Special Solutions to the Space Fractional Diffusion Problem

We use Lemma 2.1 to calculate (D_x^\alpha v_\lambda)_x,

Changing the variable of integration by \lambda^{\frac{1}{1+\alpha}}z=\xi we see dz/z^{\alpha+2}=\lambda d\xi/\xi^{2+\alpha}. Hence that the last term of the right-hand-side (RHS) is equal to

Therefore applying Lemma 2.1 again yields

Now, it is straightforward to see that

We use Corollary 2.2 to compute (D^\alpha u_\lambda)_x. We apply this result to v_\lambda defined as v_\lambda(x) = u(\lambda^{\frac1{1+\alpha}}, \lambda t). This leads us to the identity,

Thus, we see that

u satisfies (?) if and only if u_\lambda fulfills

for all x>0,\ t>0.

Let us suppose that

Then, inserting {\mathscr{E}} defined by (?) into (?) yields

where we took into account that D^\alpha x^\beta = \frac{\Gamma(\beta+1)}{\Gamma(\beta+1-\alpha)} x^{\beta-\alpha}. Hence, we find the formula for c_n,

where we set c_0=1 and

Hence,

If we take into account the form of b_n’s, then we realize that

where E_{\beta,m,l} is a generalized Mittag-Leffler function defined in (?).

Thus, we reache {\mathscr{E}} of the form (3.1), where the multiplicative constant a_0 has to be determined by other means.

Let us set

We will see that

Indeed, \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}(x,t) = - \frac{1}{t(1+\alpha)}y \Phi(y), where y = x {t^{-\frac 1{1+\alpha}}} and by Corollary 2.2 we see that \frac{\partial }{\partial x}D^\alpha_{x_C}u(x,t) = \frac 1t \frac{\partial }{\partial y}D^\alpha_{y_C}u(y,t). Thus, due to

and (?) we obtain

Now, we invoke Proposition 2.3 to conclude that the expression in parenthesis vanishes. Thus, (Proof) follows.

Let us suppose our claim is not valid and the set

is not empty. Since \Phi(0) =1, we see that \inf A =: x_0 >0. Due to the continuity of \Phi

there is x_1> x_0 such that

Let us set

By the weak maximum principle for (Proof) in non-cylindrical regions, see [KR2, Lemma 8], we have

However, since u(0, t) =0 and u(x_1 t^{-1/(1+\alpha)}, t)= u(x_1,1)< u(x_0, 1) for t\in[1,2], then we see that

If we had the strong maximum principle, then we would have reached a contradiction. But we do not have it, thus, we have to continue our argument. For a positive \epsilon and (x,t) \in \mathbb{R}_+ \times(1,\infty) we set,

where c_\alpha = \frac 1{(1+\alpha)\Gamma(1+\alpha)}. Due to the choice of c_\alpha we see that \frac{\partial v_\epsilon }{\partial t} - \frac{\partial }{\partial x} D^\alpha v_\epsilon = 0. Thus, the sum u + v_\epsilon satisfies (Proof) and we may apply the weak maximum principle, see [KR2, Lemma 8], which yields,

We want to select such \epsilon that M_\epsilon = \max (u+v_\epsilon)(x,1). We notice that (u+ v_\epsilon)(0,t)= \epsilon(t-1)\le \epsilon and we may restrict \epsilon so that \epsilon< u(x_1, 1). We take even smaller \epsilon so that

Hence, there is x_2\in (x_0, x_1) such that

We want to guarantee that M_\epsilon equals (u+ v_\epsilon)(x_2,1) = u(x_2, 1) + \epsilon c_\alpha x_2^{1+\alpha}.

We look at u+v_\epsilon on the last part of the parabolic boundary of \Omega,

For (x,t)\in \gamma we have

We see that right-hand-side above is greater than (u+v_\epsilon)(x_1, 1) for t\in (1,2). At the same time we see that the left-hand-side attains its maximum for t=2 and we may take \epsilon so small that

Now, we shall see that \sup_\Omega (u+ v_\epsilon) > M_\epsilon. Let us consider points (x,t) of the following form, (x_2 t^{1/(1+\alpha)}, t), t\in (1,2). Now, we compute values of (u+ v_\epsilon) there for t>1. We obtain,

But this inequality violates (?). Thus, our claim follows.

Since {\mathscr{E}} is a self-similar solution, we may restrict our attention to t=1. Let us suppose our claim is false and {\mathscr{E}}(\cdot,1) attains a minimum at x_0. We can find x_1>x_0 such that {\mathscr{E}}(x_1,1)> {\mathscr{E}}(x_0,1). Now, we choose \epsilon>0 sufficiently small that

so that v_\epsilon(\cdot, 1) attains its minimum at x_2< x_0. In particular this implies that v_\epsilon(x_2, 1) < v_\epsilon(x_1, 1). Moreover, for all \epsilon>0 inequality (3.8) is satisfied. As a result we may apply Lemma 3.8 to v_\epsilon(\cdot , 1) to deduce that v_\epsilon(\cdot , 1) cannot attain any minimum.

We observe that for no positive x_0 function \Phi is increasing on (0, x_0). If such a point existed, then D^\alpha \Phi \ge 0 on (0, x_0), but this contradicts (2.3) due to positivity of \Phi. Hence, v_\epsilon cannot attain any maximum in (0,\infty).

These observations imply that v_\epsilon(\cdot , 1) is decreasing. Indeed, if 0<x_1 <x_2 and v_\epsilon(x_1, 1) < v_\epsilon( x_2, 1). Then, taking into account that v_\epsilon(0, 1)=1> v_\epsilon(x_2,1) we deduce that v_\epsilon(\cdot , 1) must attain a minimum in the interval (0,x_2) but this is impossible. Hence, the claim follows.

Finally, we notice that {\mathscr{E}}(x,1) = \lim_{\epsilon\to 0^+} v_\epsilon(x, 1)), which implies monotonicity of {\mathscr{E}}(\cdot, 1).

We will show first the boundedness of \Phi. Due to Proposition 2.3

and Lemma 3.6, we notice,

We may apply the fractional integration operator I^\alpha to both sides of the above inequality. Due to (?) we obtain,

Hence,

Let us stress that the estimate (?) is uniform in \alpha.

Now, we shall see that boundedness of \Phi implies its integrability. For this purpose we rewrite (2.3) using (?) as follows,

We integrate it over [1,R] and we reach,

In the second term we integrate by parts. This yields,

Now, we use (?) and positivity of \Phi to see that

If we combine it with an easy estimate on J_1 we arrive at

Our claim follows.

We will first check that w_1 and w_2 are well-defined, for this reason we begin with the first part of (b). We will rewrite w_1 and w_2 as a convolution of the data on \mathbb{R}_+ with {\mathscr{E}},

where \tilde g (resp. \bar g) is an odd extension, i.e. \tilde g(-y) = - g(y) (resp. even extension, i.e. \bar g(-y) = g(y)) for y>0. Since {\mathscr{E}}_t \in L^1(\mathbb{R}) and \int_\mathbb{R}{\mathscr{E}}_t \,dx =1, then Young inequality for convolutions imply that {\mathscr{E}}_t * \tilde g, {\mathscr{E}}_t * \bar g\in L^p(\mathbb{R}), when p<\infty and

When g is bounded, then

We conclude that w_1 and w_2 are well-defined.

Let us argue that w_1, w_2 are solutions to (?). We will provide some details for w_1, (the proof for w_2 is the same). We first notice that the kernel {\mathscr{E}}_t is a composition of an analytic function with x\mapsto |x|^{1+\alpha}, hence the convolution appearing in the definition of w_i, i=1,2 shares this kind of smoothness.

Since w_1 is a C^{1+\alpha}-function we may apply D^\alpha_{x_C} to v defined above. We obtain,

where we could interchange the integral over \mathbb{R} with the differentiation due to the integrability of \frac \partial {\partial y} {\mathscr{E}}_t (y+ s) \tilde g(s) with respect s for all y\in \mathbb{R}. Now, we notice that we may invoke the Fubini Theorem to interchange the order of integrals. Thus, we conclude that the partial integration operator I^{1-\alpha} and the integration over \mathbb{R}_+ with respect to y commute and we see,

Now, due to regularity of {\mathscr{E}}_t we see that

Thus, we conclude that ( \frac \partial {\partial t} - \frac \partial {\partial x} D^\alpha_{x_C}) w_1 = 0.

Now, we check the boundary conditions. Since w_1(\cdot,t) is continuous up to x=0 for t>0 we see that

The RHS vanishes because {\mathscr{E}} is even.

The argument for w_2 is similar. We use that \frac{\partial w_2}{\partial x}(\cdot, t) is continuous up to \{x =0\} for t>0. For positive x we have

Thus,

Now, we turn our attention to the initial condition. We recall that (?) follows from the standard properties of convolution with a kernel whose integral is one.

We will present an argument for w_3. The proof for w_4 goes along the same lines.

We extend f by odd reflection, \tilde f(-y,t) = - f(-y,t), for y>0. Then, w_3 takes the following form, where we use the commutativity of the convolution,

Due to the compactness of the support of \tilde f, we have

Then, it is easy to establish by carefully employing the integration by parts that

We have already seen in the course of proof of Theorem 3.12 that

Subsequently, it is easy to check that

Hence, w_3 is a solution to (3.13).

An argument used in the proof of Theorem 3.12 shows that w_3 satisfies the Dirichlet boundary condition. Now, we shall investigate the initial condition. Due to the boundedness of f we see that

Our claims follow.

We will use the representation formulas (Proof). The argument is conducted simultaneously for \tilde g and \bar g. For the sake of simplicity of notation we will write here g for both \tilde g and \bar g and also w will denote w_1 and w_2.

We will check that (1) holds. Let us compute \frac \partial {\partial t} w, we will express it in term of \Phi introduced in (?),

The RHS above is well-defined because g has a compact support and \Phi is a C^{1+\alpha}-function. Since g belongs to W^{1,1}(\mathbb{R}_+) we may integrate the last term by parts. Here, in the case of the odd extension of g we use g(0)=0.

Finally, we reach

The integrability of {\mathscr{E}}, g and g' implies claim (1) for w.

We are going to establish part (2). We have already seen that D^\alpha_{x_C} commute with integration, so we have,

Since {\mathscr{E}}_t(x) = \frac{a_0}{t^{\frac1{1+\alpha}}} \Phi(x t^{-\frac1{1+\alpha}}), we have to calculate the Caputo derivative of a scaled function. Let us suppose that f is absolutely continuous on [0,\infty). We set f_\lambda(x) = f(\lambda x). We compute D^\alpha_{x_C}f_\lambda,

After changing the variables \lambda s = z we obtain,

Taking into account(?) yields,

Now, due to (2.3) and Lemma 3.14 we conclude that

Part (2) follows.

Part (3) is established along the lines of the proof of (1). Let us compute the derivative of w, then we see

where we used the boundedness of the support of g.

We take the difference w of two solutions u_1 and u_2 from X, we multiply them by w and integrate over \mathbb{R}_+. The definition of the class X permits us to write

Since w(\cdot,t) is continuous on \mathbb{R}_+ as well as it is in L^2, then there exists a sequence R_n converging to infinity, such that w(R_n,t) D^\alpha w(R_n,t) goes to zero, when n\to \infty. Thus, after integration by parts over [0,R_n] the RHS above takes the following form,

where we also take into account the zero Dirichlet data at x=0 or vanishing D^\alpha w(0). In order to estimate the RHS we recall that [KuYa, Proposition 6.10] implies that

See formula (5) in the proof of [KR1, Theorem 1] for more details. As a result, we conclude that

Hence, for all t>0 we have \|w(t)\|_{L^2}^2 \le \|w(0)\|_{L^2}^2 =0.

Lemma 3.15 shows that indeed w_1 and w_2 are in class X. The calculations we performed in the course of proof of Theorem 3.12 show that w_3, w_4 also belong to X. Then, we use Proposition 3.16 to finish the proof.

We use the representation formula and the boundedness of {\mathscr{E}}.

We use here the uniform convergence of the Mittag-Leffler functions E_{\alpha, 1+1/\alpha, 1/\alpha} to E_{1,2,1}. This follows from the uniform boundedness of the family E_{\alpha, 1+1/\alpha, 1/\alpha} and the Montel Theorem.

This is an immediate consequence of the definition of w_2 and positivity of {\mathscr{E}} and f.