Asymptotic and exterior Dirichlet problems for the minimal surface equation in the Heisenberg group with a balanced metric

Edson S. Figueiredo; Fidelis Bittencourt; Jaime Ripoll; Pedro Fusieger

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 19 references

Asymptotic and exterior Dirichlet problems for the minimal surface equation in the Heisenberg group with a balanced metric

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A balanced metric on the Heisenberg group splits the space and supplies minimal surfaces with any prescribed boundary slope.

desk verdict Solid niche paper: new splitting and curvature formulas for a balanced Heisenberg metric, plus an exterior Dirichlet theorem whose proof has a genuine but repairable geometric gap. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04361 v1 pith:M6AY7AMC submitted 2019-08-12 math.DG

Fidelis Bittencourt , Edson S. Figueiredo , Pedro Fusieger , Jaime Ripoll This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DG MSC 53C4235J93

keywords minimalsurfaceequationHeisenberggroupNil3balancedmetricasymptoticDirichletproblemexteriorfoliationbygraphstotallygeodesiccatenoids

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that the Heisenberg group $\mathrm{Nil}_3$ with the balanced metric (the sum of its left- and right-invariant metrics) is isometric to a Riemannian product $T\times Z$, where $T$ is a totally geodesic surface and $Z$ is the center. It then proves that the minimal surface equation over $T$ is solvable in two complementary senses: for any continuous data on the boundary at infinity there is a unique solution, and for any bounded obstacle $\Omega$ with the exterior geodesic circle property and any $s\ge 0$ there is a solution of the exterior Dirichlet problem in $T\setminus\Omega$ with zero boundary values and boundary gradient magnitude $s$. The graphs of these exterior solutions are complete minimal surfaces in $\mathrm{Nil}_3$, and the family is strictly ordered, so the graphs foliate an open subset of $\mathrm{Nil}_3$. If the paper is right, the balanced metric makes $\mathrm{Nil}_3$ a source of many embedded minimal surfaces controlled by boundary data, despite the metric being nonhomogeneous.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the isometry $\Psi:T\times Z\to\mathrm{Nil}_3$, $\Psi((x,y,xy/2),(0,0,t))=(x,y,xy/2+t)$, which makes $T$ a totally geodesic surface and turns graphs over $T$ into surfaces in $\mathrm{Nil}_3$. The proof of Theorem 3 is carried by radial barriers $v_s(x)=f(r(x))$, where $r(x)=\operatorname{dist}(x,\partial\Omega)$; applying the minimal surface operator to $f\circ r$ reduces the PDE to an ODE controlled by the curvature of the level sets of $r$. The explicit bounded function $f(r)=\int_0^r \frac{c e^{\sqrt{2}\alpha\arctan((t+\alpha)/2^{3/2})}}{(t+\alpha)^2+8}\,dt$ has $f(0)=0$ and $f'(0)=s$, and it is a subsolution precisely when the curvature lower bound (4) holds; that bound comes from the tangency principle, the Hessian comparison theorem, and the curvature formula $K=-4(r^2+12)/(r^2+8)^2$. The comparison principle then forces the approximating sequence of solutions to converge to $u_s$ with the required boundary gradient.

What would settle it

Take $\Omega$ to be a geodesic disk $D_R(e)$ in $T$, so $\Omega_r$ is the annulus $D_{R+r}(e)\setminus D_R(e)$. For a point $p$ on the inner boundary $\partial D_R(e)$, a geodesic circle through $p$ whose disk contains $\Omega_r$ would have to enclose the outer boundary at distance $R+r$ while passing through $p$ at distance $R$ from $e$. Using the explicit distance formula $r=\sqrt{2}\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ and the rotational symmetry of $T$, one can compute for all $R>0$ and $r>0$ whether such a circle exists; if some pair admits no such circle, then $\Omega_r$ fails the exterior geodesic circle condition and the proof's key estimate (4) lacks support for the simplest possible domain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the balanced metric makes $\mathrm{Nil}_3$ rigid enough to split as $T\times Z$, and that this splitting reduces the minimal surface equation to a problem on the surface $T$, with distance $r=\sqrt{2}\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ and curvature $K=-4(r^2+12)/(r^2+8)^2$. Theorem 3 states that for any $C^{2,\alpha}$ domain $\Omega\subset T$ satisfying the exterior geodesic circle condition and any $s\ge 0$, the problem $M[u]=0$ in $\Lambda=T\setminus\Omega$, $u|_{\partial\Omega}=0$, has a solution $u_s$ with $\sup_{\partial\Lambda}\|\nabla u\|=s$. The paper proves that $u_{s_1}<u_{s_2}$ in $\Lambda$ when $s_1<s_2$, so the graphs of the $u_s$ form a foliation of an open subset of $\mathrm{Nil}_3$, and $\limsup_{r\to\infty}(u_{s_2}-u_{s_1})>0$. Theorem 2 gives a unique smooth solution for every continuous boundary function at infinity of $T$, so in particular there are infinitely many non-congruent foliations of $\mathrm{Nil}_3$ by complete properly embedded minimal surfaces transverse to the center.

Load-bearing premise

In the proof of Theorem 3, the paper asserts with 'One may see' that the intermediate domains $\Omega_r=\{x\in T\setminus\Omega:\operatorname{dist}(x,\partial\Omega)<r\}$ satisfy the exterior geodesic circle condition for every $r$; if this assertion fails, the curvature inequality (4) that makes the barrier $f(r(x))$ a subsolution has no support, and the proof of the theorem collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every $s\ge 0$ there is a complete minimal graph over $T\setminus\Omega$ that vanishes on $\partial\Omega$ and has boundary gradient magnitude exactly $s$, so the exterior Dirichlet problem has a continuum of ordered solutions.
Because $u_{s_1}<u_{s_2}$ for $s_1<s_2$, the graphs $\{u_s\}$ form a genuine foliation of an open subset of $\mathrm{Nil}_3$, with every surface in the family embedded and disjoint from the others.
The unique solvability of the asymptotic Dirichlet problem yields infinitely many non-congruent foliations of $\mathrm{Nil}_3$ by complete properly embedded minimal surfaces transversal to the center.
When $\partial\Omega$ is a geodesic circle, the explicit catenoids of Proposition 4 are concrete members of the foliation, connecting the abstract existence result to computable rotationally symmetric examples.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The product splitting $T\times Z$ depends on using the two invariant metrics with equal weight; a natural next step is to test the same Dirichlet theorems for the one-parameter family with unequal weights, where the splitting should fail and the barrier construction may break down.
The only structural hypothesis in Theorem 3 is the exterior geodesic circle condition, so a valuable test is whether the curvature lower bound (4) can be derived directly from a growth condition on the geometry of $\partial\Omega$; if so, the same subsolution argument would apply to more general rotationally symmetric surfaces.
The steepening of $u_s$ at $\partial\Omega$ as $s$ grows suggests that the family may converge, after normalization, to the vertical cylinder over $\partial\Omega$ or to one of the explicit catenoids; identifying that limit would give a geometric description of the foliation's asymptotic end.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Paper gives a clean theorem (Theorem 1) on the balanced metric on Nil3: it splits as T×Z, with T a totally geodesic rotationally symmetric Hadamard surface, and explicit distance and curvature formulas. The curvature is negative, nonconstant, and the symmetry makes T a useful test space for minimal surface PDEs. Theorem 2 is the authors' own asymptotic Dirichlet result applied to T—not new, and they say so. The real new item is Theorem 3: an exterior Dirichlet problem on T with prescribed boundary gradient and a foliation conclusion. The PDE machinery is standard and mostly well handled: the barrier construction, subsolution comparison, C^{2,α} bounds, and the limiting argument all look sound. The catenoid example in Proposition 4 is a nice explicit surface.

