Analysis of heat equations on domains

ANALYSIS OF HEAT EQUATIONS ON DOMAINS

El Maati Ouhabaz

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON AND OXFORD

Copyright 2005 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 3 Market Place, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1SY All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Control Number: 2004103591 ISBN: 0-691-12016-1

British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available

This book has been composed in LaTex The publisher would like to acknowledge the author of this volume for providing the camera-ready copy from which this book was printed. Printed on acid-free paper. pup.princeton.edu Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A mes parents, A Zahra, Nora et Ilias

Contents

Preface

ix

Notation

xiii

Chapter 1. SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Bounded sesquilinear forms Unbounded sesquilinear forms and their associated operators Semigroups and unbounded operators Semigroups associated with sesquilinear forms Correspondence between forms, operators, and semigroups

Chapter 2. CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Invariance of closed convex sets Positive and Lp -contractive semigroups Domination of semigroups Operations on the form-domain Semigroups acting on vector-valued functions Sesquilinear forms with nondense domains

Chapter 3. INEQUALITIES FOR SUB-MARKOVIAN SEMIGROUPS 3.1 3.2 3.3

Sub-Markovian semigroups and Kato type inequalities Further inequalities and the corresponding domain in Lp Lp -holomorphy of sub-Markovian semigroups

Chapter 4. UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

Examples of boundary conditions Positivity and irreducibility L∞ -contractivity The conservation property Domination Lp -contractivity for 1 < p < ∞ Operators with unbounded coefficients

Chapter 5. DEGENERATE-ELLIPTIC OPERATORS 5.1 5.2

Symmetric degenerate-elliptic operators Operators with terms of order 1

1 1 3 18 29 38 43 44 49 58 64 68 74 79 79 88 95 99 99 103 107 120 125 134 137 143 144 145

viii

CONTENTS

Chapter 6. GAUSSIAN UPPER BOUNDS FOR HEAT KERNELS 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6

Heat kernel bounds, Sobolev, Nash, and Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities H¨older-continuity estimates of the heat kernel Gaussian upper bounds Sharper Gaussian upper bounds Gaussian bounds for complex time and Lp -analyticity Weighted gradient estimates

Chapter 7. GAUSSIAN UPPER BOUNDS AND Lp -SPECTRAL THEORY 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8

p

L -bounds and holomorphy Lp -spectral independence Riesz means and regularization of the Schr¨odinger group Lp -estimates for wave equations Singular integral operators on irregular domains Spectral multipliers Riesz transforms associated with uniformly elliptic operators Gaussian lower bounds

Chapter 8. A REVIEW OF THE KATO SQUARE ROOT PROBLEM 8.1 8.2 8.3

The problem in the abstract setting The Kato square root problem for elliptic operators Some consequences

155 155 160 163 174 180 185 193 196 204 208 214 228 235 240 245 253 253 257 261

Bibliography

265

Index

283

Preface

The influence of the theory of linear evolution equations upon developments in other branches of mathematics, as well as physical sciences, would be hard to exaggerate. The theory has a rich interplay with other subjects in functional analysis, stochastic analysis and mathematical physics. Of particular interest are evolution equations associated with second-order elliptic operators in divergence form. Such equations arise in many models of physical phenomena; the classical heat equation is a prototype example. They are also of interest for nonlinear analysis; the proof of existence of local solutions to many nonlinear partial differential equations uses linear theory. The theory for self-adjoint second-order elliptic operators is well documented, and there is an increasing interest in the non-self-adjoint case. It is one of the aims of the present book to give a systematic study of Lp theory of evolution equations associated with non-self-adjoint operators “ X X ∂ ’ ∂ ∂ ∂ A=− bk akj + + (ck .) + a0 . ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk ∂xk k,j

k

We consider operators with bounded measurable coefficients on arbitrary domains of Euclidean space. The sesquilinear form technique provides the right tool to define such operators, and associates them with analytic semigroups on L2 . We are interested in obtaining contractivity properties of these semigroups as well as Gaussian upper bounds on their associated heat kernels. Gaussian upper bounds are then used to prove several results in the Lp -spectral theory. A special feature of the present book is that several important properties of semigroups are characterized in terms of verifiable inequalities concerning their sesquilinear forms. The operators under consideration are subject to various boundary conditions and do not need to be self-adjoint. We also consider second-order elliptic operators with possibly complex-valued coefficients. Such operators have attracted attention in recent years as their associated heat kernels do not have the same properties as those of their analogues with real-valued coefficients. This book is also motivated by new developments and applications of Gaussian upper bounds to spectral theory. A large number of the results given here have been proved during the last

x

PREFACE

decade. The approach using sesquilinear form techniques avoids heavy use of sophisticated results from the theory of partial differential equations or Sobolev embedding properties for which smoothness of the boundary is required. On the other hand, as we consider heat equations on arbitrary domains, we shall not address regularity properties (with respect to the space variable) of their solutions. This book is for researchers and graduate students who require an introductory text to sesquilinear form technique, semigroups generated by second-order elliptic operators in divergence form, heat kernel bounds, and their applications. It should also be of value for mathematical physicists. We tried to keep the text self-contained and most of the material needed is introduced here. A few standard results are stated without proofs, but we provide the reader with several references. We now give an outline of the content of each chapter. Chapter 1 is devoted to sesquilinear forms and their associated operators and semigroups. It provides the necessary background from functional analysis and evolution equations. Most of the material on sesquilinear forms is known, but our presentation differs from that in other books on this topic. We give a systematic account on the interplay between forms, operators, and semigroups. Chapter 2 is devoted to contractivity properties of semigroups associated with sesquilinear forms. We give criteria in terms of forms for positivity, irreducibility, L∞ -contractivity, and domination of semigroups. These criteria are obtained as simple consequences of a result on invariance of closed convex sets under the action of the semigroup (see Theorems 2.2 and 2.3). We also include a section on semigroups acting on vector-valued functions. All the results in this chapter are in the spirit of the famous Beurling-Deny criteria for sub-Markovian semigroups. Chapter 3 contains Kato type inequalities for generators of sub-Markovian semigroups. For symmetric subMarkovian semigroups, a partial description of the domain of the corresponding generator in Lp is given. Chapter 4 is devoted to uniformly elliptic operators of type A as above. We discuss some examples of boundary conditions and apply the criteria of Chapter 2 to describe precisely, in terms of the boundary conditions and the coefficients, when the semigroup generated by −A is positive, irreducible, or Lp -contractive. Chapter 2 also gives the right tools to compare (in the pointwise sense) semigroups associated with two different divergence form operators. Some results are extended in Chapter 5 to the case of degenerate-elliptic operators. Gaussian upper bounds for heat kernels of uniformly elliptic operators are proved in Chapter 6. We prove sharp bounds for operators with real-valued symmetric principal coefficients akj . Gaussian upper bounds are derived from Lp -contractivity results together with a well-known perturbation argument due to E.B. Davies.

PREFACE

xi

We also derive bounds for the time derivatives as well as weighted gradient estimates for heat kernels. In Chapter 7, we use Gaussian upper bounds to prove several spectral properties. This includes Lp -analyticity of the semigroup, p-independence of the spectrum, Lp -estimates for Schr¨odinger and wave type equations. Although the book is devoted to uniformly elliptic operators on domains of Euclidean space, this chapter is written in a general setting of abstract operators on domains of metric spaces. The framework includes uniformly elliptic operators on domains of Euclidean space or more general Riemannian manifolds, sub-Laplacians on Lie groups, or Laplacians on fractals. In the last chapter we review the Kato square root problem for uniformly elliptic operators. We include at the end of each chapter a section of notes where the reader can find references to the literature and supplementary information. Acknowledgments: I wish to express my hearty thanks to the many colleagues and friends who have contributed to my understanding of the subject of this book. I want to thank Wolfgang Arendt, Pascal Auscher, Sonke Blunck, Thierry Coulhon, Brian Davies, Xuan Thinh Duong, Alan McIntosh, and Rainer Nagel for their help and encouragement. I’m grateful to Philippe Depouilly for his unstinting help with the many tasks involved in typing the manuscript.

Notation

Cc (Ω): The space of continuous functions with compact support in Ω. Cc∞ (Ω): The space of C ∞ -functions with compact support in Ω. (Cc∞ (Ω))0 : The space of distributions on Ω. supp(u): The support of the function u. Σ(ψ) := {z ∈ C, z 6= 0, | arg z| < ψ}, C+ := Σ( π2 ).

u+ := sup(u, 0) the positive part of u, u− := sup(−u, 0) the negative part. f ∧ g := inf(f, g), f ∨ g := sup(f, g). ( u(x) 6 0, |u(x)| if u(x) = sign u(x) = 0 if u(x) = 0. < : Real part, =: Imaginary part.

χΩ : Characteristic function of Ω.

Lp (X, µ, K): The classical Lebesgue spaces of functions with values in K. k.kp : The norm of Lp (X, µ, K). dx: Lebesgue measure. W s,p : Sobolev spaces. H 1 (Ω) := W 1,2 (Ω), H01 (Ω) is the closure of Cc∞ (Ω) in H 1 (Ω). Di :=

∂ ∂xi

and ∆ =

∂2 ∂x21

+ ··· +

∂2 ∂xd2

is the Laplacian.

L(E, F ): The space of bounded linear operators from E into F. L(E) := L(E, E). kT kL(E,F ) : The operator norm of T in L(E, F ).

ρ(A): Resolvent set of the operator A. σ(A): Spectrum of A.

Chapter One SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

1.1 BOUNDED SESQUILINEAR FORMS

Let H be a Hilbert space over K = C or R. We denote by (.; .) the inner product of H and by k.k the corresponding norm. Let a be a sesquilinear form on H, i.e., a is an application from H × H into K such that for every α ∈ K and u, v, h ∈ H : a(αu + v, h) = αa(u, h) + a(v, h) and a(u, αv + h) = αa(u, v) + a(u, h). (1.1) Here α denotes the conjugate number of α. Of course, α = α if K = R and in this case the form a is then bilinear. For simplicity, we will not distinguish the two cases K = R and K = C. We will use the sesquilinear term in both cases and also write conjugate, real part, imaginary part, and so forth of elements in K as if we had K = C. These quantities have their obvious meaning if K = R. D EFINITION 1.1 A sesquilinear form a : H × H → K is continuous if there exists a constant M such that |a(u, v)| ≤ M kukkvk f or all u, v ∈ H. Every continuous form can be represented by a unique bounded linear operator. More precisely, P ROPOSITION 1.2 Assume that a : H × H → K is a continuous sesquilinear form. There exists a unique bounded linear operator T acting on H such that a(u, v) = (T u; v) f or all u, v ∈ H. Proof. Fix u ∈ H and consider the linear continuous functional φ(v) := a(u, v), v ∈ H.

2

CHAPTER 1

By the Riesz representation theorem, there exists a unique vector T u ∈ H, such that φ(v) = (v; T u) for all v ∈ H. The fact that T is a linear and continuous operator on H follows easily from the linearity and continuity of the form a. The uniqueness of T is obvious. 2 The bounded operator T is the operator associated with the form a. One can study the invertibility of T (or its adjoint T ∗ ) using the form. More precisely, the following basic result holds. L EMMA 1.3 (Lax-Milgram) Let a be a continuous sesquilinear form on H. Assume that a is coercive, that is, there exists a constant δ > 0 such that
Proof. It suffices to prove that the adjoint operator T ∗ is invertible on H. Indeed, by the Riesz representation theorem, there exists a unique g ∈ H such that φ(u) = (u; g) for all u ∈ H,

and hence by writing g = T ∗ v for some v ∈ H, it follows that

φ(u) = (u; T ∗ v) = (T u; v) = a(u, v) for all u ∈ H.

Now we prove that T ∗ is invertible. Let v ∈ H be such that T ∗ v = 0. Thus, 0 = (v; T ∗ v) = (T v; v) =
Hence v = 0 and so T ∗ is injective. It remains to show that T ∗ has range R(T ∗ ) = H. We first prove that R(T ∗ ) is dense. If u ∈ H is such that (u; T ∗ v) = 0 for all v ∈ H,

then by taking v = u and using again the coercivity assumption, we obtain u = 0. Finally, we prove that R(T ∗ ) is closed. For this, let vk = T ∗ uk be a sequence which converges to v in H. We have δkuk − uj k2 ≤
SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

3

From this, it follows that (uk )k is a Cauchy sequence and hence it converges in H. If u denotes the limit, then v = T ∗ u by continuity of T ∗ . This proves 2 that R(T ∗ ) is closed. 1.2 UNBOUNDED SESQUILINEAR FORMS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED OPERATORS 1.2.1 Closed and closable forms

In this section, we consider sesquilinear forms which do not act on the whole space H, but only on subspaces of H. These forms are unbounded sesquilinear forms. They play an important role in the study of elliptic or parabolic equations (cf. Chapters 4 and 5). We will say, for simplicity, sesquilinear forms rather than “unbounded sesquilinear forms.” Let H be as in the previous section and consider a sesquilinear form a defined on a linear subspace D(a) of H, called the domain of a. That is, a : D(a) × D(a) → K is a map which satisfies (1.1) for u, v, h ∈ D(a).

D EFINITION 1.4 Let a : D(a) × D(a) → K be a sesquilinear form. We say that: 1) a is densely defined if D(a) is dense in H.

(1.2)


(1.3)

2) a is accretive if

3) a is continuous if there exists a non-negative constant M such that |a(u, v)| ≤ M kuka kvka f or all u, v ∈ D(a) p where kuka :=
(1.4)

(1.5)

If a satisfies (1.2)−(1.5), one checks easily that k.ka is a norm on D(a). It is called the norm associated with the form a. D EFINITION 1.5 Let a be a sesquilinear form on H. The adjoint form of a is the sesquilinear form a∗ defined by: a∗ (u, v) := a(v, u) with domain D(a∗ ) = D(a).

4

CHAPTER 1

The symmetric part of a is defined by 1 b := (a + a∗ ), D(b) = D(a). 2 We say that a is a symmetric form if a∗ = a, that is, a(u, v) = a(v, u) f or all u, v ∈ D(a). Let a be a sesquilinear form which satisfies (1.2)−(1.5). Then D(a) is a Hilbert space. The inner product is given by 1 (u; v)a := [a(u, v) + a∗ (u, v)] + (u; v) for all u, v ∈ D(a). 2 The norm k.ka is the same as k.kb , where b is the symmetric part of a. On a complex Hilbert space H, every sesquilinear form a can be written in terms of symmetric forms b and c as follows: a = b + ic, D(a) = D(b) = D(c).

(1.6)

1 It suffices indeed to take b := 12 (a+a∗ ) and c := 2i (a−a∗ ). In this way, the symmetric part b is seen as the real part of the form a and c as the imaginary part. In the present chapter we will consider only accretive forms (i.e., forms that satisfy (1.3)). We could instead consider forms that are merely bounded from below, that is,


5

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

P ROPOSITION 1.6 Let a : H × H → K be a closed accretive sesquilinear form. Then the norms k.k and k.ka are equivalent on H. Proof. We have for every u ∈ H kuk ≤ kuka = [kuk2 +
This shows that the two norms are equivalent.

A stronger assumption than continuity is sectoriality, which we introduce in the following definition. D EFINITION 1.7 A sesquilinear form a : D(a) × D(a) → C, acting on a complex Hilbert space H, is called sectorial if there exists a non-negative constant C, such that |=a(u, u)| ≤ C
(1.7)

The numerical range of a is the set N (a) := {a(u, u), u ∈ D(a) with kuk = 1}.

(1.8)

Clearly, a satisfies (1.7) if and only if the numerical range N (a) is contained in the closed sector {z ∈ C, | arg z| ≤ arctan C}. P ROPOSITION 1.8 Every sectorial form acting on a complex Hilbert space H is continuous. More precisely, if |=a(u, u)| ≤ C
6

CHAPTER 1

The sectoriality assumption gives C [b(u + v, u + v) + b(u − v, u − v)] 4 C = [b(u, u) + b(v, v)]. 2

|c(u, v)| ≤

Replacing u by

√

εu in the last estimate gives ” • C √ 1 |c(u, v)| ≤ εb(u, u) + √ b(v, v) . 2 ε

6 0, we choose ε = If b(u, u) =

b(v,v) b(u,u)

and obtain

|c(u, v)| ≤ Cb(u, u)1/2 b(v, v)1/2 = C(
If b(u, u) = 0, then c(u, v) ≤ C2 b(v, v). Replacing v by λv for λ > 0 and letting λ → 0, one obtains c(u, v) = 0, which gives again the desired 2 conclusion. A converse to Proposition 1.8 is given by the following simple lemma. L EMMA 1.9 If a is an accretive and continuous sesquilinear form on a complex Hilbert space H, then 1 + a is sectorial. More precisely, if a satisfies (1.4) with some constant M , then |=[(u; u) + a(u, u)]| ≤ M <[(u; u) + a(u, u)] f or all u ∈ D(a) Proof. The lemma follows immediately from |=[(u; u) + a(u, u)]| = |=a(u, u)| ≤ |a(u, u)| and the continuity assumption (1.4).

2

Note that the continuity assumption of the form a is sometimes written in the following way: |a(u, v)| ≤ M 0 [
for some constants w and M 0 . It is clear that the norms [
7

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

A closed extension, when it exists, is not unique in general.1 Nevertheless, in that case, one can define the smallest closed extension a. It is tempting to define a as follows: D(a) := {u ∈ H s.t. ∃un ∈ D(a) : un → u (in H) and a(un − um , un − um ) → 0 as n, m → ∞} and a(u, v) := lim a(un , vn ) n→∞

(1.9)

for u, v ∈ D(a), where (un )n and (vn )n are any sequences of elements of D(a) which converge respectively to u and v (with respect to the norm of H) and satisfy a(un − um , un − um ) → 0 and a(vn − vm , vn − vm ) → 0 as n, m → ∞. P ROPOSITION 1.11 Let a be a densely defined, accretive, and continuous sesquilinear form. If a is closable, then a is well defined and satisfies (1.2)−(1.5). In addition, every closed extension of a is also an extension of a. Proof. Fix two sequences (un )n and (vn )n of elements of D(a) which converge for the norm of H and satisfy a(un − um , un − um ) → 0 and a(vn − vm , vn − vm ) → 0 as n, m → ∞. In order to see that lim a(un , vn ) n→∞ exists, we write using the continuity assumption (1.4): |a(un , vn ) − a(um , vm )| = |a(un − um , vn ) + a(um , vn − vm )| ≤ M kun − um ka kvn ka + M kvn − vm ka kum ka . Since kun − um ka and kvn − vm ka → 0 as n, m → ∞, the sequences (kun ka )n and (kvn ka )n are bounded. It follows from the previous inequality that a(un , vn ) is a Cauchy sequence, thus it is convergent. The fact that lim a(un , vn ) is independent of the chosen sequences (un )n n→∞

and (vn )n follows by a similar argument. Indeed, if (u0n )n and (vn0 )n satisfy the same properties as (un )n and (vn )n , then |a(un , vn ) − a(u0n , vn0 )| = |a(un − un0 , vn ) + a(u0n , vn − vn0 )| ≤ M kun − u0n ka kvn ka + M kvn − vn0 ka kun0 ka .

Now, if a1 is a closed extension of a then kun − un0 ka = kun − u0n ka1 → 0 as n → ∞, since (un )n and (u0n )n converge to the same limit in the Hilbert R d d A simple example is given by the form a(u, v) = (0,1) dx u dx vdx, D(a) = Cc∞ (0, 1). 1 The same expression with domains the Sobolev spaces H0 (0, 1) and H 1 (0, 1) gives two different closed extensions. See Chapter 4 for more examples. 1

8

CHAPTER 1

space (D(a1 ), k.ka1 ). Applying the same argument to kvn −vn0 ka , we obtain |a(un , vn ) − a(u0n , vn0 )| → 0 as n → ∞. By construction, D(a) is dense in (D(a), k.ka ) and hence (1.2)−(1.4) hold for the form a. This density shows also that every closed extension of a is an extension of a. Finally, we show that a is closed. Let (un )n ∈ D(a) be a Cauchy sequence for the norm of a. It converges with respect to the norm of H to some u ∈ H. It follows from the definition of a that u ∈ D(a). In addition, a(un − u, un − u) = lim a(un − um , un − um ). m

Thus, lim a(un − u, un − u) = 0, n

which means that the sequence (un )n is convergent in (D(a), k.ka ). This together with the density of D(a) in (D(a), k.ka ) show that a is a closed 2 form. D EFINITION 1.12 If the form a is closable, then a defined by (1.9) with domain D(a) is called the closure of the form a. Remark. 1) The proof of Proposition 1.11 shows that if a is any sesquilinear form satisfying (1.2)−(1.4) and (un )n , (vn )n are convergent sequences in H, such that a(un − um , un − um ) and a(vn − vm , vn − vm ) → 0 as n, m → ∞, then the limit in the right-hand side of (1.9) exists. In addition, if a is closed then this limit is a(u, v), where u and v are the limits in H of (un )n and (vn )n , respectively. 2) It follows also from the same proof that if a is a sesquilinear form satisfying (1.2)−(1.4), then the form a is closed whenever it is well defined (i.e., the limit in the right-hand side of (1.9) does not depend on the chosen sequences (un )n and (vn )n ). P ROPOSITION 1.13 Let a be a densely defined, accretive, and continuous sesquilinear form. Then a is closable if and only if it satisfies the following property: If (un )n ∈ D(a), un → 0 in H and a(un − um , un − um ) → 0 (as n, m → ∞), then a(un , un ) → 0 as n → ∞. Proof. Assume that a is closable and let a1 be a closed extension. If un → 0 in H and a(un − um , un − um ) → 0, then (un )n converges to 0 in (D(a1 ), k.ka1 ). The above proposition (or the above Remark 1)) implies that a(un , un ) = a1 (un , un ) → 0.

9

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

Now we prove the converse. We construct a closed extension by taking the completion of D(a) with respect to the norm k.ka . That is, we prove that the form a given by (1.9) with domain D(a) is well defined (by Remark 2) above, a will be a closed extension of a). As mentioned in Remark 1) above, the limit in the right-hand side of (1.9) exists. It remains to prove that the limit is independent of the chosen sequences (un )n and (vn )n . Let (u0n )n and (vn0 )n be two other sequences satisfying un0 → u, vn0 → v in H and 0 k → 0 as n, m → ∞. We write again ku0n − u0m ka , kvn0 − vm a |a(un , vn ) − a(u0n , vn0 )| = |a(un − u0n , vn ) + a(u0n , vn − vn0 )| ≤ M kun − u0n ka kvn ka + M kvn − vn0 ka ku0n ka . The sequence wn := un − u0n satisfies wn → 0 in H and 0 kwn − wm ka ≤ kun − um ka + ku0n − um ka → 0 as n, m → ∞.

By assumption, this implies a(wn , wn ) → 0 as n → ∞. The same argument 2 applies to vn − vn0 . Hence, |a(un , vn ) − a(u0n , vn0 )| → 0 as n → ∞. Lemma 1.29 below guarantees the closability for a class of sesquilinear forms. There are several examples of sesquilinear forms which are not closable. Example 1.2.1 Consider on L2 (R) (endowed with the Lebesgue measure dx) the symmetric form a(u, v) = u(0)v(0), D(a) = Cc (R),

(1.10)

where Cc (R) is the space of continuous and compactly supported functions on R. Then a is densely defined, symmetric, and non-negative but not closable. Indeed, choose a sequence (un )n ∈ Cc (R) such that un (0) = 1 for all n and such that un → 0 in L2 (R). Thus, a(un − um , un − um ) = 0 and un → 0 in L2 (R) but a(un , un ) = 1 for all n. Proposition 1.13 shows that a is not closable. Example 1.2.2 Consider now on the real space L2 (R) (endowed again with the Lebesgue measure dx) the form Z du (1.11) (x)v(x)dx, D(a) = H 1 (R). a(u, v) = dx R The form a is not closable. Otherwise, the fact that a(u, u) = 0 for all u ∈ H 1 (R) implies that D(a) = L2 (R) and one deduces from Proposition 1.2 that there exists a bounded linear operator T on L2 (R) such that a(u, v) = (T u; v) for all u, v ∈ H 1 (R). This is not possible since T u = du dx for u ∈ H 1 (R) and T cannot be extended to a bounded operator on L2 (R).

10

CHAPTER 1

Example 1.2.2 shows also that the conclusion of Proposition 1.13 cannot hold if the form is not continuous. D EFINITION 1.14 Let a be a densely defined accretive sesquilinear form on H. A linear subspace D of D(a) is called a core of a if D is dense in D(a) endowed with the norm k.ka . Let D be a linear subspace of D(a). The restriction of a to D is the form a|D , defined by a|D (u, v) = a(u, v), D(a|D ) = D. A relationship between closability and the notion of core is given by the following. P ROPOSITION 1.15 Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form. Denote by D a linear subspace of D(a). Then D is a core of a if and only if the closure of a|D is a, i.e., a|D = a. Proof. The form a is a closed extension of a|D , hence it is an extension of a|D . Assume that D is a core of a and let u ∈ D(a). There exists a sequence (un ) ∈ D such that kun − uka → 0 as n → ∞. Hence, (un ) converges to u in H and a(un − um , un − um ) → 0 as n, m → ∞. This shows that u ∈ D(a|D ). Therefore a|D = a. Conversely, assume that a|D = a and let u ∈ D(a) = D(a|D ). It follows from the definition of the closure that there exists a sequence (un ) in D which converges in H to u and such that a|D (un − um , un − um ) → 0 as n, m → ∞. This means that (un ) converges to u with respect to the norm k.ka , which shows that D is a core of a. 2 1.2.2 Perturbation of sesquilinear forms

In this section, we study perturbations of forms. The main questions concern closability and continuity of the sum of two sesquilinear forms. The sum a + b of two sesquilinear forms a and b on H is defined by [a + b](u, v) := a(u, v) + b(u, v), D(a + b) = D(a) ∩ D(b). T HEOREM 1.16 Let a and b be two accretive sesquilinear forms on H. Then the sum a + b is accretive. In addition, 1) If a and b are continuous, then so is a + b. 2) If a and b are closed, then so is a + b. 3) If a and b are closable, then so is a + b.

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

11

Proof. The accretivity of the sum as well as assertion 1) are obvious. Assume that a and b are closed. Let (un )n ∈ D(a) ∩ D(b) be a Cauchy sequence for the norm k.ka+b . The inequalities k.ka ≤ k.ka+b and k.kb ≤ k.ka+b imply that (un )n is a Cauchy sequence for the norms k.ka and for k.kb . It follows that (un )n converges both in (D(a), k.ka ) and (D(b), k.kb ). The limit in both spaces is the same since the convergence in each space implies the convergence in H. The limit belongs then to D(a) ∩ D(b). The inequality k.ka+b ≤ k.ka + k.kb implies that (un )n converges with respect to the norm k.ka+b . Hence, a + b is closed. If both forms a and b are closable, then the sum of their closures a + b is a closed form by assertion 2). Thus, a + b is a closed extension of a + b. The latter is then a closable form, its closure a + b is a restriction of a + b. 2 D EFINITION 1.17 Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form on H. A sesquilinear form a0 with domain D(a0 ) is a-form bounded if D(a) ⊆ D(a0 ) and there exist non-negative constants α and β such that |a0 (u, u)| ≤ α|a(u, u)| + βkuk2 f or all u ∈ D(a).

(1.12)

The infimum of all possible constants α for which the inequality holds is called the a-bound of a0 . Under closability assumptions on the forms, a0 is a-bounded as soon as D(a) ⊆ D(a0 ). More precisely,

P ROPOSITION 1.18 Let a and a0 be accretive and continuous forms. Assume that a is closed, a0 is closable, and D(a) ⊆ D(a0 ). Then a0 is abounded. Proof. Since the form a0 is closable, its restriction to D(a), a0|D(a) : D(a) × D(a) → K is also closable. Thus, a0|D(a) is a closable form acting on the Hilbert space (D(a), k.ka ). Its closure (as a form on (D(a), k.ka )) is itself. By Proposition 1.6, there exists a non-negative constant M such that for all u ∈ D(a) |a0 (u, u)| ≤ M kuk2a = M [kuk2 +
This proves that a0 is a-bounded.

2

Assume that a is an accretive and continuous sesquilinear form. Denote by b := 12 [a + a∗ ] the symmetric part of a. Recall that b(u, u) =
12

CHAPTER 1

It follows from this that a form a0 is a-bounded if and only if it is b-bounded. The next theorem shows that continuity and closability properties carry over from a form a to a + a0 provided the form a0 is a-bounded with small bound. T HEOREM 1.19 Let a be an accretive and continuous sesquilinear form on a complex Hilbert space H. Assume that a0 is a sesquilinear form such that D(a) ⊆ D(a0 ) and |a0 (u, u)| ≤ α
(1.13)

where α, β are non-negative constants with α < 1. Then the form sum t := a+a0 +β with domain D(t) = D(a) is accretive and continuous. Moreover, 1) t is closed if and only if a is closed. 2) t is closable if and only if a is closable. Proof. The domain of t is D(a), since D(a) ⊆ D(a0 ). By (1.13) and the fact that α < 1, we have for u ∈ D(a),
Thus, t is accretive. Using the continuity of a, we obtain by Lemma 1.9 and (1.13) |=t(u, u)| ≤ |=a(u, u)| + |=a0 (u, u)| ≤ α
SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

13

P ROPOSITION 1.20 Let a and a0 be two accretive and continuous sesquilinear forms on a Hilbert space H. Assume that D(a) = D(a0 ) and the norms k.ka and k.ka0 are equivalent. Then 1) a is closed if and only if a0 is closed. 2) a is closable if and only if a0 is closable. 1.2.3 Associated operator

Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form on H. One can define in terms of a an unbounded operator A, defined on a linear subspace D(A) of H as follows: u ∈ D(a) is in the domain D(A) of A, if and only if there exists v ∈ H such that the equality a(u, φ) = (v; φ) holds for all φ ∈ D(a). We then set Au := v. We rewrite this as D(A) = {u ∈ H s.t. ∃v ∈ H : a(u, φ) = (v; φ) ∀φ ∈ D(a)}, Au := v. Observe also that D(A) is the set of vectors u ∈ D(a) for which the mapping φ 7→ a(u, φ) is continuous on D(a) with respect to the norm of H. D EFINITION 1.21 The linear operator A, defined above, is called the operator associated with the form a. There are several important properties of operators which are associated with sesquilinear forms. We start with the following result. P ROPOSITION 1.22 Denote by A the operator associated with a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form a. Then A is densely defined and for every λ > 0, the operator λI + A is invertible (from D(A) into H) and its inverse (λI + A)−1 is a bounded operator on H (here I is the identity operator). In addition, kλ(λI + A)−1 f k ≤ kf k f or all λ > 0, f ∈ H. Proof. Fix λ > 0 and put kukλ :=

p
The norm k.kλ is equivalent to the norm k.ka and hence V := (D(a), k.kλ ) is a Hilbert space. It follows from (1.4) that the form λ + a∗ (defined by (λ + a∗ )(u, v) = λ(u; v) + a∗ (u, v)) is bounded on V. It is in addition coercive on V.

14

CHAPTER 1

Let f ∈ H and define φ(v) := (v; f ), v ∈ V. Clearly, φ is a linear continuous functional on V. Thus by Lemma 1.3, there exists a unique u ∈ V such that φ(v) = a∗ (v, u) + λ(v; u) = a(u, v) + λ(v; u) for all v ∈ V. It follows from this and the definition of A that u ∈ D(A) and (λI + A)u = f. Thus, λI + A has range R(λI + A) = H. The accretivity assumption (1.3) implies easily that λI + A is injective and hence invertible. Let now f ∈ H and let u ∈ D(A) be such that (λI + A)u = f. Taking the inner product with u, and using <(Au; u) =
15

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

A symmetric operator B is an operator such that D(B) ⊆ D(B ∗ ) and Bu = B ∗ u for all u ∈ D(B). The operator B is self-adjoint if B ∗ = B. This means that D(B) = D(B ∗ ) and Bu = B ∗ u for all u ∈ D(B). P ROPOSITION 1.24 The operator associated with a∗ is A∗ . In particular, if a is symmetric then A is self-adjoint. Proof. Denote by B the operator associated with a∗ and let u ∈ D(B). By definition, a∗ (u, φ) = (Bu; φ) for all φ ∈ D(a∗ ) = D(a). Hence (Bu; φ) = a∗ (u, φ) = a(φ, u) = (Aφ; u) for all φ ∈ D(A). This shows that u ∈ D(A∗ ) and A∗ u = Bu. It remains to prove that D(A∗ ) ⊆ D(B). For this, fix v ∈ D(A∗ ). By Proposition 1.22, there exists ψ ∈ D(B) such that (I +A∗ )v = (I +B)ψ. Hence (I +A∗ )v = (I +A∗ )ψ. Thus, (v − ψ; (I + A)u) = ((I + A∗ )(v − ψ); u) = 0 for all u ∈ D(A). Since I + A is invertible, this implies that v = ψ ∈ D(B).

2

We have seen in Proposition 1.22 that the operator A associated with a is densely defined in H. It is also densely defined in D(a), endowed with the norm k.ka . This is formulated in the following lemma whose proof is postponed to Section 1.4.2. L EMMA 1.25 Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form and denote by A its associated operator. Then D(A) is a core of a. Using this lemma and Proposition 1.15 one concludes that the form a coincides with the closure of the restriction of a to D(A), that is, a = a|D(A) . D EFINITION 1.26 1) An operator B : D(B) ⊆ H → H is called sectorial if there exists a non-negative constant C, such that |=(Bu; u)| ≤ C<(Bu; u) f or all u ∈ D(B). 2) The numerical range of an operator B on H is the set N (B) := {(Bu; u), u ∈ D(B) with kuk = 1}.

(1.14)

16

CHAPTER 1

Clearly, B satisfies (1.14) if and only if its numerical range N (B) is contained in the sector {z ∈ C, | arg z| ≤ arctan C}. It is also clear that the operator associated with a sectorial form is a sectorial operator. The converse is also true. We formulate this in the following proposition. P ROPOSITION 1.27 Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form acting on a complex Hilbert space H. Denote by A the operator associated with a. The following assertions are equivalent: 1) a is a sectorial form. 2) A is a sectorial operator. The proposition is an immediate consequence of the following lemma. L EMMA 1.28 Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form acting on a complex Hilbert space H and denote by A its associated operator. Then, the numerical range N (A) of A is dense in the numerical range N (a) of a. Proof. Apply Lemma 1.25.

2

L EMMA 1.29 Let A be a densely defined operator on a Hilbert space H such that <(Au; u) ≥ 0 for all u ∈ D(A). Assume that either: 1) H is complex and there exists a constant α ≥ 0, such that the operator αI + A is sectorial, or 2) A is a symmetric operator (here H may be real). Then the form defined by a(u, v) := (Au; v) with domain D(a) = D(A) is closable. Proof. Assume that 1) is satisfied. Write a(u, v) = ((αI + A)u; v) − α(u; v). By Proposition 1.8, the sectorial form (u, v) → ((αI+A)u; v) is continuous and hence a is continuous, too. If 2) is satisfied, then a is continuous. This follows from the CauchySchwarz inequality. In order to prove that a is closable, we apply Proposition 1.13. Assume that (un ) ∈ D(A) is such that un → 0 in H and a(un − um , un − um ) → 0 (as n, m → ∞). By continuity of the form, we have |a(un , un )| ≤ |a(un − um , un )| + |a(um , un )| ≤ M kun − um ka kun ka + |(Aum ; un )|.

17

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

By assumption, kun −um ka → 0 as m, n → ∞ and thus kun ka is a bounded sequence. In addition, for each m, |(Aum ; un )| → 0 as n → ∞. These properties imply that a(un , un ) → 0 as n → ∞. This proves that a is closable. 2 The role of assumptions 1) and 2) in Lemma 1.29 is to guarantee the continuity of the form a(u, v) := (Au; v), D(a) = D(A).

(1.15)

The proof shows that this form is closable whenever it is continuous. The assumption of continuity cannot be removed. Also, on a real Hilbert space, the single assumption that (Au, u) ≥ 0 for all u ∈ D(A), is not enough to guarantee the closability of the form a. All this can be seen from Example 1.2.2. When the form defined by (1.15) is closable, the operator associated with its closure is clearly an extension of A. D EFINITION 1.30 The operator associated with the closure a of the form a defined by (1.15) is called the Friedrichs extension of A. P ROPOSITION 1.31 Let B : D(B) ⊆ H → H be a closed operator (see Definition 1.33 below) with dense domain D(B). Then B ∗ B defined by D(B ∗ B) = {u ∈ D(B), Bu ∈ D(B ∗ )}, B ∗ Bu = B ∗ (Bu) is a densely defined self-adjoint operator. Proof. Define the symmetric form a(u, v) = (Bu; Bv), D(a) = D(B). Since B is a closed operator, a is a closed form. Thus, there exists a selfadjoint (and densely defined) operator A associated with a. By definition, D(A) = {u ∈ D(a), ∃v ∈ H : a(u, φ) = (v; φ) ∀φ ∈ D(a)}, Au = v. Thus, D(A) = {u ∈ D(B), ∃v ∈ H : (Bu; Bφ) = (v; φ) ∀φ ∈ D(B)} = {u ∈ D(B), Bu ∈ D(B ∗ )}, and Au = B ∗ (Bu). This shows that A = B ∗ B and proves the proposition. 2 We finish this section with the following lemma, which is related to the results of the previous section. Its proof requires certain results of the present section.

18

CHAPTER 1

L EMMA 1.32 Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed form on a Hilbert space H. Assume that (un )n is a bounded sequence in (D(a), k.ka ) which converges in H to u. Then u ∈ D(a) and we have
Proof. The sequence (un )n is bounded in the Hilbert space (D(a), k.ka ), thus it has a weakly convergent subsequence. Let (unk ) be this subsequence and φ ∈ D(a) be its weak limit. For every v ∈ D(a), (unk ; v) + b(unk , v) → (φ; v) + b(φ, v) as nk → ∞,

(1.16)

where b denotes the symmetric part of a. Denote by B the self-adjoint operator associated with b. The above convergence holds for v ∈ D(B) and hence (unk ; (I + B)v) → (φ; (I + B)v). Now the fact that unk converges to u in H implies that (u; (I + B)v) = (φ; (I + B)v) for all v ∈ D(B). By Proposition 1.22, I + B is invertible and hence u = φ ∈ D(a). Taking v = u in (1.16), yields b(u, u) = limk b(unk , u). This and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality imply b(u, u) ≤ lim inf b(unk , unk ). It follows that b(u, u) ≤ lim inf b(un , un ) since we can replace (un )n in the above arguments by any subsequence. 2 Remark. We have used in the proof only that some subsequence of (un ) converges weakly to u. Therefore, the conclusion of the lemma holds under the weaker assumption that (un ) is a bounded sequence in (D(a), k.ka ) which converges weakly in H to u.

1.3 SEMIGROUPS AND UNBOUNDED OPERATORS 1.3.1 Closed and closable operators

Throughout this section, E denotes a Banach space (over K = R or C) with norm k.k. By L(E), we denote the space of all bounded linear operators on E. D EFINITION 1.33 An operator B : D(B) ⊆ E → E is called a closed operator if the graph G(B) := {(u; Bu), u ∈ D(B)} is closed in E × E.

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

19

This definition can be rephrased as follows: If (xn )n ∈ D(B) is such that xn → x and Bxn → y in E (as n → ∞), then x ∈ D(B) and y = Bx.

Note also that B is a closed operator if and only if D(B) endowed with the graph norm k.k + kB.k is a complete space.

D EFINITION 1.34 Let B : D(B) ⊆ E → E be an operator on E. A scalar λ ∈ K is in the resolvent set of B if λI − B is invertible (from D(B) into E) and its inverse (λI − B)−1 is a bounded operator on E. For such λ, the operator (λI − B)−1 is the resolvent of B at λ. The set ρ(B) := {λ ∈ K, λI − B is invertible and (λI − B)−1 ∈ L(E)} is called the resolvent set of B. The complement of ρ(B) in K σ(B) := K \ ρ(B) is called the spectrum of B. P ROPOSITION 1.35 1) Assume that B is a closed operator on a Banach space E. Then a scalar λ is in ρ(B) if and only if λI − B is invertible (from D(B) into E). 2) If the resolvent set ρ(B) is not empty, then B is a closed operator. Proof. In order to prove the first assertion we have to prove that (λI − B)−1 is a continuous operator for every λ such that λI − B is invertible. Let (yn )n be a sequence in E which converges to y and such that (λI − B)−1 yn converges to z. Set xn := (λI − B)−1 yn . We have xn ∈ D(B) for each n and (λI − B)xn converges to y. Since B is a closed operator, it follows that z ∈ D(B) and y = (λI − B)z, that is, z = (λI − B)−1 y. We conclude now by the closed graph theorem that (λI − B)−1 is continuous on E. Assume that λ ∈ ρ(B) for some λ. Let (xn ) be a sequence in D(B) such that xn → x and Bxn → y in E. Thus, (λI − B)xn → λx − y and by continuity of (λI − B)−1 , we have xn → (λI − B)−1 (λx − y). Thus, x = (λI − B)−1 (λx − y). This implies that x ∈ D(B) and Bx = y. This 2 shows that B is a closed operator. D EFINITION 1.36 An operator B on a Banach space E is closable if there exists a closed operator C : D(C) ⊆ E → E such that D(B) ⊆ D(C) and Bu = Cu for all u ∈ D(B). In other words, B has a closed extension C.

20

CHAPTER 1

Assume that B is a closable operator on a Banach space E. One can define the smallest closed extension B of B as follows: D(B) = {u ∈ E s.t. ∃un ∈ D(B) : lim un = u, lim[Bun − Bum ] = 0}, n

n,m

(1.17)

and if u and (un )n are as in (1.17) we set Bu := lim Bun , n

(1.18)

where the limits are taken with respect to the norm of E. One shows easily that B is a closed operator and every closed extension of B is also an extension of B. If B is an operator such that B, defined by (1.17) and (1.18), is well defined (i.e., Bu = limn Bun does not depend on the choice of the sequence (un )), then B is a closed extension of B. Consequently, B is closable if and only if B is a well defined operator. Let now u ∈ D(B) and let un ∈ D(B), vn ∈ D(B) be two sequences which converge to u and such that Bun − Bum → 0 and Bvn − Bvm → 0 as n, m → ∞. Thus, Bun and Bvn converge to some w and w0 in E. Now, B is well defined if and only if w = w0 . Thus, we have proved the following characterization of closable operators. P ROPOSITION 1.37 A linear operator B on E is closable if and only if it satisfies the following property: if (un ) ∈ D(B) is any sequence such that un → 0 and Bun → v (in E), then v = 0. D EFINITION 1.38 Assume that B is a closable operator on a Banach space E. The operator B defined by (1.17) and (1.18) is called the closure of B. D EFINITION 1.39 Let B be an operator with domain D(B) on a Banach space E. A linear subspace of D(B) is called a core of B if it is dense in D(B), endowed with the graph norm k.k + kB.k. Let B act on a Banach space E and D a linear subspace of D(B). The restriction of B to D is the operator B|D u := Bu for u ∈ D = D(B|D ). The next result follows easily from the previous definitions. P ROPOSITION 1.40 Let B be a closed operator on a Banach space E and D a linear subspace of D(B). Then, D is a core of B if and only if the closure of B|D is B, i.e., B|D = B.

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

21

1.3.2 A rapid course on semigroup theory

In this subsection, we give some definitions and recall several important results and properties of semigroups. Semigroup theory is a well documented subject and we shall not give a detailed study. For more details and proofs of the classical results given below see, e.g., Arendt et al. [ABHN01], Davies [Dav80], Goldstein [Gol85], Engel and Nagel [EnNa99], Kato [Kat80], Nagel et al. [Nag86], Pazy [Paz83], Yosida [Yos65]. D EFINITION 1.41 1) A semigroup on a Banach space E is a family of bounded linear operators (T (t))t≥0 acting on E such that T (0) = I and T (t + s) = T (t)T (s) f or all t, s ≥ 0. 2) A semigroup (T (t))t≥0 is called a contraction semigroup (or a contractive semigroup) if T (t) is a contraction operator on E for each t ≥ 0. 3) We say that a semigroup (T (t))t≥0 is strongly continuous if for every u ∈ E, we have lim T (t)u = u. t↓0

Note that the property in 3) is precisely the strong continuity at t0 = 0. From this and the semigroup property it follows that (T (t))t≥0 is strongly continuous at each t0 ∈ [0, ∞). D EFINITION 1.42 Let (T (t))t≥0 be a strongly continuous semigroup on E. The generator of (T (t))t≥0 is the operator B defined by 1 D(B) := {u ∈ E, lim (T (t)u − u) exists}, t↓0 t 1 Bu := lim (T (t)u − u) f or all u ∈ D(B). t↓0 t The theory of strongly continuous semigroups was developed in order to study existence and uniqueness of solutions to the evolution equations (or the Cauchy problem) š d u(t) = Bu(t), t ≥ 0, (CP ) dt u(0) = f, where u : [0, ∞) → E satisfies u(t) ∈ D(B) for all t > 0 is the searched for solution. If B is the generator of the strongly continuous semigroup (T (t))t≥0 , then for every f ∈ D(B), (CP) has a unique solution. The latter is given by u(t) = T (t)f. The following is a central theorem in semigroup theory.

22

CHAPTER 1

T HEOREM 1.43 (Hille-Yosida) Let B be a densely defined operator on E. The following assertions are equivalent: i) B is the generator of a strongly continuous semigroup. ii) There exists a constant w such that (w, ∞) ⊆ ρ(B) and sup λ>w,n∈N

k(λ − w)n (λI − B)−n kL(E) < ∞.

If the operator B is bounded on E, then it generates a strongly continuous semigroup. In addition, this semigroup is given by etB =

X tk B k k≥0

k!

.

By analogy to this case, we will denote by (etB )t≥0 the strongly continuous semigroup generated by the operator B, even when B is not bounded.2 The resolvent of the generator B coincides with the Laplace transform of the semigroup, that is, Z ∞ −1 e−λt etB dt for all λ > w. (λI − B) = 0

Conversely, the semigroup can be written in terms of the resolvent. This is given by the exponential formula etB u = lim(I − n

t −n B) u for all u ∈ E. n

D EFINITION 1.44 Let ψ ∈ (0, π2 ] and denote by Σ(ψ) the open sector Σ(ψ) := {z ∈ C, z = 6 0 and| arg z| < ψ}. A strongly continuous semigroup (T (t))t≥0 acting on E is called a bounded holomorphic semigroup on the sector Σ(ψ) if (T (t))t≥0 admits a holomorphic extension (T (z))z∈Σ(ψ) such that for each θ ∈ (0, ψ), (T (z))z∈Σ(θ) is uniformly bounded and strongly continuous at 0. If the boundedness assumption on smaller sectors is not required, we say that (T (t))t≥0 is a holomorphic semigroup on Σ(ψ). Finally, by a holomorphic semigroup we mean a semigroup that is holomorphic on some sector of angle > 0. Note that a holomorphic semigroup on the sector Σ(ψ) satisfies T (z + z 0 ) = T (z)T (z 0 ) for all z, z 0 ∈ Σ(ψ). 2

This notation makes sense for self-adjoint operators by the functional calculus.

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

23

This is a consequence of holomorphy and the corresponding property for z and z 0 ≥ 0. Holomorphic semigroups play an important role in the theory of evolution equations and functional calculi. In particular, if the semigroup generated by B is holomorphic, then š d u(t) = Bu(t), t > 0, (CP ) dt u(0) = f have a unique solution for every initial data f ∈ E. The following theorem characterizes generators of bounded holomorphic semigroups (for a proof see, e.g., [ABHN01], Theorem 3.7.11, [Nag86], Theorem 1.12 Chap. A II, or [EnNa99], Theorem 4.5 Chap. II). T HEOREM 1.45 Let B be a densely defined operator on a complex Banach space E. Then B generates a semigroup which is bounded holomorphic on Σ(ψ) if and only if Σ(ψ + π2 ) ⊆ ρ(B) and for every θ ∈ (0, ψ), one has sup

λ∈Σ(θ+ π2 )

kλ(λI − B)−1 kL(E) < ∞.

Assume that B generates a semigroup (T (t))t≥0 which is bounded holomorphic on Σ(ψ) for some ψ > 0. An application of the Cauchy formula shows that there exists a constant M such that kBT (t)uk ≤

M kuk for all u ∈ E and t > 0. t

(1.19)

The holomorphy of the semigroup (T (t))t≥0 on the sector Σ(ψ) also implies that for every θ ∈ (−ψ, ψ), (T (eiθ t))t≥0 is a strongly continuous semigroup on E whose generator is eiθ B. These results and more information on holomorphic semigroups can be found in the books mentioned at the beginning of this section. 1.3.3 Accretive operators on Hilbert spaces

Denote again by H a Hilbert space with inner product (.; .) and norm k.k. Let A be an operator on H, with domain D(A). D EFINITION 1.46 We say that A is an accretive operator if <(Au; u) ≥ 0 f or all u ∈ D(A). An operator A is m-accretive (or maximal accretive) if it is accretive and 1 ∈ ρ(−A).

24

CHAPTER 1

It is clear that the operator associated with an accretive form is an accretive operator. If the sesquilinear form is densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed, then its associated operator is m-accretive (see Proposition 1.22). Note also that if A is an accretive operator that satisfies the assumptions of Lemma 1.29, its Friedrichs extension is an m-accretive operator. In particular, every densely defined symmetric accretive operator has an m-accretive symmetric extension. Therefore, every densely defined symmetric accretive operator has a self-adjoint extension. L EMMA 1.47 Let A be a densely defined accretive operator on H. Then A is closable, its closure A is accretive, and for every λ ∈ K, the range R(λI + A) is dense in R(λI + A). Proof. Let (un )n ∈ D(A) be a sequence such that un converges to 0 and Aun converges to v in H. Take w ∈ D(A) and apply the accretivity assumption to obtain 0 ≤ <(A(un + w); un + w) = <(Aun ; un ) + <(Aun ; w) + <(Aw; un ) + <(Aw; w). Letting n → ∞, we obtain <(v; w) + <(Aw; w) ≥ 0. We apply this with λw in place of w for λ > 0 and let λ → 0 to obtain <(v; w) ≥ 0. The same inequality applied to −w allows us to conclude that <(v; w) = 0 and hence (v; w) = 0. Since this holds for all w ∈ D(A), which is dense in H, it follows that v = 0. We conclude by Proposition 1.37 that A is closable. The accretivity of A as well as the density of R(λ + A) in R(λ + A) follows easily from the definition of A and simple approximation arguments. 2 L EMMA 1.48 Let A be a densely defined operator on H. 1) Assume that A is closed and accretive. Then I + A is injective and has closed range. In particular, A is m-accretive if and only if I + A has dense range. 2) If A is m-accretive, then (0, ∞) ⊆ ρ(−A) and λ(λI + A)−1 is a contraction operator on H for every λ > 0. 3) Assume that A is accretive and denote by A its closure (cf. Lemma 1.47). Then A is m-accretive if and only if there exists λ > 0 such that λI + A has dense range. Proof. 1) Let u ∈ D(A) be such that u + Au = 0. The accretivity of A implies that (u; u) ≤ <(u + Au; u) = 0

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

25

and hence u = 0. This shows that I + A is injective. In order to show that I + A has closed range, we let (un )n ∈ D(A) be such that the sequence un + Aun converges to v ∈ H. Since (un ; un ) ≤ <(un + Aun ; un ) it follows that un is a bounded sequence. Writing (un − um ; un − um ) ≤ <(un − um ; un − um + Aun − Aum ) ≤ kun − um kkun + Aun − um − Aum k, we see that (un )n is a Cauchy sequence. If u denotes the limit of (un )n , then Aun converges to v − u. The fact that A is closed implies that u ∈ D(A) and v = u + Au ∈ R(I + A). By Proposition 1.35, 1 ∈ ρ(−A) if and only if I + A is invertible. Hence, A is m-accretive if and only if I + A has dense range. 2) Assume that A is m-accretive and let λ > 0. By Proposition 1.35, A is a closed operator. Thus, by the same proposition, λ ∈ ρ(−A) if and only if λI + A is invertible. Applying assertion 1) to the accretive operator λ−1 A, we see that it is enough to prove that λI + A has dense range. Let f ∈ H be such that (f ; λu + Au) = 0 for all u ∈ D(A). Since A is m-accretive we can find v ∈ D(A) such that f = v + Av. Applying the previous equality with u = v, gives v = 0 and hence f = 0. Thus, R(λI + A) is dense. Now fix f ∈ H and let u ∈ D(A) be such that f = λu + Au. We write kf k2 = <(λu + Au; λu + Au) ≥ λ2 kuk2 + 2λ<(Au; u) ≥ λ2 kuk2 .

This implies that λ(λI + A)−1 is a contraction operator on H. 3) By assertion 2), if A is m-accretive then λI + A is invertible for λ > 0. By Lemma 1.47, the range R(λ + A) is dense in R(λI + A) = H. Conversely, assume that λI + A has dense range for some λ > 0. This implies that I + λ−1 A has dense range. Thus, by 1), λ−1 A is m-accretive. Assertion 2) implies now that αI + λ−1 A is invertible for all α > 0. This implies in particular that I + A is invertible and hence A is m-accretive. 2 The following result is a particular case of the well-known Lumer-Phillips theorem for generators of contraction semigroups. T HEOREM 1.49 Let A be a densely defined operator on H. The following assertions are equivalent: 1) The operator A is closable and −A is the generator of a strongly continuous contraction semigroup on H.

26

CHAPTER 1

2) A is m-accretive. 3) A is accretive and there exists λ > 0 such that λI + A has dense range. Proof. The fact that 2) and 3) are equivalent is already stated in Lemma 1.48. Assume now that 2) holds. By Lemma 1.48, (0, ∞) ⊆ ρ(−A) and λ(λI+ A)−1 is a contraction operator on H. The Hille-Yosida theorem implies that −A generates a strongly continuous semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 on H. Moreover, for every u ∈ D(A), we have d −tA 2 ke uk = −2<(Ae−tA u; e−tA u) ≤ 0. dt Hence, ke−tA uk2 ≤ kuk2 for all t ≥ 0. From this and the density of D(A), it follows that e−tA is a contraction operator on H for every t ≥ 0. This shows assertion 1). Conversely, assume that A is closable and −A generates a strongly continuous contraction semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 . Hence, for t ≥ 0 <(u − e−tA u; u) ≥ 0 for all u ∈ H. Applying this to u ∈ D(A) yields 1 <(Au; u) = lim <(u − e−tA u; u) ≥ 0, t↓0 t which shows that A is accretive. Since −A is the generator of a strongly continuous contraction semigroup, (0, ∞) ⊆ ρ(−A). Thus A is m-accretive. 2 Let A be a densely defined accretive operator on H and denote by A its closure. The operator A is accretive, too. The next theorem gives a sufficient condition under which the operator A is m-accretive. T HEOREM 1.50 Let A be an accretive operator on H. Assume that S is an m-accretive operator satisfying the following two conditions: 1) D(S) ⊆ D(A). 2) There exists a constant a ∈ R such that <(Au; Su) ≥ −a(u; Su) f or all u ∈ D(S). Then the closure A of A is m-accretive and D(S) is a core of A. Proof. Of course, we can assume a ≥ 0. Considering now A + aI instead of A and applying assertion 3) of Lemma 1.48, we see that we can assume a = 0.

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

27

Let Bn := A(I + n1 S)−1 for n ≥ 1. For each n, the operator Bn is bounded on H (apply assumption 1) and the closed graph theorem). In addition, ’ ’ “ “ 1 1 < Au; I + S u = <(Au; u)+ <(Au; Su) ≥ 0 for all u ∈ D(S). n n This implies that Bn is accretive. On the other hand, the resolvent set of the bounded operator Bn is not empty; thus by assertion 3) of Lemma 1.48 we can conclude that Bn is m-accretive. From the formula “ ’ 1 1 I + A + S = (I + Bn ) I + S n n it follows that the operator I + A + n1 S with domain D(S) is invertible. Hence for every f ∈ H and every n, there exists un ∈ D(S) such that un + Aun + We claim that

1 Sun = f. n

  1    kun k ≤ kf k and  Sun  ≤ 2kf k. n

(1.20)

(1.21)

The first inequality follows form the accretivity of A + n1 S, since ’ “ 1 (un ; un ) ≤ < un + Aun + Sun ; un n = <(f ; un ) ≤ kf kkun k. The second inequality follows from the first one and the following estimates ’ “ 1 1 1 2 k Sun k ≤ < Aun + Sun ; Sun n n n ’ “ 1 = < f − un ; Sun n   1   ≤ (kf k + kun k)  Sun  . n

Now we prove that A is m-accretive. By Lemma 1.48, it suffices to prove that I + A has dense range. Actually, we will show that the operator I + A with domain D(S) has dense range. Let f ∈ H be such that (f ; u + Au) = 0 for all u ∈ D(S).

(1.22)

28

CHAPTER 1

Let (un )n ∈ D(S) be a sequence satisfying (1.20). By (1.22) we have “ ’ “ ’ 1 1 (1.23) (f ; f ) = un + Aun + Sun ; f = Sun ; f . n n On the other hand, since S is m-accretive, it follows that the adjoint operator S ∗ is densely defined.3 Consider a sequence (fk )k ∈ D(S ∗ ) which converges to f in H. We have Œ’  “ ’ “Œ  Œ 1  Œ 1 1  Œ  Œ Œ n Sun ; f − n Sun ; fk Œ ≤  n Sun  kf − fk k ≤ 2kf kkf − fk k. It follows that |( n1 Sun ; f ) − ( n1 Sun ; fk )| converges to 0 as k → ∞, uniformly with respect to n. Thus, using the fact that Œ’ “Œ Œ Œ 1 1 ∗ ∗ Œ 1 Œ Œ n Sun ; fk Œ = n |(un ; S fk )| ≤ n kf kkS fk k (which follows from (1.21)), we obtain ’ “ 1 Sun ; f → 0 as n → ∞. n

We conclude from (1.23) that f = 0. Thus, we have proved that the closure B of the restriction of A to D(S) is m-accretive. Since I +A is an extension of I + B, it follows that (I + A)D(A) = H. Thus, A is m-accretive. Finally, it remains to prove the equality B = A and conclude that D(S) is a core of A. If u ∈ D(A), there exists v ∈ D(B) such that u + Au = v + Bv = v + Av. It follows from the fact that I + A is injective that u = v ∈ D(B).

2

Remark. Let S and A be two operators acting in a Banach space X, with norm k.k. We assume that S is closed, A is closable and D(S) ⊆ D(A). Then there exist two constants a and b such that kAuk ≤ akSuk + bkuk for all u ∈ D(S). In order to prove this, we first observe that D(S), endowed with the graph norm k.k + kS.k, is a Banach space and the restriction AS of A to D(S) 3 It is easily seen that I + S ∗ is invertible with inverse (I + S ∗ )−1 = ((I + S)−1 )∗ . Now, if u ∈ H is such that (u; v) = 0 for all v ∈ D(S ∗ ), we write u = (I + S)φ for some φ ∈ D(S) and obtain (φ; (I + S ∗ )v) = 0. Since this is true for all v ∈ D(S ∗ ) and R(I + S ∗ ) = H, we obtain φ = 0 and then u = 0.

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

29

can be seen as an operator defined from D(S) into X. Let (xn , AS xn ) be a sequence in the graph G(AS ) of AS . Assume that (xn , AS xn ) converges in the Banach space D(S) × X to (x, y) (here D(S) is endowed with its graph norm). If A denotes the closure of A, then x ∈ D(A) and y = Ax. But x ∈ D(S) and hence y = AS x. Consequently, G(AS ) is closed in D(S) × X. We conclude by the closed graph theorem that AS is a continuous operator from (D(S), k.k + kS.k) into X, and this implies the desired inequality. On the basis of this remark, we can add to the conclusions of Theorem 1.50 that every core of S is a core of A.

1.4 SEMIGROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH SESQUILINEAR FORMS 1.4.1 The semigroup on the Hilbert space H.

In this section we use the same notation as in Section 1.2. Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form on a Hilbert space H (see (1.2)−(1.5)). Denote by A the operator associated with a. Clearly, A is an accretive operator since a is an accretive form. As a consequence of Proposition 1.22 and Theorem 1.49, we have P ROPOSITION 1.51 The operator −A is the generator of a strongly continuous contraction semigroup on H. In the next result, we show that the semigroup generated by −A is holomorphic. More precisely, T HEOREM 1.52 Suppose that H is a complex Hilbert space. Denote by (e−tA )t≥0 the semigroup generated by −A on H. Then (e−tA )t≥0 is a holomorphic semigroup on the sector Σ( π2 − arctan M ) where M is the constant in the continuity assumption (1.4). In addition, for every ε ∈ (0, 1], e−εz e−zA is a contraction operator on H for all z ∈ Σ( π2 − arctan M ε ) = ε Σ(arctan M ). Proof. The continuity assumption (1.4) implies that for every ε ∈ (0, 1] |=(Au; u)| ≤ M [<(Au; u) + (u; u)] M ≤ [<(Au; u) + ε(u; u)] for all u ∈ D(A). ε Thus, if we set B := εI + A, the above inequality shows that B is sectorial and |=(Bu; u)| ≤

M <(Bu; u) for all u ∈ D(B). ε

30

CHAPTER 1

By Theorem 1.53 or Theorem 1.54 below, we conclude that −B is the generator of a semigroup which is holomorphic on the sector Σ( π2 −arctan M ε ). π M −zB is a contraction operator for z ∈ Σ( 2 − arctan ε ). Since In addition, e −tB −tA −εt 2 e =e e for t > 0, we obtain the theorem. Observe that if one could write (1.4) as |a(u, v)| ≤ M 0 [
(1.24)

Then −B generates a strongly continuous semigroup (e−tB )t≥0 on H. This semigroup is holomorphic on the sector Σ( π2 − arctan C) and e−zB is a contraction operator on H for every z ∈ Σ( π2 − arctan C). Proof. Using the definition of B, we see that the first inequality in (1.24) extends to all u ∈ D(B). On the other hand, it follows from the definition of the adjoint operator that B ∗ is an extension of (B)∗ . Thus, (1.24) holds for all v ∈ D((B)∗ ). Now let u ∈ D(B) be such that kuk = 1 and let λ ∈ C. Denote by dist the usual distance in C. We have k(λI − B)uk ≥ |(λu − Bu; u)| = |λ − (Bu; u)| ≥ dist(λ, Σ(arctan C)). Hence, we have k(λI − B)uk ≥ dist(λ, Σ(arctan C))kuk for all u ∈ D(B).

(1.25)

It follows that for λ ∈ / Σ(arctan C) (where the latter denotes the closed sector), the operator λI − B is injective. Moreover, λI − B has closed range R(λI − B) for all λ ∈ / Σ(arctan C). To see this, let vk = λuk − Buk be a convergent sequence with limit v ∈ H and apply (1.25) to obtain that (uk )k

31

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

is a Cauchy sequence. Let u be the limit of (uk )k . The fact that the operator B is closed implies that u ∈ D(B) and v = (λI − B)u ∈ R(λI − B). Let us show that R(λI − B) is dense for λ ∈ / Σ(arctan C). If g ∈ H is such that (g; λu − Bu) = 0 for all u ∈ D(B), then g ∈ D((B)∗ ) and λg − (B)∗ g = 0. But λ and the adjoint (B)∗ satisfy the same properties as λ and B. In particular, λI − (B)∗ is injective. This implies that g = 0 and thus R(λI − B) is dense. It follows that (λI − B) is invertible for all λ ∈ / Σ(arctan C). In addition, (1.25) gives k(λI − B)−1 uk ≤

1 kuk for all u ∈ H. dist(λ, Σ(arctan C))

(1.26)

/ Σ(θ), Fix now θ ∈ (arctan C, π). We have for every λ ∈ dist(λ, Σ(arctan C)) . |λ|

sin(θ − arctan C) ≤

/ Σ(θ), It follows from this and (1.26) that for all u ∈ H and λ ∈ kλ(λI − B)−1 uk ≤

1 kuk. sin(θ − arctan C)

Theorem 1.45 allows us to conclude that −B generates a bounded holomorphic semigroup on the sector Σ( π2 − arctan C). It remains to show that e−zB is a contraction operator for every z ∈ Σ( π2 − arctan C). Fix θ ∈ (0, π2 − arctan C) and consider the semigroup iθ (e−te B )t≥0 . For every u ∈ H and t > 0 d −teiθ B 2 ke uk dt iθ iθ = −2<(eiθ Be−te B u; e−te B u) iθ

iθ

iθ

= −[<(Be−te B u; e−te B u) cos θ − =(Be−te B u; e−te “ ’ cos θ iθ iθ − sin θ |=(Be−te B u; e−te B u)|. ≤− C

iθ B

u) sin θ]

θ Since θ ∈ (0, π2 − arctan C), it follows that cos C − sin θ ≥ 0. This shows iθ that ke−te B uk2 is non-increasing (as a function of t). Thus, iθ B

ke−te and this finishes the proof.

uk ≤ kuk for all t > 0 2

32

CHAPTER 1

The sectoriality assumption of the adjoint operator B ∗ was only used to prove that λI −B has dense range. If we assume that there exists λ0 ∈ ρ(B) with dist(λ0 , Σ(arctan C)) > 0, then the theorem holds without assuming sectoriality of B ∗ . In order to prove this, we only have to show that λ ∈ ρ(B) for all λ such that dist(λ, Σ(arctan C)) > 0 and argue as in the previous proof. Fix now λ such that dist(λ, Σ(arctan C)) > 0 and write λI − B = λ0 I − B + λI − λ0 I = (λ0 I − B)[I + (λ − λ0 )(λ0 I − B)−1 ]. Using (1.26) for λ0 , we see that λI − B is invertible for all λ such that |λ − λ0 | < dist(λ0 , Σ(arctan C)). Repeating this procedure, we obtain λ ∈ ρ(B) for all λ such that dist(λ, Σ(arctan C)) > 0. The estimate (1.26) holds for such λ since it is only based on the sectoriality of B. Finally, recall that B is a closed operator whenever its resolvent set ρ(B) is not empty (see Proposition 1.35). Thus, we have proved the following T HEOREM 1.54 Let B be a densely defined operator on a complex Hilbert space H. Assume that B is sectorial, that is, |=(Bu; u)| ≤ C<(Bu; u) f or all u ∈ D(B),

(1.27)

where C ≥ 0 is a constant. Assume also that there exists λ0 ∈ ρ(B) with dist(λ0 , Σ(arctan C)) > 0. Then −B generates a strongly continuous semigroup which is holomorphic on the sector Σ( π2 − arctan C) and such that e−zB is a contraction operator on H for every z ∈ Σ( π2 − arctan C). Remark. The study of the holomorphy of the semigroup associated with a form a requires that the Hilbert space H is complex. In the case where H is real, one uses the following complexification procedure. Let HC := H + iH and define the form ˜a(u + iv, g + ih) := a(u, g) + a(v, h) + i[a(v, g) − a(u, h)]

(1.28)

˜ is given by D(a) + for all u, v, g, h ∈ D(a). The domain of the form a iD(a). One checks easily that the assumptions (1.2)−(1.5) carry over from a to ˜a. The semigroup associated with ˜a is given by T (t)(u + iv) := e−tA u + ie−tA v. This is the complexification of the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 . The semigroup (T (t))t≥0 is holomorphic on HC . From this, one obtains several interesting consequences for the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 on H. In particular, e−tA H ⊆ D(A) ⊆ D(a) for all t > 0.

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

33

1.4.2 Extrapolation to the (anti-) dual space D(a)0

As previously, we denote by a a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form on a Hilbert space H and by A the operator associated with a. The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is defined on H and enjoys several interesting properties. In this section, we extend this semigroup to a larger space and prove similar properties for the extension. Our interest in doing this lies in the fact that it is sometimes more flexible to work with the semigroup on the larger space. For example, the function t → e−tA u has a derivative in H at t = 0 only when u ∈ D(A), whereas in the larger space the derivative may exist for u ∈ / D(A). This gives a new point of view on −tA the semigroup (e )t≥0 itself, and will allow us to prove other properties of this semigroup and its generator. Denote by D(a)0 the anti-dual space of D(a), that is, the space of continuous functionals φ such that φ(u + v) = φ(u) + φ(v), φ(αu) = αφ(u) for all α ∈ K, u, v ∈ D(a). When H is real, D(a)0 is of course the dual space of D(a). Identifying H 0 with H yields D(a) ⊂ H ⊂ D(a)0

(1.29)

with continuous and dense imbedding. The dualization between D(a)0 and D(a) is denoted by < ., . > (i.e., < φ, u > denotes the value of φ at u for u ∈ D(a) and φ ∈ D(a)0 ). We note that if φ ∈ H and u ∈ D(a), then < φ, u >= (φ; u), the inner product in H. Fix u ∈ D(a) and consider the functional φ(v) := a(u, v), v ∈ D(a). It follows from the continuity assumption (1.4) that φ is continuous on D(a), and hence φ ∈ D(a)0 . Thus, it can be represented as φ(v) = < Au, v >, where Au ∈ D(a)0 depends on u. Using the fact that a is sesquilinear, we see that A is a linear operator which maps D(a) into D(a)0 . In addition, using again the continuity assumption (1.4), we have kAukD(a)0 = sup | < Au, v > | kvka ≤1

= sup |a(u, v)| kvka ≤1

≤ M kuka . Thus, A is a continuous operator from D(a) (endowed with the norm k.ka ) into D(a)0 . The operator A can also be seen as an unbounded operator on

34

CHAPTER 1

D(a)0 , with domain D(A) = D(a), and such that a(u, v) = < Au, v > for all u, v ∈ D(a).

(1.30)

Now let A be the operator associated with a (defined in Section 1.2.3). Using the fact that D(a) is dense in H and the definition of A, we see that A is precisely the part of A in H. That is, D(A) = {u ∈ D(A); Au ∈ H} and Au = Au for u ∈ D(A). The following result shows that (e−tA )t≥0 extends from H to the larger space D(a)0 . T HEOREM 1.55 Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form on a Hilbert space H. Then the operator −A, with domain D(A) = D(a), generates a strongly continuous semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 on D(a)0 . Moreover, e−tA f = e−tA f f or every f ∈ H and t ≥ 0.

(1.31)

If H is complex, the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is holomorphic (on D(a)0 ) on the sector Σ( π2 − arctan M ), where M is the constant in (1.4). Proof. We first assume that the Hilbert space H is complex. Given u ∈ D(a), let φ = (λ + 1 + A)u. Clearly, < φ, u > = λ(u; u) + (u; u)+ < Au, u > = λ(u; u) + (u; u) + a(u, u). Hence, kuk2a ≤ kφkD(a)0 kuka + |λ|kuk2 .

(1.32)

6 0, On the other hand, by Lemma 1.9 we have for every u ∈ D(a) with u = ’ “ ’ “ u u u u a + ∈ Σ(arctan M ). , ; kuk kuk kuk kuk Thus, kuka kφkD(a)0 = kuka k(λ + 1 + A)ukD(a)0 ≥ | < (I + λI + A)u, u > | ’ “ ’ “ u u u u + |kuk2 , ; = |λ + a kuk kuk kuk kuk ≥ dist(λ, −Σ(arctan M ))kuk2 .

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

35

We have proved that kuka kφkD(a)0 ≥ dist(λ, −Σ(arctan M ))kuk2 .

(1.33)

Fix θ ∈ (arctan M, π). We have, as in the proof of Theorem 1.53, dist(λ, −Σ(arctan M )) ≥ |λ| sin(θ − arctan M ) for all λ ∈ / −Σ(θ). Inserting this in (1.33) gives kuka kφkD(a)0 ≥ c|λ|kuk2 for all λ ∈ / −Σ(θ),

(1.34)

where c is a positive constant. The last estimate together with (1.32) gives for all λ ∈ / −Σ(θ) ’ “ 1 kuka ≤ 1 + kφkD(a)0 = Ck(λI + I + A)ukD(a)0 . (1.35) c The estimate (1.35) shows that λI + I + A is invertible on D(a)0 for all λ∈ / −Σ(θ). Indeed, it is clear that λI + I + A is injective. It has dense range because H is dense in D(a)0 and (λI + I + A)D(a) ⊇ (λI + I + A)D(A) = H, where the last equality follows from the fact that λ ∈ ρ(−A) (see Theorems 1.52 and 1.45). Finally, if (λI + I + A)un is a convergent sequence in D(a)0 , then we obtain from (1.35) that (un ) is a Cauchy sequence in D(a). It is then convergent in D(a). From the continuity of A, as an operator from D(a) into D(a)0 , we obtain that that λI + I + A has closed range. Thus λI + I + A is invertible in D(a)0 for λ ∈ / −Σ(θ). Now let v ∈ D(a). We have |λ|| < u, v > | = | < φ, v > −(u; v) − a(u, v)| ≤ kφkD(a)0 kvka + (M + 1)kuka kvka . Taking the supremum over kvka ≤ 1 and using (1.35), we obtain |λ|kukD(a)0 ≤ kφkD(a)0 + (M + 1)kuka ≤ kφkD(a)0 + (M + 1)CkφkD(a)0 = C 0 k(λI + I + A)ukD(a)0 .

/ −Σ(θ) and We have proved that λI + I + A is invertible on D(a)0 for λ ∈ sup kλ(λI + I + A)−1 kL(D(a)0 ) < ∞.

λ∈−Σ(θ) /

36

CHAPTER 1

Theorem 1.45 ensures that −(A + I) generates on D(a)0 a semigroup which is bounded holomorphic on the sector Σ( π2 − arctan M ). Now we prove (1.31). Let f ∈ H and u(t) := e−tA f − e−tA f. From the d −tA e f exists (at each t > 0) in embedding H ⊂ D(a)0 , it follows that dt −tA −tA 0 f = −Ae f. This gives D(a) and equals −Ae d u(t) = −Au(t), t > 0. dt Thus, u(t) = e−tA u(0) = 0 and the desired equality holds. We have proved the theorem in the case where H is complex. Now, if H is real, we use the complexification argument described in the Remark at the end of the previous section. One obtains then a holomorphic semigroup (T (t))t≥0 on (D(a) + iD(a))0 whose generator is (minus) the operator associated with the form defined in (1.28)). If φ ∈ D(a)0 , then it can be written as the limit (in D(a)0 ) of a sequence (un ) ∈ H and hence T (t)φ is the limit of T (t)un = e−tA un ∈ H. Consequently, T (t)φ ∈ D(a)0 for every t ≥ 0. Therefore, T (t)D(a)0 ⊆ D(a)0 for all t ≥ 0. Thus, the restriction of (T (t))t≥0 to D(a)0 is then a strongly continuous semigroup whose 2 generator is −A. It is shown in this proof that if H is complex, the semigroup satisfies sup ke−z e−zA kL(D(a)0 ) < ∞

z∈Σ(ψ)

for all 0 ≤ ψ < we have

π 2

− arctan M. For the same reasons as in Theorem 1.52, sup ke−εz e−zA kL(D(a)0 ) < ∞

z∈Σ(ψ)

for all 0 ≤ ψ < π2 − arctan M ε and all ε ∈ (0, 1]. If the form a is sectorial, i.e., |=a(u, u)|| ≤ M
(1.36)

then sup ke−zA kL(D(a)0 ) < ∞

z∈Σ(ψ)

for all 0 ≤ ψ < π2 − arctan M. The proof is the same as the previous one, replacing (1.4) by (1.36). That is, we can replace I + A by A in the previous proof.

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

37

Note also that these estimates hold in (D(a), k.ka ). More precisely, for every ε ∈ (0, 1], sup ke−εz e−zA kL(D(a)) < ∞

(1.37)

z∈Σ(ψ)

for all 0 ≤ ψ <

π 2

− arctan M ε . Indeed, let u ∈ D(a) and write

ke−zA uka2 = < < e−zA Au, e−zA u > +ke−zA uk2 ≤ ke−zA AukD(a)0 ke−zA uka + ke−zA uk2 . Hence, ke−zA uk2a ≤ ke−zA Auk2D(a)0 + 2ke−zA uk2 .

(1.38)

It follows from Theorem 1.52 and the above observations that both terms ke−zε e−zA kD(a)0 and ke−zε e−zA kL(H) are uniformly bounded on Σ(ψ) for 0 ≤ ψ < π2 −arctan M ε . Using this and the fact that A is a bounded operator 0 from D(a) into D(a) , we see that (1.37) follows from (1.38). Again, if we assume the stronger condition (1.36), we obtain sup ke−zA kL(D(a)) < ∞.

(1.39)

z∈Σ(ψ)

Proof of Lemma 1.25. First, e−tA H ⊆ D(A) for all t > 0. Indeed, if H is complex the semigroup generated by −A is holomorphic on H (cf. Theorem 1.52) and this implies trivially the above inclusion. Now if H is real, we use again the complexification argument to obtain a holomorphic semigroup (e−t(A+iA) )t≥0 on H + iH, from which we obtain e−tA H ⊆ D(A) for t > 0. We prove that every u ∈ D(a) can be approximated in (D(a), k.ka ) by e−tA u. We have ke−tA u − uk2a = < < e−tA Au − Au, e−tA u − u > +ke−tA u − uk2 ≤ ke−tA Au − AukD(a)0 ke−tA u − uka + ke−tA u − uk2 . Hence ke−tA u − uka2 ≤ ke−tA Au − Auk2D(a)0 + 2ke−tA u − uk2 . The strong continuity of (e−tA )t≥0 on D(a)0 and of (e−tA )t≥0 on H imply ke−tA u − uka → 0 as t → 0. This proves the lemma.

2

It is seen in this proof that e−tA H ⊆ D(A) ⊆ D(a) for t > 0 and that the restriction of (e−tA )t≥0 is a strongly continuous semigroup on (D(a), k.ka ).

38

CHAPTER 1

If the Hilbert space H is complex, then Theorem 1.55 and the same arguments as in the above proof show that ke−zA u − uka → 0 as z → 0, z ∈ Σ(ψ) for every u ∈ D(a) and every ψ ∈ [0, π2 − arctan M ). If for each t ≥ 0, T (t) denotes the restriction of e−tA to D(a), then (T (t))t≥0 is a strongly continuous semigroup on (D(a), k.ka ). It is also holomorphic on the sector Σ( π2 − arctan M ) when the space H is complex. If −B denotes the generator of T (t)t≥0 , then B is the part of A in D(a), that is, D(B) = {u ∈ D(A), Au ∈ D(a)}, Bu = Au for all u ∈ D(B). 1.5 CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN FORMS, OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

Let a be a sesquilinear form on H which satisfies the standard assumptions (1.2)−(1.5). One associates with a an operator A and a semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 . In this section we show that there is a unique correspondence between sesquilinear forms and a class of operators and semigroups. The first result shows that a can be described completely by its associated semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 . L EMMA 1.56 Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form. Let u ∈ H. Then u ∈ D(a) if and only if 1 sup <(u − e−tA u; u) < ∞. t>0 t In addition, for every u, v ∈ D(a) 1 a(u, v) = lim (u − e−tA u; v). t↓0 t Proof. Let u, v ∈ D(a). By Theorem 1.55 we have 1 1 (u − e−tA u; v) = < u − e−tA u, v > . t t Since u ∈ D(a) = D(A), we have 1 < u − e−tA u, v >→< Au, v >= a(u, v) as t → 0. t

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

39

This proves the last assertion of the lemma. In particular, 1 (u − e−tA u; u) → a(u, u) for all u ∈ D(a). t Assume now that u ∈ H is such that supt>0 1t <(u − e−tA u; u) < ∞. For λ > 0, we write for simplicity (λI + A)−1 = R(λ). We have 0 Z0 ∞ 1 = sup <(u − e−tA u; u) se−s ds. t>0 t 0 It follows now that λR(λ)u is bounded uniformly with respect to λ in (D(a), k.ka ) (recall that λR(λ) is a contraction operator on H by Proposition 1.22). In addition, λR(λ) converges strongly to the identity operator in H as λ → +∞ (this can be seen by again using Proposition 1.22 and ku − λR(λ)uk = kR(λ)Auk ≤ λ−1 kAuk for u ∈ D(A). The desired convergence then follows by the density of D(A) in H). By Lemma 1.32, we deduce that u ∈ D(a). 2 A natural question is how to recognize in Hilbert spaces those operators or semigroups that are associated with sesquilinear forms. In the next results, we describe such operators and semigroups. If A is the operator associated with a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form a, then I + A is sectorial (cf. Lemma 1.9) and A is m-accretive (cf. Proposition 1.22). The next result shows that these properties characterize operators that are associated with sesquilinear forms. T HEOREM 1.57 Let A be an m-accretive operator on a complex Hilbert space H. Assume that I+A is sectorial. Then there exists a unique sesquilinear form a which is densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed and such that A is the operator associated with a. Proof. Define the form b(u, v) := (Au; v), D(b) = D(A).

40

CHAPTER 1

By Lemma 1.29, the form b is closable. Let A1 be the operator associated with the closure a := b of b.4 By assumption, I + A is invertible. By Proposition 1.22, I + A1 is invertible, too. Thus, I + A1 is an extension of I + A and both operators are invertible. This implies that A = A1 and hence A is the operator associated with the form a. The uniqueness of a follows from Lemma 1.25. 2 If we assume in the previous theorem that A is sectorial, then the associated form a is sectorial. This follows from the above proof, since then b is sectorial and this also holds for the closure a = b. Note also that if A is self-adjoint, then a is a symmetric form. Theorem 1.53 asserts that the semigroup generated by (minus) the operator associated with a sesquilinear form is holomorphic and e−z e−zA is a contraction operator for every z in some sector. Here we give a converse to that result. T HEOREM 1.58 Let (T (t))t≥0 be a contraction semigroup acting on a complex Hilbert space H. Assume that this semigroup is holomorphic on the sector Σ(ψ) (for some ψ ∈ (0, π2 )) and such that for every z ∈ Σ(ψ), e−z T (z) is a contraction operator on H. Then the generator of (T (t))t≥0 is (minus) the operator associated with a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form. Proof. Denote by −A the generator of the contraction semigroup (T (t))t≥0 . The operator A is accretive by Theorem 1.49. Now fix θ ∈ (0, ψ). The semiiθ group (T (teiθ )e−te )t≥0 is contractive on H and its generator is −eiθ (I + A). Thus, eiθ (I +A) is accretive and hence <(eiθ (I +A)u; u) ≥ 0 for every u ∈ D(A). This gives =(Au; u) ≤ tan1 θ <((I + A)u; u). For similar reasons, <(e−iθ (I + A)u; u) ≥ 0 and thus −=(Au; u) ≤ tan1 θ <((I + A)u; u). It follows that I +A is a sectorial operator. The proof is finished by applying 2 Theorem 1.57. Remark. If we assume that e−αz T (z) is a contraction operator for every z ∈ Σ(ψ), then we obtain an operator A such that αI + A is sectorial. In particular, if T (z) is a contraction for all z ∈ Σ(ψ), then A is sectorial. Applying Lemma 1.56, we can reformulate the above theorem as follows. T HEOREM 1.59 Let (T (t))t≥0 be a contraction semigroup acting on a complex Hilbert space H. Assume that this semigroup is holomorphic on the sector Σ(ψ) (for some ψ ∈ (0, π2 )) and such that for every z ∈ Σ(ψ), e−z T (z) 4

A1 is the Friedrich extension of A.

SESQUILINEAR FORMS, ASSOCIATED OPERATORS, AND SEMIGROUPS

41

is a contraction operator on H. Then the form given by 1 a(u, v) := lim (u − T (t)u; v), t↓0 t š › 1 −tA D(a) := u ∈ H, sup <(u − e u; u) < ∞ , t>0 t is densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed and (T (t))t≥0 is its associated semigroup.

Notes The material of this chapter is known. See Davies [Dav80], Kato [Kat80], Lions [Lio61], Reed-Simon [ReSi80] or Tanabe [Tan79]. Our presentation is however different and some proofs are simplified by using semigroups from the beginning. One of the aims of this chapter is to give a systematic account of the interplay between forms, operators, and semigroups. Sections 1.1 and 1.2. Bounded sesquilinear forms on Hilbert spaces can be found in many textbooks on Functional Analysis. For the Lax-Milgram lemma see, e.g., Brezis [Bre92], Lions [Lio61], Yosida [Yos65]. An exhaustive study of sectorial forms can be found in [Kat80]. In [ReSi80] closed sectorial forms are called strictly accretive. Note also that the notion of a sectorial form in [ReSi80] is slightly different from ours. Operators associated with forms are called regularly accretive in [Tan79]. Proposition 1.13 is sometimes considered as the definition of a closable form. Example 1.2.1 of a symmetric form which is not closable is borrowed from [Kat80]. At this point, we mention the following remarkable result proved by Simon [Sim78] (see also Reed-Simon [ReSi80]). Theorem. Let a be a symmetric non-negative form on a Hilbert space H. Then, there exists a largest closable symmetric form ar that is smaller than a. In this theorem, a symmetric form b is said to be smaller than a if D(a) ⊆ D(b) and b(u, u) ≤ a(u, u) for all u ∈ D(a). Proposition 1.18 and related results can also be found in [Kat80]. Theorem 1.19 is often called the KLMN theorem. The version given here can be found in [Kat80] (where it is formulated for sectorial forms). This theorem was proved in various versions by Kato [Kat55], Lions [Lio61], Lax-Milgram [LaMi54]. See also Nelson [Nel64] and Reed-Simon [ReSi75]. Section 1.3. Semigroup theory and its various applications is a well documented subject; hence we make only brief comments and give some more references. The fundamental Hille-Yosida generation theorem was proved in 1948 and became the

42

CHAPTER 1

starting point of the subsequent theory of semigroups. Because of applications to equations of different types and because of interactions with other fields of analysis and probability, the theory has seen important developments. Several textbooks on semigroups are now available. Systematic treatments of semigroups as well as applications to many equations can be found in Arendt et al. [ABHN01], Clement et al. [CHADP87], Davies [Dav80], Engel-Nagel [EnNa99], Fattorini [Fat83], Goldstein [Gol85], Hille-Phillips [HiPh57], Kato [Kat80], Nagel et al. [Nag86], Pazy [Paz83], Robinson [Rob96], Yosida [Yos65]. For holomorphic semigroups and applications to parabolic problems, see Amann [Ama95] and Lunardi [Lun95]. Applications to Volterra equations are given in Engel-Nagel [EnNa99] and Pr¨uss [Pr¨u93]. We gave the definition of accretive operators only in the Hilbert space case. The reason why we considered only operators on Hilbert spaces is to make connection with operators that are associated with accretive forms. The definition makes sense for operators acting on Banach spaces. This was introduced by Phillips [Phi59] (he used the terminology of dissipative operator; which means that −A is accretive). A linear operator A acting on a Banach space E is called accretive (or −A is dissipative) if < < Au, u∗ >≥ 0 for all u ∈ D(A) and some u∗ in the subdifferential of the norm k.kE of E at x. That is, u∗ is in the dual space E 0 and such that ku∗ kE 0 ≤ 1 and < u, u∗ >= kukE , where < ., . > denotes the pairing between E and E 0 . Theorem 1.49 is the Hilbert space version of the well-known Lumer-Phillips theorem proved in [LuPh61]. The latter holds for accretive operators on any Banach space. Note also that similar theorems hold for nonlinear accretive operators, see B´enilan-Crandall-Pazy [BCP90]. Theorem 1.50 is due to Kato and is taken from Okazawa [Oka80], where Banach space versions are also given. Sections 1.4 and 1.5. Related results to Theorems 1.53 and 1.54 can be found in Goldstein [Gol85] and Kato [Kat80]. Theorem 1.55 can be found in a different form in Tanabe [Tan79], but here we give a more precise angle of holomorphy in D(a)0 . Lemma 1.56 is an extension to the nonsymmetric case of a well-known result for symmetric forms (in the latter case, it is usually proved by using the spectral theorem for self-adjoint operators). The ”if” part of this lemma is shown in Albeverio, R¨ockner, and Stannat [ARS95] and the ”only if” part in Ouhabaz [Ouh92a] (see also [Ouh96]). Finally, Theorems 1.57 and 1.58 are implicit in [Kat80] and [Tan79].

Chapter Two CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES Let H be a Hilbert space over K = R or C. Denote by a a sesquilinear form on H. We assume that a is densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed (see (1.2)−(1.5)). Denote by A its associated operator. We have seen in the previous chapter that −A generates a strongly continuous semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 on H. Assume now that H = L2 (X, µ, C), where (X, µ) is a σ-finite measure space. Several properties of the semigroup like positivity, Lp -contractivity, domination, and so on can be characterized in terms of the operator A. However, in most applications, one does not precisely know the operator A. Typical situations where this occurs are when A is an elliptic operator with measurable coefficients and acts on L2 (Ω), where Ω is any open subset of Rn (see Chapter 4). Thus, characterizations in terms of the generator cannot be applied in several situations. On the contrary, in most situations one knows the form a.1 Therefore, criteria for properties of the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 would be more useful and powerful if they are given in terms of the form. In the present chapter, we give criteria in terms of the form a for positivity, irreducibility, and L∞ -contractivity of the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 . We also study the domination property of semigroups by using the associated forms. The results are in the spirit of the famous Beurling-Deny criteria. The latter characterize the sub-Markovian property of semigroups associated with symmetric forms. We will consider forms that are not necessarily symmetric and recover the Beurling-Deny criteria. The method used here works also for semigroups acting on vector-valued functions. The approach is based on criteria for invariance of closed convex sets of H under the action of the semigroup. These criteria hold in a general setting. The previously mentioned properties of the semigroup are obtained as particular cases, by choosing the appropriate convex set. It should be emphasized that all the results in the present chapter hold in both complex or real spaces. We do not distinguish the two cases unless we mention this explicitly. As in the previous chapter, we write real and imaginary parts of elements of K without assuming K = C. In the case 1 Usually, one starts by defining the form, hence its expression and domain are known. The associated operator A is given by Definition 1.21. In several situations, one cannot describe A precisely.

44

CHAPTER 2

of real Hilbert spaces, the real part < should of course be omitted in the statements.

2.1 INVARIANCE OF CLOSED CONVEX SETS

Let H be a complex or real Hilbert space with norm and scalar product denoted by k.k and (.; .). Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form on H. Denote by A and (e−tA )t≥0 the operator and semigroup associated with a. Let C be a non-empty closed convex subset of H and denote by P the projection of H onto C. Recall that for every f ∈ H, Pf ∈ C and satisfies kf − Pf k = min kf − gk. g∈C

It is an elementary fact that Pf is characterized by [ h = Pf ] ⇔ [ h ∈ C and <(f − h; g − h) ≤ 0 for all g ∈ C ].

(2.1)

This section is devoted to characterizations, in terms of the form a, of the invariance of the convex set C under the action of the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 . That is, the property e−tA C ⊆ C for all t ≥ 0, by which we mean e−tA u ∈ C for every u ∈ C and every t ≥ 0. We first show the following P ROPOSITION 2.1 The following assertions are equivalent: 1) e−tA C ⊆ C for all t ≥ 0. 2) λ(λI + A)−1 C ⊆ C for all λ > 0. Proof. Assume that for all t ≥ 0, e−tA C ⊆ C. Let λ > 0 and u ∈ C. Since the resolvent is the Laplace transform of the semigroup, we have Z ∞ λ(λI + A)−1 u = λ e−λt e−tA udt. 0

Assume for a contradiction that λ(λI + A)−1 u ∈ / C. By the Hahn-Banach theorem, there exist a constant α ∈ R and a linear continuous functional φ on H such that <φ(λ(λI + A)−1 u) > α ≥ <φ(g) for all g ∈ C.

45

CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

Applying this with g = e−tA u gives <φ(λ(λI + A)−1 u) > α Z =

∞

λe−λt αdt 0 “ ’Z ∞ −λt −tA ≥ <φ udt λe e 0

= <φ(λ(λI + A)−1 u)

which is not possible. Conversely, assume that for every λ > 0, λ(λI + A)−1 leaves C invariant. Hence (λ(λ + A)−1 )n leaves C invariant for every n ∈ N. Using the exponential formulae “−n ’ t −tA u f or all u ∈ H u = lim I + A e n→∞ n and the fact that C is closed, one obtains assertion 1).

2

The following theorem gives criteria in terms of the form for the invariance of the closed convex set C under the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 . T HEOREM 2.2 Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form on H. The following assertions are equivalent: 1) e−tA C ⊆ C for all t ≥ 0. 2) P(D(a)) ⊆ D(a) and 0. Note that R(λ)H ⊆ D(A) and AR(λ) = I − λR(λ). Fix u ∈ D(a) and observe that
46

CHAPTER 2

by (2.1). It follows from this and the continuity of the form a that 0, 0 is bounded (with respect to λ) in the Hilbert space (D(a), k.ka ). On the other hand λR(λ)Pu converges in H to Pu as λ → ∞. Lemma 1.32 can be used to conclude that Pu ∈ D(a). Thus, PD(a) ⊆ D(a). By Lemma 1.56, we have for every u ∈ D(a) 1 0, <(Pu − e−tA Pu; u − Pu) ≥ 0, because of (2.1) and the fact that e−tA Pu ∈ C. This gives
CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

47

We show that 3) implies 1). Given u ∈ C we apply 3) to λR(λ)u, where λ > 0 is fixed. We have 0 ≤ 0 and all u ∈ C. Assertion 1) is then obtained by applying Proposition 2.1. Obviously, 2) implies 4). Now, we prove that 4) implies 2). Given u ∈ D(a) and let (un )n ∈ D be a sequence which converges to u for the norm k.ka . We apply 4) and the continuity assumption to obtain
48

CHAPTER 2

The second term on the right-hand side converges to 0 since (unk ) converges to u for the norm k.ka and the sequence (kPunk ka ) is bounded. The first term also converges to 0. This follows from the fact that v 7→ a(v, u) is a continuous linear functional on D(a) and (Punk ) converges weakly in D(a) to Pu. Thus, lim inf 0. Define uε := Pu + ε(u − Pu). We have uε ∈ D and Puε = Pu. Applying 3´) to uε gives
49

CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

Assume now that 2) holds. By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have for every u ∈ D(a)
≥ a(u, u) − a(u, u)1/2 a(Pu, Pu)1/2 ≥ 0.

We apply Theorem 2.2 to obtain assertion 1). Assume that 1) holds. By the previous theorem, we have Pu ∈ D(a) for every u ∈ D(a) and
which gives assertion 2). This proves the theorem since 2) implies 3).

2

2.2 POSITIVE AND Lp -CONTRACTIVE SEMIGROUPS

In this section, we apply the criteria obtained in the previous section to study positivity and Lp -contractivity properties of semigroups. We will state the results when the Lp -spaces in consideration are complex but all the results are valid if the spaces are real as mentioned in the previous section. We assume in this section that H = L2 (X, µ, C), where (X, µ) is a σfinite measure space. Let HR := L2 (X, µ, R) be the subset of H of real-valued functions and H + := {f ∈ H, f (x) ≥ 0 µ a.e.x ∈ X} the cone of non-negative functions. D EFINITION 2.4 Let (T (t))t≥0 be a strongly continuous semigroup on H. We say that (T (t))t≥0 is real if T (t)HR ⊆ HR for all t ≥ 0. The semigroup (T (t))t≥0 is positive if T (t)H + ⊆ H + for all t ≥ 0. For a given u ∈ H, we denote by u :=
50

CHAPTER 2

For u, v ∈ HR , we set u+ := sup{u, 0}, u− := sup{−u, 0}, u ∧ v := inf{u, v}, u ∨ v := sup{u, v} and 1 ∧ u := inf{1, u}. Remark. All the inequalities (and equalities) between measurable functions of H are understood in the µ a.e. sense. We often omit writing µ a.e. Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form on L2 (X, µ, C). Denote again by A its associated operator and by (e−tA )t≥0 the semigroup generated by −A on L2 (X, µ, C). Note that the assumption that a is densely defined can be removed in all the results below (except Theorems 2.9 and 2.10, which must be reformulated differently for non-densely defined forms). See Section 2.6 below. P ROPOSITION 2.5 The following assertions are equivalent: 1) The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is real. 2) u ∈ D(a) =⇒
Proof. The fact that the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is real is equivalent to the fact that (e−tA )t≥0 leaves invariant the closed convex set C = HR . The projection onto HR is given by Pu =
Proof. Consider the convex set C = H + . The projection P is given by Pu = (
CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

51

The equivalence of the first three assertions follows from Theorem 2.2 and Proposition 2.5, since a positive semigroup is in particular real. Clearly, each of these assertions implies 4). Conversely, if 4) holds, then 0 and every nonzero function f ∈ H + , we have e−tA f (x) > 0 for µa.e.x ∈ X. As for positivity, we wish to characterize in terms of the form a the irreducibility of its associated semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 . In order to do this, we have to reformulate the irreducibility property in terms of invariance of closed convex sets. This reformulation is given in the following result. T HEOREM 2.9 Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed form on L2 (X, µ, C) and assume that its associated semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is positive. The following assertions are equivalent: 1) (e−tA )t≥0 is irreducible. 2) If the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 leaves L2 (Ω, µ, C) invariant for some subset Ω of X, then either µ(Ω) = 0 or µ(X \ Ω) = 0. Note that in this theorem, L2 (Ω, µ, C) is seen as the subspace of L2 (X, µ, C) of functions which are zero (µ a.e.) on X \ Ω. Given f ∈ L2 (Ω, µ, C), we denote again by f the function in L2 (X, µ, C) which takes the value 0 (µ

52

CHAPTER 2

a.e.) on X \ Ω and coincides (µ a.e.) with f on Ω. Proof. Assume that assertion 1) holds. If (e−tA )t≥0 leaves invariant a subspace L2 (Ω, µ, C), then e−tA f is 0 (µ a.e.) on X \ Ω for all t > 0 and f ∈ L2 (Ω, µ, C). If µ(Ω) > 0, then we can apply this to a nontrivial f ≥ 0. We then obtain from 1) that µ(X \ Ω) = 0. Assume that 2) is satisfied. Let 0 ≤ f ∈ L2 (X, µ, C) be a nontrivial function and let τ > 0. Set Ω := {e−τ A f = 0} (the set on which e−τ A f is 0, µ a.e.) and assume for a contradiction that µ(Ω) > 0. We have (e−τ A f ; φ) = 0 for every φ ∈ L2 (Ω, µ, C). By strong continuity of (e−tA )t≥0 , we can find a sequence tn ∈ (0, τ ) such that ke−tn A f − f k2 ≤ 2−n . Set X fn := e−tn A f and gn := f − (f − fk )+ . k≥n

We have gn ≤ f − (f − fm )+ = inf{f, fm } ≤ fm for all m ≥ n. Using the positivity of the semigroup, we obtain for all m ≥ n, and all 0 ≤ φ ∈ L2 (Ω, µ, C), 0 ≤ (e−(τ −tm )A gn+ ; φ) ≤ (e−(τ −tm )A fm ; φ) = (e−τ A f ; φ) = 0. Hence we have for every m ≥ n, (e−(τ −tm )A gn+ ; φ) = 0. The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is holomorphic on H (see Chapter 1).2 Hence we obtain from the above equality that (e−tA gn+ ; φ) = 0 for all t ≥ 0. Letting n → ∞, we obtain (e−tA f ; φ) = 0 for all t ≥ 0, φ ∈ L2 (Ω, µ, C).

(2.3)

Setting h := e−τ A f , we have from (2.3) (e−tA h; φ) = 0 for all t ≥ 0, φ ∈ L2 (Ω, µ, C). 2

(2.4)

If H is real, one argues similarly by using the complexification procedure, as explained in the previous chapter

CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

53

Given now 0 ≤ g ∈ L2 (X \ Ω, µ, C) and fix φ ∈ L2 (Ω, µ, C). We may write g = (g − nh)+ + inf{g, nh}. It follows from (2.4) that |(e−tA (inf{g, nh}); φ)| ≤ n(e−tA h; |φ|) = 0.

This implies that (e−tA g; φ) = (e−tA (g − nh)+ ; φ).

using the facts that g ∈ L2 (X \ Ω, µ, C) and Ω = {h = 0}, we see that (g − nh)+ → 0 in L2 (X, µ, C) as n → ∞. Taking the limit in the previous equation yields (e−tA g; φ) = 0 for all t ≥ 0.

Since this is true for all φ ∈ L2 (Ω, µ, C) and all g ∈ L2 (X \ Ω, µ, C), we conclude that (e−tA )t≥0 leaves L2 (X \ Ω, µ, C) invariant. Assertion 2) and the hypothesis µ(Ω) > 0 imply that µ(X \ Ω) = 0. This and (2.3) for t = 0, then give f = 0 (µ a.e. on X), which is a contradiction. 2 We can apply the previous criteria for invariance of closed convex sets to characterize the irreducibility of semigroups. The projection onto the closed convex set L2 (Ω, µ, C) is given by Pu = χΩ u, where χΩ denotes the characteristic function of Ω. Theorem 2.2 shows that (e−tA )t≥0 leaves L2 (Ω, µ, C) invariant if and only if χΩ u ∈ D(a) and
54

CHAPTER 2

C OROLLARY 2.11 Let a and (e−tA )t≥0 be as in the previous theorem. Assume in addition that the form a is local. The following assertions are equivalent: 1) (e−tA )t≥0 is an irreducible semigroup. 2) If Ω ⊆ X is such that χΩ (D(a)) ⊆ D(a), then either µ(Ω) = 0 or µ(X \ Ω) = 0. 3) If Ω ⊆ X is such that χΩ (D) ⊆ D(a) for some core D of a, then either µ(Ω) = 0 or µ(X \ Ω) = 0. We now turn to another property of the semigroup. We want to extend the contraction semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 , initially defined on L2 (X, µ, C) to other Lp (X, µ, C) spaces. For this reason, we study L∞ -contractivity, which we introduce in the following definition. D EFINITION 2.12 We say that (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive if for every t ≥ 0 and every u ∈ L2 (X, µ, C) ∩ L∞ (X, µ, C), ke−tA ukL∞ (X,µ,C) ≤ kukL∞ (X,µ,C) .

If the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is both positive and L∞ -contractive, we say that it is sub-Markovian. Recall the notation 1 ∧ u := inf{1, u} and sign u is the function defined by (2.2). T HEOREM 2.13 Let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed form on L2 (X, µ, C). The following assertions are equivalent: 1) The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. 2) u ∈ D(a) =⇒ (1 ∧ |u|)sign u ∈ D(a) and
Proof. Note that L∞ -contractivity is equivalent to the fact that the semigroup leaves invariant the closed convex set C = {u ∈ L2 (X, µ, C), |u| ≤ 1 (µ a.e.)}. The projection onto this convex set is given by Pu = (1 ∧ |u|)sign u. Note also that u − (1 ∧ |u|)sign u = (|u| − 1)+ sign u. Applying Theorems 2.2 we obtain the above result.

2

Using the same proof and applying Theorem 2.3, we obtain in the particular case of symmetric forms

CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

55

T HEOREM 2.14 Assume that the form a is symmetric. The following assertions are equivalent: 1) The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. 2) u ∈ D(a) =⇒ (1 ∧ |u|)sign u ∈ D(a) and a((1 ∧ |u|)sign u, (1 ∧ |u|)sign u) ≤ a(u, u). 3) There exists a core D of a such that (1 ∧ |u|)sign u ∈ D(a) and a((1 ∧ |u|)sign u, (1 ∧ |u|)sign u) ≤ a(u, u) for all u ∈ D. We have assumed in Theorem 2.13 that a is accretive. In the next result, we show that actually this assumption is not needed in the equivalence of assertions 1) and 3). This refinement is of some interest and will be applied to uniformly elliptic operators in Chapter 4. T HEOREM 2.15 Assume that the form a is densely defined and there exists a constant w ∈ R such that the form (a + w)(u, v) := a(u, v) + w(u; v), u, v ∈ D(a) is accretive, continuous, and closed. The following assertions are equivalent: 1) The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. 2) u ∈ D(a) =⇒ (1 ∧ |u|)sign u ∈ D(a) and
56

CHAPTER 2

d −tA A simple calculation shows that dt |e u| = <(−sign (e−tA u)Ae−tA u) at each t > 0 (see Proposition 4.4 below). Thus, we have for every t > 0, Z φ0 (t) = < −Ae−tA u(|e−tA u| − 1)+ sign (e−tA u)dµ X

= −
The second equality makes sense because of 2) and the fact that e−tA u ∈ D(a) for t > 0 (see the previous chapter). Using e−tA u = (1 ∧ |e−tA u|)sign (e−tA u) + (|e−tA u| − 1)+ sign (e−tA u) and assertion 2) we obtain φ0 (t) ≤ − 0. Since limt→0 φ(t) = 0, we obtain φ(t) = 0 for all t > 0. This gives |e−tA u| ≤ 1, which is the L∞ -contractivity property. 2

If our starting contraction semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 on L2 (X, µ, C) satisfies the L∞ -contractivity property, then using the Riesz-Thorin interpolation theorem, we can extend each operator e−tA from L2 (X, µ, C)∩Lp (X, µ, C) to a contraction operator on Lp (X, µ, C) for 2 ≤ p ≤ ∞. We denote again by e−tA this extension to Lp (X, µ, C). A density argument shows that the family (e−tA )t≥0 defines a strongly continuous semigroup of contractions on Lp (X, µ, C) for each p with 2 ≤ p < ∞. By duality, the adjoint semi∗ group (e−tA )t≥0 is strongly continuous and contractive on Lp (X, µ, C) for 1 < p ≤ 2. In addition, it also defines a strongly continuous contractive semigroup on L1 (X, µ, C). In order to show the strong continuity, we prove that ∗

lim ke−tA χB − χB k1 = 0

t→0

for every measurable subset B of finite measure, where χB denotes the indicator function of B. By H¨older’s inequality, we have ŒZ Œ Z Œ Œ ∗ Œ |e−tA∗ χB |dµ − χB dµŒŒ ≤ µ(B)1/2 ke−tA χB − χB k2 . Œ B

B

Thus, the strong continuity on L2 (X, µ, C) implies ”Z • Z −tA∗ |e χB |dµ − lim χB dµ = 0. t→0

B

B

57

CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

Since −tA∗

kχB k1 ≥ ke

χB k1 =

it follows that lim

Z

−tA∗

X\B

Z

t→0 X\B

|e

χB |dµ +

Z

∗

B

|e−tA χB |dµ,

∗

|e−tA χB |dµ = 0.

Writing ke

−tA∗

χB − χB k1 =

Z

B

−tA∗

|e

χB − χB |dµ + ∗

Z

∗

X\B

≤ µ(B)1/2 ke−tA χB − χB k2 +

Z

|e−tA χB |dµ

X\B

∗

|e−tA χB |dµ,

∗

we see that lim ke−tA χB − χB k1 = 0. The strong continuity of the semigroup

t→0 ∗ (e−tA )t≥0

on L1 (X, µ, C) follows then by a density argument. ∗

Recall that (e−tA )t≥0 is the semigroup associated with the adjoint form ∗ a (cf. Proposition 1.24). Using this and the previous results, we can char∗ acterize the fact that the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive (or equivalently, that (e−tA )t≥0 is L1 -contractive). We have C OROLLARY 2.16 Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.13, the following assertions are equivalent: ∗ 1) The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. −tA is a contraction operator on Lp (X, µ, C) for all p, 2) For each t > 0, e 1 ≤ p ≤ 2. 3) u ∈ D(a) =⇒ (1 ∧ |u|)sign u ∈ D(a) and
58

CHAPTER 2

C OROLLARY 2.17 Under the assumptions of Theorem 2.15, the following assertions are equivalent: 1) The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian. 2) u ∈ D(a) =⇒ (
We turn now to another property. Let a and b be two sesquilinear forms on H = L2 (X, µ, C) and satisfying the standard assumptions (1.2)−(1.5) as in the previous sections. Denote by A and B their associated operators, respectively. Denote by (e−tA )t≥0 and (e−tB )t≥0 their associated semigroups on H. We want to characterize in terms of the forms the domination property |e−tA f | ≤ e−tB |f | for all f ∈ H and t ≥ 0. Here and in the rest of this section, all the inequalities are understood in the µ a.e. sense.

59

CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

When this inequality holds, we will say that (e−tA )t≥0 is dominated by (e−tB )t≥0 . This property plays an important role in several situations, e.g., in estimates of heat kernels or in spectral theory (properties like compactness or Hilbert-Schmidt carry over from e−tB to e−tA ). We first introduce the following definition. D EFINITION 2.19 Let U and V be two subspaces of H. We shall say that U is an ideal of V if the following two conditions are satisfied: 1) u ∈ U =⇒ |u| ∈ V. 2) If u ∈ U and v ∈ V are such that |v| ≤ |u|, then the product vsign u ∈ U. In the first result, we show that positivity of the semigroup implies that D(a) is an ideal of itself. We have P ROPOSITION 2.20 Let a be densely defined, acrretive, continuous, and closed form on H = L2 (X, µ, C). Consider the following assertions: 1) The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is positive. 2) D(a) is an ideal of itself and
(2.5)

Indeed, if f is real-valued then (2.5) follows from the positivity of e−tA and the obvious inequalities f ≤ |f | and −f ≤ |f |. For general f, it follows from |f | = sup{<(eiθ f ), 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π}. Define now on H × H, the sesquilinear form c(U0 , U1 ) := a(u0 , u1 ) + a(v0 , v1 ), D(c) := D(a) × D(a), U0 = (u0 , v0 ), U1 = (u1 , v1 ). It is easy to see that the sesquilinear form c is densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed. The semigroup (T (t))t≥0 generated by (minus) the operator associated with c on H × H is given by “ ’ −tA e 0 for all t ≥ 0. T (t) = e−tA 0

60

CHAPTER 2

Now it is clear from (2.5) that (e−tA )t≥0 is positive if and only if (T (t))t≥0 leaves invariant the following closed convex set of H × H, C = {(u, v) ∈ H × H, |u| ≤ v}.

(2.6)

Using (2.1), one shows that the projection P of H × H onto C is given by ’” ” •+ •+ “ 1 (2.7) P(u, v) = |u| + |u| ∧
Conversely, assume that (e−tA )t≥0 is real and that D(a) is an ideal of itself. Thus, |u| ∈ D(a) for every u ∈ D(a). This implies that u+ ∈ D(a) for every u ∈ D(a) ∩ HR . Apply now assertion 2) with v = u+ to obtain a(u, u+ ) ≥ a(|u|, u+ ),

that is, a(u− , u+ ) ≤ 0.

By Theorem 2.6, this implies that the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is positive.

2

Remark. The positivity of (e−tA )t≥0 implies that |v|sign u ∈ D(a) for all u, v ∈ D(a) such that |v| ≤ |u|. This follows directly from the fact that D(a) is an ideal of itself. We come now to the domination property. We consider two densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear forms a and b on H = L2 (X, µ, C). We denote by (e−tA )t≥0 and (e−tB )t≥0 their associated semigroups, respectively. T HEOREM 2.21 Assume that the semigroup (e−tB )t≥0 is positive. The following assertions are equivalent: 1) |e−tA f | ≤ e−tB |f | for all t ≥ 0 and all f ∈ H. 2) D(a) is an ideal of D(b) and
CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

61

Proof. We define on H × H the sesquilinear form c(U0 , U1 ) = a(u0 , u1 ) + b(v0 , v1 ), D(c) = D(a) × D(b), U0 = (u0 , v0 ), U1 = (u1 , v1 ). The semigroup (T (t))t≥0 , associated with c on H × H is given by ’ −tA “ e 0 . T (t) = 0 e−tB Clearly, 1) is equivalent to the fact that T (t)C ⊆ C for all t ≥ 0, where C is the convex set given by (2.6). Assume that 1) holds. By Theorem 2.2, we have P(D(a) × D(b)) ⊆ D(a) × D(b). Using (2.7), we obtain that D(a) is an ideal of D(b). Let u, v ∈ D(a) be such that uv ≥ 0. In particular, uv = |u||v|. By Lemma 1.56, we have 1
62

CHAPTER 2

Hence, for every (u, v) ∈ D(a) × D(b), “ ’ 1 +
2

C OROLLARY 2.22 Assume that a and b are restrictions of a form s whose associated semigroup is positive. Assume in addition that (e−tB )t≥0 is positive. Then the following assertions are equivalent: 1) (e−tA )t≥0 is dominated by (e−tB )t≥0 . 2) D(a) is an ideal of D(b). Proof. Let (u, v) ∈ D(a) × D(b) be such that |v| ≤ |u|. By assumption, the semigroup associated with the form s is positive, hence by Proposition 2.20 <s(u, |v|sign u) ≥ s(|u|, |v|). Using this, we have
2

CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

63

We consider now the situation where the two semigroups (e−tA )t≥0 and (e−tB )t≥0 are positive. Clearly, in this case, it is enough to consider only non-negative f in the domination property. This leads to a simplification in the characterization of the domination. In particular, the ideal property coincides now with the known notion of lattice ideal in Banach lattice spaces.3 More precisely, we have P ROPOSITION 2.23 Assume that the semigroups (e−tA )t≥0 and (e−tB )t≥0 are both positive. If (e−tA )t≥0 is dominated by (e−tB )t≥0 then D(a) ⊆ D(b). Moreover, the following are equivalent: 1) D(a) is an ideal of D(b). 2) If 0 ≤ v ≤ u, u ∈ D(a) and v ∈ D(b) then v ∈ D(a). 3) If |v| ≤ |u|, u ∈ D(a) and v ∈ D(b) then v ∈ D(a).

Proof. Let u ∈ D(a). Since (e−tA )t≥0 is positive, we have
T HEOREM 2.24 Assume that the two semigroups (e−tA )t≥0 and (e−tB )t≥0 are positive. The following assertions are equivalent: 1) (e−tA )t≥0 is dominated by (e−tB )t≥0 . 2) D(a) is an ideal of D(b) and a(u, v) ≥ b(u, v) for all u, v ∈ D(a)∩H + .

Proof. Theorem 2.21 shows that 1) implies 2). Conversely, let u, v ∈ D(a) be such that uv ≥ 0. Because of (2.5) we can apply Theorem 2.21 with a in place of b and then obtain
This is why we used the terminology of ”ideal” in Definition 2.19.

64

CHAPTER 2

The conclusion follows again from Theorem 2.21.

2

Remark. 1) The results in this section are true if instead of assuming that both forms are accretive we merely assume that
2.4 OPERATIONS ON THE FORM-DOMAIN

A normal contraction on C is a function p : C → C which satisfies p(0) = 0 and |p(x) − p(y)| ≤ |x − y| for all x, y ∈ C. Given u ∈ H = L2 (X, µ, C), we define p(u) to be the composition function p(u)(x) = p(u(x)). It is well known that normal contractions operate on the Sobolev space H 1 (Rn ), that is, p(u) ∈ H 1 (Rn ) for every normal contraction p and every u ∈ H 1 (Rn ). More generally, it is well known that normal contractions operate on the domain of any symmetric Dirichlet form (the latter means a symmetric form whose semigroup is sub-Markovian). We prove this in the next result. We also show a similar result for forms whose associated semigroup is merely L∞ -contractive. T HEOREM 2.25 Assume that a is a densely defined, accretive, and closed symmetric form on H = L2 (X, µ, C). The following assertions are equivalent: 1) The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian. 2) p(D(a)) ⊆ D(a) and a(p(u), p(u)) ≤ a(u, u) for every u ∈ D(a) and every normal contraction p.

65

CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

Proof. Choosing the functions p(z) = ( 0 and every u ∈ H, (p(u) − e−tA p(u); p(u)) ≤ (u − e−tA u; u).

By aP density argument, it is enough to prove this inequality for functions n u = i=1 αi χAi , where Ai are disjoint measurable subsets of X such that µ(Ai ) < ∞. Here χAi denotes the characteristic function of Ai . Thus, we need to prove that n X

(χAi − e−tA χAi ; χAj )p(αi )p(αj ) ≤

i,j=1

n X

i,j=1

(χAi − e−tA χAi ; χAj )αi αj .

Set bij := (χAi − e−tA χAi ; χAj ), λi := (χAi ; χAi ), aij := (e−tA χAi ; χAj ). Since e−tA is self-adjoint, we have X X X X aij ]|p(αj )|2 . [λj − bij p(αi )p(αj ) = aij |p(αi ) − p(αj )|2 + i,j

i<j

j

i

The Pn sub-Markovian property of the semigroup implies that aij ≥ 0 and i=1 aij ≤ λj . Using this and the fact that p is a normal contraction we obtain the desired inequality. 2 In the next proposition we show that if (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive, then it is dominated by a sub-Markovian semigroup. More precisely,

P ROPOSITION 2.26 Assume that (T (t))t≥0 is strongly continuous semigroup on L2 (X, µ, C) which is contractive on Lp (X, µ, C) for every p ∈ [1, ∞]. Then there exists a sub-Markovian semigroup (T Œ (t))t≥0 which satisfies |T (t)u| ≤ T Œ (t)|u| f or all t ≥ 0, u ∈ Lp (X, µ, C). Moreover, any other semigroup which dominates (T (t))t≥0 also dominates the semigroup (T Œ (t))t≥0 .4 Proof. For each t ≥ 0, the operator T (t) is a contraction on L1 (X, µ, C). Thus by a result of Chacon and Krengel [ChKr64], it has a modulus operator |T (t)| ∈ L(L1 (X, µ, C)), defined for 0 ≤ f ∈ L1 (X, µ, C) by |T (t)|f := sup |T (t)g| for 0 ≤ f ∈ L1 (X, µ, C). |g|≤f

4

(T Œ (t))t≥0 is called the modulus semigroup of (T (t))t≥0 .

66

CHAPTER 2

Kubokawa [Kub75]5 has shown that the semigroup (T Œ (t))t≥0 can be defined in L1 (X, µ, C) as follows: Œ ’ “Œ[2n r] Œ 1 ŒŒ Œ T (r)f := lim ŒŒT f for r ∈ Q+ and 0 ≤ f ∈ L1 (X, µ, C), n 2n Œ

where [.] denotes the integer part. For real t ≥ 0, one puts T Œ (t)f =

lim

r→t,r∈Q+

T Π(r)f.

Now it is clear that T Œ (t) satisfies 0 ≤ T Œ (t)f ≤ 1 for 0 ≤ f ≤ 1. Hence (T Œ (t))t≥0 is a sub-Markovian semigroup. Assume that (S(t))t≥0 is a positive semigroup acting on Lp (X, µ, C) for some p ∈ [1, ∞), and which dominates (T (t))t≥0 . Then for every f ∈ L1 ∩ Lp , Œ ’ “Œ Œ ’ “ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ 1 ŒT Œ |f | = sup ŒT 1 g Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ 2n 2n |g|≤|f | ’ “ 1 |f |. ≤S 2n Hence, it follows from the definition of T Œ (r) that T Œ (r)|f | ≤ S(r)|f | for each r ∈ Q+ . This implies the last claim of the proposition.

2

The next result shows how normal contractions operate on domains of forms whose semigroup is merely L∞ -contractive. T HEOREM 2.27 Assume that the form a is densely defined, accretive, con∗ tinuous, and closed. If the semigroups (e−tA )t≥0 and its adjoint (e−tA )t≥0 are both L∞ -contractive, then: p(|u|)sign u ∈ D(a) for every u ∈ D(a) and every normal contraction p. ∗

Proof. If (e−tA )t≥0 and its adjoint (e−tA )t≥0 are L∞ -contractive, then the semigroup (e−tB )t≥0 associated to the symmetric part b = 12 (a + a∗ ) is L∞ -contractive. This can be seen by applying Theorem 2.13 to both forms a and a∗ . It follows now that (e−tB )t≥0 acts as a contraction semigroup on Lq (X, µ, C) for every q ∈ [1, ∞). By the previous proposition, there exists a modulus semigroup (T Œ (t))t≥0 of (e−tB )t≥0 . We have also seen in the proof of the latter proposition that (T Œ (t))t≥0 is a contraction semigroup on Lq (X, µ, C) for 1 ≤ q < ∞. 5

See also Kipnis [Kip74].

67

CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

The semigroup (T Œ (t))t≥0 dominates (e−tB )t≥0 on L2 (X, µ, C); then by taking the adjoints, we obtain that (T Œ (t)∗ )t≥0 dominates (e−tB )t≥0 . Hence, (T Œ (t)∗ )t≥0 dominates (T Œ (t))t≥0 . We deduce from this that T Œ (t) is self-adjoint for each t ≥ 0. This implies that the generator of (T Œ (t)∗ )t≥0 , say −C, is a self-adjoint operator. Let c be the symmetric non-negative (i.e., accretive) form whose associated operator is C (c exists by Theorem 1.57). Theorem 2.21 asserts that D(a)(= D(b)) is an ideal of D(c). Now let u ∈ D(a) and p be a normal contraction. Since |u| ∈ D(c), we have p(|u|) ∈ D(c) by Theorem 2.25. But |p(|u|)| ≤ |u| and using again the fact that D(a) is an ideal of D(c), we obtain p(|u|)sign u ∈ D(a). 2 T HEOREM 2.28 Let a and (e−tA )t≥0 be as in the previous theorem. ∗ 1) If (e−tA )t≥0 and (e−tA )t≥0 are sub-Markovian, then uv ∈ D(a) for all u, v ∈ D(a) ∩ L∞ (X, µ, C). ∗ 2) If (e−tA )t≥0 and (e−tA )t≥0 are L∞ -contractive, then u|v| ∈ D(a) for all u, v ∈ D(a) ∩ L∞ (X, µ, C).

Proof. Let b, c, B, and C be as in the proof of Theorem 2.27. Note that ∗ if (e−tA )t≥0 and (e−tA )t≥0 are sub-Markovian, then (e−tB )t≥0 is sub∗ Markovian, too; and if (e−tA )t≥0 and (e−tA )t≥0 are L∞ -contractive, then so is (e−tB )t≥0 (apply Theorems 2.6 and 2.13). 1) Using uv = 12 (u + v)2 − 21 u2 − 21 v 2 , it is enough to prove that u2 ∈ D(a) = D(b) for all u ∈ D(a) ∩ L∞ (X, µ, C). In order to show Pn this, we use the same idea as in the proof of Theorem 2.25. Let u = i=1 αi χAi , where Ai are disjoint measurable subsets with finite measure. Set bij := (χAi − e−tB χAi ; χAj ), λi := (χAi ; χAi ) and aij := (e−tB χAi ; χAj ). Since e−tB is self-adjoint, we have X bij αi2 αj 2 (u2 − e−tB u2 , u2 ) = i,j

=

X i<j

aij |αi2 − αj2 |2 + 2

≤ 4 sup |αi | i

X

+ sup |αi |2 i

i<j

j

"

λj − 2

X i

#

aij |αj2 |2

aij |αi − αj |

X j

X

"

λj −

X i

#

aij |αj |2 .

To λj − P obtain the last inequality, we have used the facts that aij ≥ 0 and −tB ) a ≥ which follow from the sub-Markovian property of 0 (e t≥0 . ij i Thus, we have proved (u2 − e−tB u2 ; u2 ) ≤ 4kuk2∞ (u − e−tB u; u).

68

CHAPTER 2

This inequality extends to all u ∈ L2 (X, µ, C) ∩ L∞ (X, µ, C). An application of Lemma 1.56 shows that u2 ∈ D(b) = D(a) for all u ∈ D(a) ∩ L∞ (X, µ, C). 2) As in the proof of Theorem 2.27, we construct a symmetric form c whose associated semigroup is sub-Markovian and such that D(a)(= D(b)) is an ideal of D(c). Now if u, v ∈ D(a) ∩ L∞ (X, µ, C), then |u|, |v| ∈ D(c) ∩ L∞ (X, µ, C). In addition, assertion 1) gives |u||v| ∈ D(c). Using now |u||v| ≤ kvk∞ |u| and the fact that D(a) is an ideal of D(c), we obtain assertion 2).

2

2.5 SEMIGROUPS ACTING ON VECTOR-VALUED FUNCTIONS

In this section, we analyze semigroups acting on vector-valued functions. Let us first fix notation. Let K be a Hilbert space with scalar product < ., . >K and associated norm |.|K . Let H := L2 (X, µ, K) be the space of measurable functions f such that ”Z •1/2 2 |f (x)|K dµ(x) < ∞. kf k := X

Here (X, µ) is a σ-finite measure space. As above we denote by k.k and (.; .) the norm and scalar product of H, that is, Z (u; v) := < u(x), v(x) >K dµ(x) for all u, v ∈ H X

p and kuk = (u; u). Let ˜a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed sesquilinear form on H. We denote by A˜ the operator associated with ˜a. The operator ˜ −A˜ generates a contraction semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 on H = L2 (X, µ, K). ˜ In this section we study the question of extending the semigroup e−tA to p a contraction semigroup on L (X, µ, K) for p 6= 2. In order to do this, we will study two properties. The first property is L∞ -contractivity: ˜

ke−tA ukL∞ (X,µ,K) ≤ kukL∞ (X,µ,K) , for all u ∈ L2 (X, µ, K) ∩ L∞ (X, µ, K) and all t ≥ 0. ˜ As in the scalar case, if (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive then it extends to a strongly continuous semigroup on Lp (X, µ, K) for 2 ≤ p < ∞. The ˜∗ same conclusion holds for 1 ≤ p ≤ 2 if the adjoint semigroup (e−tA )t≥0

69

CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES ˜∗

˜

is L∞ -contractive. If both (e−tA )t≥0 and (e−tA )t≥0 are L∞ -contractive, ˜ then the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 extends to a strongly continuous semigroup on Lp (X, µ, K), 1 ≤ p < ∞. The strong continuity on L1 (X, µ, K) can be shown by similar arguments as in the scalar case (see Section 2.2). ˜ There is a second way which allows us to extend (e−tA )t≥0 to a contraction semigroup on Lp (X, µ, K) spaces. It consists of finding a subMarkovian semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 acting on L2 (X, µ, R) which satisfies the domination property ˜

|e−tA u(.)|K ≤ e−tA |u|K (.) for all t ≥ 0, u ∈ H. ˜

As above, if this property holds, we say that (e−tA )t≥0 is dominated by (e−tA )t≥0 . We have studied both properties in previous sections in the scalar-valued case K = C or R. We will see here that the same results hold in the vectorvalued setting. We define sign u as in the scalar case by replacing the absolute value by the norm of K. That is ( u(x) if u(x) 6= 0, |u(x)|K sign u(x) = 0 if u(x) = 0, for u ∈ H = L2 (X, µ, K). We also use the notation |u|K for the function x 7→ |u(x)|K . T HEOREM 2.29 The following assertions are equivalent: ˜ 1) The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. 2) u ∈ D(˜ a) =⇒ (1 ∧ |u|K )sign u ∈ D(˜a) and <˜ a(u, u − (1 ∧ |u|K )signu) ≥ 0. 3) u ∈ D(˜a) =⇒ (1 ∧ |u|K )sign u ∈ D(˜ a) and <˜a((1 ∧ |u|K )sign u, u − (1 ∧ |u|K )sign u) ≥ 0. 3´) There exists a core D of ˜ a such that (1 ∧ |u|K )sign u ∈ D(˜a) and <˜a((1 ∧ |u|K )sign u, u − (1 ∧ |u|K )sign u) ≥ 0 for all u ∈ D. If the form ˜a is symmetric, then the above assertions are equivalent to each of the following: 4) u ∈ D(˜ a) =⇒ (1 ∧ |u|K )sign u ∈ D(˜ a) and ˜a((1 ∧ |u|K )sign u, (1 ∧ |u|K )sign u) ≤ a˜(u, u). 4´) There exists a core D of ˜a such that (1 ∧ |u|K )sign u ∈ D(˜a) and a˜((1 ∧ |u|K )sign u, (1 ∧ |u|K )sign u) ≤ ˜ a(u, u) for all u ∈ D.

Proof. It is easy to see that L∞ -contractivity is equivalent to the fact that for every u ∈ L2 (X, µ, K) ∩ L∞ (X, µ, K), ˜

|u|K ≤ 1 =⇒ |e−tA u|K ≤ 1 for all t ≥ 0.

70

CHAPTER 2 ˜

The latter property is equivalent to the fact that the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 leaves invariant the closed convex set (of H) given by C = {u ∈ L2 (X, µ, K), |u|K ≤ 1}. The projection of L2 (X, µ, K) onto C is given by Pu = (1 ∧ |u|K )sign u. Applying Theorems 2.2 and 2.3 we obtain the above result. 2 Now let a be a densely defined, accretive, continuous, and closed form on L2 (X, µ, R). Denote by (e−tA )t≥0 its associated semigroup. We have T HEOREM 2.30 Assume that (e−tA )t≥0 is positive. The following assertions are equivalent: ˜ 1) (e−tA )t≥0 is dominated by (e−tA )t≥0 . a(u, |f |sign u) ≥ a(|u|K , |f |) for all 2) D(˜ a) is an ideal of D(a) and <˜ a) × D(a) such that |f | ≤ |u|K . (u, f ) ∈ D(˜ 3) D(˜a) is an ideal of D(a) and <˜ a(u, v) ≥ a(|u|K , |v|K ) for all u, v ∈ D(˜a) such that < u, v >K = |u|K |v|K . Here, we say that D(˜a) is an ideal of D(a) if the following two properties are satisfied: i) u ∈ D(˜a) =⇒ |u|K ∈ D(a). a), f ∈ D(a) are such that |f | ≤ |u|K , then |f |sign u ∈ D(˜a). ii) If u ∈ D(˜ Proof. Again the proof is very similar to the case of scalar-valued functions. Suppose that assertion 1) holds. Define the form c on H := L2 (X, µ, K) × L2 (X, µ, R) by c(U, V ) = ˜a(u, v)+a(f, g), U = (u, f ), V = (v, g) ∈ D(c) = D(˜a)×D(a). The semigroup generated by c on H is given by ’ “ ˜ e−tA 0 −tc e := for all t ≥ 0. 0 e−tA The domination property is equivalent to the fact that the semigroup e−tc leaves invariant the closed convex set C := {(u, f ) ∈ L2 (X, µ, K) × L2 (X, µ, R), |u|K ≤ f }. The projection P onto C is given by ’” •+ ” •+ “ 1 P(u, f ) = |u|K + (
71

CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

a) such that < u, v >K = |u|K |v|K we is an ideal of D(a). For u, v ∈ D(˜ have by Lemma 1.56 1 ˜ a(u, v) = lim <(u − e−tA u; v) <˜ t→0 t Z 1 ˜ = lim < < u(x) − e−tA u(x), v(x) >K dµ(x) t→0 t XZ 1 ˜ [|u(x)|K − |e−tA u(x)|K ]|v(x)|K dµ(x) ≥ lim sup t X t→0 Z 1 ≥ lim sup [|u(x)|K − e−tA |u|K (x)]|v(x)|K dµ(x) t t→0 X = a(|u|K , |u|K ). This shows assertion 3). If 3) holds, then for (u, f ) ∈ D(˜ a) × D(a) such that |f | ≤ |u|K we have |f |sign u ∈ D(˜ a) and < u, |f |sign u >K = |u|K ||f |. Applying 3) to u and |f |sign u yields 2). The proof that 2) implies 1) is exactly the same as in the scalar case. The idea is to show that
2

Remark. 1) If we assume in addition that (e−tA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian, ˜ then the domination property allows us to extend (e−tA )t≥0 to a strongly continuous semigroup on Lp (X, µ, K) for all 2 ≤ p < ∞. 2) We have written the results of this section in the case where K is a Hilbert space, but we could include the case where K is a vector bundle over X equipped with an inner product < ., . >x on each fiber Kx . The inner product < ., . >x depends measurably on x and each Kx is a Hilbert 1

space with respect to the norm |.|x :=x2 . The scalar product of H = L2 (X, µ, K) is given by (u; v) = X < u(x), v(x) >x dm(x). In this situation, L∞ -contractivity is equivalent to the fact that the semigroup ˜ (e−tA )t≥0 leaves invariant the closed convex set C := {u ∈ L2 (X, m, K), |u(x)|x ≤ 1 (µ a.e.)}. We then obtain Theorem 2.29 with |.|K replaced by |.|x in the statements. Similarly, Theorem 2.30 holds in this setting, too. Consider as above, a sesquilinear form ˜ a on L2 (X, µ, K) and denote by ˜ (e−tA )t≥0 its associated contraction semigroup. Let R : X → L(K) be

72

CHAPTER 2

a field of bounded linear operators on K and assume that the map x 7→< R(x)u(x), u(x) >K is measurable for all u ∈ L2 (X, µ, K). We define the ˜ := ˜ a + R by perturbed form b Z ˜ v) = ˜a(u, v) + < R(x)u(x), v(x) >K dµ(x), b(u, X › š Z ˜ a), D(b) = u ∈ D(˜ | < R(x)u(x), u(x) >K |dµ(x) < ∞ X

(in the sequel, we shall write for simplicity < R(x)u, u >K instead of ˜ is densely defined, < R(x)u(x), u(x) >K ). We assume that the form b ˜ accretive, continuous, and closed. Denote by (e−tB )t≥0 its associated semigroup on L2 (X, µ, K). Note that if the family R(x) consists of compact self-adjoint operators on K then we can write (analogous to Schr¨odinger operators) R = R+ − R− , where < R± (x)u, u >K ≥ 0. This can be seen by putting R+ (x)ξ = R(x)ξ if ξ belongs to the eigenspace corresponding to some non-negative eigenvalue of R(x) and = 0 otherwise, and ˜ can R− = (−R)+ . Now the questions of continuity and closability of b be studied more easily because this form can be seen as the perturbation of ˜a + R+ (which is the sum of two accretive forms) by −R− , which is assumed to be ( ˜a + R+ )-bounded with bound less than 1. ˜

P ROPOSITION 2.31 Suppose that (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. Then the ˜ semigroup (e−tB )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive if and only if <

Z

X

< R(x)u, u >K

1 (|u|K − 1)+ dµ |u|2K

a((1 ∧ |u|K )sign u, (|u|K − 1)+ sign u), ≥ −<˜

˜ In particular, if < < R(x)u, u >K ≥ 0 (for a.e. x ∈ X for all u ∈ D(b). ˜ 2 and all u ∈ L (X, µ, K)), then (e−tB )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. The proof is a simple application of Theorem 2.29 and the obvious remark that < R(x)(1 ∧ |u|K )sign u, u − (1 ∧ |u|K )sign u >K =< R(x)u, u >K

1 (|u|K − 1)+ . |u|2K

Note that if a˜ is symmetric and the R(x) are self-adjoint operators on K,

73

CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

then the inequality in this proposition can be replaced by Z

X

< R(x)u, u >K (1 −

1 (1 ∧ |u|K )2 )dµ |u|2K

≥ a˜((1 ∧ |u|K )sign u, (1 ∧ |u|K )sign u) − ˜a(u, u).

Now let (e−tA )t≥0 be the semigroup on L2 (X, µ, R) associated with a form a and let V : X → R be a measurable function. Define as above the form b := a+V, which we assume to satisfy the usual conditions. Denote by (e−tB )t≥0 its associated semigroup on L2 (X, µ, R). Since V is real-valued, if (e−tA )t≥0 is positivity preserving then the same holds for (e−tB )t≥0 . This can be seen by applying Theorem 2.6, since a(u+ , u− ) + (V u+ , u− ) = a(u+ , u− ) ≤ 0. ˜

P ROPOSITION 2.32 Suppose that (e−tA )t≥0 is dominated by (e−tA )t≥0 and suppose that ˜ < < R(x)u(x), u(x) >K ≥ V (x)|u(x)|2K f or all u ∈ D(b). ˜

Then (e−tB )t≥0 is dominated by (e−tB )t≥0 . ˜

Proof. By Theorem 2.30, if (e−tA )t≥0 is dominated by (e−tA )t≥0 , then a) is an ideal of D(a) and D(˜ <˜ a(u, |f |sign u) ≥ a(|u|K , |f |) for all (u, f ) ∈ D(˜a) × D(a) such that |f | ≤ |u|K . ˜ is an ideal of D(b) and Now it is easy to see that this implies that D(b) ˜ and b, respectively. We apply a and a by b this inequality holds if we replace ˜ Theorem 2.30 again to conclude. 2 If, for example, the R(x) are self-adjoint compact operators on K, then the above proposition can be applied by taking V (x) to be the smallest eigenvalue of R(x). These results can be applied to study systems of evolution equations in Lp spaces. For a system of n equations, K = Cn and A˜ (the operator associated with the form a˜) and R(x) are n × n matrix operators. The operator A˜ + R can be studied on L2 (X, µ, K) by the sesquilinear form theory, and if A˜ and R satisfy the the assumptions of Proposition 2.31, one can then extend the original semigroup defined on L2 (X, µ, Cn ) to Lp (X, µ, Cn ). This allows one to prove existence and uniqueness of the solution to the system with initial data in Lp (X, µ, Cn ) for 2 ≤ p < ∞. The system on Lp (X, µ, Cn ) for p ≤ 2 can be treated by duality.

74

CHAPTER 2

2.6 SESQUILINEAR FORMS WITH NONDENSE DOMAINS

In the previous sections, we have studied several properties of semigroups in terms of their sesquilinear forms and we have assumed that the forms are densely defined. In this section, we show that we can remove this assumption. All the results of the present chapter (except Theorems 2.9, 2.10, and Corollary 2.11) hold for forms which are not densely defined. To understand why this situation is of some interest, let us mention, for example, that in order to compare (in the domination sense) two semigroups where one is acting on L2 (X, µ, R) and the other on L2 (Ω, µ, R), where Ω is an open set of X, then the sesquilinear form associated with the semigroup acting on L2 (Ω, µ, R) can be seen as a form on L2 (X, µ, R) which is not densely defined. Our approach to obtain criteria for positivity, L∞ -contractivity, and domination of semigroups is based on Theorems 2.2 and 2.3. Therefore, these criteria hold once we extend the latter two theorems to the case of forms which are not densely defined. Let H be a general Hilbert space as in Section 2.2 and let a be an accretive, continuous, and closed form. There exists an associated operator A acting on the closure (with respect with the norm of H) D(a) of D(a). The operator −A generates on D(a) a semigroup which we denote by (e−tA )t≥0 . We extend this semigroup to H by putting š −tA u if u ∈ D(a), e T (t)u = 0 if u ∈ D(a)⊥ , where D(a)⊥ denotes the complement of D(a) in H. Now let C be a closed convex set of H and let P be the projection of H onto C. We have T HEOREM 2.33 The following assertions are equivalent: 1) T (t)C ⊆ C for all t ≥ 0. 2) P(D(a)) ⊆ D(a) and
75

CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

Proof. Denote by Q the orthogonal projection of H onto D(a). If 1) holds, then in particular T (0)C ⊆ C, that is, QC ⊆ C.

(2.8)

P(D(a)) ⊆ D(a).

(2.9)

This implies that

Indeed, for u ∈ D(a) and every v ∈ C, we have ku − QPuk = kQu − QPuk ≤ ku − Puk ≤ ku − vk. But QPu ∈ C because of (2.8). It follows then from the definition of the projection that Pu = QPu, which gives (2.9). Clearly, D(a) ∩ C is a closed convex subset of D(a). In addition, since P(D(a)) ⊆ D(a) ∩ C (remember (2.9)) it follows that D(a) ∩ C is not empty. It is also clear that the projection of D(a) onto D(a) ∩ C is P. Thus, Theorem 2.2 applied to a considered as a form on D(a) and to the convex set D(a) ∩ C shows that assertion 1) implies each of the other assertions of the theorem. Conversely, assume that one of the assertions 2), 3), 3´) (or 4), 4´) in the symmetric case) holds. Using the continuity of P and the fact that P(D) ⊆ D(a) we obtain (2.9). In particular, the closed convex set D(a) ∩ C is not empty. Theorem 2.2 applied again to a and the convex set D(a) ∩ C gives e−tA (D(a) ∩ C) ⊆ D(a) ∩ C for all t ≥ 0.

(2.10)

Now we show that (2.9) implies (2.8). Let u ∈ C and v ∈ D(a). As above, ku − PQuk = kPu − PQuk ≤ ku − Quk ≤ ku − vk. It follows from (2.9) that PQu ∈ D(a) and since the above inequality holds for all v ∈ D(a), we conclude that PQu = Qu and hence (2.8) holds. Since T (t)u = e−tA Qu for all u ∈ H, we conclude from (2.8) and (2.10) that assertion 1) holds. This finishes the proof. 2 Based on this result, our approach in the previous sections to obtaining criteria for positivity, L∞ -contractivity, and the domination is still valid for forms with not necessarily dense domains. Thus all those criteria hold for these forms with (T (t))t≥0 (defined above) in place of (e−tA )t≥0 in the statements. As we already mentioned, Theorems 2.9, 2.10, and Corollary 2.11 have to be reformulated in this case. Theorem 2.10 and Corollary 2.11 must be written as criteria for invariance under (T (t))t≥0 of L2 (Ω, µ, C)

76

CHAPTER 2

and not as irreducibility of (T (t))t≥0 . We have shown in the previous proof that condition (2.9) is a necessary condition for the invariance of the convex set C under the action of (T (t))t≥0 . This implies in particular the following properties: 1) Assume that H = L2 (X, µ, C). If (T (t))t≥0 is positive then
Notes Section 2.1. This part is mainly taken from Ouhabaz [Ouh96]. Theorem 2.2 (except assertion 4)) is proved in Ouhabaz [Ouh96]. The core version in assertion 4) of Theorem 2.2 and the remark following its proof were observed by Manavi, Vogt, and Voigt [MVV01]. Theorem 2.3 (without assertion 3)) is proved in [Ouh96]. Theorem 2.2 is inspired from the work of Brezis and Pazy [BrPa70] (where an operator version can be found). The same theorem was extended by Barth´elemy [Bar96] to forms that are associated with nonlinear coercive operators. Section 2.2. The idea of deducing positivity, L∞ -contractivity, and domination criteria as corollaries of invariance of closed convex sets comes from [Ouh96]. Proposition 2.5, Theorems 2.6, 2.13 (without assertion 3´)), and Theorem 2.14 (without assertion 3)) are proved in [Ouh92b] and [Ouh96]. Theorem 2.15 is taken from Auscher et al. [ABBO00]. A more general definition of irreducibility of semigroups can be found in Nagel [Nag86]. It coincides, however, with Definition 2.8 for positive holomorphic semigroups (see again [Nag86]. Remember that the semigroup associated to a form is holomorphic; see Chapter 1). Theorem 2.9 can be deduced from a result in Schaefer [Sch74] saying that every closed ideal of

CONTRACTIVITY PROPERTIES

77

L2 (X, µ, C) is an L2 (Ω, µ, C) for some Ω ⊆ X together with the fact that irreducibility means that the semigroup has no nontrivial closed invariant ideal (see [Nag86]). Beurling-Deny criteria can be found in several books, e.g., Fukushima [Fuk80], Fukushima, Oshima, and Takeda [FOT94], Bouleau and Hirsch [BoHi91], Davies [Dav89], Ma and R¨ockner [MaR¨o92]. The theory of Dirichlet forms has seen important developments since the publication of the pioneering papers of Beurling and Deny [BeDe58], [BeDe59]. This is due to the rich interplay between Dirichlet forms and Markov processes. We refer the reader to the books [Fuk80], [FOT94], [BoHi91], and [MaR¨o92] for more information on Dirichlet forms. In [MaR¨o92] nonsymmetric forms are also considered and criteria are given there for the subMarkovian property. As we want to study elliptic operators with complex coefficients as well, we give separate criteria for L∞ -contractivity without assuming positivity. ∗ The arguments used to prove strong continuity on L1 of (e−tA )t≥0 (when ∞ −tA (e )t≥0 is L -contractive) are taken from Davies [Dav89]. Section 2.3. The results on the domination of semigroups presented here are proved in Ouhabaz [Ouh96]. The notion of ideal in Definition 2.19 was introduced in that paper. The implication 2) ⇒ 1) in Theorem 2.24 was first proved by Stollmann and Voigt [StVo96] in the case of symmetric forms. Closed ideals in Dirichlet spaces are studied in Stollmann [Sto93]. Weak versions of Theorem 2.21 were proved by Simon [Sim79], Hess, Schrader, and Uhlenbrock [HSU77], and B´erard [B´er86]. Note that characterizations of the domination of semigroups in terms of their generators are known and hold in a more general setting of Banach spaces (see Nagel [Nag86]). Domination of semigroups plays a crucial role in spectral theory, in particular in the proof of Cwikel-Lieb-Rozenblum eigenvalue estimates; see Rozenblum and Solomyak [RoSo97] and Rozenblum [Roz00]. Theorem 2.21 is used by Melgaard, Ouhabaz, and Rozenblum [MOR03] in order to derive eigenvalue estimates for Aharonov-Bohm hamiltonians. Section 2.4. Theorem 2.25 and assertion 1) of Theorem 2.28 are well-known properties of Dirichlet spaces. Such results and more on Dirichlet spaces can be found in the books mentioned above [BoHi91], [Fuk80], [FOT94], [MaR¨o92], and [Dav89]. The proof given here for Theorem 2.25 can be found in [MaR¨o92] and is based on similar ideas used in the proof of Theorem XIII.51 in Reed-Simon [ReSi79]. Theorem 2.27 and assertion 2) of Theorem 2.28 seem to be new. Section 2.5. The section on semigroups acting on vector-valued functions is taken from Ouhabaz [Ouh99] following a work by Shigikawa [Shi97]. We describe briefly another application of the results in that section. For details and definitions, see B´erard [B´er86], Chavel [Cha84], Cycon et al. [CFKS87] (Chap. 12), and Strichartz [Str86]. On a complete Riemannian manifold M, one considers the space Λk (M ) of C ∞ differential forms of degree k ≤ dim M. Let d be the exterior

78

CHAPTER 2

˜ acting on derivative and δ its formal adjoint. The Hodge-de Rham Laplacian ∆ differential forms of degree k is the operator −(dδ + δd). It has a decomposition ˜ = ∆ + Rk , where ∆ is the Bochner Laplacian which (the Weitzenb¨ock formula) ∆ satisfies |e−t∆ w| ≤ e−t∆ |w|. Here ∆ is the Laplacian acting on functions (note that we are in the setting described in Remark 2) following the proof of Theorem 2.30; in particular, the norm |.| depends on the point). For a proof of the above domination property, see Hess, Schrader, and Uhlenbrock [HSU80], B´erard [B´er86], p. 172, or Cycon et al. [CFKS87], p. 264. If λ(x) denotes the smallest eigenvalue of Rk (x), then it follows from Proposition 2.32 that ˜

|e−t∆ w| ≤ e−t(∆+λ(x)) |w|.

(2.11)

˜

In particular, if λ is non-negative then (e−t∆ )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. The domination property (2.11) is also established in Shigikawa [Shi97]. The L∞ contractivity (when λ is non-negative) is proved by Strichartz [Str86], who also proved negative results to the Lp -contractivity for every p 6= 2. Section 2.6. This section is taken partly from Thomaschewski [Tho98] and partly from Barthel´emy [Bar96].

Chapter Three INEQUALITIES FOR SUB-MARKOVIAN SEMIGROUPS In this chapter we prove certain inequalities for sub-Markovian semigroups and their generators. A relationship between the sub-Markovian property and Kato type inequalities for the generator is established. This completes some of the results of Section 2.2. Note that the operators in consideration here are not necessarily associated with sesquilinear forms. Starting with a symmetric sub-Markovian semigroup on some L2 -space, we have seen in the previous chapter that it induces strongly continuous semigroups on the scale of Lp -spaces. We prove some inequalities for the corresponding generator on Lp . As a consequence, we obtain the holomorphy of such semigroups on Lp , 1 < p < ∞, with a sector of holomorphy wider than the usual one obtained by the Stein interpolation theorem. In the same time, a partial description of the domain of the corresponding generator on Lp is given. Throughout this chapter, (X, µ) will denote a σ-finite measure space. For u ∈ Lp (X, µ, C) and v ∈ Lq (X, µ, C) with p1 + 1q = 1, we use the notation Z (u; v) := u(x)v(x)dµ(x). X

If u ∈

Lp (X, µ, C)

with p ∈ [1, ∞), we set F (u) := |u|p−1 sign u,

(3.1)

where sign denotes the signum function defined in (2.2). If p = 1, then F (u) = sign u. As in the previous chapter, all inequalities between measurable functions are understood in the µ a.e. sense. We use again the notation (e−tA )t≥0 for the strongly continuous semigroup generated by the operator −A. 3.1 SUB-MARKOVIAN SEMIGROUPS AND KATO TYPE INEQUALITIES

We consider a strongly continuous semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 on Lp (X, µ, C) for some p, the following result characterizes in terms of its generator the

80

CHAPTER 3

L∞ -contractivity of the semigroup. T HEOREM 3.1 Let (e−tA )t≥0 be a contraction semigroup on Lp (X, µ, C) for some p ∈ [1, ∞). The following assertions are equivalent: 1) The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. 2) < (Au; F ((|u| − 1)+ sign u)) ≥ 0 for all u ∈ D(A). 3) There exists a core D of A such that < (Au; F ((|u| − 1)+ sign u)) ≥ 0 for all u ∈ D. Proof. We use the obvious fact that for p > 1 F ((|u| − 1)+ sign u) = [(|u| − 1)+ ]p−1 sign u, and for p = 1, the term in the right-hand side is replaced by χ{|u|>1} sign u, where χ{|u|>1} denotes the characteristic function of the set where |u| > 1. Of course, 2) implies 3). Assume now that assertion 3) holds. By a density argument, it is clear that the inequality there extends to all u ∈ D(A). Fix now λ > 0, f ∈ Lp (X, µ, C) with |f | ≤ 1 and apply this inequality with u = λ(λI + A)−1 f. We obtain Z A(λI + A)−1 f ((|λ(λI + A)−1 f | − 1)+ )p−1 sign λ(λI + A)−1 f dµ < X

≥ 0.

In other words, the term Z < [f sign λ(λI + A)−1 f −|λ(λI +A)−1 f |][|λ(λI +A)−1 f |−1)+ ]p−1 dµ X

is non-negative. Since |f | ≤ 1, it follows that <[f sign λ(λI + A)−1 f −|λ(λI +A)−1 f |][(|λ(λI +A)−1 f |−1)+ ]p−1 ≤ 0. Thus, <[f sign λ(λI + A)−1 f −|λ(λI +A)−1 f |][(|λ(λI +A)−1 f |−1)+ ]p−1 = 0.

This implies that |λ(λI + A)−1 f | ≤ 1. Since this is true for all λ > 0, we obtain assertion 1) by the exponential formula as in the prooof of Proposition 2.1. Assume that (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive and let u ∈ D(A). We have

€  1 < Au; F ((|u| − 1)+ sign u) = lim <(u − e−tA u; F ((|u| − 1)+ sign u)). t→0 t

Let us write u = 1∧|u|sign u+(|u|−1)+ sign u, where 1∧|u| := inf(1, |u|). Thus, <(u − e−tA u)F ((|u| − 1)+ sign u) = I1 + I2

INEQUALITIES FOR SUB-MARKOVIAN SEMIGROUPS

81

where I1 = <[1 ∧ |u| − e−tA (1 ∧ |u|sign u)sign u][(|u| − 1)+ ]p−1 and I2 = <[(|u| − 1)+ − e−tA ((|u| − 1)+ sign u)sign u][(|u| − 1)+ ]p−1 . Since |1 ∧ |u|sign u| ≤ 1 and the semigroup is L∞ -contractive, we have p I1 ≥ 0. On the other hand, the semigroup R is contractive on L (X, µ, C), so it follows from H¨older’s inequality that X I2 dµ ≥ 0. This implies assertion 2) of the theorem. 2 It is clear in this proof that for positive semigroups, one may consider only non-negative u ∈ D(A) in assertion 2). This leads to the following result. P ROPOSITION 3.2 Assume that (e−tA )t≥0 is a positive contraction semigroup on Lp (X, µ, C) for some p ∈ [1, ∞). Then the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian if and only if (Au; F ((u − 1)+ )) ≥ 0 for all 0 ≤ u ∈ D(A). The result in this proposition is in the spirit of the following well-known result which characterizes generators of positive contraction semigroups. P ROPOSITION 3.3 Assume that (e−tA )t≥0 is a contraction semigroup on Lp (X, µ, C) for some p ∈ [1, ∞). Then (e−tA )t≥0 is positive if and only if it is real and (Au; F (u+ )) ≥ 0 for all real u ∈ D(A).

Proof. Assume that (e−tA )t≥0 is a positive semigroup. Let u ∈ D(A) be real. We have (u − e−tA u)F (u+ ) = (u+ )p − (e−tA u+ )(u+ )p−1 + (e−tA u− )(u+ )p−1 ≥ (u+ )p − (e−tA u+ )(u+ )p−1 .

Again, (u+ )p−1 has to be replaced by χ{u>0} if p = 1. The fact that the semigroup is contractive together with H¨older’s inequality imply that for all t > 0 (u − e−tA u; F (u+ )) ≥ 0. Thus, 1 (Au; F (u+ )) = lim (u − e−tA u; F (u+ )) ≥ 0. t→0 t

82

CHAPTER 3

Conversely, let f ∈ Lp (X, µ, C) be such that f ≤ 0. We apply the inequality (Au; F (u+ )) ≥ 0, with u = λ(λI + A)−1 f where λ > 0 is fixed. This gives Z [f − λ(λI + A)−1 f ][(λ(λI + A)−1 f )+ ]p−1 dµ ≥ 0. X

Since f ≤ 0, we have

[f − λ(λI + A)−1 f ][(λ(λI + A)−1 f )+ ]p−1 ≤ 0,

and hence [f − λ(λI + A)−1 f ][(λ(λI + A)−1 f )+ ]p−1 = 0.

This gives (λ(λI+A)−1 f )+ = 0, which means that λ(λI+A)−1 is positive. This implies the positivity of the semigroup. 2 In the rest of this section, we will consider only positive semigroups. Thus, we can assume without restriction that our Lp -spaces are real. Indeed, if the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is positive, then clearly
for all u ∈ Lp (X, µ, R) ∩ L∞ (X, µ, R), t ≥ 0 and all j ∈ J0 . Here j(u) is the function j(u)(x) = j(u(x)). Proof. Note first that j ∈ J0 is locally a Lipschitz function and hence for u ∈ L∞ (X, µ, R), j(u) ∈ L∞ (X, µ, R). This shows that the quantity e−tA j(u) makes sense. Recall that every convex function on R is the supremum of affine functions on R. Fix j ∈ J0 and let s 7→ (an s + bn ) be a sequence of functions on R such that j(s) = sup(an s + bn ), s ∈ R. n

INEQUALITIES FOR SUB-MARKOVIAN SEMIGROUPS

83

Since j(0) = 0, it follows that bn ≤ 0 for all n ≥ 0. Thus, if (e−tA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian then bn ≤ e−tA bn . Hence, for every u ∈ Lp (X, µ, R) ∩ L∞ (X, µ, R), we have the pointwise inequality an e−tA u + bn ≤ e−tA (an u + bn ), t ≥ 0. Taking the supremum yields j(e−tA u) ≤ sup e−tA (an u + bn ) ≤ e−tA j(u), n

where we use the positivity of the semigroup to obtain the second inequality. Conversely, choosing j(s) = |s|, we obtain for every t ≥ 0 and u ∈ Lp (X, µ, R), |e−tA u| ≤ e−tA |u|. This gives the positivity of the semigroup. Choosing j(s) = −(1 ∧ |s|), we obtain e−tA (1 ∧ |u|) ≤ 1 ∧ e−tA |u|, which implies the L∞ -contractivity. 2 Note that every function j ∈ J0 has at each point r ∈ R, left and right 0 (r). Recall that derivatives jL0 (r) and jR 0 jL0 (r) ≤ jR (r) ≤

j(s) − j(r) 0 (s) for all s > r. ≤ jL0 (s) ≤ jR s−r

(3.2)

0 (r)] coincides with the set of It is clear from (3.2) that the interval [jL0 (r), jR real elements w such that

j(s) ≥ j(r) + w(s − r) for all s ∈ R The set of such w is called the subdifferential of j at the point r and is denoted by ∂j(r). For a function u ∈ Lp (X, µ, R), we will write w ∈ ∂j(u) to mean that w(x) ∈ ∂j(u(x)) for µ a.e. x ∈ X. Let us now denote by J0∞ the subset of J0 , of functions whose right and left derivatives are bounded on R. Note that for every j ∈ J0∞ , there exists a constant M such that |j(r)| ≤ M |r| for all r ∈ R. Thus, j(u) ∈ Lp (X, µ, R) for all j ∈ J0∞ and u ∈ Lp (X, µ, R). It follows in particular that for j ∈ J0∞ the inequality in the previous proposition holds for all u ∈ Lp (X, µ, R). The sub-Markovian property can be characterized in terms of Kato type inequalities. More precisely, T HEOREM 3.5 Let (e−tA )t≥0 be a strongly continuous and positive semigroup on Lp (X, µ, R) for some p ∈ [1, ∞). The following assertions are equivalent:

84

CHAPTER 3

1) The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian. 2) For every j ∈ J0∞ , we have

(j(u); A∗ φ) ≤ (Au; wφ)

for all 0 ≤ φ ∈ D(A∗ ), 1 u ∈ D(A) and w ∈ ∂j(u). 3) For every u ∈ D(A) and every 0 ≤ φ ∈ D(A∗ ),

(χ{u<1} Au; φ) ≤ (1 ∧ u; A∗ φ),

where χ{u<1} denotes the indicator function of the set {x ∈ X, u(x) < 1}. Proof. We show that 1) implies 2). Let u ∈ D(A), w ∈ ∂j(u), and 0 ≤ φ ∈ D(A∗ ). Since j ∈ J0∞ , it follows that w ∈ L∞ (X, µ, R). Moreover, we have from the definition of w ∈ ∂j(u) and from the previous proposition, e−tA j(u) ≥ j(e−tA u) ≥ j(u) + w(e−tA u − u) for all t > 0.

Here the expression e−tA j(u) makes sense because j(u) ∈ Lp (X, µ, R) as explained above. Thus, since 0 ≤ φ, we have for t > 0 1 1 (u − e−tA u; wφ) = (w(u − e−tA u); φ) t t 1 ≥ (j(u) − e−tA j(u); φ) t 1 ∗ = (j(u); φ − e−tA φ) t “ ’ Z 1 t −tA∗ ∗ e A φ . = j(u); t 0

The desired inequality holds by letting t → 0. Choosing j(s) = −(1 ∧ s), s ∈ R, we obtain that 2) implies 3). Assume now that 3) holds. We want to show that (e−tA )t≥0 is subMarkovian. Using the formula ’ “−n t −tA e u = lim I + A u for all u ∈ Lp (X, µ, R), n→∞ n it is enough to show that λ(λI + A)−1 is sub-Markovian for all λ > 0, large enough. Let v ∈ Lp (X, µ, R) and 0 ≤ ψ ∈ Lq (X, µ, R) with 1p + 1q = 1. We apply 3) with u = λ(λI + A)−1 v and φ = ((λI + A)−1 )∗ ψ to obtain (χ{λ(λI+A)−1 v<1} A(λI + A)−1 v; λ((λI + A)−1 )∗ ψ)

≤ (1 ∧ λ(λI + A)−1 v; A∗ ((λI + A)−1 )∗ ψ). 1

Here A∗ denotes the adjoint operator of A.

INEQUALITIES FOR SUB-MARKOVIAN SEMIGROUPS

85

This inequality can be rewritten as (χ{λ(λI+A)−1 v<1} (v − λ(λI + A)−1 v); λ((λI + A)−1 )∗ ψ) ≤ (1 ∧ λ(λI + A)−1 v; ψ − λ((λI + A)−1 )∗ ψ).

Note that we always have the pointwise inequality 1 ∧ v − 1 ∧ λ(λI + A)−1 v ≤ χ{λ(λI+A)−1 v<1} (v − λ(λI + A)−1 v). Using this and the fact that λ(λI + A)−1 ψ ≥ 0 (remember that the semigroup is assumed to be positive) we obtain from the preceding inequalities (1 ∧ v − 1 ∧ λ(λ + A)−1 v; λ((λI + A)−1 )∗ ψ) ≤ (1 ∧ λ(λI + A)−1 v; ψ − λ((λI + A)−1 )∗ ψ), and hence (1 ∧ v; λ((λI + A)−1 )∗ ψ) ≤ (1 ∧ λ(λI + A)−1 v; ψ). Since this holds for all 0 ≤ ψ ∈ Lq (X, µ, R), it follows that for all v ∈ Lp (X, µ, R), λ(λI + A)−1 (1 ∧ v) ≤ 1 ∧ λ(λI + A)−1 v. This implies that λ(λI + A)−1 is sub-Markovian.

2

Note that the assumption of positivity of the semigroup plays an important role in the previous result. The following example shows that without positivity, the Kato type inequalities above do not imply the sub-Markovian property. Example 3.1.1 Consider on L2 ((0, 1), dx, R) (dx denotes the Lebesgue measure) the operator Au = −u0 , D(A) = {u ∈ H 1 (0, 1), u(0) = −u(1)}, where H 1 (0, 1) denotes the classical Sobolev space on (0, 1). The operator −A generates the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 given by e−tA u(x) = (−1)n u(x + t − n) if x + t ∈ [n, n + 1] (n ∈ N). Clearly, the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is not sub-Markovian. We show that the operator A satisfies assertion 2) of the previous theorem. It is not hard to see that D(A∗ ) = {u ∈ H 1 (0, 1), u(0) = −u(1)}, A∗ u = u0 .

86

CHAPTER 3

In particular, if φ ∈ D(A∗ ) is non-negative, then φ(0) = φ(1) = 0. Fix 0 ≤ φ ∈ D(A∗ ) and let u ∈ D(A), j ∈ J0∞ and w ∈ ∂j(u). We have for a.e. x ∈ (0, 1) and δ small j(u)(x + δ) − j(u)(x) ≥ w(x)(u(x + δ) − u(x)). Therefore, for δ > 0 Z 1 Z 1 u(x + δ) − u(x) j(u)(x + δ) − j(u)(x) φ(x) ≥ w(x)φ(x) dx. δ δ 0 0 Hence, lim inf δ↓0

Z

0

1

j(u)(x + δ) − j(u)(x) φ(x) ≥ −(Au; wφ). δ

On the other hand, using the obvious equality Z

1

j(u)(x + δ)φ(x)dx = 0

Z

δ

δ+1

j(u)(x)φ(x − δ)dx

and the fact that φ(0) = φ(1) = 0 one obtains lim δ↓0

Z

0

1

Z 1 j(u)(x + δ) − j(u)(x) φ(x)dx = − j(u)(x)φ0 (x)dx δ 0 = −(j(u); A∗ φ).

This shows that the Kato’s inequality of Theorem 3.5 (assertion 2)) holds for A. Under an additional assumption, it is possible to characterize the subMarkovian property of the semigroup in terms of Kato’s inequality (without assuming the positivity of the semigroup). We first recall the following result which characterizes the positivity in terms of Kato’s inequality (see Theorem 3.8 and Corollary 3.9 in Nagel [Nag86]). T HEOREM 3.6 Let (e−tA )t≥0 be a strongly continuous semigroup acting on Lp (X, µ, R) for some p ∈ [1, ∞). The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is positive if and only if the following two assertions hold: i) For every u ∈ D(A) and every 0 ≤ φ ∈ D(A∗ ), (sign u Au; φ) ≥ (|u|; A∗ φ). ii) There exist φ > 0, φ ∈ D(A∗ ) and λ ∈ R such that A∗ φ ≥ λφ.

87

INEQUALITIES FOR SUB-MARKOVIAN SEMIGROUPS

Here φ > 0 means that φ(x) > 0 for µ a.e. x ∈ X. Assume now that the generator −A of (e−tA )t≥0 satisfies the inequality of assertion 3) in Theorem 3.5. That is, (χ{u<1} Au; φ) ≤ (1 ∧ u; A∗ φ) for all u ∈ D(A), 0 ≤ φ ∈ D(A∗ ). Applying this inequality to nu for all n > 0 and noting that 1 ∧ nu = n( n1 ∧ u), we obtain “ ’ 1 ∗ ∧ u; A φ (χ{u<1/n} Au; φ) ≤ n for all u ∈ D(A), 0 ≤ φ ∈ D(A∗ ). Applying this inequality to −u yields “ ’ 1 ∗ ∧ (−u); A φ −(χ{u>−1/n} Au; φ) ≤ n for all u ∈ D(A), 0 ≤ φ ∈ D(A∗ ). The sum of the two inequalities gives ([χ{u<1/n} − χ{u>−1/n} ]Au; φ) ≤

’

1 1 ∧ u + ∧ (−u); A∗ φ n n

“

for all u ∈ D(A), 0 ≤ φ ∈ D(A∗ ). Now if n → +∞, we obtain Kato’s inequality (sign u Au; φ) ≥ (|u|; A∗ φ) for all u ∈ D(A), 0 ≤ φ ∈ D(A∗ ). As a consequence of this and Theorems 3.6 and 3.5, we have T HEOREM 3.7 Let (e−tA )t≥0 be a strongly continuous semigroup acting on Lp (X, µ, R) for some p ∈ [1, ∞). The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is subMarkovian if and only if the following two properties hold: i) For every u ∈ D(A) and every 0 ≤ φ ∈ D(A∗ ), (χ{u<1} Au; φ) ≤ (1 ∧ u; A∗ φ). ii) There exist φ > 0, φ ∈ D(A∗ ) and λ ∈ R such that A∗ φ ≥ λφ. It should be mentioned that, in contrast to Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 3.2, the characterization of the sub-Markovian property in terms of Kato type inequalities holds without assuming that the original semigroup (defined on Lp (X, µ, R)) is contractive. Theorems 3.6 and 3.7 can be used to prove the sub-Markovian property for perturbed semigroups. We consider below the case of multiplicative perturbations.

88

CHAPTER 3

Assume that (e−tA )t≥0 is a strongly continuous semigroup acting on for some p ∈ [1, ∞). Let b : X → R+ be a measurable function such that b, 1b ∈ L∞ (X, µ, R). Assume in addition that the operator −bA, with domain D(A), generates a strongly continuous semigroup (e−tbA )t≥0 on Lp (X, µ, R). We have Lp (X, µ, R)

P ROPOSITION 3.8 1) The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is positive if and only if (e−tbA )t≥0 is positive. 2) The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian if and only if (e−tbA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian. Proof. Assume that the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is positive. We denote by Lq (X, µ, R) the dual space of Lp (X, µ, R). Clearly, D((bA)∗ ) = {ψ ∈ Lq (X, µ, R), bψ ∈ D(A∗ )}, (bA)∗ ψ = A∗ (bψ). Now let 0 ≤ φ ∈ D((bA)∗ ) and u ∈ D(bA) = D(A). By Theorem 3.6 we have (sign u Au; bφ) ≥ (|u|; A∗ (bφ)). This means that bA satisfies the Kato inequality of Theorem 3.6. To conclude that (e−tbA )t≥0 is positive we have to check condition ii) of the same theorem. This follows easily since if φ satisfies ii) for A, then 1b φ satisfies ii) for the operator bA. The converse follows as above, since A = 1b (bA). Assume that the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian. Assertion 1) implies that the semigroup (e−tbA )t≥0 is positive. In order to conclude that this semigroup is sub-Markovian, we apply Theorem 3.5. Let 0 ≤ φ ∈ D((bA)∗ )) and u ∈ D(bA). We have (χ{u<1} bAu; φ) = (χ{u<1} Au; bφ) ≤ (1 ∧ u; A∗ bφ) = (1 ∧ u; (bA)∗ φ). This shows that (e−tbA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian.

2

3.2 FURTHER INEQUALITIES AND THE CORRESPONDING DOMAIN IN Lp

Let (X, µ) be a σ-finite measure space and assume that a is a densely defined, accretive, and closed symmetric form on L2 (X, µ, C). Denote by A and (e−tA )t≥0 the self-adjoint operator and the semigroup associated with a. As explained in the previous chapter, if (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive, then (e−tA )t≥0 extends to a strongly continuous semigroup on Lp (X, µ, C) for 1 ≤ p < ∞ and continuous on L∞ (X, µ, C) for the w∗ -topology. Denote

89

INEQUALITIES FOR SUB-MARKOVIAN SEMIGROUPS

by −Ap the generator of the semigroup obtained on Lp (X, µ, C), 1 ≤ p < ∞ (A2 := A). The semigroup (e−tAp )t≥0 generated by −Ap coincides with (e−tA )t≥0 on L2 (X, µ, C) ∩ Lp (X, µ, C). This suggests that the operator Ap should have the same formal expression as A. However, it is not easy in general to describe precisely the domain of the operator Ap . The following result gives a partial description of this domain when the semigroup is sub-Markovian. It also shows some interesting inequalities satisfied by Ap . T HEOREM 3.9 Assume that (e−tA )t≥0 is a symmetric sub-Markovian semigroup on L2 (X, µ, C). For every fixed p ∈ (1, ∞), we have the following properties: p 1) If f ∈ D(Ap ), then f |f | 2 −1 ∈ D(a) and 4

p p p−1 a(f |f | 2 −1 , f |f | 2 −1 ) ≤ <(Ap f ; |f |p−1 sign f ), 2 p p

p

<(Ap f ; |f |p−1 sign f ) ≤ 2a(f |f | 2 −1 , f |f | 2 −1 ). 2) For every f ∈ D(Ap ), we have |p − 2| <(Ap f ; |f |p−1 sign f ). |=(Ap f ; |f |p−1 sign f )| ≤ √ 2 p−1

Proof. We show that for every fixed t > 0 and every f ∈ L1 (X, µ, C) ∩ L∞ (X, µ, C) with µ({x, f (x) = 6 0}) < ∞, 4

p p p p−1 (f |f | 2 −1 − e−tA f |f | 2 −1 ; f |f | 2 −1 ) ≤ <(f − e−tA f ; |f |p−1 sign f ), 2 p (3.3) p

p

p

<(f −e−tA f ; |f |p−1 sign f ) ≤ 2(f |f | 2 −1 −e−tA f |f | 2 −1 ; f |f | 2 −1 ), (3.4) and |p − 2| <(f − e−tA f ; |f |p−1 sign f ). |=(f − e−tA f ; |f |p−1 sign f )| ≤ √ 2 p−1 (3.5) By density, these inequalities will hold for all f ∈ D(Ap ). The first assertion of the theorem follows then by applying Lemma 1.56, (3.3), and (3.4). The second assertion follows from (3.5). The proof of these inequalities will be given in several steps. We fix t > 0 and f ∈ L1 (X, µ, C) ∩ L∞ (X, µ, C) with µ({x, f (x) 6= 0}) < ∞. (i) First, we may assume without loss of generality that µ(X) < ∞. Indeed, the operator χ{x,f (x)6=0} e−tA is sub-Markovian and clearly we may replace X by {x, f (x) 6= 0}.

90

CHAPTER 3

(ii) We can assume that X is a compact topological space, e−tA is a symmetric sub-Markovian operator which leaves invariant C(X) (the space of continuous functions on X), and f ∈ C(X). Indeed, let Γ : L∞ (X, µ, C) → C(K) be the Gelfand isomorphism, where K is a compact space (the spectrum of the algebra L∞ (X, µ, C)). The measure µ is transported to a measure µ ˆ on K such that Z

Γ(g)dˆ µ=

K

Z

gdµ. X

We may now replace the operator e−tA by Γe−tA Γ−1 . Note that Γ(g)Γ(h) = Γ(gh) for every g, h ∈ L∞ (X, µ, C). This implies that Γe−tA Γ−1 is a symˆ, C). In addition, this operator metric sub-Markovian operator on L2 (K, µ leaves invariant C(K). Note also that since Γ(g) = Γ(sign g)Γ(|g|) and Γ(|g|) = |Γ(g)|, the signum function is defined on C(K) by sign Γ(g) = Γ(sign g). Replacing X by K, µ by µ ˆ and e−tA by Γe−tA Γ−1 , we see that we have to show (3.3)-(3.5) with Γ(f ) in place of f. (iii) Using (ii), e−tA now becomes a symmetric sub-Markovian operator on L2 (X, µ, C) and leaves C(X) invariant. It follows that there exists a symmetric Radon measure mt on X × X such that2 Z

(e X

−tA

g)hdµ =

Z

X×X

g(x)h(y)dmt (x, y) for all g, h ∈ C(X). (3.6)

In order to prove this, we consider the subspace E of C(X ×X) of functions P of the type h(x, y) = nk=1 fk (x)gk (y) (where n ∈ N) and the following functional on E φ(h) :=

n Z X k=1

e−tA fk (x)g(x)dµ(x).

X

One checks easily that φ is well defined (i.e., it does not depend on the way in which we express h ∈ E). We prove that φ is continuous. By the subMarkovian property, (e−tA )t≥0 is a contraction semigroup on C(X). Thus,

2

see also Fukushima [Fuk80], Lemma 1.4.1.

91

INEQUALITIES FOR SUB-MARKOVIAN SEMIGROUPS

for every h as above Œ Œ ŒX Œ Œ Œ −tA |φ(h)| ≤ µ(X) sup Œ (e )(x)g fk k (x)Œ Œ Œ x∈X k Œ Œ ŒX Œ Œ Œ ≤ µ(X) sup sup Œ (e−tA fk )(x)gk (y)Œ Œ y x Œ Œ Œ k Œ Œ X Œ Œ = µ(X) sup sup Œe−tA ( fk g(y))(x)Œ Œ y x Œ k Œ Œ ŒX Œ Œ Œ fk (x)gk (y)Œ ≤ µ(X) sup sup Œ Œ Œ x y k

= µ(X)khkC(X×X) .

By density, φ extends to a continuous linear functional on C(X ×X). We prove now that this extension is a positive functional. Let first h(x, y) := P (y) ≥ 0 for all x, y ∈ X. This means that for every y ∈ X, the k fk (x)g Pk function k fk gk (y) is non-negative. By positivity of the semigroup, we have X k

e−tA (fk )gk (y)(x) ≥ 0 for all t ≥ 0, x, y ∈ X.

In particular, X k

e−tA fk (x)gk (x) ≥ 0 for all t ≥ 0, x ∈ X

and this gives φ(h) ≥ 0. Thus φ is positive on E. In order to show that its extension to C(X ×X) is also positive, it is enough to prove that φ(|h|) ≥ 0 for all real-valued h ∈ E. Take a sequence of polynomials Pn such that Pn (t) ≥ 0 for all t ∈ [−1, 1] and Pn converges uniformly in [−1, 1] to the function t → |t|. Hence, the sequence Pn (h/khkC(X×X) ) converges in C(X × X) to |h|/khkC(X×X) . Since, 0 ≤ Pn (h/khkC(X×X) ) ∈ E and φ is positive on E, we conclude that φ(|h|) ≥ 0. This proves existence of the positive measure mt . The symmetry of mt follows from the symmetry of the semigroup. (iv) Let now p

p

p

P := (f |f | 2 −1 − e−tA f |f | 2 −1 ; f |f | 2 −1 ).

92

CHAPTER 3

Using (3.6), we have p

p

P = (1 − e−tA 1; |f |p ) + (e−tA 1; |f |p ) − (e−tA f |f | 2 −1 ; f |f | 2 −1 ) Z −tA p = (1 − e 1; |f | ) + |f (x)|p dmt (x, y) X×X Z p p − f (x)|f (x)| 2 −1 f (y)|f (y)| 2 −1 dmt (x, y). X×X

Using the fact that the measure mt (., .) is symmetric, we can rewrite the last equality as P = (1 − e−tA 1; |f |p ) " Z p p 1 + |f (x)|p + |f (y)|p − f (x)|f (x)| 2 −1 f (y)|f (y)| 2 −1 2 X×X • p p −1 −1 dmt (x, y). −f (y)|f (y)| 2 f (x)|f (x)| 2 We use the following notation. Set f (x) = |f (x)|eiθ(x) = seiθ(x) , f (y) = leiθ(y) and θ = θ(x) − θ(y). We have P = (1 − e−tA 1; |f |p ) + Let Q := (f −

1 2

Z

p

X×X

e−tA f ; |f |p−1 sign

p

[sp + lp − 2s 2 l 2 cos θ]dmt (x, y). (3.7)

f ). We have in a similar way

Q = (1 − e−tA 1; |f |p ) + (e−tA 1; |f |p ) − (e−tA f ; |f |p−1 sign f ) ” Z 1 −tA p = (1 − e 1; |f | ) + |f (x)|p + |f (y)|p 2 X×X • p−2 p−2 −f (x)|f (y)| f (y) − f (y)|f (x)| f (x) dmt (x, y).

Hence, using the same notation as above, we obtain Z 1
93

INEQUALITIES FOR SUB-MARKOVIAN SEMIGROUPS

L EMMA 3.10 Let 0 ≤ s, l < ∞ and θ ∈ R. Fix p ∈ (1, ∞). The following three inequalities hold: 4

p p p−1 p [s + lp − 2s 2 l 2 cos θ] ≤ sp + lp − (sp−1 l + slp−1 ) cos θ, 2 p p

p

sp + lp − (sp−1 l + slp−1 ) cos θ ≤ 2[sp + lp − 2s 2 l 2 cos θ], |p − 2| p | sin θ||sp−1 l − slp−1 | ≤ √ [s + lp − (sp−1 l + slp−1 ) cos θ]. 2 p−1

Proof. Note first that

p

p

2s 2 l 2 ≤ sp−1 l + slp−1 .

(3.9)

This follows from the elementary inequality 2a.b ≤ a2 ε + 1ε b2 by choosing ε = sl . The inequality (3.9) implies easily that the function F (u) := 4

p p p−1 p [s + lp − 2s 2 l 2 u] − (sp + lp ) + (sp−1 l + slp−1 )u 2 p

is nondecreasing. Hence, F (u) ≤ F (1) for all u ∈ [−1, 1]. Thus, we merely need to prove that F (1) ≤ 0 to obtain the first inequality. Assume, for example, that l < s and use the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to obtain Œ “2 ŒZ s Œ ŒZ s ’Z s ŒŒ Œ Œ p p 4 p p−2 2 −1 Œ Œ Œ dv Œ Œ v dv ŒŒ (s 2 − l 2 ) = v 2 dv ≤ Œ 2 p l l l 1 p−1 p−1 (s − l)(s − l ). = p−1 This gives the desired inequality F (1) ≤ 0. Now we prove the second inequality. We want to show that p

p

p

p

Fs,l := sp + lp − 2s 2 l 2 cos θ − 2s 2 l 2 cos θ + (sp−1 l + slp−1 ) cos θ ≥ 0. If cos θ ≥ 0, then this inequality follows from (3.9). If cos θ < 0, then p

p

Fs,l ≥ − cos θ[sp + lp + 4s 2 l 2 − (sp−1 l + slp−1 )] p

p

= − cos θ[(s − l)(sp−1 − lp−1 ) + 4s 2 l 2 ] ≥ 0.

Finally, we show the third inequality. Consider the following function with variable u ∈ [−1, 1], F (u) :=

(sp−1 l − slp−1 )2 (1 − u2 ) . [sp + lp − (sp−1 l + slp−1 )u]2

94

CHAPTER 3 (p−2)2

The third inequality of the lemma means that F (u) ≤ 4(p−1) for all u ∈ [−1, 1]. We first optimize F (u) with respect to u. A simple calculation shows that p−1 p−1 . Thus the maximum of F (u) is obtained when u = u1 = s spl+sl +lp F (u) ≤ F (u1 ) =

(sp−2 − lp−2 )2 s2 l2 . (sp + lp )2 − (sp−1 l + slp−1 )2

Now we have (sp−2 − lp−2 )2 = (p − 2)2

’Z

ŒZ Œ ≤ (p − 2) Œ 2Œ

“2 v p−3 dv l Œ ŒZ s Œ s ŒŒ Œ −3 Œ Œ 2p−3 Œ v dv Œ Œ dv Œ v

l (s2

s

l 2 2p−2 l )(s

− l2p−2 ) − (p − 4(p − 1) s2 l 2 (p − 2)2 (sp + lp )2 − (sp−1 l + slp−1 )2 . = 4(p − 1) s2 l2

=

This shows that F (u1 ) ≤

2)2

(p−2)2 4(p−1)

and finishes the proof of the lemma.

2

We gave in the foregoing theorem a partial description of the domain of the generator on Lp (X, µ, C) when the semigroup is symmetric. For nonsymmetric semigroups we have a less precise result. Namely, T HEOREM 3.11 Assume that a is a densely defined, non-negative, continuous, and closed form on L2 (X, µ, C). Assume that the associated semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian. For each p ∈ [2, ∞), the following assertion holds: p p p p f ∈ D(Ap ) ⇒ |f | 2 ∈ D(a) and a(|f | 2 , |f | 2 ) ≤ <(Ap f ; |f |p−1 sign f ). 2 Proof. Fix p ∈ [2, ∞) and let f ∈ D(Ap ). Since the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is positive, we have |e−tA f | ≤ e−tA |f |. By the sub-Markovian property and Proposition 3.4, we deduce that p

p

|e−tA f | 2 ≤ e−tA |f | 2 . Thus, p p p p p p 1 1 (|f | 2 − e−tA |f | 2 ; |f | 2 ) ≤ (|f | 2 − |e−tA f | 2 ; |f | 2 ). t t

INEQUALITIES FOR SUB-MARKOVIAN SEMIGROUPS

95

The following elementary inequality holds: p p p p |a| 2 − |b| 2 ≤ (|a| − |b|)|a| 2 −1 for all a, b ∈ C, p ∈ [2, ∞). 2 Hence, p p p p (|f | 2 − |e−tA f | 2 ; |f | 2 ) ≤ (|f | − |e−tA f |; |f |p−1 ). 2 We have proved p p p 1 p1 (|f | 2 − e−tA |f | 2 ; |f | 2 ) ≤ (|f | − |e−tA f |; |f |p−1 ). t 2t

Since f ∈ D(Ap ), then 1t (f − e−tA f ) converges in Lp (X, µ, C) to Ap f (as t ↓ 0). Hence, by composition 1t (|f |−|e−tA f |) converges to <(Ap f sign f ). Consequently, p p p 1 sup (|f | 2 − e−tA |f | 2 ; |f | 2 ) < ∞. t>0 t p

We conclude by Lemma 1.56 that |f | 2 ∈ D(a) and that

p p p p p 1 a(|f | 2 , |f | 2 ) = lim (|f | 2 − e−tA |f | 2 ; |f | 2 ) t→0 t 1 p ≤ lim (|f | − |e−tA f |; |f |p−1 ) 2 t→0 t p = <(Ap f ; |f |p−1 sign f ). 2 This proves the theorem.

2

3.3 Lp -HOLOMORPHY OF SUB-MARKOVIAN SEMIGROUPS

We start with a semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 which is bounded on L2 (X, µ, C) and on Lp0 (X, µ, C) for some p0 ∈ (2, ∞]. As above, we may write −Ap to denote the generator of the corresponding semigroup on Lp (X, µ, C) for p ∈ [2, p0 ). Assume that on L2 (X, µ, C), the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is bounded holomorphic on the sector Σ(ψ) := {z ∈ C, z 6= 0 and | arg z| < ψ} for some ψ ∈ (0, π2 ]. The holomorphy of the semigroup carries over from L2 (X, µ, C) to Lp (X, µ, C) (2 ≤ p < p0 ). However the sector of holomorphy depends on p, in general. More precisely, the following classical result holds. P ROPOSITION 3.12 For each p ∈ [2, p0 ), the semigroup generated by −Ap is bounded holomorphic on the sector Σ(ψp ) where ψp = ψ( p1 − 1 1 −1 1 p0 )( 2 − p0 ) .

96

CHAPTER 3

Proof. Fix θ ∈ (−ψ, ψ) and r > 0. Define on L2 (X, µ, C), the operaiθz tor Tz := e−Are . By the holomorphy assumption, z 7→ Tz is bounded and holomorphic on 0 < Rez < 1. In addition, for z such that 0 this extension coincides 0

0

with e−tAp . By a density argument one shows that e−(z+z )A = e−zA e−z A as operators on Lp (X, µ, C) (for z, z 0 ∈ Σ(ψp )). The strong continuity is shown as follows. Fix ν ∈ (0, ψp ) and f ∈ Lp0 (X, µ, C) ∩ L2 (X, µ, C). We write the classical interpolation inequality “ ’ s 1−s 1 1−s s −zA −zA −zA = + , ke f − f kp0 ke f − f k2 f − f kp ≤ ke p 2 p0

where p0 ∈ (p, p0 ) is chosen such that e−zA is uniformly bounded on 0 Lp (X, µ, C) for z ∈ Σ(ν). By the strong continuity on L2 (X, µ, C), we obtain ke−zA f − f kp → 0 as z → 0, z ∈ Σ(ν). By a density argument this holds for every f ∈ Lp (X, µ, C). Finally, the holomorphy of z 7→ e−zA on Lp (X, µ, C) (for z ∈ Σ(ν) with ν as above) can be shown by applying Vitali’s theorem as in the proof of 2 Theorem 6.16 (or Corollary 7.5 below). Note that the above proof gives a similar result if we start with a semigroup which is holomorphic on Lq (X, µ, C) in place of L2 (X, µ, C). Assume now that the operator A is associated with a non-negative, densely defined, continuous, and closed form. Then, the semigroup (e−t(A+1) )t≥0 is bounded holomorphic on L2 (X, µ, C) on some sector Σ(ψ) (cf. Theorem 1.52). If in addition, (e−t(A+w) )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive for some constant w, then the induced semigroup (e−tAp )t≥0 on Lp (X, µ, C) is holomorphic on the sector Σ( p2 ψ) for all p with 2 ≤ p < ∞. If the adjoint semigroup ∗ (e−t(A +w) )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive, then one obtains by duality the holomorphy of the semigroup on Lp (X, µ, C) for 1 < p ≤ 2 on the sector Σ(ψ(2 − p2 )). In the particular case where A is self-adjoint and the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive, this holds with ψ = π2 . Using Theorem 3.9, we obtain a better result on the holomorphy for symmetric sub-Markovian semigroups. More precisely, T HEOREM 3.13 Assume that A is the self-adjoint operator associated with a non-negative closed form on L2 (X, µ, C). Assume that the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian. Then for each p ∈ (1, ∞), the semigroup

97

INEQUALITIES FOR SUB-MARKOVIAN SEMIGROUPS

√ (e−tAp )t≥0 is holomorphic on the sector Σ( π2 − arctan 2|p−2| ). In addition, p−1 √ ). ke−zAp kL(Lp (X,µ,C)) ≤ 1 for all z ∈ Σ( π2 − arctan 2|p−2| p−1

The proof is a simple adaptation of the arguments given in the proof of Theorem 1.54. The sectoriality condition (1.27) is now replaced by |p − 2| <(Ap f ; |f |p−1 sign f ), |=(Ap f ; |f |p−1 sign f )| ≤ √ 2 p−1 which we proved in Theorem 3.9. Remark. 1) It is an elementary fact that the sector of holomorphy obtained in this result is larger than the one obtained in Proposition 3.12. 2) The previous results on the holomorphy does not give any information for the extreme case p = 1. We will see later, as a consequence of Gaussian upper bounds for heat kernels, that semigroups associated with several classes of uniformly elliptic operators are holomorphic on C+ on Lp for all p, 1 ≤ p < ∞ (see Theorem 6.16). In the general setting, the above theorem is optimal. The most significant example showing this is given by the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator, that is, the operator A associated with the form a(u, v) =

d Z X k=1

2 /2

Rd

Dk uDk ve−x

dx.

It follows from Theorem 1 in Weissler [Wei79] or Theorem 1.1 (and Note 1.2) in Epperson [Epp89] that the maximal sector on which the semigroup 2 √ ). (e−tA )t≥0 is holomorphic on Lp (Rd , e−x /2 dx) is Σ( π2 − arctan 2|p−2| p−1 2 /2

This semigroup is not holomorphic on L1 (Rd , e−x

dx).

As a consequence of the previous theorem and Theorem 1.45, we have the following information on the spectrum σ(Ap ) := C \ ρ(Ap ) of the operator Ap in Lp (X, µ, C). C OROLLARY 3.14 Under the assumptions of the previous theorem, we have for each p ∈ (1, ∞), the spectrum of Ap satisfies › š |p − 2| ∪ {0}. σ(Ap ) ⊆ z ∈ C, | arg z| ≤ arctan √ 2 p−1

Notes Section 3.1. Theorem 3.1 is proved in Ouhabaz [Ouh93]. Proposition 3.2 is taken

98

CHAPTER 3

from [Ouh93] and can also be found in Ma and R¨ockner [MaR¨o92] and Jacob [Jac01]. Results of the same type are proved for the so-called completely monotone (nonlinear) operators by B´enilan and Crandall [B´eCr91]. Proposition 3.3 is well-known (see, e.g., Nagel [Nag86]). An operator B acting on Lp and such that (Bu, F (u+ )) ≤ 0 for all u ∈ D(B) is called dispersive. Jensen’s inequality for sub-Markovian semigroups as stated in Proposition 3.4 is taken from Arendt and B´enilan [ArB´e92]. The fact that 1) ⇔ 2) in Theorem 3.5 is also proved in Arendt and B´enilan [ArB´e92]. 1) ⇔ 3) of the same theorem as well as Theorem 3.7 are taken from Ouhabaz [Ouh93]. The original Kato’s inequality is the distributional inequality (sign f )∆f ≤ ∆|f | for f ∈ L1loc such that ∆f ∈ L1loc . It was proved by Kato [Kat73] and was a powerful tool in his proof of essential self-adjointness of Schr¨odinger operators on Cc∞ (Rd ). Theorem 3.6 is due to Arendt [Are84]. An exhaustive study of Kato’s inequality as stated in Theorem 3.6 as well as its relation to positivity of semigroups can be found in Nagel [Nag86]. Section 3.2. This section follows mainly the works of Liskevich and Semenov [LiSe93] and [LiSe96], from which Theorem 3.9 is taken. Assertion 1) of Theorem 3.9 was first proved by Varopoulos [Var85] for non-negative f ∈ D(Ap ). The proof given here is taken from Nagel and Voigt [NaVo96] and Liskevich and Semenov [LiSe96]. The representation (3.6) in Part iii) of the proof is well-known and can be found in Fukushima [Fuk80] and Davies [Dav80]. Section 3.3. Proposition 3.12 is well-known. The proof used here is taken from Davies [Dav89] (Theorem 1.4.2) and Reed and Simon [ReSi75] (Theorem X.55). Theorem 3.13 is due to Liskevich and Perelmuter [LiPe95] (see also [LiSe96]). This theorem was proved previously by Bakry [Bak89] and Okazawa [Oka91] in some special cases.

Chapter Four UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS This chapter is devoted to second-order uniformly elliptic operators considered on domains of Rd and subject to various boundary conditions. We apply the criteria of positivity, L∞ -contractivity, and domination of semigroups, stated in an abstract setting in the previous chapters, to concrete situations of differential operators. The operators under consideration here may have real- or complex-valued measurable coefficients. The aim is to describe precisely how the above properties of the semigroup depend on the boundary conditions and on the coefficients of the operator. 4.1 EXAMPLES OF BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Let Ω be an open subset of Rd (d ≥ 1), endowed with the Lebesgue measure dx. All the integrals over Ω are taken with respect to dx. We write Lp (Ω, K) := Lp (Ω, dx, K), where K = R or C. We will often consider the case K = C. The scalar product of L2 (Ω, K) is denoted by (.; .). We denote by W s,p (Ω), H 1 (Ω) = W 1,2 (Ω) and H01 (Ω) the classical Sobolev spaces. Recall that H01 (Ω) is the closure in H 1 (Ω) of Cc∞ (Ω), the space of C ∞ functions which are compactly supported in Ω. The space of distributions on Ω will be denoted by (Cc∞ (Ω))0 . We consider measurable functions ajk , bk , ck , and a0 (1 ≤ j, k ≤ d) on Ω. We assume that the following uniform ellipticity condition holds. (U.Ell) The functions akj , bk , ck , a0 are bounded on Ω, i.e., akj , bk , ck , a0 ∈ L∞ (Ω, C) for all 1 ≤ j, k ≤ d

(4.1)

and the principal part is elliptic; i.e., there exists a constant η > 0 such that <

d X

j,k=1

akj (x)ξj ξk ≥ η|ξ|2 for all ξ ∈ Cd , a.e. x ∈ Ω.

(4.2)

The maximal possible η in (4.2) is called the ellipticity constant of the matrix (ajk )1≤j,k≤d .

100

CHAPTER 4

Let Dj =

∂ ∂xj

and define on L2 (Ω, C) the sesquilinear form

• Z ” X d d X (bk vDk u + ck uDk v) + a0 uv dx, akj Dk uDj v + aV (u, v) = Ω k,j=1

k=1

with domain D(aV ) = V, where V is a closed subspace of H 1 (Ω) with H01 (Ω) ⊆ V ⊆ H 1 (Ω). If w ∈ R is a constant, we denote by aV + w the form given by (aV + w)(u, v) := aV (u, v) + w(u; v), u, v ∈ D(aV ). Under the assumption (U.Ell), there exists a constant w such that
η kuk2H 1 (Ω) for all u ∈ V 2

(4.3)

and the form aV + w is continuous and closed. Indeed, Let u ∈ V and set Mk := k|<(bk + ck )| + |=(bk − ck )|k∞ . We have XZ XZ akj Dk uDj udx +
k,j

+

k

≥η

XZ k

Ω

Ω

Ω

k

XZ

=(ck − bk )=(uDk u)dx + 2

|Dk u| dx −

X k

Mk

Z

Ω

Z

Ω


|uDk u| −

Z

Ω

(
By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have for every ε > 0 XZ XZ 2 |Dk u|2 dx
k

 

−1

− ε

Ω

k

X k

Mk2

−

+ k(
!Z

Ω

|u|2 dx,

which implies (4.3). The proof of the continuity of aV + w follows from (4.3) and the inequality •1/2 ” X ”X •1/2 2 2 2 2 kDk vk2 + kvk2 |aV (u, v)| ≤ C kDk uk2 + kuk2 k

k

101

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

which holds for some positive constant C and all u, v ∈ V. The latter inequality follows easily from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the boundedness of akj , bk , ck , and a0 . Finally, the fact that the form aV + w is closed follows from the assumption p that V is a closed subspace of H 1 (Ω). Note that the norm of H 1 (Ω) and aV (., .) + w(.; .) are equivalent on V. Therefore, the form aV + w satisfies the standard assumptions (1.2)−(1.5). One can then associate with aV + w an operator on L2 (Ω, C). This means that we can associate with aV an operator AV . Formally, AV is given by the expression AV u = −

d X

Dj (akj Dk u) +

d X (bk Dk u − Dk (ck u)) + a0 u.

(4.4)

k=1

k,j=1

The role of the space V is to impose boundary conditions. Although the dependence on V is not visible in the formal expression of AV , it must be understood that for two different spaces V and W, the operators AV and AW are different as they are subject to two different types of boundary conditions. We give now some examples of boundary conditions. We will say that we have: (i) Dirichlet boundary conditions if V = H01 (Ω); (ii) Neumann boundary conditions if V = H 1 (Ω); (iii) mixed boundary conditions if H 1 (Ω)

V = {u|Ω , u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd \ Γ)}

,

(4.5)

where Γ is a closed subset of ∂Ω, u|Ω denotes the restriction of u to Ω, and H 1 (Ω)

{. . .} denotes the closure in H 1 (Ω). Roughly speaking, (i) corresponds to the condition u = 0 on the boundary ∂Ω of Ω, whereas (ii) corresponds to the condition   d ! d X X akj Dk u + cj u nj = 0 on ∂Ω, j=1

k=1

where ~n = (n1 , . . . , nd ) denotes the outer unit normal on the boundary ∂Ω. Mixed boundary conditions correspond to Dirichlet condition on Γ and the Neumann one on the rest of the boundary. All of this can be done precisely by applying Green’s formula if both ∂Ω and the coefficients akj , ck are smooth enough. If Γ is empty, then (4.5) becomes H ^ 1 (Ω) := {u , u ∈ C ∞ (Rd )} V =H |Ω c

1 (Ω)

.

(4.6)

102

CHAPTER 4

The boundary condition given by such V is similar to the Neumann one. We call this the good Neumann boundary conditions. It is well-known that for domains with smooth boundary (Lipschitz boundary, for instance) one ^ 1 (Ω). See, for instance, Adams [Ada75] or Brezis [Bre92]. has H 1 (Ω) = H The following is another type of boundary conditions. (iv) Robin boundary conditions. Assume that Ω is bounded and has smooth boundary (e.g., Lipschitz boundary). In this case, every u ∈ H 1 (Ω) has a trace on ∂Ω. One can then consider perturbations of the previous form aV by integral terms on the boundary. More precisely, consider the sesquilinear form Z bV,α (u, v) := aV (u, v) + (4.7) α(x)uvdσ, D(bV,α ) = V, ∂Ω

where α is a non-negative and bounded function on ∂Ω and dσ is the surface measure. The operator associated with this form has the same formal expression (4.4) but it is subject to different boundary conditions, called Robin boundary conditions. In the case where V = H 1 (Ω), they correspond to the condition !   d d X X akj Dk u + cj u nj + αu = 0 on ∂Ω. j=1

k=1

For V as in (4.5), the condition looks like the previous one on ∂Ω \ Γ and u = 0 on Γ. The boundary conditions in (i)−(iv) are only examples of boundary conditions which fit into the framework of the present chapter. Other examples can also be considered. Consider now a general space V. It follows from Theorem 1.52 that the operator −AV is the generator of a holomorphic semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 on L2 (Ω, C). In particular, the parabolic equation (or the Cauchy problem)  ’ “ X n n X  ∂ ∂u(t, x) ∂  ∂  akj (x) u(t, x) − bk (x)  ∂t u(t, x) =  ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk   k,j=1 k=1   n X ∂ (CP ) (ck (x)u(t, x)) − a0 u(t, x) +   ∂xk  k=1     = −AV u(t, x), t > 0,   u(0, .) = f ∈ L2 (Ω, C)

has a unique solution u(t, .) = e−tAV f ∈ D(AV ) for all t > 0. The solution u(t, .) satisfies the boundary conditions imposed by V. Now, as explained

103

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

in Chapter 2, if the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive, then it induces a strongly continuous semigroup on Lp (Ω, C) for each p ∈ [2, ∞) and we obtain existence and uniqueness of the solution of the analog of (CP ) in Lp (Ω, C). The same holds for 1 ≤ p ≤ 2 if the adjoint semi∗ group (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. For the parabolic equation (CP ), the L∞ -contractivity of the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 can be rephrased as: |f | ≤ 1 ⇒ |u(t, .)| ≤ 1 for all t ≥ 0. Thus, it is a maximum principle for (CP ). Note that the positivity of the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 can also be interpreted as a maximum principle for (CP ). In the next sections we study positivity, irreducibility, domination, and ∞ L -contractivity of semigroups (e−tAV )t≥0 , associated with different V 0 s. 4.2 POSITIVITY AND IRREDUCIBILITY

We keep the framework and notation of the previous section. We assume the uniform ellipticity condition (U.Ell). An application of Proposition 2.5 shows that the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 is real if and only if
Z ” X d Ω

j,k=1

<(akj )Dk uDj v +

d X k=1

(<(bk )vDk u + <(ck )uDk v) • + <(a0 )uv dx. (4.8)

This means that the form aV (and hence the operator AV ) is given by realvalued coefficients. P ROPOSITION 4.1 The semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 is real if and only if
104

CHAPTER 4

Proof. The fact that the conditions 1) and 2) are necessary follows immediately from the previous proposition and Theorem 2.6. Assume now that 1) and 2) are satisfied. Applying 1) to −u shows that 0} (see Proposition 4.4 below), one has aV ((
(where Γ is a closed subset of ∂Ω). Then for {u|Ω , u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd \ Γ)} + every u ∈ V, we have (0} and Dj |u| = <(sign(u)Dj u),

where χ{0} denotes the characteristic function of the set where 0. Proof. Assume first that V = H 1 (Ω). Consider on C, the function p fε (z) := |z|2 + ε2 − ε.

∂ ∂ Clearly fε has partial derivatives ∂t fε and ∂s fε which are continuous and bounded on C (here t =
∂ ∂ fε (
Dj fε (u) =

Let φ ∈ Cc∞ (Ω). We have for all ε > 0, # " Z Z u φdx. fε (u)Dj φdx = − < Dj u p |u|2 + ε2 Ω Ω 1

This fact can also be deduced from Theorem 2.25.

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

105

Taking the limit when ε → 0, it follows that Z Z |u|Dj φdx = − <[sign(u)Dj u]φdx. Ω

Ω

H 1 (Ω)

This implies that |u| ∈ and Dj |u| = <[sign(u)Dj u]. Applying this to 0} . For V = H01 (Ω), the assertions follow from the facts that u+ ∈ H 1 (Ω) for all real-valued u ∈ Cc∞ (Ω) and that functions in H 1 (Ω) which have compact supports in Ω are in H01 (Ω). We prove the proposition in the case of mixed boundary conditions, i.e., we H 1 (Ω)

(the case where Γ is empty assume that V = {u|Ω , u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd \ Γ)} gives the good Neumann boundary conditions). First, it is clear that
Let V = {u ∈ H 1 (0, 1), u(0) = iu(1)}. Define the form Z 1 u0 v 0 dx, D(aV ) = V. aV (u, v) = 0

This form has real coefficients, but the semigroup is not real because V is not stable under the real part <. In particular, the semigroup is not positive. If we choose now V = {u ∈ H 1 (0, 1), u(0) = −u(1)},

then the semigroup is real but not positive (the positive part u+ does not operate on V ). We study now the irreducibility of the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 . Since an irreducible semigroup is in particular positive, it follows that the conditions 1) and 2) of Theorem 4.2 are necessary for irreducibility of (e−tAV )t≥0 . T HEOREM 4.5 Assume that (
106

CHAPTER 4

Proof. Firstly, note that the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 is positive (cf. Corollary 4.3). By Corollary 2.11, the irreducibility of (e−tAV )t≥0 is equivalent to the following: if Ω1 is a subset of Ω such that u ∈ V ⇒ χΩ1 u ∈ V,

(4.9)

then either λ(Ω1 ) = 0 or λ(Ω \ Ω1 ) = 0, where λ denotes the Lebesgue measure on Rd . Assume that Ω is connected. Suppose for a contradiction that Ω1 satisfies (4.9) and λ(Ω1 ) > 0, λ(Ω \ Ω1 ) > 0. We have in particular, u ∈ Cc∞ (Ω) ⇒ χΩ1 u ∈ H 1 (Ω).

(4.10)

The operator Dk satisfies χ{v=0} Dk v = 0 for all v ∈ H 1 (Ω). This implies that Dk (χΩ1 u) = χΩ1 Dk u. Hence, χΩ1 u ∈ W01,p (O) for all p ∈ [1, ∞], where O is an open subset of Ω with smooth boundary which contains the support of a fixed u ∈ Cc∞ (Ω). (Note that there always exists an increasing sequence of open subsets Un of Ω with smooth boundaries, such that ∪n Un = Ω. Using the fact that the support of u is compact, one obtains from this that such O exists.) Choosing p large enough, we deduce from Sobolev embedding theorems that χΩ1 u = v a.e. on O, with v being a continuous function on O. Assume for a moment that there exists x0 ∈ Ω such that for every η > 0 λ(B(x0 , η) ∩ Ω1 ) > 0 and λ(B(x0 , η) ∩ Ω2 ) > 0,

(4.11)

where Ω2 = Ω\Ω1 and B(x0 , η) denotes the open euclidean ball with center x0 and radius η. We take η > 0 small enough such that B(x0 , 2η) ⊆ Ω and consider u ∈ Cc∞ (Ω) such that u(x) = 1 for all x ∈ B(x0 , η). We have for a.e. x ∈ B(x0 , η) ∩ Ω1 and a.e. y ∈ B(x0 , η) ∩ Ω2 1 = |χΩ1 u(x) − χΩ1 u(y)| = |v(x) − v(y)|. From the fact that v is continuous, we see that this equality cannot hold. Now we prove the existence of x0 satisfying (4.11). Assume that for every x ∈ Ω, there exists η > 0 such that either λ(B(x, η) ∩ Ω1 ) = 0 or λ(B(x, η) ∩ Ω2 ) = 0. Define O1 (respectively O2 ) as the union of all balls B(x, η), where x and η are such that λ(B(x, η) ∩ Ω1 ) = 0 (respectively λ(B(x, η) ∩ Ω2 ) = 0). One checks easily that O1 and O2 are disjoint open subsets such that Ω ⊆ O1 ∪ O2 . In addition, if Ω ⊆ Oi , then λ(Ωi ) = 0. Since we have assumed that λ(Ωi ) > 0 for i = 1, 2, we obtain a contradiction with the fact that Ω is connected. This proves the existence of x0 . Assume now that we have one of the boundary conditions listed in the theorem. That is, respectively, V = H01 (Ω), V = H 1 (Ω), V is as in (4.5),

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

107

or V is as in (4.6). If Ω is not connected then Ω = Ω1 ∪ Ω2 , where Ω1 and Ω2 are two disjoint open sets. It is not hard to see that Ω1 satisfies (4.9) in each of the four cases above and this implies that semigroup cannot be irreducible. 2 In the above theorem, we can assert that 1) implies 2) for several other boundary conditions. Those listed there are particular cases for which the implication 1) ⇒ 2) holds. However, this implication is not true for all boundary conditions, as the following example shows. Example 4.2.2 aV (u, v) =

Z

0

Let Ω = (0, 1) ∪ (2, 3). Define the form 1

u0 v 0 dx, D(aV ) = V = {u ∈ H 1 (Ω), u(0) = u(3)}.

This corresponds to periodic boundary conditions at 0 and 3 and the Neumann conditions at 1 and 2. This form is well defined, since H 1 (Ω) ⊆ C(Ω) by Sobolev embedding. The semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 associated with this form is irreducible. Indeed, by Theorem 4.2 and the fact that u+ ∈ H 1 (Ω) for every real u ∈ H 1 (Ω) and (u+ )0 = u0 χ{u>0} , it follows that the semigroup is positive. Now if Ω1 satisfies (4.10) and has nonzero measure, then one deduces easily that either Ω1 = (0, 1), Ω1 = (2, 3), or Ω1 = Ω. Assume that Ω1 = (0, 1). Hence (χ(0,1) u)(0) = (χ(0,1) u)(3) for all u ∈ V. We deduce that u(0) = 0 for all u ∈ V, which is not the case. The same conclusion holds if Ω = (2, 3). Thus, Ω1 = Ω and we conclude by Theorem 2.10 or Theorem 4.5 that the semigroup is irreducible.

4.3 L∞ -CONTRACTIVITY

This section is devoted to the L∞ -contractivity property of the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 . Our aim is to describe precisely in terms of the coefficients and also in terms of the boundary conditions imposed by V , whether or not L∞ contractivity holds. In order to do this, we apply the criteria given in Chapter 2. Recall that by Theorem 2.15, the following condition is necessary for L∞ -contractivity: u ∈ V ⇒ (1 ∧ |u|)sign u ∈ V.

(4.12)

This restricts, independently of the coefficients of the form aV , the range of boundary conditions for which L∞ -contractivity of (e−tAV )t≥0 may hold. We first state and prove the following result. T HEOREM 4.6 The semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive if and only if the following two conditions are satisfied:

108

CHAPTER 4

i) V satisfies (4.12). ii) For all u ∈ V such that r ϕk ϕj ∈ L1 (Ω, C) and ϕk Dj r ∈ L1 (Ω, C) for =(sign(u)Dj u) every j, k = 1, . . . , d, where r = |u| and ϕj = ϕj (u) := χ{u6=0} , r we have Z ” X d d d X X <(akj )ϕk ϕj r − =(akj )ϕk Dj r + =(cj − bj )ϕj r Ω

j,k=1

j=1

j,k=1

+

d X j=1

•

(
Proof. Let u ∈ V and put v = (r − 1)+ sign u. We have Dj |u| = <(sign(u)Dj u) for every u ∈ H 1 (Ω) (cf. Proposition 4.4), and by Proposition 4.11 below, we have Dk v = (Dk r + i(r − 1)ϕk ) sign u χ{r>1} and Dk ((r ∧ 1) sign u) = i ϕk sign u χ{r>1} + Dk u χ{r≤1} . Hence 1} Ω

j,k

+

X j=1

+

X j

j,k

=(cj − bj )ϕj (r − 1)+

(1} + <(a0 )(r − 1)

+

•

dx. (4.13)

Assume now that conditions i) and ii) are satisfied. We have v := (r − 1)+ sign u ∈ V and |v| = (r − 1)+ , ϕj (v) = ϕj (u) χ{r>1} . It follows that ϕk ϕj |v| and ϕk Dj |v| ∈ L1 (Ω, C). We apply ii) for v and obtain
Theorem 2.15 implies that (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. Conversely, assume that (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. As mentioned above, (4.12) holds. Again Theorem 2.15 implied to uk for k > 0 gives (4.13) with (r − k)+ in place of (r − 1)+ and χ{r>k} in place of χ{r>1} . Letting k → 0, we obtain with the help of the dominated convergence theorem the assertion ii). 2 In the case of Dirichlet boundary conditions, i.e., V = H01 (Ω), a more precise result holds. −tA

1

T HEOREM 4.7 The semigroup (e H0 )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive if and only if the following four conditions are satisfied:

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

109

i) =(akj + ajk ) = 0 for all j, k ∈ {1, . . . , d}, d X Dj (
iii) fk =

d X

1 (Ω), k ∈ {1, . . . , d}, Dj =(akj ) ∈ Lloc

j=1

iv)

d X

<(akj )ξk ξj +

k,j=1 d R , where

d X (=(cj −bj )+fj )ξj +f0,r ≥ 0 a.e. on Ω for all ξ ∈ j=1

f0,r is the regular part of the measure f0 (i.e., the absolutely continuous part). Proof. Note that H01 (Ω) satisfies condition (4.12) (see Proposition 4.11). It −tA

1

follows that the semigroup (e H0 )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive if and only if for every u ∈ H01 (Ω) such that ϕk ϕj r, ϕk Dj r ∈ L1 (Ω, C), we have • Z ”X X <(akj )ϕk ϕj + =(cj − bj )ϕj +
≥

k,j

Z ”X Ω

k,j

j

• X (
(4.14)

j

where r = |u| and ϕj = 1r =(Dj u sign u) χ{u6=0} as above. Assume −tA

1

that (e H0 )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. We apply (4.14) with u = reiϕ , where r ∈ Cc∞ (Ω, R+ ) and ϕ ∈ C ∞ (Rd , R). Since ϕj = Dj ϕ χ{r>0} , we obtain X X <(akj )Dk ϕ Dj ϕ + =(cj − bj )Dj ϕ + f0 k,j

+

X j

fj Dj ϕ +

X k,j

j

=(akj )Dj Dk ϕ ≥ 0 in (Cc∞ (Ω))0

(4.15)

for all ϕ ∈ C ∞ (Rd , R), where f0 , fj are the distributions defined in ii) and iii), respectively. We apply (4.15) with ϕ = 0 and obtain f0 ≥ 0 inP(Cc∞ (Ω)0 , that is, ii). On the other hand, it follows from (4.15) that f0 + j fj Dj ϕ is a Radon measure on Ω whose singular part is non-negative for all ϕ ∈ C ∞ (Rd , R). For k = 1, . . . , d, choose ϕ(x) = λxk , λ ∈ R, we deduce that fk is a Radon measure with a trivial singular part and hence fk ∈ L1loc (Ω), that is, iii). Now let x0 ∈ Ω be a Lebesgue point for akj , cj , bj , fj , f0,r and apply (4.15) with ϕ(x) = λ2 ((x − x0 ). ξ)2 , ξ ∈ Rd , and λ ∈ R (where . denotes

110

CHAPTER 4

the classical inner product of Rd ). We obtain λ2

X k,j

X

<(akj )ξk ξj ((x − x0 ).ξ)2 + λ + f0,r + λ

X k,j

j

(=(cj − bj ) + fj )((x − x0 ).ξ)ξj

=(akj )ξk ξj ≥ 0 (a.e. x ∈ Ω).

For x = x0 , this gives f0,r (x0 ) + λ

X k,j

=akj (x0 ) ξk ξj ≥ 0 for all λ ∈ R.

P Since λ is arbitrary in R, we obtain k,j =akj ξk ξj = 0 a.e. on Ω, for all ξ ∈ Rd , that is, i). Finally, we apply (4.15) with ϕ(x) = ξ. x to obtain iv). Conversely, we assume that the four conditions i)−iv) are satisfied. We −tA 1 show that (e H0 )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. Using (4.13), Theorem 2.15 and the fact that Cc∞ (Ω) is dense in H01 (Ω), it is enough to check that for every u ∈ Cc∞ (Ω), 0≤

Z ”X Ω

k,j

+

<(akj )ϕk ϕj (r − 1)+ −

X j

+

X k,j

=(cj − bj )ϕj (r − 1) +

=(akj )ϕk Dj (r − 1)+

X j

(
+
•

dx, (4.16)

ϕj are as above. Since (r − 1)+ ∈ W 1,∞ (Ω) and has compact where r and P support and j Dj (
j

+


Z

Ω

(f0 −
j k On the other hand, ϕk ∈ C ∞ ({r > 0}) and ∂ϕ ∂xj = ∂xk . Indeed, on the open set {r > 0}, ϕk = −i sign u Dk (sign u), hence Dj ϕk = −i(−ϕj ϕk + (sign u)Dk Dj (sign u)), which is symmetric with respect to (k, j).

111

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

Hence using iii) and i), we have “ X X’X X Dj =(akj ϕk ) = =akj Dj ϕk Dj =akj ϕk + k,j

j

k

=

X

k,j

fk ϕk in (Cc∞ ({r > 0}))0 .

k

Since (r − 1)+ has compact support in {r > 0} Z Z X X − fk ϕk (r − 1)+ . (=akj )ϕk Dj (r − 1)+ = Ω

Ω k

k,j

Hence the right-hand side term of (4.16) is given by • Z ”X X
where f0,s = f0 − f0,r is the singular part of f0 . From iv) and ii) we deduce that this quantity is nonnegative. 2 C OROLLARY 4.8 Assume that
d 1 X |=(cj − bj ) + fj |2 ≥ 0 on Ω, 4η j=1

−t(AH 1 +w)

where η is the ellipticity constant. Then, the semigroup (e L∞ -contractive.

0

)t≥0 is

Proof. The following trivial inequality holds d X j=1

(=(cj −bj )+fj )ξj ≥ −(4η)−1

d X j=1

|=(cj −bj )+fj |2 −η

d X

ξj2 . (4.17)

j=1

This together with the ellipticity property (4.2) show that conditions i)−iv) of the Theorem 4.7 hold with a0 + w in place of a0 . 2 Note that the conditions i)−iv) in Theorem 4.7 are necessary conditions for the L∞ -contractivity of (e−tAV )t≥0 for every V satisfying (4.12). Indeed, by Theorem 2.15, the L∞ -contractivity of (e−tAV )t≥0 implies (4.12) and
112

CHAPTER 4

for all u ∈ V. Since H01 (Ω) ⊆ V, this inequality holds for u ∈ H01 (Ω). In particular, the L∞ -contractivity of (e−tAV )t≥0 implies the L∞ -contractivity −tAH 1

of (e

0

)t≥0 . We conclude by applying Theorem 4.7.

4.3.1 Validity of L∞ -contractivity: real principal part

As previously, we assume the uniform ellipticity condition (U.Ell). Recall again that η denotes the ellipticity constant in (4.2). T HEOREM 4.9 Assume that for all j, k ∈ {1, . . . , d}, the coefficients akj are real-valued and that
(4.18)

j=1

In particular, (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive if
1 4η

Pd

j=1 |=(cj

−

Proof. Since (e−t(AV +w) )t≥0 is the semigroup associated with the form aV (., .) + w(.; .), with domain V , it follows from Theorem 2.15 that ii) implies i). Assume now that i) holds. We apply Theorem 4.6. Let ϕj be as in that theorem. It is enough to prove that d X

j,k=1

<(akj )ϕk ϕj +

d X j=1

=(cj − bj )ϕj +
Using the ellipticity assumption (U.Ell), we see that this inequality holds for every w satisfying (4.18). 2 In the next result, we assume that the coefficients satisfy the hypothesis of the previous theorem. C OROLLARY 4.10 If AV is subject to Dirichlet, Neumann, good Neumann, or mixed boundary conditions, then (e−t(AV +w) )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive for every w satisfying (4.18).

113

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

This result follows from the previous theorem and the next proposition. Note that for Dirichlet boundary conditions, we had a better result in Corollary 4.8. Note also that by combining Corollary 4.10 with Corollary 4.3, one obtains that, if all the coefficients are real-valued, then (e−t(AV +w) )t≥0 is sub-Markovian for every w ∈ R such that w + a0 ≥ 0. ^ 1 (Ω), and P ROPOSITION 4.11 The spaces H01 (Ω), H 1 (Ω), H {u|Ω , u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd \ Γ)}

H 1 (Ω)

Dj ((1 ∧ |u|)sign u) = i

satisfy (4.12). Moreover,

=(sign(u)Dj u) sign uχ{|u|>1} + χ{|u|≤1} Dj u |u|

for all u ∈ H 1 (Ω) and all j ∈ {1, . . . , d}.

Proof. We first consider the case V = H 1 (Ω). Since the idea of proof is similar to that of Proposition 4.4, we only sketch the proof. Let š p (t − 1)2 + ε2 − ε if t > 1, fε (t) := 0 if t ≤ 1. As in the proof of Proposition 4.4, since fε has bounded derivative on R, fε (u) ∈ H 1 (Ω) for all real-valued u ∈ H 1 (Ω). Again, by Proposition 4.4, we conclude that fε (|u|) ∈ H 1 (Ω) for all u ∈ H 1 (Ω). Letting ε → 0 in the expression of Dk fε (|u|) one obtains (|u| − 1)+ ∈ H 1 (Ω) with Dk (|u| − 1)+ = χ{|u|>1} Dk |u| = χ{|u|>1} <(sign(u)Dk u). u (|u| − 1)+ |u|2 +ε

∈ H 1 (Ω) for all ε > 0 and u ∈ • ” H 1 (Ω). Letting ε → 0 in the expression of Dk √ u2 (|u| − 1)+ and From this, it follows that √

|u| +ε

arguing as in the proof of Proposition 4.4, it follows that (|u| − 1)+ sign u ∈ H 1 (Ω). The equality u − (1 ∧ |u|)sign u = (|u| − 1)+ sign u gives the desired assertion. The corresponding result for V = H01 (Ω) follows from the fact that (1 ∧ |u|)sign u ∈ H01 (Ω) for all u ∈ Cc∞ (Ω) (since it is in H 1 (Ω) and has compact support in Ω). H 1 (Ω)

, the result follows as in Finally, if V = {u|Ω , u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd \ Γ)} 2 Proposition 4.4 by considering (1 ∧ |u|)sign u in place of u+ . If no regularity assumption is imposed on
114

CHAPTER 4

Let Ω = (0, 1) and b, c ∈ L∞ (Ω). Consider the form

Example 4.3.1

aV (u, v) =

Z

0

1

[u0 v 0 + b(x)u0 v + c(x)uv 0 ]dx, D(aV ) = V.

√ 1) Let c(x) = x and V = H01 (Ω). If there exists a constant w such that (e−t(AV +w) )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive, then by ii) of Theorem 4.7, we must have w − c0 √ is non-negative on (0, 1). This is not the case for any w. If we ∗ take b(x) = x and c = 0, then there exists no w such that (e−t(AV +w) )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. 2) Let V = H 1 (Ω), b(x) = 1 and c(x) = 0. By Corollary 4.10, the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. However, there exists no w ∈ R ∗ such that (e−t(AV +w) )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive (despite the fact the coefficients are in W 1,∞ (Ω)). Indeed, if such w exists, then for every 0 ≤ u ∈ V, aV ((u − 1)+ , 1 ∧ u) + w((u − 1)+ ; 1 ∧ u) ≥ 0.

(4.19)

This gives Z

0

1

χ{u>1} u0 dx + w

Z

1

0

(u − 1)+ dx ≥ 0.

Applying this for ku in place of u and letting k → ∞, we obtain Z

1

0

u dx + w

Z

0

0

1

udx ≥ 0.

In other words, for every non-negative C 1 -function u on Ω, w

Z

0

1

udx ≥ u(0) − u(1).

Applying this for the sequence un = (1 − x)n yields w ≥ n + 1 for every n ∈ N which is not possible. Hence (4.19) cannot hold for any w. 3) Let now V = {u ∈ H 1 (0, 1), u(0) = αu(1)}, where α ∈ C. Assume that b = c = 0. It is easy to check that V satisfies (4.12) if and only if |α| = 1. Thus, the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive if and only if |α| = 1. In particular, for α = i one obtains a semigroup which is L∞ contractive but not positive (it is not even real) and for α = 2, the semigroup is positive but not L∞ -contractive.

115

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

4.3.2 Absence of L∞ -contractivity: complex principal part

We consider in this section the form aV given by the principal part, that is, aV (u, v) =

d Z X

akj Dk uDj vdx, D(aV ) = V.

(4.20)

k,j=1 Ω

We assume as previously that the uniform ellipticity (U.Ell) holds. We have seen in the previous subsection that if V satisfies (4.12) and if the coefficients akj are real, then the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. This paragraph is devoted to the necessity of having the akj to be realvalued. More precisely, we study the question whether the L∞ -contractivity of (e−tAV )t≥0 implies that aV (u, v) =

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

<(akj )Dk uDj vdx for all u, v ∈ V,

(4.21)

which entails that the form aV (and hence the operator AV ) has real-valued coefficients. For Dirichlet boundary conditions, the answer follows from Theorem 4.7. C OROLLARY 4.12 Suppose that the form aV is given by (4.20). The following assertions are equivalent: −tA 1 i) (e H0 )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. −tA

1

ii) (e H0 )t≥0 is real. P R iii) aH01 (Ω) (u, v) = k,j Ω <(akj ) Dk uDj v, for all u, v ∈ H01 (Ω). P iv) =(akj + ajk ) = 0, 1 ≤ k, j ≤ d and j Dj (=akj ) = 0 in (CC∞ (Ω))0 for 1 ≤ k ≤ d.

Proof. The equivalence i) ⇐⇒ iv) follows from Theorem 4.7. The implication iv) =⇒ iii) follows from the equality Z X (=akj )Dk uDj dx Ω k,j

=−

Z

Ω

v

”X k,j

Dj (=akj )Dk u +

• 1X =(akj + ajk ) Dk Dj u dx 2 k,j

for all u, v ∈ Cc∞ (Ω). iii) =⇒ i) follows from Theorem 4.7. Finally, ii) ⇐⇒ iii) follows from Proposition 4.1. 2 We consider now more general boundary conditions. Recall that condition (4.12) is necessary for L∞ -contractivity of (e−tAV )t≥0 . Thus, we consider only spaces V that satisfy (4.12).

116

CHAPTER 4

P ROPOSITION 4.13 Suppose that the form aV is given by (4.20) and suppose that akj = ajk for j, k ∈ {1, . . . , d}. If (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive, then akj are real-valued for every j and k. In particular, the form aV satisfies (4.21). Proof. As explained after the proof of Corollary 4.8, if (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ −tA

1

contractive, then the same holds for (e H0 )t≥0 . Therefore, condition iv) of Corollary 4.12 and the symmetry assumption akj = ajk give the proposition. 2 This result answers the above question for general boundary conditions V. However, we have assumed a rather restrictive condition on the coefficients. For general coefficients, we will see later that the result does not hold for general V . We assume that V satisfies the following property: u ∈ V ⇒ (
(4.22)

We have T HEOREM 4.14 Assume that the form aV is given by (4.20) and assume that V satisfies (4.22). If the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive, then aV satisfies (4.21). Proof. We show that the L∞ -contractivity of (e−tAV )t≥0 implies that Z d X

k,j=1

Ω

(=akj )Dk uDj v dx = 0 for all u, v ∈ V.

(4.23)

It follows from (4.22) that
k,j=1

Ω

(=akj )Dk (t ∧ u)Dj (s ∧ v)dx = 0.

In other words, Z d X

k,j=1

Ω

(=akj )Dk u χ{u
117

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

Letting t → +∞ and s → +∞, we obtain (4.23) for u and v. This shows that it is enough to prove (4.23) for non-negative u, v ∈ V ∩ L∞ (Ω, R). It follows from (4.22) and Theorems 4.2 and 4.9 that the semigroup associated with the symmetric form b(u, v) =

d Z X k=1

Dk uDk vdx, D(b) = V

Ω

is sub-Markovian. On the other hand, the function p(s) = 21 (eis − 1) is a normal contraction on R. Theorems 2.25 and 2.28 assert that p(V ) ⊆ V and V ∩L∞ (Ω, C) is an algebra for the standard multiplication of functions. Thus, for 0 ≤ u, v ∈ V ∩L∞ (Ω, R), we write ueiv = 2up(v)+u and deduce that ueiv ∈ V. Now we apply Theorem 2.15 with ueiv ∈ V in place of u. We obtain <

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

akj Dk ((1 ∧ u)eiv ) Dj ((u − 1)+ e−iv )dx ≥ 0.

Since Dk (1 ∧ u) = Dk uχ{u<1} and Dk (u − 1)+ = Dk uχ{u>1} , we obtain d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

<(akj )Dk vDj v(u − 1)+ dx ≥

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

=(akj )Dj uDk vχ{u>1} dx.

We apply the same arguments to ue−iv to obtain d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

<(akj )Dk vDj v(u − 1)+ dx Œ X Z Œ d ≥ ŒŒ

k,j=1 Ω

Œ Œ =(akj )Dj uDk vχ{u>1} dxŒŒ.

Applying this inequality with uε (with ε > 0) instead of u and letting ε → 0, we obtain by the help of the dominated convergence theorem Œ Œ Œ Œ d Z d Z X Œ ŒX <(akj )Dk vDj vudx ≥ ŒŒ =(akj )Dj uDk vdxŒŒ . (4.24) Ω Ω Œ Œ k,j=1 k,j=1

118

CHAPTER 4

Replacing v by λv in (4.24) and letting λ → 0 yields d Z X

(=akj )Dj uDk vdx = 0,

k,j=1 Ω

2

which is the previous assertion.

The next example shows that the assumption (4.22) cannot be omitted in the previous theorem. Example 4.3.2

Let Ω = (0, 1) × (0, 1) and

V0 = {v ∈ H 1 (Ω, C), v(x, 0) = v(x, 1) = 0 and v(0, y) = v(1, y)}. Let ϕ ∈ C ∞ (R2 , R) such that

∂ϕ ∂y

(0, y) <

∂ϕ ∂y (1, y)

for all y ∈ R. Set

V := eiϕ V0 . Fix 0 < θ < 1 and consider the sesquilinear form defined on V by “ ZZ ’ ∂u ∂v ∂u ∂v + dxdy aV (u, v) = ∂y ∂y Ω ∂x ∂x “ ZZ ’ ∂u ∂v ∂u ∂v +iθ − dxdy. ∂y ∂x Ω ∂x ∂y The coefficients of aV satisfy the uniform ellipticity assumption (U.Ell) and we have P ROPOSITION 4.15 The semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 associated with the form aV is L∞ -contractive but the form aV does not satisfy (4.21). Proof. Consider for u, v ∈ V “ ZZ ’ ∂u ∂v ∂u ∂v I(u, v) := − dxdy. ∂y ∂x Ω ∂x ∂y For u, v ∈ V ∩ C 2 (Ω, C), we have by the Green-Riemann formula and the fact that u(x, 0) = u(x, 1) = 0, ’ “ ’ ““ ZZ ’ ∂ ∂v ∂ ∂v u − u dxdy I(u, v) = ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂x Z Ω ∂v ∂v dx + u dy = u ∂x ∂y ~ ∂Ω “ Z 1’ ∂v ∂v u(1, y) (1, y) − u(0, y) (0, y) dy. = ∂y ∂y 0

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

119

Since ue−iϕ , ve−iϕ ∈ V0 it follows that

u(1, y) e−iϕ(1,y) = u(0, y) e−iϕ(0,y) ,

d d (v(1, y) e−iϕ(1,y) ) = (v(0, y) e−iϕ(0,y) ). dy dy Hence ∂v ∂v (1, y) − u(0, y) (0, y) ∂y ∂y ’ “ ∂ϕ ∂ϕ = i u(0, y) v(0, u) (0, y) − (1, y) . ∂y ∂y

u(1, y)

Thus, I(u, v) = i

Z

1

u(0, y) v(0, y)

0

’

“ ∂ϕ ∂ϕ (0, y) − (1, y) dy. ∂y ∂y

(4.25)

This extends to all u, v ∈ V by a density argument. From this expression ∂ϕ and the assumption ∂ϕ 6 0 ∂y (0, y) − ∂y (1, y) < 0, we deduce that I(u, u) = for all u such that u(0, . ) is not the zero function on ]0, 1[. This proves that the form aV cannot satisfy (4.21). Now we show that (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. For this, we apply Theorem 2.13. Firstly, it is easy to check that (|u| − 1)+ sign u ∈ V for all u ∈ V. Thus, we only have to check that
2

We point out that the conclusion of Theorem 4.14 does not hold if we merely assume that there exists a positive constant w such that the semigroup (e−t(AV +w) )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. This can be seen from Corollary 4.8. In the two-dimension case, we have the following result.

120

CHAPTER 4

P ROPOSITION 4.16 Assume that d = 2 and let aV be as in (4.20). Then −t(AH 1 +w) 0 there exists a non-negative constant w such that (e )t≥0 is L∞ contractive if and only if =a11 = =a22 = 0 and =a12 = −=a21 ∈ W 1,∞ (Ω). −t(A

1 +w)

H0 Proof. It follows from Theorem 4.7 that the semigroup (e )t≥0 ∞ is L -contractive if and only if =a11 = =a22 = 0, =(a12 + a21 ) = 0, ∂ ∂ 1 ∂x2 =a12 , ∂x1 =a21 ∈ Lloc (Ω) and

2 X

k,j=1


∂ ∂ (=a12 ) ξ1 + (=a21 ) ξ2 +w ≥ 0 for all ξ1 , ξ2 ∈ R. ∂x2 ∂x1 (4.26)

Set h = =a12 = −=a21 and let C := max

ξ12 +ξ22 =1

2 X

k,j=1


ξ12 +ξ22 =1

2 X

k,j=1


Clearly, (4.26) implies that |∇h(x)|2 ≤ 4wC a.e. x ∈ Ω and (4.26) holds if |∇h(x)|2 ≤ 4wc a.e. x ∈ Ω. This proves the proposition.

2

4.4 THE CONSERVATION PROPERTY

In this section we discuss the conservation property e−tAV 1 = 1 for all t ≥ 0.

(4.27)

Here 1 denotes the constant function with value 1. Clearly, this property cannot hold for all boundary conditions. To see this, one can consider the case of a bounded domain with smooth boundary and AV the Laplacian with Dirichlet boundary conditions. In this case, e−tAV 1 ∈ H01 (Ω) for all t > 0 and cannot coincide with 1. For the same reason, the conservation property cannot hold for mixed boundary conditions (if Γ in (4.5) is not empty). We will see that it does hold for Neumann and good Neumann boundary conditions.

121

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

The notation and assumptions here are the same as in Section 4.1, that is, the form aV is given by • Z ” X d d X aV (u, v) = akj Dk uDj v + (bk vDk u + ck uDk v) + a0 uv dx Ω

k,j=1

k=1

with domain ^ 1 (Ω). D(aV ) = V with V = H 1 (Ω) or = H

(4.28)

We assume again that the coefficients akj , bk , ck , and a0 are bounded measurable (possibly complex-valued) functions and satisfy the uniform ellipticity condition (U.Ell). Let Ω be an open subset of Rd . ^ 1 (Ω). Assume that T HEOREM 4.17 Let V be either H 1 (Ω) or H “ Z ’X bj Dj u + a0 u dx = 0 f or all u ∈ V ∩ W 1,1 (Ω). Ω

(4.29)

j

Assume in addition that the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 extends from L2 (Ω, C) ∩ L1 (Ω, C) to a strongly continuous semigroup on L1 (Ω, C). Then Z Z −tAV e u dx f or all t ≥ 0, u ∈ L2 (Ω, C)∩L1 (Ω, C). (4.30) u dx = Ω

Ω

In other words, if we also denote by (e−tAV )t≥0 the strongly continuous ∗ semigroup in L1 (Ω, C), then the adjoint (e−tAV )t≥0 satisfies the conservation property (4.27). ∗

If there exists a constant w such that the semigroup (e−t(AV +w) )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive, then the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 extends from L2 (Ω, C) ∩ L1 (Ω, C) to a strongly continuous semigroup on L1 (Ω, C) (see Chapter 2). In this case, one has only to check condition (4.29) to obtain (4.27) for the adjoint semigroup. The assumptions of the previous theorem hold in the particular case where akj are real-valued functions and bk = ck = a0 = 0 for 1 ≤ k, j ≤ d. In order to prove Theorem 4.17, we will need the following lemma. ^ 1 (Ω). Then there exist L EMMA 4.18 Suppose that V = H 1 (Ω) or V = H two constants C1 and ω1 such that for every R > 0, every u ∈ L2 (Ω, C) with support contained in {|x| ≤ R} and every r > 0, we have ’Z “1/2 X −tAV 2 −tAV 2 (|e u| + |Dj e u| )dx Ω∩{|x|≥R+r}

≤ C1 (1 + t

j

−1 1/2 −r+ω1 t

)

e

kuk2 ,

(4.31)

122

CHAPTER 4

for all t > 0. Proof. Assume first that V = H 1 (Ω). Set ψ(x) := (|x| − R)+ ∧ r and let S(t) := eψ e−tAV e−ψ . We have ψ ∈ W 1,∞ (Rd ), ψ(x) = r on the set {|x| ≥ R + r}, |Dj ψ| ≤ 1 a.e. on Rd for j ∈ {1, . . . , d}, and u = ue−ψ on Ω. Hence e−tAV u = e−ψ S(t)u Dj (e−tAV u) = e−ψ (Dj S(t)u − S(t)uDj ψ), and the term in the left-hand side of (4.31) is bounded by “1/2 ’ X 2 2 −r kDj S(t)uk2 e . (1 + 2d)kS(t)uk2 + 2

(4.32)

j

Now we estimate (4.32). Note that S(t) = e−tBV , where BV is the operator associated with the form bV (f, g) = aV (e−ψ f, eψ g) for all f, g ∈ V = H 1 (Ω). The form bV has the same principal part as aV . Hence there exist ω1 and C such that kS(t)kL(L2 ) ≤ eω1 t , kBV S(t)kL(L2 ) ≤ ηX kDj f k22 ≤ < 2 j

Z

Ceω1 t , t

BV f f dx + ω1 kf k22 for all f ∈ D(BV ).

From this and the bound (4.32) we obtain the lemma for the case V = H 1 (Ω). ^ 1 (Ω), the proof is similar. It only remains to check that the form If V = H bV is well defined. That is, we need that ^ ^ 1 (Ω) ⇒ e−ψ f, eψ f ∈ H 1 (Ω). f ∈H We show that for every φ ∈ W 1,∞ (Rd ) we have ^ ^ 1 (Ω) ⇒ φf ∈ H 1 (Ω). f ∈H

(4.33)

Let fn ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ) be such that fn |Ω converges to f in H 1 (Ω). Let ρn be a regularizing sequence. Fix n. For each m, we have (φ ∗ ρm )fn ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ) and this sequence converges in H 1 (Rd ) to φfn . Since φfn converges to φf ^ 1 (Ω). in H 1 (Ω) we deduce that φf ∈ H 2

123

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

Proof of Theorem 4.17. By a density argument, it is enough to prove (4.30) for u ∈ L2 (Ω, C) with compact support. Let R > 0 be such that the support of u is contained in {|x| < R}. Let ρ ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ) with 0 ≤ ρ ≤ 1, ρ = 1 on {|x| ≤ 1}. Set ρn (x) := ρ( nx ) and u(t) := e−tAV u. For every t > 0, we have Z In (t) := (AV u(t))ρn dx = aV (u(t), ρn ) Ω ! Z X  X akj Dk u(t) + (cj − bj )u(t) Dj ρn dx, = Ω

j

k

where we have used the fact that ρn ∈ V and the following consequence of (4.29): Z X Z X ( bj ρn Dj u(t) + a0 u(t)ρn )dx = − bj u(t)Dj ρn dx. Ω

Ω

j

Since Dj ρn (x) =

1 n

Dj ρ( nx ) = 0 for |x| ≤ n, we have

|In (t)| ≤M

X j

j

kDj ρn k2

 Z

Ω∩{|x|≥n}

 

|u(t)|2 +

X k

|Dk u(t)|2

!

!1/2

dx

,

where M = max (kakj k∞ , kcj − bj k∞ ). Now using Lemma 4.18, we see that for n > R X d 1 |In (t)| ≤ M C1 kDj ρk2 n 2 −1 e−n (1 + t−1 ) 2 eR+ω1 t kuk2 . j

R

d But In (t) = − dt Ω u(t)ρn dx and u(t) is continuous from [0, ∞[ into 1 L (Ω, C) by our assumption on the semigroup. Hence for 0 < s < t, we have ’Z “ Z Z Z u(t)ρn dx − u(s)ρn dx u(t)dx − u(s)dx = lim n→∞ Ω Ω Ω Ω Z t = lim In (τ )dτ = 0. n→∞ s

Letting s → 0, we obtain (4.30).

2

As an application of Theorem 4.17, we have the following stronger version of Theorem 4.14 which in turn is limited to Neumann and good Neumann boundary conditions.

124

CHAPTER 4

T HEOREM 4.19 Let aV be as above and assume that V is either H 1 (Ω) or ^ 1 (Ω). Assume that H Z ’X Ω

j

“ cj Dj u + a0 u dx = 0 f or all u ∈ V ∩ W 1,1 (Ω).

(4.34)

If the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive, then Z X X <(bj − cj )vDj udx (4.35) aV (u, v) = <(akj )Dk uDj vdx + Ω k,j

j

for all u, v ∈ V. We first show the following elementary lemma. L EMMA 4.20 Let T ∈ L(L∞ (Ω, C)) be a contraction operator such that T 1 = 1. Then T is real; that is, T u ∈ L∞ (Ω, R) for all u ∈ L∞ (Ω, R).

Proof. Let u ∈ L∞ (Ω, R) with kuk∞ ≤ 1. Fix λ ∈ R. Using the assumptions on T, we have (1 − λ=T u)2 + λ2 (
2

Proof of Theorem 4.19. If the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive, then ∗ the adjoint semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 extends to a strongly continuous contraction semigroup on L1 (Ω, C) (see Chapter 2). Using (4.34) we can apply Theorem 4.17 and obtain that e−tAV 1 = 1 for all t > 0. The previous lemma implies then that (e−tAV )t≥0 is real. By Proposition 4.1 it follows that for all u, v ∈ V aV (u, v) =

Z ” X d Ω

k,j=1

<(akj )Dk uDj v +

d X (<(bk )vDk u+<(ck )uDk v) k=1

• + <(a0 )uv dx.

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

125

But if u, v ∈ V ∩ L∞ (Ω, R) we have u.v ∈ V and it follows from (4.34) that for all u, v ∈ V ∩ L∞ (Ω, R) • Z ”X
j

=< = 0.

Z ”X Ω

j

• cj Dj (uv) + a0 uv dx

This implies (4.35) for u, v ∈ V ∩ L∞ (Ω, R). As in the proof of Theorem 4.14, by applying this to u ∧ t and u ∧ s and letting t → ∞ and s → ∞, we extend this to all real u, v ∈ V. Now since
The aim of this section is to study the domination property for semigroups generated by uniformly elliptic operators. For general semigroups associated with sesquilinear forms, criteria for the domination property are given in Chapter 2. We apply some of those criteria to the semigroups (e−tAV )t≥0 . As previously, we define the form aV by aV (u, v) =

Z ” X d Ω

k,j=1

• d X (bk vDk u + ck uDk v) + a0 uv dx. akj Dk uDj v + k=1

The domain of aV is V. Here Ω is any open subset of Rd and we assume again that the coefficients satisfy the uniform ellipticity condition (U.Ell). T HEOREM 4.21 Assume that akj , bk , ck , and a0 are real-valued for all j, k ∈ {1, . . . , d}. The following assertions are equivalent: 1) u ∈ V implies (
1

2) The semigroup (e H0 )t≥0 is dominated by the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 . That is, the following inequality holds for all t > 0 and all f ∈ L2 (Ω, C) : −tAH 1

|e

0

f | ≤ e−tAV |f |. H 1 (Ω)

(4.36)

Now let V = {u|Ω , u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd \ Γ)} , where Γ is a closed subset of −tA −tA V ∂Ω. Then (e )t≥0 is dominated by the semigroups (e H 1 (Ω) )t≥0 and −tA

(e

^ 1 (Ω) H

)t≥0 .

126

CHAPTER 4

Proof. By Theorem 4.2, the positivity of the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 implies assertion 1). In particular, 2) =⇒ 1). Assume now that assertion 1) is satisfied. Again, Theorem 4.2 shows that the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 is positive. For the same reason, the semigroup −tA

1

(e H0 )t≥0 is also positive. To establish the domination, we show that H01 (Ω) is an ideal of V and apply Corollary 2.22. By Proposition 2.23, it suffices to show that if 0 ≤ v ≤ u, u ∈ H01 (Ω) and v ∈ V, then v ∈ H01 (Ω). Let (un )n ∈ Cc ∞ (Ω) be such that (un )n converges to u in H 1 (Ω). Set vn = inf(|un |, v). For each n, vn has compact support in Ω and hence vn ∈ H01 (Ω). But (vn )n converges to v in H 1 (Ω) (this follows from the continuity of the absolute value in H 1 (Ω)). Thus, v ∈ H01 (Ω). This shows that H01 (Ω) is an ideal of V and assertion 2) holds. In order to show the last claim of the theorem we have to show, as above, ^ ^ 1 (Ω) ⊆ H 1 (Ω), it is 1 (Ω). Since H that V is an ideal of H 1 (Ω) and of H 1 enough to prove that V is an ideal of H (Ω). Let 0 ≤ v ≤ u with u ∈ V and v ∈ H 1 (Ω). Let un ∈ Cc∞ (Rd \ Γ) be a sequence which converges to u in H 1 (Ω). Let vn = inf(un , v). As mentioned above, vn converges to v in H 1 (Ω) and thus it suffices to prove that vn ∈ V for each fixed n. Let ρn ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ) be a regularizing sequence. The sequence ρm ∗ vn converges in H 1 (Ω) to vn as m → ∞. Since vn has compact support contained in Rd \ Γ, it follows that for m large, ρm ∗ vn is in Cc∞ (Rd \ Γ) and this proves that vn ∈ V. 2 It follows from the above result that the semigroup associated with the Dirichlet boundary conditions is the smallest semigroup (for the domination property). However, the semigroup associated with the Neumann boundary conditions does not dominate all the others. Indeed, it is easy to construct subspaces V which are not ideals of H 1 (Ω). For example V = {u ∈ H 1 (0, 1), u(0) = u(1)}

is not an ideal of H 1 (0, 1). To see this, pick a function v ∈ H 1 (0, 1) with / V but 0 ≤ v ≤ 1 ∈ V. 0 ≤ v ≤ 1 and v(0) 6= u(1). Then v ∈ Now let V be a closed subspace of H 1 (Ω) which contains H01 (Ω), and let φ ∈ W 1,∞ (Ω). Define W = eiφ V.

We have P ROPOSITION 4.22 Assume that akj , bk , ck , and a0 are real-valued for all j, k ∈ {1, . . . , d}. Assume also that (
127

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

Proof. By Corollary 2.22 (or Theorem 2.21) it is enough to prove that W is an ideal of V. So let u ∈ W and v ∈ V such that |v| ≤ |u|. We need to show that vsign u ∈ W. Let now u0 ∈ V such that u = eiφ u0 . Thus |v| ≤ |u0 |. The assumption on V implies that the semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 is positive and hence V is an ideal of itself (cf. Proposition 2.20). This implies 2 that vsign u0 ∈ V. Now vsign u = vsign u0 eiφ ∈ W. The next result shows that for Dirichlet boundary conditions, the semigroup increases as the domain increases. To be more precise, let Ω1 ⊆ Ω2 , where Ωi are open sets of Rd . Define now the form Z aH01 (Ω2 ) (u, v) =

d X

Ω2 k,j=1

akj Dk uDj v +

d X

(bk vDk u+ck uDk v)+a0 uvdx,

k=1

where the coefficients satisfy (U.Ell) in Ω2 . We can now define the form aH01 (Ω1 ) by the same expression by taking the restrictions of the coefficients akj , bk , ck , a0 to Ω1 . Then we have P ROPOSITION 4.23 Assume that akj , bk , ck , and a0 are real-valued for all −tAH 1 (Ω

j, k ∈ {1, . . . , d}. Then the semigroup (e −tAH 1 (Ω

(e

0

2)

0

1)

)t≥0 is dominated by

)t≥0 .

Proof. Since Ω1 ⊆ Ω2 , the form aH01 (Ω1 ) is seen as a non-densely defined form on L2 (Ω2 , C). Applying the results of Sections 2.3 and 2.6 (for nondense forms), it is enough to prove that H01 (Ω1 ) is an ideal of H01 (Ω2 ). In order to do this, consider 0 ≤ v ≤ u, where u ∈ H01 (Ω1 ) and v ∈ H01 (Ω2 ). Let (un ) ∈ Cc∞ (Ω1 ) which converges to u in H 1 (Ω1 ) and (vn ) ∈ Cc∞ (Ω2 ) which converges to v in H 1 (Ω2 ). The sequence inf(un , vn ) converges to v in H 1 (Ω2 ), and for each n, inf(un , vn ) has a compact support contained in 2 Ω1 . This implies that inf(un , vn ) ∈ H01 (Ω1 ) and hence v ∈ H01 (Ω1 ). We consider now elliptic operators with Robin boundary conditions. Assume that Ω is a bounded smooth domain of Rd and let bV,α be the form defined in (4.7). We denote by BV,α the operator associated with the form bV,α and set AV := BV,0 (i.e., the operator corresponding to the case α = 0 on ∂Ω). P ROPOSITION 4.24 Assume that akj , bk , ck , and a0 are real-valued for all j, k ∈ {1, . . . , d}. Assume also that (
128

CHAPTER 4

similar to that of (e−tAV )t≥0 ). It follows from Proposition 2.20 that V is an ideal of itself. Thus we only have to check that bV,α (u, v) ≥ aV (u, v) for all 0 ≤ u, v ∈ V and apply Theorem 2.24. This inequality is satisfied 2 since α is non-negative on ∂Ω. An immediate consequence of the previous proposition and Theorem 4.9 is that if V satisfies in addition (4.12) and ck = 0 for all k ∈ {1, . . . , d}, then the semigroup (e−t(BV,α +w) )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive for some constant w. We have seen above that many results on domination and contractivity hold for elliptic operators with real-valued coefficients. In order to consider operators with complex-valued coefficients, we may ask whether one can dominate the associated semigroup when the coefficients are complexvalued by the semigroup of a similar operator having only real-valued coefficients. We show that it is possible to prove such domination under an appropriate condition on the imaginary parts of the principal coefficients akj . We first consider the case of Dirichlet boundary conditions and then show how the domination result extends to other boundary conditions. We suppose that =(akj + ajk ) = 0, fk :=

d X j=1

Dj (=akj ) ∈ L1loc (Ω)

(4.37)

for all k, j ∈ {1, . . . , d}, where Dj =akj is taken in the distributional sense. Let η be the ellipticity constant of (akj ) and set

m(x) :=

d X k=1

[fk + =(ck − bk )]2 .

4η

(4.38)

Define the form Z ” X d d X bH01 (u, v) = <(akj )Dk uDj v + (<(bk )vDk u + <(ck )uDk v) Ω

k,j=1

=: EH01 (u, v) −

k=1

Z

Ω

• Z +<(a0 )uv dx − muvdx Ω

muvdx.

129

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

We assume that the potential function m is form-bounded with respect to the form EH01 , with relative bound < 1, that is, there exist β ∈ R and 0 ≤ α < 1 such that Z Z 2 m(x)|u| dx ≤ β |u|2 dx + α<EH01 (u, u) for all u ∈ H01 (Ω). (4.39) Ω

Ω

It follows from Theorem 1.19 that the form bH01 , with domain D(bH01 ) = H01 (Ω), is well defined and there exists a constant w ∈ R such b + w is accretive, continuous, and closed. Let us denote by BH01 the operator associated with the form bH01 . Recall that AH01 is the operator associated with the form • Z ” X d d X (bk vDk u + ck uDk v) + a0 uv dx, aH01 (u, v) = akj Dk uDj v + Ω

k=1

k,j=1

where the coefficients akj , bk , ck , a0 are complex-valued and satisfy (U.Ell). We have T HEOREM 4.25 Assume that (4.37) and (4.39) hold. Then, for every t ≥ 0 and every f ∈ L2 (Ω) |e

−tAH 1 0

−tBH 1

f| ≤ e

0

|f |.

We first prove the following lemma. L EMMA 4.26 Let u, v ∈ H 1 (Ω) be such that u(x)v(x) ≥ 0 (for a.e. x ∈ Ω). We have for each k ∈ {1, . . . , d} 1) =(vDk u) = |v|=(sign(u)Dk u). 2) |v|=(sign(u)Dk u) = |u|=(sign(v)Dk v). Proof. Let u and v be as in the lemma. Since χ{u=0} Dk u = 0, we have vDk u = vDk u

vu u χ{u6=0} χ{v6=0} = |v|Dk u χ{u6=0} . |u||v| |u|

Assertion 1) follows then by taking the imaginary parts. In order to prove assertion 2), we write |v|u = |v|u

vu χ χ = |u|v. |u||v| {u6=0} {v6=0}

Hence, uDk |v| + |v|Dk u = vDk |u| + |u|Dk v.

130

CHAPTER 4

We multiply each term by signu = to obtain

u |u| χ{u6=0}

and take the imaginary parts

|v|=(sign(u)Dk u) = =(uχ{u6=0} Dk v) = =(uDk v). This together with assertion 1) (with u in place of v and vice-versa) gives 2). 2 Proof of Theorem 4.25. Since H01 (Ω) is an ideal of itself (see, e.g. the proof of Theorem 4.21), it suffices to prove that
(4.40)

and then apply Theorem 2.21. Let u, v ∈ H01 (Ω) be such that uv ≥ 0. We have Dk uDj v = Dk u

u v χ{u6=0} Dj v χ{v6=0} . |u| |v|

Hence I1 := < =

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

+

<(akj )<(sign(u)Dk u)<(sign(v)Dj v)dx

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

=

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

+

<(akj )Dk uDj vdx

<(akj )=(sign(u)Dk u)=(sign(v)Dj v)dx

<(akj )<(sign(u)Dk u)<(sign(v)Dj v)dx

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

<(akj )=(sign(u)Dk u)=(sign(u)Dj u)

|v| χ dx, |u| {u6=0}

where we have used Lemma 4.26 in order to write the last equality. By Proposition 4.4, Dk |u| = <(sign(u)Dk u) for all u ∈ H 1 (Ω).

131

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

This gives I1 =

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

+

<(akj )Dk |u|Dj |v|dx

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

(4.41)

<(akj )=(sign(u)Dk u)=(sign(u)Dj u)

|v| χ dx. |u| {u6=0}

We have now to handle the imaginary part. For arbitrary u, v ∈ Cc∞ (Ω), I2 := <

d Z X

= −= ==

i=(akj )Dk uDj vdx

k,j=1 Ω d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

=(akj )Dk uDj vdx

Dj =(akj )vDk udx + =

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

=(akj )vDk Dj udx.

By assumptions =(akj + ajk ) = 0, hence I2 =

d Z X k=1

Ω

fk =(vDk u)dx.

(4.42)

Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and assumption (4.39), we see that (4.42) extends to all u, v ∈ H01 (Ω). Assume again that uv ≥ 0. By Lemma 4.26, (4.42) becomes I2 =

d Z X k=1

Ω

fk =(sign(u)Dk u)|v|dx.

(4.43)

We come now to the terms of order 1. We have for u, v ∈ H01 (Ω) with uv ≥ 0, I3 = < =

d Z X

k=1 d XZ k=1

Ω

bk vDk u + ck uDk vdx Ω

” <(bk )<(vDk u) − =(bk )=(vDk u) + <(ck )<(uDk v) • +=(ck )=(uDk v) dx.

132

CHAPTER 4

As in the proof of Lemma 4.26, we have

vDk u = Dk u

vu |v| vχ{u6=0} χ{ v6=0} = uDk u χ{u6=0} χ{v6=0} dx |u||v| |u|

and thus, <(vDk u) = <(sign(u)Dk u)|v| = |v|Dk |u|. Using this and Lemma 4.26, we can rewrite I3 as

I3 =

d Z X k=1

+

Ω

<(bk )|v|Dk |u| + <(ck )|u|Dk |v|dx

d Z X k=1

Ω

(=ck − =bk )=(sign(u)Dk u)|v|dx.

(4.44)

Concerning the term a0 , we have I4 := <

Z

Ω

a0 uvdx =

Z

Ω


(4.45)

for all u, v ∈ H01 (Ω) such that uv ≥ 0. Since

+

Z ” X d Ω

k,j=1

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

<(akj )Dk |u|Dj |v| +

d X (<(bk )Dk |u||v| k=1

• +<(ck )|u|Dk |v|) + <(a0 )|u||v| dx

<(akj )=(sign(u)Dk u)=(sign(u)Dj u)

|v| dx χ |u| {u6=0}

• d Z ” X + fk + =(ck − bk ) =(sign(u)Dk u)|v|dx. k=1

Ω

133

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

It follows from the ellipticity assumption (4.2) that d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

+

<(akj )=(sign(u)Dk u)=(sign(u)Dj u)

d Z ” X Ω

|v| χ |u| {u6=0}

• fk + =(ck − bk ) =(sign(u)Dk u)|v|dx

k=1 Z ≥ − m(x)|u||v|dx, Ω

2

and this gives (4.40).

It is clear from this proof that we may replace
Ω

with some constants β ∈ R and α < 1. Define Z bV (u, v) := EV (u, v) − m(x)uvdx for all u, v ∈ D(bV ) = V. Ω

Denote by BV the operator associated with the form bV . The above theorem can be extended to the boundary conditions given by V if we assume that d Z X =(akj )φDj vdx k,j=1 Ω

=−

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

Dj =(akj )φvdx −

d Z X

k,j=1 Ω

=(akj )vDj φdx

(4.47)

for all v ∈ V, φ ∈ C ∞ (Ω)∩H 1 (Ω) (this means that we assume that Dj =akj exist as functions). Roughly speaking, this assumption means that =akj are smooth and = 0 on parts of the boundary of Ω, where functions in V do not necessarily vanish. We have

134

CHAPTER 4

T HEOREM 4.27 Assume that V satisfies u ∈ V ⇒ (
Proof. The assumption on V together with bV (u+ , u− ) ≤ 0 implies the positivity of the semigroup (e−tBV )t≥0 . Using again Theorem 2.21, it suffices to prove that
We consider again the form aV defined by aV (u, v) =

Z ” X d Ω

• d X (bk vDk u + ck uDk v) + a0 uv dx, akj Dk uDj v +

k,j=1

k=1

where the coefficients akj , bk , ck , a0 are complex-valued and satisfy (U.Ell). We have seen in Section 4.3 that the L∞ -contractivity of (e−t(AV +w) )t≥0 does not necessarily hold with some constant w, even when V = H01 (Ω) and all the coefficients are real. Some regularity of the coefficients
(4.49)

135

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

where w may be chosen as follows w=

d 1 X 2 k|<(bk + ck )| + |=(bk − ck )|k∞ + k(
(4.50)

k=1

This follows from the inequality
(4.51)

where 1 wp = k(
’

1 1 + p 2

“X d k=1

d

kbk − ck k2∞ +

pX k
for p ∈ [2, ∞); and wp = k(
d

d

k=1

k=1

X 1 3p − 2 X p kbk − ck k2∞ + k
for p ∈ (1, 2].

Proof. Define for each z ∈ C, the form aV (z) by

d Z 1 X aV (z)(u, v) := akj Dk uDj vdx 2 Ω k,j=1

d Z X ‚ ƒ (
Ω

with domain D(aV (z)) = V. We denote by (Tz (t))t≥0 the semigroup generated by (minus) the operator associated with aV (z). By Theorem 4.9, the semigroup (Tis (t))t≥0 and its adjoint are both L∞ -contractive for every s ∈ R. For z = 1 + is (s ∈ R), the estimate (4.49) (applied to the semigroup associated with the form aV (1 + is)) gives 0

kT1+is (t)kL(L2 (Ω)) ≤ ew2 t ,

136

CHAPTER 4 2 Pd

2 . where w20 = η k=1 k
0t

kT2/p (t)kL(Lp (Ω)) ≤ e p w2 . Applying this estimate to the semigroup associated with the form where ck is changed into p2 ck yields p

p

0

kT1 (t)kL(Lp (Ω)) ≤ e 2 w2 t = e η

Pd k=1

2 t k
.

(4.52)

Define now the form bV (u, v) :=

d Z 1 X akj Dk uDj vdx 2 Ω k,j=1

+

d Z X ‚ k=1

Ω

ƒ (bk −
Z

a0 uvdx

Ω

(with domain D(bV ) = V ) and denote by (S(t))t≥0 the semigroup generated by (minus) its associated operator. By Theorem 4.9, (e−w0 t S(t))t≥0 is L∞ -contractive for every w0 such that d 1 X |=(ck − bk )|2 ≥ 0 on Ω. w0 +
In particular, this holds for w0 = k(
d 1 X |=(ck − bk )|2 k∞ . 2η k=1

This L∞ -estimate and (4.49) (applied to the semigroup associated with bV ) imply that for every p ∈ [2, +∞] 2

00

2

[ w +w (1− )]t kS(t)kL(Lp (Ω)) ≤ e p 2 0 p ,

(4.53)

1 Pd − 2 where w200 = 2η k=1 k|<(bk − ck )| + |=(bk − ck )|k∞ + k(
aV = aV (1) + bV

137

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

it follows from the Trotter-Kato product formula (cf. [Kat78]) that e−tAV f = lim (T1 (t/n)S(t/n))n f

(4.54)

n→+∞

for every f ∈ L2 (Ω). This together with (4.52) and (4.53) gives [ p2 w200 +w0 (1− p2 )+ p2 w20 ]t

ke−tAV kL(Lp (Ω)) ≤ e

.

(4.55)

This shows the desired estimate on Lp (Ω) for p ∈ [2, ∞). The estimate on Lp (Ω) for p ∈ (1, 2] is obtained by applying the previous one to the adjoint ∗ semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 and arguing by duality. 2 For complex-valued coefficients akj , we have the following Pd T HEOREM 4.29 Assume that fk := k=1 Dj =akj ∈ L∞ (Ω) for 1 ≤ k ≤ d and let m(x) be as in (4.38). Assume that =(akj + ajk ) = 0 for all 1 ≤ k, j ≤ d (respectively, that the hypotheses of Theorem 4.27 are satisfied if V = 6 H01 (Ω)). Then the conclusion of the above theorem holds for −tA

1

the semigroup (e H0 )t≥0 (respectively, for (e−tAV )t≥0 ) with k(
Proof. Apply Theorem 4.25 (respectively, Theorem 4.27) and the previous result. 2

4.7 OPERATORS WITH UNBOUNDED COEFFICIENTS

In this section we show that some of the results presented in the foregoing sections can be extended to operators having unbounded coefficients and to Schr¨odinger type operators. Let Ω be an open set of Rd . Assume that akj = ajk ∈ L1loc (Ω, R), 1 ≤ k, j ≤ d, <

d X

j,k=1

akj ξk ξj ≥ η|ξ|2

(4.56)

for all ξ ∈ Cd , where η > 0 is a constant. Let 0 ≤ m ∈ L1loc (Ω) and define the symmetric form bV (u, v) :=

Z

d X

Ω k,j=1

akj Dk uDj vdx +

Z

Ω

muvdx.

138

CHAPTER 4

The domain of bV is given by š › Z X Z d 2 D(bV ) = u ∈ V, akj Dk uDj udx < ∞ and m|u| dx < ∞ , Ω k,j=1

Ω

where V is a closed subspace of H 1 (Ω) and such that H01 (Ω) ⊆ V ⊆ H 1 (Ω). P ROPOSITION 4.30 The form bV is densely defined and closed. Proof. The form bV is densely defined since Cc∞ (Ω) ⊆ D(bV ). We show that bV is closed. Let (un )n be a Cauchy sequence in D(bV ). It follows from the ellipticity assumption (4.56) and the fact that m is non-negative that (un )n is a Cauchy sequence in V and hence it converges in V . Let u be its limit. Taking a subsequence (unk ) such that Dj unk (x) converges to Dj u(x) for a.e. x ∈ Ω and all j ∈ {1, . . . , d}, one obtains by Fatou’s lemma that u ∈ D(bV ). (To see that such a subsequence exists, one can argue as follows: D1 un converges to D1 u in L2 (Ω, C) and hence there exists a subsequence D1 uφ(n) which converges a.e. to D1 u. Now D2 uφ(n) converges in L2 (Ω, C) and hence we can extract a subsequence of D2 uφ(n) which converges a.e. to D2 u. Iterating this d times one obtains the subsequence (unk ) with the desired property.) Apply again the a.e. convergence of the subsequence unk and Fatou’s lemma to obtain bV (un − u, un − u) • ”X Z 2 akj Dk (un − unk )Dj (un − unk ) + m|un − unk | dx = lim Ω k

≤ lim inf k

k,j

Z ”X Ω

k,j

• akj Dk (un − unk )Dj (un − unk ) + m|un − unk | dx. 2

From this it follows that bV (un − u, un − u) → 0 as n → ∞. Thus, the 2 form bV is closed. Now let bk , ck , a0 ∈ L∞ (Ω, C) for 1 ≤ k ≤ d and define the form

Z d Z X ‚ ƒ bk vDk u + ck uDk v dx + aV (u, v) = bV (u, v) + a0 uvdx, k=1

Ω

Ω

D(aV ) = D(bV ).

Using the fact that bk , ck , a0 are bounded, one can check that there exists a constant w0 such that the form aV + w0 is non-negative, continuous, and

139

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

closed. Denote by AV the operator associated with aV . Several results given in previous sections for operators with bounded coefficients can be extended to the present situation. We summarize the relevant ones in the following T HEOREM 4.31 Assume that (4.56) holds and that bk , ck , a0 ∈ L∞ (Ω, C) for 1 ≤ k ≤ d. We have: 1) Assume that for each k, the coefficients bk , ck and a0 are real. If (
d 1 X |=(cj − bj )|2 ≥ 0 on Ω, 4η j=1

the semigroup (e−t(AV +w) )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. 3) Assume now that all the coefficients bk , ck , and a0 are real. −tA 1 i) If (
, where Γ is a closed subset of ii) Let V = {u|Ω , u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd \ Γ)} −tA −tA V ∂Ω. Then (e )t≥0 is dominated by the two semigroups (e H 1 (Ω) )t≥0 −tA

and (e

^ 1 (Ω) H

)t≥0 .

Proof. We only sketch the proof since there is no new difficulties. Assertion 1) follows from Theorem 2.6 once we establish that (0} Dj
H (Ω) ^ 1 (Ω), we ob{u|Ω , u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd \ Γ)} is an ideal of H 1 (Ω) and of H tain that D(aV ) is an ideal of D(aH 1 (Ω) ) and of D(a ^ ). 2 1 H (Ω)

It should be noted that the boundedness assumption of the coefficients bk , ck , and a0 does not play any role in the proof. We have assumed that these coefficients are bounded only for simplicity and also to ensure the continuity and closability of the form aV + w0 . We could, however, include more general coefficients. For example, if we assume that |bk |2 , |ck |2 and

140

CHAPTER 4

a0 are form bounded with respect to the form XZ cV (u, v) := Dk uDk vdx k

Ω

with form bound sufficiently small, then continuity and closability of aV + w0 for some w0 hold. In order to see this, we write Z Z Z ε 1 2 2 |bk | |u| dx + |Dk u|2 dx |< bk uDk udx| ≤ 2ε 2 Ω Ω Ω which is valid for all ε > 0. The fact that |bk |2 is cV -bounded means that for some constants αk , βk ≥ 0, Z Z Z |bk |2 |u|2 dx ≤ αk |Dk u|2 dx + βk |u|2 dx. Ω

Ω

Ω

Using this for each bk , ck , a0 and using the ellipticity assumption (4.56), we obtain the desired conclusion if the constants αk are small enough. Consider on L2 (Ω, R) the symmetric form a(u, v) =

Z

d X

Ω k,j=1

akj Dk uDj vdx +

Z

Ω

muvdx, D(a) = Cc∞ (Ω),

where 0 ≤ m ∈ L1loc (Ω), the coefficients akj ∈ L1loc (Ω) and satisfy (4.56). We have seen that the form bH01 , defined above, is closed. Hence, a is closable. We denote again by a its closure and by A its associated operator. We have P ROPOSITION 4.32 The semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian. Proof. Assume for a moment that |u| ∈ D(a) for all u ∈ Cc∞ (Ω). By Theorem 4.31, the semigroup associated with the form bH01 is sub-Markovian and hence Theorem 2.6 (or Corollary 2.18) implies a(|u|, |u|) = bH01 (|u|, |u|) ≤ bH01 (u, u) = a(u, u).

(4.57)

This implies that a(u+ , u− ) ≤ 0 and we conclude again by Theorem 2.6 that the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is positive. It remains to prove that |u| ∈ D(a) for all u ∈ Cc∞ (Ω). Fix u ∈ Cc∞ (Ω) and let (ρn ) be a regularizing sequence. For n large enough, ρn ∗ |u| ∈ Cc∞ (Ω). We have for each j ∈ {1, . . . , d} |Dj (ρn ∗ |u|) − Dj |u|| = |ρn ∗ Dj |u|) − Dj |u|| ≤ 2kDj uk∞ .

141

UNIFORMLY ELLIPTIC OPERATORS ON DOMAINS

For n large enough, ρn ∗ |u| − |u| has support contained in a compact set 1 (Ω), we which is independent of n. Thus, using the fact that m, akj ∈ Lloc obtain by the dominated convergence theorem that Z

d X

Ω k,j=1

akj Dk (ρn ∗|u|−|u|)Dj (ρn ∗|u|−|u|)dx+

Z

Ω

m|ρn ∗|u|−|u||2 dx

converges to 0 as n → ∞. This shows that |u| ∈ D(a). The proof of the L∞ -contractivity is similar. We just replace |u| in the above arguments by 1 ∧ u for non-negative u and apply Corollary 2.18. 2

Notes Treatment of second-order elliptic operators can be found in several books. The sub-Markovian property for second-order symmetric operators with real-valued coefficients is studied in Davies [Dav89], [Dav95d], Fukushima [Fuk80], Fukushima, Oshima, and Takeda [FOT94]. Ma and R¨ockner [MaR¨o92] consider nonsymmetric operators with real-valued coefficients. The novelty in the present chapter is that we are able to treat operators with complex-valued coefficients and describe precisely in terms of boundary conditions and of the coefficients when positivity, L∞ -contractivity, or domination properties hold. Section 4.2. The presentation of this section follows Ouhabaz [Ouh92b], [Ouh96], and [Ouh02]. Proposition 4.1 and Theorem 4.2 are taken from [Ouh92b] and [Ouh96]. As mentioned above, results of the same type are contained in [Dav89], [Dav95d], [Fuk80], [FOT94], and [MaR¨o92]. In the symmetric case akj = ajk and bk = ck = 0 for all 1 ≤ k, j ≤ d, the fact that 2) =⇒ 1) in Theorem 4.5 is shown by Arendt [Are01] by using the maximum principle and by Davies [Dav89] (cf. Theorem 3.3.5) as a consequence of lower bounds for the heat kernel. Section 4.3. The results in this section are mainly taken from Ouhabaz [Ouh92b], [Ouh96] and Auscher et al. [ABBO00]. Theorems 4.6 and 4.7 and Corollary 4.8 are proved in [ABBO00]. Theorem 4.9 and Corollary 4.10 are taken from [Ouh92b] and [Ouh96]. Similar results for symmetric real-valued coefficients can be found in [Dav89], [Fuk80], [FOT94] and in [MaR¨o92] for nonsymmetric operators (with real-valued coefficients). Related results to Proposition 4.11 can be found in Dautray-Lions [DaLi88], Section 7 and Adams [Ada75], Lemma 8.31. The same proposition is proved in Arendt and ter Elst [ArEl97]. Corollary 4.12 and Theorem 4.14 are proved in Auscher et al. [ABBO00]. Related results to Corollary 4.12 for weakly coupled systems are proved in the case of smooth coefficients (and also smooth open set Ω) by Kresin and Maz’ya [KrMa94] and Langer [Lan99].

142

CHAPTER 4

Section 4.4. This section is taken from Auscher et al. [ABBO00] in which Theorem 4.17 is proved. General criteria for the conservation property with applications to second-order symmetric operators with real-valued coefficients are given in Oshima [Osh92] and Davies [Dav85]. Similar results to Lemma 4.18 can be found in Auscher, Coulhon, and Tchamitchian [ACT96] and Davies [Dav95c]. Lemma 4.20 is taken from Cl´ement et al. [CHADP87]. Section 4.5. Theorem 4.21 and Proposition 4.23 are taken from Ouhabaz [Ouh96]. These results show the role of the ideal property in the domination of semigroups. We mention that a description of closed ideals of regular Dirichlet spaces is given in Stollmann [Sto93]. See also the recent work by Arendt and Warma [ArWa03] for related results to Theorem 4.21. Theorems 4.25 and 4.27 are shown in [Ouh02]. The idea behind the last two results is the well-known diamagnetic inequality for Schr¨odinger operators with magnetic fields. Section 4.6. Theorem 4.28 is proved in Ouhabaz [Ouh02]. It was proved for elliptic operators with real-valued coefficients (but with less precise constant wp ) by Robinson [Rob91], Daners [Dan00], and Karrmann [Kar01]. Note that Theorem 4.29 cannot P hold for operators with arbitrary complex-valued akj . For operators A = − k,j Dj (akj Dk ) with complex-valued coefficients (considered on L2 (Rd , dx) with d ≥ 3), one obtains by using the Sobolev embedding that (e−tA )t≥0 extends 2d 2d to a strongly continuous semigroup on Lp (Rd ) for p ∈ [ d+2 , d−2 ]; see Davies [Dav95c]. It is proved in [Dav97a] that this result is sharp in the sense that for ev2d 2d , d−2 ], there exists an operator A for which e−tA cannot be extended ery p ∈ / [ d+2 2 p from L ∩ L to a bounded operator on Lp (Rd ) for any t > 0. Section 4.7. Similar results to those in assertions 1) and 2) of Theorem 4.31 can be found in Ma and R¨ockner [MaR¨o92]. More can be said on elliptic operators with unbounded coefficients; see recent works by Liskevich [Lis96], Liskevich, Sobol and Vogt [LSV02], Sobol and Vogt [SoVo02], Metafune et al. [MPRS02].

Chapter Five DEGENERATE-ELLIPTIC OPERATORS We have studied in the last chapter contractivity properties of semigroups associated with second-order uniformly elliptic operators. In particular, we have seen that it is possible in several cases to extend the semigroup initially defined on L2 (Ω, C) to Lp (Ω, C) for p 6= 2. In the present chapter, we study similar questions for second-order degenerate-elliptic operators. More precisely, we consider operators of the type

Au = −

d X

k,j=1

Dj (akj Dk u) +

d X

bk Dk u + a0 u,

(5.1)

k=1

where the matrix (akj )k,j satisfies the following weaker assumption than (4.2): d X

j,k=1

akj (x)ξj ξk ≥ 0 for all ξ ∈ Rd , a.e. x ∈ Ω.

(5.2)

In this case, any realization of the operator A is called a degenerate-elliptic operator. For such operators, several difficulties which we did not meet previously for uniformly elliptic operators occur now. The first one is the L2 -theory, that is, the construction of a realization of A which generates a strongly continuous semigroup on L2 (Ω, R). If one applies the sesquilinear form method, then because of the absence of the ellipticity assumption (4.2), it becomes difficult to check continuity and closability of the form. In the symmetric case, one can still apply this technique. We shall assume a smoothness condition of the coefficients which guarantees the closability of the symmetric form. One advantadge of the sesquilinear form method is that it allows one to treat operators with unbounded coefficients. The nonsymmetric case will be treated by a perturbation method, based on Theorem 1.50. In both cases, we obtain a strongly continuous semigroup on L2 , which can be extended to other Lp -spaces. This extension to Lp will be achieved by applying the results of the previous chapter together with an approximation argument.

144

CHAPTER 5

5.1 SYMMETRIC DEGENERATE-ELLIPTIC OPERATORS

Let Ω be an open subset of Rd . Assume that ajk (1 ≤ k, j ≤ d) and a0 are measurable functions on Ω, such that 1 akj = ajk ∈ Hloc (Ω, R), 1 ≤ k, j ≤ d and 0 ≤ a0 ∈ L1loc (Ω).

(5.3)

1 (Ω, R) means that u is a real-valued function such that φu ∈ Here, u ∈ Hloc 1 H (Ω) for every φ ∈ Cc∞ (Ω). Define on L2 (Ω, R) the symmetric form • Z ” X d a(u, v) = akj (x)Dk uDj v + a0 (x)uv dx, D(a) = Cc∞ (Ω). Ω

k,j=1

Note that by assumptions (5.3), the operator Au = −

d X

k,j=1

Dj (akj Dk u) + a0 u, u ∈ D(A) = Cc∞ (Ω)

is well defined. It is a symmetric and accretive operator. By Lemma 1.29, the form a is closable. We denote by a its closure and keep the same notation A for the self-adjoint operator associated with a (i.e., the Friedrichs extension of the initial operator A with domain Cc∞ (Ω)). Again, (e−tA )t≥0 denotes the semigroup generated by −A. We have T HEOREM 5.1 Assume that (5.2) and (5.3) are satisfied. Then the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian. Proof. Define the following sequence of symmetric forms: • Z ” X d 1 (akj (x) + δkj )Dk uDj v + a0 (x)uv dx, an (u, v) = n Ω k,j=1 ∞ D(an ) = Cc (Ω),

where δkj = 0 if k = 6 j and δkk = 1 for all 1 ≤ k, j ≤ d. Denote by an the closure of an and by An the operator associated with an . The sequence of symmetric forms (an )n is nonincreasing. This means that an+1 (u, u) ≤ an (u, u) for all n ≥ 0. The same property holds then for the closures (an )n . In addition, it is clear that D(an ) ⊆ D(a) for all n. Thus, the monotone convergence theorem for forms (see, e.g., Kato [Kat80], Chap. VIII) implies that for each t ≥ 0, the sequence (e−tAn )n converges strongly in L2 (Ω, R) to e−tA . By Proposition 4.32, the semigroup (e−tAn )t≥0 is sub-Markovian. Letting n → ∞, we obtain that (e−tA )t≥0 is sub-Markovian. 2

145

DEGENERATE-ELLIPTIC OPERATORS

5.2 OPERATORS WITH TERMS OF ORDER 1 5.2.1 The L2 -theory

In this section, we study degenerate-elliptic operators of the type (5.1). We consider here the L2 -theory. This will be achieved by using Theorem 1.50. We make the following assumption on the coefficients: akj = ajk ∈ W 2,∞ (Rd , R), bk ∈ W 1,∞ (Rd , R), a0 ∈ L∞ (Rd , R). (5.4) Note that we assume here that all the coefficients are real-valued functions and that (5.4) holds for all k, j = 1, ..., d. Under the assumption (5.4), the operator Au = −

d X

Dj (akj Dk u) +

k,j=1

d X k=1

bk Dk u + a0 u, u ∈ D(A) = Cc∞ (Rd )

is well defined as an operator on L2 = L2 (Rd , R). Moreover, there exists w ∈ R such that A + wI is accretive. Indeed, let u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ) and apply (5.2) (with Ω = Rd here) to obtain   d Z d X X − akj Dk uDj udx ≥ 0. Dj (akj Dk u); u = d k,j=1 R

k,j=1

For k ∈ {1, . . . , d},

(bk Dk u; u) = −

Z

Rd

[|u|2 Dk bk + bk uDk u]dx,

and thus, (bk Dk u; u) = −

1 2

Z

Rd

1 Dk bk |u|2 dx ≥ − kDk bk k∞ (u; u). 2

Finally, (a0 u; u) ≥ −ka0 k∞ (u; u). These inequalities show that for some w ∈ R, ((A + w)u; u) ≥ 0 for all u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ). This means that A + wI is accretive. By Lemma 1.47, A is closable. Let A denote its closure. We have

146

CHAPTER 5

T HEOREM 5.2 Assume that (5.2) (with Ω = Rd ) and (5.4) are satisfied. Then there exists a constant w ∈ R such that A + wI is m-accretive. Moreover, the domain of A is the maximal domain in the sense that š d d X X 2 bk Dk u + a0 u D(A) = u ∈ L , − Dj (akj Dk u) + k,j=1

k=1

› (as a distribution) ∈ L . 2

As a consequence of this result and Theorem 1.49, we have C OROLLARY 5.3 Assume (5.2) and (5.4). Then −A generates a strongly continuous semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 on L2 (Rd , R), such that ke−tA f k2 ≤ ewt kf k2 f or all f ∈ L2 (Rd , C), t ≥ 0. We also mention the following corollary. C OROLLARY 5.4 Assume (5.2), (5.4) and that bk = 0 for k = 1, . . . , d. Then A is self-adjoint. In other words, the operator A is essentially selfadjoint on Cc∞ (Rd ). Proof. Under the assumptions of the corollary, the operator A is symmetric and hence A is symmetric, too. This means that (A)∗ is an extension of A. Recall the definition of the adjoint operator D(A∗ ) = {u ∈ L2 , ∃v ∈ L2 : (Aφ, u) = (φ, v) ∀φ ∈ D(A)}, A∗ u = v. It follows from this that š d X D(A ) = u ∈ L2 (Rd , R), − Dj (akj Dk u) + a0 u ∗

k,j=1

› (as a distribution) ∈ L (R , R) . 2

d

Theorem 5.2 implies that D(A∗ ) = D(A). Since D((A)∗ ) ⊆ D(A∗ ) = D(A), we conclude that (A)∗ = A. 2 In order to prove Theorem 5.2, we will need the following lemma. Denote by tr(C) the trace of a given symmetric matrix C. We have L EMMA 5.5 (Oleinik inequality) Let C(x) = (ckj (x))1≤k,j≤d be a real symmetric matrix satisfying (5.2) for x ∈ Rd . Assume that ckj ∈ W 2,∞ (Rd )

147

DEGENERATE-ELLIPTIC OPERATORS

for all 1 ≤ k, j ≤ d. Then, there exists a constant M depending only on d and kDh2 ckj k∞ , such that for every real symmetric matrix U = (ukj )1≤k,j≤d , [tr(Dl C(x)U )]2 ≤ M tr(U C(x)U ) f or all x ∈ Rd , l ∈ {1, . . . , d}. Proof. Fix l ∈ {1, . . . , d} and a non-negative function f ∈ W 2,∞ (Rd ). Consider a regularizing sequence ρn ≥ 0. Since ρn ∗ f is C 2 , one has by Taylor’s formula, 0 ≤ (ρn ∗ f )(x + hel )

h2 k(ρn ∗ Dl2 f )k∞ 2 h2 ≤ (ρn ∗ f )(x) + h(ρn ∗ Dl f )(x) + kDl2 f k∞ 2

≤ (ρn ∗ f )(x) + h(ρn ∗ Dl f )(x) +

for all x ∈ Rd and all h ∈ R. Here (e1 , . . . , ed ) is the standard basis of Rd . Letting n → ∞ yields 0 ≤ f (x) + hDl f (x) +

h2 kDl2 f k∞ . 2

Since this inequality holds for all h ∈ R, it follows that |Dl f (x)|2 ≤ 2f (x)kDl2 f k∞ for all x ∈ Rd .

(5.5)

Set M0 := sup{| < Dl2 C(x)ξ, ξ >Rd |, 1 ≤ l ≤ d, x ∈ Rd , kξkRd = 1}, where k.kRd denotes the Euclidean norm of Rd and < ., . >Rd the Euclidean scalar product. Let U be a real symmetric matrix. Let P be an orthogonal matrix such that P −1 U P is diagonal. We use the notation Vjk to denote the coefficients of a matrix V. Since (P −1 C(x)P )jj ≥ 0 for all x ∈ Rd we can use (5.5) to obtain |Dl (P −1 C(x)P )jj |2 ≤ 2(P −1 C(x)P )jj kDl2 (P −1 C(x)P )jj k∞ = 2(P −1 C(x)P )jj sup | < Dl2 C(x)P ej , P ej > | x

≤ 2M0 (P

−1

C(x)P )jj .

148

CHAPTER 5

It follows that |tr(Dl C(x).U )|2 = |tr(P −1 Dl C(x)P P −1 U P )|2 =|

d X j=1

≤d

(P −1 Dl C(x)P )jj (P −1 U P )jj |2

d X j=1

|(P −1 Dl C(x)P )jj |2 |(P −1 U P )jj |2

≤ 2M0 d

d X

(P −1 U P )jj (P −1 C(x)P )jj (P −1 U P )jj

j=1

= 2M0 dtr(U CU ). This proves the lemma with M = 2dM0 .

2

Note that the constant M in this lemma depends only on d and kDh2 ckj k∞ , and hence we do not need to assume that cjk ∈ W 2,∞ . The lemma holds if the coefficients cjk have only bounded second-order derivatives. Proof of Theorem 5.2. Since a0 ∈ L∞ (Rd , R), then by bounded perturbation arguments, we may assume that a0 = 0. Thus we consider that A is given by Au = −

d X

k,j=1

Dj (akj Dk u) +

d X k=1

bk Dk u, u ∈ D(A) = Cc∞ (Rd ).

We have seen that for some constant w, the operator A + wI is accretive. This implies that A + wI is accretive, too. In order to show that A + wI is ∂2 ∂2 m-accretive, we apply Theorem 1.50 with S = −∆ = − ∂x 2 − · · · − ∂x2 1 d ((minus) the Laplace operator). Since the coefficients akj , bk are bounded, there exist positive constants α0 and α, such that kAuk2 ≤ α0 kukH 2 (Rd ) ≤ α[kuk2 + k∆uk2 ] for all u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ). (5.6) Using this and the density of Cc∞ (Rd ) in H 2 (Rd ) = D(S), we obtain D(S) ⊆ D(A). Now we show that there exists a constant β ∈ R such that (Au; −∆u) ≥ −β(u; −∆u) for all u ∈ H 2 (Rd ).

(5.7)

149

DEGENERATE-ELLIPTIC OPERATORS

Note that because of (5.6), it suffices to prove (5.7) for all u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ). Fix u ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ) and let U := (Dk Dj u)1≤k,j≤d be the Jacobian matrix of u. Integration by parts gives   d X − Dj (akj Dk u); −∆u k,j=1

=− =−

Z d X

d k,j,l=1 R

Z d X

d k,j,l=1 R

”

• Dj (Dl akj Dk u)Dl u + Dj (akj Dl Dk u)Dl u dx

Dj (Dl akj Dk u)Dl udx +

Z d X

d k,j,l=1 R

akj Dl Dk uDj Dl udx.

The second term satisfies Z d X

d k,j,l=1 R

akj Dl Dk uDj Dl udx =

Z

Rd

tr(U (x)(akj (x))U (x))dx

(5.8)

and the first one can be rewritten as −

Z d X

d k,j,l=1 R

Dj Dl akj Dk uDl udx −

=: I + II.

Z d X

d k,j,l=1 R

Dl akj Dj Dk uDl udx

Since all the terms Dj Dl akj are bounded on Rd , we have XZ I ≥ −M1 |Dk u|2 dx = −M1 (u; −∆u) k

Rd

(5.9)

for some positive constant M1 . The term II satisfies XZ II = − tr((Dl akj )U )Dl udx Rd

l

εX ≥− 2 l

Z

1 [tr((Dl akj )U )] dx − 2ε d R 2

Z

Rd

|Dl u|2 dx,

where the last inequality is valid for every ε > 0. Applying now Lemma 5.5, we obtain Z 1 tr(U (x)(akj (x))U (x))dx − (u; −∆u), (5.10) II ≥ −εM2 2ε Rd

150

CHAPTER 5

where M2 is a constant. Choosing ε > 0 small enough and using (5.8), (5.9), (5.10), we see that for some constant β0 > 0   d X − (5.11) Dj (akj Dk u); −∆u ≥ −β0 (u; −∆u). k,j=1

We study now terms of order 1. We integrate again by parts !   d X bk Dk u; −∆u k=1 d X

=

=

Z

d k,l=1 R

d Z X

d k,l=1 R

−

Dl bk Dk uDl udx +

Dl bk Dk uDl udx −

d Z X

d k,l=1 R

d Z X

d k,l=1 R

d Z X

d k,l=1 R

bk Dl Dk uDl udx Dk bk |Dl u|2 dx

bk Dl uDk Dl udx.

Using the assumption bk ∈ W 1,∞ (Rd ), we can find two constants M3 and M4 such that !   d d Z XZ X 1 X 2 |Dk u| dx − bk Dk u; −∆u ≥ −M3 Dk bk [Dl u]2 dx 2 d R k k=1 k,l=1 XZ ≥ −M4 |Dk u|2 dx. k

We have then shown that   d ! X bk Dk u; −∆u ≥ −M4 (u; −∆u).

(5.12)

k=1

Combining (5.12) and (5.11), one obtains (5.7). Theorem 1.50 implies that A + wI is m-accretive for some constant w. Finally, we show that D(A) =

š d d X X u ∈ L2 , − Dj (akj Dk u) + bk Dk u k,j=1

k=1

› (as a distribution) ∈ L2 .

151

DEGENERATE-ELLIPTIC OPERATORS

Note first that −

d X

Dj (akj Dk u) +

k,j=1

=−

X

d X

bk Dk u

k=1

Dj Dk (akj u) +

X j

k,j

"

Dj

 

X

Dk akj u + bj u

k

!#

−

X

Dj bj u.

j

Using the assumptions on the coefficients akj and bk , we see that for each u ∈ L2 (Rd , R), the term on the right-hand side is a distribution. Define now the operator Amax by the same expression as A but with domain D(Amax ) =

š

u ∈ L2 , −

d X

Dj (akj Dk u) +

k,j=1

d X

bk Dk u

k=1

› (as a distribution) ∈ L . 2

Our aim is to show that A = Amax . Obviously, Amax is an extension of A. Define the operator Bu := − D(B) =

d X

k,j=1

Dj (akj Dk u) −

Cc∞ (Rd ).

d X k=1

bk Dk u −

d X

Dk bk u,

k=1

Since the coefficients of the operator B satisfy the same assumptions as those of A, there exists w ∈ R such that the operator wI + B is m-accretive (here B denotes the closure of B). Fix λ > 0 large enough and let u ∈ D(Amax ) be such that λu+Amax u = 0. Then for every φ ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ), 0 = (λu + Amax u; φ) = (u; λφ + Bφ). This implies that 0 = (u; λφ + Bφ) for every φ ∈ D(B). Thus, if λ is large enough, u = 0. If u ∈ D(Amax ), then λu + Amax u ∈ L2 (Rd ), and since wI + A is m-accretive, there exists ψ ∈ D(A) such that λu + Amax u = λψ + Aψ. Thus λ(u−ψ)+Amax (u−ψ) = 0 and we have just proved that this implies 2 u = ψ. This shows that D(Amax ) = D(A).

152

CHAPTER 5

5.2.2 Positivity and L∞ -contractivity

We assume that the assumptions of Theorem 5.2 hold. By Corollary 5.3, the operator −A generates a strongly continuous semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 on L2 (Rd , R). We can extend this semigroup to a strongly continuous semigroup on Lp (Rd , R) for all p ∈ [1, ∞). More precisely, T HEOREM 5.6 Assume that the assumptions of Theorem 5.2 are satisfied. Then the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is positive and there exists a constant w such that (e−t(A+w) )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. If a0 ≥ 0, we may take w = 0. In particular, (e−tA )t≥0 extends to a strongly continuous semigroup on Lp (Rd , R) for all p ∈ [1, ∞). Proof. Define An = −

d X

k,j=1

’ “ X d 1 Dj (akj (x) + δkj )Dk u + bk Dk u + a0 u, n k=1

D(An ) = Cc∞ (Rd ).

Applying Theorem 5.2, we obtain that An is closable and there exists a constant w0 (independent of n) such that An + w0 I is m-accretive. Corollaries 4.3 and 4.10 show that there exists w, such that for every n, the semigroup (e−t(An +w) )t≥0 is sub-Markovian. In addition, if a0 ≥ 0, then (e−tAn )t≥0 is sub-Markovian. Theorem 5.7 below shows that the same properties hold for (e−tA )t≥0 . As a consequence, (e−tA )t≥0 extends to Lp (Rd , R) (as a strongly continuous semigroup) for all p ∈ [2, ∞). This also holds for p ∈ [1, 2] by duality, since the coefficients of the adjoint A∗ satisfy the same assumptions as those of A. The strong continuity on L1 (Rd , R) was 2 shown in a general setting in Chapter 2. We quote the following convergence theorem without proof (see, e.g., Pazy [Paz83], Chap. 3, Theorem 4.5) T HEOREM 5.7 Assume that −An and −A are generators of strongly continuous semigroups (e−tAn )t≥0 and (e−tA )t≥0 on a Banach space X. Assume that (e−tAn )t≥0 is uniformly bounded (with respect to n) in L(X) and assume that there exists a core D of A such that 1) D ⊆ D(An ) for all n; 2) An u converges to Au as n → ∞, for every u ∈ D. Then for every t ≥ 0, e−tAn converges strongly to e−tA . Notes Section 5.1. The smoothness condition (5.3) is assumed in order to guarantee the

DEGENERATE-ELLIPTIC OPERATORS

153

closability of the symmetric form defined there. More general results on closability of such forms can be found in Ma and R¨ockner [MaR¨o92] and the references there. Theorem 5.1 is well-known and even more general results of this type can be found in Fukushima [Fuk80] and Fukushima, Oshima and Takeda [FOT94]. Pd Degenerate-elliptic equations k,j=1 Dk (akj Dj )u + a(x)u = f (x) with boundary conditions have been studied by several authors. See Fichera [Fic56], Oleinik [Ole67], and Devinatz [Dev78]. More recent results dealing with regularity properties of solutions to degenerate-elliptic equations are proved by Fabes, Kenig, and Serapioni [FKS82], Franchi and Serapioni [FrSe87], Franchi, Serapioni, and Serra Cassano [FSSC98], and Taira, Favini, and Romanelli [TFR00]. Section 5.2. The idea of using Theorem 1.50 and the Oleinik inequality to prove Theorem 5.2 is mentioned in Wong-Dzung [Won81]. A more elaborate proof is used in Wong-Dzung [Won81] and [Won83] to prove an Lp -version of Theorem 5.2 under the condition akj ∈ C 2 with bounded second order derivatives and bk ∈ C 1 with bounded first order derivatives. Related results can also be found in Stroock and Varadhan [StVa79], Chapter 3. Lemma 5.5 is proved in Oleinik [Ole67] and in Stroock and Varadhan [StVa79] (Lemma 3.2.3).

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter Six GAUSSIAN UPPER BOUNDS FOR HEAT KERNELS

6.1 HEAT KERNEL BOUNDS, SOBOLEV, NASH, AND GAGLIARDO-NIRENBERG INEQUALITIES

Let (X, µ) be a σ-finite measure space and let Lp := Lp (X, µ) be the corresponding complex or real Lebesgue spaces. In this section we study L2 − L∞ estimates of the type: ke−tA kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ ct−d/4 for all t > 0.

(6.1)

Since the operators under consideration in this book are defined by sesquilinear forms, we shall focus on characterizations of (6.1) in terms of forms. We mainly concentrate on the case of symmetric forms and assume that the associated semigroup is L∞ -contractive. The latter property can be removed in the statements. It will be assumed only for simplicity. We start with the following extrapolation result. L EMMA 6.1 Let (T (t))t≥0 be a strongly continuous semigroup on L2 . Assume that (T (t))t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. If there exists r > 2 such that T (t) maps L2 into Lr and kT (t)kL(L2 ,Lr ) ≤ ct−α f or all t > 0, where c and α are positive constants, then T (t) is bounded from L2 into L∞ and rα

kT (t)kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ c0 t− r−2 f or all t > 0, where c0 is a positive constant depending only on r, α, and c. Proof. By the Riesz-Thorin interpolation theorem, we have for every p ∈ [2, ∞) kT (t)kL(Lp ,Lpr/2 ) ≤ c2/p t−2α/p for all t > 0.

(6.2)

156

CHAPTER 6

Let tk :=

r−1 −k r r

and pk := 2( 2r )k for k ≥ 0. Thus, ∞ X

tk = 1 and

∞ X 1 r . = pk 2(r − 2) k=0

k=0

Applying (6.2) with p = pk yields kT (t)kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ ≤

∞ Y

k=0 ∞ Y

kT (ttk )kL(Lpk ,Lpk+1 ) −2α/pk

c2/pk t−2α/pk tk

k=0 rα 0 − r−2

=c t

, 2

which proves the lemma.

The conclusion of Lemma 6.1 holds without assuming that (T (t))t≥0 is L∞ -contractive; it is enough to assume that the semigroup is uniformly bounded on L∞ . We refer the reader to Coulhon [Cou91] and Varopoulos et al. [VSC92]. Throughout this section, a denotes a densely defined, symmetric, accretive, and closed form on L2 . We denote by A its associated self-adjoint operator and by (e−tA )t≥0 the semigroup generated by −A. We will use the classical formula: a(u, v) = (A1/2 u, A1/2 v) for all u, v ∈ D(A1/2 ) = D(a), where A1/2 is the square root of A.1 The following result shows that L2 − L∞ polynomial decay of the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is equivalent to a Gagliardo-Nirenberg type inequality. More precisely, T HEOREM 6.2 Assume that the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. The following assertions are equivalent (here c, c0 , and d are positive constants): 1) ke−tA kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ ct−d/4 f or all t > 0. 2) For every q ∈ (2, ∞] such that d q−2 2q < 1, we have d q−2 4q

kukq ≤ c0 a(u, u)

1−d q−2 2q

kuk2

f or all u ∈ D(a).

A1/2 is the self-adjoint accretive operator such that (A1/2 )2 = A. See, e.g., Kato [Kat80] or Chapter 8. 1

157

GAUSSIAN UPPER BOUNDS FOR HEAT KERNELS

3) There exists q ∈ (2, ∞], d q−2 2q < 1 such that d q−2 4q

kukq ≤ c0 a(u, u)

1−d q−2 2q

kuk2

f or all u ∈ D(a).

Proof. Of course, 2) =⇒ 3). Assume now that 3) holds. For every u ∈ D(a) and t > 0, ke−tA ukq ≤ c0 a(e−tA u, e−tA u) 1−d q−2 2q

≤ c0 kuk2

−d q−2 4q

≤ c00 t

d q−2 4q

1−d q−2 2q

ke−tA uk2 d q−2 4q

kAe−tA uk2

d q−2 4q

ke−tA uk2

kuk2 .

Assertion 1) holds now by applying the previous lemma. It remains to prove that 1) =⇒ 2). By the Riesz-Thorin interpolation theorem, it follows from 1) that ke−tA kL(L2 ,Lq ) ≤ c

q−2 q

t

−d q−2 4q

for all t > 0.

(6.3)

Rt Let u ∈ D(a) \ {0} and write u = e−tA u + 0 Ae−sA uds. Using (6.3) we have for some positive constants ci , Z t −tA kukq ≤ ke ukq + ke−s/2A Ae−s/2A ukq ds 0 ” • Z t −d q−2 −d q−2 1/2 −s/2A 1/2 4q 4q ≤ c1 t s kuk2 + kA e A uk2 ds 0 ” • Z t q−2 −d q−2 −1 ≤ c2 t 4q kuk2 + s−d 4q 2 kA1/2 uk2 ds 0

−d q−2 4q

≤ c3 [t

kuk2 + t

+ 12 −d q−2 4q

a(u, u)1/2 ].

Assertion 2) follows by choosing t = kuk22 a(u, u)−1 (observe that 1) im2 plies that 0 cannot be an eigenvalue of A, and hence a(u, u) 6= 0).

Let (e−tB )t≥0 be a bounded holomorphic semigroup on Lp for some p ∈ [1, ∞). Using a similar proof to that of Theorem 6.2, one shows that the estimate d

ke−tB kL(Lp ,L∞ ) ≤ ct− 2p for all t > 0 is equivalent to the inequality d 1− pβ

kuk∞ ≤ c0 kukp

d

kB β/2 ukppβ for all u ∈ D(B β/2 )

(6.4)

158

CHAPTER 6

for every (or some) β such that β > d/p.2 The next result gives a characterization in terms of the Nash inequality. T HEOREM 6.3 Assume that the symmetric semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. The following assertions are equivalent (here c, c0 , and d are positive constants): 1) ke−tA kL(L1 ,L2 ) ≤ ct−d/4 f or all t > 0. 2+4/d

2) kuk2

4/d

≤ c0 a(u, u).kuk1

f or all u ∈ D(a) ∩ L1 .

Proof. Assume that 1) holds and let u ∈ D(a) ∩ L1 be a nontrivial function. Rt It follows from the equation u = e−tA u + 0 A1/2 e−sA A1/2 uds that ” • Z t 1 √ kA1/2 uk2 ds kuk2 ≤ c1 t−d/4 kuk1 + s 0 √ −d/4 ≤ c2 [t kuk1 + ta(u, u)1/2 ]. 2

4

Assertion 2) follows by choosing t = a(u, u)− d+2 kuk1d+2 . Conversely, assume that 2) holds and let f ∈ L2 ∩ L1 be a nontrivial function. Set φ(t) := 12 ke−tA f k22 . We have for t > 0 d φ(t) = −a(e−tA f, e−tA f ) dt 1 2+4/d −tA −4/d f k1 ke ≤ − 0 ke−tA f k2 c −d/4 ≤ −c1 φ(t)1+2/d kf k1 . This means that assertion 1).

d −2/d dt φ(t)

−4/d

≥ c2 kf k1

. Integration from 0 to t yields 2

We quote the following characterization by the Sobolev inequality. T HEOREM 6.4 Let d > 2 be a constant. Assume that the symmetric semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is L∞ -contractive. The following assertions are equivalent: 1) ke−tA kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ ct−d/4 f or all t > 0. 2) kuk22d ≤ c0 a(u, u) f or all u ∈ D(a). d−2

Assertion 2) applied to u = e−tA f gives ke−tA f k 2

2d d−2

≤ c1 t−1/2 kf k2 .

For more information and details, see Coulhon [Cou92] or Varopoulos et al. [VSC92].

GAUSSIAN UPPER BOUNDS FOR HEAT KERNELS

159

This and Lemma 6.1 give 1). The converse holds as in Davies [Dav89], p. 76, Varopoulos et al. [VSC92], p. 21, or Varopoulos [Var85] (there the positivity of the semigroup is not needed in the proof). Assertion 2) means that the operator A−1/2 given by ’ “−1 Z ∞ 1 A−1/2 u = Γ t−1/2 e−tA udt 2 0 2d

is bounded from L2 into L d−2 . Remark. i) As mentioned previously, the extrapolation result (Lemma 6.1) holds without the L∞ -contractivity assumption. Thus, the previous theorems hold as well without this assumption. One only assumes that the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is uniformly bounded on L∞ . ii) In the above theorems, 2) =⇒ 1) does not use the fact that a is symmetric. This implication holds in the more general situation of nonsymmetric operators. iii) If we apply the above theorems to e−t e−tA instead of e−tA , we obtain that the bound in 1) for 0 < t ≤ 1 is equivalent to 2), where a(u, u) is now replaced by a(u, u) + kuk22 . iv) The L2 − L∞ estimate in 1) yields by duality the same estimate for the L1 − L2 norm. Therefore ke−tA kL(L1 ,L∞ ) ≤ Ct−d/2 for all t > 0, where C is a positive constant. This is equivalent to the fact that e−tA is given by a kernel p(t, x, y), that is, a measurable function on X × X such that Z e−tA f (x) = p(t, x, y)f (y)dµ(y) a.e. x ∈ X for all t > 0, f ∈ L2 X

and such that |p(t, x, y)| ≤ Ct−d/2 for all t > 0.

(6.5)

We will call the kernel p(t, x, y) the heat kernel of A. The following lemma shows that L2 − L∞ estimates of a strongly continuous semigroup can be improved by taking into account L2 − L2 estimates. More precisely, L EMMA 6.5 Let (T (t))t≥0 be a strongly continuous semigroup on L2 such that kT (t)kL(L2 ) ≤ M e−wt f or all t ≥ 0

(6.6)

160

CHAPTER 6

for some constants M ≥ 1 and w ∈ R. Assume that T (t) is bounded from L2 into L∞ with norm satisfying kT (t)kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ Ct−d/4 eαt f or all t > 0

(6.7)

where C, d > 0 and α are constants. Then •d/4 ” −d/4 −wt kT (t)kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ CM et e 1+max(α +w, 0)t f or all t > 0. (6.8)

Proof. Of course, we may assume that β := α + w > 0; otherwise the conclusion follows directly from (6.7). Set S(t) := ewt T (t) for t ≥ 0. By assumption, kS(t)kL(L2 ) ≤ M and kS(t)kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ Ct−d/4 eβt for all t > 0. Clearly, if βt ≤ 1 then kS(t)kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ Cet−d/4 . Assume now that βt > 1. We have       1   1     S(t − ) kS(t)kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ S( )  β L(L2 ,L∞ ) β L(L2 ) ≤ M Ceβ d/4 = M Cet−d/4 (tβ)d/4

≤ M Cet−d/4 [1 + tβ]d/4 . Thus, we have proved kS(t)kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ M Cet−d/4 [1 + tβ]d/4 for every t > 0.

2

¨ ESTIMATES OF THE HEAT KERNEL 6.2 HOLDER-CONTINUITY

Theorem 6.2 (and the comments following its proof) shows that the estimate (6.5) is equivalent to Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities. We prove now that H¨older continuity of the heat kernel can also be characterized by inequalities of similar type. Before we give the precise statement, we need to fix some notation and assumptions. Let −A be the generator of a bounded holomorphic semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 on L2 (X, µ) (here A is not necessarily self-adjoint). We assume that the

161

GAUSSIAN UPPER BOUNDS FOR HEAT KERNELS

semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is uniformly bounded on Lp := Lp (X, µ) for all 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞ and it is given by a heat kernel p(t, x, y). It follows that (e−tA )t≥0 is bounded holomorphic on Lp , 1 < p < ∞ (cf. Section 3.3). Denote by −Ap the corresponding generator on Lp , 1 < p < ∞ (A2 = A). Let % be a metric on X. Under these assumptions on the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 , we have the following characterization of H¨older continuity of p(t, x, y). T HEOREM 6.6 Assume that p(t, x, y) satisfies η

d

|p(t, x, y) − p(t, x0 , y)| ≤ Ct− 2 − 2 %(x, x0 )η ,

(6.9)

for all t > 0, x, x0 ∈ X, and µ a.e. y ∈ X, where η ∈ (0, 1), C, and d are positive constants. Then there exists a constant C 0 > 0 such that Supx6=x0

|f (x) − f (x0 )| %(x, x0 )

η p

1− β1 ( ηp + dp )

≤ C 0 kf kp

β

1

kAp2 f kpβ

( ηp + pd )

(6.10)

β

for all p ∈ (1, ∞) and β such that β > ηp + dp and all f ∈ D(Ap2 ). Conversely, assume that (6.5) and (6.10) hold for some β and p > 1 with β > ηp + dp . Then, p(t, x, y) satisfies (6.9) with ηp in place of η. The same conclusions hold with p = 1 if we assume that (e−tA )t≥0 is bounded holomorphic on L1 . Proof. Throughout this proof, we will denote by C1 , C2 , . . . all inessential constants. Assume that (6.5) and (6.10) hold with some β and p > 1 ( β > ηp + dp ). Using (6.5) and the fact that the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is bounded holomorphic on Lp , it is easy to see that for t > 0, e−tA maps L1 into D(Am p ) for −tA f where f is any function in L1 . all m ≥ 0. We apply now (6.10) for e We have |e−tA f (x) − e−tA f (x0 )| η

1− β1 ( ηp + dp )

≤ C 0 %(x, x0 ) p ke−tA f kp

1

β

kAp2 e−tA f kpβ

( ηp + dp )

From (6.5) we have ke−tA f kp ≤ C1 t

−d (1−1/p) 2

kf k1 .

By analyticity of the semigroup, β

kAp2 e−tA f kp ≤ C2 t

−β 2

t

ke− 2 A f kp .

Hence η − d2 − 2p

|e−tA f (x) − e−tA f (x0 )| ≤ C3 t

η

%(x, x0 ) p kf k1 .

.

162

CHAPTER 6

This implies (6.9) with ηp in place of η. The same argument shows that if the semigroup (e−tA )t≥0 is bounded holomorphic on L1 , then the conclusion holds with p = 1. Conversely, assume that (6.9) holds. This implies that for every x and x0 η

d

kp(t, x, .) − p(t, x0 , .)k∞ ≤ Ct− 2 − 2 %(x, x0 )η .

The fact that the semigroup is uniformly bounded on L∞ implies that kp(t, x, .)k1 ≤ C4 for all x ∈ X, t > 0. Now the interpolation inequality implies that for all p ∈ (1, ∞) (1− p1 )(− d2 − η2 )

kp(t, x, .) − p(t, x0 , .)kp ≤ C5 t

1

)

%(x, x0 )η(1− p .

(6.11)

Let now f ∈ Lp and t > 0. By H¨older’s inequality ŒZ Œ Œ Œ −tA −tA 0 0 Œ |e f (x) − e f (x )| = Œ (p(t, x, y) − p(t, x , y))f (y)dµ(y)ŒŒ X

where

1 p

+

1 q

≤ kp(t, x, .) − p(t, x0 , .)kq kf kp ,

= 1. Using (6.11) we obtain

η

|e−tA f (x) − e−tA f (x0 )| ≤ C6 %(x, x0 ) p t

η d − 2p − 2p

kf kp .

(6.12) β

We prove now (6.10). Suppose first that β ≤ 2. Let f ∈ D(Ap2 ) with β > ηp + dp . Write Z t β s s 1− β −tA f =e (6.13) f+ e− 2 A Ap 2 e− 2 A Ap2 f ds. 0

Using (6.12) it follows that s

1− β2 − s A 2

|e− 2 A Ap

e

η

β

1− β2 − s A 2

s

Ap2 f (x) − e− 2 A Ap

≤ C6 %(x, x0 ) p s

η d − 2p − 2p

1− β2 − s A 2

kAp

e

e

β

Ap2 f (x0 )|

β

Ap2 f kp ,

and since the semigroup is bounded holomorphic on Lp , 1− β2 − s A 2

kAp

e

β

β

β

Ap2 f kp ≤ C7 s 2 −1 kAp2 f kp .

From (6.12), (6.13), and these two estimates, it follows that for x 6= x0 Z t β η η β d d |f (x) − f (x0 )| − 2p − 2p −1− 2p − 2p ≤ C6 t kf kp + C8 s2 dskAp2 f kp η 0 %(x, x0 ) p ≤ C9 [t

η d − 2p − 2p

β

kf kp + t 2

η d − 2p − 2p

β

kAp2 f kp ].

163

GAUSSIAN UPPER BOUNDS FOR HEAT KERNELS 2

β

−2

By choosing t = kf kpβ kAp2 f kpβ we obtain (6.10). If β > 2, one iterates (6.13) n times and writes for n ≥

β 2

tn−1 An−1 e−tA f (n − 1)! p Z t β s s 1 n− β + sn−1 e− 2 A Ap 2 e− 2 A A 2 f ds. (n − 1)! 0

f = e−tA f + tAp e−tA f + ... +

2

Arguing as previously, the desired conclusion follows.

H¨older continuity of the heat kernel can also be characterized by a Sobolev type inequality. This was proved recently by Coulhon [Cou03]. He has proved by interpolation methods that H¨older continuity of the heat kernel is equivalent to sup x6=x0

|f (x) − f (x0 )| β− d %(x, x0 ) p

≤ C 0 kAβ/2 p f kp

(6.14)

for all p and β > dp . Besides the fact that H¨older continuity of the heat kernel implies regularity of the solution to the corresponding evolution equation, it is a very useful tool in obtaining lower bounds for the heat kernel. We will come back to this in Chapter 7 and show how Gaussian lower bounds can be deduced from Gaussian upper bounds and H¨older continuity. 6.3 GAUSSIAN UPPER BOUNDS

We now consider uniformly elliptic operators as in Chapter 4. Let Ω be an open subset of Rd , endowed with the Lebesgue measure dx. Define the sesquilinear form aV (u, v) =

Z ” X d Ω

k,j=1

akj Dk uDj v +

d X

•

(bk vDk u + ck uDk v) + a0 uv dx

k=1

with domain D(aV ) = V, where V is a closed subspace of H 1 (Ω) that contains H01 (Ω). We assume the uniform ellipticity condition (U.Ell), which we recall again: (U.Ell) The functions akj , bk , ck , a0 are bounded on Ω, that is, akj , bk , ck , a0 ∈ L∞ (Ω, C) for all 1 ≤ j, k ≤ d,

(6.15)

164

CHAPTER 6

and there exists a constant η > 0 such that <

d X

j,k=1

akj (x)ξj ξk ≥ η|ξ|2 for all ξ ∈ Cd a.e. x ∈ Ω.

(6.16)

As in Chapter 4, we denote by AV the operator associated with the form aV . In this section we study Gaussian upper bounds for heat kernels of operators AV . In order to prove such bounds, we need to show the boundedness from L1 into L∞ of e−tAV , with an estimate of the norm ke−tAV kL(L1 ,L∞ ) which depends in a good way on the coefficients of the operator AV . We have seen in the previous section that L1 − L∞ estimates for the semigroup can be deduced from the Sobolev inequality. For this reason, we need to assume that ∗

V is continuously embedded into L2 (Ω),

(6.17)

2d where 2∗ = d−2 if d ≥ 3, 2∗ = ∞ if d = 1 and 2∗ is any number in (2, ∞) if d = 2. If V = H01 (Ω), where Ω is an arbitrary domain of Rd , this embedding holds and one has for d ≥ 3 Z (6.18) |∇u|2 ≥ ckuk22∗ for all u ∈ H01 (Ω). Ω

If V = H 1 (Ω), then (6.17) holds provided Ω has smooth boundary. For example, if Ω has the extension property (i.e., there exists a bounded linear operator P : H 1 (Ω) → H 1 (Rd ) such that P u is an extension of u from Ω ∗ to Rd ), then (6.17) follows from the embedding of H 1 (Rd ) into L2 (Rd ). In that case, every closed subspace V of H 1 (Ω) satisfies (6.17).3 Note that (6.18) for arbitrary open subset Ω follows from the same inequality when Ω = Rd (one uses the classical fact that for every u ∈ H01 (Ω), the function e which extends u by 0 on Rd \ Ω is in H 1 (Rd )). The inequality (6.18) with u Ω = Rd follows from Theorem 6.4 applied to the Gaussian semigroup, that is, the semigroup generated by the Laplacian on L2 (Rd , dx). Note that (6.17) means that Z Z 2 |∇u| + |u|2 ≥ ckuk22∗ for all u ∈ V, (6.19) Ω

Ω

where c > 0 is a constant. 3

There are several geometrical conditions on Ω that imply (6.17); see Maz’ya [Maz85], Section 4.9

165

GAUSSIAN UPPER BOUNDS FOR HEAT KERNELS

If d ≤ 2, it is more convenient to work with Nash or Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities. Recall that the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality is the inequality 1−d q−2 2q

ckukq ≤ kuk2

(k∇uk2 + kuk2 )d

q−2 2q

for all u ∈ V

(6.20)

1 for all q ∈ (2, ∞] such that d q−2 2q < 1. If V = H (Ω), (6.20) holds if and only if (6.19) holds (see Theorems 6.2 and 6.4). As in (6.18), if V = H01 (Ω), the following stronger inequality holds: 1−d q−2 2q

ckukq ≤ kuk2

d q−2 2q

k∇uk2

for all u ∈ H01 (Ω).

(6.21)

We will also need the assumption (4.12) on V . That is, u ∈ V ⇒ (1 ∧ |u|)sign u ∈ V.

(6.22)

In the sequel, wp denotes the same constant as in Theorem 4.28. L EMMA 6.7 Suppose that V satisfies (6.19) and (6.22). Assume that (U.Ell) holds and that the coefficients akj are real-valued for 1 ≤ k, j ≤ d. 1) If d ≥ 3, then for every t > 0, e−tAV is bounded from L2 (Ω) into ∗ L2 (Ω). Moreover, for every ε > 0 ke−tAV kL(L2 ,L2∗ ) ≤ Cε ew2∗ t eεt t−1/2 f or all t > 0, where Cε is a positive constant depending only on η, d, ε and the constant c in (6.19). 2) If d ≤ 2, then for every q ∈ (2, ∞) and every ε > 0 −d q−2 4q

ke−tAV kL(L2 ,Lq ) ≤ Cε ewq t eεt t

f or all t > 0,

where Cε is a positive constant depending only on η, d, ε and the constant c in (6.20). If V = H01 (Ω), the estimates in both assertions hold with ε = 0. Proof. Assume that d ≥ 3. Note that (6.19) implies that for every ε > 0, there exists a constant cε such that Z

Ω

2

|∇u| + ε

Z

Ω

|u|2 ≥ cε kuk22∗ for all u ∈ V.

(6.23)

166

CHAPTER 6

The assumption (U.Ell) implies: XZ ηk∇uk22 ≤ < akj Dk uDj udx k,j

Ω

” • Z XZ = < aV (u, u) − a0 |u|2 dx bk uDk u + ck uDk udx − k

≤
XZ

Ω

k

Ω

Ω

(|<(bk + ck )| + |=(ck − bk )|)|Dk u||u|dx

(
Ω

k

1 Pd 2 − where w = 2η k=1 k|<(bk + ck )| + |=(ck − bk )|k∞ + k( 0 Z (6.24)
where cε0 is a constant depending only on η, d, ε, and the constant c in (6.19). Note that (6.24) holds with ε = 0 if V = H01 (Ω) (apply (6.18) instead of (6.19) in the proof). We now define the semigroup T (t) := e−tAV e−w2∗ t e−εt . By Theorem ∗ 4.28, e−tAV e−w2∗ t is a contraction operator on L2 (Ω) (and so is T (t)). ∗ This and (6.24) imply that for every f ∈ L2 (Ω) ∩ L2 (Ω) and t > 0 Z t 2 0 0 cε tkT (t)f k2∗ ≤ cε kT (s)f k22∗ ds 0 • Z t ” ≤ < aV (T (s)f, T (s)f ) + (w2∗ + ε)(T (s)f ; T (s)f ) ds 0 Z t d − kT (s)f k22 ds = ds 0 2 = kf k2 − kT (t)f k22 ≤ kf k22 . Hence, we have proved ke−tAV f k2∗ ≤

1 −1/2 w2∗ t εt t e e kf k2 c0ε

167

GAUSSIAN UPPER BOUNDS FOR HEAT KERNELS

and if V = H01 (Ω), this estimate holds without the extra term eεt . The proof of assertion 2) is similar; one uses (6.20) instead of (6.19) (or (6.21) instead of (6.18) if V = H01 (Ω)). The analog of (6.24) is •d q−2 ” 4q 1−d q−2 2
(6.25)

Thus, as previously, if T (t) :=

e−tAV e−wq t e−εt

then

4q

c0ε tkT (t)f kqd(q−2) Z t 4q 0 kT (s)f kqd(q−2) ds ≤ cε 0 • ” Z t 4q −2 d(q−2) 2 ≤ kT (s)f k2 < aV (T (s)f, T (s)f ) + (wq + ε)kT (s)f k2 ds 0 • ” Z t 4q −2 kf k2d(q−2) < aV (T (s)f, T (s)f ) + (wq + ε)kT (s)f k22 ds ≤ 0 Z t 4q −2 d d(q−2) = kf k2 − kT (s)f k22 ds ds ”0 • 4q −2 d(q−2) 2 2 = kf k2 kf k2 − kT (t)f k2 4q

≤ kf k2d(q−2) . This proves the lemma.

2

Define s(AV ) := inf{
(6.26)

Clearly, the form aV − s(AV ) is accretive. Hence ke−t(AV −s(AV )) kL(L2 ) ≤ 1 for all t ≥ 0. That is, ke−tAV kL(L2 ) ≤ e−s(AV )t t ≥ 0.

(6.27)

If bV := 21 (aV + a∗V ) denotes the symmetric part of aV , then s(AV ) = inf{bV (u, u), u ∈ V and kuk2 = 1}, which is by the min-max principle the spectral bound of the self-adjoint operator BV associated with bV . That is, s(AV ) = inf σ(BV ).

168

CHAPTER 6

T HEOREM 6.8 Suppose that the assumptions of Lemma 6.7 are satisfied. Then, for every t > 0, e−tAV is bounded from L2 (Ω) into L∞ (Ω) and •d/4 ” −tAV 0 −d/4 −s(AV )t ke kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ Cε t 1 + α1 t + c α2 t + εt + s(AV )t e for all t > 0, ε > 0, where Cε is a positive constant depending only on ε, d, the ellipticity constant η, and the constant c in (6.19), c0 ≥ 1 is a constant depending only on d. The constants α1 and α2 are given by α1 := k(
H01 (Ω),

d

d

k=1

k=1

1X 1X kbk − ck k2∞ , α2 := k
the above estimate holds with ε = 0.

Proof. Using (4.49) and (4.50) one may choose a constant c0 ≥ 1 such that α1 + c0 α2 + s(AV ) ≥ 0. Therefore, by Lemma 6.5 and (6.27), it is enough to prove the estimate 0

ke−tAV kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ Cε0 t−d/4 eα1 t eα2 c t eεt .

(6.28)

Assume first that d ≥ 3. For every r ≥ 2, we have by Theorem 4.28 ke−tAV kL(Lr ) ≤ ewr t for all t ≥ 0.

Using this and Lemma 6.7, we obtain by the Riesz-Thorin interpolation theorem ke−tAV kL(Lpθ ,Lqθ ) ≤ Cεθ ewr (1−θ)t ew2∗ θt eεθt t−θ/2 for all t > 0,

(6.29)

1 θ 1−θ where p1θ = 2θ + 1−θ r , qθ = 2∗ + r for θ ∈ [0, 1]. Fix p ∈ (2, ∞) and choose θ = p1 and r = 2(p − 1). Thus, pθ = p and d qθ = p d−1 . In addition,

(1 − θ)wr + θw2∗ ≤ α1 + α2

2(p − 1)2 + 2d/d − 2 := α1 + α2 γp . p

Inserting this in (6.29) gives that ke−tAV kL(Lp ,Lpd/d−1 ) ≤ Cε1/p eα1 t eα2 γp t etε/p t−1/(2p) for all t > 0. (6.30) This estimate holds with ε = 0 if V = H01 (Ω). d −k and p = 2Rk for all integer k ≥ 0. We , tk := d+1 Set R := d−1 k 2d (2R) have   X 1 X X d 0 tk = 1, = , c := max 1, tk γpk  , pk 2 k≥0

k≥0

k≥0

169

GAUSSIAN UPPER BOUNDS FOR HEAT KERNELS

where c0 is a positive constant depending only on d. Applying now (6.30) (with pk in place of p) yields for all t > 0 Y ke−ttk AV kL(Lpk ,Lpk+1 ) ke−tAV kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ k≥0

≤

Y

−1/(2pk )

Cε1/pk eα1 ttk eα2 γpk ttk etε/pk t−1/(2pk ) tk

k≥0 0

= Cε0 t−d/4 eεtd/2 eα1 t ec α2 t , which gives the estimate (6.28). Assume now that d ≤ 2. We use assertion 2) of the previous lemma with 2n q = n−2 where n is any constant in (2, ∞). We have 1/2−d q−2 wq t tε 4q

ke−tAV kL(L2 ,Lq ) ≤ Cε t−1/2 t

e for all t > 0.

e

We are in a position to apply the same proof as in the previous case with n in place of d. We obtain ke−tAV kL(L2 ,L∞ ) ≤ Cε t−n/4 t

)n/2 εtn/2 α1 t c0 α2 t ( 12 −d q−2 4q

e

c0 α

= Cε t−d/4 eεtn/2 eα1 t e

2t

e

e

. 2

This proves (6.28).

For complex-valued coefficients akj , one has by Theorems 4.25 and 4.27 the following corollary. Pd C OROLLARY 6.9 Assume that j=1 Dj =akj ∈ L∞ (Ω), =(akj + ajk ) = 0 for all 1 ≤ k, j ≤ d, and (4.47) holds if V 6= H01 (Ω). Assume that V satisfies (6.22), (6.17) and that (
The previous results applied to the adjoint semigroup (e−tAV )t≥0 give an estimate for the L1 − L2 norm of (e−tAV )t≥0 . Thus, under the assumptions of the last corollary or those of Theorem 6.8 (if the akj are real), one obtains −tAV

ke

kL(L1 ,L∞ ) ≤ Cε t

−d/2 −s(AV )t

e

”

t 1 + εt + s(AV ) + c0 αt 2

•d/2

,

(6.31) for all t > 0, ε > 0, where Cε is a positive constant depending only on η, ε, d, and the constant c in (6.19), and c0 is a constant depending only on d and η (the precise expression of c0 in terms of d and η can be obtained

170

CHAPTER 6

easily from the proof of the previous theorem). The constant α is given by α = k(
d X k=1

kbk −ck k2∞ +

d X k=1

(k
In particular, α = kmk∞ if
The estimate (6.31) implies that e−tAV is given by a kernel pV (t, x, y)4 such that •d/2 ” t −d/2 −s(AV )t (6.33) e 1 + εt + s(AV ) + c0 αt |pV (t, x, y)| ≤ Cε t 2 for all t > 0 and ε > 0, where the constants are the same as in (6.31). Using a perturbation technique due to E.B. Davies, (6.33) can be converted into a Gaussian upper bound. This is possible because of the good control of the constants involved in (6.33). We shall first apply the following weaker inequality than (6.33): |pV (t, x, y)| ≤ Cε t−d/2 eεt+c0 αt for all t > 0, ε > 0.

(6.34)

We make the following additional assumption on V : u ∈ V ⇒ eψ u ∈ V

(6.35)

for every real-valued C ∞ (Rd )-function ψ such that ψ and |∇ψ| are bounded on Rd . Fix λ ∈ R and φ a real-valued bounded C ∞ -function on Rd such that |∇φ| ≤ 1 on Rd . Under assumption (6.35), one can define the form bV (u, v) := aV (eλφ u, e−λφ v) for u, v ∈ V. that of aV , but with the terms The form P bV has a similar expression as P bk − λ dj=1 akj Dj φ in place of bk , ck + λ dj=1 ajk Dj φ in place of ck and Pd P (bk −ck )Dk φ in place of a0 . Hence, a0 −λ2 dk,j=1 akj Dk φ.Dj φ+λ k=1 if the assumptions of Theorem 6.8 or those of Corollary 6.9 are satisfied, one can apply (6.34) to the kernel of the semigroup T (t) := e−λφ e−tAV eλφ (generated by (minus) the operator associated with bV ). This and the assumption |∇φ| ≤ 1 give 2 )t

ke−λφ e−tAV eλφ kL(L1 ,L∞ ) ≤ Cε t−d/2 eεt eδ(α+λ 4

This is the heat kernel of AV .

,

(6.36)

171

GAUSSIAN UPPER BOUNDS FOR HEAT KERNELS

for all t > 0, ε > 0, where Cε is as in (6.31), δ is a constant depending only on d, η and kakj k∞ ; and α is as in (6.32). This implies that 2

|pV (t, x, y)| ≤ Cε t−d/2 eεt eδαt eλ(φ(x)−φ(y))+δλ t for all t > 0, ε > 0. (6.37) φ(y)−φ(x) and optimizing over φ yields the Gaussian upper Taking λ = 2δt bound |x − y|2 ] for all t > 0, a.e. x, y ∈ Ω. 4δt (6.38) We have proved the following theorem. |pV (t, x, y)| ≤ Cε t−d/2 eεt+δαt exp[−

T HEOREM 6.10 Assume that (U.Ell), (6.17), (6.22), and (6.35) hold. Assume in addition that one of the following conditions is satisfied: i) The coefficients akj are real-valued for 1 ≤ k, j ≤ d. P ii) dj=1 Dj =akj ∈ L∞ (Ω), =(akj + ajk ) = 0 for 1 ≤ j, k ≤ d, (4.47) holds and that ( 0, t > 0, and a.e. (x, y) ∈ Ω × Ω. Here α is as in (6.32), Cε is a positive constant depending only on η, ε, d and the constant c in (6.19), δ is a constant depending only on η, d and kakj k∞ . If V = H01 (Ω), this estimate holds with ε = 0. Remark. We point out that when we apply the estimate (6.31) to the semigroup (e−λφ e−tAV eλφ )t≥0 , we can actually obtain a better estimate in (6.36). 0 Simple calculations show that one can replace the term eδαt by e(1+ε )αt for every ε0 > 0 (δ will depend then on ε0 ). Using this, the Gaussian upper bound in the previous theorem can be replaced by • ” |x − y|2 −d/2 εt (ε0 +1)αt e e exp − |pV (t, x, y)| ≤ Cε t 4δt for all ε > 0, ε0 > 0, and t > 0. The constants Cε , α, δ are