## A Neˇ cas-Lions inequality with symmetric gradients on star-shaped domains based on a first order Babuˇ ska-Aziz inequality

Michele Botti, Lorenzo Mascotto ∗ †

## Abstract

We prove a Neˇ cas-Lions inequality with symmetric gradients on two and three dimensional domains of diameter R that are star-shaped with respect to a ball of radius ρ ; the constants in the inequality are explicit with respect to R and ρ . Crucial tools in deriving this inequality are a first order Babuˇka-Aziz inequality based on Bogovski˘ ı's construction of a right-inverse s of the divergence and Fourier transform techniques proposed by Dur´n. a As a byproduct, we derive arbitrary order estimates in arbitrary dimension for that operator.

AMS subject classification : 35C05; 35C15; 35S05; 42B20; 42B37; 53A45

Keywords : Babuˇ ska-Aziz inequality; Neˇ cas-Lions inequality; inf-sup condition; Bogovski˘ ı operator; symmetric tensor.

## 1 Introduction

We derive a Neˇ cas-Lions inequality with symmetric gradients on star-shaped domains in two and three dimensions; first order Babuˇ ska-Aziz and (vector) Neˇas-Lions inequalities are crucial tools c to show estimates that are explicit with respect to certain geometric quantities of the domain. As a byproduct, we also derive explicit arbitrary order Babuˇka-Aziz inequalities in arbitrary dimension. s

Outline of the introduction. After introducing the functional setting and the domains of interest, we review the literature and the main concepts related to the lowest order Babuˇ skaAziz and Neˇ cas-Lions inequalities in Sections 1.1 and 1.2. In Sections 1.3 and 1.4, we discuss the generalisation of these two results to the first order case. The Neˇ cas-Lions inequality with symmetric gradients, based on all the foregoing results, is shown in Section 1.5. Finally, we describe the outline of the remainder of the paper.

Functional spaces and notation. In what follows, ∇ ∇× , , and ∇· denote the gradient, curl, and divergence operators. The operators ∇ S and ∇ SS are the symmetric and skew-symmetric parts of ∇ :

$$\nabla = \nabla _ { S } + \nabla _ { S S }.$$

We use standard notation [15] for Sobolev spaces on Lipschitz domains Ω with boundary ∂ Ω. The outward unit normal vector to ∂ Ω is n Ω . H s (Ω) denotes the Sobolev space of order s ≥ 0, which we equip with inner product ( · , · ) s , seminorm |·| s, Ω , and norm ‖·‖ s, Ω . The case s = 0 corresponds to H 0 (Ω) = L 2 (Ω). The space of functions in L 2 (Ω) with zero average over Ω is denoted by L 2 0 (Ω).

For s positive, we define H s 0 (Ω) as the closure of C ∞ 0 (Ω) with respect to the H s (Ω) norm. In what follows, we shall particularly use the spaces H 1 0 (Ω) and H 2 0 (Ω), which coincide [11, 23] with the spaces of functions with zero trace, and functions with zero trace and whose gradients have zero trace over ∂ Ω, respectively.

∗ MOX Department of Mathematics, Politecnico of Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy (michele.botti@polimi.it)

† Department of Mathematics and Applications, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20125 Milan, Italy (lorenzo.mascotto@unimib.it); Faculty of Mathematics, University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria; IMATI-CNR, 27100 Pavia, Italy

Negative order Sobolev spaces are defined by duality. We introduce the spaces H -1 (Ω) := [ H 1 0 (Ω)] ∗ and H -2 (Ω) := [ H 2 0 (Ω)] ∗ equipped with the norms

$$\| u \| _ { - 1, \Omega } \coloneqq \sup _ { v \in H _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } \frac { - 1 \langle u, v \rangle _ { 1 } } { | v | _ { 1, \Omega } }, \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

where -/lscript 〈· , ·〉 /lscript is the duality pairing between H -/lscript (Ω) and H /lscript 0 (Ω).

The definitions above extend to the case of vector fields and tensors. With an abuse of notation, the norms on scalar, vector fields, and tensors are denoted with the same symbols.

For positive a and b , by a /lessorsimilar b , we shall occasionally mean that there exists a positive constant c independent of relevant geometric parameters such that a ≤ c b . An extra subscript makes it explicit a hidden dependence on a parameter of interest.

Domains of interest. Henceforth, Ω in R n is a domain of diameter R that is star-shaped with respect to a ball B ρ of radius ρ. (3)

## 1.1 The lowest order Babuˇ ska-Aziz inequality

The standard, lowest order version of the Babuˇ ska-Aziz inequality was proven as early as 1961 by Cattabriga [10]. However, the name is associated to the authors of the later work [5] and was assigned by Horgan and Payne [20]; see also [12].

The inequality reads as follows: there exists a positive constant C BA , 0 such that for any f in L 2 0 (Ω) one can construct u in [ H 1 0 (Ω)] n satisfying

$$\nabla \cdot \mathfrak { u } = f, \quad \ \ | \mathfrak { u } | _ { 1, \Omega } \leq C _ { B \mathcal { A }, 0 } \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega }.$$

The subscript in C BA , 0 relates to Babuˇ ska-Aziz. Explicit constructions of a vector field u as in (4) may be performed in different ways; here, we shall follow the approach by Bogovski˘ ı in [6,7], where he showed a particular construction of the right inverse of the divergence based on integral kernels. Alternative avenues, which give less information on the constant C BA , 0 and construct less smooth right-inverses of the divergence, are based on solving curl-div, diffusion, or Stokes problems; see, e.g., [4] and [9, Lemma 11.2.3]; as such, higher order estimates based on this approach require extra regularity assumptions on the boundary of the domain, which are instead not needed following Bogovski˘ ı's approach.

Minimal literature on the lowest order Babuˇ ska-Aziz inequality. The literature associated with inequality (4) is widespread. We refer to [16, pp. 227-228], [19], and [12] for a thorough historical review.

Here, we only mention that the divergence problem in (4) was raised as early as in 1961 by Cattabriga [10]; see also the later works [21, 24]. Bogovski˘ ı introduced an explicit representation for v solving (4) in [6,7]. Several references discuss the validity of similar estimates; for instance, implicit constants for general Lipschitz domains are available in [8, Theorems 2.4 and 2.9]. The case of negative Sobolev norms is described in [17].

The explicit dependence of the constant C BA , 0 on geometric parameters of Ω is studied in fewer references; see [1] for a list. For R and ρ as in (3), Galdi [16] gives estimates of the form

$$C _ { \mathcal { B A }, 0 } \lesssim _ { n } \left ( \frac { R } { \rho } \right ) ^ { n + 1 }. \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

The main tool in the analysis is the one discussed originally by Bogovski˘ ı [6,7], i.e., the Calder´no Zygmund singular integral operator theory.

Improved estimates of the form

$$C _ { B \mathcal { A }, 0 } \lesssim _ { n } \frac { R } { \rho } \left ( \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) ^ { \frac { n - 2 } { 2 ( n - 1 ) } } \left ( \log \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) ^ { \frac { n } { 2 ( n - 1 ) } }$$

were proven by Dur´n [14] based on the properties of the Fourier transform. In the same reference, a it is shown that the estimates are optimal up to the logarithmic factor for n = 2. More precisely, a 2D counterexample is exhibited showing that the following holds true:

$$C _ { \mathcal { B } \mathcal { A }, 0 } \gtrsim \frac { R } { \rho }.$$

For the two dimensional case, Costabel and Dauge [12, Theorem 2.3] proved that the logarithmic factor in Dur´n's estimates can be removed again for a n = 2.

Minimal literature on higher order Babuˇ ska-Aziz inequalities. Higher order Babuˇ skaAziz inequalities are far less investigated. They are stated in the original paper by Bogovski˘ ı [6] without mention on the behaviour of the constants. Galdi [16, Remark III.3.2] claims that similar bounds to the lowest order case can be derived; however, no explicit constants are given in that case sa well; the analysis hinges upon the Calder´n-Zygmund theory. o Costabel and McIntosh prove arbitrary order estimates [13] without explicit dependence on the geometry on the domain. Guzm´ an and Salgado [19] prove an explicit first order generalised Poincar´ inequality, e which is related to Bogovski˘ ı's operator without imposition of boundary conditions, and give a road map on how to prove higher order explicit estimates; tools as those in [14] are employed; no estimates are given for Bogovski˘ ı's operator.

## 1.2 The lowest order Neˇas-Lions inequality c

The standard, lowest order Neˇ cas-Lions inequality is a very well known result in the theory of Sobolev spaces. It is proven in the book by Neˇas [24, Lemma 3.7.1]; the connection to the name c of Lions is less clear, and is probably due to [22, Note 27, page 320], where the result is mentioned as a private communication by Lions himself to Magenes and Stampacchia, yet without an explicit proof.

Given Π 0 : L 1 (Ω) → R the average operator over Ω, the inequality reads as follows: there exists a positive constant C NL , 0 such that

$$\L e c o n s t a n & \cup _ { \mathcal { N L }, 0 } \text{ such } \text{$max$} \\ & \left \| f - \Pi ^ { 0 } f \right \| _ { 0, \Omega } \leq C _ { \mathcal { N L }, 0 } \| \nabla f \| _ { - 1, \Omega } \quad \ \forall f \in L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ). \quad \ \ \ ( 7 ) \\ \text{script in $C_{\mathcal { N L }, 0 }$ relates to NeCas-Lions.  An equivalent statement for (7) is that the following} \\ \text{$s$ are bounded from above and below, respectively:}$$

The subscript in C NL , 0 relates to Neˇas-Lions. An equivalent statement for (7) is that the following c constants are bounded from above and below, respectively:

$$\text{constants are monoça from above and below, respectively} \colon \\ C _ { \mathcal { N L }, 0 } \coloneqq \sup _ { f \in L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } \frac { \left \| f - \Pi ^ { 0 } f \right \| _ { 0, \Omega } } { \left \| \nabla f \right \| _ { - 1, \Omega } }, \quad C _ { \mathcal { N L }, 0 } ^ { - 1 } \coloneqq \inf _ { f \in L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } \frac { \left \| \nabla f \right \| _ { - 1, \Omega } } { \left \| f - \Pi ^ { 0 } f \right \| _ { 0, \Omega } }. \\ \text{The contents of $C^{\prime}_{\dots}$ and $C^{\prime}_{\dots}$ in $L^{\prime}_{\dots}$ and $L^{\prime}_{\dots}$ are related to contents in other rational information}$$

The constants C BA , 0 and C NL , 0 in (4) and (7) are related to constants in other relevant inequalities in Sobolev spaces as well, including the standard inf-sup constant β 0 defined as

$$\inf _ { f \in L _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } \sup _ { \mathfrak { u } \in [ H _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n } } \frac { ( \nabla \cdot \mathfrak { u }, f ) _ { 0, \Omega } } { \| \mathfrak { u } \| _ { 1, \Omega } \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } } = \colon \beta _ { 0 }. \\.. \quad.. \quad.. \quad.. \quad..$$

Proposition 1.1. Let C BA , 0 , C NL , 0 , and β 0 be given in (4) , (7) , and (9) . Then, the following holds true:

$$C _ { \mathcal { B A }, 0 } \geq C _ { \mathcal { N L }, 0 } = \beta _ { 0 } ^ { - 1 }. \\ \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots$$

Proof. For all f in L 2 0 (Ω), the definition of negative norms in (2) implies

$$\sup _ { \mathfrak { u } \in [ H _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n } } \frac { ( \nabla \cdot \mathfrak { u }, f ) _ { 0, \Omega } } { \| \mathfrak { u } \| _ { 1, \Omega } \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } } = \sup _ { \mathfrak { u } \in [ H _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n } } \frac { - 1 \langle \nabla f, \mathfrak { u } \rangle _ { 1 } } { \| \mathfrak { u } \| _ { 1, \Omega } \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } } = \frac { \| \nabla f \| _ { - 1, \Omega } } { \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } }.$$

We take the inf over all possible f in L 2 0 (Ω), use (8), and deduce that β 0 = C -1 NL , 0 . On the other hand, for all f in L 2 0 (Ω), we can consider a specific u satisfying (4), which gives

$$\sup _ { \substack { u \in [ H _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n } } } \frac { ( \nabla \cdot \mathbf u, f ) _ { 0, \Omega } } { \| \mathbf u \| _ { 1, \Omega } \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } } \geq \frac { \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } ^ { 2 } } { \| \mathbf u \| _ { 1, \Omega } \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } } \geq C _ { \mathcal { B } \mathcal { A }, 0 } ^ { - 1 }.$$

Taking the inf over all possible f in L 2 0 (Ω) and recalling the standard inf-sup condition (9) give β 0 ≥ C -1 BA , 0 . The assertion follows.

Since an upper bound on C BA , 0 is available from Lemma 4, which is explicit in terms of n , R , and ρ as in (3), then Proposition 1.1 implies an upper bound for C NL , 0 and a lower bound for β 0 with the same explicit dependence. The relation with constants appearing in other inequalities is discussed, amongst others, in [2,11,12,20].

## 1.3 Main result 1 : a first order Babuˇka-Aziz inequality s

An important tool in the proof of Theorem 1.4 below is the proof of a Babuˇ ska-Aziz inequality, based on first order estimates for Bogovski˘ ı's construction of the right-inverse of the divergence. More precisely, there exist positive constants C A BA , 1 and C B BA , 1 such that for all f in H 1 0 (Ω) ∩ L 2 0 (Ω), one can construct u in [ H 2 0 (Ω)] n satisfying

$$\nabla \cdot \mathbf u = f, & & | \mathbf u | _ { 2, \Omega } \leq C ^ { A } _ { \mathcal { B } \mathcal { A }, 1 } \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } + C ^ { B } _ { \mathcal { B } \mathcal { A }, 1 } | f | _ { 1, \Omega }. & & ( 1 0 )$$

We state the result here and postpone its proof to Section 2 below.

