1: \documentclass[a4paper, 10pt]{article}
2: %\usepackage[notref,notcite]{showkeys}
3: \usepackage[active]{srcltx}
4:
5: \textheight=9.0truein \textwidth=6truein \oddsidemargin=0.5cm
6: \usepackage{multicol}
7: \usepackage{euscript}
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9: \usepackage{amsmath}
10: \usepackage{amsthm}
11: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
12: \usepackage{eufrak}
13: \usepackage{psfrag}
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16: %%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%
17: %%%%%%%% COMANDI %%%%%%%%%
18: %%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%
19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: \newcommand{\integraltt}{\int_{\max \{ 2, \, 2 + \tau \}}^{\min \{ T, \, T + \tau \}}}
22: \newcommand{\integralt}{\int_{\max \{ 0, \, \tau \}}^{\min \{ T, \, T + \tau \}}}
23: \newcommand{\integralx}{\int_{ \max \{0, \, \xi \}}^{ \min \{ L, \, L + \xi \}}}
24: \newcommand{\semi}{p_t [\bar{u}_0, \, \bar{u}_{b \, 0},
25: \, \bar{u}_{b \, l}]}
26: \newcommand{\semie}{p^{\; \ee}_t \, [\bar{u}_0, \, \bar{u}_{b \, 0},
27: \, \bar{u}_{b \, l}]}
28: \newcommand{\semiem}{p^{\ee_m}_t [\bar{u}_0, \, \bar{u}_{b \, 0},
29: \, \bar{u}_{b \, l}]}
30: \newcommand{\ur}{\underline{r}_1}
31: \newcommand{\urx}{\underline{r}_{1x}}
32: \newcommand{\urv}{\underline{r}_{1v}}
33: \newcommand{\urt}{\underline{r}_{1 \tau}}
34: \newcommand{\bigd}{\mathrm{D}}
35: \newcommand{\hr}{\hat{r}_{1}}
36: \newcommand{\hrp}{\hat{r}_{1 p}}
37: \newcommand{\uu}{\Upsilon}
38: \newcommand{\totint}{\int_0^T \int_0^L}
39: \newcommand{\drifti}{\lambda_i^{\ast}}
40: \newcommand{\driftd}{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
41: \newcommand{\driftu}{\lambda_1^{\ast}}
42: \newcommand{\ee}{\varepsilon}
43: \newcommand{\ue}{u^{\varepsilon}}
44: \newcommand{\integral}{\int_{0}^{L} \int_{0}^{T}}
45: \newcommand{\energy}{\frac{\, v_1 ^2}{2}}
46: \newcommand{\argument}{\frac{w_1}{v_1} + \lambda_1^{\ast}}
47: \newcommand{\fd}{\frac{\drift}{2}}
48: \newcommand{\bvpiccina}{{\|u_x (s)\|_{L^1} \leq C \delta_1
49: \; \forall \, s \in \, [0, \, t]}}
50: \newcommand{\bv}{\mathrm{Tot \, Var}}
51: \newcommand{\drift}{\lambda^{\ast}}
52: \newcommand{\unpo}{\mathcal{O}(1)}
53: \newcommand{\Jzero}{ J^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}}
54: \newcommand{\Jelle}{ J^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}}
55: \newcommand{\deltabt}{\tilde{\Delta}^{\lambda_i^{\ast}}}
56: \newcommand{\deltab}{\Delta^{\lambda_i^{\ast}}}
57: \newcommand{\deltabd}{\Delta^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}}
58: \newcommand{\tr}{\tilde{r}_1}
59: \newcommand{\domain}{\mathcal{D}_0}
60: \newcommand{\domainb}{\mathcal{D}_{ \, b}}
61: \newcommand{\domainu}{\mathcal{U}_0}
62: \newcommand{\domainub}{\mathcal{U}_{\, b}}
63: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
65: %%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%
66: %%%%%%%%% TEOREMI %%%%%%%%%%
67: %%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%
68: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
69: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
70: \newtheorem{teo}{Theorem}[section]
71: \newtheorem{pro}{Proposition}[section]
72: \newtheorem{lem}{Lemma}[section]
73: \theoremstyle{definition}
74: \newtheorem{say}{Definition}[section]
75: \newtheorem{rem}{Remark}[section]
76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
77: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% TITOLO %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
81:
82: \begin{document}
83: \numberwithin{equation}{section}
84: \bibliographystyle{plain}
85:
86: \title{Vanishing viscosity solutions of a
87: $2 \times 2$ triangular hyperbolic system with Dirichlet conditions on two
88: boundaries}
89: \author{Laura V. Spinolo \smallskip \\
90: { \it \small S.I.S.S.A., Via Beirut 4, Trieste 34014, Italy} \\
91: {\it \small e-mail: spinolo@sissa.it }}
92: \date{}
93:
94: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
95: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
96: %%%%%%%%%%% DOCUMENT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
97: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
98: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
99:
100: \maketitle
101:
102:
103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ABSTRACT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
105: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
106: \begin{abstract}
107: We consider the $2 \times 2$ parabolic systems
108: \begin{equation*}
109: u^{\ee}_t + A(u^{\ee}) u^{\ee}_x = \ee u^{\ee}_{xx}
110: \end{equation*}
111: on a domain $(t, \, x) \in \, ]0, \, + \infty[ \times ]0, \, l[$
112: with Dirichlet boundary conditions imposed at $x=0$ and at $x=l$.
113: The matrix $A$ is assumed to be in triangular form and strictly
114: hyperbolic, and the boundary is not characteristic, i.e. the
115: eigenvalues of $A$ are different from $0$.
116:
117: We show that, if the initial and boundary data have sufficiently
118: small total variation, then the solution $u^{\ee}$ exists for all
119: $t \geq 0$ and depends Lipschitz continuously in $L^1$ on the
120: initial and boundary data.
121:
122: Moreover, as $\ee \to 0^+$, the solutions $u^{\ee}(t)$ converge in
123: $L^1$ to a unique limit $u(t)$, which can be seen as the {\it
124: vanishing viscosity solution} of the quasilinear hyperbolic system
125: \begin{equation*}
126: u_t + A(u)u_x = 0,
127: \quad x \in \, ]0, \, l[.
128: \end{equation*}
129: This solution $u(t)$ depends Lipschitz continuously in $L^1$ w.r.t
130: the initial and boundary data. We also characterize precisely in
131: which sense the boundary data are assumed by the solution of the
132: hyperbolic system. \vspace{0.3cm}
133:
134: \noindent {\bf 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:} 35L65.
135: \vspace{0.3cm}
136:
137: \noindent {\bf Key words:} Hyperbolic systems, conservation laws,
138: initial boundary value problems, viscous approximations.
139:
140: \end{abstract}
141: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
142:
143: \section{Introduction}
144: %\subsection{Statement of the problem}
145:
146:
147: This paper deals with the initial-two-boundaries value problem
148: \begin{equation}
149: \label{the_problem}
150: \left\{
151: \begin{array}{lllll}
152: u_t + A (u) u_x =0 ,
153: \quad
154: x \in \, ]0, \, l[, \; \;
155: t \in \, ]0, + \infty [ \\
156: \\
157: u(0, x) = \bar{u}_0 (x),\\
158: \\
159: u(t, 0) = \bar{u}_{b \, 0}(t), \qquad
160: u(t, l) = \bar{u}_{b l}(t). \\
161: \end{array}
162: \right.
163: \end{equation}
164: The crucial hypotheses we assume are that the matrix $A$ is
165: strictly hyperbolic with eigenvalues different from $0$ and that
166: the initial and boundary data are small in $BV$ norm and close to
167: a constant state $u^\ast$.
168:
169: An existence result for hyperbolic boundary value problems was
170: proved in \cite{Good, SabTou:mixte} using an adaptation of the
171: Glimm scheme introduced in \cite{Gli}. Improvements of the results
172: in \cite{Good, SabTou:mixte} have been obtained by a wave-front
173: tracking technique introduced in \cite{Breft} and later used in a
174: series of papers (\cite{Bre:Gli, BreCol, BreCraPi,BreLY,BreLF,
175: BreG, BreLew}) to establish the well posedness of the Cauchy
176: problem. Such a wave-front tracking technique was adapted to the
177: initial-boundary value problem in \cite{Ama}, where a substantial
178: improvement of the results in \cite{Good, SabTou:mixte} was
179: achieved. The well posedness of the initial-boundary value problem
180: was then proved in \cite{DonMar} relying on the wave-front
181: tracking technique described in \cite{Ama}.
182:
183: All the results quoted so far deal with conservative systems; a
184: comprehensive account of the stability and uniqueness results for
185: the Cauchy problem for a system of conservation laws can be found
186: in \cite{Bre}. We refer, instead, to \cite{Daf:book} and to
187: \cite{Serre:book} for a general introduction to the systems of
188: conservation laws.
189:
190: In \cite{BiaBre:BV, BiaBre:case, BiaBre:center} and
191: \cite{BiaBrevv} a different problem was dealt with: let $u^{\ee}$
192: be a family of solutions to the parabolic systems
193: \begin{equation*}
194: u^{\ee}_t + A(u^{\ee})u^{\ee}_x = \ee u^{\ee}_{xx}.
195: \end{equation*}
196: % For "physical reasons" o
197: One expects that as $\ee \to 0^+$ the
198: solution $u^{\ee}$ converges in some sense to a solution of the
199: corresponding hyperbolic system
200: \begin{equation*}
201: u_t + A(u)u_x=0.
202: \end{equation*}
203: The mathematical proof of this convergence was obtained via a
204: suitable decomposition of the gradient of the solution $u^{\ee}$
205: along travelling waves. We refer to \cite{BiaBrevv} for an account
206: of the proof of the convergence of the vanishing viscosity
207: approximation and of the uniqueness and the stability of the
208: vanishing viscosity limit: it is important to underline, however,
209: that in \cite{BiaBrevv} the systems considered are not necessarily
210: conservative.
211:
212: The vanishing viscosity approximation of initial-boundary value
213: problems was studied in numerous works: in the following, we will
214: briefly refer to some of the principal results, without any sake
215: of completeness. Moreover, if not otherwise stated, the systems
216: considered are supposed to be in conservation form.
217:
218: In particular, in \cite{Serre:solglob} it was considered the
219: vanishing viscosity approximation
220: \begin{equation*}
221: \ue_t + f(\ue )_x = \ee \ue_{xx}
222: \end{equation*}
223: of an initial-boundary value problem and it was given a precise
224: description of the first term of the expansion of $\ue$ in the
225: neighborhood of a point where two shocks or a shock and a boundary
226: layer profile meet.
227:
228: The works \cite{Gisclon:etudes, Gisclon-Serre:etudes} dealt with
229: the general parabolic approximation
230: %: in particular, it was
231: %considered the family of initial-boundary value problems
232: \begin{equation}
233: \label{eq_approx}
234: %\left\{
235: %\begin{array}{lll}
236: \ue_t + f(\ue)_x = \ee \big( B(\ue ) \ue_x \big)_x,
237: % \qquad (t, \, x) \in
238: % \, ]0, \, + \infty [ \times ]0, \, + \infty[ \\
239: % \\
240: % \ue(0, \, x) =u_0 (x)
241: % \qquad
242: % \ue (t, \, 0) =u_b (t) \\
243: %\end{array}
244: %\right.
245: \end{equation}
246: where the viscosity $B(u)$ is invertible but in general different
247: from the identity. It was proved the existence of a $T> 0$ such
248: that $\ue$ converges in $L^{\infty}\big( (0, \, T);
249: L^2(\mathbb{R}^+) \big)$ to a solution of
250: \begin{equation*}
251: u_t + f(u)_x =0
252: \end{equation*}
253: and it is given a precise characterization of the boundary
254: condition induced in the hyperbolic limit.
255:
256: In \cite{Serre:couches} it was introduced an Evans function
257: machinery to study the stability of boundary layer profiles: the
258: parabolic approximation considered was in the form
259: \eqref{eq_approx},
260: %\begin{equation*}
261: % \ue_t + f(\ue )_x = \ee \big( B(\ue) \ue_x \big)_x,
262: %\end{equation*}
263: in the case of an invertible viscosity matrix $B$ and of a non
264: characteristic boundary (i.e. all the eigenvalues of $Df(u)$ were
265: supposed to be different from zero). However, the analysis was
266: extended in a series of paper (\cite{Serre-Zum, Rousset:inviscid,
267: Rousset:residual, Rousset:char}) to the boundary characteristic
268: case and to very general parabolic approximations, with non
269: invertible viscosity matrices.
270:
271: In \cite{AnBia} it was considered the family of
272: initial-one-boundary value problems
273: \begin{equation*}
274: \left\{
275: \begin{array}{lll}
276: u^{\varepsilon}_t + A (u^{\varepsilon}) u^{\varepsilon}_x =
277: \varepsilon u^{\varepsilon}_{xx},
278: \quad
279: x \in \, ]0, \, + \infty[, \quad
280: t \in \, ]0, + \infty [ \\
281: \\
282: u^{\varepsilon}(0, x) = \bar{u}_0 (x),
283: \qquad
284: u^{\varepsilon}(t, 0) = \bar{u}_b(t), \\
285: \end{array}
286: \right.
287: \end{equation*}
288: it is proved the (global in time) convergence of approximated
289: solutions and the stability and the uniqueness of the limit. In
290: \cite{AnBia} the boundary characteristic case was allowed (i.e.
291: one characteristic field was allowed to have speed close to that
292: of the boundary) and the crucial tool in the proof of the
293: convergence and the stability is the introduction of a suitable
294: decomposition of the gradient of the vanishing viscosity solution.
295: Moreover, we underline that, as in \cite{BiaBrevv}, the systems
296: considered were not necessarily in conservation form.
297:
298: In the present paper we will consider the vanishing viscosity
299: approximation for the initial-two-boundaries value problem:
300: \begin{equation}
301: \label{vvapproximation}
302: \left\{
303: \begin{array}{lllll}
304: u^{\varepsilon}_t + A (u^{\varepsilon}) u^{\varepsilon}_x =
305: \varepsilon u^{\varepsilon}_{xx},
306: \quad
307: x \in \, ]0, \, l[, \quad
308: t \in \, ]0, + \infty [ \\
309: \\
310: u^{\varepsilon}(0, x) = \bar{u}_0 (x),\\
311: \\
312: u^{\varepsilon}(t, 0) = \bar{u}_{b \, 0}(t), \qquad
313: u^{\varepsilon}(t, l) = \bar{u}_{b l}(t). \\
314: \end{array}
315: \right.
316: \end{equation}
317: We will assume that $A$ is in
318: triangular form, i.e.
319: \begin{equation}
320: \label{E:triang}
321: A(u) =
322: \left(
323: \begin{array}{lll}
324: \lambda_1(u_1) & 0 \\
325: \\
326: g(u_1, \, u_2) & \lambda_2(u_1, \, u_2) \\
327: \end{array}
328: \right),
329: \end{equation}
330: and sufficiently smooth in a compact neighborhood $K$ of a fixed
331: point $u^{\ast}$. Moreover, we assume $A$ to be uniformly strictly
332: hyperbolic, in particular we assume that there exists a constant
333: $c>0$ ($2c$ is then the "separation speed") such that
334: \begin{equation}
335: \label{eq_separation_speed}
336: \lambda_1(u) < - c < 0 < c < \lambda_2 (u) \quad \forall \, u
337: \in K.
338: \end{equation}
339: The above condition means that the speed of the boundary (in our
340: case $0$) is strictly different from the characteristic speeds of
341: the two families of waves.
342:
343: We denote with $r_1(u)$ the first eigenvector of $A(u)$,
344: corresponding to the eigenvalues $\lambda_1(u)$, and with $r_2$
345: the second one. Due to the particular structure of $A$, we
346: normalize $r_1$ and $r_2$ as
347: \begin{equation}
348: \label{E:norm}
349: \langle (1,0), r_1(u) \rangle = 1, \quad r_2 = \left( \begin{array}{c}
350: 0 \cr 1
351: \end{array} \right).
352: \end{equation}
353: The dual base of $(r_1(u), \, r_2)$ is denoted by $(\ell_1, \,
354: \ell_2(u))$.
355:
356: We will assume that the initial data $\bar u_0$ and boundary
357: data $\bar u_{b0}$, $\bar u_{bl}$ have sufficiently small total variation, i.e.
358: \begin{equation}
359: \label{E:TVbd}
360: \bv(\bar{u}_0), \; \bv(\bar{u}_{b \, 0}), \;
361: \bv(\bar{u}_{b \, l}) \leq
362: \delta_1
363: \end{equation}
364: for a suitable $\delta_1<<1$. Moreover, since we will study
365: boundary layers with small total variation, we assume that there
366: exists a value $u^{\ast}$ such that
367: \begin{equation} \label{E:noBD}
368: \| \bar{u}_0 - u^{\ast} \|_{\infty} \leq \delta_1
369: \quad
370: \| \bar{u}_{b \, 0} - u^{\ast} \|_{\infty} \leq \delta_1
371: \quad
372: \| \bar{u}_{b \, l} - u^{\ast} \|_{\infty} \leq \delta_1.
373: \end{equation}
374: For technical reasons, we will also
375: assume some stronger regularity: the boundary and initial data
376: will be sufficiently smooth and will satisfy
377: \begin{equation}
378: \label{E:bounder} \|d^j \bar{u}_0 / dx^j\|_{L^1}, \; \|d^j
379: \bar{u}_{b \, 0} /
380: dt^j\|_{L^1}, \; \|d^j \bar{u}_{b \, l} / dt^j\|_{L^1}
381: \leq M < + \infty \quad j= 2, \, \dots n,
382: \end{equation}
383: for some $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and some large constant $M$. Some
384: observations about the extension of our results to the case of
385: boundary and initial data with weaker regularity will be made in
386: Remark \ref{rem_regularity}.
387:
388: We will denote by $\mathcal{U}_{\, 0}$, $\mathcal{U}_{\, b}$ the
389: set of functions $u_0$, $u_b$ satisfying \eqref{E:TVbd},
390: \eqref{E:noBD}, \eqref{E:bounder} in $]0,l[$ or $]0,+\infty[$,
391: respectively. We also define the sets $\domain \subseteq L^1(0, \,
392: l)$, $\domainb \subseteq L^1_{loc}(0, \, + \infty)$ of functions
393: such that
394: \begin{equation}
395: \label{eq_domain}
396: \bv \big\{ \bar{u}_0 \big\} \leq \delta_1, \quad \bv
397: \big\{ \bar{u}_b \big\} \leq \delta_1,
398: \end{equation}
399: respectively.
400: \begin{rem}
401: The fact that we will consider only $2 \times 2$ triangular
402: systems does not affect very deeply the structure of the problem,
403: but leads to some considerable simplification in the computations.
404: In particular, since the matrix $A$ is in triangular form, we will
405: see in Section \ref{gradient_decomposition} that the generalized
406: eigenvector of the travelling wave profile of the second family is
407: constant, and so it is the generalized eigenvector of the boundary
408: layer profile of the second family: such a feature simplifies the
409: computation of source terms, which is performed in the Appendix
410: \ref{explicit_source_t}. Since also the expression itself of the
411: source terms is simpler, the consequent estimates, carried on in
412: Section \ref{BV_estimates}, are easier in the case of a triangular
413: system than in the general one.
414:
415: We refer, instead, to Remark \ref{rem_regularity} for some
416: considerations about the hypotheses of regularity we have assumed.
417: \end{rem}
418:
419: The first theorem concerns the existence of a solution to the
420: parabolic problem \eqref{vvapproximation}; moreover, it ensures
421: that such a solution satisfies stability estimates independent on
422: $\ee$.
423:
424: \begin{teo}
425: \label{main_result}
426: Suppose $\bar{u}_0 \in \domainu$, $\bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \; \bar{u}_{b \, l} \in
427: \domainub$ and $A$ is of the form \eqref{E:triang}
428: and satisfies \eqref{eq_separation_speed}. Then, for any $\ee> 0$, the system
429: \eqref{vvapproximation} has a unique solution
430: $u^{\ee}(t)$ defined for all $t \ge 0$.
431:
432: This solution depends Lipschitz continuously
433: in $L^1$ on the initial and boundary data: indeed, let
434: $\bar{v}_0 \in \domainu$, $\bar{v}_{b \, 0}$, $\bar{v}_{b \, l} \in \domainub$
435: be the initial and boundary data of a solution
436: $v^{\ee}(t)$ of \eqref{vvapproximation}. Then for some
437: constants $L_1$ and $L_2$,
438: depending only on the matrix $A$ and the bound on the initial and boundary
439: data $\delta_1$,
440: the following holds:
441: \begin{equation}
442: \label{stability_wrt_l1_tpar}
443: \begin{split}
444: \|v^\ee(t) - u^\ee(t)\|_{L^1}
445: & \leq
446: L_1 \Big( \|\bar{v}_{ 0} - \bar{u}_{0}\|_{L^1(0, \, l)}+
447: \|\bar{v}_{b 0} - \bar{u}_{b 0}\|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)}
448: + \|\bar{v}_{b l} - \bar{u}_{b l}\|_{L^1
449: (0, \, + \infty)} \Big) \\
450: & + L_2 \Big( |t -s| + |\sqrt{t} - \sqrt{s} | \Big).
451: \end{split}
452: \end{equation}
453: \end{teo}
454:
455: The second theorem concerns the limit as $\ee \to 0^+$. Since we
456: have a uniform bound on the total variation, by Helly's theorem
457: there is a subsequence of $u^\ee$ converging in $L^1$ to a limit
458: function $u(t)$ on a countable dense set of times $t_n$. By the
459: stability estimate \eqref{stability_wrt_l1_tpar}, the convergence
460: is on the whole $\mathbb{R}^+$.
461:
462: However, different subsequences could a priori converge to
463: different limits: we will actually prove that the limit is unique
464: and that moreover the semigroup property holds.
465:
466: \begin{teo}
467: \label{T:2}
468: As ${\varepsilon \to 0^+}$, the sequence $u^{\varepsilon}(t)$ of solutions
469: of \eqref{vvapproximation} converges to
470: a unique function $u(t)$ for all $t \geq 0$: we denote such a limit by
471: \begin{equation*}
472: u(t) = \semi.
473: \end{equation*}
474: This convergence defines a unique semigroup
475: \begin{equation}
476: \label{eq_thm_semigroup}
477: \begin{split}
478: & S: [0, \, + \infty] \times \mathcal{U}_{\, 0}
479: \times \mathcal{U}_{\, b} \times \mathcal{U}_{\, b}
480: \to
481: \mathcal{D}_{\, 0}
482: \times \mathcal{U}_{\, b} \times \mathcal{U}_{\, b} \\
483: & \quad \; \; (t, \, u_0, \, u_{b \, 0}, \, u_{b \, l})
484: \qquad \quad \; \; \mapsto
485: \bigg( p_t [u_0, \, u_{b \, 0}, \, u_{b \, l}], \,
486: u_{b \, 0}( \, \cdot \, + t), \,
487: u_{b \, l}(\, \cdot \, + t)\bigg) \\
488: \end{split}
489: \end{equation}
490: which satisfies the
491: following stability estimates in $L^1(0,l)$:
492: \begin{equation}
493: \label{stability_wrt_l1_t}
494: \begin{split}
495: \Bigl\| \semi - p_s [ \bar{v}_{0}, \, \bar{v}_{b \, 0}, \,
496: \bar{v}_{b \, l} ] \Bigr\|_{L^1} \leq
497: & L_1 \bigg( \|\bar{v}_{ 0} - \bar{u}_{0}\|_{L^1(0, \, l)}+
498: \|\bar{v}_{b 0} - \bar{u}_{b 0}\|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)}
499: \\
500: & + \|\bar{v}_{b l} - \bar{u}_{b l}\|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)} \bigg)+
501: L_2 |t -s|, \\
502: \end{split}
503: \end{equation}
504: for some constant $L_1$, $L_2$ depending only on $A$ and on $\delta_1$.
505: \end{teo}
506: \begin{rem}
507: \label{rem_regularity} By the stability estimate
508: \eqref{stability_wrt_l1_t} the semigroup $S$ defined by
509: \eqref{eq_thm_semigroup} can be extended to initial and boundary
510: data that satisfy much weaker regularity assumptions, i.e.
511: $\bar{u}_0 \in \domain$ and $\bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \; \bar{u}_{b \, l}
512: \in \domainb$. Indeed, let $\{ \rho_k \}$ be a sequence of
513: regularizing kernels and let $\bar{u}_0 \in \domain$. Then $\rho_k
514: \ast \bar{u}_0$, $\rho_k \ast \bar{u}_{b \, 0}$ and $\rho_k \ast
515: \bar{u}_{b \, l}$ are initial and boundary data that satisfy the
516: hypothesis \eqref{E:bounder}: they are smooth and
517: \begin{equation*}
518: \begin{split}
519: & \| d (\rho_k \ast \bar{u}_0) / d x \|_{L^1} \leq
520: \bv \big\{ \bar{u}_0 \big\} \leq
521: \delta_1
522: \qquad
523: \| d (\rho_k \ast \bar{u}_{b \, 0}) / d x \|_{L^1}
524: \leq \delta_1
525: \qquad
526: \| d (\rho_k \ast \bar{u}_{b \, l}) /
527: d x \|_{L^1} \leq \delta_1 \phantom{\Big( } \\
528: & \Big\| d^j (\rho_k \ast \bar{u}_0) / d x^j \big\|_{L^1} =
529: \Big\| d \Big( (d^{j-1} \rho_k / d x^{j-1})
530: \ast \bar{u}_0 \Big) / dx \Big\|_{L^1}
531: \leq M(k, \, j) \delta_1 \quad \qquad \qquad j=1, \dots n \\
532: & \Big\| d^j \Big(\rho_k \ast \bar{u}_{b \, 0}\Big) / d x^j
533: \Big\|_{L^1}
534: \leq M(k, \, j) \delta_1 \qquad
535: \Big\| d^j \Big(\rho_k \ast \bar{u}_0) \Big) / d x^j \Big\|_{L^1}
536: \leq M(k, \, j) \delta_1 \qquad j=1, \dots n.
537: \end{split}
538: \end{equation*}
539: The last estimates ensures that, for any fixed $k$, the $L^1$ norm
540: of the derivatives is finite: the bound is not uniform with
541: respect to $k$ but, since the constant $L_1$ in
542: \eqref{stability_wrt_l1_t} does not depend on the bound $M$ in
543: \eqref{E:bounder}, it is enough to prove the extendibility of the
544: semigroup to the whole domain $\domain$. Indeed, let $u^{\ee}_k$
545: the sequence of solutions to the systems
546: \begin{equation*}
547: \left\{
548: \begin{array}{lllll}
549: \Big( u^{\ee}_k \Big)_t + A(u^{\ee}_k ) \Big( u^{\ee}_k
550: \Big)_x = \ee \Big( u^{\ee}_k \Big)_{xx} \\
551: \\
552: u^{\ee}_k (0, \, x) = \rho_k \ast \bar{u}_0 \phantom{\Big(} \\
553: \\
554: u^{\ee}_k(t, \, 0) = \rho_k \ast \bar{u}_{b \, 0}
555: \quad
556: u^{\ee}_k (t, \, l) = \rho_k \ast \bar{u}_{b \, l}
557: \phantom{\Big(}
558: \end{array}
559: \right.
560: \end{equation*}
561: Theorem \ref{T:2} ensures that, for any $k \in \mathbb{N}$ and for
562: any $t \ge 0$, the sequence $u^{\ee}_k (t)$ converges as $\ee \to
563: 0^+$ to some limit function we will call $u_k (t)$. Then $u_k (t)$
564: is a Cauchy sequence since by \eqref{stability_wrt_l1_t}
565: \begin{equation*}
566: \| u_k (t) - u_h (t) \|_{L^1(0, \, l)} \leq
567: L_1 \Big( \| ( \rho_k - \rho_h ) \ast \bar{u}_0 \|_{L^1(0, \, l)} +
568: \| ( \rho_k - \rho_h ) \ast \bar{u}_{b \, 0} \|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)} +
569: \| ( \rho_k - \rho_h ) \ast \bar{u}_{b \, l} \|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty )}
570: \Big).
571: \end{equation*}
572: The same estimate \eqref{stability_wrt_l1_t} ensures that the
573: limit $\lim_{k \to + \infty} u_k (t)$ does not depend on the
574: choice of the sequence $\rho_k$ and therefore the extension
575: \begin{equation*}
576: \semi = \lim_{k \to + \infty} u^k(t)
577: \end{equation*}
578: is well defined.
579:
580:
581: For simplicity, in the following we won't prove that, if
582: $(\bar{u}_0, \, \bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \, \bar{u}_{b \, l})$ belongs to
583: $\mathcal{D}_0 \times \mathcal{D}_b \times \mathcal{D}_b$ but not
584: to $\domainu \times \domainub \times \domainub$, then the solution
585: of the system \eqref{vvapproximation} converges as $\ee_n \to 0^+$
586: to $\semi$. However, we will exploit the extendibility property
587: described before, in particular in Section \ref{par_riemann} we
588: will consider the {\it vanishing viscosity solution} of the
589: Riemann and of the boundary Riemann problem, actually meaning the
590: {\it extension of the semigroup of the vanishing viscosity
591: solution} to piecewise constant initial and boundary data.
592: \end{rem}
593: The function $u(t) = \semi$ is the {\it vanishing viscosity
594: solution} to
595: \begin{equation}
596: \label{E:hyp6}
597: u_t + A(u) u_x = 0.
598: \end{equation}
599: Note that it is not a weak solution, unless the system is
600: conservative, but one can prove that it is a {\it viscosity
601: solution}, in the sense of \cite{AmaCol}. In particular, we obtain
602: that, for a.e. $t$, the limits
603: \begin{equation}
604: \label{E:limB}
605: \lim_{x \to 0^+} u(t, \, x) = u(t, \, 0^+),
606: \quad \lim_{x \to l^-} u(t, \, x) = u(t, \, l^-)
607: \end{equation}
608: and the boundary data $\bar{u}_{b \, 0}(t)$, $\bar{u}_{b \, l}(t)$
609: can be connected by boundary profiles, i.e. there exists a
610: solution of the boundary value problem
611: \begin{equation*}
612: \left\{
613: \begin{array}{ll}
614: A(v)v_x = v_{xx}, \quad x \in \, ]0, \, + \infty[ \\
615: v(0)= \bar{u}_{b \, 0}(t),
616: \quad
617: \lim_{x \to + \infty } v(x)= u(t, \, 0^+)
618: \end{array}
619: \right. \quad \mathrm{and} \quad
620: \left\{
621: \begin{array}{ll}
622: A(v)v_x = v_{xx}, \quad x \in \, ]- \infty, \, 0[ \\
623: v(0)= \bar{u}_{b \, l}(t),
624: \quad
625: \lim_{x \to - \infty } v(x)= u(t, \, l^-)
626: \end{array}
627: \right.
628: \end{equation*}
629: respectively. This means that the boundary datum $\bar{u}_{b \,
630: 0}$ lies on the stable manifold of $u(t, \, 0+)$, and the boundary
631: datum $\bar{u}_{b \, l}$ lies on the unstable manifold of $u(t,\,
632: l^-)$.
633:
634: The paper is organized as follows.
635:
636: First of all we make a change of variables in
637: \eqref{vvapproximation}: let $u(x, \, t) : = u^{\varepsilon}(x /
638: \varepsilon, \, t / \varepsilon$). Then \eqref{vvapproximation}
639: is equivalent to the system
640: \begin{equation}
641: \label{rescaled}
642: \left\{
643: \begin{array}{lllll}
644: u_t + A (u) u_x =
645: u_{xx},
646: \quad
647: x \in \, ]0, \, L[, \;
648: t \in \, ]0, + \infty [ \\
649: \\
650: u(0, x) = {u}_0 (x), \\
651: \\
652: u(t, 0) = {u}_{b \, 0}(t), \qquad
653: u(t, L) = {u}_{b L}(t) \\
654: \end{array}
655: \right.
656: \end{equation}
657: where $L = l / \varepsilon, \; u_{b \, 0}(t)=\bar{u}_{b \, 0}(t /
658: \varepsilon) , \; u_{b \, L}(t)= \bar{u}_{b \, l}(t / \varepsilon)
659: , \; {u}_{ 0}(x) = \bar{u}_ 0(x / \varepsilon)$. One can easily
660: check that
661: \begin{equation*}
662: \begin{split}
663: & \bv \big\{ \bar{u}_{b \, 0} \big\} = \bv \big\{ {u}_{b \,
664: 0}\big\}
665: \leq \delta_1
666: \qquad
667: \bv \big\{\bar{u}_{b \, l}\big\} = \bv({u}_{b \,L})
668: \leq \delta_1 \\
669: & \qquad \qquad \qquad
670: \bv \big\{\bar{u}_{ 0}\big\} = \bv \big\{{u}_{0} \big\} \leq \delta_1.
671: \end{split}
672: \end{equation*}
673: Moreover, the derivatives of the boundary and initial data
674: satisfy
675: \begin{equation}
676: \label{estimate_upper}
677: \|d^j {u}_0 / dx^j\|_{L^1}, \; \|d^j {u}_{b \, 0} /
678: dt^j\|_{L^1}, \; \|d^j {u}_{b \, L} / dt^j\|_{L^1}
679: \leq M \varepsilon^{j-1}
680: < \delta_1 \quad j= 2, \, \dots n
681: \end{equation}
682: for $\ee$ small enough.
683:
684: The crucial tool in the proof of the convergence of the solution
685: of \eqref{rescaled} as the scaling parameter $\varepsilon \to 0^+$
686: is Helly's theorem. One needs therefore to prove a uniform bound
687: on the total variation, independent on the length of the interval
688: $L$ and on the $L^1$ norm of the boundary and initial data.
689:
690: In Section \ref{parabolic_estimates} we prove a priori bounds on
691: the solution of \eqref{rescaled} that ensure the local existence
692: and smoothness of solution. Moreover, we will show that, as long
693: as the total variation of the solution remains small, the $L^1$
694: norm of $u_{xx}$ is small too and the solution itself can be
695: prolonged in time. The proof is based on the following
696: observation: \eqref{rescaled} can be seen as a perturbed heat
697: equation and therefore one is led to introduce suitable
698: convolution kernels. Since the technique used in this section does
699: not depend on the dimension of the solution $u$, we perform the
700: computations for the $n \times n$ system.
701:
702: In Section \ref{gradient_decomposition} we introduce the crucial
703: tool in the proof of the $BV$ estimates: a suitable decomposition
704: of the gradient of the solution. In the boundary free case
705: \cite{BiaBrevv}, the gradient $u_x$ is decomposed along a suitable
706: set of unit vectors $\tilde r_i$, $i=1,\dots,n$, which correspond
707: to the tangent vectors of the travelling wave profiles of
708: \[
709: u_t + A(u) u_x = u_{xx}.
710: \]
711: In the single boundary case \cite{AnBia}, instead, the gradient
712: $u_x$ is decomposed along $n$ travelling wave profiles (the same
713: as in the boundary free case) and along a boundary profile, i.e. a
714: solution to the stationary system
715: \[
716: u_{xx} = A(u) u_x.
717: \]
718: Such a boundary profile lays on a manifold whose dimension is
719: related to the number of negative eigenvalues of $A(u)$, i.e. to
720: the number of characteristic fields that leave the domain $x >0$.
721:
722: In our case, the basic idea is to split the part of the gradient
723: due to the presence of the initial datum from the part due to the
724: boundary data: the first part will be decomposed along the same
725: tangent vectors $\tilde r_1$, $\tilde r_2$ to travelling wave
726: profiles introduced in \cite{BiaBrevv}. Moreover, following the
727: same ideas as in \cite{AnBia}, in order to decompose the part of
728: the gradient due to the boundary data we use double boundary
729: profiles, i.e. suitable solutions of the stationary system
730: \begin{equation}
731: \label{eq_system_bp}
732: \left\{
733: \begin{array}{ll}
734: u_x = p, \\
735: p_x = A(u)p.
736: \end{array}
737: \right.
738: \end{equation}
739: In the linear case the two components of the system
740: \eqref{eq_system_bp} are decoupled and one can show that there is
741: a solution of the boundary value problem
742: \begin{equation}
743: \label{eq_system_bvp}
744: \left\{
745: \begin{array}{lll}
746: u_x = p, \\
747: p_x = A(u)p, \\
748: u(0) = U_{b \, 0}, \quad
749: u(L) = U_{b \, L}
750: \end{array}
751: \right.
752: \end{equation}
753: with total variation uniformly bounded with respect to $L$.
754:
755: In the general case, the idea is to emulate the linear case, using
756: the center-stable manifold theorem coupled with a contraction
757: mapping argument: one finds that, provided the difference ${|U_{b
758: \, 0}- U_{b \, L}|}$ is small, there is a solution of
759: \eqref{eq_system_bvp} with uniformly bounded total variation. Such
760: a solution can be seen as the sum of two components, one
761: exponentially decreasing as $x \to + \infty$, the other as $x \to
762: - \infty$: we will denote by $\hat{r}_1$ and $\hat{r}_2$ the
763: tangent vectors to the first and the second part respectively. It
764: is important to underline, however, that in the non linear case
765: the two components are coupled: indeed, one finds that
766: $\hat{\lambda}_1$, the speed of exponential decay of the first
767: component, depends also on the second component, and viceversa
768: $\hat{\lambda}_2$ depends on the first component. The introduction
769: of the generalized eigenvalues $\hat{\lambda}_1$ and
770: $\hat{\lambda}_2$ allows the equations satisfied by the components
771: of the decomposition to be exactly in conservation form.
772:
773: The decomposition of the gradient along travelling waves profiles
774: and double boundary layers takes the form
775: \begin{equation}
776: \label{eq_the_decomposition}
777: u_x = v_1 \tilde{r}_1 +
778: v_2 \tilde{r}_2 +
779: p_1 \hat{r}_1 +
780: p_2 \hat{r}_2.
781: \end{equation}
782: In Section \ref{par_double_bp} we will show that, because of the
783: triangular structure of the matrix $A$, the vector $\tilde{r}_2$
784: and $\hat{r}_2$ can be chosen to be identically equal to $r_2 =
785: (0, \, 1)$ and $\hat{\lambda}_1$ is identically equal to
786: $\lambda_1$.
787:
788: Note that \eqref{eq_the_decomposition} is a system of 2 equations
789: in 4 unknowns: this allows some freedom in choosing in the most
790: suitable way the boundary and initial conditions. The precise
791: expression of all the boundary and Cauchy data we will impose on
792: $v_1, \; v_2, \; p_1$ and $p_2$ can be found in Section
793: \ref{boundary_conditions}, in the following however we will sketch
794: the crucial ideas involved in the choice of those conditions.
795:
796: We need a preliminary observation: besides that in the choice of
797: the boundary conditions, some freedom is also allowed in the
798: attribution of the source terms. Indeed, if one inserts
799: \eqref{eq_the_decomposition} in the system
800: \begin{equation*}
801: u_t + A(u) u_x - u_{xx} =0
802: \end{equation*}
803: obtains the equations
804: \begin{equation*}
805: \begin{split}
806: & v_{1 t } +(\lambda_1 v_1)_x - v_{1 xx}+
807: p_{1 t } +(\lambda_1 p_1)_x - p_{1 xx} = 0 \\
808: & v_{2 t } +(\lambda_2 v_2)_x - v_{2 xx}+
809: p_{2 t } +(\hat{\lambda}_2 p_2)_x - p_{2 xx} = \tilde{s}_1(t, \, x) \\
810: \end{split}
811: \end{equation*}
812: for some function $\tilde{s}_1$ whose exact expression can be
813: found in the Appendix \ref{explicit_source_t} and is not important
814: at the moment: however, it is crucial to observe that it is
815: identically zero when the solution is exactly a travelling wave or
816: a double boundary profile. Moreover, in general such a source term
817: is spread on the whole interval $]0, \, L[$: since $p_2$, the part
818: of the double boundary layer exponentially decaying as $x \to -
819: \infty$, should be affected only by the datum in $x=L$, it seems
820: reasonable to impose
821: \begin{equation}
822: \label{cons_laws}
823: \begin{split}
824: & v_{1 t } +(\lambda_1 v_1)_x - v_{1 xx}=0
825: \qquad \qquad \; \; \;
826: p_{1 t } +(\lambda_1 p_1)_x - p_{1 xx} = 0 \\
827: & v_{2 t } +(\lambda_2 v_2)_x - v_{2 xx} = \tilde{s}_1(t,
828: \,x)
829: \qquad
830: p_{2 t } +(\hat{\lambda}_2 p_2)_x - p_{2 xx} =
831: 0. \\
832: \end{split}
833: \end{equation}
834:
835: As regards the boundary and initial data we impose on the
836: components $p_1$, $p_2$, $v_1$ and $v_2$, we first observe that,
837: since $p_1$ and $p_2$ are the components of $u_x$ along double
838: boundary profiles, we don't want them to be influenced by the
839: initial datum. Hence we impose
840: \begin{equation*}
841: p_1 (0, \, x) \equiv 0
842: \qquad
843: p_2 (0, \, x) \equiv 0.
