Local well-posedness for the Boltzmann equation with very soft potential and polynomially decaying initial data

The idea used to prove [HST_boltz_wp, Theorem 2.1] is to construct a sequence f_{i} solving

establishing the boundedness of this sequence inductively, and taking the limit i\to\infty. Notice that we have the same bounds in Proposition 3.1 as in [HST_boltz_wp, Proposition 3.2], which is the crux of argument. Thus, the proof in our setting will be unchanged and we omit the details.

Consider any two solutions f and g of (?) with f(0,\cdot,\cdot)= g(0,\cdot,\cdot) = f_{\rm in} and set h=f-g. We have

Then, we multiply (Proof) by \langle v\rangle^{2n}h and integrate with respect to v and x, yielding

where

and

For I_{11}, Proposition 2.8.(iv) yields, for \tilde m sufficiently large,

For I_{12}, we apply Lemma 2.5 to obtain

For I_{21}, fix \alpha \in (2s, 2), \epsilon = (2 - \alpha)/2, and \tilde m be sufficiently large and apply Proposition 2.8.(iii) to find

For I_{22}, apply Lemma 2.5 to find

Combining the estimates of I_{11},I_{12},I_{21}, and I_{22}, that is, (Proof)-(?), and recalling that \|f\|_{X^{k,n,m}}, \|g\|_{X^{k,n,m}} \lesssim 1, we find

The Grönwall inequality and the fact that h(0,\cdot,\cdot) = 0 implies that h=0. We deduce that f=g, concluding the proof.

The proofs of both inequalities are similar, so we show only the latter. Assume without loss of generality that g \geq 0. We proceed with a simple annular decomposition paired with the existing estimate Lemma 2.1.(?). Indeed, letting A_k = B_{2^{-k}r}(v')\setminus B_{2^{-k-1}r}(v'), we have

The claim then follows due to the fact that the sum over k is finite.

We prove this using the characterization of the L^2-norm via duality; that is, fix any h \in L^2(\mathbb R^3) and we estimate

For any v, let R_{v}=\langle v \rangle/10 and denote the diagonal strip

Recalling (?), we rewrite the quantity of interest as

We estimate each of I_1 and I_2 in turn.

Step one: bounding I_2. We further decompose I_2 as

We first consider I_{22}. Applying Lemma 2.3, we find

Rewriting the limits of integration, using that |v-v'| \gtrsim \langle v\rangle, and applying Cauchy-Schwarz in v' yields

Noticing that the integral involving f is a weighted L^2 norm of f, the middle integral is finite, and combining this with (?), we obtain

We now consider I_{21}. Here, we split the integral as follows:

The estimate of I_{211} reduces to the estimate I_{22}:

The last term above is exactly the term we estimate in (?); hence,

Turning to I_{212}, we get

After applying Cauchy-Schwarz to the integral in v', a direct computation using that \ell>3/2 yields

Using that m > \ell +\gamma+ \frac{3}{2}, we conclude from (?) and (?) that

Combining (?), (?), and (?) we deduce that

This concludes step one.

Step two: bounding I_1. For notational convenience, let W_\ell(v) = \langle v\rangle^\ell. For any function \psi and any velocities v and v', let \delta \psi= \psi(v) - \psi(v') (we suppress the dependence on v and v' as no confusion will arise). Then, we rewrite I_1 as

For I_{11}, we see, by the definition of the kernel K_{g} and get that

Next, applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality yields

We first consider the integral involving h. Recalling the definition of \mathcal{D} (Proof), we find

Next, we consider the second integral in (?). Recall that |v-v'|<R_{v} by the definition of \mathcal{D}, (Proof). Hence, by Taylor’s theorem, we have

Using this and Lemma 4.1, we find

We conclude by combining (?)-(?) to obtain

We consider now I_{12}. Using a second order Taylor expansion of W_\ell(v) =\langle v\rangle^\ell, we see that

where \xi_{v,v'} = tv' + (1-t)v for some t \in [0,1]. For I_{121}, we use Lemma 2.1.(?) to obtain

For I_{122}, we use that |(D^2_v W_\ell)|_{\xi_{v,v'}}| \lesssim \langle v\rangle^{\ell-2}, due to the fact that v' \in B_{R_v}(v), in order to find

Thus, we have by appealing to Lemma 2.2

Combining (?) and (?) and the fact that \ell+3/2+\epsilon > \ell-2+\gamma + 2s, we find

Thus, by (?) and (?),

This concludes step two, and, thus, the proof.

The proof is somewhat close to that of [HST_boltz_wp, Proposition 3.1.(i)], so we omit details where steps are similar. We may, without loss of generality, assume that \alpha \in (0,1) \cup (1,2). If not, we may simply take \alpha' < \alpha such that \alpha' \in (0,1) \cup (1,2) and use that C^{\alpha} \xhookrightarrow{} C^{\alpha'}. Finally, the proof is simpler when \alpha < 1; hence, we consider only the case \alpha \in (1,2).

We begin with an annular decomposition: let A_{k}(v)=B_{2^{k}|v|} (v)\backslash B_{2^{k-1}|v|}(v) and write:

Let \bar{\mu}=n+5/2 +(3/2-n)_+ +\alpha + \gamma+\epsilon.

Step One: estimating the sum for any k\leq 1. By using a Taylor expansion, we see

where \xi_{v,v'} = tv' + (1-t)v for some t \in [0,1]. Thus, by Lemma 2.1.(?) and (?),

Recalling that \alpha - 2s > 0, by assumption, we have that |v|^{\alpha - 2s} \leq \langle v\rangle^{\alpha-2s}. Hence,

We are now in a position to apply the weighted Young’s convolution inequality Lemma 4.2. Indeed, by construction, \ell:=\bar\mu - n - 1 - \alpha + 2s and n satisfy the conditions of Lemma 4.2 so that

Step Two: estimating the sum for k \geq 0 when |v'| \geq \langle v\rangle/2. By Lemma 2.1.(?),

Then, similar to Step One, we apply Lemma 4.2 to obtain

where we used n>3/2+\gamma+2s and m>3/2+\gamma+(3/2-n)_{+}.

Step Three: estimating the sum for k \geq 0 when |v|\leq 10 and |v'| \leq \langle v\rangle/2. This is similar to Step One. The benefit is we are integrating over a compact set in v. As such, we omit the proof and simply state that

Hence, we proved Step Three.

Step Four: estimating the sum for k \geq 0 when |v|\geq 10 and |v'| \leq \langle v\rangle/2. For any |v|\geq 10,

For I_{2}, we notice that B_{\langle v\rangle/2} \subseteq (B_{2\langle v\rangle}(v) \backslash B_{\langle v\rangle/4}(v)) due to the fact that |v|\geq 10. Then by Lemma 2.1.(?), we have

Applying the weighted Young’s inequality Lemma 4.2 yields

as desired.

For I_{1}, the proof is omitted as it is exactly as in [HST_boltz_wp, Proposition 3.1.(i)]. This finishes the proof.

We consider only the case \partial=\partial_{v_i} for i \in \{1,2,3\}. The case when \partial=\partial_{x_i} is similar and simpler as it commutes with \langle v\rangle^{2n}. First, let F=\langle v\rangle^{n}f. Then

For I_{1}, we apply the commutator estimate Proposition 2.7 to get

To estimate I_{2}, we apply Proposition 2.8.(i) with \theta=1 if s > 1/2 or \theta = 2s-1+\mu if s \leq 1/2 to find

Using the choice of \theta, the right hand side above is less than or equal to (up to a constant) the right hand side of (Proof).

We decompose I_3 into two parts:

For I_{31}, we manipulate by integration-by-parts and apply Lemma 4.3 to find

Fix the conjugate exponents p=3/2(1-s) and q=3/(2s+1). Applying Hölder’s inequality and the Sobolev embedding theorem yields

The term I_{32} is considered in [HST_boltz_wp, Proposition 3.1.(iv), estimate of I_2]. A close inspection of the proof shows that it applies in our setting. Hence, for simplicity, we cite directly that, for any \mu \in (s,\min\{2s,1\}),

Combining the above estimates of I_{31} and I_{32} together yields

The proof is finished after combining (Proof),  (?), and (?).

The proof of [HST_boltz_wp, Proposition 3.3] can be adapted verbatim as it requires only the established bounds in [HST_boltz_wp, Proposition 3.2] (the analogue of our Proposition 3.1). The proof is composed of three steps: (1) due to the Laplacian in \mathcal{L}_{\sigma,\epsilon,\delta}, apply the Schauder estimates to establish boundedness of a linear operator involving of \mathcal{L}_{\sigma,\epsilon,\delta}; (2) apply the method of continuity to construct the solution of \mathcal{L}_{\sigma,\epsilon,\delta}f=0 using the bounds from the previous step, and (3) use the a priori estimates from Proposition 3.1 to deregularize. Due to its similarity to [HST_boltz_wp, Proposition 3.3], we omit the details.

For succinctness, we let A(v) = |v|^{\eta} and, without loss of generality we assume that g \geq 0. First, we decompose the integral on the left hand side yielding

For I_{1}, we use Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to obtain

For v'\in B_{|v|/10}(v), we have \langle v'\rangle \approx \langle v\rangle and

v\in B_{|v'|/2}(v'). Therefore,

where we used that -\ell+(3+\eta)\leq n. For I_{2}, we apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to find

We conclude by using the conditions on n and \ell. These were also used in the last inequality. Combining the estimates of I_1 and I_2 finishes the proof.

Recall that \hat K_g, defined in (Proof),

satisfies the conditions (4.2), (4.3), and (4.4) in [IS2020weakharnack, Section 4] uniformly in v. Thus, applying [IS2020weakharnack, Lemma 4.2], we find

which concludes the proof.

Let \mu = 1 if \gamma \leq -1 and \mu = \frac{-\gamma - 2s}{1-2s} otherwise. Fix r = \langle v\rangle^\mu/2. We first decompose the integral into two parts:

where I_1 and I_2 are the integrals over B_r(v) and B_r(v)^c, respectively. Applying Lemma 2.2 and using that if \xi \in B_r(v) then \langle \xi\rangle \approx \langle v\rangle, we bound I_1 as

We are finished after bounding the integral by \langle v\rangle^{\gamma + 2s} \|g\|_{L^{\infty, m_0}} and using the definition of r.

The first step to handle I_2 is to split it into the parts containing f(v) and f(v') via the triangle inequality. Call these integrals I_{21} and I_{22}, respectively. Using ? again, we see that

Bounding the last integral using \|g\|_{L^{\infty,m_1}} and using the definition of r finishes the estimate of I_{21}.

The last integral, that of I_{22} requires further decomposition into I_{221} and I_{222} over the domains B_r(v)^c \cap B_{\langle v\rangle/2}^c and B_r(v)^c \cap B_{\langle v\rangle/2}. The former is easy to handle using

where we used that \langle v'\rangle \gtrsim \langle v\rangle. The rest of the bound follows exactly as for I_{21}.

As for I_{222}, notice that for such v', |v-v'| \approx \langle v\rangle. We use this, along with Lemma 2.4, to find

Combining this with the above estimates finishes the proof.

First notice that the proof of the bound

is exactly the same as the (brief) proof in [HST_boltz_wp, Proposition 3.1] and, hence, is omitted here. We note that it is a simpler version of the proof of the bounds on the derivatives that follows.

We now focus instead on bounding \nabla_{x,v}f. Fix \phi(t) to be an increasing function to be determined such that \phi(0) = \|\nabla_{x,v}f_{\rm in}\|_{L^{\infty,m_1}}, and let F(t,x,v) = \phi(t) \langle v\rangle^{-m_1}. Clearly we have that

Let t_0 be the first time that the above inequality is violated. If t_0 does not exist, we are finished. Hence, we argue by contradiction assuming that there exists t_0 \in [0,T]. Without loss of generality(Indeed, the only technical issue here is if the inequality is violated at |v|=\infty. One may sidestep this by simply including a cutoff as a multiplicative factor of the initial data and of R. It then follows from standard facts about the heat equation that f and its derivatives decay as a Gaussian at high velocities. The cutoff can be removed by a limiting procedure.), we may assume that there exists (x_0,v_0) \in \mathbb T^3 \times \mathbb R^3 such that equality above holds in (?) at the point (t_0,x_0,v_0). Assume momentarily that

The cases where i = 2,3 are clearly analogous, as are the case when a negative sign appears in the equality (i.e., F = - \partial_{x_1} f). The case when the derivative is in the v variable is slightly more complicated as new terms arise, but these new terms can be handled in a straightforward way.

Since F - \partial_{x_1} f \geq 0 on [0,t_0]\times\mathbb T^3\times\mathbb R^3, we find

We use this to derive a contradiction.

On the one hand, an explicit computation for F, along with [HST_boltz_wp, Proposition 3.1.(v)] yields

where we used that m_1 > 3 + \gamma + 2s, a condition of the quoted result.

On the other hand, using Lemma 5.1, we find

Using (Proof), it is clear from (?) and (?) that we can choose \phi to obtain a contradiction in (?). This yields a contradiction. Hence (?) always holds, finishing the proof.