Nonlinear non-periodic homogenization: Existence, local uniqueness and estimates

Abstract

We consider periodic homogenization with localized defects of boundary value problems for semilinear ODE systems of the type

$$\Big{(}(A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon))u^{\prime}(x)+c(x,u(x))\Big{)}^{\prime}=d(x,u(x))\mbox{ for }x\in(0,1),\;u(0)=u(1)=0.$$

Our assumptions are, roughly speaking, as follows: $A\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{M}_{n})$ is 1-periodic, $B\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{M}_{n})\cap L^{1}(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{M}_{n})$, $A(y)$ and $A(y)+B(y)$ are positive definite uniformly with respect to $y$, $c(x,\cdot),d(x,\cdot)\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n};\mathbb{R}^{n})$, $c(\cdot,u)\in C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and $d(\cdot,u)\in L^{\infty}((0,1);\mathbb{R}^{n})$.

For small $\varepsilon>0$ we show existence of weak solutions $u=u_{\varepsilon}$ as well as their local uniqueness for $\|u-u_{0}\|_{\infty}\approx 0$, where $u_{0}$ is a given non-degenerate solution to the homogenized problem, and we prove that $\|u_{\varepsilon}-u_{0}\|_{\infty}\to 0$ and, if $c(\cdot,u)$ is $C^{1}$-smooth, that $\|u_{\varepsilon}-u_{0}\|_{\infty}=O(\varepsilon)$ for $\varepsilon\to 0$.

The main tool of the proofs is an abstract result of implicit function theorem type which in the past has been applied to singular perturbation as well as to periodic homogenization of nonlinear ODEs and PDEs and, hence, which permits a common approach to existence and local uniqueness results for singularly perturbed problems and for homogenization problems.

Keywords: periodic homogenization with localized defects; semilinear ODE systems; Dirichlet boundary conditions; nonsmooth coefficients; existence and local uniqueness; implicit function theorem; $L^{\infty}$-estimate of the homogenization error

MSC: 34B15  34C29  35B27  47J07  58C15

1 Introduction

This paper concerns periodic homogenization with localized defects in the sense of [2]. More exactly, we consider Dirichlet problems for semilinear second-order ODE systems in divergence form of the type

$$\left.\begin{array}[]{l}\Big{(}(A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon))u^{\prime}(x)+c(x,u(x))\Big{)}^{\prime}=d(x,u(x))\mbox{ for }x\in(0,1),\\ u(0)=u(1)=0.\end{array}\right\}$$ (1.1)

For small $\varepsilon>0$ we look for solutions $u:[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}^{n}$ to (1.1), and we suppose that

$$A\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{M}_{n})\mbox{ is 1-periodic, }B\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{M}_{n})\cap L^{1}(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{M}_{n}),$$ (1.2)

$$\alpha:=\operatorname*{ess\phantom{|}\!inf}\{A(y)u\cdot u:\;y\in\mathbb{R},u\in\mathbb{R}^{n},\|u\|=1\}>0,$$ (1.3)

$$\operatorname*{ess\phantom{|}\!sup}\{\|B(y)u\|:\;y\in\mathbb{R},u\in\mathbb{R}^{n},\|u\|\leq 1\}\leq\alpha/2,$$ (1.4)

$$c\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n};C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n}),$$ (1.5)

$$d\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n};L^{\infty}((0,1);\mathbb{R}^{n}).$$ (1.6)

Here $\mathbb{M}_{n}$ is the space of all real $n\times n$-matrices, $(u,v)\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\mapsto u\cdot v\in\mathbb{R}$ is the Euclidean scalar product in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $\|u\|:=\sqrt{u\cdot u}$ is the corresponding norm, and $\|u\|_{\infty}:=\operatorname*{ess\phantom{|}\!sup}\{\|u(x)\|:\;x\in(0,1)\}$. As usual, the function spaces $L^{\infty}((0,1);\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and $C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})$ (for example in (1.5) and (1.6)) are supposed to be equipped with the norm $\|\cdot\|_{\infty}$.

As introduced in (1.5), the map $c$ maps $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ into the function space $C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})$, and, as usual, we write $c(x,u)$ for the value in $x\in[0,1]$ of the image of $u\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ with respect to this map. Obviously, the map $u\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\mapsto c(u)\in C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})$ is $C^{1}$-smooth if and only if the map $(x,u)\in[0,1]\times\mathbb{R}^{n}\mapsto c(x,u)\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is continuous and if the partial derivatives $\partial_{u}c(x,u)$ exist and depend continuously on $x$ and $u$. And similarly for the map $d$. In Theorem 1.1 (ii) below we suppose additionally to (1.5) that the images $c(u)$ belong to the function space $C^{1}([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and depend, in the sense of the norm of this function space, continuously on $u$, which means that the partial derivatives $\partial_{x}c(x,u)$ exist and depend continuously on $x$ and $u$.

We are going to prove existence and local uniqueness of weak solutions $u=u_{\varepsilon}$ to (1.1) with $\varepsilon\approx 0$ and $\|u-u_{0}\|_{\infty}\approx 0$, where $u_{0}$ is a given non-degenerate solution to the homogenized boundary value problem

$$\left.\begin{array}[]{l}\Big{(}A_{0}u^{\prime}(x)+c(x,u(x)\Big{)}^{\prime}=d(x,u(x))\mbox{ for }x\in(0,1),\\ u(0)=u(1)=0\end{array}\right\}$$ (1.7)

with

$$A_{0}:=\left(\int_{0}^{1}A(y)^{-1}dy\right)^{-1}.$$ (1.8)

Remark that the assumptions (1.2)-(1.4) imply that the matrices $A(y)$ and $A(y)+B(y)$ are positive definite uniformly with respect to $y\in\mathbb{R}$. Hence, these matrices are invertible, and their inverses are also are positive definite uniformly with respect to $y\in\mathbb{R}$, and

$$\operatorname*{ess\phantom{|}\!sup}\{\|A(y)^{-1}u\|+\|(A(y)+B(y))^{-1}u\|:\;y\in\mathbb{R},\;u\in\mathbb{R}^{n},\;\|u\|\leq 1\}<\infty.$$ (1.9)

Also the matrices $\int_{0}^{1}A(y)^{-1}dy$ and $\int_{0}^{1}(A(y)+B(y))^{-1}dy$ are positive definite and, hence, invertible. In particular, the definition (1.8) is correct.

