1: \documentclass[11pt]{amsart}
2: \usepackage{amsmath}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4: %\usepackage[active]{srcltx}
5: %Check if we are compiling under latex or pdflatex
6: %\ifx\pdftexversion\undefined
7: \usepackage[dvips]{graphics}
8: %\else
9: % \usepackage[pdftex]{graphics}
10: %\fi
11: \newtheorem{Proposition}{Proposition}
12: \newtheorem{Remark}[Proposition]{Remark}
13: \newtheorem{Corollary}[Proposition]{Corollary}
14: \newtheorem{Lemma}[Proposition]{Lemma}
15: \newtheorem{Theo}[Proposition]{Theorem}
16: \newtheorem{Theorem}{Theorem}
17: \newtheorem{Condition}[Proposition]{Condition}
18: \newtheorem{Definition}[Proposition]{Definition}
19: \newtheorem{Assumptions}[Proposition]{Assumptions}
20: \newtheorem{Note}[Proposition]{Note}
21: \def\z{\noindent}
22: \def\cal{\mathcal}
23:
24:
25: \def\Box{{\hfill\hbox{\enspace${\sqre}$}} \smallskip}
26: \def\sqr#1#2{{\vcenter{\vbox{\hrule height .#2pt
27: \hbox{\vrule width .#2pt height#1pt \kern#1pt
28: \vrule width .#2pt}
29: \hrule height .#2pt}}}}
30: \def\sqre{\mathchoice\sqr54\sqr54\sqr{4.1}3\sqr{3.5}3}
31: \def\mb{\mathbf}
32: \def\NN{\mathbb{N}}
33: \def\CC{\mathbb{C}}
34: \def\RR{\mathbb{R}}
35: \def\commentbf{\bf}
36: \def\cbf{\bf}
37: \begin{document}
38: \author{ O. Costin} \address[O. Costin]{Mathematics Department, Ohio
39: State University, 231 W 18th Ave, Columbus 43210 USA}
40: \email{costin@math.ohio-state.edu}
41: \author{S. Tanveer} \title{Nonlinear evolution PDEs
42: in $\RR^+\times\CC^d$: existence and uniqueness of solutions, asymptotic and
43: Borel summability properties}
44: \address[S. Tanveer] {Mathematics Department, Ohio
45: State University, 231 W 18th Ave, Columbus 43210}
46: \email{tanveer@math.ohio-state.edu}
47: \gdef\shorttitle{Nonlinear evolution PDEs in $\RR^+\times\CC^d$}
48: \gdef\shortauthors{O. Costin and S. Tanveer}
49: \maketitle \date{}
50:
51:
52: \begin{abstract}
53: We consider a system of $n$-th order nonlinear quasilinear
54: partial differential equations of the form
55: $$
56: {\bf u}_t + \mathcal{P}(\partial_{\bf x}^{\bf j}){\bf u}+{\bf g}
57: \left ( {\bf x}, t, \{\partial_{\bf x}^{{\bf j}} {\bf u}\} \right )
58: =0;\ {\bf {u}}({\bf x}, 0) ={\bf {u}}_I({\bf x})$$
59: with
60: $\mathbf{u}\in\CC^{r}$, for $ t\in (0,T)$ and large $|{\bf x}|$ in a
61: poly-sector $S$ in $\mathbb{C}^d$ ($\partial_{\bf x}^{\bf j} \equiv
62: \partial_{x_1}^{j_1} \partial_{x_2}^{j_2} ...\partial_{x_d}^{j_d}$
63: and $j_1+...+j_d\le n$). The principal part of the constant
64: coefficient $n$-th order differential operator $\mathcal{P}$ is
65: subject to a cone condition. The nonlinearity ${\bf g}$ and the
66: functions $\mb u_I$ and $\mb u$ satisfy analyticity and decay
67: assumptions in $S$.
68:
69: \smallskip
70:
71: The paper shows existence and uniqueness of the solution of this
72: problem and finds its asymptotic behavior for large $|\bf x|$.
73:
74: \smallskip
75:
76:
77: Under further regularity conditions on $\mb g$ and $\mb u_I$ which
78: ensure the existence of a formal asymptotic series solution for large
79: $|\mb x|$ to the problem, we prove its Borel summability to the actual
80: solution $\mb u$.
81:
82: \smallskip
83:
84: The structure of the nonlinearity and the complex plane setting
85: preclude standard methods. We use a new approach, based on
86: Borel-Laplace regularization and \'Ecalle acceleration techniques to
87: control the equation.
88:
89: \smallskip
90:
91: These results are instrumental in constructive analysis of singularity
92: formation in nonlinear PDEs with prescribed initial data, an application
93: referred to in the paper.
94:
95: \smallskip
96:
97: In special cases motivated by applications we show how the method
98: can be adapted to obtain short-time existence, uniqueness and
99: asymptotic behavior for small $t$, of sectorially analytic solutions,
100: without size restriction on the space variable.
101: \end{abstract}
102: \vfill\eject
103: \tableofcontents
104:
105:
106:
107:
108: \section{Introduction}
109: \subsection{General considerations}\label{Genc} There are relatively few general results on
110: existence, uniqueness and regularity of solutions of partial
111: differential equations in the complex domain when the conditions of
112: the classical Cauchy-Kowalewski (C-K) theorem are not met. The C-K
113: theorem holds for first-order analytic systems (or those equivalent to
114: them) with analytic non-characteristic data, and for these it
115: guarantees local existence and uniqueness of analytic solutions. As
116: is well known, its proof requires convergence of local power series
117: expansions. Evolution equations with higher spatial derivatives do not
118: satisfy the C-K assumptions and even when formal power series
119: solutions exist their radius of convergence is zero. One of the goals
120: of this paper is to provide a theory for existence, uniqueness and
121: regularity of solutions in such cases, in a relatively general
122: setting. The theory also applies to classes of equations of higher
123: order in time and sufficiently high order in space after reduction (by
124: well known transformations, see {\em e.g.} \cite{Treves}) to evolution
125: systems.
126:
127:
128: The present paper generalizes \cite{CPAM} to $d$ dimensions and
129: arbitrary order in the spatial variable, to $r$ dimensional dependent
130: variable, proves additional results about short term existence and
131: shows Borel summability of formal solutions. {\em A fortiori} we
132: obtain results on the asymptotic character of these solutions. (In Appendix
133: \S\ref{illustr}, we briefly discuss
134: the definition and properties of Borel summation.)
135:
136: Under assumptions to allow for formal expansions for large $\bf x$, we
137: show that series solutions are Borel summable to actual solutions of
138: the PDE. For this purpose we make use of \'Ecalle acceleration
139: techniques. In special cases we obtain existence and uniqueness
140: results for $t$ in a compact set and large enough $\mathbf x$, and
141: separately for small $t$ and fewer restrictions on $\bf x$.
142:
143: \bigskip
144:
145:
146: Properties of solutions of PDEs in the complex plane, apart from their
147: intrinsic interest, are relevant for properties in the real domain, as
148: initial singularities in $\CC$ may give rise to blow-up at later times
149: in the physical domain. Representation of solutions as Borel sums is
150: instrumental in extending techniques originally developed for ODEs
151: \cite{Inventiones} to find the location and type of singularities of
152: solutions to nonlinear PDEs \cite{CPAM3}.
153:
154: It is certainly difficult to give justice to the existing theory of
155: nonlinear PDEs, and we mention a number of results in the
156: literature relevant to the current paper. For certain classes of
157: PDEs in the complex domain Sammartino and Caflisch \cite{[CSI]},
158: \cite{[CSII]} proved the existence of nonlinear Prandtl boundary layer
159: solutions for analytic initial data in a half-plane. This work
160: involves inversion of the heat operator $\partial_t - \partial_{YY}$
161: and uses the abstract Cauchy-Kowalewski theorem for the resulting
162: integral equation. While their method is likely to be generalizable to
163: certain higher-order partial differential equations, it appears
164: unsuitable for problems where the highest derivative terms appear in a
165: nonlinear manner. Such terms cannot be controlled by inversion of a
166: linear operator and estimates of the kernel, as used in (\cite{[CSI]},
167: \cite{[CSII]}).
168:
169:
170: The complex plane setting, as well as the type of nonlinearity allowed
171: in our paper, do not allow for an adaptation of classical, Sobolev space
172: based, techniques. This can be also seen in simple examples which show
173: that existence fails outside the domain of validity of the results we
174: obtain.
175:
176: Certainly, many evolution equations are amenable to our setting; to
177: illustrate canonical form transformations and the general results we
178: chose a third order equation with quartic nonlinearity arising in
179: fluid dynamics. Detailed singularity study \cite{CPAM3} of solutions
180: of this equation relies on the present analysis.
181:
182: \bigskip
183:
184:
185: Our approach extends Borel transform regularization to a general class
186: of nonlinear partial differential equations. A vast literature has
187: emerged recently in Borel summability theory, starting with the
188: fundamental contributions of \'Ecalle (see e.g. \cite{EcalleNato})
189: whose consequences are far from being fully explored and it is
190: impossible to give a quick account of the breadth of this field. See
191: for example \cite{Inventiones} for more references. Yet, in the
192: context of relatively general PDEs, very little is known. For small
193: variables, Borel summability has been recently shown for the heat
194: equation \cite{Lutz,Balser3}, and generalized to linear PDEs with
195: constant coefficients by Balser \cite{Balser2}. One large space
196: variable was considered by us in \cite{CPAM}, in special classes of
197: higher order nonlinear PDEs. The methods in the present paper are
198: different and apply, for large $|\bf x|$, to a wide class of
199: equations.
200:
201:
202: \subsection{Notation}\label{Nott}
203: We use the following conventions. For vectors in $\CC^d$ or
204: multiindices we write
205: $$ | {\bf u} | = \sum_{j=1}^d|u_i|$$ and for multiindices we define
206: $$\mathbf{k}\succ \mathbf{m}\text{ if $k_i>m_i$ for all $i$}$$
207: If $a$
208: is a scalar we write $\mathbf x^a=(x_1^a,x_2^a,...,x_d^a)$.
209:
210: \z With
211: $\mathbf{p}$, ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf j}$ vectors of same dimension $d$,
212: we define
213: $$
214: {\bf p}^{\bf j} = \prod_{i=1}^dp_i^{j_i} $$
215: and
216: $$
217: {\partial}_{\bf x}^{\bf j} = \partial_{x_1}^{j_1}
218: \partial_{x_2}^{j_2}..\partial_{x_d}^{j_d} $$
219: We write ${\bf 1} = (1,
220: 1, .., 1)$ and more generally, if $\alpha$ is a scalar, we write
221: $\boldsymbol{\alpha}= \alpha\mb 1$; thus ${\bf x^1}=\prod_{i=1}^d
222: x_i$. For $d$-dimensional vectors ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$ we write
223: $$
224: { \int_{\bf a}^{\bf b}} \,\,\cdot\,{\mathrm d\mb p} =
225: \int_{a_1}^{b_1} \int_{a_2}^{b_2} ...\int_{a_d}^{b_d} \,\,\cdot\, dp_1
226: dp_2 \cdots dp_d $$
227: The {\em directional Laplace transform} along the
228: ray $\arg \,p_i=\varphi_i,i=1...d$ of $F$ is given by
229: \begin{equation}\label{10}\left \{\mathcal{L}_{\boldsymbol \varphi} { F} \right \} ({\bf x})
230: \equiv \int_{\bf 0}^{{\boldsymbol \infty} e^{i {\boldsymbol \varphi}}}
231: { F} ({\bf p}) e^{-{\bf p} \cdot {\bf x}} {\mathrm d\mb p}
232: \end{equation}
233: where $\mb x e^{i\boldsymbol\theta}$ will denote the vector with
234: components $x_i e^{i\theta_i}$. {\em Convolution} is defined as
235: \begin{equation}
236: \label{eq:defconv}
237: (f*g)({\bf p}):=\int_{\mathbf 0}^{\bf p}
238: f({\bf s})g({\bf p}-{\bf s}) {\mathrm d\bf s}
239: \end{equation}
240: and $\sideset{^*}{}\prod$ denotes convolution product (see also
241: \cite{DMJ}). Whenever used as {\em sum or product indices}, $l$ takes
242: all integer values between $1$ and $m$, $i$ is between $1$ and $d$, As
243: a sum or product multiindex, $|\mathbf j|$ indicates all $\bf j$ with
244: positive integer components subject to the constraint $1\le |\mathbf
245: j|\le n$.
246:
247: \section{Problem statement and main results}\label{MainR}
248: \subsection{Setting and assumptions}\label{MainR1} Consider the initial value problem for a quasilinear system
249: \begin{equation}\label{ufirst}
250: {\bf u}_t + \mathcal{P}(\partial_{\bf x}^{\bf j}){\bf u}+{\bf g}
251: \left ( {\bf x}, t, \{\partial_{\bf x}^{{\bf j}} {\bf u}\}_{|{\bf
252: j}|\le n}\right ) =0; \ {\bf {u}}({\bf x}, 0) ={\bf {u}}_I({\bf
253: x})\end{equation} In (\ref{ufirst}), $\mathcal{P} (\partial_{\bf x}
254: ) {\bf u}$ collects the constant coefficient linear terms of the partial differential
255: equation.
256:
257: Emphasizing quasilinearity, we rewrite the equation as
258: \begin{multline}\label{1}
259: \partial_t {\bf u} + \mathcal{P} (\partial_{\bf x}) {\bf u} +
260: \sum_{|{\bf J}| = n} {\bf g}_{2,{\bf J}} \left ( {\bf x}, t,
261: \{\partial_{\bf x}^{{\bf j}}
262: {\bf u}\}_{|{\bf j}| < n} \right ) \partial_{\bf x}^{\bf J} {\bf u}\\ =
263: {\bf g}_1 \left ( {\bf x}, t, \{\partial_{\bf x}^{j}
264: {\bf u} \}_{|{\bf j}| < n} \right);
265: \ {\bf {u}}({\bf x}, 0) ={\bf {u}}_I({\bf x})
266: \end{multline}
267:
268: The restrictions on ${\bf g}_1 $, ${\bf g}_2$, and ${\bf {u}_I}$
269: are simpler in a normalized form, more suitable for our analysis. By
270: applying $\partial_{\bf x}^{\bf j}$ to (\ref{1}) for all ${\bf j}$
271: with $1\le |{\bf j}| \le n-1$, we get an extended system of
272: equations for $\mb f\in\CC^m$, consisting in ${\bf {u}} $ and its
273: spatial derivatives of order less than $n$, of the type (see
274: Appendix for further details):
275: \begin{equation}\label{1.a}
276: \partial_t{\bf f} +\mathcal{P} (\partial_{\bf x} ) {\bf f} =
277: {\sum_{{\bf q} \succeq 0 }}^\prime {\bf b_{\bf q}}
278: ({\bf x},t,{\bf f}) \prod_{l,|{\bf j}|}
279: \left (\partial_{\bf x}^{\bf j} f_l
280: \right )^{q_{l,{\bf j}}} +
281: {\bf r} ({\bf x}, t)\ \ \mbox{with}\ \ {\bf f}({\bf x}, 0)
282: ={\bf f}_I ({\bf x})
283: \end{equation}
284: where $\sum^\prime$ means the sum over the multiindices $\bf q$ with
285: \begin{equation}
286: \label{eq:cond1}
287: \sum_{l=1}^m\sum_{1\le|{\bf j}|\le n} |{\bf j}| q_{l,{\bf j}} \le n
288: \end{equation}
289: The matrix $\mathcal{P}$ is assumed to be diagonalizable, and modulo
290: simple changes of variables we assume it is presented in diagonal
291: form, $\mathcal{P}={\rm diag}\,\mathcal{P}_j,j=1,...,m$. In
292: (\ref{1.a}), ${\bf q} = \left (q_{l,{\bf j}} \right)$, $1\le |{\bf
293: j}|\le n,1\le l\le m$ is a vector of integers and $\mathcal{P}_j$ is
294: an $n$-th order polynomial. We let $\mathcal{P}_{n;j}$ be the
295: principal part of $\mathcal{P}_j$, {\em i.e.} the part that contains
296: all monomials of (total) degree $n$. The inequality (\ref{eq:cond1})
297: implies in particular that none of the $q_{l,{\bf j}}$ can exceed $n$
298: and that the summation in (\ref{1.a}) involves {\em only finitely many
299: terms}. The fact that (\ref{eq:cond1}) can always be ensured leads
300: to important simplifications in the proofs. Let $\rho>\rho_0>0$,
301: $\phi<\frac{\pi}{2n}$, $\epsilon>0$ and
302: \begin{equation} \label{eq:defD1} {\cal D}_{\phi, \rho;\bf x}
303: = \left \{\mathbf x : |\arg x_i| <\frac{\pi}{2}+\phi;\,
304: |x_i| > \rho; \ i\le d\right \}
305: \end{equation}
306: \begin{equation}\label{eq:defD}
307: {\cal D}_{\phi,\rho} = {\cal D}_{\phi, \rho;\bf x}\times [0,T]
308: \end{equation}
309: \begin{Assumptions}\label{cds}
310:
311:
312: \begin{enumerate}
313: \item{} There is a $\phi \in \left (0, \frac{\pi}{2n} \right )$
314: such that for all ${\bf p}\ne 0$ with $\max_i|\arg p_i|\le \phi$ we have
315: \begin{eqnarray}
316: \label{condnew}
317: \Re\, \mathcal{P}_{n;j} (-{\bf p} )>0
318: \end{eqnarray}
319: \item{} The functions ${\bf b}_{\bf q}(\cdot,t,\cdot) $ are analytic in $
320: {\cal D}_{\frac{\pi}{2n},\rho_0}\times \{\mathbf f:|\mathbf f| <\epsilon\}$.
321: We write
322: \begin{equation}\label{3} {\bf b}_{\bf q} ({\bf x}, t; {\bf f})
323: =\sum_{{\bf k} \succeq 0} {\bf b}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} ({\bf x},t)
324: {\bf f}^{\bf k}
325: \end{equation}
326:
327: \item{} For some constants $\alpha_r \ge 1$ independent of $T$ (see
328: also \S\ref{Asympts}), $A_r(T)>0$, $\alpha_{\bf q}>0
329: $\footnote{A restriction of the form $|{\bf x}|^{\tilde
330: \alpha} |{\bf r} ({\bf x}, t)| < A_r (T) (*)$ may appear more
331: natural. However, since every component of ${\bf x}$ is bounded
332: below in $\mathcal{D}_{\phi, \rho_0, {\bf x}}$, it is clear that (*) implies
333: (\ref{2}) with $\alpha_r = {\tilde \alpha}/d$. The same comment
334: applies for condition (\ref{4}). This form is more convenient in
335: the present analysis. See also Note 4 following Theorem \ref{T1}.}
336: \begin{align}\label{2}
337: \sup_{\mathbf x\in {\cal D}_{\frac{\pi}{2n},\rho_0;\mathbf x} }
338: \left | {\bf x}^{\boldsymbol \alpha_r} {\bf r} ({\bf x}, t) \right |
339: = A_r (T)<\infty \\
340: \sup_{\mathbf x\in {\cal D}_{\frac{\pi}{2n},\rho_0;\mathbf x} }
341: \left | {\bf x}^{{\boldsymbol \alpha_r}}{\bf f}_I ({\bf x},t) \right | =
342: A_f (T)<\infty\label{5.1}
343: \\
344: \sup_{\mathbf k,\mathbf q;\mathbf x\in {\cal D}_{\frac{\pi}{2n},\rho_0;
345: \mathbf x}}\left | {\bf x}^{{\boldsymbol \alpha}_{\bf q}}
346: {\bf b}_{{\bf
347: q},{\bf k}} \right | = A_b (T)<\infty\label{4}
348: \end{align}
349: \item{} The analysis is interesting for $n>1$, which we assume is the
350: case.
351:
352: \end{enumerate}
353:
354: \end{Assumptions}
355: \subsection{Existence and uniqueness for large $|\bf x|$}\label{EUn}
356: \begin{Theorem}
357: \label{T1} Under the Assumptions~\ref{cds}, there is a unique solution
358: $\mathbf f$ of (\ref{1.a}) satisfying the following properties in $
359: {\cal D}_{\phi,\rho_0;\mathbf x}$: (a) $\mathbf f$ analytic and (b)
360: $|\mathbf x^{\bf 1}||\mathbf f|$ bounded . Furthermore, this
361: solution satisfies ${\bf f}=O({\bf x}^{-{\boldsymbol \alpha_r}})$ as
362: ${\bf x} \rightarrow \infty$ in ${\cal D}_{\phi, {\tilde \rho}; {\bf
363: x}} $, for large $\tilde{\rho}$.
364: \end{Theorem}
365:
366:
367:
368: \noindent {\bf Notes}. {\bf 1. The proof of Theorem \ref{T1} is given in
369: \S \ref{Sol}}
370:
371: 1. As shown in \cite{CPAM}, \cite{CPAM3} for special examples, ${\bf
372: f}$, in a larger sector is expected to have singularities with an
373: accumulation point at infinity.
374:
375: 2. In section \ref{smalltime}, we also show that in some special
376: cases, there is a duality between {\em small} $t$ and {\em large}
377: ${\bf x}$.
378:
379: 3. Relatively simple examples in which the assumptions apply after
380: suitable transformations are the modified Harry-Dym equation
381: $H_t+H_x= H^3H_{xxx}-H^3/2$, Kuramoto-Sivashinsky $u_t + u u_x +
382: u_{xx} + u_{xxxx} = 0$ and thin-film equation $ h_t + \nabla \cdot
383: \left (h^3 \nabla \Delta h \right ) =0$ (the latter with initial
384: conditions such as $h({\bf x}, 0) = 1+ (1+a x_1^2 + b x_2^2)^{-1}$ in
385: $d=2$). The former equation is discussed in detail in \cite{CPAM} and
386: the normalizing process, adapted to short time analysis, is described
387: in \S\ref{smalltime}.
388:
389: 4. The condition $\alpha_r \ge 1$ is not particularly restrictive in
390: problems with algebraically decaying coefficients. For these, as discussed
391: in \cite{CPAM}, one can redefine ${\bf f}$ by subtracting out from it the
392: first few terms of its formal asymptotic expansion for large ${\bf x}$. The
393: new ${\bf f}$ decays faster at $\infty$ and the condition to $\alpha_r \ge
394: 1$ can be ensured.
395:
396: \subsection{Borel summability of power series solutions and their asymptotic character}\label{Bsum} Determining asymptotic properties of solutions of PDEs is
397: substantially more difficult than the corresponding question for ODEs.
398: Borel-Laplace techniques however provide a well suited modality to
399: overcome this difficulty. The paper shows that formal series
400: solutions are Borel summable to actual solutions (a fortiori
401: are asymptotic to them). A few notes on Borel summability are found in
402: \S\ref{illustr}.
403:
404: In addition to hypothesis of Theorem \ref{T1}
405: we need, first of all, to impose restrictions to ensure that there exist
406: series solutions, to which end the coefficients of the equation should
407: be expandable for large $\bf x$. In many practical applications these
408: coefficients turn out to be finite combinations of ramified inverse
409: powers of $x_i$.
410:
411:
412: \begin{Condition}\label{Cond 2}
413: For large $\bf|x|$ and some $\mb N\in\NN^d$, the functions ${\bf b}_{{\bf
414: q}, {\bf k}} ({\bf x}, t)$ and ${\bf r} ({\bf x}, t)$ are analytic in
415: $(x_1^{-1/{N_1}},...,x_d^{-1/{N_d}})$
416: \end{Condition}
417:
418:
419: \begin{Theorem}\label{TrB}
420: If Condition~\ref{Cond 2} and the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{T1} are
421: satisfied, then the unique solution $\mb f$ found there is the Borel sum of
422: its own asymptotic series. More precisely, $\mb f$ can be written as
423: \begin{equation}
424: \label{acc3}
425: \mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x},t)=
426: \int_{{\RR^+}^d}e^{-\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{x}^{\frac{n}{n-1}} }{\mathbf{F}_1}(\mathbf{p},t)d\mathbf{p}
427: \end{equation}
428: where ${\mathbf{F}_1}$ is (a) analytic at zero in
429: $(p_1^{\frac{1}{nN_1}},...,p_d^{\frac{1}{nN_d}})$; (b) analytic in $\bf p\ne 0$ in the
430: poly-sector $|\arg p_i|<\frac{n}{n-1}\phi+\frac{\pi}{2(n-1)}$, $i\le
431: d$; and (c) exponentially bounded in the latter poly-sector.
432: \end{Theorem}
433:
434: {\bf Comment:} For PDEs it is known that it difficult to show, by
435: classical methods, the existence of actual solutions given formal ones, when
436: the formal solutions diverge. Borel summability of a formal asymptotic
437: series solution shows in particular, using Watson's lemma
438: \cite{benderorszag}, that there always indeed exist {\em actual} solutions
439: of the PDE asymptotic to it. Borel summability also entails uniqueness of
440: the actual solution if a sufficiently large sector of asymptoticity is
441: prescribed (see, e.g., \cite{Balser}). The Borel summability parameters
442: proven in the present paper are optimal, as explained in the following
443: remarks, and the sharp Gevrey class of the formal solutions follows too.
444: \begin{Remark}
445:
446: (i) It follows from the same proof that $\mathbf{x}^{\frac{n}{n-1}}$ can
447: be replaced with $\mathbf{x}^\beta$ for any $\beta\in
448: [1,\frac{n}{n-1}]$. The canonical variable in Borel summation is
449: that in which the generic Gevrey class of the formal series solution
450: is one (i.e., the series diverge factorially, with factorial power
451: one; \cite{Balser}). This variable, in our case, is $\mathbf
452: x^{\frac{n}{n-1}}$.
453:
454: (ii) At least in simple examples, the sector of summability is
455: optimal. See also Note~\ref{Opti2}.
456:
457:
458: (iii) In many problems of interest the conditions of Theorem~\ref{TrB} are
459: met by the equation in more than one sector (after suitable rotation of
460: coordinates). Then the functions $\mb F_1$ obtained in (\ref{TrB}) are
461: analytic continuations of each-other, as it follows from their construction.
462:
463: (iv) If we had made the change of variable ${\bf x} \rightarrow {\bf
464: x}^{n/(n-1)}$ first, (yielding the normalized Borel variable), the
465: transformed PDE would have been more difficult to handle. Borel
466: transforming directly from the $\bf x$ to $\bf p$ instead requires us
467: to perform, in the proof of Theorem~\ref{TrB}, an acceleration in the sense of \'Ecalle to
468: establish Borel summability, but is technically simpler.
469:
470: \end{Remark}
471: The proof of Theorem~\ref{TrB} is given in \S\ref{B}.
472:
473: \z See also \S\ref{Asympts}. \subsection{Spontaneous formation of
474: singularities in nonlinear PDEs} Borel summability of formal solutions
475: associated to solutions with prescribed initial data is a key ingredient in
476: the detailed analysis of spontaneous singularities of solutions and in the
477: study of their global properties. Applications of the present techniques in
478: these directions, partly relying on extensions to PDEs of the methods in
479: \cite{Inventiones}, are discussed in the paper \cite{CPAM3}.
480:
481: \section{Inverse Laplace transform and associated integral equation}\label{S3}
482:
483: The inverse Laplace transform (ILT) ${\bf G}({\bf p},t)$ of a function ${\bf
484: g}({\bf x},t)$ analytic in ${\bf x}$ in ${\cal D}_{\phi, \rho;\mathbf x} $
485: and vanishing algebraically as ${\bf x} \rightarrow \infty$ (cf.
486: Lemma~\ref{L1} below and Note following it) is given by:
487: \begin{equation}\label{6}
488: {\bf G}({\bf p},t) =\left [ \mathcal{L}^{-1} \{{\bf g}\}\right ] ({\bf p}, t)
489: \equiv \frac{1 }{(2 \pi i)^d } \int_{{\cal C}^d_D}
490: e^{{\bf p} \cdot {\bf x} } {\bf g}({\bf x}, t) d{\bf x}
491: \end{equation}
492: with a contour $\mathcal{C}_D$ as in Fig. 1 (modulo homotopies),
493: ${\cal C}_D^d \subset {\cal D}_{\phi, \rho;{\bf x}}$, and ${\bf p}$
494: restricted to the dual (polar) domain ${\cal S}_\phi$ defined by
495: \begin{equation}
496: \label{eq:defSp}
497: {\cal S}_\phi \equiv \left \{ {\bf p} : |p_i|>0;\ \arg p_i \in (-\phi, \phi),
498: i=1,...,d\right \}
499: \end{equation}
500: to ensure convergence of the integral.
501:
502: The following lemma connects the $\bf p$ behavior of the ILT of
503: functions of the type considered in this paper to their assumed behavior
504: in $\bf x$.
505: \begin{Lemma}
506: \label{L1}
507: If ${\bf g}({\bf x},t)$ is analytic for ${\bf x}$ in ${\cal
508: D}_{\phi, \rho;\bf x}$, and satisfies
509: \begin{equation}\label{6.1}
510: |{\bf x}^{\boldsymbol \alpha}|~ | {\bf g}(\mathbf x,t) | \le A (T)
511: \end{equation}
512: for $\alpha\ge \alpha_0>0$, then for any $\delta\in(0,\phi)$, the ILT
513: $\mathbf G=\mathcal{L}^{-1}\mathbf g$ exists in $ {\cal
514: S}_{\phi-\delta}$ and satisfies
515: \begin{equation}\label{7}
516: |{\bf G}({\bf p},t)| \le C \frac{A(T)}{[\Gamma(\alpha)]^d}
517: |{\bf p}^{{\boldsymbol \alpha} - {\boldsymbol 1}} | e^{2 |{\bf p}|\rho}
518: \end{equation}
519: for some $C=C(\delta,\alpha_0)$.
520: \end{Lemma}
521:
522:
523:
524: \begin{proof}
525: The proof is a higher dimensional version of that of Lemma 3.1 in
526: \cite{CPAM}. We first consider the case when $2 \ge\alpha \ge
527: \alpha_0$. Let $C_{\rho_1}$ be a contour so that the integration
528: path in each ${\bf x}$ component is as shown in Fig.~1: it passes
529: through point $\rho_1+|p_i|^{-1} $, and $s=\rho_1 + |p_i|^{-1} +i
530: r\exp(i\phi \mbox{\,signum($r$)})$ with $r\in(-\infty,\infty)$.
531: Choosing $2\rho \ge \rho_1 \ge (2/\sqrt{3})\rho$, we have $|s|>\rho$
532: along the contour and therefore, with $\arg(p_i)=\theta
533: \in(-\phi+\delta,\phi-\delta)$,
534:
535:
536: $$|\mathbf g({\bf s},t)|\le A (T) |{\bf s}^{-{\boldsymbol \alpha}} | \mbox{~~and~~}
537: |e^{{\bf s} \cdot {\bf p}}|\le
538: e^{\rho_1|\mb p|+d} e^{-r |{\bf p}|\sin|\phi+\theta|} $$
539: Thus,
540: $$
541: \left|\int_{C_{\rho_1}} e^{{\bf s} \cdot {\bf p}}
542: \mathbf g({\bf s},t) {\mathrm d\bf s} \right|\le
543: 2 A(T) e^{\rho_1|{\bf p}|+d}\prod_{i}
544: \int_0^{\infty} \left|\rho_1+|p_i|^{-1} + i r
545: e^{i\phi}\right|^{-\alpha} e^{- |p_i | r\sin\delta}dr $$
546: \begin{equation}
547: \label{7.1}
548: \le{\tilde K} A(T) e^{\rho_1 |{\bf p}|}
549: \prod_{i} \left \{ | \rho_1 +|p_i|^{-1} |^{-\alpha}
550: \int_0^{\infty} e^{-|p_i| r \sin\delta } dr \right \}
551: \le K \delta^{-d} |{\bf p}^{{\boldsymbol \alpha} - {\boldsymbol 1}} | e^{2 \rho |{\bf p}|}
552: \end{equation}
553:
554: \z where ${\tilde K}$ and $K$ are constants independent of any
555: parameter. Thus, the Lemma follows for $2 \ge\alpha \ge \alpha_0$, if we note
556: that $\Gamma (\alpha)$ is bounded in this range
557: of $\alpha$, the bound only depending on $\alpha_0$.
558:
559:
560: For $\alpha >2$, there exists an integer $k >0$ so that $\alpha-k
561: \in (1, 2]$. Taking
562:
563: $$[(k-1)!]^d \mathbf h({\bf x},t)=
564: \int_{\boldsymbol \infty}^{\bf x}
565: \mathbf g({\bf z},t)({\bf x}-{\bf z})^{{\bf k}-{\bf 1}} d{\bf z}$$
566:
567: \z (clearly $\mathbf h$ is analytic in ${\bf x}$, in ${\cal D}_{\phi, \rho}$
568: and $\partial_{\bf x}^{\bf k} {\bf h} ({\bf x}, t) = \mathbf g({\bf x},t)$), we get
569:
570: \begin{multline*}
571: \mathbf h({\bf x}, t) =
572: \frac{(-1)^{d k} \mathbf{x}^{k\bf 1}}{[(k-1)!]^d}
573: \int_{\boldsymbol 1}^{\boldsymbol \infty} \mathbf g({\bf x\cdot y}, t)
574: ({\bf y}-{\bf 1})^{(k-1)\mb 1} d{\bf y} \\
575: =
576: \frac{(-1)^{d k}\mathbf{x} ^{(k-\alpha)\bf 1}}{[(k-1)!]^d}
577: \int_{\boldsymbol 1}^{\boldsymbol \infty}
578: \mathbf A({\bf x\cdot y} ,t)
579: {\bf y}^{-{\boldsymbol \alpha}}
580: ({\bf y}-{\boldsymbol 1})^{(k-1)\mb 1} d{\bf y}
581: \end{multline*}
582:
583:
584: \noindent with $|\mathbf A({\bf x\cdot p}, t)|\le A(T)$, whence
585:
586: $$ |\mathbf h({\bf x}, t)| \le \frac{A(T) [\Gamma (\alpha-k)]^d}{
587: |\mathbf x^1|^{\alpha-k}
588: [\Gamma
589: (\alpha)]^d }$$
590:
591: \noindent From the arguments above
592: with $\alpha-k$ playing the role of $\alpha$, we get
593: $$ |{\mathcal{L}^{-1}} \{\mathbf h\} ({\bf p}, t)|
594: \le C(\delta) \frac{A(T)}{[\Gamma(\alpha)]^d}
595: |{\bf p^1} |^{\alpha-k-1} e^{2|{\bf p}|\rho} $$
596: Since ${\bf G} ({\bf p},t) =(-1)^{k d} {\mb p^{\mb 1 k}}
597: {{\mathcal{L}^{-1}}}\{\mathbf h\} (p, t)$,
598: by multiplying the above equation by $|{\bf p^1}|^{k} $, the Lemma follows for
599: $\alpha >2$ as well. \end{proof}
600:
601:
602: \begin{Remark}
603: \label{rem1}
604: The constant $2\rho$ in the exponential bound can
605: be lowered to $\rho+0$, but (\ref{7}) suffices for
606: our purposes. Note also that the statement also holds for $\rho =0$, a fact
607: that will be used in \S 6.
608: \end{Remark}
609: \begin{Remark}
610: \label{rem2}
611: Corollary~\ref{C1}
612: below implies that for any ${\bf p} \in {\cal S}_\phi$, the ILT exists for the
613: functions ${\bf r} ({\bf x}, t)$, ${\bf b}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}} ({\bf x}, t)$, as well
614: as for the solution ${\bf f}({\bf x}, t)$, whose existence is shown in the
615: sequel.
616: \end{Remark}
617:
618: \begin{Remark}
619: \label{rem3}
620: Conversely, if ${\bf G}({\bf p}, t)$ is any integrable
621: function satisfying the exponential bound in (\ref{7}), it is clear that
622: the Laplace Transform along a ray (\ref{10})
623: exists and defines an analytic function of ${\bf x}$
624: in the half-plane for each component defined by $\Re [e^{i \theta_i} x_i]
625: >2 \rho $ for $\theta_i \in (-\phi, \phi)$.
626: Due to the width of the sector it is easy to see,
627: by Fubini, that $\mathcal{L}\mb G=\mb g$.
628: \end{Remark}
629:
630: \begin{Remark}
631: \label{rem4}
632: The next corollary finds bounds for ${\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf
633: k}}=\mathcal{L}^{-1}\{{\bf b}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}\}$ and ${\bf
634: R}=\mathcal{L}^{-1}\{{\bf r} \}$ independent of $\arg ~p_i$ for
635: ${\bf p} \in {\cal S}_\phi$, following from the properties of
636: $\bf b_{q,k} $ and ${\bf r} $ in ${\cal D}_{\frac{\pi}{2n},
637: \rho_0}\supset {\cal D}_{\phi, \rho}$.
638: \end{Remark}
639:
640:
641:
642: \begin{Corollary}
643: \label{C1}
644: The ILT of the coefficients ${\bf b}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}} $ (cf.
645: (\ref{3})) and of the inhomogeneous term ${\bf r}({\bf x}, t)$ satisfy
646: the following upper bounds for any ${\bf p} \in {\cal S}_\phi$
647:
648: \begin{equation}\label{11}
649: |{\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}} ({\bf p}, t)|
650: \le \frac{C_1 (\phi,\alpha_{\bf q})}{[\Gamma(\alpha_{\bf q})]^d}
651: A_b (T) |{\bf p}^{{\boldsymbol \alpha}_{\bf q} - {\bf 1} } |
652: e^{ {{{2}}} \rho_0 |{\bf p}|}
653: \end{equation}
654:
655: \begin{equation}\label{12}
656: |{\bf R} (p, t)| \le
657: \frac{C_2(\phi)}{[\Gamma(\alpha_r)]^d} A_r (T) |{\bf p}^{{\boldsymbol \alpha}_r - {\bf 1}}|
658: e^{{{2}} \rho_0 |{\bf p}|}
659: \end{equation}
660: \end{Corollary}
661: \begin{proof}
662: The proof is similar to that of Corollary 3.2 in\cite{CPAM}. From
663: the conditions assumed we see that $\bf b_{q,k}$ is analytic in
664: ${\bf x} \in {\cal D}_{\phi_1, \rho_0;{\bf x}}$ for any $\phi_1$
665: satisfying $(2n)^{-1}\pi> \phi_1 >\phi>0$. So Lemma~\ref{L1} can be
666: applied, with $\mathbf g({\bf x},t)=\bf b_{q,k} $, with $\phi_1
667: =\phi + ((2n)^{-1}\pi - \phi)/2 $ replacing $\phi$, and with
668: $\delta$ replaced by $\phi_1-\phi = ((2n)^{-1}\pi - \phi)/2 $. The
669: same applies to $\mathbf R({\bf p}, t)$, leading to (\ref{11}) and
670: (\ref{12}). In the latter case, since $\alpha_r \ge~1$, $\alpha_0$
671: in Lemma~\ref{L1} can be chosen to be 1. Thus, one can choose $C_2$
672: to be independent of $\alpha_r$.
673: \end{proof}
674:
675:
676: \begin{Lemma}\label{newcond}
677: For some $R\in\RR^+$ and all $\mb p$ with $|\mathbf p|>R$ and $\max_{i\le d}|\arg
678: p_i|\le \phi$ we have for some $C>0$
679: \begin{equation}
680: \label{es0}
681: \Re\mathcal{P}_j(-\mathbf p)>C|\mathbf p|^n
682: \end{equation}
683: \end{Lemma}
684: \begin{proof}
685: For the proof, we take $B=\{\mathbf p:|\mathbf p|=1, \max_{j\le d} |\arg p_j|\le \phi\}$ and note that
686: \begin{equation}
687: \label{e456}
688: C_0=\inf_{\stackrel{\scriptstyle \mb p\in B }{\scriptstyle 1 \le j \le m}} \Re \mathcal{P}_{n;j}(-\mb p)>0
689: \end{equation}
690: (cf. definitions following (\ref{eq:cond1})). Indeed, if $C_0=0$, then by
691: continuity $\Re \mathcal{P}_{n;j}(-\bf p)$ would have a root in $B$
692: which is ruled out by (\ref{condnew}). The conclusion now follows,
693: since on a sphere of large radius $R$, $\mathcal{P}_j$ is given by
694: $R^n\mathcal{P}_{n;j}(-\mb p/R)+o(R^n)$.
695: \end{proof}
696:
697: \bigskip
698:
699: \z The formal inverse Laplace transform (Borel transform) of (\ref{1.a})
700: with respect to ${\bf x}$ (see also (\ref{3})) for ${\bf p} \in \mathcal{S}_\phi$ is
701:
702: \begin{equation}\label{13}
703: \partial_t{\bf F} +\mathcal{P} (-{\bf p}) {\bf F}
704: ={\sum_{{\bf q} \succeq 0}}' \sum_{{\bf k} \succeq 0}
705: {\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}} * {\bf F}^{*{\bf k}}
706: * \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,|{\bf j}|}
707: \left ( (-{\bf p})^{\bf j} F_l \right )^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}}
708: +{\bf R}({\bf p},t)
709: \end{equation}
710: where $\mathbf{F}=\mathcal{L}^{-1}\mathbf{f}$. After inverting the
711: differential operator on the left side of (\ref{13}) with respect to
712: $t$, we obtain the integral equation
713: \begin{multline}\label{14}
714: {\bf F} ({\bf p},t)={\mathcal N} ({\bf F})\equiv {\bf F}_0 ({\bf p}, t) \\
715: + \int_0^t e^{-\mathcal{P} (-{\bf p}) (t-\tau)} {\sum_{{\bf q} \succeq 0}}'
716: \sum_{{\bf k} \succeq 0}
717: {\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}({\bf p},\tau) * {\bf F}^{*{\bf k}} ({\bf p},\tau)
718: * \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,|\mathbf j|}
719: \left ( (-{\bf p})^{\bf j} F_l \right({\bf p},\tau) )^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}}
720: d\tau
721: \end{multline}
722: where
723: \begin{equation}\label{15}
724: {\bf F}_0 (p,t) =e^{-\mathcal{P} (-{\bf p}) t} {\bf F}_{I} ({\bf p})
725: +\int_{0}^t e^{- \mathcal{P} (-{\bf p}) (t-\tau)} {\bf R} (p, \tau) d\tau \ \
726: \mbox{\z and\ ${\bf F}_I=\mathcal{L}^{-1}\{ {\bf f}_I\}$}
727: \end{equation}
728:
729:
730: Our strategy is to reduce the problem of existence and uniqueness
731: of a solution of (\ref{1.a}) to the problem of existence and uniqueness of
732: a solution of (\ref{14}), under appropriate conditions.
733:
734:
735:
736: \section{Solution to the associated integral equation}
737: \label{Sol}
738:
739: To establish the existence and uniqueness in (\ref{14}) we first introduce suitable
740: function spaces.
741:
742: \begin{Definition}
743: \label{D1} Denoting by $\overline{\mathcal{S}_\phi}$ the closure of
744: $\mathcal{S}_\phi$ defined in (\ref{eq:defSp}), $\partial
745: \mathcal{S}_\phi =\overline{\mathcal{S}_\phi}\setminus
746: \mathcal{S}_\phi$ and $\mathcal{K}=\overline{\mathcal{S}_\phi}\times
747: [0,T]$, we define for $\nu>0$ (later to be taken appropriately large)
748: the norm $ \|\, \cdot\,\|_\nu$ as
749: \begin{equation}\label{16}
750: \| {\bf G} \|_\nu
751: =M_0^d \,\sup_{({\bf p},t)\in\mathcal{K}} \left (\prod_{i} (1+|p_i|^2 \right )
752: e^{-\nu \,|{\bf p}|} |{\bf G}({\bf p},t)|
753: \end{equation}
754: where the constant $M_0$ (about $3.76$) is defined as
755: \begin{equation}\label{17}
756: M_0=\sup_{s\ge 0} \left\{ \frac{2(1+s^2)\left( \ln (1+s^2) + s\,\arctan s
757: \right)}{s(s^2+4)}\right\}
758: \end{equation}
759:
760: \z {\bf Note}: For fixed $\mathbf F$, $\|\mathbf F\|_\nu$ is nonincreasing
761: in $\nu$.
762: \end{Definition}
763:
764: \bigskip
765:
766: \begin{Definition}
767: \label{D2} Consider the following Banach space.
768: \begin{multline}
769: {\cal A}_\phi
770: \,=\,\left \{ {\bf F}: {\bf F}(\cdot,t)\mbox{ \rm analytic in }{\cal S}_\phi\right.\\\left.
771: \mbox{ \rm and continuous in }\overline{\mathcal{S}_\phi}\
772: \mbox{ \rm for $t\in[0,T]$
773: s.t.}\| {\bf F} \|_\nu <\infty \right \}
774: \end{multline}
775:
776: \end{Definition}
777:
778: \begin{Remark}
779: \label{rem5}
780: If ${\bf G} \in {\cal A}_\phi$, then $ {\bf g}({\bf x}, t) =:{\cal
781: L}_{\boldsymbol \theta} \{{\bf G} \}$ exists for suitable ${\boldsymbol
782: \theta}$ if $\rho \cos (\theta_i + \arg x_i) > \nu$. Furthermore, $\mathbf
783: g({\bf x},t)$ is analytic in ${\bf x}$, and $|{\bf x}^{\bf 1}{\bf
784: g}({\bf x}, t) |$ is bounded in ${\cal D}_{\phi, \rho;{\bf x}}$.
785: \end{Remark}
786:
787: \begin{Lemma}
788: \label{L3}
789: For $\nu >4 \rho_0+\alpha_r $,
790: ${\bf F}_I$ in (\ref{15})
791: satisfies
792: $$
793: \| {\bf F}_I \|_\nu \le C(\phi) A_{f_I} (\nu/2)^{-d \alpha_r+d} $$
794: while ${\bf R}$ satisfies the inequality
795: $$ \| {\bf R} \|_\nu \le C(\phi) A_r (T) (\nu/2)^{-d\alpha_r+d} $$
796: and therefore
797: \begin{equation}
798: \label{17.1}
799: \| {\bf F}_0 \|_\nu \le C(\phi) A_0 (T) (\nu/2)^{-d \alpha_r + d}
800: \end{equation}
801: \end{Lemma}
802:
803:
804:
805: \begin{proof} This proof is similar to that of Lemma 4.4 in \cite{CPAM}.
806: We use (\ref{12}), note that $\alpha_r \ge 1$ and also that for
807: $\nu >4 \rho_0+\alpha_r$ we have
808:
809: \begin{multline}
810: \label{eq:eqnub}
811: \sup_{|p_1| >0} \frac{|p_1|^{\alpha_r \pm1}}{\Gamma(\alpha_r)} e^{-(\nu
812: -{{{2}}} \rho_0 ) |p_1|} \le \frac{(\alpha_r \pm 1)^{\alpha_r
813: \pm1}}{\Gamma(\alpha_r)} e^{-\alpha_r\mp 1} \left ( \nu-{{{2}}} \rho_0 \right
814: )^{-\alpha_r \mp 1} \\\le K \alpha_r^{1/2\pm 1} (\nu/2)^{-\alpha_r \mp 1}
815: \end{multline}
816:
817: \z where $K$ is independent of $\nu$ and $\alpha_r$.
818: The latter inequality follows from Stirling's formula for
819: $\Gamma (\alpha_r)$ for large $\alpha_r$.
820:
821:
822: Using the definition of
823: the $\nu-$norm and the two equations above, the inequality for $\|
824: \mathbf R
825: \|_\nu$ follows. Since $\mathbf f_I (x)$ is required to satisfy the same bounds
826: as $\mathbf r(x, t)$, a similar inequality
827: holds for $ \|\mathbf F_I \|_\nu $. Now, from the relation (\ref{15}) and
828: the fact that $\Re \mathcal{P}_j (-{\bf p}) $ is, by Lemma~\ref{newcond}, bounded below for
829: ${\bf p} \in \mathcal{S}_\phi$,
830: we get the following inequality, implying (\ref{17.1})
831: $$ |\mathbf F_0 (\mb p, t) | \le |\mathbf F_I (\mb p) | + T {\hat A}_0 (T)
832: \sup_{0 \le t \le T} |R (\mb p, t) | $$
833: \end{proof}
834: It is convenient to introduce a space of sectorially analytic
835: functions possibly unbounded at the origin but integrable.
836: \begin{Definition} Let
837: \label{D3}
838: $$ {\cal H}
839: := \left \{ {\bf H} : {\bf H}({\bf p},t)
840: ~{\rm analytic ~in} ~{\cal S}_\phi,
841: | {\bf H} ({\bf p},t) | \le
842: C \left | {\bf p}^{{\boldsymbol \alpha}-{\bf 1}} \right | e^{\rho |{\bf p}|} \right \}
843: $$
844: ($C$, $\alpha$ and $\rho$ may depend on ${\bf H}$).
845: \end{Definition}
846:
847: \begin{Lemma}
848: \label{L4} If ${\bf H} \in {\cal H}$ and
849: ${\bf F} \in {\cal A}_\phi$, then for $\nu >\rho + 4$, for any $j$,
850: ${\bf H}*F_j\in{\cal A}_\phi$, and\footnote{In the following equation, $\|\,\cdot\,\|_\nu$ is
851: extended naturally to functions which are only continuous in
852: $\mathcal{K}$.}:
853: \begin{equation}\label{18}
854: \|{\bf H} * F_j \|_\nu \le \big \| |{\bf H}| * |F_j| \big \|_\nu
855: \le C[\Gamma (\alpha)]^d \,\,2^{d \alpha} (\nu - \rho)^{-d \alpha} \| {\bf F} \|_\nu
856: \end{equation}
857: where $C$ is independent of $\alpha$.
858: \end{Lemma}
859:
860:
861: \begin{proof}
862: The proof is a vector adaptation of that of Lemma 4.6 in
863: \cite{CPAM}. From the elementary properties of convolution, it is
864: clear that $\mathbf H*F_j$ is analytic in ${\cal S}_\phi$ and
865: continuous in $\overline{\mathcal{S}_\phi}$. Let $\theta_i = \arg
866: p_i$. We have
867: \begin{equation*}
868: | \mathbf H* F_j ({\bf p}) | \le || \mathbf H|*|F_j | ({\bf p}) |
869: \le
870: \int_{\prod_{i}[0,|p_i|]}
871: |\mathbf H(\mathbf s e^{i \mathbf \theta})|
872: |F_j(\mathbf p -\mathbf se^{i \mathbf \theta} )|d {\bf s}
873: \end{equation*}
874: Now
875: \begin{equation}
876: \label{eq:eH2}
877: |\mathbf H(\mathbf s e^{i \mathbf \theta}) |
878: \le C \left | {\bf s}^{{\boldsymbol \alpha}-{\bf 1}}
879: \right | e^{|{\bf s}| \rho}
880: \end{equation}
881: \z and
882: \begin{multline}
883: \label{18.1}
884: \int_{\prod_{i} [0,|p_i|]}
885: {\bf s}^{{\boldsymbol \alpha} -{\bf 1}} e^{|{\bf s}| \rho} |F_j({\bf p}-{\bf s} e^{i {\boldsymbol \theta}})|
886: d{\bf s}
887: \\\le
888: \| F_j \|_\nu e^{\nu |{\bf p}|} |{\bf p}^{{\boldsymbol \alpha}} |
889: \prod_i \left [ \int_0^1 \frac{ s_i^{\alpha -1}
890: e^{-(\nu -\rho) |p_i| s_i } }{ M_0 (1 + |p_i|^2 (1 - s_i)^2 ) } ds_i \right ]
891: \end{multline}
892: Since $\nu-\rho
893: \ge 4$, we can readily use (\ref{minilemma}) in the Appendix
894: with $\mu = |p_i| $, $\nu$ replaced by $\nu - \rho$, $\sigma = 1$ and $m=1$
895: to conclude
896: \begin{equation}\label{19.0}
897: |p_i|^\alpha \int_0^1 \frac{ s_i^{\alpha -1}
898: e^{-(\nu -\rho) |p_i| s_i } }{ M_0 (1 + |p_i|^2 (1 - s_i)^2 ) } ds_i
899: \le \frac{K \Gamma (\alpha)\,\,2^\alpha (\nu - \rho)^{-\alpha} }{M_0 (1 + |p_i|^2 )}
900: \end{equation}
901: Therefore, from (\ref{18.1}), we obtain
902: \begin{equation}
903: \label{19.2}
904: \int_{\prod_i [0,|p_i|]}
905: {\bf s}^{{\boldsymbol \alpha} -{\bf 1}} e^{|{\bf s}| \rho} |F_j({\bf p}-{\bf s} e^{i {\boldsymbol \theta}})|
906: {\mathrm d\bf s}
907: \le
908: K [\Gamma(\alpha)]^d \frac{\| F_j \|_\nu e^{\nu |{\bf p}|}\,\,2^{d \alpha} |\nu - \rho|^{-d \alpha} }{
909: M_0^d \prod_i (1+|p_i|^2)}
910: \end{equation}
911: From this relation, (\ref{18})
912: follows by applying the definition of $\| \cdot \|_\nu $. \end{proof}
913:
914: \begin{Remark}
915: \label{remNew}
916: Lemma~\ref{L4} holds for $\rho=0$ as well, when $\nu > 4$.
917: \end{Remark}
918:
919:
920: \bigskip
921:
922: \begin{Corollary}
923: \label{C3}
924: For ${\bf F} \in {\cal A}_\phi $, and $\nu >4 \rho_0 +4 $
925: we have ${\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}*F_{l} \in {\cal A}_\phi$ and
926: $$ \|{\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}* F_{l} \|_\nu
927: \le \big \| |{\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}| * |{\bf F}|\big \|_\nu
928: \le K C_1 (\phi, \alpha_{\bf q})
929: ~(\nu/4)^{- d \alpha_{\bf q}} A_b (T)
930: ~\| {\bf F} \|_\nu $$
931: \end{Corollary}
932:
933: \begin{proof}
934: The proof follows simply by using Lemma~\ref{L4}, with ${\bf H}$ replaced
935: by ${\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}$
936: and using the relations in Corollary~\ref{C1}.
937: \end{proof}
938:
939:
940: \bigskip
941:
942: \begin{Lemma}
943: \label{L4.7.1}
944: For ${\bf F} \in {\cal A}_\phi$, with $\nu >4 \rho_0 + 4$, for any ${\bf j}$, $l$,
945: $$ | {\bf B}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} * ({\bf p}^{\bf j} F_l ) |
946: \le \frac{K C_1 | {\bf p}^{\bf j} | e^{\nu |{\bf p}|} A_b (T)}{M_0^d
947: \prod_i (1 + |p_i|^2 )}
948: \| {\bf F} \|_\nu \left (\frac{\nu}{4} \right )^{-
949: d \alpha_{\bf q}} $$
950: \end{Lemma}
951:
952: \begin{proof} From the definition (\ref{eq:defconv}), it readily follows that
953: $$ | {\bf B}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} * ({\bf p}^{\bf j} F_l ) | \le |{\bf p}^{\bf j}| |{\bf
954: B}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} |* |F_l| $$
955:
956:
957: \z The rest follows from Corollary
958: (\ref{C3}), and the definition of $\| \cdot \|_\nu$.
959: \end{proof}
960:
961: \begin{Lemma}
962: \label{4.7.5}
963: For ${\bf F}$, ${\bf G} \in {\cal A}_\phi $ and $j \ge 0$
964: \begin{equation} \label{19.7.5}
965: | ({\bf p}^{{\bf j}} F_{l_1}) * G_{l_2} | \le |{\bf p}^{\bf j}|\,\,
966: \big |\, |{\bf F}|*|{\bf G}|\, \big |
967: \end{equation}
968: \end{Lemma}
969:
970: \begin{proof}
971: Let ${\bf p} =(p_1 e^{i \theta_1}, p_2 e^{i \theta_2}, ..,p_d e^{i \theta_d} )$.
972: Then the result follows from the inequality
973: \begin{multline}
974: | {\bf p}^{\bf j} F_{l_1}*G_{l_2} |
975: = \left| \int_{\bf 0}^{\bf p} {\bf {\tilde s}}^{\bf j}
976: F_{l_1} ({\tilde {\bf s}})
977: G_{l_2} ({\bf p}-{\tilde {\bf s}}) d{\tilde {\bf s}} \right|
978: \le
979: |{\bf p}^{\bf j}| \int_{\prod_i[0,|p|_i]}
980: | {\bf F} (e^{i\boldsymbol\theta}\mathbf s)|
981: |{\bf G} (\mathbf p-e^{i\boldsymbol\theta}\mathbf s)| d\mathbf{s}
982: \end{multline}
983: \end{proof}
984:
985: \begin{Corollary}
986: \label{4.7.8}
987: If ${\bf F} \in {\cal A}_\phi $, then
988: \begin{equation} \label{19.7.51}
989: \left | \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,|\mathbf{j}|}
990: \left ( {\bf p}^{\bf j} F_l \right )^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}} \right |
991: \le\prod_i|p_i|^{\sum_{l,\mathbf{|j|}} j_i q_{l,{\bf j}}}
992: \left | \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,|\mathbf{j}|}
993: | {\bf F} |^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}} \right |
994: \end{equation}
995:
996: \end{Corollary}
997:
998: \begin{proof}
999: This follows simply from repeated application of Lemma \ref{4.7.5}.
1000: \end{proof}
1001:
1002: \bigskip
1003:
1004: \begin{Lemma}
1005: \label{L4.7.9}
1006: For ${\bf F}$, ${\bf G} \in {\cal A}_\phi $,
1007: $$ \Big | |{\bf F}| * |{\bf G}| \Big |
1008: \le \frac{e^{\nu |{\bf p}|}}{M_0^d \prod_i (1 + |p_i|^2 )} \| {\bf F} \|_\nu
1009: \| {\bf G} \|_\nu $$
1010: \end{Lemma}
1011:
1012: \begin{proof}
1013: \begin{equation}
1014: \Big | |{\bf F}| * |{\bf G}| \Big |
1015: = \left| \int_{\bf 0}^{\bf p} |{\bf F} ({\tilde {\bf s}})|
1016: |{\bf G} ({\bf p}-{\tilde {\bf s}})| {\bf d{\tilde s}}\right|
1017: \le \int_{\prod_i[0,|p|_i]}
1018: | {\bf F} (e^{i\boldsymbol\theta}\mathbf s)|
1019: |{\bf G} (\mathbf p-e^{i\boldsymbol\theta}\mathbf s)| d\mathbf{s}
1020: \end{equation}
1021: \noindent Using the definition of $\| \cdot \|_\nu$, the above
1022: expression is bounded by
1023: $$ \frac{e^{\nu |{\bf p}|}}{M_0^{2d}}
1024: \| {\bf F} \|_\nu \| {\bf G} \|_\nu \prod_i
1025: \int_0^{|p_i|} \frac{ds_i}{(1 +s_i^2) [1+(|p_i|-s_i)^2] }
1026: \le {\frac{|{\bf p}^{\bf j}| e^{\nu |{\bf p}|} }{M_0^d \prod_i (1 +|p_i|^2)} }
1027: \| {\bf F} \|_\nu \| {\bf G} \|_\nu
1028: $$
1029: The last inequality follows from the definition (\ref{17}) of $M_0$
1030: since
1031: $$\int_0^{|p_i|} {\frac{ds_i}{(1 +s_i^2) [1+(|p_i|-s_i)^2] }}
1032: =2
1033: {\frac{ \ln (|p_i|^2 + 1) + |p_i| \tan^{-1} |p_i| }
1034: {|p_i| (|p_i|^2 +4)}} $$
1035:
1036: \end{proof}
1037:
1038: \bigskip
1039:
1040: \begin{Corollary}
1041: \label{L4.8.0}
1042: For ${\bf F}$, ${\bf G} \in {\cal A}_\phi $, then
1043: $$ \big\| |{\bf F}| * |{\bf G}| \big\|_\nu \le \| {\bf F} \|_\nu
1044: \| {\bf G} \|_\nu $$
1045: \end{Corollary}
1046:
1047: \begin{proof}
1048: This is an application of Lemma \ref{L4.7.9} and the definition of
1049: $\| \cdot \|_\nu$.
1050: \end{proof}
1051:
1052: \bigskip
1053: \begin{Lemma}
1054: \label{L4.9.5}
1055: For $\nu >4 \rho_0 + 4 $,
1056: \begin{multline} \label{21.5}
1057: \left | {\bf B}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k} } * {\bf F}^{*{\bf k}}
1058: * \!\!\sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,{\bf |j|}}
1059: \left ({\bf p}^{\bf j} F_l \right )^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}} \right |
1060: \le \frac{e^{\nu |{\bf p}|} \prod_i |p_i|^{\sum j_i q_{l,{\bf j}} } }{
1061: M_0^d \prod_i (1 + |p_i|^2 ) }
1062: \| {\bf F} \|_\nu^{|\bf q| + |{\bf k}| - 1}
1063: \big\| |{\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}} | * |{\bf F} | \big\|_\nu
1064: \end{multline}
1065:
1066: \z if $(\mathbf q, \mathbf k)\ne (\mathbf0, \mathbf 0)$ and is zero if
1067: $(\mathbf q, \mathbf k)= (\mathbf0, \mathbf0)$.
1068:
1069: \end{Lemma}
1070:
1071: \begin{proof} For ${\bf (q,k)} ={\bf (0,0)} $ we have ${\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}=0$
1072: (see remarks after eq. (\ref{3})). If ${\bf k} \ne {\bf 0}$,
1073: Corollary \ref{4.7.8} shows that the left hand side of (\ref{21.5})
1074: is bounded by
1075: $$
1076: \prod_i|p_i|^{\sum j_i q_{l,{\bf j}}} \left | |{\bf B}_{{\bf
1077: q}, {\bf k}}|*|{\bf F}| * |{\bf F}|^{*(|{\bf
1078: k}|-1)}*\!\!\sideset{^*}{} \prod_{l,{\bf |j|}} |{\bf F}|^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}}
1079: \right | $$
1080: Using Corollaries \ref{4.7.8} and \ref{L4.8.0} and Lemma
1081: \ref{L4.7.9}, the proof follows for ${\bf k} \ne 0$. Similar steps
1082: work for the case ${\bf k} = {\bf 0}$ and ${\bf q} \ne {\bf 0}$,
1083: except that ${\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}$ is convolved with ${\bf
1084: p}^{{\bf j}'} F_{l_1}$ for some $({\bf j}', l_1)$, for which the
1085: corresponding $q_{l_1,{\bf j}'} \ne 0$, and we now use Lemma
1086: \ref{4.7.5} and the definition of $\| \cdot \|_\nu$.
1087: \end{proof}
1088:
1089: \bigskip
1090: \begin{Corollary}
1091: \label{C5}
1092: For $\nu >4 \rho_0 + 4 $,
1093: \begin{multline}
1094: \left | {\bf B}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k} } * {\bf F}^{*{\bf k}}
1095: * \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,{\bf |j|}}
1096: \left ({\bf p}^{\bf j} F_l \right )^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}} \right |
1097: \\ \le \frac{K C_1 A_b (T) e^{\nu |{\bf p}|} \prod_i
1098: |p_i|^{\sum j_i q_{l,{\bf j}} } }{
1099: M_0^d \prod_i (1 + |p_i|^2 ) }
1100: \left ( \frac{\nu}{4} \right )^{-d \alpha_{\bf q} }
1101: \| {\bf F} \|_\nu^{|q| + |{\bf k}|}
1102: \end{multline}
1103: \end{Corollary}
1104: The proof follows immediately from Corollary \ref{C3} and
1105: Lemma \ref{L4.9.5} $\Box$.
1106:
1107:
1108: \begin{Lemma} \label{L6}
1109: For $\nu >4 \rho_0 + 4$, we have
1110: \begin{multline}\label {22}
1111: \left| \int_{0}^t e^{-\mathcal{P} (-{\bf p}) (t-\tau)} {\bf B}_{{\bf
1112: q},{\bf k}} * {\bf F}^{*{\bf k}} *
1113: \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,\bf|j|}
1114: \left ({\bf p}^{\bf j} F_l \right )^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}} d\tau \right | \\
1115: \le \frac{C
1116: \tilde{A}_b (T) e^{\nu |{\bf p}|} }{M_0^d \prod_i (1 +
1117: |p_i|^2 ) } \left ( \frac{\nu}{4} \right )^{-d
1118: \alpha_{\bf q}} \| {\bf F} \|_\nu^{|\boldsymbol q|+ |{\bf k}| }
1119: \end{multline}
1120: for some $\tilde{A}_b(T)\ge A_b(T)$ (evaluated in the proof) and where the
1121: constant $C$ is independent of $T$, but depends on $\phi$ and
1122: $\alpha_{\bf q}$.
1123: \end{Lemma}
1124:
1125: \begin{proof} This is a consequence of Lemmas
1126: \ref{L4.7.1} and \ref{L4.9.5} and the fact that for $0 \le |{\bf
1127: l'}| \le n$ we have, for $|\mathbf p| \le R$ (with $R$ as in
1128: Lemma \ref{newcond}),
1129: \begin{equation}
1130: \label{eq:28.5.0}
1131: J:=
1132: \left | \mathbf p^{\mathbf l'} \right | \int_0^t e^{-\Re \mathcal{P} (-{\bf p})
1133: (t-\tau)} d \tau \le C_2(T)
1134: \end{equation}
1135: For $|\mb p|>R$ we have, by Lemma~\ref{newcond},
1136: $\mathcal{P} (-{\bf p})>C|\bf p|^n$, and $J$ is majorized by
1137: \begin{multline}
1138: \label{eq:28.5}
1139: m\max_{j\le m} \frac{ |\mathbf p^{\mathbf l'} |}{ \Re \mathcal{P}_j (-{\bf p}) }
1140: \left [ 1 - e^{-\Re \mathcal{P}_j (-{\bf p}) t} \right ] \le
1141: \max_{j\le m}\frac{T^{1 - |{\bf l'}| /n} |{\bf p}|^{|\bf l'| } }{
1142: |\Re \mathcal{P}_j (-{\bf p})
1143: |^{|{\bf l'}|/n}}
1144: \sup_{\gamma > 0} \frac{1 - e^{-\gamma}}{\gamma^{1 - | {\bf l'} | /n } }
1145: \\\le C T^{1 - |{\bf l'}| /n}
1146: \end{multline}
1147: where ${\bf l'} = \sum_{{\bf j}, l} {\bf j} q_{l, {\bf j}} $.
1148: \end{proof}
1149:
1150: \bigskip
1151: \begin{Definition}
1152: \label{D4}
1153: For ${\bf F}$ and ${\bf h}$
1154: in ${\cal A}_\phi$, and ${\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}} \in {\cal H}$, as above,
1155: define ${\bf h}_0 = {\bf 0}$ and for $k \ge 1$,
1156: \begin{equation}\label {23}
1157: {\bf h}_{\bf k}
1158: \equiv {\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}
1159: *[ ({\bf F}+{\bf h})^{*{\bf k}} - {\bf F}^{*{\bf k}}].
1160: \end{equation}
1161: \end{Definition}
1162:
1163:
1164: \bigskip
1165: \begin{Lemma}
1166: \label{L7}
1167: For $\nu >4 \rho_0 + 4$, and for ${\bf k} \ne 0$,
1168: \begin{equation}\label {24}
1169: \| {\bf h}_{\bf k} \|_\nu \le
1170: |{\bf k}| {
1171: \Big( \| {\bf F} \|_\nu + \| {\bf h} \|_\nu \Big) }^{|{\bf k}|-1}
1172: \big\| |{\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}|*|{\bf h}| \big\|_\nu
1173: \end{equation}
1174: and is zero for ${\bf k} = 0$.
1175: \end{Lemma}
1176:
1177: \begin{proof}
1178: The cases $|{\bf k}|=0,1$ follow from the definition of ${\bf
1179: h}_0$ and (\ref{23}) respectively. Assume formula (\ref{24})
1180: holds for all $ |{\bf k}| \le l$. Then all multiindices of length
1181: $l+1$ can be expressed as ${\bf k} + {\bf \hat{e}}_i$, where ${\bf
1182: \hat{e}}_i\in\RR^m$ is the $m$ dimensional unit vector in the
1183: $i$-th direction, and $|{\bf k}|=l$.
1184: \begin{multline*}
1185: \| {\bf h}_{{\bf k} +{\bf \hat{e}}_i} \|_\nu = \| {\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf
1186: k}}*(F_i+h_i) *({\bf F}+{\bf h})^{*{\bf k}} - {\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}
1187: *F_i*{\bf F}^{*\bf k} \|_\nu \\=\| {\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}} *h_i*({\bf
1188: F}+{\bf h})^{*{\bf k}} + F_i*{\bf h}_{\bf k} \|_\nu
1189: \end{multline*}
1190:
1191: \z Using (\ref{24}) for $|{\bf k}|=l$, we get
1192: $$ \le \| |{\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}} |*|{\bf h} | \|_\nu
1193: \left ( \| {\bf F} \|_\nu + \| {\bf h} \|_\nu \right )^l
1194: + l \| {\bf F} \|_\nu \Big( \| {\bf F} \|_\nu + \|{\bf h} \|_\nu \Big)^{l-1}
1195: \big\| |{\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}|*|{\bf h}| \big\|_\nu
1196: $$
1197: $$
1198: \le
1199: (l + 1) {
1200: \Big( \| {\bf F} \|_\nu + \| {\bf h} \|_\nu \Big) }^{l}
1201: \big\| |{\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}|*|{\bf h}| \big\|_\nu
1202: $$
1203: Thus (\ref{24}) holds for $|{\bf k}|=l+1$.
1204: \end{proof}
1205:
1206: \bigskip
1207: \begin{Definition}
1208: \label{D41}
1209: For ${\bf F}\in {\cal A}_\phi$ and ${\bf h}\in {\cal A}_\phi$, and
1210: ${\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}$ as above define ${\bf g}_{\bf 0} = {\bf
1211: 0}$, and for $ |\mathbf q| \ge 1$,
1212: \begin{equation}\label {23.5}
1213: {\bf g}_{\bf q}
1214: \equiv {\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}* \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,\bf |j|} \left ({\bf p}^{\bf j} [F_l + h_l]\right )^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}} -
1215: {\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}* \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,\bf |j|}
1216: \left ({\bf p}^{\bf j} F_l \right )^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}}
1217: \end{equation}
1218: \end{Definition}
1219:
1220: \bigskip
1221:
1222: \begin{Lemma}
1223: \label{L7.5}
1224: For $\nu >4 \rho_0 + 4$, ${\bf g}_{\bf 0}=0$ and for
1225: $|{\bf q}| \ge 1 $
1226: \begin{equation}\label {24.5}
1227: \left | {\bf g}_{\bf q} \right | \le
1228: \left |{\bf p}^{\sum {\bf j} q_{l, {\bf j}} }\right |
1229: \frac{ e^{\nu |{\bf p}|} |{\bf q}|}{M_0^d \prod_i (1+|p_i|^2)}
1230: {\Big( \| {\bf F} \|_\nu + \| {\bf h} \|_\nu \Big) }^{|{\bf q}|-1}
1231: \big\| |{\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}|*|{\bf h}| \big\|_\nu
1232: \end{equation}
1233: and is zero for ${\bf q} = 0$.
1234: \end{Lemma}
1235:
1236: \begin{proof}
1237: The cases $|{\bf q}| =0,1 $ follow from the definition of
1238: ${\bf g}_{\bf 0}$ and (\ref{23.5}) respectively (since only terms
1239: linear in ${\bf F}$ are involved in (\ref{23.5})). Assuming
1240: (\ref{24.5}) holds if $|{\bf q}|\le l$ we show that it
1241: holds for ${\bf q} + {\bf \hat{e}} $,
1242: where ${\bf \hat{e}}$ is a unit vector, say in the $(l_1,
1243: j'_1,j'_2,...,j'_d)$ direction. We have
1244: \begin{multline}\label{ML1}
1245: \left | {\bf g}_{{\bf q} +{\bf \hat{e}}} \right | \le
1246: \Bigg |
1247: {\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}*\left [ {\bf p}^{{\bf j}'} (F_{l_1} + h_{l_1} ) \right ]*
1248: \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,\bf |j|}
1249: \left [ {\bf p}^{\bf j} (F_l + h_l) \right ]^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}}
1250: \\-{\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}*\left [ {\bf p}^{{\bf j}'} F_{l_1} \right ]*
1251: \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,\bf |j|}
1252: \left [ {\bf p}^{\bf j} F_l \right ]^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}} \Bigg |\\
1253: \le \left | {\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}* \left ( {\bf p}^{{\bf j}'} h_{l_1} \right
1254: ) \right | * \left |
1255: \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,\bf |j|} \left [
1256: {\bf p}^{\bf j} (F_l + h_l) \right ]^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}} \right | + | ({\bf p}^{{\bf j'}}
1257: F_{l_1})*{\bf g}_{\bf q} |
1258: \end{multline}
1259:
1260: \z
1261: Using Lemma \ref{L4.9.5} and equation (\ref{24.5}), we get the following upper bound
1262: implying the induction step
1263: $$
1264: \left | {\bf g}_{{\bf q} +{\bf \hat{e}}} \right |\le \frac{\left | {\bf p}^{{\bf j}'
1265: + \sum {\bf j} q_{l,{\bf j}}} \right | e^{\nu |{\bf p}|}}{M_0^d \prod_i (1+|p_i|^2)}
1266: \left ( \| {\bf F} \|_\nu + \| {\bf h} \|_\nu \right )^{\sum q_{l,{\bf j}}}
1267: \big\| |{\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}|*|{\bf h}| \big\|_\nu
1268: $$
1269: $$
1270: +\frac{\left |{\bf p}^{{\bf j}'+ \sum {\bf j} q_{l,{\bf j}}} \right|
1271: |\mathbf q| e^{\nu |{\bf p}|}}{M_0^d \prod_i (1+|p_i|^2)}
1272: \left ( \| {\bf F} \|_\nu + \| {\bf h} \|_\nu \right )^{|\mathbf q| - 1}
1273: \|{\bf F}\|_\nu
1274: \big\| |{\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}} |*|{\bf h}| \big\|_\nu
1275: $$
1276: $$
1277: \le \frac{|{\bf p}^{\sum {\bf j} (q_{l,{\bf j}}+e_{l,{\bf j}})} (|{\bf q}+{\bf
1278: \hat{e}}| e^{\nu |{\bf p}|}}{\prod_i M_0^d \prod_i (1+|p_i|^2)}
1279: \left ( \| {\bf F} \|_\nu +
1280: \| {\bf h} \|_\nu \right )^{|\bf q| } \big\| |{\bf
1281: B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}|*|{\bf h}| \big\|_\nu $$
1282: \end{proof}
1283:
1284:
1285: \begin{Lemma}
1286: \label{L8}
1287: For ${\bf F}$ and ${\bf h}$ in ${\cal A}_\phi$, $\nu >4 \rho_0 + 4$,
1288: \begin{multline*}
1289: \Bigg | {\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}
1290: *\Big({\bf F} + {\bf h}\Big)^{*{\bf k}}*\sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,\bf |j|}
1291: \left ({\bf p}^{\bf j} (F_l + h_l) \right )^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}} -
1292: {\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}
1293: *{\bf F}^{*{\bf k}}*\sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,\bf |j|}
1294: \left ({\bf p}^{\bf j} F_l \right )^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}} \Bigg |
1295: \end{multline*}
1296: \begin{equation}\label {25}
1297: \le \frac{\left | {\bf p}^{\sum {\bf j} q_{l,{\bf j}}} \right |
1298: (|\mathbf q|+|{\bf k}|)
1299: e^{\nu |{\bf p}|}}{M_0^d \prod_i (1+|p_i|^2)}
1300: \left ( \| {\bf F} \|_\nu
1301: + \| {\bf h} \|_\nu \right )^{|{\bf k}|+|\mb q| - 1}
1302: \| |{\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}|*|{\bf h}| \|_\nu
1303: \end{equation}
1304:
1305: \z if $({\bf q},{\bf k}) \ne (\bf 0,0)$ and is zero otherwise.
1306: \end{Lemma}
1307:
1308:
1309: \bigskip
1310: \begin{proof}
1311: It is clear from (\ref{23}) that the left side of (\ref{25}) is simply
1312: $$ \left | {\bf h}_{\bf k} * \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,\bf |j|}
1313: \left ( {\bf p}^{\bf j} (F_l + h_l ) \right )^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}}
1314: +{\bf F}^{*{\bf k}}*{\bf g}_{\bf q} \right | $$
1315: However, from Corollary \ref{4.7.8}, Lemmas \ref{L4.7.9} and \ref{L7},
1316: \begin{multline*}
1317: \!\!\! \!\!\! \left | {\bf h}_{\bf k} \!*\!\!\!\sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,\bf |j|}
1318: \left ( {\bf p}^{\bf j} (F_l + h_l ) \right )^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}} \right |
1319: \le \frac{\left | {\bf p}^{\sum {\bf j} q_{l,{\bf j}}} \right |
1320: |{\bf k}| e^{\nu |{\bf p}|}}{M_0^d \prod_i (1+|p_i|^2)}
1321: \left ( \| {\bf F} \|_\nu
1322: + \| {\bf h} \|_\nu \right )^{|{\bf k}|+|\mb q| - 1}
1323: \big\| |{\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}|*|{\bf h}| \big\|_\nu
1324: \end{multline*}
1325: and from Corollary \ref{4.7.8}, Lemmas \ref{L4.7.9} and \ref{L7.5},
1326:
1327:
1328: $$ \left | {\bf F}^{*{\bf k}}*{\bf g}_{\bf q} \right | \le
1329: \frac{\left| {\bf p}^{\sum {\bf j} q_{l,{\bf j}}} \right |
1330: |\mb q|e^{\nu |{\bf p}|}}{M_0^d
1331: \prod_i (1+|p_i|^2)} \left ( \| {\bf F} \|_\nu + \| {\bf h} \|_\nu \right
1332: )^{|{\bf k}|+|\mb q| - 1} \big\| |{\bf B}_{{\bf
1333: q},{\bf k}}|*|{\bf h} | \big\|_\nu $$
1334:
1335: \z Combining these two inequalities, the
1336: proof of the lemma follows. \end{proof}
1337:
1338: \bigskip
1339: \begin{Lemma}
1340: \label{L8.9}
1341: For $\nu >4 \rho_0 + 4$ we have
1342: \begin{multline}
1343: \left\| \int_0^t e^{-\mathcal{P} (-{\bf p}) (t-\tau)}
1344: \left [ {\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}
1345: *\Big({\bf F} + {\bf h}\Big)^{*{\bf k}}*\sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,\bf |j|}
1346: \left ({\bf p}^{\bf j} (F_l + h_l) \right )^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}}\right.\right.\\\left.\left.-
1347: {\bf B}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}}
1348: *{\bf F}^{*{\bf k}}*\sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l,\bf |j|}
1349: \left ({\bf p}^{\bf j} F_l \right )^{*q_{l,{\bf j}}} \right ] d\tau \right\|_\nu \\
1350: \le \tilde{A}_b (T)
1351: C(\phi) (|\mb q|+|{\bf k}|)
1352: \left ( \| {\bf F} \|_\nu
1353: + \| {\bf h} \|_\nu \right )^{|{\bf k}| +|\mb q| - 1}
1354: \left ( \frac{\nu}{4} \right )^{
1355: -d \alpha_{\bf q}} \| {\bf h} \|_\nu
1356: \end{multline}
1357: \end{Lemma}
1358:
1359: \begin{proof} This follows from Corollary \ref{C3} and Lemma
1360: \ref{L8} and the definition of $\| \cdot \|_\nu$ together with the
1361: bounds (\ref{eq:28.5.0}) and (\ref{eq:28.5}). \end{proof}
1362: \begin{Lemma}
1363: \label{L10}
1364:
1365: For ${\bf F} \in {\cal A}_\phi$, and $\nu >4 \rho_0 + \alpha_r+3$ large
1366: enough,
1367: (see Note after Definition
1368: (\ref{D1})), ${\mathcal N} ({\bf F}) $ defined in (\ref{14}) satisfies
1369: the following bounds
1370: \begin{equation}\label{26.8}
1371: \| {\mathcal N} ({\bf F}) \|_\nu \le \|{\bf F}_0 \|_\nu
1372: + C(\phi) \tilde{A}_b (T)
1373: {\sum_{{\bf q} \succeq 0}}' \sum_{{\bf k} \succeq 0}
1374: \left ( \frac{\nu}{4}
1375: \right )^{-d \alpha_{\bf q}} \|\mathbf F \|_\nu^{|\mb q|+|\mb k|}
1376: \end{equation}
1377:
1378:
1379: \begin{multline} \label{26.9}
1380: \| {\mathcal N} ({\bf F} + {\bf h}) - {\mathcal N} ({\bf F}) \|_\nu
1381: \le C(\phi) \tilde{A}_b (T) \| {\bf h} \|_\nu \times \\
1382: {\sum_{{\bf q} \succeq 0}}' \sum_{{\bf k} \succeq 0}
1383: \left ( \frac{\nu}{4} \right )^{
1384: - d \alpha_{\bf q} } ( |\mb q| + | {\bf k} | )
1385: \left ( \| {\bf F} \|_\nu + \| {\bf h} \|_\nu \right )^{|\mb q|
1386: + |{\bf k}| - 1}
1387: \end{multline}
1388: \end{Lemma}
1389:
1390: \begin{proof}
1391: The proofs are immediate from the expression (\ref{14}) of
1392: ${\mathcal N} ({\bf F})$ and Lemmas \ref{L6}, \ref{L7} and
1393: \ref{L8.9}.
1394: Note also that the sum with respect to ${\bf
1395: q}$ only involves finitely many terms, see (\ref{eq:cond1}).
1396:
1397: \end{proof}
1398:
1399:
1400:
1401: \bigskip
1402:
1403:
1404: \begin{Remark}
1405: \label{rem7}
1406: Lemma \ref{L10} is the key to showing the
1407: existence and uniqueness of a solution in ${\cal A}_\phi$ to (\ref{14}),
1408: since it provides the conditions for the nonlinear operator ${\mathcal
1409: N}$ to map a ball into itself as well the necessary contractivity
1410: condition.
1411: \end{Remark}
1412:
1413: \bigskip
1414: \begin{Lemma}
1415: \label{L11}
1416: If there exists some $b >1$ so that
1417: \begin{equation}\label{29}
1418: b \| \mathbf F_0 \|_\nu < 1\end{equation}
1419: \z and
1420: \begin{equation}\label{29.01}
1421: C(\phi) \tilde{A}_b (T) {\sum_{{\bf q} \succeq 0}}' \sum_{{\bf k} \succeq 0}
1422: \left (\frac{\nu}{4}
1423: \right )^{-d \alpha_{\bf q}}
1424: \| b {\bf F}_0 \|_{\nu}^{|{\bf k}|+|\mb q|}
1425: <1 - \frac{1}{b}
1426: \end{equation}
1427: then the nonlinear mapping ${\mathcal N}$, as defined in (\ref{14}), maps a ball of
1428: radius $b \| {\bf F}_0 \|_\nu$ into itself. Furthermore, if
1429: \begin{equation} \label{29.1}
1430: C(\phi) \tilde{A}_b (T) {\sum_{{\bf q} \succeq 0}}' \sum_{{\bf k} \succeq 0}
1431: (|{\bf q}|+|{\bf k}|) \left (\frac{\nu}{4}
1432: \right )^{-d \alpha_{\bf q}}
1433: {(3 b)}^{|{\bf k}|+|\mb q|-1}
1434: \| {\bf F}_0
1435: \|_{\nu}^{|{\bf k}|+|\mb q|-1}
1436: <1
1437: \end{equation}
1438: then ${\mathcal N}$ is a contraction there.
1439: \end{Lemma}
1440:
1441: \begin{proof}
1442: This is a simple application of Lemma~\ref{L10},
1443: if we note that in the ball of radius $ b \| {\bf F}_0 \|$,
1444: $ \|{\bf F} \|_\nu^k < b^k \| {\bf F}_0 \|_\nu^k $
1445: and using in (\ref{26.9}) the fact that
1446: $\| {\bf F} \|_\nu + \| {\bf h} \|_\nu \le 3 b \|{\bf F}_0 \|_\nu $
1447: if $\max\{\|{\bf F}\|_\nu,\|{\bf F} + {\bf h}\|_\nu\}<b\|\mb F_0\|$.
1448: \end{proof}
1449:
1450:
1451: \bigskip
1452: \begin{Lemma}
1453: \label{L12}
1454: Consider $T >0$ and $\phi\in (0, (2n)^{-1}\pi)$ so that
1455: (\ref{condnew}) is satisfied. Then,
1456: for all sufficiently
1457: large $\nu$, there exists a unique ${\bf F} \in {\cal A}_\phi$ that
1458: satisfies the integral equation (\ref{14}).
1459: \end{Lemma}
1460:
1461: \begin{proof}
1462: We choose $b=2$ for definiteness. It is clear from the bounds on
1463: $\|{\bf F}_0 \|_\nu$ in Lemma \ref{L3}
1464: that for given $T$, since $\alpha_r \ge
1465: 1$, we have $ b \|{\bf F}_0 \|_\nu <1$ for all
1466: $\nu $ large. Further, it is clear by inspection that all conditions
1467: (\ref{29}), (\ref{29.01}) and (\ref{29.1}) are satisfied for all
1468: sufficiently large $\nu$. The lemma now follows from the contractive
1469: mapping theorem. \end{proof}
1470:
1471: \subsection{Behavior of $^s\!\mathbf F$ near $\mathbf p=0$}
1472:
1473: In the following proposition, we denote by
1474: $^s\!\mathbf F$ the solution $\bf F$ of Lemma
1475: \ref{L12}.
1476:
1477: \begin{Proposition}
1478: \label{AsymptAtp=0} For some $K_1>0$ and small ${\bf p}$ we have
1479: $|^s\!\mathbf F|\le K_1|{\bf p^1}|^{\alpha_r-1} $ and thus
1480: $|^s\!\mathbf f|\le K_2
1481: |{\bf x^1}|^{-\alpha_r}$ for some $K_2>0$ in ${\cal D}_{\phi,\rho}$ as
1482: $|{\bf x}|\rightarrow\infty$.
1483: \end{Proposition}
1484: \begin{proof}
1485: The idea of the proof is to note that, once we have found $^s\!{\bf F}$,
1486: this function also satisfies in a neighborhood
1487: of the origin $\overline{\mathcal{S}}_a=\overline{\mathcal{S}}\cap \{{\bf p}:\,|p_i|\le a_i \}$
1488: a linear equation of the form
1489: \begin{equation}
1490: \label{29.2}
1491: ^s\!{\bf F}=\mathcal{G}\, (^s\!{\bf F})+{\bf F}_0\ \ \mbox{\rm or }\ \
1492: ^s\!{\bf F}=(1-\mathcal{G})^{-1}{\bf F}_0
1493: \end{equation}
1494: where, of course, ${\cal G}$ depends on the previously found $^s\!{\bf
1495: F}$; there are many choices of ${\cal G}$ that work. Every term in
1496: the sum in (\ref{14}) is a convolution product; in each of them we
1497: replace all but one component of $\mathbf{F}$ by the corresponding
1498: component of $\mathbf{^sF}$; ${\cal G} {\bf F}$ is defined as the sum
1499: of the terms thus constructed. Estimates of the form used for
1500: Lemma~\ref{L10} show uniform convergence of the sum for large enough
1501: $\nu$ (or small $\bf a$). The result is a $\mathcal{G}$ as below,
1502: where the sum over $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ contains only finitely many
1503: terms and which has manifestly small norm if $\bf a$ is small (or
1504: $\nu$ is large)
1505: \begin{equation}
1506: \label{eq:defcalg}
1507: {\cal G} {\bf F} = \int_0^{t} e^{-\mathcal{P} (-{\bf p}) (t-\tau)}
1508: \left [ \sum_{l}
1509: {\bf G}_l * F_l + \sum_{\boldsymbol \mu}{\bf {\hat G}}_{\boldsymbol \mu}
1510: *\left ( (-{\bf p})^{\boldsymbol \mu} F_{l_{\boldsymbol \mu}} \right ) \right ] d\tau
1511: \end{equation}
1512: By (\ref{2}), (\ref{5.1}), (\ref{15}) and Lemma~\ref{L1}, we see that
1513: $\|{\bf F}_0\|_{\infty}\le K_3 \left | {\bf a}^{\alpha_r-1} \right |$
1514: in $\overline{\mathcal{S}}_{\bf a}$ for some $K_3>0$ independent of
1515: ${\bf a}$. Then, from (\ref{29.2}) for small enough $|{\bf
1516: a}|$, we have
1517:
1518: $$\max_{\overline{\mathcal{S}}_a}|^s\!{\bf F}(p,t)|=\|^s\!{\bf F}\|\le
1519: (1-\|\mathcal{G}\|)^{-1}\max_{\overline{\mathcal{S}}_a}\|{\bf
1520: F}_0\|\le 2K_3 |{\bf a}^{\alpha_r-1} |$$
1521: \z and thus for small
1522: $|{\bf p}|$, we have $|{\bf F}({\bf p},t)|\le 2K_3 \left | {\bf
1523: p}^{\alpha_r-1} \right |$ and the proposition follows. Indeed, the
1524: arguments also show that that the same estimates hold when any
1525: component $p_i \rightarrow 0$, if the others are bounded.
1526: \end{proof}
1527:
1528: \subsection{End of proof of Theorem~\ref{T1}.}
1529: Lemma~\ref{L1} shows that if ${\bf f}$ is a solution of
1530: (\ref{1.a}) satisfying $|{\bf x}^{\bf 1} | |{\bf f}| \le A(T)$ for
1531: ${\bf x} \in \mathcal{D}_{\phi, \rho, {\bf x}}$,
1532: then ${{\mathcal{L}^{-1}}}
1533: \{{\bf f}\}\in \mathcal{A}_{\phi-\delta}$ for $ 0 < \delta < \phi$
1534: for $\nu$ sufficiently large. For large enough
1535: $\rho$, the series (\ref{3})
1536: converges uniformly for ${\bf x} \in \mathcal{D}_{\phi, \rho, {\bf x}}$
1537: and thus ${\bf F}={{\mathcal{L}^{-1}}} \{{\bf
1538: f}\}$ satisfies (\ref{14}), which by Lemma~\ref{L12} has a unique
1539: solution in $\mathcal{A_\phi}$ for any $\phi$ $\in$ $(0,
1540: ~(2n)^{-1}\pi)$ for which (\ref{condnew}) holds. Conversely, if
1541: $^s\!{\bf F}\in\mathcal{A}_{\tilde \phi}$ is the solution of
1542: (\ref{14}) for $\nu>\nu_1$, then, for sufficiently large $\rho$,
1543: $^s\!{\bf f}=\mathcal{L}\,^s\!{\bf F}$ is analytic in ${\bf x}$ in
1544: $\mathcal{D}_{\phi,\rho}$ for $0< \phi < {\tilde \phi} <
1545: {(2n)^{-1}\pi} $ (cf. Remark~\ref{rem5}). Proposition
1546: \ref{AsymptAtp=0} shows that $^s\!\mathbf f=O({\bf x}^{-{\bf \alpha_r}
1547: })$ and entails uniform convergence of the series in (\ref{1.a}).
1548: By the properties of Laplace transforms, $^s\!{\bf f} $ solves the
1549: problem (\ref{1.a}).
1550:
1551:
1552:
1553: \section{Borel summability of formal solutions to the PDE}\label{B}
1554: We now assume Condition 1 in addition to Assumption 1. In our
1555: approach it was technically convenient to use oversummation, in that
1556: the inverse Laplace transform was performed with respect to
1557: $\mathbf{x}$. Showing Borel summability in the appropriate variable
1558: ($\mathbf{x}^{\frac{n}{n-1}}$, as explained) requires further
1559: arguments.
1560: \subsection{Behavior of $\mathbf{F}$ for large $|\bf p|$ outside $\mathcal{S}_\phi$}\label{701} For the purpose of showing Borel summability of formal series solutions we need to control
1561: $\mathbf{F}$ for large $|\bf p|$ uniformly in $\CC^d$. For this
1562: purpose we introduce two other Banach spaces, relevant to the
1563: properties we are aiming to show. Firstly, let
1564: $\mathfrak{B}(\nu,n,\mathcal{S})$ be the Banach space of functions
1565: analytic in the sector $\mathcal{S}=\{\mathbf{p}:|p_i|>0, \arg(p_i)\in
1566: (a_i,b_i)\}$ and continuous in its closure, where $b_i-a_i$ will be
1567: chosen larger than $2\pi N_i$ (cf. Condition~\ref{Cond 2})
1568: The Banach space is equipped with the norm
1569: \begin{equation}
1570: \label{normnu,n}
1571: \|\boldsymbol{\Psi}\|_{\nu n}=\sup_{\mb p\in\mathcal S;t\in[0,T]}\left|\boldsymbol{\Psi}({\bf p},t)e^{-\nu (t+1) \sum_{j}(|p_j|+|p_j|^n)}\right|
1572: \end{equation}
1573:
1574: \begin{Lemma}\label{combined}
1575: For any intervals $(a_i, b_i), $ $ i=1,...,d$ the solution $\mathbf{F}$
1576: of (\ref{14}) given in Lemma ~\ref{L12} is in
1577: $\mathfrak{B}(\nu,n,\mathcal{S})$.
1578: \end{Lemma}
1579: \begin{proof}
1580: Because of the obvious embeddings, it suffices to show that for any
1581: $\mathcal{S}$, (\ref{14}) has a unique solution in
1582: $\mathfrak{B}(\nu,n,\mathcal{S})$. The proof of this property is
1583: very close to that of Lemma~\ref{L12}, after adaptations of the
1584: inequalities to the new norms, which are explained in the Appendix,
1585: \S\ref{Proof37}.
1586: \end{proof}
1587:
1588: \subsection{Ramification of $\mathbf{F}$ at $\bf p=0$ and global properties} \label{703}
1589: We define $\mathfrak{B}(\nu,n,\epsilon_1)$ to be the Banach space of functions
1590: defined on $S_{\epsilon_1}^d=\{\mathbf{p}:\max_{i}|p_i|\le \epsilon_1\}$
1591: in the norm (\ref{normnu,n}) with $\mathcal{S}$ replaced by
1592: $S_{\epsilon_1}^d$.
1593: \begin{Lemma}\label{Deco}
1594: Let
1595: \begin{equation}
1596: \label{ramF}
1597: {G}(\mathbf{p})=\sum_{\mb 0\preceq \mb j\prec \mb N}
1598: p_1^{\frac{j_1}{N_1}}\cdots p_{{d}}^{\frac{j_{{d}}}{N_{{d}}}}{A}_{j_1,...,j_{{d}}}(\mathbf{p})
1599: \end{equation}
1600: where $ {A}_{j_1,...,j_{{d}}}$ are analytic at $\mathbf{p}=0$. Then the
1601: functions $ {A}_{j_1,...,j_{{d}}}$ are unique and for some constants
1602: $C_1$ and $C_2$ and large $\mathbf{p}$ we have
1603: \begin{equation}
1604: \label{est45}
1605: |{A}_{j_1,...,j_{{d}}}(\mathbf{p})|\le C_1|\mathbf{p}|^{C_2}\max_{\mb 0\preceq \mb j\prec\mb N} \left|G(p_1e^{2j_1\pi i},...,p_de^{2j_d\pi i})\right|
1606: \end{equation}
1607: In particular, in $S_1^d$ we have, for some constants
1608: $C_3$ and $C_4$,
1609: \begin{multline}
1610: \label{est47}
1611: C_3
1612: \max_{\mb 0\preceq \mb j\prec\mb N} \sup_{|\mathbf{p}|\in S_1^d}\left|G(p_1e^{2j_1\pi i},...,p_de^{2j_d\pi i})\right|\\
1613: \le \sup_{|\mathbf{p}|\in S_1^d}|{A}_{j_1,...,j_{{d}}}(\mathbf{p})|\le C_4
1614: \max_{\mb 0\preceq \mb j\prec\mb N} \sup_{|\mathbf{p}|\in S_1^d}\left|G(p_1e^{2j_1\pi i},...,p_de^{2j_d\pi i})\right|
1615: \end{multline}
1616: \end{Lemma}
1617: \begin{Remark}\label{R00}
1618: We note that in (\ref{est45}) the order of analytic continuations is
1619: immaterial.
1620: \end{Remark}
1621: \begin{proof}
1622: The proof is by induction on ${{d}}$. We take ${{d}}\ge 1$, assume
1623: (\ref{Deco}) with $A_{\mb j}$ analytic and write
1624: $\mathbf{p}=(p_1,\mb p^\perp)$. We have
1625: \begin{multline}
1626: \label{ramF1}
1627: {G}(\mathbf{p})=\sum_{0\le j_{1}<N_{1}} p_{1}^{\frac{j_1}{N_1}}\left(\sum_{\{j_m<N_m;m=2,...,d\}}
1628: p_2^{\frac{j_2}{N_2}}\cdots p_{d}^{\frac{j_{d}}{N_{d}}}{A}_{j_1,...,j_{{d}}}(\mathbf{p})\right)\\=:\sum_{0\le j_{{1}}<N_{{1}}} p_{{1}}^{\frac{j_{{1}}}{N_{{1}}}}G_{j_{{1}}}(p_1,\mb p^\perp)
1629: \end{multline}
1630: (with the convention that $G_{j_1}=A_{j_1}$ if $d=1$). We write the system
1631: \begin{equation}
1632: \label{rot}
1633: {G}(p_1e^{2 k\pi i},\mb p^\perp)=\sum_{0\le j_{{1}}<N_{{1}}}e^{2 kj_{{1}}\pi i/N_{{1}}} p_{{1}}^{\frac{j_{{1}}}{N_{{1}}}}G_{j_{{1}}}(p_1,\mb p^\perp);\ \
1634: k=0,1,...,N_{{1}}-1
1635: \end{equation}
1636: which has nonzero Vandermonde determinant, from which
1637: $G_{j_{{1}}}(p_1,\mb p^\perp)$ are uniquely determined, which in turn,
1638: by the induction hypothesis determine $ {A}_{j_1,...,j_{{d}}}$, with
1639: the required estimates.
1640: \end{proof}
1641:
1642: \begin{Lemma}\label{dec1}
1643: Under the assumption 1 and condition 1, the solution in
1644: Lemma \ref{L12} can be decomposed as follows:
1645: \begin{equation}
1646: \label{ramF2}
1647: \mathbf{F}(\mathbf{p},t)=\sum_{\mb 0\preceq \mathbf{j}\prec \mathbf{N}}
1648: p_1^{\frac{j_1}{N_1}}\cdots p_d^{\frac{j_d}{N_d}}\mathbf{A}_\mathbf{j}(\mathbf{p},t)
1649: \end{equation}
1650: where $
1651: \mathbf{A}_\mathbf{j}(\mathbf{p}, t)\in\mathfrak{B}(\nu,n,\mathcal{S})$
1652: are analytic at $\mathbf{p}=0$. Furthermore, in analyzing the
1653: continuations in restricted sectors $\mb{p}e^{2\pi i
1654: \mathbf{j}}\in\mathcal{S}_\phi$ we have for some $\nu$, in the
1655: norm defined in (\ref{16} ) (cf. also Remark~\ref{R00})
1656: \begin{equation}
1657: \label{trueexp}
1658: \max\left\{\|\mathbf{F}(\cdot e^{2\pi i \mathbf{j}},\cdot)\|_\nu,
1659: \{\|\mathbf{A_j}(\cdot,\cdot) \|_{\nu}\};\mb 0\preceq \mathbf{j}\prec
1660: \mathbf{N}\right\}=K<\infty
1661: \end{equation}
1662: \end{Lemma}
1663: \begin{proof}
1664: We consider the equation (\ref{14}) on $\mathfrak{B}(\nu,n,
1665: \mathcal{S})^{\tilde{N}}$ where $\tilde{N}$ counts the
1666: $\mathbf{A}_{\bf j} (\cdot,t)$ via the decomposition
1667: (\ref{ramF2}). Noting that
1668: \begin{equation}\label{conviden}
1669: p^{\alpha}*p^{\beta}=
1670: \frac{\Gamma(\alpha+1)\Gamma(\beta+1)}
1671: {\Gamma(\alpha+\beta+2)}p^{\alpha+\beta+1}
1672: \end{equation}
1673: it is straightforward to show that the space of functions of the form
1674: (\ref{ramF}) is stable under convolution. Since $R({\bf p}, t)$ and
1675: therefore ${\bf F}_0 ({\bf p}, t)$ are of the form (\ref{ramF2}) it
1676: follows that $\mathcal{N}$ leaves the space of $\mathbf{F}$ of the
1677: form (\ref{ramF2}) invariant. Using the estimates (\ref{est47}) we see
1678: that $\mathcal{N}$ is well defined in a small ball of radius
1679: $\epsilon_2$ in in $\mathfrak{B}(\nu,n,\mathcal{S})$ and that it is a
1680: contraction there. Therefore the solution to (\ref{14}) is of the
1681: form (\ref{ramF2}). For $\mb{p}e^{2\pi i \mathbf{j}}\in\mathcal{S}_\phi$,
1682: $\|\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{p}e^{2\pi i \mathbf{j}})\|_\nu$ are well
1683: defined. Using again Lemma~\ref{Deco} the first statement follows. To
1684: show finiteness of $\|\mathbf{A}_{\bf j} (\cdot,t) \|_{\nu} $ it
1685: suffices to prove finiteness of $\|\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{p}e^{2\pi i
1686: \mathbf{j}})\|_\nu$. To this end, we note that all these
1687: continuations satisfy equations of the type (\ref{eq:defconv}) with
1688: coefficients satisfying the requirements in \S\ref{S3} and thus the
1689: result follows from Lemma~\ref{L12}.
1690:
1691: \end{proof}
1692: \begin{Lemma}\label{ident2}
1693: Assume $\mb G$ is an entire function of exponential order $n$, more
1694: precisely satisfying the inequality $|\mb G(\mb p)|\le Ce^{\nu|\mb
1695: p|^n}$ for some constants $C,\nu$ and that in a sector
1696: $\mathcal{S}_\phi=\{\mb p:|\mb p|>0,\max_{i}|\arg(p_i)|<\phi\}$, it
1697: grows at most exponentially, $|\mb G(\mb p)|\le Ce^{\nu_1|\mb p|}$.
1698: Then there exists a function $\mb G_1$ increasing at most
1699: exponentially $|\mb G_1(\mb p)|\le Ce^{\nu_2|\mb p|}$ in any proper
1700: subsector of $\mathcal{S}_{\phi_1}$ where $\phi_1 = \frac{\pi}{2
1701: (n-1)} + \frac{n \phi}{n-1}$ and such that $\mb G(\mb z^n)$ is
1702: analytic at $\mb z=0$, such that
1703: \begin{equation}
1704: \label{ident}
1705: \mb g(\mb x):=\int_0^{\infty}e^{-\mb p\cdot \mb x}\mb G(\mb p)d\mb p=\int_0^{\infty}e^{-\mb p\cdot \mb x^{\frac{n}{n-1}}}\mb G_1(\mb p)d\mb p
1706: \end{equation}
1707: \end{Lemma}
1708: \begin{proof}
1709: We start with the case when $\mb G$, $\mb x$ and $\mb p$ are scalar,
1710: the general case following in a quite straightforward way as
1711: outlined at the end.
1712:
1713: The assumptions on $G$ ensure that the first integral in
1714: (\ref{ident}) exists and $g(x)$ has an asymptotic power series in
1715: powers of $x^{-1}$ in a sector of opening $\pi+2\phi$ centered on
1716: $\RR^+$. The function $g_1(x)=g(x^{(n-1)/n})$ has a (noninteger)
1717: power series asymptotics in a sector of opening
1718: $\frac{n}{n-1}(\pi+2\phi)$ and by the general theory of Laplace
1719: transforms, $G_1:=\mathcal{L}^{-1}g_1$ is analytic in a sector of
1720: opening $\frac{n}{n-1}(\pi+2\phi)-\pi$ centered on $\RR^+$, Laplace
1721: transformable, with Laplace transform $g_1$. It follows that
1722: \begin{equation}
1723: \label{formulaG1}
1724: G_1(p)=
1725: \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{c-i\infty}^{c+i\infty}
1726: e^{pu}
1727: \int_0^{\infty}e^{-qu^{(n-1)/n}}G(q)dqdu=:\int_0^{\infty}K_{\frac{n-1}{n}}(p,q)G(q)dq
1728: \end{equation}
1729: We show that $G_1$ has a convergent expansion in powers of $p^{1/n}$
1730: at zero. The function
1731: \begin{equation}
1732: \label{resK}
1733: K_{\frac{n-1}{n}}(p,q)=\left(\frac{q}{p}\right)^n
1734: C_{\frac{n-1}{n}}(q^n/p^{n-1})
1735: \end{equation}
1736: is \'Ecalle's acceleration kernel
1737: \cite{Balser,[E6]}. For $\alpha\in(0,1)$, with $\beta=1-\alpha$,
1738: $c=\beta\alpha^{\alpha/\beta}$, the function $C_\alpha$ is an entire
1739: function and has the following asymptotic behavior \cite{Balser,[E6]}:
1740: \begin{equation}
1741: \label{Ecalleacc2}
1742: C_{\alpha}(x)\sim \frac{\alpha^{\frac{1}{2\beta}}}{\sqrt{2\pi\beta}} x^{1/2}e^{-cx};\ \ |x|\to\infty, \ |\arg x|<\frac{\pi}{2}
1743: \end{equation}
1744: Using (\ref{resK}) we see that
1745: \begin{equation}
1746: \label{resK2}
1747: \int_0^{\infty}K_{\frac{n-1}{n}}(p,q) q^k dq =p^{(nk-k-1)/n}\int_0^\infty s^{k+n} C_{\frac{n-1}{n}} (s^n) ds
1748: \end{equation}
1749: We expand the entire function $G$ in series about the origin,
1750: $G(q)=\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}g_k q^k+R_N(q)$
1751: and note that
1752: \begin{equation}
1753: \label{eq:RN}
1754: |R_N(q)|\le \sum_{k=N}^{\infty}|G^{(k)}(0)||q|^k/k!\le \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}|G^{(k)}(0)||q|^k/k!\le
1755: Ce^{\nu_5 |q|^n}=E(q)
1756: \end{equation}
1757: uniformly in $\CC$. By (\ref{Ecalleacc2}) and (\ref{eq:RN})
1758: $E(q) C_{\alpha}(q^n/p^{n-1})$ is, for small enough $p$, in $L_1[0,\infty]$
1759: in $q$.
1760: By dominated convergence, we have
1761: $$\int_0^{\infty}K_{\frac{n-1}{n}}(p,q)G(q)dq=\lim_{N\to\infty}\int_0^{\infty}K_{\frac{n-1}{n}}(p,q)\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}g_k
1762: q^k dq$$
1763: and, using (\ref{resK2}) it follows that for small $p$, $G_1$
1764: is the sum of a convergent series in powers of $p^{1/n}$, as
1765: stated\footnote{To estimate the radius of convergence of this series
1766: it is convenient to start from the duality (\ref{ident}) and
1767: apply Watson's lemma, using Cauchy's formula on a
1768: circle of radius $k^{1/n}/(n\nu)^{1/n}$ to bound $|\mb G^{(k)}(0)|$ .}.
1769:
1770:
1771: The argument for $d$ variables and vectorial $\mathbf{G}$ is nearly
1772: the same: a vectorial $\bf G$ is treated componentwise, while the
1773: assumptions ensure that the multidimensional integrals involved can be
1774: taken iteratively, the estimates being preserved in the process.
1775:
1776:
1777: \end{proof}
1778:
1779:
1780: Collecting the results of Lemma~\ref{dec1} and Lemma~\ref{ident2}
1781: applied to each of the $\bf A_j$, the proof of Theorem~\ref{TrB}
1782: follows.
1783:
1784: \begin{Note}\label{Opti2}
1785: In the example $\partial_tu+(-\partial_x)^nu=0$ we have
1786: $\phi=\frac{\pi}{2n}$. Formal exponential solutions have the
1787: behavior, to leading order, $\exp\left(c_n
1788: (-x)^{\frac{n}{n-1}}t^{-\frac{1}{n}}\right)$ with
1789: $c_n=(n-1)/4/n^{\frac{n}{n-1}}$ (for all determinations of
1790: $(-x)^{\frac{n}{n-1}}$). This also points to $x^\frac{n}{n-1}$ as
1791: natural variable and indicates that the sector of summability cannot
1792: be improved since it is bordered by (anti)stokes lines.
1793:
1794: \end{Note}
1795:
1796: \section{Short time existence and asymptotics in special cases}
1797: \label{smalltime}
1798:
1799: In some cases, the Borel summation approach can be adapted to study
1800: short time existence of sectorial solutions and study small time
1801: asymptotics. One important application is in the analysis of
1802: singularity formation in PDEs \cite{CPAM3}. For simplicity,
1803: and since some assumptions are less general than in the rest of the
1804: paper, we restrict to $d =1$ (scalar case) in this section.
1805:
1806: We
1807: motivate the assumptions made by looking at a particular example
1808: arising in Hele-Shaw flow with surface tension
1809: \begin{equation}
1810: \label{eqmhdym}
1811: H_t= -\frac{H^3}{2} + H^3 H_{zzz},\ \ H(z, 0) = z^{-1/2}
1812: \end{equation}
1813: the modified Harry-Dym equation (see \cite{TNV}, where it
1814: arises with $\xi=z+t$ (as a local approximation near an initial zero
1815: of the derivative of a conformal mapping).
1816: \subsection{Formal series, preparation of normal form.}\label{FSP}
1817:
1818:
1819: \z {\bf Note:} To simplify notation, in the following we let
1820: $\mathfrak{p}$ stand for generic {\em polynomials}, $\mathfrak{p}^+$
1821: for polynomials with {\em nonnegative coefficients}, and
1822: $\mathfrak{p}_{(n)}$ for polynomials of {\em degree $n$}. Similar
1823: conventions are followed for $\mathfrak{h}$ which represents {\em
1824: homogeneous} polynomials. Substituting in (\ref{eqmhdym}) a
1825: power-series of the form $\sum_{n=0}^\infty t^n H_n (z) $
1826: where $H_0 = z^{-1/2}$ yields the recurrence
1827: \begin{equation}
1828: \label{recurrence}
1829: (n+1) H_n = - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{n_j \ge 0, \sum_{j=1}^3 n_j = n} \!\!\!
1830: H_{n_1} H_{n_2} H_{n_3}
1831: +\!\!\! \sum_{n_j \ge 0, \sum_{j=1}^4 n_j = n} \!\!\!H_{n_1} H_{n_2} H_{n_3}
1832: H_{n_4}^{\prime \prime \prime}
1833: \end{equation}
1834: which inductively shows that $H_n= z^{-1/2} \mathfrak{h}_{(n)} (
1835: z^{-9/2}, z^{-1} )$. We let
1836: \begin{equation}
1837: \label{A0.2.3}
1838: g_N(x,t):=\sum_{k=0}^Nt^nH_n(z)=x^{-1/3}\sum_{n=0}^N \mathfrak{h}_{(n)}(tx^{-3},tx^{-2/3});\text{ where }x = \frac{2}{3} z^{3/2}
1839: \end{equation}
1840: In terms of $x$, (\ref{eqmhdym}) becomes,
1841: \begin{equation}
1842: \mathcal{N} (H):=H_t+\frac{1}{2}H^3-\frac{3x}{2}H^3 H_{xxx}
1843: -\frac{3}{2}H^3H_{xx}+\frac{1}{6x}H^3H_x=0
1844: \end{equation}
1845: It is straightforwardly shown that
1846: \begin{equation}
1847: \label{eq:eqA02}
1848: \mathcal{N} g_N(x,t)
1849: = t^{-1} x^{-\frac{1}{3}} \mathfrak{p}_{(4 N+1)} (t x^{-3}, t x^{-2/3} )
1850: \end{equation}
1851: where for small $x_1,x_2$ we have moreover
1852: \begin{equation}
1853: \label{hm2}
1854: \mathfrak{p}_{(4 N+1)} (x_1,x_2) = \mathfrak{h}_{(N+1)} (x_1,x_2) \left [ 1 + O(x_1,x_2) \right ]
1855: \end{equation}
1856: It is then natural to substitute :
1857: \begin{equation}
1858: \label{eqHf}
1859: ~H(z(x) ,t) = g_N(x, t) + x^{-2} f(x,t)
1860: \end{equation}
1861: into (\ref{eqmhdym}); we choose without loss of generality $N \ge 3$.
1862:
1863:
1864: It will
1865: follow from the analysis that $ |f(x, t)| =o\left ( x^{5/3}
1866: \mathfrak{h}_{(N)} \left ( t x^{-3}, t x^{-2/3} \right )\right ) $
1867: for small $t^{1/3}x^{-1}$ with $\arg x \in \left (-\frac{\pi}{2} -
1868: \phi, \frac{\pi}{2} + \phi \right ) $ and
1869: $\phi\in(0,\frac{\pi}{6})$, thus $H\sim \sum_{n=0}^\infty t^n H_n (z) $
1870: for small $t^{1/3}x^{-1}$ (see Corollary~\ref{mhdym}).
1871:
1872: Substitution shows that $f (x, t)$ satisfies an equation of the form
1873: (\ref{1.a}), with $n=3$ (third order, $m=1$ (scalar case), with (cf.
1874: also (\ref{3}), and (\ref{valpha}) below)
1875: \begin{equation}
1876: \label{eq:eqA2}
1877: r(x, t) = t^{-1} x^{5/3} \mathfrak{p}_{(4 N+1)} (t x^{-3}, t x^{-2/3});\ \
1878: b_{{\bf q}, k} = x^{-\beta k} \sum_{j=1}^{J_{\bf q}}
1879: x^{-\alpha_{{\bf q},k}}
1880: \mathfrak{p}_{{\bf q}, k; j} (t x^{-3}, t x^{-2/3} )
1881: \end{equation}
1882: {\bf Note:} By (\ref{hm2}), $r(x, t)$ is small for small $t$ or large
1883: $x$, in spite of the prefactor $t^{-1} x^{5/3}$.
1884:
1885: \subsection{More general setting.}\label{MGS}
1886:
1887: \z {\bf Setting 1.}
1888: We take $\rho_0 = 0$, suitable for algebraic initial
1889: conditions in the domain, and consider the domain $\mathcal{D}_{\phi,
1890: 0, x} $, with $\phi < \frac{\pi}{2n}$ small enough to ensure
1891: (\ref{condnew}). Taking ${\bf f}
1892: (x, t) - {\bf f}_I (x) $ as the unknown function we may assume
1893: $$ {\bf f}_I (x) = {\bf 0} $$
1894: (see Note 3 after Theorem~\ref{Tasympt}) and require that
1895: \begin{equation}
1896: \label{eq:eqr}
1897: | {\bf r} (x, t) | \le
1898: t^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{J_r} |x|^{\omega_{j}} \mathfrak{h}^+_{(n'_j)} \left (
1899: t^{\gamma_1} |x|^{-\beta_1}, ....,t^{\gamma_K} |x|^{-\beta_K} \right )
1900: \end{equation}
1901: where the degrees $n'_j$ satisfy
1902: \begin{equation}
1903: \label{eq:eqn'}
1904: {n'}_j \beta_l - \omega_j \ge 1 ,\\ ~{\rm for} ~1 \le l \le K, ~1 \le j \le J_r
1905: \end{equation}
1906: (As before, (\ref{eq:eqn'}) implies
1907: that $r(x, t)$ is small for large $x$ or small $t$).
1908: The positive constants $\omega_1$, $\omega_2$, ...,$\omega_{J_r}$,
1909: $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$, ...,$\beta_K$ and $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$,
1910: ...,$\gamma_K$, are restricted by the
1911: condition
1912: \begin{equation}
1913: \label{eqhatn}
1914: {\hat n} :=\frac{\beta_1}{\gamma_1} \ge n
1915: \end{equation}
1916: The labeling is chosen so that
1917: \begin{equation}
1918: \label{eqorder}
1919: {\hat n} =\frac{\beta_1}{\gamma_1} \ge \frac{\beta_2}{\gamma_2}
1920: ....\ge \frac{\beta_K}{\gamma_K}
1921: \end{equation}
1922: Also, if for some $1 \le j \le K-1$, $
1923: \frac{\beta_j}{\gamma_j} = \frac{\beta_{j+1}}{\gamma_{j+1}} $, we
1924: arrange $\beta_{j} > \beta_{j+1}$. The $\omega_j$ are arranged
1925: increasingly:
1926: \begin{equation}
1927: \label{eqomorder}
1928: \omega_1 < \omega_2 < .... < \omega_{J_r}
1929: \end{equation}
1930: Furthermore,
1931: for any $x \in \mathcal{D}_{\phi,0, x}$, we require
1932: \begin{equation}
1933: \label{eq:eqbqk}
1934: | {\bf b}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} (x, t) | \le |x|^{-\beta | {\bf k} | }
1935: \sum_{j=1}^{J_{\bf q}} |x|^{-\alpha_{{\bf q}, j}} \mathfrak{p}^+_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}, j}
1936: \left (
1937: t^{\gamma_1} |x|^{-\beta_1}, ....,t^{\gamma_K} |x|^{-\beta_K} \right )
1938: \end{equation}
1939: \begin{equation}
1940: \label{eq:alphaqorder}
1941: \beta > 0 ~,~\\ ~~~\alpha_{{\bf q}, 1} > \alpha_{{\bf q}, 2} > ... >
1942: \alpha_{{\bf q}, J_{\bf q}} ~~;\ ~~
1943: \mb b_{\bf q, k}\ne 0\Rightarrow \alpha_{\bf q, j} + \beta |{\bf k} | \ge 0
1944: \end{equation}
1945: If only finitely many
1946: ${\bf b}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}}$ are nonzero we allow
1947: \begin{equation}
1948: \label{betage0}
1949: \beta \ge 0
1950: \end{equation}
1951: We also require that for all ${\bf q}$, ${\bf k}$ for which
1952: ${\bf b}_{\bf q, k} \ne 0$ we have
1953: \begin{equation}
1954: \label{eqcond}
1955: m_{\bf q,k}:={\hat n} +
1956: \omega_1 ( |\mb q| - 1)
1957: -\alpha_{{\bf q}, 1} + (\omega_1 - \beta) | {\bf k} | -
1958: \frac{\hat n}{n} \sum_{j,l} j q_{l,j} \ge 0
1959: \end{equation}
1960:
1961: {\bf Note:} Assumption (\ref{eqcond}) is satisfied by modified
1962: Harry-Dym and by certain classes of nonlinear PDEs and initial
1963: conditions-- for instance, the thin-film equation $h_t + (h^3
1964: h_{xxx})_x = 0$, with singular initial condition $h(x, 0) =
1965: x^{-\alpha}$ for $\alpha > 0$, but is generally quite restrictive.
1966: Weakening it requires more substantial modifications of the framework
1967: and will not be discussed here.
1968:
1969: {\bf Setting 2.} Better properties are obtained under the assumptions
1970: described below.
1971: \bigskip
1972: \begin{equation}
1973: \label{efb}
1974: \begin{tabular}{lllllll}
1975: $ {\hat n} = n $\\ \\
1976: $ \mathcal{P} (-s) = s^n $\\ \\
1977: $ {\bf r} (x, t) =
1978: \frac{1}{t} \sum_{j=1}^{J_r} x^{\omega_{j}} {\bf \mathfrak{a}}_{j} \left (
1979: t^{\gamma_1} x^{-\beta_1}, ....,t^{\gamma_K} x^{-\beta_K} \right ) $\\ \\
1980: $ {\bf b}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} (x, t) = x^{-\beta |{\bf k}| }
1981: \sum_{j=1}^{J_{\bf q}} x^{-\alpha_{{\bf q}, j}} {\bf \mathfrak{a}}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}, j}
1982: \left ( t^{\gamma_1} x^{-\beta_1}, ....,t^{\gamma_K} x^{-\beta_K} \right ) $
1983: \end{tabular}
1984: \end{equation}
1985:
1986: \bigskip
1987:
1988: \z where ${\bf \mathfrak{a}}_j$, ${\bf \mathfrak{a}}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k},
1989: j}$ are {\em analytic} near the origin and for
1990: small $|\bf z|$ we require, with the same restriction (\ref{eq:eqn'}) on $n'_j$,
1991: \begin{equation}
1992: \label{eq:eqQnew}
1993: |\mathfrak{a}_{j} (\mb z)| \le \mathfrak{h}^+_{(n'_j)}(|z_1|,...,|z_n|)
1994: \end{equation}
1995: The restrictions on the numbers $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$, ...$\beta_K$,
1996: $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$, ...$\gamma_K$, $\alpha_{{\bf q}, j}$, etc.
1997: are as in Setting 1. Furthermore, we assume that there is an
1998: $\omega\in\RR^+$ so that the nonnegative numbers
1999: \begin{equation}\label{eqrational}
2000: m_{\bf q,k},\ \omega_2 - \omega_1,...,\omega_{J_r} - \omega_1,\ \alpha_{{\bf q},1}- \alpha_{{\bf q}, 2},..., \alpha_{{\bf q}, 1}-\alpha_{{\bf q}, J_{\bf q}},\ n
2001: \gamma_2-\beta_2,...,n\gamma_K - \beta_K
2002: \end{equation}
2003: are {\em integer multiples of $n\omega$}. This condition, satisfied for the
2004: problem (\ref{eqmhdym}), comes out naturally in a number of examples
2005: and ensures the existence of a ramified variable in which the
2006: solutions are analytic. We choose $\omega>0$ to be the largest with
2007: the property above. Define
2008: \begin{equation}
2009: \label{eq:eqzeta}
2010: \zeta = y t^{-1/{n}} ~,~~
2011: \\ {\hat {\bf f}} (\zeta, t) = {\bf f} (t^{1/{n}} \zeta, t)
2012: \end{equation}
2013: and
2014: \begin{equation}
2015: \label{eqhatD}
2016: {\hat D}_{\phi, \rho} = \left \{ \zeta: |\zeta| > \rho;\ |\arg \zeta|<\phi \right \}
2017: \end{equation}
2018: \begin{Theorem}
2019: \label{Tasympt} (i) In Setting 1, under Assumption 1,
2020: there exists for large enough
2021: $\rho$ a unique solution ${\bf {\hat f}} (x t^{-1/{\hat n}}, t)$
2022: to (\ref{1.a}),
2023: for
2024: $\zeta = x t^{-1/{\hat n}} \in {\cal {\hat D}}_{\phi, \rho}$
2025: and, with $n'_j$ as in (\ref{eq:eqn'}),
2026: \begin{equation}
2027: \label{fsbound}
2028: |{\bf {\hat f}} (\zeta, t)| \le \sum_{j=1}^{J_r} |\zeta|^{\omega_j} t^{\omega_j/{\hat n}}
2029: \mathfrak{h}_{(n'_j)} (|\zeta|^{-\beta_1}, t^{\gamma_2-\beta_2/{\hat n}} |\zeta|^{-\beta_2}, ...,
2030: t^{\gamma_K-\beta_K/{\hat n}} |\zeta|^{-\beta_K} )
2031: \end{equation}
2032: (ii) In Setting 2, under Assumption 1, for any $T>0$ there is a
2033: $\rho=\rho(T)>0$ so that the mapping
2034: $$(\zeta,\theta)\to \theta^{ -\frac{\scriptstyle \omega_1}{\scriptstyle n\omega}}
2035: \hat {\mb f}(\zeta,\theta^{1/\omega})$$
2036: is analytic in $\mathcal{\hat
2037: D}_{\phi, \rho}\times \{\theta:|\theta|<T\}$.
2038: \end{Theorem}
2039:
2040:
2041: \noindent{\bf Notes:} 1. The function $\rho$ will, generally, increase with $T$.
2042:
2043: 2. The restriction $d=1$ is not essential, but made for the sake of
2044: simplicity.
2045:
2046: 3. In these settings, there is a duality between large $x$ and small
2047: $t$ in the asymptotics: $\zeta$ can be large either due to largeness
2048: of $x$ or smallness of $t$. For $t $ in a fixed interval,
2049: there exists some $\rho$ so that the asymptotic bounds are satisfied
2050: for $\zeta \in {\hat D}_{\phi,\rho}$.
2051:
2052: 4. The following example shows that the requirement ${\hat n} \ge n $
2053: is natural. In the equation $g_t +(-\partial_x)^n g= 0$ with $g(x,0) =
2054: x^{-\alpha}$, substituting the expansion $g(x, t) = x^{-\alpha} +
2055: \sum_{n\in\NN}t^ng_n(x)$, we get $g_n (x) = O(x^{-\alpha -n})$. Thus
2056: one of the scales that emerge in the formal expansion is $t/x^n$. On
2057: the other hand, in view of (\ref{eq:eqr}) and (\ref{eq:eqbqk}) the
2058: most singular term as $x \rightarrow 0$ is of the order $t/x^{\hat
2059: n}$ since ${\hat n} =\frac{\beta_1}{\gamma_1}$. Combining with the
2060: above discussion we see that $\hat n \ge n$.
2061:
2062:
2063: 5. The leading order term in the Taylor expansion of
2064: $\theta^{-\frac{\omega_1}{n\omega}} {\bf \hat f}$, ${\bf {\hat f}_0}$, satisfies
2065: an easily obtained ODE. The convergence of the series in part (ii)
2066: implies that singularities of ${\bf {\hat f}_0}$ can be related to
2067: actual singularities of the PDE for small time and this is the subject
2068: of another paper (\cite{CPAM3}).
2069:
2070:
2071: \begin{Corollary}
2072: \label{mhdym} For the initial value problem (\ref{eqmhdym}),
2073: for any $T>0$ there is a $\rho=\rho(T)$ such that
2074: \begin{equation}
2075: \label{asHD}
2076: H(z,t)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}t^{\frac{7k+1}{9}}G_k(z t^{-2/9})
2077: \end{equation}
2078: where the series converges in the region $\{(z,t):|t|<T,|z|>\rho,|\arg
2079: z|<\frac{4}{9} \pi \}$ and $G_k (\zeta)$
2080: are analytic in the sector $\{\zeta:|\zeta|>\rho,
2081: |\arg \zeta|<\frac{4}{9} \pi \}$.
2082: \end{Corollary}
2083:
2084: \subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{Tasympt} (i)}
2085:
2086:
2087: It is convenient to make rescalings of variables in Borel space as well. We note that
2088: \begin{equation}
2089: \label{eqlaplace}
2090: {\hat {\bf f}} (\zeta, t) = t^{-1/{\hat n}}
2091: \int_0^\infty e^{-s \zeta} {\hat {\bf F}} (s, 1; t)
2092: ds
2093: \end{equation}
2094: where
2095: \begin{equation}
2096: \label{eq:eqzeta2}
2097: s = p t^{1/{\hat n}} ~,~ \\ {\hat {\bf F}} (s, \lambda; t) =
2098: {\bf F} (t^{-1/{\hat n}} s, t \lambda)
2099: \end{equation}
2100: We use similar rescaling to define ${\hat {\bf R}} (s, \lambda; t), {\hat {\bf B}}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} (s, \lambda; t)$ and ${\bf {\hat F}_0} (s,\lambda; t)$
2101: where now
2102: \begin{equation}
2103: \label{eq:eqhatF0}
2104: {\bf {\hat F}_0} (s, \lambda; t) = t \lambda \int_0^1 e^{-t \lambda \mathcal{P} (-s t^{-1/{\hat n}})
2105: (1-\tau)}
2106: {\bf {\hat R}} (s, \lambda \tau; t) d \tau
2107: \end{equation}
2108: We let $\mu_{\bf q,k}=1-\hat{n}^{-1} \left(| {\bf q} | + | {\bf k} |+\sum_{j=1}^n\sum_{l=1}^m j
2109: q_{l,j}\right)$. Using (\ref{14}),
2110: straightforward calculations show that
2111: \begin{multline}\label{eq:eqhatF}
2112: {\bf {\hat F}} (s,\lambda; t)={\hat {\mathcal N}} ({\bf {\hat F}}) (s, \lambda; t)
2113: \equiv
2114: {\bf {\hat F}_0} (s, \lambda; t) +
2115: {\sum_{{\bf q}
2116: \succeq 0}}' \sum_{{\bf k} \succeq 0}
2117: \lambda t^{\mu_{\bf q,k} } \\ \times
2118: \int_0^1
2119: e^{-t \lambda \mathcal{P} (-s t^{-1/{\hat n}})
2120: (1-\tau)}
2121: \left \{ {\bf {\hat B}}_{{\bf q},{\bf k}} * {\bf \hat{F}}^{*{\bf k}}
2122: * \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l=1}^{m} \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{j=1}^{n}
2123: \left ( (-s)^j {\hat F}_l \right )^{*q_{l,j}} \right \}
2124: (s, \lambda \tau, t)
2125: d\tau
2126: \end{multline}
2127: With slight abuse of notation we drop the hats from the newly defined
2128: functions. Let now
2129: \begin{equation}\label{eqhatD1}
2130: {{\cal S}}_{\phi} \equiv
2131: \left \{ s : \arg s \in
2132: (-\phi, \phi ),~
2133: 0 < |s| < \infty ,~
2134: 0 < \phi < \frac{\pi}{2n} \right \}
2135: \end{equation}
2136: and consider the Banach space ${ {\cal A}}_\phi $ of analytic functions in
2137: ${{\cal S}}_\phi $, continuous in $\overline{S}_\phi$ in the norm
2138: \begin{equation}\label{normhat}
2139: \| { {\bf F}} (\cdot,\cdot; t) \|_{\nu} = \sup_{0 \le \lambda \le 1, s \in
2140: {{\cal S}}_\phi} (1+|s|^2) e^{-\nu |s|} | { {\bf F}} (s, \lambda; t) |
2141: \end{equation}
2142: \begin{Lemma}\label{LL37}
2143: With ${\bf r} (x, t)$ satisfying (\ref{eq:eqr}) we have
2144: $$\| {\bf { F}}_0 (., .; t) \|_\nu
2145: \le
2146: e^{a t} \sum_{j=1}^{J_r} \nu^{\omega_j +1} t^{(\omega_j+1)/{\hat n}}
2147: \mathfrak{h}^+_{{n'}_j}
2148: \left ( \nu^{-\beta_1},
2149: t^{\gamma_2-\beta_2/{\hat n}} \nu^{-\beta_2},...,
2150: t^{\gamma_{K}
2151: - \beta_{K}/{\hat n}} \nu^{-\beta_K} \right )$$
2152: for $\nu$ large (independent of $t$ for small $t$), where $-a$ is
2153: the lower bound of $\Re \mathcal{P} (p)$.
2154: \end{Lemma}
2155:
2156: \begin{proof}
2157: >From (\ref{eq:eqr}), (\ref{eq:eqn'}) and
2158: applying Lemma \ref{L1} (with $\rho=0$; see Remark \ref{rem1}) we have
2159: \begin{multline*}
2160: | {\bf { R}} (s, \lambda; t) |\\ \le
2161: \frac{1}{t \lambda} \sum_{j=1}^{J_r} |s|^{-\omega_j -1} t^{(\omega_j+1)/{\hat n}}
2162: \mathfrak{h}^+_{n'_j}
2163: \left (\lambda^{\gamma_1} |s|^{\beta_1},
2164: \lambda^{\gamma_2} t^{\gamma_2-\beta_2/{\hat n}} |s|^{\beta_2},...,
2165: \lambda^{\gamma_K} t^{\gamma_{K}
2166: - \beta_{K}/{\hat n}} |s|^{\beta_K} \right )
2167: \end{multline*}
2168: For $\lambda\in (0,1)$ we have
2169: $\left | e^{-t \mathcal{P} (-s t^{-1/{\hat n}} ) \lambda (1-\tau)}
2170: \right | \le e^{a t}$ and thus (cf. (\ref{eq:eqhatF0}))
2171: \begin{multline}
2172: \label{eq:eqF0b}
2173: | {\bf { F}_0 } (s, \lambda; t) | \\\le e^{a t}
2174: \sum_{j=1}^{J_r} |s|^{-\omega_j -1} t^{(\omega_j+1)/{\hat n}}
2175: \mathfrak{h}^+_{n'_j}
2176: \left (\lambda^{\gamma_1} |s|^{\beta_1},
2177: \lambda^{\gamma_2} t^{\gamma_2-\beta_2/{\hat n}} |s|^{\beta_2},...,
2178: \lambda^{\gamma_K} t^{\gamma_{K}
2179: - \beta_{K}/{\hat n}} |s|^{\beta_K} \right )
2180: \end{multline}
2181: Bounding each term
2182: of the polynomial ${\mathfrak h}^+_{n'_j}$ in $\|\cdot\|_\nu$ we obtain
2183: $$
2184: \| {\bf {\hat F}_0} (., . ; t) \|_\nu \le e^{a t} \sum_{j=1}^{J_r}
2185: \nu^{\omega_j +1} t^{(1+\omega_j)/{\hat n}} {\mathfrak h}^+_{n'_j}
2186: \left ( \nu^{-\beta_1}, t^{\gamma_2-\beta_2/{\hat n}}
2187: \nu^{-\beta_2},..., t^{\gamma_{K} - \beta_{K}/{\hat n}}
2188: \nu^{-\beta_K} \right )$$
2189: The proof now follows, choosing $\nu$
2190: sufficiently large and using (\ref{eq:eqn'}) and (\ref{eqorder}),
2191: (\ref{eqomorder}).
2192: \end{proof}
2193:
2194: \begin{Lemma}
2195: \label{L30} For large $\nu$, we have
2196: $$ \| {\bf { B}}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} * {\bf { F}} \|_\nu
2197: \le
2198: { c}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} (\nu, t) \| {\bf { F}} \|_\nu ,{\rm where}
2199: $$
2200: \begin{equation}
2201: \label{defck}
2202: c_{\bf 0, 0} = \mb 0;\ \ { c}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} (\nu, t) =
2203: \nu^{-\beta | {\bf k} | }
2204: t^{(1-\beta |{\bf k}| )/{\hat n}}
2205: \sum_{j=1}^{J_{\bf q}} K_j \nu^{-\alpha_{{\bf q},j}}
2206: t^{-\alpha_{{\bf q}, j}/{\hat n}}\ ((\bf q,k)\ne 0)
2207: \end{equation}
2208: with $K_j$ constants independent of ${\bf q}$, ${\bf k}$, $\nu$ and
2209: $t$.
2210: \end{Lemma}
2211: \begin{proof}
2212: Note first that ${\bf b}_{{\bf 0}, {\bf 0}} = \bf 0$ hence $c_{\bf
2213: 0, 0} = \bf 0$. From (\ref{eq:eqbqk}) and Lemma \ref{L1} (with
2214: $\rho=0$),
2215: $$ \left | {\bf B}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} (p, t)\right |
2216: \le |p|^{\beta |{\bf k}| - 1} \sum_{j=1}^{J_{\bf q}}
2217: |p|^{\alpha_{{\bf q},j}} \mathfrak{p}^+_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}, j}
2218: \left ( t^{\gamma_1} |p|^{\beta_1},
2219: t^{\gamma_2} |p|^{\beta_2},...,t^{\gamma_K} |p|^{\beta_K} \right ) $$
2220: Switching from $(p, t)$ to $(s, \lambda; t)$,
2221: \begin{multline*}
2222: | {\bf { B}}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} (s, \lambda; t) | \le t^{(1-\beta |{\bf k}| ) /{\hat n}}
2223: |s|^{\beta | {\bf k} | - 1}
2224: \\
2225: \times \sum_{j=1}^{J_{\bf q}} |s|^{\alpha_{{\bf q}, j} }
2226: t^{-\alpha_{{\bf q}, j}/{\hat n}}
2227: \mathfrak{p}^+_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}, j}
2228: \left (\lambda^{\gamma_1} |s|^{\beta_1},
2229: \lambda^{\gamma_2}
2230: t^{\gamma_2-\beta_2/{\hat n}} |s|^{\beta_2},..., \lambda^{\gamma_K} t^{\gamma_{K}
2231: - \beta_{K}/{\hat n}} |s|^{\beta_K} \right )
2232: \end{multline*}
2233: For large $\nu $, using Lemma \ref{L4} (with $\rho = 0$) to bound in
2234: norm the terms of $\mathfrak{p}^+_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}, j}$
2235: \begin{multline}\label{qtilde}
2236: \| {\bf { B}}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} * { {\bf F}} | \le \| {\bf F} \|_\nu
2237: \,\,t^{(1-\beta |{\bf k}| ) /{\hat n}}
2238: |\nu|^{-\beta | {\bf k} |} \\ \times
2239: \sum_{j=1}^{J_{\bf q}} |\nu|^{-\alpha_{{\bf q}, j} }
2240: t^{-\alpha_{{\bf q}, j}/{\hat n}}
2241: \mathfrak{p}^+_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}, j}
2242: \left (\lambda^{\gamma_1} \nu^{-\beta_1},
2243: \lambda^{\gamma_2}
2244: t^{\gamma_2-\beta_2/{\hat n}} \nu^{-\beta_2},..., \lambda^{\gamma_K} t^{\gamma_{K}
2245: - \beta_{K}/{\hat n}} \nu^{-\beta_K} \right )
2246: \end{multline}
2247: Clearly, for large $\nu$, $\mathfrak{p}^+_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}}$ can be
2248: replaced in (\ref{qtilde}) by a constant $K_j$. Using
2249: (\ref{eqorder}) and (\ref{eq:alphaqorder}) the conclusion follows.
2250: \end{proof}
2251:
2252: Let now
2253: \begin{multline*}
2254: C(\phi, T) =
2255: \max \Bigg \{\\
2256: \sup_{p \in \mathcal{S}_\phi, |p| > R, 0 \le l' \le n, \gamma >0}
2257: \left ( \frac{|p|^n}{\Re \mathcal{P}(-p)} \right )^{l'/n}
2258: \frac{1 - e^{-\gamma}}{\gamma^{1-l'/n}},
2259: \sup_{p \in \mathcal{S}_\phi, |p| \le R, 0 \le l' \le n}
2260: t^{l'/n} |p|^{l'} e^{-t \Re\mathcal{P} (-p)} \Bigg\}
2261: \end{multline*}
2262: where $R$ is the same as in the proof of Lemma \ref{newcond}.
2263: \begin{Lemma}
2264: \label{eq:eqlemmasmall}
2265: For $\nu$ large enough, ${ {\cal N}}$ is contractive, and thus
2266: there exists unique solution ${\bf { F}}$ of (\ref{eq:eqhatF}).
2267: \end{Lemma}
2268:
2269: \begin{proof}
2270: For $\nu$ large enough, (\ref{eqcond}), Lemma~\ref{LL37} and
2271: Lemma~\ref{L30} imply
2272: \begin{equation}
2273: \label{eq:eqfirst}
2274: C(\phi, T)
2275: {\sum_{{\bf q}
2276: \succeq 0}}' \sum_{{\bf k} \succeq 0}
2277: t^{\mu_{\bf q,k} }
2278: c_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} (\nu, t)
2279: \| 2 {\bf { F}_0} \|^{| {\bf k} | + | {\bf q} |}
2280: \le\| {\bf { F}_0} \|_\nu
2281: \end{equation}
2282: and
2283: \begin{equation}
2284: \label{eq:eqsecond}
2285: C(\phi, T)
2286: {\sum_{{\bf q}
2287: \succeq 0}}' \sum_{{\bf k} \succeq 0}
2288: t^{\mu_{\bf q,k} }
2289: c_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} (\nu, t) ( | {\bf q} | +
2290: | {\bf k} | )
2291: \| 6 {\bf { F}_0} \|^{|{\bf k}| + | {\bf q}
2292: | -1} \le 1
2293: \end{equation}
2294: Now, Lemma \ref{L4.9.5} (with $\rho_0=0$, $d=1$ and
2295: $s$ replacing $p$), and Lemma \ref{L30} imply
2296: \begin{equation*}
2297: \left | \left \{ { {\bf B}}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k} } * { {\bf F}}^{*{\bf k}}
2298: * \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l=1}^{m}
2299: \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{j=1}^{n} \left (s^j { F}_l \right )^{*q_{l,j}}
2300: \right \} (s, \lambda \tau; t) \right |
2301: \le \frac{e^{\nu |s|} |s|^{\sum j q_{l,j} } }{
2302: M_0 (1 + |s|^2 ) } c_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} (\nu, t)
2303: \| { {\bf F}} \|_\nu^{|{\bf q}| + | {\bf k} | }
2304: \end{equation*}
2305: Also, note that if $l' \ge 0 $, $s \in { S}_\phi$ with $|s t^{-1/{\hat n}}| > R$
2306: \begin{equation}
2307: \label{eq:eqintbound}
2308: \left | \int_0^1 s^{l'} \lambda e^{-t
2309: \mathcal{P} \left ( -s t^{-1/{\hat n}} \right ) \lambda (1 - \tau) } d\tau \right |
2310: \le \lambda \left \{ \frac{1-e^{-t \lambda \Re \mathcal{P} (-s t^{-1/{\hat n}} )}}{t
2311: \lambda \Re P \left (-s t^{-1/{\hat n}} \right ) } \right \} s^{l'} \le C(\phi, T)
2312: t^{l'/{\hat n} - l'/n}
2313: \end{equation}
2314: The definition of $C(\phi, T)$ implies that for $l' \ge 0$, $s \in {
2315: S}_\phi$ with $|s t^{-1/{\hat n}}| \le R$ we have
2316: \begin{equation}
2317: \label{eq:eqintbound2}
2318: \left | \int_0^1 s^{l'} \lambda e^{-t
2319: \mathcal{P} \left ( -s t^{-1/{\hat n}} \right ) \lambda (1 - \tau) } d\tau \right |
2320: \le C(\phi, T) t^{l'/{\hat n} - l'/n}
2321: \end{equation}
2322: Setting $l' = \sum j q_{l, j}$, using (\ref{eq:eqintbound}) and (\ref{eq:eqintbound2}),
2323: we find
2324: after time integration
2325: \begin{multline}\label{nn1}
2326: \Bigg\| \int_0^1 \lambda e^{-t \mathcal{P} (-s t^{-1/{\hat n}}) \lambda (1-\tau)}
2327: { {\bf B}}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k} } * { {\bf F}}^{*{\bf k}}
2328: * \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l=1}^{m}
2329: \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{j=1}^{n} \left (
2330: s^j { F}_l \right )^{*q_{l,j}}
2331: (s, \lambda\tau; t) d\tau
2332: \|_\nu \\
2333: \le t^{l'/{\hat n} - l'/n}
2334: C(\phi, T) c_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} (\nu, t) \| { {\bf F}} \Big\|_\nu^{
2335: | {\bf q} | + | {\bf k} | }
2336: \end{multline}
2337: Using (\ref{eqcond}), (\ref{eq:eqhatF}), (\ref{eq:eqfirst}) and (\ref{nn1}) , it follows
2338: that ${ {\cal N}}$ maps a ball of radius $2 \|{\bf { F}_0} \|_0 $ into
2339: itself. Using Lemma \ref{L8}, (\ref{eq:eqintbound}) and (\ref{eq:eqintbound2}),
2340: we obtain
2341: \begin{multline*}
2342: \Bigg\| \int_0^1
2343: \lambda { {\bf B}}_{{\bf q}, {\bf k} } *
2344: \Bigg \{ ({ {\bf F}}+{ {\bf h}})^{*{\bf k}}
2345: * \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l=1}^{m}
2346: \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{j=1}^{n} \left (
2347: s^j [{ F}_l + { h}_l ] \right )^{*q_{l,j}}
2348: \\-
2349: { {\bf F}}^{*{\bf k}}
2350: *\sideset{^*}{}\prod_{l=1}^{m}
2351: \sideset{^*}{}\prod_{j=1}^{n} \left (
2352: s^j { F}_l \right )^{*q_{l,j}} \Bigg \}
2353: (s, \lambda\tau; t) e^{-t \mathcal{P} (-s t^{1/{\hat n}} ) \lambda (1-\tau)} d\tau
2354: \Bigg\|_\nu
2355: \\
2356: \le t^{l'/{\hat n} - l'/n}
2357: C(\phi, T) (| {\bf q} | + | {\bf k} | )
2358: c_{{\bf q}, {\bf k}} (\nu, t)
2359: \left ( \| { {\bf h}} \|_\nu + \| { {\bf F}} \|_\nu \right )^{
2360: | {\bf q} | + | {\bf k} | - 1 }
2361: \| { {\bf h}} \|_\nu
2362: \end{multline*}
2363: where $l' = \sum j q_{l, j}$ from which the conclusion using
2364: (\ref{defck}) and (\ref{eqcond}).
2365: \end{proof}
2366:
2367: \bigskip
2368:
2369: \noindent{\bf Behavior of $^s\!\mathbf { F}$ near $s=0$}
2370:
2371: In the following proposition, we denote by
2372: $^s\!\mathbf F$ the solution $\bf F$ of Lemma
2373: \ref{eq:eqlemmasmall}.
2374:
2375: \begin{Proposition}
2376: \label{AsymptAts=0} For small $s$ we have
2377: $$|^s\!\mathbf { F}|\le \sum_{j=1}^{J_r} |s|^{-\omega_j-1} t^{(1+\omega_j)/{\hat n}}
2378: \mathfrak{h}^+_{n'_j} (|s|^{\beta_1}, t^{\gamma_2-\beta_2/{\hat n}} |s|^{\beta_2}, ...
2379: t^{\gamma_K-\beta_K/{\hat n}} |s|^{\beta_K} )
2380: $$
2381: \end{Proposition}
2382: \begin{proof}
2383: The proof is similar to that of Proposition~\ref{AsymptAtp=0}, using (\ref{eq:eqF0b}), (\ref{eq:eqr}) and
2384: (\ref{eq:eqn'}).
2385: $^s\!{\bf { F}}$ to (\ref{eq:eqhatF}) solves a
2386: linear equation
2387: \begin{equation}
2388: \label{29.2.0}
2389: ^s\!{\bf { F}}=\mathcal{G}\, (^s\!{\bf { F}})+{\bf { F}}_0\ \ \mbox{\rm or }\ \
2390: ^s\!{\bf { F}}=(1-\mathcal{G})^{-1}{\bf { F}}_0
2391: \end{equation}
2392: with ${\cal G}$ very
2393: similar to that given in \S4.
2394: \end{proof}
2395: \smallskip
2396:
2397: \noindent{\bf End of proof of Theorem \ref{Tasympt}} (i) The proof is
2398: a direct application of Lemma \ref{eq:eqlemmasmall} and Proposition
2399: \ref{AsymptAts=0}. Using (\ref{eqlaplace}) and properties of Laplace
2400: transform, (\ref{fsbound}) follows for large $|\zeta|$, in the sector
2401: $\arg \zeta \in \left ( -\frac{\pi}{2} - \phi, \frac{\pi}{2} + \phi
2402: \right )$.
2403:
2404: \subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{Tasympt} (ii)}
2405: An important difference is that infinite sums appear in some estimates.
2406: Analyticity of the functions $\mathfrak{a}$ and the estimate
2407: $$
2408: \| \mathcal{L}^{-1} y^{-\alpha} \|_\nu = \left\| \frac{p^{\alpha
2409: -1}}{\Gamma (\alpha) } \right\|_\nu \le C (1+\alpha^2) \nu^{-\alpha +1} , $$
2410: for $\nu > 1$ with $C$ is independent of $\alpha$ and $\nu$,
2411: show convergence of the
2412: corresponding series. Also, the proof of Lemma \ref{eq:eqlemmasmall}
2413: holds if the following norm was used instead:
2414: $$
2415: \| { F} \|_\nu^u = \sup_{0 \le \lambda \le 1, |t| \le T, s \in
2416: \mathcal{ S}_\phi} (1+|s|^2) e^{-\nu |s|} |{ F} (s,\lambda; t) | $$
2417: since for ${\hat n} =n $, $\Re t \mathcal{P} (-st^{-1/n}) = \Re s^n $,
2418: is independent of $t$ in the exponent in (\ref{eq:eqhatF}).
2419: To show analyticity, we let $\hat{G}(s,\lambda;\theta)=\theta^{-(1+\omega_1)/(n\omega)}\hat{F}(s,\lambda;\theta^{1/\omega})$; then
2420: $\hat{G}$ satisfies an equation of the form
2421: $$\hat{G}=\mathcal{N}_1(\hat{G})$$
2422: where the conditions in Setting 2
2423: and the choice of $\omega$ are such that $\mathcal{N}_1$, as it is
2424: seen after straightforward algebra, manifestly preserves analyticity in
2425: $\theta$. Using (\ref{eqlaplace}), analyticity of $t^{-\omega_1/n} { f}
2426: (\zeta, t)$ in $t^{\omega}$ follows provided $|\zeta|$ is large enough
2427: (depending on $T$).
2428: \subsection{Proof of Corollary~\ref{mhdym}}
2429: Substitution gives for $f(x, t)$, defined by (\ref{eqHf}), an equation
2430: of the form (\ref{1.a}), with $m=1$, $d=1$. Then in (\ref{3}), $\bf k$
2431: is scalar. The vector $\bf q$ is $3$ dimensional, indexed by
2432: $(l,j),\,l=1, j=1,2,3$. The nonlinearity is
2433: quartic and the equation is linear in the derivatives of $f$, thus
2434: the only nonzero values of $b_{\mb q,k}$ are when $\bf q$ is $\bf 0$
2435: (and $k=1,...,4$) or a unit vector $\hat{\bf e}_i\in\RR^3$ (and
2436: $k=0,...,3$). Further, it is found that
2437: $$J_r=1, K=2, \omega_1 = \frac{5}{3} = \beta , \gamma_1=\gamma_2=1,
2438: \beta_1 = 3, \beta_2 = \frac{2}{3}, {\hat n} = 3$$
2439: and in
2440: (\ref{eq:eqA2}) we have
2441: \begin{equation}
2442: \label{valpha}
2443: \alpha_{{\bf 0}, 1} = \frac{4}{3} , ~
2444: \alpha_{{\bf 0}, 2} = -1 ,~
2445: \alpha_{\hat{\bf e}_1, 1} = 2 ,~
2446: \alpha_{\hat{\bf e}_2, 1} = 1 , ~
2447: \alpha_{\hat{\bf e}_3, 1} = 0
2448: \end{equation}
2449: This is sufficient to check that Theorem \ref{Tasympt} applies.
2450:
2451: Since $|z| t^{-2/9}$ large
2452: corresponds to
2453: $ |\zeta| = |x| t^{-1/3}$ large, and
2454: $\arg z \in \left (- \frac{4}{9} \pi, \frac{4}{9} \pi \right ) $
2455: corresponds to $\arg \zeta \in \left ( -\frac{2}{3} \pi , \frac{2}{3} \pi
2456: \right ) $, Theorem \ref{Tasympt}
2457: implies that for any $\phi \in (0, \frac{\pi}{6} )$ for large
2458: $x \in \mathcal{D}_\phi $ and large $\zeta = x/t^{1/3}$ we have
2459: $$
2460: |f(x, t) | = O\left (|x|^{5/3} \mathfrak{h}_{(N+1)} (t |x|^{-3}, t |x|^{-2/3}
2461: \right ) = O\left (|x|^{5/3} t^{N+1} \mathfrak{h}_{(N+1)} (|x|^{-3}, |x|^{-2/3}
2462: \right ) $$
2463: Changing variables, this implies
2464: \begin{multline*}
2465: x (z)^{-2} f (x(z,t), t) =
2466: O \left ( t^{N+1} |z|^{-\frac{1}{2}} \mathfrak{h}_{(N+1)} (|z|^{-\frac{9}{2}}, |z|^{-1} \right )
2467: \\= o \left ( t^{N} |z|^{-\frac{1}{2}} \mathfrak{h}_{(N)} (|z|^{-\frac{9}{2}}, |z|^{-1} \right )
2468: \end{multline*}
2469: as needed for asymptoticity.
2470: The convergence in the series representation in $t^{7/9}$ follows from
2471: Theorem \ref{Tasympt} (ii). It is seen from (\ref{eqrational}) that
2472: all the exponents of $t$ are integer multiples of $\frac{7}{9}$.$\Box$
2473:
2474: \begin{Note} Large $\zeta$ includes part of the region where
2475: Theorems \ref{T1} and \ref{TrB} imply Borel summability of the
2476: expansion in inverse powers of $z$. Together, the results provide
2477: uniform control of the solution.
2478: \end{Note}
2479:
2480:
2481: \section{Appendix}
2482: \subsection{Asymptotic behavior: further comments}\label{Asympts}
2483:
2484: In the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{TrB}, by the remark following it,
2485: formal series solutions to the initial value problem are asymptotic to
2486: the actual unique solution. The discussion below addresses the issue
2487: of deriving this series, or, when less regularity is provided and only
2488: the first few terms of the expansion exist, how to show their
2489: asymptoticity.
2490:
2491: \z {\em Heuristic calculation}. Assuming algebraic behavior of $\bf f$
2492: in our assumptions on the nonlinearity, it is seen that the most
2493: important terms for large ${\bf x}$ (giving the ``dominant balance'')
2494: are ${\bf f}_t $, $\mathcal{P}_0 \bf f$, coming from the constant part
2495: of $\mathcal{P}$, and ${\bf r} ({\bf x},t)$. This suggests that, to
2496: leading order, ${\bf f} ({\bf x}, t) \sim {\bf f}_I ({\bf x})
2497: +\int_0^t e^{-\mathcal{P}_0 (t-\tau)} {\bf r} ({\bf x}, \tau) d\tau $.
2498: If we substitute
2499: \begin{equation}
2500: \label{subs1}
2501: {\bf f} ({\bf x}, t) = \mathbf{A}_1 (t){\bf x}^{-\alpha_r
2502: \bf 1} + {\bf {\tilde f}}
2503: \end{equation}
2504: into (\ref{1.a}), ${\bf {\tilde f}}$ will generally satisfy an
2505: equation of the form (\ref{1.a}), for an {\em increased} value of
2506: $\alpha_{r}$; if the process can be iterated, as is the case in the
2507: examples in \cite{CPAM}, it generates a formal series solution.
2508:
2509: To obtain rigorous estimates, one writes the equation for ${\bf
2510: {\tilde f}}$ defined in (\ref{subs1}) and applies Theorem~\ref{T1}
2511: to show ${\bf {\tilde f}}=o( {\bf x}^{-\alpha_{r}\bf 1} )$. If the
2512: coefficients of the equation allow it, this procedure can be repeated
2513: to obtain more asymptotic terms for ${\mathbf{f}}$. This is the case
2514: for instance in the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{TrB}, where a complete
2515: series is obtained, which is furthermore Borel summable to $\bf f$.
2516:
2517: The discussion also shows that the assumption $\alpha_r \ge 1$ can be
2518: often be circumvented by subtracting the higher powers of $\bf x$ from
2519: $\bf f$.
2520:
2521: \subsection{Simple examples of Borel regularization}\label{illustr}
2522: In this section we discuss informally and using rather trivial
2523: examples, the regularizing features of Borel summation. An excellent
2524: account of \'Ecalle's modern theory of generalized summability is
2525: found in \cite{EcalleNato}; see \cite{TOP} as well.
2526: Many interesting results, using more
2527: classical tools can be found in \cite{Balser}.
2528:
2529: Singular perturbations give rise to nonanalytic behavior and divergent
2530: series. Infinity is an irregular singular point of the ODE $f'-f=1/x$,
2531: and the formal power series solution $\tilde{f}=\sum_{k=0}^\infty
2532: (-1)^k k!x^{-k-1}$ diverges. In the context of PDEs, the solution $h$
2533: of the heat equation $h_{t}-h_{xx}=0$ with $h(0,x)$ real-analytic but
2534: not entire, has a factorially divergent expansion in {\em small $t$},
2535: the recurrence relation for the terms of which is $kH_{k}=H_{k-1}''$.
2536:
2537:
2538: The {\em Borel transform} of a series, is by definition its term-wise
2539: inverse Laplace transform, which improves convergence since
2540: $\mathcal{L}^{-1} x^{-k-1}=p^k/k!$. If the Borel transformed of a
2541: series converges to a function which can be continued analytically
2542: along $\RR^+$ {\em and} is exponentially bounded, then its Laplace
2543: transform is by definition
2544: the {\em Borel sum} of the series. Since on a formal
2545: level Borel summation is $\mathcal{L}\mathcal{L}^{-1}$, the identity,
2546: it can be shown to be an extended isomorphism between series and
2547: functions; in particular, the Borel sum of $\tilde{f}$ above,
2548: $\mathcal{L}(1+p)^{-1}$ is an actual solution of the equation. Another
2549: way to view this situation is that Borel transform maps singular
2550: problems into more regular ones. The Borel transform of the ODE
2551: discussed is $(p+1)\mathcal L^{-1} f+1=0$. The inverse Laplace
2552: transform of $h_t=h_{xx}$ in $1/t$ is
2553: $\hat{h}_{xx}-p\hat{h}_{pp}-\frac{3}{2}\hat{h}_p=0$ which becomes
2554: regular, $u_{xx}-u_{zz}=0$ by taking $\hat{h}(p,x)$
2555: $=p^{-1/2}u(2 p^{1/2}, x)$, $z=2 p^{1/2}$.
2556:
2557: It is in its latter role, of a regularizing tool, that we
2558: use Borel summation in PDEs.
2559:
2560:
2561: \subsection{Derivation of equation (\ref{1.a}) from (\ref{1})}\label{D11}
2562: We define an $m$-dimensional vector
2563: ${\bf f}$ by ordering the set $\left \{ \partial_{\bf x}^{\bf j} {\bf
2564: u}: 0 \le |{\bf j} | <n \right\}$. It is convenient to introduce
2565: ${\bf{\hat g}}_2 ({\bf x}, t, {\bf f})$ so that
2566: $$ \sum_{|{\bf J}| = n} {\bf g_{2,J}} \left ( {\bf x}, t,
2567: \{ \partial_{\bf x}^{\bf j} {\bf u} \}_{|{\bf j}|\le n-1}
2568: \right ) \partial_{\bf x}^{\bf J} {\bf u}
2569: = -\sum_i
2570: {\bf {\hat g}_{2,i}} ({\bf x}, t, {\bf f}) \partial_{x_i} {\bf f}
2571: $$
2572: So, for showing that (\ref{1}) implies
2573: (\ref{1.a}) it is enough
2574: to show that for $1 \le n' \le n$, for $|{\bf J'} |= n'-1$,
2575: $$\partial_{\bf x}^{\bf J'}
2576: \left [ {\bf g}_1 ({\bf x}, t, {\bf f}) + \sum_i
2577: {\bf {\hat g}}_{2_i} ({\bf x}, t, {\bf f} )
2578: \partial_{x_i} {\bf f} \right ] $$
2579: is of the form on the right hand side of (\ref{1.a}). We do so in three
2580: steps.
2581:
2582: \begin{Lemma}
2583: \label{A0}
2584: Consider for $k \ge 1 $,
2585: \begin{equation}
2586: \label{A0.1}
2587: {\bf E}({\bf x}, t) =
2588: {\sum_{{\bf q} \succeq 0 }}^\ddagger {\bf b_{\bf
2589: q}} ({\bf x},t,{\bf f})
2590: \prod_{\{m;k\}}
2591: \left (\partial_{\bf x}^{\bf j} f_l
2592: \right )^{q_{l,{\bf j}}}
2593: \end{equation}
2594: where $\{m;k\}$ denotes the set
2595: $\{(l,\mb j):1\le l\le m;1\le |\mb j |\le k\}$, and
2596: $\ddagger$ means summation over ${\bf q}$ with the restriction
2597: \begin{equation}
2598: \label{A0.2}
2599: \sum_{\{m;k\}}
2600: | {\bf j} | q_{l, {\bf j}} \le k
2601: \end{equation}
2602: Then, for $i =1, 2..,d $,
2603: $\partial_{x_i} {\bf E} ({\bf x}, t) $ has the same form
2604: as (\ref{A0.1}) with restriction (\ref{A0.2}), provided
2605: $k$ is replaced by $k+1$.
2606: \end{Lemma}
2607: \begin{proof}
2608: The proof is straightforward, keeping track of the number of derivatives and the powers involved:
2609: note that
2610: $$\partial_{x_i} {\bf E} ({\bf x}, t, {\bf f})
2611: = \sum_{{\bf q} \succeq 0 } \left ( \sum_{l=1}^m
2612: {\frac {\partial}{\partial f_l}} {\bf b_{\bf
2613: q}} ({\bf x},t,{\bf f}) \partial_{x_i} f_l + \partial_{x_i}
2614: {\bf b}_{{\bf q}} ({\bf x}, t, {\bf f}) \right )
2615: \prod_{\{m;k\}}
2616: \left (\partial_{\bf x}^{\bf j} f_l
2617: \right )^{q_{l,{\bf j}}}
2618: $$
2619: $$ +
2620: \sum_{{\bf q} \succeq 0 }
2621: {\bf b}_{{\bf q}} ({\bf x}, t, {\bf f}) )
2622: \sum_{l'=1}^m
2623: \sum_{| {\bf j'}|=1}^{k}
2624: q_{l',{\bf j'}} \left ( \partial_{\bf x}^{\bf j'}
2625: f_{l'} \right )^{q_{l',{\bf j'}}-1}
2626: \partial_{x_i} (\partial_{\bf x}^{\bf j'} f_{l'} )
2627: \mathop{{\prod}^\dagger}_{\{m;k\}}
2628: \left (\partial_x^j f_l
2629: \right )^{q_{l,{\bf j}}}
2630: $$
2631: where $\prod^{\dagger}$ indicates that the term $l=l',
2632: {\bf j}={\bf j'}$ is missing from the product. Manifestly, this
2633: is of the form (\ref{A0.1}) with a suitable redefinition of ${\bf
2634: b}_{\bf q}$ and with the product of the number of derivatives times
2635: the power totaling at most
2636: $$ | {\bf j'}| + 1 +
2637: |{\bf j'}| (q_{l', {\bf j}'} - 1)
2638: + {\sum_{\{m; k\}}}^\dagger
2639: | {\bf j} | q_{l, {\bf j}}
2640: = 1
2641: + \sum_{\{m; k\}}
2642: |{\bf j}| q_{l, {\bf j}} \le k+1 $$
2643: Hence restriction (\ref{A0.2}) holds, now with $k+1$ instead of $k$.
2644: \end{proof}
2645:
2646: \begin{Lemma}
2647: \label{A1}
2648: For any $n'\ge 1$, and any ${\bf J'}$ with
2649: $| {\bf J'} | = n'-1$,
2650: \begin{equation}
2651: \label{A.1}
2652: \partial_{\bf x}^{\bf J'} {\bf g_1} (y, t, {\bf f} (y, t))
2653: = {\sum_{{\bf q} \succeq 0 }}^\ddagger {\bf b_{\bf
2654: q}} ({\bf x},t,{\bf f})
2655: \prod_{\{m; n'-1\}}
2656: \left (\partial_{\bf x}^{\bf j} f_l
2657: \right )^{q_{l,{\bf j}}}
2658: \end{equation}
2659:
2660: \z for some ${\bf b}_{\bf q}$, depending on $n^\prime$, $\bf g_1$,
2661: and its first $n'-1$ derivatives, and where $\sum^\ddagger$ means the sum over ${\bf q} $
2662: with the further restriction
2663: $$
2664: \sum_{\{m;n'-1\}}
2665: | {\bf j} | q_{l, {\bf j}} \le n'-1
2666: $$
2667: \end{Lemma}
2668: \begin{proof}
2669: The proof is by induction. We have, with obvious notation,
2670: $$\partial_{x_i} {\bf g}_1 ({\bf x}, t, {\bf f} ({\bf x}, t)) =
2671: {\bf g}_{1,x_i} +
2672: {\bf g}_{1,\mathbf f}\cdot \partial_{x_i} \mathbf f $$
2673:
2674: \z which is of the form
2675: (\ref{A.1}). Assume (\ref{A.1}) holds for $n' = k \ge 1$, i.e.
2676: for all ${\bf J}'$ satisfying $|{\bf J'} | = k-1$,
2677: $$
2678: \partial_{\bf x}^{\bf J'} {\bf g_1} ({\bf x}, t, {\bf f})
2679: = {\sum_{{\bf q} \succeq 0 }}^\ddagger
2680: {\bf b_{\bf q}}
2681: ({\bf x} ,t,{\bf f})
2682: \prod_{\{m; k-1\}}
2683: \left (\partial_{\bf x}^{\bf j} f_l
2684: \right )^{q_{l,{\bf j}}}
2685: $$
2686: Taking a $x_i$ derivative, and applying Lemma \ref{A0}, $
2687: \partial_{\bf x}^{\bf J} {\bf g_1} (y, t, {\bf f}) $ for $|{\bf J} | =
2688: k $ will have the form above, with $k-1$ replaced by $k$ and with
2689: restriction
2690: $$ \sum_{\{m;k\}}
2691: | {\bf j} | q_{l, {\bf j}} \le k
2692: $$
2693: Thus, (\ref{A.1}) holds for $n'=k+1$, with a different ${\bf b}$.
2694: The induction step is proved.
2695: \end{proof}
2696:
2697: \begin{Lemma}
2698: \label{A2}
2699: For $n'=1,2,...,n$, and any ${\bf J}$ with $|{\bf J}| = n'-1$ we
2700: have
2701: \begin{equation}
2702: \label{A.11}
2703: \partial_{\bf x}^{\bf J} \left [ {\bf {\hat g}_{2,i'}}
2704: ({\bf x}, t, {\bf f}) \partial_{\bf x_{i'}} {\bf f}
2705: \right ] =
2706: {\sum_{{\bf q} \succeq 0 }}^\ddagger
2707: {\bf b_{\bf q}} ({\bf x},t,{\bf
2708: f})
2709: \prod_{\{m; n'\}}
2710: \left (\partial_{\bf x}^{\bf j} f_l \right
2711: )^{q_{l,{\bf j}}}\end{equation}
2712: for some ${\bf b}_{{\bf q}}$,
2713: depending on $n^\prime$, $\mathbf g_2$
2714: and its first $n'-1$ derivatives, where $\sum_{{\bf q}\succeq 0}^{\ddagger}$
2715: denotes summation with the restriction
2716: \begin{equation}
2717: \label{A.11.1}
2718: \sum_{\{m;n'\}}
2719: |{\bf j} | q_{l, {\bf j}} \le n^\prime
2720: \end{equation}
2721: \end{Lemma}
2722:
2723:
2724: \begin{proof}
2725: Clearly (\ref{A.11}) with restriction (\ref{A.11.1}) holds for
2726: $n'=1$. Suppose it holds for $n'=k$. Then we
2727: note that if $| {\bf J} | = k+1$, then there exists some
2728: index $1 \le i \le d$ and some ${\bf J'}$, with $| {\bf J'} | = k$
2729: so that $\partial_{\bf x}^{\bf J} = \partial_{x_i} [ \partial_{\bf
2730: x}^{\bf J'} ]$; hence applying Lemma \ref{A0}, we obtain
2731: (\ref{A.11}) and (\ref{A.11.1}) for $n'=(k+1)$.
2732: \end{proof}
2733:
2734:
2735:
2736: \subsection{Some useful inequalities.}\label{Proof37}
2737: \begin{enumerate}
2738: \item We start with a simple inequality for $\alpha>1$ and $\mu >0$:
2739: \begin{equation}
2740: \label{ine1}
2741: (1+\mu ^\alpha)\int_0^1s^{\alpha-1}e^{-\mu s}ds\le 2\Gamma(\alpha)
2742: \end{equation}
2743: This is clear for $\mu \le1$, while for $\mu >1$ we write $(1+\mu ^\alpha)\le 2
2744: \mu ^\alpha$ and note that $\int_0^\infty
2745: s^{\alpha-1}e^{-\mu s}ds=\mu ^{-\alpha}\Gamma(\alpha)$.
2746: \item For $\alpha > 0 $, $\mu > 0$, $\sigma=0,1$, $\nu > 2$ and
2747: $m\in\NN$,
2748: \begin{equation}
2749: \label{minilemma}
2750: \mu^\alpha \nu^\alpha\int_0^1 \frac{e^{-\nu \mu [1 -(1-s)^m]}}{[1 + \mu ^2 (1-s)^2]^\sigma} s^{\alpha - 1} ds
2751: \le 8(2^{\alpha}+1) \Gamma (\alpha) [1+\mu ^2 ]^{-\sigma}
2752: \end{equation}
2753: where $C(m)$ is independent of $\mu $, $\alpha$ and $\nu$.
2754: Indeed, the integral is bounded by
2755: \begin{multline*}
2756: \Big(\int_0^{\frac{1}{2}}du+\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^1du\Big)\frac{e^{-\mu\nu s}s^{\alpha-1} ds}{[1 + \mu ^2 (1-s)^2]^\sigma}\le \frac{1}{(1+\mu^2/4)^\sigma}\int_0^1 e^{-\mu\nu s}s^{\alpha-1}ds
2757: \\
2758: +\max_{s\in[1/2,1]}\frac{e^{-\mu\nu s}}{[1 + \mu ^2 (1-s)^2]^\sigma}\int_0^1s^{\alpha-1}ds\le \frac{2\Gamma(\alpha)(\mu\nu)^{-\alpha}}{(1+\mu^2/4)^\sigma}+\frac{e^{-\mu\nu/2}}{\alpha(1+\mu^2/4)^\sigma}\\
2759: \le \frac{2\Gamma(\alpha)(\mu\nu)^{-\alpha}}{(1+\mu^2/4)^\sigma}+ \frac{2^{\alpha+1}\Gamma(\alpha)(\mu\nu)^{-\alpha}}{(1+\mu^2/4)^\sigma}\sup_{\alpha\in\RR^+}
2760: \sup_{\mu\nu\in\RR^+}\frac{(\mu\nu)^\alpha e^{-\mu\nu/2}}{2^{\alpha+1}\alpha\Gamma(\alpha)}\\\le
2761: \frac{2\Gamma(\alpha)(\mu\nu)^{-\alpha}}{(1+\mu^2/4)^\sigma}+ \frac{2^{\alpha+1}\Gamma(\alpha)(\mu\nu)^{-\alpha}}{(1+\mu^2/4)^\sigma}
2762: \end{multline*}
2763:
2764: \item For $n>1$ the function
2765: \begin{equation*}
2766: \label{bdR}
2767: (1+\mu )e^{-\mu }\int_0^1e^{\mu [u^n+(1-u)^n]}du
2768: \end{equation*}
2769: is bounded in $\RR^+$, as it can be checked applying Watson's lemma
2770: for large $\mu $ and noting its continuity on $[0,\infty)$. Thus, for
2771: some constant $C$ and $\nu>1$ we have
2772: \begin{equation}
2773: \label{pd}
2774: \int_0^{|p|}e^{\nu |s|^n+\nu |p-s|^n}ds\le \frac{C|p|}{1+|p|^n}e^{\nu |p|^n}
2775: \end{equation}
2776:
2777:
2778: \item We have $|\mathbf{p}^{\mathbf{k}}|\le \max_{i\le d}
2779: |p|_i^{|\mathbf{k}|}\le \sum_{i\le
2780: d}|p_i|^{|\mathbf{k}|}$ and thus for some constant $C$ and all $j\le m$ we have
2781: \begin{equation}
2782: \label{opA}
2783: |\mathcal{P}_j(-\mathbf{p})|\le
2784: C\sum_i(1+|p_i|^n)
2785: \end{equation}
2786: Also, for some $C_2>0$, $| \mathcal{P}_j (-{\bf p})|\le C_2\sum_{i}(1+|
2787: p_i|+| p_i^n|)=:C_2 (d+q)$ and thus, for $\nu>C_2+1$ we have, for $0\le l'\le n$,
2788: \begin{multline}
2789: \label{int2}
2790: |{\bf p}|^{l'} \int_{0}^t e^{| \mathcal{P}_j (-{\bf p})|
2791: (t-\tau)}e^{\nu(\tau+1)q}d\tau\le
2792: |{\bf p}|^{l'}e^{q\nu+C_2 t d }\int_0^te^{(\nu-C_2)q\tau} d\tau\\
2793: \le T^{1-l'/n} e^{\nu q (t+1) + C_2 t d}
2794: \frac{|{\bf p}|^{l'}}{[(\nu - C_2) q]^{l'/n}} \sup_{\gamma > 0}
2795: \frac{1 - e^{-\gamma}}{\gamma^{1-l'/n}}
2796: \le \frac{C_3 (T)}{(\nu - C_2)^{l'/n}}
2797: e^{\nu q (t+1) + C_2 t d}
2798: \end{multline}
2799: \end{enumerate}
2800:
2801:
2802: \subsection{Modified estimates for Lemma~\ref{combined}.}\label{PL31}
2803:
2804:
2805: >From (\ref{pd}) it follows that for a constant $C$ independent of $
2806: \boldsymbol{\Psi},\boldsymbol{\Phi}$ we have
2807: \begin{equation}\label{mod}
2808: |\boldsymbol{\Psi}*\boldsymbol{\Phi}|\le Ce^{\nu (t+1)\sum_i(|p_l|+|p_l|^n)} \|\boldsymbol{\Psi}\|_{\nu n} \|\boldsymbol{\Phi}\|_{\nu n}
2809: \end{equation}
2810: In particular $\mathfrak{B}(\nu,n,\mathcal{S})$ is a Banach algebra.
2811: For the equivalent of Lemma~\ref{L4}, we use the following bounds.
2812: \begin{multline}\label{new3}
2813: I=\int_0^{|p_1|} s^{\alpha - 1} e^{- \nu (t+1) [|p_1|^n - (|p_1|-s)^n]}
2814: e^{-\nu (t+1) s} ds\le \int_0^{|p_1|} s^{\alpha - 1} e^{-\nu (t+1) s} ds
2815: \\\le \frac{\nu^{-\alpha}}{\Gamma(\alpha)(t+1)^{\alpha}}\\
2816: {\text{and }}\ I
2817: \le |p_1|^\alpha \int_0^{1} s^{\alpha - 1} e^{-\nu (t+1) |p_1|^n
2818: [ 1- (1-s)^n ] } ds \le
2819: C \frac{2^\alpha \Gamma (\alpha) |p_1|^\alpha}{[\nu (t+1) |p_1|^n]^\alpha}
2820: \end{multline}
2821: where we used (\ref{minilemma}) for $\sigma = 0$. From (\ref{new3})
2822: it is clear that
2823: \begin{equation}\label{181}
2824: \|{\bf H} * F_j \|_{\nu n} \le \big \| |{\bf H}| * |F_j| \big \|_{\nu n}
2825: \le C[\Gamma (\alpha)]^{d}c^\alpha (\nu(t+1))^{-d \alpha} \| {\bf F} \|_{\nu n}
2826: \end{equation} In Lemma \ref{L4.7.9}, we get instead
2827: $$
2828: \Big | |{\bf F}| * |{\bf G}| \Big | \le e^{\nu(t+1) \sum_i
2829: (|p_i|+|p_i|^n) } \| {\bf F} \|_{\nu n} \| {\bf G} \|_{\nu n} $$
2830: Very similar changes are made in in Lemma~\ref{L4.9.5},
2831: Corollary~\ref{C5}, and in Lemma~\ref{L6} where in the proof we use
2832: (\ref{int2}) instead of (\ref{eq:28.5}). Definition~\ref{D4},
2833: Lemma~\ref{L7} and Definition~\ref{D41} do not change.
2834: Lemma~\ref{L7.5}, Lemma~\ref{L8} change in the same way as above. In
2835: Lemma~\ref{L8.9} we use again (\ref{int2}) instead of (\ref{eq:28.5})
2836: to make corresponding changes. Finally, in Lemma~\ref{L10},
2837: $\nu/4$ changes to $\nu/4/c$.
2838:
2839:
2840:
2841:
2842: \section{Acknowledgments} The authors are very grateful to B L J Braaksma for
2843: a careful reading of the manuscript and many useful suggestions. The
2844: authors are indebted to R D Costin for valuable suggestions. One of the
2845: authors also benefited from discussions with B. Sandstede. Work supported by
2846: NSF Grants DMS-0100495, DMS-0074924, DMS-0103829. Travel support by the Math
2847: Research Institute of the Ohio State University is also gratefully
2848: acknowledged.
2849:
2850:
2851:
2852:
2853: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2854: \bibitem{Balser} W Balser From Divergent Power Series to Analytic Functions, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (1994).
2855: \bibitem{Balser2} W Balser, Multisummability of formal power series
2856: solutions of partial differential equations with constant
2857: coefficients. (preprint).
2858: \bibitem{Balser3} W Balser, Divergent solutions of the heat equation:
2859: on an article of Lutz, Miyake and Sch\"afke. Pacific J. Math. 188,
2860: no. 1, 53--63 (1999).
2861: \bibitem{benderorszag} C Bender and S Orszag, {\em Advanced
2862: Mathematical Methods for scientists and engineers}, McGraw-Hill, 1978, Springer-Verlag 1999.
2863:
2864: \bibitem{Braaksma} B. L. J. Braaksma, Multisummability of formal power series solutions of nonlinear meromorphic differential equations. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 42 no. 3, pp. 517--540 (1992).
2865:
2866: \bibitem{DMJ} O. Costin, On Borel Summation and Stokes Phenomena for
2867: Rank-1 Nonlinear Systems of Ordinary Differential Equations, Duke
2868: Math. J. {\bf 93}, No.2, 289 (1998).
2869:
2870:
2871: \bibitem{Inventiones} O. Costin, R. D. Costin, On the formation of
2872: singularities of solutions of nonlinear differential systems in
2873: antistokes directions, Inv. Math., 45, 3, pp 425-485 (2001).
2874:
2875:
2876: \bibitem{CPAM} O. Costin, S. Tanveer, Existence and uniqueness for a
2877: class of nonlinear higher-order partial differential equations in
2878: the complex plane, Comm. Pure Appl. Math, Vol. LIII, 1092---1117
2879: (2000).
2880:
2881: \bibitem{Marseille} O. Costin and S. Tanveer, Analyzability in the
2882: context of PDEs and applications (submitted to Annales Toulouse).
2883:
2884: \bibitem{TOP} O. Costin, Topological construction of Transseries and
2885: introduction to generalized Borel summability. In Analyzable functions
2886: and applications, {\it Contemp. Math.}, 373, pp 137-175. AMS, Providence.
2887:
2888: \bibitem{CPAM3} O. Costin and S. Tanveer, Complex singularity analysis for a
2889: nonlinear PDE, To appear in {\it Comm. PDE}
2890:
2891: \bibitem{Ecalle1} J. \'Ecalle, Fonctions Resurgentes, Publications Mathematiques D' Orsay, (1981).
2892: \bibitem{EcalleNato} J. \'Ecalle in Bifurcations and periodic orbits
2893: of vector fields NATO ASI Series, Vol. 408, 1993.
2894:
2895: \bibitem{[E6]} J. \'Ecalle Fonctions analysables et preuve constructive
2896: de la conjecture de Dulac, Paris : Hermann (1992).
2897:
2898: \bibitem{GRB} P. Garabedian, Stability of Cauchy's Problem in Space for
2899: Analytic System of Arbitrary Type, J. Math. Mech.,
2900: {\bf 9}, 905 (1960).
2901:
2902:
2903: \bibitem{Lutz} D. A. Lutz, M. Miyake and R.
2904: Sch\"afke On the Borel summability of divergent
2905: solutions of the heat equation, Nagoya Math. J. {\bf
2906: 154}, 1, (1999).
2907:
2908: \bibitem{[CSI]} M. Sammartino and R. E. Caflisch, Zero Viscosity Limit
2909: for Analytic Solutions of the Navier-Stokes Equation on a Half-Space.
2910: I. Existence for Euler and Prandtl Equations, Commun. Math. Phys.
2911: {\bf 192}, 433--461 (1998).
2912:
2913: \bibitem{[CSII]} M. Sammartino and R. E. Caflisch, Zero Viscosity Limit
2914: for Analytic Solutions of the Navier-Stokes Equation on a
2915: Half-Space. II. Construction of the Navier-Stokes Solution,
2916: Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 192}, 463 (1998).
2917:
2918:
2919: \bibitem{TNV} S. Tanveer, Evolution of Hele-Shaw interface for small
2920: surface tension, Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. London A. {\bf
2921: 343}, 155 (1993).
2922:
2923: \bibitem{Treves} F. Treves, Basic linear partial differential equations, Academic Press (1975).
2924: \end{thebibliography}
2925:
2926:
2927:
2928: \vfill \eject
2929:
2930: \newpage
2931: \figure
2932: \ifx\pdftexversion\undefined
2933:
2934: \else
2935: $ $ \vskip -8cm
2936: \fi
2937: \includegraphics{fig1}
2938: \caption{Contour $C_D$ in the $(\mb p)_i-$plane.}
2939: \endfigure
2940:
2941:
2942: \end{document}
2943:
2944:
2945: