illness during this initial stage.
Then, the infected person goes on to experience mental confusion and disorientation. Within a matter of days, the infection can lead to a deadly coma.
For those who survive, the virus can cause long-term episodes of convulsion and personality fluctuation. The virus has even been known to reactivate years after initial exposure, posing lifelong threats that plague those affected.
As is expected, authorities have placed appropriate emphasis on keeping this virus contained. It's certainly not one that you'd want coming to a country near you.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
\section{Introduction.}
\setcounter{equation}{0} In this section, we introduce briefly the
history of the research to degenerate elliptic equations and some
geometric backgrounds to a class of degenerate elliptic equations
which we are concerned with. Next we will put forward the main
question of this paper. In the last part of this section, we will
summarize the main result and its trivial generalization about
existence and uniqueness for solution to such a class of equations.

\subsection{Historical remarks and backgrounds.}
In this subsection, we will introduce the brief history and the
current status of investigation about the degenerate elliptic
equations. We observe the equation
$$Lu\equiv a^{ij}u_{x_ix_j}+
b^{k}u_{x_k}+cu=f\quad\hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega,$$ where
$u_{x_k}=\partial u/\partial x_k, u_{x_ix_j}=\partial^2u/\partial
x_i\partial x_j$ etc. and the index $i,j,k$ runs from $1$ to $n$ and
repeated indices imply summation. \,\,\,(From now on we will use
such summation convention throughout this paper).\,\,\, If for any
vector $\xi=(\xi_{1},...,\xi_{n})\in \mathbb{R}^n$,
$a^{ij}(x)\xi_{i}\xi_{j}\geq 0$\,\, for all\,\,
$x=(x_{1},...,x_{n})\in \Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$. Then $Lu=f$ is
called second order PDE with nonnegative characteristic form, and
also called second order degenerate elliptic equation, or second
order elliptic-parabolic equation in domain $\Omega$. They contain
elliptic equation, parabolic equation, one order differential
equation, Brown Motion equation and some important equations
introduced later.

The study of degenerate elliptic equations can be traced back to
1910's, first appeared in Picone's thesis. After that, the Tricomi's
research report \cite{Tr} and his research on the mixed-type partial
differential equation. Besides, M.V. Keldy$\check{s}$ \cite{Ke};
Fichera; J. Kohn and L. Nirenberg \cite{KN}; O.A.Ole$\check{i}$nik
\cite{Ol}, \cite{Ole}; E.V. Radkevi$\check{c}$ \cite{Ra} etc., they
all do many works for laying a foundation in this field. After half
century's development in this field, O.A. Ole$\check{i}$nik and E.V.
Radkevi$\check{c}$, published their classical monograph \cite{OR} in
1971. Their monograph summarized the theories developed before
1970's, and established a general framework for the theories to
second order degenerate linear elliptic equations. They stated the
existence and uniqueness of weak solution for the general boundary
value problem to such equations in $L^p$ space and some Hilbert
spaces, and made a certain further contribution to the regularity
theories of weak solutions for the general boundary value problems
to such equations. During the past three decades, several progresses
have been made in the research of second order degenerate linear
elliptic equations. But we only enumerate the partial well-known and
representative work at here. For instance, L. Caffarelli, L.
Nirenberg and J. Spruck \cite{CNS} had studied the degenerate
Monge--Amp$\acute{e}$re equation; H. Brezis and P.L. Lions \cite{BL}
had studied the Yang--Mills equation $-x^{2}\Delta u+2u=f(u)$
describing gauge fields; E.B. Fabes, C.E. Kenig and D. Jerison
{\cite{FKJ} had studied the general degenerate elliptic equation
with the divergence form $\partial_{i}(a_{ij}(x)\partial_{j}u)=f(x)$
and so on.

\textbf{A geometric background.} Fanghua Lin \cite{Lin} had studied
the following Dirichlet problem for minimal graphs in hyperbolic
space
\begin{equation}\label{isothermal}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\Delta f-\displaystyle\frac{f_if_j}{1+|df|^2}f_{ij}+\frac{n}{f}=0
\quad \hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega,\\[5pt]
f>0\quad\,\hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega, \\
f\big|_{\partial\Omega}=0\quad\,\hbox{on}\,\,\,\partial\Omega,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^n,\,n\geq 2,$ is a bounded open
domain; $|df|^2=\Sigma_{i=1}^n\,f_i^2,\,\,f_i=f_{x_i}$ for $0\leq
i\leq n$. Obviously, by direct computation we know that the equation
\eqref{isothermal} is just the Euler-Lagrange equation of the
variational integral
$$A[f,K]=\int_K f^{-n}\sqrt{1+|df|^2}dx$$
for all compact subsets $K$ of $\Omega$.
Since $graph(f)$ is a $C^{1,\alpha}$-manifold with boundary in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$,
and since the tangent planes of $graph(f)$ along the boundary $\partial\Omega$ are vertical,
we view $graph(f)$ near a point at $\partial\Omega$ as a graph over
such a vertical plane.
This is equivalent to the hodograph transformation of \eqref{isothermal}.
Then the corresponding P.D.E. for the function $u$ which represents the $graph(f)$ is
\begin{equation}\label{heinz}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
y(\Delta
u-\displaystyle\frac{u_{i}u_{j}}{1+|du|^2}u_{ij})-nu_{y}=0\quad
\hbox{in}\,\,\,B_{1}^{+}(0),\\[5pt]
u(x,0)=\varphi(x)\quad \hbox{for}\,\,\,|x|\leq 1,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $B^{+}_{1}(0)=\{(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^{n}_{+}:|x|\leq 1,0\leq
y\leq 1 \}$. This is a degenerate quasilinear elliptic equation.
Fanghua Lin shows the solutions $u$ of \eqref{heinz} are as smooth
as $\varphi$ in $B^{+}_{1/2}(0)$, and use this fact to prove the
following result:

\textbf{Theorem.}\,\,\emph{If $\partial\Omega$ is of class
$C^{k,\alpha}$, then $graph(f)$ is a $C^{k,\alpha}$ hypersurface
with boundary for either (1)\,\,$1\leq k\leq n-1$ and $0\leq
\alpha\leq 1$ or (2)\,\,$n\leq k\leq \infty$ and $0<\alpha<1$.}

\textbf{Another geometric background.}
Recently, ones come into
contact with a class of second order degenerate elliptic equations
when they study the rigidity problem arising in infinitesimal
isometric deformation. We shall simply introduce some geometric
backgrounds about the above equations in the following. The details
can be found in \cite{STY}, \cite{Hong}, \cite{HJX} and
\cite{Lihong}.

Given a metric $g$ with smooth positive curvature $K$ on the
closed unit disk $\bar{D}$. In the sequel we always denote it by
$(\bar{D},g)$. In terms of local coordinates system $(u^1,u^2)$ on
$\bar{D}$, the metric $g$ can be expressed as $g=g_{ij}du^idu^j$.
Suppose that $\vec{r}=(x,y,z)$ is a smooth isometric embedding of
$(\bar{D},g)$ into $\mathbb{R}^3$. and the boundary
$\vec{r}(\partial D)$ is a $C^2$ planar  convex curve. By the
Gauss equations we have in a local coordinate system,
\begin{equation}\label{sobolov}
\vec{r}_{ij}=\Gamma_{ij}^k \vec{r}_k+\Omega_{ij}\vec{n}
\,\,\,\hbox{or}\,\,\,\nabla_{ij}\vec{r}=\Omega_{ij} \vec{n}\,\,\quad(i,j,k=1,2),
\end{equation}
where subscripts $i,j$ and $\nabla_{ij}$ denote Euclidean and
convariant derivatives respectively, $\Omega_{ij}$ the
coefficients of the second fundamental form, $\Gamma_{ij}^k$ the
Christoffel symbols with respect to the metric and $\vec{n}$ the
unit normal to $\vec{r}$. For each unit constant vector, for
instance, the unit vector $\vec{k}$ of the $z$ axis, taking the
scale product of $\vec{k}$ with the two hind sides of
\eqref{sobolov} and using the Gauss equations one can get
\begin{equation}\label{janet}
\det(\nabla_{ij}z)=K\det(g_{ij})\,(\vec{n},\vec{k})^2\quad\,(i,j=1,2),
\end{equation}
where $K$ is Gaussian curvature. Notice that
$$(\vec{n},\vec{k})^2
=1-\Big(\frac{(\vec{r}_1\times\vec{r}_2)\times\vec{k}}{|\vec{r}_1\times\vec{r}_2|}\Big)^2
=1-g^{ij}z_iz_j =1-|\nabla z|^2,$$ where $\nabla
z=(g^{1l}z_l,g^{2l}z_l)$ is the gradient of $z$. Inserting the
last expression into \eqref{janet}, we deduce the Darboux equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{burstin}
F(z)=\det(\nabla_{ij}z)-K\,\det(g_{ij})\,(1-|\nabla z|^2)=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Obviously each component of $\vec{r}$ satisfies the Darboux equation \eqref{burstin}.

Given a smooth surface $\vec{r}$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$ one consider
its deformation $\vec{r}_t:(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)\ni
t\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$ with $\vec{r}_0=\vec{r}$. If $t=0$ is a
critical point of the metric $g(t)=d\vec{r}^2_t$, we say that the
derivative with respect to $t$ of $\vec{r}_t$ at $t=0$ give rise a
first order infinitesimal isometric deformation of $\vec{r}$.
Denoting this infinitesimal isometric deformation by
$\vec{\tau}=(d\vec{r}_t/dt)(0)$, and we call it the first order
infinitesimal deformation vector, or the first order deformation
vector. So we have
\begin{equation}\label{stokers}
\frac{d}{dt}(d\vec{r}_t^2)\big|_{t=0}=(d\vec{r},d\vec{\tau})=0.
\end{equation}
Obviously, any rigid body motion of $\vec{r}$,
$\vec{\tau}=\vec{A}\times\vec{r}+\vec{B}$ for arbitrary two constant vectors $\vec{A}$ and $\vec{B}$,
is always a solution of \eqref{stokers} and such solutions are called trivial ones.
We say that $\vec{r}$ is of
infinitesimal rigidity for first order isometric deformation
if \eqref{stokers} has no nontrivial solution.
As is well known, for closed surface now we only know that
closed $C^2$ convex surfaces are infinitesimally rigid.
For a surface $\vec{r}$ with boundary, usually it is not infinitesimally rigid if
there is no restriction to the deformation on the the boundary of $\vec{r}$.
Therefore we must impose some condition, for instance,
$$(\vec{\tau},\vec{k})=0\,\,\,\hbox{on}\,\,\,\partial D,$$
where $\vec{k}$ is the unit vector of $z$ axis.

Let us consider an infinitesimal isometric deformation of surface $\vec{r}$,
$\vec{r}_\epsilon=\vec{r}+\epsilon\vec{\tau}$ where $\vec{\tau}=(\xi,\eta,\zeta)$
satisfies \eqref{stokers}.
Notice that $\epsilon=0$ is the critical point of
$g_\epsilon=d\vec{r}_\epsilon^2$ and hence, the diferentiation of
its Gaussian curvature $K(\epsilon)$
and Christoffel symbols $\Gamma_{ij}^k(\epsilon)\,\,\,(i,j,k=1,2)$
(i.e. connection coefficients) in $\epsilon$
are equal to zero at $\epsilon=0$.
Then differntiation of the Darboux equation \eqref{burstin} for $z+\epsilon\zeta$
with respect to $\epsilon$, letting $\epsilon=0$, gives
\begin{equation}\label{ambient}
F^{ij}(z)\,\nabla_{ij}\zeta+2K\,\det(g_{ij})\,(\nabla z,\nabla
\zeta)=0,
\end{equation}
where $F^{ij}(z)=\partial\det(\nabla_{kl})/\partial\nabla_{ij}z\,\,\,(i,j=1,2)$
is the algebraic cofactors of $\nabla_{ij}z$.

