Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Mission $p<n-1$: Possible -- Nonlinear Elasticity Beyond Conventional Limits

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For n≥2 and p>floor(n/2), weak limits of energy-bounded homeomorphisms form a weakly closed class on which the neo-Hookean energy is lower semicontinuous—even for p<n−1—so minimizers exist.

desk verdict First real lsc result for p<n-1; the main mechanism is sound, but the cavitation theorem rests on a theorem that is only sketched, so referee time is warranted with a demand for details. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07543 v2 pith:B6SMUAC6 submitted 2025-06-09 math.AP

Daniel Campbell , Anna Doležalová , Stanislav Hencl This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 49J4546E3574B2074G65
keywords nonlinearelasticityneo-HookeanenergylowersemicontinuityweaklimitsofhomeomorphismsSobolevmappingsLusin(N)conditioncavitationdirectmethod
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 removes the long-standing barrier p≥n−1 in the existence theory of nonlinear elasticity. It proves that the neo-Hookean energy $E(f)=\int_\Omega(|Df|^p+\varphi(J_f))\,dx$ is lower semicontinuous on the class of weak limits of $W^{1,p}$ homeomorphisms for every $n\ge2$ and $p>\lfloor n/2\rfloor$, and that the same is true for the cavitation energy $E_c(f)=E(f)+a\,P(A(f))$. Because the classes are weakly closed and energy-bounded sequences have weakly convergent subsequences, lower semicontinuity yields existence of minimizers by the direct method. This matters because real materials can cavitate or fracture, and deformations that open voids or cracks are typically discontinuous; for $n\ge3$ the exponent $p$ may now lie between $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ and $n-1$, exactly the regime where such irreversible events become possible.

What carries the argument

Three ingredients carry the argument. First, Lemma 2.1: a uniform energy bound makes admissible maps quantitatively measure-controlled in both directions, so small sets map to small sets and large sets to large sets, with moduli $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ depending only on the energy level. Second, a theorem proved elsewhere and extended here to maps with cavities states that for $p>\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ the weak limit $f$ is injective almost everywhere on the set where $\det Df>0$. Third, combining this injectivity with the area formula yields the pivotal identity $|f(B\setminus N)|=\int_B\det Df$ for a fixed null set $N$, and Lemma 2.1 upgrades the convergence to $|f_k(B)|\to|f(B\setminus N)|$; consequently $\det Df_k\rightharpoonup\det Df$ in $L^1$. A convex lower semicontinuity theorem then gives $E(f)\le\liminf E(f_k)$, while for $E_c$ the perimeter term is controlled by compactness of sets of finite perimeter and by the isoperimetric inequality.

