
Citation: Mosharrof Hosen, Mohammed Yaw Broni, Mohammad Nazim Uddin. What bank specific and macroeconomic elements influence non-performing loans in Bangladesh? Evidence from conventional and Islamic banks[J]. Green Finance, 2020, 2(2): 212-226. doi: 10.3934/GF.2020012
[1] | Churni Gupta, Necibe Tuncer, Maia Martcheva . Immuno-epidemiological co-affection model of HIV infection and opioid addiction. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(4): 3636-3672. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022168 |
[2] | Shengqiang Liu, Lin Wang . Global stability of an HIV-1 model with distributed intracellular delays and a combination therapy. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2010, 7(3): 675-685. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2010.7.675 |
[3] | Georgi Kapitanov, Christina Alvey, Katia Vogt-Geisse, Zhilan Feng . An age-structured model for the coupled dynamics of HIV and HSV-2. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2015, 12(4): 803-840. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2015.12.803 |
[4] | Nawei Chen, Shenglong Chen, Xiaoyu Li, Zhiming Li . Modelling and analysis of the HIV/AIDS epidemic with fast and slow asymptomatic infections in China from 2008 to 2021. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(12): 20770-20794. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023919 |
[5] | Nicolas Bacaër, Xamxinur Abdurahman, Jianli Ye, Pierre Auger . On the basic reproduction number R0 in sexual activity models for HIV/AIDS epidemics: Example from Yunnan, China. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2007, 4(4): 595-607. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2007.4.595 |
[6] | Kazunori Sato . Basic reproduction number of SEIRS model on regular lattice. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(6): 6708-6727. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019335 |
[7] | Georgi Kapitanov . A double age-structured model of the co-infection of tuberculosis and HIV. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2015, 12(1): 23-40. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2015.12.23 |
[8] | Xue-Zhi Li, Ji-Xuan Liu, Maia Martcheva . An age-structured two-strain epidemic model with super-infection. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2010, 7(1): 123-147. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2010.7.123 |
[9] | Andrew Omame, Sarafa A. Iyaniwura, Qing Han, Adeniyi Ebenezer, Nicola L. Bragazzi, Xiaoying Wang, Woldegebriel A. Woldegerima, Jude D. Kong . Dynamics of Mpox in an HIV endemic community: A mathematical modelling approach. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(2): 225-259. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025010 |
[10] | Wenshuang Li, Shaojian Cai, Xuanpei Zhai, Jianming Ou, Kuicheng Zheng, Fengying Wei, Xuerong Mao . Transmission dynamics of symptom-dependent HIV/AIDS models. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(2): 1819-1843. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024079 |
The Euler system
{∂∂x(ρu)+∂∂y(ρv)=0,∂∂x(p+ρu2)+∂∂y(ρuv)=0,∂∂x(ρuv)+∂∂y(p+ρv2)=0 | (1) |
is usually used to describe the two-dimensional steady isentropic inviscid compressible flow, where
∂u∂y=∂v∂x. | (2) |
Then the density
ρ(q2)=(1−γ−12q2)1/(γ−1),0<q<√2/(γ−1). | (3) |
The sound speed
div(ρ(|∇φ|2)∇φ)=0, | (4) |
where
Subsonic-sonic flow is one of the most interesting aspects in the mathematical theory of compressible flows. The related problems are usually raised in physical experiments and engineering designs, and there are a lot of numerical simulations and rigorous theory involved in this field (see, e.g., [2,8,15]). Two kinds of subsonic-sonic flows have been intensively studied for decades: the flow past a profile and the flow in a nozzle. The outstanding work [1] by L. Bers proved that there exists a unique two-dimensional subsonic potential flow past a profile provided that the freestream Mach number is less than a critical value and the maximum flow speed tends to the sound speed as the freestream Mach number tends to the critical value. Later, the similar results for multi-dimensional cases were established in [13,9] by G. Dong, R. Finn and D. Gilbarg. These three works did not cover the flow with the critical freestream Mach number. It was shown in [3] based on a compensated compactness framework that the two-dimensional flow with sonic points past a profile may be realized as the weak limit of a sequence of strictly subsonic flows. However, all the subsonic-sonic flows above are obtained in the weak sense and their smoothness and uniqueness are unknown yet, so are the subsonic-sonic flows in an infinitely long nozzle. For a two-dimensional infinitely long nozzle, C. Xie et al. ([22]) proved that there exists a critical value such that a strictly subsonic flow exists uniquely as long as the incoming mass flux is less than the critical value, and a subsonic-sonic flow exists as the weak limit of a sequence of strictly subsonic flows. The multi-dimensional cases were investigated in [24,12,14]. A typical subsonic-sonic flow with precise regularity is a radially symmetric subsonic-sonic flow in a convergent straight nozzle. The structural stability was initially proved in [20] for the case of two-dimensional finitely long nozzle, and some new results can be found in [16,17,18,21,19]. In the recent decade, there are also some studies on rotational subsonic and subsonic-sonic flows, see [4,6,11,7,5,23] and the references therein.
In the present paper, we would like to investigate the subsonic-sonic flow in a class of semi-infinitely long nozzles. Assume precisely that
f′(0)<f(0)=0,(−x)−1/2f″∈L∞((−l0,0]), | (5) |
f(x)>0 for x∈(−∞,0),f′(x)=0 for x∈(−∞,−l0]. | (6) |
The upper and lower wall of the nozzle are described as
Γup:y=fk(x)(x∈(−∞,0]),andΓlow:y=−l1(x∈R), |
respectively, where
fk(x)=kf(x),x∈(−∞,0]. |
The sonic curve of the flow is a free boundary intersecting the upper wall at the origin, which is chosen as the outlet of the nozzle and is denoted by
Γout:x=S(y),y∈[−l1,0],S(0)=0. |
It is assumed further that the subsonic-sonic flow satisfies the slip conditions at
As in [18,21], the subsonic-sonic flow problem can be formulated in the physical plane as
div(ρ(|∇φ|2)∇φ)=0,(x,y)∈Ωk, | (7) |
∂φ∂y(x,−l1)=0,x∈(−∞,S(−l1)), | (8) |
∂φ∂y(x,fk(x))−f′k(x)∂φ∂x(x,fk(x))=0,x∈(−∞,0), | (9) |
|∇φ(S(y),y)|=c∗,φ(S(y),y)=0,y∈(−l1,0), | (10) |
where
The paper is arranged as follows. In Section 2, we formulate the subsonic-sonic flow problem (7)–(10) in the potential plane. Then in Section 3, we solve the fixed boundary problem of a quasilinear degenerate elliptic equation in an unbounded domain. Finally in Section 4, we establish the well-posedness of the subsonic-sonic flow, and prove that the flow is uniformly subsonic at the far fields.
Define a velocity potential
∂φ∂x=u=qcosθ,∂φ∂y=v=qsinθ,∂ψ∂x=−ρv=−ρqsinθ,∂ψ∂y=ρu=ρqcosθ, | (11) |
where
∂θ∂ψ+ρ(q2)+2q2ρ′(q2)qρ2(q2)∂q∂φ=0,1q∂q∂ψ−1ρ(q2)∂θ∂φ=0 | (12) |
in the potential-stream coordinates
∂2A(q)∂φ2+∂2B(q)∂ψ2=0, |
where
A(q)=∫qc∗ρ(s2)+2s2ρ′(s2)sρ2(s2)ds,B(q)=∫qc∗ρ(s2)sds,0<q<√2/(γ−1). |
It is obvious that
N1(c∗−q)≤A′(q)≤N2(c∗−q),N1≤B′(q),−A″(q),−B″(q)≤N2, | (13) |
N1(c∗−q)≤E′(B(q))≤N2(c∗−q),−N2≤E″(B(q)),E‴(B(q))≤−N1, | (14) |
where
Θup(x)=arctanf′k(x),x∈[−l0,0]andΘlow(x)≡0,x∈(−∞,0), |
respectively.
As in [18,21], in order to describe the problem in the potential plane, we denote the flow speed at the upper wall by
Qup(x)=q(x,fk(x)),x∈(−∞,0], |
then the potential function at the upper wall is expressed by
Φup(x)=∫x0Qup(s)(1+(f′k(s))2)1/2ds={∫x0Qup(s)(1+(f′k(s))2)1/2ds,if x∈[−l0,0],ζ0+∫x−l0Qup(s)ds,if x∈(−∞,−l0) | (15) |
with
ζ0=∫−l00Qup(s)(1+(f′k(s))2)1/2ds. |
The inverse function of
∂2A(q)∂φ2(φ,ψ)+∂2B(q)∂ψ2(φ,ψ)=0,(φ,ψ)∈(−∞,0)×(0,m), | (16) |
∂q∂ψ(φ,0)=0,φ∈(−∞,0), | (17) |
∂B(q)∂ψ(φ,m)=f″k(x)(1+(f′k(x))2)3/2Qup(x)|x=Xup(φ),φ∈(−∞,0), | (18) |
q(0,ψ)=c∗,ψ∈(0,m), | (19) |
Qup(x)=q(φ,m)|φ=Φup(x),x∈(−∞,0], | (20) |
where
Definition 2.1. For
0<inf(−∞,0)×(0,m)q≤sup(−∞,0)×(0,m)q≤c∗ |
such that the integral equation
∫0−∞∫m0(A(q(φ,ψ))∂2ξ∂φ2(φ,ψ)+B(q(φ,ψ))∂2ξ∂ψ2(φ,ψ))dψdφ+∫0−∞f″k(x)(1+(f′k(x))2)3/2Qup(x)|x=Xup(φ)ξ(φ,m)dφ=0 |
holds for any
∂ξ∂ψ(⋅,0)|(−∞,0)=∂ξ∂ψ(⋅,m)|(−∞,0)=ξ(0,⋅)|(0,m)=0. |
The existence of solutions to the problem (16)–(20) will be proved by a fixed point argument. Give
δ1≤m≤δ2 | (21) |
with
δ1=c∗ρ(c2∗/4)l12,δ2=c∗ρ(c2∗)(l1+f(−l0)), |
while
max{c∗2,c∗−k1/4}≤Qup(x)≤c∗ for x∈(−∞,0],[Qup]C1/4((−∞,0])≤1. | (22) |
For such
−δ4≤ζ0≤−δ3,c∗2≤Φ′up(x)≤δ5,x∈(−∞,0], | (23) |
|f″k(x)(1+(f′k(x))2)3/2Qup(x)|x=Xup(φ)|≤kδ6(−φ)1/2χ[ζ0,0](φ),φ∈(−∞,0], | (24) |
where
δ3=c∗l02,δ4=c∗l0(1+‖f′‖2L∞((−l0,0)))1/2,δ5=c∗(1+‖f′‖2L∞((−l0,0)))1/2,δ6=‖(−x)1/2f″‖L∞((−l0,0))(2c∗)3/2. |
For
−τ1x≤f(x)≤−τ2x,x∈[−l0,0]. | (25) |
In this section, we deal with the well-posedness of the fixed boundary problem. For the given
The truncated problem is written as
∂2A(qn)∂φ2(φ,ψ)+∂2B(qn)∂ψ2(φ,ψ)=0,(φ,ψ)∈(ζ0−n,0)×(0,m), | (26) |
∂A(qn)∂φ(ζ0−n,ψ)=0,ψ∈(0,m), | (27) |
∂qn∂ψ(φ,0)=0,φ∈(ζ0−n,0), | (28) |
∂B(qn)∂ψ(φ,m)=f″k(x)(1+(f′k(x))2)3/2Qup(x)|x=Xup(φ),φ∈(ζ0−n,0), | (29) |
qn(0,ψ)=c∗,ψ∈(0,m). | (30) |
Note that (26) is degenerate at
qn(0,ψ)=c,ψ∈(0,m), | (31) |
where
The proof can be divided into four steps.
Step 1. Well-posedness of the problem (26)–(29), (31) for
Lemma 3.1. Assume that
c∗/6≤qn,c(φ,ψ)<c∗,(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m], | (32) |
qn,c(ζ0−n,ψ)≤c∗−k3/4,ψ∈[0,m]. | (33) |
Proof. The uniqueness result follows from Proposition 3.2 in [20]. Set
k1=min{(c∗6)4/3,(c∗48δ22δ34)2,(c∗96δ34)4,(A(c∗/4)−A(c∗/6)8δ22δ34)2,(A(c∗/3)−A(c∗/4)16δ34)4,(2δ1δ5/24B′(5c∗/6)δ6)2,(2δ2δ5/24B′(c∗/6)δ6A′(c∗/6))2,(1δ22e2δ4)4,(3A′(5c∗/6)4δ24e2δ4B′(5c∗/6))2}. |
For
¯qn,c(φ,ψ)=23c∗+(k1/2ψ2+k1/4(φ−2)eφ)Λ(φ),(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m],q_n,c(φ,ψ)=A−1(A(c∗/4)−(k1/2ψ2+k1/4(φ−2)eφ)Λ(φ)),(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m], |
where
Λ(φ)=max{0,(φ+2δ4)3},φ∈(−∞,0]. |
Thanks to (13), (14), (23) and (24), direct calculations show that
c∗2≤¯qn,c(φ,ψ)≤5c∗6,c∗6≤q_n,c(φ,ψ)≤c∗3,(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m],∂A(ˉqn,c)∂φ(ζ0−n,ψ)=∂A(q_n,c)∂φ(ζ0−n,ψ)=0,ψ∈(0,m),∂ˉqn,c∂ψ(φ,0)=∂q_n,c∂ψ(φ,0)=0,φ∈(ζ0−n,0), |
∂B(ˉqn,c)∂ψ(φ,m)=2k1/2mB′(¯qn,c(φ,m))Λ(φ)≥2k1/2δ2δ34B′(5c∗/6)χ[ζ0,0](φ)≥kδ6(−φ)1/2χ[ζ0,0](φ),φ∈(ζ0−n,0),∂B(ˉqn,c)∂ψ(φ,m)=−2k1/2mB′(q_n,c(φ,m))A′(q_n,c(φ,m))Λ(φ)≤−2k1/2δ2δ34B′(c∗/6)A′(c∗/6)χ[ζ0,0](φ)≤−kδ6(−φ)1/2χ[ζ0,0](φ),φ∈(ζ0−n,0), |
∂2A(ˉqn,c)∂φ2(φ,ψ)+∂2B(ˉqn,c)∂ψ2(φ,ψ)≤B′(¯qn,c(φ,ψ))(A′(¯qn,c(φ,ψ))B′(¯qn,c(φ,ψ))∂2ˉqn,c∂φ2(φ,ψ)+∂2ˉqn,c∂ψ2(φ,ψ))≤2k1/4B′(¯qn,c(φ,ψ))(φ+2δ4)×(A′(5c∗/6)B′(5c∗/6)(3k1/4δ22−6e−2δ4)+4k1/4δ24)χ[−2δ4,0](φ)≤2k1/4B′(¯qn,c(φ,ψ))(φ+2δ4)×(−3e−2δ4A′(5c∗/6)B′(5c∗/6)+4k1/4δ24)χ[−2δ4,0](φ)≤0,(φ,ψ)∈(ζ0−n,0)×(0,m), |
and
∂2A(q_n,c)∂φ2(φ,ψ)+∂2B(q_n,c)∂ψ2(φ,ψ)≥∂2A(q_n,c)∂φ2(φ,ψ)+B′(q_n,c(φ,ψ))A′(q_n,c(φ,ψ))∂2A(q_n,c)∂ψ2(φ,ψ)≥2k1/4(φ+2δ4)(6e−2δ4−3k1/4δ22−4k1/4δ24B′(c∗/3)A′(c∗/3))χ[−2δ4,0](φ)≥2k1/4(φ+2δ4)(3e−2δ4−4k1/4δ24B′(c∗/3)A′(c∗/3))χ[−2δ4,0](φ)≥0,(φ,ψ)∈(ζ0−n,0)×(0,m), |
where
Step 2. A priori estimates of the average of solutions to the problem (26)–(29), (31).
Lemma 3.2. Assume that
1m∫m0A(qn,c(φ,ψ))dψ=1m∫m0A(qn,c(ζ0,ψ))dψ,φ∈[ζ0−n,ζ0]. | (34) |
Furthermore, there exist three constants
A(c)−kσ2min{−φ,−ζ0}≤1m∫m0A(qn,c(φ,ψ))dψ≤A(c)−kσ1min{−φ,−ζ0},φ∈[ζ0−n,0]. | (35) |
Proof. The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma 3.2 in [21]. Integrating (26) over
d2dφ2∫m0A(qn,c(φ,ψ))dψ=−f″k(x)(1+(f′k(x))2)3/2Qup(x)|x=Xup(φ),φ∈(ζ0−n,0). | (36) |
And (27) yields that
ddφ∫m0A(qn,c(ζ0−n,ψ))dψ=0. | (37) |
One gets from (6), (36) and (37) that
ddφ∫m0A(qn,c(φ,ψ))dψ=0,φ∈[ζ0−n,ζ0], | (38) |
and
ddφ∫m0A(qn,c(φ,ψ))dψ=−∫φζ0f″k(x)(1+(f′k(x))2)3/2Qup(x)|x=Xup(s)ds=−∫Xup(φ)−l0f″k(x)Φ′up(x)(1+(f′k(x))2)3/2Qup(x)dx=−∫Xup(φ)−l0(arctanf′k(x))′dx=−arctanf′k(Xup(φ)),φ∈[ζ0,0]. | (39) |
Thus (34) follows from (38). As in the proof of Lemma 3.2 in [21], it follows from (15) and (39) that
1m∫m0A(qn,c(φ,ψ))dψ=1m∫m0A(qn,c(0,ψ))dψ+1m∫0φarctanf′k(Xup(˜φ))d˜φ=A(c)+1m∫0φarctanf′k(Xup(˜φ))d˜φ=A(c)−kc∗f(Xup(φ))+O(k5/4),φ∈[ζ0,0], | (40) |
where
Step 3. A priori derivative estimates of solutions to the problem (26)–(29), (31).
Lemma 3.3. Assume that
|∂qn,c∂ψ(φ,ψ)|≤kσ3(min{−φ,−ζ0})1/2,(φ,ψ)∈(ζ0−n,0)×(0,m), | (41) |
|A(qn,c(φ1,ψ1))−A(qn,c(φ2,ψ2))|≤kσ4(|φ1−φ2|1/2+|ψ1−ψ2|),(φ1,ψ1),(φ2,ψ2)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m], | (42) |
where
Proof. The proof is similar to Proposition 3.2 in [20]. Set
z(φ,ψ)=∂B(qn,c)∂ψ(φ,ψ),(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m]. |
Then
j1(φ,ψ)∂2z∂φ2+∂2z∂ψ2+j2(φ,ψ)∂z∂φ+j3(φ,ψ)∂z∂ψ+j4(φ,ψ)z=0,(φ,ψ)∈(ζ0−n,0)×(0,m), | (43) |
∂z∂φ(ζ0−n,ψ)=0,ψ∈(0,m), | (44) |
z(φ,0)=0,φ∈(ζ0−n,0), | (45) |
z(φ,m)=f″k(x)(1+(f′k(x))2)3/2Qup(x)|x=Xup(φ),φ∈(ζ0−n,0), | (46) |
z(0,ψ)=0,ψ∈(0,m), | (47) |
where
j1=E′(B(qn,c))>0,j2=E″(B(qn,c))E′(B(qn,c))∂A(qn,c)∂φ,j3=−E″(B(qn,c))E′(B(qn,c))∂B(qn,c)∂ψ,j4=(E‴(B(qn,c))(E′(B(qn,c)))2−(E″(B(qn,c)))2(E′(B(qn,c)))3)(∂A(qn,c)∂φ)2≤−(E″(B(qn,c)))2(E′(B(qn,c)))3(∂A(qn,c)∂φ)2≤0 |
and
14j1(φ,ψ)(−φ)−3/2−j4(φ,ψ)(−φ)1/2≥√−j1(φ,ψ)j4(φ,ψ)(−φ)−1/2≥−12j2(φ,ψ)(−φ)−1/2,(φ,ψ)∈(ζ0−n,0)×(0,m). |
Due to (24), one can show that
z±(φ,ψ)=±kδ6(−φ)1/2,(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m] |
are a supersolution and a subsolution to the problem (43)–(47), respectively. The comparison principle (Proposition 3.2 in [20]) implies that
|z(φ,ψ)|≤kδ6(−φ)1/2,(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m]. | (48) |
Define
˜z±(φ,ψ)=±kδ6(−ζ0)1/2,(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,ζ0]×[0,m]. |
It is easy to verify that
j1(φ,ψ)∂2z∂φ2+∂2z∂ψ2+j2(φ,ψ)∂z∂φ+j3(φ,ψ)∂z∂ψ+j4(φ,ψ)z=0,(φ,ψ)∈(ζ0−n,ζ0)×(0,m),∂z∂φ(ζ0−n,ψ)=0,ψ∈(0,m),z(φ,0)=0,φ∈(ζ0−n,ζ0),z(φ,m)=0,φ∈(ζ0−n,ζ0),z(ζ0,ψ)=z(ζ0,ψ),ψ∈(0,m), |
respectively. The comparison principle shows that
|z(φ,ψ)|≤kδ6(−ζ0)1/2,(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,ζ0]×[0,m], |
which, together with (48), leads to (41). Finally, (42) can be proved in the same way as the proof of Proposition 3.2 in [20].
Step 4. Well-posedness of the truncated problem (26)–(30).
Lemma 3.4. Assume that
|∂qn∂ψ(φ,ψ)|≤kσ3(min{−φ,−ζ0})1/2,(φ,ψ)∈(ζ0−n,0)×(0,m), | (49) |
|A(qn(φ1,ψ1))−A(qn(φ2,ψ2))|≤kσ4(|φ1−φ2|1/2+|ψ1−ψ2|),(φ1,ψ1),(φ2,ψ2)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m], | (50) |
c∗−σ6k1/2(min{−φ,−ζ0})1/2≤qn(φ,ψ)≤c∗−σ5k1/2(min{−φ,−ζ0})1/2,(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m], | (51) |
where
Proof. The uniqueness result follows from Proposition 3.2 in [20]. For
Ck={c∈[c∗/3,c∗):the problem (26)–(29), (31) admits a solutionqn,c∈C∞((ζ0−n,0)×(0,m))∩C1([ζ0−n,0]×[0,m])with (32) and (33)}. |
It follows from Lemma 3.1 and the comparison principle (Proposition 3.2 in [20]) that
qn,c(φ,ψφ)≤c∗−(kσ1N2)1/2(min{−φ,−ζ0})1/2, |
which, together with (41), yields
qn,c(φ,ψ)=qn,c(φ,ψφ)+∫ψψφ∂qn,c∂ψ(φ,˜ψ)d˜ψ≤c∗−((σ1N2)1/2−k1/2σ3δ2)k1/2(min{−φ,−ζ0})1/2,(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m]. | (52) |
Choose
σ5=(σ14N2)1/2,k3=min{k1,k2,σ14σ23δ22N2,σ45δ2416}. |
For
c∗/4≤qn,c(φ,ψ)≤c∗−σ5k1/2(min{−φ,−ζ0})1/2,(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m], | (53) |
qn,c(ζ0−n,ψ)≤c∗−2k3/4,ψ∈[0,m]. | (54) |
It follows from
|A(qn,c(φ,ψ))−A(c)|≤kσ4(−φ)1/2,ψ∈[0,m]. | (55) |
Thanks to (53)–(55), one can prove from the comparison principle (Proposition 3.2 in [20]) and the continuous dependence of solutions to the problem (26)–(29), (31) that
Let
qn,c1(φ,ψ)≤qn,c2(φ,ψ),(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m]. |
Set
qn(φ,ψ)=limc→c−∗qn,c(φ,ψ),(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m]. |
Due to (41), (42) and (53), it is clear that
qn(φ,˜ψφ)≥c∗−(kσ2N1)1/2(min{−φ,−ζ0})1/2. |
This estimate above and (49) yield
qn(φ,ψ)=qn(φ,˜ψφ)+∫ψ˜ψφ∂qn∂ψ(φ,˜ψ)d˜ψ≥c∗−((σ2N1)1/2+k1/2σ3δ2)k1/2(min{−φ,−ζ0})1/2,(φ,ψ)∈[ζ0−n,0]×[0,m]. |
Hence the first inequality in (51) holds for
Let us establish the existence of the solution to the problem (16)–(19).
Proposition 1. Assume that
|∂q∂ψ(φ,ψ)|≤kσ3(min{−φ,−ζ0})1/2,(φ,ψ)∈(−∞,0)×(0,m), | (56) |
|A(q(φ1,ψ1))−A(q(φ2,ψ2))|≤kσ4(|φ1−φ2|1/2+|ψ1−ψ2|),(φ1,ψ1),(φ2,ψ2)∈(−∞,0]×[0,m], | (57) |
c∗−σ6k1/2(min{−φ,−ζ0})1/2≤q(φ,ψ)≤c∗−σ5k1/2(min{−φ,−ζ0})1/2,(φ,ψ)∈(−∞,0]×[0,m], | (58) |
where
1m∫m0A(q(φ,ψ))dψ=A(q∞),φ∈(−∞,ζ0], | (59) |
where
q∞=A−1(1m∫m0A(q(ζ0,ψ))dψ)∈[c∗−σ6k1/2(−ζ0)1/2,c∗−σ5k1/2(−ζ0)1/2]. | (60) |
Proof. For any
qn∈C∞((ζ0−n,0)×(0,m))∩C1([ζ0−n,0)×[0,m])∩C1/2([ζ0−n,0]×[0,m]) |
satisfying (49)–(51). Therefore, there exists a subsequence of
q\in C^\infty((-\infty,0)\times(0,m))\cap C^1((-\infty,0)\times[0,m])\cap C((-\infty,0]\times[0,m]). |
Integrating (16) over
\frac{{\rm d}^2}{{\rm d}\varphi^2}\int_0^m A(q(\varphi,\psi)){\rm d}\psi = 0, \quad\varphi\in(-\infty,\zeta_0), |
and then there exists some constant
\begin{align} \frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}\varphi}\int_0^m A(q(\varphi,\psi)){\rm d}\psi = C, \quad\varphi\in(-\infty,\zeta_0), \end{align} | (61) |
which implies that
\begin{align} \int_0^m A(q(\varphi,\psi)){\rm d}\psi = \int_0^m A(q(\zeta_0,\psi)){\rm d}\psi+C(\varphi-\zeta_0), \quad\varphi\in(-\infty,\zeta_0). \end{align} | (62) |
It follows from (57) and (62) that
\begin{align*} |C||\varphi-\zeta_0| &\leq \int_0^m|A(q(\varphi,\psi))-A(q(\zeta_0,\psi))| {\rm d}\psi \\ &\leq k\sigma_4\delta_2|\varphi-\zeta_0|^{1/2}, \quad\varphi\in(-\infty,\zeta_0), \end{align*} |
that is,
\begin{align} |C|\leq k\sigma_4\delta_2|\varphi-\zeta_0|^{-1/2}, \quad\varphi\in(-\infty,\zeta_0). \end{align} | (63) |
One can get
\frac{1}{m}\int_0^m A(q(\varphi,\psi)){\rm d}\psi = \frac{1}{m}\int_0^m A(q(\zeta_0,\psi)){\rm d}\psi,\quad\varphi\in(-\infty,\zeta_0]. |
Therefore, (59) holds.
The solution to the problem (16)–(19) has the following regularity and asymptotic behavior.
