Abstract
In this work, we prove the existence of global (in time) small data solutions for wave equations with two dissipative terms and with power nonlinearity \(|u|^p\) or nonlinearity of derivative type \(|u_t|^p\), in any space dimension \(n\geqslant 1\), for supercritical powers \(p>{\bar{p}}\). The presence of two dissipative terms strongly influences the nature of the problem, allowing us to derive \(L^r-L^q\) long time decay estimates for the solution in the full range \(1\leqslant r\leqslant q\leqslant \infty \). The optimality of the critical exponents is guaranteed by a nonexistence result for subcritical powers \(p<{\bar{p}}\).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
In this paper, we study the following Cauchy problem for semilinear wave equations with two dissipative terms:
with \(0\leqslant \rho<1/2<\theta \leqslant 1\), where the nonlinearity \(F=F(u,u_t)\) on the right-hand side can be described by
The critical exponent for the Cauchy problem (1) with \(F=|u|^p\) or \(F=|u_t|^p\), is, respectively, given by \(p_0(n,\rho )\) or \(p_1(n,\rho )\), where
If \(p\in (1,p_j(n,\rho )]\) (subcritical and critical cases), it is easy to prove that problem (1) admits no global (in time) weak solution, for initial data verifying a suitable sign assumption (Proposition 2.1). If \(p>p_j(n,\rho )\) (supercritical case), then we prove that there exists a unique global (in time) solution for sufficiently small data (Theorem 2.1 and Corollary 2.1) in an appropriate space. In Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 we prove the existence of global (in time) energy solutions \(u\in {\mathcal {C}}\left( [0,\infty ), L^\eta \cap H^{2\theta }\right) \cap {\mathcal {C}}^1\left( [0,\infty ), L^2\right) \) to (1) with \(F=|u|^p\) where, respectively, \(\eta =1\) or \(\eta \in (1,2]\), assuming small initial data in \(L^\eta \cap L^2\). We call them “energy solutions” since the energy functional
is well-defined and continuous. In Theorem 2.3, we do not consider energy solutions, but we prove the existence of global (in time) weak solutions \(u\in {\mathcal {C}}^1\left( [0,\infty ), L^\eta \cap L^{\eta p}\right) \) to (1) with \(F=|u_t|^p\), for some \(\eta >1\), assuming small initial data in \(L^\eta \cap L^{\eta p}\).
In the last years, dissipative wave equations attracted a lot of attention. Let us first consider the linear wave equation with friction and viscoelastic damping, namely
and the corresponding nonlinear problem. Asymptotic profiles of solutions to (5) are derived in [1, 2]. In [3], the second author showed that the presence of two damping terms in (5) allows to derive \(L^p-L^q\) estimates in the full range \(1\leqslant p\leqslant q\leqslant \infty \), in any space dimension \(n\geqslant 1\). These estimates may be effectively used to study global (in time) existence of small data solutions to
where \(F=F(u,u_t)\) is the same as in (2). In particular, these estimates allow us to prove global (in time) existence of small data solutions for any \(p>1\) in the case \(F=|u_t|^p\). Other studies on doubly dissipative wave models can be found in [4, 5] and in the references therein.
The main advantage of the presence of two dissipative term in (5) may be understood noticing that the value \(\sigma =1/2\) is a threshold between two different asymptotic profiles for the solution to the damped wave equation
According to the classification introduced in [6], the case \(\sigma \in [0,1/2)\) corresponds to an effective dissipation. In this case, the asymptotic profile and the critical exponent for (7) with \(F=|u|^p\) are the same of the corresponding heat equation with suitable initial data if \(\sigma =0\) [7,8,9]. A similar phenomenon appears when \(\sigma \in (0,1/2)\) but in this case two possible asymptotic profiles of anomalous diffusion appear; one profile is dominant if \(F=|u|^p\) (see [10,11,12]) and the other profile is dominant if \(F=|u_t|^p\) (see [13]). On the other hand, the case \(\sigma \in (1/2,1]\) corresponds to a noneffective dissipation: the asymptotic profile of the solution to (7) contains oscillations analogous as the undamped wave equation (see [14,15,16,17,18,19]). However, the noneffective dissipation produces a better smoothing effect than the effective one. This is due to the fact that the noneffective dissipation produces a parabolic smoothing effect; for instance, the problem is well-posed in \(L^p\), for \(p\in [1,\infty ]\). On the other hand, the effective dissipation does not help to manage the regularity issues typical of the wave equation and other hyperbolic equations; for instance, the problem is well-posed in \(H^s\) spaces, but not in \(L^p\) spaces, when \(p\ne 2\).
The threshold case \(\sigma =1/2\) inherits the benefits of the both effective and noneffective dissipations, and this allows to obtain the global (in time) existence of small data solutions in any space dimension \(n\geqslant 1\) in the critical case (see [20]). The benefits of the both effective and noneffective dissipations are also gained in model (5), but with several important differences. The model in (1) describes the transition between the two regimens. For this reason, we expect that the critical exponents are the same as those in the effective case, namely \(p_0\) and \(p_1\) in (3) and (4), but the smoothing typical of the noneffective dissipation allows us to prove our result for any space dimension \(n\geqslant 1\).
To prove the desired global (in time) existence results, we first derive long time decay estimates for the solution to the linear Cauchy problem
with \(0\leqslant \rho<1/2<\theta \leqslant 1\). We cannot directly follow the approach in [3] to derive the \(L^1-L^1\) estimate for (5) at high frequencies. In order to overcome this difficulty, we expand the kernel of solutions in a suitable way and we apply the Mikhlin–Hörmander multiplier theorem and Hardy–Littlewood theorem for the Riesz potential, to get some \(L^r-L^q\) estimates, with \(1<r\leqslant q<\infty \).
This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we state our main results on global (in time) existence of small data solution and blow-up of solutions to (1). In Sect. 3, we prepare \(L^r-L^q\) low frequencies estimates and \(L^m-L^q\) high frequencies estimates for the linear Cauchy problem (8), where \(1\leqslant r\leqslant m\leqslant q\leqslant \infty \). Then, applying the derived estimates and Banach’s fixed point theorem, we prove global (in time) existence results for (1) with \(|u|^p\) or \(|u_t|^p\), in Sect. 4. Eventually, in Sect. 5, the blow-up results in the subcritical case for (1) are derived.
1.1 Notation
We write \(f\lesssim g\) when there exists a positive constant C such that \(f\leqslant Cg\).
For any \(x\in {\mathbb {R}}\), we define \((x)^+=\max \{x,0\}\) and \(1/(x)^+=\infty \) when \(x\leqslant 0\). We define \(\lceil x\rceil ^+=(\lceil x\rceil )^+\), where the ceiling function \(\lceil x\rceil \) denotes the smallest integer larger than x, i.e.,
For \(b\geqslant 0\), we define \((-\Delta )^{\frac{b}{2}}f={\mathcal {F}}^{-1}(|\xi |^b{\hat{f}})\), the fractional Laplace operator, and \(I_bf={\mathcal {F}}^{-1}(|\xi |^{-b}{\hat{f}})\) the Riesz potential operator; \({\hat{f}}={\mathcal {F}}(f)\) denotes the Fourier transform of a function f.
For any \(q\in [1,\infty ]\) and \(m\in {\mathbb {N}}\), \(W^m_q=\big \{f\in L^q: \partial _x^{\alpha }f\in L^q,|\alpha |\leqslant m\big \}\) denotes the usual Sobolev space of order m. For \(s\in (0,\infty )\), noninteger, and \(q\in (1,\infty )\), \(W^s_q\) denotes the Bessel potential space \(W_q^s=\big \{f\in L^q: \big (1-\Delta \big )^{s/2}f\in L^q\big \}\).
2 Main results
We first consider the case of power nonlinearity \(F=|u|^p\).
Theorem 2.1
Let \(n\geqslant 1\) and \(0\leqslant \rho<1/2<\theta \leqslant 1\). Let us assume
where \(p_0\) is defined in (3). Also we assume that \(p<n/(n-4\theta )\) if \(n>4\theta \). Then, there exists a constant \(\epsilon >0\) such that for any
there is a uniquely determined energy solution
to (1) with \(F(u,u_t)=|u|^p\). Furthermore, the solution satisfies the following estimates:
where \({\bar{q}}=n/(n-2\rho )\), and
If we replace the smallness of initial data in \(L^1\) by the smallness of initial data in \(L^\eta \), \(\eta >1\), the critical exponent becomes \(p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\), as discussed in [13]. We demonstrate the global (in time) existence of energy solutions with small data in \(L^\eta \), for supercritical and critical powers \(p\geqslant p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\).
Theorem 2.2
Let \(n\geqslant 1\) and \(0\leqslant \rho<1/2<\theta \leqslant 1\). Let us fix \(\eta \in (1,2]\), such that \(2\rho \eta <1\) if \(n=1\), and assume
where \(p_0\) is defined in (3). Also we assume that \(p<n/(n-4\theta )\) if \(n>4\theta \). Then, there exists a constant \(\epsilon >0\) such that for any
there is a uniquely determined energy solution
to (1) with \(F=|u|^p\). Furthermore, the solution satisfies the following estimates:
where \({\bar{q}}=n\eta /(n-2\rho \eta )\), and
Remark 2.1
Using Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality, as a consequence of (12) and (13) in Theorem 2.1 or, respectively, (18) and (19) in Theorem 2.2, the solution to (1) with \(F=|u|^p\) verifies the decay estimate
for any \(q\in ({\bar{q}},\infty ]\) if \(n<4\theta \), for any \(q\in ({\bar{q}},\infty )\) if \(n=4\theta \), and for any \(q\in ({\bar{q}},2n/(n-4\theta )]\) if \(n>4\theta \) (exception given for the case \(p=p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\) and \(\theta =1\)). On the other hand, interpolating (13) and (14) in Theorem 2.1 or, respectively, (19) and (20) in Theorem 2.2, the solution to (1) with \(F=|u|^p\) verifies the estimate
for any \(q\in [\eta ,{\bar{q}}]\). The latter is not a decay estimate. We mention that in the both cases, the estimate is the same of the solution to the linear problem (8), whose optimality is guaranteed by the diffusion phenomenon [10].
Remark 2.2
Actually, one may apply Theorem 2.2 to obtain the global (in time) existence result for (1) with \(F=|u|^p\) and small initial data in \(L^1\cap L^2\) for any \(p>p_0(n,\rho )\). Indeed, for a given \(p>p_0(n,\rho )\), it is sufficient to apply Theorem 2.2 with some \(\eta \in (1,2]\) such that \(p\geqslant p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\). This strategy will be used to deal with (1) with \(F=|u_t|^p\), to avoid the more challenging \(L^1-L^1\) estimates for \(u_t\). This difficulty is one peculiar difference with respect to the case \((\rho ,\theta )=(0,1)\) studied in [3].
Theorem 2.3
Let \(n\geqslant 1\) and \(0\leqslant \rho<1/2<\theta \leqslant 1\). Let us fix \(\eta \in (1,\infty )\) and assume
where \(p_1\) is defined in (4). Also we assume that \(p\leqslant n/(n-2\rho \eta )\) if \(n\geqslant 2\), or if \(n=1\) and \(2\rho \eta <1\). Then, there exists \(\epsilon >0\) such that for any
there is a uniquely determined weak solution
to (1) with \(F=|u_t|^p\). Furthermore, the solution satisfies the following estimates:
for \(j=0,1\).
Thanks to Theorem 2.3, we immediately obtain the following.
Corollary 2.1
Let \(n\geqslant 1\) and \(0\leqslant \rho<1/2<\theta \leqslant 1\). Let us assume
where \(p_1\) is defined in (4). We also assume that \(p\leqslant n/(n-2\rho )\). Let us fix \(q\in (p,\infty )\). Then, there exists \(\epsilon >0\) such that for any
and for any \(\eta \in (1,q/p]\) such that \(p\geqslant p_1(n/\eta ,\rho )\), there is a uniquely determined weak solution
to (1) with \(F=|u_t|^p\). Furthermore, the solution satisfies the estimates (24) and (25), for \(j=0,1\).
Remark 2.3
If \(\eta p\geqslant 2\), or if the initial datum is assumed to be small also in \(L^2\), it is not difficult to modify the proof of Theorem 2.3 or Corollary 2.1, and construct an energy solution in \({\mathcal {C}}\left( [0,\infty ), H^{2\theta }\right) \cap {\mathcal {C}}^1\left( [0,\infty ), L^\eta \cap L^{\eta p}\right) \).
The optimality of the critical exponents \(p_j(n/\eta ,\rho )\) in Theorems 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and in Corollary 2.1 is guaranteed by the counterpart of nonexistence results in the subcritical and critical cases \(p\in (1,p_j(n,\rho )]\), if \(\eta =1\), and in the subcritical case \(p\in (1,p_j(n/\eta ,\rho ))\), if \(\eta >1\). Even if these results are easily derived following as in [13, 21, 22], using the test function method [23,24,25,26,27,28], we will sketch the outlines of the statement and its proof.
Proposition 2.1
Let \(n\geqslant 1\) and \(0\leqslant \rho<1/2<\theta \leqslant 1\). Let us assume that \(u_1\in L^{\eta }\) with \(\eta \geqslant 1\) verifies the following sign condition:
where \(\epsilon >0\). For \(j=0,1\), fix \(p\in (1,p_j(n,\rho )]\) if \(\eta =1\) or \(p\in (1,p_j(n/\eta ,\rho ))\) if \(\eta >1\). Then, there is no (weak) global (in time) solution to (1) with \(F=|\partial _t^ju|^p\).
3 Estimates of solutions to the linear problem
Let us apply the partial Fourier transform with respect to x to (8), defining \({\hat{u}}(t,\xi )={\mathcal {F}}_{x\rightarrow \xi }(u(t,x))\). Then, we obtain the initial value problem
The roots of the characteristic equation
can be expressed by
where \(\Omega _{\rho ,\theta }=\{\xi \in {\mathbb {R}}^n:\,|\xi |^{2\rho -1}+|\xi |^{2\theta -1}<2\}\).
Definition 3.1
We introduce three cut-off functions, namely \(\chi _{{{\,\mathrm{int}\,}}}(\xi ),\,\chi _{{{\,\mathrm{mid}\,}}}(\xi )\) and \(\chi _{{{\,\mathrm{ext}\,}}}(\xi ) \in {\mathcal {C}}^\infty ({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) supported, respectively, in
for a sufficiently small \(\varepsilon >0\) and a sufficiently large \(N\gg 1\), and such that \(\chi _{{{\,\mathrm{int}\,}}}(\xi )+\chi _{{{\,\mathrm{mid}\,}}}(\xi )+\chi _{{{\,\mathrm{ext}\,}}}(\xi )=1\).
In particular, we fix \(\varepsilon ,N\) so that \(\Omega _{\rho ,\theta }\subset {\mathcal {Z}}_{{{\,\mathrm{mid}\,}}}(3\varepsilon ,N/3)\).
Here and hereafter
The solution to (8) localized in \({\mathcal {Z}}_{{{\,\mathrm{mid}\,}}}(\varepsilon ,N)\) verifies the estimate
for any \(1\leqslant r\leqslant q\leqslant \infty \), \(j+s\geqslant 0\), and \(t\geqslant 0\), for some \(C,c>0\), independent of the datum. Indeed, \(\chi _{{{\,\mathrm{mid}\,}}}\) is compactly supported in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\setminus \{0\}\) and the real parts of the roots \(\lambda _\pm (\xi )\) are negative in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\setminus \{0\}\). Thus, it will be sufficient to estimate the solution at low and high frequencies, that is, we will estimate \(\chi _{{{\,\mathrm{int}\,}}}(D)u\) and \(\chi _{{{\,\mathrm{ext}\,}}}(D)u\).
Let \(K_1=K_1(t,|x|)\) denote the fundamental solution to (8), that is,
Then, it holds
If we define
then the roots and their difference can be expressed by
To obtain the desired estimates at low frequencies, we rely on the following lemma.
Lemma 3.1
(Lemma 3.1 in [10]). Let us consider
where f and g satisfy the following conditions:
for some \(b_0>0\) and \(\alpha >-1\), \(\beta >0\), real-valued, for any \(z\in (0,\varepsilon )\) with \(\varepsilon \ll 1\) and \(k\leqslant [(n+3)/2]\), which denotes the integer part of \((n+3)/2\). Then we have the following \(L^r-L^q\) estimates:
in the following cases:
-
For any \(1\leqslant r\leqslant q\leqslant \infty \), if \(\alpha >0\) or if \(f(z)=A\) is a nonzero constant;
-
For any \(1\leqslant r<q\leqslant \infty \), if \(\alpha =0\) but f is not a constant;
-
For any pair (r, q) such that \(1/r-1/q\geqslant -\alpha /n\), if \(\alpha \in (-1,0)\).
Applying Lemma 3.1, the following \(L^r-L^q\) estimates follow.
Proposition 3.1
Let u be the solution to (8) with \(0\leqslant \rho<1/2<\theta \leqslant 1\). Then, for any \(1\leqslant r\leqslant q\leqslant \infty \), \(s\geqslant 0\), and for \(j=0,1\), we have
Remark 3.1
As expected, estimates in Proposition 3.1 are consistent with the low frequencies estimate obtained in [10, Corollary 2.2] for the solution to (7) with \(F=0\) and \(\sigma =\rho \). The optimality of these estimates is guaranteed by the diffusion phenomenon: the solution localized at low frequencies may be decomposed in two terms. Each term asymptotically behaves as the solution to an anomalous diffusion problem, namely
where \(I_{2\rho }\) denotes the Riesz potential.
Proof
We assume \(\rho >0\), since the case \(\rho =0\) is easier; indeed, in this latter case, the term \(\mathrm {e}^{\lambda _+(|\xi |)t}\) produces an exponential decay.
First let us consider \(j=1\). In view of representation (31), we may apply Lemma 3.1, with \(g_\pm (|\xi |)=-\lambda _\pm (|\xi |)\) and with
It is convenient to write
By straightforward computation, the roots \(\lambda _\pm (|\xi |)\) verify the estimates
for some \(b_j>0\), whereas
The above estimates are easily derived, due to the fact that neither \(\lambda _\pm \) nor \(f_\pm \) contain any oscillations, and that we are away from the zeroes of the root in \(\gamma (|\xi |)\), due to the fact that \(|\xi |\leqslant \varepsilon \). Namely, the estimates for the derivatives obey to the same rules of polynomials: each partial derivative with respect to \(\xi \) produces a negative power of \(|\xi |\). This property is essential in the framework of the theory of \(L^q\) bounded operators, see for instance, Mikhlin–Hörmander multiplier theorem.
The desired estimate follows applying Lemma 3.1 with \(\alpha =2s, 2s+2-4\rho \), exception given for the term related to \(f_+(|\xi |)\mathrm {e}^{\lambda _+(|\xi |)t}\) when \(s=0\). In this latter case, we write
and we separately apply Lemma 3.1 with \(\alpha =0\) and \(A=1\), and with \(\alpha =2-4\rho \), to the two terms in the sum.
Now let us turn to \(j=0\). The proof follows by integration, if \(n(1/r-1/q)<2(\rho -s)\). Providing that \(n(1/r-1/q)\geqslant 2(\rho -s)\), we set
Due to the fact that
the proof follows, applying Lemma 3.1 with \(\alpha =2s-2\rho \), exception given for the case \(s=\rho \). In this latter case, we write
and we separately apply Lemma 3.1 with \(\alpha =0\) and \(A=1\), and with \(\alpha =2\theta -2\rho \) and \(\alpha =2-4\rho \), to the three terms in the sum. \(\square \)
3.1 \(L^m-L^q\) estimates for high frequencies
At high frequencies, we write
where
To estimate the derivatives with respect to \(\xi \), we may proceed as we did at low frequencies in the proof of Proposition 3.1. Indeed, neither \(\lambda _\pm \) nor \(f_\pm \) contain any oscillations, and we are away from the zeroes of the root in \(\gamma (|\xi |)\), due to the fact that \(|\xi |\geqslant N\). For any \(\beta \in {\mathbb {N}}^n\), we have the following estimates:
Thanks to (36), we may easily derive \(L^q-L^q\) estimates, for \(q\in (1,\infty )\), using Mikhlin–Hörmander multiplier theorem.
Proposition 3.2
Let \(n\geqslant 1\), \(s\geqslant 0\) and \(j\in {\mathbb {N}}\). Let \(\kappa \geqslant 0\) and \(q\in (1,\infty )\). Then, the solution to (8) localized at high frequencies verifies the estimates
for any \(t>0\) and positive constants c. Here, \(\lceil x\rceil ^+\) denotes the positive part of the ceiling function of x, which was defined in (9).
Proof
To prove our result, it is sufficient to show that
for \(q\in (1,\infty )\) and for \(\kappa \geqslant 0\) (we notice that the order of the Sobolev space in (39) is independent of \(j,\kappa \) if \(\theta =1\)). We define the multiplier
So, the next representation holds:
for \(2s+2\theta (j-\kappa -1)\geqslant 0\), where \(a_{j,\kappa ,s}={\mathcal {F}}^{-1}_{\xi \rightarrow x}({\hat{a}}_{j,\kappa ,s}(t,\xi ))\).
In particular, we notice that
In an analogous way, we define
and we may represent
for \(2(1-\theta )( j-\kappa +1)-2+2s\geqslant 0\), where \(b_{j,\kappa ,s}={\mathcal {F}}^{-1}_{\xi \rightarrow x}({\hat{b}}_{j,\kappa ,s} (t,\xi ))\).
In this case, we may conclude
We complete the proof of (38–39), applying Mikhlin–Hörmander multiplier theorem. \(\square \)
Using Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev theorem, we may extend Proposition 3.2 to \(L^m-L^q\) estimates with \(1<m<q<\infty \).
Proposition 3.3
Let \(n\geqslant 1\), \(s\geqslant 0\) and \(j\in {\mathbb {N}}\). Let \(\kappa \geqslant 0\) and \(1< m< q <\infty \). Then, the solution to (8) localized at high frequencies verifies the estimates
for any \(t>0\) and positive constants c.
Proof
Let \(\omega >0\) be defined by \(1/m-1/q=\omega /n\). Then
where \(I_\omega \) is the Riesz potential. Applying Theorem 3.2 with \(s+\omega /2\) in place of s, we can derive
The proof follows after noticing that, applying Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev theorem, we may deduce
Thus, the proof is complete. \(\square \)
To derive \(L^q-L^q\) estimates for \(q=1,\infty \), we cannot rely on Mikhlin–Hörmander multiplier theorem, so we prove that suitable multipliers associated with \(M_\pm \), are bounded in \(L^1\) showing that their inverse Fourier transforms belong to \(L^1\).
Proposition 3.4
Let \(n\geqslant 1\), \(s\geqslant 0\) a real number, \(j\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and \(k \in [0,j]\). Then, the solution to (8) localized at high frequencies verifies the estimates
for \(q=1,\infty \) and any \(t>0\), for some positive constant c.
Proof
Using the decomposition (35), we would like to prove the following estimates:
for \(q=1,\infty \) and \(0\leqslant k\leqslant j\).
First of all, we fix \(j\geqslant k\geqslant 0\) and \(s\geqslant 0\), and we consider the multiplier
so that
where \(a_{j,k,s}={\mathcal {F}}^{-1}_{\xi \rightarrow x}({\hat{a}}_{j,k,s}(t,\xi ))\). To derive (45), we prove that
We first consider \(|x|<1/N \). As in [19], we use the identity
to integrate by parts \(n-1\) times the function
Since the boundary terms vanish since \( \chi _{{{\,\mathrm{ext}\,}}}\) vanishes near \(\{|\xi |=N \}\), we obtain
In particular, we can split each of the integrals of \(a_{j,k,s}\) into two parts, which gives
where
Using (36) we find that for each exponent \(h>0\), it holds
which gives immediately
for any \(k\leqslant j\). Hence, we obtain
Concerning \({\mathcal {I}}_2\), integrating by parts one more time, it yields
Following a similar procedure as for (49), we can derive
We now consider the remaining case \(|x|\geqslant 1/N\). Using the identity (48) and integrating by parts \(n+1\) times, we may deduce
The combination of (50) and (51) concludes the proof of (47), and then (45) follows.
In order to prove (46), we proceed as before, setting
Then, we have
Using (36) again we may observe that for each exponent \(h>0\), it holds
so that
for any \(k\leqslant j\). Repeating the procedure in the above, we arrive at
This concludes the proof of our desired estimate (46). \(\square \)
3.2 Summary of \((L^r\cap L^m)-L^q\) estimates
Thanks to Propositions 3.1–3.3 we may deduce the following estimates that will be used later to prove our global (in time) existence results.
-
For any \(q\in [1,\infty ]\), we obtain the \(L^q-L^q\) estimate
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert u(t,\cdot )\Vert _{L^q} \lesssim (1+t)\,\Vert u_1\Vert _{L^q}, \end{aligned}$$(53)as a consequence of Proposition 3.1 with \(r=q\), and Proposition 3.2 if \(q\ne 1,\infty \), or Proposition 3.4 if \(q=1,\infty \), where \(j=0\) and \(s=0\).
-
Let \(q\in (1,\infty )\), \(m\in (1,q]\) and \(r\in [1,m]\) such that \(n(1/r-1/q)\leqslant 2\rho \). Then, it holds that
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert u(t,\cdot )\Vert _{L^q} \lesssim (1+t)^{1-\frac{n}{2\rho }\left( \frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{q}\right) }\,\Vert u_1\Vert _{L^r} + \mathrm {e}^{-ct}\,\Vert u_1\Vert _{L^m}, \end{aligned}$$(54)as a consequence of Propositions 3.1, and 3.3 with \(\kappa =0\), where \(j=0\) and \(s=0\). In particular, we notice that
$$\begin{aligned} n\left( \frac{1}{m}-\frac{1}{q}\right) \leqslant n\left( \frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{q}\right) \leqslant 2\rho <2\theta . \end{aligned}$$ -
For any \(r\in [1,2]\), we obtain the estimate
$$\begin{aligned} \left\| (-\Delta )^s u(t,\cdot )\right\| _{L^2} \lesssim (1+t)^{-\frac{n}{2(1-\rho )}\left( \frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{2}\right) -\frac{s-\rho }{1-\rho }}\,\Vert u_1\Vert _{L^r} + \mathrm {e}^{-ct}\,\Vert u_1\Vert _{L^2}, \end{aligned}$$(55)as a consequence of Propositions 3.1, and 3.2 with \(\kappa =0\), where \(q=2\), \(j=0\) and \(s\in [\rho ,\theta ]\). In particular, for \(s=\theta \), we get
$$\begin{aligned} \left\| (-\Delta )^{\theta } u(t,\cdot )\right\| _{L^2} \lesssim (1+t)^{-\frac{n}{2(1-\rho )}\left( \frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{2}\right) -\frac{\theta -\rho }{1-\rho }}\,\Vert u_1\Vert _{L^r} + \mathrm {e}^{-ct}\,\Vert u_1\Vert _{L^2}. \end{aligned}$$(56) -
For any \(r\in [1,2]\), we may estimate
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert u_t(t,\cdot )\Vert _{L^2} \lesssim (1+t)^{\max \left\{ -\frac{n}{2(1-\rho )}\left( \frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{2}\right) -1+\frac{\rho }{1-\rho }, -\frac{n}{2\rho }\left( \frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{2}\right) \right\} }\,\Vert u_1\Vert _{L^r} + \mathrm {e}^{-ct}\,\Vert u_1\Vert _{L^2}, \end{aligned}$$(57)as a consequence of Propositions 3.1, and 3.2 with \(\kappa =0\), where \(j=1\), \(s=0\) and \(q=2\).
-
Let \(q\in (1,\infty )\), \(m\in (1,q]\) and \(r\in [1,m]\), be such that \(n(1/r-1/q)\leqslant 2\rho \). Then
$$\begin{aligned}&\Vert u_t(t,\cdot )\Vert _{L^q} \nonumber \\&\quad \lesssim (1+t)^{-\frac{n}{2\rho }\left( \frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{q}\right) }\,\Vert u_1\Vert _{L^r} + \mathrm {e}^{-ct}\,t^{-\frac{n}{2\theta }\left( \frac{1}{m}-\frac{1}{q}\right) }\,\Vert u_1\Vert _{L^m}, \end{aligned}$$(58)follows by Propositions 3.1 and 3.3, setting \(2\theta \kappa =n(1/m-1/q)\), where \(j=1\) and \(s=0\). Estimate (58) will be used to prove Theorem 2.3, and we stress that this estimate is singular at \(t=0\) if \(m<q\).
4 Proof of the global (in time) existence results
4.1 Philosophy of our approach
Let us first introduce some notation for the proof of the global (in time) existence of small data solutions. Throughout this section, \(K_1(t,x)\) denotes the fundamental solution to the linear Cauchy problem (29) with initial data \(u_0=0\) and \(u_1=\delta _0\), where \(\delta _0\) is the Dirac distribution in \(x=0\) with respect to the spatial variables. As a consequence, we may represent the solution to the Cauchy problem (8) in the form
We may introduce the operator
where X(T) is an evolution space which will be defined in a suitable way in the proof of each theorem, and \(u^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}=u^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}(t,x)\) is an integral operator with the following representation
According to the Duhamel’s principle, we will prove the existence of the unique global (in time) solution to (1) as the fixed point of the operator N. Hence, in order to get the global (in time) existence and uniqueness of the solution in X(T), we need to prove the following two crucial estimates:
with \(C>0\), independent of T, where \({\mathcal {A}}\) denotes the space of the datum. As a consequence of Banach’s fixed point theorem, the conditions (60) and (61) guarantee the existence of a uniquely determined solution u to (1) that is u solves the integral equation \(u=u^{{{\,\mathrm{lin}\,}}}+u^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}\). We simultaneously gain a local and a global (in time) existence result.
Indeed, let \(R>0\) be such that \(CR^{p-1}<1/2\). Then N is a contraction on \(X_R(T)= \{u\in X(T): \ \Vert u\Vert _{X(T)}\leqslant R\}\), thanks to (61). The solution to (1) is a fixed point for N, so if \(\Vert u^{{{\,\mathrm{lin}\,}}}\Vert _{X(T)}\leqslant R/2\), then \(u\in X_R(T)\), thanks to (60). As a consequence, the uniqueness and existence of the solution in \(X_R(T)\) follows by the Banach fixed point theorem on contractions. The condition \(\Vert u^{{{\,\mathrm{lin}\,}}}\Vert _{X(T)}\leqslant R/2\) is obtained taking initial data verifying \(\Vert u_1\Vert _{{\mathcal {A}}}\leqslant \epsilon \), with \(\epsilon \) such that \(C\epsilon \leqslant R/2\). Since C, R and \(\epsilon \) do not depend on T, the solution is global (in time).
In the proof of our global (in time) existence results, the following proposition will be useful, which use goes back to [29].
Proposition 4.1
Let \(\alpha , \, \beta \in {\mathbb {R}}\). Then,
4.2 Proof of Theorem 2.1
Let us define the evolution space
with its corresponding norm
where we define
We also recall that \({\bar{q}}=n/(n-2\rho )\).
Defining the data space \({\mathcal {A}}=L^1\cap L^2\), it follows immediately
and so we conclude that \(u^{{{\,\mathrm{lin}\,}}}\in X(T)\). Indeed, it is sufficient to apply (53) with \(q=1\), (54) with \(q={\bar{q}}\), \(r=1\) and \(m\in (1,\min \{{\bar{q}},2\}]\), (56) with \(r=1\), and (57) with \(r=1\).
In the remaining part of the proof we will estimate \(u^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}\) in the norm of X(T). To do this, let us introduce the following useful lemma.
Lemma 4.1
Let \(u\in X(t)\). Then, for any \(q\in [\bar{q},2p]\), we have
for any \(t\geqslant 0\).
Proof
In the limit case \(q=\bar{q}\), the estimate (64) is an obvious consequence of \(\Vert u\Vert _{X(t)}<\infty \). On the other hand, due to the restriction \(p\leqslant n/(n-4\theta )\) if \(4\theta <n\), the Sobolev embedding \(H^{2\theta }\hookrightarrow L^{2p}\) holds, and (64) follows as a consequence of Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality. \(\square \)
Thanks to (53) with \(q=1\), applying the Minkowski’s integral inequality, we get
Due to \(p>p_0(n,\rho )=1+2/(n-2\rho )>{\bar{q}}\), we can apply (64) with \(q=p\) to get
In particular, using again \(p>p_0(n,\rho )\), we obtain
Therefore, applying Proposition 4.1 we conclude for \(t\leqslant T\) that
In order to estimate \(u^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}(t,\cdot )\) in the \(L^{\bar{q}}\) space, we apply (54) with \(q={\bar{q}}\), \(r=1\) and \(m\in (1,\min \{{\bar{q}},2\}]\). Noticing that \(mp\leqslant 2p\), we can apply (64) with \(q=p\) and with \(q=mp\), to get
where in the last inequality we used again (65) and Proposition 4.1.
In order to estimate \(\Vert (-\Delta )^\theta u^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}(t,\cdot )\Vert _{L^2}\) we now apply (56) with \(r=1\) in [0, t/2] and with \(r=2\) in [t/2, t]. Using (64) with \(q=p\) and with \(q=2p\), noticing that
we derive
Here, we used \((1+t-s)\approx (1+t)\) for any \(s\in [0,t/2]\) and \((1+s)\approx (1+t)\) for any \(s\in [t/2,t]\). Again, we plan to use (65). The first consequence is that
On the other hand, due to the fact that \((\theta -\rho )/(1-\rho )\leqslant 1\), using (65) we get
Summarizing the previous estimates, we proved the desired estimate
To estimate the time derivative of the solution, we distinguish two cases. If \(2<{\bar{q}}\), that is, \(n<4\rho \) and
we may apply (57) with \(r=1\) to estimate
using (64) with \(q=p\) and with \(q=2p\), (65) and Proposition 4.1.
Now let \(2\geqslant {\bar{q}}\), that is, \(n\geqslant 4\rho \) and
We fix \(r^*\in (1,2)\) such that
and we apply (57) with \(r=1\) in [0, t/2] and with \(r=r^*\) in [t/2, t]. Then, we obtain
where we applied (64) carrying \(q=r^*p\) to obtain
Again, we use (65) in two ways: to get (66), and to estimate
so that we obtain the desired estimate
Summarizing, we proved
and this concludes the proof of (60).
In a similar way, we can prove (61). Indeed,
for \(j=0,1\) and \(k=0,1\). We proceed as we did to prove (67), but we now use Hölder’s inequality to estimate
so that it is sufficient to replace \(\Vert u\Vert _{X(T)}^p\) by \(\Vert u-v\Vert _{X(T)}\left( \Vert u\Vert _{X(T)}^{p-1}+\Vert v\Vert _{X(T)}^{p-1}\right) \), in each step of the proof.
This completes the proof of Theorem 2.1.
4.3 Proof of Theorem 2.2
We define the solution space
For \(p>p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\), we equip X(T) with the norm
where we define
Again, we recall that \({\bar{q}}=n\eta /(n-2\rho \eta )\).
Let us take into consideration the case \(p=p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\). In the case \(\theta <1\) and \(2<{\bar{q}}\), we use the same norm as before. In the case \(\theta <1\) and \({\bar{q}}\geqslant 2\), we modify the norm in the above, replacing \((1+t)^{\gamma _{\eta ,2}}\Vert u_t(t,\cdot )\Vert _{L^2}\) with \((1+t)^{\gamma _{\eta ,2}}(\log (2+t))^{-1}\Vert u_t(t,\cdot )\Vert _{L^2}\). Namely,
Considering \(p=p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\) and \(\theta =1\), we fix \(s\in [\rho ,1)\) such that
so that \(H^{2s}\hookrightarrow L^{2p}\) and we modify the norm of X(T) in the following way:
where \(i=0\) if \(2<{\bar{q}}\) and \(i=1\) if \({\bar{q}}\geqslant 2\).
As in the proof of Theorem 2.1, defining the data space \({\mathcal {A}}=L^\eta \cap L^2\), estimate (63) immediately follows, and so we conclude that \(u^{{{\,\mathrm{lin}\,}}}\in X(T)\). Indeed, it is sufficient to apply (53) with \(q=\eta \), (54) with \(q={\bar{q}}\), \(r=m=\eta \), (56) with \(r=\eta \), and (57) with \(r=\eta \). If \(p=p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\) and \(\theta =1\), we also use (55).
It remains to estimate \(u^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}\) in the X(T) norm. Similarly to Lemma 4.1, the next lemma can be obtained.
Lemma 4.2
Let \(u\in X(t)\). Then, for any \(q\in [\bar{q},2p]\), we have:
for any \(t\geqslant 0\).
First, let \(p>p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\). In this case, it is sufficient to follow the proof of Theorem 2.1, replacing the \(L^1\) smallness of the initial datum by the \(L^\eta \) smallness.
For instance, thanks to (53) with \(q=\eta \), applying the Minkowski’s integral inequality, one gets
Since the fact that \(\eta p> \eta p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )> {\bar{q}}\), we can apply (69) with \(q=\eta p\) to get
In particular, using again \(p>p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\), we obtain (65) with \(n/\eta \) in place of n, namely
Hence, using Proposition 4.1 we conclude
We omit the steps of the proof used to estimate \(u^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}(t,\cdot )\) in \(L^q\), and to estimate \(u^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}(t,\cdot )\) and \(u_t^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}(t,\cdot )\) in \(L^2\), since they are analogous to those in the proof of Theorem 2.1.
Now we consider the critical case \(p=p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\) in the following part. In this case, the strict inequality in (70) no longer holds, so we cannot follow the same proof of the supercritical case. For this reason, to deal with the critical case, we do not rely on estimate of \(|u(t,\cdot )|^p\) in \(L^\eta \), but in some \(L^{\eta _1}\) spaces with \(\eta _1\in [1,\eta )\). The same strategy is used in the context of semilinear damped waves in [30] and in the context of semilinear fractional diffusive equations in [31].
We fix \(\eta _1\in (1,\eta )\), sufficiently close to \(\eta \) to guarantee \(n(1/\eta _1-1/\eta )<2\rho \) and \(\eta _1 p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\geqslant \bar{q}\). As a consequence of Lemma 4.2, it yields
where in the last equality we used \(p=p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\). Using (54) with \(q=\eta \) and \(r=m=\eta _1\), we find
where we used Proposition 4.1 with \(\alpha ,\beta <1\).
Since \(\eta _1<\eta \), we find immediately
Thus, using (54) with \(q={\bar{q}}\) and \(r=m=\eta _1\), we obtain
In order to estimate \((-\Delta )^\theta u^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}(t,\cdot )\) in the \(L^2\) norm, we directly apply (56) with \(r=\eta _1\) in [0, t/2] and with \(r=2\) in [t/2, t]. Using (69) with \(q= \eta _1 p\) and with \(q=2p\), noticing that
we obtain the desired estimate
In the case \(\theta =1\), we proceed in a similar way to estimate \((-\Delta )^s u^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}(t,\cdot )\) in the \(L^2\) norm, but we use (55) rather than (56), and the logarithmic term does not appear, due to the fact that \(s-\rho <1-\rho \):
We now distinguish two cases to estimate \(u_t^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}\). If \(2<{\bar{q}}\), that is, \(n<4\rho \eta /(2-\eta )\) (this latter is true for any \(n\geqslant 1\) if \(\eta =2\)), and
we may apply (57) with \(r=\eta _1\) to estimate
using (69) with \(q=\eta _1p\) and with \(q=2p\).
Now let \(2\geqslant {\bar{q}}\), that is, \(n\geqslant 4\rho \eta /(2-\eta )\) and
We fix \(r^*\in (\eta ,2)\) such that
and we apply (57) with \(r=\eta _1\) in [0, t/2] and with \(r=r^*\) in [t/2, t]. Then, we obtain the desired estimate
where we applied (69) with \(q=r^*p\) and we used \(p=p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\), to obtain
Summarizing, we have proved (67), and this concludes the proof of (60). In a similar way, we prove (61) and we conclude the proof.
4.4 Proof of Theorem 2.3
First of all, we define the evolution space
equipped with the corresponding norm
Similarly to Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2, applying the interpolation of the norms of \(L^\eta \) and \(L^{\eta p}\), we may easily prove the following lemma.
Lemma 4.3
Let \(u\in X(t)\). Then, for each \(q\in [\eta ,\eta p]\), it holds:
for any \(t\geqslant 0\).
We notice that
as a consequence of the assumption \(p\leqslant n/(n-2\rho \eta )\) if \(n\geqslant 2\) and \(n=1\) with \(2\rho \eta <1\).
Setting \({\mathcal {A}}=L^{\eta }\cap L^{\eta p}\), as a consequence of (53) with \(q=\eta \), (54) with \(q=\eta p\) and \(r=m=\eta \) (here we use (72)), (58) with \(q=r=m=\eta \), and (58) with \(q=m=\eta p\) and \(r=\eta \) (here we use (72)), it follows that \(u^{{{\,\mathrm{lin}\,}}}\in X(T)\) and it satisfies
To estimate \(u^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}\) in the space X(T), we will divide the proof into two parts: for \(p>p_1(n/\eta ,\rho )\) and for \(p=p_1(n/\eta ,\rho )\). In the following discussion \(j=0,1\).
Let us now consider first the supercritical case \(p> p_1(n/\eta ,\rho )\).
Using (53) with \(q=\eta \) and (58) with \(q=r=m=\eta \), applying (71) with \(q=\eta p\), we obtain immediately
where we used Proposition 4.1 and \(p> p_1(n/\eta ,\rho )\), that is, \(n(p-1)>2\rho \eta \).
To estimate \(u^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}(t,\cdot )\) in \(L^{\eta p}\), we apply (54) with \(q=\eta p\) and \(r=m=\eta \) (here we use (72)), so that
where we used again Proposition 4.1 and \(p> p_1(n/\eta ,\rho )\).
The main difference with the proofs of Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 appears in the estimate of \(u^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}_t(t,\cdot )\) in \(L^{\eta p}\). Now we apply the singular estimate (58) with \(q=\eta p\) and \(r=m=\eta \) (here we use (72)), so that
We estimate
On the other hand,
as a consequence of (72), so that we may also estimate
where in the last inequality we used \(p> p_1(n/\eta ,\rho )\).
Now let \(p= p_1(n/\eta ,\rho )\). Because
we may fix \(\eta _1\in (1,\eta )\) such that
and \(\eta _1p\geqslant \eta \). It is now sufficient to follow the previous steps of the proof, replacing \(\eta \) by \(\eta _1\) and using (73) in place of (72).
For example, making use of (54) and (58), with \(q=m=\eta \) and \(r=\eta _1\), applying (71) with \(q=\eta _1 p\) and recalling that \(p=p_1(n/\eta ,\rho )\), one can derive
where we used Proposition 4.1 with \(\alpha <1\). Similarly, we estimate \(\partial _t^ju^{{{\,\mathrm{non}\,}}}(t,\cdot )\) in \(L^{\eta p}\).
Thus, we have proved (60). In the same way, we can prove (61). So, the proof is complete.
5 Proof of Proposition 2.1
We only sketch the proof of Proposition 2.1, which may be easily deduced using the test function introduced in [21, 22] to modify Theorems 1, 2, 3, 4 in [13], so that they apply to fractional powers of the Laplace operator.
We define \(\varphi (x)=\langle x\rangle ^{-n-2\rho }\) if \(\rho >0\) and \(\varphi (x)=\langle x\rangle ^{-n-2\theta }\) if \(\rho =0\). Thanks to Corollary 3.3 in [21],
for any \(\sigma \in [\rho ,1]\) if \(\rho >0\) and for any \(\sigma \in [\theta ,1]\) if \(\rho =0\). We also fix \(\psi (t)=\chi (t)^{2p'}\), where \(\chi \in {\mathcal {C}}^\infty ([0,\infty ))\), supported in [0, 1], nonincreasing, with \(\chi =1\) in [0, 1/2]. We fix \(K\gg 1\) a sufficiently large constant and \(R\gg 1\) a parameter, and we put \(\varphi _R(x)=\langle R^{-1}K^{-1}x\rangle ^{-n-2\rho }\) and \(\psi _R(t)=\psi (R^{-\kappa }t)\), for some \(\kappa >0\).
First, let \(j=0\). Assume, by contradiction, that u is a global (in time) weak solution. Then it holds
We fix \(\kappa =2(1-\rho )\). Using Hölder’s inequality and Young’s inequality, taking \(K=1\), we may estimate
If \(\eta >1\), the sign assumption (28) implies that
for \(R\gg 1\), so that the contradiction follows from the inequality
for large R and \(p<p_0(n/\eta ,\rho )\). If \(\eta =1\) and \(p<p_0(n,\rho )\), then \(R^{n+2(1-\rho )-2p'}\rightarrow 0\) as \(R\rightarrow \infty \) and the inequality
implies the contradiction, thanks to the sign assumption (27). If \(\eta =1\) and \(p=p_0(n,\rho )\), we first deduce that \(I_R\) is uniformly bounded, that is, \(u\in L^p([0,\infty )\times {\mathbb {R}}^n)\). As a consequence,
due to the fact that \(\psi _R(t)=1\) in [0, R/2]. It follows that
and the contradiction follows for sufficiently large \(K\gg 1\), thanks to (27), due to the fact that \(n-2p'=-2(1-\rho )<0\) for \(p=p_0(n,\rho )\).
Now let \(j=1\). In this case, we fix \(\kappa =2\rho \). Assume, by contradiction, that u is a global (in time) weak solution. Then it holds
where \(\Psi \) is the compactly supported primitive of \(-\psi \), namely
Proceeding as we did for \(j=0\), we first take \(K=1\) and we estimate
If \(\eta >1\), using (76), the contradiction follows from the inequality
for large R and \(p<p_1(n/\eta ,\rho )\). If \(\eta =1\) and \(p<p_1(n,\rho )\), then \(R^{n+2\rho -2\rho p'}\rightarrow 0\) as \(R\rightarrow \infty \) and inequality (77) implies the contradiction, thanks to the sign assumption (27). If \(\eta =1\) and \(p=p_1(n,\rho )\), we first deduce that \(I_R\) is uniformly bounded, that is, \(u_t\in L^p([0,\infty )\times {\mathbb {R}}^n)\). As a consequence,
due to the fact that \(\psi _R(t)=1\) in [0, R/2]. It follows that
and the contradiction follows for sufficiently large \(K\gg 1\), thanks to (27), due to the fact that \(n-2\rho p'=-2\rho <0\) for \(p=p_1(n,\rho )\).
This concludes the proof.
6 Concluding remarks
Initial data are assumed to be small in Sobolev spaces, since we take advantage of the diffusion phenomenon and of the smoothing effect to obtain the desired estimates for the solution. These two crucial properties of equation (8) are related to the presence of the two dissipative terms. Assuming small, smooth initial data, possibly with compact support, could lead to gain more spatial regularity for the solution, at least for smooth nonlinearities, i.e., for large power nonlinearities. Still, we cannot expect a classical argument of well-posedness in \({\mathcal {C}}^\infty \), due to the lack of finite speed of propagation, since the fractional Laplace operator is nonlocal. We did not investigate the possible gain of regularity of solution assuming more regular data and sufficiently large power nonlinearities, since in this paper we focused on some minimal data regularity which guarantees the existence of a global-in-time solution in the energy space, for any supercritical power.
The assumption \(u(0,x)=0\) in (1) may be easily replaced in Theorems 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 by the smallness of the initial data \(u_0(x)=u(0,x)\) in an appropriate space. For instance, we may supplement (11) in the statement of Theorem 2.1 with
Here \(W^{2,1}\) is the Sobolev space of functions in \(L^1\) with their derivatives up to order 2. By the equivalence of the norm in Sobolev spaces and in Bessel potential spaces of positive even order, the smallness assumption in (78) implies, in particular, that
This is sufficient to replace (63) in the proof of Theorem 2.1, by
where now
Similarly, in the statement of Theorem 2.2 and, respectively, Theorem 2.3 we may supplement (17) with
and, respectively,
On the other hand, the assumption \(u(0,x)=0\) plays a different role in the proof of Proposition 2.1. In particular, if \(j=0\) assuming that \(u(0,x)=u_0(x)\) the identity (75) becomes
If \(\rho >0\) it is sufficient to assume \(u_0\in L^\eta \) in order to estimate for both \(\sigma =\rho \) and \(\sigma =\theta \),
by using (74), and Hölder’s inequality if \(\eta >1\). In this way, the presence of the first initial datum \(u_0\) does not invalidate the argument in the proof of Proposition 2.1, in both the cases \(\eta =1\) and \(\eta >1\). On the other hand, if \(\rho =0\) then (27) and (28) must be, respectively, changed in the following assumptions:
Under such assumptions one can prove in the case \(j=0\) the same results as in Proposition 2.1 with nonvanishing first initial datum. On the other hand, removing the initial datum assumption \(u_0\equiv 0\) in the case \(j=1\) raises more difficulties, whose investigation is beyond the scope of Proposition 2.1.
References
Ikehata, R., Sawada, A.: Asymptotic profile of solutions for wave equations with frictional and viscoelastic damping terms. Asympt. Anal. 98(1–2), 59–77 (2016)
Ikehata, R., Michihisa, H.: Moment conditions and lower bounds in expanding solutions of wave equations with double damping terms. Asympt. Anal. 114(1–2), 19–36 (2019)
D’Abbicco, M.: \(L^1-L^1\) estimates for a doubly dissipative semilinear wave equation. NoDEA Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. 24(1), 23 (2017)
Chen, W.: Dissipative structure and diffusion phenomena for doubly dissipative elastic waves in two space dimensions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 486(2), 123922 (2020)
D’Abbicco, M., Ikehata, R., Takeda, H.: Critical exponent for semi-linear wave equations with double damping terms in exterior domains. NoDEA Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. 26(6), 56 (2019)
D’Abbicco, M., Ebert, M.R.: A classification of structural dissipations for evolution operators. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 39(10), 2558–2582 (2016)
Yang, Han, Milani, A.: On the diffusion phenomenon of quasilinear hyperbolic waves. Bull. Sci. math. 124(5), 415–433 (2000)
Marcati, P., Nishihara, K.: The \(L^p\)-\(L^q\) estimates of solutions to one-dimensional damped wave equations and their application to the compressible flow through porous media. J. Differ. Eq. 191, 445–469 (2003)
Nishihara, K.: \(L^p-L^q\) estimates for solutions to the damped wave equations in 3-dimensional space and their applications. Math. Z. 244, 631–649 (2003)
D’Abbicco, M., Ebert, M.R.: Diffusion phenomena for the wave equation with structural damping in the \(L^p-L^q\) framework. J. Differ. Equ. 256(7), 2307–2336 (2014)
D’Abbicco, M., Ebert, M.R.: An application of \(L^p\)-\(L^q\) decay estimates to the semi-linear wave equation with parabolic-like structural damping. Nonlinear Anal. 99, 16–34 (2014)
D’Abbicco, M., Reissig, M.: Semilinear structural damped waves. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 37(11), 1570–1592 (2014)
D’Abbicco, M., Ebert, M.R.: A new phenomenon in the critical exponent for structurally damped semi-linear evolution equations. Nonlinear Anal. 149, 1–40 (2017)
Ikehata, R.: Asymptotic profiles for wave equations with strong damping. J. Differ. Equ. 257(6), 2159–2177 (2014)
Ikehata, R., Onodera, M.: Remarks on large time behavior of the \(L^2\)-norm of solutions to strongly damped wave equations. Differ. Integral Equ. 30(7–8), 505–520 (2019)
Ikehata, R., Takeda, H.: Asymptotic profiles of solutions for structural damped wave equations. J. Dynam. Differ. Equ. 31(1), 537–571 (2019)
Ikehata, R., Todorova, G., Yordanov, B.: Wave equations with strong damping in Hilbert spaces. J. Differ. Equ. 254(8), 3352–3368 (2013)
Ponce, G.: Global existence of small solutions to a class of nonlinear evolution equations. Nonlinear Anal. 9(5), 399–418 (1985)
Shibata, Y.: On the rate of decay of solutions to linear viscoelastic equation. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 23(3), 203–226 (2000)
D’Abbicco, M.: A benefit from the \(L^{\infty }\) smallness of initial data for the semilinear wave equation with structural damping. Curr. Trend. Anal. Appl. 209–2016, Trends Math., Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham (2015)
D’Abbicco, M., Fujiwara, K.: A test function method for evolution equations with fractional powers of the Laplace operator. Nonlinear Anal. 202, 112114 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2020.112114
Fujiwara, K.: A note for the global nonexistence of semirelativistic equations with nongauge invariant power type nonlinearity. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 41(13), 4955–4966 (2018)
Mitidieri, E., Pokhozaev, S.I.: Absence of global positive solutions of quasilinear elliptic inequalities. Dokl. Akad. Nauk 359(4), 456–460 (1998)
Mitidieri, E., Pohozaev, S.I.: Nonexistence of positive solutions for a systems of quasilinear elliptic equations and inequalities in \({\mathbb{R}}^n\). Dokl. Math. 59, 1351–1355 (1999)
Mitidieri, E., Pohozaev, S.I.: Nonexistence of weak solutions for some degenerate elliptic and parabolic problems on \({\mathbb{R}}^n\). J. Evol. Equ. 1(2), 189–220 (2001)
Mitidieri, E., Pohozaev, S.I.: Nonexistence of Weak Solutions for Some Degenerate and Singular Hyperbolic Problems on \({\mathbb{R}}^n\). Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 232, 240–259 (2001)
Mitidieri, E., Pohozaev, S.I.: Lifespan estimates for solutions of some evolution inequalities. Differ. Equ. 45(10), 1473–1484 (2019)
Zhang, Q.S.: A blow-up result for a nonlinear wave equation with damping: the critical case. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 333(2), 109–114 (2001)
Segal, I.E.: Quantization and Dispersion for Nonlinear Relativistic Equations, Mathematical Theory of Elementary Particles, pp. 79–108. M. I. T. Press, Cambridge (1966)
Ikeda, M., Inui, T., Okamoto, M., Wakasugi, Y.: \( L^p \)-\( L^q \) estimates for the damped wave equation and the critical exponent for the nonlinear problem with slowly decaying data. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 18, 1967–2008 (2019)
D’Abbicco, M., Ebert, M.R., Picon, T.H.: The critical exponent(s) for the semilinear fractional diffusive equation. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 25, 696–731 (2019)
Acknowledgements
The second and the third author are members of the Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM).
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. The first author was supported by the China Postdoctoral Foundation (Grant No. 2021T140450 and No. 2021M692084).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, W., D’Abbicco, M. & Girardi, G. Global small data solutions for semilinear waves with two dissipative terms. Annali di Matematica 201, 529–560 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10231-021-01128-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10231-021-01128-z