\section{Introduction}

 In this paper we construct unbounded convex domains which are Kobayashi hyperbolic, but not biholomorphic to bounded convex domains. This provides a partial answer to a question asked by Forn{\ae}ss-K.T. Kim~\cite[Problem 14]{FK2015} and a negative answer to a question asked by Bracci~\cite{B2020} and Pflug-Zwonek~\cite[Section 5]{PZ2018}.

Kobayashi hyperbolic convex domains are always biholomorphic to bounded domains and share many complex analytic/geometric properties with bounded convex domains~\cite{B1980, BS2009}. Thus there are no obvious obstructions that would prevent a given  Kobayashi hyperbolic convex domain from being biholomorphic to a bounded convex domain.

We will find such obstructions by considering the asymptotic geometry of the Kobayashi distance $K_\Omega$ on convex domains $\Omega$. We will show that for bounded convex domains, the Kobayashi metric is Gromov hyperbolic if and only if $\Db \times \Db$ does not ``asymptotically isometrically embed'' into the domain. Then we will show that this equivalence fails for certain unbounded Kobayashi hyperbolic convex domains and thus these domains cannot be biholomorphic to bounded convex domains.

Our main result is stated in terms of the geometry of the Hilbert metric $H_C$ on the base $C \subset \Rb^d$ of a convex tube domain.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main} If $d \geq 2$, $C \subset \Rb^d$ is a bounded convex domain, and $(C,H_C)$ is Gromov hyperbolic, then $\Omega:=C+i\Rb^d \subset \Cb^d$ is not biholomorphic to a bounded convex domain in $\Cb^d$.
\end{theorem}

Benoist~\cite{B2003} has characterized the bounded convex domains in $\Rb^d$ with Gromov hyperbolic Hilbert metric and from his classification we have the following corollaries.

\begin{corollary}If $d \geq 2$ and $C \subset \Rb^d$ is a bounded strongly convex domain, then $\Omega:=C+i\Rb^d$ is not biholomorphic to a bounded convex domain in $\Cb^d$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{corollary}If $d \geq 2$ and $C \subset \Rb^d$ is a bounded convex domain with real analytic boundary, then $\Omega:=C+i\Rb^d$ is not biholomorphic to a bounded convex domain in $\Cb^d$.
\end{corollary}

To prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main} we introduce the following asymptotic invariant of a Kobayashi hyperbolic complex manifold.

\begin{definition} Suppose $M,N$ are Kobayashi hyperbolic complex manifolds (e.g. bounded domains in $\Cb^d$). We say that $M$ \emph{asymptotically isometrically embeds into $N$} if there exists a sequence of holomorphic maps $f_n : M \rightarrow N$ such that
\begin{align*}
K_{M}(z,w)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} K_N( f_n(z),f_n(w))
\end{align*}
locally uniformly on $M \times M$.
\end{definition}

Using results from~\cite{Z2019b} we will show that for bounded convex domains, the Kobayashi metric is Gromov hyperbolic if and only if $\Db \times \Db$ does not asymptotically isometrically embed into $\Omega$.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:bd_convex_char} Suppose $\Omega \subset \Cb^d$ is a bounded convex domain. Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(\Omega, K_\Omega)$ is Gromov hyperbolic
\item $\Db \times \Db$ does not asymptotically isometrically embed into $\Omega$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark} The implication $(1) \Rightarrow (2)$ holds for general complex manifolds. As we will see below, the reverse implication fails already for unbounded Kobayashi hyperbolic convex domains.
\end{remark}

As an aside, we mention the following connection to finite type conditions. In the case when $\Omega \subset \Cb^d$ is a bounded convex domain with $\Cc^\infty$ boundary, the Kobayashi metric is Gromov hyperbolic if and only if $\partial\Omega$ has finite type in the sense of D'Angelo~\cite{Z2016}. Hence we have following corollary.

\begin{corollary}Suppose $\Omega \subset \Cb^d$ is a bounded convex domain with $\Cc^\infty$ boundary. Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\partial\Omega$ has finite type in the sense of D'Angelo,
\item $\Db \times \Db$ does not asymptotically isometrically embed into $\Omega$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}

Using a result of Benoist~\cite{B2003} we will also characterize the tube domains which admit asymptotic isometric embeddings of $\Db \times \Db$.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:TD_char} Suppose $d \geq 2$, $C \subset \Rb^d$ is a $\Rb$-properly convex domain, and $\Omega : = C + i \Rb^d$. Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(C,H_C)$ is Gromov hyperbolic,
\item $\Db \times \Db$ does not asymptotically isometrically embed into $\Omega$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

Finally, we will use the following characterization of tube domains with Gromov hyperbolic Kobayashi metric.

\begin{theorem}\cite[Corollary 1.13]{Z2019b}\label{thm:TD_gromov} Suppose $d \geq 2$, $C \subset \Rb^d$ is a $\Rb$-properly convex domain, and $\Omega : = C + i \Rb^d$. Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(\Omega, K_\Omega)$ is Gromov hyperbolic,
\item $(C,H_C)$ is Gromov hyperbolic and $C$ is unbounded.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

Using the above results we can prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} assuming Propositions~\ref{prop:bd_convex_char} and~\ref{prop:TD_char}] Suppose $d \geq 2$, $C \subset \Rb^d$ is a bounded convex domain, $(C,H_C)$ is Gromov hyperbolic, and $\Omega:=C+i\Rb^d \subset \Cb^d$. Since $C$ is bounded, Theorem~\ref{thm:TD_gromov} implies that $(\Omega, K_\Omega)$ is not Gromov hyperbolic. Since $(C,H_C)$ is Gromov hyperbolic, Proposition~\ref{prop:TD_char} implies that $\Db \times \Db$ does not asymptotically isometrically embed into $\Omega$. So $\Omega$ cannot be biholomorphic to a bounded convex domain by Proposition~\ref{prop:bd_convex_char}.

\end{proof}

\begin{remark} The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} only requires one part of Theorem~\ref{thm:TD_gromov}: if $C \subset \Rb^d$ is a bounded convex domain and $\Omega:=C+i\Rb^d$, then $(\Omega, K_\Omega)$ is not Gromov hyperbolic. The proof of this is fairly easy, one uses standard estimates on the Kobayashi metric to show that for any $c_0 \in C$ the map
\begin{align*}
y \in (\Rb^d, d_{\Euc}) \rightarrow c_0 + iy \in (\Omega, K_\Omega)
\end{align*}
is a quasi-isometric embedding (with constants depending on $c_0$). Hence $(\Omega, K_\Omega)$ cannot be Gromov hyperbolic. See~\cite[Lemma 19.4]{Z2019b} for details.

\end{remark}

There are some examples of tube domains with bounded bases that are biholomorphic to bounded convex domains, for instance:

\begin{example}\label{ex:bad} Let $I =[-1,1] \subset \Rb$ and $C=I^d\subset \Rb^d$. Then
\begin{align*}
\Omega = C+i\Rb^d =(I+i\Rb)^d
\end{align*}
is biholomorphic to $\Db^d$.
\end{example}

This leads to the following conjecture, related to a question of Forn{\ae}ss and K.T. Kim~\cite[Problem 14]{FK2015}.

\begin{conjecture} A tube domain with bounded convex base is biholomorphic to a bounded convex domain if and only if it is biholomorphic to $\Db^d$. \end{conjecture}

For tube domains over unbounded bases, the situation seems more mysterious. Pflug and Zwonek~\cite[Example 18]{PZ2018} proved that the tube domain $\Omega = C+i\Rb^2$ over
\begin{align*}
C= \{ (x_1,x_2) \in \Rb^2 : x_1, x_2 > 0 \text{ and } x_1 x_2 > 1\}
\end{align*}
is biholomorphic to a bounded convex domain. This domain is non-homogeneous which suggests that the problem of characterizing general tube domains biholomorphic to bounded domains is very difficult. However, from Equation (34) in~\cite{PZ2018} and Theorem 3.1 in~\cite{Z2016} the Kobayashi distance on $\Omega$ is not Gromov hyperbolic. Hence it is possible that the following conjecture is true.

\begin{conjecture} Suppose $\Omega = C+i\Rb^d$ is a tube domain and $(\Omega, K_\Omega)$ is Gromov hyperbolic (i.e. $C$ is unbounded and $(C,H_C)$ is Gromov hyperbolic). Then $\Omega$ is biholomorphic to a bounded convex domain if and only if $\Omega$ is biholomorphic to the unit ball. \end{conjecture}

 \subsection*{Acknowledgements} This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant DMS-1904099.

\section{Preliminaries}

\subsection{The space of convex domains} In this section we recall some basic properties of the space of convex domains, for more background see ~\cite{GZ2020}.

Let $\Kb$ be either the real or complex numbers. A convex subset $\Omega \subset \Kb^d$ is called \emph{$\Kb$-properly convex} if every $\Kb$-affine map $f: \Kb \rightarrow \Omega$ is constant.

Let $\Xb_{d}(\Kb)$ be the set of all $\Kb$-properly convex domains in $\Kb^d$ endowed with the local Hausdorff topology. Then let
\begin{align*}
\Xb_{d,0}(\Kb) =\left\{ (\Omega, z) \in  \Xb_{d}(\Kb) \times \Kb^d : z \in \Omega\right\} \subset \Xb_d(\Kb) \times \Kb^d.
\end{align*}
When the context is clear we will write $\Xb_d$, $\Xb_{d,0}$ instead of $\Xb_d(\Kb)$, $\Xb_{d,0}(\Kb)$.

\begin{definition} Given a subset $A\subset \Xb_d$ we will let $\overline{A}^{\Xb_d}$ denote its closure in $\Xb_d$. \end{definition}

The group $\Aff(\Kb^d)$ of affine automorphisms of $\Kb^d$ acts continuously on both $\Xb_d$ and $\Xb_{d,0}$. Building upon earlier work of Benz\'{e}cri~\cite{B1959} in the $\Kb=\Rb$ case, Frankel proved that the action of $\Aff(\Kb^d)$ on $\Xb_{d,0}$ is compact.

\begin{theorem}[Frankel~\cite{F1991}]\label{thm:frankel} There exists a compact subset $K \subset \Xb_{d,0}$ such that
\begin{align*}
\Aff(\Kb^d)\cdot K= \Xb_{d,0}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}

We will also use the following observation.

\begin{observation}\label{obs:compact_inclusion} If $\Omega_n$ converges to $\Omega$ in $\Xb_d$ and $K \subset \Omega$ is a compact subset, then
\begin{align*}
K \subset\Omega_n
\end{align*}
for $n$ sufficiently large.
\end{observation}

\begin{proof} See for instance~\cite[Proposition 3.3]{GZ2020}. \end{proof}

\subsection{The Kobayashi metric} In this section we recall some basic properties of the Kobayashi distance on a $\Cb$-properly convex domain, for more background see~\cite{A1989}.