As usual, a vector function $u\in W_{0}^{1,2}((0,1);\mathbb{R}^{n})$ is called weak solution to (1.1) if it satisfies the variational equation

$$\left.\begin{array}[]{r}\displaystyle\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}\Big{(}(A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon))u^{\prime}(x)+c(x,u(x))\Big{)}\cdot\varphi^{\prime}(x)+d(x,u(x))\cdot\varphi(x)\Big{)}dx=0\\ \mbox{ for all }\varphi\in C^{1}([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})\mbox{ with }\varphi(0)=\varphi(1)=0,\end{array}\right\}$$ (1.10)

and similar for the homogenized boundary value problem (1.7) and for its linearization in $u=u_{0}$, which is

$$\left.\begin{array}[]{l}\Big{(}A_{0}u^{\prime}(x)+\partial_{u}c(x,u_{0}(x))u(x)\Big{)}^{\prime}=\partial_{u}d(x,u_{0}(x))u(x)\mbox{ for }x\in(0,1),\\ u(0)=u(1)=0.\end{array}\right\}$$ (1.11)

Our main result is the following

Theorem 1.1

Suppose (1.2)-(1.6), and let $u=u_{0}$ be a weak solution to (1.7) such that (1.11) does not have weak solutions $u\not=0$.

Then the following is true:

(i) There exist $\varepsilon_{0}>0$ and $\delta>0$ such that for all $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{0}]$ there exists exactly one weak solution $u=u_{\varepsilon}$ to (1.1) with $\|u-u_{0}\|_{\infty}\leq\delta$. Moreover,

$$\|u_{\varepsilon}-u_{0}\|_{\infty}\to 0\mbox{ for }\varepsilon\to 0.$$ (1.12)

(ii) If $c\in C(\mathbb{R}^{n};C^{1}([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})$, then $\|u_{\varepsilon}-u_{0}\|_{\infty}=O(\varepsilon)$ for $\varepsilon\to 0$.

Remark 1.2

In [12] is proven a result of the type of Theorem 1.1 for quasilinear ODE systems of the type

$$a(x,x/\varepsilon,u(x),u^{\prime}(x))^{\prime}=b(x,x/\varepsilon,u(x),u^{\prime}(x))\mbox{ for }x\in(0,1).$$ (1.13)

On the one hand, this ODE system is much more general then that in (1.1). But on the other hand, in (1.13) it is supposed that the vector functions $a(x,\cdot,u(x),u^{\prime}(x))$ and $b(x,\cdot,u(x),u^{\prime}(x))$ are periodic, i.e. [12] concerns periodic homogenization, while we do not suppose that the matrix function $B$ is periodic, i.e. Theorem 1.1 concerns non-periodic homogenization (or, more exactly, periodic homogenization with localized defects, cf. [2, Section 2.3]). Moreover, in (1.13) it is supposed that the functions $a(x,\cdot,u(x),u^{\prime}(x))$ and $b(x,\cdot,u(x),u^{\prime}(x))$ are continuous, while we do not suppose that the matrix functions $A$ and $B$ and the vector functions $d(\cdot,u)$ are continuous.

Remark 1.3

The assumption of Theorem 1.1, that there do not exist nontrivial weak solutions to (1.7), is rather implicit. But there exist simple explicit sufficient conditions for it. For example, if not only the matrix $A_{0}$ is positive definit (this follows from (1.2), (1.3) and (1.8)), but also the matrices $\partial_{u}d(x,u_{0}(x))$, and if $\|\partial_{u}c(\cdot,u_{0}(\cdot))\|_{\infty}$ is sufficiently small, then there do not exist nontrivial weak solutions to (1.7).

Remark 1.4

Unfortunately, we do not know if the assertions of Theorem 1.1(i) remain true, in general, if assumption (1.5) is replaced by a weaker assumption which allows $c(\cdot,u)$ to be discontinuous, for example, by the assumption $c\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n};L^{\infty}((0,1);\mathbb{R}^{n}))$ (similar to assumption (1.6) for $d$). See also Remark 3.4.

Remark 1.5

$L^{\infty}$-estimates of the homogenization error $u_{\varepsilon}-u_{0}$ exist, to the best of our knowledge, for linear periodic homogenization problems with smooth coefficients only: For scalar ODEs of the type $\big{(}a(x/\varepsilon)u^{\prime}(x)\big{)}^{\prime}=f(x)$ in [14, Section 1], for scalar ODEs with stratified structure of the type $\big{(}a(x,\rho(x)/\varepsilon)u^{\prime}(x)\big{)}^{\prime}=f(x)$ in [20, Theorem 1.2]. For $L^{\infty}$ periodic homogenization error estimates for scalar linear elliptic PDEs of the type $\mbox{\rm div}\,a(x/\varepsilon)\nabla u(x)=f(x)$ see, e.g. [1, Chapter 2.4] and [10] and for linear elliptic systems [18, Theorem 7.5.1].

For periodic homogenization of linear equations with $L^{\infty}$-coefficients see [1, Theorems 6.1 and 6.3] and [20, Theorem 1.2].

What concerns existence and local uniqueness for nonlinear periodic homogenization problems (without assumption of global uniqueness), besides [12] and [13] we know only the result [4] for scalar semilinear elliptic PDEs of the type $\mbox{\rm div}\,a(x/\varepsilon)\nabla u(x)=f(x)g(u(x)),$ where the nonlinearity $g$ is supposed to have a sufficiently small local Lipschitz constant (on an appropriate bounded interval). Let us mention also [8, 9], where existence and local uniqueness for a periodic homogenization problem for the linear Poisson equation with nonlinear Robin boundary conditions is shown. There the specific structure of the problem (no highly oscillating diffusion coefficients) allows to apply the classical implicit function theorem.

Our paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we consider abstract nonlinear parameter depending equations of the type

$${\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w)=0.$$ (1.14)

Here $\varepsilon>0$ is the parameter. We prove a result on existence and local uniqueness of a family of solutions $w=w_{\varepsilon}\approx w_{0}$ to (1.14) with $\varepsilon\approx 0$, where $w_{0}$ is an approximate solution to (1.14), i.e. an element with ${\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0})\to 0$ for $\varepsilon\to 0$, and we estimate the norm of the error $w_{\varepsilon}-w_{0}$ by the norm of the discrepancy ${\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0})$. This type of generalized implicit function theorems has been applied to singularly perturbed nonlinear ODEs and to elliptic and parabolic PDEs in [5, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, 17]) as well as to periodic homogenization of nonlinear ODEs (in [12]) and elliptic PDEs (in [13]). Contrary to the classical implicit function theorem it is not supposed that the linearized operators ${\cal F}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon}(u)$ converge for $\varepsilon\to 0$ in the uniform operator norm. And, indeed, in the applications to singularly perturbed problems as well as to homogenization problems they do not converge for $\varepsilon\to 0$ in the uniform operator norm.

In Section 3 we prove Theorem 1.1 by means of the results of Section 2. For that reason we transform the boundary value problem (1.1) into the system (3.3)-(3.5) of integral equations, and for that system of integral equations we introduce in (3.15) an abstract setting of the type (1.14). For that abstract setting we have to verify the assumptions (2.1)- (2.4) of Theorem 2.1, and we do this in the Subsections 3.1-3.4.

