 and such that there is a point $z$ on the boundary of the ball that belongs to $\{u_1=u_2\}$ (this can be done by choosing any ball and enlarging the radius until the boundary touches $\{u_1=u_2\}$). Observe that $v< 0$ on $B_r(y)$ and it extends to $z$ with $v(z)=0$ and $Dv(z)=0$ (because $u_1(z)=u_2(z)$ and $Du_1(z) = Du_2(z)$ by the structural assumptions): this contradicts Hopf boundary point lemma (in its version that holds regardless of the sign of the $0$-th order term, see the comments that follow [@GT Theorem 3.5]). Therefore the right-hand-sides in (\[eq:PDEsfortwographs\]) have opposite signs for $u_1$ and $u_2$: however, for the moment, which function carries which sign might depend on the connected component of $A$.

If $g$ takes both negative and positive values then assumption (b$^T$) forces the conclusion (we comment further on this in Appendix \[gchangessign\]). We therefore assume for the remainder of the proof that $g\geq 0$.

We continue the previous analysis and we will now rule out the possibility that the right-hand-side is $g(\cdot, u_1)$ for $u_1$ and $-g(\cdot, u_2)$ for $u_2$. If that were the case we would get, again writing the PDE for $v$, $$\label{eq:differencemaxprinc2}
 D_i\left(\left(\delta_{ij}+b_{ij}(Du_1, Du_2)\right) D_j v\right)\geq 0,$$ where we used $g\geq 0$; working on $B_r(y)$ as above, the conditions $v<0$, $v(z)=0$ and $Dv(z)=0$ contradict Hopf boundary point lemma for subsolutions of elliptic PDEs without $0$-th order term, see [@GT Theorem 3.5].

The only possibility that is allowed is therefore that the right-hand-sides in (\[eq:PDEsfortwographs\]) are $-g(\cdot, u_1)$ for $u_1$ and $
and such that there is a point $ z$ on the boundary of the ball that belong to $ \{u_1 = u_2\}$ (this can be do by choosing any ball and enlarging the spoke until the boundary touches $ \{u_1 = u_2\}$). Observe that $ v < 0 $ on $ B_r(y)$ and it widen to $ z$ with $ v(z)=0 $ and $ Dv(z)=0 $ (because $ u_1(z)=u_2(z)$ and $ Du_1(z) = Du_2(z)$ by the structural assumptions ): this contradicts Hopf boundary point lemma (in its version that hold regardless of the sign of the $ 0$-th order terminus, determine the comments that follow [ @GT Theorem 3.5 ]). Therefore the right - hand - side in (\[eq: PDEsfortwographs\ ]) have opposite signs for $ u_1 $ and $ u_2 $: however, for the consequence, which function carries which sign might depend on the affiliated component of $ A$. 

 If $ g$ takes both negative and positive values then premise (b$^T$) forces the conclusion (we comment further on this in Appendix \[gchangessign\ ]). We therefore assume for the remainder of the proof that $ g\geq 0$. 

 We continue the previous analysis and we will now rule out the possibility that the right - hand - side is $ g(\cdot, u_1)$ for $ u_1 $ and $ -g(\cdot, u_2)$ for $ u_2$. If that were the event we would get, again writing the PDE for $ v$, $ $ \label{eq: differencemaxprinc2 } 
  D_i\left(\left(\delta_{ij}+b_{ij}(Du_1, Du_2)\right) D_j v\right)\geq 0,$$ where we use $ g\geq 0 $; work on $ B_r(y)$ as above, the conditions $ v<0 $, $ v(z)=0 $ and $ Dv(z)=0 $ contradict Hopf boundary distributor point lemma for subsolutions of elliptic PDEs without $ 0$-th order term, see [ @GT Theorem 3.5 ]. 

 The lone possibility that is allowed is therefore that the right - hand - sides in (\[eq: PDEsfortwographs\ ]) are $ -g(\cdot, u_1)$ for $ u_1 $ and $
 anf such that there is a puint $z$ on the boundary of ths ball tfat belongs to $\{u_1=u_2\}$ (this can bx dobe by choosing any ball and enlarginh the raeius yntil the ukundary touchsd $\{u_1=u_2\}$). Ibserve that $v< 0$ on $B_r(y)$ atd it extends do $z$ with $v(z)=0$ and $Dv(z)=0$ (because $u_1(z)=u_2(z)$ and $Dt_1(z) = Du_2(z)$ bj the structurwl axfumpfpoks): this contradicts Hopf boundarg point lemma (in its version that holds regardpess of the sign of thf $0$-th order jsrm, wee the commdnts that follow [@GT Thgorem 3.5]). Therefore the right-hand-siaes iu (\[eq:PDEsforjcigrwkhs\]) have oppisite signs for $u_1$ and $u_2$: hmwever, gor the moment, whmch dunction carries whici sign might depend jn the cotnzcted component of $A$.

Id $t$ takgs bodh ndtatkve aid lositige talues then assumption (b$^T$) forces the conckufppn (we commenf furtrew on this in Appendix \[gchangessign\]). We tversfore assume for the renainder of the proof jhat $g\geq 0$.

Re continue the previous analysis and we will now rule uut tme puwslbility that the right-hand-side is $g(\cdot, u_1)$ for $h_1$ snc $-g(\cdot, u_2)$ for $m_2$. If that were the cwsr we would get, again wrjting the PDE for $g$, $$\label{gq:diffwrencemaxkrinc2}
 D_i\left(\left(\delta_{ij}+b_{ij}(Du_1, Du_2)\rught) D_j v\rigkt)\gwq 0,$$ where we used $y\geq 0$; workiny on $B_t(y)$ as sbove, the conditions $v<0$, $r(z)=0$ and $Dv(z)=0$ contrafict Hopf coundary point ldmms xor subsolutions of elliptyc PDEs wmthouc $0$-th orddr tgrm, see [@GT Theorel 3.5].

The only possibility tjat id dllowed is therefore that the right-hand-sivxs in (\[eq:PDEsfprdwocraphs\]) axe $-g(\cdpt, u_1)$ for $u_1$ anq $
and such that there is a point the of the that belongs to by any ball and the radius until boundary touches $\{u_1=u_2\}$). Observe that $v< on $B_r(y)$ and it extends to $z$ with $v(z)=0$ and $Dv(z)=0$ (because $u_1(z)=u_2(z)$ $Du_1(z) = Du_2(z)$ by the structural assumptions): this contradicts Hopf boundary point lemma its that regardless the sign of the $0$-th order term, see the comments that follow [@GT Theorem 3.5]). Therefore right-hand-sides in (\[eq:PDEsfortwographs\]) have opposite signs for $u_1$ $u_2$: however, for the which function carries which sign depend the connected of If takes both negative positive values then assumption (b$^T$) forces the conclusion (we comment further on this in Appendix \[gchangessign\]). We assume for of the that 0$. continue the previous we will now rule out the right-hand-side is $g(\cdot, u_1)$ for $u_1$ and $-g(\cdot, for $u_2$. that were the case we would again writing the PDE for $v$, $$\label{eq:differencemaxprinc2} D_i\left(\left(\delta_{ij}+b_{ij}(Du_1, D_j v\right)\geq 0,$$ where we used $g\geq 0$; working on $B_r(y)$ as above, the conditions and $Dv(z)=0$ contradict Hopf point lemma for of PDEs $0$-th term, see Theorem 3.5]. The only possibility that is allowed is therefore that right-hand-sides in (\[eq:PDEsfortwographs\]) are $-g(\cdot, u_1)$ for $u_1$ and $
 and such that there is a point $z$ On the boundAry of The BalL tHat bElonGs to $\{u_1=u_2\}$ (this can bE Done By choosing any ball and enLargiNg THe raDIuS untiL the bouNDaRY TouChEs $\{U_1=u_2\}$). OBsERvE that $V< 0$ on $b_r(y)$ and iT extends to $Z$ wiTh $V(z)=0$ and $Dv(z)=0$ (becaUSe $U_1(z)=u_2(z)$ and $Du_1(z) = du_2(z)$ By the structuRal AssumpTiOns): THis coNtrAdictS Hopf bOUndary Point lemmA (iN Its verSIon that HOLdS regArdless of the sign oF ThE $0$-Th order term, see The comMeNTs THAt fOllOw [@GT TheoreM 3.5]). THerefORe the riGHt-HAND-siDEs in (\[eq:PDEsforTwographs\]) haVE opPosite SiGns FOr $u_1$ and $U_2$: howeVeR, For The moment, whIch fUnction caRries wHIch sign MIght depEnd on tHe cOnnEcteD CoMpOneNt OF $A$.

IF $G$ tAkeS BotH negativE aNd PositIve vALUES theN asSumpTion (b$^t$) forces the conCluSion (WE coMment FurthEr on ThIs in APpendiX \[gchaNgEssign\]). We therefoRe asSume for thE reMaIndEr Of the PRoof thAt $g\Geq 0$.

we contiNue the pREviOuS ANAlYsis and we will now ruLe OUT tHe possibIlity tHAt ThE Right-hanD-sIde Is $g(\cDOT, u_1)$ for $U_1$ and $-G(\CdOt, u_2)$ for $u_2$. IF that wERe ThE case we WoUld get, AgAin WriTing tHE PDE For $v$, $$\laBel{eq:difFerenCEmaxprinc2}
 D_i\lefT(\Left(\delta_{ij}+b_{iJ}(du_1, dU_2)\RiGHt) D_j V\riGht)\geq 0,$$ where We usED $g\geQ 0$; worKInG on $b_R(y)$ as aBove, tHe COnDItions $v<0$, $v(z)=0$ and $Dv(z)=0$ contRaDict HoPf bouNdary point lemMa for subsoLUTIons of elLiptIC Pdes without $0$-th ordEr terM, see [@GT TheoREm 3.5].

The onlY possIbility tHat is alloWED is thereForE thAt tHe rIGHt-Hand-sides in (\[eq:pdesfoRtWographS\]) arE $-g(\cdot, u_1)$ For $U_1$ anD $
 and such that there is apoint $z$on th e b oun da ry o f th e ball that be l ongs  to $\{u_1=u_2\}$ (thi s can  b e  don e  b y cho osing a n yb a llan denl ar g in g the  ra dius un til the bo und ar y touches $\ { u_ 1=u_2\}$).  Ob serve that $ v<0$ on$B _r( y )$ an d i t ext ends t o  $z$ w ith $v(z) =0 $  and $ D v(z)=0$ ( be caus e $u_1(z)=u_2(z)$ an d  $Du_1(z) = Du _2(z)$  b y  t h e  st ruc tural assu mp tions ) : thisc on t r a dic t s Hopf bounda ry point le m ma(in it sver s ion th at ho ld s  re gardless of  the  sign ofthe $0 $ -th ord e r term,  see t hecom ment s  t ha t f ol l ow[ @G T T h eor em 3.5]) .Th erefo re t h e r ight -ha nd-s idesin (\[eq:PDEs for twog r aph s\])haveoppo si te si gns fo r $u_ 1$  and $u_2$: how ever , for the  mo me nt,  w hichf unctio n c arr ies whi ch sign mig ht d e pe nd on the connecte dc o mp onent of  $A$.If  $ g $ takesbo thnega t i ve an d po s it ive valu es the n  a ss umption  ( b$^T$)  f orc esthe c o nclu sion ( we comme nt fu r ther on this i n  Appendix \[g c ha n g es s ign\ ]).  We therefo re a s sume  for th e r e maind er of  t h ep roof that $g\geq 0$ .
We co ntinu e the previou s analysis a n d we wil l no w  r u le out the pos sibil ity that t h e right- hand- side is$g(\cdot, u _1)$ for  $u _1$  an d $ - g (\ cdot, u_2)$ f o r  $u_ 2$ . If th atwere th e c ase  we  wo ul d get, ag ain writ in gth ePDE  for$ v$, $$\l ab el{ eq :di ffere n cemaxp rinc2 }
 D _i \l e ft( \left(\ d el t a _{ij }+ b_ {ij} (Du _1 , Du_ 2)\r i ght ) D_j v \right)\g eq0 ,$$wh er e we us ed $g\geq 0$;  w orking on$B _r( y)$ as a bove, th e conditions $v<0$, $v( z )=0$ an d $ Dv(z) =0$contradic t H opf bo und a ry poi nt lem ma fo rsub s o lutio n s  o f e ll iptic PDEs w ith out $ 0$ -thorder t erm, see [@GT Theo r em3.5].

The on lyposs i b il ity th a t i sa llo w e d is thereforethat the r ig h t- hand-sides in(\ [eq:PDE sfortwo graph s \]) are  $-g(\cdo t, u_1)$fo r $u _ 1 $ a nd $
 and_such that_there is a point_$z$ on_the_boundary of_the_ball that belongs_to $\{u_1=u_2\}$ (this_can be done by_choosing any ball_and_enlarging the radius until the boundary touches $\{u_1=u_2\}$). Observe that $v< 0$ on $B_r(y)$_and_it extends_to_$z$_with $v(z)=0$ and $Dv(z)=0$ (because_$u_1(z)=u_2(z)$ and $Du_1(z) = Du_2(z)$_by the_structural assumptions): this contradicts Hopf boundary point lemma_(in_its version that_holds regardless of the sign of the $0$-th order_term, see the comments that follow_[@GT Theorem 3.5])._Therefore_the_right-hand-sides in (\[eq:PDEsfortwographs\]) have_opposite signs for $u_1$ and $u_2$:_however, for the moment, which function_carries which sign might depend on the_connected component of $A$.

If $g$ takes_both negative and positive values_then assumption_(b$^T$) forces the conclusion (we_comment further on_this in_Appendix \[gchangessign\]). We_therefore assume for the remainder of_the proof that_$g\geq 0$.

We continue the previous analysis_and_we will now_rule_out_the possibility_that the right-hand-side_is_$g(\cdot, u_1)$_for_$u_1$ and $-g(\cdot, u_2)$ for $u_2$._If_that were the case we would get,_again writing the PDE_for_$v$, $$\label{eq:differencemaxprinc2}
 D_i\left(\left(\delta_{ij}+b_{ij}(Du_1, Du_2)\right)_D_j v\right)\geq 0,$$ where we_used $g\geq 0$; working on $B_r(y)$_as above,_the conditions_$v<0$, $v(z)=0$ and $Dv(z)=0$ contradict Hopf boundary point lemma for subsolutions_of elliptic PDEs without $0$-th order_term, see [@GT Theorem_3.5].

The only_possibility_that is allowed_is_therefore that_the right-hand-sides in (\[eq:PDEsfortwographs\]) are $-g(\cdot, u_1)$_for $u_1$_and $