844: \end{equation*}
845: Moreover, $p_1$ is the exponential decreasing component of the
846: boundary profile and hence it should not be affected too much by
847: the datum on the boundary $x=L$: more precisely, since the goal is
848: to establish a uniform bound on the $L^1$ norm of $p_1$, it seems
849: reasonable to look for some boundary condition that minimizes the
850: increment of $\| p_1\|_{L^1(0, \, L)}$ due to the datum on the
851: boundary $x=L$. An integration by parts ensures that
852: \begin{equation*}
853: \frac{d }{ dt} \int_0^L |p_1 (t, \, x)| \leq
854: |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 |(t, \, L) +
855: |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 |(t, \, 0)
856: \end{equation*}
857: and therefore we will impose
858: \begin{equation*}
859: |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 |(t, \, L) \equiv 0
860: \end{equation*}
861: and, by analogous considerations,
862: \begin{equation*}
863: |p_{2 x} - \hat{\lambda}_2 p_2 |(t, \, 0) \equiv 0.
864: \end{equation*}
865: On the other hand, $v_1$ and $v_2$ are the components of $u_x$
866: along travelling profiles and therefore we don't want them to be
867: strongly influenced by the presence of the boundary data. We
868: observe that, in the hyperbolic limit
869: \begin{equation*}
870: u_t + A(u) u_x =0,
871: \end{equation*}
872: the waves of the first family go out from the domain through the
873: boundary $x=0$: we would like to emulate such a behavior in the
874: parabolic approximation. More precisely, since the aim is to show
875: a uniform bound on the $L^1$ norm of $v_1$, we look for some
876: boundary condition that ensures that the derivative of the wave in
877: the parabolic approximation crosses the boundary, as in the
878: hyperbolic limit. To make the situation clearer, it is useful to
879: consider the simple examples that follow: consider the linear
880: scalar equation
881: \begin{equation}
882: \label{eq_linear}
883: z_t + \lambda_1^{\ast}z_x - z_{xx} =0
884: \end{equation}
885: with some Dirichlet condition imposed on the boundaries $x=0$ and
886: $x=L$, for example
887: \begin{equation}
888: \label{eq_dirichlet}
889: z(t, \, 0) \equiv 0, \qquad
890: z(t, \, L ) \equiv 1.
891: \end{equation}
892: Moreover, let $z^{D}(t, \, x)$ be a solution of \eqref{eq_linear}
893: and \eqref{eq_dirichlet}: the initial condition is not important
894: at the moment, but suppose for simplicity that $\bv \big\{
895: z^{D}(0, \, x) \big\} =1$. For sure $\bv \big\{ z^{D}(t)\big\} \ge
896: 1$ and hence the derivative of $z^{D}$ cannot cross the boundary
897: $x=0$, or at least the loss of total variation that occurs at
898: $x=0$ has to be compensated by an increase at $x=L$.
899:
900: On the other hand, let $z^{N}(t, \, x)$ be a solution of
901: \eqref{eq_linear} that satisfies a homogeneous Neumann condition
902: at $x=0$, for example
903: \begin{equation*}
904: z_x^{N}(t, \, 0) \equiv 0,
905: \qquad z^{N}(t, \, L) \equiv 1,
906: \end{equation*}
907: then an integration by parts ensures that
908: \begin{equation*}
909: \frac{d}{dt} \int_0^L |z^N_x(t, \, x)| dx \leq
910: - |z^N_{xx}(t, \, 0)|,
911: \end{equation*}
912: and hence the total variation of $z^{N}$ is flowing out from the
913: domain through the boundary $x=0$.
914: %Note that in this case the
915: %stationary solution is the constant $z^{N}(t, \, x) \equiv 1$,
916: %whose derivative is identically zero.
917:
918: Hence we are are led by the previous considerations to impose on
919: the boundary $x=0$ a homogeneous Dirichlet condition on the
920: function $v_1$, which corresponds to the derivative of a
921: travelling wave of the first family:
922: \begin{equation*}
923: v_1 (t, \, 0) \equiv 0.
924: \end{equation*}
925: The considerations that motivate the choice
926: \begin{equation*}
927: v_2 (t, \, L) \equiv 0
928: \end{equation*}
929: are completely analogous.
930:
931: In Section \ref{BV_estimates} we exploit the decomposition
932: \eqref{eq_the_decomposition} to prove that the total variation is
933: uniformly bounded by $\unpo \delta_1$. As we will see, the crucial
934: point is to prove that, if $\bv \big\{ u_x(\sigma) \big\} \leq
935: \unpo \delta_1$ for all $\sigma \leq t$, then it holds an estimate
936: of order two on the integrals of the source term:
937: \begin{equation}
938: \label{eq_bound_order2}
939: \int_0^{t} \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_1(\sigma, \, x)| dx d \sigma \leq \unpo
940: \delta_1^2.
941: \end{equation}
942: To show \eqref{eq_bound_order2} we will basically deal with each
943: of the term that appear in the expression of $\tilde{s}_1$
944: separately. Some of the estimates are based on the same techniques
945: described in \cite{BiaBrevv}: in particular we will use the interaction,
946: area and length functional introduced in the boundary free case.
947: Some estimates, on the other hand, require quite long computations
948: and can be found in the appendix.
949:
950: In Section \ref{stability_estimates} we will prove the stability
951: of the vanishing viscosity approximation with respect to $L^1$
952: perturbations. More precisely, let $u_0, \; u_{b \, 0}, \; u_{b \,
953: L}$ and $v_0, \; v_{b \, 0}, \; v_{b \, L}$ be the initial and
954: boundary data of two solutions $u$ and $v$ of problem
955: \eqref{rescaled}: we will show that there exists a constant $L_1$
956: such that
957: \begin{equation*}
958: \| u( t) - v(t) \|_{L^1(0,L)}
959: \leq L_1 \Big( \|u_0 - v_0 \|_{L^1(0, \, L)} +
960: \| u_{b 0} - v_{b 0}\|_{L^1(0, \, t)} +
961: \| u_{b L} - v_{b L}\|_{L^1(0, \, t)} \Big).
962: \end{equation*}
963: Moreover, one has also stability with respect to time: if $u$ is a
964: solution to \eqref{rescaled} then
965: \begin{equation*}
966: \|u(t) - u(s)\|_{L^1} \leq
967: L_2 \big( |t - s| + | \sqrt{t} - \sqrt{s}| \big)
968: \end{equation*}
969: for a suitable constant $L_2$. We will see that the constants
970: $L_1$ and $L_2$ depend uniquely on the matrix $A$ and on the bound
971: $\delta_1$ on the total variation of the initial and boundary
972: data. We will actually give just a sketch of the proof of the
973: stability, since we will show that one can employ the same tools
974: used to prove the $BV$ estimates and repeat with minor changes the
975: computations of Section \ref{BV_estimates}.
976:
977:
978: One can then get back to the solution $\ue$ of the original
979: problem \eqref{vvapproximation} and obtain that for all $\ee >0$
980: it satisfies
981: \begin{equation}
982: \label{estimate_stability}
983: \begin{split}
984: & \bv \big\{ u^{\varepsilon}(t) \big\} \leq \unpo \delta_1
985: \quad \forall \, t>0
986: \qquad
987: \| \ue(t) - u^* \|_{\infty} \leq
988: \unpo \delta_1 \quad \forall \, t > 0 \\
989: & \| u^{\ee }( t) - v^{\ee}(t) \|_{L^1(0, \, L) }
990: \leq L_1 \big( \|\bar{u}_0 -
991: \bar{v}_0 \|_{L^1(0, \, L)} + \| \bar{u}_{b 0} -
992: \bar{v}_{b 0}\|_{L^1(0, \, t)} + \| \bar{u}_{b 0} -
993: \bar{v}_{b L}\|_{L^1(0, \, t)} \big) \\
994: & \|\ue(t) - \ue(s)\|_{L^1} \leq
995: {L}_2 \big( |t - s| + \sqrt{\ee} \, | \sqrt{t} - \sqrt{s}|
996: \big). \\
997: \end{split}
998: \end{equation}
999: In the last estimate, $\bar{u}_0, \; \bar{u}_{b 0} \; \bar{u}_{b
1000: L}$ and $\bar{v}_0, \; \bar{v}_{b 0} \; \bar{v}_{b L}$ are the
1001: initial and boundary data for two solutions $u^{\ee }$ and
1002: $v^{\ee}$ of \eqref{vvapproximation}.
1003: %
1004: % \paragraph{The vanishing viscosity limit}
1005:
1006: The uniform bound on the total variation of the solutions
1007: $u^{\ee}$ of \eqref{vvapproximation} ensures that for any
1008: $(\bar{u}_0, \, \bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \, \bar{u}_{b \, l }) \in \,
1009: \mathcal{U}_{\, 0} \times \mathcal{U}_{\, b} \times \domainub$,
1010: for any $t> 0$ and $\ee_n \to 0^+$ there is a subsequence
1011: $\ee_{n_k}$ such that $u^{\ee_{n_k}}(t)$ converges in $L^1(0, \,
1012: l)$ to some limit function we will denote by $\semi$. Letting $\ee
1013: \to 0^+$ in \eqref{estimate_stability} one finds that the limit
1014: satisfies the stability estimate
1015: \begin{equation}
1016: \label{stability_wrt_l1_t_II}
1017: \begin{split}
1018: \Bigl\| \semi - p_s [ \bar{v}_{0}, \, \bar{v}_{b \, 0}, \,
1019: \bar{v}_{b \, l} ] \Bigr\|_{L^1} \leq
1020: & L_1 \bigg( \|\bar{v}_{ 0} - \bar{u}_{0}\|_{L^1(0, \, l)}+
1021: \|\bar{v}_{b 0} - \bar{u}_{b 0}\|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)}\\
1022: & + \|\bar{v}_{b l} - \bar{u}_{b l}\|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)} \bigg)+
1023: L_2 |t -s|. \\
1024: \end{split}
1025: \end{equation}
1026: By a standard diagonalization procedure one can show that there is
1027: a subsequence that converges for any rational time $t$ and for any
1028: $(\bar{u}_0, \, \bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \, \bar{u}_{b \, l})$ in a
1029: countable dense set of $\mathcal{U}_0 \times \mathcal{U}_{\, b}
1030: \times \mathcal{U}_{\, b}$; the density is here intended in the
1031: $L^1$ norm. Then by the estimate \eqref{stability_wrt_l1_t_II}
1032: $\semi$ must be defined on close sets of times and boundary and
1033: initial data. Hence $\semi$ is defined for any $t \ge 0$ and for
1034: all $ (\bar{u}_0, \, \bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \, \bar{u}_{b \, l}) \in
1035: \mathcal{U}_{\, 0} \times \mathcal{U}_{\, b} \times
1036: \mathcal{U}_{\, b}$.
1037:
1038: One can actually check that the operator
1039: \begin{equation*}
1040: \begin{split}
1041: & S: [0, \, + \infty] \times \mathcal{U}_{\, 0}
1042: \times \mathcal{U}_{\, b} \times \mathcal{U}_{\, b}
1043: \to
1044: \mathcal{D}_{\, 0}
1045: \times \mathcal{U}_{\, b} \times \mathcal{U}_{\, b} \\
1046: & \quad \; \; (t, \, \bar{u}_0, \, \bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \,
1047: \bar{u}_{b \, l})
1048: \qquad \quad \; \; \mapsto
1049: \bigg( \semi, \,
1050: \bar{u}_{b \, 0}( \, \cdot \, + t), \,
1051: \bar{u}_{b \, l}(\, \cdot \, + t) \bigg) \\
1052: \end{split}
1053: \end{equation*}
1054: satisfies the semigroup property
1055: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1056: % \subsection{Uniqueness of the semigroup of vanishing viscosity solutions}
1057:
1058: To complete the proof of Theorem \ref{T:2} one is therefore left
1059: to show the uniqueness of the semigroup of vanishing viscosity
1060: solutions: indeed, different sequences $u^{\ee_n}(t)$,
1061: $u^{\nu_n}(t)$ could a priori converge to different limits.
1062:
1063: The proof of the uniqueness of the vanishing viscosity limit can
1064: be found in Section \ref{par_viscosity_solutions} and, following
1065: the same ideas as in \cite{BiaBrevv}, the crucial step will be to
1066: show that the semigroup defined via vanishing viscosity
1067: approximation is actually a {\it viscosity solution} in the sense
1068: of \cite{AmaCol}.
1069:
1070:
1071: We refer to Section \ref{par_viscosity_solutions} for the precise
1072: statement, here however we underline that the definition of
1073: viscosity solution is based on local estimates that ensure,
1074: roughly speaking, a "good behavior" in comparison with the
1075: solutions of a suitable Riemann problem and of a suitable linear
1076: problem.
1077:
1078: The
1079: notion of viscosity solution was first described in the
1080: conservative boundary free case in \cite{Bre:Gli} and was strictly
1081: connected to the definition of Standard Riemann Semigroup (SRS)
1082: that was introduced in the same paper. For completeness, we recall
1083: here that a SRS is Lipschitz continuous with respect to the $L^1$
1084: norm and in the case of piecewise constant initial data locally
1085: coincides with the standard Riemann solver defined by Lax in
1086: \cite{Lax}. In \cite{Bre:Gli} it is proved that if a SRS semigroup
1087: exists, then it necessarily coincides with the wave-front tracking
1088: limit and with the viscosity solution. One of the main advantages
1089: one gains introducing the notion of viscosity solution is
1090: therefore the characterization of global behaviors through local
1091: ones.
1092:
1093: The definition of SRS semigroup and of viscosity solution was
1094: extended to conservative boundary value problems in \cite{AmaCol}.
1095: Moreover, in the same paper it was proved that, also in the case
1096: of an initial-boundary value problem, if a SRS exist then it
1097: necessarily coincides with the wave-front tracking limit and with
1098: the viscosity solution. Hence the uniqueness of the SRS semigroup
1099: comes from the uniqueness of the wave-front tracking limit, proved
1100: in \cite{DonMar}.
1101:
1102: From the previous works it is clear that a crucial step in the
1103: definition of viscosity solution is the description of the
1104: Riemann solver and of the boundary Riemann solver. \\
1105: As mentioned before, a solution of the Riemann problem in the
1106: boundary free case was introduced by Lax (\cite{Lax}) for
1107: conservative systems in the case of linearly degenerate or
1108: genuinely non linear fields. Such a definition was then extended
1109: by Liu (\cite{Liu:riemann}) to very general conservative systems.
1110: The characterization of the Riemann solver for non conservative
1111: systems was introduced in \cite{BiaBrevv}, where it was also
1112: proved the effective convergence of the vanishing viscosity
1113: solutions and it was extended in the natural way the notion of SRS
1114: and of viscosity solution.
1115:
1116: As concerns boundary Riemann solvers, a solution of the initial
1117: boundary value problem
1118: \begin{equation}
1119: \label{eq_boundary_Riemann}
1120: \left\{
1121: \begin{array}{ll}
1122: u_t + A(u) u_x =0 \\
1123: \\
1124: u(t, \, 0) \equiv \bar{u}_b
1125: \quad
1126: u(0, \, x) \equiv \bar{u}_0,
1127: \end{array}
1128: \right.
1129: \end{equation}
1130: was proposed in \cite{DubLeFl} in the case of systems in
1131: conservation form with only linearly degenerate or genuinely non
1132: linear fields: such a boundary Riemann solver is in general
1133: different from the one defined by the vanishing viscosity limit
1134: (some more precise considerations can be found in Remark
1135: \ref{rem_comparison}). On the other side, in \cite{Good,
1136: SabTou:mixte, Ama} and \cite{AmaCol} it was considered a quite
1137: general boundary condition, which turns out to be compatible with
1138: the one defined by the limit of vanishing viscosity
1139: approximations: we refer again to Remark \ref{rem_comparison} for
1140: a more precise statement. We underline, moreover, that a study of
1141: the boundary conditions defined by the limit of the general
1142: parabolic approximation
1143: \begin{equation*}
1144: \ue_t + f(\ue)_x = \ee \big( B(\ue) \ue_x \big)_x
1145: \end{equation*}
1146: can be found in \cite{Gisclon-Serre:etudes, Gisclon:etudes,
1147: Rousset:inviscid, Serre-Zum, Rousset:residual, Rousset:char} in
1148: the case of systems in conservation form. Finally, the Riemann
1149: solver for boundary value problems non necessarily in conservation
1150: form was first described in \cite{AnBia}; in this paper it was
1151: also extended in the natural way the notion of SRS and of
1152: viscosity solution.
1153:
1154: In Section \ref{par_riemann} we will describe the Riemann solver
1155: and the boundary Riemann solver defined by the vanishing viscosity
1156: limit, which however have an interest in their own. The problem
1157: dealt with is actually a particular case of the one solved in
1158: \cite{AnBia}, where also the characteristic case was considered,
1159: but since the reduction to our case is not completely trivial, we
1160: will describe it explicitly. In particular, we will consider the
1161: vanishing viscosity solution of the boundary Riemann problem
1162: \eqref{eq_boundary_Riemann}. Let $u(0^+)=\lim_{x \to 0^+}u(t, \,
1163: x)$ be the trace of the solution on the axis $x=0$, which does not
1164: depend on time since the solution $u$ is self-similar. We will
1165: show that there exists a solution of the ODE
1166: \begin{equation}
1167: \label{eq_parabolic_one}
1168: A(U) U_x = U_{xx}
1169: \end{equation}
1170: such that
1171: \begin{equation*}
1172: U( 0) = \bar{u}_b,
1173: \quad
1174: \lim_{x \to + \infty} U(x) = u(0^+).
1175: \end{equation*}
1176: In other words, the boundary datum $\bar{u}_b$ does not
1177: necessarily coincide with the trace $u(0^+)$, but it certainly
1178: lays on the stable manifold of $u(0^+)$ with respect to the ODE
1179: \eqref{eq_parabolic_one}.
1180:
1181:
1182:
1183: \vspace{0.5cm}
1184:
1185: \begin{rem} The fact that the bounds on the total variation are uniform
1186: with respect to the length $L$ of the interval implies that, for
1187: any fixed $\ee>0$, one can let $L \to + \infty$ in
1188: \eqref{rescaled}. Hence, coming back to the original system
1189: \eqref{vvapproximation} one finds that also the solutions of
1190: \begin{equation*}
1191: \left\{
1192: \begin{array}{lllll}
1193: u^{\varepsilon}_t + A (u^{\varepsilon}) u^{\varepsilon}_x =
1194: \varepsilon u^{\varepsilon}_{xx},
1195: \quad
1196: x \in \, ]0, \, + \infty[, \quad
1197: t \in \, ]0, + \infty [ \\
1198: \\
1199: u^{\varepsilon}(0, x) = \bar{u}_0 (x)\\
1200: \\
1201: u^{\varepsilon}(t, 0) = \bar{u}_{b \, 0}(t) \\
1202: \end{array}
1203: \right.
1204: \end{equation*}
1205: have total variation uniformly bounded with respect to $\ee$.
1206:
1207: Hence the analysis of the vanishing viscosity approximations of
1208: the initial-one-boundary value problem can be deduced as a limit
1209: case from the study of the two boundaries case.
1210: \end{rem}
1211: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1212: %%%%% %%%%%
1213: %%%%% PARABOLIC ESTIMATES %%%%%
1214: %%%%% %%%%%
1215: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1216:
1217: \section{Parabolic estimates}
1218: \label{parabolic_estimates} In this section we will find a
1219: representation formula for the solution to \eqref{rescaled}
1220: \begin{equation}
1221: \label{rescaled4}
1222: \left\{
1223: \begin{array}{lllll}
1224: u_t + A (u) u_x =
1225: u_{xx},
1226: \quad
1227: x \in \, ]0, \, L[, \;
1228: t \in \, ]0, \, + \infty [ \\
1229: \\
1230: u(0, \, x) = {u}_0 (x), \\
1231: \\
1232: u(t, \, 0) = {u}_{b \, 0}(t), \qquad
1233: u(t, \, L) = {u}_{b L}(t) \\
1234: \end{array}
1235: \right.
1236: \end{equation}
1237: with initial and boundary data satisfying \eqref{E:TVbd},
1238: \eqref{E:noBD} and \eqref{E:bounder}. The aim is to prove that the
1239: solution of \eqref{rescaled4} is regular and that the $L^1$ norm
1240: of the second derivative $\| u_{xx} (t) \|_{L^1(0, L)}$ is
1241: bounded, as soon as the total variation of $u(t)$ remains small.
1242: We will regard \eqref{rescaled4} as a perturbation of the linear
1243: parabolic system with constant coefficients
1244: \begin{equation}
1245: \label{E:vctlin}
1246: u_t + A^{\ast} u_x - u_{xx} = 0.
1247: \end{equation}
1248: Here and in the following we will assume $ A^{\ast}= A( u^{\ast})$
1249: and $\lambda^{\ast}_i = \lambda_i (u^{\ast})$.
1250:
1251:
1252: \subsection{The convolution kernels}
1253: \label{par_conv_kernels }
1254:
1255:
1256: The fundamental step is to study the equation \eqref{rescaled1}
1257: in the scalar case, because the Green kernel for the general
1258: vector case \eqref{E:vctlin} follows by using the base of eigenvectors of $A^\ast$.
1259: %then the vector case follows from the representation
1260: %of the Green kernel in the base of eigenvectors of $A(u^\ast)$.
1261: Thanks to the linearity, we split the Green kernel of the equation
1262: \begin{equation}
1263: \label{linear_equation}
1264: z_t + \lambda_i^{\ast} z_x - z_{xx} =
1265: 0
1266: \end{equation}
1267: into 3 parts:
1268: \begin{enumerate}
1269: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1270: \item $ \Delta^{ \lambda_i^{\ast}}(t,x,y)$ is
1271: the solution of \eqref{linear_equation}
1272: with zero boundary conditions and
1273: initial condition
1274: \begin{equation}
1275: \label{Delta}
1276: \nonumber
1277: \Delta^{\lambda_i^{\ast}} ( 0, \, x, \, y ) =
1278: \delta_y
1279: \,
1280: \quad
1281: y \in \, ]0, L[ \, .
1282: \end{equation}
1283: This function is given by
1284: %
1285: %
1286: % We look for $\Delta^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} }$ in the form
1287: \begin{equation}
1288: \label{Delta_product} %\nonumber
1289: \Delta^{ \lambda_i^{\ast}}(t, x, y) =
1290: \bigg( \sum_{m \, = \,- \infty}^{m \, = \, + \infty}
1291: G (t, x + 2mL -y) -
1292: G (t, x+ 2mL +y ) \bigg)
1293: \phi^{\, \lambda_i^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, y),
1294: \end{equation}
1295: where $G(t, \, x) = \big( e^{- x^2/ 4t} \big) / 2 \sqrt{\pi t}$
1296: is the standard heat kernel and
1297: \begin{equation*}
1298: \phi^{\, \lambda_i^{\ast}}(t, x, y) =
1299: \exp
1300: \bigg(
1301: \frac{
1302: \, \, \lambda_i^{\ast}}{2}
1303: \, (x -y) -
1304: \frac{
1305: \, \, ( \lambda_i^{\ast})^2 }{4} \, t \,
1306: \bigg).
1307: \end{equation*}
1308: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1309: \item $J^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(t, x)$ is
1310: the solution of \eqref{linear_equation})
1311: with zero initial datum and boundary
1312: conditions
1313: \begin{equation}
1314: \label{eq_jzero}
1315: J^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} 0}( t, \, 0 ) = 1
1316: \quad
1317: J^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} 0}( t, \, L) = 0.
1318: \end{equation}
1319: It follows that
1320: \begin{equation}
1321: \label{J_0}
1322: J^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(t, x) =
1323: A \exp \big(
1324: \lambda_i^{\ast} x
1325: \big)
1326: + B -
1327: \int_{0}^{L}
1328: \Delta^{ \lambda_i^{\ast}} (t, x, y)
1329: \bigg(
1330: A \exp \big(
1331: \lambda_i^{\ast} y
1332: \big)
1333: + B
1334: \bigg)
1335: dy,
1336: \end{equation}
1337: with
1338: \begin{equation*}
1339: A = - \frac{1}{
1340: e^{
1341: \lambda_i^{
1342: \ast
1343: } L
1344: } - 1
1345: } \qquad
1346: B = \frac{ e^{
1347: \lambda_i^{
1348: \ast
1349: } L
1350: }
1351: }
1352: {
1353: e^{
1354: \lambda^{
1355: \ast
1356: } L
1357: } - 1
1358: }.
1359: \end{equation*}
1360: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1361: \item $J^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}(t,x)$
1362: is the solution of \eqref{linear_equation}
1363: with zero Cauchy datum and boundary
1364: conditions
1365: \begin{equation}
1366: \label{eq_jelle}
1367: J^{\lambda_i^{\ast} L}( t, 0 ) = 0
1368: \quad
1369: J^{\lambda_i^{\ast} L}( t, L) = 1
1370: \end{equation}
1371: and it is given by
1372: \begin{equation}
1373: \label{eq_J_L}
1374: J^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}(t,x)=
1375: C \exp \big(
1376: \lambda_i^{\ast} x
1377: \big)
1378: + D -
1379: \int_{0}^{L}
1380: \Delta^{ \lambda{\ast}} (t, x, y)
1381: \bigg(
1382: C \exp \big(
1383: \lambda_i^{\ast} y
1384: \big)
1385: + D
1386: \bigg)
1387: dy ,
1388: \end{equation}
1389: where
1390: \begin{equation*}
1391: C = \frac{1}{
1392: e^{
1393: \lambda^{
1394: \ast
1395: } L
1396: } - 1
1397: }
1398: \qquad
1399: D = A = - \frac{ 1
1400: }
1401: {
1402: e^{
1403: \lambda^{
1404: \ast
1405: } L
1406: } - 1
1407: }.
1408: \end{equation*}
1409: \end{enumerate}
1410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1411: Note that all the coefficients $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$ remain bounded
1412: as $ L \to + \infty$. Moreover, one can apply the maximum
1413: principle and, via a comparison with the constant solutions, finds
1414: that $
1415: 0 \leq J^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(t, x), \;
1416: J^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}(t, x)
1417: \leq
1418: 1
1419: $. Hence the integrals
1420: \begin{equation*}
1421: \int_{0}^{T} J^{
1422: \lambda_i^{\ast}\, 0}(t, x) v' (t) dt
1423: \quad %\text{and} \quad
1424: \int_{0}^{T} J^{
1425: \lambda_i^{\ast}\, 0}(t, x) v' (t) dt
1426: \end{equation*}
1427: are well defined for every function $v(t) \in BV(0, \, + \infty)$
1428: and for every $T$.
1429:
1430: In the following, we will also need a further convolution kernel
1431: $\tilde{\Delta}^{\lambda_i^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, y)$ such that
1432: \begin{equation*}
1433: \tilde{\Delta}^{\lambda_i^{\ast}}_y(t,\, x, \, y) +
1434: \Delta^{\lambda_i^{\ast}}_x(t, \, x, \, y) = 0,
1435: \end{equation*}
1436: i.e.
1437: \begin{equation}
1438: \label{eq_def_tilde_delta}
1439: \deltabt(t, \, x, \, y) = \int_y^L
1440: \Delta_x^{\lambda_i^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, z) dz.
1441: \end{equation}
1442: To get the previous formula we have arbitrarily imposed $
1443: \deltabt(t, \, x, \, L) = 0$.
1444:
1445: Note that $\tilde{\Delta}^{\lambda_i^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, 0)$ is
1446: the derivative with respect to $x$ of a function $z(t, \, x)$
1447: which satisfies
1448: $$
1449: z(t, \, x) + J^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(t, \, x) +
1450: J^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}(t, \, x) = 1.
1451: $$
1452: Hence,
1453: \begin{equation}
1454: \label{delta_and_Jx}
1455: \tilde{\Delta}^{\lambda_i^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, 0) +
1456: J_x^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(t, \, x) +
1457: J_x^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}(t, \, x)= 0.
1458: \end{equation}
1459: The following proposition provides some basic estimates on the
1460: convolution kernels we will need later.
1461:
1462: \begin{pro}
1463: \label{estimate_kernels_pro}
1464: The convolution kernel $\Delta^{\lambda_i^{\ast}}$
1465: satisfies
1466: \begin{equation}
1467: \label{estimate_kernels}
1468: \|\deltab(t, \, y)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo
1469: \quad
1470: \| \deltab_x(t, \, y)\|_{L^1} \leq
1471: \unpo / \sqrt{t} \qquad
1472: \forall \, t < 1, \; y \in ]0, \, L[ \, .
1473: \end{equation}
1474: The following estimates hold for the boundary
1475: kernels $J^{\lambda_i^\ast \, 0}$, $J^{\lambda_i^\ast \, L}$:
1476: \begin{equation}
1477: \label{estimate_kernels_I}
1478: \begin{array}{ccccc}
1479: 0 \leq J^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(t, x), \;
1480: J^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}(t, x)
1481: \leq 1 & \forall \, t \geq 0, \; x \in ]0,L[ \\
1482: \\
1483: \|\Jzero_x (t)\|_{L^1},
1484: \| \Jelle_x(t)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo
1485: \quad \forall \; \; 0 < t < 1, \\
1486: \\
1487: \|\Jzero_{xx} (t)\|_{L^1},
1488: \| \Jelle_{xx} (t)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo/\sqrt{t}
1489: \quad \forall \; \; 0 < t <1.
1490: \end{array}
1491: \end{equation}
1492: The auxiliary convolution kernel $\deltabt$ satisfies
1493: estimates analogous to those of $\deltab:$
1494: \begin{equation}
1495: \label{estimate_kernelsII}
1496: \|\deltabt(t, \, y)\|_{L^1}
1497: \leq \unpo \quad
1498: \|\deltabt_x(t, \, y)\|_{L^1} \leq
1499: \unpo / \sqrt{t}
1500: \quad \forall \; 0 < t < 1, \; y \in \, ]0, \, L[ \, .
1501: \end{equation}
1502: \end{pro}
1503: The proof of the proposition can be found in the Appendix \ref{proof_pro_kernels}.
1504:
1505: Now we are ready to deal with the vector case. Let $
1506: \; r^{\ast}_i, \; l^{\ast}_i \; i=1, 2
1507: $ be respectively the left and the right eigenvectors of
1508: $A^{\ast}= A(u^{\ast})$. We define the matrix kernels
1509: \begin{equation}
1510: \begin{array}{lll}
1511: \Delta^{ \ast} : =
1512: \sum_{ i= 1}^{2}
1513: \Delta^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} }
1514: r^{\ast}_i \otimes l^{\ast}_i,
1515: &
1516: \tilde{ \Delta}^{ \ast }: =
1517: \sum_{ i= 1}^{2}
1518: \tilde{ \Delta}^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} }
1519: r^{\ast}_i \otimes l^{\ast}_i,
1520: \\
1521: \\
1522: J^{\, \ast \, 0} : =
1523: \sum_{ i= 1}^{2}
1524: J^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0 }
1525: r^{\ast}_i \otimes l^{\ast}_i,
1526: &
1527: J^{ \, \ast \, L} : =
1528: \sum_{ i= 1}^{2}
1529: J^{ \lambda_i^{\ast} \, L }
1530: r^{\ast}_i \otimes l^{\ast}_i.
1531: \end{array}
1532: \end{equation}
1533: By construction these are the matrix kernels for the initial data
1534: corresponding to the cases 1, 2 and 3 considered above (equations
1535: \eqref{Delta}, \eqref{eq_jzero} and \eqref{eq_jelle}
1536: respectively).
1537:
1538:
1539: \subsection{Parabolic estimates}
1540: \label{sub_paraboli_estimates} The solution of equation
1541: \eqref{rescaled4} can be written as
1542: %%%%%%SOLUTION%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1543: \begin{equation}
1544: \label{solution}
1545: \begin{split}
1546: u (t, \, x) =&~
1547: \int_{0}^{L} \Delta^{\ast}(t, x, y) u_0 (y) dy +
1548: u_0 (0) J^{\, \ast \, 0}(t, \, x) +
1549: \int_{0}^{t}
1550: J^{\, \ast\, 0}( t - s, x ) u'_{b 0} (s) ds
1551: + u_0 (L) J^{\, \ast \, L }(t, \, x)
1552: \\ &~ +
1553: \int_{0}^{t}
1554: J^{\, \ast \, L}( t - s, x ) u'_{b L} (s) ds
1555: + \int_{0}^{t} \int_{0}^{L}
1556: \Delta^{ \ast}(t-s, x, y)
1557: \big(
1558: A^{\ast} - A(u)
1559: \big) u_y (s, y)dy ds, \\
1560: % & \quad \\
1561: \end{split}
1562: \end{equation}
1563: and therefore, recalling \eqref{delta_and_Jx} and integrating by
1564: parts,
1565: \begin{equation}
1566: \label{solution_x}
1567: \begin{split}
1568: u_x (t, \, x) =&~
1569: \int_{0}^{L} \tilde{\Delta}^{\ast}
1570: (t, x, y) u'_{0}(y) dy +
1571: \int_{0}^{t}
1572: J_x^{ \, \ast \, 0}( t - s, \, x ) u'_{b 0} (s) ds +
1573: \int_{0}^{t}
1574: J_x^{ \, \ast \, L}( t - s, \, x ) u'_{b L} (s) ds \\
1575: &~ +
1576: \int_{0}^{t} \int_{0}^{L}
1577: \tilde{\Delta}^{\ast}(t-s, \, x, \, y)
1578: \bigg(
1579: \Big( A^{\ast} - A(u) \Big)
1580: u_{yy} - DA(u) \Big( u_y \otimes u_y \Big)
1581: \bigg) (s, \, y)dy ds \\
1582: &~ +
1583: J_x^{\, \ast \, L}(t, \, x)
1584: \big( u_0(L) - u_0 ( 0) \big) -
1585: \int_0^t
1586: \big( J_x^{\, \ast \, 0}+
1587: J_x^{\, \ast \, L}
1588: \big) (t-s , \, x)
1589: ( A^{\ast} - A(u) ) u_x (s, \, 0) ds. \\
1590: \end{split}
1591: \end{equation}
1592: From the previous expression we immediately have that, as long as
1593: it can be prolonged, the solution is regular. Moreover, the local
1594: existence of a solution of equation \eqref{rescaled4} follows from
1595: the representation formulas \eqref{solution} and
1596: \eqref{solution_x} via the contraction map theorem.
1597:
1598: We can now use the representation \eqref{solution_x} to prove the
1599: following proposition.
1600:
1601: \begin{pro}
1602: \label{pro_u_xx}
1603: If
1604: $
1605: \| u_x (t )\|_{L^1} \leq \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1
1606: $ for all $t \in [ 0, \, 1 ]$,
1607: % $$
1608: then
1609: $$
1610: \| u_{xx} (t )\|_{L^1} \leq \frac{\mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1}{\sqrt{t}}
1611: \quad \forall \; t \in [ 0, \, 1 ].
1612: $$
1613: \end{pro}
1614: \begin{proof}
1615: From \eqref{solution_x} we get
1616: \begin{equation}
1617: \label{eq_u_xx}
1618: \begin{split}
1619: u_{xx}(t, \, x)
1620: =&~
1621: \int_{0}^{L}
1622: \tilde{\Delta}_x^{\ast}(t, \, x, \, y)
1623: u'_{0 } (y) dy +
1624: \int_{0}^{t}
1625: J_{xx}^{\, \ast \, 0}( t - s, x ) u'_{b 0} (s) ds +
1626: \int_{0}^{t}
1627: J_{xx}^{ \, \ast \, L}( t - s, x ) u'_{b L} (s) ds \\
1628: &~+
1629: \int_{0}^{t} \int_{0}^{L}
1630: \tilde{\Delta}_{x }^{\ast}(t-s, \, x, \, y)
1631: \bigg(
1632: \Big(
1633: A^{\ast} - A(u)
1634: \Big) u_{yy}
1635: - DA (u)\Big( u_y \otimes u_y \Big)
1636: \bigg)(s, y) dy ds \\
1637: &~ +
1638: J_{xx}^{\, \ast \, L}(t, \, x)
1639: \big( u_0(L) -u_0 (0) \big) -
1640: \int_{0}^{t}
1641: \big( J_{xx}^{ \, \ast \, 0} +
1642: J_{xx}^{ \, \ast \, L}
1643: \big) ( t-s, \, x)
1644: \Big(
1645: A^{\ast} - A(u)
1646: \Big) u_x (s, 0) ds. \\
1647: % &~
1648: \end{split}
1649: \end{equation}
1650: The previous representation formula shows that the function $ t
1651: \mapsto \|u_{xx} (t)\|_{L^1}$ is continuous.
1652:
1653: We claim that there is a constant $C$ independent from $L$ such
1654: that
1655: $$
1656: \|u_{xx} (t) \|_{L^1} \leq \frac{C\delta_1}{ \sqrt{t}}
1657: \qquad \forall \, t <1.
1658: $$
1659: Indeed, for a fixed large constant $C$, define
1660: $$
1661: \tau = \inf \biggl\{ t : \;
1662: \|u_{xx} (t) \|_{L^1} \geq \frac{C}{ \sqrt{t}} \delta_1 \biggr\}.
1663: $$
1664: The time $\tau$ is strictly bigger than $0$ if $C$ is sufficiently large,
1665: since by hypothesis $\|u_0 ''\|_{L^1}$ is finite.
1666: Moreover, one has $\|u_{xx} (\tau)\|_{L^1} = C \delta_1 /
1667: \sqrt{\tau}$ thanks to the continuity of the map $ t \mapsto
1668: \|u_{xx} (t)\|_{L^1}$.
1669:
1670: From \eqref{eq_u_xx} it follows that
1671: \begin{equation*}
1672: \begin{split}
1673: \|u_{xx}(\tau)\|_{L^1} = \frac{C}{ \sqrt{\tau}} \delta_1
1674: & \leq
1675: \|\Delta_x^{\ast} (\tau)\|_{L^1} \, \|u'_0\|_{L^1} +
1676: \unpo \delta_1 \int_0^{\tau} \|u_{yy} (s)\|_{L^1} \,
1677: \|\Delta_x^{\ast}(\tau - s)\|_{L^1} ds +
1678: 2 \delta_1 \int_0^{\tau}
1679: \frac{\unpo}{\sqrt{\tau -s}} \, ds \\
1680: & \quad + \frac{ \unpo}{\sqrt{\tau}} \delta_1 +
1681: 2 \delta_1^2 \int_0^t \frac{\unpo \, C}{\sqrt{s ( \tau - s})} \, ds \\
1682: & \leq \frac{ 2 \unpo \delta_1}{\sqrt{\tau}}+
1683: 2 \unpo \, C \delta_1^2 +
1684: 2 \unpo \, \sqrt{\tau} \delta_1, \\
1685: \end{split}
1686: \end{equation*}
1687: which is a contradiction if $C$ is large enough and $\delta_1$ sufficiently small.
1688: In the previous
1689: estimate we have used the bounds
1690: $$
1691: \qquad \qquad \qquad
1692: \| u_{b \, 0}'\|_{L^{\infty} } \leq
1693: \| u_{ b \, 0} ''\|_{ L^1 } \leq
1694: \delta_1
1695: \qquad \qquad %\qquad \qquad
1696: \int_0^{\tau} \frac{1}{\sqrt{s (\tau - s)}} \, ds = \pi.
1697: $$
1698: \end{proof}
1699: If $ t > 1$ and $\|u_x(s)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo \delta_1$ for any $s
1700: \in [0, \, t]$ , we can apply the previous proposition to the
1701: interval $ [ t - 1, \, t ]$ and obtain
1702: $$
1703: \| u_{ xx} ( t) \|_{L^1 } \leq \mathrm \mathrm{O}(1) \delta_1
1704: \quad t \geq 1.
1705: $$
1706: Since the derivative $u_x$ is regular, this implies in particular
1707: that, if $\|u_{x} (s)\|_{L^1} \leq \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1$ for
1708: any $s \leq t$, then $ \|u_x (t) \|_{L^{\infty}} \leq
1709: \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1$ if $ t \geq 1$: in other words, as long
1710: as $u_x$ remains small in the $L^1$ norm, it remains small in the
1711: $L^{\infty}$ norm too.
1712: % This allows the estimate
1713: % $$
1714: % | \lambda_{ix}| \leq \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1
1715: % \quad i =1, \; 2.
1716: % $$
1717: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1718: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1719: %%%%% %%%%%
1720: %%%%% GRADIENT DECOMPOSITION %%%%%
1721: %%%%% %%%%%
1722: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1723: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1724: \section{Gradient decomposition}
1725: \label{gradient_decomposition}
1726: \subsection{Double boundary layers and travelling waves}
1727: \label{par_double_bp} In this section we will introduce a suitable
1728: decomposition of the gradient of the solution to
1729: \eqref{rescaled},
1730: \begin{equation*}
1731: \left\{
1732: \begin{array}{lllll}
1733: u_t + A (u) u_x =
1734: u_{xx},
1735: \quad
1736: x \in \, ]0, \, L[, \quad
1737: t \in \, ]0, + \infty [ \\
1738: \\
1739: u(0, x) = {u}_0 (x), \\
1740: \\
1741: u(t, 0) = {u}_{b \, 0}(t), \qquad
1742: u(t, L) = {u}_{b L}(t). \\
1743: \end{array}
1744: \right.
1745: \end{equation*}
1746: We will employ a decomposition in the form
1747: \begin{equation}
1748: \label{eq_decomposition}
1749: u_x = v_1 \tilde{r}_1 +
1750: v_2 \tilde{r}_2 +
1751: p_1 \hat{r}_1 +
1752: p_2 \hat{r}_2,
1753: \end{equation}
1754: where the first two terms correspond to
1755: derivatives of travelling waves and the
1756: last two correspond to the derivative of a double boundary profile.
