Some basic properties of bounded solutions of parabolic equations with p-Laplacian diffusion
Jocemar Q. Chagas, Patr\'icia L. Guidolin, Jana\'ina P. Zingano

TL;DR
This paper rigorously derives fundamental properties of bounded weak solutions to initial-value problems involving p-Laplacian diffusion in parabolic equations, enhancing understanding of their behavior with bounded and integrable initial data.
Contribution
It provides a detailed and rigorous derivation of key properties of solutions to p-Laplacian parabolic equations with bounded initial data, which was previously not fully established.
Findings
Fundamental properties of solutions are rigorously derived.
Results apply to general conservative second-order parabolic equations.
Analysis covers solutions with bounded and integrable initial data.
Abstract
We provide a detailed (and fully rigorous) derivation of several fundamental properties of bounded weak solutions to initial-value problems for general conservative 2nd-order parabolic equations with p-Laplacian diffusion and (arbitrary) bounded and integrable initial data.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsNonlinear Partial Differential Equations · Advanced Mathematical Modeling in Engineering · Differential Equations and Numerical Methods
Some basic properties of bounded solutions
of parabolic equations with -Laplacian diffusion
J. Q. Chagas, P. L. Guidolin and J. P. Zingano
Departamento de Matemática e Estatística
Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa
Ponta Grossa, PR 84030-900, Brazil
Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia
Farroupilha, RS 95180-000, Brazil
Departamento de Matemática Pura e Aplicada
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Porto Alegre, RS 91509-900, Brazil
Abstract
We provide a detailed derivation of several fundamental properties of bounded weak solutions to initial value problems for general conservative 2nd-order parabolic equations with -Laplacian diffusion and arbitrary initial data .
1. Introduction
In this work, we provide a detailed derivation of several fundamental properties of (bounded, weak) solutions of the initial value problem for evolution -Laplacian equations of the type
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Here, is constant, is assumed to be positive everywhere, and \mbox{\boldmathf}\!\>\!=(\>\!f_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\>\!,f_{\mbox{}_{2}}\!\;\!,\!\;\!...\>\!,f_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle n}}), \mbox{\boldmathg}\!\>\!=(\;\!g_{\mbox{}_{1}}\!\!\;\!\;\!,g_{\mbox{}_{2}}\!\;\!,\!\;\!...\>\!,g_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle n}}) are given continuous fields such that \mbox{\boldmathg}(t,0)={\bf 0} for all and with satisfying the growth condition
[TABLE]
for some \mbox{\smallF}\in C^{0}(\!\;\!\;\![\;\!0,\infty)\,\!) and some constant , where denotes the absolute value (in case of scalars) or the Euclidean norm (in case of vectors), as in (1.1). By a (bounded) solution of (1.1) in some time interval [\;\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}) we mean any function u(\cdot,t)\in C^{0}([\;\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!L^{1}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))\!\;\!\;\!\cap\!\;\!\;\!L^{p}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}((\!\;\!\;\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!W^{1,\,p}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})) satisfying the equation (1.1) in {\cal D}^{\;\!\prime}(\;\!\mathbb{R}^{n}\!\times\!\!\;\!\;\!(\;\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast})\,\!) with and {\displaystyle\;\!u(\cdot,t)\in L^{\infty}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}([\;\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\cap L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))} — that is, for every \;\!0<\mbox{\smallT}\!\>\!<\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast} given, we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for suitable bounds {\displaystyle\mbox{\smallM}_{\mbox{}_{\!1}}\!\;\!(\>\!\mbox{\smallT}),\;\!\mbox{\smallM}_{\mbox{}_{\!\infty}}\!\;\!(\>\!\mbox{\smallT})} depending on (and the solution considered). For the local (in time) existence of such solutions, see e.g. [10, 11, 14, 15, 16], while, for global existence, [4, 10] can be consulted. Our main objective in this work is to provide a complete, rigorous derivation of important fundamental properties possessed by the solutions, following the lines of [2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14]. Thus, for example, in Section 2 we show that
[TABLE]
for every {\displaystyle\>\!0<\mbox{\smallT}<\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}\!\;\!}, so that {\displaystyle\>\!u(\cdot,t)\in L^{p}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}(\>\![\;\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!W^{1,\,p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\,\!)}, along with the monotonicity of and other basic results. In Section 3, solutions are shown to contract in , so that we have
[TABLE]
for any given solution pair , and any for which both solutions are defined, provided that the flux functions \mbox{\boldmathf}\!,\;\!\mbox{\boldmathg} in the equation (1.1) above satisfy additional conditions, which include
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for all , \;\!0\leq t\leq\mbox{\smallT}\!\;\!, \;\!|\,\mbox{u}\,|\leq\mbox{\smallM}\!\>\!, \;\!|\,\mbox{v}\,|\leq\mbox{\smallM}\!\>\!, for each given \mbox{\smallM}>0, \mbox{\smallT}>0, where the Lipschitz constants {\displaystyle\mbox{\smallK}_{\!f}(\>\!\mbox{\smallM}\!\>\!,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}),\;\!\mbox{\smallK}_{\!\>\!g}(\>\!\mbox{\smallM}\!\>\!,\;\!\mbox{\smallT})} may depend upon the values of , (see Section 3 for further details). Also, under such extra assumptions, the solutions are shown to obey a familiar comparison principle, as expected for 2nd-order parabolic problems. From this, it follows in particular that solutions are uniquely defined by their initial data, which is not necessarily the situation in Section 2.
