Small data global well–posedness and scattering for the inhomogeneous nonlinear Schrödinger equation in H^{s} (\mathbb R^{n})

We can easily prove (2.2) by using Lemma 2.2, Hölder inequality and induction on q.

If s-\delta \in \mathbb N, the proof can be found in Lemma 2.1 of [W04]. Thus it suffices to consider the case s-\delta \notin \mathbb N. We use the argument similar to that used in the proof of Lemma 2.1 of [W04]. First, we consider the case s-\delta <1. Putting

and using Lemma 2.5, we have \dot{H}_{r}^{s_{0} } \subset L^{\frac{p_{1}}{\sigma}}, \dot{H}_{r}^{s} \subset \dot{H}_{p_{2} }^{s-\delta }. Hence, using Lemma 2.4 (fractional chain rule), (3.1), (3.2) and Hölder inequality , we have

Next, we consider the case s-\delta >1. By Lemma 2.1, we have

where v=s-\delta -\left[s-\delta \right]. Without loss of generality and for simplicity, we assume that f is a function of a real variable. It follows from the Leibniz rule of derivatives that

where \Lambda _{\alpha }^{q} =\left(\alpha _{1} +\cdots +\alpha _{q} =\alpha ,\;\left|\alpha _{i} \right|\ge 1\right). Hence it suffices to show that

where \left[s-\delta \right]\ge q\ge 1, \left|\alpha _{1} \right|+\cdots +\left|\alpha _{q} \right|=\left[s-\delta \right], \left|\alpha _{i} \right|\ge 1 and v=s-\delta -\left[s-\delta \right].

We divide the proof of (3.5) in two cases: s\le s_{0} +1 and s>s_{0} +1.

Case 1: We consider the case s\le s_{0} +1. Put

We can see that v=s-\delta -\left[s-\delta \right]\le s-\delta -1\le s_{0}, which implies that b>0 and \dot{H}_{r}^{s_{0} } \subset \dot{H}_{b}^{v}. We can also see that s-\left|\alpha _{i} \right|-v\ge s-\left[s-\delta \right]-v=\delta \ge 0 and s-\left|\alpha _{i} \right|-v\le s-1\le s_{0}, which imply that b_{i} >0 and \dot{H}_{r}^{s}\subset \dot{H}_{b_{i} }^{\left|\alpha _{i} \right|+v}. We also have \dot{H}_{r}^{s} \subset \dot{H}_{\tilde{a}_{q} }^{\left|\alpha _{q} \right|}, since s\ge \left|\alpha _{i} \right|. If q\ge 2, then we can verify that \left|\alpha _{i} \right|\le \left[s-\delta \right]-1\le s-1\le s_{0}, which implies that a_{i} >0 and \dot{H}_{r}^{s_{0} } \subset \dot{H}_{a_{i} }^{\left|\alpha _{i} \right|}. For 1\le k\le q, we have

where I_{k} =\left\{i\in \mathbb N:\;1\le i\le q,\;i\ne k\right\}. Using (3.8) and Lemma 2.2 (fractional product rule), we have

where

First, we estimate A_{1}. Since q\le\sigma, it follows from Lemma 2.4 (fractional chain rule) and (3.1) that

where we assume \frac{a}{0}=\infty and the last inequality follows from the embeddings: \dot{H}_{r}^{s_{0} } \subset L^{a},\;\dot{H}_{r}^{s_{0} } \subset \dot{H}_{b}^{v}. Using Hölder inequality, we also have

In view of (3.12) and (3.13), we have

Next, we estimate A_{2}. We can easily see that

Using (3.11) and Corollary 2.3, we have

In view of (3.15) and (3.16), we immediately have

Using (3.9), (3.14) and (3.17), we have (3.5).

Case 2: We consider the case s>s_{0} +1. Put \beta _{0} =v. In [W04], it was proved that one can choose \beta _{i} \;\left(i=1,\;\ldots ,\;q\right) satisfying the following conditions:

For details, see the proof of Lemma 2.1. Put

Using (3.18) and (3.19), we can see that

It also follows from (3.2) that

where a is given in (3.6). Using Lemma 2.2 (fractional product rule), we have

where

First, we estimate A_{3}. Since q\le\sigma, it follows from Lemma 2.4 (fractional chain rule) and (3.1) that

where we assume \frac{a}{0}=\infty and the last inequality follows from the embeddings: \dot{H}_{r}^{s_{0} +v} \subset \dot{H}_{a}^{v} ,\;\dot{H}_{r}^{s_{0} } \subset L^{a}. We also have

where the last inequality follows from the embedding \dot{H}_{r}^{s_{0} +\beta _{i} } \subset \dot{H}_{c_{i} }^{\left|\alpha _{i} \right|}. For i=0,\;\ldots ,\;q, we can take 0\le \theta _{i} \le 1 satisfying s_{0} +\beta _{i} =\theta _{i} s_{0} +\left(1-\theta _{i} \right)s, since s_{0} \le s_{0} +\beta _{i} \le s. Using (3.19), we can easily see that \sum _{i=0}^{q}\theta _{i} =q and \sum _{i=0}^{q}\left(1-\theta _{i} \right) =1. Hence, it follows from Lemma 2.7 (convexity Hölder inequality) that

In view of (3.25)–(3.27), we have

Next, we estimate A_{4}. Using Hölder inequality, we immediately have

Using Corollary 2.3, (3.20) and (3.24), we have

where the last inequality follows from the embeddings: \dot{H}_{r}^{s_{0} +\beta _{k} +v} \subset \dot{H}_{c_{k} }^{\left|\alpha _{k} \right|+v} and \dot{H}_{r}^{s_{0} +\beta _{i} } \subset \dot{H}_{c_{i} }^{\left|\alpha _{i} \right|}. In view of (3.19), we can also see that s_{0} +\beta _{k} +\beta _{0} \le s for k=1,\;\ldots ,\;q. Thus we can take 0\le \tilde{\theta }_{k} \le 1 satisfying s_{0} +\beta _{k} +\beta _{0} =\tilde{\theta }_{k} s_{0} +(1-\tilde{\theta }_{k})s, for k=1,\;\ldots ,\;q. In view of (3.19), we can see that

Hence, using Lemma 2.7 (convexity Hölder inequality), we have

(3.29), (3.30) and (3.31) yield that

Using (3.23), (3.28) and (3.32), we immediately have (3.5). This completes the proof.

Putting

we can easily see that \left(\gamma \left(\bar{r}\right),\bar{r}\right) and \left(\gamma \left(r_{1} \right),r_{1} \right) are admissible. Furthermore, we can see that

For B=B\left(0,\;1\right)=\left\{x\in \mathbb R^{n} ;\;\left|x\right|\le 1\right\}, we have

where

First, we estimate C_{1} and D_{1}. We can take s_{0} \left(>0\right) satisfying the following system:

In fact, we can see that the first equation in (3.41) is equivalent to

and the third equation in (3.41) is equivalent to

Thus the system (3.41) is equivalent to

It is obvious that \frac{n}{2} -\frac{1}{\sigma +1} >0, since n\ge 3. One can easily verify that \frac{n}{2} -\frac{2-b}{\sigma } >0 if, and only if, \sigma >\frac{4-2b}{n}. It is also obvious that

We can see that \frac{n}{2} -\frac{2}{\sigma } <s is equivalent to \left(n-2s\right)\sigma <4. Since \sigma <\sigma _{s}, we have \frac{n}{2} -\frac{2}{\sigma } <s. Hence we can take s_{0} \left(>0\right) satisfying (3.44). Putting

it follows from (3.41) that 0<\frac{1}{\gamma _{1} } <\frac{b}{n}. Lemma 2.2 (fractional product rule) yields

where

It follows from Remark 3.4 and the fact \frac{n}{\gamma _{1} } <b that \left\| \chi_{B^{C}}|x|^{-b} \right\| _{L^{\gamma _{1} }}<\infty. Using the fact \frac{n}{\gamma _{2} } <b+s_{0} <b+s, we also have

In fact, putting \frac{n}{\bar{\gamma}_{2}}:=\left\lceil s\right\rceil-s+\frac{n}{\gamma_{2}}, we can see that \frac{n}{\bar{\gamma}_{2}}<b+\left\lceil s\right\rceil and \dot{H}_{\bar{\gamma}_{2} }^{\left\lceil s\right\rceil} \subset \dot{H}_{\gamma_{2} }^{s}. Hence, it follows from Remark 3.4 that

We also have

Hence using (3.47), (3.49), (3.50), Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 2.6, we have

It also follows from Hölder inequality and (3.48) that

Using (3.51), (3.52), (3.36) and Hölder inequality, we have

Next, we estimate C_{2} and D_{2}. We can take s_{1} \left(>0\right) satisfying the following system:

In fact, we can see that the first equation in (3.55) is equivalent to

Hence the system (3.55) is equivalent to

We can see that \frac{n}{2} -\frac{n-2s+4-2b}{2\left(\sigma +1\right)} <s is equivalent to

If s\ge \frac{n}{2}, (3.58) holds for any \sigma >0, since b<2. If s<\frac{n}{2}, (3.58) is equivalent to \sigma <\frac{4-2b}{n-2s}.

We can also see that \frac{n}{2} -\frac{n-2s+4-2b}{2\left(\sigma +1\right)} <\frac{n}{2} -\frac{1}{\sigma +1} is equivalent to b<1+\frac{n-2s}{2}. Hence, using the hypothesis of this lemma, we can take s_{1} \left(>0\right) satisfying (3.57). Putting

we have

We can also see that \frac{n}{\gamma _{3} } >b+s and \frac{n}{\gamma _{4} } =\frac{n}{\gamma _{3} } -s_{1} >b+s-s_{1} >b. Thus using Remark 3.4 and the same argument as in the estimate of (3.49), we can see that \left\| \chi_{B}|x|^{-b} \right\| _{L^{\gamma _{4} }} and \left\|\chi_{B} |x|^{-b} \right\| _{\dot{H}_{\gamma _{3} }^{s} } are finite. Repeating the same argument as in the proof of (3.51) and (3.52), we have

Using (3.62), (3.63), (3.36) and Hölder inequality, we have

In virtue of (3.37), (3.38), (3.53), (3.54), (3.64) and (3.65), we get the desired results.

We use the same argument as in the proof of Lemma 3.5 and we only sketch the proof. Since b+s<n, there exists \hat{r} large enough such that

Obviously \left(\gamma \left(\hat{r}\right),\;\hat{r}\right) is admissible. Put

One can verify that \frac{1}{r_{2} } >0 if, and only if,

In view of (3.68), we have \frac{1}{\hat{r}} <\frac{n-b-s}{n} <\frac{n-b}{n}. Hence we have

Using (3.71) and the hypothesis \sigma >\frac{4-2b}{n}, we have (3.70) which is equivalent to \frac{1}{r_{2} } >0. Noticing that

we also have \frac{1}{r_{2} } <\frac{1}{2}. Thus we can see that r_{2} >2, i.e. \left(\gamma \left(r_{2} \right),\;r_{2} \right) is admissible. Moreover, we have

For B=B\left(0,\;1\right)=\left\{x\in \mathbb R^{n} ;\;\left|x\right|\le 1\right\}, we have

where

First, we estimate E_{1} and F_{1}. We can take s_{2} \left(>0\right) satisfying the following system:

In fact, one can easily see that the first equation in (3.74) is equivalent to

Thus the system (3.74) is equivalent to

One can easily verify that \frac{n}{2} -\frac{2-b}{\sigma } >0, since \sigma >\frac{4-2b}{n}. We can also see that \frac{n}{2} -\frac{2}{\sigma } <s, since \sigma <\sigma _{s}. On the other hand, \frac{n}{2} -\frac{2}{\sigma } <\frac{n}{r_{2} } is equivalent to \frac{n}{2} +\frac{2}{\sigma } >\frac{n}{\hat{r}}. It is trivial that \frac{n}{2} +\frac{2}{\sigma } >\frac{n}{\hat{r}}, since \hat{r}>2. Hence, we can take s_{2} \left(>0\right) satisfying (3.76). Repeating the same argument as in the estimates of C_{1} and D_{1} in Lemma 3.5, we can get

whose proofs will be omitted.

Next, we estimate E_{2} and F_{2}. We can take s_{3} \left(>0\right) satisfying the following system:

In fact, we can see that the first equation in (3.78) is equivalent to

Hence the system (3.78) is equivalent to

In view of (3.68), we can see that

In view of (3.69), we can also see that \frac{n}{r_{2} } -\frac{n}{\sigma +1} \left(\frac{n-b-s}{n} -\frac{1}{\hat{r}} \right)<s is equivalent to

Since \sigma<\sigma_{s}, we have (3.81). Thus we can take s_{3}\left(>0\right) satisfying (3.80). Using the same argument as in the estimates of C_{2} and D_{2} in Lemma 3.5, we have

whose proofs will be omitted. This completes the proof.