On Lp estimates for the wave equation

New and more elementary proofs are given of two results due to W. Littman: (1) Let $\text{n ? 2, p ?}\text{2n}\text{(n ? 1)}$. The estimate $\text{∫∫ (¦▽u¦}{}^{\mathrm{p}}\text{+ ¦u}{}_{\mathrm{t}}\text{¦}{}^{\mathrm{p}}\text{) dx dt ? C ∫∫ ¦□u¦}{}^{\mathrm{p}}\text{dx dt}$ cannot hold for all u?C₀^∞(Q), Q a cube in $\text{R}{}^{\mathrm{<mi\; mathvariant="italic"\; is="true">n</mi>}}\text{× R}$, some constant C. (2) Let n ? 2, p ≠ 2. The estimate $\text{∫ (¦▽(t)¦}{}^{\mathrm{p}}\text{+ ¦u}{}_{\mathrm{t}}\text{(t)¦}{}^{\mathrm{p}}\text{) dx ? C(t) ∫ (¦▽u(0)¦}{}^{\mathrm{p}}\text{+ ¦u}{}_{\mathrm{t}}\text{(0)¦}{}^{\mathrm{p}}\text{) dx}$ cannot hold for all C^∞ solutions of the wave equation □u = 0 in $\text{R}{}^{\mathrm{n}}\text{x R}$; all t ?$\text{R}$; some function C: $\text{R}$ → $\text{R}$.     

Series expansions of means

A mean M(u, v) is defined to be a homogeneous symmetric function of two positive real variables satisfying min(u, v) ? M(u, v) ? max(u, v) for all u and v. Setting M(u, v) = uM(1, vu^?1) = uM(1, 1 ? t), 0 ? t < 1, we determine power series expansions in t of various generalized means, including $\text{μ}{}_{\mathrm{p}}\text{(1, 1 ? t) = [}\text{1}\text{2}\text{+}\text{(1 ? t)}{}^{\mathrm{p}}\text{2}\text{]}{}^{\mathrm{<mtext>1</mtext><mtext>p</mtext>}}\text{, m}{}_{\mathrm{p}}\text{(u, v) = [}\text{(v}{}^{\mathrm{p\; +\; 1}}\text{? u}{}^{\mathrm{p\; +\; 1}}\text{)}\text{(v ? u)(p + 1)}\text{]}{}^{\mathrm{<mtext>1</mtext><mtext>p</mtext>}}$ (Stolarsky's mean), $\text{M}{}_{\mathrm{p}}\text{(u, v) =}\text{(u}{}^{\mathrm{p}}\text{+ v}{}^{\mathrm{p}}\text{)}\text{(u}{}^{\mathrm{p?\; 1}}\text{+ v}{}^{\mathrm{p\; ?\; 1}}\text{)}$ (Lehmer's mean), $\text{E(r, s; u, v) = [}\text{r(u}{}^{\mathrm{s}}\text{? v}{}^{\mathrm{s}}\text{)}\text{s(u}{}^{\mathrm{r}}\text{? v}{}^{\mathrm{r}}\text{)}\text{]}{}^{\mathrm{<mtext>1</mtext><mtext>(s\; ?\; r)</mtext>}}$ (Leach and Sholander's mean), and $\text{G(r, s; u, v) = [}\text{(u}{}^{\mathrm{s}}\text{+ v}{}^{\mathrm{s}}\text{)}\text{(u}{}^{\mathrm{r}}\text{+ v}{}^{\mathrm{r}}\text{)}\text{]}{}^{\mathrm{<mtext>1</mtext><mtext>(s\; ?\; r)</mtext>}}$ (Gini's mean). The explicit power series coefficients and recurrence relations for these coefficients are found. Finally, applications are shown by proving a theorem that generalizes one due to Lehmer.     