1757: More precisely, $p_1$ is the part of the double boundary profile exponentially
1758: decaying as $x \to +\infty$, $p_2$ is the part exponentially
1759: decaying as $x \to -\infty$.
1760:
1761: The principal results of this section are the construction of the
1762: vectors $\hat r_1$, $\hat r_2$, the description of a decomposition
1763: of $u_x$ in the form \eqref{eq_decomposition}, the computations of
1764: the equations for the $4$ components $v_1$, $v_2$, $p_1$, $p_2$
1765: and finally the choice of the boundary conditions for the same
1766: components. In the description of the decomposition we will focus
1767: mainly on the construction of the double boundary profiles,
1768: because the construction of the travelling wave profiles follows
1769: the same steps as in \cite{BiaBrevv}.
1770:
1771: The construction of the double boundary profile is based on the
1772: following idea: in the linear case, one finds that there is a
1773: solution of the boundary value problem
1774: \begin{equation}
1775: \label{eq_bvp}
1776: \left\{
1777: \begin{array}{lll}
1778: u_x = p, \\
1779: p_x = A(u)p, \\
1780: u(0) = U_{b \, 0}, \quad
1781: u(L) = U_{b \, L}
1782: \end{array}
1783: \right.
1784: \end{equation}
1785: and such a solution is the sum two components: one exponentially
1786: decaying as $x \to + \infty$, the other as $x \to - \infty$.
1787: Moreover, when the length $L$ is very large the solution has the
1788: behavior illustrated in figure \ref{fig_contractions} (on the
1789: left): it is very steep near the boundary $x=0$ because of the
1790: presence of the exponentially decreasing component, then it is
1791: almost horizontal in a large interval and then it is steep again
1792: near the boundary $x=L$ because of the presence of the exponential
1793: decreasing part.
1794:
1795: The idea is to try to simulate such a spatial behavior also in the
1796: non linear case: in this way, when $L$ is large enough the
1797: derivative of the double boundary profile is concentrated near the
1798: boundaries $x=0$ and $x=L$ and therefore there is essentially no
1799: interaction with the travelling wave profiles inside the domain.
1800: This behavior is the same one observes in the hyperbolic limit,
1801: where in $]0,L[$ the solution is generated only by travelling wave
1802: profiles. We will find out that, if $|U_{b \, 0} - U_{b \, L}|$ is
1803: small enough, then there exists indeed a solution of the boundary
1804: value problem \eqref{eq_bvp} with the behavior illustrated in
1805: figure \ref{fig_contractions}.
1806:
1807: In this way, we construct the functions $p_1 \hat{r}_1 (u, \,
1808: p_1)$ and $p_2 \hat{r}_2 (u, \, p_2)$: however, since the
1809: decomposition \eqref{eq_decomposition} is a 2-dimensional vector
1810: equation in 4 scalar unknowns, we have some freedom in assigning
1811: the initial and boundary data for $v_1$, $v_2$, $p_1$ and $p_2$.
1812: The detailed description of the boundary conditions can be found
1813: in Section \ref{boundary_conditions}, but the crucial idea is to
1814: impose some conditions that allow the component $p_1$ and $p_2$ to
1815: behave like the derivative of a double boundary layer, and thus to
1816: be independent from the choice of the initial datum and to be
1817: concentrated near the boundary $x=0$ or $x=L$, respectively. On
1818: the other hand, we want to impose some conditions on the
1819: components $v_1$ and $v_2$ that forces them to behave like the
1820: derivative of waves in the hyperbolic limit, thus flowing out from
1821: the domain through the boundary $x=0$ (waves of the first family)
1822: or through the boundary $x=L$ (waves of the second family).
1823:
1824: Moreover, we have also some freedom in assigning the source terms,
1825: as it will be clear in Section \ref{par_equations}: again the
1826: basic idea we will follow is that $p_2$, which corresponds to the
1827: component of the double boundary profile exponential decaying as
1828: $x \to + \infty$, should be affected only by the datum in $x=L$.
1829: Since in general the source term are spread on the whole interval
1830: $]0, \, L [$, we will impose that the equation for $p_2$ has no
1831: source term.
1832:
1833: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% DOUBLE BOUNDARY PROFILES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1834: \subsubsection{Double boundary profiles}
1835: As a first step, we characterize the solutions of the system
1836: \begin{equation}
1837: \label{boundary_profiles}
1838: \left\{
1839: \begin{array}{ll}
1840: u_x=p \\
1841: p_x= A(u) p
1842: \end{array}
1843: \right.
1844: \end{equation}
1845: that converge with exponential decay to some value $(\bar{u}, \,
1846: 0)$ with $\bar{u}$ in a small enough neighborhood of the value
1847: $u^{\ast}$ defined by the relation \eqref{E:noBD}. Since
1848: $(u^{\ast}, 0)$ is an equilibrium point, we can consider the
1849: linearized system, whose center and stable subspaces are given by
1850: \begin{equation*}
1851: V^c = \{ p = 0 \},
1852: \qquad
1853: V^s = \mathrm{span} \langle r_1 (u^{\ast}) \rangle,
1854: \qquad
1855: V^u = \mathrm{span} \langle r_2(u^{\ast}) \rangle.
1856: \end{equation*}
1857:
1858: Let $(p_1, \, p_2)$ be the coordinates of $p$ with respect to the
1859: base defined by the eigenvalues $r_1(u^{\ast})$ and
1860: $r_2(u^{\ast})$ of $A(u^{\ast})$: thanks to the center-stable
1861: manifold theorem, there exists a regular function
1862: \begin{eqnarray*}
1863: \phi:
1864: \{ (u, p_1) : |u- u^{\ast}|
1865: , |p_1| \leq \varepsilon
1866: \} \subseteq V^c \oplus V^s
1867: & \to & \mathbb{R} \\
1868: % & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
1869: % \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \; \quad
1870: ( u, p_1) & \mapsto &
1871: p_2 = \phi ( u, p_1),
1872: \end{eqnarray*}
1873: which parameterizes the solutions of \eqref{boundary_profiles}
1874: that do not blow up exponentially for $x \to + \infty$. In our
1875: case, one can see that this manifold is made by the orbits which
1876: converge for $x \to + \infty$ to an equilibrium $(\bar{u}, \, 0)$,
1877: with $\bar{u}$ close to $u^{\ast}$ (figure \ref{fig_manifolds}).
1878: In particular this manifold is unique.
1879:
1880: The dimension of this manifold is $dim \, V^c + dim \, V^s$, i.e.
1881: 3 in our case. Since $ p_1 = 0$ implies $p_2 = \phi(u, p_1) = 0$,
1882: we can set $\phi(u, p_1) = p_1 h( u, p_1)$ and $\mathcal{M}^{cs}$
1883: can be described by the following condition:
1884: \begin{equation*}
1885: % \begin{split}
1886: p = p_1 r_1(u^{\ast}) +
1887: p_1 h(u, p_1) r_2(u^{\ast}) %\\
1888: % =&~ p_1
1889: % \left(
1890: % \begin{array}{ll}
1891: % \; 1 \\
1892: % s( u^{\ast})
1893: % \end{array}
1894: % \right)
1895: % + p_1 h(u, p_1)
1896: % \left(
1897: % \begin{array}{ll}
1898: % 0 \\
1899: % 1
1900: % \end{array}
1901: % \right) =
1902: = p_1
1903: \left(
1904: \begin{array}{ll}
1905: \quad 1 \\
1906: f(u, p_1)
1907: \end{array}
1908: \right): =
1909: p_1 \hat{r}_1 (u, p_1). %\\
1910: % \end{split}
1911: \end{equation*}
1912: Inserting the previous expression in the system
1913: \eqref{boundary_profiles}, one obtains
1914: \begin{equation*}
1915: A(u) p_1 \hr= \big( p_1 \hr \big)_x = p_{1 x} \hr +
1916: (p_1)^2 \bigd \hr \hr + p_1 p_{1 x} \hat{r}_{1 \, p}.
1917: \end{equation*}
1918: Let $\ell_1 = (1, \, 0)$: if we multiply the previous expression
1919: by $\ell_1$ we obtain, since $A$ is triangular,
1920: \begin{equation*}
1921: \lambda_1 p_1 = p_{1 x } ,
1922: \end{equation*}
1923: and hence
1924: \begin{equation}
1925: \label{E:commu}
1926: A(u) p_1 \hr = \lambda_1 p_1 \hr + (p_1)^2 \bigd \hr \hr +
1927: \lambda_1
1928: p_1^2 \hat{r}_{1 \, p}.
1929: \end{equation}
1930: It follows that
1931: \begin{equation*}
1932: \hat{r}_1 ( u, \, 0) = r_1(u ) \quad \forall \; u,
1933: \end{equation*}
1934: and therefore
1935: \begin{equation*}
1936: | \hat{r}_1 (u, \, p_1) - r_1(u) |\leq
1937: \mathcal{O}(1)|p_1|.
1938: \end{equation*}
1939: \begin{figure}
1940: \caption{the center-stable manifold $\mathcal{M}^{cs}$ and the
1941: center-unstable manifold $\mathcal{M}^{cu}$ with orbits
1942: exponentially decaying to an equilibrium point as $x \to + \infty$
1943: or $x \to - \infty$, respectively} \label{fig_manifolds}
1944: \begin{center}
1945: \psfrag{Z}{$u$} %\psfrag{E}{$\mathcal{E}$}
1946: \psfrag{M}{$\mathcal{M}^{cu}$} \psfrag{U}{$\mathcal{M}^{cs}$}
1947: \psfrag{V}{$p_1$} \psfrag{W}{$p_2$}
1948: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{manifolds.eps}
1949: \end{center}
1950: \end{figure}
1951:
1952: In a similar way one can also define a regular, 3-dimensional
1953: center-unstable manifold $\mathcal{M}^{cu}$ containing all the
1954: orbits that as $x \to - \infty$ converge with exponential decay to
1955: some point $(\bar{u}, \, 0)$ with $\bar{u}$ close to $u^{\ast}.$
1956: The manifold is parameterized by $V^c \oplus V^u$; moreover, since
1957: the matrix $A$ is triangular, one can choose
1958: \begin{equation*}
1959: \hat{r}_2 \equiv r_2 (u) \equiv
1960: \left(
1961: \begin{array}{ll}
1962: 0 \\
1963: 1
1964: \end{array}
1965: \right).
1966: \end{equation*}
1967: The manifold $\mathcal{M}^{cu}$ is thus described by the
1968: relation $p= p_2 r_2$.
1969:
1970: As a second step, we show that the functions $p_1 \hr$ and $p_2
1971: r_2$ indeed allow us to construct a solution of the two-boundaries
1972: value problem
1973: \begin{equation}
1974: \label{eq_bvpII} \left\{
1975: \begin{array}{lll}
1976: z_{xx} = A(z) z_x, \\
1977: z(0) = U_{b \, 0} \quad
1978: z(L) = U_{b \, L}
1979: \end{array}
1980: \right.
1981: \end{equation}
1982: Decomposing $z_x$ as
1983: \[
1984: z_x = p_1 \hr (z, \, p_1) + p_2 r_2
1985: \]
1986: and using the relation \eqref{E:commu}, we obtain the system
1987: \begin{equation}
1988: \label{E:systedec}
1989: \left\{
1990: \begin{array}{lll}
1991: z_x = p_1 \hr (z, \, p_1) + p_2 r_2, \\
1992: p_{1x} = \lambda_1(z) p_1, \\
1993: p_{2x} = \hat \lambda_2(z, \, p_1) p_2
1994: \end{array}
1995: \right.
1996: \end{equation}
1997: where we have defined
1998: \begin{equation}
1999: \label{eq_hat_lambda}
2000: \hat{\lambda}_2(u, \, p_1) :=
2001: \lambda_2(u) - p_1
2002: \langle \hat{\ell}_2, \,
2003: \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 r_2 \rangle ,
2004: \end{equation}
2005: where the vector $\hat{\ell}_2$ satisfies $\langle \hat{\ell}_2,
2006: \, \hr \rangle=0$ and $\langle \hat{\ell}_2, \, r_2 \rangle=1$.
2007: Hence, while in the linear case the two components of the solution
2008: of the system \eqref{eq_bvpII} are decoupled, in the general case
2009: there is a coupling in the equation of $z$, and in the choice of
2010: $\hat \lambda_2$, which is in some sense the effective eigenvalue
2011: for $p_2$. Note that
2012: \begin{equation}
2013: \label{eq_gen_eigen}
2014: \big|
2015: \hat \lambda_2(u,p_1) - \lambda_2(u)
2016: \big|\leq
2017: \mathcal{O}(1) p_1.
2018: \end{equation}
2019: An application of contraction principle ensures that, if $|U_{b \,
2020: 0} - U_{b \, L}| \leq \delta_1$ for a small enough $\delta_1$,
2021: then the above system with boundary data $z(0) = U_{b \, 0}$,
2022: $z(L) = U_{b \, L}$
2023: % \begin{equation*}
2024: % \left\{
2025: % \begin{array}{lll}
2026: % w_x = p_1 \hr (w, \, p_1) + p_2 r_2 \\
2027: % A(w) w_x = w_{xx} \\
2028: % w(0) = w_{b \, 0}
2029: % \qquad
2030: % w(L) = w_{b \, L}
2031: % \end{array}
2032: % \right.
2033: % \end{equation*}
2034: has a unique solution. %: this means that the double boundary
2035: %layers we have found solve the stationary problem
2036: %associated to equation \eqrefrescaled}).
2037: Moreover, one also finds that $\big| \hat \lambda_2(u, \, p_1) -
2038: \lambda(u)\big| \leq \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1$.
2039:
2040: Since $\lambda_1 < 0$, $\hat \lambda_2 > 0$ for $\delta_1 \ll 1$,
2041: we obtain that $p_1$ is exponentially decaying, while $p_2$ is
2042: exponentially increasing. We can thus figure the double boundary
2043: profile as follows (figure \ref{fig_contractions}): when the
2044: length $L$ of the interval is very large, the solution will be
2045: steep near zero, because in that region $p_1$ varies exponentially
2046: fast. Then it will be almost horizontal for a long interval and
2047: becomes again very steep in a left neighborhood of $x=L$, because
2048: $p_2$ increases exponentially.
2049:
2050: %\begin{multicols}{2}
2051: %\raggedright
2052: \begin{figure}
2053: \begin{center}
2054: %\begin{minipage}[t]
2055: \caption{the graphic and the orbit of a double boundary layer when
2056: the length $L$ of the interval is large} \label{fig_contractions}
2057: \psfrag{a}{$U_{b \, 0}$} \psfrag{b}{$U_{b \, L}$} \psfrag{L}{$L$}
2058: \vfill
2059: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{contractions.eps}
2060: \hfill \psfrag{Z}{$u$} \psfrag{M}{$\mathcal{M}^{cu}$}
2061: \psfrag{U}{$\mathcal{M}^{cs}$} \psfrag{V}{$p_1$} \psfrag{W}{$p_2$}
2062: \psfrag{a}{$U_{b \, 0}$} \psfrag{b}{$U_{b \, L}$}
2063: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{contractions_on_manifold.eps}
2064: \end{center}
2065: \end{figure}
2066:
2067: \subsubsection{Travelling waves}
2068: \label{par_travelling_waves}
2069:
2070: We refer to \cite{BiaBrevv} for an
2071: exhaustive account of the analysis that allow the definition of
2072: the decomposition along travelling waves: here we will only recall
2073: for
2074: completeness the crucial steps.
2075:
2076: Consider the system
2077: \begin{equation}
2078: \label{eq_travelling_waves}
2079: \left\{
2080: \begin{array}{lll}
2081: u_x = p \\
2082: p_x = \big( A( u ) - \sigma I )p \\
2083: \sigma_x=0
2084: \end{array}
2085: \right.
2086: \end{equation}
2087: and an equilibrium point $(u^{\ast}, \, 0, \, \lambda_i
2088: (u^{\ast}))$. The center manifold theorem ensures that the center
2089: space $V^c = \big\{ p=0 \big\}$ parameterizes a center manifold
2090: $\mathcal{M}^c$. This manifold contains all the solutions of
2091: \eqref{eq_travelling_waves} that do not diverge exponentially
2092: neither as $x \to - \infty$ nor as $x \to + \infty$.
2093:
2094: It can be shown that the center manifold $\mathcal{M}^c$ around
2095: the equilibrium $(u^{\ast}, \, 0, \, \lambda_i (u^{\ast}))$ is
2096: described by a function $v_i \tilde{r}_i(u, \, v_i, \, \sigma_i).$
2097: Since $A$ is triangular, one can take
2098: \begin{equation*}
2099: \tilde{r}_1(u, \, v_1 , \, \sigma_1) =
2100: \left(
2101: \begin{array}{cc}
2102: 1 \\
2103: m(u, \, v_1, \, \sigma_1)
2104: \end{array}
2105: \right),
2106: \qquad
2107: \tilde{r}_2 (u, \, v_2, \, \sigma_2)
2108: \equiv \left(
2109: \begin{array}{ll}
2110: 0 \\
2111: 1
2112: \end{array}
2113: \right),
2114: \end{equation*}
2115: for some suitable function $m$ (in general different from the
2116: function $f$ in the vector $\hat r_1$). One can moreover show that
2117: the following equations hold:
2118: \begin{equation*}
2119: \begin{split}
2120: & \qquad \qquad
2121: A(u) \tilde{r}_1 = \lambda_1 \tilde{r}_1 +
2122: v_1 \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 \tilde{r}_1 +
2123: v_1 ( \lambda_1 - \sigma_1 ) \tilde{r}_{1 v}, \\
2124: & \tilde{r}_1 (u, \, 0, \, \sigma_1) = r_1 (u)
2125: \quad \forall \, u, \; \sigma_1,
2126: \quad
2127: | \tilde{r} (u, \, v_1, \, \sigma_1) - r_1 (u)| =
2128: \mathcal{O}(1) v_1,
2129: \quad
2130: \tilde{r}_{1 \, \sigma} = \mathcal{O}(1) v_1. \\
2131: \end{split}
2132: \end{equation*}
2133: Here and in the following we will denote by $( \ell_1, \; \:
2134: \tilde{\ell}_2)$ the dual base of $(\tr, \; \: r_2)$.
2135:
2136:
2137: \subsubsection{Gradient decomposition}
2138: \label{par_gradient_decomposition} We set
2139: \begin{equation}
2140: \label{decomposition}
2141: \left\{
2142: \begin{array}{ll}
2143: u_x = v_1 \tilde{r}_1 ({u,\, v_1, \, \sigma_1}) +
2144: v_2 r_2 +
2145: p_1 \hat{r}_1 (u, p_1 ) +
2146: p_2 r_2 \\
2147: & \\
2148: u_t = w_1 \tilde{r}_1 ({u,\, v_1, \, \sigma_1}) +
2149: w_2 r_2
2150: \end{array}
2151: \right.
2152: \quad \sigma_1 = \lambda_1(u^{\ast})
2153: - \theta
2154: \bigg(
2155: \frac{ w_1}{v_1} + \lambda_1(u^{\ast})
2156: \bigg).
2157: \end{equation}
2158: The function $\theta$ is here and in the following an odd cutoff
2159: such that
2160: \begin{equation}
2161: \label{eq_theta}
2162: \theta(s) =
2163: \left\{
2164: \begin{array}{lll}
2165: s \quad \quad \textrm{if} \; |s|\leq \hat{\delta} \\
2166: 0 \quad \quad \textrm{if} \; |s|\geq 3 \hat{\delta} \\
2167: \textrm{smooth connection if}
2168: \quad \hat{\delta} \leq s \leq 3 \hat{\delta}
2169: \end{array}
2170: \right.
2171: \delta_1 < < \hat{\delta} \leq \frac{1}{3}.
2172: \end{equation}
2173: The choice of the speed $\sigma$ follows from the analysis of the
2174: boundary free case, \cite{BiaBrevv}.
2175:
2176: Note that \eqref{decomposition} is a system of 4 equations in 6
2177: unknowns: as we underlined in the introduction, this will allow
2178: some freedom in choosing the boundary conditions for $v_i, \;
2179: i=1,2$ and $p_i, \; i=1,2$. More precisely, we will proceed as
2180: follows.
2181: \begin{enumerate}
2182: \item We will insert \eqref{decomposition} in the parabolic
2183: equation \eqref{rescaled}. This will generate a system of $4$
2184: equations in $6$ unknown. \item We will obtain the equations for
2185: $v_i, \; w_i, \; p_i, \; i=1, \; 2$ by assigning in a suitable way
2186: the terms obtained. \item We will impose boundary and initial
2187: conditions on each of the $6$ equations obtained. This procedure
2188: selects one and only one solution for each of those equations.
2189: \end{enumerate}
2190: The decomposition \eqref{decomposition} is thus complete. We
2191: observe that the idea is to let the equations to choose the
2192: components in the decomposition, by only imposing reasonable
2193: initial-boundary conditions and by assigning carefully the terms
2194: obtained by inserting \eqref{decomposition} in the system
2195: \eqref{rescaled}.
2196:
2197:
2198: \subsection{The equations satisfied by
2199: $ \boldsymbol{ v_i, \; p_i, \; w_i \; \; i=1, \, 2}$}
2200: \label{par_equations}
2201:
2202:
2203: These equations are obtained via the computations in Appendix
2204: \ref{explicit_source_t}: inserting the components $v_i, \; p_i \;
2205: w_i,$ $i=1, \, 2$ in the equation
2206: \begin{equation*}
2207: u_t + A(u) u_x - u_{xx} =0,
2208: \end{equation*}
2209: we find
2210: \begin{equation*}
2211: \begin{split}
2212: & v_{1 t } +(\lambda_1 v_1)_x - v_{1 xx}+
2213: p_{1 t } +(\lambda_1 p_1)_x - p_{1 xx} = 0 \\
2214: & v_{2 t } +(\lambda_2 v_2)_x - v_{2 xx}+
2215: p_{2 t } +(\hat{\lambda}_2 p_2)_x - p_{2 xx} = \tilde{s}_1(t, \, x)\\
2216: & w_{1 t } +(\lambda_1 w_1)_x - w_{1 xx}=0 \\
2217: & w_{2 t } +(\lambda_2 w_2)_x - w_{2 xx} = \tilde{s}_2(t, \, x) \\
2218: \end{split}
2219: \end{equation*}
2220: for some function $\tilde{s}_i(t, \, x) \; i=1, \, 2$ whose
2221: explicit expression can be found in the appendix. Moreover, as it
2222: is shown in the Appendix \ref{explicit_source_t}, from the
2223: equation
2224: \begin{equation*}
2225: u_t = u_{xx} - A(u) u_x
2226: \end{equation*}
2227: one gets the relations
2228: \begin{equation}
2229: \label{eq_vt}
2230: \begin{split}
2231: & w_1 = v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 + p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 \\
2232: & w_2 = v_{2 x} - \lambda_2 v_2 + p_{2 x} - \hat{\lambda}_2
2233: p_2 + e(t, \, x) \\
2234: \end{split}
2235: \end{equation}
2236: for a suitable error term $e(t, \, x)$. The following Proposition
2237: (whose proof can be found in the Appendix %, Paragraph
2238: \ref{source_pro}) gives the form of the source terms:%specifies the origin of this error term and of
2239: %the source terms:
2240: \begin{pro}
2241: \label{reasons_of_source_term} The following estimate holds:
2242: \begin{equation}
2243: \label{reasons_of_source_term_eq}
2244: \begin{split}
2245: | \tilde{s}_1&(t, \, x) |, \; | \tilde{s}_2 (t, \, x)| , \;
2246: |e(t, \, x)| \leq
2247: \mathcal{O}(1) \Biggl\{ \sum_{i \neq j}
2248: \Big[ |v_i| \Big( |v_j |+|v_{j x}| + |w_j| +
2249: |w_{j x} | \Big) +
2250: |w_i| \Big( |w_j|+ |v_{j x}| \Big) \Big] \\
2251: %& \quad \quad \quad \mbox{{ \bf (interaction between
2252: % travelling waves of
2253: % family 1 and family 2)}} \\
2254: & + \sum_{i, \, j} \Big( |p_i| + |p_{ix }| \Big) \Big(|v_j| +
2255: |v_{jx }| + |w_j| + |w_{j x}| \Big)
2256: %& \quad \quad \quad \quad \mbox{{ \bf (interaction of travelling
2257: % waves with boundary profiles)}}\\
2258: + | p_{1x} - \lambda_1 p_1 |
2259: \Big( | p_{1x} | + |p_2| \Big) \\
2260: %& \qquad \qquad \mbox{{\bf (interaction among boundary
2261: % profiles)}}\\
2262: & + \Big| w_1 v_{1 x} - v_1 w_{1 x} \Big|
2263: + v_1 ^2 \bigg|
2264: \bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1}
2265: \bigg)_x \bigg|^2 \chi_{ \{ |w_1| \leq \delta_1 |v_1| \} }
2266: % \\
2267: %& \qquad \qquad \mbox{{\bf($\mathbf{\sigma_1}$ is not constant)}}\\
2268: + | w_1 + \sigma_1 v_1 |
2269: \Big( |v_1|+|v_{ 1 x }| + | w_1| + |w_{1 x}| \Big) \Biggr\}.
2270: %& \quad \quad \quad \quad \mbox{ { \bf(the cutoff
2271: % function $\theta$ is active) . }} \\
2272: \end{split}
2273: \end{equation}
2274: \end{pro}
2275:
2276: Following the denomination of \cite{AnBia},
2277: we will denote the above terms as follows:
2278: \begin{enumerate}
2279: \item interaction between waves of family 1 and family 2
2280: \[
2281: \sum_{i \neq j}
2282: |v_i|\Big( |v_j |+|v_{j x}| +
2283: |w_j| + |w_{j x} |\Big) +
2284: |w_i| \Big(|w_j|+ |v_{j x}| \Big);
2285: \]
2286: \item interaction of travelling waves with boundary profiles
2287: \[
2288: \sum_{i, \, j}\Big( |p_i| + |p_{ix }|\Big)\Big(|v_j| +
2289: |v_{jx }| + |w_j| + |w_{j x}|\Big);
2290: \]
2291: \item interaction among boundary profiles
2292: \[
2293: | p_{1x} - \lambda_1 p_1 |
2294: \Big( | p_{1x} | + |p_2| \Big) ;
2295: \]
2296: \item $\sigma_1$ is not constant
2297: \[
2298: | w_1 v_{1 x} - v_1 w_{1 x}| + v_1 ^2 \bigg|
2299: \bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1}
2300: \bigg)_x \bigg|^2 \chi_{ \{ |w_1| \leq \delta_1 |v_1| \} };
2301: \]
2302: \item the cutoff function $\theta$ is active
2303: \[
2304: | w_1 + \sigma_1 v_1 |
2305: \Big(|v_1|+|v_{ 1 x }| + | w_1| + |w_{1 x}|\Big).
2306: \]
2307: \end{enumerate}
2308: Since the component $p_2$ of the boundary profile should remain
2309: close to the boundary $x=L$, and the source $\tilde s_1$ is in
2310: general spread in the whole interval $[0,L]$, we split the
2311: previous expression as follows:
2312: \begin{equation*}
2313: \begin{split}
2314: & v_{1 t } +(\lambda_1 v_1)_x - v_{1 xx} = 0
2315: \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad
2316: p_{1 t } +(\lambda_1 p_1)_x - p_{1 xx} = 0 \\
2317: & v_{2 t } +(\lambda_2 v_2)_x - v_{2 xx} =
2318: \tilde{s}_1 (t, \, x) \qquad \qquad \, \,
2319: p_{2 t } +(\hat{\lambda}_2 p_2)_x - p_{2 xx} = 0 \\
2320: \end{split}
2321: \end{equation*}
2322:
2323: \subsection{Boundary conditions}
2324: \label{boundary_conditions}
2325:
2326:
2327: To conclude the characterization of the equations satisfied by
2328: $v_i$, $p_i$, $w_i$, we have to assign the boundary conditions.
2329: The basic idea is that each component $v_i$, $p_i$, $i=1,$ should
2330: behave like a travelling wave or a boundary profile, respectively.
2331: More precisely, we can make the following observations:
2332: \vskip .2cm \noindent 1) In order to behave like a double
2333: boundary profile, $p_1$ and $p_2$ should be independent from the
2334: initial datum, hence we are led to impose
2335: \begin{equation*}
2336: p_1 (0, \, x) \equiv 0, \; \; p_2 (0, \, x) \equiv 0.
2337: \end{equation*}
2338: It follows that the initial data for $v_1$ and $v_2$ are given by %and hence
2339: \begin{equation*}
2340: v_1 (0, \, x) = \langle \ell_1, \; u'_0(x) \rangle
2341: \qquad
2342: v_2 (0, \, x) = \langle \tilde{\ell}_2, \, u'_0(x) \rangle .
2343: \end{equation*}
2344: \vskip .2cm \noindent 2) To emulate the behavior observed in the
2345: hyperbolic limit, the waves of the first family should disappear
2346: when hitting the boundary $x=0$, and the waves of the second
2347: family should disappear at $x=L$. To understand what kind of
2348: boundary condition it is convenient to impose, one can observe
2349: that an integration by parts leads to
2350: \begin{equation*}
2351: \begin{split}
2352: & \frac{d}{dt} \int_0^L |v_1 (t, \, x)| dx =
2353: \int_0^L \text{sign} v_1
2354: \Big( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 \Big)_x dx \\
2355: & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad =
2356: \int_0^L \delta_{v = 0} (v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 ) dx +
2357: \bigg[ \text{sign} v_1 (v_{1x} - \lambda_1 v_1 )\bigg]^L_0 \leq
2358: \bigg[ \text{sign} v_1 (v_{1x} - \lambda_1 v_1 )\bigg]^L_0, \\
2359: & \frac{d}{dt} \int_0^L |v_2 (t, \, x)| dx \leq
2360: \int_0^t \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_1 (s, \, x)| ds dx +
2361: \bigg[ \text{sign} v_2 (v_{2x} - \lambda_2 v_2 )\bigg]^L_0. \\
2362: \end{split}
2363: \end{equation*}
2364: (we have used the inequality $\delta_{v =0} v_x \leq 0$). To
2365: minimize the increment of $\|v_i(t)\|_{L^1}$ due to the
2366: interactions with the boundary we impose
2367: \begin{equation*}
2368: v_1 (t, \, 0) \equiv 0,
2369: \qquad
2370: v_2 (t, \, L) \equiv 0,
2371: \end{equation*}
2372: and integrating with respect to $t$ the previous equations we get
2373: \begin{equation}
2374: \label{estimate_v}
2375: \begin{split}
2376: & \int_0^L |v_1 (t, \, x)| dx \leq \int_0^L |v_1(0, \, x)| dx
2377: + \int_0^t |v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1|(s, \, L) ds, \\
2378: & \int_0^L |v_2 (t, \, x)| dx \leq \int_0^L |v_2(0, \, x)| dx
2379: + \int_0^t \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_1 (s, \, x)| ds dx
2380: + \int_0^t |v_{2 x} - \lambda_2 v_2|(s, \, 0) ds.\\
2381: \end{split}
2382: \end{equation}
2383: We have used the following observations:
2384: \begin{equation}
2385: \label{observation_sign}
2386: \begin{split}
2387: & v_1 (0)=0 \implies \lim_{x \to 0^+} \text{sign}( v_1) v_{1x}(x)
2388: \ge 0 \\
2389: & v_2 (L)=0 \implies \lim_{x \to L^-} \text{sign}(v_2) v_{2x}(x)
2390: \leq 0 . \\
2391: \end{split}
2392: \end{equation}
2393: If one inserts the previous Dirichlet condition on $v_i \; \; i=1,
2394: \, 2$ in the decomposition \eqref{decomposition}, obtains the
2395: followings boundary conditions for $p_i$:
2396: \begin{equation}
2397: \label{bc}
2398: p_1 (t, \, 0) = \langle \ell_1, \, u_x (t, \, 0) \rangle ,
2399: \qquad
2400: p_2 (t, \, L) = \langle \tilde{\ell}_2, \, u_x (t, \, L) \rangle -
2401: p_1 \langle \tilde{\ell}_2, \, \hat{r}_1 \rangle .
2402: \end{equation}
2403: \vskip .2cm \noindent 3) Since $p_1$ should be located near $x=0$,
2404: and $p_2$ near $x=L$, we would like to impose that the increment
2405: of $\| p_1 \|_{L^1}$ due to the datum at $x=L$ is minimal, and
2406: similarly that the increment of $\| p_2 \|_{L^1}$ caused by the
2407: boundary datum in $x=0$ is as low as possible. Since the values
2408: $p_1(t, \, 0)$ and $p_2(t, \, L)$ are already determined, we will
2409: impose on
2410: $p_1$ some condition at $x=L$ and on $p_2$ at $x=0$. \\
2411: We observe that an integration by parts like the ones performed
2412: before leads to
2413: \begin{equation*}
2414: \int_0^L |p_1 (t, \, x)| \leq \int_0^t |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1
2415: |(s, \, 0) ds + \int_0^t |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1|(s, \, L)
2416: ds.
2417: \end{equation*}
2418: Hence we are led by the previous considerations to impose
2419: \begin{equation}
2420: \label{eq_condition}
2421: (p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 ) (t, \, L) \equiv 0.
2422: \end{equation}
2423: Similarly, we impose
2424: \begin{equation}
2425: \label{eq_condition2}
2426: (p_{2 x} - \hat{\lambda}_2 p_2 )(t, \, 0) \equiv 0.
2427: \end{equation}
2428: From these two equations we obtain the boundary conditions for
2429: $v_1$, $v_2$: indeed, we have
2430: \[
2431: \Big( v_{1,x} - \lambda_1 v_1 \Big)(t, \, L) = \langle \ell_1, \,
2432: u_{t}(t, \, L)
2433: \rangle
2434: \]
2435: and
2436: \[
2437: \Big( v_{2,x} - \lambda_2 v_2 \Big)(t, \, 0) =
2438: \langle \tilde{\ell}_2, \, u_t (t, \, 0) \rangle - e(t, \, 0).
2439: \]
2440: \vskip .2cm
2441:
2442: At this point, the initial-boundary data
2443: are perfectly determined for all the components
2444: $v_i$, $p_i$, $i=1,2$, and thus the decomposition is complete.
2445:
2446: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2448: %%%%%%% %%%%%%%
2449: %%%%%%% BV ESTIMATES %%%%%%%
2450: %%%%%%% %%%%%%%
2451: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2452: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2453:
2454:
2455: \section{BV estimates}
2456: \label{BV_estimates}
2457:
2458: Aim of this section is to prove the following theorem, which
2459: constitutes the first part of Theorem \ref{main_result}.
2460:
2461:
2462: \begin{teo}
2463: \label{BV}
2464: Let $u(t, \, x)$ be the local in time solution of the $2 \times 2$ system
2465: \begin{equation}
2466: \label{rescaled1}
2467: \left\{
2468: \begin{array}{lllll}
2469: u_t + A (u) u_x =
2470: u_{xx} \\
2471: % \quad
2472: % x \in \, ]0, \, L[, \;
2473: % t \in \, ]0, + \infty [ \\
2474: \\
2475: u(0, x) = {u}_0 (x)\\
2476: \\
2477: u(t, 0) = {u}_{b \, 0}(t) \qquad
2478: u(t, L) = {u}_{b L}(t) \\
2479: \end{array}
2480: \right.
2481: \end{equation}
2482: and suppose that the boundary and initial conditions are regular
2483: % (say $\mathcal{C}^n$) for a suitable $n$
2484: and
2485: satisfy
2486: \begin{equation*}
2487: \bigg\| \frac{d^k u_0}{dx^k} \bigg\|_{L^1(0, \, L)},
2488: % \leq \delta_1 \qquad
2489: \bigg\| \frac{d^k u_{b \, 0}}{dt^k}
2490: \bigg\|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)},
2491: % \leq \delta_1 \qquad
2492: \bigg\| \frac{d^k u_{b \, L}}{dt^k}
2493: \bigg\|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)}
2494: \leq \delta_1 \quad k = 1, \dots n,
2495: \end{equation*}
2496: for some $\delta_1$ sufficiently small.
2497:
2498: Then $u(t, \, x)$ is defined $\forall \; t > 0$
2499: and its total variation is uniformly bounded:
2500: \begin{equation}
2501: \|u_x(t) \|_{L^1(0, \, L)} \leq C \delta_1
2502: \end{equation}
2503: for some constant $C$ which does not depend on $L$.
2504: \end{teo}
2505:
2506: It is enough to prove that there is a constant
2507: $\delta_0$ such that $k \delta_1 \leq \delta_0 <<1 $ with $k$
2508: small enough and such that the following holds: if $\delta_1$ is
2509: small enough and $ \|u_x ( s)\|_{L^1} \leq C \delta_1 \; \forall s
2510: \in \, [0, \, t]$ then
2511: \begin{equation}
2512: \label{observation_BV}
2513: \begin{array}{ll}
2514: {\displaystyle \int_0^t \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_1 (\sigma, \, x) | dx
2515: d \sigma
2516: \leq \unpo \delta_0^2},
2517: &% \qquad \qquad
2518: {\displaystyle \int_0^t \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_2 (\sigma, \, x) | dx
2519: d\sigma
2520: \leq \unpo \delta_0^2, }\\
2521: {\displaystyle \int_0^{t}|v_{2 x} - \lambda_2 v_2| (\sigma, \, 0)
2522: d\sigma \leq m \delta_1,}
2523: &% \qquad \qquad
2524: {\displaystyle \int_0^{t}|v_{1x} - \lambda_1 v_1 | (\sigma, \, L)
2525: d\sigma \leq m \delta_1,} \\
2526: {\displaystyle \int_0^{t} |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1|
2527: (\sigma, \, 0) d\sigma
2528: \leq m \delta_1,}
2529: &% \qquad
2530: {\displaystyle \int_0^{t} |p_{2 x} - \hat{\lambda}_2 p_2|
2531: (\sigma, \, 0) d\sigma \leq m \delta_1,} \\
2532: \end{array}
2533: \end{equation}
2534: for some constant $m$ that does not depend on $C$.
2535:
2536: Indeed, suppose the previous implication holds. From the
2537: representation formula \eqref{solution_x} it immediately follows
2538: that the function $t \mapsto \|u_x( t) \|_{L^1}$ is continuous:
2539: hence, it will satisfy $\|u_x (t)\|_{L^1} < C \delta_1$ if $t$ is
2540: small enough, since the total variation of the initial datum is
2541: bounded by $\delta_1$.
2542:
2543: Suppose by contradiction that $\tau$ is the first time such that
2544: $\|u_x (\tau)\|_{L^1} = C \delta_1$. Then we use the equations
2545: \begin{equation*}
2546: \begin{split}
2547: & v_{1 t } +(\lambda_1 v_1)_x - v_{1 xx}=0
2548: \qquad \qquad \; \; \;
2549: p_{1 t } +(\hat{\lambda}_1 p_1)_x - p_{1 xx} = 0 \\
2550: & v_{2 t } +(\lambda_2 v_2)_x - v_{2 xx} = \tilde{s}_1(t, \,
2551: x)
2552: \qquad
2553: p_{2 t } +(\hat{\lambda}_2 p_2)_x - p_{2 xx} =
2554: 0 \\
2555: \end{split}
2556: \end{equation*}
2557: and the boundary conditions described in Section
2558: \ref{boundary_conditions} and, integrating by parts, we get
2559: \begin{equation*}
2560: \begin{split}
2561: \int_0^L |u_x (\tau, \, x)| dx \leq
2562: & \sum_{i = 1}^2 \int_0^L |v_i (\tau, \, x) | +
2563: \int_0^L |p_i (\tau, \, x) | dx \leq
2564: \sum_{i= 1}^2 \int_0^L |v_i (0, \, x) | +
2565: \int_0^{\tau} \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_1 (\sigma, \, x)| dx d\sigma \\
2566: & \quad +
2567: \int_0^{\tau} |v_{2 x } -
2568: \lambda_2 v_2|(\sigma, \, 0) d\sigma +
2569: \int_0^{\tau} |v_{1x } -
2570: \lambda_1 v_1|(\sigma, \, L) d\sigma +
2571: \int_0^{\tau} |p_{1x } - \lambda_1 p_1|(\sigma, \, 0)
2572: d\sigma \\
2573: & \quad +
2574: \int_0^{\tau} |p_{2x } -
2575: \hat{\lambda}_2 p_2|(\sigma, \, L) d\sigma
2576: \leq
2577: (4 m + 2 ) \delta_1+ \unpo \delta_0^2
2578: < C \delta_1,
2579: \phantom{\int}
2580: \end{split}
2581: \end{equation*}
2582: if $C$ is large enough: this contradicts the assumption
2583: $\|u_x (\tau)\|_{L^1} = C \delta_1$.
2584: %
2585: % \subsubsection{Sketch of the proof of Theorem \ref{BV}}
2586:
2587: % We will suppose that $\|u_x (s)\|_{L^1} \leq C \delta_1 \; \forall
2588: % \, s \in \, [0, \, t]$: the aim is to show that this implies
2589: % \eqrefobservation_BV}). It will be done estimating the various
2590: % terms given by Proposition \ref{reasons_of_source_term}; hence it
2591: % is clear that we are also proving that $\bvpiccina$ implies
2592: % \begin{equation*}
2593: % \int_0^t \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_2 (s, \, x)|dx ds \leq \unpo
2594: % \delta_0^2.