2 An abstract result of implicit function theorem type

In this section we formulate and prove Theorem 2.1 below.

Theorem 2.1

Let be given a Banach space $W$ with norm $\|\cdot\|_{W}$, an element $w_{0}\in W$ and a family of $C^{1}$-maps ${\cal F}_{\varepsilon}:W_{0}\to W$ with $\varepsilon>0$ as family parameter. Suppose that

$$\|{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0})\|_{W}\to 0\mbox{ for }\varepsilon\to 0.$$ (2.1)

Further, suppose that there exists $\varepsilon_{0}>0$ such that

$${\cal F}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0})\mbox{ is Fredholm of index zero from $W$ into $W$ for all $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{0}]$},$$ (2.2)

$$\inf\{\|{\cal F}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0})w\|_{W}:\;\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{0}],\;\|w\|_{W}=1\}=:\beta>0,$$ (2.3)

$$\sup_{\|w\|_{W}\leq 1}\|({\cal F}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0}+w_{1})-{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(w_{0}))w\|_{W}\to 0\mbox{ for }\varepsilon+\|w_{1}\|_{W}\to 0.$$ (2.4)

Then there exist $\varepsilon_{1}\in(0,\varepsilon_{0}]$ and $\delta>0$ such that for all $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{1}]$ there exists exactly one $w=w_{\varepsilon}\in W$ with ${\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w)=0$ and $\|w-w_{0}\|_{W}\leq\delta$. Moreover,

$$\|w_{\varepsilon}-w_{0}\|_{W}<\frac{2}{\beta}\|{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0})\|_{W}.$$ (2.5)

Proof Take $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{0}]$. Then assumptions (2.2) and (2.3) imply, that the operator ${\cal F}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(w_{0})$ is an isomorphism from $W$ onto $W$ and

$$\left\|{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(w_{0})^{-1}w\right\|_{W}\leq\frac{1}{\alpha}\|w\|_{W}\mbox{ for all }w\in W.$$ (2.6)

Hence, the map ${\cal G}_{\varepsilon}:W\to W$,

$${\cal G}_{\varepsilon}(w):=w-{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(w_{0})^{-1}{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w)$$

is well-defined. Obviously, $w$ is a fixed point of ${\cal G}_{\varepsilon}$ if and only if ${\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w)=0$.

For $r>0$ denote $\mathbb{B}_{r}:=\{w\in W:\;\|w-w_{0}\|_{W}\leq r\}.$ We are going to show that for sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$ and $r>0$ the map ${\cal G}_{\varepsilon}$ is strictly contractive from the closed ball $\mathbb{B}_{r}$ into itself.

In order to verify the strict contractivity of ${\cal G}_{\varepsilon}$ we take $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{0}]$ and $v,w\in W$ and estimate as follows:

$$\|{\cal G}_{\varepsilon}(v)-{\cal G}_{\varepsilon}(w)\|_{W}=\left\|v-w-{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0})^{-1}({\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(v)-{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w))\right\|_{W}$$

$$=\left\|{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(w_{0})^{-1}\int_{0}^{1}\left({\cal F}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(w_{0})-{\cal F}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon}(sv+(1-s)w)\right)ds(v-w)\right\|_{W}$$

$$\leq\frac{1}{\alpha}\int_{0}^{1}\|\left({\cal F}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(w_{0})-{\cal F}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon}(sv+(1-s)w)\right)(v-w)\|_{W}ds.$$

Here we used (2.6). Because of assumption (2.4) there exist $\varepsilon_{1}\in(0,\varepsilon_{0}]$ and $r_{0}>0$ such that $\|\left({\cal F}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(w_{0})-{\cal F}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon}(sv+(1-s)w)\right)(v-w)\|_{W}\leq\frac{\beta}{2}\|v-w\|_{W}$ for all $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{1}]$, $s\in[0,1]$ and $v,w\in\mathbb{B}_{r_{0}}$. Hence,

$$\|{\cal G}_{\varepsilon}(v)-{\cal G}_{\varepsilon}(w)\|_{W}\leq\frac{1}{2}\|v-w\|_{W}\mbox{ for all }\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{1}]\mbox{ and }v,w\in\mathbb{B}_{r_{0}}.$$ (2.7)

Now, let us show that ${\cal G}_{\varepsilon}$ maps $\mathbb{B}_{r_{0}}$ into $\mathbb{B}_{r_{0}}$ for all sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$. Take $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{1}]$ and $w\in\mathbb{B}_{r_{0}}$. Then (2.6) and (2.7) imply

$$\left\|{\cal G}_{\varepsilon}(w)-w_{0}\right\|_{W}\leq\left\|{\cal G}_{\varepsilon}(w)-{\cal G}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0})\right\|_{W}+\left\|{\cal G}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0})-w_{0}\right\|_{W}$$

$$\leq\frac{1}{2}\left\|w-w_{0}\right\|_{W}+\left\|{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(w_{0})^{-1}{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0})\right\|_{W}\leq\frac{r_{0}}{2}+\frac{1}{\alpha}\left\|{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0})\right\|_{W}.$$

But assumption (2.1) yields that, if $\varepsilon_{1}$ is taken sufficiently small, for all $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{1}]$ we have $\|{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0})\|_{W}\leq\beta r_{0}/2$. Hence, for those $\varepsilon$ we get $\left\|{\cal G}_{\varepsilon}(w)-w_{0}\right\|_{W}\leq r_{0}$.

Therefore, Banach’s fixed point principle yields the following: For all $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{1}]$ there exists exactly one $w=w_{\varepsilon}\in\mathbb{B}_{r_{0}}$ with ${\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w)=0$.

Finally, let us prove (2.5). We take $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{1}]$ and estimate as above:

$$\|w_{\varepsilon}-w_{0}\|_{W}\leq\|{\cal G}_{\varepsilon}(w_{\varepsilon})-{\cal G}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0})\|_{W}+\|{\cal G}_{\varepsilon}(w)-w_{0}\|_{W}\leq\frac{1}{2}\|w_{\varepsilon}-w_{0}\|_{W}+\frac{1}{\beta}\|{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w_{0})\|_{W}.$$

Hence, (2.5) is true.  

Remark 2.2

In [5, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, 17]) slightly more general versions of Theorem 2.1 are used, i.e. those with ${\cal F}_{\varepsilon}$ mapping one Banach space into another one, both with $\varepsilon$-depending norms. Moreover, there the approximate solutions are allowed to be $\varepsilon$-depending, i.e. to be a family of approximate solutions.

For another result of the type of Theorem 2.1 and its applications to semilinear elliptic PDE systems with numerically determined approximate solutions see [3, Theorem 2.1].

3 Proof of Theorem 1.1

In this section we will prove Theorem 1.1 by means of Theorem 2.1. Hence, all assumptions of Theorem 1.1 (i.e. (1.2)-(1.6), existence of the weak solution $u=u_{0}$ to (1.7), non-existence of weak solutions $u\not=0$ to (1.11)) will be supposed to be satisfied.

