, ,

We study the scattering problem for the nonlinear wave equation with potential

\begin{matrix} \partial_{t}^{2} u - Δ u + V (x) \cdot u = F (u) in R^{n} \times R, \end{matrix}

(1.1)

where

F (u)

behaves like

| u |^{p}

for some

p > 1

. When it comes to the special case

V (x) \equiv 0

, it is known that both the size of

p

and the decay rate

k

of the initial data play a crucial role in the existence theory of the associated Cauchy problem for small initial data. In fact, the condition

k \geq 2 / (p - 1)

is one of the sharp conditions needed to ensure the global existence of small-amplitude solutions. The scattering operator for 1.1 , on the other hand, has been constructed only in the supercritical case

k > 2 / (p - 1)

, where a zero potential was assumed.

In this paper, we construct the scattering operator for the critical case as well, and we also allow the presence of a small, rapidly decaying potential.

First, consider the Cauchy problem for 1.1 when

V (x) \equiv 0

and the small initial data are prescribed at time

t = 0

. In what follows, we denote by

p_{n}

the positive root of the equation

\begin{matrix} (n - 1) p^{2} = (n + 1) p + 2, \end{matrix}

(1.2)

using the convention that

p_{1} = \infty

. If

1 < p \leq p_{n}

and the data are of compact support, then blow-up is known to generally occur. And even if

p > p_{n}

, blow-up may still occur for slowly decaying data of noncompact support. Namely, under the assumption that

u (x, 0) \equiv 0, \partial_{t} u (x, 0) \geq ɛ (1 + | x |)^{- k - 1},

blow-up does occur for any

ɛ > 0

, provided that

0 \leq k < 2 / (p - 1)

. As it turns out, however, the conditions

p > p_{n}

and

k \geq 2 / (p - 1)

are not only necessary but also sufficient for the existence of global solutions in the following sense. Under the assumption that

\partial_{x}^{α} u (x, 0), \partial_{x}^{β} \partial_{t} u (x, 0) = O (| x |^{- k - 1}) as | x | \to \infty; | α | \leq 3, | β | \leq 2,

small-amplitude solutions exist for all times when

p > p_{n}

and

k \geq 2 / (p - 1)

, provided that either

n = 2, 3

; or

n \geq 4

and the data are of compact support; or

n \geq 4

and the data are radially symmetric with noncompact support. For a precise list of references on the Cauchy problem, we refer the reader to [1] .

Next, we focus on the scattering problem for 1.1 . When it comes to the case

V (x) \equiv 0

, the existence of the scattering operator for small data was established by Pecher [7] in

n = 3

space dimensions under the almost optimal assumptions

p > p_{n}

and

k > 2 / (p - 1)

. Under the exact same assumptions, this result was extended to the case

n = 2

by Tsutaya [10] and independently by Kubota and Mochizuki [6] . As for the higher-dimensional case

n \geq 4

, the corresponding results were obtained by Kubo and Kubota [4, 5] for radially symmetric data.

In the remaining of this paper, we shall mostly focus on the radially symmetric version of the nonlinear wave equation with potential 1.1 . Thus, the equation of interest is

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \partial_{t}^{2} u - \partial_{r}^{2} u - \frac{n - 1}{r} \cdot \partial_{r} u = F (u) - V (r) \cdot u & in Ω = (0, \infty) \times R \\ u (r, 0) = φ (r); \partial_{t} u (r, 0) = ψ (r) & in R_{+} = (0, \infty) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(1.3)

Before we state our main results, however, let us first introduce some hypotheses. When it comes to the nonlinear term

F (u)

, we shall impose the conditions

\begin{matrix} F \in C^{1} (R); F (0) = F^{'} (0) = 0; | F^{'} (u) - F^{'} (v) | \leq A p | u - v |^{p - 1} \end{matrix}

(1.4)

for some

A > 0

and some

p > 1

. When it comes to the potential term

V (r)

, we require that

\begin{matrix} \sum_{i = 0}^{1} {〈 r 〉}^{i} | V^{(i)} (r) | \leq V_{0} {〈 r 〉}^{- κ}, κ > 2 \end{matrix}

(1.5)

for some small

V_{0} > 0

, where the bracket notation

〈 s 〉 = 1 + | s |

is used for convenience.

As for the initial data, we shall assume that

\begin{matrix} \sum_{i = 0}^{2} {〈 r 〉}^{i} | φ^{(i)} (r) | + \sum_{i = 0}^{1} {〈 r 〉}^{i + 1} | ψ^{(i)} (r) | \leq ɛ {〈 r 〉}^{- k} \end{matrix}

(1.6)

for some small

ɛ > 0

and some

k > 0

Although our approach does not really depend on the parity of

n

, the decay estimates that one can obtain for solutions to 1.3 inevitably do. In particular, it will be convenient to introduce the parameters

\begin{matrix} (a, m) = {\begin{matrix} (1, \frac{n - 3}{2}) & if n is odd \\ (\frac{1}{2}, \frac{n - 2}{2}) & if n is even \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(1.7)

we shall frequently use in what follows. Let us remark that

m \geq 1

when

n \geq 4

and that the sum

a + m = (n - 1) / 2

is independent of the parity of

n

Our plan is to construct a solution of 1.3 that is continuously differentiable and belongs to the Banach space

\begin{matrix} X = {u (r, t) \in C^{1} (Ω) : | | u | | < \infty}, Ω = (0, \infty) \times R . \end{matrix}

(1.8)

Here, the norm

| | \cdot | |

is defined by

\begin{matrix} | | u | | = \sum_{j = 0}^{1} {sup}_{(r, t) \in Ω} | \partial_{r}^{j} u (r, t) | \cdot r^{m - 1 + j} {〈 r 〉}^{1 - j} \cdot W_{k} (r, | t |), \end{matrix}

(1.9)

where

m

is given by 1.7 and the weight function

W_{k}

is of the form

\begin{matrix} W_{k} (r, | t |) = {〈 | t | + r 〉}^{a} {〈 | t | - r 〉}^{ν}, ν = k - m - a . \end{matrix}

(1.10)

This weighted norm is partly dictated by the available estimates regarding the solutions to the homogeneous problem

\begin{matrix} \partial_{t}^{2} u_{0} - \partial_{r}^{2} u_{0} - \frac{n - 1}{r} \cdot \partial_{r} u_{0} = 0 in Ω = R_{+} \times R . \end{matrix}

(1.11)

For a proof of the following lemma, we refer the reader to [2, 4, 5] .

Lemma 1.1. Let

n \geq 4

be an integer and define

a, m

by 1.7 . Suppose that

φ \in C^{2} (R_{+})

and

ψ \in C^{1} (R_{+})

are subject to 1.6 for some

ɛ > 0

and some

(n - 1) / 2 < k < n - 1

. Then the homogeneous equation 1.11 subject to initial data

u_{0} (r, 0) = φ (r)

\partial_{t} u_{0} (r, 0) = ψ (r)

admits a unique solution

u_{0}^{-} \in C^{1} (Ω)

which satisfies

\begin{matrix} | \partial_{r}^{j} u_{0}^{-} (r, t) | + | \partial_{t}^{j} u_{0}^{-} (r, t) | \leq C_{0} (k, n) \cdot ɛ r^{1 - m - j} {〈 r 〉}^{j - 1} \cdot W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1} \end{matrix}

(1.12)

when

j = 0, 1

. In particular,

u_{0}^{-}

is in the Banach space 1.8 and we have

| | u_{0}^{-} | | \leq C_{0} ɛ

Remark 1.2. An analogous result holds when

n = 2, 3

, in which case the estimate

\begin{matrix} \sum_{| β | \leq 2} | \partial_{x}^{β} u_{0}^{-} (x, t) | \leq C (k) \cdot ɛ W_{k} (| x |, | t |)^{- 1} \end{matrix}

(1.13)

holds even without the assumption of radial symmetry; see [8, 9] , for instance.

Regarding the solutions to the nonlinear equation, the existence result of this paper can now be stated as follows.

Theorem 1.3. Let

n \geq 4

be an integer. Let

φ \in C^{2} (R_{+})

and

ψ \in C^{1} (R_{+})

satisfy 1.6 for some

ɛ, k > 0

. Suppose the nonlinear term

F (u)

satisfies 1.4 for some

A > 0

and some

\begin{matrix} p_{n} < p < 1 + \frac{4}{n - 1}, \end{matrix}

(1.14)

where

p_{n}

is the positive root of 1.2 . Also, assume

V (r)

is subject to 1.5 for some

V_{0} > 0

and

κ > 2

. If

k \geq 2 / (p - 1)

and if

V_{0}, ɛ

are sufficiently small, then the following conclusions hold with

D = (\partial_{r}, \partial_{t})

and

u_{0}^{-}

as in Lemma 1.1 .

(a) There exists a unique solution $u \in X$ to the nonlinear equation 1.3 such that $| D^{β} (u (r, t) - u_{0}^{-} (r, t)) | \leq C | | u | | \cdot r^{1 - | β | - m} {〈 r 〉}^{| β | - 1} \cdot W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1}, | β | \leq 1$ for some constant $C$ which is independent of $r, t$ . Besides, one has $| | u | | \leq 1$ .
(b) There exists a unique solution $u_{0}^{+} \in X$ to the homogeneous equation 1.11 such that $| D^{β} (u (r, t) - u_{0}^{+} (r, t)) | \leq C | | u | | \cdot r^{1 - | β | - m} {〈 r 〉}^{| β | - 1} \cdot W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1}, | β | \leq 1$ for some constant $C$ which is independent of $r, t$ .

