text:
# Isoperimetric and Universal Inequalities for Eigenvalues

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 The Eigenvalue Problems

The first eigenvalue problem we shall introduce is that of the fixed membrane, or Dirichlet Laplacian. We consider the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on a bounded domain (=connected open set) $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in Euclidean space $`^n`$, i.e., the problem

$`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ $`=\lambda u\text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }^n,`$ (1.1a)
$`u`$ $`=0\text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ (1.1b)
It is well-known that this problem has a real and purely discrete spectrum $`\{\lambda _i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ where

$$0<\lambda _1<\lambda _2\lambda _3\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.$$
(1.2)
Here each eigenvalue is repeated according to its multiplicity. An associated orthonormal basis of real eigenfunctions will be denoted $`u_1`$, $`u_2`$, $`u_3`$, $`\mathrm{}`$. In fact, throughout this paper we will assume that all functions we consider are real. This entails no loss of generality in the present context.

The next problem we introduce is that of the free membrane, or Neumann Laplacian. This is the problem

$`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ $`=\mu v\text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }^n,`$ (1.3a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{n}}`$ $`=0\text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ (1.3b)
Here $`/n`$ denotes the outward normal derivative on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where we now assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is sufficiently smooth. With this assumption, problem (1.3) has spectrum $`\{\mu _i\}_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ where

$$0=\mu _0<\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mathrm{},$$
(1.4)
with the eigenvalues again repeated according to their multiplicities. A corresponding orthonormal basis of real eigenfunctions will be denoted $`\{v_i\}_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Next we introduce the clamped plate problem, or eigenvalue problem for the Dirichlet biharmonic operator (for an explanation of this terminology see  or ), which describes the characteristic vibrations of a clamped plate. This problem is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^2w`$ $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }w\text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }^n,`$ (1.5a)
$`w`$ $`=0={\displaystyle \frac{w}{n}}\text{ on }\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ (1.5b)
We will denote the eigenvalues and an associated orthonormal basis of real eigenfunctions by $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\{w_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, respectively. The eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ satisfy

$$0<\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_3\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.$$
(1.6)
Lastly, we introduce the buckling problem, which determines the critical buckling load of a clamped plate subjected to a uniform compressive force around its boundary (this description applies to the $`n=2`$ case of the problem). This problem again involves the biharmonic operator and is formulated as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^2v`$ $`=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Delta }v\text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }^n,`$ (1.7a)
$`v`$ $`=0={\displaystyle \frac{v}{n}}\text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ (1.7b)
It also has a discrete spectrum consisting of positive eigenvalues of finite multiplicity with infinity as their only accumulation point. We denote the eigenvalues by $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and a corresponding orthonormal basis of real eigenfunctions by $`\{v_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$. Thus

$$0<\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.$$
(1.8)
Good sources of information on many of these problems include the books of Bandle , Bérard , Courant-Hilbert , Davies , Kesavan , Leis , Pólya and Szegő , Reed and Simon , and Safarov and Vassiliev . The review papers of Davies , Payne , , , Protter , and Talenti ,  are also quite useful, as is Leissa’s monograph  on the vibration of plates. Rayleigh’s classic The Theory of Sound  is highly recommended as collateral reading.

### 1.2 Rearrangement

In this subsection we introduce the notion of spherically symmetric rearrangement (or Schwarz symmetrization) and some of its properties. Suppose that we have a bounded measurable function $`f`$ on the bounded measurable set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$. We can consider its distribution function $`\mu _f(t)`$ defined by

$$\mu _f(t)=|\{x\mathrm{\Omega }||f(x)|>t\}|$$
(1.9)
where $`||`$ denotes Lebesgue measure. The distribution function can be viewed as a function from $`[0,\mathrm{})`$ to $`[0,|\mathrm{\Omega }|]`$. It is clearly a nonincreasing function. The decreasing rearrangement of $`f`$, denoted $`f^{}`$, is essentially the inverse of $`\mu _f`$ and is defined by

$$f^{}(s)=inf\{t0|\mu _f(t)<s\}.$$
(1.10)
It is a nonincreasing function on $`[0,|\mathrm{\Omega }|]`$.

Before defining the spherically decreasing rearrangement of a function we define the spherical (or symmetric) rearrangement of a set. For a bounded measurable set $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$, we define its spherical rearrangement $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ as the ball centered at the origin having the same measure as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, i.e., $`|\mathrm{\Omega }^{}|=|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$. We can now define the spherically (symmetric) decreasing rearrangement $`f^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ by

$$f^{}(x)=f^{}(C_n|x|^n)\text{for}x\mathrm{\Omega }^{}$$
(1.11)
where $`C_n=\pi ^{n/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{n}{2}+1\right)=`$ volume of the unit ball in $`^n`$. A verbal description of $`f^{}`$ runs as follows: $`f^{}`$ is that function of $`x\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ which is spherically symmetric, radially decreasing (in the weak sense of nonincreasing) and equimeasurable with $`|f|`$, i.e., $`f^{}`$ and $`|f|`$ share the same distribution function (see (1.9) above). One way to view this is that for each of the level sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t\{x\mathrm{\Omega }||f(x)|>t\}`$ of $`|f|`$ we take its spherical rearrangement $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t^{}`$ and define this to be the corresponding level set of $`f^{}`$ (which, we recall, is placed concentrically with $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$). This viewpoint gives an interpretation of $`f^{}`$ which avoids the intermediate function $`f^{}`$ of a single (=volume) variable. Good sources of further information on rearrangements are , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

A key fact, which is evident from the equimeasurability of $`f`$, $`f^{}`$, and $`f^{}`$, is that

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }f^2=_0^{|\mathrm{\Omega }|}f^{}(s)^2𝑑s=_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(f^{})^2.$$
(1.12)
There is no reason for not putting $`|f|`$, $`f^{}`$, and $`f^{}`$ as integrands here, or even $`|f|^p`$, $`|f^{}|^p`$, and $`|f^{}|^p`$, except that (1.12) is all we need later in this paper.

We shall be particularly concerned with how spherical rearrangement affects the first eigenfunction $`u_1`$ of the Dirichlet Laplacian. The key property here is that spherical rearrangement typically decreases, and in any case cannot increase, the Dirichlet norm $`_\mathrm{\Omega }|u_1|^2`$. In particular, it is known that for any function $`f`$ in the Sobolev space $`H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (for background and notation on Sobolev spaces we recommend , , , and ) $`f^{}H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$ and

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}|f^{}|^2_\mathrm{\Omega }|f|^2.$$
(1.13)
This inequality is crucial to the proof of the Faber-Krahn inequality given in Section 2. Note, too, that by (1.12) the $`L^2`$-norm of $`u_1`$ does not change when we replace it by $`u_1^{}`$. For a discussion of (1.13), see Glaser, Martin, Grosse, and Thirring , Gunson , Kawohl , Lieb , , Lieb and Loss , Pólya-Szegő , and/or Talenti , , , .

We also note a certain elementary property of rearrangement as it affects integrals of products of functions. This is that for two nonnegative measurable functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }fg_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}f^{}g^{}.$$
(1.14)
There is a corresponding lower bound if we rearrange $`f`$ and $`g`$ in opposite senses. For this we need the notion of spherically (symmetric) increasing rearrangement, which we denote by a lower $``$. The definition is almost identical to that of spherically decreasing rearrangement, except that $`g_{}`$ should be radially increasing (in the weak sense) on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. Then we have, for example,

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }fg_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}f^{}g_{}.$$
(1.15)
In fact, these inequalities take their most elementary form if we use “signed” rearrangements of $`f`$ and $`g`$, that is, we define $`f^{}`$, $`g^{}`$, $`f_{}`$, $`g_{}`$, etc., in terms of the distribution function as given in (1.9) except that we use just $`f(x)`$ in place of $`|f(x)|`$ in that formula. With $`f^{}`$, $`g^{}`$, etc., defined in this alternative way, (1.14) and (1.15) hold without any need to restrict $`f`$ and $`g`$ to be nonnegative functions. All of this basic material is admirably presented in , where the essential features of the process (similarly ordered, oppositely ordered) are brought to the fore. In a sense the essence of the whole business is the simple algebraic inequality

$$(ab)(cd)0$$
(1.16)
if $`(a,b)`$ and $`(c,d)`$ are similarly ordered (and the reverse if these vectors are oppositely ordered). Thus, if $`\stackrel{}{v}=(a,b)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{w}=(c,d)`$ are similarly ordered

$$\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{w}=ac+bdad+bc=\stackrel{}{v}(d,c).$$
(1.17)
The relevance of this simple vector inequality for (1.14) (in its general “signed” version) is that we can approach (1.14) by approximating $`f`$ and $`g`$ by simple functions decomposed over sets of equal measures. In this setting the relevance of (1.17) is apparent (as a first approximation in the single-variable setting one might think of passing to Riemann sums over subintervals of equal length). See , and the more recent article by Baernstein , for further development of these ideas.

We come finally to a result on how rearrangement affects the solution to the Poisson equation on a bounded domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions

$`\mathrm{\Delta }u`$ $`=f\text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }^n,`$ (1.18a)
$`u`$ $`=0\text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ (1.18b)
Suppose we solve this problem for $`u`$ and then take its spherically decreasing rearrangement $`u^{}`$. We want to compare $`u^{}`$ to the solution $`v`$ of the symmetrized (=spherically rearranged) problem

$`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ $`=f^{}\text{in }\mathrm{\Omega }^{},`$ (1.19a)
$`v`$ $`=0\text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}.`$ (1.19b)
It turns out that if $`u0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then

$$0u^{}v.$$
(1.20)
For $`f^{}`$ in (1.19a) we can even use a signed rearrangement of $`f`$ (still under the assumption that $`f`$ is sufficiently positive that $`u0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which implies, in particular, that $`_\mathrm{\Omega }f0`$). For example, if $`f`$ is bounded below by $`c`$ we can take $`f^{}=(fc)^{}+c`$; this gives a radially decreasing function that passes into negative values out near $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if $`f`$ itself is not always nonnegative.

