Integrals over boundaries of intervals and Evan's proof of finite propagation for the wave equation

182 Views Asked by At

When we learn about differential forms and Stokes' theorem, we are told that $\partial [a,b] = \{-a,+b\}$ so that $\int_{[a,b]} f^{\prime} = \int_{\{-a,+b\}}f = f(b) - f(a)$ so that Stokes' theorem is a generalization of the FTC.

Now, $\int_{\{-a,+b\}}f$ appears to be an integration over a signed measure (See this stack exchange post) and so does not satisfy certain properties: e.g. that $f\leq 0$ implies $\int_{\{-a,+b\}}f\leq 0$ (e.g suppose $f(b)=0,f(a)=-1$).

Now, in Theorem 6 of section 2.5, Evan proves the finite propagation property for the wave equation for all $n$.

In this proof, the last idea is that $\frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} u_{t} - \frac{1}{2} u_{t}^{2} - \frac{1}{2}|Du|^{2} \leq 0 $ so then $\int_{\partial B(x_{0},t_{0}-t)} \frac{\partial u}{\partial \nu} u_{t} - \frac{1}{2} u_{t}^{2} - \frac{1}{2}|Du|^{2}dS \leq 0$.

Based on my above analysis, this implication does not seem to be hold if $B(x_{0},t_{0}-t)$ is some interval.

Is this analysis accurate? Where exactly is my mistake? If the analysis is accurate, how do you include the $n=1$ case in the energy method proof for this fact?

1

There are 1 best solutions below

0
On

So I think we can solve this by properly differentiating under the integral sign. If we define $E$ by: $$ E(t) = \int_{x_0 - t_0 +t}^{x_0 +t_0 -t} u_t^2 + u_{x}^2 \mathrm{d}x$$

Then $E'(t)$ is given by: $$ E'(t) = \frac{d}{dt}(x_0 + t_0 -t)(u_t^2 + u_x^2)(t,x_0 + t_0 -t) -\frac{d}{dt}(x_0 - t_0 +t)(u_t^2 + u_x^2)(t,x_0 - t_0 -t) + \int_{x_0 -t_0 +t}^{x_0 +t_0 -t} \frac{d}{dt} \left(u_t^2 + u_{x}^2 \right) \mathrm{d}x $$ Computing the outside terms gives us: $$ -(u_t^2 + u_x^2)(t,x_0 + t_0 -t) - (u_t^2 + u_x^2)(t,x_0 - t_0 -t) \leq 0 $$ And the inner term is given by: $$ \int_{x_0 -t_0 +t}^{x_0 +t_0 -t} \frac{d}{dt} \left(u_t^2 + u_{x}^2 \right) = \int_{x_0 -t_0 +t}^{x_0 +t_0 -t} 2u_tu_{tt} +2u_{xx}u_t \mathrm{d}x = 0 $$ So the term is less than or equal to $0$. I'm not sure if this answers your question about integrating over signed measures, but I've brute forced it for the 1-d case, just to verify.