## HOMEOMORPHIC SOBOLEV EXTENSIONS OF PARAMETRIZATIONS OF JORDAN CURVES

ONDR ˇ J BOUCHALA, JARMO J ¨ ¨ SKEL ¨ INEN, PEKKA KOSKELA, HAIQING XU, E AA A AND XILIN ZHOU

Abstract. Each homeomorphic parametrization of a Jordan curve via the unit circle extends to a homeomorphism of the entire plane. It is a natural question to ask if such a homeomorphism can be chosen so as to have some Sobolev regularity.

This prompts the simplified question: for a homeomorphic embedding of the unit circle into the plane, when can we find a homeomorphism from the unit disk that has the same boundary values and integrable first-order distributional derivatives?

We give the optimal geometric criterion for the interior Jordan domain so that there exists a Sobolev homeomorphic extension for any homeomorphic parametrization of the Jordan curve.

The problem is partially motivated by trying to understand which boundary values can correspond to deformations of finite energy.

## 1. Introduction

If ϕ : ∂ D → C is a (homeomorphic) embedding, then the Jordan curve ϕ ∂ ( D ) bounds an interior Jordan domain Ω, and we know that ϕ extends to a homeomorphism from D to Ω, by the Jordan-Schoenflies theorem. The extension given by this theorem does not need to have any regularity even when both ϕ and ∂ Ω are regular.

Throughout this note we will denote by Ω ⊂ C the bounded interior Jordan domain corresponding to the Jordan curve ϕ ∂ ( D ). We study the Sobolev regularity of extensions of parametrizations of ϕ ∂ ( D ) and we give a geometric criterion which guarantees that an arbitrary boundary homeomorphism ϕ : ∂ D → ∂ Ω admits a homeomorphic extension from D to Ω in the Sobolev class W 1 ,p ( D C , ) (Theorem 1.2). Further, our criterion is optimal (Theorem 1.3).

To begin with a classical extension, recall that, if Ω is convex, then the complexvalued Poisson extension of the boundary homeomorphism ϕ is a diffeomorphism, by the classical Rad´ o-Kneser-Choquet theorem. Moreover, one knows precisely when a harmonic function with p -integrable partial derivatives, 1 &lt; p ≤ 2 , can be found: one simply checks if the boundary value function belongs to the trace space of the Sobolev space W 1 ,p ( D C , ).

Note though, that even when the image Jordan curve is the unit circle, one can find a boundary homeomorphism ϕ : ∂ D → ∂ D for which one cannot obtain a

2020 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 46E35 secondary: 30C62, 58E20. Key words and phrases. Sobolev homeomorphism, Sobolev extension, hyperbolic metric.

This research was partially supported by the Finnish centre of excellence in Randomness and Structures of the Academy of Finland, funding decision number: 346305. H. Xu was partially supported by the Young Scientist Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (No. 2021YFA1002200), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 12101362 and No. 12201349), and the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (No. ZR2022YQ01 and No. ZR2021QA032).

homeomorphic W 1 2 , -extension, as was shown by Verchota [15]. This means that we have to deal with W 1 ,p -extensions, where 1 ≤ p &lt; 2.

Actually, it has turned out that, for an arbitrary Jordan domain Ω, one cannot necessarily even have an extension in the class W 1 1 , ( D C , ), see Zhang [16].

Theorem 1.1. [16, Theorem 1.2] There is a homeomorphic parametrization ϕ : ∂ D → ∂ Ω of a Jordan curve that does not admit a homeomorphic W 1 1 , -extension.

In the above theorem ϕ can actually be chosen to be the boundary value of a an exterior conformal map. This calls for a geometric condition of the Jordan domain Ω that guarantees the existence of a homeomorphic W 1 ,p -extension. We give one in terms of the hyperbolic distance h Ω of the Jordan domain Ω.

Theorem 1.2. Let Ω be a Jordan domain, z 0 ∈ Ω and q ∈ (1 , ∞ ) . Let us assume that

$$\int _ { \Omega } ( h _ { \Omega } ( z, z _ { 0 } ) ) ^ { q } \, \mathrm d z < \infty. \quad \ \ \ ( 1. 1 ) \\ \dots \quad \ \dots \quad \ \infty \quad \ \varepsilon \quad \ \varepsilon \quad \ \dots \quad \ \.$$

Then each homeomorphic parametrization ϕ : ∂ D → ∂ Ω of our Jordan curve has a homeomorphic extension in the class W 1 ,p ( D C , ) for all p ∈ [1 , 2) .

Thus we have found a sufficient geometric condition on Ω that guarantees the optimal extendability. Our criterion (1.1) is an intrinsic geometric criterion, since the hyperbolic distance h Ω is comparable, by the Koebe distortion theorem, to the quasihyperbolic distance that is given by a path metric with the density d z, ∂ ( Ω) -1 .

Our result is actually optimal. Indeed, if q = 1, we do not necessarily even have a W 1 1 , -extension. This is shown in the next theorem.

Theorem 1.3. There is a homeomorphic parametrization ϕ : ∂ D → ∂ Ω of a Jordan curve so that ϕ does not have a homeomorphic W 1 1 , -extension, even though

$$\int _ { \Omega } h _ { \Omega } ( z, z _ { 0 } ) \ d z < \infty,$$

for some z 0 ∈ Ω .

The regularity of the extensions in Theorem 1.3 fails badly. Namely, we show that there is a set C of positive length on ∂ D such that, for every homeomorphic extension Φ: D → Ω and any curve γ z connecting an interior point of the unit disk to a point z in C, we have that the Euclidean length of the image curve Φ( γ z ) is infinite.

Previous assumptions on the Jordan domain Ω that give positive results for the homeomorphic W 1 ,p -extendability, for p ∈ [1 , 2), include, for instance, the rectifiability of the Jordan curve (Koski and Onninen [9]) and the assumption that Ω is a so-called John disk (Koskela, Koski and Onninen [8]). In the latter work, it was speculated that, instead of a John condition, already uniform H¨lder continuity o of the Riemann mapping should suffice. This expectation is confirmed by Theorem 1.2: under a uniform H¨lder continuity assumption, o h Ω ( · , z 0 ) is integrable to any power and even exponentially integrable; in fact even the Minkowski dimension of the boundary ∂ Ω is strictly smaller than two under this assumption [7, 11, 14]. Our integrability assumption (1.1) does not forbid the boundary to have full dimension two.

The study of Sobolev homeomorphic extensions is in the heart of variational methods in the Geometric Function Theory [2, 5, 6, 12] and the Nonlinear Elasticity [1, 3, 4]. In the Nonlinear Elasticity, the question of a Sobolev homeomorphic extension is motivated by the boundary value problems for elastic deformations. The deformation is a minimizer, where one takes the infimum of a given elastic energy functional among Sobolev homeomorphisms. Hence one wishes to know

when the competing class of admissible homeomorphisms is nonempty, i.e., when there is a W 1 ,p -extension. Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 give the optimal geometric criterion for target shapes that can correspond to deformations of finite energy.

## 2. Sobolev homeomorphic extension, Theorem 1.2

To define our homeomorphic extension we will use the general extension theorem of Koski and Onninen, [10, Theorem 3.1]. To this end, we recall the definition of a dyadic family of closed arcs in ∂ D . We denote N := { 0 1 2 , , , . . . } and N + := N \{ } 0 .

