Abstract
We consider the two dimensional surface quasi-geostrophic equations with super-critical dissipation. For large initial data in critical Sobolev and Besov spaces, we prove optimal Gevrey regularity endowed with the same decay exponent as the linear part. This settles several open problems in Biswas (J Differ Equ 257(6):1753–1772, 2014), Biswas et al. (J Funct Anal 269(10):3083–3119, 2015).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
We consider the following two-dimensional dissipative surface quasi-geostrophic equation:
where \(\nu \ge 0\), \(0<\gamma \le 2\), \(D=(-\Delta )^{\frac{1}{2}}\), \(D^{\gamma }= (-\Delta )^{\frac{\gamma }{2}}\), and more generally the fractional operator \(D^s =(-\Delta )^{\frac{s}{2}}\) corresponds to the Fourier multiplier \(|\xi |^s\), i.e. \( \widehat{D^s f }(\xi ) = |\xi |^s {\widehat{f}} (\xi ) \) whenever it is suitably defined under certain regularity assumptions on f. The scalar-valued unknown \(\theta \) is the potential temperature, and \(u=D^{-1} \nabla ^{\perp } \theta \) corresponds to the velocity field of a fluid which is incompressible. One can write \(u=(-R_2\theta , R_1\theta )\) where \(R_j\) is the \(j^{{\text {th}} }\) Riesz transform in 2D. The dissipative quasi-geostrophic equation (1.1) can be derived from general quasi-geostrophic equations in the special case of constant potential vorticity and buoyancy frequency [24]. It models the evolution of the potential temperature \(\theta \) of a geostrophic fluid with velocity u on the boundary of a rapidly rotating half space. As such it is often termed surface quasi-geostrophic equations in the literature. If \(\theta \) is a smooth solution to (1.1), then it obeys the \(L^p\)-maximum principle, namely
Similar results hold when the domain \({\mathbb {R}}^2\) is replaced by the periodic torus \({\mathbb {T}}^2\). Moreover, if \(\theta _0\) is smooth and in \( \dot{H}^{-\frac{1}{2}}({\mathbb {R}}^2)\), then one can show that
More precisely, for the inviscid case \(\nu =0\) one has conservation and for the dissipative case \(\nu >0\) one has dissipation of the \({\dot{H}}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\)-Hamiltonian. Indeed for \(\nu =0\) by using the identity (below \(P_{<J}\) is a smooth frequency projection to \(\{|\xi |\le \text{ constant }\cdot 2^J\}\))
one can prove the conservation of \(\Vert D^{-\frac{1}{2}} \theta \Vert _2^2\) under the assumption \(\theta \in L_{t,x}^3\). The two fundamental conservation laws (1.2) and (1.3) play important roles in the wellposedness theory for both weak and strong solutions. In [25] Resnick proved the global existence of a weak solution for \(0< \gamma \le 2\) in \(L_t^{\infty }L_x^2\) for any initial data \(\theta _0\in L_x^2\). In [23] Marchand proved the existence of a global weak solution in \(L_t^{\infty } H^{-\frac{1}{2}}_x\) for \(\theta _0\in {\dot{H}}^{-\frac{1}{2}}_x({\mathbb {R}}^2)\) or \(L_t^{\infty } L^p_x\) for \(\theta _0 \in L^p_x({\mathbb {R}}^2)\), \(p\ge \frac{4}{3}\), when \(\nu >0\) and \(0<\gamma \le 2\). It should be pointed out that in Marchand’s result, the non-dissipative case \(\nu =0\) requires \(p> 4/3\) since the embedding \(L^{\frac{4}{3}} \hookrightarrow \dot{H}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\) is not compact. On the other hand for the diffusive case one has extra \(L_t^2 \dot{H}^{\frac{\gamma }{2}-\frac{1}{2}}\) conservation by construction. In recent [10], non-uniqueness of stationary weak solutions were proved for \(\nu \ge 0\) and \(\gamma <\frac{3}{2}\). In somewhat positive direction, uniqueness of surface quasi-geostrophic patches for the non-dissipative case \(\nu =0\) with moving boundary satisfying the arc-chord condition was obtained in [7].
The purpose of this work is to establish optimal Gevrey regularity in the whole supercritical regime \(0<\gamma < 1\). We begin by explaining the meaning of super-criticality. For \(\nu >0\), the equation (1.1) admits a certain scaling invariance, namely: if \(\theta \) is a solution, then for \(\lambda >0\)
is also a solution. As such the critical space for (1.1) is \(\dot{H}^{2-\gamma }({\mathbb {R}}^2)\) for \(0\le \gamma \le 2\). In terms of the \(L^{\infty }\) conservation law, (1.1) is \(L^{\infty }\)-subcritical for \(\gamma >1\), \(L^{\infty }\)-critical for \(\gamma =1\) and \(L^{\infty }\)-supercritical for \(0<\gamma <1\). Whilst the wellposedness theory for (1.1) is relatively complete for the subcritical and critical regime \(1\le \gamma \le 2\) (cf. [1, 11, 12, 15, 18] and the references therein), there are very few results in the supercritical regime \(0<\gamma <1\) ( [13, 17, 21, 27]). In this connection we mention three representative works: (1) The work of Miura [22] which establishes for the first time the large data local wellposedness in the critical space \(H^{2-\gamma }\); (2) The work of Dong [12] which via a new set of commutator estimates establishes optimal polynomial in time smoothing estimates for critical and supercritical quasi-geostrophic equations; (3) The work of Biswas, Martinez and Silva [3] which establishes short-time Gevrey regularity with an exponent strictly less than \(\gamma \), namely:
where \(2\le p<\infty \), \(1\le q<\infty \) and \(\alpha <\gamma \).
Inspired by these preceding works, we develop in this paper an optimal local regularity theory for the super-critical quasi-geostrophic equation. Set \(\nu =1\) in (1.1). If we completely drop the nonlinear term and keep only the linear dissipation term, then the linear solution is given by
Formally speaking, one has the identity \(e^{tD^{\gamma }}( \theta _{\textrm{linear}}(t,\cdot ) ) =\theta _0\) for any \(t>0\). This shows that the best smoothing estimate one can hope for is
where X is a working Banach space. The purpose of this work, rough speaking, is to show that for the nonlinear local solution to (1.1) (say taking \(\nu =1\) for simplicity of notation), we have
where \(\epsilon _0>0\) can be taken any small number, and X can be a Sobolev or Besov space. In this sense this is the best possible regularity estimate for this and similar problems.
We now state in more detail the main results. To elucidate the main idea we first showcase the result on the prototypical \(L^2\)-type critical \(H^{2-\gamma }\) space. The following offers a substantial improvement of Miura [22] and Dong [12]. To keep the paper self-contained, we give a bare-hand harmonic-analysis-free proof. The framework we develop here can probably be applied to many other problems.
Theorem 1.1
Let \(\nu =1\), \(0<\gamma < 1\) and \(\theta _0 \in H^{2-\gamma } \). For any \(0<\epsilon _0<1\), there exists \(T=T(\gamma ,\theta _0, \epsilon _0)>0\) and a unique solution \(\theta \in C_t^0\,H^{2-\gamma } \cap C_t^1\,H^{1-\gamma } \cap L_t^2\,H^{2-\frac{\gamma }{2}} ([0,T]\times {\mathbb {R}}^2)\) to (1.1) such that \(f(t,\cdot ) =e^{\epsilon _0 tD^{\gamma } }\theta (t,\cdot ) \in C_t^0\,H^{2-\gamma } \cap L_t^2\, H^{2-\frac{\gamma }{2}} ([0,T]\times {\mathbb {R}}^2)\) and
where \(C>0\) is a constant depending on \((\gamma , \epsilon _0)\).
Our next result is devoted to the Besov case. In particular, we resolve the problem left open in [3], namely one can push to the optimal threshold \(\alpha =\gamma \). Moreover we cover the whole regime \(1\le p<\infty \).
Theorem 1.2
Let \(\nu =1\), \(0<\gamma <1\), \(1\le p<\infty \) and \(1\le q<\infty \). Assume the initial data \(\theta _0 \in B^{1+\frac{2}{p}-\gamma }_{p,q}({\mathbb {R}}^2)\). There exists \(T=T(\gamma ,\theta _0,p,q)>0\) and a unique solution \(\theta \in C_t^0([0,T], B^{1+\frac{2}{p}-\gamma }_{p,q})\) to (1.1) such that \(f(t,\cdot ) =e^{\frac{1}{2} t D^{\gamma }} \theta (t,\cdot ) \in C_t^0([0,T], B^{1 +\frac{2}{p}-\gamma }_{p,q})\) and
where \(C>0\) is a constant depending on \((\gamma , p,q)\).
The techniques introduced in this paper may apply to many other similar models such as Burgers equations, generalized SQG models, and Chemotaxi equations (cf. recent very interesting works [4, 8, 14, 28]). Also there are some promising evidences that a set of nontrivial multiplier estimates can be generalized from our work. All these will be explored elsewhere. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we collect some preliminary materials along with the needed proofs. In Sect. 3 we give the nonlinear estimates for the \(H^{2-\gamma }\) case. In Sect. 4 we give the proof of Theorem 1.1. In Sect. 5 we give the proof of Theorem 1.2.
2 Notation and Preliminaries
In this section we introduce some basic notation used in this paper and collect several useful lemmas.
We define the sign function \({\text {sgn}}(x)\) on \({\mathbb {R}}\) as:
For any two quantities X and Y, we denote \(X \lesssim Y\) if \(X \le C Y\) for some constant \(C>0\). The dependence of the constant C on other parameters or constants are usually clear from the context and we will often suppress this dependence. We denote \(X \lesssim _{Z_1,\ldots , Z_N} Y\) if the implied constant depends on the quantities \(Z_1,\ldots , Z_N\). We denote \(X\sim Y\) if \(X\lesssim Y\) and \(Y \lesssim X\).
For any quantity X, we will denote by \(X+\) the quantity \(X+\epsilon \) for some sufficiently small \(\epsilon >0\). The smallness of such \(\epsilon \) is usually clear from the context. The notation \(X-\) is similarly defined. This notation is very convenient for various exponents in interpolation inequalities. For example instead of writing
we shall write
For any two quantities X and Y, we shall denote \(X\ll Y\) if \(X \le c Y\) for some sufficiently small constant c. The smallness of the constant c (and its dependence on other parameters) is usually clear from the context. The notation \(X\gg Y\) is similarly defined. Note that our use of \(\ll \) and \(\gg \) here is different from the usual Vinogradov notation in number theory or asymptotic analysis.
We shall adopt the following notation for Fourier transform on \({\mathbb {R}}^n\):
Similar notation will be adopted for the Fourier transform of tempered distributions. For real-valued Schwartz functions \(f:\; {\mathbb {R}}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\), \(g:\, {\mathbb {R}}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\), the usual Plancherel takes the form (note that \(\overline{{\hat{g}}(\xi )}={\hat{g}}(-\xi )\))
We shall denote for \(s>0\) the fractional Laplacian \(D^s = (-\Delta )^{s/2} = |\nabla |^s\) as the operator corresponding to the symbol \(|\xi |^s\). For any \(0\le r \in {\mathbb {R}}\), the Sobolev norm \(\Vert f\Vert _{\dot{H}^r}\) is defined as
We will need to use the Littlewood–Paley (LP) frequency projection operators. To fix the notation, let \(\phi _0 \in C_c^\infty ({\mathbb {R}}^n )\) and satisfy
Let \(\phi (\xi ):= \phi _0(\xi ) - \phi _0(2\xi )\) which is supported in \(\frac{1}{2} \le |\xi | \le \frac{7}{6}\). For any \(f \in {\mathcal {S}}^{\prime }({\mathbb {R}}^n)\), \(j \in {\mathbb {Z}}\), define
Sometimes for simplicity we write \(f_j = P_j f\), \(f_{\le j} = P_{\le j} f\), and \(f_{[a,b]}=\sum _{a\le j \le b} f_j\). Note that by using the support property of \(\phi \), we have \(P_j P_{j^{\prime }} =0\) whenever \(|j-j^{\prime }|>1\). For \(f \in {\mathcal {S}}^{\prime }\) with \(\lim _{j\rightarrow -\infty } P_{\le j} f =0\), one has the identity
and for general tempered distributions the convergence (for low frequencies) should be taken as modulo polynomials.
The Bony paraproduct for a pair of functions \(f,g\in {\mathcal {S}}({\mathbb {R}}^n) \) take the form
For \(s\in {\mathbb {R}}\), \(1\le p,q \le \infty \), the Besov norm \(\Vert \cdot \Vert _{B^s_{p,q}}\) is given by
The Besov space \(B^s_{p,q}\) is then simply
Note that Schwartz functions are dense in \(B^s_{p,q}\) when \(1\le p,q<\infty \).
In the following lemma we give refined heat flow estimate and frequency localized Bernstein inequalities for the fractional Laplacian \(|\nabla |^{\gamma }\), \(0<\gamma <2\). Note that for \(\gamma >2\) and \(p\ne 2\) there are counterexamples to the frequency Bernstein inequalities (cf. Li and Sire [20]).
Lemma 2.1
(Refined heat flow estimate and Bernstein inequality, case \(0<\gamma <2\)). Let the dimension \(n\ge 1\). Let \(0<\gamma <2\) and \(1\le q\le \infty \). Then for any \(f\in L^q({\mathbb {R}}^n)\), and any \(j \in {\mathbb {Z}}\), we have
where \(c_1>0\) is a constant depending only on (\(\gamma \), n). For \(0<\gamma <2\), \(1\le q<\infty \), we have
where \(c_2>0\) depends only on (\(\gamma \), n).
The \(q=\infty \) formulation of (2.3) is as follows. Let \(0<\gamma <2\). For any \(f \in L^{\infty }({\mathbb {R}}^n)\), if \(j \in {\mathbb {Z}}\) and \(|(P_j f)(x_0)| = \Vert P_j f \Vert _{\infty }\), then we have
where \(c_3>0\) depends only on (\(\gamma \), n).
Remark
For \(1<q<\infty \) the first two inequalities also hold for \(\gamma =2\), one can see Propositions 2.5 and 2.7 below. On the other hand, the inequality (2.4) does not hold for \(\gamma =2\). One can construct a counterexample in dimension \(n=1\) as follows. Take \(g(x) = \frac{1}{4} (3 \sin x -\sin 3x) = (\sin x)^3\) which only has zeros of third order. Take h(x) with \({\hat{h}}\) compactly supported in \(|\xi | \ll 1\) and \(h(x)>0\) for all x. Set
which obviously has frequency localized to \(|\xi | \sim 1\) and have same zeros as g(x). Easy to check that \(\Vert f\Vert _1 \sim 1\) but
Remark 2.2
For \(\gamma >0\) sufficiently small, one can give a direct proof for \(1\le q <\infty \) as follows. WLOG consider \(g=P_1 f\) with \(\Vert g \Vert _q =1\), and let
One can then obtain
Since g has Fourier support localized in \(\{ |\xi | \sim 1 \}\), one can obtain uniformly in \(0<s\le 1\),
Note that \(I(0)=1\). Thus for \(\gamma <\gamma _0(n)\) sufficiently small one must have \(\frac{1}{2} \le I(\gamma )\le \frac{3}{2}\).
Remark
The inequality (2.5) was obtained by Wang-Zhang [26] by an elegant contradiction argument under the assumption that \(f\in C_0({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) (i.e. vanishing at infinity) and f is frequency localized to a dyadic annulus. Here we only assume \(f \in L^{\infty }\) and is frequency localized. This will naturally include periodic functions and similar ones as special cases. Moreover we provide two different proofs. The second proof is self-contained and seems quite short.
Proof of Lemma 2.1
For the first inequality and (2.3), see [19] for a proof using an idea of perturbation of the Lévy semigroup. Since the constant \(c_2>0\) depends only on \((\gamma ,n)\), the inequality (2.4) can be obtained from (2.3) by taking the limit \(q\rightarrow 1\). (Note that since \(f_j = P_j f \in L^1\) and has compact Fourier support, \(f_j\) can be extended to be an entire function on \({\mathbb {C}}^n\) and its zeros must be isolated.)
Finally for (2.5) we give two proofs. With no loss we can assume \(j=1\) and write \(f=P_1 f\). By using translation we may also assume \(x_0=0\). With no loss we assume \(\Vert f\Vert _{\infty }= f(x_0)=1\).
The first proof is to use (2.2) which yields
where \(c>0\) depends only on (\(\gamma \), n). Then since \(f=P_1 f\) is smooth and
One can then divide by \(t\rightarrow 0\) and obtain
The second proof is more direct. We note that \(\int \psi (y) dy =0\) where \(\psi \) corresponds to the projection operator \(P_1\). Since \(1= (P_1 f)(0)\), we obtain
Thus
\(\square \)
In what follows we will give a different proof of (2.3) (and some stronger versions, see Propositions 2.5 and (2.7)) and some equivalent characterization. For the sake of understanding (and keeping track of constants) we provide some details.
Lemma 2.3
Let \(0<s<1\). Then for any \(g \in L^2({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) with \({{\hat{g}}}\) being compactly supported, we have
where \(C_{2s,n}\) is a constant corresponding to the fractional Laplacian \(|\nabla |^{2s}\) having the asymptotics \(C_{2\,s,n} \sim _{n} s(1-s)\) for \(0<s<1\). As a result, if \(g \in L^2({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) and \(\Vert \, |\nabla |^s g \Vert _2<\infty \), then
Similarly if \(g \in L^2({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) and \(\int \frac{|g(x)-g(y)|^2}{|x-y|^{n+2\,s} } dx dy<\infty \), then
Proof
Note that
where \(C_{2s,n}\sim _n s (1-s)\). Now for each \(0<\epsilon <1\), it is easy to check that (for the case \(\frac{1}{2}\le s<1\) one needs to make use of the regularised quantity \(g(x)-g(y) + \nabla g(x) \cdot (y-x)\))
where \({\mathcal {M}}g\) is the usual maximal function. By Lebesgue Dominated Convergence, we then obtain
Now note that for each \(\epsilon >0\), we have
Therefore by using Fubini, symmetrising in x and y and Lebesgue Monotone Convergence, we obtain
Now if \(g \in L^2({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) with \(\Vert \, |\nabla |^s g \Vert _2<\infty \), then by Fatou’s Lemma, we get
On the other hand, note that
where \(\phi \in L^1\) is a smooth function used in the kernel \(P_{\le J}\). The desired equivalence then easily follows. \(\square \)
Lemma 2.4
Let \(1<q<\infty \). Then for any a, \(b\in {\mathbb {R}}\), we have
Proof
The first inequality is easy to check. To prove the second inequality, it suffices to show for any \(0<x<1\),
Set \(t= x^{\frac{q}{2}} \in (0,1)\). The inequality is obvious for \(q=2\). If \(2< q<\infty \), then we need to show
If \(1<q<2\), then we need
Set \(\eta = \min \{ \frac{1}{q}, 1-\frac{1}{q}\} \in (0,\frac{1}{2})\). It then suffices for us to show the inequality
Note that \(f(0)=f(1/2)=0\) and \(f^{\prime \prime }(\eta )= -(t^{\eta }-t^{1-\eta }) (\log t)^2/(1-t) <0\). Thus the desired inequality follows. \(\square \)
Proposition 2.5
Let \(1<q<\infty \) and \(0<\gamma \le 2\). Then for any \(f \in L^q({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) and any \(j\in {\mathbb {Z}}\), we have
Consequently if \(\Vert P_j f \Vert _q =1\), then for any \(0<s\le 1\),
Also for any \(0<s\le 1\),
Remark
In [16], by using a strong nonlocal pointwise inequality (see also Córdoba-Córdoba [6]), Ju Proved an inequality of the form: if \(0\le \gamma \le 2\), \(2\le q<\infty \), \(\theta \), \(|\nabla |^{\gamma } \theta \in L^q\), then
A close inspection of our proof below shows that the inequality (2.6) also works with \(P_j f\) replaced by \(\theta \). Note that the present form works for any \(1<q<\infty \). Furthermore in the regime \(q>2\), we have \(\frac{4(q-1)}{q^2} > \frac{2}{q}\) and hence the constant here is slightly sharper.
Remark
The inequality (2.7) was already obtained by Chamorro and P. Lemarié-Rieusset in [9]. Remarkably modulo a q-dependent constant it is equivalent to the corresponding inequality for the more localized quantity \(\int ( |\nabla |^{\gamma } P_j f ) |P_j f|^{q-2} P_j f dx\). The inequality (2.8) for \(q>2\) was obtained by Chen, Miao and Zhang [5] by using Danchin’s inequality \(\Vert \nabla ( |P_1 f|^{q/2} ) \Vert _2^2 \sim _{q,n} \Vert P_1 f \Vert _q^q\) together with a fractional Chain rule in Besov spaces. The key idea in [5] is to show \(\Vert \nabla P_{[N_0, N_1]} ( |P_1 f |^{q/2} ) \Vert _2 \gtrsim 1\) and in order to control the high frequency piece one needs the assumption \(q>2\) (so as to use \(|\nabla |^{1+\epsilon _0}\)-derivative for \(\epsilon _0>0\) sufficiently small). Our approach here is different: namely we will not use Danchin’s inequality and prove directly \(\Vert \, |\nabla |^{s_0} ( |P_1 f|^{q/2} )\Vert _2 \gtrsim 1\) for some \(s_0\) sufficiently small (depending on (q, n)). Together with some further interpolation argument we are able to settle the full range \(1<q<\infty \). One should note that in terms of lower bound the inequality (2.8) is stronger than (2.7).
Proof
With no loss we can assume \(j=1\) and for simplicity write \(P_1 f\) as f. Assume first \(0<\gamma <2\). Then for some constant \(C_{\gamma ,n} \sim _n \gamma (2-\gamma )\), we have (the rigorous justification of the computation below follows a smilar argument as in the proof of Lemma 2.3)
where in the last two steps we have used Lemmas 2.4 and 2.3 respectively. One may then carefully take the limit \(\gamma \rightarrow 2\) to get the result for \(\gamma =2\) (when estimating \(\Vert |\nabla |^{\frac{\gamma }{2}} ( |f|^{\frac{q}{2}-1} f)\Vert _2\), one needs to split into \(|\xi | \le 1\) and \(|\xi |>1\), and use Lebesgue Dominated Convergence and Lebesgue Monotone Convergence respectively). By the simple inequality \(|\, |f|^{\frac{q}{2}-1} f(x) - |f|^{\frac{q}{2}-1} f(y)| \ge |\, |f|^{\frac{q}{2}}(x)- |f|^{\frac{q}{2}}(y) |\), we also obtain \(\Vert |\nabla |^{\frac{\gamma }{2} } ( |f|^{\frac{q}{2}-1} f ) \Vert _2 \ge \Vert |\nabla |^{\frac{\gamma }{2} } (|f|^{\frac{q}{2}} ) \Vert _2\).
Next to show (2.7), we can use Remark 2.2 to obtain \(\Vert |\nabla |^{s} g \Vert _2 \sim _{q, n} 1\) for any \(0<s\le s_0(n)\) and \(g = |f|^{\frac{q}{2}-1} f\). Since \(\Vert g\Vert _2=1\) and \(\Vert \nabla g \Vert _2 \lesssim _{q,n}1 \), a simple interpolation argument then yields \(\Vert |\nabla |^s g \Vert _2 \sim _{q,n} 1\) uniformly for \(0<s\le 1\).
Finally to show (2.8), we first use the simple fact that \(\Vert \nabla (|g|) \Vert _2 \le \Vert \nabla g \Vert _2\) to get
It then suffices for us to show \(\Vert |\nabla |^s ( |f|^{\frac{q}{2}} ) \Vert _2 \gtrsim _{q,n} 1\) for \(0<s\le s_0(q,n)\) sufficiently small. To this end we consider the quantity
For \(0<s<1\) this is certainly well defined since \(\Vert |\nabla |^s (|f|) \Vert _q \lesssim \Vert f\Vert _q + \Vert \nabla ( |f| )\Vert _q \lesssim 1\). To circumvent the problem of differentiating under the integral, one can further consider the regularized expression (later \(N \rightarrow \infty \))
Then
Define \(\widehat{T_{{\tilde{s}}}^{(1)} }(\xi ) = {\tilde{s}} |\xi |^{{\tilde{s}}} (\log |\xi |)\cdot \chi _{|\xi |<1/10}\) and \(T_{{\tilde{s}}}^{(2)} =T_{{\tilde{s}}}- T_{{\tilde{s}}}^{(1)}\). It is not difficult to check that uniformly in \(0<{\tilde{s}}\le \frac{1}{2}\),
Thus by Hörmander we get \(\Vert T_{{\tilde{s}}}^{(1)} P_{\le N} ( |f|) \Vert _q \lesssim _{n,q} \Vert f\Vert _q =1\). For \(T_{{\tilde{s}}}^{(2)}\) one can use \(\Vert \nabla f \Vert _q \lesssim 1\) to get an upper bound which is uniform in \(0<{\tilde{s}}\le \frac{1}{2}\). Therefore \(\Vert T_{{\tilde{s}}} P_{\le N} (|f|) \Vert _q \lesssim _{q,n} 1\) for \(0<{\tilde{s}}\le \frac{1}{2}\). One can then obtain for \(0<s\le s_0(q,n)\) sufficiently small that \(\frac{1}{2} \le I(s) \le \frac{3}{2}\). Finally view I(s) as
where \(\widehat{ Q_{\le N} } (\xi ) = {\hat{q}}(2^{-N} \xi )\), and \({\hat{q}} \in C_c^{\infty }\) satisfies \(q(x)\ge 0\) for any \(x \in {\mathbb {R}}^n\) (such q can be easily constructed by taking \(q(x) = \phi (x)^2\) which corresponds to \({\hat{q}} = {\hat{\phi }} * {\hat{\phi }}\)). By using the integral representation of the operator \(|\nabla |^s\) and a symmetrization argument (similar to what was done before), we can obtain
and the desired result follows. \(\square \)
Lemma 2.6
Let the dimension \(n\ge 1\) and \(0<\gamma \le 2\). Suppose \(g \in L^2({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) and for some \(N_0>0\), \(\epsilon _0>0\)
Then there exists \(t_0=t_0(\epsilon _0, N_0,\gamma )>0\) such that for all \(0\le t \le t_0\), we have
Consequently if \({\tilde{g}} \in L^2({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) satisfies \(\Vert {\tilde{g}} \Vert _2 =C_1>0\), \(\Vert |\nabla |^s {\tilde{g}} \Vert _2=C_2>0\) for some \(s>0\), then for any \(0<\gamma \le 2\), there exists \(t_0=t_0(C_1,C_2,\gamma , n, s)>0\), \(c_0= c_0(C_1,C_2, \gamma , n, s)>0\), such that
Proof
With no loss we assume \(\Vert {\hat{g}} \Vert _{L_{\xi }^2 } =1\). Then
where in the last two steps we used the fact \(e^{-x} \sim 1- x +\frac{x^2}{2}\) for \(x \rightarrow 0+\). The inequality for \({\tilde{g}}\) follows from the observation that \( \Vert |\xi |^s \hat{{\tilde{g}}}(\xi ) \Vert _{L^2_{\xi }(|\xi | \le N_0)} \ll 1\) for \(N_0\) sufficiently small. \(\square \)
Proposition 2.7
Let the dimension \(n\ge 1\), \(0<\gamma \le 2\) and \(1<q<\infty \). Then for any \(f \in L^q({\mathbb {R}}^n)\), any \(j\in {\mathbb {Z}}\) and any \(t>0\), we have
where \(c>0\) is a constant depending on \((\gamma ,n,q)\).
Proof
With no loss we assume \(j=1\) and write \(P_1 f \) simply as f. In view of the semigroup property of \(e^{-t |\nabla |^{\gamma }}\) it suffices to prove the inequality for \(0<t \ll _{\gamma ,q,n} 1\). Denote \(e^{-t |\nabla |^{\gamma } } f = K*f\) and observe that K is a positive kernel with \(\int K(z) dz =1\). Consider first \(2\le q<\infty \). Clearly
By Lemma 2.6 and Proposition 2.5, we then get
For the case \(1<q<2\), we observe
Thus this case is also OK. \(\square \)
For the next lemma we need to introduce some terminology. Consider a function \(F:\, (0,\infty ) \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\). We shall say F is admissible if \(F\in C^{\infty }\) and
It is easy to check that \( {\tilde{F}}(x) = x F^{\prime }(x)\) is admissible if F is admissible. A simple example of admissible function is \(F(x) = e^{-x}\) which will show up in the bilinear estimates later.
Lemma 2.8
Let \(0<\gamma <1\) and \(\sigma (\xi ,\eta )= |\xi |^{\gamma } +|\eta |^{\gamma } - |\xi +\eta |^{\gamma }\) for \(\xi \), \(\eta \in {\mathbb {R}}^n\), \(n\ge 1\). Then for \(0<|\xi |\ll 1\), \(|\eta | \sim 1\), the following hold:
-
(1)
\( |\partial _{\xi }^{\alpha } \partial _{\eta }^{\beta } \sigma (\xi , \eta ) | \lesssim _{\alpha , \beta ,\gamma ,n} |\xi |^{\gamma -|\alpha |}\), for any \(\alpha \), \(\beta \).
-
(2)
\(| \partial _{\xi }^{\alpha } ( \sigma ^{-m} ) | \lesssim _{\alpha ,\gamma , m,n} |\xi |^{-m\gamma -|\alpha |}\) for any \(m\ge 1\) and any \(\alpha \).
-
(3)
\( |\partial _{\xi }^{\alpha } ( F(t \sigma ) ) | \lesssim _{\alpha ,\gamma ,n, F} |\xi |^{-|\alpha |}\) for any \(\alpha \), \(t>0\), and any admissible F.
-
(4)
\(|\partial _{\xi }^{\alpha } \partial _{\eta }^{\beta } (F(t\sigma ) ) | \lesssim _{\alpha ,\gamma ,\beta , n, F} |\xi |^{-|\alpha |}\), for any \(\alpha \), \(\beta \), and any \(t>0\), F admissible.
Remark 2.9
The condition \(|\xi | \ll 1\), \(|\eta |\sim 1\) can be replaced by \(0<|\xi | \lesssim 1\), \(|\eta |\sim 1\), \(|\xi +\eta | \sim 1\).
Remark
This lemma also highlights the importance of the assumption \(0<\gamma <1\). For \(0<\gamma <1\), note that the function \(g(x) =1 +x^{\gamma } - (1+x)^{\gamma } \sim \min \{ x^{\gamma }, \, 1 \}\). By the triangle inequality, this implies \(\sigma (\xi ,\eta ) \ge |\xi |^{\gamma } + |\eta |^{\gamma } - (|\xi |+|\eta |)^{\gamma } \gtrsim \min \{ |\xi |^{\gamma }, |\eta |^{\gamma } \}\) which does not vanish as long as \(|\xi |>0\) and \(|\eta |>0\). However for \(\gamma =1\), the phase \(\sigma (\xi ,\eta ) = |\xi |+ |\eta | - |\xi +\eta |\) no longer enjoys such a lower bound since \(\sigma \equiv 0\) on the one-dimensional cone \(\xi = \lambda \eta \), \(\lambda \ge 0\).
Proof
With no loss we consider dimension \(n=1\). The case \(n>1\) is similar except some minor changes in numerology.
(1) Note that for \(|\xi |\ll 1\), \(|\eta | \sim 1\), we have
Observe that
where we use the notation \({\text {OK}}\) to denote any term which satisfy
This notation will be used throughout this proof. Thus for any \(\beta \ge 1\), \(\alpha \ge 0\), we have
On the other hand, if \(\beta =0\) and \(\alpha \ge 1\), then clearly
(2) Observe that for \(|\xi | \ll 1\) and \(|\eta | \sim 1\), we always have \(\sigma (\xi ,\eta ) \gtrsim |\xi |^{\gamma }\). One can then induct on \(\alpha \).
(3) One can induct on \(\alpha \). The statement clearly holds for \(\alpha =0\). Assume the statement holds for \(\alpha \le m\) and any admissible F. Then for \(\alpha =m+1\), we have
where \({\tilde{F}}(x) = x F^{\prime }(x)\) is again admissible. The result then follows from the inductive assumption, Leibniz and the estimates obtained in (1) and (2).
(4) Observe that \(\partial _{\eta }(\frac{1}{\sigma } ) = - \sigma ^{-2} \partial _{\eta } \sigma = \sigma ^{-2} \xi \cdot ({\text {OK}})\), and in general for \(\beta \ge 0\),
Note that for \(\beta \ge 1\) the summand corresponding to \(m=0\) is actually absent (this is allowed in our notation since we can take the term (\({\text {OK}}\)) to be zero). Similarly one can check for any admissible F and \(t>0\),
where \(F_m\) are admissible functions. This then reduce matters to the estimate in (3). The result is obvious. \(\square \)
3 Nonlinear Estimates: \(H^{2-\gamma }\) Case for \(0<\gamma <1\)
Lemma 3.1
Set \(A=D^{\gamma }\), \(s=2-\gamma \) and recall \(R^{\perp }=(-D^{-1} \partial _2, D^{-1} \partial _1)\). For any real-valued \(f, \, g \in L^2({\mathbb {R}}^2)\) with \({\hat{f}}\) and \({\hat{g}}\) being compactly supported, it holds that
If in addition \({\text {supp}}({\hat{g}}) \subset B(0,N_0)\) for some \(N_0>0\), then
Remark 3.2
Note that if \({\hat{f}}\) is localized to \(|\xi |\gtrsim N_0\), then the low-frequency term \(N_0^{2s+2} \Vert f \Vert _2^2 \Vert g\Vert _2\) can be dropped in (3.2) and (3.3).
Proof
We first show (3.1). For simplicity of notation we shall write \(R^{\perp } g\) as g. Note that in the final estimates the operator \(R^{\perp }\) can be easily discarded since we are in the \(L^2\) setting. On the Fourier side we express the LHS inside the absolute value as (up to a multiplicative constant)
Observe that by a change of variable \(\xi \rightarrow \eta -{\tilde{\xi }}\) (and dropping the tildes), we have
Denote
We just need to bound N(g, f, f). By frequency localization, we have
Rewriting \(\sum _j N(g_{>j+9}, f_j, f) = \sum _j N(g_j, f_{<j-9}, f)\), we obtain
where \(g_{\ll j}\) corresponds to \(|\eta | \ll 2^j\), \(g_{\sim j}\) means \(|\eta | \sim 2^j\), and \(g_{\lesssim j}\) means \(|\eta |\lesssim 2^j\). These notations are quite handy since only the relative sizes of the frequency variables \(\eta \), \(\xi \) and \(\xi -\eta \) will play some role in the estimates. Note that we should have written \(g_{\ll j}\) as \(g_{\{l: \, 2^l \ll 2^j\} }\) according to our convention of the notation \(\ll \) but we ignore this slight inconsistency here for the simplicity of notation.
1. Estimate of \(N(g_{\ll j}, f_{\sim j}, f_{\sim j})\). Note that \(|\eta | \ll 2^j\), \(|\xi -\eta | \sim |\xi | \sim 2^j\). It is not difficult to check that in this regime
To bound the second term, we shall use Lemma 2.8. More precisely, denote \( {\tilde{\xi }} = -2^{-j} \eta \), \({\tilde{\eta }} = 2^{-j} \xi \), \(T=2^{j\gamma } t\), \(F(x)=e^{-x}\). Clearly (recall in Lemma 2.8, \(\sigma (\xi ,\eta )= |\xi |^{\gamma } +|\eta |^{\gamma } - |\xi +\eta |^{\gamma } \))
Consider for \(0\le \theta \le 1\), the function \(G(\theta ) = F(T \sigma ({\tilde{\xi }}, {\tilde{\eta }} -\theta {\tilde{\xi }}) )\). By Lemma 2.8, we have
Thus
Then by taking \({\tilde{\epsilon }}=\gamma \) below (note that \(0<\gamma <1\)), we get (below “\(*\)" denotes the usual convolution)
Here in the second inequality above, we have used the simple fact that
if \({\text {supp}}({\hat{A}}) \subset \{ |\xi | \lesssim 1 \}\), \({\text {supp}}({\hat{B}}) \subset \{ |\xi | \sim 1 \}\), and \(\theta <1\).
2. Estimate of \(N(g_{\sim j}, f_{\ll j}, f_{\sim j})\). In this case \(|\eta | \sim |\xi | \sim 2^j\), \(|\xi -\eta | \ll 2^j\). Since \(s=2-\gamma \in (1,2)\), in this regime we have
Then
3. Estimate of \(N(g_{\sim j}, f_{\sim j}, f_{\lesssim j})\). In this case \(|\eta | \sim |\xi -\eta | \sim 2^j\), \(|\xi | \lesssim 2^j\), and
Now we turn to (3.2). Choose \(J_0\in {\mathbb {Z}}\) such that \(2^{J_0-1} \le N_0 <2^{J_0}\). Clearly by frequency localization,
For the first term we have
For the second term we can use the estimate of \(N(g_{\ll j}, f_{\sim j}, f_{\sim j})\) and take \( {\tilde{\epsilon }}=\frac{\gamma }{2}\) to get
The estimates of (3.3) and (3.4) are much simpler. We omit the details. \(\square \)
4 Proof of Theorem 1.1
To simplify numerology we conduct the proof for the case \(\epsilon _0=1/2\). Throughout this proof we shall denote \(s=2-\gamma \).
Step 1. A priori estimate. Denote \(A= \frac{1}{2} D^{\gamma }\) and \(f= e^{t A } \theta \). It will be clear from Step 2 below that f is smooth and well-defined, and the following computations can be rigorously justified. Then f satisfies the equation
Take \(J_0>0\) which will be made sufficiently large later. Set \(N_0=2^{J_0}\). Then
Now for convenience of notation we denote
Denote \(f_h = P_{>J_0}^2 f\) and \(f_l = f-f_h\). Then clearly
By Lemma 3.1 and noting that \(\Vert f_l(t)\Vert _2 \lesssim e^{ N_0^{\gamma } t} \Vert \theta _0\Vert _2\), we get (see Remark 3.2)
This implies for \(0<t\le N_0^{-\gamma }\),
where \(c_1, c_2, c_3>0\) are constants depending on \(\gamma \).
Thus as long as \(\sup _{0\le s \le t} c_1 \Vert D^s P_{>J_0} f(s) \Vert _2 <\frac{1}{10}\) and \(t\le N_0^{-\gamma }\), we obtain
In particular, for any prescribed small constant \(\epsilon _0>0\), we can first choose \(J_0\) sufficiently large such that
Then by using (4.1) and choosing \(T_0= T_0(J_0, \theta _0, \epsilon _0)\) sufficiently small we can guarantee
Step 2. Approximation system. For \(n=1,2,3,\cdots \), define \(\theta ^{(n)}\) as solutions to the system
The solvability of the above regularized system is not an issue thanks to frequency cut-offs. It is easy to check that \(\theta ^{(n)}\) has frequency supported in \(|\xi | \lesssim 2^n\) and \(\Vert \theta ^{(n)} \Vert _2 \le \Vert \theta _0 \Vert _2\). In particular for any \({\tilde{s}} \ge 0\) we have
where \(c>0\) is a constant.
For any integer \(J_0\) to be fixed momentarily, it is not difficult to check that
Now fix \(J_0\) sufficiently large such that
By using the nonlinear estimate derived in Step 1 (easy to check that these estimates hold for \(\theta ^{(n)}\) with slight changes of the constants \(c_i\) if necessary), one can then find \(T_0=T_0(\gamma ,\theta _0)>0\) sufficiently small such that uniformly in n tending to infinity, we have
By slightly shrinking \(T_0\) further if necessary and repeating the argument for \({\tilde{A}}= \frac{4}{3} A = \frac{2}{3} D^{\gamma }\), we have uniformly in n tending to infinity,
Furthermore for any prescribed small constant \(\epsilon _0>0\), by using (4.3), we can choose \(J_0\) and \(T_0\) such that uniformly in n,
Note that this implies
The estimate (4.5) will be needed later.
Step 3. Strong contraction of \(\theta ^{(n)}\) in \(C_t^0 L_x^2\). Denote \(\eta _{n+1}= \theta ^{(n+1)}-\theta ^{(n)}\). Then (below for simplicity of notation we write \(-R^{\perp }\) as R)
By using the divergence-free property, we have
Clearly
where we have used the uniform Sobolev estimates in Step 2. Note that
It follows that
By using the nonlinear estimates in Step 2 and (4.5), one can choose \(J_0\) sufficiently large (and slightly shrink \(T_0\) further if necessary) such that the term \(\Vert D^s P_{>J_0} \theta ^{(n)}\Vert _2 \) becomes sufficiently small (to kill the implied constant pre-factors in the above inequality). This implies
Thus for some constants \({\tilde{c}}_1>0\), \({\tilde{c}}_2>0\), we have
The desired strong contraction of \(\theta ^{(n)} \rightarrow \theta \) in \(C_t^0 L_x^2\) follows easily.
Step 4. Higher norms. By using the estimates in previous steps, we have for any \(0\le t\le T_0\),
where the constant \(B_1>0\) is independent of t.
It follows easily that for any \(0\le s^{\prime }<s\),
This implies \(f(t) =e^{tA} \theta (t) \in C_t^0 H_x^{s^{\prime }}\) for any \(s^{\prime }<s\). To show \(f \in C_t^0 H^s_x\) it suffices to consider the continuity at \(t=0\) (for \(t>0\) one can use the fact \(e^{\frac{1}{3} t A } f \in L_t^{\infty } H^s_x\) which controls frequencies \(|\xi | \gg t^{-1/\gamma }\), and for the part \(|\xi | \lesssim t^{-1/\gamma } \) one uses \(C_t^0 L_x^2\)). Since we are in the Hilbert space setting with weak continuity in time, the strong continuity then follows from norm continuity at \(t=0\) which is essentially done in Step 1.
5 Nonlinear Estimates for Besov Case: \(0<\gamma <1\)
For \(\sigma =\sigma (\xi ,\eta )\) we denote the bilinear operator
Lemma 5.1
Suppose \({\text {supp}} (\sigma ) \subset \{ (\xi ,\eta ):\, |\xi |< 1, \; \frac{1}{C_1}< |\eta | <C_1\}\) for some constant \(C_1>0\). Let \(n_0 =2d+[d/2]+1 \) and \(\Omega _0= \{(\xi ,\eta ): \, 0<|\xi |<1, \; \frac{1}{C_1}<|\eta |<C_1 \}\). Suppose \(\sigma \in C^{n_0}_{{\text {loc}}} (\Omega _0)\) and for some \(A_1>0\)
Then for any \(1<p_1<\infty \), \(1\le p_2\le \infty \), \(f,g \in \mathcal S({\mathbb {R}}^d)\),
where \(\frac{1}{r} = \frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2}\).
Similarly if \({\text {supp}} (\sigma ) \subset \{ (\xi ,\eta ):\, \frac{1}{{\tilde{C}}_1}<|\xi |<{\tilde{C}}_1, \; \frac{1}{{\tilde{C}}_2}< |\eta | <{\tilde{C}}_2\}=\Omega _1\) for some constants \({\tilde{C}}_1\), \({\tilde{C}}_2>0\). Suppose \(\sigma \in C^{4d+1}_{{\text {loc}}} (\Omega _1)\) and for some \({\tilde{A}}_1>0\)
Then for any \(1\le p_1 \le \infty \), \(1\le p_2\le \infty \), \(f,g \in \mathcal S({\mathbb {R}}^d)\),
where \(\frac{1}{r} = \frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2}\).
Proof
For the first case see Theorem 3.7 in [3]. The idea is to make a Fourier expansion in the \(\eta \)-variable:
where \(L=8C_1\) and \(\chi \in C_c^{\infty }( (-\frac{L}{4},\frac{L}{4})^d) \) is such that \(\chi (\eta ) \equiv 1\) for \(1/C_1<|\eta |<C_1\). A rough estimate on the number of derivatives required is \(n_0=2d+[d/2]+1\). Note that \(r>1/2\) and (by paying 2d derivatives) \(2dr >d\) so that the resulting summation in k converges in \(l^r\)-norm. For the second case, one can make a Fourier expansion in \((\xi ,\eta )\). \(\square \)
Remark 5.2
For \(t>0\), \(0<\gamma <1\), \(j \in {\mathbb {Z}}\), consider
By using the estimates \(\Vert {\mathcal {F}}^{-1} ( e^{t|\xi |^{\gamma } } \chi _{|\xi | \ll 1} ) \Vert _1 =\Vert {\mathcal {F}}^{-1} ( e^{|\xi |^{\gamma } } \chi _{|\xi | \ll t^{\frac{1}{\gamma } }} ) \Vert _1 \lesssim e^{ {\tilde{ct}}} \) (\({\tilde{c}}\ll 1\)), \(\Vert {\mathcal {F}}^{-1} (e^{-t |\xi |^{\gamma } } \chi _{|\xi | \sim 1} ) \Vert _1 \lesssim e^{- Ct} \) (\(C\sim 1\)), we have for any \(1\le r,p_1,p_2\le \infty \) with \(\frac{1}{r}=\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}\),
where \(c>0\) is a small constant. Denote
By using Lemmas 5.1, 2.8 and some elementary computations, it is not difficult to check that for any \(\frac{1}{2}<r<\infty \), \(1<p_1,p_2<\infty \), with \(\frac{1}{r}=\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}\),
We shall need to use these inequalities (sometimes without explicit mentioning) below.
Fix \(t>0\), \(j\in {\mathbb {Z}}\), \(0<\gamma <1\), and denote
For integer \(J_0 \ge 10\) which will be made sufficiently large later, we decompose
Lemma 5.3
\(B_j(f_{\le J_0+2}, g_{\le J_0+4} )=0\) and \(B_j(f_{[J_0+2,J_0+4]}, g_{\le J_0+2} )=0\) for \(j>J_0+6\). For \(j\le J_0+6\) and \(1\le p<\infty \),
where \(c_1>0\) depends on \((J_0,p,\gamma )\).
Proof
We only deal with \(B_j(f_{\le J_0+2}, g_{\le J_0+4} )\) as the estimate for \(B_j(f_{[J_0+2,J_0+4]}, g_{\le J_0+2})\) is similar and therefore omitted. Clearly for \(j\le J_0+6\) (below the notation \(\infty -\), \(p+\) is defined in the same way as in (2.1)),
Here \(p+\) is needed for \(p=1\) so that the Riesz transform can be discarded. On the other hand for \(j\le J_0+6\),
\(\square \)
Lemma 5.4
For \(j\le J_0+6\) and \(0<t\le 1\),
For \(j>J_0+6\), \(t>0\) and \(1\le p<\infty \),
where \(c_2>0\) depends on \((p,J_0)\), and the notation \(0+\) is defined in the paragraph preceding (2.1).
Proof
The first inequality for \(j\le J_0+6\) is obvious. Consider now \(j>J_0+6\). Observe that by frequency localization \(B_j(f_{\le J_0+2}, g_{>J_0+4} ) = B_j ( f_{\le J_0+2}, P_{>J_0+4} g_{[j-2,j+2]} )\). We just need to consider \(T_{\sigma }(R^{\perp } f_{\le J_0+2}, \nabla P_{>J_0+4} g_{[j-2,j+2]} )\) with \(|\xi |\ll 2^j\), \(|\eta | \sim 2^j\), and
By Lemma 5.1, it is easy to check that for some \(c_2>0\) depending on \((J_0,p)\),
On the other hand for \(\sigma _2\), we introduce for \(0\le \tau \le 1\)
Then observe
To handle the last term above we make the following observation. Note that for \(|\xi | \ll 2^j\), \(|\eta |\sim 2^j\), one has \(| |\eta |^{\gamma }-|\xi +\eta |^{\gamma } |= {\mathcal {O}}( |\eta |^{\gamma -1} \cdot |\xi | ) \le \frac{\alpha _0}{2} |\xi |^{\gamma }\), for some constant \(0<\alpha _0<1\). In particular one may write
The symbol corresponding to \(e^{-t( \alpha _0 |\xi |^{\gamma } +\tau ( |\eta |^{\gamma } -|\xi +\eta |^{\gamma } )}\) is clearly good for us whilst the term \(e^{-t (1-\alpha _0) |\xi |^{\gamma } }\) can be used to extract additional decay (see below).
It is then clear that
\(\square \)
Lemma 5.5
Let \(1\le p<\infty \). For \(j\le J_0+6\), \(0<t\le 1\), we have
For \(j>J_0+6\) and any \(t>0\), we have
In the above \(c_2>0\) depends on \((\gamma , p,J_0)\).
Proof
The estimate for \(j\le J_0+6\) is obvious. Observe that for \(j>J_0+6\),
Thus by Lemma 5.1,
\(\square \)
Lemma 5.6
Denote \(f^h= f_{>J_0+2}\), \(g^h=g_{>J_0+2}\). Then for \(j\ge J_0\), \(1\le p<\infty \), \(0<t\le 1\), we have
Proof
Write
\(\underline{{\hbox {Estimate of}}\, (1)}.\)
Note that for given integer \(J_1\ge 2\), the term \(B_j(f^h_{[j-J_1,j-3]},g^h_{[j-2,j+2]})\) can be included in the estimate of (3).
It suffices for us to estimate \((1\text {A})= T_{\sigma } ( R^{\perp } f^h_{<j-J_1}, \nabla g^h_{[j-2,j+2]})\) with (here to ensure \(|\xi | \ll 2^j\) we need to take \(J_1\) sufficiently large)
By an argument similar to that in Lemma 5.4, we get
\(\underline{{\hbox {Estimate of}} \,(2)}\). Clearly
Thus
\(\underline{{\hbox {Estimate of}} \,(3)}\). Clearly
\(\underline{{\hbox {Estimate of}} \,(4)}\). We first note that
On the other hand by using that \(R^{\perp } f \) is divergence-free, we have
\(\square \)
6 Proof of Theorem 1.2
Recall that the initial data \(\theta _0 \in B_{p,q}^{1-\gamma +\frac{2}{p}}\), \(1\le p<\infty \), \(0<\gamma <1\) and \(1\le q<\infty \).
Lemma 6.1
Let \(\chi \in C_c^{\infty }({\mathbb {R}}^2)\) and \(\theta _0 \in B_{p,q}^s({\mathbb {R}}^2)\) with \(1\le p<\infty \), \(1\le q<\infty \), \(s>0\). Let \((\lambda _n)_{n=1}^{\infty }\) be a sequence of positive numbers such that \( \inf _n \lambda _n >0\). Then
Proof
Write \(f= \chi (\lambda _n^{-1} x)\), \(g= P_{\le n+2} \theta _0\), then
where \({\tilde{g}}_j = g_{[j-2,j+2]}\). Clearly
uniformly in n as \(J_0 \rightarrow \infty \). A similar estimate also shows that the diagonal piece \(f_j {\tilde{g}}_j\) is OK. On the other hand
uniformly in n as \(J_0\rightarrow \infty \). \(\square \)
We now complete the proof of Theorem 1.2. This will be carried out in several steps below.
Step 1. Definition of approximating solutions. Define \(\theta ^{(0)} \equiv 0\). For \(n \ge 0\), define the iterates \(\theta ^{(n+1)}\) as solutions to the following system
where \(\chi \in C_c^{\infty }({\mathbb {R}}^2)\) satisfies \(0\le \chi \le 1\) for all x, \(\chi (x)\equiv 1\) for \(|x|\le 1\), and \(\chi (x)=0\) for \(|x|\ge 2\). Here we introduce the spatial cut-off \(\chi \) so that \(\theta ^{(n+1)}\Bigr |_{t=0} \in H^k\) for all \(k\ge 0\) when we only assume \(\theta _0\) lies in \(L^p\) type spaces. The scaling parameters \(\lambda _n \ge 1\) are inductively chosen such that \(\lambda _n >\max \{4\lambda _{n-1},2^n\} \) and
Easy to check that
and by interpolation for \(0<{\tilde{s}}<1-\gamma +\frac{2}{p}\), \({\tilde{s}}=0+\),
Also by Lemma 6.1, we have
These estimates will be needed for the contraction estimate later.
Clearly we have the uniform boundedness of \(L^p\) norm:
This will often be used without explicit mentioning below.
Step 2. Denote \(A=\frac{1}{2} D^{\gamma }\), \(f^{(n+1)}(t)=e^{t A } \theta ^{(n+1)} (t)\). Then
One can view \(f^{(n+1)}\) as the unique limit of the sequence of solutions \((f^{(n+1)}_m)_{m=1}^{\infty }\) solving the regularized system
By using the estimates in Sect. 2 (and the inductive assumption that \(f^{(n)} \in C_t^0\,H^k\) for all \(k\ge 0\)), we can then obtain \(f^{(n+1)} \in C_t^0 ([0,T], H^k)\) for all \(T>0\), \(k\ge 0\). Write
By using the fact that \(f^{(n)}\), \(f^{(n+1)} \in C_t^0\,H^k\), it is not difficult to check that
It follows that for any \(T>0\)
This together with interpolation implies \(f^{(n+1)} \in C_t^0([0,T], W^{k,p})\) for any \(T>0\), \(k\ge 0\). These estimates establish the (a priori) finiteness of the various Besov norms and associated time continuity needed in the following steps.
Step 3. Besov norm estimates. Denote \(f_j^{(n+1)} = P_j f^{(n+1)}\). For any \(\epsilon _0>0\), we show that there exists \(J_1\) sufficiently large, and \(T_1>0\) sufficiently small, such that
Clearly for each \(j\in {\mathbb {Z}}\),
Then by using Lemma 2.1, we get for some constants \({\tilde{C}}_1>0\), \({\tilde{C}}_2>0\),
Take an integer \(J_0\ge 10\) which will be made sufficiently large later. By using the nonlinear estimates derived before (see Lemma 5.3–5.6), we then obtain
where for some constants \({\tilde{C}}_3>0\), \({\tilde{C}}_4>0\), \({\tilde{C}}_5>0\),
Denote
One should note that by the estimates derived in Step 2, the above norm of \(f^{(n+1)}\) is finite. Then for \(0<T\le 1\),
where \(C_{J_0}^{(1)}\), \(C_{J_0}^{(2)}>0\) are constants depending on \((J_0,\gamma , p,q)\), \(C_1\), \(C_2>0\) are constants depending only on \((\gamma ,p,q)\), and \(C_3>0\) depends only on \(\gamma \).
By Lemma 6.1, one can find \(J_0\) sufficiently large such that
Fix such \(J_0\) and then choose \(T=T_0\le 1\) such that
The inductive assumption is \(\Vert f^{(n)}\Vert _{T_0,J_0} <\frac{1}{4C_2}\). Then clearly
This easily implies \(\Vert f^{(n+1)} \Vert _{T_0,J_0} < \frac{1}{4C_2}\) which completes the argument.
The statement (6.2) clearly follows by a slight modification of the above argument.
Step 4. Contraction in \(B^{s_0}_{p,\infty }\) where \(s_0>0\) is a sufficiently small number.
Remark
We chose the space \(C_t^0 B^{0+}_{p,\infty }\) since it contains \(L^p\) and its norm coincides with the usual Chemin-Lerner space \({\tilde{L}}_t^{\infty } B^{0+}_{p,\infty }\) (see (6.10)). This way one can make full use of the smoothing effect of the linear semigroup on each dyadic frequency block which is needed for this critical problem.
Set \(\eta ^{(n+1)}= f^{(n+1)}-f^{(n)}\). Then
It is easy to check for \(0 \le t \le T_0\), \(J_1 \in {\mathbb {Z}}\) (below we work with \(p+\) to avoid the end-point situation \(p=1\))
where \(C_{T_0,J_1}\) is a constant depending only on \((\theta _0, J_1, T_0, \gamma , p, q)\). Here in the last inequality we used the estimates obtained in Step 3.
On the other hand for \(j\ge J_1\), denoting \(\eta ^{(n+1)}_j =P_j \eta ^{(n+1)}\), we have
We now need a simple lemma.
Lemma 6.2
Let \(0<t\le 1\), \(1\le p<\infty \), \(J_1 \ge 10\). We have for any \(j\ge J_1\),
where \(C_{J_1}\) is a constant depending on \(J_1\).
Proof of Lemma 6.2
For the first inequality we denote \(\widetilde{N_j}(g,h)= P_j e^{tA} ( R^{\perp } e^{-tA} g \cdot \nabla e^{-tA} h)\). By frequency localization, we write
Clearly
For the second term we split f as \(f= f_{>3J_1} +f_{\le 3J_1}\). Then (below we work again with \(p+\) for the \(\eta \)-term which give rises to \(2^{j0+}\); the reason for \(p+\) is to avoid the end-point case \(p=1\))
For the diagonal piece, we have
For the second inequality, we denote
Observe that
Thus
On the other hand,
Thus
It remains to estimate \(N_j(f, \eta _{[j-2,j+3]})\). We first note that
On the other hand,
Finally to deal with the piece \(N_j(f_{\le j-6}, \eta _{[j-2,j+3]} )\), we appeal to similar estimates in Lemmas 5.4 and 5.6. We obtain
The desired result follows. \(\square \)
It is clear that for any \(T>0\),
where the implied constant (in the notation “\(\sim \)”) depends only on \((s_0,p)\).
By this simple observation, using Lemma 6.2, (6.2), (6.1), and choosing first \(J_1\) sufficiently large and then \(T_1\) sufficiently small, we obtain
where \(C_{\theta _0}\) is a constant depending on \((\theta _0,s_0,p,\gamma ,q)\) and \(\sigma _0>0\) depends on \((s_0,\gamma ,p)\). This clearly yields the desired contraction in the Banach space \(C_t^0([0,T_1], B^{s_0}_{p,\infty })\).
Step 5. Time continuity in \(B^{1-\gamma +\frac{2}{p}}_{p,q}\). By the previous step and interpolation, we get \(f^{(n)}\) converges strongly to the limit f also in \(C_t^0 B^{s^{\prime }}_{p,1}([0,T_1])\) for any \(0<s^{\prime }<1-\gamma +\frac{2}{p}\). We still have to show \(f \in C_t^0 B^{1-\gamma +\frac{2}{p}}_{p,q}([0,T_1])\). Since \(f^{(n)} \rightarrow f\) in \(C_t^0 L_x^p\) we only need to consider the high frequency part. Denote \(s=1-\gamma +\frac{2}{p}\). By using the estimates in Step 3 and strong convergence in each dyadic frequency block, we have for any \(M\ge 10\),
where \(A_1>0\) is a constant independent of M. Thus \( \Vert (f_j )\Vert _{l_j^q L_t^{\infty } L_x^p( j\ge 1, \, t \in [0,T_1])} <\infty \). Since \(P_{\le M} f \in C_t^0 B^s_{p,q}\) for any M, and
we obtain \(f \in C_t^0 B^s_{p,q}\).
Remark
An alternative argument to show time continuity is to use directly (6.2) to get time continuity at \(t=0\). For \(t>0\) one can proceed similarly as the last part of Sect. 3 and show \(e^{\epsilon _0 A t} f \in L_t^{\infty } B^{1-\gamma +\frac{2}{p}}_{p,q}\) for some \(\epsilon _0>0\) small and use it to “damp" the high frequencies.
Step 6. Set \(\theta (t) = e^{-t A} f(t,\cdot )\). Clearly \(\theta \in C_t^0 B^{1-\gamma +\frac{2}{p}}_{p,q}\). Recall \(\theta _n = e^{-t A} f_n(t,\cdot )\). In view of strong convergence of \(f_n\) to f, we have \(\theta _n \rightarrow \theta \) strongly in \(C_t^0 B^{s^{\prime }}_{p,1}\) for any \(0<s^{\prime } <1-\gamma +\frac{2}{p}\). Since for any \(0\le t_0 <t \le T_0\) we have
Taking the limit \(n\rightarrow \infty \) yields
It should be mentioned that the above equality holds in the sense of \(L^p_x\) and even stronger topology. It is easy to check the absolute convergence of the integral on the RHS since
Thus \(\theta \) is the desired local solution. One can regard (6.11) (together with some regularity assumptions) as a variant of the usual mild solution. Note that \(\theta _j=P_j \theta \) is smooth, and one can easy deduce from the integral formulation (6.11) the point-wise identity:
From this one can proceed with the localized energy estimates and easily check the uniqueness of solution in \(C_t^0 B^{1-\gamma +\frac{2}{p}}_{p,\infty }\). We omit the details.
Remark
Much better uniqueness results can be obtained by exploiting the specific form of \(R^{\perp }\theta \) in connection with the \(H^{-1/2}\) conservation law for non-dissipative SQG. Since this is not the focus of this work, we will not dwell on this issue here.
References
Abidi, H., Hmidi, T.: On the global well-posedness of the critical quasi-geostrophic equation. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 40(1), 167–185 (2008)
Biswas, A.: Gevrey regularity for the supercritical quasi-geostrophic equation. J. Differ. Equ. 257(6), 1753–1772 (2014)
Biswas, A., Martinez, V.R., Silva, P.: On Gevrey regularity of the supercritical SQG equation in critical Besov spaces. J. Funct. Anal. 269(10), 3083–3119 (2015)
Michael, S., Kumar, J.A., Martinez, V.R.: On the existence, uniqueness, and smoothing of solutions to the generalized SQG equations in critical Sobolev spaces. Commun. Math. Phys. 387, 551–596 (2021)
Chen, Q., Miao, C., Zhang, Z.: A new Bernstein’s inequality and the 2D dissipative quasi-geostrophic equation. Commun. Math. Phys. 271(3), 821–838 (2007)
Córdoba, A., Córdoba, D.: A maximum principle applied to quasi-geostrophic equations. Commun. Math. Phys. 249, 511–528 (2004)
Córdoba, A., Córdoba, D., Gancedo, F.: Uniqueness for SQG patch solutions. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. Ser. B 5, 1–31 (2018)
Chae, D., Constantin, P., Córdoba, D., Gancedo, F., Wu, J.: Generalized surface quasi-geostrophic equations with singular velocities. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 65(8), 1037–1066 (2012)
Chamorro, D., Lemarié-Rieusset, P.: Quasi-geostrophic equations, nonlinear Bernstein inequalities and \(\alpha \)-stable processes. Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 28(4), 1109–1122 (2012)
Cheng, X., Li, D., Hyunju, K.: Non-uniqueness of steady-state weak solutions to the surface quasi-geostrophic equations. Commun. Math. Phys. 388, 1281–1295 (2021)
Caffarelli, L., Vasseur, A.: Drift diffusion equations with fractional diffusion and the quasi-geostrophic equation. Ann. Math. 171(3), 1903–1930 (2010)
Dong, H.: Dissipative quasi-geostrophic equations in critical Sobolev spaces: smoothing effect and global well-posedness. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 26(4), 1197–1211 (2010)
Hmidi, T., Keraani, S.: Global solutions of the super-critical 2D quasi-geostrophic equations in Besov spaces. Adv. Math. 214, 618–638 (2007)
Iwabuchi, T.: Analyticity and large time behavior for the Burgers equation and the quasi-geostrophic equation, the both with the critical dissipation. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (C) Analyse Non Lineaire. 37(4), 855–876 (2020)
Ju, N.: Existence and uniqueness of the solution to the dissipative 2D quasi-geostrophic equations in the Sobolev space. Comm. Math. Phys. 251, 365–376 (2004)
Ju, N.: The maximum principle and the global attractor for the dissipative 2D quasi-geostrophic equations. Comm. Math. Phys. 255, 161–181 (2005)
Ju, N.: Global solutions to the two dimensional quasi-geostrophic equation with critical or supercritical dissipation. Math. Ann. 334, 627–642 (2006)
Kiselev, A., Nazarov, F., Volberg, A.: Global well-posedness for the critical 2D dissipative quasi-geostrophic equation. Invent. Math. 167, 445–453 (2007)
Li, D.: On a frequency localized Bernstein inequality and some generalized Poincaré-type inequalities. Math. Res. Lett. 20(5), 933–945 (2013)
Li, D., Sire, Y.: Remarks on the Bernstein inequality for higher order operators and related results. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 376, 945–967 (2023)
Martinez, V.R.: On Gevrey regularity of equations of fluid and geophysical fluid dynamics with applications to 2D and 3D turbulence, ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, (2014)
Miura, H.: Dissipative quasi-geostrophic equation for large initial data in the critical Sobolev space. Comm. Math. Phys. 267, 141–157 (2006)
Marchand, F.: Existence and regularity of weak solutions to the quasi-geostrophic equations in the spaces \(L^p\) or \({\dot{H}}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\). Comm. Math. Phys. 277(1), 45–67 (2008)
Pedlosky, J.: Geophysical Fluid Dynamics. Springer-Verlag, New York (1987)
Resnick, S.G.: Dynamical problems in non-linear advective partial differential equations. PhD thesis, U of Chicago, (1995)
Wang, H., Zhang, Z.: A frequency localized maximum principle applied to the 2D quasi-geostrophic equation. Comm. Math. Phys. 301(1), 105–129 (2011)
Wu, J.: The two-dimensional quasi-geostrophic equation with critical or supercritical dissipation. Nonlinearity 18, 139–154 (2005)
Zhao, J.: Well-posedness and Gevrey analyticity of the generalized Keller-Segel system in critical Besov spaces. Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata. 197, 521–548 (2018)
Acknowledgements
The author is supported in part by NSFC 12271236.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Additional information
Communicated by K. Nakanishi.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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
Li, D. Optimal Gevrey Regularity for Supercritical Quasi-Geostrophic Equations. Commun. Math. Phys. 405, 30 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-023-04924-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-023-04924-1