Remark 1.4. Using the norm dictated by 1.13 instead of our norm 1.9 , one can extend Theorem 1.3 to the case

n = 3

without imposing radial symmetry.

When

n = 1, 2

, on the other hand, there exist arbitrarily small, rapidly decaying potentials for which small-data blow-up occurs; see section 6 in [1] for more details.

Nevertheless, it is still possible to treat the case

n = 2

when

V (x) \equiv 0

; for supercritical decay rates, we refer the reader to [10] .

Remark 1.5. Under our assumption that

k \geq 2 / (p - 1)

, the upper bound in 1.14 implies

\begin{matrix} k \geq \frac{2}{p - 1} > \frac{n - 1}{2} = a + m, \end{matrix}

(1.15)

where

a, m

are defined by 1.7 . It is possible to weaken the upper bound 1.14 on

p

in the spirit of [1] and thus obtain existence for decay rates

k \leq (n - 1) / 2

as well. For such decay rates, however, we are unable to show that the solutions are asymptotically free, as we do in our next corollary.

Corollary 1.6. Let the assumptions of the previous theorem hold and define the energy norm

\begin{matrix} | | w (\cdot, t) | |_{e} = {(\int_{0}^{\infty} (| \partial_{r} w (r, t) |^{2} + | \partial_{t} w (r, t) |^{2}) \cdot r^{n - 1} d r)}^{1 / 2} . \end{matrix}

(1.16)

If it happens that

k > m + 1

, then one has

\begin{matrix} | | u (\cdot, t) - u_{0}^{-} (\cdot, t) | |_{e} & \leq C | | u | | \cdot {〈 t 〉}^{- θ}, t \leq 0; \end{matrix}

(1.17)

\begin{matrix} | | u (\cdot, t) - u_{0}^{+} (\cdot, t) | |_{e} & \leq C | | u | | \cdot {〈 t 〉}^{- θ}, t \geq 0 . \end{matrix}

(1.18)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Here, the constant

C

is independent of

t

and we have also set

\begin{matrix} θ \equiv min ((a + m) (p - 1) - 1, (k - m) p - 1, k - m - 1) > 0 \end{matrix}

(1.19)

for convenience.

The remaining of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2 , we collect some facts about the inhomogeneous wave equation and reduce the proof of our existence result to the estimation of certain integrals involving our weight function 1.10 . In section 3 , we gather the necessary estimates to treat those integrals, while section 4 is devoted to the proofs of our main results, Theorem 1.3 and Corollary 1.6 .

2 Preliminaries

In this section, we prepare a few basic lemmas that will be needed in the proof of our existence theorem regarding the nonlinear wave equation with potential

\begin{matrix} \partial_{t}^{2} u - \partial_{r}^{2} u - \frac{n - 1}{r} \cdot \partial_{r} u = F (u) - V (r) \cdot u in Ω = (0, \infty) \times R . \end{matrix}

(2.1)

Recall that we seek a solution to 2.1 for initial data of decay rate

k \geq 2 / (p - 1)

. Since there is no loss of generality in decreasing this decay rate, we may take

k

to be smaller than any quantity that exceeds

2 / (p - 1)

. Now, our assumption 1.14 that

p

is larger than the critical power

p_{n}

of 1.2 can be written as

\frac{2}{p - 1} < \frac{n - 1}{2} \cdot p - 1 = (a + m) p - 1

with

a, m

as in 1.7 ; and it can also be written as

\frac{2}{p - 1} < \frac{n - 1}{2} + \frac{1}{p} = a + m + \frac{1}{p} .

This allows us to decrease the value of

k

and henceforth assume

\begin{matrix} \frac{2}{p - 1} \leq k < min ((a + m) p - 1, a + m + 1 / p) \end{matrix}

(2.2)

without loss of generality. Since we also have

p > 1

, this automatically implies

\begin{matrix} k < a + m + 1 = \frac{n + 1}{2} . \end{matrix}

(2.3)

Finally, it is convenient to decrease the decay rate

κ > 2

of the potential

V (r)

so that

\begin{matrix} κ < m + 2 . \end{matrix}

(2.4)

We can do this without loss of generality whenever

m > 0

, namely, whenever

n \geq 4

Remark 2.1. The last simplification is not available when

n = 2, 3

, yet we shall only need it to control certain integrals that do not arise in odd dimensions due to the strong form of Huygens' principle; see Lemma 3.15 . This is exactly the point where our proof would fail to work in two space dimensions, yet this is merely because of the potential term.

The following elementary fact is quite standard.

Lemma 2.2. Let

L

denote the Riemann operator for the wave equation in the radial case. Given a function

G

of two variables, we define the Duhamel operator

L

\begin{matrix} [L G] (r, t) = \int_{- \infty}^{t} [L G (\cdot, τ)] (r, t - τ) d τ . \end{matrix}

(2.5)

When

G \in C^{1} (Ω)

, one then has

L G \in C^{1} (Ω)

and this function provides a solution to

(\partial_{t}^{2} - \partial_{r}^{2} - \frac{n - 1}{r} \cdot \partial_{r}) [L G] (r, t) = G (r, t) in Ω = (0, \infty) \times R .

Although we shall not need an explicit representation for the Riemann operator here, the following basic estimate for the Duhamel operator is important. Its proof essentially repeats that of Proposition 2.3 in [1] , so we are going to omit it.

Proposition 2.3. Let

n \geq 4

be an integer and define

a, m

by 1.7 . Suppose

G \in C^{1} (Ω)

satisfies the singularity condition

\begin{matrix} G (λ, τ) = O (λ^{- 2 m - 2 + δ}) as λ \to 0 \end{matrix}

(2.6)

for some fixed

δ > 0

. With

D = (\partial_{r}, \partial_{t})

and

λ_{\pm} = t - τ \pm r

, one then has

\begin{matrix} | D^{β} [L G] (r, t) | & \leq C r^{j - | β | - m - a} \int_{- \infty}^{t} \int_{| λ_{-} |}^{λ_{+}} \frac{λ^{m - j + 1}}{(λ - λ_{-})^{1 - a}} \cdot \sum_{s = 0}^{j} λ^{s} | \partial_{λ}^{s} G (λ, τ) | d λ d τ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + C r^{j - | β | - m} \int_{- \infty}^{t - r} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{2 m - j + 1}}{λ_{-}^{m} λ_{+}^{a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} \cdot \sum_{s = 0}^{j} λ^{s} | \partial_{λ}^{s} G (λ, τ) | d λ d τ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + C r^{j - | β | - m - a} \int_{t - 2 r}^{t} | λ_{\pm} |^{a + m - j + 1} {[\sum_{s = 0}^{j - 1} λ^{s} | \partial_{λ}^{s} G (λ, τ) |]}_{λ = | λ_{\pm} |} d τ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

whenever

(r, t) \in Ω

and

| β | \leq j \leq 1

. Besides, the constant

C

is independent of

r, t

Lemma 2.4. Suppose

u

belongs to the Banach space 1.8 and let

p > 1

Assuming 1.4 and 1.5 , one then has

\begin{matrix} \sum_{s = 0}^{j_{0}} λ^{s} | \partial_{λ}^{s} F (u (λ, τ)) | \leq 2 A p | | u | |^{p} \cdot λ^{j - m p} {〈 λ 〉}^{j_{0} - j} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p} \end{matrix}

(2.7)

and also

\begin{matrix} \sum_{s = 0}^{j} λ^{s} | \partial_{λ}^{s} (V (λ) \cdot u (λ, τ)) | \leq 4 V_{0} | | u | | \cdot λ^{j - 1 - m} {〈 λ 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- 1} \end{matrix}

(2.8)

whenever

(λ, τ) \in Ω

and

0 \leq j, j_{0} \leq 1

Proof. Because of our assumption 1.4 , the fundamental theorem of calculus ensures that $| F (u) | \leq A \cdot | u |^{p}, | F^{'} (u) | \leq A p \cdot | u |^{p - 1} .$ In particular, it ensures that $| \partial_{λ}^{s} F (u (λ, τ)) | \leq A p^{s} \cdot | u (λ, τ) |^{p - s} \cdot | \partial_{λ} u (λ, τ) |^{s}, s = 0, 1 .$ Recalling the definition 1.9 of our norm, the last equation easily leads to $λ^{s} | \partial_{λ}^{s} F (u (λ, τ)) | \leq A p^{s} | | u | |^{p} \cdot λ^{p - m p} {〈 λ 〉}^{s - p} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}, s = 0, 1 .$ In view of our assumptions that $j \leq 1 < p$ , this also implies $\sum_{s = 0}^{j_{0}} λ^{s} | \partial_{λ}^{s} F (u (λ, τ)) | \leq A p | | u | |^{p} \cdot \sum_{s = 0}^{j_{0}} λ^{j - m p} {〈 λ 〉}^{s - j} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}, j_{0} = 0, 1 .$ Moreover, $s - j \leq j_{0} - j$ within the last sum, so our first assertion 2.7 follows.
Since our second assertion 2.8 is easier to establish, we shall omit the details.

3 A Priori Estimates

In this section, we prepare the main estimates needed in the proof of our existence result.

Those are contained in the following

Theorem 3.1. Let

n \geq 4

be an integer and

a, m

be as in 1.7 . Suppose

F (u)

satisfies 1.4 for some

p

subject to 1.14 and that

V (r)

satisfies 1.5 . Assume the decay rates

k, κ

are subject to 1.15 , 2.2 and 2.4 . Define the Duhamel operator

L

by 2.5 and let

u

be an element of the Banach space 1.8 . With

D = (\partial_{r}, \partial_{t})

, one then has

\begin{matrix} | D^{β} [L F (u)] (r, t) | \leq C_{1} | | u | |^{p} \cdot r^{1 - | β | - m} {〈 r 〉}^{| β | - 1} \cdot W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1} \end{matrix}

(3.1)

and also

\begin{matrix} | D^{β} [L (V u)] (r, t) | \leq C_{1} V_{0} | | u | | \cdot r^{1 - | β | - m} {〈 r 〉}^{| β | - 1} \cdot W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1} \end{matrix}

(3.2)

as long as

(r, t) \in Ω

and

| β | \leq 1

. Besides, the constant

C_{1}

is independent of

r, t

Remark 3.2. As an immediate consequence of 1.14 , one finds that the conditions

\begin{matrix} 0 < a (p - 1) < 2 - m p + m < a p \end{matrix}

(3.3)

also hold under the assumptions of this theorem.

The proof of Theorem 3.1 is given in the next section. Here, we shall merely study certain integrals which arise in the course of the proof. Those involve our weight function 1.10 and some other parameters we have introduced 1.7 . Throughout this section, in particular, we shall assume

\begin{matrix} 0 < ν < 1 / p, ν = k - m - a; m \geq 0; a > 0; κ > 2; p > 1 . \end{matrix}

(3.4)

Let us remark that the two leftmost inequalities follow by 1.15 and 2.2 , respectively.

Lemma 3.3. Let

r, t > 0

be arbitrary. Assuming that

a, ν > 0

, one has

A_{1} \equiv \int_{| t - r |}^{t + r} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- a - ν} d y}{(r - t + y)^{1 - a}} \leq C (a, ν) \cdot r^{a} W_{k} (r, t)^{- 1},

where the weight function

W_{k}

is given by 1.10 .

Proof. If either $r \leq 1$ or $t \geq 2 r$ , then $〈 t - r 〉$ is equivalent to $〈 t + r 〉$ , so we get $A_{1} \leq C {〈 t \pm r 〉}^{- a - ν} \int_{| t - r |}^{t + r} (r - t + y)^{a - 1} d y \leq C r^{a} \cdot {〈 t \pm r 〉}^{- a - ν}$ because $a > 0$ . This does imply the desired estimate under the present assumptions.
If $r \geq 1$ and $t \leq 2 r$ , on the other hand, an integration by parts gives $A_{1} = {[\frac{1}{a} (r - t + y)^{a} \cdot {〈 y 〉}^{- a - ν}]}_{y = | t - r |}^{t + r} + \frac{a + ν}{a} \int_{| t - r |}^{t + r} (r - t + y)^{a} \cdot {〈 y 〉}^{- a - ν - 1} d y .$ Since $a > 0$ and since $r - t + y \leq 2 y$ within the region of integration, we now get $A_{1} \leq C r^{a} {〈 t + r 〉}^{- a - ν} + C \int_{| t - r |}^{t + r} {〈 y 〉}^{- ν - 1} d y \leq C {〈 t - r 〉}^{- ν}$ because $ν > 0$ . As $r$ is equivalent to $〈 t + r 〉$ when $r \geq max (t / 2, 1)$ , the result follows.

Lemma 3.4. Let

z \geq 0

be arbitrary. Given constants

a > 0

and

b < 1

, one then has

\begin{matrix} A_{2} \equiv \int_{0}^{z} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- b} d y}{(z \pm y)^{1 - a}} \leq C (a, b) \cdot z^{a} {〈 z 〉}^{- b} . \end{matrix}

(3.5)

Proof. If it happens that $0 \leq z \leq 1$ , then we easily get $A_{2} \leq C \int_{0}^{z} (z \pm y)^{a - 1} d y = C^{'} z^{a}$ because $a > 0$ . Moreover, this does imply the desired 3.5 whenever $z$ is bounded.
If it happens that $z \geq 1$ , on the other hand, we get $A_{2} \leq C z^{a - 1} \int_{0}^{z / 2} {〈 y 〉}^{- b} d y + C {〈 z 〉}^{- b} \int_{z / 2}^{z} (z \pm y)^{a - 1} d y .$ In view of our assumptions that $a > 0$ and $b < 1$ , the desired estimate 3.5 follows.

Lemma 3.5. Let

y \in R

and

z \geq | y |

. Assuming 2.2 , 3.3 and 3.4 , one has

I \equiv \int_{z}^{\infty} {〈 x + y 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot {〈 x 〉}^{- a} d x \leq C (κ) \cdot {〈 z 〉}^{- a}

and also

\begin{matrix} J \equiv \int_{z}^{\infty} (x + y)^{1 - m p + m} \cdot {〈 x 〉}^{- a p} d x \leq C (a, m, p) \cdot {〈 z 〉}^{ν p - ν - a} . \end{matrix}

(3.6)

Proof. We only prove our second assertion, as our first assertion is trivial. Write

\begin{matrix} J & = \int_{z}^{2 z + 1} (x + y)^{1 - m p + m} \cdot {〈 x 〉}^{- a p} d x + \int_{2 z + 1}^{\infty} (x + y)^{1 - m p + m} \cdot {〈 x 〉}^{- a p} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \equiv J_{1} + J_{2} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

When it comes to the first part,

〈 x 〉

is equivalent to

〈 z 〉

and we easily get

J_{1} \leq C {〈 z 〉}^{- a p} \int_{z}^{2 z + 1} (x + y)^{1 - m p + m} d x \leq C {〈 z 〉}^{2 - m p + m - a p}

because

2 - m p + m > 0

by 3.3 . Since we also have

\begin{matrix} 2 - m p + m - a p = [2 - k (p - 1)] + ν (p - 1) - a \leq ν p - ν - a \end{matrix}

(3.7)

by 3.4 and 2.2 , we may combine the last two equations to deduce the desired 3.6 .

When it comes to

J_{2}

, on the other hand, we have

2 x \geq x + 2 | y | \geq x + y \geq 1

within the region of integration, so

J_{2} \leq C \int_{2 z + 1}^{\infty} {〈 x + y 〉}^{1 - m p + m - a p} d x \leq C {〈 z 〉}^{2 - m p + m - a p}

because

2 - m p + m - a p < 0

by 3.3 . In view of 3.7 , the desired 3.6 now follows.

Lemma 3.6. Let

(r, t) \in Ω

. Assuming 2.2 , 3.3 and 3.4 , one has

ℐ_{1} \equiv \int_{- \infty}^{t} \int_{| λ_{-} |}^{λ_{+}} \frac{{〈 λ 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- 1}}{(λ - λ_{-})^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \leq C r^{a} W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1},

where

λ_{\pm} = t - τ \pm r

W_{k}

is given by 1.10 and the constant

C

is independent of

r, t

Proof. According to Lemma 3.5 in [1] , we do have the estimate

\int_{min (0, t)}^{t} \int_{| λ_{-} |}^{λ_{+}} \frac{{〈 λ 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- 1}}{(λ - λ_{-})^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \leq C r^{a} W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1}

when

t \geq 0

. Since this estimate holds trivially when

t \leq 0

, it remains to show that

\begin{matrix} ℐ_{1}^{'} \equiv \int_{- \infty}^{min (0, t)} \int_{| λ_{-} |}^{λ_{+}} \frac{{〈 λ 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- 1}}{(λ - λ_{-})^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \leq C r^{a} W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1} . \end{matrix}

(3.8)

Let us first recall our definition 1.10 of our weight function

W_{k}

and write

ℐ_{1}^{'} = \int_{- \infty}^{min (0, t)} \int_{| λ_{-} |}^{λ_{+}} \frac{{〈 λ 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot {〈 λ - τ 〉}^{- a} {〈 λ + τ 〉}^{- ν}}{(r - t + λ + τ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ .

τ \leq t

within the region of integration, we have

λ \geq | λ_{-} | \geq t - τ - r

. As

τ \leq 0

, we also have

λ \geq | λ_{-} | \geq | t - r | + τ

. Changing variables by

x = λ - τ

and

y = λ + τ

, we then get

\begin{matrix} ℐ_{1}^{'} & \leq C \int_{t - r}^{t + r} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- ν}}{(r - t + y)^{1 - a}} \int_{max (| y |, | t - r |)}^{\infty} {〈 x + y 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot {〈 x 〉}^{- a} d x d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \int_{t - r}^{t + r} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- ν}}{(r - t + y)^{1 - a}} \cdot max (〈 y 〉, 〈 t - r 〉)^{- a} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

by Lemma 3.5 with

z = max (| y |, | t - r |)

Note that

ν < ν p < 1

by 3.4 . To show that the last integral satisfies the desired 3.8 , we shall now establish the more general estimate

\begin{matrix} ℐ_{1}^{''} \equiv \int_{t - r}^{t + r} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- b_{1}}}{(r - t + y)^{1 - a}} \cdot max (〈 y 〉, 〈 t - r 〉)^{- b_{2}} d y \leq C r^{a} W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1} \end{matrix}

(3.9)

for any constants

b_{1}, b_{2} \in R

with

b_{1} < 1

and

b_{1} + b_{2} = a + ν

Case 1:When

t \geq 0

, we have

t - r \leq | t - r | \leq t + r

, so our definition 3.9 reads

\begin{matrix} ℐ_{1}^{''} & = {〈 t - r 〉}^{- b_{2}} \int_{t - r}^{| t - r |} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- b_{1}}}{(r - t + y)^{1 - a}} d y + \int_{| t - r |}^{t + r} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- a - ν}}{(r - t + y)^{1 - a}} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \equiv ℐ_{11}^{''} + ℐ_{12}^{''} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

To treat the latter integral, we need only invoke Lemma 3.3 . To treat the former integral, we may assume that

r \geq t

. In view of our assumption that

b_{1} < 1

, we then get

ℐ_{11}^{''} \leq 2 {〈 r - t 〉}^{- b_{2}} \int_{0}^{r - t} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- b_{1}}}{(r - t \pm y)^{1 - a}} d y \leq C (r - t)^{a} \cdot {〈 r - t 〉}^{- a - ν}

by Lemma 3.4 with

z = r - t \geq 0

. In particular, it remains to show that

(r - t)^{a} \cdot {〈 r - t 〉}^{- a - ν} \leq C r^{a} \cdot {〈 r + t 〉}^{- a} {〈 r - t 〉}^{- ν} whenever r \geq t \geq 0 .

r \geq t

and

r \leq 1

, this is easy to see because

r - t \leq r

and

〈 r - t 〉

is equivalent to

〈 r + t 〉

r \geq t

and

r \geq 1

, on the other hand,

r

is equivalent to

〈 r + t 〉

and we similarly get

(r - t)^{a} \cdot {〈 r - t 〉}^{- a - ν} \leq {〈 r - t 〉}^{- ν} \leq C r^{a} \cdot {〈 r + t 〉}^{- a} {〈 r - t 〉}^{- ν} .

Case 2:When

t \leq 0

, we have

| r + t | \leq r + | t | = r - t

, so our definition 3.9 reads

\begin{matrix} ℐ_{1}^{''} = {〈 r - t 〉}^{- b_{2}} \int_{t - r}^{t + r} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- b_{1}}}{(r - t + y)^{1 - a}} d y . \end{matrix}

(3.10)

Subcase 2a:If it happens that

| t | \leq 3 r

, we proceed as in the previous case to obtain

ℐ_{1}^{''} \leq {〈 r - t 〉}^{- b_{2}} \int_{t - r}^{r - t} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- b_{1}}}{(r - t + y)^{1 - a}} d y \leq C (r - t)^{a} \cdot {〈 r - t 〉}^{- a - ν}

using Lemma 3.4 . Since

r - t = r + | t | \leq 4 r

for this subcase, the result follows easily.

Subcase 2b:If it happens that

- t = | t | \geq 3 r

, then

〈 r + t 〉

is equivalent to

〈 r - t 〉

because

| r + t | \leq r + | t | = r - t \leq - 2 (r + t)

for this subcase. In particular, equation 3.10 trivially leads to

ℐ_{1}^{''} \leq C {〈 r \pm t 〉}^{- a - ν} \int_{t - r}^{t + r} (r - t + y)^{a - 1} d y \leq C r^{a} {〈 r \pm t 〉}^{- a - ν}

since

a > 0

. This does imply the desired 3.9 whenever

〈 r + t 〉

is equivalent to

〈 r - t 〉

Lemma 3.7. Let

(r, t) \in Ω

. Assuming 2.2 , 3.3 and 3.4 , one has

J_{1} \equiv \int_{- \infty}^{t} \int_{| λ_{-} |}^{λ_{+}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{(λ - λ_{-})^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \leq C r^{a} W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1},

where

λ_{\pm} = t - τ \pm r

W_{k}

is given by 1.10 and the constant

C

is independent of

r, t

Proof. According to Lemma 3.6 in [1] , we do have the estimate

\int_{min (0, t)}^{t} \int_{| λ_{-} |}^{λ_{+}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{(λ - λ_{-})^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \leq C r^{a} W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1}

when

t \geq 0

. Since this estimate holds trivially when

t \leq 0

, it remains to show that

J_{1}^{'} \equiv \int_{- \infty}^{min (0, t)} \int_{| λ_{-} |}^{λ_{+}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{(λ - λ_{-})^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \leq C r^{a} W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1} .

Let us now proceed as in the proof of the previous lemma. Changing variables by

x = λ - τ

and

y = λ + τ

, we use Lemma 3.5 to arrive at

\begin{matrix} J_{1}^{'} & \leq C \int_{t - r}^{t + r} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- ν p}}{(r - t + y)^{1 - a}} \int_{max (| y |, | t - r |)}^{\infty} (x + y)^{1 - m p + m} \cdot {〈 x 〉}^{- a p} d x d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \int_{t - r}^{t + r} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- ν p}}{(r - t + y)^{1 - a}} \cdot max (〈 y 〉, 〈 t - r 〉)^{ν p - ν - a} d y . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Since

ν p < 1

by 3.4 , we may then invoke our estimate 3.9 to complete the proof.

Lemma 3.8. Let

y \in R

. Assuming that

κ > 2

and

0 \leq b < 1

, one has

\begin{matrix} A_{3} & \equiv \int_{- y}^{\infty} {〈 x + y 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot {〈 x 〉}^{- b} d x \leq C (b, κ) \cdot {〈 y 〉}^{- b} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Assuming that

2 - m p + m > 0

and that

b < 1 < m (p - 1) + b

, one also has

\begin{matrix} A_{4} & \equiv \int_{- y}^{\infty} (x + y)^{1 - m p + m} \cdot {〈 x + y 〉}^{- 1} {〈 x 〉}^{- b} d x \leq C (b, m, p) \cdot {〈 y 〉}^{2 - m p + m - b} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Proof. We shall only prove our second assertion, as the proof of our first assertion is quite similar. When

x \geq 2 | y | + 1

, one has

2 \leq x + 1 \leq 2 (x + y) \leq 3 (x + 1)

and this implies

A_{4} \leq C \int_{2 | y | + 1}^{\infty} {〈 x 〉}^{- m (p - 1) - b} d x + \int_{- y}^{2 | y | + 1} (x + y)^{1 - m p + m} \cdot {〈 x + y 〉}^{- 1} {〈 x 〉}^{- b} d x .

Using our assumption that

m (p - 1) + b > 1

, we now arrive at

A_{4} \leq C {〈 y 〉}^{2 - m (p - 1) - b} + \int_{- y}^{2 | y | + 1} (x + y)^{1 - m p + m} \cdot {〈 x 〉}^{- b} d x .

Since

〈 x 〉

is equivalent to

〈 y 〉

whenever

| y | \leq x \leq 2 | y | + 1

, this easily leads us to

A_{4} \leq C {〈 y 〉}^{2 - m (p - 1) - b} + \int_{- y}^{| y |} (x + y)^{1 - m p + m} \cdot {〈 x 〉}^{- b} d x

because

2 - m p + m > 0

by assumption. To finish the proof, it thus remains to show that

\begin{matrix} A_{4}^{'} \equiv \int_{- y}^{y} (x + y)^{1 - m p + m} \cdot {〈 x 〉}^{- b} d x \leq C {〈 y 〉}^{2 - m (p - 1) - b} \end{matrix}

(3.11)

whenever

y \geq 0

. If it happens that

0 \leq y \leq 1

, this estimate is easy to establish. Let us then assume that

y \geq 1

. Since

〈 x 〉

is equivalent to

〈 y 〉

for each

- y \leq x \leq - y / 2

and since

x + y

is equivalent to

〈 y 〉

for each

- y / 2 \leq x \leq y

, we find

A_{4}^{'} \leq C {〈 y 〉}^{- b} \int_{- y}^{- y / 2} (x + y)^{1 - m p + m} d x + C {〈 y 〉}^{1 - m p + m} \int_{- y / 2}^{y} {〈 x 〉}^{- b} d x .

In view of our assumptions that

2 - m p + m > 0

and

b < 1

, the desired 3.11 follows.

Remark 3.9. In what follows, we shall need to apply Lemma 3.8 when

b = a (p - 1)

and also when

b = ν p

. To ensure the lemma is applicable, we shall thus need to know that

\begin{matrix} a (p - 1) < 1 < (a + m) (p - 1), ν p < 1 < m (p - 1) + ν p . \end{matrix}

(3.12)

These inequalities follow from 1.14 , 2.2 and 3.4 when

a, m

are defined by 1.7 for some integer

n \geq 4

. For instance, 2.2 and 3.4 combine to give

(a + m) (p - 1) = [(a + m) p - k] + [k - m - a] > 1 .

Since the remaining assertions of 3.12 are also easy to verify, we shall omit the details.

Lemma 3.10. Let

(r, t) \in Ω

. Assuming 2.2 , 3.3 and 3.4 , one has

\begin{matrix} ℐ_{\pm} \equiv \int_{t - 2 r}^{t} | λ_{\pm} |^{a} \cdot {〈 λ_{\pm} 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot W_{k} (| λ_{\pm} |, | τ |)^{- 1} d τ \leq C r^{a} W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1}, \end{matrix}

(3.13)

where

λ_{\pm} = t - τ \pm r

W_{k}

is given by 1.10 and the constant

C

is independent of

r, t

Proof. According to Lemma 3.12 in [1] , we do have the estimate

\int_{max (t - 2 r, 0)}^{t} | λ_{\pm} |^{a} \cdot {〈 λ_{\pm} 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot W_{k} (| λ_{\pm} |, | τ |)^{- 1} d τ \leq C r^{a} W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1}

whenever

t \geq 0

. Instead of 3.13 , it thus suffices to show that

\begin{matrix} ℐ_{\pm}^{'} \equiv \int_{t - 2 r}^{min (t, 0)} | λ_{\pm} |^{a} \cdot {〈 λ_{\pm} 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot W_{k} (| λ_{\pm} |, | τ |)^{- 1} d τ \leq C r^{a} W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1} \end{matrix}

(3.14)

whenever

t \leq 2 r

. Before we turn to this estimate, however, let us first check that

\begin{matrix} | λ_{\pm} | \cdot {〈 | λ_{\pm} | + | τ | 〉}^{- 1} \leq C r \cdot {〈 | t | + r 〉}^{- 1} whenever t - 2 r \leq τ \leq t . \end{matrix}

(3.15)

Case 1:If

| t | \geq 2 r

and

t \geq 0

, then

| λ_{\pm} | + | τ | \geq t - τ - r + | τ | \geq t - r \geq \frac{t + r}{3} = \frac{| t | + r}{3} .

Since we also have

| λ_{\pm} | \leq t - τ + r \leq 3 r

, our claim 3.15 follows.

Case 2:If

| t | \geq 2 r

and

t \leq 0

, we similarly have

| λ_{\pm} | + | τ | \geq t - τ - r + | τ | = t - r - 2 τ \geq - r - t \geq \frac{r - t}{3} = \frac{r + | t |}{3}

and also

| λ_{\pm} | \leq t - τ + r \leq 3 r

, hence 3.15 follows for this case as well.

Case 3:If

| t | \leq 2 r

and

r \leq 1

, our claim 3.15 holds because

| λ_{\pm} | \cdot {〈 | λ_{\pm} | + | τ | 〉}^{- 1} \leq | λ_{\pm} | \leq 3 r \leq 12 r \cdot {〈 | t | + r 〉}^{- 1} .

Case 4:If

| t | \leq 2 r

and

r \geq 1

, on the other hand, it holds because

| λ_{\pm} | \cdot {〈 | λ_{\pm} | + | τ | 〉}^{- 1} \leq 1 \leq 4 r \cdot {〈 | t | + r 〉}^{- 1} .

Let us now turn to the proof of 3.14 . Employing 3.15 , we find that

ℐ_{\pm}^{'} \leq C r^{a} {〈 | t | + r 〉}^{- a} \int_{t - 2 r}^{min (t, 0)} {〈 λ_{\pm} 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot {〈 | λ_{\pm} | + τ 〉}^{- ν} d τ

whenever

t \leq 2 r

. In order to establish 3.14 , it thus suffices to show that

\begin{matrix} ℐ_{\pm}^{''} \equiv \int_{t - 2 r}^{t} {〈 λ_{\pm} 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot {〈 | λ_{\pm} | + τ 〉}^{- ν} d τ \leq C {〈 | t | - r 〉}^{- ν} . \end{matrix}

(3.16)

Since

λ_{+} = t - τ + r

is non-negative here,

ℐ_{+}^{''}

is rather easy to treat. To treat

ℐ_{-}^{''}

, on the other hand, it is convenient to write

\begin{matrix} ℐ_{-}^{''} & = {〈 t - r 〉}^{- ν} \int_{t - 2 r}^{t - r} {〈 t - r - τ 〉}^{1 - κ} d τ + \int_{t - r}^{t} {〈 τ + r - t 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot {〈 2 τ + r - t 〉}^{- ν} d τ . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Using our assumption

κ > 2

for the former integral and the substitution

x = 2 τ + r - t

for the latter, we find

ℐ_{-}^{''} \leq C {〈 t - r 〉}^{- ν} + \frac{1}{2} \int_{t - r}^{t + r} {〈 \frac{x + r - t}{2} 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot {〈 x 〉}^{- ν} d x .

Once we now recall that

0 < ν < ν p < 1

by 3.4 , an application of Lemma 3.8 gives

ℐ_{-}^{''} \leq C {〈 t - r 〉}^{- ν} \leq C {〈 | t | - r 〉}^{- ν}

because

| t - r | \geq | | t | - r |

. This already establishes 3.16 , so the proof is complete.

Lemma 3.11. Let

(r, t) \in Ω

. Assuming 2.2 , 3.3 , 3.4 and 3.12 , one has

J_{\pm} \equiv \int_{t - 2 r}^{t} | λ_{\pm} |^{a + 1 - m p + m} {〈 λ_{\pm} 〉}^{- 1} \cdot W_{k} (| λ_{\pm} |, | τ |)^{- p} d τ \leq C r^{a} W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1},

where

λ_{\pm} = t - τ \pm r

W_{k}

is given by 1.10 and the constant

C

is independent of

r, t

Proof. According to Lemma 3.13 in [1] , we do have the estimate

\int_{max (t - 2 r, 0)}^{t} | λ_{\pm} |^{a + 1 - m p + m} {〈 λ_{\pm} 〉}^{- 1} \cdot W_{k} (| λ_{\pm} |, | τ |)^{- p} d τ \leq C r^{a} W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1}

whenever

t \geq 0

. In particular, it suffices to show that

\int_{t - 2 r}^{min (t, 0)} | λ_{\pm} |^{a + 1 - m p + m} {〈 λ_{\pm} 〉}^{- 1} \cdot W_{k} (| λ_{\pm} |, | τ |)^{- p} d τ \leq C r^{a} W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1}

whenever

t \leq 2 r

. Let us now proceed as in the proof of the previous lemma. Using 3.15 , one may deduce the last inequality as soon as we know that

\begin{matrix} J_{\pm}^{'} & \equiv \int_{t - 2 r}^{t} | λ_{\pm} |^{1 - m p + m} {〈 λ_{\pm} 〉}^{- 1} \cdot {〈 | λ_{\pm} | - τ 〉}^{- a (p - 1)} \cdot {〈 | λ_{\pm} | + τ 〉}^{- ν p} d τ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C {〈 | t | - r 〉}^{- ν} . \end{matrix}

(3.17)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

In what follows, we only concern ourselves with

J_{-}^{'}

, as

J_{+}^{'}

is easier to treat. Write

\begin{matrix} J_{-}^{'} & = {〈 t - r 〉}^{- ν p} \int_{t - 2 r}^{t - r} (t - r - τ)^{1 - m p + m} {〈 t - r - τ 〉}^{- 1} \cdot {〈 t - r - 2 τ 〉}^{- a (p - 1)} d τ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + {〈 t - r 〉}^{- a (p - 1)} \int_{t - r}^{t} (r - t + τ)^{1 - m p + m} {〈 r - t + τ 〉}^{- 1} \cdot {〈 r - t + 2 τ 〉}^{- ν p} d τ . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Changing variables by

x = t - r - 2 τ

for the former integral and by

x = r - t + 2 τ

for the latter, we now arrive at

\begin{matrix} J_{-}^{'} & \leq C {〈 t - r 〉}^{- ν p} \int_{r - t}^{3 r - t} (x + t - r)^{1 - m p + m} {〈 \frac{x + t - r}{2} 〉}^{- 1} \cdot {〈 x 〉}^{- a (p - 1)} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + C {〈 t - r 〉}^{- a (p - 1)} \int_{t - r}^{t + r} (x + r - t)^{1 - m p + m} {〈 \frac{x + r - t}{2} 〉}^{- 1} \cdot {〈 x 〉}^{- ν p} d x . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

In view of 3.12 , we may then apply Lemma 3.8 with

b = a (p - 1)

and

b = ν p

to get

J_{-}^{'} \leq C {〈 t - r 〉}^{2 - m p + m - ν p - a (p - 1)} \leq C {〈 t - r 〉}^{- ν}

using 3.7 . Since this already implies the desired 3.17 , the proof is complete.

Lemma 3.12. Let

w \leq 0

be arbitrary. Assuming that

a, ν > 0

, one has

B_{1} \equiv \int_{- \infty}^{w} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- a - ν} d y}{(w - y)^{1 - a}} \leq C (a, ν) \cdot {〈 w 〉}^{- ν} .

Proof. Let us change variables by $z = - y$ and write the given integral as $B_{1} = \int_{| w |}^{2 | w | + 1} \frac{{〈 z 〉}^{- a - ν} d z}{(w + z)^{1 - a}} + \int_{2 | w | + 1}^{\infty} \frac{{〈 z 〉}^{- a - ν} d z}{(w + z)^{1 - a}} .$ Since $〈 z 〉$ is equivalent to $〈 w 〉$ within the former integral and $w + z$ is equivalent to $〈 z 〉$ within the latter, we find that $B_{1} \leq C {〈 w 〉}^{- a - ν} \int_{| w |}^{2 | w | + 1} (w + z)^{a - 1} d z + C \int_{2 | w | + 1}^{\infty} {〈 z 〉}^{- 1 - ν} d z .$ In view of our assumptions that $a, ν > 0$ , the desired estimate is now easy to deduce.

Lemma 3.13. Let

(r, t) \in Ω

. Assuming 2.2 , 3.3 and 3.4 with

a \leq 1

, one has

B_{2} \equiv \int_{- \infty}^{- | t - r |} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{m} {〈 λ 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- 1}}{λ_{-}^{m} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \leq C {〈 t - r 〉}^{- ν}

and also

\begin{matrix} B_{3} \equiv \int_{- \infty}^{- | t - r |} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{λ_{-}^{m} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \leq C {〈 t - r 〉}^{- ν}, \end{matrix}

(3.18)

where

λ_{-} = t - τ - r

W_{k}

is given by 1.10 and the constant

C

is independent of

r, t

Proof. We shall only prove our second assertion, as the proof of our first assertion is quite similar. Since

λ \leq λ_{-}

within the region of integration, we trivially get

B_{3} \leq \int_{- \infty}^{- | t - r |} \int_{0}^{t - r - τ} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + m} \cdot {〈 λ - τ 〉}^{- a p} {〈 λ + τ 〉}^{- ν p}}{(t - r - λ - τ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ

and we may switch to characteristic coordinates

x = λ - τ

y = λ + τ

to arrive at

B_{3} \leq C \int_{- \infty}^{t - r} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- ν p}}{(t - r - y)^{1 - a}} \int_{max (| y |, | t - r |)}^{\infty} (x + y)^{1 - m p + m} \cdot {〈 x 〉}^{- a p} d x d y .

Once we now invoke Lemma 3.5 to treat the inner integral, we find

\begin{matrix} B_{3} & \leq C \int_{- \infty}^{t - r} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- ν p}}{(t - r - y)^{1 - a}} \cdot max (〈 y 〉, 〈 t - r 〉)^{ν p - ν - a} d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = C \int_{- \infty}^{- | t - r |} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- a - ν}}{(t - r - y)^{1 - a}} d y + C {〈 t - r 〉}^{ν p - ν - a} \int_{- | t - r |}^{t - r} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- ν p}}{(t - r - y)^{1 - a}} d y . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Using Lemma 3.12 for the former integral and Lemma 3.4 for the latter, we get 3.18 .

Lemma 3.14. Let

r, t \in R

. Assuming 2.4 , 3.3 and 3.4 , one has

I \equiv \int_{- 2 | t - r | - 1}^{min (t - r, 0)} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{m} {〈 λ 〉}^{1 - κ} d λ d τ}{λ_{-}^{m + a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} \leq C

and also

J \equiv \int_{- 2 | t - r | - 1}^{min (t - r, 0)} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} d λ d τ}{λ_{-}^{m + a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} \leq C {〈 t - r 〉}^{2 - m p + m},

where

λ_{-} = t - τ - r

and the constant

C

is independent of

r, t

Proof. We only concern ourselves with our second assertion, as our first assertion is easier to establish. Changing variables by

y = λ_{-} = t - r - τ

, let us write

\begin{matrix} J & = \int_{max (t - r, 0)}^{1 + t - r + 2 | t - r |} \int_{y / 2}^{y} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} d λ d y}{y^{m + a} (y - λ)^{1 - a}} + \int_{max (t - r, 0)}^{1 + t - r + 2 | t - r |} \int_{0}^{y / 2} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} d λ d y}{y^{m + a} (y - λ)^{1 - a}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \equiv J_{1} + J_{2} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

When it comes to the former integral,

λ

is equivalent to

y

and we easily get

\begin{matrix} J_{1} & \leq C \int_{0}^{1 + 3 | t - r |} y^{1 - m p + m - a} \int_{y / 2}^{y} (y - λ)^{a - 1} d λ d y \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C \int_{0}^{1 + 3 | t - r |} y^{1 - m p + m} d y \leq C {〈 t - r 〉}^{2 - m p + m} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

because

a > 0

by 3.4 and

2 - m p + m > 0

by 3.3 . When it comes to the latter integral, on the other hand,

y - λ

is equivalent to

y

, so we find

J_{2} \leq C \int_{0}^{1 + 3 | t - r |} y^{- m - 1} \int_{0}^{y / 2} λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} d λ d y .

Since

2 - m p + 2 m \geq 2 - m p + m > 0

by 3.4 and 3.3 , the desired estimate follows.

Lemma 3.15. Let

(r, t) \in Ω

. Assuming 2.2 , 2.4 , 3.3 and 3.4 with

m \geq 1 \geq a

, one has

ℐ_{2} \equiv \int_{- \infty}^{t - r} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{m} {〈 λ 〉}^{1 - κ} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- 1}}{λ_{-}^{m} λ_{+}^{a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \leq C W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1}

and also

J_{2} \equiv \int_{- \infty}^{t - r} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{λ_{-}^{m} λ_{+}^{a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \leq C W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1},

where

λ_{\pm} = t - τ \pm r

W_{k}

is given by 1.10 and the constant

C

is independent of

r, t

Proof. We shall only prove our second assertion, as the proof of our first assertion is quite similar. According to Lemma 3.10 in [1] , we do have the estimate

\int_{min (t - r, 0)}^{t - r} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{λ_{-}^{m} λ_{+}^{a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \leq C W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1}

when

t \geq r

. Since this estimate holds trivially when

t \leq r

, it remains to show that

\begin{matrix} J_{2}^{'} \equiv \int_{- \infty}^{min (t - r, 0)} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{λ_{-}^{m} λ_{+}^{a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \leq C W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1} . \end{matrix}

(3.19)

Case 1:When

t \geq 0

, it is convenient to express the last integral as the sum of

\begin{matrix} J_{21}^{'} \equiv \int_{- \infty}^{- | t - r |} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{λ_{-}^{m} λ_{+}^{a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \end{matrix}

(3.20)

and

\begin{matrix} J_{22}^{'} \equiv \int_{- | t - r |}^{min (t - r, 0)} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{λ_{-}^{m} λ_{+}^{a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ . \end{matrix}

(3.21)

Let us treat

J_{21}^{'}

first. If it happens that

t + r \geq 1

, then

λ_{+} = t + r - τ \geq C 〈 t + r 〉

within the region of integration. Using this fact along with Lemma 3.13 , we deduce the desired

\begin{matrix} J_{21}^{'} & \leq C {〈 t + r 〉}^{- a} \int_{- \infty}^{- | t - r |} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{λ_{-}^{m} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C {〈 t + r 〉}^{- a} {〈 t - r 〉}^{- ν} = C W_{k} (r, t)^{- 1} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Assume now that

t + r \leq 1

. Since we still have

λ_{+} = t + r - τ \geq t + r + 1

for each

τ \leq - 1

, our argument above ensures that

\begin{matrix} J_{21}^{'} & \leq C W_{k} (r, t)^{- 1} + \int_{- 1}^{- | t - r |} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{λ_{-}^{m} λ_{+}^{a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Besides,

| t - r | \leq t + r \leq 1

here, so we need only show that the right hand side is bounded.

Using a trivial estimate and then Lemma 3.14 , we arrive at the desired

\begin{matrix} J_{21}^{'} & \leq C + \int_{- 2 | t - r | - 1}^{min (t - r, 0)} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} d λ d τ}{λ_{-}^{m + a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} \leq C . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Next, we treat

J_{22}^{'}

. In treating this integral 3.21 , we may assume that

t \geq r

and write

\begin{matrix} J_{22}^{'} = \int_{r - t}^{0} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{λ_{-}^{m} λ_{+}^{a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ . \end{matrix}

(3.22)

Using a trivial estimate and then Lemma 3.14 , one easily settles the case

t + r \leq 1

as above.

Assume now that

t + r \geq 1

. Since

λ_{\pm} = t \pm r - τ \geq t \pm r

within the region of integration, we find

J_{22}^{'} \leq \frac{C}{(t - r)^{m} {〈 t + r 〉}^{a}} \int_{r - t}^{0} \int_{0}^{t - r - τ} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} \cdot {〈 λ - τ 〉}^{- a p} {〈 λ + τ 〉}^{- ν p}}{(t - r - λ - τ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ .

Switching to characteristic coordinates

x = λ - τ

and

y = λ + τ

, we thus find

J_{22}^{'} \leq \frac{C}{(t - r)^{m} {〈 t + r 〉}^{a}} \int_{r - t}^{t - r} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- ν p}}{(t - r - y)^{1 - a}} \int_{| y |}^{3 (t - r)} (x + y)^{1 - m p + 2 m} {〈 x 〉}^{- a p} d x d y .

Note that

2 (x + 1) \geq 2 x \geq x + y

here, while 3.3 implies

2 - m p + 2 m - a p > m - a \geq 0

because we are assuming that

m \geq a

. Combining these facts, we now get

J_{22}^{'} \leq \frac{C (t - r)^{2 - m p + m - a p}}{{〈 t + r 〉}^{a}} \int_{0}^{t - r} \frac{{〈 y 〉}^{- ν p}}{(t - r \pm y)^{1 - a}} d y .

Besides,

ν p < 1

by 3.4 , so we may apply Lemma 3.4 with

z = t - r \geq 0

to arrive at

J_{22}^{'} \leq C (t - r)^{2 - m p + m - a p + a} {〈 t - r 〉}^{- ν p} {〈 t + r 〉}^{- a} .

In view of our assumption 3.3 and our inequality 3.7 , we also have

0 < 2 - (m + a) (p - 1) \leq ν (p - 1),

so we may combine the last two equations to deduce the desired estimate 3.19 .

Case 2:When

t \leq 0

, we have

t < r

and we shall express the integral 3.19 as the sum of

\begin{matrix} J_{21}^{''} \equiv \int_{- \infty}^{2 (t - r) - 1} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{λ_{-}^{m} λ_{+}^{a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \end{matrix}

(3.23)

and

\begin{matrix} J_{22}^{''} \equiv \int_{2 (t - r) - 1}^{t - r} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{λ_{-}^{m} λ_{+}^{a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ . \end{matrix}

(3.24)

To treat the first part 3.23 , we note that

λ_{+} = t + r - τ \geq 3 r - t + 1 > r - t + 1

within the region of integration. In view of Lemma 3.13 , this gives

J_{21}^{''} \leq {〈 r - t 〉}^{- a} \int_{- \infty}^{t - r} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}}{λ_{-}^{m} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ \leq C {〈 r - t 〉}^{- a - ν},

which implies the desired 3.19 because

| r + t | \leq r + | t | = r - t

whenever

t \leq 0

To treat the second part 3.24 , we use the fact that

λ_{+} \geq λ_{-}

to trivially obtain

J_{22}^{''} \leq \int_{2 (t - r) - 1}^{t - r} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} \cdot {〈 λ - τ 〉}^{- a p} {〈 λ + τ 〉}^{- ν p}}{λ_{-}^{m + a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} d λ d τ .

Since

λ - τ \geq - τ \geq r - t

and

λ + τ \leq t - r < 0

within the region of integration, we get

J_{22}^{''} \leq {〈 r - t 〉}^{- a p - ν p} \int_{2 (t - r) - 1}^{t - r} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{1 - m p + 2 m} d λ d τ}{λ_{-}^{m + a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} \leq C {〈 r - t 〉}^{2 - m p + m - a p - ν p}

by Lemma 3.14 . In view of our inequality 3.7 , the desired estimate 3.19 follows.

4 Existence of solutions

In this section, we prove the two main results of this paper. Before we do that, however, let us first combine the estimates of the previous section and give the

Proof of Theorem 3.1 . There are two estimates we need to verify and we shall only verify the first, as the proof of the second is similar. To estimate the Duhamel integral 3.1 , we apply Proposition 2.3 . Given a function

G \in C^{1} (Ω)

that satisfies the singularity condition

\begin{matrix} G (λ, τ) = O (λ^{- 2 m - 2 + δ}) as λ \to 0 \end{matrix}

(4.1)

for some fixed

δ > 0

, Proposition 2.3 provides the estimate

\begin{matrix} | D^{β} [L G] (r, t) | & \leq C r^{j - | β | - m - a} \int_{- \infty}^{t} \int_{| λ_{-} |}^{λ_{+}} \frac{λ^{m - j + 1}}{(λ - λ_{-})^{1 - a}} \cdot \sum_{s = 0}^{j} λ^{s} | \partial_{λ}^{s} G (λ, τ) | d λ d τ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + C r^{j - | β | - m} \int_{- \infty}^{t - r} \int_{0}^{λ_{-}} \frac{λ^{2 m - j + 1}}{λ_{-}^{m} λ_{+}^{a} (λ_{-} - λ)^{1 - a}} \cdot \sum_{s = 0}^{j} λ^{s} | \partial_{λ}^{s} G (λ, τ) | d λ d τ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + C r^{j - | β | - m - a} \int_{t - 2 r}^{t} | λ_{\pm} |^{a + m - j + 1} {[\sum_{s = 0}^{j - 1} λ^{s} | \partial_{λ}^{s} G (λ, τ) |]}_{λ = | λ_{\pm} |} d τ \end{matrix}

(4.2)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

whenever

(r, t) \in Ω

and

| β | \leq j \leq 1

We now use this fact with

G (λ, τ) = F (u (λ, τ))

. By Lemma 2.4 with

j = j_{0} = 0

, we have

G (λ, τ) = F (u (λ, τ)) = O (λ^{- m p}) = O (λ^{- 2 m - 2 + δ_{1}}) as λ \to 0,

where

δ_{1} = 2 - m p + 2 m

is positive by 3.3 . In particular, our estimate 4.2 does hold for the special case

G = F (u)

. Besides, the sums that appear in the right hand side are those of Lemma 2.4 , according to which

\sum_{s = 0}^{j_{0}} λ^{s} | \partial_{λ}^{s} F (u (λ, τ)) | \leq 2 A p | | u | |^{p} \cdot λ^{j - m p} {〈 λ 〉}^{j_{0} - j} \cdot W_{k} (λ, | τ |)^{- p}, j_{0} = j, j - 1 .

Once we now insert this fact in 4.2 , we obtain an estimate of the form

| D^{β} [L F (u)] (r, t) | \leq C | | u | |^{p} \cdot r^{j - | β | - m} \cdot (r^{- a} J_{1} + J_{2} + r^{- a} J_{\pm}),

where

J_{1}

J_{2}

and

J_{\pm}

are as in Lemmas 3.7 , 3.15 and 3.11 , respectively. The assumptions we imposed in those lemmas are not different from the ones imposed in this theorem, except for the inequality

a \leq 1 \leq m

that appears in Lemma 3.15 . Since our definition 1.7 shows that

a \leq 1 \leq m

whenever

n \geq 4

, however, we may employ Lemmas 3.7 , 3.11 and 3.15 to get

\begin{matrix} | D^{β} [L F (u)] (r, t) | \leq C | | u | |^{p} \cdot r^{j - | β | - m} \cdot W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1}, | β | \leq j \leq 1 . \end{matrix}

(4.3)

Finally, we claim that this also implies our first assertion 3.1 , namely that

| D^{β} [L F (u)] (r, t) | \leq C | | u | |^{p} \cdot r^{1 - | β | - m} {〈 r 〉}^{| β | - 1} \cdot W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1}, | β | \leq 1 .

Indeed, if

r \leq 1

, one may obtain the last inequality through the special case

j = 1

of 4.3 .

r \geq 1

, on the other hand, one may obtain it through the special case

j = | β | \leq 1

Proof of Theorem 1.3 . Our iteration argument is quite standard and also similar to the one used in [1, 3] , so we only give a sketch of the proof. As we have already noted, one may decrease the decay rates

k, κ

to ensure that 2.2 through 2.4 hold. By 1.15 and 2.3 , our decay rate

k

is then such that

\frac{n - 1}{2} < k < \frac{n + 1}{2} \leq n - 1

because

n \geq 3

. This allows us to invoke Lemma 1.1 to obtain a unique solution

u_{0}^{-} \in X

to the homogeneous problem 1.11 such that

| | u_{0}^{-} | | \leq C_{0} ɛ

. Setting

u_{0} = u_{0}^{-}

, we then recursively define a sequence

{u_{i}}

using the formula

\begin{matrix} u_{i + 1} = u_{0}^{-} + L F (u_{i}) - L (V u_{i}), i \geq 0 . \end{matrix}

(4.4)

In view of Theorem 3.1 , we do have the estimate

\begin{matrix} | \partial_{r}^{j} L F (u_{i}) | & \leq C_{1} | | u_{i} | |^{p} \cdot r^{1 - j - m} {〈 r 〉}^{j - 1} \cdot W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1}, j = 0, 1 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

whenever

u_{i} \in X

. In view of the definition 1.9 of our norm, we thus have

| | L F (u_{i}) | | \leq C_{1} | | u_{i} | |^{p} .

Since we may similarly estimate

| | L (V u_{i}) | |

, equation 4.4 leads us to

| | u_{i + 1} | | \leq | | u_{0}^{-} | | + C_{1} | | u_{i} | |^{p} + C_{1} V_{0} | | u_{i} | | \leq C_{0} ɛ + C_{1} | | u_{i} | |^{p} + C_{1} V_{0} | | u_{i} | | .

As long as

ɛ

and

V_{0}

are sufficiently small, we may now use the approach of [1, 3] to deduce that our sequence converges to an element

u \in X

with small norm. In view of 4.4 , this gives us a solution to the integral equation

\begin{matrix} u - u_{0}^{-} = L F (u) - L (V u) . \end{matrix}

(4.5)

Using another application of Theorem 3.1 , we thus arrive at

\begin{matrix} | D^{β} (u - u_{0}^{-}) | & \leq C_{1} | | u | |^{p} \cdot r^{1 - | β | - m} {〈 r 〉}^{| β | - 1} \cdot W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + C_{1} V_{0} | | u | | \cdot r^{1 - | β | - m} {〈 r 〉}^{| β | - 1} \cdot W_{k} (r, | t |)^{- 1}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

where

D = (\partial_{r}, \partial_{t})

and

| β | \leq 1

. This trivially implies the first part of the theorem.

To prove the second part of the theorem, we define

u_{0}^{+} (r, t) = u_{0}^{-} (r, t) + \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} [L G (u (\cdot, τ))] (r, t - τ) d τ,

where

L

is the Riemann operator and we have set

G (u) = F (u) - V (r) \cdot u

. Then

u_{0}^{+}

is clearly a solution to the homogeneous equation 1.11 . Recalling the integral equation 4.5 and the definition 2.5 of the Duhamel operator, we can rewrite the last equation as

u_{0}^{+} (r, t) = u (r, t) + \int_{t}^{\infty} [L G (u (\cdot, τ))] (r, t - τ) d τ .

Since the Riemann operator

L

is odd in

t

, a change of variables then easily leads us to

u (r, t) - u_{0}^{+} (r, t) = \int_{- \infty}^{- t} [L G (u (\cdot, - σ))] (r, - t - σ) d σ .

Besides, the right hand side bears a close resemblance to the Duhamel operator 2.5 , so one can estimate this expression in exactly the same way that we used to estimate 4.5 .

Proof of Corollary 1.6 . The two estimates that we need to prove are quite similar to one another, so let us merely focus on the first one, namely

\begin{matrix} | | u (\cdot, t) - u_{0}^{-} (\cdot, t) | |_{e} \leq C | | u | | \cdot {〈 t 〉}^{- θ}, t \leq 0 . \end{matrix}

(4.6)

As it is well-known, this estimate will follow immediately once we know that

\begin{matrix} \int_{- \infty}^{t} {(\int_{0}^{\infty} F (u (r, τ))^{2} \cdot r^{n - 1} d r)}^{1 / 2} d τ & \leq C | | u | | \cdot {〈 t 〉}^{- θ}, t \leq 0; \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \int_{- \infty}^{t} {(\int_{0}^{\infty} V (r)^{2} \cdot u (r, τ)^{2} \cdot r^{n - 1} d r)}^{1 / 2} d τ & \leq C | | u | | \cdot {〈 t 〉}^{- θ}, t \leq 0 . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Needless to say, these two estimates are also similar to one another. Let us merely establish the former by showing that

\begin{matrix} H (τ) \equiv \int_{0}^{\infty} F (u (r, τ))^{2} \cdot r^{n - 1} d r \leq C | | u | |^{2} \cdot {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 θ - 2}, τ \leq 0 \end{matrix}

(4.7)

for some

θ > 0

. Using our assumption 1.4 on

F

together with the fact that

u

belongs to the Banach space 1.8 , we get

| F (u (r, τ)) | \leq A | u (r, τ) |^{p} \leq A | | u | |^{p} \cdot r^{p (1 - m)} {〈 r 〉}^{- p} \cdot {〈 | τ | + r 〉}^{- a p} {〈 | τ | - r 〉}^{- ν p} .

Next, we insert this fact in 4.7 . Since

2 (a + m) = n - 1

by 1.7 , we find that

H (τ) \leq C | | u | |^{2 p} \int_{0}^{\infty} r^{2 a + 2 m + 2 p (1 - m)} {〈 r 〉}^{- 2 p} \cdot {〈 | τ | + r 〉}^{- 2 a p} {〈 | τ | - r 〉}^{- 2 ν p} d r .

Since

| | u | |^{2 p} \leq | | u | |^{2}

whenever

| | u | | \leq 1

, it suffices to show that

\begin{matrix} \tilde{H} (τ) \equiv \int_{0}^{\infty} r^{2 a + 2 m + 2 p (1 - m)} {〈 r 〉}^{- 2 p} \cdot {〈 | τ | + r 〉}^{- 2 a p} {〈 | τ | - r 〉}^{- 2 ν p} d r \leq C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 θ - 2} \end{matrix}

(4.8)

whenever

τ \leq 0

. Now, if

r \leq 1

, then

〈 | τ | \pm r 〉

is equivalent to

〈 τ 〉

, so we easily get

\begin{matrix} \tilde{H} (τ) & \leq C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 p (a + ν)} \int_{0}^{1} r^{2 a + 2 m - 2 m p + 2 p} d r \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + C \int_{0}^{\infty} {〈 r 〉}^{2 a + 2 m - 2 m p} \cdot {〈 | τ | + r 〉}^{- 2 a p} {〈 | τ | - r 〉}^{- 2 ν p} d r . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

To see that the former integral is finite, we note that

2 a + 2 m - 2 m p + 2 p > 2 a p + 2 p - 4 \geq 3 p - 4 > - 1

by 3.3 and since

a = 1 / 2, 1

. This allows us to arrive at

\begin{matrix} \tilde{H} (τ) & \leq C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 p (a + ν)} + C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 p (a + ν)} \int_{0}^{| τ | / 2} {〈 r 〉}^{2 a + 2 m - 2 m p} d r \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + C \int_{2 | τ |}^{\infty} {〈 r 〉}^{2 a + 2 m - 2 p (a + m + ν)} d r + C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 (a + m) (p - 1)} \int_{| τ | / 2}^{2 | τ |} {〈 | τ | - r 〉}^{- 2 ν p} d r \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \equiv {\tilde{H}}_{1} (τ) + {\tilde{H}}_{2} (τ) + {\tilde{H}}_{3} (τ) + {\tilde{H}}_{4} (τ) . \end{matrix}

(4.9)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Focusing on the first two terms for the moment, it is clear that we have

{\tilde{H}}_{1} (τ) + {\tilde{H}}_{2} (τ) \leq C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 p (a + ν)} + C_{δ} {〈 τ 〉}^{2 a + 2 m - 2 p (a + m + ν) + 1 + δ}

for an arbitrary choice of

δ > 0

. Since

a + ν = k - m

by 3.4 , we thus have

\begin{matrix} {\tilde{H}}_{1} (τ) + {\tilde{H}}_{2} (τ) & \leq C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 p (k - m)} + C_{δ} {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 ν + 2 k - 2 k p + 1 + δ} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 p (k - m)} + C_{δ} {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 ν - 3 + δ} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

because

k (p - 1) \geq 2

by 2.2 . Arguing similarly for the third term in 4.9 , we find

{\tilde{H}}_{3} (τ) = C \int_{2 | τ |}^{\infty} {〈 r 〉}^{- 2 ν + 2 k - 2 k p} d r \leq C \int_{2 | τ |}^{\infty} {〈 r 〉}^{- 2 ν - 4} d r \leq C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 ν - 3}

because

ν > 0

by 3.4 . As for the fourth term in 4.9 , we get

\begin{matrix} {\tilde{H}}_{4} (τ) & \leq C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 (a + m) (p - 1)} + C_{δ} {〈 τ 〉}^{2 a + 2 m - 2 p (a + m + ν) + 1 + δ} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 (a + m) (p - 1)} + C_{δ} {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 ν - 3 + δ} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

exactly as before. Once we now combine these observations, we obtain the estimate

\tilde{H} (τ) \leq C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 p (k - m)} + C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 (a + m) (p - 1)} + C_{δ} {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 ν - 3 + δ}

for an arbitrary choice of

δ > 0

. Taking

δ = 3 - 2 a

, we finally deduce the desired

\tilde{H} (τ) \leq C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 p (k - m)} + C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 (a + m) (p - 1)} + C_{δ} {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 (k - m)} \leq C {〈 τ 〉}^{- 2 θ - 2}

with

θ

defined as in 1.19 . Since

θ > 0

whenever

k > m + 1

, the desired 4.8 follows.

References

P. Karageorgis, Existence and blow up of small-amplitude nonlinear waves with a sign-changing potential. Preprint, 2004.
, Weighted decay estimates for the wave equation with radially symmetric data. Preprint, 2004.
H. Kubo, On the critical decay and power for semilinear wave equations in odd space dimensions, Discrete Contin. Dynam. Systems, 2 (1996), pp. 173–190.
H. Kubo and K. Kubota, Asymptotic behaviors of radially symmetric solutions of $□ u = | u |^{p}$ for super critical values $p$ in odd space dimensions, Hokkaido Math. J., 24 (1995), pp. 287–336.
, Asymptotic behaviors of radially symmetric solutions of $□ u = | u |^{p}$ for super critical values $p$ in even space dimensions, Japan. J. Math. (N.S.), 24 (1998), pp. 191–256.
K. Kubota and K. Mochizuki, On small data scattering for $2$ -dimensional semilinear wave equations, Hokkaido Math. J., 22 (1993), pp. 79–97.
H. Pecher, Scattering for semilinear wave equations with small data in three space dimensions, Math. Z., 198 (1988), pp. 277–289.
K. Tsutaya, A global existence theorem for semilinear wave equations with data of noncompact support in two space dimensions, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 17 (1992), pp. 1925–1954.
, Global existence and the life span of solutions of semilinear wave equations with data of noncompact support in three space dimensions, Funkcial. Ekvac., 37 (1994), pp. 1–18.
, Scattering theory for semilinear wave equations with small data in two space dimensions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 342 (1994), pp. 595–618.

2033 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL 60208 E-mail address : pete@math.northwestern.edu

Paschalis Karageorgis