2595: % \end{equation*}
2596: Note that since all the functions in the right hand side of
2597: \eqref{reasons_of_source_term_eq} are continuous (and hence
2598: bounded on $[0, \, L]$), we have that
2599: \begin{equation}
2600: \label{eq_bound_source}
2601: \int_0^s \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_i (\sigma, \, x)| dx d \sigma
2602: \leq \unpo \delta_1 \quad i=1, \, 2,
2603: \end{equation}
2604: for $s$ small enough. Hence to prove \eqref{observation_BV} we can
2605: suppose that \eqref{eq_bound_source} holds for any $s \in [0, \,
2606: t]$: since we will show that actually
2607: \begin{equation*}
2608: \int_0^t \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_i (\sigma, \, x)| dx d \sigma
2609: \leq \unpo \delta_0^2, \quad i=1, \, 2,
2610: \end{equation*}
2611: the assumption will be a posteriori justified since
2612: $k \delta_1 \leq \delta_0 <<1$.
2613:
2614: We will proceed as follows: in Section
2615: \ref{elementary_estimates} we will show some elementary estimates,
2616: while in Section \ref{interaction_functionals} we will introduce
2617: suitable functionals that allow the estimates
2618: \begin{equation*}
2619: \begin{split}
2620: & \int_0^t \int_0^L \sum_{i \neq j}
2621: \big( |v_i|( |v_j |+|v_{j x}| + |w_j| + |w_{j x} |) +
2622: |w_i| (|w_j|+ |v_{j x}| ) \big) (\sigma \, x)d\sigma dx \leq
2623: \unpo \delta_1^2, \\
2624: & \int_0^t \int_0^L
2625: | w_1 v_{1 x} - v_1 w_{1 x}| (\sigma, \, x) d\sigma \leq \unpo
2626: \delta_1^2, \\
2627: & \int_0^t \int_0^L \bigg| v_1 ^2
2628: \bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1}\bigg)_x
2629: \bigg|^2 \chi_{ \{ |w_1| \leq \delta_1 |v_1| \} }(\sigma, \, x)
2630: d\sigma dx \leq \unpo \delta_1^2 .\\
2631: \end{split}
2632: \end{equation*}
2633: In Section \ref{energy_estimates} we will consider the term
2634: \begin{equation*}
2635: \int_0^t \int_0^L
2636: | w_1 + \sigma_1 v_1 |
2637: (|v_1|+|v_{ 1 x }| + | w_1|)(\sigma, \, x) d\sigma dx,
2638: \end{equation*}
2639: and prove a bound of order $\delta_1^2$.
2640: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2641: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2642: \subsection{Elementary estimates}
2643: \label{elementary_estimates}
2644:
2645: This section is devoted to the estimates which can be obtained by
2646: elementary techniques, like the maximum principle. We will in
2647: particular show that the components $p_i$, $i=1,2$ are
2648: exponentially decaying as one moves far away from the boundary,
2649: and that their decay exponent does not depend on the interval
2650: length $L$. Moreover, by introducing various functional, we
2651: estimate the boundary data assigned to the components $v_1$, $v_2$
2652: and prove that the functions $v_i$ are integrable along all
2653: vertical lines $\{x = \text{const}\}$. This means that, as in the
2654: boundary free case, the profiles of travelling waves just cross
2655: the vertical lines.
2656:
2657: \subsubsection{Estimates via maximum principle}
2658: \label{par_maximum}
2659:
2660: % In Section \ref{boundary_conditions} we
2661: % claimed that, since each $p_i \; i=1, \, 2$ corresponds to a double
2662: % boundary layer, it should behave like the stationary solution of
2663: % the boundary value problem: in this paragraph we will formalize
2664: % such an heuristic observation through a suitable maximum principle. \\
2665:
2666: We will first deal with $p_1$. The results in Section
2667: \ref{sub_paraboli_estimates} ensures that
2668: \begin{equation*}
2669: \|u_x (t)\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq \| u_{xx}(t)\|_{L^1} \leq
2670: \unpo \delta_1.
2671: \end{equation*}
2672: Hence it follows that
2673: \begin{equation*}
2674: |p_1 (t, \, 0)| = |\langle l_1 , \, u_x (t, \, 0 ) \rangle | \leq k
2675: \delta_1,
2676: \end{equation*}
2677: for some $k$ large enough.
2678:
2679: The equation satisfied by $p_1$ is
2680: \begin{equation*}
2681: p_{1 t} + \lambda_1(u) p_{1 x} + \lambda_{1 x} (u) p_1 -
2682: p_{1 xx}=0.
2683: \end{equation*}
2684: This is a linear equation, with coefficients depending on the
2685: solution $u(t,x)$. Let $2c$ be the separation speed defined in
2686: \eqref{eq_separation_speed} and
2687: \begin{equation*}
2688: q(x) = k \delta_1 \exp \big( - c x /2 \big).
2689: \end{equation*}
2690: Since $|\lambda_{1 x}| \leq \unpo \delta_1$ and $\delta_1 <<1$,
2691: $q$ satisfies
2692: \begin{equation*}
2693: q_t + \lambda_1 q_x + \lambda_{1 x} q - q_{xx} > 0.
2694: \end{equation*}
2695: Hence the difference $(q - p_1 )$ satisfies
2696: \begin{equation*}
2697: \left\{
2698: \begin{array}{lll}
2699: (q- p_1)_t + \lambda_1 ( q - p_1)_x +
2700: \lambda_{1 x} (q - p_1) -
2701: (q_{xx} - p_{1 xx}) > 0 \phantom{\bigg(} \\
2702: (q - p_1 )(t, \, 0) \ge 0 \phantom{\bigg(} \\
2703: \bigg( (q - p_1 ) - \lambda_1 (q -p_1 )_x \bigg)(t, \, L) >
2704: 0.
2705: \end{array}
2706: \right.
2707: \end{equation*}
2708: By standard techniques it follows that $(q - p_1)(t, \, x) \ge 0$
2709: for any $t, \; x$ and hence
2710: \begin{equation}
2711: \label{estimate_exp_decay1}
2712: |p_1(t, \, x)| \leq k \delta_1 \exp(- c \, x /2 ).
2713: \end{equation}
2714: The boundary condition on $p_2$ satisfies the following bound:
2715: \begin{equation*}
2716: |p_2(t, \, L)| = |\langle \hat{l}_2, \, u_x(t, \, L) \rangle
2717: - p_1 \langle \tilde{l}_2, \, \hat{r}_1 \rangle | \leq \unpo \delta_1,
2718: \qquad \forall \, t, \; x.
2719: \end{equation*}
2720: Since $|p_1(t, \, x)| \leq k \delta_1$, then from
2721: \eqref{eq_gen_eigen} it follows that $|\lambda_2 -
2722: \hat{\lambda}_2| \leq \unpo \delta_1$ and hence in the same way as
2723: before one can prove
2724: \begin{equation}
2725: \label{estimate_exp_decay2}
2726: |p_2 (t, \, x)| \leq \unpo \delta_1 \exp (c(x - L)/2 ),
2727: \qquad \forall \, t, \; x.
2728: \end{equation}
2729: From \eqref{estimate_exp_decay1} it follows
2730: \begin{equation*}
2731: \|p_1 (t)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo \delta_1,
2732: \qquad
2733: \|v_1(t)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo \delta_1
2734: \end{equation*}
2735: and, since $\|u_x\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq \unpo \delta_1$,
2736: \begin{equation*}
2737: \|v_1\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq \unpo \delta_1.
2738: \end{equation*}
2739: Analogously, from \eqref{estimate_exp_decay2} it follow
2740: \begin{equation*}
2741: \|p_2 (t)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo \delta_1,
2742: \qquad
2743: \|v_2(t)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo \delta_1,
2744: \qquad
2745: \|v_2\|_{L^{\infty}} \leq \unpo \delta_1.
2746: \end{equation*}
2747: The following proposition summarizes the results obtained in this
2748: paragraph:
2749: \begin{pro}
2750: \label{exp_decay}
2751: Let $p_i, \; v_i$ be the solutions of \eqref{cons_laws} with
2752: the boundary conditions described in Section
2753: \ref{boundary_conditions}. Then
2754: \begin{equation*}
2755: |p_1(t, \, x) | \leq \unpo \delta_1 \exp (- cx / 2),
2756: \qquad
2757: |p_2(t, \, x) | \leq \unpo \delta_1 \exp (c ( x -L)/2),
2758: \end{equation*}
2759: where $2c$ is the separation speed defined by
2760: \eqref{eq_separation_speed}.
2761:
2762: The previous estimates imply
2763: \begin{equation*}
2764: \|p_i (t)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo \delta_1,
2765: \qquad
2766: \|v_i (t)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo \delta_1,
2767: \qquad
2768: \|v_i(t)\|_{\infty} \leq \unpo \delta_1,
2769: \quad i=1, \, 2.
2770: \end{equation*}
2771: \end{pro}
2772: \begin{rem}
2773: \label{rem_other_way} The estimate of $\|v_i(t)\|_{L^1}$ can also
2774: be obtained directly from \eqref{estimate_v}: indeed, since
2775: \begin{equation*}
2776: {(p_{1x} - \lambda_1 p_1)(t, \, L) \equiv 0}
2777: \end{equation*}
2778: and the total variation of $u_{b \, L}$ is bounded by $\delta_1$,
2779: from \eqref{eq_vt} one gets
2780: \begin{equation*}
2781: \int_0^t |v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 |(s, \, L) ds \leq
2782: \delta_1,
2783: \end{equation*}
2784: and hence $\|v_1 (t)\|_{L^1} \leq 2 \delta_1$.
2785:
2786: To obtain the estimate on $v_2$ from \eqref{estimate_v} one has to
2787: start supposing
2788: \begin{equation}
2789: \label{estimate_assumption_e}
2790: \int_0^t |e(s, \, 0)| ds \leq \delta_1.
2791: \end{equation}
2792: With the same computations as before one gets $\|v_2 (t)\|_{L^1}
2793: \leq \unpo \delta_1$. As it will be clear from the next sections,
2794: the assumption \eqref{estimate_assumption_e} actually leads to the
2795: estimate
2796: \begin{equation*}
2797: \int_0^t |e(s, \, 0)| ds \leq \unpo \delta_1^2,
2798: \end{equation*}
2799: and therefore it is a posteriori well justified.
2800: \end{rem}
2801: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2802:
2803: \subsubsection{Integrability with respect to time}
2804:
2805: The following lemma, which can be proved by a simple integration
2806: by parts, introduces a useful estimate we will widely use in the
2807: following.
2808: \begin{lem}
2809: \label{functional_pro}
2810: Let $P(x)$ be a non negative $\mathcal{C}^2$
2811: function defined on $\mathbb{R}$
2812: and let $q$ be a solution of
2813: \begin{equation*}
2814: q_t + (\lambda q)_x - q_{xx}= s(t, \, x).
2815: \end{equation*}
2816: Then the following estimate holds:
2817: \begin{equation*}
2818: \begin{split}
2819: \frac{d }{dt } \int_0^L |q(t, \, x)| P(x) dx \leq
2820: & \int_0^L |s(t, \, x) | P(x) dx +
2821: \int_0^L |q(t, \, x)| ( \lambda P' + P'')( x)
2822: dx \\
2823: & -
2824: \bigg[ P'
2825: |q(t)|\bigg]^{x =L }_{x =0} +
2826: \bigg[ P \,
2827: \text{\rm sign} (q) \, (q_x - \lambda q)(t)
2828: \bigg]^{x = L}_{x =0}. \\
2829: \end{split}
2830: \end{equation*}
2831: \end{lem}
2832:
2833: Before applying the previous lemma, we recall that the boundary
2834: data of the scaled problem \eqref{rescaled} belongs to $BV(0, \, +
2835: \infty)$ and that the $L^1$ norms of $u'_{b \, 0}$ and $u'_{b \,
2836: L}$ are bounded by $\delta_1$. From the decomposition $u_t = w_1
2837: \tr + w_2 r_2$, we immediately have
2838: \begin{equation*}
2839: \|w_i ( x = 0)\|_{L^1 (0, \, + \infty)} \leq
2840: \delta_1
2841: \qquad
2842: \|w_i ( x = L)\|_{L^1 (0, \, + \infty)} \leq
2843: \delta_1
2844: \quad i=1, \, 2.
2845: \end{equation*}
2846: Moreover, in Section \ref{par_equations} we found that $w_i \;
2847: i=1, \, 2$ can be decomposed as follows:
2848: \begin{equation}
2849: \label{eq_decomposition_w}
2850: \begin{split}
2851: & w_1 = p_{1x} - \lambda_1 p_1 + v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 \\
2852: & w_2 = p_{2x} - \hat{ \lambda}_2 p_2 + v_{2 x} - \lambda_2 v_ 2 +
2853: e(t, \, x),\\
2854: \end{split}
2855: \end{equation}
2856: where the error term $e(t, \, x)$ satisfies the estimate
2857: \eqref{reasons_of_source_term_eq}. As we anticipated in Remark
2858: \ref{rem_other_way}, we will suppose
2859: \begin{equation*}
2860: \int_0^t |e(s, \, x)|ds \leq \delta_1
2861: \quad \forall \, x \, \in \, [0, \, L].
2862: \end{equation*}
2863: Since we will obtain an estimate of order $\delta_1^2 \leq
2864: \delta_1$, this
2865: assumption is a posteriori well justified.
2866:
2867: From the boundary condition \eqref{eq_condition2} $(p_{2 x} -
2868: \hat{\lambda}_2 p_2)(t, \, 0) \equiv 0$ and from the decomposition
2869: \eqref{eq_decomposition_w} we get
2870: \begin{equation*}
2871: \int_0^t |v_{2 x} - \lambda_2 v_2 |(s, \, 0) ds \leq 2
2872: \delta_1.
2873: \end{equation*}
2874: Similarly, one obtains that
2875: \begin{equation*}
2876: \int_0^t |v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1|(s, \, L) ds \leq
2877: \delta_1.
2878: \end{equation*}
2879: %this case is actually simpler, because
2880: %there are no error terms.\\
2881:
2882: An application of Lemma \ref{functional_pro} with $P \equiv 1$ and
2883: $q= v_2$ leads by observation \eqref{observation_sign} to
2884: \begin{equation*}
2885: \begin{split}
2886: \int_0^t |v_{2 x}(s, \, L)| ds \leq&~
2887: \int_0^t \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_2 (s, \, x)| dx ds +
2888: \int_0^t |v_{2x } - \lambda_2 v_2| (s, \, 0) ds +
2889: \int_0^L |v_2 (0, \, x)| dx \\
2890: \leq&~ \unpo \delta_1 + 2 \delta_1 +
2891: \unpo \delta_1 \leq \unpo \delta_1, \\
2892: \end{split}
2893: \end{equation*}
2894: and similarly
2895: \begin{equation*}
2896: \int_0^t |v_{1 x}(s, \, 0)| ds
2897: \leq \unpo \delta_1.
2898: \end{equation*}
2899: Let $2c$ be the separation speed defined by
2900: \eqref{eq_separation_speed}: the application of Lemma
2901: \ref{functional_pro} with $q(t, \, x)= v_2(t, \, x)$ and
2902: \begin{equation*}
2903: P(x) = P_y(x)=
2904: \left\{
2905: \begin{array}{lll}
2906: 1 / c & x \leq y \\
2907: \\
2908: \exp \Big( c (y- x) \Big) / c
2909: & x > y \\
2910: \end{array}
2911: \right.
2912: \quad y \, \in \, [0, \, L[
2913: \end{equation*}
2914: leads to the estimate
2915: \begin{equation*}
2916: \begin{split}
2917: \int_0^t |v_2 (s, \, y)| ds
2918: & \leq
2919: \int_0^L |v_2 (0, \, x) | dx +
2920: \frac{1}{c} \int_0^t \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_1(s, \, x)| ds dx ~ \\
2921: & \quad
2922: + P_y (0)\int_0^L | v_{2 x} - \lambda_2 v_2|(s, \, 0) ds +
2923: P_y(L) \int_0^t |v_{2 x}(s, \, L)| ds \\
2924: & \leq \unpo \delta_1 + \unpo \delta_1
2925: \leq \unpo \delta_1
2926: \qquad \forall \, y \in \, [ 0, \, L[.
2927: \phantom{\int}
2928: \end{split}
2929: \end{equation*}
2930: Analogously, we get
2931: \begin{equation*}
2932: \int_0^t |v_1(s, \, y) | ds \leq \unpo \delta_1
2933: \quad \forall \, y \, \in \, ]0, \, L].
2934: \end{equation*}
2935:
2936: The following proposition summarizes what we have proved so far:
2937: \begin{pro}
2938: \label{functional_estimates_pro}
2939: Let $v_i, \; p_i \; \; i=1, \, 2$ be the solutions to the
2940: equations \eqref{cons_laws} with the boundary conditions
2941: described in Section \ref{boundary_conditions}. Then it
2942: holds
2943: \begin{equation*}
2944: \begin{split}
2945: \int_0^t |v_{2 x } - \lambda_2 v_2|(s, \, 0) ds
2946: \leq 2 \delta_1,
2947: & \qquad
2948: \int_0^t |v_{ 1 x } - \lambda_1 v_1|(s, \, L) ds
2949: \leq \delta_1, \\
2950: \int_0^t |v_{1 x}(s, \, 0)| ds \leq \unpo \delta_1,
2951: & \qquad
2952: \int_0^t |v_{2 x} (s, \, L)|ds \leq \unpo \delta_1, \\
2953: \end{split}
2954: \end{equation*}
2955: and
2956: \begin{equation*}
2957: \int_0^t |v_i (s, \, y)| ds \leq \unpo \delta_1,
2958: \quad \forall \, y \, \in \, [0, \, L ]
2959: \quad i=1, \, 2.
2960: \end{equation*}
2961: \end{pro}
2962: Further computations (Appendix \ref{exp_decay_px_proof}) ensure
2963: that
2964: \begin{equation}
2965: \label{exp_decay_px}
2966: |p_{1 x}(t, \, x)| \leq \unpo \delta_1 \exp (- cx / 2),
2967: \qquad
2968: |p_{2 x}(t, \, x)| \leq \unpo \delta_1 \exp \big( c( x -L)/ 2 \big).
2969: \end{equation}
2970:
2971: The following proposition deals with other estimates of
2972: integrals with respect to time: the proof is quite long and requires
2973: the introduction of new convolution kernels. It can be found
2974: in the Appendix \ref{other_wrt_time_par}.
2975: \begin{pro}
2976: \label{other_wrt_time_pro}
2977: In the same hypothesis of Proposition
2978: \ref{functional_estimates_pro} it holds
2979: \begin{equation*}
2980: \int_0^t |v_{i x}(s, \, y)| ds \leq \unpo \delta_1
2981: \quad \forall \, y \, \in \, [0, \, L ]
2982: \quad i=1, \, 2
2983: \end{equation*}
2984: and
2985: \begin{equation*}
2986: \int_0^t |w_i (s, \, y)|ds \leq \unpo \delta_1
2987: \quad \forall \, y \, \in \, [ 0, \, L ]
2988: \quad i=1, \, 2.
2989: \end{equation*}
2990: We also have
2991: \begin{equation*}
2992: \int_0^t |w_{ix }(s, \, y)| ds \leq \unpo \delta_1
2993: \quad \forall \, y \, \in \, [0, \, L ]
2994: \quad i=1, \, 2.
2995: \end{equation*}
2996: \end{pro}
2997: In the previous proposition the functions $w_i$ are of course
2998: defined by relation $u_t = w_1 \tilde{r}_1 + w_2 r_2$. Putting
2999: together Proposition \ref{functional_estimates_pro} and
3000: \ref{other_wrt_time_pro} and the decomposition
3001: \eqref{eq_decomposition_w} one gets
3002: \begin{equation*}
3003: \int_0^t |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 |(s, \, y) ds \leq \unpo
3004: \delta_1,
3005: \qquad
3006: \int_0^t |p_{2 x} - \hat{\lambda}_2 p_2 |(s, \, y) ds \leq \unpo
3007: \delta_1,
3008: \quad \forall \, y \, \in \, [0, \, L ],
3009: \end{equation*}
3010: and
3011: \begin{equation*}
3012: \int_0^t |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 |(s, \, 0) ds \leq m
3013: \delta_1,
3014: \qquad
3015: \int_0^t |p_{2 x} - \hat{\lambda}_2 p_2 |(s, \, L) ds \leq m
3016: \delta_1,
3017: \end{equation*}
3018: where the constant $m$ satisfies the hypothesis stated in Section
3019: \ref{BV_estimates}.
3020:
3021: The estimates obtained so far will be widely used in next sections
3022: and moreover allow to prove a bound of order $\unpo \delta_1^2$ on
3023: some of the terms that appear on the right hand side of
3024: \eqref{reasons_of_source_term_eq}:
3025: \begin{equation}
3026: \label{estimate_interaction}
3027: \begin{split}
3028: & \int_0^t \int_0^L \sum_{i, \, j}( |p_i| + |p_{ix }|)(|v_j| +
3029: |v_{jx }| + |w_j| + |w_{j x}|) (s, \, x) ds dx \\
3030: & \qquad \leq
3031: \unpo \delta_1 \int_0^L ( e^{- cx} + e^{c (x -L)} )
3032: \int_0^t (|v_j| +
3033: |v_{jx }| + |w_j| + |w_{j x}|) (s, \, x) ds dx
3034: \leq \unpo \delta_1^2 \\
3035: \end{split}
3036: \end{equation}
3037: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3038: and
3039: \begin{equation}
3040: \label{estimate_boundary}
3041: \begin{split}
3042: & \int_0^t \int_0^L \sum_{i}|p_{1 x}
3043: - \lambda_1 p_1|(|p_i| +
3044: |p_{ix}|)(s, \, x) dx ds \\
3045: & \qquad \leq \unpo \delta_1 \int_0^L e^{- c x} +
3046: e^{c ( x - L)} \int_0^t |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 |(s, \, x)
3047: ds dx \leq \unpo \delta_1^2. \\
3048: \end{split}
3049: \end{equation}
3050:
3051: \subsection{Interaction functionals}
3052: \label{interaction_functionals}
3053:
3054: In this section we introduce three nonlinear functionals and we
3055: use them to bound those terms in the right hand side of
3056: \eqref{reasons_of_source_term} due to interaction between waves of
3057: different families and those due to the fact that the speed
3058: $\sigma_1$ is not constant. The form of the functionals is exactly
3059: the same considered in \cite{BiaBrevv}, with some more
3060: technicalities due to the presence of the boundary.
3061:
3062:
3063: \subsubsection{Interaction among waves of different families}
3064:
3065: We claim that the condition
3066: \begin{equation*}
3067: \int_0^t \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_1 (s, \, x) | ds dx \leq
3068: \unpo \delta_1
3069: \qquad
3070: \int_0^t \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_2 (s, \,x) | ds dx \leq
3071: \unpo \delta_1
3072: \end{equation*}
3073: implies
3074: \begin{equation}
3075: \label{interaction1}
3076: \int_0^t \int_0^L \sum_{i \neq j}
3077: \Bigg( |v_i| \Big( |v_j |+ |w_j| \Big) +
3078: |w_i w_j| \Bigg) (s, \, x)ds dx \leq
3079: \unpo \delta_1^2.
3080: \end{equation}
3081: We will prove only that
3082: \begin{equation}
3083: \label{interaction1_case}
3084: \int_0^t \int_0^L |v_1 v_2 |(s, \, x) ds dx \leq \unpo
3085: \delta_1^2,
3086: \end{equation}
3087: because the other terms in \eqref{interaction1} can be dealt with
3088: analogously: see for example \cite{AnBia}.
3089:
3090: Let $2c$ be the separation speed introduced in
3091: \eqref{eq_separation_speed} and let $P(\xi)$ be defined as
3092: follows:
3093: \begin{equation*}
3094: P(\xi) : =
3095: \left\{
3096: \begin{array}{ll}
3097: e^{c \xi} / 2 c
3098: \qquad \; \xi < 0 \\
3099: 1 / 2c
3100: \qquad \; \; \; \;
3101: \xi \geq 0
3102: \end{array}
3103: \right.
3104: \end{equation*}
3105: One gets
3106: \begin{equation*}
3107: \begin{split}
3108: \frac{d}{ds}
3109: & \bigg( \int_0^L \int_0^L
3110: P(x -y) | v_1(s, \, x) | \, |v_2(s, \, y) | dx dy \bigg)
3111: \leq \int_0^L |v_2 (s, \, y)|
3112: \bigg[ P(x-y) \text{sign} v_1
3113: ( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 ) (s, \, x) \bigg]^{ x = L}_{x=0} dy \\
3114: & + \int_0^L |v_1 (s, \, x)|
3115: \bigg[ P(x -y) \text{sign} v_2
3116: ( v_{2 x} - \lambda_2 v_2 ) ( s, \, y) \bigg]^{y=L}_{y=0} dx
3117: - \int_0^L | v_2 (s, \, y) |
3118: \bigg[ P'(x-y) |v_1 (s, \, x)| \bigg]^{ x=L}_{x=0} dy
3119: \\
3120: & + \int_0^L |v_1 (s, \, x)|
3121: \bigg[ P'(x-y) |v_2 (s, \, y) | \bigg]^{y=L}_{y=0}
3122: + \int_0^L |v_1 (s, \, x) | \int_0^L P(x-y ) | \tilde{s}_1 (s, \,
3123: y)| dy \\
3124: & +
3125: \int_0^L \int_0^L
3126: \bigg( P'(x-y) \Big( \lambda_1 (s, \, x) - \lambda_2 (s, \, y) \Big) +
3127: 2 P ''(x-y) \bigg) |v_1 (s, \, x)| \,| v_2 (s, \, y)| dx dy. \\
3128: \end{split}
3129: \end{equation*}
3130: One has
3131: \begin{equation*}
3132: \begin{split}
3133: P' ( \lambda_1 - \lambda_2 ) + 2 P'' \leq
3134: 2 ( -c P' + P'') = - \delta_{ s =0}, \quad
3135: 0 \leq P (s) \leq \frac{1}{2c}, \qquad
3136: 0 \leq P'(s) \leq \frac{1}{2} \\
3137: \end{split}
3138: \end{equation*}
3139: and moreover from the estimates of Proposition \ref{exp_decay} and
3140: \ref{functional_estimates_pro} it follows that
3141: \begin{equation*}
3142: \begin{split}
3143: & \int_0^t |v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 |(s, \, L) \int_0^L
3144: |v_2 (s, \, y)| dy ds \leq \unpo \delta_1^2
3145: \qquad
3146: \int_0^t |v_{2 x} - \lambda_2 v_2 |(s, \, 0) \int_0^L
3147: |v_2 (s, \, x)| dx ds \leq \unpo \delta_1^2 \\
3148: & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
3149: \int_0^t \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_1(s, \, y)| \int_0^L
3150: |v_1(s, \, x)| dx dy ds \leq \unpo \delta_1^2: \\
3151: \end{split}
3152: \end{equation*}
3153: this completes the proof of the estimate
3154: \eqref{interaction1_case}.
3155:
3156:
3157: With some technical computations, in Appendix
3158: \ref{interaction2_proof} it is proved
3159: \begin{equation}
3160: \label{interaction2}
3161: \int_0^t \int_0^L \sum_{i \neq j}
3162: \bigg( |v_i| \Big( |v_{j x}| + |w_{j x} | \Big) +
3163: |w_i v_{j x}| \bigg) (s, \, x)ds dx \leq
3164: \unpo \delta_1^2,
3165: \end{equation}
3166: which completes the proof of the estimate
3167: \begin{equation*}
3168: \int_0^t \int_0^L \sum_{i \neq j}
3169: \bigg( |v_i| \Big( |v_j |+|v_{j x}| + |w_j| + |w_{j x} | \Big) +
3170: |w_i| (|w_j|+ |v_{j x}| ) \bigg) (s, \, x)ds dx \leq
3171: \unpo \delta_1^2.
3172: \end{equation*}
3173:
3174:
3175: \subsubsection{Length and area functionals}
3176:
3177: To prove the estimate
3178: \begin{equation*}
3179: \int_{0}^{t}
3180: \int_{0}^{L}
3181: | v_{1 x} w_1 - v_1 w_{1 x} |(s, \, x) dx ds
3182: \leq
3183: \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1^2,
3184: \end{equation*}
3185: we introduce the curve
3186: \begin{equation}
3187: \label{gamma}
3188: \gamma (x) =
3189: \left(
3190: \begin{array}{cc}
3191: v_1( x ) \\
3192: w_1 ( x)
3193: \end{array}
3194: \right)
3195: \end{equation}
3196: and the related area functional
3197: \begin{equation*}
3198: \mathcal{A}( \gamma )(s) =
3199: \frac{1}{2}
3200: \int \int _{ y \leq x}
3201: | \gamma_x \wedge
3202: \gamma_y | dx dy =
3203: \frac{1}{2}
3204: \int_{0}^{L}
3205: \int_{0}^{x}
3206: | v_1 (s, \, x)w_1(s, \, y) - v_1(s, \, y) w_1(s, \, x) |
3207: dx dy.
3208: \end{equation*}
3209: The curve $\gamma_x$ satisfies
3210: \begin{equation*}
3211: \gamma_{xt} + (\lambda_1 \gamma_x)_x = \gamma_{xxx}
3212: \end{equation*}
3213: and moreover one has
3214: \begin{equation*}
3215: \begin{split}
3216: & \frac{d \mathcal{A}(s)}{ ds} =
3217: \frac{1}{2}
3218: \int_0^L \int_y^L \text{sign} \Big( v_1 (s, \, x) w_1
3219: (s, \, y) - v_1 (s, \, y) w_1 (s, \, x) \Big)
3220: \bigg( v_1 (s, \, x) w_1(s, \, y) -
3221: v_1 (s, \, y) w_1 (s, \, x) \bigg)_{xx} \\
3222: & \quad - \frac{1}{2}
3223: \int_0^L \int_y^L \text{sign} \Big( v_1 (s, \, x) w_1
3224: (s, \, y) - v_1 (s, \, y) w_1 (s, \, x) \Big)
3225: \bigg( \lambda_1(s, \, x) \Big( v_1 (s, \, x) w_1
3226: (s, \, y) - v_1 (s, \, y) w_1 (s, \, x) \Big) \bigg)_x \\
3227: & \quad + \frac{1}{2}
3228: \int_0^L \int_0^x \text{sign} \Big( v_1 (s, \, x) w_1
3229: (s, \, y) - v_1 (s, \, y) w_1 (s, \, x) \Big)
3230: \bigg( v_1 (s, \, x) w_1(s, \, y) -
3231: v_1 (s, \, y) w_1 (s, \, x) \bigg)_{yy} \\
3232: & \quad - \frac{1}{2}
3233: \int_0^L \int_0^x \text{sign} \Big( v_1 (s, \, x) w_1
3234: (s, \, y) - v_1 (s, \, y) w_1 (s, \, x) \Big)
3235: \bigg( \lambda_1(s, \, y) \Big( v_1 (s, \, x) w_1
3236: (s, \, y) - v_1 (s, \, y) w_1 (s, \, x) \Big)\bigg)_y \\
3237: \end{split}
3238: \end{equation*}
3239: and hence
3240: \begin{equation*}
3241: \begin{split}
3242: \frac{ d \mathcal{A} }{ ds} \leq
3243: & \frac{1}{2} \int_0^L
3244: \big|
3245: v_{1y}(s, \, L)w_1(s, \, y) -
3246: v_1(s, \, y)w_{1y}(s, \, L)
3247: \big|dy -
3248: \frac{1}{2} \int_0^L
3249: \big|
3250: v_{1 y}(s, \, y) w_1(s, \, y) - w_{1y}(s, \, y)v_1(s, \, y)
3251: \big|dy \\
3252: & - \frac{1}{2} \int_0^L
3253: \lambda_1 (s, \, L)
3254: \big|
3255: v_1(s, \, L) w_1(s, \, y)-
3256: v_1(s, \, y) w_1(s, \, L )
3257: \big| dy \\
3258: & -
3259: \frac{1}{2} \int_0^L
3260: \big|
3261: v_1(s, \, x) w_{1 x}(s, \, x) - w_1(s, \, x) v_{1 x}(s, \, x)
3262: \big|dx +
3263: \frac{1}{2} \int_0^L
3264: \big|
3265: v_{1}(s, \, x)w_{1 x}(s, \, 0) -
3266: v_{1 x } (s, \, 0 )w_1(s, \, x)
3267: \big|dx \\
3268: \end{split}
3269: \end{equation*}
3270: Since $A(\gamma)(0) \leq \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1^2$, one obtains,
3271: using the estimates in Propositions \ref{functional_estimates_pro}
3272: and \ref{other_wrt_time_pro},
3273: \begin{equation*}
3274: \int_0^t \int_0^L
3275: \big|
3276: v_1(s, \, x)w_{1x}(s, \, x)-
3277: v_{1x}(s, \, x)w_1(s, \, x)
3278: \big|dx
3279: \leq
3280: -
3281: \int_0^t
3282: \frac{d\mathcal{A}}{ds} ds
3283: +
3284: \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1^2
3285: \leq
3286: \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1^2.
3287: \end{equation*}
3288:
3289: The length functional of the curve \eqref{gamma} is defined as
3290: \begin{equation*}
3291: \mathcal{L}(\gamma)(s) =
3292: \int_0^L | \gamma_x | dx =
3293: \int_0^L \sqrt{ v_1^2 + w_1^2} dx,
3294: \end{equation*}
3295: and will be used to prove the estimate
3296: \begin{equation}
3297: \label{length_functional_eq}
3298: \int_0^t \int _0^L
3299: v_1^2 \bigg[ \bigg(
3300: \frac{w_1}{v_1}
3301: \bigg)_x
3302: \bigg]^2
3303: \chi
3304: dx ds
3305: \leq
3306: \mathcal{O}(1)
3307: \delta_1^2,
3308: \end{equation}
3309: where $\chi$ is the characteristic function of the set
3310: \begin{equation*}
3311: \bigg\{
3312: x: \, \bigg| \frac{w_1}{v_1}(x)
3313: - \lambda_1^{\ast}
3314: \bigg|
3315: \leq
3316: 3 \hat{\delta} \bigg\}
3317: \end{equation*}
3318: (see Section \ref{par_gradient_decomposition} for the definition
3319: of $\hat{\delta}$).
3320:
3321: We preliminary observe that the following
3322: equalities hold:
3323: \begin{equation*}
3324: \begin{split}
3325: & |v_1| \bigg[ \bigg(
3326: \frac{w_1}{v_1}
3327: \bigg)_x
3328: \bigg]^2 =
3329: \frac{w_{1x}^2 v_1^2 +
3330: v_{1x}^2w_1^2-
3331: 2v_{1x}w_{1x}v_1w_1}
3332: {|v_1^3|} \leq
3333: C
3334: \frac{ | \gamma_{xx}|^2 |\gamma_x|^2-
3335: \langle \gamma_x, \, \gamma_{xx} \rangle ^2}
3336: {|\gamma_x|^3}, \\
3337: & |\lambda_1 \gamma_x|_x =
3338: \frac{\langle \lambda_1 \gamma_x, \,
3339: (\lambda_1 \gamma_x)_x \rangle }
3340: {| \lambda_1 \gamma_x|}=
3341: - \frac{\langle \gamma_x, \,
3342: (\lambda_1 \gamma_x)_x \rangle }
3343: {| \gamma_x|}, \\
3344: & | \gamma_{x}|_{xx} =
3345: \bigg(
3346: \frac{\langle \gamma_x, \, \gamma_{xx} \rangle }
3347: {|\gamma_x|}
3348: \bigg)_x
3349: =
3350: \frac{\langle \gamma_x, \, \gamma_{xx} \rangle ^2}
3351: {-|\gamma_x|^3}
3352: +
3353: \frac{\langle \gamma_x, \, \gamma_{xxx} \rangle }
3354: {|\gamma_x|}
3355: +
3356: \frac{|\gamma_{xx}|^2}{|\gamma_x|}. \\
3357: \end{split}
3358: \end{equation*}
3359: From $\gamma_{xt} + (\lambda_1 \gamma_x)_x = \gamma_{xxx}$, one gets integrating by parts
3360: \begin{equation*}
3361: \begin{split}
3362: \frac{d \mathcal{L}}{ds} & =
3363: \int_0^L
3364: \frac{\langle \gamma_{xxx}, \, \gamma_x \rangle }
3365: {|\gamma_x|} -
3366: \int_0^L
3367: \frac{\langle (\lambda_1 \gamma_x)_x, \,
3368: \gamma_x \rangle }
3369: { |\gamma_x|} \\
3370: & =
3371: \int_0^L |\gamma_x|_{xx} +
3372: \int_0^L
3373: \frac{\langle \gamma_x, \, \gamma_{xx} \rangle ^2}
3374: {|\gamma_x|^3} -
3375: \int_0^L \frac{|\gamma_{xx}|^2}{|\gamma_x|} +
3376: \int_0^L | \lambda_1 \gamma_x |_x. \\
3377: \end{split}
3378: \end{equation*}
3379: Hence,
3380: \begin{equation*}
3381: \begin{split}
3382: \frac{1}{C}
3383: \int_0^t \int _0^L
3384: |v_1| \bigg[ \bigg(
3385: \frac{w_1}{v_1}
3386: \bigg)_x
3387: \bigg]^2
3388: \chi
3389: dx ds \leq&~
3390: \int_0^t \int_0^L
3391: \frac{ | \gamma_{xx}|^2 |\gamma_x|^2-
3392: \langle \gamma_x, \, \gamma_{xx} \rangle ^2}
3393: {|\gamma_x|^3} dx ds
3394: \\
3395: \leq&~ - \int_0^t \frac{d \mathcal{L}}{ds} ds +
3396: \int_0^t
3397: \bigg[
3398: | \gamma_x |_x (s, \, x)
3399: \bigg]^{x=L}_{x=0}+
3400: \int_0^T
3401: \bigg[
3402: | \lambda_1 \gamma_x | (s, \, x)
3403: \bigg]^{x=L}_{x=0} ds \leq
3404: \mathcal{O}(1)
3405: \delta_1.
3406: \end{split}
3407: \end{equation*}
3408: In the previous estimate we have used the fact that $v_1, \; w_1,
3409: \; v_{1 x}, \; w_{1 x}$ are integrable with respect to time and
3410: that their integrals are bounded by $\unpo \delta_1$ (Propositions
3411: \ref{functional_estimates_pro} and \ref{other_wrt_time_pro}).
3412: Since $
3413: \| v_1 \|_{\infty}$ is bounded by $\mathcal{O}(1)
3414: \delta_1$, the previous estimate complete the proof of
3415: \eqref{length_functional_eq}.
3416:
3417: \subsection{Estimate on the error in choosing the speed}
3418: \label{energy_estimates}
3419:
3420:
3421: The final estimate is the source term due to the cutoff function
3422: $\theta$. Also this computation is similar to the one performed in
3423: \cite{BiaBrevv}, taking into account the fact that here we have a
3424: double boundary. In Appendix \ref{energy_estimates_proof} one can
3425: find the proof of the estimates
3426: \begin{equation}
3427: \label{energy_estimates_eq}
3428: \int_{0}^{t} \int_{0}^{L}
3429: \Big( |v_1|+|w_1|+|v_{1 x}| \Big)\Big(|w_1+\sigma_1 v_1|\Big)(s,x)
3430: dx ds
3431: \leq
3432: \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1 ^2.
3433: \end{equation}
3434: This ends the proof of the estimate
3435: \begin{equation*}
3436: \int_0^t \int_0^L |\tilde{s}_i (s, \, x)| ds dx \leq
3437: \unpo \delta_1^2 \quad i=1, \, 2,
3438: \end{equation*}
3439: and hence of Theorem \ref{BV}.
3440:
3441:
3442: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3443: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3444: %%% %%%
3445: %%% STABILITY %%%
3446: %%% %%%
3447: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3448: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3449: \section{Stability estimates}
3450: \label{stability_estimates} In this section we prove the second
3451: part of Theorem \ref{main_result}, completing the proof. Since the
3452: ideas are essentially the same as in the boundary free case, we
3453: will only sketch the line of the proof, paying more attention to
3454: the choice of the boundary conditions (which is the new element in
3455: this paper). The result of this section is thus:
3456:
3457: \begin{teo}
3458: \label{teo_stability}
3459: There exist constants $L_1$, $L_2$ s.t. the following holds:
3460: let $u^1, \; u^2$ be two solutions of the parabolic system
3461: \begin{equation}
3462: \label{eq_parabolic}
3463: u_t + A(u)u_x - u_{xx} = 0,
3464: \end{equation}
3465: with initial and boundary data $u^1_0, \; u^1_{b 0}, \; u^1_{b L}$
3466: and $u^2_0, \; u^2_{b 0}, \; u^2_{b L}$ respectively.
3467: Then
3468: \begin{equation}
3469: \label{estimate_stability2}
3470: \begin{split}
3471: \| u^1(t ) - u^2(s) \|_{L^1(0, \, L) }
3472: & \leq
3473: L_1 \Big( \|u^1_0 - u^2_0 \|_{L^1(0, \, L)} +
3474: \| u^1_{b 0} - u^2_{b 0}\|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)} +
3475: \| u^1_{b 0} - u^2_{b L}\|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)}
3476: \Big) \\
3477: & + L_2 \Big( |t - s| + |\sqrt{t} - \sqrt{s}\, | \Big).
3478: \end{split}
3479: \end{equation}
3480: \end{teo}
3481:
3482: % \subsection{Sketch of the proof of Theorem \ref{teo_stability}}
3483: %
3484: % The proof of Theorem
3485: % \ref{teo_stability} is quite similar to the proof of the $BV$
3486: % bound on the solution carried on in Paragraph \ref{BV_estimates}.
3487: % We will describe, therefore, only the crucial steps.
3488: \subsection{Stability with respect to initial and boundary data }
3489: We will prove that, in the hypothesis of Theorem
3490: \ref{teo_stability},
3491: \begin{equation}
3492: \label{eq_stability_bid}
3493: \| u^1(t ) - u^2(t) \|_{L^1(0, \, L) }
3494: \leq
3495: L_1 \Big( \|u^1_0 - u^2_0 \|_{L^1(0, \, L)} +
3496: \| u^1_{b 0} - u^2_{b 0}\|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)} +
3497: \| u^1_{b 0} - u^2_{b L}\|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)}
3498: \Big)
3499: \end{equation}
3500: Let $z(t, \, x)$ be a first order perturbation of a solution $u(t,
3501: \, x)$ of \eqref{eq_parabolic}. By straightforward computations
3502: one gets that $z$ satisfies
3503: \begin{equation}
3504: \label{equation_z}
3505: z_t + \big( A(u) z \big)_x - z_{xx} =
3506: \big( DA(u) u_x \big)z -
3507: \big( DA(u) z \big) u_x.
3508: \end{equation}
3509: %the symbol $\bullet$ denotes the directional derivative. \\
3510: To prove Theorem \ref{teo_stability}, it is
3511: enough to prove that any first order perturbation $z(t, \, x)$
3512: satisfies the bound
3513: \begin{equation}
3514: \label{lipII}
3515: \| z(t) \|_{L^1(0, \, L )} \leq
3516: L_1 \Big( \| z( t= 0)\|_{L^1(0, \, L)} +
3517: \| z( x= 0) \|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)} +
3518: \| z( x= L) \|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)} \Big).
3519: \end{equation}
3520: Indeed, provided \eqref{lipII} holds, a homotopy argument which
3521: can be found in \cite{Bre:con,BiaBre:BV} gives then the Lipschitz
3522: estimate \eqref{eq_stability_bid}.
3523:
3524:
3525: To prove \eqref{lipII} it is convenient to introduce the auxiliary
3526: variable
3527: \begin{equation*}
3528: \Upsilon = z_x - A(u) z,
3529: \end{equation*}
3530: which satisfies the equation
3531: \begin{equation}
3532: \label{eq_uu}
3533: \begin{split}
3534: \Upsilon_t + ( A(u) \Upsilon)_x - \Upsilon_{xx} =
3535: & \bigg[ DA(u) ( u_x \otimes z - z \otimes u_x)
3536: \bigg]_x -
3537: A(u) \bigg[ DA(u) \big( u_x \otimes z - z \otimes u_x
3538: \big) \bigg] \\
3539: & +
3540: DA(u) \big( u_x \otimes \Upsilon \big) -
3541: DA(u) \big( u_t \otimes z \big). \\
3542: \end{split}
3543: \end{equation}
3544:
3545: % We have to give boundary conditions to the equations for $z$, $\Upsilon$.
3546:
3547: %
3548: % Before describing the crucial steps in the proof of \eqref{lipII},
3549: % we introduce the boundary and initial conditions it is reasonable
3550: % to impose on $z$ and $\Upsilon$ will be dealt with.
3551: % \subsubsection{Boundary and initial data for $z$ and $\Upsilon$}
3552: Let $z_0 (x), \; z_{b \, 0}(t)$ and $z_{b \, L}(t)$ be the
3553: initial and boundary conditions we impose on $z$: since the final
3554: goal is to apply \eqref{lipII} in the homotopy argument, it is not
3555: restrictive to suppose that $z_0 (x), \; z_{b \, 0}(t)$ and $z_{b
3556: \, L}(t)$ satisfy the same regularity hypothesis as $u$. Indeed,
3557: the solution $z$ of \eqref{equation_z} that is used in the
3558: homotopy argument is on the boundaries and at $t =0$ just the
3559: difference of the solutions $u^1$ and $u^2$ of
3560: \eqref{eq_parabolic}.
3561:
3562: Hence we will suppose that $z_0 (x), \; z_{b \, 0}(t)$ and $z_{b
3563: \, L}(t)$ are regular and that $d^k z_0 / d x^k, \; d^k z_{b \,
3564: 0}/dt^k$ and $d^k z_{b \, L}/dt^k, \; k = 1, \dots n$ are
3565: integrable and have a small $L^1$ norm. Moreover, if $\| u_0^1
3566: -u_0^2 \|_{L^1(0, \, L)}$, $\|u_{b \, 0}^1 - u_{b \, 0}^2
3567: \|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)}$ or $\|u^1_{b \, L} - u^2_{b \, L}
3568: \|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)}$ are infinite, then
3569: \eqref{eq_stability_bid} holds trivially, and therefore we can
3570: suppose that $z_0 \in L^1(0, \, L)$, $z_{b \, 0}, \; z_{b \, L}
3571: \in L^1(0, \, + \infty)$.
3572:
3573:
3574: From the hypothesis on $z_0$ it immediately follows that $\uu(t
3575: =0)$ is regular and small in $L^1$ and sup norm. %\vspace{1cm}
3576:
3577: As in the proof of the $BV$ bounds on the solution $u$, the
3578: crucial step to show \eqref{lipII} is the introduction of a
3579: suitable decomposition along travelling waves and double boundary
3580: layers: note, moreover, that $u_x$ satisfies equation
3581: \eqref{equation_z}. Hence, it seems promising to decompose $z$
3582: along the same vectors $\tilde{r}_i (u, \, v_i, \, \sigma_i)$ and
3583: $\hat{r}_i(u, \, p_i)$ that appear in the decomposition
3584: \eqref{decomposition} of $u_x$. This choice actually leads to non
3585: integrable source terms. We will therefore allow the vectors
3586: employed in the decomposition of $z$ to depend not only on the
3587: solution $u$, but also on the perturbation $z$ itself:
3588: \begin{equation*}
3589: \left\{
3590: \begin{array}{ll}
3591: z = z_1 \tr(u, \, v_1, \, \tau_1)
3592: + z_2 r_2 + q_1 \hr (u, \, p_1) + q_2 r_2 \\
3593: \Upsilon = \iota_1 \tr( u, \, v_1, \, \tau_1)
3594: + \iota_2 r_2. \\
3595: \end{array}
3596: \right.
3597: \end{equation*}
3598: In the previous expression the speed of the travelling waves
3599: described by the vector $\tr$ is not $\sigma_1$, but
3600: \begin{equation*}
3601: \tau_1 = \theta \bigg(
3602: \lambda_1^{\ast} - \frac{z_1 }{
3603: \upsilon_1}
3604: \bigg) -
3605: \lambda_1^{\ast}.
3606: \end{equation*}
3607: The function $\theta$ is the cutoff
3608: \begin{equation*}
3609: \theta(s) =
3610: \left\{
3611: \begin{array}{lll}
3612: s \quad \quad \textrm{if} \; |s|\leq \hat{\delta} \\
3613: 0 \quad \quad \textrm{if} \; |s|\geq 3 \hat{\delta} \\
3614: \textrm{smooth connection if}
3615: \quad \hat{\delta} \leq s \leq 3 \hat{\delta}
3616: \end{array}
3617: \right.
3618: \qquad \qquad \hat{\delta} \leq \frac{1}{3}.
3619: \end{equation*}
3620: The proof of \eqref{lipII} is from now on very similar to that of
3621: the $BV$ bounds: one inserts the previous decomposition in the
3622: equations \eqref{equation_z} and \eqref{eq_uu} and obtains the
3623: equations:
3624: \begin{equation}
3625: \label{eq_z_i_q_i}
3626: \begin{array}{llllll}
3627: z_{1 t}+ ( \lambda_1 z_1)_x - z_{1 xx} = 0
3628: &
3629: z_{2 t}+ ( \lambda_2 z_2)_x - z_{2 xx} = \underline{s}_1 (t, \, x) \\
3630: q_{1 t}+ ( \lambda_1 q_1)_x - q_{1 xx} = 0
3631: &
3632: q_{2 t}+ ( \hat{\lambda}_2 q_2)_x - q_{2 xx} = 0 \\
3633: \iota_{1 t}+ ( \lambda_1 \iota_1)_x - \iota_{1 xx} =
3634: \underline{s}_{\; 3}(t, \, x)
3635: &
3636: \iota_{2 t}+ ( \lambda_2 \iota_2)_x - \iota_{2 xx} =
3637: \underline{s}_{\, 2}(t, \, x) \\
3638: \end{array}
3639: \end{equation}
3640: As in the proof of the $BV$ bounds, to prove \eqref{lipII} it is
3641: sufficient to show that the condition
3642: \begin{equation*}
3643: \|z(s)\|_{L^1(0, \, L)} \leq C \delta_1 \quad \forall \, s
3644: \in [0, \, t]
3645: \end{equation*}
3646: implies
3647: \begin{equation*}
3648: \int_0^t \int_0^L |\underline{s}_{\; i} (s, \, x)| dx ds
3649: \leq \unpo \delta_1^2 \quad i = 1, \, 2, \, 3
3650: \end{equation*}
3651: and suitable bounds on the boundary terms. Moreover, in the proof
3652: of the previous implication it is not restrictive to assume
3653: \begin{equation*}
3654: \int_0^t \int_0^L |\underline{s}_{\; i} (s, \, x)| dx ds
3655: \leq \unpo \delta_1 \quad i = 1, \, 2, \, 3 ,
3656: \end{equation*}
3657: because a posteriori one finds a bound of order $\delta_1^2$.
3658:
3659: Actually, one could observe that while the equations for $u_x$ and
3660: $u_t$ have no source term (see Appendix \ref{explicit_source_t}
3661: for details), the equations \eqref{equation_z} and \eqref{eq_uu}
3662: have nontrivial source terms. However, one can show that both the
3663: source terms in \eqref{equation_z} and \eqref{eq_uu} and the other
3664: terms that contribute to $\underline{s}_i$, $i=1, \, 2, \, 3$ can
3665: be bounded by an expression analogous to the one that appears on
3666: the right side of \eqref{reasons_of_source_term_eq}. The
3667: computations that ensure such an estimate are quite similar to
3668: those performed in the proof of Section
3669: \ref{reasons_of_source_term}.
3670:
3671: The proof of \eqref{lipII} can therefore be completed with the
3672: same tools described in Paragraph \ref{BV_estimates}, hence we
3673: will skip all the details.% and we will assume that Theorem
3674: %\ref{teo_stability} is proved.
3675:
3676: \subsection{Stability with respect to time}
3677:
3678: Let $u(t, \, x)$ be a solution of \eqref{eq_parabolic}: from
3679: Proposition \ref{pro_u_xx} and the observations that follow one
3680: gets
3681: \begin{equation*}
3682: \|u_{xx}(t)\|_{L^1} \leq
3683: \left\{
3684: \begin{array}{ll}
3685: \unpo \delta_1 / \sqrt{t} \quad t \leq 1 \\
3686: \unpo \delta_1 \quad t > 1. \\
3687: \end{array}
3688: \right.
3689: \end{equation*}
3690: Let $t_1 \leq t_2$: the estimate above implies
3691: \begin{equation}
3692: \label{estimate_L1_wrtt}
3693: \begin{split}
3694: \|u(t_1 ) - u(t_2)\|_{L^1(0, \, L)}
3695: & \leq
3696: \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \bigg\|
3697: \frac{\partial u}{ \partial t}
3698: (t, \, x) \bigg\|_{L^1} dt \leq
3699: \int_{t_1}^{t_2} (\unpo \| u_x (t, \, x)\|_{L^1} +
3700: \|u_{xx}(t, \, x))\|_{L^1} ) dt \\
3701: & \leq
3702: \unpo \int_{t_1}^{t_2} ( \delta_1 + \delta_1 / \sqrt{t}) dt
3703: \leq \unpo \delta_1 |t_1 - t_2| + \unpo \delta_1 |\sqrt{t_1} -
3704: \sqrt{t_2} \, | \\
3705: & \leq L_2 \Big( |t_1 - t_2|+ |\sqrt{t_1} - \sqrt{t_2}\, | \Big). \\
3706: \end{split}
3707: \end{equation}
3708: This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{teo_stability} and hence
3709: of Theorem \ref{main_result}.
3710: %
3711: % Note that actually we have proved that the $L_2= \unpo \delta_1$,
3712: % but in the following we will just use the fact that it is bounded.
3713: %
3714:
3715:
3716: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3717: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3718: %%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%
3719: %%%%%%%%%%% THE VANISHING VISCOSITY %%%%%%%%%%%
3720: %%%%%%%%%%% SEMIGROUP %%%%%%%%%%%
3721: %%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%
3722: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3723: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3724: \section{The vanishing viscosity limit}
3725: \label{par_semigroup}
3726:
3727:
3728: In this section we prove Theorem \ref{T:2}. The proof proceeds in
3729: two steps: first, by using the results of Theorem
3730: \ref{main_result}, we obtain that there exists a subsequence of
3731: solutions $u^\epsilon$ to the problem
3732: \begin{equation*}
3733: \left\{
3734: \begin{array}{lllll}
3735: u_t + A (u) u_x =0 ,
3736: \quad
3737: x \in \, ]0, \, l[ \; \;
3738: t \in \, ]0, + \infty [ \\
3739: \\
3740: u(0, x) = \bar{u}_0 (x)\\
3741: \\
3742: u(t, 0) = \bar{u}_{b \, 0}(t) \qquad
3743: u(t, l) = \bar{u}_{b l}(t) \\
3744: \end{array}
3745: \right.
3746: \end{equation*}
3747: which converges to a Lipschitz semigroup. Then we use the
3748: machinery of viscosity solutions to complete the proof, showing
3749: the uniqueness of the limit. In particular, we exhibit explicitly
3750: the boundary Riemann solver.
3751:
3752:
3753: % \subsection{The semigroup property}
3754:
3755: Let $\semie$ the solution of the system \eqref{vvapproximation}:
3756: from Theorem \ref{BV} one gets that the total variation of the
3757: solution of system \eqref{rescaled} is uniformly bounded with
3758: respect to time and hence, by a change of variables, $\semie$
3759: satisfies
3760: \begin{equation*}
3761: \bv \big\{ \semie \big\}
3762: , \; \Big| \semie( x) \Big| \leq \unpo \delta_1
3763: \quad
3764: \forall \, t>0, \; x \in \, [0, \, l], \;
3765: \ee > 0
3766: \end{equation*}
3767: and for any $\bar{u}_0 \in \domainu \; \bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \,
3768: \bar{u}_{b\, l} \in \domainub.$ By Helly's theorem, for every
3769: sequence $\ee_n \to 0^+$ and for any $t \ge 0 $ there exists a
3770: subsequence, which we still call $\ee_n$ for simplicity, such that
3771: $p_t^{\; \ee_n}[\bar{u}_0, \, \bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \, \bar{u}_{b \,
3772: l}]$ converges in $L^1(0, \, l)$. The stability with respect to
3773: time and to initial and boundary data ensures that, by a standard
3774: diagonalization procedure, one can find a function
3775: \begin{equation*}
3776: \begin{array}{ccccc}
3777: p &:&
3778: [0, \, + \infty [ \, \times \, \domainu
3779: \times \domainub \times \domainub
3780: & \to & \domain \\
3781: & & (t, \, \bar{u}_0, \, \bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \, \bar{u}_{b \, l})
3782: & \mapsto &
3783: \semi \\
3784: \end{array}
3785: \end{equation*}
3786: such that, up to subsequences,
3787: \begin{equation*}
3788: p_t^{\; \ee_n}(t)[\bar{u}_0, \, \bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \,
3789: \bar{u}_{b \, l}] \to \semi \quad L^1(0, \, l)\quad
3790: \forall \, t \ge 0, \;
3791: \bar{u}_0 \in \domainu, \; \bar{u}_{b \, 0},
3792: \, \bar{u}_{b \, l} \in \domainub.
3793: \end{equation*}
3794: Moreover, one can verify that the function
3795: \begin{equation}
3796: \label{eq_semigroup}
3797: \begin{array}{ccccc}
3798: S &:&
3799: [0, \, + \infty [ \, \times \, \domainu
3800: \times \domainub \times \domainub
3801: & \to& \domain \times \domainub \times \domainub \\
3802: & & (t, \, \bar{u}_0, \, \bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \, \bar{u}_{b \, l})
3803: & \mapsto&
3804: \bigg( \semi, \, \bar{u}_0( \, \cdot \, + t), \,
3805: \bar{u}_{b \, 0}( \, \cdot \, + t), \,
3806: \bar{u}_{b \, l}(\, \cdot \, +t ) \bigg)\\
3807: \end{array}
3808: \end{equation}
3809: satisfies the semigroup properties, together with the Lipschitz estimate
3810: \begin{equation}
3811: \label{E:lip2}
3812: \begin{split}
3813: \Bigl\| \semi - p_s [ \bar{v}_{0}, \, \bar{v}_{b \, 0}, \,
3814: \bar{v}_{b \, l} ] \Bigr\|_{L^1} \leq
3815: & L_1 \bigg( \|\bar{v}_{ 0} - \bar{u}_{0}\|_{L^1(0, \, l)}+
3816: \|\bar{v}_{b 0} - \bar{u}_{b 0}\|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)}
3817: \\
3818: & + \|\bar{v}_{b l} - \bar{u}_{b l}\|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)} \bigg)+
3819: L_2 |t -s|, \\
3820: \end{split}
3821: \end{equation}
3822:
3823: We now make use of the tool of viscosity solution, which was first
3824: introduced in \cite{Bre:Gli}.
3825:
3826: \subsection{The Riemann solver and the boundary Riemann solver}
3827: \label{par_riemann} %As we underlined in Paragraph
3828: %\ref{par_semigroup_un}
3829: A crucial step in the proof of the uniqueness of the vanishing
3830: viscosity limit is the local description of the vanishing
3831: viscosity solution in case of piecewise constant data, which
3832: however has an interest in its own. The aim of this section is to
3833: characterize the limit as $\ee_n \to 0^+$ of the solution of
3834: \begin{equation}
3835: \label{eq_briemann}
3836: \left\{
3837: \begin{array}{lll}
3838: u_t + A(u) u_x = \ee_n u_{xx} \\
3839: u(0, \, x) =
3840: \left\{
3841: \begin{array}{ll}
3842: u^+ \quad x > 0 \\
3843: u^- \quad x < 0 \\
3844: \end{array}
3845: \right. \\
3846: u(t, \, 0) \equiv u_{b \, 0}
3847: \qquad
3848: u(t, \, l) \equiv u_{b \, l} \\
3849: \end{array}
3850: \right.
3851: \end{equation}
3852: where $u^+, \; u^-, \; u_{b \, 0}$ and $u_{b \, l}$ are
3853: constants. In the following, we will write "solution to the
3854: Riemann problem" meaning "vanishing viscosity solution to the
3855: Riemann problem".
3856:
3857: In \cite{AnBia,BiaBrevv} it is shown that the solution of
3858: \eqref{eq_briemann} is defined locally: to solve
3859: \eqref{eq_briemann} it is therefore sufficient to characterize the
3860: vanishing viscous solutions in the following three cases:
3861: \begin{enumerate}
3862: \item
3863: the Cauchy problem with datum
3864: \begin{equation*}
3865: u_0(x) =
3866: \left\{
3867: \begin{array}{ll}
3868: u^- \quad x < 0 \\
3869: u^+ \quad x > 0 \\
3870: \end{array}
3871: \right.
3872: \end{equation*}
3873: \item the boundary problem at $x=0$
3874: \begin{equation*}
3875: \left\{
3876: \begin{array}{ll}
3877: u(0, \, x) \equiv u_{0} \\
3878: u(t, \, 0) \equiv u_{b \, 0} \\
3879: \end{array}
3880: \right.
3881: \end{equation*}
3882: \item the boundary problem at $x=l$
3883: \begin{equation*}
3884: \left\{
3885: \begin{array}{ll}
3886: u(0, \, x) \equiv u_{0} \\
3887: u(t, \, l) \equiv u_{b \, l} \\
3888: \end{array}
3889: \right.
3890: \end{equation*}
3891: \end{enumerate}
3892: The second and the third case are clearly analogous, and therefore
3893: in Section
3894: \ref{par_boundary_solver} we will deal only with the second one.
3895: In the following section, instead, we will recall for completeness
3896: the essential steps of the construction of the solution in case 1:
3897: we refer to \cite{BiaBrevv} for an exhaustive account.
3898:
3899: In any of
3900: the three cases the crucial step is the definition of two families
3901: of admissible states, as it will be
3902: clearer in the following.
3903:
3904: \subsection{The non conservative Riemann solver}
3905: \label{par_non_cons}
3906:
3907:
3908: Since in this case the construction of the
3909: first and the second curve of admissible states is the same, we
3910: will describe only the construction of the first curve $T^1u_r$ of
3911: the
3912: states that can be connected
3913: by waves of the first family to a right state $u_r$.
3914: For a general reference, see \cite{BiaBrevv}.
3915:
3916: Consider the family $\Upsilon \subset \mathcal{C}^0( \, [0, \, s
3917: ]; \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R})$ of curves
3918: \begin{equation*}
3919: \tau \mapsto (u(\tau), \, v_1 (\tau), \, \sigma_1(\tau)),
3920: \quad \tau \, \in \, [0, \, s]
3921: \end{equation*}
3922: with
3923: \begin{equation*}
3924: | u (\tau) - u^{\ast}| \leq \ee,
3925: \quad
3926: |v_1| \leq \ee,
3927: \quad
3928: |\lambda_1^{\ast}- \sigma_1 (\tau) |
3929: \leq \ee.
3930: \end{equation*}
3931: The function $f_1(\tau)$ related to the curve $\gamma \in \uu$ is
3932: defined as
3933: \begin{equation*}
3934: f_1 (\tau) = \int_0^{\tau} \lambda_1 \big( u(\varsigma) \big)
3935: d \varsigma.
3936: \end{equation*}
3937: Let $\tr$ be the generalized eigenvector of the travelling waves
3938: of first family (see Section \ref{par_travelling_waves} for the
3939: proper definition of $\tr$). By the contraction map principle, one
3940: can show that if $s$ is small enough then for any $\tau \in [0, \,
3941: s]$ there is a solution $(\hat{u}, \, \hat{v}_1, \,
3942: \hat{\sigma}_1)$ of the following system:
3943: \begin{equation*}
3944: \left\{
3945: \begin{array}{lll}
3946: \hat{u}( \tau) = {\displaystyle u_r + \int_0^{\tau} \tr
3947: \big( \hat{u}(\varsigma), \, \hat{v}_1 (\varsigma), \,
3948: \hat{\sigma}_1 (\varsigma) d \varsigma } \\
3949: \hat{v}_1 (\tau) = \mathrm{conc}_{[0, \, s]} f_1 (\tau) -
3950: f_1 (\tau) \phantom{{\displaystyle \int}} \\
3951: \hat{\sigma}_1 (\tau)=
3952: {\displaystyle \frac{ d \mathrm{conc}_{[0, \, s]} f_1}{d \tau}}. \\
3953: \end{array}
3954: \right.
3955: \end{equation*}
3956: %\noindent
3957: We indicate with $\mathrm{conc}_{[0, \, s]} f_1$ the
3958: concave
3959: envelope of $f_1$ in the interval $[0, \, s]$.
3960:
3961: The curve of admissible states passing through $u_r$ is defined as
3962: $T^1_{s} u_r = \hat{u}(s)$. Indeed, let
3963: \begin{equation*}
3964: \tilde{u}( x/t) =
3965: \left\{
3966: \begin{array}{lll}
3967: T^1_s u_r
3968: \quad x / t < \sigma_1 (s)\\
3969: \hat{u}(\tau)
3970: \quad \sigma_1 (\tau) = x / t \\
3971: u_r
3972: \quad x /t > \sigma_1 (0):
3973: \end{array}
3974: \right.
3975: \end{equation*}
3976: one can show that any sequence of vanishing viscosity solution of
3977: the Riemann problem with data $(u_r, \, T^1_s u_r )$ converges to
3978: $\tilde{u}$. Moreover, the curve $T^1_s u_r$ is Lipchitz
3979: continuous.
3980:
3981: \subsection{The boundary Riemann solver}
3982: \label{par_boundary_solver}
3983:
3984: In this paragraph we will construct
3985: the vanishing viscosity solution in case 2. We will proceed as
3986: follows: we will construct two curves of admissible states $Z^1$
3987: and $Z^2$ and given a right state $u_0$ and a left state $u_{b \,
3988: 0}$, we will show that there is a couple $(s_1, \, s_2)$ such that
3989: \begin{equation*}
3990: Z^1_{s_1} \circ Z^2_{s_1} u_0 = u_{b \, 0}.
3991: \end{equation*}
3992: The waves of the second family are entering the domain: it is
3993: therefore quite reasonable to suppose that they are not influenced
3994: by the presence of the boundary and therefore the second
3995: admissible curve will be the one defined in the previous
3996: paragraph, $Z^2_s u_0= T^2_s u_0$. Let $\bar{u} = Z^2_{s_2} u_0$ be the value reached
3997: throughout the waves of the first family.
3998:
3999: The waves of the first family are leaving the domain and are
4000: therefore affected by the boundary datum. To understand their
4001: behavior, it is convenient to focus the attention on the boundary
4002: layers of the first family, i.e. on the solution of
4003: \begin{equation}
4004: \label{eq_stat}
4005: \begin{split}
4006: u_{xx}= A(u)u_x
4007: \end{split}
4008: \end{equation}
4009: that are exponentially decreasing to an equilibrium as $x \to
4010: +\infty$. One can now go back to the problem
4011: \begin{equation*}
4012: A(u^{\ee}) u^{\ee}_x = \ee u^{\ee}_{xx}
4013: \end{equation*}
4014: and let $\ee \to 0^+$. Since $u^{\ee}( x) = u(x/\ee)$, we get
4015: \begin{equation}
4016: \label{eq_boundary_layers}
4017: \lim_{\ee \to 0^+} u^{\ee}( 0^+) =
4018: \lim_{x \to + \infty} u( x).
4019: \end{equation}
4020: Such a behavior is illustrated in figure
4021: \ref{fig_boundary_layers}.
4022: \begin{figure}
4023: \caption{the graphic and the orbit of a boundary layer of the
4024: first family connecting $u_{b \, 0}$ to $\bar{u}$: when $\ee \to
4025: 0^+$ the graphic is pressed against the axis $x=0$}
4026: \label{fig_boundary_layers}
4027: \begin{center}
4028: \psfrag{a}{$\bar{u}$} \psfrag{b}{$u_{b \, 0}$}
4029: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{riemann.eps}
4030: \hfill
4031: \psfrag{W}{$p_2$} \psfrag{V}{$p_1$} \psfrag{Z}{$u$}
4032: \psfrag{v}{$u_{b \, 0}$} \psfrag{u}{$\bar{u}$}
4033: \psfrag{o}{$(u^{\ast}, \, 0, \, 0)$}
4034: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{boundary_layer_manifolds.eps}
4035: \end{center}
4036: \end{figure}
4037:
4038: The value $\lim_{\ee \to 0^+} u^{\ee}(0^+)$ is the state reached
4039: throughout the waves of the second family: we called it $\bar{u}$.
4040: It also represents the trace of the hyperbolic limit on the
4041: boundary $x=0$. From \eqref{eq_boundary_layers} it follows that
4042: the states which can be connected to $\bar{u}$ by boundary layers
4043: are the initial points of orbits that decrease exponentially to
4044: $\bar{u}$, i.e. that lay on the stable manifold throughout
4045: $\bar{u}$.
4046:
4047: The stable manifold at the equilibrium point $(\bar{u}, \, 0)$ of
4048: the system
4049: \begin{equation}
4050: \label{eq_blayer}
4051: \left\{
4052: \begin{array}{ll}
4053: u_x = p \\
4054: p_x = A(u) p \\
4055: \end{array}
4056: \right.
4057: \end{equation}
4058: is parameterized by the projection $p_1$ of $p$ on the stable
4059: space. Passages analogous to those in Section \ref{par_double_bp}
4060: ensure that the stable manifold is characterized by the relation
4061: $p= p_1 \breve{r}_1 (p_1)$ for a suitable vector function
4062: \begin{equation*}
4063: \breve{r}_1=
4064: \left(
4065: \begin{array}{cc}
4066: 1 \\
4067: f(p_1)
4068: \end{array}
4069: \right).
4070: \end{equation*}
4071: One imposes $u_1 (+ \infty) = \langle l_1, \, \bar{u} \rangle $
4072: and from the second equation gets
4073: \begin{equation*}
4074: u_1 (0) = \langle l_1, \, \bar{u} \rangle -
4075: p_{1}(0) \exp \bigg( \int_0^{+ \infty}
4076: \lambda_1 \Big( u_1 \big( p_1 (0), \, x \big)\Big)d x \bigg).
4077: \end{equation*}
4078: Since $\lambda_1 \leq -c < 0$, the previous map is invertible and
4079: one can express $p_1(0)$ as a function of $u_1(0).$ The inverse
4080: map is clearly regular.
4081:
4082: We parameterize the stable manifold by $ s_1 : = u_1 - <l_1 , \,
4083: \bar{u}>$ and obtain (for some suitable regular function $z$) the
4084: map
4085: \begin{equation}
4086: \label{eq_stable_man}
4087: Z^1_{s_1} \bar{u} =
4088: \left(
4089: \begin{array}{cc}
4090: \langle l_1 , \, \bar{u} \rangle + s_1 \\
4091: z(s_1)
4092: \end{array}
4093: \right),
4094: \end{equation}
4095: defined on a small enough interval $[0, \, s]$.
4096: % \vspace{1cm}
4097: %
4098: % \noindent
4099:
4100: The vanishing viscosity solution of
4101: \begin{equation}
4102: \label{eq_riemann}
4103: \left\{
4104: \begin{array}{lll}
4105: u_t + A(u) u_x =0 \\
4106: \\
4107: u(t, \, 0) \equiv u_0
4108: \qquad
4109: u(0, \, x) \equiv u_{b \, 0}
4110: \end{array}
4111: \right.
4112: \end{equation}
4113: can be constructed patching together the curve described so far.
4114: Let
4115: \begin{equation*}
4116: u_{b \, 0} = Z_{s_1}^1 \circ T_{s_2}^2 u_0:
4117: \end{equation*}
4118: thanks to a version of the implicit function theorem valid for
4119: Lipschitz maps (see \cite{Cl}), one can reconstruct from $u_0$ and
4120: $u_{b \, 0}$ the couple $(s_1, \, s_2)$. The vanishing viscosity
4121: solution of \eqref{eq_riemann} is then given by
4122: \begin{equation*}
4123: u(t, \, x) =
4124: \left\{
4125: \begin{array}{lll}
4126: T^2_{s_2} u_0
4127: & x / t < \sigma_2
4128: (s_2)\\
4129: \hat{u}(\tau)
4130: & \sigma_2 (\tau) = x / t \\
4131: u_0
4132: & x /t > \sigma_2 (0).
4133: \end{array}
4134: \right.
4135: \end{equation*}
4136: One gets in particular that the trace of the solution at $x =0$ is
4137: not necessarily the boundary value $u_{b \, 0}$, but it is the
4138: intermediate state $T^2_{s_2} u_0$.
4139:
4140:
4141: \begin{rem}
4142: \label{rem_comparison} In the case of systems in conservation
4143: form, with only linearly degenerate or genuinely non linear
4144: fields, a boundary Riemman solver was introduced in
4145: \cite{DubLeFl}. In that paper, it was introduced the following
4146: admissibility condition on the trace $u(t, \, 0^+) = \bar{u}$ of
4147: the solution of \eqref{eq_riemann}: the solution in the sense of
4148: Lax \cite{Lax} of the Riemann problem
4149: \begin{equation*}
4150: \left\{
4151: \begin{array}{ll}
4152: u_t + f(u)_x =0 \\
4153: u(0, \, x)=
4154: \left\{
4155: \begin{array}{lll}
4156: \bar{u}_b \qquad x < 0 \\
4157: \\
4158: \bar{u} \; \qquad x > 0 \\
4159: \end{array}
4160: \right.
4161: \end{array}
4162: \right.
4163: \end{equation*}
4164: is composed only of waves with non positive speed. Such a
4165: condition is in general different from \eqref{eq_stable_man} and
4166: therefore the two boundary Riemann solvers do not coincide.
4167:
4168: On the other side, in \cite{Good, SabTou:mixte, Ama, AmaCol} it
4169: was considered a quite general boundary condition: more precisely,
4170: let $N$ be the dimension of the system
4171: \begin{equation*}
4172: u_t + f(u)_x =0
4173: \end{equation*}
4174: and let $p$ be the number of positive eigenvalues of $Df(u)$,
4175: which is supposed to be constant. Let ${b: \mathbb{R}^N \to
4176: \mathbb{R}^p}$ be a regular enough function such that $Db(u)$ is
4177: injective on the space generated by the $p$ eigenvectors of
4178: $Df(u)$ associated to positive eigenvalues; then, given $g: [0, \,
4179: + \infty[ \to \mathbb{R}^p$, the boundary condition considered in
4180: \cite{Good, SabTou:mixte, Ama, AmaCol} is $g(t) = b \big(u(t, \,
4181: 0^+) \big)$. Such a definition, which in the original papers was
4182: introduced in the case of conservative systems with only linearly
4183: degenerate or genuinely non linear fields, is compatible with the
4184: boundary Riemann solver defined by the vanishing viscosity limit.
4185: Indeed, in our case $N=2$, $p=1$: let $b(u)$ be equal to the
4186: coordinate of $u$ along the curve of admissible states $T^2 u_0$,
4187: i.e. let $b(u) = s_2$ if $u= Z^1_{s_1} \circ T^2_{s_2} u_0$.
4188: Moreover, let $g$ be the coordinate of $\bar{u}_b$ along the same
4189: curve: with this choice, the condition
4190: \begin{equation*}
4191: u(t, \, 0^+) =
4192: T^2_{s_2} u_0 \qquad
4193: \bar{u}_b = Z^1_{s_1} \circ T^2_{s_2} u_0
4194: \end{equation*}
4195: is equivalent to $g(t) = b\big( u(t, \, 0^+) \big)$.
4196: %since in \cite{Good, SabTou:mixte, Ama, AmaCol} it was considered
4197: %only the case of conservative systems with only linearly
4198: %degenerate or genuinely non linear fields, those curves are
4199: %exactly the shocks, rarefaction waves and contact discontinuities
4200: %defined by Lax \cite{Lax}. Since
4201: \end{rem}
4202:
4203: \subsection{Viscosity solutions}
4204: \label{par_viscosity_solutions}
4205:
4206: Before giving the definition of viscosity solution we have to
4207: introduce some preliminary notation; moreover, in the following we
4208: will use the spaces $\domainu$, $\domainub$, $\domain$ that have
4209: been defined in the introduction (equation \eqref{eq_domain} and
4210: previous lines).
4211:
4212: Let $u(t, \, x)$ be a function such that, for any $t$, $u(t) \in
4213: \mathcal{D}_0$: given a point $(\tau, \, \xi) \in ]0, \, l[ \times
4214: [0, \, + \infty[$, let $A^{\mathfrak{b}}=A\big(u(\tau, \, \xi)
4215: \big)$ and let $U^{\mathfrak{b}}_{(u, \, \tau, \, \xi)}$ be the
4216: solution of the linear Cauchy problem
4217: \begin{equation*}
4218: w_t + A^{\mathfrak{b}}w_x = 0
4219: \qquad
4220: w(0, \, x) = u(\tau, \, x).
4221: \end{equation*}
4222: Viceversa, let
4223: $U^{\sharp}_{(u, \, \tau, \, \xi)}$ be the solution (defined in
4224: Section \ref{par_non_cons}) of the Riemann problem
4225: \begin{equation*}
4226: \begin{split}
4227: & u_t + A(u) u_x = 0 \\
4228: & u(0, \, x) =
4229: \left\{
4230: \begin{array}{ll}
4231: u(\tau, \, \xi^-)
4232: \qquad
4233: x < 0 \\
4234: u(\tau, \, \xi^+)
4235: \qquad
4236: x >0 \\
4237: \end{array}
4238: \right. \\
4239: \end{split}
4240: \end{equation*}
4241: The previous limits are well defined, since $u(\tau ) \in BV(0, \,
4242: l)$. Given a function $\bar{u}_{b \, 0} \in \domainub$, the
4243: definition of $U^{\sharp}_{(u, \, \tau, \, \xi)}$ can be extended
4244: naturally to the case $\xi=0$: it is enough to define
4245: $U^{\sharp}_{(u, \, \bar{u}_{b 0}, \, \tau)}$ as the solution
4246: (described in Section \ref{par_boundary_solver}) of the boundary
4247: Riemann problem
4248: \begin{equation*}
4249: \left\{
4250: \begin{array}{ll}
4251: u_t + A(u) u_x = 0 \\
4252: u(0, \, x) \equiv u(\tau, \, 0^+)
4253: \qquad
4254: u(t, \, 0) \equiv \bar{u}_{b \, 0}( \tau^+). \\
4255: \end{array}
4256: \right.
4257: \end{equation*}
4258: Given a function $\bar{u}_{b \, l} \in \domainub$, the definition
4259: of $U^{\sharp}_{(u, \, \bar{u}_{b l}, \, \tau)}$ is clearly
4260: analogous.
4261: \begin{say}
4262: \label{def_vs}
4263: Let $u(t, \, x)$ such that for any $t$, $u(t) \in
4264: \mathcal{D}_0$ and such that the function
4265: $t \mapsto u(t, \, \cdot \, )$ is continuous
4266: in $L^1_{loc}$ and let
4267: $\bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \; \bar{u}_{b \, l} \in \domainub$ and
4268: $\bar{u}_0 \in \domainu$.
4269:
4270: Then $u$ is a viscosity solution of the system
4271: \begin{equation}
4272: \label{eq_the_problem_II}
4273: \left\{
4274: \begin{array}{lllll}
4275: u_t + A (u) u_x =0 ,
4276: \quad
4277: x \in \, ]0, \, l[, \;
4278: t \in \, ]0, + \infty [ \\
4279: \\
4280: u(0, x) = \bar{u}_0 (x)\\
4281: \\
4282: u(t, 0) = \bar{u}_{b \, 0}(t) \qquad
4283: u(t, l) = \bar{u}_{b \, l}(t) \\
4284: \end{array}
4285: \right.
4286: \end{equation}
4287: if and only if the followings hold: \\
4288: (i) $u(0) = \bar{u}_0$ \\
4289: (ii) for every $\beta> 0$ and for every point
4290: $(\tau, \, \xi)$ with $\xi \neq 0, \; l$
4291: \begin{equation*}
4292: \lim_{h \to 0^+} \frac{1}{h}
4293: \int_{\max \{0, \, \xi - \beta h \}}^{\min\{l, \, \xi + \beta h\}}
4294: \big| u( \tau+ h, \, x) -
4295: U_{(u, \, \tau, \, \xi )}^{\sharp}(h, \, x - \xi)
4296: \big| dx = 0
4297: \end{equation*}
4298: (iii) for every $\beta > 0$ and for every $\tau > 0$
4299: \begin{equation*}
4300: \lim_{h \to 0^+} \frac{1}{h}
4301: \int_0^{\min\{l, \, \beta h\}}
4302: \big| u( \tau+ h, \, x) -
4303: U_{(u, \, \bar{u}_{b 0}, \, \tau )}^{\sharp}(h, \, x )
4304: \big| dx = 0;
4305: \end{equation*}
4306: and
4307: \begin{equation*}
4308: \lim_{h \to 0^+} \frac{1}{h}
4309: \int_{\max \{0, \, l - \beta h \}}^{l}
4310: \big| u( \tau+ h, \, x) -
4311: U_{(u, \, \bar{u}_{b l}, \, \tau )}^{\sharp}(h, \, x )
4312: \big| dx = 0
4313: \end{equation*}
4314: (iv) there exist constants $C$ and $\beta'$
4315: such that for every point $(\tau, \, \xi)$
4316: with $\xi \neq 0, \, l$ and for every $\rho>0$ small enough
4317: \begin{equation*}
4318: \limsup_{h \to 0^+} \frac{1}{h}
4319: \int_{\max \{0, \, \xi- \rho +
4320: \beta' h \}}^{\min \{l, \, \xi + \rho - \beta' h\}}
4321: \big| u( \tau+ h, \, x) -
4322: U_{(u, \, \tau, \, \xi)}^{\mathfrak{b}}(h, \, x - \xi)
4323: \big| dx \leq C \bigg( \bv \big( u(\tau), \,
4324: ] \xi - \rho, \, \xi + \rho[ \big) \bigg)^2.
