\section{Introduction}\label{sec:Intro}

In 1972 Fritz John~\cite{Jo72} published a uniqueness theorem for Nonlinear
Elasticity that, until recently, was the only result of its kind. He showed
that, given a stress-free reference configuration whose elasticity tensor
is uniformly positive definite, there is an $L^\infty$-neighborhood of the
reference configuration in \emph{the space of strains}, rather than the
space of deformation gradients, in which
there is at most one smooth solution of the equations of equilibrium for the
\emph{pure-displacement problem} for a hyperelastic body.
His proof made use of the space $\BMO$, Bounded Mean Oscillation, a
space that John \& Nirenberg~\cite{JN61} had invented some ten years
earlier in order to better analyze problems in Elasticity.

Subsequently, although our understanding of the space $\BMO$ and its
applicability to systems of partial differential equations have advanced
significantly, the original goal of making use of $\BMO$ in problems of
Elasticity has not progressed.  Recently, the authors~\cite{SS19}
extended John's uniqueness result to include the \emph{mixed problem}.
In particular we showed that, given a smooth
equilibrium solution $\bu\e$  at which the second variation of
the energy is uniformly positive, there are no other equilibrium
solutions $\bv\e$ for which the
difference of the
right Cauchy-Green \emph{strain tensors}:
\be\label{eqn:strain-diff-zero-1}
(\grad\bu\e)^\rmT\grad\bu\e- (\grad\bv\e)^\rmT\grad\bv\e
\ee
\n is small in $L^\infty$.  Here  $\grad\bu$ denotes the deformation
gradient: an $n$ by $n$ matrix of partial derivatives of the components
of the deformation $\bu:\Om\to\R^n$, $(\grad\bu)^\rmT$ denotes the
transpose of $\grad\bu$, and we identify the body with the region
$\Omc\subset\R^n$ that it occupies in a fixed reference configuration.

In this manuscript we extend the results obtained in \cite{Jo72,SS19}.
We note that when $\Om$ has sufficiently smooth boundary
(Lipschitz suffices),
the space $\BMO(\Om)$ is a Banach space that is between $L^\infty$
and all of the other $L^p$-spaces,
that is, for all $p\in[1,\infty)$,
\[
L^\infty(\Om) \subset \BMO(\Om) \subset L^p(\Om).
\]
\n  Specifically,
$\tsn{\cdot}_{\BMO(\Om)}\le 2 \|\cdot\|_{L^\infty(\Om)}$ and hence an
$\varepsilon$-neighborhood in $\BMO$ is potentially much larger than
an $\varepsilon$-neighborhood in $L^\infty$.  Here
$\tsn{\cdot}$ denotes the standard seminorm on $\BMO(\Om)$
(see \eqref{eqn:BMO-V}).

We show, in particular,  that the $L^\infty$-neighborhood in which there is
at most one solution can be enlarged to a neighborhood in $\BMO$ for
both the displacement and the mixed problem \emph{provided}
the equilibrium solution $\bue$ has
nonnegative principal stresses everywhere.   Thus, in this case
the strain difference in \eqref{eqn:strain-diff-zero-1} need no longer
be uniformly small, but instead it need only be small in the space
$\BMO(\Om)$.

There are similar interesting results in the Calculus of
Variations literature.  Kristensen \& Taheri~\cite[Section~6]{KT03} and
Campos Cordero~\cite[Section~4]{Ca17} (see, also, Firoozye~\cite{Fi92})
have shown
that, for the Dirichlet problem, if $\bue$ is a Lipschitz-continuous
solution of the equilibrium equations at which the second variation
is uniformly positive, then
there is a neighborhood of $\grad\bue$ in $\BMO$ in which all
Lipschitz mappings have energy that is greater than or equal to
the energy of $\bue$.
We note that the assumptions in \cite{Ca17}, in particular, are
incompatible with the blowup of the energy as the Jacobian goes to zero.
Recently \cite{SS20-2} we have extended the results in
\cite[Section~4]{Ca17} to include the Neumann and mixed problems.
Although our proofs are not applicable to elasticity,
we have shown that given
a Lipschitz-continuous solution $\bue$ of the equilibrium equations
at which the second variation is uniformly positive, there is a
neighborhood of $\grad\bue$ in $\BMO$ in which all mappings $\bv$ in the
Sobolev space $W^{1,1}(\Om;\R^n)$ with $\grad\bv\in\BMO(\Om)$ have energy
that is \emph{strictly greater} than the energy of $\bue$.

We herein also establish a version of Korn's inequality
for $\BMO$.
It is well-known (see, e.g., \cite{ADM06,GS86,JK17,Ti72}) that,
for all $p\in(1,\infty)$, a generalized Korn inequality is valid,
that is, there is a constant $K=K(p)=K(p,n,\Om)$ such that
\[
\int_\Om \big|\grad\bw(\bx)\big|^p\,\dd\bx
\le
K(p) \int_\Om \big|\grad\bw(\bx)+[\grad\bw(\bx)]^\rmT\big|^p\,\dd\bx
\]
\n for all $\bw\in W^{1,p}(\Om;\R^n)$ that
satisfy a suitable constraint that eliminates infinitesimal
rotations (e.g., $\bw=\mathbf{0}$ on
$\sD\subset\partial\Om$).
We show that there exists
a constant $\sK=\sK(n)$ such that, for every nonempty, bounded
open set $U\subset\R^n$,
\be\label{eqn:BMO-Korn-intro}
\tsn{\grad\bw}_{\BMO(U)}
\le
\sK\tsn{\grad\bw+(\grad\bw)^\rmT}_{\BMO(U)},
\ee
\n  for every
$\bw\in W_{\loc}^{1,1}(U;\R^n)$ with $\grad\bw\in \BMO(U)$.  Note that,
unlike the standard Korn inequalities, which are only valid for John
domains (see \cite{JK17}) and for which the Korn constant depends on
the domain, \eqref{eqn:BMO-Korn-intro} is valid for all bounded
open sets $U$ with a constant that is independent of $U$.  (The lack of
a constraint to eliminate infinitesimal rotations is due to the nature of
the $\BMO$-seminorm.  See \eqref{eqn:BMO-V-norm}  and  \eqref{eqn:Korn2}.)

Before we present a more detailed description of our results,
we note that there is a long history of both nonuniqueness,
e.g., buckling \cite{SS08}, and uniqueness results in
nonlinear elasticity.  Rather than providing details here we
instead refer the reader to the introductions of two recent
papers concerning uniqueness \cite{SS18,SS19}. These papers
also discuss interesting possible extensions of such
results:  the pure-traction problem, incompressible
materials, and
live loading, none of which are considered in this manuscript.

We begin in Section~\ref{sec:prelim} with our notations. In
Section~\ref{sec:RGRSM} we then present certain consequences of the
Geometric Rigidity theory of Friesecke, James, \&  M{\"u}ller~\cite{FJM02}
(see, also, Conti \&  Schweizer~\cite{CS06} and Kohn~\cite{Ko82}) that
are useful in our work.  In
particular, a result of Lorent~\cite{Lo13} as well as a result of Ciarlet
\& Mardare~\cite{CM15} give conditions under which the equality of two
strains, $(\grad\bu)^\rmT\grad\bu\equiv(\grad\bv)^\rmT\grad\bv$,
yields the equality of the underlying deformations: $\bu\equiv\bv$.
(This need not be true without further assumptions, even if $\bu=\bv$ on
$\partial\Om$).

After reviewing certain standard properties of the space
$\BMO$, we then present, in Section~\ref{sec:maximal}, theorems
from Harmonic Analysis that we have found
useful in this work.  Of particular consequence is a result from
\cite{SS19}:  If $\Om$ is a Lipschitz domain and
$1\le p<q<\infty$, then there is a constant $C=C(p,q,\Om)$ such that,
for all $\psi\in\BMO(\Om)$,
\be\label{eqn:interp-into}
\int_\Om |\psi(\bx)|^q\,\dd\bx
\le
C
\big(\tsn{\psi}_{\BMO(\Om)}
+
\big| \langle\psi\rangle_{\Om}  \big|\big)^{q-p}
\int_\Om |\psi(\bx)|^p\,\dd\bx,
\ee
\n where  $\langle\psi\rangle_{\Om}$ denotes
the average value of the function $\psi$ on $\Om$.
This \emph{interpolation inequality} has a number of important
consequences.  Specifically,
we show that it implies that a result that John \& Nirenberg~\cite{JN61}
established for cubes is in fact valid for every nonempty, bounded,
open region $V\subset\R^n$:  For all $q\in(1,\infty)$  there exists a
constant $C=C(q)$ such that
\be\label{eqn:to-get-Korn}
\tsn{\phi}_{\BMO(V)}
\le
\sup_{Q\Ksubset V}\bigg(\,
\dashint_Q |\phi(\bx)-\langle\phi\rangle_Q|^q\,\dd\bx\bigg)^{\!\!1/q}
\le
C(q)\tsn{\phi}_{\BMO(V)},
\ee
\n for all $\phi\in\BMO(V)$, where the
supremum is taken over all cubes $Q$  that are compactly
supported in $V$
and have faces that are parallel to the coordinate planes.
(If $q=1$ the quantity in the center of
inequality \eqref{eqn:to-get-Korn} is equal to the $\BMO$-seminorm
of $\phi$.)
In Section~\ref{sec:Korn} we then make use of \eqref{eqn:to-get-Korn}
together with a version of Korn's inequality due to Diening,
R$\overset{_\circ}{\mathrm{u}}$\v zi\v cka, \& Schumacher~\cite{DRS10}
to establish Korn's inequality in $\BMO$, that is,
\eqref{eqn:BMO-Korn-intro}.

In Section~\ref{sec:NLE} we introduce our hypotheses on a compressible,
nonlinearly
hyperelastic body where the stored-energy density $\sigma$ depends on the
material point $\bx$ and the right Cauchy-Green strain tensor
$\bC_{\bu}(\bx)=[\grad\bu(\bx)]^\rmT\grad\bu(\bx)$.
Thus, in the absence of body forces and surface tractions, the
total energy of a deformation $\bu:\overline{\Omega}\to\R^n$,
which satisfies $\bu=\bd$ on $\sD\subset\partial\Om$, is given by
\[
\E(\bu)=\int_\Om \sigma\big(\bx,\bC_\bu(\bx)\big)\;\!\dd\bx.
\]

The second variation of $\E$ evaluated at a solution of the corresponding
equilibrium equations $\bue$ is then equal to
\[
\begin{aligned}
\delta^2\E(\bue)&[\bw,\bw]
= \int_\Omega \bK\big(\bx,\bC_\bue(\bx)\big):
\big[(\grad\bw)^\rmT\grad\bw\big]\dd\bx\\
&+\tfrac14\int_\Omega \bE(\bx):
\CC\big(\bx,\bC_\bue(\bx)\big)
\big[\bE(\bx)\big]\dd\bx,
\end{aligned}
\]
\n where $\bK=2\frac{\partial}{\partial\bC}\sigma(\bx,\bC)$  denotes
the (second) Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor,
$\CC=4\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\bC^2}\sigma(\bx,\bC)$ denotes the
elasticity tensor,
$\bE=(\grad\bue)^\rmT\grad\bw+(\grad\bw)^\rmT\grad\bue$, and
$\bw\in W^{1,2}(\Om;\R^n)$ satisfies $\bw=\mathbf{0}$ on
$\sD\subset\partial\Om$.

If $\bK$ is positive semi-definite, equivalently, the principal
stresses are nonnegative, and $\CC$ is uniformly positive definite,
then $\delta^2\E(\bue)$ is uniformly positive.
Standard techniques (see, e.g., the introduction to
\cite{SS19}), which are usually applied in
the space of deformation gradients, make use of Taylor's theorem
to deduce that there is then an
$L^\infty$ neighborhood of $\bC_\bue$ in strain space
(see \eqref{eqn:strain-diff-zero-1}) in which there are
no other solutions of the equilibrium equations.  A refinement
of this argument, which is due to
John~\cite[pp.~624--625]{Jo72} (again, see the introduction to
\cite{SS19}),  makes use of
\eqref{eqn:interp-into} to enlarge the set in which
there are no other solutions to a neighborhood of $\bC_\bue$ in
the space $\BMO$.  We present the details of this argument in
Section~\ref{sec:unique-BMO+L1} of this manuscript.   We also note,
in Section~\ref{sec:Def-SS}, how these results simplify when one
of the two right Cauchy-Green strain tensors
is in an $L^\infty$-neighborhood of the reference
configuration.  Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:RCatE}, we present
further simplifications that occur when the reference configuration
is itself at equilibrium.

\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:prelim}

For any domain (nonempty, connected, open set)
$U\subset\R^n$, $n\ge2$, we denote by
$L^p(U)$, $p\in[1,\infty)$, the space
of real-valued Lebesgue measurable functions $\psi$
whose $L^p$-norm is finite:
\[
||\psi ||^p_{p,U} := \int_U |\psi(\bx)|^p\,\dd\bx < \infty.
\]
\n $L^\infty(U)$ will denote those Lebesgue measurable
functions whose essential supremum is finite.
$L^1_{\loc}(U)$ will consist of those Lebesgue measurable
functions that are integrable on every compact subset of $U$.
 We shall write $C(U;\R^n)$ for the
set of continuous
functions  $\bu:U\to\R^n$, while $C^1(\overline{U};\R^n)$ will denote
those continuous functions $\bu:\overline{U}\to\R^n$ whose classical
derivative exists on $U$ and
has an extension that is continuous on $\overline{U}$, where
$\overline U$ denotes the closure of $U$.

We shall write $\Om\subset\R^n$, $n\ge2$,
to denote a \emph{Lipschitz domain}, that is, a
bounded domain whose boundary $\partial \Om$ is
(strongly) Lipschitz.
(See, e.g., \cite[p.~127]{EG92}, \cite[p.~72]{Mo66}, or
\cite[Definition~2.5]{HMT07}.)   Essentially, a bounded domain is
Lipschitz if, in a neighborhood of every boundary point,
the boundary is the graph of a
Lipschitz-continuous function and the domain is on ``one side''
of this graph.

For $1\le p\le \infty$,
$W^{1,p}(\Omega;\R^N)$ will denote the usual
Sobolev space of (Lebesgue) measurable
(vector-valued) functions $\bu\in L^p(\Omega;\R^N)$ whose
distributional gradient $\grad\bu$ is also contained in $L^p$.
If $\phi\in W^{1,p}(\Omega):=W^{1,p}(\Omega;\R)$ we shall denote
its  $W^{1,p}$-norm by\footnote{Since $\Om$ is a
Lipschitz domain, every $\phi\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ has a
representative that is Lipschitz continuous.}
\[
\begin{aligned}
||\phi||_{W^{1,p}(\Omega)}
&:=
\Big(||\phi||^p_{p,\Omega}
+||\grad\phi||^p_{p,\Omega}\Big)^{\!1/p},
\quad
1\le p <\infty,\\[2pt]
||\phi||_{W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)}
&
:= \max\{||\phi||_{\infty,\Omega}, ||\grad\phi||_{\infty,\Omega}\},
\quad
 p =\infty.
\end{aligned}
\]
\n We shall write $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega;\R^N)$ for the subspace of
$\bu\in W^{1,p}(\Omega;\R^N)$ that satisfy $\bu=\mathbf{0}$ on
$\partial \Omega$ (in the sense of trace).  $W_{\loc}^{1,p}(U;\R^N)$
will denote the set of $\bu\in W^{1,p}(V;\R^N)$
for every domain $V\Ksubset U$,
where we write $V\Ksubset U$ provided
that $V\subset K_V \subset U$ for some compact set $K_V$.

We shall write $\Mn$ for the (vector) space of $n$ by $n$ matrices with
real entries.
Given an orthonormal basis $\bee_i$, $i=1,2,\dots,n$, for $\R^n$ we
write $a_i=\ba\cdot\bee_i$ for $\ba\in\R^n$ and
$F_{ij}=\bee_i\cdot\bF\bee_j$ for $\bF\in\Mn$.
The set of symmetric and positive-definite symmetric matrices in $\Mn$
shall be denoted by
\[
\begin{aligned}
\Symn&:=\{\bE\in\Mn: \bE^\rmT=\bE\},\\
\Psymn&:=\{\bE\in\Symn:  \ba\cdot\bE\ba>0 \text{ for all }
\ba\in\R^n \text{ with } \ba\ne\mathbf{0}\},
\end{aligned}
\]
\n respectively, where $\bH^\rmT$ denotes the transpose of $\bH\in\Mn$.
We write $\bH:\bK:=\tr (\bH\bK^\rmT)$ for the inner product
of $\bH,\bK\in\Mn$. The norm of
$\bH\in\Mn$ is then given by $|\bH|:=\sqrt{\bH:\bH\,}$.  We write
\[
\SO(n):=\{\bQ\in\Mn: \bQ^\rmT\bQ=\bQ\bQ^\rmT=\bI,\ \det\bQ=1\}
\]
\n for the group of rotations, where $\bI$ denotes the identity matrix
and $\det\bF$ denotes the determinant of $\bF\in\Mn$.

\subsection{Strains and Geometric Rigidity}\label{sec:RGRSM}

Fix $p\ge1$. Given a mapping $\bu\in W^{1,p}(\Om;\R^n)$ we define
the \emph{right Cauchy-Green strain tensor}
$\bC_\bu\in L^{p/2}(\Om;\Symn)$ corresponding to $\bu$ by
\be\label{eqn:RCGST}
\bC_{\bu}:= (\grad\bu)^\rmT\grad\bu.
\ee
\n This tensor can be used to measure the change in the length of the
image of a curve in $\Om$ after it is deformed by $\bu$ (see, e.g.,
\cite[\S1.8]{Ci1988} or \cite[\S7.2]{GFA10}).

In \cite{FJM02} Friesecke, James, \&  M{\"u}ller (see, also, Conti \&
Schweizer~\cite{CS06}) establish a Geometric-Rigidity result that implies
that the distance (in $L^1$) from  $\bC_{\bu}$ to the identity matrix
yields, up to a multiplicative constant, an upper bound for the distance
(in $L^2$) from $\grad\bu$ to some particular rotation $\bQ_\bu\in\SO(n)$.
We shall make use of two interesting consequences of this result. The
first is a theorem of Lorent~\cite[Theorem~1]{Lo13} that establishes
conditions under which two mappings with the same strain tensor are
related by a rigid deformation:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:Lo13}
Let
$\bv\in W^{1,1}(\Om;\R^n)$ satisfy $\det\grad\bv>0~a.e.$
Suppose that $\bu\in W^{1,n}(\Om;\R^n)$ satisfies
$\det\grad\bu>0~a.e.$, $\bC_\bu=\bC_\bv~a.e.$, and
\[
|\grad\bu(\bx)|^n\le K(\bx) \det\grad\bu(\bx) \text{ for } a.e.~\bx\in\Om,
\]
\n where\footnote{Lorent shows that, when $n=2$, $K\in L^1(\Om)$ suffices
and, when $n\ge3$, $K\in L^p(\Om)$ with $p>n-1$ suffices.}
$K\in L^n(\Om)$.  Then there exists a rotation $\bR\in\SO(n)$ such that
\[
\grad\bv(\bx) =\bR \grad\bu(\bx) \text{ for } a.e.~\bx\in\Om.
\]
\end{proposition}

Ciarlet \& Mardare have established a number of results that
bound the distance between two mappings in a Sobolev space
by a function of the distance between their right Cauchy-Green strain
tensors in a corresponding Lebesgue space.  The particular result
we shall employ is \cite[Theorem~3]{CM15}:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:CM15}
Fix $p\in(1,\infty)$ and $q\in[r,p]$,
where $r:=\max\{1,p/2\}$.  Let $\bv\in C^1(\Omc;\R^n)$
satisfy $\det\grad\bv>0$ in $\Omc$.  Suppose that
$\sD\subset\partial \Om$ is nonempty and relatively open.
Then there exists a
constant $C_M=C_M(p,q,\bv,\Om,\sD)>0$ such that
\[
\int_\Om\big|\bC_\bu
-\bC_\bv\big|^q\,\dd\bx
\ge
C_M\Big(\|\bu-\bv\|_{W^{1,p}(\Omega)}\Big)^p
\]
\n for all $\bu\in W^{1,2q}(\Omega;\R^n)$ that satisfy
$\det\grad\bu>0~a.e.$ in $\Om$ and $\bu=\bv$ on $\sD$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:CM-1}  We note that $\bC_{\bu}=\bC_{\bv}$
does not necessarily imply that $\bu=\bv$ without further assumptions.
See, e.g., Ciarlet \& Mardare~\cite[p.~425]{CM04-1},
who attribute their counterexample to H.~Le~Dret (and a referee),
or Lorent~\cite[p.~659]{Lo13}.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Bounded Mean Oscillation}\label{sec:BMO}

We define the $\BMO$-seminorm\footnote{See, e.g., \cite[\S3.1]{Gr09}
for properties of $\BMO$.  Note that $\tsn{c}_{\BMO(U)} =0$ for any
constant $c$ and, otherwise, $\tsn{\! \cdot\!}_{\BMO(U)}$ obeys
the properties of a norm. Moreover, $\BMO(U)$ is complete with respect
to this seminorm.} of $\psi\in L^1_{\loc}(U)$ by
\be\label{eqn:BMO-V-norm}
\tsn{\psi}_{\BMO(U)}:=  \sup_{Q\Ksubset U}
 \dashint_Q |\psi(\bx)-\langle\psi\rangle_Q|\,\dd\bx,
\ee
\n where the supremum is to be taken over all
nonempty, bounded (open) $n$-dimensional
hypercubes\footnote{We shall henceforth refer to
$Q$ as a \emph{cube}, rather than a hypercube or square.}
 $Q$  \emph{with faces parallel to the coordinate hyperplanes}.  Here
\[
\langle\psi\rangle_U
:=\dashint_U \psi(\bx)\,\dd\bx
:= \frac1{|U|}\int_U \psi(\bx)\,\dd\bx
\]
\n \emph{denotes the average value of} $\psi$ and  $|U|$ denotes the
$n$-dimensional Lebesgue measure of any
bounded domain $U\subset\R^n$.
The space $\BMO(U)$ (Bounded Mean Oscillation) is defined by
\be\label{eqn:BMO-V}
\BMO(U)
:=
\{\psi\in L_{\loc}^1(U): \tsn{\psi}_{\BMO(U)} < \infty\}.
\ee
\n Note that one consequence of
\eqref{eqn:BMO-V-norm}--\eqref{eqn:BMO-V} is that
$L^\infty(U)\subset \BMO(U)$ with
\be\label{eqn:BMO-L-infty}
\tsn{\psi}_{\BMO(U)} \le 2\|\psi\|_{\infty,U}\
\text{ for all $\psi\in L^\infty(U)$.}
\ee

\n We note for future reference that if $U=\Om$, a Lipschitz domain,
then a result of P.~W.~Jones~\cite{Jo82} implies, in particular, that
\[
\BMO(\Om)\subset L^1(\Om).
\]
\n It follows that
\be\label{eqn:BMO-Om-norm}
\|\psi\|_{\BMO(\Om)}=\tsn{\psi}_{\BMO(\Om)} + | \langle\psi\rangle_{\Om}|
\ee
\n is a \emph{norm} on $\BMO(\Om)$.

\begin{remark}\label{rem:other-BMO}  1.~The standard example of a
function $\phi\in\BMO(\R^n)$ that is not bounded is
$\phi(\bx)=\ln|\bx|$.  2.~There are a number of other
\emph{equivalent seminorms} on $\BMO$.  The most
ubiquitous
involves the replacement of cubes $Q$ in \eqref{eqn:BMO-V-norm} by
open balls $B\Ksubset U$.   Another possibility is the use of balls
that get smaller as they
approach the boundary (see Brezis \& Nirenberg~\cite{BN96} who attribute
such results to P.~W.~Jones~\cite{Jo82}), i.e., the requirement that
there is a fixed $k\in (0,1)$ such that each ball,
$B=B_r(\bx)\subset\subset U$ of radius $r>0$ and centered at $\bx$,
satisfies
\[
r\le k\dist(\bx,\partial U).
\]
\n Another useful equivalent seminorm is
\[
\tsn{\psi}_*:=\sup_{Q\Ksubset U}
\dashint_Q \dashint_Q |\psi(\bz)-\psi(\bx)|\,\dd\bz\,\dd\bx;
\]
\n in particular (see, e.g., \cite[p.~6]{BN95})
\[
\tsn{\psi}_{\BMO(U)}\le\tsn{\psi}_*\le2\tsn{\psi}_{\BMO(U)}.
\]
\n The monotone convergence theorem can then be used show that
\[
\sup_{Q\subset U}
\dashint_Q \dashint_Q |\psi(\bz)-\psi(\bx)|\,\dd\bz\,\dd\bx
\]
\n is also an equivalent seminorm on $\BMO(U)$; it then follows that the
seminorm
\[
  \sup_{Q\subset U}
 \dashint_Q |\psi(\bx)-\langle\psi\rangle_Q|\,\dd\bx,
\]
\n which is used in \cite{DRS10,SS19},
is also equivalent to \eqref{eqn:BMO-V-norm}.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Further Properties of
\texorpdfstring{$\BMO$}{BMO}}\label{sec:maximal}

One of the main properties of $\BMO$ that we shall use is contained
in the following result.  Although the proof can be found in
\cite{SS19}, the significant analysis it is based upon is due to
Fefferman \& Stein~\cite{FS72}, Iwaniec~\cite{Iw82}, and Diening,
R$\overset{_\circ}{\mathrm{u}}$\v zi\v cka, \& Schumacher~\cite{DRS10}.

\begin{proposition}\label{thm:main-2}  Let $\Om\subset\R^n$ be a
Lipschitz\footnote{This result, as stated, is valid for a larger
class of domains:  Uniform domains.  (Since $\BMO\subset L^1$
for such domains.  See P.~W.~Jones~\cite{Jo82},
Gehring \& Osgood~\cite{GO79}, and e.g., \cite{Ge87}.)  A slightly
modified version of this result is valid for John domains.
 See \cite{SS19} and the references therein.}
domain.  Then, for all $q\in[1,\infty)$,
\[
\BMO(\Om)\subset L^q(\Om)
\]
\n with continuous injection, i.e., there is a constant
$J_1=J_1(q,\Om)>0$ such that,
for every $\psi\in\BMO(\Om)$,
\be\label{eqn:BMO-in-Lq}
\bigg(\,\dashint_\Om |\psi|^q\,\dd\bx\bigg)^{\!\!1/q}\!
\le
J_1\|\psi\|_{\BMO(\Om)}.
\ee
\n Moreover, if  $1\le p<q<\infty$,
then there exists a
constant $J_2=J_2(p,q,\Om)>0$ such that every
$\psi\in\BMO(\Om)$ satisfies
\be\label{eqn:RH}
||\psi||_{q,\Om}
\le
J_2\Big(||\psi||_{\BMO(\Om)}\Big)^{1-p/q}
\Big(||\psi||_{p,\Om}\Big)^{p/q}.
\ee
\n In addition, the constants $J_i$ are scale invariant, that is,
$J_i(\lambda U +\ba)=J_i(U)$ for every $\lambda>0$ and $\ba\in\R^n$.
Here (see (\ref{eqn:BMO-V-norm}))
$\|\cdot\|_{\BMO(\Om)}$ is given by (\ref{eqn:BMO-Om-norm}).
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:subset} Proposition~\ref{thm:main-2}
together with
\eqref{eqn:BMO-L-infty} shows that, for every $p\in[1,\infty)$,
\[
L^\infty(\Om) \subset \BMO(\Om)\subset L^p(\Om).
\]
Thus, $\BMO$ is a space that is ``between'' $L^\infty$ and all of the
other $L^p$-spaces.  However, researchers in Harmonic Analysis make use
of $\BMO$ as a replacement for $L^\infty$.
See, e.g., \cite[\S4.5]{Stein-1993}.
\end{remark}

According to L.~Nirenberg (\cite[pp.~707--709]{Jo85b}), the idea of
considering functions whose mean oscillation is bounded was conceived by
Fritz John. John's motivation appears to have been the analysis of
problems in Nonlinear Elasticity, where John had noticed that mappings
with small nonlinear strain (see \eqref{eqn:GSVST}) correspond to
deformation gradients the are small in $\BMO$ (see \cite{Jo61} or, e.g.,
\cite[Proposition~4.3 and Lemma~5.6]{SS19}).

