Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 1 cited by

Strictly stable solutions in uniformly convex planar domains may have nonconvex superlevel sets

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Stable solutions can have nonconvex level sets

desk verdict Resolves Brezis Open Problem 3 negatively: strictly stable minimal solutions in uniformly convex planar domains can have nonconvex superlevel sets, for f(u)=e^u and f(u)=(a+u)^p. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06031 v1 pith:CMIJLODL submitted 2026-07-07 math.AP

Yi Ru-Ya Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35J6135B5035J25
keywords stablesolutionssemilinearellipticequationsnonconvexlevelsetsuniformlyconvexdomainssaddle-nodebifurcationGelfandproblemquasiconcavityminimal
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

This paper constructs smooth, uniformly convex planar domains where the minimal, strictly stable solution of a semilinear Dirichlet problem nonetheless has nonconvex superlevel sets. The key structural ingredient is a one-dimensional saddle-node bifurcation: when the half-width of a 1D stable solution profile approaches a critical fold point, the height of any fixed interior level responds with a square-root singularity. By embedding a long, slowly varying channel whose local half-width rides just below this fold, the author arranges three points along the channel where the formal level height violates midpoint concavity. A barrier argument then transfers this violation from the formal profile to the actual minimal solution, while strict stability follows from the 1D spectral gap on the stable branch. The construction applies to the Gelfand nonlinearity e^u and to shifted powers (a+u)^p, directly answering a question of Brezis about whether stability forces quasiconcavity.

What carries the argument

A one-dimensional fold condition (Definition 1.1) capturing a nondegenerate saddle-node bifurcation in the half-width map h(A); a slow-channel construction where the domain half-width H(X) varies slowly and stays on the stable branch below h_c; a barrier-based O(ε²) approximation (Proposition 3.5) of the actual 2D solution by the formal 1D profile V(X,η)=U_{H(X)}(η); and a midpoint-concavity violation test (Proposition 3.7) that transfers nonconvexity from the formal level set to the actual superlevel set.

What would settle it

If one could prove that for every uniformly convex planar domain and every fold-admissible nonlinearity, all superlevel sets of the minimal stable solution are necessarily convex, the main theorem would be contradicted. More locally, if the approximation in Proposition 3.5 failed to hold at rate O(ε²) for the constructed channel geometry, the nonconvexity transfer in Proposition 3.7 would break down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The square-root singularity at a 1D saddle-node fold can be embedded into a 2D uniformly convex domain via a slow channel, and the resulting geometric distortion of level sets survives the passage from the formal profile to the actual solution. This means that stability of a solution does not guarantee convexity of its superlevel sets, even for the most standard nonlinearities and even for minimal solutions in uniformly convex domains.

Load-bearing premise

The entire argument hinges on the O(ε²) approximation of the actual 2D solution by the formal 1D profile in the slow channel (Proposition 3.5). If the approximation error were larger than the geometric gap G that measures the midpoint-concavity violation, the transfer of nonconvexity from the formal level set to the actual superlevel set would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The convexity of superlevel sets is not a consequence of solution stability plus domain convexity; additional hypotheses (e.g., radial symmetry or specific nonlinearity structure) are needed to recover quasiconcavity.
  • The square-root fold mechanism is generic: any nonlinearity exhibiting a nondegenerate fold in its 1D half-width map admits the same counterexample construction, suggesting a broad class of failures rather than an isolated pathology.
  • The result constrains the search for positive quasiconcavity theorems: any such theorem must either restrict the nonlinearity class away from fold-admissible functions or impose conditions beyond uniform convexity of the domain.
  • For the parameterized Gelfand and power problems, the scaling argument (Corollary 3.8) shows that nonconvex superlevel sets persist for all λ > 0, not just in the unparameterized setting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The slow-channel mechanism could potentially extend to higher dimensions by using a thin slab geometry with a 1D fold in the transverse direction, though the stability argument would need adaptation beyond vertical slicing.
  • The construction suggests that the transition from convex to nonconvex superlevel sets as the domain is deformed might be detectable as a bifurcation phenomenon, with the fold point serving as the organizing center.
  • If the O(ε²) approximation rate were sharpened or the gap G in Lemma 2.13 were quantified explicitly, one could in principle compute the minimal domain aspect ratio needed for the counterexample, making the result more constructive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs smooth, uniformly convex planar domains in which the minimal, strictly stable solution of -Δu = f(u) (with f = e^u or f = (a+u)^p, a > 0, p > 1) has a nonconvex superlevel set. This provides a negative answer to Brezis's Open Problem 3. The construction proceeds via a one-dimensional saddle-node (fold) bifurcation: the half-width function h(A) of the 1D Dirichlet problem has a nondegenerate maximum at some A_c, and the level-set height Y_t(h) exhibits a square-root singularity near h_c. This singularity is exploited in a thin, slowly varying 2D channel where the formal profile V(X,η) = U_{H(X)}(η) produces a midpoint-convexity violation in the level height. A barrier argument (Proposition 3.5) shows the actual solution u_ε remains O(ε²)-close to V in the channel interior, transferring the nonconvexity to the genuine superlevel set. Strict stability follows from a vertical slicing argument using the 1D spectral gap on the stable lower branch. The parameterized version follows by elementary scaling.

Significance. The paper resolves a well-known open problem posed by Brezis negatively, in the strongest possible setting: the domain is smooth and uniformly convex, the nonlinearity is convex and increasing, and the solution is minimal and strictly stable. The result is surprising in light of the Cabré–Chanillo theorem (unique critical point, convex high superlevel sets) and shows that the failure of quasiconcavity occurs at intermediate levels due to the fold mechanism. The construction is parameter-free in the sense that no fitted parameters are introduced; the domain geometry is determined by the fold structure and the elementary choice D₀(X) = 1 + 2X + X²/2. The fold-admissibility verifications for e^u and (a+u)^p are explicit and checkable. The barrier argument is standard but carefully executed with a clear spectral-gap mechanism.

minor comments (6)
  1. §3.1, after (3.2): The paper states that Ω_ε is uniformly convex 'with a curvature lower bound that may depend on ε.' It would help the reader to note explicitly that Theorem 1.2 only requires uniform convexity for a single fixed ε (chosen sufficiently small), so the ε-dependence of the curvature lower bound is harmless.
  2. §2.2, Proposition 2.11: The monotonicity of R(x) is established via a logarithmic derivative argument, but the inequality R'(x)/R(x) > 0 is stated without fully justifying that each of the three terms on the right-hand side is positive. A brief parenthetical noting that Φ'(x) < 0 (so Φ'/Φ < 0) but that Φ/J > 0 dominates would improve readability.
  3. §3.3, Proposition 3.5: The constant C in the final estimate depends on a list of quantities; it would be useful to state explicitly that C is independent of ε, which is the only property needed downstream.
  4. §1.3: The phrase 'the effective one-dimensional fold dominates, and ultimately overrides the convexity properties of the ambient domain' is slightly informal; a more precise statement of the mechanism (square-root singularity in Y_t vs. smooth variation of H) would better serve readers skimming the introduction.
  5. Reference [21] (Gui–Ruiz–Xie–Xu) is cited as an arXiv preprint; if a published version exists, it should be updated.
  6. §2.1, Lemma 2.4: The support-function extension argument is stated somewhat abstractly ('finitely many pairwise disjoint C^∞ strictly convex arcs...'). A reference to a specific theorem or proposition in [39] for the extension step would strengthen the rigor.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and accurate reading of the manuscript and for the recommendation of minor revision. The referee's summary correctly captures the main construction, the fold mechanism, the barrier argument, and the significance of the result. We address each comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The referee report contains no major comments; the recommendation is minor revision. The referee's summary and significance assessment are accurate and require no correction.

    Authors: We have reviewed the referee's summary and significance assessment in detail and find them to be an accurate representation of the paper's content and contribution. The referee correctly identifies the saddle-node (fold) bifurcation mechanism, the square-root singularity in Y_t(h), the thin-channel construction, the barrier argument in Proposition 3.5, the vertical-slicing stability argument, and the parameterized extension via scaling. We also agree with the referee's characterization that the construction is parameter-free in the relevant sense and that the fold-admissibility verifications for e^u and (a+u)^p are explicit. Since no specific revisions were requested, we have conducted a careful proofreading of the manuscript to check for typographical and expository issues. We will note in the revised version a minor clarification regarding the support-function extension argument in Lemma 2.4: the extension of finitely many prescribed strictly convex arcs to a smooth closed uniformly convex curve is a standard construction in convex geometry (cf. Schneider, Convex Bodies, 2nd ed., Section 2.5), and we will make the reference more explicit to aid the reader. No changes to the mathematical content, statements, or proofs are needed. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found. The derivation is self-contained with no self-citations and no fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper is a pure existence proof (constructive counterexample) with no fitted parameters and no self-citations by the author. The derivation chain proceeds as follows: (1) Definition 1.1 defines fold-admissibility as a structural hypothesis on f, verified independently for e^u (Prop 2.10) and (a+u)^p (Prop 2.11) via explicit computation. (2) Proposition 2.9 derives the square-root expansion Y_t(h) = Y_c - c_t√(h_c - h) + o(√(h_c - h)) from fold-admissibility using Taylor expansion and the implicit function theorem — this is a genuine derivation from the hypothesis, not a restatement. (3) Lemma 2.13 combines the square-root expansion with an explicit choice of D_0(X) = 1 + 2X + X²/2 to produce a formal midpoint violation G > 0. (4) Proposition 3.1 constructs the minimal solution and proves strict stability via vertical slicing using the 1D spectral gap ν* > 0, which is an independent quantity. (5) Proposition 3.5 proves the O(ε²) approximation of the actual solution by the formal profile via a barrier argument using the 1D spectral gap and exponential decay — the error equation (3.7) is derived by direct subtraction, and the barrier B = C₀ε²φ* + C₁(E_L + E_R)φ* is constructed from independent ingredients. (6) Proposition 3.7 transfers nonconvexity by comparing the gap G (from Lemma 2.13, independent of ε) against the O(ε²) error (from Lemma 3.6), yielding G - 2C_hε² > 0 for small ε. No step reduces to its inputs by construction. The domain geometry H is chosen to make the fold mechanism produce nonconvexity, but this is the nature of a constructive counterexample, not circular reasoning. All citations are to external authors (Brezis, Cabré-Chanillo, Crandall-Rabinowitz, Gilbarg-Trudinger, Schneider, etc.); there are no self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are postulated. The construction uses standard PDE objects (solutions, level sets, eigenvalues) and classical geometric tools (support functions, convex bodies).

free parameters (4)
  • ε (scaling parameter) = sufficiently small, not specified numerically
    Controls the horizontal dilation of the domain; chosen small enough that the O(ε²) approximation error is dominated by the formal gap G. Not fitted to data.
  • δ (channel width perturbation) = sufficiently small positive
    Sets H_δ = h_c - δD₀; chosen small enough that the square-root expansion applies and the midpoint violation holds. Not fitted to data.
  • t (level) = any fixed value in (0, A_c)
    The level at which nonconvexity is demonstrated; chosen in the stable branch range. Not fitted.
  • D₀(X) = 1 + 2X + ½X² = explicit
    Auxiliary function chosen so that √D₀ is concave near 0, producing the midpoint violation. This is a constructive choice, not a fit to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption f ∈ C³([0,∞)), f > 0, f' ≥ 0, f'' ≥ 0
    Standard assumptions on the nonlinearity for the semilinear Dirichlet problem; stated in Section 1.1 and used throughout.
  • domain assumption Fold-admissibility: existence of A_c with h'(A_c)=0, h''(A_c)<0, and stability of the lower branch
    The structural hypothesis of Theorem 1.2; verified explicitly for e^u (Prop 2.10) and (a+u)^p (Prop 2.11).
  • standard math Standard elliptic regularity and maximum principle for semilinear Dirichlet problems
    Used in Proposition 3.1 for existence, minimality, and regularity of the solution; references Gilbarg-Trudinger [20].
  • standard math Support function representation of smooth uniformly convex curves
    Used in Lemma 2.3 and 2.4 to construct the domain; references Schneider [39, Section 2.5].
  • standard math Smooth dependence of ODE solutions on initial data
    Used throughout Section 2.2 for the 1D profile analysis and the differentiability of h(A).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strictly stable solutions in uniformly convex planar domains may have nonconvex superlevel sets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CMIJLODL

@misc{pith2026260706031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strictly stable solutions in uniformly convex planar domains may have nonconvex superlevel sets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CMIJLODL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06031}
}
abstract

We construct smooth, uniformly convex planar domains that admit minimal, strictly stable solutions of a semilinear Dirichlet problem whose superlevel sets are nonetheless nonconvex. The class of admissible nonlinearities includes, in particular, two prototypical cases: the Gelfand-type nonlinearity $e^u$ and the family of shifted power-type nonlinearities $(a+u)^p$, where $a>0$ and $p>1$. By applying the elementary scaling properties of the Dirichlet problem, we also show that the same lack of convexity of superlevel sets holds for the corresponding parameter-dependent equations. These results provide a negative answer to a question posed by Brezis, who inquired whether the stability of a solution necessarily entails quasiconcavity for these prototypical stable configurations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Nonconvex Sublevel Sets For The Planar Translating Mean Curvature Equation

    math.AP 2026-08 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    For the planar translating mean curvature equation with zero boundary data, convexity of the domain does not force convexity of sublevel sets, even in dimension two.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Acker,On the nonconvexity of solutions in free-boundary problems arising in plasma physics and fluid dynamics

    A. Acker,On the nonconvexity of solutions in free-boundary problems arising in plasma physics and fluid dynamics. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 42 (1989), no. 8, 1165–1174

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    Acker, L.E

    A. Acker, L.E. Payne, G. Philippin,On the convexity of level lines of the fundamental mode in the clamped membrane problem, and the existence of convex solutions in a related free boundary problem, Z. Angew. Math. Phys.32(1981), 683–694

    work page 1981

  3. [3]

    Alvarez, J.-M

    O. Alvarez, J.-M. Lasry, P.-L. Lions,Convex viscosity solutions and state constraints, J. Math. Pures Appl.76(1997), 265–288

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Andrews,Moduli of continuity, isoperimetric profiles, and multi-point estimates in geomet- ric heat equations

    B. Andrews,Moduli of continuity, isoperimetric profiles, and multi-point estimates in geomet- ric heat equations. Surveys in differential geometry 2014. Regularity and evolution of nonlinear equations, 1–47, Surv. Differ. Geom.,19, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2015

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    B. Bian, P. Guan, X.-N. Ma, L. Xu,A constant rank theorem for quasiconcave solutions of fully nonlinear partial differential equations, Indiana Univ. Math. J.60(2011), 101–119

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Brascamp, E.H

    H.J. Brascamp, E.H. Lieb,Some inequalities for Gaussian measures and the long-range order of the one-dimensional plasma, In: Funct. Integr. Appl., Proc. Int. Conf. London 1974, A. Arthurs editor, Oxford (1975), 1–14

    work page 1974

  7. [7]

    Brezis,Is there failure of the inverse function theorem?, Morse theory, minimax theory and their applications to nonlinear differential equations, 23–33, New Stud

    H. Brezis,Is there failure of the inverse function theorem?, Morse theory, minimax theory and their applications to nonlinear differential equations, 23–33, New Stud. Adv. Math.1, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Cabr´ e, S

    X. Cabr´ e, S. Chanillo,Stable solutions of semilinear elliptic problems in convex domains.Selecta Math. (N.S.)4(1998), no. 1, 1–10

    work page 1998

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    L. A. Caffarelli, A. Friedman,Convexity of solutions of semilinear elliptic equations, Duke Math. J.52(1985), 431–456

    1985

  2. [10]

    L. A. Caffarelli, J. Spruck,Convexity properties of solutions to some classical variational problems, Comm. Part. Diff. Equations7(1982), 1337–1379

    1982

  3. [11]

    Colesanti, and P

    A. Colesanti, and P. Salani,Quasi-concave envelope of a function and convexity of level sets of solutions to elliptic equations.Math. Nachr. 258(1) (2003):3–15

    2003

  4. [12]

    M. G. Crandall, P. H. Rabinowitz,Bifurcation, perturbation of simple eigenvalues, and linearized stability, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 52 (1973), 161–180

    1973

  5. [13]

    M. G. Crandall, P. H. Rabinowitz,Some continuation and variational methods for positive solu- tions of nonlinear elliptic eigenvalue problems, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 58 (1975), 207-218

    1975

  6. [14]

    De Regibus, M

    F. De Regibus, M. Grossi, D. Mukherjee,On the number of critical points of stable solutions in bounded strip-like domains.J. Differential Equations 306 (2022), 1–27

    2022

  7. [15]

    De Regibus, M

    F. De Regibus, M. Grossi, D. Mukherjee,Uniqueness of the critical point for semi-stable solutions inR 2.Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 60 (2021), no. 1, Paper No. 25, 13 pp

    2021

  8. [16]

    Gladiali, M

    F. Gladiali, M. Grossi,Strict convexity of level sets of solutions of some nonlinear elliptic equa- tions, Proc. Royal Soc. Edinburgh A134(2004), 363–373

    2004

  9. [17]

    Gladiali, M

    F. Gladiali, M. Grossi,On the number of critical points of solutions of semilinear equations in R2.Amer. J. Math. 144 (2022), no. 5, 1221–1240

    2022

  10. [18]

    Gidas, W.N

    B. Gidas, W.N. Ni, L. Nirenberg,Symmetry and related properties via the maximum principle, Comm. Math. Phys.68(1979), 209–243

    1979

  11. [19]

    Greco, G

    A. Greco, G. Porru,Convexity of solutions to some elliptic partial differential equations, SIAM J. Math. Anal.24(1993), 833–839

    1993

  12. [20]

    Gilbarg and N

    D. Gilbarg and N. S. Trudinger,Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order, reprint of the 1998 edition, Springer, 2001

    1998

  13. [21]

    C. Gui, D. Ruiz, C. Xie, H. Xu,Least total curvature solutions to steady Euler system and monotone solutions to semilinear equations in a strip, arXiv:2507.11837. STABLE SOLUTIONS MAY HA VE NONCONVEX SUPERLEVEL SETS 35

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hamel, N

    F. Hamel, N. Nadirashvili, Y. Sire,Convexity of level sets for elliptic problems in convex domains or convex rings: two counterexamples. Amer. J. Math. 138 (2016), no. 2, 499–527

    2016

  15. [23]

    Kawohl,Rearrangements and Convexity of Level Sets in Partial Differential Equations, Lect

    B. Kawohl,Rearrangements and Convexity of Level Sets in Partial Differential Equations, Lect. Notes Math. 1150, Springer-Verlag, 1985

    1985

  16. [24]

    Kawohl,Starshapedness of level sets for the obstacle problem and for the capacitory potential problem.Proc

    B. Kawohl,Starshapedness of level sets for the obstacle problem and for the capacitory potential problem.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.89(1983), no. 4, 637–640

    1983

  17. [25]

    Kawohl,When are solutions to nonlinear elliptic boundary value problems convex?Comm

    B. Kawohl,When are solutions to nonlinear elliptic boundary value problems convex?Comm. Part. Diff. Equations10(1985), 1213–1225

    1985

  18. [26]

    Kawohl,A remark on N

    B. Kawohl,A remark on N. Korevaar’s concavity maximum principle and on the asymptotic uniqueness of solutions to the plasma problem, Math. Meth. Appl. Sci.8(1986), 93–101

    1986

  19. [27]

    Keady,The power concavity of solutions of some semilinear elliptic boundary-value problems, Bull

    G. Keady,The power concavity of solutions of some semilinear elliptic boundary-value problems, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc.31(1985), 181–184

    1985

  20. [28]

    A. U. Kennington,Power concavity and boundary value problems, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 34 (1985), 687–704

    1985

  21. [29]

    Kennington,Convexity of level curves for an initial value problem, J

    A.U. Kennington,Convexity of level curves for an initial value problem, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 133(1988), 324-330

    1988

  22. [30]

    Korevaar,Convex solutions to nonlinear elliptic and parabolic boundary value problems, Indiana Univ

    N.J. Korevaar,Convex solutions to nonlinear elliptic and parabolic boundary value problems, Indiana Univ. Math. J.32(1983), 603–614

    1983

  23. [31]

    Korevaar, J.L

    N.J. Korevaar, J.L. Lewis,Convex solutions of certain elliptic equations have constant rank Hes- sians, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.97(1987), 19–32

    1987

  24. [32]

    Q. Li, J. Wei, R. Yao,Monotonicity properties of the Robin torsion function in a class of sym- metric planar domains, arXiv:2509.14648

  25. [33]

    Lin,Uniqueness of least energy solutions to a semilinear elliptic equations inR 2, Manuscripta Math.84(1994), 13–19

    C.-S. Lin,Uniqueness of least energy solutions to a semilinear elliptic equations inR 2, Manuscripta Math.84(1994), 13–19

    1994

  26. [34]

    Lions,Two geometrical properties of solutions of semilinear problems

    P.-L. Lions,Two geometrical properties of solutions of semilinear problems. Applicable Anal.12 (1981), no. 4, 267–272

    1981

  27. [35]

    L. G. Makar-Limanov,The solution of the Dirichlet problem for the equation∆u=−1in a convex region.Mat. Zametki9(1971), 89–92

    1971

  28. [36]

    X.-N. Ma, S. Shi, Y. Ye,The convexity estimates for the solutions of two elliptic equations. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 37 (2012), no. 12, 2116–2137

    2012

  29. [37]

    Monneau, H

    R. Monneau, H. Shahgholian,Non-convexity of level sets in convex rings for semilinear elliptic problems.Indiana Univ. Math. J. 54 (2005), no. 2, 465–471

    2005

  30. [38]

    Nedev,Regularity of the extremal solution of semilinear elliptic equations

    G. Nedev,Regularity of the extremal solution of semilinear elliptic equations. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 330 (2000), 997–1002

    2000

  31. [39]

    Schneider,Convex Bodies: The Brunn–Minkowski Theory, 2nd expanded ed., Cambridge University Press, 2013

    R. Schneider,Convex Bodies: The Brunn–Minkowski Theory, 2nd expanded ed., Cambridge University Press, 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    Wang,Counterexample to the convexity of level sets of solutions to the mean curvature equation

    X.-J. Wang,Counterexample to the convexity of level sets of solutions to the mean curvature equation. J. Eur. Math. Soc. 16 (2014), no. 6, pp. 1173–1182

    2014

  33. [41]

    Xu,A microscopic convexity theorem of level sets for solutions to elliptic equations, Calc

    L. Xu,A microscopic convexity theorem of level sets for solutions to elliptic equations, Calc. Var. 40(2011), 51–63. State Key Laboratory of Mathematical Sciences, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China Institute of mathe...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.