Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T10:07:02.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two uniqueness results in the inverse boundary value problem for the weighted p-Laplace equation

Part of:Miscellaneous topics - Partial differential equationsElliptic equations and systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2025

Catalin CarsteaOpen the ORCID record for Catalin Carstea[Opens in a new window] and
Ali FeizmohammadiOpen the ORCID record for Ali Feizmohammadi[Opens in a new window]
Catalin Carstea*
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Mathematics, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University , Hsinchu 300, Taiwan, ROC
Ali Feizmohammadi
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto , Mississauga, ON L5L 1C6, Canada; E-mail: ali.feizmohammadi@utoronto.ca
*
E-mail: catalin.carstea@gmail.com (corresponding author)

Abstract

In this paper we prove a general uniqueness result in the inverse boundary value problem for the weighted p-Laplace equation in the plane, with smooth weights. We also prove a uniqueness result in dimension 3 and higher, for real analytic weights that are subject to a smallness condition on one of their directional derivatives. Both results are obtained by linearizing the equation at a solution without critical points. This unknown solution is then recovered, together with the unknown weight.

MSC classification

Primary:35R30: Inverse problems
Secondary:35J62: Quasilinear elliptic equations35J70: Degenerate elliptic equations35J92: Quasilinear elliptic equations with $p$-Laplacian

Information

Type
Differential Equations
Information
Forum of Mathematics, Sigma , Volume 13 , 2025, e147
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

1 Introduction

Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb {R}^n$ , $n\geq 2$ , be a compact connected set with nonempty interior and a smooth boundary, let $\gamma \in C^\infty (\Omega )$ be a positive functionFootnote 1 , and finally let $p\in (1,2)\cup (2,\infty )$ . We consider the boundary value problem

(1) $$ \begin{align} \left\{\begin{array}{l}\nabla\cdot(\gamma|\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u)=0,\\[7pt] u|_{\partial\Omega}=f,\end{array}\right. \end{align} $$

where f, u are real-valued functions. Equation (1) is known as the weighted p-Laplace equation and it is a quasilinear, degenerate elliptic equation. The forward problem for this equation is well studied and we have

Theorem 1.1 (e.g., [Reference Lieberman33, Theorem 1]).

Let $f\in C^{1,\alpha }(\partial \Omega )$ for some $\alpha \in (0,1]$ . There exist $\beta \in (0,1)$ and $C(\|f\|_{C^{1,\alpha }(\partial \Omega )})>0$ nondecreasing such that equation (1) has a unique weak solution $u\in C^{1,\beta }(\Omega )$ and

(2) $$ \begin{align} \|u\|_{C^{1,\beta}(\Omega)}\leq C(\|f\|_{C^{1,\alpha}(\partial\Omega)}). \end{align} $$

It is therefore possible to define the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map associated to (1) by

(3) $$ \begin{align} \Lambda_\gamma(f)=\left.\left(\gamma|\nabla u|^{p-2}\partial_\nu u\right)\right|_{\partial\Omega}, \qquad \forall\, f \in C^{1,\alpha}(\partial\Omega), \end{align} $$

where u is the unique solution to (1) and $\nu $ is the exterior normal unit vector on $\partial \Omega $ .

In [Reference Calderón7], Calderón proposed the following question/inverse problem: Can an elliptic coefficient $\gamma $ be recovered from the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map associated to the equation $\nabla \cdot (\gamma \nabla u)=0$ ? A positive answer for general smooth coefficients $\gamma $ was first provided in [Reference Sylvester and Uhlmann42] in dimension 3 or higher and by [Reference Nachman35] in the plane. In the intervening decades, similar questions for other equations have been investigated in a large number of papers. It is beyond the purposes of our work to give a full account of the existing inverse problems literature. We will reference below those works that are most closely related to our own, in terms of subject matter or technique.

In this paper we are interested in the inverse problem of recovering the a priori unknown coefficient $\gamma $ in (1), given the knowledge of $\Lambda _\gamma $ . This is a natural analogue of the original problem of Calderón. We will prove two results. The first is the following general uniqueness result in the plane.

Theorem 1.2. Let $n=2$ and let $\gamma , \tilde \gamma \in C^\infty (\Omega )$ be strictly positive functions. If $\Lambda _{\gamma }=\Lambda _{\tilde \gamma }$ , then $\gamma =\tilde \gamma $ .

In dimensions 3 and higher we prove the following uniqueness result for weights belonging to $C^\omega (\Omega )$ , the space of real-analytic functions on $\Omega $ .

Theorem 1.3. Let $n\geq 3$ and let $\zeta \in \mathbb {R}^n$ be a unit vector. Suppose there exists a point $z\in \partial \Omega $ in a neighborhood of which $\partial \Omega $ is flat. There exists $\mu>0$ , depending only on $\Omega $ and n, such that if $\gamma , \tilde \gamma \in C^\omega (\Omega )$ are strictly positive functions with $\|\zeta \cdot \nabla \gamma \|_{C^{0,\alpha }(\Omega )}$ , $\|\zeta \cdot \nabla \tilde \gamma \|_{C^{0,\alpha }(\Omega )}<\mu $ , then $\Lambda _{\gamma }=\Lambda _{\tilde \gamma }$ implies $\gamma =\tilde \gamma $ .

The study of inverse problems for nonlinear equations is not new, but in recent years there has been a considerable increase in the interest for this topic. As examples, we can cite the papers [Reference Feizmohammadi and Oksanen17], [Reference Isakov21], [Reference Isakov and Nachman23], [Reference Isakov and Sylvester24], [Reference Krupchyk and Uhlmann28], [Reference Krupchyk and Uhlmann29], [Reference Lassas, Liimatainen, Lin and Salo31], [Reference Lassas, Liimatainen, Lin and Salo30], [Reference Sun40] on semilinear equations, and [Reference Cârstea and Feizmohammadi10], [Reference Cârstea and Feizmohammadi9], [Reference Cârstea, Feizmohammadi, Kian, Krupchyk and Uhlmann11], [Reference Cârstea and Kar14], [Reference Cârstea, Nakamura and Vashisth15], [Reference Cârstea8], [Reference Egger, Pietschmann and Schlottbom16], [Reference Hervas and Sun20], [Reference Isakov22], [Reference Kang and Nakamura25], [Reference Munoz and Uhlmann34], [Reference Shankar37], [Reference Sun38], [Reference Sun39], [Reference Sun and Uhlmann41] on quasilinear equations. By and large, all these works rely on a so-called second/higher linearization method. These ideas go back to [Reference Isakov21], where what one may call a first-order linearization method was used. As commonly employed, the method consists of using Dirichlet data that depends on a small (or large) parameter $\epsilon $ , typically of the form $\epsilon \phi $ (or $\lambda +\epsilon \phi $ , with $\lambda $ a constant, if constants are a solution to the linear part of the equation). One then uses the asymptotic expansion of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map in terms of the parameter $\epsilon $ to obtain information about the coefficients of the equation. Sometimes this is presented as differentiating the equation with respect to the small parameter, then setting it to zero.

