The article, presents the study of the regularity of two thermoelastic beam systems defined by the Timoshenko beam model coupled with the heat conduction of Green-Naghdiy theory of type III, both mathematical models are differentiated by their coupling terms that arise as a consequence of the constitutive laws initially considered. The systems presented in this work have 3 fractional dampings: \mu_1(-\Delta)^\tau \phi_t, \mu_2(-\Delta)^\sigma \psi_t and K(-\Delta)^\xi \theta_t, where \phi,\psi and \theta are transverse displacement, rotation angle and empirical temperature of the bean respectively and the parameters (\tau,\sigma,\xi)\in [0,1]^3. It is noted that for values 0 and 1 of the parameter \tau, the so-called frictional or viscous damping will be faced, respectively. The main contribution of this article is to show that the corresponding semigroup S_i(t)=e^{\mathcal{B}_it}, with i=1,2, is of Gevrey class s>\frac{r+1}{2r} for r=\min \{\tau,\sigma,\xi\} for all (\tau,\sigma,\xi )\in R_{CG}:= (0, 1)^3. It is also showed that S_1(t)=e^{\mathcal{B}_1t} is analytic in the region R_{A_1}:=\{(\tau,\sigma, \xi )\in [\frac{1}{2},1]^3\} and S_2(t)=e^{\mathcal{B}_2t} is analytic in the region R_{A_2}:=\{(\tau,\sigma, \xi )\in [\frac{1}{2},1]^3/ \tau=\xi\}.
Let \mathcal{B}_i be a linear operator with domain \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{B}_i) dense in a Hilbert space \mathcal{H}. If \mathcal{B}_i is dissipative and 0\in\rho( \mathcal{B}_i), the resolvent set of \mathcal{B}_i, then \mathcal{B}_i is the generator of a C_0- semigroup of contractions on \mathcal{H}.
Given U_0\in\mathcal{H} there exists a unique weak solution U to the problem (?) satisfying
Futhermore, if U_0\in D(\mathcal{B}_i^k), \; k\in\mathbb{N}, then the solution U of (?) satisfies
Let S(t)=e^{\mathcal{B}_1t} be a C_0-semigroup on contractions on Hilbert space \mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_1, the solutions of the system (?)–(?) and (?)–(?) satisfy the inequality
To show the (3) inequality, it suffices to show that, given \delta>0 there exists a constant C_\delta>0 such that the solutions of the system (?)–(?) and (?)–(?) for |\lambda|>\delta satisfy the inequality
If \lambda\in \mathbb{R} and F=(f^1,f^2,f^3,f^4, f^5, f^6)\in \mathcal{H} then the solution U=(\phi,\Phi,\psi, \Psi,\theta,\Theta)\in\hbox{D}(\mathcal{B}_1) the resolvent equation (i\lambda I- \mathcal{B}_1)U=F can be written in the form
Using the fact that the operator \mathcal{B}_1 is dissipative, result in
On the other hand, performing the duality product of (?) for \beta\gamma\rho_1 \phi, and remembering that the operators A^\nu for all \nu\in\mathbb{R} are self-adjoint, resulting in
now performing the duality product of (?) for \beta\gamma\rho_2 \psi, and remembering that the operators A^\nu for all \nu\in\mathbb{R} are self-adjoint, leading to
Adding the last 2 equations, result in
Taking real part, using norm \|F\|_\mathcal{H} and \|U\|_\mathcal{H} and applying Cauchy-Schwarz and Young, for \varepsilon>0 exists C_\varepsilon>0 which does not depend on \lambda, such that
From estimative (?) and the fact 0\leq\frac{\tau}{2}, \; 0\leq\frac{\sigma}{2} and 0\leq\frac{\xi}{2}, the continuous embedding D(A^{\theta_2}) \hookrightarrow D(A^{\theta_1}),\;\theta_2>\theta_1, lead to
On the other hand, performing the duality product of (?) for \beta\kappa\rho_3 \theta, and remembering that the operators A^\nu for all \nu\in\mathbb{R} are self-adjoint and from (?), result in
Taking real part and by using the inequalities Cauchy-Schwarz and Young and norms \|F\|_\mathcal{H} and \|U\|_\mathcal{H}, from |\lambda|>1, for \varepsilon>0 exists C_\varepsilon>0 which does not depend on \lambda such that
Then, from estimative (?) and the fact 0\leq\frac{\sigma}{2} and 0\leq\frac{\xi}{2}\leq\frac{1}{2} the continuous embedding D(A^{\theta_2}) \hookrightarrow D(A^{\theta_1}),\;\theta_2>\theta_1, lead to
Finally, from estimates (?), (?) and (?), the proof of this lemma is completed.
Let \delta> 0. There exists a constant C_\delta > 0 such that the solutions of the system (?)–(?) and (?)–(?) for |\lambda|\geq \delta satisfy the inequalities
Item (i): Performing the duality product of (?) for \beta\gamma\rho_1\lambda \phi, and remembering that the operators A^\nu for all \nu\in \mathbb{R} are self-adjunct, result in
Now performing the duality product of (?) for \beta\gamma\rho_2\lambda \psi, and remembering that the operators A^\nu for all \nu\in \mathbb{R} are self-adjunct leads to
Adding the last 2 equations, result in
On the other hand, from (?) and (?), result in
Using the identity (?) in the (?) equation and simplifying, lead to
As for \varepsilon>0 exists C_\varepsilon> such that |i\beta^2\gamma\langle{\Theta},{\psi_x}\rangle|\leq \varepsilon\|A^\frac{1}{2}\psi\|^2+C_\varepsilon\|\Theta\|^2, taking the real part, and applying the Cauchy-Schwarz and Young inequalities, estimative (Proof) of Lemma(3) and using the definitions of the F and U norm in (?) the proof of item (i) this lemma is completed.
On the other hand, performing the duality product of (?) for \beta\kappa\rho_3\lambda \theta, and remembering that the operators A^\theta for all \theta\in \mathbb{R} are self-adjunct, result in
As
Using (?)–(?) in (?), lead to
Taking real part of the equation (?) and using the inequalities Cauchy-Schwarz and Young and norms \|F\|_\mathcal{H} and \|U\|_\mathcal{H}, from |\lambda|>1, for \varepsilon>0 exists C_\varepsilon>0 such that
Then, from Lemma(3) and as \|\psi_x\|^2=\|A^\frac{1}{2}\psi\|^2, the proof of item (ii) of this lemma is finished.
Let t_0\geq 0 be a real number. A strongly continuous semigroup S(t), defined on a Banach space \mathcal{H}, is of Gevrey class s > 1 for t > t_0, if S(t) is infinitely differentiable for t > t_0, and for every compact set K \subset (t_0,\infty) and each \mu > 0, there exists a constant C = C(\mu, K) > 0 such that
Let S(t) be a strongly continuous and bounded semigroup on a Hilbert space \mathcal{H}. Suppose that the infinitesimal generator \mathcal{B} of the semigroup S(t) satisfies the following estimate, for some 0 < \eta < 1:
Then S(t) is of Gevrey class s for t>0, for every s>\dfrac{1}{\eta}.
The semigroup S(t)=e^{\mathcal{B}_1t} associated to the system (?)–(?) and (?)–(?) is of Gevrey class s>\frac{r+1}{2r} for r=\min \{\tau,\sigma,\xi\} for all (\tau,\sigma,\xi )\in R_{CG}:= (0, 1)^3.
From the resolvent equation F=(i\lambda I-\mathcal{B}_1)U for \lambda\in\mathbb{R}, U=(i\lambda I-\mathcal{B}_1)^{-1}F. Furthermore, show (6) of theorem(6) it is enough to show, that for \varepsilon>0 exists C_\delta>0, such that:
Equivalent to
where r=\min\{\tau,\sigma,\xi\}, for all (\tau,\sigma,\xi)\in (0,1)^3.
Next, [|\lambda|^\frac{2\tau}{1+\tau}\|\Phi\|+|\lambda|^\frac{2\sigma}{1+\sigma}\|\Psi\|+|\lambda|^\frac{2\xi}{1+\xi}\|\Theta\|] will be estimated.
Let’s start by estimating the term |\lambda|^\frac{2\tau}{1+\tau}\|\Phi\|: It is assume that |\lambda|>1, some ideas could be borrowed from [LiuR95]. Set \Phi=\Phi_1+\Phi_2, where \Phi_1\in D(A) and \Phi_2\in D(A^0), with
Firstly, applying in the product duality the first equation in (?) by \Phi_1, then by A\Phi_1 and recalling that the operator A is self-adjoint, resulting in
Applying the A^{-\frac{1}{2}} operator on the second equation of (?), result in
then, as \|A^{-\frac{1}{2}}\psi_x\|^2=\langle{-A^{-\frac{1}{2}}\psi_{xx}},{A^{-\frac{1}{2}}\psi}\rangle=\langle{A^\frac{1}{2}\psi},{A^{-\frac{1}{2}}\psi}\rangle=\|\psi\|^2 and \tau-\frac{1}{2}\leq \frac{\tau}{2} taking into account the continuous embedding D(A^{\theta_2}) \hookrightarrow D(A^{\theta_1}),\;\theta_2>\theta_1, result in
using (Proof), (?) and estimative (?) (\|A^\frac{1}{2}\Phi\|^2\leq C|\lambda|^{-1}\|F\|^2_\mathcal{H}), lead to
Equivalently
On the other hand, from \Phi_2=\Phi-\Phi_1, (?) and as \frac{\tau}{2}\leq\frac{1}{2} the inequality of (?), result in
By Lions’ interpolations inequality 0\in [-\frac{1}{2},\frac{\tau}{2}], result in
Then, using (?) and (?) in (?), for |\lambda|>1, result in
Therefore, as \|\Phi\|^2\leq \|\Phi_1\|^2+ \|\Phi_2\|^2 from first inequality of (?), (?), we get
and as for 0\leq\tau\leq 1 we have |\lambda|^{-2}\leq |\lambda|^\frac{-4\tau}{1+\tau}, result in
On the other hand, let’s now estimate the missing term |\lambda|^\frac{2\sigma}{1+\sigma}\|\Psi\|: It is assumed that |\lambda|>1. Set \Psi=\Psi_1+\Psi_2, where \Psi_1\in D(A) and \Psi_2\in D(A^0), with
Firstly, applying in the product duality the first equation in (?) by \Psi_1, then by A\Psi_1 and recalling that the operator A is self-adjoint, resulting in
As follows from the second equation in (?) that
then, as \|A^{-\frac{1}{2}}\phi_x\|^2=\langle{-A^{-\frac{1}{2}}\phi_{xx}},{A^{-\frac{1}{2}}\phi}\rangle=\|\phi\|^2, \|A^{-\frac{1}{2}}\Theta_x\|^2=\|\Theta\|^2 and \sigma-\frac{1}{2}\leq \frac{\sigma}{2} taking into account the continuous embedding D(A^{\theta_2}) \hookrightarrow D(A^{\theta_1}),\;\theta_2>\theta_1, lead to
Using estimative (Proof) and estimative (?), for |\lambda|>1, result in
Equivalently
On the other hand, from \Psi_2=\Psi-\Psi_1, (?) and as \frac{\sigma}{2}\leq\frac{1}{2} the inequality (?), result in
Now, by Lions’ interpolations inequality 0\in [-\frac{1}{2},\frac{\sigma}{2}], lead to
Then, using (?) and (?) in (?), for |\lambda|>1, result in
Therefore, as \|\Psi\|^2\leq \|\Psi_1\|^2+ \|\Psi_2\|^2 from first inequality of (?), (?) and |\lambda|^{-2}\leq|\lambda|^\frac{-4\sigma}{1+\sigma}, result in
Finally, let’s now estimate the missing term |\lambda|^\frac{2\xi}{1+\xi}\|\Theta\|: Now we assume |\lambda|>1. Set \Theta=\Theta_1+\Theta_2, where \Theta_1\in D(A) and \Theta_2\in D(A^0), with
Firstly, applying in the product duality the first equation in (?) by \Theta_1, then by A\Theta_1 and recalling that the operator A is self-adjoint, resulting in
As follows from the second equation in (?) that
then, as \|A^{-\frac{1}{2}}\Psi_x\|^2=\|\Psi\|^2 and -\frac{1}{2}\leq 0, \xi-\frac{1}{2}\leq \frac{\xi}{2} taking into account the continuous embedding D(A^{\theta_2}) \hookrightarrow D(A^{\theta_1}),\;\theta_2>\theta_1, result in
Using estimates (Proof), (?) and estimative (?), for |\lambda|>1, lead to
On the other hand, from \Theta_2=\Theta-\Theta_1, (?) and as \frac{\xi}{2}\leq\frac{1}{2} the inequality (?), result in
Now, by Lions’ interpolations inequality 0\in [-\frac{1}{2},\frac{\xi}{2}], result in
Then, using (?) and (?) in (?), for |\lambda|>1, result in
Therefore, as \|\Theta\|^2\leq \|\Theta_1\|^2+ \|\Theta_2\|^2 from first inequality of (?), estimative (?) and |\lambda|^{-2}\leq |\lambda|^\frac{-4\xi}{1+\xi}, result in
Using the estimates (?) and (?) in the inequality item (i) of Lemma 4, result in
As \tau\leq \sigma \Longrightarrow -\frac{\tau}{\tau+1}\geq -\frac{\sigma}{\sigma+1} and \tau\geq \sigma \Longrightarrow -\frac{\tau}{\tau+1}\leq -\frac{\sigma}{\sigma+1}, we obtain
Furthermore, using estimative (?) in estimate (4) (item (ii) of the Lemma 4) and as \frac{1-3\xi}{\xi+1}+\frac{2\xi}{\xi+1}=\frac{1-\xi}{\xi+1}>0, we have
Finally summing the estimates (?),(?), (?),(?) and (?), we have
for (\tau,\sigma,\xi)\in [0,1]^3, equivalently
Finally, applying Young inequality, we have
Therefore, proof of this theorem is finished.
Let S(t)=e^{\mathcal{B}t} be C_0-semigroup of contractions on a Hilbert space \mathcal{H}. Suppose that
Then S(t) is analytic if and only if
holds.
The C_0-semigroup of contractions S(t)=e^{\mathcal{B}_1t} satisfies the condition
Let’s prove i{\mathbb R}\subset\rho( \mathcal{B}_1) by contradiction, it is supposed that i{\mathbb R}\not\subset \rho( \mathcal{B}_1). As 0\in\rho( \mathcal{B}_1) and \rho( \mathcal{B}_1) is open, the highest positive number \lambda_0 is considered such that the interval (-i\lambda_0,i\lambda_0)\subset\rho( \mathcal{B}_1), then i\lambda_0 or -i\lambda_0 is an element of the spectrum \sigma( \mathcal{B}_1). It is supposed that i\lambda_0\in \sigma( \mathcal{B}_1) (if -i\lambda_0\in \sigma( \mathcal{B}_1) the proceeding is similar). Then, for 0<\nu<\lambda_0 there exist a sequence of real numbers (\lambda_n), with 0<\nu\leq\lambda_n<\lambda_0, \lambda_n\to \lambda_0, and a vector sequence U_n=(\phi_n,\Phi_n,\psi_n,\Psi_n, \theta_n,\Theta_n)\in \mathcal{D}( \mathcal{B}_1) with unitary norms, such that
as n\to \infty. From (?) for 0\leq\tau\leq 1 and 0\leq\sigma\leq 1, result in
From (?), for 0\leq\xi\leq 1, result in
In addition to the estimative (?), for 0\leq\tau\leq 1 and 0\leq\sigma\leq 1, result in
Consequently, \|U_n\|_\mathcal{H}^2 \to 0. Therefore, lead to \|U_n\|_\mathcal{H}\to 0 but this is absurd, since \|U_n\|_\mathcal{H}=1 for all n\in{\mathbb N}. Thus, i{\mathbb R}\subset \rho(\mathcal{B}_1). This completes the proof.
Let \delta> 0. There exists a constant C_\delta > 0 such that the solutions of (?)–(?) and (?)–(?) for |\lambda|\geq \delta satisfy the inequality
Item (i): of this lemma will be initially shown, performing the duality product of (?) for \dfrac{\rho_1}{\mu_1}A^{-\tau}\lambda \Phi, and recalling that the operator A^\nu is self-adjoint for all \nu\in\mathbb{R}, results in
Noting that: \|A^{-\tau} \Phi_x\|^2=\langle{A^{-\tau}\Phi_x},{A^{-\tau}\Phi_x}\rangle=\langle{-A^{-\tau}\Phi_{xx}},{A^{-\tau}\Phi}\rangle=\|A^\frac{1-2\tau}{2} \Phi\|^2, taking real part and considering that \frac{1}{2}\leq\tau\leq 1 using estimative (?) and using Cauchy-Schwarz and Young inequalities, for \varepsilon>0 exists C_\varepsilon, such that
As 0\leq\frac{\sigma}{2}, then from estimative (?) \|\Psi\|^2\leq C_\delta\|F\|_\mathcal{H}\|U\|_\mathcal{H}. From the continuous embedding for |\lambda|\geq 1, the proof of item (i) of this lemma is finished.
Item (ii): Again similarly, performing the duality product of (?) for \dfrac{\rho_2}{\mu_2}A^{-\sigma}\lambda \Psi, using (?), and recalling the self-adjointness of A^\nu, \nu \in\mathbb{R}, leads to
Noting that: \|A^\frac{1-2\sigma}{2}\Phi\|^2=\|A^{-\sigma} \Phi_x\|^2, taking real part, considering \frac{1}{2}\leq\sigma\leq 1, using Cauchy-Schwarz and Young inequalities, for \varepsilon>0 exists C_\varepsilon such that
As -\frac{1-2\sigma}{2} \leq 0\Longleftrightarrow \frac{1}{2}\leq \sigma\leq 1. Considering |\lambda|\geq 1, using estimative (Proof), norms \|F\|_\mathcal{H} and \|U\|_\mathcal{H}, the proof of item (ii) of this lemma is finished.
Item (iii): Finally, let’s prove the (iii) item of this lemma, performing the duality product of (?) for \dfrac{\rho_3}{K}A^{-\xi}\lambda \Theta, using (?), and recalling the self-adjointness of A^\nu, \nu \in\mathbb{R}, result in
Taking the real part, applying Cauchy-Schwarz and Young inequalities, for \varepsilon>0 exists C_\varepsilon>0 such that
Considering \frac{1}{2}\leq\xi\leq 1, \frac{1-2\xi}{2}\leq 0, and remembering the identities \|A^{-\xi}\Psi_x\|^2=\|A^\frac{1-2\xi}{2}\Psi\|^2, \|A^{-\xi}\Theta_x\|^2=\|A^\frac{1-2\xi}{2}\Theta\|^2 in addition to using the item (ii) of this lemma the proof of the item (iii) of this lemma is finished.
The semigroup S(t)=e^{\mathcal{B}_1t} associated to the system (?)–(?) and (?)–(?) is analytic when the three parameters \tau, \sigma and \xi vary in the interval [\frac{1}{2},1].
We will prove this theorem will be proved using the Theorem 8, so the two conditions (8) and (8) must be proved.
From Lemma 9, the condition (8) is verified, it remains to verify the condition (8), note that proving this condition is equivalent to: let \delta>0 there exists a constant C_\delta > 0 such that the solutions of (?)–(?) for |\lambda|\geq \delta satisfy the inequality
It is not difficult to see that this inequality (?) arises from the inequalities of the Lemmas 4 and 10, so the proof of this theorem is finished.
Let S_2(t)=e^{\mathcal{B}_2t} be a C_0-semigroup on contractions on Hilbert space \mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_2, the solutions of the system (?)–(?) satisfy the inequality
To show the (3) inequality, it suffices to show that, given \delta>0 there exists a constant C_\delta>0 such that the solutions of the system (?)–(?) for |\lambda|>\delta satisfy the inequality
If F=(f^1,f^2,f^3,f^4, f^5, f^6)\in \mathcal{H} then the solution U=(\phi,\Phi,\psi, \Psi,\theta,\Theta)\in\hbox{D}(\mathcal{B}_2) the resolvent equation (i\lambda I- \mathcal{B}_2)U=F can be written in the form
Using the fact that the operator is dissipative \mathcal{B}_2, result in
On the other hand, performing the duality product of (?) for \rho_1 \phi, and as the operators A^\nu for all \nu\in\mathbb{R} are self-adjoint, lead to
now performing the duality product of (?) for \rho_2 \psi, and as the operators A^\nu for all \nu\in\mathbb{R} are self-adjoint, result in
Adding the last 2 equations, result in
Taking real part, applying Cauchy-Schwarz and Young inequalities, for \varepsilon>0 exists C_\varepsilon>0 such that
From estimative (?) and the fact 0\leq\frac{\tau}{2},\;0\leq\frac{\sigma}{2} and 0\leq\frac{\xi}{2} the continuous embedding D(A^{\theta_2}) \hookrightarrow D(A^{\theta_1}),\;\theta_2>\theta_1, result in
On the other hand, performing the duality product of (?) for \rho_3 \theta, and remembering that the operators A^\nu for all \nu\in\mathbb{R} are self-adjoint and from (?), lead to
Taking the real part, using the inequalities Cauchy-Schwarz and Young, for \varepsilon>0 exists C_\varepsilon>0 which does not depend on \lambda such that
Then, from estimative (?) and the fact 0\leq\frac{\tau}{2},\; 0\leq\frac{\sigma}{2} and 0\leq\frac{\xi}{2}\leq\frac{1}{2} the continuous embedding D(A^{\theta_2}) \hookrightarrow D(A^{\theta_1}),\;\theta_2>\theta_1, result in
Finally, from estimates (?), (?) and (?), the proof of this lemma is finished.
Let \delta> 0. There exists a constant C_\delta > 0 such that the solutions of (?)–(?) for |\lambda|\geq \delta satisfy the inequalities
Item (i): Performing the duality product of (?) for \rho_1\lambda \phi, and remembering that the operators A^\nu for all \nu\in \mathbb{R} are self-adjunct, lead to
Now performing the duality product of (?) for \rho_2\lambda \psi, and remembering that the operators A^\nu for all \nu\in \mathbb{R} are self-adjunct, resulting in
Adding the last 2 equations, result in
On the other hand, from (?) and (?), result in
Using the identity (?) in the (?) equation and simplifying, leads to
As for \varepsilon>0, exists C_\varepsilon>0, such that \bigg|\mu\langle{\sqrt{|\lambda|}\Theta},{\dfrac{\lambda}{\sqrt{|\lambda|}}(\phi_x+\psi)}\rangle\bigg|\leq C_\varepsilon|\lambda|\|\Theta\|^2+\varepsilon|\lambda|\|\phi_x+\psi\|^2, taking the real part of the equation (?), applying the Cauchy-Schwarz and Young inequalities and estimative (Proof) of Lemma 12, the proof of item (i) this lemma is completed.
On the other hand, performing the duality product of (?) for \rho_3\lambda \theta, and remembering that the operators A^\nu for all \nu\in \mathbb{R } are self-adjunct, result in
As
Then, using (?) in (?) and taking real part, lead to
applying Cauchy-Schwarz and Young inequalities, for \varepsilon>0 exists C_\varepsilon>0, such that
Then, from Lemma 12, the proof of item (ii) of this lemma is finished.
The semigroup S(t)=e^{\mathcal{B}_2t} associated to system (?)–(?) is of Gevrey class s>\dfrac{1+r}{2r} for r=\min\{\tau,\sigma,\xi\}, for all (\tau,\sigma,\xi)\in R_{CG}:=(0,1)^3 and \frac{2r}{r+1}\in (0,1).
From the resolvent equation F=(i\lambda I-\mathcal{B}_2)U for \lambda\in\mathbb{R}, result in U=(i\lambda I-\mathcal{B}_2)^{-1}F. Furthermore to show (6) this is theorem(6) it is enough to show:
where r=\min\{\tau,\sigma,\xi\}, for all (\tau,\sigma,\xi)\in (0,1)^3.
Next, |\lambda|^\frac{2\tau}{1+\tau}\|\Phi\|, |\lambda|^\frac{2\sigma}{1+\sigma}\|\Psi\| and |\lambda|^\frac{2\xi}{1+\xi}\|\Theta\| will be estimated.
Let’s start by estimating the term |\lambda|^\frac{2\tau}{1+\tau}\|\Phi\|: It is assumed that |\lambda|>1. Set \Phi=\Phi_1+\Phi_2, where \Phi_1\in D(A) and \Phi_2\in D(A^0), with
Firstly, applying the product duality on the first equation in (?) by \Phi_1, then by A^{\Phi_1} and recalling that the operator A is self-adjoint, resulting in self-adjoint, resulting in
Applying the A^{-\frac{1}{2}} operator on the second equation of (?), lead to
then, as \|A^{-\frac{1}{2}}\psi_x\|^2=\|\psi\|^2 and \tau-\frac{1}{2}\leq \frac{\tau}{2} taking into account the continuous embedding D(A^{\theta_2}) \hookrightarrow D(A^{\theta_1}),\;\theta_2>\theta_1, result in
Using (Proof) and estimative (?), result in
On the other hand, from \Phi_2=\Phi-\Phi_1, (?) and as \frac{\tau}{2}\leq\frac{1}{2} the second inequality of (?), result in
Now, by Lions’ interpolations inequality 0\in[-\frac{1}{2},\frac{\tau}{2}], result in
Then, using (?) and (?) in (?), result in
Therefore, as \|\Phi\|^2\leq \|\Phi_1\|^2+ \|\Phi_2\|^2 from first inequality of (?), (?) and |\lambda|^{-2}\leq |\lambda|^\frac{-4\tau}{1+\tau}, we have
On the other hand, let’s now estimate the missing term |\lambda|^\frac{2\sigma}{1+\sigma}\|\Psi\|: Set \Psi=\Psi_1+\Psi_2, where \Psi_1\in D(A) and \Psi_2\in D(A^0), with
Firstly, applying the product duality on the first equation in (?) by \Psi_1, then by A\Psi_1 and recalling that the operator A is self-adjoint, resulting in
It arises from the second equation in (?) that
then, as \|A^{-\frac{1}{2}}\phi_x\|^2=\|\phi\|^2, \|A^{-\frac{1}{2}}\Theta_x\|^2=\|\Theta\|^2 and \sigma-\frac{1}{2}\leq \frac{\sigma}{2} taking into account the continuous embedding D(A^{\theta_2}) \hookrightarrow D(A^{\theta_1}),\;\theta_2>\theta_1, result in
Using estimative (Proof) of Lemma 12 and second estimative of (?), yields
On the other hand, from \Psi_2=\Psi-\Psi_1, (?) and as 0\leq\frac{\sigma}{2}\leq\frac{1}{2}, the second inequality of (?), result in
Now using interpolation inequality 0\in [-\frac{1}{2},\frac{\sigma}{2}]. Since
0=\eta\bigg(-\dfrac{1}{2}\bigg)+(1-\eta)\dfrac{\sigma}{2},\quad {\rm for}\quad \eta=\dfrac{\sigma}{1+\sigma},
using (?) and (?) we get that
Also, as \|\Psi\|^2\leq C\{\|\Psi_1\|^2+ \|\Psi_2\|^2\} from first inequality of (?), estimative (?) and as |\lambda|^{-2}\leq |\lambda|^\frac{-2\sigma}{1+\sigma}, result in
Finally, let’s now estimate the missing term |\lambda|^\frac{2\xi}{1+\xi}\|\Theta\|. Set \Theta=\Theta_1+\Theta_2, where \Theta_1\in D(A) and \Theta_2\in D(A^0), with
Firstly, applying the product duality the first equation in (?) by \Theta_1, then by A\Theta_1 and as the operators A^\nu for all \nu\in\mathbb{R} are self-adjoint, result in
It arises from the second equation in (?) that
then, as \|A^{-\frac{1}{2}}\Phi_x\|^2=\|\Phi\|^2, -\frac{1}{2}\leq 0 and \xi-\frac{1}{2}\leq \frac{\xi}{2} taking into account the continuous embedding D(A^{\theta_2}) \hookrightarrow D(A^{\theta_1}),\;\theta_2>\theta_1 and using estimative (Proof) and estimative (?), lead to
On the other hand, from \Theta_2=\Theta-\Theta_1, (?) and as \frac{\xi}{2}\leq\frac{1}{2} the second inequality of (?), result in
Now using interpolation inequality 0\in [-\frac{1}{2},\frac{\xi}{2}]. Since
0=\eta\bigg(-\dfrac{1}{2}\bigg)+(1-\eta)\dfrac{\xi}{2},\quad {\rm for}\quad \eta=\dfrac{\xi}{1+\xi},
using (?) and (?) we get that
Also as, \|\Theta\|^2\leq C\{ \|\Theta_1\|^2+ \|\Theta_2\|^2\} from first inequality of (?), (?) and as |\lambda|^{-2}\leq |\lambda|^\frac{-4\xi}{1+\xi}, result in
Finally, using (?), (?) and (?) in the inequality item (i) of Lemma 13, result in
then
Analogously, using (?) and (?) in the inequality item (ii) of Lemma 13, result in
Finally, summing the the estimates (?), (?), (?), (?) and (?) and applying Young inequality, we obtain
for (\tau,\sigma, \xi)\in (0,1)^3 the proof of this Theorem 14, is finished.
Let \delta> 0. There exists a constant C_\delta > 0 such that the solutions of (?)–(?) for |\lambda|\geq \delta satisfy the inequality
Item (i): Realizing the duality product of (?) with \dfrac{\rho_1}{\gamma}A^{-\tau}\lambda \Phi and using the property that the operator A^\nu is self-adjoint for all \nu\in \mathbb{R} and using the equation (?), result in
On the other hand, now performing the duality product of (?) for \dfrac{\rho_3}{\gamma}A^{-\xi}\lambda \Theta, using (?), and as the operators A^\nu for all \nu\in\mathbb{R} are self-adjoint, result in
Imposing the condition \tau=\xi and since {\rm Re}\{\langle{\Theta},{\lambda A^{-\tau}\Phi_x}\rangle-\langle{\lambda A^{-\tau}\Phi_x},{\Theta}\rangle\}=0, adding the equations (Proof) and (?) and then taking the real part, result in
From |i\frac{\kappa}{\gamma}\langle{\Psi},{A^{-\tau}\Psi_x}\rangle|\leq C\{\|\Psi\|^2+\|A^\frac{1-2\tau}{2}\Phi\|^2\} and \frac{1}{2}\leq\tau=\xi\leq 1, applying Cauchy-Schwarz and Young inequalities, norms \|F\|_\mathcal{H} and \|U\|_\mathcal{H}, the proof of item (i) of this lemma is finished.
Item (ii): Similarly, performing the duality product of (?) for \dfrac{\rho_2}{\mu_2}A^{-\sigma}\lambda \Psi, using (?), and recalling the self-adjointness of A^\nu, \nu \in\mathbb{R}, lead to
Noting that: For \frac{1}{2}\leq\sigma\leq 1 lead to \frac{1-\sigma}{2}\leq \frac{\sigma}{2}, \frac{1}{2}-\sigma\leq 0 and \frac{1-2\sigma}{2}\leq 0, on the other hand as \|A^{-\sigma} \Psi_x\|^2=\|A^\frac{1-2\sigma}{2}\Psi\|^2, taking real part and considering that \frac{1}{2}\leq\sigma\leq 1 and using Cauchy-Schwarz and Young inequalities, norms \|F\|_\mathcal{H} and \|U\|_\mathcal{H}, for \varepsilon>0, exists C_\varepsilon>0 independent of \lambda such that
From (Proof) and item (i) of this lemma, the proof of item (ii) of this lemma is finished.
The semigroup S(t)=e^{\mathcal{B}_2t} associated to the system (?)–(?) is analytic when the three parameters \tau, \sigma and \xi vary in the interval [\frac{1}{2},1] with \tau=\xi:
80-35
FIG. 02: Region R_{A2} of Analyticity de S(t)=e^{\mathcal{B}_2t}
This theorem will be proved again using now the Theorem 8, so the two conditions (8) and (8) must be proved.
Here the condition’s test (8) will be omitted because it is completely similar to the test already conducted for the first the first system.
Next, the condition (8) is proved, note that proving this condition is equivalent to show, let \delta>0. There exists a constant C_\delta > 0 such that the solutions of (?)–(?) and (?)–(?) for |\lambda|\geq \delta satisfy the inequality
It is not difficult to see that this inequality (?) follows from the inequalities of the Lemmas 13 and 15, so the proof of this theorem is finished.
It is emphasized that thanks to the Lemmas 3 and 9 the exponential decay of the semigroup S_1(t)=e^{\mathcal{B}_1t} is obtained when the 3 parameters take values in the closed interval [0,1], also for the second system using the Lemmas 12 and proving in a completely similar way to the proof of Lemma 9 which i\mathbb{R}\subset\rho(\mathcal{B}_2) the corresponding semigroup S_2(t)=e^{\mathcal{B}_2t}, will be exponentially stable when the 3 parameters take values in the closed interval [0, 1 ].
The text on this page is from arXiv:2211.10816v2 by Filomena Barbosa Rodrigues Mendes, Lesly Daiana Barbosa Sobrado and Fredy Maglorio Sobrado Suárez, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2211/2211.10816.jsonl.