The problem is the geometric hinge in §4.1. The proof says 'One may see that Ω_r satisfies the exterior geodesic circle condition' and then, for each p on the outer parallel boundary ∂Ω_r\∂Ω, takes a geodesic disk D_p containing Ω_r with p on its boundary. That is exactly what makes the curvature lower bound (4) work. The assertion is not justified. The full condition for all of Ω_r cannot hold—at points of the original boundary ∂Ω, no disk containing the collar passes through that boundary point. For the only case that matters (p on the outer boundary), the Euclidean analogue is true, so the claim is plausible, but T is not Euclidean and the proof never gives an argument using the actual geometry of T, such as the normal exponential map or the behavior of large geodesic spheres. Also, the verification that T satisfies the hypotheses of the self-cited asymptotic Dirichlet result is skipped, and the R(r)/r→1 step is a one-line appeal to compactness. These are addressable gaps, not signs that the theorem is false.

Serious thinker: yes. The paper is honestly written and the main existence claim is likely correct. For peer review, send it out; a good referee can fix the supporting-disk lemma or steer the authors to a replacement. Would I cite it? Probably not in my own work, but it deserves citation in the minimal-surfaces-in-Lie-groups subfield.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies Nil3 equipped with the balanced metric g, the sum of the left-invariant and right-invariant metrics. Theorem 1 establishes that Nil3 splits isometrically as a Riemannian product T×Z, where T is a totally geodesic, rotationally symmetric Hadamard surface, and it computes the geodesics, the distance function, and the curvature of T. Theorem 2 is stated as the asymptotic Dirichlet problem for the minimal surface equation on T, but it is a direct restatement of [15, Cor. 1.2] rather than a new proof. The main new result is Theorem 3: for a C^{2,α} bounded domain Ω⊂T satisfying the exterior geodesic circle condition, for every s≥0 there is a solution us of the exterior Dirichlet problem M[u]=0 in Λ=T\Ω with us=0 on ∂Λ and sup_{∂Λ}|∇us|=s, and the graphs of these solutions foliate an open set of Nil3. The proof constructs barriers of the form f(r(x)), where r is the distance to ∂Ω, uses the comparison principle on bounded domains Ω_m={x∈Λ:r(x)<m}, and passes to a limit by elliptic compactness.

Significance. If the main result is correct, the paper gives a reasonably concrete construction of complete properly embedded minimal graphs in Nil3 for a non-homogeneous metric, including a foliation with prescribed boundary slope. The splitting theorem and the explicit curvature and distance formulas are useful and clearly presented. The paper is also honest about relying on the authors' prior work for the asymptotic Dirichlet problem and for the comparison and regularity tools. However, the proof of Theorem 3 rests on several unproved geometric assertions, most notably the inheritance of a global supporting-disk property by the parallel domains Ω_r and the control of the disk radii R(r). These issues are load-bearing, so the significance of the paper is conditional until they are resolved.

major comments (2)

[§4.1, definition of Ω_r and the barrier construction] The assertion 'One may see that Ω_r satisfies the exterior geodesic circle condition' is load-bearing and is not proved. The subsequent construction of a geodesic disk D_p through p containing Ω_r for every p∈∂Ω_r\∂Ω, and hence the curvature lower bound (4) and the subsolution property M[f(r)]≥0, all depend on this assertion. The full statement is false in the Euclidean model case of an annular collar: at a point of the inner boundary no Euclidean disk with that point on its boundary can contain the collar. The proof only uses p on the outer boundary, but even the restricted outer-boundary statement needs an argument in T, where geodesic disks are not Euclidean and the distance function to ∂Ω may develop focal points. Please supply a proof of the needed supporting-disk property, or modify the construction so that it does not require such a strong unproved geometric claim.
[§4.1, paragraph following the definition of R(r)] The passage 'Take R(r)>0 such that ∪_{p∈∂Ω_r\∂Ω} D_p ⊂ D_{R(r)} ... Since ∂Ω is compact it follows from the triangle inequality that lim_{r→∞} R(r)/r=1' is not justified. The triangle inequality bounds the distance from e to points of Ω_r by max_{∂Ω} d(e,·)+r, but it gives no control on the radii of the arbitrarily chosen supporting disks D_p or on the positions of their centers. The bound (4), in particular the numerator r−α, requires that the disks D_p can be chosen inside a ball centered at e with radius r+O(1). This asymptotic control is essential for the ODE barrier to work and must be proved, for example by explicitly constructing the supporting disks from the normal exponential map along ∂Ω.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract and Theorem 1(e)] There are typographical errors in the abstract ('se t', 'o f') and in Proposition 4 ('around around'), and the formula in Theorem 1(e) should be written as K=−4(r^2+12)/(r^2+8)^2 to avoid the ambiguous reading on the printed page.
[§4.1, formula for M[u]] The displayed formula for M[u] and the sentence 'Since Δv_s is the curvature the ∂Ω_r\∂Ω' are confusing: it is Δr, not Δv_s, that is the geodesic curvature of the level curves, and the displayed inequality appears to contain an extra factor f'(r). The intended sufficient condition is f''(r)+f'(r)(1+f'(r)^2)Δr≥0, and the text should be corrected accordingly.
[Theorem 3 statement] The exterior geodesic circle condition is phrased as 'given p∈Ω̄'; it should presumably be 'given p∈∂Ω', since for points in the interior the condition is not what is used in the proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No reduction-to-input circularity; the proof constructs barriers from computed geometry, with self-citations used only as standard PDE tools.