The final result of this section follows from
Proposition~\ref{thm:main-2}. However, since the result
is a direct consequence of the scale invariance of the constant in
the same result for cubes this
result also follows from the original proof of
John \& Nirenberg~\cite{JN61}.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:JN} Fix $n\ge2$.  Then, for every
$q\in(1,\infty)$, there exists a constant $\sN=\sN(n,q)$ such that,
for every bounded domain $V\subset\R^n$,
\be\label{eqn:JN2}
\tsn{\phi}_{\BMO(V)}
\le
\sup_{Q\Ksubset V}\bigg(\,
\dashint_Q |\phi(\bx)-\langle\phi\rangle_Q|^q\,\dd\bx\bigg)^{\!\!1/q}
\le
\sN(n,q)\tsn{\phi}_{\BMO(V)}.
\ee
\n for all $\phi\in\BMO(V)$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:JN} Corollary~\ref{cor:JN} shows that
\[
\tsn{\phi}_{\BMO_q(V)}:=\sup_{Q\Ksubset V}
\bigg(\,
\dashint_Q |\phi(\bx)-\langle\phi\rangle_Q|^q\,\dd\bx\bigg)^{\!\!1/q}
\]
\n is an equivalent seminorm on $\BMO(V)$. This result was first
established by John \& Nirenberg~\cite{JN61} when $V=Q$, a cube; it is
there a consequence of what is now referred to as the John-Nirenberg
inequality, that is, the exponential decay of the distribution
function of  $|\phi-\langle\phi\rangle_Q|$ for cubes.
Inequality \eqref{eqn:JN2}  is also well-known when $V$ and $Q$ are
replaced by balls $B\Ksubset\widehat B$; see, e.g.,
Stein~\cite[pp.~144--146]{Stein-1993}.  Stein also shows that, for balls
$\widehat B$, the constant $\sN$ satisfies
$\sN(q,\widehat B)\le q\widehat \sN(\widehat B)$; the exponential decay of
$|\phi-\langle\phi\rangle_{\widehat B}|$ for balls then
follows from \eqref{eqn:JN2} and this growth estimate.
\end{remark}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:JN}]  Let $q\in(1,\infty)$ and
suppose that  $V\subset\R^n$ is a bounded domain. Fix a cube
$Q \Ksubset V$.
Then, in view of \eqref{eqn:BMO-in-Lq} in Theorem~\ref{thm:main-2}
(with $\Om=Q$) and \eqref{eqn:BMO-Om-norm}, there exists a scale
invariant constant $J_1(q,Q)$
such that, for all $\psi\in\BMO({Q})$,
\be\label{eqn:BN-2}
J_1^{\mi1}\bigg(\,\dashint_{Q } |\psi|^q\,\dd\bx\bigg)^{\!\!1/q}\!
\le
\tsn{\psi}_{\BMO({Q })}
+\Big|\dashint_{Q } \psi\,\dd\bx\Big|.
\ee

Now, suppose that $\phi\in\BMO(V)$; then
$\phi\in\BMO(Q)$.  Define
$\psi:=\phi-\langle\phi\rangle_{Q }$.  Thus,
$\psi\in\BMO(Q)$,
$\langle\psi\rangle_{Q }=0$, and hence \eqref{eqn:BN-2} yields
\be\label{eqn:BN-3}
J_1^{\mi1}
\bigg(\,\dashint_{Q} |\phi-\langle\phi\rangle_{Q}|^q
\,\dd\bx\bigg)^{\!\!1/q}\!
\le
\tsn{\phi-\langle\phi\rangle_{Q }}_{\BMO({Q })}
=
\tsn{\phi}_{\BMO({Q})}.
\ee
\n Note that
\[
\tsn{\phi}_{\BMO({Q})}
:=
\sup_{\widehat Q\Ksubset Q}
\dashint_{\widehat Q}
|\phi(\bx)-\langle\phi\rangle_{\widehat Q}|\,\dd\bx
\le
\sup_{\widehat Q\Ksubset V}
\dashint_{\widehat Q}
|\phi(\bx)-\langle\phi\rangle_{\widehat Q}|\,\dd\bx
=:
\tsn{\phi}_{\BMO(V)},
\]
\n which together with \eqref{eqn:BN-3} and H\"older's inequality
yields
\be\label{eqn:BN-4}
\dashint_{Q} |\phi-\langle\phi\rangle_{Q}|
\,\dd\bx
\le
\bigg(\,\dashint_{Q} |\phi-\langle\phi\rangle_{Q }|^q
\,\dd\bx\bigg)^{\!\!1/q}\!
\le
J_1\tsn{\phi}_{\BMO(V)}.
\ee
\n The desired result, \eqref{eqn:JN2}, now follows after
taking the supremum of \eqref{eqn:BN-4} over all cubes
$Q\Ksubset V$ and noting that $\sN(n,q):=J_1(n,q,Q)$ is scale
invariant and hence independent of the cube.
\end{proof}

\section{Korn's Inequality}\label{sec:Korn}

In this section we shall obtain a version of Korn's inequality that
involves the $\BMO$-seminorm of both the gradient of a function and the
symmetric part of its gradient.  Our result is a simple consequence
of the following result of Diening,
R$\overset{_\circ}{\mathrm{u}}$\v zi\v cka, \& Schumacher.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:Korn2-alt}
\emph{(\cite[Theorem~5.17]{DRS10})}
Let $\Om\subset\R^n$, $n\ge2$,
be a bounded Lipschitz\footnote{In \cite{DRS10} this
result is established for John domains.} domain.
Suppose that $q\in(1,\infty)$.
Then there exists a  scale invariant constant $K=K(q,\Om)>0$
such that, for all $\bu\in W^{1,q}(\Om;\R^n)$,
\be\label{eqn:Korn2}
\dashint_\Om
\left|\grad\bu-\langle\grad\bu\rangle_\Om\right|^q\,\dd\bx
\le
K\dashint_\Om
\left|\grads\bu-\langle\grads\bu\rangle_\Om\right|^q\,\dd\bx,
\ee
\n where $\grads\bu$ denotes the symmetric part of the gradient of $\bu$,
that is,
\[
\grads\bu:= \tfrac12\left[\grad\bu+(\grad\bu)^\rmT\right].
\]
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark} The scale invariance of
$K$ is clear since the average value of any function is scale invariant.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Korn's Inequality in \texorpdfstring{$\BMO$}{BMO}}

\begin{theorem} \label{prop:BMO-Korn} Fix $n\ge2$.
Then there exists a constant $\sK=\sK(n)>0$
such that, for any bounded domain $U\subset\R^n$,
\be\label{eqn:BMO-Korn}
\tsn{\grad\bu}_{\BMO(U)}\le \sK\tsn{\grads\bu}_{\BMO(U)},
\ee
\n for every $\bu\in W_{\loc}^{1,1}(U;\R^n)$ with
$\grad\bu\in \BMO(U)$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark} Note that the above inequality is valid for
\textbf{all bounded
domains}, unlike the standard Korn inequalities, which are valid only for
John domains (see, e.g., \cite{JK17}).
\end{remark}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{prop:BMO-Korn}]  Fix a bounded domain
$U\subset\R^n$. Let
$\bu\in W_{\loc}^{1,1}(U;\R^n)$ with
$\grad\bu\in \BMO(U)$ and suppose that  $Q\Ksubset U$ is a cube.
The definition of $\BMO(U)$, \eqref{eqn:BMO-V}, yields
$\grad\bu\in\BMO(Q)\cap L^1(Q)$.  Inequality~\eqref{eqn:BMO-in-Lq} in
Proposition~\ref{thm:main-2} then implies that
$\grad\bu\in L^q(Q)$ for every $q\in[1,\infty)$.

Next, by Korn's inequality, Proposition~\ref{prop:Korn2-alt}, there
exists a constant $K=K(2,Q)$, which is independent of $\bu$, such
that
\be\label{eqn:Korn2-cube-2}
\bigg(\,\dashint_Q
\left|\grad\bu-\langle\grad\bu\rangle_Q\right|\,\dd\bx\bigg)^{\!2}
\le
\dashint_Q
\left|\grad\bu-\langle\grad\bu\rangle_Q\right|^2\dd\bx
\le
K\dashint_Q
\left|\grads\bu-\langle\grads\bu\rangle_Q\right|^2\dd\bx,
\ee
\n where the first inequality in \eqref{eqn:Korn2-cube-2}
follows from H\"older's inequality.
If we now take the supremum of \eqref{eqn:Korn2-cube-2}
over all cubes $Q\Ksubset U$ and
make use of the scale invariance of $K$ and the definition of the
$\BMO$-seminorm, \eqref{eqn:BMO-V-norm}, we find that
\be\label{eqn:last}
\Big(\tsn{\grad\bu}_{\BMO(U)}\Big)^{2}
\le
K\sup_{Q\Ksubset U}\dashint_Q
\left|\grads\bu-\langle\grads\bu\rangle_Q\right|^2\dd\bx.
\ee
\n The desired result, \eqref{eqn:BMO-Korn}, now follows from
\eqref{eqn:last}, Corollary~\ref{cor:JN},
and the fact that the
constant $\sN=\sN(n,q)$ in \eqref{eqn:JN2} is independent of the domain.
\end{proof}

\section{Nonlinear Elasticity}\label{sec:NLE}

In the remainder of this manuscript we shall focus on the minimization
problem that arises when one considers the theory of Nonlinear
(Finite) Hyperelasticity.

\subsection{The Constitutive Relation}\label{sec:CR}

We consider a \emph{body} that for convenience we identify with the
closure of a \emph{bounded Lipschitz domain} $\Omega\subset\R^n$,
$n=2$ or $n=3$, which it
occupies in a fixed reference configuration.  A \emph{deformation}
of $\overline{\Omega}$ is a mapping that lies in the space
\[
\Def:=\{\bu\in W^{1,2}(\Omega;\R^n): \det\grad\bu>0\ a.e.\},
\]
\n where $\det\bF$ denotes the determinant of $\bF\in\Mn$.
 We assume that the body is composed of a hyperelastic material with
\emph{stored-energy density}\footnote{Our formulation implicitly
assumes that the response of the material is
invariant under a change in observer.  See, e.g., \cite[\S48]{GFA10}.}
$\sigma:\overline{\Omega}\times\Psymn\to[0,\infty)$.  The quantity
$\sigma(\bx,\bC_\bu(\bx))$ gives the elastic energy stored
at almost every point $\bx\in\Omega$ of a deformation $\bu\in\Def$.
Here, and in the sequel,  $\bC_\bu=[\grad\bu]^\rmT\grad\bu$, the
right Cauchy-Green strain tensor  (cf.~\eqref{eqn:RCGST}).

\begin{hypothesis}\label{def:W}  We assume that $\sigma$ satisfies
the following:
\begin{enumerate}[topsep=-2pt]
\item $\bC\mapsto \sigma(\bx,\bC) \in C^3(\Psymn)$,
for $a.e.~\bx\in\Omega$;
\item $(\bx,\bC)\mapsto\DD^k \sigma(\bx,\bC)$, $k=0,1,2,3$, are each
(Lebesgue) measurable on their common domain
$\Omega\times\Psymn$; and
\item  $(\bx,\bC)\mapsto\DD^k \sigma(\bx,\bC)$, $k=0,1,2,3$,
are each bounded on $\overline{\Omega}\times K$ for every
nonempty compact $K\subset \Psymn$.  Here
\end{enumerate}\vspace{-.2cm}
\[
\DD^0 \sigma(\bx,\bC):=\sigma(\bx,\bC), \qquad
\DD^k \sigma(\bx,\bC)
:=
\frac{\partial^k}{\partial\bC^k}\sigma(\bx,\bC)
\]
\n denotes $k$-th derivative of the function
$\bC\mapsto \sigma(\cdot,\bC)$.
We note, in particular, that
\[
\DD\sigma:\overline{\Omega}\times\Psymn\to\Symn, \qquad
\DD^2\sigma:\overline{\Omega}\times\Psymn\to\Lin(\Symn;\Symn),
\]
\n where $\Lin(\mathcal{U};\mathcal{V})$ denotes the
set of linear maps from
the vector space $\mathcal{U}$ to the vector space $\mathcal{V}$.  Thus,
for every $\bC\in\Psymn$, $\bE\in\Symn$, and almost every $\bx\in\Om$,
\[
\DD\sigma(\bx,\bC)\in \Symn, \quad
\DD^2\sigma(\bx,\bC)[\bE]\in \Symn\!.
\]
\end{hypothesis}

The \emph{second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor} $\bK$ is defined to be
twice the derivative of $\sigma$, i.e.,
\be\label{eqn:sPKS}
\bK(\bx,\bC):= 2\frac{\partial}{\partial\bC}\sigma(\bx,\bC)
=2\DD\sigma(\bx,\bC),
\qquad \bK :\overline{\Omega}\times\Psymn\to\Symn,
\ee
\n while the \emph{first Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor} $\bS$
is given by
\be\label{eqn:fPKS}
\bS(\bx,\bF) := \bF \bK(\bx,\bF^\rmT\bF),
\qquad \bS :\overline{\Omega}\times\Mnp\to\Mn\!,
\ee
\n where $\Mnp$ denotes the set of $n$ by $n$ matrices with positive
determinant.  Although the tensor $\bK$ is the derivative of the stored
energy, it is the tensor $\bS$ that is most convenient to use in the
equilibrium (Euler-Lagrange) equations
(see \eqref{eqn:EE}--\eqref{eqn:SEE}).
For any injective deformation $\bu\in\Def\cap\, C^1(\Omc;\R^n)$, the
\emph{Cauchy stress tensor} $\bT=\bT(\by)\in\Symn$
is given by
\be\label{eqn:CS}
\bT(\by)
:=\bF\bK(\bx,\bF^\rmT\bF)\bF^\rmT(\det\bF)^{\mi1},
\quad \text{$\bF:=\grad\bu(\bx)$, $\by=\bu(\bx)$.}
\ee
\n The eigenvalues of $\bT(\by)$ are called \emph{the principal stresses}
at $\by\in\bu(\Om)$.
  The  \emph{elasticity tensor} $\CC$ is  defined to be four times
the second derivative of
$\bC\mapsto \sigma(\bx,\bC)$, that is,
\be\label{eqn:ET-A}
\CC(\bx,\bC):=4\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\bC^2} \sigma(\bx,\bC)
=4\DD^2\sigma(\bx,\bC).
\ee
\n In view of the symmetry of the second gradient,
\[
\bB:\CC(\bx,\bC)[\bE]=\bE:\CC(\bx,\bC)[\bB]
\]
\n for all $\bC\in\Psymn$ and all $\bB,\bE\in\Symn$.

\begin{definition}  The elasticity tensor is said to be
\emph{uniformly positive definite} at a deformation
$\bu\in\Def$
provided that there exists
a constant $c>0$ such that, for every $\bE\in\Symn$
and $a.e.~\bx\in\Omega$,
\[
\bE:\CC\big(\bx,\bC_\bu(\bx)\big)[\bE]\ge c |\bE|^2,
\]
\n where $\bC_\bu=(\grad\bu)^\rmT\grad\bu$.  The reference
configuration is said to be \emph{stress free} provided that,
\[
\bK(\bx,\bI) =\mathbf{0}\ \text{ for $a.e.~\bx\in\Omega$},
\]
\n where $\bI\in\Mn$ denotes the identity matrix.
\end{definition}

\begin{remark}  Let $n=3$ and suppose that
$\bu\in\Def\cap\, C^1(\Omega;\R^n)$ is injective.
Further, let $\Gamma\subset\bu(\Om)$
be a smooth, oriented surface with continuous outward unit normal
field $\by\mapsto\bm(\by)$, $\by\in\Gamma$.
If $\bx\mapsto\bK(\bx,\bC)$ is continuous on $\Om$, then,
for any $\by=\bu(\bx)$ with $\by\in\Gamma$,
\[
\bT(\by)\bm(\by),
\]
\n gives the force, per unit (deformed) area, exerted across $\Gamma$
upon the material on the negative side of $\Gamma$ by the material on
the positive side $\Gamma$
(see, e.g., \cite[p.~97]{Gu81} or \cite[\S19]{GFA10}).
\end{remark}

\begin{remark} One can alternatively assume that the
stored-energy function depends
on the deformation gradient $\grad\bu$. In this case one postulates a
(frame-indifferent) function $W:\overline{\Omega}\times\Mnp\to[0,\infty)$,
which will satisfy, for $a.e.~\bx\in\Om$,
\be\label{eqn:W=sigma}
W(\bx,\bF) = \sigma(\bx,\bF^\rmT\bF)\ \text{ for every $\bF\in\Mnp$}.
\ee
\n In this formulation one usually defines the elasticity tensor as
the second derivative of $W$ with respect to $\bF$, that is,
\be\label{eqn:ET-alt}
\A(\bx,\bF):=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\bF^2} W(\bx,\bF).
\ee
\n  If we now twice differentiate \eqref{eqn:W=sigma}
(see, e.g., \cite[Lemma~5.4]{SS19}),
we conclude, with the
aid of \eqref{eqn:sPKS}, \eqref{eqn:ET-A},
\eqref{eqn:ET-alt}, and the symmetry of the second derivative,
 that
\be\label{eqn:A=CplusK}
\begin{aligned}
\bH:\A(\bx,\bF)[\bH]
&=\tfrac12(\bH^\rmT\bF+\bF^\rmT\bH):
\CC(\bx,\bF^\rmT\bF)\big[\tfrac12(\bH^\rmT\bF+\bF^\rmT\bH)\big]\\
&\ \ +\bK(\bx,\bF^\rmT\bF):(\bH^\rmT\bH),
\end{aligned}
\ee
\n for all $\bF\in \Mnp$ and $\bH\in\Mn$.  In particular, when the reference
configuration is stress free, it follows that
\[
\bH:\A(\bx,\bI)[\bH]
=\tfrac12(\bH^\rmT + \bH):
\CC(\bx,\bI)\big[\tfrac12(\bH^\rmT + \bH)\big].
\]
\n Thus, both $\CC(\bx,\bI)$ and $\A(\bx,\bI)$ correspond to the classical
elasticity tensor used in the linear theory (see, e.g., \cite{Gu72}).
\end{remark}

\subsection{Equilibrium Solutions and Energy
Minimizers}\label{sec:ES-EM-NLE}

 We assume the body is subject to
dead loads.  We take
\[
\partial\Omega = \overline{\sD} \cup \overline{\sS}\quad
\text{with $\sD$ and $\sS$ relatively open and }
\sD\cap\sS=\varnothing.
\]
\n In addition, we shall suppose that $\sD\ne\varnothing$.
We assume that a Lipschitz-continuous function
$\bd:\sD\to\R^n$
is prescribed;  $\bd$ will give the deformation of $\sD$.
If $\sS \ne\varnothing$ we assume that a function
$\bs\in L^2(\sS;\R^n)$
is prescribed; for $\sH^{n-1}$-$a.e.~\bx\in\sS$,
$\bs(\bx)$ will give the
surface force (per unit area when $n=3$)
exerted on the body at the point $\bx$ by its environment.
Here $\sH^k$ denotes
$k$-dimensional Hausdorff measure\footnote{Thus,
when $\sS\subset\R^3$ is a
smooth surface, $\sH^2(\sS)$ gives the area of $\sS$.}
(see, e.g., \cite[Chapter~2]{EG92}).
Finally, we suppose that a
function $\bb\in L^2(\Omega;\R^n)$ is prescribed;
for $a.e.~\bx\in\Omega$, $\bb(\bx)$ will give the
body force (per unit volume when $n=3$)
exerted on the body at the point $\bx$ by its environment.
  The set of
\emph{Admissible Deformations} will be denoted by
\[
\AD:=\{\bu\in\Def \cap\, W^{1,\infty}(\Omega;\R^n):
\bu=\bd \text{ on $\sD$}\}.
\]
\n The  \emph{total energy} of an admissible deformation
$\bu\in\AD$ is defined to be
\be\label{eqn:TE}
\E(\bu):=\int_\Omega \Big[\sigma\big(\bx,\bC_\bu(\bx)\big)
-\bb(\bx)\cdot\bu(\bx)\Big]\dd\bx
-\int_{\sS} \bs(\bx)\cdot\bu(\bx)\,\dd\sH^{n-1}_\bx
\ee
\n with $\bC_\bu:=(\grad\bu)^\rmT\grad\bu$.
The first variation of $\E$ is
given by
\[
\begin{aligned}
\delta\E(\bu)[\bw]=&\int_\Omega \DD\sigma\big(\bx,\bC_\bu(\bx)\big):
\Big(\big[\grad\bu(\bx)\big]^\rmT\grad\bw(\bx)
+\big[\grad\bw(\bx)\big]^\rmT\grad\bu(\bx)\Big)\dd\bx\\
&-\int_\Omega\bb(\bx)\cdot\bw(\bx)\,\dd\bx
-\int_{\sS} \bs(\bx)\cdot\bw(\bx)\,\dd\sH^{n-1}_\bx,
\end{aligned}
\]
\n for all \emph{variations} $\bw\in\Var$, where
\[
\Var:=\{\bw\in W^{1,2}(\Omega;\R^n):
\bw=\mathbf{0} \text{ on $\sD$}\}.
\]
\n The second variation of $\E$ is then given by
(see \eqref{eqn:sPKS}, \eqref{eqn:ET-A}, and \eqref{eqn:A=CplusK})
\be\label{eqn:SV}
\begin{aligned}
\delta^2\E(\bu)&[\bw,\bw]
= \int_\Omega \bK\big(\bx,\bC_\bu(\bx)\big):
\big[(\grad\bw)^\rmT\grad\bw\big]\dd\bx\\
&+\tfrac14\int_\Omega \big[(\grad\bu)^\rmT\grad\bw+(\grad\bw)^\rmT\grad\bu\big]:
\CC\big(\bx,\bC_\bu(\bx)\big)
\big[(\grad\bu)^\rmT\grad\bw+(\grad\bw)^\rmT\grad\bu\big]\,\dd\bx.
\end{aligned}
\ee

\begin{remark}\label{rem:PSV} It is clear from \eqref{eqn:SV} that the
positivity of the second variation, i.e., $\delta^2\E(\bu)\ge0$, is
not a consequence of the positivity of the elasticity tensor $\CC$
alone.  However, the
second variation is positive whenever both $\CC$  and
$\bK$ are positive definite (see Lemma~\ref{lem:L-posdef}).
\end{remark}

We shall assume that we are given a deformation
$\bu\e\in\AD$ that is a weak
solution of the \emph{Equilibrium Equations} corresponding
to \eqref{eqn:TE}, i.e., $\delta\E(\bu)=0$ or, equivalently,
\be\label{eqn:EE}
0=\int_\Omega
\Big[\bS\big(\bx,\grad\bu\e(\bx)\big)
:\grad\bw(\bx)
-\bb(\bx)\cdot\bw(\bx)\Big]\dd\bx
-\int_\sS \bs(\bx)\cdot\bw(\bx)\,\dd \sH^{n-1}_\bx
\ee
\n for all $\bw\in\Var$, where
$\bS$ is given by  \eqref{eqn:sPKS}--\eqref{eqn:fPKS}.
If $\sD=\partial\Om$ we shall call $\bu\e$ a solution of the
\emph{(pure) displacement problem}.  Otherwise, we shall refer to
such a  $\bu\e$ as a solution of the
\emph{(genuine) mixed problem}.
If in addition $\sigma\in C^2(\Omc\times\Psymn)$ and
$\bu\e\in C^2(\Omega;\R^n)\cap C^1(\overline{\Omega};\R^n)$, then
$\bu\e$ will be a \emph{classical solution of the equations of
equilibrium} (see, e.g., \cite[\S2.6]{Ci1988}, \cite[\S27]{Gu81},
or \cite[\S49]{GFA10}),
i.e., $\bu\e$ will satisfy
\be\label{eqn:SEE}
\begin{gathered}
\Div \bS(\grad\bu\e) +\bb= \mathbf{0}\
\text{ in $\Omega$,}\\
 \bS(\grad\bu\e)\bn = \bs\
\text{ on $\sS$,}\qquad
\bu\e=\bd\
\text{ on $\sD$,}
\end{gathered}
\ee
\n where $\bn(\bx)$ denotes the outward unit normal to $\Omega$ at
$\sH^{n-1}$-$a.e.~\bx\in\sS$ and $\Div \bM\in\R^n$ is given by
$(\Div \bM)_i=\sum_j \frac{\partial}{\partial \bx_j} M_{ij}$.

We are interested in the local minimality (in an appropriate
topology) of solutions of  \eqref{eqn:EE}.
For future use we note that, for every $\bu,\bv\in\AD$,
\eqref{eqn:TE} gives us
\[
\E(\bv)-\E(\bu)
= \int_\Omega
\big[\sigma\big(\bC_\bv\big)-\sigma\big(\bC_\bu\big)
-\bb\cdot\bw\big]\dd\bx
-
\int_\sS \bs\cdot\bw\,\dd\sH^{n-1}_\bx,
\]
\n where $\bw:=\bv-\bu\in W^{1,\infty}(\Omega;\R^N) \cap \Var$.
It follows that, when $\bu\e\in\AD$ is a solution of
the equilibrium equations, \eqref{eqn:EE},
we have the identity, for every $\bv\in\AD$,
\be\label{eqn:Identity-ES}
\E(\bv)-\E(\bu\e)
= \int_\Omega
\Big[\sigma\big(\bx,\bC_\bv(\bx)\big)-
\sigma\big(\bx,\bC\e(\bx)\big)
-\bS\big(\bx,\grad\bu\e(\bx)\big)
:\grad\bw(\bx)\Big]\dd\bx,
\ee
\n where $\bC\e:=\bC_{\bu\e}=(\grad\bu\e)^\rmT\grad\bu\e$,
$\bC_\bv:=(\grad\bv)^\rmT\grad\bv$, and $\bw:=\bv-\bu$.

\subsection{Multiaxial Tension}

In the sequel we shall assume that the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress
tensor $\bK$ is positive semidefinite at a given deformation
$\bv\in\AD$, that is, for $a.e.~\bx\in\Om$,
\be\label{eqn:stress-tensile}
\ba\cdot\bK\big(\bx,\bC_\bv(\bx)\big)\ba\ge 0\
\text{ for every $\ba\in\R^n$.}
\ee
\n In view of \eqref{eqn:CS} and the positivity of the Jacobian
$\det\grad\bv$, inequality \eqref{eqn:stress-tensile} is
essentially the same as the
assumption that the Cauchy stress tensor $\bT$ is positive semidefinite.
Thus, \eqref{eqn:stress-tensile} is the assumption that \emph{the
principal stresses in the deformed material are all tensile.}

The next result yields a simple consequence of
\eqref{eqn:stress-tensile}
that we shall use.  We sketch a proof
for the convenience of the reader.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:L-posdef} Let $\bL\in L^p(\Om;\Symn)$ for some
$p\in[1,\infty]$.
Suppose that $\bL(\bx)$ is
positive semidefinite at almost every $\bx\in\Om$.  Then
\be\label{eqn:STEL}
I(\bw)=\int_\Om
\big(\big[\grad\bw(\bx)\big]^\rmT\grad\bw(\bx)\big):\bL(\bx)
\,\dd\bx\ge0
\ee
\n for all $\bw\in W^{1,q}(\Om;\R^n)$, where
\be\label{eqn:p-q}
\frac1p+\frac2{q}=1.
\ee
\n Conversely, suppose that
$\bL\in C(\Om;\Symn)$ satisfies
\eqref{eqn:STEL} for all  $\bw\in W_0^{1,2}(\Om;\R^n)$.
Then $\bL(\bx)$ is
positive semidefinite at every $\bx\in\Om$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}  Fix $p\in[1,\infty]$. Let $\bL\in L^p(\Om;\Symn)$
with $\bL(\bx)$  positive semidefinite at $a.e.~\bx\in\Om$.
Then, by the spectral theorem, at $a.e.~\bx\in\Om$
there exists an orthonormal basis
$\bee_k(\bx)$ and scalars $\alpha_k(\bx)$, $k=1,2,\ldots,n$, with
$\alpha_k\ge0~a.e.$, such that
\be\label{eqn:spectral}
\bL(\bx)=\sum_{k=1}^n \alpha_k(\bx)\bee_k(\bx)\otimes\bee_k(\bx),
\ee
\n where $\ba\otimes\bb\in\Mn$ is defined by
$[\ba\otimes\bb]\bc=(\bb\cdot\bc)\ba$ for every $\bc\in\R^n$.

Let $\bw\in W^{1,q}(\Om;\R^n)$, where $q$ satisfies \eqref{eqn:p-q}.
Then \eqref{eqn:spectral} yields, with the aid of the inequalities
$\alpha_k\ge0~a.e.$,
\be\label{eqn:to-integrate}
\big(\big[\grad\bw\big]^\rmT\grad\bw\big):\bL
=
\sum_{k=1}^n \alpha_k\big|(\grad\bw)\bee_k\big|^2\ge 0~a.e.
\ee
\n Since $[\grad\bw]^\rmT\grad\bw\in L^{q/2}(\Om;\Symn)$ and
$\bL\in L^p(\Om;\Symn)$,  equation \eqref{eqn:p-q}
implies that \eqref{eqn:to-integrate} is integrable.
Thus, we may integrate
\eqref{eqn:to-integrate} over $\Om$ to arrive at
\eqref{eqn:STEL}.

Conversely, suppose that $\bL\in C(\Om;\Symn)$ satisfies \eqref{eqn:STEL}
for all  $\bw\in W_0^{1,2}(\Om;\R^n)$.
Note that \eqref{eqn:STEL} is the condition that $I$ assumes its infimum
at $\bw=\mathbf{0}$.  A standard result (see, e.g., \cite{Me65} or
\cite[Theorem~2.2(i)]{BM84}) is that $I$ is then
quasiconvex at $\bw=\mathbf{0}$; thus, for every $\bx\oo\in\Om$ and
$\widehat\bw\in W_0^{1,2}(B;\R^n)$,
\be\label{eqn:I-hat}
\widehat I (\widehat\bw)=
\int_B
\big(\big[\grad\widehat\bw(\bz)\big]^\rmT\grad\widehat\bw(\bz)\big):\bL(\bx\oo)
\,\dd\bz\ge0,
\ee
\n where $B\subset\R^n$ denotes the unit ball centered at $\mathbf{0}$.
In particular, fix $\bee\in\R^n$ with $|\bee|=1$ and let
$\widehat\bw=\phi\;\!\bee$, where $\phi\in W_0^{1,2}(B)$.
We then find, with the aid of the spectral theorem
(see \eqref{eqn:spectral}), that \eqref{eqn:I-hat} reduces to
\[
0\le\widehat I (\phi\;\!\bee)=
\int_B
\grad\phi\cdot\bL(\bx\oo)\grad\phi\,\dd\bz
=
\sum_{k=1}^n \alpha_k\int_B|\grad\phi\cdot\bee_k|^2\dd\bz,
\]
\n for all $\phi\in W_0^{1,2}(B)$.  The nonnegativity of the constant
eigenvalues $\alpha_k$, which yields $\bL(\bx\oo)$ positive semidefinite,
now follows from an appropriate
choice of $\phi$ (see, e.g., Truesdell \& Noll~\cite[\S68bis]{TN65} or
Dacorogna~\cite[p.~84]{Da08}).
\end{proof}

\subsection{The Elasticity Tensor} If the
elasticity tensor is uniformly positive definite at a deformation
$\bu\in\Def\cap\, W^{1,\infty}(\Om;\R^n)$, i.e.,
\be\label{eqn:ET-at-I-PD-2}
\bM:\CC\big(\bx,\bC_\bu(\bx)\big)[\bM]\ge 2\beta |\bM|^2,
\ee
\n for some $\beta>0$,  every $\bM\in\Symn$, and $a.e.~\bx\in\Omega$,
then the choice $\bM=\bB(\bx)$
together with an integration of
\eqref{eqn:ET-at-I-PD-2} yields
\be\label{eqn:SV-P2}
\int_\Omega \bB(\bx):\CC\big(\bx,\bC_\bu(\bx)\big)
\big[\bB(\bx)\big]\,\dd\bx
\ge
2\beta\int_\Omega |\bB(\bx)|^2\dd\bx.
\ee

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:PSV}  Let $\sigma$ satisfy (1)--(3) of
Hypothesis~\ref{def:W}.  Suppose that $\bu\in\AD$ satisfies
\eqref{eqn:SV-P2}, for some $\beta>0$ and all $\bB\in L^2(\Om;\Symn)$.
Moreover, assume that
\be\label{eqn:small+SV-in-Lem}
\bC_\bu(\bx)\in\sB \text{ for $a.e.~\bx\in \Omega$},
\ee
\n where $\sB$ is a nonempty, bounded, open set
with $\overline{\sB}\subset\Psymn$ and
$\bC_\bu:=(\grad\bu)^\rmT\grad\bu$.
Then there exists
an $\varepsilon>0$ such that
any $\bv\in\AD$ that satisfies, for $a.e.~\bx\in \Omega$,
\be\label{eqn:small+B-in-Lem}
\bC_\bv(\bx)\in\sB,
\qquad
\tsn{\bC_\bv-\bC_\bu}_{\BMO(\Omega)}
+
\Big|\dashint_\Omega (\bC_\bv-\bC_\bu)\,\dd\bx\Big|<\varepsilon,
\ee
\n $\bC_\bv:=(\grad\bv)^\rmT\grad\bv$, will also satisfy
\be\label{eqn:small+SV-in-Lem-2}
\int_\Omega \bE(\bx):\CC\big(\bx,\bC_\bv(\bx)\big)
\big[\bE(\bx)\big]\,\dd\bx
\ge
\beta\int_\Omega \big|\bE(\bx)\big|^2\,\dd\bx,
\quad \bE:=\bC_\bv-\bC_\bu.
\ee
\end{lemma}

Here and in the sequel, we use the notation
$\tsn{\bC_\bv-\bC_\bu}_{\BMO(\Omega)}$
to denote the $\BMO$-seminorm of the tensor $\bC_\bv-\bC_\bu$.
The definition is precisely as in \eqref{eqn:BMO-V-norm},
except one has the tensor in place of $\psi$ and the
Euclidean norm in place of the absolute value in the integral.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:PSV}]
For clarity of exposition, we suppress the variable $\bx$.
Let $\bu\in\AD$ satisfy \eqref{eqn:SV-P2} and
 \eqref{eqn:small+SV-in-Lem} for
all $\bB\in L^2(\Om;\Symn)$.  Suppose that
$\bv\in\AD$ satisfies \eqref{eqn:small+B-in-Lem}
for some $\varepsilon>0$ to be determined and
define $\bE:=\bC_\bv-\bC_\bu$.
Then, Lemma~\ref{lem:taylor-III} with $\bV=\bC_\bv$, $\bU=\bC_\bu$,
and $\bL=\bC_\bv-\bC_\bu=\bE$  yields a constant
$\widehat{c}=\widehat{c}(\sB)>0$ such that,
for $a.e.~\bx\in \Omega$,
\be\label{eqn:taylor-app-in-Lem}
\bE:\CC\big(\bC_\bv\big)\big[\bE\big]
\ge \bE:\CC\big(\bC_\bu\big)
\big[\bE\big] - \widehat{c}|\bE|^3.
\ee

 If we now integrate
\eqref{eqn:taylor-app-in-Lem} over $\Omega$ and make use of
\eqref{eqn:SV-P2}  we find that
\be\label{eqn:E-taylor-in-Lem}
\int_\Omega
\bE:\CC\big(\bC_\bv\big)\big[\bE\big]\,\dd\bx
\ge
2\beta\int_\Omega|\bE|^2\,\dd\bx
-\widehat{c}\int_\Omega|\bE|^3\,\dd\bx.
\ee
\n We next note that inequality \eqref{eqn:RH} (with $q=3$ and $p=2$) of
Proposition~\ref{thm:main-2} yields a constant $J>0$ such
that, for the given $\bE=\bC_\bv-\bC_\bu$ that satisfies
\eqref{eqn:small+B-in-Lem}$_{2}$ and every $i,j\in \{1,\ldots, n\}$,
\be\label{eqn:quadratic>cubic-in-Lem}
\varepsilon J^3\int_\Omega
\big|E_{ij}\big|^2\dd\bx
\ge
\int_\Omega
\big|E_{ij}\big|^3\dd\bx.
\ee
\n Thus one deduces \eqref{eqn:small+SV-in-Lem-2} as a consequence of
\eqref{eqn:E-taylor-in-Lem} and \eqref{eqn:quadratic>cubic-in-Lem}
when $\varepsilon$ is sufficiently small.
\end{proof}

Finally, for future reference, we note that the uniform positivity of the
elasticity tensor is preserved under perturbations that are small in
 the space of strains.
We give a proof of this elementary result for the convenience of the reader.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:temp-re-D2sigma-moved}
Let $\sigma$ satisfy
(1)--(3) of Hypothesis~\ref{def:W}.   Suppose that,
for some  $\bC\oo\in \Psymn$  and $\beta>0$,
\be\label{eqn:ET-at-I-PD-again-moved}
\bM:\CC(\bx,\bC\oo)[\bM]\ge 2\beta |\bM|^2,
\ee
\n for every $\bM\in\Symn$ and $a.e.~\bx\in\Omega$.
Then there exists an $\omega\oo\in (0,|\bC\oo|)$
such that any $\bC\in\Psymn$ that satisfies
\be\label{eqn:C-near-I-0-moved}
\big|\bC-\bC\oo\big|<\omega\oo
\ee
\n will also satisfy, for all $\bM\in\Symn$ and $a.e.~\bx\in\Om$,
\be\label{eqn:pos-A-sigma-moved}
\bM:\CC\big(\bx,\bC\big)[\bM]\ge \beta|\bM|^2.
\ee
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}  Assume $\sigma$, $\CC$, $\bC\oo$, and $\beta$
 satisfy the hypotheses of
the Lemma. Define $\sB\subset\Psymn$
by
\[
\sB:=\{\bE\in\Psymn:|\bE-\bC\oo|<|\bC\oo|/2\}.
\]
\n Then Lemma~\ref{lem:taylor-III}, with $\bV=\bC$, $\bU=\bC\oo$, and
$\bL=\bM$, yields a constant $\widehat{c}>0$ such that, for $a.e.~\bx\in\Om$
and every  $\bM\in\Symn$,
\be\label{eqn:Taylor-A-sigma-moved}
\bM:\CC(\bx,\bC)[\bM]
\ge
\bM:\CC(\bx,\bC\oo)[\bM]
-\widehat{c}|\bM|^2|\bC-\bC\oo|.
\ee
\n The desired result, \eqref{eqn:pos-A-sigma-moved}, now follows from
\eqref{eqn:ET-at-I-PD-again-moved}, \eqref{eqn:C-near-I-0-moved}, and
\eqref{eqn:Taylor-A-sigma-moved} when $\omega\oo\le \beta/\widehat{c}$.
\end{proof}

\section{Uniqueness in \texorpdfstring{$\BMO\cap\, L^1$}{BMO}
Neighborhoods}\label{sec:unique-BMO+L1}

The first result of this section yields a comparison of the energy of an
equilibrium solution, $\bue$, to the energy of any admissible deformation
whose strains are sufficiently close to $\bC\e$ in $\BMO\cap\,L^1$.
Our main theorem then follows from this energy estimate.
It establishes that, given a solution $\bue$ of the
equilibrium equations whose principal stresses are positive
(or a smooth solution whose principal stresses are sufficiently small
and negative) and where the
integral of the elasticity tensor is uniformly positive, there is a
neighborhood of $\bC\e$ in $\Psymn$ in the $\BMO\cap\,L^1$-topology
in which there
are no other solutions of the equilibrium equations.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:main-1} Let
$\sigma:\Omc\times\Psymn\to[0,\infty)$ satisfy (1)--(3) of
Hypothesis~\ref{def:W}.    Suppose that $\bu\e\in\AD$ is
a weak solution of the equilibrium equations, (\ref{eqn:EE}),
that satisfies, for some $k>0$,
some $\epsilon\in (0,1)$,
every $\bD\in L^2(\Om;\Symn)$,
and almost every $\bx\in\Om$,
\begin{gather}\label{eqn:CC-pos-def}
\int_\Omega \bD(\bx):\CC\big(\bx,\bC\e(\bx)\big)
\big[\bD(\bx)\big]\,\dd\bx
\ge
16k\int_\Omega |\bD(\bx)|^2\dd\bx,
\qquad \det\grad\bu\e(\bx)> \epsilon,
\end{gather}
\n where $\bC\e=\bC_{\bu\e}:=(\grad\bu\e)^\rmT\grad\bu\e$.
Fix $X\in\R$ with
$X>||\bC\e||_{\infty,\Om}$ and $X^{\mi1}<\epsilon$.  Then there
exists a $\altd=\altd(X)>0$ such that any $\bv\in\AD$ that
satisfies
\be\label{eqn:small+e-t-new-01}
\begin{gathered}
\tsn{\bC_\bv
-\bC\e}_{\BMO(\Omega)}
+
\Big|\dashint_\Omega \big[\bC_\bv -\bC\e\big]\,\dd\bx\Big|<\altd,
\\[4pt]
\|\bC_\bv\|_{\infty,\Om} <X,
\qquad
  \det\grad\bv>X^{\mi1}~a.e.
\end{gathered}
\ee
\n with
$\bC_\bv:=(\grad\bv)^\rmT\grad\bv$,
\n will also satisfy
\be\label{eqn:E-sigma-bound-zero-03}
\E(\bv)\ge \E(\bu\e) + k\int_\Omega|\bC_\bv-\bC\e|^2\dd\bx
+  \tfrac12\int_\Omega
\bK\big(\bx,\bC\e(\bx)\big):\bH^\rmT\bH\,\dd\bx,
\ee
\n where $\bH:=\grad\bv-\grad\bue$.
Moreover, if in addition $\bv=\bv\e$ is
a weak solution of the equilibrium equations, then
\be\label{eqn:E-sigma-bound-zero-04}
\E(\bu\e)\ge \E(\bv\e)
+ \frac{k}{2}\int_\Omega|\bC_{\bv\e}-\bC\e|^2\dd\bx
+\tfrac12 \int_\Omega
\bK\big(\bx,\bC_{\bv\e}(\bx)\big):\bH\e^\rmT\bH\e\,\dd\bx,
\ee
\n where $\bH\e:=\grad\bv\e-\grad\bue$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:new-final-1}  Let
$\sigma:\Omc\times\Psymn\to[0,\infty)$ satisfy (1)--(3) of
Hypothesis~\ref{def:W}.   Suppose that $\bu\e\in\AD$ is
a weak solution of the equilibrium equations that satisfies
(\ref{eqn:CC-pos-def}) and, for some $\kv\in\R$, every $\ba\in\R^n$,
and almost every $\bx\in\Om$,
\be\label{eqn:K-pos-def-at-ue-in-lem}
\ba\cdot\bK\big(\bx,\bC\e(\bx)\big)\ba\ge 2\ku |\ba|^2.
\ee
\n Assume in addition that either
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] $\ku\ge0$; or
\item[(b)] $\bue\in C^1(\Omc;\R^n)$ and $\ku\ge-k C_M$,
where $C_M$ is given by Proposition~\ref{prop:CM15}.
\end{enumerate}
\n Fix $X\in\R$ with
$X>||\bC\e||_{\infty,\Om}$ and
$X^{\mi1}<\epsilon$  (see (\ref{eqn:CC-pos-def})).  Then there
exists a $\altd=\altd(X)>0$ such that any $\bv\in\AD$ that satisfies
(\ref{eqn:small+e-t-new-01})
will have strictly greater energy that $\bue$.  Moreover, if
$\bue$ and $\bv$ also satisfy, for some $\kv\in\R$,
every $\ba\in\R^n$, and almost every $\bx\in\Om$,
\[
\ba\cdot\Big[\bK\big(\bx,\bC\e(\bx)\big)+
\bK\big(\bx,\bC_{\bv}(\bx)\big)\Big]\ba\ge 2\kv |\ba|^2
\]
\n with either
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $\kv\ge0$; or
\item[(ii)] $2\kv\ge-3kC_M$ and at least one of
$\bue$ and $\bv$  is contained in  $C^1(\Omc;\R^n)$,
\end{enumerate}
\n then $\bv$ cannot be a weak solution of the equilibrium equations.
In particular if, for $a.e.~\bx\in\Om$,
$\bK(\bx,\bC\e(\bx))$ and $\bK(\bx,\bC_{\bv}(\bx))$
are positive semidefinite, then $\bv$ cannot be a
weak solution of the equilibrium equations.
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:convexity-0}  1.~The inequality
\[
\bB:\CC\big(\bx,\bC\e(\bx)\big)[\bB]
\ge
 16k|\bB|^2,\  \text{ for all $\bB\in\Symn$ and $a.e.~\bx\in\Om$},
\]
\n implies that, for almost every $\bx\in\Om$, the function
$\bB\mapsto \sigma(\bx,\bB)$ is \emph{convex in a neighborhood of}
$\bC\e(\bx)$.
Gao, Neff, Roventa, \& Thiel~\cite{GNRT17} have shown that
the positivity of the principal stresses together with the assumption that,
for almost every $\bx\in\Om$, $\bC\e(\bx)$ is \emph{a (global)
point of convexity of} $\bB\mapsto \sigma(\bx,\bB)$, i.e.,
\[
\sigma(\bx,\bB)\ge \sigma\big(\bx,\bC\e(\bx)\big)
+\DD\sigma\big(\bx,\bC\e(\bx)\big):\big[\bB-\bC\e(\bx)\big]
\ \text{ for all   $\bB\in \Psymn$,}
\]
\n  implies that $\bu\e$ is an absolute minimizer of the energy.
2.~The conclusions of Lemma~\ref{lem:main-1} and
Theorem~\ref{thm:new-final-1} are valid under
slightly more general hypotheses.
It is clear that \eqref{eqn:CC-pos-def} need
not be satisfied by all $\bD\in L^2(\Om;\Symn)$, but only by all
$\bD$ that satisfy
\[
\bD=(\grad\bv)^\rmT\grad\bv-(\grad\bu)^\rmT\grad\bu
\]
\n for some $\bu,\bv\in\AD$.  For information on the
characterization of such mappings see, e.g.,  Blume~\cite{Bl89}
or  Ciarlet \&  Laurent~\cite{CL03}
and the references therein.
\end{remark}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:main-1}] We suppress the
variable $\bx$ for clarity of exposition.
Let $\bu\e\in\AD$ be a weak solution of the equilibrium equations
 that  satisfies \eqref{eqn:CC-pos-def}.
Fix $X\in\R$ with
$X>||\bC\e||_{\infty,\Om}$ and $X^{\mi1}<\epsilon$.
Define $\sB\subset \Psymn$ by
\[
 \sB:= \{\bD\in\Psymn: X^{\mi2}<\det\bD,\ |\bD|<X\}.
\]
\n Let $\bv\in\AD$  satisfy \eqref{eqn:small+e-t-new-01}
for some $\altd>0$ to be determined.
Then \eqref{eqn:sPKS},  \eqref{eqn:ET-A}, and
Lemma~\ref{lem:taylor-III} with
$\bV=\bC_\bv$, $\bU=\bC\e$, and
$\bE=\bC_\bv-\bC\e$ yield a
constant $c=c(\sB)>0$ such that, for $a.e.~\bx\in\Om$,
\be\label{eqn:sigma-Taylor-1-lem}
\sigma(\bC_\bv)\ge\sigma(\bC\e)
+\tfrac12 \bE:\bK(\bC\e)
+\tfrac18\bE:\CC(\bC\e)[\bE]
-c|\bE|^3.
\ee
\n If we now integrate \eqref{eqn:sigma-Taylor-1-lem}
over $\Om$  and make use of \eqref{eqn:CC-pos-def} we find that
\be\label{eqn:sigma-Taylor-2-lem}
\int_\Omega \sigma(\bC_\bv)\,\dd\bx
\ge
\int_\Omega \sigma(\bC\e)\,\dd\bx
+
\tfrac12\int_\Omega\bE:\bK(\bC\e)\,\dd\bx
+
2k\int_\Omega |\bE|^2\dd\bx
-
c\int_\Omega|\bE|^3\,\dd\bx.
\ee

We next consider the term $\bE:\bK(\bC\e)$.  We make use
of an observation in \cite{GNRT17} (see, also, \cite{Sp82})
to write
\be\label{eqn:I-GNRT-lem}
\bE=\bC_\bv-\bC\e = (\grad\bu\e)^\rmT\bH
+ \bH^\rmT\grad\bu\e+\bH^\rmT\bH,
\qquad
\bH:=\grad\bv-\grad\bu\e.
\ee
\n Therefore,  \eqref{eqn:fPKS},  \eqref{eqn:I-GNRT-lem},
and the symmetry of $\bK$ gives us
\[
\begin{aligned}
\bE:\bK(\bC\e)&= 2\bH:\big[\grad\bu\e\bK(\bC\e)\big]
+ \bH^\rmT\bH:\bK(\bC\e)\\
&= 2\bH:\bS(\grad\bu\e)
+ \bH^\rmT\bH:\bK(\bC\e)
\end{aligned}
\]
\n and consequently
\be\label{eqn:B-dot-D-sigma-lem}
\begin{aligned}
\int_\Om\bE:\bK(\bC\e)\,\dd\bx
&=
2\int_\Om\bH:\bS(\grad\bu\e)\,\dd\bx
+ \int_\Om\bH^\rmT\bH:\bK(\bC\e)\,\dd\bx.
\end{aligned}
\ee
\n We then combine \eqref{eqn:sigma-Taylor-2-lem} and
\eqref{eqn:B-dot-D-sigma-lem} and make use of the
identity \eqref{eqn:Identity-ES} (which is a consequence of
the equilibrium equations \eqref{eqn:EE})
to conclude that
\be\label{eqn:E-sigma-bound-2-lem}
\E(\bv)\ge \E(\bu\e)
+2k \int_\Omega|\bE|^2\,\dd\bx
- c\int_\Omega|\bE|^3\,\dd\bx
+\tfrac12 \int_\Om\bH^\rmT\bH:\bK(\bC\e)\,\dd\bx.
\ee

Next, inequality \eqref{eqn:RH} (with $p=2$ and $q=3$) in
Proposition~\ref{thm:main-2} yields a constant $J>0$ such that,
for the given
$\bu\e$ and $\bv$ that satisfy \eqref{eqn:small+e-t-new-01} and
every $i,j\in\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$,
\be\label{eqn:quad-cubic}
\altd c J^3\int_\Omega|E_{ij}|^2\,\dd\bx
\ge
c\int_\Omega|E_{ij}|^3\,\dd\bx,
\ee
\n which together with \eqref{eqn:E-sigma-bound-2-lem} yields
the desired result, \eqref{eqn:E-sigma-bound-zero-03},
when $\delta$ is sufficiently small.

Finally, suppose that $\bv=\bv\e\not\equiv\bu\e$ is a
solution of the equilibrium equations.
Then the above
argument with $\bu\e$ replaced by $\bv\e$ and $\bv$ replaced by
$\bu\e$ yields
(see \eqref{eqn:sigma-Taylor-1-lem}--\eqref{eqn:quad-cubic})
the desired inequality, \eqref{eqn:E-sigma-bound-zero-04},
when $\delta$ is sufficiently small \emph{after an additional
observation:}
Lemma~\ref{lem:PSV} together with \eqref{eqn:CC-pos-def}
implies that the constant $k$ in \eqref{eqn:E-sigma-bound-zero-03}
becomes $k/2$ in \eqref{eqn:E-sigma-bound-zero-04}
(see \eqref{eqn:sigma-Taylor-1-lem} and \eqref{eqn:sigma-Taylor-2-lem}).
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:new-final-1}]
We again suppress the variable $\bx$ for clarity of exposition.  Let
$\bu\e\in\AD$ be a weak solution of the equilibrium equations that
satisfies \eqref{eqn:CC-pos-def} and \eqref{eqn:K-pos-def-at-ue-in-lem}.
Then, in view of Lemma~\ref{lem:L-posdef} (with $\bL=\bK-2\ku\bI$),
\be\label{eqn:K-ge-tau-u}
\int_\Omega\bK\big(\bx,\bC\e(\bx)\big):\bH^\rmT\bH\,\dd\bx \ge
2\ku\int_\Omega|\bH|^2\,\dd\bx, \qquad \bH:=\grad\bv-\grad\bue.
\ee
\n Let $\delta>0$ be given by Lemma~\ref{lem:main-1} so that
any $\bv\in\AD$ that satisfies \eqref{eqn:small+e-t-new-01}
will also satisfy
\eqref{eqn:E-sigma-bound-zero-03}, that is,
\be\label{eqn:E-sigma-bound-zero-03-again}
\E(\bv)\ge \E(\bu\e) + k\int_\Omega|\bC_\bv-\bC\e|^2\dd\bx
+  \ku\int_\Omega|\bH|^2\,\dd\bx,
\ee
\n where we have made use of
\eqref{eqn:K-ge-tau-u}.

(a).~Clearly, $\ku\ge0$ yields $\E(\bv)\ge \E(\bu\e)$ since $k>0$.
Suppose that $\E(\bv)= \E(\bu\e)$.  Then $\bC_\bv=\bC\e~a.e.$  Note that,
in view of \eqref{eqn:CC-pos-def}$_2$,
\[
|\grad\bue(\bx)|^n\le \|\grad\bue\|^n_{\infty,\Om}
\le\bigg[\frac{\|\grad\bue\|^n_{\infty,\Om}}{\epsilon}\bigg]
\big[\det\grad\bue(\bx)\big] \
\text{ for $a.e.~\bx\in\Om$.}
\]
\n Consequently, Proposition~\ref{prop:Lo13} yields a rotation
$\bR\in\SO(n)$ such that $\grad\bv =\bR \grad\bue~a.e.$
Since $\Om$ is a connected open set,
$\bv=\bR\bu\e +\ba$ for some $\ba\in\R^n$. However, $\bv=\bu\e$
on $\sD$ and so $\bR=\bI$ and $\ba=\mathbf{0}$ since $\sD$ is
relatively open.  This establishes
the theorem under hypothesis (a).

(b).~Suppose now that $\bue\in C^1(\Omc;\R^n)$ and $\ku\ge-k C_M$,
where $C_M$ is given by Proposition~\ref{prop:CM15}.  Then
\eqref{eqn:E-sigma-bound-zero-03-again} together with
Proposition~\ref{prop:CM15} (with $p=q=2$) yields
\[
\E(\bv)\ge \E(\bu\e) +
kC_M\Big(\|\bv-\bu\e\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega)}\Big)^2
-kC_M \int_\Omega|\grad\bv-\grad\bue|^2\dd\bx.
\]
\n Thus,  $\bv\not\equiv\bu\e$ satisfies $\E(\bv)>\E(\bu\e)$, as claimed.

Now suppose in addition that $\bv=\bv\e$ is a weak solution of the
equilibrium equations.  Then \eqref{eqn:E-sigma-bound-zero-03}
and \eqref{eqn:E-sigma-bound-zero-04} yield
\be\label{eqn:both-1}
0\ge
 3k\int_\Omega|\bC_{\bv\e}-\bC\e|^2\dd\bx
+  \int_\Omega
\Big[\bK\big(\bx,\bC\e(\bx)\big)
+\bK\big(\bx,\bC_{\bv\e}(\bx)\big)\Big]:\bH^\rmT\bH\,\dd\bx.
\ee
\n Next, in view of Lemma~\ref{lem:L-posdef}
(with $\bL=\bK(\bC\e)+\bK(\bC_{\bv\e})-2\kv\bI$)
\[
\int_\Omega
\Big[\bK\big(\bx,\bC\e(\bx)\big)
+\bK\big(\bx,\bC_{\bv\e}(\bx)\big)\Big]:\bH^\rmT\bH\,\dd\bx
\ge
2\kv\int_\Omega|\bH|^2\,\dd\bx,
\]
\n which together with  \eqref{eqn:both-1} gives us
\be\label{eqn:both}
0\ge
 3k\int_\Omega|\bC_{\bv\e}-\bC\e|^2\dd\bx
+2\kv \int_\Omega|\grad\bv\e-\grad\bue|^2\dd\bx.
\ee

(i).~If $\kv\ge0$, then $k>0$ yields $\bC_{\bv\e}=\bC\e~a.e.$ and
the same argument used to prove (a) now yields $\bv\e=\bue$.  Thus,
$\bv\not\equiv\bu\e$ cannot satisfy the equilibrium equations.

(ii).~Suppose now that $2\kv\ge-3kC_M$ and at least one of
$\bue$ and $\bv$  is contained in  $C^1(\Omc;\R^n)$.
Then \eqref{eqn:both} together with
Proposition~\ref{prop:CM15} (with $p=q=2$) now yields
\[
0\ge
 3k C_M\Big(\|\bv\e-\bu\e\|_{W^{1,2}(\Omega)}\Big)^2
-3kC_M \int_\Omega|\grad\bv\e-\grad\bue|^2\dd\bx.
\]
\n Therefore,  $\bv\e=\bue$ and hence
$\bv\not\equiv\bu\e$ cannot satisfy the equilibrium equations.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Deformations with Small Strain}\label{sec:Def-SS}

In this subsection we focus on deformations $\bu\in\AD$ whose
nonlinear \emph{Green-St.~Venant strain tensor}
\be\label{eqn:GSVST}
\bE_\bu(\bx):= \tfrac12\big[\bC_\bu(\bx)-\bI\big]
\ee
\n is sufficiently small.  Given one equilibrium solution $\bue$ whose
strain tensor $\bE\e$ is uniformly and sufficiently small we apply
Theorem~\ref{thm:new-final-1} to show that there is a
$\BMO\cap\,L^1$ neighborhood in strain space where there are no
other solutions of the equilibrium equations.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:small-strain}  Let
$\sigma$ satisfy (1)--(3) of
Hypothesis~\ref{def:W}.   Suppose that, for some $k>0$,
\[
\bB:\CC(\bx,\bI)[\bB]\ge 32k |\bB|^2,
\]
\n for every $\bB\in\Symn$ and $a.e.~\bx\in\Omega$.
Assume further that $\bu\e \in \AD$ is a weak solution of the
equilibrium equations that satisfies, for some $\ku\in\R$,
 some $\epsilon\in(0,1)$,  every $\ba\in\R^n$,
and almost every $\bx\in\Om$,
\be\label{eqn:K-pd+det>0+Ce-small-again}
\begin{gathered}
\ba\cdot\bK\big(\bx,\bC\e(\bx)\big)\ba\ge 2\ku|\ba|^2,
\qquad \det\grad\bu\e(\bx)> \epsilon,  \qquad
\big\|\bC\e-\bI\big\|_{\infty,\Omega} < \omega\oo,
\end{gathered}
\ee
\n where $\bC\e=\bC_{\bu\e}:=(\grad\bu\e)^\rmT\grad\bu\e$,
$\omega\oo$ is the constant determined in
Lemma~\ref{lem:temp-re-D2sigma-moved} (with $\bC\oo=\bI$),
and either
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] $\ku\ge0$; or
\item[(b)] $\bue\in C^1(\Omc;\R^n)$ and $\ku\ge-k C_M$,
where $C_M$ is given by Proposition~\ref{prop:CM15}.
\end{enumerate}
\n Fix $X\in\R$ with
$X>||\bC\e||_{\infty,\Om}$ and $X^{\mi1}<\epsilon$ and suppose that
$\bv\in\AD$  satisfies
\[
||\bC_\bv||_{\infty,\Om} <X,
\qquad  \det\grad\bv>X^{\mi1}~a.e.,
\]
\n with
$\bC_\bv:=(\grad\bv)^\rmT\grad\bv$.
Then there exists a
$\altd=\altd(X)>0$ such that if $\bu\e$ and $\bv$
satisfy
\be\label{eqn:small-Ce-and-Cv}
\begin{gathered}
\tsn{\bC\e}_{\BMO(\Omega)}  +
\Big|\dashint_\Omega \big[\bC\e -\bI\big]\,\dd\bx\Big|<\altd,
\\[2pt]
\tsn{\bC_\bv}_{\BMO(\Omega)}  +
\Big|\dashint_\Omega \big[\bC_\bv -\bI\big]\,\dd\bx\Big|<\altd,
\end{gathered}
\ee
\n or, merely,
\be\label{eqn:Cv-Ce-small}
\tsn{\bC_\bv - \bC\e}_{\BMO(\Omega)}  +
\Big|\dashint_\Omega \big[\bC_\bv -\bC\e\big]\,\dd\bx\Big|<2\altd,
\ee
\n then $\bv$ will have strictly greater energy that $\bue$.
Moreover, if
$\bue$ and $\bv$ also satisfy, for some $\kv\in\R$,
every $\ba\in\R^n$, and almost every $\bx\in\Om$,
\[
\ba\cdot\Big[\bK\big(\bx,\bC\e(\bx)\big)+
\bK\big(\bx,\bC_{\bv}(\bx)\big)\Big]\ba\ge 2\kv |\ba|^2
\]
\n with either
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $\kv\ge0$; or
\item[(ii)] $2\kv\ge-3kC_M$ and at least one of
$\bue$ and $\bv$  is contained in  $C^1(\Omc;\R^n)$,
\end{enumerate}
\n then $\bv$ cannot be a weak solution of the equilibrium equations.
In particular if, for $a.e.~\bx\in\Om$,
$\bK(\bx,\bC\e(\bx))$ and $\bK(\bx,\bC_{\bv}(\bx))$
are positive semidefinite, then $\bv$ cannot be a
weak solution of the equilibrium equations.
\end{corollary}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:BMO-constant-2} 1.~A simple computation shows
that, for any $\bH\in\Mn$,
\[
\tsn{\bC_\bv-\bH}_{\BMO(\Omega)}=\tsn{\bC_\bv}_{\BMO(\Omega)}.
\]
\n Thus, e.g., \eqref{eqn:small-Ce-and-Cv}$_2$ is the assumption
that  $\bC_\bv$
is close to the identity in $\BMO\cap\,L^1$.
2.~Note that Corollary~\ref{cor:small-strain}
does not require a stress-free reference configuration.
3.~Although hypothesis \eqref{eqn:K-pd+det>0+Ce-small-again}$_3$
forces $\bC\e$ to lie in an $L^\infty$-neighborhood of $\bI$, results
of \cite{FJM02} show that $\grad\bue$ then lies in a
$\BMO\cap\,L^1$-neighborhood of some rotation.
More precisely\footnote{This inequality follows directly from (4.3),
(4.4), and (5.14) in \cite{SS19}.}
there is a constant $D=D(\Om)$ such that for any $\bu\in\AD$
there exists a rotation $\bQ_\bu\in\SO(n)$ such that
\[
\tsn{\grad\bu}_{\BMO(\Om)}
+ \Big|\dashint_\Om \big[\grad\bu-\bQ_\bu\big]\,\dd\bx\Big|
\le
D\big\|\bC_\bu-\bI\big\|_{\infty,\Om}.
\]
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:lit-small}  Uniqueness of equilibrium in a
$\BMO$-neighborhood of a stress-free reference configuration was obtained
by John~\cite{Jo72} for the pure-displacement problem
(see also \cite{SS18}).  That result was recently extended to the
mixed problem in \cite{SS19}.  The object that is small in $\BMO$ in
these papers is the deformation gradient $\grad\bu$, rather than the strain
$\bC_\bu$.  Thus, the neighborhood in which there are no other solutions
is potentially larger in Corollary~\ref{cor:small-strain} than
in prior results.  However, our result requires the additional assumption
that each equilibria experience either tension or, at least,
 compressions that are sufficiently small.
\end{remark}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:small-strain}]  We first note
that the triangle inequality together with \eqref{eqn:small-Ce-and-Cv}
yields \eqref{eqn:Cv-Ce-small}.  Thus we will
assume that $\bu\e$ and $\bv$ satisfy \eqref{eqn:Cv-Ce-small}.
We next observe that Lemma~\ref{lem:temp-re-D2sigma-moved}
yields an $\omega\oo>0$ such that any $\bE\in\Psymn$
with  $|\bE-\bI|<\omega\oo$ will satisfy
\be\label{eqn:pos-DD-sigma-again-x}
\bB:\CC(\bx,\bE)[\bB]\ge 16k|\bB|^2,
\ee
\n for all $\bB\in\Symn$ and $a.e.~\bx\in\Om$. Consequently,
\eqref{eqn:K-pd+det>0+Ce-small-again}$_3$
(together with \eqref{eqn:pos-DD-sigma-again-x})
yields
\[
\int_\Omega \bD(\bx):\CC\big(\bx,\bC\e(\bx)\big)
\big[\bD(\bx)\big]\,\dd\bx
\ge
16k\int_\Omega |\bD(\bx)|^2\dd\bx,
\]
\n for all $\bD\in L^2(\Om;\Symn)$.
Finally, we see that the hypotheses of
Theorem~\ref{thm:new-final-1} are satisfied, which then implies
the desired results.
\end{proof}

\section{Reference Configurations at Equilibrium}\label{sec:RCatE}

We here note that the statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:new-final-1}
simplifies when the
body in its reference configuration is itself at equilibrium.  Thus, we
assume that $\bue=\id\in C^1(\Omc;\R^n)$, i.e.,
\[
\bue(\bx)=\id(\bx) := \bx \ \text{ for }  \bx\in\Om,
\]
\n  where $\Om\subset\R^n$ is a Lipschitz domain.
Clearly, we also require that $\bd=\id$ on
$\sD$. However,
\emph{we do} \textbf{not} \emph{require that this
reference configuration be stress free.}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:not-equivalent} The above assumption
is akin to assuming that one is given
a body, $\overline\sB\subset\R^n$, and a mapping
$\bu:\overline\sB\to\R^n$ that is a solution of the equilibrium
equations and for which the deformed body
is a Lipschitz (or John) domain.  However, without further
assumptions on $\bu$ the two approaches are not equivalent.
In particular, $\bu(\partial\sB)$ need not be equal to
$\partial\Om$.
\end{remark}

\begin{theorem}[Theorem~\ref{thm:new-final-1}
for a Reference Configuration at Equilibrium]\label{thm:I-1} Let
$\sigma:\Omc\times\Psymn\to[0,\infty)$ satisfy (1)--(3) of
Hypothesis~\ref{def:W}.
 Suppose that $\bu\e=\id$
is a weak solution of the equilibrium equations, \eqref{eqn:EE}, that
satisfies, for some $k>0$,
every $\bD\in L^2(\Om;\Symn)$, every $\ba\in\R^n$,
and almost every $\bx\in\Om$,
\[
\int_\Omega \bD(\bx):\CC\big(\bx,\bI\big)
\big[\bD(\bx)\big]\,\dd\bx
\ge
16k\int_\Omega |\bD(\bx)|^2\dd\bx,\qquad
\ba\cdot\bK(\bx,\bI)\ba\ge -2kC_M |\ba|^2.
\]
\n Fix $X>\sqrt{n}$. Then there
exists a $\altd=\altd(X)>0$ such that any $\bv\in\AD$ that
satisfies $\bv\ne\id$,
\[
\tsn{\bC_\bv}_{\BMO(\Omega)}
+
\Big|\dashint_\Omega \big[\bC_\bv-\bI\big]\,\dd\bx\Big|<\altd, \qquad
\|\bC_\bv\|_{\infty,\Om} <X,
\qquad
  \det\grad\bv>X^{\mi1}~a.e.,
\]
\n with $\bC_\bv:=(\grad\bv)^\rmT\grad\bv$,
will have strictly greater energy
than  $\id$.   Moreover, if in addition,
for almost every $\bx\in\Om$ and every $\ba\in\R^n$,
\[
\ba\cdot\Big[\bK\big(\bx,\bI\big)+
\bK\big(\bx,\bC_{\bv}(\bx)\big)\Big]\ba\ge -3kC_M |\ba|^2
\]
\n then $\bv$ cannot be a weak solution of the equations of equilibrium.
In particular if, for $a.e.~\bx\in\Om$,
$\bK(\bx,\bI)$ and $\bK(\bx,\bC_{\bv}(\bx))$
are positive semidefinite, then $\bv$ cannot be a
weak solution of the equilibrium equations.
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:better}  (1).~A slightly better result can
be obtained by replacing Proposition~\ref{prop:CM15} with the result
it is based upon in \cite{FJM02}. (2).~We note that statements of
prior results of ours from \cite{SS19} as well as a prior result of
J.~Sivaloganathan and one of the current authors from \cite{SS18}
also simplify in the special case when $\bue=\id$.
\end{remark}


\section{Introduction}
We started modeling the Wuhan COVID-19 outbreak with the standard SEIR model with WHO premised basic reproduction number $R_0$ between 2 and 3, the incubation period around 5 days, and the serial time around a week using GLEAMviz network simulator that includes populations, traffic, and measures. Soon we realized, the simulation predicts outbreaks in European countries too late. The outbreaks fitted better for $R_0$ much higher than it is generally considered. Afterwards, serious outbreaks in Italy, Spain, UK, and the US happened very quickly. The paper \cite{Science} appeared in Science, estimating 86\% of undocumented infectious (published 16.3.2020). Padova University recently informed about an experiment in town V\`o, where areal testing showed that the majority of the positive 3\% of citizens were asymptomatic at the beginning of the outbreak. We made a hypothesis that the asymptomatic cohort can play a crucial role. This could also be a clue to understanding why early enough closing school policy contributes to slow down the outbreak. We propose a model that counts in with this asymptomatic infectious cohort, and we derive its basic reproduction number $R_0$.  We proved that the basic reproduction number is a weighted average of reproduction numbers of both the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts, which seems to be very intuitive. On the other hand, this implies that in case of a disease with the majority of asymptomatic cases, this basic reproduction number $R_0$ is much higher than the one gained from standard estimates based only on the symptomatic cohort. This can explain the "invisible" and fast increase in COVID-19 outbreaks since it also acts through the asymptomatic cohort. There are already studies that estimate $R_0$ higher than WHO proposed (for example, Diamond Princess estimate 14.8 at \cite{Princess}). Probably we can see just the tip of the iceberg. The consequences are very important since it gives a much shorter time to governments. Late measures have almost no effect.

\section{SEIAR model and the basic reproduction number}
\label{sec:SEIAR}

We propose a simple model that generalizes the SEIR model commonly used for virus disease modeling. The total population is partitioned into the following compartments: $S$, Susceptible; $E$, Exposed; $I$, Infected (symptomatic infected); $A$, Asymptomatic (asymptomatic infected); $R$, Removed (healed or dead, no more infectious).

\begin{eqnarray}
\label{S}
\dot S & = & - \beta S (I+A),\\
\label{E}
\dot E & = &  \beta S (I+A) - \gamma E,\\
\label{I}
\dot I & = &  \gamma p E - \mu_1 I,\\
\label{A}
\dot A & = &  \gamma (1-p) E - \mu_2 A,\\
\label{R}
\dot R & = & \mu_1 I + \mu_2 A,
\end{eqnarray}
where parameter $\beta$ denotes the transmission rate (i.e., the probability of disease transmission in a single contact times the average number of contacts per person) due to contacts between a Susceptible subject and an Infected or an Asymptomatic subject\footnote{The model can be improved by incorporating different transmission rates for cohorts $I$ and $A$ as $\beta_I$ and $\beta_A$, respectively. It is difficult to compare them since, on one side, people tend to avoid contact with subjects showing symptoms, but on the other side, an asymptomatic subject is less infectious more probably. Due to this dichotomy, we use one the mean $\beta$.}. Parameter $\beta$ can be modified by quarantine government measures that increase social distancing as closing schools, remote working, using masks, or similar. Parameter $\gamma$ usually denotes the probability rate at which the Exposed subject develops clinically relevant symptoms. The period $1/\gamma$ (days$^{-1}$) is called an incubation period. In the case of COVID-19, it is known that an Exposed subject is infectious one or two days before developing symptoms, and so we will define the Exposed compartment as a latent non-infectious compartment. Due to this, we assume that the period $1/\gamma$ is shorter than usually estimated (see \cite{Lombardy}, \cite{NEJM}). We assume that every Exposed subject becomes infectious, but subjects that enter $I$ cohort later develop symptoms with probability $p$ and those who not enter $A$ cohort with probability $1-p$. This assumption is based on recent studies \cite{Science} and experiments in the Italian town V\`o.  Parameters $\mu_1$ or $\mu_2$, respectively, denote the remove rate, so $\tfrac1{\mu_1}$ is the average period to isolation for Infected symptomatic subjects, and $\tfrac1{\mu_2}$ is the average recovery period for Asymptomatic subjects. We assume that $\tfrac1{\mu_2} >\tfrac1{\mu_1}$, since the COVID-19 patients are treated or isolated very quickly after developing symptoms.
We omit the probability rate of becoming susceptible again after recovery, although this is not evident (mainly for Asymptomatic subjects). We assume $S+I+E+A+R=1$ (a non-dimensionalized model with a constant incidence rate).

\subsection{Unstability of the non-epidemic equilibrium -- outbreak}

The non-epidemic equilibrium of the system \eqref{S}, \eqref{E}, \eqref{I},\eqref{A} (we can separate independent equation \eqref{R}) is obviously $(1,0,0,0)$. The Jacobian linearization matrix of the system \eqref{S}, \eqref{E}, \eqref{I},\eqref{A} is
\begin{equation*}
J=\begin{pmatrix}
-\beta(I+A) & 0 & -\beta S &  -\beta S \\
\beta(I+A) & - \gamma & \beta S &  \beta S \\
0 & \gamma p & -\mu_1 & 0 \\
0 & \gamma (1-p) & 0 & -\mu_2 \\
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation*}
and in the non-epidemic equilibrium it is
\begin{equation} \label{jacobian}
J(1,0,0,0)=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -\beta  &  -\beta  \\
0 & - \gamma & \beta  &  \beta  \\
0 & \gamma p & -\mu_1 & 0 \\
0 & \gamma (1-p) & 0 & -\mu_2 \\
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The Jacobian matrix \eqref{jacobian} has one zero eigenvalue. The non-epidemic equilibrium loses stability as any eigenvalue of a submatrix
\begin{equation*}
A=\begin{pmatrix}
 - \gamma & \beta  &  \beta  \\
 \gamma p & -\mu_1 & 0 \\
 \gamma (1-p) & 0 & -\mu_2
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation*}
 crosses imaginary axes and has positive real part. The characteristic polynomial of the matrix $A$ is
\begin{equation*}
p(\lambda)={\lambda}^{3}+ \left( \gamma+\mu_{{1}}+\mu_{{2}} \right) {\lambda}^{2}
+ \left( -\beta\,\gamma+\gamma\,\mu_{{1}}+\gamma\,\mu_{{2}}+\mu_{{1}}
\mu_{{2}} \right) \lambda+\beta\,\gamma\,p\mu_{{1}}-\beta\,\gamma\,p
\mu_{{2}}-\beta\,\gamma\,\mu_{{1}}+\gamma\,\mu_{{1}}\mu_{{2}}
\end{equation*}
and Routh-Hurwitz criterion
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{1}
\ \gamma+\mu_{{1}}+\mu_{{2}} & >& 0,\\
\label{2}
-\text{det} A = \beta\,\gamma\,p\mu_{{1}}-\beta\,\gamma\,p
\mu_{{2}}-\beta\,\gamma\,\mu_{{1}}+\gamma\,\mu_{{1}}\mu_{{2}} & > & 0,\\
\label{3}
\left( \gamma+\mu_{{1}}+\mu_{{2}} \right) \left( -\beta\,\gamma+\gamma\,\mu_{{1}}+\gamma\,\mu_{{2}}+\mu_{{1}}
\mu_{{2}} \right) - \left( \beta\,\gamma\,p\mu_{{1}}-\beta\,\gamma\,p
\mu_{{2}}-\beta\,\gamma\,\mu_{{1}}+\gamma\,\mu_{{1}}\mu_{{2}} \right)& > & 0,
\end{eqnarray}
implies negative real parts of all the eigenvalues of the matrix $A$.
The condition \eqref{1} is satisfied always. Violation of the condition \eqref{2} implies that at least one eigenvalue has positive real part. The condition \eqref{2} can be equivalently rewritten as
\begin{equation} \label{R0}
R_0 := \frac{\beta p}{\mu_1} + \frac{\beta (1-p)}{\mu_2} < 1
\end{equation}
and so the left-hand side as a weighted average of reproduction numbers of both the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts can be defined as $R_0$. If $R_0 > 1$ the epidemic outbreaks. Since the infectious period $1/\mu_2$ of an Asymptomatic subject is much longer than the infectious period $1/\mu_1$ of a symptomatic Infectious subject, and $1-p$ is majority percentage for the COVID-19 disease, the derived $R_0$ is much higher than the one estimated using SEIR model (\cite{Kucharski}, \cite{Li}, \cite{Wu}). Violation of the condition \eqref{3} give birth to an unstable focus (two complex eigenvalues cross the imaginary axes).

\subsection{Case Study: Numerical results for the COVID-19 Outbreak}

We do not aim here to fit and predict the curve of the infected. We are trying to explain that the principal difference between SEIR and SEIAR models leads to principally different outcomes in for example times and rates of outbreaks, a percentage of the population affected. It also has implications for state measures that are being introduced to keep the disease contained and controlled under health system capacity.

For commonly used parameters of COVID-19 $\beta=1$, $\gamma=1/4$, $\mu_1=1/3$, $\mu_2=1/10$ and $p=0.14$ (see \cite{Lauer}, \cite{Kucharski}, \cite{Li}, \cite{Wu}, \cite{NEJM}) we get $R_0 \doteq 9 > 1$ from \eqref{R0}. Condition \eqref{3} is satisfied.

 \begin{figure}[h]
	\centering

	\includegraphics[width=0.53\textwidth]{epidemy_without_quarantine.pdf}

	\caption{Dynamics of the model  \eqref{S}, \eqref{E}, \eqref{I},\eqref{A}. The peak time $t_p=48$, a proportion of infectious in the population in the peak $I\left(48\right)=0.0268$.}
	\label{fig:SEIAdynamics}
\end{figure}

Figure \ref{fig:SEIAdynamics} shows the disease dynamics in case that no strong restrictions are held (without social distancing and other measures except hospitalization or isolated home treatment). The health system has to contain around $2.7 \%$ of Infected symptomatic population at once\footnote{This hypothetical case with no government interventions gives a peak around 280 000 people symptomatic altogether in Czech Republic.} at the moment of the peak (day 48 from the first Infected subject in a million population). Commonly, $20\%$ of symptomatic Infected subjects are hospitalized, and $10\%$ need intensive care (\cite{WHO}). That is $0.27 \%$ of the whole population. $60\%$ decrease of $\beta$ (e.g., mask protection in the whole population) causes the peak to be halved in approximately doubled time. SEIR model without the Asymptomatic cohort gives five times higher and about 3 weeks later peak values (for $\beta=1$), which seems to be very different from the actual dynamics of the disease COVID-19.

\subsection{GLEAMviz simulation of COVID-19 pandemic}

The \href{http://www.gleamviz.org/}{GLEAMviz simulation software} is a platform that gives a possibility to simulate the global pandemic on a network background. The Global Epidemic and Mobility Model (GLEAM) is a stochastic computational model that integrates high-resolution demographic and mobility data and uses a compartmental approach to define the epidemic characteristics of the infectious disease \cite{GLEAMviz}. We simulated the pandemic starting in Wu-Han on the 1st of December using SEIAR model with parameters $\beta=1$, $\gamma=1/4$, $\mu_1=1/3$, $\mu_2=1/10$ and $p=0.14$ and an exception that $\beta=0.3$ from 20/01/2020 in the whole China (Figure \ref{fig:GLEAMviz}). The outbreaks in Europe fit in time, unlike the much later onsets of the epidemics in case of using the SEIR model. Simulation-based on SEIAR showed good times of local epidemic outbreaks in Wu-Han, Italy, Germany, Czech Republic, and others (with differences in days,  Figure \ref{fig:CR}) and much closer proportion of infected in a population (difference in the order). Due to the gradual cancellation of flights, air traffic slowed down, so we cannot simulate the real situation. Possibility to decrease air traffic during simulations could be a good software improvement.

 \begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\fbox{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{CRgleam.jpg}}
	\caption{Global simulation of COVID-19 outbreak without European protective measures in GLEAMviz based on the model  \eqref{S}, \eqref{E}, \eqref{I},\eqref{A} with parameters $\beta=1$, $\gamma=1/4$, $\mu_1=1/3$, $\mu_2=1/10$ and $p=0.14$. Czech Republic -- new transitions per 1000/day and cumulative transitions per 1000/day.}
	\label{fig:GLEAMviz}
\end{figure}

 \begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\fbox{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{CR.pdf}}
	\caption{COVID-19 outbreak without European protective measures in GLEAMviz based on the model  \eqref{S}, \eqref{E}, \eqref{I},\eqref{A} with parameters $\beta=1$, $\gamma=1/4$, $\mu_1=1/3$, $\mu_2=1/10$ and $p=0.14$ -- a comparison for Czech Republic new daily confirmed cases data set (\cite{GitHub}). Transmission rate $\beta$ is decreased to $0.3$ from 20/1/2020 for the whole China. Air traffic and local traffic is not decreased, there is no decrease of $R_0$ due to government measures in Europe, so the simulation fails after 20/03/2020 (around a week after first measures). Real data are 10 times lower (that could be due to the lack of testing at the beginning of the outbreak and undetected mild symptomatic cases) and delayed 16 days (due to the incubation period, developing symptoms period and testing period, plus possible time for undetected first cases). Simulation for SEIR model with the same parameters $(p=1, \, R_0=3)$ moves the outbreak more than a month later, and the infected cohort is more than five times bigger. This is evidence of the unsuitability of models without the asymptomatic infectious cohort since the parameters are based on clinical characteristics of the disease (commonly used, \cite{Lauer}, \cite{Kucharski}, \cite{Li}, \cite{Wu}, \cite{NEJM}).}
	\label{fig:CR}
\end{figure}

\section{Efficiency of quarantine government measures with respect to the time of their introduction}

One important information that governments need is to estimate the efficiency of introduced measures. For the SEIAR model, we will show the dependence of the peak height on the time of the introduction of quarantine and social measures that affect transmission rate $\beta$. It turns out that there is a time threshold for the introduction of quarantine and social measures for both SEIR and SEIAR models\footnote{Model SEIR is a limit model SEIAR for $p=1$.}. Early measures lead to a significant reduction of the epidemic peak, whereas after a certain threshold, the epidemic peak cannot be significantly affected.

We will show this threshold for parameters $\beta=1$, $\gamma=1/4$, $\mu_1=1/3$, $\mu_2=1/10$ and $p=0.14$ used above .
Figure \ref{fig:jump} shows how the dynamics of the system change abruptly as $\beta$ reduction from 1 to 0.3 is introduced at times $t=30$ and $t=40$.
 \begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{epidemy_with_quarantine.pdf}
	\caption{$\beta$ reduction from 1 to 0.3 is introduced at times $t=30$ and $t=40$. For $t=30$ the peak time $t_p=73$, a proportion of infectious in the population in the peak $I\left(48\right)=0.0091$. For $t=40$ the peak time $t_p=47$, a proportion of infectious in the population in the peak $I\left(48\right)=0.0130$.}
	\label{fig:jump}
\end{figure}
We have to highlight the fact that the time $t=30$ is counted from the first Infected subject in a million population, but due to delay (the incubation period, few more days of asymptomatic disease, test duration to confirm positivity) first COVID-19 patients in a new country were confirmed after around 10 days.

\subsection{Existence of a threshold}

Depending on the time of the introduction of government measures that reduce $\beta$, we can draw the peak of the epidemic. The heatmap \ref{fig:heatmap} may serve to gain a good insight into the effectiveness of government measures in terms of time and strength. It displays a steep growth that is almost beta independent. This property is not exceptional for taken parameter values, but it is a generic behavior.

\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=0.56\textwidth]{heatmap.pdf}
	\caption{Proportion of infections in the peak depending on the strength of used measures (smaller $\beta$ means larger measures), and a number of days, when quarantine starts, from the first detected case (approximately 10 days after infection started). Days are shown from day 9, which is an estimation of a start of the phase 2 (outbreak). In case of two peaks of the epidemic, it displays the first peak.}
	\label{fig:heatmap}
\end{figure}

This could imply that countries that took action quickly (not later than 20-25 days from the first confirms) are probably on a good way to contain the outbreak. On the other hand, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, UK (with a lack of testing) or the US at highly populated areas face a sharp increase in the infected since the measures were introduced too late (this is of course not true for local areas with later outbreaks, where measures took place early enough).

\subsection{Efficiency threshold estimation}

It is challenging to estimate the efficiency of measures threshold during an ongoing outbreak. It is not possible to compare the time of the introduction of measures with the time of epidemic peak because we do not know it. A possible approach could be to compare the time of the fastest growth (denoted as Phase 2) with the time of introduction of measures.

Figure \ref{fig:efekt} shows the possibility to efficiently contain the outbreak by quarantine, social distancing, mask-wearing, and other government measures that decrease transmission rate $\beta$ for various original $R_0$ ($\beta$ respectively). The dashed line indicates the outbreak of the epidemic (the maximal steep), the dotted line is the peak time. The threshold is orange, but the measures have to be introduced a few days before it. Again, parameters  $\gamma=1/4$, $\mu_1=1/3$, $\mu_2=1/10$ with $p=0.14$ are used. Figure \ref{fig:compare} shows the quarantine efficiency as decrease of infected in peak (proportion of population) for various original $R_0$. Each column is labeled with a percentage that shows a relative difference with respect to the peak of the epidemic without a quarantine.

\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\fbox{\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{efekt.pdf}}
	\caption{Graph of quarantine efficiency for drop of $\beta$ to $0.3$ from a level given by $R_0$ ($\gamma=1/4$, $\mu_1=1/3$, $\mu_2=1/10$, $p=0.14$ $\beta$ given by \eqref{R0}). A period for efficient government measures is green -- from the 1st positive case to few days before the orange threshold. The dashed line indicates the outbreak of epidemic (maximal steep -- Phase 2). $R_0=9$ corresponds to clinical characteristics of COVID-19.}
	\label{fig:efekt}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{quarantine_efficiency.pdf}
	\caption{A difference between number of cases in the peak of the epidemic without a quarantine with $\gamma=1/4$, $\mu_1=1/3$, $\mu_2=1/10$, $p=0.14$ and $R_0$ given by \eqref{R0}, and the epidemic with a quarantine with $\gamma=1/4$, $\mu_1=1/3$, $\mu_2=1/10$, $p=0.14$, $\beta=0.3$. The percentages show a relative difference with respect to the peak of the epidemic without a quarantine.}
	\label{fig:compare}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusion}

We presented a compartmental model of epidemic spread, which is a generalization of the SEIR model by adding an asymptomatic infectious cohort. The derived basic reproduction number is the weighted arithmetic mean of the basic reproduction numbers of the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts. In a limit case (for an empty asymptomatic cohort), the SEIAR model is the SEIR model with standard $R_0$. This model was developed based on studies and clinical characteristics of COVID-19, but can be used, for example, to model the dynamics of the H1N1 influenza epidemic and other human-to-human transmission diseases.

We are convinced that model SEIAR is the most simple model that can be used to simulate the epidemic dynamics of COVID-19.
The standard SEIR model without an asymptomatic cohort does not match existing data, while the SEIAR model does quite well. Moreover, the onset of epidemics in different European countries corresponds to the simulations in GLEAMviz. The extremely rapid outbreaks in Italy and other countries, the functionality of only extreme measures, and the failure of measures that tried to protect and isolate only vulnerable groups are indirect supports for the suitability of the SEIAR model. Voices in the academic world are drawing attention to the asymptomatic group of infectious subjects. We are convinced that the asymptomatic cohort plays a crucial role in the spread of the COVID-19 disease.

The graph \ref{fig:heatmap} indicates that all measures need to be taken early and vigorously to be effective. Late or insufficient measures have little effect on the outbreak. All measures have economic, social, logistical, and psychological consequences. Their balance is up to the authorities.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

This work was supported by grant Mathematical and Statistical Modeling 4 number MUNI/A/1418/2019.

\bibliographystyle{unsrtnat}