Abstract
In this paper, we analyse the existence and non-existence of non-negative solutions to a non-local parabolic equation with a Hardy–Leray-type potential. More precisely, we consider the problem
where \(N> 2s\), \(0<s<1\) and \(0<\lambda <\Lambda _{N,s}\), the optimal constant in the fractional Hardy–Leray inequality. In particular, we show the existence of a critical existence exponent \(p_{+}(\lambda , s)\) and of a Fujita-type exponent \(F(\lambda ,s)\) such that the following holds:
-
Let \(p>p_+(\lambda ,s)\). Then there are not any non-negative supersolutions.
-
Let \(p<p_+(\lambda ,s)\). Then there exist local solutions, while concerning global solutions we need to distinguish two cases:
-
Let \( 1< p\le F(\lambda ,s)\). Here we show that a weighted norm of any positive solution blows up in finite time.
-
Let \(F(\lambda ,s)<p<p_+(\lambda ,s)\). Here we prove the existence of global solutions under suitable hypotheses.
-
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The main goal of this work is to analyse the existence or non-existence of positive global solutions to the non-local parabolic equation given by
where \( s \in (0,1)\), \(N\ge 2\), \(\lambda \in (0,\Lambda _{N,s})\) (see (3)), \(p>1\), and f is a non-negative function satisfying suitable integrability hypothesis.
The operator \(H^s (w):=(w_t-\Delta w)^s\) is the fractional heat operator. In the literature there are many possible ways to define \(H^s\), see, for example, [3] for an overview. Among the papers concerning the operators \(H^s\) and its properties, we cite [28] for regularity results, a Harnack inequality, an extension result and a monotonicity formula for solution to the equation \( H^s (w)=0\). The more general case of smooth potentials has been treated by [4], where the authors obtain a monotonicity formula by the means of a suitable Hölder regularity results and an extension theorem.
In the presence of an Hardy-type potential, a monotonicity formula and the asymptotic behaviour near the singular point 0 were investigated in [15]. A detailed analysis of local solutions to the extended problem has been carried out in [3]. Furthermore, a more general extension theorem for a vast class of parabolic fractional operators, including \(H^s\), has been obtained in [5]. We will give a precise definition of the operator \(H^s\) by means of the Fourier transform in Sect. 2.1.
The study of existence of global solutions to problem (1), is related to the study of the so called Fujita-type exponent, see [19]. Furthermore, the presence of an Hardy-type potential obstructs even the existence of local solutions for large p. Before stating our main results, let us make a brief overview of the literature concerning Fujita exponents and non-existence results when there is a Hardy-type potential.
In the semi-linear case, \(s=1\) and \(\lambda =0\), Fujita proved, in his fundamental work [19], the existence of a critical exponent \(F=1+\frac{2}{N}\) such that if \(1<p<F\), then any solution to the semi-linear problem
blows up in finite time. The critical case \(p=F\) was considered later in [34]. It is proved that in that case, a suitable norm of the solution goes to infinity in a finite time.
In the case of fractional diffusion, the author in [29] considered the equation
where \(N> 2s\) and \(0<s<1\). Notice that \((-\Delta )^s\) is the fractional Laplacian defined by
where
is the normalization constant. See [11, 18, 23] and the references therein for additional properties of the fractional Laplacian. In this case, the Fujita critical exponent takes the form \(F(s)=1+\frac{2s}{N}\).
Now, in the case \(\lambda >0\), the problem is related to the following Hardy–Leray-type inequality:
Theorem 1.1
For all \(\varphi \in \mathcal {C}^{\infty }_{0}(\mathbb {R}^n)\), we have
with
The constant \(\Lambda _{N,s}\) is optimal and is not attained. Moreover, \(\Lambda _{N,s}\rightarrow \Lambda _{N,1}:=\left( \dfrac{N-2}{2}\right) ^2\), the classical Hardy constant, when s tends to 1.
This inequality was first proved in [20]. See also [27] for a direct proof.
Notice that elliptic and parabolic problems related to the Hardy potential have received much attention and have been studied by several authors, see, for example, [6,7,8, 22, 32, 33] and the references therein.
The case \(s=1\) and \(\lambda >0\) was treated in [1]. More precisely, if we consider the problem
setting \(\mu (\lambda )=\frac{N-2}{2}-\sqrt{\Big (\frac{N-2}{2}\Big )^2-\lambda }\), then if \(p\ge p_+(\lambda ):=1+\frac{2}{\mu (\lambda )}\) there are no local positive supersolutions.
Due to the presence of the Hardy potential, then it is possible to show that any positive solution of (4) satisfies
See, for instance, [1].
Furthermore, in the spirit of Fujita blow-up exponent, it is proved in [1] that if \(1<p<1+\frac{2}{N-\mu (\lambda )}\), there exists \(T^*>0\), independent of the initial datum, such that the solution u to Eq. (4) satisfies
for any ball \(B_{r}(0)\). Finally, if \(1+\dfrac{2}{N-\mu (\lambda )}<p<1+\dfrac{2}{\mu (\lambda )}\), if the initial datum is small enough, there exists a global solution to (4).
Hence, we can define the Fujita-type exponent in this case by setting \(F(\lambda )= 1+\dfrac{2}{N-\mu (\lambda )}\). Under fractional diffusion, Eq. (4) takes the form
In this case, it was proved in [2] that if \(p\ge \tilde{p}_+(\lambda ,s):=1+\frac{2s}{\mu (\lambda )}\), there are no local positive supersolutions, while the Fujita critical exponent is given by \(\tilde{F}(\lambda ,s)= 1+\dfrac{2s}{N-\mu (\lambda )}\) where
and \(\alpha _{\lambda }\) is defined by the implicit formula
see also Proposition 3.1.
Going back to the operator \(H^s\), in the case \(\lambda =0\), the author in [30, 31] considers the problem
Using an integral representation formula for the inverse of \(H^s\), he was able to show the existence of a critical Fujita exponent given by \(F(s)=1+\frac{2s}{N+2-2s}\). The proof is deeply based on some convolution properties of Gaussian functions.
The situation when \(\lambda >0\) is more delicate. The argument used in [31] seems to be directly not applicable in our situation. Our approach is instead based on the extension result proved for fractional powers of the heat operator in [5].
Let us define the critical non-existence exponent \(p_+(\lambda ,s)\) and the Fujita exponent \(F(\lambda ,s)\), respectively, as:
with \(\mu (\lambda )\) as in (6). We distinguish different cases according to the value of the exponent p. Our main results are the following.
-
The case \(p>p_+(\lambda ,s)\). Here, as in the elliptic case, using the local behaviour of the solution near the origin obtained in Proposition 5.6, and thanks to a Picone-type inequality (see Proposition 6.1 below), we are able to show that there is not any weak non-trivial solution to problem (1). In particular, if \(f\not \equiv 0\), there are not any non-negative weak supersolutions.
-
The case \(p<p_+(\lambda ,s)\). Here it is possible to show the existence of local solutions, see Remark 6.3. On the other hand, concerning global solutions we distinguish two cases:
-
The case \(F(\lambda ,s)<p<p_+(\lambda ,s)\). Here we prove the existence of a very weak supersolution. Thanks to Proposition 4.8, we get the existence of a very weak solution to Eq. (1).
-
The case \( 1< p\le F(\lambda ,s)\). Here we show that any positive weak or very weak solution of (1) blows up, in a suitable sense, in finite time. See Theorem 6.4.
-
We remark that our results are coherent with [31]. Indeed, \(\mu (\lambda ) \rightarrow 0^+\), \(p_+(\lambda ,s)\rightarrow \infty \) and \(F(\lambda ,s)\rightarrow F(s)\) as \(\lambda \rightarrow 0^+\), where F(s) is the Fujita exponent of problem (7). Furthermore, the technique that we used to prove Theorem 6.4 can be easily adapted to the case \(\lambda =0\), see Remark 6.5 and also [31].
It is also interesting to notice that the critical non-existence exponent \(p_+(\lambda ,s)\) is the same for problems (5) and (1) and that \(p_+(\lambda ,s) \rightarrow p_+(\lambda )\) as \(s \rightarrow 1^+\), where \( p_+(\lambda )\) is the critical non-existence exponent of problem (4). This is due to the fact the exponent \(p_+(\lambda ,s)\) is determined only by the elliptic part of the operator and the presence of the Hardy-type potential, which induces a singular behaviour near 0 for any non-negative supersolutions.
On the other hand, the Fujita exponents \(F(\lambda ,s)\) and \(\tilde{F}(\lambda ,s)\) of problems (5) and (1) are different and in particular \(F(\lambda ,s) <\tilde{F}(\lambda ,s)\) for any \(s \in (0,1)\) and \(\lambda \in (0,\Lambda _{N,s})\). Nevertheless, we have that \(F(\lambda ,s) \rightarrow F(\lambda )\) and \(\tilde{F}(\lambda ,s) \rightarrow F(\lambda )\) as \(s \rightarrow 1^-\), where \(F(\lambda )\) is the Fujita exponent of (4).
This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we introduce some definitions and useful tools about the fractional power of the heat equation, the sense for which solution is defined, some representation formulas and preliminary results.
In Sect. 3 we consider the operator \(H^s\) perturbed by the Hardy potential and prove ground state representation formula for \(H^s(\cdot )-\lambda \frac{\cdot }{|x|^{2s}}\). In Sect. 4 we obtain a comparison principle for weak solutions using the extension procedure developed in [5]. As a consequence, we show the existence of weak solutions in a suitable sense of problem (1), if there exists a supersolution of the same problem. In Sect. 5, we analyse the local behaviour of weak supersolutions. In particular, we are able to obtain pointwise estimates from below and a strong maximum principle as consequence.
Finally, our main results are proved in Sect. 6, while in Sect. 7, we discuss some remaining open problems and possible further developments.
2 Preliminaries
2.1 Functional setting
For any real Hilbert space X, we denote with \(X^*\) its dual space and with \(_{X^*}\mathop {{\mathop {\mathop {\left\langle \cdot , \cdot \right\rangle }}\nolimits _{X}}}\limits \) the duality between \(X^*\) and X; \(\left( \cdot , \cdot \right) _{X}\) denotes the scalar product in X.
We define the operator \(H^s\) by means of the Fourier transform as follows:
where the Fourier transform of w is defined as
Then the natural domain for a pointwise definition of \(H^s\) is the set
Furthermore, if \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^N)\), then by [28, Theorem 1.1], we have the following pointwise formula for the operator \(H^s\)
Note that we have stated the previous formula for \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^N)\) for the sake of simplicity, see [28, Theorem 1.1] for less restrictive regularity assumption on \(\phi \).
We can extend \(H^s\) on
endowed with the norm
as the map from \(\mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\) into its dual space \((\mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s))^*\), defined as
for any \(w, v \in \mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\). We remark that \(\mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\) coincides with the set of pointwise definition for the operator \(H^{\frac{s}{2}}\).
The space \(\mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\) can be characterized more explicitly. Let
where we are identifying a function \(u:\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) with variables \((x,t) \in \mathbb {R}^{N}\times \mathbb {R}\) with the map \(t \mapsto u(\cdot ,t)\) or with the map \(x \mapsto u(x,\cdot )\), respectively. We can endow \(X^s\) with the natural norm
where \(\mathcal {F}_x\) and \(\mathcal {F}_t\) denote the Fourier transforms in the variables x and t, respectively.
Proposition 2.1
For any \(s \in (0,1)\),
with equivalent norms. In particular, the natural embedding
is linear and continuous.
Proof
It is clear that \(|\xi |^{2s}\le |i\theta +|\xi |^2|^{s}\) and \(|\theta |^{s}\le |i\theta +|\xi |^2|^{s}\) for any \((\theta ,\xi ) \in \mathbb {R}^{N+1}\). Furthermore, it is easy to see that there exists a constant \(C>0\), depending on s, such that for any \(a,b \in [0,+\infty )\)
Indeed, the function \(f(\tau ):=\frac{(\tau +1)^s}{1+\tau ^s}\) is bounded in \([0,+\infty )\). Hence, \(|i\theta +|\xi |^2|^{s}\le C (|\theta |^s +|\xi |^{2s})\) for any \((\theta ,\xi ) \in \mathbb {R}^{N+1}\). Then (10) follows from the Plancherel identity.
\(\square \)
We also have an inversion formula for the operator \(H^s\).
Definition 2.2
Let \(q \in [1,2]\) and \(g \in L^q(\mathbb {R}^N \times (-\infty , T))\), for any \(T \in \mathbb {R}\), be fixed. We define the operator
By [30], the operator \(J_s\) has the following properties:
In view of (2.1), we say that \(J_s\) is the inverse of the operator \(H^s\).
In the spirit of [30, 31], it makes sense to give the following definitions for weak supersolution, subsolutions and solutions of the problem
Definition 2.3
Let \(q \in [1,2]\), \(g \in L^q(\mathbb {R}^N \times (-\infty , T))\) for any \(T \in \mathbb {R}\) and suppose that \(g(t,x)=0\) a.e. in \((-\infty ,0)\times \mathbb {R}^{N}\). Then, we say that w is a very weak supersolution (subsolution) of (15) if \(w \in L^q_{loc}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) and
If w is both a supersolution and a subsolution of (15), then, we say that w is a solution of (15).
The definition above already encodes that condition \(w=0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^N\times (-\infty ,0]\) by (14).
We can also define energy solutions to (15) for a suitable class of data g.
Definition 2.4
Let \(g \in L^1_{loc}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) be non-negative, and suppose that \(g(t,x)=0\) a.e. in \((-\infty ,0)\times \mathbb {R}^{N}\). Assume that
belongs to \((\mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s))^*\). Then we say that w is a energy or weak supersolution (subsolution) of (15) if \(w \in \mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\),
for any non-negative \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) and \(w=0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^N\times (-\infty ,0]\). If w is a supersolution and a subsolution of the equation in (15), we say that w is a solution of Eq. (15).
To deal with (1), we recall the following fractional Sobolev inequality (see [11, Theorem 6.5])
Let \(f \in L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) and suppose that \(f(t,x)=0\) a.e. in \((-\infty ,0)\times \mathbb {R}^{N}\). Let \(w \in \mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\) be such that
\(w=0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^N\times (-\infty ,0]\), and
for any non-negative \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\). Then w is a weak supersolution (subsolution) of problem (1). Indeed, in view of (2), (11), (16), (17), and the Hölder inequality, the right-hand side of (18), as a function of \(\phi \), belongs to \((\mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s))^*\).
2.2 Properties of the operators \(J_s\) and \(H^s\)
In this section we prove some preliminary results about the operators \(J_s\) and \(H^s\).
Lemma 2.5
Suppose that \( g \in L^1(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\cap L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\). Then \(J_s(g) \in L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\).
Proof
We proceed in the spirit of [30]. Let
We can write \(J_s(g)\) as
where for any measurable set \(E\subseteq \mathbb {R}\)
By the proof of [30, Theorem 2.1], we know that \(Y\chi _{(0,1)} \in L^1(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) and so by the Young inequality \((Y\chi _{(0,1)}) *g \in L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\), since \(g \in L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\). Furthermore, by the Young inequality
and by a change of variables
since \(N\ge 2\) and \(s \in (0,1)\). In conclusion, \(J_s(g) \in L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\). \(\square \)
Lemma 2.6
Let \( g \in L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) and suppose that \(J_s(g) \in L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\). Then
In particular, \(J_s(g) \in \mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\) and \(H^s(J_s(g))\) is well defined pointwise.
Proof
Since
we need to compute the Fourier transform of \(\chi _{(0,+\infty )}(\tau ) \frac{e^{-\frac{|z|^2}{4\tau }}}{\tau ^{\frac{N}{2}+1-s}}\), where
We make this computation in detail for the sake of completeness, see [30] and the references within. The Fourier transform of Gaussian function and a change of variables yield
Hence, since \(g \in L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\), we have proved (19) and the last claim follows from (19). \(\square \)
Lemma 2.7
For any \(\phi ,\psi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\), we have that
Proof
By (8) and the Plancherel identity
and so the first equality in (20) follows from \(\overline{\widehat{\psi }}=\widehat{\psi (-\cdot )}\) and the Plancherel identity. The second identity is an easy consequence of the first one. On the other hand by (12), the Fubini–Tonelli theorem and a change of variables
which yields (21). \(\square \)
Lemma 2.8
Suppose that \(g \in L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\), \(g(t,x)=0\) a.e. in \((-\infty ,0)\times \mathbb {R}^{N}\) and that \(w \in \mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\) is a weak supersolution of the problem
in the sense given by Definition 2.4. Then
Proof
By (21) and a change of variables for any positive \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\),
Hence, by (20) we deduce that for any positive \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\)
For any positive \(\psi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) let
Then \(H^{\frac{s}{2}}(\phi (-\cdot ))=\psi \), and \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\). It follows that
which is equivalent to (22). \(\square \)
3 Ground state transformation for the operator \(H^s-\frac{\lambda }{|x|^{2s}}\)
We start by recalling the following proposition.
Proposition 3.1
([18, Lemma 3.2], [14, Proposition 3.2]) Let \(\Lambda _{N,s}\) be as in (3). Then the function \(\Upsilon :\Big [0,\frac{N-2s}{2}\Big ) \rightarrow (0,\Lambda _{N,s}]\) defined as
is well-defined, continuous, surjective, decreasing, \(\Upsilon (0)=\Lambda _{N,s}\) and \(\lim _{\alpha \rightarrow (\frac{N-2s}{2})^-}\Upsilon (\alpha )=0\).
Let us define for any \(\lambda \in (0,\Lambda _{N,s}]\)
Then clearly
The most important result of this section is a ground state transformation for the operator \(H^s-\frac{\lambda }{|x|^{2s}}\), in the spirit of [18, Proposition 4.1] where a similar representation was computed for the elliptic operator \((-\Delta )^s-\frac{\lambda }{|x|^{2s}}\). We need a preliminary lemma about radial functions.
Lemma 3.2
Let \(f \in L^1(\mathbb {R}^N)\) be radial. Then there exists a constant \(K_{N,s,\lambda }>0\) depending only on N, s and \(\lambda \) such that
Proof
Passing in polar coordinates and letting \(y'=\frac{y}{\rho }\) and \(x'=\frac{y}{r}\), we obtain
by the change of variables \(\sigma =\frac{\rho }{r}\). Let us define
Since \(|x'-\sigma y|^2=1-2\sigma x'\cdot y' +\sigma ^2\), with a change of variables, we deduce that
and so K does not depends on x. Using spherical coordinates, see also [17], we obtain
where \(C>0\) is a positive constant depending only on N. Since for \(\sigma =1\) the singularity in 0 is integrable in view of (24), we conclude that K is bounded. It follows that, thanks to the change of variables \(\rho = r \sigma \),
and so we have proved (25). \(\square \)
Proposition 3.3
Let \( \lambda \in (0,\Lambda _{N,s})\) and let, for any \((x,t) \in \mathbb {R}^{N}\setminus \{0\}\times \mathbb {R}\), and \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\),
Then there exists \(C>0\), depending only on N, s and \(\lambda \), such that for any \((x,t) \in \mathbb {R}^{N}\setminus \{0\}\times \mathbb {R}\)
for any \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\), where \(\nabla _x^2\) denotes the matrix of the second derivates of \(\phi \) with respect to the spatial variable x. Furthermore, for any \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\)
where \({\mu (\lambda )}\) is as in (23).
Proof
By a change of variables, it is clear that
for some constant positive \(C_1\) depending on N and s. In view of Lemma 3.2,
for some positive constant \(C_2\) depending on N, s and \(\lambda \). Furthermore, letting
we have that
We will estimate the last two integrals. We start by noticing that
Then the change of variables \(z=-z\) yields
Since \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^N)\), we have that
Hence, in view of Lemma 3.2 and a change of variables we conclude that there exists a positive constant \(C_3>0\), depending only on N, s, and \(\lambda \) such that
Moreover, we note that
and so by Lemma 3.2 and a change of variables there exists a constant \(C_4>0\), depending only on N, s, and \(\lambda \), such that
By [28, Corollary 1.4] there exists a positive constant \(C_5>0\), depending only on N, s, such that
Then arguing, as in Lemma 3.2, we have that there exist positive constants \(C_6,C_7,C_8\) and \(C_9\) depending only on N, s, and \(\lambda \), such that
To see that the last integral is convergent, it is enough to consider polar coordinates in \(B'_1 \times (0,1)\) taking \(\rho ^2\) instead of \(\rho \) as radial coordinate in the time coordinate. Hence, we have proved (26).
For any \( \phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) by (9) and [28, Remark 2.2]
Since in view of [13, Lemma 4.1] and [28, Corollary 1.4],
we conclude that (27) holds. \(\square \)
As a direct application of the ground state representation, we get the next Kato-type inequality for the operator \(\bigg (H^s-\frac{\lambda }{|x|^{2s}}\bigg )\).
Proposition 3.4
Assume that \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) is a non-negative function. Then, for any \(m>1\), we have
Proof
We start by showing the next algebraic inequality
To this end, let \(\gamma (x)=1-x^m-m(1-x)\) for any \(x \in [0,+\infty )\). Since \(\gamma '(x)=m(1-x^{m-1})\), it is clear that \(\gamma (x)\le \gamma (1)=0\) for any \(x \in [0,+\infty )\). Taking \(x=b/a\), we obtain (29). Hence,
and so we have proved (28). \(\square \)
Remark 3.5
It is an open and interesting problem to obtain an inversion formula for the operator \(L^s\). It is object of current investigation by the authors. The main difficulty is the loss of stability using the Fourier transform of convolutions as in [30], under the presence of singular kernels.
Hence, we will follow a different approach, based on the extension results proved in [5], to construct positive solutions and supersolutions of problem (1).
4 A comparison principle
In this section, we are going to prove a comparison principle for weak solutions using the extension procedure developed in [5].
4.1 An extension result
We will use the extension procedure of [5] (see also [4, 25, 28]) to localize the problem. We denote as \((z,t)=(x,y,t)\) the variable in \(\mathbb {R}^{N} \times (0,+\infty ) \times \mathbb {R}\) and \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+:=\mathbb {R}^{N} \times (0,+\infty )\). Furthermore, we use the symbols \(\nabla \) and \(\mathrm{{div}}\) to denote the gradient, respectively, the divergence, with respect to the space variable \(z=(x,y)\).
For any \(p \in [1,\infty )\) and any open set \(E \subseteq \mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+\), let
If E is an open Lipschitz set contained in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+\), \(H^1(E,y^{1-2s})\) is defined as the completion of \(C_c^{\infty }(\overline{E})\) with respect to the norm
In view of [26, Theorem 11.11, Theorem 11.2, 11.12 Remarks(iii)] and the extension theorems for weighted Sobolev spaces with weights in the Muckenhoupt’s \(\mathcal {A}_2\) class proved in [10], the space \(H^1(E,y^{1-2s})\) admits a concrete characterization as
By [24] there exists a linear and continuous trace operator
For any \(w \in \mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\) and any \((x,y,t) \in \mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+ \times \mathbb {R}\), let
The function W is an extension of w which possesses good properties, as it has been proved in [4] and [5], see also [25, Theorem 1], [28, Theorem 1.7] and [4, Section 3, Section 4]. More precisely, there holds the following theorem.
Theorem 4.1
([5, Theorem 4.1, Remark 4.3], [4, Corollary 3.2]) Let \(w \in \mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\) and let W be as in (31). Then \(W \in L^2(\mathbb {R},H^1(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+,y^{1-2s}))\) and weakly solves
in the sense that for a.e. \(T>0\) and any \(\phi \in C^\infty _c (\overline{\mathbb {R}_+^{N+1}} \times [0,T])\)
![](http://media.springernature.com/lw545/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00028-024-00984-5/MediaObjects/28_2024_984_Equ195_HTML.png)
with \(\kappa _s:=\frac{\Gamma (1-s)}{2^{2s-1} \Gamma (s)}\).
4.2 A comparison principle
Let us begin by proving a weak maximum principle for the extended problem.
Proposition 4.2
Let \(T>0\) and suppose that \(W \in L^2((0,T),H^1(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+,y^{1-2s}))\) is a weak positive subsolution of the problem
in the sense that for any positive \(\phi \in C^\infty _c (\overline{\mathbb {R}_+^{N+1}} \times [0,T])\)
Then \(W\equiv 0\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+\times (0,T)\).
Proof
By an approximated procedure, for example the Faedo–Galerkin method, we may suppose that \(W_t \in L^2((0,+\infty ),L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+,y^{1-2s}))\). Hence, we may test (33) with W. Since
we obtain
in view of (33). We conclude that \(W\equiv 0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+\). \(\square \)
Corollary 4.3
Let \(T>0\) and suppose that \(V,W \in L^2((0,T),H^1(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+,y^{1-2s}))\) satisfy the problem
in a weak sense. Then \(W\le V\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+\times (0,T)\). Furthermore, letting \(v:=\mathrm{{Tr}}(V)\) and \(w:=\mathrm{{Tr}}(W)\), we have that \(w\le v \) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N} \times (0,+\infty )\).
Proof
Let \(U:=W-V\). By the Kato inequality, and (34), it is easy to see that \(U^+\) satisfies (32). Hence, \(U^+\equiv 0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+\times (0,T)\) thanks to Proposition 4.2, that is \(W\le V\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+\times (0,T)\). Let us define
and let \(\{\rho _\varepsilon \}_{\varepsilon >0}\) be a family of standard mollifiers on \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\). By [21, Lemma 1.5], \(\rho _\varepsilon *\widetilde{U} \rightarrow \widetilde{U}\) in \(H^1(\mathbb {R}^{N+1},|y|^{1-2s})\) and \(\rho _\varepsilon *\widetilde{U} \ge 0 \) in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\times (0,+\infty )\). Since \(\rho _\varepsilon *\widetilde{U}\) is smooth, in particular \(\mathrm{{Tr}}(\rho _\varepsilon *\widetilde{U})\ge 0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^{N}\times (0,+\infty )\). Up to a subsequence, we may pass to the limit as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0^+\) and deduce that \(\mathrm{{Tr}}(U) \ge 0\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N} \times (0,+\infty )\) thanks to the continuity of the trace operator defined in (30). We conclude that \(w\le v \) in \(\mathbb {R}^{N} \times (0,+\infty )\).
\(\square \)
From Corollary 4.3 and Theorem 4.1, we can deduce the following weak comparison principle for \(H^s\).
Corollary 4.4
Suppose that \(w,v \in \mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\) solve
in the sense that \(w= v=0\) on \(\mathbb {R}^N \times (-\infty ,0]\) and
for any positive \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\). Then \(w\le v \) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\).
Comparing a weak supersolution of problem (1) with 0, from Corollary 4.4 we have the following.
Corollary 4.5
Suppose that \(f \in L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\), \(f(t,x)=0\) a.e. in \((-\infty ,0)\times \mathbb {R}^{N}\) and that f is non-negative. Then any weak supersolution w of problem (1) in the sense given by Definition 2.4 satisfies \(w\ge 0\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\).
4.3 An existence result
In this subsection we show how to deduce the existence of solutions of problem (1) from the existence of supersolutions by the means of the comparison principle proved in Sect. 4.2.
Suppose that \(f \in L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\), \(f(t,x)=0\) a.e. in \((-\infty ,0)\times \mathbb {R}^{N}\). Let us define for any \(n \in \mathbb {N}\) a cut-off function \(\eta _n\in C^{\infty }_c(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) such that \(\eta _n=1\) in \(B'_{n} \times (\frac{1}{n+1},n+1)\) and \(\eta _n=0\) in \((\mathbb {R}^{N}\setminus B'_{n+2}) \times \mathbb {R}\) and in \(\mathbb {R}^{N} \times [(-\infty ,\frac{1}{n+2})\cup (n+2,+\infty )]\). Let us consider the approximating problems
and
for any \(n \in \mathbb {N}\setminus \{0\}\). To simplify the notations, we define
Lemma 4.6
For any \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), the function
belongs to \(\mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\), and it is pointwise solutions to the problem (35) if \(n=0\) or (36) if \(n>0\). Furthermore, \(w_n\) solves problem (35) if \(n=0\) or (36) if \(n>0\) in the sense given by Definition 2.4 and
Proof
By Lemma 2.5 and by Lemma 2.6, it follows that \(w_n \in \mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\) for any \(n \in \mathbb {N}\) and that \(H^s(w_n)=h_n\) pointwise. Then for any \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\), by the Plancherel identity,
Thanks to the Hölder inequality, \(\phi \mapsto \int _{\mathbb {R}^{N+1}} h_n \phi \, dx \, dt\) belongs to \((\mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s))^*\) while \(w_n=0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^{N} \times (-\infty ,0]\) in view of (14).
In conclusion, \(w_n\) is a solution of problem (35) if \(n=0\) or (36) if \(n>0\), in the sense given by Definition 2.4. Finally, (38) follows from Corollary 4.4 or directly by (12) and (37). \(\square \)
In the next proposition, we prove the existence of a weak solution of problem (1) starting from a weak supersolution of the same problem.
Proposition 4.7
Suppose that \(f \in L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\), \(f(t,x)=0\) a.e. in \((-\infty ,0)\times \mathbb {R}^{N}\) and that \(u \in \mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\) is a weak supersolution of problem (1) in the sense given by Definition 2.4. Let \({w_n}\) be as in Lemma 4.6. Then there exists a function \(w \in \mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\) such that \(w_n(x,t) \rightarrow w(x,t)\) as \(n \rightarrow \infty \) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\) and w weakly solves problem (1).
Proof
In view of Corollary 4.4 and (38), we conclude that \(w:=\lim _{n \rightarrow \infty } w_n\) is well-defined, that \( w \le u\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\), and in particular that \(w \in L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\). Let us prove that \(\{w_n\}_{n \in \mathbb {N}}\) is bounded in \(\mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\). To this end, notice that u is a weak supersolution of the problem
since \(w_n \le w \le u\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\). Then by the Plancherel identity and Lemma 2.8
We conclude that, up to a subsequence, \(w_n \rightarrow w\) weakly in \(\mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\) as \(n \rightarrow \infty \). Thus, thanks to the Dominated Convergence Theorem,
for any \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\).
It is also clear that \(\phi \mapsto \int _{\mathbb {R}^{N+1}}(\frac{\lambda }{|x|^{2s}}w+w^p+f) \phi \, dx \, dt\) belongs to \((\mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s))^*\) since \(w \le u\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\). In conclusion, w is a weak solution of problem (1) in the sense given by Definition 2.4. \(\square \)
We can also prove the existence of a very weak solution of problem (1) starting from a very weak supersolution of the same problem.
Proposition 4.8
Let \(q \in [1,2]\), \(f\in L^q(\mathbb {R}^N \times (-\infty , T))\) for any \(T \in \mathbb {R}\) and suppose that \(f(x,t)=0\) a.e. in \((-\infty ,0)\times \mathbb {R}^{N}\). Let u be a weak supersolution of problem (1) in the sense given by Definition 2.3. Let \({w_n}\) be as in Lemma 4.6. Then there exists a function \(w \in L^q_{loc} (\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) such that \(w_n(x,t) \rightarrow w(x,t)\) as \(n \rightarrow \infty \) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\) and w is a very weak solution of problem (1).
Proof
By (12) and (37), it is clear that \(w_n \le u\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\) for any \(n \in \mathbb {N}\). Hence, \(w:=\lim _{n \rightarrow \infty } u_n\) is well-defined and \( w \le u\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\), in particular \(w \in L^q_{loc}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\). Furthermore, by the Dominated Converge Theorem
that is, w is a very weak solution of (1). \(\square \)
5 Local behaviour of weak solutions
In this section, we will study the local behaviour near the singular point 0 of non-negative weak supersolutions of the equation
The initial datum plays no role in the results proved in this section; hence, we consider the following definition of weak solutions.
Definition 5.1
We say that w is weak supersolution (subsolution) of (39) if \(w \in \mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\),
for any non-negative \(\phi \in \mathcal {S}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) such that \(\phi =0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^N\times (-\infty ,0]\). If w is a supersolution and a subsolution of the equation in (40), we say that w is a solution of (40).
We start by fixing some notations and recalling some useful preliminary results.
Proposition 5.2
([14, Section 2]) For any \(\phi \in C^\infty _c(\overline{\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+})\)
with \(\Lambda _{N,s}\) as in (3) and \(k_s\) as in Theorem 4.1.
For \(r>0\) let us define
Proposition 5.3
([13, Lemma 4.1]) For any \(\lambda \in (0,\Lambda _{N,s})\), there exists a positive, continuous function \(\Phi _\lambda :\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+\setminus \{0\} \rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) such that \(\Phi _\lambda \in H^1(B_r^+,y^{1-2s})\) for any \(r>0\) and \(\Phi _\lambda \) weakly solves the problem
in the sense that for any \(\varphi \in C_c^{\infty }(\overline{\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+})\)
Furthermore,
for some positive constants \(C_1,C_2>0\).
We recall the definition of the class \(\mathcal {A}_2\) of Muckenhoupt weights.
Definition 5.4
We say that a measurable function \(\rho :\mathbb {R}^{N+1} \rightarrow [0,+\infty )\) belongs to \(\mathcal {A}_2\) if
Let
Proposition 5.5
We have that \(|y|^{1-2s}\widetilde{\Phi }_\lambda ^2 \in \mathcal {A}_2\), that is \(|y|^{1-2s}\widetilde{\Phi }_\lambda ^2\) is a Muckenhoupt weight.
Proof
For any \(r>0\), passing in polar coordinates,
in view of (23), (43) and (46). Hence, the claim follows from (45). \(\square \)
For any \(r>0\) let us define the Hilbert spaces
endowed with the natural norms
In the next proposition we estimate the behaviour of weak solutions of (39) near the origin.
Proposition 5.6
Assume that w is a non-negative, non-trivial, weak supersolution of
Then for \(r>0\) small and for all \((t_1,t_2)\subset \subset (0,\infty )\), there exists a positive constant \(C(r,t_1,t_2,w)\) depending only on \(r,t_1,t_2\) and w, such that
In particular,
Proof
Let W be the extension of w as in Theorem 4.1. Then, by (31), \(W>0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+\) while by classical parabolic regularity theory W is continuous in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+\). Let \(r>0\) and \((t_1,t_2)\subset \subset (0,\infty )\). For any \(\rho >0\) there exists \(\delta >0\) such that \(W>\rho \) on \(S_{4r,\delta }\times (t_1,t_2)\) where for any \(r>0\) and any \(\delta \in [0,4r)\)
Let \(\eta \in C^{\infty }(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) be a cut-off function such that \(\eta (x,y)=0\) if \(y <\delta \) and \(\eta (x,y)=1\) if \(y >\frac{4r+\delta }{2}\) for any \(x \in \mathbb {R}^{N}\). Let us consider the elliptic problem
where \(u=\mathrm{{Tr}}(U)\). In view of (41), by standard minimization technique it is easy to see that there exists a unique weak solution \(u \in H^1(B_r^+,y^{1-2s})\), that is u solves the equation
for any \(\phi \in C^{\infty }(\overline{B_{4r}^+})\) such that \(\phi =0\) on \(S_{4r}^+\). Furthermore, since \(\rho \eta \) is positive, it is clear that \(U^-=0\) on \(S_{4r}^+\). Hence, we may test with \(U^-\) the equation above and conclude that U is non-negative. Since \(U=\rho \eta \) on \(S^+_r\), it is also clear that \(U\not \equiv 0\).
Let us define \(V:=U \Phi _\lambda ^{-1}\) and \(v:=u|\cdot |^{-\mu (\lambda )}\). Then with a direct computation we see that \(V \in H^1(B_{4r}^+,y^{1-2s}\Phi _\lambda ^2)\) and weakly solves the problem
Let us define \(\widetilde{V}\) as
Then \(\widetilde{V}\in H^1(B_{4r},|y|^{1-2s}\Phi _\lambda ^2)\) is a weak solution of the equation
Then there exists a positive constant \(C>0\) such that \(V\ge C\) a.e. in \(B_{2r}\) thanks to Proposition 5.5 and the Harnack inequality proved in [9]. It follows that \(U\ge C \Phi _\lambda \) a.e. in \(B_{2r}\).
Let us define for any \(t\in \mathbb {R}\) the function \(\overline{U}(t,z):=U(z)\) for any \(z \in B_{4r}^+\). Since \(W\ge \overline{U}\) on \(S_{4r}^+ \times (t_1,t_2)\), arguing as in Sect. 4.2, we can show that \(W \ge \overline{U}\) a.e. in \(B_{4r}^+\). It follows that there exists a positive constant \(C(r,t_1,t_2,w)>0\) depending only on \(r,t_1,t_2\) and w such that
Let us define
and let \(\widetilde{\Phi _\lambda }\) be as in (46). Furthermore, let \(\varphi \in C^\infty _c(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) be a cut-off function such that \(\varphi = 1\) in \(B_{r}\) and \(\varphi =0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\setminus B_{2r}\). Then
and so
where \(\{\rho _\varepsilon \}_{\varepsilon >0}\) is a family of standard mollifier on \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\).
It is clear that \(\varphi \widetilde{W} \in H^1(\mathbb {R}^{N+1},|y|^{1-2s})\) and also \(\varphi \widetilde{\Phi _\lambda } \in H^1(\mathbb {R}^{N+1},|y|^{1-2s})\), in view of Proposition 5.3. Then by [21, Lemma 1.5], \(\rho _\varepsilon *(\phi \widetilde{W} ) \rightarrow \varphi \widetilde{W}\) and \(\rho _\varepsilon *(\phi \widetilde{\Phi _\lambda }) \rightarrow \phi \widetilde{\Phi _\lambda }\) strongly in \( H^1(\mathbb {R}^{N+1},|y|^{1-2s})\) as \( \varepsilon \rightarrow 0^+\). Hence, up to a subsequence,
a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N} \times (t_1,t_2)\). It follows that
since
Hence, we have proved (47). \(\square \)
6 Non-existence result and Fujita-type behaviour
In this section, we analyse the existence and behaviour of solutions to problem (1) according to the value of the parameter p.
6.1 A non-existence result
In order to prove Theorem 6.2, we need a version of the Picone-type inequality for the extended problem.
Proposition 6.1
Let \(r>0\) and assume \(W \in H^1(B_r^+,y^{1-2s})\) is such that \(W>\delta \) for some positive constant \(\delta >0\) and W weakly solves the problem
in the sense that for any \(\phi \in C^\infty _c(B_r^+\cup B_r')\)
where \(g \in L^2(B_r^+,y^{1-2s})\), \(f \in L^1_{loc}(B_r') \) with \(f \ge 0\), \(f \ne 0\). Then for any \(\phi \in C_c^\infty (B_r^+\cup B_r')\)
Proof
Let \(\phi \in C_c^\infty (B_r^+\cup B_r')\). Then
Hence, by integration, since \(\phi ^2 W^{-1} \in H^1(B_r^+,y^{1-2s})\), we obtain
which proves (48). \(\square \)
We have the following non-existence theorem for weak supersolutions.
Theorem 6.2
Assume that \(p>1+\frac{2s}{{\mu (\lambda )}}\). Let \(f \in L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) be such that \(f(x,t)=0\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^N\times (-\infty ,0)\). Then any non-negative weak supersolution w of problem (1) is trivial. In particular, if \(f\not \equiv 0\), there are not any non-negative weak supersolutions.
Proof
We argue by contradiction. Let \(p>1+\frac{2s}{{\mu (\lambda )}}\) and suppose that (18) has a non-negative supersolution w. Then there exists a solution of (18) and a sequence \(\{w_n\}_{n \in \mathbb {N}}\) as in Proposition 4.7. For any \(r>0\) and any \((t_1,t_2) \subset (0,+\infty )\) by standard abstract parabolic elliptic theory, see, for example, [12], letting \(W_n\) be the extension of \(w_n\) as in Theorem 4.1, it follows that \((W_n)_t \in L^2((t_1,t_2),B_r^+)\). Fix \(r>0\) and \((t_1,t_2) \subset (0,+\infty )\). Then for any \(\phi \in C_c^{\infty }(B_r^+ \cup B_r')\) by (1), Proposition 6.1, Theorem 4.1, and the regularity of \((W_n)_t\) it follows that
Furthermore, \(\{w_n\}_{n \in \mathbb {N}}\) is bounded in \({\mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)}\) and so for any \(\sigma >1\) there exists a constant C that does not depend on n, such that for any \(n \in \mathbb {N}\)
for \(i=1,2\), see [5]. It is also clear that
Then, letting
and \(\sigma \) its conjugate exponent, that is \(\frac{1}{2^{**}_s} +\frac{1}{\sigma }=1\), by the Hölder inequality and [16, Lemma 4.2],
for \(i=1,2\). Hence, combining the above estimates and integrating over \((t_1,t_2)\), we obtain that there exists a constant \(C_1>0\), that does not depend on \(\phi \), such that
Passing to the limit as \(n \rightarrow \infty \) by the Dominated Converge Theorem, we conclude that
in view of Proposition 5.6. Since \((p-1){\mu (\lambda )}>2s\), then we have reached a contradiction with the optimality of the power \(|x|^{2s}\) in the Hardy-type inequality (41).
\(\square \)
Remark 6.3
If \(p<p_+(\lambda ,s)\), we get the existence of a local pointwise positive supersolution to (1) in any bounded domain \(\Omega \times (T_1,T_2)\). Indeed, using [28, Corollary 1.4.], there exists positive supersolution to the correspondent elliptic problem
where h, depending only on x, satisfies some additional assumptions.
6.2 A blow-up result
In the case \(1<p\le 1+\frac{2s}{N+2-2s-\mu (\lambda )}\), we have the following blow-up result.
Theorem 6.4
Assume that \(1 < p \le 1+\frac{2s}{N+2-2s-{\mu (\lambda )}}\) and that w is a non-negative, non-trivial solution of (1) either in the sense of Definition 2.3 or in the sense of Definition 2.4. Then there exists \(T^*<\infty \) such that
Proof
Let w be a positive non-trivial solution of (1) in the sense of Definition 2.3 or in the sense of Definition 2.4. Let us define
so that \(|x|^{-\mu (\lambda )}w^p(x,t)=|x|^{-(p+1)\mu (\lambda )}v^p(x,t)\). We argue by contradiction assuming that
Then in particular
If w is a solution of (1) in the sense of Definition 2.3 then for any even \(\phi \in C^{\infty }_c(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\)
by Lemma 2.7 and a change of variables. If w is a solution of (1) in the sense of Definition 2.3, then the equation above still holds in view of Lemma 2.7 and (18). Then, by Proposition 3.3, in both cases we have that
for any even \(\phi \in C^{\infty }_c(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\).
Let \(\varphi \in C^{\infty }_c(B_2')\) be an even cut-off function such that \(0\le \varphi \le 1\), \(\varphi \equiv 1\) in \(B_1'\). For any \(R \ge 1\) let us define
Fix \(m > p'\). Then testing (49) with \(\varphi _R^m\), we obtain
in view of Proposition 3.4. Letting \(p'\) be such that \(1/p+1/p'=1\), from the Hölder inequality it follows that
Then by a change of variables, we deduce that
Furthermore, the change of variables \(\tilde{y}=R^{-1} y\) and \(\tilde{\sigma }=R^{-2} \sigma \) yields
for some positive constant \(C_1>0\) depending only on \(N,s, \lambda \) and \(\varphi \), by Proposition 3.3. Hence,
for some positive constant \(C_2>0\). The change of variables \(\tilde{x}=R^{-1} x\) and \(\tilde{t}=R^{-2} t\) yields
Thanks to Fatou’s Lemma, we can pass to the limit as \(R \rightarrow \infty \) and conclude that
In particular, if \(p<1+\frac{2s}{N+2-2s-\mu (\lambda )}\), we obtain
and thus \(v\equiv 0\). Since \(w(x,t)=v(x,t)|x|^{-\mu (\lambda )}\), then \(w \equiv 0\) in \(\mathbb {R}^N\times \mathbb {R}\), a contradiction.
We deal now with the critical case \(p=1+\frac{2s}{N+2-2s-\mu (\lambda )}\). Let \(\delta \in (0,\frac{1}{p'-1})\). Then
Furthermore, arguing as above, we can show that
Since we have chosen \(\delta \in (0,\frac{1}{p'-1})\), we conclude that the integral in the right-hand side of (52) is finite. In conclusion, from (51) and (52) we deduce that there exists a constant \(C_3>0\) such that
for any \(R\ge 1\). Passing to the limit as \(R \rightarrow \infty \), we conclude that
Then from (6.2) and Fatou’s Lemma, we deduce that \(v\equiv 0\) and so \(w\equiv 0\). \(\square \)
Remark 6.5
It is easy to see that, if \(\lambda =0\), then proceeding as in Theorem 6.4, we can show that there exists \(T^*<\infty \) such that
see also [31].
6.3 Existence of supersolutions
We start by proving the following result.
Proposition 6.6
Let \(p \in \left( 1+\frac{2s}{N-\mu (\lambda )+2-2s}, 1+\frac{2s}{\mu (\lambda )}\right) \). Then there exist \(\varepsilon _0>0\) and \(\delta >0\) such that for any \(\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon _0]\) and any \(\lambda _1 \in (\lambda ,\lambda +\delta ]\) the function
is a positive classical solution of the problem
where \(u_{\varepsilon , \lambda _1}(x,t):=U_{\varepsilon , \lambda _1}(x,0,t)=\varepsilon (1+t)^{\frac{s}{p-1}-\frac{\mu (\lambda _1)}{2}} |x|^{-\mu (\lambda _1)} e^{-\frac{|x|^2}{4(t+1)}}\) and \(k_s\) is as in Theorem 4.1. Furthermore for any \(T>0\), we have that \(U_{\varepsilon , \lambda _1} \in L^2((0,T),H^1(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+,y^{1-2s}))\) and \((U_{\varepsilon , \lambda _1})_t \in L^2((0,T),L^2(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+,y^{1-2s})\) .
Proof
Let us consider the family of functions
with \(\varepsilon >0\), \(\theta >0\) and \(\lambda _1 \in (\lambda ,\Lambda _{N,s})\). With a direct computation we can see that
thanks to (42) and (44). Hence,
On the other hand by (42),
Then \(-\lim \limits _{y \rightarrow 0^+}y^{1-2s}\frac{\partial U_{\varepsilon , \lambda _1}}{\partial y}\ge k_s \left( \frac{\lambda }{|x|^{2s}}u_{\varepsilon , \lambda _1}+u_{\varepsilon , \lambda _1}^p\right) \) if and only if
The change of variables \(x:=(1+t)^{\frac{1}{2}}\xi \) yields
Choosing \(\theta :=\frac{s}{p-1}-\frac{\mu (\lambda _1)}{2}\), we obtain
With this choice of \(\theta \) and a direct computation, we can see that
if and only if
Hence, choosing \(\lambda _1\) close enough to \(\lambda \),
Finally, up to choosing \(\lambda _1\) closer to \(\lambda \), we also have that
and so (54) holds for any \(\xi \in \mathbb {R}^{N}\) if \(\varepsilon >0\) is small enough. In conclusion, we have proved that \(U_{\varepsilon ,\lambda _1}\) is a classical solution of problem (53). Since \(\Phi _{\lambda _1} \in H^1(B^+_1,y^{1-2s})\), the last claim is clear. \(\square \)
Theorem 6.7
Let \(p \in \left( 1+\frac{2s}{N-\mu (\lambda )+2-2s}, 1+\frac{2s}{\mu (\lambda )}\right) \) and \(\delta ,\varepsilon _0 \) as in Proposition 6.6. Let f be a measurable non-negative, non-trivial function such that \(f(x,t)=0\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^N \times (-\infty ,0)\). Assume that for some \(\delta _1 \in (0,\delta )\)
Then for some a small enough \(\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon _0)\) and \(\lambda _1 \in (\lambda ,\lambda +\delta )\) close enough to \(\lambda \), the function
is a non-trivial, non-negative, very weak supersolution of problem (1) and \(w\in L^1_{loc}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\).
Proof
We start by observing that for any \(p \in \left( 1+\frac{2s}{N-\mu (\lambda )+2-2s}, 1+\frac{2s}{\mu (\lambda )}\right) \) and \(\lambda _1 \in (\lambda ,\lambda +\delta )\) the function
is bounded on \(\mathbb {R}^N \times (0,+\infty )\). It follows that, if f is as above, taking for example \(\lambda _1:= \lambda +\frac{\delta _1}{2}\), there exists an \(\varepsilon >0\) such that the function \(U_{\varepsilon ,\lambda _1}\) is a classical supersolution of the problem
Let us extend trivially the function \(u_{\varepsilon , \lambda _1}\) to \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\) and still denote, with a slight abuse of notation, the extended function with \(u_{\varepsilon , \lambda _1}\). Then \(\frac{\lambda }{|x|^{2s}}u_{\varepsilon , \lambda _1}+u_{\varepsilon , \lambda _1}^p+f \in L^1(\mathbb {R}^{N}\times (-\infty ,T))\) for any \(T>0\) and \(\frac{\lambda }{|x|^{2s}}u_{\varepsilon , \lambda _1}+u_{\varepsilon , \lambda _1}^p+f\equiv 0\) on \(\mathbb {R}^N \times (-\infty ,0)\). It follows that, letting \(k_s\) be as in Theorem 4.1,
is well-defined, \(w \in L^1_{loc}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) and \(w \equiv 0\) on \(\mathbb {R}^N \times (-\infty ,0)\) by (14). Let \(\eta _n\) be as in Sect. 4.3 and let us define for any \(n \in \mathbb {N}\)
Then \(w_n \in \mathrm{{Dom}}(H^s)\) thanks to Lemmas 2.5 and 2.6. Hence, we may define its extension \(W_n\) as in Theorem 4.1 and notice that \(W_n\) weekly solves the problem
By Corollary 4.3, it follows that \(w_n \le w_{n+1}\le u_{\varepsilon ,\lambda _1}\) for any \(n \in \mathbb {N}\). Then, by the Dominated Convergence Theorem,
a.e. in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\). We conclude that
Hence, w is a very weak supersolution of (1), that is, is a supersolution in the sense of Definition 2.3. \(\square \)
From Theorem 6.7 and Proposition 4.8, we can immediately deduce the existence of very weak solutions of problem (1) for small datum.
Corollary 6.8
Let \(p \in \left( 1+\frac{2s}{N-\mu (\lambda )+2-2s}, 1+\frac{2s}{\mu (\lambda )}\right) \) and suppose that f satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 6.7. Then (1) has a non-negative, non-trivial very weak solution \(w\in L^1_{loc}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\).
7 Open problems and subjects of further investigation
In this last section, we make a brief overview over remaining questions and further developments concerning existence and non-existence results for the operator \(H^s-\frac{\lambda }{|x|^{2s}}\) and other fractional parabolic operators.
As already stated in Remark 3.5, it is an interesting open problem to obtain an inversion formula for the operator \(H^s-\frac{\lambda }{|x|^{2s}}\). Furthermore in the case \(p=p_+(\lambda ,s)\) it is still not known if there exists or not weak supersolution of (1). It is reasonable to think that a non-existence result may hold, coherently with the classical case \(s=1\), but to obtain such a result seems to be technically demanding.
Further possible subject of investigation includes considering different nonlinearities in problem (1), for example of the form \(|\nabla u|^p\) or \(|(-\Delta )^{\frac{s}{2}}u|^p\), which, to the best of the authors knowledge, have yet to be studied with or without the presence of an Hardy-type potential. It may also be interesting to study similar questions for more general parabolic fractional operators, for example \((w_t- \Delta -\frac{\lambda }{|x|^2})^s\), under assumption of positivity of the elliptic part \(- \Delta -\frac{\lambda }{|x|^2}\). Finally, the critical case \(\lambda =\Lambda _{N_s}\) is yet to be studied for the operator \(H^s-\frac{\lambda }{|x|^{2s}}\) and could be of interest.
All the subjects mentioned above are object of current investigation by the authors.
Data Availability Statement
No data were used for the research described in the article.
References
Abdellaoui, B., Peral, I., and Primo, A. Influence of the Hardy potential in a semilinear heat equation. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 139, 5 (2009), 897–926.
Abdellaoui, B., Peral, I., and Primo, A. A note on the Fujita exponent in fractional heat equation involving the Hardy potential. Math. Eng. 2, 4 (2020), 639–656.
Audrito, A., and Terracini, S. On the nodal set of solutions to a class of nonlocal parabolic equations. Preprint 2018, arXiv:1807.10135.
Banerjee, A., and Garofalo, N. Monotonicity of generalized frequencies and the strong unique continuation property for fractional parabolic equations. Adv. Math. 336 (2018), 149–241.
Biswas, A., De León-Contreras, M., and Raúl Stinga, P. Harnack inequalities and Hölder estimates for master equations. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 53, 2 (2021), 2319–2348.
Brezis, H. Cabré. X. Some simple nonlinear PDE s without solutions. em Bull. UMI 1, (1998), 223-262
Brezis, H., Dupaigne, L., and Tesei. A. On a semilinear elliptic equation with inverse-square potential. Selecta Math. 11, (2005), 1-7.
Davila, J. and Dupaigne. L. Comparison principles for PDE s with a singular potential. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 133A, (2003), 61-83.
Chiarenza, F., and Serapioni, R. A remark on a Harnack inequality for degenerate parabolic equations. Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Padova 73 (1985), 179–190.
Chua, S.-K. Some remarks on extension theorems for weighted Sobolev spaces. Illinois J. Math. 38, 1 (1994), 95–126.
Di Nezza, E., Palatucci, G., and Valdinoci, E. Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces. Bull. Sci. Math. 136, 5 (2012), 521–573.
Evans, L. C. Partial differential equations, volume 19 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 2nd edn. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2010.
Fall, M. M. Semilinear elliptic equations for the fractional Laplacian with Hardy potential. Nonlinear Anal. 193 (2020), 111311, 29.
Fall, M. M., and Felli, V. Unique continuation property and local asymptotics of solutions to fractional elliptic equations. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 39, 2 (2014), 354–397.
Felli, V., Primo, A., and Siclari, G. On fractional parabolic equations with Hardy-type potentials. To appear on Communications in Contemporary Mathematics (2024).
Felli, V., and Siclari, G. Sobolev-type regularity and Pohozaev-type identities for some degenerate and singular problems. Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Rend. Lincei Mat. Appl. 33, 3 (2022), 553–574.
Ferrari, F., and Verbitsky, I. E. Radial fractional Laplace operators and Hessian inequalities. J. Differential Equations 253, 1 (2012), 244–272.
Frank, R. L., Lieb, E. H., and Seiringer, R. Hardy–Lieb–Thirring inequalities for fractional Schrödinger operators. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 21, 4 (2008), 925–950.
Fujita, H. On the blowing up of solutions of the Cauchy problem for \(u_{t}=\Delta u+u^{1+\alpha }\). J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. I 13 (1966), 109–124.
Herbst, I. W. Spectral theory of the operator \((p^{2}+m^{2})^{1/2}-Ze^{2}/r\). Comm. Math. Phys. 53, 3 (1977), 285–294.
Kilpeläinen, T. Weighted Sobolev spaces and capacity. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 19, 1 (1994), 95–113.
Krejcirik, D, and Zuazua, E. The Hardy inequality and the heat equation in twisted tubes, J. Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, 94, (2010), 277-303
Landkof, N. S. Foundations of modern potential theory, volume Band 180 of Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1972. Translated from the Russian by A. P. Doohovskoy.
Lions, J.-L., and Magenes, E. Non-homogeneous boundary value problems and applications. Vol. I. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 181. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1972. Translated from the French by P. Kenneth.
Nyström, K., and Sande, O. Extension properties and boundary estimates for a fractional heat operator. Nonlinear Anal. 140 (2016), 29–37.
Opic, B., and Kufner, A. Hardy-type inequalities, volume 219 of Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics Series. Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow, 1990.
Peral, I., Soria, F. Elliptic and Parabolic Equations Involving the Hardy-Leray Potential De Gruyter Series in Nonlinear Analysis and Applications, 38, (2021).
Stinga, P. R., and Torrea, J. L. Regularity theory and extension problem for fractional nonlocal parabolic equations and the master equation. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 49, 5 (2017), 3893–3924.
Sugitani, S. On nonexistence of global solutions for some nonlinear integral equations. Osaka Math. J. 12 (1975), 45–51.
Taliaferro, S. D. Pointwise bounds and blow-up for nonlinear fractional parabolic inequalities. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 133 (2020), 287–328.
Taliaferro, S. D. Existence of nonnegative solutions of nonlinear fractional parabolic inequalities. J. Evol. Equ. 21, 4 (2021), 5003–5035.
Terracini, S. On positive entire solutions to a class of equations with a singular coefficient and critical exponent. Adv. Differential Equations 1, (1996), 241-264.
Vazquez, J. L., and Zuazua, E. The Hardy inequality and the asymptotic behavior of the heat equation with an inverse square potential. J. Funct. Anal., 173, (2000), 103-153.
Weissler, F. B. Existence and nonexistence of global solutions for a semilinear heat equation. Israel J. Math. 38, 1-2 (1981), 29–40.
Funding
Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest to report.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Work partially supported by the MUR-PRIN-20227HX33Z“Pattern formation in nonlinear phenomena”, the Project PDI2019-110712GB-100, MINECO, Spain and “Ayuda de Excelencia al profesorado universitario”, in UAM. The first author is also partially supported by an Erasmus grant from Autonoma University of Madrid.
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
Abdellaoui, B., Siclari, G. & Primo, A. Fujita exponent for non-local parabolic equation involving the Hardy–Leray potential. J. Evol. Equ. 24, 55 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00028-024-00984-5
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00028-024-00984-5
Keywords
- Fujita exponent
- Fractional Cauchy heat equation with Hardy–Leray-type potential
- Blow-up
- Global solution