Local well-posedness for the Schrödinger-KdV system in
Abstract
In this paper, we study local well-posedness theory of the Cauchy problem for Schrödinger-KdV system in Sobolev spaces . We obtain the local well-posedness when , . The result is sharp in some sense and improves previous one by Corcho-Linares [3]. The endpoint case has been solved in [5, 16]. We show the necessary and sufficient conditions for related estimates in Bourgain spaces. To solve the borderline cases, we use the spaces introduced by Koch-Tataru [12] and function spaces constructed by Guo-Wang [5]. We also use normal form argument to control the nonresonant interaction.
1 Introduction
We study the Cauchy problem for the Schrödinger-KdV system
(S-KdV) |
where are real-valued constants, is complex-valued and is real-valued. In fact, for local wellposedness theory, the argument also works for complex-valued and . This system arises in fluid mechanics as well as plasma physics. See [3] and reference therein.
We recall some early results on this system. Tsutsumi [15] obtained global well-posedness for initial data with . For the case of , Guo-Miao [4] obtained global well-posedness in , . Bekiranov-Ogawa-Ponce [1] obtained local well-posedness in , . Corcho-Linares [3] obtained local well-posedness in ,
Guo-Wang [5] obtained local well-posedness in . The same result was also showed in [16]. There are stronger well-posedness results for KdV and cubic Schrödinger equation. See [11, 7]. These results rely heavily on the complete integrability of equations. However, Schrödigner–KdV system is not completely integrable. See for example [1]. To approach lower regularity well-posedness than for (S-KdV) seems to be difficult.
The main results in this paper are as follows:
Theorem 1.1.
Let . The solution mapping of (S-KdV) from to can not be with topology except
If , , The solution mapping of (S-KdV) from to can not be with topology except
Theorem 1.2.
(S-KdV) is local well-posed in for
Remark 1.3.
We show Theorem 1.1 by disproving some multi-linear estimates. One may obtain stronger ill-posedness result. For example, the solution mapping may be not uniformly continuous. Here, we only concern the region of that one can not construct solution by contraction mapping argument. Thus it is reasonable to say that Theorem 1.2 is sharp.
Remark 1.4.
If , (S-KdV) is also local well-posed in for
Since the case needs some extra efforts, we would study this problem in a forthcoming paper.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we show the necessary and sufficient conditions for the boundedness of second Picard iteration in Sobolev spaces . Combining the ill-posedness result for single equation, we obtain Theorem 1.1. In Section 3, we establish some multi-linear estimates in Bourgain spaces which implies local well-posedness of (S-KdV) in , (the region in Figure 1.4). In Section 4, we first recall the definition and some basic properties of introduced by Koch-Tataru [12]. In Subsection 4.2, we consider the case . In Subsection 4.3, we consider the case , by using the function spaces constructed by Guo-Wang [5]. We use normal form argument to improve the estimates for nonresonant interaction in Section 5. In Subsection 5.1, we consider the case (the region in Figure 1.4). In Subsection 5.2, we consider the case , ( containing the region in Figure 1.4). Combining all these cases, we obtain Theorem 1.2.
Figure 1
Notations. For , means that there exists such that and means . may depends on or some fixed parameters. We use to denote . For , we denote the conjugate number of by . We use to denote the indicator of set .
Let be a even, smooth function and , . Define , . We always use to denote a dyadic number larger that . In this article, we use inhomogeneous decomposition. Thus we define Littlewood-Paley projections by
where we use to denote the Fourier transform
We use to denote the Fourier multiplier operator . norm is defined by .
We use to denote and . Sometimes we use to denote , , where is a sufficiently large but fixed dyadic number.
In many situations, we will do the Fourier transform for time variable. Thus we use , , and , , to distinguish which variable that we perform Fourier transform on. With a little abuse of notation, we use to denote if is a function on , and also use to denote if is just a function on .
We define , by , respectively. Also we define by and similarly for . For a general function space on , we usually use to denote the space restricted on .
Let , and
We use the same notation as Corcho-Linares [3] to define Bourgain spaces.
For the definition of and other notations, see Subsection 4.1.
In this paper we focus on local well-posedness. Without loss of generality, we assume that .
2 Multi-linear estimates
In this section, we consider the boundedness of second Picard iteration. We evaluate the multi-linear terms on time .
Lemma 2.1.
The inequalities
(2.1) | ||||
(2.2) | ||||
(2.3) | ||||
(2.4) |
hold if and only if ; ; ; respectively.
Proof.
Necessary part of (2.1). For one has
Let , , . , one has
Thus one has . Note that . Then (2.1) can not hold for .
Let , . (2.2) is equivalent to
Necessary part of (2.2). Let , , . one has
Note that . Thus, which means .
Let , . , one has
Thus, which means .
For , let ,
Then, , one has and then
Thus,
Note that . Thus, one has .
Sufficient part of (2.2). We decompose the integration into two parts.
Case 1. : .
Case 2. : .
Case 1. By the definition of , and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, one has
Case 2. By the definition of , we have . By Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we only need to control
Due to and the support set property of , one has
Let . Since , one has . It is easy to control the integral for . For , one has , . Thus, for , one has
We finish the proof for (2.2).
By polarization (2.3) is equivalent to
(2.5) |
By the definition of -norm, one has
Necessary part of (2.3). Let . , one has
Thus,
Since , we obtain .
We decompose the integration into two parts.
Case 1. : , or , .
Case 2. : or .
For Case 1, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, one has
For Case 2, by symmetry, we only consider . By Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have
Thus, (2.5) holds for . By interpolation, (2.5) holds for . We finish the proof of (2.3).
Similar to the argument for (2.2)-(2.3), (2.4) is equivalent to
(2.6) |
Necessary part of (2.4). Let , , . , one has
Since , we obtain .
Let , . For , one has
Since , we obtain .
Let , , . Then, , one has , . Let . Then, , one has
Since , we obtain . Thus, .
Sufficient part of (2.4). By interpolation, we only need to show (2.6) for and , . If , by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality one has
Thus,
Now, we consider . For point , we decompose the integration into two parts.
Case 1.1. : .
Case 1.2. : .
For Case 1.1, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, one has
For Case 1.2, one has . By Cauchy-Schwarz inequality one has
Let . For , one has . Thus,
By duality one has
For points , we decompose the integration into two parts.
Case 2.1. : .
Case 2.2. : .
For Case 2.1, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, for , one has
3 Multi-linear estimates in Bourgain space
In this section, our main result is:
Proposition 3.1.
Lemma 3.2.
If there exists , such that
(3.5) |
then .
Let , . If there exists such that ,
(3.6) |
then . Conversely, if , then there exists such that , one has
(3.7) |
Proof.
By the definition of and duality, (3.5) is equivalent to
(3.8) | ||||
Let , , and . Then, .
Thus, which means .
(3.7) is equivalent to
(3.11) | ||||
By Lemma 3.1 in [3], (3.11) holds for . If holds for , then it also holds for , and , . By multi-interpolation, we only need to show the inequality for .
We decompose the integration into two parts.
Case 1. : .
Case 2. : .
For Case 1, the inequality reduces to which has been shown in [3]. For Case 2, one has . Then,
If , one has
If , then
By the symmetry between and , one has the result.
If , , one has
If , , one has
We finish the proof of this lemma. ∎
Lemma 3.3.
Let . If there exists , such that
(3.12) |
then . Conversely, if , there exists such that , one has
(3.13) |
Proof.
By the definition of and duality, (3.12) is equivalent to
Let , , . Then,
Since and , we obtain
Thus, .
Let , , . For , , one has
Thus, . On the support of , one has.
Thus, since .
If holds for , then it also holds for , and , . By multi-interpolation, we only need to show the inequality for and where .
For , (3.13) is equivalent to
For , one has
If and , then for , we have
By Strichartz estimate, we obtain the result.
If and , one has
Thus, which means . For , one has
For , if , one can reduce this case to . Thus, we only consider the case . Thus, .
If , one has
For , by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, one can control this part by
If , one has
Let . Then, since . Let be the inverse function of . By Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, one can control this part by
Due to the symmtry between and , the same argument works when . We finish the proof. ∎
Lemma 3.4.
If there exists such that
(3.14) |
then , . Conversely, if , , then there exists such that (3.14) holds.
Proof.
Proof of Proposition 3.1.
By Proposition 3.1, we have
Proposition 3.5.
(S-KdV) is local well-posed in where
4 Borderline cases by using spaces
To manipulate the borderline cases, we need the spaces which were introduced in [12]. Most of the materials can be found in [6]. For reader’s convenience, we include the definitions and basic properties here.
4.1 spaces
Definition 4.1 (Definition 2.1, 2.3 in [6]).
Let be the set of finite partitions . . For and with and , we call the function given by a -atom. Define the atomic space
with norm
(4.1) |
Let , the space is defined as the normed space of all functions such that exists and for which the norm
is finite, where we use the convention . Let denote all which are right-continuous and .
Proposition 4.2 (Basic properties, Proposition 2.2–2.5 and Corollary 2.6 in [6]).
Let .
-
are Banach spaces. is a closed subspace of .
-
The embedding is continuous.
-
The embedding is continuous.
Proposition 4.3 (Proposition 2.7 in [6]).
Let . For and and a partition , we define
denotes the inner product. There is a unique number with the property that for all there exists such that for every it holds that
and the associated bilinear form
satisfies the estimate
Theorem 4.4 (Theorem 2.8 in [6]).
Let . We have
in the sense that
is an isometric isomorphism.
For a real-valued function , we define
Let , .
Lemma 4.5 (Corollary 2.15 in [6]).
We have
In this paper, we define
and similarly for . Also, let , , , . In Subsection 4.3, we also use and to denote and respectively. Replacing with , we define , , similarly.
We have the following transversal estimates.
Lemma 4.6.
For , we have
(4.2) |
For , we have
(4.3) |
For , we have
(4.4) |
4.2 The case
Let , . We denote the indicator of set by . Then We define .
Also, we define . We consider the linear and multi-linear estimates in , .
Lemma 4.7.
Let , . Then , one has
Proof.
By maximal function estimate, one has
It is easy to conclude the proof of this lemma by the definition of , . ∎
Lemma 4.8.
Let , . one has
and
Proof.
By duality, we only need to show
By Hölder inequality, fractional Leibniz rule, one has
By Hölder inequality, , we have
Similar to the former argument,
By Hölder inequality and , , one has
We finish the proof of this lemma. ∎
Lemma 4.9.
Let , , .
Proof.
By maximal function estimate and transversal estimates (lem 4.6) , one has
Similarly, one has
We finish the proof of this lemma. ∎
Lemma 4.10.
Let , , . Then for , we have
Proof.
By replacing to , , , we can assume that , , are supported on . Firstly, by Hölder, Bernstein inequalities, we have
(4.5) | ||||
By Lemma 4.5, we have . Since
by choosing , we have
By Lemma 4.5 and Hölder inequality, we have
Similarly, we have
By Hölder inequality, we have
We can control other terms similarly. Thus,
By interpolation with (4.5), we have
By choosing , we conclude the proof of the lemma. ∎
Lemma 4.11.
Let , . Then,
Proof.
Lemma 4.12.
Let , . If or , one has
(4.6) |
If , one has
(4.7) |
If , one has
(4.8) |
Proof.
By replacing , , to , , , we can assume that , , are supported on . It is easy to obtain the estimate when . Thus, we assume . By Lemma 4.5, we have , .
If , by choosing for some sufficiently small , we have
By Hölder inequality, (4.4), and Lemma 4.5, we have
By Hölder inequality and (4.2), we have
If , then we have . By choosing for some sufficiently small , we have
By Lemma 4.5, (4.3) and Hölder inequality, we have
By Hölder inequality and Lemma 4.5, we have
For , we claim that for any
(4.9) | ||||
In fact, following the argument for proving (2.4), proving (4.9) reduces to proving
By Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, one has
Then for , , , by (4.9) we have
By the definition of , , we obtain (4.8). ∎
Lemma 4.13.
Let , , .
Proof.
Proposition 4.14.
(S-KdV) is local well-posed in for .
4.3 The case
We need scaling. Following the argument in [5], we consider the system
(4.10) |
We assume that , . Let
Define
and
Let be the space restricted on .
Lemma 4.15.
Let . , , .
Proof.
By duality, we only need to show
By the argument for Lemma 3.4 (a) in [5], we only need to prove
By modulation decomposition, one has
Let . Note that . Let . If , we have
Then for () one has
If , we have
Thus for () we have
If , we have
Thus for one has
Since one can choose sufficiently small, thus we can obtain the desired inequality when . ∎
For other terms, the estimates in [5] are also effective here. Thus we obtain
Proposition 4.16.
Let , . Given with , then the equation (4.10) has a unique solution .
By rescaling we obtain the local well-posedness of (S-KdV) with , .
5 Other regions by using normal form argument
For other regions, the main problem comes from high modulation. Thus we use normal form argument which is a powerful tool to control the high modulation cases.
5.1 Upper region
In this subsection, we show the local well-posedness of (S-KdV) in , .
The main problem comes from the term . Thus we use normal form argument to separate the high modulation part from this term. The integral equation of is
Then,
Define bilinear operator and by
where and ()
Integrating by parts and using the system (S-KdV), we have
Let
and . Now system for is
(5.1) |
We use the following work spaces to solve .
where is the space restricted on . To establish the local well-posedness, we need the following classical estimates.
Lemma 5.1 ([8]).
. For , we have
Also, , . For , we have
By duality and Christ-Kiselev lemma, one has the following lemma.
Lemma 5.2 ([13]).
For , , we have
We also need the following Leibniz-type estimate.
Lemma 5.3 (Theorem 4 in [2]).
Let , . For , , , , , we have
5.1.1 Multi-linear estimates
Firstly, we show the control of boundary term.
Lemma 5.4.
Let , , . Then .
Proof.
By the definition of , we have
Since , we have for in the support of . Thus, we have
Then, by the Sobolev multiply estimate ([14], page 855), for , , , we have . ∎
Lemma 5.5.
Let , . Then,
Lemma 5.6.
.
Proof.
By the definition of , we have
Denote
by . We will show that there exists such that . Assume this. Then one has
Now, we estimate . If , we have
Thus,
If , , we only consider the case . The argument for is simpler. Integrating by parts, we have
By Minkowski inequality and Plancherel identity, we have
By similar argument for , one has .
For , , we have
Note that by the former argument, we also have where . . Note that by Hölder inequality, we have . Let
We have , . We finish the proof. ∎
Lemma 5.7.
Let , , , . Then,
Proof.
By Plancherel identity and maximal function estimate, we have ()
If , , we have
If , , for , we have
For , , we have
Overall, we obtain
By the same argument, we have
We finish the proof of this lemma. ∎
Lemma 5.8.
Let , . Then we have
Proof.
By Lemma 4.12, we have
By general extension result Proposition 2.16 in [6], we only need to show
Since , , , then for any we have
For the first term, it is easy to obtain
For the second term, by duality we need to estimate
By Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and (4.2), the upper term is controlled by
Thus one has
The last inequality we use the condition . ∎
Lemma 5.9.
Let , . We have
Proof.
Proposition 5.10.
Let , . (S-KdV) is local well-posed in .
5.2 Lower region
In this subsection, we show the local well-posedness of (S-KdV) with , . Consider the equation (4.10) with , .
The main problem comes from the term . We should gain -order derivative for high modulation cases. To achieve this, we use norm form argument.
Define bilinear operator by
where and
Recall some notations in Subsection 4.3. Integration by parts we have
Lemma 5.11.
Let . Then satisfies the integral equation
(5.2) | ||||
We will solve by using Bourgain space for some .
Lemma 5.12.
Let . Then .
Proof.
By the definition of we have
We finish the proof. ∎
Lemma 5.13.
Let be a solution of (4.10). Then there exists such that
Proof.
We only need to prove
(5.3) | ||||
(5.4) | ||||
(5.5) | ||||
(5.6) |
and
(5.7) |
For (5.3), due to the definition of , one has
For the term , we have
By refined Strichartz estimate for Schrödinger equation, for one has
Thus we obtain
For the term , , in fact we would estimate
Since , , without of loss of generality we would assume that . Thus for one has
For , one has
Thus for we obtain ()
For one has
By scaling argument and , we have
By Hölder inequality one has
Thus we have
Thus we obtain
Overall one has
For (5.4) we have
For (5.5) we have
For (5.6) we have
For the first term one has
For the second term one has
Without loss of generality we would assume that . Let , , , . Note that for , , , one has
By symmetry we can assume . Let , be the set , . We claim: There exists such that
(5.8) | ||||
Using this one has
and then concludes the proof of (5.6). To show (5.8) we divide the integral into several parts. Let .
If , , , then one has
If , , one has
The argument for is similar. If , one has
Lemma 5.14.
Let . There exists such that for any one has
Proof.
For low frequency of we have
For other parts we only need to show
In fact one has
See for example Lemma 3.4 (a) in [5]. ∎
Lemma 5.15.
Let . . Then
Proof.
By algebraic property of , we have
We conclude the proof. ∎
Proposition 5.16.
Let be a solution of (4.10) with initial data , . Then . Also the mapping is continuous.
Proof.
Remark 5.17.
For the region , , the argument is simpler than the case . In fact, for , let in the former argument and we substitute , by , respectively. Let be the solution of (S-KdV) with initial data , . Then we have and
for some . Combining with Lemmas 5.14–5.15, we obtain the unique solution of equation (5.2). Then by the same argument as the case , we know that is in and relies on continuously.
Acknowledgments: The first and second authors are supported in part by the NSFC, grant 12171007. The second author is also supported in part by the NSFC, grant 12301116. The authors would like to thank Professors Boling Guo and Baoxiang Wang for their invaluable support and encouragement.
References
- [1] D. Bekiranov, T. Ogawa, and G. Ponce, Weak solvability and well-posedness of a coupled Schrödinger-Korteweg de Vries equation for capillary-gravity wave interactions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 125 (1997), no. 10, 2907–2919.
- [2] C. Benea and C. Muscalu, Multiple vector-valued inequalities via the helicoidal method, Anal. & PDE 9 (2016), no. 8, 1931–1988.
- [3] A. Corcho and F. Linares, Well-posedness for the Schrödinger-Korteweg-de Vries system, Tran. Amer. Math. Soc. 359 (2007), no. 9, 4089–4106.
- [4] B. Guo and C. Miao, Well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for the coupled system of the Schrödinger-KdV equations, Acta Math. Sin. 15 (1999), 215–224.
- [5] Z. Guo and Y. Wang, On the well-posedness of the Schrödinger-Korteweg- de Vries system, J. Differential Equations 249 (2010), no. 10, 2500–2520.
- [6] M. Hadac, S. Herr, and H. Koch, Well-posedness and scattering for the KP-II equation in a critical space, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 26 (2009), no. 3, 917–941.
- [7] B. Harrop-Griffiths, R. Killip, and M. Visan, Sharp well-posedness for the cubic NLS and mKdV in , arXiv:2003.05011 (2020).
- [8] C. E. Kenig, G. Ponce, and L. Vega, Oscillatory integrals and regularity of dispersive equations, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 40 (1991), no. 1, 33–69.
- [9] , A bilinear estimate with applications to the KdV equation, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 9 (1996), no. 2, 573–603.
- [10] , On the ill-posedness of some canonical dispersive equations, Duke Math. J. 106 (2001), no. 3, 617–633.
- [11] R. Killip and M. Vişan, KdV is well-posed in , Ann. of Math. 190 (2019), no. 1, 249–305.
- [12] H. Koch and D. Tataru, Dispersive estimates for principally normal pseudodifferential operators, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 58 (2005), no. 2, 217–284.
- [13] L. Molinet and F. Ribaud, Well-posedness results for the generalized Benjamin–Ono equation with small initial data, J. Math. Pures Appl. 83 (2004), no. 2, 277–311.
- [14] T. Tao, Multilinear weighted convolution of functions, and applications to nonlinear dispersive equations, Amer. J. Math. 123 (2001), no. 5, 839–908.
- [15] M. Tsutsumi, Well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for a coupled Schrödinger-KdV equation, Math. Sci. Appl 2 (1993), 513–528.
- [16] H. Wang and S. Cui, The Cauchy problem for the Schrödinger–KdV system, J. Differential Equations 250 (2011), no. 9, 3559–3583.
Yingzhe Ban: The Graduate School of China Academy of Engineering Physics, Beijing, 100088, P.R. China
E-mail address: [email protected]
Jie Chen: School of Sciences, Jimei University, Xiamen 361021, P.R. China
E-mail address: [email protected]
Ying Zhang: The Graduate School of China Academy of Engineering Physics, Beijing, 100088, P.R. China
E-mail address: [email protected]