\section{Introduction}
We introduce $\delta$-viscosity solutions for the nonlinear parabolic problem
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:main}
 u_t-F(D^2u)=0  \quad \text{ in } \Omega \times (0,T).
\end{equation}
We prove an estimate between viscosity solutions and $\delta$-viscosity solutions of (\ref{eq:main}) under the assumption that the nonlinearity $F$ is uniformly elliptic (see (F\ref{ellipticity}) below). As a consequence, we find a rate of convergence for monotone and consistent implicit finite difference approximations to (\ref{eq:main}). Both results generalize the work of Caffarelli and Souganidis in \cite{Approx schemes} and \cite{Rates Homogen}, who consider the time-independent case.

The nonlinearity $F$ is a continuous function on $\mathcal{S}_{n\times n} \times U$, where $\mathcal{S}_{n\times n}$ is the set of $n\times n$ real symmetric matrices endowed with the usual order and norm (for $X\in \mathcal{S}_{n\times n}$,  $||X|| = \sup_{|v|=1}|Xv|$). We make the following assumptions:
\begin{enumerate}[({F}1)]
\item \label{ellipticity} $F$ is uniformly elliptic with constants $0<\lambda \leq \Lambda$, which means that for  any $X \in \mathcal{S}_{n\times n}$ and for all $Y\geq 0$,
\[
\lambda||Y|| \leq F(X+Y)-F(X) \leq \Lambda||Y||;
\]
and,
\item \label{last prop of F}  $F(0)=0$.
\end{enumerate} 
We also assume: 
\begin{enumerate}[({U}1)]
\item
\label{assum U}
$\Omega$ is a bounded subset of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$.
\end{enumerate} 

The main result is an error estimate between viscosity solutions and $\delta$-viscosity solutions of (\ref{eq:main}). The definition of $\delta$-viscosity solutions is in Section \ref{subsection:delta def}. Next we present a statement of our main result that has been simplified for the introduction; the full statement is in Section \ref{section: comparison}.

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:vague comparison}
Assume (F\ref{ellipticity}), (F\ref{last prop of F}) and (U1). Assume $u$ is a viscosity solution of (\ref{eq:main}) that is Lipschitz continuous in $x$ and H\"older continuous in $t$. Assume $\{u_\delta\}_{\delta>0}$ is a family of H\"older continuous $\delta$-viscosity solutions of (\ref{eq:main}) that satisfy 
\[
u_\delta = u \text{ on the parabolic boundary of $\Omega \times (0,T)$ }
\]
 for all $\delta$. There exist positive constants $C$ and $\alpha$ that do not depend on $\delta$ such that  for all $\delta$ small enough,
\[
||u-u_\delta||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega \times (0,T))} \leq C\delta^\alpha .
\]
\end{thm}
We remark that if $u$ is the solution of a boundary value problem with sufficiently regular boundary data, then the regularity conditions on $u$ of Theorem \ref{thm:vague comparison} are satisfied (see Remark \ref{remAboutLips} for more details). We make this an assumption  in order to  avoid discussing boundary value problems and to keep the setting as simple as possible.

The notion of $\delta$-viscosity solutions was introduced by Caffarelli and Souganidis in \cite{Approx schemes}  as a tool for obtaining uniform estimates for viscosity solutions. In \cite{Approx schemes}, $\delta$-viscosity solutions were used to establish an error estimate for finite difference approximations of nonlinear uniformly elliptic equations. An error estimate between viscosity and $\delta$-viscosity solutions of uniformly elliptic equations was obtained by Caffarelli and Souganidis in \cite{Rates Homogen}. This was an important step in establishing a rate for homogenization in random media \cite{Rates Homogen}. 

The main challenge in obtaining an error estimate between viscosity and $\delta$-viscosity solutions, in both the elliptic and parabolic setting, is overcoming the lack of regularity of the viscosity solution $u$. Indeed, the proof of the error estimate in \cite{Approx schemes} is based on a regularity result \cite[Theorem A]{Approx schemes}, which says that outside of sets of small measure, solutions of uniformly elliptic equations have second-order expansions with controlled error. We prove a similar result for solutions of equation (\ref{eq:main}). This is Theorem \ref{Thm A} of this paper, and it is an essential part of our proof of Theorem \ref{thm:vague comparison}.

But even once it is known that the solution $u$ of (\ref{eq:main}) has second-order expansions with controlled error, it is necessary to further regularize $u$ and  the $\delta$-viscosity solution $u_\delta$ in order establish an estimate for their difference. For this we use the classical inf- and sup- convolutions, along with  another regularization of inf-sup type, which we call  $x$-sup- and $x$-inf- convolutions. Both of these regularizations preserve the notions of viscosity and $\delta$-viscosity solution. Moreover, we show that the  regularity  we establish in Theorem \ref{Thm A} for solutions $u$ of (\ref{eq:main}) is also enjoyed by the $x$-inf and $x$-sup convolutions of $u$ (Proposition \ref{prop: more regularity for convolutions}). 


In this paper we also study implicit finite difference approximations to (\ref{eq:main}) and prove an error estimate between the solution $u$ of (\ref{eq:main}) and approximate solutions to (\ref{eq:main}). We have simplified the notation in the introduction in order to state this result here; see Section \ref{section: approx} for all the details about approximation schemes and for  the full statement of the error estimate. 

We write the finite difference approximations as 
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:main h}
\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}[u](x,t) = \delta^-_{\tau} u (x,t) - \mathcal{F}_h(\delta^2 u(x,t))=0  \text{ in } (\Omega \times (0,T))\cap E.
\end{equation}
Here $E=h\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^n \times h^2\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}$ is the mesh of discretization, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}[u]$ is the implicit finite difference operator, and $\delta^-_{\tau} u$ and $\delta^2 u$ are finite difference quotients associated to a function $u$.   We assume:
\begin{enumerate}[({S}1)] 
\item \label{monotone}  if $u_h^1$ and $u_h^2$ are solutions of (\ref{eq:main h}) with $u_h^1\leq u_h^2$ on the discrete boundary of $\Omega\times(0,T)$, then $u_h^1\leq u_h^2$ in $\Omega\times(0,T)$; and
\item
\label{consistent} 
there exists a positive constant $K$ such that for all $\phi\in C^3(\Omega\times(0,T))$ and all $h>0$,
\[
\sup|\phi_t-F(D^2\phi)-\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}[\phi]|\leq K(h+ h\linfty{D_x^3\phi}{\Omega\times (0,T)} + h^2\linfty{\phi_{tt}}{\Omega\times (0,T)}).
\]
\end{enumerate} 
Schemes that satisfy (S\ref{monotone}) and (S\ref{consistent}) are said to be, respectively, \emph{monotone} and \emph{consistent with an error estimate for $F$}.
 We prove:
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:mesh comparison vague}
Assume (F\ref{ellipticity}), (F\ref{last prop of F}) and (U1).  Assume that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}$ is a monotone  implicit approximation scheme for (\ref{eq:main}) that is consistent with an error estimate. Assume  $u$ is a viscosity solution of (\ref{eq:main}) that is Lipschitz continuous in $x$ and H\"older continuous in $t$ and that $u_h$ is a H\"older continuous solution of (\ref{eq:main h}). Assume that for each $h>0$,
\[
u_h=u \text{ on the discrete boundary of $\Omega\times(0,T)$}. 
\]
 There exist positive constants $C$ and $\alpha$ that do not depend on $h$ such that for every $h$ small enough,
\[
||u-u_h||_{L^{\infty}(\Omega \times (0,T))} \leq Ch^\alpha.
\]
\end{thm}



The convergence of monotone and consistent approximations of fully nonlinear second order PDE was first established by Barles and Souganidis \cite{BarlesSouganidis}. Kuo and Trudinger later studied the existence of monotone and consistent approximations for nonlinear elliptic and parabolic equations and the regularity of the approximate solutions $v_h$ (see \cite{KT estimates, Kuo Trudiner elliptic ops, Kuo Trudinger max princip parabolic, Kuo Trudinger parabolic diff ops}). They showed, both in the elliptic and in the parabolic cases, that if $F$ is uniformly elliptic, then there exists a monotone finite difference scheme $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}$ that is consistent with $F$, and that the approximate solutions $u_h$ are uniformly equicontinuous. However, obtaining an error estimate remained an open problem. 

The first error estimate for approximation schemes was established by Krylov in \cite{Krylov 1998} and \cite{Krylov 1999} for nonlinearities $F$ that are either convex or concave, but possibly degenerate. Krylov used stochastic control methods that apply in the convex  or concave case, but not in the general setting.  Barles and Jakobsen in \cite{BarlesJakobsen2002} and \cite{BarlesJakobsen2005} improved Krylov's error estimates for  convex or concave equations. In \cite{Krylov2005} Krylov improved the error estimate to be of order $h^{1/2}$, but still in the convex/concave case. In addition,  Jakobsen \cite{Jakobsen2004, Jakobsen2006} and Bonnans, Maroso, and Zidani \cite{Bonnans} established error estimates for special equations or for special dimensions. The first error estimate without a convexity or concavity assumption was obtained  Caffarelli and Souganidis in \cite{Approx schemes} for  nonlinear elliptic equations.  To our knowledge, Theorem \ref{thm:mesh comparison vague} is  the first  error estimate for  nonlinear parabolic equations that are neither convex nor concave.

Our paper is structured as follows. In Section \ref{preliminaries} we establish notation, give the definition of $\delta$-viscosity solutions, and state several known results. In Section \ref{section: regularity} we prove Theorem \ref{Thm A}, the regularity result that is essential for the rest of our arguments. In Section \ref{section: Two different inf- and sup- convolutions} we discuss regularizations of inf-sup type and establish  Proposition \ref{prop: more regularity for convolutions}, a version of Theorem \ref{Thm A} for $x$-sup and $x$-inf convolutions. In Section \ref{section: main prop} we prove a key estimate between viscosity solutions of (\ref{maineqn}) and sufficiently regular $\delta$-solutions of (\ref{maineqn}). Theorems \ref{thm:vague comparison} and \ref{thm:mesh comparison vague} are straightforward consequences of this estimate. In Section \ref{section: comparison} we give the precise statement and proof of Theorem \ref{thm:vague comparison}. Section \ref{section: approx} is devoted to introducing the necessary notation and stating known results about approximation schemes. The precise statement and proof of the error estimate for approximation schemes is in Section \ref{section:error est approx}. We also include an appendix with known results about inf- and sup- convolutions.



\section{Preliminaries}
\label{preliminaries}
In this section we establish notation, recall the definition of viscosity solutions for parabolic equations, give the definition of $\delta$-viscosity solutions, and recall some known regularity results for solutions of (\ref{eq:main}).
\subsection{Notation}
Points in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ are denoted $(x,t)$ with $x\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$. The parabolic distance between two points is 
\[
d((x,t), (y,s))=(|x-y|^2+|s-t|)^{1/2}.
\]
We denote the usual Euclidean distance in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ by $d_e((x,t),(y,s))= (|x-y|^2+|s-t|^2)^{1/2}$.
Throughout the argument we consider parabolic cubes, denoted by
\[
Q_r(x,t)=[x-r,x+r]^n\times(t-r^2,t],
\]
and forward and backward cylinders, 
\[
Y_r(x, t)= B_{r}(x) \times (t ,t+r^2] \text{ and } Y^-_r (x, t) = B_{r}(x) \times (t - r^2 ,t],
\]
where $B_r(x)=\{y: |x-y|<r\}$ is the open ball in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$. We  write $B_r$, $Q_r$, $Y_r$ and $Y^-_r$ to mean $B_r(0)$, $Q_r(0)$, $Y_r(0)$ and $Y^-_r(0)$, respectively.

For $\Omega\subset \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$, the parabolic boundary of $\Omega\times (a,b)$ is defined as
\[
\bdry (\Omega \times (a,b)) = (\Omega \times \{a\}) \cup (\partial \Omega \times (a,b)).
\]

The time derivative of a function $u$ is denoted by $u_t$ or $\partial_t u$. The gradient of $u$ with respect to the space variable $x=(x_1,...,x_n)$ is denoted by $Du=(u_{x_1},...,u_{x_n})$, and the Hessian of $u$ with respect to $x$ is denoted by $D^2u$.

We say that a constant is \emph{universal} if it is positive and depends only on $\Lambda$, $\lambda,$ and $n$. Unless otherwise indicated, all constants depend on $\Lambda$, $\lambda,$ and $n$. 

We introduce notation for several families of paraboloids. 
\begin{defn} Let $M>0$. We define:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the class of \emph{convex paraboloids of opening $M$}:
\[
\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_M}^+ =\left\{ P(x,t)=c+l\cdot x + mt + \frac{M}{2}|x|^2  \text{ where } l\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n, c, m\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}, |m| \leq M\right\};
\]
\item the class of \emph{concave paraboloids of opening $M$}:
\[
 \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_M}^- = \{-P(x,t) | P\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_M}^+\};
\] 
\item the class of paraboloids of arbitrary opening:
\[
\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_\infty} = \left\{ P(x,t)=c+l\cdot x + m t + x\cdot Qx^T \text{ where } l\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n,c,m\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}, Q\in \mathcal{S}_{n\times n} \right \}; 
\]
\item the set of polynomials that are quadratic in $x$ and linear in $t$ with the only mixed term of the form $a\cdot xt$:
\[
\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} = \left\{ P(x,t)=c+l\cdot x + m t + a\cdot x t + x\cdot Qx^T \text{ where } l,a\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n, c, m\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}},Q\in \mathcal{S}_{n\times n} \right \}.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
We will make use of  the following seminorms, norms, and function spaces:
\begin{defn}The class of continuous functions on $U\subset \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ is denoted $C(U)$. The class $C^2(U)$ is the set of functions $\phi$ that are differentiable in  $t$ and twice differentiable in $x$, with $\phi_t\in C(U)$ and $D^2\phi\in C(U)$.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}
For $\eta\in (0,1]$ and $u\in C(\Omega\times (a,b))$,  we define:
\begin{align*}
\etasemi{u}{\Omega\times (a,b)} &= \sup_{(x,t), (y,s)\in \Omega\times (a,b)}\frac{|u(x,t)-u(y,s)|}{d((x,t),(y,s))^\eta},\\
[u]_{C^{0,\eta}_x(\Omega\times (a,b))}&= \sup_{x,y\in \Omega; t\in (a,b)} \frac{|u(x,t)-u(y,t)|}{|x-y|^\eta},\\
\tetasemi{u}{\Omega\times (a,b)} &= \sup_{ t,s\in (a,b); x\in \Omega} \frac{|u(x,t)-u(x,s)|}{|t-s|^\eta}, \text{ and,}\\
\etanorm{u}{\Omega\times (a,b)}&= \linfty{u}{\Omega\times (a,b)}+\etasemi{u}{\Omega\times (a,b)}.
\end{align*}
\end{defn}
\begin{defn} For $\eta\in (0,1]$, we define:
\begin{align*}
C^{0,\eta}(\Omega\times (a,b))&=\{ u\in C(\Omega\times(a,b)) :\etanorm{u}{\Omega\times (a,b)}<\infty\},\\
C^{0,\eta}_x(\Omega\times(a,b)) &= \left\{ u\in C(\Omega\times(a,b)): [u]_{C^{0,\eta}_x(\Omega\times(a,b))}+ \linfty{u}{\Omega\times (a,b)} <\infty\right\}.
\end{align*}
\end{defn}



