The heat equation with singular potentials. II: Hypoelliptic case

Multiplying the equation (?) by u_t and integrating over \mathbb{G}, we get

for all t \in [0,T], where \Re stands for the real part of the above quantity. The above equation can be rewritten as

We define the energy as

which variation in time satisfies \partial_{t}E(t)\leq 0, and consequently

Straightforward computations give

so that equation (Proof) can be rephrased as the uniform in time t \in [0,T] estimates

and

Recalling the definition of the sum of norms H^s({\mathbb{G}}) in (2.1) we can estimate (Proof) and (Proof) further by

and

respectively.

To proceed we need to deal with the term \|u(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2({\mathbb{G}})}; let us rephrase the problem (?) as follows:

where we have set as a source term f(t,x):=-V(x)u(t,x). Applying Duhamel’s principle (see, e.g. [Ev98]), we deduce that the solution to (?) is given by

where f_s(\cdot)=f(s,\cdot), and h_t(\cdot)=h(t,\cdot) with h being the fundamental solution, or the heat kernel, associated to the Rockland operator {\mathcal{R}}. We recall (see, e.g. Theorem 4.2.7 [FR16]) the following upper bound for the heat kernel norm

We take the L^2({\mathbb{G}})-norm of the expression on (?). Young’s inequality implies for the convolution there

Straightforward computations then give

Putting together (Proof) and (?) we obtain

as required, and the proof of Proposition 3.1 is complete.

We apply Hölder’s inequality to the norm \|\sqrt{V} u_0\|{^{2}_{L^2({\mathbb{G}})}} for 1<q,q^{'}<\infty, so that

where (q,q^{'}) are conjugate exponents. We use the embeddings (?) for u_0 \in H^{\frac{\nu}{2}}({\mathbb{G}}), b=\frac{ \nu}{2}, a=0, and q_0=\frac{2Q}{Q-\nu }. This leads to the estimate

Putting together (Proof) for q=\frac{q_0}{2}, so that q'=\frac{Q}{\nu}, and (Proof) we obtain

Using the energy bounds (Proof) from Proposition 3.1, we have

and the latter, if rephrased, leads to the estimate

The estimate (?) for the L^2-norm of u(t,\cdot) combined with the estimate (Proof) with V and u(t,\cdot) in place of \sqrt{V} and u_0, respectively, and inequality (Proof) gives

Putting together the estimate (?) with the one in (Proof) we get the requested estimate for the H^{\frac{\nu}{2}}-norm of u(t,\cdot). The proof of Proposition 3.2 is complete.

We multiply the heat equation (?) by u and integrating on the group {\mathbb{G}} and obtain the equality:

for all t \in [0,T]. The last equality can be rewritten as

for all t \in [0,T], where V^+,V^- are the positive and negative parts of V, respectively. Straightforward computations yield

Thus, equation (Proof) implies for the time-derivative of \|u(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2({\mathbb{G}})}:

for all t \in [0,T]. Hence we can apply Grönwall’s inequality to (Proof), so that

and we obtain the desired estimate (3.3). This completes the proof of Proposition 3.3.

Let u_0 \in H^{\frac{\nu}{2}}({\mathbb{G}})\cap \mathcal{E}'({\mathbb{G}}). We first treat the case where V\in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{G}})\cup \mathcal{E}'({\mathbb{G}}). If V_\epsilon, u_{o,\epsilon} are regularised (via convolution with a Friedrichs’ mollifier) nets, then they satisfy the moderateness assumptions of Definition 4.5; i.e., we have

where we have chosen \omega(\epsilon)=\epsilon, for some n_0\in \mathbb{N}. Therefore, using the estimate (3.1) we have

uniformly in t, and this shows that the net u_{0,\epsilon} is C([0,T];H^{\frac{\nu}{2}}({\mathbb{G}}))-moderate, as required. Next we treat the case where V \in L^{\frac{Q}{\nu}}({\mathbb{G}}) \cap L^{\frac{Q}{2\nu}}({\mathbb{G}}). Consequently, for the net V_\epsilon as before, the L^{\frac{Q}{\nu}}({\mathbb{G}}) \cap L^{\frac{Q}{2\nu}}({\mathbb{G}})-moderateness assumptions for \omega(\epsilon)=\epsilon and for some n_1 \in \mathbb{N} are guaranteed. Thus, using the estimate (3.2), we can write

for some n, and the proof of Theorem 4.7 is complete.

By the assumptions of the theorem, the L^{\infty}({\mathbb{G}})-moderateness assumptions of the net V_\epsilon are satisfied; i.e., for some n_0 \in \mathbb{N} we have

Taking \omega as \omega(\epsilon):=(\log \epsilon^{-n_0})^{-\frac{1}{n_0}}, where n_0 \in \mathbb{N} is such that the moderateness assumptions can be expressed in the form

For the net u_{0,\epsilon} the L^2-moderateness can be simply regarded as

Using the estimate (3.3) for the solution to (?) in the case of a real potential we deduce that

for some n \in \mathbb{N}, and this completes the proof of Theorem 4.8.

The proof is an immediate consequence of Theorem 4.8 and takes into account Remark 3.4.

If we multiply equation (?) by u, and integrate over {\mathbb{G}} we derive

where the last inequality can be rewritten as

and the claim (4.15) follows.

We denote by u_\epsilon and \tilde{u}_\epsilon the families of solutions to the Cauchy problems (?) and (?), respectively. Setting U_\epsilon to be the difference of these nets U_\epsilon:=u_\epsilon(t,\cdot)-\tilde{u}_\epsilon(t,\cdot), then U_\epsilon solves

where we set f_\epsilon(t,x):=(\tilde{V}_\epsilon(x)-V_\epsilon(x))\tilde{u}_\epsilon(t,x) for the mass term to the inhomogeneous Cauchy problem (Proof).

We aim to express the solution to (Proof) in terms of the solutions to the corresponding homogeneous problems: fix \sigma \in [0,T], and let W_\epsilon(t,x) and \tilde{U}_\epsilon(t,x;\sigma) being the solutions to following the Cauchy problems

and

Thus, with the above considerations, we can write as an application of Duhamel’s principle:

Passing to the L^2-norm of the latter expression we get

An application of Minkowski’s integral inequality, combined with the energy upper bound (4.15) for both solutions W_\epsilon and \tilde{U}_\epsilon to the Cauchy problems as above, allow to estimate \|U_\epsilon(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2} further as given below:

Since

using (?) we obtain

Finally, taking into account the negligibility of the nets u_{0,\epsilon}-\tilde{u}_{0,\epsilon} and \tilde{V}_\epsilon-V_\epsilon we get

for some N_1 \in \mathbb{N}, and for all N,\tilde{N} \in \mathbb{N}, since \tilde{u}_\epsilon is H^{\frac{\nu}{2}}({\mathbb{G}})-moderate, and so also L^2({\mathbb{G}})-moderate. The last estimate holds true uniformly in t, and this completes the proof of Theorem 4.16.

We keep the notation used in the proof of Theorem 4.16 and adapt the reasoning there if necessary. Observe that the next inequality follows by Hölder’s inequality combined with the Sobolev embeddings (?):

uniformly in t\in [0,T]. Now, if in (?) we plug in the formula for f_\epsilon(\sigma,\cdot) and the last estimate, then we get

Taking into account the negligiblity and moderateness assumptions we deduce that

uniformly in t \in [0,T], and for some suitable \omega(\epsilon) and this finishes the proof of Theorem 4.17.

The arguments developed here follow the same line as in Theorems 4.16 and 4.17. The notation used there is adopted here as well. First we recall the estimate for the solution U_\epsilon yo the Cauhcy problem (Proof):

Now, the L^2-norms appearing on the right-hand side of the above inequality shall be estimated after applying twice the inequality (3.3) for the classical solution to (?) in the case of a real potential. In particular we obtain

It is necessary for our purposes to consider the L^\infty-moderateness of the net V_\epsilon under the choice of the function \omega to be given by \omega(\epsilon):=\left(\log \epsilon^{-N_0} \right)^{-\frac{1}{N_0}}, where N_0 \in \mathbb{N} is such that the moderateness assumption can be expressed as:

uniformly in \epsilon \in (0,1]. Let us plug into the estimate (Proof) the moderateness assumption as above and get

uniformly in \epsilon \in (0,1]. We next need to consider the negligibility of nets involved into (Proof). First consider the case where the net \tilde{V}_\epsilon-V_\epsilon is L^\infty-negligible. Then, using the estimate

and the L^2-moderateness of \tilde{u}_\epsilon as being the very weak solution to (?) we get

for any N \in \mathbb{N}. The latter combined with the L^2-negligibility assumption of the net u_{0,\epsilon}-\tilde{u}_{0,\epsilon} under the estimate (Proof) implies the L^2-negligiblity of the net u_\epsilon-\tilde{u}_\epsilon and we have shown that the very weak solution to the Cauchy problem (?) is (L^{\infty}({\mathbb{G}}),L^\infty ({\mathbb{G}}))-unique. Now, for the case where the net \tilde{V}_\epsilon-V_\epsilon is L^{\frac{2Q}{\nu}}-negligible, applying Hölder’s inequality and using the Sobolev embedding (?) we get

Now, since by Corollary 4.9 the very weak solution \tilde{u}_\epsilon is H^{\frac{\nu}{2}}-moderate, by the last estimate we deduce that the net f_\epsilon is L^2-negligible, and consequently also the difference of nets u_{0,\epsilon}-\tilde{u}_{0,\epsilon}. The last observations implies that the very weak solution to the problem (?) is (L^\infty,L^{\frac{2Q}{\nu}})-unique, and the proof of Theorem 4.18 complete.

For u and for u_\epsilon as in the hypothesis, we introduce the auxiliary notation W_\epsilon(t,x):=u(t,x)-u_\epsilon(t,x). Then, the net W_\epsilon is a solution to the Cauchy problem

where we denote f_\epsilon(t,x):=(V_\epsilon(x)-V(x))u(t,x). Analogously to Theorem 4.16, an application of Duhamel’s principle gives:

where we have applied Minkowski’s integral inequality.

Let us first consider the case (?): standard arguments from functional analysis imply that the below L^p-norms converge to 0 as \epsilon \rightarrow 0:

The integrated quantity on the right-hand side of (Proof) is finite since

as follows by the Sobolev embeddings (Proof), and consequently, since u \in H^{\frac{\nu}{2}}({\mathbb{G}}), we also have the convergence

Combining (Proof) with the below observations and using Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem we get

uniformly in t \in [\sigma,T], where \sigma is taken to be fixed. The last conludes the proof of the theorem for the case (?).

To deal with the case (?), inequality on the right-hand side of (Proof) shall now be estimated as:

Using Lemmas 3.1.58, 3.1.59 in [FR16] for V \in C_{0}({\mathbb{G}}) we have the convergence: \|V_\epsilon-V\|_{L^\infty}\rightarrow 0, as \epsilon \rightarrow 0, and the last implies in turn that convergence in (?) is satisfied under the alternative assumptions (?). Summarising the above, we have shown that the very weak solution converges to the classical one in L^2 in both cases (?) and (?), and the proof of Theorem 5.3 is complete.

We keep the same notation as in Theorem 5.3. Using the estimate (3.3) and arguments similar to those developed in Theorem 5.3 we obtain

uniformly in t \in [0,T]. Now, by Remark 5.2 and since the convergence in L^2-norm and in L^\infty-norm of the differences of nets u_0-u_{0,\epsilon} and V_\epsilon-V, respectively, is as we showed in Theorem 5.3, we see that u_\epsilon \rightarrow u in the L^2-sense, and the proof of Theorem 5.4 is complete.