Definition 2.1. Let n N . A family of closed arcs

$$I \coloneqq \{ I _ { n, j } \subset \partial \mathbb { D } \colon n \geq n _ { 0 }, \ j = 1, 2, 3, \dots, 2 ^ { n } \} \\.. \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \end{array}$$

$$. \, & \text{Let } n _ { 0 } \in \mathbb { N } ^ { + }. \ A \, \text{family of closed arcs} \\ & I \coloneqq \{ I _ { n. i } \subset \partial \mathbb { D } \colon n \geq n _ { 0 }, \ j = 1, 2, 3, \dots, 2 ^ { n } \}$$

is called dyadic, if for every n ≥ n 0 , arcs I n,j , j = 1 2 3 , , , . . . , 2 n , are

- (i) of equal length,
- (ii) pairwise disjoint apart from their endpoints,
- (iii) covering ∂ D ,

and, for each arc I n,j there are two arcs in I of half the length of I n,j and so that their union is exactly I n,j , these arcs are called the children of I n,j and I n,j is their parent.

Theorem 2.2. [10, Theorem 3.1] Suppose that Ω is a Jordan domain and ϕ : ∂ D → ∂ Ω is a boundary homeomorphism. Suppose that for some n 0 ∈ N + there is a dyadic family I = { I n,j } of closed arcs in ∂ D such that the following hold:

$$\sum _ { n = n _ { 0 } } ^ { \infty } 2 ^ { ( p - 2 ) n } \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 ^ { n } } ( \ell ( \Gamma _ { n, j } ) ) ^ { p } < \infty & & ( 2. 1 ) \\ \ell \text{ stands for the Euclidean length.}$$

- 1. For each I n,j with n ≥ n 0 there exists a crosscut Γ n,j (i.e., a curve in Ω ) connecting the endpoints of the boundary arc ϕ I ( n,j ) ⊂ ∂ Ω and such that the estimate

holds. Here /lscript stands for the Euclidean length.

- 2. The crosscuts Γ n,j for n ≥ n 0 are all pairwise disjoint apart from their endpoints at the boundary, where n and j are allowed to range over all their possible values.

Then ϕ admits a homeomorphic extension from D to Ω in the class W 1 ,p ( D C , ) .

As we need to sum up lengths of crosscuts Γ n,j in (2.1), the key is to have a good upper bound for the tail of the series, i.e., for croscuts corresponding 'short' dyadic intervals. We will choose as our crosscuts conformal images of certain hyperbolic geodesics. For the approximation we use, for instance, the following Koebe distortion theorem (see, e.g., [2, Theorem 2.10.8]).

Theorem 2.3. Suppose that f : D → f ( D ) is a conformal map. Then for all z, w ∈ D we have

$$e ^ { - 3 h _ { \mathbb { D } } ( z, w ) } \leq \frac { | f ^ { \prime } ( z ) | } { | f ^ { \prime } ( w ) | } \leq e ^ { 3 h _ { \mathbb { D } } ( z, w ) }. \\ \nu \text{ lommo active to mood in your bound for }.$$

The following key lemma gives the needed upper bound for a crosscut.

Lemma 2.4. Suppose that Ω is a Jordan domain and f : D → Ω is a homeomorphism that is conformal on D . Let us assume, further, that q ∈ (1 , ∞ ) and

$$\int _ { \Omega } \left ( h _ { \Omega } ( z, f ( 0 ) ) \right ) ^ { q } \, \mathrm d z < \infty.$$

Let ξ 1 , ξ 2 ∈ ∂ D be such that | ξ 1 -ξ 2 | ≤ 4 π 1+ π 2 ≈ 1 156 . , γ a hyperbolic geodesic connecting ξ 1 and ξ 2 , and ˜ γ the shorter-length part of the boundary connecting ξ 1

and ξ 2 . Then we have, for the crosscut Γ = f ( γ ) joining f ( ξ 1 ) and f ( ξ 2 ) , that

$$\dots \Phi _ { \left ( \ell ( \Gamma ) \right ) ^ { 2 } } & \leq c ( q ) \int _ { \Delta } \left ( h _ { \Omega } ( z, f ( 0 ) ) \right ) ^ { q } \, \mathrm d z, \\ \intertext { g i o n b o u n d e d } \, b y \, \Gamma \ a n d \ f ( \widetilde { \gamma } ).$$

where ∆ is the region bounded by Γ and f ( ˜ γ ) . Proof. For a couple of hyperbolic distance estimates we first map the unit disk to the upper half plane via a M¨bius transformation. o

Without loss of generality we may assume that our points of the unit circle are such that ξ 1 = ξ 2 , Re ξ 1 &gt; 0 and Im ξ 1 &gt; 0. We consider the M¨bius transformation o T from the unit disk to the upper half plane H + ,

$$T ( z ) = a \, \frac { 1 - z } { 1 + z },$$

where a = 1+ ξ 1 1 -ξ 1 = i Im ξ 1 1 -Re ξ 1 . Then T ξ ( 1 ) = 1 = -T ξ ( 2 ), T (1) = 0 and T ( -1) = ∞ . It is clear that T ( D ) = H + and that T maps the hyperbolic geodesic γ connecting ξ 1 and ξ 2 to the upper half of the unit circle, i.e., ∂ D ∩ H + .

Moreover, we have Re T (0) = 0. By our assumption, we have that | Im ξ 1 -Im ξ 2 | = | ξ 1 -ξ 2 | ≤ 4 π 1+ π 2 and thus, further, Im ξ 1 ≤ 2 π 1+ π 2 . Hence

$$\Lambda \, \cdots \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \ \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \  \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \   \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad\, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad\quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \,\quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \. \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \	 \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \cdots \, \quad \quad \quad$$

$$n \, \cdot \, - \, \frac { 1 } { 2 ^ { m + 1 } } \, \alpha \, \alpha _ { m } \, \cdot \, - \, \alpha \, \alpha _ { m } \, \infty \\ A _ { m } \, \coloneqq \, & \left \{ r e ^ { i \theta } \, \colon r \in ( R _ { m }, 1 ) \, \text{and} \, \theta \in ( \theta _ { m + 1 }, \theta _ { m } ) \right \}. \\ \intertext { a n y m } \, \in \, \mathbb { N } ^ { + } \, \text{and} \, \omega \, \in \, A _ { m }, \, \text{ we have that } \text{ Im } z \, \geq \, R _ { m } \sin ( \theta _ { m + } \\ \text{and} \, \text{then}$$

Our goal is to approximate the length of the crosscut Γ = f ( γ ) = f ◦ T -1 ( ∂ D ∩ H + ). To this end, we divide ∂ D ∩ H + into smaller arcs C m and approximate lengths with the help of the Koebe distortion theorem. Given m ∈ N + we define θ m := π 2 m and we set C m := { e iθ : θ ∈ ( θ m +1 , θ m ) } . Further, for approximating purposes we define R m := 1 -1 2 m +1 and z m := e iθ m and let

Then, for any m ∈ N + and ω ∈ A m , we have that Im z ≥ R m sin( θ m +1 ), when z ∈ [ ω, z m ], and thus

$$z \in \left | \omega, z _ { m } \right |, \text{ and thus} \\ h _ { \mathbb { H } ^ { + } } ( \omega, z _ { m } ) & \leq \int _ { \left [ \omega, z _ { m } \right ] } \frac { 1 } { \text{Im} \, z } \left | \text{d} z \right | \\ & \leq \frac { ( \theta _ { m } - \theta _ { m + 1 } ) + ( 1 - R _ { m } ) } { R _ { m } \sin \theta _ { m + 1 } } = \frac { \theta _ { m + 1 } + 2 ^ { - m - 1 } } { ( 1 - 2 ^ { - m - 1 } ) \sin \theta _ { m + 1 } } \quad \text{(2.3)} \\ & \leq \frac { 2 \theta _ { 2 } } { \sin \theta _ { 2 } } = \frac { \sqrt { 2 } } { 2 } \pi. \\ \text{To deal with angles between $\frac{\pi}{2}$ and $\pi$, we define $A_{-m} \colon = \{z \in \mathbb { D } \colon - \overline{z} \in A_{m} \}, z_{-m} \colon =}$$