Since
$\nabla_{ij}\vec{r}=\vec{r}_{ij}-\Gamma_{ij}^k\vec{r}_k=\Omega_{ij}\vec{n}\,\,\,(i,j=1,2)$,
we have
$\nabla_{ij}z=z_{ij}-\Gamma_{ij}^kz_k=\Omega_{ij}(\vec{n},\vec{k})\,\,\,(i,j=1,2)$.
So \eqref{ambient} can be written as follows
\begin{equation}\label{simply}
(\vec{n},\vec{k})\Omega^{ij}\,\nabla_{ij}\zeta+2(\nabla z,\nabla \zeta)=0.
\end{equation}
where $(\Omega^{ij})=(\Omega_{ij})^{-1}$ is the inverse of matrix $(\Omega_{ij})$.

Obviously, the $(\Omega^{ij})$ is a positive definite matrix if
Gaussian curvature $K$ is positive. \eqref{simply} is of nonnegative
characteristic form in the subdomain $\{\,(u^1,u^2)\in
\bar{D}:(\vec{n},\vec{k})\geq 0\}$, is of nonpositive characteristic
form in the subdomain $\{\,(u^1,u^2)\in
\bar{D}:(\vec{n},\vec{k})\leq 0\}$, and is one order PDE in the
subdomain $\{\,(u^1,u^2)\in \bar{D}:(\vec{n},\vec{k})=0\}$.
Therefore, \eqref{simply} is characteristic degenerate, and its
characteristic form changing sign in domain $\bar{D}$.

The spherical crown is an example of this aspect (see \cite{Hong}).
Let us consider a spherical crown $\sum_\lambda=\{x^2+y^2+z^2=1:z\leq 0\}$.
In spherical coordinates
$$\Sigma_\lambda=\{\,(\sin\theta \cos\phi,\sin\theta\sin\phi,-\cos\theta)
\,\,\big|\,\,0\leq \phi\leq 2\pi,0\leq \theta \leq
\theta_*=\arccos(-\lambda)\,\},$$ where $\lambda$ is a positive
constant, and $\theta=0$ stand for the South pole.
$\Sigma_\lambda$ is the isometric embedding of the metric
$g=d\theta^2+sin^2\theta d\phi^2, 0\leq \theta \leq \theta_*$.
Since $\lambda>0$, so $\Sigma_\lambda$ contains the below
hemisphere. In the present case, \eqref{simply} may be written as
follows
\begin{equation}\label{wholee}
\cos\theta\big[(\sin\theta\zeta_\theta)_\theta
+\big(\frac{\zeta_\phi}{\sin\theta}\big)_\phi\big]
+2\sin^2\theta\zeta_\theta=0,\,\,\,\theta\in (0,\theta_*).
\end{equation}
with the constraint condition in here as follows:
$$\zeta=0\,\,\,\hbox{on}\,\,\,\theta=\theta_*\,\,\,
\hbox{and}\,\,\,\zeta\,\,\,\hbox{is bounded near}\,\,\,\theta=0.$$
Evidently \eqref{wholee} is elliptic as $\theta\neq\pi/2$. We
ought to show that: if $\theta_*>0$, then \eqref{wholee} is of
nonnegative characteristic form as $0\leq\theta\leq\frac{\pi}{2}$,
and is of nonpositive characteristic form as
$\frac{\pi}{2}\leq\theta\leq\theta_*$.

In the same way, one may consider
another infinitesimal isometric deformation of surface $\vec{r}$ in the following
$\vec{r}_\epsilon=\vec{r}+\epsilon\vec{\tau}_1+\epsilon^2\vec{\tau}_2+\cdots$.
Denote $\vec{\tau_1}=(\xi_1,\eta_1,\zeta_1)$, $\vec{\tau}_2=(\xi_1,\eta_2,\zeta_2)$, and so on.
We respectively call $\vec{\tau_1}, \vec{\tau}_2$ the first order deformation vector,
the second order deformation vector, etc.
Obviously,
$$g_\epsilon=(d\vec{r}_\epsilon,d\vec{r}_\epsilon)
=(d\vec{r},d\vec{r})+2\epsilon(d\vec{r},d\vec{\tau}_1)
+\epsilon^2[2(d\vec{r},d\vec{\tau}_2)+(d\tau_1,d\tau_1)]+O(\epsilon^3).$$
If $g_\epsilon=(d\vec{r},d\vec{r})+O(\epsilon^3)$, Then
$\vec{\tau_1}$ and $\vec{\tau}_2$ should satisfy the following
systems
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(d\vec{r},d\vec{\tau}_1)=0,\\
(d\vec{r},d\vec{\tau}_2)=-\frac{1}{2}(d\tau_1,d\tau_1).
\end{array}
\right.$$ We may analogously definite and discuss the rigidity
 of
the second order, even higher order infinitesimal isometric
deformation of surface $\vec{r}$. But in here we only show that
$g_\epsilon$ gives rise to a second order infinitesimal isometric
deformation of $g$ if $g_\epsilon$ is equal to $g$ up to second
order, i.e.
$$(dg_\epsilon/d\epsilon)\big|_{\epsilon=0}
=(d^2g_\epsilon/d\epsilon^2)\big|_{\epsilon=0}=0.$$
Consequently,
$$\frac{d\,\Gamma_{ij}^k(\epsilon)}{d\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}
=\frac{d^2\Gamma_{ij}^k(\epsilon)}{d\epsilon^2}\big|_{\epsilon=0}
=\frac{dK(\epsilon)}{d\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}
=\frac{d^2K(\epsilon)}{d\epsilon^2}\big|_{\epsilon=0}=0.$$ And
then, Then two order derivative of the Darboux equation
\eqref{burstin} for $z+\epsilon\zeta$ with respect to $\epsilon$,
letting $\epsilon=0$, gives
\begin{equation}\label{nonvoid}
(\vec{n},\vec{k})\Omega^{ij}\,\nabla_{ij}\zeta_2+2(\nabla z,\nabla
\zeta_2)
=-\frac{\det(\nabla_{ij}\zeta_1)}{\det(\Omega_{ij})}-|\nabla
\zeta_1|^2,
\end{equation}
where $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ respectively is the third component of $\vec{\tau}_1$
and $\vec{\tau}_2$.
\begin{remark}\label{parziali}
\eqref{simply} is the linearization with respect to
\eqref{burstin}. In addition, \eqref{simply}, \eqref{nonvoid} and
the linearization with respect to \eqref{heinz} all are belong to
the same kind of degenerate elliptic equation.
\end{remark}

The degenerate elliptic equations we shall study is very closely
related to rigidity problems arising from infinitesimal isometric
deformation, as well as other geometry problem, such as minimal
surface in hyperbolic space, etc. In particular, the existence of
solutions with high order regularity is very important to
investigate many geometry problems. One would like to know under
what conditions the solution of such equations are as smooth as the
given data. The theory on well-posedness and regularity of solutions
to such equations, plays a crucial role in the above fields. Anyway,
such equations are deserved to be investigated vastly. However, so
far such equations might not be able to be treated by any standard
methods. Therefore maybe they will stimulate a general study of
linear, semilinear, quasilinear, and fully nonlinear degenerate
elliptic equations.

\subsection{The main question.}
The present paper is to devoted to investigate the well-posedness of
boundary value problems for a special class of degenerate linear
elliptic equations with previous geometric backgrounds. The aim of
this subsection is to bring up the main question of this paper. We
start with a few definitions and introduce notation and terminology
that is consistent throughout this paper.

Let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ be a bounded simply-connected
domain with smooth boundary $\partial\Omega$. And $\Omega$ is
divided into two subdomains by a smooth closed curve $\Gamma$. One
of the subdomains is called interior subdomain which is a
simply-connected one of $\Omega$. We denote it by $\Omega_+$, i.e.
$\Omega_+\subset\subset \Omega$. Another is denoted by
$\Omega_-:=\Omega\setminus\overline{\Omega}_+$, which is
connected. The boundary of $\Omega_+$ is denoted by $\partial
\Omega_+$. In addition, let $\varphi$ be a function in
$\overline{\Omega}$, and set
$$\Gamma:=\partial \Omega_+
=\{(\xi_1,\xi_2)\in \Omega\,\,\big|\,\,\varphi(\xi_1,\xi_2)=0\},$$
$$\Omega_+:=\{(\xi_1,\xi_2)\in\Omega\,\,\big|\,\,\varphi(\xi_1,\xi_2)>0\},$$
$$\Omega_-:=\Omega\setminus\overline{\Omega}_+=
\{(\xi_1,\xi_2)\in\Omega\,\,\big|\,\,\varphi(\xi_1,\xi_2)<0\},$$
where $\varphi$ is called the definition function of $\Gamma$.
Moreover, we suppose $\nabla\varphi\neq 0\quad
\hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma$, and denote the inward normal direction to
the boundary $\partial \Omega_+$ by $\vec{n}$. Obviously,
$$\vec{n}=
(n_1,n_2)= (\frac{\varphi_{\xi_1}}{|\nabla\varphi|},
\frac{\varphi_{\xi_2}}{|\nabla\varphi|})\big|_{\Gamma}\neq 0,$$
Consider
$$Lu\equiv\varphi (A^{ij}u_{\xi_i \xi_j}+C u)
+B^l u_{\xi_l}\quad \hbox{in}\,\,\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^2_+,$$
where
\begin{equation}\label{fas}
\varphi,A^{ij},B^l,C\in C^\infty(\overline{\Omega})
\quad \hbox{for}\,\,\,i,j,l=1,2.
\end{equation}

Assume that
\begin{equation}\label{ken}
A^{ij} \eta_i \eta_j\geq\lambda_0|\eta|^2\,\quad
\hbox{for all}\,\,\,\eta=(\eta_1,\eta_2)\in \mathbb{R}^2,
\quad (\,i,j=1,2\,).
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_0$ is a positive constant;
\begin{eqnarray}\label{splin}
(B^l\varphi_{\xi_l})<0\quad\hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma;
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}\label{patri}
C\leq 0\quad\hbox{for all}\,\,(\xi_1,\xi_2)\in \overline{\Omega}.
\end{equation}

Obviously, from the above assumptions it is easy to see that
\begin{equation}\label{iron}
(A^{ij}\varphi_{\xi_i} \varphi_{\xi_j})\big|_\Gamma
\geq\lambda_0(|\nabla\varphi|^2)\big|_\Gamma>0.
\end{equation}

Assume that $F\in L^2(\Omega)\,,\,\, g\in H^2(\Omega)\,.$ we shall
discuss the well-posedness of the following boundary value problem
(Abbreviation: BVP)
\begin{equation}\label{mesi}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
Lu=F\quad \hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega,\\
u=g\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma,\\
u=0\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\,\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}

Now we state the definition of weak solution in the following
\begin{definition}\label{egnaro}
Assume that $F\in L^2(\Omega), g\in H^2(\Omega)$.
$\mathcal{A}:H_0^1(\Omega)\times H_0^1(\Omega)\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ a continuous bilinear form, is defined by
$$\mathcal{A}(u,v)=\int_\Omega [-u_{\xi_i}(A^{ij}\varphi v)_{\xi_j}
+\varphi Cuv +B^lu_{\xi_l}v]d\xi \quad \hbox{for all}\,\,\,u,v\in
H^1_0(\Omega).$$ If $u\in H^1_0(\Omega)$ satisfies that
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal{A}(u,v)=(F,v)\quad \hbox{for all}\,\,v\in H^1_0(\Omega),\\
u=g\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\, \Gamma,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where the boundary value is to be interpreted in the sense
of traces. Then $u$ is called $H^1$ weak solution of BVP
\eqref{mesi}.
\end{definition}

The question
\begin{quote}
\emph{Is there a $H^1$ solutions of BVP \eqref{mesi} and unique is
such solution?}
\end{quote}
is unknown as \emph{the well-posedness of the boundary value problem
for degenerate elliptic equations}.

Throughout this paper we will utilize such Convention:
\,\,(1)\,\,The C that are appearing in paper, all express positive
bounded constant. But they are possibly different when they are
appearing in different rows. \,\,(2)\,\,We often use
"$\rightharpoonup$" and "$\rightarrow$" expressing respectively
weak convergence and strong convergence in the corresponding
function spaces.

\subsection{The main result and its trivial generalization.}
The main result of this paper is the following
\begin{theorem}\label{lanoitanretni}
Suppose $\varphi$, $A^{ij}$, $B^l$\,\,\,$(i,j,l=1,2)$, and $C$
 satisfy the conditions \eqref{fas},
\eqref{ken}, \eqref{splin} and \eqref{patri}. Let $F\in L^2(\Omega)$
and $g\in H^2(\Omega)$. Then there exists an unique $H^1$ weak
solution $u$ of the BVP \eqref{mesi}, and $u$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{brod}
\|u\|_{H^1(\Omega)}\leq C\big[\,\|F\|_{L^2(\Omega)}
+\|g\|_{H^2(\Omega)}\,\big],
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a constant depending only on $\Gamma$,
$\|\varphi\|_{C^3(\overline{\Omega})}$,
$\|A^{ij}\|_{C^2(\overline{\Omega})}$,
$\|B^l\|_{C^1(\overline{\Omega})}$\quad $(i,j,l=1,2)$ and
$\|C\|_{C^1(\overline{\Omega})}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{jenkins}
The BVP \eqref{mesi} can be discussed in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ under
the same conditions. And the similar result also can be obtained by
the same methods in the case $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. Since all the
generalization is trivial, we omit to state this result and the
details of its proof at here.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
We explain briefly some known facts about the works of
Ole$\check{i}$nik and Radkevi$\check{c}$ (for details, to
see~\cite{OR}). Their theory requires that the characteristic form
of the equation is non-negative in the global domain. But the
characteristic form of equations in the problems which we deal with
is changing its signs in the domain. Next the theory of
Ole$\check{i}$nik and Radkevi$\check{c}$ requires that the
coefficient of unknown function term for the equation is negative
enough. It is usually not provided with this condition in the
practical problems. Hence we could not get the $L^2$ solution from
the direct applications of their conclusion to our problems. This is
the difficulties in our problems.
\end{remark}
Of course the regularity of solutions plays an important role in the
study of geometry problems. So we need to make a further discussion
on the corresponding regularity of solutions to such problems. The
further results on regularity will be given in our preprint
paper~\cite{HeYue}. In spite of many relevant progress, up to now
there has been no standard way to deal with such kind of problems,
and some crucial problems remain unsolved. Therefore, maybe our
methods are helpful in studying the general degenerate elliptic
equations.

\section{Preliminaries.}
\subsection{Homogenization of the BVP \eqref{mesi}.}
Suppose $g$ may be extend to domain $\overline{\Omega}$, still be
denoted by $g$, such that $g$ satisfies $g=0$\quad on\,\,\,$\partial
\Omega$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $g\equiv 0$.
In fact, if $u$ is a solution of BVP \eqref{mesi}, let $v=u-g$, then
$v$ is a solution of the following BVP:
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
Lv=F-Lg\quad \hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega,\\
v=0\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma\cup\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.$$  Hence, instead of the primary BVP \eqref{mesi} we may
discuss the well-posedness of the following BVP:
\begin{equation}\label{plenum}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
  Lu=F\quad \hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega,\\
  u=0\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma\cup\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}

\subsection{Simplification of the form to $Lu=F$.}
Firstly, we will simplify the form of the equation $Lu=F$ in some
neighborhood of $\Gamma$. By a appropriate transformations of the
variable in a neighborhood of $\Gamma$, we get the following result:
\begin{lemma}\label{albertcohen}
By a appropriate transformation $\Phi$ of the variable in some
neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_0(\Gamma)$ of $\Gamma$, $Lu=F$ can be
translated to the following form:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{nod}
\pounds u\equiv y(\omega u_{xx}+u_{yy}+cu)+au_x+bu_y=f, \quad
\hbox{on}\,\,\,D_{d_0},
\end{eqnarray}
where
$$D_{d_0}=\Phi\big(\mathcal{N}_0(\Gamma)\big)
=\{\,(x,y)\,\,\big|\,\,-\pi\leq x\leq \pi\,,\,-d_0<y<d_0\},$$ and
$\omega,a,b,c,f$ are all periodic functions with period $2\pi$ on
$x$. $\omega,a,b,c\in C^\infty(\bar{D}_{d_0})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We might as well suppose that $\Gamma$ may be expressed as follow
$$\Gamma=\{\,(\nu_1(s_1),\nu_2(s_1))\,\,\big|\,\,0\leq s_1\leq l\,\},$$
where $s_1$ is the parameter of arc length, and $l$ is the length
of $\Gamma$. Obviously,
$$\dot{\nu_1}^2+\dot{\nu_2}^2=1\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma,$$
where "$\cdot$" means the derivative with respect to $s_1$. Then
there exists a neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_0(\Gamma)$ of $\Gamma$,
such that any $\xi=(\xi_1,\xi_2)\in \mathcal{N}(\Gamma)$ may be
express as
\begin{equation}\label{transl}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
  \xi_1=\nu_1(s_1)+n_1(s_1)s_2, \\
  \xi_2=\nu_2(s_1)+n_2(s_1)s_2,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\vec{n}=(n_1,n_2)$ is the inward normal direction of
$\Omega_+$, Meanwhile it is also the exterior normal direction of
$\Omega_-$. In $\mathcal{N}_0(\Gamma)$, we know easily that
$\xi=(\xi_1,\xi_2)\in \Gamma$\,\,\, for\,\,\,$s_2=0$. On the other
hand, since $(\dot{\nu}_1,\dot{\nu}_2)$ is the unit tangent
direction of $\Gamma$, so $(\dot{\nu}_2,-\dot{\nu}_1)$ is the inward
normal direction of $\Gamma$. Hence
$(\dot{\nu}_2,-\dot{\nu}_1)=(n_1,n_2)$.

Clearly,
$$\aligned
\left.\frac{D(\xi_1,\xi_2)}{D(s_1,s_2)}\right|_{s_2=0}
&=\det\left.
\begin{pmatrix}
  \dot{\nu_1}+\dot{n}_1s_2 & n_1 \\
  \dot{\nu_2}+\dot{n}_2s_2 & n_2
\end{pmatrix}
\right|_{s_2=0}\\&=[\dot{\nu_1}n_2-\dot{\nu_2}n_1
+(\dot{\nu}_1\nu_2-\nu_1\dot{\nu}_2)s_2]\big|_{s_2=0} =n^2_1+n^2_2
=1.
\endaligned$$

Thus by the inverse function theorem, for $|s_2|\leq \delta$, there
exists a sufficient small constant $\delta>0$, such that $s_1,s_2$
are smooth functions on $\xi_1,\xi_2$. We express $s_1,s_2$ as
follow
$$\Xi:\quad
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
  s_1=s_1(\xi_1,\xi_2),\\
  s_2=s_2(\xi_1,\xi_2).
\end{array}
\right.$$
Applying \eqref{transl} again, we have
\begin{equation}\label{rosode}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
  \displaystyle\frac{\partial s_1}{\partial \xi_1}=n_2/\bigtriangleup, \\[15pt]
  \displaystyle\frac{\partial s_2}{\partial \xi_1}=-(\dot{\nu}_2+n_2s_2)/\bigtriangleup,
\end{array}
\right. \quad\hbox{and}\quad \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
  \displaystyle\frac{\partial s_1}{\partial \xi_2}=-n_1/\bigtriangleup, \\[15pt]
  \displaystyle\frac{\partial s_2}{\partial \xi_2}=(\dot{\nu}_1+n_1s_2)/\bigtriangleup,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\bigtriangleup=\dot{\nu}_1n_2-\dot{\nu}_2n_1+(\dot{n}_1n_2-n_1\dot{n}_2)s_2$.

In the sequel, by the transform $\Xi$ and direct calculation, the
equation $Lu=F$ become
\begin{equation}\label{chinese}
\varphi\big(\widetilde{A}^{ij} u_{s_is_j}+Cu\big)
+\widetilde{B}^k u_{s_k}=F,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{etavired}
\widetilde{A}^{ij}
=A^{lr}\,\frac{\partial s_i}{\partial \xi_l} \frac{\partial s_j}{\partial \xi_r}\,,
\quad\quad
\widetilde{B}^k
=\varphi A^{ij}\,\frac{\partial^2 s_k}{\partial \xi_i \partial \xi_j}
+B^l \frac{\partial s_k}{\partial \xi_l}.
\end{equation}
Obviously, the transform
$\Xi:\mathcal{N}(\Gamma)\mapsto\Xi\big(\mathcal{N}(\Gamma)\big)$,
and makes $\Gamma$ to become
$$\Xi(\Gamma)=\{\,(s_1,s_2)\,\,\big|\,\,0\leq s_1\leq l\,,\,s_2=0\}.$$
So, we have
\begin{equation}\label{yhcuac}
\varphi(s_1,s_2)=s_2\widetilde{\varphi},
\end{equation}
where
$$\widetilde{\varphi}(s_1,s_2)=\int_0^1 \varphi_{s_2}(s_1,\varsigma
s_2)d\varsigma,$$

and
$$\aligned
\widetilde{\varphi}(s_1,0)&=\varphi_{s_2}(s_1,0)
\\[5pt]
&=\varphi_{\xi_1}\big|_\Gamma\,\frac{\partial \xi_1}{\partial
s_2}\big|_{s_2=0} +\varphi_{\xi_2}\big|_\Gamma\,\frac{\partial
\xi_2}{\partial s_2}\big|_{s_2=0}
\\[5pt]
&=(\varphi_{\xi_1}\,n_1+\varphi_{\xi_2}\,n_2)\big|_\Gamma\\[8pt]
&=\Big\{\sqrt{\varphi_{\xi_1}^2+\varphi_{\xi_2}^2}\,\,
\Big(\frac{\varphi_{\xi_1}}{\sqrt{\varphi_{\xi_1}^2+\varphi_{\xi_2}^2}}\,\,n_1
+\frac{\varphi_{\xi_2}}{\sqrt{\varphi_{\xi_1}^2+\varphi_{\xi_2}^2}}\,\,n_2\left.\Big)\Big\}
\right|_\Gamma
\\[10pt]
&=\left.\left(\sqrt{\varphi_{\xi_1}^2+\varphi_{\xi_2}^2}\,\,\right)\right|_\Gamma
\,\,(n_1^2+n_2^2)
\\[5pt]
&=(|\nabla\varphi|)\big|_\Gamma \neq 0.
\endaligned$$
Then there exists some neighborhood $U \subseteq
\Xi\big(\mathcal{N}(\Gamma)\big)$, such that
$\widetilde{\varphi}\neq 0$\quad in\,\,\,$U$.

