Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 36 references

On the local character of the extension of traces for Sobolev mappings

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Sobolev trace extension is local: finite coverings decide

desk verdict Solid new local trace-extension theorem with a clean folding proof; the global theorem is unverifiable until the unpublished companion appears. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12713 v1 pith:Z2N7LNNF submitted 2024-12-17 math.AP math.FA

Jean Van Schaftingen This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APmath.FA MSC 58D1546E3546T1058C2558J32
keywords ExtensionoftracesSobolevmappingsTracetheorySobolev-SlobodeckispacesFoldingconstructionLocalcharacterCollarneighbourhood
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 proves that the Sobolev trace extension property on a collar neighborhood is local in the domain: a map from a compact manifold into a target manifold is the trace of a Sobolev map from the manifold times an interval exactly when each restriction to a member of some finite open covering is such a trace, and the minimal extension energy on the whole domain is controlled by the sum of the local energies. This matters because it lets analysts check extendability patch by patch on small coordinate balls, where the target manifold's topology enters only through the local model. The proof avoids linear averaging, which does not respect manifold-valued constraints, and instead uses a folding construction that glues two local extensions with matching traces. A corollary gives a general linear energy estimate whenever the trace is surjective, and a global version separates the collar extension from a purely topological obstruction on a skeleton of the boundary.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the folding map $U_*$ defined in Proposition 2.1. Given two Sobolev extensions $U_0$ and $U_1$ on $W\times(0,1)\times(0,1)$ with equal traces on $W\times(0,1)\times\{0\}$, $U_*$ is set to $U_0$ on the region below a diagonal (after the substitution $(x',2x_{m-1},x_m-2x_{m-1})$), to $U_1$ on the wedge between the diagonal and the horizontal bisector (after substitution $(x',x_m,2x_{m-1}-x_m)$), and to $U_1$ unchanged above the diagonal. The two pieces agree on the interfaces precisely because the original traces agree, so the gluing property of Sobolev functions gives $U_*\in\dot W^{1,p}(W\times(0,1)\times(0,1),N)$ with energy bounded by the sum of the two energies. Proposition 2.2 turns this local folding into a global gluing over a finite covering through an induction that uses a cone-type separation lemma (Lemma 2.3) to fit a new open set between a closed remaining region and the previously glued region.

What would settle it

Take a flat model with $W$ a point, so the domain is the unit square, and pick two $\dot W^{1,p}$ extensions of the same trace on the bottom edge that are smooth except for a concentration along an internal curve; compute $U_*$ by formula (2.1) and test whether its energy is bounded by the sum of the two energies and whether its trace on the bottom edge equals the common trace. A violation for some exponent $p$ (for instance $p=1$) or for some trace with a jump across the overlap would refute Proposition 2.1, and hence the local character theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for compact Riemannian manifolds $M'$ and $N$, a Borel-measurable map $u\colon M'\to N$ belongs to $\operatorname{tr}_{M'}(\dot W^{1,p}(M'\times[0,1),N))$ if and only if for each $i$ in a finite open covering $(G_i)$ of $M'$, the restriction $u|_{G_i}$ belongs to $\operatorname{tr}_{G_i}(\dot W^{1,p}(G_i\times[0,1),N))$, and the extension energy satisfies $E^1_{\mathrm{ext}}(u,M',M'\times[0,1))\le C\sum_i E^1_{\mathrm{ext}}(u|_{G_i},G_i,G_i\times[0,1))$, where $C$ depends only on the covering and $p$. The paper also proves the same locality for penalized extension energies (Theorem 1.3) and for the global extension problem from the boundary of a manifold (Theorem 1.4), where the only additional condition is a homotopy-theoretic test for the boundary datum on a skeleton of the manifold. In effect, the analytical obstructions to extending a boundary datum into a collar are purely local; global topology of the domain does not enter the collar extension.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes that two local extensions that agree as traces on an overlap can be folded, after piecewise-linear changes of variables and passage through manifold charts, into one Sobolev extension whose trace equals both, and that the global theorem's unpublished companion supplies three technical propositions as stated; if either fails, the gluing induction collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • To determine whether a map on a compact manifold is a Sobolev trace on a collar, it is enough to test each set of some finite open covering; the energy bound is uniform once the covering is fixed.
  • Wherever the trace is surjective, the minimal extension energy is bounded by a constant times the Gagliardo energy, so surjectivity automatically comes with the sharp linear estimate (Theorem 1.2).
  • The global extension problem for a manifold with boundary reduces to a local collar extension plus a topological condition on the boundary datum over a skeleton of the manifold (Theorem 1.4).
  • Penalized extension energies used in relaxation approaches satisfy the same local energy bound (Theorem 1.3), so localization can be applied to variational approximations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The folding construction resembles a nonlinear replacement for convex combination that stays inside the target manifold; it may transfer to other constrained settings where averaging violates the constraint, such as maps into stratified spaces or with symmetry constraints.
  • The locality result makes traceability a checkable finite procedure on a fixed atlas: once a finite covering and charts are chosen, the energy constant in Theorem 1.1 is an explicit quantity of the covering, so numerical certificates of local extendability would certify global extendability.
  • Quantifying how the constant in Theorem 1.1 depends on the covering (through the chart bilipschitz constants and the radii from Lemma 2.3) would make the estimate ready for computational use; the paper only proves existence of such a constant.
  • The endpoint case $p=1$, where the trace space is $L^1$-based, may need a separate check: the folding estimates hold formally, but the gluing theory for traces at $p=1$ has different features, so the comparability of energies could behave differently.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper establishes a locality principle for the trace extension problem for Sobolev maps between compact Riemannian manifolds. Theorem 1.1 states that a Borel map u:M' to N is the trace on M' of a W^{1,p}-map on the collar M' times [0,1) if and only if its restriction to each member of a finite open cover extends locally, and the global extension energy is controlled by the sum of the local extension energies. The proof uses an explicit folding of the domain (Proposition 2.1), an inductive gluing over charts (Proposition 2.2), and a cone-covering lemma (Lemma 2.3). Corollaries include a linear boundedness principle (Theorem 1.2) and an extension for penalized energies (Theorem 1.3). In the global boundary case, Theorem 1.4 characterizes traceability from the boundary of a manifold by collar traceability plus homotopy conditions and gives a convex energy estimate, following the author's earlier screening characterization [27] and an unpublished companion [9].

Significance. The local theorem is an elegant reduction: it shows that trace extension and its energy scale are local in the domain, so future characterizations can be restricted to balls. The folding construction is explicit and avoids linear partition-of-unity arguments that fail for manifold-valued maps, and the quantitative estimate with constant depending only on the cover and p is valuable. The main caveat is that the global Theorem 1.4, and hence the abstract's claim that analytical obstructions are purely local, rests on statements in an 'in preparation' companion paper [9] that cannot currently be checked. The local part is nonetheless a self-contained contribution.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3, proof of Theorem 1.4] The equivalence (i) iff (ii) iff (iii) and the energy estimate (1.12) are proved by invoking [9, Prop. 9.4, proof of Pr. 9.11, Cor. 9.10], and [9] is listed as 'in preparation' with no preprint or detailed statements available. These invocations are load-bearing: without them, the global characterization is not established. Please either provide complete proofs of the quoted results, state Theorem 1.4 as conditional on [9], or restrict the abstract's global conclusion to the parts that are actually proved in this manuscript.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Proposition 2.2] The statement of Proposition 2.2 contains a typo: 'there exists U in dot W^{1,p}(G_i times (0,1), N)' should read 'there exists U in dot W^{1,p}(M' times (0,1), N)', and in the compatibility condition 'u_j' should be 'U_j'.
  2. [Section 2.1, proof of Proposition 2.1] In the sentence listing the three pieces, the second membership for Sigma-sharp is correct, but the third should be 'U*|_{Sigma_1} in dot W^{1,p}(W times Sigma_1, N)' rather than 'U*|_{Sigma_sharp} in dot W^{1,p}(W times Sigma_1, N)'.
  3. [Section 2.2, proof of Proposition 2.2] The displayed identity for (C_i cap closed ball) union (E_i setminus closed ball) contains an undefined set 'G_i' in R^m, and the claimed openness of B_{r_i} union (C_i cap closed ball) union (E_i setminus closed ball) is not immediate from the displayed algebra; please rewrite this step with precise set operations and a clear verification of openness.
  4. [References] Reference [18] appears in the bibliography but is not cited in the text; either cite it where relevant or remove it.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The local folding proof of Theorem 1.1 is self-contained, but the global Theorem 1.4 is delegated to the author's unpublished companion [9], so the advertised global 'purely local obstructions' claim rests on a load-bearing self-citation.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3 (Proof of Theorem 1.4) and Reference [9]]
    "Theorem 1.4 follows from the characterization of traces of Mazowiecka and the author [27] and from topological screening methods of Bousquet, Ponce and the author [9]. ... It follows [9, proof of Pr. 9.11] that ... the maps u◦σ|Σ0 and u◦Φ◦ξ|Σ0 are homotopic in VMO(Σ0,N). Since the map ξ is simplicial, the map u◦Φ◦ξ|Σ0 is homotopic to V◦ξ|Σ0 = (F◦ξ)|Σ0 [9, Cor. 9.10] and (i) holds. ... [9] P. Bousquet, A. Ponce, and J. Van Schaftingen, Generic topological screening and approximation of Sobolev maps. in preparation."

    The global equivalences in Theorem 1.4 are not derived in the present paper: the proof invokes [27, Th. 1.3 and Pr. 3.4] and, decisively, [9, Prop. 9.4, proof of Pr. 9.11, Cor. 9.10] for the topological-screening steps that convert a global homotopy condition into a Sobolev-extension criterion and that identify u◦Φ◦ξ|Σ0 with V◦ξ|Σ0. Reference [9] is unpublished ('in preparation') and is by Bousquet, Ponce, and the present author, so the load-bearing part of the global claim is a self-citation whose content cannot currently be checked. The local Theorem 1.1 is independent of this chain, being proved from the folding Proposition 2.1 and standard Sobolev gluing; hence the circularity is partial and confined to the global theorem and the abstract's final global sentence.

full rationale

The main local theorem is non-circular: Theorem 1.1 is proved by constructing a global extension from local extensions using the folding map of Proposition 2.1 and the cone/annulus decomposition of Lemma 2.3, with trace agreement (2.2) providing exactly the hypothesis needed for the standard Sobolev gluing theorem. There are no fitted parameters and no hidden identification between the conclusion and the assumptions. Theorem 1.3 is the same folding construction for penalized energies and is likewise self-contained. Theorem 1.2 is presented as a known statement whose new proof combines Theorem 1.1 with the published uniform-boundedness principle [31] (Monteil and Van Schaftingen), so it does not create circularity. The only load-bearing author-overlapping citation is in Theorem 1.4, where the proof is explicitly an appeal to [27] and to the unpublished companion [9]; the latter supplies the topological screening results that bridge the global homotopy data to extendability. Because [9] is in preparation and authored by the same group, this part of the derivation is unverifiable and should be flagged as a self-citation dependency. It is not an equation-level equivalence or fitted-input prediction, so the appropriate score is 4 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters and no new postulated entities. The local theorem rests on standard trace and gluing theory plus the compactness of the domain. The global theorem additionally depends on the author's quantitative screening characterization [27] and on the unpublished companion [9].

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Nash isometric embedding: N can be treated as a submanifold of R^nu, so weak differentiability of maps into N is understood through the ambient space.
    Invoked in Section 1.1 to define dot W^{1,p}(M,N) and the trace spaces.
  • standard math Linear trace theory for Sobolev spaces: the trace operator from dot W^{1,p}(M,R^nu) to dot W^{1-1/p,p}(boundary M,R^nu) is continuous and surjective.
    Background in Section 1.1; the nonlinear inclusion (1.3) uses it.
  • standard math Gluing property: two Sobolev functions with the same trace on a hypersurface glue to a Sobolev function on the union, as in Leoni, Theorem 18.1.
    Used in Proposition 2.1 and repeatedly in the induction of Proposition 2.2.
  • standard math Invariance of Sobolev spaces and traces under piecewise linear changes of variables and diffeomorphisms.
    Needed to justify that the folded map U* defined by (2.1) has finite energy after the coordinate changes; stated in the proof of Proposition 2.1.
  • domain assumption Compactness of M' allows a finite covering by coordinate balls with closures mapping to the closed unit ball after refining the given covering.
    Used at the start of the proof of Proposition 2.2; trace extendability passes to open subsets.
  • ad hoc to paper The quantitative topological screening characterization of traces in [27, Th. 1.3] and the statements of the unpublished companion [9, Props 9.4, 9.11, Cor 9.10].
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1.4 to pass between Sobolev extendability, VMO homotopy, and the topological obstruction; [9] is in preparation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the local character of the extension of traces for Sobolev mappings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z2N7LNNF

@misc{pith2026241212713,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the local character of the extension of traces for Sobolev mappings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z2N7LNNF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12713}
}
abstract

We prove that a mapping $u \colon \mathcal{M}'\to \mathcal{N}$, where $\mathcal{M}'$ and $ \mathcal{N}$ are compact Riemannian manifolds, is the trace of a Sobolev mapping $U \colon \mathcal{M}' \times [0, 1) \to \mathcal{N}$ if and only if it is on some open covering of $\mathcal{M}'$. In the global case where $\mathcal{M}$ is a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary, this implies that the analytical obstructions to the extension of a mapping $u \colon \partial \mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{N}$ to some Sobolev mapping $U \colon \mathcal{M} \to \mathcal{N}$ are purely local.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12713 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The coordinates lines of the changes of variable used in the construction of U∗ by folding in Proposition 2.1. Σ0 Σ♯ Σ1 Γ0 Γ1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The sets Σ0, Σ♯ , Σ1, Γ0 and Γ1 appearing in the proof of Proposition 2.1. then U∗ ∈ W˙ 1,p(W × (0, 1) × (0, 1), N ), trW×(0,1)×{0} U∗ = trW×(0,1)×{0} U0 = trW×(0,1)×{0} U1, trW×{0}×(0,1) U∗ = trW×{0}×(0,1) U0 trW×{1}×(0,1) U∗ = trW×{1}×(0,1) U1, and ˆ W×(0,1)×(0,1) |DU∗| p ≤ C ˆ W×(0,1)×(0,1) |DU0| p + |DU1| p , (2.3) where the constant C only depends on p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The construction of Lemma 2.3: given a open set G and a closed set F such that F ∩ ∂B1 ⊆ G, one can find a radius r ∈ (0, 1) so that F \ Br is contained in a subset C ∩ (B¯ 1 \ Br) of G where C is a cone. If 0 < r ≤ s < 1, one has Cr ⊆ Cs. Moreover, since G is open [ r∈(0,1) Cr = C1 := {x ∈ R m | Rx ∩ ∂B1 ⊆ G} and F ∩ ∂B1 ⊆ G ∩ ∂B1 = C1 ∩ ∂B1. We have thus F ⊆ B1 ∪ C1 = [ r∈(0,1) Br ∪ Cr. By compactness and mononoti… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The closed set Fi = B¯ 1 \ SK j=i+1 Ψi(Wi ∩ Gj ) and the open set Ei = Ψi(Wi ∩ Hi−1) defined in the proof of Proposition 2.2. and Hi ∪ [ K j=i+1 Gj = M. (2.5) We first set H1 := G1 and V1 := U1. Next, assuming that the set Hi−1 and the map Vi−1 have been defined for so…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Bousquet, A

    P. Bousquet, A. Ponce, and J. Van Schaftingen,Generic topological screening and approximation of Sobolev maps. in preparation.↑3, 13, 14

    work page

  2. [27]

    Mazowiecka and J

    K. Mazowiecka and J. Van Schaftingen,Quantitative characterization of traces of Sobolev maps, Commun. Contemp. Math.25 (2023), no. 2, Paper No. 2250003, 31, doi:10.1142/S0219199722500031. ↑3, 13, 14

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219199722500031 2023

  3. [1]

    Abbondandolo,On the homotopy type of VMO, Topol

    A. Abbondandolo,On the homotopy type of VMO, Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal.7 (1996), no. 2, 431–436, doi:10.12775/TMNA.1996.018.↑2

    work page doi:10.12775/tmna.1996.018 1996

  4. [2]

    J. M. Ball and A. Zarnescu,Orientability and energy minimization in liquid crystal models, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.202 (2011), no. 2, 493–535.↑1

    work page 2011

  5. [3]

    Bethuel,The approximation problem for Sobolev maps between two manifolds, Acta Math.167 (1991), no

    F. Bethuel,The approximation problem for Sobolev maps between two manifolds, Acta Math.167 (1991), no. 3-4, 153–206, doi:10.1007/BF02392449.↑2

    doi:10.1007/bf02392449 1991

  6. [4]

    Fixed Point Theory Appl.15 (2014), no

    , A new obstruction to the extension problem for Sobolev maps between manifolds, J. Fixed Point Theory Appl.15 (2014), no. 1, 155–183, doi:10.1007/s11784-014-0185-0.↑3, 4

    doi:10.1007/s11784-014-0185-0 2014

  7. [5]

    Bethuel and D

    F. Bethuel and D. Chiron,Some questions related to the lifting problem in Sobolev spaces, Perspectives in nonlinear partial differential equations, Contemp. Math., vol. 446, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2007, pp. 125–152, doi:10.1090/conm/446/08628.↑4

    doi:10.1090/conm/446/08628 2007

  8. [6]

    Bethuel and F

    F. Bethuel and F. Demengel,Extensions for Sobolev mappings between manifolds, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 3 (1995), no. 4, 475–491, doi:10.1007/BF01187897.↑2, 3, 4

    doi:10.1007/bf01187897 1995

Show all 36 references
  1. [7]

    Bourgain, H

    J. Bourgain, H. Brezis, and P. Mironescu,Lifting in Sobolev spaces, J. Anal. Math.80 (2000), 37–86, doi:10.1007/BF02791533.↑4

    2000 doi

  2. [8]

    , H 1/2 maps with values into the circle: minimal connections, lifting, and the Ginzburg-Landau equation, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci.99 (2004), 1–115, doi:10.1007/s10240-004-0019-5.↑4

    2004 doi

  3. [10]

    Brezis and Y

    H. Brezis and Y. Li,Topology and Sobolev spaces, J. Funct. Anal. 183 (2001), no. 2, 321–369, doi:10.1006/jfan.2000.3736.↑1

    2001

  4. [11]

    Brezis, Y

    H. Brezis, Y. Li, P. Mironescu, and L. Nirenberg,Degree and Sobolev spaces, Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 13 (1999), no. 2, 181–190, doi:10.12775/TMNA.1999.009.↑1

    1999 doi

  5. [12]

    Brezis and P

    H. Brezis and P. Mironescu,On some questions of topology forS1-valued fractional Sobolev spaces, RACSAM. Rev. R. Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fís. Nat. Ser. A Mat.95 (2001), no. 1, 121–143.↑4 ON THE LOCAL CHARACTER OF THE EXTENSION OF TRACES FOR SOBOLEV MAPPINGS 15

    2001

  6. [13]

    96, Birkhäuser/Springer, New York, 2021, doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-1512-6.↑4

    , Sobolev maps to the circle: From the perspective of analysis, geometry, and topology, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, vol. 96, Birkhäuser/Springer, New York, 2021, doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-1512-6.↑4

    2021 doi

  7. [14]

    Brezis and L

    H. Brezis and L. Nirenberg,Degree theory and BMO. I: Compact manifolds without boundaries, Selecta Math. (N.S.)1 (1995), no. 2, 197–263, doi:10.1007/BF01671566.↑2

    1995 doi

  8. [15]

    II:Compact manifolds with boundaries, Selecta Math

    , Degree theory and BMO. II:Compact manifolds with boundaries, Selecta Math. (N.S.)2 (1996), no. 3, 309–368, doi:10.1007/BF01587948.↑2

    1996 doi

  9. [16]

    Eells and L

    J. Eells and L. Lemaire,A report on harmonic maps, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 10 (1978), 1–68, doi:10.1112/blms/10.1.1.↑1

    1978 doi

  10. [17]

    J. L. Ericksen and C. Truesdell,Exact theory of stress and strain in rods and shells, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 1 (1958), 295–323, doi:10.1007/BF00298012.↑1

    1958 doi

  11. [18]

    Ferry and S

    S. Ferry and S. Weinberger,Quantitative algebraic topology and Lipschitz homotopy, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA110 (2013), no. 48, 19246–19250, doi:10.1073/pnas.1208041110.↑

    2013 doi

  12. [19]

    Fuglede, Extremal length and functional completion , Acta Math

    B. Fuglede, Extremal length and functional completion , Acta Math. 98 (1957), 171–219, doi:10.1007/BF02404474.↑3

    1957 doi

  13. [20]

    Gagliardo,Caratterizzazioni delle tracce sulla frontiera relative ad alcune classi di funzioni inn variabili, Rend

    E. Gagliardo,Caratterizzazioni delle tracce sulla frontiera relative ad alcune classi di funzioni inn variabili, Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Padova27 (1957), 284–305.↑2

    1957

  14. [21]

    Hang and F

    F. Hang and F. Lin,Topology of Sobolev mappings. II, Acta Math. 191 (2003), no. 1, 55–107, doi:10.1007/BF02392696.↑1

    2003 doi

  15. [22]

    Hardt and F.-H

    R. Hardt and F.-H. Lin,Mappings minimizing theLp norm of the gradient, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 40 (1987), no. 5, 555–588, doi:10.1002/cpa.3160400503.↑2, 3

    1987 doi

  16. [23]

    Hélein and J

    F. Hélein and J. C. Wood,Harmonic maps, Handbook of global analysis, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2008, pp. 417–491, 1213, doi:10.1016/B978-044452833-9.50009-7.↑1

    2008 doi

  17. [24]

    Huang, Y

    J. Huang, Y. Tong, H. Wei, and H. Bao,Boundary aligned smooth 3D cross-frame field, ACM Transactions on Graphics30 (2011), doi:10.1145/2070781.2024177.↑1

    2011

  18. [25]

    Isobe, Obstructions to the extension problem of Sobolev mappings, Topol

    T. Isobe, Obstructions to the extension problem of Sobolev mappings, Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 21 (2003), no. 2, 345–368, doi:10.12775/TMNA.2003.021.↑3, 4, 6, 7

    2003 doi

  19. [26]

    Leoni, A first course in Sobolev spaces, 2nd ed., Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol

    G. Leoni, A first course in Sobolev spaces, 2nd ed., Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 181, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 2017, doi:10.1090/gsm/181.↑9

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    N. D. Mermin,The topological theory of defects in ordered media, Rev. Modern Phys.51 (1979), 591–648, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.51.591.↑1

    1979 doi

  21. [29]

    Mironescu and J

    P. Mironescu and J. Van Schaftingen,Lifting in compact covering spaces for fractional Sobolev mappings, Anal. PDE14 (2021), no. 6, 1851–1871, doi:10.2140/apde.2021.14.1851.↑4

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    , Trace theory for Sobolev mappings into a manifold, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (6)30 (2021), no. 2, 281–299, doi:10.5802/afst.1675.↑3

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Monteil and J

    A. Monteil and J. Van Schaftingen, Uniform boundedness principles for Sobolev maps into manifolds, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré C Anal. Non Linéaire 36 (2019), no. 2, 417–449, doi:10.1016/j.anihpc.2018.06.002.↑5

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Nash,The imbedding problem for Riemannian manifolds, Ann

    J. Nash,The imbedding problem for Riemannian manifolds, Ann. of Math. (2)63 (1956), 20–63, doi:10.2307/1969989.↑1

    1956 doi

  25. [33]

    Schoen and K

    R. Schoen and K. Uhlenbeck,A regularity theory for harmonic maps, J. Differential Geom.17 (1982), no. 2, 307–335, doi:10.4310/jdg/1214436923.↑2

    1982

  26. [34]

    Differential Geom.18 (1983), no

    , Boundary regularity and the Dirichlet problem for harmonic maps, J. Differential Geom.18 (1983), no. 2, 253–268, doi:10.4310/jdg/1214437663.↑2

    1983

  27. [35]

    Van Schaftingen,The extension of traces for Sobolev mappings between manifolds, available at arXiv:2403.18738.↑3, 4, 6, 7, 14

    J. Van Schaftingen,The extension of traces for Sobolev mappings between manifolds, available at arXiv:2403.18738.↑3, 4, 6, 7, 14

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    White,Homotopy classes in Sobolev spaces and the existence of energy minimizing maps, Acta Math

    B. White,Homotopy classes in Sobolev spaces and the existence of energy minimizing maps, Acta Math. 160 (1988), no. 1-2, 1–17, doi:10.1007/BF02392271.↑6 ON THE LOCAL CHARACTER OF THE EXTENSION OF TRACES FOR SOBOLEV MAPPINGS 16 Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Rech...

    1988 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.