## SHARP ESTIMATES FOR THE FIRST p -LAPLACIAN EIGENVALUE AND FOR THE p -TORSIONAL RIGIDITY ON CONVEX SETS WITH HOLES

GLORIA PAOLI, GIANPAOLO PISCITELLI, LEONARDO TRANI

Abstract . We study, in dimension n ≥ 2, the eigenvalue problem and the torsional rigidity for the p -Laplacian on convex sets with holes, with external Robin boundary conditions and internal Neumann boundary conditions. We prove that the annulus maximizes the first eigenvalue and minimizes the torsional rigidity when the measure and the external perimeter are fixed.

MSC 2010: 35J25 - 35J92 - 35P15 - 47J30

Keywords: Nonlinear eigenvalue problems - torsional rigidity - mixed boundary conditions - optimal estimates

## 1. Introduction

In this paper we study the p -Laplacian operator

$$- \Delta _ { p } u \coloneqq - & \text{div} \left ( | D u | ^ { p - 2 } D u \right ) \\ \\ \vdash \cap \sim \varepsilon \, \mathbb { D } n \, \sim \, \varepsilon \, \cdot \, \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \vdash \end{array}$$

defined on a convex set Ω of R n , n ≥ 2, that contains holes; more precisely we are considering sets Ω of the form Ω = Ω 0 \ Θ, where Ω 0 ⊆ R n is an open bounded and convex set and Θ ⊂⊂ Ω 0 is a finite union of sets, each of one homeomorphic to a ball. In this setting, we study the eigenvalue problem and the torsion problem for the p -Laplacian operator and the boundary conditions that we impose are of Robin type on the exterior boundary Γ 0 := ∂ Ω 0 and of Neumann type on the interior boundary Γ 1 := ∂ Θ. The first quantity we deal with is

/negationslash

$$\lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) = \min _ { \substack { w \in W ^ { 1, p } ( \Omega ) \\ w \not \equiv 0 } } \frac { \int _ { \Omega } | D w | ^ { p } \, d x + \beta \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } | w | ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } } { \int _ { \Omega } | w | ^ { p } \, d x }. \quad \quad ( 1. 1 )$$

This minimization problem variationally characterize the first eigenvalue, i.e. the lowest eigenvalue, of the following:

$$\text{value, of the following:} \\ \begin{cases} - \Delta _ { p } u = \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) | u | ^ { p - 2 } u & \text{in } \Omega \\ | D u | ^ { p - 2 } \frac { \partial u } { \partial \nu } + \beta | u | ^ { p - 2 } u = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma _ { 0 } & ( 1. 2 ) \\ | D u | ^ { p - 2 } \frac { \partial u } { \partial \nu } = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma _ { 1 }, \end{cases} \\ \text{$\nu$ is the outer normal derivative of $u$ and $\beta \in \mathbb{R} \, \langle \{ 0 \}$ is the boundary} \\ \text{By the way, we will only consider non zero values of the boundary}$$

  where ∂u/∂ν is the outer normal derivative of u and β ∈ R \ { 0 } is the boundary parameter. By the way, we will only consider non zero values of the boundary parameter β , since the case β = 0 is trivial, being the first eigenvalue identically zero and the relative eigenfunctions constant.

In our first result (Theorem 3.1), we prove that among the domains Ω defined as above, the annulus A r 1 ,r 2 = B r 2 \ B r 1 , having the same measure of Ω and such that P B ( r 2 ) = P (Ω ), maximizes the first 0 p -Laplacian eigenvalue, i.e

$$\lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) & \leq \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, A _ { r _ { 1 }, r _ { 2 } } ). & \quad \quad \quad ( 1. 3 ) \\ \vdots \vdots \quad \tau \vdots \quad \overline { r } \infty \ \infty \ \vdots \ \cdot \quad \vdots \ \tau \quad \cdot \ \vdots \ \tau \quad \cdot \ \vdots \ \tau$$

Inequality (1.3) is a Faber-Krahn ([22, 27]) type inequality. In particular, when β → + ∞ , our Theorem 3.1 gives an answer to the open problem 5 in [25, Chap. 3], restricted to convex sets with holes.

If we consider the case of Ω bounded domain of R n with Dirichlet boundary conditions on the whole ∂ Ω, the classical Faber-Krahn inequality says that the first eigenvalue is minimized by the ball among sets of the same volume (see e.g. [17] and the references therein); for optimization of eigenvalues we also refer, for example, to [3, 30, 34] .

If Ω ⊆ R n is a bounded set with Robin boundary condition on ∂ Ω and β &gt; 0, it has been proved in [8, 16] for p = 2 and in [11, 15] for p ∈ ]1 , + ∞ [, that the first eigenvalue is minimized by the ball among domains of the same volume. On the other hand if β is negative, the problem is still open; in this direction, in [23] the authors showed that the ball is a maximizer in the plane only for small value of the parameter, having fixed the volume. Moreover, if β is negative and we fix the perimeter rather than the volume, the ball maximizes the first eigenvalue among all open, bounded, convex, smooth enough sets (see [2, 12]). Furthermore, we remark that in the case of a general Finsler metric, similar results holds for the anisotropic p -Laplacian with Dirichlet ([5, 20]), Neumann ([21, 32]) or Robin ([24, 29]) boundary conditions.

Makai [28] and P´lya [33] introduced the method of interior parallels, used by o Payne and Weinberger in [31], to study the Laplacian eigenvalue problem with external Robin boundary condition and with Neumann internal boundary condition in the plane. In our paper, we generalize these tools in any dimension. More precisely, our proof is based on the use of the web functions, particular test functions used e.g. in [9, 12, 14], and on the study of their level sets.

Similarly, but only for positive value of β , we also study the p -torsional rigidity type problem:

/negationslash

∣ ∣ in particular, this problem leads to, up to a suitable normalization,

$$\ e p o v e m. \\ \frac { 1 } { T _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) } = \min _ { \substack { w \in W ^ { 1, p } ( \Omega ) \\ w \not \equiv 0 } } \frac { \int _ { \Omega } | D w | ^ { p } \, d x + \beta \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } | w | ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } } { \left | \int _ { \Omega } w \, d x \right | ^ { p } } ; \\ \text{articular, this problem leads to, up to a suitable normalization,} \\ \text{$t$} \ \wedge \. \. \. \. \. \. \.$$

$$\text{is problem leads to, up to a suitable normalizatio} \\ \begin{cases} - \Delta _ { p } u = 1 & \text{in } \Omega \\ | D u | ^ { p - 2 } \frac { \partial u } { \partial \nu } + \beta | u | ^ { p - 2 } u = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma _ { 0 } \\ | D u | ^ { p - 2 } \frac { \partial u } { \partial \nu } = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma _ { 1 }. \end{cases} \\ \text{$a result of this paper (Theorem 3.2) states that, am} \\ \text{the beginning, the annulus } A _ { r _ { 1 }, r _ { 2 } } = B _ { r _ { 2 } } \sum _ { \lambda } \frac { \lambda } { \lambda } _ { r _ { 1 } }, \, \mathbb { I } _ { r _ { 1 } },$$

 The second main result of this paper (Theorem 3.2) states that, among the domains Ω defined as in the beginning, the annulus A r 1 ,r 2 = B r 2 \ B r 1 , having the same measure of Ω and such that P B ( r 2 ) = P (Ω ), minimizes the 0 p -torsional rigidity, i.e.

$$T _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) & \geq T _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, A _ { r _ { 1 }, r _ { 2 } } ). & ( 1. 4 ) \\ \ell _ { 1 } \cap \dots \Delta \cap \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \alpha \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \beta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \ dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \ dots \alpha \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \ dots \delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta \dots \Delta$$

The equation (1.4), when Θ = ∅ , p = 2 and Dirichlet boundary condition holds on the whole boundary, is the Saint-Venant inequality, by the name of the authors that first conjectured that the ball in the plane (under area constraint) gives the maximum in quantity (1.4). This is a relevant problem in the elasticity theory of beams [36, Sec.35]. It is known that the ball maximizes the torsional rigidity with Robin boundary conditions [13] among bounded open sets with Lipschitz boundary and given measure. Related results for the spectral optimization problems involving the rigidity are obtained also, for example, in [6, 7, 10].

Finally, we recall that the eigenvalue problem in the plane with reversed boundary conditions, i.e. Neumann on the external boundary ∂ Ω 0 and Robin on the internal boundary ∂ Θ, has been studied in [26]. Moreover in [18] the authors generalize this result in dimension n ≥ 2 for the eigenvalue problem and for the torsional rigidity.

The paper is organized as follows. In the Section 2 we introduce some notations and preliminaries and in the Section 3 we prove the main results.

## 2. Notation and preliminaries

In the following, by | Ω we denote the | n -dimensional Lebesgue measure of Ω, by P (Ω) the perimeter of Ω, by H k the k -dimensional Hausdorff measure in R n . The unit open ball in R n will be denoted by B 1 and ω n := | B 1 | . More generally, we denote with B r ( x 0 ) the set x 0 + rB 1 , that is the ball centered at x 0 with measure

ω r n n , and by A r 1 ,r 2 the open annulus B r 2 \ B r 1 , where B r 1 is the closed ball centered at the origin and r 1 &lt; r 2 .

Throughout this paper, we denote by Ω a set such that Ω = Ω 0 \ Θ, where Ω 0 ⊆ R n is an open bounded and convex set and Θ ⊂⊂ Ω 0 is a finite union of sets, each of one homeomorphic to a ball of R n and with Lipschitz boundary. We define Γ 0 := ∂ Ω 0 and Γ 1 := ∂ Θ.

2.1. Eigenvalue problems. Let 1 &lt; p &lt; + ∞ , we deal with the following p -Laplacian eigenvalue problem:

$$\text{genvalue problem:} \\ \text{genvalue problem:} \\ \begin{cases} - \Delta _ { p } u = \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) | u | ^ { p - 2 } u & \text{in } \Omega \\ | D u | ^ { p - 2 } \frac { \partial u } { \partial \nu } + \beta | u | ^ { p - 2 } u = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma _ { 0 } & ( 2. 1 ) \\ | D u | ^ { p - 2 } \frac { \partial u } { \partial \nu } = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma _ { 1 }. \\ \text{by } \partial u / \partial \nu \text{ the outer normal derivative of } u \text{ on the boundary and by} \\ \dots \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \,. \end{cases}$$

 We denote by ∂u/∂ν the outer normal derivative of u on the boundary and by β ∈ R \ { 0 } the Robin boundary parameter, observing that the case β = + ∞ gives asimptotically the Dirichlet boundary condition. Now we give the definition of eigenvalue and eigenfunction of problem (2.1).

Definition 2.1. The real number λ is an eigenvalue of (2.1) if and only if there exists a function u ∈ W 1 ,p (Ω) , not identically zero, such that

$$\int _ { \Omega } | D u | ^ { p - 2 } D u D \varphi \, d x + \beta \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } | u | ^ { p - 2 } u \varphi \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } = \lambda \int _ { \Omega } | u | ^ { p - 2 } u \varphi \, d x \\ \int _ { \mathcal { \ } - \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \, \mathfrak { m } \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdot \ \cdots$$

for every ϕ ∈ W 1 ,p (Ω) . The function u is called eigenfunction associated to λ .

In order to compute the first eigenvalue we use the variational characterization, that is

$$\lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) = \min _ { \substack { w \in W ^ { 1, p } ( \Omega ) \\ w \not \equiv 0 } } J _ { 0 } [ \beta, w ]$$

/negationslash where

$$J _ { 0 } [ \beta, w ] \coloneqq \frac { \int _ { \Omega } | D w | ^ { p } \, d x + \beta \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } | w | ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } } { \int _ { \Omega } | w | ^ { p } \, d x } \\ \text{that } \Omega _ { 0 } \text{ is convex and hence it has Lipschitz boundary;}$$

We observe that Ω 0 is convex and hence it has Lipschitz boundary; this ensures the existence of minimizers of the analyzed problems.

Proposition 2.2. Let β ∈ R \ { 0 } . There exists a minimizer u ∈ W 1 ,p (Ω) of (2.2) , which is a weak solution to (2.1) .

Proof. First we consider the case β &gt; 0. Let u k ∈ W 1 ,p (Ω) be a minimizing sequence of (2.2) such that || u k || L p (Ω) = 1. Then, being u k bounded in W 1 ,p (Ω), there exist a subsequence, still denoted by u k , and a function u ∈ W 1 ,p (Ω) with || u || L p (Ω) = 1, such that u k → u strongly in L p (Ω) and almost everywhere and Du k ⇀ Du weakly in L p (Ω). As a consequence, u k converges strongly to u in L p ( ∂ Ω) and so almost everywhere on ∂ Ω to u . Then, by weak lower semicontinuity:

$$\lim _ { k \to + \infty } J _ { 0 } [ \beta, u _ { k } ] \geq J _ { 0 } [ \beta, u ].$$

We consider now the case β &lt; 0. Let u k ∈ W 1 ,p (Ω) be a minimizing sequence of (2.2) such that || u k || L p (Ω) = 1. Now, since β is negative, we have the equiboundness of the functional J 0 [ β, · ], i.e. there exists a constant C &lt; 0 such that J 0 [ β, u k ] ≤ C for every k ∈ N . As a consequence

$$| | D u _ { k } | | _ { L ^ { p } ( \Omega ) } ^ { p } - C | | u _ { k } | | _ { L ^ { p } ( \Omega ) } ^ { p } \leq - \beta,$$

and so

$$| | u | | _ { W ^ { 1, p } ( \Omega ) } ^ { p } \leq L, \\ \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \ tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau$$

where L := -β/ min 1 { , - } C . Then, there exist a subsequence, still denoted by u k , and a function u ∈ W 1 ,p (Ω) such that u k → u strongly in L p (Ω) and Du k ⇀Du weakly in L p (Ω). So u k converges strongly to u in L p ( ∂ Ω), and so

$$J _ { 0 } [ \beta, u ] \leq \liminf _ { k \to \infty } J _ { 0 } [ \beta, u _ { k } ] = \inf _ { \substack { v \in W ^ { 1, p } ( \Omega ) \\ v \not \equiv 0 } } J _ { 0 } [ \beta, v ].$$

/negationslash

Finally, u is strictly positive in Ω by the Harnack inequality (see [37]).

/square

Now we state some basic properties on the sign and the monotonicity of the first eigenvalue.

Proposition 2.3. If β &gt; 0 , then λ RN p ( β, Ω) is positive and if β &lt; 0 , then λ RN p ( β, Ω) is negative. Moreover, for all β ∈ R \ { 0 } , λ RN p ( β, Ω) is simple, that is all the associated eigenfunctions are scalar multiple of each other and can be taken to be positive.

Proof. Let β &gt; 0, then trivially λ RN p (Ω) ≥ 0. We prove that λ RN p (Ω) &gt; 0 by contradiction, assuming that λ RN p (Ω) = 0. Thus, we consider a non-negative minimizer u such that || u || L p (Ω) = 1 and

$$0 = \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \Omega, \beta ) = \int _ { \Omega } | D u | ^ { p } \, d x + \beta \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } | u | ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 }. \\ \intertext { a t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t o n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e s t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t a t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n e t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t s t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n e s t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e s t o n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t o n s t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n s t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e s s t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n s s t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e s e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n e st e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t e n t$$

So, u has to be constant in Ω and consequently u is 0 in Ω, which contradicts the fact that the norm of u is unitary.

If β &lt; 0, choosing the constant as test function in (2.2), we obtain

$$\lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) \leq \beta \frac { P ( \Omega _ { 0 } ) } { | \Omega | } < 0. \\ \text{in} \text{ that achieves the infi mum}.$$

Let u ∈ W 1 ,p (Ω) be a function that achieves the infimum in (2.2). First of all we observe that

$$J _ { 0 } [ \beta, u ] = J _ { 0 } [ \beta, | u | ], \\ \intertext { m, o i c o n f i n o t i o n \ m e t \ h e }$$

and this fact implies that any eigenfunction must have constant sign on Ω and so we can assume that u ≥ 0. In order to prove the simplicity of the eigenvalue, we proceed as in [4, 19]. We give here a sketch of the proof. Let u, w be positive minimizers of the functional J 0 [ β, · ], such that || u || L p (Ω) = || w || L p (Ω) = 1. We define η t = ( tu p +(1 -t ) w p ) 1 /p , with t ∈ [0 , 1] and we have that || η t || L p (Ω) = 1. It holds that

$$J _ { 0 } [ \beta, u ] = \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) = J _ { 0 } [ \beta, w ].$$

Moreover by convexity the following inequality holds true:

$$& \text{Moreover by convexity the following inequality holds true:} \\ & | D \eta _ { t } | ^ { p } = \eta _ { t } ^ { p } \left | \frac { t u ^ { p } \frac { D u } { u } + ( 1 - t ) w ^ { p } \frac { D w } { w } } { t u ^ { p } + ( 1 - t ) w ^ { p } } \right | ^ { p } \\ & \quad \leq \eta _ { t } ^ { p } \left [ \frac { t u ^ { p } } { t u ^ { p } + ( 1 - t ) w ^ { p } } \left | \frac { D u } { u } \right | ^ { p } + \frac { ( 1 - t ) w ^ { p } } { t u ^ { p } + ( 1 - t ) w ^ { p } } \left | \frac { D w } { w } \right | ^ { p } \right ] = t | D u | ^ { p } + ( 1 - t ) | D w | ^ { p }.$$

Using now (2.3), we obtain

$$& \frac { \ t u ^ { p } } { ( 1 - t ) w ^ { p } } \left | \frac { D u } { u } \right | ^ { p } + \frac { ( 1 - t ) w ^ { p } } { \ t u ^ { p } + ( 1 - t ) w ^ { p } } \left | \frac { D w } { w } \right | ^ { p } \right ] = t | D u | ^ { p } + ( 1 - t ) | D w | ^ { p }. \\ & \text{re obtain}$$

$$\lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) & \leq J _ { 0 } [ \beta, \eta _ { t } ] \leq t J _ { 0 } [ \beta, u ] + ( 1 - t ) J _ { 0 } [ \beta, w ] = \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ), \\ \dots \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \,.$$

and then η t is a minimizer for J 0 [ β, · ]. So inequality (2.4) holds as equality, and therefore Du u = Dw w . This implies that D (log u -log w ) = 0, that is log u w = const . We conclude passing to the exponentials. /square

Proposition 2.4. The map β → λ RN p ( β, Ω) is Lipschitz continuous and nondecreasing with respect to β ∈ R . Moreover λ RN p ( β, Ω) is concave in β .

Proof. Let β , β 1 2 ∈ R such that β 1 &lt; β 2 and let w ∈ W 1 ,p (Ω) be not identically 0. We observe that

$$\int _ { \Omega } | D w | ^ { p } \, d x + \beta _ { 1 } \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } | w | ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } \leq \int _ { \Omega } | D w | ^ { p } \, d x + \beta _ { 2 } \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } | w | ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 }. \\ \text{Now, assign to the information on an and taking into account the variational}$$

We prove that λ RN p ( β, Ω) is concave in β . Indeed, for fixed β 0 ∈ R , we have to show that

Now, passing to the infimum on w and taking into account the variatiational characterization, we obtain λ RN p ( β , 1 Ω) ≤ λ RN p ( β , 2 Ω).

$$w \, \text{uau} \\ \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) \leq \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta _ { 0 }, \Omega ) + \left ( \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } \right ) ^ { \prime } \left ( \beta _ { 0 }, \Omega \right ) \left ( \beta - \beta _ { 0 } \right ),$$

for every β ∈ R . Let w 0 be the eigenfunction associated to λ RN p ( β , 0 Ω) and normalized such that Ω w p 0 dx = 1. Hence, we have

Now, summing and subtracting to the right hand side of (2.6) the quantity β 0 ∫ Γ 0 | w 0 | p d H n -1 , taking into account that

$$\text{ery } \rho \in \mathbb { R }. \text{ Let } w _ { 0 } \text{ be one eigenmucion associavel to } \lambda _ { p } ^ { \dots } ( \rho _ { 0 }, \lambda ) \text{ and nor} \\ \text{d such that } \int _ { \Omega } w _ { 0 } ^ { p } \, d x = 1. \text{ Hence, we have } \\ \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) & \leq \int _ { \Omega } | D w _ { 0 } | ^ { p } \, d x + \beta \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } | w _ { 0 } | ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 }. \\ \text{summing and subtracting to the right hand side of } ( 2. 6 ) \text{ the quantity}$$

$$\lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta _ { 0 }, \Omega ) = \int _ { \Omega } | D w _ { 0 } | ^ { p } \, d x + \beta _ { 0 } \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } | w _ { 0 } | ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 },$$

$$\begin{array} { c } \text{hat} \\ \left ( \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } \right ) ^ { \prime } \left ( \beta _ { 0 }, \Omega \right ) = \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } | w _ { 0 } | ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 }, \\ \text{desired result } ( 2. 5 ). \end{array} \quad \Box$$

and the fact that we obtain the desired result (2.5).

Now we state a result relative to the eigenfunctions of problem (2.1) on the annulus.

Proposition 2.5. Let r , r 1 2 be two nonnegative real number such that r 2 &gt; r 1 , and let u be the minimizer of problem (2.2) on the annulus A r 1 ,r 2 . Then u is strictly positive and radially symmetric, in the sense that u x ( ) =: ψ ( | x | ) . Moreover, if β &gt; 0 , then ψ ′ ( r ) &lt; 0 and if β &lt; 0 , then ψ ′ ( r ) &gt; 0 .

Proof. The first claim follows from the simplicity of λ RN p ( β, A r 1 ,r 2 ) and from the rotational invariance of problem (2.1). For the second claim, we consider the problem (2.1) with the boundary parameter β &gt; 0. The associated radial problem is:

$$\text{is} \colon \quad \begin{cases} - \frac { 1 } { r ^ { n - 1 } } \left ( | \psi ^ { \prime } ( r ) | ^ { p - 2 } \psi ^ { \prime } ( r ) r ^ { n - 1 } \right ) ^ { \prime } = \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, A _ { r _ { 1 }, r _ { 2 } } ) \psi ^ { p - 1 } ( r ) \quad \text{if $r\in (r_{1},r_{2})$}, \\ \psi ^ { \prime } ( r _ { 1 } ) | \psi ^ { \prime } ( r _ { 1 } ) | ^ { p - 2 } = 0, \\ | \psi ^ { \prime } ( r _ { 2 } ) | ^ { p - 2 } \psi ^ { \prime } ( r _ { 2 } ) + \beta \psi ^ { p - 1 } ( r _ { 2 } ) = 0. \end{cases} \\ \text{We observe that for every $r\in (r_{1},r_{2})$} \\ 1 \quad \text{$i,i\prime,\cdot\lln-2,i\prime,\cdot\lln-1\prime} \quad \text{$RN\neq \lambda_{p=1}^{\prime}\cdot\cdot\cdotn-1\prime}\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdots\end{cases}$$

 We observe that for every r ∈ ( r , r 1 2 )

and, as a consequence,

$$\cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \\ & - \frac { 1 } { r ^ { n - 1 } } \left ( | \psi ^ { \prime } ( r ) | ^ { p - 2 } \psi ^ { \prime } ( r ) r ^ { n - 1 } \right ) ^ { \prime } = \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, A _ { r _ { 1 }, r _ { 2 } } ) \psi ^ { p - 1 } ( r ) > 0, \quad \quad ( 2. 7 ) \\ \text{and, as a consequence,} \\ \text{and, as a consequence,}$$

( | ψ ′ ( r ) | p -2 ψ ′ ( r r ) n -1 ) ′ &lt; 0 . Taking into account the boundary conditions ψ ′ ( r 1 ) = 0, it follows that ψ ′ ( r ) &lt; 0, since

$$| \psi ^ { \prime } ( r ) | ^ { p - 2 } \psi ^ { \prime } ( r ) r ^ { n - 1 } < 0. \\ 2 3 \quad \lambda ^ { R N } ( \beta \ A _ { \lambda } \ A _ { \lambda } ) < 0 \text{ and } \text{con}.$$

If β &lt; 0, by Remark 2.3, λ RN p ( β, A r 1 ,r 2 ) &lt; 0 and consequently the left side of the equation (2.7) is negative, and hence ψ ′ ( r ) &gt; 0.

/square

2.2. Torsional rigidity. Let β &gt; 0, we consider the torsional rigidity for the p -Laplacian. More precisely, we are interested in

/negationslash

$$\frac { 1 } { T _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \O$$

where

$$K _ { 0 } [ \beta, w ] \coloneqq \frac { \int _ {$$

$$8 ), \, \text{up to a suitable normalization, leads to} \\ \begin{$$

∣ ∣ Problem (2.8), up to a suitable normalization, leads to

 In the following, we state some results for the torsional rigidity, analogously to the ones stated in the previous section for the eigenvalue problems. The proofs can be easily adapted.

Proposition 2.6. Let β &gt; 0 , then the following properties hold.

- · There exists a positive minimizer u ∈ W 1 ,p (Ω) of (2.8) which is a weak solution to (2.9) in Ω .
- · Let r , r 1 2 be two nonnegative real numbers such that r 2 &gt; r 1 , and ψ be the minimizer of (2.8) on the annulus A r 1 ,r 2 . Then ψ is strictly positive, radially symmetric and strictly decreasing.

↦

- · The map β → 1 T RN p ( β, Ω) is positive, Lipschitz continuous, non-increasing and concave with respect to β .

2.3. Quermassintegrals: definition and some properties. For the content of this section we refer, for instance, to [35]. Let ∅ /negationslash = Ω 0 ⊆ R n be an open, compact and convex set. We define the outer parallel body of Ω 0 at distance ρ as the Minkowski sum

$$\begin{array} {$$

The Steiner formula asserts that

$$| \Omega _ { 0 } + \rho B _ { 1 } | = \sum _$$

and

The coefficients W i (Ω ) are known as quermassintegrals and some of them have 0 an easy interpretation:

$$P ( \Omega _ { 0 } + \rho B _ { 1 } ) = n \sum _ { i = 0 } ^ { n - 1 } \binom { n } { i } W _ { i + 1 } ( \Omega _ { 0 } ) \rho ^ { i }. \quad & ( 2. 1 1 ) \\ \text{ients } W _ { i } ( \Omega _ { 0 } ) \text{ are known as quermassintegrals and some of them have}$$

$$W _ { 0 } ( \Omega _ { 0 } ) = | \Omega _ { 0 } | ; \quad n W _ { 1 } ( \Omega _ { 0 } ) = P ( \Omega _ { 0 } ) ; \quad W _ { n } ( \Omega _ { 0 } ) = \omega _ { n }. \quad \left ( 2. 1 2 \right )$$

Furthermore, we have that

$$\lim _ { \rho \to 0 ^ { + } } \frac { P ( \Omega _ { 0 } + \rho B _ { 1 } ) - P ( \Omega _ { 0 } ) } { \rho } = n ( n - 1 ) W _ { 2 } ( \Omega _ { 0 } )$$

We recall also the Aleksandrov-Fenchel inequalities

$$& \left ( \frac { W _ { j } ( \Omega _ { 0 } ) } { \omega _ { n } } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { n - j } } \geq \overset { \cdot } { \left ( \frac { W _ { i } ( \Omega _ { 0 } ) } { \omega _ { n } } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { n - i } } }, \\ < n. \text{ with equality if and only if } \Omega \text{ is a ball. If we mut in the last}$$

$$P ( \Omega _ { 0 } ) ^ { \frac { n } { n - 1 } } \geq n ^ { \frac { n } { n - 1 } } \omega _ { n } ^ { \frac { 1 } { n - 1 } } | \Omega _ { 0 } |. \\ \text{use in } ( 2. 1 4 ) \text{ when } i = 1 \text{ and } i = 2 \colon$$

for 0 ≤ i &lt; j &lt; n , with equality if and only if Ω 0 is a ball. If we put in the last inequality i = 0 and j = 1, we obtain the classical isoperimetric inequality, that is:

We will also need the case in (2.14) when i = 1 and j = 2:

$$W _ { 2 } ( \Omega _ { 0 } ) & \geq n ^ { - \frac { n - 2 } { n - 1 } } \omega _ { n } ^ { \frac { 1 } { n - 1 } } P ( \Omega _ { 0 } ) ^ { \frac { n - 2 } { n - 1 } }. \\ \intertext { i o n e w i l l d o n o t a b r d ( r ) } \, \text{tho distinct one function from the bound}.$$

In the next sections, we will denote by d e ( x ) the distance function from the boundary of Ω . 0 We use the following notations:

$$\Omega _ { 0, t } = \{ x \in \Omega _ { 0 } \ \colon \ d _ { e } ( x ) > t \}, \quad \ t \in [ 0, r _ { \Omega _ { 0 } } ], \\ \dots \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \alpha \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \beta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Lambda \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Delta \Dots$$

where by r Ω 0 we denote the inradius of Ω . We state now the following two lemmas, 0 whose proofs can be found in [9] and [12].

Lemma 2.7. Let Ω 0 be a bounded, convex, open set in R n . Then, for almost every t ∈ (0 , r Ω 0 ) , we have and equality holds if Ω 0 is a ball.

$$\sum _ { \substack { \iota } \epsilon \Omega \colon \infty } - \frac { d } { d t } P ( \Omega _ { 0, t } ) \geq n ( n - 1 ) W _ { 2 } ( \Omega _ { 0, t } )$$

By simply applying the chain rule formula and recalling that | Dd e ( x ) | = 1 almost everywhere, it remains proved the following.

Lemma 2.8. Let f : [0 , + ∞ → ) [0 , + ∞ ) be a non decreasing C 1 function and let ˜ : [0 f , + ∞ → ) [0 , + ∞ ) a non increasing C 1 function. We define u x ( ) := f ( d e ( x )) , ˜( u x ) := ˜ ( f d e ( x )) and

$$E _ { 0, t } & \coloneqq \{ x \in \Omega _ { 0 } \ \colon \ u ( x ) > t \}, \\ \tilde { E } _ { 0, t } & \coloneqq \{ x \in \Omega _ { 0 } \ \colon \ \tilde { u } ( x ) < t \}.$$

$$\tilde { E } _ { 0, t } \coloneqq \{ x \in \Omega _ { 0 } \ \colon \ \tilde { u } ( x ) < t \}.$$

Then, and

$$- \, \frac { d } { d t } P ( E _ { 0, t } ) \geq n ( n - 1 ) \frac { W _ { 2 } ( E _ { 0, t } ) } { | D u | _ { u = t } }, \\ \quad \, \tilde { \ } \, \tilde { \ } \, \tilde { \ } \,.$$

$$& \frac { d } { d t } P ( \tilde { E } _ { 0, t } ) \geq n ( n - 1 ) \frac { W _ { 2 } ( \tilde { E } _ { 0, t } ) } { | D \tilde { u } | _ { \tilde { u } = t } }. \\ & \quad \ D n o o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o o n n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n n o o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o,$$

## 3. Proof of the main result

In this section we state and prove the main results. In the first theorem, we study the problem (2.2), in the second one the problem (2.8). We consider a set Ω as defined at the beginning of Section 2.

Theorem 3.1. Let β ∈ R \{ } 0 and let Ω be such that Ω = Ω 0 \ Θ , where Ω 0 ⊆ R n is an open bounded and convex set and Θ ⊂⊂ Ω 0 is a finite union of sets, each of one homeomorphic to a ball of R n and with Lipschitz boundary. Let A = A r 1 ,r 2 be the annulus having the same measure of Ω and such that P B ( r 2 ) = P (Ω ) 0 . Then,

$$\lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) & \leq \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, A ). \\ \intertext { \infty f in \ t w o \ e c o c o } \text{ if $f_{\infty}$} \eqclon$$

Proof. We divide the proof in two cases, distinguishing the sign of the Robin boundary parameter.

Case 1: β &gt; 0 . We start by considering problem (2.2) with positive value of the Robin parameter. The solution v to (2.2) is a radial function by Proposition 2.5 and we denote by v m and v M the minimum and the maximum of v on A . We construct the following test function defined in Ω : 0

$$u ( x ) \coloneqq \begin{cases} G ( d _ { e } ( x ) ) & \text{ if } d _ { e } ( x ) < r _ { 2 } - r _ { 1 } \\ v _ { M } & \text{ if } d _ { e } ( x ) \geq r _ { 2 } - r _ { 1 }, \end{cases} \text{($\quad $1$)}$$

$$G ^ { - 1 } ( t ) = \int _ { v _ { m } } ^ { t } \frac { 1 } { g ( \tau ) } \, d \tau, \\ \text{ed for } v _ { m } \leq t < v _ { M }, \text{ and } d _ { e } ( \cdot )$$

where G is defined as with g t ( ) = | Dv | v = t , defined for v m ≤ t &lt; v M , and d e ( ) denotes the distance from · ∂ Ω . 0 We observe that v x ( ) = G r ( 2 - | x | ) and u satisfy the following properties: u ∈ W 1 ,p (Ω ) and 0

$$| D u | _ { u = t } = | D v | _ { v = t }, \\ u _ { m } \coloneqq \min _ { \Omega _ { 0 } } u = v _ { m } = G ( 0 ), \\ u _ { M } \coloneqq \max _ { \Omega _ { 0 } } u \leq v _ { M }. \\ \text{the follow} \sin \sigma \text{ sets}.$$

We need now to define the following sets:

$$\text{com} \, \text{in moving } \infty. \\ E _ { 0, t } \coloneqq & \{ x \in \Omega _ { 0 } \ \colon \, u ( x ) > t \}, \\ A _ { t } \coloneqq & \{ x \in A \ \colon \, v ( x ) > t \}, \\ A _ { 0, t } \coloneqq & A _ { t } \cup \overline { B } _ { r _ { 1 } }.$$

For simplicity of notation, we will denote by A 0 the set A 0 0 , , i.e. the ball B r 2 . Since E 0 ,t and A 0 ,t are convex sets, inequalities (2.16) and (2.15) imply

$$- \frac { d } { d t } P ( E _ { 0, t } ) \geq n ( n - 1 ) \frac { W _ { 2 } ( E _ { 0, t } ) } { g ( t ) } \geq n ( n - 1 ) n ^ { - \frac { n - 2 } { n - 1 } } \omega _ { n } ^ { \frac { 1 } { n - 1 } } \frac { ( P ( E _ { 0, t } ) ) ^ { \frac { n - 2 } { n - 1 } } } { g ( t ) },$$

for u m &lt; t &lt; u M . Moreover, it holds

$$- \frac { d } { d t } P ( A _ { 0, t } ) = n ( n - 1 ) n ^ { - \frac { n - 2 } { n - 1 } } \omega _ { n } ^ { \frac { 1 } { n - 1 } } \frac { ( P ( A _ { 0, t } ) ) ^ { \frac { n - 2 } { n - 1 } } } { g ( t ) },$$

for v m &lt; t &lt; v M . Since, by hypothesis, P (Ω ) = 0 P B ( r 2 ), using a comparison type theorem, we obtain

$$P ( E _ { 0, t } ) \leq P ( A _ { 0, t } ), \\ \cdots \cap \infty \infty + \infty +$$

$$\mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } ( \partial E _ { 0, t } \cap \Omega ) \leq P ( E _ { 0,$$

for v m ≤ t &lt; u M . Let us also observe that

Using now the coarea formula and (3.3):

$$\dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \dashrightarrow \cd$$

Since, by construction, u x ( ) = u m = v m on Γ , then 0

$$\int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } u ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } & = u _ { m$$

Now, we define µ t ( ) = | E 0 ,t ∩ Ω and | η t ( ) = | A t | and using again coarea formula, we obtain, for v m ≤ t &lt; u M ,

$$\mu ^ { \prime } ( t ) = - \int _ { \{ u = t \} \cap \Omega } \frac { 1 } { | D u$$

This inequality holds true also if 0 &lt; t &lt; v M . Since µ (0) = η (0) (indeed | Ω = | | A | ), by integrating from 0 to t , we have:

$$\mu ( t ) \geq \eta ( t ), \quad \begin{array} {$$

for 0 ≤ t &lt; v M . If we consider the eigenvalue problem (2.2), we have

$$\int _ { \Omega } u ^ { p } \ d x = \int _ { v _ { m } } ^ { v _ { M } } p t ^ { p - 1 } \mu ( t ) d t \geq \int _ { v _ { m } } ^ { v _ { M } } p t ^ { p - 1 } \eta ( t ) \ d t = \int _ { A } v ^ { p } \ d x.$$

Using (3.4)-(3.5)-(3.7), we achieve

$$\sin { ( 3. 4 ) } { - ( 3. 5 ) } { - ( 3. 7 ) }, \, \text{ we achieve} \\ \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) & \leq \frac { \int _ { \Omega } | D u | ^ { p } \, d x + \beta \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } u ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } } { \int _ { \Omega } u ^ { p } \, d x } \\ & \leq \frac { \int _ { A } | D v | ^ { p } \, d x + \beta \int _ { \partial A _ { 0 } } v ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } } { \int _ { A } v ^ { p } \, d x } = \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, A ). \\ \text{ Case 2: } \, \beta \, < \, 0. \, \text{ We consider now the problem (2.2) with negative Robi} \\ \text{ternal boundary narrower} \, \text{$R$ Proposition $2$} \, 3 the first $n$ I anlacian eiaconly}$$

Case 2: β &lt; 0 . We consider now the problem (2.2) with negative Robin external boundary parameter. By Proposition 2.3 the first p -Laplacian eigenvalue is negative. We observe that v is a radial function. We construct now the following test function defined in Ω : 0

$$u ( x ) \coloneqq \begin{cases} G ( d _ { e } ( x ) ) & \text{ if } d _ { e } ( x ) < r _ { 2 } - r _ { 1 } \\ v _ { m } & \text{ if } d _ { e } ( x ) \geq r _ { 2 } - r _ { 1 }, \\. \ e \ \. \end{cases}$$

where G is defined as

$$G ^ { - 1 } ( t ) & = \int _ { t } ^ { v _ { M } } \frac { 1 } { g ( \tau ) } \, d \tau, \\ \intertext { n o d } \, \text{ for } \, \sigma \, \cdots \, t \, < \, \sigma.. \, \text{ with } \, \sigma.$$

with g t ( ) = | Dv | v = t , defined for v m &lt; t ≤ v M with v m := min A v and v M := max A v . We observe that u satisfies the following properties: u ∈ W 1 ,p (Ω ) and 0

$$| D u | _ { u = t } = | D v | _ { v = t }, \\ u _ { m } \coloneqq \min _ { \Omega } u \geq v _ { m }, \\ u _ { M } \coloneqq \max _ { \Omega } u = v _ { M } = G ( 0 ). \\ \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot$$

We need now to define the following sets:

$$\lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \\ \tilde { E } _ { 0, t } = & \{ x \in \Omega _ { 0 } \ \colon \ u ( x ) < t \}, \\ \tilde { A } _ { t } = & \{ x \in A \ \colon \ v ( x ) < t \} ; \\ \tilde { A } _ { 0, t } = & \tilde { A } _ { t } \cup \overline { B } _ { r _ { 1 } }. \\ \vdots \longrightarrow \, \dots \, \dots \, \vdots \, \int \, \lambda \, \frac { \lambda } { \lambda \, \infty } + \lambda \, \end{array} \tilde { A } \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \\ \alpha \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \\ \alpha \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \\ \alpha \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \\ \alpha \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \\ \alpha \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \\ \alpha \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \\ \alpha \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \, \end{array} \lambda \, \begin{array} { c } \lambda \, \end{array} \lambda \end{array}$$

For simplicity of notation, we will denote by ˜ A 0 the set ˜ A 0 0 , , i.e. the ball B r 2 . Since ˜ E 0 ,t and ˜ A 0 ,t are now convex sets, by inequalities (2.17) and (2.15), we obtain

$$\frac { d } { d t } P ( \tilde { E } _ { 0, t } ) \geq n ( n - 1 ) \frac { W _ { 2 } ( \tilde { E } _ { 0, t } ) } { g ( t ) } \geq n ( n - 1 ) n ^ { - \frac { n - 2 } { n - 1 } } \omega _ { n } ^ { \frac { 1 } { n - 1 } } \frac { \left ( P ( \tilde { E } _ { 0, t } ) \right ) ^ { \frac { n - 2 } { n - 1 } } } { g ( t ) }.$$

Moreover, it holds

$$\frac { d } { d t } P ( \tilde { A } _ { 0, t } ) = n ( n - 1 ) n ^ { - \frac { n - 2 } { n - 1 } } \omega _ { n } ^ { \frac { 1 } { n - 1 } } \frac { \left ( P ( \tilde { A } _ { 0, t } ) \right ) ^ { \frac { n - 2 } { n - 1 } } } { g ( t ) }.$$

Since, by hypothesis, P (Ω ) = 0 P B ( r 2 ), using a comparison type theorem, we obtain ( ˜ ( ˜ ,

$$P ( \tilde { E } _ { 0, t } ) \leq P ( \tilde { A } _ { 0, t } ),$$

for u m ≤ t &lt; v M . Moreover, we have

$$\mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } ( \partial \tilde { E } _ { 0, t } \cap \Omega ) \leq P ( \tilde { E } _ { 0, t } ) \leq P ( \tilde { A } _ { 0, t } ).$$

Using the coarea formula and (3.8),

$$\stackrel { \dots } { \dots } \circ \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \\ \int _ { \Omega } | D u | ^ { p } \, d x = \int _ { u _ { m } } ^ { u _ { M } } g ( t ) ^ { p - 1 } \, \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } ( \partial \tilde { E } _ { 0, t } \cap \Omega ) \, d t \\ \leq \int _ { u _ { m } } ^ { u _ { M } } g ( t ) ^ { p - 1 } P ( \tilde { E } _ { 0, t } ) \, d t \leq \int _ { v _ { m } } ^ { v _ { M } } g ( t ) ^ { p - 1 } P ( \tilde { A } _ { 0, t } ) \, d t = \int _ { A } | D v | ^ { p } \, d x. \\ \text{Since. by construction. } u ( x ) = u _ { M } = v _ { M } \text{ on } \Gamma _ { A } \text{. it holds}$$

Since, by construction, u x ( ) = u M = v M on Γ , it holds 0

$$\int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } u ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } = u ^ { p } _ { M } P ( \Omega _ { 0 } ) = v ^ { p } _ { M } P ( A _ { 0 } ) = \int _ { \partial A _ { 0 } } v ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 }. \quad \quad ( 3. 1 0 ) \\ \dots \quad \sim \quad \dots \quad \sim \dots \quad \sim.$$

We define now ˜( ) µ t = | ˜ E 0 ,t ∩ Ω and ˜( ) = | η t | ˜ A t | and using coarea formula, we obtain, for u m ≤ t &lt; v M ,

$$\tilde { \mu } ^ { \prime } ( t ) = \int _ { \{ u = t \} \cap \Omega } \frac { 1 } { | D u ( x ) | } \ d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } = \frac { \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } ( \partial \tilde { E } _ { 0, t } \cap \Omega ) } { g ( t ) } \leq \frac { P ( \tilde { E } _ { 0, t } ) } { g ( t ) } \\ \leq \frac { P ( \tilde { A } _ { 0, t } ) } { g ( t ) } = \int _ { \{ v = t \} } \frac { 1 } { | D v ( x ) | } \ d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } = \tilde { \eta } ^ { \prime } ( t ). \\ \text{Hence } u ^ { \prime } ( t ) < n ^ { \prime } ( t ) \text{ for } v _ { \mathbb { m } } < t < v _ { \mathbb { M } }. \text{ Then, by integrating from } t \text{ and } v _ { \mathbb { M } } \colon$$

Hence µ ′ ( ) t ≤ η ′ ( ) for t v m ≤ t ≤ v M . Then, by integrating from t and v M :

$$| \Omega | - \tilde { \mu } ( t ) \leq | A | - \tilde { \eta } ( t ),$$

for v m ≤ t &lt; v M and consequently ˜( ) µ t ≥ ˜( ). η t

Let us consider the eigenvalue problem (2.2). We have that

$$\int _ { \Omega } u ^ { p } \, d x = u _ { M } ^ { p } | \Omega | - \int _ { u _ { m } } ^ { u _ { M } } p \tilde { \mu } ^ { p - 1 } \tilde { \mu } ( t ) d t \leq v _ { M } ^ { p } | A | - \int _ { v _ { m } } ^ { v _ { M } } p \tilde { \mu } ^ { p - 1 } \tilde { \eta } ( t ) \, d t = \int _ { A } v ^ { p } \, d x.$$

By (3.9)-(3.10)-(3.11), we have

$$\lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) \leq \frac { \int _ { \Omega } | D u | ^ { p } \, d x + \beta \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } u ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } } {$$

$$\frac { \int _ { \Omega } | D u | ^ { p } \, d x + \beta \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } u ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } } { \int _ { \Omega } u ^ { p } \, d x } & \leq$$

Theorem 3.2. Let β &gt; 0 and let Ω be such that Ω = Ω 0 \ Θ , where Ω 0 ⊆ R n is an open bounded and convex set and Θ ⊂⊂ Ω 0 is a finite union of sets, each of one homeomorphic to a ball of R n and with Lipschitz boundary. Let A = A r 1 ,r 2 be the annulus having the same measure of Ω and such that P B ( r 2 ) = P (Ω ) 0 . Then,

$$T _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) \geq T _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, A ).$$

Proof. Let v be the function that achieves the minimum in (2.8) on the annulus A . We consider the test function as in (3.1) and the superlevel sets as in (3.2). By (3.6) we have

$$\int _ { \Omega } u \, d x = \int _ { 0 } ^ { v _ { M } } \mu ( t ) d t \geq \int _ { 0 } ^ { v _ { M } } \eta ( t ) \, d t = \int _ { A } v \, d x. \quad \quad \quad$$

In this way, using (3.4)-(3.5)-(3.12), we conclude

$$\frac { 1 } { T _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) } \leq \frac { \int _ { \Omega } | D u | ^ { p } \, d x + \beta \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } u ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ {$$

$$\frac { 1 } { \L N ( \beta, \Omega ) } & \leq \frac { \int _ { \Omega } | D u | ^ { r } \, d x + \beta \int _ { \Gamma _ { 0 } } u ^ { r } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - r } } { \left | \int _ { \Omega } u \, d x \right | ^ { p } } \\ & \leq \frac { \int _ { A } | D v | ^ { p } \, d x + \beta \int _ { \partial A _ { 0 } } v ^ { p } \, d \mathcal { H } ^ { n - 1 } } { \left | \int _ { A } v \, d x \right | ^ { p } } = \frac { 1 } { T _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, A ) }. \\ \\ \text{e with some remarks.}$$

/square

We conclude with some remarks.

Remark 3.3. In [1] the authors prove that the annulus maximizes the first eigenvalue of the p -Laplacian with Neumann condition on internal boundary and Dirichlet condition on external boundary, among sets of R n with holes and having a

sphere as outer boundary. We explicitly observe that our result includes this case, since

$$\lim _ { \beta \to + \infty } \lambda _ { p } ^ { R N } ( \beta, \Omega ) = \lambda _ { p } ^ { D N } ( \Omega ),$$

where with λ DN p (Ω) we denote the first eigenvalue of the p -Laplacian endowed with Dirichlet condition on external boundary and Neumann condition on internal boundary.

Remark 3.4. Let us remark that in the case p = 2, we know esplicitely the expression of the solution of the problems described in the paper on the annulus A = A r 1 ,r 2 .

We denote by J ν and Y ν , respectively, the Bessel functions of the first and second kind of order ν . The function that achieves the minimum in λ = λ RN p ( β, A ) is with the condition

$$& \text{mul on once } \nu. \, \text{me in the form of max unless } \text{me in minimum in } \Lambda - \Lambda _ { p } \ \vee \nu, \, \alpha \right ] \text{is} \\ & \quad v ( r ) = Y _ { \frac { n } { 2 } - 2 } ( \sqrt { \lambda } r _ { 2 } ) r ^ { 1 - \frac { n } { 2 } } J _ { \frac { n } { 2 } - 1 } ( \sqrt { \lambda } r ) - J _ { \frac { n } { 2 } - 2 } ( \sqrt { \lambda } r _ { 2 } ) r ^ { 1 - \frac { n } { 2 } } Y _ { \frac { n } { 2 } - 1 } ( \sqrt { \lambda } r ), \\ & \text{with the condition}$$

$$Y _ { \frac { n } { 2 } - 2 } ( \sqrt { \lambda } r _ { 1 } ) [ r _ { 2 } ^ { 1 - \frac { n } { 2 } } J _ { \frac { n } { 2 } - 2 } ( \sqrt { \lambda } r _ { 2 } ) \sqrt { \lambda } + \beta r _ { 2 } ^ { 1 - \frac { n } { 2 } } J _ { \frac { n } { 2 } - 1 } ( \sqrt { \lambda } r _ { 2 } ) ] -$$

$$Y _ { \frac { n } { 2 } - 2 } ( \sqrt { \lambda } r _ { 1 } ) [ r _ { 2 } ^ { 1 - \frac { n } { 2 } } J _ { \frac { n } { 2 } - 2 } ( \sqrt { \lambda } r _ { 2 } ) \sqrt { \lambda } + \beta r _ { 2 } ^ { 1 - \frac { n } { 2 } } J _ { \frac { n } { 2 } - 1 } ( \sqrt { \lambda } r _ { 2 } ) ] - \\ J _ { \frac { n } { 2 } - 2 } ( \sqrt { \lambda } r _ { 1 } ) [ r _ { 2 } ^ { 1 - \frac { n } { 2 } } Y _ { \frac { n } { 2 } - 2 } ( \sqrt { \lambda } r _ { 2 } ) \sqrt { \lambda } + \beta r _ { 2 } ^ { 1 - \frac { n } { 2 } } Y _ { \frac { n } { 2 } - 1 } ( \sqrt { \lambda } r _ { 2 } ) ] = 0. \\ \quad \_ \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \colon$$

The function that achieves the minimum 1 /T = 1 /T RN p ( β, A ) is

$$v ( r ) = \frac { 1 } { 2 T n } r ^ { 2 } + c _ { 1 } \frac { ( 1 - n ) } { r ^ { n } } + c _ { 2 },$$

with

$$\begin{cases} c _ { 1 } = \frac { 1 } { \beta T } \left ( \frac { r _ { 2 } } { n } - \frac { r _ { 1 } ^ { n } } { n r _ { 2 } ^ { n - 1 } } + \frac { \beta r _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } { 2 n } + \frac { ( n - 1 ) \beta } { n } \left ( \frac { r _ { 1 } } { r _ { 2 } } \right ) ^ { n } \right ) \\ c _ { 2 } = - \frac { 1 } { n T } r _ { 1 } ^ { n }. \end{cases} \\ \Lambda \cos u n r o c o m m e c.$$

## Acnowledgements

This work has been partially supported by GNAMPA of INdAM. The second author (G. Pi.) was also supported by Progetto di eccellenza 'Sistemi distribuiti intelligenti'of Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica e dell'Informazione 'M. Scarano'.

Moreover, we would like to thank the reviewer for his/her suggestions to improve this paper.

## References

- [1] T. V. Anoop, K. Ashok Kumar, On reverse Faber-Krahn inequalities , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 485.1 (2020): 1-20.
- [2] P.R. Antunes, P. Freitas, D. Krejˇiˇ ´ ık, c r Bounds and extremal domains for Robin eigenvalues with negative boundary parameter , Adv. Calc. Var. 10.4 (2017): 357-379.
- [3] M. S. Ashbaugh, R. D. Benguria, Isoperimetric inequalities for eigenvalues of the Laplacian. Spectral theory and mathematical physics: a Festschrift in honor of Barry Simon's 60th birthday : 105-139. Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. 76.1 , Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI (2007).

- [4] M. Belloni, B. Kawohl, A direct uniqueness proof for equations involving the p -Laplace operator , Manuscripta Math. 109.2 , (2002): 229-231.
- [5] M. Belloni, V. Ferone, B. Kawohl. Isoperimetric inequalities, Wulff shape and related questions for strongly nonlinear elliptic operators. Special issue dedicated to Lawrence E. Payne , Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 54.5 (2003): 771-783.
- [6] M. van den Berg, D. Bucur, On the torsion function with Robin or Dirichlet boundary conditions , J. Funct. Anal. 266.3 (2014): 1647-1666.
- [7] M. van den Berg, G. Buttazzo, B. Velichkov, Optimization problems involving the first Dirichlet eigenvalue and the torsional rigidity. New trends in shape optimization : 19-41, Internat. Ser. Numer. Math. 166 (2015).
- [8] M. H. Bossel. Membranes ´ elastiquement li´es: e extension du theoreme de Rayleigh-FaberKrahn et de l'inegalit´ de Cheeger (French. English summary) [Elastically supported meme branes: extension of the Rayleigh-Faber-Krahn theorem and of Cheeger's inequality] , C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´r. I Math. e 302.1 (1986): 47-50.
- [9] B. Brandolini, C. Nitsch, C. Trombetti, An upper bound for nonlinear eigenvalues on convex domains by means of the isoperimetric deficit , Arch. Math. (Basel) 94.4 (2010): 391-400.
- [10] L. Brasco, On torsional rigidity and principal frequencies: an invitation to the Kohler-Jobin rearrengement technique , ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 20.2 (2014): 315-338.
- [11] D. Bucur, D. Daners, An alternative approach to the Faber-Krahn inequality for Robin problems , Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 37.1-2 (2010): 75-86.
- [12] D. Bucur, V. Ferone, C. Nitsch, C. Trombetti, A sharp estimate for the first RobinLaplacian eigenvalue with negative boundary parameter , Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Rend. Lincei Mat. Appl. 30.4 (2019): 665-676.
- [13] D. Bucur, A. Giacomini, The Saint-Venant inequality for the Laplace operator with Robin boundary conditions , Milan J. Math. 83.2 (2015): 327-343.
- [14] G. Crasta, I. Fragal´, F. Gazzola, a A sharp upper bound for the torsional rigidity of rods by means of web functions , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 164.3 (2002): 189-211.
- [15] Q. Dai, Y. Fu, Faber-Krahn inequality for Robin problems involving p-Laplacian , Acta Math. Appl. Sin. Engl. Ser. 27.1 , (2011): 13-28.
- [16] D. Daners, A Faber-Krahn inequality for Robin problems in any space dimension , Math. Ann. 335.4 (2006): 767-785.
- [17] D . Daners, Krahn's proof of the Rayleigh conjecture revisited , Arch Math. (Basel) 96.2 (2011): 187-199.
- [18] F. Della Pietra, G. Piscitelli, An optimal bound for nonlinear eigenvalues and torsional rigidity on domains with holes , Preprint (2020): 1-12.
- [19] F. Della Pietra, N. Gavitone, Faber-Krahn inequality for anisotropic eigenvalue problems with Robin boundary conditions , Potential Anal. 41.4 (2014): 1147-1166.
- [20] F. Della Pietra, N. Gavitone, G. Piscitelli, On the second Dirichlet eigenvalue of some nonlinear anisotropic elliptic operators , Bull. Sci. Math. 155 (2019): 10-32.
- [21] F. Della Pietra, N. Gavitone, G. Piscitelli, A sharp weighted anisotropic Poincar´ inequality e for convex domains , C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 355.7 (2017): 748-752.
- [22] G. Faber, Beweis, dass unter allen homogenen Membranen von gleicher Fl¨che und gleicher a Spannung die kreisf¨rmige den tiefsten Grundton gibt o , Sitzungsberichte der mathematischphysikalischen Klasse der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Mu¨nchen (1923): u 169-172.
- [23] P. Freitas, D. Krejˇiˇ ´ ık, c r The first Robin eigenvalue with negative boundary parameter , Adv. Math. 280 (2015): 322-339.
- [24] N. Gavitone, L. Trani, On the first Robin eigenvalue of a class of anisotropic operators , Milan J. Math. 86.2 (2018): 201-223.

- [25] A. Henrot, Extremum problems for eigenvalues of elliptic operators , Frontiers in Mathematics. Birkh¨user Verlag, Basel (2006): x+202. a
- [26] J. Hersch, Contribution to the method of interior parallels applied to vibrating membranes . Studies in Mathematical Analysis and Related Topics, Stanford University Press (1962), 132-139.
- [27] E. Krahn, ¨ ber eine von Rayleigh formulierte Minimaleigenschaft des Kreises U , Math. Ann. 94.1 (1925), 97-100.
- [28] E. Makai, On the principal frequency of a convex membrane and related problems , Czechoslovak Math. J. 9.1 (1959): 66-70.
- [29] G. Paoli, L. Trani, Two estimates for the first Robin eigenvalue of the Finsler Laplacian with negative boundary parameter , J. Optim. Theory Appl. 181.3 (2019): 743-757.
- [30] L. E. Payne, Isoperimetric inequalities and their applications , SIAM Rev. 9 (1967): 453488.
- [31] L. E. Payne, H. F. Weinberger, Some isoperimetric inequalities for membrane frequencies and torsional rigidity , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2 (1961): 210-216.
- [32] G. Piscitelli, The anisotropic ∞ -Laplacian eigenvalue problem with Neumann boundary conditions , Differential Integral Equations 32.11-12 (2019): 705-734.
- [33] G. P´ olya, Two more inequalities between physical and geometrical quantities , J. Indian Math. Soc. (N.S.) 24 (1960): 413-419.
- [34] G. P´ olya, G. Szeg¨, o Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics. Annals of Mathematics Studies, no. 27 , Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J. (1951): xvi+279.
- [35] R. Schneider, Convex bodies: the Brunn-Minkowski theory. Second expanded edition , Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications 151 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014): xxii+736.
- [36] I. S. Sokolnikoff, Mathematical theory of elasticity. 2d ed. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York-Toronto-London (1956): xi+476.
- [37] N. Trudinger, On Harnack type inequalities and their applications to quasilinear elliptic equations. , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 20 (1967): 721-747.

Dipartimento di Matematica e Applicazioni 'R. Caccioppoli', Universit` degli a studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Cintia, Complesso Universitario Monte S. Angelo, 80126 Napoli, Italy.

E-mail address : gloria.paoli@unina.it

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica e dell'Informazione 'M. Scarano', Universit` degli Studi di Cassino e del Lazio Meridionale, Via G. Di Biasio n. a 43, 03043 Cassino (FR), Italy.

E-mail address : gianpaolo.piscitelli@unicas.it

Dipartimento di Matematica e Applicazioni 'R. Caccioppoli', Universit` degli a studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Cintia, Complesso Universitario Monte S. Angelo, 80126 Napoli, Italy.

E-mail address : leonardo.trani@unina.it
Gloria Paoli Gianpaolo Piscitelli Leonardo Trani
Sharp estimates for the first $p$-Laplacian eigenvalue and for the $p$-torsional rigidity on convex sets with holes
We study, in dimension $n\geq2$, the eigenvalue problem and the torsional
rigidity for the $p$-Laplacian on convex sets with holes, with external Robin
boundary conditions and internal Neumann boundary conditions. We prove that the
annulus maximizes the first eigenvalue and minimizes the torsional rigidity
when the measure and the external perimeter are fixed.