Transforming the equation $Lu=F$ again, by
$$\Theta:\quad
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
  x_1=\psi(s_1,s_2),\\
  x_2=s_2,
\end{array}\right.$$
where $\psi$ is a undetermined function. Then the form of the
equation $Lu=F$ is translated from \eqref{chinese} into the
following form:
$$x_2\,\widetilde{\varphi}\,\big[\big(\widetilde{A}^{ij}\, \displaystyle\frac{\partial x_p}{\partial s_i}
 \displaystyle\frac{\partial x_q}{\partial s_j}\big)u_{x_px_q}+C u\big]
+\big(\varphi \widetilde{A}^{ij}\,
 \displaystyle\frac{\partial^2 x_r}{\partial s_i \partial s_j}
 +\widetilde{B}^k \displaystyle\frac{\partial x_r}{\partial s_k}\big)u_{x_r}
=F.$$ By simplification, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{photo}
x_2\,\widetilde{\varphi}\,\big[(\widetilde{A}^{ij} \psi_{s_i} \psi_{s_j})u_{x_1x_1}
+(\widetilde{A}^{l2} \psi_{s_l})u_{x_1x_2}
+\widetilde{A}^{22}u_{x_2x_2}
+C u\big]&&\nonumber\\[5pt]
+(x_2 \widetilde{A}^{ij} \psi_{s_is_j}
+\widetilde{B}^k \psi_{s_k})u_{x_1}
+\widetilde{B}^2 u_{x_2}
&=&F.
\end{eqnarray}
In order to delete the mixed derivative term $(\widetilde{A}^{l2}
\psi_{s_l})u_{x_1x_2}$, we consider the Cauchy problem
\begin{equation}\label{munchen}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\widetilde{A}^{12} \psi_{s_1}
+\widetilde{A}^{22} \psi_{s_2}=0,\\
 \psi(s_1,0)=s_1.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Together \eqref{rosode} with \eqref{etavired}, we have
$$\widetilde{A}^{22}
  =(n_2,-n_1)
  \begin{pmatrix}
  A^{22} & -A^{12} \\
  -A^{12} & A^{11}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
  n_2 \\
  -n_1
\end{pmatrix}
>0,\quad \hbox{for}\,\,\,s_2=0.$$
Therefore,
$$(\widetilde{A}^{12},\widetilde{A}^{22})
\begin{pmatrix}
  0 \\
  1
\end{pmatrix}
=\widetilde{A}^{22}>0\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma.$$ On one hand,
according to the theory of one order PDE, there exists an unique
solution $\psi^*$ of the Cauchy problem \eqref{munchen} in a
neighborhood $V\,(\subseteq U)$ of $\{0\leq s_1\leq l,s_2=0\}$.
Obviously, $\psi^*(s_1,s_2)+l$ is a solution of the Cauchy problem
\begin{equation}\label{krantz}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\widetilde{A}^{12} \psi_{s_1}
+\widetilde{A}^{22} \psi_{s_2}=0,\\
 \psi(s_1,0)=s_1+l.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, since $\widetilde{A}^{12}$ and
$\widetilde{A}^{22}$ are both periodic function with period $l$ on
$s$, thus $\psi^*(s_1+l,s_2)$ is also a solution of the Cauchy
problem \eqref{krantz}. Consequently, by the uniqueness of solution
of the Cauchy problem, $\psi^*(s_1+l,s_2)=\psi^*(s_1,s_2)+l$. By
choosing $\psi=\psi^*$, it follows that $\det\,J\big|_{s_2=0}=1>0$,
where
$$J=\begin{pmatrix}
  \psi^*_{s_1} & \psi^*_{s_2}\\
  0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$$
is the Jacobi matrix of the transform $\Theta$. Additionally, by the
theory of one order PDE, we know that the solution depends on
continuously the initial data and the equation's coefficients. So
there exists a sufficient small neighborhood $W\,(\subseteq V)$ of
$\{0\leq s\leq l,s_2=0\}$, such that $\psi^*\in C^\infty(W)$ and
$\det\,J> 0\,\,\,\hbox{for all}\,\,(s_1,s_2)\in W$. Therefore, the
equation \eqref{photo} can be simplified as follow
$$y\,\widetilde{\varphi}\,[(\widetilde{A}^{ij} \psi^*_{s_i} \psi^*_{s_j})u_{x_1x_1}
+\widetilde{A}^{22}u_{x_2x_2} +C u]+(y \widetilde{A}^{ij}
\psi^*_{s_is_j} +\widetilde{B}^{k} \psi^*_{s_k})u_{x_1}
+\widetilde{B}^{2}u_{x_2}=F$$ in the neighborhood $W$ of $\{0\leq
s\leq l,s_2=0\}$.

Without loss of the generality, we may assume that
$$\Theta\circ\Xi(\Gamma)=\{\,(x_1,x_2)\,\,\big|\,\,-\pi\leq x_1\leq
\pi\,,\,x_2=0\},$$ and $$\Theta:W\mapsto\Theta(W) \subseteq \Theta
\circ \Xi\big(\mathcal{N}(\Gamma)\big) \subseteq
\{\,(x_1,x_2)\,\,\big| \,\,-\pi\leq x_1\leq \pi\}.$$ According to
all the above analyses, we know that $D_{d_0}\subseteq \Theta(W)$
for an adequate small $d_0$, where $$D_{d_0}=\{\,(x_1,x_2)\,\,\big|
\,\,-\pi\leq x_1\leq \pi\,,\,-d_0<x_2<d_0.\}.$$ Define
$\Phi=\Theta\circ\Xi$, and denote
$\mathcal{N}_0(\Gamma)=\Phi^{-1}(D_{d_0})$. Obviously,
$\mathcal{N}_0(\Gamma)\subseteq \mathcal{N}(\Gamma)$. Since
$\widetilde{\varphi}\big|_{\mathcal{N}_0(\Gamma)}>0,\,
\widetilde{A}^{22}\big|_{\mathcal{N}_0(\Gamma)}>0$, therefore
\eqref{photo} can be simplified as follow
\begin{eqnarray}\label{birkhauser}
\quad\quad \pounds u\equiv x_2(\omega
u_{x_1x_1}+u_{x_2x_2}+cu)+au_{x_1}+bu_{x_2}=f\quad \hbox{in}~~
D_{d_0},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}\label{narrate}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle \omega=\frac{\widetilde{A}^{ij}\psi^*_{s_i}
\psi^*_{s_j}} {\widetilde{A}^{22}},\,\,\,
a=\frac{x_2
\widetilde{A}^{ij} \psi^*_{s_is_j}+\widetilde{B}^k \psi^*_{s_k}}
{\widetilde{A}^{22}\,\widetilde{\varphi}},\,\,\,\\[15pt]
\displaystyle b=\frac{\widetilde{B}^{2}}
{\widetilde{A}^{22}\,\widetilde{\varphi}},\,\,\,
c=\frac{C}{\widetilde{A}^{22}},\,\,\,
f=\frac{F}{\widetilde{A}^{22}\,\,\widetilde{\varphi}}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
For the simplicity, we still denote respectively $x_1,x_2$ as $x,y$
from now on. Thus we simply rewrite \eqref{birkhauser} as
\eqref{nod}. Obviously, from \eqref{narrate} it follows that
$\omega,a,b,c,f$ all are periodic function with period $2\pi$ on
$x$. In addition, from \eqref{fas} it follows that $\omega,a,b,c\in
C^\infty(\overline{D_{d_0}})$\,.
\end{proof}
For the sake of simplicity, denoting $\omega_0=\omega(x,0),\,\,
 a_{0}=a(x,0),\,\,
 b_{0}=b(x,0);$
$$L^\varepsilon u\equiv
(\varphi+\varepsilon) (A^{ij}u_{\xi_i\xi_j}+C u)+B^l u_{\xi_l}\quad (\,i,j,l=1,2\,);$$
$$L^{(-\varepsilon)} u\equiv
(\varphi-\varepsilon) (A^{ij}u_{\xi_i\xi_j}+C u)+B^l u_{\xi_l}\quad (\,i,j,l=1,2\,);$$
$$\pounds^\varepsilon u\equiv
(y+\varepsilon)(\omega u_{xx}+u_{yy}+cu)+au_x+bu_y;$$
$$\pounds^{(-\varepsilon)}u\equiv
(y-\varepsilon)(\omega u_{xx}+u_{yy}+cu)+au_x+bu_y;$$
$$D^+_d=\{\,(x,y)\,\,\big|\,\,-\pi\leq x\leq \pi\,,\,0<y<d\};$$
$$D^-_d=\{\,(x,y)\,\,\big|\,\,-\pi\leq x\leq \pi\,,\,-d<y<0\}.$$

In the sequel, we shall always use such convention: we sometimes
identify $u\circ\Phi^{-1}$ as $u$, and still denote
$u\circ\Phi^{-1}$ by $u$. Anyway, no confusion of ideas will rise in
this paper if only one keep concretely close touch with the context.
\begin{proposition}\label{actamath}
\begin{equation}\label{acinis}
b_0=\Big(\frac{B^l\varphi_{\xi_l}}
{A^{ij}\varphi_{\xi_i}\varphi_{\xi_j}}\Big)\Big|_\Gamma.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from \eqref{etavired}, \eqref{narrate} and
\eqref{yhcuac}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{jawo}
By \eqref{acinis} and \eqref{narrate}, it is easily verify that
$$b_0<0\quad\hbox{is equivalent to}
\quad\eqref{splin}\,\,\hbox{i.e.}\quad
(B^l\varphi_{\xi_l})<0\quad\hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma;$$
$$c\leq 0\quad\hbox{is equivalent to}
\quad\eqref{patri}\,\,\hbox{i.e.}\quad C\leq 0\quad\hbox{for
all}\,\,(\xi_1,\xi_2)\in \overline{\Omega}.$$
\end{remark}

\subsection{Elliptic regularization of the BVP \eqref{plenum}.}
Under the conditions \eqref{ken}, \eqref{splin} and \eqref{patri},
we will employ elliptic regularization to discuss the well-posedness
of the following BVP:
\begin{equation}\label{market}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
Lu=F\quad \hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega_+,\\
u=0\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{radkeic}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
Lu=F\quad \hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega_-,\\
u=0\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma\cup\partial\Omega.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}

Since $\varphi>0$,\,\,\,on\,\,\,$\Omega_+$;
$\varphi<0$\,\,\,on\,\,\,$\Omega_-$. then we thus may construct
the following subsidiary BVP:
\begin{equation}\label{scienze}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
 L^\varepsilon u=F^\varepsilon\quad \hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega_+,\\
 u=0\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{oleinik}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
L^{(-\varepsilon)} u=F^\varepsilon\quad \hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega_-,\\
u=0\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma\cup\partial\Omega,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $F^{\varepsilon}\in \mathrm{C}^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega})$.
In fact, we may choose $F^{\varepsilon}$ as the mollification of $F$.
Moreover, if $F\in H^k(\Omega)$, then
\begin{equation}\label{bluee}
\|F^{\varepsilon}\|_{H^k(\Omega)}\leq C_k\|F\|_{H^k(\Omega)},
\end{equation}
where $C_k$ is a constant depending only on $k$; Furthermore,
$$\|F^{\varepsilon}-F\|_{H^k(\Omega)}\rightarrow 0,
\quad \hbox{as}\,\,\,\varepsilon\rightarrow 0. $$

\section{$H^1$ estimates for solutions of the BVP \eqref{scienze}.}
In this section, we will discuss the $H^1$ estimates for solutions
of the BVP \eqref{scienze}. According to the $L^2$ theory of second
order elliptic type equation, there exists a solution $u^\varepsilon
\in C^\infty(\overline{\Omega}_+)$ of the BVP \eqref{scienze}, and
also a solution $u^{(-\varepsilon)} \in
C^\infty(\overline{\Omega}_-)$ of the BVP \eqref{oleinik}.
Obviously, the interior $H^1$ estimates for solutions of above the
BVPs, can be derived from the standard interior $H^2$ estimates of
second order elliptic type equation. Therefore, we only need to give
the local estimates in a neighborhood of $\Gamma$. In addition, from
the Lemma \ref{albertcohen}, it follow that if we want to estimate
the solution $u^\varepsilon$\,\, (or $u^{(-\varepsilon)}$)\,\, of
the BVP \eqref{scienze}\,\,(or \eqref{oleinik})\,\, in a
neighborhood of $\Gamma$, then only need under the conditions
$b_0<0,\,c\leq 0$, to make the local $H^1$ estimates for the
solution of $\pounds^\varepsilon u=f^\varepsilon \quad
\hbox{in}\,\,\,D^+_{d_0}$,\,\,\,with\,\,\,$u(x,0)=0$\,\, (or
$\pounds^{(-\varepsilon)}u=f^\varepsilon \quad
\hbox{in}\,\,\,D^-_{d_0}$, \,\,\,with\,\,\,$u(x,0)=0$)\,\, in a
neighborhood of $\{y=0\}$, where $f^\varepsilon$ is the
mollification of $f$, satisfies that $\|f^{\varepsilon}\|_{L^2}\leq
C \|f\|_{L^2}$, and constant $C$ is independent of $\varepsilon$.