The key to proving (1.20) is a differential inequality for $`u^{}`$ (or equivalently $`u^{}`$) and the fact that (1.19) reduces to a one-dimensional problem that can be solved explicitly. In particular, we have (in the radial variable $`r=|x|`$)

$$\frac{1}{r^{n1}}(r^{n1}v^{})^{}=f^{}$$
(1.21)
and hence

$$r^{n1}v^{}(r)=_0^r\tau ^{n1}f^{}(\tau )𝑑\tau $$
(1.22)
and finally

$$v(r)=_r^Rt^{1n}_0^t\tau ^{n1}f^{}(\tau )𝑑\tau 𝑑t,$$
(1.23)
where we have incorporated the conditions $`v^{}(0)=0`$ (necessary for $`v`$ to be smooth at the origin in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$) and $`v(R)=0`$, with $`R`$ denoting the radius of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. Recalling the condition $`_\mathrm{\Omega }f0`$, we see that this is precisely the condition needed to keep $`v`$ nonnegative, since this guarantees that $`_0^t\tau ^{n1}f^{}(\tau )𝑑\tau 0`$ for all $`t[0,R]`$ (recall, too, that up to the constant factor $`nC_n`$, $`_0^t\tau ^{n1}f^{}(\tau )𝑑\tau `$ is $`_0^sf^{}(\sigma )𝑑\sigma `$ where $`\sigma `$ is now the volume variable $`\sigma =C_n\tau ^n`$ and similarly $`s`$ is related to $`t`$ by $`s=C_nt^n`$; in general, we shall reserve $`s`$ and $`\sigma `$ as “volume variables”, while $`t`$, $`\tau `$, $`r`$, and $`\rho `$ will be used as radial variables).

The basic idea used to get (1.20) goes back at least to Weinberger . The method is also given by Bandle in her book  and figures prominently in works of Talenti , , , and Chiti , , , . The extended form presented above (allowing a signed rearrangement of $`f`$) occurs in Talenti , where it is instrumental in his treatment of the first eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ of the clamped plate problem. As such, it also figures in the later papers on the subject by Nadirashvili , ,  and Ashbaugh and Benguria  (see also ). A useful discussion of the extended form is also found in the papers of Kesavan , , , . The interaction between rearrangements and partial differential equations encompasses a variety of topics by a wide range of authors. A small sampling of other works in this field includes , , , , , and .

That one can allow the function $`f`$ to have variable sign while using a signed rearrangement of it so long as the condition $`u0`$ holds was perhaps first observed by Talenti. Earlier authors had assumed $`f0`$, apparently because this is a clean and easily checked condition from which $`u0`$ follows immediately via the maximum principle. At any rate, throughout this paper when we invoke the result (1.20) under the condition $`u0`$ while employing a signed rearrangement of $`f`$, we shall refer to it as Talenti’s theorem.

To show (1.20), one applies a fairly standard procedure to (1.18a) integrated over level sets of $`u`$. One then uses the classical isoperimetric inequality and arrives at an integral-differential inequality for $`u^{}`$ in which $`v^{}`$ (for $`v`$ as given by (1.23)) appears on one side. Inequality (1.20) then follows by integration. For details, one might consult the papers of Talenti or Kesavan mentioned above, or books such as  or .

### 1.3 The Rayleigh-Ritz Inequality

Throughout this paper we shall have many occasions to use the Rayleigh-Ritz inequality, which gives a simple way to bound eigenvalues from above based on trial functions. For example, for the Dirichlet Laplacian on the bounded domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ one has

$$\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\phi D(\mathrm{\Delta })}{\phi 0}}{inf}\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi (\mathrm{\Delta }\phi )}{_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi ^2}$$
(1.24)
where $`\phi `$ is a real trial function in the domain of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (denoted $`D(\mathrm{\Delta })`$). One can also get at the higher eigenvalues by imposing orthogonality conditions on the class of trial functions used. For example,

$$\lambda _{k+1}(\mathrm{\Omega })=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\phi D(\mathrm{\Delta })}{0\phi u_1,\mathrm{},u_k}}{inf}\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi (\mathrm{\Delta }\phi )}{_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi ^2}$$
(1.25)
where $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_k`$ denote the first $`k`$ eigenfunctions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Beyond this, and somewhat more useful for our purposes below, there is a quadratic form formulation of the Rayleigh-Ritz inequality. For the Dirichlet Laplacian it reads as follows:

$$\lambda _{k+1}(\mathrm{\Omega })=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\phi H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}{0\phi u_1,\mathrm{},u_k}}{inf}\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }|\phi |^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi ^2}.$$
(1.26)
We note that the Sobolev space $`H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })=Q(\mathrm{\Delta })=`$ the form domain of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in this case (see, for example , , and ). This formulation has the advantage over (1.25) that the trial function $`\phi `$ can be chosen from a larger class of functions (and, in particular, it need have essentially only one square-integrable derivative, not two).

The Rayleigh-Ritz inequality (and the closely related Min-Max Principle) applies to any semi-bounded (from below) self-adjoint operator on a Hilbert space. For more details and discussion, the reader might consult Bandle , Bérard , Chavel , , Davies , Kesavan , and/or Reed and Simon, vol. 4 .

## 2 Isoperimetric Inequalities for Eigenvalues

### 2.1 The Faber-Krahn Inequality

One of the earliest isoperimetric inequalities for an eigenvalue is certainly that for the first eigenvalue of the Dirichlet Laplacian (= fixed membrane problem) conjectured by Rayleigh  in 1877:

$$\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n$$
(2.1)
with equality if and only if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a ball, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. This result was subsequently proved (independently) by Faber  and Krahn ,  in the 1920’s using symmetrization. In terms of spherical symmetrization (=spherical rearrangement) the proof can now be reduced to a few lines. One uses the first eigenfunction $`u_1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and (1.12), (1.13) to conclude

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })& =_\mathrm{\Omega }|u_1|^2\hfill \\ & _\mathrm{\Omega }^{}|u_1^{}|^2\hfill \\ & \lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.2)
where the last line follows from the Rayleigh-Ritz inequality for $`\lambda _1`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and the fact (mentioned in connection with (1.13)) that $`u_1H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ implies that $`u_1^{}H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$, and thus that $`u_1^{}`$ is a valid trial function in the Rayleigh-Ritz inequality for $`\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$. The characterization of the case of equality is somewhat technical, so we refer the reader to the literature for it. Good sources are Kawohl’s book , or Kesavan’s articles , .

### 2.2 The Szegő-Weinberger Inequality

We next turn to the isoperimetric result for $`\mu _1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the first nonzero Neumann eigenvalue, due to Szegő  (for $`n=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ simply connected) and Weinberger  (in full generality). This is the next simplest (or even perhaps the simplest) isoperimetric result for eigenvalues. The result was first suggested by Kornhauser and Stakgold , who also obtained some results in support of it. The Szegő-Weinberger result states that

$$\mu _1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mu _1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n,$$
(2.3)
with equality if and only if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a ball.

We follow Weinberger’s method of proof, since it is very natural and lends itself to the problem we treat next, that of finding the optimal upper bound for $`\lambda _2/\lambda _1`$. First we recall that $`\mu _1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ may be characterized through the variational principle

$$\mu _1(\mathrm{\Omega })=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\phi H^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}{0\phi 1}}{\mathrm{min}}\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }|\phi |^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi ^2}.$$
(2.4)
This is just the (quadratic form version of the) Rayleigh-Ritz inequality for $`\mu _1`$, since $`v_0`$ is a constant. Following Weinberger, we take as trial functions $`\phi =P_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, such that $`_\mathrm{\Omega }P_i=0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ (this is proved via a topological argument, but given (2.5) below all it says is that we can choose to place our origin of coordinates at an appropriate generalized center of mass) with

$$P_i(x)=g(r)\frac{x_i}{r},$$
(2.5)
where the $`x_i`$’s are Cartesian coordinates, $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)^n`$, $`r=|x|`$, and

$$g(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}w(r)=\text{ [“right” radial function for a ball }B_R\text{ of radius }R\hfill & \\ \text{ where }B_R=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}]\text{ for }0rR,\hfill & \\ w(R)\text{ for }rR.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2.6)
The function $`w`$ arises as a solution of the radial equation when one separates variables on the ball $`B_R`$ and is therefore basically a Bessel function. We use only the facts that $`w(0)=0`$ and that $`w`$ satisfies

$$w^{\prime \prime }+\frac{n1}{r}w^{}\frac{n1}{r^2}w+\mu _1(B_R)w=0\text{for}0<r<R.$$
(2.7)
Since $`w^{}(R)=0`$ and $`\mu _1(B_R)`$ is defined as the first eigenvalue of this boundary value problem, it follows (by an appropriate choice of sign) that $`w(r)`$ is increasing on $`[0,R]`$ and hence that $`g`$ is everywhere nondecreasing for $`r0`$. By substituting our trial functions $`P_i`$ into the Rayleigh-Ritz inequality for $`\mu _1`$, we find

$$\mu _1(\mathrm{\Omega })_\mathrm{\Omega }P_i^2_\mathrm{\Omega }|P_i|^2.$$
(2.8)
Summing this in $`i`$ for $`1in`$, we arrive at

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mu _1(\mathrm{\Omega })& \frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }_{i=1}^n|P_i|^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }_{i=1}^nP_i^2}=\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }\left[g^{}(r)^2+\frac{n1}{r^2}g(r)^2\right]}{_\mathrm{\Omega }g(r)^2}\hfill \\ & =\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }B(r)}{_\mathrm{\Omega }g(r)^2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.9)
where we have defined

$$B(r)g^{}(r)^2+\frac{n1}{r^2}g(r)^2.$$
(2.10)
Now $`B(r)`$ is easily seen to be decreasing for $`0rR`$ by differentiating and using the differential equation (2.7). One finds

$$B^{}(r)=2[\mu _1(B_R)gg^{}+(n1)(rg^{}g)^2/r^3]<0\text{for}0<r<R.$$
(2.11)
In addition, $`B(r)=(n1)w(R)^2/r^2`$ for $`rR`$ shows that $`B`$ is decreasing for $`rR`$. Since $`B`$ is continuous for all $`r0`$, it is clearly also decreasing there. Now one has only to observe that

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }B(r)_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}B(r)$$
(2.12)
since the volumes integrated over are the same in both cases, while in passing from the left- to right-hand sides you are exchanging integrating over $`\mathrm{\Omega }\backslash \mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ for integrating over $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\backslash \mathrm{\Omega }`$ (which are sets of equal volume). Since $`B`$ is (strictly) decreasing this clearly increases the value of the integral unless $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, when equality obtains. Similarly we find that

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }g(r)^2_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}g(r)^2$$
(2.13)
since $`g`$ is nondecreasing. Thus we arrive at

$$\mu _1(\mathrm{\Omega })\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}B(r)}{_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}g(r)^2}=\mu _1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}),$$
(2.14)
since each $`P_i`$ is precisely an eigenfunction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with eigenvalue $`\mu _1(B_R)`$ for the domain $`B_R=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. This completes the proof of the Szegő-Weinberger inequality, including the characterization of the case of equality.

### 2.3 The Payne-Pólya-Weinberger Conjecture

The next isoperimetric result that we consider is that for $`\lambda _2/\lambda _1`$ for the fixed membrane problem. In 1955 and 1956, Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger ,  proved that

$$\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}3\text{for}\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(2.15)
and conjectured that

$$\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}|_{\text{disk}}=\frac{j_{1,1}^2}{j_{0,1}^2}2.5387$$
(2.16)
with equality if and only if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a disk (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$) and where $`j_{p,k}`$ denotes the $`k^{\text{th}}`$ positive zero of the Bessel function $`J_p(t)`$ (we follow the notation of Abramowitz and Stegun  here). For general dimension $`n2`$ the analogous statements are

$$\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}1+\frac{4}{n}\text{ for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n,$$
(2.17)
and the PPW conjecture

$$\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}|_{n\text{ball}}=\frac{j_{n/2,1}^2}{j_{n/21,1}^2},$$
(2.18)
with equality if and only if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an $`n`$-ball. This PPW conjecture was proved in 1990 by Rafael Benguria and the author (see , , ).

We proceed now with the proof of (2.18). This proof follows the main outline of Weinberger’s proof of the $`\mu _1`$ result given previously, but it is substantially more complicated due mainly to the fact that, unlike $`v_0=1/\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Omega }|}`$, $`u_1`$ is not constant. We start from the variational principle for $`\lambda _2`$

$$\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega })=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\phi H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}{0\phi u_1}}{\mathrm{min}}\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }|\phi |^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi ^2},$$
(2.19)
or, better for our purposes here,

$$\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega })\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })\underset{\begin{array}{c}Pu_1H_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })\\ _\mathrm{\Omega }Pu_1^2=0\\ P0\end{array}}{\mathrm{min}}\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }|P|^2u_1^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }P^2u_1^2},$$
(2.20)
which follows from (2.19) via integration by parts. (Note that with $`\phi =Pu_1`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _\mathrm{\Omega }|\phi |^2& =_\mathrm{\Omega }[|P|^2u_1^2+2Pu_1Pu_1+P^2|u_1|^2]\hfill \\ & =_\mathrm{\Omega }|P|^2u_1^2+_\mathrm{\Omega }[(P^2u_1)]u_1\hfill \\ & =_\mathrm{\Omega }|P|^2u_1^2+_\mathrm{\Omega }P^2u_1(\mathrm{\Delta }u_1)\hfill \\ & =_\mathrm{\Omega }|P|^2u_1^2+\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })_\mathrm{\Omega }P^2u_1^2,\hfill \end{array}$$

where we integrated by parts in the second-to-last step.) In (2.20) we shall use $`n`$ trial functions $`P=P_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, such that $`_\mathrm{\Omega }P_iu_1^2=0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ (again proved by a topological argument and interpretable as a generalized center of mass result) where

$$P_i=g(r)\frac{x_i}{r}$$
(2.21)
and

$$g(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}w(r)=\text{ [“right” radial function for a ball }B_R\hfill & \\ \text{ of radius }R]\text{ for }0rR,\hfill & \\ w(R)\text{ for }rR.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2.22)
The right $`R`$ in this case turns out to be the unique $`R`$ such that $`\lambda _1(B_R)=\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. This is a key fact and explains why at bottom our proof of the PPW conjecture is a “fixed-$`\lambda _1`$ result”. A major motivation for this is the comparison result of Chiti, to be explained shortly. The right function $`w(r)`$ for $`0rR`$ is fairly complicated, being a ratio of Bessel functions.

From here we can proceed much as before finding

$$\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega })\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }B(r)u_1^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }g(r)^2u_1^2}$$
(2.23)
where

$$B(r)g^{}(r)^2+\frac{n1}{r^2}g(r)^2.$$
(2.24)
Again it can be confirmed (though it is harder this time around) that $`B`$ is decreasing (and positive) and $`g`$ is increasing (and positive). For the proof of these facts, see , , , or . The proof found in  (for $`n=2`$ and $`3`$) and  (for all $`n2`$) is based on the product representation for the Bessel functions involved and ultimately comes down to certain inequalities between Bessel function zeros (see also Section 4 of  for a brief further discussion of these issues). On the other hand, the proof found in  (see also ) is somewhat simpler and lends itself to generalization to a version of the PPW conjecture for domains in $`S^n`$. These topics are dealt with further in , , and also to some extent below.

To continue from (2.23) we use rearrangement as follows:

$$\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega })\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}B(r)^{}u_1^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}g(r)_{}^2u_1^2}\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}B(r)u_1^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}g(r)^2u_1^2}.$$
(2.25)
The basic ideas here are that the integral of a product is increased if we similarly rearrange both functions (see (1.14)), while it is decreased if we oppositely rearrange them (see (1.15)). Note that in (2.25) we similarly rearrange in the numerator, while we oppositely rearrange in the denominator. The removal of the $``$’s from $`g(r)^2`$ and $`B(r)`$ in the last step is allowed due to their respective monotonicity properties.

Finally, we need to invoke a comparison result due to Chiti , , ,  to replace the $`u_1^{}`$’s in (2.25) by something more tractable. This result says that if we take $`z(r)`$ as the normalized first eigenfunction of $`B_R`$ (recall that $`R`$ is so chosen that $`\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })=\lambda _1(B_R)`$) then $`B_R\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and $`z`$ will be larger than $`u_1^{}`$ (thought of as a function of $`r`$) for $`r`$ near $`0`$, say for $`0<r<r_1`$, and smaller farther out, in this case for $`r>r_1`$. Under this condition one finds that if $`u_1^{}`$ is replaced by $`z`$ in the final member of (2.25) the numerator can only go up and the denominator can only go down. Thus

$$\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega })\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })\frac{_{B_R}B(r)z^2}{_{B_R}g(r)^2z^2}=\lambda _2(B_R)\lambda _1(B_R),$$
(2.26)
the final equality holding because our choices of $`g`$ and $`w`$ were made precisely to make things come back together in this way. Since $`\lambda _1(B_R)=\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, (2.26) implies

$$\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega })\lambda _2(B_R)$$
(2.27)
and hence also

$$\frac{\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega })}{\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })}\frac{\lambda _2(B_R)}{\lambda _1(B_R)}=\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}|_{\text{any }n\text{-ball}}=\frac{\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})}{\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})}.$$
(2.28)
We note that the PPW inequality (2.28) was really proved as a subsidiary result to (2.27), which should be regarded as a “fixed-$`\lambda _1`$ result”. It is this result that is in a certain sense more fundamental and which is most easily extended to other settings, for example, domains contained in a hemisphere of $`S^n`$.

Indeed, in subsequent work , ,  we have established the fixed-$`\lambda _1`$ result (2.27) for domains contained in a hemisphere of $`S^n`$. In addition, from this result we can then derive the result

$$\frac{\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega })}{\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })}\frac{\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})}{\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})}$$
(2.29)
for a domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ contained in a hemisphere of $`S^n`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ denotes the geodesic ball (=polar cap) having the same volume as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`B_R`$ must be taken as the (unique) polar cap having the same $`\lambda _1`$ as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Furthermore, there is a corresponding result for $`\mu _1`$ (that is, $`\mu _1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mu _1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$) for a domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ contained in a hemisphere of $`S^n`$ and for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ a bounded domain in $`H^n`$. See ,  for more on this aspect of the $`\mu _1`$ problem (in particular, the result for $`H^n`$ is due to Chavel, while both Chavel and Bandle had earlier variants of the $`S^n`$ result). The Faber-Krahn inequality also extends in sharp form to the spaces $`S^n`$ and $`H^n`$. See, for example, Sperner  or Friedland and Hayman . In particular, Sperner’s bound $`\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }S^n`$ is one of the elements necessary to our proof of (2.27) and (2.29) for domains contained in a hemisphere of $`S^n`$.

### 2.4 Rayleigh’s Conjecture for the Vibrating Clamped Plate

We turn now to Rayleigh’s conjecture for the vibration of a clamped plate. Rayleigh made this conjecture in 1877 in the first edition of his book The Theory of Sound  (see p. 382 of volume 1 of the second edition). In terms of the notation introduced in Section 1, Rayleigh’s conjecture states that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(2.30)
with equality if and only if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is itself a disk. It is natural to conjecture that this inequality might apply equally well in $`^n`$.

This conjecture seems to have lain dormant until around 1950, when Szegő made some progress on it (see , , and also the treatment in Pólya and Szegő’s book ). In fact, Szegő was able to prove (2.30) for simply connected domains $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ having a nonnegative first eigenfunction, $`w_10`$. At the time it seems to have been thought possible that $`w_10`$ for all domains. However, it soon developed that this cannot be expected to hold in general. Results of Duffin  and Duffin and Shaffer  were enough to disabuse people of the notion that $`w_10`$ should always hold (see also the much more recent article of Kozlov, Kondrat’ev, and Maz’ya , as well as further references given in  and ).

The next advance toward the proof of Rayleigh’s conjecture (2.30) came in 1981 when Talenti  developed an approach to the sign-indeterminate case using separate rearrangements on the sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+=\{x\mathrm{\Omega }|w_1>0\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=\{x\mathrm{\Omega }|w<0\}`$. This procedure led Talenti to two radial subproblems (tied to the two separate balls $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_+)^{}`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{})^{}`$ and also to the full ball $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$) which he decoupled and considered as variational problems in their own right. By this means, he obtained a lower bound to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ depending on the parameter $`t|\mathrm{\Omega }_+|/|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ for $`t[0,1]`$. If this problem had been minimized at $`t=0`$ (and therefore also at $`t=1`$, by symmetry) then Talenti’s approach would have proved Rayleigh’s conjecture. But unfortunately Talenti’s minimum occurred at $`t=1/2`$ (for each $`n=2,3,\mathrm{}`$) and he was only able to obtain inequalities

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })d_n^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n.$$
(2.31)
These bounds fall short of Rayleigh’s conjecture, since the constants $`d_n^{}`$ are less than $`1`$. However, Talenti was able to show that $`d_n^{}(1/2,1)`$, and, in particular, he found $`d_2^{}0.9777`$, $`d_2^{}0.7391`$, $`d_4^{}0.6524`$, …. In fact, the $`d_n^{}`$’s seem to decrease monotonically to $`1/2`$ as $`n`$ goes to infinity (that $`lim_n\mathrm{}d_n^{}=1/2`$ is proved in ).

In 1992 Nadirashvili (see , , ) saw how to improve upon the approach of Talenti by using slightly different radial subproblems, each living only on $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_+)^{}`$ or $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{})^{}`$, but coupled together via boundary conditions. With his approach and a geometric rearrangement argument, Nadirashvili was able to give a proof of (2.30) for $`n=2`$. However, it was not clear that the same approach could handle cases with $`n3`$.

To that end, Rafael Benguria and the author introduced a more analytical variant of Nadirashvili’s approach, wherein the final analysis comes down to understanding a certain function defined explicitly in terms of Bessel functions. (Bessel functions, while certainly in the background in the clamped plate problem, were not in evidence in any part of Nadirashvili’s proof.) By studying the behavior of this function we were able to show  that for $`n=2`$ and 3 the minimizer of our parametrized two-ball variational problem occurs when $`t=|\mathrm{\Omega }_+|/|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ is 0 (or 1), thereby proving Rayleigh’s conjecture in dimensions 2 and 3. In subsequent work with Richard Laugesen  (see also ) it was shown that for all $`n4`$ things go the other way, i.e., the parametrized two-ball minimizer occurs at $`t=1/2`$. This yields bounds of the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })>d_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n,n4$$
(2.32)
where our dimension-dependent constants $`d_n`$ turn out always to be better than the corresponding $`d_n^{}`$’s of Talenti, and, in fact, go to 1 as $`n`$ goes to infinity. For example, we have $`d_40.9537`$, $`d_50.9218`$, $`d_60.9077`$, …($`d_80.8998`$ appears to be the minimum over all dimensions $`n`$).

We now give the proof of Rayleigh’s conjecture (2.30) for dimensions $`2`$ and $`3`$. As a warm-up, we first treat the case where $`w_10`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This is the case first successfully handled by Szegő ,  (see also Pólya-Szegő  and Talenti ). We recall the variational principle for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\phi H_0^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}{\phi 0}}{\mathrm{min}}\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }\phi )^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi ^2}.$$
(2.33)
In particular, this gives equality if we take $`\phi =w_1`$. If we now decreasing rearrange $`f=\mathrm{\Delta }w_1`$ to $`f^{}=(\mathrm{\Delta }w_1)^{}`$ where our rearrangement respects signs, we can invoke Talenti’s rearrangement result (1.20) for the problem $`\mathrm{\Delta }w_1=f`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`w_1=0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, to get

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }w_1)^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }w_1^2}\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}[(\mathrm{\Delta }w_1)^{}]^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}v^2}=\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v)^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}v^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}),$$
(2.34)
which is the result we want, assuming that $`v`$ is truly an admissible trial function for the Rayleigh-Ritz inequality (= variational principle) for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. To verify this, we note that $`v`$ is a radial $`C^2`$ function on the ball $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and satisfies $`v(R)=0`$ where $`R`$ is the radius of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. To see that $`v`$ also satisfies $`\frac{v}{n}=0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ we compute (since $`\frac{w_1}{n}=0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$)

$$0=_\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{w_1}{n}=_\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }w_1)=_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}f^{}=_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }v)=_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\frac{v}{n}$$
(2.35)
and this shows that $`\frac{v}{n}=0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ since $`v`$ is radial and therefore $`_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\frac{v}{n}=|\mathrm{\Omega }^{}|v^{}(R)=nC_nR^{n1}v^{}(R)`$. This proves Szegő’s clamped plate result, i.e., Rayleigh’s conjecture for the clamped plate in the case of a first eigenfunction of fixed sign. This proof holds for all dimensions $`n`$.

We now proceed to the proof of the general case for $`n=2`$ and $`3`$. It turns out that the proof does not work for $`n4`$ (though Rayleigh’s conjecture may well still be true there). As mentioned earlier, in the general case we proceed by decomposing the problem into two (coupled) subproblems, each on a separate ball (on $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_+)^{}`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{})^{}`$ in the notation introduced above). Following this decomposition procedure, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }w_1)^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }w_1^2}& =\frac{_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}(\mathrm{\Delta }w_1)^2+_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }w_1)^2}{_{\mathrm{\Omega }^+}w_1^2+_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}w_1^2}\hfill \\ & \frac{_{B_a}(\mathrm{\Delta }u)^2+_{B_b}(\mathrm{\Delta }v)^2}{_{B_a}u^2+_{B_b}v^2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.36)
where $`B_a=`$ ball of radius $`a=(\mathrm{\Omega }_+)^{}`$ and $`B_b=`$ball of radius $`b=(\mathrm{\Omega }_{})^{}`$ and $`u`$ and $`v`$ satisfy symmetrized Dirichlet problems on $`B_a`$ and $`B_b`$, respectively. Note that the numerator in (2.36) is unchanged by the introduction of $`u`$ and $`v`$, while the denominator is (typically) increased (and certainly does not decrease) by virtue of inequality (1.20) as applied to $`u`$ and $`v`$ (and $`(w_1^+)^{}`$ and $`(w_1^{})^{}`$), respectively. Now, not only do $`u`$ and $`v`$ satisfy

$$u(a)=0=v(b)$$
(2.37)
but $`u^{}(a)`$ and $`v^{}(b)`$ are coupled by the equation

$$a^{n1}u^{}(a)=b^{n1}v^{}(b).$$
(2.38)
This comes about by an argument similar to that in (2.35). We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& =_\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{w_1}{n}=_\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Delta }w_1=_{B_a}(\mathrm{\Delta }w_1)^{}+_{B_b}(\mathrm{\Delta }w_1)^{}\hfill \\ & =_{B_a}\mathrm{\Delta }u_{B_b}\mathrm{\Delta }v=_{B_a}\frac{u}{n}_{B_b}\frac{v}{n}\hfill \\ & =nC_n[a^{n1}u^{}(a)b^{n1}v^{}(b)].\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.39)
The seemingly odd changes of sign in certain terms come about because we introduce a sign change for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ so that we will still be comparing positive functions (and thus $`u`$ and $`v`$ are both positive). As a curiosity we mention that in fact (2.39) (and also (2.35)) uses only the fact that $`w_1/n`$ has average value $`0`$ on the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus our results all hold under the weaker assumption that our plate has its edge fixed and “clamped on average”, a somewhat curious result first observed by Richard Laugesen.

To finish the argument we view the final member of (2.36) as a variational problem in its own right where we now treat $`u`$ and $`v`$ as trial functions subject to (2.37), (2.38), and the condition that they be radial functions on $`B_a`$ and $`B_b`$, respectively. Thus we consider the minimization problem

$$J(a)\underset{\phi ,\psi }{inf}\frac{_{B_a}(\mathrm{\Delta }\phi )^2+_{B_b}(\mathrm{\Delta }\psi )^2}{_{B_a}\phi ^2+_{B_b}\psi ^2}$$
(2.40)
with $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ radial and satisfying the boundary conditions (2.37) and (2.38) (with $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ replacing $`u`$ and $`v`$ respectively). This is what we refer to as our parametrized two-ball variational problem. Note that $`a`$ now appears as a final parameter (which we will eventually need to minimize over, since we have no control on it). We observe that, due to scaling freedom, we can assume that $`a^n+b^n=1`$, which is equivalent to normalizing $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ at $`C_n`$. In (2.40), and henceforth, we regard $`b`$ as defined implicitly in terms of $`a`$ by this relation. We also remark that in terms of our earlier parameter $`t=|\mathrm{\Omega }_+|/|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ we have $`t=a^n`$. In a sense $`t`$ is the preferred variable here, since as a function of $`t[0,1]J`$ is symmetric about $`1/2`$. We compromise by speaking in terms of $`a^n`$ at times as we proceed.

Leaving $`a(0,1)`$ fixed for the time being, standard variational theory can be applied to (2.40) with the result that we find the Euler equations

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^2\phi `$ $`=\mu \phi \text{in }B_a,`$ (2.41a)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^2\psi `$ $`=\mu \psi \text{in }B_b,`$ (2.41b)
and boundary conditions

$`\phi (a)=0=\psi (b),`$ (2.41c)
$`a^{n1}\phi ^{}(a)=b^{n1}\psi ^{}(b),`$ (2.41d)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi (a)+\mathrm{\Delta }\psi (b)=0.$$
(2.41e)
The expressions in the last formula make sense because $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ are radial. This formula comes about as a product of the variational theory, and is what is known as a “natural” boundary condition (see, for example,  or ). See  for more on its derivation and for more details on this material in general (see also  for a general overview of the topic).

The boundary value problem (2.41) can now be solved explicitly in terms of Bessel functions and modified Bessel functions. The result is an implicit relation for the eigenvalues (and in particular the first eigenvalue $`\mu _1=J(a)`$) which we can analyze to determine how $`J(a)`$ behaves for $`0a1`$. Since

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })\underset{a}{\mathrm{min}}J(a)$$
(2.42)
and $`J(0)=J(0^+)=J(1)=J(1^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$ (this requires some work to see, though it certainly should already appear plausible; essentially one wants to confirm that taking $`a=0`$ gives the same result as the limit $`a0^+`$ and similarly for $`a=1`$), we will be done if we can show that $`\mathrm{min}J(a)`$ occurs at $`a=0`$ (and $`a=1`$). For dimensions 2 and 3 this can be shown (see ) and this completes the proof of the general Rayleigh conjecture for the clamped plate in these cases.

For $`n4`$, the analysis given above holds all the way until the final step, where it is found that $`\mathrm{min}_aJ(a)`$ occurs not at $`a=0`$ and 1, but at $`a^n=1/2`$. Following this outcome to its logical conclusion leads to the nonoptimal bounds (2.32). The detailed arguments and related material appear in .

### 2.5 The Pólya-Szegő Conjecture for the Buckling of a Clamped Plate

Much the same strategy as was used for the vibrating clamped plate can be used for the first eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ of the buckling problem. For $`n=2`$, this eigenvalue determines the critical buckling load of the clamped plate of the shape of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ under uniform compressive loading around its boundary. The analog of the Rayleigh conjecture in this setting,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n,$$
(2.43)
with equality if and only if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a ball, was conjectured by Pólya and Szegő around 1950. It is discussed in their book . At around the same time Szegő proved this conjecture ,  under the assumption that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ has a first eigenfunction of fixed sign (which we can take to be nonnegative, i.e., $`v_10`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$). Again this assumption turns out not to hold in all cases (see the article by Kozlov, Kondrat’ev, and Maz’ya ).

The proof of the fixed-sign case (we assume $`v_10`$) can be accomplished much as was the corresponding case of the vibrating clamped plate above. One simply starts from the variational principle

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\phi H_0^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}{\phi 0}}{\mathrm{min}}\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }\phi )^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }|\phi |^2}=\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }v_1)^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }|v_1|^2}$$
(2.44)
and proceeds as before. One rearranges $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_1`$ to obtain a symmetrized comparison problem. Since Talenti’s version of the comparison argument (for (1.18) and (1.19)) can also be used to compare derivatives (indeed, this can be done directly from the integral-differential inequality for $`u^{}`$) we find easily that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\phi )^2}{_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}|\phi |^2}$$
(2.45)
where $`\phi `$ is now a radial function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ satisfying $`\phi (R)=0=\phi ^{}(R)`$ (the proof that $`\phi ^{}(R)=0`$ is exactly the same as that given for $`v`$ in (2.35)). Since this means that $`\phi `$ is a valid trial function for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$, the proof of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$ is complete.

For the general case (where $`v_1`$ is not necessarily of fixed sign) we can also proceed as in the vibrating clamped plate problem. That is, we break $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ into the two parts $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm `$ and rearrange $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_1`$ on each part separately to obtain two symmetrized subproblems. The hitch again comes at the very last step, where the minimum over $`a[0,1]`$ turns out to occur at $`a^n=1/2`$ for all dimensions $`n2`$. Thus we do not obtain the general result (2.43) for any $`n2`$, but we can again get nonoptimal lower bounds for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ in the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })>c_n\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n,$$
(2.46)
where the dimension-dependent constants $`c_n`$ are found to tend to 1 as $`n`$ goes to infinity. Some values of $`c_n`$ for low dimensions are $`c_20.7877`$, $`c_30.7759`$, $`c_40.7872`$, $`c_50.8020`$, $`c_60.8163`$. These results and related material can be found in  (see also ).

It is a rather remarkable fact that the bounds (2.46) with precisely the same constants $`c_n`$ can also be obtained by combining two classical eigenvalue inequalities. These are the inequality of Payne

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega })\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n,$$
(2.47)
with equality if and only if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a ball, and Krahn’s $`\lambda _2`$ inequality

$$\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega })>2^{2/n}\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n$$
(2.48)
(this saturates as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ disconnects into two equal disjoint balls). Together these yield

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })>2^{2/n}\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})& =2^{2/n}(C_n/|\mathrm{\Omega }|)^{2/n}j_{n/21,1}^2\hfill \\ & =2^{2/n}\left(\frac{j_{n/21,1}}{j_{n/2,1}}\right)^2\left(\frac{C_n}{|\mathrm{\Omega }|}\right)^{2/n}j_{n/2,1}^2\hfill \\ & =c_n\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.49)
since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})=(C_n/|\mathrm{\Omega }|)^{2/n}j_{n/2,1}^2`$ and hence the constants $`c_n`$ are given by

$$c_n=2^{2/n}\left(\frac{j_{n/21,1}}{j_{n/2,1}}\right)^2.$$
(2.50)
The basic observation here was made by Bramble and Payne , though they only gave the inequality for $`n=2`$ and hence did not investigate the behavior of the $`c_n`$’s with varying $`n`$. Neither did they mention the connection between (2.49) and the conjecture (2.43) of Pólya and Szegő. For further comments and details, one should consult  and/or .

## 3 Universal Inequalities for Eigenvalues

### 3.1 The General Inequalities of Payne-Pólya-Weinberger for the Fixed Membrane Eigenvalues and their Extensions

In this section we turn our attention to universal eigenvalue inequalities. We begin with a study of the Dirichlet eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on a bounded domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$. This subject began in 1955 with the work of Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger , , who proved (among other things) the bound

$$\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _m\frac{2}{m}\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _i,m=1,2,\mathrm{}$$
(3.1)
for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$. This result easily extends to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ as

$$\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _m\frac{4}{mn}\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _i,m=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(3.2)
Since Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger’s paper , (3.2) has been extended in several ways by a number of authors. For the Euclidean case there have been two main advances: that of Hile and Protter  in 1980 and that of H. C. Yang  in 1991 (this paper is yet to be published, as far as this author knows). It turns out that, even though the proofs given by Hile-Protter and Yang are dissimilar in several respects and are rather involved, the main approach is still that of Payne-Pólya-Weinberger. Moreover, we have succeeded in streamlining these proofs to the point where, with the addition of one key idea, they can be unified into a single overall approach that is no harder than the original proof of (3.1) by Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger. The process of reducing these proofs to their essence was begun in , and is concluded in . Since our approach is unified we head directly for the result of H. C. Yang, remarking only at the end on how the results of PPW and Hile-Protter follow “by simplification”.

To give an idea of Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger’s basic method, we begin by proving their bound

$$\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}1+\frac{4}{n}\text{ for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n$$
(3.3)
as a warm-up exercise (note that this is the $`m=1`$ case of (3.2)). The $`n`$-dimensional inequality (3.3) was first given explicitly by Thompson  in 1969, but certainly it (and more) is implicit in the work of Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger, as the generalization of their results to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ is entirely straightforward. To prove (3.3), we introduce the trial function

$$\phi =xu_1$$
(3.4)
where $`x`$ represents any Cartesian coordinate $`x_{\mathrm{}}(1\mathrm{}n)`$ for $`^n`$. By an appropriate choice of origin we can arrange that $`_\mathrm{\Omega }x_{\mathrm{}}u_1^2=0`$ for $`1\mathrm{}n`$ (i.e., we put the origin at the center of mass of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for the mass distribution defined by $`u_1^2`$). This guarantees $`\phi u_1`$ (also $`\phi ^{(\mathrm{})}u_1`$ for $`1\mathrm{}n`$ where $`\phi ^{(\mathrm{})}x_{\mathrm{}}u_1`$) and hence, by the Rayleigh-Ritz inequality (for $`\lambda _2`$),

$$\lambda _2\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi (\mathrm{\Delta }\phi )}{_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi ^2}.$$
(3.5)
Since

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =x(\mathrm{\Delta }u_1)2u_{1x}=\lambda _1xu_12u_{1x}=\lambda _1\phi 2u_{1x},$$
(3.6)
(3.5) gives

$$\lambda _2\lambda _1\frac{2_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi u_{1x}}{_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi ^2}.$$
(3.7)
Now

$$02_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi u_{1x}=2_\mathrm{\Omega }xu_1u_{1x}=_\mathrm{\Omega }x(u_1^2)_x=_\mathrm{\Omega }u_1^2=1$$
(3.8)
where in the second-to-last step we integrated by parts, and also by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,

$$(2_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi u_{1x})^24(_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi ^2)(_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{1x}^2),$$
(3.9)
implying (since $`2_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi u_{1x}>0`$)

$$\lambda _2\lambda _1\frac{2_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi u_{1x}}{_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi ^2}\frac{4_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{1x}^2}{2_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi u_{1x}}=4_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{1x}^2.$$
(3.10)
Obviously this same argument applies to $`\phi ^{(\mathrm{})}x_{\mathrm{}}u_1`$ for $`1\mathrm{}n`$, allowing us to arrive at

$$\lambda _2\lambda _14_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{1x_{\mathrm{}}}^2\text{for }1\mathrm{}n.$$
(3.11)
If we now average these inequalities over $`\mathrm{}`$ we find

$$\lambda _2\lambda _1\frac{4}{n}_\mathrm{\Omega }|u_1|^2=\frac{4}{n}\lambda _1$$
(3.12)
and hence (3.3) follows.

Next we address the general results for $`\lambda _{m+1}`$. The basic strategy is the same as above in that we base our trial functions $`\phi `$ on $`xu_i`$ where $`x`$ is a Cartesian coordinate and $`u_i`$ is a lower eigenfunction (i.e., $`1im`$), but now to enforce orthogonality to $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_m`$ we no longer rely on the device of locating the origin at the center of mass but rather we subtract away counterterms which are just the projections of $`xu_i`$ along the eigenfunctions $`u_j`$ for $`1jm`$ (when $`m=1`$, this amounts to shifting to the center of mass as before). Thus as our trial functions we take

$$\phi _i=xu_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}a_{ij}u_j\text{ for }1im$$
(3.13)
where

$$a_{ij}_\mathrm{\Omega }xu_iu_j=a_{ji}$$
(3.14)
are the components of $`xu_i`$ along $`u_j`$ for $`1jm`$ and thus clearly $`\phi _iu_j`$ for $`1i,jm`$. Also, it is straightforward to compute

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _i^2=_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _ixu_i=_\mathrm{\Omega }x^2u_i^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}a_{ij}^2$$
(3.15)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _i=\lambda _ixu_i2u_{ix}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}a_{ij}\lambda _ju_j$$
(3.16)
so that (since $`\phi _iu_j`$ for $`1jm`$)

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _i(\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _i)=\lambda _i_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _i^22_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _iu_{ix}.$$
(3.17)
It therefore follows from the Rayleigh-Ritz inequality for $`\lambda _{m+1}`$ that

$$(\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i)_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _i^22_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _iu_{ix}.$$
(3.18)
Proceeding much as before, we find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 02_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _iu_{ix}& =2_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{ix}\left[xu_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}a_{ij}u_j\right]\hfill \\ & =_\mathrm{\Omega }x(u_1^2)_x+2\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}a_{ij}_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{ix}u_j\hfill \\ & =1+2\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}a_{ij}b_{ij}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.19)
where we have defined $`b_{ij}`$ by

$$b_{ij}=_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{ix}u_j.$$
(3.20)
At this point, we can both recognize the $`b_{ij}`$’s as the components of the $`u_{ix}`$’s along the $`u_j`$’s and compute them explicitly in terms of the $`a_{ij}`$’s. It turns out that these observations are both important for us. (Also, $`b_{ij}`$ is antisymmetric in $`i`$ and $`j`$, as can be recognized from (3.20) immediately via integration by parts.) We first relate $`b_{ij}`$ to $`a_{ij}`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda _ia_{ij}& =_\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Delta }u_i)xu_j\hfill \\ & =_\mathrm{\Omega }u_i[\mathrm{\Delta }(xu_j)]\hfill \\ & =_\mathrm{\Omega }u_i[\lambda _jxu_j2u_{jx}]\hfill \\ & =\lambda _ja_{ij}+2_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{ix}u_j\hfill \\ & =\lambda _ja_{ij}+2b_{ij}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.21)
or

$$2b_{ij}=(\lambda _i\lambda _j)a_{ij}.$$
(3.22)
Thus, from (3.19),

$$02_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _iu_{ix}=1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\lambda _i\lambda _j)a_{ij}^2.$$
(3.23)
Furthermore, by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (2_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _iu_{ix})^2& =(2_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _i[u_{ix}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}b_{ij}u_j])^2\hfill \\ & 4(_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _i^2)(_\mathrm{\Omega }[u_{ix}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}b_{ij}u_j]^2)\hfill \\ & =4(_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _i^2)[_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{ix}^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}b_{ij}^2].\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.24)
From (3.18) we now find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i)(_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _i^2)(2_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _iu_{ix})& (2_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _iu_{ix})^2\hfill \\ & 4(_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _i^2)[_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{ix}^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}b_{ij}^2]\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.25)
and hence, dividing by $`_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _i^2`$,

$$(\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i)(2_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _iu_{ix})4[_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{ix}^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}b_{ij}^2].$$
(3.26)
Inequality (3.26) holds even in the (unlikely) event that $`\phi _i0`$, since in that case clearly its left-hand side is 0 while its right-hand side is nonnegative (it is 4 times the square of the norm of $`u_{ix}_{j=1}^mb_{ij}u_j`$). Now, using (3.22) and (3.23), (3.26) can be put in the form

$$(\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i)[1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\lambda _i\lambda _j)a_{ij}^2]4_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{ix}^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\lambda _i\lambda _j)^2a_{ij}^2$$
(3.27)
or

$$\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i+\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _j)(\lambda _i\lambda _j)a_{ij}^24_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{ix}^2.$$
(3.28)
From here it is clear how to finish our argument: we want to introduce a factor of $`(\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i)`$ to make the term involving $`a_{ij}^2`$ antisymmetric in $`i`$ and $`j`$, and then sum on $`i`$ from $`1`$ to $`m`$ to make this term drop out. We thus arrive at

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i)^24\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i)_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{ix}^2.$$
(3.29)
If we now recall that $`x`$ here could be any $`x_{\mathrm{}}(1\mathrm{}n)`$ and sum over $`\mathrm{}`$ from $`1`$ to $`n`$ we obtain

$$n\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i)^24\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _i(\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i)$$
(3.30)
or

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i)\left(\lambda _{m+1}\left(1+\frac{4}{n}\right)\lambda _i\right)0,$$
(3.31)
which is the main (or “first”) inequality of Hong Cang Yang . This completes our derivation of Hong Cang Yang’s first inequality.

We now make a variety of comments about this inequality and the inequalities of Payne-Pólya-Weinberger and Hile-Protter. First, noting that the left-hand side of (3.31) is a quadratic in $`\lambda _{m+1}`$, we write it as

$$m\lambda _{m+1}^22\left(1+\frac{2}{n}\right)\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _i\right)\lambda _{m+1}+\left(1+\frac{4}{n}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _i^20$$
(3.32)
and derive the explicit upper bound

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda _{m+1}& [\text{ larger root of the quadratic }]\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{m}\left[\left(1+\frac{2}{n}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _i+\left\{\left(1+\frac{2}{n}\right)^2\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _i\right)^2m\left(1+\frac{4}{n}\right)\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _i^2\right\}^{1/2}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.33)
This bound is the best general upper bound yet derived by the methods of Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger (or any other methods, for that matter). As was already observed by H. C. Yang , the bound (3.33) is much sharper than previously known bounds for large $`m`$, since it comes much closer to incorporating the Weyl asymptotic behavior of the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$. For further comments and observations in this regard, see , , .

A simpler inequality due to H. C. Yang, Yang’s second inequality, follows readily if we use the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to replace $`m_{i=1}^m\lambda _i^2`$ by $`(_{i=1}^m\lambda _i)^2`$ on the right-hand side of (3.33):

$$\lambda _{m+1}\left(1+\frac{4}{n}\right)\frac{1}{m}\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _i\text{ for }m=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(3.34)
This weaker inequality already implies the Payne-Pólya-Weinberger inequality, (3.2), since we can obtain (3.34) from (3.2) by replacing the $`\lambda _m`$ occurring on the left-hand side of (3.2) by the average $`\frac{1}{m}_{i=1}^m\lambda _i`$, which is clearly less than $`\lambda _m`$ (and is, in fact, strictly less for all $`m2`$ since $`\lambda _1<\lambda _i`$ for all $`i2`$).

To obtain Hile and Protter’s inequality we go back into our proof of H. C. Yang’s inequality and make one modification. In inequality (3.24), where we made use of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we use it, but without incorporating the counterterms involving $`b_{ij}`$’s, arriving at

$$(2_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _iu_{ix})^24(_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _i^2)(_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{ix}^2).$$
(3.35)
This is how everyone had proceeded prior to H. C. Yang. No one had realized previously that one could make better (=“optimal”) use of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in this way (taking advantage of the known orthogonalities $`\phi _iu_j`$ for $`1i,jm`$ and the fact that the $`b_{ij}`$’s have a simple relation to the $`a_{ij}`$’s). If our argument above is now carried through with (3.35) replacing (3.24), we arrive at

$$(\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i)\left[1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\lambda _i\lambda _j)a_{ij}^2\right]4_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{ix}^2$$
(3.36)
in place of (3.28).

From here the clear thing to do to eliminate the unwanted (because they’re not easily controlled) terms in the $`a_{ij}^2`$’s is to divide through by $`\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i`$ and sum on $`i`$ from $`1`$ to $`m`$, yielding

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{_\mathrm{\Omega }u_{ix}^2}{\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i}\frac{m}{4}.$$
(3.37)
All the terms in $`a_{ij}^2`$ have dropped out due to antisymmetry. Finally, recalling that $`x`$ could be any $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`1\mathrm{}n`$, and summing on $`\mathrm{}`$ we arrive at

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{\lambda _i}{\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i}\frac{mn}{4},$$
(3.38)
which is the Hile-Protter inequality. This inequality is stronger than the Payne-Pólya-Weinberger inequality (3.2), since if we replace the $`\lambda _i`$ appearing in the denominator of the left-hand side of (3.38) by $`\lambda _m`$ we obtain (3.2). It is also weaker than either of Yang’s inequalities, (3.33) or (3.34). It therefore follows that (for each $`m=1,2,\mathrm{}`$)

$$\text{Yang 1}\text{Yang 2}\text{Hile-Protter}\text{PPW}.$$
(3.39)
While our derivation above of the Hile-Protter inequality certainly suggests that Yang’s inequalities are stronger, it is not altogether straightforward to show the middle implication in (3.39). This is done in our longer paper , which is devoted to the topic of universal inequalities for the eigenvalues of the Dirichlet Laplacian. That paper also contains a discussion of when the various inequalities given above are known to hold strictly, as well as various other extensions and generalizations. A more complete set of references and some further comments on them will be found there as well.

For anyone worried by our statement following inequality (3.26) admitting the possibility that our trial functions $`\phi _i`$ might vanish identically and hence worried that our derivation might result in a triviality, we make two remarks to allay such fears. The first is that our proof as given takes account of these matters, and does indeed lead to a nontrivial inequality. The second, and probably more useful, observation is that it can never happen that all the $`\phi _i`$’s vanish identically (if indeed even one of them can vanish). To see this directly, it suffices to consider (3.23) and sum it on $`i`$ from 1 to $`m`$. By antisymmetry the sum in $`a_{ij}^2`$ drops out, yielding $`m=2_{i=1}^m_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi _iu_{ix}`$ and showing that not all the $`\phi _i`$’s can vanish identically (or even each be orthogonal to $`u_{ix}`$). Thus at least some of the inequalities represented by (3.26) will be nontrivial and will lead to a nontrivial inequality (3.30) as the outcome of our final summations.

### 3.2 Universal Inequalities for Low Fixed Membrane Eigenvalues

We next turn to some universal inequalities for low Dirichlet eigenvalues, which again stem from the original work of Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger . In 1956 they proved that for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$

$$\frac{\lambda _2+\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}6.$$
(3.40)
This easily extends to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ as

$$\frac{\lambda _2+\lambda _3+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{n+1}}{\lambda _1}n\left(1+\frac{4}{n}\right)=n+4.$$
(3.41)
These inequalities are proved by using the Rayleigh-Ritz inequality in “trace form” or as usually applied, using rotations and translations to enforce the further orthogonalities needed. No $`a_{ij}`$’s appear (or can be tolerated) in these arguments. There are also a variety of extensions of results of this type, the simplest being that of Brands  from 1964

$$\frac{\lambda _2+\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}5+\frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _2}\text{ for }\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(3.42)
and its extension to $`^n`$

$$\frac{\lambda _2+\lambda _3+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{n+1}}{\lambda _1}n+3+\frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _2}\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n$$
(3.43)
(see  for a derivation, though this extension was certainly known to Hile and Protter earlier ).

Beyond this, much work has been done toward bounding the range of values of $`(\lambda _2/\lambda _1,\lambda _3/\lambda _1)`$ for an arbitrary domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ (with corresponding, but less extensive, work for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$). In particular, it would be very interesting to know the best bounds for $`\lambda _3/\lambda _1`$ and $`(\lambda _2+\lambda _3)/\lambda _1`$ (the best bound for $`\lambda _2/\lambda _1`$ is, of course, its value for a disk, given by (2.16)). These quantities can be gotten at by looking at the range of possible values of $`(\lambda _2/\lambda _1,\lambda _3/\lambda _1)`$, which is one motivation for its study.

The current state of knowledge regarding the range of values of $`(\lambda _2/\lambda _1,\lambda _3/\lambda _1)`$ is summarized in the paper of Ashbaugh and Benguria  (see also its precursors  and ). In particular, one should consult the graph given as Figure 1 on p. 38 of . It is shown in  that

$$5.077^+\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{sup}\frac{\lambda _2+\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}5.50661^{}$$
(3.44)
and that

$$3.1818^+\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{sup}\frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}3.83103^{}.$$
(3.45)
The lower bound in (3.44) is simply the value for a disk. It is a conjecture of Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger that this is the actual maximum value of $`(\lambda _2+\lambda _3)/\lambda _1`$ as well. The lower bound in (3.45) is $`35/11`$, the value taken by $`\lambda _3/\lambda _1`$ for a $`\sqrt{8}`$ by $`\sqrt{3}`$ rectangle (and is certainly the maximum of $`\lambda _3/\lambda _1`$ among rectangles). However, there is no current guess as to the precise shape of domain that will maximize $`\lambda _3/\lambda _1`$ (if a maximizer even exists). The best current thinking would have it be an elongated convex figure, roughly in the shape of an oval or ellipse. (Among ellipses the largest value of $`\lambda _3/\lambda _1`$ seems to be very near to, but slightly less than, 3.1818.)

### 3.3 Universal Eigenvalue Inequalities in Other Spaces

There are also versions of the Payne-Pólya-Weinberger inequality (3.2) and its extensions for bounded domains in the constant curvature spaces $`S^n`$ and $`H^n`$. For example, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }S^2`$ in 1975 Cheng  derived the bound

$$\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}1+2\left(\frac{2}{1+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }}\right)^4\text{for }0<\mathrm{\Theta }<\pi $$
(3.46)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is defined as the outradius (=geodesic radius of the circumscribing circle) of $`\mathrm{\Omega }S^2`$. This was improved to

$$\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}1+2\left(\frac{2}{1+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }}\right)^2\text{for }0<\mathrm{\Theta }<\pi $$
(3.47)
by Harrell  in 1993. Both of these results have extensions to higher eigenvalues and to $`S^n`$.

On a slightly different front, by an extension of the method they used to prove the Payne-Pólya-Weinberger conjecture for $`\lambda _2/\lambda _1`$, Ashbaugh and Benguria proved ,  (see Section 5) that for $`\mathrm{\Omega }S^2`$

$$\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}1+1.5387\left(\frac{2}{1+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }}\right)^2\text{for }0<\mathrm{\Theta }<\pi .$$
(3.48)
The constant here is $`j_{1,1}^2/j_{0,1}^21`$ and comes from the proof of the Euclidean PPW conjecture as extended to general second-order elliptic operators in Section 4 of .

Beyond this, there are the sharp PPW results for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ contained in a hemisphere of $`S^n`$,

$$\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega })\lambda _2(B_{\lambda _1})$$
(3.49)
where $`B_{\lambda _1}`$ is the geodesic ball in $`S^n`$ having the same value of $`\lambda _1`$ as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and

$$\frac{\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega })}{\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })}\frac{\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})}{\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})}$$
(3.50)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is the geodesic ball in $`S^n`$ having the same measure as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. These last two results are due to Ashbaugh and Benguria (see , , ). Note that (3.49) and (3.50) are much sharper than the bounds in terms of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ listed previously, since the outradius of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a much cruder measure of the size of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ than either $`\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$. On the other hand, the bounds in terms of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ apply to all domains $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, not just to those contained in a hemisphere. While it may be possible that (3.49) and/or (3.50) hold beyond the hemisphere, this is not proved as yet. It might also be mentioned that (3.50) follows easily from (3.49) since it can be shown that $`\lambda _2/\lambda _1`$ for a geodesic ball is an increasing function of its radius. See , , and  for more details and discussion.

Further results for domains $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ contained in $`S^n`$, $`H^n`$, or other more general manifolds are due to Cheng  in 1975, Li  in 1980, P. C. Yang and S.-T. Yau  in 1980, Lee  and Leung  in 1991, Harrell  in 1993, and Harrell and Michel ,  in 1994 and 1995. Some of these papers establish analogs of the Hile-Protter inequality in a more general setting. More discussion of this literature will be found in . We mention, in particular, the Hile-Protter-type bound for a domain in $`S^n`$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{4\lambda _i+n^2}{\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _i}mn.$$
(3.51)
For $`m=1`$ this bound gives us

$$\lambda _2(1+\frac{4}{n})\lambda _1+n.$$
(3.52)
(Indeed, one has, more generally, the PPW-type bound

$$\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _m+\frac{4}{mn}\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _i+n(1+\frac{4}{n})\lambda _m+n.)$$
(3.53)
This bound can be regarded as an alternative and quite natural bound for $`\lambda _2`$ in terms of $`\lambda _1`$ for domains $`\mathrm{\Omega }S^n`$ (to be compared with, say, (3.48), at least when $`n=2`$). Note that this bound “takes account of” the blow-up of $`\lambda _2/\lambda _1`$ that we expect when we approach the whole sphere $`S^n`$ by the presence of the constant term $`n`$ on its right-hand side. Thus, even though $`\lambda _10`$ as we approach the whole sphere while $`\lambda _2n`$, this new bound gives us control of $`\lambda _2`$ without the need of a coefficient that blows up in this limit. Moreover, the new bound $`\lambda _2(1+\frac{4}{n})\lambda _1+n`$ is seen to be sharp in this limit (viz., for the full sphere $`\lambda _2=n`$, while the right-hand side becomes $`n`$ since $`\lambda _1=0`$). The bound (3.51) is actually the “HP-weakening” of a stronger Yang-style bound for $`\mathrm{\Omega }S^n`$ first given in this context by H. C. Yang  (in the 1995 version of this paper). For a full discussion of Yang’s bounds and related inequalities (such as (3.51)) in this context, see . Weaker, but generally more complex, precursors may be found in , , , and  (most of these are directed at compact minimal hypersurfaces in $`S^n`$, but the ideas and calculations are much the same).

### 3.4 Universal Eigenvalue Inequalities for the Vibrating Clamped Plate

In their 1956 paper , Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger also established the bound

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\frac{8}{m}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_m),m=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(3.54)
for the eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ of the clamped plate problem (1.5) on a domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$. This is the analog for the clamped plate of their bound (3.1) for the fixed membrane. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ this bound becomes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\frac{8(n+2)}{n^2m}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_m),m=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(3.55)
and, even better,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m\frac{8(n+2)}{n^2m^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{1/2}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_m^{1/2})^2,m=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(3.56)
This latter inequality was not given by Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger, even for $`n=2`$, but it certainly could have been, as it is in a sense implicit in their work. Beyond this, in 1984 Hile and Yeh , extending the approach of Hile and Protter to the clamped plate problem, established the bound

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{1/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}\frac{n^2m^{3/2}}{8(n+2)}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\right)^{1/2},m=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(3.57)
Again, implicit in their work is the better bound

$$\frac{n^2m^2}{8(n+2)}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{1/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}\right)\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{1/2}\right),m=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(3.58)
which was exhibited explicitly only later. In fact Hook  in 1990 established (3.58) as a strict inequality. Also in 1990, Chen and Qian  independently stated and proved (3.58).

Possibly (3.58) could be improved to

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}}\right)^2\frac{n^2m^2}{8(n+2)},m=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(3.59)
This inequality would imply all the previous ones in this subsection ((3.58), for example, would follow easily using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality).

It might be noted that the quantity $`8(n+2)/n^2`$ that appears in the foregoing inequalities is indeed natural from the PPW/HP point of view, just as $`4/n`$ is in the case of the fixed membrane. This is because $`8(n+2)/n^2`$ arises as $`(1+4/n)^21`$ just as $`4/n`$ arises as $`(1+4/n)1`$.

Yet another inequality in this vein is

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}\frac{n^2m}{8(n+2)},m=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(3.60)
This inequality is an easy consequence of (3.58) via Chebyshev’s inequality (it would also follow directly from (3.59) via the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality). Its chief appeal is its simplicity. It should be mentioned that as yet no one has established an analog of H. C. Yang’s bound (3.31) (or equivalently (3.33)) in this setting, i.e., for the eigenvalues of the vibrating clamped plate. So far (3.58), which is best regarded as an analog of the Hile-Protter inequality (3.38) in this setting, is the closest anyone has come.

### 3.5 Universal Eigenvalue Inequalities for the Buckling Problem

For the buckling problem for a clamped plate (problem (1.7)) even less is known, largely owing to the fact that the inner product one must employ for this problem, $`f,g_\mathrm{\Omega }fg`$, does not induce a symmetric $`a_{ij}`$ matrix when one attempts the usual PPW approach and sets $`a_{ij}=xv_i,v_j`$. This leads to all sorts of extra complications, and thus far no one has been able to bring the general case (for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ or even just $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_m`$) to a satisfactory conclusion. Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger  were able to establish the low eigenvalue result

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1<3\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(3.61)
For $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$ this reads

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1<1+4/n.$$
(3.62)
Subsequently Hile and Yeh  reconsidered this problem obtaining the improved bound

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_12.5\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(3.63)
and, in general,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}\frac{n^2+8n+20}{(n+2)^2}\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n.$$
(3.64)
Both of these inequalities can actually be shown to hold as strict inequalities. It is of note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ for a disk in 2 dimensions is 1.796. If the analog of the PPW conjecture held for this problem, then this would be the best possible upper bound for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ in 2 dimensions.

### 3.6 More Inequalities for the Low Eigenvalues of the Clamped Plate and Buckling Problems

One can also derive inequalities analogous to (3.41) for the clamped plate and buckling problems. These read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n+1}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}}`$ $`n+4\text{ for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n,`$ (3.65)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{1/2}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n+1}^{1/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{1/2}}}`$ $`n+4\text{ for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n,`$ (3.66)
and
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n+1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}}`$ $`n+24\text{ for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n.`$ (3.67)
Of the last two inequalities, (3.66) is the natural “PPW-analog” and (3.67) is a weaker inequality that derives from it. Note the presence of the PPW factor $`\left(1+\frac{4}{n}\right)`$ in (3.65) and (3.66) (in the form $`n+4=n\left(1+\frac{4}{n}\right)`$). The constant $`n+24`$ in (3.67) comes from the extreme case of (3.66) where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{1/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{1/2}=1`$ for $`2in`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n+1}^{1/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{1/2}=5`$.

Finally, we mention the known results for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. Obviously (from (3.55)), Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger had

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(1+4/n)^2\text{ for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n$$
(3.68)
(and even $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m+1}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_m(1+4/n)^2`$ for all $`m`$). This was improved upon more recently by fairly elaborate means by Hile and Yeh , who, for example, obtained the bounds $`7.103`$ and $`4.792`$ for dimensions $`2`$ and $`3`$ respectively. In general, these upper bounds are determined as the unique root larger than $`1`$ of the cubic

$$(x1)^3=\frac{512}{n^2(n+2)}x$$
(3.69)
(though Hile and Yeh formulated their result in rather different terms). These values might be compared to those of the ball in $`2`$ and $`3`$ dimensions: 4.3311 and 3.2390, respectively. Again the analog of the PPW conjecture for this problem would project these values as the optimal upper bounds for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ in $`2`$ and $`3`$ dimensions.

As a final remark, we note that any result mentioned in this section (Section 3) without specific attribution is due to the author and that fuller details will be presented in forthcoming papers.

## 4 Concluding Remarks and Open Problems

In this concluding section we mention a few open problems and give some further hints to the literature.

Of the original conjectures of Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger , only two remain open. These are to show that

$$\frac{\lambda _2+\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}\frac{\lambda _2+\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}|_{\text{disk}}5.077\text{ for }\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(4.1)
and the analogous result for $`(\lambda _2+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{n+1})/\lambda _1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$, and that

$$\frac{\lambda _{m+1}}{\lambda _m}\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}|_{\text{ball}}\text{for all }\mathrm{\Omega }^n.$$
(4.2)
The latter inequality is known for $`m=1,2`$, and $`3`$ (for $`m=2`$ and $`3`$ it follows from the stronger inequality $`\lambda _4/\lambda _2(\lambda _2/\lambda _1)|_{\text{ball}}`$ proved in ), but as yet all higher cases remain open. For further discussion of these problems see , , and  (as well as ).

There are also the well-known Pólya conjectures for the Dirichlet and Neumann eigenvalues of the Laplacian on a domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }^n`$. For the case of dimension 2, and with notation as in Section 1, these read

$`\lambda _k`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi k}{A}}\text{for }k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ (4.3)
and
$`\mu _k`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi k}{A}}\text{for }k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},`$ (4.4)
where $`A=|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$. There are analogous conjectures for all dimensions $`n>2`$. See  for their statements and for further discussion.

For the vibrating clamped plate problem there remains the Rayleigh conjecture

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n$$
(4.5)
for all $`n4`$, and, if one could prove (4.5) (or in any event for $`n=2,3`$), the PPW-type conjecture

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}|_{\text{ball}}\text{ for all }\mathrm{\Omega }^n.$$
(4.6)
Similarly, for the buckling problem for the clamped plate there remains the Pólya-Szegő conjecture

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n$$
(4.7)
for all $`n2`$. If this conjecture could be proved then one could also consider the following conjecture for ratios:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}|_{\text{ball}}\text{for all }\mathrm{\Omega }^n.$$
(4.8)
Obviously many other problems could be formulated and investigated. For example, one could consider the ratios $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+1}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m+1}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$, $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_3)/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_3)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, and many other combinations analogous to those that have been considered for the eigenvalues of the Dirichlet Laplacian. One could also consider much of what has been discussed in this paper in the more general setting of domains in Riemannian manifolds or for general second-order elliptic operators.

Other more extensive problem lists occur in the review papers of Payne , , , and in Yau’s recent problem lists ,  (reprinted in ). In addition, one could consult the final section of  and also .

## Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Brian Davies and Yuri Safarov for the opportunity to participate in the Instructional Conference on Spectral Theory and Geometry in Edinburgh (March 29-April 9, 1998) and to the International Centre for Mathematical Sciences for its generous support. In addition, he gratefully acknowledges his collaborators, Rafael Benguria and Richard Laugesen, with whom a number of the results summarized here were obtained.