Theorem 1.2 (A first order Babuˇ ska-Aziz inequality) . Let u and f be as in (10) , and Ω , B ρ , R , and ρ be as in (3) . Then, inequality (10) holds true with

$$\varphi _ { \mathcal { C } _ { \mathcal { B } _ { \mathcal { A }, 1 } } } ^ { \lambda } & \lesssim \frac { R } { \rho ^ { 2 } } \left [ 1 + \left ( \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) ^ { \frac { n - 2 } { 2 ( n - 1 ) } } \left ( \log \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) ^ { \frac { n } { 2 ( n - 1 ) } } \right ], \quad \quad \ \ C _ { \mathcal { B } _ { \mathcal { A }, 1 } } ^ { B } \lesssim \frac { R } { \rho }. \quad \ ( 1 1 )$$

We provide the reader with some comments on the optimality of the constant C A BA , 1 in (11) in Section 2.5 below.

## 1.4 Main result 2 : a first order Neˇas-Lions inequality c

Introduce the space H -1 (Ω) / R , which is the space H -1 (Ω) equipped with the norm

$$\| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } \coloneqq \inf _ { c \in \mathbb { R } } \| f - c \| _ { - 1, \Omega }.$$

Recall the negative norms in (2). We discuss a first order Neˇas-Lions inequality (for vectors): c there exists a positive constant C NL , 1 such that

$$\| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } \leq C _ { \mathcal { N L }, 1 } \| \nabla f \| _ { - 2, \Omega } \quad \forall f \in H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R }.$$

An equivalent statement for (12) is that the following constants are bounded from above and below, respectively:

$$C _ { \mathcal { N L }, 1 } = \sup _ { f \in H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } \frac { \| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } } { \| \nabla f \| _ { - 2, \Omega } }, \quad \ C _ { \mathcal { N L }, 1 } ^ { - 1 } = \inf _ { f \in H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } \frac { \| \nabla f \| _ { - 2, \Omega } } { \| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } }. \quad ( 1 3 )$$

The constants C A BA , 1 and C B BA , 1 , and C NL , 1 in (10) and (11), and (12) are related to constants in other relevant inequalities in Sobolev spaces as well, including the first order inf-sup constant β 1 defined as

$$\inf _ { f \in H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } & \sup _ { \mathfrak u \in [ H ^ { 2 } _ { 0 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n } } \frac { - _ { 1 } \langle f, \nabla \cdot \mathfrak u \rangle _ { 1 } } { \| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } | \mathfrak u | _ { 2, \Omega } } = \colon \beta _ { 1 } & ( 1 4 ) \\. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &.. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &. &.$$

and the positive constant C P appearing in the Poincar´ inequality e

$$\| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } \leq C _ { P } R | f | _ { 1, \Omega } \quad \ \forall f \in H ^ { 1 } _ { 0 } ( \Omega ).$$

The constant C P is independent of R and ρ in (3); see, e.g., [15, Section 3.3]. The following result is the first order version of Proposition 1.1.

Proposition 1.3. Let C A BA , 1 and C B BA , 1 , C NL , 1 , β 1 , and C P be given in (10) and (11) , (12) , (14) , and (15) . Then, the following holds true:

$$C ^ { A } _ { B A, 1 } C _ { P } R + C ^ { B } _ { B A, 1 } \geq C _ { \mathcal { N L }, 1 } = \beta _ { 1 } ^ { - 1 }.$$

Proof. For all f in H -1 (Ω) / R , an integration by parts and the definition of negative Sobolev norms in (2) imply

$$\sup _ { \mathfrak { u } \in [ H _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n } } \frac { - 1 \langle f, \nabla \cdot \mathfrak { u } \rangle _ { 1 } } { \| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } | \mathfrak { u } | _ { 2, \Omega } } = \sup _ { \mathfrak { u } \in [ H _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n } } \frac { - 2 \langle \nabla f, \mathfrak { u } \rangle _ { 2 } } { \| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } | \mathfrak { u } | _ { 2, \Omega } } = \colon \frac { \| \nabla f \| _ { - 2, \Omega } } { \| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } }.$$

We take the infimum over all such possible f and exploit the identities

$$\beta _ { 1 } \stackrel { ( 1 4 ) } { = } \inf _ { f \in H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } \frac { \| \nabla f \| _ { - 2, \Omega } } { \| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } } = \left ( \sup _ { f \in H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } \frac { \| \nabla f \| _ { - 2, \Omega } } { \| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } } \right ) ^ { - 1 } \stackrel { ( 1 3 ) } { = } C _ { \mathcal { N L }, 1 } ^ { - 1 }, \\ \dots \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \dots$$

which implies β 1 = C -1 NL , 1 .

On the other hand, (10) guarantees for all f in H 1 0 (Ω) the existence of u in [ H 2 0 (Ω)] n such that

This and the Poincar´ e inequality (15) give

$$\text{ies } \beta _ { 1 } = C _ { \mathcal { N } \mathcal { L }, 1 } ^ { - }. \\ \text{other hand, (10)} \text{ guarantees for all } \widetilde { f } \text{ in } H _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } ( \Omega ) \text{ the existence of } \mathfrak { u } \text{ in } [ H _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) ] \\ \nabla \cdot \mathfrak { u } = \widetilde { f }, \quad \left | \mathfrak { u } \right | _ { 2, \Omega } \leq C _ { \mathcal { B } \mathcal { A }, 1 } ^ { A } \left \| \widetilde { f } \right \| _ { 0, \Omega } + C _ { \mathcal { B } \mathcal { A }, 1 } ^ { B } \left | \widetilde { f } \right | _ { 1, \Omega }. \\ \text{ne Poincar} \hat { e } \text{ inequality (15)} \text{ give } \quad \text{$\nu$} \quad \text{$\nu$}$$

$$\sup _ { \tilde { u } \in [ H _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n } } \frac { \ell _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ( f, \nabla \cdot \mathbf u ) _ { 1 } } { \| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } | \mathbf u | _ { 2, \Omega } } \geq \sup _ { \widetilde { f } \in H _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } \frac { - 1 \langle f, \widetilde { f } \rangle _ { 1 } } { \| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { R } } [ C ^ { A } _ { \mathcal { B } A, 1 } \left \| \widetilde { f } \right \| _ { 0, \Omega } + C ^ { B } _ { \mathcal { B } A, 1 } | \widetilde { f } \right \| _ { 1, \Omega } ] } \\ \geq \sup _ { \widetilde { v } \sim \mathcal { v } \in [ H _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n } } \frac { - 1 \langle f, \widetilde { f } \rangle _ { 1 } } { \ell \mathcal { A } _ { 0 } \mathcal { C } _ { - D } + \mathcal { B } _ { 0 } \sqrt { 1 } \ell \sqrt { 1 } } \frac { ( 2 ) } { | \widetilde { v } | } \, \frac { ( 2 ) } { | \widetilde { v } | } \, \frac { ( 2 ) } { | \widetilde { v } | } \,.$$

We take the infimum over all f in H -1 (Ω) / R , recall the first order inf-sup condition (14), and deduce β 1 ≥ ( C A BA , 1 C R P + C B BA , 1 ) -1 . The assertion follows.

$$\sup _ { \substack { u \in [ H _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n } } } \frac { - 1 \vee J, \, \nu \cdot \overline { u } / 1 } { \| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \overline { R } } ^ { \ } | \overline { u } | _ { 2, \Omega } } \geq \sup _ { \tilde { f } _ { \in H _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } ( \Omega ) } } \frac { - 1 \vee J, \, J / 1 } { \| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \overline { R } } ^ { \ } [ C A _ { \mathcal { B A }, 1 } ^ { \ } ] \left \| \tilde { f } \right \| _ { 0, \Omega } + C B _ { \mathcal { B A }, 1 } ^ { \ } ] \left \| \tilde { f } \right \| _ { 1, \Omega } ] } \\ \geq \sup _ { \tilde { f } \in H _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } \frac { - 1 \langle f, \, \tilde { f } \rangle _ { 1 } } { ( C _ { \mathcal { B A }, 1 } ^ { A } C P R + C _ { \mathcal { B A }, 1 } ^ { B } ) \| f \| _ { H ^ { - 1 } ( \Omega ) / \overline { R } } ^ { \ } ] \stackrel { ( 2 ) } { \neq } } ( C _ { \mathcal { B A }, 1 } ^ { A } C P R + C _ { \mathcal { B A }, 1 } ^ { B } ) ^ { - 1 }. \\ \text{We take the infimum over all $f$ in $H^{-1}(\Omega)/\overline{R}$, recall the first order inf-sup condition (14), and} \\ \text{deduce $\beta_{1} \geq (C _ { \mathcal { B A }, 1 } ^ { A } C _ { P } R + C _ { \mathcal { B A }, 1 } ^ { B } ) ^ { - 1 }. \text{ The assertion follows.} } \quad \square$$

Since an upper bound on C A BA , 1 and C B BA , 1 is available from Theorem 1.2, which is explicit in terms of n R , , and ρ as in (3), then Proposition 1.3 implies an upper bound for C NL , 1 and a lower bound for β 1 with the same explicit dependence. For more general Neˇ cas-Lions inequalities, yet with unknown constants, see [3] and the references therein.

## 1.5 Main result 3 : a Neˇ cas-Lions inequality with symmetric gradients

The spaces RM (Ω) of rigid body motions in two and three dimensions have cardinality 3 and 6, and are given by

$$\text{and are given by} \\ \mathbb { R } M ( \Omega ) \coloneqq \begin{cases} \left \{ r ( x ) = \alpha + b ( x _ { 2 }, - x _ { 1 } ) ^ { T } \text{ for any } \alpha \in \mathbb { R } ^ { 2 }, \, b \in \mathbb { R } \right \} & \text{ in } 2 D \\ \left \{ r ( x ) = \alpha + \omega \times ( x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 }, x _ { 3 } ) ^ { T } \text{ for any } \alpha, \omega \in \mathbb { R } ^ { 3 } \right \} & \text{ in } 3 D. \end{cases} \\ \text{Let II} _ { \mathbb { R } M } \text{ denote the } L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) \text{ projection onto } \mathbb { R } M ( \Omega ). \, \text{ We further introduce the space of symmetric} \\ \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-}" \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-} \text{-}. \end{cases}$$

Let Π RM denote the L 2 (Ω) projection onto RM (Ω). We further introduce the space of symmetric tensors

$$\Sigma \coloneqq \{ \tau \in H ( \nabla \cdot, \Omega ) \, | \, \tau \text{ is symmetric} \},$$

which we endow with the norm

$$\| \tau \| _ { \Sigma } ^ { 2 } \coloneqq \| \tau \| _ { 0, \Omega } ^ { 2 } + R ^ { 2 } \| \nabla \cdot \tau \| _ { 0, \Omega } ^ { 2 }.$$

Note that

$$\dots \quad _ { - 1 } \langle \nabla v, \tau \rangle _ { 1 } = _ { - 1 } \langle \nabla _ { S } v, \tau \rangle _ { 1 } \quad \forall \tilde { v } \in [ L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { 2 }, \, \tau \in \Sigma. \quad \quad ( 1 8 ) \\ \dots \quad \tilde { v } \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \taut \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \taur \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tau \dots \, \tuple \, \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \ tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau$$

We state a Neˇas-Lions inequality with symmetric gradients on two and three dimensional domains, c which is explicit in terms of R ρ , , and n as in (3).

We state the inequality here and postpone its proof to Section 3 below.

Theorem 1.4 (A Neˇ cas-Lions inequality with symmetric gradients) . There exists a positive constant C ∗ NL , 0 depending only on n , R , and ρ as in (3) through C NL , 0 in (7) , C A BA , 1 and C B BA , 1 in (10) , and C P in (15) , such that

$$\| \mathbf v - \Pi _ { \text{RM} } \mathbf v \| _ { 0, \Omega } & \leq C _ { \mathcal { N C }, 0 } ^ { * } \| \nabla _ { S } \mathbf v \| _ { - 1, \Omega } \\ & \leq C _ { \mathcal { N C }, 0 } \left [ 1 + \sqrt { 2 } \left ( C _ { \text{B A }, 1 } ^ { A } C _ { P } R + C _ { \text{B A }, 1 } ^ { B } \right ) \right ] \| \nabla _ { S } \mathbf v \| _ { - 1, \Omega } \quad \forall \mathbf v \in [ L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n }. \\ & \text{Since upper bounds on } C _ { \text{B A }, 1 } ^ { A } \text{ and } C _ { \text{B A }, 0 } ^ { B } \text{ are available from Lemma } 1 0, \text{ and } \text{Propo}$$

Since upper bounds on C A BA , 1 and C B BA , 1 , and C NL , 0 are available from Lemma 10, and Proposition 1.1 and display (6), which are explicit in terms of n , R , and ρ as in (3), (bounds on C P are standard) then Theorem 1.4 implies an upper bound for C ∗ NL , 0 and a lower bound for β 1 with the same explicit dependence. Roughly speaking, Theorem 1.4 is a Korn-type version of the standard lowest order Neˇas-Lions inequality. c

Introduce the spaces

$$\widetilde { \Sigma } \coloneqq \{ \tau \in \Sigma \, | \, \langle \tau \, \mathbf n, w \rangle _ { \partial \Omega } = 0 \ \forall w \in [ H ^ { 1 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n } \} ; \quad \widetilde { V } \coloneqq \{ \mathbf v \in [ L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n } \, | \, \mathbf D _ { \mathrm M } \mathbf v = 0 \}. \\ A \text{ consequence of Theorem 1.4 is an inf-sup condition, which is of great importance in the analysis} \\ \text{ of the mixed (Hellinzer-Reissner) formulation of linear elasticitiv problems: there exists a positive}$$

A consequence of Theorem 1.4 is an inf-sup condition, which is of great importance in the analysis of the mixed (Hellinger-Reissner) formulation of linear elasticity problems: there exists a positive constant β ∗ 0 such that

$$\inf _ { v \in \widetilde { V } } \sup _ { \tau \in \widetilde { \Sigma } } \frac { ( \nabla \cdot \tau, \nu ) _ { 0, \Omega } } { \| \tau \| _ { \Sigma } \| \nu \| _ { 0, \Omega } } = \colon \beta _ { 0 } ^ { * } R ^ { - 1 }.$$

Proposition 1.5. Let C ∗ NL , 0 and β ∗ 0 be given in (19) and (20) . Then, the inf-sup condition (20) holds true with

$$\beta _ { 0 } ^ { * } \geq ( C _ { \mathcal { N L }, 0 } ^ { * } ) ^ { - 1 } ( 1 + C _ { P } ^ { 2 } ) ^ { - \frac { 1 } { 2 } }.$$

Proof. For all tensors τ , let τ S denote its symmetric part. We have

$$\text{Proof. For all tensors } \tau, let \tau _ { S } \text{ denote its symmetric part. We have } \\ \beta _ { 0 } ^ { * } & = \inf _ { \substack { \sup \\ v \in \bar { V } } } \frac { ( \nabla \cdot \tau, \nu ) _ { 0, \Omega } } { \| \tau \| _ { \S } \| \nu \| _ { 0, \Omega } } \geq \inf _ { \substack { \sup \\ v \in \bar { V } } } \frac { \sup \\ \tau \in \bar { V } \cap [ H _ { 0 } ^ { 0 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n \times n } } { \| \tau \| _ { \S } \| \nu \| _ { 0, \Omega } } } \frac { ( \nabla \cdot \tau, \nu ) _ { 0, \Omega } } { \| \tau \| _ { \S } \| \nu \| _ { 0, \Omega } } } \frac { \frac { 1 } { \nabla S \nu, \tau ) _ { 1 } } { \| \tau \| _ { \S } \| \nu \| _ { 0, \Omega } } } { \frac { - 1 } { \nabla S \nu, \tau ) _ { 1 } } { \| \tau \| _ { \S } \| \nu \| _ { 0, \Omega } } } \frac { - 1 ( \nabla S \nu, \tau ) _ { 1 } } { \frac { - 1 } { \nabla S \nu, \tau ) _ { 1 } } } \frac { - 1 ( \nabla S \nu, \tau ) _ { 1 } } { \| \tau \| _ { 0, \Omega } } } \frac { - 1 ( \nabla S \nu, \tau ) _ { 1 } } { \frac { - 1 } { \nabla S \nu, \tau ) _ { 1 } } { \| \tau \| _ { \S } \| \nu \| _ { 0, \Omega } } } } { \frac { - 1 } { \nabla S \nu, \tau ) _ { 1 } } } \frac { - 1 ( \nabla S \nu, \tau ) _ { 1 } } { \frac { - 1 } { \nabla S \nu, \tau ) _ { 1 } } { \frac { - 1 } { \nabla S \nu, \tau ) _ { 1 } } { \frac { - 1 } { \nabla S \nu, \tau ) _ { 1 } } } }. \\ \text{Since } | \tau _ { S } | _ { 1, \Omega } & \leq | \tau _ { 1, \Omega } \text{ for all tensors } \tau \text{ and the numerator involves } \nabla _ { S } \text{v}, we deduce the assertion:}$$

Since | τ S | 1 Ω , ≤ | τ | 1 Ω , for all tensors τ and the numerator involves ∇ S v , we deduce the assertion:

$$\beta _ { 0 } ^ { * } & \geq \inf _ { \vec { v } \in \widetilde { V } } \sup _ { \tau \in [ H _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n \times n } } \frac { - 1 \langle \nabla _ { S } \vec { v }, \tau \rangle _ { 1 } } { ( 1 + C _ { P } ^ { 2 } ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } R | \tau | _ { 1, \Omega } \| \vec { v } \| _ { 0, \Omega } } \\ & \stackrel { ( 2 ) } { = } ( 1 + C _ { P } ^ { 2 } ) ^ { - \frac { 1 } { 2 } } R ^ { - 1 } \inf _ { \vec { v } \in \widetilde { V } } \frac { \| \nabla _ { S } \vec { v } \| _ { - 1, \Omega } } { \| \vec { v } \| _ { 0, \Omega } } \stackrel { ( 1 9 ) } { \geq } ( 1 + C _ { P } ^ { 2 } ) ^ { - \frac { 1 } { 2 } } R ^ { - 1 } ( C _ { \mathcal { N L }, 0 } ^ { * } ) ^ { - 1 }.$$

$$\overline { \| \mathbf v \| _ { 0, \Omega } }$$

Outline of the remainder of the paper. In Section 2, we prove Theorem 1.2, whereas in Section 3, we prove Theorem 1.4. We also prove an arbitrary order version of Theorem 1.2 in Appendix A.

## 2 Proof of a first order Babuˇka-Aziz inequality s

In this section, we prove Theorem 1.2 in several steps and further discuss the optimality of the bounds on the constants therein. To this aim, we follow Bogovski˘ ı's construction [6] of a rightinverse of the divergence and generalise Dur´n's analysis [14] to the first order case. a

Explicit construction of Bogovski˘ ı's right-inverse of the divergence. Consider ω in C ∞ 0 (Ω) with

$$\int _ { \Omega } \omega ( x ) \, d x = 1, \text{ \quad \ \ \ } \text{supp} ( \omega ) \subset B _ { \rho }.$$

$$\begin{matrix} - \mu \\ \int _ { \Omega } \end{matrix}$$

Given

$$\, ) \coloneqq \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } \frac { x - y } { t } \, \omega \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) \frac { d t } { t ^ { n } },$$

$$\mathbf G \, \colon \Omega \times \Omega \to \mathbb { R } ^ { n }, \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
 \, G ( x, y ) \coloneqq \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } \frac { x - y } { t } \, \omega \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) \frac { \mathrm d t } { t ^ { n } }, \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
 \, 2 1 \mathbf a }$$

we define

$$\mathbf u ( x ) \coloneqq \int _ { \Omega } \mathbf G ( x, y ) f ( y ) \, \mathrm d y \,.$$

## 2.1 Preliminary results

We recall basic properties of the Fourier transform. Given f in L 1 ( R n ), we define its Fourier transform as

If f is in L 2 (Ω), we have the isometry

$$\L o s o n e r o u e r a u s i o m. \emph { e v e n } \jmath m \, e \, \mathbb { m } \, j, \, \text{we eme is roue} \\ \widehat { f } ( \xi ) \coloneqq \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } e ^ { - 2 \pi i x \cdot \xi } f ( x ) \, \mathrm d x. \quad \text{(22)} \\ \text{e the isometry}$$

and the following property on the derivatives of the Fourier transform:

$$\text{omcv} \quad \begin{matrix} \left \| f \right \| _ { 0, \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } = \left \| \widehat { f } \right \| _ { 0, \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \end{matrix} \right \| ( 2 3 ) \quad \begin{matrix} ( 2 3 ) \\ \end{matrix} \right \| \\ \text{the derivatives of the Fourier transform:}$$

We consider the following splitting of each component k , k = 1 , . . . , n , of u :

$$\widehat { \partial _ { x _ { j } } f } ( \xi ) = 2 \pi i \xi _ { j } \widehat { f } ( \xi ) \quad \forall j = 1, \dots, n. \quad \text{(24)} \\ \text{e following splitting of each component $k$, $k=1,\dots,n$, of $u$} \colon$$

$$\supset \, \cdot \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \ \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \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 \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \null \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \end{cases} \quad \quad \quad$$

In order to take derivatives of u k , it is convenient to take a limit in the sense of distributions [14, Section 2]:

$$\mathfrak { u } _ { k, 1 } & = \lim _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { 1 } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \$$

By doing that, we can interchange the derivative with the limit ε → 0 and then pass with the derivative under the integral symbol; in fact, the functions under the integral are in L 1 and admit L 1 derivatives.

We take the second derivatives of u k, 1 and u k, 2 with respect to the j -th and /lscript -th directions (without loss of generality we assume j different from /lscript ), and get

$$( \partial _ { x _ { j }, x _ { \ell } } ^ { 2 } \mathbf u _ { k } ) ( x ) = [ \widetilde { T } _ { k, j \ell, 1 } ( f ( y )$$

In (25), given ˜ T any of the two operators T k,j/lscript, 1 and T k,j/lscript, 2 , we let where, for all j, /lscript = 1 , . . . , n , we have set

$$\text{even} \ \widetilde { T } \, & \text{any of the two operators} \ \widetilde { T } _ { k, j \ell, 1 } \text{ and} \ \widetilde { T } _ {$$

˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ In the forthcoming sections, we shall prove the continuity of the operators in (25). To this aim, we henceforth fix j and /lscript , and consider the decomposition

$$& \text{where, for all $j,\ell=1,\dots,n$, we have set} \\ & g ( y ) \coloneqq \begin{cases} f ( y ) & \text{if $\widetilde{T}=$$

where

$$\widetilde { T } _ { g } \coloneqq \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha } g + \widetilde { T } _ { \beta } g, & & ( 2 7 ) \\ \quad \quad \quad$$

and

$$\widetilde { T } _ { \alpha } g ( x ) \coloneqq & \lim _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \partial _ { x _ { j }, x _ { \ell } } ^ { 2 } \left [ \varphi \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) \right ] g ( y ) \, \text{dy} \, \frac { \text{dt} } { t ^ { n } } \\ \widetilde { T } _ { \varepsilon \alpha ( \tau ) } \, \dashv - \, \int ^ { 1 } \, \int _ { \partial ^ { 2 } } \, \left [ \tilde { \Delta } _ { \varepsilon } \left ( \tilde { \Delta } _ { \varepsilon \rho } \, \stackrel { x - y } { \sim } \right ] \, \text{al} \, \partial _ { \partial } \, \text{dwt} \, \frac { \text{dt} } { \sim }$$

The continuity estimates will follow summing over all j and /lscript .

$$\L \circ \Lambda \circ \Lambda \circ \Lambda \circ \Lambda \circ \Lambda \\ \widetilde { T } _ { \beta } g ( x ) \coloneqq \int _ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } ^ { 1 } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \partial _ { x _ { j }, x _ { \ell } } ^ { 2 } \left [ \varphi \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) \right ] g ( y ) \, \mathrm d y \, \frac { \mathrm d t } { t ^ { n } } \cdot \\ \text{inuity estimates will follow summing over all } j \text{ and } \ell.$$

2.2 Continuity of ˜ T α We discuss the continuity of the operator in (28). We proceed in several steps. First, we prove some properties of the Fourier transform of ˜ T α ( g ). Lemma 2.1. If g in (26) belongs to C ∞ 0 ( R n ) , then the following identity is valid:

Proof. By definition, we write

$$\text{Lmma} & 2. 1. \ I f g \text{ in } ( 2 6 ) \text{ belongs to } C _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { n } ), \text{ then the following identity is valid} \colon \\ & \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha } g ( \xi ) = ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { j } ) \lim _ { \varepsilon \rightarrow 0 } \left [ \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \widehat { \varphi } ( t \, \xi ) \widetilde { \partial _ { x } g } ( \xi ) \, d t + \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \widetilde { \partial _ { x } \varphi } ( t \xi ) \widehat { g } ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \, d t \right ] \\ & = \colon \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha, 1 } g ( \xi ) + \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha, 2 g } ( \xi ). \\ \text{Proof} \text{ by definition, we write} \\ & \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha } g ( x ) = \lim _ { \varepsilon \rightarrow 0 } \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha, \varepsilon } g ( x ).$$

For all positive ε , we write

$$\text{$r$ all positive $\varepsilon$, we write} \\ \widetilde { \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha, \varepsilon } g ( \xi ) } = \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \partial _ { x _ { j }, x _ { t } } ^ { 2 } \left [ \varphi \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) \right ] e ^ { - 2 \pi i x \cdot \xi } g ( y ) \, \text{d} t } \, \text{d} x \,. \\ \text{use to the regularity of $g$ and $\varphi$, the integral exists.  Therefore, we can change the order of $t$} \\ \text{tegrals. integrate by parts twice. use the change of variable $z = u + (x - u ) / t.  the definition}$$

$$\widetilde { T } _ { \alpha } g ( x ) = & \lim _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha, \varepsilon } g ( x ). \\ \\ r \quad r \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \ \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \ \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \,$$

Due to the regularity of g and ϕ , the integral exists. Therefore, we can change the order of the integrals, integrate by parts twice, use the change of variable z = y +( x -y /t ) , the definition of the Fourier transform (22) twice, and (24), recall that the support of ϕ is compact, and arrive at

$$\widehat { \widetilde { T } _ { \sigma } g ( \xi ) } = ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { j } ) ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { \ell } ) \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { * } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { * } } \varphi ( z ) \, e ^ { - 2 \pi i x \cdot \xi } d x d y \, \widetilde { t } ^ { n } \\ = ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { j } ) ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { \ell } ) \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { * } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { * } } \varphi ( z ) \, e ^ { - 2 \pi i ( t \, z + ( 1 - t ) y \cdot \xi } g ( y ) \, d z \, d y \, \widetilde { t } ^ { n } \\ = ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { j } ) ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { \ell } ) \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { * } } \widehat { \varphi } ( t \, \xi ) \, e ^ { - 2 \pi i ( 1 - t ) y \cdot \xi } g ( y ) \, d y \, \widetilde { t } \\ = ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { j } ) ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { \ell } ) \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \widehat { \varphi } ( t \, \xi ) \, \widehat { g } ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \, \widetilde { g } ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \, \widetilde { g } ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \, \widetilde { t } ^ { n } \\ = ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { j } ) \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \widehat { \varphi } ( t \, \xi ) \, \widetilde { [ } 2 \pi i ( 1 - t ) \xi _ { \ell } ] \widehat { g } ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \, \widetilde { t } + ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { j } ) \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \widehat { \varphi } ( t \, \xi ) \, [ 2 \pi i t \xi _ { \ell } ] \widehat { g } ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \, \widetilde { t } \\ = ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { j } ) \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \widehat { \varphi } ( t \, \xi ) \, \widetilde { \partial _ { x \cdot \varphi } ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \, \widetilde { g } ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \, \widetilde { t } ^ { n } \\ \quad \quad \quad$$

The assertion follows taking the limit ε → 0.

Next, we prove a technical result.

Lemma 2.2. Let ϕ be any of the two options in (26) . Then, the two following inequalities hold true:

$$\ t r u e \colon & \\ 2 \pi | \xi _ { j } | \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } | \widehat { \varphi } ( t \xi ) | \, d t \leq C _ { \varphi, \rho, 0 } \colon = \rho ^ { - 1 } \| \varphi \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { n } ) } + \rho \left \| \partial _ { x _ { j } ^ { 2 } } ^ { 2 } \varphi \right \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { n } ) } \ \forall j = 1, \dots, n, \\ 2 \pi | \xi _ { j } | \int _ { \wedge } ^ { \infty } \left | \widehat { \partial _ { x _ { \ell } } \varphi } ( t \xi ) \right | d t \leq C _ { \varphi, \rho, 1 } \colon = \rho ^ { - 1 } \| \partial _ { x _ { \ell } } \varphi \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { n } ) } + \rho \left \| \partial _ { x _ { j } ^ { 2 } x _ { \ell } } ^ { 3 } \varphi \right \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { n } ) } \ \forall j = 1, \dots, n. \quad ( 3 1 b )$$

Proof. The proof of (31a) is given in [14, Lemma 2.3] and is therefore omitted here. On the other hand, inequality (31b) may be shown as an application of (31a) to ∂ ξ /lscript ϕ .

$$J _ { 0 } & \lambda ^ { \prime } \quad \text{II} \quad \xi ^ { \prime } \quad \text{II} L ^ { \cdot } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { n } ) \\ 2 \pi | \xi _ { j } | \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } & \left | \widehat { \partial _ { x _ { t } } \varphi } ( t \xi ) \right | d t \leq C _ { \varphi, \rho, 1 } \coloneqq \rho ^ { - 1 } \| \partial _ { x _ { t } } \varphi \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { n } ) } + \rho \right | \partial _ { x _ { j } ^ { 2 } x _ { t } } ^ { 3 } \varphi \right | \right | _ { L ^ { 1 } ( \mathbb { R } ^ { n } ) } \quad \forall j = 1, \dots, n. \quad ( 3 1 b ) \\ \text{Proof} \, The proof of \, ( 3 1 a ) \, is \, given \, in \, [ 1 4, \, \text{Lmma} \, 2. 3 ] \, and \, is \, \text{therefore omitted here. } \, On \, the \, \text{other} \\ \text{hand, inequality} \, ( 3 1 b ) \, may \, be \, \text{shown as an application of } ( 3 1 a ) \, to \, \partial _ { \xi _ { t } } \varphi \quad \Box$$

We are now in a position to prove the continuity of the operator ˜ T α . Proposition 2.3. Let ϕ be any of the two options in (26) . Then, for all g in H 1 ( R n ) , the operator ˜ T α defined in (28) satisfies the following continuity property:

If g vanishes outside Ω , we also have

$$\i u s i a e \, \iota, \, w e \ a s o \ n a v e \\ \left \| \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha } g \right \| _ { 0, \Omega } \leq 2 ^ { \frac { n - 1 } { 2 } } \left [ C _ { \varphi, \rho, 0 } \| \partial _ { x _ { \ell } } g \| _ { 0, \Omega } + C _ { \varphi, \rho, 1 } \| g \| _ { 0, \Omega } \right ]. \\ y \, \text{prove the second assertion and focus on functions } g \, \text{in } \mathcal { C } _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } ( \Omega ) ; \, \text{the gen} \\ \text{om a density argument.}$$

$$\ a v n e a n \, ( 2 0 ) \, s a u s j e s \, \text{use your owning community property} \colon \\ \left \| \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha } g \right \| _ { 0, \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \leq 2 ^ { \frac { n - 1 } { 2 } } \left [ C _ { \varphi, \rho, 0 } \| \partial _ { x _ { \ell } } g \| _ { 0, \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } + C _ { \varphi, \rho, 1 } \| g \| _ { 0, \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \right ]. \\ \intertext { o u t s i d e } \Omega, \, w e \, \text{also have} \quad \. \. \.$$

Proof. We only prove the second assertion and focus on functions g in C ∞ 0 (Ω); the general statement follows then from a density argument.

We consider splitting (30) and show separate bounds for the two terms on the right-hand side. The first one can be handled as in [14, Lemma 2.4] and its proof is therefore omitted:

$$\mathfrak { e } \text{ managed as in } \{ 1 4, \text{ Lemma } 2. 4 \} \text{ and its proof is therefore omitted} \colon \\ \left \| \widehat { \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha, 1 } g } \right \| _ { 0, \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \leq 2 ^ { \frac { n - 1 } { 2 } } C _ { \varphi, \rho, 0 } \left \| \widehat { \partial _ { x } g } \right \| _ { 0, \mathbb { R } ^ { n } }. \\ \mathfrak { e } \text{ the second term. } By the definition of } \widehat { \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha, 2 } g }, \text{ the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality}$$

Thus, we focus on the second term. By the definition of ̂ ˜ T α, 2 g , the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality implies

Using (31b), we deduce

$$\text{mples} \\ \left | \widehat { \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha, 2 } g } ( \xi ) \right | ^ { 2 } \leq \left ( \int _ { 0 } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } 2 \pi | \xi _ { j } | \widehat { \partial _ { x _ { \ell } } \varphi } ( t \xi ) \left | \, \text{dt} \right ) \left ( \int _ { 0 } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } 2 \pi | \xi _ { j } | \widehat { \partial _ { x _ { \ell } } \varphi } ( t \xi ) \left | \widehat { g } ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \right | ^ { 2 } \text{dt} \right ). \\ \text{Using } ( 3 1 b ), \, \text{we deduce}$$

$$\nu, \, \text{we cause} \\ \left | \widehat { \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha, 2 } g } ( \xi ) \right | ^ { 2 } \leq C _ { \varphi, \rho, 1 } \int _ { 0 } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } 2 \pi | \xi _ { j } | \left | \widehat { \partial _ { x _ { t } } \varphi } ( t \xi ) \right | | \widehat { g } ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) | ^ { 2 } \, d t \,. \\ \vdots \, \text{over} \, \xi \, \text{ and employing the change of variable} \, \eta = ( 1 - t ) \xi \, \text{ give} \\. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad.$$

$$\text{moving over } s \, a n d \, \text{pying one} \, a n d \, \eta - \infty ^ { - } \infty ^ { - } \text{give} \\ \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \left | \widehat { \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha, 2 } g } ( \xi ) \right | ^ { 2 } d \xi \leq C _ { \varphi, 0, 1 } \int _ { 0 } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \frac { 2 \pi } { ( 1 - t ) ^ { n + 1 } } | \widehat { \int _ { \mathbb { r } \tau } \varphi } \left ( \frac { t \eta } { 1 - t } \right ) \left | \widehat { g } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta \, \text{d} t \\ \text{If we consider the change of variable } s = t / ( 1 - t ), \, \text{which entails} \\ 1 \quad \dots n + 1$$

Integrating over ξ and employing the change of variable η = (1 -t ) ξ give

If we consider the change of variable s = t/ (1 -t ), which entails

$$\lambda \lambda _ { 0 } \lambda _ { 1 } \lambda _ { 2 } \lambda _ { 3 } \lambda _ { 4 } \lambda _ { 5 } \lambda _ { 6 } \lambda _ { 7 } \lambda _ { 8 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \lambda _ { 9 } \\ \text{rive at}$$

then we arrive at

$$\text{then we arrive at} \\ \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \left | \widehat { \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha, 2 9 } } ( \xi ) \right | ^ { 2 } d \xi & \leq 2 ^ { n - 1 } C _ { \varphi, \rho, 1 } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \left ( \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } 2 \pi | \eta _ { j } | \widehat { \partial _ { x } \varphi } ( \| \| s \| ) \| d \| ) \| _ { \| } | \widehat { g } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } \| _ { \| } d \eta.$$

We apply again (31b):

$$\cdots \widetilde { \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha, 2 9 } } \Big | \Big | _ { 0, \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } ^ { 2 } = \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \left | \widehat { \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha, 2 9 } } ( \xi ) \right | ^ { 2 } d \xi \leq 2 ^ { n - 1 } C _ { \varphi, \rho, 1 } ^ { 2 } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } | \widehat { g } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta = 2 ^ { n - 1 } C _ { \varphi, \rho, 1 } ^ { 2 } \| \widehat { g } \| _ { 0, \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } ^ { 2 }. \quad ( 3 3 ) \\ \text{The assertion follows using the Fourier isometry (23) in (32), identity (33), and the properties of $\omega$} \\ \text{detailed in Section 2.1.}$$

The assertion follows using the Fourier isometry (23) in (32), identity (33), and the properties of ω detailed in Section 2.1.

2.3 Continuity of ˜ T β We discuss the continuity of the operator in (29). As discussed in [14], a direct application of the H¨ older and Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities would end up with suboptimal estimates as those in [16]. Therefore, finer estimates are in order. To this aim, we extend [14, Section 3] to the first order case.

Proposition 2.4. Let g and ˜ T β be as in (26) and (29) . Assume that g belongs to L 2 ( R n ) and has support contained in Ω . Given 1 ≤ p &lt; n/ n ( -1) and p ′ the conjugate index of p , the following inequality holds true:

$$\cdot \\ \left \| \widetilde { T } _ { \beta } g \right \| _ { 0, \Omega } \leq \frac { 2 \frac { \pi } { 2 } } { ( 1 - \frac { n } { p ^ { \prime } } ) ^ { \frac { p } { 2 } } } | \Omega | ^ { 1 - \frac { p } { 2 } } \left \| \partial _ { x _ { j } x _ { \ell } } ^ { 2 } \varphi \right \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( \Omega ) } ^ { \frac { p } { 2 } } \left \| \partial _ { x _ { j } x _ { \ell } } ^ { 2 } \varphi \right \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 1 - \frac { p } { 2 } } \left \| g \right \| _ { 0, \Omega }. \\.$$

Proof. The proof follows along the same lines of [14, Lemma 3.2], the only difference being the number of derivatives of ϕ .

We prove the continuity of the operator in (27).

## 2.4 Continuity of ˜ T

Theorem 2.5. Let g and ˜ T be as in (26) and (27) . Assume that g belongs to H 1 0 (Ω) . Given 1 ≤ p &lt; n/ n ( -1) and p ′ the conjugate index of p , the following inequality holds true:

Proof. The assertion follows combining Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, and the explicit representation of the constants C ϕ,ρ, 0 and C ϕ,ρ, 1 in (31).

$$\leq p < n / ( n - 1 ) \text{ and } p ^ { \prime } \text{ the conjugate index of } p, \text{ the following inequality holds true} \colon \\ \left \| \widetilde { T } g \right \| _ { 0, \Omega } \leq 2 ^ { \frac { n - 1 } { 2 } } ( \rho ^ { - 1 } \| \varphi \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( \Omega ) } + \rho \left \| \partial _ { x _ { j } ^ { 2 } } ^ { 2 } \varphi \right \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( \Omega ) } ) \| \partial _ { x _ { j } } g \| _ { 0, \Omega } \\ + 2 ^ { \frac { n - 1 } { 2 } } ( \rho ^ { - 1 } \| \partial _ { x _ { i } } \varphi \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( \Omega ) } + \rho \left \| \partial _ { x _ { j } ^ { 3 } x _ { i } } ^ { 3 } \varphi \right \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( \Omega ) } ) \| g \| _ { 0, \Omega } \\ + \frac { 2 ^ { \frac { n } { 2 } } } { ( 1 - \frac { n } { p ^ { \prime } } ) ^ { \frac { n } { 2 } } } | \Omega | ^ { - \frac { n } { 2 } } \left \| \partial _ { x _ { j } x _ { i } } ^ { 2 } \varphi \right \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( \Omega ) } ^ { \frac { n } { 2 } } \left \| \partial _ { x _ { j } x _ { i } } ^ { 2 } \varphi \right \| _ { L \sim ( \Omega ) } ^ { 1 - \frac { n } { 2 } } \| g \| _ { 0, \Omega } \right \| _ { L \sim ( \Omega ) } ^ { \dagger } \\ \text{$rowof} \text{. The assertion follows combining Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4, and the explicit representation of the} \\ \text{onstants} \, C _ { \varphi, \rho, 0 } \text{ and } C _ { \varphi, \rho, 1 } \text{ in } ( 3 1 ). & \text{$\Box$}$$

Next, we derive explicit constants with respect to R and ρ for inequality (34), i.e., we are in a position for proving one of the main results of the manuscript.

Proof of Theorem 1.2. For all j , /lscript = 1 , . . . , n , we have to bound the two terms on the right-hand side of splitting (25). We only prove bounds for ˜ T k,j/lscript, 2 ( y k f ( y )), as the bounds for ˜ T k,j/lscript, 1 ( f ( y )) are analogous. For the term ˜ T k,j/lscript, 1 ( y k f ( y )), we have that ϕ x ( ) in (26) is given by ω x ( ), which is supported, with integral 1, in the ball B ρ of radius ρ . Without loss of generality, the ball can be centred at the origin.

We can write

$$\varphi ( x ) = \rho ^ { - n } \psi ( \rho ^ { - 1 } x ),$$

where ψ has the same smoothness as ϕ , is supported in the unitary ball B 1 (0) with integral 1, and is fixed once and for all.

The following properties of ϕ and its derivatives are valid:

$$& \text{The following properties of $\varphi$ and its derivatives are valid:} \\ & & \left \| \varphi \right \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( R ^ { n } ) } \approx 1, \quad \left \| \varphi \right \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( R ^ { n } ) } \approx \rho ^ { - n } ; \\ & \partial _ { x _ { j } \varphi } ( x ) = \rho ^ { - n - 1 } \partial _ { x _ { j } \varphi } ( \rho ^ { - 1 } x ), \quad \left \| \partial _ { x _ { j } \varphi } \right \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( R ^ { n } ) } \approx \rho ^ { - 1 }, \quad \left \| \partial _ { x _ { j } \varphi } \right \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( R ^ { n } ) } \approx \rho ^ { - n - 1 } ; \\ & \partial _ { x _ { j } x _ { \ell } } \varphi ( x ) = \rho ^ { - n - 2 } \partial _ { x _ { j } x _ { \ell } } ^ { 2 } \varphi ( \rho ^ { - 1 } x ), \quad \left \| \partial _ { x _ { j } x _ { \ell } } ^ { 2 } \varphi \right \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( R ^ { n } ) } \approx \rho ^ { - 2 }, \quad \left \| \partial _ { x _ { j } x _ { \ell } } ^ { 2 } \varphi \right \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( R ^ { n } ) } \approx \rho ^ { - n - 2 } ; \\ & \partial _ { x _ { j } ^ { 2 } x _ { \ell } } \varphi ( x ) = \rho ^ { - n - 3 } \partial _ { x _ { j } ^ { 2 } x _ { \ell } } ^ { 3 } \varphi ( \rho ^ { - 1 } x ), \quad \left \| \partial _ { x _ { j } ^ { 2 } x _ { \ell } } ^ { 3 } \varphi \right \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( R ^ { n } ) } \$$

$$& \text{The definition of } T _ { k, j \ell, 2 } ( y _ { k } f ), \text{ the chain rule, the inequality } | y _ { k } | \leq R, \text{ and the fact that } \rho ^ { - 1 } \leq R \rho ^ { - 2 } \\ & \text{imly} \\ & \quad \left | \mu _ { 2, \Omega } \lesssim _ { n } R \left [ \rho ^ { - 1 } + \rho \, \rho ^ { - 2 } \right ] | f | _ { 1, \Omega } + \left [ \rho ^ { - 1 } + \rho \rho ^ { - 2 } \right ] \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } \\ & \quad \quad + R [ \rho ^ { - 1 } \rho ^ { - 1 } + \rho \rho ^ { - 3 } ] \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } + R \frac { 2 ^ { \frac { 2 ^ { \frac { k } { 2 } } } { \left ( 1 - \frac { n } { \rho } \right ) ^ { \frac { n } { 2 } } } } { \left ( 1 - \frac { n } { \rho } \right ) ^ { \frac { n } { 2 } } } \right ) ^ { \frac { n } { 2 } } \right ] ( \Omega ^ { 1 - \frac { n } { 2 } } \rho ^ { - 2 - n ( 1 - \frac { n } { 2 } ) } \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } \\ & \quad \lesssim _ { n } R \left [ \rho ^ { - 1 } | f | _ { 1, \Omega } + \frac { R } { \rho ^ { 2 } } \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } \left [ 1 + \left ( 1 - \frac { n } { \rho ^ { \prime } } \right ) ^ { - \frac { n } { 2 } } \left | \Omega ^ { 1 - \frac { n } { 2 } } \rho ^ { - n ( 1 - \frac { n } { 2 } ) } \right ]. \\ & \quad \text{We cope with part of the last coefficient on the right-hand side separately. Using that } \\ & \quad \quad \quad$$

The definition of ˜ T k,j/lscript, 2 ( y k f ), the chain rule, the inequality | y k | ≤ R , and the fact that ρ -1 ≤ Rρ -2 imply

We cope with part of the last coefficient on the right-hand side separately. Using that

$$| B _ { \rho } | ^ { 1 - \frac { p } { 2 } } \rho ^ { - n \left ( 1 - \frac { p } { 2 } \right ) } \approx 1,$$

we can write

$$\text{we can write} \\ & \left ( 1 - \frac { n } { p ^ { \prime } } \right ) ^ { - \frac { p } { 2 } } | \Omega | ^ { 1 - \frac { p } { 2 } } \rho ^ { - n ( 1 - \frac { p } { 2 } ) } = \left ( 1 - \frac { n } { p ^ { \prime } } \right ) ^ { - \frac { p } { 2 } } \left ( \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) ^ { 1 - \frac { p } { 2 } } | B _ { \rho } | ^ { 1 - \frac { p } { 2 } } \rho ^ { - n ( 1 - \frac { p } { 2 } ) } \\ & \approx \left ( 1 - \frac { n } { p ^ { \prime } } \right ) ^ { - \frac { p } { 2 } } \left ( \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) ^ { \frac { n - 2 } { 2 ( n - 1 ) } } \left ( \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( \frac { n } { n - 1 } - p \right ) }. \\ \text{For } | \Omega | / | B _ { \rho } | \text{ sufficiently large (the ball } B _ { \rho } \text{ is anyhow fixed once and for all in the reference frame} \text{-}$$

For | Ω | / B | ρ | sufficiently large (the ball B ρ is anyhow fixed once and for all in the reference framework), we choose p such that

Equivalently, we pick p such that

$$\dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots\delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cdots \delta \cd$$

$$\log \left ( \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) & = \frac { 1 } { \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( \frac { n } { n - 1 } - p \right ) } \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } = e ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( \frac { n } { n - 1 } - p \right ) } \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \left ( \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } \left ( \frac { n } { n - 1 } - p \right ) } = e ^ { 1 }. \\ \text{We plug the last identity in (36) and deduce}$$

We plug the last identity in (36) and deduce

$$\lambda _ { 0 } & \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cd. \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cd. \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdots \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdolambda _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _{ 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 1 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \quad \tau _ { 0 } \\ \intertext { h o o l - t \infty } & \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad$$

Going back to (35), we write

$$\mathfrak { s u a c e } \cos \cos \omega, \, \mathfrak { w c e w e c } \\ | \mathfrak { u } | _ { 2, \Omega } \lesssim _ { n } \frac { R } { \rho } | f | _ { 1, \Omega } + \frac { R } { \rho ^ { 2 } } \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } \left [ 1 + \left ( 1 - \frac { n } { p ^ { \prime } } \right ) ^ { - \frac { p } { 2 } } \left ( \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) ^ { \frac { n - 2 } { 2 ( n - 1 ) } } \right ].$$

We further note that

$$\text{that} \\ 1 - \frac { n } { p ^ { \prime } } = \left ( \frac { n - 1 } { p } \right ) \left ( \frac { n } { n - 1 } - p \right ) = \frac { 2 ( n - 1 ) } { p \log \left ( \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) }. \\ \cdots$$

We combine the two above displays:

$$| \mathbf u | _ { 2, \Omega } & \lesssim _ { n } \frac { R } { \rho } | f | _ { 1, \Omega } + \frac { R } { \rho ^ { 2 } } \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega } \left [ 1 + \left ( \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) ^ { \frac { n - 2 } { 2 ( n - 1 ) } } \frac { p ^ { \frac { p } { 2 } } } { 2 ( n - 1 ) ^ { \frac { p } { 2 } } } \log \left ( \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) ^ { \frac { p } { 2 } } \right ]. \\ \dashrightarrow \cdot \quad \ \nu \quad \ \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

Using p &lt; n/ n ( -1), the following quantity is uniformly bounded in n and thus in p :

$$\frac { p ^ { \frac { p } { 2 } } } { 2 ( n - 1 ) ^ { \frac { p } { 2 } } }. \\ \aleph _ { 1 } \, \text{w} \, \quad \,.$$

Moreover, we know that p/ 2 &lt; n/ (2( n -1)). We deduce that

$$\dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \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 \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta\delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \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 \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \ delta \ delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \dia \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \Delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta
\quad \left | \mathfrak { u } \mathfrak { u } \right | = \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \ dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \\ \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \end{cases}$$

which is the assertion.

Compared to the lowest order estimate (6), we have an extra term involving the gradient of f and an extra ρ -1 scaling factor for the term involving f .

Remark 1 . The issue on whether estimates as in Theorem 1.2 can be extended to union of starshaped domains was addressed in [19]. Their proof relies on partition of unity techniques; this entails that estimates have constants that are not fully explicit with respect to the shape of the domain [18]. A simpler open problem is whether one may be able to prove arbitrary order Babuˇ skaAziz inequalities with explicit constants on the union of simpler star-shaped domains, e.g., on simplicial patches.

Remark 2 . We have that u in (21) satisfies the boundary conditions, i.e., that u belongs to [ H 2 0 (Ω)] n ; this is shown for instance in [16, Lemma III.3.1] for smooth functions; the corresponding result for Sobolev spaces is achieved via density arguments. As it is of independent interest, we discuss an alternative proof of this fact in Appendix B, which holds also in the non-Hilbertian setting.

## 2.5 On the optimality of the estimates in Theorem 1.2 in 2D

We comment on the optimality of the estimates in Theorem 1.2 for planar domains based on a counterexample in [14, Section 3]. Introduce the domain

$$\Omega _ { a, \varepsilon } \coloneqq ( - a, a ) \times ( - \varepsilon, \varepsilon )$$

and the function

$$f ( x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ) = x _ { 1 }.$$

Let u be the solution to the divergence problem (10). We have

$$\text{Let u be one solution to the divergence problem (10). we have } \\ \| x _ { 1 } \| _ { 0, \Omega _ { a, \varepsilon } } ^ { 2 } = \int _ { \Omega _ { a, \varepsilon } } x _ { 1 } \nabla \cdot \mathbf u = - \int _ { \Omega _ { a, \varepsilon } } \mathbf u _ { 1 } = - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \int _ { \Omega _ { a, \varepsilon } } x _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } \theta _ { x _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } \mathbf u _ { 1 } \leq \frac { 1 } { 2 } \| x _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } \| _ { 0, \Omega _ { a, \varepsilon } } \left \| \partial _ { x _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } } ^ { 2 } \mathbf u _ { 1 } \right \| _ { 0, \Omega _ { a, \varepsilon } }. \\ \text{We use estimates as in (10) for the last term on the right-hand side: there exists positive con-} \\ \text{stants C. and C.} \text{endning} \, on R = 2 \alpha \, \text{and} \, \, \varepsilon \text{ such that}$$

We use estimates as in (10) for the last term on the right-hand side: there exists positive constants C 1 and C 2 depending on R = 2 a and ρ = ε such that

We have

$$\varkappa _ { 1 } \, \text{and} \, \varkappa _ { 2 } \, \text{and} \, \varkappa _ { 3 } \, \text{and} \, \varkappa _ { 4 } \, \text{and} \, \varkappa _ { 5 } \, \text{and} \, \varkappa _ { 6 } \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \text{and} \, \begin{array} { c } \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \right ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left (  \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \ \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \bottom ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( { \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \top ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left (
 \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \bar { \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left (    \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left  \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( {         \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \right                 \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left                           \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left (  \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left (  \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left (  \left ( \left ( \left ( \left ( \left                                          \         {$$

$$\| x _ { 1 } \| _ { 0, \Omega _ { a, \varepsilon } } ^ { 2 } = \frac { 4 } { 3 } a ^ { 3 } \varepsilon,$$

$$\left \| x _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } \right \| _ { 0, \Omega _ { a, \epsilon } } ^ { 2 } = \frac { 4 } { 5 } a \varepsilon ^ { 5 }, \quad \ \left \| 1 \right \| _ { 0, \Omega _ { a, \epsilon } } ^ { 2 } = 4 a \varepsilon.$$

Combining the two displays, we get

$$\left \| x _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } \right \| _ { 0, \Omega _ { a, \varepsilon } } ^ { 2 } = \frac { 4 } { 5 } a \varepsilon$$

$$a ^ { 3 } \varepsilon \lesssim C ^ { A } _ { \mathcal { B A }, 1 } a ^ { 2 } \varepsilon ^ { 3 } + C ^ { B } _ { \mathcal { B A }, 1 } a \varepsilon ^ { 3 },$$

whence

$$1 \lesssim C _ { \mathcal { B A }, 1 } ^ { A } a ^ { - 1 } \varepsilon ^ { 2 } + C _ { \mathcal { B A }, 1 } ^ { B } a ^ { - 2 } \varepsilon ^ { 2 } \approx C _ { \mathcal { B A }, 1 } ^ { A } \frac { \rho ^ { 2 } } { R } + C _ { \mathcal { B A }, 1 } ^ { B } \frac { \rho ^ { 2 } } { R ^ { 2 } }.$$

This inequality implies that at least one of the following must hold true:

$$C _ { \mathcal { B } \mathcal { A }, 1 } ^ { A } \gtrsim \frac { R } { \rho ^ { 2 } }, \quad \ \ \ C _ { \mathcal { B } \mathcal { A }, 1 } ^ { B } \gtrsim \frac { R ^ { 2 } } { \rho ^ { 2 } }.$$

Using (11), we deduce

$$\frac { R ^ { 2 } } { \rho ^ { 2 } } \lesssim C _ { B \mathcal { A }, 1 } ^ { B } \lesssim \frac { R } { \rho },$$

which cannot be valid in general with hidden constants independent of R and ρ as in (3). This entails that

$$C _ { \mathcal { B } \mathcal { A }, 1 } ^ { A } \gtrsim \frac { R } { \rho ^ { 2 } },$$

i.e., the first bound in (11) is optimal up to a logarithmic factor.

We are not able to infer a clear statement on the optimality of C B BA , 1 from the bound above. A heuristic argument based on scaling techniques, suggests however that bound (11) on C B BA , 1 should be also optimal.

## 3 Proof of a Neˇas-Lions inequality with symmetric gradic ents

We prove Theorem 1.4. To this aim, we first show an auxiliary result.

Lemma 3.1. Let u be a sufficiently smooth vector field. Then, the following identities hold true:

$$[ \nabla ( \nabla \times \mathfrak { u } ) ] ^ { T } = \nabla \times ( \nabla \mathfrak { u } + ( \nabla \mathfrak { u } ) ^ { T } ) = 2 \nabla \times ( \nabla _ { S } \mathfrak { u } ),$$

where, for a given tensor A , ∇ × A denotes the matrix obtained by applying the curl operator row-wise to A .

Proof. Direct computations give

$$\begin{array} { c c c c } \text{r} \text{v} \text{v} J. \text{Direct computations give} \\ \left [ \nabla ( \nabla \times \mathbf u ) \right ] ^ { T } = \left [ \begin{array} { c c c c } \partial _ { x _ { 1 } } ( \partial _ { x _ { 2 } } \mathbf u _ { 3 } - \partial _ { x _ { 3 } } \mathbf u _ { 2 } ) & \partial _ { x _ { 1 } } ( \partial _ { x _ { 3 } } \mathbf u _ { 1 } - \partial _ { x _ { 1 } } \mathbf u _ { 3 } ) & \partial _ { x _ { 1 } } ( \partial _ { x _ { 1 } } \mathbf u _ { 2 } - \partial _ { x _ { 2 } } \mathbf u _ { 1 } ) \\ \partial _ { x _ { 2 } } ( \partial _ { x _ { 2 } } \mathbf u _ { 3 } - \partial _ { x _ { 3 } } \mathbf u _ { 2 } ) & \partial _ { x _ { 2 } } ( \partial _ { x _ { 3 } } \mathbf u _ { 1 } - \partial _ { x _ { 1 } } \mathbf u _ { 3 } ) & \partial _ { x _ { 3 } } ( \partial _ { x _ { 1 } } \mathbf u _ { 2 } - \partial _ { x _ { 2 } } \mathbf u _ { 1 } ) \end{array} \right ]. \\ \text{Similarly, we may show that the above tensor coincides with $\nabla \times (\nabla \mathbf u + (\nabla \mathbf u ) ^ { T } ), \text{which gives the}$$

Similarly, we may show that the above tensor coincides with ∇× ∇ ( u +( ∇ u ) T ), which gives the first identity in (37); the second identity in (37) is a consequence of the definition of the symmetric gradient.

We are now in a position to prove Theorem 1.4. For any generic q RM in the space of rigid body motions RM (Ω) ∩ [ L 2 0 (Ω)] n as discussed in Section 1.5, we have

An immediate consequence of the standard, vector version, lowest order Neˇas-Lions inequality (7) c is that

$$\text{www.w3.org/wiki/1.0/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/2/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/0/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1.1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1.0/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/0/1/0/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/0/1.1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/0/1.0/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.0/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.0/1.0/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1,0.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/0.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1.0/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1/1.1
\text{in} \text{All immediate consequence of the standard, vector version, lowest order Neq<as-Lions inequality (7)} \\ \text{is that}$$

$$\text{$av$} \\ \left \| v - \Pi _ { \text{RM} } v \right \| _ { 0, \Omega } \leq C _ { \mathcal { N L }, 0 } \left \| \nabla ( v - q ^ { \text{RM} } ) \right \| _ { - 1, \Omega } \quad \forall q ^ { \text{RM} } \in \text{RM} ( \Omega ) \cap [ L _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n }. \quad ( 3 8 ) \\ \text{We are left to prove the existence of a positive constant $C$ with explicit dependence on $R$ and $\rho$} \\ \text{as in $(3)$ such that $for$ a specific choice of $a^{\text{RM}$ the followin inequality is valid.}$$

We are left to prove the existence of a positive constant C with explicit dependence on R and ρ as in (3), such that, for a specific choice of q RM , the following inequality is valid:

$$\wp e q u e c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c O n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o nc o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o n c o,$$

Using splitting (1) of the gradient into symmetric and skew-symmetric parts, and the triangle inequality entails

$$\underset { \mu } { \max } \, \text{$\max$} \, \text{$\max$} \\ \left \| \nabla ( v - q ^ { R M } ) \right \| _ { - 1, \Omega } \leq \left \| \nabla _ { S } ( v - q ^ { R M } ) \right \| _ { - 1, \Omega } + \left \| \nabla _ { S S } ( v - q ^ { R M } ) \right \| _ { - 1, \Omega }, \quad \, ( 3 9 ) \\ \text{Since $q^{\text{RM}$ is a rigid body motion, $\nabla_{S}q^{\text{RM}$ is the zero tensor in $\mathbb{R}^{n\timesn}$: the first term on the right-} \\ \text{hand side to normal to $\mathbb{A}_{\text{V}$} \right \|$} \quad \, \partial e \, \text{for the second term on the right hand side to} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \,\text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do}\, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text`\, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{do} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \, \text{no} \,$$

$$\infty \, \text{upspace} \, \infty \, \int \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \text{on} \, \mp \, \colon \\ \left \| \nabla _ { S S } ( \mathbf v - q ^ { \mathbf R M } ) \right \| _ { - 1, \Omega } \coloneqq \inf _ { q ^ { \mathbf R M } ( \Omega ) \cap [ L _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) ] ^ { n x n } } \left \| \nabla _ { S S } ( \mathbf v - q ^ { \widetilde { \mathbf R M } } ) \right \| _ { - 1, \Omega } = \inf _ { e \in A ^ { n x n } } \left \| \nabla _ { S S } \mathbf v - c \right \| _ { - 1, \Omega }. \\ \text{With this at hand, elementary computations give}$$

Since q RM is a rigid body motion, ∇ S q RM is the zero tensor in R n × n : the first term on the righthand side is equal to ‖∇ S v ‖ -1 Ω , . As for the second term on the right-hand side, we define A n × n as the space of ( n × n ) skew-symmetric matrices, n = 2 3. We take , q RM such that

With this at hand, elementary computations give

$$\left \| \nabla _ { S S } ( \mathbf v - q ^ { \text{RM} } ) \right \| _ { - 1, \Omega } = \inf _ { c \in A ^ { n \times n } } \left \| \nabla _ { S S } \mathbf v - c \right \| _ { - 1, \Omega } \leq \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { 2 } } \inf _ { c \in \mathbb { R } ^ { 2 n - 3 } } \left \| \nabla \times \mathbf v - c \right \| _ { - 1, \Omega }. \quad ( 40 ) \\ \text{Note that the last two norms involve tensors and vectors, respectively.} \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad.$$

Note that the last two norms involve tensors and vectors, respectively.

An immediate consequence of the scalar and vector versions of (12), (15), and (16) is that

$$\inf _ { c \in \mathbb { R } ^ { 2 n - 3 } } \| \nabla \times \mathbf v - c \| _ { - 1, \Omega } \leq C _ { \mathcal { N L }, 1 } \| \nabla ( \nabla \times \mathbf v ) \| _ { - 2, \Omega } \leq ( C _ { \mathcal { B } \mathcal { A }, 1 } ^ { A } C _ { P } R + C _ { \mathcal { B } \mathcal { A }, 1 } ^ { B } ) \| \nabla ( \nabla \times \mathbf v ) \| _ { - 2, \Omega }.$$

Lemma 3.1 reveals that

$$\inf _ { c \in \mathbb { R } ^ { 2 n - 3 } } \| \nabla \times \mathbf v - \mathbf c \| _ { - 1, \Omega } & \leq 2 ( C _ { \mathcal { B } A, 1 } ^ { A } C _ { P } R + C _ { \mathcal { B } A, 1 } ^ { B } ) \| \nabla \times \nabla _ { S } \mathbf v \| _ { - 2, \Omega } \\ & \leq 2 ( C _ { \mathcal { B } A, 1 } ^ { A } C _ { P } R + C _ { \mathcal { B } A, 1 } ^ { B } ) \| \nabla _ { S } \mathbf v \| _ { - 1, \Omega }. \\ \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots.$$

Combining (38), (39), (40), and (41) yields the assertion.

Acknowledgements. The Authors have been partially funded by the European Union (ERC, NEMESIS, project number 101115663); views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the EU or the ERC Executive Agency. LM has been partially funded by MUR (PRIN2022 research grant n. 202292JW3F). The Authors are also members of the Gruppo Nazionale Calcolo Scientifico-Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (GNCS-INdAM). The authors are grateful to an anonymous referee for the helpful comments that lead to an improved version of the manuscript.

## References

- [1] G. Acosta and R. G. Dur´n. a Divergence operator and related inequalities . Springer, 2017.
- [2] C. Amrouche, Ph. G. Ciarlet, and C. Mardare. On a lemma of Jacques-Louis Lions and its relation to other fundamental results. J. Math. Pures Appl. , 104(2):207-226, 2015.
- [3] C. Amrouche and V. Girault. Decomposition of vector spaces and application to the Stokes problem in arbitrary dimension. Czechoslovak Math. J. , 44(1):109-140, 1994.
- [4] D. N. Arnold, L. R. Scott, and M. Vogelius. Regular inversion of the divergence operator with Dirichlet boundary conditions on a polygon. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. , 15(2):169-192, 1988.
- [5] I. Babuˇ ska and A. K. Aziz. Survey lectures on the mathematical foundations of the finite element method. In The mathematical foundations of the finite element method with applications to partial differential equations (Proc. Sympos., Univ. Maryland, Baltimore, Md., 1972) , pages 1-359. Academic Press, New York-London, 1972. With the collaboration of G. Fix and R. B. Kellogg.
- [6] M. E. Bogovski˘ ı. Solution of the first boundary value problem for an equation of continuity of an incompressible medium. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR , 248(5):1037-1040, 1979.
- [7] M. E. Bogovski˘ ı. Solution of some vector analysis problems connected with operators div and grad. In Trudy Seminar Sobolev , volume 80, pages 5-40, 1980.
- [8] W. Borchers and H. Sohr. On the equations rot v = g and div u = f with zero boundary conditions. Hokkaido Math. J. , 19(1):67-87, 1990.
- [9] S. C. Brenner and L. R. Scott. The mathematical theory of finite element methods . Springer, 2008.

- [10] L. Cattabriga. Su un problema al contorno relativo al sistema di equazioni di Stokes. Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova , 31:308-340, 1961.
- [11] Ph. G. Ciarlet. The finite element method for elliptic problems . SIAM, 2002.
- [12] M. Costabel and M. Dauge. On the inequalities of Babuˇka-Aziz, Friedrichs and Horgan-Payne. s Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 217:873-898, 2015.
- [13] M. Costabel and A. McIntosh. On Bogovskii and regularized Poincar´ integral operators for de Rham complexes e on Lipschitz domains. Math. Z. , 265(2):297-320, 2010.
- [14] R. G. Dur´n. An elementary proof of the continuity from a L 2 0 (Ω) to H 1 0 (Ω) n of Bogovskii's right inverse of the divergence. Rev. Un. Mat. Argentina , 53(2):59-78, 2012.
- [15] A. Ern and J.-L. Guermond. Finite elements I: Approximation and interpolation , volume 72. Springer Nature, 2021.
- [16] G. Galdi. An introduction to the mathematical theory of the Navier-Stokes equations: Steady-state problems . Springer Science &amp; Business Media, 2011.
- [17] M. Geißert, H. Heck, and M. Hieber. On the equation div u = g and Bogovskii's operator in Sobolev spaces of negative order. In Partial differential equations and functional analysis , volume 168 of Oper. Theory Adv. Appl. , pages 113-121. Birkh¨user, Basel, 2006. a
- [18] J. Guzm´ an. Private communication. Hˆ otel Ulysse, 338 Avenue de Saint-Maur, Montpellier, France , 19 June 2024.
- [19] J. Guzm´ an and A. J. Salgado. Estimation of the continuity constants for Bogovskii and regularized Poincar´ e integral operators. J. Math. Anal. Appl. , 502(1):Paper No. 125246, 36, 2021.
- [20] C. O. Horgan and L. E. Payne. On inequalities of Korn, Friedrichs and Babuˇka-Aziz. s Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. , 82(2):165-179, 1983.
- [21] O. A. Ladyzhenskaya. New equations for the description of the motions of viscous incompressible fluids, and global solvability for their boundary value problems. Tr. Mat. Inst. Steklova , 102:85-104, 1967.
- [22] E. Magenes and G. Stampacchia. I problemi al contorno per le equazioni differenziali di tipo ellittico. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. , 12(3):247-358, 1958.
- [23] N. G. Meyers and J. Serrin. H = W . Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. , 51:1055-1056, 1964.
- [24] J. Neˇas. c Les m´ ethodes directes en th´orie des ´quations elliptiques. e e Masson-Academia, Paris-Prague , 1967.
- [25] D. Swanson and W. P. Ziemer. Sobolev functions whose inner trace at the boundary is zero. Ark. Mat. , 37(2):373-380, 1999.
- [26] R. Verf¨rth. u A note on polynomial approximation in Sobolev spaces. ESAIM: Math. Model. Numer. Anal. , 33(4):715-719, 1999.

## A Arbitrary order Babuˇ ska-Aziz inequalities on star-shaped domains with explicit constants

In this appendix, we provide a road-map for proving arbitrary order Babuˇ ska-Aziz inequalities that are explicit with respect to R and ρ in (3), based on a generalisation of the analysis in Section 2. In particular, we prove the following generalisation of Theorem 1.2.

Theorem A.1. Let d in N be larger than or equal to 1 , and R and ρ be as in (3) . Assume that f is in H d -1 0 (Ω) ∩ L 2 0 (Ω) . Then, there exists u in [ H d 0 (Ω)] n such that ∇· u = f and

$$\omega \, \Pi \, \Pi _ { 0 } \, \langle \, \mu \, \mu \, \Pi _ { 0 } \, \langle \, \mu \, \Pi _ { 0 } \, \langle \, \mu \, \Pi _ { 0 } \, \langle \, \mu \, \Pi _ { 0 } \, \langle \, \mu \, \Pi _ { 0 } \, \langle \, \mu \, \Pi _ { 0 } \, \langle \, \mu \, \Pi _ { 0 } \, \langle \, \mu \, \Pi _ { 0 } \, \langle \, \mu \, \Pi _ { 0 } \, \langle \, \mu \, \Pi _ { 0 } \, \langle \, \mu \, \Pi _ { 0 } \, \langle \, \mu \, \Pi _ { 0 } \, \langle \, \mu \, \Pi _ { 0 } = J \, \ m a n d \\ | \mathbf u | _ { d, \Omega } \lesssim & n \sum _ { \ell = 1 } ^ { d - 1 } \frac { R } { \rho ^ { d - \ell } } | f | _ { \ell, \Omega } + \frac { R } { \rho ^ { d } } \left [ 1 + \left ( \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) ^ { \frac { n - 2 } { 2 ( n - 1 ) } } \left ( \log \frac { | \Omega | } { | B _ { \rho } | } \right ) ^ { \frac { n } { 2 ( n - 1 ) } } \right ] \| f \| _ { 0, \Omega }. \\ \intertext { W o v i o s o m e d e t i a l i s o n h o w t o n r o w e } \, \| \, \text{S e s o t i a l l v w o h a v e to n r o w e the c o n t i m i t v o f the }$$

We give some details on how to prove (42). Essentially, we have to prove the continuity of the counterpart of the operator in (27) involving all the derivatives of order d . More precisely, for each multi-index j = ( j 1 , . . . , j n ) in { 1 , . . . , d } n , | j | = d , we study the continuity of the operator where

$$\widetilde { T } _ { g } \coloneqq \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha } g & + \widetilde { T } _ { \beta } g, & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & && & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &
 & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ; & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & - & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & _ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & } & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &. & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & = & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & + & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &, & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &   & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &
 & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &. \\ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &.. & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &$$

and

$$\psi _ { \beta } f ( x ) \coloneqq & \int _ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } ^ { 1 } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \partial _ { x _ { 1 } ^ { j _ { 1 } }, \dots, x _ { n } ^ { j _ { n } } } ^ { d } \left [ \varphi \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) \right ] g ( y ) \, \mathrm d y \, \frac { \mathrm d t } { t ^ { n } }.$$

$$\text{re} \\ \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha } g ( x ) \coloneqq & \lim _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \partial _ { x _ { 1 } ^ { j _ { 1 } }, \dots, x _ { n } ^ { j _ { n } } } ^ { d } \left [ \varphi \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) \right ] g ( y ) \, \text{dy} \, \frac { \text{dt} } { t ^ { n } } \\ \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha } \, \left ( \int _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \, \rightarrow \, \int _ { \varepsilon d } ^ { 1 } \, \int _ { \varepsilon d } \, \left [ \int _ { \varepsilon \to 1 } \, x - y \, \right ] \, \left ( \int _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \, \right ) \, \right )$$

Above, g and ϕ are precisely as in (26). The general assertion then follows summing over all possible multi-indices j . In the remainder of the appendix,

$$j \text{ is fixed}, \quad \ \ j _ { 1 } \neq 0.$$

/negationslash

We discuss here the continuity of the operator in (44). We have the two following technical results.

Lemma A.2. Let j be as in (46) . If g in (26) belongs to C ∞ 0 ( R n ) , then the following identity is valid:

## A.1 Continuity of ˜ T α

$$\widehat { \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha } g ( \xi ) } & = ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { 1 } ) \lim _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \left [ \sum _ { \mathfrak { k }, \ell \in \{ 1, \dots, d \} ^ { n }, k + \ell ( j _ { 1 } - 1, j _ { 2 }, \dots, j _ { d } ) } \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \partial _ { \stackrel { k _ { 1 } } { x _ { 1 } ^ { 1 }, \dots, x _ { n } ^ { k _ { n } } } } ^ { | k | } \varphi ( t \xi ) \partial _ { \stackrel { \ell _ { 1 } } { x _ { 1 } ^ { 1 }, \dots, x _ { n } ^ { k _ { n } } } } ^ { | \ell | } g ( \xi ) \, d t \right ] \\ \text{Proof} \, \text{The proof is a modification of that of Lemma $2.1.$  Since this result contains most of the}$$

Proof. The proof is a modification of that of Lemma 2.1. Since this result contains most of the differences compared to the first order case, we prove the assertion for the second order case, i.e., we assume that j = ( j 1 , j 2 , j 3 ) with j 1 + j 2 + j 3 = 3. To further simplify the proof, we discuss the case j 1 = j 2 = j 3 = 1. The general assertion is proven analogously.

In analogy to the proof of Lemma 2.1, we can write

$$\text{ we assume that } j = ( j _ { 1 }, j _ { 2 }, j _ { 3 } ) \text{ with } j _ { 1 } + j _ { 2 } + j _ { 3 } = 3 \text{. To further simplify the proof, we discuss the } \\ \widehat { T } _ { \alpha, \varepsilon } g ( \xi ) = ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { 1 } ) ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { 2 } ) ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { 3 } ) \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \varphi \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) g ( y ) e ^ { - 2 \pi i x \xi } d x d y \, \frac { \mathfrak { t } _ { t } } { d t ^ { n } } \\ = ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { 1 } ) \left [ \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \widehat { \varphi } ( t \, \xi ) \, [ 2 \pi i ( 1 - t ) \xi _ { 2 } ] [ 2 \pi i ( 1 - t ) \xi _ { 3 } ] \widehat { g } ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \, \mathfrak { t } \\ & + \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \widehat { \varphi } ( t \, \xi ) \, [ 2 \pi i ( 1 - t ) \xi _ { 2 } ] [ 2 \pi i t \xi _ { 3 } ] \widehat { g } ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \, \mathfrak { t } \\ & + \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \widehat { \varphi } ( t \, \xi ) \, [ 2 \pi i t \xi _ { 2 } ] [ 2 \pi i t \xi _ { 3 } ] \widehat { g } ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \, \mathfrak { t } \right ] \\ = ( 2 \pi i \xi _ { 1 } ) \left [ \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \widehat { \varphi } ( t \, \xi ) \, \partial _ { z _ { z _ { z _ { z _ { 3 } } } } g ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \, \mathfrak { d } + \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \widehat { \varphi } ( t \xi ) \, \partial _ { z _ { z _ { 3 } } } g ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \, \mathfrak { d } \\ & + \int _ { \varepsilon } ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \widehat { \partial _ { z _ { z _ { 3 } } } } \varphi ( t \, \xi ) \, \widehat { \varphi } ( ( 1 - t ) \xi ) \, \mathfrak { d } \right ] \,. \\ \text{
This yields the assertion for the case } d = 3, \, \text{and } j _ { 1 } = j _ { 2 } = j _ { 3 } = 1 \, \text{                                                                                                                                                                                                        
      From Lemma A.2, it is apparent that we have to bound the norm of several derivatives of } \varphi, \\ \text{which is what we accomplish in the next result. }$$

This yields the assertion for the case d = 3, and j 1 = j 2 = j 3 = 1.

From Lemma A.2, it is apparent that we have to bound the norm of several derivatives of ϕ , which is what we accomplish in the next result.

Lemma A.3. Let ϕ and j be as in (26) and (46) . Then, the following inequalities hold true: for all multi-indices k in { 1 , . . . , d } n such that | k | ≤ | | j = d ,

Proof. The proof is a modification of that of Lemma 2.2.

$$\text{all multi-indices } k \text{ in } \{ 1, \dots, d \} ^ { n } \text{ such that } | k | \leq | j | = d, \\ 2 \pi | \xi _ { 1 } | \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } \left | \partial _ { x _ { 1 } ^ { k _ { 1 } - 1 }, \dots, x _ { n } ^ { k _ { n } } } ^ { | k | } \varphi ( t \xi ) \right | \text{dt} \leq C _ { \varphi, \rho, k } \\ \colon = \rho ^ { - 1 } \left \| \partial _ { x _ { 1 } ^ { k _ { 1 } - 1 }, x _ { 2 } ^ { k _ { 2 } }, \dots, x _ { n } ^ { k _ { n } } } \varphi \right \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( R ^ { n } ) } + \rho \right \| _ { x _ { 1 } ^ { k _ { 1 } + 1 }, x _ { 2 } ^ { k _ { 2 } }, \dots, x _ { n } ^ { k _ { n } } } \varphi \right \| _ { L ^ { 1 } ( R ^ { n } ) }. \\ \text{Proof. } The proof is a modification of that of Lemma 2.2. \quad \text{ } \Box$$

The two above technical lemmas give the following result.

Proposition A.4. Let ϕ be any of the two options in (26) . Then, for all g in H d ( R n ) , the operator ˜ T α defined in (44) satisfies the following continuity property:

where ϕ is any of the two options in (26) .

$$\upsilon p r a v o n \, 1 _ { \alpha } \, \ u e j n n u \, \left ( \, \vdash \, j \, \ s u a v j e s \, u n \, j \, \text{www.w3.org\,} \, \text{prov.ly}. \\ \left \| \widetilde { T } _ { \alpha } g \right \| _ { 0, \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } & \leq 2 ^ { \frac { n - 1 } { 2 } } \sum _ { k, \ell \in \{ 1, \dots, d \} ^ { n }, k + \ell = ( j _ { 1 } - 1, \dots, j _ { d } ) } \left [ C _ { \varphi, p, k } \left \| \partial _ { x _ { 1 } ^ { 1 }, \dots, x _ { n } ^ { n } } ^ { | \ell | } g \right \| _ { 0, \mathbb { R } ^ { n } } \right ], \\ \text{where } \varphi \, \text{is any of the two options in } (26).$$

Proof. The proof is a modification of that of Proposition 2.3, and further combines Lemmas A.2 and A.3.

We discuss here the continuity of the operator in (45). We have the following result.

## A.2 Continuity of ˜ T β

Proposition A.5. Let g , ˜ T β , and j be as in (26) , (45) , and (46) . Assume that g belongs to L 2 ( R n ) and has support contained in Ω . Given 1 ≤ p &lt; n/ n ( -1) and p ′ the conjugate index of p , the following inequality holds true:

$$\cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad\cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \ \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \ \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cd. \quad \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cd. \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cd� \quad \frac { 1 - \frac { 2 } { p ^ { \prime } } } { ( 1 - \frac { 2 } { p ^ { \prime } } ) } \| g \| _ { 0, \Omega }. \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \dots \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdcol \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdet \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdt \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cd� \quad \frac { 1 - \frac { 2 } { p } } { ( 1 - \frac { 2 } { p ^ { \prime } } ) } \| g \| _ { 0, \Omega }. \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cd. \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdod \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdor \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cd
 \quad \quad \quad$$

Proof. The proof is a modification of that of Proposition 2.4.

We discuss here the continuity of the operator in (43). We have the following result.

## A.3 Continuity of ˜ T

Theorem A.6. Let g , ˜ T , and j be as in (26) , (43) , and (46) . Assume that g belongs to H d -1 0 (Ω) . Given 1 ≤ p &lt; n/ n ( -1) and p ′ the conjugate index of p , the following inequality holds true:

Proof. The assertion follows combining Lemmas A.4 and A.5, and the explicit representation of the constants C ϕ,ρ, k in (47).

$$\text{$\mathbb{S}$} \colon \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$ \mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{ $\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{S}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \text{$\mathbb{B}$}, \\ \text{$\mathbb{S}$} + \frac { 2 ^ { \frac { n } { n } } } { ( 1 - \frac { n } { n } ) ^ { \frac { n } { n } } } \left | \partial ^ { \partial } _ { \tau ^ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau _ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ { \tau ^ { 1 } _ { 1 } } \right | _ }$$

Theorem A.1 follows using Theorem A.6, the chain rule, and proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 1.2.

An arbitrary order Neˇas-Lions, generalising the first order version in (12), may be shown based c on Theorem A.1 following the proof of Proposition 1.3; for d in N , it reads

$$\| f \| _ { H ^ { - ( d - 1 ) } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { P } _ { d - 1 } ( \Omega ) } \leq C _ { \mathcal { N L }, d } \| \nabla f \| _ { - d, \Omega } \quad \ \forall f \in H ^ { - ( d - 1 ) } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { P } _ { d - 1 } ( \Omega ),$$

where H -( d -1) (Ω) / P d -1 (Ω) is the space H -( d -1) (Ω) equipped with the norm

$$\| f \| _ { H ^ { - ( d - 1 ) } ( \Omega ) / \mathbb { P } _ { d - 1 } ( \Omega ) } \coloneqq \inf _ { q _ { d - 1 } \in \mathbb { P } _ { d - 1 } ( \Omega ) } \| f - q _ { d - 1 } \| _ { - ( d - 1 ), \Omega }.$$

The constant C NL ,d depends on the Babuˇ ska-Aziz constants of all orders up to d and the Poincar´ e constant through [26].

## B An alternative proof of the zero boundary conditions

We present here an alternative proof of the properties discussed in Remark 2, as it is based on some technical results that are stated in the literature, the proof of which we were not able to find. Such results may be useful in the derivation of explicit estimates for the right-inverse of the divergence in W k,p spaces; see Remark 3 below for additional comments on this point.

We begin by providing the reader with a detailed proof of an alternative expression for the first derivatives of u , which has been stated in [16, Remark III.3.2], and then proceed along the same lines as in [1, Chapter 2].

We start by showing a preliminary result, which requires the definition of an operator ˜ G j : Ω × Ω → R given by

Lemma B.1. Let G and ˜ G j , j = 1 , . . . , n , be defined as in (21a) and (48) . Then, for all positive ε , the following identity holds true:

$$\colon \Omega \to \mathbb { R } \text{ given by} \\ \widetilde { \mathbf G } _ { j } ( x, y ) \coloneqq \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } \frac { x - y } { t } \, \partial _ { x _ { j } } \omega \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) \frac { d t } { t ^ { n } } \quad \forall j = 1, \dots, n. \\ \ n m a { \mathbf B }. 1. \, \text{ Let G and } \widetilde { \mathbf G } _ { j }, \, j = 1, \dots, n, \, \text{ be defined as in } ( 2 1 \mathbf a ) \text{ and } ( 4 8 ). \, \text{ Then, for all positive}$$

∂ x j G ( x, y ) = -∂ y j G ( x, y ) + ˜ G j ( x, y ) ∀| x - | y &gt; ε. (49) Proof. We fix two indices j, k = 1 , . . . , n and show the assertion on the k -th components of G and ˜ G . The fact that ω belongs to C ∞ 0 ( B ρ ) and direct computations reveal and

$$& \text{and} \, \text{$\mathbf $neq$ the case $\omega$ belongs to $\mathcal{ }R_{0}(\mathcal{ }\nu_{p}$ and unexpected comparison recovery} \\ & \quad \partial _ { x _ { j } } \mathbf G _ { k } ( x, y ) = \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } \left [ \delta _ { k j } \, \omega \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) + \frac { ( x - y ) _ { k } } { t } \, \partial _ { x _ { j } } \omega \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) \right ] \frac { \mathrm d t } { t ^ { n + 1 } } \\ & \text{and}$$

$$& \text{and} \\ & \partial _ { y _ { j } } \text{G} _ { k } ( x, y ) = \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } \left [ \frac { - \delta _ { k j } } { t } \, \omega \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) + \frac { ( x - y ) _ { k } } { t } \, \partial _ { x _ { j } } \omega \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) \left ( 1 - \frac { 1 } { t } \right ) \right ] \frac { d t } { t ^ { n } } \\ & \quad = - \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } \left [ \delta _ { k j } \, \omega \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) + \frac { ( x - y ) _ { k } } { t } \, \partial _ { x _ { j } } \omega \left ( y + \frac { x - y } { t } \right ) \right ] \frac { d t } { t ^ { n + 1 } } + ( \widetilde { \text{G} } _ { j } ) _ { k } ( x, y ). \\ & \text{A combination of the two previous displays gives the assertion.} \quad \text{$\quad} \\ & \text{Next} \, \text{ two non-or-an identity involving the first derivatives of $n$}$$

Next, we prove an identity involving the first derivatives of u .

Proposition B.2 (Galdi's formula) . Let G and ˜ G j , j = 1 , . . . , n , be defined as in (21a) and (48) . Given f in H 1 0 (Ω) , consider u as in (21) . Then, the following identity holds true:

Proof. Without loss of generality, we assume that f belongs to C ∞ 0 (Ω); the general assertion follows from a density argument. Moreover, we prove the assertion on the k -th components of u G , , and ˜ G . For any φ in C ∞ 0 (Ω) and j, k = 1 , . . . , n , proceeding as in [1, Lemma 2.3], we have

$$\text{Given $f$ in $H_{0}(\Omega)$, consider $\mathfrak u$ as in $(21).$ Then, the following identity holds true:} \\ \partial _ { x _ { j } } \mathfrak u ( x ) = \int _ { \Omega } \mathfrak G ( x, y ) \, \partial _ { y _ { j } } f ( y ) \, \mathfrak d y + \int _ { \Omega } \widetilde { \mathfrak G } _ { j } ( x, y ) \, f ( y ) \, \mathfrak d y \quad \forall j = 1, \dots, n. \quad \ \ ( 5 0 ) \\ \text{Proof. Without loss of generality, we assume that $f$ belongs to $\mathcal{C}_{0}^{\infty}(\Omega); the general assertion follows} \\ \text{from a density argument. Moreover, we prove the assertion on the $k$-th components of $\mathfrak u$. $math$. and $\mathfrak G$}.$$

$$\text{from a density argument. Moreover, we prove the assertion on the $k_{t}$ components of $u$, $\mathfrak{G}$, and $\mathfrak{G}$.} \\ \text{For any $\phi$ in $\mathcal{C}_{\mathfrak{O}$} ( \Omega )$ and $j,k=1,\dots,n$, proceeding as in [1, Lemma 2.3]$, we have} \\ - \int _ { \Omega } \mathfrak { u } _ { k } ( x ) \, \partial _ { x } _ { j } \phi ( x ) \, d x = - \int _ { \Omega } \int _ { \Omega } \mathfrak { G } _ { k } ( x, y ) f ( y ) \, \partial _ { x _ { j } } \phi ( x ) \, d x \, d y \\ = - \int _ { \Omega } f ( y ) \, \lim _ { \varepsilon \rightarrow 0 } \left ( \int _ { | y - x | > \varepsilon } \mathfrak { G } _ { k } ( x, y ) \, \partial _ { x _ { j } } \phi ( x ) \, d x \right ) d y \\ = \int _ { \Omega } f ( y ) \, \lim _ { \varepsilon \rightarrow 0 } \left ( \int _ { | y - x | > \varepsilon } \partial _ { x _ { j } } \mathfrak { G } _ { k } ( x, y ) \, \phi ( x ) \, d x - \int _ { | y - \xi | = \varepsilon } \mathfrak { G } _ { k } ( \xi, y ) \, \phi ( \xi ) \frac { y _ { j } - \xi _ { j } } { | y _ { j } - \xi _ { j } | } d \xi \right ) d y. \\ \text{Using} ( 4 9 ) \, \text{and switching the order of integration lead us to}$$

Using (49) and switching the order of integration lead us to

$$& \text{Using (49) and switching the order of integration lead us to} \\ & - \int _ { \Omega } \mathfrak { u } _ { k } ( x ) \, \partial _ { x _ { j } } \phi ( x ) \, \mathrm d x = - \lim _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \int _ { \Omega } \phi ( x ) \left ( \int _ { | y - z | > \varepsilon } \partial _ { y _ { j } } G _ { k } ( x, y ) \, f ( y ) \, \mathrm d y \right ) \mathrm d x \\ & \quad + \int _ { \Omega } \int _ { \Omega } ( \widetilde { G } _ { j } ) _ { k } ( x, y ) \, f ( y ) \, \phi ( x ) \, \mathrm d x \, \mathrm d y - \lim _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \int _ { \Omega } \int _ { | y - \xi | = \varepsilon } G _ { k } ( \xi, y ) \, \phi ( \xi ) \, f ( y ) \frac { y _ { j } - \xi _ { j } } { | y _ { j } - \xi _ { j } | } d \xi \, \mathrm d y \\ & \quad = \mathcal { I } _ { 1 } + \mathcal { I } _ { 2 } + \mathcal { I } _ { 3 }.$$

Integrating by parts with respect to the y variable and recalling that f belongs to C ∞ 0 (Ω), we obtain

$$\Pi _ { 1 } = \lim _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \int _ { \Omega } \phi ( x ) \left ( \int _ { | x - y | > \varepsilon } G _ { k } ( x, y ) \, \partial _ { y _ { j } } f ( y ) \, \mathrm d y - \int _ { | x - \zeta | = \varepsilon } G _ { k } ( x, \zeta ) \, f ( \zeta ) \frac { x _ { j } - \zeta _ { j } } { | x _ { j } - \zeta _ { j } | } \mathrm d \zeta \right ) \mathrm d x \\ = \int _ { \Omega } \int _ { \Omega } G _ { k } ( x, y ) \, \partial _ { y _ { j } } f ( y ) \, \phi ( x ) \, \mathrm d y \, \mathrm d x + \lim _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \int _ { \Omega } \int _ { | \zeta - x | = \varepsilon } G _ { k } ( x, \zeta ) \, f ( \zeta ) \, \phi ( x ) \frac { \zeta _ { j } - x _ { j } } { | \zeta _ { j } - x _ { j } | } \mathrm d x \, \mathrm d \zeta \\ = \int _ { \Omega } \int _ { \Omega } G _ { k } ( x, y ) \, \partial _ { y _ { j } } f ( y ) \, \phi ( x ) \, \mathrm d y \, \mathrm d x - \mathcal { I } _ { 3 }. \\ \text{Combining the two above displays, we infer}$$

Combining the two above displays, we infer

$$\text{consuming are two above upnavs, we mine} \\ - & \int _ { \Omega } \mathfrak { u } _ { k } ( x ) \, \partial _ { x _ { j } } \phi ( x ) \, \mathrm d x = \int _ { \Omega } \left ( \int _ { \Omega } \mathbf G _ { k } ( x, y ) \, \partial _ { y _ { j } } f ( y ) \, \mathrm d y + \int _ { \Omega } ( \widetilde { \mathbf G } _ { j } ) _ { k } ( x, y ) \, f ( y ) \, \mathrm d y \right ) \phi ( x ) \, \mathrm d x, \\ \text{which gives (50)} \, \text{for any $f$ in $\mathcal{C}_{0}^{\infty}(\Omega)$.}$$

which gives (50) for any f in C ∞ 0 (Ω).

We are in a position to prove that u satisfies homogeneous boundary conditions.

Corollary B.3. Given f in H 1 0 (Ω) ∩ L 2 0 (Ω) , consider u as in (21) . Then, u belongs to [ H 2 0 (Ω)] n .

Proof. Step 1: a decomposition of ∇ u. Proposition B.2 allows us to express the first derivatives of u as a sum of two contributions. The first correspond to Bogovski˘ ı's constructions applied to the first derivatives of f ; the second are equivalent to (21b) with ω in (21a) replaced by its first derivatives, which still belongs to C ∞ 0 (Ω).

$$\text{$\text{$rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\,rows,\}$} \\ \text{even by} \\ \tau _ { j } ( x ) = \int _ { \Omega } \mathbf G ( x, y ) \, \partial _ { y _ { j } } f ( y ) \, \mathbf d y ; \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, f(y) \, \mathbf d y. } \\ \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, f(y) \, \mathbf d y. } \\ \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, f(y) \, \mathbf d y. } \\ \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, f(y) \, \mathbf d y. } \\ \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(y,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega}\, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \,  \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\taut_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Oigma} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) \, \mathbf d y. } \, \text{$\tau_{j}(x) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,y) = \float_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathsf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Umega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,z) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta) = \int_{\Omega} \, \mathbf G_{j}(x,zeta$$

In other words, we write ∇ u = τ + η , where the j -th columns, j = 1 , . . . , n , of τ and η are given by

Step 2: treating τ . Let j = 1 , . . . , n be fixed. Consider a sequence g m in L ∞ (Ω) such that g m → ∂ y j f in L 2 (Ω) as m → ∞ . We consider a sequence of tensors τ m whose j -th columns are given by

$$( \tau _ { m } ) _ { j } ( x ) = \int _ { \Omega } G ( x, y ) \ g _ { m } ( y ) \, d y. \\ \vdots 1 \, \text{it follows that } ( \tau _ { m } ) _ { z } \, \rangle \, \text{is continous and } v.$$

Applying [1, Proposition 2 1], it follows that ( . τ m j ) is continuous and vanishes on ∂ Ω; Aa a result of [25], we obtain that ( τ m j ) belongs to [ W 1 , ∞ 0 (Ω)] n . Using [19, Corollary 19, part (iii)] 1 applied to ∂ y j f -g m ∈ L 2 (Ω), we get ( τ m j ) → τ j in [ H 1 (Ω)] n . Since ( τ m j ) is in [ W 1 , ∞ 0 (Ω)] n for all m , we deduce that τ j belongs to [ H 1 0 (Ω)] n .

Step 3: treating η and conclusion. The proof that η j belongs to [ H 1 0 (Ω)] n essentially boils down to the proof that u in (4) vanishes on the boundary of Ω; the only difference resides in the presence of ˜ G in lieu of G , which solely impacts the constant in (4). We conclude that ∇ u belongs to [ H 1 0 (Ω)] n × n . In other words, u belongs to [ H 2 0 (Ω)] n , since (4) already gives that u is in [ H 1 0 (Ω)] n .

/negationslash

Remark 3 . Identity (50) may allow us to prove a first order Babuˇ ska-Aziz inequality also in a non-Hilbertian setting, namely we may substitute H k -type spaces by W k,p -type spaces, p = 2. However, this would come at the price of suboptimal estimates as those in (5). The reason for this is the use of the Calder´n-Zygmund theory instead of the Fourier transform approach by Dur´n o a while handling the term ˜ T α in Section 2.2.

1 In the literature, this result is referred to as generalised Poincar´ inequality, which differs from (4) as no zero e average condition and zero boundary conditions on f are imposed.
Michele Botti Lorenzo Mascotto
A Nečas-Lions inequality with symmetric gradients on star-shaped domains based on a first order Babuška-Aziz inequality
We prove a Ne\v{c}as-Lions inequality with symmetric gradients on two and
three dimensional domains of diameter $R$ that are star-shaped with respect to
a ball of radius $\rho$; the constants in the inequality are explicit with
respect to $R$ and $\rho$. Crucial tools in deriving this inequality are a
first order Babu\v{s}ka-Aziz inequality based on Bogovski\u{i}'s construction
of a right-inverse of the divergence and Fourier transform techniques proposed
by Dur\'an. As a byproduct, we derive arbitrary order estimates in arbitrary
dimension for that operator.