To deal with angles between π 2 and π , we define A -m := { z ∈ D : -z ∈ A m } , z -m := -z m and C -m = { z : -z ∈ C m } for any m ∈ N + . Thus, (2.3) holds true for all m ∈ Z \{ } 0 . Note that { C m : m ∈ Z \{ }} 0 covers ∂ D ∩ H + except for the countable set { z m : m ∈ Z \ { 0 }} .

$$h _ { \mathbb { H } ^ { + } } ( \omega, T ( 0 ) ) \geq \int _ { [ \text{Im} \, \omega, \text{Im} \, T ( 0 ) ] } \frac { 1 } { \text{Im} \, z } \, | d z | = \log \frac { \text{Im} \, T ( 0 ) } { \text{Im} \, \omega } \geq \log \frac { \text{Im} \, T ( 0 ) } { \text{sin} \, \theta _ { | m | } }. \\ \intertext { r } \quad \cdot \ \, \omega \quad - \, \omega \, \omega \quad \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \cdot \ \, \end{cases}$$

By direct computation, we conclude that for any m ∈ Z \ { 0 } and ω ∈ A m

Because sin θ | m | ∈ (0 , θ | m | ) for any m ∈ Z \ { 0 } , by (2.2) we have

$$\iota \nu _ { | m | } \in \{ \mathcal { V }, \nu _ { | m | } \, \infty \, \text{any} \, m \in \mathcal { A } \, \vee \, \{ \mathcal { V } \, \mathcal { J }, \, \mathcal { Y } \, \{ \mathcal { A } \, \mathcal { J } \, \text{we have} } \\ h _ { \mathbb { H } ^ { + } } ( \omega, T ( 0 ) ) & \geq \log \left ( \frac { \pi } { \theta _ { | m | } } \right ) \geq | m | \log 2. & & ( 2. 4 ) \\. \ e \ e \ e T - 1 \ t h. \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ a \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ o \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ u \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ E e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e.$$

Let g := f ◦ T -1 , then g : H + → Ω is a conformal homeomorphism. Let m ∈ Z \ { 0 } and ω ∈ A m . We will use the Koebe distortion theorem 2.3 for g . First the

theorem implies, for ν = T -1 ( ω ) and z = T -1 ( z m

$$e ^ { - 3 h _ { \mathbb { D } } ( \nu, z ) } \leq \frac { | f ^ { \prime } ( \nu ) | } { | f ^ { \prime } ( z ) | } \leq e ^ { 3 h _ { \mathbb { D } } ( \nu, z ) }.$$

As the hyperbolic metric is invariant under a conformal map, we change the hyperbolic metric from D to H + by our M¨ obius transformation T and we have

$$& \i d \ z = T ^ { - 1 } ( z _ { m } ), \\ & \leq \frac { | f ^ { \prime } ( \nu ) | } { | f ^ { \prime } ( z ) | } \leq e ^ { 3 h _ { \mathbb { D } } ( \nu, z ) }. \\ & \i t \, \text{under a conformal map}$$

Note

$$e ^ { - 3 h _ { \mathbb { H } } + ( T ( \nu ), T ( z ) ) } \leq \frac { | f ^ { \prime } ( \nu ) | } { | f ^ { \prime } ( z ) | } \leq e ^ { 3 h _ { \mathbb { H } } + ( T ( \nu ), T ( z ) ) }.$$

$$\frac { | f ^ { \prime } ( \nu ) | } { | f ^ { \prime } ( z ) | } = \frac { | g ^ { \prime } ( \omega ) | } { | g ^ { \prime } ( z _ { m } ) | } \frac { | ( T ^ { - 1 } ) ^ { \prime } ( z _ { m } ) | } { | ( T ^ { - 1 } ) ^ { \prime } ( \omega ) | } = \frac { | g ^ { \prime } ( \omega ) | } { | g ^ { \prime } ( z _ { m } ) | } \frac { | \omega + a | ^ { 2 } } { | z _ { m } + a | ^ { 2 } } \\ \text{call that } a \text{ is a purely imaginary number and } \omega \in A _ { m }. \text{ Hence,}$$

and recall that a is a purely imaginary number and ω ∈ A m . Hence, and, by triangle inequality,

$$\ell _ { \begin{array} { c } \lambda \\ R _ { | m | } \end{array} } \frac { \lambda _ { \begin{array} { c } R _ { | m | } \end{array} } } { | R _ { | m | } e ^ { i \theta _ { | m | + 1 } } + a | } } < 1,$$

$$& \text{and, by triangle inequality,} \\ & | e ^ { i \theta _ { | m | } } + a | \leq | R _ { | m | } e ^ { i \theta _ { | m | + 1 } } + a | + ( 1 - R _ { | m | } ) + ( \theta _ { | m | } - \theta _ { | m | + 1 } ) \\ & \quad = \frac { | R _ { | m | } e ^ { i \theta _ { | m | + 1 } } + a | } { R _ { | m | } } \left [ R _ { | m | } + ( 1 - R _ { | m | } + \theta _ { | m | + 1 } ) \frac { R _ { | m | } } { | R _ { | m | } e ^ { i \theta _ { | m | + 1 } } + a | } \right ] \\ & \quad \leq | R _ { | m | } e ^ { i \theta _ { | m | + 1 } } + a | \frac { 1 + \theta _ { | m | + 1 } } { R _ { | m | } }. \\ & \text{Then we can conclude that} \quad \ \.$$

Then we can conclude that

$$\frac { 1 } { 6 } < \frac { R _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } } { ( 1 + \theta _ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } } \leq \frac { R _ { | m | } ^ { 2 } } { ( 1 + \theta _ { | m | + 1 } ) ^ { 2 } } \leq \frac { | R _ { | m | } e ^ { i \theta _ { | m | + 1 } } + a | ^ { 2 } } { | e ^ { i \theta _ { | m | } } + a | ^ { 2 } } \leq \frac { | \omega + a | ^ { 2 } } { | z _ { m } + a | ^ { 2 } } \leq 1. \\ \text{This combining our estimates we know that for any $m\in\mathbb{Z}\, \ll\{0\}$ and $\omega\in A$}.$$

Thus combining our estimates we know that for any m Z 0 and ω A

where c 0 = √ 2 2 π , by (2.3).

$$\text{bining our estimates we know that for any } m \in \mathbb { Z } \, \langle 0 \} \text{ and } \omega \in A _ { m } \\ e ^ { - 3 c _ { 0 } } | g ^ { \prime } ( z _ { m } ) | \leq | g ^ { \prime } ( \omega ) | \leq 6 e ^ { 3 c _ { 0 } } | g ^ { \prime } ( z _ { m } ) |, \quad & ( 2. 5 ) \\ \sqrt { 2 } \sim \ h w \, / \varrho \, \mathbb { Z } \, \mathbb { U }$$

For any m ∈ Z \ { 0 } we define B m := g A ( m ), ω m := g z ( m ) and l m := g C ( m ). We are approximating the Euclidean length of the crosscut Γ = f ( γ ) = f ◦ T -1 ( ∂ D ∩ H + ) = g ∂ ( D ∩ H + ), i.e., /lscript (Γ) = /lscript ( g ∂ ( D ∩ H + )) = ∑ m ∈ \{ } Z 0 /lscript ( g C ( m )) = ∑ m ∈ \{ } Z 0 /lscript ( l m ). Now, for any m ∈ Z \ { 0 }

$$\ell ( l _ { m } ) = \int _ { C _ { m } } | g ^ { \prime } ( z ) | \, | \mathrm d z | \leq \frac { 3 \pi e ^ { 3 c _ { 0 } } } { 2 ^ { | m | } } | g ^ { \prime } ( z _ { m } ) |.$$