2. Some fundamental basic properties
We begin by recalling an important regularization technique [6, 13, 14]: given an interval (arbitrary), (small), and some function , where , let be the Steklov average
[TABLE]
where if , if . For {\displaystyle\;\!u(\cdot,t)\in C^{0}([\;\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!L^{1}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))} {\displaystyle\cap\;\!L^{p}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}((\>\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!W^{1,\,p}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))} solution of (1.1), we then obtain (see [6], Ch. II ; [14], Ch. 1) that, for any ball \;\!\mbox{\smallB}_{\mbox{}_{\!R}}\!\>\!=\{\;\!x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\!\!\;\!:\;\!|\;\!x\;\!|<\!\;\!\mbox{\smallR}\;\!\}\>\!:
{\displaystyle\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!B_{\mbox{}_{\!\>\!R}}}}\Bigl{\{}\,u_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle h,\,t}}\!\>\!(x,t)\,\phi(x)\;\!+\;\!\langle\;\!\bigl{[}\,\mu(t)\,|\;\!\nabla u\,|^{\>\!p-2}\,\nabla u\,\bigr{]}_{\!\;\!h},\nabla\phi\;\!\;\!\rangle\,\Bigr{\}}\;\!\;\!dx\;=}
(2.2)
{\displaystyle=\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!B_{\mbox{}_{\!\>\!R}}}}\Bigl{\{}\;\!\langle\,\bigl{[}\;\!\mbox{\boldmathf}(x,t,u)\,\bigr{]}_{\!\;\!h},\>\!\nabla\phi\;\!\;\!\rangle\,+\;\!\langle\,\bigl{[}\;\!\mbox{\boldmathg}(t,u)\,\bigr{]}_{\!\;\!h},\>\!\nabla\phi\;\!\;\!\rangle\;\!\Bigr{\}}\;\!\;\!dx}
for all \;\!0<t<\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}\!\;\!-h, and any \>\!\phi\in W^{1,\,p}_{0}(\mbox{\smallB}_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!R}})\cap L^{\infty}(\mbox{\smallB}_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!R}}), where \;\!u_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle h,\,t}}\!\;\!(\cdot,t)=\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize{\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial>!t}}}\,u_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle h}}\!(\cdot,t) is the strong pointwise derivative of in \mbox{\smallL}^{\!\;\!1}(\mbox{\footnotesizeB}_{\mbox{}_{\!R}}\!\;\!), and where denotes the standard inner product of a pair of -dimensional vectors. As in [6, 13, 14], the expression (2.2) is a very useful starting point for the derivation of a number of important solution properties, as illustrated by the following results.
Proposition 2.1. *Let {\displaystyle\;\!u(\cdot,t)\in C^{0}(\,\![\,0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!L^{1}_{\mbox{\scriptsize\em loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\,\!)\!\;\!\;\!\cap\!\;\!\;\!L^{p}_{\mbox{\scriptsize\em loc}}(\,\!(\!\;\!\;\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!W^{1,\,p}_{\mbox{\scriptsize\em loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\,\!)\;\cap}
{\displaystyle L^{\infty}_{\mbox{\scriptsize\em loc}}(\>\![\;\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\cap L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))} be any given solution to the problem , ,
where . Then *
[TABLE]
*for every \;\!0<\mbox{\smallT}\!\;\!<\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}, so that {\displaystyle\;\!u(\cdot,t)\in L^{p}_{\mbox{\scriptsize\em loc}}(\>\![\;\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!W^{1,\,p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\,\!)}.
**Proof. Let 0<t_{0}<\mbox{\footnotesizeT}. Given \mbox{\footnotesizeR}>0, , let be the cut-off function
**
[TABLE]
and if \;\!|\;\!x\;\!|\geq\mbox{\footnotesizeR}. Taking in (2.2) above, integrating the resulting equation in (\!\;\!\!\;\!\;\!t_{0},\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesizeT}), and letting , we get, letting (as always) {\displaystyle\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesizeB}_{\mbox{}_{\!\>\!R}}\!\!\;\!\;\!} denote the ball {\displaystyle\!\;\!\;\!\bigl{\{}\;\!x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\!\!\;\!:\!\;\!\;\!|\;\!x\;\!|<\mbox{\footnotesizeR}\;\!\bigr{\}}}, and setting {\displaystyle\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\small\boldmath\tilde{f}}\!\!\;\!\;\!:=\mbox{\small\boldmathf}+\mbox{\small\boldmathg}} :
{\displaystyle\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!B_{\mbox{}_{\!\>\!R}}}}\!\!\!\!\;\!u(x,\mbox{\footnotesizeT})^{2}\,\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R,\;\!{\scriptstyle\epsilon}}}\!\;\!(x)\;\!\;\!dx\;+\;2\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!t_{\mbox{}_{0}}}}^{\>\!T}\!\!\!\mu(t)\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!B_{\mbox{}_{\!\>\!R}}}}\!\!\!\!\;\!|\,\nabla u\,|^{\>\!p}\,\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R,\;\!{\scriptstyle\epsilon}}}\!\;\!(x)\;\!\;\!dx\,dt\;\!\;\!\;\!=}
{\displaystyle+\;\!\;\!\;\!2\!\>\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!t_{\mbox{}_{0}}}}^{\>\!T}\!\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!B_{\mbox{}_{\!\>\!R}}}}\!\!\!\!\;\!\langle\,\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}(x,t,u),\!\;\!\;\!\nabla u\;\!\rangle\,\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R,\;\!{\scriptstyle\epsilon}}}\!\;\!(x)\;\!\;\!dx\,dt\;+\;2\!\>\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!t_{\mbox{}_{0}}}}^{\>\!T}\!\!\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!B_{\mbox{}_{\!\>\!R}}}}\!\!\!\!\;\!u(x,t)\;\!\langle\,\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}(x,t,u),\!\;\!\;\!\nabla\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R,\;\!{\scriptstyle\epsilon}}}\!\;\!(x)\;\!\rangle\;\!\;\!dx\,dt}
{\displaystyle\leq\;\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesizeM}_{\!\>\!1}(\mbox{\footnotesizeT})\,\mbox{\footnotesizeM}_{\!\;\!\infty}(\mbox{\footnotesizeT})\!\;\!\;\!+\!\!\;\!\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!t_{\mbox{}_{0}}}}^{\>\!T}\!\!\!\mu(t)\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!B_{\mbox{}_{\!\>\!R}}}}\!\!\!\!\;\!|\,\nabla u\,|^{\>\!p}\;\!\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R,\;\!{\scriptstyle\epsilon}}}\!\;\!(x)\;\!\;\!dx\,dt\;\!\;\!+\;\!\;\!\mbox{\small{\displaystyle\frac{,2^{>!p}}{p}}}\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!t_{\mbox{}_{0}}}}^{\>\!T}\!\!\!\mu(t)\!\!\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!B_{\mbox{}_{\!\>\!R}}}}\!\!\!\!\;\!|\,u\,|^{\>\!p}\,\frac{\,|\;\!\nabla\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R,\;\!{\scriptstyle\epsilon}}}\;\!|^{\>\!p}}{\;\mbox{\small{\displaystyle\zeta_{\mbox{}_{!>!R,;!{\scriptstyle\epsilon}}}^{;!p;!->!1}}}}\;\!\;\!dx\,dt}
{\displaystyle+\;\;\!2\!\>\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!t_{\mbox{}_{0}}}}^{\>\!T}\!\!\!\mbox{\footnotesizeF}(t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle\!\;\!\frac{\scriptstyle p}{\scriptstyle p\;\!-\>\!1}}}\!\;\!\mu(t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle\!\!\!-\,\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle p\;\!-\>\!1}}}\!\!\!\!\;\!\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!B_{\mbox{}_{\!\>\!R}}}}\!\!\!\!\;\!|\,u\,|^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle\!\;\!(1\>\!+\;\!\kappa)\,\frac{\scriptstyle p}{\scriptstyle p\;\!-\>\!1}}}\!\;\!\;\!\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R,\;\!{\scriptstyle\epsilon}}}\!\;\!\;\!dx\,dt\;\!\;\!+\;\!\!\;\!\;\!2\!\!\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!t_{\mbox{}_{0}}}}^{\>\!T}\!\!\!\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesizeF}(t)\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!B_{\mbox{}_{\!\>\!R}}}}\!\!\!\!\;\!|\,u\,|^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle\>\!2\;\!+\;\!\kappa}}\,|\,\nabla\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R,\;\!{\scriptstyle\epsilon}}}\;\!|\;\!\;\!dx\,dt}
{\displaystyle+\;\,4\;\mbox{\footnotesizeG}(\mbox{\footnotesizeT})\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!t_{\mbox{}_{0}}}}^{\>\!T}\!\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!B_{\mbox{}_{\!\>\!R}}}}\!\!\!\!\;\!\;\!|\,u(x,t)\,|\;|\,\nabla\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R,\;\!{\scriptstyle\epsilon}}}\;\!|\;dx\,dt}
by (1.2), (1.3) and Young’s inequality (see e.g. [8], p. 622), where \;\!\mbox{\footnotesizeM}_{\mbox{}_{\!1}}\!\;\!, \!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesizeM}_{\mbox{}_{\!\infty}}\!\;\! are given in (1.3) and {\displaystyle\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesizeG}(\mbox{\footnotesizeT})\!\;\!\;\!=\;\!\sup\;\{\;\!\;\!|\;\!\;\!\mbox{\boldmathg}(t,\mbox{\small v})\,|\!\!\;\!\;\!:\,0<t<\mbox{\footnotesizeT},\;|\,\mbox{\small v}\,|\!\;\!\;\!<\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesizeM}_{\mbox{}_{\!\infty}}\!\;\!(\mbox{\footnotesizeT})\;\!\}}. Letting \mbox{\footnotesizeR}\;\!\mbox{\scriptsize\nearrow}\,\infty, \epsilon\,\mbox{\scriptsize\searrow}\,0 and t_{0}\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\scriptsize\searrow}\,0 (in this order), we then obtain, by (1.3) and since {\displaystyle\;\!|\,\nabla\zeta_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!R,\;\!{\scriptstyle\epsilon}}}\>\!|^{\>\!p}/\;\!\zeta_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!R,\;\!{\scriptstyle\epsilon}}}^{\;\!p\;\!-\>\!1}\!\;\!\leq\bigl{(}\>\!p\,\epsilon\>\!\bigr{)}^{\scriptstyle p}\;\!e^{\scriptstyle-\,p\;\!\epsilon\;\!\sqrt{\>\!1\,+\,|\;\!x\;\!|^{\>\!2}\;\!}}\!},
{\displaystyle\|\,u(\cdot,\mbox{\footnotesizeT})\,\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\>\!2}+\!\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!0}}^{\>\!T}\!\!\!\mu(t)\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!\mathbb{R}^{n}}}\!\!\!|\,\nabla u\,|^{\>\!p}\,dx\,dt\;\leq\;\mbox{\footnotesizeM}_{\mbox{}_{\!\infty}}\!\!\;\!\;\!(\mbox{\footnotesizeT})\,\|\,u_{0}\;\!\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\!\;\!\>\!+\!\!\;\!\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!0}}^{\>\!T}\!\!\!\!\;\!\mbox{w}(t)\,\|\,u(\cdot,t)\,\|_{{\scriptstyle L^{q^{\prime}}\!(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\>\!q^{\prime}}dt}
where {\displaystyle\,\mbox{w}(t)\!\;\!\;\!=\!\;\!\;\!2\;\!\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesizeF}(t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle\!\;\!\frac{\scriptstyle p}{\scriptstyle p\;\!-\>\!1}}}\!\!\;\!\;\!\mu(t)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle\!\!\!-\,\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle p\;\!-\>\!1}}}\!} and . This shows (2.3).
The next result gives one form of the basic energy inequalities that can be obtained for weak solutions {\displaystyle\;\!u(\cdot,t)\in C^{0}([\;\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!L^{1}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))\>\!\cap\>\!L^{p}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}((\!\;\!\;\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\>\!W^{1,\,p}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))\;\!\;\!\cap} {\displaystyle L^{{}^{\infty}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}([\;\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\cap L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))} of problem (1.1), (1.2), which plays a key role in [4].
Proposition 2.2. * Under the same assumptions of Proposition 2.1 above, we have, for each , that is absolutely continuous in \;\!t\in(\!\;\!\;\!0,\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}). Moreover, there exists \!\;\!\;\!E_{q}\subset(\>\!0,\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}) with zero Lebesgue measure such that *
[TABLE]
*for all {\displaystyle\,t\in(\>\!0,\>\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast})\!\;\!\setminus\!\;\!E_{2}\!\;\!} if , and *
[TABLE]
(2.5)
[TABLE]
*for all {\displaystyle\,t\in(\>\!0,\>\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast})\!\;\!\setminus\!\;\!E_{q}\!\;\!} if , where \mbox{\smallF}(t)\!\;\! is given in above.
**Proof. Given \>\!0<t_{0}<t<\mbox{\footnotesizeT}_{\!\!\;\!\;\!\ast}, \mbox{\footnotesizeR}>0, let \>\!\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)=\zeta(x/\mbox{\footnotesizeR}), where is such that if , if , for all . We begin with : Taking such that if , if , and for all , let , and, for each , . ( This gives as , uniformly in .) Setting , let us take in (2.2) . Integrating (2.2) in and letting , and then \>\!\mbox{\footnotesizeR}\rightarrow\infty, we get, by (1.3) and (2.3) above,
**
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
from which the result is obtained from (1.2), (2.3) and Lebesgue’s differentiation theorem. For the case we proceed similarly, using in (2.2) above.
Sometimes (as in Propositions 2.3, 2.4 below) the following extra assumption on is also needed: given any \>\!\mbox{\smallT}>0, there exists some constant C(\mbox{\smallT}) such that
[TABLE]
Proposition 2.3. * Under the same assumptions of Proposition 2.1 above, we have *
[TABLE]
*provided that i , or that ii and holds. *
**Proof. Let , be constructed as in the proof of Proposition 2.2, and take (2.2) with . If , we may proceed as follows: integrating (2.2) in and letting , and \mbox{\footnotesizeR}\rightarrow\infty, we obtain
**
[TABLE]
from which (2.7) is obtained by letting (because in this case). In case (ii), we let instead , and , which gives, by (2.6),
[TABLE]
{\displaystyle+\;\,\mbox{\footnotesizeK}\!\;\!(\mbox{\footnotesizeM}\!\;\!,\>\!t)\!\>\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\mbox{\footnotesize>!t}}\!\!\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!B_{\mbox{}_{\!\;\!R}}}}\!\!\!\!\;\!|\,u(x,\tau)\,|^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle\!\frac{\scriptstyle p\,-1}{\scriptstyle p}}}|\,\nabla\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\,|\;dx\;\!\;\!d\tau}
for some constant {\displaystyle\>\!\mbox{\footnotesizeK}\!=\mbox{\footnotesizeK}\!\;\!(\mbox{\footnotesizeM}\!\;\!,\>\!t)} depending upon (the maximum size of , ) and . Letting \mbox{\footnotesizeR}\rightarrow\infty, this gives (2.7), since we are now assuming .
Remark 2.1. In addition to conditions (i) and (ii) of Proposition 2.3, if satisfies (2.6) with exponent 1 (cf. (2.9) below), then all solutions to (1.1), (1.2) constructed by parabolic regularization satisfy (2.7) when : see [9], Ch. 2, and Remark 2.3.
Remark 2.2. When (2.7) is valid, it follows more generally that we have, by the same argument: for all \;\!0\leq t_{0}\leq t<\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}, so that is then monotonically decreasing in .
Proposition 2.4. *Let {\displaystyle\,u(\cdot,t)\in C^{0}(\,\![\,0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!L^{1}_{\mbox{\scriptsize\em loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\,\!)\!\>\!\cap\!\>\!L^{\infty}_{\mbox{\scriptsize\em loc}}(\,\![\,0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\!\>\!\cap\!\>\!L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\,\!)} {\displaystyle\cap\;\!L^{p}_{\mbox{\scriptsize\em loc}}(\,\!(\!\;\!\;\!0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!W^{1,\,p}_{\mbox{\scriptsize\em loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\,\!)} be any solution to , . If and holds, then {\displaystyle\;\!u(\cdot,t)\in C^{0}(\,\![\,0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\,\!)}. In particular, as \>\!t\;\!\mbox{\footnotesize\searrow}\;\!0. Moreover, the solution mass is conserved, i.e.,
[TABLE]
**Proof. We begin by showing that {\displaystyle\;\!u(\cdot,t)\in C^{0}(\,\![\,0,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\!\;\!\;\!L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\,\!)}. The following argument is adapted from [3], Theorem 2.1. Since is already known to be continuous in , it is sufficient to show that, given \;\!0<\mbox{\footnotesizeT}<\mbox{\footnotesizeT}_{\!\ast} arbitrary, we have uniformly small (say, ) for all \;\!0<t\leq\mbox{\footnotesizeT} provided that we choose {\displaystyle\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesizeR}=\mbox{\footnotesizeR}(\epsilon,\mbox{\footnotesizeT})\gg 1}. Let then , \;\!0<\mbox{\footnotesizeT}<\mbox{\footnotesizeT}_{\!\ast} be given, and let be a cut-off function satisfying: everywhere, and if \>\!|\,x\,|<\mbox{\footnotesizeR}/2, if \>\!\mbox{\footnotesizeR}<|\,x\,|<\mbox{\footnotesizeR}+\mbox{\footnotesizeS}, if \>\!|\,x\,|>\mbox{\footnotesizeR}+2\>\!\mbox{\footnotesizeS}, with \>\!|\;\!\nabla\zeta_{R,\>\!S}(x)\,|\leq\mbox{\footnotesizeC}/\mbox{\footnotesizeR}\;\! if \>\!|\,x\,|<\mbox{\footnotesizeR} and \>\!|\;\!\nabla\zeta_{R,\>\!S}(x)\,|\leq\mbox{\footnotesizeC}/\mbox{\footnotesizeS}\;\! if \>\!\mbox{\footnotesizeR}+\mbox{\footnotesizeS}<|\,x\,|<\mbox{\footnotesizeR}+2\>\!\mbox{\footnotesizeS}, for some constant independent of \mbox{\footnotesizeR},\mbox{\footnotesizeS}>0. Given 0<t_{0}<t\leq\mbox{\footnotesizeT}, , , let be the regularized absolute value function introduced in the proof of Proposition 2.2. Taking in (2.2), and integrating the result in , we get, letting , and ,
**
[TABLE]
by (1.2), (1.3) and (2.3), where
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Recalling that (by hypothesis), we observe that
[TABLE]
and similarly for {\displaystyle J_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!2}}\!\;\!(\mbox{\footnotesizeR},\,\!\mbox{\footnotesizeS})}, {\displaystyle H_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!1}}\!\>\!(\mbox{\footnotesizeR})} and {\displaystyle H_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!2}}\!\;\!(\mbox{\footnotesizeR},\,\!\mbox{\footnotesizeS})}. This gives, letting \>\!\mbox{\footnotesizeS}\rightarrow\infty,
{\displaystyle\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!|\,x\,|\,>\,R}}|\,u(x,t)\,|\;\!\;\!dx\;\leq\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!|\,x\,|\,>\,R/2}}|\,u_{0}(x)\,|\;\!\;\!dx\;+\;\mbox{\footnotesize{\displaystyle\frac{;!2;!\mbox{\footnotesize}}{\mbox{\footnotesize}}}}\!\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 0}}^{\>\!T}\!\!\!\mbox{\footnotesizeF}(\tau)\!\!\;\!\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!|\,x\,|\,>\,R/2}}|\,u(x,t)\,|^{\>\!\kappa\;\!+\;\!1}\,dx\,d\tau}
{\displaystyle+\;\;\epsilon^{\scriptstyle\!\>\!-\,\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle\;\!p\;\!-\;\!1\>\!}}\!\!\>\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 0}}^{\>\!T}\!\!\!\mu(\tau)\!\!\;\!\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!|\,x\,|\,>\,R/2}}|\,\nabla u\,|^{\>\!p}\;dx\,d\tau\,+\,\mbox{\footnotesizeK}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!n}}\!\;\!\;\!\epsilon\;\!\;\!\Bigl{\{}\;\!1+\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle 0}}^{\>\!T}\!\!\!\mu(\tau)\;\!\;\!d\tau\Bigr{\}}}
for every \;\!0<t\leq\mbox{\footnotesizeT}, where {\displaystyle\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\footnotesizeK}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!n}}\!\;\!} is some constant depending on , only (and not on ), and where we have used (2.6) and the assumption . Therefore, by (1.3) and (2.3), we can choose \>\!\mbox{\footnotesizeR}>0 sufficiently large (depending on , ) such that
[TABLE]
Since is arbitrary, and the constant \mbox{\footnotesizeK}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!n}}\!\>\! in the estimate above is independent of , this gives {\displaystyle\;\!u(\cdot,t)\in C^{0}(\,\![\,0,\;\!\mbox{\footnotesizeT}_{\!\ast}),\;\!L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\,\!)}, as claimed in the first part of Proposition 2.4.
Finally, to show the second part (i.e., mass conservation), we proceed in a similar way, but taking this time in (2.2), where is the cut-off function considered in the proof of Proposition 2.2. This completes the proof of Proposition 2.4.
Remark 2.3. In a similar way, in the remaining case mass conservation can be obtained from (2.2) with provided that we have, instead of (2.6), the stronger condition
[TABLE]
and that we have {\displaystyle\;\!|\,\nabla u\>\!(\cdot,t)\,|\,\mbox{\small\in}\,L^{q}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}([\;\!0,\>\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\>\!L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\,\!)} for some \;\!q\,\mbox{\small\in}\,[\;\!p-1,p) satisfying . For still other conditions, see [9], Ch. 2.
3. contraction and comparison properties
The results obtained in this section, where we introduce a few extra assumptions (see (3.1) - (3.4) below), serve to establish the uniqueness of solutions to (1.1), (1.2), among other important properties [10, 14]. Upon and , it will be required one of the following sets of conditions: for every given \>\!\mbox{\smallM}>0, \>\!0<\mbox{\smallT}<\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}, one must have (1.6) and (1.7) satisfied, that is,
{\displaystyle|\,\mbox{\boldmathf}(x,t,\mbox{u})\;\!-\>\!\mbox{\boldmathf}(x,t,\mbox{v})\,|\;\leq\>\mbox{\smallK}_{\!\,\!f}\,\!(\mbox{\smallM}\!\;\!,\>\!\mbox{\smallT})\,|\,\mbox{u}-\mbox{v}\,|^{\scriptstyle\>\!1\,-\,\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle p}}\quad\;\,\forall\;\,x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\!\>\!,\>0\>\!\leq\>\!t\leq\>\!\mbox{\smallT}\!\;\!}, (3.1)
{\displaystyle|\,\mbox{u}\,|\>\!\leq\>\!\mbox{\smallM}\!\;\!,\;|\,\mbox{v}\,|\>\!\leq\>\!\mbox{\smallM}\!\;\!},
{\displaystyle|\,\mbox{\boldmathg}(t,\mbox{u})\;\!-\>\!\mbox{\boldmathg}(t,\mbox{v})\,|\;\leq\,\mbox{\smallK}_{\!\,\!g}\,\!(\mbox{\smallM}\!\;\!,\>\!\mbox{\smallT})\;\!\;\!|\,\mbox{u}-\mbox{v}\,|^{\scriptstyle\>\!1\,-\,\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle p}}\hskip 46.94687pt\forall\;\,0\>\!\leq\>\!t\leq\>\!\mbox{\smallT}\!\;\!}, (3.2)
{\displaystyle|\,\mbox{u}\,|\>\!\leq\>\!\mbox{\smallM}\!\;\!,\;|\,\mbox{v}\,|\>\!\leq\>\!\mbox{\smallM}\!\;\!},
or the stronger assumptions
{\displaystyle|\,\mbox{\boldmathf}_{\!\,\!\mbox{\scriptsize u}}(x,t,\mbox{u})\,|\;\leq\>\mbox{\smallF}_{\!\!\;\!\mbox{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize u}}}(\mbox{\smallM}\!\;\!,\>\!\mbox{\smallT})\,|\,\mbox{u}\,|^{\>\!\kappa}\qquad\;\,\forall\;\,x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\!\>\!,\;0\>\!\leq\>\!t\>\!\leq\>\!\mbox{\smallT}\!\;\!,\>|\,\mbox{u}\,|\>\!\leq\>\!\mbox{\smallM}\!\;\!}, (3.3)
{\displaystyle|\,\mbox{\boldmathg}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\scriptsize u}}(t,\mbox{u})\,|\;\leq\>\mbox{\smallG}_{\!\;\!\mbox{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize u}}}\!\;\!(\mbox{\smallM}\!\>\!,\>\!\mbox{\smallT})\,|\,\mbox{u}\,|^{\>\!\gamma}\hskip 57.61665pt\forall\;\,0\>\!\leq\>\!t\>\!\leq\>\!\mbox{\smallT}\!\;\!,\>|\,\mbox{u}\,|\>\!\leq\>\!\mbox{\smallM}\!\;\!}, (3.4)
with constants \;\!\mbox{\smallK}_{\!\!\;\!f}\,\!(\mbox{\smallM}\!,\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\smallT}),\;\!\mbox{\smallK}_{\!\!\;\!g}\,\!(\mbox{\smallM}\!,\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\smallT}),\;\!\mbox{\smallF}_{\!\!\;\!\mbox{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize u}}}\!\;\!(\mbox{\smallM}\!,\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\smallT}),\;\!\mbox{\smallG}_{\!\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize u}}}\!\;\!(\mbox{\smallM}\!,\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\smallT}) depending on \>\!\mbox{\smallM}\!\,\!\,\!,\;\!\mbox{\smallT}\!\,\!, where \mbox{\boldmathf}_{\!\,\!\mbox{\scriptsize u}}\!\,\!=\>\!\partial\mbox{\boldmathf}\!\;\!/\!\;\!\>\!\partial\>\!\mbox{u}, \mbox{\boldmathg}_{\!\;\!\mbox{\scriptsize u}}\!\,\!=\>\!\partial\!\;\!\>\!\mbox{\boldmathg}\!\;\!/\!\;\!\partial\>\!\mbox{u}. We note that (3.3) - (3.4) are satisfied in the prototype model given by \mbox{\boldmathf}(x,t,\mbox{u})\!\;\!=\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\boldmathb}(x,t)\;\!|\;\!\mbox{u}\;\!|^{\>\!\kappa}\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{u}, \;\!\mbox{\boldmathg}(t,\mbox{u})\!\;\!=\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\boldmathc}(t)\;\!|\;\!\mbox{u}\;\!|^{\>\!\gamma}\!\;\!\;\!\mbox{u}.
Again, as in the previous section, solutions to (1.1), (1.2) are always meant in the space {\displaystyle\,\!\,\!C^{0}([\;\!0,\>\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),L^{1}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))} {\displaystyle\cap\,L^{p}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}([\;\!0,\>\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),W^{1\!\;\!,\>p}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))\!\;\!\cap L^{\infty}_{\mbox{\scriptsize loc}}([\;\!0,\>\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}),\>\!L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\!\;\!\cap\!L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))}, with its maximal existence interval given by [\;\!0,\>\!\mbox{\smallT}_{\!\ast}\!\;\!).
Proposition 3.1. *Let , 0<t\leq\mbox{\smallT}\!\;\!, be given solutions of , corresponding to initial states , respectively. Then
[TABLE]
*provided that i , and , satisfy and above, or when ii , , and , satisfy and , respectively.
Proof. Given , , \>\!\mbox{\footnotesizeR}>0, let be the cut-off function considered in the proof of Proposition 2.2. Let , be the time Steklov regularizations of , , respectively. Let be defined as in the proof of Proposition 2.2, and let , . Taking in the equations (2.2) for , , subtracting one from the other and integrating the result in the interval , where , we get, letting \>\!h\;\!\mbox{\scriptsize\searrow}\;\!0\>\! and \>\!t_{0}\>\!\mbox{\scriptsize\searrow}\;\!0,
{\displaystyle\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}L_{\delta}(\theta(x,t))\,\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\,dx\;+\>\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\>\!\mu(\tau)\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}L_{\delta}^{\prime\prime}(\theta)\;\!\>\!\langle\;\!\;\!\mbox{\boldmatha}(u,v),\>\!\nabla\theta\;\!\;\!\rangle\>\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\;\!\;\!dx\,d\tau}
{\displaystyle\leq\,\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}L_{\delta}(\theta_{0}(x))\,\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\,dx\;+\>\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\>\!\mu(\tau)\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!R/2\,<\,|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}|\,L_{\delta}^{\prime}(\theta)\,|\cdot|\,\mbox{\boldmatha}(u,v)\,|\cdot|\,\nabla\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\,|\;dx\,d\tau\;\;\!+}
{\displaystyle\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\>\!\mu(\tau)\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}L_{\delta}^{\prime\prime}(\theta)\,\,|\,[\,\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}\,]\,|\cdot|\,\nabla\theta\,|\;\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\;dx\,d\tau\;\!\;\!+\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\>\!\mu(\tau)\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\,\!R/2\,<\,|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}|\,L_{\delta}^{\prime}(\theta)\,|\cdot|\,[\,\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}\,]\,|\cdot|\,\nabla\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\,|\;dx\,d\tau}
in view of (2.3), where , \>\![\,\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}\,]\equiv[\,\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}\,](x,\tau)=\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}(x,\tau,u(x,\tau))-\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}(x,\tau,v(x,\tau)), {\displaystyle\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}=\mbox{\boldmathf}+\mbox{\boldmathg}}, and {\displaystyle\;\!\mbox{\boldmatha}(u,v)\>\!=\;\!|\,\nabla u(x,\tau)\,|^{\>\!p-2}\;\!\nabla u(x,\tau)\,\!-\>\!|\,\nabla v(x,\tau)\,|^{\>\!p-2}\;\!\nabla v(x,\tau)}. Noticing that
{\displaystyle\langle\;\!\;\!\mbox{\boldmatha}(u,v),\>\!\nabla\theta\;\!\;\!\rangle\>=\;\>\!\mbox{\footnotesize{\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}}}\;\!\bigl{(}\>|\,\nabla u\,|^{\>\!p-2}+\;\!|\,\nabla v\,|^{\>\!p-2}\;\!\bigr{)}\,\>\!|\,\nabla\theta\,|^{\>\!2}\;\;\!+}
{\displaystyle+\;\,\mbox{\footnotesize{\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}}}\;\!\bigl{(}\>|\,\nabla u\,|^{\>\!p-2}-\;\!|\,\nabla v\,|^{\>\!p-2}\;\!\bigr{)}\;\!\bigl{(}\>|\,\nabla u\,|^{\>\!2}-\;\!|\,\nabla v\,|^{\>\!2}\;\!\bigr{)}}
and that {\displaystyle\;\!|\,\mbox{\boldmatha}(u,v)\,|\;\!\leq\,|\,\nabla u\,|^{\>\!p-1}+\;\!|\,\nabla v\,|^{\>\!p-1}\!}, we then have
{\displaystyle\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}L_{\delta}(\theta(x,t))\,\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\,dx\;+\;\Bigl{(}\,1-\frac{2}{p}\,\Bigr{)}\,\frac{1}{\;2^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle\>\!p-1}}}\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\>\!\mu(\tau)\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}L_{\delta}^{\prime\prime}(\theta)\;\!\>\!|\,\nabla\theta\,|^{\>\!p}\,\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\;\!\;\!dx\,d\tau}
{\displaystyle\leq\;\!\;\!\;\!\|\,u_{0}-\;\!v_{0}\;\!\|_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\>\!+\!\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\>\!\mu(\tau)\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!R/2\,<\,|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}|\,L_{\delta}^{\prime}(\theta)\,|\>\bigl{(}\,|\,\nabla u\,|^{\>\!p-1}\!\;\!+\;\!|\,\nabla v\,|^{\>\!p-1}\>\!\bigr{)}\,|\,\nabla\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\,|\;\,\!dx\,d\tau\;\;\!+}
{\displaystyle+\;\;\!\;\!2\!\,\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\>\!\mu(\tau)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle\!\!-\,\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle\;\!p\>\!-1\>\!}}}\!\!\!\>\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}L_{\delta}^{\prime\prime}(\theta)\;\!\;\!|\,[\,\mbox{\boldmathf}\,]\,|^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle\frac{\scriptstyle p}{\scriptstyle\;\!p\>\!-1\>\!}}}\!\;\!\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\;dx\,d\tau\,+\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\,\!R/2\,<\,|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}|\,L_{\delta}^{\prime}(\theta)\,|\cdot|\,[\,\mbox{\boldmathf}\,]\,|\cdot|\,\nabla\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\,|\;dx\,d\tau}
{\displaystyle+\;\;\!\!\;\!\;\!2\!\,\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\>\!\mu(\tau)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle\!\!-\,\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle\;\!p\>\!-1\>\!}}}\!\!\!\>\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}L_{\delta}^{\prime\prime}(\theta)\;\!\;\!|\,[\,\mbox{\boldmathg}\,]\,|^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle\frac{\scriptstyle p}{\scriptstyle\;\!p\>\!-1\>\!}}}\!\;\!\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\;dx\,d\tau\,+\!\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\;\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\,\!R/2\,<\,|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}|\,L_{\delta}^{\prime}(\theta)\,|\cdot|\,[\,\mbox{\boldmathg}\,]\,|\cdot|\,\nabla\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\,|\;dx\,d\tau},
(3.6)
where, as before, \>\![\,\mbox{\boldmathf}\,]\equiv[\,\mbox{\boldmathf}\,](x,\tau)=\mbox{\boldmathf}(x,\tau,u(x,\tau))-\mbox{\boldmathf}(x,\tau,v(x,\tau)), \>\![\,\mbox{\boldmathg}\,]\equiv[\,\mbox{\boldmathg}\,](x,\tau)=\mbox{\boldmathg}(\tau,u(x,\tau))-\mbox{\boldmathg}(\tau,v(x,\tau)). If , we may proceed as in the proof of Proposition 2.4 (using that for any ), letting and then \>\!\mbox{\footnotesizeR}\rightarrow\infty\>\! to obtain, given arbitrary :
[TABLE]
for each \;\!0<t\leq\mbox{\footnotesizeT}\!\;\!, because of (1.3), (2.3) and (3.1), (3.2) above, where \!\;\!\;\!\mbox{\smallK}_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!n}}\!>0\>\! is some appropriate constant depending on the dimension but not on . Since this holds for any , (3.5) is obtained in the case , as claimed.
When , we assume (3.3), (3.4) with , satisfying and , proceeding instead as follows. Because for all , (and some constant independent of ), we obtain, letting \mbox{\footnotesizeR}\rightarrow\infty\>\! in (3.6):
[TABLE]
{\displaystyle+\;\,2\!\>\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\>\!\mu(\tau)^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle\!\!-\,\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle\;\!p\>\!-1\>\!}}}\!\!\!\>\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\mathbb{R}^{n}}}\!\!\!\!\;\!L_{\delta}^{\prime\prime}(\theta)\;|\,[\,\mbox{\boldmathg}\,](x,\tau)\,|^{\mbox{}^{\scriptstyle\frac{\scriptstyle p}{\scriptstyle\;\!p\>\!-1\>\!}}}\;\!dx\,d\tau}
(3.7)
by (1.3) and (2.3). Now, because of (3.3) and (3.4), we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for all , 0<\tau\leq\mbox{\footnotesizeT}\!\>\!, where {\displaystyle\;\!\mbox{\footnotesizeM}=\;\!\sup\,\bigl{\{}\;\!\|\,u(\cdot,\tau)\,\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}\!\;\!,\,\|\,v(\cdot,\tau)\,\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}\!\!\;\!:\,0<\tau\leq\mbox{\footnotesizeT}\!\;\!\;\!\bigr{\}}}, so that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all concerned, where {\displaystyle\;\!\mbox{\footnotesizeK}\!\;\!(\mbox{\footnotesizeM}\!\>\!,\>\!\mbox{\footnotesizeT}\!\>\!,\;\!p,\>\!n)} is some constant that does not depend on . Hence, letting in (3.7), we obtain
[TABLE]
by Lebesgue’s dominated convergence, since , . This shows (3.5) in case (ii), so that the proof of Proposition 3.1 is now complete.