Given a domain $\Omega\subset \Cb^d$ let $K_\Omega$ denote the Kobayashi (pseudo-)distance on $\Omega$. For general unbounded domains determining whether or not $K_\Omega$ is non-degenerate is very difficult, but in the special case of convex domains we have the following result of Barth.

\begin{theorem}[Barth~\cite{B1980}]\label{thm:barth}
Suppose $\Omega$ is a convex domain. Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Omega$ is $\Cb$-properly convex,
\item $\Omega$ is biholomorphic to a bounded domain,
\item $K_\Omega$ is a non-degenerate distance on $\Omega$,
\item $(\Omega, K_\Omega)$ is a proper geodesic metric space.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

For convex domains, there is a connection between the Kobayashi distance and flat pieces in the boundary.

\begin{proposition}\cite[Proposition 3.5]{Z2017}\label{prop:finite_dist}
Suppose $\Omega$ is a $\Cb$-properly convex domain and $x, y \in \partial \Omega$ are distinct. Assume $z_m, w_n \in \Omega$ are sequences such that $z_m \rightarrow x$ and $w_n \rightarrow y$. If
\begin{align*}
\liminf_{m,n \rightarrow \infty} K_{\Omega}(z_m, w_n) < \infty
\end{align*}
and $L$ is the complex line containing $x$ and $y$, then $L \cap \Omega = \emptyset$ and the interior of $\partial\Omega \cap L$ in $L$ contains $x$ and $y$.
\end{proposition}

The Kobayashi distance is also well behaved with respect to the local Hausdorff topology.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:dist_convergence} If $\Omega_n$ converges to $\Omega$ in $\Xb_d$, then
\begin{align*}
K_\Omega =\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} K_{\Omega_n}
\end{align*}
uniformly on compact subsets of $\Omega \times \Omega$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} See for instance~\cite[Theorem 4.1]{Z2016}. \end{proof}

\subsection{Gromov hyperbolic metric spaces}\label{sec:prelim_gromov} In this section we recall the definition of Gromov hyperbolic metric spaces, for more background see for instance~\cite{BH1999}.

Suppose $(X,d)$ is a metric space. A curve $\sigma: [a,b] \rightarrow X$ is a \emph{geodesic} if $d(\sigma(t_1),\sigma(t_2)) = \abs{t_1-t_2}$ for all $t_1, t_2 \in [a,b]$.  A \emph{geodesic triangle} in a metric space is a choice of three points in $X$ and geodesic segments  connecting these points. A geodesic triangle is said to be \emph{$\delta$-thin} if any point on any of the sides of the triangle is within distance $\delta$ of the other two sides.

\begin{definition}
A proper geodesic metric space $(X,d)$ is called \emph{$\delta$-hyperbolic} if every geodesic triangle is $\delta$-thin. If $(X,d)$ is $\delta$-hyperbolic for some $\delta\geq0$ then $(X,d)$ is called \emph{Gromov hyperbolic}.
\end{definition}

In this paper we will also use an equivalent formulation of Gromov hyperbolicity. Given $o,y,z \in X$ the \emph{Gromov product} is
\begin{align*}
(x|y)_o = \frac{1}{2}(d(o,x)+d(o,y)-d(x,y)).
\end{align*}
Using the Gromov product it is possible to give an alternative definition of Gromov hyperbolicity (for a proof see for instance~\cite[Chapter III.H.1, Proposition 1.22]{BH1999}).

\begin{theorem}
A proper geodesic metric space $(X,d)$ is Gromov hyperbolic if and only if there exists $\alpha \geq 0$ such that
\begin{align*}
(x|y)_o \geq \min \{ (x|z)_o, (z|y)_o\} - \alpha
\end{align*}
for all $o,x,y,z \in X$.
\end{theorem}

\section{Asymptotic embeddings and analytic disks in the boundary}

We say that a domain $\Omega \subset \Cb^d$ has \emph{simple boundary} if every holomorphic map $\varphi : \Db \rightarrow \partial \Omega$ is constant. In this section we establish the following characterization of convex domains which admit an asymptotically isometrically embedding of $\Db \times \Db$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:asym_embedding} Suppose $\Omega \subset \Cb^d$ is a $\Cb$-properly convex domain. Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item there exists $D\in \overline{\Aff(\Cb^d) \cdot \Omega}^{\Xb_d}$ with non-simple boundary,
\item $\Db \times \Db$ asymptotically isometrically embeds into $\Omega$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

The rest of the section is devoted to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:asym_embedding}.

\subsection{(1) implies (2)} Suppose $\Omega \subset \Cb^d$ is a $\Cb$-properly convex domain and there exists
\begin{align*}
D\in \overline{\Aff(\Cb^d) \cdot \Omega}^{\Xb_d}
\end{align*}
with non-simple boundary.

Let $\Hc= \{ z \in \Cb : {\rm Im}(z) > 0\}$. Then by~\cite[Theorem 7.4]{GZ2020} there exists
\begin{align*}
D_2\in \overline{\Aff(\Cb^d) \cdot D}^{\Xb_d} \subset \overline{\Aff(\Cb^d) \cdot \Omega}^{\Xb_d}
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
D_2\cap \left(\Cb^2 \times\{(0,\dots,0)\} \right) = \Hc^2 \times \{(0,\dots,0)\}.
\end{align*}

We will construct an isometric embedding of $\Db \times \Db$ into $D_2$ and use it to show that $\Db \times \Db$ asymptotically isometrically embeds into $\Omega$.

\begin{lemma} If $z,w \in \Hc^2$, then
\begin{align*}
K_{D_2}\Big((z,0,\dots,0),(w,0,\dots,0)\Big) = K_{\Hc^2}(z,w).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} By the distance non-increasing property of the Kobayashi metric, we clearly have
\begin{align*}
K_{D_2}\Big((z,0,\dots,0),(w,0,\dots,0)\Big) \leq K_{\Hc^2}(z,w).
\end{align*}
for all $z,w \in \Hc^2$.

Let $e_1,\dots,e_d$ be the standard basis of $\Cb^d$. By hypothesis, $(\Rb e_1 + \Cb e_2)\cap D_2 =\emptyset$. Then since $D_2$ is convex, there exists a real hyperplane $H$ such that $H \cap D_2 = \emptyset$ and $(\Rb e_1 + \Cb e_2) \subset H$. Then let $\rho: \Cb^d \rightarrow \Cb$ be the complex linear function with $\rho(z,0,\dots,0)=z$ and $\rho^{-1}(\Rb) = H$. Then $\rho(D_2)=\Hc$ and
\begin{align*}
\rho^{-1}(0)=H \cap iH \supset \Cb e_2.
\end{align*}
Hence
\begin{align*}
K_{D_2}\Big( (z_1,z_2,0,\dots,0),(w_1,w_2,0,\dots,0) \Big) & \geq K_{\Hc} \Big(\rho(z_1,z_2,0,\dots,0),\rho(w_1,w_2,0,\dots,0) \Big) \\
& = K_{\Hc}(z_1,w_1)
\end{align*}
for all $(z_1,z_2),(w_1,w_2) \in \Hc^2$.

Applying the same argument to the second variable shows that
\begin{align*}
K_{D_2}\Big( (z_1,z_2,0,\dots,0),(w_1,w_2,0,\dots,0) \Big)  \geq K_{\Hc}(z_2,w_2)
\end{align*}
for all $(z_1,z_2),(w_1,w_2) \in \Hc^2$.

Hence
\begin{align*}
K_{D_2}\Big( (z_1,z_2,0,\dots,0),& (w_1,w_2,0,\dots,0) \Big) \geq \max\left\{ K_{\Hc}(z_1,w_1),K_{\Hc}(z_2,w_2)\right\} \\
& = K_{\Hc^2} \Big((z_1,z_2),(w_1,w_2)\Big)
\end{align*}
for all $(z_1,z_2),(w_1,w_2) \in \Hc^2$.
\end{proof}

By the previous lemma there exists a holomorphic map $f : \Db \times \Db \rightarrow D_2$ with
\begin{align*}
K_{\Db \times \Db}(z,w) = K_{D_2}(f(z),f(w))
\end{align*}
for all $z,w \in \Db \times \Db$. Since
\begin{align*}
D_2\in  \overline{\Aff(\Cb^d) \cdot \Omega}^{\Xb_d},
\end{align*}
there exist affine automorphisms $A_n \in \Aff(\Cb^d)$ with $A_n \Omega \rightarrow D_2$. Using Observation~\ref{obs:compact_inclusion} and passing to a subsequence we can suppose that
\begin{align*}
f( r_n \cdot \Db \times \Db) \subset A_n \Omega
\end{align*}
where $r_n = 1-1/n$. Next define
\begin{align*}
f_n &: \Db \times \Db \rightarrow \Omega \\
f_n&(z) = A_n^{-1}f(r_nz).
\end{align*}
Then by Theorem~\ref{thm:dist_convergence}
\begin{align*}
K_{\Db \times \Db}(z,w)
&= K_{D_2}(f(z),f(w))=\lim_{n \rightarrow\infty}K_{D_2}(f(r_nz),f(r_nw))\\
& = \lim_{n \rightarrow\infty}K_{A_n\Omega}(f(r_nz),f(r_nw))\\
& = \lim_{n \rightarrow\infty}K_\Omega(f_n(z),f_n(w))
\end{align*}
locally uniformly on $\Db \times \Db$. Hence $\Db \times \Db$ asymptotically isometrically embeds into $\Omega$.

