arXiv:2103.02246v1 [math.AP] 3 Mar 2021
Boundedness in a fully parabolic attraction-repulsion
chemotaxis system with nonlinear diffusion and
singular sensitivity
Yutaro Chiyo, Tomomi Yokota∗
Department of Mathematics, Tokyo University of Science 1-3, Kagurazaka, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 162-8601, Japan
March 4, 2021
Abstract. This paper deals with the quasilinear fully parabolic attraction-repulsion chemotaxis system
ut= ∇ · (D(u)∇u) − ∇ · (G(u)χ(v)∇v) + ∇ · (H(u)ξ(w)∇w), x∈ Ω, t > 0,
vt= d1∆v + αu − βv, x∈ Ω, t > 0,
wt= d2∆w + γu − δw, x∈ Ω, t > 0,
under homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions and initial conditions, where Ω ⊂ Rn
(n ≥ 1) is a bounded domain with smooth boundary, d1, d2, α, β, γ, δ >0 are constants.
Also, the diffusivity D, the density-dependent sensitivities G, H fulfill D(s) = a0(s+1)m−1
with a0>0 and m ∈ R; 0 ≤ G(s) ≤ b0(s + 1)q−1 with b0 >0 and q < min{2, m + 1};
0 ≤ H(s) ≤ c0(s + 1)r−1 with c0 >0 and r < min{2, m + 1}, and the signal-dependent
sensitivities χ, ξ satisfy 0 < χ(s) ≤ χ0
sk1 with χ0 > 0 and k1 > 1; 0 < ξ(s) ≤
ξ0
sk2
with ξ0>0 and k2>1. Global existence and boundedness in the case that w = 0 were
proved by Ding (J. Math. Anal. Appl.; 2018;461;1260–1270) and Jia–Yang (J. Math. Anal. Appl.; 2019;475;139–153). However, there has been no work on the above fully parabolic attraction-repulsion chemotaxis system with nonlinear diffusion and singular sensitivity. This paper develops global existence and boundedness of classical solutions to the above system by introducing a new test function.
2010Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 35A01; Secondary: 35Q92, 92C17.
Key words and phrases: chemotaxis; attraction-repulsion; boundedness; nonlinear diffusion; singular sensitivity
∗Corresponding author.
1. Introduction
In this paper we consider the fully parabolic attraction-repulsion chemotaxis system with nonlinear diffusion and singular sensitivity,
ut = ∇ · (D(u)∇u) − ∇ · (G(u)χ(v)∇v) + ∇ · (H(u)ξ(w)∇w), x ∈ Ω, t > 0,
vt= d1∆v + αu − βv, x∈ Ω, t > 0,
wt= d2∆w + γu − δw, x∈ Ω, t > 0,
∇u · ν = ∇v · ν = ∇w · ν = 0, x∈ ∂Ω, t > 0,
u(x, 0) = u0(x), v(x, 0) = v0(x), w(x, 0) = w0(x), x∈ Ω,
(1.1)
where Ω ⊂ Rn (n ≥ 1) is a bounded domain with smooth boundary ∂Ω; ν is the outward
normal vector to ∂Ω; d1, d2, α, β, γ, δ >0 are positive constants; D, G, H ≥ 0 and χ, ξ > 0
are known functions. The initial data u0, v0, w0 are supposed to satisfy that
u0 ∈ C0(Ω), u0 ≥ 0 in Ω and u0 6= 0, (1.2)
v0 ∈ W1,∞(Ω) and v0 >0 in Ω, (1.3)
w0 ∈ W1,∞(Ω) and w0 >0 in Ω. (1.4)
In the system (1.1), the function u shows the cell density, and the functions v and w represent the concentrations of attractive and repulsive chemical substances, respectively. The system (1.1) is one of the chemotaxis models proposed by Keller–Segel [18] (for the variations with comprehensive studies, see Hillen–Painter [12], Bellomo–Bellouquid–Tao– Winkler [3] and Arumugam–Tyagi [2]). Here chemotaxis is the property such that a species reacts on some chemical substance and moves towards or moves away from this substance. In this paper we are especially interested in the case of nonlinear diffusion and singular sensitivity; note that a quasilinear generalization of Keller–Segel systems was proposed by Painter–Hillen [26]. In particular, when the system has signal-dependent sensitivity, it is biologically meaningful in the Weber–Fechner law and it seems to be a mathematically challenging problem to study whether the solution remains bounded.
We first focus on the Keller–Segel system with signal-dependent sensitivity, (
ut= ∆u − ∇ · (uχ(v)∇v),
vt = ∆v − v + u,
where χ is a function. In this case global existence and boundedness were studied in [1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 19, 20, 25, 29, 30, 31]. More precisely, when 0 < χ(s) ≤ χ0
(1+as)k
for all s > 0 with some χ0 > 0, a > 0, k > 1, Winkler [29] derived global existence
and boundedness. When χ(s) = χ0
s and n ≥ 2, Winkler [30] showed global existence of
classical solutions for χ0 <
q
2
n, and global existence of weak solutions for χ0 <
q
n+2 3n−4.
On the other hand, when 0 < χ(s) ≤ χ0
sk for all s > 0 with some χ0 > 0, k > 1
and n ≥ 2, global existence and boundedness were obtained in [11]. Also, Fujie [6] proved boundedness under the condition that χ(s) = χ0
s and 0 < χ0 <
q
2
in the two-dimensional setting, Lankeit [19] established boundedness if Ω is a convex domain and χ(s) = χ0
s for all χ0 ∈ (0, χ ′
0) with some χ′0 > 1. The condition for χ0 was
relaxed by Lankeit–Winkler [20] in a novel type of generalized solution framework. When 0 ≤ χ(s) ≤ χ0
(b+s)k for all s > 0 with some small χ0 > 0 and b ≥ 0, k ≥ 1, boundedness
of classical solutions was presented in [25]. Ahn [1] improved the smallness condition for χ0 assumed in [25], and showed stabilization (see also [31]). In the case that χ is a
general function, global existence and boundedness of classical solutions were obtained in Fujie–Senba [8, 9]. Particularly, in the two-dimensional setting, under the condition that χ > 0 fulfills lims→∞χ(s) = 0, boundedness for small τ > 0 was shown in [8].
Moreover, when τ > 0 is sufficiently large, and χ satisfies that lims→∞χ(s) = 0 if n = 2
and lim sups→∞sχ(s) < n−2n if n ≥ 3, boundedness was proved in [9].
We next review the quasilinear Keller–Segel system with singular sensitivity, (
ut= ∇ · (D(u)∇u) − ∇ · (G(u)χ(v)∇v),
vt= ∆v − v + u,
where D, G, χ are functions. In the case that χ(s) ≡ 1 and Ω is a convex domain, global existence and boundedness were showed in Tao–Winkler [28] under the condition that K0(s + 1)m−1 ≤ D(s) ≤ K1(s + 1)M−1 for all s ≥ 0 with some K0, K1 > 0, m, M ≥ 1
and D(s)G(s) ≤ K(s + 1)a for all s ≥ 0 with some K > 0, a < 2
n; note that the convexity
of Ω was removed by [13]. On the other hand, when χ(s) = 1
s, under the condition that
K0(s + 1)m−1 ≤ D(s) ≤ K1(s + 1)M−1 for all s ≥ 0 with K0, K1 > 0, m, M ∈ R and G(s)
D(s) ≤ K(s + 1)
a for all s ≥ 0 with some K > 0, a < 2
n, global existence and boundedness
were established in [7]. However, the optimality of the condition a < n2 was remained as an open problem. After that, by introducing a fractional type of test function, Ding [5] solved the open problem, that is, proved global existence and boundedness under the condition that a < 1 and m ≤ 1. Moreover, the problem in the case m > 1 was solved by Jia–Yang [14] under a differential condition. These mean that the signal-dependent sensitivity benefits global existence and boundedness of solutions.
We now turn our eyes to the quasilinear attraction-repulsion chemotaxis system
ut= ∇ · (D(u)∇u) − ∇ · (G(u)χ(v)∇v) + ∇ · (H(u)ξ(w)∇w),
τ1vt= ∆v + αu − βv,
τ2wt= ∆w + γu − δw,
where α, β, γ, δ > 0, τ1, τ2 ≥ 0 and D, G, H, χ, ξ are functions. In the case that D, χ, ξ
are constants and τ1 = τ2 = 1, global existence and boundedness were studied in [15, 16,
17, 24]. In the case that χ, ξ are constants, τ1 = 1, τ2 = 0 and n ≥ 2, Lin–Mu–Gao [23]
proved global existence and boundedness under the condition that D(s) > 0 for all s ≥ 0, D(s) ≥ a
sk for all s > 0 and all k < 2
n− 1 with some a > 0 as well as G(s) = s, H(s) = s.
This result with k = 1 − m (m ≥ 1) was extended to the case that τ1, τ2 >0 by Li–Wang
[22]; note that the condition k < 2
n− 1, i.e., m > 2 − 2 n was relaxed to m > 2 − 2 n− n+2 n2−n+2
in the case that τ1 = τ2 and χα = ξγ. Also, Li–Mu–Lin–Wang [21] established global
(i) τ1 = τ2 = 0, G(s) = s, H(s) = s and D(s) ≥ asb−1 for all s > 0 with some a ∈ (0, 1], b >2 −2 n as well as 0 < χ(s) ≤ χ0 sk, 0 < ξ(s) ≤ ξ0
sℓ for all s > 0 with some χ0, ξ0 >0,
k ≥ 1, ℓ ≥ 2.
(ii) τ1 = 1, τ2 = 0, G(s) = s, H(s) = sr with r ≥ 2 and D(s) ≥ asb−1 for all s > 0 with
some a > 0, b > r − 2
n as well as χ(s) ≡ χ0, ξ(s) = ξ0
s with some χ0, ξ0 >0.
In these literatures, the results were successfully obtained by using estimates for v, w from below and by reducing the case that χ, ξ are constants. On the other hand, in the case of linear diffusion and normal sensitivity that D(s) ≡ 1, G(s) = s, H(s) = s, global existence and boundedness in the system with τ1 = τ2 = 1 were proved in [4] by the method using
a test function defined as a combination of an exponential function and integrals of χ, ξ. However, since the proof in [4] strongly depends on |(u + 1)m−1∇u|2 = (u + 1)m−1|∇u|2
(this holds true only in the case m = 1!), the method does not work in the case m 6= 1. In summary, the system (1.1) with signal-dependent sensitivity has been studied in the following two restrictive cases: the first case that D, G, H satisfy algebraic growth or decay conditions in the parabolic–elliptic–elliptic or parabolic–parabolic–elliptic version; the second case that D(s) ≡ 1, G(s) = s, H(s) = s in the fully parabolic version. Especially, recalling the case w = 0, we know that the condition a < n2 in [7] was removed in [5, 14]. Therefore it is expected that even in [21, 23], the conditions are described without using the value 2n. The purpose of this paper is to establish global existence and boundedness of classical solutions to (1.1) under some conditions, independent of the dimension n, for algebraic growth or decay orders among D, G, H.
In order to state the main theorem, we introduce conditions for the diffusivity D, the density-dependent sensitivities G, H and the signal-dependent sensitivities χ, ξ. We suppose that the functions D, G, H satisfy
D∈ C2([0, ∞)), D(s) = a0(s + 1)m−1 (a0 >0, m ∈ R), (1.5)
G∈ C2([0, ∞)), 0 ≤ G(s) ≤ b0(s + 1)q−1 (b0 >0, q < min{2, m + 1}), (1.6)
H ∈ C2([0, ∞)), 0 ≤ H(s) ≤ c0(s + 1)r−1 (c0 >0, r < min{2, m + 1}), (1.7)
and assume that the functions χ, ξ fulfill χ∈ C1+ϑ1 loc ((0, ∞)) (0 < ϑ1 <1), 0 < χ(s) ≤ χ0 sk1 (χ0 >0, k1 >1), (1.8) ξ ∈ C1+ϑ2 loc ((0, ∞)) (0 < ϑ2 <1), 0 < ξ(s) ≤ ξ0 sk2 (ξ0 >0, k2 >1). (1.9)
Then the main result reads as follows.
Theorem 1.1. Let Ω ⊂ Rn (n ≥ 1) be a bounded domain with smooth boundary and let
d1, d2, α, β, γ, δ >0. Suppose that D, G, H, χ, ξ fulfill (1.5)–(1.9). Then for all (u0, v0, w0)
satisfying (1.2)–(1.4) there exists a unique triplet (u, v, w) of nonnegative functions u, v, w∈ C0(Ω × [0, ∞)) ∩ C2,1(Ω × (0, ∞)),
which solves (1.1) in the classical sense, and is bounded, that is, ku(·, t)kL∞(Ω) ≤ C for
The strategy for the proof of Theorem 1.1 is to show Lp-boundedness of u. In the case
that D(s) ≡ 1, G(s) = s, H(s) = s, Lp-estimate for u was established in [4] by deriving
the differential inequality d dt Z Ω upf(v, w) ≤ c1 Z Ω upf(v, w) − c2 Z Ω upf(v, w)1+ϑ
for some constants c1, c2, ϑ >0 and some function f : R2 → R. Unfortunately, due to the
nonlinearity of D, G, H, this method does not work in (1.1). So, in this paper, we shift our method to that in [5]. However, even if we use the same test function as in [5] to show a differential inequality for
Z Ω (u + 1)p−m+1 v2k1+σ1−2 + Z Ω (u + 1)p−m+1 w2k2+σ2−2
with suitable σ1, σ2 > 0, it does not work well, because some terms with the product of
v, w appear in the denominator. Thus we will overcome this difficulty by introducing a new test function with the product of v, w in the denominator and by incorporating a parameter η in the power of u + 1, that is,
Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2 + Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1−2 + Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−2 ,
where σ3, σ4 <0, and η > 0 will be fixed later.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we collect some preliminary facts about local existence in (1.1), the lower bounds for v, w, and the weighted Young inequality which will be employed frequently later. In Section 3 we mainly derive two differential inequalities needed to prove global existence and boundedness (Theorem 1.1).
2. Preliminaries
In this section we give some lemmas which will be used later. We first introduce a reasonable result on local existence of classical solutions to (1.1), which can be proved by standard arguments based on the contraction mapping principle (see e.g., [27] for nonlinear diffusion; [10] for singular sensitivity).
Lemma 2.1. Let Ω ⊂ Rn (n ≥ 1) be a bounded domain with smooth boundary and let
d1, d2, α, β, γ, δ >0. Assume that D, G, H, χ, ξ satisfy (1.5)–(1.9). Then for all (u0, v0, w0)
fulfilling (1.2)–(1.4) there exists Tmax∈ (0, ∞] such that (1.1) possesses a unique classical
solution (u, v, w) such that
u, v, w∈ C0(Ω × [0, Tmax)) ∩ C2,1(Ω × (0, Tmax)).
Moreover,
if Tmax <∞, then either lim sup tրTmax
ku(·, t)kL∞(Ω) = ∞ or lim inf tրTmax inf x∈Ωv(·, t) = 0, and moreover Z Ω u(·, t) = Z Ω u0
In the following we suppose that Ω ⊂ Rn (n ≥ 1) is a bounded domain with smooth
boundary, d1, d2, α, β, γ, δ > 0 and D, G, H, χ, ξ fulfill (1.5)–(1.9) as well as (u0, v0, w0)
satisfies (1.2)–(1.4). Then we denote by (u, v, w) the local classical solution of (1.1) given in Lemma 2.1 and by Tmax its maximal existence time. We next present the result on the
lower bounds for v, w, which was obtained in [6, Lemma 2.2] (see also [25, Lemma 2.1 and Remark 2.2]).
Lemma 2.2. Assume that (u, v, w) is the local classical solution of (1.1). Then there exist constants µ1, µ2 >0 such that
inf
x∈Ωv(x, t) ≥ µ1, (2.1)
inf
x∈Ωw(x, t) ≥ µ2 (2.2)
for all t∈ (0, Tmax).
We finally recall the following weighted Young inequality which will be used frequently later.
Lemma 2.3. Let p, q∈ (1, ∞) satisfy 1p + 1q = 1. Then for all a, b ≥ 0 and all ε > 0, the inequality ab≤ εpap p + 1 εq bq q holds.
3. Proof of Theorem 1.1
In this section we mainly derive two differential inequalities which lead to Lp-estimate
for u. The first one is given by the following lemma. Lemma 3.1. Assume that
p >max{1, m, 2(m − q + 1), 2(m − r + 1)}, (3.1)
η <min{2(m − q + 1), 2(m − r + 1)}. (3.2)
Then for all ε01, ε02 > 0 there exist constants C1 = C1(b0, p, q, m, k1, µ1, ε01) > 0 and
C2 = C2(c0, p, r, m, k2, µ2, ε02) > 0 such that d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−m+1+ a0(p − m)(p − m + 1) 2 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2 ≤ ε01 Z Ω |∇v|2 v2k1+σ1(u + 1) p−η + ε02 Z Ω |∇w|2 w2k2+σ2(u + 1) p−η + C1 Z Ω |∇v|2+ C2 Z Ω |∇w|2 (3.3)
for all t∈ (0, Tmax), where σ1 := 2k1p−2(m−q+1)(2m−2q−η+2) >0 and σ2 :=
2k2(2m−2r−η+2) p−2(m−r+1) >0.
Proof. Straightforward calculations, integration by parts and (1.5)–(1.9) yield that d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−m+1 = (p − m + 1) Z Ω
(u + 1)p−m∇ · [D(u)∇u − G(u)χ(v)∇v + H(u)ξ(w)∇w]
= − (p − m)(p − m + 1) Z Ω D(u)(u + 1)p−m−1|∇u|2 + (p − m)(p − m + 1) Z Ω G(u)(u + 1)p−m−1χ(v)∇u · ∇v − (p − m)(p − m + 1) Z Ω H(u)(u + 1)p−m−1ξ(w)∇u · ∇w ≤ − a0(p − m)(p − m + 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2 + b0(p − m)(p − m + 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−m−2χ0 vk1|∇u||∇v| + c0(p − m)(p − m + 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−m−2 ξ0 wk2|∇u||∇w|, (3.4)
where we used the fact p > m (see (3.1)). We now estimate the second and third terms on the rightmost summand of (3.4). Using Lemma 2.3, we have
Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−m−2χ0 vk1|∇u||∇v| = Z Ω 1 2 a0 b0 1 2 (u + 1)p−22 |∇u| · 2χ0 b0 a0 1 2|∇v| vk1 (u + 1) p−2(m−q+1) 2 ≤ a0 4b0 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+ b0χ 2 0 a0 Z Ω |∇v|2 v2k1 (u + 1) p−2(m−q+1). (3.5)
Since θ := p−2(m−q+1)p−η >1 due to (3.2), it follows from Lemma 2.3 and (2.1) that for all f ε01 >0, b0χ20 a0 Z Ω |∇v|2 v2k1+σ1(u + 1) p−2(m−q+1) = b0χ 2 0 a0 Z Ω |∇v|2θ v2k1+σ1θ (u + 1)p−2(m−q+1)· |∇v| 2−2θ v2k1−2k1+σ1θ ≤ fε01 Z Ω |∇v|2 v2k1+σ1(u + 1) p−η + c1 Z Ω |∇v|2 (3.6)
holds with σ1 := 2k1p−2(m−q+1)(2m−2q−η+2) >0 and c1 = c1(p, q, m, k1, µ1,εf01) > 0. Thus, combining
(3.5) and (3.6), we see that Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−m−2χ0 vk1|∇u||∇v| ≤ a0 4b0 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2 + fε01 Z Ω |∇v|2 v2k1+σ1(u + 1) p−η+ c 1 Z Ω |∇v|2. (3.7)
Similarly, we obtain that for all fε02 >0, Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−m−2 ξ0 wk2|∇u||∇w| ≤ a0 4c0 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+ fε02 Z Ω |∇w|2 w2k2+σ2(u + 1) p−η + c2 Z Ω |∇w|2 (3.8)
holds with σ2 := 2k2p−2(m−r+1)(2m−2r−η+2) >0 and c2 = c2(p, r, m, k2, µ2,εf02) > 0. Hence a
combi-nation of (3.4), (3.7) and (3.8) yields that d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−m+1 ≤ − a0(p − m)(p − m + 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2 + a0(p − m)(p − m + 1) 4 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2 + b0(p − m)(p − m + 1) fε01 Z Ω |∇v|2 v2k1+σ1(u + 1) p−η + b0(p − m)(p − m + 1)c1 Z Ω |∇v|2 + a0(p − m)(p − m + 1) 4 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2 + c0(p − m)(p − m + 1) fε02 Z Ω |∇w|2 w2k2+σ2(u + 1) p−η + c0(p − m)(p − m + 1)c2 Z Ω |∇w|2 = − a0(p − m)(p − m + 1) 2 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2 + b0(p − m)(p − m + 1) fε01 Z Ω |∇v|2 v2k1+σ1(u + 1) p−η + c0(p − m)(p − m + 1) fε02 Z Ω |∇w|2 w2k2+σ2(u + 1) p−η + c3 Z Ω |∇v|2+ c4 Z Ω |∇w|2
with c3 := b0(p − m)(p − m + 1)c1 >0 and c4 := c0(p − m)(p − m + 1)c2 >0. Therefore
we have d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−m+1+ a0(p − m)(p − m + 1) 2 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2 ≤ b0(p − m)(p − m + 1) fε01 Z Ω |∇v|2 v2k1+σ1(u + 1) p−η + c0(p − m)(p − m + 1) fε02 Z Ω |∇w|2 w2k2+σ2(u + 1) p−η + c3 Z Ω |∇v|2+ c4 Z Ω |∇w|2,
The second inequality to be shown is given by the following lemma.
Lemma 3.2. Assume that q < min{2, m + 1}, r < min{2, m + 1}, k1 > 1, k2 > 1,
2(1 − k1) < σ3 <0, 2(1 − k2) < σ4 <0 and p >maxn1, m, 2(m − q + 1), 2(m − r + 1), 2[(m − 1)(2k1+ σi− 1) + (m − η − 1)] 2k1+ σi− 2 (i = 1, 3), 2[(m − 1)(2k2+ σj − 1) + (m − η − 1)] 2k2+ σj − 2 (j = 2, 4)o (3.9) as well as η >max{2(m − 1), 0}, (3.10)
where σ1, σ2 in (3.9) are defined in Lemma 3.1. Then there exist constants ε03 > 0 and
Ck>0 (k ∈ {3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8}) such that ε03 d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2 + d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1−2 + d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−2 + C3 Z Ω |∇v|2 v2k1+σ1(u + 1) p−η + C4 Z Ω |∇w|2 v2k2+σ2(u + 1) p−η ≤ a0(p − m)(p − m + 1) 4 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+ C 5 Z Ω |∇v|2+ C6 Z Ω |∇w|2 + C7 Z Ω (u + 1)p+ C 8 (3.11)
for all t∈ (0, Tmax).
Proof. We first estimate d dt
R
Ω
(u+1)p−η
v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2. Using the equations in (1.1), we have
d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2 = (p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2ut − (2k1+ σ3− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2vt − (2k2+ σ4− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1wt = (p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1
v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2∇ · [D(u)∇u − G(u)χ(v)∇v + H(u)ξ(w)∇w]
− (2k1+ σ3− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2(d1∆v + αu − βv) − (2k2+ σ4− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1(d2∆w + γu − δw) =: (p − η)J1+ (2k1+ σ3− 2)J2+ (2k2+ σ4 − 2)J3. (3.12)
As to the first term J1, integrating by parts leads to J1 = − Z Ω ∇ (u + 1) p−η−1 v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2
· [D(u)∇u − G(u)χ(v)∇v + H(u)ξ(w)∇w]
= −(p − η − 1) Z
Ω
(u + 1)p−η−2∇u
v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2 · [D(u)∇u − G(u)χ(v)∇v + H(u)ξ(w)∇w]
+ (2k1+ σ3− 2)
Z
Ω
(u + 1)p−η−1∇v
v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2 · [D(u)∇u − G(u)χ(v)∇v + H(u)ξ(w)∇w]
+ (2k2+ σ4− 2)
Z
Ω
(u + 1)p−η−1∇w
v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1 · [D(u)∇u − G(u)χ(v)∇v + H(u)ξ(w)∇w]
= −(p − η − 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−2 v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2[D(u)|∇u| 2− G(u)χ(v)∇u · ∇v + H(u)ξ(w)∇u · ∇w] + (2k1+ σ3− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2[D(u)∇u · ∇v − G(u)χ(v)|∇v| 2 + H(u)ξ(w)∇v · ∇w] + (2k2+ σ4− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1[D(u)∇u · ∇w − G(u)χ(v)∇v · ∇w + H(u)ξ(w)|∇w|2],
and then using (1.5)–(1.7) yields
J1 ≤ −a0(p − η − 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−3 v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2|∇u| 2 + b0χ0(p − η − 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−3 v3k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2|∇u||∇v| + c0ξ0(p − η − 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−3 v2k1+σ3−2w3k2+σ4−2|∇u||∇w| + a0(2k1+ σ3− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−2 v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2|∇u||∇v| − (2k1+ σ3− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2G(u)χ(v)|∇v| 2 + c0ξ0(2k1+ σ3− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−2 v2k1+σ3−1w3k2+σ4−2|∇v||∇w| + a0(2k2+ σ4− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−2 v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1|∇u||∇w| + b0χ0(2k2+ σ4− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−2 v3k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1|∇v||∇w| + c0ξ0(2k2+ σ4− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−2 v2k1+σ3−2w3k2+σ4−1|∇w| 2.
As to the second term J2 and third term J3, due to integration by parts and
straightfor-ward calculations, we infer
J2 = d1 Z Ω ∇ (u + 1) p−η v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2 · ∇v − α Z Ω u(u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2 + β Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2 = d1(p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2∇u · ∇v − d1(2k1+ σ3− 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3w2k2+σ4−2|∇v| 2 − d1(2k2+ σ4− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−1∇v · ∇w − α Z Ω u(u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2 + β Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2 ≤ d1(p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2|∇u||∇v| − d1(2k1+ σ3− 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3w2k2+σ4−2|∇v| 2 + d1(2k2+ σ4− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−1|∇v||∇w| − α Z Ω u(u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2 + β Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2 and J3 = d2(p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1∇u · ∇w − d2(2k1+ σ3− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−1∇v · ∇w − d2(2k2+ σ4− 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4|∇w| 2 − γ Z Ω u(u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1 + δ Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2 ≤ d2(p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1|∇u||∇w| + d2(2k1+ σ3− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−1|∇v||∇w| − d2(2k2+ σ4− 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4|∇w| 2 − γ Z Ω u(u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1 + δ Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2.
Combining (3.12) and the above estimates for J1, J2, J3, we obtain d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2 ≤ −A1 Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−3 v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2|∇u| 2+ A 2 Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−3 v3k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2|∇u||∇v| + A3 Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−3 v2k1+σ3−2w3k2+σ4−2|∇u||∇w| + A4 Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−2 v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2|∇u||∇v| − A5 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2G(u)χ(v)|∇v| 2+ A 6 Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−2 v2k1+σ3−1w3k2+σ4−2|∇v||∇w| + A7 Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−2 v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1|∇u||∇w| + A8 Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−2 v3k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1|∇v||∇w| + A9 Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−2 v2k1+σ3−2w3k2+σ4−1|∇w| 2 + A10 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2|∇u||∇v| − A11 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3w2k2+σ4−2|∇v| 2 + A12 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−1|∇v||∇w| − A13 Z Ω u(u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2 + A14 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2 + A15 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1|∇u||∇w| + A16 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−1|∇v||∇w| − A17 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4|∇w| 2− A 18 Z Ω u(u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1 + A19 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2, (3.13) where A1 := a0(p − η − 1)(p − η), A2 := b0χ0(p − η − 1)(p − η), A3 := c0ξ0(p − η − 1)(p − η), A4 := a0(p − η)(2k1+ σ3− 2), A5 := (p − η)(2k1+ σ3 − 2), A6 := c0ξ0(p − η)(2k1+ σ3− 2), A7 := a0(p − η)(2k2+ σ4− 2), A8 := b0χ0(p − η)(2k2+ σ4 − 2), A9 := c0ξ0(p − η)(2k2+ σ4− 2), A10 := d1(p − η)(2k1+ σ3− 2), A11:= d1(2k1+ σ3 − 2)(2k1+ σ3 − 1), A12 := d1(2k1+ σ3− 2)(2k2+ σ4− 2), A13:= α(2k1+ σ3 − 2), A14 := β(2k1+ σ3− 2), A15 := d2(p − η)(2k2+ σ4− 2), A16:= d2(2k1+ σ3 − 2)(2k2+ σ4 − 2), A17 := d2(2k2+ σ4− 2)(2k2+ σ4− 1), A18:= γ(2k2+ σ4 − 2), A19 := δ(2k2+ σ4− 2).
Similarly, we can derive an estimate for d dt R Ω (u+1)p−η v2k1+σ1−2, that is, d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1−2 ≤ −a0(p − η − 1)(p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−3 v2k1+σ1−2 |∇u| 2 + b0χ0(p − η − 1)(p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−3 v3k1+σ1−2 |∇u||∇v| + c0ξ0(p − η − 1)(p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−3 v2k1+σ1−2wk2 |∇u||∇w| + a0(p − η)(2k1+ σ1 − 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−2 v2k1+σ1−1 |∇u||∇v| − (p − η)(2k1+ σ1 − 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ1−1 G(u)χ(v)|∇v| 2 + c0ξ0(p − η)(2k1+ σ1− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−2 v2k1+σ1−1wk2 |∇v||∇w| + d1(p − η)(2k1+ σ1 − 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ1−1 |∇u||∇v| − d1(2k1+ σ1− 2)(2k1+ σ1− 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1 |∇v| 2 − α(2k1+ σ1− 2) Z Ω u(u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1−1 + β(2k1+ σ1 − 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1−2 . (3.14) We next estimate d dt R Ω (u+1)p−η
w2k2+σ2−2. Using the first and third equations in (1.1), we see that
d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−2 = (p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 w2k2+σ2−2 ut− (2k2+ σ2− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−1wt = (p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1
w2k2+σ2−2 ∇ · [D(u)∇u − G(u)χ(v)∇v + H(u)ξ(w)∇w]
− (2k2+ σ2 − 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−1(d2∆w + γu − δw) =: (p − η)J4+ (2k2+ σ2 − 2)J5. (3.15)
Estimating J4, J5 in the same way as J1, J2, respectively, we obtain J4 ≤ −a0(p − η − 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−3 w2k2+σ2−2 |∇u| 2 + b0χ0(p − η − 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−3 vk1w2k2+σ2−2 |∇u||∇v| + c0ξ0(p − η − 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−3 w3k2+σ2−2 |∇u||∇w| + a0(2k2+ σ2− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−2 w2k2+σ2−1 |∇u||∇w| + b0χ0(2k2+ σ2− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−2 vk1w2k2+σ2−1 |∇v||∇w| + c0ξ0(2k2+ σ2 − 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−2 w3k2+σ2−1 |∇w| 2 and J5 ≤ d2(p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 w2k2+σ2−1 |∇u||∇w| − d2(2k2+ σ2− 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2 |∇w| 2 − γ Z Ω u(u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−1 + δ Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−2.
Thus a combination of (3.15) and the above estimates for J4, J5 yields that
d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−2 ≤ −a0(p − η − 1)(p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−3 w2k2+σ2−2 |∇u| 2 + b0χ0(p − η − 1)(p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−3 vk1w2k2+σ2−2 |∇u||∇v| + c0ξ0(p − η − 1)(p − η) Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−3 w3k2+σ2−2 |∇u||∇w| + a0(p − η)(2k2+ σ2− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−2 w2k2+σ2−1 |∇u||∇w| + b0χ0(p − η)(2k2+ σ2− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−2 vk1w2k2+σ2−1 |∇v||∇w| + c0ξ0(p − η)(2k2+ σ2− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−2 w3k2+σ2−1 |∇w| 2 + d2(p − η)(2k2+ σ2− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 w2k2+σ2−1 |∇u||∇w| − d2(2k2+ σ2− 2)(2k2+ σ2− 1) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2 |∇w| 2 − γ(2k2+ σ2− 2) Z Ω u(u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−1 + δ(2k2+ σ2− 2) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−2. (3.16)
Adding estimates (3.14) and (3.16), and moving RΩ (u+1)v2k1+σ1p−η|∇v|2 and R Ω
(u+1)p−η
w2k2+σ2 |∇w|2 to
the left-hand side, we have d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1−2 + d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−2 + B19 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1 |∇v| 2+ B 20 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2 |∇w| 2 ≤ −B1 Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−3 v2k1+σ1−2 |∇u| 2− B 2 Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−3 w2k2+σ2−2 |∇u| 2 + B3 Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−2 v2k1+σ1−1 |∇u||∇v| + B4 Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−2 w2k2+σ2−1 |∇u||∇w| + B5 Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−3 v3k1+σ1−2 |∇u||∇v| − B6 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ1−1 G(u)χ(v)|∇v| 2 + B7 Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−3 vk1w2k2+σ2−2 |∇u||∇v| + B8 Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−3 w3k2+σ2−2 |∇u||∇w| + B9 Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−3 v2k1+σ1−2wk2 |∇u||∇w| + B10 Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−2 v2k1+σ1−1wk2 |∇v||∇w| + B11 Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−2 vk1w2k2+σ2−1 |∇v||∇w| + B12 Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−2 w3k2+σ2−1 |∇w| 2 + B13 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ1−1 |∇u||∇v| + B14 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 w2k2+σ2−1 |∇u||∇w| − B15 Z Ω u(u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1−1 + B16 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1−2 − B17 Z Ω u(u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−1 + B18 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−2, (3.17) where B1 := a0(p − η − 1)(p − η), B2 := a0(p − η − 1)(p − η), B3 := a0(p − η)(2k1+ σ1− 2), B4 := a0(p − η)(2k2+ σ2− 2), B5 := b0χ0(p − η − 1)(p − η), B6 := (p − η)(2k1+ σ1− 2), B7 := b0χ0(p − η − 1)(p − η), B8 := c0ξ0(p − η − 1)(p − η), B9 := c0ξ0(p − η − 1)(p − η), B10 := c0ξ0(p − η)(2k1+ σ1 − 2), B11 := b0χ0(p − η)(2k2+ σ2− 2), B12 := c0ξ0(p − η)(2k2+ σ2 − 2), B13 := d1(p − η)(2k1+ σ1− 2), B14 := d2(p − η)(2k2+ σ2− 2), B15 := α(2k1+ σ1− 2), B16 := β(2k1+ σ1− 2), B17 := γ(2k2+ σ2− 2), B18 := δ(2k2+ σ2− 2), B19 := d1(2k1+ σ1− 2)(2k1+ σ1− 1), B20 := d2(2k2+ σ2− 2)(2k2+ σ2− 1).
Adding (3.17) and (3.13) multiplied by ε03 > 0 and dropping the nine terms containing
holds: ε03 d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2 + d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1−2 + d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−2 + B19 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1 |∇v| 2+ B 20 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2 |∇w| 2 + ε03A11 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3w2k2+σ4−2|∇v| 2+ ε 03A17 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4|∇w| 2 ≤ ε03A4 Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−2 v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2|∇u||∇v| =:I1 + B3 Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−2 v2k1+σ1−1 |∇u||∇v| =:I2 + ε03A7 Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−2 v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1|∇u||∇w| =:I3 + B4 Z Ω (u + 1)p+m−η−2 w2k2+σ2−1 |∇u||∇w| =:I4 + ε03A2 Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−3 v3k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2|∇u||∇v| =:I5 + B5 Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−3 v3k1+σ1−2 |∇u||∇v| =:I6 + B7 Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−3 vk1w2k2+σ2−2 |∇u||∇v| =:I7 + B8 Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−3 w3k2+σ2−2 |∇u||∇w| =:I8 + ε03A3 Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−3 v2k1+σ3−2w3k2+σ4−2|∇u||∇w| =:I9 + B9 Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−3 v2k1+σ1−2wk2 |∇u||∇w| =:I10 + ε03A6 Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−2 v2k1+σ3−1w3k2+σ4−2|∇v||∇w| =:I11 + ε03A8 Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−2 v3k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1|∇v||∇w| =:I12 + B10 Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−2 v2k1+σ1−1wk2 |∇v||∇w| =:I13 + B11 Z Ω (u + 1)p+q−η−2 vk1w2k2+σ2−1 |∇v||∇w| =:I14 + ε03A9 Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−2 v2k1+σ3−2w3k2+σ4−1|∇w| 2 =:I15 + B12 Z Ω (u + 1)p+r−η−2 w3k2+σ2−1 |∇w| 2 =:I16 + ε03A10 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2|∇u||∇v| =:I17 + B13 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ1−1 =:I18 |∇u||∇v| + ε03A15 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−1|∇u||∇w| =:I19 + B14 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η−1 w2k2+σ2−1 |∇u||∇w| =:I20 + ε03(A12+ A16) Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−1|∇v||∇w| =:I21 + ε03A14 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2 =:I22 + B16 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1−2 =:I23 + ε03A19 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2 =:I24 + B18 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−2 =:I25 . (3.18)
We now estimate the twenty-five terms I1–I25 by dividing it into the four steps. Here we
note from (2.1), (2.2) and the condition q, r < 2 that I5, I6, I8, I9 can be estimated by
I17, I18, I20, I19, and that I11, I12 can be estimated by I21, respectively.
Step 1. We estimate the fourteen terms containing |∇u| (i.e., I1–I10, I17–I20) so that
the integral RΩ(u + 1)p−2|∇u|2 appears. For instance, as to an estimate for I
1, for all
ε1 >0, it can be obtained upon Lemma 2.3 that
I1 = ε03A4 Z Ω (u + 1)p−22 |∇u| · (u + 1) p+2m−2η−2 2 v2k1+σ3−1w2k2+σ4−2|∇v| ≤ ε03A4· ε1 2 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+ ε 03A4· 1 2ε1 Z Ω (u + 1)p+2m−2η−2 v4k1+2σ3−2w4k2+2σ4−4|∇v| 2 ≤ ε03A4 2 · ε1 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+ ε03A′4 2 1 ε1 · εθ1 1 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v(4k1+2σ3−2)θ1w(4k2+2σ4−4)θ1|∇v| 2 +ε03A ′′ 4 2 1 ε1 · ε− θ1 θ1−1 1 Z Ω |∇v|2 (3.19)
with θ1 := p+2m−2η−2p−η >1 by the condition η > 2(m − 1) (see (3.10)). Here we can check
that (4k1+ 2σ3− 2)θ1 ≥ 2k1+ σ3 and (4k2+ 2σ4− 4)θ1 ≥ 2k2+ σ4− 2. Indeed, as to the
former, a simple calculation and the assumption σ3 >2(1 − k1) (see Lemma 3.2) as well
as (3.9) yield that (4k1+ 2σ3 − 2)θ1− (2k1+ σ3) = (2k1+ σ3− 1) 2θ1− 1 − 1 2k1+ σ3− 1 = 2k1+ σ3− 1 p+ 2m − 2η − 2 2p − 2η − (p + 2m − 2η − 2) − p+ 2m − 2η − 2 2k1+ σ3− 1 = 2k1+ σ3− 1 p+ 2m − 2η − 2 2k1+ σ3 − 2 2k1+ σ3 − 1 p− 2(m − 1) − 2(m − η − 1) 2k1+ σ3− 1 = 2k1+ σ3− 2 p+ 2m − 2η − 2 p−2[(m − 1)(2k1+ σ3− 1) + (m − η − 1)] 2k1+ σ3 − 2 >0.
As to the later, the fact θ1 >1 and the assumption σ4 >2(1 − k2) derive that
(4k2+ 2σ4− 4)θ1− (2k2+ σ4− 2) = (2k2+ σ4− 2)(2θ1− 1) > 0.
Thus we see from (2.1), (2.2) that
v(4k1+2σ3−2)θ1 ≥ µ(4k1+2σ3−2)θ1−(2k1+σ3)
1 v2k1+σ3,
w(4k2+2σ4−4)θ1 ≥ µ(4k2+2σ4−4)θ1−(2k2+σ4−2)
2 w2k2+σ4−2,
which together with (3.19) imply that
I1 ≤ ε03A4 2 · ε1 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+ε03A ′ 4 2 · ε θ1−1 1 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3w2k2+σ4−2|∇v| 2 +ε03A ′′ 4 2 · ε − θ1 θ1−1−1 1 Z Ω |∇v|2. (3.20)
Proceeding similarly as the above estimate, we also obtain that for all εi >0 there exist
constants θi >1 (i ∈ {2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20}) such that
I2 ≤ B3 2 · ε2 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+B ′ 3 2 · ε θ2−1 2 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1 |∇v| 2 + B ′′ 3 2 ε − θ2 θ2−1−1 2 Z Ω |∇v|2, (3.21) I3 ≤ ε03A7 2 · ε3 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+ε03A′7 2 · ε θ3−1 3 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4|∇w| 2 + ε03A ′′ 7 2 · ε − θ3 θ3−1−1 3 Z Ω |∇w|2, (3.22) I4 ≤ B4 2 · ε4 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+B ′ 4 2 · ε θ4−1 4 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2 |∇w| 2 + B ′′ 4 2 ε −θ4−1θ4 −1 4 Z Ω |∇w|2, (3.23) I7 ≤ B7 2 · ε7 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+B7′ 2 · ε θ7−1 7 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1w2k2+σ2−2|∇v| 2 + B ′′ 7 2 ε − θ7 θ7−1−1 7 Z Ω |∇v|2, (3.24) I10≤ B9 2 · ε10 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+B ′ 9 2 · ε θ10−1 10 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1−2w2k2+σ2|∇w| 2 + B ′′ 9 2 ε −θ10−1θ10 −1 10 Z Ω |∇w|2, (3.25) I17≤ ε03A10 2 · ε17 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+ε03A′10 2 · ε θ17−1 17 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3w2k2+σ4−2|∇v| 2 + ε03A ′′ 10 2 · ε − θ17 θ17−1−1 17 Z Ω |∇v|2, (3.26) I18≤ B13 2 · ε18 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+ B ′ 13 2 · ε θ18−1 18 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1 |∇v| 2 + B ′′ 13 2 · ε − θ18 θ18−1−1 18 Z Ω |∇v|2, (3.27) I19≤ ε03A15 2 · ε19 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+ε03A′15 2 · ε θ19−1 19 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4|∇w| 2 + ε03A ′′ 15 2 · ε − θ19 θ19−1−1 19 Z Ω |∇w|2, (3.28) I20≤ B14 2 · ε20 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+ B14′ 2 · ε θ20−1 20 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2 |∇w| 2 + B ′′ 14 2 · ε − θ20 θ20−1−1 20 Z Ω |∇w|2. (3.29)
Step 2. We estimate the five terms containing |∇v||∇w| (i.e., I11–I14, I21). Here we
for all ε13>0, I13 = B10 Z Ω (u + 1)p+2r−η−42 v2k1+2σ1−σ32 w−σ42 |∇v| · (u + 1) p−η 2 v2k1+σ3−22 w2k2+σ42 |∇w| ≤ B10· 1 2ε13 Z Ω (u + 1)p+2r−η−4 v2k1+2σ1−σ3w−σ4|∇v| 2+ B 10· ε13 2 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4|∇w| 2 ≤ B ′ 10 2 1 ε13 · εθ13 13 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v(2k1+2σ1−σ3)θ13w−σ4θ13|∇v| 2+B10′′ 2 1 ε13 · ε− θ13 θ13−1 13 Z Ω |∇v|2 + B10 2 · ε13 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4|∇w| 2 ≤ B ′ 10 2 · ε θ13−1 13 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1 |∇v| 2+ B10′′ 2 · ε − θ13 θ13−1−1 13 Z Ω |∇v|2 + B10 2 · ε13 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4|∇w| 2 (3.30)
holds, where θ13 := p+2r−η−4p−η > 1 by the condition r < 2. Here we used the facts that
(2k1+ 2σ1− σ3)θ13 ≥ 2k1+ σ1 and −σ4θ13>0 due to θ13>1, σ1 >0, σ3 <0 and σ4 <0,
respectively. Similarly, we establish that for all ε14>0 there exists θ14>1 such that
I14 ≤ B11 2 · ε14 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3w2k2+σ4−2|∇v| 2 + B ′ 11 2 · ε θ14−1 14 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2 |∇w| 2+ B11′′ 2 · ε − θ14 θ14−1−1 14 Z Ω |∇w|2. (3.31) Also, we can derive that for all ε21>0,
I21 = ε03A′12 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η2 v2k1+σ12 |∇v| · (u + 1) p−η 2 v2k1−σ1+2σ3−22 w2k2+σ4−1 |∇w| ≤ ε03A ′ 12 2 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1 |∇v| 2+ ε03A′12 2 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1−σ1+2σ3−2w4k2+2σ4−2|∇w| 2 ≤ ε03A ′ 12 2 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1 |∇v| 2+ ε03A′12 2 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2 |∇w| 2 (3.32)
holds, since 2k1− σ1+ 2σ3 − 2 ≥ 0 and 4k2+ 2σ4− 2 ≥ 2k2+ σ2 due to σ3 >2(1 − k1)
and σ4 >2(1 − k2), respectively.
Step 3. We estimate the two terms containing |∇w|2 (i.e., I
15, I16). As to an estimate
for I15, we deduce that for all ε15>0,
I15≤ ε03A9· εθ1515 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v(2k1+σ3−2)θ15w(3k2+σ4−1)θ15|∇w| 2+ ε 03A9· ε − θ15 θ15−1 15 Z Ω |∇w|2 ≤ ε03A9· εθ1515 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4|∇w| 2+ ε 03A9· ε − θ15 θ15−1 15 Z Ω |∇w|2 (3.33)
holds, where θ15 := p+r−η−2p−η > 1 by the condition r < 2. Proceeding similarly as the
above estima,te we obtain that for all ε16>0 there exists θ16 >1 such that
I16≤ B12· εθ1616 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2 |∇w| 2+ B 12· ε − θ16 θ16−1 16 Z Ω |∇w|2. (3.34)
Step 4. We estimate the four terms which do not contain |∇u|, |∇v|, |∇w| (i.e., I22–I25) by RΩ(u + 1)p. Indeed, it suffices to note that
Z Ω (u + 1)p−η ≤ p− η p Z Ω (u + 1)p+ η p, (3.35)
which leads to the required estimates.
Thus, in view of Steps 1–4, the estimates for the twenty-five terms I1–I25 in (3.18) are
complete. We finally derive (3.11). Combining (3.18) and (3.20)–(3.35), we have
ε03 d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4−2 + d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1−2 + d dt Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2−2 + B19 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1 |∇v| 2+ B 20 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2 |∇w| 2 + ε03A11 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3w2k2+σ4−2|∇v| 2+ ε 03A17 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4|∇w| 2 ≤ c1 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ1 |∇v| 2+ c 2 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η w2k2+σ2 |∇w| 2 + c3 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3w2k2+σ4−2|∇v| 2+ c 4 Z Ω (u + 1)p−η v2k1+σ3−2w2k2+σ4|∇w| 2 + c5 Z Ω (u + 1)p−2|∇u|2+ c6 Z Ω |∇v|2+ c7 Z Ω |∇w|2+ c8 Z Ω (u + 1)p+ c9, where c1 := 1 2(ε03A ′ 12+ B′3ε θ2−1 2 + B10′ ε θ13−1 13 + B18′ ε θ18−1 18 ), c2 := 1 2(ε03A ′ 12+ B′4ε θ4−1 4 + B11′ ε θ14−1 14 + B12εθ1616+ B14′ ε θ20−1 20 ), c3 := 1 2(ε03A ′ 4ε θ1−1 1 + ε03A′10ε θ17−1 17 + B7′ε θ7−1 7 + B11ε14), c4 := 1 2(ε03A ′ 7ε θ3−1 3 + ε03A′9ε θ15 15 + ε03A′15ε θ19−1 19 + B9′ε θ10−1 10 + B10ε13), c5 := 1 2(ε03A4ε1+ ε03A7ε3+ ε03A10ε17+ ε03A15ε19 + B3ε2+ B4ε4+ B7ε7+ B9ε10+ B13ε18+ B14ε20), c6 := 1 2(ε03A ′′ 4ε − θ1 θ1−1−1 1 + ε03A′′10ε − θ17 θ17−1−1 17 + B3′′ε− θ2 θ2−1−1 2 + B ′′ 7ε − θ7 θ7−1−1 7 + B ′′ 10ε − θ13 θ13−1−1 13 + B ′′ 13ε − θ18 θ18−1−1 18 ), c7 := 1 2(ε03A ′′ 7ε − θ3 θ3−1−1 3 + ε03A′′9ε − θ15 θ15−1−1 15 + ε03A′′15ε − θ19 θ19−1−1 19 + B′′ 4ε − θ4 θ4−1−1 4 + B9′′ε − θ10 θ10−1−1 10 + B11′′ε − θ14 θ14−1−1 14 + B12′′ ε − θ16 θ16−1−1 16 + B14′′ ε − θ20 θ20−1−1 20 ), c8 := p− η p (ε03A ′ 14+ ε03A′19+ B16′ + B18′ ), c9 := η p(ε03A ′ 14+ ε03A′19+ B ′ 16+ B ′ 18).
Consequently, by choosing ε03, εi > 0 (i ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20})
satisfying B19− c1 >0, B20− c2 >0, ε03A11 = c3, ε03A17 = c4 and c5 = a0(p−m)(p−m+1)4 ,
we derive the differential inequality (3.11).
Proof of Theorem 1.1. From Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2 as well as a way similar to that in [5, Proof of Theorem 1.1], we can prove supt∈[0,Tmax)ku(·, t)kL∞(Ω) < ∞, which leads to
Tmax = ∞. Therefore we arrive at the conclusion.
References
[1] J. Ahn. Global well-posedness and asymptotic stabilization for chemotaxis sys-tem with signal-dependent sensitivity. J. Differential Equations, 266(10):6866–6904, 2019.
[2] G. Arumugam and J. Tyagi. Keller–Segel chemotaxis models: A review. Acta Appl. Math., 171(6):82pp., 2021.
[3] N. Bellomo, A. Bellouquid, Y. Tao, and M. Winkler. Toward a mathematical theory of Keller–Segel models of pattern formation in biological tissues. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 25(9):1663–1763, 2015.
[4] Y. Chiyo, M. Mizukami, and T. Yokota. Global existence and boundedness in a fully parabolic attraction-repulsion chemotaxis system with signal-dependent sensitivities and logistic source. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 489(1):124153, 18, 2020.
[5] M. Ding. Global boundedness in a fully parabolic quasilinear chemotaxis system with singular sensitivity. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 461(2):1260–1270, 2018.
[6] K. Fujie. Boundedness in a fully parabolic chemotaxis system with singular sensitiv-ity. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 424(1):675–684, 2015.
[7] K. Fujie, C. Nishiyama, and T. Yokota. Boundedness in a quasilinear parabolic– parabolic Keller–Segel system with the sensitivity v−1S(u). Discrete Contin. Dyn.
Syst., (Dynamical systems, differential equations and applications. 10th AIMS Con-ference. Suppl.):464–472, 2015.
[8] K. Fujie and T. Senba. Global existence and boundedness of radial solutions to a two dimensional fully parabolic chemotaxis system with general sensitivity. Nonlinearity, 29(8):2417–2450, 2016.
[9] K. Fujie and T. Senba. A sufficient condition of sensitivity functions for boundedness of solutions to a parabolic–parabolic chemotaxis system. Nonlinearity, 31(4):1639– 1672, 2018.
[10] K. Fujie, M. Winkler, and T. Yokota. Blow-up prevention by logistic sources in a parabolic–elliptic Keller–Segel system with singular sensitivity. Nonlinear Anal., 109:56–71, 2014.
[11] K. Fujie and T. Yokota. Boundedness in a fully parabolic chemotaxis system with strongly singular sensitivity. Appl. Math. Lett., 38:140–143, 2014.
[12] T. Hillen and K. J. Painter. A user’s guide to PDE models for chemotaxis. J. Math. Biol., 58(1–2):183–217, 2009.
[13] S. Ishida, K. Seki, and T. Yokota. Boundedness in quasilinear Keller–Segel systems of parabolic–parabolic type on non-convex bounded domains. J. Differential Equations, 256(8):2993–3010, 2014.
[14] Z. Jia and Z. Yang. Global boundedness to a parabolic–parabolic chemotaxis model with nonlinear diffusion and singular sensitivity. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 475(1):139– 153, 2019.
[15] H-Y. Jin. Boundedness of the attraction-repulsion Keller–Segel system. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 422(2):1463–1478, 2015.
[16] H-Y. Jin and Z. Liu. Large time behavior of the full attraction-repulsion Keller–Segel system in the whole space. Appl. Math. Lett., 47:13–20, 2015.
[17] H-Y. Jin and Z-A. Wang. Asymptotic dynamics of the one-dimensional attraction-repulsion Keller–Segel model. Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 38(3):444–457, 2015. [18] E. F. Keller and L. A. Segel. Initiation of slime mold aggregation viewed as an
instability. J. Theoret. Biol., 26(3):399–415, 1970.
[19] J. Lankeit. A new approach toward boundedness in a two-dimensional parabolic chemotaxis system with singular sensitivity. Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 39(3):394– 404, 2016.
[20] J. Lankeit and M. Winkler. A generalized solution concept for the Keller–Segel system with logarithmic sensitivity: global solvability for large nonradial data. NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl., 24(4):Paper No. 49, 33, 2017.
[21] D. Li, C. Mu, K. Lin, and L. Wang. Global weak solutions for an attraction-repulsion system with nonlinear diffusion. Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 40(18):7368–7395, 2017. [22] J. Li and Y. Wang. Repulsion effects on boundedness in the higher dimen-sional fully parabolic attraction-repulsion chemotaxis system. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 467(2):1066–1079, 2018.
[23] K. Lin, C. Mu, and Y. Gao. Boundedness and blow up in the higher-dimensional attraction-repulsion chemotaxis system with nonlinear diffusion. J. Differential Equa-tions, 261(8):4524–4572, 2016.
[24] D. Liu and Y. Tao. Global boundedness in a fully parabolic attraction-repulsion chemotaxis model. Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 38(12):2537–2546, 2015.
[25] M. Mizukami and T. Yokota. A unified method for boundedness in fully parabolic chemotaxis systems with signal-dependent sensitivity. Math. Nachr., 290(16):2648– 2660, 2017.
[26] K. J. Painter and T. Hillen. Volume-filling and quorum-sensing in models for chemosensitive movement. Can. Appl. Math. Q., 10(4):501–543, 2002.
[27] Y. Tao and M. Winkler. A chemotaxis-haptotaxis model: the roles of nonlinear diffusion and logistic source. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 43(2):685–704, 2011.
[28] Y. Tao and M. Winkler. Boundedness in a quasilinear parabolic–parabolic Keller– Segel system with subcritical sensitivity. J. Differential Equations, 252(1):692–715, 2012.
[29] M. Winkler. Absence of collapse in a parabolic chemotaxis system with signal-dependent sensitivity. Math. Nachr., 283(11):1664–1673, 2010.
[30] M. Winkler. Global solutions in a fully parabolic chemotaxis system with singular sensitivity. Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 34(2):176–190, 2011.
[31] M. Winkler and T. Yokota. Stabilization in the logarithmic Keller–Segel system. Nonlinear Anal., 170:123–141, 2018.
