Abstract
We consider an evolution problem associated to the Kazdan–Warner equation on a closed Riemann surface \((\Sigma ,g)\)
where the prescribed function \(h\ge 0\) and \(\max _{\Sigma }h>0\). We prove the global existence and convergence under additional assumptions such as
for any maximum point \(p_0\) of the sum of \(2\ln h\) and the regular part of the Green function, where K is the Gaussian curvature of \(\Sigma \). In particular, this gives a new proof of the existence result by Yang and Zhu (Pro Am Math Soc 145:3953–3959, 2017) which generalizes existence result of Ding et al. (Asian J Math 1:230–248, 1997) to the non-negative prescribed function case.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Let \(\Sigma \) be a closed Riemann surface with a fixed conformal structure. Choose a conformal metric g in the conformal class such that the area of \(\Sigma _{g}:=\left( \Sigma ,g\right) \) is one. Let h be a non-negative but nonzero smooth function on \(\Sigma \). We consider the following Kazdan–Warner equation
Here \(\Delta _{g}\) is the Laplace–Beltrami operator. The solutions to (1.1) are the critical points of the following functional:
Many mathematicians have contributed to the study of Kazdan–Warner equation. Forty years ago, Kazdan and Warner [22] considered the solvability of the equation
where \(\rho \) is a constant and h is some smooth prescribed function. When \(\rho >0\), the equation above is equivalent to
In particular, when \(\Sigma _{g}\) is the standard sphere \(\mathbb {S}^2\), it is called the Nirenberg problem, which comes from the conformal geometry. It has been studied by Moser [28], Kazdan and Warner [22], Chen and Ding [10], Chang and Yang [7] and others.
The Kazdan–Warner equation can be also viewed as a special case of the following mean field equation:
where f is a smooth function on \(\Sigma \). The mean field Eq. (1.2) appears in various context such as the abelian Chern–Simons–Higgs models (see for example [3, 32, 33]). When \(f>0\), the equation (1.2) is equivalent to the following equation:
where \(Q\in C^\infty (\Sigma )\) is a given function such that \(\int _\Sigma Q\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}=\rho \). The existence of solutions of (1.3) has been widely studied in recent decades. Many partial existence results have been obtained for noncritical cases according to the Euler characteristic of \(\Sigma \) (see for example Brezis and Merle [2], Chen and Lin [9], Ding, Jost, Li and Wang [13], Lin [26], Malchiodi [27] and the references therein). Djadli [14] established the existence of solutions for all surfaces \(\Sigma \) when \(\rho \ne 8k\pi \) by studying the topology of sublevels to achieve a min-max scheme which already introduced by Djadli and Malchiodi in [15]. At this point we want to mention another generalization in [35], where the author considered the mean field equations on a closed Riemannian surface with the action of an isometric group.
The following evolution problem associated to (1.3) was also well studied by Castéras for noncritical cases.
where \(u_0\in C^{2+\alpha }(\Sigma )\). This flow possesses a structure that is very similar to the Calabi and Ricci-Hamilton flows. When Q is a constant equal to the scalar curvature of \(\Sigma \) with respect to the metric g, the flow (1.4) has been studied by Struwe [30]. A flow approaching to Nirenberg’s problem was studied by Struwe in [31]. The global existence and convergence of (1.4) were proved by Castéras in [4]. However, the convergence result there does not include the critical cases, i.e. \(\rho =8k\pi \) for \(k\in \mathbb {N}\). Recently, when \(\rho =8\pi \), a sufficient condition for convergence was given by Li and Zhu in [23]. This gives a new proof of the result of Ding, Jost, Li and Wang in [12] which was extended by Lin and Chen to general critical cases [8] and recently generalized by Yang and Zhu to non-negative prescribed function cases in [34, 36].
Motivated by these results, we consider the following evolution problem for (1.1) with non-negative prescribed function:
where \(u_0\in H^{2}(\Sigma )\) and h is a non-negative but nonzero smooth function on \(\Sigma \). Since the prescribed function h may be zero on some nonempty subset of \(\Sigma \), the global existence and convergence of this flow are subtle. Precisely, we can not use the lower bound of h to do a priori estimates. Therefore, Castéras’s proof of global existence for positive prescribed function does not apply to our situation. In addition, the condition (ii) of (1.6) in Castéras’s compactness result [5] actually assumes
for a sequence of time-slices \(u_n:=u(\cdot ,t_n)\). This condition was proved in Proposition 2.1 [4]. However, the proof also need the prescribed function h to be positive. Thus, our a priori estimates in the proof of global existence and blow-up analysis used in the proof of global convergence are both new.
First, we prove the global existence of the flow (1.5).
Theorem 1.1
(Global existence) For \(u_0\in H^2(\Sigma )\), there is a unique global solution \(u\in C^{\infty }\left( \Sigma \times (0,\infty )\right) \) to (1.5) with
Moreover, for every \(0<T<\infty \), there is a positive constant \(C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \) depending only on T, the upper bound of \(\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\) and \(\Sigma _{g}\),
where \(u(t):=u(\cdot ,t)\). In particular, if \(u_0\) is smooth, then u is smooth. Here the Sobolev spaces \(H^{k}(0,T;X):=W^{k,2}(0,T;X)\) and \(W^{k,p}(0,T;X)\) consists of all functions \(u\in L^p(X\times [0,T])\) such that \(\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}, \ldots c,\frac{\partial ^k}{\partial t^k}\) exists in the weak sense and belongs to \(L^p(X\times [0,T])\) and
Then it is interesting to consider the convergence of the flow. To do so, we begin with the monotonicity formula. It gives us that a sequence of positive numbers \(t_n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) with
where \(u_n:=u(t_n)\). If \(\Vert u_n\Vert _{H^2(\Sigma )}\) is uniformly bounded, then \(u_n\) subsequentially converges to a smooth solution of (1.1). Otherwise, we can get the following lower bound of the functional J along the flow (1.5).
Theorem 1.2
If the flow (1.5) develops a singularity at the infinity, then we have
where A is the regular part of the Green function G which has the following expansion in the normal coordinate system:
where \(r(x)=\mathrm {dist}_g(x,p)\).
Last, by imposing certain geometric condition, we get functions whose value under J is strictly less than \(C_0\). Consequently, when the flow starts with these functions, the previous \(u_n\) will converges in \(H^2(\Sigma )\). Moreover, it follows from the Łojasiewicz-Simon gradient inequality that the convergence of the flow is actually global in time.
Theorem 1.3
(Global convergence) There exists an initial data \(u_0\in C^{\infty }(\Sigma )\) such that u(t) converges in \(H^2(\Sigma )\) to a smooth solution of (1.1) provided that
where K is the Gaussian curvature of \(\Sigma \), \(\nabla _{g} h(p_0)=(k_1(p_0),k_2(p_0))\) in the normal coordinate system, \(p_0\) is the maximum point of the function \(q\mapsto A(q)+2\ln h(q)\).
Remark 1.4
As pointed by Ding, Li, Jost and Wang in [12, Remark 1.1], the inequality (1.7) is implied by the following one:
where \(p_0\) is the maximum point of the function \(q\mapsto A(q)+2\ln h(q)\).
Remark 1.5
For \(\rho \in (0,8\pi )\) and any initial data \(u_0\in C^{\infty }\left( \Sigma \right) \), by using a similarly argument, the
admits a unique global smooth solution which converges to a solution to
The remaining part of this paper will be organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we prove the global existence of the flow (1.5). In Sect. 3, we prove the number of the singularities is at most one. In Sect. 4, we show the lower bound of J along the flow if the singularity occurs. In the last Sect. 5, we prove the global convergence of the flow.
2 Global existence
The aim of this section is to prove the global existence of the mean field flow (1.5), i.e. Theorem 1.1.
Proof of Theorem 1.1
First, we assume \(u_0\in C^{\infty }\left( \Sigma \right) \). Since the flow is parabolic, the short time existence of (1.5) follows from the standard method (e.g. [19]). Thus, there exists \(T>0\) such that \(u\in C^{\infty }(\Sigma \times [0,T])\) is a solution of (1.5).
Along the flow (1.5), it is easy to see
and
According to (2.2) and (2.1), we get
Recall the Trudinger-Moser inequality (cf. [18, Theorem 1.7])
where c is a constant depending only on the Riemann surface \(\left( \Sigma ,g\right) \). As an immediately consequence of (2.4),
and (2.1) imply that
Together with
we have
Thus,
In order to get the global existence of solution when \(u_0\in H^1(\Sigma )\), it is necessary to derive several a priori estimates (1.6). To do this, we split three steps.
-
Step 1
\(\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\le C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \) for any \(t\in [0,T]\).
Set
$$\begin{aligned} A(t)=\left\{ x\in \Sigma : e^{u(x,t)}\ge \dfrac{1}{2}\int _{\Sigma }e^{u_0}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}.\right\} \end{aligned}$$According to (2.1) and (2.7), we have
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{\Sigma }e^{u_0}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}=&\int _{\Sigma }e^{u(t)}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}=\int _{\Sigma {\setminus } A(t)}e^{u(t)}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}+\int _{A(t)}e^{u(t)}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\ \le&\dfrac{1}{2}\int _{\Sigma }e^{u_0}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}+C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \left|A(t)\right|_{g}^{1/2}, \end{aligned}$$where \(\left|A(t)\right|_{g}\) stands for the area of A(t). This gives
$$\begin{aligned} \left|A(t)\right|_{g}\ge C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) ^{-1}>0,\quad \left|\int _{A(t)}u(t) \mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right|\le C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \end{aligned}$$and
$$\begin{aligned} \left|\bar{u}(t)\right|:=&\left|\int _{\Sigma }u(t) \mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right|\\ \le&\left|\int _{\Sigma {\setminus } A(t)}u(t) \mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right|+\left|\int _{A(t)}u(t) \mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right|\\ \le&\left|\Sigma {\setminus } A(t)\right|^{1/2}\left( \int _{\Sigma {\setminus } A(t)}u(t)^2 \mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right) ^{1/2}+C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \\ \le&\sqrt{1-C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) ^{-1}}\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }+C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) . \end{aligned}$$Then, by Poincaré inequality, we get
$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\le&c\left\Vert \nabla _{g}u(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }+\left|\bar{u}(t)\right|\\ \le&c\left\Vert \nabla _{g}u(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }+\sqrt{1-C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) ^{-1}}\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\\&\quad +C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) , \end{aligned}$$which implies the following \(L^2\)-estimate
$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\le C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \left( 1+\left\Vert \nabla _{g}u(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) . \end{aligned}$$(2.8)Now, applying Young’s inequality to (2.3), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} C\ge \int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{g}u(t)\right|_{g}^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}-\varepsilon \int _{\Sigma }u(t)^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}-C_{\varepsilon }. \end{aligned}$$Choosing small \(\varepsilon \), together with (2.8), we can conclude that
$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\le C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) . \end{aligned}$$(2.9) -
Step 2
\(\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }+\left( \int _0^T\left\Vert \frac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t\right) ^{1/2}\le C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \) for any \(t\in [0,T]\).
Set \(w(t)=e^{\frac{u(t)}{2}}\frac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\). Then
$$\begin{aligned}&\dfrac{1}{2}\dfrac{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}}{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t}\int _{\Sigma }\left|\Delta _{g}u(t)\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\&\quad =\int _{\Sigma }\Delta _{g}u(t)\Delta _{g}\dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\&\quad =\int _{\Sigma }\left( e^{\frac{u(t)}{2}}w(t)-8\pi \left( \dfrac{he^{u(t)}}{\int _{\Sigma }he^{u(t)\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}}-1\right) \right) \Delta _{g}\left( e^{-\frac{u(t)}{2}}w(t)\right) \mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\&\quad =-\int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{g}w(t)\right|_{g}^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}+\dfrac{1}{4}\int _{\Sigma }w(t)^2\left|\nabla _{g}u(t)\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\&\qquad +\dfrac{8\pi }{\int _{\Sigma }he^{u(t)}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}\int _{\Sigma }\left\langle e^{\frac{u(t)}{2}}\left( \nabla _{g}h+h\nabla _{g}u(t)\right) ,\nabla _{g}w(t)-\dfrac{1}{2}w(t)\nabla _{g}u(t)\right\rangle _{g}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}. \end{aligned}$$According to (2.6) and (2.9), we know that
$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }+\dfrac{1}{\int _{\Sigma }he^{u(t)}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}\le C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) . \end{aligned}$$Therefore, Young’s inequality implies that
$$\begin{aligned}&\dfrac{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}}{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t}\int _{\Sigma }\left|\Delta _{g}u(t)\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\le -\int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{g}w(t)\right|^2_{g}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\&\quad +\int _{\Sigma }w(t)^2\left|\nabla _{g}u(t)\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}+C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \left( 1+\left\Vert \nabla _{g}u(t)\right\Vert _{L^4\left( \Sigma \right) }^2\right) . \end{aligned}$$Since for all \(f\in H^1\left( \Sigma \right) \), we have the following interpolation inequality
$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert f\right\Vert ^2_{L^4\left( \Sigma \right) }\le c\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }. \end{aligned}$$(2.10)We estimate
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{\Sigma }w(t)^2\left|\nabla _{g}u(t)\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\le&c\left\Vert w(t)\right\Vert ^2_{L^4\left( \Sigma \right) }\left\Vert \nabla _{g}u(t)\right\Vert _{L^4\left( \Sigma \right) }^2\\ \le&c\left\Vert w(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\left\Vert w(t)\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\\ \le&C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \left\Vert w(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\left\Vert w(t)\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) } \end{aligned}$$and
$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert \nabla _{g}u(t)\right\Vert _{L^4\left( \Sigma \right) }^2\le c\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\le C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }. \end{aligned}$$Hence
$$\begin{aligned}&\dfrac{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}}{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t}\int _{\Sigma }\left|\Delta _{g}u(t)\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\&\quad \le -\dfrac{1}{2}\int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{g}w(t)\right|_{g}^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}+\dfrac{1}{2}\int _{\Sigma }w(t)^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\&\quad +C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \left\Vert w(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }^2\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }^2\\&\qquad +C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \left( 1+\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \\&\quad \le -\dfrac{1}{4}\int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{g}w(t)\right|_{g}^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}+C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \\&\qquad \times \left( 1+\left\Vert w(t)\right\Vert ^2_{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \left( 1+\left\Vert \Delta _{g}u(t)\right\Vert ^2_{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) . \end{aligned}$$Thus
$$\begin{aligned}&\dfrac{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}}{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t}\ln \left( 1+\left\Vert \Delta _{g}u(t)\right\Vert ^2_{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) } +\int _0^t\int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{g}w(\tau )\right|_{g}^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\tau \right) \\&\quad \le C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \left( 1+\left\Vert w(t)\right\Vert ^2_{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) . \end{aligned}$$Together with \(u_0\in H^2(\Sigma )\), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}&\ln \left( 1+\left\Vert \Delta _{g}u(t)\right\Vert ^2_{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }+\int _0^T\int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{g}w(\tau )\right|_{g}^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\tau \right) \\&\quad \le C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) +C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \int _0^T\left( 1+\left\Vert w(t)\right\Vert ^2_{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \mathop {}\mathrm {d}t. \end{aligned}$$By (2.2), we know that
$$\begin{aligned} \int _0^T\left\Vert w(t)\right\Vert ^2_{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t=\int _{0}^T\int _{\Sigma }e^{u(t)}\left|\dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t=J\left( u(0)-J\left( u(T)\right) \right) \le C. \end{aligned}$$Consequently, by using Sobolev embedding, we conclude
$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }+\left( \int _0^T\left\Vert \dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t\right) ^{1/2}\le C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) . \end{aligned}$$ -
Step 3
\(\left( \int _{0}^T\left\Vert \frac{\partial ^2u}{\partial t^2}\right\Vert _{H^{-1}\left( \Sigma \right) }^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t\right) ^{1/2}\le C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \) for any \(t\in [0,T]\).
Differential the Eq. (1.5) with respect to t, we get
$$\begin{aligned} e^u\ddot{u}+e^u\dot{u}^2=\Delta \dot{u}+8\pi \left( \frac{he^u\dot{u}}{\int _{\Sigma }he^u\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}-\frac{he^u\int _{\Sigma }he^u\dot{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}{\left( \int _{\Sigma }he^u\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right) ^2}\right) \end{aligned}$$where \(\ddot{u}=\frac{\partial ^2u}{\partial t^2}\) and \(\dot{u}=\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}\). Then for all \(\psi \in H^1(\Sigma )\) with \(\Vert \psi \Vert _{H^1(\Sigma )}\le 1\), we have
$$\begin{aligned} \int _\Sigma \ddot{u}\psi \mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g} =&\int _\Sigma e^{-u}\left( \Delta \dot{u}+8\pi \left( \frac{he^u\dot{u}}{\int _{\Sigma }he^u\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}-\frac{he^u\int _{\Sigma }he^u\dot{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}{\left( \int _{\Sigma }he^u\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right) ^2}\right) \right) \psi \mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\&\quad -\int _\Sigma |\dot{u}|^2\psi \mu _{g}\\ =&-\int _{\Sigma }\left\langle \nabla _{g}\dot{u},-\nabla _{g} u\psi +\nabla _{g}\psi \right\rangle _{g}e^{-u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\&+\int _\Sigma 8\pi \left( \dfrac{h\dot{u}}{\int _{\Sigma }he^u\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}-\dfrac{h\int _{\Sigma }he^u\dot{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}{\left( \int _{\Sigma }he^u\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right) ^2}\right) \psi \mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}-\int _\Sigma |\dot{u}|^2\psi \mu _{g}\\ \le&C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \Vert \dot{u}\Vert _{H^1(\Sigma )}. \end{aligned}$$Thus \(\left\Vert \ddot{u}(t)\right\Vert _{H^{-1}\left( \Sigma \right) }\le C\left( T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \left\Vert \dot{u(t)}\right\Vert _{H^1(\Sigma )}\) which implies the desired estimate.
Since we have the following embedding (cf. [16, page 304, Theorem 2] and [16, page 305, Theorem 3])
we get
By using the parabolic Sobolev embedding theorems (cf. [6, pages 368–369]) together with the interpolation inequality (2.10), we get
Here \(W^{2,1}_p\left( \Sigma \times [0,T]\right) =L^p\left( 0;T;W^{2,p}\left( \Sigma \right) \right) \cap W^{1,p}\left( 0,T; L^p\left( \Sigma \right) \right) \) stands for the usual parabolic Sobolev space.
Then the standard regularity theory for parabolic equation gives
for all integer number \(k\ge 0\). In particular, we can extend this flow to infinity and u is smooth in \(\Sigma \times (0,\infty )\).
Now assume \(u_0\in H^2\left( \Sigma \right) \) and choose a sequence of smooth functions \(u_{0,\varepsilon }\) on \(\Sigma \) such that \(u_{0,\varepsilon }\) converges to \(u_0\) in \(H^2\left( \Sigma \right) \) as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\). Let \(u_{\varepsilon }\) be the unique smooth solution to
The a prior estimates (1.6) gives the following estimates
Thus we obtain a solution \(u\in C^{\infty }\left( \Sigma \times (0,\infty )\right) \) to (1.5) with
and the desired a priori estimates (1.6).
To prove the uniqueness of the solution, we assume that u and v are two solutions to (1.5) with initial data \(u_0\) and \(v_0\) respectively. Denote \(w=u-v\). By direct computations, we have
where
One can check that there is a constant C depends only on \(T, \left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\) and \(\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\) such that for all \(0\le t\le T\)
Then we obtain
Gronwall’s inequality implies
The uniqueness then follows from the above inequality and we finish the proof. \(\square \)
Remark 2.1
One check that the difference of two solutions u and v satisfies
The proof is standard. Roughly speaking, (2.11) implies
Integration by parts,
Applying the interpolation inequality (2.10) and the \(L^2\)-estimate (2.12) of the w, we have
where the constant C depends only on \(T,\left\Vert u_0\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\) and \(\left\Vert v_0\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\).
3 Blowup analysis
In this section, we prove an estimate of a Dirac measure at the blowup points. Consequently, we show the fact that the flow develops at most one blowup point when the time goes to infinity.
According to (2.2) and (2.5), we know that
There is a sequence of positive numbers \(\left\{ t_n\right\} \) such that \(n\le t_n\le n+1\) and
Set
then
and \(u_n,V_n,\rho ,f_n\) are smooth functions on \(\Sigma \) satisfying
One can check that
We say that a sequence \(\left\{ u_n\right\} \) which satisfies (3.2) and (3.3) is a blowup sequence if \(\limsup \limits _{n\rightarrow \infty }\max \limits _{\Sigma }u_n=+\infty \).
Lemma 3.1
If \(\left\{ u_n\right\} \) is not a blowup sequence, then \(\left\{ u_n\right\} \) is bounded in \(H^{2}\left( \Sigma \right) \).
Proof
By definition, \(\left\{ u_n^{+}\right\} \) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }\left( \Sigma \right) \). By the standard elliptic estimates and the normalization \(\int _{\Sigma }\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}=1\), we conclude that \(\left\{ u_n-\bar{u}_n\right\} \) is bounded in \(H^{2}\left( \Sigma \right) \), where \(\bar{u}_n:=\bar{u}(t_n)=\int _{\Sigma }u(t_n)\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\). By Jensen’s inequality, according to (3.4), we have \(\bar{u}_n\le C\). It suffices to prove that \(\bar{u}_n\ge -C\). Otherwise, there is a subsequence \(\left\{ u_{n_k}\right\} \) such that \(\lim _{n_k\rightarrow \infty }\bar{u}_{n_k}=-\infty \). Notice that
We may assume \(u_{n_k}-\bar{u}_{n_k}\) converges weakly to \(\hat{u}\) in \(H^2\left( \Sigma \right) \) and strongly in \(L^1\left( \Sigma \right) \). Then \(\left\{ e^{p\left( u_{n_k}-\bar{u}_{n_k}\right) }\right\} \) converges strongly to \(e^{p\hat{u}}\) in \(L^1\left( \Sigma \right) \) for each \(p>0\). Thus \(\hat{u}\) is a weak solution to
It is well know that \(\hat{u}\in C^{\infty }\left( \Sigma \right) \) and \(\rho =0\) which is a contradiction. Therefore, \(\left\{ u_n\right\} \) is bounded in \(H^2\left( \Sigma \right) \). \(\square \)
From now on, we assume \(\left\{ u_n\right\} \) is a blowup sequence. Since \(\left\{ V_n e^{u_n}\right\} \) is bounded in \(L^1\left( \Sigma \right) \), we may assume \(\left\{ V_n e^{u_{n}}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right\} \) converges to a nonzero Radon measure \(\mu \) on \(\Sigma \) in the sense of measures. By using the method of potential estimates (cf. [20, Lemma 7.12]), we get
We may assume \(\left\{ u_n-\bar{u}_n\right\} \) converges weakly to G in \(W^{1,p}\left( \Sigma \right) \) and strongly in \(L^p\left( \Sigma \right) \) for every \(1<p<2\). Hence G satisfies
in the sense of distribution. Define the singular set S of the sequence \(\left\{ u_n\right\} \) as follows
It is easy to check that S is a finite nonempty subset of \(\Sigma \).
Recall Brezis-Merle’s estimate ([2, Theorem 1]).
Lemma 3.2
(cf. [12]) Let \(\Omega \subset \Sigma \) be a smooth domain. Assume u is a solution to
where \(f\in L^1\left( \Omega \right) \). For every \(0<\delta <4\pi \), there is a constant C depending only on \(\delta \) and \(\Omega \) such that
As a consequence, we have the following Lemma (cf. [12, Lemma 2.8]).
Lemma 3.3
If \(x\notin S\), then there is a geodesic ball \(B^{g}_r(x)\subset \Sigma {\setminus } S\) and a positive constant \(C=C_x\) such that
Proof
There exist \(\delta =\delta _x\in \left( 0,2\pi \right) , r=r_x\in \left( 0,\mathrm {inj}\left( \Sigma \right) /4\right) , N=N_x\in \mathbb {N}\) such that
Solve
It is well know that \(\left\{ y_n\right\} \) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }\left( B^{g}_{4r}(x)\right) \). Solve
According to Lemma 3.2, we have
In particular, \(\left\{ w_n\right\} \) is bounded in \(L^1\left( B^{g}_{4r}(x)\right) \). Since \(h_n:=u_n-\bar{u}_n-y_n-w_n\) is harmonic in \(B^{g}_{4r}(x)\), we have
Thus
Applying the standard elliptic estimates for (3.5), we get
Hence
\(\square \)
Theorem 3.4
If \(\left\{ u_n\right\} \) is a blowup sequence, then S is nonempty and
Moreover \(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\bar{u}_n=-\infty \). Thus \(\left\{ u_n\right\} \) converges to \(-\infty \) uniformly on compact subsets of \(\Sigma {\setminus } S\) and \(\mu =\sum _{x\in S}\mu \left( \left\{ x\right\} \right) \delta _{x}\) is a Dirac measure.
Proof
According to Lemma 3.3, we know that \(\left\{ u_n-\bar{u}_n\right\} \) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }_{loc}\left( \Sigma {\setminus } S\right) \).
If \(S=\emptyset \), then \(\left\{ u_n-\bar{u}_n\right\} \) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }\left( \Sigma \right) \) which implies that \(\left\{ u_n^{+}\right\} \) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }\left( \Sigma \right) \) which is a contradiction.
We claim that \(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\bar{u}_n=-\infty \). Otherwise, there is a subsequence of \(\left\{ u_n\right\} \) which also denoted by \(\left\{ u_n\right\} \) such that
For \(x\in S\), choose \(r>0\) such that \(B^{g}_{2r}(x)\cap S=\left\{ x\right\} \). According to Lemma 3.3, \(\left\{ u_n\right\} \) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }_{loc}\left( B^{g}_{2r}(x){\setminus }\left\{ x\right\} \right) \). In particular, \(M:=\sup _{n}\left\Vert u_n\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( \partial B^{g}_{r}\left( x\right) \right) }<\infty \). Solve
By potential estimates, we know that \(z_n\) is bounded in \(W^{1,p}\left( B^{g}_{r}(x)\right) \) for all \(1<p<2\). Thus, up to a subsequence, \(z_n\) converges weakly to \(z\in W^{1,p}\left( B^{g}_{r}(x)\right) \) for all \(1<p<2\) and strongly in \(L^q\left( B^{g}_{r}(x)\right) \) for all \(1<q<\infty \). Then z is a weak solution to
Thus
Since \(\mu \left( \left\{ x\right\} \right) \ge 4\pi \), we get
On the other hand, the maximum principle implies that \(z_n\le u_n\). By Fatou’s Lemma,
which is a contradiction.
Hence \(\left\{ u_n\right\} \) converges to \(-\infty \) uniformly on compact subsets of \(\Sigma {\setminus } S\). Thus for every domain \(\Omega \subset \Sigma \)
In other words, \(\mu =\sum _{x\in S}\mu \left( \left\{ x\right\} \right) \delta _{x}\) is a Dirac measure.
According to Lemma 3.3, we obtain
For \(x_0\in S\), choose a geodesic ball \(B_{2r}^{g}\left( x_0\right) \) such that \(B_{2r}^{g}\left( x_0\right) \cap S=\left\{ x_0\right\} \). Choose \(x_n\in \overline{B_{r}^{g}\left( x_0\right) }\) such that
-
Fact 1.
\(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\lambda _n=\infty \).
Otherwise, up to a subsequence, \(\left\{ u_n^{+}\right\} \) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }\left( B^{g}_r\left( x_0\right) \right) \). Thus \(\left\{ e^{u_n}\right\} \) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }\left( B^{g}_r\left( x_0\right) \right) \) which is a contradiction.
-
Fact 2.
\(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }x_n=x_0\).
Otherwise, up to a subsequence, \(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }x_n=\tilde{x}\in \overline{B_{r}\left( x_0\right) }{\setminus }\left\{ x_0\right\} \). Thus \(\tilde{x}\) is not a singular point which is impossible according Lemma 3.3 and the above claim.
Consequently,
\(\square \)
Now we want to prove that \(\mu \left( \left\{ x_0\right\} \right) \ge 8\pi \). We assume additionally that \(V_n\) converges to V in \(C^0\left( \Sigma \right) \).
Lemma 3.5
For each \(x_0\in S\), we have \(V(x_0)>0\) and \(\mu \left( \left\{ x_0\right\} \right) \ge 8\pi \).
Proof
The proof is similar to [25, Lemma 1]. Assume \(B^{g}_{2r}(x_0)\cap S=\left\{ x_0\right\} \). Choose \(x_n\in B^{g}_{2r}(x_0)\) such that
It is easy to check that
Now choose a conformal coordinate \(\left\{ x\right\} \) centered at \(x_0\). We have \(g=e^{\phi (x)}\left|\mathop {}\mathrm {d}x\right|^2\) and
Consider
then for \(\left|x\right|<e^{\lambda _n/2}\tilde{r}\),
We have \(\tilde{u}_n\le 0, \tilde{u}_n(0)=0\) and
Thus up to a subsequence, \(\left\{ \tilde{u}_n\right\} \) converges weakly to \(\tilde{u}_{\infty }\) in \(H^{2}_{loc}\left( \mathbb {R}^2\right) \) and strongly in \(H^{1}_{loc}\left( \mathbb {R}^2\right) \). In particular, \(\tilde{u}_{\infty }\) is a weak solution to
By a classification theorem of Chen-Li [11], we know that
In particular \(V(x_0)>0\). By Fatou’s Lemma, we have
Thus
In our initial model (3.1), we must have \(\mu \left( \left\{ x_0\right\} \right) =8\pi \) and \(\#S=1\). Moreover,
and \(h(x_0)>0\).
4 Lower bound for the functional
In this section, we give a lower bound for J(u(t)) along the flow, i.e. we give the proof of Theorem 1.2.
Proof of Theorem 1.2
Suppose our flow develops a singularity as time goes to infinity, we will analyse the asymptotic behavior of the flow near and away from the blow-up point and derive a lower bound of J(u). From the previous compactness argument, there is only one blow-up point when \(\rho =8\pi \), denoted by \(x_0\). Then there is a sequence of points \(\{x_n\}\) such that
where \(t_n\rightarrow \infty \) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). In an isothermal coordinate system \(\{x\}\) around \(x_0\), we still denote \(u_n\) and \(x_n\) in this coordinate by \(u_n\) and \(x_n\), respectively. Set \(r_n=e^{-\lambda _n/2}\) and
Then we have \(\tilde{u}_n\) weakly converges to \(\tilde{u}_{\infty }\) satisfying
and
Here and in the following, we use \(o_{R}(1),o_{n}(1), o_{\delta }(1)\) to denote those functions which converges to zero as \(R\rightarrow +\infty , n\rightarrow \infty , \delta \rightarrow 0\) respectively.
Since \(u_n-\bar{u}_n\) converges to G weakly in \(W^{1,p}(\Sigma )\) for \(1<p<2\) and strongly in \(H^2_{loc}(\Sigma {\setminus }\{x_0\})\) (see Proposition 3.5 in [23]) and G satisfies
we get
where \(\nu \) is the normal vector field on \(\partial B^g_\delta (x_0)\) pointing to the complement of \(B^g_\delta (x_0)\).
In normal coordinate, G has the following expansion
Then
Define
Then for \(r_nR\le r<s\le \delta \), we have (cf. [24, equation (3.4)])
Notice that
Let \(w_n\) be the harmonic functions in the neck domains \(B^g_\delta (x_n){\setminus } B^g_{r_nR}(x_n)\) such that
Then we have
Set \(\tau _n:=u_n^*(\delta )-u_n^*(r_nR)-\bar{u}_n-2\ln r_n\). It follows from (4.3) that
Then we get
for large n.
Thus, (4.1), (4.2) and (4.4) give us
Since \(J(u_n)\le J(u_0)\), we have \(\lim _{n\rightarrow \infty }\bar{u}_n\rightarrow 2\ln r_n\). Hence,
By the monotonicity formula (2.2), we conclude that
\(\square \)
5 Global convergence
Proof of Theorem 1.3
Notice that there is a sequence of positive numbers \(\left\{ t_n\right\} \) such that \(n\le t_n\le n+1\) and
By the lower bound of J along the flow stated in Theorem 1.2, the existence of mean field Eq. (1.1) is reduced to construct a function whose value under J is strictly less than \(C_0\). In fact, such kind of functions were constructed in [12] provided that
where K(x) is the Gaussian curvature of \(\Sigma \), \(\nabla h(p_0)=(k_1(p_0),k_2(p_0))\) in the normal coordinate system, \(p_0\) is the maximum point of \(A(q)+2\ln h(q)\) and \(b_1(p_0)\), \(b_2(p_0)\) are the constants in the following expression of Green function G:
where \(r(x)=\mathrm {dist}_g(x,p_0)\). The sequence \(\left\{ u_n\right\} \) can not blowup by our assumption. By Lemma 3.1, \(\left\{ u_n\right\} \) is bounded in \(H^2(\Sigma )\) and there is a function \(u_\infty \in H^2(\Sigma )\) and a subsequence \(\left\{ u_{n_k}\right\} \) of \(\left\{ u_{n}\right\} \) such that
and
for \(\alpha \in (0,1)\) as \(n_k\rightarrow \infty \). It is easy to see that \(u_\infty \) is a smooth solution to
To obtain the strong convergence for \(\left\{ u_{n_k}\right\} \), please notice that
as \(n_k\rightarrow +\infty \).
We use Łojasiewicz-Simon gradient inequality to get the global convergence of the flow. When \(h>0\), one can refer to [4] for non-critical cases, i.e. \(\rho \ne 8k\pi \) and [23] for \(\rho =8\pi \). In both papers, the authors just provided the paper by Simon [29] and no more details were given. In this section, we give a detailed proof and some references. We divide the proof of the global convergence to several steps.
-
Step 1
\(\left\Vert u(t)^+\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( \Sigma \right) }\le C.\)
Since
$$\begin{aligned} \dfrac{\partial u}{\partial t}\le e^{-u}\Delta _{g}u+C. \end{aligned}$$Applying the maximum principle, we have \(\frac{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}}{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t}\left( \max _{\Sigma }u(t)-Ct\right) \le 0\). By using the fact \(\left\{ u_{n}\right\} \) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }\left( \Sigma \right) \) and \(n\le t_n\le n+1\), we conclude that \(u(t)^{+}\) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }\left( \Sigma \right) \).
-
Step 2
\(\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\le C\).
Denote
$$\begin{aligned} A(t)=\left\{ x\in \Sigma : e^{u(t)}\ge \dfrac{1}{2}\int _{\Sigma }e^{u_0}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right\} . \end{aligned}$$Then
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{A(t)}u(t)\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\ge \ln \left( \dfrac{1}{2}\int _{\Sigma }e^{u_0}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right) \left|A(t)\right|_{g}\ge -C, \end{aligned}$$and
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{A(t)}u(t)\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\le \int _{A(t)}e^{u(t)}\le \int _{\Sigma }e^{u(t)}=\int _{\Sigma }e^{u_0}\le C. \end{aligned}$$Thus
$$\begin{aligned} \left|\int _{A(t)}u(t)\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right|\le C. \end{aligned}$$Notice that
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{\Sigma }e^{u_0}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}=&\int _{\Sigma }e^{u(t)}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\ =&\int _{\Sigma {\setminus } A(t)}e^{u(t)}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}+\int _{A(t)}e^{u(t)}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\ \le&\dfrac{1}{2}\int _{\Sigma }e^{u_0}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}+C\left|A(t)\right|_{g}\\ =&\dfrac{1}{2}\int _{\Sigma }e^{u(t)}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}+C\left|A(t)\right|_{g}, \end{aligned}$$we get
$$\begin{aligned} \left|A(t)\right|_{g}\ge C^{-1}. \end{aligned}$$By Poincaré inequality,
$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\le&C\left\Vert \nabla _{g}u(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }+\left|\bar{u}(t)\right|\\ \le&C\left\Vert \nabla _{g}u(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }+\left|\int _{A(t)}u(t)\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right|+\left|\int _{\Sigma {\setminus } A(t)}u(t)\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right|\\ \le&C\left\Vert \nabla _{g}u(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }+C+\sqrt{\left|\Sigma {\setminus } A(t)\right|_{g}}\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }. \end{aligned}$$Hence
$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\le&C\left\Vert \nabla _{g}u(t)\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }+C. \end{aligned}$$Notice that
$$\begin{aligned} \dfrac{1}{2}\int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{g}u(t)\right|_{g}^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}= J(u(t))-8\pi \bar{u}(t)+8\pi \ln \int _{\Sigma }he^{u(t)}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\le C+C\bar{u}(t). \end{aligned}$$By Young’s inequality, we conclude that
$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\le C. \end{aligned}$$ -
Step 3
\(\lim _{t\rightarrow \infty }\int _{\Sigma }e^{u(t)}\left|\frac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}=0\).
We will follow the argument of Brendle [1] (see also [4]). For every \(\varepsilon >0\), there exist \(k_0\) such that for all \(k\ge k_0\)
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{\Sigma }e^{u\left( t_{n_k}\right) }\left|\dfrac{\partial u\left( t_{n_k}\right) }{\partial t}\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}<\varepsilon . \end{aligned}$$Assume for all \(k\ge k_0\),
$$\begin{aligned} m_k=\inf \left\{ t>t_{n_{k}}: \int _{\Sigma }e^{u(t)}\left|\dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\ge 2\varepsilon \right\} <\infty . \end{aligned}$$For \(t_{n_k}\le t\le m_k\), we have
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{\Sigma }e^{u(t)}\left|\dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\le 2\varepsilon . \end{aligned}$$Since u(t) is bounded in \(H^1\left( \Sigma \right) \) and \(u(t)^{+}\) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }\left( \Sigma \right) \), we conclude that
$$\begin{aligned} \left|\Delta u(t)\right|\le C\varepsilon +C,\quad \forall t_{n_k}\le t\le t_{m_k}. \end{aligned}$$Thus
$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( \Sigma \right) }\le C\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\le C_{\varepsilon },\quad \forall t_{n_k}\le t\le m_k. \end{aligned}$$Set
$$\begin{aligned} y(t)=\int _{\Sigma }e^{u(t)}\left|\dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}. \end{aligned}$$Denote by \(\dot{u} =\frac{\partial u}{\partial t},\ \ddot{u}=\frac{\partial ^2u}{\partial t^2}\). Notice that
$$\begin{aligned} \dot{u}=e^{-u}\left( \Delta _{g}u-8\pi \right) +\dfrac{8\pi h}{\int _{\Sigma }he^{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}. \end{aligned}$$We get
$$\begin{aligned} \ddot{u}=&e^{-u}\Delta _{g}\dot{u}-\dot{u}e^{-u}\left( \Delta _{g}u-8\pi \right) -\dfrac{8\pi h\int _{\Sigma }he^{u}\dot{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}{\left( \int _{\Sigma }he^{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right) ^2}\\ =&e^{-u}\Delta _{g}\dot{u}-\dot{u}^2+\dfrac{8\pi h\dot{u}}{\int _{\Sigma }he^{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}-\dfrac{8\pi h\int _{\Sigma }he^{u}\dot{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}{\left( \int _{\Sigma }he^{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right) ^2}. \end{aligned}$$Hence
$$\begin{aligned} \dot{y}=&\int _{\Sigma }\left( e^{u}\dot{u}^3+2e^{u}\dot{u}\ddot{u}\right) \mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\ =&-2\int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{g}\dot{u}\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}-\int _{\Sigma }e^{u}\dot{u}^3\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}+16\pi \left[ \dfrac{\int _{\Sigma } he^{u}\dot{u}^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}{\int _{\Sigma }he^{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}-\left( \dfrac{\int _{\Sigma }he^{u}\dot{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}{\int _{\Sigma }he^{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}\right) ^2\right] \\ \le&-2\int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{g}\dot{u}\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}-\int _{\Sigma }e^{u}\dot{u}^3\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}+Cy. \end{aligned}$$We estimate the second term in the RHS of the above inequality as follows: for all \(t_{n_k}\le t\le m_k\),
$$\begin{aligned} -\int _{\Sigma }e^{u}\dot{u}^3\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\le&C\int _{\Sigma }\left|\dot{u}\right|^3\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\ \le&C\left\Vert \dot{u}\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }^2\left\Vert \dot{u}\right\Vert _{H^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\\ \le&C_{\varepsilon }y\left( y+\int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{g}\dot{u}\right|^2_{g}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right) ^{1/2}. \end{aligned}$$Since \(\int _{\Sigma }e^{u}\dot{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}=0\), applying the Poincaré inequality to obtain
$$\begin{aligned}&\int _{\Sigma }e^{u}\dot{u}^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\le \dfrac{1}{\lambda _{1,e^{u}g}}\int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{e^{u}g}\dot{u}\right|^2_{e^{u}g}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{e^{u}g}=\dfrac{1}{\lambda _{1,e^{u}g}}\int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{g}\dot{u}\right|^2_{g}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\\&\quad \le C\int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{g}\dot{u}\right|^2_{g}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}. \end{aligned}$$Thus for all \(t_{n_k}\le t\le m_k\),
$$\begin{aligned} -\int _{\Sigma }e^{u}\dot{u}^3\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\le C_{\varepsilon }y^{1/2}\left( \int _{\Sigma }\left|\nabla _{g}\dot{u}\right|^2_{g}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right) ^{1/2}, \end{aligned}$$which implies
$$\begin{aligned} \dot{y}\le C_{\varepsilon }y. \end{aligned}$$Hence
$$\begin{aligned} y\left( t_{m_k}\right) \le y\left( t_{n_k}\right) +C_{\varepsilon }\int _{t_{n_k}}^{\infty }y(t)\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t. \end{aligned}$$Thus
$$\begin{aligned} \varepsilon \le C_{\varepsilon }\int _{t_{n_k}}^{\infty }y(t)\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t\rightarrow 0,\quad \text {as}\quad t_{n_k}\rightarrow \infty \end{aligned}$$which is a contradiction. Therefore
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{t\rightarrow \infty }\int _{\Sigma }e^{u(t)}\left|\dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right|^2\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}=0. \end{aligned}$$ -
Step 4
\( \left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\le C\) which implies that \(\left\Vert u(t)\right\Vert _{C^{\gamma }\left( \Sigma \right) }\le C_{\gamma }\) for every \(0<\gamma <1\).
This is a direct consequence of the standard elliptic estimates and Sobolev inequalities.
-
Step 5
\(\lim _{t\rightarrow \infty }\left\Vert u(t)-u_\infty \right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }=0\) implies \(\lim _{t\rightarrow \infty }\left\Vert u(t)-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }=0\).
Since
$$\begin{aligned} \dfrac{\partial e^{u}}{\partial t}=\Delta _{g}\left( u-u_{\infty }\right) +8\pi \left( \dfrac{he^{u}}{\int _{\Sigma }he^{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}-\dfrac{he^{u_{\infty }}}{\int _{\Sigma }he^{u_{\infty }}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}\right) , \end{aligned}$$we get
$$\begin{aligned} \left|\Delta _{g}\left( u(t)-u_{\infty }\right) \right|\le C\left( \left|\dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right|+\left|u(t)-u_{\infty }\right|+\left\Vert u(t)-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{L^1\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) \end{aligned}$$which implies
$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert u(t)-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\le C\left( \left\Vert \dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }+\left\Vert u(t)-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\right) . \end{aligned}$$The claim follows by letting \(t\rightarrow +\infty \).
-
Step 6
There are positive constants \(\sigma \) and \(\theta \in (1/2,1)\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} \forall u\in H^2\left( \Sigma \right) ,\ \left\Vert u-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }<\sigma \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \left|J(u)-J(u_{\infty })\right|^{\theta }\le \left\Vert \mathcal {M}(u)\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \Sigma \right) }. \end{aligned}$$Notice that the functional \(J:H^1\left( \Sigma \right) \longrightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is analytic and the gradient map \(\mathcal {M}:H^1\left( \Sigma \right) \longrightarrow H^{-1}\left( \Sigma \right) \) is given by
$$\begin{aligned} u\mapsto \mathcal {M}(u)=-\Delta _{g}u-8\pi \left( \dfrac{he^u}{\int _{\Sigma }he^{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}-1\right) . \end{aligned}$$The Jacobi operator \(\mathcal {L}:H^1\left( \Sigma \right) \longrightarrow H^{-1}\left( \Sigma \right) \) of J at a critical point \(u\in C^{\infty }\left( \Sigma \right) \) of J is given by
$$\begin{aligned} \xi \mapsto \mathcal {L}(\xi )=-\Delta _{g}\xi -8\pi \left( \dfrac{he^{u}\xi }{\int _{\Sigma }he^{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}-\dfrac{he^{u}\int _{\Sigma }he^{u}\xi \mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}}{\left( \int _{\Sigma }he^{u}\mathop {}\mathrm {d}\mu _{g}\right) ^2}\right) \end{aligned}$$is a Fredohom operator with index zero. Since \(\mathcal {M}\left( H^2\left( \Sigma \right) \right) \subset L^2\left( \Sigma \right) \), applying the Łojasiewicz-Simon gradient inequality (cf. [21, Proposition 1.3] or [17, Theorem 2]), there are positive constants \(\tilde{\sigma }\) and \(\theta \in (1/2,1)\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} \forall u\in H^2\left( \Sigma \right) ,\ \left\Vert u-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{H^2\left( \Sigma \right) }<\tilde{\sigma }\quad \Longrightarrow \quad \left|J(u)-J(u_{\infty })\right|^{\theta }\le \left\Vert \mathcal {M}(u)\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( \Sigma \right) }. \end{aligned}$$Hence we obtain this claim by choosing \(\sigma \) small.
-
Step 7
\(\lim _{t\rightarrow \infty }\left\Vert u(t)-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }=0\) which gives the global convergence.
We will follow the approach of Jendoubi [21]. For every \(0<\varepsilon<<\sigma \), there exist \(k_1\) such that for all \(k\ge k_1\),
$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert u\left( t_{k}\right) -u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }<\varepsilon . \end{aligned}$$Assume for all \(k\ge k_1\),
$$\begin{aligned} s_k=\inf \left\{ t>t_{n_k}: \left\Vert u(t)-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\ge \sigma \right\} <\infty . \end{aligned}$$Then for all \(n_k\le t<s_k\),
$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert u(t)-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }<\sigma =\left\Vert u(s_k)-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }. \end{aligned}$$Without loss of generality, assume \(J(u(t))>J(u_{\infty })\) for all \(t>0\). For \(t_{n_k}\le t<s_k\), we have
$$\begin{aligned} -\dfrac{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}}{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t}\left( J(u(t))-J(u_{\infty })\right) ^{1-\theta }=&-\left( 1-\theta \right) \left( J(u(t))-J(u_{\infty })\right) ^{-\theta }\dfrac{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}}{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t}J(u(t))\\ =&\left( 1-\theta \right) \left( J(u(t))-J(u_{\infty })\right) ^{-\theta }\left\Vert e^{u(t)/2}\dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }^2\\ \ge&\dfrac{1-\theta }{C}\left\Vert \dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }. \end{aligned}$$Thus
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{t_{n_k}}^{s_k}\left\Vert \dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t\le \dfrac{C}{1-\theta }\left( J(u(t_{n_k}))-J(u_{\infty })\right) ^{1-\theta }. \end{aligned}$$Since
$$\begin{aligned} \dfrac{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}}{\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t}\left\Vert u(t)-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\le \left\Vert \dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }, \end{aligned}$$we get
$$\begin{aligned} \sigma =&\left\Vert u(s_k)-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\\ \le&\left\Vert u(t_{n_k})-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }+\int _{t_{n_k}}^{s_k}\left\Vert \dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t\\ \le&\left\Vert u(t_{n_k})-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }+\dfrac{C}{1-\theta }\left( J(u(t_{n_k}))-J(u_{\infty })\right) ^{1-\theta } \end{aligned}$$which is a contradiction when \(n_{k}\rightarrow +\infty \). Hence we have \(s_{k_2}=+\infty \) for some \(k_2\). We conclude that
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{0}^{\infty }\left\Vert \dfrac{\partial u(t)}{\partial t}\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }\mathop {}\mathrm {d}t<+\infty \end{aligned}$$which gives
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{t\rightarrow \infty }\left\Vert u(t)-u_{\infty }\right\Vert _{L^2\left( \Sigma \right) }=0. \end{aligned}$$\(\square \)
References
Brendle, S.: Global existence and convergence for a higher order flow in conformal geometry. Ann. Math. 2(158), 323–343 (2003). https://doi.org/10.4007/annals.2003.158.323
Brezis, H., Merle, F.: Uniform estimates and blow-up behavior for solutions of \(-\Delta u=V(x)e^u\) in two dimensions. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 16, 1223–1253 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1080/03605309108820797
Caffarelli, L.A., Yang, Y.S.: Vortex condensation in the Chern–Simons Higgs model: an existence theorem. Commun. Math. Phys. 168, 321–336 (1995)
Castéras, J.B.: A mean field type flow II: existence and convergence. Pac. J. Math. 276, 321–345 (2015a). https://doi.org/10.2140/pjm.2015.276.321
Castéras, J.B.: A mean field type flow part I: compactness of solutions to a perturbed mean field type equation. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 53, 221–246 (2015b). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-014-0746-5
Chang, K.C.: Heat flow and boundary value problem for harmonic maps. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 6, 363–395 (1989)
Chang, S.Y.A., Yang, P.C.: Prescribing Gaussian curvature on \(S^2\). Acta Math. 159, 215–259 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02392560
Chen, C.C., Lin, C.S.: Sharp estimates for solutions of multi-bubbles in compact Riemann surfaces. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 55, 728–771 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3014
Chen, C.C., Lin, C.S.: Topological degree for a mean field equation on Riemann surfaces. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 56, 1667–1727 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.10107
Chen, W.X., Ding, W.Y.: Scalar curvatures on \(S^2\). Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 303, 365–382 (1987). https://doi.org/10.2307/2000798
Chen, W.X., Li, C.: Classification of solutions of some nonlinear elliptic equations. Duke Math. J. 63, 615–622 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-91-06325-8
Ding, W., Jost, J., Li, J., Wang, G.: The differential equation \(\Delta u=8\pi -8\pi he^u\) on a compact Riemann surface. Asian J. Math. 1, 230–248 (1997). https://doi.org/10.4310/AJM.1997.v1.n2.a3
Ding, W., Jost, J., Li, J., Wang, G.: Existence results for mean field equations. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 16, 653–666 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0294-1449(99)80031-6
Djadli, Z.: Existence result for the mean field problem on Riemann surfaces of all genuses. Commun. Contemp. Math. 10, 205–220 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219199708002776
Djadli, Z., Malchiodi, A.: Existence of conformal metrics with constant \(Q\)-curvature. Ann. Math. 2(168), 813–858 (2008). https://doi.org/10.4007/annals.2008.168.813
Evans, L.C.: Partial differential equations. volume 19 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. 2nd ed., American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI. https://doi.org/10.1090/gsm/019 (2010)
Feehan, P.M., Maridakis, M.: Łojasiewicz-simon gradient inequalities for analytic and morse-bott functions on banach spaces. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles J.) (2019). https://doi.org/10.1515/crelle-2019-0029
Fontana, L.: Sharp borderline Sobolev inequalities on compact Riemannian manifolds. Commen. Math. Helv. 68, 415–454 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02565828
Friedman, A.: Partial Differential Equations of Parabolic Type. Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs (1964)
Gilbarg, D., Trudinger, N.S.: Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order. Classics in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin. Reprint of the 1998 edition (2001)
Jendoubi, M.A.: A simple unified approach to some convergence theorems of L. Simon. J. Funct. Anal. 153, 187–202 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1006/jfan.1997.3174
Kazdan, J.L., Warner, F.W.: Curvature functions for compact \(2\)-manifolds. Ann. Math. 2(99), 14–47 (1974). https://doi.org/10.2307/1971012
Li, J., Zhu, C.: The convergence of the mean field type flow at a critical case. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 58, 18 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-019-1507-2
Li, Y., Wang, Y.: A weak energy identity and the length of necks for a sequence of Sacks-Uhlenbeck \(\alpha \)-harmonic maps. Adv. Math. 225, 1134–1184 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2010.03.020
Li, Y.Y., Shafrir, I.: Blow-up analysis for solutions of \(-\Delta u=Ve^u\) in dimension two. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 43, 1255–1270 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1512/iumj.1994.43.43054
Lin, C.S.: Topological degree for mean field equations on \(S^2\). Duke Math. J. 104, 501–536 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-00-10437-1
Malchiodi, A.: Morse theory and a scalar field equation on compact surfaces. Adv. Differe. Equ. 13, 1109–1129 (2008)
Moser, J.: A sharp form of an inequality by N. Trudinger. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 20, 1077–1092. https://doi.org/10.1512/iumj.1971.20.20101 (1970/71)
Simon, L.: Asymptotics for a class of nonlinear evolution equations, with applications to geometric problems. Ann. Math. 2(118), 525–571 (1983). https://doi.org/10.2307/2006981
Struwe, M.: Curvature flows on surfaces. Ann. Sci. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. 1, 247–274 (2002)
Struwe, M.: A flow approach to Nirenberg’s problem. Duke Math. J. 128, 19–64 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-04-12812-X
Tarantello, G.: Multiple condensate solutions for the Chern–Simons–Higgs theory. J. Math. Phys. 37, 3769–3796 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.531601
Yang, Y.: Solitons in field theory and nonlinear analysis. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, New York. (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-6548-9
Yang, Y., Zhu, X.: A remark on a result of Ding–Jost–Li–Wang. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 145, 3953–3959 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1090/proc/13515
Yang, Y., Zhu, X.: Mean field equations on a closed Riemannian surface with the action of an isometric group. Int. J. Math. 31(2050072), 26 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129167X2050072X
Zhu, X.: A generalized Trudinger–Moser inequality on a compact Riemannian surface. Nonlinear Anal. 169, 38–58 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2017.12.001
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Juergen Jost.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This research is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11971358, 11801420) and the Youth Talent Training Program of Wuhan University. The first author would like thank the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences for good working conditions when this work was carried out. The authors would like to thank the referee for his/her careful reading and useful comments.
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
Sun, L., Zhu, J. Global existence and convergence of a flow to Kazdan–Warner equation with non-negative prescribed function. Calc. Var. 60, 42 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-020-01873-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-020-01873-8