Proposition 2. Assume that
\begin{align} \Big|\frac{\partial q}{\partial \varphi}(\varphi,\psi)\Big| \leq\sigma_7k^{1/4}(-\varphi)^{-1/2},\quad (\varphi,\psi)\in[2\zeta_0,0)\times(0,m), \end{align} | (64) |
where
\begin{align} \begin{split} \Big|\frac{\partial q}{\partial \varphi}(\varphi,\psi)\Big| \leq\sigma_8k^{1/2}(-\varphi)^{-2},\quad &\Big|\frac{\partial q}{\partial \psi}(\varphi,\psi)\Big| \leq\sigma_8k(-\varphi)^{-2}, \\ &(\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,2\zeta_0)\times(0,m), \end{split} \end{align} | (65) |
and hence
\begin{align} \|q(\varphi,\psi)-q_\infty\|_ {L^\infty((-\infty,\zeta)\times(0,m))} \leq\sigma_9k(-\zeta)^{-2}, \quad\zeta\in(-\infty,2\zeta_0), \end{align} | (66) |
where
Proof. Similarly to the proof of Proposition 4.1 in [18], one can prove that
In the remaining of the proof, we use
q(\varphi,\psi_\varphi) = q_\infty, |
which, together with (56), yields
\begin{align} \|q(\varphi,\psi)-q_\infty\|_{L^\infty((-\infty,\zeta_0)\times(0,m))} \leq\int_0^m\Big\|\frac{\partial q}{\partial \psi}\Big\| _{L^\infty((-\infty,\zeta_0)\times(0,m))}{\rm d}\psi \leq\mu_1k. \end{align} | (67) |
Note that
\begin{align*} &\frac{\partial}{\partial \varphi}\Big(a(\varphi,\psi)\frac{\partial q}{\partial \varphi}\Big) +\frac{\partial}{\partial \psi}\Big(b(\varphi,\psi)\frac{\partial q}{\partial \psi}\Big) = 0, &&(\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,\zeta_0)\times(0,m), \\ &\frac{\partial q}{\partial \psi}(\varphi,0) = 0, &&\varphi\in(-\infty,\zeta_0), \\ &\frac{\partial q}{\partial \psi}(\varphi,m) = 0, &&\varphi\in(-\infty,\zeta_0), \end{align*} |
where
a(\varphi,\psi) = A'(q(\varphi,\psi)),\quad b(\varphi,\psi) = B'(q(\varphi,\psi)),\quad (\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,\zeta_0)\times(0,m). |
Fix integer
\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \hat{\varphi} = k^{-1/4}(\varphi-n\zeta_0)/n, &\quad\varphi\in[4n\zeta_0,n\zeta_0/2], \\ \hat{\psi} = \psi/n, &\quad\psi\in[0,m], \end{array}\right. |
and setting
\hat{q}(\hat{\varphi},\hat{\psi}) = q(n\zeta_0+k^{1/4}n\hat{\varphi},n\hat{\psi})-q_\infty, \quad(\hat{\varphi},\hat{\psi})\in [3k^{-1/4}\zeta_0,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2]\times[0,m/n]. |
One can verify that
\hat{q}\in C^\infty((3k^{-1/4}\zeta_0,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2)\times(0,m/n))\cap C^1([3k^{-1/4}\zeta_0,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2]\times[0,m/n]) |
solves
\begin{align} &\frac{\partial}{\partial \hat{\varphi}} \Big(k^{-1/2}\hat{a}(\hat{\varphi},\hat{\psi}) \frac{\partial \hat{q}}{\partial \hat{\varphi}}\Big) +\frac{\partial}{\partial \hat{\psi}} \Big(\hat{b}(\hat{\varphi},\hat{\psi}) \frac{\partial \hat{q}}{\partial \hat{\psi}}\Big) = 0, && \\ & &&(\hat{\varphi},\hat{\psi}) \in(3k^{-1/4}\zeta_0,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2)\times(0,m/n), \end{align} | (68) |
\begin{align} &\frac{\partial \hat{q}}{\partial \hat{\psi}}(\hat{\varphi},0) = 0, &&\hat{\varphi}\in (3k^{-1/4}\zeta_0,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2), \end{align} | (69) |
\begin{align} &\frac{\partial \hat{q}}{\partial \hat{\psi}}(\hat{\varphi},m/n) = 0, &&\hat{\varphi} \in(3k^{-1/4}\zeta_0,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2), \end{align} | (70) |
where
\begin{align*} \hat{a}(\hat{\varphi},\hat{\psi}) = a(n\zeta_0+k^{1/4}n\hat{\varphi},n\hat{\psi}),\quad &\hat{b}(\hat{\varphi},\hat{\psi}) = b(n\zeta_0+k^{1/4}n\hat{\varphi},n\hat{\psi}), \\ &(\hat{\varphi},\hat{\psi})\in [3k^{-1/4}\zeta_0,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2]\times[0,m/n]. \end{align*} |
Extending the problem (68)–(70) into the domain
\begin{align*} &\frac{\partial}{\partial \check{\varphi}} \Big(k^{-1/2}\check{a}(\check{\varphi},\check{\psi}) \frac{\partial \check{q}}{\partial \check{\varphi}}\Big) +\frac{\partial}{\partial \check{\psi}} \Big(\check{b}(\check{\varphi},\check{\psi}) \frac{\partial \check{q}}{\partial \check{\psi}}\Big) = 0, && \\ & &&(\check{\varphi},\check{\psi}) \in(3k^{-1/4}\zeta_0,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2)\times(0,2m), \\ &\frac{\partial \check{q}}{\partial \check{\psi}}(\check{\varphi},0) = 0, &&\check{\varphi}\in(3k^{-1/4}\zeta_0,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2), \\ &\frac{\partial \check{q}}{\partial \check{\psi}}(\check{\varphi},2m) = 0, &&\check{\varphi}\in(3k^{-1/4}\zeta_0,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2), \end{align*} |
where for
\begin{align*} \check{a}(\check{\varphi},\check{\psi}) & = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \hat{a}(\check{\varphi},\check{\psi}-(i-1)m/n), &\quad\hbox{if $i$ is odd}, \\ \hat{a}(\check{\varphi},im/n-\check{\psi}), &\quad\hbox{if $i$ is even}, \end{array}\right. \\ \check{b}(\check{\varphi},\check{\psi}) & = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \hat{b}(\check{\varphi},\check{\psi}-(i-1)m/n), &\quad\hbox{if $i$ is odd}, \\ \hat{b}(\check{\varphi},im/n-\check{\psi}), &\quad\hbox{if $i$ is even}. \end{array}\right. \end{align*} |
Duo to (13), (51) and (67), one gets that
\begin{align*} \mu_2k^{1/2}\leq\check{a}(\check{\varphi},\check\psi)\leq\mu_3k^{1/2},\quad &\mu_2\leq\check{b}(\check{\varphi},\check\psi)\leq\mu_3,\quad \\ &(\check{\varphi},\check{\psi})\in [-4k^{-1/4},3k^{-1/4}\varepsilon/(4n)]\times[0,2m], \end{align*} |
and
\|\check{q}\|_{L^\infty ((3k^{-1/4}\zeta_0,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2) \times(0,2m))}\leq\mu_1k. |
It follows from the Hölder continuity estimates for uniformly elliptic equations that there exists a number
[\check{q}]_{\beta;(5k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/4) \times(0,2m)} \leq\mu_4\|\check{q}\|_{L^\infty ((3k^{-1/4}\zeta_0,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2) \times(0,2m))} \leq\mu_5k, |
which implies
\begin{align*} [\check{a}]_{\beta;(5k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/4)\times(0,2m)} &\leq\mu_6k, \\ [\check{b}]_{\beta;(5k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/4)\times(0,2m)} &\leq\mu_6k. \end{align*} |
The Schauder estimates on uniformly elliptic equations imply that
\begin{align} \|\check{q}\|_{C^{1,\beta}((2k^{-1/4}\zeta_0,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/8) \times(0,2m))} &\leq\mu_7\|\check{q}\|_{L^\infty ((5k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/2,-k^{-1/4}\zeta_0/4)\times(0,2m))} \\ &\leq\mu_8k. \end{align} | (71) |
Transforming (71) into the
\begin{align} \begin{split} \Big\|\frac{\partial q}{\partial \varphi}\Big\|_{L^\infty((3n\zeta_0,3n\zeta_0/4)\times(0,m))} &\leq\mu_9k^{3/4}n^{-1}, \\ \Big\|\frac{\partial q}{\partial \psi}\Big\|_{L^\infty((3n\zeta_0,3n\zeta_0/4)\times(0,m))} &\leq\mu_9kn^{-1}. \end{split} \end{align} | (72) |
Similar to (67), we have from (72) that
\begin{align} \|q(\varphi,\psi)-q_\infty\|_{L^\infty((3n\zeta_0,3n\zeta_0/4)\times(0,m))} &\leq\int_0^m\Big\|\frac{\partial q_{n}}{\partial \psi}\Big\| _{L^\infty((3n\zeta_0,3n\zeta_0/4)\times(0,m))}{\rm d}\psi \\ &\leq\mu_{10}kn^{-1}. \end{align} | (73) |
Using (73) and the same operation on
\begin{align*} \begin{split} \Big\|\frac{\partial q}{\partial \varphi}\Big\|_{L^\infty((2n\zeta_0,n\zeta_0)\times(0,m))} &\leq\mu_{11}k^{1/2}n^{-2}, \\ \Big\|\frac{\partial q}{\partial \psi}\Big\|_{L^\infty((2n\zeta_0,n\zeta_0)\times(0,m))} &\leq\mu_{11}kn^{-2}, \end{split} \end{align*} |
Then the arbitrariness of
Remark 1. Through the similar process of the proof of Proposition 2, one can show that for any positive integer
\begin{align*} \Big|\frac{\partial q}{\partial \varphi}(\varphi,\psi)\Big| \leq\sigma_8'k^{1-\lambda/4}(-\varphi)^{-\lambda},\quad &\Big|\frac{\partial q}{\partial \psi}(\varphi,\psi)\Big| \leq\sigma_8'k(-\varphi)^{-\lambda}, \\ &(\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,2\zeta_0)\times(0,m) \end{align*} |
and
\|q(\varphi,\psi)-q_\infty\|_ {L^\infty((-\infty,\zeta)\times(0,m))} \leq\sigma_9'k(-\zeta)^{-\lambda}, \quad\zeta\in(-\infty,2\zeta_0), |
where
The solution to the problem (16)–(19) is also unique for small
Proposition 3. There exists a constant
Proof. In the proof, we use
w_i(\varphi,\psi) = A(q^{(i)}(\varphi,\psi)),\quad (\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,0]\times[0,m],\quad i = 1,\,2. |
Then
\begin{align*} &\frac{\partial^{2} w_{i}}{\partial \varphi^{2}} +\frac{\partial^{2} B\left(A^{-1}\left(w_{i}\right)\right)}{\partial \psi^{2}} = 0, &&(\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,0)\times(0,m), \\ &\frac{\partial w_{i}}{\partial \psi}(\varphi,0) = 0, &&\varphi\in(-\infty,0), \\ &\frac{\partial B\left(A^{-1}\left(w_{i}\right)\right)}{\partial \psi}(\varphi,m) = \frac{f''_k(x)}{(1+(f'_k(x))^2)^{3/2}Q_{\rm up}(x)}\Big|_{x = X_{\rm up}(\varphi)}, && \\ &&&\varphi\in(-\infty,0), \\ &w_i(0,\psi) = 0, &&\psi\in(0,m). \end{align*} |
Set
w(\varphi,\psi) = w_1(\varphi,\psi)-w_2(\varphi,\psi),\quad (\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,0]\times[0,m]. |
It is easy to show that
\begin{align} &\frac{\partial^{2} w}{\partial \varphi^{2}} +\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial \psi^{2}}(h(\varphi,\psi)w) = 0, &&(\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,0)\times(0,m), \end{align} | (74) |
\begin{align} &\frac{\partial w}{\partial \psi}(\varphi,0) = 0, &&\varphi\in(-\infty,0), \end{align} | (75) |
\begin{align} &\frac{\partial(h w)}{\partial \psi}(\varphi,m) = 0, &&\varphi\in(-\infty,0), \end{align} | (76) |
\begin{align} &w(0,\psi) = 0, &&\psi\in(0,m), \end{align} | (77) |
where
\begin{align*} h(\varphi,\psi) & = \int_0^1 \frac{B'(A^{-1}(\eta w_1(\varphi,\psi) +(1-\eta)w_2((\varphi,\psi))))} {A'(A^{-1}(\eta w_1(\varphi,\psi) +(1-\eta)w_2((\varphi,\psi))))}{\rm d}\eta, \\ & \quad (\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,0)\times(0,m). \end{align*} |
Thanks to (56), (58), (64) and (65), direct calculations yield
\begin{gather} \nu_1k^{1/2}\langle-\varphi\rangle^{1/2} \leq h(\varphi,\psi)\leq \nu_1k^{1/2}\langle-\varphi\rangle^{1/2}, \quad(\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,0)\times(0,m), \end{gather} | (78) |
\begin{gather} \Big|\frac{\partial h}{\partial \psi}(\varphi,\psi)\Big| \leq\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \nu_2(-\varphi)^{-1/2}, \quad(\varphi,\psi)\in[2\zeta_0,0)\times(0,m), \\ \nu_2(-\varphi)^{-2}, \quad(\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,2\zeta_0)\times(0,m), \end{array}\right. \end{gather} | (79) |
\begin{gather} \Big|\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}(\varphi,\psi)\Big| \leq\nu_2k(-\varphi)^{-2}, \quad(\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,2\zeta_0)\times(0,m), \end{gather} | (80) |
where
\begin{align*} &\int_\zeta^0\int_0^m\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi +\int_\zeta^0\int_0^mh(\varphi,\psi)\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \psi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi \\ = \,&-\int_\zeta^0\int_0^m\frac{\partial h}{\partial \psi}(\varphi,\psi) w\frac{\partial w}{\partial \psi}{\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi -\int_0^mw(\zeta,\psi)\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}(\zeta,\psi) {\rm d}\psi, \end{align*} |
which, together with (78)–(80), yields
\begin{align*} &\int_\zeta^0\int_0^m\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi +k^{-1/2}\int_\zeta^0\int_0^m \langle-\varphi\rangle^{1/2}\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \psi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi \\ \leq\,&\nu_3\int_{2\zeta_0}^0\int_0^m(-\varphi)^{-1/2} \Big|w\frac{\partial w}{\partial \psi}\Big|{\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi +\nu_3\int_\zeta^{2\zeta_0}\int_0^m(-\varphi)^{-2} \Big|w\frac{\partial w}{\partial \psi}\Big|{\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi \\ &\qquad+\nu_3k(-\zeta)^{-2} \int_0^m|w(\zeta,\psi)|{\rm d}\psi. \end{align*} |
Then the Hölder's inequality gives
\begin{align} &\int_\zeta^0\int_0^m\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi +k^{-1/2}\int_\zeta^0\int_0^m \langle-\varphi\rangle^{1/2}\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \psi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi \\ \leq\,&\nu_4k^{1/2}\int_{2\zeta_0}^0\int_0^m (-\varphi)^{-1/2}w^2{\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi +\nu_4k^{1/2}\int_\zeta^{2\zeta_0}\int_0^m (-\varphi)^{-4}w^2{\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi \\ &\qquad+\nu_4k(-\zeta)^{-2} \int_0^m|w(\zeta,\psi)|{\rm d}\psi. \end{align} | (81) |
It follows from the Hölder's inequality and Cauchy inequality that
\begin{align} \int_{2\zeta_0}^0\int_0^m (-\varphi)^{-1/2}w^2{\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi &\leq\int_{2\zeta_0}^0\int_0^m(-\varphi)^{-1/2} \bigg(\int_\varphi^0\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}(s,\psi) {\rm d}s\bigg)^2{\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi \\ &\leq\int_{2\zeta_0}^0(-\varphi)^{1/2} {\rm d}\varphi \int_{\zeta_0}^0\int_0^m \Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\varphi{\rm d}\psi \\ &\leq(-2\zeta_0)^{3/2}\int_\zeta^0\int_0^m \Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\varphi{\rm d}\psi, \end{align} | (82) |
\begin{align} \int_\zeta^{2\zeta_0}\int_0^m (-\varphi)^{-4}w^2{\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi &\leq\int_\zeta^{2\zeta_0}\int_0^m(-\varphi)^{-4} \bigg(\int_\varphi^0\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}(s,\psi) {\rm d}s\bigg)^2{\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi \\ &\leq\int_\zeta^{2\zeta_0}(-\varphi)^{-3} {\rm d}\varphi \int_\zeta^0\int_0^m\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi \\ &\leq(-2\zeta_0)^{-2} \int_\zeta^0\int_0^m\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi, \end{align} | (83) |
and
\begin{align} \int_0^m|w(\zeta,\psi)|{\rm d}\psi &\leq\dfrac{m}{2}+\dfrac{1}{2} \int_0^mw^2(\zeta,\psi){\rm d}\psi \\ &\leq\dfrac{\delta_2}{2}+\int_0^m \bigg(\int_\zeta^0\Big|\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big| {\rm d}\varphi\bigg)^2{\rm d}\psi \\ &\leq\dfrac{\delta_2}{2}+(-\zeta) \int_\zeta^0\int_0^m \Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big)^2{\rm d}\varphi{\rm d}\psi. \end{align} | (84) |
Substituting (82)–(84) into (81) to get
\begin{align} &\int_\zeta^0\int_0^m\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi +k^{-1/2}\int_\zeta^0\int_0^m \langle-\varphi\rangle^{1/2}\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \psi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi \\ \leq\,&\nu_5k^{1/2}\int_\zeta^0\int_0^m\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi +\nu_5k(-\zeta)^{-2} +\nu_5k(-\zeta)^{-1}\int_\zeta^0\int_0^m \Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big)^2{\rm d}\varphi{\rm d}\psi \\ \leq\,&2\nu_5k^{1/2}\int_\zeta^0\int_0^m\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi +\nu_5k(-\zeta)^{-2}. \end{align} | (85) |
Choose
\begin{align} \int_\zeta^0\int_0^m\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi +k^{-1/2}\int_\zeta^0\int_0^m \langle-\varphi\rangle^{1/2}\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \psi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi \leq2\nu_5k^{1/2}(-\zeta)^{-2}. \end{align} | (86) |
Taking
\int_{-\infty}^0\int_0^m\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi +k^{-1/2}\int_{-\infty}^0\int_0^m \langle-\varphi\rangle^{1/2}\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \psi}\Big)^2 {\rm d}\psi{\rm d}\varphi \leq0, |
which implies
\begin{align} \frac{\partial w}{\partial \varphi}(\varphi,\psi) = \frac{\partial w}{\partial \psi}(\varphi,\psi) = 0, \quad(\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,0)\times(0,m). \end{align} | (87) |
It follows (77) and (87) that
w(\varphi,\psi) = 0,\quad (\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,0]\times[0,m]. |
Therefore,
First we prove the existence of the solution to the problem (16)–(20) by a fixed point argument.
Theorem 4.1. Assume that
\begin{gather} q\in C^\infty((-\infty,0)\times(0,m)) \cap C^1((-\infty,0)\times[0,m]) \cap C^{1/2}((-\infty,0]\times[0,m]) \\ \Big|\frac{\partial q}{\partial \psi}(\varphi,\psi)\Big| \leq k\sigma_3(\min\{-\varphi,-\zeta_0\})^{1/2}, \quad(\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,0)\times(0,m), \end{gather} | (88) |
\begin{gather} |A(q(\varphi_1,\psi_1))-A(q(\varphi_2,\psi_2))| \leq k\sigma_4(|\varphi_1-\varphi_2|^{1/2}+|\psi_1-\psi_2|), \\ (\varphi_1,\psi_1),\, (\varphi_2,\psi_2)\in(-\infty,0]\times[0,m], \end{gather} | (89) |
\begin{gather} c_*-\sigma_6k^{1/2}(\min\{-\varphi,-\zeta_0\})^{1/2} \leq q(\varphi,\psi)\leq c_*-\sigma_5k^{1/2}(\min\{-\varphi,-\zeta_0\})^{1/2}, \\ (\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,0]\times[0,m], \end{gather} | (90) |
where
\begin{align} m = q_\infty\rho(q_\infty^2)(f_k(-l_0)+l_1),\quad c_*-\sigma_6k^{1/2}(-\zeta_0)^{1/2}\leq q_\infty \leq c_*-\sigma_5k^{1/2}(-\zeta_0)^{1/2}, \end{align} | (91) |
and
\begin{align} \Big|\frac{\partial q}{\partial \varphi}(\varphi,\psi)\Big| \leq\sigma_7k^{1/4}(-\varphi)^{-1/2},\quad (\varphi,\psi)\in[2\zeta_0,0)\times(0,m), \end{align} | (92) |
and for any positive integer
\begin{align} \begin{split} \Big|\frac{\partial q}{\partial \varphi}(\varphi,\psi)\Big| \leq\sigma_8'k^{1-\lambda/4}(-\varphi)^{-\lambda},\quad &\Big|\frac{\partial q}{\partial \psi}(\varphi,\psi)\Big| \leq\sigma_8'k(-\varphi)^{-\lambda}, \\ &(\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,2\zeta_0)\times(0,m), \end{split} \end{align} | (93) |
and
\begin{align} \|q(\varphi,\psi)-q_\infty\|_ {L^\infty((-\infty,\zeta)\times(0,m))} \leq\sigma_9'k(-\zeta)^{-\lambda}, \quad\zeta\in(-\infty,2\zeta_0), \end{align} | (94) |
where
Proof. Choose
\begin{align*} k_0 = \min\bigg\{k_3,\,k_4,\, \frac{c_*^2}{4\sigma_6^2\delta_4},\, \frac{1}{\sigma_6^4\delta_4^2},\, \frac{N_1}{2\sigma_4\delta_5^{1/2}}\bigg\}. \end{align*} |
For
\mathscr{Q} = \left\{(m,Q_{\rm up})\in [\delta_1,\delta_2]\times C^{1/4}((-\infty,0]):\, \hbox{$Q_{\rm up}$ satisfies $(22)$}\right\} |
with the norm
\|(m,Q_{\rm up})\|_{\mathscr{Q}} = \max\left\{m,\, \|Q_{\rm up}\|_{L^\infty(-\infty,0)}\right\}. |
For a given
\hat{m} = q_\infty\rho(q_\infty^2)(f_k(-l_0)+l_1),\quad \widehat{Q}_{\rm up}(x) = q(\Phi_{\rm up}(x),m), \quad x\in(-\infty,0]. |
From (56)–(58), (66) and the choice of
\mathcal{K}:\,\mathscr{Q}\to\mathscr{Q},\quad (m,Q_{\rm up}) \mapsto(\hat{m},\widehat{Q}_{\rm up}). |
is a self-mapping. Furthermore, one can prove the compactness of
From Theorem 4.1, for
\begin{align} \begin{split} &\max\left\{\dfrac{c_*}{2},\, c_*-M_1k^{1/2}(\min\{-\varphi,-\zeta_0\})^{1/2}\right\} \\ \le\,&q(\varphi,\psi)\le c_*-M_2k^{1/2}(\min\{-\varphi,-\zeta_0\})^{1/2}, \\ & \quad (\varphi,\psi)\in(-\infty,0)\times(0,m) \end{split} \end{align} | (95) |
and
\|q(\varphi,\psi)-q_\infty\|_{L^\infty((-\infty,\zeta)\times(0,m)} \leq M_3k(-\zeta)^{-2}, \quad\zeta < 2\zeta_0, |
where
\begin{gather*} m = q_\infty\rho(q_\infty^2)(f_k(-l_0)+l_1), \\ \max\left\{\dfrac{c_*}{2},\,c_*-M_1k^{1/2}(-\zeta_0)^{1/2}\right\} \le q_\infty\le c_*-M_2k^{1/2}(-\zeta_0)^{1/2}, \end{gather*} |
and
Theorem 4.2. Assume that
Proof. In the proof, we use
\left\{\begin{array}{ll} x = X_{{\rm up},i}(\varphi),&\varphi\in(-\infty,0], \\ y = \dfrac{\psi}{m^{(i)}},&\psi\in[0,m^{(i)}], \end{array}\right.\qquad \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \varphi = \Phi_{{\rm up},i}(x),&x\in(-\infty,0], \\ \psi = m^{(i)}y,&y\in[0,1]. \end{array}\right. |
Define
W_i(x,y) = A(q^{(i)}(\Phi_{{\rm up},i}(x),m^{(i)}y)),\quad (x,y)\in(-\infty,0]\times[0,1],\quad i = 1,\,2. |
Then
\begin{align} &\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\Big(m^{(i)}X_i(x)\frac{\partial W_{i}}{\partial x}\Big) +\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\Big(\frac{1}{m^{(i)}X_i(x)}\frac{\partial B\left(A^{-1}\left(W_{i}\right)\right)}{\partial y}\Big) = 0, && \\ &&&(x,y)\in(-\infty,0)\times(0,1), \end{align} | (96) |
\begin{align} &\frac{\partial W_{i}}{\partial y}(x,0) = 0, &&x\in(-\infty,0), \end{align} | (97) |
\begin{align} &\frac{1}{m^{(i)}X_i(x)}\frac{\partial B\left(A^{-1}\left(W_{i}\right)\right)}{\partial y}(x,1) = \frac{f''_k(x)}{1+(f'_k(x))^2}, &&x\in(-\infty,0), \end{align} | (98) |
\begin{align} &W_i(0,y) = 0, &&y\in(0,1), \end{align} | (99) |
where
X_i(x) = \frac{1}{(1+(f'_k(x))^2)^{1/2} A^{-1}(W_i(x,{f_k(-L_0)}))},\quad x\in(-\infty,0]. |
Set
W(x,y) = W_1(x,y)-W_2(x,y),\quad (x,y)\in(-\infty,0]\times[0,1]. |
One can verify from that
\begin{align} &\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\Big(m^{(1)}X_1(x)\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big) +\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\Big(\dfrac{1}{m^{(1)}X_1(x)}H(x,y)\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big) \\[1.5 mm] &\qquad+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\Big(m^{(1)}X(x)\frac{\partial W_{2}}{\partial x}\Big) +\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\Big(mX_2(x)\frac{\partial W_{2}}{\partial x}\Big) \\[1.5 mm] &\qquad+\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\Big(\dfrac{1}{m^{(1)}X_1(x)}\frac{\partial Z}{\partial y}(x,y)W\Big) -\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\Big(\dfrac{m}{m^{(1)}m^{(2)}X_1(x)}\frac{\partial B\left(A^{-1}\left(W_{2}\right)\right)}{\partial y}\Big) \\[1.5 mm] &\qquad-\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\Big(\dfrac{X(x)}{m^{(2)}X_1(x)X_2(x)} \frac{\partial B\left(A^{-1}\left(W_{2}\right)\right)}{\partial y}\Big) = 0,\quad(x,y)\in(-\infty,0)\times(0,1), \end{align} | (100) |
where
\begin{gather*} m = m^{(1)}-m^{(2)}, \\ X(x) = X_1(x)-X_2(x),\quad x\in(-\infty,0], \\ H(x,y) = \int_0^1\dfrac{B'(A^{-1} (\eta W_1(x,y)+(1-\eta)W_2(x,y)))} {A'(A^{-1}(\eta W_1(x,y)+(1-\eta)W_2(x,y)))}{\rm d}\eta, \quad(x,y)\in(-\infty,0)\times(0,1). \end{gather*} |
It follows from (13), (59), (88) and (90)–(93) that
\begin{gather} C_1k^{-1/2}\langle-x\rangle^{-1/2} \leq H(x,y)\leq C_2k^{-1/2}\langle-x\rangle^{-1/2}, \quad(x,y)\in(-\infty,0)\times(0,1), \end{gather} | (101) |
\begin{gather} \Big|\frac{\partial H}{\partial y}(x,y)\Big| \leq\left\{\begin{array}{ll} C_2(-x)^{-1/2},&(x,y)\in[-L_0,0)\times(0,1), \\ C_2(-x)^{-2},&(x,y)\in(-\infty,-L_0)\times(0,1), \end{array}\right. \end{gather} | (102) |
\begin{gather} \Big|\frac{\partial W_{i}}{\partial x}(x,y)\Big| \leq\left\{\begin{array}{ll} C_2k^{3/4},&(x,y)\in[-L_0,0)\times(0,1), \\ C_2k(-x)^{-2},&(x,y)\in(-\infty,-L_0)\times(0,1), \end{array}\right.\quad i = 1,\,2, \end{gather} | (103) |
\begin{gather} \Big|\frac{\partial B\left(A^{-1}\left(W_{2}\right)\right)}{\partial y}(x,y)\Big| \leq\left\{\begin{array}{ll} C_2k(-x)^{1/2},&(x,y)\in[-L_0,0)\times(0,1), \\ C_2k(-x)^{-2},&(x,y)\in(-\infty,-L_0)\times(0,1), \end{array}\right. \end{gather} | (104) |
\begin{gather} |X(x)|\leq\left\{\begin{array}{ll} C_2k^{-1/2}(-x)^{-1/2}|W(x,1)|, &(x,y)\in[-L_0,0)\times(0,1), \\ C_2k^{-1/2}|W(x,1)|, &(x,y)\in(-\infty,-L_0)\times(0,1), \end{array}\right. \end{gather} | (105) |
\begin{gather} |m|\leq C_2\bigg(\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1 \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x\bigg)^{1/2}, \end{gather} | (106) |
where
\langle-x\rangle = \min\{-x,\,L_0\},\quad L_0 = 3l_0\left(1+\|f'\|_{L^\infty((-l_0,0))}^2\right)^{1/2}. |
Fix
\begin{align*} &\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1m^{(1)}X_1(x)\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x +\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\frac{1}{m^{(1)}X_1(x)}H(x,y) \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ = \,&-\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1m^{(1)}X(x)\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\frac{\partial W_{2}}{\partial x} {\rm d}y{\rm d}x -\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1mX_2(x)\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\frac{\partial W_{2}}{\partial x} {\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad-\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\dfrac{1}{m^{(1)}X_1(x)} \frac{\partial H}{\partial y}(x,y)W\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad+\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\dfrac{m}{m^{(1)}m^{(2)}X_1(x)} \frac{\partial B\left(A^{-1}\left(W_{2}\right)\right)}{\partial y}\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad+\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \dfrac{X(x)}{m^{(2)}X_1(x)X_2(x)}\frac{\partial B\left(A^{-1}\left(W_{2}\right)\right)}{\partial y} \frac{\partial W}{\partial y}{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad+\int_0^1W(-L,y)\Big(m^{(1)}X_1(-L)\frac{\partial W_{1}}{\partial x}(-L,y) -m^{(2)}X_2(-L)\frac{\partial W_{2}}{\partial x}(-L,y)\Big){\rm d}y, \end{align*} |
which, together with (23), (90), (101) and (103), yields
\begin{align} \begin{split} &\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x +k^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\langle-x\rangle^{-1/2} \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&C_3\underbrace{\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \Big|X(x)\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\frac{\partial W_{2}}{\partial x}\Big| {\rm d}y{\rm d}x}_{J_1} +C_3\underbrace{\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \Big|m\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\frac{\partial W_{2}}{\partial x}\Big| {\rm d}y{\rm d}x}_{J_2} \\ &\qquad+C_3\underbrace{\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \Big|\frac{\partial H}{\partial y}(x,y)W\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big|{\rm d}y{\rm d}x}_{J_3} \\ &\qquad+C_3\underbrace{\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \Big|m\frac{\partial B\left(A^{-1}\left(W_{2}\right)\right)}{\partial y}\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big| {\rm d}y{\rm d}x}_{J_4} \\ &\qquad+C_3\underbrace{\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \Big|X(x)\frac{\partial B\left(A^{-1}\left(W_{2}\right)\right)}{\partial y}\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big| {\rm d}y{\rm d}x}_{J_5} \\ &\qquad+C_3k(-L)^{-2} \underbrace{\int_0^1|W(-L,y)|{\rm d}y}_{I_L}. \end{split} \end{align} | (107) |
Below, let us make estimates on
\begin{align} &\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1(-x)^{-\vartheta_1}W^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1(-x)^{-\vartheta_1} \bigg(\int_x^0\left|\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}(s,y)\right| {\rm d}s\bigg)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&\int_{-L_0}^0(-x)^{1-\vartheta_1}{\rm d}x \int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1\left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial x}\right)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&\dfrac{L_0^{2-\vartheta_1}}{2-\vartheta_1} \int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\left(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\right)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x,\quad\vartheta_1\in[0,2), \end{align} | (108) |
and
\begin{align} &\int_{-L}^{-L_0}\int_0^1 (-x)^{-\vartheta_2}W^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&\int_{-L}^{-L_0}\int_0^1(-x)^{-\vartheta_2} \bigg(\int_x^0\Big|\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}(s,y)\Big|{\rm d}s \bigg)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&\int_{-L}^{-L_0}(-x)^{1-\vartheta_2}{\rm d}x \int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&\dfrac{L_0^{2-\vartheta_2}}{\vartheta_2-2} \int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x, \quad\vartheta_2\in(2,+\infty). \end{align} | (109) |
Then from the Cauchy's inequality, (108) and (109), we have
\begin{align} &\int_{-L_0}^0W^2(x,1){\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1W^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x +2\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1\Big|W\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big| {\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ \leq\,& L_0^2\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\left(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\right)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x +k^{1/2}L_0^{1/2}\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1W^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad+k^{-1/2}\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1(-x)^{-1/2} \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&(L_0^2+L_0^{5/2})\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad+k^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\langle-x\rangle^{-1/2} \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x, \end{align} | (110) |
\begin{align} &\int_{-L_0}^0(-x)^{-1}W^2(x,1){\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1(-x)^{-1}W^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x +2\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1(-x)^{-1}\Big|W\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big| {\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&L_0\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x +k^{1/2}\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1(-x)^{-3/2}W^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad+k^{-1/2}\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1(-x)^{-1/2} \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&(L_0+2L_0^{1/2})\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad+k^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\langle-x\rangle^{-1/2} \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x, \end{align} | (111) |
and
\begin{align} &\int_{-L}^{-L_0}(-x)^{-4}W^2(x,1){\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&\int_{-L}^{-L_0}\int_0^1 (-x)^{-4}W^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x +2\int_{-L}^{-L_0}\int_0^1(-x)^{-4} \Big|W\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big|{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ \leq\,& L_0^{-2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x +k^{1/2}L_0^{1/2}\int_{-L}^{-L_0}\int_0^1(-x)^{-8}W^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad+k^{-1/2}L_0^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^{-L_0}\int_0^1 \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&(L_0^{-2}+L_0^{-5/2}) \int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad+k^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\langle-x\rangle^{-1/2} \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x. \end{align} | (112) |
It follows from Cauchy's inequality with
\begin{align} J_1&\leq\varepsilon\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x +\dfrac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 |X(x)|^2\Big|\frac{\partial W_{2}}{\partial x}\Big|^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\leq\varepsilon\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x +\dfrac{C_2^2k^{1/2}}{\varepsilon}\int_{-L_0}^0 (-x)^{-1}W^2(x,1){\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad\quad+\dfrac{C_2^2k}{\varepsilon}\int_{-L}^{-L_0} (-x)^{-4}W^2(x,1){\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\leq C_4\Big(\varepsilon+\dfrac{k^{1/2}}{\varepsilon}\Big) \int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad\quad+\dfrac{C_4k^{1/2}}{\varepsilon} \cdot k^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\langle-x\rangle^{-1/2} \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x, \end{align} | (113) |
\begin{align} J_2&\leq\varepsilon\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x +\dfrac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1m^2 \Big(\frac{\partial W_{2}}{\partial x}\big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\leq\varepsilon\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x +\dfrac{C_2^2}{\varepsilon}m^2\bigg(k^{3/2} +L_0k^2\int_{-L}^{-L_0}(-x)^{-4}{\rm d}x\bigg) \\ &\leq C_4\Big(\varepsilon+\dfrac{k^{1/2}}{\varepsilon}\Big) \int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x, \end{align} | (114) |
\begin{align} J_3&\leq C_2\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1 (-x)^{-1/2}\Big|W\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big|{\rm d}y{\rm d}x +C_2\int_{-L}^{-L_0}\int_0^1 (-x)^{-2}\Big|W\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big|{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\leq\dfrac{C_2k^{1/2}}{\varepsilon}\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1 (-x)^{-1/2}W^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x +\dfrac{C_2L_0^{1/2}k^{1/2}}{\varepsilon} \int_{-L}^{-L_0}\int_0^1 (-x)^{-4}W^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad\quad+C_2\varepsilon k^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \langle-x\rangle^{-1/2}\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\leq\dfrac{C_4k^{1/2}}{\varepsilon}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x +C_4\varepsilon k^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \langle-x\rangle^{-1/2}\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x, \end{align} | (115) |
\begin{align} J_4&\leq C_2k\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1 (-x)^{1/2}\Big|m\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big|{\rm d}y{\rm d}x +C_2k\int_{-L}^{-L_0}\int_0^1 (-x)^{-2}\Big|m\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big|{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\leq\dfrac{C_2k^{5/2}}{\varepsilon}m^2 \bigg(\int_{-L_0}^0(-x)^{3/2}{\rm d}x +\int_{-L}^{-L_0}(-x)^{-4}{\rm d}x\bigg) \\ &\qquad\quad+C_2\varepsilon k^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \langle-x\rangle^{-1/2}\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\leq\dfrac{C_4k^{1/2}}{\varepsilon}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x +C_4\varepsilon k^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \langle-x\rangle^{-1/2}\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x, \end{align} | (116) |
and
\begin{align} J_5&\leq C_2^2k^{1/2}\int_{-L_0}^0\int_0^1 \Big|W(x,1)\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big|{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad\quad+C_2^2k^{1/2}\int_{-L}^{-L_0}\int_0^1(-x)^{-2} \Big|W(x,1)\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big|{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\leq\dfrac{C_2^2L_0^{1/2}k^{3/2}}{\varepsilon} \int_{-L_0}^0W^2(x,1){\rm d}x +\dfrac{C_2^2L_0^{1/2}k^{3/2}}{\varepsilon} \int_{-L}^{-L_0}(-x)^{-4}W^2(x,1){\rm d}x \\ &\qquad\quad+C_2^2\varepsilon k^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \langle-x\rangle^{-1/2}\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\leq\dfrac{C_4k^{1/2}}{\varepsilon}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ &\qquad\quad+C_4\Big(\varepsilon+\dfrac{k^{1/2}}{\varepsilon}\Big) k^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \langle-x\rangle^{-1/2}\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x, \end{align} | (117) |
where
\begin{align} I_L&\leq1+\int_0^1W^2(-L,y){\rm d}y \\ &\leq1+\int_0^1 \bigg(\int_{-L}^0\Big|\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big|{\rm d}x\bigg)^2{\rm d}y \\ &\leq1+(-L)\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1 \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x. \end{align} | (118) |
Substituting (113)–(118) into (107) to get
\begin{align} &\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x +k^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\langle-x\rangle^{-1/2} \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \\ \leq\,&C_5\Big(\varepsilon+\dfrac{k^{1/2}}{\varepsilon}\Big) \bigg(\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x +k^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\langle-x\rangle^{-1/2} \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x\bigg) \\ &\qquad\quad+C_5(-L)^{-1} +C_5k\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x. \end{align} | (119) |
Choose
\begin{align} \int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x +k^{-1/2}\int_{-L}^0\int_0^1\langle-x\rangle^{-1/2} \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \leq 2C_5(-L)^{-1}. \end{align} | (120) |
Taking
\begin{align*} \int_{-\infty}^0\int_0^1\Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}\Big)^2 {\rm d}y{\rm d}x +k^{-1/2}\int_{-\infty}^0\int_0^1\langle-x\rangle^{-1/2} \Big(\frac{\partial W}{\partial y}\Big)^2{\rm d}y{\rm d}x \leq0, \end{align*} |
which shows that
\frac{\partial W}{\partial x}(x,y) = \frac{\partial W}{\partial y}(x,y) = 0,\quad (x,y)\in(-\infty,0)\times(0,1). |
Then
In terms of the physical variables, Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 can be transformed as
Theorem 4.3. Assume that
\begin{align*} \max\left\{\frac{c_*}{2},\,c_*-\widetilde{M}_2(k\,{\rm dist}_S(\langle x\rangle,y))^{1/2}\right\} \leq|\nabla\varphi(x,y)|\leq c_*-\widetilde{M}_1(k\,{\rm dist}_S(\langle x\rangle,y))^{1/2}, \\ (x,y)\in\varOmega_k, \end{align*} |
where
\|\varphi(x,y)-q_\infty x\|_ {C^1(\varOmega_k\cap\{x < -R\})} \leq\widetilde{M}_3kR^{-\lambda},\quad R > l_0, |
where
\max\left\{\frac{c_*}{2},\,c_*-\widetilde{M}_2(kl_0)^{1/2}\right\} \leq q_\infty\leq c_*-\widetilde{M}_1(kl_0)^{1/2}. |
Therefore, the flow is uniformly subsonic at the far fields.
[1] | Abduh M, Omar MA, Mesic E (2017) Profitability determinants of Islamic and conventional banks in Malaysia: a panel regression approach. Terengganu Int Financ Econ J 3: 1-7. |
[2] |
Abid L, Ouertani MN, Zouari-Ghorbel S (2014) Macroeconomic and bank-specific determinants of household's non-performing loans in Tunisia: A dynamic panel data. Procedia Econ Financ 13: 58-68. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00430-4
![]() |
[3] | Adhikary BK (2006) Nonperforming loans in the banking sector of Bangladesh: realities and challenges. Bangladesh Inst Bank Manage 4: 75-95. |
[4] |
Ahmad AUF, Hassan MK (2007) Regulation and performance of Islamic banking in Bangladesh. Thunderbird Int Bus Rev 49: 251-277. doi: 10.1002/tie.20142
![]() |
[5] |
Akter R, Roy JK (2017) The impacts of non-performing loan on profitability: An empirical study on banking sector of Dhaka stock exchange. Int J Econ Financ 9: 126-132. doi: 10.5539/ijef.v9n3p126
![]() |
[6] |
Beltrame F, Previtali D, Sclip A (2018) Systematic risk and banks leverage: The role of asset quality. Financ Res Lett 27: 113-117. doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2018.02.015
![]() |
[7] | Broni MY, Hosen M, Masih A (2019) Does a country's external debt level affect its Islamic banking sector development? Evidence from Malaysia based on quantile regression and markov regime switching. Quant Financ Econ 3: 366-389. |
[8] |
Chava S, Purnanandam A (2011) The effect of banking crisis on bank-dependent borrowers. J Financ Econ 99: 116-135. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.08.006
![]() |
[9] |
Claessens S, Van Horen N (2015) The impact of the global financial crisis on banking globalization. IMF Econ Rev 63: 868-918. doi: 10.1057/imfer.2015.38
![]() |
[10] |
Dermine J, De Carvalho CN (2006) Bank loan losses-given-default: A case study. J Bank Financ 30: 1219-1243. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2005.05.005
![]() |
[11] |
Dimitrios A, Helen L, Mike T (2016) Determinants of non-performing loans: Evidence from Euro-area countries. Financ Res Lett 18: 116-119. doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2016.04.008
![]() |
[12] |
Fan L, Shaffer S (2004) Efficiency versus risk in large domestic US banks. Managerial Financ 30: 1-19. doi: 10.1108/03074350410769245
![]() |
[13] |
Farook S, Hassan MK, Clinch G (2014) Islamic bank incentives and discretionary loan loss provisions. Pacific-Basin Financ J 28: 152-174. doi: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2013.12.006
![]() |
[14] | Foglia A (2008) Stress testing credit risk: a survey of authorities' approaches. Bank Italy Occas Pap. |
[15] |
Hamdi B, Abdouli M, Ferhi A, et al. (2019) The stability of Islamic and conventional banks in the MENA region countries during the 2007-2012 financial crisis. J Knowl Econ 10: 365-379. doi: 10.1007/s13132-017-0456-2
![]() |
[16] | Haneef S, Riaz T, Ramzan M, et al. (2012) Impact of risk management on non-performing loans and profitability of banking sector of Pakistan. Int J Bus Social Sci 3: 307-315. |
[17] |
HU JL, Li Y, CHIU YH (2004) Ownership and nonperforming loans: Evidence from Taiwan's banks. Dev Econ 42: 405-420. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1049.2004.tb00945.x
![]() |
[18] |
Ibrahim MH, Rizvi SAR (2018) Bank lending, deposits and risk-taking in times of crisis: A panel analysis of Islamic and conventional banks. Emerging Markets Rev 35: 31-47. doi: 10.1016/j.ememar.2017.12.003
![]() |
[19] |
Illes A, Lombardi MJ, Mizen P (2019) The divergence of bank lending rates from policy rates after the financial crisis: The role of bank funding costs. J Int Money Financ 93: 117-141. doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2019.01.003
![]() |
[20] |
Jakubik P, Moinescu B (2015) Assessing optimal credit growth for an emerging banking system. Econ Syst 39: 577-591. doi: 10.1016/j.ecosys.2015.01.004
![]() |
[21] |
Karim MA, Hassan MK, Hassan T, et al. (2014) Capital adequacy and lending and deposit behaviors of conventional and Islamic banks. Pacific-Basin Financ J 28: 58-75. doi: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2013.11.002
![]() |
[22] | Keeton WR (1999) Does faster loan growth lead to higher loan losses? Econ Rev Fed Reserve Bank Kansas City 84: 57-76. |
[23] |
Kjosevski J, Petkovski M (2017) Non-performing loans in Baltic States: determinants and macroeconomic effects. Baltic J Econ 17: 25-44. doi: 10.1080/1406099X.2016.1246234
![]() |
[24] | Kjosevski J, Petkovski M, Naumovska E (2019) Bank-specific and macroeconomic determinants of non-performing loans in the Republic of Macedonia: Comparative analysis of enterprise and household NPLs. Econ Res 32: 1185-1203. |
[25] | Klein N (2013) Non-performing loans in CESEE: Determinants and impact on macroeconomic performance. Int Monetary Fund Working Pap, 13-72. |
[26] |
Kumar RR, Stauvermann PJ, Patel A, et al. (2018) Determinants of non-performing loans in banking sector in small developing island states. Accounting Res J 31: 192-213. doi: 10.1108/ARJ-06-2015-0077
![]() |
[27] |
Lee YY, Yahya MHDH, Habibullah MS, et al. (2019) Non-performing loans in European Union: country governance dimensions. J Financ Econ Policy 12: 209-226. doi: 10.1108/JFEP-01-2019-0027
![]() |
[28] | Lestari D (2018) Corporate Governance, Capital Reserve, Non-Performing Loan, and Bank Risk Taking. Int J Econ Financ Issues 8: 25-32. |
[29] |
Louzis DP, Vouldis AT, Metaxas VL (2012) Macroeconomic and bank-specific determinants of non-performing loans in Greece: A comparative study of mortgage, business and consumer loan portfolios. J Bank Financ 36: 1012-1027. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2011.10.012
![]() |
[30] | Macit F (2012) Bank specific and macroeconomic determinants of profitability: Evidence from participation banks in Turkey. Econ Bull 32: 586-595. |
[31] |
Makri V, Tsagkanos A, Bellas A (2014) Determinants of non-performing loans: The case of Eurozone. Panoeconomicus 61: 193-206. doi: 10.2298/PAN1402193M
![]() |
[32] | Mhadhbi K, Terzi C, Bouchrika A (2019) Banking sector development and economic growth in developing countries: a bootstrap panel Granger causality analysis. Empirical Econ, 1-20. |
[33] | Mohaddes K, Raissi M, Weber A (2017) Can Italy grow out of its NPL overhang? A panel threshold analysis. Econ Lett 159: 185-189. |
[34] |
Mollah S, Hassan MK, Al Farooque O, et al. (2017) The governance, risk-taking, and performance of Islamic banks. J Financ Services Res 51: 195-219. doi: 10.1007/s10693-016-0245-2
![]() |
[35] |
Nastiti ND, Kasri RA (2019) The role of banking regulation in the development of Islamic banking financing in Indonesia. Int J Islamic Middle East Financ Manage 12: 643-662. doi: 10.1108/IMEFM-10-2018-0365
![]() |
[36] |
Nkundabanyanga SK, Akankunda B, Nalukenge I, et al. (2017) The impact of financial management practices and competitive advantage on the loan performance of MFIs. Int J Social Econ 44: 114-131. doi: 10.1108/IJSE-05-2014-0104
![]() |
[37] |
Ozili PK (2019) Non-performing loans and financial development: new evidence. J Risk Financ 20: 59-81. doi: 10.1108/JRF-07-2017-0112
![]() |
[38] | Podpiera J, Weill L (2008) Bad luck or bad management? Emerging banking market experience. J Financ Stability 4: 135-148. |
[39] | Rajha KS (2016) Determinants of non-performing loans: Evidence from the Jordanian banking sector. J Financ Bank Manage 4: 125-136. |
[40] | Rajan R, Dhal SC (2003) Non-performing loans and terms of credit of public sector banks in India: An empirical assessment. Reserve Bank India Occas Pap 24: 81-121. |
[41] | Saba I, Kouser R, Azeem M (2012) Determinants of Non Performing Loans: Case of US Banking Sector. Rom Econ J 44: 125-136. |
[42] |
Saif-Alyousfi AY, Saha A, Md-Rus R (2018) Impact of oil and gas price shocks on the non-performing loans of banks in an oil and gas-rich economy. Int J Bank Marketing 36: 529-556. doi: 10.1108/IJBM-05-2017-0087
![]() |
[43] |
Salas V, Saurina J (2002) Credit risk in two institutional regimes: Spanish commercial and savings banks. J Financ Services Res 22: 203-224. doi: 10.1023/A:1019781109676
![]() |
[44] |
Sinkey JF, Greenawalt MB (1991) Loan-loss experience and risk-taking behavior at large commercial banks. J Financ Services Res 5: 43-59. doi: 10.1007/BF00127083
![]() |