\subsection{(2) implies (1)} We will use the following lemma.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Fatou} Suppose $\Omega$ is a $\Cb$-properly convex domain and $\varphi : \Db \rightarrow \Omega$ is holomorphic. Then there exists a measurable function $\wh{\varphi} : \partial \Db \rightarrow \overline{\Omega}$ such that:
\begin{align*}
\wh{\varphi}(e^{i\theta}) = \lim_{r \nearrow 1} \varphi(re^{i\theta})
\end{align*}
for almost every $e^{i\theta} \in \partial \Db$. Moreover, if $\varphi_1,\varphi_2 : \Db \rightarrow \Omega$ are holomorphic and $\wh{\varphi}_1 = \wh{\varphi}_2$ almost everywhere, then $\varphi_1 = \varphi_2$.
\end{lemma}

Lemma~\ref{lem:Fatou} is a simple consequence of Fatou's Theorem and the Luzin-Privalov radial uniqueness theorem. Delaying the proof of the Lemma until Section~\ref{sec:pf_of_fatou} below, we prove that (2) implies (1) in Theorem~\ref{thm:asym_embedding}.

Suppose $\Omega \subset \Cb^d$ is a $\Cb$-properly convex domain and there exists a sequence $f_n : \Db \times \Db \rightarrow \Omega$ of holomorphic maps such that
\begin{align*}
K_{\Db \times \Db}(z,w)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} K_\Omega( f_n(z),f_n(w))
\end{align*}
locally uniformly on $\Db \times \Db$.

Using Theorem~\ref{thm:frankel} and passing to a subsequence, we can select affine maps $A_n \in \Aff(\Cb^d)$ such that $A_n(\Omega, f_n(0))$ converges to some $(D,z_0)$ in $\Xb_{d,0}$. Then using Theorem~\ref{thm:dist_convergence} and the Arzel\`a-Ascoli theorem, we can pass to a subsequence so that $A_n f_n: \Db \times \Db \rightarrow A_n\Omega$ converges locally uniformly to a holomorphic map $f: \Db \times \Db \rightarrow D$. Then by Theorem~\ref{thm:dist_convergence}
\begin{align*}
K_{\Db \times \Db}(z,w)
&=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} K_\Omega( f_n(z),f_n(w))=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} K_{A_n\Omega}( A_nf_n(z),A_nf_n(w))\\
& = K_D(f(z),f(w))
\end{align*}
for all $z,w \in \Db \times \Db$.
In particular, $f$ is injective.

Now fix $w_1,w_2 \in \Db$ distinct and consider the functions $\varphi_1,\varphi_2 : \Db \rightarrow D$ defined by $\varphi_j(\cdot) = f(\cdot,w_j)$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:Fatou} there exist measurable functions $\wh{\varphi}_j : \partial \Db \rightarrow \overline{D}$ and a set $A \subset \partial \Db$ of full measure such that
\begin{align*}
\wh{\varphi}_j(e^{i\theta}) = \lim_{r \nearrow 1} \varphi_j(re^{i\theta})
\end{align*}
for $j=1,2$ and $e^{i\theta} \in A$. Since $f$ is an isometric embedding, we must have $\wh{\varphi}_j(e^{i\theta})  \in \partial D$ when $e^{i\theta} \in A$.

Since $f$ is injective, $\varphi_1 \neq \varphi_2$. So there exists some $e^{i\theta} \in A$ with $\wh{\varphi}_1(e^{i\theta})\neq\wh{\varphi}_2(e^{i\theta})$. However,
\begin{align*}
 \limsup_{r \nearrow 1} & \ K_{D}(\varphi_1(re^{i\theta}),\varphi_2(re^{i\theta}) ) =  \limsup_{r \nearrow 1} \ K_{\Db \times \Db}\left( (re^{i\theta},w_1) (re^{i\theta},w_2) \right) \\
 &= K_{\Db}(w_1,w_2) < +\infty.
\end{align*}
So by Proposition~\ref{prop:finite_dist}, if $L$ is the complex line containing $\wh{\varphi}_1(e^{i\theta}), \wh{\varphi}_2(e^{i\theta})$, then $L \cap \partial D$ has non-empty interior in $L$. Hence $D$ has non-simple boundary.

\subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:Fatou}}\label{sec:pf_of_fatou}

Suppose $\Omega$ is a $\Cb$-properly convex domain and $\varphi : \Db \rightarrow \Omega$ is holomorphic.

Again let $\Hc= \{ z \in \Cb : {\rm Im}(z) > 0\}$.

\begin{lemma} There exists an affine map $A \in \Aff(\Cb^d)$ such that $A \Omega \subset \Hc^d$. \end{lemma}

\begin{proof} See for instance~\cite[Proposition 3.5]{BS2009} or~\cite{F1991}. \end{proof}

Consider the maps
\begin{align*}
f : \Hc \rightarrow \Db \\
f(z) = \frac{z-i}{z+i}
\end{align*}
 and $F := (f,\dots, f) \circ A : \Omega \hookrightarrow \Db^d$.  Notice that $F$ extends to a locally bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism of $\overline{\Omega}$ onto its image. Moreover, if
 \begin{align*}
 Z = \{ (z_1,\dots,z_d) : z_j = 1 \text{ for some } j \},
 \end{align*}
 then
 \begin{align*}
 \lim_{\norm{z} \rightarrow \infty} d_{\Euc}( F(z),Z) = 0.
 \end{align*}

Next consider $\phi:=F \circ \varphi : \Db \rightarrow \Db^d$. Then by Fatou's theorem, there exists a measurable function $\wh{\phi} : \partial \Db \rightarrow \overline{\Db^d}$ such that:
\begin{align*}
\wh{\phi}(e^{i\theta}) = \lim_{r \nearrow 1} \phi(re^{i\theta})
\end{align*}
for almost every $e^{i\theta} \in \partial \Db$. By modifying $\wh{\phi}$ on a set of measure zero, we can assume that $\wh{\phi}(\partial \Db) \subset F(\overline{\Omega}) \cup Z$.

\begin{lemma} The set $B=\left\{ e^{i\theta} : \wh{\phi}(e^{i\theta})\in Z\right\}$ has measure zero in $\partial \Db$. \end{lemma}

\begin{proof} Suppose for a contradiction that $B$ has positive measure in $\partial \Db$. Let $\pi_j: \Cb^d \rightarrow \Cb$ be the projection onto the $j^{th}$ coordinate. Consider the map
\begin{align*}
g&: \Db \rightarrow \Cb \\
g&(z) = \prod_{j=1}^d \left( \pi_j(\phi(z)) - 1 \right).
\end{align*}
Then $g$ is nowhere vanishing since $\phi(\Db) \subset \Db^d$. However
\begin{align*}
0= \prod_{j=1}^d \left( \pi_j(\wh{\phi}(z)) - 1 \right)= \lim_{r \nearrow 1} g(re^{i\theta})
\end{align*}
for  $e^{i\theta} \in B$. Since $B$ has positive measure and $g$ is bounded, the Luzin-Privalov radial uniqueness theorem implies that $g \equiv 0$. So we have a contradiction.
\end{proof}

Then by modifying $\wh{\phi}$ on a set of measure zero, we can assume that $\wh{\phi}(\partial \Db) \subset F(\overline{\Omega})$. Then $\wh{\varphi} := F^{-1} \circ \wh{\phi}$ is well defined and satisfies the lemma.

  The ``moreover'' part of the lemma follows from applying the dominated convergence theorem and the Cauchy integral formula to the functions $F \circ \varphi_j$ (or the Luzin-Privalov radial uniqueness theorem).

\section{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:bd_convex_char}}

Proposition~\ref{prop:bd_convex_char} is an immediate consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:asym_embedding} and the following result from~\cite{Z2019b}.

\begin{theorem}\cite[Theorem 1.5]{Z2019b}   Suppose $\Omega \subset \Cb^d$ is a bounded convex domain. Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item  $(\Omega, K_\Omega)$ is Gromov hyperbolic,
\item every domain in $\overline{\Aff(\Cb^d) \cdot \Omega}^{\Xb_d}$ has simple boundary.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\section{A result of Benoist}

Recall, a convex domain $C \subset \Rb^d$ is called \emph{strictly convex} if $\partial C$ does not contain any non-trivial line segments. A result of Benoist implies the following characterization of convex domains in $\Rb^d$ with Gromov hyperbolic Hilbert metric.

\begin{theorem}[{Benoist~\cite[Proposition 1.6]{B2003}}] \label{thm:benoist_thm}Suppose $C \subset \Rb^d$ is a $\Rb$-properly convex domain. Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(C,H_C)$ is Gromov hyperbolic,
\item every domain in $\overline{\Aff(\Rb^d) \cdot C}^{\Xb_d}$ is strictly convex.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

To be precise, Theorem~\ref{thm:benoist_thm} is stated differently than~\cite[Proposition 1.6]{B2003}, however the proof is identical. For the reader's convenience we   provide the complete argument.

\subsection{Preliminaries} We begin by recalling some basic facts about the Hilbert distance.

Suppose $C \subset \Rb^d$ is a convex domain. Given $x,y \in C$ distinct let $L_{x,y}$ be the real line containing them  and let $a,b \in \partial C \cup \{\infty\}$ be the endpoints of $\overline{C} \cap L_{x,y}$ with the ordering $a,x,y,b$. Then define the \emph{Hilbert pseudo-distance between $x,y$} to be
\begin{align*}
H_C(x,y) = \frac{1}{2} \log \frac{ \norm{x-b}\norm{y-a}}{ \norm{y-b}\norm{x-a}}
\end{align*}
where we define
\begin{align*}
\frac{ \norm{x-\infty}}{\norm{y-\infty}}=\frac{ \norm{y-\infty}}{\norm{x-\infty}}=1.
\end{align*}
In the case when $C$ does not contain any affine real lines (i.e. $C$ is a $\Rb$-properly convex domain), we see that $H_C(x,y) > 0$ for all $x,y \in C$ distinct.