We will also need the following notion of differentiability:
\begin{defn}
For a constant $K$, we say that $u$ satisfies $D^2u(x,t)\geq KI$ (resp. $D^2u(x,t)\leq KI$) \emph{in the sense of distributions} if there exists a quadratic polynomial 
\[
P(y)= c+p\cdot y +\frac{K|x-y|^2}{2}
\]
 such that $u(x,t)=P(x)$ and $u(y,t)\geq P(y)$ (resp. $u(y)\leq P(y)$) for all $y\in B_r(x)$, for some $r>0$.
\end{defn}



\subsection{Viscosity and $\delta$-viscosity solutions}
\label{subsection:delta def} 

We recall the definition of viscosity solutions for parabolic equations. 

\begin{defn}
\label{defn visc}
\begin{enumerate}
\item A function $u\in C(\Omega\times(0,T))$ is a \emph{viscosity supersolution} of (\ref{eq:main})  if for all $(x, t) \in \Omega\times(0,T)$, any $\phi\in C^2(\Omega\times (0,T))$ with $\phi \leq u $  on $Y^-_{\rho} (x, t)$ for some $\rho>0$ and  $\phi(x,t)=u(x,t)$ satisfies
\[
\phi_t(x,t) - F(D^2\phi(x,t)) \geq 0.
\]
\item A function $u\in C(\Omega\times(0,T))$ is a \emph{viscosity subsolution} of (\ref{eq:main}) if for all $(x, t) \in \Omega\times(0,T)$, any $\phi\in C^2(\Omega\times(0,T))$ with $\phi \geq u $  on $Y^-_{\rho} (x, t)$ for some $\rho>0$ and  $\phi(x,t)=u(x,t)$ satisfies
\[
\phi_t(x,t) - F(D^2\phi(x,t)) \leq 0.
\]
\item We say that $u\in C(\Omega\times(0,T))$ is a \emph{viscosity solution} of (\ref{eq:main}) if $u$ is both a sub- and a super- solution of (\ref{eq:main}).
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}



\begin{rem}
In the above definitions, we require the test function $\phi$ to stay above (or below) $u$ on a backward cylinder $Y^-_\rho(x,t)$. However, this definition is equivalent to the usual one, which requires the test function to stay above (or below) $u$ on a Euclidean open set around $(x,t)$. This equivalence is proven by Crandall,  Kocan, and \'{S}wi\c{e}ch  \cite[Lemma 1.4]{crandallkocan} for $L^p$ viscosity solutions. Their proof carries over into our setting with  no modifications.
\end{rem}
 

See Section 8 of Crandall, Ishii, and Lions' \cite{User's guide} for further discussion of viscosity solutions of parabolic equations.

 
 
We now introduce $\delta$-viscosity solutions for  (\ref{eq:main}), following the definition of \cite{Approx schemes} and \cite{Rates Homogen}. 
\begin{defn}
\label{defn delta}
Fix $\delta>0$. 
\begin{enumerate}
\item A function $v\in C(\Omega\times(0,T))$ is a \emph{$\delta$-viscosity supersolution} of (\ref{eq:main}) if for all $(x, t) \in \Omega\times(0,T)$  such that $Y^-_{\delta}(x, t) \subset \Omega\times(0,T)$,  any $P\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_\infty}$ with $P \leq v $  on $Y^-_{\delta} (x, t)$ and  $P(x,t)=v(x,t)$ satisfies
\[
P_t - F(D^2P) \geq 0.
\]
\item A function $v\in C(\Omega\times(0,T))$ is a \emph{$\delta$-viscosity subsolution} of (\ref{eq:main}) if for all $(x, t) \in \Omega\times(0,T)$  such that $Y^-_{\delta}(x, t) \subset \Omega\times(0,T)$,  any $P\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_\infty}$ with $P\geq v$ on $Y^-_{\delta} (x, t)$ and  $P(x,t)=v(x,t)$ satisfies
\[
P_t - F(D^2P) \leq 0.
\]
\item
We say $v$ is a \emph{$\delta$-viscosity solution} of (\ref{eq:main}) if it is both a $\delta$-viscosity sub- and  super- solution.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
From now on we will say ``solution" to mean viscosity solution and  ``$\delta$-solution" to mean $\delta$-viscosity solution.

From the definitions, it is clear that a viscosity solution of (\ref{eq:main}) is a $\delta$-solution of (\ref{eq:main}). The main difference between the definitions of viscosity and $\delta$-viscosity solution is that for $v$ to be a $\delta$-supersolution (resp. subsolution), any test polynomial must stay below (resp. above) $v$ on a set of fixed size. 




\subsection{Known results}

We  introduce the Pucci extremal operators, which are defined for constants $0<\lambda\leq \Lambda$ and $X\in \mathcal{S}_{n\times n}$ by 
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{M}_{\lambda, \Lambda}^-(X) &= \lambda \sum_{e_i >0} e_i +\Lambda \sum_{e_i<0} e_i,\\ \mathcal{M}_{\lambda, \Lambda}^+(X) &= \Lambda \sum_{e_i >0} e_i +\lambda \sum_{e_i<0} e_i,
\end{align*}
where the $e_i$ are the eigenvalues of $X$ (see Caffarelli  and Cabre \cite{Cabre Caffarelli book} and Wang \cite{WangI}).
We also introduce the so-called upper and lower monotone envelopes of a function, which  play the role of the convex and concave envelopes in the regularity theory of elliptic equations. We follow the notes of  Imbert and Silvestre in \cite[Section 4]{ImbertSilvestre} for our presentation of Definition \ref{defn env}, Lemma \ref{lem:representation} and Proposition \ref{pre ABP} below.
\begin{defn}
\label{defn env}
Let $\Omega$ be a convex subset of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and let  $u:\Omega \times (a,b) \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ be continuous.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The \emph{lower monotone envelope} of $u$ is the largest function $v:\Omega \times (a,b) \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ that lies below $u$ and is non-increasing with respect to $t$ and convex with respect to $x$. It is often denoted by $\underline{\Gamma}(u)$.
\item The \emph{upper monotone envelope} of $u$ is the smallest function $v:\Omega \times (a,b) \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ that lies above $u$ and is non-decreasing with respect to $t$ and concave with respect to $x$. It is often denoted by $\bar{\Gamma}(u)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}

We have the following representation formulas for the upper and lower envelopes of $u$ (\cite[Section 4]{ImbertSilvestre}):
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:representation}
Assume $u\in C(Y_\rho^-)$. Then
\[
\underline{\Gamma}(u)(x,t) = \sup \{\zeta \cdot x +h : \  \zeta \cdot y + h \leq u(s,y) \text{ for all } s\in (a,t], y\in Y_\rho^-\}
\]
and
\[
\bar{\Gamma}(u)(x,t) = \inf \{\zeta \cdot x +h : \  \zeta \cdot y + h \geq u(s,x) \text{ for all } s\in (a,t], y\in Y_\rho^-\}.
\]
\end{lem}

The following fact will play a central role in our arguments. In subsection \ref{subsec:proof of pre ABP} of the Appendix, we explain how Proposition \ref{pre ABP} follows from parts of the proof of   the parabolic version of the Alexandroff-Bakelman-Pucci estimate as presented in \cite[Section 4.1.2]{ImbertSilvestre}. We refer the reader to \cite[Section 4]{ImbertSilvestre} for a history of the  parabolic version of the Alexandroff-Bakelman-Pucci estimate and the relevant references.
\begin{prop}
\label{pre ABP}
Assume $u\in C(Y^-_\rho)$ is such that $u\geq 0$ on $\bdry Y^-_\rho$. 
Assume that  there exists a constant $K$ so that $\tetasemi{u}{Y^-_\rho}\leq K$ and $D^2u(x,t)\leq KI$ in the sense of distributions for every $(x,t)\in Y^-_\rho$. 
Let $\Gamma$ be the lower monotone envelope of $-u^-$ in $Y^-_{2\rho}$. There exists a universal constant $C$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{cons of ABPbd}
\sup_{Y^-_\rho} u^- \leq C \rho^{\frac{n}{n+1}} |\{u=\Gamma\}|^{\frac{1}{n+1}}K.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}


Next we state several regularity results. We will use the following interior H\"older gradient estimate  \cite[Theorems 4.8 and 4.9]{WangII}.

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Wang's c alpha thm}
Assume  (F\ref{ellipticity}) and (F\ref{last prop of F}). There exist universal constants $\alpha\in (0,1)$ and $C$ such that if $u\in C(Q_1)$  is a solution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$ in $Q_1$, then $u_t\in C^{0,\alpha}(Q_1)$ and $Du\in C^{0,\alpha}(Q_1)$  with
\[
||Du||_{C^{0,\alpha}(Q_{1/2})} + ||u_t||_{C^{0,\alpha}(Q_{1/2})} \leq C(\linfty{u}{Q_1} + 1).
\]
\end{thm}
The following proposition follows from Theorem \ref{thm:Wang's c alpha thm} by a standard rescaling and covering argument.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:diff of soln}
Assume  (F\ref{ellipticity}) and (F\ref{last prop of F}). Assume that  $V$ is a subset of $\Omega \times (0,T)$ with $d(V, \bdry \Omega \times (0,T))>r$. There exist universal constants $\alpha\in (0,1)$ and $C$ such that if $u\in C(\Omega\times (0,T))$  is a solution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$ in $\Omega\times (0,T)$, then
\begin{align*}
r^{1+\alpha}\alphasemi{D u}{V} + r\linfty{D u}{V} &\leq C(\linfty{u}{\Omega \times (0,T)} + 1)\\
r^{2+\alpha}\alphasemi{u_t}{V} + r^2\linfty{u_t}{V} &\leq C(\linfty{u}{\Omega \times (0,T)} + 1).
\end{align*}
\end{prop}




\section{The regularity result}
\label{section: regularity}
In this section, we establish the parabolic version of the regularity result  \cite[Theorem A]{Approx schemes}, which says that outside of sets of small measure, solutions of uniformly elliptic equations have second-order expansions with controlled error. 

\begin{defn}
Given $u\in C(Y_1)$, we define the set $\Psi_M (u,Y_1)\subset Y_1$ by
\begin{align*}
\Psi_M (u,Y_1) =\{
 &(x,t) \in Y_1  :\text{ there exists }  P\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}} \text{ such that for all }(y,s)\in Y_1\cap \{s\leq t\},
\\ &  |u(y,s) - u(x,t) - P(y,s)| \leq nM (|x-y|^3 + |x-y|^2|t-s| +|t-s|^2)
\}.
\end{align*}
\end{defn}
In order to state our result, we introduce another family of subsets of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$. We define
\[
K_r(x,t)=\left[x-\frac{r}{9\sqrt{n}}, x+\frac{r}{9\sqrt{n}}\right]^n \times\left(t , t+ \frac{r^2}{81n}\right]
\]
We denote $K_r(0,0)$ by $K_r$.

We  prove the following growth estimate for $|\Psi_M(u,Y_1)|$: 

\begin{thm}
\label{Thm A}
Assume  $F$ satisfies (F\ref{ellipticity}) and (F\ref{last prop of F}). Assume $u$ is a solution of  $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$ in  $Y_1$ and  $Du$ and $u_t$ exist and are continuous in $Y_1$. There exist universal constants $C, M_0$ and $\sigma$ such that for every $M \geq M_0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:size bad set}
| K_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})\setminus \Psi_M(u,Y_1)| \leq CM^{\sigma}\left(\linfty{D u}{Y_1}^{\sigma} +\linfty{u_t}{Y_1}^{\sigma}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{thm}




\begin{rem}
If $u$ is a solution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$ in $\Omega\times (0,T)$ and $Y_1$ is compactly contained in $\Omega\times (0,T)$, then $u$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{Thm A}  because, according to Proposition \ref{prop:diff of soln}, $Du$ and $u_t$ exist and are continuous in $Y_1$.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
 Suppose $(x,t)\in \Psi_M (u,Y_1)$ and $P$ is the paraboloid given by the definition of $\Psi_M (u,Y_1)$. If $u$ is a viscosity solution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$ in $Y_1$ , then of course $P_t - F(D^2P)=0$. On the other hand, suppose $u$ is only a $\delta$-solution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$ in $Y_1$, and $(x,t)\in \Psi_M (u,Y_1)$ with $Y^-_\delta(x,t)\subset Y_1$. In this case we \emph{cannot} conclude that $P_t - F(D^2P)=0$. This is because in the definition of $\Psi_M (u,Y_1)$ we consider paraboloids $P$ in the class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$, while in the definition of $\delta$-solution we allow only paraboloids in the smaller class $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_\infty}$. In Corollary \ref{cor} we establish a version of Theorem \ref{Thm A} with $P\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_\infty}$ instead of $P\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$.
\end{rem}

An essential element of our proof is \cite[Theorem 4.11]{WangI}, which says that solutions of uniformly parabolic equations have \emph{first} order expansions with controlled error on large sets. To state this result, we recall the following definitions:
\begin{align*}
\overline{G}_M (u, Y_1)  = \{ &(x,t) \in Y_1 :\text{ there exists }P\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}^+_M \\& \text{ with } P(x,t)=u(x,t) \text{ and $P \geq u$ on $Y_1\cap \{s \leq t\}$} \}, 
\\ \underline{G}_M (u, Y_1) & = \overline{G}_M (-u, Y_1), \text{ and } \\G_M(u, Y_1) &=  \left. \overline{G}_M (u, Y_1) \cap \underline{G}_M(u, Y_1). \right.
\end{align*}
We observe that if $(x,t)\in G_M(u,Y_1)$, then there exists  $p\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that for all $(y,s)\in Y_1\cap \{s\leq t\}$,
\begin{equation*}
|u(y,s) - u(x,t) - p\cdot (y-x) | \leq \frac{1}{2}M|x-y|^2+M|t-s|.
\end{equation*}
We now present \cite[Theorem 4.11]{WangI}, with notation adapted for our setting:
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:Wang's good set thm}
Assume  (F\ref{ellipticity}) and (F\ref{last prop of F}). Assume that $v$ is a solution of 
\begin{equation}
\label{class S}\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
v_t- \mathcal{M}^-(D^2v) \geq 0, &\quad \\
v_t- \mathcal{M}^+(D^2v) \leq 0 &\quad
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
in $Y_1$. There exist universal constants $C$, $\sigma$, and $M_0$ such that for any $M \geq M_0$,
\[
|K_1 \setminus G_M(v, Y_1)| \leq C M^{-\sigma} (\linfty{v}{Y_1})^{\sigma}.
\]
\end{thm}


The main idea of the proof of Theorem \ref{Thm A} is to apply the growth estimate  of Theorem \ref{thm:Wang's good set thm} to the derivatives of $u$. Formally, upon differentiating $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$, we obtain that the derivatives $u_{x_i}$ and $u_t$ solve the linear parabolic equation $\partial_t u_{x_i} - \ensuremath{\text{tr}} (DF \cdot D^2u_{x_i})=0$. Therefore, the estimates of Theorem \ref{thm:Wang's good set thm} apply to $u_{x_i}$ and $u_t$, and from this the estimates on $u$ are deduced. To carry out this plan, we will first use the following proposition \cite[Theorem 4.6]{WangII}.
\begin{prop}
\label{diff eqn}
Assume that $u$ is a solution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$ in $Y_1$. Then $u_t$ and $u_{x_i}$, for $i=1,..,n$, satisfy
\begin{equation*}\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
v_t- \mathcal{M}^-(D^2v) \geq 0 &\\
v_t- \mathcal{M}^+(D^2v) \leq 0 &
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
in $Y_1$.
\end{prop}
Next we proceed with the proof of Theorem \ref{Thm A}. We remark that a result similar to \cite[Theorem A]{Approx schemes} was established later, via similar methods, by Armstrong, Silvestre and Smart \cite[Section 5]{ArmSmartSilv}. Our proof is based on the arguments in  \cite[Theorem A]{Approx schemes} and our presentation follows that of \cite[Section 5]{ArmSmartSilv}. 


We proceed with:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Thm A}]

By Proposition \ref{diff eqn},  the derivatives $u_{x_i}$, $i=1,..., n$ and $u_t$ satisfy (\ref{class S}). Therefore, by Theorem \ref{thm:Wang's good set thm}, for any $M\geq M_0$ the size of the ``bad sets" of the $u_{x_i}$ and of $u_t$ are controlled: we have
\begin{equation}
\label{bd size sets}
\begin{split}
|K_1 \setminus G_{M}(u_{x_i}, Y_1)| \leq C {M}^{-\sigma} \linfty{Du}{Y_1} ^{\sigma} \text{,  } i=1,..,n,\\
|K_1 \setminus  G_{M}(u_{t}, Y_1)| \leq C {M}^{-\sigma} \linfty{u_t}{Y_1}^{\sigma},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a universal constant. We define $G_M$ by 
\[
G_M=\cap_{i=1}^{n} G_{M}(u_{x_i}, Y_1) \cap G_{M}(u_{t}, Y_1).
\]
We will show 
\[
(G_M\cap K_1)\subset (\Psi_M(u,Y_1)\cap K_1),
\]
so that, by (\ref{bd size sets}),
\[
|K_1\setminus \Psi_M(u,Y_1)| \leq |K_1\setminus G_M|\leq  C M^{-\sigma} \left(\linfty{Du}{Y_1}^{\sigma} + \linfty{u_t}{Y_1}^{\sigma}\right).
\]
To this end, fix $(x,t) \in G_M \cap K_1$. The goal is to show that $(x,t) \in \Psi(u,Y_1(\bar{x},\bar{t}))\cap K_1(\bar{x},\bar{t})$; in other words, to produce a polynomial $P$ that is the second order expansion of $u$ at $(x,t)$. 

Because $(x,t) \in G_M$, there exist $p^1,...,p^{n+1}\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$  such that for $i=1,..., n$ and for all $(y,s)\in Y_1\cap \{s\leq t\}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:u_xi -p^i}
\begin{split}
|u_{x_i}(y,s) - u_{x_i} (x,t) - p^i\cdot (y-x) | &\leq \frac{1}{2}M|x-y|^2+M|t-s|, \text{ and}\\
|u_t(y,s) - u_t (x,t) - p^{n+1}\cdot (y-x) | &\leq \frac{1}{2}M|x-y|^2+M|t-s|.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We point out that $Du(x,t)=(p^1,...,p^n)$ and $u_t(x,t)=p^{n+1}$. We define  the $n\times n$ matrix $Q$ by $Q_{ij}=p_i^j$ and define the paraboloid $P\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ by
\[
P(y,s) =  Du(x,t)\cdot (y-x) +\frac{1}{2}(y-x)Q(y-x)^T + (s-t)u_t(x,t)+\frac{1}{2}p^{n+1}\cdot (y-x) (s-t).
\]
We will now show that this polynomial $P$ is  the second order expansion of $u$ at $(x,t)$. We have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
u(y,s)-u(x,t) = &\int_0^1  (y-x)\cdot Du(x+\tau(y-x),t + \tau(s-t)) d\tau + \\
&\    + \int_0^1 (s-t) u_t(x+\tau(y-x),t + \tau(s-t)) d\tau.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
u(y,s)&-u(x,t) - P(y,s)= \\
& (y-x)\cdot \int_0^1  \left(Du(x+\tau(y-x),t + \tau(s-t))-Du(x,t)-\tau Q(y-x)^T\right)d\tau + \\
&+ (s-t)\int_0^1 u_t(x+\tau(y-x),t + \tau(s-t))-u_t(x,t)-\tau p^{n+1}\cdot (y-x) d\tau.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
We take the absolute value both sides of the above and find
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
|u(y,s)&-u(x,t) -P(y,s)|\leq \\
& |y-x| \int_0^1  \left(\sum_{i=1}^n  |u_{x_i}(x+\tau(y-x),t + \tau(s-t))-u_{x_i}(x,t) - \tau p^i \cdot (y-x)|^2 d \tau \right)^{1/2}+ \\
&+ |s-t|\int_0^1 |u_t(x+\tau(y-x),t + \tau(s-t))-u_t(x,t)-\tau p^{n+1}\cdot (y-x) |d\tau.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
We  use (\ref{eq:u_xi -p^i}) to bound each term on the right-hand side of the above, and obtain
\begin{align*}
|u(y,s)-P(y,s)|\leq  & n |y-x|\int_0^1 \frac{1}{2}M\tau^2|x-y|^2 + M\tau|t-s| d\tau +\\& \   \    |s-t|\int_0^1 \frac{1}{2}M\tau^2|x-y|^2 + M\tau|t-s| d\tau. 
\end{align*}
Integrating in $\tau$ and combining terms yields  
\[
|u(y,s)-P(y,s)|\leq nM ( |x-y|^3 + |x-y|^2|t-s| +|t-s|^2).
\]
\end{proof}


\begin{cor}
\label{cor}
Assume  $F$ satisfies (F\ref{ellipticity}) and (F\ref{last prop of F}). Assume $u$ is a solution of  $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$ in $Y_r$ and  $Du$ and $u_t$ exist and are continuous in $Y_r$.
There exists a universal constant $C$ such that for any $(x,t)\in \Psi_M(u,Y_r)$, there exists $Q\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_\infty}$ with
\[
Q_t-F(D^2Q)=0
\]
and such that on $Y_r\cap \{s\leq t\}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:u-p cor}
\begin{split}
 |u(y,s) - u(x,t) - Q(y,s)| \leq \frac{nM}{r^2} &( r|x-y|^3 + |x-y|^2|t-s| +|t-s|^2) +\\&+C\frac{M+\linfty{u_t}{Y_r}}{r}|x-y|(t-s).
 \end{split}
\end{equation}
Moreover,
\begin{equation}
\label{better bdn on Theta_M}
| K_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})\setminus \Psi_M(u,Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t}))| \leq \frac{Cr^{n+2}}{M^{\sigma}}(r^{-\sigma}\linfty{Du}{Y_r}^\sigma+\linfty{u_t}{Y_r}^\sigma).
\end{equation}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We prove the statement for $r=1$; the general case follows by rescaling: given $u$ that solves $u_t - F(D^2u) = 0$
in $Y_r$, the rescaled function 
$
\hat{u}(\hat{x},\hat{t})=\frac{1}{r^2} u(r\hat{x}, r^2 \hat{t})
$
solves the same equation in $Y_1$. We omit the details of the rescaling argument and proceed with the proof in the case $r=1$. 

Fix $(x,t)\in \Psi_M(u,Y_1)$. Let $Q(y,s)=P(y,s) - \frac{1}{2}p^{n+1}\cdot (y-x)(s-t)$, where $P$ and $p^{n+1}$ are as in the proof of Theorem \ref{Thm A}. It holds that for all $(y,s)\in Y_1\cap \{s\leq t\}$,
\begin{equation*}
 |u(y,s) - u(x,t) - Q(y,s)| \leq nM( |x-y|^3 + |x-y|^2|t-s| +|t-s|^2) +\frac{1}{2}|p^{n+1}| |y-x||s-t|.
\end{equation*}
From (\ref{eq:u_xi -p^i}) we see that for any $(y,s) \in Y_1\cap \{s\leq t\}$,
\[
|p^{n+1}\cdot (y-x)| \leq \frac{1}{2}M|x-y|^2+M|t-s|+2\linfty{u_t}{Y_1}.
\]
Taking $y$ such that $|x-y|=\frac{1}{2}$ and $s=t$ implies
\[
|p^{n+1}|\leq \frac{1}{4}M+4\linfty{u_t}{Y_1}.
\]
The bound (\ref{eq:u-p cor}) follows. 
\end{proof}


\section{Two regularizations of inf- sup- type}
\label{section: Two different inf- and sup- convolutions}

\subsection{Regularization in both the space and time variables}
We recall the definitions of the \emph{inf-convolution} $v^-_{\theta, \theta}$ and the  \emph{sup-convolution} $v^+_{\theta, \theta}$ for $v\in C(\Omega \times (0,T))$:
\[
v^-_{\theta, \theta}(x,t) = \inf_{\Omega\times(0,T)} \left\{ v(y,s) + \frac{|x-y|^2}{2\theta}+\frac{|t-s|^2}{2\theta}\right\}
\]
and
\[ 
v^+_{\theta, \theta}(x,t) = \sup_{\Omega\times(0,T)} \left\{ v(y,s) - \frac{|x-y|^2}{2\theta}-\frac{|t-s|^2}{2\theta}\right\},
\]
These definitions are quite similar to those used in the regularity theory of elliptic equations, and to the regularizations of  \cite[Section 4]{WangII}.  We use the notation $v^-_{\theta, \theta}$, instead of the expected $v^-_{\theta}$, to distinguish these from the  $x$-inf- and $x$-sup- convolutions that we introduce in the next subsection.
 We summarize the basic properties of inf- and sup- convolutions in Proposition \ref{properties of inf-convolution} of the appendix. 


\subsection{Regularization in only the space variable}
In this subsection we define a  regularization of inf-sup type that we call  $x$-inf and $x$-sup convolutions. In the next subsection, we prove that if $u$ is a solution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$, then  the $x$-inf and $x$-sup convolutions of $u$ enjoy  regularity properties similar to those established in Theorem \ref{Thm A} for $u$.


\begin{defn}
For $u\in C(\Omega \times (0,T))$ and $\theta>0$, we define the \emph{$x$-sup convolution} $u^+_{\theta}$ and  \emph{$x$-inf-convolution} $u^-_{\theta}$ of $u$ by
\[
u^+_{\theta}(x,t) = \sup_{y\in \Omega} \left\{ u(y,t) - \frac{|x-y|^2}{2\theta}\right\} \text{ and }   u^-_{\theta}(x,t) = \inf_{y\in \Omega} \left\{ u(y,t) + \frac{|x-y|^2}{2\theta}\right\}.
\]
For $u\in C^{0,1}_x(\Omega\times (0,T))$, we define the set $U^\theta_x$ by
\[
U_x^{\theta} = \left\{(x,t)\in \Omega \times (0,T) | \inf_{y\in \partial \Omega } |x-y| \geq 2\theta \xlipsemi{u}{\Omega \times (0,T)} \right\}.
\]
\end{defn}
In the following proposition we state the facts about $x$-inf- and $x$-sup- convolutions that we will use in this paper. Their proofs are very similar to those in the elliptic case and  for the standard parabolic  inf- and sup- convolution (see \cite[Chapter 4]{Rates Homogen} or \cite[Proposition 5.3]{Cabre Caffarelli book}) and we omit them.  
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:x-sup-conv}
Assume $u\in C^{0,1}_x(\Omega \times (0,T))$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $(x^*, t)$ is any point at which the infimum (resp. supremum) is achieved in the definition of $u^-_{\theta}(x,t)$ (resp. $u^+_{\theta}(x,t)$), then 
\[|x-x^*|\leq 2\theta\linfty{Du}{\Omega \times (0,T)}.
\]
\item 
\label{item: bound from above on sup conv}
For $(x,t)\in U_x^\theta$, 
\[
u^+_{\theta}(x,t) \leq u(x,t)+ 2\theta \linfty{Du}{\Omega \times (0,T)}^2
\]
and 
\[
u^-_{\theta}(x,t) \geq u(x,t)- 2\theta \linfty{Du}{\Omega \times (0,T)}^2 .
\]
\item 
\label{item:sup conv is semiconvex}
In the sense of distributions, $D^2 u^+_{\theta}(x,t) \geq -\theta^{-1}I$ and $D^2 u^-_{\theta}(x,t) \leq \theta^{-1}I$ for all $(x,t)\in \Omega\times (0,T)$.
\item 
\label{item: utheta is subsolution} 
If  $u$ is a subsolution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=c$ in $\Omega \times (0,T)$, then $u^+_{\theta}$ is a subsolution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=c$ in $U_x^{\theta}$.
If  $u$ is a supersolution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=c$ in $\Omega \times (0,T)$, then $u^-_{\theta}$ is a supersolution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=c$ in $U_x^{\theta}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}


\subsection{Regularity of  $x$-inf and $x$-sup convolutions}
Next we prove that the extra regularity established  in Theorem \ref{Thm A} for a solution $u$ of $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$ carries over to $u^+_\theta$ and $u^-_\theta$. To state this result we introduce the following families of sets:
\begin{align*}
Y^{\theta}_r(\bar{x},\bar{t}) &= B(\bar{x}, r-2\theta\linfty{D u}{\Omega \times (0,T)})\times (\bar{t}, \bar{t}+r^2]\\
K^{\theta}_r (\bar{x},\bar{t}) &= \left[\bar{x}-\left(\frac{r}{9\sqrt{n}}-2\theta\linfty{D u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}\right), \bar{x}+\left(\frac{r}{9\sqrt{n}}-2\theta\linfty{D u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}\right)\right]^n \times\left(\bar{t}, \bar{t}+\frac{r^2}{81n}\right].
\end{align*}
(Note that for these definitions to be meaningful, $r$ cannot be too small compared to $\theta$. Whenever we use this notation we make sure this is not the case.)



\begin{prop}
\label{prop: more regularity for convolutions}
Assume  (F\ref{ellipticity}) and (F\ref{last prop of F}). Suppose $u\in C(\Omega\times(0,T))$ is a solution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$ in $\Omega \times(0,T)$. Assume $Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})\subset\Omega\times(0,T)$ and 
\[
d(Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t}), \bdry(\Omega\times(0,T))) \geq \theta.
\] 
There exist universal constants $M_0, \sigma$, and $C$ such that for every $M\geq M_0$, there exists a set $\Psi^{+,\theta}_{M} \subset K^{\theta}_r ( \bar{x},\bar{t})$  (resp. $\Psi^{-,\theta}_{M} \subset K^{\theta}_r ( \bar{x},\bar{t})$) such that for any $(x, t) \in \Psi^{+,\theta}_M$ (resp. $(x, t) \in \Psi^{-,\theta}_M$), there exists a polynomial $P \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_\infty}$ such that $P(x,t)=0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{cond on P}
P_t - F(D^2P)=0,
\end{equation}  
and if $Y_\rho^-(x,t)\subset Y^\theta_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})$, then for all  $(y,s)\in Y_\rho^-(x,t)$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: touch utheta from below}
\begin{split}
u^{+}_\theta(y,s)-u^{+}_\theta(x, t) \geq P(y,s)&- \frac{c(n)}{r^2}M (\rho|x-y|^2 + \rho^2|t-s| )
\\ &-\frac{C\rho}{r}\left(M+\theta^{-1}(1+\linfty{u}{\Omega \times (0,T)})\right)(t-s).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\text{(resp. }u^{-}_\theta(y,s)-u^{-}_\theta(x, t) \leq P(y,s)&+ \frac{c(n)}{r^2}M (\rho|x-y|^2 + \rho^2|t-s| )
\\ &+\frac{C\rho}{r}\left(M+\theta^{-1}(1+\linfty{u}{\Omega \times (0,T)})\right)(t-s).)
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Moreover,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: size of bad set theta}
|K^{\theta}_r(\bar{x},\bar{t}) \setminus \Psi^{\pm,\theta}_M |  \leq   \frac{Cr^{n+2}}{M^{\sigma}\theta^{1+\sigma}}(r^{-\sigma}+\theta^{-\sigma})\left(\linfty{u}{\Omega \times (0,T)}+1\right)^{1+\sigma}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}

Although the proof of Proposition \ref{properties of inf-convolution} is quite involved, it is based on the following simple observation: if the supremum in the definition of $u^+_\theta(x,t)$ is achieved at $(x^*,t)$ and $u$ is touched from below at $(x^*,t)$ by some function $\phi$, then $u^+_\theta$ is touched by below at $(x,t)$ by a translate of $\phi$. We demonstrate this below.

Let $(x^*,t)\in \Omega \times (0,T)$ be a point at which the supremum is achieved in the definition of $u^+_\theta(x,t)$, so that
\[
 u_\theta^+(x,t) =u(x^*,t)-\frac{|x-x^*|^2}{2\theta} .
\]
Suppose that $\phi\in C(\Omega\times(0,T))$ is a function with $u(x^*,t) = \phi(x^*,t)$ and $u\geq \phi$ on $\Omega \times (0,t)$. This implies  
\begin{equation}
\label{toy touching}
 u_\theta^+(x,t) =\phi(x^*,t)-\frac{|x-x^*|^2}{2\theta}.
\end{equation} 
Fix $s\leq t$. If $y\in \Omega$ is sufficiently far from the boundary of $\Omega$, then we may use $(y+ x-x^*)$ as a ``test point'' in  the definition of $u_\theta^+(y,s)$ and find
\[
 u_\theta^+(y,s) \geq u(y+x^*-x,t)-\frac{|x-x^*|^2}{2\theta}.
\]
But, since $u\geq \phi$ on $\Omega \times (0,t)$, we have
\[
 u_\theta^+(y,s) \geq \phi(y+x^*-x,s)-\frac{|x-x^*|^2}{2\theta}.
\]
Subtracting (\ref{toy touching}) from the above implies
\[
 u_\theta^+(y,s) -u_\theta^+(x,t) \geq \phi(y+x^*-x,s)- \phi(x^*,t),
\]
so $u^+_\theta(y,s)$ is touched from below at $(x,t)$ by $\tilde\phi (y)=\phi(y+x^*-x,s)- \phi(x^*,t)+u^+_\theta(x,t)$.

For the proof of Proposition \ref{prop: more regularity for convolutions}, we consider the  map that takes $x^*$ to $x$ and investigate what happens to   ``good set'' $\Psi_M(u)$ under this map. To do this,  we need the following lemma, which says that $u$ is twice differentiable in $x$ at any point $x^*$ where the supremum or infimum is achieved in the regularizations $u^+_\theta$ or $u^-_\theta$, and gives a bound on $D^2u$ at such points. 

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:Dxu lip}
Under the assumptions of Proposition \ref{prop: more regularity for convolutions}, let $(x,t)\in Y^\theta_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})$. If $x^*$ is any point where the supremum (resp. infimum) is achieved in the definition of $u^+_{\theta}(x,t)$ (resp. $u^-_{\theta}(x,t)$), then $u(y,t)$ is twice differentiable in $y$ at $x^*$ with 
\[
|D^2u(x^*, t)|\leq \frac{C}{\theta}\left(1+\frac{\linfty{u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}}{\theta}\right).
\]
\end{lem}
We postpone the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:Dxu lip} and proceed with the proof of Proposition \ref{prop: more regularity for convolutions}.


\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop: more regularity for convolutions}]
We will give the proof for $u^+_\theta$; the arguments for $u^-_\theta$ are similar.
Fix $M$ and, to simplify the notation, denote $\Psi_M(u, Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t}))$ by just $\Psi_M$. We define the set $\mathcal{C}$ by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}=&\left\{(x^*,t)\text{: $x^*$ is a point at which the supremum in the definition of $u^+_\theta(x,t)$ } \right.
\\&  \   \   \   \left. \text{is achieved, for some $(x,t)\in Y^\theta_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})$}\right\}.
\end{align*}
We remark that $\mathcal{C}\subset Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})$: if $(x^*,t)\in \mathcal{C}$, then there exists a corresponding $(x,t)\in Y^\theta_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})$, and, by Proposition \ref{prop:x-sup-conv}, we have $|x-x^*|\leq 2\theta \linfty{Du}{\Omega\times (0,T)}$. The definition of $ Y^\theta_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})$ thus implies that $(x,t)\in Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})$.

By Lemma \ref{lem:Dxu lip}, $Du$ is Lipschitz on $\mathcal{C}$ with 
\begin{equation}
\label{du on c}
\linfty{D^2u}{\mathcal{C}} \leq \frac{C}{\theta}\left(1+\frac{\linfty{u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}}{\theta}\right).
\end{equation}
For any $(x^*,t)\in \mathcal{C}$, the map
\[
y \mapsto \left( u(y,t)-\frac{|x-y|^2}{2\theta}\right)
\]
has a local maximum at $x^*$. Therefore, 
\[
Du(x^*, t)+\frac{(x-x^*)}{\theta}=0,
\] 
so $x=x^*-\theta Du(x^*,t)$. We define the map $T$ by
\[
T(y,t) = (y-\theta Du(y,t),t).
\]
Since $Du$ is Lipschitz on $ \mathcal{C}$, $T$ is too, and (\ref{du on c}) implies that for all $(y,t)\in \mathcal{C}$,
\[
|\det DT(y,t)|\leq C\left(\frac{\linfty{u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}+1}{\theta}\right).
\]
We define the set $A$ by
\[
A=T( \mathcal{C}\cap (K_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})\setminus \Psi_M)).
\]
By the Area Formula (\cite[Chapter 3]{Evans Gariepy}), we have
\[
|A|\leq \int_{\mathcal{C}\cap (K_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})\setminus \Psi_M)} |\det DT(y,t)|\  dy \  dt .
\]
The above bound on $|\det DT(y,t)|$ and the bound (\ref{better bdn on Theta_M}) on $|K_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})\setminus \Psi_M|$ therefore imply
\begin{equation}
\label{size A}
|A|\leq  \frac{Cr^{n+2}}{M^{\sigma}}(r^{-\sigma}\linfty{Du}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})}^\sigma+\linfty{u_t}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})}^\sigma)\left(\frac{\linfty{u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}+1}{\theta}\right).
\end{equation}
We define the set $\Psi_M^\theta$ by
\[
\Psi_M^\theta:=K^\theta_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})\setminus A.
\]

Fix $(x,t)\in K^\theta_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})\setminus A$. We will now show that there exists a polynomial $Q\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_\infty}$ satisfying (\ref{cond on P}) and (\ref{eq: touch utheta from below}). To this end, let $(x^*, t)$ be any point at which the supremum in the definition of $u^+_\theta(x,t)$ is achieved, so that $(x,t)=T(x^*,t)$. 

First we note that since, by Proposition \ref{prop:x-sup-conv}, $|x-x^*|\leq 2\theta \linfty{Du}{\Omega\times (0,T)}$ and $(x,t)\in K^\theta_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})$, we have $(x^*, t)\in K_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})$.

Next we observe that  $(x^*,t) \in \Psi_M$. Indeed, if $(x^*,t) \notin \Psi_M$, then $(x^*,t)\in \mathcal{C}\cap (K_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})\setminus \Psi_M)$, so $(x,t)=T(x^*,t)\subset T(\mathcal{C}\cap (K_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})\setminus \Psi_M))=A$. However, this is impossible, as we chose $(x,t)\in \Psi_M^\theta =K^\theta_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})\setminus A$. Therefore, $(x^*,t) \in \Psi_M$.

Since $(x^*,t) \in \Psi_M$, there exists a polynomial $Q\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_\infty}$ with $Q_t-F(D^2Q)=0$ such that on $Y_r(\ensuremath{\bar{x}},\ensuremath{\bar{t}})\cap \{s\leq t\}$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
 |u(y,s) - u(x^*,t) - Q(y,s)| \leq \frac{nM}{r^2} &( r|x-y|^3 + |x-y|^2|t-s| +|t-s|^2) +\\&+C\frac{M+\linfty{u_t}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})}}{r}|x-y|(t-s).
 \end{split}
\end{equation*}
It is easy to check that since $x^*$ is a point where the supremum is achieved in the definition of  $u^+_\theta(x,t)$, we have, for all $(y,s)\in Y^\theta_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})$,
\begin{align*}
u^+_\theta (y,s)-u^+_\theta (x,t)\geq \tilde{Q}(y,s) -\frac{nM}{r^2} &( r|x-y|^3 + |x-y|^2|t-s| +|t-s|^2) \\&-C\frac{M+\linfty{u_t}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})}}{r}|x-y|(t-s),
\end{align*}
where $\tilde{Q}\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_\infty}$ is a paraboloid of the same opening as $Q$.  Finally, if $Y_\rho^-(x,t) \subset Y^\theta_r(\ensuremath{\bar{x}}, \ensuremath{\bar{t}})$, then for any $(y,s)\in Y_\rho^-(x,t)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{touch below no bd}
\begin{split}
u^+_\theta (y,s)-u^+_\theta (x,t)\geq \tilde{Q}(y,s) -\frac{nM}{r^2} &( \rho |x-y|^2  +\rho^2|t-s|) \\&-C\rho\frac{M+\linfty{u_t}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})}}{r}(t-s).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since $d(Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t}), \bdry \Omega\times(0,T))\geq \theta$,  Proposition \ref{thm:Wang's c alpha thm} implies 
\[
\linfty{u_t}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})} \leq \theta^{-2}(\linfty{u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}+1)
\]
and
\[
\linfty{Du}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})} \leq \theta^{-1}(\linfty{u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}+1).
\]
We use these bounds  in (\ref{size A}) and (\ref{touch below no bd}) to complete the proof.
\end{proof}


For the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:Dxu lip}, we first need to establish the following basic fact about how parabolic viscosity solutions relate to viscosity solutions in only $x$:
 
\begin{lem}
\label{lem: visc soln in t and x}
If $u$ is a Lipschitz in $t$ viscosity solution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$ in $Y_r$, then for any $t\in (0,r^2)$, 
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2u(\cdot, t)) &\leq \linfty{u_t}{Y_r} \text{ in }B_r,\\
\mathcal{M}^+(D^2u(\cdot, t)) &\geq -\linfty{u_t}{Y_r} \text{ in }B_r.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We will check that $u(\cdot, t)$ is a subsolution; checking that $u(\cdot, t)$ is a supersolution is analogous.

Assume that $P(y)$ touches $u(y, t)$ from above at $x\in B_r$. Let $(y,s)\in  B_r\times (0,t]$. Since $u$ is Lipschitz in $t$, we have
\[
u(y,s)\leq u(y,t)+ \linfty{u_t}{Y_r} |t-s| .
\]
Therefore, $P(y)+ \linfty{u_t}{Y_r} (t-s)$ touches $u$ from above in  $B_r\times (0,t]$. Because $u$ is a viscosity solution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$, we obtain
\[
-\linfty{u_t}{Y_r} -F(D^2P) \leq 0.
\]
The uniform ellipticity of $F$ implies
\[
0\geq -\linfty{u_t}{Y_r} -\mathcal{M}^-(D^2P),
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}


We also recall the Harnack inequality for \emph{elliptic} equations  (see \cite[Theorem 4.3]{Cabre Caffarelli book}).
\begin{thm}
Assume that $u:B_s(0)\subset \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ satisfies $u\geq 0 $ in $B_s(0)$ and, for some positive constant $c$,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2u) &\leq c \text{ in }B_s(0)\\
\mathcal{M}^+(D^2u) &\geq -c \text{ in }B_s(0).
\end{align*}
There exits a universal constant $C$ so that
\[
\inf_{B_{s/2}(0)} u \geq C\left(\sup_{B_{s/2}(0)} u - s^2c\right).
\]
\end{thm}

We are now ready to proceed with:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:Dxu lip}]
We will give the proof for $u^+_{\theta}(x,t)$; the argument for  $u^-_{\theta}(x,t)$ is very similar. 

Let $x^*$ be a point at which  the supremum in the definition of $u^-_\theta(x,t)$ is achieved, so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:diff at x*}
u(x^*,t) - \frac{|x-x^*|^2}{2\theta} \geq u(y,t) - \frac{|x-y|^2}{2\theta} \text{ for all } y\in \Omega. 
\end{equation}
Therefore, as a function of $y$, $u(y,t)$ is touched from above at $x^*$ by the convex paraboloid $Q(y)$, where
\[
Q(y)=u(x^*,t) - \frac{|x-x^*|^2}{2\theta} + \frac{|x-y|^2}{2\theta}.
\]
Thus, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{d^2 bound below}
D^2u(x^*,t) \leq \theta^{-1}I.
\end{equation}
Next we will show, using the Harnack inequality, that $u(\cdot, t)$ is also touched from below at $x^*$ by a paraboloid with bounded opening, thus obtaining a bound from below on $D^2u(x^*, t)$.

There exists an affine function $l(y)$ with $l(x^*)=u(x^*, t)$ and such that
\[
Q(y)= l(y)+\frac{|y-x^*|^2}{2\theta}.
\]
There exists $\rho>0$ such that $B_\rho(x^*)\subset B_r(\bar{x})$. We fix any $0<s<\rho$  and define the function $w(y)$ by 
\[
w(y)=u(y,t)-l(y)-\frac{s^2}{2\theta}.
\]
For $y\in B_s(x^*)$,
\[
w(y)\geq Q(y)-l(y)-\frac{s^2}{2\theta} = \frac{|y-x^*|^2}{2\theta} - \frac{s^2}{2\theta} \geq 0.
\]
And, by Lemma \ref{lem: visc soln in t and x}, $w$ is a viscosity solution of
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{M}^-(D^2w(\cdot, t)) &\leq \linfty{u_t}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})}\text{ in }B_s(x^*)\\
\mathcal{M}^+(D^2w(\cdot, t)) &\geq -\linfty{u_t}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})} \text{ in }B_s(x^*).
\end{align*}
 Therefore, the Harnack inequality  implies that there exists a universal constant $C$ such that
\[
\inf_{B_{s/2}(x^*)}w \geq C\left(\sup_{B_{s/2}(x)}w - s^2\linfty{u_t}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})}\right).
\]
Since $\sup_{B_{s/2}(x)}w \geq w(x^*)=u(x^*,t)-l(x^*)-\frac{s^2}{2\theta}=-\frac{s^2}{2\theta}$, we obtain
\[
\inf_{B_{s/2}(x^*)}w \geq -Cs^2(\theta^{-1} +\linfty{u_t}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})}).
\]
Thus, for all $y\in B_{s/2}(x^*)$,
\[
u(y,t)-Q(y) = u(y)-l(y)-\frac{|y-x^*|^2}{2\theta}\geq w(y) \geq -Cs^2(\theta^{-1} +\linfty{u_t}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})}).
\]
Since this holds for all $0<s<\rho$, we have that $(u(\cdot,t)-Q(\cdot))$ is touched from below at $x^*$ by a paraboloid of opening $C(\theta^{-1} +\linfty{u_t}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})})$. Therefore, 
\[
D^2u(x^*, t) \geq (\theta^{-1}+C(\theta^{-1} +\linfty{u_t}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})}))I.
\]
Together with (\ref{d^2 bound below}), this implies
\[
|D^2u(x^*, t)| \leq C(\theta^{-1} +\linfty{u_t}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})}).
\] 
Finally, we use Proposition \ref{prop:diff of soln} to bound $\linfty{u_t}{Y_r(\bar{x},\bar{t})}$ and obtain the desired bound.
\end{proof}



\section{A key estimate between solutions and sufficiently regular $\delta$-solutions}
\label{section: main prop}
In this section we prove a proposition that is a key part of the proofs of the two main results, Theorems \ref{thm:vague comparison} and \ref{thm:mesh comparison vague}. Once we have proven Proposition \ref{main lemma}, we will only need to use the basic properties of inf- and sup- convolutions to verify its hypotheses and establish the two main results. 


We define the  constant $\zeta$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{constants}
 \zeta = \frac{\sigma}{2(3n+4+2\sigma)},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ is the constant from Proposition \ref{prop: more regularity for convolutions}. We remark that since $\sigma$ is  universal, so is $\zeta$.
\begin{prop}
\label{main lemma}
Assume (F1), (F2) and (U1) and that $u\in C^{0,1}_x(\Omega\times (0,T))$ is a solution of 
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:mainLemma}
u_t-F(D^2u)=0 
\end{equation}
in $\Omega \times (0,T)$. For $\delta\in (0,1)$, define the quantity $r_\delta$ by
\[
r_\delta = 9\sqrt{n}(1+2\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)})\delta^{\zeta}
\]
and the set $\tilde{U}$ by
\[
\tilde{U} = \left\{(x,t)\in \Omega\times (0,T) :\   \   t\leq T-r_\delta^2 \text{ and } d((x,t),\bdry \Omega \times (0,T)) > 2r_\delta \right\}.
\]
\begin{enumerate}
\item Assume  $v\in C^{0,\eta}(\Omega\times (0,T))$ is a $\delta$-supersolution of (\ref{eqn:mainLemma}) in $\Omega \times (0,T)$ that satisfies
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{assump:d2v} $D^2v\leq \delta^{-\zeta}I$ in the sense of distributions, and
\item \label{assump:vt} $\tetasemi{v}{\Omega\times(0,T)}\leq 3T\delta^{-\zeta}$.
\end{enumerate}
There exists a universal constant $\tilde{\alpha}$, a positive constant $\tilde{c}$ that depends on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, $diam\Omega$, $T$, $\linfty{u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$ and $\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$, and a positive constant $\tilde{\delta}$ that depends only on $n$, such that, for all $\delta\leq \tilde{\delta}$,
\[
\sup_{\tilde{U}} (u-v)\leq \tilde{c} \delta^{\tilde{\alpha}} +\sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}}( u-v) .
\]
\item Assume  $w\in C^{0,\eta}(\Omega\times (0,T))$ is a $\delta$-subsolution of (\ref{eqn:mainLemma}) in $\Omega \times (0,T)$ that is twice differentiable almost everywhere in $\Omega\times(0,T)$, with $D^2w\geq -\delta^{-\zeta}I$ in the sense of distributions and  $\tetasemi{w}{\Omega\times(0,T)}\leq 3T\delta^{-\zeta}$.
Then for all $\delta\leq \tilde{\delta}$,
\[
\sup_{\tilde{U}}( w-u)\leq \tilde{c} \delta^{\tilde{\alpha}}+\sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}}( w-u),
\]
where $\tilde{\alpha}$, $\tilde{c}$ and $\tilde{\delta}$ are the same as in part 1 of this proposition.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:where main prop holds}
Proposition \ref{main lemma} holds in any set $\Omega'\times (a,b)$, where $\Omega'$ satisfies (U1). In this case, $\tilde{U}$ becomes
\[
\tilde{U} =\left\{x\in \Omega'\times(a,b):  t\leq b-r_\delta \text{ and } d((x,t),\bdry \Omega'\times (a,b)) >2r_\delta\right\}.
\]
\end{rem}

\subsection{Outline}
\label{subsec:outline}
We  seek to control $\sup (u-v)$ by the size of its contact set with its upper monotone envelope. We first regularize $u$  by $x$-sup convolution and obtain $u^+_\theta$. We then perturb $u^+_\theta$ to make it a strict sub-solution.  Let us denote the resulting function by $\tilde{u}$. We choose this perturbation and the parameter $\theta$ of the $x$-sup convolution so that the difference between $u$ and $\tilde{u}$ is less than $c\delta^{\tilde{\alpha}}$. Thus it will be enough to bound $\sup (\tilde{u}-v)$. Since $\tilde{u}$ and $v$ are sufficiently regular, we are able to apply Proposition \ref{pre ABP} and find
\[
\sup_{\tilde{U}} \tilde{u}-v \leq C|\{\tilde{u}-v=\bar{\Gamma}\}|^{\frac{1}{n+1}}K,
\]
where $\bar{\Gamma}$ is the upper monotone envelope of $\tilde{u}-v$ and $K$ is large. To complete the proof, we will show that the contact set is very small compared to $K$.


The key part of our argument is Proposition \ref{prop: more regularity for convolutions}, which states that there exists a subset $\Psi$ of $\Omega\times (0,T)$ on which $u^+_\theta$ is very close to being a polynomial. This allows us to obtain an upper bound on the size of $\Psi \cap \{\tilde{u}-v = \bar{\Gamma}\}$. Moreover, Theorem \ref{Thm A} says that  $|\Psi|$ is large, so  the size of the remainder of the contact set, $\{\tilde{u}-v = \bar{\Gamma}(\tilde{u}-v)\} \cap \Psi^c$, is small. This completes the outline.



\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{main lemma}}
For the proof of Proposition \ref{main lemma} we need a  lemma.


\begin{lem}
\label{lem:Helper2}
Under the assumptions of Proposition \ref{main lemma}, assume also that $\mathcal{C}\subset \tilde{U}$ with 
\[
|\mathcal{C}|\geq \bar{c} \delta^{3\zeta (n+1)}.
\]
There exists a positive constant $\delta_1$ that depends only on $n$ and a positive constant  $C_1$ that depends on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$, such that, if $\delta\leq \delta_1$, then there exists $(x_0,t_0)\in \mathcal{C}$  and a paraboloid $P\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_\infty}$ with
\begin{enumerate}
\item $Y^-_\delta(x_0,t_0)\subset \Omega \times (0,T)$,
\item $P(x_0,t_0)=0$,
\item $\displaystyle P_t-F(D^2P)=0$, and 
\item for all $(x, t)\in Y_{\delta}^-(x_0,t_0)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{touch u at x0t0}
\begin{split}
u_{\delta^\zeta}^{+}(x,t)-u_{\delta^\zeta}^{+}(x_0, t_0) \geq P(x,t) - C_1 \bar{c}^{-1/\sigma}\delta^{1 - \frac{\zeta}{\sigma}(3n+4+2\sigma)}(|x-x_0|^2+(t_0-t)).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}


We postpone the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:Helper2} and proceed with the proof of Proposition \ref{main lemma}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{main lemma}]
We will give the proof for part 1 of the proposition; the proof of part 2 is very similar. In addition, we assume, without loss of generality, that 
\begin{equation}
\label{main prop wlog}
\sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}}( u-v) \leq 0.
\end{equation}
For $\zeta$ as given in (\ref{constants}), we regularize $u$ by taking $x$-sup-convolution and denote $u^+_{\delta^\zeta}$ by $u^+$. We also introduce a perturbation $\tilde{u}$ of $u^+$, which we define by
\[
\tilde{u}(x,t)= u^+(x,t)-\delta^{1/4}t.
\]
By Proposition \ref{prop:x-sup-conv}, $\tilde{u}$ is a subsolution of 
\[
\tilde{u}_t-F(D^2\tilde{u})\leq -\delta^{1/4}
\]
in $\tilde{U}$. By the definition of $\tilde{u}$,  Proposition \ref{prop:x-sup-conv} and (\ref{main prop wlog}) we have
\begin{equation*}
 \sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}} (\tilde{u} - v)\leq \sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}} (u^+-v )\leq  \sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}} (u-v) +2\delta^{\zeta}\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times (0,T)}\leq c_1\delta^{\zeta},
\end{equation*}
where $c_1$ depends on $\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$.

Define $w=-(\tilde{u}-v-c_1\delta^{\zeta})$. 
There exist $\rho>0$ and $\bar{x}$ such that $\tilde{U}\subset Y_\rho^-(\bar{x}, T-r_\delta)$. Since $w\geq 0$ on $\bdry \tilde{U}$, we may extend $w^-$ by $0$ to $Y_{2\rho}^-(\bar{x}, T)$. Let $\ensuremath{\underline{\Gamma}}$ be the lower monotone envelope of $-w^-$. We point out that $\ensuremath{\underline{\Gamma}}=-\bar\Gamma$, where $\bar\Gamma$ is  the upper monotone envelope of $(\tilde{u}-v-c_1\delta^{\zeta})^+$ in $Y_{2\rho}^-(\bar{x}, T-r_\delta)$. Moreover, we have  
\[
\{\tilde{u}-v-c_1\delta^{\zeta}=\bar\Gamma\} = \{w=\ensuremath{\underline{\Gamma}}\}
\]
and
\[
\sup_{Y_{2\rho}^-(\bar{x}, T-r_\delta)} (w^-)=\sup_{\tilde{U}}( \tilde{u}-v-c_1\delta^{\zeta}).
\]
We seek to apply Proposition \ref{pre ABP} with $w$ instead of $u$  and $Y_{2\rho}^-(\bar{x}, T)$ instead of $Y_\rho^-$. 



Since $d(\tilde{U}, \bdry \Omega\times (0,T)) =2r_\delta$, Proposition \ref{prop:diff of soln} implies that $u$ is differentiable in $t$ in $\tilde{U}$, with 
\[
\linfty{u_t}{\tilde{U}}\leq C r^{-2}_\delta (\linfty{u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}+1)\leq C\delta^{-2\zeta},
\]
where $C$ depends on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, $\linfty{u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$ and $\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$. Therefore, $\linfty{\tilde{u}_t}{\tilde{U}}\leq C\delta^{-2\zeta}$ as well. Together with assumption (\ref{assump:vt}), this implies $\tetasemi{w}{\Omega\times(0,T)}\leq C_0\delta^{-2\zeta}$,
where $C_0$ depends on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, $T$, $\linfty{u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$ and $\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$. In addition, assumption (\ref{assump:d2v}) on $v$ and the properties of $x$-sup convolutions (see item (\ref{item:sup conv is semiconvex}) of Proposition \ref{prop:x-sup-conv})) imply $D^2w=D^2(v-\tilde{u})\leq \delta^{-\zeta}I$ in the sense of distributions.
Therefore, the hypotheses of  Proposition \ref{pre ABP} hold with $K=C_0\delta^{-2\zeta}$, so we obtain
\[
\sup_{\tilde{U}}(\tilde{u}-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - v ) \leq C|\{\tilde{u}-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - v =\bar{\Gamma}\}\cap \tilde{U}|^{\frac{1}{n+1}} \delta^{-2\zeta},
\]
where $\bar{\Gamma}$ is the upper monotone envelope of $\tilde{u}-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - v $ and $C$ depends on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, $T$, $diam \tilde{U}$, $\linfty{u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$ and $\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$. Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\label{bd cont set below}
|\{\tilde{u}-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - v =\bar{\Gamma}\}\cap \tilde{U}|\geq C_1 \delta^{2\zeta(n+1)}\left(\sup_{\tilde{U}}(\tilde{u}-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - v) \right)^{(n+1)},
\end{equation}
where $C_1$ depends on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, $T$, $diam \tilde{U}$, $\linfty{u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$ and $\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$. We claim 
\begin{equation}
\label{main lemma bound sup}
\sup_{\tilde{U}}(\tilde{u}-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - v )\leq \left(\frac{\bar{c}}{C_1}\right)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}\delta^{\zeta},
\end{equation}
where $\bar{c}$ is given by (\ref{choice o c_1}).  If (\ref{main lemma bound sup}) holds, then we have
\[
\sup_{\tilde{U}} (u-v) \leq \sup_{\tilde{U}} (\tilde{u}-v )+ \delta^{1/4}T \leq c_1\delta^{\zeta} +\left(\frac{\bar{c}}{C_1}\right)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}\delta^{\zeta} + \delta^{1/4}T \leq \tilde{c}\delta^{\tilde{\alpha}},
\]
where $\tilde{c}= c_1+T+ \left(\frac{\bar{c}}{C_1}\right)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}$ and $\tilde{\alpha}=\min\{1/4, \zeta\}$. Therefore, to complete the proof of the lemma it will suffice to show that (\ref{main lemma bound sup}) holds. To this end,  we proceed by contradiction and assume that (\ref{main lemma bound sup}) does not hold, in which case we have a lower bound for the right-hand side of (\ref{bd cont set below}) and thus obtain
\[
|\{\tilde{u}-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - v =\bar{\Gamma}\}\cap \tilde{U}|\geq \bar{c}\delta^{3\zeta(n+1)}.
\]
We now apply Lemma \ref{lem:Helper2} with $\mathcal{C}=\{\tilde{u}-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - v =\bar{\Gamma}\}\cap \tilde{U}$ and obtain that there exists a point $(x_0, t_0)\in \{\tilde{u}-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - v =\bar{\Gamma}\}$ with
\begin{equation}
\label{Y^-in U}
Y^-_\delta(x_0,t_0)\subset \tilde{U}
\end{equation}
and a paraboloid $P$ with $P(x_0,t_0)=0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{what P solves}
P_t-F(D^2P)=0,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{touch u at x0t0 used}
\begin{split}
u^+(x,t)-u^+(x_0, t_0) \geq P(y,s) - E\cdot (|x_0-x|^2+(t_0-t)),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the error $E$ is given by
\[
E=C_2 \bar{c}^{-1/\sigma}\delta^{1- \frac{\zeta}{\sigma}(3n+4+2\sigma)},
\]
and $C_2$ depends on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$.
We recall the representation formula for the upper monotone envelope of a function (Lemma \ref{lem:representation}):
\[
\bar{\Gamma}(w)(x_0,t_0) = \inf \{\zeta \cdot x +h : \  \zeta \cdot x + h \geq w(s,x) \text{ for all } t\in (a,t_0], x\in \Omega\}.
\]
 Since $(x_0, t_0)$ is in the contact set of $\tilde{u}-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - v $ with its upper monotone envelope, the representation formula implies that there exist $\zeta\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $h\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ such that 
 \[
 \zeta \cdot x_0+h = \bar{\Gamma}(w)(x_0,t_0)=\tilde{u}(x_0,t_0)-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - v (x_0,t_0)
 \]
 and
\[
\zeta \cdot x +h\geq \tilde{u}(x,t)-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - v (x,t)
\]
for all $x$ and for all $t\leq t_0$ (so in particular, for all points in $Y^-_\delta(x_0,t_0)$). Therefore,  for all $(x,t)\in Y^-_\delta(x_0,t_0)$, we have
\[
v(x,t) \geq \tilde{u}(x,t)-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - \zeta \cdot x -h,
\]
with equality holding at $(x_0,t_0)$.  By   the definitions of $\tilde{u}$ and $u^+$, we find
\[
v(x,t)\geq  u^+(x,t) -\delta^{1/4}t-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - \zeta \cdot x -h
\]
holds on $Y^-_\delta(x_0,t_0)$ with equality holding at $(x_0,t_0)$. We use the bound (\ref{touch u at x0t0 used}) to find that for all $(x,t)\in Y^-_\delta(x_0, t_0)$, 
\[
v(x,t) \geq u^+(x_0,t_0) + P(x,t) - E\cdot(|x_0-x|^2+(t_0-t))-\delta^{1/4}t-c_1\delta^{\zeta} - \zeta \cdot x -h,
\]
with equality at $(x_0,t_0)$. By (\ref{Y^-in U}), $Y^-_\delta(x_0, t_0)\subset \Omega\times (0,T)$. Since $v$ is a $\delta$-supersolution of (\ref{eqn:mainLemma}) on $\Omega \times (0,T)$, we find
\[
P_t+E - \delta^{1/4} - F\left(D^2P - \frac{E}{2}I\right)\geq 0.
\]
Since the nonlinearity $F$ is uniformly elliptic, we have
\[
P_t+E - \delta^{1/4} - F(D^2P) +\lambda\frac{E}{2}\geq 0.
\]
But,  according to (\ref{what P solves}), $P_t-F(D^2P)=0$, so we obtain
\[
E+\lambda\frac{E}{2}\geq \delta^{1/4}.
\]
Using the definition of $E$, we find
\[
C_3 \bar{c}^{-1/\sigma}\delta^{1-\frac{\zeta}{\sigma}(3n+4+2\sigma)}\geq \delta^{1/4},
\]
where $C_3$ is a constant that depends on  $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$. By our choice of $\zeta$, we obtain
\[
C_3 \bar{c}^{-1/\sigma} \delta^{1/2}\geq \delta ^{1/4}.
\]
We choose
\begin{equation}
\label{choice o c_1}
\bar{c}= C_3^{\sigma}
\end{equation}
and find  
\[
\delta^{1/2} \geq \delta^{1/4}, 
\]
which is impossible, so (\ref{main lemma bound sup}) must hold.
\end{proof}



Lemma \ref{lem:Helper2} follows from Proposition \ref{prop: more regularity for convolutions} and a covering argument. The covering argument is slightly more involved than in the elliptic case because of the need to avoid times $t$ that are close to the terminal time $T$.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:Helper2}]
We will denote the $x$-sup convolution $u^+_{\delta^{\zeta}}$ by simply $u^+$.

We will need the sets:
\begin{align*}
\ensuremath{\tilde{Y}_{\rdel}}(\bar{x},\bar{t}) &:= Y^{\delta^{\zeta}}_{\ensuremath{r_{\delta}}} (\bar{x},\bar{t}) = B\left(\bar{x}, r_\delta - \delta^{\zeta} \linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)}\right) \times \left(\bar{t} , \bar{t}+r_\delta^2\right]\\
\ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}}(\bar{x},\bar{t})  &:= K^{\delta^{\zeta}}_{\ensuremath{r_{\delta}}} (\bar{x},\bar{t}) =\left[ \bar{x} - \delta^{\zeta} ,\bar{x} + \delta^{\zeta}\right]^n \times \left(\bar{t} , \bar{t}+\frac{r_\delta^2}{81n}\right] \\
\ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}^T}(\bar{x},\bar{t})  &:=\left[ \bar{x} - \delta^{\zeta} ,\bar{x} + \delta^{\zeta}\right]^n \times \left(\bar{t}+\frac{r_\delta^2}{162n} , \bar{t}+\frac{r_\delta^2}{81n}\right],
\end{align*}
where  $\ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}^T}(\bar{x},\bar{t})$ is the top half (in terms of $t$) of $\ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}}(\bar{x},\bar{t})$. See Figure 1.
\begin{figure} \label{sets for lemma}\caption{The sets involved in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:Helper2}.} \centering \includegraphics[trim = 0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm  , clip, scale=.35]{bdrysets.eps}\end{figure}
We remark that there exists a constant $\delta_1$ that depends only on $n$ such that if $\delta\leq \delta_1$, then  
\begin{equation}
\label{remark about sets}
\text{if $(x,t)\in \tilde{U}$ and $(x_0,t_0)\in \ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}^T}(x,t)$, then $Y_{\delta}^-( x_0,t_0) \subset \ensuremath{\tilde{Y}_{\rdel}}(x,t)\cap \Omega \times (0,T) $.}
\end{equation}
(We point out that in order for (\ref{remark about sets}) to hold,  it is important that $(x_0,t_0) \in \ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}^T}(x,t)$, and not only in $\ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}}(x,t)$.)  We take $\delta<\delta_1$.

We recall that Proposition \ref{prop: more regularity for convolutions} gives a lower bound on the size of $\Psi_M^{+,\delta^{2\zeta}}(u^+)$, the set where $u^+$ has second-order expansions from below.  For the rest of the argument we will denote  $\Psi_M^{+,\delta^{2\zeta}}(u^+)$ simply by $\Psi_M^+$. We will show that there exists a point in the intersection of $\Psi_M^+$ and $\mathcal{C}$ by using the lower bounds on the size of $\mathcal{C}$ and  $\Psi_M^{+}$ (the latter is proved in Proposition \ref{prop: more regularity for convolutions}). Since Proposition  \ref{prop: more regularity for convolutions} bounds the size of the complement of $\Psi_M^{+}$ inside of sets of the form $\ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}}(\bar{x},\bar{t})$, we first cover $\tilde{U}$ by $\{ \ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}^T}(x,t): \  \  (x,t)\in \tilde{U}\}$. It is clear that  the finite collection $\{ \ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}^T}(x_j,t_j): \  \  (x_j,t_j)\in \tilde{U}\}_{j=1}^s$ covers $\tilde{U}$, where $s \leq  C_0 \delta^{-\zeta(n+2)}$, for $C_0$ a constant  that depends on $diam \Omega$, $T$, and $n$ . Therefore, there exists an $i$ such that 
\[
|\mathcal{C}\cap \ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}^T}(x_i,t_i)| \geq \frac{|\mathcal{C}|}{s} .
\]
The lower bound on $|\mathcal{C}|$ and the upper bound on $s$ gives
\[
|\mathcal{C}\cap \ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}^T}(x_i,t_i)| \geq \frac{\bar{c} \delta^{3\zeta (n+1)}}{C_0 \delta^{-\zeta (n+2)}} = \frac{\bar{c}}{C_0} \delta^{\zeta (4n+5) }.
\]
In view of the definition of $\tilde{U}$, we have $d((x_i,t_i), \bdry \Omega\times (0,T))\geq 2r_\delta$ and  $t_i\leq T-r_\delta^2$; therefore, $Y_{r_\delta}(x_i,t_i)\subset \Omega\times(0,T)$ and 
\begin{equation*}
d(Y_{r_\delta}(x_i,t_i), \bdry \Omega \times (0,T))\geq r_\delta > \delta^{\zeta}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, $u$  satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition \ref{prop: more regularity for convolutions} in $Y_{r_\delta}(x_i,t_i)$ with $\theta = \delta^{\zeta}$ and $r=r_\delta$. Thus there exists a set $\Psi^{+}_M$ (the ``good set" of $u^+$) with
\[
|\ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}}(x_i,t_i)\setminus\Psi^{+}_M|\leq \frac{C_1r_\delta^{n+2}}{M^{\sigma}\delta^{\zeta(1+\sigma)}}(r_\delta^{-\sigma}+\delta^{-\zeta\sigma})\left(\linfty{u}{\Omega \times (0,T)}+1\right)^{1+\sigma}
\]
where $C_1$ is a universal constant. We take
\[
M=\left(\frac{2C_1 C_0 r_\delta^{n+2}\delta^{-\zeta(1+\sigma)}(r_\delta^{-\sigma}+\delta^{-\zeta \sigma})(\linfty{u}{\Omega\times(0,T)}+1)^{1+\sigma}}{\bar{c}\delta^{\zeta (4n+5) }}\right)^{1/\sigma},
\]
so that 
\[
|\ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}}(x_i,t_i)\setminus\Psi^{+}_M|< |\mathcal{C}\cap \ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}^T}(x_i,t_i)| .
\]
Since $\ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}^T}(x_i,t_i)\subset \ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}}(x_i,t_i)$, we have
\[
|\ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}^T}(x_i,t_i)\setminus\Psi^{+}_M|<|\ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}}(x_i,t_i)\setminus\Psi^{+}_M|< |\mathcal{C}\cap \ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}^T}(x_i,t_i)| .
\]
Therefore, there exists a point $(x_0,t_0)\in \mathcal{C}\cap \Psi^{+}_M\cap \ensuremath{\tilde{K}_{\rdel}^T}(x_i,t_i)$. Because of (\ref{remark about sets}), we have $Y_{\delta}^-( x_0,t_0) \subset \ensuremath{\tilde{Y}_{\rdel}}(x,t)\cap \Omega\times (0,T) $. Thus, by Proposition \ref{prop: more regularity for convolutions}, there exists a polynomial $P\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_\infty}$ such that 
\[
P_t-F(D^2P)=0
\]
and, on  $Y_{\delta}^-( x_0,t_0)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{touch u+ below}
\begin{split}
u^{+}(x,t)-u^{+}(x_0, t_0) \geq P(y,s)&- \frac{c(n)}{r_\delta^2}M (\delta|x-x_0|^2 + \delta^2|t-t_0| )\\
&-\frac{C\delta}{r_\delta}\left(M+\delta^{-\zeta}(1+\linfty{u}{\Omega \times (0,T)})\right)(t_0-t).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
There exists a constant $C_2$ that depends on $n$ and $\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$ such that
\[
\delta^\zeta\leq r_\delta \leq C_2\delta^{\zeta}.
\]
Therefore 
\[
M\leq C_3 \bar{c}^{-1/\sigma}\delta^{-\frac{\zeta}{\sigma}(3n+4+2\sigma)},
\] 
where $C_3$ depends on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, and $\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$. We use this to bound the coefficients of the error terms in (\ref{touch u+ below}) and find 
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
u^{+}(x,t)-u^{+}(x_0, t_0) \geq P(y,s) - C_4 \bar{c}^{-1/\sigma}\delta^{1-2\zeta - \frac{\zeta}{\sigma}(3n+4+2\sigma)}(|x-x_0|^2+(t_0-t)).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}




\section{Error estimate}
\label{section: comparison}
In this section we give the precise statement and the proof of our main result:
\begin{thm}
\label{main result}
Assume  (F\ref{ellipticity}), (F\ref{last prop of F}) and (U1). Assume $u\in C^{0,\eta}(\Omega\times (0,T))\cap C_x^{0,1}(\Omega \times (0,T))$ is a solution of 
\begin{equation}
\label{maineqn}
u_t-F(D^2u)=0 \text{ in } \Omega\times (0,T)
\end{equation}
and assume $\{v_{\delta}\}_{\delta>0}$ is a family of $\delta$-supersolutions  (resp. $\delta$-subsolutions) of (\ref{maineqn}) such that, for some $M<\infty$ and for all $\delta>0$, 
\[
\etanorm{v_\delta}{\Omega\times (0,T)}\leq M
\]
and
\[
u-v_\delta\leq 0  \text{ (resp. }v_\delta-u \leq 0\text{) on }\bdry(\Omega \times (0,T)).
\]
There exist a constant $\bar{\delta}$ that depends only on $n$, a constant $\bar{\alpha}$ that depends on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$ and $\eta$,  and a constant  $\bar{c}$ that depends on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, $diam\Omega$, $T$, $M$, $\etanorm{u}{\Omega \times (0,T)}$, and $\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$, such that  for all $\delta\leq \bar{\delta}$,
\begin{equation*}
u-v_\delta \leq  \bar{c}\delta^{\bar{\alpha}} \   \     (\text{resp. } v_\delta-u \leq \bar{c}\delta^{\bar{\alpha}}).
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}

\begin{rem}
\label{remAboutLips}
The assumption $u\in C^{0,\eta}(\Omega\times (0,T))\cap C_x^{0,1}(\Omega \times (0,T))$ is satisfied in the following situation. Assume  (F\ref{ellipticity}), (F\ref{last prop of F}), (U1), and that $\partial \Omega$ is regular. Take $g\in C^{1,\alpha}(\bdry \Omega\times (0,T))$. Then, according to the interior regularity estimates of Theorem \ref{thm:Wang's c alpha thm} and the boundary estimates of \cite[Section 2]{WangII}, the solution $u$ of the boundary value problem
\begin{equation*}\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
u_t-F(D^2 u)=0 &\quad \text{ in }\Omega\times(0,T),\\
u=g &\quad \text{ on }\bdry \Omega,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
 is indeed Lipschitz continuous in $x$ and H\"older continuous in $t$ on all of $\Omega\times (0,T)$, with 
 \[
 \etanorm{u}{\Omega\times (0,T)}, \linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)} \leq C,
 \]
 where $C$ depends on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$,  $||g||_{C^{1,\alpha}(\bdry \Omega\times (0,T))}$, $diam \Omega$ and the regularity of $\bdry \Omega$.
\end{rem}

Theorem \ref{main result} follows easily from Proposition \ref{main lemma}. 
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main result}]
We give the proof of the bound on $\sup (u-v_\delta)$ in the case that $v_\delta$ is a $\delta$-supersolution; the proof of the other case is very similar.

First we regularize $v_\delta$ by taking inf-convolution: we let 
\[
v(x,t) = \inf_{(y,s)\in \Omega\times(0,T)} \left\{v_\delta (y,s) + \frac{|x-y|^2}{2\delta^{\zeta}}+ \frac{|t-s|^2}{2\delta^{\zeta}}\right\}
\]
and define the constant
\[
\nu= 2\delta^{\zeta/2} \linfty{v}{\Omega \times (0,T)}^{1/2} + \delta,
\]
and the set
\[
U^\nu = \left\{(x,t)| d_e((x,t),\bdry(\Omega \times (0,T))) \geq 2\delta^{\zeta/2} \linfty{v}{\Omega \times (0,T)}^{1/2} + \delta\right\}.
\]
We point out that $U^\nu$ is of the form $\Omega'\times (a,b)$, where $\Omega'$ satisfies (U1). Therefore, Proposition \ref{main lemma} holds in $U^\nu$ instead of $\Omega \times (0,T)$ (see Remark \ref{rem:where main prop holds}). According to item (\ref{inf conv is delta soln}) of Proposition \ref{properties of inf-convolution},  $v$ is a $\delta$-supersolution of (\ref{eqn:mainLemma}) in $U^\nu$. Moreover, by items  (\ref{item:inf conv is semiconcave}) and (\ref{item:lip bd on v}) of Proposition \ref{properties of inf-convolution}, $v$ satisfies the regularity assumptions of Proposition \ref{main lemma} in $U^\nu$.
Therefore, according to Proposition \ref{main lemma},
\begin{equation}
\label{consequence of Propo}
\sup_{\tilde{U}}(u-v) \leq \tilde{c}\delta^{\tilde{\alpha}}+ \sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}}(u-v),
\end{equation}
where 
\[
\tilde{U} = \left\{(x,t)| d((x,t),\bdry  U^\nu) \geq  2r_\delta, \text{ and }t\leq T-r_\delta^2\right\}
\]
and $r_\delta$ is as given in the statement of Proposition \ref{main lemma}. 
Since $u\in C^{0,\eta}(\Omega\times (0,T))$, $v\in  C^{0,\eta}(\Omega \times (0,T))$, and $u\leq v$ on $\bdry \Omega\times (0,T)$, there exists a constant constant $c_1>0$ that depends on $n$, $M$, and $\etanorm{u}{\Omega\times (0,T)}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{bound on bdry U}
\sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}} (u-v_\delta)\leq c_1 \delta^{\frac{\zeta\eta}{2}}
\end{equation}
and 
\begin{equation}
\label{bound on whole set}
 \sup_{\Omega \times (0,T)} (u- v_\delta) \leq \sup_{\tilde{U}} (u-v) +c_1 \delta^{\frac{\zeta\eta}{2}}.
\end{equation}
 By item (\ref{item:bound from below on inf conv}) of Proposition \ref{properties of inf-convolution},
\[
\sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}} (u-v) \leq \sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}} (u - v_\delta) + \etasemi{v_\delta}{\Omega \times (0,T)}(2\delta^{\zeta} \etasemi{v_\delta}{\Omega \times (0,T)})^{\frac{\eta}{2-\eta}}
\leq \sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}} (u - v_\delta) +c_2\delta^{\frac{\zeta\eta}{2-\eta}},
\]
where $c_2$ is a constant that depends on $n$ and $M$.
By the above  line and (\ref{bound on bdry U}) we have
\[
\sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}}(u-v)\leq \sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}}(u - v_\delta) +c_2 \delta^{\frac{\zeta\eta}{2-\eta}} \leq c_1 \delta^{\frac{\zeta\eta}{2}}+c_2 \delta^{\frac{\zeta\eta}{2-\eta}} \leq c_3\delta^{\frac{\zeta\eta}{2}} ,
\]
where $c_3$ depends on $n$, $M$ and $\etanorm{u}{\Omega\times (0,T)}$. So, by (\ref{bound on whole set}), (\ref{consequence of Propo}), and the above line, we have
\[
 \sup_{\Omega \times (0,T)} (u- v_\delta) \leq\tilde{c}\delta^{\tilde{\alpha}} +c_3\delta^{\frac{\zeta\eta}{2}} .
\]
We thus take $\bar{c}=c_3+\tilde{c}$ and $\bar{\alpha}=min\{\tilde{\alpha}, \frac{\zeta\eta}{2}\}$ to complete the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}



\section{Discrete approximation schemes}
\label{section: approx}
We now present the error estimate for finite difference approximation schemes. First, we introduce the necessary notation and assumptions, closely following \cite{Approx schemes} and \cite{Kuo Trudinger parabolic diff ops}. In the next section we give the full statement of the error estimate and its proof. The space-time mesh is denoted by $E$:
\[
E=h \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^n \times h^2 \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}=\{(x,t)| x=(m_1,..,m_n)h, t=mh^2, \text{ where } m,m_1,...,m_n\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^n\}.
\]
We fix some $N>1$ and define the subset $Y$ of $E$ by 
\[
Y= \{ y\in h\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}^n| 0<|y|<hN\}.
\]
Next we introduce finite difference operators for a function $u$:
\begin{align*}
\delta^-_{\tau} u (x,t) &= \frac{1}{h}(u(x,t) - u(x,t-h)),\\
\delta_y^2 u (x,t)&=\frac{1}{|y|^2}(u(x+y,t)+u(x-y,t)-2u(x,t)), \text{ and}\\
\delta^2u(x,t) &=\{\delta^2_y u (x,t)| y\in Y\}.
\end{align*}
An \emph{implicit finite difference operator}  is an operator of the form
\[
\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}} [u] (x,t) = \delta^-_{\tau} u (x,t) - \mathcal{F}_h(\delta^2 u(x,t)),
\]
where $\mathcal{F}_h: \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^Y \rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ is locally Lipschitz. We denote points in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^Y$ by $r=(r_1,...,r_{|Y|})$. We say an operator  is \emph{monotone} if it satisfies:
\begin{enumerate}[({S}1)] 
\item there exists a constant $\lambda_0$ and $\Lambda_0$ such that for all $i=1,...,|Y|,$
\[
\lambda_0\leq \frac{\partial \mathcal{F}_h}{\partial r_i}\leq \Lambda_0.
\]
\end{enumerate}
This is equivalent to the definition given in the introduction. 

A scheme $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}$ is said to be \emph{consistent with $F$} if for all $\phi \in C^3(\Omega\times(0,T))$,
\[
\sup_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}}|\phi_t-F(D^2\phi)-\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}[\phi]| \rightarrow 0 \text{ as } h\rightarrow 0.
\]
In  \cite[Section 4]{Kuo Trudinger parabolic diff ops}, it was shown that if a nonlinearity $F$ satisfies (F\ref{ellipticity}), then there  exists a monotone implicit scheme  $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}$ that is consistent with $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$, and the constants $\lambda_0$ and $\Lambda_0$ depend only on $n$, $\lambda$ and $\Lambda$. In \cite{Kuo Trudiner elliptic ops}, a monotone and consistent approximation scheme for elliptic equations is explicitly constructed, and the construction in the parabolic case is analogous. 

In order to obtain an error estimate, we need to make an assumption that quantifies the above rate of convergence. As in \cite{Approx schemes}, we assume:
\begin{enumerate}[({S}2)] 
\item
there exists a positive constant $K$ such that for all $\phi\in C^3(\Omega\times(0,T))$ ,
\[
\sup|\phi_t-F(D^2\phi)-\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}[\phi]|\leq K(h+ h\linfty{D_x^3\phi}{\Omega\times (0,T)} + h^2\linfty{\phi_{tt}}{\Omega\times (0,T)}).
\]
\end{enumerate} 
Schemes that satisfy (S\ref{consistent}) are said to be \emph{consistent with an error estimate for $F$ in $\Omega\times (0,T)$ with constant $K$}. 

Given $\Omega\times (0,T)\subset \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$, we denote $ (\Omega\times (0,T)) \cap E$ by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}$.  We divide $\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}$ into  interior and boundary points relative to the operator $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}$. Mainly, we define
\[
\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}^i=\left\{p\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h} | d(p, \bdry\Omega \times (0,T))\geq Nh\right\}
\]
to be the interior points and
\[
\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}^b = \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h} \setminus \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}^i
\]
to be the boundary points. Notice that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}[u](x,t)$ depends only  on $u(x+y,s)$ for $0\leq|y|<hN$ and for $t-h^2\leq s\leq t$. 


The discrete H\"older seminorm of a  function  $u$ on $\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}$  is defined to be
\[
\etasemi{u}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}} = \sup_{p,q \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}}\frac{|u(p)-u(q)|}{d(p,q)^{\eta}}
\]
and the discrete  H\"older norm is
\[
\etanorm{u}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}} = \linfty{u}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}}+\etasemi{u}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}} .
\]

In \cite[Section 4]{Kuo Trudinger parabolic diff ops} it is shown that solutions of the discrete equation $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}[v_h] = 0$ are uniformly equicontinuous. We summarize this result:
\begin{thm}
\label{KTthm}
Assume that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}$ is an implicit monotone finite difference scheme and that $v_h$ is a solution of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}[v_h] = 0$. There exists a constant $C$ that depends only on $n$, $\lambda_0$ and $\Lambda_0$ such that for all $h\in (0,1)$,
\[
\etanorm{v_h}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}^i} \leq C.
\]
\end{thm}



\subsection{Inf and sup convolutions for approximation schemes}
For a mesh function $v: \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$, we define the inf- and sup- convolutions of $v$ at $(x,t)\in \Omega\times (0,T)$ by
\[
\ensuremath{v^-_{\theta,\theta}}(x,t) = \inf_{(y,s)\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}} \left\{ v(y,s) + \frac{|x-y|^2}{2\theta}+\frac{|t-s|^2}{2\theta}\right\}
\]
and
\[
v^{+}_{\theta, \theta}(x,t) = \sup_{(y,s)\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}} \left\{ v(y,s) - \frac{|x-y|^2}{2\theta}-\frac{|t-s|^2}{2\theta}\right\},
\]
For $v\in C^{0,\eta}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h})$, we introduce  the quantity
\[
\omega(h, \theta)=nh+2\theta^{1/2}\etanorm{v}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}}(diamU)^\eta
\] 
and the set
\[
U^h_{\theta} = \{ p\in \Omega \times (0,T)| d_e(p,\bdry{\Omega \times (0,T)}) \geq \omega(h, \theta) +Nh\}.
\]
In the appendix we summarize the basic properties of inf- and sup- convolutions of mesh functions  (see Proposition \ref{prop: inf-conv for mesh}).

It is a classical fact of the theory of viscosity solutions that if $u$ is the viscosity solution of $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$ in $\Omega\times (0,T)$, then the sup-convolution of $u$ is a subsolution of the same equation. In the following proposition, we establish a similar relationship between solutions $v_h$ of discrete equations and $\delta$-solutions of  $u_t-F(D^2u)=0$. This is a key step in establishing an error estimate for discrete approximation schemes.
\begin{prop}
\label{item: mesh solves equation} 
Assume that $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}$ is a monotone and implicit scheme consistent with an error estimate for $F$ with constant $K$. Assume $v\in C^{0,\eta}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h})$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $v$ satisfies $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}[v]  \geq 0$ in $ \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}^i$ then  $\ensuremath{v^-_{\theta,\theta}}$ is a $\delta$-supersolution of 
\[
u_t - F(D^2u) = - Kh
\]
 in $U^h_{\theta}$, with $\delta= Nh$.
 \item If  $v$ satisfies $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}[v]  \leq 0$ in $ \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}^i$, then $v^{+}_{\theta, \theta}$ is $\delta$-subsolution of 
 \[
 u_t - F(D^2u) =  Kh
 \]
  in $U^h_{\theta}$, with  $\delta= Nh$.
\end{enumerate}

\end{prop}

 
\begin{proof}
We give the proof of item (1); the proof of item (2) is analogous.

Let $(x,t)\in U^h_\theta$ and let $(x^*, t^*)$ be a point at which the infimum is achieved in the definition of $v^-_{\theta,\theta}$. Assume that   $P\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{P}_\infty}$ is such that $P\leq \ensuremath{v^-_{\theta,\theta}}$ on $Y^-_{Nh}(x,t)$, with equality at $(x,t)$. Because $P\leq v$ on \emph{all} of $Y^-_{Nh}(x,t)$, for each $y$ with $0<|y|\leq hN$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:implicit}
\begin{split}
\delta^2_yP(x,t) &\leq \delta^2_y\ensuremath{v^-_{\theta,\theta}}(x,t)\leq \delta^2_y v(x^*,t^*), \text{ and}\\
\delta^-_\tau P(x,t)& \geq \delta^-_\tau \ensuremath{v^-_{\theta,\theta}}(x,t) \geq \delta^-_\tau v(x^*, t^*).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The definition of $U^h_\theta$ and item (1) of  Proposition \ref{prop: inf-conv for mesh} yield  $(x^*, t^*) \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}^i$; therefore, 
\[
0\leq \ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}[v](x^*, t^*) = \delta^-_\tau v(x^*, t^*)  - \mathcal{F}_h(\delta^2 v(x^*, t^*))  .
\]
Using (\ref{eq:implicit}) and the monotonicity of $\mathcal{F}_h$ to bound the right-hand side of the above yields
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:scheme at x*}
0\leq \delta^-_\tau P(x,t) - \mathcal{F}_h(\delta^2P(x,t)).
\end{equation}
That $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}$ is consistent with an error estimate implies that 
\[
|P_t(x,t) -F(D^2P(x,t))- (\delta^-_\tau P(x,t)   - \mathcal{F}_h(\delta^2 P(x,t) ))|
\leq Kh.
\]
Together with (\ref{eq:scheme at x*}), this implies
\[
P_t -F(D^2P) \geq -Kh.
\]
\end{proof}

\section{Error estimate for approximation schemes}
\label{section:error est approx}
We prove
\begin{thm}
\label{prop: convergence for approx schemes}
Assume (F\ref{ellipticity}), (F\ref{last prop of F}) and (U1). 
Assume $u\in C^{0,\eta}(\Omega\times (0,T))\cap C_x^{0,1}(\Omega \times (0,T))$ is a solution of
\begin{equation}
\label{h thm main eqn}
u_t-F(D^2u)=0
\end{equation}
in $\Omega \times (0,T)$.  Assume $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}$ is an implicit monotone  scheme consistent with an error estimate for (\ref{h thm main eqn}) and that $v_h$ satisfies $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}[v_h] \geq 0$ (resp. $\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}[v_h] \leq 0$) in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}$. Assume that for some constant $M<\infty$ and for all $h>0$,
\[
\etasemi{v_h}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}^i}\leq M
\]
and
\[
u-v_h\leq 0 \text{ (resp. } u-v_h\geq 0\text{) on }\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}^b.
\]
There exist a constant $\bar{h}$ that depends only on $n$, a constant $\bar{\alpha}$ that depends on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$ and $\eta$,  and a constant  $\bar{c}$ that depends on $n$, $N$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$, $diam\Omega$, $T$, $M$ ,$\etanorm{u}{\Omega\times (0,T)}$, and $\linfty{Du}{\Omega\times(0,T)}$, such that for all $h\leq \bar{h}$,
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{\Omega \times (0,T)}u-v_h \leq  \bar{c}h^{\bar{\alpha}} \   \     (\text{resp. } \sup_{\Omega \times (0,T)}v_h-u \leq \bar{c}h^{\bar{\alpha}}).
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}

\begin{rem}
 Suppose that $u$ is the solution of the boundary value problem
\begin{equation*}\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
u_t-F(D^2 u)=0 &\quad \text{ in }\Omega\times(0,T),\\
u=g &\quad \text{ on }\bdry \Omega,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
and $v_h$ satisfies
\begin{equation*}\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{h}}[v_h]=0 &\quad \text{ in }\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}^i,\\
v_h=g &\quad \text{ on }\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}^b,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
where $\partial \Omega$ is sufficiently regular and  $g\in C^{1,\alpha}( \Omega\times (0,T))$. Then, as explained in Remark \ref{remAboutLips}, $u$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{prop: convergence for approx schemes}, and $v_h$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{prop: convergence for approx schemes} because of  Theorem \ref{KTthm}.
\end{rem}

\begin{rem}
We do not know whether our result holds for explicit or mixed schemes. Our method cannot be used in those cases, since we are able to verify Proposition \ref{item: mesh solves equation} only for implicit schemes.
\end{rem}


Theorem \ref{prop: convergence for approx schemes} follows easily from Proposition \ref{main lemma}. 
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{prop: convergence for approx schemes}]
We give the proof of the bound on $\sup (u-v_h)$; the proof of the other case is very similar.

First we regularize $v_h$ by taking inf-convolution. We denote $v^-= v^-_{h^{\zeta}, h^\zeta}$ and define
\[
\nu= \omega(h,\theta)+Nh,
\]
and
\[
U^\nu = \left\{(x,t)| d((x,t),\bdry(\Omega \times (0,T))) \geq \omega(h,\theta)+Nh\right\}.
\]
Then, according to Proposition (\ref{item: mesh solves equation}),  $v^-$ is a $\delta$-supersolution of 
\[
v^-_t-F(D^2v^-)\geq -h
\]
in $U^\nu$, with $\delta=Nh$. We point out that $U^\nu$ is of the form $\Omega'\times (a,b)$, where $\Omega'$ satisfies (U1). Therefore, Proposition \ref{main lemma} holds in $U^\nu$ instead of $\Omega \times (0,T)$  (see Remark \ref{rem:where main prop holds}). 

Since we proved Proposition \ref{main lemma} for $\delta$-solutions with right-hand side $0$, we have to perturb $v^-$. We introduce 
\[
v(x,t)=v^-(x,t)+ht,
\]
so that $v$ is a $\delta$-supersolution of (\ref{h thm main eqn}) in $U^\nu$ with $\delta=Nh$. Moreover, by items  (\ref{item: mesh inf conv is semiconcave}) and (\ref{item: mesh lip bd on v}) of Proposition \ref{prop: inf-conv for mesh}, $v$ satisfies the regularity assumptions of Proposition \ref{main lemma}.
Therefore, according to Proposition \ref{main lemma},
\begin{equation}
\label{h consequence of Propo}
\sup_{\tilde{U}}(u-v) \leq \tilde{c}(Nh)^{\tilde{\alpha}}+ \sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}}(u-v),
\end{equation}
where 
\[
\tilde{U} = \left\{(x,t)| d((x,t),\bdry(\Omega \times (0,T))) \geq \omega(h,\theta)+Nh+2r_\delta \text{ and }t\leq T-r_\delta\right\}
\]
and $r_\delta$ is given in the statement of Proposition \ref{main lemma}. 
Since $u\in C^{0,\eta}(\Omega\times (0,T))$, $v\in  C^{0,\eta}(\Omega \times (0,T))$, and $u\leq v$ on $\bdry \Omega \times(0,T)$, there exists a constant $c_1$ that depends on $n$, $N$, $T$, $\etanorm{v_h}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}}$ and $\etanorm{u}{\Omega\times (0,T)}$, and a constant $\gamma>0$ that depends on $n$, $\lambda$, $\Lambda$ and $\eta$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{h bound on bdry U}
\sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}} (u-v_h)\leq c_1 h^{\gamma}
\end{equation}
and 
\begin{equation}
\label{h bound on whole set}
 \sup_{\Omega \times (0,T)} (u- v_h) \leq \sup_{\tilde{U}} (u-v) +c_1 h^{\gamma}.
\end{equation}
 By item (\ref{item: mesh: bound from below on inf conv}) of Proposition \ref{prop: inf-conv for mesh},
\[
\sup_{\tilde{U}} (u-v) \leq \sup_{\tilde{U}} (u - v_h) + \omega(h, \theta)
\]
so by the above  line and (\ref{h bound on bdry U}) we have
\[
\sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}}(u-v)\leq \sup_{\bdry \tilde{U}}(u - v_h) +c_2 h^{\gamma} \leq c_1 h^{\gamma}+c_2 \delta^{\gamma} \leq c_3h^\gamma ,
\]
where $c_3$ depends on  $n$, $N$, $T$, $\etanorm{v_h}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}}$ and $\etanorm{u}{\Omega\times (0,T)}$. So, by (\ref{h bound on whole set}), (\ref{h consequence of Propo}), and the above, we have
\[
 \sup_{\Omega \times (0,T)} (u- v_h) \leq\tilde{c}(Nh)^{\tilde{\alpha}} +c_3h^\gamma .
\]
We thus take $\bar{c}=c_3+\tilde{c}$ and $\bar{\alpha}=min\{\tilde{\alpha}, \gamma\}$ to complete the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}




\section{Appendix}
\label{Appendix}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{pre ABP}}
\label{subsec:proof of pre ABP}
We outline the proof of Proposition \ref{pre ABP}, which is a slight modification of part of  the proof of the parabolic version of the ABP estimate in \cite[Section 4.1.2]{ImbertSilvestre}. We assume $\rho=1$; the general case follows by rescaling. 
As in \cite[Section 4.1.2]{ImbertSilvestre}, we define the function $G\Gamma: Y_1\rightarrow \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1} $ by
\[
G\Gamma(x,t)= ( \Gamma(x,t)-x\cdot D\Gamma(x,t), D\Gamma(x,t) ).
\]
Proposition \ref{pre ABP} follows from the following three lemmas. 
\begin{lem}
\label{lemPreABPsup}
Suppose $u\in C(Y_1^-)$ and let $M=\sup_{Y_1^-}u^-$. Then 
\[
\{(h,\xi)\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1} : |\xi|\leq \frac{M}{2}\leq -h\leq M\} \subset G\Gamma(Y_1^-\cap \{u=\Gamma\}).
\]
\end{lem}

\begin{lem}
\label{lemPreABPDG}
If $\Gamma$ is $C^{1,1}$ with respect to $x$ and Lipschitz with respect to $t$, then $G\Gamma$ is Lipschitz in $(x,t)$ and we have 
\[
\det D_{x,t}G\Gamma = \partial_t\Gamma \det D^2\Gamma
\]
for almost every $(x,t)\in Y^-_1$.
\end{lem}

\begin{lem}
\label{lemPreABPGamma}
Suppose $u$ is as in the statement of Proposition \ref{pre ABP}. Then $\Gamma$ is $C^{1,1}$ with respect to $x$ and Lipschitz in $t$.
\end{lem}


Lemma \ref{lemPreABPsup} is very similar to  \cite[Lemma 4.13]{ImbertSilvestre} -- the latter is stated for $u$ a supersolution of $u_t-\mathcal{M}^-(D^2u)\geq f(x)$. However, it is easy to verify that the proof of  \cite[Lemma 4.13]{ImbertSilvestre} holds for  general  functions $u\in C(Y^-_1)$, not only supersolutions. Lemma \ref{lemPreABPDG} is exactly \cite[Lemma 4.4]{ImbertSilvestre}. 
The proof of Lemma \ref{lemPreABPGamma} is very similar to that of Lemma \cite[Lemma 4.11]{ImbertSilvestre}, which states that if $u$ is a supersolution of $u_t-\mathcal{M}^-(D^2u)\geq f(x)$, then $\Gamma$ is $C^{1,1}$ in $x$ and Lipschitz in $t$.  We  explain the modifications needed to obtain Lemma \ref{lemPreABPGamma}:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemPreABPGamma}] 
As in the  proof of Lemma \cite[Lemma 4.11]{ImbertSilvestre}, it will suffice to show that there exists a constant $K$ such that for all $(x,t)\in Y^-_1$, the following holds:
\begin{equation}
\label{jet condition}
\left\{
\begin{split}
&\text{if $P(y,s)=c+\alpha t +p\cdot x+ x\cdot Xx^T$ satisfies $P(x,t)=\Gamma(x,t)$ and }\\ &\text{$P(y,s)\leq \Gamma(y,s)$ for all $(y,s)$ in a neighborhood of $(x,t)$,}\\&\text{then $\alpha\geq -K$ and $X\leq KI$.}
\end{split}
\right.
\end{equation}
In the proof of \cite[Lemma 4.11]{ImbertSilvestre}, the assumption that $u$ is a supersolution of $u_t-\mathcal{M}^-(D^2u)\geq f(x)$ is used only to show that (\ref{jet condition}) holds for $(x,t)\in \{u=\Gamma\}$. Thus, we need to verify  (\ref{jet condition}) for such points. To this end, assume $(x,t)\in \{u=\Gamma\}$ and $P(y,s)=c+\alpha t +p\cdot x+ x\cdot M x^T$ satisfies $P(x,t)=\Gamma(x,t)$ and $P(y,s)\leq \Gamma(y,s)$ for all $(y,s)$ in a neighborhood of $(x,t)$. Since $\Gamma$ is the lower monotone envelope of $-u^-$ and  $(x,t)\in \{u=\Gamma\}$, we have $P(x,t)=u(x,t)$ and $P(y,s)\leq u(y,s)$ for all $(y,s)$ in a neighborhood of $(x,t)$. Our assumption that $D^2u\leq KI$ in the sense of distributions means that there exists a paraboloid $Q(x)$ of opening $K$ that touches $u(\cdot,t)$ from above at $x$.  Therefore, $Q$ touches $P(\cdot, t)$ from above at $x$. Therefore, $X\leq KI$. That $\tetasemi{u}{Y^-_\rho}\leq K$ implies $\alpha \geq -K$.
\end{proof}


\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{pre ABP}]
Lemma \ref{lemPreABPsup},  Lemma \ref{lemPreABPDG} and the Area Formula \cite[Chapter 3]{Evans Gariepy}, which applies to $G\Gamma$ because of Lemma \ref{lemPreABPGamma}, imply
\begin{equation}
\label{ABP-like bd}
\begin{split}
CM^{n+1} &= |\{(h,\xi)\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1} : |\xi|\leq \frac{M}{2}\leq -h\leq M\} |\\
&\leq |G\Gamma(Y_1^-\cap \{u=\Gamma\})|\\
&\leq \int_{Y_1^-\cap \{u=\Gamma\}} |\det D_{x,t} G\Gamma |\\
&\leq  \int_{Y_1^-\cap \{u=\Gamma\}} -\partial_t\Gamma \det D^2\Gamma .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Because $\Gamma$ is non-increasing in $t$ and convex in $x$, the Alexandroff theorem for functions depending on $x$ and $t$ (see Krylov \cite[Appendix 2]{Krylov book}) implies that there exists $A\subset Y_1^-$ with $|Y_1^-\setminus A|=0$ such that for every $(x,t)\in A$, 
\[
|\Gamma(y,s)-\Gamma(x,t)-D\Gamma(x,t)\cdot (y-x) - (y-x) \cdot D^2\Gamma(x,t)(y-x)^T-\partial_t\Gamma(x,t)(t-s)| \leq o(|x-y|^2+|t-s|)
\]
(in other words, $\Gamma$ is twice differentiable almost everywhere on $Y_1^-$). 
We claim
\begin{equation}
\label{claim for 2nd pt}
\text{ if $(x,t)\in A\cap \{u=\Gamma\}$, then }
-\partial_t\Gamma(x,t) \det D^2\Gamma(x,t) \leq K^{n+1}.
\end{equation}
Let us fix $(x,t)\in A\cap \{u=\Gamma\}$. We have $u(x,t)=\Gamma(x,t)$ and $u(y,s)\geq \Gamma(y,s)$ for all $(y,s)\in Y^-_1$. Our assumption that $D^2u\leq KI$ in the sense of distributions means that there exists a paraboloid $Q(x)$ of opening $K$ that touches $u(\cdot,t)$ from above at $x$.  Therefore, $Q$ touches $\Gamma(\cdot, t)$ from above at $x$. Therefore, $D^2\Gamma(x,t)\leq KI$ and so
\[
\det D^2\Gamma \leq K^n.
\] 
That $\tetasemi{u}{Y^-_\rho}\leq K$ implies $\partial_t\Gamma(x,t) \geq -K$. Thus, (\ref{claim for 2nd pt}) holds. The bound (\ref{cons of ABPbd}) follows from (\ref{claim for 2nd pt}) and (\ref{ABP-like bd}). 

\end{proof}

\subsection{Inf and sup convolutions}


In the following proposition we state the facts about inf- and sup- convolutions that are used in this paper. Their proofs are very similar to those in the elliptic case (see \cite[Propositions 5.3 and 5.5]{Rates Homogen}) and we omit them.  
Given $v\in C^{0,\eta}(\Omega \times (0,T))$ and $\theta>0$, we define the set
\[
U^{\theta,\delta} = \left\{(x,t)| d_e((x,t),\bdry(\Omega \times (0,T))) \geq 2\theta^{1/2} \linfty{v}{\Omega \times (0,T)}^{1/2} + \delta\right\}.
\]
\begin{prop}
\label{properties of inf-convolution}
Assume $v\in C(\Omega\times (0,T))$.  Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $(x^*, t^*)$ is a point at which the  supremum or infimum is achieved in the definition of $v^{\pm}_{\theta,\theta}$,  then
\[
d_e((x,t), (x^*, t^*))\leq 2\theta^{1/2}\linfty{v}{\Omega \times (0,T)}^{1/2}.
\]
\item 
\label{item:bound from below on inf conv}
If $v\in C^{0,\eta}(\Omega \times (0,T))$, then for any $(x,t)\in U^{\theta,\delta}$, 
\[
v^-_{\theta, \theta}(x,t)\geq  v(x,t)-\etasemi{v}{\Omega \times (0,T)}(2\theta \etasemi{v}{\Omega \times (0,T)})^{\frac{\eta}{2-\eta}}
\]
 and 
 \[
 v^+_{\theta, \theta}(x,t)\leq  v(x,t)+\etasemi{v}{\Omega \times (0,T)}(2\theta \etasemi{v}{\Omega \times (0,T)})^{\frac{\eta}{2-\eta}}.
 \]
\item 
\label{item:inf conv is semiconcave}
In the sense of distributions,  $D^2 v^-_{\theta,\theta}(x,t) \leq \theta^{-1}I$ and $D^2 v^+_{\theta,\theta}(x,t) \geq -\theta^{-1}I$ for every $(x,t)\in U^{\theta,\delta}$.
\item 
\label{item:lip bd on v}
We have $\tetasemi{v^{\pm}_{\theta,\theta}}{\Omega\times(0,T)}\leq 3T\theta^{-1}$.
\item \label{inf conv is delta soln} If  $v$ is a $\delta$-supersolution  of $v_t-F(D^2v)=0$ in $\Omega \times (0,T)$, then $v^-_{\theta,\theta}$ is a $\delta$-supersolution of $v_t-F(D^2v)=0$ in $U^{\theta,\delta}$.
\item If  $v$ is a $\delta$-subsolution  of $v_t-F(D^2v)=0$ in $\Omega \times (0,T)$, then $v^+_{\theta,\theta}$ is a $\delta$-subsolution of $v_t-F(D^2v)=0$ in $U^{\theta,\delta}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}



\subsection{Inf and sup convolutions of mesh functions}
In the following proposition we summarize the facts that we need about inf and sup convolutions of mesh functions.  The proof is very similar to the elliptic case (see Proposition 2.3 of \cite{Approx schemes}) so we omit it. 
\begin{prop}
\label{prop: inf-conv for mesh}
Assume $v\in C^{0,\eta}(\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h})$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item 
\label{eq: d(q,p^*)} If $(x^*,t^*)$ is a point at which the infimum (resp. supremum) is achieved in the definition of $\ensuremath{v^-_{\theta,\theta}}(x,t)$  (resp. $v^{+}_{\theta, \theta}(x,t) $), then
\[ 
d_e((x^*,t^*),(x,t)) \leq \omega(h,\theta).
\]
\item 
\label{item: mesh: bound from below on inf conv}
Assume $(x,t)\in \Omega \times (0,T)$ and $(y,s)\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}$ is a closest mesh point to $(x,t)$. Then 
\[
\ensuremath{v^-_{\theta,\theta}}(x,t) \geq v(y,s) - \etanorm{v}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}} \omega(h, \theta)^{\eta}
\]
 and 
 \[
 v^{+}_{\theta, \theta} (x,t) \leq v(y,s) + \etanorm{v}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}_h}} \omega(h,\theta)^{\eta}.
 \]
\item 
\label{item: mesh inf conv is semiconcave}
In the sense of distributions, $D^2 \ensuremath{v^-_{\theta,\theta}}(x,t) \leq \theta^{-1}I$  and $D^2 v^{+}_{\theta, \theta} (x,t)\geq -\theta^{-1}I$ for every $(x,t)\in U^h_\theta$.
\item 
\label{item: mesh lip bd on v}
We have $\tetasemi{v^{\pm}_{\theta,\theta}}{\Omega\times(0,T)}\leq 3T\theta^{-1}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}



\section*{Acknowledgements} The author thanks her thesis advisor, Professor Takis Souganidis, for suggesting this problem and for his guidance and encouragement.