On some t−(2k, k, λ) designs

t?(2k, k, λ) designs having a property similar to that of Hadamard 3-designs are studied. We consider conditions (i), (ii), or (iii) for t?(2k, k, λ) designs: (i) The complement of each block is a block. (ii) If A and B are a complementary pair of blocks, then ∥ A ∩ C ∥ = ∥ B ∩ C ∥ ± u holds for any block C distinct from A and B, where u is a positive integer. (iii) if A and B are a complementary pair of blocks, then ∥ A ∩ C ∥ = ∥ B ∩ C ∥ or ∥ A ∩ C ∥ = ∥ B ∩ C ∥ ± u holds for any block C distinct from A and B, where u is a positive integer. We show that a t?(2k, k, λ) design with t ? 2 and with properties (i) and (ii) is a 3?(2u(2u + 1), u(2u + 1), u(2u² + u ? 2)) design, and that a t?(2k, k, λ) design with t ? 4 and with properties (i) and (iii) is the 5-(12, 6, 1) design, the 4-(8, 4, 1) design, a $\text{5?(2u}{}^2\text{, u}{}^2\text{,}\text{1}\text{4}\text{(u}{}^2\text{? 3) (u}{}^2\text{? 4))}$ design, or a $\text{5?(}\text{2}\text{3}\text{u(2u + 1),}\text{1}\text{3}\text{u(2u = 1),}\text{1}\text{5 4}\text{u(2u}{}^2\text{+ u ? 9) (2u}{}^2\text{+ u ? 12))}$ design.     

The resolvent of a singularly perturbed elliptic operator

Let A and B be uniformly elliptic operators of orders 2m and 2n, respectively, m > n. We consider the Dirichlet problems for the equations (?^{2(m ? n)}A + B + λ²ⁿI)u_? = f and (B + λ²ⁿI)u = f in a bounded domain Ω in R^k with a smooth boundary ?Ω. The estimate is derived. This result extends the results of [7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18]by giving estimates up to the boundary, improving the rate of convergence in ?, using lower norms, and considering operators of higher order with variable coefficients. An application to a parabolic boundary value problem is given.     

Sharp nonlogarithmic Kneser theorems for fourth-order elliptic equations

Let D(?) be the Doob's class containing all functions f(z) analytic in the unit disk Δ such that f(0) = 0 and lim $\text{inf}\text{¦f(z) ¦ ? 1}$ on an arc A of ?Δ with length $\text{¦A ¦? ?}$. It is first proved that if f?D(?) then the spherical norm ∥ f ∥ = sup_z?Δ$\text{(}\text{1 ? ¦z¦}{}^2\text{)¦f′(z)¦}\text{(1 + ¦f(z)¦}{}^2\text{) ? C}{}_1\text{sin}\text{(π ? (}\text{?}\text{2}\text{))/ (π ? (}\text{g9}\text{2}\text{))}$, where C₁ = lim_n→∞$\text{∥ z}{}^{\mathrm{n}}\text{∥}\text{and}\text{1}\text{2}\text{< C}{}_1\text{<}\text{2}\text{e}$. Next, U represents the Seidel's class containing all non-constant functions f(z) bounded analytic in Δ such that $\text{¦tf(e}{}^{\mathrm{i0}}\text{)¦ = 1}$ almost everywhere. It is proved that inf_f?U∥f∥ = 0, and if f has either no singularities or only isolated singularities on ?Δ, then ∥f∥ ? C₁. Finally, it is proved that if f is a function normal in Δ, namely, the norm ∥f∥< ∞, then we have the sharp estimate ∥f^p∥ ? p∥f∥, for any positive integer p.     

Numerical solution of a nonlinear integro-differential equation

Galerkin's method with appropriate discretization in time is considered for approximating the solution of the nonlinear integro-differential equation $\text{u}{}_{\mathrm{t}}\text{(x, t) = ∝}{}_0{}^{\mathrm{t}}\text{a(t ? τ)}\text{?}\text{?x}\text{σ(u}{}_{\mathrm{x}}\text{(x, τ)) dτ + f(x, t)}$, 0 < x < 1, 0 < t < T.An error estimate in a suitable norm will be derived for the difference u ? u^h between the exact solution u and the approximant u^h. It turns out that the rate of convergence of u^h to u as h → 0 is optimal. This result was confirmed by the numerical experiments.     

Adiabatic invariants for linear Hamiltonian systems

n independent adiabatic invariants in involution are found for a slowly varying Hamiltonian system of order 2n × 2n. The Hamiltonian system considered is $\text{?}\text{u}\text{?}\text{= A(t)u}\text{as}\text{? → 0}{}^{\mathrm{+}}$, where A(t) is a 2n × 2n real matrix with distinct, pure imaginary eigen values for each t? [?∞, ∞], and $\text{d}{}^{\mathrm{(j)}}\text{A}\text{dt}{}^{\mathrm{(j)}}\text{? L}{}_{\mathrm{j}}\text{(?∞, ∞)}$, for all j > 0. The adiabatic invariants I_s(u, t), s = 1,…, n are expressed in terms of the eigen vectors of A(t). Approximate solutions for the system to arbitrary order of ? are obtained uniformly for t? [?∞, ∞].     

Recurrence relations based on minimization and maximization

Explicit and asymptotic solutions are presented to the recurrence M(1) = g(1), M(n + 1) = g(n + 1) + min_{1 ? t ? n}(αM(t) + βM(n + 1 ? t)) for the cases (1) α + β < 1, $\text{log}{}_2\text{α}\text{log}{}_2\text{β}$ is rational, and g(n) = δ_nI. (2) α + β > 1, min(α, β) > 1, $\text{log}{}_2\text{α}\text{log}{}_2\text{β}$ is rational, and (a) g(n) = δ_n1, (b) g(n) = 1. The general form of this recurrence was studied extensively by Fredman and Knuth [J. Math. Anal. Appl.48 (1974), 534–559], who showed, without actually solving the recurrence, that in the above cases $\text{M(n) = Ω(n}{}^{\mathrm{<mtext>1\; +\; </mtext><mtext>1</mtext><mtext>\gamma </mtext>}}\text{)}$, where γ is defined by α^?γ + β^?γ = 1, and that $\text{lim}{}_{\mathrm{n\; \to \; \infty }}\text{M(n)}\text{n}{}^{\mathrm{1\; +\; \gamma }}$ does not exist. Using similar techniques, the recurrence M(1) = g(1), M(n + 1) = g(n + 1) + max_{1 ? t ? n}(αM(t) + βM(n + 1 ? t)) is also investigated for the special case α = β < 1 and g(n) = 1 if n is odd = 0 if n is even.     

The maximum amplitude cost functional in linear systems

The maximum amplitude cost of a control function u(t) taken to be ess sup g(t, u(t)), where g(t, u) is a given function. (A particular example is g(t, u) = the norm of u.) We consider linear systems with this cost functional. The existence of optimal control is proved, and it is shown that the ess sup is uniformly essential with respect to the optimal controls. Properties of the extended attainable set are discussed and compared with the case of an integral cost. Finally, we show in what sense a cost functional of the form $\text{(∝ g(t, u(t))}{}^{\mathrm{q}}\text{)}{}^{\mathrm{<mtext>1</mtext><mtext>q</mtext>}}$ approximates the ess sup cost functional.     

Über das grösstmögliche wachstum der nichtlinearität bei semilinearen parabolischen Gleichungen beliebiger ordnung

This paper deals with classical solvability for all t of semilinear parabolic equations u′ + A(t)u = f(t, x, u, ▽u, …, ▽^{2m ? 1}u). It is shown that the right side is allowed to grow faster than $\text{¦▽}{}^{\mathrm{m}}\text{u¦}{}^2$ in ▽^mu if a Hölder norm of u is known a priori. In the second part an example is given where an a priori estimate of a Hölder norm of u is available. Moreover, we give a new maximum principle.     

Concrete model theory for a class of operators with unitary part

Let m and v_t, 0 ? t ? 2π be measures on T = [0, 2π] with m smooth. Consider the direct integral $\text{H}$ = ⊕L²(v^t) dm(t) and the operator $\text{(L?)(t, λ) = e}{}^{\mathrm{?i\lambda }}\text{?(t, λ) ? 2e}{}^{\mathrm{?i\lambda }}\text{∫}{}_{\mathrm{t}}{}^{\mathrm{2\pi }}\text{∫}{}_{\mathrm{T}}\text{?(s, x) e(s, t) dv}{}_{\mathrm{s}}\text{(x) dm(s)}$ on $\text{H}$, where e(s, t) = exp ∫_s^t ∫_Tdv_λ(θ) dm(λ). Let μ_t be the measure defined by $\text{∫}{}_{\mathrm{T}}\text{?(x) dμ}{}_{\mathrm{t}}\text{(x) = ∫}{}_0{}^{\mathrm{t}}\text{∫}{}_{\mathrm{T}}\text{?(x) dv}{}_{\mathrm{s}}\text{dm(s)}$ for all continuous ?, and let ?_t(z) = exp[?∫ (e^iθ + z)(e^iθ ? z)^?1dμ_t(gq)]. Call {v_t} regular iff for all $\text{t, ¦?}{}_{\mathrm{t}}\text{(e}{}^{\mathrm{i\theta }}\text{)¦ = ¦?}{}_{\mathrm{2\pi }}\text{(e}{}^{\mathrm{i\theta }}\text{)¦}$ for 1 a.e.     

Abstract equipartition of energy theorems

Let H be a self-adjoint operator on a complex Hilbert space $\text{H}$. The solution of the abstract Schrödinger equation $\text{idu}\text{dt}\text{= Hu}$ is given by u(t) = exp(?itH)u(0). The energy E = ∥u(t)∥² is independent of t. When does the energy break up into different kinds of energy E = ∑_{j = 1}^NE_j(t) which become asymptotically equipartitioned ? (That is, $\text{E}{}_{\mathrm{j}}\text{(t) →}\text{E}\text{N}\text{as}\text{t → ± ∞}$ for all j and all data u(0).) The “classical” case is the abstract wave equation $\text{d}{}^2\text{v}\text{dt}{}^2\text{+ A}{}^2\text{v = 0}\text{with}\text{A}$ self-adjoint on $\text{H}$₁. This becomes a Schrödinger equation in a Hilbert space $\text{H}$ (essentially $\text{H}$ is two copies of $\text{H}$₁), and there are two kinds of associated energy, viz., kinetic and potential. Two kinds of results are obtained. (1) Equipartition of energy is related to the C¹-algebra approach to quantum field theory and statistical mechanics. (2) Let A₁,…, A_N be commuting self-adjoint operators with N = 2 or 4. Then the equation $\text{Π}{}_{\mathrm{j\; =\; 1}}{}^{\mathrm{N}}\text{(}\text{d}\text{dt}\text{? iA}{}_{\mathrm{j}}\text{) u(t) = 0}$ admits equipartition of energy if and only if exp(it(A_j ? A_k)) → 0 in the weak operator topology as t → ± ∞ for j ≠ k.     

Periodic solutions of a quasilinear parabolic differential equation

This paper treats the quasilinear, parabolic boundary value problem $\text{u}{}_{\mathrm{xx}}\text{? u}{}_{\mathrm{t}}\text{= ??(x, t, u)}$u(0, t) = ?₁(t); u(l, t) = ?₂(t) on an infinite strip $\text{{(x, t) ¦ 0 < x < l, ?∞ < t < ∞}}$ with the functions $\text{?(x, t, u), ?}{}_1\text{(t), ?}{}_2\text{(t)}$ being periodic in t. The major theorem of the paper gives sufficient conditions on $\text{?(x, t, u)}$ for this problem to have a periodic solution u(x, t) which may be constructed by successive approximations with an integral operator. Some corollaries to this theorem offer more explicit conditions on $\text{?(x, t, u)}$ and indicate a method for determining the initial estimate at which the iteration may begin.     

A note on the probabilistic approach to Turán's problem

The Turán number T(n, l, k) is the smallest possible number of edges in a k-graph on n vertices such that every l-set of vertices contains an edge. Given a k-graph H = (V(H), E(H)), we let X_s(S) equal the number of edges contained in S, for any s-set S?V(H). Turán's problem is equivalent to estimating the expectation E(X_l), given that min(X_l) ≥ 1. The following lower bound on the variance of X_s is proved:

$\text{Var(X}{}_{\mathrm{s}}\text{)?mm}\text{n?2k}\text{s?k}\text{n}\text{s}{}^{\mathrm{?1}}\text{n}\text{k}{}^1$

, where m = |E(H)| and $\text{m}\text{= (}{}_{\mathrm{k}}{}^{\mathrm{n}}\text{) ? m}$. This implies the following: putting t(k, l) = lim_n→∞T(n, l, k)(_kⁿ)^?1 then t(k, l) ≥ T(s, l, k)((_k^s) ? 1)^?1, whenever s ≥ l > k ≥ 2. A connection of these results with the existence of certain t-designs is mentioned.     

Factorization of fredholm operators on analytic functions

Let Ω be a simply connected domain in the complex plane, and $\text{A(Ω}{}^{\mathrm{n}}\text{)}$, the space of functions which are defined and analytic on $\text{Ω}{}^{\mathrm{n}}$, if K is the operator on elements $\text{u(t, a}{}_1\text{, …, a}{}_{\mathrm{n}}\text{)}\text{of}\text{A(Ω}{}^{\mathrm{n\; +\; 1}}\text{)}$ defined in terms of the kernels k_i(t, s, a₁, …, a_n) in $\text{A(Ω}{}^{\mathrm{n\; +\; 2}}\text{)}$ by is the identity operator on $\text{A(Ω}{}^{\mathrm{n\; +\; 1}}\text{)}$, then the operator I ? K may be factored in the form (I ? K)(M ? W) = (I ? ΠK)(M ? ΠW). Here, W is an operator on $\text{A(Ω}{}^{\mathrm{n\; +\; 1}}\text{)}$ defined in terms of a kernel w(t, s, a₁, …, a_n) in $\text{A(Ω}{}^{\mathrm{n\; +\; 2}}\text{)}$ by Wu = ∝_an^tw(t, s, a₁, …, a_n) u(s, a₁, …, a_n) ds. ΠW is the operator; ΠWu = ∝_{an ? 1}w(t, s, a₁, …, a_n) u(s, a₁, …, a_n) ds. ΠK is the operator; ΠKu = ∑_{i = 1}^{n ? 1} ∝_ai^tk_i(t, s, a₁, …, a_n) ds + ∝_{an ? 1}^tk_n(t, s, a₁, …, a_n) u(s, a₁, …, a_n) ds. The operator M is of the form m(t, a₁, …, a_n)I, where $\text{m ? A(Ω}{}^{\mathrm{n\; +\; 1}}\text{)}$ and maps elements of $\text{A(Ω}{}^{\mathrm{n\; +\; 1}}\text{)}$ into itself by multiplication. The function m is uniquely derived from K in the following manner. The operator K defines an operator $\text{K}{}^1$ on functions u in $\text{A(Ω}{}^{\mathrm{n\; +\; 2}}\text{)}$, by . A determinant $\text{δ(I ? K}{}^1\text{)}$ of the operator $\text{I ? K}{}^1$ is defined as an element $\text{m}{}^1\text{(t, a}{}_1\text{, …, a}{}_{\mathrm{n\; +\; 1}}\text{)}$ of $\text{A(Ω}{}^{\mathrm{n\; +\; 2}}\text{)}$. This is mapped into $\text{A(Ω}{}^{\mathrm{n\; +\; 1}}\text{)}$ by setting a_{n + 1} = t to give m(t, a₁, …, a_n). The operator I ? ΠK may be factored in similar fashion, giving rise to a chain factorization of I ? K. In some cases all the matrix kernels k_i defining K are separable in the sense that k_i(t, s, a₁, …, a_n) = P_i(t, a₁, …, a_n) Q_i(s, a₁, …, a_n), where P_i is a 1 × p_i matrix and Q_i is a p_i × 1 matrix, each with elements in $\text{A(Ω}{}_{\mathrm{n\; +\; 1}}\text{)}$, explicit formulas are given for the kernels of the factors W. The various results are stated in a form allowing immediate extension to the vector-matrix case.     

On a function due to S. Chowla

Let θ(k, pⁿ) be the least s such that the congruence $\text{x}{}_1{}^{\mathrm{k}}\text{+ ? + x}{}_{\mathrm{s}}{}^{\mathrm{k}}\text{≡ 0}$ (mod pⁿ) has a nontrivial solution. It is shown that if k is sufficiently large and divisible by p but not by p ? 1, then $\text{θ(k, p}{}^{\mathrm{n}}\text{) ≤ k}{}^{\mathrm{<mtext>1</mtext><mtext>2</mtext>}}$. We also obtain the average order of θ(k), the least s such that the above congruence has a nontrivial solution for every prime p and every positive integer n.     

Self-correcting approximate solution by the iterative method for linear and nonlinear stochastic differential equations

The iterative method of the first author makes possible a self-correcting scheme for the approximate solution obtained. This scheme accelerates the convergence and substantially decreases the number of terms necessary in computation for applications involving either linear or nonlinear stochastic systems. A “feedback” term compensates for the approximation of the system inverse operator by a partial sum. Further, errors are determined in calculating the mean solution 〈y〉 and the correlation $\text{R}{}^{\mathrm{y}}\text{(t}{}^1\text{,t}{}^2\text{) = 〈y(t}{}^1\text{)}\text{y}\text{1}\text{(t}{}^2\text{)〉}$ by using the approximations 〈φ_n〉 and 〈φⁿ(t¹)φⁿ(t²)〉 , where φ_n represents n terms of the solution by the iterative method for stochastic differential equations.     

On maximum principles for a class of nonlinear second-order elliptic equations

In a recent paper [3] the authors derived maximum principles which involved $\text{u(x)}\text{and}\text{q = ¦}\text{grad}\text{u¦}$, where u(x) is a classical solution of an alliptic differential equation of the form ($\text{g(q}{}^2\text{)u}{}_{\mathrm{,i}}\text{)}{}_{\mathrm{,i}}\text{+ ?(u) ?(q}{}^2\text{) = 0}$. In this paper these results are extended to the more general case in which $\text{g = g(u, q}{}^2\text{)}\text{and}\text{?(u) ?(q}{}^2\text{)}$ is replaced by h(u, q²).     

Definition and characterization of multivariate negative binomial distribution

The probability generating function (pgf) of an n-variate negative binomial distribution is defined to be [β(s₁,…,s_n)]^?k where β is a polynomial of degree n being linear in each s_i and k > 0. This definition gives rise to two characterizations of negative binomial distributions. An n-variate linear exponential distribution with the probability function h(x₁,…,x_n)$\text{exp}\text{(}\text{Σ}{}_{\mathrm{i=1}}{}^{\mathrm{n}}\text{θ}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{x}{}_{\mathrm{i}}\text{)}\text{f(θ}{}_1\text{,…,θ}{}_{\mathrm{n}}\text{)}$ is negative binomial if and only if its univariate marginals are negative binomial. Let S_t, t = 1,…, m, be subsets of {s₁,…, s_n} with empty ∩_t=1^mS_t. Then an n-variate pgf is of a negative binomial if and only if for all s in S_t being fixed the function is of the form of the pgf of a negative binomial in other s's and this is true for all t.