A priori estimates for general elliptic and parabolic boundary value problems over irregular domains

Given \hat{k}\geq\hat{k}_0 fixed, without loss of generality, we prove the result for

for each \xi\in\{1,\ldots,m_1\} and \zeta\in\{1,\ldots,m_2\}. Then, define the sequences \{k_n\}_{n\geq0},  \{y_n\}_{n\geq0},  \{z_n\}_{n\geq0} of positive real numbers, by:

and

Clearly k_n\geq\hat{k}\geq\hat{k}_0 for each nonnegative integer n. Taking into account the definitions of the sequences defined above together with Hölder’s inequality and (?), we calculate and get that
\hat{k}^2y_{n+1}\,\leq\,|\Omega_{k_{n+1}}|^{2/N}\left\|u_{k_{n+1}}\right\|^2_{_{2^{\ast}_{_N},\Omega}}

where c>0 is a constant that varies from line to line (this will be assumed for the remaining of the proof). Similarly, one has

Applying assumption (3) yields that

and then combining (Proof), (Proof), and (Proof), we arrive at

for some constant c'>0, where \delta:=2/N. Now, it is clear that

On the other hand, using (2) and proceeding as above, we find that

Thus setting

we obtain that

Selecting

and choosing

we see that

for some constant c^{\star}>0, and moreover the selection implies that

Therefore, the sequences \{y_n\},  \{z_n\} satisfy the conditions of Lemma 1. Thus, applying Lemma 1 for \hat{k} given by (Proof) shows that \displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}z_n=0, and consequently

Combining (Proof) with (Proof), we obtain (2), as desired.

Let u\in\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma) be a solution of (?), and assume that Remark 4(a) holds (the other case follows in a similar way). By (A2) and (B3) we have K(u^+,u^-)\leq0, and \Lambda_{_{\Gamma}}(u^+,u^-)\leq0, and consequently \mathcal{E}_{\mu}(u^+,u^-)\leq0. Write

Then \mathfrak{C}^{\star}>0. Since u\in\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma) satisfies the inequality (?), proceeding as in Proposition 1 and Remark 4, we obtain that

for some constant c>0. Thus \mathbf{u}^-=\mathbf{0}, which shows that \mathbf{u}\geq\mathbf{0} a.e., as desired.

If \gamma>\mathfrak{C}^{\ast}_0, then by virtue of Remark 4 one sees that (Proof) holds (for \gamma^{\ast}=\gamma>0), and consequently by Proposition 1 together with Lax-Milgram’s Lemma, for each (f,g)\in\mathbb{X\!}^{\,2}(\Omega,\Gamma), there exists a unique function u\in {\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma)} fulfilling

This together with Remark 5 we have that (\gamma-\mathbf{A})(u,0)=(\gamma u, 0)-\mathbf{A}(u,0)=(f,g), which implies that the operator \gamma-\mathbf{A}: D(\mathbf{A})\rightarrow\mathbb{X\!}^{\,2}(\Omega,\Gamma) is a bijection for each \gamma>\mathfrak{C}^{\ast}_0. Assume now f\geq 0 and g\geq 0. Then this means that \langle f,v\rangle_{2}\geq0 for each v\in H^1(\Omega)^+, and \langle g,w|_{_{\Gamma}}\rangle_{_{2,\Gamma}}\geq0 for all w\in H^1(\Omega)^+. Letting (u,0):=(\gamma-\mathbf{A})^{-1}(f,g) and proceeding in the exact way as in the proof of Theorem 3, we get that

for some constant c>0. Therefore u^-=0 a.e. implying that u\geq 0 a.e., as asserted. Hence the resolvent (\gamma-\mathbf{A})^{-1} is a positive operator. Since every positive operator is continuous we deduce that \gamma-\mathbf{A} is invertible. Moreover, since the operator \mathbf{A} is clearly closed, we have that D(\mathbf{A}) is a Banach space with respect to the graph norm. Since the embedding D(\mathbf{A})\hookrightarrow\mathbb{X\!}^{\,2}(\Omega,\Gamma) and the embedding \mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma)\times \{0\}\hookrightarrow\mathbb{X\!}^{\,2}(\Omega,\Gamma) are both bounded, with D(\mathbf{A})\subseteq\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma)\times \{0\}, an application of the Closed Graph Theorem implies that the embedding D(\mathbf{A})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma)\times \{0\} is continuous, completing the proof.

