Consider the heat equation $$ (\partial_t + \Delta + V)u = 0$$ on a complete (open) Riemannian manifold with bounded geometry, where $V$ is a smooth and bounded potential.

Consider the semigroup generated by $A:=\Delta + V$ on the spaces $X = C_0(M)$ or $X = L^p(M)$ for $1\leq p < \infty$. The domain of $A$ is in each case $$ \mathrm{dom}(A) =\{ u \in X \mid Au \in X \},$$ where $Au$ denotes the distributional derivative.

My question is the following: It is clear by parabolic regularity that $e^{-tA}u$ is smooth for any $u \in X$. But is it also true that solutions $e^{-tA}u$ satisfy $$ |\nabla^ku| \in X ~~~~~~~\forall ~k$$ for $u \in \mathrm{dom}(A)$? The local statement is clear (i.e. solutions are in $W^{k, p}_{\mathrm{loc}}(M)$ and in $C^k(M)$ for every $k$), but is it also true that we have this decay at infinity?

What about the special case of vanishing $V$?

  • $\begingroup$ One trick to keep in mind is if $V$ is constant you can do the change of variables $ u(x,t)=e^{\gamma t} v(x,t)$ and write the equation in terms of $v$. This will give estimates... for the case of non-constant $V$ and am not sure if this helps one do anything or not... $\endgroup$ – Craig Jul 22 '14 at 0:31
  • $\begingroup$ What is a vanishing $V$? Does it mean that $v\equiv0$? $\endgroup$ – Andrew Jul 23 '14 at 8:24
  • $\begingroup$ $V$ is the potential in the thread above. That it vanishes means that $V(x) = 0$. $\endgroup$ – Matthias Ludewig Jul 23 '14 at 10:51

For $C$ It follows from the interior Schauder estimates. Namely, for $r>0$ denote $H_r(x_0,t_0)=\{|x-x_0|<r^2,\ 0<t_0-t<r\}$. Then for $0<\alpha<1$ $$ \|u\|_{C^{2+\alpha}(H_r(x,t))}\le C\|u\|_{C(H_{2r}(x,t))}. $$ Taking $r=t/2$ for $t\le 1$ and $r=1/2$ for $t>1$ gives $|\nabla^ku| \in CM)$, $k\le2$. Differentiating the equation w.r.t. $x$ one can get analogous estimate for $|\nabla^3 u| \in C(M)$. Bootstrapping gets the required estimate for any $k$.

For the case $1<p<\infty$ the result follows from the similar theory in the anisotropic Sobolev spaces $W^{2,p}$.

Another way is to get estimates for the fundamental solution $\Gamma$. Then denoting $u_0=u(x,0)$ we have

$$\|\nabla^ku(\cdot,t)\|_{L_p}= \|\nabla^k\Gamma(\cdot,t)*u_0\|_{L_p}\le \|\nabla^k\Gamma(\cdot,t)\|_{L_1}\|u_0\|_{L_p}. $$

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ What about the vanishing condition at infinity? You only showed smoothess, right? $\endgroup$ – Matthias Ludewig Jul 23 '14 at 10:59
  • $\begingroup$ What exactly is meant under vanishing of solutions at infinity? $\endgroup$ – Andrew Jul 23 '14 at 11:50
  • $\begingroup$ A function $u$ is in the space $C_0(\mathbb{R}^n)$ if for each $\varepsilon >0$, there exists a compact set $K$ such that $|u|< \varepsilon$ outside of $K$. $\endgroup$ – Matthias Ludewig Jul 23 '14 at 12:41
  • $\begingroup$ Denote $d(x,y)$ the distance function, $d(x)=d(x,0)$ and $B_R=\{x\in M|d(x)<R\}$. If an estimate for $\Gamma$ like $$ |\Gamma(x,y,t)|\le Ct^{-n/2}e^{-c_1d^2(x,y)/t+c_2t} $$ holds then it is straightforward to obtain the required property. For $\mathbb R^n$ such an estimate is known and for $M$ can be done (I think) in the same way. $\endgroup$ – Andrew Jul 23 '14 at 15:34
  • $\begingroup$ Namely dividing integral $\int_M \Gamma(x,y,t)u_0(x)\,dx$ into two: over $B_R$ and $M\backslash B_R$. Taking $x$ with $d(x)$ large enough the first part will be small due to the factor $e^{-c_1d^2(x,y)/t}$ and the second part can be made small taking $R$ s.t. $|u_0|\le \varepsilon$ on $M\backslash B_R$. $\endgroup$ – Andrew Jul 23 '14 at 15:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.