\subsection{$H^1$ estimates for the solution
of $\pounds^\varepsilon u=f^\varepsilon$ with $u(x,0)=0$} Under the
condition $b_0<0,\,c\leq 0$, we will give the $H^1$ estimates for
the solution $u^\varepsilon$ of $\pounds^\varepsilon
u=f^\varepsilon$ with $u(x,0)=0$ in the following
\begin{proposition}\label{film}
Suppose $\omega\geq \omega_*>0\,; b_0<0,\,c\leq 0$. Then there
exists a constant $\sigma=\sigma(\omega,a,b)\in(0,d_0/2]$, such that
for any $d\in(0,\sigma]$, the solution $u^\varepsilon$ of the
equation $\pounds^\varepsilon u=f^\varepsilon$ with $u(x,0)=0$ has
the following estimates
\begin{equation}\label{muggy}
\|\nabla u^\varepsilon\|_{L^2(D^+_d)}\leq C
\big[\,\|f^\varepsilon\|_{L^2(D^+_{2d})}
+\|u^\varepsilon\|_{L^2(D^+_{2d})}\,\big],
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a constant depending only on $\omega$, $a$, $b$ and $d$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First, we construct the cutoff function $\vartheta\in
C^\infty(\mathbb{R}_+)$, such that $0\leq\vartheta\leq 1,$ and
satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{wine}
\vartheta=\vartheta(y)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
    1\,,\,\,0\leq y\leq d,\\
    0\,,\,\,y\geq 2d,
  \end{array}\right.
  \quad \hbox{and}\,
  \quad \big|\frac{\partial^k\vartheta}{\partial y^k}\big|\leq\frac{C}{d^k}\,,
  \quad k\in \mathbb{N}.
  \end{equation}
Define $v^\varepsilon=\vartheta u^\varepsilon.$ Thus, from
$\pounds^\varepsilon u^\varepsilon=f^\varepsilon$ it follows
\begin{equation}\label{you}
\pounds^\varepsilon v^\varepsilon=
\vartheta f^\varepsilon
+2(y+\varepsilon)\vartheta_yu^\varepsilon_y
+[(y+\varepsilon)\vartheta_{yy}+b\vartheta_y]u^\varepsilon
\quad \hbox{in}\,\,\,D^+_{d_0}.
\end{equation}
Clearly, $u^\varepsilon(x,0)=0$ implies $v^\varepsilon(x,0)=0$.

Now we make both sides of \eqref{you} inner product with
$v^\varepsilon/(y+\varepsilon)$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{theory}
-\big(\pounds^\varepsilon
v^\varepsilon,\frac{v^\varepsilon}{y+\varepsilon}\big)
=-\big(\vartheta
f^\varepsilon+2(y+\varepsilon)\vartheta_yu^\varepsilon_y
+[(y+\varepsilon)\vartheta_{yy} +b\vartheta_y]u^\varepsilon
,\frac{v^\varepsilon}{y+\varepsilon}\big).
\end{equation}
Moreover, denoting
$$\iint:=\int_{D^+_d}:=\int^\pi_{-\pi}\int^d_0.$$
For the left-hand side of $\eqref{theory}$, we get
$$\aligned
&-\big(\pounds^\varepsilon
v^\varepsilon,\frac{v^\varepsilon}{y+\varepsilon}\big)\\
=&\iint\big[-(\omega
v^\varepsilon_{xx}+v^\varepsilon_{yy})v^\varepsilon
-c|v^\varepsilon|^2
-\frac{a}{y+\varepsilon}\,v^\varepsilon_xv^\varepsilon
-\frac{b}{y+\varepsilon}\,v^\varepsilon_yv^\varepsilon\big]\\[10pt]
=&\iint\big[-(\omega v^\varepsilon_xv^\varepsilon)_x
-(v^\varepsilon_yv^\varepsilon)_y -c|v^\varepsilon|^2
+\omega_xv^\varepsilon_xv^\varepsilon +\omega |v^\varepsilon_x|^2
+|v^\varepsilon_y|^2\nonumber\\[10pt]&
+\frac{a_x}{2y+2\varepsilon}|v^\varepsilon|^2
+\big(\frac{b}{2y+2\varepsilon}\big)_y|v^\varepsilon|^2\big]\\[10pt]&
-\int^{2d}_0\frac{1}{2y+2\varepsilon}\,(a|v^\varepsilon|^2)\big|^{2d}_{-2d}dy
-\int^{2d}_{-2d}\big(\frac{b|v^\varepsilon|^2}{2y+2\varepsilon}\big)\big|^{2d}_0dx
\\[10pt]
=&\iint\Big\{\omega |v^\varepsilon_x|^2 +|v^\varepsilon_y|^2
+\omega_xv^\varepsilon_xv^\varepsilon
+\big[\frac{a_x}{2y+2\varepsilon}
+\big(\frac{b}{2y+2\varepsilon}\big)_y-c\big]|v^\varepsilon|^2\Big\}
\\[10pt]
=&\iint\Big\{|v^\varepsilon_x|^2 +|v^\varepsilon_y|^2
+\omega_xv^\varepsilon_xv^\varepsilon +\big[\frac{(y+\varepsilon)(
a_x+b_y)-b} {2(y+\varepsilon)^2}-c\big]|v^\varepsilon|^2\Big\}.
\endaligned$$
and
$$\iint \omega_xv^\varepsilon_xv^\varepsilon\leq
\frac{1}{4}\iint \omega |v^\varepsilon_x|^2
+\iint\vartheta^2\frac{\omega_x^2}{\omega}|u^\varepsilon|^2.$$ In
addition, the terms in the right-hand side of \eqref{theory} have
the following estimates:
$$\iint\vartheta f^\varepsilon \frac{v^\varepsilon}{y+\varepsilon}
\leq\frac{4}{\delta}\iint \vartheta^2|f^\varepsilon|^2
+\frac{\delta}{16}\iint\frac{|v^\varepsilon|^2}{(y+\varepsilon)^2};$$
\vspace{5pt}
$$\aligned
\iint
2(y+\varepsilon)\,\vartheta_yu^\varepsilon_y\,\frac{v^\varepsilon}{y+\varepsilon}
=& \iint 2\vartheta_y(\vartheta u^\varepsilon_y)u^\varepsilon
\nonumber\\[5pt]
=&\iint 2\vartheta_y[(\vartheta
u^\varepsilon)_y-\vartheta_yu^\varepsilon]u^\varepsilon
\nonumber\\[5pt]
=&\iint
2(\vartheta_yv^\varepsilon_yu^\varepsilon-\vartheta_y^2|u^\varepsilon|^2),
\endaligned$$
and
$$\iint \vartheta_yv^\varepsilon_yu^\varepsilon\leq \iint
\vartheta_y^2|u^\varepsilon|^2+\frac{1}{4}\iint
|v^\varepsilon_y|^2,$$
Thus we have
$$\iint 2(y+\varepsilon)
\,\vartheta_yu^\varepsilon_y\,\frac{v^\varepsilon}{y+\varepsilon}
\leq \frac{1}{2}\iint |v^\varepsilon_y|^2;$$
$$\iint
b\vartheta_y\,u^\varepsilon\frac{v^\varepsilon}{y+\varepsilon}
\leq \frac{4}{\delta}\iint
|b|_\infty^2\vartheta_y^2|u^\varepsilon|^2
+\frac{\delta}{16}\iint\frac{|v^\varepsilon|^2}{(y+\varepsilon)^2};$$
and
$$\iint (y+\varepsilon) \vartheta_{yy}u^\varepsilon\frac{v^\varepsilon}{y+\varepsilon}
\leq \iint \vartheta|\vartheta_{yy}||u^\varepsilon|^2.$$ Together
with \eqref{theory} and  all above estimates, it implies
$$\aligned
&\iint\Big\{\omega |v^\varepsilon_x|^2+|v^\varepsilon_y|^2
+\big[\frac{(y+\varepsilon)( a_x+b_y)-b}
{2(y+\varepsilon)^2}-c\big]|v^\varepsilon|^2\Big\}
\\[10pt]\leq&
\frac{4}{\delta}\iint \vartheta^2|f^\varepsilon|^2
+\iint \big(\frac{4}{\delta} |b|_\infty^2 \vartheta_y^2
+\vartheta^2\frac{\omega_x^2}{\omega}
+\vartheta |\vartheta_{yy}| \big)|u^\varepsilon|^2\\[10pt]&
+\frac{1}{4}\iint \omega |v^\varepsilon_x|^2 +\frac{1}{2}\iint
|v^\varepsilon_y|^2
+\frac{\delta}{8}\iint\frac{|v^\varepsilon|^2}{(y+\varepsilon)^2}.
\endaligned$$
Hence by a simplification procedure we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{newyork}
&&\iint
\Big\{\frac{3\omega}{2}|v^\varepsilon_x|^2+|v^\varepsilon_y|^2
+\big[\frac{(y+\varepsilon)( a_x+b_y)-b-\frac{\delta}{4}}
{2(y+\varepsilon)^2}-c\big]|v^\varepsilon|^2\Big\}
\\[10pt]&\leq&
\frac{8}{\delta}\iint \vartheta^2|f^\varepsilon|^2 +\iint
\big(\frac{8}{\delta} |b|_\infty^2 \vartheta_y^2
+2\vartheta^2\frac{\omega_x^2}{\omega} +2\vartheta |\vartheta_{yy}|
\big)\,|u^\varepsilon|^2.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Since $b_0<0$. By the continuity of $b_0$, there exists a constant
$\delta_0>0$ such that $-b_0> \delta_0$. Subsequently, by the
continuity of $b$, there exists an adequate small constant
$\sigma_1$ such that $-b\geq \frac{\delta_0}{2}$ for $0\leq
y\leq\sigma_1$. So, we have
$-b-\frac{\delta_0}{4}>\frac{\delta_0}{4}$ for $0\leq
y\leq\sigma_1$. Choose $\delta=\delta_0$, from \eqref{newyork} we
get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{girl}
&&\iint \Big\{\frac{3\omega}{2}|v^\varepsilon_x|^2+|v^\varepsilon_y|^2
+\big[\frac{(y+\varepsilon)
(a_x+b_y)+\frac{\delta_0}{4}}{2(y+\varepsilon)^2}-c\big]|v^\varepsilon|^2\Big\}
\\[10pt]&\leq&
\frac{8}{\delta_0}\iint \vartheta^2|f^\varepsilon|^2 +\iint
\big(\frac{8}{\delta_0} |b|_\infty^2 \vartheta_y^2
+2\vartheta^2\frac{\omega_x^2}{\omega} +2\vartheta
|\vartheta_{yy}|\big)\,|u^\varepsilon|^2.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Obviously, we may choose a sufficient small constant $\sigma_2>0$,
which only depends on $\delta_0,a,b$; such that
$(y+\varepsilon)(a_x+b_y)+\frac{\delta_0}{4}\geq 0$, for $0\leq
y\leq \sigma_2$.

Choose a constant $\sigma=\min\{\sigma_1,\sigma_2,d_0/2\}$ and
together $c\leq 0$ with \eqref{girl}, we therefore obtain that
$$\iint \big(\frac{3\omega}{2}|v^\varepsilon_x|^2+|v^\varepsilon_y|^2\big)
\leq \frac{8}{\delta_0}\iint \vartheta^2|f^\varepsilon|^2 +\iint
\big(\frac{8}{\delta_0} |b|_\infty^2 \vartheta_y^2
+2\vartheta^2\frac{\omega_x^2}{\omega} +2\vartheta |\vartheta_{yy}|
\big)\,|u^\varepsilon|^2.$$ always holds for any $d\leq \sigma$.
Finally, by utilizing $\omega\geq \omega_*>0$ and \eqref{wine}, we
have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{baby}
\int_{D^+_d}|\nabla u^\varepsilon|^2\leq C(\omega,b) \int_{D^+_{2d}}
|f^\varepsilon|^2 +\frac{C(\omega,a,b)}{d^2} \int_{D^+_{2d}}
|u^\varepsilon|^2.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
This implies \eqref{muggy}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}[Boundary $H^1$ estimates]\label{skaut}
Assume the coefficients $\varphi,A^{ij},B^l$ $(i,j,l=1,2.)$ and $C$
of the operator $L$ satisfy the conditions
\eqref{fas},\,\eqref{ken},\,\eqref{splin} and \eqref{patri}. Then
the solution $u^\varepsilon$ of the BVP \eqref{scienze}, satisfies
that
\begin{equation}\label{quell}
\|u^\varepsilon\|_{H^1(\Phi^{-1}(D^+_\sigma))}
\leq C\big[\,\|u^\varepsilon\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}+\|F^\varepsilon\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}\,\big],
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a constant depending only on
$\|\varphi\|_{C^3(\overline{\Omega}_+)},\|A^{ij}\|_{C^2(\overline{\Omega}_+)}$
and $\|B^l\|_{C^1(\overline{\Omega}_+)}$ $(i,j,l=1,2)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Rewriting the inequality \eqref{muggy}
in term of the variable $\xi=(\xi_1,\xi_2)$, we have
$$\|\nabla u^\varepsilon\|_{L^2[\Phi^{-1}(D^+_\sigma)]}\leq
C \big\{\|u^\varepsilon\|_{L^2[\Phi^{-1}(D^+_{2\sigma})]}
+\|F^\varepsilon\|_{L^2[\Phi^{-1}(D^+_{2\sigma})]}\big\}. $$ Let
the integral domain $\Phi^{-1}(D^+_{2\sigma})$ of the right-hand
side of the above inequality extend to $\Omega_+$. The proof is
complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Interior $H^1$ estimates]\label{wang}
Under the conditions of Proposition \ref{skaut}. Then for arbitrary
$\Omega'\subset\subset\Omega_+$, the solution $u^\varepsilon$ of the
equation $L^\varepsilon u=F^\varepsilon$ has the following interior
estimates
\begin{equation}\label{shi}
\|u^\varepsilon\|_{H^1(\Omega')}\leq
C\big[\,\|u^\varepsilon\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}+\|F^\varepsilon\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}\,\big],
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a constant depending only on $dist\{\Omega',\Gamma\},
\|\varphi\|_{C^2(\overline{\Omega}_+)},
\|A^{ij}\|_{C^1(\overline{\Omega}_+)}$,
$\|B^l\|_{C^1(\overline{\Omega}_+)}$ and
$\|C\|_{C^1(\overline{\Omega}_+)}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From the interior $H^2$ estimates of second order elliptic type
equation directly follows the conclusion.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}[Global $H^1$ estimates]\label{skeil}
Under the conditions of Proposition \ref{skaut}. Then the solution
$u^\varepsilon$ of BVP \eqref{scienze}, has the following global
estimates
\begin{equation}\label{maiti}
\|u^\varepsilon\|_{H^1(\Omega_+)}
\leq C\big[\,\|u^\varepsilon\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}+\|F^\varepsilon\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}\,\big],
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a constant depending only on
$\|\varphi\|_{C^3(\overline{\Omega}_+)},\|A^{ij}\|_{C^2(\overline{\Omega}_+)}$,
$\|B^l\|_{C^1(\overline{\Omega}_+)}$ $(i,j,l=1,2)$ and
$\|C\|_{C^1(\overline{\Omega}_+)}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Choose $\Omega'=\Omega_+ \setminus \Phi^{-1}(D^+_{\sigma/2})$.
\eqref{maiti} follows from \eqref{quell} and \eqref{shi}.
\end{proof}

\subsection{$H^1$ estimates of solutions of the BVP \eqref{market}.}
\begin{lemma}[see Lemma 3.1 of \cite{H}]\label{heyue}
Let $f\in H^1(D_{d_0}^+)$, if $v\in H^1(D_{d_0}^+)$ is a weak
solution of the following BVP:
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}(L-\lambda I)v=f\quad \hbox{in}\,\,\,D_{d_0}^+,\\
v\,\,\hbox{is a periodic function with period}\,\,2\pi\,\,\hbox{on}\,\,x,\\
v(x,0)=v(x,d_0)=0.
\end{array}\right.$$
Then there exists a $\lambda_0>0$, such that when $\lambda\geq
\lambda_0$, we have $v_x\in H^1(D_{d_0}^+)$, and
$$\|v_x\|_1\leq C \|f\|_1,$$
where $C$ is a constant.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{qiyueershijiu}
Let $u,u_x\in H^1(\Omega)$. Then $u\in C(\overline{\Omega})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In fact, by the localization technique, we only need prove one conclusion:

let $u,u_x\in H^1(\mathbb{R}^2)$, then
$u\in C(\mathbb{R}^2)$.

Firstly, that $u,u_x\in H^1(\mathbb{R}^2)$ is equivalent to
$$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} |\widehat{u}|^2
[1+\xi^2+\eta^2+\xi^2(\xi^2+\eta^2)]d\xi d\eta<+\infty.$$
where $\widehat{u}$ expresses the Fourier transform of $u$.

Secondly, it is easy to verify
$$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}
\frac{1}{1+\xi^2+\eta^2+\xi^2(\xi^2+\eta^2)}d\xi d\eta
<+\infty.$$
So we have
$$\aligned
&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} |\widehat{u}|d\xi d\eta\\
=&\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}
|\widehat{u}|\,[1+\xi^2+\eta^2+\xi^2(\xi^2+\eta^2)]^\frac{1}{2}
\frac{1}{[1+\xi^2+\eta^2+\xi^2(\xi^2+\eta^2)]^\frac{1}{2}}d\xi d\eta\\
\leq&\Big(\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}
|\widehat{u}|^2[1+\xi^2+\eta^2+\xi^2(\xi^2+\eta^2)]d\xi
d\eta\Big)^\frac{1}{2}\\
&\times \Big(\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}
\frac{1}{1+\xi^2+\eta^2+\xi^2(\xi^2+\eta^2)}d\xi
d\eta\Big)^\frac{1}{2}
<+\infty.
\endaligned$$
Thirdly, since
$u(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}
e^{i(x\xi+y\eta)}\widehat{u}(\xi,\eta)d\xi d\eta$,
thus we have
$$|u(x,y)-u(x_0,y_0)|
\leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}
|e^{i(x\xi+y\eta)}-e^{i(x_0\xi+y_0\eta)}|\cdot
|\widehat{u}(\xi,\eta)|d\xi d\eta.$$
Finally, we define $G(\xi,\eta;x,y;x_0,y_0)
=|e^{i(x\xi+y\eta)}-e^{i(x_0\xi+y_0\eta)}|\cdot|\widehat{u}(\xi,\eta)|$.
Obviously,
 $$G(\xi,\eta;x,y;x_0,y_0)\rightarrow 0\quad \hbox{a.e. in}\,\,\,\mathbb{R}^2
\quad \hbox{as}\,\,\,(x,y)\rightarrow (x_0,y_0)$$
In addition, $|G(\xi,\eta;x,y;x_0,y_0)|\leq 2|\widehat{u}(\xi,\eta)|
\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^2)$.
Hence the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem implies
$$|u(x,y)-u(x_0,y_0)|\rightarrow 0\quad \hbox{as}\,\,\,(x,y)\rightarrow (x_0,y_0).$$
i,e., $u\in C(\mathbb{R}^2)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{weiyixing}
Let $u^*$ be a $H^1$ weak solution of the following BVP:
\begin{equation}\label{noitazilacol}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
  Lu=0\quad \hbox{in}\quad \Omega_+,\\
  u=0\quad \hbox{on}\quad \Gamma.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Then $u^*\equiv 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Firstly, we prove $u^*\in C(\overline{\Omega}_+)\cap
C^\infty(\Omega_+)$. According to the interior regularity of
second order elliptic type equation, we know that $u^*\in
C^\infty(\overline{\Omega'}),\,\, \hbox{for
all}\,\,\Omega'\subset\subset\Omega_+$. Because of $L$ only
degenerates on $\Gamma$. Thus we only discuss the continuity of
$u^*$ in some neighborhood of $\Gamma$.

From the Lemma \ref{albertcohen}, it is easy to know that $Lu^*=0$
may be simplified as $\pounds u^*=0$ by the transform
$\Phi:\mathcal{N}_0(\Gamma)\mapsto D_{d_0}$. Define a cutoff
function $\zeta\in C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^1_+)$ as follows
$$\zeta=\zeta(y)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
  1\quad \hbox{for}\,\,\,0\leq y\leq \delta,\\
  0\quad \hbox{for}\,\,\,y\geq 2\delta.
\end{array}
\right.
\quad\quad \big(\,\hbox{for}\,\,\,\delta<\frac{d_0}{2}\,\big)$$
From $\pounds u^*=0$, it follows easily that
$(\pounds-\lambda)(\zeta u^*)=f^*$,
where $f^*=2y\zeta_yu^*_y+(y\zeta_{yy}+b\zeta_y-\lambda\zeta)u^*$.
Obviously, $\zeta u^*$ is a $H^1$ weak solution of problem
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
  (\pounds-\lambda)w=f^*\quad\hbox{in}\,\,\,D^+_{d_0}\\
  w\,\,\hbox{is a periodic function with period}\,\,2\pi\,\,\hbox{on}\,\,x,\\
  w(x,0)=w(x,d_0)=0.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Obviously, $u^*\in H^2(D^+_{d_0}\setminus
\overline{D^+_\delta})$. Direct calculation shows that $f^*\in
H^1(D^+_{d_0})$. Hence by applying Lemma \ref{heyue}, we have
$(\zeta u^*)_x\in H^1(D^+_{d_0})$. Thus Lemma \ref{qiyueershijiu}
implies $\zeta u^*\in C(\overline{D^+_{d_0}})$. Consequently,
$u^*\in C(\overline{D^+_\delta})$. Set
$\mathcal{N}^+_1(\Gamma)=\Phi^{-1}(D^+_\delta)$. Then $u^*\in
C\big(\overline{\mathcal{N}^+_1(\Gamma)}\big)$. Using the interior
regularity of elliptic equation, we deduce $u^*\in
C(\overline{\Omega}_+)\cap C^\infty(\Omega_+)$.

Next we will prove $u^*\equiv 0$. Since $u^*$ on $\Gamma=0$ and
$u^*\in C(\overline{\Omega}_+)$. for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists
a constant $\delta_0=\delta_0(\varepsilon)$ such that
$$|u^*(\xi,\eta)|<\epsilon\quad \hbox{for}\,\,\,dist\big((\xi,\eta),\Gamma\big)<\delta_0.$$
Choose simple connected domain $\Omega'\subset\subset\Omega_+$, such
that $dist(\partial\Omega',\Gamma)<\frac{\delta_0}{2}$. By the
maximum principle of elliptic equation, then $u^*$ must attains its
maximum and minimum of  $\overline{\Omega'}$ on $\partial\Omega'$,
i.e., $\max_{\overline{\Omega'}}|u^*|\leq
\max_{\partial\Omega'}|u^*|.$

Therefore,
$$\aligned
\max_{\overline{\Omega}_+} |u^*|\leq
\max\big\{\max_{\overline{\Omega'}}|u^*|,
\max_{\overline{\Omega\setminus\Omega'}}|u^*|\big\}
\leq \max\big\{\max_{\partial\Omega'}|u^*|,
\max_{\overline{\Omega\setminus\Omega'}}|u^*|\big\}
<\epsilon.
\endaligned$$
By the arbitrariness of $\epsilon$, we deduce that
$\max_{\overline{\Omega}_+} |u^*|\leq 0$.
This implies $u^*\equiv 0$.
\end{proof}
Now we  consider a family of elliptic operators
\[\Psi=\{\,L^\varepsilon\,\,\big|\,\, L^\varepsilon=
(\varphi+\varepsilon)(A^{ij}\,\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \xi_i
\partial\xi_j}+C) +B^l\,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi_l};\,\,
\varphi,A^{ij},B^l,\,\,\hbox{and}\,\,C\,\,\]
\[\hbox{satisfy}\,\,\eqref{fas},\,\eqref{ken},
\,\eqref{patri};\,\,i,j,l=1,2,\,\,0<\varepsilon\leq 1.\}.\]
\begin{lemma}\label{pinl}
Suppose that for any $L^\varepsilon\in \Psi,\Gamma\in C^{1,1}$. Let
$u\in H^1(\Omega_+)$ with $u=0$ on ${\Gamma}$, and satisfies the
estimates
\begin{equation}\label{rei}
\|u\|_{H^1(\Omega_+)}
\leq C\big[\,\|u\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}+\|L^\varepsilon u\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}\,\big],
\end{equation}
Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{tardy}
\|u\|_{H^1(\Omega_+)}
\leq C\|L^\varepsilon u\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)},
\end{equation}
where constant $C$ is independent of $u$ and $\varepsilon$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If the conclusion does not hold, then for any $n\in \mathbb{N}$,
there exist sequences $\{u_n\}$ satisfying
the assumed conditions and $\{\varepsilon_n\}$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{swift}
\|u_n\|_{H^1}\geq n\,\|L^{\varepsilon_n} u_n\|_{L^2}
\quad \hbox{and}\,\,\,\|u_n\|_{L^2}=1.
\end{equation}
By \eqref{rei}, it follows that
$$\|u_n\|_{H^1}\leq C\big(\frac{\|u_n\|_{H^1}}{n}+1\big).$$
Thus we have
\begin{equation}\label{straid}
\|u_n\|_{H^1}\leq C\quad \hbox{for}\,\,\,n\geq 2C.
\end{equation}
Therefore a subsequence $\{u_{n_k}\}$ of $\{u_n\}$ converges weakly in $H^1(\Omega_+)$
to some function $u^*\in H^1(\Omega_+)$, i.e.,
$$u_{n_k}\rightharpoonup u^*\quad \hbox{weakly in}\,\,\,H^1(\Omega_+)
\quad \hbox{as}\,\,\,k\rightarrow \infty.$$ According to the
Banach-Saks Theorem (cf. \cite{Ri}), we may choose a subsequence
of $\{u_{n_k}\}$, might as well still denote by $\{u_{n_k}\}$,
such that $\{\tilde{u}_k\}$ which is consist of the arithmetic
mean of $\{u_{n_k}\}$ as follow
$$\tilde{u}_k=\frac{1}{k}(u_{n_1}+\cdots+u_{n_k})$$
converges strongly in $H^1(\Omega_+)$ to $u^*\in H^1(\Omega_+)$,
i.e.,
$$\tilde{u}_k\rightharpoonup u^*\quad \hbox{strongly
in}\,\,\,H^1(\Omega_+)\quad \hbox{as}\,\,\,k\rightarrow \infty.$$
Obviously,
$$\tilde{u}_k=\frac{1}{k}(u_{n_1}+\cdots+u_{n_k})=0\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma.$$
By the Trace Theorem, it follows that
$u^*=0\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma$, in the sense of traces.

Since $\{\varepsilon_{n_k}\}$ is bounded, there exists a
subsequence of $\{\varepsilon_{n_k}\}$,
might as well still denote by $\{\varepsilon_{n_k}\}$, such that
$$\varepsilon_{n_k}\rightarrow \varepsilon_0\quad \hbox{as}\,\,\,k\rightarrow
\infty.$$

In addition, by the Sobolev embedding theorem,
$$u_{n_k}\rightarrow u^*\quad \hbox{strongly in}\,\,\,L^2(\Omega_+)
\quad \hbox{as}\,\,\,k\rightarrow \infty.$$ So we have
$$L^{\varepsilon_{n_k}} u_{n_k}\rightarrow L^{\varepsilon_0} u^*
\quad \hbox{as}\,\,\,k\rightarrow \infty.$$ in the sense of
distribution. Together \eqref{swift} with \eqref{straid}, we deduce
$$\|L^{\varepsilon_{n_k}} u_{n_k}\|_{L^2}\leq \frac{C}{n_k},$$
Letting $k\rightarrow \infty$, we conclude $\|L^{\varepsilon_0}
u^*\|_{L^2}=0$. Hence in the sense of distribution, we obtain
$L^{\varepsilon_0} u^*=0$.

Since $u^*=0\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma$ and $L^{\varepsilon_0}
u^*=0$, thus $u^*$ is a $H^1$ weak solution of the following BVP:
\begin{equation}\label{iveid}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
  L^{\varepsilon_0} u=0\quad \hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega_+,\\
  u=0,\quad \hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Then we have $u^*\equiv 0$.

We will respectively prove $u^*\equiv 0$ in the following two cases:

1)\,\,$\varepsilon_0>0$, then by the Maximal Principle of second
order elliptic type equation, we know that the BVP \eqref{iveid}
only has null solution. So, $u^*=0$.

2)\,\,$\varepsilon_0=0$, i.e., $u^*$ is a $H^1$ weak solution of
the BVP \eqref{noitazilacol}. Then  Lemma \ref{weiyixing} implies
$u^*\equiv 0$.

On the other hand,
$$1=\|u_{n_k}\|_{L^2}\rightarrow \|u^*\|_{L^2}\quad \hbox{as}\,\,\,k\rightarrow\infty,$$
yields $\|u^*\|_{L^2}=1$.
This contradicts $u^*=0$.
The proof for \eqref{tardy} is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}[Global $H^1$ estimates]\label{ritein}
Under the conditions of Proposition \ref{skaut}. Then the solution
$u^\varepsilon$ of the BVP \eqref{scienze}, has the following global
estimates
\begin{equation}\label{fikst}
\|u^\varepsilon\|_{H^1(\Omega_+)}
\leq C\|F\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)},
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a constant depending only on
$\|\varphi\|_{C^3(\overline{\Omega}_+)},\|A^{ij}\|_{C^2(\overline{\Omega}_+)}$,
$\|B^l\|_{C^1(\overline{\Omega}_+)}$\quad $(i,j,l=1,2)$ and
$\|C\|_{C^1(\overline{\Omega}_+)}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{skeil} and Lemma \ref{pinl}, we immediately
obtain
\begin{equation}\label{contract}
\|u^\varepsilon\|_{H^1(\Omega_+)}
\leq C\|F^\varepsilon\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}.
\end{equation}
Inequalities \eqref{bluee} and \eqref{contract} yield
\eqref{fikst}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
There exist a subsequence
$\{u^{\varepsilon'}\}\subset\{u^\varepsilon\}$ of solution of the
BVP \eqref{market}, such that

$(i)$\,\,\,$u^{\varepsilon'}\rightharpoonup u$\,\,\,weakly
in\,\,\,$H^1(\Omega_+)$, as $\varepsilon'\rightarrow0$;

$(ii)$\,\,\,$u^{\varepsilon'}\rightarrow u$\,\,\,strongly
in\,\,\,$L^2(\Omega_+)$, as $\varepsilon'\rightarrow0$;

Furthermore,

$(iii)$\,\,\,we have the estimates
\begin{equation}\label{symbol}
\|u\|_{H^1(\Omega_+)}\leq C\|F\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)},
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a constant;

$(iv)$\,\,\,$u=0$ on $\Gamma$ in the sense of traces, denoted by
$\gamma(u)=0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
 Together
\eqref{fikst} with the fact $H^1(\Omega_+)\hookrightarrow
L^2(\Omega_+)$ compactly, it follows the conclusions of $(i)$,
$(ii)$ and $(iii)$.

