text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A non-abelian flavor symmetry would explain various phenomena in flavor physics that appear to be independent at present. Moreover, this would provide useful hints about physics beyond the standard model (SM). In this paper we argue that there exists such a symmetry at the Fermi scale. This symmetry is the permutation symmetry $`S_3`$, which is the smallest non-abelian symmetry. It is the symmetry of an equilateral triangle, and has a simple geometrical interpretation.

The product groups $`S_3\times S_3`$ and $`S_3\times S_3\times S_3`$ have been considered by many authors in the past to explain the hierarchical structure of the fermionic matter in the SM. The introduction of the product groups indeed has proven to be successful.222See, for instance, Ref. . However, these symmetries are explicitly and hardly broken at the Fermi scale. If we accept $`S_3`$ as a fundamental symmetry in the matter sector of the SM, we are automatically led to extend the Higgs sector of the SM, because the SM contains only one Higgs $`SU(2)_L`$ doublet, which can only be an $`S_3`$ singlet: Since $`S_3`$ has two irreducible representations 333By this we mean that the three-dimensional representation of $`S_3`$, for which the permutations are explicit, can be decomposed into the direct sum of two irreducible representations., singlet and doublet, there is no convincing reason why there should exist only an $`S_3`$ singlet Higgs. In fact, along this line of thought, interesting models based on $`S_3,S_4`$ and also $`A_4`$ have been considered . However, the equality of the irreducible representations has not been stressed in these works. The permutation symmetry $`S_3`$ means the equality not only of three objects, but also of its irreducible representations. Nevertheless, it allows differences among the generations that are realized in the nature of elementary particles, as we will see.

## 2 A minimal $`S_3`$ invariant extension of the standard model

Consider a set of three objects, $`(f_1,f_2,f_3)`$, and their six possible permutations. They are the elements of $`S_3`$, which is the discrete non-abelian group with the smallest number of elements. The three-dimensional representation is not an irreducible representation of $`S_3`$. It can be decomposed into the direct sum of two irreducible representations, a doublet $`𝐟_D`$ and a singlet $`𝐟_S`$, where

$`𝐟_S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}(f_1+f_2+f_3),𝐟_D^T=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(f_1f_2),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}}(f_1+f_22f_3)).`$ (1)
Two-dimensional matrix representations, $`D_i`$, of $`S_3`$ can be obtained from

$`D_+(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)\text{and}D_{}(\theta )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)`$ (6)
with $`\theta =0,\pm 2\pi /3`$, where $`detD_\pm =\pm 1`$. The angles $`\theta `$’s correspond to the symmetry of an equilateral triangle. The tensor product of two doublets, $`𝐩_D^T=(p_{D1},p_{D2})`$ and $`𝐪_D=(q_{D1},q_{D2})`$, contain two singlets, $`𝐫_S`$ and $`𝐫_S^{}`$, and one doublet, $`𝐫_D=(r_{D1},r_{D2})`$, where

$`𝐫_S`$ $`=`$ $`p_{D1}q_{D1}+p_{D2}q_{D2},𝐫_S^{}=p_{D1}q_{D2}p_{D2}q_{D1},`$ (7)
$`𝐫_D^T`$ $`=`$ $`(r_{D1},r_{D2})=(p_{D1}q_{D2}+p_{D2}q_{D1},p_{D1}q_{D1}p_{D2}q_{D2}).`$ (8)
Note that $`𝐫_S^{}`$ is not an $`S_3`$ invariant, while $`𝐫_S`$ is.

After the short description of $`S_3`$ given above, it is straightforward to extend the SM: In addition to the SM Higgs fields $`H_S`$, we introduce an $`S_3`$-doublet Higgs $`H_D`$. The quark, lepton and Higgs fields are

$`Q^T=(u_L,d_L)`$ , $`u_R,d_R,L^T=(\nu _L,e_L),e_R,\nu _R,H`$ (9)
with obvious notation. All of these fields have three species, and we assume that each forms a reducible representation $`\mathrm{𝟏}_S+\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The doublets carry capital indices $`I`$ and $`J`$, which run from $`1`$ to $`2`$, and the singlets are denoted by $`Q_3,u_{3R},d_{3R},L_3,e_{3R},\nu _{3R},H_S`$. Note that the subscript $`3`$ has nothing to do with the third generation. The most general renormalizable Yukawa interactions are given by

$`_Y`$ $`=`$ $`_{Y_D}+_{Y_U}+_{Y_E}+_{Y_\nu },`$ (10)
where

$`_{Y_D}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_1^d\overline{Q}_IH_Sd_{IR}Y_3^d\overline{Q}_3H_Sd_{3R}`$ (11)
$`Y_2^d[\overline{Q}_I\kappa _{IJ}H_1d_{JR}+\overline{Q}_I\eta _{IJ}H_2d_{JR}]`$
$`Y_4^d\overline{Q}_3H_Id_{IR}Y_5^d\overline{Q}_IH_Id_{3R}+\text{h.c.},`$
$`_{Y_U}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_1^u\overline{Q}_I(i\sigma _2)H_S^{}u_{IR}Y_3^u\overline{Q}_3(i\sigma _2)H_S^{}u_{3R}`$ (12)
$`Y_2^u[\overline{Q}_I\kappa _{IJ}(i\sigma _2)H_1^{}u_{JR}+\eta \overline{Q}_I\eta _{IJ}(i\sigma _2)H_2^{}u_{JR}]`$
$`Y_4^u\overline{Q}_3(i\sigma _2)H_I^{}u_{IR}Y_5^u\overline{Q}_I(i\sigma _2)H_I^{}u_{3R}+\text{h.c.},`$
$`_{Y_E}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_1^e\overline{L}_IH_Se_{IR}Y_3^e\overline{L}_3H_Se_{3R}`$ (13)
$`Y_2^e[\overline{L}_I\kappa _{IJ}H_1e_{JR}+\overline{L}_I\eta _{IJ}H_2e_{JR}]`$
$`Y_4^e\overline{L}_3H_Ie_{IR}Y_5^e\overline{L}_IH_Ie_{3R}+\text{h.c.},`$
$`_{Y_\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`Y_1^\nu \overline{L}_I(i\sigma _2)H_S^{}\nu _{IR}Y_3^\nu \overline{L}_3(i\sigma _2)H_S^{}\nu _{3R}`$ (14)
$`Y_2^\nu [\overline{L}_I\kappa _{IJ}(i\sigma _2)H_1^{}\nu _{JR}+\overline{L}_I\eta _{IJ}(i\sigma _2)H_2^{}\nu _{JR}]`$
$`Y_4^\nu \overline{L}_3(i\sigma _2)H_I^{}\nu _{IR}Y_5^\nu \overline{L}_I(i\sigma _2)H_I^{}\nu _{3R}+\text{h.c.},`$
and

$`\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\text{and}\eta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (19)
Furthermore, we introduce the Majorana mass terms for the right-handed neutrinos

$`_M`$ $`=`$ $`M_1\nu _{IR}^TC\nu _{IR}M_3\nu _{3R}^TC\nu _{3R},`$ (20)
where $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix.

Because of the presence of three Higgs fields, the Higgs potential $`V_H(H_S,H_D)`$ is more complicated than that of the SM. But we may assume that all the VEV’s are real and that $`H_1=H_2`$.444See, for instance, Ref.  in which a potential with three Higgs fields of $`S_3`$ is considered. They also satisfy the constraint $`H_S^2+H_1^2+H_2^2(246\text{ GeV})^2/2`$. Then from the Yukawa interactions (11)–(14) and (20) one derives the mass matrices, which have the general form

$`𝐌=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_1+m_2& m_2& m_5\\ m_2& m_1m_2& m_5\\ m_4& m_4& m_3\end{array}\right).`$ (24)
The Majorana masses for $`\nu _L`$ can be obtained from the see-saw mechanism, and the corresponding mass matrix is given by $`𝐌_\nu =𝐌_{\nu _𝐃}\stackrel{~}{𝐌}^1(𝐌_{\nu _𝐃})^T`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐌}=\text{diag}(M_1,M_1,M_3)`$. All the entries in the mass matrices can be complex; there is no restriction coming from $`S_3`$. Therefore, there are $`4\times 5=20`$ complex parameters in the mass matrices, which should be compared with $`4\times 9=36`$ of the SM with the Majorana masses of the left-handed neutrinos. The mass matrices are diagonalized by the unitary matrices as

$`U_{d(u,e)L}^{}𝐌_{d(u,e)}U_{d(u,e)R}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{diag}(m_{d(u,e)},m_{s(c,\mu )},m_{b(t,\tau )}),`$ (25)
$`U_\nu ^T𝐌_\nu U_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\text{diag}(m_{\nu _1},m_{\nu _2},m_{\nu _3}).`$ (26)
The mixing matrices are then defined as 555We denote the physical neutrino masses by $`m_{\nu _i}`$, but $`\nu _{iL}`$ are not the mass eigenstates.

$`V_{CKM}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{uL}^{}U_{dL},V_{MNS}=U_{eL}^{}U_\nu .`$ (27)
## 3 The leptonic sector and $`Z_2`$ symmetry

To achieve further reduction of the number of parameters, we introduce a $`Z_2`$ symmetry. The $`Z_2`$ assignment in the leptonic sector is given in the Table I.

Table I. $`Z_2`$ assignment in the leptonic sector.

| $``$ | $`+`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`H_S,\nu _{3R}`$ | $`H_I,L_3,L_I,e_{3R},e_{IR},\nu _{IR}`$ |

The $`Z_2`$ symmetry forbids certain couplings:

$`Y_1^e`$ $`=`$ $`Y_3^e=Y_1^\nu =Y_5^\nu =0.`$ (28)
\[The $`Z_2`$ assignment above is not the unique assignment to achieve (28).\] Since $`m_1^e=m_3^e=0`$ due to the $`Z_2`$ symmetry, all the phases appearing in (24) can be removed by a redefinition of $`L_I,L_3`$ and $`e_{3R}`$. Then, we calculate the unitary matrix $`U_{eL}`$ from

$`U_{eL}^{}𝐌_e𝐌_e^{}U_{eL}=\text{diag}(|m_e|^2,|m_\mu |^2,|m_\tau |^2),`$ (29)
where

$`𝐌_e𝐌_e^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2(m_2^e)^2+(m_5^e)^2& (m_5^e)^2& 2m_2^em_4^e\\ (m_5^e)^2& 2(m_2^e)^2+(m_5^e)^2& 0\\ 2m_2^em_4^e& 0& 2(m_4^e)^2\end{array}\right).`$ (33)
All the parameters in (33) are real. The Majorana masses of the right-handed neutrinos $`M_1`$ and $`M_3`$ in (20) may be complex. They can be made real by a redefinition of the right-handed neutrino fields. Then we redefine $`m_i^\nu `$ according to

$`(m_2^\nu )`$ $``$ $`\rho _2^\nu =(m_2^\nu )/\sqrt{M_1},(m_4^\nu )\rho _4^\nu =(m_4^\nu )/\sqrt{M_1},(m_3^\nu )\rho _3^\nu =(m_3^\nu )/\sqrt{M_3}.`$ (34)
to obtain the Majorana masses of the left-handed neutrinos in the form

$`𝐌_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`𝐌_{\nu _𝐃}\stackrel{~}{𝐌}^1(𝐌_{\nu _𝐃})^T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2(\rho _2^\nu )^2& 0& 2\rho _2^\nu \rho _4^\nu \\ 0& 2(\rho _2^\nu )^2& 0\\ 2\rho _2^\nu \rho _4^\nu & 0& 2(\rho _4^\nu )^2+(\rho _3^\nu )^2\end{array}\right).`$ (38)
All the phases in (38), except for e.g. $`\rho _3^\nu `$, can be eliminated. However, in the following discussions, we assume that $`(\rho _3^\nu )^2`$ is real, so that $`\rho _3^\nu `$ is either a real or a purely imaginary number.

Now, consider the limit $`m_4^e0`$ in (33). One of the eigenvalues of (33) becomes $`0`$. Therefore, we assume that $`m_e^2(m_4^e)^2`$. In this limit, the other eigenvalues, $`(m_\mu ^2,m_\tau ^2)`$, and the corresponding eigenvectors, $`𝐯_\mu `$ and $`𝐯_\tau `$, are given by

$`(m_\mu ^2,m_\tau ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(2(m_2^e)^2,2(m_2^e)^2+2(m_5^e)^2),`$ (39)
$`𝐯_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(1/\sqrt{2},1/\sqrt{2}),𝐯_\tau =(1/\sqrt{2},1/\sqrt{2}).`$ (40)
Therefore, $`U_{eL}`$ in this limit becomes

$`U_{eL}^0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (44)
The correction to the eigenvalues due to the nonvanishing $`m_5^e`$ can be computed, and we find

$`m_e^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(m_4^em_5^e)^2}{(m_2^e)^2+(m_5^e)^2}}+O((m_4^e)^4),`$ (45)
$`m_\mu ^2`$ $`=`$ $`2(m_2^e)^2+(m_4^e)^2+O((m_4^e)^4),`$ (46)
$`m_\tau ^2`$ $`=`$ $`2[(m_2^e)^2+(m_5^e)^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_4^em_2^e)^2}{(m_2^e)^2+(m_5^e)^2}}+O((m_4^e)^4).`$ (47)
For the mass values $`m_e=0.51`$ MeV, $`m_\mu =105.7`$ MeV and $`m_\tau =1777`$ MeV (which correspond to $`m_4^e/m_2^e=0.006836`$ and $`m_5^e/m_2^e=16.78`$), we obtain

$`U_{eL}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}3.4\times 10^3& 1/\sqrt{2}+O(10^5)& 1/\sqrt{2}+O(10^{10})\\ 3.4\times 10^3& 1/\sqrt{2}+O(10^5)& 1/\sqrt{2}+O(10^{10})\\ 1+O(10^5)& 4.8\times 10^3& O(10^5)\end{array}\right).`$ (51)
In the neutrino sector, one immediately finds that one of the eigenvalues of $`𝐌_\nu `$ is $`2(\rho _2^\nu )^2`$ with the eigenvector $`(0,1,0)`$. \[Recall that $`(2\rho _3^\nu )^2`$ is assumed to be real.\] The other eigenvalues $`m_\pm `$ are

$`m_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A\pm [8(\rho _2^\nu \rho _3^\nu )^2+A^2]^{1/2}),`$ (52)
where $`A=2(\rho _2^\nu )^2+(\rho _3^\nu )^2+2(\rho _4^\nu )^2`$. Noticing that

$`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ $`=`$ $`8(\rho _2^\nu \rho _3^\nu )^2+A^2=(2(\rho _2^\nu )^2+(\rho _3^\nu )^2)^2+4(\rho _4^\nu )^2((\rho _4^\nu )^2+2(\rho _2^\nu )^2+(\rho _3^\nu )^2),`$
we find that $`m_{}`$ ($`m_+`$) reaches the maximal (minimal) value, $`2(\rho _2^\nu )^2`$, at $`\stackrel{~}{A}=0`$, if $`(\rho _3^\nu )^2`$ is positive. For a positive $`(\rho _3^\nu )^2`$, we can obtain $`\stackrel{~}{A}=0`$ if $`2(\rho _2^\nu )^2=(\rho _3^\nu )^2`$ and $`(\rho _4^\nu )^2=0`$ are satisfied. Therefore,

$`m_{}`$ $`2(\rho _2^\nu )^2m_+`$ (53)
should be satisfied if $`(\rho _3^\nu )^2`$ is positive. Consequently, if $`\rho _3^\nu `$ is real, $`2(\rho _2^\nu )^2`$ cannot be identified with $`m_{\nu _3}`$, which comes from the experimental constraint $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|<<|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|`$. Thus, we have to identify it with $`m_{\nu _1}`$. Consequently, we arrive at

$`(U_\nu )_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`1,(U_\nu )_{11}=(U_\nu )_{31}=0,`$ (54)
which does not yield the experimentally preferred bi-maximal form of the mixing matrix $`V_{\mathrm{MNS}}=U_{eL}^{}U_\nu `$ with $`U_{eL}`$ given in (51). The bi-maximal form may be obtained if $`U_\nu `$ takes the form

$`U_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (58)
Therefore, to realize the bi-maximal form, $`2(\rho _2^\nu )^2`$ has to be the smallest eigenvalue of the mass matrix (38). This, however, is impossible if $`(\rho _3^\nu )^20`$, implying that $`\rho _3^\nu `$ has to be purely imaginary (under the assumption that $`(\rho _3^\nu )^2`$ is real). Therefore we write $`\rho _3^\nu `$ as

$`(\rho _3^\nu )^2`$ $`=`$ $`|\rho _3^\nu |^2.`$ (59)
As a consequence, the mass relation $`2(\rho _2^\nu )^2<|m_{}|,|m_+|`$ is realized, so that the third neutrino becomes the lightest neutrino with the mass

$`m_{\nu _3}`$ $`=`$ $`2(\rho _2^\nu )^2.`$ (60)
This is one of the important predictions of the $`S_3\times Z_2`$ symmetry, under the assumption that $`(\rho _3^\nu )^2`$ is real.

Now consider the limit $`\rho _2^\nu 0`$ with the constraint $`(M_\nu )_{33}=0`$, that is $`2(\rho _4^\nu )^2|\rho _3^\nu |^2=0`$. Then the eigenvalues are given by

$`\left(m_+=2|\rho _4^\nu \rho _2^\nu |+(\rho _2^\nu )^2,m_{}=2|\rho _4^\nu \rho _2^\nu |+(\rho _2^\nu )^2,m_{\nu _3}=2(\rho _2^\nu )^2\right),`$ (61)
and

$`U_\nu `$ $``$ $`U_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}},`$
where $`U_\nu ^{\mathrm{max}}`$ is given in (58), and $`m_{\nu _1}=|m_{}|`$ and $`m_{\nu _2}=|m_+|`$. So, the limiting form is exactly the bi-maximal form.

The closed form for $`U_\nu `$ is found to be

$`U_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta }& \mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ \mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta }& \mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta }& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (65)
with

$`\mathrm{tan}\widehat{\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{+()}m_{\nu _3}}{m_{\nu _3}m_{(+)}}}\right)^{1/2}\text{for}|m_+|>(<)|m_{}|,`$ (66)
where $`m_\pm `$ is given in (52) with the replacement $`(\rho _3^\nu )^2|\rho _3^\nu |^2`$, and $`m_{\nu _2}=|m_{+()}|`$ and $`m_{\nu _1}=|m_{(+)}|`$ for $`|m_+|>(<)|m_{}|`$. Then, together with (51), we obtain

$`|V_{\mathrm{MNS}}|`$ $`=`$ $`|U_{eL}^{}PU_\nu |`$ (70)
$``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}& |U_{e3}|\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}/\sqrt{2}& \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}/\sqrt{2}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}/\sqrt{2}& \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}/\sqrt{2}& \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}\end{array}\right),`$
where $`P=\text{diag.}(1,1,\mathrm{exp}i[\mathrm{arg}(Y_4^\nu )\mathrm{arg}(Y_2^\nu )+\mathrm{arg}(Y_2^e)\mathrm{arg}(Y_4^e)]`$,

$`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ (72)
$`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}\widehat{\theta },`$ (73)
$`|U_{e3}|`$ $`=`$ $`3.4\times 10^3+O(m_em_\mu /m_\tau ^2).`$ (74)
\[Similar, but different predictions have been made in Ref. .\] The results above (70)-(74) do not change even if the assumption on the reality of $`(\rho _3^\nu )^2`$ is removed. In Fig. 1, we plot $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$ as a function of $`x=|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|/m_{\nu _2}^2`$ for $`r=|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|/|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|=0.05(\text{dashed}),0.0264(\text{solid}),0.2(\text{dot-dashed})`$, where $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|=m_{\nu _2}^2m_{\nu _3}^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|=m_{\nu _2}^2m_{\nu _1}^2`$. Note that in the present model $`m_{\nu _3}<m_{\nu _2},m_{\nu _1}`$. In Ref.  (see the references therein and also Ref. ), the experimental data recently obtained in different neutrino experiments, including solar, atmospheric, accelerator neutrino and reactor experiments are reviewed. It is concluded that

$`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.651.5,\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=0.530.93,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|/\text{eV}^2`$ $`=`$ $`5.1\times 10^59.7\times 10^5\text{or}1.2\times 10^41.9\times 10^4,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|/\text{eV}^2`$ $`=`$ $`1.2\times 10^34.8\times 10^3,`$
$`|U_{e3}|`$ $`<`$ $`0.2.`$
Comparing Fig. 1, (72) and (74) with the experimental values above, we see that our prediction based on the exact $`S_3\times Z_2`$ symmetry in the leptonic sector is consistent with the most recent experimental data on neutrino oscillations and neutrino masses and mixings.

## 4 The hadronic sector

Now we come to the hadronic sector. At the level of the $`S_3`$ extension of the SM, the $`Z_2`$ assignment in the hadronic sector is independent of that of the leptonic sector. (The $`Z_2`$ assignment in the leptonic sector is given in the Table I.) Since the $`Z_2`$ symmetry in the leptonic sector seems to be a good symmetry, we assume that it is a good symmetry at a more fundamental level, too. Therefore, we require that the $`Z_2`$ symmetry is free from any quantum anomaly.666Anomalies of discrete symmetries are discussed in Ref. . Furthermore, we assume that the quarks and leptons are unified at the fundamental level, which is possible if they have the same $`Z_2`$ assignment, implying that all the quarks should have even parity. One can easily convince oneself that under this $`Z_2`$ assignment the non-abelian gauge anomalies

$`Z_2[SU(2)_L]^2`$ , $`Z_2[SU(3)]^2,Z_2[U(1)_Y]^2,[Z_2]^3`$ (75)
cancel at the Fermi scale, because only the right-handed $`S_3`$ singlet neutrino among fermions has an odd $`Z_2`$ parity.

As in the case of the leptonic sector, the $`Z_2`$ symmetry forbids the Yukawa couplings $`Y_1^{u,d}`$ and $`Y_3^{u,d}`$ \[see (28)\]. We proceed to consider the generation structure in the hadronic sector under the assumption that $`Z_2`$ is explicitly broken in this sector. Since all the $`S_3`$ invariant Yukawa couplings are now allowed, the mass matrices for the quarks take the general form (24), in which all the entries can be complex. One can easily see that all the phases, except for those of $`m_1^{u,d}`$ and $`m_3^{u,d}`$, can be removed through an appropriate redefinition of the quark fields. Here, we assume that only $`m_3^d`$ is a complex number. The unitary matrices $`U_{uL}`$ and $`U_{dL}`$ can be obtained from

$`U_{u(d)L}^{}𝐌_{u(d)}𝐌_{u(d)}^{}U_{u(d)L}=\text{diag}(|m_{u(d)}|^2,|m_{c(s)}|^2,|m_{t(b)}|^2),`$ (76)
where

$`𝐌_{u(d)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_1^{u(d)}+m_2^{u(d)}& m_2^{u(d)}& m_5^{u(d)}\\ m_2^{u(d)}& m_1^{u(d)}m_2^{u(d)}& m_5^{u(d)}\\ m_4^{u(d)}& m_4^{u(d)}& m_3^{u(d)}\end{array}\right).`$ (80)
To diagonalize the mass matrices, we start by observing that realistic mass hierarchies can be achieved in the following way. In the limit $`m_{4,5}0`$, they become block-diagonal, and $`m_3`$ becomes an eigenvalue whose eigenvector is $`(0,0,1)`$. The $`2\times 2`$ blocks, which are of a semi-democratic type, can be simply diagonalized. One finds easily that one of the eigenvalues can become $`0`$ if $`m_1^22m_2^2=0`$ is satisfied. So, the gross structure of realistic mass matrices can be obtained if $`m_3^{u,d}O(m_{t,b})`$ and $`m_{1,2}^{u,d}O(m_{c,s})`$ (to realize realistic mass hierarchies), and the non-diagonal elements $`m_4^{u,d}`$ and $`m_5^{u,d}`$, along with $`m_{1,2}^{u,d}`$, can produce a realistic mixing among the quarks. There are $`10`$ real parameters and one phase (under the assumption that only $`m_3^d`$ is complex) in order to produce six quark masses, three mixing angles and one $`CP`$-violating phase. It is certainly desirable to investigate the complete parameter space of the model to understand its phenomenology and to make predictions, if any can be obtained. However, this is a quite complex problem, and will go beyond the scope of the present paper. Here we would like to give one set of parameters that are consistent with the experimental values given by the Particle Data Group. We find that the set of dimensionless parameter values

$`m_1^u/m_0^u`$ $`=`$ $`0.000293,m_2^u/m_0^u=0.00028,m_3^u/m_0^u=1,`$
$`m_4^u/m_0^u`$ $`=`$ $`0.031,m_5^u/m_0^u=0.0386,`$
$`m_1^d/m_0^d`$ $`=`$ $`0.0004,m_2^d/m_0^d=0.00275,m_3^d/m_0^d=1+1.2I,`$ (81)
$`m_4^d/m_0^d`$ $`=`$ $`0.283,m_5^d/m_0^d=0.058`$
yields the mass hierarchies

$`m_u/m_t`$ $`=`$ $`1.33\times 10^5,m_c/m_t=2.99\times 10^3,`$
$`m_d/m_b`$ $`=`$ $`1.31\times 10^3,m_s/m_b=1.17\times 10^2,`$ (82)
where $`m_0^u=m_3^u`$ and $`m_0^d=\text{Re}(m_3^d)`$, and the mixing matrix becomes

$`V_{\mathrm{CKM}}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{uL}^{}U_{dL}`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.968+0.117I& 0.198+0.0974I& 0.002530.00354I\\ 0.198+0.0969I& 0.9680.115I& 0.02220.0376I\\ 0.00211+0.00648I& 0.01790.0395I& 0.9990.00206I\end{array}\right).`$
The magnitudes of the elements are given by

$`|V_{\mathrm{CKM}}|`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.975& 0.221& 0.00435\\ 0.221& 0.974& 0.0437\\ 0.00682& 0.0434& 0.999\end{array}\right),`$ (91)
which should be compared with the experimental values

$`|V_{\mathrm{CKM}}^{\mathrm{exp}}|`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.9741\text{to}0.9756& 0.219\text{to}0.226& 0.0025\text{to}0.0048\\ 0.219\text{to}0.226& 0.9732\text{to}0.9748& 0.038\text{to}0.044\\ 0.004\text{to}0.014& 0.037\text{to}0.044& 0.9990\text{to}0.9993\end{array}\right).`$ (95)
Note that the mixing matrix (LABEL:vckm1) is not in the standard parametrization. So, we give the invariant measure of $`CP`$-violations

$`J`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Im}[(V_{\mathrm{CKM}})_{11}(V_{\mathrm{CKM}})_{22}(V_{\mathrm{CKM}}^{})_{12}(V_{\mathrm{CKM}}^{})_{21}]=2.5\times 10^5`$ (96)
for the choice (4), which is slightly larger than the experimental value $`(3.0\pm 0.3)\times 10^5`$ (see  and also Ref. ). The angles of the unitarity triangle for $`V_{\mathrm{CKM}}`$ (LABEL:vckm1) are given by

$`\varphi _122^{},\varphi _338^{},`$ (97)
where the experimental values are $`\varphi _1=24^{}\pm 4^{}`$ and $`\varphi _3=59^{}\pm 13^{}`$ . The normalization masses $`m_0^u`$ and $`m_0^d`$ are fixed at

$`m_0^u=174\text{GeV},m_0^d=1.8\text{GeV}`$ (98)
for $`m_t=174`$ GeV and $`m_b=3`$ GeV, yielding $`m_u2.3`$ MeV, $`m_c0.52`$ GeV, $`m_d3.9`$ MeV and $`m_s=0.035`$ GeV. Although these values cannot be directly compared with the running masses, because our calculation is at the tree level, it is nevertheless worthwhile to observe how close they are to

$`m_u(M_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`0.92.9\text{MeV},m_d(M_Z)=1.85.3\text{MeV},`$
$`m_c(M_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`0.530.68\text{GeV},m_s(M_Z)=0.0350.100\text{GeV},`$
$`m_t(M_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`168180\text{GeV},m_b(M_Z)=2.83.0\text{GeV}.`$ (99)
## 5 Flavor changing neutral currents (FCNCs)

In models with more than one Higgs $`SU(2)_L`$ doublet, as in the case of the present model, tree-level FCNCs exist in the Higgs sector. We therefore calculate the flavor changing Yukawa couplings to the neutral Higgs fields, $`H_S^0`$ and $`H_I^0(I=1,2)`$, where $`H_S^0`$ and $`H_I^0`$ stand for the neutral Higgs fields of the $`S_3`$-singlet $`H_S`$ and the $`S_3`$\- doublet $`H_I`$, respectively. The actual values of these couplings depend on the VEV’s of the Higgs fields, and hence on the Higgs potential, which we do not consider in the present paper. Since we only would like to estimate the size of the tree-level FCNCs here, we simply assume that

$`H_S^0`$ $`=`$ $`H_1^0=H_2^0246/\sqrt{6}\text{GeV}142/\sqrt{2}\text{GeV}.`$ (100)
Then, the flavor changing Yukawa couplings can explicitly be calculated, because we know the explicit values of the unitary matrices $`U`$’s defined in (25):

$`_{\mathrm{FCNC}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{E}_{aL}Y_{ab}^{ES}E_{bR}+\overline{U}_{aL}Y_{ab}^{US}U_{bR}+\overline{D}_{aL}Y_{ab}^{DS}D_{bR}\right)H_S^0+\text{h.c.}`$ (101)
$`+`$ $`\left(\overline{E}_{aL}Y_{ab}^{E1}E_{bR}+\overline{U}_{aL}Y_{ab}^{U1}U_{bR}+\overline{D}_{aL}Y_{ab}^{D1}D_{bR}\right)H_1^0+\text{h.c.}`$
$`+`$ $`\left(\overline{E}_{aL}Y_{ab}^{E2}E_{bR}+\overline{U}_{aL}Y_{ab}^{U2}U_{bR}+\overline{D}_{aL}Y_{ab}^{D2}D_{bR}\right)H_2^0+\text{h.c.}.`$
Here the matrices $`E`$’s, $`U`$’s and $`D`$’s stand for the mass eigenstates, and

$`Y^{E1}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}10^5& 2.6\times 10^6& 4.2\times 10^5\\ 1.1\times 10^3& 5.3\times 10^4& 8.8\times 10^3\\ 1.2\times 10^8& 5.3\times 10^4& 8.8\times 10^3\end{array}\right),`$ (105)
$`Y^{E2}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}5.1\times 10^6& 2.6\times 10^6& 4.2\times 10^5\\ 1.1\times 10^3& 5.3\times 10^4& 8.8\times 10^3\\ 1.2\times 10^8& 5.3\times 10^4& 8.8\times 10^3\end{array}\right),`$ (109)
$`Y^{US}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}4.7\times 10^4& 3.8\times 10^4& 7.1\times 10^3\\ 3.8\times 10^4& 3.6\times 10^3& 7.5\times 10^2\\ 8.8\times 10^3& 9.4\times 10^2& 1.7\end{array}\right),`$ (113)
$`Y^{U1}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}8.3\times 10^4& 1.6\times 10^3& 3.4\times 10^2\\ 1.6\times 10^3& 4.9\times 10^3& 4.1\times 10^2\\ 4.3\times 10^2& 5.1\times 10^2& 4.2\times 10^3\end{array}\right),`$ (117)
$`Y^{U2}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}3.3\times 10^4& 1.9\times 10^3& 4.1\times 10^2\\ 1.9\times 10^3& 3.8\times 10^3& 3.4\times 10^2\\ 5.1\times 10^2& 4.2\times 10^2& 4.2\times 10^3\end{array}\right),`$ (121)
$`Y^{DS}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(1.4+0.44I)\times 10^5& (5.6+0.38I)\times 10^5& (1.6+1.6I)\times 10^4\\ (5.5+0.38I)\times 10^5& (2.82.1I)\times 10^4& (1.4+0.16I)\times 10^3\\ (7.8+8.0I)\times 10^4& (7.0+0.82I)\times 10^3& (1.8+2.1I)\times 10^2\end{array}\right),`$ (125)
$`Y^{D1}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(1.10.17I)\times 10^4& (1.61.3I)\times 10^4& (8.00.033I)\times 10^4\\ (1.61.3I)\times 10^4& (2.41.7I)\times 10^4& (6.1+1.6I)\times 10^4\\ 4.0\times 10^3& (3.1+0.82I)\times 10^3& (6.1+7.3I)\times 10^4\end{array}\right),`$ (130)
$`Y^{D2}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(6.20.71I)\times 10^5& (1.11.4I)\times 10^4& (6.41.6I)\times 10^4\\ (1.01.3I)\times 10^4& (3.02.8I)\times 10^4& (7.50.054I)\times 10^4\\ (3.2+0.80I)\times 10^3& (3.90.001I)\times 10^3& (6.1+7.3I)\times 10^4\end{array}\right).`$ (135)
All the non-diagonal elements are responsible for tree-level FCNC processes. The amplitude of the flavor violating process $`\mu ^{}e^+e^{}e^{}`$, for instance, is proportional to $`(Y^{E1})_{11}(Y^{E1})_{21}10^8`$. Then, we find that its branching ratio is estimated to be

$`B(\mu 3e)`$ $`10^{15}(M_W/M_H)^4<10^{12},`$ (137)
where $`M_W`$ and $`M_H`$ are the $`W`$ boson mass and Higgs mass, respectively, and the value $`10^{12}`$ is the experimental upper bound. Similarly, we obtain

$`B(\tau 3\mu )`$ $`10^{10}(M_W/M_H)^4<10^6,`$ (138)
$`B(K_L^02e)`$ $`10^{16}(M_W/M_H)^4<10^{12},`$ (139)
$`B(B_S^02\mu )`$ $`10^7(M_W/M_H)^4<10^6.`$ (140)
Note that because of the three Higgs fields, the imaginary parts of the $`Y`$’s contribute to $`CP`$-violating amplitudes, which are not taken into account by the phase of the mixing matrix $`V_{\mathrm{CKM}}`$. Therefore, the independent phases in the mass matrices (24) can be, in principle, measured. A complete analysis of this problem will go beyond the scope of the present paper, and we would like to leave this problem to a future work.

## 6 Conclusion

$`S_3`$ is a non-abelian permutation group with the smallest number of elements. The symmetry $`S_{3L}\times S_{3R}`$ has been considered by many authors in the past to explain the hierarchal structure of the generations in the SM. $`S_{3L}\times S_{3R}`$ is, however, explicitly and hardly broken at the Fermi scale. In the present paper we considered its diagonal subgroup, while extending the concept of flavor and generation to the Higgs sector. Once this is done, there is no reason that there should exist only an $`S_3`$ singlet Higgs, and so we introduced three $`SU(2)_L`$ Higgs doublet fields. The minimal $`S_3`$ extension of the SM allows a definite structure of the Yukawa couplings, and we studied its consequences, in particular the mass of the quarks and leptons, and their mixings. Although similar ideas have been proposed previously , none of the existing treatments is identical to ours: The main differences are the inclusion of $`(S_3\text{doublet})^3`$ couplings and the arrangement of the $`S_3`$ representations. We found that in the leptonic sector, an additional discrete symmetry $`Z_2`$ can be consistently introduced. The theoretical predictions obtained from the $`S_3\times Z_2`$ symmetry are consistent with the experimental observations made to this time. As for the quark sector, we simply assumed that $`Z_2`$ is explicitly broken and analyzed the quark mass matrices that result only from $`S_3`$. We found that they are consistent with experiments. From these studies we hypothesize that the flavor symmetry, which is exact at the Fermi scale, is the permutation symmetry $`S_3`$. This flavor symmetry, together with the electroweak gauge symmetry, is only spontaneously broken. The analysis of the mass matrices in the hadronic sector that we performed in the present paper, is by no means complete, because we gave only one set of consistent parameter values. Also, the analysis of the FCNCs in the Higgs sector is not complete. A more complete study will be published elsewhere.

Supersymmetrization of the model is straightforward. It will simplify the Higgs sector drastically, and, moreover, the squared soft scalar masses will enjoy a certain degree of degeneracy, thanks to $`S_3`$, thereby softening the supersymmetric flavor problem.

## Acknowledgements

One of us (JK) would like to acknowledge the kind hospitality of the theory group at the Institute for Physics, UNAM, Mexico. This work is supported by a Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) (No. 13135210), and by the UNAM grant PAPIIT-IN116202. This work was partially conducted by way of a grant awarded by the Government of Mexico in the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs.


format: text

text:
# Maps and fields with compressible density

## 1 Introduction

The study of certain classical fields leads to a generalization of harmonic maps in which the Dirichlet energy is replaced by the functional

$$E=_M_0^{Q(du)}\rho \left(s\right)𝑑s𝑑M;$$

here $`M`$ is a Riemannian manifold; $`du`$ is the differential of a map $`u:MN,`$ where $`N`$ is another Riemannian manifold;

$$Q\left(du\right)=du,du_{T^{}Mu^1TN};$$

$`\rho :^+\left\{0\right\}^+`$ is a $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ function of $`Q`$satisfying the differential inequality

$$0<\frac{\frac{d}{dQ}\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)\right]}{\rho \left(Q\right)}<\mathrm{}$$
(1)
for $`Q[0,Q_{crit}).`$

In the typical case, the manifold $`N`$ represents a geometric constraint placed on the flow potential of a steady, irrotational, polytropic ideal fluid for which the closed 1-form $`duT^{}M`$ is dual to the flow velocity. In this case we choose

$$\rho \left(Q\right)=\left(1\frac{\gamma 1}{2}Q\right)^{1/\left(\gamma 1\right)},$$
(2)
where $`\gamma >1`$ is the adiabatic constant of the medium and $`Q_{crit}`$ is the square of the sonic flow speed. These choices transform (1) into a condition for subsonic flow of mass density $`\rho .`$

The study of functionals of this kind in the unconstrained Euclidean case, in which $`N=^k`$ and $`M`$ is a domain of $`^n,`$ goes back at least to work on planar flow by Bateman in the 1920s \[Ba\]. An extensive bibliography covering the first half of the last century is given in \[Be\]. A more recent bibliography of mathematical work in compressible fluid dynamics (not necessarily connected with variational theory) appears in \[Ch\]; see also \[DO\] and the bibliographic remarks in \[CF\].

A discussion of unconstrained compressible flow in a local chart on a manifold appears in Sec. III.3 of \[Sed\]. A global existence theorem for steady, unconstrained subsonic flow on a compact Riemannian manifold is given in \[SS1\]; for subsequent research employing this nonlinear Hodge approach see, e.g., \[SS2\], \[SS3\], \[Si\], \[Sm\], and \[ISS\]. In those works the curvature of the manifold introduces geometry into the domain of the velocity field. By considering potentials subject to a geometric constraint, as we do here and in \[O1\], we introduce geometry into the range of the velocity field. In \[O1\] we emphasized this connection to the preceding literature by calling such potentials nonlinear Hodge maps. But the potentials studied in \[O1\] are not associated with a cohomology class and neither the geometric construction nor the physical interpretation extend automatically to higher-degree forms. So it is perhaps more accurate to call mappings which are critical points of $`E`$ compressible-density maps.

There is already a considerable literature on maps for which a nonquadratic energy functional is given by the $`L^p`$ norm of the gradient of the map $`u;`$ see, e.g., \[FH\], \[HL\], \[F\] and the references therein. Those works are motivated by the mathematical observation that the harmonic map energy is the squared $`L^2`$ norm of the gradient, raising the question of whether a corresponding theory can be derived for stationary points of the nonmetrizable $`L^p`$ norms, $`p>1.`$ Our starting point, on the other hand, is the physical observation that harmonic maps model a geometric constraint on a field of constant mass density. This prompts one to ask whether a corresponding theory can be derived for fields having mass density $`\rho `$ which depends in a nonlinear way on field strength. That question leads to the replacement of the harmonic map energy by the functional $`E.`$ In applications to fluid dynamics, the variational equations of $`E`$ correspond to continuity equations for the flow. In the incompressible (hydrodynamic) limit $`\rho 1,`$ the variational equations reduce to the harmonic map equations. This incompressible special case has also been interpreted in the context of nonlinear elasticity \[T\].

The analysis of critical points of $`E`$ is necessarily somewhat different from analysis of the harmonic map energy or of the other $`L^p`$ norms of the gradient. In those cases scaling arguments are natural, whereas they may be unnatural for $`E,`$ as they involve a choice of conformal behavior for $`\rho .`$ This is a point of commonality between our problem and certain other recent extensions of the harmonic map equations, e.g., \[A\] and \[LM\]; see also \[EL\]. The density of maps which are $`L^p`$-critical points of their gradient tends to zero (cavitates) as ellipticity degenerates; this behavior is atypical of the mass density of fluids, for which the sonic value lies at the supremum of the range of subsonic speeds. \[Compare conditions (2), above, and (23), below\]. Finally, the references cited at the beginning of the preceding paragraph assume an energy minimizing property. We assume only that Euler-Lagrange equations are satisfied on a given subdomain.

In Section 2 an $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ estimate is derived for nonuniformly elliptic, scalar velocity fields. Section 3 concerns technical aspects of the uniformly elliptic case which we studied earlier (\[O1\], Theorem 3). We also present in Section 3 a somewhat different proof of the result in \[O1\], one which is simpler in that it avoids certain smoothness assertions which were necessary in the original argument. In Section 4, Corollary 8 of \[O1\] is extended from the uniformly elliptic case to the nonuniformly elliptic case under somewhat different hypotheses.

We note that the analysis literature tends to treat the velocity as a section of the cotangent bundle, whereas the physics and geometry literature puts this object in the tangent bundle. The local arguments of Sec. 3 are the same in both representations. The usefulness of the cotangent representation for considering fields with vorticity is apparent in Sec. 4; for consistency we employ this notation in Sec. 3 as well.

## 2 Near-sonic maps into a line

It is known \[D\] that if $`uH^{1,p}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a weak solution of the scalar equation

$$div\left(\left|u\right|^{p2}u\right)=0$$
(3)
for $`p>1`$ in an open domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`^n`$, then for every $`n`$-disc $`B_R\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of radius $`R`$ and every number $`\delta (0,1)`$ there is a constant $`k(\delta )`$ independent of $`R`$ for which

$$u_{L^{\mathrm{}}\left(B_{R\delta R}\right)}^{p/2}k(\delta )R^N_{B_R}\left|u\right|^p𝑑x.$$
(4)
(See also \[E\], \[Le\], and references therein.)

This is a useful result to have, as the semi-norm on the right is the energy integral associated to weak solutions of (3). Thus inequality (4) derives an $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ bound on the weak solution, which is unnatural to impose directly, from a condition of finite energy, which is the natural condition to impose on solutions of equations with variational structure. A uniform $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ bound on weak solutions plays important roles in smoothness estimates and numerical analysis. Inequality (4) can be significantly generalized within the class of $`L^p`$-stationary gradients (see, e.g., \[HL\]).

In this section we derive an analogue of inequality (4) for solutions of the scalar equation

$$div\left[\rho \left(Q\right)u\right]=0$$
(5)
for which $`\rho `$ satisfies condition (1). Equation (5) is the Euler-Lagrange equation for the functional E in the special case in which $`u`$ is a scalar function on $`^n.`$

If the middle term of (1) is bounded below away from zero on the entire range of values for $`Q`$, then this analogue has already been derived in considerable generality (see, e.g., Theorem 4.3 of \[SS\], Proposition 3.1 of \[Si\], Lemma 3 of \[DO\], or Theorem 9 of \[O1\]). In each of these cases, however, the constant analogous to $`k(\delta )`$ of inequality (4) tends to infinity as $`Q`$ tends to $`Q_{crit},`$ so these inequalities are not uniform unless eq. (5) is itself uniformly elliptic. Rather, the cited inequalities contribute indirectly to uniform Hölder estimates, by way of a delicate limiting argument introduced by Shiffman \[Sh\] in the planar case and extended to higher dimensions in \[SS\]. Direct arguments should suffice to estimate weak solutions of eq. (5) which, unlike the equations studied in the works cited, has scalar solutions. Our goal is to derive estimates for (5) which are manifestly uniform over the entire subcritical range of values for $`Q.`$

By a weak solution in this scalar case we mean a function $`u`$ having finite energy $`E`$ and satisfying $``$ $`\psi H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ the integral identity

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }\rho (Q)du,d\psi 𝑑x=0,$$
(6)
where $`x`$ is a vector in a bounded type-A domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n,`$ $`n>2,`$ and the angle brackets denote the euclidean inner product on 1-forms. For a definition of type-A domain see, e.g., p. 68 of \[G\]; our intention is to insure that a ball in the interior of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ does not become trapped in an outward cusp. As an example, any Lipschitz domain is type-A. In order for the following theorem to make sense in terms of fluid dynamics, we must additionally impose the condition that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be topologically trivial in order that the flow potential remain single-valued.

###### Theorem 1

Let the scalar function $`u(x),`$ $`x\mathrm{\Omega },`$ be a weak solution in the sense of (6) for $`\rho `$ satisfying condition (1). In addition, assume that $`\rho ^{}(Q)0Q[0,Q_{crit})`$ and that on this range, $`0<\kappa _0\rho (Q)\rho (0)<\mathrm{}.`$ Then for every $`n`$-disc $`B_R`$ strictly contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and every $`\delta (0,1)`$ there exists a constant $`\kappa _1(n,\delta ,\kappa _0,\rho (0))`$ for which

$$\underset{xB_{R\left(1\delta \right)}}{sup}Q(x)\kappa _1R^nE_{|B_R}.$$
(7)
The constant $`\kappa _1`$ in Theorem 1 depends neither on the radius $`R`$ nor on any ellipticity parameter \[such as the parameter $`\kappa _3`$ of condition (15), below\]. Thus in particular, inequality (7) does not necessarily follow from the uniform bound of $`\sqrt{2/\left(\gamma +1\right)}`$ on the subsonic flow speed in (2). At the same time, it is satisfying to have a bound on weak solutions that results only from mathematical hypotheses on the equation itself rather than relying on a bound, such as the sonic speed, which is imposed on the mathematics by a physical model. The noncavitation hypothesis and the other hypotheses of the theorem are satisfied on the subsonic range by mass densities of the form (2).

The proof of Theorem 1 is elementary. The idea is to choose the test function in (6) to be a local restriction of the antiderivative $`F(Q)`$ for the function

$$f(Q)\rho ^2(Q)+2Q\rho (Q)\rho ^{}(Q).$$

The ellipticity condition is then interpreted, where it appears, as a piece of the chain rule applied to the gradient of $`F`$. This relieves us of the necessity to bound $`f(Q)`$ below away from zero, but obliges us to translate statements about $`F(Q)`$ and its $`L^2`$-norm into statements about $`Q`$ and its energy functional. Such an approach combines ideas from Sec. 1 of \[U\] and Sec. 3 of \[D\]. Those papers, as well as \[Ev\] and \[Le\], concern weak solutions satisfying hypotheses similar to inequality (26) of Sec. 4.

Proof. We initially assume that $`u`$ is twice continuously differentiable. It is then easy to verify that the results are unaffected if the derivatives are replaced by limits of finite differences. Taking a weak derivative of (6) yields

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}_\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\rho (Q)u_{x^i}\right)_{x^j}\psi _{x^j}𝑑x=0$$
(8)
where, here and below, repeated indices are summed from 1 to $`n`$. For a function $`\zeta C_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(B_R\right)`$ and positive parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta ,`$ choose

$$\psi (x)=u_{x^i}\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\alpha /2}\zeta ^2(x).$$

Expanding the integrand of (8) yields a sum of six terms:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\rho (Q)u_{x^i}\right)_{x^j}\psi _{x^j}=\rho ^{}(Q)Q_{x^j}u_{x^i}u_{x^ix^j}\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\alpha /2}\zeta ^2+$$

$$\frac{\alpha }{2}\rho ^{}(Q)Q_{x^j}u_{x^i}u_{x^i}\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\left(\alpha 2\right)/2}\left[\rho ^2(Q)+2Q\rho (Q)\rho ^{}(Q)\right]Q_{x^j}\zeta ^2$$

$$+\rho ^{}(Q)Q_{x^j}u_{x^i}u_{x^i}\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\alpha /2}2\zeta \zeta _{x^j}$$

$$+\rho (Q)u_{x^ix^j}u_{x^ix^j}\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\alpha /2}\zeta ^2+$$

$$\frac{\alpha }{2}\rho (Q)u_{x^ix^j}u_{x^i}\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\left(\alpha 2\right)/2}\left[\rho ^2(Q)+2Q\rho (Q)\rho ^{}(Q)\right]Q_{x^j}\zeta ^2$$

$$+\rho (Q)u_{x^ix^j}u_{x^i}\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\alpha /2}2\zeta \zeta _{x^j}\underset{r=1}{\overset{6}{}}i_r.$$

We estimate the terms of this sum individually. The following estimates should be interpreted as occurring “under the integral sign.” The hypothesis on the sign of $`\rho ^{}(Q)`$ implies, using Kato’s inequality, that

$$i_1+i_4\frac{\kappa _0}{4\rho ^2\left(0\right)}\left(\frac{4}{\alpha +2}\right)^2\left|\left(\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\left(\alpha +2\right)/4}\right)\right|^2\zeta ^2.$$

Because the range of $`\rho (Q)/\rho (0)`$ is contained in the interval $`(0,1],`$ we also have

$$i_2+i_5$$

$$\frac{\alpha }{4\rho (0)}\left(\frac{4}{\alpha +2}\right)^2\left|\left(\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\left(\alpha +2\right)/4}\right)\right|^2\zeta ^2.$$

Moreover, there exists a positive constant $`\epsilon `$ for which

$$i_3+i_6$$

$$\left(\epsilon \rho ^2/2\right)\left[\rho (Q)+2Q\rho ^{}(Q)\right]^2\left|Q\right|^2\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\left(\alpha 2\right)/2}\zeta ^2$$

$$2(\epsilon \rho ^2)^1\left|\zeta \right|^2\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\left(\alpha +2\right)/2}$$

$$\frac{\epsilon }{2}\left(\frac{4}{\alpha +2}\right)^2\left|\left(\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\left(\alpha +2\right)/4}\right)\right|^2\zeta ^2$$

$$2(\epsilon \kappa _0^2)^1\left|\zeta \right|^2\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\left(\alpha +2\right)/2}.$$

Choose $`\epsilon `$ to equal $`\left[\kappa _0+\alpha \rho (0)\right]/4\rho ^2(0).`$ Then we obtain the integral inequality

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }\left|\left(\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\left(\alpha +2\right)/4}\right)\right|^2\zeta ^21m_\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]^{\left(\alpha +2\right)/4}\right)^2\left|\zeta \right|^21$$
(9)
for

$$m=\left[\frac{2\rho ^2\left(0\right)}{\kappa _0}\left(\frac{\alpha +2}{\kappa _0+\alpha \rho (0)}\right)\right]^2.$$

As $`\alpha `$ tends to either zero or infinity, $`m`$ tends to a finite constant $`\kappa _2`$ which depends only on the upper and lower bounds on $`\rho (Q).`$

Apply inequality (9.5.8) of \[LU\] to expression (9), taking the quantities $`u`$ and $`\epsilon `$ of that reference to equal, respectively, the quantities $`\sqrt{Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta }`$ and $`\alpha /2`$ of expression (9). Construct a Moser iteration along the lines of expressions (9.5.8)-(9.5.12) in \[LU\]. We obtain in the limit the inequality

$$\underset{xB_{R\left(1\delta \right)}}{sup}\left[Q(x)\rho ^2(Q(x))+\beta \right]\kappa _2R^n_{B_R}\left[Q\rho ^2(Q)+\beta \right]1.$$
(10)
We have

$$_{B_R}Q\rho ^2(Q)1=_{B_R}_0^Q\frac{d}{ds}\left(s\rho ^2(s)\right)𝑑s1$$

$$_{B_R}_0^Q\rho ^2(s)𝑑s1_{B_R}\rho (0)_0^Q\rho (s)𝑑s1=2\rho (0)E_{|B_R}.$$
(11)
Regarding the left-hand side of inequality (10), condition (1) implies that $`Q\rho ^2(Q)`$ is an increasing function of $`Q`$. Thus the suprema in $`B_{R\left(1\delta \right)}`$ of $`Q(x)`$ and of $`Q\rho ^2(Q(x))`$ occur at the same value of $`x`$. Because the mass density is noncavitating,

$$\kappa _0^2\underset{xB_{R\left(1\delta \right)}}{sup}Q(x)\underset{xB_{R\left(1\delta \right)}}{sup}\left[Q(x)\rho ^2(Q(x))\right].$$
(12)
Comparing inequalities (10)-(12), we conclude that there is a constant $`\kappa _1`$ such that

$$\underset{xB_{R\left(1\delta \right)}}{sup}Q(x)+\beta \kappa _1R^n\left[E_{|B_R}+\beta vol(B_R)\right],$$

where $`\kappa _1`$ depends on $`n,\delta ,\kappa _0,`$ and $`\rho (0).`$ Because $`\beta `$ is an arbitrary positive number, we can let it tend to zero without affecting the other constants.

We now remove the smoothness assumption on $`u`$. Replace the admissible test function $`\psi (x)`$ in eq. (6) by the admissible test function $`\psi \left(xhe_j\right),`$ where $`e_j`$ is the $`j^{th}`$ basis vector for $`^n,`$ $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, and $`h`$ is a positive constant. Then (6) assumes the form

$$_B\rho (Q(x))du(x),d\psi \left(xhe_j\right)𝑑x=0.$$
(13)
Apply the coordinate transformation $`y=xhe_j`$ to eq. (13) and subtract (6) from (13) to obtain

$$h^1_B\rho (Q(x+he_j))du(x+he_j)\rho (Q(x))du(x),d\psi \left(x\right)𝑑x=0.$$

The limiting case is an expression of the form (8). The expressions leading to inequality (9) remain true in the finite difference approximation. Because the right-hand side of (9) does not depend on $`h,`$ we can allow the parameter $`h`$ to tend to zero in this approximation, completing the proof of Theorem 1.

Remarks. 1. In Sec. 9.5 of \[LU\] the Moser iteration is illustrated for linear equations of the form

$$\left(\rho _{ij}(x)u_{x^j}\right)_{x^i}=0,$$

where

$$\nu \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\xi _i^2\rho _{ij}(x)\xi _i\xi _j\mu \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\xi _i^2.$$

In this case noncavitation is equivalent to ellipticity, whereas the two conditions are distinct for the quasilinear density $`\rho (Q).`$ Thus the ratio $`\mu /\nu `$ in expression (9.5.8) of \[LU\], which is analogous to the factor $`m`$ in our expression (9), introduces a dependence on ellipticity in the linear case but not in the quasilinear case.

2. Theorem 9 of \[O1\] is a subparabolic Moser estimate for multivalued flow potentials possessing geometric constraints. The preceding proof is too simple to work in that case, and the constants obtained in the proof of Theorem 9 depend on ellipticity. However, one can replace, in the line preceding inequality (69) of that proof, the function $`Q^{r1}`$ for $`r>2`$ by the function $`\left(Q+\beta \right)^{r1}`$ for $`r>1`$, allowing $`\beta `$ to tend to zero at the end as in the preceding proof. This avoids eventual difficulties in the Moser iteration.

## 3 Uniformly elliptic maps

We now consider the more difficult cases in which the target has nontrivial geometry. In what follows the symbol $`C`$ will denote generic positive constants unless otherwise indicated.

### 3.1 Effects of geometric constraints

In studying critical points of $`E,`$ it is natural to obtain the admissible class of maps from the condition of finite energy. We seek a class of bounded maps having integrable density $`e(u).`$ In order to integrate this object, it is necessary to choose local coordinates for $`e(u)`$ on $`N`$ and it is not a priori true that $`u`$ takes a coordinate chart on $`M`$ into a coordinate chart on $`N`$. If however we restrict our attention to maps from $`M`$ into $`N`$ which are Hölder continuous, then the local oscillations of the map are controlled on the target, and the image of a sufficiently small region of $`M`$ will lie in a coordinate chart of $`N.`$ In this case we can write

$$Q=\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }(x)g_{ij}\left(u(x)\right)\frac{u^i}{x^\alpha }\frac{u^j}{x^\beta },$$

where for $`n=dim(M),`$ $`x=(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)`$ is a coordinate chart on the manifold$`M`$ having metric tensor $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }(x);`$ $`u=(u^1,\mathrm{},u^m)`$ is a coordinate chart on the manifold$`N`$ having metric tensor $`g_{ij}(u),`$ where $`m=dim(N);`$ repeated Greek indices are summed from 1 to $`n`$; repeated Latin indices are summed from 1 to $`m`$.

This continuity assumption severely restricts the kinds of questions that we can ask about the map. Moreover, the geometric constraint re-emerges as a problem, even if the map is continuous, when we attempt to extremize the energy functional by taking variations. This is because the test functions $`\psi `$ might take the image of $`u+t\psi `$ off of $`N`$, even for small values of $`t.`$ This can be immediately seen if, for example, we take $`N`$ to be the unit sphere $`\left|u\right|=1.`$

The conventional solution to both problems, that of defining an admissible class of finite-energy maps and of varying the energy on the target manifold, is to embed $`N`$ isometrically into a higher-dimensional Euclidean space $`^k`$ by the Nash Embedding Theorem. The manifold $`N`$ emerges as a system of $`km`$ independent constraints,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\left(u\right)=(\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left(u\right),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_{km}\left(u\right))=0.$$

In this case

$$Q=\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }(x)\frac{u^i}{x^\alpha }\frac{u^i}{x^\beta }$$

and the incompressible energy integral reduces to the classical Dirichlet integral. In taking variations, a suitable Euclidean neighborhood $`𝒪(N)`$ of $`N`$ is projected onto $`N`$ by nearest point projection $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. If $`t`$ is small enough and $`N`$ is a $`C^1`$ submanifold of $`^k`$, then the variations $`\mathrm{\Pi }(u+t\psi )`$ will be constrained to lie on $`N`$ for almost every $`x`$ in $`M`$, where $`\psi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(M,^k),`$ and for every $`x`$ in $`M`$ if $`u`$ is continuous. Now the variational equations of $`E`$ are given by

$$\frac{d}{dt}_{|t=0}_M^{Q_t}\rho \left(s\right)𝑑s𝑑M=0,$$

where

$$Q_t=\left|d\left[\mathrm{\Pi }(u+t\psi )\right]\right|^2.$$

The variational equations in the ambient space assume the explicit form

$$\delta \left[\rho \left(Q\right)du\right]=\rho \left(Q\right)A(du,du),$$
(14)
where $`\delta `$ is the formal adjoint of the exterior derivative $`d`$ and $`A`$ is the second fundamental form of $`N.`$

See \[Sch\] and \[ScU\] for detailed discussions of these issues in the harmonic map case.

We call $`uL^{\mathrm{}}(M,^k)H^{1,2}(M,^k)`$ a weak solution of eqs. (14) in a coordinate chart $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`M`$ if $`u`$ has finite energy $`E`$ and satisfies, $``$ $`\zeta H_0^{1,2}(\mathrm{\Omega },^k)L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega },^k),`$ the identity

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }d\zeta ,\rho (Q)du1=_\mathrm{\Omega }\zeta ,\rho (Q)A(du,du)1.$$

The existence of weak solutions to the unconstrained problem in the elliptic range follows, by lower semicontinuity, from the convexity of the energy functional under condition (1). Weak solutions of the constrained problem may not exist for certain choices of $`\rho `$ and $`N`$. To see this, let $`\rho (Q)=Q^{(p2)/2},`$ $`p>1,`$ and consider the counterexample of \[HL\], Sec. 6.3.

### 3.2 Maps with apparent singularities

The literature on removable singularities is too large for even a superficial review. We mention that the removability of singularities in harmonic maps is considered in, e.g., \[SaU\], \[EP\], \[Me\], \[Li\], and \[CL\]. Obstacles to the extension of methods used in those references to our case include, in addition to the dependence of the scaling behavior of $`E`$ on the choice of $`\rho ,`$ the absence of an obvious analogue to the a priori Hölder estimate of \[HJW\], which forms the basis for many smoothness results in the harmonic map literature. Removable singularities theorems and related a priori estimates for mappings which are critical points for the $`L^p`$-norm of their gradient are reviewed in \[F\]. Those arguments also strongly depend on the scaling behavior of the energy. Removability of singularities in systems which resemble the unconstrained case of eqs. (14) can be found in, for example, \[ISS\]. The application of such results to the constrained case is limited by the presence of quadratic nonlinearities arising from the target curvature.

The removability of an apparent singularity can be proven either by showing the existence of a continuous transformation to a nonsingular domain, or by ruling out the existence of the singular set on a priori grounds. We adopt the latter approach in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`u:\mathrm{\Omega }N`$ be a $`C^2`$ stationary point of the energy $`E`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an open bounded, type-A domain of $`^n`$, $`n>2;`$ $`N`$ is a smooth, compact $`m`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold, $`mn,`$ $`N=0;`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }B\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a compact singular set, completely contained in a sufficiently small n-disc $`B`$, which is itself completely contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ Suppose that $`\rho `$ satisfies

$$\kappa _3<\rho (Q)+2Q\rho ^{}(Q)<\kappa _4$$
(15)
for constants $`0<\kappa _3<\kappa _4<\mathrm{}.`$ If $`n>4`$, let $`2n/(n2)<\mu n,`$ where $`\mu `$ is the codimension of $`\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ and let $`du`$ $``$ $`L^n(B);`$ if $`n=3,4,`$ let $`duL^{4q_0\beta }(B)L^{4q}(B),`$ where $`\beta =\left(\mu \epsilon \right)/\left(\mu 2\epsilon \right)`$ for $`2<\mu n,`$ $`\epsilon >0,`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}<q_0<q.`$ Then $`du`$ is Hölder continuous on $`B.`$

Because the singular set is assumed small, the choice of a Euclidean domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ entails little reduction in generality. In distinction to the harmonic map case, Theorem 2 does not immediately imply any higher degree of smoothness. The theorem immediately extends to the case of a finite number of singular sets having the same properties as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$

Theorem 2 is stated and proven in \[O1\] (Theorem 3). We begin by briefly reviewing that proof, adding details on the underlying elliptic theory in Lemmas 4 and 5. An alternate method of proof, which avoids Lemmas 4 and 5 altogether, is given in Sec. 3.3.1. We show in the proof that the modulus of continuity for $`du`$ depends on $`\rho ,u,N,`$ $`n,`$ and on the $`L^n`$-norm of $`du.`$ A metric can be chosen on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in which the $`L^n`$-norm of $`du`$ over $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is smaller than any given fixed number. There are choices of $`\rho ,`$ however, under which the variational equations fail to be invariant under this transformation; c.f. \[KFL\].

###### Lemma 3

Under the hypotheses of Theorem 2, $`u`$ is Hölder continuous on $`B.`$

Proof. Away from the singular set, $`Q`$ is sufficiently smooth that local coordinates can be chosen on $`N`$ and one can show (\[O1\], Theorem 2) that

$$L(Q)+C_NQ\left(Q+1\right)0,$$
(16)
where $`L`$ is an elliptic operator under hypothesis (15). Integrate inequality (16) by parts over $`B`$ against a test function $`\left(\eta \psi \right)^2\mathrm{\Xi }(Q);`$ here $`\eta ,\psi 0;\psi (x)=0x`$ in a neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma };\eta C_0^{\mathrm{}}(B^{})`$ where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }B^{}B;`$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }(Q)=h(Q)h^{}\left(Q\right),`$ where for $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},`$

$$h(Q)=$$

$$\{\begin{array}{c}Q^{[n/(n2)]^kn/4}for\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}Q\mathrm{},\hfill \\ \frac{\mu \epsilon }{\mu 2\epsilon }\left[\left(\mathrm{}Q^{(\mu 2\epsilon )/2}\right)^{[n/(n2)]^kn/2(\mu \epsilon )}\frac{2}{\mu \epsilon }\mathrm{}^{[n/(n2)]^kn/4}\right]forQ\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$

if $`n>4;`$ $`h`$ is an analogous test function (\[Se\], p. 280) when $`n`$ is 3 or 4. Let $`\psi `$ be the limit of a sequence $`1\xi ^{\left(\nu \right)},`$ where $`\xi ^{\left(\nu \right)}`$ is the sequence $`\eta ^{\left(\nu \right)}`$ of \[Se\], Lemma 8. This sequence has the property that $`\xi ^{\left(\nu \right)}=0`$ a.e. in a neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ but $`\xi ^{\left(\nu \right)}`$ tends to 1 a.e. and $`\xi ^{\left(\nu \right)}`$ tends to zero in $`L^{\mu \epsilon }`$ as $`\nu `$ tends to infinity. It can be shown(\[O1\], (28)-(35)) that these choices imply the inequality

$$_B^{}\eta ^2\left|\left(Q^{\tau (k)/4}\right)\right|^21_B^{}\left|\eta \right|^2Q^{\tau (k)/2}1,$$

where $`\tau (k)=n[n/(n2)]^k.`$ Taking $`k`$ to equal zero, the right-hand side of this expression is bounded by the $`L^n`$-norm of $`du`$ over $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ Applying the Sobolev inequality to the left-hand side allows us to repeat the preceding integration by parts for $`k=1.`$ Applying the Sobolev inequality to the resulting inequality allows iterations for progressively higher values of $`k.`$ In this way any finite $`L^p`$-norm for $`du`$ can be bounded by the $`L^n`$-norm of $`du`$ over $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ We conclude that $`du`$ lies in the space $`L^p(B)`$ for any finite value of $`p`$ and is an $`H^{1,2}`$ weak elliptic subsolution on $`B^{}.`$ Then $`u`$ is Hölder continuous and the proof is complete.

Let $`D`$ be an $`n`$-disc of radius $`R,`$ completely contained in the $`n`$-disc $`B^{},`$ completely containing the singular set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and centered at a point $`x_0\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ We require a classical result on linear boundary-value problems:

###### Lemma 4

If $`\rho C^{1,\alpha }\left(D\right)`$ and $`wC^0\left(D\right),`$ then $`v:D^k`$ such that $`vC^{2,\alpha }\left(D\right)C^0\left(\overline{D}\right)`$ and $`v`$ satisfies the linear boundary-value problem

$`\delta \left[\rho (\left|x\right|^2)dv\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0inD_R(x_0),`$ (17)
$`v_\vartheta `$ $`=`$ $`w_\vartheta onD,`$
where the subscripted $`\vartheta `$ denotes the tangential component of the map in coordinates $`(r,\vartheta _1,\mathrm{}\vartheta _{n1}).`$

Proof. Condition (15) implies \[U\] that

$$\rho \left(\left|x\right|^2\right)K$$

for some positive constant $`K.`$ This inequality implies strict ellipticity of the linearized equations (17). The result now follows from Theorem 6.13 of \[GT\], although that result is stated for scalar equations, because the differential operator in (17) is diagonal. This completes the proof.

Define a map $`\phi :D^k`$ and consider the nonlinear boundary-value problem

$`\delta \left(\rho (\left|d\phi \right|^2)d\phi \right)`$ $`=`$ $`0inD_R(x_0),`$ (18)
$`\phi _\vartheta `$ $`=`$ $`u_\vartheta onD.`$
###### Lemma 5

If $`u`$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 2, then the boundary-value problem (18) has a solution $`\phi `$ in the space $`C^{2,\beta }\left(D\right)C^{0,\alpha }\left(\overline{D}\right).`$

Remarks. If $`u`$ lies in the space $`C^{2,\beta }\left(D/\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)`$ and if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is an isolated point (or by extension, a finite point set), then the smoothness of $`\phi `$ follows from Schauder estimates, and as the radius $`R`$ of $`D`$ shrinks to a point, the boundary conditions of problem (18) remain smooth. In this case one can compare $`du`$ to $`d\phi `$ with the goal of applying Theorem III.1.3 of \[G\] exactly as in \[O1\], and no further remarks are necessary. If, however, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is not a point, then for sufficiently small $`R,`$ $`D_r`$ will intersect $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and we have only the result of Lemma 3, that $`u`$ is Hölder continuous on a domain that includes the singular set. It is not explicitly shown in \[O1\] that this is sufficient boundary regularity for completing the proof of Theorem 2; but that is in fact the case, as we will show here.

Proof of Lemma 5. Consider the boundary-value problem (17) for $`w=u`$ on $`D_r(x_0),`$ where $`r(0,R].`$ The boundary data are Hölder continuous by Lemma 3, so the solution $`v`$ lies in the space $`C^{2,\alpha }\left(D_r\right)C^0\left(\overline{D}_r\right)`$ by Lemma 4. Now we extend to systems the proof of \[LU\], Theorem 4.8.7. That is, we solve a sequence of boundary-value problems having the form

$`\delta \left(\rho (\left|d\phi \right|^2)d\phi \right)`$ $`=`$ $`0inD_{r_i}(x_0),D_{r_i}D_R,`$ (19)
$`\phi _\vartheta `$ $`=`$ $`v_\vartheta onD_{r_i},`$
where $`\left\{r_i\right\}R.`$ A $`C^{2,\alpha }`$ solution $`\phi _i`$ to this problem exists for every $`i`$ by Theorem 1 of \[SS2\]. (The differentiability requirements on the boundary are encapsulated in the definition of the space $`𝒟_2`$ of that paper.) Also, by hypothesis $`u`$ is bounded by a constant depending only on $`N.`$ This gives a uniform bound on the boundary data $`v_\vartheta `$ on each $`D_{r_i}.`$ Solutions $`\phi _i`$ of (19) satisfy a maximum principle, for each $`i,`$ by Sec. 2 of \[SS3\]. Thus the sequence $`\left\{\phi _i\right\}`$ possesses a subsequence which converges, as $`r_i`$ tends to $`R,`$ to a solution $`\phi C^{2,\beta }\left(D_R\right)C^{0,\alpha }\left(\overline{D}_R\right),`$ as required. This completes the proof of Lemma 5.

We now complete the proof of Theorem 2 by showing that the differential $`du`$ is Hölder continuous in a domain that includes the singular set.

For sufficiently small $`B,`$ we can construct a suitable $`n`$-disc, on the boundary of which the tangential component of a comparison vector can be forced to agree with the tangential component of $`u`$ (c.f. \[Li\], Sec. 3).

Consider a solution $`\phi `$ to the boundary-value problem (19). Combining Lemma 5 with Theorem III.1.2 of \[G\], we find that if $`(d\phi )_{R,x_0}`$ denotes the mean value of the 1-form $`d\phi `$ on $`D_R(x_0),`$ then for any sufficiently small $`R,`$ $`d\phi `$ satisfies

$$_{D_R(x_0)}\left|d\phi (d\phi )_{R,x_0}\right|^21CR^{n+2\lambda }$$

for some number $`\lambda (0,1].`$ Then

$$_{D_R(x_0)}d\left(u\phi \right),\left[\rho (\left|du\right|^2)du\rho (\left|d\phi \right|^2)d\phi \right]1$$

$$=_{D_R(x_0)}\left(u\phi \right),\rho (\left|du\right|^2)A(du,du)1.$$

Apply a generalized mean-value formula to the 1-form $`\rho (\left|ds\right|^2)ds`$ as in \[Si\], Lemma 1.1. We obtain

$$_{D_R(x_0)}\left|d\left(u\phi \right)\right|^21$$

$$C\left(_{D_R(x_0)}\left(\left|du\right|+\left|d\phi \right|\right)\left|x\right|1+_{D_R(x_0)}\left|u\phi \right|\rho (\left|du\right|^2)\left|u\right|\left|du\right|^21\right)$$

$$i_1+i_2.$$
(20)
We have

$$i_1_{D_R(x_0)}\left(\left|d\left(u\phi \right)\right|+2\left|d\phi \right|\right)\left|x\right|1$$

$$\epsilon _{D_R(x_0)}\left|d\left(\phi u\right)\right|^21+$$

$$C(S^n,\epsilon ,d\phi _{\mathrm{}}^2)_0^R\left|x\right|^{n+1}d\left|x\right|,$$

where the sup norm of $`d\phi `$ depends on the modulus of continuity for $`u`$ through eq. (18).

$$i_2C\left(\rho \right)_{D_R(x_0)}\left|u\phi \right|\left|u\right|\left|du\right|^21$$

$$R^\nu _{D_R(x_0)}\left|u\phi \right|^2\left|u\right|^21+R^\nu _{D_R(x_0)}\left|du\right|^41$$

$$R^\nu _{D_R(x_0)}\left|u\phi \right|^2\left|u\right|^21+C(du_{4p}^4,n)R^{n(p1)/p+\nu }$$

for a constant $`\nu `$ to be chosen and $`p`$ so large that $`\nu p>n`$. We have by the Sobolev Theorem

$$R^\nu _{D_R(x_0)}\left|u\phi \right|^2\left|u\right|^21$$

$$R^\nu \left(_{D_R(x_0)}\left|u\phi \right|^{2n/(n2)}1\right)^{(n2)/n}\left(_{D_R(x_0)}\left|u\right|^n1\right)^{2/n}$$

$$R^\nu C_{Sobolev}_{D_R(x_0)}\left|d\left(u\phi \right)\right|^21\left(_{D_R(x_0)}\left|u\right|^n1\right)^{2/n}$$

$$R^\nu Cu^2_{C^{0,\gamma }\left(D\right)}_{D_R(x_0)}\left|d\left(u\phi \right)\right|^21\left(_0^R\left|x\right|^{n1}d\left|x\right|\right)^{2/n}$$

$$R^{2\nu }C_{D_R(x_0)}\left|d\left(u\phi \right)\right|^21.$$

Choose $`\nu (0,2).`$ Substitute the estimates for $`i_1`$ and $`i_2`$ into the right-hand side of (20) and absorb small terms on the left in (20) to obtain

$$_{D_R(x_0)}\left|d\left(u\phi \right)\right|^21CR^{n+\lambda ^{}}$$

for some positive $`\lambda ^{}.`$

The minimizing property of the mean value with respect to location parameters implies

$$_{D_R(x_0)}\left|du(du)_{R,x_0}\right|^21_{D_R(x_0)}\left|du(d\phi )_{R,x_0}\right|^21$$

$$_{D_R(x_0)}\left|dud\phi \right|^21+_{D_R(x_0)}\left|d\phi (d\phi )_{R,x_0}\right|^21$$

$$CR^{n+\mathrm{}}$$
(21)
for some $`\mathrm{}>0.`$ Because these estimates can be repeated for any sufficiently small value of $`R,`$ the proof of Theorem 2 is completed by the local form of Campanato’s Theorem (Theorem III.1.3 of \[G\]).

### 3.3 Weak solutions of eqs. (11) and (15)

If we make no assumptions about the singular set but assume that $`u`$ satisfies (14) weakly in $`B,`$ it is possible to show by estimating difference quotients that $`du`$ is an element of the space $`H^{1,2}(B).`$ The next logical step would be to show $`duL^{\mathrm{}}\left(B\right).`$ This step cannot be taken in the constrained case by following an analogy to the unconstrained case. The latter arguments proceed from a scalar inequality, as in Sec. 1 of \[U\]; but in order to adapt that argument to the constrained case it is necessary to choose local coordinates on the tangent space of $`N,`$ as in Theorem 2 of \[O1\]. This requires some a priori information about the singular set of $`u.`$

Theorem 2 of the preceding section implies that if an $`E`$-critical map $`u`$ is bounded and Hölder continuous on an open Euclidean domain, then $`du`$ is Hölder continuous on small compact subdomains. The initial continuity assumption means that the target geometry will play little role in the analysis beyond its contribution to the nonlinearity of the variational equations.

#### 3.3.1 An alternate proof of Theorem 2

The arguments of \[U\] imply that weak solutions of (18) are Hölder continuous, but the Hölder estimate implied by that work cannot be continued up to the boundary. Nevertheless, it is possible to show that interior smoothness of weak solutions to (18) is sufficient to complete the proof of Theorem 2 using a modification of the preceding arguments.

The weak form of problem (18) can be written

$$_{D_R(x_0)}d\zeta ,\rho \left(\left|d\phi \right|^2\right)d\phi 1=0,$$
(22)
where $`d\zeta `$ is a closed 1-form in $`L^2(D_R)`$ having vanishing tangential component on $`D_R.`$ Applying standard function-theoretic arguments on $`^n,`$ we consider $`\zeta `$ to be an admissible test function; c.f. eq. (1.2) of \[Si\]. Writing (22) as the weak variational equations of the energy functional $`E`$ with $`N`$ replaced by $`^k,`$ we have

$$_{D_R(x_0)}_0^{\left|d\phi \right|^2}\rho \left(s\right)𝑑s1K_{D_R(x_0)}\left|d\phi \right|^21,$$

so $`d\phi `$ lies in the space $`L^2(B_R)`$ by ellipticity and finite energy. (See also Sec. 1 of \[U\].) The proof of Lemma 3 implies that $`du`$ lies in $`L^2(D_R).`$ Because $`d\left(u\phi \right)`$ is in $`L^2,`$ we can choose $`\zeta =u\phi `$ in (22). The resulting weak Dirichlet problem is solvable by Proposition 4.3 of \[Si\]; see also \[ISS\]. The 1-form $`d\phi `$ is Hölder continuous in the interior of $`D`$ by Proposition 4.4 of \[Si\], which is derived from \[U\]. The Campanato Theorem implies that

$$_{D_{R/2}(x_0)}\left|d\phi (d\phi )_{R/2,x_0}\right|^21CR^{n+\alpha }$$

for some $`\alpha (0,2].`$ Estimating (20) as in the preceding section, we find that

$$_{D_R(x_0)}\left|d\left(u\phi \right)\right|^21CR^{n+\mu }$$

for some positive $`\mu .`$ Then of course

$$_{D_{R/2}(x_0)}\left|d\left(u\phi \right)\right|^21CR^{n+\mu }.$$

Rewrite inequality (21) over $`D_{R/2}(x_0)`$ to obtain

$$_{D_{R/2}(x_0)}\left|du(du)_{R/2,x_0}\right|^21_{D_{R/2}(x_0)}\left|du(d\phi )_{R/2,x_0}\right|^21$$

$$_{D_{R/2}(x_0)}\left|dud\phi \right|^21+_{D_{R/2}(x_0)}\left|d\phi (d\phi )_{R/2,x_0}\right|^21$$

$$CR^{n+\mathrm{}}$$

for some $`\mathrm{}>0.`$ This completes the alternate proof of Theorem 2.

An application of this argument to an unconstrained problem for bundle curvature is given in \[O2\].

## 4 Nonuniformly elliptic solutions having nonzero vorticity

Note that the map $`u`$ enters into the problem of the preceding section only through its geometry. The variational equations in the unconstrained case are written in terms of $`du,`$ and the map $`u`$ does not directly appear in them. This raises the question of how much of the theory can be deduced in the unconstrained case without assuming the existence of a potential.

Thus we consider systems having the form \[O1\]

$$\delta \left(\rho \left(Q\right)\omega \right)=0,$$
(23)
$$d\omega =\nu \omega ,$$
(24)
for $`\nu `$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(V),`$ where $`V`$ is a smooth section of a vector bundle over an open, bounded domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`^n;`$ $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }^p\left(V\right);`$ $`Q=\omega \omega ,`$ where $`:\mathrm{\Lambda }^p\mathrm{\Lambda }^{np}`$ is the Hodge involution; $`\rho `$ is defined as in the preceding sections, but will be assumed to satisfy an inequality somewhat different from (1).

The condition

$$d\omega =0$$
(25)
implies, by the converse of the Poincaré Lemma, the local existence of a potential $`u\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p1}\left(V\right)`$ such that $`du=\omega .`$ Thus solutions of (25) lie in a cohomology class, whereas solutions of (24) do not in general. However, the integrability condition (24) generates a closed ideal when $`p=1.`$ Obvious modifications of condition (24) generate a closed ideal for solutions of higher degree (see, e.g., \[Ed\], Theorem 4-2.1).

In the interpretation of eqs. (23), (25) in which $`\omega `$ is dual to the flow velocity, the vanishing of the vorticity $`d\omega `$ expresses the property that $`\omega `$ must integrate to zero along any curve homologous to zero. The 0-form $`u`$ is the flow potential. One-form solutions to (24) have only the weaker property that $`\omega =\mathrm{}du`$ for some 0-form $`\mathrm{}.`$

Remark on terminology. The distinction between curl-free and rotation-free fields is sometimes used to characterize velocity fields corresponding to (25) and (24), respectively (c.f. pp. 123, 124 of \[MTW\]; p. 28 of \[So\]). In \[O1\] the term irrotational field is used to denote a curl-free field, and any field which is not curl-free is called rotational. While that terminology may be misleading physically, the term curl-free is not mathematically correct in higher dimensions, so either choice of terms is open to criticism.

In Theorem 7 and Corollary 8 of \[O1\] a Hölder estimate is derived for the variant (23), (24) of the nonlinear Hodge equations on a possibly singular domain. As the solution approaches the critical value at which the ellipticity of the differential operator breaks down, the elliptic estimate of \[O1\] also breaks down. In this section we derive an estimate which is uniform over the entire subcritical range.

We assume that $`\omega `$ is a classical solution of eqs. (23), (24) outside a singular set of prescribed dimension and that the density $`\rho `$ satisfies

$$\kappa _5^1(Q+k_0)^q\rho (Q)+2Q\rho ^{}(Q)\kappa _5(Q+k_0)^q,$$
(26)
for constants $`\kappa _5,q>0`$and $`k_00.`$ Condition (26) was introduced in \[U\] in connection with a generalized version of eqs. (23), (25). That condition implies that there is a possibly larger value of $`\kappa _5`$ for which

$$\kappa _5^1(Q+k_0)^q\rho (Q)\kappa _5(Q+k_0)^q$$
(27)
and

$$\left|Q\rho ^{}(Q)\right|\kappa _5(Q+k)^q.$$
(28)
In the sequel we denote by $`\kappa `$ a number so large that it satisfies (26), (27), and (28). Condition (26) is an ellipticity condition for eqs. (23). If $`k=0`$, then ellipticity degenerates as $`Q`$ tends to zero; condition (27) implies that the density $`\rho `$ also tends to zero (cavitates) in this limit. Thus ellipticity and noncavitation are equivalent under condition (26). In applications to compressible flow, the degeneration of ellipticity need not imply cavitation, and in cases in which these two phenomena are equivalent, as in the Chaplygin approximation, the degeneracy occurs at infinity rather than at zero. Moreover, condition (26) is not associated with a sonic transition. For these reasons, condition (26) does not appear to be appropriate for applications to fluid dynamics. However, it arises in certain natural generalizations of the Dirichlet energy; see \[HL\] and the references cited therein for details.

The methods used to study eq. (23) also apply to systems in which (23) is replaced by an equation of the form

$$\delta \left(\rho \left(Q\right)\omega \right)=\xi \left(\omega \right),$$
(29)
where $`p=1`$ and $`\xi `$ is a scalar function of $`\omega `$ satisfying

$$\left|\xi ^{}\left(\omega \right)\right|\kappa \left(Q+k\right)^\alpha $$
(30)
for $`\alpha ^+.`$ For simplicity we take $`\alpha =q.`$ Obvious algebraic modifications lead to results analogous to inequality (34), Theorem 6, and Corollary 7 for general $`\alpha >0.`$ In that case, inequality (34) may no longer be linear in its terms of zero order.

Certain properties of eqs. (29), (24) can be obtained by deriving a differential inequality for an appropriate scalar function of the solution. The case $`\nu =\xi =0`$ is due to Uhlenbeck \[U\], who framed the argument in the context of a broadly defined elliptic complex. We initially present a version of Uhlenbeck’s argument in simpler notation for solutions of (29) and (25), and then indicate how to modify the proof for the case of solutions of the system (29), (24).

Denote by $`H(Q)`$ a $`C^1`$ function of $`Q`$ such that

$$H^{}(Q)=\frac{1}{2}\rho (Q)+Q\rho ^{}(Q).$$

Then \[U\]

$$\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\rho (Q)\omega \right)=_i\omega ,_i\left(\rho (Q)\omega \right)_i\omega ,_i\left(\rho (Q)\omega \right)$$

$$=\mathrm{\Delta }H(Q)\left[\rho (Q)_i\omega ,_i\omega +\rho ^{}(Q)_i\omega ,\omega _iQ\right],$$

where $`_i=/x^i,x=x^1,\mathrm{},x^n\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and

$$\rho ^{}(Q)_i\omega ,\omega _iQ=\underset{i}{}2\rho ^{}(Q)_i\omega ,\omega ^2.$$

We have \[for either sign of $`\rho ^{}\left(Q\right)`$\]

$$\rho (Q)_i\omega ,_i\omega +\rho ^{}(Q)_i\omega ,\omega _iQ\kappa ^1(Q+k)^q\left|\omega \right|^2$$

and

$$\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\rho (Q)\omega \right)\mathrm{\Delta }H(Q)\kappa ^1(Q+k)^q\left|\omega \right|^2.$$

In addition,

$$\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\rho (Q)\omega \right)=\omega ,\delta d\left(\rho \left(Q\right)\omega \right)+\omega ,d\delta \left(\rho \left(Q\right)\omega \right)$$

$$=\omega ,\delta d\left(\rho \left(Q\right)\omega \right)+\omega ,d\xi $$

for solutions of (29) and (25), yielding

$$\kappa ^1(Q+k)^q\left|\omega \right|^2\mathrm{\Delta }H(Q)\omega ,\delta d\left(\rho \left(Q\right)\omega \right)\omega ,d\xi .$$
(31)
Define a map $`\beta _\omega :\mathrm{\Lambda }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}`$ by the formula $`\beta _\omega :\zeta d\zeta \omega ,`$ for $`\zeta \mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ and $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }^p.`$ If $`\nu =0,`$

$$\beta _\omega \left(\zeta \right)=d\left(\zeta \omega \right),$$

but we do not use this property. Define the map $`\beta _\omega ^{}:\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^0`$ by the formula

$$\beta _\omega ^{}\left(\varsigma \right)=\delta (\omega \varsigma )$$

for $`\varsigma \mathrm{\Lambda }^{p+1}`$. Writing

$$\omega ,\delta d\left(\rho \left(Q\right)\omega \right)[\omega \delta d\left(\rho \left(Q\right)\omega \right)]$$

$$=d[\omega (\rho ^{}\left(Q\right)dQ\omega )]=\delta [\omega (\rho ^{}\left(Q\right)dQ\omega )]$$

(c.f. Lemma 2.1.4 of \[J\]), we can write (31) in the form

$$\kappa ^1(Q+k)^q\left|\omega \right|^2\mathrm{\Delta }H\left(Q\right)\beta _\omega ^{}\beta _\omega \left[\rho \left(Q\right)\right]\omega ,d\xi .$$

Because

$$dQ=\frac{dH}{H^{}\left(Q\right)},$$

we can rewrite this inequality, in terms of $`H`$, as

$$\kappa ^1(Q+k)^q|\omega |^2\mathrm{\Delta }Hdiv\{[\omega (\frac{\rho ^{}\left(Q\right)}{H^{}\left(Q\right)}dH\omega )]\}$$

$$\omega ,d\xi $$

$$=\mathrm{\Delta }H\beta _\omega ^{}\left[\varsigma _\omega \left(H\right)\right]\omega ,d\xi .$$

for

$$\varsigma _\omega \left(H\right)=\frac{\rho ^{}\left(Q\right)}{H^{}\left(Q\right)}dH\omega .$$

Write

$$L_\omega \left(H\right)\mathrm{\Delta }H\beta _\omega ^{}\left[\varsigma _\omega \left(H\right)\right]$$

$$=\underset{k,j}{}_k\left(a_{kj}_j\right)H.$$

If $`\rho ^{}\left(Q\right)`$ is nonpositive, then the matrix $`a_{kj}`$ satisfies

$$1a_{kj}=1+\frac{Q\left|\rho ^{}\left(Q\right)\right|}{H^{}\left(Q\right)}1+\frac{2\kappa (Q+k)^q}{\kappa ^1(Q+k)^q}.$$

Letting $`\pi =(\pi _1,\mathrm{},\pi _n)`$ denote an $`n`$-vector, we have

$$\left|\pi \right|^2\underset{k,j}{}\pi _ka_{kj}\pi _j\left(1+2\kappa ^2\right)\left|\pi \right|^2.$$

If $`\rho ^{}\left(Q\right)>0,`$ write

$$div\left[\left(1\frac{Q\rho ^{}\left(Q\right)}{H^{}\left(Q\right)}\right)grad\left(H\right)\right]=$$

$$div\left[\left(\frac{\frac{1}{2}\rho \left(Q\right)+Q\rho ^{}\left(Q\right)Q\rho ^{}\left(Q\right)}{H^{}\left(Q\right)}\right)grad\left(H\right)\right]$$

$$=div\left[\left(\frac{\rho \left(Q\right)}{2H^{}\left(Q\right)}\right)grad\left(H\right)\right].$$

The matrix $`a_{kj}`$ now satisfies

$$\frac{\kappa ^1}{2\kappa }\frac{\rho \left(Q\right)}{2H^{}\left(Q\right)}=a_{kj}\frac{2H^{}\left(Q\right)}{2H^{}\left(Q\right)}=1.$$

Letting $`\pi =(\pi _1,\mathrm{},\pi _n)`$ denote an $`n`$-vector, we have

$$\frac{\left|\pi \right|^2}{2\kappa ^2}\underset{k,j}{}\pi _ka_{kj}\pi _j\left|\pi \right|^2.$$

Thus $`L`$ is a uniformly elliptic operator on $`H`$ for either sign of $`\rho ^{}\left(Q\right).`$

It remains to estimate the lower-order nonlinear term $`\omega ,d\xi `$ and to adjust for $`\nu 0.`$ We have

$$\omega ,d\xi =\omega ,\xi ^{}\left(\omega \right)d\omega =\xi ^{}\left(\omega \right)\omega ,\nu \omega $$

$$\left|\xi ^{}\left(\omega \right)\right|\left|\nu \right|Q\left|\xi ^{}\left(\omega \right)\right|\left|\nu \right|\left(Q+k\right)\kappa \left|\nu \right|\left(Q+k\right)^{q+1},$$

using (30) with $`\alpha =q.`$ Integrating condition (26) over a dummy variable in $`[0,Q]`$ and using $`H(0)=0`$, we find that

$$\kappa ^1(Q+k)^{q+1}H(Q)\kappa (Q+k)^{q+1}$$
(32)
and obtain

$$\omega ,d\xi \kappa ^2\left|\nu \right|H(Q).$$

In the proof of Theorem 7 of \[O1\] it was shown that if $`\omega ,\nu `$ smoothly satisfies (23), (24), then there is an independent positive constant $`C`$ and a sufficiently small constant $`\epsilon \left(\kappa \right)`$ for which

$$0(\kappa ^1\epsilon \kappa )(Q+k)^q|\omega |^2$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H(Q)d[\omega (\rho ^{}(Q)dQ\omega )]$$

$$+C(Q+k)^q\left(|v|+|v|^2\right)Q.$$
(33)
We can convert this estimate to an inequality in $`H`$, noticing first that

$$(Q+k)^q\left(|v|+|v|^2\right)Q\kappa \left(|v|+|v|^2\right)H\left(Q\right)$$

by (32). Now taking into account the term $`\omega ,d\xi `$ and reasoning as in the curl-free case, we rewrite (33) in the form

$$0L_\omega \left(H\right)+C(\kappa ,q)\left(|v|+|v|^2+t|v|\right)H,$$
(34)
where

$$L_\omega \left(H\right)=\mathrm{\Delta }Hdiv\{[\omega (\frac{\rho ^{}\left(Q\right)}{H^{}\left(Q\right)}dH\omega )]\}$$

and $`t=0`$ unless $`\xi `$ is nonzero, in which case $`t=1.`$ This operator is clearly elliptic on $`H`$, as we did not use the closure of $`\omega `$ under $`d`$ in establishing uniform ellipticity for the corresponding operator in the case $`\nu =0`$.

Notice that the operator $`L_\omega \left(H\right)`$ can be written as an operator on $`Q`$ having the form

$$\stackrel{~}{L}_\omega \left(Q\right)=_i\left[\left(\frac{1}{2}\rho (Q)+Q\rho ^{}(Q)\right)_iQ\right]$$

$$d[\omega (\rho ^{}(Q)dQ\omega )].$$

This operator is only elliptic on $`Q`$ only if $`k`$ exceeds zero. Thus for example, inequality (34) allows us to extend Corollary 8 of \[O1\], which was based on an elliptic inequality for $`\stackrel{~}{L}_\omega \left(Q\right)`$. The bound on $`\omega `$ established in that result is not uniform as $`Q`$ tends to zero unless the constant $`k`$ in condition (26) exceeds zero. We can remove that restriction if we place different $`L^p`$ hypotheses on the solution. In comparison with the hypotheses of \[O1\], Corollary 8, the new $`L^p`$ hypotheses placed directly on $`\omega `$ are somewhat stronger, whereas those placed indirectly on $`\omega ,`$ through the hypothesis on $`v`$ and its derivatives, are considerably weaker.

###### Theorem 6

Let the pair $`\omega ,\nu `$ smoothly satisfy eqs. (23), (24), with $`\rho `$ satsifying condition (26), on a domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a type-A domain of $`^n,`$ $`n>2.`$ Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a compact singular set, completely contained in a sufficiently small $`n`$-disc $`B`$, which is itself completely contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ If $`n`$ exceeds 4, let $`2n/\left(n2\right)<\mu <n,`$ where $`\mu `$ is the codimension of $`\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ and let $`\omega `$ lie in $`L^{n\left(q+1\right)}\left(B\right).`$ If $`n`$ = 3 or 4, let $`\omega `$ lie in $`L^{4\left(q+1\right)\beta \gamma _1}\left(B\right)L^{4\left(q+1\right)\gamma _2}\left(B\right),`$ where $`\beta =\left(\mu \epsilon \right)/\left(\mu 2\epsilon \right)`$ for $`2<\mu n,`$ $`\epsilon >0,`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}<\gamma _1<\gamma _2.`$ If $`|v|+|v|^2L^s\left(B\right)`$ for some $`s`$ exceeding $`n/2`$, then $`\omega `$ is bounded on compact subdomains of $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$

Proof. Integrate inequality (34) against the Serrin test function as in Lemma 3 of the preceding section. Using (32), the $`L^p`$ hypothesis on $`\omega `$ translates into $`L^p`$ hypotheses on $`H`$ which are sufficient for applying the arguments of Lemma 3 to $`H.`$ These yield an integral inequality which can be iterated. After a finite number of iterations, we find that $`H`$ is in $`L^P`$ for all finite values of $`P`$ and is a weak $`H^{1,2}`$ subsolution on $`B\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ Theorem 5.3.1 of \[Mo\] implies that $`H`$ is bounded on compact subdomains of $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ Condition (26) extends this result to $`Q`$, and thus to $`\omega .`$ This completes the proof of Theorem 6.

###### Corollary 7

Assume the conditions of Theorem 6, except let $`\omega `$ be a 1-form, replace eq. (23) with eq. (29), and let $`\xi `$ satisfy (30). Then the conclusion of Theorem 6 remains valid.

Proof. Clearly, $`|v|+|v|^2+|v|L^s\left(B\right)`$ for some $`s`$ exceeding $`n/2.`$ This completes the proof of Corollary 7.

Remark. We take this opportunity to correct a pair of misprints in the statement of Corollary 8 of \[O1\]: replace $`L^{4q}(B)`$ by $`L^{4q_1}(B)`$ and $`1/2<q_0<q`$ by $`1/2<q_0<q_1.`$

Literature cited

\[A\] M. Ara, Geometry of F-harmonic maps, Kodai Math. J. 22 (1999), 243-263.

\[Ba\] H. Bateman, Notes on a differential equation which occurs in the two-dimensional motion of a compressible fluid and the associated variational problem, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A, 125 (1929), 598–618.

\[Be\] L. Bers, Mathematical Aspects of Subsonic and Transonic Gas Dynamics, Wiley, New York, 1958.

\[Ch\] C. J. Chapman, High Speed Flow, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.

\[CF\] G-Q. Chen and M. Feldman, Multidimensional transonic shocks and free boundary problems for nonlinear equations of mixed type, preprint.

\[CL\] D. Costa and G. Liao, On removability of a singular submanifold for weakly harmonic maps, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. 1A Math. 35 (1988), 321-344.

\[D\] E. DiBenedetto, $`C^{1+\alpha }`$ local regularity of weak solutions of degenerate elliptic equations, Nonlinear Analysis T. M. A. 7, No. 8 (1983), 827-850.

\[DO\] G. Dong and B. Ou, Subsonic flows around a body in space, Commun. Partial Differential Equations 18 (1993), 355-379.

\[Ed\] D. G. B. Edelen, Applied Exterior Calculus, Wiley, New York, 1985.

\[EL\] J. Eells and L. Lemaire, Some properties of exponentially harmonic maps, Proc. Banach Center, Semester on PDE 27 (1990), 127-136.

\[EP\] J. Eels and J. C. Polking, Removable singularities of harmonic maps, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 33, No. 6 (1984), 859-871.

\[Ev\] L. C. Evans, A new proof of local $`C^{1+\alpha }`$ regularity for solutions of certain degenerate elliptic P.D.E., J. Differential Equations 45 (1982), 356-373.

\[F\] M. Fuchs, Topics in the Calculus of Variations, Vieweg, Wiesbaden, 1994.

\[FH\] N. Fusco and J. Hutchinson, Partial regularity for minimisers of certain functionals having nonquadratic growth, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 155 (1989), 1-24.

\[G\] M. Giaquinta, Multiple Integrals in the Calculus of Variations and Nonlinear Elliptic Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983.

\[GT\] D. Gilbarg and N. S. Trudinger, Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983.

\[HL\] R. Hardt and F-H. Lin, Mappings minimizing the $`L^p`$ norm of the gradient, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 40 (1987), 555-588.

\[HJW\] S. Hildebrandt, J. Jost, and K.-O. Widman, Harmonic mappings and minimal surfaces, Inventiones Math. 62 (1980), 269-298.

\[ISS\] T. Iwaniec, C. Scott, and B. Stroffolini, Nonlinear Hodge theory on manifolds with boundary, Annali Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 177 (1999), 37-115.

\[J\] J. Jost, Riemannian Geometry and Geometric Analysis, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.

\[KFL\] A. D. Kanfon, A. Füzfa, and D. Lambert, Some examples of exponentially harmonic maps, arXiv:math-ph/0205021.

\[LU\] O. A. Ladyzhenskaya and N. N. Ural’tseva, Linear and Quasilinear Elliptic Equations, Academic Press, New York, 1968.

\[Le\] J. L. Lewis, Regularity of the derivatives of solutions to certain degenerate elliptic equations, Indiana Univ. Math J. 32 (1983), 849-858.

\[Li\] G. Liao, A regularity theorem for harmonic maps with small energy, J. Differential Geometry 22 (1985), 233-241.

\[LM\] E. Loubeau and S. Montaldo, A note on exponentially harmonic morphisms, Glasgow Math. J. 42 (2000), 25-29.

\[Me\] M. Meier, Removable singularities of harmonic maps and an application to minimal submanifolds, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 35, No. 4 (1986), 705-726.

\[MTW\] C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation, Freeman, New York, 1973.

\[Mo\] C. B. Morrey, Jr., Multiple Integrals in the Calculus of Variations, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1966.

\[O1\] T. H. Otway, Nonlinear Hodge maps, J. Math. Phys. 41, No. 8 (2000), 5745-5766.

\[O2\] T. H. Otway, Uniformly and nonuniformly elliptic variational equations with gauge invariance, arXiv:math-ph/0007028.

\[SaU\] J. Sacks and K. Uhlenbeck, The existence of minimal immersions of 2-spheres, Ann. of Math. (2) 113 (1981), 1-24.

\[Sch\] R. Schoen, Analytic aspects of the harmonic map problem, in: S. S. Chern, ed., Seminar on Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985, pp. 321-358.

\[ScU\] R. Schoen and K. Uhlenbeck, A regularity theory for harmonic maps, J. Diff. Geom. 17 (1982), 307-335.

\[Sed\] V. I. Sedov, Introduction to the Mechanics of a Continuous Medium, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1965.

\[Se\] J. Serrin, Local behavior of solutions of quasilinear equations, Acta Math. 111 (1964), 247-302.

\[Sh\] M. Shiffman, On the existence of subsonic flows of a compressible fluid, J. Rat. Mech. Anal. 1 (1952), 605-652.

\[Si\] L. M. Sibner, An existence theorem for a nonregular variational problem, Manuscripta Math. 43, 45-72 (1983).

\[SS1\] L. M. Sibner and R. J. Sibner, A nonlinear Hodge-de Rham theorem, Acta Math. 125 (1970), 57-73.

\[SS2\] L. M. Sibner and R. J. Sibner, Nonlinear Hodge theory: Applications, Advances in Math. 31 (1979), 1-15.

\[SS3\] L. M. Sibner and R. J. Sibner, A sub-elliptic estimate for a class of invariantly defined elliptic systems, Pacific J. Math. 94, No. 2 (1982), 417-421.

\[Sm\] P. D. Smith, Nonlinear Hodge theory on punctured Riemannian manifolds, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 31, No. 4 (1982), 553-577.

\[So\] C. F. Sopuerta, Applications of timelike and null congruences to the construction of cosmological models, Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat de Barcelona, 1996.

\[T\] G. E. Tanyi, On the critical points of the classical elastic energy functional, Afrika Matematika 1 (1978), 35-43.

\[U\] K. K. Uhlenbeck, Regularity for a class of nonlinear elliptic systems, Acta Math. 138 (1977), 219-240.