full rationale

The central derivation of Theorem 3 is not circular: it constructs explicit subsolutions v_s(x)=f(r(x)) from the curvature formula in Theorem 1(e), solves a barrier ODE, and then applies standard comparison and regularity results. The target existence, boundary gradient condition sup_{∂Λ}‖∇u‖=s, and foliation conclusion are not assumed as inputs. The author-overlapping citations are used as published tools: Theorem 2 is explicitly presented as an immediate consequence of Corollary 1.2 of [15], and the proof of Theorem 3 invokes the comparison principle (Proposition 3.1 of [16]) and elliptic regularity ([5], [16]). These are prior theorems with stated assumptions that do not include the conclusions of the present paper, so they are independent support rather than circular premises. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the constant c in f is chosen to realize the prescribed boundary slope s. The visibly weak point is the unproved assertion in §4.1 that Ω_r satisfies the exterior geodesic circle condition, on which the supporting disks D_p and the curvature lower bound (4) rest. That is a potential correctness gap, not a circularity: the assertion is a geometric premise used to build the barrier, not an equivalent reformulation of the theorem, and the proof does not use the desired existence result as an input. Hence no specific circular step is exhibited; the score of 2 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citations, not any reduction of the main result to its own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No empirical fitting is involved; the only adjustable constant is the scaling of the barrier function, which is fixed by the prescribed boundary slope s. The paper depends on standard comparison and regularity theorems, on the cited asymptotic Dirichlet theorem, and on an unproved claim about parallel domains.

assumptions (4)

standard math Asymptotic Dirichlet problem solvability on rotationally symmetric Hadamard surfaces satisfying the curvature hypotheses of [15, Cor. 1.2]
Theorem 2 is stated as an immediate consequence of this cited corollary; the paper does not verify the hypotheses in detail.
standard math Comparison principle and a-priori estimates for the minimal surface equation on bounded domains ([16, Prop. 3.1], [5])
Used in the proof of Theorem 3 for comparison of subsolutions/solutions and to obtain C^{2,alpha} bounds.
standard math Hessian comparison theorem for distance functions on surfaces with sectional curvature bounded above
Used to compare geodesic circle curvature in T with that in the hyperbolic plane H^2(K_r) in Section 4.1.
ad hoc to paper The parallel domains Omega_r inherit the exterior geodesic circle condition
Stated as 'One may see' in Section 4.1 without proof; the construction of subsolutions depends on the curvature bound of partial Omega_r.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asymptotic and exterior Dirichlet problems for the minimal surface equation in the Heisenberg group with a balanced metric." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M6AY7AMC

