1 Introduction
Quantitative propagation of smallness is one of the central issues in the quantitative study of solutions of elliptic and parabolic equations. It can be
stated as follows: a solution of a PDE on a domain can be made arbitrarily small on any given compact subset of by making it sufficiently small on an arbitrary given subdomain . There are many important applications in quantitative propagation of smallness, such as the stability estimates for the Cauchy problem [1] and the Hausdorff measure estimates of nodal sets of eigenfunctions [17], [18].
For solutions of second order parabolic equations
|
|
|
(1.1) |
(the summation convention is used throughout the paper). There exists a large literature on the three cylinder
inequality for solutions to parabolic equations. If is three times continuously differentiable with respect to and one time continuously differentiable with respect to , and and are bounded, then a not optimal three-cylinder inequality has been obtained in [11] and [20]. In [11], the three-cylinder inequality is derived by the Carleman estimates proved in [19]. In 2003, Vessella[21] has obtained the following optimal three-cylinder inequality:
|
|
|
(1.2) |
for every , under the assumptions that the derivatives , , , , for every , and are bounded, where
with the -dimensional open ball centered at of radius and as . The optimality of Equation consists in the growth rate of the exponent . Later on, Escauriaza and Vessella [8] have obtained the inequality under the assumptions that , and are bounded. Moreover, Vessella [22] has obtained the following two-sphere one-cylinder inequality:
|
|
|
(1.3) |
under the assumptions that satisfies the Lipschitz continuity: , and , where , and depends neither on nor on but may depend on and , see also [6], where the two-sphere one-cylinder inequality for time-dependent parabolic operators was first established. And the estimate has first been obtained by Landis and
Oleinik [15], when does not depend on .
In general, the Carleman estimates are tools often used to obtain a three-cylinder inequality and the unique continuation properties for solutions. The Carleman estimates are weighted integral inequalities with suitable weight functions satisfying some convexity properties. The three-cylinder inequality is obtained by applying the Carleman estimates by choosing a suitable function. For Carleman estimates and the unique continuation properties for the parabolic operators, we refer readers to [4, 5, 7, 9, 22, 14] and their references therein for more results.
Recently, Guadie and Malinnikova [12]
developed the three-ball inequality with the help of Poisson kernel for harmonic functions. This method also has been used in [13] to obtain an approximate three-ball inequality in elliptic periodic homogenization. Moreover, it is an interesting problem to extend the Carleman estimates to the homogenization equations and left for the future.
In this paper, we intend to develop an approximate two-sphere one-cylinder inequality for the -norm in parabolic periodic homogenization equation, parallel to the inequality , with the different exponent .
We consider a family of second-order parabolic equations in divergence form with rapidly oscillating and time-dependent periodic coefficients,
|
|
|
(1.4) |
where and is a symmetric matrix-valued function in for . Assume that satisfies the following assumptions:
(i) Ellipticity: For some and all , , it holds that
|
|
|
(1.5) |
(ii) 1-Periodicity:
|
|
|
(1.6) |
(iii)Hölder continuity: There exist constants and such that
|
|
|
(1.7) |
for any .
We are able to establish the following approximate two-sphere one-cylinder inequality in ellipsoids. The definition of ellipsoids depending on the coefficients is given in Section 2.
Theorem 1.1.
(Interior two-sphere one-cylinder inequality) Let be a solution of in . For , then there holds
|
|
|
(1.8) |
where , and depends only on , and , and is a subdomain of with and fixed.
A direct consequence of Theorem 1.1 is the following approximate two-sphere one-cylinder inequality in balls.
Corollary 1.2.
Let be a solution of in . For , then there holds
|
|
|
(1.9) |
where , and depends only on , and and and is a subdomain of with and fixed.
Remark 1.3.
Compared with the Lipschitz regularity needed to obtain the inequality , only Hölder continuity is imposed to obtain the inequality , with the different exponent . Moreover, as with fixed, the inequality converges to the standard two-sphere one-cylinder inequality (with the different exponent ). However, if , then the inequality gives us nothing, since in the -scale, the operator behaves like the classical operator after a change of variables, where the Lipschitz regularity needed to obtain the two-sphere one-cylinder inequality.
This interpolation method may also apply to the parabolic equation with potential. Namely, let satisfies the following equation
|
|
|
(1.10) |
where
with being 1-periodic and with . Note that is independent of the variable . Consequently, we are able to establish the following approximate two-sphere one-cylinder
inequality in ellipsoids for the solution to .
Theorem 1.4.
(Interior two-sphere one-cylinder inequality) Let be a solution of in . For , and , then there holds
|
|
|
(1.11) |
where , and depends only on , , , and , and is a subdomain of with and fixed.
Remark 1.5.
1.It should be noticed that the unique continuation property of the solution to the equation has been obtained under the assumption that and in [16]. To some extend, we have extended this result to parabolic equation in homogenization. We may refer readers to [4, 5, 7, 16, 14] and their references therein for more results about the nonzero potential.
2. The method used in Theorem 1.4 can easily apply to the equation with suitable .
2 Preliminaries
Let , where .
Assume that is 1-periodic in and satisfies the ellipticity condition . For , the corrector is defined as the weak solution to the following cell problem:
|
|
|
(2.1) |
where Note that
|
|
|
(2.2) |
By the rescaling property of , we obtain that
|
|
|
(2.3) |
Moreover, if is Hölder continuous in , then by standard regularity for , is Hölder continuous in , thus is bounded.
Let , where , and
|
|
|
(2.4) |
It is known that the constant matrix satisfies the ellipticity condition,
|
|
|
and , where depends only on and [2]. It is also true or easy to verify that is symmetric if is symmetric. Denote
|
|
|
Then is the homogenized operator for the family of parabolic operators , with . Since is symmetric and positive definite, there exists a matrix with such that . Note that
and
|
|
|
(2.5) |
We introduce a family of ellipsoids as
|
|
|
(2.6) |
It is easy to see that
|
|
|
(2.7) |
We will write as if the context is understood.
To move forward, let and denote the fundamental solutions for the parabolic operators , with and the homogenized operator , respectively. Moreover, it is easy to see that
|
|
|
(2.8) |
for any and with the matrix defined in .
The following lemmas state the asymptotic behaviors of with , whose proof could be found in [10].
Lemma 2.1.
Suppose that the coefficient matrix satisfies the assumptions and , then
|
|
|
(2.9) |
for any and , where depends only on . The constant C depends only on and .
The next lemma states the asymptotic behaviors of and .
Lemma 2.2.
Suppose that the coefficient matrix satisfies the assumptions , and , then
|
|
|
(2.10) |
|
|
|
for any and , where depends only on . The constant C depends only on , and in . Similarly, there holds
|
|
|
(2.11) |
|
|
|
where denote the correctors for with .
With the summation convention this means that for ,
|
|
|
(2.12) |
is bounded by the RHS of . And the similar result holds for .
The next lemma will be frequently used in the proof of Theorem 1.1.
Lemma 2.3.
Let be a weak solution of in , then
|
|
|
(2.13) |
where depends only on and , and is a subdomain of .
Proof.
The proof is standard. Choosing a cut-off function such that if , and if together with , then multiplying the equation by and integrating the resulting equation over leads to
|
|
|
|
(2.14) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus we have completed the proof of after noting the choice of .
∎
3 Approximate two-sphere one-cylinder inequality
Following [12], we are going to apply the Lagrange interpolation method to obtain the approximate two-sphere one-cylinder inequality. Actually, the similar method in [12] has been used by the author in [13] to obtain the approximate three-ball inequality in elliptic periodic homogenization. First, let us briefly review the standard Lagrange interpolation method in numerical analysis. Set
|
|
|
(3.1) |
for with . Let ba a simply connected open domain in the complex plane
that contains the nodes . Assume that is an analytic function without poles in the closure of .
By well-known calculations, it holds that
|
|
|
(3.2) |
Multiplying the last identify by and integrating along the boundary of leads to
|
|
|
(3.3) |
where
|
|
|
(3.4) |
By the residue theorem, there holds that
|
|
|
|
(3.5) |
|
|
|
|
where is called the interpolation error. See chapter 4 in [3] for more information.
In order to obtain the approximate two-sphere one-cylinder inequality for the solution in , we consider the Lagrange interpolation for
, where and is a fixed point such that
. In view of , we need to estimate the error term of the
approximation.
Following the idea in [13], we choose points on the segment with , then , . Select
in the definition of in and . Define
|
|
|
(3.6) |
Since , direct computation shows that
|
|
|
(3.7) |
To estimate , we choose to be the Chebyshev nodes, which means, , . Then we can write
|
|
|
where is the Chebyshev polynomial of the first kind. There also holds that
|
|
|
(3.8) |
where is the Chebyshev polynomial of the second kind. See e.g. section 3.2.3 in [3]. At each , there hold
|
|
|
(3.9) |
According to and , there holds
|
|
|
(3.10) |
Therefore, by , we have
|
|
|
(3.11) |
To estimate the error term , we do an analytic extension of the function
to the disc of radius centered at the origin in the complex plane . According to , we have
|
|
|
(3.12) |
where .
Note that in the disc , then there holds
|
|
|
(3.13) |
where and depend only on .
Similarly, with the notations above, consider the Lagrange interpolation for
, and we do an analytic extension of the
to the disc . Then according to again, there holds
|
|
|
(3.14) |
where is a vector with being its -th position. Note that in the disc , then we have
|
|
|
(3.15) |
where and depend only on .
The following lemma gives the interpolation error terms and for and , respectively.
Lemma 3.1.
If and with and , then there hold
|
|
|
(3.16) |
and
|
|
|
(3.17) |
where and depend only on .
Proof.
First, to see . According to and noting that with , it is easy to see that
|
|
|
(3.18) |
and
|
|
|
(3.19) |
In view of - and -, we have
|
|
|
|
(3.20) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where we have used estimate , the assumption that in the last inequality, and the constants and in the last inequality depend on .
Similarly, for , there holds
|
|
|
|
(3.21) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where we have used estimate instead of , compared to , and the assumption that in the last inequality, and the constants and in the last inequality depend on . Thus we have completed the proof of Lemma 3.1.
∎
To continue the proof of Theorem 1.1, since satisfies
|
|
|
(3.22) |
then simple computation shows that
|
|
|
|
(3.23) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where is a cut-off function such that if , and if for some fixed with and . Then
|
|
|
|
(3.24) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where is a fixed point.
The summation convention that repeated indices are summed is used in the rest of this section.
It is easy to see that
|
|
|
|
(3.25) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where are defined in and on the segment with , and . Moreover, it is easy to see that , . Similarly, we have
|
|
|
|
(3.26) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
with the same , and as in . Clearly, it follows from the representation formula that
|
|
|
(3.27) |
Before we continue, we give some notations first. Denote and by and , respectively. Next, we need to estimate - term by term. In view of , we have
|
|
|
|
(3.28) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where we have used in Lemma 2.2 in the above inequality.
To estimate , we first note that is bounded, then according to Lemma 3.1, there holds
|
|
|
|
(3.29) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for , noting that with , then the estimate and yields that
|
|
|
|
(3.30) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Next, we give the estimate of term by term in . In view of , then we have
|
|
|
|
(3.31) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for , we have
|
|
|
|
(3.32) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where we have used in the second inequality and in the third inequality.
Due to and similar to the estimate of , we have
|
|
|
|
(3.33) |
|
|
|
|
According to and , then there holds
|
|
|
|
(3.34) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly, in view of and , we have
|
|
|
|
(3.35) |
|
|
|
|
Moreover, similar to the proof of and , we have
|
|
|
(3.36) |
Consequently, noting that , then combining - yields that
|
|
|
|
(3.37) |
|
|
|
|
where does not depend on , , or . Note that we choose the coefficient of the third term in the RHS of is instead of , which can be done due to , and that will simply the computation when minimizing the summation (of course, one could use to obtain a more accurate conclusion). Since is an arbitrary point, then it follows that
|
|
|
|
(3.38) |
|
|
|
|
Now we need to minimize the summation of the terms in the RHS of by choosing the suitable integer value . Actually, the similar proof can be found in [13], we give it just for completeness. For simplicity, let
|
|
|
(3.39) |
First, choose such that
|
|
|
(3.40) |
which gives
|
|
|
Consequently, define
|
|
|
(3.41) |
where denotes its integer part. We minimize the above terms by considering two cases.
Case 1. .
In this case, let in . Then the third term can be absorbed into the second one in the right hand side of . Consequently, since and ,
it follows that
|
|
|
|
(3.42) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where
|
|
|
(3.43) |
Case 2. .
In this case, from the definition of , there holds that
|
|
|
(3.44) |
That is,
|
|
|
(3.45) |
Then, we choose such that
|
|
|
(3.46) |
which gives
|
|
|
Therefore, we can choose
|
|
|
(3.47) |
Taking in , then the second term can be absorbed into the third term in the RHS of . In view of , and noting
and , then we have
|
|
|
|
(3.48) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where
|
|
|
(3.49) |
Notice that according to the assumption of and . Consequently, combining the two cases above yields the result of Theorem 1.1. And Corollary 1.2 directly follows from Theorem 1.1 and the estimate .
4 Parabolic equation with potential in homogenization
In this section, we give the proof of Theorem 1.4.
Denote , and . Then it is easy to see that satisfying
|
|
|
(4.1) |
Then simple computation shows that
|
|
|
|
(4.2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where is a cut-off function such that if , and if for some fixed with and .
Then
|
|
|
|
(4.3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where is a fixed point. Noting that and in view the proof of , we can’t apply Lemma 3.1 to the last term on the RHS of to
estimate the following term
|
|
|
However, thanks to the term , which will give us the term after integrating by parts. In view of -, we need only to estimate the following term
|
|
|
(4.4) |
Let and be 1-periodic, solving the following equation
|
|
|
(4.5) |
Then we have
|
|
|
|
(4.6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar to the estimate of in , the term is easy to handle which we omit it here. In view of the definition of , , and , with , we have
|
|
|
|
(4.7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
with close to and ,
where we have used and if , and for , and the size estimates if is Hölder continuous [10], as well as the following inequality
|
|
|
|
(4.8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where we have used the Sobolev embedding (since close to , and then ), as well as in the above inequality.
Similarly, in view of and , there holds
|
|
|
|
(4.9) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
with and , close to and sufficiently large, close to with . Note that close to . And we have used, in the estimate , the size estimate , as well as the the following estimates for ,
|
|
|
|
(4.10) |
|
|
|
|
which may be proved by the estimates
and
|
|
|
if .
Thus, combining and yields that
|
|
|
(4.11) |
Consequently, in view of , we actually have
|
|
|
|
(4.12) |
|
|
|
|
Then, totally similar to the discussion of Theorem 1.1, there holds
|
|
|
(4.13) |
this together with and gives the desired estimate , thus completes this proof.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Prof. Luis Escauriaza for helpful discussions.