Global existence and scattering for a class of nonlinear fourth-order Schr\"odinger equation below the energy space
Van Duong Dinh

TL;DR
This paper proves global existence and scattering for a class of nonlinear fourth-order Schrödinger equations below the energy space using the I-method and interaction Morawetz inequality.
Contribution
It introduces a novel combination of the I-method and interaction Morawetz inequality to establish global well-posedness and scattering below the energy space for certain nonlinear Schrödinger equations.
Findings
Global well-posedness established for specified nonlinearities.
Scattering results proved in sub-energy Sobolev spaces.
Applicable for dimensions 5 to 11 with certain nonlinearity ranges.
Abstract
In this paper, we consider a class of nonlinear fourth-order Schr\"odinger equation, namely \[ \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl} i\partial_t u +\Delta^2 u &=&-|u|^{\nu-1} u, \quad 1+ \frac{8}{d}<\nu <1+\frac{8}{d-4},\\ u(0)&=&u_0 \in H^\gamma(\mathbb{R}^d), \quad 5 \leq d \leq 11. \end{array} \right. \] Using the -method combined with the interaction Morawetz inequality, we establish the global well-posedness and scattering in with for some value .
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
TopicsAdvanced Mathematical Physics Problems · Nonlinear Waves and Solitons · Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations
Global existence and scattering for a class of nonlinear fourth-order Schrödinger equation below the energy space
Van Duong Dinh
Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse UMR5219, Université Toulouse CNRS, 31062 Toulouse Cedex 9, France
Abstract.
In this paper, we consider a class of nonlinear fourth-order Schrödinger equation, namely
[TABLE]
Using the -method combined with the interaction Morawetz inequality, we establish the global well-posedness and scattering in with for some value .
Key words and phrases:
Nonlinear fourth-order Schrödinger equation; Global well-posedness; Scattering; Almost conservation law; Morawetz inequality
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
35G20, 35G25, 35Q55
1. Introduction
Consider the following nonlinear fourth-order Schrödinger equation
[TABLE]
where is a complex valued function in . The nonlinear exponent is assumed to be mass-supercritical, i.e and energy-subcritical, i.e. . The regularity exponent is assumed to satisfy .
The fourth-order Schrödinger equation was introduced by Karpman [Kar96] and Karpman-Shagalov [KS00] to take into account the role of small fourth-order dispersion terms in the propagation of intense laser beams in a bulk medium with Kerr nonlinearity. Such a fourth-order Schrödinger equation is of the form
[TABLE]
where and . We note that (NL4S) is a special case of by taking and . The nonlinear fourth-order Schrödinger equation has attracted a lot of interest in a past decay. The sharp dispersive estimates for the linear part of were established in [BKS00]. The local well-posedness and the global well-posedness for has been widely studied in [Din1, Din2, Din3, Din4, Guo10, GC06, HHW06, HHW07, HJ05, MXZ09, MXZ11, MWZ15, MZ07, Pau1, Pau2, PS10] and references therein.
The (NL4S) enjoys a natural scaling invariance, that is if we set for
[TABLE]
then for ,
[TABLE]
We define the critical regularity exponent for (NL4S) by
[TABLE]
The (NL4S) is known (see [Din1] or [Din2]) to be locally well-posed in with satisfying for is not an odd integer,
[TABLE]
Here is the smallest integer greater than or equal to . This condition ensures the nonlinearity to have enough regularity. In the sub-critical regime, i.e. , the time of existence depends only on the -norm of initial data. Moreover, the local solution enjoys mass conservation, i.e.
[TABLE]
and -solution has conserved energy, i.e.
[TABLE]
The persistence of regularity (see [Din2]) combined with the conservations of mass and energy yield the global well-posedness for (NL4S) in with satisfying for is not an odd integer, . In the critical regime, i.e. , one also has (see [Din1] or [Din2]) the local well-posedness for (NL4S) but the time of existence depends not only on the -norm of initial data but also on its profile. Moreover, for small initial data, the (NL4S) is globally well-posed, and the solution is scattering.
The main goal of this paper is to show the global well-posedness and scattering for the nonlinear fourth-order Schrödinger equation (NL4S) below the energy space. Our arguments are based on the combination of the -method and the interaction Morawetz inequality which are similar to those of [VZ09]. However, there are some difficulties due to the high-order dispersion term . Moreover, in order to successfully establish the almost conservation law, we need the nonlinearity to have at least two orders of derivatives. This leads to the restriction in spatial space of dimensions .
Before stating our main result, let us recall some known results concerning the global existence below the energy space for the nonlinear fourth-order Schrödinger equation. To our knowledge, Guo in [Guo10] gave a first answer to this problem. In [Guo10], the author considered with satisfying , and established the global existence in with . The proof is based on the -method which is a modification of the one invented by -Team [CKSTT02] in the context of nonlinear Schrödinger equation. Later, Miao-Wu-Zhang in [MWZ15] studied the defocusing cubic fourth-order Schrödinger equation, i.e. in (NL4S), and proved the global well-posedness and scattering in with where and . The proof relies on the combination of the -method and a new interaction Morawetz inequality. Recently, in [Din3] the author considered the defocusing cubic higher-order Schrödinger equation including the cubic fourth-order Schrödinger equation, and showed that the (NL4S) with is globally well-posed in with . The argument makes use of the -method and the bilinear Strichartz estimate. The analysis is carried out in Bourgain spaces which is similar to those in [CKSTT02]. In the above considerations, the nonlinearity is algebraic, i.e. is an odd integer. This allows to write the commutator between the -operator and the nonlinearity explicitly by means of the Fourier transform, and then carefully control the frequency interactions using multi-linear analysis. When one considers the nonlinear fourth-order Schrödinger equation (NL4S) with is not an odd integer, this method does not work. We thus rely purely on Strichartz and interaction Morawetz estimates.
Let us now introduce some notations.
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Here satisfies
[TABLE]
and is the (large if there are two) root of the equation
[TABLE]
The main result of this paper is the following:
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let . The initial value problem (NL4S) is globally well-posed in for any , and the global solution enjoys the following uniform bound
[TABLE]
Moreover, the solution is scattering, i.e. there exist unique such that
[TABLE]
We record in the table below some best known results, and compare them with our ones. As in the table, our results are not as good as the best known results when is an odd integer. But our method allows to treat the non-algebraic nonlinearity.
The proof of the above result is based on two main ingredients: the -method and the interaction Morawetz inequality, which are similar to those given in [VZ09]. The -method for the fourth-order Schrödinger equation is a modification of the one introduced by -Team in [CKSTT02]. This method is very useful for treating the nonlinear dispersive equation at low regularity, i.e. below energy space. The idea is to replace the non-conserved energy when by an “almost conserved” variance with a smoothing operator which is the identity at low frequency and behaves like a fractional integral operator of order at high frequency. Since is not a solution of (NL4S), we may expect an energy increment. The key is to show that the modified energy is an “almost conserved” quantity in the sense that the time derivative of decays with respect to a large parameter (see Section 2 for the definition of and ). To do so, we need delicate estimates on the commutator between the -operator and the nonlinearity. When the nonlinearity is algebraic, we can use the Fourier transform to write this commutator explicitly, and then carefully control the frequency interactions. Once the nonlinearity is no longer algebraic, this method fails. In order to treat this case, we take the advantage of Strichartz estimate with a gain of derivatives . Thanks to this Strichartz estimate, we are able to apply the technique given in [VZ09] to control the commutator. Of course, this technique is not as good as the Fourier transform technique when the nonlinearity is algebraic, but it is more robust and allows us to treat the non-algebraic nonlinearity. The interaction Morawetz inequality for the nonlinear fourth-order Schrödinger equation was first introduced in [Pau2] for . Then, it was extended for in [MWZ15]. Using this interaction Morawetz inequality and the interpolation argument together with the Sobolev embedding, we have for any compact interval and ,
[TABLE]
As a byproduct of the Strichartz estimates and -method, we show the “almost conservation law” for (NL4S), that is if is a solution to (NL4S) on a time interval , and satisfies and if satisfies in addition the a priori bound for some small constant , then
[TABLE]
for some .
We now give an outline of the proof. Let be a global in time solution to (NL4S) with initial data . Our goal to to show the uniform bounds
[TABLE]
Thanks to , the global existence follows immediately by a standard density argument. Since is not necessarily small, we will use the scaling to make small in order to apply the “almost conservation law”. By choosing
[TABLE]
and using some harmonic analysis, we can make . We will show that there exists an absolute constant such that
[TABLE]
We then obtain by undoing the scaling. In order to prove , we perform a bootstrap argument. Note that is equivalent to
[TABLE]
Assume by contraction, it is not so. Since is a continuous function in , there exists so that
[TABLE]
Using , we can split into subintervals so that
[TABLE]
The number must satisfy
[TABLE]
We thus can apply the “almost conservation law” to get
[TABLE]
Since , we need
[TABLE]
in order to guarantee for all . Combining and , we get a condition on . Next, by and some harmonic analysis, we have
[TABLE]
Since for all , we get
[TABLE]
for some constant . This contradicts with by taking larger than 2K. We thus obtain and also
[TABLE]
This also gives the uniform bound . In order to prove the scattering property, we will upgrade the uniform Morawetz bound to the uniform Strichartz bound, namely
[TABLE]
Here means that is biharmonic admissible (see again Section 2 for the definition). With this uniform Strichartz bound, the scattering property follows by a standard argument. We refer the reader to Section 4 for more details.
This paper is organized as follows. We firstly introduce some notations and recall some results related to our problem in Section 2. In Section 3, we show the almost conservation law for the modified energy. Finally, we give the proof of our main result in Section 4.
2. Preliminaries
In the sequel, the notation denotes an estimate of the form for some constant . The notation means that and . We write if for some small constant . We also use .
2.1. Nonlinearity
Let be the function which defines the nonlinearity in (NL4S). The derivative of is defined by
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
We also define its norm as
[TABLE]
It is clear that . For a complex-valued function , we have the following chain rule
[TABLE]
for . In particular,
[TABLE]
In order to estimate the nonlinearity, we need to recall the following fractional chain rules.
Lemma 2.1** ([CW91], [KPV93]).**
Suppose that , and . Then for and satisfying ,
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.2** ([Vis06]).**
Suppose that . Then for every , and ,
[TABLE]
provided and .
The reader can find the proof of Lemma 2.1 in the case in [CW91, Proposition 3.1] and [KPV93, Theorem A.6] when . For the proof of Lemma 2.2, we refer to [Vis06, Proposition A.1].
2.2. Strichartz estimates
Let and . The Strichartz norm is defined as
[TABLE]
with a usual modification when either or are infinity. When there is no risk of confusion, we write instead of . When , we also use .
Definition 2.3**.**
A pair is said to be Schrödinger admissible, for short , if
[TABLE]
We denote for ,
[TABLE]
Definition 2.4**.**
A pair is called biharmonic admissible, for short , if
[TABLE]
Proposition 2.5** (Strichartz estimates for the fourth-order Schrödinger equation [Din1]).**
Let and be a (weak) solution to the linear fourth-order Schrödinger equation, namely
[TABLE]
for some data . Then for all and Schrödinger admissible with and ,
[TABLE]
Here and are conjugate pairs, and are defined as in .
The estimate is exactly the one given in [MZ07], [Pau1] or [Pau2] where the author considered and are either sharp Schrödinger admissible, i.e.
[TABLE]
or biharmonic admissible. We refer the reader to [Din1, Proposition 2.1] for the proof of Proposition 2.5. The proof is based on the scaling technique instead of using a dedicate dispersive estimate of [BKS00] for the fundamental solution of the homogeneous fourth-order Schrödinger equation.
The following result is a direct consequence of .
Corollary 2.6**.**
Let and be a (weak) solution to the linear fourth-order Schrödinger equation for some data . Then for all and biharmonic admissible satisfying and ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
2.3. Littlewood-Paley decomposition
Let be a radial smooth bump function supported in the ball and equal to 1 on the ball . For , we define the Littlewood-Paley operators
[TABLE]
where is the spatial Fourier transform. Similarly, we can define for ,
[TABLE]
We recall the following standard Bernstein inequalities (see e.g. [BCD11, Chapter 2] or [Tao06, Appendix]).
Lemma 2.7** (Bernstein inequalities).**
Let and . We have
[TABLE]
2.4. -operator
Let and . We define the Fourier multiplier by
[TABLE]
where is a smooth, radially symmetric, non-increasing function such that
[TABLE]
We shall drop the from the notation and write and instead of and . We collect some basic properties of the -operator in the following lemma.
Lemma 2.8** ([Din3]).**
Let and . Then
[TABLE]
We refer to [Din3, Lemma 2.7] for the proof of these estimates. We also recall the following product rule which is a modified version of the one given in [VZ09, Lemma 2.5] in the context of nonlinear Schrödinger equation.
Lemma 2.9** ([Din3]).**
Let and be such that . Then
[TABLE]
We again refer the reader to [Din3, Lemma 2.8] for the proof of this lemma. A direct consequence of Lemma 2.9 and is the following corollary.
Corollary 2.10**.**
Let and be such that . Then
[TABLE]
2.5. Interaction Morawetz inequality
We now recall the interaction Morawetz inequality for the nonlinear fourth-order Schrödinger equation.
Proposition 2.11** (Interaction Morawetz inequality [Pau2], [MWZ15]).**
Let , be a compact time interval and a solution to (NL4S) on the spacetime slab . Then we have the following a priori estimate:
[TABLE]
This estimate was first established by Pausader in [Pau2] for . Later, Miao-Wu-Zhang in [MWZ15] extended this interaction Morawetz estimate to . By interpolating and the trivial estimate for ,
[TABLE]
we obtain
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
3. Almost conservation law
For any spacetime slab , we define
[TABLE]
Note that in our considerations, the biharmonic admissible condition ensures . Let us start with the following commutator estimates.
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let and
[TABLE]
Assume that
[TABLE]
for some small constant . Then
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Proof.
For simplifying the presentation, we shall drop the dependence on the time interval . Denote
[TABLE]
It is easy to see from our assumptions that . We next apply with and to get
[TABLE]
where . Note that is well-defined since . We then apply Hölder’s inequality in time to have
[TABLE]
For the first factor in the right hand side of , we use the Sobolev embedding to obtain
[TABLE]
where \Big{(}2+\varepsilon,\frac{2d(2+\varepsilon)}{d(2+\varepsilon)-8}\Big{)} is a biharmonic admissible pair. To treat the second factor in the right hand side of , we note that by our assumption on . Thus
[TABLE]
Since , we bound the first term in as
[TABLE]
By the choice of , we have
[TABLE]
We next split . For the low frequency part, we estimate
[TABLE]
where is given in . Here the first line follows from Hölder’s inequality, and the second line makes use of the Sobolev embedding. The last inequality uses the fact that \Big{(}\frac{d-5+4\sigma}{\sigma},\frac{2d(d-5+4\sigma)}{d(d-5+4\sigma)-8\sigma}\Big{)} is biharmonic admissible. Note that our assumptions ensure . For the high frequency part, the Sobolev embedding gives
[TABLE]
Here \Big{(}\frac{d-5+4\sigma}{\sigma},\frac{2d(d-5+4\sigma)}{d(d-5+4\sigma)-8\sigma}\Big{)} is biharmonic admissible. Thus, we obtain
[TABLE]
In particular,
[TABLE]
We next treat the second term in . Since , we are able to apply Lemma 2.1 to get
[TABLE]
where . The first factor in the right hand side of is treated in . For the second factor, we split . We use Bernstein inequality and estimate as in ,
[TABLE]
The intermediate term is bounded by
[TABLE]
Here we use
[TABLE]
and the fact \Big{(}\frac{2(\nu-1)(2+\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon},\frac{2d(\nu-1)(2+\varepsilon)}{d(\nu-1)(2+\varepsilon)-4\varepsilon}\Big{)} is biharmonic admissible. Finally, we use to estimate
[TABLE]
Combining three terms yields
[TABLE]
Collecting and , we show the first estimate .
We now prove . By triangle inequality,
[TABLE]
We have from Hölder’s inequality, and that
[TABLE]
The estimate follows easily from and . Note that by our assumptions, . The proof is complete. ∎
Remark 3.2**.**
The estimates and still hold for . Indeed, the proof of Lemma 3.1 is valid for .
We are now able to prove the almost conservation law for the modified energy functional , where
[TABLE]
Proposition 3.3**.**
Let ,
[TABLE]
* and*
[TABLE]
Assume that is a solution to (NL4S) on a time interval , and satisfies . Assume in addition that satisfies the a priori bound
[TABLE]
for some small constant . Then, for sufficiently large,
[TABLE]
Here the implicit constant depends only on the size of .
Remark 3.4**.**
As in Remark 3.2, the estimate is still valid for .
Proof of Proposition 3.3. We firstly note that our assumptions on and satisfy the assumptions given in Lemma 3.1. It allows us to use the estimates given in Lemma 3.1.
We begin by controlling the size of . By applying to (NL4S), and using Strichartz estimates , we get
[TABLE]
Using , we have
[TABLE]
Next, we drop the -operator and use Hölder’s inequality together with to estimate
[TABLE]
Here \Big{(}2+\varepsilon,\frac{2d(2+\varepsilon)}{d(2+\varepsilon)-8}\Big{)} is biharmonic admissible. We thus get
[TABLE]
By taking sufficiently small and sufficiently large and using the assumption , the continuity argument gives
[TABLE]
Now, let . A direct computation shows
[TABLE]
By the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus,
[TABLE]
Using , we see that
[TABLE]
We next write
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
Let us consider . By Hölder’s inequality, we estimate
[TABLE]
Combining and , we get
[TABLE]
In order to treat , we need to separate two cases and .
If , then using , we have
[TABLE]
Moreover, there exists so that . By Hölder’s inequality,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Here we drop the -operator and use with the fact to have the third line. Note that \Big{(}\frac{4k}{k-2},q^{\star}\Big{)} and \Big{(}k(\nu-2),r^{\star}\Big{)} are biharmonic admissible. The last line follows from .
If , then
[TABLE]
We estimate
[TABLE]
Thus, collecting two cases, we obtain
[TABLE]
We next estimate
[TABLE]
We next consider the term . Using the notation given in Lemma 3.1, we apply Corollary 2.10 with and to have
[TABLE]
where . By Hölder’s inequality,
[TABLE]
We have from and that
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Similarly,
[TABLE]
We next apply Lemma 2.9 with and to have
[TABLE]
Using the notation , the fractional chain rule implies
[TABLE]
The Hölder inequality then gives
[TABLE]
By the Sobolev embedding (dropping the -operator if necessary) and , we have
[TABLE]
Note that by our assumptions on , . We also have
[TABLE]
It remains to treat . Using , we only need to bound . To do so, we separate two cases: and .
If , then we apply Lemma 2.1 for and use Hölder’s inequality to have
[TABLE]
Here by our assumptions, which allows us to use to get the last estimate.
If , then we use Lemma 2.2 with and satisfying
[TABLE]
and to be chosen later. With these choices, we have
[TABLE]
Then,
[TABLE]
By Hölder’s inequality,
[TABLE]
provided that
[TABLE]
The Sobolev imbedding then gives
[TABLE]
Here we use together with to get the last estimate. Note that
[TABLE]
If we want for an appropriate value of , we need . This implies and . Collecting 2 cases, we show
[TABLE]
By and ,
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
Finally, we consider . We bound
[TABLE]
By ,
[TABLE]
By the triangle inequality,
[TABLE]
We firstly use Hölder’s inequality and estimate as in to get
[TABLE]
By ,
[TABLE]
Combining , we get
[TABLE]
Collecting and using , we prove . Note that our assumptions on implies
[TABLE]
The proof is complete.
4. Global well-posedness and scattering
In this section, we shall give the proof of the global existence and scattering given in Theorem 1.1.
Global well-posedness
By the density argument, the proof of global well-posedness will be reduced to the following.
Proposition 4.1**.**
Let and with be as in . Suppose that is a global solution to (NL4S) with initial data . Then,
[TABLE]
where is given in .
Proof.
The proof of this result is based on the almost conservation law given in Proposition 3.3. To do so, we need the modified energy of initial data is small. Since is not necessarily small, we use the scaling to make small. We have
[TABLE]
By ,
[TABLE]
By choosing
[TABLE]
we have . We next bound . Note that we can easily estimate this norm by the Sobolev embedding,
[TABLE]
provided that . In order to remove this unexpected condition on , we use the technique of [CKSTT04] (see also [MWZ15]). We firstly separate the frequency space into the domains
[TABLE]
and then write
[TABLE]
for non-negative smooth functions supported in respectively and satisfying . Thus
[TABLE]
We now use the Sobolev embedding to have
[TABLE]
Thanks to the support of , the functional calculus gives
[TABLE]
provided . Similarly,
[TABLE]
A direct computation shows
[TABLE]
Using the support of , the functional calculus again gives
[TABLE]
To obtain this bound, we split into two cases.
When , we simply bound
[TABLE]
When , we write
[TABLE]
Combining and , we get
[TABLE]
We treat the intermediate case as
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
When , we bound
[TABLE]
When , we write
[TABLE]
provided . These estimates together with yield
[TABLE]
Collecting and use , we obtain
[TABLE]
for some and . Therefore, it follows from and by taking sufficiently large depending on and (which will be chosen later and depend only on ) that
[TABLE]
We now show that there exists an absolute constant such that
[TABLE]
By undoing the scaling, using the fact that
[TABLE]
we get . We shall use the bootstrap argument to show . By time reversal symmetry, it suffices to treat the positive time only. To do so, we define
[TABLE]
We want to show . Let
[TABLE]
In order to run the bootstrap argument successfully, we need to verify four things:
. This is obvious as .
- 2)
is closed. This follows from Fatou’s Lemma.
- 3)
.
- 4)
If , then there exists such that . This is a consequence of the local well-posedness and 3).
It remains to prove 3). Fix , we will show that . We firstly use the interaction Morawetz inequality and the mass conservation to have
[TABLE]
We now decompose
[TABLE]
to estimate the second and the third factor in the right hand side of . For the low frequency part, we interpolate between the -norm and -norm to have
[TABLE]
Note that the -operator is the identity on low frequency . For high frequency part, we interpolate between the -norm and -norm and use to have
[TABLE]
Here we use the fact to get and . Collecting through , we get
[TABLE]
Thus, by taking sufficiently large depending on , we get , provided that
[TABLE]
We will prove that holds for . Indeed, let be a sufficiently small constant given in Proposition 3.3. We divide into subintervals in such a way that
[TABLE]
The number of possible subinterval must satisfy
[TABLE]
We next apply Proposition 3.3 on each of the subintervals to have
[TABLE]
Since , we need
[TABLE]
in order to guarantee holds. Combining and , we need to choose depending on such that
[TABLE]
This is possible whenever is such that
[TABLE]
or
[TABLE]
Since , we have , where is the (larger if there are two) root of the equation
[TABLE]
This completes the bootstrap argument and follows. Thus, holds for all .
We now estimate . To do so, we use the conservation of mass, the scaling and to have
[TABLE]
Using , we get for all ,
[TABLE]
Here we use with the fact that is chosen sufficiently large depending only on . This proves and the proof of Proposition 4.1 is complete. ∎
Scattering
We firstly show that the global Morawetz estimate can be upgraded to the global Strichartz estimate
[TABLE]
Here we refer to Section 2 for the definition of . Let be a global solution to (NL4S) with initial data for and . Using the uniform bound , we can decompose into a finite number of disjoint intervals so that
[TABLE]
for a small constant to be chosen later. By Strichartz estimates and , we have
[TABLE]
We estimate for some ,
[TABLE]
Similarly,
[TABLE]
We now need the following result.
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let , be such that and . Then there exists small such that for any time interval ,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Proof.
We firstly use Hölder’s inequality to have
[TABLE]
provided that
[TABLE]
Similarly,
[TABLE]
provided that
[TABLE]
Thus, by and , a direct consequence gives
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
In order to perform the above estimates, we need and . We note that and are decreasing functions provided that . Moreover, since
[TABLE]
As , the two limits are positive. Thus by taking small enough, we have and . The proof is complete. ∎
Remark 4.3**.**
It is easy to see that the function is increasing and attains its maximal value at . In this case, the condition becomes which is always satisfied in our consideration.
We now continue the proof of scattering property. By and Lemma 4.2, we have
[TABLE]
This shows that
[TABLE]
By taking small enough, we get
[TABLE]
This proves .
We next use the global Strichartz bound to prove the scattering property, i.e. there exist unique such that
[TABLE]
By the time reversal symmetry, it is enough to treat the positive time only. We will show that has limits in as . By Duhamel formula,
[TABLE]
For , we have
[TABLE]
By Strichartz estimates and estimating as in ,
[TABLE]
This implies that as . Hence the limit
[TABLE]
exists in . Moreover,
[TABLE]
A same argument as above shows that
[TABLE]
as . The proof is now complete.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to express his deep thanks to his wife - Uyen Cong for her encouragement and support. He would like to thank his supervisor Prof. Jean-Marc Bouclet for the kind guidance and constant encouragement. He also would like to thank the reviewer for his/her helpful comments and suggestions.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[BKS 00] M. Ben-Artzi, H. Koch, J. C. Saut Disperion estimates for fourth-order Schrödinger equations , C.R.A.S., 330, Série 1, 87-92 (2000).
- 2[BCD 11] H. Bahouri, J. Y. Chemin, R. Danchin , Fourier analysis and non-linear partial differential equations , A Series of Comprehensive Studies in Mathemati s 343, Springer (2011).
- 3[CW 91] M. Christ, I. Weinstein , Dispersion of small amplitude solutions of the generalized Korteweg-de Vries equation , J. Funct. Anal. 100, No. 1, 87-109 (1991).
- 4[CKSTT 02] J. Colliander, M. Keel, G. Staffilani, H. Takaoka, T. Tao , Almost conservation laws and global rough solutions to a nonlinear Schrödinger equation , Math. Res. Lett. 9, 659-682 (2002).
- 5[CKSTT 04] J. Colliander, M. Keel, G. Staffilani, H. Takaoka, T. Tao , Global existence and scattering for rough solutions of a nonlinear Schrödinger equation on ℝ 3 superscript ℝ 3 \mathbb{R}^{3} , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 57, 987-1014 (2004).
- 6[DPST 07] D. De Silva, N. Pavlovic, G. Staffilani, N. Tzirakis , Global well-posedness for the L 2 superscript 𝐿 2 L^{2} -critical nonlinear Schrödinger equation in higher dimensions , Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 6, No. 4, 1023-1041 (2007).
- 7[Din 1] V. D. Dinh , Well-posedness of nonlinear fractional Schrödinger and wave equations in Sobolev spaces , ar Xiv:1609.06181 (2016).
- 8[Din 2] V. D. Dinh , On well-posedness, regularity and ill-posedness for the nonlinear fourth-order Schrödinger equation , to appear in Bull. Belg. Math. Soc Simon Stevin, ar Xiv:1703.00891 (2018).