To get upper bound in terms of L q -integral of h Ω , we need to approximate | g ′ ( z m ) . | By our Koebe distortion estimate (2.5), we conclude that

$$\left | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | = \left | g ( A _ { m } ) \right | & = \int _ { A _ { m } } \left | g ^ { \prime } ( z ) \right | ^ { 2 } d z \\ & \geq \left | A _ { m } \right | e ^ { - 6 c _ { 0 } } \left | g ^ { \prime } ( z _ { m } ) \right | ^ { 2 } \\ & = \frac { \theta _ { \left | m \right | + 1 } } { 2 } \left ( 1 - R _ { \left | m \right | } ^ { 2 } \right ) e ^ { - 6 c _ { 0 } } \left | g ^ { \prime } ( z _ { m } ) \right | ^ { 2 } \\ & \geq \frac { \pi } { 2 ^ { 2 \left | m \right | + 3 } } \, e ^ { - 6 c _ { 0 } } \left | g ^ { \prime } ( z _ { m } ) \right | ^ { 2 }. \\ \text{ve denote, in addition of the modulus, also the two-dimensional Le} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right |\text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_m} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right | \text{$B_{m}$} \right |$$

Here we denote, in addition of the modulus, also the two-dimensional Lebesgue measure with | · | , when talking about sets. We estimate | B m | , by (2.4), that yields

$$\dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \\ \int _ { B _ { m } } \left ( h _ { \Omega } ( \omega, f ( 0 ) ) \right ) ^ { q } \, \mathrm d \omega = \int _ { B _ { m } } \left ( h _ { g ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) } ( g ^ { - 1 } ( \omega ), g ^ { - 1 } ( f ( 0 ) ) ) \right ) ^ { q } \, \mathrm d \omega$$

Thus

$$= \int _ { B _ { m } } \left ( h _ { \mathbb { H } ^ { + } } ( g ^ { - 1 } ( \omega ), T ( 0 ) ) \right ) ^ { q } \, \mathrm d \omega \geq | B _ { m } | \, | m | ^ { q } \, ( \log 2 ) ^ { q } \,. \\ e _ { \lambda } \, \hat { \Phi } \, \Phi \, \Phi$$

$$\int _ { \substack { B _ { m } \\. \quad \dots \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \nu \, \dots } } ( h _ { \Omega } ( \omega, f ( 0 ) ) ) ) ^ { q } \, \mathrm d \omega \geq \frac { \pi e ^ { - 6 c _ { 0 } } ( \log 2 ) ^ { q } } { 2 ^ { 2 | m | + 3 } } | g ^ { \prime } ( z _ { m } ) | ^ { 2 } | m | ^ { q }.$$

Together with (2.6), it gives that for any m ∈ Z \ { 0 }

where c 1 = [ 72 πe 6 √ 2 π (log 2) q ] 1 / 2 .

$$\vdots \dots \dots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \dots \dots \dots \dots \vdots \dots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \\ \ell ( l _ { m } ) & \leq c _ { 1 } | m | ^ { - \frac { q } { 2 } } \left ( \int _ { B _ { m } } ( h _ { \Omega } ( \omega, f ( 0 ) ) ) ^ { q } \, \mathrm d \omega \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } }, \quad \quad ( 2. 7 ) \\ r \quad \cdots \dots \dots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots \vdots$$

Recall that B m = f ◦ T -1 ( A m ) and ⋃ m ∈ \{ } Z 0 A m ⊂ D ∩ H + , then where ∆ is the region bounded by Γ and f ◦ T -1 ( { ( x, 0) : -1 ≤ x ≤ 1 } ). Noticing that B m s are pairwise disjoint and ∣ ∣ ⋃ ∣ m ∈ \{ } Z 0 f ◦ T -1 ( C m ) ∣ ∣ ∣ = 0, we conclude, by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,

$$\text{Recall that } B _ { m } = f \circ I ^ { n } \ast ( A _ { m } ) \text{ and } \bigcup _ { m \in \mathbb { Z } \{ 0 \} } A _ { m } \subset \mathbb { D } \left ( \right ) \mathbb { H } \right ) \text{, then} \\ \bigcup _ { m \in \mathbb { Z } \{ 0 \} } B _ { m } \subset f \circ T ^ { - 1 } ( \overline { \mathbb { D } } \cap \mathbb { H } ^ { + } ) = \left ( \Delta \cup \bigcup _ { m \in \mathbb { Z } \{ 0 \} } f \circ T ^ { - 1 } ( C _ { m } ) \right ), \\ \text{where } \Delta \text{ is the region bounded by } \Gamma _ { \shortmid } \text{ and } f \circ T ^ { - 1 } ( \{ ( x, 0 ) \colon - 1 \leq x \leq 1 \} ). \text{ Noticing}$$

$$\text{that } B _ { m } ^ { \ } s \, are \, \text{pairwise disjoint and } \left | \bigcup _ { m \in \mathbb { Z } \langle \{ 0 \} } f \circ T ^ { - 1 } ( C _ { m } ) \right | = 0, \, \text{we conclude, by} \\ \text{the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,} \\ \ell ( \Gamma ) = \ell ( g ( \partial \mathbb { D } \cap \mathbb { H } ^ { + } ) ) & = \sum _ { m \in \mathbb { Z } \{ 0 \} } \ell ( g ( C _ { m } ) ) = \sum _ { m \in \mathbb { Z } \langle \{ 0 \} } \ell ( l _ { m } ) \\ & \leq 2 c _ { 1 } \sum _ { m = 1 } ^ { \infty } m ^ { - \frac { 4 } { 2 } } \left ( \int _ { B _ { m } } \left ( h _ { \Omega } ( \omega, f ( 0 ) ) \right ) ^ { q } \, \text{d} \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \\ & \leq 2 c _ { 1 } \left ( \sum _ { m = 1 } ^ { \infty } m ^ { - q } \right ) ^ { 1 / 2 } \left ( \sum _ { m = 1 } ^ { \infty } \left ( \int _ { B _ { m } } \left ( h _ { \Omega } ( \omega, f ( 0 ) ) \right ) ^ { q } \, \text{d} \right ) \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \\ & \leq 2 c _ { 1 } \left ( \zeta ( q ) \right ) ^ { 1 / 2 } \left ( \int _ { \Delta } \left ( h _ { \Omega } ( \omega, f ( 0 ) ) \right ) ^ { q } \, \text{d} \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } }, \\ \text{where } \zeta \, \text{is the Reiman} \ zeta \, \text{toation. Our assumption is that } q \in ( 1, \infty ) \, \text{and} \, \, \lim _ { \alpha = 1 + } \zeta ( q ) = \infty \right ).$$

where ζ is the Riemann zeta function. Our assumption is that q ∈ (1 , ∞ ) and it is known that in this situation ζ ( q ) &lt; ∞ (and lim q → 1 + ζ ( q ) = ∞ ). /square

Definition 2.5. Let k ∈ N . A sequence of points { x , x 0 1 , . . . , x k } ⊂ ∂ D is called a cycle if there exist 0 &lt; θ 1 &lt; . . . &lt; θ k &lt; π 2 such that x j = e iθ j x 0 for j = 1 , ..., k .

Proof of Theorem 1.2. We will use the general extension theorem 2.2 of Koski and Onninen, [10, Theorem 3.1] and make the necessary approximation of the lengths of crosscuts by Lemma 2.4.

As Ω is a Jordan domain, by the Riemann mapping theorem, there is a conformal homeomorphism f : D → Ω such that f (0) = z 0 . The map f can be extended homeomorphically to D so that f ( ∂ D ) = ∂ Ω, by the Carath´odory-Osgood theorem. e We use the same notation f for the extended homeomorphism.

Recall that we want to extend ϕ : ∂ D → ∂ Ω in the class W 1 ,p ( D ). Fix k ∈ N and consider the cycle { x j } k j =0 ⊂ ∂ D . We denote x k +1 = x 0 and ξ j = f -1 ( ϕ x ( j )) for any j = 0 , . . . , k + 1. Notice that ξ j ∈ ∂ D and for any | ξ j +1 -ξ j | ≤ 4 π 1+ π 2 , j = 1 , . . . , k , we have a upper bound for the length of the crosscut, by Lemma 2.4. This approximation is needed to show the convergence of the series (2.1).

