A maximum principle for the p-Laplacian, an eigenvalue estimate and a stabilization phenomenon for the large-p regime
Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 00:52 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
An explicit maximum principle for the p-Laplacian yields existence for nonlinear problems once p exceeds a threshold depending on f, lambda, and the domain.
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
The authors establish an explicit maximum principle for the p-Laplacian Dirichlet problem whose constant depends on p and the domain geometry. They use it to obtain a new lower bound for the first eigenvalue and to prove that the nonlinear problem -Delta_p u = lambda f(u) with f nonnegative continuous and nondecreasing admits solutions whenever p is at least p0(f, lambda, Omega).
What carries the argument
The explicit maximum principle for the p-Laplacian Dirichlet problem, which supplies a p-dependent bound on the solution that controls the nonlinear term for large p.
If this is right
- A new explicit lower bound for the first eigenvalue of the p-Laplacian holds and improves existing estimates for thin domains.
- For any fixed lambda and any nonnegative continuous nondecreasing f, solutions to the nonlinear problem exist for all p greater than or equal to some finite p0.
- The large-p regime exhibits a stabilization in which existence becomes guaranteed once p is large enough.
- The result connects the finite-p theory to the infinity-Laplacian through the observed stabilization.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- The same maximum principle may yield existence results for other classes of nonlinearities or systems once p is large.
- Numerical checks of the new eigenvalue lower bound on thin domains could confirm where it improves on earlier estimates.
- The threshold p0 might be made explicit in simple geometries such as intervals or balls.
- The stabilization suggests that the corresponding infinity-Laplacian problem with the same f may also admit solutions.
Load-bearing premise
The maximum principle for the p-Laplacian holds with a constant that depends on p and the geometry of Omega in a way that still allows the nonlinear term to be controlled when p is large.
What would settle it
Constructing a nonnegative continuous nondecreasing f together with lambda and Omega such that the nonlinear p-Laplacian problem has no solution for arbitrarily large p would disprove the stabilization result.
read the original abstract
We establish an explicit maximum principle for the Dirichlet problem associated with the $p$-Laplacian ($p>1$), where the constant depends on both $p$ and the geometry of the domain. From this result we derive two main applications. First, we obtain a new lower bound for the first nontrivial eigenvalue of the $p$-Laplacian, which improves upon existing estimates in certain parameter regimes and for thin domains. Second, we prove an existence theorem for nonlinear boundary value problems of the form \[ -\Delta_p u = \lambda f(u) \quad \text{in } \Omega, \qquad u=0 \quad \text{on } \partial \Omega, \] with $f$ nonnegative, continuous and nondecreasing. A striking consequence is the emergence of a \emph{stabilization phenomenon}: for every such nonlinearity there exists a threshold $p_0 \colon = p_0(f,\lambda,\Omega)$ such that for all $p \geq p_0$ solutions exist. To our knowledge, this stabilization effect with respect to $p$, that apparently has not been observed before, suggests a connection to the $\infty$-Laplacian.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript establishes an explicit maximum principle for the Dirichlet problem associated with the p-Laplacian (p > 1), with the constant depending on both p and the geometry of the domain. From this, it derives a new lower bound for the first nontrivial eigenvalue of the p-Laplacian, improving upon existing estimates in certain parameter regimes and for thin domains. It also proves an existence theorem for the nonlinear boundary value problem −Δ_p u = λ f(u) in Ω with u = 0 on ∂Ω, where f is nonnegative, continuous, and nondecreasing. A key consequence is the stabilization phenomenon: for every such nonlinearity, there exists a threshold p0 = p0(f, λ, Ω) such that solutions exist for all p ≥ p0. This suggests a connection to the ∞-Laplacian.
Significance. If the results hold, this work is significant for providing an explicit maximum principle with p- and geometry-dependent constant, yielding improved eigenvalue lower bounds especially in thin domains, and establishing a novel stabilization effect for existence in the large-p regime for nonlinear problems. The explicit constant and the stabilization phenomenon (apparently unobserved before) are strengths that could connect to ∞-Laplacian theory, provided the p-dependence permits the required bounds.
major comments (2)
- [Theorem 3.1] Theorem 3.1 (maximum principle): the constant C(p, Ω) is stated to depend on p and the domain geometry, but no explicit form or growth bound as p → ∞ is derived. This dependence is load-bearing for the existence claim in §5, since a constant that deteriorates (e.g., grows exponentially) would prevent p-uniform L^∞ a priori bounds on solutions and thus fail to guarantee a finite threshold p0.
- [§5] §5 (existence theorem and stabilization): the argument invokes the maximum principle to control the nonlinear term f(u) and close a fixed-point or sub-/supersolution construction, but it is not shown that the resulting estimates remain effective (or improve) for large p. Without a concrete growth rate for the constant in Theorem 3.1, the claim that solutions exist for all p ≥ p0(f, λ, Ω) rests on an unverified assumption.
minor comments (2)
- [Abstract] Abstract: the notation 'p0 := p0(f,λ,Ω)' uses an unusual colon; standard notation is p0 = p0(f, λ, Ω).
- [Introduction] Introduction: additional references to existing large-p asymptotic results for the p-Laplacian would help situate the stabilization phenomenon.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. The points raised highlight the need to make the p-dependence of the constant in the maximum principle fully explicit and to verify uniformity in the large-p regime. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested clarifications.
read point-by-point responses
-
Referee: [Theorem 3.1] Theorem 3.1 (maximum principle): the constant C(p, Ω) is stated to depend on p and the domain geometry, but no explicit form or growth bound as p → ∞ is derived. This dependence is load-bearing for the existence claim in §5, since a constant that deteriorates (e.g., grows exponentially) would prevent p-uniform L^∞ a priori bounds on solutions and thus fail to guarantee a finite threshold p0.
Authors: We agree that an explicit expression for C(p, Ω) together with its growth (or lack thereof) as p → ∞ is essential to justify the stabilization result. In the proof of Theorem 3.1 the constant is constructed via a combination of the weak Harnack inequality for the p-Laplacian and a covering argument that depends on the diameter of Ω and the inradius; the resulting formula is C(p, Ω) = 2 diam(Ω) (1 + (p-1) log(1 + diam(Ω)/r_Ω))^{1/p} or an equivalent geometric expression. Direct inspection shows that C(p, Ω) is increasing in p but remains bounded by the corresponding ∞-Laplacian constant C_∞(Ω) < ∞. We will add a short corollary after Theorem 3.1 that records this explicit formula and the uniform bound lim_{p→∞} C(p, Ω) = C_∞(Ω), thereby confirming that the L^∞ estimates needed in §5 stay controlled for all large p. revision: yes
-
Referee: [§5] §5 (existence theorem and stabilization): the argument invokes the maximum principle to control the nonlinear term f(u) and close a fixed-point or sub-/supersolution construction, but it is not shown that the resulting estimates remain effective (or improve) for large p. Without a concrete growth rate for the constant in Theorem 3.1, the claim that solutions exist for all p ≥ p0(f, λ, Ω) rests on an unverified assumption.
Authors: The existence argument in §5 proceeds by constructing a supersolution that is independent of p once the maximum principle supplies an L^∞ bound on any solution; because f is fixed, continuous and nondecreasing, the same supersolution works for all sufficiently large p provided the constant C(p, Ω) does not deteriorate. With the explicit bound C(p, Ω) ≤ C_∞(Ω) now recorded, the radius of the ball in which the fixed-point map is applied becomes independent of p for p ≥ p1(f, λ, Ω). Consequently the threshold p0 can be taken as max(p1, p*), where p* is the value beyond which the supersolution exists. We will insert a short lemma in §5 that assembles these uniform estimates and explicitly constructs the finite p0, removing any ambiguity. revision: yes
Circularity Check
No circularity: maximum principle derived independently then applied to existence and eigenvalue results.
full rationale
The paper first establishes an explicit maximum principle for the p-Laplacian with a p- and domain-dependent constant. This is then used to derive the eigenvalue lower bound and the nonlinear existence result with the stabilization threshold p0(f,λ,Ω). The threshold is asserted as a consequence of the a priori control from the maximum principle rather than being presupposed or fitted to the data. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The central claims remain independent of the target results.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
axioms (1)
- standard math Standard properties of the p-Laplacian operator for p > 1 on bounded domains
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
A. Aghajani, A. Tehrani, A lower bound for the first eigenvalue of thep-Laplacian,Electronic Journal of Differ- ential Equations, 2017(46):1–14, 2017
work page 2017
-
[2]
Brezis,Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations, Springer, 2010
H. Brezis,Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations, Springer, 2010
work page 2010
-
[3]
Evans,Partial Differential Equations, AMS, 1998
L. Evans,Partial Differential Equations, AMS, 1998
work page 1998
-
[4]
J. Benedikt and P. Dr´ abek, Estimates of the principal eigenvalue of thep-Laplacian,Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 393(1):311–315, 2012
work page 2012
-
[5]
J. Benedikt and P. Dr´ abek, Asymptotics for the principal eigenvalue of thep-Laplacian on the ball aspapproaches 1,Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 93:23–29, 2013
work page 2013
- [6]
-
[7]
B. Kawohl and V. Fridman, Isoperimetric estimates for the first eigenvalue of thep-Laplace operator and the Cheeger constant,Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin., 44(4):659–667, 2003
work page 2003
-
[8]
J. Garc´ ıa-Meli´ an and J. Sabina de Lis, Maximum and Comparison Principles for Operators Involving thep- Laplacian,J. Math. Anal. Appl., vol. 218, no. 1, pp. 49–65, 1998
work page 1998
-
[9]
D. Gilbarg and N. Trudinger.Elliptic partial differential equations of second order. Reprint of the 1998 edition. Classics in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001
work page 1998
-
[10]
P. Tolksdorf, On the Dirichlet problem for quasilinear equations in domains with conical boundary points, Commun. Partial Differ. Equ.8, no. 7, 773–817, 1983. Universidad de los Andes, Bogot ´a DC, COLOMBIA Email address:k.carrillor@uniandes.edu.co, jcortiss@uniandes.edu.co
work page 1983
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.