The proof runs in a similar manner as in [NITTKA2014, proof of Lemma 2.9]. However, since there are some modifications, we provide a complete proof. Given t\in [0,T], we apply Young’s inequality together with (?) and (Proof) to calculate that
\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\left(\displaystyle\int_{\Omega} |u(t)|^2\,dx-\displaystyle\int_{\Omega}|u_0|^2\,dx\right) = \displaystyle\int_{0}^{t}\displaystyle\int_{\Omega} u(\xi)u_t(\xi)\,dx d\xi=
=\displaystyle\int_{0}^{t}\langle\mathcal{A}u(\xi),u(\xi)\rangle_{\mathfrak{s}/2}\,d\xi+\displaystyle\int_{0}^{t} \displaystyle\int_{\Omega}f(\xi,x)u(\xi)\,dxd\xi=\displaystyle\int_{0}^{t}\langle\mathcal{N}^{\ast}_{\mu}u(\xi),u(\xi)\rangle_{r_d/2}\,d\xi+

=\displaystyle\int_{0}^{t}\displaystyle\int_{\Omega}f(\xi,x)u(\xi)\,dxd\xi+\displaystyle\int_{0}^{t} \displaystyle\int_{\Gamma}g(\xi,x)u(\xi)\,d\mu d\xi-\displaystyle\int_{0}^{t}\mathcal{E}_{\mu}(u(\xi),u(\xi))\, d\xi
\leq\,\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\displaystyle\int_{0}^{t} \|f(\xi)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega}}\,d\xi+\displaystyle\frac{1}{4\epsilon} \displaystyle\int_{0}^{t}\|g(\xi)\|^2_{_{2,\Gamma}}\,d\xi

By choosing \epsilon:=\eta/2c_2^2, and letting c':=2\min\{\eta,1\}^{-1}>0, we deduce that
\displaystyle\sup_{\xi\in [0,t]}\displaystyle\int_{\Omega}|u(\xi)|^2 dx+\displaystyle\int_{0}^{t}\|\nabla u(\xi)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega}}\,d\xi+ \displaystyle\int^t_{0}\|u(\xi)\|^2_{_{D(\Lambda_{_{\Gamma}})}}\,d\xi

Since the above inequality holds for all t\in[0,T], by choosing t^{\ast}:=(2c'\gamma+c'+c'\eta)^{-1}>0 and putting c'':=c'\max\{1,c^2_2\eta^{-1}\}>0, we obtain that

for all t\in[0,t^{\ast}]. To complete the proof, given T>0 arbitrary fixed, we can write [0,T]:=\displaystyle\bigcup^m_{j=1}[y_{j-1},y_j] for some m\in\mathbb{N\!}\,, where \displaystyle\max_{1\leq j\leq m}\{y_j-y_{j-1}\}\leq t^{\ast}, y_0=0, and y_m=T. Applying the previous inequality in each of the subintervals [y_{j-1},y_j], we are lead into the fulfillment of (4), as desired.

The proof is a direct modification of [NITTKA2014, Theorem A.2 and Corollary A.3] to the case of irregular domains. However, for the sake of completeness we provide a complete proof here. We begin by observing that since |\Omega_k(t)|\leq|\Omega| and \mu(\Gamma_k(t))\leq\mu(\Gamma), it suffices to consider

for each \xi\in\{1,\ldots,K_1\} and \zeta\in\{1,\ldots,K_2\}, provided that \gamma_0 is replaced by a larger constant \gamma'_0 (depending on r_{1,\xi},  s_{1,\xi},  \theta_{1,\xi},  r_{2,\zeta},  s_{2,\zeta},  \theta_{2,\zeta},  T,  \gamma_0,  |\Omega|, \mu(\Gamma)), since by performing this selection, both inequalities (3) and (3) still hold. Then, given \hat{k}>\hat{k}_0\geq0 fixed, define the sequences \{\varsigma_n\}_{n\geq0},  \{k_n\}_{n\geq0},  \{y_n\}_{n\geq0},  \{z_n\}_{n\geq0} of positive real numbers, by:

and

Clearly \varsigma_n\in[T/2,T] and k_n\geq\hat{k}_0 for each nonnegative integer n. Moreover, it is clear that

so taking into account the definitions of the sequences defined above together with Hölder’s inequality and (?), we calculate and get that
\hat{k}^2y_{n+1}\,\leq\,\left(\displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma_{n+1}}|\Omega_{k_{n+1}}(t)|\,dt\right)^{1/N} \left(\displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma_{n+1}}\left\{\displaystyle\int_{\Omega}\left|u_{k_{n+1}}(t)\right|^{^{\frac{2N}{N-1}}}\,dx\right\}^{^{\frac{N-1}{N}}}dt\right)

where c>0 is a constant that varies from line to line (this will be assumed for the remaining of the proof). In the same way, we get that
4^{-(n+1)}\hat{k}^2z_{n+1}\,=\,(k_{n+1}-k_n)^2z_{n+1}

Now, taking \varsigma=\varsigma_n and \varepsilon=1-\varsigma_{n+1}/\varsigma_n\geq2^{-(n+3)}, we apply the assumption (3) to obtain that

and then combining (Proof), (Proof), and (Proof), we arrive at

for some constant c'>0, where \delta:=1/N. To complete the arguments, we seek estimations for y_0 and z_0. In fact, we easy see that

On the other hand, using (3) and following the approach as in (Proof) and (Proof), we have that
(\hat{k}-\hat{k}_0)^2z_0\,\leq\,\displaystyle\sum^{K_1}_{\xi=1}\left(\displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma_{0}}\left\{\displaystyle\int_{\Omega}|u_{k_0}(t)|^{s_{1,\xi}}\,dx\right\} ^{^{\frac{r_{1,\xi}}{s_{1,\xi}}}}\,dt\right)^{^{\frac{2}{r_{1,\xi}}}}+ \displaystyle\sum^{K_2}_{\zeta=1}\left(\displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma_{0}}\left\{\displaystyle\int_{\Gamma}|u_{k_0}(t)|^{s_{2,\zeta}}\,d\mu\right\} ^{^{\frac{r_{2,\zeta}}{s_{2,\zeta}}}}\,dt\right)^{^{\frac{2}{r_{2,\zeta}}}}

Thus letting

we arrive at

Then, we define

and then choose

Then one sees that

for some constant c^{\star}>0, and moreover the selection implies that

In views of (Proof) and (Proof), we see that the sequences \{y_n\},  \{z_n\} satisfy the conditions of Lemma 1. Thus, applying Lemma 1 for \hat{k} given by (Proof) shows that \displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}z_n=0, and consequently

Combining (Proof) with (Proof), we get that

This gives (3). To complete the proof, assume now that (3) is valid. Then by selecting \varsigma_n:=T in the previous arguments, the proof runs in the exact way as in the previous case. In particular, one has that (Proof) is valid for almost all t\in\displaystyle\bigcap_{n\in\mathbb{N\!}}[-\varsigma_n,0]=[-T,0], leading to the inequality

This completes the proof.

Let u\in C(0,T;L^2(\Omega))\cap L^2(0,T;\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma)) be a weak solution of problem (?). The proof of this result is technical and long, and will be divided into three main steps.
\bullet   Step 1. Assume in addition that u\in C(0,T;L^2(\Omega))\cap L^2(0,T;\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma)) is a classical solution of (?), and that T\leq T_0 for some constant T_0>0 (depending only in N, d, \kappa_1, \kappa_2, p, q, |\Omega|, \mu(\Gamma), and the coefficients of the operators \mathcal{A} and \mathcal{B}). By a linear translation in time, we may assume that problem (?) is solved over [-T,0], with initial value u_0=u(-T). Let u_k(t) be the function given by (?), fix \varsigma\in[-T,0], and select a function \psi\in H^1(-\varsigma,0) such that 0\leq\psi(t)\leq1 for all t\in[-\varsigma,0]. Assume in addition that either \psi(-\varsigma)=0, or \varsigma=T and u_k(-T)=0. Then for each t\in[-\varsigma,0], observe that
\displaystyle\frac{\psi(t)^2}{2}\displaystyle\int_{\Omega_k(t)}|u_k(t)|^2\,dx=\displaystyle\int^t_{-\varsigma} \displaystyle\frac{d}{d\xi}\left(\displaystyle\frac{\psi(\xi)^2}{2}\displaystyle\int_{\Omega_k(\xi)}|u_k(\xi)|^2\,dx\right)d\xi

Now, using the fact that u\in C(0,T;L^2(\Omega))\cap L^2(0,T;\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma)) is a classical solution of (?), we see that

where we recall the definition of the form \mathcal{E}_{\mu}(\cdot,\cdot) in (?). Estimating the right hand side in (Proof) and taking into account Assumptions (A3)’ and (B4)’, we see that
\mathcal{E}_{\mu}(u(\xi),u_k(\xi))\,\geq\,\mathcal{E}_{_{\Omega}}(u_k(\xi),u_k(\xi))+\min\{1,c^{\star}_1\}\mathcal{E}_{_{\Gamma}}(u_k(\xi),u_k(\xi))+

where the constants c^{\star}_m (m\in\{1,2,3\}) and the function \rho are described in condition (B4)’. Recalling (?), we apply Young’s inequality multiple times and use Remark 2(d) to produce the following estimates.
c_0\|\nabla u_k(\xi)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega_k(\xi)}}\,\leq\,\mathcal{E}_{_{\Omega}}(u_k(\xi),u_k(\xi))+\|\hat{\mathfrak{a}}\|_{_{r_1,\Omega}} \|u_k(\xi)\|_{_{\frac{2r_1}{r_1-2},\Omega_k(\xi)}}\|\nabla u_k(\xi)\|_{_{2,\Omega_k(\xi)}}+

for all \epsilon_1>0, for some constant C_{\epsilon^2_1},\,C'_{\epsilon^2_1}>0. Writing C_1:=C_{\epsilon^2_1},  C_2=C'_{\epsilon^2_1}, and

we insert \epsilon_1:=c_0\left(8\max\left\{\|\hat{\mathfrak{a}}\|_{_{r_1,\Omega}},\|\check{\mathfrak{a}}\|_{_{r_2,\Omega}}\right\}\right)^{-1} into (Proof) to get that

Also, recalling that the “Wentzell-type" boundary form (\Lambda_{_{\Gamma}},D(\Lambda_{_{\Gamma}})) is assumed to be weakly coercive, we get the existence of constants c^{\ast}_1>0 and c^{\ast}_2\in\mathbb{R\!}\, such that

It is also easy to see that

and
\displaystyle\int_{\Omega_k(\xi)}f(\xi,x)u_k(\xi)\,dx+\displaystyle\int_{\Gamma_k(\xi)}g(\xi,x)u_k(\xi)\,d\mu

Letting

and

we insert (Proof), (Proof), and (Proof) into (Proof), to deduce that
\mathcal{E}_{\mu}(u(\xi),u_k(\xi))\,\geq\,\displaystyle\frac{c_0}{4}\|\nabla u_k(\xi)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega_k(\xi)}}+ c^{\ast\star}\|u_k(\xi)\|^2_{_{D(\Lambda_{_{\Gamma}})}}

where c^{\ast\star}:=c^{\ast}_1\min\{1,c^{\star}_1\}+c^{\star}_2. Substituting this into (Proof) and recalling (Proof) gives that
\displaystyle\int_{\Omega_k(\xi)}u_k(\xi)\frac{ du_k(\xi)}{d\xi}\,dx\,\leq\,-\displaystyle\frac{c_0}{4}\|\nabla u_k(\xi)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega_k(\xi)}} -c^{\ast\star}\|u_k(\xi)\|^2_{_{D(\Lambda_{_{\Gamma}})}}

From here, we insert (Proof) into (Proof) to get that
\min\left\{\displaystyle\frac{1}{2},\displaystyle\frac{c_0}{4},c^{\ast\star}\right\}\Upsilon^2_{\varsigma}(\psi u_k) \,\leq\,\displaystyle\sup_{-\varsigma\leq t\leq0}\left(\displaystyle\frac{\psi(t)^2}{2}\|u_k(t)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega_k(t)}}\right)+ \frac{c_0}{4}\displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma}\psi(t)^2\|\nabla u_k(t)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega_k(t)}}\,dt\,+\,c^{\ast\star} \displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma}\psi(t)^2\|u_k(t)\|^2_{_{D(\Lambda_{_{\Gamma}})}}\,dt

where L_{\psi'}:=\displaystyle\sup_{-\varsigma\leq t\leq0}|\psi'(t)|. We now seek to estimate the last two terms in (Proof). For this, we choose

where \tilde{\tau}:=2\tau(\tau-1)^{-1} for \tau\in(1,\infty). Then

Put

and apply Hölder’s inequality to deduce that

Now observe that

so using this together with the selection of \theta_1 and (?) entail the existence of a constant T_1=T_1(N,\kappa_1,\theta_1,p,|\Omega|)>0 such that

whenever \varsigma\leq T_1. Also, since \mathfrak{h}\in L^{^{\min\left\{\frac{r_1}{2},r_3\right\}}}(\Omega) and

proceeding in the same way as in the derivation of (Proof), we get the existence of a constant T_2=T_2(N,\min\{r_1/2,\,r_3\},\mathfrak{h},|\Omega|)>0 fulfilling

for \varsigma\leq T_2. Moreover, recalling the selection of \theta_2, and using the fact that \mathfrak{k}\in L^{^{\min\{s,\theta\}}}_{\mu}(\Gamma) with

we proceed in the exact way as above to deduce the existence of positive constants T_3=T_3(N,d,\kappa_2,\theta_2,q,\mu(\Gamma)) and T_4=T_4(N,d,\min\{s,\theta\},\mathfrak{k},\mu(\Gamma)) such that

if \varsigma\leq T_3, and

whenever \varsigma\leq T_4. Letting T_0:=\min\{T_1,T_2,T_3,T_4\}, and taking \varsigma\in(0,T_0] and k\geq\hat{k}_0, we insert (Proof), (Proof), (Proof), and (Proof) into (Proof), to arrive at
\Upsilon^2_{\varsigma}(\psi u_k)\,\leq\,\displaystyle\frac{2}{\min\{1/2,c_0/4,c^{\ast\star}\}}\left\{ L_{\psi'}\displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma}\|u_k(t)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega_k(t)}}\,dt\right.+

Having this, we now produce estimates in the last two integral terms in (Proof). In fact, recalling that k\geq\hat{k}_0 and applying Hölder’s inequality, we see that

Proceeding in the exact way, we find that

and

and

Put

and we choose

A straightforward calculation shows that the parameters \theta_{1,\xi},\,\theta_{2,\zeta},\,r_{1,\xi},\,r_{2,\zeta},\,s_{1,\xi},\,s_{2,\zeta} (\xi,\,\zeta\in\{1,2\}) fulfill (3). Then using all these notations, and substituting (Proof), (Proof), (Proof), and (Proof) into (Proof), we arrive at
\Upsilon^2_{\varsigma}(\psi u)\,\leq\,\mathfrak{c}_1L_{\psi'}\displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma}\|u_k(t)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega_k(t)}}\,dt+

Next, given \varepsilon\in(0,1/2) fixed, choose

Clearly \psi_{\varepsilon}\in H^1(-\varsigma,0) with 0\leq\psi_{\varepsilon}\leq1,  \psi_{\varepsilon}(-\varsigma)=0, and L_{\psi'_{\varepsilon}}:=\displaystyle\sup_{-\varsigma\leq t\leq0}|\psi'_{\varepsilon}(t)|\leq(\varepsilon\varsigma)^{-1}. Moreover, we obtain that

and thus letting \gamma_0:=\max\{\mathfrak{c}_1,\mathfrak{c}_2\} and replacing \psi=\psi_{\varepsilon} in (Proof), we obtain that
\Upsilon^2_{_{(1-\varepsilon)\varsigma}}(u)\,\leq\,\displaystyle \frac{\gamma_0}{\varepsilon\varsigma}\displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma}\|u_k(t)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega_k(t)}}\,dt+

Therefore, (Proof) shows that (3) and all the conditions of Lemma 3 are fulfilled, and thus applying Lemma 3 to both u and -u (the latter one being a weak solution of (?) for f,\,g replaced by -f,\,-g, respectively), we establish (6) in the case T\leq T_0.
\bullet   Step 2. Assume now in addition that u(-T)=u_0=0. Then by choosing \varsigma:=T and and \psi(t):=1 for al t\in[-T,0], equality (Proof) becomes

From here, the calculations follow in the exact way as in the previous step, and in particular (Proof) is transformed into
\min\left\{\displaystyle\frac{1}{2},\displaystyle\frac{c_0}{4},c^{\ast\star}\right\}\Upsilon^2_{_T}(u) \,\leq\,\displaystyle\sup_{-T\leq t\leq0}\left(\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\|u_k(t)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega_k(t)}}\right)+ \frac{c_0}{4}\displaystyle\int^0_{-T}\|\nabla u_k(t)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega_k(t)}}\,dt\,+\,c^{\ast\star} \displaystyle\int^0_{-T}\|u_k(t)\|^2_{_{D(\Lambda_{_{\Gamma}})}}\,dt

Continuing analogously as in the previous case, we arrive a the inequality
\Upsilon^2_{_T}(u)\,\leq\,\gamma_0\displaystyle\int^0_{-T}\|u_k(t)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega_k(t)}}\,dt+

where all the constants and parameters appearing in (Proof) are defined as in the previous step. Consequently, (3) is valid for this case, and another application of Lemma 3 gives (6). This completes the proof of Theorem 6 in the case when the weak solution u\in C(0,T;L^2(\Omega))\cap L^2(0,T;\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma)) of (?) is also a classical solution of (?), and for T\leq T_0.
\bullet   Step 3. We now prove the general case. Since the proof runs in a similar way as in [NITTKA2014, proof of Proposition 3.1], we will only sketch the main ingredients of the proof. Let u\in C(0,T;L^2(\Omega))\cap L^2(0,T;\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma)) be a weak solution of problem (?). Since D(A_{\mu}) is dense in L^2(\Omega), we pick \{u_{0,n}\}\subseteq D(A^2_{\mu}) such that u_{0,n}\stackrel{n\rightarrow\infty}{\longrightarrow}u_0 in L^2(\Omega). We also take sequences \{f_n\}\subseteq C^2([0,T];L^{\infty}(\Omega)) and \{g_n\}\subseteq C^2([0,T];L^{\infty}_{\mu}(\Gamma)) fulfilling f_{n}\stackrel{n\rightarrow\infty}{\longrightarrow}f in L^{\kappa_1}(0,T;L^p(\Omega)) and g_{n}\stackrel{n\rightarrow\infty}{\longrightarrow}g in L^{\kappa_2}(0,T;L^q_{\mu}(\Gamma)), and f_n(0,x)=g_n(0,x)=0 for every n\in\mathbb{N\!}\,. Using f_n,\,g_n as the data functions in problem (?), from an application of Theorem 3, Theorem 5, and Corollary 2, we get that problem (?) (with data f_n,\,g_n) admits a unique classical solution u_n, and u_{n}\stackrel{n\rightarrow\infty}{\longrightarrow}u in C([0,T];L^2(\Omega))\cap L^2(0,T;\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma)). Then, given T>0 arbitrary, put T'_0:=\min\{T_0,T\}>0, for T_0>0 the parameter given in the previous two steps, and let I'\subseteq[T'_0/2,T'_0] be an interval. Then the inequality (6) is valid (over I') for the function u_n (with data f_n,\,g_n), and moreover an application of (6) to the function u_n-u_m (n,\,m\in\mathbb{N\!}\,) shows that \{u_n\} is a Cauchy sequence in L^{\infty}(I';L^{\infty}(\Omega)). Thus u_{n}\stackrel{n\rightarrow\infty}{\longrightarrow}u over L^{\infty}(I';L^{\infty}(\Omega)). Therefore, passing to the limit and using the fact that [T/2,T]\subseteq\displaystyle\bigcup^m_{j=1}I'_i (for some m\in\mathbb{N\!}\,) with \ell(I'_i)\leq L'_0/2, we are lead into the fulfillment of the inequality (6). If in addition u_0=0, then the same procedure is repeated over the inequality (6), and this completes the proof of the theorem.

If u\in C(0,T;L^2(\Omega))\cap L^2(0,T;\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma)) solves (?), then by linearity one can write u(t):=T_{\mu}(t)u_0+\tilde{u}(t), where T_{\mu}(t)u_0 denotes the weak solution of the homogeneous problem (?) for f=g=0 (recall Corollary 2), and \tilde{u}(t) solves (?) for u_0=0. Then an application of (?) together with (6) entail that
\|u\|^2_{_{L^{\infty}(0,T;L^{\infty}(\Omega))}}\,\leq\,2\left(\displaystyle\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\|T_{\mu}(t)u_0\|^2_{_{\infty,\Omega}} +\|\tilde{u}\|^2_{_{L^{\infty}(0,T;L^{\infty}(\Omega))}}\right)

Furthermore, an application of Proposition 4 with Remark 6 and Hölder’s inequality gives that

for some constant c>0. Combining (Proof) and (Proof) yield the inequality (7), as asserted.

If u\in C(0,T;L^2(\Omega))\cap L^2(0,T;\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma)) is a weak solution of (?), then by using the fact that [T_1,T_2]\subseteq\displaystyle\bigcup^m_{j=1}[T^{\ast}_j/2,T^{\ast}_j] with T^{\ast}_1<T^{\ast}_2<\ldots<T^{\ast}_m (for some m\in\mathbb{N\!}\,), and T^{\ast}_1=T_1,  T^{\ast}_m=T_2, one can the full strength of Theorem 6 to get that

Moreover, an application of Proposition 4 with Remark 6 and Hölder’s inequality gives that

for some constant c'>0. Combining (Proof) and (Proof) gives (8), as desired.

The proof runs as in [AR-ELST11, proof of Theorem 3.3] with minor changes, but for the sake of completeness, we spell the details below. Given H:=L^2_{\mu}(\Gamma), consider the bilinear form (a,D(a)) given by: D(a):=H^1(\Omega)\cap C(\overline{\Omega}), and a(v,w):=\gamma\int_{\Omega}\nabla v\nabla w\,dx. Sea j:D(a)\rightarrow L^2_{\mu}(\Gamma), defined by j(u):=u_{_{\Gamma}}. Then j(D(a)) is dense in L^2_{\mu}(\Gamma), and a(\cdot,\cdot) is sectorial (e.g. [AR-ELST12, Lemma 3.1]). Thus, let A be the operator associated with (a,j) in the sense of Theorem 14. We show that A possesses the properties of \mathcal{J}_{_{\Gamma}}. Indeed, let \varphi,\,\psi\in L^2_{\mu}(\Gamma), and assume first that \varphi\in D(A) and A\varphi=\psi. Then one can find a sequence \{u_n\}\subseteq D(a) such that

and

Recalling Remark 2(b), one sees that \{u_n\}\subseteq H^1(\Omega) is a Cauchy sequence, and thus \displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}u_n=u in H^1(\Omega). Moreover, by (Proof) we see that

Taking v\in C^{\infty}_c(\Omega) in (Proof), we see that \Delta u=0, and consequently,

Integrating by parts (in the generalized way), we find that \gamma\displaystyle\frac{\partial u}{\partial\nu_{\mu}}\in L^2_{\mu}(\Gamma) and \gamma\displaystyle\frac{\partial u}{\partial\nu_{\mu}}=\psi, as desired.
Conversely, suppose that there exists u\in H^1(\Omega) fulfilling the conditions in (a), (b), (c) of the theorem. Then by density, there exists \{u_n\}\subseteq D(a) such that \displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}u_n=u in H^1(\Omega) and \displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}u_n|_{_{\Gamma}}=\varphi in L^2_{\mu}(\Gamma). Thus, we have that \displaystyle\lim_{n,\,m\rightarrow\infty}a(u_n-u_m,u_n-u_m)=0, and using the fact that \Delta u=0 together with the definition of \displaystyle\frac{\partial u}{\partial\nu_{\mu}}, we find that

Equality (Proof) shows that \varphi\in D(A) and A\varphi=\psi. In particular, this shows that the operator with the properties of \mathcal{J}_{_{\Gamma}} is well defined, and equals A. This completes the proof of the theorem.

Clearly one has \mathcal{E}_{\mu}(u-\tilde{u},\varphi)=0 for all \varphi\in\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma) (recall the definition of \mathcal{E}_{\mu}(\cdot,\cdot) given in (?)). Moreover, since the (nonlocal) maps are linear, we see that

the same property holds for \Theta_{_{\Gamma}} and \widetilde{\Theta}_{_{\Gamma}}. Using these facts, rearranging, applying Young’s inequality, using the positivity of both \widetilde{\mathcal{J}}_{_{\Omega}},\, \widetilde{\Theta}_{_{\Gamma}}, applying [GES-MITR09, Lemma 4.2 and 4.3] to the L^2-boundary terms, taking into account (?), and using (?) and (?), by selecting \varphi:=u-\tilde{u} one has
\min\{c_0,1\}\|u-\tilde{u}\|^2_{_{\mathcal{W}_2(\Omega;\Gamma)}}

for all \epsilon>0, for some positive constants c,\,C^{\ast}_{\epsilon},\,C'_{\epsilon}, and where the constant \delta^{\ast} is given by (Proof). By selecting \epsilon>0 suitably, from the above calculation we deduce the validity of (16). Furthermore, if any of the conditions in Remark 4 occur, then one gets immediately from the above estimates that (16) is valid, completing the proof.

It suffices to verify this case for the parabolic problem (which is the hardest case). Furthermore, the only key result required to be established is the validity of Theorem 6; in particular, the derivation of the results in the first step of the proof for this particular case. Select in this case

where we recall that \eta_{\tilde{q}}:=1-(N-d)/\tilde{q}. Then, for k\geq\hat{k}_0, after a verification of the behavior of the nonlocal integral representations for (\mathcal{J}^{_{B}}_{_{\Omega}}\tilde{f}(t,x))u_k and (\Theta^{_{B}}_{_{\Gamma}}\tilde{g}(t,x))u_k, proceeding in the exact way as in the proof of the first step in the proof, we arrive at the following inequality:
\Upsilon^2_{\varsigma}(\psi u_k)\,\leq\,c\left\{L_{\psi'}\displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma}\|u_k(t)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega_k(t)}}\,dt\right.+
+k^2\left(\displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma}\left(\displaystyle\int_{\Omega_k(t)} \int_{\Omega_k(t)}\frac{|\tilde{f}(t,x)-\tilde{f}(t,y)|^2}{k^2|x-y|^{2\mathfrak{s}+2N/\tilde{p}}}\,dxdy+\right.\right.

\,\,\,\,\,+\displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma}\left( \displaystyle\int_{\Gamma_k(t)}\int_{\Gamma_k(t)}\frac{|\tilde{g}(t,x)-\tilde{g}(t,y)|^2}{k^2|x-y|^{2+(4d-2N)/\tilde{q}}}\,d\mu_xd\mu_y+\right.

for some constant c>0 (which can vary from line to line), where as before L_{\psi'}:=\displaystyle\sup_{-\varsigma\leq t\leq0}|\psi'(t)|. Estimating the nonlocal-type data terms, we calculate and obtain that
\displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma}\left\{\displaystyle\int_{\Omega_k(t)}\int_{\Omega_k(t)}\frac{|\tilde{f}(t,x)-\tilde{f}(t,y)|^2}{k^2|x-y|^{2\mathfrak{s}+2N/\tilde{p}}}\,dxdy+ \displaystyle\int_{\Omega_k(t)}\int_{\Omega\setminus\Omega_k(t)}\frac{|\tilde{f}(t,x)-\tilde{f}(t,y)|^2}{k^2|x-y|^{2\mathfrak{s}+2N/\tilde{p}}}\,dxdy+\right.

and
\displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma}\left\{\displaystyle\int_{\Gamma_k(t)}\int_{\Gamma_k(t)}\frac{|\tilde{g}(t,x)-\tilde{g}(t,y)|^2}{k^2|x-y|^{2+(4d-2N)/\tilde{q}}}\,d\mu_xd\mu_y+ \displaystyle\int_{\Gamma_k(t)}\int_{\Gamma\setminus\Gamma_k(t)}\frac{|\tilde{g}(t,x)-\tilde{g}(t,y)|^2}{k^2|x-y|^{2+(4d-2N)/\tilde{q}}}\,d\mu_xd\mu_y+\right.

where \breve{\tau'}:=2\tau'(\tau'-2)^{-1} for \tau'\in(2,\infty). Then letting

we get that
\Upsilon^2_{\varsigma}(\psi u_k)\,\leq\,cL_{\psi'}\displaystyle\int^0_{-\varsigma}\|u_k(t)\|^2_{_{2,\Omega_k(t)}}\,dt+

From here, we proceed exactly as in the proof of the first step in Theorem 6, and the rest of the proofs run unchanged. This is all what we need to verify, so we are done.