Abstract
We consider the modified Kawahara equation, which contains nonlinear dispersive effects. We prove that as the diffusion parameter tends to zero, the solutions of the dispersive equation converge to the discontinuous weak solutions of the scalar conservation law. The proof relies on deriving suitable a priori estimates together with an application of the compensated compactness method in the \(L^p\) setting.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The evolution equation
is known as the modified Kawahara equation. It appears in the study of water waves with surface tension, in which the Bona number takes on the critical value, where the Bona number represents a dismension-less magnitude of surface tension in the shallow water region (see [3, 14, 16]).
To obtain the exact solutions, a number of methods have been proposed in the literature. Some of them are the solitary wave ansatz method, the inverse scattering, Hirotas bilinear method, homogeneous balance method, Lie group analysis, etc. Among the above, the Lie group analysis method, which is also called the symmetry method, is one of the most effective to determine solutions of nonlinear partial differential equations [15].
For example, in [2], the authors use Lie group analysis to obtain some exact solutions for (1.1), the Kawahara equation
the Kawahara–Korteweg–de Vries equation
the modified Kawahara–Korteweg–de Vries equation
and, the Rosenau–Kawahara equation
where \(u:=u(t,x)\) is a real function, and \(a,\,b,\,c,\, d \in \mathbb {R}\) are constants.
These equations occur in the theory of magneto-acoustic waves in plasmas and propagation of nonlinear water-waves in the long-wave length region as in the case of Korteweg–de Vries equation. Moreover, Eq. (1.2) is a model for small-amplitude gravity capillary waves on water of finite depth when the Weber number is close to \(\frac{1}{3}\) (see [21]).
In [14], the author deduced (1.2) and (1.3) as a model for one-dimensional propagation of small-amplitude long waves in various problems of fluid dynamics and plasma physics. Moreover, Eq. (1.3) is known as the fifth-order Korteweg–de Vries equation, or the generalized Benney–Lin equation (see [1]).
In [18], the exp-function method has been used to find some exact solution for (1.5).
In [19], the authors proved that the solution of (1.2) converges to the solution of the Korteweg–de Vries equation
Let u be a solution of (1.2) or (1.3), following [12], we consider the function
and study the behavior of \(u_\beta \) as \(\beta \rightarrow 0\). Since u solves (1.2) or (1.3), we obtain the following equations for \(u_\beta \)
In [6, 7], the authors proved that the solutions of (1.7), and (1.8) converge to the weak solutions of the Burgers equation
We consider (1.5), assume \(a=2,\,b,\,c=0,\,d=1\), re-scale as in [12], and get
which is known as the Rosenau equation (see [23, 24]). The existence and the uniqueness of solutions for (1.10) has been proved in [22]. In [5] the authors proved the convergence of the solution of (1.10) to the unique entropy solution. The same convergence result has been proven for the Rosenau–Korteweg–de Vries equation (see [4])
In this paper, we consider (1.1). In particular, we consider the following equations
Arguing as in [12], we re-scale the equations as follows
Moreover, we augment (1.14) and (1.15) with the initial condition
on which we assume that
We are interested in the no high frequency limit, therefore we send \(\beta \rightarrow 0\) in (1.14)–(1.15), and obtain the scalar conservation laws
respectively. In particular as \(\beta \rightarrow 0\), we have the converge to the entropy weak solutions of (1.17) and (1.18).
The argument behind the convergence of (1.14)–(1.17) and of (1.15)–(1.18) cannot be same because the two fifth order equations (1.14) and (1.15) experience different conserved quantities. On one side we have that both of them preserve the \(L^2\) norm of the solution, indeed multiplying both equations by u and integrating over \(\mathbb {R}\) we gain
On the other side only (1.14) preserves the \(L^4\) norm of the solutions, indeed multiplying (1.14) by \(u^3+\beta ^2 \partial ^4_{xxxx}u\) and integrating over \(\mathbb {R}\) we gain
As a consequence, inspired by [8], we consider the following approximation of (1.14)
and prove that as \(\beta =o(\varepsilon ^4)\) the solutions converge to the unique entropy solutions of (1.17). On the other side we approximate (1.15) with (see [6])
and prove that as \(\beta =\mathcal {O}(\varepsilon ^6)\) the solutions converge to the unique entropy solutions of (1.18).
The same arguments and results hold for the modified Kawahara–Korteweg–de Vries equation (1.3), see [7].
The manuscript is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we study the convergence of (1.14)–(1.17) and in Sect. 3 the one of (1.15)–(1.18).
2 The case \(f(u)=u^3\)
In this section, we consider (1.14). We augment (1.14) with the initial condition
on which we assume that (1.16) holds. Observe that if \(\beta \rightarrow 0\), we have (1.17).
We study the dispersion-diffusion limit for (1.14). Therefore, following [8], we fix two small numbers \( \varepsilon ,\,\beta \) and consider the following fifth order approximation
where \(u_{\varepsilon ,\beta ,0}\) is a \(C^\infty \) approximation of \(u_{0}\) such that
and \(C_0\) is a constant independent on \(\varepsilon \) and \(\beta \).
The main result of this section is the following theorem.
Theorem 2.1
Assume that (1.16) and (2.3) hold. Fix \(T>0\), if
then, there exist two sequences \(\{\varepsilon _{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\), \(\{\beta _{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\), with \(\varepsilon _n, \beta _n \rightarrow 0\), and a limit function
such that
-
(i)
\(u_{\varepsilon _n, \beta _n}\rightarrow u\) strongly in \(L^{p}_{loc}(\mathbb {R}^{+}\times \mathbb {R})\), for each \(1\le p <4\),
-
(ii)
u is a distributional solution of (1.17). Moreover, if
$$\begin{aligned} \beta =o(\varepsilon ^{4}), \end{aligned}$$(2.5) -
(iii)
u is the unique entropy solution of (1.17).
Let us prove some a priori estimates on \(u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\), denoting with \(C_0\) the constants which depend only on the initial data.
Lemma 2.1
For each \(t>0\),
Proof
Multiplying (2.2) by \(2u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\), an integration on \(\mathbb {R}\) gives
that is
Integrating (2.7) on (0, t), from (2.3), we have (2.6). \(\square \)
Lemma 2.2
Fix \(T>0\). Assume (2.4) holds. There exists \(C_0>0\), independent on \(\varepsilon ,\,\beta \) such that
Moreover,
Proof
Let \(0<t<T\). Multiplying (2.2) by \(-\beta \partial _{xx}^2u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\), we have
Since
integrating (2.10) on \(\mathbb {R}\), we get
Due to (2.4) and the Young inequality,
It follows from (2.11) and (2.12) that
Integrating on (0, t), from (2.3) and (2.6), we have
We prove (2.8). Due to (2.6), (2.13) and the Hölder inequality,
Hence,
Arguing as in [10, Lemma 2.1], we get (2.8).
Finally, we prove (2.9). It follows from (2.8) and (2.13) that
which gives (2.9). \(\square \)
Lemma 2.3
Fix \(T>0\). Assume (2.4). Then,
-
(i)
the family \(\{u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }((0,T);L^{4}(\mathbb {R}))\);
-
(ii)
the family \(\{\beta \partial _{xx}^2u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }((0,T);L^{2}(\mathbb {R}))\);
-
(iii)
the families \(\{\beta \varepsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}\partial _{xxx}^3u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\,\beta },\,\{\beta ^{\frac{7}{4}}\varepsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}\partial ^4_{xxxx}u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\,\beta },\,\{\varepsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\partial _x u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\), \(\{\beta ^{\frac{3}{4}}\varepsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\partial _{xx}^2u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\) are bounded in \(L^{2}((0,T)\times \mathbb {R}))\).
Proof
Let \(0<t<T\). Multiplying (2.2) by
we have
Since
from an integration of (2.14) on \(\mathbb {R}\), we get
Observe that
Therefore, it follows from (2.15) that
Coclite and Karlsen [13, Lemma 4.2] says that
for some constant \(c_1>0\). Hence, from (2.6), and (2.17), we have
Therefore, from (2.16), we gain
It follows from (2.3), (2.6), and an integration on \(\mathbb {R}\) that
Hence,
for every \(0<t<T\). \(\square \)
To prove Theorem 2.1. The following technical lemma is needed [20].
Lemma 2.4
Let \(\Omega \) be a bounded open subset of \( \mathbb {R}^2\). Suppose that the sequence \(\{\mathcal L_{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) of distributions is bounded in \(W^{-1,\infty }(\Omega )\). Suppose also that
where \(\{\mathcal L_{1,n}\}_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) lies in a compact subset of \(H^{-1}_{loc}(\Omega )\) and \(\{\mathcal L_{2,n}\}_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) lies in a bounded subset of \(\mathcal {M}_{loc}(\Omega )\). Then \(\{\mathcal L_{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) lies in a compact subset of \(H^{-1}_{loc}(\Omega )\).
Moreover, we consider the following definition.
Definition 2.1
A pair of functions \((\eta , q)\) is called an entropy–entropy flux pair if \(\eta :\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is a \(C^2\) function and \(q :\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is defined by
An entropy–entropy flux pair \((\eta ,\, q)\) is called convex/compactly supported if, in addition, \(\eta \) is convex/compactly supported.
We begin by proving the following result
Lemma 2.5
Assume that (1.16), (2.3) and (2.4) hold. Then for any compactly supported entropy–entropy flux pair \((\eta , \,q)\), there exist two sequences \(\{\varepsilon _{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb {N}},\,\{\beta _{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\), with \(\varepsilon _n,\,\beta _n\rightarrow 0\), and a limit function
such that
Proof
Let us consider a compactly supported entropy–entropy flux pair \((\eta , q)\). Multiplying (2.2) by \(\eta '(u_{\varepsilon ,\beta })\), we have
where
Fix \(T>0\). Arguing as in [11, Lemma 3.2], we have that \(I_{1,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\rightarrow 0\) in \(H^{-1}((0,T) \times \mathbb {R})\), and \(\{I_{2,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\beta >0}\) is bounded in \(L^1((0,T)\times \mathbb {R})\).
We claim that
We have
Thanks to Lemmas 2.1, 2.3, and the Hölder inequality,
We get
We show that
Thanks to (2.4), Lemmas 2.1, 2.3 and the Hölder inequality,
Therefore, Eq. (2.18) follows from Lemma 2.4 and the \(L^p\) compensated compactness of [25]. We prove that u is a distributional solution of (1.17). Let \(\phi \in C^2(\mathbb {R}^2)\) be a test function with compact support. We have to prove that
We define
We have
Therefore, (2.21) follows from (2.3) and (2.18). \(\square \)
Following [17], we prove the following result.
Lemma 2.6
Assume that (1.16), (2.3) and (2.5) hold. Then for any compactly supported entropy–entropy flux pair \((\eta , \,q)\), there exist two sequences \(\{\varepsilon _{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb {N}},\,\{\beta _{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\), with \(\varepsilon _n,\,\beta _n\rightarrow 0\), and a limit function
such that (2.18) holds and
Proof
Let us consider a compactly supported entropy–entropy flux pair \((\eta ,\,q)\). Multiplying (2.2) by \(\eta '(u_{\varepsilon ,\beta })\), we have
where \(I_{1,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta },\,I_{2,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta },\, I_{3,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta },\, I_{4,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta },\, I_{5,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta } ,\, I_{6,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\) are defined in (2.20).
Fix \(T>0\). Arguing as in Lemma 2.5, \(I_{1,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\rightarrow 0\) in \(H^{-1}((0,T) \times \mathbb {R})\), \(\{I_{2,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\beta >0}\) is bounded in \(L^1((0,T)\times \mathbb {R})\), \(I_{3,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\rightarrow 0\) in \(H^{-1}((0,T) \times \mathbb {R})\), \(I_{4,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\rightarrow 0\) in \(L^{1}((0,T) \times \mathbb {R})\), and \(I_{5,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\rightarrow 0\) in \(H^{-1}((0,T) \times \mathbb {R})\).
We claim
By (2.5), Lemmas 2.1, 2.3, and the Hölder inequality,
Therefore, Eq. (2.18) follows from Lemma 2.4 and the \(L^p\) compensated compactness of [25].
We conclude by proving that that u is the unique entropy solution of (1.17). Let us consider a compactly supported entropy–entropy flux pair \((\eta ,\, q)\), and \(\phi \in C^2_c((0,\infty )\times \mathbb {R})\) a non-negative function. Fix \(T>0\). We have to prove that
Due to (2.22), we have
Equation (2.25) follows from (2.5), (2.18), and Lemmas 2.1 and 2.3. \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 2.1
3 The case \(f(u)=-u^3\)
In section, we consider (1.15), and assume (1.16) on the initial datum. Observe that if \(\beta \rightarrow 0\), we have (1.18).
We study the dispersion-diffusion limit for (1.15). Therefore, following [8], we fix two small numbers \( \varepsilon ,\,\beta \) and consider the following fifth order approximation
where \(u_{\varepsilon ,\beta ,0}\) is a \(C^\infty \) approximation of \(u_{0}\) such that
and \(C_0\) is a constant independent on \(\varepsilon \) and \(\beta \).
The main result of this section is the following theorem.
Theorem 3.1
Assume that (1.16) and (2.3) hold. Fix \(T>0\), if
holds, then, there exist two sequences \(\{\varepsilon _{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\), \(\{\beta _{n}\}_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\), with \(\varepsilon _n, \beta _n \rightarrow 0\), and a limit function
such that
Let us prove some a priori estimates on \(u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\), denoting with \(C_0\) the constants which depend only on the initial data.
Lemma 3.1
For each \(t>0\),
Proof
We begin by observing that
Therefore, arguing as in Lemma 2.1, we have (3.4). \(\square \)
Lemma 3.2
Fix \(T>0\). We have that
In particular,
Proof
Let \(0<t<T\). Multiplying (3.1) by \(-2\beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varepsilon \partial _{xx}^2u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\), an integration on \(\mathbb {R}\) gives
Hence,
Due to the Young inequality,
Therefore, from (3.7), we gain
Integrating on (0, t), from (3.2) and (3.4), we have
We prove (3.5). Due to (3.4), (3.8), and the Hölder inequality,
Hence,
Introducing the notation
Then, Eq. (3.9) reads
Arguing as in [10, Lemma 2.3], we have
Equation (3.5) follows (3.10), and (3.11).
Finally, we prove (3.6). It follows from (3.5), and (3.8) that
which gives (3.6). \(\square \)
Following [9, Lemma 2.2], we prove the following result.
Lemma 3.3
Fix \(T>0\), and assume (3.3). Then,
-
(i)
the family \(\{u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }((0,T);L^{4}(\mathbb {R}))\);
-
(ii)
the family \(\{\beta \partial _{xx}^2u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\) is bounded in \(L^{\infty }((0,T);L^{2}(\mathbb {R}))\);
-
(iii)
the families \(\{\beta \varepsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}\partial _{xxx}^3u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\,\beta },\,\{\beta ^{\frac{3}{2}}\varepsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}\partial ^4_{xxxx}u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\,\beta },\,\{\varepsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\partial _x u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\), \(\{\beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varepsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\partial _{xx}^2u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\) are bounded in \(L^{2}((0,T)\times \mathbb {R}))\).
Proof
Let \(0<t<T\). Let A be a positive constant that which will be specified later. Multiplying (3.1) by \(u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }^3 +A\beta ^{2}\partial ^4_{xxxx}u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\), we have
Since
an integration of (3.13) on \(\mathbb {R}\) gives
Observe that
Therefore, from (3.14), we gain
From (3.3),
where D is a positive constant which will specified later. Due to (3.5), (3.3), and the Young inequality,
Therefore, from (3.15), we get
We search \(A,\,D\) such that
that is
A does exist if and only if
Choosing,
it follows from (3.18), and (3.20) that, there exist \(0<A_1<A_2\) such that for every
Equation (3.18) holds. Hence, from (3.17), and (3.21), we get
where \(K_1\) is a positive constant. Thanks to (2.17), and (3.4),
Thus, from (3.22), we gain
Equations (3.2), (3.4), and an integration on (0, t) give
Hence,
for every \(0<t<T\). \(\square \)
Lemma 3.4
We have that
for every \(0<t<T\).
Proof
Let \(0<t<T\). Multiplying (3.1) by \(-2\beta ^{\frac{1}{2}}\varepsilon \partial _{xx}^2u_{\varepsilon ,\beta }\), we have
Since
an integration of (3.24) on \(\mathbb {R}\) gives
Due to the Young inequality,
Hence, from (3.25), we get
Integrating on (0, t), from (3.2), and Lemma 3.3, we get (3.23). \(\square \)
To prove Theorem 3.1 and Lemma 2.4 is needed. Moreover, we use the following definition
Definition 3.1
A pair of functions \((\eta , q)\) is called an entropy–entropy flux pair if
\(\eta :\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is a \(C^2\) function and \(q :\mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is defined by
An entropy–entropy flux pair \((\eta ,\, q)\) is called convex/compactly supported if, in addition, \(\eta \) is convex/compactly supported.
Proof Theorem 3.1
Let us consider a compactly supported entropy–entropy flux pair \((\eta , q)\). Multiplying (3.1) by \(\eta '(u_{\varepsilon ,\beta })\), we have
where
Fix \(T>0\). Arguing as in Lemma 2.5, we have that \(I_{1,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\rightarrow 0\) in \(H^{-1}((0,T) \times \mathbb {R})\), and \(\{I_{2,\,\varepsilon ,\,\beta }\}_{\varepsilon ,\beta >0}\) is bounded in \(L^1((0,T)\times \mathbb {R})\). We claim
Due to Lemma 3.3,
We have
Due to (3.3), (3.4), (3.23), and the Hölder inequality,
We get
We show that
Thanks to (2.4), (2.6), Lemma 3.3, and the Hölder inequality,
Therefore, Eq. (2.18) follows from Lemma 2.4 and the \(L^p\) compensated compactness of [25].
Arguing as in Lemmas 2.5, and 2.6, we obtain that u is a distributional solution of (1.18), and u is the entropy solution of (1.18). Therefore, the proof is concluded. \(\square \)
References
Benney, D.J.: Long waves on liquid films. J. Math. Phys. 45, 150–155 (1966)
Badali, A.H., Hashemi, M.S., Ghahremani, M.: Lie symmetry analysis for Kawahara–KdV equations. Comput. Methods Differ. Equ. 1(2), 135–145 (2013)
Bona, J.L., Smith, R.S.: A model for the two-ways propagation of water waves in a channel. Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 9, 167–182 (1976)
Coclite, G.M., di Ruvo, L.: A singular limit problem for consevation laws related to the Rosenau–Korteweg–de Vries equation. (Submitted)
Coclite, G.M., di Ruvo, L.: A singular limit problem for consevation laws related to the Rosenau equation. (Submitted)
Coclite, G.M., di Ruvo, L.: A singular limit problem for conservation laws related to the Kawahara equation. (Submitted)
Coclite, G.M., di Ruvo, L.: A singular limit problem for conservation laws related to the Kawahara–Korteweg–de Vries equation. Netw. Heterog. Media (to appear)
Coclite, G.M., di Ruvo, L.: Convergence of the generalized Kudryashov–Sinelshchikov equation to the Burgers one. (Submitted)
Coclite, G.M., di Ruvo, L.: A singular limit problem for conservation laws realted to the Kudryashov–Sinelshchikov equation. (Submitted)
Coclite, G.M., di Ruvo, L.: Convergence of the regularized short pulse equation to the short pulse one. (Submitted)
Coclite, G.M., di Ruvo, L.: Convergence of the Ostrovsky equation to the Ostrovsky–Hunter one. J. Differ. Equ. 256, 3245–3277 (2014)
Coclite, G.M., di Ruvo, L., Ernest, J., Mishra, S.: Convergence of vanishing capillarity approximations for scalar conservation laws with discontinuous fluxes. Netw. Heterog. Media 8(4), 969–984 (2013)
Coclite, G.M., Karlsen, K.H.: A singular limit problem for conservation laws related to the Camassa–Holm shallow water equation. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 31, 1253–1272 (2006)
Kawahara, T.: Oscillatory solitary waves in dispersive media. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn 33, 260–264 (1972)
Khalique, C.M., Adem, K.R.: Exact solution of the \((2+1)\)-dimensional Zakharov–Kuznetsov modified equal width equation using Lie group analysis. Comput. Model. 54, 184–189 (2011)
Kichenassamy, S., Olver, P.J.: Existence and nonexistence of solitary wave solutions to higher-order model evolution equations. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 23, 1141–1166 (1992)
LeFloch, P.G., Natalini, R.: Conservation laws with vanishing nonlinear diffusion and dispersion. Nonlinear Anal. Ser. A Theory Methods 36(2), 212–230 (1992)
Mahdavi, E.: Exp-function method for finding some exact solutions of Rosenau–Kawahara and Rosenau–Korteweg–de Vries equations. Int. J. Math. Comput. Phys. Quantum Eng. 8(6), 988–994 (2014)
Molinet, L., Wang, Y.: Dispersive limit from the Kawahara to the KdV equation. J. Differ. Equ. 255, 2196–2219 (2013)
Murat, F.: L’injection du cône positif de \({H}^{-1}\) dans \({W}^{-1,\, q}\) est compacte pour tout \(q<2\). J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 60(3), 309–322 (1981)
Natali, F.: A note on the stability for Kawahara–KdV type equations. Letters 23, 591–596 (2010)
Park, M.A.: On the Rosenau equation. Mat. Apl. e Comput. 9(2), 145–152 (1990)
Rosenau, P.: A quasi-continuous description of a nonlinear transmission line. Phys. Scr. 34, 827–829 (1986)
Rosenau, P.: Dynamics of dense discrete systems. Prog. Theor. Phys. 79, 1028–1042 (1988)
Schonbek, M.E.: Convergence of solutions to nonlinear dispersive equations. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 7(8), 959–1000 (1982)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The authors are members of the Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Coclite, G.M., di Ruvo, L. Convergence results related to the modified Kawahara equation. Boll Unione Mat Ital 8, 265–286 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40574-015-0043-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40574-015-0043-z