In order to transform the problem of weak solutions $u\approx u_{0}$ to the boundary value problem (1.1) with $\varepsilon\approx 0$ into the problem of solutions $w\approx w_{0}$ to an appropriate operator equation ${\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(w)=0$ with $\varepsilon\approx 0$, we use the Lemmas 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 below.

Lemma 3.1

For all $\varepsilon>0$ the following is true:

(i) If $u$ is a weak solution to (1.1) and if $v\in L^{2}((0,1);\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and $\bar{v}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ are defined by

$$v(x) := \Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}u^{\prime}(x)+c(x,u(x))\mbox{ for a.a. }x\in(0,1),$$ (3.1)

$$\bar{v} := \int_{0}^{1}\left(v(x)+\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u(y))dy\right)dx,$$ (3.2)

then $u,v\in W^{1,\infty}((0,1);\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and

$$u(x) = \int_{0}^{x}\Big{(}A(y/\varepsilon)+B(y/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}v(y)-c(y,u(y))\Big{)}dy\mbox{ for }x\in[0,1],$$ (3.3)

$$v(x) = \bar{v}-\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u(y))dy\mbox{ for }x\in[0,1],$$ (3.4)

$$0 = \int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}v(x)-c(x,u(x))\Big{)}dx.$$ (3.5)

(ii) If $(u,v,\bar{v})\in C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})^{2}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is a solution to (3.3)-(3.5), then $u$ is a weak solution to (1.1).

Proof (i) Let $u$ be a weak solution to (1.1). If $v\in L^{2}((0,1);\mathbb{R}^{n})$ is defined by (3.1), then

$$u^{\prime}(x)=\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}v(x)-c(x,u(x))\Big{)}\mbox{ for a.a. }x\in(0,1).$$

Because of $u(0)=u(1)=0$ the equations (3.3) and (3.5) follow.

In order to verify (3.4) take an arbitrary test function $\varphi\in C^{1}([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})$ with $\varphi(0)=\varphi(1)=0$. Then (1.10) and (3.1) imply that

$$0 = \int_{0}^{1}\left(\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}u^{\prime}(x)+c(x,u(x))\Big{)}\cdot\varphi^{\prime}(x)+d(x,u(x))\cdot\int_{0}^{x}\varphi^{\prime}(y)dy\right)dx$$

$$= \int_{0}^{1}\left(v(x)+\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u(y))dy\right)\cdot\varphi^{\prime}(x)dx.$$

Therefore $v(x)+\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u(y))dy$ is constant with respect to $x$ In particular, $v\in W^{1,\infty}((0,1);\mathbb{R}^{n})$. Hence, (3.2) yields

$$v(x)+\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u(y))dy=\int_{0}^{1}\left(v(y)+\int_{y}^{1}d(z,u(z))dz\right)dy=\bar{v},$$

and (3.4) follows.

(ii) Let $(u,v,\bar{v})\in C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})^{2}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}$ be a solution to (3.3)-(3.5). From (3.3) and (3.5) follows $u(0)=u(1)=0$. Further, from (3.3) follows that $u\in W^{1,\infty}((0,1);\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and that

$$u^{\prime}(x)=\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}v(x)-c(x,u(x))\Big{)}\mbox{ for a.a. }x\in(0,1).$$

Using (3.4) we get

$$\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}u^{\prime}(x)+c(x,u(x))=\bar{v}-\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u(y))dy\mbox{ for a.a. }x\in(0,1).$$

If we multiply this scalarly by $\varphi^{\prime}(x)$ with an arbitrary test function $\varphi\in C^{1}([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})$ with $\varphi(0)=\varphi(1)=0$ and integrate with respect to $x$, then we get (1.10).  

The following lemma is the only tool from classical homogenization theory which we are going to use. For related results see, e.g. [2, Proposition 1.1], [14, Lemma 1.1], [18, Proposition 2.2.2], [19, Lemma 3.1]. Roughly speaking, the lemma claims that the homogenized version of the matrix function $A(\cdot/\varepsilon)$ is $A_{0}$ (cf. (1.8)), and that the homogenized version of the matrix function $A(\cdot/\varepsilon)+B(\cdot/\varepsilon)$ is $A_{0}$ also.

In what follows we denote by $\omega_{g}:(0,1]\to[0,\infty)$ the modulus of continuity of a continuous vector function $g:[0,1]\to\mathbb{R}^{n}$, i.e.

$$\omega_{g}(\varepsilon):=\max_{|x_{1}-x_{2}|\leq\varepsilon}\|g(x_{1})-g(x_{2})\|.$$

Lemma 3.2

There exists $\gamma>0$ such that for all $x\in[0,1]$ and $g\in C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n}))$ we have

$$\left\|\int_{0}^{x}\left(\Big{(}A(y/\varepsilon)+B(y/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}-\int_{0}^{1}A(z)^{-1}dz\right)g(y)dy\right\|\leq\gamma\Big{(}\omega_{g}(\varepsilon)+\varepsilon\|g\|_{\infty}\Big{)}.$$ (3.6)

Proof Define ${\cal A}\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{M}_{n}))$ by ${\cal A}(y):=A(y)^{-1}-\int_{0}^{1}A(z)^{-1}dz.$ Then ${\cal A}(y+1)={\cal A}(y)$ and $\int_{y}^{y+1}{\cal A}(z)dz=0$ for all $y\in\mathbb{R}$, and (1.9) yields that

$$\gamma_{0}:=\mbox{ess sup}\{\|{\cal A}(y)u\|:\;y\in\mathbb{R},\;u\in\mathbb{R}^{n};\;\|u\|\leq 1\}<\infty.$$

Take $x\in[0,1]$ and $g\in C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n}))$. Then

$$\left\|\int_{0}^{x}\left(A(y/\varepsilon)^{-1}-\int_{0}^{1}A(z)^{-1}dz\right)g(y)dy\right\|=\varepsilon\left\|\int_{0}^{x/\varepsilon}{\cal A}(y)g(\varepsilon y)dy\right\|$$

$$=\varepsilon\left\|\sum_{j=1}^{[x/\varepsilon]}\int_{j-1}^{j}{\cal A}(y)g(\varepsilon y)dy+\int_{[x/\varepsilon]}^{x/\varepsilon}{\cal A}(y)g(\varepsilon y)dy\right\|$$

$$=\varepsilon\left\|\sum_{j=1}^{[x/\varepsilon]}\int_{j-1}^{j}{\cal A}(y)\Big{(}g(\varepsilon y)-g(\varepsilon j)\Big{)}dy+\int_{[x/\varepsilon]}^{x/\varepsilon}{\cal A}(y)g(\varepsilon y)dy\right\|\leq\gamma_{0}\Big{(}\omega_{g}(\varepsilon)+\varepsilon\|g\|_{\infty}\Big{)}.$$

Here $[x/\varepsilon]$ is the integer part of $x/\varepsilon$, i.e. the largest integer which is not larger than $x/\varepsilon$. In particular, $\varepsilon[x/\varepsilon]\leq x\leq 1$. Hence, (3.6) is proved for the case $B=0$

Now, let us prove (3.6) for arbitrary matrix function $B$ with (1.2)-(1.4). Because of (3.6) with $B=0$ we have

$$\left\|\int_{0}^{x}\left(\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}-\int_{0}^{1}A(y)^{-1}\right)g(x)dx\right\|$$

$$\leq\left\|\int_{0}^{x}\left(\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}-A(x/\varepsilon)^{-1}\right)g(x)dx\right\|+\gamma_{0}\Big{(}\omega_{g}(\varepsilon)+\varepsilon\|g\|_{\infty}\Big{)}$$

$$=\varepsilon\left\|\int_{0}^{x/\varepsilon}\Big{(}A(y)+B(y)\Big{)}^{-1}B(y)A(y)^{-1}g(\varepsilon y)dy\right\|+\gamma_{0}\Big{(}\omega_{g}(\varepsilon)+\varepsilon\|g\|_{\infty}\Big{)}$$

$$\leq\mbox{const }\Big{(}\omega_{g}(\varepsilon)+\varepsilon\|g\|_{\infty}\Big{)},$$

where the constant does not depend on $x$, $\varepsilon$ and $g$. Here we used (1.9) and that $B\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{M}_{n})$.  

Similarly to Lemma 3.1 we get, that the function $u_{0}$, which is by assumtion of Theorem 1.1 a weak solution to (1.7), and the function $v_{0}\in L^{2}((0,1);\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and the vector $\bar{v}_{0}$, which are defined by

$$v_{0}(x) := A_{0}u_{0}^{\prime}(x)+c(x,u_{0}(x))\mbox{ for a.a. }x\in(0,1),$$ (3.7)

$$\bar{v}_{0} := \int_{0}^{1}\left(v_{0}(x)+\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u_{0}(y))dy\right)dx,$$ (3.8)

satisfy

$$u_{0}(x)=A_{0}^{-1}\int_{0}^{x}\Big{(}v_{0}(y)-c(y,u_{0}(y))\Big{)}dy\mbox{ for }x\in[0,1],$$ (3.9)

$$v_{0}(x)=\bar{v}_{0}-\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u_{0}(y))dy\mbox{ for }x\in[0,1],$$ (3.10)

$$0=\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}v_{0}(y)-c(y,u_{0}(y))\Big{)}dy.$$ (3.11)

Lemma 3.3

For all $\gamma>0$ there exists $\delta>0$ such that for all $\varepsilon>0$ and all solutions $(u,v,\bar{v})\in C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})^{2}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}$ to (3.3)-(3.5) with $\varepsilon+\|u-u_{0}\|_{\infty}\leq\delta$ we have $\|v-v_{0}\|_{\infty}+\|\bar{v}-\bar{v}_{0}\|\leq\gamma$.

Proof Take $\varepsilon>0$ and a solution $(u,v,\bar{v})\in C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})^{2}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}$ to (3.3)-(3.5). If one inserts $v(x)$ from (3.4) into (3.5), then one gets

$$0=\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\left(\bar{v}-\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u(y))dy-c(x,u(x))\right)dx,$$

i.e.

$$C_{\varepsilon}\bar{v}=\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\left(\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u(y))dy+c(x,u(x))\right)dx$$

with

$$C_{\varepsilon}:=\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}dx.$$ (3.12)

Remark that $(A(y)+B(y))^{-1}$ is positive definite uniformly with respect to $y\in\mathbb{R}$. Therefore $C_{\varepsilon}$ is positive definite uniformly with respect to $\varepsilon>0$, and

$$\sup\{\|C_{\varepsilon}^{-1}u\|:\;\varepsilon>0,\;u\in\mathbb{R}^{n},\;\|u\|\leq 1\}<\infty.$$

Similar one gets that $\bar{v}_{0}=\int_{0}^{1}\left(\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u_{0}(y))dy+c(x,u_{0}(x))\right)dx,$ and it follows that

$$C_{\varepsilon}(\bar{v}-\bar{v}_{0})$$

$$=\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\left(\int_{x}^{1}(d(y,u(y))-d(y,u_{0}(y))dy+c(x,u(x))-c(x,u_{0}(x))\right)dx$$

$$\;\;\;\;\;+\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}-C_{\varepsilon}\Big{)}\left(\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u_{0}(y))dy+c(x,u_{0}(x))\right)dx.$$ (3.13)

Because of (1.5) and (1.6) we have that

$$\int_{x}^{1}(d(y,u(y))-d(y,u_{0}(y))dy=\int_{x}^{1}\int_{0}^{1}\partial_{u}d(y,su(y)+(1-s)su_{0}(y))ds(u(y)-u_{0}(y))dy$$

and

$$c(x,u(x))-c(x,u_{0}(x))dy=\int_{x}^{1}\partial_{u}c(x,su(x)+(1-s)su_{0}(x))ds(u(x)-u_{0}(x)).$$

But the maps $u\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\mapsto\partial_{u}c(\cdot,u)\in C([0,1],\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and $u\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\mapsto\partial_{u}d(\cdot,u)\in L^{\infty}((0,1),\mathbb{R}^{n})$ are uniformly continuous on bounded sets in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ (because of assumptions (1.5) and (1.6)), therefore

$$\sup\{\|\partial_{u}c(x,su(x)+(1-s)su_{0}(x))\|:\;s,x\in(0,1),\;u\in C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n}),\;\|u-u_{0}\|_{\infty}\leq 1\}<\infty$$

and

$$\operatorname*{ess\phantom{|}\!sup}\{\|\partial_{u}d(x,su(x)+(1-s)su_{0}(x))\|:\;s,x\in(0,1),\;u\in L^{\infty}((0,1);\mathbb{R}^{n}),\;\|u-u_{0}\|_{\infty}\leq 1\}<\infty.$$

Hence, (1.9) yields that

$$\left\|\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\left(\int_{x}^{1}(d(y,u(y))-d(y,u_{0}(y))dy+c(x,u(x))-c(x,u_{0}(x))\right)dx\right\|$$

$$\leq\mbox{const }\|u-u_{0}\|_{\infty},$$ (3.14)

where the constant does not depend on $\varepsilon$ and $u$ with $\|u-u_{0}\|_{\infty}\leq 1$.

