2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 35B40; 35L05; 35L15; 35P25.
<ph f="cmbx">Small-Data Scattering for Nonlinear Waves with Potential and Initial Data of Critical Decay</ph>

Paschalis Karageorgis

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

1 Introduction

We study the scattering problem for the nonlinear wave equation with potential
t 2 u Δ u + V ( x ) u = F ( u ) in R n × R , (1.1)
where F ( u )   behaves like | u | p   for some p > 1   . When it comes to the special case V ( x ) 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 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 ) 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
( n 1 ) p 2 = ( n + 1 ) p + 2 , (1.2)
using the convention that p 1 =   . If 1 < p 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 ) 0 , t u ( x , 0 ) ɛ ( 1 + | x | ) k 1 ,   blow-up does occur for any ɛ > 0   , provided that 0 k < 2 / ( p 1 )   . As it turns out, however, the conditions p > p n   and k 2 / ( p 1 )   are not only necessary but also sufficient for the existence of global solutions in the following sense. Under the assumption that x α u ( x , 0 ) , x β t u ( x , 0 ) = O ( | x | k 1 ) as | x | ; | α | 3 , | β | 2 ,   small-amplitude solutions exist for all times when p > p n   and k 2 / ( p 1 )   , provided that either n = 2 , 3   ; or n 4   and the data are of compact support; or n 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 ) 0   , the existence of the scattering operator for small data was established by Pecher [7in 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 [10and independently by Kubota and Mochizuki [6. As for the higher-dimensional case n 4   , the corresponding results were obtained by Kubo and Kubota [4, 5for 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
{ t 2 u r 2 u n 1 r r u = F ( u ) V ( r ) u in Ω = ( 0 , ) × R u ( r , 0 ) = φ ( r ) ; t u ( r , 0 ) = ψ ( r ) in R + = ( 0 , ) . (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
F C 1 ( R ) ; F ( 0 ) = F ( 0 ) = 0 ; | F ( u ) F ( v ) | A p | u v | p 1 (1.4)
for some A > 0   and some p > 1   . When it comes to the potential term V ( r )   , we require that
i = 0 1 r i | V ( i ) ( r ) | V 0 r κ , κ > 2 (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
i = 0 2 r i | φ ( i ) ( r ) | + i = 0 1 r i + 1 | ψ ( i ) ( r ) | ɛ r k (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
( a , m ) = { ( 1 , n 3 2 ) if n is odd ( 1 2 , n 2 2 ) if n is even (1.7)
we shall frequently use in what follows. Let us remark that m 1   when n 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
X = { u ( r , t ) C 1 ( Ω ) : | | u | | < } , Ω = ( 0 , ) × R . (1.8)
Here, the norm | | | |   is defined by
| | u | | = j = 0 1 sup ( r , t ) Ω | r j u ( r , t ) | r m 1 + j r 1 j W k ( r , | t | ) , (1.9)
where m   is given by  1.7 and the weight function W k   is of the form
W k ( r , | t | ) = | t | + r a | t | r ν , ν = k m a . (1.10)
This weighted norm is partly dictated by the available estimates regarding the solutions to the homogeneous problem
t 2 u 0 r 2 u 0 n 1 r r u 0 = 0 in Ω = R + × R . (1.11)
For a proof of the following lemma, we refer the reader to [2, 4, 5.
Lemma 1.1. Let n 4   be an integer and define a , m   by  1.7 . Suppose that φ C 2 ( R + )   and ψ 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 )   , t u 0 ( r , 0 ) = ψ ( r )   admits a unique solution u 0 C 1 ( Ω )   which satisfies
| r j u 0 ( r , t ) | + | t j u 0 ( r , t ) | C 0 ( k , n ) ɛ r 1 m j r j 1 W k ( r , | t | ) 1 (1.12)
when j = 0 , 1   . In particular, u 0   is in the Banach space  1.8 and we have | | u 0 | | C 0 ɛ   .
Remark 1.2. An analogous result holds when n = 2 , 3   , in which case the estimate
| β | 2 | x β u 0 ( x , t ) | C ( k ) ɛ W k ( | x | , | t | ) 1 (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 4   be an integer. Let φ C 2 ( R + )   and ψ 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
p n < p < 1 + 4 n 1 , (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 2 / ( p 1 )   and if V 0 , ɛ   are sufficiently small, then the following conclusions hold with D = ( r , t )   and u 0   as in Lemma  1.1 .
