Iterations of anti-selfdual Lagrangians and applications to Hamiltonian systems and multiparameter gradient flows, , November 27, 2006

1 Introduction

Given two convex and lower semi-continuous functions

(φ_{1}, φ_{2})

R^{n}

, we consider the Hamiltonian

ℋ

R^{2 n}

defined by

ℋ (x, y) = φ_{1} (x) - φ_{2} (y)

and we look for solutions for the Hamiltonian system

- J \dot{u} (t) = \partial ℋ (u (t))

that connects in time

T > 0

, the Lagrangian submanifolds

L_{1} = {(x, y) \in R^{2 n}; - y \in A_{1} x + \partial ψ_{1} (x)} t o L_{2} = {(x, y) \in R^{2 n}; y \in A_{2} x + \partial ψ_{2} (x)} .

where

ψ_{1}, ψ_{2}

are convex lower semi-continuous functions on

R^{n}

and

A_{1}

A_{2}

are positive (but not neccesarily self-adjoint) matrices. In other words, we are looking for a solution on

[0, T]

for the Hamiltonian system:

\begin{matrix} \dot{x} (t) & \in & \partial_{2} ℋ (x (t), y (t)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - \dot{y} (t) & \in & \partial_{1} ℋ (x (t), y (t)) \end{matrix}

(1)

with the following boundary conditions

\begin{matrix} - y (0) - A_{1} x (0) \in \partial ψ_{1} (x (0)) a n d y (T) - A_{2} x (T) \in \partial ψ_{1} (x (T)) . \end{matrix}

(2)

We shall show that a solution can indeed be obtained by minimizing the following functional

I (x, y) = \int_{0}^{T} Φ (x (t), y (t)) + Φ^{*} (- \dot{y} (t), - \dot{x} (t)) d t + ψ_{1} (x (0)) + ψ_{1}^{*} (- y (0) - A_{1} x (0)) + ψ_{2} (x (T)) + ψ_{2}^{*} (y (T) - A_{2} x (T)) .

on the space

A^{2} ([0, T]; R^{2 n}) = {u = (x, y) : [0, T] \to R^{2 n}; \dot{u} \in L_{R^{2 n}}^{2}}

, where here

Φ

is the convex function

Φ (x, y) = φ_{1} (x) + φ_{2} (y)

R^{2 n}

and

Φ^{*}

is its Legendre transform. The equation is obtained from the fact that the infimum is actually

0

, which is the main point of the exercise.

Actually, this is a particular case of a much more general result. For one, the method is infinite dimensional and

R^{n}

can be replaced by any Hilbert space

H

and for PDE puposes, the domain can be an evolution pair

X \subset H \subset X^{*}

where

X

is a Banach space dense in

H

. More importantly, the theorem is really about the existence of a path connecting in prescribed time

T

, two given “anti-selfdual” Lagrangian submanifolds in

H^{2}

through an ”anti-selfdual” Lagrangian submanifold in phase space

H^{4}

. Let us first recall the following notions from [4] .

Definition 1.1 (1) A convex lower semi-continuous functional

L : H \times H \to R \cup {+ \infty}

(resp.,

ℓ : H \times H \to R \cup {+ \infty}

) is said to be

R

-antiselfdual (resp.,

R

-selfdual) for some automorphism

R : H \to H

L^{*} (p, x) = L (- R x, - R p) (r e s p ., ℓ^{*} (x, p) = ℓ (- R x, R p)) f o r a n y (x, p) \in H \times H .

(2) An

R

-antiselfdual manifold

M

H \times H

is a set of the form

M = {(x, p) \in H \times H; L (x, p) + 〈 R x, p 〉 = 0}

where

L

is an

R

-antiselfdual Lagrangian on

H

Typical examples are

M_{+, ψ} = {(x, p) \in H \times H; ψ (x) + ψ^{*} (- p) + 〈 x, p 〉 = 0} = {(x, p) \in H \times H; p \in - \partial ψ (x)} .

and

M_{-, ψ} = {(x, p) \in H \times H; ψ (x) + ψ^{*} (p) - 〈 x, p 〉 = 0} = {(x, p) \in H \times H; p \in \partial ψ (x)} .

where

ψ

is a convex lower semi-continous function on

H

and where

R (x) = x

for

M_{+, ψ}

and

R (x) = - x

for

M_{-, ψ}

Moreover, if

A : H \to H

is a bounded skew-adjoint operator on

H

, then the following manifolds are also

(+ I) - A S D

(resp.,

(- I) - A S D

) (See [4] ).

M_{+, ψ, A} = {(x, p) \in H \times H; ψ (x) + ψ^{*} (- A x - p) + 〈 x, p 〉 = 0} = {(x, p) \in H \times H; - p \in (A + \partial ψ) (x)} .

and

M_{-, ψ, A} = {(x, p) \in H \times H; ψ (x) + ψ^{*} (- A x + p) - 〈 x, p 〉 = 0} = {(x, p) \in H \times H; p \in (A + \partial ψ) (x)} .

The condition that

A

is a skew-adjoint operator can be replaced by the hypothesis that it is merely positive, i.e., that

〈 A x, x 〉 \geq 0

for every

x \in H

. Indeed, one can decompose

A

into its symmetric part

A^{s} = \frac{1}{2} (A x + A^{*} x)

and its skew-symmetric part

A^{a} = \frac{1}{2} (A x - A^{*} x)

. Then, the manifold

M_{+, ψ, A} = {(x, p) \in H \times H; - p - A x \in \partial ψ (x)}

is equal to the

(+ I)

-ASD manifold

ℳ_{+, \tilde{ψ}, A^{a}} = {(x, p) \in H \times H; - p - A^{a} x \in \partial \tilde{ψ} (x)}

where

\tilde{ψ} (x) = ψ (x) + \frac{1}{2} 〈 A x, x 〉

, while the manifold

M_{-, ψ, A} = {(x, p) \in H \times H; p - A x \in \partial ψ (x)}

is equal to the

(- I)

-ASD manifold

ℳ_{-, \tilde{ψ}, A^{a}} = {(x, p) \in H \times H; p - A^{a} x \in \partial \tilde{ψ} (x)}

This will allow us –in the sequel– to reduce many of the proofs for statements concerning bounded positive operators to the case where they are skew adjoint.

Consider now a convex lower semi-continuous function

Φ

H \times H

and let

S : H \times H \to H \times H

be the automorphism

S (p, q) = (q, p)

, then one can easily check that the following manifold

ℳ_{S, Φ} : = {((x_{1}, x_{2}), (p_{1}, p_{2})) \in H^{2} \times H^{2}; (- p_{2}, - p_{1}) \in (\partial_{1} Φ (x_{1}, x_{2}), \partial_{2} Φ (x_{1}, x_{2}))}

S

-antiselfdual, and can be written as

ℳ_{S, Φ} : = {((x_{1}, x_{2}), (p_{1}, p_{2})) \in H^{2} \times H^{2}; Φ (x_{1}, x_{2}) + Φ^{*} (- S (p_{1}, p_{2})) + 〈 (x_{1}, x_{2}), S (p_{1}, p_{2}) 〉 = 0}

Our main theorem in section 2 below asserts that under very general conditions, one should be able for any time

T > 0

, to connect any given

(+ I)

-ASD submanifold in

H^{2}

to a given

(- I)

-ASD submanifold in

H^{2}

through a path in phase space

(x (t), \dot{x} (t))

that lies on a given

S

-ASD submanifold in

H^{4}

The proof relies on the extremely useful fact that if

L

is an

R

-antiselfdual Lagrangian on state space and if

ℓ

is an

R

-selfdual boundary Lagrangian then the following Lagrangian defined by

\begin{matrix} ℒ (x, p) : = {\begin{matrix} \int_{0}^{T} L (t, x (t), \dot{x} (t) + p (t)) d t + ℓ (x (0), x (T)) & if \dot{x} \in L_{H}^{2} \\ + \infty & elsewhere \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3)

is also an

R

-antiselfdual Lagrangian on path space

L_{H}^{2} [0, T]

In section 3, we exploit the antiselfduality of this new Lagrangian to lift it to another ASD Lagrangian on a new path space

L^{2} ([0, S]); L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

. Applied to the basic ASD Lagrangian

L (x, p) = φ (x) + φ^{*} (- p)

associated to a given convex lower semi-continuous function

φ

, this leads to the construction for any

x_{0} \in H

T > 0

and

S > 0

, of surfaces

\hat{x} (t, s)

verifying for almost all

(s, t) \in [0, S] \times [0, T]

\frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial t} (s, t) + \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial s} (s, t) \in - \partial φ (\hat{x} (s, t))

\hat{x} (0, t) = x_{0} a . e . t \in [0, T]

\hat{x} (s, 0) = x_{0} a . e . s \in [0, S] .

It is clear that this process can be iterated to obtain some kind of a multiparameter gradient flow for any convex potential.

2 Connecting Lagrangian submanifolds

As mentioned above, the key ingredient in what follows is the fact that if

L

is an

R

-ASD Lagrangian on a space

H

, then –under suitable boundedness conditions– the Lagrangian

ℒ

defined in ( 3 ) is then R-ASD on the path space

L_{H}^{2}

. The proof of the main result in this section requires however that

ℒ

be only partially

R

-antiselfdual on path space (See [4] ) which holds –as proved below– without additional boundedness conditions. The infinite dimensional framework required by the applications to PDE can be formulated in many settings. We describe some of them in varying levels of detail.

2.1 The Hilbertian framework

Let

H

be a Hilbert space with

〈, 〉

as scalar product and let

[0, T]

be a fixed real interval. For

α \in (1, + \infty)

, we consider the classical space

L_{H}^{α}

of Bochner integrable functions from

[0, T]

into

H

with norm denoted by

∥ \cdot ∥_{α}

, as well as the reflexive Banach space

A_{H}^{α} = {u : [0, T] \to H; \dot{u} \in L_{H}^{α}}

consisting of all absolutely continuous arcs

u : [0, T] \to H

, equipped with the norm

∥ u ∥_{A_{H}^{^{α}}} = ∥ u (0) ∥_{H} + (\int_{0}^{T} ∥ \dot{u} ∥^{α} d t)^{\frac{1}{α}} .

It is clear that

A_{H}^{^{α}}

can be identified with the product space

H \times L_{H}^{α}

, and that its dual

(A_{H}^{α})^{*}

can also be identified with

H \times L_{H}^{β}

(where

\frac{1}{α} + \frac{1}{β} = 1

) via the formula:

〈 u, (a, p) 〉_{_{A_{H}^{α}, H \times L_{H}^{β}}} = 〈 u (0), a 〉_{_{H}} + \int_{0}^{T} 〈 \dot{u} (t), p (t) 〉 d t .

We consider the following action functional on

A_{H}^{α}

I_{ℓ, L} (u) = \int_{0}^{T} L (t, u (t), \dot{u} (t)) d t + ℓ (u (0), u (T))

where

ℓ : H \times H \to R \cup {+ \infty} a n d L : [0, T] \times H \times H \to R \cup {+ \infty}

are two appropriate Lagrangians. We shall always assume that

L

is measurable with respect to the

σ

-field in

[0, T] \times H \times H

generated by the products of Lebesgue sets in

[0, T]

and Borel sets in

H \times H

, and that

ℓ

and

L (t, \cdot, \cdot)

are convex, lower semi-continuous valued in

R \cup {+ \infty}

but not identically

+ \infty

Theorem 2.1 Assume that

R

is an automorphism of

H

, that

L (t, \cdot, \cdot) : H \times H \to R \cup {+ \infty}

R

-antiselfdual for each

t \in [0, T]

and that

ℓ

R

-selfdual. Assume

\begin{matrix} L (t, y, 0) \leq C (1 + ∥ y ∥_{H}^{β}) f o r y \in H a n d a \mapsto ℓ (a, 0) i s b o u n d e d o n t h e b o u n d e d s e t s o f H . \end{matrix}

(4)

Then there exists

\hat{x} \in A_{H}^{α}

such that

\begin{matrix} I_{L, ℓ} (\hat{x}) = {inf}_{x \in A_{H}^{α}} I_{L, ℓ} (x) = 0 . \end{matrix}

(5)

For the proof, we consider the functional

J_{L, ℓ}^{α} : (A_{H}^{α})^{*} \sim = H \times L_{H}^{β} \to R \cup {+ \infty}

defined by:

J_{L, ℓ}^{α} (a, y (\cdot)) : = {inf}_{x (\cdot) \in A_{H}^{α}} {\int_{0}^{T} L (t, x (t) + y (t), \dot{x} (t)) d t + ℓ (x (0) + a, x (T))} .

The key to the proof is the following proposition

Proposition 2.1 Assume that

R

is an automorphism of

H

, that

L (t, \cdot, \cdot) : H \times H \to R \cup {+ \infty}

R

-antiselfdual for each

t \in [0, T]

and that

ℓ

R

-selfdual.

Then

1. The functional

J_{L, ℓ}^{α}

is convex on

H \times L_{H}^{β}

and its Legendre transform in the duality

(H \times L_{H}^{β}, A_{H}^{α})

satisfies for any

x \in A_{H}^{α}

\begin{matrix} (J_{L, ℓ}^{α})^{*} (x) = \int_{0}^{T} L (t, - R x (t), - R \dot{x} (t)) d t + ℓ (- R x (0), - R x (T)) = I_{ℓ, L} (- R x) . \end{matrix}

(6)

2. If $J_{L, ℓ}^{α}$ is subdifferentiable at $(0, 0)$ on the space $H \times L_{H}^{β}$ , then there exists $\hat{x} \in A_{H}^{α}$ such that $I_{L, ℓ} (\hat{x}) = {inf}_{x \in A_{H}^{α}} I_{L, ℓ} (x) = 0 .$

Proof: 1) The convexity of

J_{ℓ, L}

is easy to establish. Fix now

p \in A_{H}^{α}

and write:

J_{ℓ, L}^{*} (p) = {sup}_{a \in H} {sup}_{y \in L_{H}^{β}} {sup}_{u \in A_{H}^{α}} {〈 a, p (0) 〉 + \int_{0}^{T} [〈 y (t), \dot{p} (t) 〉 - L (t, u (t) + y (t), \dot{u})] d t - ℓ (u (0) + a, u (T))} .

Make a substitution

u (0) + a = a^{'} \in H and u + y = y^{'} \in L_{H}^{β}

, we obtain

J_{ℓ, L}^{*} (p) = {sup}_{a^{'} \in H} {sup}_{y^{'} \in L_{H}^{β}} {sup}_{u \in A_{H}^{^{α}}} {〈 a^{'} - u (0), p (0) 〉 - ℓ (a^{'}, u (T)) + \int_{0}^{T} [〈 y^{'} (t) - u (t), \dot{p} (t) 〉 - L (t, y^{'} (t) \dot{u} (t))] d t} .

Since

\dot{u} \in L_{H}^{α}

and

u \in L_{H}^{β}

, we have

\int_{0}^{T} 〈 u, \dot{p} 〉 = - \int_{0}^{T} 〈 \dot{u}, p 〉 + 〈 p (T), u (T) 〉 - 〈 p (0), u (0) 〉,

which implies

\begin{matrix} J_{ℓ, L}^{*} (p) = {sup}_{a^{'} \in H} {sup}_{y^{'} \in L_{H}^{β}} {sup}_{u \in A_{H}^{^{α}}} {〈 a^{'}, p (0) 〉 & + & \int_{0}^{T} {〈 y^{'}, \dot{p} 〉 + 〈 \dot{u}, p 〉 - L (t, y^{'} (t), \dot{u} (t))} d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - & 〈 u (T), p (T) 〉 - ℓ (a^{'}, u (T))} . \end{matrix}

It is now convenient to identify

A_{H}^{^{α}}

with

H \times L_{H}^{α}

via the correspondence:

(c, v) \in H \times L_{H}^{α} \mapsto c + \int_{t}^{T} v (s) d s \in A_{H}^{^{α}}

and

u \in A_{H}^{^{α}} \mapsto (u (T), - \dot{u} (t)) \in H \times L_{H}^{α}

. We finally obtain

\begin{matrix} J_{ℓ, L}^{*} (p) & = & {sup}_{a^{'} \in H} {sup}_{c \in H} {〈 a^{'}, p (0) 〉 + 〈 - c, p (T) 〉 - ℓ (a^{'}, c)} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + {sup}_{y^{'} \in L_{H}^{β}} {sup}_{v \in L_{H}^{α}} {\int_{0}^{T} [〈 y^{'}, \dot{p} 〉 + 〈 v, p 〉 - L (t, y^{'} (t), v (t))] d t} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{0}^{T} L^{*} (t, \dot{p} (t), p (t)) d t + ℓ^{*} (p (0), - p (T)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{0}^{T} L (t, - R p (t), - R \dot{p} (t)) d t + ℓ (- R p (0), - R p (T)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & I_{ℓ, L} (- R p) . \end{matrix}

2) Since

R

is an automorphism, weak duality gives

{inf}_{u \in A_{H}^{2}} I_{ℓ, L} (u) \geq {sup}_{A_{H}^{2}} - J_{ℓ, L}^{*} (u) = {sup}_{A_{H}^{2}} - I_{ℓ, L} (- R u) = {sup}_{A_{H}^{2}} - I_{ℓ, L} (u) = - {inf}_{u \in A_{H}^{2}} I_{ℓ, L} (u)

and

{inf}_{u \in A_{H}^{2}} I_{ℓ, L} (u)

is therefore non negative.

On the other hand, if we pick

\hat{x} \in \partial J_{L, ℓ}^{α} (0, 0)

, we get

- {inf}_{A_{H}^{2}} I_{ℓ, L} (u) = - J_{L, ℓ}^{α} (0) = (J_{L, ℓ}^{α})^{*} (\hat{x}) = I_{ℓ, L} (- R \hat{x}) \geq {inf}_{A_{H}^{2}} I_{ℓ, L} (u)

which means that

{inf}_{A_{H}^{2}} I_{ℓ, L} (u) \leq 0

. It follows that

{inf}_{A_{H}^{2}} I_{ℓ, L} (u) = I_{ℓ, L} (- R \hat{x}) = 0 .

Proof of Theorem 2.1: It remains to show that the convex functional

J_{ℓ, L}

is sub-differentiable at

(0, 0)

on the space

H \times L_{H}^{β}

so as to conclude using Proposition 2.1. But the boundedness assumptions ( 4 ) on

L

and

ℓ

immediately give

J_{ℓ, L} (a, y) \leq \int_{0}^{T} L (t, y (t), 0) d t + ℓ (a, 0) \leq \int_{0}^{T} C (1 + ∥ y (t) ∥_{H}^{β}) d t + ℓ (a, 0)

which means that

J_{ℓ, L}

is bounded on the bounded sets of

H \times L_{H}^{β}

and since it is convex, it is therefore subdifferentiable at

(0, 0)

Theorem 2.2 Let

ψ_{1}

and

ψ_{2}

be two convex and lower semi-continuous functions on a Hilbert space

E

, let

A_{1}, A_{2} : E \to E

be bounded positive operators and consider the manifolds

ℳ_{1} : = ℳ_{+, ψ_{1}, A_{1}} = {(x_{1}, x_{2}) \in E \times E; - x_{2} - A_{1} x_{1} \in \partial ψ_{1} (x_{1})}

and

ℳ_{2} : = ℳ_{-, ψ_{2}, A_{2}} = {(x_{1}, x_{2}) \in E \times E; x_{2} - A_{2} x_{1} \in \partial ψ_{2} (x_{1})} .

Let

Φ : [0, T] \times K \times K \to R

be such that

Φ (t, \cdot, \cdot)

is convex and lower semi-continuous for each

t \in [0, T]

and consider the evolving manifold

ℳ_{3} (t) : = ℳ_{S, Φ} (t) = {((x_{1}, x_{2}), (p_{1}, p_{2})) \in E^{2} \times E^{2}; (- p_{2}, - p_{1}) \in (\partial_{1} Φ (t, x_{1}, x_{2}), \partial_{2} Φ (t, x_{1}, x_{2}))}

Now assume that

ψ_{1}

is coercive and bounded on bounded sets of

E

ψ_{2}

is bounded below with

0

in its domain, while for every

t \in [0, T]

we have

\begin{matrix} Φ (t, x_{1}, x_{2}) \leq C (1 + ∥ x_{1} ∥_{E}^{β} + ∥ x_{2} ∥_{E}^{β}) . \end{matrix}

(7)

Then there exists

x \in A_{E \times E}^{α}

such that:

x (0) \in ℳ_{1}, x (T) \in ℳ_{2} a n d (x (t), \dot{x} (t)) \in ℳ_{3} (t) f o r a . e . t \in [0, T] .

We shall need the following easy but interesting lemma.

Lemma 2.3 Suppose

ℓ_{1}

(resp.,

ℓ_{2}

) is an (+I)-anti-selfdual Lagrangian (resp., an (+I)-anti-selfdual Lagrangian on the Hilbert space

E \times E

, then the Lagrangian

ℓ : E^{2} \times E^{2} \to R

defined by

ℓ ((a_{1}, a_{2}), (b_{1}, b_{2})) = ℓ_{1} (a_{1}, a_{2}) + ℓ_{2} (b_{1}, b_{2})

S

-selfdual on

E^{2} \times E^{2}

where

S

is the automorphism on

E \times E

defined by

S (x_{1}, x_{2}) = (x_{2}, x_{1})

In particular, if

ψ_{1}

and

ψ_{2}

are convex lower semi-continuous on

E

and if

A_{1}, A_{2}

are bounded skew-adjoint operators on

E

, then the Lagrangian

ℓ (\cdot, \cdot) : H \times H

defined by

ℓ (a, b) : = ψ_{1} (a_{1}) + ψ_{1}^{*} (- A_{1} a_{1} - a_{2}) + ψ_{2} (b_{1}) + ψ_{2}^{*} (- A_{2} b_{1} + b_{2})

is S-selfdual.

The proof is left to the interested reader (See also [4] ).

Proof of Theorem 2.2: In view of Remark 1.2, we can assume without loss that

A_{1}

and

A_{2}

are skew adjoint operators. Let

H = E \times E

and consider the S-anti-selfdual Lagrangian on

H \times H

defined by

L (t, x, p) : = Φ (t, x) + Φ^{*} (t, - S x)

as well as the

S

-selfdual boundary Lagrangian

ℓ : H \times H

defined by

ℓ (a, b) : = ψ_{1} (a_{1}) + ψ_{1}^{*} (- A_{1} a_{1} - a_{2}) + ψ_{2} (b_{1}) + ψ_{2}^{*} (- A_{2} b_{1} + b_{2}) .

Since

Φ (t, x_{1}, x_{2}) \leq C (1 + ∥ x_{1} ∥_{K}^{β} + ∥ x_{2} ∥_{K}^{β}) \forall t \in [0, T]

and since

φ

is coercive and bounded on bounded sets, the functional defined on

A_{E \times E}^{α} [0, T]

I_{L, ℓ} (u) = \int_{0}^{T} (Φ (t, u (t)) + Φ^{*} (t, - S \dot{u} (t))) d t + ψ_{1} (u_{1} (0)) + ψ_{1}^{*} (- A_{1} u_{1} (0) - u_{2} (0)) + ψ_{2} (u_{1} (T)) + ψ_{2}^{*} (- A_{2} u_{1} (T) + u_{2} (T))

satisfies all the hypothesis of Theorem 2.1 . Hence there exists

x (\cdot) \in A_{E \times E}^{α}

such that

I_{L, ℓ} (x) = 0

Therefore,

\begin{matrix} 0 & = & \int_{0}^{T} Φ (t, x (t)) + Φ^{*} (t, - S \dot{x} (t)) d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + ψ_{1} (x_{1} (0)) + ψ_{1}^{*} (- A_{1} x_{1} (0) - x_{2} (0)) + ψ_{2} (x_{1} (T)) + ψ_{2}^{*} (- A_{2} x_{1} (T) + x_{2} (T)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & \int_{0}^{T} 〈 x (t), - S \dot{x} (t) 〉 d t + ψ_{1} (x_{1} (0)) + ψ_{1}^{*} (- A_{1} x_{1} (0) - x_{2} (0)) + ψ_{2} (x_{1} (T)) + ψ_{2}^{*} (- A_{2} x_{1} (T) + x_{2} (T)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & - \int_{0}^{T} \frac{d 〈 x_{1} (t), x_{2} (t) 〉}{d t} d t + ψ_{1} (x_{1} (0)) + ψ_{1}^{*} (- A_{1} x_{1} (0) - x_{2} (0)) + ψ_{2} (x_{1} (T)) + ψ_{2}^{*} (- A_{2} x_{1} (T) + x_{2} (T)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & 〈 x_{1} (0), x_{2} (0) 〉 + ψ_{1} (x_{1} (0)) + ψ_{1}^{*} (- A_{1} x_{1} (0) - x_{2} (0)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - 〈 x_{1} (T), x_{2} (T) 〉 + ψ_{2} (x_{1} (T)) + ψ_{2}^{*} (- A_{2} x_{1} (T) + x_{2} (T)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & 0 . \end{matrix}

This means that every inequality in this chain is an equality, hence three applications of the limiting case in Legendre-Fenchel duality gives:

- ({\dot{x}}_{2} (t), {\dot{x}}_{1} (t)) \in (\partial_{1} Φ (x_{1} (t), x_{2} (t)), \partial_{2} Φ (x_{1} (t), x_{2} (t))) a . e . t \in [0, T]

- A_{1} x_{1} (0) - x_{2} (0) \in \partial ψ_{1} (x_{1} (0))

- A_{2} x_{1} (T) + x_{2} (T) \in \partial ψ_{2} (x_{1} (T)) .

In other words,

x (\cdot) \in A_{E \times E}^{2}

is such that

x (0) \in ℳ_{1}

x (T) \in ℳ_{1}

and

- (x (t), \dot{x} (t)) \in ℳ_{3} (t)

for a.e.

t \in [0, T]

Corollary 2.4 Let

E

be a Hilbert space and

ℋ (\cdot, \cdot) : E \times E \to R

be a Hamiltonian of the form

ℋ (x_{1}, x_{2}) = φ_{1} (x_{1}) - φ_{2} (x_{2})

where

φ_{1}, φ_{2}

are convex lower semi-continuous functions satisfying

φ_{1} (x_{1}) + φ_{2} (x_{2}) \leq C (1 + ∥ x_{1} ∥_{K}^{β} + ∥ x_{2} ∥_{K}^{β}) .

Furthermore, let

ψ_{1}

ψ_{2}

A_{1}

, and

A_{2}

be as in Theorem 2.2 . Then there exists

(x_{1}, x_{2}) \in A_{E \times E}^{α} ([0, T])

such that for almost all

t \in [0, T]

- {\dot{x}}_{2} (t) \in \partial_{1} ℋ (x_{1} (t), x_{2} (t))

{\dot{x}}_{1} (t) \in \partial_{2} ℋ (x_{1} (t), x_{2} (t))

and satisfying the boundary conditions

- A_{1} x_{1} (0) - x_{2} (0) \in \partial ψ_{1} (x_{1} (0))

- A_{2} x_{1} (T) + x_{2} (T) \in \partial ψ_{2} (x_{1} (T))

Proof: This is a restatement of Theorem 2.2 for

Φ (x_{1}, x_{2}) = φ_{1} (x_{1}) + φ_{2} (x_{2})

Corollary 2.5 Let

E

be a Hilbert space and let

φ

be a convex lower semi-continuous function on

E

satisfying

φ (x) \leq C (1 + ∥ x ∥_{H}^{β})

. Let

ψ_{1}

ψ_{2}

A_{1}

, and

A_{2}

be as in Theorem 2.2 . Then there exists

x \in A_{E}^{α} ([0, T])

such that for almost all

t \in [0, T]

\begin{matrix} \ddot{x} (t) & \in & \partial φ (x (t)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - \dot{x} (0) & \in & \partial ψ_{1} (x (0)) + A_{1} x (0) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \dot{x} (T) & \in & \partial ψ_{2} (x (T)) + A_{2} x (T) . \end{matrix}

Proof: It si enough to apply the above to

φ_{2} = φ

and

φ_{1} (x_{1}) = \frac{1}{2} ∥ x_{1} ∥_{H}^{2}

2.2 The non-Hilbertian case

In the infinite dimensional setting –more suitable for applications to PDEs– we need the framework of an evolution triple

X \subset H \subset X^{*}

, where

H

is a Hilbert space with

〈, 〉

as scalar product, and

X

is a dense vector subspace of

H

, that is a reflexive Banach space once equipped with its norm

∥ \cdot ∥

Assuming the canonical injection

X \to H

, continuous, we identify the Hilbert space

H

with its dual

H^{*}

and we “inject”

H

X^{*}

in such a way that

〈 h, u 〉_{X^{*}, X} = 〈 h, u 〉_{H}

for all

h \in H

and all

u \in X

This injection is continuous, one-to-one, and

H

is also dense in

X^{*}

. In other words, the dual

X^{*}

X

is represented as the completion of

H

for the dual norm

∥ h ∥ = sup {〈 h, u 〉_{H}; ∥ u ∥_{X} \leq 1}

We shall consider here evolution equations with two types of initial conditions. The first ones are those involving bounded operators in the initial conditions, or boundary Lagrangians on the ambiant Hilbert space

H

such as Hamiltonian systems of the form:

\begin{matrix} \dot{p} (t) & \in & \partial_{2} ℋ (p (t), q (t)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - \dot{q} (t) & \in & \partial_{1} ℋ (p (t), q (t)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} p (0) = - q (0) & & & p (T) = q (T) . \end{matrix}

We would also like to consider more complex initial conditions:

\dot{p} (t) \in \partial_{2} ℋ (p (t), q (t))

- \dot{q} (t) \in \partial_{1} ℋ (p (t), q (t))

- A_{1} p (0) - q (0) \in \partial ψ_{1} (p (0))

- A_{2} p (T) + q (T) \in \partial ψ_{2} (p (T))

where

ψ_{1}

ψ_{2}

may only be finite on the space

X

For the first system the spaces to consider are

A_{H, X^{*}}^{α} = {u : [0, T] \to X^{*}; u (0) \in H, \dot{u} \in L_{X^{*}}^{α}}

equiped with the norm

∥ u ∥_{A_{H, X^{*}}^{α}} = {(\int_{0}^{T} ∥ \dot{u} (t) ∥_{X^{*}}^{α} d t)}^{1 / α} + ∥ u (0) ∥_{H}

for

1 < α < \infty

For the second system we will need the space

A_{X^{*}}^{α} = {u : [0, T] \to X^{*}; u & \dot{u} \in L_{X^{*}}^{α}}

equipped with the norm

∥ u ∥_{A_{X^{*}}^{α}} = ∥ u (0) ∥_{X^{*}} + (\int_{0}^{T} ∥ \dot{u} ∥_{_{X^{*}}}^{α} d t)^{\frac{1}{α}} .

Since the proof of existence for both equations is similar in spirit, we will only show the detailed proof for the second initial value problem. The other case is left to the interested reader.

It is clear that

A_{X^{*}}^{α}

is a reflexive Banach spaces that can be identified with the product space

X^{*} \times L_{X^{*}}^{α}

, while its dual

(A_{X^{*}}^{α})^{*} ≃ X \times L_{X}^{β}

where

\frac{1}{α} + \frac{1}{β} = 1

. The duality is then given by the formula:

〈 u, (a, p) 〉_{A_{X^{*}}^{α}, X \times L_{X}^{β}} = 〈 u (0), a 〉 + \int_{0}^{T} 〈 \dot{u} (t), p (t) 〉 d t

where

〈 \cdot, \cdot 〉

is the duality on

X

X^{*}

and

(\cdot, \cdot)

is the inner product on

H

Let

ℓ : X^{*} \times X^{*} \to R \cup {+ \infty}

be convex and weak

^{*}

-lower semi-continuous on

X^{*} \times X^{*}

, and let

L : [0, T] \times X^{*} \times X^{*} \to R \cup {+ \infty}

be measurable with respect to the

σ

-field in

[0, T] \times X^{*} \times X^{*}

generated by the products of Lebesgue sets in

[0, T]

and Borel sets in

X^{*} \times X^{*}

, in such a way that for each

t \in [0, T]

L (t, \cdot, \cdot)

is convex and weak

^{*}

-lower semi-continuous on

X^{*} \times X^{*}

Definition 2.6 Let

R : X^{*} \to X^{*}

be any map. We say that

L

R

-anti-self-dual and

ℓ

R

-selfdual on

X

if for all

(p, s) \in X^{*} \times X^{*}

, we have

(ℓ |_{X \times X})^{*} (p, s) = ℓ (- R p, R s) a n d (L_{t} |_{X \times X})^{*} (t, p, s) = L (t, - R s, - R p) .

where

(L_{t} |_{X \times X})^{*}

and

(ℓ |_{X \times X})^{*}

denote the Legendre duals of the restrictions of

L_{t} = L (t, \cdot, \cdot)

and

ℓ

X \times X

To any such a pair, we associate the action functional on

A_{X^{*}}^{α}

by:

I_{ℓ, L} (u) = \int_{0}^{T} L (t, u (t), \dot{u} (t)) d t + ℓ (u (0), u (T))

as well as the corresponding “variation function”

J_{ℓ, L}^{α}

defined on

(A_{X^{*}}^{α})^{*} = X \times L_{X}^{β}

J_{ℓ, L}^{α} (a, y) = inf {\int_{0}^{T} L (t, u + y, \dot{u}) d t + ℓ (u (0) + a, u (T)); u \in A_{X^{*}}^{α}}

Theorem 2.7 Suppose that

R : X^{*} \to X^{*}

is an automorphism whose restriction to

H

and

X

is also an automorphism on these spaces. Suppose that for each

t \in [0, T]

, the Lagrangians

L (t, \cdot)

and

l

are two proper convex and weak

^{*}

-lower semi-continuous functions on

X^{*} \times X^{*}

such that

L

R

-anti-self-dual and

ℓ

R

-selfdual on

X

. Suppose that for some

α \in (1, 2]

J_{ℓ, L}^{α} : X \times L_{X}^{β} \to R \cup {+ \infty}

is sub-differentiable at

(0, 0)

, then there exists

v \in A_{X^{*}}^{α}

such that:

(v (t), \dot{v} (t)) \in D o m (L)

for almost all

t \in [0, T]

, and

I_{ℓ, L} (v) = {inf}_{A_{X^{*}}^{α}} I_{ℓ, L} (u) = 0 .

Theorem 2.7 can be proved just like Theorem 2.1 above. The only serious change occurs in the following lemma whose proof we include.

Lemma 2.8 Under the above conditions, we have

J_{ℓ, L}^{*} (p) \geq I_{ℓ, L} (- R p)

for all

p \in A_{X^{*}}^{α}

Proof: For

p \in A_{X^{*}}^{α}

, write:

J_{ℓ, L}^{*} (p) = {sup}_{a \in X} {sup}_{y \in L_{X}^{β}} {sup}_{u \in A_{X^{*}}^{α}} {(a, p (0)) + \int_{0}^{T} [〈 y, \dot{p} 〉 - L (t, u + y, \dot{u})] d t - ℓ (u (0) + a, u (T))} .

Set

F \overset{d e f}{=} {u \in A_{X^{*}}^{α}; u \in L_{X}^{β}} \subseteq A_{X^{*}}^{α} .

Then

J_{ℓ, L}^{*} (p) \geq {sup}_{a \in X} {sup}_{y \in L_{X}^{β}} {sup}_{u \in F} {(a, p (0)) + \int_{0}^{T} [- L (t, u + y, \dot{u}) + 〈 y, \dot{p} 〉] d t - ℓ (u (0) + a, u (T))}

Make a substitution

u + y = y^{'} \in L_{X}^{β}

to obtain

J_{ℓ, L}^{*} (p) \geq {sup}_{a \in X} {sup}_{y^{'} \in L_{X}^{β}} {sup}_{u \in F} {(a, p (0)) - ℓ (a + u (0), u (T)) + \int_{0}^{T} [〈 y^{'} - u, \dot{p} 〉 - L (t, y^{'}, \dot{u})] d t} .

Set now

S = {u : [0, T] \to X; u \in L_{X}^{β}, \dot{u} \in L_{X}^{β}, u (0) \in X} .

Since

β \geq 2 \geq α

and

∥ \cdot ∥_{X^{*}} \leq C ∥ \cdot ∥_{X}

, we have

S \subseteq A_{_{X^{*}}}^{^{α}} \cap L_{X}^{β} = F

and

J_{ℓ, L}^{*} (p) \geq {sup}_{a \in X} {sup}_{y^{'} \in L_{X}^{β}} {sup}_{u \in S} {(a, p (0)) + \int_{0}^{T} [〈 y^{'}, \dot{p} 〉 - 〈 u, \dot{p} 〉 - L (t, y^{'}, \dot{u})] d t - ℓ (a + u (0), u (T))}

substitute

u (0) + a = a^{'} \in X

and write

J_{ℓ, L}^{*} (p) \geq {sup}_{a^{'} \in X} {sup}_{y^{'} \in L_{X}^{β}} {sup}_{u \in S} {(a^{'} - u (0), p (0)) + \int_{0}^{T} [〈 y^{'}, \dot{p} 〉 - 〈 u, \dot{p} 〉 - L (t, y^{'}, \dot{u})] d t - ℓ (a^{'}, u (T))}

Since

\dot{u} \in L_{X}^{β}

and

u \in L_{X}^{β}

, we have

\int_{0}^{T} 〈 u, \dot{p} 〉 d t = - \int_{0}^{T} 〈 \dot{u}, p 〉 d t + 〈 p (T), u (T) 〉 - 〈 p (0), u (0) 〉 .

which implies

J_{ℓ, L}^{*} (p) \geq {sup}_{a^{'} \in H} {sup}_{y^{'} \in L_{X}^{β}} {sup}_{u \in S} {(a^{'}, p (0)) + \int_{0}^{T} {〈 y^{'}, \dot{p} 〉 + 〈 \dot{u}, p 〉 - L (t, y^{'}, \dot{u})} d t - 〈 u (T), p (T) 〉 - ℓ (a^{'}, u (T))} .

It is now convenient to identify

S = {u : [0, T] \to X; u \in L_{X}^{β}, \dot{u} \in L_{X}^{β}, u (0) \in X}

with

X \times L_{X}^{β}

via the correspondence

(c, v) \in X \times L_{X}^{β} \mapsto c + \int_{t}^{T} v (s) d s \in S

and

u \in S \mapsto (u (T), - \dot{u} (t)) \in X \times L_{X}^{β} .

We finally obtain

\begin{matrix} J_{ℓ, L}^{*} (p) & \geq & {sup}_{a^{'} \in X} {sup}_{c \in X} {(a^{'}, p (0)) + 〈 - c, p (T) 〉 - ℓ (a^{'}, c)} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + {sup}_{y^{'} \in L_{X}^{β}} {sup}_{v \in L_{X}^{β}} {\int_{0}^{T} [〈 y^{'}, \dot{p} 〉 + 〈 v, p 〉 - L (t, y^{'}, v)] d t} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{0}^{T} L^{*} (t, \dot{p} (t), p (t)) d t + ℓ^{*} (p (0), - p (T)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{0}^{T} L (t, - R p (t), - R \dot{p} (t)) d t + ℓ (- R p (0), - R p (T)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & I_{ℓ, L} (- R p) . \end{matrix}

An application to infinite dimensional Hamiltonian systems: Let now

Y

be a reflexive Banach space that is densely embedded in a Hilbert space

E

. Then the product

X : = Y \times Y

is clearly a reflexive Banach space that is densely embedded in the Hilbert space

H = E \times E

Therefore we have an evolution triple

X \subset H \subset X^{*}

We shall consider a simple but illustrative example. Let

φ_{1}, φ_{2}

be convex lower semi-continuous functions on

E

whose domain is

Y

and is coercive on

Y

. Define the convex function

Φ : H \to R \cup {+ \infty}

Φ (x) = φ (y_{1}, y_{2}) : = φ_{1} (y_{1}) + φ_{2} (y_{2})

Finally, define the linear automorphism

S : X^{*} \to X^{*}

S x^{*} = E (y_{1}^{*}, y_{2}^{*}) : = (y_{2}^{*}, y_{1}^{*})

. Clearly S is an automorphism whose restriction to

H

and

X

are also automorphisms.

Consider now the Lagrangians

L : X^{*} \times X^{*} \to R \cup {+ \infty}

defined as:

\begin{matrix} L (x, v) = Φ (x) + (Φ |_{X})^{*} (- S v) \end{matrix}

(8)

Now for the boundary, consider convex, lower semi-continuous functions

ψ_{1}

ψ_{2}

Y^{*} \to R \cup {\infty}

assuming that both are coercive on

Y

. To these functions we associate the boundary Lagrangian

ℓ : X^{*} \times X^{*} \to R \cup {+ \infty}

by:

\begin{matrix} ℓ ((a_{1}, a_{2}), (b_{1}, b_{2})) = ψ_{1} (a_{1}) + (ψ_{1} |_{X})^{*} (- a_{2}) + ψ_{2} (b_{1}) + (ψ_{2} |_{X})^{*} (b_{2}) \end{matrix}

(9)

It is then easy to show that

L

is S-anti-selfdual on

X^{*} \times X^{*}

since the convex function

Φ

is coercive on

X

and that

ℓ

S

-selfdual.

Proposition 2.2 Suppose that

φ_{j} (y) \leq C (∥ y ∥_{Y}^{β} + 1)

for

j = 1, 2

, that

ψ_{1}

is bounded on the bounded sets of

Y

and consider the Hamiltonian

ℋ (p, q) = φ_{1} (p) - φ_{2} (q)

Then for any

T > 0

, there exists solutions

(\bar{p}, \bar{q}) \in A_{H, X^{*}}^{α}

for the following Hamiltonian system:

\begin{matrix} \dot{p} (t) & \in & \partial_{2} ℋ (p (t), q (t)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - \dot{q} (t) & \in & \partial_{1} ℋ (p (t), q (t)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - p (0) \in \partial ψ_{1} (q (0)) & & & p (T) \in \partial ψ_{2} (q (T)) . \end{matrix}

It can be obtained by minimizing the following functional on the space

A_{H, X^{*}}^{α}

I (p, q) = \int_{0}^{T} φ (p (t), q (t)) + (φ_{|_{X}})^{*} (- \dot{q} (t), - \dot{p} (t)) d t + ℓ ((p (0), q (0)), (p (T), q (T)))

where

φ

is the convex function

φ (p, q) = φ_{1} (p) + φ_{2} (q)

and

ℓ

is as in ( 9 ).

Proof: We wish to apply Theorem 2.7 to the S-anti-selfdual Lagrangian pair

(L, ℓ)

defined above, so we must check that

J_{ℓ, L}^{α} : H \times L_{X}^{β} \to R \cup {+ \infty}

is sub-differentiable at

(0, 0)

. To do this we use the assumption on

φ_{j}

to obtain the inequality:

\begin{matrix} J_{ℓ, L}^{α} (a, v) & = & inf {\int_{0}^{T} L (t, u + v, \dot{u}) d t + ℓ (u (0) + a, u (T)); u \in A_{X^{*}}^{α}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \int_{0}^{T} L (t, v, 0) d t + ℓ (a, 0) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & C (\frac{∥ a ∥_{H}^{2}}{2} + \int_{0}^{T} ∥ v ∥_{X}^{β} d t + 1) . \end{matrix}

Again, since

J_{ℓ, L}^{α}

is bounded on bounded sets of

H \times L_{X}^{β}

, we conclude that it is subdifferentiable at

(0, 0)

. Thus there exists

\bar{x} (\cdot) = (\bar{p} (\cdot), \bar{q} (\cdot)) \in A_{X^{*}}^{α}

such that

I_{L, ℓ} (\bar{x} (\cdot)) = 0

. Therefore,

\begin{matrix} 0 & = & \int_{0}^{T} L (t, \bar{x}, \dot{\bar{x}}) d t + ℓ (\bar{x} (0), \bar{x} (T)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int_{0}^{T} φ (\bar{x}) + (φ |_{X})^{*} (- S \dot{\bar{x}}) d t + ℓ (\bar{x} (0), \bar{x} (T)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & - \int_{0}^{T} 〈 \bar{x}, S \dot{\bar{x}} 〉 d t + ℓ (\bar{x} (0), \bar{x} (T)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & - \int_{0}^{T} \frac{d 〈 \bar{p}, \bar{q} 〉}{d t} d t + ψ_{1} (\bar{p} (0)) + (ψ_{1} |_{X})^{*} (- \bar{q} (0)) + ψ_{2} (\bar{p} (T)) + (ψ_{2} |_{X})^{*} (\bar{q} (T)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & 〈 \bar{p} (0), \bar{q} (0) 〉 - 〈 \bar{p} (T), \bar{q} (T) 〉 + ψ_{1} (\bar{p} (0)) + (ψ_{1} |_{X})^{*} (- \bar{q} (0)) + ψ_{2} (\bar{p} (T)) + (ψ_{2} |_{X})^{*} (\bar{q} (T)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & 0 . \end{matrix}

Therefore every inequality in this chain is actually an equality. We conclude that

- S \dot{\bar{x}} (t) \in \partial Φ (\bar{x} (t))

for almost all

t \in [0, T]

and that

〈 \bar{p} (0), \bar{q} (0) 〉 + ψ_{1} (\bar{p} (0)) + (ψ_{1} |_{X})^{*} (- \bar{q} (0)) = - 〈 \bar{p} (T), \bar{q} (T) 〉 + ψ_{2} (\bar{p} (T)) + (ψ_{2} |_{X})^{*} (\bar{q} (T)) = 0

By the definition of

S

and

Φ

and Fenchel inequality, this is precisely a solution of the equation above.

3 Two-parameter gradient flows

Behind the results of the previous section is the fact that an R-antiselfdual Lagrangian on a Hilbert space

H

lifts to an R-antiselfdual Lagrangian on path space. So far, we only needed anti-selfduality on the elements of

A_{H}^{2} \times {0}

. However, we have the following stronger stability result announced in [3] and proved in [5] . For clarity we shall restrict ourselves to ASD-Lagrangians (i.e.,

R (x) = x

Lemma 3.1 Let

H

be a Hilbert space and let

L : [0, T] \times H \times H \to R

be an anti-selfdual Lagrangian such that for every

p \in H

and

t \in [0, T]

the map

\begin{matrix} x \mapsto L (t, x, p) is bounded on the bounded sets of H . \end{matrix}

(10)

Then for every

x_{0} \in H

, the Lagrangian defined on

L_{H}^{2} ([0, T]) \times L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

ℒ (x, p) : = {\begin{matrix} \int_{0}^{T} L (t, x (t), \frac{d x}{d t} (t) + p (t)) d t + \frac{1}{2} ∥ x (0) ∥_{H}^{2} + 2 〈 x_{0}, x (0) 〉 + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ x (T) ∥_{H}^{2} & if x (\cdot) \in A_{H^{'}}^{2} \\ \infty & otherwise \end{matrix}

is also an ASD Lagrangian on

L_{H}^{2} ([0, T]) \times L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

Proof: Note that this also follows from a more general result established in [8] . Indeed, since

L (t, x, p)

is an anti-self-dual Lagrangian on

H

, the map

(x (\cdot), p (\cdot)) \mapsto \int_{0}^{T} L (t, x (t), p (t)) d t

is an ASD Lagrangian on the path space

L_{H}^{2} ([0, T]) \times L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

(See [5] ). Now, using the terminology of [8] , the map

x \mapsto \frac{d x}{d t}

(with domain

A_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

) is skew-adjoint modulo the boundary operator

x \to (x (0), x (T))

on the Hilbert space

L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

. Therefore

ℒ

is also an ASD Lagrangian. Setting

H^{'} : = L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

as a state space, and since

ℒ (\cdot, \cdot) : H^{'} \times H^{'} \to R

is now an anti-selfdual Lagrangian on

H^{'}

, we can then lift it to a new path space

L_{H^{'}}^{2} ([0, S])

and obtain a new action functional

ℐ (x (\cdot)) : = \int_{0}^{S} ℒ (x (s), \frac{d x}{d s} (s)) d s + ℓ^{'} (x (0), x (S))

that we can minimize on

A_{H^{'}}^{2} ([0, S])

. Here is the main result of this section. We recall from [8] that the partial domain

D o m_{1} (\partial L)

of a Lagrangian

L

is defined as:

D o m_{1} (\partial L) = {x \in H; T h e r e e x i s t s p \in H such that - (p, x) \in \partial L (x, p)} .

Theorem 3.2 Let

H

be a Hilbert space and

L : H \times H \to R

be an ASD Lagrangian that is uniformly convex in the first variable. If

x_{0} \in D o m_{1} (\partial L)

, then there exists

\hat{x} (\cdot, \cdot) \in A^{2} ([0, S]; L_{H}^{2} ([0, T]))

such that

\hat{x} (s, \cdot) \in A_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

for almost all

s \in [0, S]

and

\begin{matrix} 0 & = & \int_{0}^{S} \int_{0}^{T} L (\hat{x} (s, t), \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial t} (s, t) + \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial s} (s, t)) d t d s \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{0}^{S} (\frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (s, 0) ∥_{H}^{2} - 2 〈 \hat{x} (s, 0), x_{0} 〉 + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (s, T) ∥_{H}^{2}) d s \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{0}^{T} (\frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (0, t) ∥_{H}^{2} - 2 〈 \hat{x} (0, t), x_{0} 〉 + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (S, t) ∥_{H}^{2}) d t . \end{matrix}

(11)

Furthermore, for almost all

(s, t) \in [0, S] \times [0, T]

, we have

\begin{matrix} - \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial t} (s, t) - \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial s} (s, t) & \in & \partial_{1} L (\hat{x} (s, t), \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial t} (s, t) + \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial s} (s, t)) \end{matrix}

(12)

\begin{matrix} - \hat{x} (s, t) & \in & \partial_{2} L (\hat{x} (s, t), \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial t} (s, t) + \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial s} (s, t)) \end{matrix}

(13)

\begin{matrix} \hat{x} (0, t) & = & x_{0} a . e . t \in [0, T] \end{matrix}

(14)

\begin{matrix} \hat{x} (s, 0) & = & x_{0} a . e . s \in [0, S] . \end{matrix}

(15)

We first note that if

L

satisfies the boundedness condition ( 10 ) then the conclusions of the theorem are easy to establish as shown in the following Lemma. The main difficulty of the proof is to get rid of this condition.

Lemma 3.3 Let

L : [0, T] \times H \times H \to R

be an ASD Lagrangian on a Hilbert space

H

such that

L (t, \cdot, \cdot)

is uniformly convex in the first variable for each

t \in [0, T]

while verifying condition ( 10 ).

x_{0} \in D o m_{1} (\partial L)

then there exists

\hat{x} (\cdot, \cdot) \in A^{2} ([0, S]; L_{H}^{2} ([0, T]))

such that

\hat{x} (s, \cdot) \in A_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

for almost all

s \in [0, S]

and satisfying properties (12)-(15) above.

Proof: According to Lemma 3.1 ,

ℒ

is a uniformly convex ASD Lagrangian on

H^{'} : = L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

. Since

0 \in D o m_{1} (\partial L)

we have that

0 \in D o m_{1} (\partial ℒ)

. Therefore by Theorem 4.1 of [8] , we can find an

\hat{x} (\cdot) \in A_{H^{'}}^{2} ([0, S]) = A^{2} ([0, S]; L_{H}^{2} ([0, T]))

such that

0 = \int_{0}^{T} ℒ (\hat{x} (t), \dot{\hat{x}} (t)) d t + \frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (0) ∥_{H^{'}}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (T) ∥_{H^{'}}^{2} .

From the definintion of

ℒ

, we get that

\hat{x} (s, \cdot) \in A_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

for almost all

s \in [0, S]

while satisfying ( 11 ). We therefore get the following chain of inequalities:

\begin{matrix} 0 & = & \int_{0}^{S} \int_{0}^{T} L (t, \hat{x} (s, t), \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial t} (s, t) + \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial s} (s, t)) d t d s \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{0}^{S} (\frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (s, 0) ∥_{H}^{2} - 2 〈 \hat{x} (s, 0), x_{0} 〉 + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (s, T) ∥_{H}^{2}) d s \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{0}^{T} (\frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (0, t) ∥_{H}^{2} - 2 〈 \hat{x} (0, t), x_{0} 〉 + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (S, t) ∥_{H}^{2}) d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & \int_{0}^{S} \int_{0}^{T} - 〈 x (s, t), \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial t} (s, t) + \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial s} (s, t) 〉 d t d s \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{0}^{S} (\frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (s, 0) ∥_{H}^{2} - 2 〈 \hat{x} (s, 0), x_{0} 〉 + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (s, T) ∥_{H}^{2}) d s \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{0}^{T} (\frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (0, t) ∥_{H}^{2} - 2 〈 \hat{x} (0, t), x_{0} 〉 + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (S, t) ∥_{H}^{2}) d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & \int_{0}^{T} ∥ \hat{x} (0, t) - x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} d t + \int_{0}^{S} ∥ \hat{x} (s, 0) - x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} d s \geq 0 . \end{matrix}

This means that for almost all

(s, t) \in [0, S] \times [0, T]

- \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial t} (s, t) - \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial s} (s, t) \in \partial_{1} L (t, \hat{x} (t), \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial t} (s, t) + \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial s} (s, t))

\hat{x} (s, t) \in \partial_{2} L (t, \hat{x} (t), \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial t} (s, t) + \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial s} (s, t))

\hat{x} (0, t) = x_{0} a . e . t \in [0, T]

\hat{x} (s, 0) = x_{0} a . e . s \in [0, S]

In the next proposition we do away with the assumption of boundeness of the ASD Lagrangian

L

that was used in Lemma 3.3 . The argument we use is similar to that in [8] . We first

λ

-regularize the Lagrangian

L

then derive some uniform bounds to ensure convergence in the proper topology when

λ

goes to 0. To do this we need to first state some precise estimates on approximate solutions obtained using inf-convolution. Recall first from [4] that the Lagrangian

L_{λ} (x, p) : = {inf}_{z \in H} {L (z, p) + \frac{1}{2 λ} ∥ x - z ∥_{H}^{2}} + \frac{λ}{2} ∥ p ∥_{H}^{2}

is anti-selfdual for each

λ > 0

Lemma 3.4 For a given convex functional

L : H \times H \to R \cup {+ \infty}

and

λ > 0

, denote for each

(p, x) \in H \times H

, by

J_{λ} (x, p)

the minimizer of the following optimization problem:

{inf}_{z} {L (z, p) + \frac{∥ x - z ∥_{H}^{2}}{2 λ}} .

Then for each

(x, p) \in H \times H

, we have

\begin{matrix} \partial_{1} L_{λ} (x, p) = \frac{x - J_{λ} (x, p)}{λ} \in \partial_{1} L (J_{λ} (x, p), p) . \end{matrix}

(16)

Proof: This is left to the reader.

Lemma 3.5 Assume

L : H \times H \to \bar{R}

is an anti-selfdual Lagrangian and let

L_{λ}

be its

λ

-regularization, then the following hold:

1. If $- (y, x) = \partial L_{λ} (x, y)$ , then necessarily $- (y, J_{λ} (x, y)) \in \partial L (J_{λ} (x, y), y) .$
2. If $x_{0} \in D o m_{1} (\partial L)$ , then $∥ y_{λ} ∥_{H} \leq ∥ \hat{p} ∥_{H}$ whenever $y_{λ}$ solves $- (y_{λ}, x_{0}) = \partial L_{λ} (x_{0}, y_{λ})$ and $\hat{p}$ solves $- (\hat{p}, x_{0}) = \partial L (x_{0}, \hat{p})$ .

Proof: (1) If

- (y, x) = \partial L_{λ} (x, y)

then

L_{λ} (x, y) + L_{λ}^{*} (- y, - x) = - 2 〈 x, y)

and since

L

is an ASD Lagrangian, we have

L_{λ} (x, y) + L_{λ} (x, y) = - 2 〈 x, y)

, hence

\begin{matrix} - 2 〈 x, y 〉 & = & L_{λ} (x, y) + L_{λ} (x, y) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & 2 (L (J_{λ} (x, y), y) + \frac{∥ x - J_{λ} (x, y) ∥_{H}^{2}}{2 λ} + \frac{λ ∥ y ∥_{H}^{2}}{2}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & L^{*} (- y, - J_{λ} (x, y)) + L (J_{λ} (x, y), y) + 2 (\frac{∥ - x + J_{λ} (x, y) ∥_{H}^{2}}{2 λ} + \frac{λ ∥ y ∥_{H}^{2}}{2}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & - 2 〈 y, J_{λ} (x, y) 〉 + 2 〈 - x + J_{λ} (x, y), y 〉 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & - 2 〈 x, y) . \end{matrix}

The second last inequality is deduced by applying Fenchel's inequality to the first two terms and the last two terms. The above chain of inequality shows that all inequalities are equalities. This implies, again by Fenchel's inequality that

- (y, J_{λ} (x, y)) \in \partial L (J_{λ} (x, y), y)

(2) If

- (y_{λ}, x_{0}) = \partial L_{λ} (x_{0}, y_{λ})

, we get from the previous lemma that

- y_{λ} = \frac{x_{0} - J_{λ} (x_{0}, y_{λ})}{λ} \in \partial_{1} L (J_{λ} (x_{0}, y_{λ}), y_{λ}),

and by the first part of this lemma, that

- (y_{λ}, J_{λ} (x_{0}, y_{λ})) \in \partial L (J_{λ} (x_{0}, y_{λ}), y_{λ}) .

Now since

x_{0} \in D o m_{1} (\partial L)

, there exists

\hat{p}

such that

(- \hat{p}, - x_{0}) \in \partial L (x_{0}, \hat{p})

. Setting

v_{λ} = J_{λ} (x_{0}, y_{λ})

, and since

- (y_{λ}, v_{λ}) \in \partial L (v_{λ}, y_{λ})

, we get from monotonicity and by the fact that

y_{λ} = \frac{v_{λ} - x_{0}}{λ}

\begin{matrix} 0 & \leq & 〈 (x_{0}, \hat{p}) - (v_{λ}, y_{λ}), (\partial_{1} L (x_{0}, \hat{p}), \partial_{2} L (x_{0}, \hat{p})) - (- y_{λ}, - v_{λ}) 〉 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & 〈 (x_{0}, \hat{p}) - (v_{λ}, y_{λ}), (- \hat{p}, - x_{0}) - (\frac{x_{0} - v_{λ}}{λ}, - v_{λ}) 〉 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & - \frac{∥ x_{0} - v_{λ} ∥_{H}^{2}}{λ} + 〈 v_{λ} - x_{0}, \hat{p} 〉 + 〈 \hat{p}, v_{λ} - x_{0} 〉 - 〈 y_{λ}, v_{λ} - x_{0} 〉 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & - 2 \frac{∥ x_{0} - v_{λ} ∥_{H}^{2}}{λ} + 2 〈 v_{λ} - x_{0}, \hat{p} 〉 \end{matrix}

which yields that

\frac{∥ x_{0} - v_{λ} ∥_{H}}{λ} \leq ∥ \hat{p} ∥_{H}

and finally the desired bound

∥ y_{λ} ∥ \leq ∥ \hat{p} ∥

for all

λ > 0

Lemma 3.6 Let

L : H \times H

be an anti-self-dual Lagrangian that is uniformly convex in the first variable. If

x_{0} \in D o m_{1} (\partial L)

and if

\hat{x} (\cdot) \in A_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

satisfies

\int_{0}^{T} L (\hat{x} (t), \dot{\hat{x}} (t)) d t + \frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (0) ∥_{H}^{2} + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} + 〈 \hat{x} (0), x_{0} 〉 + \frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (T) ∥_{H}^{2} = 0,

then we have the estimate

\begin{matrix} \int_{0}^{T} ∥ \dot{\hat{x}} (t) ∥_{H}^{2} d t \leq T ∥ p_{0} ∥_{H}^{2}, \end{matrix}

(17)

where

p_{0}

is the point that satisfies

- (p_{0}, x_{0}) \in \partial L (x_{0}, p_{0})

Proof: By the uniquenss of the minimizer established in [8] ,

\hat{x} (\cdot)

is the weak limit in

A_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

{x_{λ} (\cdot) \in C^{1, 1} ([0, T])}

where

(- {\dot{x}}_{λ} (t), - x_{λ} (t)) \in \partial L_{λ} (x_{λ} (t), {\dot{x}}_{λ} (t))

x_{λ} (0) = x_{0}

Standard arguments using monotonicity shows that

∥ {\dot{x}}_{λ} (t) ∥_{H} \leq ∥ {\dot{x}}_{λ} (0) ∥_{H}

for all

t \in [0, T]

. Since

(- {\dot{x}}_{λ} (0), - x_{0}) \in \partial L_{λ} (x_{0}, {\dot{x}}_{λ} (0))

, Lemma 3.5 shows that

∥ x_{λ} (0) ∥_{H} \leq ∥ p_{0} ∥_{H}

for all

λ > 0

. Therefore, letting

λ \to 0

and by weak lower semi-continuity of the norm we get that

\int_{0}^{T} ∥ \dot{\hat{x}} (t) ∥_{H}^{2} d t \leq T ∥ p_{0} ∥_{H}^{2}

Proof of Theorem 3.2: Apply Lemma 3.3 to

L_{λ}

we obtain an

{\hat{x}}_{λ} (\cdot) \in A^{2} ([0, S]; L_{H}^{2} ([0, T]))

satisfying for all

(s, t) \in [0, S] \times [0, T]

\begin{matrix} - \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (s, t) - \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (s, t) \in \partial_{1} L_{λ} ({\hat{x}}_{λ} (t), \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (s, t) + \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (s, t)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, t) \in \partial_{2} L_{λ} ({\hat{x}}_{λ} (t), \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (s, t) + \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (s, t)) \end{matrix}

(18)

{\hat{x}}_{λ} (0, t) = x_{0} \forall t \in [0, T]

{\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, 0) = x_{0} \forall s \in [0, S]

and

\begin{matrix} 0 & = \int_{0}^{S} \int_{0}^{T} L_{λ} ({\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, t), \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (s, t) + \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (s, t)) d t d s \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{0}^{S} (\frac{1}{2} ∥ {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, 0) ∥_{H}^{2} - 2 〈 x_{λ} (s, 0), x_{0} 〉 + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, T) ∥_{H}^{2}) d s \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{0}^{T} (\frac{1}{2} ∥ {\hat{x}}_{λ} (0, t) ∥_{H}^{2} - 2 〈 x_{λ} (0, t), x_{0} 〉 + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ {\hat{x}}_{λ} (S, t) ∥_{H}^{2}) d t . \end{matrix}

(19)

Now consider the ASD Lagrangian

ℒ_{λ}

L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

defined by:

\begin{matrix} ℒ_{λ} (x, p) : = {\begin{matrix} \int_{0}^{T} L_{λ} (x (t), \frac{d x}{d t} (t) + p (t)) d t + \frac{1}{2} ∥ x (0) ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ x (T) ∥_{H}^{2} - 2 〈 x_{0}, x (0) 〉 + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} & if x \in A_{H}^{2} ([0, T]) \\ \infty & else \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

Let

{\hat{X}}_{λ} (\cdot) : [0, S] \to L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

be the map

s \mapsto {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, \cdot) \in L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

and denote by

X_{0} \in L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

the constant map

t \mapsto x_{0}

. Then by ( 19 )

{\hat{X}}_{λ} (\cdot)

is the arc in

A^{2} ([0, S]; L_{H}^{2} ([0, T]))

satisfying

0 = \int_{0}^{S} ℒ_{λ} ({\hat{X}}_{λ} (s), \frac{d {\hat{X}}_{λ}}{d s} (s)) d s + \frac{∥ {\hat{X}}_{λ} (0) ∥_{L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])}^{2}}{2} + \frac{∥ {\hat{X}}_{λ} (S) ∥_{L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])}^{2}}{2} - 2 〈 X_{0}, {\hat{X}}_{λ} (S) 〉_{L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])} + ∥ X_{0} ∥_{L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])}

with

X_{0} \in D o m_{1} (\partial ℒ_{λ})

. Apply Lemma 3.6 to the ASD Lagrangian

ℒ_{λ}

and the Hilbert space

L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

we get that

\int_{0}^{S} \int_{0}^{T} ∥ \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, t)}{d s} ∥_{H}^{2} d t d s \leq S \int_{0}^{T} ∥ P_{λ} (t) ∥_{H}^{2} d t

where

P_{λ} \in L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

is any arc that satisfies

(- P_{λ}, - X_{0}) \in \partial ℒ_{λ} (X_{0}, P_{λ})

. Observe that if the point

p_{λ} \in H

satifies the equation

- (p_{λ}, x_{0}) \in \partial L_{λ} (x_{0}, p_{λ})

, then we can just take

P_{λ}

to be the constant arc

t \mapsto p_{λ}

. Combining this fact with Lemma 3.5 , we obtain that for all

s \in [0, S]

and all

λ > 0

\int_{0}^{S} \int_{0}^{T} ∥ \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, t)}{d s} ∥_{H}^{2} d t d s \leq S T ∥ p_{0} ∥_{H}^{2}

In deriving the above estimates, we interpreted

{\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, t)

as a map

{\hat{X}}_{λ} (\cdot) : [0, S] \to L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])

However, we can also view it as a map from

[0, T] \to L_{H}^{2} ([0, S])

and run the above argument in this new setting. By doing this we obtain that for all

λ > 0

\begin{matrix} \int_{0}^{S} \int_{0}^{T} ∥ \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, t)}{d s} ∥_{H}^{2} d t d s + \int_{0}^{S} \int_{0}^{T} ∥ \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, t)}{d t} ∥_{H}^{2} d t d s \leq 2 T S ∥ p_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} . \end{matrix}

(20)

Now for any

(v_{1} (s, t), v_{2} (s, t))

satisfying equation ( 18 ) we can use monotonicity to derive the bound:

\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d t} ∥ v_{1} (s, t) - v_{2} (s, t) ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{d}{d s} ∥ v_{1} (s, t) - v_{2} (s, t) ∥_{H}^{2} \leq 0 . \end{matrix}

So we obtain

\begin{matrix} \int_{0}^{S} ∥ v_{1} (s, t) - v_{2} (s, t) ∥_{H}^{2} d s + \int_{0}^{T} ∥ v_{1} (s, t) - v_{2} (s, t) ∥_{H}^{2} d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq \int_{0}^{S} ∥ v_{1} (s, 0) - v_{2} (s, 0) ∥_{H}^{2} d s + \int_{0}^{T} ∥ v_{1} (0, t) - v_{2} (0, t) ∥_{H}^{2} d t . \end{matrix}

Now pick

v_{1} (s, t) = {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, t)

and

v_{2} (s, t) = {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s + h, t)

we get that

$\begin{matrix} \int_{0}^{S} ∥ \frac{d}{d s} {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, t) ∥_{H}^{2} d s + \int_{0}^{T} ∥ \frac{d}{d s} {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, t) ∥_{H}^{2} d t \leq \int_{0}^{S} ∥ \frac{d}{d s} {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, 0) ∥_{H}^{2} d s + \int_{0}^{T} ∥ \frac{d}{d s} {\hat{x}}_{λ} (0, t) ∥_{H}^{2} d t . \end{matrix}$	(21)

Setting

s = 0

in equation ( 18 ) we get that for all

t \in [0, T]

- (\frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (0, t) + \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (0, t), x_{0}) \in (\partial_{1} L_{λ} (x_{0}, \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (0, t) + \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (0, t)), \partial_{2} L_{λ} (x_{0}, \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (0, t) + \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (0, t)))

Therefore by Lemma 3.5 we have that for all

t \in [0, T]

and

λ > 0

∥ \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (0, t) + \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (0, t) ∥_{H} \leq ∥ p_{0} ∥_{H} .

Observe that if we take

v_{2} (s, t) = {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, t + h)

we can use the same argument as above to get that for all

s \in [0, S]

∥ \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (s, 0) + \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (s, 0) ∥_{H} \leq ∥ p_{0} ∥_{H} .

Therefore, for all

s \in [0, S]

t \in [0, T]

, and

λ > 0

\begin{matrix} ∥ \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (0, t) + \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (0, t) ∥_{H} + ∥ \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (s, 0) + \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (s, 0) ∥_{H} \leq 2 ∥ p_{0} ∥_{H} . \end{matrix}

(22)

Combining ( 22 ), ( 21 ), and ( 20 ) we get that

\begin{matrix} \int_{0}^{S} \int_{0}^{T} ∥ \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (s, t) ∥_{H}^{2} + ∥ \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (s, t) ∥_{H}^{2} d t d s \leq C, \end{matrix}

(23)

for some constant independent of

λ

. If we denote by

J_{λ} (x, p)

the point that satisfies

L_{λ} (x, p) = L (J_{λ} (x, p), p) + \frac{λ}{2} ∥ p ∥_{H}^{2}

and

v_{λ} (s, t)

to be

J_{λ} ({\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, t), \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (s, t) + \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (s, t))

, then we can deduce from equation ( 18 ) that

- \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (s, t) - \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (s, t) = \frac{{\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, t) - v_{λ} (s, t)}{λ} .

The estimate given by equation ( 23 ) then implies

{lim}_{λ \to 0} \int_{0}^{T} \int_{0}^{S} ∥ {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, t) - v_{λ} (s, t) ∥_{H}^{2} d s d t = 0

Therefore, combining this with ( 23 ) we obtain the following convergence result:

\begin{matrix} {\hat{x}}_{λ} (\cdot, \cdot) ⇀ \hat{x} (\cdot, \cdot) in A^{2} ([0, S]; L_{H}^{2} ([0, T])) \end{matrix}

(24)

\begin{matrix} {\hat{x}}_{λ} (\cdot, \cdot) ⇀ \hat{x} (\cdot, \cdot) in A^{2} ([0, T]; L_{H}^{2} ([0, S])) \end{matrix}

(25)

\begin{matrix} v_{λ} (\cdot, \cdot) ⇀ \hat{x} (\cdot, \cdot) in L_{H}^{2} ([0, S] \times [0, T]) . \end{matrix}

(26)

Write ( 19 ) in the form

\begin{matrix} 0 & = \int_{0}^{S} \int_{0}^{T} L (v_{λ} (s, t), \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (s, t) + \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (s, t)) + \frac{λ}{2} ∥ \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d t} (s, t) + \frac{d {\hat{x}}_{λ}}{d s} (s, t) ∥_{H}^{2} d t d s \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{0}^{S} \frac{1}{2} ∥ {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, 0) ∥_{H}^{2} - 2 〈 x_{λ} (s, 0), x_{0} 〉 + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ {\hat{x}}_{λ} (s, T) ∥_{H}^{2} d s \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{0}^{T} \frac{1}{2} ∥ {\hat{x}}_{λ} (0, t) ∥_{H}^{2} - 2 〈 x_{λ} (0, t), x_{0} 〉 + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ {\hat{x}}_{λ} (S, t) ∥_{H}^{2} d t \end{matrix}

and take

λ \to 0

using the convergence results in ( 24 ) in conjunction with lower-semi-continuity we get

\begin{matrix} 0 & \geq \int_{0}^{S} \int_{0}^{T} L (\hat{x} (s, t), \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial t} (s, t) + \frac{\partial \hat{x}}{\partial s} (s, t)) d t d s \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{0}^{S} \frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (s, 0) ∥_{H}^{2} - 2 〈 \hat{x} (s, 0), x_{0} 〉 + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (s, T) ∥_{H}^{2} d s \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{0}^{T} \frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (0, t) ∥_{H}^{2} - 2 〈 \hat{x} (0, t), x_{0} 〉 + ∥ x_{0} ∥_{H}^{2} + \frac{1}{2} ∥ \hat{x} (S, t) ∥_{H}^{2} d t \geq 0 \end{matrix}

Standard arguments then give the desired result.

Clearly, this argument can be extended to obtain N-parameter gradient flow. We state the result without proof.

Corollary 3.7 Let

L (\cdot, \cdot) : H \times H \to R \cup {+ \infty}

be an ASD Lagrangian that is uniformly convex in the first variable and let

u_{0} \in D o m_{1} (\partial L)

. Then for all

T_{1} \geq T_{2} . . \geq T_{N} > 0

, there exists

u \in L_{H}^{2} (\prod_{j = 0}^{N} [0, T_{j}])

such that

\frac{\partial u}{\partial t_{j}} \in L_{H}^{2} (\prod_{j = 0}^{N} [0, T_{j}])

for all

j = 1, . . ., N

and which satisfies the differential equation

- \sum_{j = 1}^{N} \frac{\partial u}{\partial t_{j}} (t_{1}, . . ., t_{N}) \in \partial_{1} L (u (t_{1}, . ., t_{N}), \sum_{j = 1}^{N} \frac{\partial u}{\partial t_{j}} (t_{1}, . . ., t_{N}))

with boundary data

u (t_{1}, . . ., t_{N}) = u_{0}

if one of the

t_{j} = 0

We conclude this paper with some remarks.

Remark 3.8 Let

u : [0, T] \to H

be the 1-parameter gradient flow associated to an ASD Lagrangian

L

(See [8] ). Namely,

- \frac{d u}{d t} (t) \in \partial_{1} L (u (t), \frac{d u}{d t} (t))

u (0) = u_{0}

If we make the change of variables

v (s^{'}, t^{'}) = u (s^{'} + t^{'})

, then

v (\cdot, \cdot)

obviously solves ( 12 ), with however the boundary condition

v (s^{'}, t^{'}) = u_{0}

on the hyperplane

s^{'} = - t^{'}

. In comparison, Theorem 3.2 above yields a solution

u (\cdot, \cdot)

for ( 12 ) with a boundary condition that is prescribed on two hyperplanes, namely

u (0, t) = u (s, 0) = u_{0}

for all

(s, t) \in [0, S] \times [0, T]

Remark 3.9 Suppose now

u (\cdot, \cdot) : [0, \infty) \times [0, \infty) \to H

solve ( 12 ) with initial boundary condition

u (0, t) = u (s, 0) = u_{0}

for all

(s, t) \in [0, \infty) \times [0, \infty)

, and consider the change of variable

v (s^{'}, t^{'}) = u (s^{'}, (1 - C) s^{'} + C t^{'})

for some

C > 0

. Then

v (s^{'}, t^{'})

again solves ( 12 ) on the domain

D = {(s^{'}, t^{'}) \in R \times R; s^{'} \geq 0, t^{'} \geq (1 - \frac{1}{C}) s^{'}} .

The boundary condition for

v (s^{'}, t^{'})

v (0, t^{'}) = v (s^{'}, \frac{1 - C}{- C} s^{'}) = u_{0} f o r a l l t^{'} \geq 0 a n d s^{'} \geq 0 .

This is essentially a two-parameter ASD flow on the wedge

D

Remark 3.10 Let now

u (\cdot, \cdot, \cdot) : [0, \infty) \times [0, \infty) \times [0, \infty) \to H

be a solution for the three-parameter ASD flow.

- \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} - \frac{\partial u}{\partial s} - \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} (r, s, t) \in \partial_{1} L (u (r, s, t), \frac{\partial u}{\partial r} + \frac{\partial u}{\partial s} + \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} (r, s, t))

u (0, s, t) = u (r, 0, t) = u (r, s, 0) = u_{0}

With the change of variable

v (r^{'}, s^{'}, t^{'}) = u (\frac{s^{'} + r^{'}}{2}, \frac{t^{'} + r^{'}}{2}, \frac{s^{'} + t^{'}}{2})

v (r^{'}, s^{'}, t^{'})

again solves the differential equation

- \frac{\partial v}{\partial r^{'}} - \frac{\partial v}{\partial s^{'}} - \frac{\partial v}{\partial t^{'}} \in \partial_{1} L (u, \frac{\partial v}{\partial r^{'}} + \frac{\partial v}{\partial s^{'}} + \frac{\partial v}{\partial t^{'}})

on the domain

D = {(r^{'}, s^{'}, t^{'}) | s^{'} \geq - r^{'}, r^{'} \geq - t^{'}, s^{'} \geq - t^{'}}

with boundary conditions

v (r^{'}, s^{'}, t^{'}) = u_{0} i f s^{'} = - r^{'} o r r^{'} = - t^{'} o r s^{'} = - t^{'} .

Looking now at

(r^{'}, s^{'})

as ”state” variables and

t^{'}

as the time variable, we see that at any given time

t^{'}

v (r^{'}, s^{'}, t^{'})

solves the equation on

{(r^{'}, s^{'}) | s^{'} \geq - r^{'}, r^{'} \geq - t^{'}, s^{'} \geq - t^{'}}

with

v = u_{0}

on the boundary of this domain. This essentially describes a simple PDE with a time evolving boundary.

References

H. Brezis, I. Ekeland, Un principe variationnel associé à certaines equations paraboliques. Le cas independant du temps, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A 282 (1976), 971–974.
H. Brezis, I. Ekeland, Un principe variationnel associé à certaines equations paraboliques. Le cas dependant du temps, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A 282 (1976), 1197–1198.
N. Ghoussoub, A theory of anti-selfdual Lagrangians: Dynamical case, C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, Ser. I 340 (2005) p. 325-330
N. Ghoussoub, Anti-selfdual Lagrangians: Variational resolutions of non self-adjoint equations and dissipative evolutions, (2005). Submitted.
N. Ghoussoub, Anti-self dual Hamiltonians: Variational resolution for Navier-Stokes equations and other nonlinear evolutions, Submitted (2005)
N. Ghoussoub, $R$ -antiselfduality and the variational resolution of partial differential systems, In preparation (2005)
N. Ghoussoub, L. Tzou. A variational principle for gradient flows, Math. Annalen, Vol 30, 3 (2004) p. 519-549.
N. Ghoussoub, L. Tzou. Anti-self dual Lagrangians II: Unbounded non self-adjoint operators and evolution equations, (2005). Submitted

Iterations of anti-selfdual Lagrangians and applications to Hamiltonian systems and multiparameter gradient flows

Nassif GhoussoubResearch partially supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. and Leo Tzou Department of Mathematics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC Canada V6T 1Z2 nassif@math.ubc.ca leo@pims.math.ca

November 27, 2006