To use Lemma 2.4 we need to find a dyadic family I := { I n,j ⊂ ∂ D : n ≥ n , 0 j = 1 2 3 , , , . . . , 2 n } such that the endpoints x j of dyadic intervals I n,j have the aforementioned property that, for ξ j = f -1 ( ϕ x ( j )), | ξ j +1 -ξ j | ≤ 4 π 1+ π 2 .

We first choose the starting level n 0 of our dyadic family I . Let N ∈ N and { P , . . . , P 0 N } be some cycle on ∂ D such that | P j +1 -P j | ≤ 2 π 1+ π 2 for all j = 0 , . . . , N . Then there is a corresponding point set { y , . . . , y 0 N } on ∂ D such that y j = ϕ -1 ( f ( P j )). Because dyadic points are dense in ∂ D , we can find the smallest n 0 ∈ N , such that there is at most one y j in each n 0 -level dyadic arc. For any n ≥ n 0 , denote n -level dyadic points by { x , x 1 2 , . . . , x 2 n } . By the choice of n 0 , we have

$$\max _ { j = 1, 2, \dots, 2 ^ { n } } | f ^ { - 1 } ( \varphi ( x$$

Now, on level n , we take the crosscut Γ n,j = f ( γ n,j ) joining f ( ξ j ) = ϕ x ( j ) and f ( ξ j +1 ) = ϕ x ( j +1 ). Here γ n,j is a hyperbolic geodesic connecting ξ j +1 = f -1 ( ϕ x ( j +1 )) and ξ j = f -1 ( ϕ x ( j )). By Lemma 2.4,

$$\sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 ^ { n } } \left ( \ell ( \Gamma _ { n, j } ) \$$

where ∆ n,j is the region defined in Lemma 2.4 with respect to the points ξ j and ξ j +1 .

Then by H¨ older's inequality for p ∈ [1 , 2) we have and (2.1) is satisfied. As homeomorphic images of geodesics, our crosscuts are pairwise disjoint apart from their endpoints, and thus, by Theorem 2.2, we have shown that the boundary homeomorphism ϕ : ∂ D → ∂ Ω admits a homeomorphic extension from D to Ω in the class W 1 ,p ( D C , ). /square

$$\begin{array} { l } \text{$\text{Then by H\"older\'s inequality for $p\in[1,2)\$$

## 3. Counterexample, Theorem 1.3

In this section, we prove Theorem 1.3.

Figure 1. Schematic picture of the Jordan domain

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00506v1-figure-0e058f3e-800a-4896-8885-1d14462d4ccd.jpg)

Before the proof, we fix some notation. The symbol A /lessorsimilar B means that A ≤ cB for some positive constant c , while A ∼ B means A /lessorsimilar B /lessorsimilar A . If f ≤ cg and g = h or g ≤ h , we then write f /lessorsimilar g ∼ h or f /lessorsimilar g /lessorsimilar h , rather than f /lessorsimilar g = h or f /lessorsimilar g ≤ h . For any x, y ∈ R 2 , [ x, y ] is a line segment between x and y . Moreover, for given lines (or line segments) α, β ⊂ R 2 , we write α ⊥ β if they are orthogonal to each other. For any r ∈ R , /ceilingleft r /ceilingright := min { n ∈ Z : n ≥ } r .

Let C ⊂ [0 , 1] be a Smith-Volterra-Cantor set, i.e., we remove an open interval with the length 4 -n from the middle of each of the 2 n -1 intervals in n -step construction of C . From the left to the right, we denote by I n, 1 , . . . , I n, 2 n the remaining closed intervals in the n -step. They have the length (1+2 -n ) 2 n +1 .

We construct a tree-like Jordan domain, in which one needs to travel infinitely long to reach a point of C ; the points are at the ends of branches, see the schematic picture in Figure 1. This gives the desired counterexample when the parametrization is chosen suitably.

3.1. Construction of a tree-type core γ of the Jordan domain. For any n ∈ N + , we first construct a tree-type structure γ n ⊂ [0 , 1] × [0 , 1] that gives the core bones of our domain. For any k ∈ N + such that k ≤ n , consider a canonical rectangle I k,j × [2 -k , 2 -( k +1) ], where j = { 1 , . . . , 2 k } .

˜

Denote by p k,j the middle point of the interval I k,j × { 2 -k } , and by q k,j the middle point of the interval I k,j × { 2 -( k +1) } . Let p 0 be the middle point of the line segment [ p 1 1 , , p 1 2 , ]. Divide the line segment [ p k,j , q k,j ] into 2 k +1 equivalent segments. The segments with ending points p k,j and q k,j are kept fixed. For the rest 2 k +1 -2 segments, we alternatively push them onto the left or the right side of the square I k,j × [2 -k , 2 -( k +1) ] in a way that any two of the new segments do not connect. Join each pair of these segments by horizontal line segments, we obtain a 'snake' curve γ k,j connecting p k,j and q k,j . Let

See the figure below.

$$\cdot \, \Lambda \, \begin{array} {$$

Note that the angle at every non-smooth point is π/ 2. We proceed as follows: for any k ≤ n and j ∈ { 1 , . . . , 2 k } ,

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00506v1-figure-55e94159-a814-41f8-ac0f-960c09f38be4.jpg)

- (1) replace a symmetric neighborhood of one point in ˜ γ k,j ⊂ ˜ γ n by a quarter of a circle internally tangent γ k,j with radius 2 -2( k +1) -1 .

The following figure shows the situation when j ∈ N + is odd. When j is even, the construction is similar.

- ˜ (2) for the point q k,j with k ≤ n , make the internally tangent circles with the help from the line segments [ p k +1 2 , j -1 , q k,j ] and [ p k +1 2 , j , q k,j ].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00506v1-figure-a6842c80-aee6-40ef-b6f8-4e1151fa924a.jpg)

· · ·

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00506v1-figure-38d7a024-c678-429c-b20b-4d25671bc5bf.jpg)

-

Thus, we get a smooth 'curve' γ n . Near the original position of the point q k,j , there is a new 'branch' point on γ n denoted by r k,j . Specially, let r 0 1 , := p 0 . Let γ k,j ⊂ γ n be the shortest smooth curve connecting r k -1 , /ceilingleft j/ 2 /ceilingright and r k,j for any j ∈ { 1 , . . . , 2 k } . Notice that 2 ≥ /lscript ( ˜ γ k,j ) ≥ 1 for any k ∈ N and j ∈ { 1 , . . . , 2 k } . By slightly modification, we can further let

$$\ell ( \gamma _ { k, j } ) = 1,$$

for any k N and j 1 , . . . , 2

The tree-type structure is defined by

∈ ∈ { k } .

$$\gamma \coloneqq \bigcup _ { n = 1 } ^ { \times } \$$

3.2. Fattening the tree-type core to fingers in order to form a Jordan domain Ω . Based on the tree-like core bones γ in Section 3.1, we construct the Jordan domain Ω.

To begin, we consider one branch at the time and fatten it to a finger. We take care that h Ω ∈ L 1 with the help of the distance function g defined below. By the construction of γ , for any sequence { j k } k ∈ N + such that j k ∈ { 1 , . . . , 2 k } and j k = /ceilingleft j k +1 / 2 , there is a unique smooth injective curve connecting all the points /ceilingright { r k,j k } k ∈ N + starting from p 0 . Let α : [0 , ∞ → ) C be the parametrization of this smooth curve such that α (0) = p 0 and /lscript ( α ([0 , t ])) = . t Thus, by (3.1), we have α k ( ) = r k,j k .