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 [1for more details.
Nevertheless, it is still possible to treat the case
n = 2   when V ( x ) 0   ; for supercritical decay rates, we refer the reader to [10.
Remark 1.5. Under our assumption that k 2 / ( p 1 )   , the upper bound in  1.14 implies
k 2 p 1 > n 1 2 = a + m , (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 [1and thus obtain existence for decay rates k ( 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
| | w ( , t ) | | e = ( 0 ( | r w ( r , t ) | 2 + | t w ( r , t ) | 2 ) r n 1 d r ) 1 / 2 . (1.16)
If it happens that k > m + 1   , then one has
| | u ( , t ) u 0 ( , t ) | | e C | | u | | t θ , t 0 ; (1.17)
| | u ( , t ) u 0 + ( , t ) | | e C | | u | | t θ , t 0 . (1.18)
Here, the constant C   is independent of t   and we have also set
θ min ( ( a + m ) ( p 1 ) 1 , ( k m ) p 1 , k m 1 ) > 0 (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
t 2 u r 2 u n 1 r r u = F ( u ) V ( r ) u in Ω = ( 0 , ) × R . (2.1)
Recall that we seek a solution to  2.1 for initial data of decay rate k 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 2 p 1 < n 1 2 p 1 = ( a + m ) p 1   with a , m   as in  1.7 ; and it can also be written as 2 p 1 < n 1 2 + 1 p = a + m + 1 p .   This allows us to decrease the value of k   and henceforth assume
2 p 1 k < min ( ( a + m ) p 1 , a + m + 1 / p ) (2.2)
without loss of generality. Since we also have p > 1   , this automatically implies
k < a + m + 1 = n + 1 2 . (2.3)
Finally, it is convenient to decrease the decay rate κ > 2   of the potential V ( r )   so that
κ < m + 2 . (2.4)
We can do this without loss of generality whenever m > 0   , namely, whenever n 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   as
[ L G ] ( r , t ) = t [ L G ( , τ ) ] ( r , t τ ) d τ . (2.5)
When G C 1 ( Ω )   , one then has L G C 1 ( Ω )   and this function provides a solution to ( t 2 r 2 n 1 r r ) [ L G ] ( r , t ) = G ( r , t ) in Ω = ( 0 , ) × 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 4   be an integer and define a , m   by  1.7 . Suppose G C 1 ( Ω )   satisfies the singularity condition
G ( λ , τ ) = O ( λ 2 m 2 + δ ) as λ 0 (2.6)
for some fixed δ > 0   . With D = ( r , t )   and λ ± = t τ ± r   , one then has
| D β [ L G ] ( r , t ) | C r j | β | m a t | λ | λ + λ m j + 1 ( λ λ ) 1 a s = 0 j λ s | λ s G ( λ , τ ) | d λ d τ
+ C r j | β | m t r 0 λ λ 2 m j + 1 λ m λ + a ( λ λ ) 1 a s = 0 j λ s | λ s G ( λ , τ ) | d λ d τ
+ C r j | β | m a t 2 r t | λ ± | a + m j + 1 [ s = 0 j 1 λ s | λ s G ( λ , τ ) | ] λ = | λ ± | d τ
whenever ( r , t ) Ω   and | β | j 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
s = 0 j 0 λ s | λ s F ( u ( λ , τ ) ) | 2 A p | | u | | p λ j m p λ j 0 j W k ( λ , | τ | ) p (2.7)
and also
s = 0 j λ s | λ s ( V ( λ ) u ( λ , τ ) ) | 4 V 0 | | u | | λ j 1 m λ 1 κ W k ( λ , | τ | ) 1 (2.8)
whenever ( λ , τ ) Ω   and 0 j , j 0 1   .

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 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 = ( r , t )   , one then has
| D β [ L F ( u ) ] ( r , t ) | C 1 | | u | | p r 1 | β | m r | β | 1 W k ( r , | t | ) 1 (3.1)
and also
| D β [ L ( V u ) ] ( r , t ) | C 1 V 0 | | u | | r 1 | β | m r | β | 1 W k ( r , | t | ) 1 (3.2)
as long as ( r , t ) Ω   and | β | 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
0 < a ( p 1 ) < 2 m p + m < a p (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
0 < ν < 1 / p , ν = k m a ; m 0 ; a > 0 ; κ > 2 ; p > 1 . (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 | t r | t + r y a ν d y ( r t + y ) 1 a C ( a , ν ) r a W k ( r , t ) 1 ,   where the weight function W k   is given by  1.10 .