We will use the following well known fact about geodesics in the Hilbert metric, for a proof see~\cite[Proposition 2]{dlH1993}.

\begin{proposition} If $C \subset \Rb^d$ is a $\Rb$-properly convex domain and $x,y \in C$, then the Euclidean line segment $[x,y]$ joining $x$ and $y$ can be parametrized to be a unit speed geodesic in $(C,H_C)$. Moreover, if $C$ is strictly convex, then this is the only unit speed geodesic joining $x$ to $y$.
\end{proposition}

Using the definition of the Hilbert distance is is not difficult to observe that the Hilbert distance is continuous on $\Xb_d$.

\begin{observation}\label{obs:Hilbert_metric_conv} If $C_n$ converges to $C$ in $\Xb_d$, then
\begin{align*}
H_C =\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} H_{C_n}
\end{align*}
uniformly on compact subsets of $C \times C$.
\end{observation}

We will also use the following result of Karlsson-Noskov on the boundary of convex domains with Gromov hyperbolic Hilbert metric.

\begin{theorem}[Karlsson-Noskov~\cite{KN2002}]\label{thm:KN} Suppose $C \subset \Rb^d$ is a $\Rb$-properly convex domain. If $(C, H_C)$ is Gromov hyperbolic, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $C$ is strictly convex,
\item $\partial C$ is a $C^1$ hypersurface.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:benoist_thm}}Suppose $C \subset \Rb^d$ is a $\Rb$-properly convex domain.

(1) $\Rightarrow$ (2): Suppose $(C,H_C)$ is Gromov hyperbolic. Then by Observation~\ref{obs:Hilbert_metric_conv} and the Gromov product definition of Gromov hyperbolicity, every domain in $\overline{\Aff(\Rb^d) \cdot C}^{\Xb_d}$ has Gromov hyperbolic Hilbert metric. Hence every domain in the orbit closure is strictly convex by Theorem~\ref{thm:KN}.

(2) $\Rightarrow$ (1): We compactify $\Rb^d$ by adding the sphere at infinity, that is: a sequence $x_n \in \Rb^d$ converges to $\xi \in {\mathbb S}^{d-1}$ if $\norm{x_n} \rightarrow \infty$ and $\frac{1}{\norm{x_n}} x_n \rightarrow \xi$. Then, given $x \in \Rb^d$ and $\xi \in {\mathbb S}^{d-1}$ we can define the intervals
\begin{align*}
(\xi,x) = (x,\xi) = \{ x+ t \xi : t \geq 0\}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
(-\xi,\xi)=(\xi,-\xi) = \{ t \xi : t \in \Rb\}.
\end{align*}

By assumption $C$ is strictly convex and hence every geodesic joining two points $x,y \in C$ parametrizes the Euclidean line segment $[x,y]$. Suppose $(C,H_C)$ is not Gromov hyperbolic. Then for each $n \geq 0$ there exist $x_n,y_n,z_n \in C$ and $u_n \in [x_n,y_n]$ such that
\begin{align*}
H_C(u_n, [x_n,z_n] \cup [z_n,y_n]) \geq n.
\end{align*}
Using Theorem~\ref{thm:frankel}  and passing to a subsequence we can find affine maps $A_n \in \Aff(\Rb^d)$ such that $A_n(C,u_n)$ converges to some $(C_\infty,u_\infty)$ in $\Xb_{d,0}$.  Passing to further subsequences we can assume that $A_nx_n,A_ny_n, A_nz_n$ converges to $x_\infty, y_\infty, z_\infty \in \overline{C}_\infty \cup {\mathbb S}^{d-1}$ respectively. Since
\begin{align*}
H_C(u_n, \{x_n,y_n, z_n\}) \geq n,
\end{align*}
we must have $x_\infty, y_\infty, z_\infty \in \partial C_\infty \cup {\mathbb S}^{d-1}$.

Since $u_n \in [x_n,z_n] \subset C$ we have $u_\infty \in (x_\infty, y_\infty) \subset C_\infty$. So $x_\infty \neq y_\infty$. Since $C_\infty$ is $\Rb$-properly convex at least one of $x_\infty, y_\infty$ is finite. Then after possibly relabelling we can assume that $x_\infty \neq z_\infty$ and at least one of $x_\infty, z_\infty$ is finite. Then $(x_\infty, z_\infty) \subset \overline{C}_\infty$. Since $C_\infty$ is strictly convex we have $(x_\infty, z_\infty) \subset C_\infty$.

Now fix $v \in (x_\infty, z_\infty)$. Then there exists $v_n \in (x_n,z_n)$ with $A_n v_n$ converging to $v$. Then
\begin{align*}
\infty > H_{C_\infty}(v,u_\infty) = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} H_{A_n C}(A_nv_n, A_n u_n) = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} H_{C}(v_n, u_n) \geq \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} n = \infty.
\end{align*}
So we have a contradiction and hence $(C,H_C)$ is Gromov hyperbolic.

\section{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:TD_char}}

Proposition~\ref{prop:TD_char} is an immediate consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:benoist_thm}, Theorem~\ref{thm:asym_embedding}, and the following lemma from~\cite{Z2019b}

\begin{lemma}\cite[Lemma 19.6]{Z2019b} Suppose $C \subset \Rb^d$ is a $\Rb$-properly convex domain and $\Omega = C + i\Rb^d$. Then
\begin{align*}
\overline{\Aff(\Cb^d) \cdot \Omega}^{\Xb_d(\Cb)} = \Aff(\Cb^d) \cdot \Big( \overline{\Aff(\Rb^d) \cdot C}^{\Xb_d(\Rb)} + i\Rb^d \Big).
\end{align*}
In particular, the following are equivalent
\begin{enumerate}
\item every domain in $\overline{\Aff(\Rb^d) \cdot C}^{\Xb_{d}(\Rb)}$ is strictly convex,
\item every domain in $\overline{\Aff(\Cb^d) \cdot \Omega}^{\Xb_{d}(\Cb)}$ has simple boundary.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

Notice that the ``in particular'' part is a consequence of the first claim and the following result of Fu-Straube.

\begin{proposition}[{Fu-Straube~\cite[Theorem 1.1]{FS1998}}]Suppose $\Omega \subset \Cb^d$ is a convex domain. Then every holomorphic map $\Db \rightarrow \partial\Omega$ is constant if and only if every complex affine map $\Db \rightarrow \partial\Omega$ is constant.
\end{proposition}

\bibliographystyle{alpha}


\section{Introduction}
Let $T$ be a bounded linear map between Banach spaces $X$ and $Y.$ For each
$ k\in \mathbb{N}$ the $k^{th}$ entropy number $e_{k}(T)$ of $T$ is defined by

\[
e_{k}(T)=\inf \left\{ \varepsilon >0:T\left( B_{X}\right) \mbox{ can be
covered by }2^{k-1}\mbox{ balls in }Y \mbox{ with radius }\varepsilon
\right\} ,
\]
where $B_{X}$ is the closed unit ball in $X.$ Since $T$ is compact if and
only if $\lim\limits_{k\rightarrow \infty }e_{k}(T)=0,$ this limit is called the
measure of noncompactness of $T;$ we denote it by $\beta (T).$ Plainly $%
0\leq \beta (T)\leq \left\Vert T\right\Vert ;$ if $\beta (T)=\left\Vert
T\right\Vert $ we say that $T$ is \textit{maximally noncompact. }The
definition of entropy numbers has its roots in the notion of the metric
entropy of a set, introduced by Kolmogorov in the 1930s and which, in its
different variants, has proved useful in numerous branches of mathematics
and theoretical computer science. Sharp upper and lower estimates of $%
e_{k}(T)$ are known in many cases when $T$ is compact:\ information of this
type is useful in connection with the estimation of eigenvalues and is
especially complete when $T$ is an embedding of one function space into
another (see, for example, \cite{ET}).

It is a different story when $T$ is not compact. If $T$ is an embedding map
between function spaces on an open subset $\Omega $ of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$,
possible reasons for noncompactness include

\noindent { (i)} $\Omega $ is unbounded;

\noindent { (ii)} if $\Omega$ is bounded, because of some bad behaviour of the
boundary $\partial \Omega$, or due to particular values of the parameters
involved in the function spaces.

An example of (ii) was provided by Hencl \cite{Hen}, who considered the case
in which $k\in \mathbb{N},p\in \lbrack 1,\infty ),kp<n,1/q=1/p-k/n$ and, in
standard notation, $id\colon W_{0}^{k,p}\left( \Omega \right) \rightarrow
L^{q}\left( \Omega \right) $ is the natural embedding. He showed that $id$
is maximally compact, so that $e_{k}(id)=\left\Vert id\right\Vert $ for all $%
k\in \mathbb{N}.$ Further work in this direction, involving Sobolev spaces
based on Lorentz spaces and maximally noncompact embeddings, is contained in
\cite{Bou} and \cite{LMOP}.

Little seems to be known in cases of type (i), even in quite basic
situations. For example, suppose that $n=2,$ $\Omega =\mathbb{R}\times
(0,\pi )$ and $I\colon W_{0}^{1,2}\left( \Omega \right) \rightarrow L^{2}\left(
\Omega \right) $ is the natural embedding. Then it is known that $I$ is not
compact, so that $\beta \left( I\right) >0,$ but although this example could
hardly be simpler, the exact value of $\beta \left( I\right) $ appears to be
unknown up to this point. It was shown in \citep[Remark~3.8]{Hen} that the embedding $I$ is maximally noncompact, but the precise value of its measure of noncompactness remained unknown. Here we settle this question by establishing a
more general result in which $n\geq 2,k\in \left\{ 1,...,n-1\right\} ,p\in
(1,\infty ),$ $-\infty <a_{i}<b_{i}<\infty $ for each $i\in \left\{
1,...,n-k\right\} ,$ and
\[\label{intro:defD}
D=\mathbb R^{k}\times \prod_{i=1}^{n-k}\left( a_{i},b_{i}\right) ;
\]%
the norm on $W_{0}^{1,p}\left( D\right) $ is defined by
\[
\left( \left\Vert u\right\Vert _{L^{p}(D)}^{p}+\left\Vert \left\vert \nabla
u\right\vert _{l^{p}}\right\Vert _{L^{p}(D)}^{p}\right) ^{1/p}.
\]%
We show that the natural embedding $I_{p}:W_{0}^{1,p}\left( D\right)
\rightarrow L^{p}\left( D\right) $ is maximally noncompact and
\[
\beta \left( I_{p}\right) =\left\Vert I_{p}\right\Vert =\left( 1+\left(
p-1\right) \left( \frac{2\pi }{p\sin (\pi /p)}\right)
^{p}\sum_{i=1}^{n-k}\left( b_{i}-a_{i}\right) ^{-p}\right)^{-1/p}.
\]%
For the particularly elementary illustration involving $I$ that was
mentioned immediately above this gives the attractive formula%
\[
\beta \left( I\right) =\left\Vert I\right\Vert =1/\sqrt{2}.
\]%
It is also shown that the strict $s$-numbers of $I_{p}$ (that is, the
approximation, isomorphism, Gelfand, Bernstein, Kolmogorov and Mityagin
numbers) exhibit the same behaviour as the entropy numbers: the $k^{th}$
such strict $s-$number coincides with $\left\Vert I_{p}\right\Vert $ for all
$k\in \mathbb{N}.$ The proof of these assertions relies on properties of the
pseudo-$p$-Laplacian and the $p$-trigonometric functions. Furthermore, we show that the embedding of the Sobolev-type space $W_0^1X(D)$ built upon a general rearrangement-invariant space $X(D)$ to a rearrangement-invariant space $Y(D)$ is always maximally noncompact provided that the space $Y(D)$ has absolutely continuous norm. Precise definitions are contained in the following section.

\section{Background material}
In this section, we fix the notation used throughout this paper and collect the fundamental theoretical background needed later in \hyperref[sec:main]{Section~\ref*{sec:main}}. Let $\Omega\subseteq\R^n$ be an open set (throughout this paper, we assume that $n\geq2$).

We denote the set of all continuous functions that are compactly supported in $\Omega$ by $\mathcal C_c(\Omega)$. The set of all smooth (i.e., infinitely differentiable) functions that are compactly supported in $\Omega$ is denoted by $\mathcal C_0^\infty(\Omega)$.

For $p\in[1,\infty)$, $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ stands for \emph{the classical first-order Sobolev space} on $\Omega$ endowed with the norm
\begin{equation}\label{prel:W1pnorm}
\|u\|_{W^{1,p}(\Omega)}=\left(\|u\|^p_{L^p(\Omega)}+\||\nabla u|_{\ell^p}\|_{L^p(\Omega)}^p\right)^\frac1{p},\ u\in W^{1,p}(\Omega),
\end{equation}
where $|\nabla u|_{\ell^p}$ is the $\ell^p$-norm of the (weak) gradient of $u$, that is,
\begin{equation*}
|\nabla u|_{\ell^p}=\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_i}\right|^p\right)^\frac1{p}.
\end{equation*}
We denote the closure of $\mathcal C_0^\infty(\Omega)$ in $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ by $W_0^{1,p}(\Omega)$.

We shall also work with Sobolev-type spaces built upon function spaces more general than the Lebesgue spaces. We say that a functional $\varrho\colon\M^+(\Omega)\to[0,\infty]$, where $\M^+(\Omega)$ is the set of all nonnegative measurable functions on $\Omega$, is a rearrangement-invariant Banach function norm if, for all $f,g,F_j\in\M^+(\Omega)$, $k\in\mathbb N$, for all $\alpha\in[0,\infty)$, and for all measurable $E\subseteq\Omega$, the following properties hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\varrho(f)=0$ if and only if $f=0$ a.e., $\varrho(\alpha f)=\alpha\varrho(f)$, $\varrho(f+g)\leq\varrho(f)+\varrho(g)$;
\item if $0\leq g\leq f$ a.e., then $\varrho(g)\leq\varrho(f)$;
\item if $0\leq F_j\nearrow f$ a.e., then $\varrho(F_j)\nearrow\varrho(f)$;
\item if $|E|<\infty$, then $\varrho(\chi_E)<\infty$;
\item if $|E|<\infty$, then there is a constant $C_E$, which may depend only on $E$ and $\varrho$, such that $\int_Ef(x)\,\d x\leq C_E\varrho(f)$;
\item $\varrho(f)=\varrho(g)$ whenever $f$ and $g$ are equimeasurable, that is, $|\{x\in\Omega\colon f(x)>\lambda\}|=|\{x\in\Omega\colon g(x)>\lambda\}|$ for every $\lambda>0$.
\end{itemize}
If $\varrho$ is a rearrangement-invariant Banach function norm, then the set $X(\Omega)=\{f\in\mathfrak{M}(\Omega)\colon\varrho(|f|)<\infty\}$, where $\mathfrak{M}(\Omega)$ is the set of all measurable functions on $\Omega$, endowed with the norm $\|\cdot\|_{X(\Omega)}$ defined as
\begin{equation*}
\|f\|_{X(\Omega)}=\varrho(|f|),\ f\in X(\Omega),
\end{equation*}
is called a rearrangement-invariant Banach function space. A rearrangement-invariant Banach function space (we shall write just `a \emph{rearrangement-invariant space}') is a Banach space. Textbook examples of rearrangement-invariant spaces are the Lebesgue spaces $L^p$ ($p\in[1,\infty]$), the (two-parametric) Lorentz spaces or the Orlicz spaces. We say that a function $f\in X(\Omega)$ \emph{has absolutely continuous norm} in $X(\Omega)$ if $\lim\limits_{k\to\infty}\|f\chi_{E_k}\|_{X(\Omega)}=0$ for every sequence $\{E_k\}_{k=1}^\infty$ of measurable sets $E_k\subseteq\Omega$ such that $\lim\limits_{k\to\infty}\chi_{E_k}(x)=0$ for a.e.~$x\in\Omega$. We say that $X(\Omega)$ has absolutely continuous norm if every $f\in X(\Omega)$ has absolutely continuous norm in $X(\Omega)$. For example, the Lebesgue space $L^p(\Omega)$ has absolutely continuous norm if and only if $p<\infty$.

Comprehensive accounts of the theory of rearrangement-invariant spaces can be found, e.g., in \citep{BS:88} or \citep{PKJF:13}.

We denote \emph{the (first-order) Sobolev-type space built upon a rearrangement-invariant space} $X(\Omega)$, that is, the set of all weakly differentiable functions from $X(\Omega)$ whose gradients also belong to $X(\Omega)$, by $W^1X(\Omega)$. We equip $W^1X(\Omega)$ with the norm
\begin{equation*}
\|u\|_{W^1X(\Omega)}=\|u\|_{X(\Omega)}+\||\nabla u|_{\ell^1}\|_{X(\Omega)},\ u\in W^1X(\Omega),
\end{equation*}
which turns $W^1X(\Omega)$ into a Banach space. Note that we have $W^{1,p}(\Omega)=W^1L^p(\Omega)$ in the set-theoretical sense, but their norms are merely equivalent (unless $p=1$). The closure of $\mathcal C_0^\infty(\Omega)$ in $W^1X(\Omega)$ is denoted by $W_0^1X(\Omega)$.

Any rule $s\colon T\to\left\{s_m(T)\right\}_{m=1}^\infty$ that assigns to each bounded linear operator $T$ from a Banach space $X$ to a Banach space $Y$ (we shall write $T\in B(X,Y)$) a sequence $\left\{s_m(T)\right\}_{m=1}^\infty$ of nonnegative numbers having, for every $m\in\mathbb N$, the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(S1)] $\|T\|=s_1(T)\geq s_2(T)\geq\cdots\geq0$;
\item[(S2)] $s_m(S+T)\leq s_m(S)+\|T\|$ for every $S\in B(X,Y)$;
\item[(S3)] $s_m(BTA)\leq\|B\|s_m(T)\|A\|$ for every $A\in B(W,X)$ and $B\in B(Y,Z)$, where $W,Z$ are Banach spaces;
\item[(S4)] $s_m(id\colon E\to E)=1$ for every Banach space $E$ with $\dim E\geq m$;
\item[(S5)] $s_m(T)=0$ if $\rank T< m$;
\end{itemize}
is called a \emph{strict $s$-number}. Notable examples of strict $s$-numbers are \emph{the approximation numbers} $a_m$, \emph{the isomorphism numbers} $i_m$, \emph{the Gelfand numbers} $c_m$, \emph{the Bernstein numbers} $d_m$, \emph{the Kolmogorov numbers} $d_m$ or \emph{the Mityagin numbers} $m_n$. For their definitions and the difference between strict $s$-numbers and `standard' $s$-numbers, we refer the reader to \citep[Chapter~5]{EL:11}. In this paper, we will only need the definition of the isomorphism numbers. The $m$-th isomorphism number $i_m(T)$ of $T\in B(X,Y)$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
i_m(T)=\sup\{\|A\|^{-1}\|B\|^{-1}\}
\end{equation*}
where the supremum is taken over all Banach spaces $G$ with $\dim(G)\geq m$ and all bounded linear operators $A\colon Y\to G$, $B\colon G\to X$ such that $ATB$ is the identity on $G$. The isomorphism numbers are the smallest strict $s$-numbers (\citep[Theorem~3.4]{P:74}), that is,
\begin{equation}\label{prel:isonumssmallest}
s_m(T)\geq i_m(T)
\end{equation}
for every strict $s$-number $s$, for every $T\in B(X,Y)$, and for every $m\in\mathbb N$.

If $T\in B(X,Y)$, then its \emph{$m$-th entropy number $e_m(T)$}, $m\in\mathbb N$, is defined as
\begin{equation*}
e_m(T)=\inf\left\{\varepsilon>0\colon\ \text{there are $y_1,\dots,y_{2^{m-1}}\in Y$ such that $T(B_X)\subseteq\bigcup_{j=1}^{2^{m-1}}\left(y_j+\varepsilon B_Y\right)$}\right\},
\end{equation*}
where $B_X$ and $B_Y$ are the closed unit balls of $X$ and $Y$, respectively. Note that entropy numbers are not (strict) $s$-numbers (e.g., property (S4) is violated (\citep[Chapter~2, Proposition~1.3]{EE:18})) even though they posses similar properties. Through entropy numbers, we define \emph{the measure of noncompactness $\beta(T)$} of $T\in B(X,Y)$ as
\begin{equation*}
\beta(T)=\lim_{m\to\infty}e_m(T).
\end{equation*}
Note that the limit always exists because the sequence $\{e_m(T)\}_{m=1}^\infty$ is nonincreasing. Furthemore, we have $0\leq\beta(T)\leq\|T\|$, and the operator $T$ is compact if and only if $\beta(T)=0$. We say that the operator $T$ is \emph{maximally noncompact} if $\beta(T)=\|I\|$. Thanks to the monotonicity of $\{e_m(T)\}_{m=1}^\infty$, the operator $T$ is maximally noncompact if and only if $e_m(T)=\|T\|$ for every $m\in\mathbb N$.

A great deal of information on (strict) $s$-numbers and entropy numbers can be found in the pioneering work of Pietsch \citep{P:74, P:78}  as well as, e.g., in books \citep{CS:90, EE:18} and references therein.

Lastly, let us briefly recall \emph{the generalized $p$-trigonometric functions}. For $p\in(1,\infty)$, $\sin_p$ is defined on $[0,\frac{\pi_p}{2}]$ as the inverse function to the increasing function
\begin{equation*}
[0,1]\ni t\mapsto\int_0^t\left(1-s^p\right)^{-\frac1{p}}\,\d s,
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\pi_p=2\int_0^1\left(1-s^p\right)^{-\frac1{p}}\,\d s.
\end{equation*}
We extend $\sin_p$ to $[-\pi_p,\pi_p]$ by defining $\sin_p(t)=\sin_p(\pi_p-t)$, $t\in\left[\frac{\pi_p}{2},\pi_p\right]$, and $\sin_p(t)=-\sin_p(-t)$, $t\in[-\pi_p, 0]$.
Finally, we extend $\sin_p$ to the whole real line in such a way that the resulting function is $2\pi_p$-periodic. The function $\sin_p$ is continuously differentiable on $\mathbb R$, and its derivative is denoted by $\cos_p$. Note that $\sin_2=\sin$, $\cos_2=\cos$ and $\pi_2=\pi$. The interested reader can find more information on properties of the generalized $p$-trigonometric functions as well as their connection with the theory of the $p$-Laplacian, e.g., in \citep{EL:11, L:95, O:84}.

\section{Noncompactness}\label{sec:main}
Although the following proposition concerning the density of smooth compactly supported functions in rearrangement-invariant spaces having absolutely continuous norm on open sets $\Omega\subseteq\R^n$ is folklore, the only reference that we could find is \citep[Lemma~2.10]{KS:14}, which deals with the particular case $\Omega=\mathbb R$. For the reader's convenience, we sketch a proof of the assertion in full generality.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:density}
Let $\Omega\subseteq\R^n$ be a (nonempty) open set and let $X(\Omega)$ be a rearrangement-invariant space on $\Omega$. If $X(\Omega)$ has absolutely continuous norm, then smooth compactly supported functions on $\Omega$ are dense in $X(\Omega)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $u\in X(\Omega)\setminus\{0\}$. Since $X(\Omega)$ has absolutely continuous norm, bounded functions supported in sets of finite measure are dense in $X(\Omega)$ (e.g.~\citep[Chapter~1, Proposition~3.10 and Theorem~3.13]{BS:88}). Therefore, we may assume, without loss of generality, that $u$ is bounded on $\Omega$. Let $\varepsilon>0$ be given. Set $\Omega_k=\Omega\cap\{x\in\R^n\colon |x|<k\}$ for $k\in\mathbb N$. Clearly, $\chi_{\Omega\setminus\Omega_k}\to 0$ as $k\to\infty$. Hence, since $u$ has absolutely continuous norm in $X(\Omega)$, there is $k\in\mathbb N$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{prop:density:unboundedpart}
\|u\chi_{\Omega\setminus\Omega_k}\|_{X(\Omega)}<\frac{\varepsilon}{3}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, we may assume that $\Omega_k\neq\emptyset$.

Thanks to Lusin's theorem (recall that $\Omega_k$ is bounded and $u$ is a bounded measurable function),  for each $j\in\mathbb N$, there is a compact set $F_j\subseteq\Omega_k$ and a continuous compactly supported function $f_j\in\mathcal C_c(\Omega_k)$ such that
\begin{align}
u&=f_j\quad\text{on $F_j$}\label{prop:density:continuouspart},\\
\sup_{x\in\Omega_k}|f_j(x)|&\leq\sup_{x\in\Omega_k}|u(x)|\label{prop:density:fkboundedbyu},\\
|\Omega_k\setminus F_j|&<\frac1{j}.\label{prop:density:omeganminusfk}
\end{align}
Using the fact that $X(\Omega)$ has absolutely continuous norm again, we can find $j\in\mathbb N$ large enough such that
\begin{equation}\label{prop:density:noncontinuouspart}
\|\chi_{\Omega_k\setminus F_j}\|_{X(\Omega)}<\frac{\varepsilon}{6\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}}
\end{equation}
owing to \eqref{prop:density:omeganminusfk}.
 Furthermore, since $f_j$ is continuous and compactly supported in the open set $\Omega_k$, we can employ a standard mollification argument to find a smooth compactly supported function $g\in\mathcal C^\infty_0(\Omega_k)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{prop:density:smoothuniformapprox}
\sup_{x\in\Omega_k}|f_j(x)-u(x)|<\frac{\varepsilon}{3\|\chi_{\Omega_k}\|_{X(\Omega)}}
\end{equation}
(note that $0<\|\chi_{\Omega_k}\|_{X(\Omega)}<\infty$ because $\Omega_k$ has finite positive measure).

Finally, combining \eqref{prop:density:unboundedpart}, \eqref{prop:density:continuouspart}, \eqref{prop:density:fkboundedbyu}, \eqref{prop:density:noncontinuouspart} and \eqref{prop:density:smoothuniformapprox}, we arrive at
\begin{align*}
\|u-g\|_{X(\Omega)}&\leq\|u\chi_{\Omega\setminus\Omega_k}\|_{X(\Omega)}+\|u\chi_{\Omega_k}-f_j\|_{X(\Omega)} + \|f_j-g\|_{X(\Omega)}\\
&< \frac{\varepsilon}{3} + \frac{2\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_k)}}{6\|u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}}\varepsilon + \frac{\varepsilon}{3} \leq\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Since the rearrangement invariance of $X(\Omega)$ was not used at all, \hyperref[prop:density]{Proposition~\ref*{prop:density}} is actually valid even when $X(\Omega)$ is just a Banach function space, a function space defined through a functional $\varrho\colon\M^+(\Omega)\to[0,\infty]$ that has all properties of a rearrangement-invariant Banach function norm but the last one.
\end{remark}

The following theorem shows that the Sobolev embedding $W_0^1X(D)\hookrightarrow Y(D)$ on a strip-like domain $D$ is always maximally noncompact whatever the rearrangement-invariant spaces $X(D)$ and $Y(D)$ are provided that the target space $Y(D)$ has absolutely continuous norm.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:maxnoncompact}
Let $k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}$ and $-\infty<a_i<b_i<\infty$, $i=1,\dots,n-k$. Set $D=\mathbb R^k\times\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n-k}(a_i,b_i)\subseteq\R^n$. Let $X(D)$, $Y(D)$ be rearrangement-invariant spaces on $D$. Assume that $W_0^1X(D)\hookrightarrow Y(D)$. If $Y(D)$ has absolutely continuous norm, then
\begin{equation*}
e_m(W_0^1X(D)\hookrightarrow Y(D))=\|W_0^1X(D)\hookrightarrow Y(D)\|\quad\text{for every $m\in\mathbb N$},
\end{equation*}
that is, the canonical embedding $W_0^1X(D)\hookrightarrow Y(D)$ is maximally noncompact.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Throughout this proof, we denote the canonical embedding $W_0^1X(D)\hookrightarrow Y(D)$ by $I$. Suppose that there is $m\in\mathbb N$ such that $e_m(I)<\|I\|$. Let $r,\tilde{r}>0$ be such that $e_m(I)<r<\tilde{r}<\|I\|$. As $r>e_m(I)$, there are functions $g_j\in Y(D)$,  $j=1,\dots,2^{m-1}$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{thm:snumbersstrip:entropy}
\forall u\in W_0^1X(D), \|u\|_{W^1X(D)}\leq1,\exists j\in\{1,\dots,2^{m-1}\}\colon\|u-g_j\|_{Y(D)}\leq r.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, since (smooth) compactly supported functions are dense in $Y(D)$ by \hyperref[prop:density]{Proposition~\ref*{prop:density}}, there are functions $\tilde{g}_j\in\mathcal C^\infty_0(D)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{thm:snumbersstrip:densityLp}
\|g_j-\tilde{g}_j\|_{Y(D)}<\tilde{r}-r\quad\text{for every $j\in\{1,\dots,2^{m-1}\}$}.
\end{equation}

For every $l>0$, set $D_l=(-l,l)^k\times\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n-k}(a_i,b_i)$. Since $\|I\|=\lim\limits_{l\to\infty}\sup\limits_{\substack{u\in\mathcal C^\infty_0(D_l)\\u\neq0}}\frac{\|u\|_{Y(D)}}{\|u\|_{W^1X(D)}}$ and the functions $\tilde{g}_j$ are compactly supported in $D$, there is $l>0$ such that
\begin{align}
\sup\limits_{\substack{u\in\mathcal C^\infty_0(D_l)\\u\neq0}}\frac{\|u\|_{Y(D)}}{\|u\|_{W^1X(D)}}>\tilde{r}\label{thm:snumbersstrip:almostextremal}\\
\intertext{and}
\bigcup_{j=1}^{2^{m-1}}\spt \tilde{g}_j\subseteq D_l.\label{thm:snumbersstrip:sptofgj}
\end{align}

Combining \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:almostextremal} with the translation invariance of the $Y(D)$ and $W^1X(D)$ norms in the first $k$-directions, which follows immediately from the rearrangement invariance of the $X(D)$ and $Y(D)$ norms, we see that there is a function $u\in\mathcal C^\infty_0(\tilde{D}_l)$ where $\tilde{D}_l=(l,3l)^k\times\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n-k}(a_i,b_i)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{thm:snumbersstrip:almostextremaltranslated}
\|u\|_{W^1X(D)}=1\quad\text{and}\quad\|u\|_{Y(D)}>\tilde{r}.
\end{equation}
Finally, using \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:densityLp}, \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:sptofgj} and \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:almostextremaltranslated}, we see that
\begin{align*}
\|u-g_j\|_{Y(D)}&\geq\|u-\tilde{g}_j\|_{Y(D)}-\|\tilde{g}_j-g_j\|_{Y(D)}\\
&\geq\|\left(u-\tilde{g}_j\right)\chi_{\tilde{D}_l}\|_{Y(D)}-\|\tilde{g}_j-g_j\|_{Y(D)}\\
&> \tilde{r}-(\tilde{r}-r)=r
\end{align*}
for every $j=1,\dots,2^{m-1}$, which contradicts \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:entropy}. Hence $e_m(I)\geq\|I\|$, and so $e_m(I)=\|I\|$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Note that our choice of the norm on $W^1X(D)$ is immaterial in \hyperref[thm:maxnoncompact]{Theorem~\ref*{thm:maxnoncompact}} and the theorem remains valid even when $W^1X(D)$ is endowed with any equivalent norm. In particular, the assertion of the theorem is also true for the standard Sobolev embeddings $W_0^{1,p}(D)\hookrightarrow L^q(D)$ with either $p\in[1,n)$ and $q\in\left[p,\frac{np}{n-p}\right]$ or $p\in[n,\infty)$ and $q\in[p,\infty)$ (cf.~\citep[Theorem~4.12]{AF:03}).
\end{remark}

In the case where both domain and target space are the Lebesgue space $L^p$, not only do we know that the corresponding Sobolev embedding is maximally noncompact, but we also know the exact value of the norm of the embedding.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:normonstrip}
Let $p\in(1,\infty)$. Let $k\in\{0,1,\dots,n-1\}$ and $-\infty<a_i<b_i<\infty$, $i=1,\dots,n-k$. Set $D=\mathbb R^k\times\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n-k}(a_i,b_i)\subseteq\R^n$. The norm of the canonical embedding $W_0^{1,p}(D)\hookrightarrow L^p(D)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{prop:normonstrip:sup}
\|W_0^{1,p}(D)\hookrightarrow L^p(D)\|=\left(1+\pi^p_p(p-1)\sum_{i=1}^{n-k}\frac1{(b_i-a_i)^p}\right)^{-\frac1{p}}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since
\begin{equation*}
\|W_0^{1,p}(D)\hookrightarrow L^p(D)\|^p=\sup_{\substack{u\in W_0^{1,p}(D)\\u\neq0}}\frac{\|u\|^p_{L^p(D)}}{\|u\|^p_{L^p(D)}+\||\nabla u|_{\ell^p}\|^p_{L^p(D)}} = \sup_{\substack{u\in W_0^{1,p}(D)\\u\neq0}}\frac1{1+\frac{\||\nabla u|_{\ell^p}\|_{L^p(D)}^p}{\|u\|^p_{L^p(D)}}},
\end{equation*}
we clearly have that
\begin{equation}\label{prop:normonstrip:supalt}
\|W_0^{1,p}(D)\hookrightarrow L^p(D)\|=\left(1+\inf_{\substack{u\in W_0^{1,p}(D)\\u\neq0}}\frac{\||\nabla u|_{\ell^p}\|^p_{L^p(D)}}{\|u\|^p_{L^p(D)}}\right)^{-\frac1{p}}.
\end{equation}
Let $\lambda$ denote the infimum in \eqref{prop:normonstrip:supalt}. We shall show that
\begin{equation}\label{prop:normonstrip:lambda}
\lambda = \pi^p_p(p-1)\sum_{i=1}^{n-k}\frac1{(b_i-a_i)^p}.
\end{equation}

Assume that $k>0$. For each $l>0$, we set $D_l=(-l,l)^{k}\times\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n-k}(a_i,b_i)$ and we also define the function $u_l$ as
\begin{equation*}
u_l(x, y)=\left(\prod_{j=1}^k\sin_p\left(\frac{\pi_p x_i}{l}\right)\right)\left(\prod_{i=1}^{n-k}\sin_p\left(\frac{\pi_p(y_i-a_i)}{b_i-a_i}\right)\right),\ (x_1,\dots,x_k,y_1,\dots,y_{n-k})\in D_l,
\end{equation*}
and we extend it outside the rectangle $D_l$ by zero. Since $u_l\in W^{1,p}_0(D_l)$, we have that $u_l\in W_0^{1,p}(D)$. It follows from basic properties of the $p$-trigonometric functions (\citep{L:95}, also~\citep[Chapter~2, (2.22), (2.23)]{EL:11}) and Fubini's theorem that
\begin{align*}
\|u_l\|_{L^p(D)}^p&=\left(\frac{2l}{p}\right)^{k}\prod_{i=1}^{n-k}\frac{b_i-a_i}{p}\quad\text{and}\\
\||\nabla u_l|_{\ell^p}\|_{L^p(D)}^p&=\frac{\pi^p_p}{p'p^{n-k-1}}\left(\frac{2l}{p}\right)^{k}\left(\prod_{i=1}^{n-k}(b_i-a_i)\right)\left(\frac{k}{l^p}+\sum_{i=1}^{n-k}\frac1{(b_i-a_i)^p}\right),
\end{align*}
whence
\begin{equation*}
\lambda\leq\pi^p_p(p-1)\left(\frac{k}{l^p}+\sum_{i=1}^{n-k}\frac1{(b_i-a_i)^p}\right).
\end{equation*}
Hence, since $l>0$ was arbitrary, we obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{prop:normonstrip:upper}
\lambda\leq\pi^p_p(p-1)\sum_{i=1}^{n-k}\frac1{(b_i-a_i)^p}.
\end{equation}

Next, it is well known (\citep[page~28]{O:84}, also~\citep[Theorem~3.3]{EL:11}) that
\begin{equation}\label{prop:normonstrip:firstonedimeigen}
\inf_{\substack{v\in W^{1,p}_0((a,b))\\v\neq0}}\frac{\|v'\|^p_{L^p((a,b))}}{\|v\|^p_{L^p((a,b))}}=\pi^p_p\frac{p-1}{(b-a)^p}\quad\text{whenever $-\infty<a<b<\infty$}.
\end{equation}
Since smooth compactly supported functions are dense in $W_0^{1,p}(D)$, we have that
\begin{equation*}
\lambda=\inf_{\substack{u\in \mathcal C^\infty_0(D)\\u\neq0}}\frac{\||\nabla u|_{\ell^p}\|^p_{L^p(D)}}{\|u\|^p_{L^p(D)}}.
\end{equation*}
Let $u\in \mathcal C^\infty_0(D)$. Since the function $(a_i,b_i)\ni t\mapsto u(x,y_1,\dots,y_{i-1},t,y_{i+1},\dots,y_{n-k})$ is in $\mathcal C^\infty_0((a_i,b_i))$ for each $i\in\{1,\dots,n-k\}$ and every fixed $x\in\mathbb R^k$, $y_j\in(a_j,b_j)$, $j\in\{1,\dots,n-k\}\setminus\{i\}$, it follows from \eqref{prop:normonstrip:firstonedimeigen} that
\begin{align*}
&\int_{a_i}^{b_i}\left|\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}(x,y_1,\dots,y_{i-1},t,y_{i+1},\dots,y_{n-k})\right|^p\,\d t\\
&\quad\geq\pi^p_p\frac{p-1}{(b_i-a_i)^p}\int_{a_i}^{b_i}\left|u(x,y_1,\dots,y_{i-1},t,y_{i+1},\dots,y_{n-k})\right|^p\,\d t.
\end{align*}
Hence, thanks to Fubini's theorem, $\|\frac{\partial u}{\partial y_i}\|_{L^p(D)}^p\geq\pi^p_p\frac{p-1}{(b_i-a_i)^p}\|u\|_{L^p(D)}^p$ for every  $i\in\{1,\dots,n-k\}$. Therefore,
\begin{equation*}
\lambda\geq\inf_{\substack{u\in \mathcal C^\infty_0(D)\\u\neq0}}\frac{\left\|\left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-k}\left|\frac{\partial u}{\partial y_i}\right|^p\right)^\frac1{p}\right\|^p_{L^p(D)}}{\|u\|^p_{L^p(D)}}=\inf_{\substack{u\in \mathcal C^\infty_0(D)\\u\neq0}}\frac{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-k}\|\frac{\partial u}{\partial y_i}\|^p_{L^p(D)}}{\|u\|^p_{L^p(D)}}\geq\pi^p_p(p-1)\sum_{i=1}^{n-k}\frac1{(b_i-a_i)^p},
\end{equation*}
which combined with \eqref{prop:normonstrip:upper} implies \eqref{prop:normonstrip:lambda}.

Finally, equality \eqref{prop:normonstrip:sup} follows from equalities \eqref{prop:normonstrip:supalt} and \eqref{prop:normonstrip:lambda}.

The case where $k=0$ is actually simpler and can be proved along the same lines, and so we omit its proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
By using the identity $\pi_p=\frac{2\pi}{p\sin\left(\frac{\pi}{p}\right)}$ (e.g.~\citep[(2.7)]{EL:11}), the norm of the  canonical embedding $W_0^{1,p}(D)\hookrightarrow L^p(D)$ can be expressed by means of the standard trigonometric functions as
\begin{equation*}
\|W_0^{1,p}(D)\hookrightarrow L^p(D)\|=\left(1+(p-1)\left(\frac{2\pi}{p\sin\left(      \frac{\pi}{p}\right)}\sum_{i=1}^{n-k}\frac1{(b_i-a_i)^p}\right)^p\right)^{-\frac1{p}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{remark}