Our paper is not the first to take up the inverse boundary value problem for the weighted p-Laplacian. The works [Reference Brander, Kar and Salo6], [Reference Brander3], [Reference Brander, Harrach, Kar and Salo4], [Reference Brander, Ilmavirta and Kar5], [Reference Guo, Kar and Salo19], [Reference Kar and Wang27], [Reference Salo and Zhong36] all address aspects of the same problem. We note that a uniqueness result without additional constraints, such as monotonicity, has not yet been previously derived for the weighted p-Laplacian. Also, past boundary determination results have only yielded $\gamma |_{\partial \Omega }$ and $\partial _\nu \gamma |_{\partial \Omega }$ , but not the rest of the derivatives of $\gamma $ on the boundary (see [Reference Salo and Zhong36], [Reference Brander3]). For other degenerate equations, the only known results are those of [Reference Cârstea, Ghosh and Nakamura12], [Reference Cârstea, Ghosh and Uhlmann13], where general uniqueness results are derived for the coefficients of porous medium equations.

The approach to the proofs of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 also makes use of a linearization method. In equation (1) we use Dirichlet data of the form $f=\phi _0+\epsilon \phi $ , with $\epsilon $ a small parameter. Let $u_\epsilon $ be the corresponding solution and, assuming that we are justified in taking the derivative, let $\dot u=\left .\frac {\,\text {d}}{\,\text {d}\epsilon } u_\epsilon \right |{}_{\epsilon =0}$ . Further assuming we can differentiate the equation, it is not hard to see that $\dot u$ should satisfy the anisotropic linear equation

(4) $$ \begin{align} \left\{\begin{array}{l}\nabla\cdot(A\nabla \dot u)=0,\\[7pt] \dot u|_{\partial\Omega}=\phi,\end{array}\right. \end{align} $$

where A is the matrix with the $u_0$ -dependent coefficients

(5) $$ \begin{align} A_{jk}=\gamma|\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\left(\delta_{jk}+(p-2)\frac{\partial_ju_0\partial_ku_0}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right). \end{align} $$

The Dirichlet-to-Neumann map $\Lambda _\gamma $ determines the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map $\Lambda _A$ for the equation (4).

In order to use already established results for the determination of the coefficient matrix A, we need it to be elliptic. Indeed, even the differentiability of $u_\epsilon $ w.r.t. $\epsilon $ is in question unless that is the case. We then see that the unknown $u_0$ must be guaranteed to have no critical points. In dimension 2, by results of Alessandrini and Sigalotti in [Reference Alessandrini and Sigalotti2], we can guarantee the absence of critical points by choosing Dirichlet data that has single local minimum and maximum points on $\partial \Omega $ . In dimension 3 and higher something like this is unlikely to hold, as even for linear elliptic equations it is known that for each Dirichlet data there is an open set of smooth coefficients that produce solutions with critical points (see [Reference Alberti, Bal and Di Cristo1]). We can show, however, that, for coefficients $\gamma $ that vary slowly in one direction, there exists explicit Dirichlet data for which no critical points appear.

We can also point out here a simple corollary of our linearization result (Proposition 2.3 below), for weights that are constant in one direction.

Corollary 1.1. Let $n\geq 3$ and $\zeta \in \mathbb {R}^n$ be a unit vector. If $\gamma , \tilde \gamma \in C^\infty (\Omega )$ are such that $\zeta\cdot\nabla\gamma=\zeta\cdot\nabla\tilde\gamma=0$ and $\Lambda _{\gamma }=\Lambda _{\tilde \gamma }$ , then $\gamma =\tilde \gamma $ .

Proof. In this case $u_0=\zeta \cdot x$ is a solution of (1), with either weight. Then

(6) $$ \begin{align} A_{jk}=\gamma\left(\delta_{jk}+(p-2)\zeta_j\zeta_k\right),\quad \tilde A_{jk}=\tilde \gamma\left(\delta_{jk}+(p-2)\zeta_j\zeta_k\right). \end{align} $$

After a rescaling in the $\zeta $ direction, the linearized problem reduces to the classical Calderón problem with isotropic conductivities.

The linearization procedure is detailed in section 2. In section 3 we give a proof of Theorem 1.2. By the well-known result [Reference Nachman35] of Nachman, we have uniqueness for the coefficient matrix A, up to diffeomorphism invariance. Making use of the particular structure of A, we then succeed in showing that the diffeomorphism relating A and $\tilde A$ must be trivial and that $\gamma =\tilde \gamma $ . In section 4 we give the proof of Theorem 1.3. Our approach is to use boundary determination results for equation (4) to obtain the values of all tangential directions of A on the boundary, together with all their normal direction derivatives. From this information we are then able to inductively show uniqueness for the values of all the normal direction derivatives $\partial _\nu ^k u_0|_{\partial \Omega }$ , $\partial _\nu ^k\gamma |_{\partial \Omega }$ , $k=0,1,2,\ldots $ . Since here $\gamma $ is assumed to be a real-analytic function, this is enough to recover it on $\Omega $ .

2 Linearizing the p-Laplace equation

For each $\xi \in \mathbb {R}^n\setminus \{0\}$ let

(7) $$ \begin{align} J_j(\xi)=|\xi|^{p-2}\xi_j,\quad j=1,\ldots,n. \end{align} $$

Then

(8) $$ \begin{align} \frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_k}J_j(\xi)=|\xi|^{p-2}\left(\delta_{jk}+(p-2)\frac{\xi_j\xi_k}{|\xi|^2}\right). \end{align} $$

In what follows, we will repeatedly use Taylor’s formula

(9) $$ \begin{align} J_j(\zeta)=J_j(\xi)+\sum_{k=1}^n(\zeta_k-\xi_k)\int_0^1\partial_{\xi_k}J(\xi+t(\zeta-\xi))\,\text{d} t. \end{align} $$

We plan to linearize equation (1) near some solution $u_0$ , whose boundary data $u_0|_{\partial \Omega }=\phi _0$ is known. As will become apparent below, we can only perform the linearization if $u_0$ does not have any critical points in $\Omega $ . In dimension two plenty of such solutions exist, thanks to the following proposition due to Alessandrini and Sigalotti.

Proposition 2.1 (see [Reference Alessandrini and Sigalotti2, Theorem 5.1]).

If $n=2$ there exists boundary data $\phi _0\in C^\infty (\partial \Omega )$ independent of $\gamma $ such that the corresponding solution $u_0$ of (1) is in $C^\infty (\Omega )$ and $|\nabla u_0(x)|>0$ for any $x\in \Omega $ .

In higher dimensions, even for a linear elliptic equation with unknown coefficients it is impossible to guarantee the absence of critical points (see [Reference Alberti, Bal and Di Cristo1]). We can still show the existence of such a solution provided the weight $\gamma $ is sufficiently close to a constant.

Proposition 2.2. Let $\zeta \in \mathbb {R}^n$ be a unit vector. There exists $\mu>0$ so that if $\|\zeta \cdot \nabla \gamma \|_{C^{0,\alpha }(\Omega )}<\mu $ , then there exists $u_0\in C^\infty (\Omega )$ which solves (1) with boundary data $\phi _0=\zeta \cdot x$ , and is such that $|\nabla u_0(x)|>0$ for any $x\in \Omega $ .

Proof. Without loss of generality, we assume that $\zeta =(1,0,\ldots ,0)$ . We make the Ansatz

(10) $$ \begin{align} u_0(x)= x_1+R,\quad R|_{\partial\Omega}=0. \end{align} $$

By (9) we have

(11) $$ \begin{align} \sum_k B_{jk}(\nabla R)\partial_k R=\gamma J_j(\nabla u_0)-\gamma\delta_{1j}, \end{align} $$
(12) $$ \begin{align} B_{jk}(\xi)=\gamma\int_0^1| e_1+t\xi|^{p-2}\left(\delta_{jk}+(p-2)\frac{(\delta_{1j}+t\xi_j)(\delta_{1k}+t\xi_k)}{|e_1+t\xi|^2}\right)\,\text{d} t. \end{align} $$

Taking the divergence of the above we get

(13) $$ \begin{align} \left\{\begin{array}{l}\nabla\cdot(B(\nabla R)\nabla R)=-\partial_1\gamma,\\[7pt] R|_{\partial\Omega}=0.\end{array}\right. \end{align} $$

Let $V\in C^{2,\alpha }(\Omega )$ be such that $\|V\|_{C^{2,\alpha }(\Omega )}<1/2$ and define the map $T(V)=U$ , where U is the solution to

(14) $$ \begin{align} \left\{\begin{array}{l}\nabla\cdot(B(\nabla V)\nabla U)=-\partial_1\gamma,\\[7pt] U|_{\partial\Omega}=0.\end{array}\right. \end{align} $$

Since $B(\nabla V)\in C^{1,\alpha }(\Omega )$ are uniformly elliptic coefficients, it follows that a unique solution $U\in C^{2,\alpha }(\Omega )$ exists (see [Reference Gilbarg and Trudinger18, Theorem 6.14]). Furthermore, by [Reference Gilbarg and Trudinger18, Theorem 6.6] we have

(15) $$ \begin{align} \|U\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\Omega)}\leq C \|\partial_1\gamma\|_{C^{0,\alpha}(\Omega)}. \end{align} $$

If the right hand side is less than $1/2$ , by Schauder’s fixed point theorem (see [Reference Gilbarg and Trudinger18, Theorem 11.1]) it follows that T has a fixed point on the ball of radius $1/2$ in $C^{2,\alpha }(\Omega )$ . By uniqueness of solutions for (1), this must be R and we conclude that

(16) $$ \begin{align} \|\nabla R\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\leq \frac{1}{2}, \end{align} $$

so

(17) $$ \begin{align} |\nabla u_0(x)|>\frac{1}{2},\quad\forall x\in\Omega. \end{align} $$

Note that the nonvanishing of the gradient $\nabla u_0$ makes the equation satisfied by $u_0$ elliptic, so the smoothness of $u_0$ follows.

In what follows we will assume that $u_0$ is as in the preceding two propositions. Let A be the matrix with coefficients

(18) $$ \begin{align} A_{jk}=\gamma|\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\left(\delta_{jk}+(p-2)\frac{\partial_ju_0\partial_ku_0}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right). \end{align} $$

Proposition 2.3. Under the assumptions of either Proposition 2.1 or Proposition 2.2, we have that the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map $\Lambda _\gamma $ for the weighted p-Laplace equation (1) determines the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map $\Lambda _A$ for the linear equation $\nabla \cdot (A\nabla u)=0$ , on the same domain $\Omega $ .

Proof. For $\phi \in C^\infty (\partial \Omega )$ , and $\epsilon \in \mathbb {R}$ small, let $u_\epsilon $ be the solution of

(19) $$ \begin{align} \left\{\begin{array}{l}\nabla\cdot(\gamma|\nabla u_\epsilon|^{p-2}\nabla u_\epsilon)=0,\\[7pt] u_\epsilon|_{\partial\Omega}=u_0|_{\partial\Omega}+\epsilon\phi.\end{array}\right. \end{align} $$

We make the Ansatz

(20) $$ \begin{align} u_\epsilon=u_0+R_\epsilon. \end{align} $$

By Theorem 1.1 and the theorem of Arzelà-Ascoli, it follows that (on a subsequence) we have that $R_\epsilon \to R_0$ in $C^1(\Omega )$ . Since then $u_0+R_0$ would be a weak solution of the same boundary value problem $u_0$ satisfies, it follows that $R_\epsilon \to 0$ in $C^1(\Omega )$ . Since the limit is the same for every subsequence, it follows that in fact we do not need to pass to a subsequence. This is easily seen as follows: suppose there is a subsequence of $R_{\epsilon _k}$ of $R_{\epsilon }$ so that $\liminf _{\epsilon _k\to 0^+}||R_{\epsilon _k}-R_0||_{C^1(\Omega )}>0$ ; however, the argument above also shows that $R_{\epsilon _k}$ has a subsequence which converges to $R_0$ in $C^1(\Omega )$ , which is a contradiction.

By Taylor’s formula we have that

(21) $$ \begin{align} \sum_k\partial_kR_\epsilon\int_0^1\partial_{\xi_k}J_j(\nabla u_0+t\nabla R_\epsilon)\,\text{d} t=J_j(\nabla u_\epsilon)-J_j(\nabla u_0). \end{align} $$

Let

(22) $$ \begin{align} A^\epsilon_{jk}=\gamma\int_0^1\partial_{\xi_k}J_j(\nabla u_0+t\nabla R_\epsilon)\,\text{d} t. \end{align} $$

Since $R_\epsilon \to 0$ in $C^1$ , it follows that $|\nabla u_0+t\nabla R_\epsilon |$ is uniformly bounded and uniformly bounded away from zero. This implies that $A^\epsilon _{jk}$ is a set of elliptic coefficients, with ellipticity bounds independent of $\epsilon $ . Taking gradients in (21) we get that $R_\epsilon $ satisfies

(23) $$ \begin{align} \left\{\begin{array}{l}\nabla\cdot(A^\epsilon\nabla R_\epsilon)=0,\\[7pt] R_\epsilon|_{\partial\Omega}=\epsilon\phi,\end{array}\right. \end{align} $$

It follows that

(24) $$ \begin{align} \|R_\epsilon\|_{C^{1,\beta}(\Omega)}\leq C\epsilon. \end{align} $$

We can again invoke the theorem of Arzela-Ascoli to conclude that there must exist $\dot u\in C^1(\Omega )$ such that $\epsilon ^{-1}R_\epsilon \to \dot u$ in $C^1(\Omega )$ . Taking the limit in (23) we see that $\dot u$ must be a weak solution of

(25) $$ \begin{align} \left\{\begin{array}{l}\nabla\cdot(A\nabla \dot u)=0,\\[7pt] \dot u|_{\partial\Omega}=\phi,\end{array}\right. \end{align} $$

Returning to (21), dividing by $\epsilon $ and taking the limit $\epsilon \to 0$ , we have that

(26) $$ \begin{align} \nu\cdot A\nabla\dot u&=\lim_{\epsilon\to0}\gamma\frac{\nu\cdot J(\nabla u_\epsilon)-\nu\cdot J(\nabla u_0)}{\epsilon}\notag\\&=\lim_{\epsilon\to0}\frac{\Lambda_{\gamma}(u_0|_{\partial\Omega}+\epsilon\phi)-\Lambda_{\gamma}(u_0|_{\partial\Omega})}{\epsilon}. \end{align} $$

We see then that the Neumann data for the equation (25) is determined by the map $\Lambda _\gamma $ .

3 Proof of Theorem 1.2

Suppose $n=2$ and we have $\gamma $ , $\tilde \gamma $ as above such that $\Lambda _\gamma =\Lambda _{\tilde \gamma }$ . We use notation such as $u_\epsilon $ , $\tilde u_\epsilon $ to denote the corresponding solutions to (19), etc. Observe that one consequence of the identity of the DN maps is

(27) $$ \begin{align} \int_\Omega \gamma|\nabla u_0|^p\,\text{d} x=\int_\Omega \tilde\gamma|\nabla \tilde u_0|^p\,\text{d} x. \end{align} $$

By Proposition 2.3 we have $\Lambda _A=\Lambda _{\tilde A}$ . From [Reference Nachman35, Theorem 2] it follows that there must exist a diffeomorphism $\Phi =(\Phi ^1,\Phi ^2):\Omega \to \Omega $ such that $\Phi |_{\partial \Omega }=Id$ and

(28) $$ \begin{align} \tilde A(x)=\frac{1}{|D\Phi|} (D\Phi)^TA\, D\Phi\circ\Phi^{-1}(x). \end{align} $$

Here $D\Phi $ is the matrix with coefficients $(D\Phi )_{jk}=\partial _j\Phi ^k$ .

Note that

(29) $$ \begin{align} &\det\left(\delta_{jk}+(p-2)\frac{\partial_j u_0\partial_k u_0}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right) \notag \\& \quad =\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right)\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_2 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right) \notag\\& \qquad -(p-2)^2\frac{(\partial_1 u_0\partial_2 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^4} =p-1. \end{align} $$

Taking determinants on both sides of (28) we obtain

(30) $$ \begin{align} \left(\tilde\gamma|\nabla \tilde u_0|^{p-2}\right)^2=\left(\gamma |\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\right)^2|D\Phi|^{-2}|D\Phi|^2\circ\Phi^{-1}, \end{align} $$

so

(31) $$ \begin{align} \tilde\gamma|\nabla\tilde u_0|^{p-2}=\gamma|\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\circ\Phi^{-1}. \end{align} $$

Another consequence of $\Lambda _A=\Lambda _{\tilde A}$ is that for each $\phi $ we have $\dot {\tilde u}=\dot {u}\circ \Phi ^{-1}$ . Incidentally, for $\phi =u_0|_{\partial \Omega }$ the solution to the linear equation is $\dot {u}=u_0$ . Therefore

(32) $$ \begin{align} \tilde u_0= u_0\circ\Phi^{-1}. \end{align} $$

It then follows that

(33) $$ \begin{align} \nabla u_0=D\Phi \left(\nabla\tilde u_0\circ\Phi\right), \end{align} $$

which we can use in (28), together with (31), to get

(34) $$ \begin{align} \tilde A=\tilde\gamma|\nabla \tilde u_0|^{p-2}\frac{1}{|D\Phi|\circ\Phi^{-1}}&\Bigg(\left[(D\Phi)^TD\Phi\right]\circ\Phi^{-1} +(p-2)\frac{|\nabla\tilde u_0|^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2\circ\Phi^{-1}}\nonumber\\& \quad \times\left[(D\Phi)^TD\Phi\right]\circ\Phi^{-1}\frac{\nabla\tilde u_0\otimes\nabla\tilde u_0}{|\nabla\tilde u_0|^2} \left[(D\Phi)^TD\Phi\right]\circ\Phi^{-1}\Bigg). \end{align} $$

Let

(35) $$ \begin{align} \!\!\!F=\left[\frac{(D\Phi)^TD\Phi}{|D\Phi|}\right]\!\circ\Phi^{-1},\; P=\frac{\nabla\tilde u_0\otimes\nabla\tilde u_0}{|\nabla\tilde u_0|^2}, \; \alpha=|D\Phi|\!\circ\Phi^{-1}\frac{|\nabla\tilde u_0|^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2\!\circ\Phi^{-1}}. \end{align} $$

Note that F, P are symmetric matrices and that $P^2=P$ . Identifying P, F, and $\alpha $ in (34) and (18), we have

(36) $$ \begin{align} F+\alpha (p-2)FPF=I+(p-2)P. \end{align} $$

As both $I+(p-2)P$ and F are invertible and the left-hand side of (36) can be factored as either $F\left (I+(p-2)PF\right )$ or $\left (I+(p-2)FP\right )F$ , it follows that both $I+\alpha (p-2)PF$ and $I+\alpha (p-2)FP$ are also invertible.

If we multiply (36) by P on the left, we get

(37) $$ \begin{align} PF+\alpha(p-2)PFPF=(p-1)P, \end{align} $$

so

(38) $$ \begin{align} PF=(p-1)(I+\alpha(p-2)PF)^{-1}P, \end{align} $$

since the inverse exists. Multiplying by P on the right and using that $P^2=P$ yields

(39) $$ \begin{align} PFP&=(p-1)(I+\alpha(p-2)PF)^{-1}P^2 \nonumber\\& =(p-1)(I+\alpha(p-2)PF)^{-1}P=PF. \end{align} $$

On the other hand,

(40) $$ \begin{align} FP+\alpha(p-2)FPFP=(p-1)P, \end{align} $$

so

(41) $$ \begin{align} FP=(p-1)P(I+\alpha(p-2)FP)^{-1}, \end{align} $$

and therefore

(42) $$ \begin{align} FP=PFP=PF. \end{align} $$

Since F and P commute, they can be simultaneously diagonalized. Since P is a rank-one projection matrix, we can write

(43) $$ \begin{align} F=\theta P+\eta (I-P),\quad \theta, \eta \text{ scalars}. \end{align} $$

Multiplying (36) by $I-P$ and using the commutativity of F and P together with the identity $P(I-P)=0$ , it is easy to see that $\eta =1$ . Multiplying (36) by P and using (43) yields

(44) $$ \begin{align} (\theta+\alpha(p-2)\theta^2)P=(p-1)P\quad\Rightarrow\quad \theta+\alpha(p-2)\theta^2=p-1. \end{align} $$

On the other hand, taking the determinant of the definition of F in (35) and also in (43) gives

(45) $$ \begin{align} 1=\frac{|D\Phi|^2}{|D\Phi|^2}\circ\Phi^{-1}=\det F=\theta\eta=\theta. \end{align} $$

It follows that $\theta =1$ , $F=I$ , and by (44) also that $\alpha =1$ .

Suppose a nontrivial diffeomorphism such as $\Phi $ exists. Let $\sigma $ be a scalar conductivity on $\Omega $ and let

(46) $$ \begin{align} \sigma_*(y)=\frac{\sigma}{|D\Phi|}(D\Phi)^TD\Phi\circ\Phi^{-1}(y)=\sigma\circ\Phi^{-1}(y) F(y)=\sigma\circ\Phi^{-1}(y). \end{align} $$

This new conductivity is also scalar and gives the same DN map as $\sigma $ . This violates the known uniqueness results for the Calderón problem in the plane (e.g., see [Reference Nachman35]). So $\Phi $ must be trivial. Therefore $u_0=\tilde u_0$ and $\gamma =\tilde \gamma $ .

4 Proof of Theorem 1.3

As in the previous section, we will denote by $u_0$ , $\tilde u_0$ , A, $\tilde A$ , etc. the functions corresponding to the coefficients $\gamma $ and $\tilde \gamma $ respectively. By Proposition 2.3 we have that $\Lambda _A=\Lambda _{\tilde A}$ .

It is an immediate consequence of [Reference Lee and Uhlmann32, Proposition 1.3] (or [Reference Kang and Yun26, Theorem 1.3]) that there must exist a neighborhood of U of $\partial \Omega $ and a smooth diffeomorphism $\Phi :U\cap \Omega \to U\cap \Omega $ , for which we will also use the notation $\Phi =(\Phi ^1,\ldots ,\Phi ^n)$ , with $\Phi |_{\partial \Omega }=Id$ , and such that

(47) $$ \begin{align} \left.\partial_\nu^j\tilde A\right|_{\partial\Omega}=\left.\partial_\nu^j\frac{1}{|D\Phi|}(D\Phi)^TAD\Phi\right|_{\partial\Omega}, \quad j=0,1,2,\ldots. \end{align} $$

Let $z\in \partial \Omega $ . Unless otherwise specified, all the following computations will be pointwise, at this point z. We wish to proceed inductively in the order of differentiation in (47).

$0\text {th}$ order:

We have that

(48) $$ \begin{align} \tilde A(z)=\frac{1}{|D\Phi|(z)}(D\Phi)^T(z)A(z)D\Phi(z). \end{align} $$

If $\tau $ is any unit tangent vector to $\partial \Omega $ at z, we must have that $D\Phi (z)\tau =\tau $ . Since $u_0|_{\partial \Omega }=\tilde u_0|_{\partial \Omega }$ , we also have that $\tau \cdot \nabla u_0(z)=\tau \cdot \nabla \tilde u_0(z)$ . Therefore

(49) $$ \begin{align} \tau\cdot\tilde A(z)\tau=\tilde\gamma(z)|\nabla\tilde u_0|^{p-2}(z)\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\tau\cdot\nabla u_0)^2(z)}{|\nabla \tilde u_0|^2(z)}\right). \end{align} $$

On the other hand, by (48) we have

(50) $$ \begin{align} \tau\cdot\tilde A(z)\tau=\frac{1}{|D\Phi|(z)}\gamma(z)|\nabla u_0|^{p-2}(z)\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\tau\cdot\nabla u_0)^2(z)}{|\nabla u_0|^2(z)}\right). \end{align} $$

We can vary $\tau $ in the tangent space to the boundary at z, which is at least two-dimensional. Our plan is to use two different choices for $\tau $ .

Note that the intersection of the space of vectors that are orthogonal to $\nabla u_0(z)$ with the tangent space to the boundary at z has dimension at least $n-2$ , so it cannot be trivial. By choosing $\tau \perp \nabla u_0(z)$ we can separately identify

(51) $$ \begin{align} \tilde\gamma(z)|\nabla\tilde u_0|^{p-2}(z)=\frac{1}{|D\Phi|(z)}\gamma(z)|\nabla u_0|^{p-2}(z). \end{align} $$

It is, in principle, possible for the tangent space to the boundary at z to coincide with the space of vectors that are orthogonal to $\nabla u_0(z)$ . Recall that on the boundary we are choosing $u_0(x)=\zeta \cdot x$ , therefore $\nabla u_0(z)$ is orthogonal to the boundary at z if and only if $\zeta $ is. If that is the case, note that a unit vector $\zeta '\in \mathbb {R}^n$ that is sufficiently close, but not identical, to $\zeta $ will still satisfy the condition in the statement of Proposition 2.2. Therefore, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\zeta $ is not orthogonal to the boundary at z, and so neitheris $\nabla u_0(z)$ . Choosing now a tangent vector $\tau $ such that $\tau \not \perp \nabla u_0(z)$ we get

(52) $$ \begin{align} \frac{1}{|\nabla\tilde u_0|^2}(z)=\frac{1}{|\nabla u_0|^2}(z). \end{align} $$

It follows that

(53) $$ \begin{align} |\nabla u_0|(z)=|\nabla\tilde u_0|(z), \end{align} $$

and, as we already know that $\tau \cdot \nabla u_0(z)=\tau \cdot \nabla \tilde u_0(z)$ for all $\tau $ as above, we also conclude that

(54) $$ \begin{align} \partial_\nu u_0(z)=\partial_\nu \tilde u_0(z). \end{align} $$

As $\Lambda _\gamma (u_0|_{\partial \Omega })=\Lambda _{\tilde \gamma }(u_0|_{\partial \Omega })$ , we get

(55) $$ \begin{align} \gamma(z)=\tilde\gamma(z). \end{align} $$

This further implies that

(56) $$ \begin{align} |D\Phi|(z)=1, \end{align} $$

Since now $A(z)=\tilde A(z)$ and $D\Phi $ acts as the identity in the tangent space to $\partial \Omega $ at z, equation (48) can only hold if

(57) $$ \begin{align} D\Phi(z)=I. \end{align} $$

$1^{st}$ order:

We have that

(58) $$ \begin{align} (\partial_\nu\tilde A)(z)=\left(\partial_\nu\frac{1}{|D\Phi|}(D\Phi)^TAD\Phi\right)(z). \end{align} $$

From this point onward, we will use the assumption that $\partial \Omega $ is flat in a neighborhood of z. For ease of computation, we will rotate our coordinates so that $\nu =e_1$ and locally $\partial \Omega \cap U\subset \{x_1=0\}$ . We also find it notationally convenient to introduce the tangential gradient $\nabla '=\nabla - \partial _1 e_1$ . As above, by possibly slightly changing the vector $\zeta $ in the statement of Proposition 2.2, we can make sure that $\zeta $ is not tangent to $\partial \Omega $ at z. Since $\nabla u_0$ is close to $\zeta $ in $L^\infty $ norm, we may assume, without loss of generality, that $\partial _1u_0(z)\neq 0$ .

In the previous step we have shown that $D\Phi (z)=I$ . It follows that

(59) $$ \begin{align} \partial_j\partial_k\Phi^l(z)=0,\quad\text{unless }j=k=1. \end{align} $$

Rewriting (58) with this information, we obtain that at z

(60) $$ \begin{align} \partial_1\tilde A_{jk}=\partial_1 A_{jk}+(A_{j1}\partial_1^2\Phi^k+A_{1k}\partial_1^2\Phi^j)-A_{jk}\partial_1^2\Phi^1. \end{align} $$

In preparation for using the equations above and denoting by $a_{11}$ , $a_{jj}$ , $a_{j1}$ terms made up of quantities for which uniqueness has already been shown in the previous step, that is, they depend on $\gamma |_{\partial \Omega \cap U}$ , $u_0|_{\partial \Omega \cap U}$ , and $(\partial _1 u_0)|_{\partial \Omega \cap U}$ . We compute

(61) $$ \begin{align} \partial_1 A_{11}&=\partial_1\gamma |\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right) \nonumber\\& \quad +\partial_1^2 u_0\gamma\partial_1 u_0|\nabla u_0|^{p-4}(p-2)\left(3+(p-4)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right)+a_{11}. \end{align} $$

For $j\neq 1$

(62) $$ \begin{align} \partial_1 A_{jj}&=\partial_1\gamma |\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_j u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right) \nonumber\\& \quad +\partial_1^2 u_0\gamma\partial_1 u_0|\nabla u_0|^{p-4}(p-2)\left(1+(p-4)\frac{(\partial_j u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right)+a_{jj}. \end{align} $$

Also

(63) $$ \begin{align} \partial_1 A_{j1}&=\partial_1\gamma |\nabla u_0|^{p-2}(p-2)\frac{\partial_j u_0\partial_1 u_0}{|\nabla u_0|^2} \nonumber\\& \quad +\partial_1^2 u_0\gamma\partial_j u_0|\nabla u_0|^{p-4}(p-2)\left(1+(p-4)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right)+a_{j1}. \end{align} $$

Since $\nabla \cdot (\gamma |\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\nabla u_0)=0$ , at z we have that

(64) $$ \begin{align} \partial_1\left[\gamma|\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\partial_1 u_0\right] =-\nabla'\cdot\left[\gamma|\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\nabla' u_0\right] =\partial_1\left[\tilde \gamma|\nabla \tilde u_0|^{p-2}\partial_1 \tilde u_0\right], \end{align} $$

by the previous step. Let $\xi _1=\partial _1(\gamma -\tilde \gamma )(z)$ and $\xi _2=\partial _1^2( u_0-\tilde u_0)(z)$ . It follows that

(65) $$ \begin{align} \Theta_{11}\xi_1+\Theta_{12}\xi_2=0, \end{align} $$

where

(66) $$ \begin{align} \Theta_{11}&=\partial_1 u_0|\nabla u_0|^{p-2},\end{align} $$
(67) $$ \begin{align} \Theta_{12}&=\gamma |\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right). \end{align} $$

Let $\xi _3=\partial _1^2\Phi ^1(z)$ . Taking $j=k=1$ in (60), we obtain the equation

(68) $$ \begin{align} \Theta_{21}\xi_1+\Theta_{22}\xi_2+\Theta_{23}\xi_3=0, \end{align} $$

where

(69) $$ \begin{align} \Theta_{21}&= |\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right) \end{align} $$
(70) $$ \begin{align}\Theta_{22}&=\gamma\partial_1 u_0|\nabla u_0|^{p-4}(p-2)\left(3+(p-4)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right) \end{align} $$
(71) $$ \begin{align} \Theta_{23}&=\gamma |\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right). \end{align} $$

Taking $k=j$ in (60), we obtain the equation

(72) $$ \begin{align} \Theta_{31}\xi_1+\Theta_{32}\xi_2+\Theta_{33}\xi_3=-2\partial_1^2\Phi^j\gamma |\nabla u_0|^{p-2}(p-2)\frac{\partial_j u_0\partial_1 u_0}{|\nabla u_0|^2}, \end{align} $$

where

(73) $$ \begin{align} \Theta_{31}&= |\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_j u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right), \end{align} $$
(74) $$ \begin{align} \Theta_{32}&=\gamma\partial_1 u_0|\nabla u_0|^{p-4}(p-2)\left(1+(p-4)\frac{(\partial_j u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right), \end{align} $$
(75) $$ \begin{align}\Theta_{33}&=-\gamma |\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_j u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right), \end{align} $$

Under our assumptions, we are still free to rotate the coordinate axes, as long as the normal direction remains that of $x_1$ . We can therefore arrange that $\partial _j u_0(z)=0$ . In this case we then have the system

(76) $$ \begin{align} \left\{\begin{array}{l}\Theta_{11}\xi_1+\Theta_{12}\xi_2=0,\\[7pt] \Theta_{21}\xi_1+\Theta_{22}\xi_2+\Theta_{23}\xi_3=0,\\[7pt] \Theta_{31}\xi_1+\Theta_{32}\xi_2+\Theta_{33}\xi_3=0.\end{array}\right. \end{align} $$

Denoting $\lambda (z)=\gamma ^2(z)|\nabla u_0|^{3p-8}(z)$ , we compute the determinant

(77) $$ \begin{align} &{\begin{vmatrix}\Theta_{11} & \Theta_{12}& 0\nonumber\\[7pt] \Theta_{21} & \Theta_{22}& \Theta_{23} \nonumber\\[7pt] \Theta_{31} & \Theta_{32}& \Theta_{33}\end{vmatrix}} \nonumber\\& =\lambda(z){\scriptsize \begin{vmatrix} \partial_1 u_0 &|\nabla u_0|^2\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right) & 0 \nonumber\\[7pt] 1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2} & (p-2)\partial_1 u_0\left(3+(p-4)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right) & 1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\nonumber\\[7pt] 1 & (p-2)\partial_1 u_0 & -1 \end{vmatrix}}\nonumber\\& =\lambda(z){\scriptsize\begin{vmatrix} \partial_1 u_0 &|\nabla u_0|^2\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right) & 0 \nonumber\\[7pt] 0 & (p-2)\partial_1 u_0\left(3+(p-4)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right) & 1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\nonumber \\[7pt] 2 & (p-2)\partial_1 u_0 & -1 \end{vmatrix}}\\& =\lambda(z)\left[2|\nabla u_0|^2\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right)^2\right.\qquad\qquad \nonumber\\&\left. \qquad\qquad-(p-2)(\partial_1 u_0)^2\left(3+(p-4)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right)\right]\nonumber\\& =\lambda(z)\left[ 2|\nabla u_0|^2+(p-2)(\partial_1 u_0)^2+p(p-2)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^4}{|\nabla u_0|^2} \right]\neq 0, \end{align} $$

where the conclusion holds because, since $p>1$ , both $p-2>-1$ and $p(p-2)>-1$ . It follows that

(78) $$ \begin{align} \partial_1\gamma(z)=\partial_1\tilde\gamma(z),\quad \partial_1^2 u_0(z)=\partial_1^2\tilde u_0(z),\quad \partial_1^2\Phi^1(z)=0. \end{align} $$

Returning to (60), with $k=1$ , we are left with

(79) $$ \begin{align} A_{11}\partial_1^2\Phi^j=0, \end{align} $$

which implies that

(80) $$ \begin{align} \partial_1^2\Phi^j(z)=0, \end{align} $$

for all directions j that are orthogonal to the projection of $\nabla u_0$ into the tangent plane. If we choose our coordinates so that the direction of $x_l$ is the same as that of the just-mentioned projection, then $A_{l1}(z)\neq 0$ , so (60), with $j=k=l$ gives

(81) $$ \begin{align} \partial_1^2\Phi^l(z)=0. \end{align} $$

Therefore, combining (59) and (81), we have that

(82) $$ \begin{align} \partial_j\partial_k\Phi(z)=0,\quad j,k=1,\ldots,n. \end{align} $$