Lemma 3.4. Let z 0   be arbitrary. Given constants a > 0   and b < 1   , one then has
A 2 0 z y b d y ( z ± y ) 1 a C ( a , b ) z a z b . (3.5)
Lemma 3.5. Let y R   and z | y |   . Assuming  2.2 ,  3.3 and  3.4 , one has I z x + y 1 κ x a d x C ( κ ) z a   and also
J z ( x + y ) 1 m p + m x a p d x C ( a , m , p ) z ν p ν a . (3.6)
Lemma 3.6. Let ( r , t ) Ω   . Assuming  2.2 ,  3.3 and  3.4 , one has 1 t | λ | λ + λ 1 κ W k ( λ , | τ | ) 1 ( λ λ ) 1 a d λ d τ C r a W k ( r , | t | ) 1 ,   where λ ± = t τ ± r   , W k   is given by  1.10 and the constant C   is independent of r , t   .
Lemma 3.7. Let ( r , t ) Ω   . Assuming  2.2 ,  3.3 and  3.4 , one has J 1 t | λ | λ + λ 1 m p + m W k ( λ , | τ | ) p ( λ λ ) 1 a d λ d τ C r a W k ( r , | t | ) 1 ,   where λ ± = t τ ± r   , W k   is given by  1.10 and the constant C   is independent of r , t   .
Lemma 3.8. Let y R   . Assuming that κ > 2   and 0 b < 1   , one has
A 3 y x + y 1 κ x b d x C ( b , κ ) y b .
Assuming that 2 m p + m > 0   and that b < 1 < m ( p 1 ) + b   , one also has
A 4 y ( x + y ) 1 m p + m x + y 1 x b d x C ( b , m , p ) y 2 m p + m b .
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
a ( p 1 ) < 1 < ( a + m ) ( p 1 ) , ν p < 1 < m ( p 1 ) + ν p . (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 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 ) Ω   . Assuming  2.2 ,  3.3 and  3.4 , one has
± t 2 r t | λ ± | a λ ± 1 κ W k ( | λ ± | , | τ | ) 1 d τ C r a W k ( r , | t | ) 1 , (3.13)
where λ ± = t τ ± r   , W k   is given by  1.10 and the constant C   is independent of r , t   .
Lemma 3.11. Let ( r , t ) Ω   . Assuming  2.2 ,  3.3 ,  3.4 and  3.12 , one has J ± t 2 r t | λ ± | a + 1 m p + m λ ± 1 W k ( | λ ± | , | τ | ) p d τ C r a W k ( r , | t | ) 1 ,   where λ ± = t τ ± r   , W k   is given by  1.10 and the constant C   is independent of r , t   .
Lemma 3.12. Let w 0   be arbitrary. Assuming that a , ν > 0   , one has B 1 w y a ν d y ( w y ) 1 a C ( a , ν ) w ν .  
Lemma 3.13. Let ( r , t ) Ω   . Assuming  2.2 ,  3.3 and  3.4 with a 1   , one has B 2 | t r | 0 λ λ m λ 1 κ W k ( λ , | τ | ) 1 λ m ( λ λ ) 1 a d λ d τ C t r ν   and also
B 3 | t r | 0 λ λ 1 m p + 2 m W k ( λ , | τ | ) p λ m ( λ λ ) 1 a d λ d τ C t r ν , (3.18)
where λ = t τ r   , W k   is given by  1.10 and the constant C   is independent of r , t   .
Lemma 3.14. Let r , t R   . Assuming  2.4 ,  3.3 and  3.4 , one has I 2 | t r | 1 min ( t r , 0 ) 0 λ λ m λ 1 κ d λ d τ λ m + a ( λ λ ) 1 a C   and also J 2 | t r | 1 min ( t r , 0 ) 0 λ λ 1 m p + 2 m d λ d τ λ m + a ( λ λ ) 1 a C t r 2 m p + m ,   where λ = t τ r   and the constant C   is independent of r , t   .
Lemma 3.15. Let ( r , t ) Ω   . Assuming  2.2 ,  2.4 ,  3.3 and  3.4 with m 1 a   , one has 2 t r 0 λ λ m λ 1 κ W k ( λ , | τ | ) 1 λ m λ + a ( λ λ ) 1 a d λ d τ C W k ( r , | t | ) 1   and also J 2 t r 0 λ λ 1 m p + 2 m W k ( λ , | τ | ) p λ m λ + a ( λ λ ) 1 a d λ d τ C W k ( r , | t | ) 1 ,   where λ ± = t τ ± r   , W k   is given by  1.10 and the constant C   is independent of r , t   .

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 C 1 ( Ω )   that satisfies the singularity condition
G ( λ , τ ) = O ( λ 2 m 2 + δ ) as λ 0 (4.1)
for some fixed δ > 0   , Proposition  2.3 provides the estimate
| D β [ L G ] ( r , t ) | C r j | β | m a t | λ | λ + λ m j + 1 ( λ λ ) 1 a s = 0 j λ s | λ s G ( λ , τ ) | d λ d τ
+ C r j | β | m t r 0 λ λ 2 m j + 1 λ m λ + a ( λ λ ) 1 a s = 0 j λ s | λ s G ( λ , τ ) | d λ d τ
+ C r j | β | m a t 2 r t | λ ± | a + m j + 1 [ s = 0 j 1 λ s | λ s G ( λ , τ ) | ] λ = | λ ± | d τ (4.2)
whenever ( r , t ) Ω   and | β | j 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 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 s = 0 j 0 λ s | λ s F ( u ( λ , τ ) ) | 2 A p | | u | | p λ j m p λ j 0 j 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 ) | C | | u | | p r j | β | m ( r a J 1 + J 2 + r a J ± ) ,   where J 1   , J 2   and J ±   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 1 m   that appears in Lemma  3.15 . Since our definition  1.7 shows that a 1 m   whenever n 4   , however, we may employ Lemmas  3.7 ,  3.11 and  3.15 to get
| D β [ L F ( u ) ] ( r , t ) | C | | u | | p r j | β | m W k ( r , | t | ) 1 , | β | j 1 . (4.3)
Finally, we claim that this also implies our first assertion  3.1 , namely that | D β [ L F ( u ) ] ( r , t ) | C | | u | | p r 1 | β | m r | β | 1 W k ( r , | t | ) 1 , | β | 1 .   Indeed, if r 1   , one may obtain the last inequality through the special case j = 1   of  4.3 .
If
r 1   , on the other hand, one may obtain it through the special case j = | β | 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 n 1 2 < k < n + 1 2 n 1   because n 3   . This allows us to invoke Lemma  1.1 to obtain a unique solution u 0 X   to the homogeneous problem  1.11 such that | | u 0 | | C 0 ɛ   . Setting u 0 = u 0   , we then recursively define a sequence { u i }   using the formula
u i + 1 = u 0 + L F ( u i ) L ( V u i ) , i 0 . (4.4)
In view of Theorem  3.1 , we do have the estimate
| r j L F ( u i ) | C 1 | | u i | | p r 1 j m r j 1 W k ( r , | t | ) 1 , j = 0 , 1
whenever u i X   . In view of the definition  1.9 of our norm, we thus have | | L F ( u i ) | | C 1 | | u i | | p .   Since we may similarly estimate | | L ( V u i ) | |   , equation  4.4 leads us to | | u i + 1 | | | | u 0 | | + C 1 | | u i | | p + C 1 V 0 | | u i | | 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, 3to deduce that our sequence converges to an element u X   with small norm. In view of  4.4 , this gives us a solution to the integral equation
u u 0 = L F ( u ) L ( V u ) . (4.5)
Using another application of Theorem  3.1 , we thus arrive at
| D β ( u u 0 ) | C 1 | | u | | p r 1 | β | m r | β | 1 W k ( r , | t | ) 1
+ C 1 V 0 | | u | | r 1 | β | m r | β | 1 W k ( r , | t | ) 1 ,
where D = ( r , t )   and | β | 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 ) + [ L G ( u ( , τ ) ) ] ( r , t τ ) d τ ,   where L   is the Riemann operator and we have set G ( u ) = F ( u ) V ( r ) 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 ) + t [ L G ( u ( , 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 ) = t [ L G ( u ( , 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
| | u ( , t ) u 0 ( , t ) | | e C | | u | | t θ , t 0 . (4.6)
As it is well-known, this estimate will follow immediately once we know that
t ( 0 F ( u ( r , τ ) ) 2 r n 1 d r ) 1 / 2 d τ C | | u | | t θ , t 0 ;
t ( 0 V ( r ) 2 u ( r , τ ) 2 r n 1 d r ) 1 / 2 d τ C | | u | | t θ , t 0 .
Needless to say, these two estimates are also similar to one another. Let us merely establish the former by showing that
H ( τ ) 0 F ( u ( r , τ ) ) 2 r n 1 d r C | | u | | 2 τ 2 θ 2 , τ 0 (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 ) ) | A | u ( r , τ ) | p A | | u | | p r p ( 1 m ) r p | 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 ) C | | u | | 2 p 0 r 2 a + 2 m + 2 p ( 1 m ) r 2 p | τ | + r 2 a p | τ | r 2 ν p d r .   Since | | u | | 2 p | | u | | 2   whenever | | u | | 1   , it suffices to show that
H ~ ( τ ) 0 r 2 a + 2 m + 2 p ( 1 m ) r 2 p | τ | + r 2 a p | τ | r 2 ν p d r C τ 2 θ 2 (4.8)
whenever τ 0   . Now, if r 1   , then | τ | ± r   is equivalent to τ   , so we easily get
H ~ ( τ ) C τ 2 p ( a + ν ) 0 1 r 2 a + 2 m 2 m p + 2 p d r
+ C 0 r 2 a + 2 m 2 m p | τ | + r 2 a p | τ | r 2 ν p d r .
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 3 p 4 > 1   by  3.3 and since a = 1 / 2 , 1   . This allows us to arrive at
H ~ ( τ ) C τ 2 p ( a + ν ) + C τ 2 p ( a + ν ) 0 | τ | / 2 r 2 a + 2 m 2 m p d r
+ C 2 | τ | r 2 a + 2 m 2 p ( a + m + ν ) d r + C τ 2 ( a + m ) ( p 1 ) | τ | / 2 2 | τ | | τ | r 2 ν p d r
H ~ 1 ( τ ) + H ~ 2 ( τ ) + H ~ 3 ( τ ) + H ~ 4 ( τ ) . (4.9)
Focusing on the first two terms for the moment, it is clear that we have H ~ 1 ( τ ) + H ~ 2 ( τ ) 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
H ~ 1 ( τ ) + H ~ 2 ( τ ) C τ 2 p ( k m ) + C δ τ 2 ν + 2 k 2 k p + 1 + δ
C τ 2 p ( k m ) + C δ τ 2 ν 3 + δ
because k ( p 1 ) 2   by  2.2 . Arguing similarly for the third term in  4.9 , we find H ~ 3 ( τ ) = C 2 | τ | r 2 ν + 2 k 2 k p d r C 2 | τ | r 2 ν 4 d r C τ 2 ν 3   because ν > 0   by  3.4 . As for the fourth term in  4.9 , we get
H ~ 4 ( τ ) C τ 2 ( a + m ) ( p 1 ) + C δ τ 2 a + 2 m 2 p ( a + m + ν ) + 1 + δ
C τ 2 ( a + m ) ( p 1 ) + C δ τ 2 ν 3 + δ
exactly as before. Once we now combine these observations, we obtain the estimate H ~ ( τ ) 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 H ~ ( τ ) C τ 2 p ( k m ) + C τ 2 ( a + m ) ( p 1 ) + C δ τ 2 ( k m ) 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

  1. P. Karageorgis, Existence and blow up of small-amplitude nonlinear waves with a sign-changing potential. Preprint, 2004.
  2. , Weighted decay estimates for the wave equation with radially symmetric data. Preprint, 2004.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. , 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.
  6. K. Kubota and K. Mochizuki, On small data scattering for 2   -dimensional semilinear wave equations, Hokkaido Math. J., 22 (1993), pp. 79–97.
  7. H. Pecher, Scattering for semilinear wave equations with small data in three space dimensions, Math. Z., 198 (1988), pp. 277–289.
  8. 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.
  9. , 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.
  10. , 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