Further, define $g\in C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})$ by $g(x):=\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u_{0}(y))dy+c(x,u_{0}(x))$. Then (3.12) yields that

$$\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}-C_{\varepsilon}\Big{)}\left(\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u_{0}(y))dy+c(x,u_{0}(x))\right)dx$$

$$=\int_{0}^{1}\left(\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}-\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}A(y/\varepsilon)+B(y/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}dy\right)g(x)dx.$$

Hence, (3.6) yields that

$$\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\left\|\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}-C_{\varepsilon}\Big{)}\left(\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u_{0}(y))dy+c(x,u_{0}(x))\right)dx\right\|=0.$$

Therefore (3.13) and (3.14) imply that $\|\bar{v}-\bar{v}_{0}\|$ is small if $\varepsilon$ and $\|u-u_{0}\|_{\infty}$ are small.

Finally, (3.4) and (3.10) yield that

$$v(x)-v_{0}(x)=\bar{v}-\bar{v}_{0}+\int_{x}^{1}\Big{(}d(y,u_{0}(y),u_{0}^{\prime}(y))-d(y,u(y),u^{\prime}(y)\Big{)}dy.$$

Hence, also $\|v-v_{0}\|_{\infty}$ is small if $\varepsilon$ and $\|u-u_{0}\|_{\infty}$ are small.  

Now we are going to apply Theorem 2.1 in order to solve the boundary value problem (1.1) with $\varepsilon\approx 0$ and $\|u-u_{0}\|_{\infty}\approx 0$. We introduce the setting of Theorem 2.1 as follows:

$$\left.\begin{array}[]{l}W:=C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})^{2}\times\mathbb{R}^{n},\;\|(u,v,\bar{v})\|_{W}:=\|u\|_{\infty}+\|v\|_{\infty}+\|\bar{v}\|,\;w_{0}:=(u_{0},v_{0},\bar{v}_{0}),\\ {\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(u,v,\bar{v})=({\cal U}_{\varepsilon}(u,v),{\cal V}(u,v,\bar{v}),\bar{\cal V}_{\varepsilon}(u,v))\end{array}\right\}$$ (3.15)

with

$$\left.\begin{array}[]{rcl}[{\cal U}_{\varepsilon}(u,v)](x)&:=&u(x)-\int_{0}^{x}\Big{(}A(y/\varepsilon)+B(y/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}v(y)-c(y,u(y))\Big{)}dy,\\ \displaystyle[{\cal V}(u,v,\bar{v})](x)&:=&v(x)-\bar{v}+\int_{x}^{1}d(y,u(y))dy,\\ \bar{\cal V}_{\varepsilon}(u,v)&:=&\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}v(x)-c(x,u(x))\Big{)}dx.\end{array}\right\}$$ (3.16)

Here $u_{0}$ is the solution to the linearized boundary value problen (1.11), which is given by assumption of Theorem 1.1, and $v_{0}$ and $\bar{v}_{0}$ are defined in (3.7) and (3.8).

Because of Lemmas 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 we have the following: If $u$ is a weak solution to (1.1) with $\varepsilon\approx 0$ and $\|u-u_{0}\|_{\infty}\approx 0$, then there exist $v\in C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and $\bar{v}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ with $\|v-v_{0}\|_{\infty}+\|\bar{v}-\bar{v}_{0}\|\approx 0$ such that ${\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(u,v,\bar{v})=0$. And if $(u,v,\bar{v})\in W$ satisfies ${\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(u,v,\bar{v})=0$ with $\varepsilon\approx 0$ and $\|u-u_{0}\|_{\infty}+\|v-v_{0}\|_{\infty}+\|\bar{v}-\bar{v}_{0}\|\approx 0$, then $u$ is a weak solution to (1.1). Moreover, if all the assumptions of Theorem 2.1, i.e. (2.1)-(2.4), are satisfied in the setting introduced above, then Theorem 2.1 yields the assertions of Theorem 1.1(i), in particular (2.5) yields (1.12). Hence, in order to prove Theorem 1.1(i) we have to verify the assumptions (2.1)-(2.4) of Theorem 2.1 in the setting introduced above. And in order to prove Theorem 1.1(ii) we have additionally to verify the following condition:

$$\mbox{If }c\in C(\mathbb{R}^{n};C^{1}([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})),\mbox{ then }\|{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}(u_{0},v_{0},\bar{v}_{0})\|_{W}=O(\varepsilon)\mbox{ for }\varepsilon\to 0.$$ (3.17)

3.1 Verification of (2.1) and (3.17)

Because of (3.9) and (3.16) we have

$$[{\cal U}_{\varepsilon}(u_{0},v_{0})](x)=\int_{0}^{x}\left(A_{0}^{-1}-\Big{(}A(y/\varepsilon)+B(y/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\right)\Big{(}v_{0}(y)-c(y,u_{0}(y))\Big{)}dy.$$

Hence, Lemma 3.2 with $g(x):=v_{0}(x)-c(x,u_{0}(x))$ yields that $\|{\cal U}_{\varepsilon}(u_{0},v_{0})\|_{\infty}\to 0$ for $\varepsilon\to 0$. Moreover, if $c\in C(\mathbb{R}^{n};C^{1}([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n}))$, then $g\in W^{1,\infty}((0,1);\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and, hence

$$\omega_{g}(\varepsilon)\leq\varepsilon\|g^{\prime}\|_{\infty},$$

and, hence, Lemma 3.2 yields that $\|{\cal U}_{\varepsilon}(u_{0},v_{0})\|_{\infty}=O(\varepsilon)$ for $\varepsilon\to 0$.

Further, because of (3.10) and (3.16) we have ${\cal V}(u_{0},v_{0},\bar{v}_{0})](x)=0$. And finally, (3.11) and (3.16) yield that

$$\bar{\cal V}_{\varepsilon}(u_{0},v_{0})=\int_{0}^{1}\left(\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}-A_{0}^{-1}\right)\Big{(}v_{0}(x)-c(x,u_{0}(x))\Big{)}dx,$$

and as above we get that $\|\bar{\cal V}_{\varepsilon}(u_{0},v_{0})\|\to 0$ for $\varepsilon\to 0$ and, if $c\in C(\mathbb{R}^{n};C^{1}([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n}))$, that $\|\bar{\cal V}_{\varepsilon}(u_{0},v_{0})\|_{\infty}=O(\varepsilon)$ for $\varepsilon\to 0$.

Remark 3.4

Above we used Lemma 3.2 with $g(x):=v_{0}(x)-c(x,u_{0}(x))$, i.e. we used that $c(\cdot,u)$ is assumed to be continuous (cf. (1.5)). We do not know if the assertions of Theorem 1.1(i) remain true, in general, if assumption (1.5) is replaced by a weaker assumption which allows $c(\cdot,u)$ to be discontinuous.

3.2 Verification of (2.2)

We have

$${\cal F}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon}(u,v,\bar{v})(u_{1},v_{1},\bar{v}_{1})=({\cal U}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(u,v)(u_{1},v_{1}),{\cal V}^{\prime}(u,v,\bar{v})(u_{1},v_{1},\bar{v}_{1}),\bar{\cal V}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(u,v)(u_{1},v_{1}))$$

with

$$[{\cal U}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(u,v)(u_{1},v_{1})](x) = [\partial_{u}{\cal U}_{\varepsilon}(u,v)u_{1}+\partial_{v}{\cal U}_{\varepsilon}(u,v)v_{1}](x)$$

$$= u_{1}(x)+\int_{0}^{x}\Big{(}A(y/\varepsilon)+B(y/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}\partial_{u}c(y,u(y))u_{1}(y)-v_{1}(y)\Big{)}dy,$$

$$\displaystyle[{\cal V}^{\prime}(u,v,\bar{v})(u_{1},v_{1},\bar{v}_{1})](x) = [\partial_{u}{\cal V}(u,v,\bar{v})u_{1}+\partial_{v}{\cal V}(u,v,\bar{v})v_{1}+\partial_{\bar{v}}{\cal V}(u,v,\bar{v})\bar{v}_{1}](x)$$

$$= v_{1}(x)-\bar{v}_{1}+\int_{x}^{1}\partial_{u}d(y,u(y))u_{1}(y)dy,$$

$$\bar{\cal V}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(u,v)(u_{1},v_{1}) = \partial_{u}\bar{\cal V}_{\varepsilon}(u,v)u_{1}+\partial_{v}\bar{\cal V}_{\varepsilon}(u,v)v_{1}$$

$$= \int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}v_{1}(x)-\partial_{u}c(x,u(x))u_{1}(x)\Big{)}dx.$$

Hence, ${\cal F}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon}(u_{0},v_{0},\bar{v}_{0})=\mbox{id}+K_{\varepsilon}$ with linear operator $K_{\varepsilon}$, which is compact from $C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})^{2}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}$ into itself. The first component of $K_{\varepsilon}$, applied on $(u,v,\bar{v})$, in the point $x$ is

$$\int_{0}^{x}\Big{(}A(y/\varepsilon)+B(y/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}\partial_{u}c(y,u_{0}(y))u(y)-v(y)\Big{)}dy,$$

the second component in the point $x$ is $-\bar{v}+\int_{x}^{1}\partial_{u}d(y,u_{0}(y))u(y)dy$, and the third component is

$$-\bar{v}+\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}v(x)-\partial_{u}c(x,u_{0}(x))u(x)\Big{)}dx.$$

The compactness of $K_{\varepsilon}$ follows from the Arcela-Ascoli theorem. Hence, condition (2.2) is verified.

3.3 Verification of (2.4)

We have

$$\Big{[}\Big{(}{\cal U}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon}(u_{0},v_{0})-{\cal U}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon}(u_{1},v_{1})\Big{)}(u,v)\Big{]}(x)$$

$$=\int_{0}^{x}\Big{(}A(y/\varepsilon)+B(y/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}\partial_{u}c(y,u_{0}(y))-\partial_{u}c(y,u_{1}(y))\Big{)}u(y)dy.$$

As in the proof of Lemma 3.3 we use that the map $u\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\mapsto\partial_{u}c(\cdot,u)\in C([0,1],\mathbb{R}^{n})$ is uniformly continuous on bounded sets in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ (because of assumptions (1.5) and (1.6)), therefore $\partial_{u}c$ is uniformly continuous on bounded sets in $[0,1]\times\mathbb{R}^{n}$, and, hence,

$$\sup_{\|u\|_{\infty}\leq 1}\|\partial_{u}c(\cdot,u_{0}(\cdot))-\partial_{u}c(\cdot,u_{1}(\cdot))u(\cdot)\|_{\infty}\to 0\mbox{ for }\|u_{0}-u_{1}\|_{\infty}\to 0.$$

Therefore, (1.9) yields that

$$\sup_{\|u\|_{\infty}+\|v\|_{\infty}\leq 1}\|({\cal U}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon}(u_{0},v_{0})-{\cal U}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon}(u_{1},v_{1}))(u,v)\|_{\infty}\to 0\mbox{ for }\|u_{0}-u_{1}\|_{\infty}\to 0$$

uniformly with respect to $\varepsilon$ and $v_{1}$. Further, we have

$$\Big{[}\Big{(}{\cal V}^{\prime}(u_{0},v_{0},\bar{v}_{0})-{\cal V}^{\prime}(u_{1},v_{1},\bar{v}_{1})\Big{)}(u,v,\bar{v})\Big{]}(x)=\int_{x}^{1}\Big{(}\partial_{u}d(y,u_{0}(y))-\partial_{u}d(y,u_{1}(y))\Big{)}u(y)dy.$$

Hence, as above we get that

$$\sup_{\|u\|_{\infty}+\|v\|_{\infty}+\|\bar{v}\|\leq 1}\|({\cal V}^{\prime}(u_{0},v_{0},\bar{v}_{0})-{\cal V}^{\prime}(u_{1},v_{1},\bar{v}_{1}))(u,v,\bar{v})\|_{\infty}\to 0\mbox{ for }\|u_{0}-u_{1}\|_{\infty}\to 0$$

uniformly with respect to $v_{1}$ and $\bar{v}_{1}$. And finally,

$$\Big{(}\bar{\cal V}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(u_{0},v_{0})-\bar{\cal V}^{\prime}(u_{1},v_{1})\Big{)}(u,v)$$

$$=\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}\partial_{u}c(x,u_{1}(x))-\partial_{u}c(x,u_{0}(x))\Big{)}u(x)dx.$$

Therefore

$$\sup_{\|u\|_{\infty}+\|v\|_{\infty}\leq 1}\|(\bar{\cal V}^{\prime}(u_{0},v_{0})-\bar{\cal V}^{\prime}(u_{1},v_{1}))(u,v)\|\to 0\mbox{ for }\|u_{0}-u_{1}\|_{\infty}\to 0$$

uniformly with respect to $\varepsilon$ and $v_{1}$.

3.4 Verification of (2.3)

Suppose that (2.3) is not true, i.e. that it is not true that there exists $\varepsilon_{0}>0$ such that $\inf\{\|{\cal F}_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(w_{0})w\|_{W}:\;\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{0}],w\in W,\|w\|_{W}=1\}>0$. Then there exist sequences $\varepsilon_{1},\varepsilon_{2},\ldots>0$ and $u_{1},u_{2},\ldots\in C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and $v_{1},v_{2},\ldots\in C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and $\bar{v}_{1},\bar{v}_{2},\ldots\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ such that

$$\|u_{k}\|_{\infty}+\|v_{k}\|_{\infty}+\|\bar{v}_{k}\|=1\mbox{ for all }k\in\mathbb{N},$$ (3.18)

but with

$$\lim_{k\to\infty}\Big{(}\varepsilon_{k}+\|{\cal U}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon_{k}}(u_{0},v_{0})(u_{k},v_{k})\|_{\infty}+\|{\cal V}^{\prime}(u_{0},v_{0},\bar{v}_{0})(u_{k},v_{k},\bar{v}_{k})\|_{\infty}+\|\bar{\cal V}^{\prime}_{\varepsilon_{k}}(u_{0},v_{0})(u_{k},v_{k})\|\Big{)}=0,$$

