Abstract
We prove uniform parabolic Hölder estimates of De Giorgi–Nash–Moser type for sequences of minimizers of the functionals
where \(a \in (-1,1)\) is a fixed parameter, \(\mathbb {R}_+^{N+1}\) is the upper half-space and \(\textrm{d}X = \textrm{d}x \textrm{d}y\). As a consequence, we deduce the existence and Hölder regularity of weak solutions to a class of weighted nonlinear Cauchy–Neumann problems arising in combustion theory and fractional diffusion.
We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.
Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.
1 Introduction
In this paper we construct Hölder continuous weak solutions to the weighted nonlinear Cauchy–Neumann problem
where \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\), \(\mathbb {R}_+^{N+1}:= \{X=(x,y): x\in \mathbb {R}^N, y > 0\}\), \(\nabla \) and \(\nabla \cdot \) stand for the gradient and the divergence operators w.r.t. X, respectively, and
The weight \(y^a\) belongs to the Muckenhoupt \(A_2\)-class (cf. [16, 20]), the function \(U_0\) is a given initial data and \(\beta \in C(\mathbb {R};\mathbb {R})\) is of combustion type, satisfying
Problem (1.1) is related to the localized/extended version of the reaction-diffusion equation
where \(s:= \tfrac{1-a}{2} \in (0,1)\) (see [35, 45] and [5, Section 2]), and the diffusion process is governed by the fractional power of the heat operator, which is nonlocal both in space and time:
where \(G_N\) is the fundamental solution to the heat equation and \(\Gamma \) is the gamma function (cf. [39, Section 28]). For smooth functions u depending only on the space variables \(x\in \mathbb {R}^N\), it reduces to the fracional laplacian \((-\Delta )^s\), while if \(u = u(t)\), it is the Marchaud derivative \((\partial _t)^s\) (cf. [28, 45]).
Such operator appears in a wide range of applications such as biology, physics and finance (see e.g. [2, 17] and the monograph [23]) and has notable interpretations in Continuous Time Random Walks theory (see [29] and the references therein). In recent years this class of equations has been the subject of intensive research: we quote [12, 13] for traveling wave analysis, [2, 5,6,7, 17] for unique continuation and obstacle problems, and [4] for nodal set analysis. In our context, solutions to (1.3) may be employed to approximate some free boundary problems arising in combustion theory and flame propagation, in the singular limit \(\beta \rightarrow \tfrac{1}{2}\delta _0\) (cf. [14, 37] for the nonlocal elliptic framework and [15] for the local parabolic one).
In this work, weak solutions to (1.1) will be obtained through a variational approximation procedure known in the literature as the Weighted Inertia-Energy-Dissipation method, introduced in the works of Lions [27] and Oleinik [36] (see also the paper of De Giorgi [19] in the context of nonlinear wave equations). Later, it has been investigated by many authors: we quote the works of Akagi and Stefanelli [1], Mielke and Stefanelli [30], Bögelein et al. [8, 9], Rossi et al. [38] and the references therein. However, the variational techniques we use are inspired by the methods developed by Serra and Tilli in [40, 41] (see also the more recent [3]). We introduce below the main ideas in a rather informal way, and postpone the formal definitions and statements in subsequent sections.
We set
and, for every fixed \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\), we introduce the functional
If \({\mathcal {E}}_\varepsilon \) has a minimizer \(U_\varepsilon \) (or a minimizer pair \((U_\varepsilon ,u_\varepsilon :=U_\varepsilon |_{y=0})\)) in some suitable space \({\mathcal {U}}_0\) (see (1.9)) with \(U_\varepsilon |_{t=0} = U_0\), then \(U_\varepsilon \) satisfies
in the weak sense (see Lemma 2.2). The above problem is nothing more than (1.1) with the extra term \(-\varepsilon y^a\partial _{tt} U_\varepsilon \): it is thus reasonable to conjecture that under suitable boundedness and compactness properties, one may pass to the limit as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\) along some subsequence and obtain a limit weak solution U to (1.1).
We stress that for each \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\) the approximating problem (1.5) is elliptic in space-time and the drift \(y^a\partial _t U_\varepsilon \) is a lower order term, while, as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\), it degenerates along the time direction and, in the limit, the problem completely changes nature, becoming parabolic.
As already mentioned, our main goal is to establish uniform estimates for families of minimizers of the functional \({\mathcal {E}}_\varepsilon \) and then pass to the limit by compactness. We will deal with two types of uniform bounds: global energy estimates and Hölder estimates. The former are obtained adapting the techniques of [40, 41], while the latter will follow from a De Giorgi-Nash-Moser type result ( [18, 32, 34]) for weak solutions to
where \(F_\varepsilon \) and \(f_\varepsilon \) belong to suitable classes of spaces (see Appendix A and (3.2)).
This is our main contribution: we prove parabolic Hölder estimates “up to \(\{y=0\}\)” for weak solutions to problem (1.6), that we transfer to sequences of minimizers of (1.4) and, in turn, to the limit function U, as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\). We anticipate that even though these Hölder estimates have a local nature (we work directly with the local weak formulation of (1.6)), we will need an extra compactness assumption guaranteed by the global energy estimates, and depending on the initial data \(U_0\) (see Proposition 2.1).
Since problem (1.6) is elliptic for every \(\varepsilon > 0\) but becomes parabolic in the limit \(\varepsilon =0\), we cannot expect to prove uniform elliptic Hölder estimates (i.e. elliptic in the (X, t) variables), but “only” parabolic ones. To do this, we will combine uniform local energy estimates, uniform local \(L^2 \rightarrow L^\infty \) bounds and a uniform oscillation decay lemma. It is important to stress that the proofs of these intermediate steps are not just the mere adaptation of the parabolic theory (see for instance [32, 46]), but are tailored to the degeneracy of the problem along the time direction. We refer the reader to Sect. 1.2 for further discussions and connections with the existing literature.
Finally, it is important to mention that our strategy seems to be quite flexible and different parabolic problems may be attacked with similar techniques. For instance, one may fix \(s \in (0,1)\) and try to approximate weak solutions to
with a sequence of minimizers of
over a suitable functional space (notice that here we work in the purely nonlocal framework, without making use of the extension theory for the fractional laplacian). In view of [1, 41], the techniques we use to prove the energy estimates should easily be adapted to this setting too, whilst the general strategy we follow to obtain the Hölder bounds seems to be more difficult to repeat and must be adapted depending on the different nature of the problem.
1.1 Functional setting
To simplify the notation, we work with the functional
and then we will transfer the information to the minimizers of (1.4), using standard even reflections w.r.t. y (see Lemma 2.4 and Remark 2.5). Indeed, notice that \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \) is nothing more than \({\mathcal {E}}_\varepsilon \) but the integration is on the whole \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\) and, as always, \(u:= U|_{y=0}\).
We consider the space
made of functions \(U \in L^{2,a}(\mathbb {Q}_R^+)\) with weak derivatives \(\partial _t U \in L^{2,a}(\mathbb {Q}_R^+)\), \(\nabla U \in (L^{2,a}(\mathbb {Q}_R^+))^{N+1}\), for every \(R > 0\) (the definitions of the \(L^{p,a}\) spaces are given in Appendix A). In particular, by [33], each function \(U \in {\mathcal {U}}\) has a trace on the hyperplane \(\{y=0\}\) and an “initial” trace we denote with
respectively (\(Q_\infty := \mathbb {R}^N\times \{0\}\times (0,\infty )\)).
Since each term in (1.7) is nonnegative, we will view \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \) as a functional defined on \({\mathcal {U}}\) taking values in \([0,+\infty ]\) and we will minimize it on the space \({\mathcal {U}}\), subject to the initial condition
The choice of \(U_0 \in H^{1,a}(\mathbb {R}^{N+1})\) is quite important for our approach: we have \(U_0 \in {\mathcal {U}}\) (and thus \({\mathcal {U}}\) is not empty) and, by [33] again, we also have that
is well-defined. To prove our main estimates, it will be crucial to assume
where \(\mathcal {L}^N\) denotes the N-dimensional Lebesgue measure. This is not a very restrictive assumption: in the majority of the applications the function \(u_0\) is assumed to be smooth and compactly supported in \(\mathbb {R}^N\). To simplify the notations, it is convenient to introduce the set of initial traces
and the (non-empty) closed convex linear space
Notice that the assumptions on the initial trace guarantee that any minimizer \(U \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) is nontrivial.
1.2 Main results
Our main result is the following theorem.
Theorem 1.1
Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\), \(\beta \in L^\infty (\mathbb {R})\) satisfying (1.2) and \(U_0 \in \mathcal {T}_0\) as in (1.8). Then there exist \(\alpha \in (0,1)\), a sequence \(\varepsilon _k \rightarrow 0^+\) and a sequence of minimizers \(\{U_{\varepsilon _k}\}_{k\in \mathbb {N}}\) of (1.4) in \({\mathcal {U}}_0\) depending only on N, a, \(\Vert \beta \Vert _{L^\infty (\mathbb {R})}\) and \(U_0\), such that for every open and bounded set \(K \subset \mathbb {R}^{N+1}\times (0,\infty )\), there exists \(C > 0\) independent of k, such that
for every \(k \in \mathbb {N}\).
This is the first result concerning uniform Hölder bounds for minimizers of (1.4): to the best of our knowledge, the existing literature treats exclusively uniform bounds of energy type (see the already mentioned [1, 3, 8, 9, 30, 40, 41]). Theorem 1.1 has an interesting corollary, that we state after giving the definition of weak solutions to problem (1.1).
Definition 1.2
Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\) and \(\beta \in L^\infty (\mathbb {R})\) satisfying (1.2). We say that the pair (U, u) is a weak solution to (1.1) if
-
\(U \in L_{loc}^2(0,\infty : H^{1,a}(\mathbb {R}_+^{N+1}))\) with \(\partial _t U \in L_{loc}^2(0,\infty :L^{2,a}(\mathbb {R}_+^{N+1}))\).
-
\(u = U|_{y=0}\) and \(U_0 = U|_{t=0}\) in the sense of traces.
-
U satisfies
for every \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\times (0,\infty ))\).
Corollary 1.3
Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\), \(\beta \in L^\infty (\mathbb {R})\) satisfying (1.2) and \(U_0 \in \mathcal {T}_0\) as in (1.8). Then there exist \(\alpha \in (0,1)\), a weak solution (U, u) to (1.1) satisfying
a sequence \(\varepsilon _k \rightarrow 0^+\) and a sequence of minimizers \(\{U_{\varepsilon _k}\}_{k\in \mathbb {N}}\) of (1.4) in \({\mathcal {U}}_0\) such that, as \(k \rightarrow + \infty \),
Some comments are in order. Our approach allows to treat both the existence and the Hölder regularity of weak solutions using the same approximating sequence, in contrast with the classical theory where the two issues are often unrelated. Indeed, the existence and Hölder regularity for weak solutions to (1.1) can be proved separately using more classical methods. For the existence, we believe that the approximation scheme used in [24, Section 2] can be easily adapted to our framework. It is also important to notice that both methods allow to construct weak solutions with bounded \(H^1\) energy (locally in time), depending on the \(H^1\) energy of the initial data: this automatically excludes “pathological” solutions such as Jones’ solution [26], in the case \(a = 0\) and \(\beta \equiv 0\).
On the other hand, the results concerning the Hölder regularity of weak solutions to parabolic weighted equations like (1.1) are obtained working in the pure parabolic setting, and are based on the validity of some Harnack inequality in the spirit of Moser [32], see e.g. [5, 10, 16, 21]. In our framework neither an elliptic nor a parabolic Harnack inequality for weak solutions of (1.5) can hold, with constants independent of \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\). This is due to the different nature of the elliptic and parabolic Harnack inequality (see [31, Theorem 1] and [32, Theorem 1], respectively) and the drastic loss of ellipticity in the limit \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\) (see also the counter-example in [32, pp. 103] in the case \(a=0\) and \(\beta \equiv 0\)). On the contrary, parabolic Hölder regularity is preserved under the limit.
We end this paragraph with a few words about the reaction function \(\beta \). It is worth to mention that other kind of reactions can be considered but, for simplicity, we decided to focus on the class defined in (1.2): the positivity of \(\beta \) guarantees that the functional \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \) is nonnegative (uniformly in \(\varepsilon \)), while the fact that \(\Phi (u) \le \chi _{\{u > 0\}}\) allows us to prove the crucial level estimate (2.6). The assumption \(\text {supp} \beta = [0,1]\) gives some additional properties such as the weak maximum principle stated in Lemma 2.4. For what concerns the uniform Hölder bounds, the only information we use is that \(\beta \in L^\infty (\mathbb {R})\).
1.3 Structure of the paper
The paper is organized as follows.
In Sect. 2 we prove the existence of minimizers of \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \) in \({\mathcal {U}}_0\) (for every fixed \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\)) and we establish the main global uniform energy estimates (2.8) and (2.9), which play a key role in the proof of Proposition 2.1. This is the first main step in our analysis: we show the existence of a sequence of minimizers \(U_{\varepsilon _j}\) weakly converging to some function U which is also a weak solution to (1.1).
In Sect. 3 we prove a \(L^{2,a} \rightarrow L^\infty \) local uniform bound for weak solutions to (1.6) (see Proposition 3.1). The main difficulty here is to derive a uniform energy estimate: since problem (1.6) is elliptic for every fixed \(\varepsilon > 0\) but becomes parabolic in the limit as \(\varepsilon \rightarrow 0\), the best we can expect is to obtain a uniform energy estimate of parabolic type. We anticipate that the standard parabolic techniques do not work in this framework (see Remark 3.7) and new methods that exploit the degeneracy of the equation are used.
In Sect. 4 we show Proposition 4.1: under the additional compactness assumption (4.1), there is a sequence of weak solutions to (1.6) having locally bounded \(C^{\alpha ,\alpha /2}\) seminorm. As explained in Remark 4.4, this compactness assumption is required in order to prove a parabolic version of the so-called “De Giorgi isoperimetric lemma” (cf. Lemma 4.2).
In Sect. 5 we show Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.3: the proofs are easy consequences of Propositions 2.1, 4.1 and a standard covering argument.
Finally, in the appendices (Appendix A, B and C) we recall some technical tools and results we exploit through the paper, and the full list of notations.
2 Global uniform energy estimates
This section is devoted to the proof of the following proposition.
Proposition 2.1
Let \(\{U_\varepsilon \}_{\varepsilon \in (0,1)} \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) be a family of minimizers of \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \). Then there exist \(U \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) and a sequence \(\varepsilon _j \rightarrow 0\) such that if \(u = U|_{y=0}\), then
and, furthermore, the pair (U, u) satisfies
for every \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_\infty )\). In particular, (U, u) is a weak solution to (1.1).
Before addressing to the proof of the above statement, we show some basic properties of minimizers of the functional \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \).
2.1 Existence and basic properties of minimizers
We begin with the Euler-Lagrange equations.
Lemma 2.2
Fix \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\) and let \(U_\varepsilon \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) be a minimizer of \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \). Then
for every \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_\infty )\).
Proof
Fix \(\varepsilon > 0\), let \(\varphi \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_\infty )\), \(h \not = 0\), and assume that \(U:= U_\varepsilon \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) is a minimizer of \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \). It is not difficult to compute
Notice that, since \(\varphi \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_\infty )\), the last integral converges to zero as \(h \rightarrow 0\), while
as \(h \rightarrow 0\). Consequently, using that \(\beta \) is bounded, \(\varphi |_{y=0}\) is compactly supported and the minimality of U, we can pass to the limit as \(h \rightarrow 0\), to deduce
Now, \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_\infty )\) and take \(\varphi = e^{t/\varepsilon } \eta \). Noticing \(\partial _t\varphi = e^{t/\varepsilon }\left( \tfrac{1}{\varepsilon } \eta + \partial _t\eta \right) \) and rearranging terms, (2.3) follows. \(\square \)
Now, we show that for every \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\) the functional \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \) has a minimizer in \({\mathcal {U}}_0\). To simplify the notations, we introduce the functional
defined for \(V \in {\mathcal {U}}\), where \(v = V|_{y=0}\). This functional is related to (1.7) through the following relations
Since \(V_0:= V|_{t=0} = U|_{t=0}\) (and so \(v_0:= V_0|_{y=0} = u_0\)) and \({\mathcal {U}}_0\) is convex and invariant under time transformations, the minimization of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \) on \({\mathcal {U}}_0\) is equivalent to the minimization of \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \) on the same space. In other words, \(U \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) is a minimizer of \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \) if and only if \(V \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) is a minimizer of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \).
Lemma 2.3
For every \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\), the functional \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \) defined in (2.4) has a minimizer in \({\mathcal {U}}_0\).
Further, there exists a constant \(C > 0\) depending only on N, a and \(V_0\) such that for every family \(\{V_\varepsilon \}_{\varepsilon \in (0,1)} \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) of minimizers of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \), we have
Proof
Let \(V = V_\varepsilon \). First, we have \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \not \equiv +\infty \) on \({\mathcal {U}}_0\). Indeed, \(V_0 \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) by definition and, further,
where we have used Hölder’s inequality and assumption (1.9). From the above inequality, (2.6) follows too: if \(V \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) is a minimizer, we have \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon (V) \le {\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon (V_0) \le C\varepsilon \) and C depends only on N, a and \(V_0\).
We are left to prove the existence of a minimizer. Since \(V_0 \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) and \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon (V_0) < + \infty \), there exists a minimizing sequence \(\{V_j\}_{j\in \mathbb {N}} \subset {\mathcal {U}}_0\):
In particular, for every fixed \(R > 0\), we have
for some \(C_R > 0\) independent of j and so, since \(V_j|_{t=0} = V_0|_{t=0}\) for every j, \(\{V_j\}_{j\in \mathbb {N}}\) is uniformly bounded in \(H^{1,a}(\mathbb {Q}_R^+)\). By the compactness of the inclusion \(L^{2,a}(\mathbb {Q}_R^+) \hookrightarrow H^{1,a}(\mathbb {Q}_R^+)\), there exists \(V \in H^{1,a}(\mathbb {Q}_R^+)\) such that \(V_j \rightharpoonup V\) weakly in \(H^{1,a}(\mathbb {Q}_R^+)\) and \(V_j \rightarrow V\) a.e. in \(\mathbb {Q}_R^+\) and in \(L^{2,a}(\mathbb {Q}_R^+)\), up to passing to a suitable subsequence, still denoted with \(V_j\).
Similar, setting \(v_j:= V_j|_{y=0}\), we have that \(\{v_j\}_{j\in \mathbb {N}}\) is uniformly bounded in \(H^{\frac{1-a}{2}}(Q_R^+)\) by the trace theorem (see for instance [33]) and so, up to a subsequence, \(v_j \rightarrow v\) a.e. in \(Q_R^+\) and in \(L^2(Q_R^+)\), where \(v:= V|_{y=0}\).
Now, since \(\mathbb {Q}_\infty = \cup _{R>0} \mathbb {Q}_R^+\) and \(Q_\infty = \cup _{R>0} Q_R^+\), a standard diagonal argument shows that
up to passing to an additional subsequence. Notice that since \({\mathcal {U}}_0\) is closed and convex, we have \(V \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\). Further, by continuity, we have \(\Phi (v_j) \rightarrow \Phi (v)\) a.e. in Q and so, by lower semicontinuity and Fatou’s lemma, it follows
i.e., V is a minimizer of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \). \(\square \)
Lemma 2.4
Let \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\) be fixed. Then:
-
If \(V_0 \ge 0\) a.e. and \(V_\varepsilon \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) is a minimizer of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \), then \(V_\varepsilon \ge 0\) a.e. (and \(V_\varepsilon \not \equiv 0\)).
-
If \(V_0 \le 1\) a.e. and \(V_\varepsilon \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) is a minimizer of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \), then \(V_\varepsilon \le 1\) a.e.
-
If \(V_0\) is even w.r.t. y, then there exists a minimizer of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \) in \({\mathcal {U}}_0\) which is even w.r.t. y.
Proof
Let \(V:= V_\varepsilon \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) be a minimizer of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \) and assume \(V_0 \ge 0\) a.e.. Then \(V_+\) is an admissible competitor, with \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon (V_+) < {\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon (V)\), unless \(V \ge 0\) a.e.
Similar if \(V_0 \le 1\) a.e., \(W:= \min \{V,1\}\) is an admissible competitor and, since \(\Phi (v) = 1\) for \(v \ge 1\) in view of (1.2), we have \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon (W) < {\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon (V)\), unless \(V \le 1\) a.e.
Finally, if \(V_0\) is even w.r.t. y and \(V \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) is a minimizer of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \), then
is an admissible competitor, with \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon (V_e) = {\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon (V)\). \(\square \)
Remark 2.5
The last point of the above statement and Lemma 2.3 tell us that if the initial data is even w.r.t. y, then we may assume that \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \) has a minimizer \(U_\varepsilon \) which is even w.r.t. y. Such minimizer satisfy
where \({\mathcal {E}}_\varepsilon \) is defined in (1.4) and \(U_\varepsilon |_{y > 0}\) is the restriction of \(U_\varepsilon \) to \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}_+\times (0,\infty )\). It thus turns out that minimizing \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \) in \({\mathcal {U}}_0\) (with \(U_0\) even w.r.t. y) is equivalent to minimizing \({\mathcal {E}}_\varepsilon \) in the space \({\mathcal {U}}_0^+:= \{U|_{y > 0}: U \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\}\).
2.2 Proof of Proposition 2.1
Proposition 2.1 will be obtained as a consequence of the following energy estimates.
Proposition 2.6
(Global uniform energy estimates) There exists \(C > 0\) depending only on N, a and \(U_0\) such that for every family \(\{U_\varepsilon \}_{\varepsilon \in (0,1)} \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) of minimizers of \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \), we have
and, for every \(R \ge \varepsilon \),
The above statement is the key result of this section and will be proved by combining Lemma 2.7 and Corollary 2.8 that we show below. As in the above subsection, we consider a minimizer V of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \) and we write
where
Notice that, since V is a minimizer, we have \(\textrm{I},\textrm{R}\in L^1_{loc}(\mathbb {R}_+)\) and \(t \rightarrow e^{-t} \left[ \textrm{I}(t) + \textrm{R}(t) \right] \in L^1(\mathbb {R}_+)\). Further, we introduce the function
which belongs to \(W^{1,1}_{loc}(\mathbb {R}_+)\cap C(\overline{\mathbb {R}_+})\), and satisfies \(E(0) = {\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon (V)\) and
The main idea of the following lemma is to find a different expression for the derivative of the function \(\textrm{E}\) defined in (2.12). The new formulation for \(\textrm{E}'\) is crucial to prove our main estimates.
Lemma 2.7
Let \(V \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) be a minimizer of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \). Then
Proof
We follow the proof of [40, Proposition 3.1] (see also [8, Lemma 4.5] and [3, Lemma 4.2]).
Let \(V \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) be a minimizer of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \). Fix \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (0,\infty )\), consider \(\zeta (t):= \int _0^t\eta (\tau )\textrm{d}\tau \), and, given \(\lambda \in \mathbb {R}\), define
It is easily seen that, if \(|\lambda | \le \lambda _0\) for some \(\lambda _0 > 0\) small enough, then \(\varphi \) is strictly increasing with \(\varphi (0) = 0\). In particular, the inverse \(\psi = \varphi ^{-1}\) exists, it is smooth and, by (2.15), satisfies
The key idea of the proof is to use the function \(\varphi \) to construct a competitor W. It is obtained as an inner variation of V:
Since \(\varphi (0) = 0\), we have \(W = V\) when \(t=0\) and so \(W \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\). Further, by (2.15), \(W = V\) when \(\lambda = 0\) (by sake of simplicity, the dependence on \(\lambda \) is omitted in the notations for \(\varphi \), \(\psi \) and W).
Now, from the formulation of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \) introduced in (2.10) and the change of variable \(t = \psi (\tau )\), we have
In view of (2.15) and (2.16), \(\varphi ',\psi ' \in L^\infty (\mathbb {R}^+)\) and \(e^{-\psi (\tau )} \le e^{\lambda \Vert \zeta \Vert _{L^\infty (\mathbb {R}_+)}} e^{-\tau }\), and thus \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon (W) < +\infty \). In particular, we deduce that, for any small \(\lambda \) (\(|\lambda | \le \lambda _0\)), \(W \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) is an admissible competitor. Actually, recalling that \(W = V\) when \(\lambda = 0\) and V is a minimizer, it must be
Proceeding exactly as in [3, Lemma 4.2], we compute
Consequently, recalling that \(t \rightarrow e^{-t} \left\{ \textrm{I}(t) + \textrm{R}(t) \right\} \in L^1(\mathbb {R}_+)\) and using the dominated convergence theorem, we can pass to the limit in (2.17) and, making use of (2.18), we can write (2.17) explicitly:
where we have used \(\psi (\tau ) = \tau \), and \(\varphi ' = \psi ' = 1\) when \(\lambda = 0\) (see (2.15) and (2.16)).
Now, we show how equation (2.19) leads to (2.14). Recalling that \(\zeta ' = \eta \) and writing (2.13) with test function \(\zeta '(\tau )e^{-\tau }\), we easily obtain
Further, using the definition of \(\textrm{E}\) given in (2.12) and integrating by parts, it follows
The “boundary terms” in the integration by parts disappear since \(\zeta (0) = 0\) and \(e^{-t}\textrm{E}(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow +\infty \). Finally, plugging (2.20) and (2.21) into (2.19), it follows
and, since \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {R}^+)\) is arbitrary, (2.14) is proved. \(\square \)
Corollary 2.8
Let \(V \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) be a minimizer of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \). Then
and, for every \(t \ge 0\),
for some constant \(C > 0\) depending only on N, a and \(U_0\).
Proof
First, recalling that \(\textrm{E}\in C(\overline{\mathbb {R}_+})\) and \(\textrm{I}\ge 0\), a direct integration of (2.14) shows that \(\textrm{E}(t) \le \textrm{E}(0)\) for all \(t \ge 0\). Moreover, since \(\textrm{E}(0) = {\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon (V)\) and (2.6), we obtain
for all \(t \ge 0\), where \(C > 0\) depends only on N, a and \(V_0\).
From (2.14), (2.24) and that \(\textrm{E}\ge 0\), we deduce
for all \(t \ge 0\). Consequently, (2.22) follows by passing to the limit as \(t \rightarrow +\infty \) and the first definition in (2.11).
To prove the second part of the statement, we fix \(t \ge 0\) and we notice that (2.24) implies
The thesis follows by the second definition in (2.11). \(\square \)
Proof of Proposition 2.6
Let U be a minimizer of \({\mathcal {F}}_\varepsilon \) in \({\mathcal {U}}_0\) and define \(V(X,t):= U(X,\varepsilon t)\). Then, V is a minimizer of \({\mathcal {J}}_\varepsilon \) in \(U_0\).
As a first consequence, we immediately see that (2.8) follows changing variable (\(t = \varepsilon \tau \)) in (2.22). Similar, the same change of variable in (2.23) yields
for all \(t \ge 0\). Now, let \(R \ge \varepsilon \) and define \(k = \lceil R/\varepsilon \rceil \). In view of the arbitrariness of t, we can apply the above estimate for \(t = j\) and sum over \(j = 0,\dots ,k-1\) to obtain
Since \(\varepsilon \le R \le k\varepsilon \), (2.9) follows. \(\square \)
Proof of Proposition 2.1
In view of (2.8) and (2.9), \(\{U_\varepsilon \}_{\varepsilon \in (0,1)}\) is equibounded in \(H^{1,a}(\mathbb {Q}_R^+)\) for every fixed \(R > 0\). Consequently, the usual diagonal procedure shows the existence of a sequence \(\varepsilon _j \rightarrow 0\) and \(U \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) such that the first and the third limit in (2.1) are satisfied (here we may also use Sobolev embedding and trace theorems as in Lemma 2.3). The second limit in (2.1) follows by [42, Corollary 8], up to passing to another subsequence, since for every \(R >0\), \(\{U_{\varepsilon _j}\}_{j\in \mathbb {N}}\) is uniformly bounded in \(L^2(0,R^2:H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_R))\) and \(\{\partial _t U_{\varepsilon _j}\}_{j\in \mathbb {N}}\) is uniformly bounded in \(L^2(0,R^2:L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}_R))\).
Finally, (2.2) follows by passing into the limit as \(j \rightarrow +\infty \) into (2.3) (with \(\varepsilon = \varepsilon _j\)) and using (2.1). \(\square \)
3 Uniform \(L^{2,a} \rightarrow L^\infty \) estimates
This section is devoted to the proof of some local and uniform \(L^{2,a} \rightarrow L^\infty \) estimates for weak solutions to the linear problem (1.6) (the notion of weak solution is introduced in Definition 3.2 below).
Proposition 3.1
(Uniform \(L^{2,a} \rightarrow L^\infty \) estimate) Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\) and (p, q) satisfying (3.2). Then there exists a constant \(C > 0\) depending only on N, a and q such that every family \(\{U_\varepsilon \}_{\varepsilon \in (0,1)}\) of weak solutions to problem (1.6) in \(\mathbb {Q}_1\) in the sense of Definition 3.2 satisfy
for every \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\).
We divide the proof of Proposition 3.1 in two main steps: we establish an energy estimate for solutions and nonnegative subsolutions (Lemma 3.5) and then we exploit it to prove a “no-spikes” estimate (see Lemma 3.8).
Before moving forward, we fix some important notations and give the definition of weak solution to problem (1.6). Let \(N \ge 1\) and \(a \in (-1,1)\). We will always consider exponents \(p,q \in \mathbb {R}\) satisfying
We anticipate that the assumption \(p > 2\) is needed only when \(N=1\) and \(a \in (-1,0]\) (for all other values of N and a we have \(\bar{p} = (N+3+a)/2\)): this is due to the fact that this range of parameters is critical for the Sobolev inequality (cf. Theorem A.2 and Theorem A.3).
Let us proceed with the notion of weak solutions to (1.6). It is related to Definition 1.2, for problem (1.1): let \(R > 0\), \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\), (p, q) satisfying (3.2), \(F_\varepsilon \in L^{p,a}(\mathbb {B}_R^+\times (-R^2,R^2))\) and \(f_\varepsilon \in L_\infty ^q(Q_R)\)Footnote 1. We say that \(W_\varepsilon \) is a weak solution to (1.6) in \(\mathbb {B}_R^+\times (-R^2,R^2)\) if
-
\(W_\varepsilon \in L^2(-R^2,R^2: H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_R^+))\) with \(\partial _t W_\varepsilon \in L^2(-R^2,R^2:L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}_R^+))\).
-
\(W_\varepsilon \) satisfies
$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} \int _{-R^2}^{R^2}\int _{\mathbb {B}_R^+} y^a ( \varepsilon \partial _t W_\varepsilon \partial _t \eta + \partial _t W_\varepsilon \eta + \nabla W_\varepsilon \cdot \nabla \eta - F_\varepsilon \eta ) \,\textrm{d}X\textrm{d}t\\{} & {} \quad - \int _{-R^2}^{R^2}\int _{B_R} f_\varepsilon \eta |_{y=0} \,\textrm{d}x\textrm{d}t = 0, \end{aligned}$$for every \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_R)\).
Even in the setting of problem (1.6), it is convenient to simplify the notation as follows. If \(W_\varepsilon \) is a weak solution, we notice that the even extension
satisfies
for every \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_R)\), where \(\tilde{F}_\varepsilon \) is the even extension of \(F_\varepsilon \) and \(\tilde{f}_\varepsilon := 2 f_\varepsilon \). For this reason, we will always work with weak solutions defined in the whole cylinder \(\mathbb {Q}_R\) and, to recover the information on \(W_\varepsilon \), we restrict them to the upper-half cylinder \(\mathbb {Q}_R\cap \{y>0\}\).
Definition 3.2
Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\), \(R > 0\), \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\), (p, q) satisfying (3.2), \(F_\varepsilon \in L^{p,a}(\mathbb {Q}_R)\) and \(f_\varepsilon \in L_\infty ^q(Q_R)\). We say that \(U_\varepsilon \) is a weak subsolution (supersolution) of (1.6) in \(\mathbb {Q}_R\) if
-
\(U_\varepsilon \in L^2(-R^2,R^2; H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_R))\) with \(\partial _t U_\varepsilon \in L^2(-R^2,R^2:L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}_R))\).
-
\(U_\varepsilon \) satisfies the differential inequality
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{\mathbb {Q}_R} |y|^a ( \varepsilon \partial _t U_\varepsilon \partial _t \eta + \partial _t U_\varepsilon \eta + \nabla U_\varepsilon \cdot \nabla \eta - \tilde{F}_\varepsilon \eta ) \,\textrm{d}X\textrm{d}t - \int _{Q_R} \tilde{f}_\varepsilon \eta |_{y=0} \,\textrm{d}x\textrm{d}t \le (\ge ) \; 0, \end{aligned}$$for every nonnegative \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_R)\).
We say that \(U_\varepsilon \) is a weak solution in \(\mathbb {Q}_R\) if it is both a weak subsolution and supersolution, that is
-
\(U_\varepsilon \in L^2(-R^2,R^2; H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_R))\) with \(\partial _t U_\varepsilon \in L^2(-R^2,R^2:L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}_R))\).
-
\(U_\varepsilon \) satisfies
$$\begin{aligned} \int _{\mathbb {Q}_R} |y|^a ( \varepsilon \partial _t U_\varepsilon \partial _t \eta + \partial _t U_\varepsilon \eta + \nabla U_\varepsilon \cdot \nabla \eta - \tilde{F}_\varepsilon \eta ) \,\textrm{d}X\textrm{d}t - \int _{Q_R} \tilde{f}_\varepsilon \eta |_{y=0} \,\textrm{d}x\textrm{d}t = 0,\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$(3.3)for every \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_R)\).
Remark 3.3
In the whole section, even if not mentioned, we will always work with weak solutions (or subsolutions) in the sense of Definition 3.2. Further, to simplify the reading, we drop the notations \(\tilde{F}_\varepsilon \) and \(\tilde{f}_\varepsilon \), writing \(F_\varepsilon \) and \(f_\varepsilon \) instead. We stress that this does not change our estimates, since the extra factor 2 can be easily reabsorbed through a dilation of the variables (X, t).
Remark 3.4
(Scaling) In the proof of Proposition 4.1 we will use that if \(R > 0\) and \(U_\varepsilon \) is a weak solution in \(\mathbb {Q}_R\), then the function
satisfies
for every \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_1)\), that is \(V_{\varepsilon ,R}\) is a weak solution in \(\mathbb {Q}_1\) (replacing \(\varepsilon \) with \(\tfrac{\varepsilon }{R^2}\)), with
We are ready to prove the energy estimate for families of nonnegative weak solutions (the same proof applies to family of weak solutions, see Remark 3.6).
Lemma 3.5
(Energy estimate) Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\) and (p, q) satisfying (3.2). Then there exists a constant \(C > 0\) depending only on N, a and q such that for every \(r \in (\tfrac{1}{2},1]\), \(\varrho \in [\tfrac{1}{2},r)\) and every family \(\{U_\varepsilon \}_{\varepsilon \in (0,1)}\) of nonnegative subsolutions in \(\mathbb {Q}_1\) such that
for every \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\), we have
Proof
Let \(U = U_\varepsilon \), \(F = F_\varepsilon \), \(f = f_\varepsilon \) and \(\tfrac{1}{2} \le \varrho < r \le 1\). Since U is a weak subsolution, we may assume \(F,f \ge 0\) (up to replacing them with \(F_+\) and \(f_+\), respectively) and so, by Lemma B.1 (part (ii)), we may also assume \(U \ge 1\) in \(\mathbb {Q}_1\) (up to consider the subsolution \(\max \{U,1\}\) instead of U).
Let \(\psi \) be a Lipschitz function vanishing on \(\partial \mathbb {Q}_1\), which will be chosen later. Testing the differential inequality of U with \(\eta = U \psi ^2\), we easily obtain the differential inequality
where we recall that \(u = U|_{y=0}\) in the sense of traces and \(\psi |_{y=0}(x,t) = \psi (x,0,t)\).
The energy inequality (3.4) will be obtained combing two different bounds that we prove in two separate steps.
Step 1. We prove that
for some \(\tilde{c} > 0\) depending only on N, a and q.
Fix \(t_*\in [-\varrho ^2,\varrho ^2]\) such that
Taking into account the relation
we rewrite (3.5) neglecting the nonnegative term in the l.h.s. involving \(\partial _t U\) to deduce
Let \(\varphi \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {B}_r)\), \(0 \le \varphi \le 1\) with
for some \(c_0 > 0\) depending only on N, and \(\phi = \phi (t)\) be defined by
An immediate computation shows that \(\phi (-r^2) = \phi (r^2) = 0\), \(\phi (t_*) = 1\), \(0 \le \phi \le 1\) and
Furthermore, since \(\tfrac{1}{e^z-1} \le \tfrac{2}{z}\) for every \(z > 0\), and \(t_*\le \varrho ^2\), we have
Now, choose \(\psi (X,t) = \varphi (X) \phi (t)\) and write
Using the definitions of \(\phi \) and \(\phi '\) in \([-1,t_*]\), that \(\varphi \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {B}_r)\) with \(0 \le \varphi \le 1\) and integrating by parts, we find
and
Further, by (3.10) and (3.11),
Now let us estimate the terms into the r.h.s. of (3.8). First, we have
thanks to (3.9) and the fact that \(\phi = 0\) in \([-1,-r^2]\cup [r^2,1]\). Second, by Hölder’s inequality
since \(\Vert F\Vert _{L^{p,a}(\mathbb {Q}_1)} \le 1\) (and \(F \ge 0\)) by assumption.
We are left to estimate the trace term, that we reabsorb using the second term in the l.h.s. of (3.8). Using that \(u \ge 1\) and \(f \ge 0\), applying Hölder’s inequality and recalling that \(\Vert f\Vert _{L_\infty ^q(Q_1)} \le 1\), we obtain
where we have set \(v:= u \psi _{y=0}\), and \(q'\) is the conjugate of q. Since \(q > \tfrac{N}{1-a}\), we have \(2 \le 2q' \le 2\tilde{\sigma }\), where \(\tilde{\sigma }:= \tfrac{N}{N-1+a}\) (cf. Theorem A.1) and so, by interpolation and Young’s inequality, we obtain
for every \(\delta > 0\) and a suitable \(c_\delta > 0\), satisfying \(c_\delta \rightarrow +\infty \) as \(\delta \rightarrow 0\) (\(\vartheta \in (0,1)\) is given in the interpolation inequality and depends on N, a and q). Now, by (A.2), the definition of v and Cauchy–Schwartz’s inequality, we have
for some \(c > 0\) depending only in N and a, while, by (A.1) and the Cauchy–Schwartz’s inequality again,
for every \(A > 1\). Now, we fix \(\delta \in (0,1)\), such that \(2c\delta \le \tfrac{1}{2}\) and \(A > 1\) such that \(2cc_\delta A^{-\frac{1-a}{2}} \le \tfrac{1}{2}\) (notice that both \(\delta \) and A depend only on N, a and q). Combing the last four inequalities with (3.8), we obtain
for some new \(c > 0\) depending only on N, a and q, and thus (3.6) follows in light of (3.12), (3.13) and (3.14).
Step 2. In this second step we show
for some \(\overline{c} > 0\) depending only on N, a and q.
Test (3.5) with \(\psi _0(X,t) = \varphi (X) \phi _0(t)\), where \(\varphi \) is as in (3.9), while \(\phi _0 \in C_0^\infty ([-r^2,r^2])\), \(0 \le \phi _0 \le 1\) and
for some numerical constant \(c_1 \ge 1\). Integrating by parts w.r.t. time the first term in the l.h.s. of (3.5), it follows
since \(\varphi \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {B}_r)\) and \(\phi _0 \in C_0^\infty ([-r^2,r^2])\) and thus, we may write (3.5) as
Now, using Cauchy–Schwartz’s inequality (\(2AB \le 2\epsilon A^2 + \tfrac{1}{2\epsilon } B^2\) with \(\epsilon = \tfrac{1}{2}\)), (3.9)-(3.16) and Hölder’s inequality, we obtain
and so, reabsorbing the trace term as we have done in Step 1, and using (3.9)-(3.16) again, (3.15) follows.
Step 3. The energy estimate (3.4) follows by summing (3.6) and (3.15), and taking \(C = \tilde{c} + \overline{c}\). \(\square \)
Remark 3.6
The same proof works if we assume that \(\{U_\varepsilon \}_{\varepsilon \in (0,1)}\) is a family of solutions, without sign restrictions.
Remark 3.7
The energy estimate (3.4) is the main step for proving the \(L^2 \rightarrow L^\infty \) bound (3.1). In light of what comes next, we believe it is important to compare the proof w.r.t. the classical parabolic framework (formally, the limit case \(\varepsilon =0\)). Assume for simplicity \(F=0\) and \(f=0\) and consider a weak solution to
Testing the weak formulation with \(\eta := U \psi ^2\), we obtain
which is (3.5) “with \(\varepsilon = 0\)”. For every fixed \(-1<s<\tau <1\), one may choose \(\psi ^2(X,t) = \varphi ^2(X) \chi _{[s,\tau ]}(t)\) and so, integrating by parts w.r.t. time and using Young’s inequality, it is not difficult to find
for some \(C > 0\) (depending only on N and a). The bound (3.6) immediately follows from (3.19), choosing \(\varphi \) as in (3.9) and neglecting the nonpositive term in the l.h.s. The \(L^{2,a}\) bound for \(\nabla U\) is obtained similar to (3.15).
In our setting testing with \(\psi ^2 = \varphi ^2(X)\chi _{[s,\tau ]}(t)\) is not admissible since the weak derivative of the function \(t \rightarrow \chi _{[s,\tau ]}(t)\) is not \(L^2(-1,1)\). However, we notice that our proof is somehow more elementary: the time factor in the test function \(\psi = \varphi (X)\phi (t)\) we use to prove the bound for \(\int _{\mathbb {B}_1} |y|^a U^2(X,\tau ) \,\textrm{d}X\) is obtained by solving an easy first order ODE. In this way, we bypass the approximation procedure of \(\chi _{[s,\tau ]}\) needed in the purely parabolic framework.
Lemma 3.8
(No-spikes estimate) Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\) and (p, q) satisfying (3.2). Then there exists a constant \(\delta > 0\) depending only on N, a and q such that for every family \(\{U_\varepsilon \}_{\varepsilon \in (0,1)}\) of subsolutions in \(\mathbb {Q}_1\) such that
for every \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\), then
for every \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\).
Proof
Let us set \(U = U_\varepsilon \), \(F_\varepsilon = F\), \(f_\varepsilon = f\) and assume either \(N \ge 2\) and \(a \in (-1,1)\), or \(N = 1\) and \(a \in [0,1)\). For every integer \(j \ge 0\), define
the nonnegative subsolutions (with \(F_+\) and \(f_+\), see Lemma B.1)
and the quantity
Applying the energy inequality (3.4) to \(V_{j+1}\) with \(\varrho = r_{j+1}\) and \(r = r_j\), we have
for some \(C > 0\) depending only on N, a and q and thus, by Sobolev inequality (cf. Theorem A.3, formula (A.3)) and the definition of \(V_j\), we deduce
for some new \(C > 0\) and \(\gamma > 1\) (depending only on N, a and q). On the other hand, by Hölder’s inequality
where \(\gamma '\) is the conjugate exponent of \(\gamma \), and \(|A|_a:= \int _A |y|^a \,\textrm{d}X\textrm{d}t\) for every measurable set \(A \subset \mathbb {R}^{N+2}\). Further, using the definition of \(V_j\), it follows
and, by Hölder’s inequality again,
So, combining (3.22), (3.23), (3.24) and (3.25), and using (3.20), we obtain
for every \(j \ge 1\) and for some new \(C > 0\) depending only on N, a and p, where \(\overline{\gamma }:= \tfrac{1}{\gamma '} - \tfrac{1}{p} > 0\) (in view of (3.2) and the definition of \(\gamma \), cf. Theorem A.3).
To complete the argument, it is sufficient to notice that since \(\overline{\gamma } < \tfrac{1}{\gamma '}\), we have \(E_{j+1} \le C^{1+j} E_j^{1 + \overline{\gamma }}\) and
for some new \(C > 0\) (depending only on N and a), whenever \(E_j \le 1\). Thus, choosing \(\delta \) such that \(C\delta < 1\), we deduce \(E_j \le 1\) for every j and \(E_j \rightarrow 0\) as \(j \rightarrow +\infty \). Finally, since \(C_j \rightarrow 1\) and \(r_j \rightarrow \tfrac{1}{2}\) as \(j \rightarrow + \infty \), we obtain by definition of \(V_j\)
which implies (3.21) and our statement follows.
The very same argument works when \(N=1\) and \(a \in (-1,0)\), by taking \(\gamma = 2\) and using inequality (A.4) instead of (A.3). Notice that in this range of parameters we have \(p > \bar{p} = 2\): this implies \(p' \in (1,2)\) and thus the chain of inequalities in (3.25) does not change. \(\square \)
Proof of Proposition 3.1
Set \(U = U_\varepsilon \) and define
where \(\delta > 0\) is as in Lemma 3.8. Since V is a nonnegative subsolution (with \(\lambda _+F_+\) and \(\lambda _+f_+\)) and satisfies (3.20), then (3.21) gives
Repeating the same argument with
we obtain
and our thesis follows choosing \(C = \tfrac{2}{\sqrt{\delta }}\), recalling that \(\delta \) depends only on N, a and q. \(\square \)
Remark 3.9
Thanks to [16, Remark 2.1, Lemma 2.1], our proofs can be easily adapted to treat the case of weak solutions/sub-solutions in \(\mathbb {Q}_1(X_0,t_0)\), with constants independent of \((X_0,t_0) \in \mathbb {R}^{N+2}\).
4 Uniform Hölder estimates
This section is devoted to the proof of a uniform Hölder estimate for families of solutions to (1.6) (in the sense of Definition 3.2). As mentioned in the introduction, we will consider sequences of weak solutions satisfying the following compactness assumption
for some \(r > 0\) and some \(U \in C([-r^2,r^2]:L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}_r))\). As pointed out in Remark 4.4, in the classical parabolic framework this property can be deduced working directly with the equation and exploiting the parabolic energy estimate. Even though we do not have any counter-example, this approach seems not work in our setting. Anyway, in light of Proposition 2.1, (4.1) is always guaranteed when working with sequences \(\{U_{\varepsilon _j}\}_{j\in \mathbb {N}}\) of minimizers of the functional (1.7).
The following proposition is the main result of this section.
Proposition 4.1
Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\) and (p, q) satisfying (3.2). There exist \(\alpha \in (0,1)\) and \(C > 0\) depending only on N, a, p and q such that for every U, every sequence \(\varepsilon _j \rightarrow 0\) and every sequence \(\{U_{\varepsilon _j}\}_{j \in \mathbb {N}}\) of weak solutions in \(\mathbb {Q}_8\) satisfying (4.1) with \(r=4\) and
for every \(j \in \mathbb {N}\) and some \(C_0 > 0\), then there exist a subsequence \(j_k \rightarrow +\infty \) such that
for every \(k \in \mathbb {N}\).
The estimate (4.3) will follow as a consequence of an oscillation decay type result which, in turn, is obtained by combining the \(L^{2,a} \rightarrow L^\infty \) bound for nonnegative subsolutions (see Proposition 3.1) and a parabolic version of the “De Giorgi isoperimetric lemma” (see Lemma 4.3). Lemma 4.3 is the key step: our approach is based on the ideas of [46, Section 3] and relies on the validity of its “elliptic” counterpart, that we state in Lemma 4.2 (the proof is a modification of [46, Lemma 10]).
Lemma 4.2
(“De Giorgi isoperimetric lemma”) Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\). Let \(U \in H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_1)\) satisfying
for some \(C_0 > 0\) and
Then for every \(p \in (1,2)\), there exists a constant \(c > 0\) depending only on N, a, \(C_0\) and p such that
Proof
We consider a new function V defined as \(V = U\) in D, \(V = \tfrac{1}{2}\) in A and \(V = 0\) in C. Clearly, it satisfies \(\nabla V = 0\) in \(\mathbb {B}_1{\setminus } D\) and \(\int _{\mathbb {B}_1} |y|^a |\nabla V|^2 \,\textrm{d}X\le C_0\).
Now, setting \(\overline{V}_a:= |\mathbb {B}_1|_a^{-1} \int _{\mathbb {B}_1} |y|^a V(X) \,\textrm{d}X\) and writing \(X = (x,y)\) and \(Z = (z,\zeta )\), we have
where, in the last inequality, we have used Hölder’s inequality. By [20, Theorem 1.5] and Hölder’s inequality again, we have
for some \(c > 0\) depending on p. Combining the two inequalities, our statement follows. \(\square \)
Lemma 4.3
Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\), (p, q) satisfying (3.2), and \(\tilde{\mathbb {Q}}:= \mathbb {B}_1\times (-2,-1)\).
Assume there exist \(\delta > 0\), a sequence \(\varepsilon _j \rightarrow 0\) and a family \(\{U_{\varepsilon _j}\}_{j \in \mathbb {N}}\) of weak solutions in \(\mathbb {Q}_2\) such that
and
for every \(j \in \mathbb {N}\). Then there exists \(\sigma > 0\) depending only on N, a, p, q and \(\delta \) such that for every U and every \(\varepsilon _{j_k} \rightarrow 0\) satisfying (4.1) (with \(j = j_k\) and \(r=2\)), we have
for every \(k \in \mathbb {N}\).
Proof
We assume by contradiction there exist sequences \(\varepsilon _k:= \varepsilon _{j_k} \rightarrow 0\), \(F_k:= F_{\varepsilon _{j_k}}\), \(f_k:=f_{\varepsilon _{j_k}}\) satisfying
\(U \in C([-4,4]:L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}_2))\) and a sequence of weak solutions \(U_k:= U_{\varepsilon _{j_k}}\) satisfying \(U_k \le 1\) and \(U_k \rightarrow U\) in \(C([-4,4]:L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}_2))\), such that if \(A_k:= \{U_k \ge 1/2 \} \cap \mathbb {Q}_1\), \(C_k:= \{U_k \le 0 \} \cap \tilde{\mathbb {Q}}\) and \(D_k:= \{0< U_k < 1/2 \} \cap (\mathbb {Q}_1 \cup \tilde{\mathbb {Q}})\), then
for every \(k \in \mathbb {N}\).
Let us set \(V_k:= (U_k)_+\) and \(V:= U_+\). By assumption, we have \(V_k \rightarrow V\) in \(C([-4,4]:L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}_2))\). Further, by Lemma B.1, each \(V_k\) is a nonnegative weak subsolution and thus, combining the assumption \(U_k \le 1\) and (3.4), we may assume that \(V_k \rightharpoonup V\) in \(L^2(-2,2:H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_1))\) which, in turn, implies
for some \(C > 0\) depending only on N, a, p and q. Notice that by \(C([-4,4]:L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}_2))\) convergence, we also have convergence in measure, that is, for every \(\epsilon > 0\),
Step 1. We prove that
To see this, we notice that given \(\epsilon > 0\), the set \(\{\epsilon \le V \le \tfrac{1}{2} -\epsilon \}\) can be trivially written as the disjoint union of \(\{|V_k - V| \ge \epsilon \}\) and \(\{|V_k - V| < \epsilon \}\). Furthermore,
which implies
Since \(\mathbb {Q}_1 \cup \tilde{\mathbb {Q}} \subset \mathbb {Q}_2\), we may pass to the limit as \(k \rightarrow +\infty \) and notice that the last relation in (4.5) and (4.6) yield \(|\{\epsilon \le V \le \tfrac{1}{2} -\epsilon \} \cap (\mathbb {Q}_1 \cup \tilde{\mathbb {Q}})|_a = 0\) and thus, by the arbitrariness of \(\epsilon > 0\), (4.7) follows.
Step 2. Now we show that
First, we notice that (4.7), combined with the fact that \(\nabla V(\cdot ,t) \in L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}_1)\) for a.e. \(t \in (-2,1)\), allows us to apply Lemma 4.2, obtaining
for a.e. \(t \in (-2,1)\). Now, following the proof of (4.7), we notice that if \(V_k \le 0\) and \(\epsilon > 0\) is fixed, then either \(|V_k - V| \ge \epsilon \) or \(V \le \epsilon \). Therefore
and thus, taking the limit as \(k \rightarrow + \infty \) and then as \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0\), we deduce (4.8), where we have exploited (4.5) and (4.6) again.
Step 3. This is the most delicate part of the proof. We prove that
We test the differential inequality of \(V_k\) with \(\eta _k = V_k \psi _k^2\), for a sequence of test functions \(\psi _k\) we will choose in a moment. Following the proof of Lemma 3.5, we obtain (cf. (3.5))
Now, using Young’s inequality, we reabsorb the gradient part of the first term in the r.h.s. with the second term in the l.h.s., and we apply Hölder’s inequality to the last three terms in the r.h.s. to obtain
for some numerical constant \(C_0 > 0\) (the last inequality easily follows in light of (4.4) and that \(0 \le V_k \le 1\)).
Now, we fix \(-2< s< \tau < 1\) and choose \(\psi _k^2(X,t) = \varphi ^2(X)\chi _k(t)\) where \(\varphi \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {B}_1)\) satisfies
while \(\chi _k\) is a Lipschitz approximation of \(\chi _{[s,\tau ]}\) as \(k \rightarrow +\infty \), defined as follows
for some positive \(\delta _k \rightarrow 0\) as \(k \rightarrow +\infty \). Notice that, by dominated convergence,
as \(k \rightarrow +\infty \), for some \(C > 0\) depending only on N and a. Similar
as \(k \rightarrow + \infty \), for some new \(C > 0\) depending also on p and q. Furthermore, by taking \(C > 0\) larger and using (3.4), we have
by choosing \(\delta _k = \varepsilon _k^{1/2}\). Finally, using the definition of \(\chi _k\) and integrating by parts in time, we find
as \(k \rightarrow + \infty \). To check the limit, we use that \(V_k\), V and \(\varphi \) are bounded in \(\mathbb {Q}_2\), and so
as \(k \rightarrow +\infty \) and thus the limit in (4.16) follows by triangular inequality. Consequently, passing to the limit as \(k \rightarrow +\infty \) in (4.11) and using (4.13), (4.14), (4.15) and (4.16), we deduce
for some constant \(C > 0\) depending only N, a, p, q and \(\varphi \).
Now, by (4.8), we may choose \(s \in (-2,-1)\) such that \(V(\cdot ,s) = 0\) in \(\mathbb {B}_1\), to obtain
On the other hand, by (4.9), we know that either \(V(\cdot ,\tau ) = 0\) or \(V(\cdot ,\tau ) \ge \tfrac{1}{2}\) in \(\mathbb {B}_1\) for a.e. \(\tau \in (-2,1)\). However, if \(V(\cdot ,\tau ) \ge \tfrac{1}{2}\) in \(\mathbb {B}_1\), the above inequality and (4.12) yield
for some \(c_0 > 0\) depending only N, a, p, q and \(\varphi \), and thus it must be \(V(\cdot ,\tau ) = 0\) in \(\mathbb {B}_1\) for a.e. \(\tau \le s + c_0^{1/p'}\). Iterating this procedure, (4.10) follows.
Step 4. Finally, arguing as in (4.7), whenever \(V_k \ge \tfrac{1}{2}\), then either \(|V-V_k| \ge \epsilon \) or \(V > \tfrac{1}{2} - \epsilon \) and so
Passing to the limit as \(k \rightarrow + \infty \) and then as \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0\), we deduce \(|\{V \ge 1/2 \} \cap \mathbb {Q}_1|_a \ge \delta \), which is in contradiction with (4.10). \(\square \)
Remark 4.4
To understand the role played by the assumption (4.1), it is useful to compare with the classical parabolic framework. The main difference here is that the parabolic equation (combined with the parabolic energy estimate) gives enough compactness for carrying out the contradiction argument. Indeed, let \(U_k\) be a sequence of weak solutions to (3.18) satisfying \(\Vert U_k\Vert _{L^{2,a}(\mathbb {Q}_2)} \le 1\). For every \(k \in \mathbb {N}\), we have
for every \(\eta \in L^2(-1,1:H_0^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_1))\). Thus, noticing that the sequence \(\{U_k\}_k\) is uniformly bounded in \(L^2(-1,1:H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_1))\) (by the parabolic energy estimate, see Remark 3.7) and using the equation of \(U_k\) above, we obtain that \(\{\partial _tU_k\}_k\) is uniformly bounded in \(L^2(-1,1:H^{-1,a}(\mathbb {B}_1))\) and so, by the Aubin-Lions lemma, we have \(U_k \rightarrow U\) in \(L^{2,a}(\mathbb {Q}_1)\), up to passing to a suitable subsequence. This is enough to show that U satisfies (4.7) and (4.8). To prove (4.10), it suffices to notice that, since \(\{U_k(t)\}_k\) is uniformly bounded in \(H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_1)\) for a.e. \(t \in (-1,1)\), we may also assume \(U_k(t_n) \rightarrow U(t_n)\) in \(L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}_1)\) for a finite increasing sequence of times \(t_n \in (-1,1)\), up to passing to another subsequence. This allows us to pass to the limit into (3.19) (with \(\tau = t_{n+1}\) and \(s = t_n\)) and complete the argument of Step 3.
On the contrary, in our “approximating setting”, the weak formulation (3.3) (with \(F_\varepsilon = 0\) and \( f_\varepsilon =0\)) is
for every \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_1)\), and the energy estimate (3.4) gives uniform bounds for \(\{U_{\varepsilon _k}\}_{k\in \mathbb {N}}\) in
for sequences of solutions uniformly bounded in \(L^{2,a}(\mathbb {Q}_2)\). It is not clear to us if these ingredients can be combined to obtain strong \(L^{2,a}(\mathbb {Q}_1)\) compactness, or not. For this reason we require \(C([-1,1]:L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}_1))\) strong compactness in (4.1) which, as already mentioned, is guaranteed for families of minimizers of (1.7) by Proposition 2.1.
Lemma 4.5
Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\), (p, q) satisfying (3.2), and \(\tilde{\mathbb {Q}}:= \mathbb {B}_1\times (-2,-1)\). There exist \(\delta _0,\tilde{\theta }_0 \in (0,1)\) depending only on N, a, p and q such that for every U, every sequence \(\varepsilon _j \rightarrow 0\) and every sequence \(\{U_{\varepsilon _j}\}_{j \in \mathbb {N}}\) of weak solutions in \(\mathbb {Q}_2\) satisfying (4.1) with \(r=2\), such that
and
for every \(j \in \mathbb {N}\), then
for every \(j \in \mathbb {N}\).
Proof
Let \(\sigma > 0\) be as in Lemma 4.3, \(\delta _0:= 2^{-n_0}\sqrt{\delta }\), where \(n_0\) is the largest integer such that
and \(\delta \in (0,1)\) will be chosen later. Let us set \(U_j = U_{\varepsilon _j}\), \(F_j = F_{\varepsilon _j}\), \(f_j = f_{\varepsilon _j}\) and define
The assumptions on \(U_j\) imply that \(V_{j,n}\) is a solution in \(\mathbb {Q}_2\) with \(F_{j,n}:= 2^n F_j\) and \(f_{j,n}:= 2^n f_j\), satisfying
for every \(j,n \in \mathbb {N}\) and \(V_{j,n} \rightarrow V_n:= 2^n[U - (1 - 2^{-n})]\) in \(C([-4,4]:L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}_2))\) as \(j \rightarrow +\infty \). Further, notice that by (4.17) and the definition of \(\delta _0\), we have
for every \(n \le n_0\) and every j. Now, fix \(\delta \in (0,1)\) and assume
Then, using the definition of \(V_{j,n}\) (and \(V_{j,n+1}\)) and that \(V_{j,n} \le 1\), we easily see that
Consequently, if (4.18) holds true for every \(n \le n_0\) and some \(j \in \mathbb {N}\), \(V_{j,n}\) satisfies the assumptions of Lemma 4.3, and so
for every \(n \le n_0\). However, since \(\{0< V_{j,n}< 1/2 \} \cap \{0< V_{j,m} < 1/2 \} = \emptyset \) for every \(m \not = n\) and every j, the above inequality implies \(|\mathbb {Q}_1 \cup \tilde{\mathbb {Q}}|_a \ge n_0\sigma \), in contradiction with the definition of \(n_0\). Consequently, (4.18) fails for \(n=n_0\) and every \(j \in \mathbb {N}\), that is
for every \(j \in \mathbb {N}\). Let us set \(k_0:= n_0 + 1\). Since \((V_{j,k_0})_+\) is a nonnegative subsolution (with \((F_{j,k_0})_+\) and \((f_{j,k_0})_+\)), we obtain by (3.1) and the definition of \(\delta _0\)
for some \(C > 0\) depending only on N, a, p and q, and every \(j \in \mathbb {N}\). Now, taking \(\delta \) such that \(C\delta \le \tfrac{1}{2}\), the above inequality gives \(V_{j,k_0} \le \tfrac{1}{2}\) in \(\mathbb {Q}_{1/2}\) for every j and thus
for every j, which is our thesis, choosing \(\tilde{\theta }_0:= 2^{-k_0-1}\). \(\square \)
Corollary 4.6
Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\) and (p, q) satisfying (3.2). There exist \(\delta _0,\theta _0 \in (0,1)\) depending only on N, a, p and q such that for every U, every sequence \(\varepsilon _j \rightarrow 0\) and every sequence \(\{U_{\varepsilon _j}\}_{j \in \mathbb {N}}\) of weak solutions in \(\mathbb {Q}_4\) satisfying (4.1) with \(r=4\) and (4.2), there exist a subsequence \(j_k \rightarrow +\infty \) such that
for every \(k \in \mathbb {N}\).
Proof
Let \(\delta _0,\tilde{\theta }_0 >0\) be as in Lemma 4.5, and let \(U_j = U_{\varepsilon _{j}}\), \(F_j = F_{\varepsilon _{j}}\) and \(f_j = f_{\varepsilon _{j}}\). We fix \(\delta > 0\), and define
We have \(K_j \ge \delta \) for every \(j \in \mathbb {N}\) and, further, each \(V_j\) is a weak solution in \(\mathbb {Q}_4\) (and thus in \(\mathbb {Q}_2\)) with \(\bar{F}_j:= \tfrac{2}{K_j} F_j\), \(\bar{f}_j:= \tfrac{2}{K_j} f_j\) satisfying
for every j, by definition of \(K_j\).
Now, in view of (4.1), we have that \(\{U_j\}_{j\in \mathbb {N}}\) is uniformly bounded in \(L^{2,a}(\mathbb {Q}_4)\) and thus, by (3.1) and (4.2), it is bounded in \(L^{\infty }(\mathbb {Q}_2)\). This implies the existence of a subsequence \(j_k \rightarrow + \infty \), \(K \in [\delta ,+\infty )\) and \(l \in \mathbb {R}\) (both K and l are finite depending on \(\delta _0\) and \(\Vert U\Vert _{L^{2,a}(\mathbb {Q}_2)}\)) such that
as \(k \rightarrow + \infty \), where \(U_k:= U_{j_k}\) and \(K_k:= K_{j_k}\). As a consequence, one can easily verify that
as \(k \rightarrow +\infty \), where \(V_k:= V_{j_k}\). Furthermore, we notice that
and thus, up to passing to an additional subsequence and eventually considering \(-V_k\) instead of \(V_k\), we may assume
for every \(k \in \mathbb {N}\). Then, Lemma 4.5 yields
for every \(k\in \mathbb {N}\), that is
Taking the \(\sup _{\mathbb {Q}_{1/2}}\) and subtracting \(\inf _{\mathbb {Q}_{1/2}} U_k\) in both sides, it is not difficult obtain
for every \(k \in \mathbb {N}\). Our thesis follows by passing to the limit as \(\delta \rightarrow 0\) and choosing \(\theta _0 = \tfrac{\tilde{\theta }_0}{2}\). \(\square \)
Proof of Proposition 4.1
Let \(\delta _0\) and \(\theta _0\) as in Corollary 4.6, and \(\delta > 0\). We set \(U_j:= U_{\varepsilon _j}\), \(F_j:= F_{\varepsilon _j}\), \(f_j:= f_{\varepsilon _j}\) and define
for every \(j \in \mathbb {N}\). Notice that thanks to (4.2), (4.1) and (3.1), \(\{K_j\}_{j\in \mathbb {N}}\) is uniformly bounded. Thus, similar to the proof above, we have \(K_j \rightarrow K \ge \delta \), as \(j \rightarrow +\infty \), up to passing to a subsequence. Consequently,
as \(j\rightarrow + \infty \).
Now, let \(r_n:= 4^{-n}\), \(n \in \mathbb {N}\). We show that there exist \(n_0 \in \mathbb {N}\), \(C > 0\) and \(\alpha \in (0,1)\) depending only on N, a, p and q such that, up to passing to a subsequence \(\varepsilon _k:= \varepsilon _{j_k} \rightarrow 0\), if \(V_k:= V_{j_k}\), then for every \((X_0,t_0):= (x_0,y_0,t_0) \in \mathbb {Q}_1\) we have
for every \(n \ge n_0\) and every k such that \(\varepsilon _k \le r_n^2\). A standard contradiction argument (see for instance [4, Proof of Theorem 6.1], [43, Proof of Theorem 4.1] and [44, Proof of Theorem 4.2]) shows that it is enough to prove (4.20) for points \((X_0,t_0)\) with \(y_0 = 0\): basically, if Hölder regularity (or oscillation decay) fails at some point, then such point must belong to the region where the weight \(|y|^a\) is degenerate or singular). As a consequence, since the equation of \(V_k\) is invariant under translations w.r.t. x and t, it is enough to consider the case \((X_0,t_0) = 0\).
With this goal in mind, let us define
By Remark 3.4 each \(V_{j,n}\) satisfies
for every \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_4)\), where
By definition and scaling, we easily see that \(\Vert V_{j,n}\Vert _{L^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_4)} \le 1\) and
for every \(j,n \in \mathbb {N}\), where we have set
The positivity of \(\nu \) follows from (3.2). In a moment we will choose \(n_0 \in \mathbb {N}\) such that \(r_n^\nu \le \delta _0\), for every \(n \ge n_0\) and thus we may assume
for every \(n \ge n_0\) and \(j \in \mathbb {N}\). Further, exploiting (4.19), it is not difficult to check that for every fixed \(n \in \mathbb {N}\), we have
as \(j \rightarrow +\infty \), where \(\tilde{V}_n(X,t):= V(r_nX,r_n^2t)\).
Then, for every fixed \(n \ge n_0\) the sequence \(\{V_{j,n}\}_{j\in \mathbb {N}}\) satisfies the assumptions of Corollary 4.6 and thus there exist subsequences \(j_k \rightarrow +\infty \) and \(\varepsilon _k:= \varepsilon _{j_k} \rightarrow 0\) such that for every fixed \(n \ge n_0\) and every k such that \(\varepsilon _k \le r_n^2\), we have
where \(V_{k,n}:= V_{j_k,n}\). Re-writing such inequality in terms of \(V_k\), it follows
for every k such that \(\varepsilon _k \le r_n^2\). Let us take \(\alpha \in (0,1)\), \(n_0 \in \mathbb {N}\) and \(C > 0\) satisfying
Then, if \(n = n_0\), (4.20) holds true by definition of C, recalling that \(\Vert V_k\Vert _{L^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_4)} \le 1\), for every k. Now, assume that (4.20) holds true for some \(n\ge n_0\). Then, by definition of \(n_0\), \(\alpha \), C and (4.21) and the inductive assumption, we obtain
for every k such that \(\varepsilon _k \le r_{n+1}^2\), and so (4.20) follows.
Notice that, since \(\varepsilon _k \rightarrow 0\), we may extract a decreasing subsequence \(\varepsilon _n:= \varepsilon _{k_n}\) such that \(\varepsilon _n \le r_n^2\), for every \(n \in \mathbb {N}\) and thus, by (4.20), we have
for every \((X_0,t_0) \in \mathbb {Q}_1\) and every \(n \ge n_0\), where \(V_n:= V_{k_n}\).
To complete the proof, we check that
for every \((X,t),(Z,\tau ) \in \mathbb {Q}_1\), \(n \in \mathbb {N}\), taking eventually new constants \(C > 0\) and \(\alpha \in (0,1)\) depending only on N, a, p and q. Since the constants \(\alpha \), C and \(n_0\) in (4.22) are independent of \((X_0,t_0) \in \mathbb {Q}_1\), it is enough to consider the case \((Z,\tau ) = 0\).
Given \((X,t) \in \mathbb {Q}_1\), there is n (depending on (X, t)) such that \((X,t) \in \mathbb {Q}_{4^{-n}}\setminus \mathbb {Q}_{4^{-n-1}}\), that is \(4^{-n-1} \le \Vert (X,t)\Vert \le 4^{-n}\). If \(n \le n_0\), then
where we have used that \(\Vert V_n\Vert _{L^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_1)} \le 1\). When \(n \ge n_0\) we directly apply (4.22) to deduce
and (4.23) follows. Now, re-writing (4.23) in terms of \(U_n:= U_{k_n}\), we obtain
for every \(n \in \mathbb {N}\) and every \((X,t),(Z,\tau ) \in \mathbb {Q}_1\), where \(F_n:= F_{j_{k_n}}\) and \(f_n:= f_{j_{k_n}}\). The bound (4.3) follows by letting \(\delta \rightarrow 0\). \(\square \)
Remark 4.7
As pointed out in Remark 3.9, the proofs of this section work for weak solutions in \(\mathbb {Q}_r(X_0,t_0)\) too, with minor modifications and constants independent of \((X_0,t_0) \in \mathbb {R}^{N+2}\).
5 Proof of Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 1.3
Proof of Theorem 1.1
Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\), \(\beta \) as in (1.2), \(U_0\) as in (1.9) and let \(\{U_\varepsilon \}_{\varepsilon \in (0,1)}\) be a family of minimizers of \(\mathcal {F}_\varepsilon \) defined in (1.7).
By Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.1, there exist \(U \in {\mathcal {U}}_0\) and a sequence \(\varepsilon _j \rightarrow 0\) such that the pair \((U_j,u_j):= (U_{\varepsilon _j},U_{\varepsilon _j}|_{y=0})\) satisfies
for every \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_\infty )\) and every \(j \in \mathbb {N}\) and, further,
as \(j \rightarrow +\infty \). Now, let us fix \(R > 0\), \(t_0:= (8R)^2\) and consider the sequence \(V_j(X,t):= U_j(RX,R^2t + t_0)\). Setting \(f_j:= \beta (u_j)\) (with \(\Vert f_j\Vert _{L^\infty (Q_\infty )} \le \Vert \beta \Vert _{L^\infty (\mathbb {R})}\) for every \(j \in \mathbb {N}\)) and \(f_{j,R}(x,t):= R^{1-a}f_j(Rx,R^2t)\), we have by Remark 3.4
for every \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_8)\) and every \(j \in \mathbb {N}\). Consequently, by (5.1), we may apply Proposition 4.1 and Proposition 3.1 to the sequence \(\{V_j\}_{j\in \mathbb {N}}\) to deduce
for every \(k \in \mathbb {N}\), some \(C > 0\) and \(\alpha \in (0,1)\) depending only on N and a, and some sequence \(j_k \rightarrow +\infty \) (depending also on R). Re-writing this uniform bound in terms of \(U_{j_k}\) and recalling the definition of \(f_{j_k}\), we find
for every \(k \in \mathbb {N}\), where \(\tilde{\mathbb {Q}}_R:= \mathbb {B}_R \times (63 R^2,65 R^2)\). Finally, since
uniformly in k by Proposition 2.6 and Poincaré inequality (up to taking C larger depending on \(U_0\)), we can combine Remark 3.9, Remark 4.7 and a standard covering argument to complete the proof of (1.10). \(\square \)
Proof of Corollary 1.3
The thesis follows by combining Proposition 2.1, Theorem 1.1 and the Arzelà-Ascoli theorem. \(\square \)
Data availability
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Notes
If \(Q:= B\times I\), \(\Vert f\Vert _{L_\infty ^q(Q)}:= {{\,\mathrm{ess\,sup}\,}}_{t\in I} \Vert f(t)\Vert _{L^q(B)}\), and \(L_\infty ^q(Q)\) is the closure of \(C^\infty (Q)\) w.r.t. \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{L_\infty ^q(Q)}\).
References
G. Akagi, U. Stefanelli. A variational principle for gradient flows of nonconvex energies, J. Convex Anal. 23 (2016), 53–75.
I. Athanasopoulos, L. Caffarelli, E. Milakis. On the regularity of the Non-dynamic Parabolic Fractional Obstacle Problem, J. Differential Equations 265 (2018), 2614–2647.
A. Audrito, E. Serra, P. Tilli. A minimization procedure to the existence of segregated solutions to parabolic reaction-diffusion systems, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 46 (2021), 2268–2287.
A. Audrito, S. Terracini. On the nodal set of solutions to a class of nonlocal parabolic equations, to appear in Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., arxiv:1807.10135v2 (2020).
A. Banerjee, N. Garofalo. Monotonicity of generalized frequencies and the strong unique continuation property for fractional parabolic equations, Adv. Math., 336 (2018), 149–241.
A. Banerjee, N. Garofalo, D. Danielli, A. Petrosyan. The regular free boundary in the thin obstacle problem for degenerate parabolic equations, Algebra i Analiz 32 (2020), 84–126.
A. Banerjee, N. Garofalo, D. Danielli, A. Petrosyan. The structure of the singular set in the thin obstacle problem for degenerate parabolic equations, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 60 (2021), 1–52.
V. Bögelein, F. Duzaar, P. Marcellini. Existence of evolutionary variational solutions via the calculus of variations, J. Differential Equations 256 (2014), 3912–3942.
V. Bögelein, F. Duzaar, P. Marcellini, S. Signoriello. Parabolic equations and the bounded slope condition, Ann. I. H. Poincaré 34 (2017), 355–379.
M. Bonforte, N. Simonov. Quantitative a priori estimates for fast diffusion equations with Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg weights. Harnack inequalities and Hölder continuity, Adv. Math. 345 (2019), 1075–1161.
H. Brezis. “Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations”, Springer, New York, 2011.
X. Cabré, N. Cónsul, J. V. Mandé. Traveling wave solutions in a half-space for boundary reactions, Anal. PDE 8 (2015), 333–364.
L. A. Caffarelli, A. Mellet, Y. Sire. Traveling waves for a boundary reaction-diffusion equation, Adv. Math. 230 (2012), 433–457.
L. A. Caffarelli, J. M. Roquejoffre, Y. Sire. Variational problems for free boundaries for the fractional Laplacian, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 12 (2010), 1151–1179.
L. Caffarelli, J. L. Vázquez. A free-boundary problem for the heat equation arising in flame propagation, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 347 (1995), 411–441.
F. M. Chiarenza, R. P. Serapioni. A remark on a Harnack inequality for degenerate parabolic equations, Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Padova 73 (1985), 179–190.
D. Danielli, N. Garofalo, A. Petrosyan, T. To. “Optimal regularity and the free boundary in the parabolic Signorini problem”, Memoirs AMS 249, 2017.
E. De Giorgi. Sulla differenziabilitá e l’analiticitá delle estremali degli integrali multipli regolari, Memorie della Accademia delle Scienze di Torino. Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematicahe e Naturali 3 (1957), 25–43.
E. De Giorgi. Conjectures concerning some evolution problems, A celebration of John F. Nash, Jr. Duke Math. J. 81 (1996), 255–268.
E. Fabes, C. Kenig, R. Serapioni. The local regularity of solutions of degenerate elliptic equations, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 7 (1982), 777–116.
C. E. Gutiérrez, R. L. Wheeden. Harnack’s inequality for degenerate parabolic equations, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 16 (1991), 745–770.
P. Hajłasz. Sobolev spaces on an arbitrary metric space, Potential Anal. 5 (1996), 403–415.
R. Hilfer. “Applications of Fractional Calculus in Physics”, World Scientific, 2000.
A. Hyder, A. Segatti, Y. Sire, C. Wang. Partial regularity of the heat flow of half-harmonic maps and applications to harmonic maps with free boundary , ArXiv preprint, arxiv:2111.14171.
T. Jin, Y. Li, J. Xiong. On a fractional Nirenberg problem, part I: blow up analysis and compactness of solutions, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 16 (2014), 1111–1171.
F. Jones. A fundamental solution for the heat equation which is supported in a strip, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 60 (1977), 314–324.
J.-L. Lions. Sur certaines équations paraboliques non linéaires, Bull. Soc. Math. France, 93 (1965), 155–175.
A. Marchaud. Sur les dérivées et sur les différences des fonctions de variables réelles, J. Math. Pures et Appl. 9 (1927), 337–425.
R. Metzler, J. Klafter. The random walk’s guide to anomalous diffusion: a fractional dynamics approach, Phys. Rep. 339 (2000), 1–77.
A. Mielke, U. Stefanelli. Weighted energy-dissipation functionals for gradient flows, ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 17 (2011), 52–85.
J. Moser. On Harnack’s theorem for elliptic differential equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 14 (1961), 577–591.
J. Moser. A Harnack Inequality for Parabolic Differential Equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 17 (1964), 101–134.
A. Nekvinda. Characterization of traces of the weighted Sobolev space\(W^{1,p}(\Omega ,d_M^\varepsilon )\)on M, Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal 43 (1993), 695–711.
J. F. Nash. Continuity of solutions of parabolic and elliptic equations, Amer. J. Math. 80 (1958), 931–954.
K. Nyström, O. Sande. Extension properties and boundary estimates for a fractional heat operator, Nonlinear Anal. 140 (2016), 29–37.
O. A. Oleinik. On a problem of G. Fichera, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 157 (1964), 1297–1300.
A. Petrosyan, W. Shi, Y. Sire. Singular perturbation problem in boundary/fractional combustion, Nonlinear Anal. 138 (2016), 346–368.
R. Rossi, G. Savaré, A. Segatti, U. Stefanelli. Weighted energy-dissipation principle for gradient flows in metric spaces, J. Math. Pures Appl. 127 (2019), 1–66.
S. Samko, A. A. Kilbas, O. Marichev. “Fractional Integrals and Derivatives. Theory and Applications”, Edited and with a foreword by S. M. Nikol’skii. Translated from the 1987 Russian original. Revised by the authors. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Yverdon, 1993. xxxvi+976 pp.
E. Serra, P. Tilli. Nonlinear wave equations as limits of convex minimization problems: proof of a conjecture by De Giorgi, Ann. of Math. 175 (2012), 1551–1574.
E. Serra, P. Tilli. A minimization approach to hyperbolic Cauchy problems, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 18 (2016), 2019–2044.
J. Simon. Compact sets in the space\(L^p(0,T;B)\), Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 146 (1987), 65-96.
Y. Sire, S. Terracini, S. Vita. Liouville type theorems and regularity of solutions to degenerate or singular problems part I: even solutions, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 46 (2021), 310–361.
Y. Sire, S. Terracini, S. Vita. Liouville type theorems and regularity of solutions to degenerate or singular problems part II: odd solutions, Math. Eng. 3 (2021), 1–50.
P. R. Stinga, J. L. Torrea. Regularity theory and extension problem for fractional nonlocal parabolic equations and the master equation, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 49 (2017), 3893–3924.
A. Vasseur The De Giorgi method for elliptic and parabolic equations and some applications, Part 4, 195-222, Morningside Lect. Math., 4, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author states no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska–Curie grant agreement 892017 (LNLFB-Problems). The author wishes to thank Prof. Matteo Bonforte and Prof. Paolo Tilli for inspiring discussions concerning the results presented in this paper.
Appendices
Appendix A
In this section we review the definitions and some well-known properties of a class of energy spaces we use in our functional setting. The references for this part are [16, 20, 22, 25]. The symbols I, \(\mathbb {B}\) and \(\mathbb {Q}\) denote a generic interval in \(\mathbb {R}\), a generic ball in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+1}\), and a generic parabolic cylinder in \(\mathbb {R}^{N+2}\), respectively.
For \(p \in (1,\infty )\) and \(a \in (-1,1)\), we define
We denote with \(L^{p,a}(\mathbb {B})\) the closure of \(C_0^\infty (\mathbb {B})\) w.r.t. the norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{L^{p,a}(\mathbb {B})}\), and \(L^{p,a}(\mathbb {Q})\) the closure of \(C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q})\) w.r.t. the norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{L^{p,a}(\mathbb {Q})}\). Since the weight \(y \rightarrow |y|^a \in L_{loc}^1(\mathbb {R})\), it is not difficult to show that
We set
The space \(H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B})\) is the closure of \(C^\infty (\mathbb {B})\) w.r.t. the norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B})}\), while \(H_0^{1,a}(\mathbb {B})\) denotes the closure of \(C_0^\infty (\mathbb {B})\) w.r.t. the norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B})}\). The spaces \(H^{1,a}(\mathbb {Q})\) and \(H_0^{1,a}(\mathbb {Q})\) are defined analogously, while \(H^{-1,a}(\mathbb {B})\) is the dual space of \(H_0^{1,a}(\mathbb {B})\).
Finally, we set
and we define the spaces \(L^2(I:L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}))\) and \(L^2(I:H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}))\) as the closure of the space \(C^\infty (\mathbb {B}\times I)\) w.r.t. the norms \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{L^2(I:L^{2,a}(\mathbb {B}))}\) and \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{L^2(I:H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}))}\), respectively.
As it is well-known, these spaces enjoy some notable properties that we resume below.
Theorem A.1
(cf. [25, Proposition 2.1 and Proposition 2.6]) Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\). There exist a unique bounded linear operator \(|_{y=0}: H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_1) \rightarrow H^{\frac{1-a}{2}}(B_1)\) and a constant \(C > 0\) depending only on N and a, such that if \(u = U|_{y=0}\) then
for every \(U \in H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_1)\). Furthermore, we have
for every \(A > 1\). Finally, we also have
for every \(U \in H^{1,a}_0(\mathbb {B}_1)\) and every \(q \in [1,\tilde{\sigma }]\), where
Theorem A.2
([20, Theorem 1.2] and [22, Theorem 6, \(p=2\), \(s=N+1+a\)]) Assume either \(N \ge 2\) and \(a \in (-1,1)\), or \(N=1\) and \(a \in [0,1)\). Then there exists a constant \(\mathcal {S}_0 > 0\) depending only on N and a such that
for all \(r > 0\) and all \(U \in H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_r)\), where
Further, if \(N=1\) and \(a \in (-1,0)\), then,Footnote 2
for all \(r > 0\) and all \(U \in H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_r)\).
Theorem A.3
([16, Lemma 2.1]) Assume either \(N \ge 2\) and \(a \in (-1,1)\), or \(N=1\) and \(a \in [0,1)\). Then there exists a constant \(\mathcal {S} > 0\) depending only on N and a such that
for all \(r > 0\) and all \(U \in L^2(-r^2,r^2: H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_r))\), where
Further, if \(N=1\) and \(a \in (-1,0)\), then
for all \(r > 0\) and all \(U \in L^2(-r^2,r^2: H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_r))\).
Proof
It is enough to prove the statement in the case \(r=1\), \(N \ge 2\) and \(a \in (-1,1)\) (the other cases are similar). Let \(U \in L^2(-1,1: H^{1,a}(\mathbb {B}_1))\), \(\sigma \) as in Theorem A.2, \(\gamma = (2\sigma -1)/\sigma \) and \(\sigma ' = \sigma /(\sigma - 1)\). Assume first \(\sigma < +\infty \). For a.e. \(t \in (0,1)\), we have
by Hölder inequality and Theorem A.2. The thesis follows integrating in time. \(\square \)
Appendix B
In this second appendix we show a technical lemma. The proof is quite standard, but we include it for completeness.
Lemma B.1
Let \(N \ge 1\), \(a \in (-1,1)\), \(R > 0\), \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\), (p, q) satisfying (3.2), \(F_\varepsilon \in L^{p,a}(\mathbb {Q}_R)\) and \(f_\varepsilon \in L_\infty ^q(Q_R)\). Then, the following statements hold true:
-
(i)
If \(U_\varepsilon \) is a weak solution in \(\mathbb {Q}_R\), then for every \(l \in \mathbb {R}\), the functions
$$\begin{aligned} V_+:= (U_\varepsilon - l)_+ \quad \text { and } \quad V_-:= (U_\varepsilon - l)_- \end{aligned}$$are weak subsolutions in \(\mathbb {Q}_R\), with \(F_\varepsilon \) and \(f_\varepsilon \) replaced by \((F_\varepsilon )_+\) and \((f_\varepsilon )_+\), and \((F_\varepsilon )_-\) and \((f_\varepsilon )_-\), respectively.
-
(ii)
If \(U_\varepsilon \) is a weak subsolution in \(\mathbb {Q}_R\) and \(F_\varepsilon ,f_\varepsilon \ge 0\), then for every \(l \ge 0\), the function
$$\begin{aligned} V = \max \{U,l\} \end{aligned}$$is a weak subsolution in \(\mathbb {Q}_R\).
Proof
We give a sketch of the proof of (i) (part (ii) follows analogously). Let \(U = U_\varepsilon \), \(F = F_\varepsilon \), \(f= f_\varepsilon \) and \(l \in \mathbb {R}\). Since \(U-l\) is still a weak solution in \(\mathbb {Q}_R\), it is enough to consider the case \(l = 0\).
Let \(p(U) = U_+\) and consider a sequence of smooth functions \(p_j:\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) such that
and let \(V_j:= p_j(U)\) for every integer \(j \ge 1\). We fix a nonnegative \(\eta \in C_0^\infty (\mathbb {Q}_R)\) and consider
where we have used (3.3) with test \(p_j'(U) \eta \) and that \(\eta ,p_j',p_j'' \ge 0\). Since
as \(j \rightarrow +\infty \), thanks to the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem (and trace theorem), we deduce that \(U_+\) is a weak subsolution in \(\mathbb {Q}_R\) with \(F_+\) and \(f_+\) by passing to the limit as \(j \rightarrow + \infty \).
To complete the proof, it is enough to notice that \(-U\) is a weak solution in \(\mathbb {Q}_R\) with \(-F\) and \(-f\). Then \(U_- = (-U)_+\) is a weak subsolution in \(\mathbb {Q}_R\) with \(F_- = (-F)_+\) and \(f_- = (-f)_+\). \(\square \)
Remark B.2
The same proof shows that if \(U_\varepsilon \) is a weak subsolution in \(\mathbb {Q}_R\), then for every \(l \in \mathbb {R}\), the function \((U_\varepsilon - l)_+\) is a weak subsolution in \(\mathbb {Q}_R\), with \(F_\varepsilon \) and \(f_\varepsilon \) replaced by \((F_\varepsilon )_+\) and \((f_\varepsilon )_+\), respectively.
Appendix C
We report below the list of notations we use in the paper.
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
Audrito, A. On the existence and Hölder regularity of solutions to some nonlinear Cauchy–Neumann problems. J. Evol. Equ. 23, 58 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00028-023-00899-7
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00028-023-00899-7