I have come across the following easy-looking problem that is driving me mad.

I have a family of measures (on the real line $\mathbb R$) $\{\mu_t\}_{t>0}$ which is uniformly bounded (the measures being possibly signed). I know that $\mu_0 = 0$ and that for every $\varphi \in C_c^\infty([0,+\infty) \times \mathbb R)$ it holds $$ \iint_{(0,+\infty) \times \mathbb R} \left[ \partial_t \varphi(t,x)- \sqrt[3]{x} \partial_x \varphi(t,x) \right]  d\mu_t(x)dt = 0. $$

Question. Does $\mu_t \equiv 0$ for every $t>0$?

At the beginning I thought it was an easy consequence of the method of characteristics, but the point is that the (1d-)vector field $f(x) = -\sqrt[3]{x}$ is not Lipschitz, so the standard theory does not apply. Nevertheless, I know that the characteristics of $f$ are unique for every initial data (for $t>0$, am I right?). Do you know any references showing the extension of the method of characteristics to this setting?

  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong Thanks for your interest. Well, I suspect it is my fault, as I have not written that $\mathbb R^+:=[0,+\infty)$ with zero included (this is a way to recover the "initial datum"). I will edit accordingly right now. Does this clarify? $\endgroup$ – user111164 Aug 29 '18 at 15:35
  • $\begingroup$ Ah I see. So yes, I was missing something. :-) It is clear now. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Aug 29 '18 at 17:56
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong On the contrary, that was my fault, as I had not specified it. Thanks for your kind comment :-) $\endgroup$ – user111164 Aug 29 '18 at 19:52

Let us show that the condition ${\mu_0}|_{x>0} = 0$ implies that ${\mu_T}|_{x>0} = 0$ (for a.e. $T>0$). Let $\omega \in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R)$ and $\delta\in (0,1)$ be such that $\omega(\xi) = 0$ for all $\xi\le \delta$. Define $$ \varphi(t,x):= \begin{cases} 0, & \frac{3}{2} x^{\frac{2}{3}} + t - T \le \delta\\ \omega(\frac{2}{3}(\frac{3}{2} x^{\frac{2}{3}} + t - T)^{\frac{3}{2}}), & \frac{3}{2} x^{\frac{2}{3}} + t - T > \frac{1}{2}\delta \end{cases} $$ (clearly this definition is consistent in the intersection of the cases above). Note that $\varphi$ is smooth, compactly supported (in $[0,T]\times \mathbb R$) and $\partial_t \varphi + f \cdot \partial_x \varphi = 0$, so from the equation for $\mu_t$ we get $0=\int_{\mathbb R} \varphi(T, x) \, d\mu_T(x) = \int_{\mathbb R} \omega(x)\, d\mu_T(x)$. By arbitrariness of $\omega$ it follows that $\mu_T|_{x>0} = 0$.

In a similar fashion one should be able to show that $\mu_0|_{x<0}=0$ implies that $\mu_T|_{x<0} = 0$.

Therefore $\mu_t$ can only have the form $\mu_t = g(t) \, \delta_0$, and by the equation for $\mu_t$ we get $g'(t)=0$.

  • $\begingroup$ Uh thanks, very interesting! It seems a very good trick to take in mind. I think my problem is solved by your helpful answer, thanks a lot! $\endgroup$ – user111164 Aug 30 '18 at 9:53

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.