1: \documentclass[reqno,11pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{amssymb,amsthm,amsmath,amsfonts}

3: \usepackage{epsfig}

4: 

5: \pagestyle{myheadings}

6: \markboth{G. Menon and R. L. Pego}{G. Menon and R. L. Pego}

7: \bibliographystyle{siam}

8: \theoremstyle{plain}

9: \begingroup

10: \newtheorem*{metathm}{Metatheorem} 

11: \newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[section] 

12: \newtheorem{cor}[thm]{Corollary}

13: \newtheorem{lemma}[thm]{Lemma}

14: \newtheorem{prop}[thm]{Proposition}

15: \newtheorem{conj}[thm]{Conjecture}

16: \newtheorem*{refthm}{Theorem}

17: \endgroup

18: 

19: \newcommand{\nwc}{\newcommand}

20: \nwc{\bit}{\begin{itemize}}

21: \nwc{\eit}{\end{itemize}}

22: \nwc{\Levy}{L\'evy}

23: \nwc{\LK}{L\'evy-Khintchine}

24: \nwc{\LI}{L\'evy-It\^{o}}

25: \nwc{\be}{\begin{equation}}

26: \nwc{\ee}{\end{equation}}

27: \nwc{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}

28: \nwc{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}

29: \nwc{\la}{\label}

30: \nwc{\nn}{\nonumber}

31: \nwc{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}}

32: \nwc{\C}{\mathbb{C}}

33: \nwc{\E}{\mathbb{E}}

34: \nwc{\R}{\mathbb{R}}

35: \nwc{\N}{\mathbb{N}}

36: \nwc{\attr}{\mathcal{A}_{\rm p}}

37: \nwc{\attrx}{\mathcal{A}}

38: \nwc{\PP}{\mathcal{P}}

39: \nwc{\PPE}{\mathcal{P}(E)}

40: \nwc{\M}{\mathcal{M}}

41: \nwc{\Tt}{T^{(t)}}

42: \nwc{\Ut}{U^{(t)}}

43: \nwc{\gtx}{g^{(t)}_x}

44: \nwc{\law}{\stackrel{\mathcal{L}}{\rightarrow}}

45: \nwc{\eqd}{\stackrel{d}{=}}

46: \nwc{\vp}{\varphi}

47: \nwc{\Vp}{\Phi}

48: \nwc{\psilevy}{\Psi}

49: \nwc{\ve}{\varepsilon}

50: \nwc{\veps}{\varepsilon}

51: \nwc{\eps}{\ve}

52: \nwc{\betarsc}{\beta}

53: \nwc{\cl}{c\'{a}dl\'{a}g}

54: \nwc{\qref}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

55: \nwc{\D}{\partial}

56: \nwc{\Ebar}{{\bar{E}}}

57: \nwc{\ebar}{[0,\infty)}

58: \nwc{\mmt}{m}

59: \nwc{\fzero}{F_\rho} %{F_{0,\rho}}

60: \nwc{\fone}{M_\rho} %{F_{1,\rho}}

61: \nwc{\ip}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}

62: \nwc{\ipbig}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}

63: \nwc{\Lip}{\mathop{\rm Lip}\nolimits}

64: \nwc{\Tmin}{T_{\min}}

65: \nwc{\Tmax}{T_{\max}}

66: \nwc{\Tgel}{T_{\rm gel}}

67: \nwc{\LL}{\mathcal{L}}

68: \nwc{\mudot}{\mu}

69: \nwc{\nudot}{\nu}

70: \nwc{\rme}{{\rm e}}

71: \nwc{\rmi}{{\rm i}}

72: \nwc{\nsup}{^{(n)}}

73: \nwc{\nsupj}{^{(n_j)}}

74: \nwc{\ksup}{^{(k)}}

75: \nwc{\jsup}{^{(j)}}

76: \nwc{\tsup}{^{(t)}}

77: \nwc{\nksup}{^{(n_k)}}

78: \nwc{\inv}{^{-1}}

79: \nwc{\qxfac}{(1-\rme^{-qx})}

80: \nwc{\Mcan}{\mathcal{S}_d}

81: \nwc{\Mcanx}{\mathcal{S}}

82: \nwc{\sm}{G}

83: \nwc{\dsm}{H}

84: \nwc{\Hmap}{{\mathfrak S}_p}

85: \nwc{\Hmapx}{{\mathfrak S}}

86: \nwc{\canmap}{f}

87: \nwc{\canonical}{\mathcal{M}}

88: \nwc{\dnto}{\downarrow}

89: \nwc{\upto}{\uparrow}

90: \nwc{\cpair}{c}  % For Levy pair

91: \nwc{\intR}{\int_0^\infty}

92: \nwc{\tnu}{\tilde\nu}

93: \nwc{\smeas}{s-measure} %{$s$-measure}

94: \nwc{\smeass}{s-measures} %{$s$-measures}

95: \nwc{\barsmeas}{$\overline{\mbox{s}}$-measure} %{$\bar s$-measure}

96: \nwc{\barsmeass}{$\overline{\mbox{s}}$-measures} %{$\bar s$-measures}

97: \nwc{\nubar}{\bar{\nu}}

98: \nwc{\mubar}{\bar{\mu}}

99: \nwc{\dust}{a_0}

100: \nwc{\bdust}{b_0}

101: \nwc{\gel}{a_\infty}

102: \nwc{\bgel}{b_\infty}

103: \nwc{\ggel}{g_\infty}

104: \nwc{\Fbar}{\bar{F}}

105: \nwc{\Fcheck}{\check{F}}

106: \nwc{\nucheck}{\tilde{\nu}}

107: \nwc{\hvp}{\hat{\vp}}

108: \nwc{\hpsi}{\hat{\psi}}

109: \nwc{\htt}{\hat{t}}

110: \nwc{\hq}{\hat{q}}

111: \nwc{\hs}{\hat{s}}

112: \nwc{\dist}{\mathop{\rm dist}\nolimits}

113: \nwc{\extsol}{\Fbar}

114: \nwc{\specialF}{\hat\Fbar}

115: \nwc{\esm}{\bar{\sm}}

116: \nwc{\tlam}{\tilde\lambda}

117: \nwc{\lgr}{a} 

118: \nwc{\Fgr}{F_{\rho,\gamma}}

119: \nwc{\vpgr}{\vp_{\rho,\gamma}}

120: \renewcommand{\Re}{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}

121: \renewcommand{\Im}{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits}

122: 

123: \theoremstyle{definition}

124: \newtheorem{defn}{Definition}[section]

125: \newtheorem{rem}[defn]{Remark} 

126: \newtheorem{counterex}[defn]{Counterexample} 

127: \newtheorem{ex}[defn]{Example} 

128: \theoremstyle{remark}

129: \newtheorem{hyp}{Assumption } 

130: \newtheorem{notation}{Notation} 

131: \renewcommand{\thenotation}{} % To make notation environment unnumbered

132: \newtheorem{terminology}{Terminology} 

133: \renewcommand{\theterminology}{} % To make terminology environment unnumbered

134: %%%%----------------------------------------------------------------------

135: %%%%----------------------------------------------------------------------

136: %%       The following causes equations to be numbered within sections:

137: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

138: \numberwithin{figure}{section}

139: %%%%----------------------------------------------------------------------

140: %%%%----------------------------------------------------------------------

141: 

142: \begin{document}

143: \title{The scaling attractor and ultimate dynamics for Smoluchowski's

144:   coagulation equations} 

145: \author{Govind Menon\textsuperscript{1} and Robert. L.

146: Pego\textsuperscript{2}}

147: 

148: \date{\today}

149: 

150: \maketitle

151: 

152: \begin{abstract}

153: We describe a basic framework for studying dynamic scaling

154: that has roots in dynamical systems and probability theory.

155: Within this framework, we study Smoluchowski's coagulation equation 

156: for the three simplest rate kernels $K(x,y)=2$, $x+y$ and $xy$. 

157: In another work,

158: we classified all self-similar solutions and all universality

159: classes (domains of attraction) for scaling limits under weak

160: convergence (Comm.\ Pure Appl.\ Math 57 (2004)1197-1232).  Here

161: we add to this a complete description of the set of all limit

162: points of solutions modulo scaling (the {\it  scaling attractor})

163: and the dynamics on this limit set (the {\em ultimate

164: dynamics\/}). The main tool is Bertoin's \LK\/ representation

165: formula for eternal solutions of Smoluchowski's equation (Adv.\

166: Appl.\ Prob.\ 12 (2002) 547--64).  This representation 

167: {\em linearizes} the dynamics on the scaling attractor, 

168: revealing these dynamics to be

169: conjugate to a continuous dilation, and chaotic in a classical sense.

170: Furthermore, our study of scaling limits explains how Smoluchowski dynamics 

171: ``compactifies'' in a natural way that accounts for clusters 

172: of zero and infinite size (dust and gel). 

173: \end{abstract} 

174: 

175: \noindent

176: {\bf Keywords:\/} dynamic scaling, 

177: agglomeration, coagulation, coalescence, 

178: infinite divisibility, \Levy\ processes, \LK\/ formula, 

179: stable laws, universal laws, semi-stable laws, Doeblin solution

180: 

181: \medskip

182: \noindent

183: {\bf MSC classification:\/} 82C22, 44A10, 45K05, 60F05

184: 

185: \medskip

186: 

187: \footnotetext[1]

188: {Division of Applied Mathematics, Box F, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912.

189: Email: menon@dam.brown.edu}

190: \footnotetext[2]{Department of Mathematical Sciences, 

191: Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

192: Email: rpego@cmu.edu}

193: 

194: \pagebreak

195: \section{Introduction}

196: \label{sec:intro}

197: Smoluchowski's coagulation equation is a fundamental mean-field model

198: of clustering processes. The merging of clusters of mass $x$ and mass

199: $y$ to produce clusters of mass $x+y$ 

200: occurs at a mass-action rate modulated by a symmetric rate kernel

201: $K(x,y)$. Formally, the evolution equation for the density $n(t,x)$

202: of the size distribution reads

203: \begin{eqnarray}

204: {\partial_t n}(t,x) &=& 

205: \frac{1}{2} \int_0^x K(x-y,y) n(t,x-y) n(t,y) dy  

206: \nonumber\\

207: &&\ -\ \int_0^\infty K(x,y) n(t,x) n(t,y) dy,

208: \label{eq:smol1}

209: \end{eqnarray}

210: Many kernels arising in applications are homogeneous, that is, there

211: is $\gamma$ such that  $K(\alpha x, \alpha y) = \alpha^\gamma K(x,y)$

212: for every $\alpha,x,y >0$.  We restrict attention to the ``solvable''

213: kernels $K(x,y)=2$, $x+y$ and $xy$ ($\gamma=0$, 1 and 2 respectively)

214: which may be

215: studied via the Laplace transform. These special kernels arise in a

216: variety of applications, 

217: including the aggregation of colloids \cite{Chandra}($K=2$), 

218: droplet formation in clouds \cite{Golovin},

219: %gravitational clustering \cite{},

220: a phase transition for parking \cite{Chassaing},

221: Burgers' model of turbulence \cite{B_burgers} ($K=x+y$),

222: random graphs~\cite{Aldous} ($K=xy$), and kinetics of

223: polymerization~\cite{Ziff} (all kernels).

224: 

225: As time proceeds, the typical cluster size grows, and

226: an issue of relevance for homogeneous kernels is whether and how the size  

227: distribution develops toward self-similar form. In the

228: physics literature, this is called the {\em dynamic scaling\/} problem.  

229: This work continues our study of dynamic scaling for Smoluchowski's 

230: equation for the solvable kernels. We lay out a

231: general framework for the analysis of dynamic scaling that is 

232: inspired by elements from both dynamical systems and probability

233: theory. The main issues may be set out as a list of basic and

234: general questions:

235: \bit

236: \item What scaling solutions exist? 

237: Here we seek {\em self-similar solutions\/}, 

238: or fixed points of the dynamics modulo scaling.

239: \item What are the domains of attraction of these scaling solutions? 

240: These comprise the {\em universality classes\/} for dynamic scaling.

241: \item What limit points are possible under scaling dynamics in general?

242: We call the set of such points the {\it scaling attractor} of the system.

243: \item How can we describe the dynamics on the scaling attractor? 

244: We call this the {\it ultimate dynamics} of the system.

245: \item How complicated can the ultimate dynamics be?

246: \eit

247: 

248: While evidently stated in dynamical terms, strong motivation for this

249: framework comes from the classical limit theorems of probability theory

250: developed by the pioneers of the subject in the 1930s. 

251: These theorems concern limits of scaled sums of independent and

252: identically distributed random variables $X_1$, $X_2$, $\ldots$ with

253: common distribution $F$. 

254: The distribution of $Y_n=\sum_{j=1}^n X_j$ is the $n$-fold convolution

255: of $F$ with itself and this can be regarded as a discrete evolution

256: law for $F$.  The theory as laid out in the marvelous book of Feller

257: \cite{Feller} provides complete answers to the questions above:

258: \bit

259: \item {\em Scaling solutions.}

260: The normal distribution is the unique invariant distribution of finite

261: variance.  More generally, all 

262: invariant distributions (including those with heavy tails) 

263: comprise a two-parameter family, the {\em stable laws\/}

264: first  characterized completely by L\'{e}vy (see~\cite{Loeve} for a

265: historical account). 

266: %The densities for these distributions may be

267: %written as $p(x;\alpha,\theta)$, where $x \in \R$, $0 < \alpha \leq

268: %2$, $|\theta| \leq \min\{\alpha, 2-\alpha\}$. The parameter $\alpha$

269: %measures the algebraic decay of $p(x;\alpha,\theta)$ as $|x| \to

270: %\infty$. At the endpoint $\alpha=2$ we recover the normal distribution.   

271: \item {\em Domains of attraction.}

272: The central limit theorem states that the normal law 

273: attracts all distributions with finite variance. The domains of

274: attraction of the stable laws are completely 

275: classified in terms of the  power-law

276: behavior (more precisely, {\em regular variation\/}) and skewness of

277: the 2nd-moment distribution function. There 

278: are no other invariant distributions or domains of attraction in

279: the limit $n\to\infty$.

280: \item {\em Infinite divisibility.}

281: The most general distributions that can arise 

282: as rescaled limits for some subsequence $n_j\to\infty$ are the 

283: {\em infinitely divisible distributions\/}, characterized

284: by the famous \LK\/ formula.

285: The characteristic function $\varphi(k)

286: = \mathbb{E}(e^{ikX})$ of an infinitely divisible random variable $X$

287: is of the form $\varphi(k) = \exp\Psi(k)$ where 

288: \[\Psi(k) = 

289: \int_\mathbb{R} \frac{(e^{ikx}-

290: 1 -ik\sin x)}{x^2} M(dx) + ibk 

291: \]  

292: with $\int_{\R} (1\wedge x^{-2}) M(dx) < \infty$ and $b\in\R$.

293: The measure $M$ is called the {\em canonical measure}.

294: \item {\em Ultimate dynamics.}

295: Under appropriate rescaling, nondegenerate limit points for the 

296: discrete evolution $n\mapsto S_n$ correspond one-to-one to 

297:  {\it \Levy\/ processes}  (continuous-time random walks with stationary

298:   independent increments).  

299: These are stochastic processes $X_t$ ($t>0$)

300: with right continuous paths with left limits,

301:  obeying the semigroup formula 

302: $\varphi_t(k) = \mathbb{E}(e^{ikX_t}) = e^{t\Psi(k)}$. 

303: Rescaling amplitude and $t$ (scaling dynamics) corresponds to 

304: linear tranformations (dilation, stretching, shifts) of the canonical measure.

305: %[Stop here? If not, strictly

306: %  speaking, one should describe the full \LK\/ representation

307: %  including the Gaussian coefficient and mean and not just the jump

308: %  measure]  in terms of the \Levy\

309: %measure, which is the jump-size distribution for a continuous-time random walk

310: %whose time-one increments follow the given infinitely divisible

311: %law. 

312: \item {\em Chaos.}

313: There exist distributions ({\it Doeblin's universal laws})

314: for which {\it every} infinitely divisible distribution appears as

315: some limit point for rescaled self-convolutions.  

316: %Thus the ultimate dynamics among the infinitely divisible laws is chaotic

317: %in a sense.

318: \eit

319: 

320: In an earlier article \cite{MP1}, we characterized the approach to

321: self-similarity for Smoluchowski's equation as $t\to\infty$ for $K=2$

322: and $x+y$, and the approach to self-similar blow-up as 

323: $t$ approaches the {\em gelation time} for $K=xy$.

324: By way of addressing the first two issues in the framework above we found:  

325: \bit

326: \item 

327: For each solvable kernel, with degree of homogeneity $\gamma\in\{0,1,2\}$, there

328: is a (classically known) self-similar solution with finite

329: $\gamma+1$st 

330: moment, unique up to normalization. This solution has

331: exponential decay as $x \to \infty$.

332: But more generally, there is a 

333: one-parameter family of self-similar solutions, corresponding to 

334: distribution functions 

335: written $F_{\rho,\gamma}$ for $\rho \in (0,1], \gamma \in \{0,1,2\}$. 

336: We recover the classical self-similar solution at the endpoint $\rho=1$. 

337: For $0 < \rho < 1$, the $F_{\rho,\gamma}$ have 

338: infinite $\gamma+1$st moment and are directly related 

339: to important heavy-tailed distributions of probability theory --- 

340: Mittag-Leffler distributions for $K=2$, and stable laws of maximum skewness 

341: for $K=x+y$ and $xy$. For $K=x+y$ these solutions were first discovered by

342: Bertoin by a different argument~\cite{B_eternal}.

343: 

344: \item The classical self-similar solution with $\rho=1$ attracts all

345: solutions with finite $\gamma+1$st moment. 

346: In general, the domains of attraction of self-similar solutions 

347: are characterized by

348: the regular variation of the $\gamma+1$st moment distribution. A positive

349: measure $\nu_0$ lies in the domain of attraction of the self-similar

350: solution $F_{\rho,\gamma}$ if and only if

351: \begin{equation}\label{1.domain}

352: \int_0^x y^{\gamma+1}\nu_0(dy) \sim x^{1-\rho}L(x), \qquad x\to \infty,

353: \end{equation}

354: for some function $L$ slowly varying at $\infty$ ($L(\lambda x)/L(\lambda)\to1$

355: as $\lambda\to\infty$ for all $x>0$). There are no other self-similar

356: solutions or domains of attraction.

357: \eit

358: 

359: Our present goal is to investigate more generally the 

360: scaling dynamics of Smoluchowski's equation for the solvable

361: kernels, as $t\to\infty$ for $K=2$ and $x+y$ and as $t$ approaches

362: the gelation time for $K=xy$. 

363: To stress the probabilistic analogy, if our earlier

364: article was a study of stable laws, here we study infinite

365: divisibility. The basis for our work is Bertoin's characterization 

366: of {\it  eternal solutions\/} 

367: for Smoluchowski's equation with additive kernel

368: $K=x+y$~\cite{B_eternal}. Eternal solutions for this kernel are defined 

369: for all $t\in(-\infty,\infty)$

370: (i.e., they may be extended  {\em backwards\/} in time globally), 

371: and thus they are `infinitely divisible' under clustering dynamics.

372: Bertoin established a remarkable  \LK-type representation for these

373: solutions. We generalize this result to other solvable kernels, and

374: revisit it from a dynamical systems viewpoint. In the context of the

375: framework above, we find that

376: \bit

377: \item The (proper) scaling attractor corresponds in one-to-one fashion with

378: eternal solutions of Smoluchowski's equation, and these have a

379: \LK\/ representation for each solvable kernel.

380: \item The \LK\/ representation {\em linearizes the dynamics on the

381:   attractor}.  Nonlinear evolution by Smoluchowski's equation on the attractor  

382:   is conjugate to a group of simple scaling transformations on the 

383:   measures that generate the representation.

384:  Heuristically, the classification of the domains of

385: attraction in~\cite{MP1} shows 

386: that the dynamics are extremely sensitive to the tails of

387: the initial size distribution. The  \LK\/ representation

388: makes this precise: the ultimate dynamics on the

389:   scaling attractor is conjugate to a continuous dilation map.

390: \item One may use the \LK\ representation to construct orbits with

391:   complicated dynamics. The scaling attractor contains a dense family

392:   of scaling-periodic solutions. Furthermore, 

393: there are eternal solutions with 

394: trajectories {\em dense} in the scaling attractor --- 

395: we call these {\it Doeblin solutions}. 

396: And, for any given scaling trajectory, there is a dense set of initial data

397: whose forward trajectories shadow the given one.

398: \eit

399: 

400: In addition, this study of scaling limits reveals how Smoluchowski dynamics 

401: ``compactifies'' in a natural way that accounts for clusters 

402: of zero and infinite size (dust and gel). 

403: Considering defective limits on $(0,\infty)$ that concentrate probability 

404: at 0 and $\infty$ yields a well-posed dynamics of 

405: ``extended solutions'' on $[0,\infty]$. 

406: Proper solutions remain fundamental, 

407: but considering extended solutions with dust and gel helps to understand

408: just how the tails of initial data determine long-time behavior.

409: 

410: We remark that scaling-periodic solutions are analogous to the {\it

411: semi-stable} laws in probability theory \cite{semistable}.  

412: Our ``Doeblin solutions'' are constructed by ``packing the tails'' of the

413: \Levy\ measure in a fashion entirely analogous to the construction of

414: Doeblin's universal laws in probability \cite[XVII.9]{Feller}.

415: In this connection, it is interesting to note

416: that the examples in~\cite[XVII.9]{Feller}, dismissed by Feller as

417: ``primarily of curiosity value,'' closely resemble

418: modern treatments of chaos, and Doeblin's construction appears

419: particularly prescient. 

420: 

421: The solvable cases of Smoluchowski's

422: equation correspond to sophisticated stochastic models with a rich

423: theory (see~\cite{Aldous, B_icm} for excellent reviews), 

424: so perhaps it is no accident that the

425: classical probabilistic  methods work so well. But let

426: us stress that our work really relies only on the analytical methods

427: for studying scaling limits that lie behind the classical limit theorems. 

428: These methods are simple and powerful and should be of utility for

429: understanding scaling phenomena in other applications that have no

430: obvious probabilistic meaning.  

431: Thus, no knowledge of probability is presumed and (almost) all details are

432: included  (though there is no substitute for reading Feller!).

433: 

434: \section{Statement of results}

435: \label{sec:results}

436: In this section, we state our results precisely in a 

437: setting that unifies the treatment of dynamic scaling for all the

438: solvable kernels. 

439: 

440: Let $E$ denote the open interval $(0,\infty)$, 

441: $\M$ the space of non-negative Radon measures on $E$, and $\PP$ the space of

442: probability measures on $E$. We will always use the weak topology on

443: $\M$ and $\PP$. 

444: We also let $\Ebar$ denote the closed half line with point at

445: infinity, $\Ebar=[0,\infty]=[0,\infty)\cup\{\infty\}$, 

446: and let $\bar\PP$ be the space of probability measures on $\Ebar$.

447: 

448: Rigorous theories for solutions where

449: $\nu_t(dx)=n(t,x)\,dx$ is a general size-distribution measure on

450: $E=(0,\infty)$, thus accounting for both continuous and discrete

451: size distributions in one general setting, are based on the moment identity 

452: \begin{equation}\label{R.moment}

453: \frac{d}{dt}\int_E f(x)\nu_t(dx) = 

454:  \ \frac12\int_E\int_E

455: \tilde{f}(x,y) K(x,y)\nu_t(dx)\nu_t(dy),

456: \end{equation}

457: where $f$ is a suitable test function and $\tilde

458: f(x,y)=f(x+y)-f(x)-f(y)$, see \cite{MP1,Norris,FL-wellp}.  

459: Let $m_\theta(t) := \int_E x^\theta \nu_t(dx)$ denote the $\theta$-th

460: moment of $\nu_t$. By the results of \cite{MP1}, 

461: for a solvable kernel of homogeneity $\gamma$, 

462: any initial measure $\nu_{t_0}$ with finite $\gamma$-th moment 

463: $m_\gamma(t_0)$ determines a unique continuous weak solution

464: \be 

465: \la

466: {R.smol}

467: \nudot = (\nu_t(dx), t \in [t_0,\Tmax) ).

468: \ee

469: For convenience we can always scale the initial data so that 

470: \be

471: \label{R.normal2}

472: t_0:= \left\{ \begin{array}{rl} 1 &  (K=2),\\ 0 & (K=x+y),

473: \\ -1 &  (K=xy),   \end{array} \right.

474: \quad\mbox{and }\ %

475: m_\gamma(t_0)= \int_E x^\gamma \nu_{t_0}(dx) =1.

476: \ee

477: Then

478: $\Tmax=\infty$ for $K=2$ and $x+y$, and $\Tmax=0$ for $K=xy$.

479: %$\Tgel = t_0 + m_2(t_0)^{-1}$ \footnote{[[=??in terms of $m_3$]]}

480: %(the gelation time) for $K=xy$~\cite[\S 2]{MP1}.  

481: For each solvable kernel, 

482: $m_\gamma(t)=\int_Ey^\gamma\nu_t(dy)$ is an explicitly known 

483: function --- from \qref{R.moment} with $f(x)=x^\gamma$ we find

484: \begin{equation}\label{R.mgamma}

485: m_\gamma(t)= \left\{

486: \begin{array}{ll}

487: t^{-1} &(K=2),\\

488: 1      &(K=x+y),\\ 

489: |t|^{-1} &(K=xy).

490: \end{array} \right.

491: \end{equation}

492: 

493: The solution $\nu_t$ is typically not a

494: probability measure because the total number of clusters decreases in

495: time, but there is a naturally associated

496: probability measure $F_t(dx)$ with distribution function $F_t(x)$ defined by

497: %\footnote{Is it supposed to be $(0,x)$ instead of $(0,x]$?? GM: The

498: %normalization $(0,x]$ is used by Feller, and fits better with the S-measures}

499: \begin{equation}\label{R.Fp}

500: %\mu_t((0,x))=

501: F_t(x) = \int_{(0,x]} y^\gamma \nu_t(dy) \left\slash

502: \int_E y^\gamma\nu_t(dy). \right.

503: \end{equation}

504: In this way, we regard Smoluchowski's equation 

505: as defining a continuous dynamical system on the phase space $\PP$. 

506: 

507: \subsection{Eternal solutions}

508: For exceptional initial data $\nu_{t_0}$ we may also solve backwards

509: in time (meaning $\nu_{t_0}$ is {\em divisible\/} under clustering

510: dynamics). The maximum possible interval of existence that can be

511: obtained in this way is denoted $(\Tmin, \Tmax)$, where $\Tmin,\Tmax$

512: depend only on the kernel and $\int_E x^\gamma  \nu_{t_0}(dx)$.  With

513: the normalization \qref{R.normal2}, the maximum possible interval of

514: existence turns out to be 

515: \be

516: \label{R.normal3}

517: (\Tmin,\Tmax) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} (0,\infty) &  (K=2), \\

518:   (-\infty, \infty)  &  (K=x+y), \\

519: (-\infty,0) & (K=xy). \end{array} \right.

520: \ee

521: Solutions which are defined on this maximum interval of existence 

522: are the analog of infinitely divisible laws in probability.  

523: \begin{defn}

524: \label{R.eternal}

525: A solution to Smoluchowski's equation that is defined for all

526: $t\in(\Tmin,\Tmax)$ is called an {\em eternal solution}.  

527: \end{defn}

528: 

529: \subsection{The scaling attractor}

530: A central idea in dynamical systems theory is to understand the 

531: long-time behavior of solutions through the notions of

532: attractor and $\omega$-limit sets. Coagulation equations transport mass

533: from small to large scales, and all mass escapes as $t \to \Tmax$.

534: To obtain non-trivial  long-time behavior we must rescale solutions. We

535: adopt the following definitions for such {\em scaling dynamical

536:   systems\/}. Below, $T_n \in [t_0, \Tmax)$, $\betarsc_n >0$.

537:   We will often use the same letter to denote a measure

538: and its distribution function, e.g., $F(x)=\int_{[0,x]}F(dx)$. 

539: 

540: \begin{defn}\label{R.omegadef}

541: The (proper) {\em scaling $\omega$-limit set} of a solution $\nu$ to

542: Smoluchowski's equation  is the set of

543: probability measures $\hat F$ on $E$ for which there exist sequences

544: $T_n\to\Tmax$, $\betarsc_n \to \infty$, such that $F_{T_n}(\betarsc_nx) \to

545: \hat F(x)$ at every point of continuity of $\hat F$. 

546: \end{defn}

547: 

548: \begin{defn}\label{R.attractor}

549: The (proper) {\em scaling attractor}, $\attr$, is the set of probability

550: measures $\hat F$ on $E$ for which there exists

551: a sequence of solutions $\nudot\nsup$ defined for $t \in [t_0,\Tmax)$, and

552: sequences $T_n \to \Tmax$,  $\betarsc_n\to\infty$,  such that

553: $F\nsup_{T_n}(\betarsc_nx) \to  \hat F(x)$

554: at every point of continuity of $\hat F$. 

555: \end{defn}

556: 

557: As a consequence of continuous dependence of solutions on

558: initial data (forward and backward in time), we will show that

559: the scaling attractor is an invariant set, and that

560: points on the proper scaling attractor and eternal solutions are

561: in one-to-one correspondence.

562: 

563: \begin{thm}\label{RT.AE}

564: \begin{enumerate}

565: \item[(a)]

566: The proper scaling attractor $\attr$ is invariant: If $\nu$ is a solution

567: of Smoluchowski's equation,

568: and $F_t\in\attr$ for some $t$, then the solution is eternal and

569: $F_t\in\attr$ for all $t\in(\Tmin,\Tmax)$.

570: \item[(b)]

571: A probability measure $\hat F$ belongs to 

572: $\attr$ if and only if $\hat F(dx) = x^\gamma \nu_{t_0}(dx)$ 

573: for some eternal solution $\nudot$, where $t_0$ is as in

574: \qref{R.normal2}. 

575: \end{enumerate}

576: \end{thm}

577: 

578: The perfect definition of an attractor remains elusive (see for

579: example, the discussion in~\cite[Ch. 1.6]{GH}).  

580: Definition~\ref{R.attractor} is perhaps the simplest 

581: for dynamical systems. It also has the virtue of

582: generalizing the probabilistic notion of domains of partial

583: attraction~\cite[XVII]{Feller}. However, some typical properties 

584: that hold in finite-dimensional dynamical systems do not hold here.

585: For example, it need not be the case that every solution has a non-empty

586: scaling $\omega$-limit set. Nor is $\attr$ closed. Defective limits are

587: possible, as shown in \cite{MP1}. See \cite{JainOrey} for a

588: discussion of related issues in the probabilistic context.

589: It turns out that we can cure these defects and account for limits

590: that involve mass concentrating at zero or leaking to infinity,  by

591: the simple expedient of allowing limits to be probability measures on

592: $\Ebar=[0,\infty]$.

593: 

594: \begin{defn}\label{R.full}

595: The full {\em scaling $\omega$-limit set} of a solution $\nu$ to

596: Smoluchowski's equation is the set of probability measures $\hat F$ on 

597: $\Ebar$ with the property in Definition~\ref{R.omegadef}.

598: The full {\em scaling attractor}, $\attrx$, is the set of

599: probability measures $\hat F$ on $\Ebar$ with the property in

600: Definition~\ref{R.attractor}.

601: \end{defn}

602: 

603: The space $\bar\PP$ of probability measures on $\Ebar$, 

604: equipped with the weak topology, is compact --- any 

605: sequence contains a converging subsequence.

606: We will show that Smoluchowski dynamics naturally extends

607: by continuity from $\PP$ to $\bar\PP$. Such ``extended solutions''

608: have probability

609: distributions that may include atoms at $0$ and $\infty$, allowing for the

610: possibility that clusters have zero size (``dust'') or

611: infinite size (``gel'') with positive probability.  

612: To interpret these physically, one

613: should recognize that of course $0$ and $\infty$ are idealizations

614: relative to a given scale of measuring cluster size. 

615: 

616: We defer detailed discussion of extended solutions to

617: section~\ref{S.extend}. There we extend

618: Theorem~\ref{RT.AE} to relate the full scaling attractor $\attrx$

619: (now a compact set that is the closure of $\attr$) to the set of

620: eternal extended solutions.  

621: Also, the \LK\ representation and linearization theorems in the next two

622: sections have elegant extensions involving extended solutions. 

623: %This representation is used to establish a basic property: $\attrx$ is the

624: %closure of $\attr$.  

625: First, however, we think it appropriate to focus on standard weak

626: solutions, and develop the theory without dust in our eyes, so to speak.

627: 

628: 

629: \subsection{\LK\/ representations}

630: 

631: In probability theory, infinitely divisible distributions

632: are parametrized by the \LK\/ representation theorem, which expresses 

633: the log of the characteristic function (Fourier transform) in terms of 

634: a measure that satisfies certain finiteness conditions.

635: %In particular~\cite[XIII.7]{Feller}, a probability measure 

636: %$F$ supported on $\ebar$ is infinitely divisible if and only

637: %if its Laplace transform has the form 

638: %$\intR \exp(-qx) F(dx)=\exp(-\Phi(q))$ where

639: %the Laplace exponent $\Phi$ admits the representation

640: In particular~\cite[XIII.7]{Feller}, a function $\omega(q)$

641: is the Laplace transform $\intR \rme^{-qx} F(dx)$

642: of an infinitely divisible probability measure 

643: $F$ supported on $\ebar$ if and only if

644: $\omega(q)=\exp(-\Phi(q))$ where

645: the Laplace exponent $\Phi$ admits the representation

646: \be

647: \label{R.LK2a}

648: \Phi (q) = \int_{[0,\infty)} \frac{1-\rme^{-qx}}{x} \sm(dx)

649: \ee

650: for some measure $\sm$ on $[0,\infty)$ that satisfies

651: \be

652: \label{R.gendef}

653: \int_{[0,x]} G(dy)<\infty \quad\mbox{and}\quad

654: \int_{[x,\infty)} y^{-1}\sm(dy)<\infty \quad\mbox{for all $x>0$.}

655: \ee

656: Equivalently, 

657: \begin{equation}\label{R.gendef2}

658: \int_{[0,\infty)} (1 \wedge y^{-1}) \sm(dy) <\infty.

659: \end{equation}

660: We need a name for measures with this property, 

661: although none seems standard.

662: Such measures determine the jump-size distribution for 

663: {\em subordinators} --- increasing continuous-time random walks with

664: stationary independent increments --- hence we call them 

665: {\em \smeass}. To handle defective limits, it is

666: convenient to allow $y\inv G(dy)$ to have an atom at $\infty$.

667: %\footnote{[[Compare Feller's canonical measures? ]]}

668: \begin{defn}

669: \label{R.candef}

670: A measure $G$ on $[0,\infty)$ is an {\em \smeas}\ if 

671: \qref{R.gendef2} holds.

672: A pair $(G,g_\infty)$ is called an {\em \barsmeas}\ on $\Ebar=[0,\infty]$ if 

673: $G$ is an \smeas\ and $g_\infty\ge0$.

674: $g_\infty$ is called the charge of $y^{-1}G(dy)$ at $\infty$,

675: and we will abuse notation by

676: denoting the pair $(\sm,g_\infty)$ by $G$.

677: In addition, we say that an \smeas\ (or \barsmeas) $\sm$ 

678: is {\em divergent\/} if

679: \be

680: \label{R.candef5}

681: \sm(0)>0 \quad\mbox{or}\quad 

682: \int_{E} y^{-1} \sm(dy) = \infty.

683: \ee

684: \end{defn}

685: \noindent

686: 

687: Here recall we use the notation $\sm(x)=\int_{[0,x]} \sm(dy)$.

688: If $g_\infty=0$ we identify $G$ with $(G,0)$.

689: The space of \barsmeass\ has a natural weak topology which

690: will prove fundamental in our study of scaling dynamics.

691: \begin{defn}

692: \la{R.proper}

693: A sequence of \barsmeass\ $\sm\nsup$ {\em converges} to an 

694: \barsmeas\ $\sm$ as $n\to\infty$, if at every point $x\in(0,\infty)$

695: of continuity of $\sm$ we have 

696: \begin{equation}\label{R.candef1}

697: \int_{[0,x]} \sm\nsup(dy)\to \int_{[0,x]} \sm(dy) 

698: \end{equation}

699: and 

700: \begin{equation}\label{R.candef2}

701: \int_{[x,\infty]} y\inv \sm\nsup(dy)\to \int_{[x,\infty]} y\inv \sm(dy) .

702: \end{equation}

703: \end{defn}

704: The integrals in \qref{R.candef2} include the charge at $\infty$, if

705: any.  We note that in view of the weak convergence implied by

706: \qref{R.candef1}, 

707: convergence of $\sm\nsup$ to an \smeas\ $\sm$ (having $g_\infty=0$)

708: is equivalent to \qref{R.candef1} together with the tightness condition 

709: \begin{equation}\label{R.candef3}

710: \int_{[x,\infty]} y\inv \sm\nsup(dy) \to 0 \quad\mbox{as $x\to\infty$, 

711: uniformly in $n$}.

712: \end{equation}

713: 

714: Bertoin's main theorem in \cite{B_eternal} shows that eternal solutions for

715: $K=x+y$ are in one-to-one correspondence with divergent \smeass. 

716: (More precisely, Bertoin formulates his result in terms of ``\Levy\/ pairs,'' 

717: separating the atom at the origin from a jump measure on $(0,\infty)$).  

718: We extend this result as follows.

719: Let $\nu$ be an arbitrary solution to Smoluchowski's equation 

720: for a solvable kernel of homogeneity $\gamma$. 

721: Since the $\gamma$-th moment of $\nu_t$ is finite, 

722: $x^{\gamma+1} \nu_t(dx)$ is an \smeas. 

723: Rescaling, we associate with $\nu_t$ 

724: the \smeas\ $\sm_t$ defined by

725: \be

726: \label{R.cansoln1}

727: \sm_t(dx) = x^{\gamma+1} \nu_t( \lambda(t) dx),

728: %\ee

729: %\quad\mbox{where}

730: \qquad %$\lambda(t), t \in (\Tmin,\Tmax)$ is defined by

731: %\be

732: %\label{R.cansoln2}

733: \lambda(t) = \left\{ \begin{array}{rl} 1 & (K=2),\\ \rme^t &

734:   (K=x+y),\\ |t|^{-1} & (K=xy). \end{array} \right.

735: \ee 

736: Our choice of rescaling ensures that if the total measure $\sm_t(E)$ is

737: finite for some $t$, then it is constant:

738: $\sm_t(E) = m_{\gamma+1}(t)/\lambda(t)^{\gamma+1}=$const.

739: 

740: One computes that

741: \be

742: \label{R.Sgro}

743: \intR y^{-1} \sm_t(dy) = 

744: \frac{m_\gamma(t) }{ \lambda(t)^{\gamma}} = 

745: \left\{ \begin{array}{rl} 

746: t^{-1} & (K=2),\\ \rme^{-t} & (K=x+y), \\ |t| & (K=xy)

747: \end{array} \right.

748: \ee

749: The well-posedness theorem \cite{MP1} implies that solutions of Smoluchowski's

750: equation normalized according to \qref{R.normal2} that exist

751: on any time interval $[t,\Tmax)$ 

752: {\em are in one-to-one correspondence} with \smeass\ $\hat\sm$ that

753: satisfy 

754: \[

755: \hat\sm(0)=0\quad\mbox{and}\quad

756: \intR y^{-1}\hat\sm(dy)= m_\gamma(t)/ \lambda(t)^{\gamma} ,

757: \]

758: via $\hat\sm=\sm_{t}$. Through studying the limit $t\dnto\Tmin$,

759: we find that eternal solutions may be characterized as follows.

760: \begin{thm}

761: \label{RT.LK}

762: \begin{enumerate}

763: \item[(a)]Let $\nu$ be an eternal solution for Smoluchowski's equation with

764: $K=2,x+y$ or $xy$. Then there is a divergent \smeas\ $\dsm$ 

765: such that 

766: $\sm_t$ converges to $\dsm$ as $t \dnto \Tmin$. 

767: \item[(b)] Conversely, for every divergent \smeas\ $\dsm$, 

768: there is a unique eternal solution $\nu$ 

769:   such that $\sm_t$ converges to $\dsm$ as $t \dnto \Tmin$.  

770: \item[(c)] 

771: Let $\Hmap\colon\attr\to\Mcan$

772: map the (proper) scaling attractor $\attr$

773: to the set $\Mcan$ of divergent \smeass\

774: by $\Hmap(\hat F)=\dsm$, where $\dsm$ is the divergent \smeas\ 

775: associated to the eternal solution $\nu$ such that

776: $\hat F(dx)=x^\gamma \nu_{t_0}(dx)$ with $t_0$ as in

777: \qref{R.normal2}. Then $\Hmap$ is a bi-continuous bijection.

778: %\footnote{GM: Is this OK? The attractor isn't

779: % closed, but the statement seems true}

780: %[[?? Let $\sm$ be divergent, $\tilde \sm$ not, and $a_n\dnto0$, then

781: %$a_n\sm+\tilde \sm$ converges to $\tilde \sm$. What gives?]]

782: % Ah, neither $\Mcan$ nor $\attr$ is closed.

783: \end{enumerate}

784: \end{thm}

785: The procedure for obtaining the eternal solution $\nu$ from the 

786: divergent \smeas\ $\dsm$ is nonlinear and is different

787: for each kernel (see Theorems~\ref{CT.eternal},~\ref{AT.eternal}, and

788: \ref{MT.eternal} below).  It seems natural to call Theorem~\ref{RT.LK} a

789: \LK\/ representation for the scaling attractor $\attr$ --- as we will see,

790: eternal solutions are determined through the Laplace exponents

791: associated with divergent \smeass. 

792: 

793: In section~\ref{S.extend}, the correspondence in Theorem~\ref{RT.LK}

794: is expanded to one between eternal extended solutions and arbitrary

795: \barsmeass.

796: 

797: %The divergence condition \qref{R.candef5} seems peculiar to 

798: %Smoluchowski's equation and has important probabilistic meaning in

799: %terms of the smoothness of sample paths of the associated \Levy\/ process.

800: 

801: \subsection{Linearization of ultimate dynamics}

802: There are two natural group actions on the class of

803: eternal solutions that are related to scaling dynamics, 

804: arising from {\em time evolution} and {\em rescaling of size}.

805: A straightforward but remarkable consequence of the scaling properties

806: of Smoluchowski's equation is that nonlinear dynamics (time evolution)

807: on the scaling attractor $\attr$ is conjugate to a simple linear

808: scaling transformation of the divergent \smeass\ that correspond by

809: Theorem~\ref{RT.LK}.

810: 

811: \begin{thm}\label{RT.scale}

812: Let $\nu$ be a solution of Smoluchowski's equation with

813: $K=2$, $x+y$ or $xy$. Given scaling parameters $a>0$ and $b>0$, let

814: \begin{equation}\label{newnu}

815: \tnu_t(dx) = \left\{

816: \begin{array}{ll}

817: a \nu_{at}(b\,dx)       &(K=2),\\

818: b \nu_{t+\log a}(b\,dx) &(K=x+y), \\

819: ab^2 \nu_{at}(b\,dx)    &(K=xy),

820: \end{array} \right.

821: \end{equation}

822: with associated probability distribution function

823: \begin{equation}\label{newF}

824: \tilde F_t(x) = \left\{

825: \begin{array}{ll}

826: F_{at}(bx) &(K=2 \text{ or }xy),\\

827: F_{t+\log a}(bx) &(K=x+y). 

828: \end{array}\right.

829: \end{equation}

830: Then $\tnu$ is again a solution.

831: % on the interval $[\tilde{t_0},

832: %  \Tmax)$ where [[ugh??]] %$\tilde{t_0}$ is defined by

833: %\begin{equation}\label{newt0}

834: %\tilde{t}_0 = \left\{

835: %\begin{array}{ll}

836: %a^{-1} t_0 &(K=2 \text{ or }xy),\\

837: %t_0 - \log a &(K=x+y). 

838: %\end{array}\right.

839: %\end{equation}

840: If $\nu$ is eternal and $\dsm$ its associated divergent \smeas,

841: then $\tnu$ is eternal and its associated divergent \smeas\ is given by 

842: \begin{equation}\label{newdmg}

843: \tilde\dsm(x) = \left\{

844: \begin{array}{ll}

845: ab^{-1}\dsm(bx)         &(K=2),\\

846: a^2b^{-1}\dsm(a^{-1}bx) &(K=x+y), \\

847: a^{-2}b^{-1}\dsm(abx)   &(K=xy).

848: \end{array} \right.

849: \end{equation}

850: \end{thm}

851: 

852: \begin{proof} The proof is simple, based on Theorem~\ref{RT.LK} and 

853: the scaling properties of Smoluchowski's equation. First, one

854: checks that \qref{newnu} determines a solution, by

855: scaling the moment identity \qref{R.moment} in each case.

856: Next, compute that if the \smeas\ $\sm_t$ is associated with

857: $\nu_t$ as in \qref{R.cansoln1}, then the corresponding 

858: \smeas\ associated with $\tnu_t$ is given by 

859: \begin{equation}\label{newmg}

860: \tilde\sm_t(dx) = \left\{

861: \begin{array}{rll}

862: x\tnu_t(dx)        &=\ ab^{-1}\sm_{at}(b\,dx)         &(K=2),\\

863: x^2\tnu_t(\rme^t\,dx) &=\ a^2b^{-1}\sm_{t+\log a}(a^{-1}b\,dx) &(K=x+y), \\

864: x^3\tnu_t(|t|^{-1}dx) &=\ a^{-2}b^{-1}\sm_{at}(ab\,dx)   &(K=xy).

865: \end{array} \right.

866: \end{equation}

867: Then take $t\downarrow\Tmin$ and apply Theorem~\ref{RT.LK} to

868: deduce \qref{newdmg}.

869: \end{proof}

870: 

871: \begin{thm}\label{RT.time}

872: Let $\nu$ be an eternal solution with corresponding

873: divergent \smeas\ $\dsm$ and let $F_t$ be as in

874: \qref{R.Fp} for $K=2$, $x+y$ or $xy$. For each

875: $t\in(\Tmin,\Tmax)$, let $\dsm_t=\Hmap(F_t)$

876: be the divergent \smeas\ associated to $F_t\in\attr$.

877: Then

878: \begin{equation}\label{Ht}

879: \dsm_t(x) = \left\{

880: \begin{array}{ll}

881: t \dsm(x)            &(K=2),\\

882: \rme^{2t} \dsm(\rme^{-t}x) &(K=x+y),\\

883: |t|^{-2}\dsm(|t|x)   &(K=xy).

884: \end{array}\right.

885: \end{equation}

886: \end{thm}

887: 

888: \begin{proof} Take $b=1$ and put $t=t_0$ in \qref{newF}, then substitute

889: $a=t$, $\rme^t$, $|t|$ for $K=2$, $x+y$, $xy$ respectively to obtain

890: $\tilde F_{t_0}=F_t$. Then the corresponding divergent 

891: \smeas\ $\dsm=\Hmap(\tilde F_{t_0})$ is found from \qref{newdmg}.

892: \end{proof}

893: 

894: By this theorem, we see that in terms of the divergent

895: \smeas\ that corresponds to the solution, the time evolution

896: on the scaling attractor $\attr$ is governed by the linear equations

897: \begin{alignat}{2}

898: t \D_t H_t &= H_t  &\quad&(K=2),\\

899: (\D_t + x\D_x) H_t &= 2H_t &&(K=x+y), \\

900: (t \D_t - x\D_x) H_t &= -2H_t &&(K=xy).

901: \end{alignat}

902: %% Though simple, these equations are striking from a dynamical

903: %% systems viewpoint.  One combines these dynamics with an

904: %% arbitrary time-dependent size rescaling in order to study

905: %% scaling limits.  (Size rescaling and time evolution commute.)

906: %% This means that the study of scaling limits on the attractor 

907: %% is reduced to the study of a continuous dilation map 

908: %% with arbitrary choice of amplitude normalization.

909: %[[Must discuss why this indicates chaos, where the shift map is.]]

910: %(Dilation of $x$ by the factor $b$ corresponds to 

911: %a shift by $\log b$ after a logarithmic

912: %change of variables $x \mapsto \log x$.)

913: \subsection{How initial tails encode scaling limits}

914: 

915: The long-time scaling behavior is very sensitive to the initial

916: distribution of the largest clusters in the system, as indicated by

917: the characterization of domains of attraction via

918: \qref{1.domain}, and the linearization theorem above. 

919: In fact, the long-time scaling dynamics is encoded in the tails

920: of initial data in a simple fashion related to the \LK\

921: representation. 

922: %  In this section we describe two manifestations of this:

923: % \begin{itemize}

924: % \item[(i)] For any point $\hat F$ in the proper scaling attractor $\attr$,

925: % its associated divergent \smeas\ $H$ is a limit of

926: % scaled initial tails of the solutions that approximate $\hat F$.

927: % \end{itemize}

928: 

929: %In what follows,

930: %we consider sequences $a_n \to \Tmax, b_n \to \infty$ and rescaled

931: %solutions $\tilde{F}\nsup_t$ and 

932: %$\tilde{G}\nsup_t$ defined on $[\tilde{t}\nsup_0, \Tmax)$ as in

933: %\qref{newdmg}, \qref{newt0} and \qref{newmg} with 

934: %$a,b$ replaced by $a_n,b_n$. Observe that $\tilde{t}\nsup_0 \to

935: %\Tmin$.  For brevity, we define

936: %\[ \tilde\sm\nsup(dx) = \tilde{\sm}_{\tilde{t}\nsup_0}(dx) =??.\] 

937: 

938: \begin{thm}

939: \label{RT.initial_tails}

940: Let $\hat F\in\attr$ 

941: %so $\hat F(dx)=x^\gamma\nu_{t_0}(dx)$ where $\nu$ is an eternal solution, 

942: with associated divergent \smeas\ $H$.

943: Let $\nu\nsup$ be any sequence of solutions defined for $t\ge t_0$,

944: with associated initial \smeass\ given by

945: $\sm\nsup(dx)=x^{\gamma+1}\nu\nsup_{t_0}(dx)$. 

946: Let $T_n \to \Tmax$, $\beta_n\to\infty$. 

947: Then the following are equivalent: 

948: \bit

949: \item[(i)] ${F}\nsup_{T_n}(\beta_n x) \to \hat F(x)$ % = x^\gamma\nu_{t_0}(dx)$

950: as $n\to\infty$, at every point of continuity. 

951: %(Equivalently,

952: %$a_n\nu\nsup_{a_n}(b_n\,\cdot)$ converges weakly to $\hat F$.)

953: %% \item[(ii)] 

954: %% As $n\to\infty$, $a_n \vp\nsup_1(q/b_n) \to \Vp(q)$ for all $q\ge 0$. 

955: \item[(ii)] The rescaled initial \smeass\ $\tilde\sm\nsup$ defined by

956: \begin{equation}\la{R.initG}

957: \tilde\sm\nsup(x) = \left\{

958: \begin{array}{ll}

959: \beta_n^{-1}T_n \,\sm\nsup(\beta_nx)

960: %= T_n\beta_n^{-1}\int_{[0,\beta_nx]} y\nu\nsup_{t_0}(dy) 

961:          &(K=2),\\[6pt]

962: \beta_n\inv \rme^{2T_n}\, \sm\nsup(\rme^{-T_n}\beta_nx) 

963: %= \beta_n\inv\rme^{2T_n} \int_0^{x\beta_n\exp(-T_n)}y^2\nu\nsup_0(dy) 

964: &(K=x+y), \\[6pt]

965: \beta_n\inv |T_n|^{-2} \,\sm\nsup(|T_n|\beta_n x)

966:  &(K=xy),

967: \end{array} \right.

968: \end{equation}

969: have the property that

970: $\tilde\sm\nsup$ converges to $\dsm$ as $n \to \infty$.

971: \eit

972: \end{thm}

973: \noindent

974: This result generalizes to the full attractor $\attrx$, with $H$

975: replaced by the corresponding \barsmeas, see section~\ref{S.extend}.

976: We remark that in the proof it is shown that for the convergence in

977: part (ii) to hold, it is necessary that $\rme^{-T_n}\beta_n\to\infty$

978: for $K=x+y$, and $|T_n|\beta_n\to\infty$ for $K=xy$.

979: %[[To see this, follow the proof of Theorem 7.1 on p 1224 of \cite{MP1}

980: %up to (7.8), considering only sequential limits. It's hard to see 

981: %how one could give a direct argument without a solution formula.]]

982: 

983: %% \begin{rem}

984: %% %We note that $\limsup a_n/b_n\le1$ [[why??]]. 

985: %% If the sequence $\nu\nsup$ is constant, then $\hat F$ belongs to the

986: %% scaling $\omega$-limit set of this solution. 

987: %% [remove?: If also $a_n=b_n$ then

988: %% $\tilde\sm\nsup$ is a pure dilation of the initial mass

989: %% measure.  So if the initial mass is finite then (ii) holds

990: %% with $\dsm$ an atom at the origin.  Correspondingly $\nu$ is

991: %% a self-similar solution with exponentially decaying tail.

992: %% The solution $\nu\nsup$ belongs to its domain of attraction;

993: %% see \cite[Theorem 5.1]{MP1}].

994: %% \end{rem}

995: 

996: \subsection{Signatures of chaos} \la{RS.chaos}

997: 

998: The dilational representation of dynamics in \qref{Ht}

999: in terms of the \LK\ representation 

1000: means that Smoluchowski dynamics on the scaling attractor is

1001: a continuous analog of a Bernoulli shift map, a classical paradigm for

1002: chaotic dynamics. We demonstrate the utility of this representation by

1003: constructing solutions with both chaotic and regular orbits, and 

1004: by proving a shadowing theorem illustrating sensitive dependence on the tails.

1005: 

1006: %\medskip

1007: %\noindent

1008: %{\em Solutions with dense limit sets.}

1009: \subsubsection{Solutions with dense limit sets}

1010: \begin{thm}\label{RT.dense}

1011: There exists an eternal solution $\nu$ whose scaling $\omega$-limit

1012: set contains every element of the full scaling attractor $\attrx$.

1013: \end{thm}

1014: \noindent

1015: We call such solutions {\em Doeblin  solutions\/} by analogy with

1016: Doeblin's universal laws. The construction follows Feller closely 

1017: and relies only on general principles (separability of $\PP$ and $\Mcan$, and

1018: continuity of the bijection $\Hmap$). Theorem~\ref{RT.dense} 

1019: tells us that $\attrx$ cannot be decomposed into 

1020: invariant subsets. 

1021: \medskip

1022: %[[What about density of Doeblin solutions?]] -- done in shadowing section

1023: 

1024: 

1025: \subsubsection{Scaling periodic solutions}

1026: %\label{RS.periodic}

1027: 

1028: %\noindent

1029: %{\em Scaling-periodic solutions.}

1030: Another classical signature of chaos is the density of periodic

1031: solutions. The notion of periodicity generalizes as follows.

1032: \begin{defn}

1033: \label{RD.periodic}

1034: Let $\nu$ be a solution and define $F_t(x)$ by

1035: \qref{R.Fp}. We say $\nu$ is  {\em scaling-periodic}

1036: if for some $t_1>t_0$ and $\betarsc >1$, 

1037: \begin{equation}\label{R.periodic}

1038: F_{t_1}(\betarsc x)=F_{t_0}(x) \quad\mbox{for all $x>0$.}

1039: \end{equation}

1040: \end{defn}

1041: \noindent

1042: These are analogous to semi-stable laws in probability 

1043: theory~\cite{semistable}. The

1044: \LK\/ representation yields a simple characterization.

1045: \begin{thm}

1046: \label{RT.periodic}

1047: A scaling-periodic solution of Smoluchowski's equation with kernel

1048: $K=2, x+y$ or $xy$ is eternal, and its divergent \smeas\ $\dsm$ satisfies

1049: \begin{equation}

1050: \dsm(x)=a\dsm(bx)

1051: \end{equation} for some $a>0$, $b>1$ such that either  

1052: \begin{enumerate}

1053: \item[(i)] $a=1$ and $\dsm$ is an atom at the origin, or

1054: \item[(ii)] $a<1$  and $ab>1$.

1055: %and $\dsm$ is determined by its restriction to $[1,b)$. 

1056: \end{enumerate}

1057: Conversely, if 

1058: $\dsm$ is a measure on $[0,\infty)$ with $\dsm(x)=a\dsm(bx)$, 

1059: where $a>0$, $b>1$ and (i) or (ii) hold,

1060: then $\dsm$ is a divergent \smeas\ and

1061: the corresponding eternal solution is scaling-periodic.

1062: \end{thm}

1063: Case (i) is simple but important. The corresponding scaling-periodic

1064: solutions are the self-similar solutions with exponential decay. More

1065: generally, all self-similar solutions are determined by divergent

1066: \smeass\ of the power-law form $\dsm(x)= C_\rho

1067: x^{1-\rho}$, $0 < \rho \leq 1$. Scaling-periodic solutions that

1068: are not self-similar solutions are generated by (ii).  

1069: Thus, there are uncountably many scaling-periodic solutions. 

1070: Moreover, the \LK\/ representation allows us to prove 

1071: 

1072: %they are dense in the full attractor $\attrx$.

1073: \begin{thm}

1074: \label{RT.Pdense}

1075: Scaling-periodic solutions are dense in $\attrx$.

1076: \end{thm}

1077: 

1078: % \noindent

1079: % 

1080: 

1081: \subsubsection{Shadowing and sensitive dependence on the initial tails}

1082: 

1083: %\medskip

1084: %\noindent

1085: %{\em Shadowing and sensitive dependence on the initial tails.\/}

1086: We show that asymptotically similar initial tails imply  {\em

1087:   shadowing} of scaled solution trajectories. 

1088: To study shadowing, we note that the space $\bar\PP$ of 

1089: probability measures on $\Ebar$ is metrizable and compact.

1090: We let $\dist(\cdot,\cdot)$ denote any metric on $\bar\PP$ which

1091: induces the weak topology.

1092: 

1093: \begin{thm} \label{RT.shad}

1094: Let $\nu$ and $\bar\nu$ denote any two solutions of Smoluchowski's

1095: equation defined on $[t_0,\Tmax)$, and let the associated initial

1096: \smeass\ be

1097: \begin{equation}\label{R.shad1}

1098: \sm(dx)=x^{\gamma+1}\nu_{t_0}(dx), \qquad

1099: \bar\sm(dx)=x^{\gamma+1}\bar\nu_{t_0}(dx),

1100: \end{equation}

1101: with Laplace exponents $\vp$ and $\bar\vp$ respectively associated

1102: as in \qref{R.LK2a}.

1103: Assume that 

1104: \begin{equation}\label{R.shad2}

1105: %{\bar\sm(x)}/{\sm(x)} \sim L(x) \quad\mbox{as $x\to\infty$},

1106: \bar\vp(q)/\vp(q) \sim L(1/q) \quad\mbox{as $q\to0$,}

1107: \end{equation}

1108: where $L$ is slowly varying at $\infty$.  

1109: Suppose that $b(t)\uparrow\infty$ as $t\uparrow\Tmax$, and define 

1110: \begin{equation}\la{R.bartb}

1111: (\bar t,\bar b) = 

1112: %\bar t= 

1113: \left\{

1114: \begin{array}{ll}

1115: (\ t/L(b),\ b\ )   & (K=2),\\[5pt]

1116: (\ t - \log L(b\rme^{-t}),\ b/L(b\rme^{-t}) \ )  & (K=x+y), \\[5pt]

1117: (\ t\,L(|t|b) ,\ b L(|t|b)\ ) & (K=xy),

1118: \end{array}\right.

1119: \ee

1120: so that $\bar b/\lambda(\bar t)=b/\lambda(t)$ with

1121: $\lambda(t)$ as in \qref{R.cansoln1}.

1122: Then we have 

1123: \begin{equation}\la{R.dto0}

1124: \dist( F_t(b(t)\,dx),\bar F_{\bar t}(\bar b(t)\,dx)) \to 0 \qquad

1125: \mbox{as $t\to\Tmax$.}

1126: \end{equation} 

1127: \end{thm}

1128: The simplest situation, requiring no readjustment of the scaling

1129: ($\bar t=t$, $\bar b=b$) is when $L=1$. 

1130: When condition \qref{R.shad2} holds, the solutions $\nu$ and $\bar\nu$

1131: have identical scaling $\omega$-limit sets, for example.

1132: If one of the solutions in this theorem, say $\bar \nu$, is

1133: self-similar, then the sufficient condition \qref{R.shad2} for

1134: shadowing in this theorem is equivalent to \qref{1.domain} 

1135: (see \cite{MP1}, (5.3) and (5.7) for $K=2$, and (7.2)

1136: and (7.4) for $K=x+y$).  Hence \qref{R.shad2} is also necessary,

1137: according to the classification theorem on domains of attraction.  It

1138: appears that in general the sufficient condition for shadowing given

1139: in this theorem may not always be necessary. But we will not pursue

1140: this issue here. 

1141: 

1142: The sensitivity of solutions to initial tails in the weak topology

1143: is revealed strikingly in Theorem~\ref{RT.shad}. 

1144: The topology of weak convergence is undoubtedly natural 

1145: for limit theorems, for example the approach to self-similarity.

1146: On the other hand, this topology cannot distinguish the tails, 

1147: as the following ``cut-and-paste'' argument shows. 

1148: Let $\hat F=x^\gamma\nu_{t_0}$ and $\Fcheck=x^\gamma\nucheck_{t_0}$ 

1149: be given initial data for two solutions, and define

1150: \begin{equation}

1151: \hat F\nsup(x) = \left\{

1152: \begin{array}{ll}

1153: \hat F(x) \wedge \Fcheck(n) & x< n\\

1154: \check F(x) & x\ge n.

1155: \end{array}\right.

1156: \end{equation}

1157: Then $\hat F\nsup\to \hat F$ as $n\to\infty$, 

1158: and $\hat F\nsup$ has Laplace exponent given by 

1159: \be

1160: \frac{\vp\nsup(q)}q =  \int_0^n 

1161: \left( \frac{1-\rme^{-qy}}{qy}\right) y\hat F(dy)

1162: +\int_n^\infty

1163: \left( \frac{1-\rme^{-qy}}{qy}\right) y\check F(dy) ,

1164: \ee

1165: from which one sees easily that if $\check\sm(E)=\infty$, then

1166: $\vp\nsup(q)\sim\check\vp(q)$ as $q\to0$. Thus,

1167: according to Theorem \ref{RT.shad},

1168: the solution $\nu\nsup$ generated by $\hat F\nsup$ will shadow

1169: $\nucheck$. This justifies the statement made

1170: in the introduction that for any given scaling trajectory, there is a

1171: dense set of initial data whose forward trajectories shadow the given one.

1172: 

1173: \subsection{Plan of the paper}

1174: In section 3 we establish some basic facts

1175: regarding convergence of the measures that generate the \LK\

1176: representation. The analysis of eternal solutions is different in

1177: detail for the constant and additive kernels, so we treat these cases

1178: in turn, establishing Theorems~\ref{RT.AE}, \ref{RT.LK}, and

1179: \ref{RT.initial_tails} for these kernels in sections 4 and 5.  

1180: The multiplicative case reduces mathematically to the

1181: additive by a change of variables, and is treated briefly in section~6. 

1182: We emphasize that the results in this case concern the behavior of

1183: solutions approaching the gelation time, so perhaps this is the case

1184: of most interest physically.  

1185: 

1186: With the \LK\ representation in hand, we then construct Doeblin

1187: solutions in section 7 and scaling-periodic solutions in section 8.

1188: Extended solutions and the full scaling attractor $\attrx$ are studied

1189: in section 9, and the shadowing theorem~\ref{RT.shad} is proved in

1190: section 10, where we also provide a streamlined treatment of

1191: the domains of attraction.

1192: 

1193: \section{Laplace exponents and limits of \barsmeass}

1194: \label{S.laplace}

1195: The main analytic tool in the study of the solvable kernels is the

1196: Laplace transform.  Recall that a sequence of probability measures

1197: $F\nsup$ is said to converge weakly to a

1198: probability measure $F$ if the distribution functions

1199: $F\nsup(x) \to F(x)$ at every point of continuity of the limit.

1200: It is basic~\cite[XIII.1]{Feller} that  $F\nsup$ converges

1201: weakly to $F$ if and only if the Laplace transforms 

1202: converge pointwise:

1203: \[\int_E \rme^{-qx} F\nsup(dx) \to \int_E \rme^{-qx} F(dx), \quad 

1204: \text{for all $q > 0$.}\]

1205: We will need the following refinements of this result for \barsmeass. 

1206: %The results are [[close to ones that are]]

1207: %well-known, but  proofs are included for completeness.   

1208: With any \barsmeas\ $\sm$ we associate ``Laplace

1209: exponents'' $\Vp$ and $\Psi$ (with $\Vp=\D_q\Psi)$ defined for 

1210: $q \in \C_+=\{\lambda\in\C:\Re\lambda>0\}$ by

1211: \begin{equation}

1212: \la{L.1}

1213: \Vp(q)  = \int_{\Ebar} \frac{1-\rme^{-qx}}{x} \sm(dx),

1214: \quad

1215: \Psi(q) = \int_{\Ebar} \frac{\rme^{-qx}-1 +qx}{x^2} \sm(dx) .

1216: \end{equation}

1217: If $g_0$ and $g_\infty$ denote amplitudes of the atoms of 

1218: the measure $(1\wedge y\inv)\sm(dy)$ at $0$ and $\infty$, respectively,

1219: this means

1220: \begin{eqnarray}\label{L.1a}

1221: \Vp(q) &=& q g_0 + g_\infty + \int_{(0,\infty)} \frac{1-\rme^{-qx}}{x} \sm(dx),

1222: \\ \label{L.1b}

1223: \Psi(q) &=&   \frac12 q^2 g_0 + q g_\infty +  

1224: \int_{(0,\infty)} \frac{\rme^{-qx}-1 +qx}{x^2} \sm(dx).

1225: \end{eqnarray}

1226: We use the terminology Laplace exponent in accordance with

1227: probabilists' usage. If we need to distinguish the two types

1228: of exponents, we will refer to $\Vp$ 

1229:  and $\Psi$ as Laplace exponents of

1230: the first and second order, respectively. Observe that

1231: \be

1232: \la{L.3}

1233: \partial_q \Vp = \partial_q^2 \Psi = \int_{[0,\infty)}\rme^{-qx}\sm(dx).

1234: \ee 

1235: These functions are Laplace transforms of a positive measure, 

1236: thus are completely monotone functions on $(0,\infty)$. 

1237: 

1238: We note that the amplitude of the atom of $(1\wedge y\inv)\sm(dy)$ 

1239: at $\infty$ is 

1240: \begin{equation} \label{R.ginf}

1241: g_\infty = \lim_{q\to0^+}\Vp(q) = \lim_{q\to0^+} q\inv\Psi(q),

1242: \end{equation}

1243: thus the \barsmeas\ $\sm$ is an \smeas\ if and only if this vanishes.

1244: Furthermore, we claim that $\sm$ is divergent if and only if 

1245: \begin{equation} \label{R.divcon}

1246: \lim_{q\to\infty} \Vp(q) = \infty, \qquad\mbox{equivalently}\quad

1247: \lim_{q\to\infty} q\inv\Psi(q)=\infty.

1248: \end{equation}

1249: To prove this, 

1250: observe that

1251: \[ \Phi(q) \leq q g_0+\int_{(0,\infty)} x^{-1} \sm(dx).\]

1252: Thus, if $\lim_{q \to \infty} \Phi(q)=\infty$, then $\sm$ satisfies

1253: \qref{R.candef5}. Conversely, if $\sm$ satisfies \qref{R.candef5}, then 

1254: $\lim_{q \to \infty} \Vp(q)=\infty$ by the monotone

1255: convergence theorem. The proof for $\Psi$ is similar. We integrate by

1256: parts and use Fubini's theorem to obtain

1257: \begin{eqnarray*}

1258:  q^{-1}\Psi(q) &=&

1259: \frac12 q g_0 +g_\infty+ \int_{(0,\infty)} 

1260: (1-\rme^{-qx}) \int_{(x,\infty)}y^{-2} \sm(dy)\, dx \\

1261: &\leq &

1262: \frac12 q g_0 +g_\infty+ \int_{(0,\infty)} y^{-1} \sm(dy). 

1263: \end{eqnarray*}

1264: Thus, if $q^{-1} \Psi(q) \to \infty$ then $\sm$ satisfies

1265: \qref{R.candef5}. The converse follows from the monotone convergence

1266: theorem.

1267: 

1268: \begin{thm}

1269: \label{LT.Mconv}

1270: Let $\sm\nsup$ be a sequence of \barsmeass\ with Laplace

1271: exponents $\Vp\nsup$ and $\Psi\nsup$. Then, taking $n \to \infty$, the

1272: following are equivalent: 

1273: \begin{enumerate}

1274: \item[(i)] $\sm\nsup$ converges to an \barsmeas\ $\sm$

1275: with Laplace exponents $\Vp$ and $\Psi$. 

1276: \item[(ii)]  $\Vp(q):= \lim_{n\to\infty}\Vp\nsup(q)$ exists for each $q>0$. 

1277: \item[(iii)] $\Psi(q):= \lim_{n\to\infty}\Psi\nsup(q)$ exists for each $q>0$. 

1278:   \end{enumerate}

1279: \end{thm}

1280: 

1281: \begin{proof} %[Proof of Theorem~\ref{LT.Mconv}]

1282: (i) implies (ii): Fix $q>0$ and let $\veps >0$. 

1283: \qref{R.candef2} allows us to choose

1284: $a$ such that $a$ is a point of continuity for $\sm$ and for every $n$ 

1285: \[  

1286: \int_{[a,\infty]} \rme^{-qx} x\inv (\sm\nsup(dx)+\sm(dx))

1287: \le \rme^{-qa} C <\veps.

1288: \]%\int_a^\infty (1-\rme^{-qx}) x^{-1}\sm\nsup(dx) < \veps.\]

1289: On the other hand, \qref{R.candef1} guarantees 

1290: \[\int_0^a  (1-\rme^{-qx})x^{-1} \sm\nsup(dx) \to \int_0^a

1291: (1-\rme^{-qx})x^{-1} \sm(dx).\] 

1292: Using again \qref{R.candef2}, 

1293: we conclude that for large $n$, $|\Vp\nsup(q)-\Vp(q)|<\veps$.

1294: %Therefore, $\limsup\Vp\nsup(q) -2\veps \leq \Vp(q) \leq

1295: %\liminf\Vp\nsup(q) + 2\veps$. 

1296: 

1297: (ii) implies (i): {\em 1. Claim:\/} $\Vp$ is analytic in $\C_+$

1298: and $\Vp\nsup \to \Vp$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\C_+$.

1299: {\em Proof:\/} Let $K \subset \C_+$ be compact. The claim follows

1300: from the estimate: 

1301: \be

1302: \la{L.can1}

1303: \sup_n \sup_{q \in K} |\Vp\nsup (q)| < \infty.

1304: \ee

1305: Indeed, by Montel's theorem, (\ref{L.can1}) implies

1306: $\{\Vp\nsup\}_{n=1}^\infty$ are a normal family of analytic 

1307: functions (i.e., precompact in the uniform topology). Thus, every

1308: subsequence has a further subsequence converging uniformly 

1309: to an analytic function. Since every subsequence  converges

1310: (pointwise) to $\Vp$, this implies $\Vp\nsup \to \Vp$ uniformly and

1311: $\Vp$ is analytic.  It remains to

1312: prove \qref{L.can1}. We integrate by parts to obtain

1313: \[ q^{-1} \Vp\nsup(q) = \sm\nsup(0) +

1314: \int_{E} \rme^{-qx} \left( \int_{[x,\infty]}

1315:   y^{-1}\sm\nsup(dy) \right) dx.\]

1316: Thus, for any $a >0$,

1317:   $\sup_{\Re q > a} |q^{-1} \Vp\nsup(q)| \leq a^{-1} \Vp\nsup(a)$. 

1318: Since $\Vp\nsup(q)$ converges for all $q > 0$, we have $\sup_n

1319: \sup_{\Re q > a} |q^{-1} \Vp\nsup(q)| < \infty$. This proves

1320: \qref{L.can1}.

1321: 

1322: {\em 2. \/} Cauchy's integral formula and the claim imply

1323: $\partial^k_q \Vp\nsup \to \partial^k_q \Vp$ for every $k \in \N$. 

1324: Since $\partial_q \Vp\nsup$ are completely monotone, so is the limit

1325: $\partial_q\Vp$.  

1326: 

1327: {\em 3.\/}  Thus, 

1328: $\partial_q \Vp = \int_{[0,\infty)} \rme^{-qx} \sm(dx)$ 

1329: is the  Laplace transform of a measure $\sm$ on $[0,\infty)$. 

1330: We integrate with respect to $q$ with

1331: $g_\infty:=\Vp(0^+)$ defined to be the charge of $y\inv\sm(dy)$ at $\infty$, 

1332: and use Tonelli's theorem to obtain (\ref{L.1}). Note that $\int_{[1,\infty]}

1333: x^{-1} \sm(dx)<\infty$ because $\Vp(q)<\infty$ for each fixed $q$,

1334: so $\sm$ is an \barsmeas.

1335: 

1336: {\em 4.\/} The convergence $\D_q \Vp\nsup \to \D_q \Vp$  is

1337: equivalent to weak convergence  of $\sm\nsup$ to $\sm$ on $[0,\infty)$, 

1338: meaning \qref{R.candef1} holds. 

1339: This implies that for every point $x$ of continuity of $\sm$,

1340: as $n\to\infty$ we have

1341: \begin{equation}

1342: \int_{[0,x]} (1-\rme^{-qy})y\inv \sm\nsup(dy) 

1343: \to \int_{[0,x]} (1-\rme^{-qy})y\inv \sm(dy),

1344: \end{equation}

1345: and together with (ii) this yields that

1346: $\int_{[x,\infty]}y\inv\sm\nsup(dy)$ is bounded and 

1347: \[

1348: \int_{[x,\infty]} \rme^{-qy} y\inv \sm\nsup(dy)

1349: \to \int_{[x,\infty]} \rme^{-qy}y\inv \sm(dy) .

1350: \]

1351: From (ii) then follows \qref{R.candef2}. This proves $\sm\nsup\to\sm$.

1352: 

1353: (ii) implies (iii): This 

1354: is due to $\Psi\nsup(q)=\int_0^q\Vp\nsup(s)\,ds$ and monotonicity.

1355: %is step {\em 2\/} [[??]] above.

1356: 

1357: (iii) implies (ii): Since $\Psi\nsup(q)=\int_0^q\Vp\nsup(s)\,ds

1358: \ge \frac12q\Vp\nsup(\frac12q)$, we find that \qref{L.can1} holds as

1359: in step {\em 1\/} above. Then for every subsequence of $\Vp\nsup$ there is a

1360: further subsequence that converges on compact sets of $\C_+$ to an analytic

1361: limit $\Vp$. This limit is unique due to (iii), and (ii) follows.  (It follows

1362: also that $\Psi\nsup \to \Psi$ uniformly on compact sets.)

1363: \end{proof}

1364: 

1365: \section{The constant kernel}

1366: \label{sec:const-ker}

1367: In this section we study eternal solutions and the \LK\/ representation 

1368: in particular

1369: %present a detailed analysis of the scaling dynamics

1370: for the constant kernel $K=2$. 

1371: This kernel is technically easiest to deal

1372: with, and the general framework is most transparent.  

1373: Theorems~\ref{CT.attr}, \ref{CT.eternal} and

1374: \ref{CT.Mconv2} are the main technical results and serve to

1375: establish Theorems~\ref{RT.AE} and \ref{RT.LK} for this kernel. 

1376: %With these results in hand, 

1377: %we exploit the scaling properties of the \LK\/ representation to gain

1378: %a detailed  understanding of the ultimate scaling dynamics in the

1379: %following [[??]] section.

1380: 

1381: \subsection{Preliminaries}

1382: Smoluchowski's equation with constant

1383: kernel $K=2$ has a unique global solution in an appropriate weak sense

1384: given any  initial size-distribution measure with finite zero-th

1385: moment~\cite[\S 2]{MP1}.  

1386: For convenience, we adopt the normalization in \qref{R.normal2}.

1387: The moment identity \qref{R.moment} is valid for all

1388: bounded continuous functions $f$ on $\bar{E}$, and taking

1389: $f=1$ we find that the total number density of clusters is

1390: $\nu_t(E)=t\inv$.  

1391: Since $t \nu_t(E)=1$, 

1392: we associate to each solution a probability distribution function

1393: \begin{equation}\label{C.Fdef}

1394: F_t(x) = \int_{(0,x)} \nu_t(dx)\left\slash \int_E \nu_t(dx)\right. 

1395: = t \nu_t(x).

1396: \end{equation}

1397: We also introduce the \smeass 

1398: \be

1399: \label{C.cansoln1}

1400: \sm_t(dx) = x \nu_t(dx),

1401: \ee

1402: and associated Laplace exponents

1403: %[[How about $\Vp_t(q)$ or $\vp_t(q)$ instead of $\vp(t,q)$ ?]]

1404: \begin{equation}\label{C.vpdef}

1405: \vp(t,q) = \int_E (1-\rme^{-qx}) \nu_t(dx) = 

1406: \int_{\Ebar} \frac{1-\rme^{-qx}}{x} \sm_t(dx).

1407: \end{equation}

1408: %and put $\vp_1(q)=\vp(1,q)$.

1409: %Note that the Laplace transform of $F$ is

1410: %\begin{equation}\label{C.Fvp}

1411: %\int_E \rme^{-qx}F_t(dx) = 1-t\vp(t,q).

1412: %\end{equation}

1413: 

1414: Notice that $q\mapsto\vp(t,q)$ is strictly increasing with 

1415: $\vp(t,\infty)= \nu_t(E)=t^{-1}$, and  

1416: $\partial_q \vp(t,q)$ is the Laplace transform of the

1417: mass-distribution measure $x\,\nu_t(dx)$, so is completely monotone.

1418: $\vp$ solves the simple equation

1419: \begin{equation}

1420: \label{eq:vp0}

1421: \partial_t \vp = -\vp^2, 

1422: \end{equation}

1423: for which the solution at any time $t>0$ is determined from data

1424: at time $t_0>0$ according to 

1425: \begin{equation}

1426: \label{eq:vp1}

1427: \quad \vp(t,q) =

1428: \frac{\vp(t_0,q)}{1+(t-t_0)\vp(t_0,q)},  \quad q \geq 0,\ t >0.

1429: \end{equation}

1430: Since $0 \leq \vp(t_0,q) <t_0\inv$, we see that given $F_{t_0}=t_0\nu_{t_0}$

1431: an arbitrary probability measure, 

1432: $\vp(t,q)$ is well-defined on the time-interval $(0,\infty)$.  

1433: But for $0<t<t_0$, $\vp(t,q)$ may not have completely

1434: monotone derivative, and thus may not define a (positive)

1435: measure. The map $q\mapsto\D_q\vp(t,q)$ is completely monotone 

1436: for all $t \in (0,\infty)$ if and only if $\nudot$ is an eternal solution.  

1437: 

1438: %which has the unique solution

1439: %\begin{equation}

1440: %\label{eq:vp1}

1441: %\quad \vp(t,q) =

1442: %\frac{\vp_1(q)}{1+(t-1)\vp_1(q)},  \quad q \geq 0,\ t >0.

1443: %\end{equation}

1444: %Since $0 \leq \vp_1(q) <1$, we see that for {\em any} probability

1445: %measure $\nu_1$, $\vp(t,q)$ is well-defined on the time-interval

1446: %$(0,\infty)$.  But for $0<t<1$, $\vp(t,q)$ may not have completely

1447: %monotone derivative, and thus may not define a (positive)

1448: %measure. The map $q\mapsto\vp(t,q)$ is completely monotone 

1449: %for all $t \in (0,\infty)$ if and only if $\nudot$ is an eternal solution.  

1450: 

1451: Our study of convergence properties for solution sequences is based on

1452: pointwise convergence properties of $\vp$, which are equivalent to 

1453: %proper 

1454: convergence properties of the \smeass\ $\sm_t$ 

1455: according to the results of section~\ref{S.laplace}.

1456: We begin by proving the continuous dependence of solutions on initial

1457: data, based on the evident fact that $\vp(t,q)$ is a continuous function of

1458: $\vp(t_0,q)$.

1459: 

1460: \begin{thm}\label{CT.cts}

1461: (Continuous dependence on data.)

1462: For Smoluchowski's equation with constant kernel $K=2$, let $t_0>0$

1463: and let $\nu\nsup$ be a sequence of solutions defined for $t\ge t_0$.

1464: \begin{enumerate}

1465: \item[(a)] If $\nu\nsup_{t_0}$ converges weakly to a measure $\hat\nu_0$

1466: with $\hat\nu_0(E)=t_0\inv$, then for every $t\ge t_0$ we have

1467: that $\nu\nsup_t$ converges weakly to $\nu_t$, the time-$t$ solution

1468: with initial data $\nu_{t_0}=\hat\nu_0$.

1469: \item[(b)] For any $t\ge t_0$, if $\nu\nsup_{t}$ converges weakly to a

1470: measure $\hat\nu$ with $\hat\nu(E) =t\inv$, then 

1471: $\nu\nsup_{t_0}$ converges weakly to a measure $\hat\nu_0$ with

1472: $\hat\nu_0(E)=t_0\inv$, and $\hat\nu=\nu_t$, the time-$t$ solution 

1473: with initial data $\nu_{t_0} = \hat\nu_0$.

1474: \end{enumerate}

1475: \end{thm}

1476: 

1477: \begin{proof} We prove part (b); part (a) is similar.

1478: Let $\sm\nsup_t(dx)=x\nu\nsup_t(dx)$ and $\hat\sm(dx)=x\hat\nu(dx)$,

1479: and let $\vp\nsup(t,q)$ 

1480: and $\hat\vp(q)$ be the associated Laplace exponents as in \qref{C.vpdef}.

1481: The hypothesis is equivalent to saying 

1482: that the \smeass\ $\sm\nsup_t(dx)$ converge 

1483: %properly 

1484: to a non-divergent \smeas\  $\hat\sm(dx)=x\hat\nu(dx)$ with $\int_E

1485: x\inv\hat\sm(dx)=t\inv$. 

1486: This is equivalent to the statement that for all $q>0$,

1487: $\vp\nsup(t,q) \to \hat\vp(q)$ as $n\to\infty$, where

1488: $\hat\vp(\infty)=t\inv$ and $\hat\vp(0^+)=0$.

1489: Then it follows that 

1490: \begin{equation}\label{C.tt0}

1491: \vp\nsup(t_0,q) 

1492: = \frac{\vp\nsup(t,q)}{1-(t-t_0)\vp\nsup(t,q)}

1493: \to 

1494: \hat\vp_0(q):= \frac{\hat\vp(q)}{1-(t-t_0)\hat\vp(q)}.

1495: \end{equation}

1496: Since $\vp_0(0^+)=0$ and $\hat\vp_0(\infty)=t_0\inv$, 

1497: we conclude that $\hat\vp_0$ is the Laplace exponent for a 

1498: measure $\hat\nu_0$ on $E$ with $\hat\nu_0(E)=t_0\inv$,

1499: and that $\nu\nsup_{t_0}$ converges weakly to $\hat\nu_0$.

1500: We compare \qref{C.tt0} with the explicit solution (\ref{eq:vp1}) to

1501: see that $\hat\nu=\nu_t$,

1502: where $\nudot$ is the solution on $[t_0,\infty)$ with initial data $\hat\nu_0$.

1503: \end{proof}

1504: 

1505: \subsection{The scaling attractor and eternal solutions}

1506: We are ready to prove Theorem~\ref{RT.AE} for the kernel $K=2$.  

1507: First we consider part (b), the correspondence between the scaling attractor

1508: and eternal solutions.

1509: 

1510: \begin{thm}\label{CT.attr}

1511: A probability measure

1512: $\hat F$  is an element of the scaling attractor for

1513: Smoluchowski's equation with constant kernel $K=2$ if and only if 

1514: $\hat F = \nu_1$ for some eternal solution $\nudot$.

1515: \end{thm}

1516: \begin{proof}

1517: Let us first suppose that $\hat  F = \nu_1$ for some eternal solution

1518: $\nudot$ and show that $\hat  F \in \attr$. 

1519: Pick arbitrary sequences $T_n, \beta_n \to \infty$, and consider

1520: the sequence of rescaled  eternal solutions

1521: \be

1522: \label{C.attr-rsc}

1523:  \nu_t\nsup(dx) = \frac{1}{T_n} \nu_{t/T_n} \left(\beta_n^{-1}

1524: dx\right), \quad t>0. 

1525: \ee

1526: Observe that $\nu_t\nsup(E) = t^{-1}$, therefore,

1527: \[ F\nsup_{T_n}(\beta_n x) = \nu_{1}(x) = \hat F(x) \]

1528: for every $x$. Thus, $\hat F\in\attr$ by Definition~\ref{R.attractor}.

1529: 

1530: Conversely, suppose $\hat F \in \attr$. We shall show that $\hat F =

1531: \nu_1$ for 

1532: some eternal solution $\nudot$. Let $\hat \vp$ denote the Laplace

1533: exponent of $\hat F$, and  $\nudot\nsup,T_n, \beta_n$ be as in

1534: Definition~\ref{R.attractor}. Consider the rescaled measures 

1535: \[

1536: \tilde\nu\nsup_t(dx)=T_n\nu\nsup_{tT_n}(\beta_n dx).

1537: \]

1538: This rescaling yields a solution that is defined for $t\ge 1/T_n$,

1539: and by hypothesis we have that $\tilde\nu\nsup_1$ converges

1540: weakly to $\hat F$. Then by Theorem~\ref{CT.cts}, for any $t>0$

1541: we infer that $\tilde\nu\nsup_t$ converges weakly to $\nu_t$

1542: where $\nu_t(E)=t\inv$ and $\nu$ is a solution with $\nu_1=\hat F$. 

1543: The solution $\nu$ is eternal since it is defined 

1544: for $t\ge t_0$ for every $t_0>0$.

1545: \end{proof}

1546: 

1547: Let us now prove that $\attr$ is invariant (part (a) of Theorem~\ref{RT.AE}).

1548: Suppose $\nu$ is a solution on some time interval $[t_1,\infty)$, 

1549: normalized so $\nu_t(E)=t^{-1}$.

1550: Suppose $F_{T}\in\attr$ for some $T\ge t_1$.

1551: Replacing $\nu_t(dx)$ by $T\nu_{Tt}(dx)$, we may presume $T=1$ without loss 

1552: of generality. By Theorem~\ref{CT.attr} above, $F_T=\tilde\nu_1$ for 

1553: some eternal solution $\tilde\nu$. But then $\nu_t=\tilde\nu_t$

1554: for all $t\ge t_1$, meaning that $\nu$ is (the restriction of) an

1555: eternal solution. We obtain that $F_t\in\attr$ for all $t>0$ by

1556: a similar scaling argument.

1557: 

1558: 

1559: \subsection{\LK\/ representation of eternal solutions}

1560: 

1561: \begin{thm}

1562: \label{CT.eternal}

1563: \begin{enumerate}

1564: \item[(a)] Let $\nu$ be an eternal solution to Smoluchowski's

1565: equation with $K=2$. Then there is divergent \smeas\  $\dsm$

1566: such that as $t\dnto 0$, the mass measure

1567: $\sm_t(dx)=x\,\nu_t(dx)$ converges to $\dsm$.

1568: %properly  

1569: 

1570: \item[(b)] Conversely, given any divergent \smeas\  $\dsm$ there

1571:   is a unique eternal solution with the properties in part (a),

1572:   defined for all $t\in(0,\infty)$ via

1573: \begin{equation}

1574: \label{C.eternal}

1575: \vp(t,q) = \frac{\Vp(q)}{1+t\Vp(q)},

1576: \qquad

1577: \Vp(q) = \int_\Ebar \frac{1-\rme^{-qx}}{x}H(dx). 

1578: \end{equation}

1579: \end{enumerate}

1580: \end{thm}

1581: 

1582: \begin{proof}

1583: We first show (a). Immediately from the solution formula

1584: (\ref{eq:vp1}), 

1585: \be

1586: \label{eq:lim_vp1}

1587: \lim_{t\to0}\vp(t,q) = 

1588:  \lim_{t \to 0} \frac{\vp(1,q)}{ 1+(t-1) \vp(1,q)} = 

1589: \frac{\vp(1,q)}{1-\vp(1,q)} =: \Vp(q) 

1590: \ee

1591: exists for all $q>0$, with $\Vp(q) < \infty$,

1592: $\Vp(0^+)=0$, and $\Vp(\infty)=\infty$. 

1593: By Theorem~\ref{LT.Mconv}, $\sm_t$ converges to an \barsmeas\/ $\dsm$

1594: with Laplace exponent $\Vp$, and $\dsm$ is a divergent \smeas\/ by

1595: the criteria in \qref{R.ginf}-\qref{R.divcon}.

1596: 

1597: Let us now prove (b). Let $\dsm$ be a divergent \smeas\  with

1598: Laplace exponent $\Vp$. By \qref{eq:lim_vp1}, any eternal solution with

1599: the properties in part (a) must be determined by \qref{C.eternal}.

1600: Observe that the function $q/(1+tq)$ has completely monotone derivative

1601: for $t \in (0,\infty)$. It follows that $\partial_q \vp(t,q)$ is

1602: completely monotone when  $\vp(t,q)$ is given by

1603: (\ref{C.eternal})~\cite[XIII.4]{Feller}.   

1604: Moreover, with $\nu_t$ determined from \qref{C.vpdef},

1605: $\nu_t(E)= \vp(t,\infty)= t^{-1}$. Thus, $\nu_t$ is indeed an eternal solution.

1606: \end{proof}

1607: 

1608: \begin{rem}

1609: Observe that $\sm_t(E)= \int_E x \nu_t(dx)$ is finite 

1610: for some $t\in(0,\infty)$ if and only if it is finite for all $t$.

1611: However, it is not necessary that 

1612: the mass be finite for a solution to be well-defined.

1613: \end{rem}

1614: 

1615: Theorem~\ref{CT.eternal} establishes parts (a) and (b) of 

1616: Theorem~\ref{RT.LK}. To establish part (c), we need to show that the map

1617: $\nu_1\mapsto\dsm $ from $\attr$ to $\Mcan$ is a bi-continuous bijection.

1618: \begin{thm}\label{CT.Mconv2}

1619: Let $\nu\nsup$ be a sequence of eternal solutions with corresponding

1620: divergent \smeass\ $\dsm\nsup$. 

1621: Fix $t>0$. Then, taking $n\to\infty$, the following are equivalent:

1622: \bit

1623: \item[(i)] 

1624: $\nu\nsup_t$ converges weakly to some

1625: measure $\hat\nu$ with $\hat\nu(E)=t\inv$. 

1626: \item[(ii)] 

1627: $\dsm\nsup$ converges to some divergent \smeas\  $\dsm$. 

1628: %properly

1629: \eit

1630: If either (equivalently both) of these conditions hold, then 

1631: $\hat\nu=\nu_t$ for an eternal solution with divergent \smeas\  $\dsm$.

1632: \end{thm}

1633: \begin{proof} 

1634: Assume (i), so $\nu\nsup_t$ converges to $\hat\nu$ with

1635: $\hat\nu(E)=t^{-1}$.  Then $\sm\nsup_t(dx)=x\nu\nsup(dx)$

1636: converges to $\hat\sm(dx)=x\hat\nu(dx)$ and

1637: the associated Laplace exponents converge: $\vp\nsup(t,q)\to\hat\vp(q)$

1638: for all $q>0$. Hence

1639: \begin{equation} \label{C.Pconv}

1640: \Vp\nsup(q) = \frac{\vp\nsup(t,q)}{1-t\vp\nsup(t,q)} \to 

1641: \Vp(q):= \frac{\hat\vp(q)}{1-t\hat\vp(q)}, 

1642: \end{equation}

1643: as $n\to\infty$ for every $q>0$. 

1644: Since $\hat\vp(0^+)=0$ and $t\hat\vp(q)\to1$ as $q\to\infty$, 

1645: $\Vp(q) < \infty$ for every $q >0$, $\Vp(0^+)=0$, 

1646: and $\lim_{q \to \infty}\Vp(q)=\infty$. By Theorem~\ref{LT.Mconv} 

1647: and \qref{R.ginf}-\qref{R.divcon}, this proves (ii). 

1648: 

1649: We now show (ii) implies (i). Suppose the divergent \smeass\ $\dsm\nsup$

1650: converge to a divergent \smeas\  $\dsm$. Then

1651: Theorem~\ref{LT.Mconv} with \qref{R.ginf}-\qref{R.divcon}

1652: implies $\Vp\nsup(q)\to\Vp(q)$ for every $q>0$, 

1653: $\Vp(0^+)=0$, and $\Vp(q)\to\infty$ as $q\to\infty$. Then, 

1654: \[

1655: \vp\nsup(t,q)=\frac{\Vp\nsup(q)}{1+t\Vp\nsup(q)}

1656: \to \frac{\Vp(q)}{1+t\Vp(q)} =\vp(t,q)

1657: \]

1658: for every $q>0$. This yields weak convergence of $\nu\nsup_t$ to

1659: $\nu_t$, where $\nu$ is the eternal solution with Laplace exponent

1660: $\Vp$ and divergent \smeas\  $\dsm$.

1661: \end{proof}

1662: 

1663: \subsection{Scaling limits and initial tails}

1664: We now prove Theorem~\ref{RT.initial_tails} for the constant

1665: kernel. 

1666: \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{RT.initial_tails}]

1667: Introduce rescaled solutions

1668: $\tilde\nu\nsup_t(dx)=T_n\nu\nsup_{tT_n}(\beta_ndx)$,

1669: and let $\tilde F\nsup_t = t\tilde\nu\nsup_t$. 

1670: Also let $\tilde\sm\nsup_t(dx)= x\tilde\nu\nsup_t(dx)$ and let

1671: $\tilde\vp\nsup(t,q)$ be the associated Laplace exponent.

1672: Let $H$ be the divergent \smeas\  corresponding to $\nu$ and

1673: $\Vp$ its Laplace exponent, and let $\vp(q)$ be the Laplace exponent

1674: of $\sm(dx)= x\nu_1(dx)$.

1675: 

1676: Then statement (i) of Theorem~\ref{RT.initial_tails} is equivalent to saying $\tilde

1677: F\nsup_1\to \hat F$ weakly, 

1678: meaning the \smeass\/ $\tilde\sm\nsup_1$ converge to $\sm$

1679: with $\int_E x\inv\sm(dx)=1$. This is equivalent to saying 

1680: \begin{equation}\label{e.ph1}

1681: \tilde\vp\nsup(1,q)\to \vp(q), \quad q>0, \quad 

1682: \mbox{where $\vp(0^+)=0$,\ $\vp(\infty)=1$.}

1683: \end{equation}

1684: On the other hand, since $T_nx\nu\nsup_1(\beta_ndx)= \tilde\sm_{1/T_n}(dx)$, 

1685: statement (ii) of Theorem~\ref{RT.initial_tails} is equivalent to the assertion

1686: \begin{equation}\label{e.ph2}

1687: \tilde\vp\nsup(T_n\inv,q) \to \Vp(q), \quad q>0, \quad

1688: \mbox{where $\Vp(0^+)=0$,\ $\Vp(\infty)=\infty$.}

1689: \end{equation}

1690: But by the solution formulae \qref{eq:vp1} and \qref{C.eternal}, we have

1691: \[

1692: \tilde\vp\nsup(T_n\inv,q) = \frac{\tilde\vp\nsup(1,q)}

1693: {1+(T_n\inv-1)\tilde\vp\nsup(1,q)},

1694: \qquad

1695: \Vp(q) = \frac{\vp(q)}{1-\vp(q)}.\]

1696: Since evidently \qref{e.ph1} is equivalent to \qref{e.ph2}, (i)

1697: is equivalent to (ii).

1698: \end{proof}

1699: 

1700: 

1701: \subsection{The representation at $+\infty$}

1702: 

1703: For the additive kernel, Bertoin showed that an eternal solution can

1704: be uniquely identified by its asymptotic behavior as $t\to\infty$ also.  

1705: For the constant kernel, an analogous result follows easily

1706: from \qref{C.vpdef} and \qref{C.eternal}.

1707: 

1708: \begin{thm} Let $\nu$ be an eternal solution of Smoluchowski's

1709: equation with constant kernel $K=2$, and let $\Vp$ be the Laplace

1710: exponent of the divergent \smeas\  associated with $\nu$. 

1711: Then as $t\to\infty$, 

1712: the measure $t^2 \nu_t$ converges weakly on $(0,\infty)$ to 

1713: a measure $\Lambda_+$ with Laplace transform

1714: \[ \Vp_+(q):= \int_0^\infty \rme^{-qx}\Lambda_+(dx) = \frac{1}{\Vp(q)}

1715: = \lim_{t\to\infty} t^2 \int_0^\infty \rme^{-qx}\nu_t(dx).

1716: \]

1717: \end{thm}

1718: 

1719: Clearly an eternal solution $\nu$ is uniquely determined from $\Lambda_+$ 

1720: through $\Vp(q)=1/\Vp_+(q)$. 

1721: We see that the measure $\Lambda_+$ has a Laplace transform

1722: $\Vp_+(q)$ defined for all $q>0$, and $\Vp_+(q)\to\infty$ as

1723: $q\to0$ since $\Vp(0^+)=0$. 

1724: So $\int_0^1\Lambda_+(dx)<\infty$ and $\int_E\Lambda_+(dx)=\infty$.

1725: 

1726: The class of measures $\Lambda_+$ which arise in this way 

1727: is characterized by the property that $\eta(q)=\D_q(1/\Vp_+(q))$ 

1728: is the Laplace transform of some divergent \smeas\  $\dsm$

1729: (i.e., $\eta$ is completely monotone, locally integrable on $[0,\infty)$

1730: and $\int_E \eta(q)\,dq=\infty$).

1731: There does not appear to be a simple characterization by moment

1732: conditions. 

1733: 

1734: \begin{rem}

1735: This representation has an interesting probabilistic interpretation;

1736: see~\cite[p.74]{B_book}. 

1737: If $X_\cdot$ is a subordinator with Laplace exponent $\Vp$, then

1738:   $\Vp_+ = 1/\Vp$ is the Laplace transform of the potential measure $U$,

1739:   defined on Borel sets $A \subset E$ by

1740: $U(A) = \mathbb{E} \left( \int_0^\infty \mathbf{1}_{\{X_s \in A\}} ds

1741:   \right)$.

1742: \end{rem}

1743: 

1744: 

1745: \section{The additive kernel}

1746: \label{sec:add}

1747: In this section we study the scaling dynamics for the additive kernel. 

1748: Our main aims are to prove continuous dependence on initial data,

1749: establish the correspondence between points on the scaling attractor

1750: and eternal solutions, and revisit Bertoin's \LK\/ representation

1751: with convergence of \smeass\ in mind.

1752: 

1753: \subsection{Solution by Laplace transform}

1754: The solution of Smoluchowski's equation with kernel $K=x+y$ by the

1755: Laplace transform is 

1756: classical~\cite{Drake},  and remains the basis for rigorous

1757: work. Let $t_0\in\R$ be arbitrary. 

1758: We assume $\nu_{t_0}$ is a (possibly infinite) measure with

1759: $\int_E x \nu_{t_0}(dx) < \infty$.  Without loss of generality,

1760: we may assume $\int_E x\nu_{t_0}(dx)=1$.

1761: We have shown~\cite[Thm 2.8]{MP1} that (\ref{eq:smol1}) has a unique

1762: solution $\nu_t$ for $t \geq t_0$ in an appropriate weak sense, such that 

1763: \be

1764: \la{A.mass1}

1765: \int_E x \nu_t(dx) = 1, \quad t \geq t_0.

1766: \ee

1767: As for the constant kernel, we use the notation

1768: \begin{equation}\label{A.vpdef}

1769: \vp(t,q) = \int_E (1-\rme^{-qx}) \nu_t(dx) , \quad q \geq 0.

1770: %\qquad 

1771: %\vp_1(q) = \int_E (1-\rme^{-qx}) \nu_1(dx),   

1772: \end{equation}

1773: and set $\vp_0(q)=\vp(t_0,q)$. 

1774: To study scaling limits we  consider the mass distribution function,

1775: which is the natural probability distribution function associated to a

1776: solution. Let 

1777: \begin{equation}\label{A.Fdef}

1778: F_t(x) = \int_{(0,x]} y\, \nu_t(dy) .

1779: \end{equation}

1780: Note that the Laplace transform of $F_t$ is

1781: \begin{equation}\label{A.Fvp}

1782: \int_E \rme^{-qx}F_t(dx) = \partial_q \vp(t,q).

1783: \end{equation}

1784: Thus, $\partial_q \vp(t,q)$ is completely monotone and 

1785: $\partial_q \vp(t,0)= 1$, $t \geq 0$. 

1786: We know from \cite{MP1} that if we substitute 

1787: $f(x)=1-\rme^{-qx}$ in (\ref{R.moment}) 

1788: we find that $\vp(t,q)$ solves the hyperbolic equation

1789: \begin{equation} 

1790: \label{A.1}

1791: \partial_t \vp -\vp \partial_q \vp = -\vp. 

1792: \end{equation}

1793: 

1794: Following Bertoin, it is convenient to introduce the new variables

1795: \begin{align}

1796: \label{A.psi1}

1797: &s = \rme^t, \quad s_0= \rme^{t_0},

1798: %\\ \la{A.psi1}

1799: %&\Vp(s,q)=\vp(t,q), 

1800: \quad 

1801: \psi(s,q) = \frac{q}{s} - \vp\left(t, \frac{q}{s}\right). 

1802: \end{align}

1803: By \qref{A.mass1} and \qref{A.vpdef}, $\psi$ is the

1804: Laplace exponent 

1805: \be

1806: \la{A.psi2}

1807: \psi(s,q) = \int_{E} y^{-2} \left(\rme^{-qy} - 1 + qy\right) 

1808: \sm_{\log s}(dy), 

1809: \ee

1810: where $\sm_t$ denotes the \smeas\ 

1811: \be

1812: \la{A.psi3}

1813: \sm_t(dx) = x^2 \nu_{t} (\rme^t \,dx).

1814: \ee

1815: Observe that $\sm_t$ is not a finite measure in general, but if

1816: $\sm_{t}(E) <\infty$ for some $t$, then $\sm_t(E)$ is finite for 

1817: for every $t$ for which the solution is defined, and is constant.

1818: We substitute \qref{A.psi1} in \qref{A.1} to see that $\psi$ satisfies

1819: the inviscid Burgers equation

1820: \be

1821: \la{A.psi4}

1822: \partial_s \psi + \psi \partial_q \psi =0, \quad s > s_0.

1823: \ee

1824: The values of $\psi$, $\D_q\psi$ and $\D_q^2\psi$ are positive

1825: for $s\ge s_0$, $q>0$, and $\D_q^2\psi(s,\cdot)$ is completely

1826: monotone since it is the Laplace transform of $G_t$.

1827: In addition, \qref{A.mass1}, \qref{A.psi2} and \qref{A.psi3} imply

1828: \be

1829: \la{A.psidivg}

1830: \lim_{q \to \infty} \partial_q \psi(s,q) = \int_Ex^{-1}\sm_{\log s}

1831: (dx) = s^{-1}. 

1832: \ee

1833: 

1834: We may describe $\psi(s,q)$ globally for $s>s_0$ by the method of

1835: characteristics.  A surprising fact is that we may always solve for

1836: $\psi$ backwards in time, for all $s>0$, without developing singularities.

1837: The solution need not correspond to a positive measure $\nu_t$

1838: for $t <t_0$, however.  This is analogous to the situation for $K=2$.

1839: \begin{lemma}

1840: \label{AL.charsoln}

1841: Let $t_0 \in \R$ and $\nu_{t_0} \in \M$ with $\int_E

1842: x\,\nu_{t_0}(dx)=1$, and let $\psi_0(q_0)= q_0/s_0 - \vp_0(q_0/s_0)$. 

1843: There is a unique solution $\psi(s,q)$ to \qref{A.psi4} defined for every 

1844: $s >0$ and $q> 0$,  such that $\psi(s_0,\cdot)=\psi_0(\cdot)$.

1845: \end{lemma}

1846: \begin{proof} 

1847: Applying the method of characteristics as usual, 

1848: the solution $\psi=\psi(s,q)$ is determined implicitly from the equation

1849: \begin{equation}\label{A.imp}

1850: h(s,q,\psi):= \psi-\psi_0(q-(s-s_0)\psi)=0.

1851: \end{equation}

1852: We have $h(s,q,0)<0$, and $\D_\psi h>s/s_0$ since

1853: $\D_q\psi_0<s_0^{-1}$ by \qref{A.psidivg}.

1854: Since $\psi_0$ is analytic, \qref{A.imp} determines a solution

1855: of \qref{A.psi4} analytic in $(s,q)$ for all $s>0$, $q>0$.

1856: \end{proof}

1857: 

1858: Equation \qref{A.imp} determines the solution at time $s$ from data at time

1859: $s_0$ and plays the same role in the analysis here as equation

1860: \qref{eq:vp1} played in the previous section. Convergence properties

1861: of solutions will be deduced from the pointwise convergence properties

1862: of the Laplace exponent $\psi$ using the theory from section \ref{S.laplace}.

1863: 

1864: \begin{thm}\label{AT.cts} (Continuous dependence on data.)

1865: For Smoluchowski's equation with additive kernel $K=x+y$, let $t_0\in \R$

1866: and let $\nu\nsup$ be a sequence of solutions defined for $t\ge t_0$

1867: with $\int_E x \nu\nsup_t(dx)=1$ for all $t \geq t_0.$

1868: \begin{enumerate}

1869: \item[(a)] If $x\nu\nsup_{t_0}(dx)$ converges weakly to a measure

1870:   $x\hat\nu_0(dx) $

1871: with $\int_E x \hat\nu_0(dx)=1$, then for every $t\ge t_0$ we have

1872: that $x\nu\nsup_t(dx)$ converges weakly to $x\nu_t(dx)$, the time-$t$ solution

1873: with initial data $\nu_{t_0}=\hat\nu_0$.

1874: \item[(b)] For any $t\ge t_0$, if $x\nu\nsup_{t}(dx)$ converges weakly to a

1875: measure $x\hat\nu(dx)$ with $\int_Ex\,\hat\nu(dx) =1$, then 

1876: $x\nu\nsup_{t_0}(dx)$ converges weakly to a measure $x\hat\nu_0(dx)$ with

1877: $\int_E x\,\hat\nu_0(dx)=1$, and $\hat\nu=\nu_t$, the time-$t$ solution 

1878: with initial data $\nu_{t_0} = \hat\nu_0$.

1879: \end{enumerate}

1880: \end{thm}

1881: \begin{proof}

1882: We prove (a); the proof of (b) is similar.

1883:  Let  $\sm\nsup_t(dx)=x^2\nu_t(\rme^tdx)$, and with $s=\rme^t$ let

1884: \begin{equation} \label{A.psin1}

1885: \psi\nsup(s,q) = \int_E y^{-2}(\rme^{-qy}-1+qy) \sm\nsup_t(dy).

1886: \end{equation}

1887: The family $\psi\nsup(s_0,\cdot)$ is uniformly

1888: Lipschitz, since equation \qref{A.psidivg} implies

1889: \begin{equation}\label{A.lip}

1890: \psi\nsup(s_0,0)=0,\quad 

1891: 0\leq \D_q\psi\nsup(s_0,q) \le 1/s_0 \quad\mbox{ for all $q>0$.}

1892: \end{equation}

1893: The hypothesis is equivalent to saying that the \smeass\ 

1894: $\sm\nsup_{t_0}$ converge to a non-divergent \smeas\ 

1895: $\hat\sm_0(dx)=x^2\hat\nu_0(dx)$ with $\int_E x\inv\hat\sm_0(dx)=1$.

1896: By Theorem~\ref{LT.Mconv} and the criteria in \qref{R.ginf}-\qref{R.divcon},

1897: this is equivalent to the statement that for all $q>0$,

1898: $\psi\nsup(s_0,q)\to\hat\psi_0(q)$, where $\hat\psi_0$ is the 

1899: (second-order) Laplace exponent for $\hat\sm_0$, with

1900: $\D_q\hat\psi_0(0^+)=0$, $\D_q\hat\psi_0(\infty)=1/s_0$. 

1901: (Note $\D_q\hat\psi$ is the first-order Laplace exponent of $\hat\sm_0$.)

1902: As in \qref{A.imp} we have

1903: \begin{equation}\label{A.imp2}

1904: \psi\nsup(s,q)-\psi\nsup(s_0,q-(s-s_0)\psi\nsup(s,q))=0.

1905: \end{equation}

1906: For fixed $s,q$, the sequence $\psi\nsup(s,q)$ is bounded, and

1907: any subsequential limit $\psi_*$ must satisfy

1908: \begin{equation}\label{A.psist}

1909: \psi_* - \hat\psi_0(q-(s-s_0)\psi_*)=0,

1910: \end{equation}

1911: due to the equicontinuity of the maps 

1912: $\psi\mapsto\psi\nsup(s_0,q-(s-s_0)\psi)$.

1913: But equation \qref{A.psist} has the unique solution $\psi_*=\psi(s,q)$,

1914: where $\psi$ is the solution of \qref{A.psi4} with

1915: $\psi(s_0,q)=\hat\psi_0(q)$, $q>0$. 

1916: Hence the whole sequence $\psi\nsup(s,q)$ converges pointwise to 

1917: $\psi(s,q)$. Moreover, differentiating \qref{A.psist} yields

1918: $\D_q\psi_*(0)=0$, $\D_q\psi_*(\infty)=1/s$, since $s_0=1$.

1919: Then the conclusion of (a) follows from 

1920: Theorem~\ref{LT.Mconv}, \qref{R.ginf} and \qref{R.divcon}.

1921: \end{proof}

1922: 

1923: \subsection{The scaling attractor and eternal solutions}

1924: \begin{thm}\label{AT.attractor}

1925: A probability measure $\hat F$  is an element of the scaling attractor $\attr$ for

1926: Smoluchowski's equation with additive kernel $K=x+y$ if and only if 

1927: $\hat F(dx) = x\nu_0(dx)$ for some eternal solution $\nudot$.

1928: \end{thm}

1929: %

1930: \begin{proof}

1931: Suppose $\hat  F(dx) = x\nu_0(dx)$ for some eternal solution

1932: $\nudot$. We show $\hat  F \in \attr$. 

1933: Pick arbitrary sequences $T_n, b_n \to \infty$, and consider

1934: the sequence of rescaled  eternal solutions

1935: \[ \nu_t\nsup(dx) = b_n^{-1} \nu_{t-T_n} \left(b_n^{-1}

1936: dx\right), \quad t \in \R. \]

1937: The corresponding distribution functions satisfy $F\nsup_{T_n}(b_n x) =

1938: \hat F(x)$ for every $x$. 

1939: Thus, $\hat F\in\attr$ by Definition~\ref{R.attractor}.

1940: %% \int_0^{b_nx} xb_n^{-1} \nu_0(b_n^{-1} dx)  =

1941: %% \int_0^x y \nu_0(dy) = \hat\mu(0,x) \]

1942: %% for every $x$. Thus, Definition~\ref{A.attractor} holds.

1943: 

1944: To prove the converse, suppose $\hat F \in \attr$. We show that

1945: $\hat F =  F_0$ for some eternal solution $\nudot$. Let $\hat \vp$

1946: correspond to $\hat\nu$ as in \qref{A.vpdef},

1947: and  $\nudot\nsup,T_n, b_n$ be as in

1948: Definition~\ref{R.attractor}. Consider the rescaled measures 

1949: \[

1950: \tilde\nu\nsup_t(dx)=b_n\nu\nsup_{t+T_n}(b_n dx).

1951: \]

1952: This rescaling yields a solution that is defined for $t\ge -T_n$.

1953: By assumption,

1954: \[ \tilde F\nsup_0(x) = \int_0^x y\, \tilde\nu\nsup_0 (dy) =

1955: F\nsup_{T_n}(b_nx) \to \hat F(x),\]

1956: at all points of continuity. By

1957: Theorem~\ref{AT.cts}, this implies that for any $N\in\N$ the solutions

1958: $\nu\nsup_t$ converge weakly to $\nu_t$ for all $t \geq -N$. In

1959: particular, $\nu_t$ is a solution for $t \geq -N$ for all $N$, thus it is an

1960: eternal solution. 

1961: \end{proof}

1962: 

1963: Let us now prove that $\attr$ is invariant (part (a) of

1964: Theorem~\ref{RT.AE}). The proof is substantially the same as for

1965: $K=2$. Suppose $\nu$ is a solution on some time interval $[t_1,\infty)$, 

1966: normalized so $ \int_E x\nu_t(dx)=1, t \geq t_1$. 

1967: Suppose $F_{T}\in\attr$ for some $T\ge t_1$. We may presume $T=0$

1968: without loss (if not, we translate in time,

1969: replacing $\nu_t(dx)$ by $\nu_{t-T}(dx)$). 

1970: By Theorem~\ref{AT.attractor} above, $F_T=x\tilde\nu_0$ for 

1971: some eternal solution $\tilde\nu$. But then $\nu_t=\tilde\nu_t$

1972: for all $t\ge t_1$, meaning that $\nu$ is (the restriction of) an

1973: eternal solution. We obtain that $F_t\in\attr$ for every $t \in \R$ by

1974: a similar argument.

1975: 

1976: \subsection{\LK\/ representation of eternal solutions}

1977: We now prove Bertoin's \LK\/ representation for eternal solutions. 

1978: The proof mainly follows~\cite{B_eternal}, and 

1979: is included to stress the basic framework. 

1980: 

1981: \begin{thm}[cf.\ Bertoin~\cite{B_eternal}]

1982: \label{AT.eternal}

1983: \begin{enumerate}

1984: \item[(a)] Let $\nu$ be an eternal solution to Smoluchowski's

1985: equation with $K=x+y$, and let $\sm_t(dx)=x^2\nu_t(\rme^tdx)$ be

1986: associated \smeass. 

1987: Then there is a unique divergent \smeas\  $\dsm$

1988: such that $\sm_{t}$ converges to $\dsm$ as $t\to -\infty$. 

1989: %

1990: %(dx)=\sigma^2 \delta_0(dx) +

1991: %x^2\,\Lambda(dx)$ where  $\delta_0$ is a delta mass at 0 and

1992: %$(\sigma^2,\Lambda)$ is a \Levy\ pair.  

1993: %Equivalently, $\psi(s,q) \to \Psi(q)$ as $s\to 0$ for all $q\ge0$. 

1994: \item[(b)] Conversely, given a  divergent \smeas\  $\dsm$  

1995: there  is a unique eternal solution with the properties in part (a),

1996:   defined as follows. Let

1997: \begin{equation}\label{A.Psidef}

1998: \Psi(q) = \int_{\Ebar} \frac{\rme^{-qx}-1+qx}{x^2} H(dx)

1999: \end{equation}

2000: be the Laplace exponent of $H$,

2001:  and let $\psi=\psi(s,q)$ be the solution to 

2002: \begin{equation}\label{A.Imp}

2003: \psi - \Psi(q-s\psi) = 0.

2004: \end{equation}

2005: %\qref{A.psi3} with $\psi(0,q)=\Psi(q)$. 

2006: Then $\nu_t$ is determined by \qref{A.psi2} and \qref{A.psi3}.

2007: \end{enumerate}

2008: \end{thm}

2009: %% \begin{rem}

2010: %% Observe that when $\sigma=0$, the procedure in (b) formally yields

2011: %% a solution to Smoluchowski's equation 

2012: %% with ``initial'' size distribution $\nu_0(dx)=\Lambda(dx)$ having infinite

2013: %% total mass. [[?? At $-\infty$?]]

2014: %% \end{rem}

2015: \begin{proof}

2016: We first prove (a). By Theorem~\ref{LT.Mconv} and

2017: \qref{R.ginf}-\qref{R.divcon}, it is enough  to

2018: show that $\psilevy(q):=\lim_{s \to 0} \psi(s,q)$ exists for every 

2019: $q \geq 0$, with $\D_q\Psi(0)=0$ and $\D_q\Psi(\infty)=\infty$.  

2020: %$\lim_{q \to \infty} q\inv  \psilevy(q)=\infty$. 

2021: We know $\psi\ge0$ and $\partial_q\psi\ge0$, so

2022:  $\partial_s \psi(s,q) \leq 0$ for all $q$, $s$. 

2023: Hence it suffices to show that for each $q>0$, $\psi(s,q)$ stays bounded

2024: as $s\dnto0$.

2025: 

2026: {\em 1.\/}  We first show $\psi(s,q)$ stays bounded for $q$ near $0$. 

2027: Choose $q_1 >0$ such that $q_{*}:=q_1 -\psi(1,q_1) =\vp(0,q_1) >0$. 

2028: Then $\psi(s,q)=\psi(1,q_1)$ along the characteristic line joining

2029: $(0,q_{*})$ and $(1,q_1)$, so $0\le\psi(s,q)\le\psi(1,q_1)$ whenever

2030: $0<s<1$ and $0<q\le q_{*}$.

2031: %Since $\psi(1,\cdot)$ is convex, the geometry of characteristics is as

2032: %in Figure~\ref{AF.char}. 

2033: (See Fig.~\ref{AF.char}.)

2034: %-----------------------------------------

2035: \begin{figure}

2036: \la{AF.char}

2037: \centerline{\epsfysize=7cm{\epsffile{char.eps}}}

2038: \caption{Geometry of characteristics}

2039: \end{figure}

2040: %------------------------------------------

2041: %Thus, for any $s_0\in(0,1)$, $q_0<??$

2042: %\[ \psi(s_0,q_0) = \psi(1,q(1;s_0,q_0)) \leq \psi(1,q_*), \quad 0 < s_0

2043: %\leq 1.\]

2044: % q_0 \leq q_* -\psi(1,q_*). \]

2045: 

2046: {\em 2.\/} For $q > q_*$ the complete monotonicity of $q\mapsto q^{-2}

2047: \psi(s,q)$ implies $\psi(s,q) < q^2q_*^{-2} \psi(s,q_*)$. 

2048: %Thus, $ \lim_{s \to 0}  q^{-2} \psi(s,q) = q^{-2}\Psi(q) \leq

2049: %q_*^{-2}\psilevy(q_*)$.

2050: 

2051: {\em 3.\/} We now show  $\D_q\Psi(0)=0$ and $\D_q\Psi(\infty)=\infty$.

2052: %$\lim_{q \to \infty}q^{-1}\Psi(q)=\infty$. 

2053: Observe that $\Psi$ solves

2054: \[ \psilevy(q)=\psi(1,q+\psilevy(q)), \quad q> 0.\]

2055: Therefore, 

2056: \begin{equation}

2057: \label{A.derivative}

2058: \partial_q \psilevy(q) = \frac{\partial_q\psi(1,q+\psilevy(q))}{1

2059:   -\partial_q\psi(1,q+\psilevy(q))}. 

2060: \end{equation}

2061: Since $\psi(1,q)=q-\vp(0,q)$, we have

2062: $\partial_q \psi(1,q)=1-\partial_q \vp(0,q) \to 0$

2063: as $q\to0$, $\to 1$ as $q \to \infty$. Thus, 

2064: $\D_q\Psi(0)=0$ and $\D_q\Psi(\infty)=\infty$.

2065: %$\lim_{q \to \infty} \partial_q \psilevy(q) = \infty$.

2066: %This also implies $\lim_{q \to \infty} q\inv

2067: %\psilevy(q)=\infty$. Indeed, for any $n \in \N$ choose $q_n$ such that 

2068: %$\partial_q \psilevy(q) \geq n$ for $q \geq q_n$. Then,

2069: %\[\psilevy(q) \geq \psilevy(q_n) + n (q -q_n), \quad q \geq q_n\]

2070: %and $\liminf_{q \to \infty} q\inv \psilevy(q) \geq n$. 

2071: % Since $n$ is

2072: % arbitrary, this proves $ \lim_{q \to \infty} q\inv

2073: % \psilevy(q)=\infty.$.

2074: This proves (a).

2075: 

2076: 

2077: We now prove (b). Let $\dsm$ be a divergent \smeas\  and $\Psi$

2078: be defined by \qref{A.Psidef}. Note $\D_q\Psi(0)=0$ and

2079: $\D_q\Psi(\infty)=\infty$ by \qref{R.ginf}-\qref{R.divcon}.

2080: Since $\D_q\Psi(q)>0$, $\psi(s,q)$ is globally defined and

2081: analytic with $\psi(s,q)<q/s$, and \qref{A.psi4} holds for all

2082: $s>0$, $q>0$. With $\Vp$ and $\vp$ defined by \qref{A.psi1},

2083: \qref{A.1} follows. 

2084: 

2085: By the well-posedness theory in \cite{MP1}, 

2086: we obtain an eternal solution through \qref{A.Fvp},

2087: provided we show that $\D_q\vp(t,\cdot)$ is completely monotone,

2088: which implies that it is the Laplace transform of a (positive) measure

2089: that we call $x\nu_t(dx)$.

2090: From \qref{A.Imp} we obtain that $\vp=\vp(t,q)$ satisfies

2091: \be

2092: \la{A.psi11}

2093: q = \vp + \psilevy(s\vp),

2094: \ee 

2095: whence

2096: \be

2097: \la{A.psi12}

2098: \D_q \vp = \frac{1}{1+s\psilevy'(s\vp)}.

2099: \ee

2100: Since $q\mapsto 1+s\psilevy'(sq)$ is positive with completely monotone

2101: derivative, the map $q\mapsto (1+s\psilevy'(sq))^{-1}$ is

2102: completely monotone \cite[XIII.4]{Feller}. We then infer that 

2103: $\D_q\vp(s,\cdot)$ is completely monotone by Lemma~\ref{AL.comp} below.

2104: Since $\Psi'(0)=0$ we have the normalization \qref{A.mass1}, $\D_q\vp(t,0)=1$.

2105: This finishes the proof of existence. 

2106: 

2107: Note that total number of clusters $\nu_t(E)=\vp(t,\infty)=\infty$

2108: always here.

2109: 

2110: Let us show that the eternal solution defined by

2111: this procedure is unique. Let $H$ be a divergent \smeas\  and suppose

2112: $\nu, \tilde{\nu}$ are two eternal solutions with \smeass\  $G_t,

2113: \tilde{G}_t$ that converge to $H$. But this is equivalent to

2114: pointwise convergence of $\psi(s,q)$ and

2115: $\tilde{\psi}(s,q)$ to $\Psi(q)$ as $s\to 0$ where $\psi$ and

2116: $\tilde{\psi}$ solve \qref{A.psi4}. But the solutions to the inviscid

2117: Burgers equation with increasing initial data are unique, thus

2118: $\psi(s,q)=\tilde{\psi}(s,q)$ and $\nu = \tilde{\nu}$.

2119: \end{proof}

2120: 

2121: \begin{lemma}\la{AL.comp}

2122: Suppose $f,g\colon E\to E$, $f'=g(f)$ and $g$ is completely

2123: monotone. Then $f'$ is completely monotone.

2124: \end{lemma}

2125: \begin{proof}

2126: We prove by induction that the first $n$ derivatives of

2127: $G\circ f$ alternate in sign for every

2128: completely monotone function $G$. For $n=0$, $G(f)>0$. Suppose

2129: the statement is true for some $n\ge0$. Let $G$ be completely

2130: monotone, and note

2131: \[

2132: -(G\circ f)' = -G'(f)g(f)= \tilde G(f)

2133: \]

2134: and $\tilde G$ is completely monotone since it is the product of

2135: completely monotone functions. Using the induction hypothesis, 

2136: we deduce that the first $n+1$ derivatives of $G\circ f$ 

2137: alternate in sign. 

2138: \end{proof}

2139: 

2140: To complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{RT.LK} for $K=x+y$, we need to

2141: check that the map $\nu_0 \mapsto \dsm$ from $\attr$ to $\Mcan$ 

2142: is a bi-continuous bijection. 

2143: \begin{thm}\label{AT.Mconv2}

2144: Let $\nu\nsup$ be a sequence of eternal solutions with corresponding

2145: divergent \smeass\  $\dsm\nsup$. 

2146: Fix $t \in \R$. Then, taking $n\to\infty$, the following are equivalent:

2147: \bit

2148: \item[(i)] 

2149: $x\nu\nsup_t$ converges weakly to $x\hat\nu$ with $\int_E x \hat\nu(dx)=1$. 

2150: \item[(ii)]  $\dsm\nsup$ converges to a divergent 

2151: \smeas\  $\dsm$.

2152: \eit

2153: If either (equivalently both) of these conditions hold, then 

2154: $\hat\nu=\nu_t$ for an eternal solution with \smeas\  $\dsm$.

2155: \end{thm}

2156: \begin{proof}

2157: With Theorem~\ref{LT.Mconv} in hand, the proof of

2158: Theorem~\ref{AT.Mconv2} is essentially the same as that 

2159: of Theorem~\ref{AT.cts}. 

2160: Assume (i), so $\nu\nsup_t$ converges to $\hat\nu$ with

2161: $\int_E x\hat\nu(E)=1$.  Then $\sm\nsup_t(dx)=x^2\nu_t\nsup(\rme^t dx)$

2162: converges to the \smeas\/ $\hat\sm(dx)=x^2 \hat\nu(\rme^t dx)$ and

2163: the associated Laplace exponents converge: $\psi\nsup(s,q)\to\hat\psi(q)$

2164: for all $q>0$, with $\D_q\hat\psi(0)=0$, $\D_q\hat\psi(\infty)=1/s$. 

2165: Recall that $\psi\nsup (s,q)$ solves

2166: \begin{equation} \label{A.Pconv}

2167: \Psi\nsup(q-s\psi\nsup(s,q)) = \psi\nsup(s,q).

2168: \end{equation}

2169: Let $M >0$. A calculation as in \qref{A.derivative} shows that

2170: $\partial_q\Psi\nsup(q)$ is uniformly bounded in $n$ for $q \in

2171: [0,M]$.  We claim that $\lim_{n \to \infty} \Psi\nsup (q - s\hat\psi(q))$ exists

2172: for every $q$. Let us restrict attention to $q \in [0,M]$. Then by \qref{A.Pconv}

2173: \[ \Psi\nsup(q-s\hat\psi(q)) = \psi\nsup(s,q) + \left(

2174: \Psi\nsup(q-s\hat\psi(q))

2175: -\Psi\nsup(q-s\psi\nsup(s,q))\right). \]

2176: The first term converges to $\hat\psi(q)$ and the second to zero by the

2177: uniform estimate on $\partial_q\Psi\nsup(q)$ on $[0,M]$. Since $M >0$

2178: was arbitrary, we may use

2179: Theorem~\ref{LT.Mconv} to deduce that $\Psi\nsup(q)$ converges to a

2180: Laplace exponent $\Psi(q)$ that satisfies 

2181: \[ \Psi(q-s\hat\psi(q))=\hat\psi(q).\] 

2182: As with \qref{A.derivative} and its sequel it follows that 

2183: $\D_q\Psi(0)=0$ and $\D_q\Psi(\infty)=\infty$.

2184: %$\lim_{q\to \infty} \partial_q\Psi(q) = \lim_{q \to \infty} q^{-1}

2185: %\Psi(q)=\infty$. Thus [[not done??]], 

2186: Thus $\Psi$ is the Laplace

2187: exponent of a  divergent \smeas\/ $\dsm$, and $\dsm\nsup$ converges

2188: to $\dsm$.

2189: 

2190: We now show (ii) implies (i). Suppose the divergent \smeass\  $\dsm\nsup$

2191: converge to a divergent \smeas\  $\dsm$. Then

2192: Theorem~\ref{LT.Mconv} implies $\Psi\nsup(q)\to\Psi(q)$ for every

2193: $q>0$, and  $\D_q\Psi(0)=0$, $\D_q\Psi(\infty)=\infty$.

2194: %$\partial_q\Psi(q)\to\infty$ as $q\to\infty$. 

2195: Then the characteristics emanating from $s=0$ converge because $q + s

2196: \Psi\nsup(q) \to q + s\Psi(q)$. Thus, $\psi\nsup(s,q) \to \psi(s,q)$,

2197: which satisfies \qref{A.Imp}. 

2198: This yields weak convergence of $x\nu\nsup_t$ to

2199: $x \nu_t$, where $\nu$ is the eternal solution with divergent \smeas\  $\dsm$.

2200: \end{proof}

2201: 

2202: \subsection{Scaling limits and initial tails}

2203: 

2204: Let us now prove Theorem~\ref{RT.initial_tails} for the additive kernel.

2205: 

2206: \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{RT.initial_tails}]

2207: %Let $a_n=\rme^{T_n}$, $b_n=\beta_n$.

2208: We rescale solutions via

2209: $\tilde\nu\nsup_t(dx)=\beta_n\nu\nsup_{t+T_n}(\beta_ndx)$, 

2210: and let $\tilde F\nsup_t(dx) = \beta_n x \tilde\nu\nsup_t(dx)$. 

2211: Also let $\tilde\sm\nsup_t(dx)= x^2\tilde\nu\nsup_t(\rme^t dx)$ and let 

2212: $\tilde\psi\nsup(s,q)$ be the associated Laplace exponent as in

2213: \qref{A.psi2}. Observe

2214: $\tilde\sm\nsup$ in \qref{R.initG} is $\tilde\sm\nsup_{-T_n}$ and 

2215: $\int_E x^{-1} \tilde \sm\nsup(dx) = \rme^{T_n}$.

2216: Let $H$ be the divergent \smeas\  corresponding to $\nu$ and

2217: $\Psi$ its Laplace exponent, and let $\psi(q)$ be the Laplace exponent

2218: of $\sm(dx)= x^2\nu_0(dx)$.

2219: 

2220: Then (i) is equivalent to saying $\tilde F\nsup_0\to \hat F$ weakly,

2221: meaning the \smeass\/ $\tilde\sm\nsup_0$ converge to $\sm$

2222: with $\int_E x\inv\sm(dx)=1$. This is equivalent to saying

2223: \begin{equation}\label{A.ps1}

2224: \tilde\psi\nsup(1,q)\to \psi(q), \quad q>0, \quad 

2225: \mbox{where $\D_q\psi(0^+)=0$, \  $\partial_q\psi(\infty)=1$.} 

2226: \end{equation}

2227: On the other hand, since $\beta_nx^2\nu\nsup_0(\rme^{-T_n}\beta_ndx)= 

2228: \tilde\sm_{-T_n}(dx)$, 

2229: (ii) is equivalent to saying 

2230: \begin{equation}\label{A.ps2}

2231: \tilde\psi\nsup(\rme^{-T_n},q) \to \Psi(q), \quad q>0, \quad

2232: \mbox{where $\D_q\Psi(0^+)=0$, \  $\partial_q \Psi(\infty)=\infty$.}

2233: \end{equation}

2234: For brevity, let $\tilde\psi\nsup (q)$ denote $\tilde\psi\nsup(1,q)$

2235: and $\tilde\Psi\nsup(q)$ denote $\tilde\psi\nsup(\rme^{-T_n},q)$. Then

2236: the implicit solution formulas to \qref{A.psi4} read

2237: \[ \psi(q) = \Psi(q-\psi(q)), \quad \psi\nsup(q) = \Psi \nsup (

2238: q-(1-\rme^{-T_n}) \psi\nsup(q)). \] 

2239: As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{AT.Mconv2} we may now deduce that 

2240: \qref{A.ps1} is equivalent to \qref{A.ps2}, implying (i) is equivalent

2241: to (ii). The details are omitted. 

2242: \end{proof}

2243: 

2244: 

2245: \section{The multiplicative kernel}

2246: \label{sec:mult}

2247: In this section we study scaling dynamics approaching the gelation time

2248: for the kernel $K=xy$.  The study of the multiplicative kernel

2249: can be reduced to the additive kernel by a simple change of

2250: variables. This trick is well-known (see~\cite{Drake}), and allows us

2251: to avoid separate proofs.

2252: 

2253: \subsection{Solution by the Laplace transform}

2254: The self-similar solutions for $K=xy$  have infinite number and mass,

2255: but finite second moment. However, one 

2256: may develop a natural well-posedness theory using only the finiteness

2257: of the second moment~\cite{MP1}. We assume $\nu_{t_0}$ is a (possibly

2258: infinite) measure with $\int_E x^2 \nu_{t_0}(dx) < \infty$.  Without

2259: loss of generality, we may scale so that $\int_E x^2\nu_{t_0}(dx)=1$

2260: and $t_0=-1$ as in \qref{R.normal2}.  We define the Laplace exponent

2261: (note the change from \qref{A.vpdef}) 

2262: \begin{equation}\label{M.vpdef}

2263: \vp(t,q) = \int_E (1-\rme^{-qx}) x\nu_t(dx) , \quad q \geq 0,

2264: %\qquad 

2265: %\vp_1(q) = \int_E (1-\rme^{-qx}) \nu_1(dx).   

2266: \end{equation}

2267: and write $\vp_0(q)=\vp(t_0,q)$. We may substitute \qref{M.vpdef} in the

2268: moment identity \qref{R.moment} to obtain

2269: \begin{equation}

2270: \label{M.1}

2271: \partial_t \vp - \vp \partial_q \vp = 0, \quad t \in (t_0,0).

2272: \end{equation}

2273: Equation \qref{M.1} may be transformed to \qref{A.1} by the following

2274: change of variables. Let $\vp^{\rm add}(\tau,q)$, $\tau \in [0,\infty)$,

2275: denote a solution to \qref{A.1} with initial data $\vp_0(q)$. Then the

2276: solution to \qref{M.1} is given by

2277: \be

2278: \la{M.2}

2279: \vp(t,q) = \rme^{\tau}\vp^{\rm add}(\tau,q), \quad \tau=\log(|t|^{-1}),

2280: \ee

2281: which may also be written in terms of the number density as 

2282: \be

2283: \la{M.3}

2284: x \nu_{t}(dx) = e^\tau \nu^{\rm add}_\tau(dx).

2285: \ee

2286: Conservation of mass \qref{A.mass1} is now replaced by

2287: \be

2288: \la{M.mass1}

2289: \int_E x^2 \nu_t(dx) = |t|^{-1}, \quad t \in [t_0,0),

2290: \ee

2291: and the probability measure $F_t$ associated to $\nu_t$ is defined by

2292: \be

2293: F(t,x) = |t| \int_0^x y^2\nu_t(dy).

2294: \ee

2295: As in \qref{A.psi3} we define the \smeas\/ 

2296: \be

2297: \label{M.psi3}

2298: \sm_t(dx) = x^3 \nu_{t} (|t|^{-1} \,dx) = \sm_\tau^{\rm add}(dx),

2299: \quad t \in [t_0,0),

2300: \ee

2301: and the associated Laplace exponent

2302: \be

2303: \la{M.psi4}

2304: \psi(t,q) = \int_{\Ebar} y^{-2} \left(e^{-qy}-1+qy \right)

2305: \sm_{t}(dy) = \psi^{\rm add}\left(|t|^{-1},q \right).

2306: \ee

2307: %As before, the rescaling is chosen so that $\sm_t(E)=\sm_{t_0}(E)$

2308: %(if initially finite). 

2309: \noindent

2310: The correspondences \qref{M.3}, \qref{M.psi3} and \qref{M.psi4} map

2311: normalized solutions for $K=xy$  on the 

2312: time interval $t \in [-1,0)$ to normalized solutions with $K=x+y$ on the

2313: interval $\tau \in [0,\infty)$. The same change of variables may be

2314: applied to eternal solutions defined on $t \in (-\infty,0)$. 

2315: By consequence, the results established so far for the additive kernel

2316: carry over in an obvious way for the multiplicative kernel.

2317: This yields continuous dependence of solutions on data 

2318: (by Theorem~\ref{AT.cts}),

2319: the correspondence between the scaling attractor and eternal solutions 

2320: (Theorem~\ref{RT.AE}), the \LK\/ representation (Theorem~\ref{RT.LK}),

2321: and how initial tails encode scaling limits (Theorem~\ref{RT.initial_tails}).

2322: For completeness, we make explicit the map

2323: from divergent \smeass\/ to eternal solutions implicit in

2324: Theorem~\ref{RT.LK}(b).   

2325: \begin{thm}

2326: \label{MT.eternal}

2327: Given a  divergent \smeas\/ $\sm$  

2328: there  is a unique eternal solution defined as follows. Let 

2329: \be

2330: \label{M.psi5}

2331: \Psi(q) = \int_{\Ebar} \frac{e^{-qx}-1+qx}{x^2} \dsm(dx),

2332: \ee

2333: and $\psi(t,q)$, $t\in (-\infty,0)$ be the solution to 

2334: \be

2335: \label{M.psi6}

2336: \psi - \Psi (q+ t^{-1}\psi)=0.

2337: \ee

2338: Then $\nu_t$ is determined by \qref{M.psi3} and \qref{M.psi4}.

2339: \end{thm}

2340: 

2341: \section{Doeblin solutions}

2342: This section is inspired by Feller's treatment of Doeblin's universal

2343: laws and domains of partial attraction \cite[XVII.9]{Feller}.

2344: But apparently we must be content with using more words

2345: to prove fewer results. Our aim is to prove:

2346: 

2347: %\begin{refthm}[\ref{RT.dense}]

2348: \begin{thm}\label{D.dense}

2349: There exists an eternal solution $\nu$ whose scaling $\omega$-limit

2350: set contains every element of the proper scaling attractor, $\attr$.

2351: \end{thm}

2352: %\end{refthm}

2353: We will show later that $\attrx$ is the closure of

2354: $\attr$ (see Corollary~\ref{EC.dense}). Therefore,

2355: Theorem~\ref{D.dense} establishes Theorem ~\ref{RT.dense}. 

2356: 

2357: The proof is based on suitably ``packing the tails''

2358: of the corresponding divergent \smeas. The following is

2359: adapted from Feller~\cite[XVII.9]{Feller}. 

2360: Given an \smeas\ $\sm$ and $a,b>0$ we define

2361: a rescaled measure $\sm^{a,b}$ by

2362: %\sm^{a,b}(x)= a\sm(bx)$.

2363: \be

2364: \label{R.linear1}

2365: \sm^{a,b}(x)= a\sm(bx). 

2366: \ee

2367: \begin{lemma}

2368: \label{D.packing}

2369: Let $\sm_k$ be a sequence of \smeass\ with

2370: \be

2371: \label{D.1}

2372: \int_{\Ebar} x^{-1} \sm_k(dx) \leq k. 

2373: \ee

2374: Then there exist sequences $a_k,b_k$ such that $a_k \to 0$, $ a_kb_k

2375: \to \infty$,  

2376: \be

2377: \label{D.2}

2378: \sm := \sum_{k=1}^\infty \sm_k^{a_k^{-1},b_k^{-1}}

2379: \ee

2380: defines an \smeas, and $\sm^{a_k,b_k}-\sm_k$ converges to zero. 

2381: \end{lemma}

2382: The growth assumption \qref{D.1} is included only

2383: for concreteness and implies no real loss of generality. Our main

2384: purpose is to approximate  divergent \smeass.

2385: \begin{lemma}

2386: \label{D.growth}

2387: Let  $\dsm$ be a divergent \smeas.

2388:  There exists a sequence of

2389: \smeass\ $\sm_k$ satisfying \qref{D.1} such

2390: that $\sm_k$ converges to $\dsm$.

2391: \end{lemma}

2392: \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{RT.dense}]

2393: {\em 1.\/} Let $\tilde\nudot\nsup$ be an arbitrary sequence of 

2394: eternal solutions with

2395: corresponding divergent \smeass\ $\tilde{\dsm}\nsup$. 

2396: Partition the integers into infinitely many subsequences,

2397: and choose $\sm_k \to \tilde{\dsm}\nsup$ for $k$ in the

2398: $n$-th subsequence as in Lemma~\ref{D.growth}.

2399: 

2400: {\em 2.\/} Now define $a_k,b_k$ and $\sm$ as in Lemma~\ref{D.packing}, and 

2401: put \[\dsm = \delta_0 + \sm. \]

2402: $\dsm$ has an atom at the origin, thus is the divergent \smeas\ for an

2403: eternal solution. By construction, $\sm^{a_k,b_k} \to \tilde{\dsm}\nsup$

2404: as $k \to \infty$ along the $n$-th subsequence.  

2405: Moreover, since $a_k \to 0$, under rescaling 

2406: $\delta_0^{a_k,b_k} = a_k\delta_0$ converges to zero. 

2407: Thus, if we take limits

2408: along the $n$-th subsequence,  $\dsm^{a_k,b_k}\to \tilde{\dsm}\nsup$ . 

2409: 

2410: {\em 3.\/}  We now apply Theorem~\ref{RT.LK} together with \qref{R.linear3}. 

2411: We have $\dsm^{a_k,b_k}=\Hmap(F^{a_k,b_k}_{t_0})$ and

2412: $F^{a_k,b_k}_{t_0}(x)=F_{T_k}(\beta_k x)$ where

2413: \begin{equation}

2414: (T_k,\beta_k) = \left\{

2415: \begin{array}{ll}

2416: (a_kb_k, b_k) &(K=2),\\

2417: (\log(a_kb_k), a_kb_k^2) &(K=x+y),\\

2418: (-(a_kb_k)^{-1}, a_kb_k^2) &(K=xy).

2419: \end{array}\right.

2420: \end{equation} 

2421: %Set $T_k = a_kb_k,

2422: %\log(a_kb_k)$ and $(a_kb_k)^{-1}$ for $K=2,x+y$ and $xy$ respectively. 

2423: %Similarly let $\beta_k = b_k$ for $K=2$ and $\beta_k=a_kb_k^2$ for

2424: %$K=x+y$ and $xy$. 

2425: Observe that $T_k \to \Tmin$ and $\beta_k \to \infty$.  

2426: We take limits along the $n$-th subsequence to 

2427: obtain $F_{T_k}(\beta_k x) \to \tilde{F}\nsup(x)$ at every point of

2428: continuity.  Hence,  {\em given any sequence of eternal solutions $\nudot\nsup$

2429: there exists an eternal solution $\nudot$ whose scaling $\omega$-limit

2430: set contains each $\tilde{\nu}\nsup_1$}.  

2431: 

2432: 

2433: {\em 4.\/} The space of divergent \smeass\ is separable. The

2434: \smeass\ which are concentrated at finitely many 

2435: rational points (including 0) with rational weights form a 

2436: countable set which is dense with respect to convergence of \smeass.

2437: By ordering these in a sequence $\tilde{\dsm}\nsup$ and using the

2438: construction above, we see that there exist eternal solutions $\nudot$

2439: such that for {\em every} eternal solution $\tilde\nudot$, $\tilde\nu_1$ is in

2440: the scaling $\omega$-limit set of $\nu$. This finishes the proof of

2441: the theorem.

2442: \end{proof}

2443: 

2444: \subsection{The packing lemma}

2445: We will need to choose a sequence $c_k$ that grows so fast that

2446: \be

2447: \nn

2448: %\label{D.4}

2449: c_k \sum_{j=k+1}^\infty j c_j^{-1} \to 0.

2450: \ee

2451: The choice $c_k = \rme^{k^2}$ will do. For $j \geq 2$ we have the elementary

2452: estimate

2453: \[ j \rme^{-j^2} < \int_{j-1/2}^{j+1/2} y \rme^{-y^2} dy = \rme^{-j^2-1/4} \cosh j  .

2454: \]

2455: Therefore for $k\geq 1$,  

2456: \[ \rme^{k^2} \sum_{j=k+1}^\infty j \rme^{-j^2} <  \rme^{k^2} \int_{k+1/2}^\infty y

2457: \rme^{-y^2} dy = \frac{\rme^{-k-1/4}}{2} \to 0. \]

2458: \begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{D.packing}]

2459: {\em 1.\/} Fix  $a_k b_k = c_k$. Then $\sm$

2460: defines an \smeas\ since

2461: \[ \int_{\Ebar} x^{-1} \sm(dx) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty c_k^{-1}

2462: \int_{\Ebar} x^{-1} \sm_k(dx) \leq \sum_{k=1}^\infty k c_k^{-1} < \infty.\]

2463: 

2464: {\em 2.\/} Let $\Vp\ksup$ and $\Vp$ denote the Laplace exponents of $\sm_k$ and

2465: $\sm$ respectively. We use the definition \qref{R.linear1} and

2466: \qref{D.2} to obtain 

2467: $\Vp(q) = \sum_{j=1}^\infty c_j^{-1} \Vp\jsup (qb_j)$. Observe 

2468: that $\sm^{a_k,b_k} - \sm_k$ is a positive measure with Laplace

2469: exponent

2470: \[ c_k \Vp(qb_k^{-1}) - \Vp\ksup(q)= c_k\sum_{j \neq k} c_j^{-1}

2471: \Vp\jsup(q b_jb_k^{-1}). \]

2472: 

2473: {\em 3.\/} To prove convergence to zero, it suffices to show that the

2474: right hand side converges to zero for every $q>0$.  We first control

2475: the tail. Since $\int_{\Ebar} x^{-1} \sm_j(dx) \leq j$,  

2476: \[ c_k\sum_{j=k+1}^\infty  c_j^{-1}\Vp\jsup\left(q b_j b_k^{-1}\right) 

2477: \leq c_k\sum_{j=k+1}^\infty j c_j^{-1} \to 0.\]

2478: 

2479: {\em 4.\/} We now choose $b_k$ inductively to control the first $k-1$ terms in

2480: the range $0 \leq q \leq k$. Suppose $b_1,\ldots, b_{k-1}$

2481: have been chosen. Since $\Vp\jsup(q) \to 0$ as $q\to 0$, we choose

2482: $b_k$ so large  that

2483: \[ a_k =c_k b_k^{-1} \leq \frac{1}{k}, \quad  c_k\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}

2484: c_j^{-1}\Vp\jsup\left(k b_jb_k^{-1}\right) \leq \frac{1}{k}.\]

2485: \end{proof}

2486: \subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{D.growth}}

2487: First, suppose $\dsm$ has no atom at the origin. 

2488: Since $\int_{x}^\infty y^{-1} \dsm(dy)  \to 0$ as $x \to \infty$, we 

2489: may choose a decreasing sequence

2490: $\veps_k$ such that $\int_{\veps_k}^\infty y^{-1} \dsm(dy) \leq k$. Let

2491: $\sm_k(dy) = \mathbf{1}_{y > \eps_k} \dsm(dy)$. Clearly, $\sm_k$

2492: satisfies both conditions of Definition~\ref{R.candef}.  

2493: 

2494: Next, let $\dsm =\delta_0$. In this

2495: case we choose $\sm_k(dx) = (x \log k )^{-1} \mathbf{1}_{x

2496:   \geq k^{-1}}dx$. Then $\sm_k$ satisfies \qref{D.1} as

2497: \[ \int_{\Ebar} x^{-1} \sm_k(dx) =(\log k)^{-1} \int_{k^{-1}}^\infty x^{-2} dx

2498: = k(\log k)^{-1} \leq k, \]

2499: and 

2500: \[ \Vp\ksup(q) = q (\log k)^{-1} \int_{qk^{-1}}^\infty \frac{1 -\rme^{-x}}{x^2}

2501: dx \to q = \Vp(q).\]

2502: The general case follows by superposition of these two special cases.

2503: 

2504: \section{Scaling-periodic solutions}

2505: %[Scaling fixed points?]

2506: In this section we characterize scaling-periodic solutions 

2507: and show that they are dense in the scaling attractor.

2508: That is, we prove Theorems~\ref{RT.periodic} and \ref{RT.Pdense}.

2509: \subsection{Characterization}

2510: \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{RT.periodic}]

2511: {\em 1.\/} 

2512: Given a scaling-periodic solution, a solution satisfying \qref{R.periodic}, 

2513: we can scale it as in \qref{newnu}--\qref{newF} so that $t_0$ is as in

2514: \qref{R.normal3}.  Then, under the map

2515: $F \mapsto F^{a,b}$ %from \qref{R.linear3}, 

2516: given by 

2517: \begin{equation}

2518: \label{R.linear3}

2519: F^{a,b}_t(x) =\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

2520: F_{abt}(bx) & (K=2),\\ 

2521: F_{t+\log(ab)}( ab^2x) & (K=x+y),\\ 

2522: F_{t/ab}(ab^2x) & (K=xy), 

2523: \end{array} \right.

2524: \end{equation} 

2525: for some $a,b>0$ we have $F_t = F^{a,b}_t$ for all $t\in[t_0,\Tmax)$.

2526: Explicitly,

2527: \begin{equation}

2528: (ab,b)= \left\{

2529: \begin{array}{ll}

2530: (t_1,\betarsc) &(K=2),\\

2531: (\rme^{t_1},\betarsc \rme^{-t_1}) &(K=x+y),\\

2532: (-t_1^{-1}, -\betarsc t_1) &(K=xy).

2533: \end{array}\right.

2534: \end{equation}

2535: %A scaling periodic solution must be eternal for

2536: %\qref{R.periodic} may be iterated infinitely many times. 

2537: %If an eternal solution satisfies \qref{R.periodic} it must be a fixed

2538: %point of the map 

2539: %$F \mapsto F^{a,b}$ from \qref{R.linear3} 

2540: %Explicitly, we have $ab= t_1, \rme^{t_1}$, or

2541: %$-t_1^{-1}$; $b=\betarsc,\betarsc \rme^{-t_1}$, or $-\betarsc t_1$; for

2542: %$K=2,x+y$ and $xy$ respectively. 

2543: Observe that $ab>1$ in all three cases. 

2544: Iterating the map, we get that the solution must be (the restriction of)

2545: an eternal solution.

2546: By Theorem~\ref{RT.scale} and \qref{R.linear3}, $F=F^{a,b}$ is equivalent to

2547: $\dsm=\dsm^{a,b}$, that is, 

2548: \be

2549: \label{P.1}

2550: \dsm(x) = a\dsm(bx), \quad x >0.

2551: \ee

2552: Without loss of generality we may suppose $b > 1$ since \qref{P.1} is

2553: equivalent to $a^{-1}\dsm(b^{-1} x) = \dsm(x)$. 

2554: 

2555: {\em 2.\/} Equation  \qref{P.1} implies $\dsm(0_+)=a\dsm(0_+)$. If $\dsm$ has

2556: an atom at the origin, this forces $a=1$. Then $\dsm(x)=\dsm(bx)$ for every

2557: $x>0$, and since $b>1$ and $\dsm(x)$ is non-decreasing, 

2558: it follows $\dsm(x)=c=\dsm(0_+)$ for all $x>0$. 

2559: Therefore, if $\dsm$ has an atom at the origin, then $\dsm=c \delta_0$

2560: for some $c>0$.

2561: 

2562: {\em 3.\/} Suppose $\dsm$ does not have an atom at the origin. 

2563: We iterate \qref{P.1} to find that 

2564: \[

2565: \int_1^{b_-}\dsm(dx)=a^j\int_{b^j}^{b_-^{j+1}}\dsm (dx), \quad

2566: \int_1^{b_-}\frac{\dsm(dx)}{x} = (ab)^j\int_{b^j}^{b_-^{j+1}}\frac{\dsm (dx)}{x}.

2567: \]

2568: In order that $\dsm$ is an \smeas\ we require

2569: \[ \int_{E} (1\wedge x^{-1})\dsm(dx) = \sum_{j<0} a^{-j}

2570: \int_1^{b_-} \dsm(dx) + \sum_{j \geq 0} (ab)^{-j}

2571: \int_1^{b_-}x^{-1}\dsm(dx) <\infty.

2572: \]

2573: Thus, $a <1$ and $ab>1$.  Given $x>0$ let $k= \max\{j:  b^j \leq

2574: x\}$. A similar calculation yields

2575: \[

2576: \dsm(x) =   \sum_{j < k}a^{-j} \int_1^{b_-}\dsm(dx)  + a^{-k} \int_1^{b^{-k}x_-} \dsm(dx).  \]

2577: This shows $\dsm$ is determined by its restriction to $[1,b)$. 

2578: 

2579: {\em 4.\/} Conversely, suppose $\dsm=\dsm^{a,b}$ and (i) or (ii) hold. 

2580: Notice that $\dsm$ is automatically divergent since it either has an

2581: atom at the origin or 

2582: \[ \int_E x^{-1} \dsm(dx) = \int_1^{b_-} x^{-1}\dsm(dx) \sum_{j

2583:   =-\infty}^\infty (ab)^{-j}= \infty.\]

2584: Thus, it determines an eternal solution, which by

2585: \qref{R.linear3} satisfies $F =F^{a,b}$.

2586: \end{proof}

2587: 

2588: \subsection{Self-similar solutions}

2589: As remarked in Section~\ref{RS.chaos}, the case (i) 

2590: is simple but important. The associated divergent \smeas\ is

2591: scale-invariant for every $b>1$ and the scaling-periodic solutions

2592: are the classical self-similar solutions with exponential tails.

2593: %\begin{equation}\label{C.sss1}

2594: %\nu_t(dx)=c^{-1}t^{-2}\rme^{-x/c t}\,dx.

2595: %\end{equation}

2596: If a scaling-periodic solution satisfies \qref{R.periodic} for

2597: every $t_1 >t_0$ (with changing $\betarsc$), it follows that 

2598: for some fixed $a$ and $b$, $\dsm(x)=a^{r}\dsm(b^rx)$ for all rational and

2599: hence all real $r$. The fundamental rigidity lemma for scaling

2600: limits~\cite[VIII.8]{Feller} then implies $\dsm(x)= C_\theta x^\theta$

2601: for some $\theta \in \R$. The finiteness condition $\int_E (1 \wedge

2602: x^{-1}) \dsm (dx) < \infty$  then implies $\theta =1-\rho, \rho \in

2603: (0,1]$. If $\rho=1$, $\dsm$ is an atom at the origin corresponding to

2604: (i) above. The self-similar profiles and their domains of attraction

2605: are discussed further in Section~\ref{sec:domains}.

2606: 

2607: 

2608: \subsection{Density of scaling-periodic solutions}

2609: % 

2610: % Let $\nu$ be an eternal solution to Smoluchowski's equation with

2611: % kernel $K=2$, $x+y$ or $xy$.

2612: % Let $a_n \to 0,b_n \to \infty $ be sequences such that $a_nb_n^{1/2}

2613: % \to 0$ and $a_nb_n\to\infty$. 

2614: % Then there exist scaling-periodic solutions $\nu\nsup$ with scale parameters

2615: % $(a_n,b_n)$ such that $\nu\nsup_t$ converges weakly to $\nu_t$ for

2616: % every $t \in (\Tmin,\Tmax)$.

2617: To prove Theorem~\ref{RT.Pdense} and establish density of 

2618: scaling-periodic solutions in the full scaling attractor $\attrx$, 

2619: it will suffice to prove such solutions are dense in the proper

2620: scaling attractor $\attr$ (see Corollary~\ref{EC.dense}).

2621: %\begin{refthm}[\ref{RT.Pdense}]\label{CT.Pdense} 

2622: %Let $\hat F\in\attrx$

2623: %be arbitrary.  Let $a_n \downarrow 0,b_n \uparrow \infty $ be

2624: %sequences such that $a_nb_n^{1/2} \to 0$ and $a_nb_n\to\infty$.  Then

2625: %there exist scaling-periodic solutions $\nu\nsup$ with scale

2626: %parameters $(a_n,b_n)$ such that $x^\gamma\nu\nsup_{t_0}(dx)$

2627: %converges weakly to $\hat F$ as $n\to\infty$.  

2628: %\end{refthm}

2629: \begin{thm}

2630: \label{PT.Pdense}

2631: Scaling-periodic solutions are dense in $\attr$.

2632: \end{thm}

2633: \begin{proof}%[Proof of Theorem~\ref{RT.Pdense}]

2634: {\em 1.\/} Let $\hat F\in\attrx$ be arbitrary.  Let $a_n \downarrow

2635: 0,b_n \uparrow \infty $ be sequences such that $a_nb_n^{1/2} \to 0$

2636: and $a_nb_n\to\infty$.  We claim that there exist scaling-periodic

2637: solutions $\nu\nsup$ with scale parameters $(a_n,b_n)$ such that

2638: $F\nsup_{t_0}(dx)=x^\gamma\nu\nsup_{t_0}(dx)$ converges weakly to $\hat F$ as

2639: $n\to\infty$.  

2640: Let $\dsm$ denote the divergent \smeas\ associated with $\nu$.

2641: By Theorems~\ref{RT.LK} and \ref{RT.scale} it suffices to construct

2642: divergent \smeass\  $\dsm\nsup$ such that 

2643: $\dsm\nsup=a_n \dsm\nsup(b_n\,\cdot)$ and $\dsm\nsup$ 

2644: converges to $\dsm$.

2645: 

2646: {\em 2.\/}  Consider first the case where $\dsm$ has no

2647: atom at the origin. In this case we define $\dsm\nsup$ to be the

2648: scaling-invariant extension 

2649: of $\dsm$ restricted to the interval $I_n:=[b_n^{-1/2},b_n^{1/2})$.

2650: Then for any $x>0$ that is a point of continuity of $\dsm$, for 

2651: $n$ large we have $x\in I_n$ and  

2652: \[

2653: \dsm\nsup(x)= \int_{b_n\inv}^{x}  \dsm(dx) + \sum_{j<0} (a_n)^{-j}

2654: \int_{b_n\inv}^{1} \dsm(dx)

2655: \to \dsm(x)

2656: \]

2657: as $n\to\infty$. Moreover,

2658: \[

2659: \int_x^\infty \frac{\dsm\nsup(dy)}{y} = 

2660: \int_x^{b_n} \frac{\dsm(dy)}{y} + 

2661: \sum_{j\ge1} (a_nb_n)^{-j} \int_1^{b_n}\frac{\dsm(dy)}{y}

2662: \to \int_x^\infty \frac{\dsm(dy)}{y}.

2663: \]

2664: This establishes the desired convergence of \smeass\/.

2665: 

2666: {\em 3.\/} In case $\dsm=\delta_0$, we let $\dsm\nsup$ be a sum

2667: of delta masses $\delta\nsup_j, j \in \Z$ concentrated at points 

2668: $\beta_j = b_n^{j-1/2}$, so

2669: that $\dsm\nsup = \sum_{j} (a_n b_n)^j \delta\nsup_j$.

2670: Observe that there is no mass in $(b_n^{-1/2}, b_n^{1/2})$; 

2671: thus for any $x>0$, for $n$ large we have

2672: \[

2673: \dsm\nsup(x) = \sum_{j\le0} (a_nb_n)^j = \frac{1}{1-a_nb_n} \to 1,

2674: \]

2675: and 

2676: \[

2677: \int_x^\infty y\inv \dsm\nsup(dy) = b_n^{1/2} \sum_{j>0} a_n^j =

2678: \frac{a_n b_n^{1/2}}{1-a_n} \to 0. 

2679: \]

2680: Hence the \smeass\/ $\dsm\nsup$ converge to $\delta_0$.

2681: 

2682: {\em 4.\/} In the general case, we simply superpose the separate constructions. 

2683: Observe that the restriction $a_n b_n^{1/2}\to0$ is only needed in the

2684: critical case when $\dsm$ has an atom at the origin.

2685: \end{proof}

2686: 

2687: \section{Extended solutions, with dust and gel}

2688: \label{S.extend}

2689: \subsection{Extended solutions}

2690: A proper solution to

2691: Smoluchowski's equation satisfies $\int_E x^\gamma\nu_t(dx)=

2692: m_\gamma(t)$ with $m_\gamma(t)$ normalized as in \qref{R.mgamma}. 

2693: However, a sequence of proper solutions may lose mass in the

2694: limit. We append atoms at $0$ and $\infty$ to account for these

2695: defects, considering measures on $\Ebar=[0,\infty]$ of the form

2696: \be

2697: \label{E.ext1}

2698: \mu_t = \dust(t)\delta_0 + x^\gamma \nu_t + \gel(t)

2699: \delta_\infty, 

2700: \ee

2701: where $\nu_t$ is a size-distribution measure on $E$. We call the atoms $\dust$

2702: and $\gel$ the dust and gel respectively. An associated probability

2703: measure on $\Ebar$ is defined as in \qref{R.Fp}, by

2704: \be

2705: \label{E.ext2}

2706: \Fbar_t(dx)= \frac{\mu_t(dx)}{\mu_t(\Ebar)} 

2707: = \frac{\dust(t)\delta_0(dx) + x^\gamma \nu_t(dx) + \gel(t) \delta_\infty(dx)}

2708: {\dust(t)+\int_E x^\gamma\nu_t(dx)+ \gel(t)} .

2709: %\int_{[0,x]} y^\gamma \nubar_t(dy) \left\slash

2710: %\int_{\Ebar} y^\gamma\nubar_t(dy). \right.

2711: \ee

2712: The \smeas\/ associated to a solution in \qref{R.cansoln1} is 

2713: replaced by the \barsmeas

2714: \be

2715: \label{E.ext3}

2716: \esm_t(dx) = x^{\gamma+1} \nu_t(\lambda(t) \,dx) + \ggel(t)

2717: \delta_\infty(dx), \qquad \ggel(t) = \frac{\gel(t)}{\lambda(t)^\gamma}. 

2718: \ee

2719: The measures $\mu_t$ define Laplace

2720: exponents by evident modification of equation 

2721: \qref{C.vpdef} for $K=2$, namely

2722: \be

2723: \vp(t,q)=\int_{\Ebar}(1-\rme^{-qx})\mu_t(dx)

2724: = a_\infty(t)+\int_E(1-\rme^{-qx})\nu_t(dx),

2725: %\quad(K=2),

2726: \ee

2727: and of \qref{A.vpdef}  and

2728: \qref{A.psi2} for $K=x+y$ and \qref{M.vpdef} for $K=xy$, both yielding

2729: \be

2730: \vp(t,q)=\int_{\Ebar}\frac{1-\rme^{-qx}}x\mu_t(dx)

2731: = a_0(t)q+\int_E(1-\rme^{-qx})\nu_t(dx).

2732: %\quad(K=x+y)

2733: \ee

2734: %\marginpar{Formulas??}

2735: The evolution

2736: equations for these exponents remain 

2737: \be

2738: \label{E.ext4}

2739: \partial_t \vp = \left\{ 

2740: \begin{array}{rl} -\vp^2, &  (K=2),\\

2741:     \vp \partial_q \vp -\vp,  & (K=x+y),

2742: \\ \vp \partial_q \vp, &  (K=xy).   

2743: \end{array} \right.

2744: \ee

2745: This motivates the following definition.

2746: \begin{defn}

2747: \label{ED.ext}

2748: %Given a probability measure $\specialF$ on $\Ebar$, 

2749: A family of triples $(\nu_t,a_0(t),a_\infty(t))$, $t \in [t_0,\Tmax)$,

2750: defines an {\em extended solution} to Smoluchowski's equation 

2751: for the kernels $K=2$, $x+y$ and $xy$ with initial data 

2752: $(\hat\nu,\hat a_0,\hat a_\infty)$,  if  

2753: \begin{enumerate}

2754: \item[(a)] The measures $\mu_t$ in \qref{E.ext1} satisfy $\mu_t(\Ebar)=

2755: m_\gamma(t)$ with $m_\gamma(t)$ as in \qref{R.mgamma}, 

2756: for $t \in [t_0,\Tmax)$.

2757: %$x^\gamma \nubar_t (\cdot)= m_\gamma(t)\Fbar_t(\cdot)$ 

2758: %with $x^\gamma\nubar_t(\Ebar)= m_\gamma(t)$, 

2759: %$t \in [t_0,\Tmax)$ with $m_\gamma(t)$ as in \qref{R.mgamma}.

2760: \item[(b)] \qref{E.ext4}  holds for $q>0$ and $t \in (t_0,\Tmax)$. 

2761: %with  $x^\gamma\nubar_t=m_\gamma(t)\Fbar_t$.

2762: \item[(c)] $\mu_t \to \hat\mu

2763: =\hat a_0\delta_0+x^\gamma\hat\nu+\hat a_\infty\delta_\infty$ 

2764: weakly as $t \dnto t_0$. 

2765:  \end{enumerate}

2766: \end{defn}

2767: %A family of probability measures $\Fbar_t$, 

2768: Due to the normalization in (a), we regard extended solutions 

2769: as determined by the associated probability distributions 

2770: $\Fbar$ in \qref{E.ext2}.

2771: We will usually denote an extended solution with values 

2772: $(\nu_t,a_0(t),a_\infty(t))$ simply by $\nu$. 

2773: 

2774: Extended solutions provide  the correct compactification in light of  

2775: the following theorem. Since every proper solution also defines an

2776: extended solution, the

2777: theorem applies in particular to sequences of proper solutions. 

2778: \begin{thm}

2779: \label{ET.const-compact}

2780: Let $\extsol_t\nsup$, $t\in[t_0,\Tmax)$, be probability measures 

2781: associated with a sequence of extended solutions $\nu\nsup$.

2782: Then there exists a sequence $n_j\to\infty$ and 

2783: probability measures $\extsol_t$ associated 

2784: with an extended solution $\nu$, such that 

2785: $\extsol\nsupj_t$ converges weakly to $\extsol_t$

2786: for every $t \in [t_0,\Tmax)$. 

2787: \end{thm}

2788: \begin{proof}

2789: Consider the sequence of probability measures $\extsol\nsup_{t_0}$ on $\Ebar$. 

2790: Then there exists a 

2791: subsequence $n_j$ and a probability measure $\specialF_0$ such that

2792: $\extsol_{t_0}\nsupj$ converges weakly to $\specialF_0$. 

2793: %and $\extsol_{t_0}(\Ebar)=1$. 

2794: We use $\specialF_0$ to determine initial data 

2795: to define an extended solution $\nu$ for $t \in

2796: [t_0,\Tmax)$. Continuous dependence on initial data as in

2797: Theorem~\ref{ET.cts} below implies the weak convergence of

2798: $\extsol\nsupj_t$ to $\extsol_t$ for every $t \in [t_0,\Tmax)$.

2799: \end{proof}

2800: 

2801: We state the following result without proof, as it is an easy consequence of

2802: Definition~\ref{ED.ext}, and Theorems~\ref{CT.cts}

2803: and~\ref{AT.cts}. The notion of extended 

2804: solution allows us to simplify matters, as it is no longer necessary to 

2805: assume that $\hat\mu_0(\Ebar)=m_\gamma(t_0)$ , or

2806: $\hat\mu(\Ebar) =m_\gamma(t)$ as in parts (a) and (b) of

2807: Theorem~\ref{CT.cts} and ~\ref{AT.cts}. 

2808: \begin{thm}\label{ET.cts}

2809: (Continuous dependence on data.)

2810: For Smoluchowski's equation with kernels $K=2$, $x+y$ or $xy$, let

2811: $t_0 \in (\Tmin,\Tmax)$ and let $\extsol\nsup$ determine a sequence of

2812: extended solutions defined for $t\in I=[t_0,\Tmax)$. 

2813: \begin{enumerate}

2814: \item[(a)] If $\extsol\nsup_{t_0}$ converges weakly to a

2815:  measure $\specialF_0$, then for every $t\in I$,

2816:   $\extsol\nsup_t$ converges weakly to $\extsol_t$, 

2817: associated with the time-$t$  

2818: extended solution with initial data determined by $\extsol_{t_0}=\specialF_0$.

2819: \item[(b)] For any $t\in I$, if $\extsol\nsup_{t}$ converges

2820:   weakly  to a measure $\specialF$, then  

2821: $\extsol\nsup_{t_0}$ converges weakly to a probability measure $\specialF_0$

2822: %$F_0$ with $\extsol_0(\Ebar)=1$, 

2823: and $\specialF=\extsol_t$, associated with the

2824: time-$t$ solution  with initial data determined by 

2825: $\extsol_{t_0} =\specialF_0$. 

2826: \end{enumerate}

2827: \end{thm}

2828: 

2829: \subsection{Transformation to proper solutions}

2830: Clusters of ``zero'' or ``infinite'' size interact with other clusters

2831: in simple ways.

2832: The invariances of the evolution equations \qref{E.ext4} allow us to

2833: relate all extended solutions (except pure dust and gel) 

2834: to proper solutions. Let us consider the constant and additive kernels in turn.

2835: \subsubsection{The constant kernel}

2836: The dust and gel are recovered as limits as $q \to 0$ and $\infty$

2837: respectively: 

2838: \be 

2839: \label{E.c_gel}

2840: \gel(t) = \vp(t,0^+), \quad \dust(t) = \mu_t(\Ebar)- \vp(t,\infty^-).

2841: \ee

2842: Since $\mu_t(\Ebar)=t\inv$, 

2843: we take limits in \qref{E.ext4} to see that the dust and gel satisfy 

2844: \be

2845: \label{E.c_gel2}

2846: \frac{d\gel}{dt} = -\gel^2, \quad \frac{d{\left(t^{-1}-

2847:       \dust\right)}}{dt}  = -

2848: (t^{-1}-\dust )^2. 

2849: \ee

2850: The extended solution corresponds to purely dust and gel when

2851: $\mu_t(E)=0$, so that $\dust(t)+\gel(t)=t\inv$.

2852: We may exploit \qref{E.ext4}  to show that every extended solution

2853: that is not purely dust and gel is in

2854: correspondence with a proper solution after a simple change of scale. Suppose

2855: $\vp(t,q)$ is the Laplace exponent of an extended solution. 

2856: If $\gel(t_0)>0$ let

2857: %\marginpar{include calculations?}

2858: \be \la{e:ext_rsc1}

2859: \hvp(\htt,q) = \alpha(t)^{-2} \left(\vp(t,q)-\gel(t)\right),

2860: \ee

2861: where

2862: \be

2863: \htt\inv = \alpha(t)^{-2}(t\inv-\dust(t)-\gel(t)), 

2864: \qquad

2865: \alpha(t) = \frac{\gel(t)}{\gel(t_0)}.

2866: \ee

2867: Then we find $\hvp(\htt,0^+)=0$, $\hvp(\htt,\infty^-)=\htt\inv$,

2868: and $\partial_{\htt}\hvp= -\hvp^2$.

2869: Thus, $\hvp(\htt,q)$ is the Laplace exponent of a proper solution 

2870: defined on $[\htt_0,\infty)$. 

2871: 

2872: For vanishing gel ($\gel(t_0)\to0$) the transformation above

2873: simplifies, yielding $\alpha=1$,  $\htt-\htt_0=t-t_0$, $\hvp=\vp$. 

2874: Zero-size clusters combine trivially with other clusters, 

2875: so the presence of dust only shifts time in accord with our

2876: normalization of total number.

2877: Observe that if gel is present ($\gel(t_0)>0$),

2878: the probability of being gel approaches one ($\gel(t)/\mu_t(\Ebar)\to1$) 

2879: and the relative distribution of finite-size clusters approaches

2880: a state reached by the proper solution at a finite time;

2881: we have $\htt\to \htt_0+ 1/\gel(t_0)$ as $t \to \infty$.

2882: 

2883: %\ba

2884: %\label{eq:ext_rsc1}

2885: %&& \hvp(\htt,q) = \alpha(t)^{-2}\left(\vp(t,q)- \gel(t) \right), 

2886: %\quad

2887: %\alpha(t) = \frac{\gel(t)}{\gel(t_0)}, \\

2888: %\nn %\label{eq:ext_rsc2}

2889: %&& \htt -\htt_0 = \alpha(t) \left(t-t_0 \right), \quad  \htt_0=

2890: %\frac{t_0}{1 - t_0\left(\dust(t_0)+\gel(t_0)\right)}. 

2891: %\ea

2892: %Then we have $\partial_{\htt}\hvp= -\hvp^2$ 

2893: %and $\hvp(\infty^-,\htt)= \htt^{-1}$. 

2894: 

2895: 

2896: \subsubsection{The additive kernel}

2897: In this case, $\D_q\vp(t,q)=\int_{\Ebar}\rme^{-qx}\mu_t(dx)$ and 

2898: $\mu_t(\Ebar)=1$, so the dust and gel are given by

2899: \ba

2900: \label{eq:ext_add2}

2901: \dust (t) = \partial_q \vp(t,\infty), \quad  \gel (t) = 1- \partial_q

2902: \vp(t,0^+). 

2903: \ea

2904: The similarity with the constant kernel is clear if we

2905: use the time scale $s=e^t$ and the Laplace

2906: exponent $\psi(s,q)$ defined in \qref{A.psi1} and \qref{A.psi2}. 

2907: Let

2908: \be

2909: \label{E.ab1}

2910: \bdust(s) = \frac{1}{s} - \partial_q\psi(s,\infty) =\frac{\dust(t)}{s}, \quad

2911: \bgel(s)=\partial_q \psi(s,0) = \frac{\gel(t)}{s}.

2912: \ee

2913: We then take limits in \qref{A.imp} to see that

2914: \be

2915: \label{E.ab2}

2916: \frac{d(s^{-1}-\bdust)}{ds} = -(s^{-1}-\bdust)^2,

2917: \quad 

2918: \frac{d\bgel}{ds} = -\bgel^2, 

2919: \ee

2920: which is equivalent to the following closed

2921: equations for the dust and gel:

2922: \ba

2923: \label{eq:ext_add4} 

2924: \frac{d\dust}{dt} = -\dust (1-\dust), \quad \frac{d\gel}{dt} =

2925: \gel(1-\gel). 

2926: \ea

2927: The extended solution is purely dust and gel when $\dust(t)+\gel(t)=1$. 

2928: If it is not, we exploit the invariances of the inviscid Burgers equation

2929: \qref{A.psi4} to reduce extended solutions to proper solutions

2930: by a change of scale. Given initial data $\psi_0$ with $\partial_q

2931: \psi_0(0) = \bgel(s_0) \geq 0$ and $\partial_q \psi_0(\infty) =

2932: s_0^{-1}-\bdust(s_0) > \bgel(s_0)>0$, we define a proper solution via 

2933: the change of variables

2934: \be \la{e:ext_add5}

2935:  \hpsi(\hs,\hq) = \alpha(s)^{-1}\left(\psi(s,q) -\bgel(s) q\right),

2936: \ee

2937: where

2938: \[

2939: \hs\inv = \alpha(s)^{-2}\left(s\inv-\bdust(s)-\bgel(s)\right), \quad

2940: \hq=\alpha(s)q, \quad

2941: \alpha(s)= \frac{\bgel(s)}{\bgel(s_0)}.

2942: \]

2943: This ensures $\partial_{\hq} \hpsi(s,0) = 0$,

2944: $\partial_{\hq} \hpsi(s,\infty)=s^{-1}$, and 

2945: $\partial_{\hs} \hpsi + \hpsi \partial_{\hq} \hpsi=0$ 

2946: for $\hs > \hs_0$.

2947: 

2948: %\ba

2949: %\label{eq:ext_add5}

2950: %&& \hpsi(\hs,\hq) = \alpha(s)^{-1}\left(\psi(s,q) -\bgel(s) q\right), \quad

2951: %\alpha(s)= \frac{\bgel(s)}{\bgel(s_0)}\\

2952: %\nn %\label{eq:ext_add6}

2953: %&& 

2954: % \hq = \alpha(s) q ,  \quad \hs-\hs_0 = \alpha(s) (s-s_0), \quad \hs_0 =

2955: %\frac{s_0}{1-s_0\left(\bdust(s_0)+\bgel(s_0)\right)}. 

2956: %\ea

2957: %This ensures $\partial_{\hs} \hpsi +

2958: %\hpsi \partial_{\hq} \hpsi=0$, $\hs > \hs_0$, with initial data 

2959: %such that $\hpsi(\hs_0,0)=0$ and

2960: %$\hpsi(\hs_0,\infty)=s_0^{-1}$. It then follows 

2961: %that $\partial_{\hq} \hpsi(s,0) = 0$ and 

2962: %$\partial_{\hq} \hpsi(s,\infty)=s^{-1}$ for every $\hs > \hs_0$. 

2963: 

2964: 

2965: \subsection{\LK\/ representation}

2966: % of extended eternal solutions}

2967: %An extended eternal solution is defined as in \ref{R.eternal}.

2968: \begin{defn}

2969: \label{ED.eternal}

2970: An extended solution to Smoluchowski's equation that is defined for

2971: all $t \in (\Tmin,\Tmax)$ is called an {\em eternal extended 

2972: solution}. 

2973: \end{defn}

2974: The following representation theorem is the completion of

2975: Theorem~\ref{RT.LK}. We establish a bijection between the set of

2976: eternal extended solutions and the space $\Mcanx$ consisting of 

2977: all \barsmeass\/ together with a point at infinity. 

2978: The point at infinity corresponds to all

2979: measures such that $\int_{\Ebar}(1\wedge x^{-1})

2980: \dsm(dx)=\infty$. These measures give rise to the (unique)

2981: Laplace exponents $\Phi(q)=\Psi(q)=\infty$, $q >0$. We say a sequence

2982: of \barsmeass\/ converges to the point at infinity if  $\Vp\nsup(q)

2983: \to \infty$, $q>0$ for the associated Laplace exponents.

2984: This special case corresponds to

2985: the eternal extended solution that is pure gel. It is the counterpoint

2986: to the Laplace exponents $\Phi(q)=\Psi(q)=0$, $q>0$ which generate

2987: the eternal extended solution that is pure dust.

2988: %

2989: %It is worth remarking that in

2990: % the theorem below

2991: %involving the \barsmeass\/ defined in \qref{E.ext3}. This completion

2992: %involves 

2993: %We now consider the space of all \sbar

2994: % Since the proof of the \LK\/ formula relies only on the explicit

2995: % solution formulas and the topology of \barsmeass\/ we obtain the

2996: % following completion of 

2997: % \

2998: \begin{thm}

2999: \label{ET.LK}

3000: \begin{enumerate}

3001: \item[(a)]Let $\nu$  be an eternal extended 

3002: solution for Smoluchowski's equation with

3003: $K=2,x+y$ or $xy$. If $\nu$ is not pure gel, there is an \barsmeas\ $\dsm$ 

3004: such that $\esm_t$ converges to $\dsm$ as $t \dnto \Tmin$. If $\nu$

3005: is pure gel, $\esm_t$ converges to the point at infinity in $\Mcanx$.

3006: \item[(b)] Conversely, for every \barsmeas\ $\dsm$, 

3007: there is a unique eternal extended solution $\nu$ 

3008:   such that $\esm_t$ converges to $\dsm$ as $t \dnto \Tmin$.  The

3009:   point at infinity generates the extended solution $\nu$ that is pure gel.

3010: \item[(c)] 

3011: Let $\Hmapx\colon\attrx\to\Mcanx$

3012: map the (full) scaling attractor $\attrx$

3013: to the set $\Mcanx$ of  \barsmeass\

3014: by $\Hmapx(\specialF)=\dsm$, where $\dsm$ is the \barsmeas\ 

3015: associated to the eternal extended solution $\nu$ such that

3016: $\specialF=\Fbar_{t_0}$ with $t_0$ as in

3017: \qref{R.normal2}. Then $\Hmapx$ is a bi-continuous bijection.

3018: Moreover, $\Hmap\colon\attr \to \Mcan$ is the restriction of $\Hmapx$

3019: to $\attr$.

3020: \end{enumerate}

3021: \end{thm}

3022: The map $\Hmapx$ is defined in terms of Laplace exponents by the same

3023: formulas as for proper solutions: \qref{C.eternal} for $K=2$,

3024: \qref{A.imp} for $K=x+y$, and \qref{M.psi6} for $K=xy$. 

3025: Parts (a) and (b) of the theorem are then proven just as in

3026: Theorems~\ref{CT.eternal} and \ref{AT.eternal}. The proof here is

3027: simpler, since we no longer need verify the divergence conditions on

3028: the \barsmeas\/. The proof of part (c) relies on two separate

3029: arguments. It is easy 

3030: to show as in Theorems~\ref{CT.Mconv2}  and \ref{AT.Mconv2} that the

3031: map $H \mapsto \Fbar_{t_0}$ is a bi-continuous bijection. 

3032: However, we must also identify  such $\Fbar_{t_0}$ as belonging

3033: to the attractor. Here the arguments deviate

3034: slightly from those of Section~\ref{sec:const-ker} and

3035: ~\ref{sec:add}. We use parts (a) and (b) of Theorem~\ref{ET.LK} in the

3036: proof of part (c) via the following intermediate theorem. 

3037: % Extended eternal solutions  are in correspondence with elements of the

3038: % (full) scaling attractor defined in \ref{R.full}. 

3039: \begin{thm}

3040: \label{ET.AE}

3041: \begin{enumerate}

3042: \item[(a)]

3043: The scaling attractor $\attrx$ is invariant: If $\nu$ is an extended solution

3044: of Smoluchowski's equation,

3045: and $\Fbar_t\in\attrx$ for some $t$, then $\nu$ is eternal and

3046: $\Fbar_t\in\attrx$ for all $t\in(\Tmin,\Tmax)$.

3047: \item[(b)]

3048: A probability measure $\specialF$ on $\Ebar$ belongs to 

3049: $\attrx$ if and only if $\specialF= \Fbar_{t_0}$

3050: for some extended eternal solution $\nu$. 

3051: \end{enumerate}

3052: \end{thm}

3053: \begin{proof}The proof differs from earlier arguments only in the

3054:   first part of  Theorems~\ref{CT.attr} and~\ref{AT.attractor} (the

3055:   assertion that $\Fbar_{t_0} \in

3056:   \attrx$ if $\nu$ is eternal).  In order to prove this, let us 

3057:   suppose $\nu$ is an 

3058:   extended eternal solution with associated \barsmeas\/ $\bar\dsm =

3059:   (\dsm, g_\infty)$ where $\dsm$ is an \smeas\/ and $g_\infty$ is the 

3060: charge of $y\inv H(dy)$ at $\infty$. 

3061: To show that $\specialF :=\Fbar_{t_0}$ is in 

3062:   the scaling attractor, we must find $T_n\upto \Tmax,\beta_n \to \infty$ and 

3063: a sequence of {\em proper\/} solutions such that

3064: $F\nsup_{T_n}(\beta_nx) \to \specialF(x)$ at points of continuity. We

3065: use the \LK\/ formula to find such solutions. We approximate $\bar{H}$ by 

3066: the sequence of  {\em divergent\/} \smeass\/ $\dsm\nsup = n^{-1}

3067: \delta_0 + \dsm + g_\infty n\delta_n$. It follows that for the corresponding

3068:  (proper) eternal solutions $\nu\nsup$, the probability measures 

3069: $\Fbar_t\nsup$ converge to $\Fbar_t$ for every $t> \Tmin$. 

3070: Given any sequence $T_n \upto \Tmax, \beta_n \to \infty$

3071:  we consider a  sequence of rescaled solutions determined as in

3072: \qref{newF}, by

3073: \[ \tilde{F}\nsup_t(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{rl}

3074:     F\nsup_{t/T_n}(\beta_n^{-1} x), & (K=2), \\

3075:     F\nsup_{t - T_n} (\beta_n^{-1} x), & (K=x+y), \\

3076:     F\nsup_{t/|T_n|}(\beta_n^{-1}(x)), & (K=xy). \end{array} \right. \]

3077: We then have  $\tilde{F}\nsup_{T_n}(\beta_nx) = F\nsup_{t_0}(x)

3078: \to \specialF(x)$ at all points of continuity. 

3079: 

3080: The converse implication and part (a) are proven exactly as in

3081: Theorems~\ref{CT.attr} and~\ref{AT.attractor} and the sequel.

3082: \end{proof}

3083: This also  proves a property alluded to several times before.

3084: \begin{cor}

3085: \label{EC.dense}

3086: $\attrx$ is the closure of $\attr$.

3087: \end{cor}

3088: \begin{proof}

3089: If $\specialF \in \attrx$ has \barsmeas\/ $\bar\dsm$, we approximate

3090: $\bar\dsm$ by a sequence of divergent \smeass\/ as above.

3091: \end{proof}

3092: 

3093: \subsection{Scaling limits and initial tails}

3094: We now state the natural extension of Theorem~\ref{RT.initial_tails}

3095: to eternal extended solutions. The proof is almost identical to that of

3096: Theorem~\ref{RT.initial_tails} except that we no longer need verify

3097: divergence of the \smeas\/.

3098: \begin{thm}

3099: \label{ET.code}

3100: Let $\specialF\in\attrx$ 

3101: %so $\hat F(dx)=x^\gamma\nu_{t_0}(dx)$ where $\nu$ is an eternal solution, 

3102: with associated \barsmeas\ $H$.

3103: Let $\nu\nsup$ be any sequence of proper solutions defined for $t\in

3104: [t_0,\Tmax)$,

3105: with associated initial \smeass\ given by

3106: $\sm\nsup(dx)=x^{\gamma+1}\nu\nsup_{t_0}(dx)$. 

3107: Let $T_n \to \Tmax$, $\beta_n\to\infty$. 

3108: Then the following are equivalent: 

3109: \bit

3110: \item[(i)] ${F}\nsup_{T_n}(\beta_n x) \to \specialF(x)$ 

3111: as $n\to\infty$, at every point of continuity.

3112: \item[(ii)] The rescaled initial \smeass\ $\tilde\sm\nsup$ defined by

3113: \qref{R.initG} converge to the \barsmeas\/ $\dsm$ as $n \to \infty$.

3114: % \begin{equation}\la{R.initG}

3115: % \tilde\sm\nsup(x) = \left\{

3116: % \begin{array}{ll}

3117: % \beta_n^{-1}T_n \,\sm\nsup(\beta_nx)

3118: % %= T_n\beta_n^{-1}\int_{[0,\beta_nx]} y\nu\nsup_{t_0}(dy) 

3119: %          &(K=2),\\[6pt]

3120: % \beta_n\inv \rme^{2T_n}\, \sm\nsup(\rme^{-T_n}\beta_nx) 

3121: % %= \beta_n\inv\rme^{2T_n} \int_0^{x\beta_n\exp(-T_n)}y^2\nu\nsup_0(dy) 

3122: % &(K=x+y), \\[6pt]

3123: % \beta_n\inv |T_n|^{-2} \,\sm\nsup(|T_n|\beta_n x)

3124: %  &(K=xy),

3125: % \end{array} \right.

3126: % \end{equation}

3127: % have the property that

3128: % $\tilde\sm\nsup$ converges to $\dsm$ as $n \to \infty$.

3129: \eit

3130: \end{thm}

3131: 

3132: \section{Initial tails and ultimate scaling dynamics}

3133: In this section, we present two applications of the principle that

3134: ultimate scaling dynamics are encoded in the initial tails (as

3135: formalized in theorems~\ref{RT.initial_tails} and~\ref{ET.code}). 

3136: The first is a proof of the shadowing theorem~\ref{RT.shad}. The second is a

3137: streamlined proof of the classification of domains of

3138: attraction in~\cite{MP1} that avoids the use of Karamata's Tauberian theorem.  

3139: 

3140: \subsection{Initial tails and shadowing}

3141: \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{RT.shad}]

3142: {\em 1.\/} As in section~2, we let $\dist(\cdot,\cdot)$ denote any metric on

3143: $\bar\PP$ which induces the weak topology. 

3144: Suppose that for Smoluchowski's equation with kernel $K=2$, $x+y$ or

3145: $xy$, $\nu$ and $\bar\nu$ are two solutions defined on $[t_0,\Tmax)$,

3146: and make the assumptions stated in the theorem.

3147: Suppose that \qref{R.dto0} fails, i.e., that

3148: \begin{equation}\la{d.notdto0}

3149: \dist( F_t(b(t)\,dx),\bar F_{\bar t}(\bar b(t)\,dx)) \not\to 0 \qquad

3150: \mbox{as $t\to\Tmax$.}

3151: \end{equation} 

3152: Then since $\bar\PP$ is compact, by passing to subsequences we can find

3153: sequences $T_n\uparrow\Tmax$ and $\beta_n=b(T_n)$ and {\em different} 

3154: probability measures $\hat F$, $\check F\in \bar\PP$, such that as

3155: $n\to\infty$ 

3156: we have

3157: \begin{equation}\la{d.seq1}

3158: F_{T_n}(\beta_n x)\to \hat F(x), \qquad

3159: \bar F_{\bar T_n}(\bar \beta_n x)\to \check F(x),

3160: \end{equation}

3161: at every point of continuity of the limit. Here the values $\bar

3162: T_n$, $\bar\beta_n$ are those that correspond via the map 

3163: $(t,b)\mapsto(\bar t,\bar b)$ stated in the theorem. 

3164: Relabeling if necessary, we may assume $0<\hat F(x)$ for some finite

3165: $x$, i.e., $\hat F$ does not represent pure gel.

3166: Therefore, according to the extended \LK\ representation theorem~\ref{ET.LK},

3167: there exists an \barsmeas\ $\dsm$ that corresponds to $\hat F$.

3168: 

3169: {\em 2.\/} Let 

3170: \begin{equation}\la{d.alp}

3171: \alpha_n = \begin{cases}

3172: \beta_n & (K=2),\cr

3173: \beta_n\rme^{-T_n} & (K=x+y),\cr

3174: \beta_n|T_n| & (K=xy),

3175: \end{cases}

3176: \quad

3177: \lambda_n = \begin{cases}

3178: T_n & (K=2).\cr

3179: \rme^{T_n} & (K=x+y),\cr

3180: |T_n|\inv & (K=xy).

3181: \end{cases}

3182: \end{equation}

3183: and similarly define $\bar\alpha_n$, $\bar\lambda_n$ in terms of

3184: $\bar \beta_n$, $\bar T_n$. Note that $\bar\alpha_n=\alpha_n$.

3185: We claim that $\alpha_n\to\infty$. This is evident for $K=2$, and 

3186: once we prove it for $K=x+y$ it follows for $K=xy$ 

3187: by the transformation formula \qref{M.2}. 

3188: For $K=x+y$, one can prove $\alpha_n\to\infty$ by following the

3189: beginning of the proof of Theorem 7.1 in \cite{MP1} up to (7.8)

3190: using only subsequential convergence. From (7.8) one deduces

3191: $\lambda\rme^{-t}\to \infty$, which corresponds here to

3192: $\alpha_n\to\infty$. 

3193: %[[Ok - desirable to give clear, self-contained proof.]]

3194: 

3195: {\em 3.\/}  Define rescaled initial \smeass\ (see \qref{R.initG}) by

3196: \begin{equation}\la{d.scG}

3197: \sm\nsup (x) = \lambda_n \alpha_n\inv \sm(\alpha_n x),

3198: \qquad

3199: \bar\sm\nsup (x) = \bar\lambda_n \alpha_n\inv \sm(\alpha_n x),

3200: \end{equation}

3201: According to the extended encoding theorem~\ref{ET.code}

3202: %\marginpar{[[needs statement and proof!]]; added 8/16/06}

3203: the \smeass\ $\sm\nsup$ converge to $\dsm$. 

3204: Let $\vp\nsup$, $\bar\vp\nsup$ and $\Phi$ be the 

3205: first-order Laplace exponents associated

3206: to $\sm\nsup$, $\bar\sm\nsup$ and $\dsm$

3207: respectively as in \qref{L.1}.

3208: We have $\bar\lambda_n = \lambda_n/L(\alpha_n)$, and

3209: with $\hat L(1/q)=\bar\vp(q)/\vp(q)$, the hypothesis

3210: \qref{R.shad2} ensures $\hat L$ is slowly varying and

3211: $\hat L\sim L$.

3212: Hence, for any $q\in(0,\infty)$ we have

3213: \[

3214: \bar\vp\nsup(q) = \bar\lambda_n\bar\vp(q/\alpha_n)

3215: = \vp\nsup(q) 

3216: \frac{\hat L(\alpha_n /q)}{\hat L(\alpha_n)} 

3217: \frac{\hat L(\alpha_n)}{L(\alpha_n)}

3218: \to \Phi(q)

3219: \]

3220: as $n\to\infty$. By Theorem~\ref{LT.Mconv}, it follows

3221: $\bar\sm\nsup$ converges to $\dsm$, and 

3222: by the extended \LK\ representation theorem, 

3223: this yields $\hat F=\check F$ in \qref{d.seq1}. 

3224: This contradicts \qref{d.notdto0} and finishes the proof.

3225: \end{proof}

3226: 

3227: \subsection{Self similar solutions and domains of attraction}

3228: \label{sec:domains}

3229: % %Here we characterize the domains of attraction 

3230: % [[The idea is to reprove the characterization theorem as an

3231: % application of shadowing, showing how the condition is necessary in

3232: % this case.  ]]

3233: The self-similar solutions are the simplest examples of eternal solutions. 

3234: All self-similar solutions are generated by the \smeass\/ 

3235: $\dsm(x)=C x^{1-\rho}$ with $\rho\in(0,1]$, $C>0$, 

3236: with corresponding Laplace exponents 

3237: \be \la{Do.Hlap}

3238: \Phi(q) = 

3239: Cq^\rho 

3240: \frac{ \Gamma(2-\rho)}{\rho},

3241: \qquad

3242: \Psi(q) = C q^{1+\rho}

3243: \frac{\Gamma(2-\rho)}{\rho(1+\rho)}. 

3244: \ee

3245: Thus, there is a one-parameter family

3246: up to trivial scalings. By \qref{C.eternal} and \qref{A.psi11},

3247: for appropriate $C$, the Laplace exponent $\vp=\vp(t,q)$ of the 

3248: solution satisfies

3249: \be

3250: \vp = \frac{\Phi}{1+t\Phi} = \frac{q^\rho}{1+tq^\rho}

3251: \qquad(K=2),

3252: \ee

3253: \be

3254: q = \vp+\Psi(\rme^t\vp) = \vp + (\rme^t \vp)^{1+\rho}

3255: \qquad (K=x+y).

3256: \ee

3257: The self-similar solutions were described in ~\cite{MP1}, 

3258: and can all be captured by expressing the associated probability distribution 

3259: in the form

3260: \be

3261: F(t,x) = F_{\rho,\gamma}(x/\lgr_{\rho,\gamma}(t)),

3262: \ee

3263: for $\gamma=0,1,2$, where the scale factors are

3264: \be

3265:  \lgr_{\rho,0}(t)=t^{1/\rho},\quad \lgr_{\rho,1}(t)=\rme^{t/\beta}, \quad

3266: \lgr_{\rho,2}(t)=|t|^{-1/\beta}, 

3267: \ee

3268: with $\beta=\rho/(1+\rho)$, and the probability distributions 

3269: $F_{\rho,\gamma}$ are explicitly 

3270: \begin{eqnarray}

3271: \label{eq:f_rho_const}

3272: F_{\rho,0}(x) &=& 

3273: \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{ (-1)^{k+1}x^{\rho k}}{\Gamma(1+\rho k)},

3274: \\

3275: \label{eq:f_rho_add}

3276: F_{\rho,1}(x)= F_{\rho,2}(x) &=& 

3277: \frac1\pi \sum_{k=1}^\infty

3278: \frac{(-1)^{k-1}x^{k\beta}}{k!}\Gamma(1+k-k\beta)

3279: \frac{\sin k\pi\beta}{k\pi\beta}.\quad

3280: \end{eqnarray}

3281: 

3282: We now restate the characterization of the domains of attraction of these

3283: self-similar solutions obtained in~\cite{MP1}. We say a probability measure

3284: on $E$ is nontrivial if it is not concentrated at the origin.

3285: 

3286: \begin{thm}

3287: \label{DT.domains}

3288: Let $F_t$ denote the probability measure associated to a solution to

3289: Smoluchowski's coagulation equations with $K=2, x+y,$ or

3290: $xy$. 

3291: \bit

3292: \item[(a)] Assume there is a rescaling $b(t)\to \infty$  and a

3293:   nontrivial probability measure $\hat F$   on $E$ 

3294:    such that $F_t(b(t)x)  \to \hat F(x)$ at all points of

3295:    continuity. Then there is $\rho   \in (0,1]$, and a function $L$

3296:    slowly varying at infinity such that 

3297: \be

3298: \la{DE.dom}

3299: \sm_{t_0}(x) =\int_{(0,x]}y^{\gamma+1}\nu_{t_0}(dy) 

3300: \sim x^{1-\rho}L(x), \quad x \to \infty.

3301: \ee 

3302: \item[(b)] Conversely, assume \qref{DE.dom} holds. Then there is a

3303:   rescaling $b(t) \to \infty$ such that 

3304: \be

3305: \la{DE.dom2}

3306: \lim_{t \to \infty} \dist\left(F_t(b(t)\,dx), F_{\rho,\gamma}(dx)

3307: \right)=0. 

3308: %F_{\rho,\gamma}(\lambda_{\rho,\gamma}(t)\,dx)\right) = 0.

3309: \ee

3310: \eit

3311: \end{thm}

3312: Theorem~\ref{DT.domains} illustrates the {\em rigidity of scaling

3313: limits\/}. If we insist on the existence of a proper limit as $t \to

3314: \infty$ (as opposed to subsequential limits), the only possibility is

3315: that $\hat F(x) = F_{\rho,\gamma} (ax)$ for some $\rho \in (0,1]$ and

3316: $a \in (0,\infty)$.  

3317: (For degenerate limits, see the remark below.)

3318: Theorems~\ref{RT.initial_tails} and \ref{RT.shad}

3319: shed more light on  this result as they clarify the main hypothesis

3320: (\qref{DE.dom} above) and allow us to  avoid the use of

3321: Karamata's Tauberian theorem in the proof.  

3322: 

3323: \begin{proof}

3324: Let us first prove (a). Suppose  there is a (possibly discontinuous)

3325: rescaling $b(t) \to \infty$ such that $\lim_{t \to \infty} F_t(b(t)x) =

3326: \hat{F}(x)$ at all points of continuity of $\hat{F}$. Then $\hat{F}

3327: \in \attr$, so it is associated to a divergent \smeas\/ $\dsm$. 

3328: % We use Theorem~\ref{RT.initial_tails} with $\beta_n=b(T_n)$ where 

3329: % $T_n=n$ ($K=2,x+y$) and $T_n=n^{-1}$ ($K=xy$). 

3330: % % \begin{equation}\label{R.domains1}

3331: % % T_n = \left\{

3332: % % \begin{array}{ll}

3333: % % n/t_0 &(K=2 \text{ or }xy),\\

3334: % %  e^n &(K=x+y). 

3335: % % \end{array}\right.

3336: % % \end{equation}

3337: % % and $\beta_n=b(T_n)$. 

3338: % the measures

3339: % $\tilde{F}^{(t)}(x) = F_t(b(t)x)$, that is 

3340: % \begin{equation}\label{R.domains1}

3341: % a(t) = \left\{

3342: % \begin{array}{ll}

3343: % t/t_0 &(K=2 \text{ or }xy),\\

3344: %  e^t &(K=x+y). 

3345: % \end{array}\right.

3346: % \end{equation}

3347: Theorem~\ref{RT.initial_tails} (ii) now implies the convergence

3348: of the \smeass\/ $\tilde\sm\tsup \to \dsm$ where

3349: \begin{equation}\label{R.dom2}

3350: \tilde\sm\tsup (x) = \tlam\alpha\inv \sm_{t_0}(\alpha x),

3351: \end{equation}

3352: \be \la{Do.alp}

3353: \alpha(t) = \begin{cases}

3354: b(t) & (K=2),\cr

3355: b(t)\rme^{-t} & (K=x+y),\cr

3356: b(t)|t| & (K=xy),

3357: \end{cases}

3358: \quad

3359: \tlam(t) = \begin{cases}

3360: t & (K=2).\cr

3361: \rme^{t} & (K=x+y),\cr

3362: |t|\inv & (K=xy).

3363: \end{cases}

3364: \ee

3365: As we have seen in the proof of Theorem~\ref{RT.shad}, 

3366: $\alpha(t)$ diverges as $t \to \Tmax$ in

3367: each case. Then by \qref{R.dom2}, the Laplace exponent $\vp_0$

3368: for $\sm_{t_0}$ satisfies

3369: \be \la{Do.vps}

3370: \tlam \vp_0(q/\alpha) \to \Phi(q)

3371: \ee

3372: as $t\to\Tmax$, where $\Phi$ is the Laplace exponent of $\dsm$. 

3373: Taking $t\to\Tmax$ along a sequence $t_n$ such that 

3374: $\tlam(t_{n+1})/\tlam(t_n)\to1$, by

3375: a fundamental rigidity lemma~\cite[VIII.8.3]{Feller}, we infer 

3376: that the only possible limits are power-laws, meaning 

3377: $\Phi(q)=cq^\rho$ for some $\rho\ge0$. Since $H$ is a nontrivial

3378: \smeas, we must have $0<\rho\le1$ and $c>0$. 

3379: Moreover we infer $\vp_0$ is regularly varying at 0, meaning

3380: $\vp_0(q)=q^\rho \hat L(q)$, where 

3381: $\hat L(aq)/\hat L(q)\to1$ as $q\to0$ for every $a>0$.

3382: Note that by \qref{Do.vps},

3383: \be\la{Do.tlam}

3384: \tlam \sim c\alpha^\rho/\hat L(1/\alpha),

3385: \quad 

3386: c_n=\tlam(t_n)\vp_0(1/\alpha(t_n))\to c.

3387: \ee

3388: 

3389: With $t_n$ as described and $\alpha_n=\alpha(t_n)$, 

3390: we claim $\alpha_{n+1}/\alpha_n\to1$ as $n\to\infty$.

3391: Let $a>1$ and suppose $\alpha_{n+1}/\alpha_n>a$ for infinitely many $n$.

3392: Then since $\vp_0$ is strictly increasing,

3393: along this subsequence we have

3394: \[

3395: \frac{c_{n+1}}{\tlam(t_{n+1})}

3396: \frac{\tlam(t_n)}{c_n}

3397: =

3398: \frac{\vp_0(1/\alpha_{n+1})}{\vp_0(1/\alpha_n)}

3399: \le

3400: \frac{\vp_0(a\inv/\alpha_n)}{\vp_0(1/\alpha_n)}

3401: \to a^{-\rho} <1.

3402: \]

3403: But the left-hand side converges to 1. Hence 

3404: $\limsup \alpha_{n+1}/\alpha_n \le1$. Similarly we deduce

3405: $\liminf \alpha_{n+1}/\alpha_n \ge1$, establishing the claim. 

3406: 

3407: We may now apply the rigidity lemma~\cite[VIII.8.3]{Feller} to \qref{R.dom2} 

3408: to infer that $G_{t_0}$ is regularly varying at $\infty$, meaning

3409: \qref{DE.dom} holds.  (The value of $\rho$ must be the same here, due to

3410: \qref{Do.tlam} and \qref{Do.Hlap}.) This proves part (a).

3411: 

3412: To prove the converse, we assume that \qref{DE.dom}

3413: holds. Since \qref{DE.dom} holds we may choose 

3414: increasing rescalings  $\alpha(t) \to \infty$ and

3415: $\tlam(t)$ such that the \smeass\/

3416: $G\tsup(x)=\tlam\alpha^{-1} G_{t_0}(\alpha x)$ converge to $\dsm

3417: =x^{1-\rho}$. Let $b(t)$ be defined by \qref{Do.alp} for the

3418: various kernels. It then follows that $F_t(b(t)x) \to \Fgr(x)$ for every

3419: $x >0$. Since the metric is equivalent to weak convergence we also

3420: have \qref{DE.dom2}. 

3421: \end{proof}

3422: 

3423: \begin{rem} 

3424: A remaining nontrivial possibility discussed in \cite{MP1}

3425: is that of a defective limit on $E$, which we may now take to mean

3426: that $F_t(b(t)x)\to\hat F(x)$ where $\hat F$ is a probability measure 

3427: on $\Ebar=[0,\infty]$, with $0<\hat F(\infty^-)<1$, meaning that gel

3428: appears in the limit.

3429: If this is the case, then $\hat F$ is an element of the full scaling

3430: attractor $\attrx$, and by Theorem~\ref{ET.code}, the rescaled

3431: \smeass\/ $\tilde\sm\tsup\to H$, the \barsmeas\/ associated to

3432: $\hat F$.  Moreover,

3433: $y\inv H(dy)$ must have nonzero charge $h_\infty$ at $\infty$,

3434: and hence $\Phi(0+)>0$. This means that the in the proof above,

3435: the rigidity lemma must yield $\rho=0$, i.e., we must have 

3436: $\Phi(q)=c>0$, corresponding to an eternal extended solution

3437: consisting of a pure dust/gel mixture.

3438: By the discussion in \cite{MP1} (see Remarks 5.4 and 7.4) a necessary and

3439: sufficient condition for this to occur is that

3440: \be 

3441: \int_{[x,\infty)} y\inv \sm_{t_0}(dy) \sim L(x), \quad x\to\infty,

3442: \ee

3443: where $L$ is slowly varying at $\infty$.

3444: \end{rem}

3445: 

3446: 

3447: 

3448: \section*{Acknowledgements}

3449: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science

3450: Foundation under grant nos.\ DMS 00-72609, DMS 03-05985, DMS 06-04420

3451: and DMS 06-05006.  GM thanks

3452: the IMA for partial support during the preparation of the manuscript. 

3453: RLP thanks the DFG for partial support through a Mercator

3454: professorship at Humboldt University.

3455: 

3456: %\vspace{-6pt}

3457: \pagebreak

3458: 

3459: \bibliography{mp3}

3460: 

3461: \end{document}

3462: 

3463: 

3464: