Bull. London Math. Soc.

34 (2002) 691–702 Cf 2002London Mathematical Society

DOI: 10.1112/S0024609302001522

HÖLDER CONTINUITY OF THE DIRICHLET SOLUTION

FOR A GENERAL DOMAIN

HIROAKI AIKAWA

Abstract
Let D be a bounded domain in Rn . For a function f on the boundary ∂D, the Dirichlet solution of f
over D is denoted by HD f, provided that such a solution exists. Conditions on D for HD to transform a
Hölder continuous function on ∂D to a Hölder continuous function on D with the same Hölder exponent
are studied. In particular, it is demonstrated here that there is no bounded domain that preserves the
Hölder continuity with exponent 1. It is also also proved that a bounded regular domain D preserves
the Hölder continuity with some exponent α, 0 < α < 1, if and only if ∂D satisfies the capacity density
condition, which is equivalent to the uniform perfectness of ∂D if n = 2.

1. Introduction
Let 0 < α 6 1. For an arbitrary set E ⊂ Rn , n > 2, we consider the family Λα (E) of
all bounded α-Hölder continuous functions on E. The norm of f ∈ Λα (E) is given
by |f(x) − f(y)|
kfkΛα (E) = sup |f(x)| + sup .
x∈E x,y∈E |x − y|α
x6=y
|x−y|61

It is easy to see that every f ∈ Λα (E) has a continuous extension to E, and the
extended function belongs to Λα (E). Let D be a bounded domain. By H(D) we
denote the family of all harmonic functions on D. We let Hα (D) = H(D) ∩ Λα (D).
For a function f on ∂D we denote by HD f the Dirichlet (PWB-) solution of f
over D, provided that such a solution exists. It is well known that if D is regular,
then HD maps C(∂D) to H(D) ∩ C(D). It may be natural to think that the better
continuity of a boundary function f ensures the better continuity of HD f. In this
paper we investigate conditions for HD to map Λα (∂D) to Hα (D) with the same
Hölder exponent α. In other words, we study the conditions for kHD kα < ∞, where
kHD fkΛα (D)
kHD kα = sup .
f∈Λα (∂D) kfkΛα (∂D)
kfkΛα (∂D) 6=0

Hinkkanen [5] and Sugawa [8] considered similar problems, but mainly for planar
domains in a somewhat different context.
We use the following notation. By B(x, r) and S(x, r) we denote, respectively, the
open ball and the sphere with center at x and radius r. By the symbol M we denote
an absolute positive constant, the value of which is unimportant and may change
from line to line. We say that a property holds q.e. (quasi-everywhere) if it holds
outside a polar set.

Received 30 January 2001; revised 26 November 2001.

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification 31A05, 31A20, 31B05, 31B25.
This work was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research Nos 11304008 and 12440040
of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
692 hiroaki aikawa
First of all, we exclude an exceptional boundary point. As a simple illustration, let
us consider a punctured ball B 0 = B(0, 1) \ {0}. Obviously, the origin is an irregular
boundary point, and yet kHB 0 kα < ∞ for all 0 < α < 1. This strange phenomenon
is caused by an isolated boundary point. We need to rule out such an (essentially)
isolated point.

Definition 1. We say that ξ ∈ ∂D is a trivial boundary point if there is r > 0

such that B(ξ, r) \ D is polar.

In the above example, the origin is a trivial boundary point. We leave to the
reader the proof of the following proposition, which shows that trivial boundary
points can be ignored.

Proposition 1. Let E be the set of all trivial boundary points of D. Then

(i) E is polar;
e = D ∪ E is a domain without trivial boundary points;
(ii) D
e = {x ∈ Rn : there is r > 0 such that B(x, r) \ D is polar};
(iii) D
(iv) ∂De ⊂ ∂D;
(v) HD f = HDe f̃ on D, where f̃ = f|∂De .

In view of the classical Wiener criterion (see, for example, [4, Section 7.7]), if D is
regular with respect to the Dirichlet problem, then D has no trivial boundary point.
We can show that kHD kα < ∞ for some α > 0 yields the converse.

Theorem 1. Let kHD kα < ∞ for some α > 0. Then D is regular if and only if D
has no trivial boundary point.

Next, we observe that the Lipschitz continuity cannot be preserved by HD . Sugawa

[8, Example 6.1] observed this for a unit disc D = B(0, 1) ⊂ R2 , as follows. If
f(ξ) = f(ξ1 , ξ2 ) is the Lipschitz continuous function |ξ2 | on ∂D, then
1 − x21 1 + x1
HD f(x1 , 0) = log ,
πx1 1 − x1
and the Lipschitz continuity of HD f breaks down near (±1, 0). A similar example
applies to the higher-dimensional case. More strongly, however, we can show the
following assertion.

Theorem 2. There is no bounded domain for which kHD k1 < ∞.

Thus, in view of Proposition 1 and Theorem 1, we restrict our attention to bounded

regular domains in the case 0 < α < 1. We write ω(·, E, U) for the harmonic measure
over an open set U of E ⊂ ∂U. Thus ω(·, E, U) = HU (χE ). Following Sugawa [8],
we say that D enjoys the local harmonic measure decay property with exponent α
(abbreviated to ‘the LHMD with α’), if there are positive constants M and r0
depending only on D and α such that
 α
|x − a|
ω(x, D ∩ S(a, r), D ∩ B(a, r)) 6 M , for x ∈ D ∩ B(a, r), (1)
r
 hölder continuity 693
whenever a ∈ ∂D and 0 < r < r0 . Similarly, we consider the following global harmonic
measure decay property with exponent α (abbreviated to ‘the GHMD with α’),
 α
|x − a|
ω(x, ∂D \ B(a, r), D) 6 M , for x ∈ D, (2)
r
whenever a ∈ ∂D and 0 < r < r0 . By the maximum principle it is easy to see that
(1) implies (2). It will turn out, however, that they are equivalent (see Proposition
5 below). This is the crucial observation in this paper. Let us define a boundary
function ϕa,α for a ∈ ∂D by ϕa,α (ξ) = min{|ξ − a|α , 1} for ξ ∈ ∂D. Then we have the
following theorem.

Theorem 3. Let 0 < α < 1, and let D be a bounded regular domain. Consider the
following conditions:
(i) kHD kα < ∞;
(ii) HD ϕa,α (x) 6 M|x − a|α for every a ∈ ∂D, where M > 0 depends only on D
and α;
(iii) D satisfies the LHMD with α; that is, (1) holds for all a ∈ ∂D and small
r > 0;
(iv) D satisfies the GHMD with α; that is, (2) holds for all a ∈ ∂D and small
r > 0.
Then we have
(i) ⇐⇒ (ii) =⇒ (iii) ⇐⇒ (iv).
If (iii) or, equivalently, (iv) holds with some α0 > α, then (i) and, equivalently, (ii) hold.

Remark 1. Sugawa [8] proved that the LHMD with α0 > α implies that kHD kα <
∞ for plane domains D.

Remark 2. If D is a C 1 -domain, then kHD kα < ∞ for 0 < α < 1. If D is a

Lipschitz domain, then kHD kα < ∞ for 0 < α < β with β < 1 depending only on
the Lipschitz constant for D; see [6] and [1].

We give more geometrical characterizations of the above results. Let U be an

open set with Green function GU . Define the Green capacity CapU (E) for a compact
subset E ⊂ U by
CapU (E) = sup{µ(E) : GU µ 6 1 on U, µ is a Borel measure supported on E}.
In the usual way, CapU (E) is extended to a general subset E of U as the inner
capacity and the outer capacity; see, for example, [4, Section 5.5]. For simplicity, we
write CapU (E) for the outer capacity of E. We say that ∂D satisfies the capacity
density condition if there are positive constants ε and r1 such that
CapB(a,2r) (B(a, r) ∩ ∂D)
> ε, for all a ∈ ∂D and 0 < r < r1 . (3)
CapB(a,2r) (B(a, r))
If n > 3, then (3) is equivalent to saying that the Newtonian capacity of B(a, r) ∩ ∂D
is bounded below by rn−2 up to a multiplicative constant. Moreover, it is equivalent
to the LHMD for some α > 0 (see [3, Lemma 3]). If n = 2, then (3) is equivalent to
saying that the logarithmic capacity of B(a, r) ∩ ∂D is bounded below by r up to a
694 hiroaki aikawa
multiplicative constant. In any case, the classical Wiener criterion (see, for example,
[4, Section 7.7]) says that (3) implies the regularity of the boundary point a.
We let A(x, r, R) = B(x, R) \ B(x, r) be the annulus with center at x and radii r
and R. We say that ∂D is uniformly perfect if there exist c, 0 < c < 1, and r2 > 0
such that
∂D ∩ A(a, cr, r) 6= ∅, for all a ∈ ∂D and 0 < r < r2 . (4)
If n = 2, then (3) is equivalent to the uniform perfectness of of ∂D (see [7,
Theorem 1]). If n > 3, then (3) implies the uniform perfectness of ∂D but the
converse implication does not necessarily hold in general. In the course of the proof
of Theorem 3 we shall prove that if a bounded regular domain D satisfies the
GHMD for some α > 0, then ∂D is uniformly perfect (Lemma 1). Hence, in view of
Theorem 3, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 1. Let D be a bounded regular domain. Then kHD kα < ∞ for some
α > 0 if and only if ∂D satisfies the capacity density condition, which is equivalent to
the uniform perfectness of ∂D if n = 2.

The sufficiency part of the above corollary may be more or less well known; the
necessity part seems new.

2. Proof of Theorem 1
In view of Proposition 1, it is sufficient to show that if D has no trivial boundary
point, then D is regular. We shall show the existence of a barrier for each ξ ∈ ∂D.
Since ξ is non-trivial, it follows that B(ξ, r) \ D is not polar for any r > 0. Moreover,
it is easy to see that ∂D ∩ B(ξ, r) is not a polar set. Fix r3 > 0 so small that
∂D \ B(ξ, 2r3 ) 6= ∅. Observe that quasi-everywhere, point η ∈ ∂D ∩ B(ξ, r3 ) is regular;
such a point η exists by assumption. Take a nonnegative nonconstant bounded
Lipschitz continuous function f on ∂D vanishing on ∂D ∩ B(ξ, r3 ). Then HD f is a
positive harmonic function and
lim HD f(x) = 0,
x→η
for q.e. η ∈ ∂D ∩ B(ξ, r3 ). (5)
x∈D

Moreover, HD f ∈ Hα (D) ⊂ Λα (D) by assumption, so that limx→η,x∈D HD f(x) = f ∗ (η)

exists for every η ∈ ∂D and the limit function f ∗ belongs to Λα (∂D). Since ∂D∩B(ξ, r)
is not polar for any r > 0, it follows from (5) and the continuity of f ∗ that
limx→ξ, x∈D HD f(x) = 0. Thus HD f is a barrier for ξ. The proof is complete. q

3. Proof of Theorem 3
Throughout this section we assume that D is a bounded regular domain. Hereafter,
we let δD (x) = dist(x, ∂D). We divide the proof of Theorem 3 into four propositions.
Although Theorem 3 concerns only the case where 0 < α < 1, we shall prove the
propositions for 0 < α 6 1, as this will be useful later. In Section 4 we shall deal
with the case α = 1. In fact, we shall show that the case α = 1 does not happen.

Proposition 2. Theorem 3(i) ⇐⇒ Theorem 3(ii).

 hölder continuity 695
Proof.
(A) Theorem 3(i) =⇒ Theorem 3(ii).
By definition, kϕa,α kΛα (∂D) 6 2. Hence (i) implies that
|HD ϕa,α (x) − HD ϕa,α (y)| 6 2kHD kα |x − y|α .
Since D is regular by Theorem 1, letting y → a, we see that HD ϕa,α (x) 6
2kHD kα |x − a|α . Thus (ii) follows.

(B) Theorem 3(ii) =⇒ Theorem 3(i).

Let f ∈ Λα (∂D). Since |HD f| is bounded by the supremum of |f| over ∂D, it is
sufficient to show that
|HD f(x) − HD f(y)| 6 MkfkΛα (∂D) |x − y|α , for x, y ∈ D with |x − y| 6 1. (6)
Without loss of generality, we may assume that 0 < δD (y) 6 δD (x). Take x∗ , y ∗ ∈ ∂D
such that |x − x∗ | = δD (x) and |y − y ∗ | = δD (y). Put
f0 (ξ) = f(ξ) − f(x∗ ), for ξ ∈ ∂D.
Then
|f0 (ξ)| = |f(ξ) − f(x∗ )| 6 kfkΛα (∂D) ϕx∗ ,α (ξ), for |ξ − x| 6 1,
and
|f0 (ξ)| 6 |f(ξ)| + |f(x∗ )| 6 2kfkΛα (∂D) = 2kfkΛα (∂D) ϕx∗ ,α (ξ), for |ξ − x| > 1.
Hence
|f0 (ξ)| = |f(ξ) − f(x∗ )| 6 2kfkΛα (∂D) ϕx∗ ,α (ξ), for ξ ∈ ∂D. (7)
Now we divide the proof into the following two cases.
Case 1: |x − y| < 12 δD (x). In this case we have y ∈ B(x, 12 δD (x)). We observe
from (7) and condition (ii) that
|HD f0 (z)| 6 2kfkΛα (∂D) HD ϕx∗ ,α (z)
6 2MkfkΛα (∂D) |z − x∗ |α
6 2MkfkΛα (∂D) δD (x)α
for z ∈ B(x, 23 δD (x)). Writing HD f0 as a Poisson integral over B(x, 23 δD (x)) and
differentiating under the integral sign, we obtain


|∇HD f0 | 6 MkfkΛα (∂D) δD (x)α−1 on B x, 12 δD (x) .
Hence the mean-value theorem yields
|HD f(x) − HD f(y)| = |HD f0 (x) − HD f0 (y)|
6 MkfkΛα (∂D) δD (x)α−1 |x − y|
6 2α−1 MkfkΛα (∂D) |x − y|α ,
where α 6 1 is used in the last inequality. Thus (6) holds.
Case 2: |x − y| > 12 δD (x). In this case, we have
|x∗ − y ∗ | 6 |x − y| + δD (x) + δD (y) 6 5|x − y|,
696 hiroaki aikawa
so that (7) and condition (ii) imply that
|HD f(x) − f(x∗ )| = |HD f0 (x)|
6 2kfkΛα (∂D) HD ϕx∗ ,α (x)
6 2MkfkΛα (∂D) |x − x∗ |α
6 2 · 5α MkfkΛα (∂D) |x − y|α .
Similarly,
|HD f(y) − f(y ∗ )| 6 2 · 5α MkfkΛα (∂D) |x − y|α .
Moreover,
|f(x∗ ) − f(y ∗ )| 6 2 · 5α kfkΛα (∂D) |x − y|α .
Adding the above inequalities, we obtain (6) in this case, too. q

Proposition 3. Theorem 3(ii) =⇒ Theorem 3(iv).

Proof. Let a ∈ ∂D and 0 < r < min{r0 , 12 diam(D)}. Then

χ∂D\B(a,r) (ξ) 6 r−α ϕa,α (ξ), for ξ ∈ ∂D.
Hence, condition (ii) implies that
ω(x, ∂D \ B(a, r), D) = HD (χ∂D\B(a,r) )(x)
6 r−α HD ϕa,α (x)
6 Mr−α |x − a|α .
Thus condition (iv) follows. q

Proposition 4. Let 0 < α < α0 6 1. If D satisfies the GHMD with α0 , then

Theorem 3(ii) holds.

Proof. Let a ∈ ∂D and x ∈ D. For simplicity, let r = |x − a|. It is easy to see that
∞
X
HD ϕa,α 6 HD (rα χ∂D∩B(a,r) ) + (2j r)α HD (χ∂D∩A(a,2j−1 r,2j r) )
j=1
∞
X
6 rα + (2j r)α ω(·, ∂D ∩ B(a, 2j−1 r), D)
j=1

on D. Estimate the value at x by the GHMD with α0 to obtain

X∞  α0
|x − a|
HD ϕa,α (x) 6 rα + (2j r)α M
2j−1 r
j=1
 
2α M
= 1+ |x − a|α .
1 − 2α−α0
Thus condition (ii) follows. q

Proof of Theorem 3. We have (i) ⇐⇒ (ii) and (ii) =⇒ (iv) from Propositions
2 and 3. We have observed in Proposition 4 that with some α0 > α, (iv) =⇒ (i). The
proof of the theorem is completed by the following proposition. q

Proposition 5. Theorem 3(iii) ⇐⇒ Theorem 3(iv).

 hölder continuity 697
The maximum principle readily yields that condition (iii) implies condition (iv).
We have only to prove that condition (iv) implies condition (iii). Suppose that (2)
holds for 0 < r < r0 . In view of (2), we find κ, 0 < κ < 1, such that
ω(x, ∂D \ B(a, r), D) 6 13 , for x ∈ D ∩ B(a, κr). (8)
This observation yields the following crucial lemma.

Lemma 1. Let D satisfy the GHMD with some α > 0. Then ∂D is uniformly per-
fect; that is, there exist c, 0 < c < 1, and r2 > 0 such that (4) holds.

Here we prove Lemma 1 in cases where n > 3. The planar case is rather compli-
cated, and will be proved in Section 5.

Proof of Lemma 1 for n > 3. Let κ be as in (8), and let r2 = min{r0 , 12 diam(D)}.
We prove (4) with c = 21/(2−n) κ < κ < 1. Suppose, to the contrary, ∂D ∩A(a, cr, r) = ∅
for some a ∈ ∂D and 0 < r < r2 . Then A(a, cr, r) ⊂ D, since r 6 12 diam(D) and D is
connected. Hence the maximum principle yields
 2−n
|x − a|
ω(x, ∂D \ B(a, r), D) > 1 −
cr
for x ∈ A(a, cr, r) ⊂ D. If we let |x − a| ↑ κr, then (8) yields
1  κr 2−n 1
>1− = ,
3 cr 2
a contradiction. Thus the lemma follows. q

Lemma 2. Let D satisfy the GHMD with some α > 0, and let c and r2 be as in
Lemma 1. Then
ω(·, ∂D \ B(a, cr/2), D) > ε on D ∩ S(a, r) (9)
for all a ∈ ∂D and 0 < r < r2 , where 0 < ε < 1 is independent of a and r.

Proof. Let a ∈ ∂D and 0 < r < r2 . By Lemma 1, we have (4). We fix x∗ ∈

∂D ∩ S(a, ρ) with cr 6 ρ < r. By (2) with r = ρ/2, we have
 α
∗ |x − x∗ |
ω(x, ∂D \ B(x , ρ/2), D) 6 M , for x ∈ D ∩ B(x∗ , ρ/2).
ρ/2
Hence we can find a number d independent of r, ρ and x∗ such that 0 < d < 1/6
and
ω(·, ∂D \ B(x∗ , ρ/2), D) 6 12 on D ∩ B(x∗ , dρ/2).
Since B(x∗ , ρ/2) ∩ B(a, ρ/2) = ∅, it follows from the maximum principle that
ω(·, ∂D ∩ B(a, ρ/2), D) 6 ω(·, ∂D \ B(x∗ , ρ/2), D) 6 1
2 on D ∩ B(x∗ , dρ/2).
Observe that (
ω(·, ∂D ∩ B(a, ρ/2), D), on D,
u=
0, on Rn \ D,

is a subharmonic function on Rn \ B(a, ρ/2) with 0 6 u 6 1. Moreover, u 6 1/2 on

B(x∗ , dρ/2).
698 hiroaki aikawa
S(a, q)
q

q/2
q/4
∂D y

x*
u=0 a
dq/2 u=0
1
u=
u=0

u=0
0< u <1 in D
Figure 1. u(y) 6 1 − (2d)n /2 for y ∈ B(x∗1 , dρ/2).

Take x∗1 ∈ S(a, ρ) with |x∗1 − x∗ | 6 ρ/12. We observe that

u 6 1 − 12 (2d)n on B(x∗1 , dρ/2).
In fact, if y ∈ B(x∗1 , dρ/2), then
B(x∗ , dρ/2) ⊂ B(y, ρ/4) ⊂ Rn \ B(a, ρ/2),
so that the mean-value inequality for the subharmonic function u implies that
|B(y, ρ/4)| − 12 |B(x∗ , dρ/2)|
u(y) 6 = 1 − 12 (2d)n ,
|B(y, ρ/4)|
since u 6 1 on Rn \ B(a, ρ/2) and u 6 1/2 on B(x∗ , dρ/2); see Figure 1.
We can repeat the same argument, replacing x∗ by x∗1 . Then we can cover S(a, ρ)
by finitely many balls B(x∗ , dρ/2), B(x∗1 , dρ/2), . . . , B(x∗k , dρ/2) on which u 6 1 − ε
holds, where k and ε, 0 < ε < 1, depend only on d and the dimension n. In particular,
we have
ω(·, ∂D ∩ B(a, cr/2), D) 6 1 − ε on D ∩ S(a, r).
Hence (9) follows. q

Proof of Proposition 5. Let us assume that condition (iv) of Theorem 3 holds.

Then the maximum principle and Lemma 2 imply that
ω(x, D ∩ S(a, r), D ∩ B(a, r)) 6 ε−1 ω(x, ∂D \ B(a, cr/2), D)
 α
−1 |x − a|
6ε M
cr/2
α
 α
2 M |x − a|
=
εcα r
for x ∈ D ∩ B(a, r). Thus condition (iii) holds with another constant 2α M/εcα . q
 hölder continuity 699

4. Proof of Theorem 2
Suppose that there were a bounded domain for which kHD k1 < ∞. In view of
Proposition 1 and Theorem 1, we may assume that D is regular. Then Proposition
2 would imply that
HD ϕa,1 (x) 6 M|x − a|, for all a ∈ ∂D. (10)
Let us give a contradiction. Take x0 ∈ D with δD (x0 ) = R < 1. We find a ∈ ∂D such
that |x0 − a| = R. We shall show that if x is a point on the line segment x0 a with
small |x − a|, then
1
HD ϕa,1 (x) > M|x − a| log . (11)
|x − a|
This contradicts (10).
Observe that B(x0 , R) ⊂ D. Let 0 < r < R. Then the maximum principle yields
ω(·, B(x0 , R) ∩ S(a, r), B(x0 , R) ∩ B(a, r)) 6 ω(·, D ∩ S(a, r), D ∩ B(a, r))
on B(x0 , R) ∩ B(a, r). We can easily estimate the harmonic measure in the left-hand
side. We have
|x − a|
ω(x, B(x0 , R) ∩ S(a, r), B(x0 , R) ∩ B(a, r)) > M ,
r
for x ∈ x0 a with |x − a| < r. In view of Proposition 3 and Lemma 2, we have
ω(·, ∂D \ B(a, cr/2), D) > εω(·, D ∩ S(a, r), D ∩ B(a, r)) on D ∩ B(a, r).
Hence
|x − a|
ω(x, ∂D \ B(a, cr/2), D) > Mε , for x ∈ x0 a with |x − a| < r.
r
If we write r in place of cr/2, then we have
cMε |x − a|
ω(x, ∂D \ B(a, r), D) > , for x ∈ x0 a with |x − a| < 2r/c, (12)
2 r
provided that 0 < r < cR/2. Observe that
∞
1 X −j
HD ϕa,1 > 2 ω(·, ∂D \ B(a, 2−j ), D).
2
j=0

Let k be the integer such that 2−k−1 6 |x − a| < 2−k . Apply (12) to r = 2−j with
2−j < cR/2 and 2−k < 21−j /c to obtain
1 X
HD ϕa,1 (x) > 2−j ω(x, ∂D \ B(a, 2−j ), D)
2 −j
2 <cR/2
2−k <21−j /c
1 X cMε |x − a|
> 2−j
2 2 2−j
1−log(cR)/ log 2<j<k+1−log c/ log 2

> M 0 k|x − a|
1
> M 00 |x − a| log
|x − a|
for x ∈ x0 a with small |x − a|. Thus (11) follows. The proof is complete. q
700 hiroaki aikawa

5. Proof of Lemma 1 for n = 2

In this section we prove Lemma 1 for the planar case. The logarithmic nature of the
Green function makes the proof more complicated than in the higher-dimensional
case.

Proof of Lemma 1 for n = 2. Without loss of generality, we may assume that D

and its closure are included in the unit disc B = B(0, 1). We suppose that 0 ∈ ∂D
and A(0, r, R) ⊂ D with 0 < r < R < 1. Then it is sufficient to show that the ratio
R/r is bounded by a constant M depending only on α and r0 . Let


ω(·, ∂D ∩ B(0, r), D), on D,
v = 1, on B(0, r) \ D,


0, on B \ (B(0, r) ∪ D).
Then v is a δ-subharmonic function on B, and is represented as
v = G B µ − GB ν
with nonnegative measures µ on ∂D ∩ B(0, r) and ν on ∂D \ B(0, R). Here GB is the
Green function for B. Let σρ be the unit measure uniformly distributed on the circle
S(0, ρ) for 0 < ρ < 1. Then it is known that
 
1 1
GB σρ (x) = min log , log on B; (13)
|x| ρ
see [4, p. 104]. Let ρ be so close to 1 that D ⊂ B(0, ρ) ⊂ B. Then v = GB µ − GB ν = 0
on S(0, ρ), so that Fubini’s theorem and (13) imply that
kµk = kνk. (14)
By definition, 0 6 v = GB µ − GB ν 6 1 on B. In particular, GB µ(0) − GB ν(0) 6 1.
Since µ and ν are measures on ∂D ∩ B(0, r) and ∂D \ B(0, R) respectively, it follows
that
1 1
GB µ(0) > kµk log and GB ν(0) 6 kνk log ,
r R
so that by (14)
R 1
log 6 . (15)
r kµk
Now we estimate kµk in terms of the Dirichlet integral of v. Since ∆GB (·, y) =
−2πδy , v = 1 quasi-everywhere on supp µ, and v = 0 quasi-everywhere on supp ν, it
follows that
Z Z
|∇v|2 dx = 2π vd(µ − ν) = 2πkµk. (16)
B B
Without loss of generality, we may assume that there is a point a ∈ S(0, R) ∩ ∂D.
Moreover, we may assume that R/r > 2/κ, where 0 < κ < 1 is the constant in (8).
Then
v 6 ω(·, ∂D \ B(a, R − r), D) on D,
so that (8) implies that
v6 1
3 on D ∩ B(a, κ(R − r)).
 hölder continuity 701

∂D
B*

v R– r
2
v =1
v
r j (R– r)
0 jR a′ R a
∂D
v=0

Figure 2. v 6 1/3 on D ∩ B(a, κ(R − r)) and v > 2/3 on D ∩ B(0, κR).

Since A(0, r, R) ⊂ D and hence ω(·, ∂D∩B(0, r), D) = ω(·, ∂D∩B(0, R), D), it follows
from (8) that
v = 1 − ω(·, ∂D \ B(0, R), D) > 23 on D ∩ B(0, κR).
Let a0 = (R + r)/(2R) · a and let B ∗ = B(a0 , 12 (R − r)). Then B ∗ ⊂ A(0, r, R) ⊂ D and
there are points x, y ∈ B(a0 , ((1 − κ)/2)(R − r)) such that v(x) 6 1/3 and v(y) > 2/3;
see Figure 2.
Since v is a positive harmonic function on B ∗ , it follows from the same argument
as in [2, Lemma 2] that Z
|∇v|2 dx > M,
B∗
where M > 0 depends only on κ. This, together with (15) and (16), yields that R/r
is bounded. The lemma is proved. q

Acknowledgements. This work was started while the author visited the Mittag–
Leffler Institute. He acknowledges the support received from the Mittag–Leffler
Institute, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science. The author also thanks Toshiyuki Sugawa for showing him
the preprint [8].

References
1. H. Aikawa, ‘Integrability of superharmonic functions and subharmonic functions’, Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 120 (1994) 109–117.
2. H. Aikawa, ‘Densities with the mean value property for harmonic functions in a Lipschitz domain’,
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 125 (1997) 229–234.
702 hiroaki aikawa
3. A. Ancona, ‘On strong barriers and an inequality of Hardy for domains in Rn ’, J. London Math. Soc.
(2) 34 (1986) 274–290.
4. D. H. Armitage and S. J. Gardiner, Classical potential theory (Springer, 2000).
5. A. Hinkkanen, ‘Modulus of continuity of harmonic functions’, J. Analyse Math. 51 (1988) 1–29.
6. F-Y. Maeda and N. Suzuki, ‘The integrability of superharmonic functions on Lipschitz domains’,
Bull. London Math. Soc. 21 (1989) 270–278.
7. Ch. Pommerenke, ‘Uniformly perfect sets and the Poincaré metric’, Arch. Math. (Basel) 32 (1979)
192–199.
8. T. Sugawa, ‘On boundary regularity of the Dirichlet problem for plane domains’, preprint, 1999.

Hiroaki Aikawa
Department of Mathematics
Shimane University
Matsue 690-8504
Japan

haikawa@math.shimane-u.ac.jp