A New Condition for the Concavity Method of Blow-up Solutions to p-Laplacian Parabolic Equations
Soon-Yeong Chung, Min-Jun Choi

TL;DR
This paper introduces a new condition for the concavity method to analyze blow-up solutions in p-Laplacian parabolic equations, improving upon previous conditions and extending the understanding of solution behavior.
Contribution
The work proposes a novel condition (C_p) that enhances existing criteria for blow-up solutions in p-Laplacian equations using the concavity method.
Findings
The new condition (C_p) broadens the class of nonlinearities for which blow-up can be established.
It improves upon all previously known conditions for blow-up in similar equations.
The method successfully demonstrates finite-time blow-up under the new condition.
Abstract
In this paper, we consider an initial-boundary value problem of the p-Laplacian parabolic equations \begin{equation} \begin{cases} u_{t}\left(x,t\right)=\mbox{div}(|\nabla u\left(x,t\right)|^{p-2}\nabla u(x,t))+f(u(x,t)), & \left(x,t\right)\in \Omega\times\left(0,+\infty\right), \newline u\left(x,t\right)=0, & \left(x,t\right)\in\partial \Omega\times\left[0,+\infty\right), \newline u\left(x,0\right)=u_{0}\geq0, & x\in\overline{\Omega}, \end{cases} \end{equation} where and is a bounded domain of with smooth boundary . The main contribution of this work is to introduce a new condition \[ \mbox{} \] for some with , where is the…
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.
A New Condition for the Concavity Method of Blow-up Solutions to p-Laplacian Parabolic Equations
Soon-Yeong Chung
Department of Mathematics and Program of Integrated Biotechnology, Sogang University, Seoul 04107, Korea
Min-Jun Choi
Department of Mathematics, Sogang University, Seoul 04107, Korea
Abstract
In this paper, we consider an initial-boundary value problem of the p-Laplacian parabolic equations
[TABLE]
where and is a bounded domain of with smooth boundary . The main contribution of this work is to introduce a new condition
(C_{p})$$\hskip 28.45274pt\alpha\int_{0}^{u}f(s)ds\leq uf(u)+\beta u^{p}+\gamma,\,\,u>0
for some with , where is the first eigenvalue of p-Laplacian , and we use the concavity method to obtain the blow-up solutions to the above equations. In fact, it will be seen that the condition improves the conditions ever known so far.
keywords:
Parabolic, p-Laplacian, Blow-up, Concavity method.
MSC:
[2010] 35K92 , 35B44
††journal: Journal of Differential Equations
1 Introduction
In this paper, we discuss the blow-up solutions for the following p-Laplacian parabolic equations
[TABLE]
where , is a bounded domain in with smooth boundary and is locally Lipschitz continuous on , and for . Moreover, the initial data is assumed to be a non-negative and non-trivial function in with on for and in for , respectively.
There are many literatures dealing with a local existence of classical solutions (or weak solutions) to the equations (1). In general, it is well known that not all solutions of the equations (1) exist for all time. So, many authors have focused on the sufficient conditions for the local existence of solutions to the equations (1). In particular, for , Ball [1] derived sufficient conditions for the local existence solutions to the equations (1). On the other hand, for , Zhao [14] also derived sufficient conditions for the nonexistence of global solutions to the equations (1).
On the other hand, the blow-up solutions to the equations (1) have been studied by many authors. In particular, Levine and Payne [5] studied the abstract equation
[TABLE]
where and are positive linear operators defined on a dense subdomain of a real or complex Hilbert Space, in which they obtained the blow-up solutions, under abstract conditions
[TABLE]
for every , where . This work has been recognized as a creative and elegant tool for giving criteria for the blow-up, which is called “the concavity method”. They also applied the method to some other equations or system of equations (See [6, 7]).
Afterwards, the method in the abstract form was changed into a concrete form by Philippin and Proytcheva [11] and applied to the same equation as (1) with . In fact, the condition (2) was changed into the form
[TABLE]
for some and the initial data satisfies
[TABLE]
where .
Since then, the concavity method has been used so far to derive the blow-up solutions the variants of the equations (1) or some other equations.
For example, Ding and Hu [3] adopted the condition (A) and
[TABLE]
to get blow-up solutions to the equation
[TABLE]
assuming more that , , , , and
[TABLE]
Another example is the work by Payne et al. in [12, 13] in which they obtained the blow-up solutions to the equations
[TABLE]
when the Neumann boundary data satisfies the condition (A).
On the other hands, the condition for the nonlinear term and the condition (3) for the initial data were relaxed by Bandle and Brunner [2] as follows:
[TABLE]
for some and the initial data satisfying
[TABLE]
Concerning the general case , in 1993, Zhao [14] studied the following equations
[TABLE]
and proved the blow-up solutions to the equations (6) under the condition
[TABLE]
for some and the initial data satisfying
[TABLE]
In , Messaoudi [9] proved that the solutions to the same equations (1) blow up under the condition
[TABLE]
and the initial data satisfying
[TABLE]
Looking into the above conditions , , (7), and so on more closely, we can see that they are independent of the eigenvalue of the Laplacian (or p-Laplacian ), which is a constant depending on the domain . From this point of view, there is, we think, a possibility that the above conditions can be improved and refined in a way, depending on the domain and the eigenvalue.
Being motivated by this point, we introduce a new condition as follows: for some ,
[TABLE]
where and is the first eigenvalue of the Laplacian . (For simplicity, the condition and are denoted by when , respectively.)
The main theorems of this paper are as follows:
Theorem** (Case 1 : ).**
Let a function satisfy the condition . If the initial data with on satisfies
[TABLE]
then the nonnegative classical solutions to the equations (1) blows up at finite time , in the sense of
[TABLE]
where is the constant in the condition .
Theorem** (Case 2 : ).**
Let a function satisfy the condition and . If the initial data satisfies
[TABLE]
then the nonnegative weak solutions to the equations (1) blows up at finite time , in the sense of
[TABLE]
where is the constant in the condition .
We organized this paper as follows: In Section 2, we discuss, when , the blow-up classical solutions using concavity method with the condition and in Section 3, when , we discuss the blow-up weak solutions using the same method with the condition , which is the general case. Finally, in Section 4, we discuss the condition , comparing with the conditions , , and (7) so on, together with the condition for the initial data.
2 Case 1 : and the classical solutions
The local existence of the classical solutions to the equations (1) with the case is well known (See Ball [1]). So, accepting the local existence, we focus ourselves on the discussion of the blow-up of the classical solutions to the equation (1) with .
The following lemma is going to be useful in the proof of Theorem 2.3.
Lemma 2.1** ([4, 10]).**
There exist and with in such that
[TABLE]
Moreover, is given by
[TABLE]
In the above, we recall that the number is the first eigenvalue of and is a corresponding eigenfunction.
Let us recall the condition : for some ,
[TABLE]
where and is the first eigenvalue of the Laplacian on .
Remark 2.2*.*
We will discuss the condition in the section 4, comparing with the condition and introduced in the first section, together with the condition for the initial data.
Now, we state and prove our result for .
Theorem 2.3**.**
Let a function satisfy the condition . If the initial data with on satisfies
[TABLE]
then the nonnegative classical solutions to the equations (1) blows up at finite time , in the sense of
[TABLE]
where is the constant in the condition .
Proof.
We first define a functional by
[TABLE]
where .