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:maximazeronrectangle}
Let $p\in(1,\infty)$ and $R=\prod\limits_{i=1}^n(a_i,b_i)$ where $-\infty<a_i<b_i<\infty$. The norm of the canonical embedding $W_0^{1,p}(R)\hookrightarrow L^p(R)$ is attained by the function $u$ defined as
\begin{equation}\label{cor:maximizer}
u(x)=\prod_{i=1}^{n}\sin_p\left(\frac{\pi_p(x_i-a_i)}{b_i-a_i}\right),\ x\in R.
\end{equation}
Moreover, $u$ is the unique positive maximizer up to a positive multiplicative constant.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Since a function $u\in W_0^{1,p}(R)$ maximizes $\sup\limits_{\substack{u\in W_0^{1,p}(R)\\u\neq0}}\frac{\|u\|^p_{L^p(R)}}{\|u\|^p_{L^p(R)}+\||\nabla u|_{\ell^p}\|^p_{L^p(R)}}$ if and only if it minimizes $\inf\limits_{\substack{u\in W_0^{1,p}(R)\\u\neq0}}\frac{\||\nabla u|_{\ell^p}\|^p_{L^p(R)}}{\|u\|^p_{L^p(R)}}$, the fact that the function defined by \eqref{cor:maximizer} is a positive maximizer follows immediately from the proof of \hyperref[prop:normonstrip]{Proposition~\ref*{prop:normonstrip}}. The uniqueness (up to a positive multiplicative constant) of the positive minimizer of the Rayleigh quotient $$\inf\limits_{\substack{u\in W_0^{1,p}(D)\\u\neq0}}\frac{\||\nabla u|_{\ell^p}\|^p_{L^p(R)}}{\|u\|^p_{L^p(R)}}$$ was proved in \citep[Lemma~2.1]{BK:04}.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
It can be routinely shown that the extreme function for the Rayleigh quotient $\inf\limits_{\substack{u\in W_0^{1,p}(D)\\u\neq0}}\frac{\||\nabla u|_{\ell^p}\|^p_{L^p(R)}}{\|u\|^p_{L^p(R)}}$ is the first eigenvalue of the
pseudo-$p$-Laplacian operator with Dirichlet boundary conditions, i.e.:
\begin{equation}\label{pseudopLaplacian} \tilde{\Delta}_p u = \tilde{\lambda_p} |u|^{p-2}u, \quad \mbox{with } u=0 \mbox{ on } \partial R,
\end{equation}
where
\[\tilde{\Delta}_p u = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} \left(
\left|\frac{\partial u}{\partial x_i} \right|^{p-2} \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_i} \right).
\]
Then it follows from \hyperref[cor:maximazeronrectangle]{Corollary~\ref*{cor:maximazeronrectangle}} that the
first eigenfunction for the Dirichlet problem \eqref{pseudopLaplacian} for the pseudo-p-Laplacian operator on the domain $R$ is the function defined by \eqref{cor:maximizer}.  In the case where $R$ is a cube, this was already observed in \citep[Example~2.4]{BK:04}.

This coincides well with the classical result for $p=2$. However, whether all eigenfunctions for \eqref{pseudopLaplacian} on the domain $R$ are of the form
\[\prod_{i=1}^{n}\sin_p\left(\frac{\pi_pk_i(x_i-a_i)}{b_i-a_i}\right),\ (x_1,\dots,x_n)\in R,\ \text{for some $k_i \in \mathbb N$},
\]
remains an open question if $p\neq2$.
\end{remark}

Not only is the canonical embedding $W_0^{1,p}(D)\hookrightarrow L^p(D)$ maximally noncompact, but also all its strict $s$-numbers coincide with the norm of the embedding.
\begin{theorem}
Let $p\in(1,\infty)$. Let $k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}$ and $-\infty<a_i<b_i<\infty$, $i=1,\dots,n-k$. Set $D=\mathbb R^k\times(a_1,b_1)\times\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n-k}(a_i,b_i)\subseteq\R^n$. We have that
\begin{equation}\label{thm:snumbersstrip:eq}
\begin{aligned}
a_m(I)&=b_m(I)=c_m(I)=d_m(I)=i_m(I)=m_n(I)\\
&=e_m(I)=\|I\|=\left(1+\pi^p_p(p-1)\sum_{i=1}^{n-k}\frac1{(b_i-a_i)^p}\right)^{-\frac1{p}}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for every $m\in\mathbb N$, where $I$ stands for the canonical embedding $W_0^{1,p}(D)\hookrightarrow L^p(D)$.

In particular,
\begin{equation*}
s_m(I)=\|I\|=\left(1+\pi^p_p(p-1)\sum_{i=1}^{n-k}\frac1{(b_i-a_i)^p}\right)^{-\frac1{p}}
\end{equation*}
for each strict $s$-number $s$ and every $m\in\mathbb N$, and the canonical embedding $W_0^{1,p}(D)\hookrightarrow L^p(D)$ is maximally noncompact.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The last two equalities in \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:eq} were already proved in \hyperref[thm:maxnoncompact]{Theorem~\ref*{thm:maxnoncompact}} and \hyperref[prop:normonstrip]{Proposition~\ref*{prop:normonstrip}}, respectively. As for the other equalities,  it suffices to show that $i_m(I)\geq\|I\|$ for all $m\in \mathbb N$ thanks to the fact that the isomorphism numbers are the smallest strict $s$-numbers (see \eqref{prel:isonumssmallest}) and property (S1).

We recall that $i_m(I)=\sup\{\|A\|^{-1}\|B\|^{-1}\}$ where the supremum is taken over all Banach spaces $G$ with $\dim(G)\geq m$ and all bounded linear operators $A\colon L^p(D)\to G$, $B\colon G\to W_0^{1,p}(D)$ such that $AIB$ is the identity on $G$.

Let $\varepsilon>0$ be given. Since smooth compactly supported functions are dense in  $W_0^{1,p}(D)$, there are $l>0$ and a function $u\in\mathcal C^\infty_0(D_l)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{thm:snumbersstrip:almostmaximizer}
\|u\|_{L^p(D)}>\|I\|-\varepsilon\quad\text{and}\quad\|u\|_{W^{1,p}(D)}=1
\end{equation}
where $D_l=(-l,l)^k\times\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n-k}(a_i,b_i)$. For $i=1,2,\dots,m$, we define
\begin{align*}
D^i_l&=((2i-3)l, (2i-1)l)^k\times\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n-k}(a_i,b_i)\\
\intertext{and}
u_i(x,y)&=u(x_1-2(i-1)l, \dots,x_k-2(i-1)l, y),\ (x,y)\in D^i_l\subseteq\mathbb R^k\cart\mathbb R^{n-k}.
\end{align*}
Clearly, for every $i=1,2,\dots,m$,
\begin{align}
\text{the rectangles $D^i_l$ are mutually disjoint and $u_i\in\mathcal C^\infty_0(D^i_l)$},\label{thm:snumbersstrip:uidisjsup}\\
\||\nabla u_i|_{\ell^p}\|_{L^p(D)}=\||\nabla u|_{\ell^p}\|_{L^p(D)}\ \text{and}\ \|u_i\|_{L^p(D)}=\|u\|_{L^p(D)}\label{thm:snumbersstrip:uisamenorms}.
\end{align}

Now, we define $B\colon\ell^p(\mathbb R^m)\to W_0^{1,p}(D)$ by
\begin{equation*}
B(\{\alpha_i\}_{i=1}^m)=\sum_{i=1}^m\alpha_iu_i.
\end{equation*}
The operator $B$ is a well-defined linear operator and $\|B\|=1$. Indeed, $\sum\limits_{i=1}^m\alpha_iu_i\in W_0^{1,p}(D)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{thm:snumbersstrip:Bnorm}
\|B(\{\alpha_i\}_{i=1}^m)\|_{W^{1,p}(D)}^p=\left\|\sum_{i=1}^m\alpha_i u_i\right\|_{W^{1,p}(D)}^p=\sum_{i=1}^m|\alpha_i|^p\|u_i\|_{W^{1,p}(D)}^p=\sum_{i=1}^m|\alpha_i|^p
\end{equation}
owing to \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:almostmaximizer}, \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:uidisjsup} and \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:uisamenorms}.

Next, note that the functions $u_i$, $i=1,\dots,m$, are linearly independent in $L^p(D)$ because they have mutually disjoint supports. Hence, for each $i\in\{1,\dots,m\}$, the linear functionals $\tilde{\gamma}_i\colon\spn\{u_1,\dots,u_m\}\to\mathbb R$ defined as
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\gamma}_i\left(\sum_{j=1}^m\beta_j u_j\right)=\beta_i
\end{equation*}
are well defined. Moreover,
\begin{equation*}
\left|\tilde{\gamma}_i\left(\sum_{j=1}^m\beta_j u_j\right)\right|=|\beta_i|=\frac{|\beta_i|\|u_i\|_{L^p(D)}}{\|u\|_{L^p(D)}}\leq\frac1{\|u\|_{L^p(D)}}\left\|\sum_{j=1}^m\beta_j u_j\right\|_{L^p(D)}
\end{equation*}
thanks to \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:uidisjsup} and \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:uisamenorms}. Therefore, by virtue of the Hanh--Banach theorem, there are functionals $\gamma_i\colon L^p(D)\to\mathbb R$, $i=1,\dots,m$, such that $\gamma_i=\tilde{\gamma}_i$ on $\spn\{u_1,\dots,u_m\}$ and
\begin{equation}
\|\gamma_i\|\leq\frac1{\|u\|_{L^p(D)}}.\label{thm:snumbersstrip:coordfuncnorm}
\end{equation}
We define $A\colon L^p(D)\to \ell^p(\mathbb R^m)$ as
\begin{equation*}
Av=\left(\gamma_1\left(v\chi_{D_l^1}\right),\dots,\gamma_m\left(v\chi_{D_l^m}\right)\right).
\end{equation*}
The operator $A$ is clearly linear, for the functionals $\gamma_i$ are linear. Furthermore
\begin{equation}\label{thm:snumbersstrip:Anorm}
\|A\|\leq\frac1{\|u\|_{L^p(D)}}.
\end{equation}
Indeed,
\begin{equation*}
\|Av\|_{\ell^p(\mathbb R^m)}^p=\sum_{i=1}^m\left|\gamma_i\left(v\chi_{D_l^i}\right)\right|^p\leq\frac1{\|u\|^p_{L^p(D)}}\sum_{i=1}^m\|v\chi_{D_l^i}\|_{L^p(D)}^p\leq\frac1{\|u\|^p_{L^p(D)}}\|v\|_{L^p(D)}^p
\end{equation*}
in view of  \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:coordfuncnorm} and \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:uidisjsup}.

Finally, upon observing that $AIB$ is the identity on $\ell^p(\mathbb R^m)$ because $u_i\chi_{D_l^i}=u_i$ for every $i\in\{1,\dots,m\}$ thanks to \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:uidisjsup}, we see that
\begin{equation*}
i_m(I)\geq\|A\|^{-1}\|B\|^{-1}\geq\|u\|_{L^p(D)}>\|I\|-\varepsilon
\end{equation*}
owing to \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:Bnorm}, \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:Anorm} and \eqref{thm:snumbersstrip:almostmaximizer}, whence $i_m(I)\geq\|I\|$ since $\varepsilon>0$ may be chosen arbitrarily small.
\end{proof}

\paragraph{Acknowledgments}
The third author would like to express his sincere gratitude to the Fulbright Program for supporting him and giving him the opportunity to visit the second author at the Ohio State University as a Fulbrighter and to conduct research with him.