Consider the distance function g x ( ) = e -M exp( -exp( x )) where M is a positive constant. For any t ∈ [0 , ∞ ), there are two points x 1 ( ) and t x 2 ( ) such that t

$$[ x _ { 1 } ( t ), x _ { 2 } ( t ) ] \perp$$

$$\begin{array} {$$

We can choose x 1 ( ) t and x 2 ( ) t to be continuous with respect to t ∈ [0 , ∞ ) and Im x 1 (0) &gt; Im x 2 (0).

Lemma 3.1. The functions x 1 : [0 , ∞ → ) C and x 2 : [0 , ∞ → ) C are both injective, when M is large enough.

Proof. We first show that, for any k ∈ N , x 1 is injective on [ k -1 , k ] (on this interval α J goes from one branch point r k -1 ,j k -1 to another r k,j k ). By (3.3) and the definition of g ,

$$| x _ { 1 } ( t ) - \alpha ( t ) | = g ( t ) \$$

Since we can choose M large enough, so that, for all k ∈ N + and t ∈ [ k -1 , k ],

$$\frac { \exp \left ( - \exp ( k ) \right ) } { 2 ^ {$$

$$| x _ { 1 } ( t ) - \alpha ( t ) | \leq \frac { 1 } { 2 ^ { 2 k + 6 } }. & & ( 3. 4 ) \\ \dots \. & &$$

Notice that the upper bound 1 / (2 2 k +6 ) is strictly smaller than the radius of the tangent circle, i.e., 1 / (2 2 k +3 ), that we used in the construction of γ .

As α is injective and our distance function g is decreasing, we have x 1 is injective on [ k -1 , k ]. By the construction of γ , (3.4) further shows that x 1 is injective on [0 , ∞ ).

A similar argument shows the injectivity of x 2

$$\dot { \ } o f \ x _ { 2 }.$$

By Lemma 3.1, there is a domain bounded by x 1 , x 2 and [ x 1 (0) , x 2 (0)], denoted by S . For any x ∈ S , we can write x = ( t, r ) ∈ [0 , ∞ × -) [ g t , g ( ) ( )] t where x ∈ [ x 1 ( ) t , x 2 ( )] and t | x 1 ( ) t -x | = g t ( ) -r .

Lemma 3.2. For any x = ( t, r ) ∈ S , when M is large enough,

$$d ( x, \partial S ) \sim \min \{ | x _ { 1 } ( t ) - x |, | x _ { 2 } ( t ) - x | \} \sim \min \{ g ( t ) - r, g ( t ) + r \}. \\ \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots$$

We prove this technical claim at the end of this paper, see Section 3.4.

Towards the integrability of hyperbolic distance, h Ω ∈ L 1 , decompose the domain S into countably many parts { S k } ∞ k =1 such that S k ⊂ S is bounded by x 1 ([ k -1 , k ]), x 2 ([ k -1 , k ]), [ x 1 ( k -1) , x 2 ( k -1)] and [ x 1 ( k , x ) 2 ( k )].

$$k _ { S } ( x, y ) = \inf _ { \Gamma } \int _ { \Gamma } \frac { 1 } { d ( z, \partial S ) } \, | \mathrm d z |,$$

Recall that the quasihyperbolic metric, for any x, y ∈ S , is where the infimum can be taken over all piecewise smooth curves Γ in S that join x and y . By the definition of α , we have /lscript ( α ([0 , t ])) = t . By Lemma 3.2, for any x = ( t, r ) ∈ S k ,

Thus

$$( t, r ) \in S _ { k }, \\ k _ { S } ( p _ { 0 }, x ) & \leq k _ { S } ( p _ { 0 }, \alpha ( t ) ) + k _ { S } ( \alpha ( t ), x ) \\ & \leq \int _ { \alpha ( [ 0, t ] ) } \frac { 1 } { d ( z, \partial S ) } \left | \text{d} z \right | + \int _ { [ \alpha ( t ), x ] } \frac { 1 } { d ( z, \partial S ) } \left | \text{d} z \right | \\ & \lesssim \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } \frac { 1 } { g ( s ) } \text{d} s + \int _ { 0 } ^ { r } \frac { 1 } { g ( t ) - \left | s \right | } \text{d} s \\ & \lesssim \frac { 1 } { g ( t ) \exp ( t ) } + \log \frac { g ( t ) } { g ( t ) - \left | r \right | }. \\ \intertext { s } \int _ { \ } \,. \. \. \ \, \int _ { \ } \, \int _ { \ } \, \int _ { \ } \,. \. \ \,. \. \.$$

$$& - \cdots \quad - \cdots \quad \cdot \\ \text{ Thus} \\ & \int _ { S _ { k } } k _ { S } ( p _ { 0 }, x ) \, \text{d} x = \int _ { \alpha ( [ k - 1, k ] ) } \int _ { - g ( t ) } ^ { g ( t ) } k _ { S } ( p _ { 0 }, ( t, r ) ) \, \text{d} t \\ & \lesssim \int _ { \alpha ( [ k - 1, k ] ) } \frac { 1 } { \exp ( t ) } + \int _ { 0 } ^ { g ( t ) } \log \frac { g ( t ) } { g ( t ) - | r | } \, \text{d} t \\ & \lesssim \int _ { \alpha ( [ k - 1, k ] ) } e ^ { - t } + g ( t ) \, \text{d} t \lesssim e ^ { - k }.$$

Define the domain as the union of fingers, that is,

$$o \text{ mgers, un} \\ \Omega \coloneqq \bigcup S, \\ \text{hoices of } \{ j _ { k } \} _ { i } ^ { \prime }$$

where the union contains all the choices of { j k } ∞ k =1 satisfying j k ∈ { 1 , . . . , 2 k } and j k = /ceilingleft j k +1 / 2 . /ceilingright By the definition of S , Ω is clearly a domain. We show that Ω is a Jordan domain.

First, we construct a continuous function ϕ : [ -1 2] , → ∂ Ω by induction. For any sequence J := { j k } ∞ k =1 satisfying j k ∈ { 1 , . . . , 2 k } and j k = /ceilingleft j k +1 / 2 , let /ceilingright x 1 ,J and x 2 ,J be the curve defined before. Set

$$r _ { k, j _ { k } } ^ { + } \coloneqq x _ { 1, J } ( k ) \ \text{ and } \ r _ { k, j _ { k } } ^ { - } \coloneqq x _ { 2, J } ( k ).$$

For simplification, consider the following schematic diagram of Ω:

p

Let l ( a, b ) ⊂ ∂ Ω be the curve connecting a and b with finite length, and ( R k,j -r k , R k,j + r k ), j ∈ { 1 , . . . , 2 k -1 } denote the removed open interval in the k th step in the construction of the Smith-Volterra-Cantor set C from left to right, and

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00506v1-figure-b7b15484-dad8-45d1-98a8-40ae741bfea6.jpg)

$$r _ { k } = \frac { 4 ^ { - k } } { 2 }.$$

Step 0. Let ϕ ( -1) = ϕ (2) = p 0 .

## Step 1 -1 .

where ϕ is homeomorphism on every interval above with constant speed.

$$\text{Step 1} - 1. \\ \varphi \colon & [ - 1, - 1 / 2 ] \to l ( p _ { 0 }, r _ { 1, 1 } ^ { + } ) \quad s. t. \quad \varphi ( - 1 / 2 ) = r _ { 1, 1 } ^ { + } ; \\ \varphi \colon & [ 3 / 2, 2 ] \to l ( r _ { 1, 2 } ^ { - }, p _ { 0 } ) \quad s. t. \quad \varphi ( 3 / 2 ) = r _ { 1, 2 } ^ { - } ; \\ \varphi \colon & \left [ R _ { 1, 1 } - \frac { r _ { 1 } } { 2 }, R _ { 1, 1 } + \frac { r _ { 1 } } { 2 } \right ] \to l ( r _ { 1, 1 } ^ { - }, r _ { 1, 2 } ^ { + } ) \\ & s. t. \quad \varphi \left ( R _ { 1, 1 } - \frac { r _ { 1 } } { 2 } \right ) = r _ { 1, 1 } ^ { - } \quad \text{and} \quad \varphi \left ( R _ { 1, 1 } + \frac { r _ { 1 } } { 2 } \right ) = r _ { 1, 2 } ^ { + }, \\ \text{where} \, \varphi \, \text{is homeomorphism on every interval above with constant speed.}$$

## Step K -1 (for any K ≥ 2 ).

$$\text{Step } K - 1 & \text{ (for any } K \geq 2 \$$

where ϕ is homeomorphism on every interval above with constant speed.

Step K -1

$$\begin{array} {$$

where ϕ is homeomorphism on every interval above with constant speed.

$$& \text{Step $K-j$ (for any $K\geq 3$ and $$$

Define the ϕ as

$$n _ { 2 } ( \Lambda, j ) \coloneqq \min \{ n$$

Especially, define ϕ x ( ) = ( x, 0) for any x ∈ C . By induction, we obtain a continuous map where ϕ is homeomorphism on every interval above with constant speed, and ϕ -1 is defined in Step ( K -1) - /ceilingleft ( j /ceilingright ).

$$\varphi \colon [ - 1, 2 ] \to \partial \Omega \quad \$$

- (1) ϕ ( -1 2 k ) = r + k, 1 for any k ∈ N + ;

so that the restriction of ϕ to ( -1 2) is injective and ,

- (2) ϕ (1 + 1 2 k ) = r -k, 2 k for any k ∈ N + ;

$$r \, \text{any} \, k \in \mathbb { N } ^ { + }, \, j \in \{ 1, 2, \dots, 2 ^ { k - 1 } \} \text{ and } n \in \mathbb { N } ^ { + }, \\ \varphi \left ( R _ { k, j } - ( 1 - \frac { 1 } { 2 ^ { n } } ) r _ { k } \right ) & = r _ { k + n - 1, 2 ^ { n - 1 } ( 2 j - 1 ) } ^ { - } \\ \varphi \left ( R _ { k, j } + ( 1 - \frac { 1 } { 2 ^ { n } } ) r _ { k } \right ) & = r _ { k + n - 1, 2 ^ { n - 1 } ( 2 j - 1 ) + 1 } ^ { + }. \\ - \text{Lipschitz reparametrization, we may assume that}$$

- (3) for any k ∈ N + , j ∈ { 1 2 , , . . . , 2 k -1 } and n ∈ N + ,

After a bi-Lipschitz reparametrization, we may assume that

$$\varphi \colon \partial \mathbb { D } \to \partial \Omega, \quad \\ \sim \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

with ϕ C ( ′ ) = C for a Cantor-type set C ′ of positive length. By the construction and the definition of Ω, ϕ is continuous and bijective, which shows that ϕ is a homeomorphism. Then, the domain Ω is a Jordan domain.

$$\begin{matrix} \cdot \\ \cdot \end{matrix}$$

3.3. Counterexample, Proof of Theorem 1.3. Our ϕ and Ω show the optimality of Theorem 1.2, i.e., when q = 1, the claim of the theorem does not hold.

Proof of Theorem 1.3. By the definition of Ω and (3.5), we conclude that

$$\ e m 1. 3. \ B y t e \, \text{emint} \, \text{or} \, \succeq \, \text{and} \, ( \sigma ), \, \text{we concuda} \\ \int _ { \Omega } k _ { \Omega } ( p _ { 0 }, z ) \, d z & \lesssim \sum _ { k = 1 } ^ { \infty } 2 ^ { k } \int _ { S _ { k } } k _ { S } ( p _ { 0 }, z ) \, d z \\ & \lesssim \sum _ { k = 1 } ^ { \infty } 2 ^ { k } e ^ { - k } < \infty, \\ S _ { k } \, \text{ are defined as in Section 3.2. } \text{ As the hyperbolic} \\.. \quad.. \quad.. \quad.. \quad.. \quad.. \quad.. \quad.. \end{cases}$$

Let Φ: D → Ω be a homeomorphism such that Φ( z ) = ϕ z ( ) for all z ∈ ∂ D . Let γ z be any curve connecting an interior point of the unit disk to a point z ∈ C ′ = ϕ -1 ( C ); recall that C ′ ⊂ ∂ D is of positive length. The points of C are at the ends of infinite branches, by our definition of Ω. Hence the image curve Φ( γ z ) needs to travel through infinitely many 'snakes' whose cores are formed by the γ k,j constructed in Section 3.1. Now, by (3.1), the length of the core of the branch one needs to travel through is infinite. Thus where S and S k are defined as in Section 3.2. As the hyperbolic distance h Ω is comparable to the quasihyperbolic distance in our Jordan domain Ω , we have that h Ω ∈ L 1 .

$$\ell ( \Phi ( \gamma _ { z } ) ) = \infty. \\. \quad.. \.$$

/negationslash

Especially, by considering suitable radial segments we conclude that Φ ∈ W 1 1 , ( D C , /square

).

## 3.4. Proof of Lemma 3.2.

Proof of Lemma 3.2. For any ( s , t 0 0 ) ∈ R := { ( s, t ) ∈ C : | t | ≤ g s , ( ) } with s 0 ≥ 0, it is easy to check that g ′ ( s 0 ) ≤ 0, g ′′ ( s 0 ) ≥ 0 and | g ′ ( s 0 ) | is uniformly bounded. By the proof of [13, Theorem 3.19], we have

$$d ( ( s _ { 0 }, t _ { 0 } ), \partial R ) \sim g ( s _ { 0 } ) - | t _ { 0 } |. \quad \quad \quad ( 3. 6 ) \\. \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

Now we prove the claim. For simplicity, assume that x 1 , x 2 and α are in the position showed in the following figure.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00506v1-figure-53a506c6-1a17-44c3-be75-9d5ce0a6a0a7.jpg)

Recall that we write x = ( t, r ) ∈ S with ( t, r ) ∈ [0 , ∞ × -) [ g t , g ( ) ( )] if t

$$[ x _ { 1 } ( t ), x _ { 2 } ( t ) ] \perp \alpha, \ \ [ x _ { 1 } ( t ), x _ { 2 } ( t ) ] \cap \alpha = \{ \alpha ( t ) \},$$

and

$$| x _ { 1 } ( t ) - \alpha ( t ) | = | x _ { 2 } ( t ) - \alpha ( t ) | = g ( t ),$$

$$x \in [ x _ { 1 } ( t ), x _ { 2 } ( t ) ], \ \ | x _ { 1 } ( t ) - x | = g ( t ) - r.$$

Moreover, in the picture above, α can be decomposed into two horizontal line segments and a half circle α ([ s , s 0 1 ]).

Let k ∈ N such that t ∈ [ k -1 , k ]. Then, by (3.4),

$$| g ( t ) | \leq \frac { 1 } { 2 ^ { 2 k + 6 } } = \frac { | \alpha ( s _ { 0 } ) - \alpha ( s _ { 1 } ) | } { 3 2 }.$$

$$( \mathbf a ) & \text{ if } | x _ { 1 } ( t ) - x | \geq \frac { 3 g ( t ) } { 2 }, \, \text{ then } d ( x, x _ { 2 } ) \leq d ( x, \alpha ) \leq d ( x, x _ { 1 } ). \, \text{ By } ( 3. 6 ), \, \text{ we have } \\ d ( x, \partial S ) & = d ( x, x _ { 2 } ) \gtrsim | x _ { 2 } ( t ) - x | \sim \min \{ | x _ { 1 } ( t ) - x |, | x _ { 2 } ( t ) - x | \}. \\ \mathbf a \vee \mathbf a \left | \sim. \, \mathbf d \vee \quad \sim \right | \geq 3 g ( t ) \quad \mathbf b \infty$$

$$( b ) \text{ If } | x _ { 1 } ( t ) - x | \leq \frac { 3 g ( t ) } { 2 }, \text{ then } \\ \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \colon$$

$$( b ) \text{ If } | x _ { 1 } ( t ) - x | \leq \frac { 3 g ( t ) } { 2 }, \text{the}$$

min {| x 1 ( ) t -x , | | x 2 ( ) t -x |} ∼ | x 1 ( ) t -x | /lessorsimilar d x, x ( 2 ) .

