Green functions for pressure of Stokes systems
Jongkeun Choi, Hongjie Dong

TL;DR
This paper constructs and analyzes Green functions for the pressure in stationary Stokes systems with measurable and Dini mean oscillation coefficients, providing bounds and extending to flow velocity Green functions.
Contribution
It introduces new construction methods for Green functions under minimal regularity conditions and establishes global bounds in complex domains.
Findings
Constructed Green functions with measurable and Dini mean oscillation coefficients.
Established global pointwise bounds for Green functions and derivatives.
Extended analysis to Green functions for flow velocity in Stokes systems.
Abstract
We study Green functions for the pressure of stationary Stokes systems in a (possibly unbounded) domain , where . We construct the Green function when coefficients are merely measurable in one direction and have Dini mean oscillation in the other directions, and is such that the divergence equation is solvable there. We also establish global pointwise bounds for the Green function and its derivatives when coefficients have Dini mean oscillation and has a boundary. Green functions for the flow velocity of Stokes systems are also considered.
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 Modeling in Engineering · Navier-Stokes equation solutions · Numerical methods in inverse problems
Green functions for pressure of Stokes systems
Jongkeun Choi
School of Mathematics, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, 85 Hoegiro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02455, Republic of Korea
and
Hongjie Dong
Division of Applied Mathematics, Brown University, 182 George Street, Providence, RI 02912, USA
Abstract.
We study Green functions for the pressure of stationary Stokes systems in a (possibly unbounded) domain , where . We construct the Green function when coefficients are merely measurable in one direction and have Dini mean oscillation in the other directions, and is such that the divergence equation is solvable there. We also establish global pointwise bounds for the Green function and its derivatives when coefficients have Dini mean oscillation and has a boundary. Green functions for the flow velocity of Stokes systems are also considered.
Key words and phrases:
Green function, Stokes system, Dini mean oscillation condition
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
76D07, 35R05, 35J08
H. Dong was partially supported by the NSF under agreement DMS-1600593.
1. Introduction
We study Green functions and fundamental solutions for stationary Stokes systems with variable coefficients. Let be a second order elliptic operator in divergence form
[TABLE]
acting on column vector valued functions defined on a domain , where . Unlike elliptic systems, Stokes systems have two types of Green functions. One is a pair , which we call Green function for the flow velocity, satisfying
[TABLE]
Here, is a matrix-valued function, is a vector-valued function, is the identity matrix, and is the Dirac delta function concentrated at . For a more precise definition of the Green function for the flow velocity, see Section 7. The other one is a pair , which we call Green function for the pressure, satisfying (for instance, when )
[TABLE]
Here, is a vector-valued function and is a real-valued function. For a more precise definition of the Green function for the pressure, see Section 2.3. An observation is that if there exist Green functions for the flow velocity and the pressure, then the pair given by
[TABLE]
is a weak solution of the problem
[TABLE]
where is the adjoint operator of .
There is a large body of literature concerning Green function for the flow velocity satisfying (1.1). Regarding the classical Stokes system with the Laplace operator , i.e.,
[TABLE]
we refer the reader to Ladyzhenskaya [21], Maz’ya-Plamenevskiĭ [24, 25], and D. Mitrea-I. Mitrea [27]. In [21], the author provided explicit formulas of fundamental solutions in and . In [24, 25], the authors established pointwise estimates for the Green function and its derivatives in a piecewise smooth domain in . In [27], the authors proved the existence of the Green function in a Lipschitz domain in , where . For further related results on fundamental solutions and Green functions, one can refer to the book [14] and references therein. See also [26, 28] for Green functions satisfying mixed boundary conditions in domains in and . Regarding Stokes systems with variable coefficients, i.e.,
[TABLE]
we refer the reader to [8, 9, 7]. In [8], the authors established the existence and pointwise bound of the Green function on a bounded domain when and have vanishing mean oscillations (VMO). The corresponding results were obtained in [9] in the whole space and a half space when are merely measurable in one direction and have small mean oscillations in the other directions (partially BMO). In [7], the authors constructed the Green function in a two dimensional domain when are measurable and bounded. They also considered pointwise bounds of the Green function and its derivatives. For further related results, one can refer to [17] for the Green function of the Stokes system with oscillating periodic coefficients and [5] for the Green function satisfying the conormal derivative boundary condition.
In contrast to Green functions for the flow velocity, there are relatively few results on Green functions for the pressure satisfying (1.2). In particular, we are not able to find any literature dealing with Green functions for the pressure of the Stokes system with variable coefficients. Restricted to the Stokes system with the Laplace operator, we refer the reader to [25], where the authors proved the pointwise estimate for the Green function (and its derivatives) of the Dirichlet problem in a three dimensional domain. The corresponding results for the mixed problem were obtained in [26].
In this paper, we are concerned with both Green functions and fundamental solutions for the pressure of Stokes systems with variable coefficients. The class of coefficients we consider is called of partially Dini mean oscillation, which means that are merely measurable in one direction and have Dini mean oscillation in the other directions; see Definition 2.1. Stokes systems with irregular coefficients of this type may be used to describe the motion of inhomogeneous fluids with density dependent viscosity and two or multiple fluids with interfacial boundaries; see [20, 22, 1, 12].
Let be a (possibly unbounded) domain in satisfying an exterior measure condition when , and assume that the divergence equation is solvable in . We prove that if coefficients are of partially Dini mean oscillation, then there exists a unique Green function for the pressure in . The Green function satisfies global pointwise bounds
[TABLE]
if we assume further that coefficients are of Dini mean oscillation in the all directions and has a boundary. Especially, the fundamental solution and the Green function in a half space have the global pointwise bounds (1.3) under a weaker condition that coefficients are of partially Dini mean oscillation. For further details, see Section 3.
We also deal with the Green function (and the fundamental solution) for the flow velocity of Stokes system. As mentioned above, its existence and pointwise bound, i.e.,
[TABLE]
were obtained in [8, 9] when . In this paper, we extend the results in [8, 9] by showing that
[TABLE]
under the stronger assumption that the coefficients are of Dini mean oscillation in a domain having a boundary. Moreover, we verify a symmetric property of Green functions for the flow velocity and the pressure. For further details, see Section 7.
The theory regarding the existence and estimates of Green functions for Stokes systems is closely related to regularity theory of solutions to
[TABLE]
When dealing with Green functions for the flow velocity in [8, 9, 5], the authors used or -estimates of solutions , which can be obtained from -estimates for the system (1.4). See [8, 13, 12, 6] for -regularity results with . This approach was introduced by Hofmann-Kim [18] to deal with Green functions and fundamental solutions for elliptic systems with VMO coefficients. In this paper, to construct the Green function for the pressure, we utilize -estimates of not only but also . Thus, we are not able to apply the aforementioned -estimates. Instead, we employ the recent results in [4, 3], where we proved and -estimates for Stokes systems with coefficients having (partially) Dini mean oscillation. This argument allows us to get pointwise bounds of the Green function as well as its derivatives.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. We introduce some notation and definitions in the next section. In Section 3, we state the main theorems regarding Green functions for the pressure. In Section 4, we present some preliminary results, and in Sections 5 and 6, we provide the proofs of the main theorems. We devote Section 7 to Green functions for the flow velocity. In Appendix, we provide the proofs of -estimates, which are crucial for proving our main theorems.
2. Preliminaries
In this section, we introduce some notation and definitions used throughout the paper.
2.1. Notation
We use to denote a point in the Euclidean space , where and . We also write and , etc. Balls in and are defined by
[TABLE]
Let be a domain in . We write for all and .
For , we define
[TABLE]
where is the set of all measurable functions on that are -th integrable, and is the average of over , i.e.,
[TABLE]
Note that if .
For , we denote by the usual Sobolev space and by the completion of in , where is the set of all infinitely differentiable functions with compact supports in .
For , the space is defined as the set of all measurable functions on having a finite norm
[TABLE]
and the space is defined as the completion of in . Note that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and is a Hilbert space with inner product
[TABLE]
When , we denote by the set of all weakly differentiable functions on such that and for any . In this case, if is a Green domain in , i.e.,
[TABLE]
then is also a Hilbert space with inner product (2.1) and is a dense subset of . We note that is not a Green domain, but is. If , then is a Green domain and . For more discussions of the space , see [23, §1.3.4].
We say that a measurable function is a Dini function provided that there are constants such that
[TABLE]
and that satisfies the Dini condition
[TABLE]
Definition 2.1**.**
Let .
We say that is of partially Dini mean oscillation with respect to in the interior of if there exists a Dini function such that for any and satisfying , we have
[TABLE] 2.
We say that is of Dini mean oscillation in if there exists a Dini function such that for any and , we have
[TABLE]
We define a domain with a boundary by locally the graph of a function whose derivatives are uniformly Dini continuous.
Definition 2.2**.**
Let be a domain in . We say that has a boundary if there exist a constant and a Dini function such that the following holds: For any , there exist a function and a coordinate system depending on such that in the new coordinate system, we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where is the modulus of continuity of , i.e.,
[TABLE]
2.2. Stokes system
Let be a strongly elliptic operator of the form
[TABLE]
where the coefficients are matrix-valued functions on satisfying the strong ellipticity condition, i.e., there is a constant such that for any and , , we have
[TABLE]
The adjoint operator of is defined by
[TABLE]
where is the transpose of . Note that the coefficients of also satisfy the ellipticity condition (2.2) with the same constant .
Let be a domain in . We say that
[TABLE]
is a weak solution of
[TABLE]
if
[TABLE]
holds for any . Similarly, we say that
[TABLE]
is a weak solution of
[TABLE]
if
[TABLE]
holds for any .
2.3. Green function for the pressure
In this subsection, we state the definition of a Green function for the pressure. In the definition below, is a vector-valued function and is a real-valued function on .
Definition 2.3**.**
Let and be a domain in . We say that is a Green function for the pressure of in if it satisfies the following properties.
For any and ,
[TABLE]
where is a smooth function satisfying on . Moreover,
[TABLE]
for any . 2.
For any and , satisfies
[TABLE]
where if . 3.
If is a weak solution of the problem
[TABLE]
where and , then for a.e. , we have
[TABLE]
The Green function for the adjoint operator is defined similarly.
We note that in (2.3), the divergence equation is understood as
[TABLE]
Since for any , the above identity implies that
[TABLE]
We also note that the property in Definition 2.3 together with the unique solvability of the problem (2.4) gives the uniqueness of a Green function. More precisely, under Assumption 3.1 below, by the solvability result in Lemma 4.1, we get the uniqueness of a Green function in the sense that if is another Green function satisfying the properties in Definition 2.3, then for any and , we have
[TABLE]
for a.e. .
3. Main results
In this section, we state our main results concerning Green function for the pressure of Stokes system. For this, we impose the following solvability assumption of the divergence equation.
Assumption 3.1**.**
There exists a constant such that the following holds: For any , there exists satisfying
[TABLE]
Remark 3.2*.*
It is known that Assumption 3.1 holds in a bounded John domain; see [2, Theorem 4.1]. Here and throughout the paper, a domain is said to be bounded if it has finite diameter. Note that a bounded domain having a boundary as in Definition 2.2 is a John domain as in [2, Definition 2.1] with respect to . Thus by [2, Theorem 4.1], satisfies Assumption 3.1 with .
A simple example of unbounded domain satisfying Assumption 3.1 is the whole space. Indeed, based on a scaling argument and the existence of solutions to the divergence equation in a ball, one can verify that Assumption 3.1 holds with when and . By the same reasoning, Assumption 3.1 holds when
[TABLE]
Exterior domains with Lipschitz boundary also satisfy the assumption; see [14, Theorem III.3.6, p. 189].
In the theorem below and throughout the paper, we denote
[TABLE]
Note that if .