What would settle it

Construct an energy-bounded sequence $f_k$ in the admissible class, for some $p>\lfloor n/2\rfloor$, whose weak limit $f$ is not injective almost everywhere on $\{x:\det Df(x)>0\}$, or for which $\det Df_k$ converges weakly in $L^1$ to a function different from $\det Df$; either observation would break Corollary 3.3 and hence Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. A concrete search would start from the construction in [28] and try to enforce the energy bound (1.1) while preserving the Jacobian mismatch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1.1: let $n\ge2$, $p>\lfloor n/2\rfloor$, $\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^n$ a bounded domain, and $f_0$ a boundary homeomorphism of finite energy satisfying the Lusin (N) condition (sets of volume zero map to sets of volume zero) with $|f_0(\partial\Omega)|=0$. If a sequence $f_k$ from the weak-limit class $H^{1,p}_{f_0,w}$ converges weakly to $f$ in $W^{1,p}$, then $f$ belongs to the same class and $E(f)\le\liminf_{k\to\infty}E(f_k)$; hence $E$ attains its minimum. Theorem 1.2 extends the statement to maps that may open cavities: the admissible maps are weak limits of homeomorphisms with finitely many holes, the energy is $E_c(f)=E(f)+a\,P(A(f))$ with $P$ the perimeter of the created surface $A(f)$, and the same lower semicontinuity and existence conclusion hold. The paper also constructs, for every $n\ge3$, a continuous map in $W^{1,n-1}$ that is a strong limit of Sobolev homeomorphisms and fails the Lusin (N) condition while its distributional Jacobian still equals the pointwise Jacobian, showing that volume must be tracked through a null set $N$ rather than through the ordinary image $f(B)$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof hinges on the theorem that a weak limit of $W^{1,p}$ homeomorphisms, for $p>\lfloor n/2\rfloor$, is injective almost everywhere on the set where the Jacobian is positive, together with the paper's extension of that theorem to maps that open cavities; if that injectivity result fails, the central identity $|f(B\setminus N)|=\int_B\det Df$ and with it the lower semicontinuity conclusion collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $p>\lfloor n/2\rfloor$, the energy $E$ attains its minimum on the class of weak limits of energy-bounded homeomorphisms with fixed boundary data, so minimizers exist even when $p<n-1$.
  • The same existence holds in the cavitation model: $E_c$ attains its minimum among weak limits of homeomorphisms that may open finitely many cavities, with the perimeter of the created surface penalized.
  • Corollary 3.4: along any energy-bounded admissible sequence, $\det Df_k\rightharpoonup\det Df$ in $L^1$ and $\|\det Df_k\|_{L^1}=\|\det Df\|_{L^1}=|f_0(\Omega)|$, so the total volume of the deformed body is exactly accounted for without creating matter from nothing.
  • The limiting cavitation class is weakly closed, and Theorem 4.10 identifies the limiting cavity set $A(f)$ with the union of the topological images of the points where the map opens cavities.
  • If correct, the lower bound $p\ge n-1$ required by (INV)-type theories is not a necessary condition for the direct method to work; the weak-limit class supplies enough structure at lower integrability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The threshold $p>\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ is probably close to the true dividing line for injectivity almost everywhere of weak limits of homeomorphisms; testing whether energy-bounded sequences can violate the conclusion for $p\le\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ would delimit the method exactly.
  • Inference: The identity $|f(B\setminus N)|=\int_B\det Df$ suggests that variational models below $p=n-1$ should be formulated in terms of the essential image of sets rather than the ordinary image, which may affect how minimizers are represented numerically.
  • Inference: The new topological-image notion $f^T(B)=f(B\setminus N)\cup A(f|_B)$ could provide degree-like and (INV)-like invariants for extremely irregular deformations, potentially extending cavitation models beyond the $p\ge n-1$ restriction.
  • Inference: Theorem 1.3 shows that the distributional Jacobian does not detect the failure of Lusin (N), so physical 'no matter from nothing' axioms may need to be imposed directly on a canonical representative of the deformation rather than on Jacobian identities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves lower semicontinuity for the Neohookean-type energy E(f) = ∫_Ω (|Df|^p + φ(J_f)) on the class of weak limits of W^{1,p} homeomorphisms, for p > ⌊n/2⌋, i.e., below the classical threshold p ≥ n−1. Theorem 1.1 states that if f_k ∈ H^{1,p}_{f0,w} converge weakly to f in W^{1,p}, then f lies in the same class and E(f) ≤ liminf E(f_k), so the energy attains its minimum. Theorem 1.2 extends the result to a cavitation model in which admissible maps may open finitely many cavities, with the perimeter of the created surface added to the energy. Theorem 1.3 constructs, for every n ≥ 3, a continuous W^{1,n−1} strong limit of Sobolev homeomorphisms that fails the Lusin (N) condition while its distributional Jacobian equals the pointwise Jacobian. The proof of the main lower semicontinuity result combines uniform small-set estimates (Lemma 2.1), an injectivity a.e. theorem for weak limits (Theorem 3.1, adapted from [10]), the area formula, and weak convergence of Jacobians in L^1.