Thus, it suffices to show

$$d ( x, x _ { 1 } ) & \sim | x _ { 1 } ( t ) - x |. & ( 3. 8 ) \\ \intertext { v o f o m o w i t r o n } \, \ m o n t r o n d t o c o n d e t h o c i t u n t o m h o n$$

By (3.7), without loss of generality, we only need to consider the situation when x = ( t, 0) = α t ( ).

Case I. x = ( t, 0) is on the horizontal part of α (see the figure below).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00506v1-figure-6ac54bdc-85c2-4781-a07b-658103d6ff1c.jpg)

x

Here y 1 is the intersection of the line [ x, α s ( 0 )] and the curve x 1 ([ s , s 0 1 ]), and y 2 is the intersection of two lines [ x, x 1 ( )] and [ t y , x 1 1 ( s 0 )].

By (3.7), we have ∠ x, y 1 , y 2 ≤ π 4 , which leads that

$$d ( x, x _ { 1 } ( [ s _ { 0 }, s _ { 1 } ] ) ) \geq \frac { | y _ { 2 } - x | } { \sqrt { 2 } } \geq \frac { | x _ { 1 } ( t ) - x | } { \sqrt { 2 } }.$$

Combining with (3.6), we conclude that

$$d ( x, x _ { 1 } ) \gtrsim | x _ { 1 } ( t ) - x |.$$

The proof is similar when t ≥ s 1 .

Case II. x = ( t, 0) is such that t ∈ [ s , s 0 1 ]. y 2

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00506v1-figure-46428d12-d18a-4e7d-970d-83a491d71fc1.jpg)

Here [ y , y 1 2 ] is on the tangent of α ([ s , s 0 1 ]) passing through x , y 1 ∈ x 1 ([ s , s 0 1 ]), and y 2 is the intersection of the tangent and the line [ x 1 ( ) t , x 1 ( s 0 )].

By (3.7), it is clear that ∠ x, y 1 , x 1 ( ) t ≤ π 4 and ∠ x, y 2 , x 1 ( ) t ≤ π 4 , thus

On the other hand,

$$d ( x, x _ { 1 } ( [ s _ { 0 }, s _ { 1 } ] ) ) \gtrsim | x _ { 1 } ( t ) - s |.$$

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00506v1-figure-b7005300-7e7d-4205-9180-1039c5870d3e.jpg)

Let ˜ α be the horizontal line through α s ( 0 ), and ˜ x 1 is the curve constructed as x 1 but with the line ˜ α . [ x, y ˜ 1 ] is perpendicular to ˜ α and intersects with ˜ x 1 at point ˜ y 1 , [ x, y ˜ 1 ] ∩ α ([ s , s 0 1 ]) = y 2 . Then, by (3.6) and (3.9), we have

If x is close to α s ( 1 ), the proof is just the same.

˜ d x, x ( 1 ([0 , s 0 ])) ≥ d x, x ( ˜ 1 ) /greaterorsimilar | x -˜ y 1 | /greaterorsimilar | x -˜ y 2 | /greaterorsimilar | x 1 ( ) t -x . | Combined with (3.9), the claim holds true in this situation.

If the tagent through x has two intersection points with α ([ s , s 0 1 ]), the proof is similar and we omit the details here.

We have showed (3.8), and thus also our claim.

/square

## References

- [1] S. S. Antman, Nonlinear problems of elasticity, Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol. 107, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.
- [2] K. Astala, T. Iwaniec, G. Martin, Elliptic Partial Differential Equations and Quasiconformal Mappings in the Plane, Princeton University Press, 2009.
- [3] J. M. Ball, Convexity conditions and existence theorems in nonlinear elasticity, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 63 (1976/77), no. 4, 337-403.
- [4] P. G. Ciarlet, Mathematical elasticity Vol. I. Three-dimensional elasticity, Studies in Mathematics and its Applications, vol. 20. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1988.
- [5] S. Hencl, P. Koskela, Lectures on mappings of finite distortion. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 2096. Springer, Cham, 2014.
- [6] T. Iwaniec, G. Martin, Geometric Function Theory and Non-linear Analysis, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Oxford University Press, 2001.
- [7] P. W. Jones, N. G. Makarov, Density properties of harmonic measure, Ann. of Math. (2), 142 (1995), no. 3, 427-455.
- [8] P. Koskela, A. Koski, J. Onninen, Sobolev homeomorphic extensions onto John domains, J. Funct. Anal. 279 (2020), no. 10, 108719, 17 pp.
- [9] A. Koski, J. Onninen, Sobolev homeomorphic extensions, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 23 (2021), no. 12, 4065-4089.
- [10] A. Koski, J. Onninen, The Sobolev Jordan-Sch¨ onflies problem, Adv. Math. 413 (2023), 108795
- [11] P. Koskela, S. Rohde, Hausdorff dimension and mean porosity, Math.Ann. 309 (1997), no. 4, 593-609.
- [12] Yu. G. Reshetnyak, Space mappings with bounded distortion, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1989.
- [13] S. Staples, L p -averaging domains and the Poincar´ inequality, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A. e I. Math. 14 (1989), 103-127.
- [14] S. Smith, D. A. Stegenga, Exponential integrability of the quasihyperbolic metric on H¨lder o domains, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 16 (1991), no. 2, 345-360.

- [15] G. C. Verchota, Harmonic homeomorphisms of the closed disc to itself need be in W 1 ,p , p &lt; 2, but not W 1 2 , , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. (2007), vol. 135, no. 3, 891-894.
- [16] Y. R.-Y. Zhang, Schoenflies solutions with conformal boundary values may fail to be Sobolev, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. (2019), vol. 44, no. 2, 791-796.
- O. Bouchala, Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Information Technology, Th´kurova 9, 160 00 Prague 6, Czech Republic a

Email address : ondrej.bouchala@gmail.com

- J. J¨¨skel¨inen, Department of Economics and Management, Koetilantie 5, P.O. Box aa a 28, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland

Email address : jarmo.jaaskelainen@helsinki.fi

- P. Koskela, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Jyv¨skyl¨, a a P.O. Box 35 (MaD), FI-40014, Finland

Email address : pekka.j.koskela@jyu.fi

- H. Xu, Frontiers Science Center for Nonlinear Expectations (Ministry of Education of China), Research Center for Mathematics and Interdisciplinary Sciences, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, China

Email address : haiqing.xu@email.sdu.edu.cn

X. Zhou, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Jyv¨skyl¨, P.O. a a Box 35 (MaD), FI-40014, Finland

Email address : xilin.j.zhou@jyu.fi
Ondrěj Bouchala Jarmo Jääskeläinen Pekka Koskela Haiqing Xu Xilin Zhou
Homeomorphic Sobolev extensions of parametrizations of Jordan curves
Each homeomorphic parametrization of a Jordan curve via the unit circle
extends to a homeomorphism of the entire plane. It is a natural question to ask
if such a homeomorphism can be chosen so as to have some Sobolev regularity.
This prompts the simplified question: for a homeomorphic embedding of the unit
circle into the plane, when can we find a homeomorphism from the unit disk that
has the same boundary values and integrable first-order distributional
derivatives?
  We give the optimal geometric criterion for the interior Jordan domain so
that there exists a Sobolev homeomorphic extension for any homeomorphic
parametrization of the Jordan curve. The problem is partially motivated by
trying to understand which boundary values can correspond to deformations of
finite energy.