4325: \end{equation*}
4326: \end{say}
4327:
4328: The previous definition may appear a bit complex: note, however,
4329: that, since $\rho$ and $h$ can be arbitrarily small, it is not
4330: restrictive to suppose
4331: \begin{equation*}
4332: \begin{array}{ll}
4333: \max \{0, \, \xi - \beta h \}=
4334: \xi - \beta h
4335: & % \qquad
4336: \min\{l, \, \xi + \beta h\}=
4337: \xi + \beta h \\
4338: \max \{0, \, \xi - \rho + \beta' h \} =
4339: \xi - \rho + \beta' h
4340: & % \qquad
4341: \min \{l, \, \xi + \rho - \beta' h \} =
4342: \xi + \rho - \beta' h \\
4343: \max \{ 0, \, l - h \beta \} = l - h \beta
4344: & % \qquad
4345: \min \{ l, h \beta \} = h \beta
4346: \end{array}
4347: \end{equation*}
4348:
4349:
4350: The definition of viscosity solution ensures, roughly speaking,
4351: that a function is well approximated by the solution of a suitable
4352: linear problem and of a suitable Riemann problem.
4353:
4354: The following proposition ensures that viscosity solutions
4355: coincide indeed with vanishing viscosity limits. The proof is very
4356: simile to that of the analogous property stated in \cite{BiaBrevv}
4357: (Lemma 15.2, page 308) and will be therefore omitted.
4358: \begin{pro}
4359: \label{pro_viscosity}
4360: Let $\bar{u}_0 \in \domainu $ and $\bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \;
4361: \bar{u}_{b \, l} \in \domainub$. Let
4362: $p_t (\bar{u}_0, \, \bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \, \bar{u}_{b
4363: \,l})$ be a vanishing viscosity solution of the system
4364: \eqref{eq_the_problem_II}:
4365: then $p_t (\bar{u}_0, \,
4366: \bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \, \bar{u}_{b \,l})$ is a viscosity
4367: solution of the same system. \\
4368: Viceversa, if $u(t, \, x)$ is a viscosity solution
4369: of the problem \eqref{eq_the_problem_II}
4370: then
4371: \begin{equation*}
4372: u(t) = p_t (\bar{u}_0, \,
4373: \bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \, \bar{u}_{b \,l})
4374: \quad \forall \, t \ge 0.
4375: \end{equation*}
4376: \end{pro}
4377:
4378: From the previous result it immediately follows the uniqueness of
4379: the semigroup: indeed, let by contradiction $p^1_t (\bar{u}_0,
4380: \,\bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \, \bar{u}_{b \,l})$ and $p^2_t (\bar{u}_0, \,
4381: \bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \, \bar{u}_{b \,l})$ be two different vanishing
4382: viscosity solutions. The function $p^1_t (\bar{u}_0, \,\bar{u}_{b
4383: \, 0}, \, \bar{u}_{b \,l})$ is hence a viscosity solution of
4384: problem \eqref{the_problem} by the first part of Proposition
4385: \ref{pro_viscosity}. Then $p^1_t (\bar{u}_0, \,\bar{u}_{b \, 0},
4386: \, \bar{u}_{b \,l})= p^2_t (\bar{u}_0, \,\bar{u}_{b \, 0}, \,
4387: \bar{u}_{b \,l})$ for any $t \ge 0$ by the second part of the
4388: proposition.
4389:
4390: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4391: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4392: %%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%
4393: %%%%%%% APPENDIX %%%%%%%%%%
4394: %%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%
4395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4396: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4397: \appendix
4398:
4399: \section{Appendix}
4400: \subsection{Appendix to Section \ref{parabolic_estimates}}
4401: \subsubsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{estimate_kernels_pro}}
4402: \label{proof_pro_kernels} In the following, for simplicity we will
4403: suppose $\lambda_i^{\ast} = \lambda^{\ast}_2 > 0$, since the case
4404: $\lambda_i^{\ast} =
4405: \lambda^{\ast}_1 < 0$ is analogous.\\
4406: We denote by
4407: \begin{equation*}
4408: \Gamma ^{\lambda_2^{\ast} } (t, x, y) = ( 1 - e^{- x y / t})
4409: G(t, \, x - y - \lambda_2^{\ast} t)
4410: \end{equation*}
4411: the solution of the equation
4412: \begin{equation}
4413: \label{eq_lin}
4414: z_t + \lambda_2^{\ast} z_x -z_{xx}=0
4415: \end{equation}
4416: in the first quadrant with zero boundary datum and Cauchy datum $
4417: \delta_y
4418: $. The following estimates have been proved in \cite{BiaBrevv}:
4419: \begin{equation}
4420: \label{estimate_from_biabre}
4421: \begin{split}
4422: & \|\Gamma^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, y)\|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)}
4423: \leq
4424: \unpo
4425: \qquad
4426: \bigg| \int_0^{+ \infty}
4427: \bigg|
4428: \int_y^{+ \infty} \Gamma_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
4429: (t, \, x, \, \xi) d \xi
4430: \bigg| dx \bigg| \leq \unpo \qquad \forall \, t \in \mathbb{R}^+ \\
4431: & \|\Gamma_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, y)\|_{L^1(0, \, +
4432: \infty)} \leq
4433: \frac{\unpo}{\sqrt{t}}
4434: \qquad
4435: \bigg| \int_0^{+ \infty }
4436: \bigg|
4437: \int_y^{+ \infty} \Gamma_{xx}^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
4438: (t, \, x, \, \xi) d \xi
4439: \bigg| dx \bigg|
4440: \leq \frac{\unpo}{\sqrt{t}} \quad \forall \, t \in (0,1) \\
4441: \end{split}
4442: \end{equation}
4443: Let $G(t, \, x) = \exp ( -x^2 / 4t ) / 2 \sqrt{ \pi t}$: we will
4444: use the notation
4445: \begin{equation*}
4446: G(t, \, x - \lambda_2^{\ast} t) = G^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x ).
4447: \end{equation*}
4448: The estimate on the $L^1$ norm of $\Delta^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}$ in
4449: Proposition \ref{estimate_kernels_pro} can be obtained via the
4450: maximum principle applied to equation \eqref{eq_lin}: indeed,
4451: \begin{equation*}
4452: 0 \leq \Delta^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, y) \leq G^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x-y) \quad \forall \, t \ge 0
4453: \quad x, \, y \in ]0, \, L[,
4454: \end{equation*}
4455: and therefore $\| \Delta^{\lambda_2^{\ast}} (t, \, y) \|_{L^1}
4456: \leq 1$.
4457:
4458: To prove the estimate on the $L^1$ norm of
4459: $\Delta_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}$ it is convenient to write
4460: $\Delta^{\lambda_2^\ast}$ as
4461: \begin{equation*}
4462: \begin{split}
4463: \Delta^{ \lambda_2^{\ast}} (t, \, x, \, y) =
4464: & \Gamma ^{\lambda_2^{\ast} } (t, \, x, \, y)
4465: + \phi^{\, \lambda_2^{\ast}} (t, \, x, \, y)
4466: \sum_{m \, \neq 0} \Bigl[
4467: G (t, x + 2mL -y) -
4468: G (t, x+ 2mL +y ) \Bigr], \\
4469: \end{split}
4470: \end{equation*}
4471: with
4472: \[
4473: \phi^{\, \lambda_2^{\ast}} (t, \, x, \, y) = \exp \bigg(
4474: \frac{\lambda_2^{\ast}}{2}(x-y) -
4475: \frac{ ( \lambda_2^{\ast})^2 }{4}t \bigg).
4476: \]
4477:
4478: Since $\lambda_2^{\ast}>0$, for $m > 0$ it holds
4479: \begin{equation*}
4480: \begin{split}
4481: & \bigg| \frac{\partial }{\partial x}
4482: \bigg( \phi^{\, \lambda_2^{\ast}}
4483: (t, \, x, \, y) G(t, \, x-y + 2mL)
4484: \bigg)
4485: \bigg| \\
4486: & \qquad
4487: = \phi^{\, \lambda_2^{\ast}} (t, \, x, \, y) \bigg|
4488: \frac{\lambda_2^{\ast}}{2} G(t, \, x-y +
4489: 2mL)
4490: + G_x(t, \, x-y + 2mL)
4491: \bigg| \leq
4492: \big|
4493: G_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x-y +2mL)
4494: \big|,
4495: \phantom{\bigg(} \\%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4496: \end{split}
4497: \end{equation*}
4498: and similarly
4499: \begin{equation*}
4500: \bigg| \frac{\partial}{\partial x}
4501: \bigg( \exp \bigg(
4502: \frac{\lambda_2^{\ast}}{2}(x-y) -
4503: \frac{\lambda^{\ast\,
4504: 2}}{4}t \bigg) G(t, \, x+y + 2mL)
4505: \bigg)
4506: \bigg| \leq
4507: \big|
4508: G_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x + y +2mL)
4509: \big|. \phantom{\bigg(}
4510: \end{equation*}
4511:
4512: The terms of the series corresponding to $m < 0$ can be estimated
4513: as follows: let $n : = - m$ then
4514: \begin{equation*}
4515: \begin{split}
4516: & \bigg| \frac{\partial }{\partial x}
4517: \bigg( \phi(t, \, x, \, y) G (t, \, x - y -2nL) \bigg) \bigg|
4518: \\
4519: & \quad = \phi^{\, \lambda_2^{\ast}} (t, \, x, \, y)
4520: \bigg|
4521: - G_x (t, \, 2nL - x
4522: +y) - \frac{\lambda_2^{\ast}}{2} G (t, \, 2nL - x
4523: +y)+ \lambda_2^{\ast} G (t, \, 2nL - x
4524: +y)
4525: \bigg| \\
4526: & \quad \leq
4527: \Big| G^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}_x (t, \, 2nL -x + y )
4528: \Big|
4529: + \lambda_2^{\ast} \Big| G^{\lambda_2^{\ast}} (t, \, 2nL -x + y )
4530: \Big| \phantom{\bigg(} \\
4531: \end{split}
4532: \end{equation*}
4533: and similarly
4534: \begin{equation*}
4535: \bigg| \frac{\partial }{\partial x}
4536: \bigg( \phi(t, \, x - y) G_x (t, \, x + y -2nL) \bigg) \bigg|
4537: \leq \Big| G^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}_x (t, \, 2nL -x - y ) \Big|
4538: + \lambda_2^{\ast} \Big| G^{\lambda_2^{\ast}} (t, \, 2nL -x - y )
4539: \Big|.
4540: \end{equation*}
4541: Since $\|G_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo / \sqrt{t}$,
4542: one obtains
4543: \begin{equation*}
4544: \begin{split}
4545: & \|\Delta_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}} (t, \, y)\|_{L^1(0, \, L)}
4546: \leq
4547: \int_0^L | \Gamma_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, y) | dx +
4548: \int_{2L}^{+ \infty} \bigg( \big|
4549: G_z^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, z + y) \big| +
4550: \big| G_z^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, z-y) \big| \bigg) dz \\
4551: & + \int_{L}^{+ \infty}
4552: \bigg( \big| G_z^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, z + y) \big|
4553: + \big| G_z^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, z-y) \big| \bigg) dz +
4554: \lambda_2^{\ast} \int_L^{+ \infty}
4555: \bigg( \big| G_z^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, z + y) \big| +
4556: \big| G_z^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, z -y ) \big| \bigg) dz
4557: \leq \frac{\unpo}{ \sqrt{t}} .\\
4558: \end{split}
4559: \end{equation*}
4560:
4561: In the following estimates, we will suppose $y < L/2$: by symmetry
4562: this is not restrictive. Observe that, for $y < L/2$
4563: \begin{equation}
4564: \label{estimate_piccina}
4565: x + y - 2L < - L / 2 < 0 \quad \forall \, x \in [0, \, L].
4566: \end{equation}
4567: This assumption corresponds to the fact that
4568: the most singular part in $\Delta^{\lambda^\ast}$ is
4569: collected in $\Gamma^{\lambda^\ast}$, i.e. it is given by $G(t,x+y) - G(t,x-y)$.
4570: If $y > L/2$, then the most singular part
4571: would be given by $G(x-y) - G(x+y-2L)$.
4572:
4573: One has
4574: \begin{equation*}
4575: \begin{split}
4576: \tilde{\Delta}^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
4577: & (t,\, x, \, y) =
4578: \int_y^L \Gamma_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, \xi) d \xi +
4579: \int_y^L \phi_x(t, \, x , \, \xi) \sum_{m \neq 0} \Bigl[ G(t, \, x- \xi
4580: + 2mL) - G(t, \, x + \xi + 2mL ) \Bigr] d \xi \\
4581: & +
4582: \int_y^L \phi(t, \, x , \, \xi) \sum_{m \neq 0} \Bigl[ G_x(t, \, x- \xi
4583: + 2mL) - G_x(t, \, x + \xi + 2mL ) \Bigr] d \xi \\
4584: =&~ \int_y^L \Gamma_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, \xi) d \xi
4585: - \int_y^L \bigg\{ \phi_x(t, \, x , \, \xi)
4586: \sum_{m \neq 0} G(t, \, x +\xi
4587: + 2mL) - \phi(t, \, x , \, \xi) \sum_{m \neq 0} G_x(t, \, x+ \xi
4588: + 2mL) \bigg\} d \xi \\
4589: & + \int_y^L \bigg\{ \phi_x(t, \, x , \, \xi)
4590: \sum_{m \neq 0} G(t, \, x - \xi
4591: + 2mL) +
4592: \phi(t, \, x, \, \xi) \sum_{m \neq 0} G_x(t, \, x- \xi
4593: + 2mL) \bigg\} d \xi \\
4594: =&
4595: \int_y^L \Gamma_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, \xi) d \xi +
4596: \sum_{m \neq 0}
4597: \phi(t, \, x, \, y) G(t, \, x + y + 2mL ) -
4598: \sum_{m \neq 0}
4599: \phi(t, \, x, \, L) G(t, \, x + L + 2mL) \\
4600: & -
4601: \int_y^L \sum_{m \neq 0} \lambda_2^{\ast}
4602: \phi(t, \, x , \, \xi) G(t, \, x + \xi + 2mL) d \xi
4603: + \sum_{m \neq 0}
4604: \phi(t, \, x , \, y) G(t, \, x - y + 2mL ) \\
4605: &-
4606: \sum_{m \neq 0}
4607: \phi(t, \, x, \, L) G(t, \, x -L + 2mL). \\
4608: \end{split}
4609: \end{equation*}
4610: The integrability of the first term follows from
4611: \eqref{estimate_from_biabre}, the other terms are clearly
4612: integrable because of the quadratic exponential decay of the heat
4613: kernel $G$: hence $\|\tilde{\Delta}^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t,
4614: y)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo$.
4615:
4616: The function $\tilde{\Delta}_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}$ can be written
4617: as follows:
4618: \begin{equation*}
4619: \begin{split}
4620: \tilde{\Delta}_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, y) =
4621: &~
4622: \int_y^L \Gamma_{xx}^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, \xi) d \xi +
4623: \sum_{m \neq 0}
4624: \frac{\lambda_2^{\ast}}{2}
4625: \phi(t, \, x, \, y) G(t, \, x + y + 2mL ) \\
4626: & +
4627: \sum_{m \neq 0}
4628: \phi(t, \, x, \, y) G_x(t, \, x + y + 2mL ) -
4629: \sum_{m \neq 0}
4630: \frac{\lambda_2^{\ast}}{2}
4631: \phi(t, \, x, \, L) G(t, \, x + L + 2mL) \\
4632: & -
4633: \sum_{m \neq 0}
4634: \phi(t, \, x, \, L) G_x(t, \, x + L + 2mL) -
4635: \int_y^L \sum_{m \neq 0}
4636: \frac{(\lambda_2^{\ast })^2}{2}
4637: \phi(t, \, x , \, \xi) G(t, \, x + \xi + 2mL) d \xi \\
4638: &-
4639: \int_y^L \sum_{m \neq 0}
4640: \lambda_2^{\ast }
4641: \phi(t, \, x , \, \xi) G_x(t, \, x + \xi + 2mL) d \xi + \sum_{m \neq 0}
4642: \frac{\lambda_2^{\ast}}{2}
4643: \phi(t, \, x , \, y) G(t, \, x, - y + 2mL )\\
4644: & + \sum_{m \neq 0}
4645: \phi(t, \, x , \, y) G_x(t, \, x, - y + 2mL ) - \sum_{m \neq 0}
4646: \frac{\lambda_2^{\ast}}{2}
4647: \phi(t, \, x, \, L) G(t, \, x -L + 2mL) \\
4648: & -
4649: \sum_{m \neq 0}
4650: \phi(t, \, x, \, L) G_x(t, \, x -L + 2mL), \\
4651: \end{split}
4652: \end{equation*}
4653: and hence with computations similar to those performed before
4654: one gets
4655: \begin{equation*}
4656: \|\tilde{\Delta}^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}_x(t, \, y)\|_{L^1} \leq
4657: \frac{\unpo}{\sqrt{t}}
4658: \quad \forall \, t \leq 1 \; \; y \in ]0, \, L[.
4659: \end{equation*}
4660: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%NUCLEI DPI FORDO%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4661:
4662: If one derives the explicit formula \eqref{J_0} for $J^{\lambda \,
4663: L }$ and then integrate by parts gets
4664: \begin{equation*}
4665: \int_0^L | J_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast} \, L}(t, \, x) | dx =
4666: \int_0^L \bigg| \lambda_2^{\ast} C e^{\lambda_2^{\ast} x} dx -
4667: \lambda_2^{\ast} C \int_0^L \tilde{\Delta}^{\lambda_2^{\ast}} (t, \, x, \, y)
4668: e^{\lambda_2^{\ast} y} dy \bigg| \, dx \leq \unpo,
4669: \end{equation*}
4670: where we have used the estimate
4671: $\|\tilde{\Delta}^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo$. By
4672: symmetry it follows $\|J_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast} \, 0}\|_{L^1} \leq
4673: \unpo$.
4674:
4675: Deriving $J_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast} \, L}$ one obtains
4676: \begin{equation*}
4677: \|J_{xx}^{\lambda_2^{\ast} \, L}(t)\|_{L^1} \leq
4678: \int_0^L | C ( \lambda_2^{\ast })^2 e^{\lambda_2^{\ast} x}| dx +
4679: C \lambda_2^{\ast} \int_0^L \bigg|
4680: \int_0^L \tilde{\Delta}_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t,
4681: \, x, \, y) e^{\lambda_2^{\ast} y} dy \bigg| \, dx
4682: \leq \frac{\unpo}{ \sqrt{t}},
4683: \end{equation*}
4684: thanks to the estimate on
4685: $\|\tilde{\Delta}_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}\|$. By symmetry one gets
4686: $\|J_{xx}^{\lambda_2^{\ast} \, 0}(t)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo /
4687: \sqrt{t}$: this concludes the proof of Proposition
4688: \ref{estimate_kernels_pro}.
4689:
4690: \subsection{Appendix to Section \ref{gradient_decomposition}}
4691:
4692: \subsubsection{Explicit source terms}
4693: \label{explicit_source_t}
4694:
4695: We want to find the equations satisfied by the quantities $ v_1 $,
4696: $ v_2 $, $p_1 $, $p_2$, $w_1$, $w_2$: we will use the
4697: decomposition
4698: \begin{equation*}
4699: \left\{
4700: \begin{array}{ll}
4701: u_x = v_1 \tilde{r}_1 ({u,\, v_1, \, \sigma_1}) +
4702: v_2 r_2 +
4703: p_1 \hat{r}_1 (u, p_1 ) +
4704: p_2 r_2 \\
4705: & \\
4706: u_t = w_1 \tilde{r}_1 ({u,\, v_1, \, \sigma_1}) +
4707: w_2 r_2
4708: \end{array}
4709: \right.
4710: \quad \sigma_1 = \lambda_1(u^{\ast})
4711: - \theta
4712: \bigg(
4713: \frac{ w_1}{v_1} + \lambda_1(u^{\ast})
4714: \bigg).
4715: \end{equation*}
4716: and insert it in the parabolic equation
4717: \begin{equation*}
4718: u_t + A(u)u_x -u_{xx}=0.
4719: \end{equation*}
4720:
4721: A derivation w.r.t. $x$ gives
4722: \begin{equation*}
4723: \begin{array}{ll}
4724: \tilde{r}_{1 x} = \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1
4725: ( v_1 \tilde{r}_1 + v_2 r_2 +
4726: p_1 \hat{r}_1 +p_2 r_2 ) +
4727: v_{1 x} \tilde{r}_{1 v}+
4728: \sigma_{1 x} \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma} \\
4729: \hat{r}_{1 x}= \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1
4730: ( v_1 \tilde{r}_1 + v_2 r_2 +
4731: p_1 \hat{r}_1 +p_2 r_2 ) +
4732: p_{1 x} \hat{r}_{1 p}.
4733: \end{array}
4734: \end{equation*}
4735: Recalling that
4736: \begin{equation*}
4737: \begin{split}
4738: &
4739: \hat{\lambda}_2 :=
4740: \lambda_2 - p_1
4741: \langle \hat{\ell}_2, \,
4742: \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 r_2 \rangle \\
4743: & A(u) \tilde{r}_1 = v_1 \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 \tilde{r}_1
4744: + \lambda_1 \tilde{r}_1 +
4745: v_1 ( \lambda_1 -\sigma_1 ) \tilde{r}_{1 v}\\
4746: & A(u) \hat{r}_1 = p_1 \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 \hat{r}_1 +
4747: \lambda_1 \hat{r}_1 +
4748: p_1 \lambda_1 \hat{r}_{1 p} \\
4749: \end{split}
4750: \end{equation*}
4751: one gets
4752: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%u_t%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4753: \begin{equation}
4754: \label{u_t}
4755: \begin{split}
4756: u_t & = \, u_{xx} - A(u) u_x \\
4757: & = v_{1 x} \tilde{r}_1 +
4758: v_1 \tilde{r}_{1 x}+
4759: p_{1 x} \hat{r}_1 +
4760: p_1 \hat{r}_{1 x} +
4761: v_{2 x} r_2 +
4762: p_{ 2 x} r_2 %\\
4763: %& \quad
4764: - v_1 A(u) \tilde{r}_1 -
4765: p_1 A(u) \hat{r}_1 -
4766: \lambda_2 v_2 r_2 -
4767: \lambda_2 p_2 r_2 \\
4768: & = ( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 )( \tilde{r}_1 + v_1 \tilde{r}_{1 v})+
4769: v_1^2 \sigma_1 \tilde{r}_{1 v} %\\
4770: %& \quad
4771: + v_1 v_2 \mathrm{D}\tilde{r}_1 r_2 +
4772: v_1 p_1 \mathrm{D}\tilde{r}_1 \hat{r}_1 +
4773: v_1 p_2 \mathrm{D}\tilde{r}_1 r_2 +
4774: v_1 \sigma_{ 1 x} \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma} \\
4775: & \quad + ( p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 )( \hat{r}_1 + p_1 \hat{r}_{1 p}) +
4776: v_1 p_1 \mathrm{D}\hat{r}_1 \tilde{r}_1 +
4777: v_2 p_1 \mathrm{D}\hat{r}_1 r_2 %\\
4778: % p_2 p_1 \mathrm{D}\hat{r}_1 r_2 \\
4779: %& \quad
4780: + ( v_{2 x} - \lambda_2 v_2 ) r_2 +
4781: ( p_{2 x} - \hat{ \lambda}_2 p_2) r_2. \\
4782: \end{split}
4783: \end{equation}
4784: We multiply the previous expressions by $\ell_1$ and by
4785: $\tilde{\ell}_2$, the vectors of the dual basis of $( \tilde{r}_1,
4786: \, r_2 )$: we obtain
4787: \begin{equation}
4788: \label{decomposition_of_u_t}
4789: \begin{array}{ll}
4790: w_1 = v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 +
4791: p_{1x} - \lambda_1 p_1 \\
4792: w_2 = v_{2 x} - \lambda_2 v_2 +
4793: p_{2x} - \hat{\lambda}_2 p_2 +
4794: e(t,\, x),
4795: \end{array}
4796: \end{equation}
4797: where the error term $e(t, \, x)$ satisfies the estimate
4798: \eqref{reasons_of_source_term_eq} in Paragraph 8.2.2.
4799:
4800: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4801: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4802: Deriving \eqref{u_t}, one obtains
4803: \begin{equation}
4804: \label{u_t_x}
4805: \begin{split}
4806: u_{ t x}= &\Big( v_{1 xx} - ( \lambda_1 v_1 )_x \Big) \tilde{r}_1 +
4807: \Big( v_1 \big( v_{ 1 xx} - ( \lambda_1 v_1 )_x \big)
4808: + 2 v_{1 x} \big( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 \big)+
4809: ( v_1^2 \sigma_1 )_x
4810: \Big) \tilde{r}_{1 v} \\
4811: & + \Big( v_1 \big( v_{ 1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 \big)
4812: \Big) \mathrm{D}\tilde{r}_1 \tilde{r}_1 +
4813: \Big( v_2 \big( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 \big) +
4814: \big( v_1 v_2 \big)_x
4815: \Big) \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 r_2 \\
4816: & + \Big( p_1 \big( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 \big) + ( v_1 p_1 )_x
4817: \Big) \mathrm{D}\tilde{r}_1 \hat{r}_1 +
4818: \Big( p_2 \big( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 \big) + ( v_1 p_2 )_x
4819: \Big) \mathrm{D}\tilde{r}_1 r_2 \\
4820: & + \Big( \sigma_{1 x} ( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 ) +
4821: ( v_1 \sigma_{1 x})_x
4822: \Big) \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma} +
4823: \Big( v_1 \big( v_{ 1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 \big)
4824: + v_1^2 \sigma_1
4825: \Big) ( \tilde{r}_{1 v} )_x \\
4826: & + v_1 v_2 ( \mathrm{D}\tilde{r}_1 r_2 )_x +
4827: v_1 p_1 ( \mathrm{D}\tilde{r}_1 \hat{r}_1 )_x +
4828: v_1 p_2 ( \mathrm{D}\tilde{r}_1 r_2 )_x +
4829: v_1 \sigma_{1 x} ( \tilde{r}_{ 1 \sigma} )_x
4830: \phantom{\Big)}\\
4831: & + \Big( p_{1 xx} - ( \lambda_1 p_1 )_x
4832: \Big) \hat{r}_1 +
4833: \Big( p_1 \big( p_{1 xx} - ( \lambda_1 p_1 )_x \big) +
4834: 2 p_{1 x} \big( p_{1 x}- \lambda_1 p_1 \big)
4835: \Big) \hat{r}_{1 p} \\
4836: & + \Big( v_1 \big( p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 \big) +
4837: ( v_1 p_1 )_x
4838: \Big) \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 \tilde{r}_1 +
4839: \Big( v_2 \big( p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 \big) +
4840: ( v_2 p_1 )_x
4841: \Big) \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 r_2
4842: \phantom{\Big(}\\
4843: & + \Big( p_1 \big( p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 \big)
4844: \Big) \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 \hat{r}_1 +
4845: \Big( p_2 \big( p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 \big)
4846: \Big)
4847: \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 r_2+
4848: \Big( p_1 \big( p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 \big)
4849: \Big) ( \hat{r}_{1 p} )_x
4850: \phantom{\Big(} \\
4851: & + v_1 p_1 ( \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 \tilde{r}_1 )_x +
4852: v_2 p_1 ( \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 r_2 )+
4853: \Big( v_{2 xx} - ( \lambda_2 v_2 )_x \Big) r_2 +
4854: \Big( p_{2 xx} - ( \lambda_2 p_2 )_x \Big) r_2 .
4855: \phantom{\Big(} \\
4856: \end{split}
4857: \end{equation}
4858: On the other hand,
4859: \begin{equation}
4860: \label{u_x_t}
4861: u_{x t} = v_{1 t} \tilde{r}_1 + v_1 \tilde{r}_{1 t} +
4862: v_{2 t} r_2 +
4863: p_{1 t} \hat{r}_1 + p_1 \hat{r}_{1 t}+
4864: p_{2 t} r_2,
4865: \end{equation}
4866: where
4867: \begin{equation}
4868: \label{derivative_of_vectors_wrt_t}
4869: \begin{array}{ll}
4870: \tilde{r}_{1 t} = \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1
4871: ( w_1 \tilde{r}_1 + w_2 r_2 ) +
4872: v_{1 t} \tilde{r}_{ 1 v} +
4873: \sigma_{ 1 t} \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma} \\
4874: \hat{r}_{1 t} = \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1
4875: ( w_1 \tilde{r}_1 + w_2 r_2 ) +
4876: p_{1 t} \hat{r}_{ 1 p}.
4877: \end{array}
4878: \end{equation}
4879: We equal \eqref{u_t_x} and \eqref{u_x_t} and we use
4880: \eqref{derivative_of_vectors_wrt_t}, obtaining
4881: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%EQUALITY%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4882: \begin{equation*}
4883: \begin{split}
4884: 0 & = \, u_{t x} - u_{x t} \\
4885: & = \Big( v_{1 xx} - (\lambda_1 v_1)_x -v_{1 t} \Big)
4886: \tilde{r}_1
4887: + \Big( v_1 \big( v_{1 xx} - (\lambda_1 v_1)_x -v_{1 t}\big)+
4888: 2 v_{1 x} \big( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 \big)+
4889: ( v_1^2 \sigma_1 )_x
4890: \Big) \tilde{r}_{1 v} \\
4891: & \quad + \Big( v_1 ( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 ) - v_1 w_1
4892: \Big) \mathrm{D}\tilde{r}_1 \tilde{r}_1 +
4893: \Big( v_2 ( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 ) +
4894: ( v_1 v_2)_x - v_1 w_2
4895: \Big) \mathrm{D}\tilde{r}_1 r_2 \\
4896: & \quad + \Big( p_1 \big( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 \big) +
4897: ( v_1 p_1 )_x
4898: \Big) \mathrm{D}\tilde{r}_1 \hat{r}_1 +
4899: \Big( p_2 \big( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 \big) +
4900: ( v_1 p_2 )_x
4901: \Big) \mathrm{D}\tilde{r}_1 r_2 \\
4902: & \quad
4903: + \Big( \sigma_{1 x} \big( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 \big) +
4904: ( v_1 \sigma_{1 x} )_x -
4905: \sigma_{1 t} v_1
4906: \Big) \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma}
4907: + \Big( v_{1 x} v_1 + v_1^2 ( \sigma_1 - \lambda_1 )
4908: \Big) ( \tilde{r}_{ 1 v})_x +
4909: v_1 v_2 ( \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 r_2 )_x \\
4910: & \quad + v_1 p_1 ( \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 \hat{r}_1 )_x +
4911: v_1 p_2 ( \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 r_2 )_x +
4912: v_1 \sigma_{1 x} ( \tilde{r}_{ 1 \sigma} )_x +
4913: \Big( p_{1 xx} - (\lambda_1 p_1 )_x -p_{1 t} \Big) \hat{r}_1
4914: \phantom{\Big(}\\
4915: & \quad + \Big( p_1 \big( p_{1 xx} -
4916: (\lambda_1 p_1 )_x -p_{1 t} \big) +
4917: 2 p_{1 x} \big( p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 \big)
4918: \Big) \hat{r}_{1 p} %\\
4919: %& \quad
4920: + \Big( v_1 \big( p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 \big) +
4921: ( v_1 p_1 )_x - w_1 p_1
4922: \Big) \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 \tilde{r}_1 \\
4923: & \quad + \Big( v_2 ( p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 ) +
4924: ( v_2 p_1 )_x - w_2 p_1
4925: \Big) \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 r_2
4926: + p_1 \Big( p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 \Big)
4927: \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 \hat{r}_1 +
4928: \Big( p_2 \big( p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 \big) \Big)
4929: \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 r_2 \\
4930: & \quad + \Big( p_1 ( p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 ) \Big)
4931: ( \hat{r}_{1 p} )_x +
4932: v_1 p_1 ( \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 \tilde{r}_1 )_x +
4933: v_2 p_1 ( \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 r_2 )_x
4934: + \Big( v_{2 xx} - ( \lambda_2 v_2 )_x - v_{2 t} \Big) r_2 \\
4935: & \quad +
4936: \Big( p_{2 xx} - ( \hat{\lambda}_2 p_2 )_x - p_{2 t} \Big) r_2
4937: \phantom{\Big(}\\
4938: & = \Big( v_{1 xx} - (\lambda_1 v_1)_x -v_{1 t} \Big)
4939: \tilde{r}_1 +
4940: \Big( p_{1 xx} - (\lambda_1 p_1 )_x -p_{1 t} \Big)
4941: \hat{r}_1
4942: \phantom{\Big(} \\
4943: & \quad + \Big( v_{2 xx} - ( \lambda_2 v_2 )_x -
4944: v_{2 t} \Big) r_2 +
4945: \Big( p_{2 xx} - ( \hat{\lambda}_2 p_2 )_x
4946: - p_{2 t} \Big) r_2 +
4947: s_1 ( t, x). \\
4948: \end{split}
4949: \end{equation*}
4950: We can therefore impose the conditions
4951: \begin{equation*}
4952: \begin{array}{llll}
4953: v_{1 t} + ( \lambda_1 v_1 )_x - v_{1 xx} = 0 \\
4954: p_{1 t} + ( \lambda_1 p_1 )_x - p_{1 xx} = 0 \\
4955: v_{2 t} + ( \lambda_2 v_2 )_x - v_{2 xx} =
4956: \, \langle \tilde{\ell}_2 ( t, x) , s_1 ( t, x) \rangle \, =
4957: \tilde{s}_1 ( t, x)\\
4958: p_{2 t} + ( \hat{\lambda}_2 p_2 )_x - p_{2 xx} = 0,
4959: \end{array}
4960: \end{equation*}
4961: where $ ( \ell_1, \tilde{\ell}_2) $ is the dual basis of $ (
4962: \tilde{r}_1, r_2 )$.
4963:
4964: To compute the equations satisfied by $w_1,
4965: \; w_2$ we will use
4966: \begin{equation*}
4967: \begin{split}
4968: u_{tt} =
4969: &~ u_{xx \, t} - \big( A(u) u_x \big)_t \\
4970: =&~ u_{t \, xx } -
4971: \big( A(u) u_t \big)_x + DA(u)
4972: \big( u_x \otimes u_t
4973: - u_t \otimes u_x \big),\\
4974: \end{split}
4975: \end{equation*}
4976: which follows from
4977: \begin{equation*}
4978: \begin{split}
4979: & \big( A(u) u_x \big)_t =
4980: DA (u) (u_t \otimes u_x) +
4981: A ( u) u_{xt} \\
4982: & \big( A(u) u_t \big)_x =
4983: DA(u) ( u_x \otimes u_t) +
4984: A(u) u_{tx}. \\
4985: \end{split}
4986: \end{equation*}
4987: Straightforward computations ensures that
4988: \begin{equation*}
4989: \begin{split}
4990: u_{x t} - A(u) u_t =
4991: & ( w_{ 1x} - \lambda_1 w_1) \tilde{r}_1 +
4992: w_1 ( v_{1x} - \lambda_1 v_1 ) \tilde{r}_{1 v} \\
4993: & \quad +
4994: w_1 v_1 \sigma_1 \tilde{r}_{1 v} +
4995: w_1 v_2 \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 r_2 +
4996: w_1 p_1 \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 \hat{r}_1 +
4997: w_1 p_2 \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 r_2 \\
4998: & \quad +
4999: w_1 \sigma_{1 x} \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma} +
5000: ( w_{ 2 x} - \lambda_2 w_2 ) r_2 \\
5001: \end{split}
5002: \end{equation*}
5003: and
5004: \begin{equation}
5005: \label{eq_derivation}
5006: \begin{split}
5007: DA(u)
5008: & \bigg( u_x \otimes u_t
5009: - u_t \otimes u_x \bigg) =
5010: v_1 w_2 \tilde{r}_1 \otimes r_2 +
5011: v_2 w_1 r_2 \otimes \tilde{r}_1 +
5012: p_1 w_1 \hat{r}_1 \otimes \tilde{r}_1 +
5013: p_1 w_2 \hat{r}_1 \otimes r_2 +
5014: p_2 w_1 r_2 \otimes \tilde{r}_1 \\
5015: & \quad -
5016: w_1 v_2 \tilde{r}_1 \otimes r_2 -
5017: w_1 p_1 \tilde{r}_1 \otimes \hat{r}_1 -
5018: w_1 p_2 \tilde{r}_1 \otimes r_2 -
5019: w_2 v_1 r_2 \otimes \tilde{r}_1 -
5020: w_2 p_1 r_2 \otimes \hat{r}_1. \\
5021: \end{split}
5022: \end{equation}
5023: Hence
5024: \begin{equation*}
5025: \begin{split}
5026: u_{tt}
5027: & = w_{ 1 t} \tilde{r}_1 +
5028: w_{ 2 t} r_2 \phantom{\Big(} \\
5029: & =
5030: - w _1^2 \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 \tilde{r}_1 -
5031: w_1 w_2 \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 r_2 -
5032: w_1 v_{1 t} \tilde{r}_{1 v} -
5033: w_1 \sigma_{1 t} \tilde{r}_{ 1 \sigma} +
5034: \Big( w_{1 xx} - ( \lambda_1 w_1 )_x \Big) \tilde{r}_1 +
5035: \Big( v_1 \big( w_{ 1x} - \lambda_1 w_1 \big) \Big)
5036: \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 \tilde{r}_1 \\
5037: & \quad +
5038: \Big( v_2 ( w_{1 x} - \lambda_1 w_1 ) \Big) \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 r_2 +
5039: \Big( p_1 ( w_{ 1x } - \lambda_1 w_1 ) \Big)
5040: \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 \hat{r}_1 +
5041: \Big( p_2 ( w_{1x} - \lambda_1 w_1 ) \Big) \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 r_2 +
5042: \Big( v_{1 x} ( w_{1 x} - \lambda_1 w_1 )\Big) \tilde{r}_{1v} \\
5043: & \quad +
5044: \Big( \sigma_{1 x} ( w_{1 x} - \lambda_1 w_1 ) \Big)
5045: \tilde{r}_{ 1 \sigma} +
5046: \Big( w_{1 x} ( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 ) \Big)
5047: \tilde{r}_{1 v} +
5048: \Big( w_1 ( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 ) \Big)
5049: ( \tilde{r}_{1 v} )_x +
5050: w_1 v_1 \sigma_1 ( \tilde{r}_{1 v} )_x \\
5051: & \quad +
5052: ( w_1 v_1 \sigma_1 )_x \tilde{r}_{ 1v } +
5053: ( w_1 v_2 )_x \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 r_2 +
5054: w_1 v_2 ( \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 r_2 )_x +
5055: ( w_1 p_1 )_x \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 \hat{r}_1 +
5056: w_1 p_1 ( \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 \hat{r}_1 )_x
5057: \phantom{\Big(} \\
5058: & \quad +
5059: ( w_1 p_2 )_x \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 r_2 +
5060: w_1 p_2 ( \mathrm{D} \tilde{r}_1 r_2 ) _x +
5061: ( w_1 \sigma_{ 1x} )_x \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma} +
5062: w_1 \sigma_{1 x} ( \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma} )_x +
5063: \Big( w_{2 xx} - ( \lambda_2 w_2 )_x \Big) r_2 \\
5064: & \quad +
5065: ( p_1 w_2 )_x \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 r_2 +
5066: p_1 w_2 ( \mathrm{D} \hat{r}_1 r_2 )_x
5067: \phantom{\Big(} \\
5068: & \quad + DA(u) \Big(
5069: v_1 w_2 \tilde{r}_1 \otimes r_2 +
5070: v_2 w_1 r_2 \otimes \tilde{r}_1 +
5071: p_1 w_1 \hat{r}_1 \otimes \tilde{r}_1 +
5072: p_1 w_2 \hat{r}_1 \otimes r_2 +
5073: p_2 w_1 r_2 \otimes \tilde{r}_1 \\
5074: & \quad -
5075: w_1 v_2 \tilde{r}_1 \otimes r_2 -
5076: w_1 p_1 \tilde{r}_1 \otimes \hat{r}_1 -
5077: w_1 p_2 \tilde{r}_1 \otimes r_2 -
5078: w_2 v_1 r_2 \otimes \tilde{r}_1 -
5079: w_2 p_1 r_2 \otimes \hat{r}_1 \Big) \\
5080: & = \Big( w_{1 xx} - ( \lambda_1 w_1 )_x \Big) \tilde{r}_1 +
5081: \Big( w_{2 xx} - ( \lambda_2 w_2 )_x \Big) r_2 +
5082: s_2 (t, \, x).\\
5083: \end{split}
5084: \end{equation*}
5085: One can check that, since $A$ is triangular,
5086: \begin{equation*}
5087: \langle \ell_1, \, DA(u)
5088: \big( u_x \otimes u_t
5089: - u_t \otimes u_x \big) \rangle =0
5090: \end{equation*}
5091: and therefore the equations satisfied by $w_i \; i=1, \, 2$ are
5092: \begin{equation}
5093: \label{w}
5094: \begin{split}
5095: & w_{ 1t} + ( \lambda_1 w_1 )_x - w_{1 xx} = 0 \\
5096: & w_{ 2t} + ( \lambda_2 w_2 )_x - w_{ 2 xx} =
5097: \langle \tilde{\ell}_2(t, \, x), \, s_2 (t, \, x) \rangle =
5098: \tilde{s}_2 (t, \, x). \\
5099: \end{split}
5100: \end{equation}
5101:
5102: \subsubsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{reasons_of_source_term}}
5103: \label{source_pro} Equation \eqref{decomposition} and
5104: \eqref{eq_theta} ensure that, since,
5105: \begin{equation*}
5106: \sigma_1 = \lambda_1^{\ast} -
5107: \theta \bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1} +
5108: \lambda_1^{\ast}
5109: \bigg),
5110: \end{equation*}
5111: then
5112: \begin{equation*}
5113: \begin{split}
5114: & \sigma_{ 1 x} = - \theta'\bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1} +
5115: \lambda_i^{\ast}
5116: \bigg) \,
5117: \Bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \Bigg)_x =
5118: -
5119: \bigg( \frac{w_{ 1x } v_1 - v_{1x} w_1}{ v_1^2}
5120: \bigg) \theta', \\
5121: & \qquad \qquad
5122: | v_1^2 \sigma_{1x} |= \mathcal{O}(1)
5123: | w_{1 x} v_1 - v_{1 x} w_1 |, \phantom{\Bigg(}\\
5124: & \; \qquad \qquad \sigma_{1 x} \neq 0 \iff
5125: \bigg| \frac{w_1}{v_1} - \lambda_1^{\ast}
5126: \bigg| \leq 3 \hat{\delta}. \phantom{\Bigg(}\\
5127: \end{split}
5128: \end{equation*}
5129: Most of the terms in $\tilde{s}_i(t, \, x) \; i=1, \, 2$ and $e(t,
5130: \, x)$ can be directly reduced to those in Proposition
5131: \ref{reasons_of_source_term}. The terms which requires some
5132: technicalities are:
5133: \begin{enumerate}
5134: \item%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5135: \begin{equation*}
5136: |p_{1 x } - \lambda_1 p_1 | \, | \langle \tilde{\ell}_2(u, \, v_1, \, \sigma_1),
5137: \; \hr(u, \, p_1) \rangle|
5138: \leq \unpo (|p_1| + |v_1 |) |p_{1 x } - \lambda_1 p_1 |.
5139: \end{equation*}
5140: Indeed,
5141: \begin{equation*}
5142: \begin{split}
5143: & | \langle \tilde{\ell}_2(u, \, v_1, \, \sigma_1),
5144: \; \hr(u, \, p_1) \rangle | \leq
5145: |\langle \tilde{\ell}_2, \; \hr - r_1^{\ast} \rangle | +
5146: |\langle \tilde{\ell}_2 - \ell^{\ast}_2, \, r_1^{\ast} \rangle |
5147: \leq \unpo (|p_1| + |v_1|).
5148: \end{split}
5149: \end{equation*}
5150: We have denoted by $r_1^{\ast}$ the first eigenvector of the
5151: matrix $A(u^{\ast})$ and by $(\ell_1, \, \ell^{\ast}_2)$ the dual
5152: base
5153: of $(r_1^{\ast}, \, r_2).$ \\
5154: \item%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5155: \begin{equation*}
5156: \begin{split}
5157: \quad & \bigg| 2 v_{1 x} ( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 )+
5158: ( v_1^2 \sigma_1 )_x \bigg|=
5159: \bigg| 2 v_{1 x}
5160: \bigg( w_1 -
5161: (p_{1x}-\lambda_1 p_1)
5162: \bigg)+
5163: 2 v_1 v_{1x} \sigma_1 +
5164: v_1^2 \sigma_{1 x}\bigg| \\
5165: & \leq \bigg| 2 v_{1 x} ( w_1 + v_1 \sigma_1 )\bigg| +
5166: \bigg| 2 v_{1 x} ( \lambda_1 p_1 - p_{1 x})\bigg| +
5167: \mathcal{O}(1) \bigg| v_{1 x} w_1 - v_1 w_{1 x} \bigg|. \\
5168: \end{split}
5169: \end{equation*}
5170: \item%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%555
5171: $ \Big| \sigma_{1 x} ( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 ) +
5172: ( v_1 \sigma_{1 x} )_x -
5173: \sigma_{1 t} v_1
5174: \Big| | \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma} |
5175: $: some computations ensures that
5176: $$
5177: \Big( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \Big)_x
5178: (v_{1x} - \lambda_1 v_1) +
5179: v_{1 x} \Big( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \Big)_x +
5180: v_1 \Big( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \Big)_{xx} -
5181: \Big( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \Big)_t v_1
5182: = 0.
5183: $$
5184: Hence, since $ | \tilde{ r}_{1 \sigma} | = \mathcal{O}(1) | v_1|$,
5185: one gets
5186: $$
5187: \Big| \sigma_{1 x} ( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 ) +
5188: ( v_1 \sigma_{1 x} )_x -
5189: \sigma_{1 t} v_1
5190: \Big| \, | \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma} | \,
5191: \leq \mathcal{O}(1)
5192: \chi_{ \{ |\lambda_1^{\ast} - w_1 / v_1| \leq 3 \hat{\delta} \} } v_1^2
5193: \Big| \Big( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \Big)_x \Big|^2.
5194: $$
5195: \item %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5196: $
5197: | - w_1 \sigma_{1 t} + \sigma_{ 1x} ( w_{1 x} - \lambda_1 w_1) +
5198: ( w_1 \sigma_{1 x} )_x | \, | \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma}|:
5199: $ \\
5200: since
5201: $$
5202: -w_1 \theta' \bigg( \frac{w_1}{ v_1} \bigg)_t +
5203: w_{1x} \theta' \bigg( \frac{w_1}{ v_1} \bigg)_{x} -
5204: \lambda_1 w_1 \theta' \bigg( \frac{w_1}{ v_1} \bigg)_x +
5205: w_{1x} \theta' \bigg( \frac{w_1}{ v_1} \bigg)_x +
5206: w_1 \theta' \bigg( \frac{w_1}{ v_1} \bigg)_{xx} =0,
5207: $$
5208: one is left to the estimate
5209: $$
5210: \bigg| \, \theta'' \bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \bigg)_x \bigg|^2
5211: | w_1 v_1| \leq
5212: \mathcal{O}(1)
5213: v_1^2 \chi_{ \{ |\lambda_1^{\ast} - w_1 / v_1| \leq 3 \hat{\delta} \} }
5214: \bigg| \bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \bigg)_x \bigg|^2
5215: .
5216: $$
5217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5218: \item%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
5219: $
5220: | v_1 \sigma_{1x} ( \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma})_x|
5221: $ : first of all, we observe that that $ \theta'(s) \neq 0 $
5222: implies $ |w_1| \leq \mathcal{O}(1) |v_1|$
5223: and therefore
5224: $$
5225: | v_1 \sigma_{1x}|=
5226: |v_1 \theta' |
5227: \Big|
5228: \Big( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \Big)_x
5229: \Big| =
5230: \Big|
5231: \frac{w_{1x}v_1 -
5232: v_{1x}w_1}
5233: {v_1^2}
5234: \Big| |v_1 \theta'|
5235: \leq
5236: \mathcal{O}(1)( |w_{1x}|+
5237: |v_{1x}|).
5238: $$
5239: We develop
5240: \begin{equation*}
5241: | ( \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma})_x| =
5242: | ( \tilde{r}_{1x})_{ \sigma}| \leq
5243: \mathcal{O}(1)
5244: \bigg(
5245: | v_1| + |v_2 |+ |p_1| +| p_2 |+ |v_{1x}|
5246: \bigg) +
5247: \mathcal{O}(1)|v_1 \sigma_{1x}|.
5248: \end{equation*}
5249: Since
5250: \begin{equation*}
5251: \begin{array}{ccccc}
5252: \theta' \neq 0 &
5253: \Rightarrow &
5254: |w_1| = |v_{1x} - \lambda_1 v_1+
5255: p_{1x} - \lambda_1 p_1|
5256: \leq \mathcal{O}(1) |v_1| &
5257: \Rightarrow &
5258: |v_{1x}| \leq
5259: \mathcal{O}(1) |v_1|+
5260: |p_{1x} - \lambda_1 p_1|,
5261: \end{array}
5262: \end{equation*}
5263: one has
5264: \begin{equation*}
5265: \begin{split}
5266: | v_{1x} \sigma_{1x} v_1| =&~
5267: \Big|
5268: \frac{w_{1x}v_1 -
5269: v_{1x}w_1}
5270: {v_1^2}
5271: \Big| |\theta' v_1 v_{1x}| \\
5272: \leq&~ \mathcal{O}(1) |w_{1x}v_1 - w_1 v_{1x}|+
5273: \mathcal{O}(1) \bigg(|w_{1x}| +
5274: \mathcal{O}(1) |v_{1x}|\bigg)
5275: |p_{1x}-\lambda_1 p_1|.\\
5276: \end{split}
5277: \end{equation*}
5278: Using the previous estimates, we get
5279: \begin{equation*}
5280: \begin{split}
5281: & | v_1 \sigma_{1x} ( \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma})_x|
5282: \leq
5283: \mathcal{O}(1) |w_{1x}v_1 -
5284: v_{1x} w_1|+
5285: \mathcal{O}(1)
5286: \big(
5287: |v_1| + |w_{1x}|
5288: \big)
5289: \,
5290: \big(
5291: |v_2|+ |p_1|+|p_2|
5292: \big) \\
5293: & \quad +
5294: \mathcal{O}(1) |w_{1x}v_1 - w_1 v_{1x}|+
5295: \mathcal{O}(1) \bigg(|w_{1x}| +
5296: \mathcal{O}(1) |v_{1x}|\bigg)
5297: |p_{1x}-\lambda_1 p_1 |+
5298: \mathcal{O}(1) v_1^2
5299: \chi_{ \{ |\lambda_1^{\ast} - w_1 / v_1 | \leq 3 \hat{\delta} \} }
5300: \Big( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \Big)_x^2. \\
5301: \end{split}
5302: \end{equation*}
5303: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%6
5304: \item
5305: \begin{equation*}
5306: \begin{split}
5307: |v_1 (w_{1 x} - \lambda_1 w_1 ) - w_1^2| =&~
5308: | v_1 w_{1 x} - v_{1 x}w_1 + v_{1x} w_1
5309: - \lambda_1 v_1 w_1 -w_1^2| \\
5310: \leq&~ | v_1 w_{1 x} - v_{1 x}w_1 | +
5311: |w_1 (v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 - w_1)| \\
5312: \leq&~
5313: | v_1 w_{1 x} - v_{1 x}w_1 | +
5314: |w_1 (p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1)|. \\
5315: \end{split}
5316: \end{equation*}
5317: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5318: \item
5319: \begin{equation*}
5320: \begin{split}
5321: | w_{1x} ( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 &) + ( w_1 v_1 \sigma_1)_x +
5322: ( w_{1x } - \lambda_1 w_1 )v_{1x} | \\
5323: & = | 2 w_{1 x} (v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 - w_1 )
5324: - w_{1 x} v_{1 x } + \lambda_1 w_{1 x} v_1 +
5325: 2 w_{1 x} w_1 \\
5326: & \quad + w_{1 x} v_1 \sigma_1 + w_1 v_{1 x} \sigma_1 + w_1 v_1 \sigma_{1 x} +
5327: w_{1 x} v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 w_1 v_{1 x} | \\
5328: & = | 2 w_{1 x} (p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 )+
5329: 2 w_{1 x} (w_1 + \sigma_1 v_1 ) -
5330: \sigma_1 w_{1 x} v_1 \\
5331: & \quad + \lambda_1 w_{1 x} v_1 +
5332: \sigma_1 w_1 v_{1x } + (w_{1 x} v_1 - w_1 v_{1 x})
5333: \theta' (w_1 / v_1 ) - \lambda_1 w_1 v_{1 x} |
5334: \\
5335: & \leq 2 | w_{1 x} (p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 ) | +
5336: 2 | w_{1 x} (w_1 + \sigma_1 v_1 ) | \\
5337: & \quad + |(\lambda_1 - \sigma_1 ) (w_{1 x} v_1 - w_1 v_{1 x})|
5338: + (w_{1 x} v_1 - w_1 v_{1 x})
5339: \theta' (w_1 / v_1 ) | \\
5340: \end{split}
5341: \end{equation*}
5342: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5343: \item
5344: $$
5345: | w_1 ( w_1 + \sigma_1 v_1 - p_{1 x} + \lambda_1 p_1 )| =
5346: | w_1 ( w_1 + \sigma_1 v_1 ) +
5347: w_1 ( p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 )|
5348: $$
5349: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5350: \item
5351: $$
5352: | w_1 \sigma_{1 x} ( \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma})_x | \leq
5353: | v_1 \sigma_{1 x} ( \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma})_x |,
5354: $$
5355: and therefore one comes back to case (5).
5356: \end{enumerate}
5357: This completes the proof of the estimate
5358: \eqref{reasons_of_source_term}.
5359:
5360:
5361: \subsection{Appendix to Paragraph \ref{BV_estimates}}
5362:
5363: \subsubsection{Proof of the estimate \eqref{exp_decay_px}}
5364: \label{exp_decay_px_proof}
5365:
5366: It is convenient to introduce a representation formula for $p_i,
5367: \; i=1, \, 2$. To this end, two new convolution kernels are
5368: needed: let $I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(t, \, s, \, x)$ be the
5369: solution of the equation
5370: \begin{equation*}
5371: I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}_t + \lambda_i^{\ast}I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}_x
5372: - I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, }_{xx}=0,
5373: \end{equation*}
5374: with boundary and initial data
5375: \begin{equation*}
5376: I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(0, \,s, \, x) \equiv 0,
5377: \quad
5378: I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(t, \, s, \, 0) = \delta_{t =s},
5379: \quad
5380: I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(t, \, s, \, L) \equiv 0.
5381: \end{equation*}
5382: Without specifying the explicit expression of $I^{\lambda_i^{\ast}
5383: \, }$, we observe that
5384: \begin{equation*}
5385: \int_0^{+ \infty} I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \,0 }(t, \, s, \, x) ds =
5386: J^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(t, \, x)
5387: \end{equation*}
5388: (see equation \eqref{J_0} for the definition of
5389: $J^{\lambda^{\ast}_i \, 0}$). Analogously, let $
5390: I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}(t, \, x)$ be the solution of the
5391: equation
5392: \begin{equation*}
5393: I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}_t + \lambda_i^{\ast}I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}_x
5394: - I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}_{xx}=0,
5395: \end{equation*}
5396: with boundary and initial data:
5397: \begin{equation*}
5398: I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(0, \, s, \, x) \equiv 0,
5399: \quad
5400: I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(t, \, s, \, 0) \equiv 0,
5401: \quad
5402: I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(t, \, s, \, L) = \delta_{t =s}.
5403: \end{equation*}
5404: By construction, it satisfies
5405: \begin{equation*}
5406: \int_0^{+ \infty} I^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, L }(t, \, s, \, x) ds =
5407: J^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}(t, \, x)
5408: \end{equation*}
5409: (see equation \eqref{eq_J_L} for the definition of
5410: $J^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}$). If $t \leq 1$ the function $p_1$
5411: admits the following representation formula:
5412: \begin{equation*}
5413: \begin{split}
5414: p_1(t, \, x) =&~ \int_0^{+ \infty}
5415: I^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, 0}(t, \, s, \, x)p_1(s, \, 0) ds +
5416: \int_0^{+ \infty}
5417: I^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, L}(t, \, s, \, x)p_1(s, \, L) ds +
5418: \\
5419: & +
5420: \int_0^t \int_0^L \Delta^{\lambda_1^{\ast}}( t-s, \, x, \,
5421: y) \Big( (\lambda_1^{\ast} - \lambda_1) p_{1 y} -
5422: \lambda_{1 y} p_1 \Big)
5423: (s, \, y)dy ds , \\
5424: \end{split}
5425: \end{equation*}
5426: and hence
5427: \begin{equation*}
5428: \begin{split}
5429: p_{1 x}(t, \, x)=&~ \int_0^{+ \infty}
5430: I_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, 0}(t, \, s, \, x)p_1(s, \, 0) ds +
5431: \int_0^{+ \infty}
5432: I_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, L}(t, \, s, \, x)p_1(s, \, L) ds \\
5433: & + \int_0^t \int_0^L
5434: \Delta_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast}}( t-s, \, x, \, y)
5435: \Big( (\lambda_1^{\ast} - \lambda_1) p_{1 y} - \lambda_{1
5436: y}p_1
5437: \Big)(s, \, y) dy ds.\\
5438: \end{split}
5439: \end{equation*}
5440: From the expression of $\Delta^{\lambda_1^{\ast}}$, given by
5441: formula \eqref{Delta_product}, it follows that
5442: \begin{equation*}
5443: \bigg\|
5444: \Delta_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast}}(t, \, \, \cdot\, , \, y)
5445: \exp(c(\, \cdot \, -y) / 2 )
5446: \bigg\|_{L^1} \leq \frac{\unpo}{\sqrt{t}},
5447: \end{equation*}
5448: and from the previous observations
5449: \begin{equation*}
5450: \begin{split}
5451: & \bigg| \exp(c x / 2) \int_0^{\infty}
5452: I_x^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \,0 }(t, \, s, \, x) ds
5453: \bigg| =
5454: \big| \exp (c x/ 2) J_x^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, 0}(t, \, x)
5455: \big| \leq \unpo \\
5456: & \qquad \qquad \bigg| \int_0^{+ \infty}
5457: I_x^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}(t, \, s, \, x) ds
5458: \bigg| =
5459: \big| J_x^{\lambda_i^{\ast} \, L}
5460: (t, \, x) \big|.\\
5461: \end{split}
5462: \end{equation*}
5463: Hence
5464: \begin{equation*}
5465: \begin{split}
5466: \big| \exp& ( c x/ 2) p_1(t, \, x) \big| =
5467: \bigg| \exp (c x/2 ) \int_0^{ + \infty}
5468: I_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, 0}(t, \, s, \, x)p_1(s, \, 0) ds
5469: \bigg| +
5470: \bigg| \exp (cx / 2)\int_0^{+ \infty}
5471: I_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, L}(t, \, s, \, x)
5472: p_1(s, \, L) ds \bigg| \\
5473: & + \bigg| \exp (cx /2)\int_0^t \int_0^L
5474: \Delta_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast}}( t-s, \, x, \,
5475: y) \Big( (\lambda_1^{\ast} - \lambda_1) p_{1 y}
5476: - \lambda_{ 1 y} p_1 \Big)
5477: (s, \, y) dy ds \bigg| \\
5478: \leq&~
5479: \unpo |p(x= 0) |_{\infty} +
5480: \unpo |p(x= L) |_{\infty} \phantom{\bigg|}\\
5481: & + \unpo \delta_1
5482: \bigg| \int_0^t \bigg( \sup_{y}p_{1 y}( s, \, y)
5483: \exp (c y / 2) \bigg)
5484: \int_0^L \Delta_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast}}(t-s, \, x, \, y)
5485: \exp\big(c (x -y)/2 \big) ds dy \bigg| + \unpo \delta_1^2\\
5486: \end{split}
5487: \end{equation*}
5488: and therefore
5489: \begin{equation*}
5490: | \sup_{x}p_{1 x}( t, \, x)
5491: \exp (c x/ 2) | \leq \unpo \delta_1
5492: \quad \forall \, t \leq 1.
5493: \end{equation*}
5494: The estimate
5495: \begin{equation*}
5496: \sup_{x} \big| p_{2 x}( t, \, x)
5497: \exp \big( c( L- x) /2 \big) \big|
5498: \leq \unpo \delta_1
5499: \quad \forall \, t \leq 1
5500: \end{equation*}
5501: follows by symmetry.
5502:
5503: If $ t>1$ the following representation formula holds:
5504: \begin{equation*}
5505: \begin{split}
5506: p_{1 x}(t, \, x)=
5507: & \int_0^L p_1 (t-1,\ , y) \Delta^{\lambda_1^{\ast}}(1, \, x,
5508: \, y) dy +
5509: \int_{t - 1}^{+ \infty}
5510: I_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, 0}(1, s, \, x)p_1(s, \, 0) ds
5511: \\
5512: & + \int_{t-1}^{+ \infty}
5513: I_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, L}(1, \, s, \, x) p_1(s, \, L) ds \cr
5514: & +
5515: \int_0^1 \int_0^L \Delta_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast}}( 1 - s, \, x, \,
5516: y) \Big( (\lambda_1^{\ast} - \lambda_1) p_{1 y} - \lambda_{1 y}
5517: p_1 \Big)(t- 1+s, \, y) dy ds.\\
5518: \end{split}
5519: \end{equation*}
5520: It follows that
5521: \begin{equation*}
5522: |\sup_x p_{1x} (t, \, x) \exp ( cx/2 )| \leq
5523: \unpo \delta_1 \quad \forall \, t> 1,
5524: \end{equation*}
5525: and hence by symmetry
5526: \begin{equation*}
5527: \big| \sup_x p_{2 x} (t, \, x) \exp \big( c(L-x )/2
5528: \big) \big| \leq
5529: \unpo \delta_1 \quad \forall \, t> 1.
5530: \end{equation*}
5531: This concludes the proof of \eqref{exp_decay_px}.
5532:
5533:
5534: \subsubsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{other_wrt_time_pro}}
5535: \label{other_wrt_time_par}
5536:
5537: We will perform the computations only for
5538: $v_2, \; w_2$ and $w_{2 x}$, since those for $v_1, \; w_1$ and
5539: $w_{1 x}$ follow by symmetry.
5540:
5541: {\bf Three new convolution kernels:} the solution of equation
5542: \begin{equation}
5543: \label{eq_v}
5544: Q_t + \lambda_2^{\ast}Q_x - Q_{xx} =0
5545: \end{equation}
5546: with boundary conditions
5547: \begin{equation*}
5548: Q(0, \, x) = \delta_y,
5549: \qquad
5550: Q(t, \, 0) = 0,
5551: \qquad
5552: Q_x(t, \, L)=0
5553: \end{equation*}
5554: is
5555: \begin{equation}
5556: \label{eq_def_theta}
5557: Q(t, \, x) = \Theta^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, y) : =
5558: \int_0^x \phi(t, \, z, \, y) \bigg( \sum_m
5559: G_z (z + 2mL - y) + G_z (z + 2mL + y) \bigg) dz
5560: \end{equation}
5561: As in Section \ref{parabolic_estimates}, we use the notation
5562: \begin{equation*}
5563: \phi^{\, \lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, x, y) =
5564: \exp
5565: \bigg(
5566: \frac{
5567: \, \, \lambda_2^{\ast}}{2}
5568: \, (x -y) -
5569: \frac{
5570: \, \, ( \lambda_2^{\ast})^2 }{4}t\,
5571: \bigg).
5572: \end{equation*}
5573: and $G(t, \, x)= \exp(-x^2/ 4t)/ 2 \sqrt{\pi t} $.
5574: %An integration by parts ensures that
5575: %\begin{equation*}
5576: % \frac{d}{dt} \int_0^L |\Theta^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \,
5577: % y)|dx \leq
5578: % - |\Theta_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, 0, \, y)| -
5579: % \lambda_2^{\ast}(t, \, L) |\Theta^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, L, \, y)|
5580: %\end{equation*}
5581: %and therefore
5582: %\begin{equation*}
5583: % ||\Theta^{\lambda_2^{}}(t)||_{L^1(0, \, L)} \leq 1 \quad
5584: % \forall \, t \ge 0.
5585: %\end{equation*}
5586: Note that, by construction,
5587: \begin{equation}
5588: \label{eq_theta_x}
5589: \Theta^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}_x (t, \, 0, \, y) \equiv 0
5590: \quad \forall \, t \ge 0, \quad y \in ]0, \, L[ \, .
5591: \end{equation}
5592: Moreover, an argument similar to that used in Section
5593: \ref{par_maximum} ensures that a maximum principle holds for
5594: equation \eqref{eq_v}, in other words if
5595: \begin{equation*}
5596: Q(0, \, x) \leq 0, \qquad Q(t, \, 0) \leq 0, \qquad Q_x(t, \, L) \leq 0,
5597: \end{equation*}
5598: then $Q(t, \, x) \leq 0 \; \forall \, t, \; x$.
5599:
5600: The solution of \eqref{eq_v} with boundary conditions
5601: \begin{equation*}
5602: Q(0, \, x) = 0,
5603: \qquad
5604: Q(t, \, 0)= 1,
5605: \qquad
5606: Q_x(t, \, L) =0
5607: \end{equation*}
5608: is
5609: \begin{equation}
5610: \label{eq_conv_ker_b}
5611: B^{\driftd}(t, \, x) = 1 - \int_0^L \Theta^{\driftd}(t, \,
5612: x, \, y) dy.
5613: \end{equation}
5614: In the following, we will need another convolution kernel,
5615: $\tilde{\Theta}^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, y)$, such that
5616: \begin{equation}
5617: \label{eq_tilde_theta}
5618: \tilde{\Theta}_y^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, y) =
5619: - \Theta_x^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, y ).
5620: \end{equation}
5621: We arbitrarily impose $\tilde{\Theta}^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, L)
5622: \equiv 0 \; \forall \, t, \; x$ and define
5623: \begin{equation*}
5624: \tilde{\Theta}^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, y) : =
5625: \int_y^L \Theta_x^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, \xi) d \xi.
5626: \end{equation*}
5627: Recalling \eqref{eq_theta_x}, we observe that
5628: $\tilde{\Theta}^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, y)$ is the derivative with
5629: respect to $x$ of a function $z$ such that
5630: \begin{equation}
5631: \label{eq_zeta}
5632: \begin{split}
5633: & z_x (t, \, 0, \, y) \equiv 0
5634: \quad
5635: z_x (t, \, L, \, y) \equiv 0
5636: \quad
5637: z(0, \, x, \, y) =
5638: \left\{
5639: \begin{array}{ll}
5640: 0 \quad 0 < x \leq y \\
5641: 1 \quad y \leq x < L \\
5642: \end{array}
5643: \right. \\
5644: & \qquad
5645: \qquad
5646: \qquad
5647: \qquad
5648: z_t + \lambda_2^{\ast} z_x - z_{xx}=0. \\
5649: \end{split}
5650: \end{equation}
5651: It follows that $\tilde{\Theta}^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, y)$
5652: satisfies
5653: \begin{equation*}
5654: \tilde{\Theta}^{\driftd}(t, \, 0, \, y)
5655: \equiv 0
5656: \quad
5657: \tilde{\Theta}^{\driftd}(t, \, L, \, y)
5658: \equiv 0
5659: \quad
5660: \tilde{\Theta}^{\driftd}(0, \, x, \, y) =
5661: \delta_y
5662: \end{equation*}
5663: and hence actually
5664: \begin{equation}
5665: \label{eq_tilde_theta_delta}
5666: \tilde{\Theta}^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, y)
5667: \equiv \Delta^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, y),
5668: \end{equation}
5669: where $\Delta^{\driftd}$ is the convolution kernel defined by
5670: \eqref{Delta_product}. In the following, however, for sake of
5671: clearness we will write $\tilde{\Theta}^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, y)$
5672: when we want to underline that the relation \eqref{eq_tilde_theta}
5673: holds. From the identity \eqref{eq_tilde_theta_delta} and the
5674: estimates \eqref{estimate_kernels} it follows
5675: \begin{equation}
5676: \label{eq_theta_x_integral}
5677: \| \tilde{\Theta}^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, y)\|_{L^1}
5678: \leq \unpo \quad
5679: \| \tilde{\Theta}_x^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, y) \|_{L^1}
5680: \leq \frac{\unpo}{\sqrt{t}}
5681: \quad \forall \, t \leq 1.
5682: \end{equation}
5683: Moreover, let $z$ be as in \eqref{eq_zeta} and let $B^{\driftd}$
5684: be defined by \eqref{eq_conv_ker_b}, then $z(t, \, x, \, 0) +
5685: B^{\driftd}(t, \, x) \equiv 1$ and hence
5686: \begin{equation}
5687: \label{eq_theta_b}
5688: \tilde{\Theta}^{\driftd}(t, \,x, \, 0) +
5689: B_x^{\driftd}(t, \, x) = 0.
5690: \end{equation}
5691: Such an identity, together with \eqref{eq_theta_x_integral},
5692: implies
5693: \begin{equation}
5694: \|B_x^{\driftd}(t, \, x)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo
5695: \quad
5696: \| B_{xx}^{\driftd}(t, \, x) \|_{L^1} \leq
5697: \frac{\unpo}{\sqrt{t}}
5698: \quad t \leq 1.
5699: \end{equation}
5700: Since the kernels introduced so far will be used to prove the
5701: integrability of $v_{2x}$ with respect to time, one has to prove
5702: that they are integrable on small time intervals.
5703: \begin{itemize}
5704: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5705: \item
5706: \begin{equation}
5707: \label{estimate_theta_x_wrtt}
5708: \int_0^1 |\tilde{\Theta}_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
5709: (t, \, x, \, y)| dt
5710: = \int_0^1 |\Delta_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
5711: (t, \, x, \, y)| dt
5712: \leq \mathcal{O}(1)
5713: \quad \forall x \in \, [0, \, L],
5714: \quad \forall \, y \in \, ]0, \, L[
5715: \end{equation}
5716: \begin{proof}
5717: One can check that
5718: \begin{equation}
5719: \label{eq_basic_wrtt}
5720: \int_0^1 | G_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
5721: (t, \, x - y) | dt
5722: \leq \unpo
5723: \qquad
5724: \int_0^1 | G^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
5725: (t, \, x - y) | dt
5726: \leq \unpo
5727: \quad \forall \, x, \, y \in \mathbb{R}.
5728: \end{equation}
5729: Since
5730: \begin{equation*}
5731: \begin{split}
5732: \Delta_x^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, y) =
5733: & \bigg(
5734: \phi(t, \, x, \, y) \sum_{m \ge 0}
5735: G(t, \, x -y + 2 mL )
5736: \bigg)_x -
5737: \bigg(
5738: \phi(t, \, x, \, y) \sum_{m \ge 0}
5739: G(t, \, x + y + 2 mL )
5740: \bigg)_x \\
5741: & +
5742: \bigg(
5743: \phi(t, \, x, \, y) \sum_{n > 0}
5744: G(t, \, x -y - 2 nL )
5745: \bigg)_x -
5746: \bigg(
5747: \phi(t, \, x, \, y) \sum_{n > 0}
5748: G(t, \, x + y - 2 nL )
5749: \bigg)_x, \\
5750: \end{split}
5751: \end{equation*}
5752: one gets
5753: \begin{equation*}
5754: \begin{split}
5755: | \Delta_x^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, y) |
5756: & \leq
5757: \sum_{m \ge 0}
5758: |G_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x - y + 2mL )|
5759: +
5760: \sum_{m \ge 0}
5761: |G_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}} (t, \, x+ y + 2mL)| \\
5762: & \quad +
5763: \sum_{n > 0} |G_x^{\driftd}(t, \, 2nL + y -x)| +
5764: \driftd \sum_{n > 0} |G^{\driftd}(t, \, 2nL + y -x)| \\
5765: & \quad +
5766: \sum_{n > 0} |G_x^{\driftd}(t, \, 2nL - y -x)| +
5767: \driftd \sum_{n > 0} |G^{\driftd}(t, \, 2nL - y -x)|. \\
5768: \end{split}
5769: \end{equation*}
5770: Since
5771: \begin{equation*}
5772: |G_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, z + 2mL ) | \leq
5773: e^{-mL} |G_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, z ) |
5774: \qquad
5775: |G^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, z + 2mL ) | \leq
5776: e^{-mL} |G^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, z ) |
5777: \end{equation*}
5778: if $m \ge 0$, $t \leq 1$ and $z$ is large enough, from the
5779: previous estimates and from \eqref{eq_basic_wrtt} one deduces
5780: \eqref{estimate_theta_x_wrtt}.
5781: \end{proof}
5782: \item From equation \eqref{eq_theta_b} and the previous estimate
5783: it follows
5784: \begin{equation}
5785: \label{eq_b_xx_wrtt}
5786: \int_0^1 |B_{xx}^{\driftd}(t, \, x) | dt \leq
5787: \unpo \quad \forall \, x \in [0, \, L].
5788: \end{equation}
5789: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5790: %\item the last estimate deals with one of the convolutions kernels
5791: %introduced in Paragraph \ref{parabolic_estimates}:
5792: %\begin{equation}
5793: % \int_0^1 | \Delta_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}|
5794: % (s, \, x, \, y) ds \leq
5795: % \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1
5796: % \quad \forall \, x, \, y \in ]0, \, L[.
5797: %\end{equation}
5798: %The proof is similar to that of the estimate
5799: %\eqref{estimate_theta_x_wrtt}) and will be therefore omitted.
5800: \end{itemize}
5801: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5802: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5803: {\bf A representation formula for $\boldsymbol{v_2}:$} it is
5804: convenient to introduce the auxiliary function
5805: \begin{equation*}
5806: V_2 (t, \, x) = \int_0^x
5807: v_2 (t, \, \xi) d \xi,
5808: \end{equation*}
5809: which satisfies the equation
5810: \begin{equation*}
5811: V_{2 t} + \lambda_2 V_{2 x} - V_{2 xx} =
5812: \tilde{S}_1 (t, \, x),
5813: \end{equation*}
5814: where
5815: \begin{equation*}
5816: \tilde{S}_1 (t, \, x) =
5817: \int_{ 0}^{x} \tilde{s}_1 (t, \, \xi)
5818: d \xi .
5819: \end{equation*}
5820: The boundary and initial conditions of $V_2 (t, \, x)$ are
5821: \begin{equation*}
5822: V_2 (0, \, x) = \int_{0}^{x}
5823: v_2 (0, \, \xi) d \xi,
5824: \qquad
5825: V_2 (t, \, 0) = \int_0^t (v_{2 x} - \lambda_2 v_2) (s, \, 0) ds,
5826: \qquad
5827: V_{2x} (t, \, L) = 0.
5828: \end{equation*}
5829: The convolution kernels \eqref{eq_def_theta} and
5830: \eqref{eq_conv_ker_b} provide the representation formula
5831: \begin{equation}
5832: \label{eq_v_big}
5833: \begin{split}
5834: V_{2} (t, \, x ) =
5835: & \int_0^L {\Theta}^{\lambda_2^{\ast}} (t, \, x, \, y)
5836: V_2 (0, \, y) dy +
5837: \int_0^t B (t -s, \, x)
5838: ( v_{2x} - \lambda_2 v_2 )
5839: (s,\, 0) ds \\
5840: & +
5841: \int_0^t \int_0^L
5842: \Theta^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}( t-s, \, x, \, y)
5843: \Big(
5844: \big( \lambda_2^{\ast} - \lambda_2 \big)
5845: v_2 \Big)
5846: (s, \, y) dy ds \\
5847: & +
5848: \int_0^t \int_0^L
5849: \Theta^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}( t-s, \, x, \, y)
5850: \tilde{S}_1
5851: (s, \, y) dy ds. \\
5852: \end{split}
5853: \end{equation}
5854: Since
5855: \begin{equation*}
5856: \tilde{\Theta}^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, 0) +
5857: B_x^{\driftd}(t, \, x) \equiv 0,
5858: \qquad
5859: \tilde{S}_1 (t, \, 0) \equiv 0,
5860: \end{equation*}
5861: from \eqref{eq_v_big} one gets
5862: \begin{equation*}
5863: \begin{split}
5864: V_{2x} (t, \, x) =
5865: & v_2 (t, \, x) =
5866: \int_0^L \tilde{\Theta}^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
5867: (t, \, x, \, y) v_{2 } (0, \, y) dy +
5868: \int_0^t B^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}_x (t -s, \, x)
5869: \Big( v_{2 x} - \driftd v_2 \Big)(s, \, 0) ds \\
5870: & +
5871: \int_0^t \int_0^L \tilde{\Theta}^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
5872: (t-s, \, x, \, y) \tilde{s}_1 (s, \, y) dy ds +
5873: \int_0^t \int_0^L \tilde{\Theta}^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
5874: ( t-s, \, x, \, y)
5875: \Big(
5876: \big( \lambda_2^{\ast} - \lambda_2 \big)
5877: v_2
5878: \Big)_y
5879: (s, \, y) dy ds \\
5880: \end{split}
5881: \end{equation*}
5882: and
5883: \begin{equation*}
5884: \begin{split}
5885: v_{2x} (t, \, x) =
5886: & \int_0^L \tilde{\Theta}_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
5887: (t, \, x, \, y) v_{2 } (0, \, y) dy +
5888: \int_0^t B^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}_{xx}
5889: (t -s, \, x)
5890: \Big( v_{2 x} - \driftd v_2 \Big)(s, \, 0) ds \\
5891: & +
5892: \int_0^t \int_0^L \tilde{\Theta}_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
5893: (t-s, \, x, \, y) \tilde{s}_1 (s, \, y) dy ds \\
5894: & +
5895: \int_0^t \int_0^L \tilde{\Theta}_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
5896: ( t-s, \, x, \, y)
5897: \Big(
5898: \big(
5899: \lambda_2^{\ast} - \lambda_2 \big) v_{2y} -
5900: \lambda_{2y} v_2
5901: \Big)
5902: (s, \, y) dy ds . \\
5903: \end{split}
5904: \end{equation*}
5905: From the estimate \eqref{eq_theta_x_integral},
5906: \eqref{estimate_theta_x_wrtt} and \eqref{eq_b_xx_wrtt} on the
5907: convolution kernels it follows
5908: \begin{equation*}
5909: \begin{split}
5910: \int_0^1 | v_{2 x} (t, \, x)| dt \leq&~
5911: \| v_2 (0) \|_{L^1} \sup_{x, \, y}
5912: \int_0^1 |\tilde{\Theta}^{\driftd}(t, \, x, \, y)| dt \\
5913: & ~ +
5914: \unpo
5915: \bigg( \int_0^1 \bigg\{ (v_{2 x} - \lambda_2 v_2 )
5916: ( s, \, 0) + (\lambda_2^{\ast} - \lambda_2 )
5917: v_2 (s, \,0 ) ds
5918: \bigg\}ds \bigg) \\
5919: &~ + \bigg( \int_0^1 |\tilde{s}_1
5920: (s)|_{\infty} ds \bigg)
5921: \, \bigg( \int_0^1 \frac{\unpo}{\sqrt{t}} \, dt \bigg)+
5922: \bigg( \int_0^1 \frac{\unpo}{\sqrt{s}} \, ds \bigg) \,
5923: \bigg( \delta_1 \sup_{y } \int_0^1 |v_{2 y}|(s, \, y) ds + \delta_1^2
5924: \bigg) \\
5925: \leq&~
5926: \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1,
5927: \end{split}
5928: \end{equation*}
5929: for all $x \in [0, L]$.
5930: If $t > 1$ we can use for $v_{2x} $ the expression
5931: \begin{equation}
5932: \label{equation_v2x}
5933: \begin{split}
5934: v_{2x} (t, \, x) =
5935: & \int_0^L \tilde{\Theta}_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
5936: (1, \, x, \, y) v_{2} (t-1, \, y) dy +
5937: \int_0^1 B^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}_{xx}
5938: (1-s, \, x)
5939: \big( v_{2 x} - \driftd v_2 \big)(t-1+s, \, 0) ds \\
5940: & +
5941: \int_0^1 \int_0^L \tilde{\Theta}_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
5942: (1-s, \, x, \, y) \tilde{s}_1 (t-1+ s, \, y) dy ds \\
5943: & +
5944: \int_0^1 \int_0^L \tilde{\Theta}_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
5945: ( 1-s, \, x, \, y)
5946: \Big(
5947: \big(
5948: \lambda_2^{\ast} - \lambda_2 \big) v_{2y} -
5949: \lambda_{2y} v_2
5950: \Big)
5951: (t-1+s, \, y) dy ds.\\
5952: \end{split}
5953: \end{equation}
5954: Computations analogous to the previous ones lead to
5955: \begin{equation*}
5956: \int_1^T | v_{2x} (s, \, x)| ds \leq \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1.
5957: \end{equation*}
5958: Hence
5959: \begin{equation*}
5960: \int_0^T | v_{2x} (s, \, x)| ds \leq \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1
5961: \quad \forall \, T \, > 0, \; \; x \in [0, \, L] .
5962: \end{equation*}
5963: {\bf The integrability of $\boldsymbol{w_2}$ with respect to
5964: time}: it holds
5965: \begin{equation}
5966: \label{estimate_w_wrt}
5967: \int_0^t |w_{2 }(s, \, y)| ds \leq \unpo \delta_1
5968: \quad \forall \, t > 0, \quad
5969: \forall \, y \, \in \, [0, \, L].
5970: \end{equation}
5971: \begin{proof}
5972: We preliminary observe that
5973: \begin{equation*}
5974: w_2 (0, \, x) = \langle \tilde{\ell}_2, \, u_t (0, \, x)
5975: \rangle,
5976: \qquad
5977: w_2 (t, \, 0) = \langle \tilde{\ell}_2, \, u'_{b \, 0}(t)
5978: \rangle,
5979: \qquad
5980: w_2 (t, \, L)= \langle \tilde{\ell}_2, \, u'_{b \, L}(t)
5981: \rangle,
5982: \end{equation*}
5983: where $\tilde{\ell}_2$ satisfies $\langle \tilde{\ell}_2, \, r_2
5984: \rangle \equiv 1$ and $\langle \tilde{\ell}_2, \, \tilde{r}_1
5985: \rangle \equiv 0$. Hence
5986: \begin{equation*}
5987: \| w_2 ( t =0) \|_{L^1(0, \, L)} \leq \unpo \delta_1,
5988: \qquad
5989: \| w_2 (x=0) \|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)} \leq \delta_1,
5990: \qquad
5991: \| w_2 ( x =L) \|_{L^1(0, \, + \infty)} \leq
5992: \delta_1.
5993: \end{equation*}
5994: Let $2c$ be the separation speed defined by
5995: \eqref{eq_separation_speed}, let $K$ be a compact neighborhood of
5996: the value $u^{\ast}$ defined by \eqref{E:noBD} and let $C >0$
5997: satisfy
5998: \begin{equation*}
5999: 0 < c \leq \lambda_2(u) \leq C
6000: \quad \forall \; u \in K.