Actually, under the same assumptions of Proposition 3.1, a lot more is true, as shown by the next two results (cf. Propositions 3.2 and 3.3 below):
Proposition 3.2. *Let , 0<t\leq\mbox{\smallT}\!\;\!, be given solutions of , corresponding to initial states , respectively. Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
*provided that i , and , satisfy and above, or when ii , , and , satisfy and , respectively.
( Here, as usual, and stand for the positive and negative real parts, respectively, of a given number , that is : , and .)
**Proof. The following argument is adapted from the proof of Proposition 3.1 and [7, 12]: taking such that for all , , , and given (arbitrary), let be defined by . Also, given , \>\!\mbox{\footnotesizeR}>0, let be the cut-off function used in the proof of Proposition 2.2. Letting , denote the Steklov regularizations of , , respectively, and setting , , we may proceed as follows. Taking in the equations (2.2) for , , subtracting one from the other and integrating the result in the interval , where , we get, letting \>\!h\;\!\mbox{\scriptsize\searrow}\;\!0\>\! and \>\!t_{0}\>\!\mbox{\scriptsize\searrow}\;\!0,
{\displaystyle\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}G_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!\delta}}\!\;\!(\>\!\theta(x,t))\;\!\;\!\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\,dx\;+\>\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\>\!\mu(\tau)\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}H_{\!\>\!\delta}^{\,\prime}(\theta)\;\!\>\!\langle\;\!\;\!\mbox{\boldmatha}(u,v),\>\!\nabla\theta\;\!\;\!\rangle\>\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\;\!\;\!dx\,d\tau}
{\displaystyle\leq\,\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}G_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!\delta}}\!\;\!(\theta_{0}(x))\;\!\;\!\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\,dx\;+\>\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\>\!\mu(\tau)\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!R/2\,<\,|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}|\,H_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!\delta}}(\theta)\,|\cdot|\,\mbox{\boldmatha}(u,v)\,|\cdot|\,\nabla\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\,|\;dx\,d\tau\;\;\!+}
{\displaystyle\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\>\!\mu(\tau)\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}H_{\!\>\!\delta}^{\,\prime}(\theta)\,\,|\,[\,\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}\,]\,|\cdot|\,\nabla\theta\,|\;\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\;dx\,d\tau\;\!\;\!+\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\;\!0}}^{\;\!t}\!\!\>\!\mu(\tau)\!\int_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\,\!R/2\,<\,|\,x\,|\,<\,R}}|\,H_{\mbox{}_{\scriptstyle\!\>\!\delta}}(\theta)\,|\cdot|\,[\,\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}\,]\,|\cdot|\,\nabla\zeta_{\mbox{}_{R}}\!\;\!(x)\,|\;dx\,d\tau\!\;\!,}
where , \;\![\,\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}\,]\equiv[\,\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}\,](x,\tau)=\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}(x,\tau,u(x,\tau))-\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}(x,\tau,v(x,\tau)), {\displaystyle\mbox{\boldmath\tilde{f}}\!:=\!\;\!\mbox{\boldmathf}\!+\mbox{\boldmathg}}, and {\displaystyle\;\!\mbox{\boldmatha}(u,v)\>\!=|\,\nabla u(x,\tau)\,|^{\>\!p-2}\;\!\nabla u(x,\tau)\,\!-|\,\nabla v(x,\tau)\,|^{\>\!p-2}\;\!\nabla v(x,\tau)}, as before. From this point, we repeat the steps in the proof of Proposition 3.1, using now that as : in case (i), we let and \mbox{\footnotesizeR}\rightarrow\infty to obtain (3.8), and in case (ii) we reverse the order, letting this time \mbox{\footnotesizeR}\rightarrow\infty and then to arrive at (3.8), as claimed.**
The proof of (3.9) follows exactly the same lines, except that this we take satisfying : for all , , and .
A direct consequence of (3.8) (or of (3.9)) is the following comparison principle.
Proposition 3.3. *Let , 0<t\leq\mbox{\smallT}\!\;\!, be given solutions of , corresponding to initial states , respectively. Then
[TABLE]
*provided that i , and , satisfy and above, or when ii , , and , satisfy and , respectively.
Acknowledgements. This work was partly supported by CNPq (Ministry of Science and Technology, Brazil), Grant # 154037/2011-7 and by CAPES (Ministry of Education, Brazil), Grant # 1212003/2013. The authors also express their gratitude to Paulo R. Zingano (UFRGS, Brazil) for some helpful suggestions and discussions.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1]
- 2[2] P. Braz e Silva, W. G. Melo and P. R. Zingano , An asymptotic supnorm estimate for solutions of 1-D systems of convection-diffusion equations , J. Diff. Eqs. 258 (2015), 2806-2822.
- 3[3] P. Braz e Silva, L. Schütz and P. R. Zingano , On some energy inequalities and supnorm estimates for advection-diffusion equations in ℝ n superscript ℝ 𝑛 \mathbb{R}^{n}\!\;\! , Nonlin. Anal. 93 (2013), 90-96.
- 4[4] J. Q. Chagas, P. L. Guidolin and P. R. Zingano , Global solvability results for parabolic equations with p 𝑝 p - L aplacian type diffusion (submitted).
- 5[5] M. G. Crandall and L. Tartar , Some relations between nonexpansive and order preserving mappings , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 78 (1980), 385-390.
- 6[6] E. Di Benedetto , Degenerate Parabolic Equations , Springer, New York, 1993.
- 7[7] N. L. Diehl, L. Fabris and P. R. Zingano , Comparison results for smooth solutions of quasilinear parabolic equations , Adv. Diff. Eqs. Control Proc. 14 (2014), 11-22.
- 8[8] L. C. Evans , Partial Differential Equations , American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1998.