Theorem 3.3**.**
Let and be a domain in . When , is assumed to be a Green domain satisfying
[TABLE]
Suppose that the coefficients of are of partially Dini mean oscillation with respect to in the interior of satisfying Definition 2.1 with a Dini function . Then, under Assumption 3.1, there exists a unique Green function for the pressure of in such that for any ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover, for any with , we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where and depends also on when . The same results hold if is replaced with its adjoint operator .
Remark 3.4*.*
From the proof of Theorem 3.3, we get the following estimates for all .
For any , we have that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where if and if . 2.
We have that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where if and if . 3.
For any , we have that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
In the above, , , and depends also on when .
Remark 3.5*.*
In Theorem 3.3, if the coefficients of are of Dini mean oscillation with respect to all the directions in satisfying Definition 2.1 , then by Definition 2.3 and (A.4), we see that and are continuous in . Hence, in (3.3) can be replaced with . Therefore, for any with , we have
[TABLE]
where .
Remark 3.6*.*
In the case when , the condition (3.1) can be replaced with the condition
[TABLE]
Indeed, (3.1) and (3.4) are equivalent because if (3.4) holds, then (3.1) also holds with .
In the next theorem, we prove the global pointwise estimates for the Green function and its derivatives in a domain having a boundary.
Theorem 3.7**.**
Let and be a domain in having a boundary as in Definition 2.2. When , is assumed to be a Green domain satisfying (3.1). Suppose that the coefficients of are of Dini mean oscillation in satisfying Definition 2.1 with a Dini function . Let be the Green function for the pressure of constructed in Theorem 3.3 under Assumption 3.1. Then for any ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover, for any with , we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where and depends also on when . Furthermore, if is the Green function for the pressure of in , then for any , there exists a measure zero set containing such that
[TABLE]
Remark 3.8*.*
Note that any domain having a boundary as in Definition 2.2 satisfies
[TABLE]
where . Therefore, by Remark 3.6, the condition (3.1) can be removed in Theorem 3.7 when and . In this case, the constant in (3.5) and (3.6) also depends on instead of .
Remark 3.9*.*
Because the Green function satisfies the zero Dirichlet boundary condition, we have a better estimate for than (3.5) near the boundary of . Indeed, for any with , we have
[TABLE]
where and depends also on when . For further details, see the proof of Theorem 3.7 in Section 6.
Remark 3.10*.*
From the proof of Theorem 3.7, we get the following estimates for any .
For any , we have that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where if and if . 2.
For any , we have that
[TABLE]
[TABLE] 3.
For any , we have that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
In the above,
[TABLE]
and depends also on when .
We finish this section with the following theorem, where we extend the results in Theorem 3.3 up to the boundary in a half space , defined by
[TABLE]
when the measurable direction of the coefficients is perpendicular to the boundary . For the reader’s convenience and future reference, we present the results together with the case when with .
Definition 3.11**.**
Let , where or . We say that is of partially Dini mean oscillation with respect to in if there exists a Dini function such that for any and , we have
[TABLE]
Theorem 3.12**.**
Let with or with . Suppose that the coefficients of are of partially Dini mean oscillation with respect to in satisfying Definition 3.11 with a Dini function . Then there exists a unique Green function for the pressure of in such that for any and ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover, for any satisfying , we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where . Furthermore, the same estimates in Remark 3.10 hold with and . The same results hold if is replaced with its adjoint operator .
4. Preliminary results
In this section, we prove some preliminary results. We do not impose any regularity assumptions on the coefficients of the operator . The following lemma concerns the solvability of Stokes system in .
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let and be a domain in . When , is assumed to be a Green domain. Suppose that , , and
[TABLE]
Then, under Assumption 3.1, there exists a unique satisfying
[TABLE]
Moreover, we have that for ,
[TABLE]
and that for ,
[TABLE]
where and .
Proof.
We only present here the detailed proof of the case when and because the others are the same as the proof of [8, Lemma 3.2], where the authors proved the -solvability in a bounded domain.
Let , , and satisfy the hypothesis of the lemma. Suppose that for some . Since has a compact support, we may assume that . We define a Hilbert space as the set of all functions satisfying in . Let be the orthogonal complement of in and be the orthogonal projection from onto . By Assumption 3.1, there exists such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Now we set
[TABLE]
By Hölder’s inequality, the Poincaré inequality, and [23, Lemma 1.84], we have
[TABLE]
where . From this together with (4.2), we see that is a bounded linear functional on satisfying
[TABLE]
where . Thus by the Lax-Milgram theorem, there exists satisfying
[TABLE]
Therefore, the function satisfies
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
To find , we set
[TABLE]
where and such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then it can be easily seen that is a bounded linear functional in with the estimate
[TABLE]
Therefore, by the Riesz representation theorem, there exists such that
[TABLE]
By the definition of and , we have
[TABLE]
This together with (4.3) and (4.4) proves the lemma when . ∎
In the two dimensional case, the -estimate in Lemma 4.1 is not well suited to proving optimal estimates of Green functions. Hence, instead of the -estimate, we shall use a -estimate for some (see Lemma 4.4 below), which is an easy consequence of the following reverse Hölder’s inequality.
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let be a Green domain in satisfying (3.1). Then, under Assumption 3.1, there exists such that if satisfies
[TABLE]
where and , then for any and , we have
[TABLE]
where .
Proof.
For the proof of the lemma, we refer the reader to that of [12, Lemma 3.8], where the authors proved the reverse Hölder’s inequality in a bounded Reifenberg flat domain. The argument in the proof of [12, Lemma 3.8] is general enough to allow domains to satisfy (3.1) and Assumption 3.1.
We note that our statement is slightly different from that of [12, Lemma 3.8]. In [12, Lemma 3.8], the exponent depends also on under the assumption that the data are -th integrable. Indeed, if is sufficiently close to , then can be chosen as . This follows by using Proposition 4.3 below instead of [12, Proposition 3.7]. ∎
Proposition 4.3**.**
Let , , and be nonnegative functions, where is a -dimensional cube. Suppose that
[TABLE]
for any with , where , , and . Then there exist positive constants and , depending only on , , , and , such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for any with .
Proof.
See, for instance, [15, Ch.V] for the proof of the proposition. ∎
Lemma 4.4**.**
Let be a Green domain in satisfying (3.1). Let
[TABLE]
be the constant from Lemma 4.2 under Assumption 3.1. If satisfies
[TABLE]
where , , and , then we have
[TABLE]
where .
Proof.
If , then the lemma follows by letting in (4.5). On the other hand, if , then by the existence of solutions to the divergence equation in the whole space (see, for instance, [9, Lemma 3.2]), there exist functions , , satisfying
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where is an universal constant. Since satisfies (4.6) with in place of , we get the desired estimate from (4.7). The lemma is proved. ∎
5. Approximated Green function
Hereafter in the paper, we shall use the following notation.
Notation 5.1*.*
For a given function , if there is a continuous version of , that is, there is a continuous function such that in the almost everywhere sense, then we replace with and denote the version again by .
In this section, we assume that the hypotheses in Theorem 3.3 hold. Under these hypotheses, we shall construct approximated Green functions for the pressure of the Stokes system. We recall the notation that if , then and for any .
Let us fix a smooth function defined on such that
[TABLE]
For and , we define
[TABLE]
By Lemma 4.1, there exists a unique satisfying
[TABLE]
Moreover, using the fact that
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
where . Throughout the paper, we call the approximated Green function for the pressure of in .
In the lemma below, we prove a -estimate for .
Lemma 5.1**.**
Let and . Then for any and , we have
[TABLE]
where and depends also on when .
Proof.
We consider the following two cases:
[TABLE]
- i.
: Set
[TABLE]
Then by Lemma 4.1, there exists a unique satisfying
[TABLE]
We apply and as test functions to (5.1) and (5.3), respectively, to get
[TABLE]
which implies that (using )
[TABLE]
Hence, we get from (A.2) that
[TABLE]
where . If , then by (4.1), we have
[TABLE]
where . From this together with (5.4) and Hölder’s inequality, we get the desired estimate. On the other hand, if , then by Lemma 4.4 applied to (5.3), we have
[TABLE]
where and . Thus, from (5.4) and Hölder’s inequality, we get the desired estimate. 2. ii.
: If , then by Hölder’s inequality, the Sobolev inequality, and (5.2), we have
[TABLE]
which gives the desired estimate.
Now we assume . Let and . Then by Lemma 4.1, there exists a unique satisfying
[TABLE]
We also get from Lemma 4.4 that
[TABLE]
where and . We test (5.1) and (5.5) with and , respectively, to obtain
[TABLE]
Then by Hölder’s inequality, (5.6), and , we have
[TABLE]
Since the above inequality holds for all and , we get
[TABLE]
and thus, we obtain by the Sobolev inequality that
[TABLE]
This together with Hölder’s inequality yields the desired estimate.
The lemma is proved. ∎
We establish the following estimates uniformly in .
Lemma 5.2**.**
Let , , , and
[TABLE]
Then we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where and depends also on when .
Proof.
We first prove the estimate (5.8). If , then (5.8) follows immediately from (5.2). Now we assume . Set
[TABLE]
Then by Lemma 4.1, there exists a unique satisfying
[TABLE]
Moreover, we have
[TABLE]
where . Since satisfies
[TABLE]
by (A.2) and Hölder’s inequality, we obtain
[TABLE]
where . Combining (5.10) and (5.11), and using , we see that
[TABLE]
where . We apply and as test functions to (5.1) and (5.9), respectively, to get
[TABLE]
This together with (5.12) gives (5.8).
We now turn to the proof of (5.7) when . Let be a smooth function on satisfying
[TABLE]
Then by the Sobolev inequality, we have
[TABLE]
Notice from the Poincaré inequality and Lemma 5.1 that
[TABLE]
where . Combining these together and using (5.8), we obtain
[TABLE]
which implies (5.7) when .
Next, we prove that (5.7) holds when . In this case, it suffices to show that
[TABLE]
where . We consider the following two cases:
[TABLE]
Hereafter in this proof, we let be the constant from Lemma 4.2.
- i.
: Let be a smooth function on satisfying
[TABLE]
Then the pair given by
[TABLE]
satisfies
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Since it holds that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
we obtain
[TABLE]
Using this together with (5.8), Hölder’s inequality, the Poincaré inequality, and the fact that
[TABLE]
one can easily check
[TABLE]
where . Thus by Lemma 4.4 applied to (5.14), we have
[TABLE]
Therefore, from the Morrey inequality, Lemma 5.1, and the fact that , we get
[TABLE] 2. ii.
: We take a point such that . Observe that
[TABLE]
Let be a smooth function on satisfying
[TABLE]
Then the pair given by
[TABLE]
satisfies
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Similar to (5.15), by using (5.8), (5.16), Hölder’s inequality, and the following boundary Poincaré inequality
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
where . Thus by Lemma 4.4 applied to (5.17), we have
[TABLE]
Therefore, we get from the Morrey inequality and that
[TABLE]
The lemma is proved. ∎
From Lemma 5.2, we obtain the following uniform weak type estimates.
Lemma 5.3**.**
Let and . Then we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where if and if . In the above, and depends also on when .
Proof.
We only prove the first inequality because the other is the same with obvious modifications. Let us set
[TABLE]
where is a constant to be chosen below. We consider the following two cases:
[TABLE]
- i.
: Let and . Then by (5.7) with , we have
[TABLE] 2. ii.
: Let . Then by (5.7) with , there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
Therefore, we have
[TABLE]
The lemma is proved. ∎
The following lemma is a simple consequence of Lemma 5.3.
Lemma 5.4**.**
Let , , and . Then we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where and depends also on when .
Proof.
We only prove the first inequality because the other is the same with obvious modifications. Let and recall the notation (5.19). Then by the first inequality with in Lemma 5.3, we have
[TABLE]
which gives the desired estimate. ∎
6. Proofs of main theorems
This section is devoted to the proofs of the theorems in Section 3. Throughout this section, we denote by the approximated Green function constructed in Section 5.
6.1. Proof of Theorem 3.3
By Lemmas 5.2 and 5.4, the weak compactness theorem, and a diagonalization process, we easily see that there exist a sequence tending to zero and a pair such that for any ,
[TABLE]
where is any smooth function in satisfying on , and that for fixed q\in\big{(}1,\frac{d}{d-1}\big{)},
[TABLE]
Moreover, we obtain the following uniform convergence.
Lemma 6.1**.**
For given compact set , there is a subsequence of that converges to uniformly on .
Proof.
Let and . Note that
[TABLE]
By Lemmas 5.2 and A.1, we see that , where does not depend on . This implies that is equicontinuous and uniformly bounded on . Therefore, we get the desired conclusion from the Arzelá-Ascoli theorem. ∎
The pair satisfies the estimates in Remark 3.4. Indeed, the estimates in the assertion are simple consequences of Lemma 5.2 and the weak lower semi-continuity. Then by following the same steps used in Lemmas 5.3 and 5.4, we see that satisfies the estimates in the assertions and .
Now we shall show that satisfies the properties – in Definition 2.3 so that it is a Green function for the pressure of in .
Obviously, satisfies the property . To verify the property , we apply as a test function to (5.1) and use (6.1) to get
[TABLE]
This implies that
[TABLE]
Similarly, by applying as a test function to the divergence equation in (5.1), and using (6.1) and (6.2), we have
[TABLE]
where is a smooth function on satisfying on and . This implies that
[TABLE]
and thus satisfies the property . Therefore, by applying Lemma A.1 to (2.3), is continuous in and
[TABLE]
To verify the property in Definition 2.3, suppose that is a unique weak solution of (2.4). By testing (2.4) and (5.1) with and , respectively, we have
[TABLE]
Notice from (6.1) and (6.2) that for any , the right-hand side of (6.3) converges to
[TABLE]
On the other hand, the left-hand side of (6.3) converges to for any in the Lebesgue set of . This implies that satisfies the property in Definition 2.3.
To complete the proof of the theorem, it remains to show the estimates (3.2) and (3.3). Let with , and set . Since satisfies
[TABLE]
we obtain by (A.2) and that
[TABLE]
where . Thus from Hölder’s inequality, , and Remark 3.4 , we get
[TABLE]
where . This implies (3.3). Similarly, by (A.3) and Remark 3.4 , we have that
[TABLE]
where and depends also on when . This together with the continuity of in gives (3.2). The theorem is proved. ∎
6.2. Proof of Theorem 3.7
Let be the Green function for the pressure of constructed in Theorem 3.3. Obviously, by Lemma A.2 and Definition 2.3 , we see that
[TABLE]
for all and .
We divide the proof into several steps.
Step 1. In this step, we establish various boundary estimates for the approximated Green function . The following lemma is about the -estimate for , which is the counterpart of Lemma 5.1.
Lemma 6.2**.**
Let and . Then for any and , we have
[TABLE]
where and depends also on when .
Proof.
Due to the interior estimate in Lemma 5.1, it suffices to consider the case when . Moreover, because the proof of Lemma 5.1 still works for , we only need to prove the lemma with .
Now, we assume that and . Let be a unique weak solution of the problem
[TABLE]
where f=\chi_{\Omega_{R}(x)}\big{(}\operatorname{sgn}\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon}^{1}(\cdot,y),\ldots,\operatorname{sgn}\mathcal{G}_{\varepsilon}^{d}(\cdot,y)\big{)}^{\top}. Then by using (A.13) and following the same argument used in deriving (5.4), we have
[TABLE]
where . If , then by Lemma 4.1 and the Sobolev inequality, we have
[TABLE]
From this together with (6.4) and Hölder’s inequality, we get the desired estimate. On the other hand, if , then by using the Morrey inequality and the fact that on , we have
[TABLE]
where is the constant from Lemma 4.2. From this together with Lemma 4.4 and Remark 3.8, we get
[TABLE]
where . Therefore, by (6.4) and Hölder’s inequality, we obtain the desired estimate. ∎
The following lemma is an analog of Lemma 5.2.
Lemma 6.3**.**
Let , , , and
[TABLE]
Then we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where and depends also on when .
Proof.
By utilizing Lemma 6.2 and (6.6), and following the same steps as in the proof of (5.7), one can show that (6.5) holds. Thus we only prove (6.6). Due to (5.8) in Lemma 5.2, it suffices to consider the case of .
Let , , and . If , then (6.6) follows immediately from (5.2). Now we assume . Set
[TABLE]
Then by Lemma 4.1, there exists a unique solution of the problem
[TABLE]
satisfying
[TABLE]
where . Moreover, it follows from (A.13) that (see (5.11))
[TABLE]
where . Hence by using the fact that
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Observe that
[TABLE]
where . Indeed, if we take a point satisfying , then by (3.8) and , we have
[TABLE]
where . This together with the boundary Poincaré inequality (see, for instance, [16, Eq. (7.45)]) gives (6.10). Combining (6.7), (6.9), and (6.10), we have
[TABLE]
where . Therefore, by using the identity (see (5.13))
[TABLE]
we conclude (6.6). The lemma is proved. ∎
Step 2. In this step, we prove the estimates in the theorem and Remarks 3.9 and 3.10. The estimates in the assertion in Remark 3.10 are simple consequences of Lemma 6.3 and the weak semi-continuity. Then by following the same steps used in Lemmas 5.3 and 5.4, one can easily obtain the estimates in the assertions and in Remark 3.10.
To prove (3.5) and (3.6), let with , and set . Since satisfies
[TABLE]
by (6.8), (A.13), Hölder’s inequality, and the fact that , we have
[TABLE]
where if and if . Here, the constant depends only on , , , , , and . From this inequality and Remark 3.10 , we get
[TABLE]
where and depends also on when . Therefore, by the continuity of , , and , we conclude (3.5) and (3.6).
We now turn to the proof of the estimate in Remark 3.9. Let with , and set . We assume and extend by zero on . Then by taking such that , and using (6.11) and , we have
[TABLE]
From this together with (3.5), we get
[TABLE]
which yields the estimate in Remark 3.9.
Step 3. In this step, we prove that (3.7) holds. Let be the Green function for the pressure of the adjoint operator and be its approximated Green function. More precisely, for given and , is a unique weak solution of the problem
[TABLE]
where is as in Section 5. By proceeding similarly as in the proof of Theorem 3.3, there exists a sequence satisfying the natural counterparts of (6.1) and (6.2).
We first claim that
[TABLE]
We apply and as test functions to (5.1) and (6.12), respectively, to get
[TABLE]
By the continuity of , the left-hand side of the above inequality converges to as . On the other hand, by the counterpart of (6.1), the right-hand side converges to
[TABLE]
if and . Combining these together, we have
[TABLE]
and thus, from the continuity of on , we get the claim (6.13).
Next, we claim that
[TABLE]
Let with , , and . Since it holds that
[TABLE]
by using (A.13) and Lemma 6.3, we have
[TABLE]
From this inequality together with (6.13) and the dominated convergence theorem, we see that and
[TABLE]
Since for all and , we get (6.14).
We are ready to complete the proof of (3.7). Fix , and let be a Lebesgue point of . For , we see that (using (6.1))
[TABLE]
Combining this identity and (6.15), we get
[TABLE]
Therefore, by taking , and using the continuity of on , we concluded that
[TABLE]
This implies (3.7). The theorem is proved. ∎
6.3. Proof of Theorem 3.12
We only consider the case when with . Let be the Green function for the pressure of in constructed in Theorem 3.3. Then by the same reasoning as in the proof of the estimates in Remark 3.10 (using Lemma A.4 instead of Lemma A.2), we have the following estimates for any :
For any , we have that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where if and if . 2.
For any , we have that
[TABLE]
[TABLE] 3.
For any , we have that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
In the above, and depends also on . Observe from Definition 2.3 that for any and satisfying , satisfies
[TABLE]
By Lemma A.4, Hölder’s inequality, and the estimates in , we obtain that
[TABLE]
where . Since the above inequality holds for any and satisfying , we see that
[TABLE]
which gives (3.9).
To verify (3.10) and (3.11), let with . Then we get (3.11) from (6.16) immediately. We also have that
[TABLE]
If , then we take such that . Since , we obtain by (6.16) that
[TABLE]
This together with (6.17) yields that
[TABLE]
which gives (3.10). The theorem is proved. ∎
7. Green function for the flow velocity
In this section, we deal with Green function and fundamental solution for the flow velocity of Stokes system. In the definitions below, is a matrix-valued function and is a vector-valued function on .
Definition 7.1** (Green function for the flow velocity).**
Let be a domain in . We say that is a Green function for the flow velocity of in if it satisfies the following properties.
For any and ,
[TABLE]
where is a smooth function satisfying on . Moreover,
[TABLE] 2.
For any , satisfies
[TABLE] 3.
If is a weak solution of the problem
[TABLE]
where , and , then for a.e. , we have
[TABLE]
The Green function for the adjoint operator is defined similarly. The Green function in is called the fundamental solution.
Remark 7.2*.*
In the definitions above, is understood as
[TABLE]
for any and .
7.1. Main results
In this subsection, we state the main results concerning Green function for the flow velocity. Note that in [8], the authors proved the global pointwise bound
[TABLE]
when the coefficients are VMO in a bounded domain. See also [9] for the corresponding results in unbounded domains. In the theorem below, we extend the results in [8] and [9] by showing the pointwise bounds (7.4) and (7.5) under the stronger assumption that the coefficients are of Dini mean oscillation in a domain having a boundary.
Theorem 7.3**.**
Let and be a domain in having a boundary as in Definition 2.2. Suppose that the coefficients of are of Dini mean oscillation in satisfying Definition 2.1 with a Dini function . Then under Assumption 3.1, there exists a unique Green function for the flow velocity of in such that for any ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover, for any with , we have that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where . Furthermore, if is the Green function for the flow velocity of in , then we have
[TABLE]
The corresponding results for the case with was proved in [7].
Theorem 7.4**.**
[7, Theorems 3.2 and 3.7]** Let be a bounded domain in having a boundary as in Definition 2.2. Suppose that the coefficients of are of Dini mean oscillation in satisfying Definition 2.1 with a Dini function . Then there exists a unique Green function for the flow velocity of in such that for any ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover, for any with , we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where . Furthermore, if is the Green function for the flow velocity of in , then we have
[TABLE]
Based on Theorems 3.7, 7.3, and 7.4, we have the following corollary, the proof of which is given in Section 7.3.
Corollary 7.5**.**
Suppose that the same hypothesis of Theorem 7.3 (resp. Theorem 7.4) hold. Let and be the Green functions for the flow velocity and the pressure of in derived from Theorems 7.3 (resp. Theorem 7.4) and 3.3, respectively. Then for , the pair given by
[TABLE]
is a unique weak solution in of the problem
[TABLE]
Moreover, if we define matrix-valued functions by
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where and are the Green functions for the flow velocity and the pressure of in , respectively, then for any , there exists a measure zero set containing such that we have
[TABLE]
7.2. Proof of Theorem 7.3
We first prove the existence of the Green function for the flow velocity. In the case when , we shall follow the arguments in [8], where the authors proved the existence of the Green function in a bounded Lipschitz domain under the following assumption.
Assumption 7.6** ( in [8, Section 2.1]).**
There exists constants and such that the following holds: If satisfies either
[TABLE]
where and , then we have
[TABLE]
Note that because of , we have
[TABLE]
Hence, under the hypothesis of Theorem 7.3, we can show that Assumption 7.6 holds with and . Indeed, since satisfies the same system, by (A.2) with a covering argument and Hölder’s inequality, we have
[TABLE]
where . Thus we get (7.10) from the above inequality and Caccioppoli’s inequality (see, for instance, [8, Lemma 3.3]). Moreover, it is easy to check that, under Assumptions 3.1 and 7.6, the proof of [8, Theorem 2.3] still works for the domain . Therefore, by the existence result in [8, Theorem 2.3] of a Green function, there exist Green functions and for the flow velocity of and , respectively, satisfying the properties in Definition 7.1 and (7.6). Notice from Definition 7.1 that
[TABLE]
for any and satisfying . Thus by (A.12), we get (7.2) and (7.3). Similarly, the existence of the Green function in a domain with follows from [9, Theorem 10.4].
We now turn to the proof of (7.5). Let with , and set . Suppose that is the weak solution of
[TABLE]
where . Since in , by (A.13) and Lemma 4.1, we have
[TABLE]
where . Since is continuous at , we get from (7.1) and the above inequality that
[TABLE]
Thus by the duality, we have
[TABLE]
Similarly, we obtain
[TABLE]
From (7.12), (7.13), and (A.13) applied to (7.11), we get
[TABLE]
This gives (7.5) and
[TABLE]
To prove (7.4), we use the idea in the proof of [19, Theorem 3.13], where the authors obtained pointwise bounds for Green functions of elliptic systems near the boundary. We claim that for any with , we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
We denote and extend by zero on . Assume , and take such that . Since , we obtain by (7.14) that
[TABLE]
From (7.15) and (7.18), we get
[TABLE]
which gives (7.16). By the same reasoning, we have
[TABLE]
This together with (7.6) yields (7.17).
We are ready to prove (7.4). We again let with , and set . Assume , and we take such that . Note that
[TABLE]
Since satisfies (7.11), we have the following boundary Caccioppoli inequality
[TABLE]
Using this together with (A.13) and Hölder’s inequality, we have
[TABLE]
Note that for any , we have . Thus, it follows from (7.17) that
[TABLE]
This together with (7.19) yields
[TABLE]
Finally, combining (7.17) and the above inequality, we get the desired estimate (7.4). The theorem is proved. ∎
7.3. Proof of Corollary 7.5
The representation formula (7.8) follows immediately from Definition 2.3 and Definition 7.1 . To verify (7.9), let with and be the approximated Green function for the pressure of satisfying (6.12). Then by Definition 7.1 and the continuity of , we have
[TABLE]
Due to the continuity of , the right-hand side of (7.20) converges to as . On the other hand, by the counterpart of Lemma 6.1, there exists a subsequence of that converges to . Therefore, we conclude that
[TABLE]
From this together with (3.7) and (7.6) (resp. (7.7)), we conclude that (7.9) holds when (resp. ). ∎
Appendix A -estimates
In this section, we prove -estimates of solutions and its derivatives, which are crucial for proving our main results. Denote for any . The following lemma concerns interior estimates, the proof of which is based on the -regularity result in [4].
Lemma A.1**.**
Let . Suppose that the coefficients of are of partially Dini mean oscillation with respect to in the interior of satisfying Definition 2.1 with a Dini function . If satisfies
[TABLE]
where and , then we have
[TABLE]
with the estimates
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where . If we further assume that are of Dini mean oscillation with respect to all direction in satisfying Definition 2.1 , then we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Note that (A.1) and (A.4) are easy consequences of [4, Theorems 2.2 and 2.3, and Remark 2.4] together with covering and scaling arguments. Moreover, the estimate (A.3) follows from (A.2). Indeed, using the following Poincaré inequality
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
where . This inequality together with (A.2) implies (A.3). Thus, to complete the proof of the lemma, we only need to prove (A.2). By a covering argument, it suffices to show that
[TABLE]
where . Let us fix . By [6, Lemma 3.1], there exist functions , , such that
[TABLE]
which together with the Morrey inequality implies
[TABLE]
Note that satisfies
[TABLE]
We now apply [4, Theorem 2.2 ] with the -estimate [4, Eq. (4.16)] to the scaled system of (A.8). To this end, let
[TABLE]
where , and observe that
[TABLE]
Fix a constant satisfying , and let be the constant from [4, Lemma 4.1]. For and , we denote
[TABLE]
where we used Iverson bracket notation, that is, if is true and otherwise. By (A.7) and the fact that , we have
[TABLE]
where . Using this inequality and [4, Eq. (4.16) and Remark 4.2] applied to (A.9), we find that
[TABLE]
where . Here, is a function such that
[TABLE]
Therefore, from the change of variables, we get
[TABLE]
where .
To complete the proof of (A.6), it remains to show that can be derived from . Set
[TABLE]
and observe that is a Dini function; see [10, Lemma 1]. Using the fact that
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Obviously, . Since is a Dini function, we obtain that (using )
[TABLE]
where . This implies that
[TABLE]
where . From (A.10) and the estimates of and , we get
[TABLE]
Therefore, for any , we have
[TABLE]
where we set
[TABLE]
This completes the proof of (A.6). The lemma is proved. ∎
Based on the -regularity result in [3], we obtain the following -estimate in a domain having a boundary.
Lemma A.2**.**
Let be a (possibly unbounded) domain in having a boundary as in Definition 2.2. Suppose that the coefficients of are of Dini mean oscillation in satisfying Definition 2.1 with a Dini function . Let and . If satisfies
[TABLE]
where and , then we have
[TABLE]
with the estimate
[TABLE]
where .
Remark A.3*.*
In the proof of Lemma A.2 below, we will use the -regularity result in [8, Corollary 5.3] (see also [12]) for the Stokes system. If is bounded, then under the hypothesis of Lemma A.2, the regularity result is available. For further details, see the proof of [3, Theorem 1.6].
Proof of Lemma A.2.
If is unbounded, then one may construct a bounded domain such that and it has the same nice properties as . Thus we may assume that is bounded.
Let and . We first prove (A.12). By using localization and bootstrap arguments combined with the -regularity result in [8, Corollary 5.3], we see that
[TABLE]
Let be a smooth function on with a compact support in . Then, the pair
[TABLE]
satisfies
[TABLE]
where we set
[TABLE]
Obviously, (A.14) implies that with . Moreover, since is Hölder continuous in , it follows from [11, Lemma 2.1] that and are of Dini mean oscillation in . Therefore, by [3, Theorem 1.4 and Remark 1.5], we conclude that
[TABLE]
which gives (A.12) if we choose the function such that on .
We now turn to the proof of (A.13). By the Poincaré inequality (A.5) applied to the zero extension of , we have
[TABLE]
Thus, it suffices to prove that
[TABLE]
Let and such that , where is the constant from [3, Lemma 2.2]. We use the abbreviations
[TABLE]
We fix and choose the function in (A.15) satisfying
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
Hence, from the existence of solutions to the divergence equation in a ball, there exist , , such that
[TABLE]
We extend by zero on to see that satisfies
[TABLE]
Since the coefficients and data of the above system are of Dini mean oscillation in , we obtain by [3, Eq. (2.27)] that
[TABLE]
where and
[TABLE]
Here, we use the notation (see [3, Section 2.1])
[TABLE]
where is a fixed constant and is the constant from [3, Lemma 2.3]. We extend by zero on . Since , by both Morrey and Poincaré inequalities with a scaling, we have
[TABLE]
Then for any , we obtain that
[TABLE]
This together with implies
[TABLE]
where . Similarly, from the fact that (using (A.18))
[TABLE]
we get
[TABLE]
Combining the above inequality and (A.20), we have
[TABLE]
where . Therefore, it follows from (A.19) and (A.21) that
[TABLE]
for any and , where the constant depends only on , , , , and .
We now complete the proof of (A.17). Set and let with . Then for any , we obtain by (A.22) that
[TABLE]
and thus, we get from Young’s inequality that
[TABLE]
for any , where and depends also on . Since is an arbitrary point in and , we have
[TABLE]
for any with . Set
[TABLE]
and let be the smallest positive integer depending only on , such that
[TABLE]
By (A.23) we have for any ,
[TABLE]
By multiplying both sides of the above inequality by and summing the terms with respect to , we see that
[TABLE]
where each summation is finite upon choosing, for instance, . Therefore, by subtracting
[TABLE]
from both sides of the above inequality, we obtain
[TABLE]
which implies (A.17). The lemma is proved. ∎
The following lemma is analogous to Lemma A.2.
Lemma A.4**.**
Let , , and . Suppose that the coefficients of are of partially Dini mean oscillation with respect to in satisfying Definition 3.11 with a Dini function . If satisfies
[TABLE]
where , then we have
[TABLE]
with the estimates
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where .
Proof.
With a standard covering argument, we only need to prove the desired estimates with in place of on the left-hand sides. In this proof, we denote and for any and . By the Poincaré inequality (A.5) with the zero extension of , we only need to prove (A.24). Let . We consider the following two cases:
[TABLE]
- i.
: In this case, since it holds that
[TABLE]
we get from Lemma A.1 that
[TABLE]
where . 2. ii.
: Without loss of generality, we assume that . To complete the proof of the lemma, it suffices to prove that
[TABLE]
where , because (A.24) follows from (A.25), (A.26), and the fact that
[TABLE]
Let us set and fix . By the same reasoning as in (A.8), satisfies
[TABLE]
where satisfy
[TABLE]
We denote
[TABLE]
where , and observe that
[TABLE]
Fix a constant satisfying , and let be the constant from [4, Lemma 7.1]. For and , we denote
[TABLE]
By (A.27), we obtain that (using )
[TABLE]
where . Since satisfies (A.28), we obtain by [4, Eq. (7.6)] that
[TABLE]
where and is a function such that
[TABLE]
Therefore, by (A.29) and the change of variables, we get
[TABLE]
where .
To complete the proof of (A.26), it remains to show that can be derived from . We set
[TABLE]
and observe that (see (A.11))
[TABLE]
where . From the above inequality it follows that
[TABLE]
Therefore, for any , we have
[TABLE]
where we set
[TABLE]
The lemma is proved. ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Hammadi Abidi, Guilong Gui, and Ping Zhang. On the decay and stability of global solutions to the 3D inhomogeneous Navier-Stokes equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 64(6):832–881, 2011.
- 2[2] Gabriel Acosta, Ricardo G. Durán, and María A. Muschietti. Solutions of the divergence operator on John domains. Adv. Math. , 206(2):373–401, 2006.
- 3[3] Jongkeun Choi and Hongjie Dong. Gradient estimates for Stokes systems in domains. Dyn. Partial Differ. Equ. , 16(1):1–24, 2019
- 4[4] Jongkeun Choi and Hongjie Dong. Gradient estimates for Stokes systems with Dini mean oscillation coefficients. J. Differential Equations , 266(8):4451–4509, 2019.
- 5[5] Jongkeun Choi, Hongjie Dong, and Doyoon Kim. Green functions of conormal derivative problems for Stokes system. J. Math. Fluid Mech. , 20(4):1745–1769, 2018
- 6[6] Jongkeun Choi, Hongjie Dong, and Doyoon Kim. Conormal derivative problems for stationary Stokes system in Sobolev spaces. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. , 38(5):2349–2374, 2018.
- 7[7] Jongkeun Choi and Doyoon Kim. Estimates for Green functions of Stoles systems in two dimensional domains. J. Math. Anal. Appl. , 471(1-2):102–125, 2019
- 8[8] Jongkeun Choi and Ki-Ahm Lee. The Green function for the Stokes system with measurable coefficients. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. , 16(6):1989–2022, 2017.