@misc{pith2026190804361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asymptotic and exterior Dirichlet problems for the minimal surface equation in the Heisenberg group with a balanced metric},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M6AY7AMC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04361}
}

abstract

It is proved that the Heisenberg group $\operatorname*{Nil}\nolimits_{3}$ with a balanced metric, the sum of the left and right invariant metrics, splits as a Riemannian product $\mathbb{T\times Z}$, where $\mathbb{T}$ is a totally geodesic surface and $\mathbb{Z}$ the center of $\operatorname*{Nil}% \nolimits_{3}.$ It is then proved the existence of complete properly embedded minimal surfaces in $\operatorname*{Nil}\nolimits_{3}$ by solving the asymptotic Dirichlet problem for the minimal surface equation on $\mathbb{T}$. It is also proved the existence of complete properly embedded minimal surfaces foliating an open set of $\operatorname*{Nil}\nolimits_{3}$ having as boundary a given curve $\Gamma$ in $\mathbb{T},$ satisfying the exterior circle condition, by solving the exterior Dirichlet problem for the minimal surface equation in the unbounded connected component of $\mathbb{T}\backslash\Gamma$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

L. Alias. M. Dajczer, H. Rosenberg: The Dirichlet problem for constant mean curvature surfaces in Heisenberg space, Calculus of Variations and Partial Diﬀerential Equations, Vol 30, Iss 4, 2007 11

work page 2007
[2]

Daniel, L

B. Daniel, L. Hauswirth: Half-space theorem, embedded minimal annuli and minimal graphs in the Heisenberg group, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 98, p 445–470, 2009

work page 2009
[3]

do Esp ´ ırito-Santo, J

N. do Esp ´ ırito-Santo, J. Ripoll: Some existence results on the exterior Dirichlet problem for the minimal hypersurface equation , Annales de L’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Analyse non Lin´ eaire, v. 28, p. 385-393, 2011

work page 2011
[4]

Figueroa, F

C. Figueroa, F. Mercuri, R. Pedrosa: Invariant surfaces of the Heisen- berg groups, Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata, Vol. 177,Iss. 1, 1999

work page 1999
[5]

Elliptic Partial Diﬀerential Equations of Second Order

D. Gilbarg, N. Trudinger: “Elliptic Partial Diﬀerential Equations of Second Order”, Springer, Berlin, 1998

work page 1998
[6]

Inoguchi, R

J. Inoguchi, R. L´ opez,M. Munteanu: Minimal translation surfaces in the Heisenberg group Nil3, Geometriae Dedicata, Vol. 161, Iss. 1, 2012

work page 2012
[7]

Krust: Remarques sur le probl` eme exterior de Plateau, Duke Math

R. Krust: Remarques sur le probl` eme exterior de Plateau, Duke Math. Jr, Vol 59 (1989), 161-173

work page 1989
[8]

Kutev, F

N. Kutev, F. Tomi: Existence and Nonexistence for the exterior Dirich- let problem for the minimal surface equation in the plane, Diﬀerential and Integral Equ., Vol 11, N. 6 (1998), 917-928

work page 1998

Show all 19 references

[9]

Kuwert: On solutions of the exterior Dirichlet problem for the min- imal surface equation, Ann

E. Kuwert: On solutions of the exterior Dirichlet problem for the min- imal surface equation, Ann. I. H. Poincar´ e/An Non Lin, 10, 445–451, 1993

1993
[10]

Meeks III, P

W. Meeks III, P. Mira, J. P´ erez: The geometry of stable mini- mal surfaces in metric Lie groups , Trans. of the AMS, online at https://doi.org/10.1090/tran/7634, 2019

2019 doi
[11]

Neel: Brownian Motion and the Dirichlet Problem at Inﬁnity on Two-dimensional Cartan-Hadamard Manifolds, Potential Analysis, Vol 41, Issue 2, pp 443–462, 2014

R. Neel: Brownian Motion and the Dirichlet Problem at Inﬁnity on Two-dimensional Cartan-Hadamard Manifolds, Potential Analysis, Vol 41, Issue 2, pp 443–462, 2014

2014
[12]

J. C. C. Nitsche: Vorlesungen ¨ uber Minimalﬂ¨ achen,Grundlehren der Math. Wiss., Vol 199 (1975), Springer

1975
[13]

Osserman: A Survey on Minimal Surfaces, Van Nostrand Rhein- hold, Math Studies 25, New York (1969) 12

R. Osserman: A Survey on Minimal Surfaces, Van Nostrand Rhein- hold, Math Studies 25, New York (1969) 12

1969
[14]

Ripoll: Some characterization, uniqueness and existence results f or Euclidean graphs of constant mean curvature with planar bou ndary, Pa- ciﬁc Journal of Mathematics, v

J. Ripoll: Some characterization, uniqueness and existence results f or Euclidean graphs of constant mean curvature with planar bou ndary, Pa- ciﬁc Journal of Mathematics, v. 198, n.1, p. 175-196, 2001

2001
[15]

Ripoll, M

J. Ripoll, M. Telichevesky: Complete minimal graphs with prescribed asymptotic boundary on rotationally symmetric Hadamard su rfaces, Ge- ometriae Dedicata, v. 161, p. 277-283, 2012

2012
[16]

Ensaios de Matem´ atica

J. Ripoll, F. Tomi: Notes on the Dirichlet problem of a class of second order elliptic partial diﬀerential equations on a Riemanni an manifold , “Ensaios de Matem´ atica” Series, Brazilian Math. Soc, Vol 3 2, p. 1- 64, 2018

2018
[17]

Ripoll, F

J. Ripoll, F. Tomi: On solutions to the exterior Dirichlet problem for the minimal surface equation with catenoidal ends, Adv in Calc of Var, v. 7, p. 205 - 2014

2014
[18]

Ritor´ e: Examples of area-minimizing surfaces in the sub- Riemannian Heisenberg group with low regularity, Calculus of Varia- tions and Partial Diﬀerential Equations, Vol 34, Iss

M. Ritor´ e: Examples of area-minimizing surfaces in the sub- Riemannian Heisenberg group with low regularity, Calculus of Varia- tions and Partial Diﬀerential Equations, Vol 34, Iss. 2, 2009

2009
[19]

Shin, Heayong, Kim, Young Wook, Koh, Sung-Eun, Lee, Hyu ng Yong, Yang, Seong-Deog: Ruled minimal surfaces in the three-dimensional Heisenberg group, Paciﬁc Journal of Mathematics, Vol 261, Iss. 2, 2013 e-mail address: ﬁdelisb@gmail.com DEP AR T AMENTO DE MATEM´ATICA, UNIVERSID...

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

L. Alias. M. Dajczer, H. Rosenberg: The Dirichlet problem for constant mean curvature surfaces in Heisenberg space, Calculus of Variations and Partial Diﬀerential Equations, Vol 30, Iss 4, 2007 11

work page 2007

[2] [2]

Daniel, L

B. Daniel, L. Hauswirth: Half-space theorem, embedded minimal annuli and minimal graphs in the Heisenberg group, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 98, p 445–470, 2009

work page 2009

[3] [3]

do Esp ´ ırito-Santo, J

N. do Esp ´ ırito-Santo, J. Ripoll: Some existence results on the exterior Dirichlet problem for the minimal hypersurface equation , Annales de L’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Analyse non Lin´ eaire, v. 28, p. 385-393, 2011

work page 2011

[4] [4]

Figueroa, F

C. Figueroa, F. Mercuri, R. Pedrosa: Invariant surfaces of the Heisen- berg groups, Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata, Vol. 177,Iss. 1, 1999

work page 1999

[5] [5]

Elliptic Partial Diﬀerential Equations of Second Order

D. Gilbarg, N. Trudinger: “Elliptic Partial Diﬀerential Equations of Second Order”, Springer, Berlin, 1998

work page 1998

[6] [6]

Inoguchi, R

J. Inoguchi, R. L´ opez,M. Munteanu: Minimal translation surfaces in the Heisenberg group Nil3, Geometriae Dedicata, Vol. 161, Iss. 1, 2012

work page 2012

[7] [7]

Krust: Remarques sur le probl` eme exterior de Plateau, Duke Math

R. Krust: Remarques sur le probl` eme exterior de Plateau, Duke Math. Jr, Vol 59 (1989), 161-173

work page 1989

[8] [8]

Kutev, F

N. Kutev, F. Tomi: Existence and Nonexistence for the exterior Dirich- let problem for the minimal surface equation in the plane, Diﬀerential and Integral Equ., Vol 11, N. 6 (1998), 917-928

work page 1998