In addition, from $u^\varepsilon=0$ on $\Gamma$, the conclusion of
$(i)$, and the fact $\gamma:H^1(\Omega_+)\hookrightarrow
L^2(\Gamma)$ is compact map, it follows easily the conclusions of
$(iv)$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Some properties of solutions of the BVP \eqref{scienze}}
\begin{lemma}\label{shigerenwu}
$\|(\varphi+\varepsilon)u^\varepsilon\|_{H^2(\Omega_+)}
\leq C\|F\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the following BVP:
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
A^{ij}[(\varphi+\varepsilon)u^\varepsilon]_{\xi_i\xi_j}
=F^\varepsilon+(2A^{ij}\varphi_{\xi_i}-B^j)u_{\xi_j}^\varepsilon
-cu^\varepsilon\quad\hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega_+,\\[6pt]
(\varphi+\varepsilon)u^\varepsilon=0\quad\hbox{on}\,\,\,\Gamma.
\end{array}
\right.$$ In the sequel, observe that $\|F^\varepsilon
+(2A^{ij}\varphi_{\xi_i}-B^j)u_{\xi_j}^\varepsilon
-cu^\varepsilon\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}\leq C\|F\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}$,
Thus, by employing the regularity theory of second order elliptic
type equation, we obtain the claim.
\end{proof}
Without loss of generality, we may assume $d_0=1$. So
$D_{d_0}^+=D_1^+=[-\pi,\pi]\times[0,1]$. $\eta\in
\mathrm{C}^{\infty}([0,1])$, is defined by
$$\eta=\eta(y)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}
1\quad\hbox{for}\,\,\,0\leq y\leq\frac{1}{2}, \\
0\quad\hbox{for}\,\,\,\frac{2}{3}\leq y\leq 1,
\end{array}\right.
\quad\quad\hbox{and}\quad 0\leq\eta\leq 1.$$
\begin{lemma}\label{fern}
The solution $u^\varepsilon$ of $\pounds^\varepsilon
u=f^\varepsilon$ with $u(x,0)=0$, satisfies that
$$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}
\|\varepsilon u^\varepsilon_y(\cdot,0)\|_{L^2([-\pi,\pi])}=0.$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\pounds^\varepsilon u^\varepsilon=f^\varepsilon$
implies
$$(y+\varepsilon)u^\varepsilon_{yy}
=f^\varepsilon -\omega(y+\varepsilon)u^\varepsilon_{xx}
-au^\varepsilon_x -bu^\varepsilon_y +cu^\varepsilon.$$ Therefore, we
obtain easily
\[(y+\varepsilon)(\eta u^\varepsilon_y)_y
=(y+\varepsilon)\eta_yu^\varepsilon_y
+\eta(y+\varepsilon)u^\varepsilon_{yy}=h^\varepsilon,\] where
$h^\varepsilon:=\eta[f^\varepsilon
-\omega\eta(y+\varepsilon)u^\varepsilon_{xx} -a\eta
u^\varepsilon_x-c\eta u^\varepsilon] +[(y+\varepsilon)\eta_y-\eta
b]u^\varepsilon_y$. So
$$(\eta u^\varepsilon_y)_y=\frac{1}{y+\varepsilon}h^\varepsilon.$$
It follows that
$$\eta u^\varepsilon_y
=-\int_y^1\frac{1}{\tau+\varepsilon}h^\varepsilon(x,\tau)d\tau$$
and
$$\eta(y+\varepsilon)u^\varepsilon_y
=-(y+\varepsilon)\int_y^1\frac{1}{\tau+\varepsilon}h^\varepsilon(x,\tau)d\tau$$
From this inequality we get
$$\aligned
\|\eta(y+\varepsilon)u^\varepsilon_y\|^2_{L^2([-\pi,\pi])}
&=\int_\pi^\pi(y+\varepsilon)^2
\big(\int_y^1\frac{1}{\tau+\varepsilon}h^\varepsilon(x,\tau)d\tau\big)^2 dx\\
&\leq\int_\pi^\pi(y+\varepsilon)^2
\big(\int_y^1\frac{1}{(\tau+\varepsilon)^2}d\tau\big)
\big(\int_y^1|h^\varepsilon(x,\tau)|^2d\tau\big) dx\\
&=(y+\varepsilon)^2
\big(\frac{1}{y+\varepsilon}-\frac{1}{1+\varepsilon}\big)
\int_\pi^\pi\int_y^1|h^\varepsilon(x,\tau)|^2d\tau dx\\
&\leq(y+\varepsilon)
\int_\pi^\pi\int_y^1|h^\varepsilon(x,\tau)|^2d\tau dx\\
&\leq(y+\varepsilon)\|h^\varepsilon\|_{L^2(D_1^+)}^2
\endaligned$$
On the other hand, by a direct calculation and together
\eqref{fikst} with Lemma \ref{shigerenwu}, we get
$$\|h^\varepsilon\|_{L^2(D_1^+)} \leq C\|F\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}.$$
From the previous two results we deduce
$$\|\eta(y+\varepsilon)u^\varepsilon_y\|_{L^2([-\pi,\pi])}
\leq C(y+\varepsilon)^\frac{1}{2}\|F\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}.$$ In
particular, for $y=0$, with $\eta(0)=1$, the above inequality yields
$$\|\varepsilon u^\varepsilon_y(\cdot,0)\|_{L^2([-\pi,\pi])}
\leq C\varepsilon^\frac{1}{2}\|F\|_{L^2(\Omega_+)}
\rightarrow 0,\,\, \hbox{as}\,\,\,\varepsilon\rightarrow 0.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{boundaryproperty}
The solution $u^\varepsilon$ of the BVP \eqref{scienze} satisfies
that
$$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}
\|\varepsilon u^\varepsilon_{\xi_i}\|_{L^2(\Gamma)}=0.$$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The solution $u^\varepsilon$ of the equation $\pounds^\varepsilon
u=f^\varepsilon$ with $u(x,0)=0$, satisfies that
$u^\varepsilon_x=0$. So it is apparent that $\|\varepsilon
u^\varepsilon_x(\cdot,0)\|_{L^2([-\pi,\pi])}=0.$ By Lemma \ref
{fern} and the transformation of variable, we easily prove the
conclusion of this Corollary.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{kuhnel}
Under the same condition, we may estimate the solution of the BVP
\eqref{radkeic} in the case $\Omega_-$. By the similar procedure and
argument, it will lead to the completely same results as the case
$\Omega_+$. But we do not state these corresponding results, as well
as omit the proof of these results at here.
\end{remark}

\section{The well-posedness of the BVP \eqref{plenum}.}
In this section, we will discuss the well-posedness of BVP
\eqref{mesi}, i.e. to prove Theorem \ref{lanoitanretni}. For this
purpose, we shall also need the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}[see \cite{Sh}]\label{pulse}
Suppose that $u_+\in H^1(\Omega_+)\,,\,\,u_-\in H^1(\Omega_-)$\,,
and their traces on $\Gamma$ is equal, i.e. $\gamma u_+=\gamma
u_-$\,. A function $u\in L^2(\Omega)$ is defined by
$$u=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u_+\quad\hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega_+, \\
u_-\quad\hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega_-.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Then
$u\in H^1(\Omega).$
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}\label{wudinghe}
Under the conditions of Theorem \ref{lanoitanretni}. Then there
exists a unique $H^1$ weak solution $u$ of the BVP \eqref{plenum} in
domain $\overline{\Omega}$. And $u$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{lingzhou}
\|u\|_{H^1(\Omega)}\leq C\,\|F\|_{L^2(\Omega)},
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a constant depending only on $\Gamma$,
$\|\varphi\|_{C^3(\overline{\Omega})}$,
$\|A^{ij}\|_{C^2(\overline{\Omega})}$,
$\|B^l\|_{C^1(\overline{\Omega})}$ $(i,j,l=1,2)$ and
$\|C\|_{C^1(\overline{\Omega})}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $u^{\varepsilon'}$ and $u^{(-\varepsilon')}$ are the
solutions of the BVP \eqref{scienze} and  \eqref{oleinik}
respectively. For the convenience, we use $\overline{u}$ and
$\underline{u}$ to express respectively the limits of
$u^{\varepsilon'}$ and $u^{(-\varepsilon')}$, i.e.

(i)\,\,\,$u^{\varepsilon'}\rightharpoonup \overline{u}$\,\,\,
weakly in\,\,\,$H^1(\Omega_+)$,
as $\varepsilon'\rightarrow0$;

(ii)\,\,\,$u^{(-\varepsilon')}\rightharpoonup \underline{u}$\,\,\,
weakly in\,\,\,$H^1(\Omega_+)$,
as $\varepsilon'\rightarrow0$.

A function $u\in L^2(\Omega)$ is defined by
$$u=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
  \overline{u}\quad\hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega_+, \\
  \underline{u}\quad\hbox{in}\,\,\,\Omega_-.
\end{array}
\right.$$
By Theorem \ref{ritein}, Remark \ref{kuhnel}, Lemma \ref{pulse},
and $\gamma(\overline{u})=\gamma(\underline{u})=\underline{u}\big|_{\partial\Omega}=0$,
we obtain that $u\in H^1(\Omega)$, and $u=0$\quad on\,\,$\Gamma\cup\Omega$,
in the sense of traces.

On the other hand, from $L^\varepsilon u^\varepsilon=F^\varepsilon$
and $L^{(-\varepsilon)} u^{(-\varepsilon)}=F^\varepsilon$,
we get
$$(L^\varepsilon u^\varepsilon,v)=(F^\varepsilon,v),
\quad \hbox{for all}\quad v\in C_0^1(\Omega),$$
and
$$(L^{(-\varepsilon)} u^{(-\varepsilon)},v)=(F^\varepsilon,v),
\quad \hbox{for all}\quad v\in C_0^1(\Omega).$$ Thus, by Green
formula, $u^\varepsilon=0$\,\,\,on\,\,\,$\Gamma$, and
$u^{(-\varepsilon)}=0$\,\,\,on\,\,\,$\Gamma\cup\partial\Omega$, we
obtain that the following identities
$$\int_{\Omega_+} [-u^\varepsilon_{\xi_i}(A^{ij}\varphi v)_{\xi_j}
+(\varphi Cu^\varepsilon+B^lu^\varepsilon_{\xi_l})v]d\xi
-\int_\Gamma \varepsilon u^\varepsilon_{\xi_i}A^{ij}vn_jds
=\int_{\Omega_+}Fvd\xi$$ and
$$\int_{\Omega_-} [-u^{(-\varepsilon)}_{\xi_i}(A^{ij}\varphi v)_{\xi_j}
+(\varphi Cu^{(-\varepsilon)}+B^lu^{(-\varepsilon)}_{\xi_l})v]d\xi
-\int_\Gamma \varepsilon u^{(-\varepsilon)}_{\xi_i}A^{ij}vn_jds
=\int_{\Omega_-}Fvd\xi$$ hold for all $v\in C_0^1(\Omega)$, where
$$\vec{n}=
(n_1,n_2)= (\frac{\varphi_{\xi_1}}{|\nabla\varphi|},
\frac{\varphi_{\xi_2}}{|\nabla\varphi|})\big|_{\Gamma}\neq 0$$ is
the unit inward normal direction of $\partial\Omega_+$, Meanwhile
it is also the unit outward normal direction of
$\partial\Omega_-$.

Letting $\varepsilon$ tends to 0,
by the above (i), (ii), Corollary \ref{boundaryproperty} and Remark \ref{kuhnel},
we get
$$\int_{\Omega_+} [-\overline{u}_{\xi_i}(A^{ij}\varphi v)_{\xi_j}
+\varphi C\overline{u} v
+B^l\overline{u}_{\xi_l}v]d\xi
=\int_{\Omega_+}Fvd\xi, \quad \hbox{for all}\,\,v\in C_0^1(\Omega);$$
and
$$\int_{\Omega_-} [-\underline{u}_{\xi_i}(A^{ij}\varphi v)_{\xi_j}
+\varphi C\underline{u} v
+B^l\underline{u}_{\xi_l}v]d\xi
=\int_{\Omega_-}Fvd\xi, \quad \hbox{for all}\,\,v\in C_0^1(\Omega).$$

Consequently, $u$ satisfies that
$$\int_\Omega [-u_{\xi_i}(A^{ij}\varphi v)_{\xi_j}
+\varphi Cu v +B^lu_{\xi_l}v]d\xi =\int_\Omega Fvd\xi \quad
\hbox{for all}\,\,v\in C_0^1(\Omega).$$ Since $C_0^1(\Omega)$ is
dense in $H_0^1(\Omega)$. So, we have thus the existence of $H^1$
weak solution of the BVP \eqref{plenum} on $\Omega$ in a very simple
manner. In addition, \eqref{lingzhou} will be followed by applying
\eqref{symbol} and Remark \ref{kuhnel}.

Finally, together Lemma \ref{weiyixing} with Remark \ref{kuhnel}, we
obtain easily the uniqueness of $H^1$ solution to the BVP
\eqref{plenum} in $\Omega$.
\end{proof}
According to subsection 2.1, we see easily that Theorem
\ref{lanoitanretni} is a trivial Corollary of Theorem
\ref{wudinghe}. So far, we finish the proof for the main result of
this paper.

\subsection*{Acknowledgment}
The results of this paper were obtained during author's Ph.D.
studies at Fudan University and are also contained in his
thesis~\cite{YueHe} with the similar title. The author wishes take
this opportunity to express deep gratitude to his supervisor
Professor JiaXing Hong whose continuous guidance, support, interest
and encourage were crucial for the successful completion of the
present work. The author also thanks Professor Qing Han for his nice
suggestion and enthusiastic help.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv