Long-term behavior of reaction-diffusion equations with nonlocal boundary conditions on rough domains

(a) This part follows from [W3, Corollary 5.3] (where the assumption (2.15) is not needed).

(b) First, we notice that since we have assumed that \Gamma _{\mu } is \func{Cap}_{2,\Omega }-admissible with respect to \mu, we have from Theorem 2.13 that the continuous embedding \mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu )\hookrightarrow L^{2}(\Omega ) is also an injection. Moreover it follows from (?) if \mu =\sigma and the assumption (2.15) if \mu \neq \sigma, that the embedding \mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu )\hookrightarrow L^{2}(\Omega ) is compact since \Omega is bounded. Since A_{\Theta ,\mu } is a nonnegative self-adjoint operator and has a compact resolvent, then it has a discrete spectrum which is an increasing sequence of real numbers 0\leq \lambda _{1}<\lambda _{2}<\cdots <\lambda _{n}\dots , that converges to +\infty.

Now, let u_{n}\in \mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu ) be an eigenfunction associated with \lambda _{n}. Then, for every v\in \mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu ),

This equality means that A_{\Theta ,\mu }u_{n}=\lambda _{n}u_{n}. Let \alpha >0 be a real number. Since \alpha \in \rho (-A_{\Theta ,\mu }), we have that \alpha I+A_{\Theta ,\mu } is invertible. From A_{\Theta ,\mu }u_{n}=\lambda _{n}u_{n} we have that

By [W3, Theorem 5.4], the semigroup (e^{-tA_{\Theta ,\mu }})_{t\geq 0} is ultracontrative in the sense that it maps L^{2}(\Omega ) into L^{\infty }(\Omega ) (this follows from (?) if \mu =\sigma , and from the assumption (2.15) if \mu \neq \sigma). More precisely, there is a constant C>0 and \gamma\in (0,1) such that for every f\in L^{2}(\Omega ) and t\in (0,1),

where \gamma=N/2 if \mu=\sigma and \gamma=q/2(q-1) if \mu\ne\sigma.

Since for every f\in L^{2}(\Omega ) and \alpha >0,

it follows from (?) that there exists a constant M>0 such that

This completes the proof of part (b).

(c) Assume to the contrary that 0\notin \rho (A_{\Theta ,\mu }) (i.e., 0 is an eigenvalue for A_{\Theta ,\mu }). Then there exists a nonzero function u\in D(A_{\Theta ,\mu }) such that A_{\Theta ,\mu }u=0, that is, \mathcal{A}_{\Theta ,\mu }(u,v)=0, for every v\in \mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu ). In particular, we have

This shows that |\nabla u|=0. Since \Omega is bounded and connected, we get that u=C_{1} for some constant C_{1}. Since u=0 q.e. on \Gamma _{\mu }^{\infty } (as u belongs to \mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu )), there are two alternatives. First, \func{Cap} _{2,\Omega }(\Gamma _{\mu }^{\infty })>0 in which case u=C_{1}\not\in D(A_{\Theta ,\mu }), whence a contradiction. On the other hand, from the facts that u=C_{1}, we get from the previous equation that C_{1}\mu (\Gamma _{\mu })=0. The second alternative \mu (\Gamma _{\mu })>0 then implies that u=C_{1}=0, again a contradiction. We have shown that 0\in \rho (A_{\Theta ,\mu }). Now the estimate (?) follows from standard properties of semigroups (see, e.g., [Dav, FW]), since we have just shown that there exists a constant w>0 such that \Vert e^{-tA_{\Theta ,\mu }}\Vert _{\mathcal{L}(L^{2}(\Omega ),L^{2}(\Omega ))}\leq e^{-wt} for every t>0 . This completes the proof of part (c).

(d) Let A_{p,\Theta ,\mu } be the generator of the semigroup on L^{p}(\Omega ). Since A_{\Theta ,\mu }=A_{2,\Theta ,\mu } has a compact resolvent and \Omega is bounded, it follows from the ultracontractivity that each semigroup has a compact resolvent on L^{p}(\Omega ) for p\in \lbrack 1,\infty ]. Now it follows from [Dav, Corollary 1.6.2] that the spectrum of A_{p,\Theta ,\mu } is independent of p. The last assertion in (d) follows from [D1, Proposition 5.9 and Corollary 5.10].

(e) Since I+A_{\Theta ,\mu } is invertible we have that the L^{2}\left( \Omega \right)-norm of \left( I+A_{\Theta ,\mu }\right) ^{\theta } defines an equivalent norm on D(A_{\Theta ,\mu }^{\theta }) and

Using (?) for t\in \left( 0,1\right) and the contractivity of e^{-tA_{\Theta ,\mu }} for t>1, for u\in D(A_{\Theta ,\mu }^{\theta }), we deduce

The first integral is finite if and only if \gamma <\theta. The proof of theorem is finished.

Step 1 (Local existence). Let u_{0}\in L^{\infty }\left( \Omega \right) \subset L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) =\overline{D(\mathcal{A}_{\Theta ,\mu })}^{L^{2}(\Omega )}=\overline{D({\varphi }_{\Theta ,\mu })} ^{L^{2}(\Omega )}. By Theorem 2.13, {\varphi }_{\Theta ,\mu } is proper, convex and lower semi-continuous on the Hilbert space L^{2}(\Omega ) (cf. also [W3, Theorem 5.2]). Moreover, from Theorem 2.15 we know that -A_{\Theta ,\mu } (=-\partial \varphi _{\Theta ,\mu }) generates a strongly continuous (linear) semigroup (e^{-tA_{\Theta ,\mu }})_{t\geq 0} of contraction operators on L^{2}(\Omega ). Finally, by Theorem 6.1 (Appendix), e^{-tA_{\Theta ,\mu }} is non-expansive on L^{\infty }\left( \Omega \right) ,

and A_{\Theta ,\mu }=\partial \varphi _{\Theta ,\mu } is strongly accretive by Theorem 2.15-(c), see (?). Thus, we can give an operator theoretic version of the original problem (?)-(? ):

with f as a locally Lipschitz perturbation of a monotone operator, on account of the fact that f\in C_{\text{loc}}^{1}\left( \mathbb{R}\right). We construct the (locally-defined) strong solution by a fixed point argument. To this end, fix 0<T^{\ast }\leq T, consider the space

and define the following mapping

Note that \mathcal{X}_{T^{\ast },R^{\ast }}, when endowed with the norm of C\left( \left[ 0,T^{\ast }\right] ;L^{\infty }\left( \Omega \right) \right) , is a closed subset of C\left( \left[ 0,T^{\ast }\right] ;L^{\infty }\left( \Omega \right) \right) , and since f is continuously differentiable, \Sigma \left( u\right) \left( t\right) is continuous on \left[ 0,T^{\ast }\right]. We will show that, by properly choosing T^{\ast },R^{\ast }>0, \Sigma :\mathcal{X}_{T^{\ast },R^{\ast }}\rightarrow \mathcal{X}_{T^{\ast },R^{\ast }} is a contraction mapping with respect to the metric induced by the norm of C\left( \left[ 0,T^{\ast } \right] ;L^{\infty }\left( \Omega \right) \right) . The appropriate choices for T^{\ast },R^{\ast }>0 will be specified below. First, we show that u\in \mathcal{X}_{T^{\ast },R^{\ast }} implies that \Sigma \left( u\right) \in \mathcal{X}_{T^{\ast },R^{\ast }}, that is, \Sigma maps \mathcal{X} _{T^{\ast },R^{\ast }} to itself. From (Proof) and the fact that f\in C_{\text{loc}}^{1}\left( \mathbb{R}\right), we observe that the mapping \Sigma satisfies the following estimate

for some positive continuous function Q_{f^{^{\prime }}} which depends only on the size of the nonlinearity f^{^{\prime }}. Thus, provided that we set R^{\ast }\geq 2\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{\infty ,\Omega }, we can find a sufficiently small time T^{\ast }>0 such that

in which case \Sigma \left( u\left( t\right) \right) \in \mathcal{X} _{T^{\ast },R^{\ast }}, for any u\left( t\right) \in \mathcal{X}_{T^{\ast },R^{\ast }}. Next, we show that by possibly choosing T^{\ast }>0 smaller, \Sigma :\mathcal{X}_{T^{\ast },R^{\ast }}\rightarrow \mathcal{X} _{T^{\ast },R^{\ast }} is also a contraction. Indeed, for any u_{1},u_{2}\in \mathcal{X}_{T^{\ast },R^{\ast }}, exploiting again (Proof), we estimate

This shows that \Sigma is a contraction on \mathcal{X}_{T^{\ast },R^{\ast }} (compare with (Proof)) provided that

Therefore, owing to the contraction mapping principle, we conclude that problem (Proof) has a unique local solution u\in \mathcal{X}_{T^{\ast },R^{\ast }}. This solution can certainly be (uniquely) extended on a right maximal time interval [0,T_{\max }), with T_{\max }>0 depending on \left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{\infty ,\Omega }, such that, either T_{\max }=\infty or T_{\max }<\infty, in which case \lim_{t\nearrow T_{\max }}\left\Vert u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{\infty ,\Omega }=\infty . Indeed, if T_{\max }<\infty and the latter condition does not hold, we can find a sequence t_{n}\nearrow T_{\max } such that \left\Vert u\left( t_{n}\right) \right\Vert _{\infty ,\Omega }\leq C. This would allow us to extend u as a solution to Equation (Proof) to an interval [0,t_{n}+\delta ), for some \delta >0 independent of n. Hence u can be extended beyond T_{\max } which contradicts the construction of T_{\max }>0. To conclude that the solution u belongs to the class in Definition 3.3, let us further set \mathcal{G}\left( t\right) :=-f\left( u\left( t\right) \right) , for u\in C\left( [0,T_{\max }\right) ;L^{\infty }\left( \Omega \right) ) and notice that u is the "generalized" solution of

such that u\left( 0\right) =u_{0}\in L^{\infty }\left( \Omega \right) \subset L^{2}(\Omega )=\overline{D(A_{\Theta ,\mu })}. By Theorem 6.2 (Appendix), the "generalized" solution u has the additional regularity \partial _{t}u\in L^{2}\left( \delta ,T_{\max };L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) \right) , which together with the facts that u is continuous on [0,T_{\max }) and f\in C_{\text{loc}}^{1}\left( \mathbb{R}\right), yield

Thus, we can apply Theorem 6.3 and Corollary 6.4 (see Appendix), to deduce the following regularity properties for u:

such that the solution u is Lipschitz continuous on [\delta ,T_{\max }), for every \delta >0. Thus, we have obtained a locally-defined strong solution in the sense of Definition 3.3. As to the variational equality in Definition 3.1, we note that this equality is satisfied even pointwise (in time t\in \left( 0,T_{\max }\right)) by the strong solutions. Our final point is to show that T_{\max }=\infty , because of condition (H1). This ensures that the strong solution constructed above is also global.

Step 2 (Energy estimate) Let m\geq 1 and consider the function E_{m}:\;(0,\infty )\rightarrow \lbrack 0,\infty ) defined by E_{m}(t):=\Vert u(t)\Vert _{m+1,\Omega }^{m+1}. First, notice that E_{m} is well-defined on \left( 0,T_{\max }\right) because u is bounded in \Omega \times (0,T_{\max }) and because \Omega has finite measure. Since u is a strong solution on \left( 0,T_{\max }\right) , see Definition 3.3 (or (Proof)), recall that u is continuous from [0,T_{\max })\rightarrow L^{\infty }(\Omega ) and Lipschitz continuous on [\delta ,T_{\max }) for every \delta >0. Thus, u (as function of t) is differentiable a.e., whence, the function E_{m}(t) is also differentiable for a.e. t\in \left( 0,T_{\max }\right) .

For strong solutions and t\in \left( 0,T_{\max }\right), integration by parts procedure yields the following standard energy identity:

Assumption (H1) implies that

for some C_{f}>0 and for all s\in \mathbb{R}. This inequality allows us to estimate the nonlinear term in (?). We have (by using the equivalent norm (?))

where \left\vert \Omega \right\vert denotes the N-dimensional Lebesgue measure of \Omega . In view of (?) and Gronwall’s inequality, (?) gives the following estimate for t\in \left( 0,T_{\max }\right) ,

for some constants \rho =\rho \left( N,\Omega \right) >0, C\left( f,\left\vert \Omega \right\vert \right) >0.

Step 3 (The iteration argument). In this step, c>0 will denote a constant that is independent of t, T_{\max }, m, k and initial data, which only depends on the other structural parameters of the problem. Such a constant may vary even from line to line. Moreover, we shall denote by Q_{\tau }\left( m\right) a monotone nondecreasing function in m of order \tau , for some nonnegative constant \tau , independent of m. More precisely, Q_{\tau }\left( m\right) \sim cm^{\tau } as m\rightarrow +\infty . We begin by showing that E_{m}\left( t\right) satisfies a local recursive relation which can be used to perform an iterative argument. Again standard procedure for the strong solutions on \left( 0,T_{\max }\right) (i.e., testing the variational equation (?) with \left\vert u\right\vert ^{m-1}u, m\geq 1; see, e.g., [CD, Lemma 9.3.1], [G, Theorem 3.2] or [Ali, Theorem 3.1]) gives on account of ( ?)

the following inequality:

for some constant \gamma >0 independent of m,t and T_{\max }. Next, set m_{k}+1=2^{k}, k\in \mathbb{N}, and define

Our goal is to derive a recursive inequality for M_{k} using (?). In order to do so, we define

since q>1. We aim to estimate the terms on the right-hand side of (?) in terms of the L^{1+m_{k-1}}\left( \Omega \right)-norm of u. First, Hölder inequality and Maz’ya inequality (i.e., W_{2,2}^{1}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu )\subset L^{2q}\left( \Omega \right), for some q=q\left( N,\Omega \right) >1, see (?) with q=N/\left( N-1\right) and \mu =\sigma , and (2.15) when \mu \neq \sigma) yield (by using the equivalent norm (?))

with \overline{s}_{k}=\overline{p}_{k}q\equiv q/\left( 2q-1\right) \in \left( 0,1\right). Applying Young’s inequality on the right-hand side of ( ?), we get for every \varepsilon >0,

for some \alpha >0 independent of k, where in fact z_{k}:=\overline{q} _{k}/\left( 1-\overline{s}_{k}\right) \equiv 2, for each k, since m_{k}+1\equiv 2^{k}. In order to estimate the last term on the right-hand side of (?), we define two decreasing and increasing sequences \left( l_{k}\right) _{k\in \mathbb{N}} and \left( w_{k}\right) _{k\in \mathbb{N}}, respectively, such that

and observe that they satisfy

for all k\in \mathbb{N} (in particular, w_{k}\rightarrow 2 as k\rightarrow \infty). The application of Young’s inequality in (?) yields again

for every \varepsilon >0, where now

with \beta _{k}:=\left( m_{k}+1\right) /\left( m_{k}\left( 1-\overline{s} _{k}\right) +1\right) \rightarrow \left( 2q-1\right) /\left( q-1\right), as k\rightarrow \infty. Hence, inserting (?), (?) into equation (?), choosing a sufficiently small 0<\varepsilon \leq \varepsilon _{0}:=\frac{1}{4}\min \left( \gamma ,1\right), and simplifying, we obtain for t\in \left( 0,T_{\max }\right) ,

for some positive constant \delta >0 independent of k.

Next, we have \left\vert u\right\vert ^{\frac{1+m_{k}}{2}}\in W_{2,2}^{1}\left( \Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu \right) (recall that u\left( t\right) \in W_{2,2}^{1}\left( \Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu \right) \cap L^{\infty }\left( \Omega \right) , for a.e. t\in \left( 0,T_{\max }\right)), so that by using the equivalent norm (?), we can find another positive constant c=c\left( \Omega ,N\right), depending on \Omega and N, such that

We can now combine (?) with (?) to deduce

for t\in \left( 0,T_{\max }\right) . Integrating (?) over \left( 0,t\right), we infer from Gronwall-Bernoulli’s inequality [CD, Lemma 1.2.4] that there exists yet another constant c>0, independent of k, such that

On the other hand, let us observe that there exists a positive constant C_{\infty }=C_{\infty }(\left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{\infty ,\Omega })\geq 1, independent of k, such that \left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{2^{k},\Omega }\leq C_{\infty }. Taking the 2^{k}-th root on both sides of (?), and defining X_{k}:=\sup_{t\in \left( 0,T_{\max }\right) }\left\Vert u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{2^{k},\Omega }, we easily arrive at

By straightforward induction in (?) (see [Ali, Lemma 3.2]; cf. also [CD, Lemma 9.3.1]), we finally obtain the estimate

It remains to notice that (?) together with the bound (?) shows that \left\Vert u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{\infty ,\Omega } is uniformly bounded for all times t>0 with a bound, independent of T_{\max }, depending only on \left\Vert u_{0}\right\Vert _{\infty ,\Omega }, the "size" of the domain and the non-linear function f. This gives T_{\max }=+\infty so that strong solutions are in fact global. This completes the proof of the theorem.

We divide the proof into two main steps. For practical purposes, C will denote a positive constant that is independent of time, T_{\ast }, \epsilon >0 and initial data, but which only depends on the other structural parameters. Such a constant may vary even from line to line.

Step 1. (The main energy estimate). Since f obeys (H2), then (H1) is satisfied and by Theorem 3.4, the approximate problem (?)-( ?) has a strong solution that also satisfies the weak formulation ( ?). Thus, in view of (?) the key choice \xi =u_{\epsilon }\left( t\right) in (?) is justified. We have the following energy identity

for all t\in (0,T_{\ast }). Invoking assumption (H2), we infer

where we have used the equivalent norm (?). We can now integrate this inequality over \left( 0,T_{\ast }\right) to deduce

for all t\in \left( 0,T_{\ast }\right) , for some \rho >0 independent of \epsilon >0. Incidently, by (?) this uniform estimate also shows that we can take T_{\ast }=\infty , i.e., the weak solution that we construct is in fact globally-defined. On account of (?), we deduce the following uniform (in \epsilon >0) bounds

for any T>0. Hence, by virtue of (?) and (?), we also get

uniformly in \epsilon >0. Here, recall that A_{\Theta ,\mu } is the positive self-adjoint operator associated with the bilinear form \mathcal{A} _{\Theta ,\mu } (see Section 2.2). By (?), we can interpret ( ?) as the equality

in L^{2}(0,T;(\mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu ))^{\ast })+L^{p^{^{\prime }}}(0,T;L^{p^{^{\prime }}}\left( \Omega \right) ), where p^{^{\prime }}=p/\left( p-1\right) (see also (Proof)).

Step 2. (Passage to limit). From the above properties (?)-( ?), we see that there exists a subsequence \left\{ u_{\epsilon }\right\} _{\epsilon >0} (still denoted by \left\{ u_{\epsilon }\right\} ), such that as \epsilon \rightarrow 0^{+},

Since the continuous embedding \mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu )\hookrightarrow L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) is compact, then we can exploit standard embedding results for vector valued functions (see, e.g., [CV]), to deduce

By refining in (?), u_{\epsilon } converges to u a.e. in \Omega \times \left( 0,T\right). Then, by means of known results in measure theory [CV], the continuity of f and the convergence of (?) imply that f\left( u_{\epsilon }\right) converges weakly to f\left( u\right) in L^{p^{^{\prime }}}(\left( 0,T\right) \times \Omega ) , while from (?)-(?) and the linearity of A_{\Theta ,\mu }, we further see that

We can now pass to the limit as \epsilon \rightarrow 0 in equation (?) to deduce the desired weak solution u, satisfying the variational identity (?) and the regularity properties (?). In order to show the energy identity (?), we can proceed in a standard way as in [CV, Theorem II.1.8], by observing that any distributional derivative \partial _{t}u\left( t\right) from \mathcal{D} ^{^{\prime }}(\left[ 0,T\right] ;(\mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu ))^{\ast }+ L^{p^{^{\prime }}}\left( \Omega \right) ) can be represented as \partial _{t}u\left( t\right) =\mathcal{Z}_{1}\left( t\right) +\mathcal{Z}_{2}\left( t\right) , where

which are precisely the dual of the spaces L^{2}(0,T;(\mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu ))), and L^{p}(0,T;L^{p}\left( \Omega \right) ), respectively. In particular, we obtain that every weak solution u\in C\left( \left[ 0,T\right] ;L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) \right) , and that the map t\mapsto \left\Vert u\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{2,\Omega }^{2} is absolutely continuous on \left[ 0,T\right], such that u satisfies the energy identity

a.e. t\in \left[ 0,T\right], whence (?) follows. The proof of Theorem 3.7 is finished.

As usual, consider any two weak solutions u_{1},u_{2}, and set u\left( t\right) =u_{1}\left( t\right) -u_{2}\left( t\right). Then, according to ( ?) (cf. also (?)), u\left( t\right) satisfies the identity

a.e. t\in \left[ 0,T\right] . Assumption (H3) implies (by using the equivalent norm (?))

This yields the desired result by application of Gronwall’s inequality.

The argument leading to (3.10) is analogous to [G, Theorem 2.3] (cf. also [GalNS, Theorem 2.3]). It is based on the following recursive inequality for E_{m_{k}}\left( t\right), which is a consequence of (?) and (?)-(?):

where the sequence \left\{ t_{k}\right\} _{k\in \mathbb{N}} is defined recursively t_{k}=t_{k-1}-\mu /2^{k}, k\geq 1, t_{0}=\tau ^{^{\prime }}. Here we recall that C=C\left( \mu \right) >0, \delta >0 are independent of k. For the sake of completeness, we report a sketch of the argument for (Proof). To this end, let \zeta \left( s\right) be a positive function \zeta :\mathbb{R}_{+}\rightarrow \left[ 0,1\right] such that \zeta \left( s\right) =0 for s\in \left[ 0,t-\mu /2^{k}\right] , \zeta \left( s\right) =1 if s\in \left[ t,+\infty \right) and \left\vert d\zeta /ds\right\vert \leq 2^{k}/\mu, if s\in \left( t-\mu /2^{k},t\right). We define Z_{k}\left( s\right) =\zeta \left( s\right) E_{m_{k}}\left( s\right) and notice that

The last integral in (Proof) can be estimated as in (?) and (?). Combining the above estimates and the fact that Z_{k}\leq E_{m_{k}}, we deduce the following inequality:

Note that C=C\left( \mu \right) \sim \mu ^{-1} as \mu \rightarrow 0, and C\left( \mu \right) is bounded if \mu is bounded away from zero. Integrating (Proof) with respect to s from t-\mu /2^{k} to t, and taking into account the fact that Z_{k}\left( t-\mu /2^{k}\right) =0, we obtain that E_{m_{k}}\left( t\right) =Z_{k}\left( t\right) \leq C\left( 2^{k}\right) ^{\sigma }(\sup_{s\geq t-\mu /2^{k}}E_{m_{k-1}}\left( s\right) )^{2}\left( 1-e^{-C\mu }\right), which proves the claim (Proof). Thus, we can iterate in (Proof) with respect to k\geq 1 and obtain that

Therefore, we can take the 1+m_{k}=2^{k}-th root on both sides of (Proof) and let k\rightarrow +\infty. Using the facts that \zeta :=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty }\frac{1}{2^{i}}<\infty , \overline{\zeta } :=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty }\frac{i}{2^{i}}<\infty, we deduce

This clearly proves the proposition.

We recall that by Theorem 2.15, A_{\Theta ,\mu } is a positive and self-adjoint operator in L^{2}\left( \Omega \right). Then, we have a complete system of eigenfunctions \left\{ \xi _{i}\right\} _{i\in \mathbb{N} } for the operator A_{\Theta ,\mu } in L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) with \xi _{i}\in D\left( A_{\Theta ,\mu }\right) \subset \mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu ), and \xi _{i}\in L^{\infty }\left( \Omega \right) . According to the general spectral theory, the eigenvalues \lambda _{i} can be increasingly ordered and counted according to their multiplicities in order to form a real divergent sequence. Moreover, the respective eigenvectors \xi _{i} turn out to form an orthogonal basis in \mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu ) and L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) , respectively. The eigenvectors \xi _{i} may be assumed to be normalized in L^{2}\left( \Omega \right). To this end, we can now define the finite-dimensional spaces

Clearly, \mathcal{P}_{\infty } is a dense subspace of \mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu ). As usual, for any n\in \mathbb{N} , we look for functions of the form

solving a suitable approximating problem. More precisely, for any given n\geq 1 we look for C^{1}-real functions e_{i}\left( \cdot \right), i=1,\dots ,n, only depending on time, which solve the approximating problem \mathbf{P}\left( n\right) given by

with initial condition

for all \Psi \in \mathcal{P}_{n}. Here u_{n0} is the orthogonal projection of u_{0} onto \mathcal{P}_{n}. Observe that

Notice that by the Cauchy-Lipschitz theorem, one can find a unique maximal solution

to (Proof)-(Proof), for some T_{n}\in (0,T). As in the case when \Omega is smooth (see the monographs [BV, CV, R, T]), the existence of a generalized solution, defined on the whole interval [0,T], for every n\in \mathbb{N}, can be also obtained with this approach. In particular, notice that (?) is also satisfied by u_{n}. Here we are interested to derive the bound (3.12). Notice that the key choice of the test function \xi =\partial _{t}u_{n}\in C([0,T];\mathcal{V} _{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu )\cap L^{p}\left( \Omega \right) ) into the variational equation (?) is now allowed for these truncated solutions. We deduce

for all t\geq 0. Here and below, F denotes the primitive of f, i.e., F\left( s\right) =\int_{0}^{s}f\left( y\right) dy. Multiply this equation by t\geq \rho >0 and integrate over \left( 0,t\right) to get

for all t\geq \rho . Recalling that, due to (H2)-(H3), F is bounded from below, independently of n, and \left\vert F\left( s\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( 1+\left\vert s\right\vert ^{p}\right), we infer from (?),

for some constant c>0 independent of t,n and \rho . On the basis of a lower-semicontinuity argument, we easily obtain the desired estimate (3.12). The proof is finished.

Due to the dissipative estimates (?), (3.10) and (3.12 ), the ball

for a sufficiently large radius R>0, is an absorbing set for \mathcal{S} \left( t\right) in L^{2}\left( \Omega \right). Indeed, in light of (?), it is not difficult to see that, for any bounded set B\subset L^{2}\left( \Omega \right), there exists a time t_{\ast }=t_{\ast }(B)>0 such that \mathcal{S}\left( t\right) B\subset L^{2}\left( \Omega \right), for all t\geq t_{\ast }. Next, we can choose \tau ^{^{\prime }}=\tau +2\mu with \tau =t_{\ast } and \mu =1, so that the L^{2}-L^{\infty } smoothing property (3.10) together with the estimate (3.12 ) entails the desired assertion. Obviously, the ball \mathcal{B}_{0} is compact in the topology of L^{2}\left( \Omega \right). Thus, \mathcal{S} \left( t\right) possesses a compact absorbing set. On the other hand, due to Proposition 3.8 (see also (Proof) below), for every fixed t\geq 0, the map \mathcal{S}\left( t\right) is continuous on \mathcal{B} _{0} in the L^{2}-topology and, consequently, the existence of the global attractor follows now from the classical attractor’s existence theorem (see, e.g. [CV]).

The proof is a simple calculation which relies essentially on the fact that strong solutions are smooth enough, see Definition 3.3 and Remark 3.5.

First, we construct the exponential attractor \mathcal{M}_{d} of the discrete map \mathcal{S}\left( T^{\ast }\right) on \mathcal{B}_{0} (the above constructed absorbing ball in L^{\infty }\left( \Omega \right) \cap \mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu )), for a sufficiently large T^{\ast }. Indeed, let B_{1}=\left[ \cup _{t\geq T^{\ast }}\mathcal{S}\left( t\right) \mathcal{B}_{0}\right] _{L^{2}}, where \left[ \cdot \right] _{L^{2}} denotes the closure in the space L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) and then set \mathbb{B}:=\mathcal{S}\left( 1\right) B_{1}. Thus, \mathbb{B} is a semi-invariant compact (for the L^{2}-metric) subset of the phase space L^{2}(\Omega ) and \mathcal{S} \left( T^{\ast }\right) :\mathbb{B}\rightarrow \mathbb{B}, provided that T^{\ast } is large enough. Then, we apply Proposition 4.6 on the set \mathbb{B} with \mathcal{H}=L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) and \mathbb{ S}=\mathcal{S}\left( T^{\ast }\right) , with T^{\ast }>0 large enough so that Me^{-\omega T^{\ast }}=\gamma <\frac{1}{2} (see (4.9)). Besides, letting

we have that \mathcal{V}_{1}\hookrightarrow \mathcal{V} is compact, with reference to Theorem 2.15. Secondly, define \mathbb{T}:\mathbb{B} \rightarrow \mathcal{V}_{1} to be the solving operator for (?)-(?) on the time interval \left[ 0,T^{\ast }\right] such that \mathbb{T }u_{0}:=u\in \mathcal{V}_{1}, with u\left( 0\right) =u_{0}\in \mathbb{B}. Due to Lemma 4.9, (4.9), we have the global Lipschitz continuity (4.6) of \mathbb{T} from \mathbb{B} to \mathcal{V}_{1} , and (4.9) gives us the basic estimate (4.6) for the map \mathbb{S}=\mathcal{S}\left( T^{\ast }\right). Therefore, the assumptions of Proposition 4.6 are verified and, consequently, the map \mathbb{S}=\mathcal{S}\left( T^{\ast }\right) possesses an exponential attractor \mathcal{M}_{d} on \mathbb{B}. In order to construct the exponential attractor \mathcal{E}_{\Theta ,\mu } for the semigroup \mathcal{S}(t) with continuous time, we note that, due to Proposition 3.8, this semigroup is Lipschitz continuous with respect to the initial data in the topology of L^{2}\left( \Omega \right), see also (Proof). Moreover, by Lemma 4.10 the map \left( t,u_{0}\right) \mapsto \mathcal{S}\left( t\right) u_{0} is also uniformly H ölder continuous on \left[ 0,T^{\ast }\right] \times \mathbb{B}, where \mathbb{B} is endowed with the metric topology of L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) (actually, even with respect of the metric topology of L^{\infty }\left( \Omega \right) due to the L^{2}-L^{\infty } smoothing property of \mathcal{S} and the fact that f\in C_{\text{loc}}^{1}(\mathbb{R})). Hence, the desired exponential attractor \mathcal{E}_{\Theta ,\mu } for the continuous semigroup \mathcal{S}(t) can be obtained by the standard formula

Finally, the finite-dimensionality of \mathcal{E}_{\Theta ,\mu } follows from the finite dimensionality of \mathcal{M}_{d} and the L^{2}-(L^{\infty }\cap \mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}) smoothing property of the semigroup \mathcal{S}\left( t\right). The remaining properties of \mathcal{E}_{\Theta ,\mu } are immediate. Theorem 4.7 is now proved.

The injection \mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu )\hookrightarrow L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) is compact and continuous. The application of Gronwall’s inequality in (Proof) entails the desired estimate (4.9). The second term on the left-hand side of (4.9 ) can be easily controlled by integration over \left( 0,t\right) in (Proof). More precisely, we have

Furthermore, in light of Corollary 3.11 and estimates (3.10), (3.12), recall that we have

for some positive constant C independent of t and u_{i}. Thus, for any test function \xi \in \mathcal{V}_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu ), using the variational identity (?) (which actually holds pointwise for t\geq 0), we have for the function u:=u_{1}-u_{2},

since f\in C_{\text{loc}}^{1}\left( \mathbb{R}\right), owing to (Proof ). This estimate together with (Proof) gives the desired control on the time derivative in (4.9).

According to (Proof), the following bound holds for u:

Consequently, by comparison in (?) and from (3.12), we have that

which entails the inequality

Inequality (4.10) is a consequence of (Proof) and the L^{2}-L^{\infty } smoothing property (3.10). This follows from the fact that the nonlinear function f is continuously differentiable. Indeed, due to the boundedness of u\left( t\right) \in L^{\infty }\left( \Omega \right) , a.e. t\geq 0 and u\left( t\right) \in V_{\Theta }^{1,2}(\Omega ,\partial \Omega ,\mu ), a.e. t\geq \delta >0 (cf., Lemma 3.12), the nonlinearity f becomes subordinated to the linear part of the equation (?) (no matter how fast it grows). More precisely, obtaining the L^{2}-L^{\infty } continuous dependance estimate for the difference u\left( t\right) -u\left( s\right) of any two strong solutions u\left( t\right) ,u\left( s\right) , corresponding to the same initial datum, is actually reduced to the same iteration procedure we used in the proof of Theorem 3.4. The proof is completed.

It is also not difficult to complete the proof of the theorem, using the abstract scheme of Proposition 4.6. Indeed, by estimate (? ), the semigroup \mathcal{T}\left( t\right) admits a bounded absorbing set in L^{2}\left( \Omega \right) , which combined with the estimate (3.10) of Proposition 3.10, gives a bounded absorbing set in L^{\infty }\left( \Omega \right). Arguing now as in the proof of Lemma 3.12, by using Galerkin truncations of the strong solution, we can easily deduce that the same ball \mathcal{B}_{0} is an absorbing set for \mathcal{T}\left( t\right) in L^{\infty }\left( \Omega \right) . Hence, the above scheme applies and we can once again obtain an exponential attractor \mathcal{Y}_{\Theta ,\mu } with the stated properties. This completes the proof.

We proceed as follows. We first regularize the solution u by a sequence of approximate solutions u_{\alpha } with \alpha >0, in which u_{\alpha }\in C^{1}\left( \left[ 0,T\right] ;H\right) such that u_{\alpha }\left( 0\right) =u_{0}\in \overline{D\left( A\right) }, and u_{\alpha } solves the following regularized problem

Here A_{\alpha } corresponds to the Yosida approximation of A, and g_{\alpha }\in C^{1}\left( \left[ 0,T\right] ;H\right) is a sequence of approximate functions such that, as \alpha \rightarrow 0^{+},

Note that by [Scho, Chapter IV, Proposition 1.8] we have A_{\alpha }=\varphi _{\alpha }^{^{\prime }}, \alpha >0, i.e., A_{\alpha } is Lipschitz continuous. Hence by the standard Cauchy-Lipschitz theorem, there exists at least one solution u_{\alpha }\in C^{1}\left( \left[ 0,T\right] ;H\right) to problem (Proof).

Step 1. If h>0, then u_{\alpha }\left( t+h\right) is a solution of (Proof) with g_{\alpha }\left( t\right) replaced by g_{\alpha }\left( t+h\right), and the accretive estimate on A_{\alpha } (i.e., \left( A_{\alpha }w_{1}-A_{\alpha }w_{2},w_{1}-w_{2}\right) _{H}\geq \omega \left\Vert w_{1}-w_{2}\right\Vert _{H}^{2}, \omega >0) gives

Thus, for 0\leq s\leq t we get, on account of Gronwall’s inequality (see, e.g., [Scho, Chapter IV, Lemma 4.1]),

Dividing both sides of this inequality by h^{2}, then letting h\rightarrow 0^{+}, we obtain after standard transformations,

for all t\geq s\geq 0.

Step 2. Fix now v\in H and \alpha >0, and define

Note that \psi ^{^{\prime }}\left( w\right) =\varphi _{\alpha }^{^{\prime }}\left( w\right) -A_{\alpha }v, w\in H, \min_{w\in H}\psi \left( w\right) =\psi \left( v\right) =0, and

Since \left( \psi ^{^{\prime }}\left( u_{\alpha }\right) ,v-u_{\alpha }\right) _{H}\leq \psi \left( v\right) -\psi \left( u_{\alpha }\right) =-\psi \left( u_{\alpha }\right), it follows that

Hence, by integration over \left( 0,T\right) we deduce

This is the energy estimate. In order to estimate the derivative of u_{\alpha }, we take the scalar product in H of equation (Proof) with u_{\alpha }^{^{\prime }}, multiply the resulting identity by t\geq 0 , to deduce

Integrating over \left( 0,T\right) and combining with the energy estimate (?), on account of Young’s inequality, we obtain

The H-norm of u_{\alpha }^{^{\prime }}\left( t\right) satisfies (?) with t=T and s=t, so the left-hand side of (?) dominates

We obtain from (?) and (?), for each 0<\delta \leq t\leq T,

which coupled together with the basic inequality \left( a-b\right) ^{2}\geq \frac{a^{2}}{2}-b^{2}, and equation (Proof), yield

Finally, by virtue of (Proof), we deduce the following bound for A_{\alpha }\left( u_{\alpha }\right) in L^{\infty }\left( \delta ,T;H\right):

for every \alpha >0 and T\geq \delta >0. Arguing now in a standard way (see the proof of [Scho, Chapter IV, Proposition 3.1]), we can pass to the limit as \alpha \rightarrow 0 in (?), along a subsequence \alpha _{n}\rightarrow 0, A_{\alpha _{n}}\left( u_{\alpha _{n}}\left( T\right) \right) \rightarrow y\in A\left( u\left( T\right) \right), so that (6.3) follows from (?) by the weak lower-semicontinuity of the norm. This completes the proof of the theorem.