Gradient blowup of smooth vacuum solutions to 1D compressible Euler equations

Direct computation shows

By Proposition 2.6, Proposition 5.2, together with the estimate (5.1), we obtain the L^2-boundedness of z. The same argument yields the boundedness of \left\lVertw\right\rVert_{L^2_x}. Hence, we deduce the L^2 boundedness of u and c.

The asymptotic behavior (1.2) is a direct consequence of (?) and Proposition 2.6.

The positivity of \rho can be shown provided that the initial data has strictly positive density in the interior of the domain. Introducing the Lagrangian flow map defined by

and integrating the first equation of (?) along the flow map, we have

Since the solution is smooth for t_0<t<0 and the gradient blow-up occurs only at (t,x)=(0,0), the density remains strictly positive in the interior of the domain.

For (1), since \bar z = -2y\bar U, we compute

Since the function g(r) = \frac{-4(\mu-1)r}{(\gamma+1)r - 2} is strictly decreasing on the interval r\in[0, \frac{2\mu}{\gamma+1}] and \bar U(y) is strictly decreasing from \frac{2\mu}{\gamma+1} to 0 as y increases from 0 to \infty, \partial_y \bar z is increasing from \partial_y \bar z(0)=-\frac{4\mu}{\gamma+1} to \lim_{y\to \infty} \partial_y \bar z(y)=0.

For (2), one finds

The function f(r)=\frac{(2-\mu)r-\tfrac{2}{\gamma+1}}{r-\tfrac{2}{\gamma+1}} is decreasing for r\in\bigl[0,\tfrac{2}{\gamma+1}\mu\bigr]. Since \bar U is decreasing in y, it follows that

where we used (2.1) in the last equality.

For (3), the expansion (?) follows directly from (2.1). Since \beta \geq 2, the bounds on \partial_y \bar z and \partial_y^2 \bar z are immediate. For higher-order derivatives, note that \bar z \in C^{\infty} if \mu \in \mathfrak S, and \bar z \in C^{[\beta],\beta-[\beta]} if \mu \notin \mathfrak S. This explains the dichotomy in (?). A direct computation yields the stated bounds.

For (4), the asymptotics (?) follow from (2.1), and the derivative estimates (?) are then straightforward.

By using (?), we have

From (2.1), we have 1-\frac{\gamma+1}{2} \bar U(Y(\tau',p)) \in[1-\mu,1]. It then follows that Y(\tau,p) is nondecreasing in \tau and satisfies (2.4).

(1) and (2) follow directly from Proposition ?, ?. For (3), we first use (?) and (2.4) to derive

Hence, the first claim in (3) follows. We then apply \partial_y to (?) to obtain

By using the flow map Y(\tau,p) defined in (2.4), we have

We then integrate the above ODE by using the integral factor

to obtain

By using Proposition 2.3 (2) and (2.4), it then follows that

Together with (?), it leads to the second claim in (3).

For (4), first note that since \chi_0 has a compact support, there exists a constant A:=A(i) such that

We then apply \partial_y^i to (?) and obtain

where the last summation appears only when i\geq 2 and c_{ij} are constants. Along Y(\tau,p), we have

Then, by using the integral factor if(\tau) where f(\tau) is defined in (Proof), we obtain

We first observe that if p\le y_0, \chi_0=1. Thus \chi (\tau, Y(\tau,p)) =1 for each \tau\ge \tau_0 and p\le y_0, and hence for i\ge 1, \partial_y^i \chi(\tau,Y(\tau,p))=0 for \tau\ge \tau_0 and p< y_0. Therefore, to prove the claimed bound in (4), it is enough to consider p \ge y_0. We will prove it by induction on i. When i=1, by using (?), (2.1), (?), (?) and (?), we have

We now assume that for any i< m, |\partial_y^i \chi(\tau,y)|\leq A y^{-i}. Then from (?), we obtain

where we have also used Proposition 2.3 (4) and (?). By using (?), (?), (?) and (Proof), we may rewrite the right-hand side as

The desired bound follows once the boundedness of the terms in the bracket is shown. The first term in the bracket is bounded for any \tau\geq \tau_0, since Y(\tau',p) \partial_y \bar U(Y(\tau',p))\leq0 holds for any \tau'\geq \tau_0. Concerning the second term, by (2.4), we first observe that \big(Y(\tau',p)\big)^{-\mu}\leq p^{-\mu} e^{-\mu(1-\mu) (\tau'-\tau_0)} \le y_0^{-\mu} e^{-\mu(1-\mu) (\tau'-\tau_0)}. We then further bound

where we have used y_0>1 in the last inequality. This completes the proof of (4).

It is a direct consequence of Proposition 2.3, Lemma 2.5, and the definition (?).

The existence of a well-posed solution in H^{\bf{n}_{\mu}} follows directly from Proposition 5.1 via a continuity argument. The decay estimate (?) is a consequence of Proposition 5.1, Proposition 5.2, and Lemma A.3. Indeed, by using Lemma A.3, we have

where we have applied Proposition 5.1 and Proposition 5.2 to obtain the last inequality. The statement on the finite codimensional stability follows directly from (?) of I^{\lfloor \beta \rfloor} together with Proposition 3.2.

The proof follows from analyzing the solutions of (?). By introducing the integral factor (?), (?), we first obtain

When i=2, then by using z_0=w_0=z_1=w_1=0, we have N_z^i|_{y=0} =N_w^i|_{y=0}=0,

Case 1: It is a direct consequence of (Proof) and k_2=0 for \mu=\frac12.

Case 2: For more general cases, we first notice that

for any \gamma\in(1,3), \mu\in[\frac12,1) and i\geq 2. And,

where \beta is defined in (?). Therefore, for \mu\in(\frac12,1), we have

Then, from (Proof), z_2 has an exponentially growing factor e^{-k_2(\tau-\tau_0)} if z_2(\tau_0)\neq q_2(w_2(\tau_0)), which proves (?) and (?) in the case of i=2. For larger i, we notice that k_i<0 for i\in \{2, \dots,\lfloor \beta \rfloor\}. There is always a growing factor e^{-k_i(\tau-\tau_0)} if its coefficient is not zero. This motivates us to define q_i and we have the following claim:

Proof of Claim:

Fixed a \mu\in(\frac12,1), then \lceil\beta\rceil\geq 3. (Proof) proves the case of i=2 with

For i\geq 3, we prove the statement by induction. Assume that the claim holds for all j\in\{2,\dots, i-1\}. Our goal is then to demonstrate that the statement also holds for j=i.

Using z_0=w_0=z_1=w_1=0 and \partial_y^j \bar z(0)=0 for j\in\{2,\dots, i-1\} from Proposition 2.3 (3), the equations (?) reduce to

We focus on the term z_{i-m}z_{m+1} as the remaining terms can be treated analogously. Without loss of generality, we may assume that m+1\leq i-m. By applying the induction assumption (?) to i-m, m+1\in\{2,\dots, i-1\} under the constraint assumption (?), we compute that

After the summation for m from 1 to i-2, we deduce that

where both d_{ \ell_2,\dots, \ell_{i-1}} (\tau_0) and \tilde d_{ \ell_2,\dots, \ell_{i-1}} (\tau_0) are polynomials of w_2(\tau_0),\dots w_{i-1}(\tau_0). Now, using

and

we evaluate the integrals in (Proof) and obtain (?) where

and p_i(\tau_0) and \tilde p_i(\tau_0) are polynomials of w_2(\tau_0),\dots w_{i}(\tau_0). d'_{ \ell_2,\dots, \ell_{i-1}}(\tau_0), \tilde d'_{ \ell_2,\dots, \ell_{i-1}}(\tau_0), and \tilde d''_{ \ell_2,\dots, \ell_{i-1}}(\tau_0) are polynomials of w_2(\tau_0),\dots w_{i-1}(\tau_0). This completes the induction and the proof of the claim.

By using the claim and (?), and

for any j\in\{2,\dots,\lceil \beta \rceil\}, we deduce (?)–(?).

It is a direct consequence of Lemma 3.1 and the fact that for k\geq 2

for any \gamma\in(1,3) and \mu\in[\frac12,1).

We start with the estimation of \frac12 \partial_\tau\left\lVert\frac{Z }{y^{{\bf{n}_{\mu}}}}\right\rVert_{L^2}^2. Using the Z equation in (?) and integrating by parts, we first obtain

Since \partial_y\chi \bar z\ge 0 and 1+\frac{\gamma+1}{4}\frac{\mathring z}{y} \ge 1- \mu, |\partial_y \bar z |\le \frac{4\mu}{\gamma +1} by Proposition 2.3, and by using the Young’s inequality for the second crossing term, we deduce that for any small \varepsilon>0,

Similarly, we compute \frac12 \partial_\tau\left\lVert\frac{W}{y^{{\bf{n}_{\mu}}}}\right\rVert_{L^2}^2

Observe that 1+\frac{3-\gamma}{4}\frac{\mathring z}{y} \ge 1 - \frac{3-\gamma}{1+\gamma}\mu, \partial_y \mathring z\le \partial_y \chi \bar z, and also |\partial_y \chi \bar z|\le c/y_{0}^\mu for some c>0 that follows from Proposition 2.3 and Lemma 2.5. Hence by taking y_0 large enough that \frac{3-\gamma}{8} c/y_{0}^\mu \le \mu /2, we deduce that

Recall the definition of {\bf{n}_{\mu}} in (?). Choose small enough \varepsilon_0>0 and then sufficiently large b>0 such that

Combining the above two inequalities, we obtain the desired estimates.

We take the L^2 inner product of (?) with (\partial_y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}} Z, b \partial_y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}} W ) and integrate by parts to obtain

We estimate (I), \ (II), \ (III) in what follows. For (I), using -\frac{4\mu}{\gamma+1} \le\partial_y \mathring z < 0 from Proposition 2.3, we have

The first term of (II) can be bounded by

where \varepsilon_0>0 is to be determined. To handle the rest of commutator terms in (II) and (III), we first estimate

By applying Proposition 2.6, \mathring z has different behavior in the different regions of y for each 0\le i\le {\bf{n}_{\mu}}-1. Consequently, we decompose S_z^i into two integrals:

where y_* is small and to be determined. For S_{z,1}^i, we separate into two cases: \mu\in \mathfrak S and \mu\notin \mathfrak S. When \mu\in\mathfrak S, as in Proposition 2.3 (3), \partial_y \mathring z and \partial_y^{ \beta } \mathring z are only bounded for small y. By using Hardy inequality (cf. Lemma A.1), we have

When \mu\notin \mathfrak S, we estimate

where we have used \beta>1. In both cases, we conclude that S_{z,1}^i \le C y_* \left\lVertZ\right\rVert_{\dot H^{{\bf{n}_{\mu}}}}^2. Now for S_{z,2}^i, we use Proposition 2.6 and Lemma A.2 to bound for 0\le i\le {\bf{n}_{\mu}}-1

where C_* depends on y_*. Hence, we deduce that

Similarly, we can derive

By putting the estimates together and using Young’s inequality, we arrive at

Recall the definition of {\bf{n}_{\mu}} in (?). We may choose \varepsilon_0>0, y_*>0 and \varepsilon>0 small so that

Then for sufficiently large b>0,

which implies the desired energy inequality.

We begin by recalling the definitions of M_z and M_w from (?). A direct computation yields

Since \varphi is compactly supported and using Proposition 3.2, we have

where C is a constant depending on {\bf{n}_{\mu}}. The corresponding estimates for M_w follow analogously.

From the definition of M_z and M_w, we claim that

for any i\in\{0,1,{\bf{n}_{\mu}}-1\}. To justify this, we expand \mathcal T_z and \mathcal T_w in powers of y, apply \partial_y^i to the resulting expressions, and then evaluate at y=0. The terms that remain coincide exactly with the modulation equations for (z_i,w_i) given in (?). To illustrate the argument, we present the proof for \mathcal T_z, and the case of \mathcal T_w follows analogously. By recalling (?), we rearrange \mathcal T_z in terms of y^i:

Let m\in\{0,1,\dots,{\bf{n}_{\mu}}-1\}. We then apply \partial_y^m to the above equation and evaluate at y=0:

by using (?). By using the compactness of \varphi and Proposition 3.2 , the inequality holds for i\in\{0,1,\dots,{\bf{n}_{\mu}}-1\}. We then proceed to derive the L^2 integrability of \frac{\mathcal T_z}{y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}}} and \partial_y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}} \mathcal T_z. For \mu\in \mathfrak S, the statement holds trivially, since \mathcal T_z is smooth and compactly supported. It therefore suffices to consider the case \mu\notin \mathfrak S. In (Proof), the first and fourth lines consist of monomials y^i with integer i, while the third line vanishes at y=0 due to the factor \partial_y\varphi. Hence, these contributions are integrable. The remaining terms in the second line involve \partial_y \mathring z\, y^{i} and \mathring z\, y^{i-1}, which are only Hölder continuous for y\ll 1, since \mathring z(y)\sim y+y^\beta as y\ll 1 by Proposition 2.3. These terms require separate treatment. For y\ll 1, we have

Since the initial modulation variables satisfy (?) and from {\bf{n}_{\mu}} defined in (?), we have \beta+i-1-{\bf{n}_{\mu}} >-\frac12 for i\geq 2, which ensures the square integrability. This completes the proof.

From Lemma 2.5 and the definition \mathring z in (?), we observe that

Therefore, by using Proposition 2.3 and Proposition 2.6, we have |\partial_y^i\big( \bar z (1-\chi) \partial_y \mathring z\big)| \lesssim y^{1-2 \mu - i } for y>y_0, and in turn

In the following proof, we will use C to denote a generic positive constant that only depends on {\bf{n}_{\mu}}, \gamma and \mu. It may vary from line to line. From Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.2, it remains to establish the estimates of \left| \langle \frac{F_1}{y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}}},\frac{Z}{y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}}} \rangle\right|, \left| \langle \frac{F_2}{y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}}},\frac{W}{y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}}} \rangle\right| , \left|\langle \partial_y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}} F_1, \partial_y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}} Z \rangle \right|, and \left|\langle \partial_y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}} F_2, \partial_y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}} W \rangle \right|. Here F_1= \mathcal S_z - \mathcal N_z - \mathcal T_z and F_2= - \mathcal N_w - \mathcal T_w where \mathcal S_z, \mathcal N_z, \mathcal T_z, \mathcal N_w and \mathcal T_w are defined in (?). Since the estimation corresponding to F_2 is the same as the one to F_1, we will only present the estimation of \left|\langle \partial_y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}} F_1, \partial_y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}} Z \rangle \right| and \left| \langle \frac{F_1}{y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}}},\frac{Z}{y^{\bf{n}_{\mu}}} \rangle\right|.

The source term \mathcal S_z: First of all, \partial_y^j\mathcal S_z(\tau,0)=0 for any j\geq 0 since it has a compact support away from y=0. Hence, by Lemma A.1,

It then follows that

where we have used Young’s inequality in the first step, Lemma 5.4, and the bootstrap assumption in Proposition 5.1 in the last step.

The nonlinear term \mathcal N_z: For the weighted L^2 estimates, we proceed as

where we have used Proposition 5.2, Lemma A.1, Lemma A.3, and the bootstrap assumption in Proposition 5.1 in the last inequality. For the \dot H^{{\bf{n}_{\mu}}} estimates,

We first obtain an estimate of I by considering three cases, depending on the value of i. When i=0, by integrating by parts, we obtain

where we used Proposition 5.2, Lemma A.3, and the bootstrap assumption in Proposition 5.1 in the last inequality. When i={\bf{n}_{\mu}},

where we have applied Lemma A.3 in the second inequality, and Proposition 5.2, (?), (?), (?), and the bootstrap assumption in Proposition 5.1 in the third inequality. Considering 1\leq i\leq {\bf{n}_{\mu}}-1, we estimate by using Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality and Lemma A.3:

where we have used 1\leq i \leq {\bf{n}_{\mu}}, (?), (?), (?) and the assumption in Proposition 5.1 to obtain the last inequality. The remaining two terms can be estimated analogously. Combining these estimates, we obtain

For II, when 1\leq i\leq {\bf{n}_{\mu}}, it can be estimated in the same manner as the first term in (?). For i=0, we estimate

where we have used Young’s inequality and Lemma A.1 in the second inequality, and the bootstrap assumption in Proposition 5.1 to obtain the last inequality. Combining all the estimations above, we derive

The nonlinear term \mathcal T_z: By using Hölder inequality, we obtain

where we have applied Lemma 5.3 and the bootstrap assumption in Proposition 5.1 in the last step. Combining all the estimations above, choosing \epsilon_0=\epsilon_1=\frac{1}{2}\big((1-\mu){\bf{n}_{\mu}} - \frac32 + \frac{\mu}{2} \big) in Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.2, and using the fact e^{-\mathtt{a_0} \tau}e^{-2\mathtt{a_1} \tau} \leq e^{-\mathtt{a_0} \tau}e^{-\mathtt{a_1} \tau}, we arrive at (5.5).

From (?), the equations for (\partial_y Z, \partial_y W) read as

The energy estimates of (Proof) lead to

where

We present the estimation of I, II, III in what follows.

The term I: We first observe that

It is sufficient to estimate the last integral and we will focus on the first term as the second one follows analogously. By recalling (2.6) from Proposition 2.6,

for some constant A:=A(\gamma,\mu), we split the integral into two:

where \alpha>0 is small to be determined. For I_1, by Hardy inequality (cf. Lemma A.1),

For I_2, we bound by

Hence, by the bootstrap assumption of Proposition 5.1, we arrive

and similarly,

for some constant C>0. Therefore, combining (?) and (?), we have

The term II: We estimate II term by term:

The estimation of the first term is similar to the previous case I:

For the second term, we apply Holder inequality and obtain

As in the previous case, due to the different behaviors of \partial_y^2\mathring z for y\ll 1 and 1\ll y from Proposition 2.6:

we separate the domain of integration

By using the bootstrap assumptions of Proposition 5.1,

The third term can be estimated in the same way as in the second term by noting that

We deduce that

Combining (?), (?), and (?), we conclude

for some constant C>0. Here we have used the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality to bound the linear-in-B term in (?), and (?) by the right-hand-side of (?).

The term III: The first term of III can be bounded by using Hölder inequality, Lemma 5.4 and the bootstrap assumptions of Proposition 5.1:

The estimation of remaining two integrals in III is the same. Therefore, we only present the estimation of the first remaining integral involving \partial_y\mathcal N_z and \partial_y\mathcal T_z. We first split \partial_y\mathcal N_z into two parts:

For \int \mathcal N_z^{1,1} \partial_y Z dy, by integration by parts, we obtain

We observe that \int_0^1|\partial_y Z|^2 dy \lesssim \int_0^1|\frac{\partial_y Z}{y^{{\bf{n}_{\mu}}-1}}|^2 dy \lesssim \left\lVertZ\right\rVert_{\dot H^{\bf{n}_{\mu}}}^2 by Hardy inequality. By using Proposition 5.2, Lemma A.3 and the assumptions of Proposition 5.1, we further bound

Next, since \text{supp}(M_z), \text{supp}(M_w) \in [0,1], by using Young’s inequality, we bound

where we have used Lemma A.1 in the last step. Hence,

For the last piece, recalling the expression (?) of \partial_y\mathcal T_z

where we used Proposition 5.2 in the first inequality and Hardy inequality (cf. Lemma A.1) in the second inequality. Hence,

Putting the estimates together from (?), (?) and (?), and choosing \alpha = \frac{\mathtt{a_1}}{2({\bf{n}_{\mu}}-1)} and with \mathtt{a_1}<\mathtt{a_0}, we arrive at

At the second inequality we used e^{-(\mathtt{a_0}+\mathtt{a_1} )\tau} \le e^{(2({\bf{n}_{\mu}}-1)\alpha-2\mathtt{a_1}) \tau} = e^{-\mathtt{a_1} \tau} and e^{\frac{-\mathtt{a_1}}{2(n-1)}\tau} e^{-\left(3-\frac{1}{2(n-1)}\right)(\mu-\frac12)\mathtt{a_2} \tau} \le e^{-\mu\alpha \tau }e^{-(2\mu-1)\mathtt{a_2} \tau}.

By following a similar computation step as in Lemma 4.1, we obtain

We first estimate the quadratic term on the first line. By recalling Proposition 2.6

We split the integral domains into three pieces:

where \alpha will be determined later and we have used the assumptions of Proposition 5.1 in the last inequality. The remaining two terms are estimated in a similar manner, with the cross terms treated first by applying Young’s inequality. We now proceed to estimate the terms regarding F_1 and F_2. Since the estimate for F_2 follows in an analogous manner to that of F_1, we only present the detailed estimate for F_1. Recall the expression F_1 = \mathcal S_z -\mathcal N_z - \mathcal T_z where \mathcal S_z, \mathcal N_z and \mathcal T_z are defined in (?). We estimate term by term.

The source term \mathcal S_z: By using Holder inequality,

Now, depending on \mu, the integral of y^{2-4\mu} is solved differently.

For notational convenience, we denote the right-hand side of (?) by G[\mu]. Hence, by using the assumptions of Proposition 5.1, we demonstrate

The nonlinear term \mathcal N_z: We first do the integration by parts,

where we have used Hölder inequality in the last step. Next, we apply the assumptions of Proposition 5.1, Lemma 5.2 , and Lemma A.3 to obtain

The nonlinear term \mathcal T_z: By using Hölder inequality:

where Lemma 5.3 and the assumptions of Proposition 5.1 have been used. Combing (Proof), (?), (?), (?), and choosing \alpha=\frac{\mathtt{a_1}}{2{\bf{n}_{\mu}}-\mu}, we derive

where C is a constant. At the last inequality, we have used e^{-\mathtt{a_0}\tau}<e^{-\mathtt{a_1}\tau}\leq e^{-\frac{\mu\mathtt{a_1}}{2{\bf{n}_{\mu}}-\mu}\tau}.

Direct computation shows that for f\in H^n([0,\infty)) with f(0)=\partial_yf(0)=\dots=\partial_y^{n-1}f(0)=0,

Hence,

Iterating this estimate for i,i+1,\dots,n-1 gives (A.1).

We first define f_\lambda(y) = f(\lambda y) and compute

We then set \lambda_j = 2^j y_*, and define f_j:=f_{\lambda_j} for y\in[2^jy_*, 2^{j+1}y_*]. Then,

where we have used the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality in the second inequality. We then use the Hölder inequality on the first summation and together with Lemma A.1, we deduce the result.

Direct computation shows

Hence, by using Holder inequality, we obtain

By the Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality

we obtain the desired inequality.

We first recall (2.1). By rewriting y =K \frac{(\frac{2\mu}{1+\gamma}-\bar U)^{\frac1\mu -1}}{ \bar U ^\frac1\mu} and taking K=\frac12, we obtain

Consider the eigenvalue problem \mathcal L(\phi_a) = a \phi_a and we may derive

It then follows that

Let a\le 0 be given. In order for \phi_a to be \frac{1}{1-\mu}-Hölder continuous, we have that 1+a = j (1-\mu) for 0\le j \le \frac{1}{1-\mu} and j\in \mathbb N_{\ge 0}. If \frac{1}{1-\mu} is an integer, the eigenfunctions are smooth and the unstable spectrum is given by \{ -1 + j (1-\mu) : 0 \le j \le \frac{1}{1-\mu} \}. If \frac{1}{1-\mu} is not an integer, \phi_{-1} is only \frac{\mu}{1-\mu}-Hölder continuous. the unstable part of the spectrum is given by \{ -1 + j (1-\mu) : 1 \le j \le [\frac{1}{1-\mu}] \}\cup \{0\}.

We will prove it by a continuity argument. Since the w_1(0)=\epsilon_0 is sufficiently small, \mu-\frac{3-\gamma}{4}w_1(0)>0 initially. Consequently, \partial_\tau w_1(\tau_0)<0. By the Picard–Lindelöf theorem, there exists \nu_0 > 0 such that the solution to the ODE (?) with initial condition w_1(\tau_0) = \epsilon_0 exists on the interval \tau \in [\tau_0,\tau_0+\nu_0). Moreover, \nu_0 can be chosen sufficiently small so that w_1(\tau_0)-w_1(\tau)\ll 1. It then follows that

In particular

By a standard continuity argument, the solution can be extended to all \tau \in [\tau_0,\infty), and w_1 is strictly decreasing. Furthermore, note that w_1 \equiv 0 is itself a solution to the ODE (?). By uniqueness of solutions guaranteed by the Picard–Lindelöf theorem, this establishes the second part of the statement. Now, we remain to show (D.1). Since w_1\in[0,\epsilon_0). Then, there exists an nonzero real number \alpha such that

It then follows

This completes the proof.

By using (?), we compute

where we have used that f(x) = \frac{x}{\mu-x} is an increasing function for x\in[0,\mu) and w_1 is strictly decreasing from \epsilon_0 to 0 as proved in Lemma D.1. Hence,

where we have used \gamma\in(1,3) and \mu\in[\frac12,1) in the last inequality.