Then by (11),
[TABLE]
and we can see that
[TABLE]
Now, we introduce a new function
[TABLE]
where is a constant to be determined later. Then it is easy to see that
[TABLE]
Then we use integration by parts, the condition , Lemma 2.1, and (12) in turn to obtain
[TABLE]
Using the Schwarz inequality, we obtain
[TABLE]
where is arbitrary. Combining the above estimates (13), (15), and (16), we obtain that for ,
[TABLE]
Since by the assumption, we can choose to be large enough so that
[TABLE]
This inequality (17) implies that for ,
[TABLE]
Therefore, it follows that cannot remain finite for all . In other words, the solutions blow up in finite time . ∎
Remark 2.4*.*
We estimate the blow-up time of the solutions to equation (1) roughly. Put
[TABLE]
Then we obtain that
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
where . Then the blow-up time satisfies
[TABLE]
3 Case 2 : and the weak solutions
In this section, we discuss the blow-up of solutions to the equations (1) for the case , which is the main part of our work. In order to make this section self-contained we state, without proof, a local existence result of [14].
Theorem 3.1** (See [14]).**
Let be in and there exists a function such that
[TABLE]
Then for any , there exists such that (1) has a solution
[TABLE]
The following lemmas are used when proving Theorem 3.4.
Lemma 3.2** ([4, 10]).**
For , there exist and with in such that
[TABLE]
Moreover, is given by
[TABLE]
In the above, we recall that the number is the first eigenvalue of and is a corresponding eigenfunction.
Let us recall that for some ,
[TABLE]
where and is the first eigenvalue of the -Laplacian on .
Remark 3.3*.*
We will discuss the condition in the next section, comparing with the conditions and introduced in the first section, together with the initial data condition.
Now, we state and prove our main result.
Theorem 3.4**.**
Let a function satisfy the condition and . If the initial data satisfies
[TABLE]
then the nonnegative weak solutions to the equations (1) blows up at finite time , in the sense of
[TABLE]
where is the constant in the condition .
The following lemma is essential in the proof of the above theorem.
Lemma 3.5** ([14]).**
Let be the weak solutions to the equations (1) with . Then
- (i)
[TABLE] 2. (ii)
[TABLE]
where .
Proof of Theorem 3.4. We define a function by
[TABLE]
Then it follows from (18) and Lemma 3.5 (ii) that,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
On the other hand, we define a function by
[TABLE]
where is a constant to be determined later. Then it is easy to see that
[TABLE]
Then by Lemma 3.5 (i), we can see that
[TABLE]
By using the condition (), Lemma 3.2, and (20) in turn, we obtain that
[TABLE]
Applying the Schwarz inequality, as done in Theorem 2.3, we obtain that
[TABLE]
where is arbitrary. Combining the above estimates (21), (24), and (25), we obtain that
[TABLE]
by choosing and to be large enough. This means that the solutions blow up in finite time .
Remark 3.6*.*
- (i)
In a same way as in Remark 2.4, the blow-up time can be estimated as follows
[TABLE] 2. (ii)
In fact, the above theorem and its proof can still works for the case .
4 Discussion on the Condition with the initial data conditions
In this section, we compare the conditions and each other and discuss the role of the condition for the initial data .
As seen in the proof of Theorem 3.4, the concavity method is a tool for deriving the blow-up solution via the auxiliary function under the condition or , by imposing , instead of the large initial data.
On the other hand, instead of the condition in Section 1, it is not difficult to consider , in a similar form as in or . In fact, to be strange, the condition is not seen in any literature, as far as the authors know.
Then for , let us recall the conditions as follows:
for some ,
[TABLE]
for every , where and . Here, note that the constants may be different in each case.
Then it is easy to see that implies and implies , in turn. The difference between and is whether or not they depend on the domain. The condition is independent of the first eigenvalue which depends on the domain . However, the condition depends on domain, due to the term with . From this point of view, the condition can be understood as a refinement of , corresponding to the domain. On the contrary, if a function satisfies for every bounded domain with smooth boundary , then the first eigenvalue can be arbitrary small so that the condition get closer to arbitrarily. Besides, as far as the authors know, there has not been any noteworthy condition for the concavity method other than or .
On the other hand, using the fact that is equivalent to
[TABLE]
we can easily see that for every ,
[TABLE]
for some constants , , and with , where , , and are nondecreasing function on . Here also, the constants may be different in each case. We note here that the nondecreasing functions is nonnegative on , but and may not be nonnegative, in general.
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let be a function satisfying and , , where . Then the condition implies that there exists such that for . In this case, we can find such that , . Moreover, the conditions and are equivalent.
Proof.
First, it follows from (27) and the fact that and so that
[TABLE]
which goes to , as . So, we can find such that , which implies that
[TABLE]
Putting it into the condition , we obtain
[TABLE]
or
[TABLE]
which gives
[TABLE]
for some and another constant .
Now, assume that the condition is true. Since and , , it follows from that
[TABLE]
where and . This implies that for every ,
[TABLE]
which gives .
∎
Remark 4.2*.*
In general, the constant with in can not be replaced by . But, assume and satisfies a condition,
[TABLE]
which comes from by replacing by and taking . Then the inequalities (24) and (26) in the proof of Theorem 3.4 can be derived in an easy way as follows:
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Therefore, we can prove that the weak solutions to the equations (1) for blows up in a finite time, under the conditions and , which can be understood as an improvement of the result by Zhao [14].
Remark 4.3*.*
It is well known that if for some , the solutions to equations (1) is global. On the contrary, it has not been clear yet whether or not the condition guarantees the blow-up solution. Instead, when , for some and , the solutions to the equations (1) blow up in a finite time, only if the initial data is sufficiently large (for more details, see [8]).
In general, the condition may not guarantee the blow-up solutions for any initial data . In fact, we can easily see that a function satisfies if and only if . However, for any function ,
[TABLE]
which means that there is no initial data satisfying , when , . Of course, it is well known that the solutions to the equations (1) is global, in this case (see [8]).
So, we are here going to discuss when we can find initial data satisfies . Consider a domain with and a nonnegative continuous function satisfying the condition with for simplicity and , . Now, let us take where is an eigenfunction in Lemma 3.2 with . Then it follows that
[TABLE]
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2015R1D1A1A01059561).
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] J. M. Ball, Remarks on blow-up and nonexistence theorems for nonlinear evolution equations , Quart. J. Math. 28 28 28 ( 1977 ) 1977 (1977) , 473 – 486 473 – 486 473–486 .
- 2[2] C. Bandle and H. Brunner, Blow-up in diffusion equations, a survey , J. Comput. Appl. Math. 97 97 97 ( 1998 ) 1998 (1998) , 3 − 22 3 22 3-22 .
- 3[3] J. Ding and H. Hu, Blow-up and global solutions for a class of nonlinear reaction diffusion equations under Dirichlet boundary conditions , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 433 433 433 ( 2016 ) 2016 (2016) , 1718 – 1735 1718 – 1735 1718–1735 .
- 4[4] B. Kawohl and P. Lindqvist, Positive eigenfunctions for the p-Laplace operator revisited , Analysis (Munich) 26 26 26 ( 2006 ) 2006 (2006) , 545 – 550 545 – 550 545–550 .
- 5[5] H. A. Levine, Some nonexistence and instability theorems for formally parabolic equations of the form P u t = − A u + ℱ ( u ) 𝑃 subscript 𝑢 𝑡 𝐴 𝑢 ℱ 𝑢 Pu_{t}=-Au+\mathcal{F}(u) , Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 51 51 51 ( 1973 ) 1973 (1973) , 371 − 386 371 386 371-386 .
- 6[6] H. A. Levine and L. E. Payne, Nonexistence theorems for the heat equation with nonlinear boundary conditions and for the porous medium equation backward in time , J. Diff. Equa. 16 16 16 ( 1974 ) 1974 (1974) , 319 – 334 319 – 334 319–334 .
- 7[7] H. A. Levine and L. E. Payne, Some nonexistence theorems for initial-boundary value problems with nonlinear boundary constraints , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 46 46 46 ( 1974 ) 1974 (1974) , 277 – 284 277 – 284 277–284 .
- 8[8] Y. Li and C. Xie, Blow-up for p-Laplacian parabolic equations , Elec. J. Diff. Equa. 2003 2003 2003 ( 2003 ) 2003 (2003) , 12 12 12 pp.