i.e. with

$$\lim_{k\to\infty}\left(\sup_{x\in[0,1]}\left\|u_{k}(x)+\int_{0}^{x}\Big{(}A(y/\varepsilon_{k})+B(y/\varepsilon_{k})\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}\partial_{u}c(y,u_{0}(y))u_{k}(y)-v_{k}(y)\Big{)}dy\right\|\right.$$

$$\;\;\;\;+\left.\sup_{x\in[0,1]}\left\|v_{k}(x)-\bar{v}_{k}+\int_{x}^{1}\partial_{u}d(y,u(y))u_{k}(y)dy\right\|\right.$$

$$\;\;\;\;+\left.\left\|\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}v_{k}(x)-\partial_{u}c(x,u(x))u_{k}(x)\Big{)}dx\right\|\right)=0.$$ (3.19)

Denote

$$U_{k}(x):=\int_{0}^{x}\Big{(}A(y/\varepsilon_{k})+B(y/\varepsilon_{k})\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}v_{k}(y)-\partial_{u}c(y,u_{0}(y))u_{k}(y)\Big{)}dy,$$

$$V_{k}(x):=\bar{v}_{k}-\int_{x}^{1}\partial_{u}d(y,u(y))u_{1}(y)dy.$$

Then $\sup\{\|U^{\prime}_{k}\|_{\infty}+\|V^{\prime}_{k}\|_{\infty}:\;k\in\mathbb{N}\}<\infty$. Hence, because of the Arzela-Ascoli Theorem and because of the precompactness of bounded sets in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ without loss of generality we may assume that there exist $U_{0},V_{0}\in C([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and $\bar{V}_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ such that

$$\lim_{k\to\infty}\big{(}\|U_{k}-U_{0}\|_{\infty}+\|V_{k}-V_{0}\|_{\infty}+\|\bar{v}_{k}-\bar{V}_{0}\|\big{)}=0.$$

But (3.4) yields that $\|u_{k}-U_{k}\|_{\infty}+\|v_{k}-V_{k}\|_{\infty}\to 0$ for $k\to\infty$, and, hence, we get that

$$\lim_{k\to\infty}\big{(}\|u_{k}-U_{0}\|_{\infty}+\|v_{k}-V_{0}\|_{\infty}+\|\bar{v}_{k}-\bar{V}_{0}\|\big{)}=0.$$ (3.20)

In particular, (3.18) implies that

$$\|U_{0}\|_{\infty}+\|V_{0}\|_{\infty}+\|\bar{V}_{0}\|=1.$$ (3.21)

We are going to show that (3.4), (3.20) and (3.21) lead to a contradiction. Because of (3.4) and (3.20) and of Lemma 3.2 we have

$$0 = \lim_{k\to\infty}\sup_{x\in[0,1]}\left\|u_{k}(x)+\int_{0}^{x}\Big{(}A(y/\varepsilon_{k})+B(y/\varepsilon_{k})\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}\partial_{u}c(y,u_{0}(y))u_{k}(y)-v_{k}(y)\Big{)}dy\right\|$$ (3.22)

$$= \lim_{k\to\infty}\sup_{x\in[0,1]}\left\|U_{0}(x)+\int_{0}^{x}\Big{(}A(y/\varepsilon_{k})+B(y/\varepsilon_{k})\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}\partial_{u}c(y,u_{0}(y))U_{0}(y)-V_{0}(y)\Big{)}dy\right\|$$

$$= \sup_{x\in[0,1]}\left\|U_{0}(x)+\int_{0}^{x}A_{0}^{-1}\Big{(}\partial_{u}c(y,u_{0}(y))U_{0}(y)-V_{0}(y)\Big{)}dy\right\|$$

and

$$0 = \lim_{k\to\infty}\sup_{x\in[0,1]}\left\|v_{k}(x)-\bar{v}_{k}+\int_{x}^{1}\partial_{u}d(y,u_{0}(y))u_{k}(y)dy\right\|$$ (3.23)

$$= \left\|V_{0}(x)-\bar{V}_{0}+\int_{x}^{1}\partial_{u}d(y,u_{0}(y))U_{0}(y)dy\right\|$$

and

$$0 = \lim_{k\to\infty}\left\|\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}A(x/\varepsilon)+B(x/\varepsilon)\Big{)}^{-1}\Big{(}v_{k}(x)-\partial_{u}c(x,u(x))u_{k}(x)\Big{)}dx\right\|$$

$$= \left\|\int_{0}^{1}A_{0}^{-1}\Big{(}V_{0}(x)-\partial_{u}c(x,u_{0}(x))U_{0}(x)\Big{)}dx\right\|.$$ (3.24)

From (3.22) follows that $U_{0}(0)=0$ and that $A_{0}U^{\prime}_{0}(x)+\partial_{u}c(x,u_{0}(x))U_{0}(x)-V_{0}(x)=0$ for all $x\in[0,1]$. Hence, (3.24) yields that $U_{0}(1)=0$. Further, from (3.23) follows that

$$V_{0}(x)-\bar{V}_{0}+\int_{x}^{1}\partial_{u}d(y,u_{0}(y))U_{0}(y)dy=0\mbox{ for all }x\in[0,1].$$ (3.25)

Therefore

$$A_{0}U^{\prime}_{0}(x)+\partial_{u}c(x,u_{0}(x))U_{0}(x)+\bar{V}_{0}-\int_{x}^{1}\partial_{u}d(y,u_{0}(y))U_{0}(y)dy=0.$$

If we multiply this scalarly by $\varphi^{\prime}(x)$ with a test function $\varphi\in C^{1}([0,1];\mathbb{R}^{n})$ with $\varphi(0)=\varphi(1)=0$ and if we integrate, we get

$$\int_{0}^{1}\Big{(}\Big{(}A_{0}U^{\prime}_{0}(x)+\partial_{u}c(x,u_{0}(x))U_{0}(x)\Big{)}\cdot\varphi^{\prime}(x)+\partial_{u}d(x,u_{0}(x))U_{0}(x)\cdot\varphi(x)\Big{)}dx=0.$$

Hence, $U_{0}$ is a weak solution to the linearized boundary value problem (1.11). By assumption of Theorem 1.1 we get that $U_{0}(x)=0$ for all $x\in[0,1]$. Therefore (3.24) and (3.25) imply $\int_{0}^{1}V_{0}(x)dx=0$ and $V_{0}(x)=\bar{V}_{0}$ for all $x\in[0,1]$. Hence, $\bar{V}_{0}=0$ and $V_{0}(x)=0$ for all $x\in[0,1]$. But this contradicts to (3.21).