Significance. If Theorem 1.1 is correct, it is a substantial advance: it gives the first weak lower semicontinuity result for a natural energy in nonlinear elasticity below p = n−1, using a reasonably broad class of admissible deformations. The mechanism is elegant and differs from earlier work based on the (INV) condition: the energy bounds themselves enforce uniform small-set behavior, which replaces topological invertibility. The cavitation part (Theorem 1.2) is also new in this Sobolev range and the surface-energy penalty is physically natural. The paper is honest about dependencies: it relies on the to-appear preprint [10] and explicitly corrects an error in the earlier paper [18]. The counterexample in Theorem 1.3 is a substantial construction and is presented in considerable detail. The main caveat is that a load-bearing injectivity statement (Theorem 3.1) is only sketched, and the cavitation analogue of a second external theorem is asserted without proof.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Theorem 3.1] The proof of Theorem 3.1 is a sketch rather than a proof, yet it is load-bearing: Step 2 of Theorem 3.2 uses Theorem 3.1 to obtain that the preimage count in the area formula is one a.e. on the set where det Df > 0, giving |f(B\N)| = ∫_B det Df. For the planar case the text asserts that weak limits of mappings satisfying the (INV) condition also satisfy it, but the maps in H^{1,p}_{c,f0} are not homeomorphisms on all of Ω, so this needs a justification. For n ≥ 3 the modification of [10] is compressed into 'replace surfaces by higher-dimensional surfaces' and a countable-avoidance assertion for ∪_k Cav(f_k). The critical point is that the analogues of the links L_{x_2,r}, S_{x_2,r}, L̂_{x_3,r}, Ŝ_{x_3,r} must be chosen disjoint from all cavity points while preserving the linking contradiction; this is plausible but not demonstrated in the manuscript. Please provide a complete proof or a precise reduction to [10].
  2. [Theorem 3.2, Step 4] In Step 4 of the proof of Theorem 3.2, the text fixes a compact set K ⊆ f(B\N)\[f(M) ∪ f(∂Ω)] with |K\f_{k_m}(B)| > ε for all m. This selection is not justified. The contradiction hypothesis only gives |f(B\N)\f_{k_m}(B)| > ε for each m; the holes in f_{k_m}(B) could drift with m, and no single compact K might satisfy the uniform estimate. Without such a K, Lemma 2.1 cannot be applied to the sets A_m = f_{k_m}^{-1}(K)\B. The gap seems repairable (e.g., by a weak-* compactness argument on the measures involved), but the argument must be written out.
  3. [Theorem 4.5] The proof of Theorem 4.5 says that 'the first three steps do not require any modification except that we use a version of Theorem 2.3 for homeomorphisms with finitely many cavities' and adds 'Since those mappings are sense-preserving, their proof works also for our case.' This is an unproved extension of an external theorem, and Theorem 1.2 depends on it. The maps in H^{1,p}_{c,f0} are homeomorphisms only after removing finitely many points, so the link/counting arguments from [27] are not automatically applicable. Please supply the full adaptation or a precise reference.
  4. [Proof of Theorem 1.3] The final part of the proof of Theorem 1.3 invokes [14, Theorem 4.2] to conclude J_f̃ = J_f̃, noting that the result is stated only for n = 3 but 'the proof works analogously in any higher dimension'. The alternative route through [18] is also sketched rather than carried out ('we could use the fact that points in R^{n−1} have zero capacity in W L^{n−1} log L'). Since Theorem 1.3 is a stated theorem of this paper, the higher-dimensional extension should be proved or explicitly labeled as conditional on unpublished details.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, after (5.4)] There is a typo: 'Around these centers we we place a smaller and a bigger cube' should read 'we place'.
  2. [Definition of H^{1,p}_{c,f0}] The notation H^{1,p}_{c,f0} does not record the number m of cavity points or the cavity sets K_1,...,K_m; this is intentional, but a short remark clarifying that these data vary with the map would improve readability.
  3. [Section 4.2, Remark 4.7] The remark that the new notion of topological image does not coincide with the classical degree-based notion for p ≤ n−1 is helpful, but it may confuse readers because the same name 'topological image' is used; a brief terminological note would be useful.
  4. [Remark 5.4] The correction of the error in [18, Lemma 4.1 (iii)] is valuable and should be cross-referenced in the introduction, since the current manuscript's proof of Theorem 1.3 explicitly relies on parts of [18].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: the cited injectivity and Jacobian theorems are independent external inputs; the sketched cavity generalization is a completeness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation of Theorem 1.1 is self-contained once the external theorems are granted: weak convergence gives L^p convergence, Lemma 2.1 and the growth of phi give equiintegrability of detDf_k, Eisen's convexity lemma gives the liminf inequality for a weak-L^1 Jacobian limit J, and the remaining task is to prove J = detDf via the area formula, injectivity a.e., and measure estimates. None of these inputs is defined in terms of E(f), H^{1,p}_{f0,w}, or the desired lower semicontinuity inequality. Theorem 2.2 (Bouchala-Hencl-Zhu) and Theorem 2.3 (Hencl-Onninen) are cited as ready-made results with stated assumptions that do not include the conclusion; although some authors overlap with the present paper, these are not fitted parameters, normalizations, or definitions, and the citations do not assume the lsc result. Theorem 3.1 is a sketched generalization of an external theorem, and the cavity version of Theorem 2.3 used in Theorem 4.5 is likewise asserted rather than proved; these are correctness/completeness risks, not circular reductions. The compact-subset selection in Step 4 of Theorem 3.2 is under-justified but appears repairable and is also not a circularity. Remark 5.4 explicitly corrects an error in the authors' earlier paper, which further indicates that the load-bearing external results are treated as independent evidence. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. Thus no circular step meets the quote-and-reduction bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several imported theorems from the literature, most notably the injectivity a.e. result [10] and the uniform measure estimates [17,18]. The paper's own contribution is the proof architecture combining these ingredients; no free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (10)
  • standard math Theorem 2.2: weak limits of W^{1,p} homeomorphisms for p > floor(n/2) (or p >= 1 for n=2,3) are injective a.e.
    Imported from [10]; used in Step 2 of Theorem 3.2 to identify |f(B\N)| with integral_B detDf; not proven in this paper.
  • standard math Lemma 2.1: uniform small-set and big-set measure estimates for one-to-one mappings with bounded phi-energy.
    From [17, Lemma 2.9] and [18, Lemma 2.1]; provides uniform measure bounds via phi; used throughout Steps 3 and 4 of Theorem 3.2 and in Theorem 4.2.
  • standard math Theorem 2.3: detDf >= 0 a.e. for weak limits of sense-preserving homeomorphisms.
    From [27]; used to ensure |detDf| = detDf a.e. in Step 2 of Theorem 3.2.
  • standard math Theorem 2.5 (Eisen): lower semicontinuity for convex integrals on L^1.
    From [20]; used to pass from weak convergence of (Df_k, detDf_k) to the energy inequality.
  • standard math Theorem 2.8 and Proposition 2.7: BV compactness and perimeter lower semicontinuity.
    Used for the cavity sets A(f_k) in Section 4.
  • standard math Theorem 2.9: isoperimetric inequality for sets of finite perimeter.
    Used in Theorem 4.10 to bound small cavities.
  • standard math Theorem 5.1: bi-Lipschitz map from a Cantor set onto a Cantor tower.
    From [22]; used in the Theorem 1.3 construction.
  • standard math Theorem 5.2: squeezing of tentacles with small L^{n-1} modulus of derivative.
    From [9]; used to construct the maps h_k in Theorem 1.3.
  • standard math Area formula for Sobolev maps.
    From [23]; used in Step 2 of Theorem 3.2 to express |f(B\N)| as an integral of detDf.
  • domain assumption Image inclusion f(Omega) subset f0(Omega) = f_k(Omega) for the weak-limit class.
    Used without proof in Step 3 of Theorem 3.2 and in Theorem 4.5; follows from boundary values and homeomorphism properties but is not stated as a lemma.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mission $p<n-1$: Possible -- Nonlinear Elasticity Beyond Conventional Limits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B6SMUAC6

@misc{pith2026250607543,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mission $p<n-1$: Possible -- Nonlinear Elasticity Beyond Conventional Limits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B6SMUAC6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07543}
}
abstract

In this paper we prove the lower semicontinuity of a Neohookean-type energy for a model of Nonlinear Elasticity that allows, for the first time, for $p<n-1$. Our class of admissible deformations consists of weak limits of Sobolev $W^{1,p}$ homeomorphisms. We also introduce a model that allows for cavitations by studying weak limits of homeomorphisms that can open cavities at some points. In this model we add the measure of the created surface to the energy functional and for this functional we again prove lower semicontinuity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07543 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. First two generations in the construction. The cubes Qv(k) are white, the gray “frames” are the cubical annuli Q′ v(k) \ Qv(k) . For a sequence A = {αk} ∞ k=0 the resulting Cantor set CA := \∞ k=1 [ v(k)∈Vk Qv(k) = n1 2 X∞ j=1 rj−1vj ; v ∈ V N o is a product of n Cantor sets Cα in R. In the k-th generation of the construction, the number of cubes in {Qv(k) : v(k) ∈ V k} is 2nk. Hence, (5.1) |CA| = lim k→∞ 2 nk(2rk) … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The mapping g transforms Qv onto Q˜ v (the white cube) and Q′ v \ Qv onto Q˜′ v \ Q˜ v (the gray frame). There exists a homeomorphism g which maps CA onto CB (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cubes Qˆ vˆ(k) and Qˆ′ vˆ(k) for k = 1, 2 in the construction of the Cantor tower. Let us now define the Cantor set CB as in subsection 5.1 by choosing (5.8) βk := 2−kβ , [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two generations of tentacles. The “real” tentacles Tvˆ(k) are formed from the tentative “straight” tentacles T S vˆ(k) as depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mapping ˜fk which converges pointwise to ˜f. To show that ˜f is Sobolev (and even in W1,n−1 ) we show that D ˜fk − D ˜fk−1 is Cauchy in L n−1 . Having established this fact, the Poincare inequality for mappings with zero boundary values immediately gives that ˜fk − ˜fk…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Weak limits of Sobolev homeomorphisms are one to one

    O. Bouchala, S. Hencl and Z. Zhu,Weak limits of Sobolev homeomorphisms are one to one, to appear in Calc. Var. and PDE, arXiv:2409.01260

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [18]

    Doleˇ zalov´ a, S

    A. Doleˇ zalov´ a, S. Hencl, A. Molchanova, Weak limit of homeomorphisms inW 1,n−1: invertibility and lower semicontinuity of energy,ESAIM: Control Optim. Calc. Var.30(2024), article 37

    work page 2024

  3. [27]

    Hencl, J

    S. Hencl, J. Onninen, Jacobian of weak limits of Sobolev homeomorphisms,Adv. in Calc. Var., https://doi.org/10.1515/acv-2016-000511.no. 1 (2018), 65–73

    work page doi:10.1515/acv-2016-000511.no 2018

  4. [1]

    Ambrosio, N

    L. Ambrosio, N. Fusco and D. Pallara,Functions of bounded variation and free discontinuity prob- lems, Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000

    work page 2000

  5. [2]

    Ball, Convexity conditions and existence theorems in nonlinear elasticity,Arch

    J. Ball, Convexity conditions and existence theorems in nonlinear elasticity,Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 63(1977), 337-403

    work page 1977

  6. [3]

    Ball, Global invertibility of Sobolev functions and the interpenetration of matter,Proc

    J. Ball, Global invertibility of Sobolev functions and the interpenetration of matter,Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A88no. 3–4 (1981), 315–328

    work page 1981

  7. [4]

    Ball and F

    J. Ball and F. Murat,W 1,p-quasiconvexity and variational problems for multiple integrals,J. Funct. Anal.58no. 3 (1984), 225–253

    work page 1984

  8. [5]

    Barchiesi, D

    M. Barchiesi, D. Henao, C. Mora-Corral, Local invertibility in Sobolev spaces with applications to nematic elastomers and magnetoelasticity,Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.224(2017), 743–816

    work page 2017

Show all 37 references
  1. [6]

    Barchiesi, D

    M. Barchiesi, D. Henao, C. Mora-Corral and R. Rodiac, Harmonic dipoles and the relaxation of the neo-Hookean energy in 3D elasticity,Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.247(2023), Paper No. 70

    2023

  2. [7]

    Barchiesi, D

    M. Barchiesi, D. Henao, C. Mora-Corral and R. Rodiac, On the lack of compactness problem in the axisymmetric neo-Hookean model,Forum Math. Sigma12(2024), Paper No. e26

    2024

  3. [8]

    Barchiesi, D

    M. Barchiesi, D. Henao, C. Mora-Corral and R. Rodiac, A relaxation approach to the minimization of the neo-Hookean energy in 3D,SIAM J. Math. Anal.56(2024), 7830–7845

    2024

  4. [9]

    Bouchala, S

    O. Bouchala, S. Hencl and A. Molchanova, Injectivity almost everywhere for weak limits of Sobolev homeomorphisms,J. Funct. Anal.279(2020), article 108658

    2020

  5. [11]

    Campbell,Point-wise characterizations of limits of planar Sobolev homeomorphisms and their quasi-monotonicity, arXiv:2401.10639

    D. Campbell,Point-wise characterizations of limits of planar Sobolev homeomorphisms and their quasi-monotonicity, arXiv:2401.10639

    arXiv

  6. [12]

    Celada, G

    P. Celada, G. Dal Maso, Further remarks on the lower semicontinuity of polyconvex integrals,Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire11(1994), 661–691

    1994

  7. [13]

    P. G. Ciarlet, J. Neˇ cas, Injectivity and self-contact in nonlinear elasticity,Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 97(1987), 171–188

    1987

  8. [14]

    Conti, C

    S. Conti, C. De Lellis, Some remarks on the theory of elasticity for compressible Neohookean mate- rials,Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci.2(2003), 521–549

    2003

  9. [15]

    Dal Maso and C

    G. Dal Maso and C. Sbordone, Weak lower semicontinuity of polyconvex integrals: a borderline case, Math. Z.218(1995), 603–609. 30 D. CAMPBELL, A. DOLE ˇZALOV ´A, AND S. HENCL

    1995

  10. [16]

    De Philippis and A

    G. De Philippis and A. Pratelli, The closure of planar diffeomorphisms in Sobolev spaces,Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Anal. Non Lineaire37(2020), 181–224

    2020

  11. [17]

    Doleˇ zalov´ a, S

    A. Doleˇ zalov´ a, S. Hencl, J. Mal´ y, Weak limit of homeomorphisms inW1,n−1 and (IN V) condition, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.247(2023), Article No. 80, 54 pp

    2023

  12. [19]

    D’Onofrio, S

    L. D’Onofrio, S. Hencl, J. Mal´ y, R. Schiattarella, Note on Lusin (N) condition and the distributional determinan,J. Math. Anal. Appl.439(2016), 171–182

    2016

  13. [20]

    Eisen, A selection lemma for sequences of measurable sets, and lower semicontinuity of multiple integrals,Manuscripta Math.27(1979), 73–79

    G. Eisen, A selection lemma for sequences of measurable sets, and lower semicontinuity of multiple integrals,Manuscripta Math.27(1979), 73–79

    1979

  14. [21]

    Fonseca and W

    I. Fonseca and W. Gangbo,Degree Theory in Analysis and Applications, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995

    1995

  15. [22]

    C.Y. Guo, S. Hencl and V. Tengvall, Mappings of finite distortion: size of the branch set,Adv. Calc. Var13(2020), 325–360

    2020

  16. [23]

    Hajlasz, Change of variables formula under minimal assumptions,Colloq

    P. Hajlasz, Change of variables formula under minimal assumptions,Colloq. Math.64(1993), 93–101

    1993

  17. [24]

    Henao and C

    D. Henao and C. Mora-Corral, Lusin’s condition and the distributional determinant for deformations with finite energy,Adv. Calc. Var.5(2012), 355–409

    2012

  18. [25]

    Henao and C

    D. Henao and C. Mora-Corral, Fracture surfaces and the regularity of inverses for BV deformations, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.201(2011), 575–629

    2011

  19. [26]

    Hencl and P

    S. Hencl and P. Koskela,Lectures on Mappings of finite distortion, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 2096, Springer, 2014, 176pp

    2014

  20. [28]

    Mal´ y, Weak lower semicontinuity of polyconvex integrals,Proc

    J. Mal´ y, Weak lower semicontinuity of polyconvex integrals,Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A123, no. 4 (1993), 681–691

    1993

  21. [29]

    Mora-Corral and D

    C. Mora-Corral and D. Mur-Callizo,Invertibility of Sobolev maps through approximate invertibility at the boundary and tangential polyconvexity, ArXiv:2503.01795

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Iwaniec and G

    T. Iwaniec and G. Martin,Geometric function theory and nonlinear analysis, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Clarendon Press, Oxford 2001

    2001

  23. [31]

    Iwaniec and J

    T. Iwaniec and J. Onninen, Monotone Sobolev Mappings of Planar Domains and Surfaces,Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.219(2016), 159–181

    2016

  24. [32]

    Iwaniec and J

    T. Iwaniec and J. Onninen, Limits of Sobolev homeomorphisms,J. Eur. Math. Soc.19(2017), 473–505

    2017

  25. [33]

    M¨ uller and S

    S. M¨ uller and S. J. Spector, An existence theory for nonlinear elasticity that allows for cavitation, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.131,no. 1 (1995), 1–66

    1995

  26. [34]

    M¨ uller, S

    S. M¨ uller, S. J. Spector and Q. Tang, Invertibility and a topological property of Sobolev maps,SIAM J. Math. Anal.27(1996), 959–976

    1996

  27. [35]

    M¨ uller, Q

    S. M¨ uller, Q. Tang and B. S. Yan, On a new class of elastic deformations not allowing for cavitation, Analyse Nonlineaire11(1994), 217–243

    1994

  28. [36]

    Y. G. Reshetnyak,Space Mappings with Bounded Distortion, Transl. Math. Monographs 73, AMS, Providence, Rhode Island 1989

    1989

  29. [37]

    ˇSver´ ak, Regularity properties of deformations with finite energy,Arch

    V. ˇSver´ ak, Regularity properties of deformations with finite energy,Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.100 no. 2 (1988), 105–127. MISSIONp < n−1: POSSIBLE – NONLINEAR ELASTICITY BEYOND CONVENTIONAL LIMITS31 Department of Mathematical Analysis, Charles University, Sokolovsk ´a 83, 186...

    1988

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.