$m\text {-th}$ order:

For multiindices $\alpha =(\alpha _1,\ldots ,\alpha _n)\in \mathbb {N}^n$ , suppose that we know that

(83) $$ \begin{align} \partial^\alpha\gamma(z)=\partial^\alpha\tilde\gamma(z),\quad \alpha_1=0,1,\ldots,m-1, \end{align} $$
(84) $$ \begin{align} \partial^\alpha u_0(z)=\partial^\alpha\tilde u_0(z),\quad \alpha_1=0,1,\ldots,m, \end{align} $$
(85) $$ \begin{align} \partial^\alpha D\Phi(z)=\partial^\alpha I, \quad \alpha_1=0, 1, \ldots, m-1. \end{align} $$

We have that

(86) $$ \begin{align} \left(\partial_1^m\tilde A\right)(z)=\left(\partial_1^m\frac{1}{|D\Phi|}(D\Phi)^TAD\Phi\right)(z). \end{align} $$

Using our induction assumptions, we can rewrite this as

(87) $$ \begin{align} \partial_1^m\tilde A_{jk}=\partial_1^m A_{jk}+(A_{j1}\partial_1^{m+1}\Phi^k+A_{1k}\partial_1^{m+1}\Phi^j)-A_{jk}\partial_1^{m+1}\Phi^1. \end{align} $$

Denoting by $a_{jk}$ terms made up of quantities whose uniqueness follows from the induction hypotheses, that is, on the quantities in (83) and (83), we have that

(88) $$ \begin{align} \partial_1^m A_{jk}&= \partial_1^m\gamma(z)|\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\left(\delta_{jk}+(p-2)\frac{\partial_j u_0\partial_k u_0}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right) \nonumber\\& \quad +\partial_1^{m+1} u_0 (p-2)\gamma(z)|\nabla u_0|^{p-4} \nonumber\\& \quad \times\left(\delta_{jk}\partial_1 u_0+(p-4)\frac{\partial_j u_0\partial_k u_0}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\partial_1 u_0+\delta_{1j}\partial_k u_0+\delta_{1k}\partial_j u_0\right)+a_{jk}. \end{align} $$

Since $\nabla \cdot (\gamma |\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\nabla u_0)=0$ , at z we have that

(89) $$ \begin{align} &\partial_1^m\left[\gamma|\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\partial_1 u_0\right] \nonumber\\& \quad =-\partial_1^{m-1}\nabla'\cdot\left[\gamma|\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\nabla' u_0\right] =\partial_1^m\left[\tilde \gamma|\nabla \tilde u_0|^{p-2}\partial_1 \tilde u_0\right]. \end{align} $$

This can be rewritten as

(90) $$ \begin{align} &\partial_1^m(\gamma-\tilde\gamma)\partial_1u_0|\nabla u_0|^{p-2} \nonumber\\& \quad + \partial_1^{m+1}(u_0-\tilde u_0)\gamma|\nabla u_0|^{p-2}\left(1+(p-2)\frac{(\partial_1 u_0)^2}{|\nabla u_0|^2}\right)=0. \end{align} $$

If we set $\xi _1=\partial _1^m(\gamma -\tilde \gamma )(z)$ , $\xi _2=\partial _1^{m+1}(u_0-\tilde u_0)$ , $\xi _3 = \partial _1^{m+1}\Phi ^1$ , and if we choose a direction j that is orthogonal to the projection of $\nabla u_0(z)$ into the tangent space to $\partial \Omega $ at z, we obtain the same system

(91) $$ \begin{align} \left\{\begin{array}{l}\Theta_{11}\xi_1+\Theta_{12}\xi_2=0,\\[7pt] \Theta_{21}\xi_1+\Theta_{22}\xi_2+\Theta_{23}\xi_3=0,\\[7pt] \Theta_{31}\xi_1+\Theta_{32}\xi_2+\Theta_{33}\xi_3=0.\end{array}\right. \end{align} $$

Since with our assumptions

(92) $$ \begin{align} \begin{vmatrix}\Theta_{11} & \Theta_{12}& 0\\[7pt] \Theta_{21} & \Theta_{22}& \Theta_{23}\\[7pt] \Theta_{31} & \Theta_{32}& \Theta_{33}\end{vmatrix}\neq 0, \end{align} $$

it follows that

(93) $$ \begin{align} \partial_1^m\gamma(z)=\partial_1^m\gamma(z),\quad \partial_1^{m+1} u_0(z)=\partial_1^{m+1} u_0(z),\quad \partial_1^{m+1}\Phi^1(z)=0. \end{align} $$

Setting $k=1$ in (87), we have

(94) $$ \begin{align} A_{11}\partial_1^{m+1}\Phi^j=0, \end{align} $$

which implies that

(95) $$ \begin{align} \partial_1^{m+1}\Phi^j(z)=0, \end{align} $$

for all directions j that are orthogonal to the projection of $\nabla u_0$ into the tangent plane. If we choose our coordinates so that the direction of $x_l$ is the same as that of the just-mentioned projection, then $A_{l1}(z)\neq 0$ , so (87), with $j=k=l$ gives

(96) $$ \begin{align} \partial_1^{m+1}\Phi^l(z)=0. \end{align} $$

Therefore

(97) $$ \begin{align} \partial^\alpha D\Phi(z)=\partial^\alpha I,\quad \alpha_1=0,1,\ldots,m. \end{align} $$

This completes the induction step.

Competing interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Financial support

C.C. was supported by NSTC grants 112-2115-M-A49-002 and 113-2115-M-A49-018-MY3.

Footnotes

1 Note on notation: since we choose $\Omega $ to denote a closed set, $C^\infty (\Omega )$ is the space that other works might be denoted by $C^\infty (\bar \Omega )$ , i.e. the space of restrictions of $C^\infty (\mathbb {R}^n)$ functions to $\Omega =\bar \Omega $ .

References

Alberti, G. S., Bal, G. and Di Cristo, M., ‘Critical points for elliptic equations with prescribed boundary conditions’, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 226 (2017), 117–141.10.1007/s00205-017-1130-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alessandrini, G. and Sigalotti, M., ‘Geometric properties of solutions to the anisotropic p-Laplace equation in dimension two’, Ann. Fenn. Math., 26(1) (2001), 249–266.Google Scholar
Brander, T., ‘Calderón problem for the p-Laplacian: First order derivative of conductivity on the boundary’, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 144(1) (2016), 177–189.10.1090/proc/12681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brander, T., Harrach, B., Kar, M. and Salo, M., ‘Monotonicity and enclosure methods for the p-Laplace equation’, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 78(2) (2018), 742–758.10.1137/17M1128599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brander, T., Ilmavirta, J. and Kar, M., ‘Superconductive and insulating inclusions for linear and non-linear conductivity equations’, Inverse Probl. Imaging, 12(1) (2018), 91–123.10.3934/ipi.2018004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brander, T., Kar, M. and Salo, M., ‘Enclosure method for the p-Laplace equation’, Inverse Probl., 31(4) (2015), 045001.10.1088/0266-5611/31/4/045001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calderón, A. P., ‘On an inverse boundary value problem’, in Seminar on Numerical Analysis and Its Applications to Continuum Physics (Rio de Janeiro, 1980), 65–73 (Soc. Brasil. Mat., Rio de Janeiro, 1980).Google Scholar
Cârstea, C. I., ‘On an inverse boundary value problem for a nonlinear time harmonic Maxwell system’, J. Inverse Ill-posed Probl., 30(3) (2022), 395–408.10.1515/jiip-2020-0071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cârstea, C. I. and Feizmohammadi, A., ‘A density property for tensor products of gradients of harmonic functions and applications’, Preprint, 2020, arXiv:2009.11217.Google Scholar
Cârstea, C. I. and Feizmohammadi, A., ‘An inverse boundary value problem for certain anisotropic quasilinear elliptic equations’, J. Differ. Equ., 284 (2021), 318–349.10.1016/j.jde.2021.02.044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cârstea, C. I., Feizmohammadi, A., Kian, Y., Krupchyk, K. and Uhlmann, G., ‘The Calderón inverse problem for isotropic quasilinear conductivities’, Adv. Math., 391 (2021), 107956.10.1016/j.aim.2021.107956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cârstea, C. I., Ghosh, T. and Nakamura, G., ‘An inverse boundary value problem for the inhomogeneous porous medium equation’, Preprint, 2021, arXiv:2105.01368.Google Scholar
Cârstea, C. I., Ghosh, T. and Uhlmann, G., ‘An inverse problem for the porous medium equation with partial data and a possibly singular absorption term’, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 55(1) (2023), 162–185.10.1137/21M1465573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cârstea, C. I. and Kar, M., ‘Recovery of coefficients for a weighted p-Laplacian perturbed by a linear second order term’, Inverse Probl., 37(1) (2020), 015013.10.1088/1361-6420/abcea1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cârstea, C. I., Nakamura, G. and Vashisth, M., ‘Reconstruction for the coefficients of a quasilinear elliptic partial differential equation’, Appl. Math. Lett., 98 (2019), 371–377.10.1016/j.aml.2019.06.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egger, H., Pietschmann, J.-F. and Schlottbom, M., ‘Simultaneous identification of diffusion and absorption coefficients in a quasilinear elliptic problem’, Inverse Probl., 30(3) (2014), 035009.10.1088/0266-5611/30/3/035009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feizmohammadi, A. and Oksanen, L., ‘An inverse problem for a semi-linear elliptic equation in Riemannian geometries’, J. Differ. Equ., 269(6) (2020), 4683–4719.10.1016/j.jde.2020.03.037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbarg, D. and Trudinger, N. S., Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order, Classics in Mathematics, 224 (Springer, Berlin, 1998).Google Scholar
Guo, C.-Y., Kar, M. and Salo, M., ‘Inverse problems for p-Laplace type equations under monotonicity assumptions’, Rend. Istit. Mat. Univ. Trieste, 48 (2016), 79–99.Google Scholar
Hervas, D. and Sun, Z., ‘An inverse boundary value problem for quasilinear elliptic equations’, Commun. Partial Differ. Equ., 27(11–12) (2002), 2449–2490.10.1081/PDE-120016164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isakov, V., ‘On uniqueness in inverse problems for semilinear parabolic equations’, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 124(1) (1993), 1–12.10.1007/BF00392201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isakov, V., ‘Uniqueness of recovery of some quasilinear partial differential equations’, Commun. Partial Differential Equations 26(11–12) (2001), 1947–1973.10.1081/PDE-100107813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isakov, V. and Nachman, A. I., ‘Global uniqueness for a two-dimensional semilinear elliptic inverse problem’, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 347(9) (1995), 3375–3390.10.1090/S0002-9947-1995-1311909-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isakov, V. and Sylvester, J., ‘Global uniqueness for a semilinear elliptic inverse problem’, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 47(10) (1994), 1403–1410.10.1002/cpa.3160471005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, H. and Nakamura, G., ‘Identification of nonlinearity in a conductivity equation via the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map’, Inverse Problems 18(4) (2002), 1079.10.1088/0266-5611/18/4/309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, H. and Yun, K., ‘Boundary determination of conductivities and Riemannian metrics via local Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator’, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 34(3) (2002), 719–735.10.1137/S0036141001395042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kar, M. and Wang, J.-N., ‘Size estimates for the weighted p-Laplace equation with one measurement’, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. B 22(11) (2017)Google Scholar
Krupchyk, K. and Uhlmann, G., ‘Partial data inverse problems for semilinear elliptic equations with gradient nonlinearities’, Math. Res. Lett. 27(6) (2020)10.4310/MRL.2020.v27.n6.a10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupchyk, K. and Uhlmann, G., ‘A remark on partial data inverse problems for semilinear elliptic equations’, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 148(2) (2020), 681–685.10.1090/proc/14844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassas, M., Liimatainen, T., Lin, Y.-H., and Salo, M., ‘Partial data inverse problems and simultaneous recovery of boundary and coefficients for semilinear elliptic equations’, Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 37(4) (2020), 1553–1580.10.4171/rmi/1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassas, M., Liimatainen, T., Lin, Y.-H., and Salo, M., ‘Inverse problems for elliptic equations with power type nonlinearities’, J. Math. Pures Appl. 145 (2021), 44–82.10.1016/j.matpur.2020.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. M. and Uhlmann, G., ‘Determining anisotropic real-analytic conductivities by boundary measurements’, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 42(8) (1989), 1097–1112.10.1002/cpa.3160420804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, G. M., ‘Boundary regularity for solutions of degenerate elliptic equations’, Nonlinear Anal. 12(11) (1988), 1203–1219.10.1016/0362-546X(88)90053-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munoz, C. and Uhlmann, G., ‘The Calderón problem for quasilinear elliptic equations’, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré C Anal. Non Linéaire (2020)10.1016/j.anihpc.2020.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nachman, A., ‘Global uniqueness for a two-dimensional inverse boundary value problem’, Ann. of Math. 143(1) (1996), 71–96.10.2307/2118653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salo, M. and Zhong, X., ‘An inverse problem for the p-Laplacian: boundary determination’, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 44(4) (2012), 2474–2495.10.1137/110838224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shankar, R., ‘Recovering a quasilinear conductivity from boundary measurements’, Inverse Problems 37(1) (2020), 015014.10.1088/1361-6420/abced7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, Z., ‘On a quasilinear inverse boundary value problem’, Math. Z. 221(1) (1996), 293–305.Google Scholar
Sun, Z., ‘Anisotropic inverse problems for quasilinear elliptic equations’, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 12 (2005), 015.10.1088/1742-6596/12/1/015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, Z., ‘An inverse boundary-value problem for semilinear elliptic equations’, Electron. J. Differential Equations (2010), Paper No.Google Scholar
Sun, Z. and Uhlmann, G., ‘Inverse problems in quasilinear anisotropic media’, Amer. J. Math. 119(4) (1997), 771–797.10.1353/ajm.1997.0027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sylvester, J. and Uhlmann, G., ‘A global uniqueness theorem for an inverse boundary value problem’, Ann. of Math. 125(1) (1987), 153–169.10.2307/1971291CrossRefGoogle Scholar