6001: \end{equation*}
6002: If $y \in ]0, \, L[$, the estimate \eqref{estimate_w_wrt} can be
6003: obtained applying Lemma \ref{functional_pro} to the functional
6004: \begin{equation}
6005: \label{eq_functional_w2_wrttx}
6006: P_y( x) =
6007: \left\{
6008: \begin{array}{lll}
6009: a \big( 1 - e^{- C x} \big) \quad
6010: \quad x \leq y \\
6011: \\
6012: b \big( e^{- c x } - e^{-cL} \big)
6013: \quad x > y,
6014: \end{array}
6015: \right.
6016: \end{equation}
6017: where $a$ and $b$ satisfy
6018: \begin{equation}
6019: \label{eq_conditions}
6020: \left\{
6021: \begin{array}{lll}
6022: a \big( 1 - e^{- Cy} \big) =
6023: b \big( e^{- cy } - e^{-cL} \big) \\
6024: \\
6025: a C e^{-C y} + bc e^{-c y}=1. \\
6026: \end{array}
6027: \right.
6028: \end{equation}
6029: By straightforward computations, from \eqref{eq_conditions} one
6030: gets that
6031: %\begin{equation*}
6032: % a = \frac{1 - e^{c (y -L)}}{ (C-c) e^{-Cy} + c - C e^{y (c-C) -cL}}
6033: %\end{equation*}
6034: %and therefore $0 < a < 2/ C$ when $L$ is large enough. It follows
6035: the functional $P_y$ satisfies
6036: \begin{equation*}
6037: \begin{split}
6038: & P_y (0) = P_y (L) =0, \qquad
6039: 0 \leq P_y (x) \leq P_y(y) \leq \unpo,
6040: \quad
6041: P'_y (0) \leq \unpo,
6042: \quad
6043: - P_y'(L) \leq \unpo,
6044: \quad \forall \, L > > 1 \\
6045: & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
6046: \qquad P''_y (x) + \lambda_2 P'_y (x) \leq -
6047: \delta_{x =y}. \\
6048: \end{split}
6049: \end{equation*}
6050: Since $w_2$ satisfies
6051: \begin{equation*}
6052: w_{2 t} + (\lambda_2 w_2)_x - w_{2 xx} =
6053: \tilde{s}_2(t, \,x),
6054: \end{equation*}
6055: Lemma \ref{functional_pro} ensures that
6056: \begin{equation*}
6057: \begin{split}
6058: \int_0^t |w_{2 }(s, \, y)| ds
6059: & \leq
6060: \unpo \int_0^L |w_2 (0, \, x)| dx +
6061: \unpo \int_0^t \int_0^L
6062: |\tilde{s}_2 (s, \, x)| dx ds \\
6063: & \quad +
6064: \unpo \int_0^t |w_2 (s, \, 0)| ds +
6065: \unpo \int_0^t |w_2 (s, \, L)| ds \\
6066: & \leq
6067: \unpo \delta_1
6068: \quad \forall \, y \in ]0, \, L[. \phantom{\int} \\
6069: \end{split}
6070: \end{equation*}
6071: \end{proof}
6072:
6073: {\bf Integrability of $\boldsymbol{w_{2x}}$ with respect to time}:
6074: it holds
6075: \begin{equation}
6076: \label{estimate_wx_wrtt}
6077: \int_0^t |w_{2 x}(s, \, x)| ds \leq \unpo \delta_1
6078: \quad \forall \, t>0.
6079: \end{equation}
6080: \begin{proof}
6081: From the representation
6082: \begin{equation*}
6083: \begin{split}
6084: w_{2x} (t, \, x) =
6085: & \int_0^L \Delta_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
6086: (t, \, x, \, y) w_2 (0, \, y) dy +
6087: \int_0^t \int_0^L \Delta_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}} (t -s, \, x, \, y)
6088: \tilde{s}_2 (s, \, y) dy ds \\
6089: & +
6090: \int_0^{t} \int_0^L \Delta_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
6091: (t-s, \, x, \, y)
6092: \Big( ( {\lambda_2^{\ast}} - \lambda_2 \big) w_{2y} -
6093: \lambda_{2 y} w_2
6094: \Big) (s, \, y) ds dy +
6095: w_2 (0, \, L) J_x^{\driftd \, L} (t, \, x)
6096: \\
6097: & +
6098: w_2 (0, \, 0) J_x^{\driftd \, 0}(t, \, x) +
6099: \int_0^{t}
6100: J_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast} \, 0}(t - s, \, x)
6101: w'_{2} (s, \, 0) ds +
6102: \int_0^{t}
6103: J_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast} \, L} (t- s, \, x)
6104: w'_{2 } (s, \, L) ds \\
6105: \end{split}
6106: \end{equation*}
6107: it follows
6108: $$
6109: \int_0^1 | w_{2x}| (t, \, x) dx \leq \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1.
6110: $$
6111: If $t \geq 1$ one can write
6112: \begin{equation*}
6113: \begin{split}
6114: w_{2x} (t, \, x) =
6115: & \int_0^L \Delta_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
6116: (1, \, x, \, y) w_2 (t-1, \, y) dy +
6117: \int_0^1 \int_0^L
6118: \Delta_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}} (1 -s, \, x, \, y)
6119: \tilde{s}_2 (t-1+ s, \, y) dy ds \\
6120: & +
6121: \int_0^{1} \int_0^L \Delta_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}
6122: (1-s, \, x, \, y)
6123: \Big( ( {\lambda_2^{\ast}} - \lambda_2 \big) w_{2y} -
6124: \lambda_{2 y} w_2
6125: \Big) (t-1+s, \, y) ds dy \\
6126: & +
6127: w_2 (t - 1, \, L) J_x^{\driftd \, L} (1, \, x)
6128: +
6129: w_2 (t-1, \, 0) J_x^{\driftd \, 0}
6130: (1, \, x) \phantom{\int}\\
6131: & + \int_0^{1}
6132: J_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast} \, 0}(1 - s, \, x)
6133: w'_{2} (t-1 +s, \, 0) ds +
6134: \int_0^{1}
6135: J_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast} \, L} (1- s, \, x)
6136: w'_{2 } (t-1+ s, \, L) ds \\
6137: \end{split}
6138: \end{equation*}
6139: and obtains
6140: $$
6141: \int_1^T |w_{2x}| (t, \, x) dt \leq \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1.
6142: $$
6143: This concludes the proof of \eqref{estimate_wx_wrtt}.
6144: \end{proof}
6145:
6146:
6147: \subsubsection{Proof of the estimate \eqref{interaction2}}
6148: \label{interaction2_proof}
6149:
6150: We need three preliminary results: \\
6151: % \begin{itemize}
6152: % \item
6153: $\bullet$ For any $t \leq 1$, the following holds:
6154: \begin{equation}
6155: \qquad \label{estimate_tilde_theta_x}
6156: | \tilde{\Theta}_x^{\driftd}(t, \, x,\, y)|
6157: \leq
6158: a (t, \, x-y) + b (t, \, x)
6159: \quad \|a(t)\|_{L^1(-L, \, L)}, \; \;
6160: \|b(t) \|_{L^1(-L, \, L)}
6161: \leq \frac{\mathcal{O}(1)}{ \sqrt{t} }. \quad
6162: \end{equation}
6163: {\sl Proof of \eqref{estimate_tilde_theta_x}} In the following,
6164: $\alpha(t, \, x - y)$ and $\beta(t, \, x)$ will denote functions
6165: that satisfy
6166: \begin{equation*}
6167: \| \alpha(t)\|_{L^1(-L, \, L)}, \quad
6168: \|\beta(t)\|_{L^1(-L, \, L)} \leq \frac{\unpo}{ \sqrt{t}}.
6169: \end{equation*}
6170: By the identities \eqref{Delta_product} and
6171: \eqref{eq_tilde_theta_delta},
6172: \begin{equation*}
6173: \tilde{\Theta}_x^{\driftd}(t, \, x,\, y) =
6174: \Delta_x^{\driftd}(t, \, x,\, y) =
6175: \bigg( \phi^{\, \lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, y)
6176: \sum_{m \, = \,- \infty}^{m \, = \, + \infty}
6177: G (t, x + 2mL -y) -
6178: G (t, x+ 2mL +y ) \bigg)_x.
6179: \end{equation*}
6180: One has
6181: \begin{equation*}
6182: \begin{split}
6183: \bigg| \bigg(
6184: \phi^{\, \lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, y)
6185: \sum_{m \, = \,- \infty}^{m \, = \, +
6186: \infty}
6187: G (t, x + 2mL -y) \bigg)_x \bigg| \leq
6188: & \sum_{m \ge 0} \Big| \, G_x^{\driftd}
6189: (t, \, x-y + 2mL) \Big| +
6190: \driftd \sum_{n > 0} G^{\driftd}(t, \, 2nL - x+ y) \\
6191: & +
6192: \sum_{n >0}
6193: G_x^{\driftd}(t, \, 2nL - x+ y)
6194: \leq \alpha(x -y) ,
6195: \phantom{\bigg(} \\
6196: \end{split}
6197: \end{equation*}
6198: where we have set $n: = -m $. To complete the proof of
6199: \eqref{estimate_tilde_theta_x}, it is convenient to observe that
6200: \begin{equation*}
6201: G^{\driftd}_x (t, \, x + y) \leq G^{\driftd}(t, \, x )
6202: \quad
6203: \forall \, x \ge \big( \driftd t + \sqrt{2t}\big),
6204: \quad \forall \,
6205: y \ge 0
6206: \end{equation*}
6207: and that
6208: \begin{equation*}
6209: \begin{split}
6210: & |G^{\driftd}_x (t, \, x + y)| \leq
6211: G^{\driftd}_x (t, \, x) +
6212: G_x(t, \, \sqrt{2t})
6213: \, \chi_{ \displaystyle{
6214: \{ \, 0 \leq \, x \leq \sqrt{2t} + \driftd t \}} }
6215: \leq \beta(x) \\
6216: & |G^{\driftd}_x (t, \, 2L - x - y)| \leq
6217: G^{\driftd}_x (t, \, L - x) +
6218: G_x (t, \, \sqrt{2t})
6219: \, \chi_{ \displaystyle{
6220: \{ \, L - \sqrt{2t} - \driftd t \leq \, x \, \leq L \}} }
6221: \leq \beta(x), \quad \forall \, x, \; y \in [0, \, L]
6222: \end{split}
6223: \end{equation*}
6224: where $\chi_E$ denotes the characteristic function of the set $E$.
6225: Hence
6226: \begin{equation*}
6227: \begin{split}
6228: \bigg| \bigg(
6229: & \phi^{\, \lambda_2^{\ast}}(t, \, x, \, y)
6230: \sum_{m \, = \,- \infty}^{m \, = \, +
6231: \infty}
6232: G (t, x + 2mL + y) \bigg)_x \bigg|
6233: \leq
6234: \sum_{m > 0} G_x^{\driftd}
6235: (t, \, x+ y + 2mL) +
6236: G_x^{\driftd}(t, \, x + y) \\
6237: & \quad +
6238: \driftd \sum_{n > 0} G^{\driftd}(t, \, 2nL - x - y) +
6239: \sum_{n >0}
6240: G_x^{\driftd}(t, \, 2nL - x - y) \\
6241: & \leq \sum_{m >0 } G_x^{\driftd}
6242: (t, \, x+ 2mL) + \beta (x ) +
6243: \driftd \sum_{n > 0} G^{\driftd}(t, \, L - x) +
6244: \sum_{n > 1} G_x^{\driftd}(t, \, (2n- 1) L - x ) +
6245: G_x^{\driftd}(t, \, 2L - x- y) \\
6246: & \leq \beta(x), \phantom{\sum} \\
6247: \end{split}
6248: \end{equation*}
6249: which concludes the proof of \eqref{estimate_tilde_theta_x}.
6250: $\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
6251: \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \Box$
6252:
6253: \noindent $\bullet$ If $t \leq 1$ then
6254: \begin{equation}
6255: \label{estimate_vx_wrtx}
6256: \int_0^L |v_{ 2 x }(t, \, x)| dx \leq \frac{\unpo
6257: \delta_1}{\sqrt{t}}.
6258: \end{equation}
6259: \begin{proof} Let $t \leq 1$. From the equality
6260: \begin{equation}
6261: \label{eq_uxx}
6262: u_{xx}= v_1 \Big( \bigd \tr u_x + v_{1 x} \tilde{r}_{1 v}
6263: + \sigma_{1 x} \tilde{r}_{1 \sigma} \Big) + v_{1 x} \tr +
6264: p_1 \Big( \bigd \hr u_x + p_{1x } \hat{r}_{1 p}
6265: \Big) + p_{1x } \hr + v_{2 x} r_2 +
6266: p_{2 x} r_2,
6267: \end{equation}
6268: and from the bounds $\|p_{1 x}(t) \|_{L^1} \leq \unpo \delta_1$
6269: and $\|u_{xx}(t)\| \leq \unpo \delta_1 / \sqrt{t}$, it follows
6270: that
6271: \begin{equation*}
6272: \|v_{1x}(t)\| = \|\langle \ell_1 , \, u_{xx}(t)
6273: \rangle - p_{1 x}(t)\|_{L^1} \leq
6274: \frac{\unpo \delta_1}{\sqrt{t}},
6275: \end{equation*}
6276: where $\ell_1 = (1, \, 0)$. Hence
6277: \begin{equation*}
6278: \|w_1(t)\|_{L^1} \leq \unpo \|v_1(t)\|_{L^1}+
6279: \|v_{1 x}(t)\|_{L^1} + \unpo \| p_1(t)\|_{L^1} +
6280: \|p_{1 x}(t)\|_{L^1} \leq \frac{\unpo \delta_1}{\sqrt{t}}.
6281: \end{equation*}
6282: From the estimates
6283: \begin{equation*}
6284: \begin{split}
6285: & \|w'_1 (x= 0)\|_{L^1 (0, \, + \infty)} =
6286: \|\langle \ell_1, \, u''_{b \, 0} \rangle \|_{L^1 (0, \, + \infty)}
6287: \leq \delta_1 \\
6288: & \|w'_1 (x= L)\|_{L^1 (0, \, + \infty)} =
6289: \|\langle \ell_1, \, u''_{b \, L} \rangle \|_{L^1 (0, \, + \infty)}
6290: \leq \delta_1 \\
6291: & \|w_1 (t =0)\|_{L^1(0, \, L)} =
6292: \|\langle \ell_1, \, u''_0 - A(u_0) u'_0 \rangle \|_{L^1(0, \, L)}
6293: \leq \unpo \delta_1, \\
6294: \end{split}
6295: \end{equation*}
6296: and from the representation formula
6297: \begin{equation}
6298: \label{eq_representation}
6299: \begin{split}
6300: w_{1 x}(t, \, x) =
6301: & \int_0^L \Delta^{\lambda_1^{\ast}}_x
6302: (t,\, x, \, y) w_1 (0, \, y)dy +
6303: J_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, 0}(t, \, x) w_1(0, \, 0)
6304: + J_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, L}(t, \, x) w_1(0, \, L) \\
6305: & + \int_0^t J_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, 0}
6306: (t - s, \, x) w_1' (s,\, 0)
6307: ds +
6308: \int_0^t J_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, L}(t - s, \, x) w_1' (s, \, L)
6309: ds \\
6310: & + \int_0^t \int_0^L
6311: \Delta^{\lambda_1^{\ast}}_x(t -s, \, x, \, y)
6312: \Big( ( \lambda_1^{\ast}- \lambda_1 ) w_{1 y}
6313: - \lambda_{1 y} w_1 \Big)
6314: (s, \, y) ds dy, \\
6315: \end{split}
6316: \end{equation}
6317: it follows that
6318: \begin{equation*}
6319: \|w_{1 x}(t)\|_{L^1} \leq \frac{\unpo \delta_1}{\sqrt{t}}.
6320: \end{equation*}
6321: Hence
6322: \begin{equation*}
6323: \|\sigma_{1 x } (t) v_1 (t)\|_{L^1} =
6324: \bigg\|
6325: \theta' \bigg( w_{1 x }(t) -
6326: \frac{w_1}{v_1 } v_{1 x}(t) \bigg)
6327: \bigg\|_{L^1} \leq \frac{\unpo \delta_1}{\sqrt{t}}.
6328: \end{equation*}
6329: and therefore from \eqref{eq_uxx} one gets
6330: \eqref{estimate_vx_wrtx}.
6331: \end{proof}
6332:
6333: \noindent $\bullet$ If $t \ge 1$ then
6334: \begin{equation}
6335: \label{estimate_v2_wrt_x}
6336: \int_0^L |v_{2 x}(t, \, x))| dx \leq \unpo \delta_1
6337: \end{equation}
6338: \begin{proof} One can repeat the same computations performed to prove
6339: \eqref{estimate_vx_wrtx}, using, instead of
6340: \eqref{eq_representation}, the following representation formula
6341: (which holds if $t \ge 1$):
6342: \begin{equation*}
6343: \begin{split}
6344: w_{1 x}(t, \, x) =
6345: & \int_0^L \Delta^{\lambda_1^{\ast}}_x
6346: (1,\, x, \, y) w_1 (t -1, \, y)dy +
6347: J_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, 0}(1, \, x) w_1(t-1, \, 0)
6348: + J_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, L}(1, \, x) w_1(t-1, \, L) \\
6349: & + \int_0^1 J_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, 0}
6350: (1 - s, \, x) w_1' (t-1+s,\, 0)
6351: ds +
6352: \int_0^1 J_x^{\lambda_1^{\ast} \, L}(1 - s, \, x) w_1' (t-1+s, \, L)
6353: ds \\
6354: & + \int_0^1 \int_0^L
6355: \Delta^{\lambda_1^{\ast}}_x(1 -s, \, x, \, y)
6356: \Big( ( \lambda_1^{\ast}- \lambda_1 ) w_{1 y}-
6357: \lambda_{1 y} w_1 \Big)
6358: (t-1+s, \, y) ds dy. \\
6359: \end{split}
6360: \end{equation*}
6361: \end{proof}
6362:
6363: Let
6364: \begin{equation*}
6365: \mathcal{I}(T):= \sup_{
6366: \begin{array}{cc}
6367: \scriptstyle{\tau \in (- T, T)} \\
6368: \scriptstyle{x \in (-L, \, L)}
6369: \end{array}}
6370: \integralt \integralx
6371: |v_1 (t, \, x)| \, |v_{2 x}(t - \tau, \, x - \xi )| dt dx.
6372: \end{equation*}
6373: It holds:
6374: \begin{equation*}
6375: \int_0^T
6376: \int_0^L |v_1(t, \, x)| \,
6377: |v_{2 x}(t, \, x)| dx dt \leq \mathcal{I}(T).
6378: \end{equation*}
6379: Moreover, thanks to the estimates \eqref{estimate_vx_wrtx} and
6380: \eqref{estimate_v2_wrt_x},
6381: \begin{equation*}
6382: \begin{split}
6383: & \int_{ \max \{ 0, \, \tau \}}^{ \max \{ 2, \, 2 + \tau \} }
6384: \!\! \integralx
6385: |v_1(t, \, x)| \, |v_{2 x}(t - \tau, \, x - \xi)|
6386: \leq
6387: \unpo\| v_1 \|_{L^{\infty}} \delta_1 \int_0^2
6388: \bigg\{
6389: 1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}
6390: \bigg\} dt \leq
6391: \unpo \delta_1^2 . \\
6392: \end{split}
6393: \end{equation*}
6394: Hence we are left to estimate the term
6395: \begin{equation*}
6396: \int_{ \max \{2, \, 2 + \tau \}}^{ \min \{ T, \, T + \tau \}}
6397: \integralx |v_1 (t, \, x)| \, |v_{2 x}( t - \tau, \, x - \xi)|
6398: dx dt
6399: \end{equation*}
6400: in the case $T \ge 2$: to do this, we will exploit the
6401: representation formula \eqref{equation_v2x} and the estimate
6402: \eqref{estimate_tilde_theta_x}.
6403:
6404: One has
6405: \begin{equation*}
6406: \begin{split}
6407: & \integraltt \integralx v_1 (t, \, x )
6408: \int_0^L \tilde{\Theta}_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(1, \, x- \xi, \, y)
6409: v_2(t -1 - \tau, \, y ) \\
6410: & \leq \integraltt \integralx v_1 (t, \, x )
6411: \int_0^L a(1, \, x- \xi- y)
6412: v_2(t -1 - \tau, \, y ) \\
6413: & \quad +
6414: \integraltt \integralx v_1 (t, \, x )
6415: \int_0^L b(1, \, x - \xi )
6416: v_2(t -1 - \tau, \, y) \\
6417: & \leq \int_{-L}^L a(1, \, z)
6418: \integraltt
6419: \int_{ \max \{ 0, \, z + \xi \}}^{ \min \{ L, \, L + \xi +z \}}
6420: v_1 (t, \, x) v_2( t-1 - \tau, \, x - z - \xi) d\xi \\
6421: & \quad +
6422: \integralx b(1, \, x - \xi)
6423: \Bigg( \integraltt v_1(t, \, x)
6424: \bigg( \int_0^L v_2 (t - 1 - \tau, \, y ) dy \bigg) dt
6425: \Bigg) dx \leq \unpo \delta_1^2,
6426: \end{split}
6427: \end{equation*}
6428: and
6429: \begin{equation*}
6430: \begin{split}
6431: & \integraltt \integralx
6432: v_1(t, \, x)
6433: \int_0^1 \int_0^L
6434: \tilde{\Theta}_x^{\lambda_2^{\ast}}(1-s, \, x - \xi, \, y)
6435: \Big( (\lambda_2^{\ast} - \lambda_2) v_{2 y} \Big)
6436: ( t-\tau -1 +s, \, y) dy ds dx dt \\
6437: & \leq \delta_1 \integraltt \integralx
6438: v_1(t, \, x)
6439: \int_0^1 \int_0^L
6440: a(1-s, \, x - \xi - y)
6441: v_{2 y}( t- \tau - 1 +s, \, y) dy ds dx dt \\
6442: & \quad + \delta_1
6443: \integraltt \integralx
6444: v_1(t, \, x)
6445: \int_0^1 \int_0^L
6446: b(1-s, \, x - \xi)
6447: v_{2 y}( t- \tau- 1 +s, \, y) dy ds dx dt \\
6448: & \leq \delta_1 \int_0^1 \int_{-L}^L
6449: a(1-s, \, z)
6450: \Bigg( \int_{\max\{0, \, \xi + z \}}^{ \min \{ L, \, L + z+ \xi \}}
6451: \integraltt v_1 (t, \, x) v_{2 x} (t - \tau-1 +s, \, x - \xi
6452: -z)dx dt
6453: \Bigg) dz ds \\
6454: & \quad + \delta_1 \int_0^1 \integralx
6455: b(1-s, \, x - \xi)
6456: \Bigg( \integraltt v_1(t, \, x)
6457: \bigg( \int_0^1 v_{2 y} (t - \tau -1+s, \, y) dy \bigg) dt
6458: \Bigg) dx ds \\
6459: & \leq \unpo \delta_1 \mathcal{I}(T) + \unpo \delta_1^3.
6460: \end{split}
6461: \end{equation*}
6462: With analogous computations one can estimate the other terms that
6463: comes from the representation formula \eqref{equation_v2x} and
6464: hence prove that $\mathcal{I}(T) \leq \unpo \delta_1^2$.
6465: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6466: \subsubsection{Proof of the estimate \eqref{energy_estimates_eq}}
6467: \label{energy_estimates_proof} Since in the following we will
6468: often refer to equations \eqref{decomposition} and
6469: \eqref{eq_theta}, we recall them:
6470: \begin{equation*}
6471: \sigma_1 = \lambda^{\ast}_1 -
6472: \theta \bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1} +
6473: \lambda_1^{\ast}
6474: \bigg),
6475: \end{equation*}
6476: where the cut-off $\theta$ is given by
6477: \begin{equation*}
6478: \theta(s) =
6479: \left\{
6480: \begin{array}{lll}
6481: s \quad \quad \textrm{if} \; |s|\leq \hat{\delta} \\
6482: 0 \quad \quad \textrm{if} \; |s|\geq 3 \hat{\delta} \\
6483: \textrm{smooth connection if}
6484: \quad \hat{\delta} \leq s \leq 3 \hat{\delta}
6485: \end{array}
6486: \right.
6487: \delta_1 < < \hat{\delta} \leq \frac{1}{3}.
6488: \end{equation*}
6489: It follows that $ | w_1 + \sigma_1 v_1| \neq 0 $
6490: only when the function $\theta$
6491: is not the identity, i.e. when $| w_1 + \lambda^{\ast}_1 v_1
6492: |>\hat{\delta} |v_1| $. Since
6493: \begin{equation*}
6494: w_1=v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 + p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 ,
6495: \end{equation*}
6496: the condition $ | w_1 + \sigma_1 v_1| \neq 0 $ implies
6497: \begin{equation*}
6498: |v_{1 x} +( \lambda_1^{\ast} - \lambda_1 ) v_1 +
6499: p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 | > \hat{ \delta} |v_1|.
6500: \end{equation*}
6501: There are therefore two possible cases:
6502: \begin{enumerate}
6503: \item
6504: \begin{equation*}
6505: |v_{1 x} +( \lambda_1^{\ast} - \lambda_1 ) v_1 |
6506: \ge \frac{1}{2} \hat{\delta} |v_1|,
6507: \end{equation*}
6508: and therefore, since $| \lambda_1^{\ast} - \lambda_1 | \leq
6509: \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1$ and $ \delta_1 < < \hat{\delta}$,
6510: \begin{equation*}
6511: |v_{1 x}| \ge \frac{\hat{\delta}}{3} |v_1|.
6512: \end{equation*}
6513: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6514: \item
6515: \begin{equation*}
6516: |v_{1 x}| < \frac{\hat{\delta}}{3} |v_1| \quad
6517: \Longrightarrow \quad
6518: | p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 | > \frac{\hat{\delta}}{2} |v_1|.
6519: \end{equation*}
6520: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6521: \end{enumerate}
6522: If case 1 holds, then
6523: \begin{equation*}
6524: \begin{split}
6525: |w_1 + \sigma_1 v_1| = &~
6526: |v_{1 x} +( \sigma_1 - \lambda_1 ) v_1 +
6527: p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 | \cr
6528: \leq&~
6529: | v_{1 x} | + \delta_1 |v_1| +
6530: |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1| \leq
6531: \mathcal{O}(1)
6532: |v_{1 x} | + |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1| \\
6533: \end{split}
6534: \end{equation*}
6535: and therefore
6536: \begin{equation*}
6537: \begin{split}
6538: & \Big( |v_1|+|w_1|+|v_{1 x}| + |w_{1 x}| \Big)
6539: \Big( |w_1+ \sigma_1 v_1| \Big) \leq
6540: \mathcal{O}(1)
6541: \Big(
6542: |v_{1 x}| + |p_1| +|p_{1 x }| + |w_{1 x}| \Big)
6543: \Big( \mathcal{O}(1)
6544: |v_{1 x}|+ |p_{1 x}- \lambda_1 p_1| \Big) \\
6545: & \leq \unpo
6546: \Big( |v_{1 x}| +
6547: |p_1| +|p_{1 x }| + |w_{1 x}| \Big)
6548: |p_{1 x}- \lambda_1 p_1| +
6549: \unpo |v_{1 x}|^2 +
6550: \unpo |v_{1 x}| \Big( |p_1 | + |p_{1 x}| \Big) +
6551: \unpo |w_{1 x}|^2. \\
6552: \end{split}
6553: \end{equation*}
6554:
6555: Since
6556: \begin{equation*}
6557: |p_1|, \, |p_{1 x}| \leq \unpo \delta_1 \exp (- c x/2),
6558: \end{equation*}
6559: it follows that, if case 1 holds, then one is left to prove
6560: \begin{equation}
6561: \label{real_energy_estimate}
6562: \int_{0}^{T} \int_{0}^{L}
6563: \chi_{ \;\{| (w_1 / v_1 ) + \lambda_1^{\ast}| \ge
6564: \hat{\delta} \}}
6565: \Big (|v_{1 x}|^2 + |w_{1 x}|^2 \Big) (t,x)
6566: dx dt
6567: \leq
6568: \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1 ^2.
6569: \end{equation}
6570: On the other hand, if case 2 holds then
6571: \begin{equation*}
6572: |v_{1 x} +( \sigma_1 - \lambda_1 ) v_1 +
6573: p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 | \leq
6574: \frac{4}{3} \hat{\delta} |v_1 | + |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1 | \leq
6575: \mathcal{O}(1) |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1|,
6576: \end{equation*}
6577: and therefore
6578: \begin{equation*}
6579: \begin{split}
6580: & \int_0^T \int_0^L
6581: \Big( |v_1|+|w_1|+|v_{1 x}| + |w_{1 x}| \Big)
6582: \Big(|w_1+\sigma_1 v_1| \Big)(s, \, x) ds dx
6583: \\
6584: & \quad \leq \mathcal{O}(1)
6585: \int_0^T \int_0^L \Big( |v_1|+|w_1|+|v_{1 x}| +
6586: |w_{1 x}| \Big)
6587: | p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1|(s, \, x) ds dx \leq \unpo \delta_1^2,
6588: \end{split}
6589: \end{equation*}
6590: thanks to the exponential decay of $
6591: |p_1|
6592: $ and $
6593: |p_{1 x}|
6594: $.\\
6595:
6596: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6597: To prove \eqref{real_energy_estimate} it is convenient to
6598: introduce a new cutoff function: % $$ \psi \big( \argument \big) $$
6599: \begin{equation*}
6600: \psi(s) =
6601: \left\{
6602: \begin{array}{lll}
6603: 0 \quad \quad \textrm{if} \; |s|\leq 3/5\, \hat{\delta} \\
6604: 1 \quad \quad \textrm{if} \; |s|\geq 4/5 \, \hat{\delta} \\
6605: \textrm{smooth connection if} \quad 3/5 \,
6606: \hat{\delta} \leq |s| \leq 4/5 \, \hat{\delta}.
6607: \end{array}
6608: \right.
6609: \end{equation*}
6610: Moreover, in the following we will only prove that
6611: \begin{equation}
6612: \label{real_energy_estimate2}
6613: \int_{0}^{T} \int_{0}^{L}
6614: \chi_{ \;\{| (w_1 / v_1 ) + \lambda_1^{\ast}| \ge
6615: \hat{\delta} \}}
6616: |v_{1 x}|^2 (t,x)
6617: dx dt
6618: \leq
6619: \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1 ^2,
6620: \end{equation}
6621: because the estimate
6622: \begin{equation*}
6623: \int_{0}^{T} \int_{0}^{L}
6624: \chi_{ \;\{| (w_1 / v_1 ) + \lambda_1^{\ast}| \ge
6625: \hat{\delta} \}}
6626: |w_{1 x}|^2 (t,x)
6627: dx dt
6628: \leq
6629: \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1 ^2.
6630: \end{equation*}
6631: can be obtained with similar techniques.
6632:
6633: As we have already observed,
6634: it is sufficient
6635: to show
6636: \begin{equation*}
6637: \int_{0}^{T} \int_{0}^{L}
6638: |v_{1 x}|^2 \psi \Big( \argument \Big) (t, x)
6639: dx dt
6640: \leq
6641: \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1 ^2.
6642: \end{equation*}
6643: Multiplying the equation
6644: \begin{equation*}
6645: v_{1 t} + ( \lambda_1 v_1 )_x - v_{1 xx} = 0
6646: \end{equation*}
6647: by $\psi v_1$, we get
6648: \begin{equation}
6649: \label{developement}
6650: \begin{split}
6651: 0 & = \integral \Bigg( \, \frac{d}{dt} \big( \energy \psi \big) -
6652: \energy ( \psi_t + \lambda_1 \psi_x -\psi_{xx} )+
6653: \psi |v_{1 x}|^2
6654: + \energy \lambda_{1 x} \psi -
6655: v_1^2 \psi_{xx} \Bigg)dx dt \\
6656: & + \int_{0}^{T} \Bigg[ \psi v_1 ( \lambda_1 v_1 - v_{1 x})
6657: \bigg]^{x=L}_{x=0} dt +
6658: \int_{0}^{T} \Bigg[ \energy ( \psi_x - \lambda_1 \psi )
6659: \bigg]^{x=L}_{x=0} dt. \\
6660: \end{split}
6661: \end{equation}
6662: Indeed,
6663: \begin{equation*}
6664: \frac{d}{dt} \big( \energy \psi \big) = v_1 v_{1 t} \psi + \energy \psi_t
6665: \end{equation*}
6666: and
6667: \begin{equation*}
6668: \begin{split}
6669: & \integral \big( \lambda_1 v_1 - v_{1 x} \big)_x \psi v_1 dx dt =
6670: \integral ( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1 ) ( \psi v_1 )_x dx dt +
6671: \int_{0}^{T} \Bigg[ \psi v_1 ( \lambda_1 v_1 - v_{1 x} )\bigg]^{x=L}_{x=0} dt \\
6672: & \quad = \integral \psi_x \bigg( \energy \bigg)_x +
6673: \psi v_{1 x}^2 -\lambda_1 \psi_x v_1 ^2 -
6674: \lambda_1 \psi \bigg( \energy \bigg)_x dx dt +
6675: \int_{0}^{T} \Bigg[ \psi v_1 ( \lambda_1 v_1 - v_{1 x} )\bigg]^{x=L}_{x=0} dt \\
6676: & \quad = \integral \psi v_{1 x}^2 + \bigg( \energy \bigg) ( \lambda_{1 x} \psi
6677: - \lambda_1 \psi_x + \psi_{xx} -2 \psi_{xx} ) dx dt
6678: + \int_{0}^{T} \Bigg[ \psi v_1 ( \lambda_1 v_1 - v_{1 x} )\bigg]^{x=L}_{x=0}
6679: dt \\
6680: & \quad \quad + \int_{0}^{T}
6681: \Bigg[ \energy ( \psi_x - \lambda_1 \psi )\bigg]^{x=L}_{x=0} dt .\\
6682: \end{split}
6683: \end{equation*}
6684: One can develop the term $
6685: \psi_t + \lambda_1 \psi_x - \psi_{xx}
6686: $ and, since
6687: \begin{equation}
6688: \label{developement2}
6689: \begin{split}
6690: &% \quad \quad & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad
6691: \psi_t = \psi' \bigg( \frac{w_{1 t}v_1
6692: - w_1 v_{1 t}}{v_1^2} \bigg), \qquad \qquad %\\
6693: % & \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad
6694: \psi_x = \psi' \bigg( \frac{w_{1 x}v_1 -
6695: w_1 v_{1 x}}{v_1^2} \bigg), \\
6696: & \psi_{xx} = \psi'' \bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \bigg)_x^2 +
6697: \psi' \bigg( \frac{w_{1 xx} v_1 - v_{1 xx} w_1}{v_1^2}-
6698: 2 \frac{ v_{1 x}
6699: ( w_{1 x}v_1 -
6700: w_1 v_{1 x}) }
6701: {v_1^3} \bigg),\\
6702: \end{split}
6703: \end{equation}
6704: one obtains
6705: \begin{equation*}
6706: \begin{split}
6707: v_1^2(\psi_t + \lambda_1 \psi_x - \psi_{xx})=&~
6708: \, \psi' v_1 ( w_{1 t} + ( \lambda_1 w_1 )_x - w_{1 xx} ) -
6709: \psi' w_1 ( v_{1 t} + ( \lambda_1 v_1 )_x - v_{1 xx} )\\
6710: & ~ -
6711: \psi'' v_1^2 \bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \bigg)_x^2 +
6712: 2 \psi' v_{1 x} v_1 \bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \bigg)_x. \\
6713: \end{split}
6714: \end{equation*}
6715: Thus, inserting the last formula into \eqref{developement}, we
6716: obtain
6717: \begin{equation*}
6718: \begin{split}
6719: \integral \psi |v_{1 x}|^2 =&~
6720: - \frac{1}{2} \int_0 ^L \bigg[v_1^2 dx
6721: \bigg]^{t = T}_{t=0}
6722: + \int_{0}^{T} \bigg[ \psi v_1 ( v_{1 x} - \lambda_1 v_1)
6723: \bigg]^{x=L}_{x=0} dt +
6724: \int_{0}^{T} \bigg[ \energy ( \psi_x - \lambda_1 \psi )
6725: \bigg]^{x=L}_{x=0} dt \\
6726: &~ - \frac{1}{2}
6727: \integral \psi'' v_1^2 \bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \bigg)_x^2 +
6728: \psi' v_{1 x} v_1 \bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \bigg)_x +
6729: v_1^2 \psi_{xx} -
6730: \energy \lambda_{1 x} \psi. \\ \\
6731: \end{split}
6732: \end{equation*}
6733: The boundary terms are bounded by $\unpo \delta_1^2$ since $\| v_1
6734: \|_{L^{\infty}} \leq \unpo \delta_1$ and thanks to the estimates
6735: of Proposition \ref{functional_estimates_pro}. Since by
6736: \eqref{length_functional_eq}
6737: \begin{equation*}
6738: \int_0^T \int_0^L
6739: \chi_{\{ | \lambda_1^{\ast} + w_1/ v_1 | \leq 3 \hat{\delta}
6740: \}} v_1^2 \bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \bigg)_x^2 dx ds \leq
6741: \unpo \delta_1^2,
6742: \end{equation*}
6743: we are left to estimate the following terms:
6744: %\begin{itemize}
6745: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6746: %\item
6747: \begin{equation*}
6748: \begin{split}
6749: \bullet \qquad \int_0^T & \int_0^L
6750: \bigg|
6751: \psi' v_{1 x} v_1 \bigg( \frac{w_1}{v_1} \bigg)_x
6752: \bigg| ds dx \leq
6753: \int_0^T \int_0^L
6754: \bigg|
6755: \psi' v_{1 x} \bigg( w_{1 x} - \frac{w_1}{v_1} v_{1x}
6756: \bigg)
6757: \bigg| ds dx \\
6758: & \leq
6759: \unpo \int_0^T \int_0^L
6760: \bigg|
6761: \psi '\bigg( |v_1| + |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1| \bigg)
6762: \bigg( w_{1 x} - \frac{w_1}{v_1} v_{1x}
6763: \bigg)
6764: \bigg| ds dx \\
6765: & \leq
6766: \unpo \int_0^T \int_0^L
6767: \big| v_1 w_{1 x} - v_{1 x} w_1 | ds dx +
6768: \unpo \int_0^T \int_0^L
6769: |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1| \Big(|w_{1 x}| + \unpo | v_{1 x}| \Big)
6770: \end{split}
6771: \end{equation*}
6772: Indeed, if $\psi' \neq 0$ then $|\lambda_1^{\ast} - w_1 / v_1|
6773: \leq \hat{\delta}$ and hence
6774: \begin{equation*}
6775: |v_{1 x }| \leq \unpo |v_1| + |p_{1 x} - \lambda_1 p_1|.
6776: \end{equation*}
6777: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6778: \begin{equation*}
6779: \begin{split}
6780: \bullet \qquad \qquad \int_0^T \int_0^L
6781: \psi ' \Big( w_{1 xx} v_1 - w_1 v_{1 xx} \Big) ds dx =&~
6782: \unpo \int_0^T \int_0^L \Big( w_{1 x} v_1 - w_1 v_{1 x}
6783: \Big)_x ds dx \\
6784: \leq&~ \unpo
6785: \int_0^T \bigg[ w_{1 x} v_1 -
6786: w_1 v_{1 x} \bigg]^{x =L }_{x=0} \leq
6787: \unpo \delta_1^2 \\
6788: \end{split}
6789: \end{equation*}
6790: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6791: \begin{equation*}
6792: \begin{split}
6793: \bullet \qquad \qquad \Big| \integral \energy
6794: \lambda_{1 x} \psi \Big| =&~
6795: \Big| \integral \energy ( \lambda_{1 } -
6796: \lambda^{\ast}_1)_x \psi \Big| \\
6797: \leq&~ \Big| \integral ( \lambda_{1 } -
6798: \lambda^{\ast}_1) \Big( \energy \psi \Big)_x \Big| +
6799: \Big| \int_0 ^T \bigg[ ( \lambda_{1 } - \lambda^{\ast}_1)
6800: \energy \psi \bigg]^{x = L}_{x = 0} \qquad \qquad \\
6801: \leq&~
6802: \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1 \Big| \int_0 ^T
6803: \bigg[ \energy \psi \bigg]^{x = L}_{x = 0} +
6804: \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1^2
6805: \leq \mathcal{O}(1) \delta_1^2. \\
6806: \end{split}
6807: \end{equation*}
6808: %\end{itemize}
6809: %The proof of the estimate
6810: %\begin{equation*}
6811: % \int_0^T \int_0^L
6812: % \psi'| w_{1 x} |^2 dx ds \leq \unpo \delta_1^2
6813: %\end{equation*}
6814: %is completely analogous and will be therefore omitted.
6815: \vspace{2cm}
6816:
6817:
6818: \noindent {\bf Acknowledgments.} The author expresses her
6819: gratitude to Stefano Bianchini for having proposed the problem and
6820: for many helpful suggestions. She also wishes to thank Alberto
6821: Bressan for useful remarks.
6822: \bibliography{biblio}
6823:
6824: \end{document}
6825: