Processing math: 86%
Research article Special Issues

Reservoir geophysical monitoring supported by artificial general intelligence and Q-Learning for oil production optimization

  • Artificial general intelligence (AGI), or strong AI, aims to replicate human-like cognitive abilities across diverse tasks and domains, demonstrating adaptability and learning like human intelligence. In contrast, weak AI refers to systems designed for specific tasks, lacking the broad cognitive flexibility of AGI. This paper introduces a novel approach to optimize oil production by integrating fundamental principles of AGI with geophysical data inversion and continuous monitoring techniques. Specifically, the study explored how AGI-inspired algorithms, combined with established reinforcement learning (RL) techniques, can enhance borehole electric/electromagnetic monitoring and reservoir fluid mapping technology. This integration aims to mitigate the risk of unwanted water invasion in production wells while optimizing oil extraction. The proposed methodology leverages real-time geophysical data analysis and automated regulation of oil production. The paper begins by outlining the key features of AGI and RL, and then discusses their application in electric/electromagnetic monitoring to define optimal production policies. The effectiveness of this approach was verified through synthetic tests, showing significant improvements in production efficiency, resource recovery, and environmental impact reduction.

    Citation: Paolo Dell'Aversana. Reservoir geophysical monitoring supported by artificial general intelligence and Q-Learning for oil production optimization[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2024, 10(3): 641-661. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2024033

    Related Papers:

    [1] Jun Zhou . Initial boundary value problem for a inhomogeneous pseudo-parabolic equation. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(1): 67-90. doi: 10.3934/era.2020005
    [2] Yang Cao, Qiuting Zhao . Initial boundary value problem of a class of mixed pseudo-parabolic Kirchhoff equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(6): 3833-3851. doi: 10.3934/era.2021064
    [3] Qianqian Zhu, Yaojun Ye, Shuting Chang . Blow-up upper and lower bounds for solutions of a class of higher order nonlinear pseudo-parabolic equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(2): 945-961. doi: 10.3934/era.2024046
    [4] Xu Liu, Jun Zhou . Initial-boundary value problem for a fourth-order plate equation with Hardy-Hénon potential and polynomial nonlinearity. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 599-625. doi: 10.3934/era.2020032
    [5] Hui Jian, Min Gong, Meixia Cai . Global existence, blow-up and mass concentration for the inhomogeneous nonlinear Schrödinger equation with inverse-square potential. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(12): 7427-7451. doi: 10.3934/era.2023375
    [6] Shuting Chang, Yaojun Ye . Upper and lower bounds for the blow-up time of a fourth-order parabolic equation with exponential nonlinearity. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(11): 6225-6234. doi: 10.3934/era.2024289
    [7] Yitian Wang, Xiaoping Liu, Yuxuan Chen . Semilinear pseudo-parabolic equations on manifolds with conical singularities. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(6): 3687-3720. doi: 10.3934/era.2021057
    [8] Yaning Li, Yuting Yang . The critical exponents for a semilinear fractional pseudo-parabolic equation with nonlinear memory in a bounded domain. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(5): 2555-2567. doi: 10.3934/era.2023129
    [9] Mingyou Zhang, Qingsong Zhao, Yu Liu, Wenke Li . Finite time blow-up and global existence of solutions for semilinear parabolic equations with nonlinear dynamical boundary condition. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(1): 369-381. doi: 10.3934/era.2020021
    [10] Lianbing She, Nan Liu, Xin Li, Renhai Wang . Three types of weak pullback attractors for lattice pseudo-parabolic equations driven by locally Lipschitz noise. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(5): 3097-3119. doi: 10.3934/era.2021028
  • Artificial general intelligence (AGI), or strong AI, aims to replicate human-like cognitive abilities across diverse tasks and domains, demonstrating adaptability and learning like human intelligence. In contrast, weak AI refers to systems designed for specific tasks, lacking the broad cognitive flexibility of AGI. This paper introduces a novel approach to optimize oil production by integrating fundamental principles of AGI with geophysical data inversion and continuous monitoring techniques. Specifically, the study explored how AGI-inspired algorithms, combined with established reinforcement learning (RL) techniques, can enhance borehole electric/electromagnetic monitoring and reservoir fluid mapping technology. This integration aims to mitigate the risk of unwanted water invasion in production wells while optimizing oil extraction. The proposed methodology leverages real-time geophysical data analysis and automated regulation of oil production. The paper begins by outlining the key features of AGI and RL, and then discusses their application in electric/electromagnetic monitoring to define optimal production policies. The effectiveness of this approach was verified through synthetic tests, showing significant improvements in production efficiency, resource recovery, and environmental impact reduction.



    In this paper, we consider the following initial-boundary value problem

    {utΔutΔu=|x|σ|u|p1u,xΩ,t>0,u(x,t)=0,xΩ,t>0,u(x,0)=u0(x),xΩ (1)

    and its corresponding steady-state problem

    {Δu=|x|σ|u|p1u,xΩ,u=0,xΩ, (2)

    where ΩRn (n1 is an integer) is a bounded domain with boundary Ω and u0H10(Ω); the parameters p and σ satisfy

    1<p<{,n=1,2;n+2n2,n3,σ>{n,n=1,2;(p+1)(n2)2n,n3. (3)

    (1) was called homogeneous (inhomogeneous) pseudo-parabolic equation when σ=0 (σ0). The concept "pseudo-parabolic" was proposed by Showalter and Ting in 1970 in the paper [20], where the linear case was considered. Pseudo-parabolic equations describe a variety of important physical processes, such as the seepage of homogeneous fluids through a fissured rock [1], the unidirectional propagation of nonlinear, dispersive, long waves [2,23], and the aggregation of populations [17].

    The homogeneous problem, i.e. σ=0, was studied in [3,4,5,7,9,10,13,15,16,21,24,25,26,27,28,29]. Especially, for the Cauchy problem (i.e. Ω=Rn and there is no boundary condition), Cao et al. [4] showed the critical Fujita exponent pc (which was firstly introduced by Fujita in [8]) is 1+2/n, i.e. if 1<ppc, then any nontrivial solution blows up in finite time, while global solutions exist if p>pc. In [28], Yang et al. proved that for p>pc, there is a secondary critical exponent αc=2/(p1) such that the solution blows up in finite time for u0 behaving like |x|α at {|x|} if α=(0,αc); and there are global solutions for for u0 behaving like |x|α at {|x|} if α=(αc,n). For the zero Dirichlet boundary problem in a bounded domain Ω, in [13,25,26], the authors studied the properties of global existence and blow-up by potential well method (which was firstly introduced by Sattinger [19] and Payne and Sattinger [18], then developed by Liu and Zhao in [14]), and they showed the global existence, blow-up and asymptotic behavior of solutions with initial energy at subcritical, critical and supercritical energy level. The results of [13,25,26] were extended by Luo [15] and Xu and Zhou [24] by studying the lifespan (i.e. the upper bound of the blow-up time) of the blowing-up solutions. Recently, Xu et al. [27] and Han [9] extended the previous studies by considering the problem with general nonlinearity.

    Li and Du [12] studied the Cauchy problem of equation in (1) with σ>0. They got the critical Fujita exponent (pc) and second critical exponent (αc) by the integral representation and comparison principle. The main results obtained in [12] are as follows:

    (1) If 1<ppc:=1+(2+σ)/n, then every nontrivial solution blows up in finite time.

    (2) If p>pc, the distribution of the initial data has effect on the blow-up phenomena. More precisely, if u0Φα and 0<α<αc:=(2+σ)/(p1) or u0 is large enough, then the solution blows up in finite time; if u0=μϕ(x), ϕΦα with αc<α<n, 0<μ<μ1, then the solution exists globally, where μ1 is some positive constant,

    Φα:={ξ(x)BC(Rn):ξ(x)0,lim inf|x||x|αξ(x)>0},

    and

    Φα:={ξ(x)BC(Rn):ξ(x)0,lim sup|x||x|αξ(x)<}.

    Here BC(Rn) is the set of bounded continuous functions in Rn.

    In view of the above introductions, we find that

    (1) for Cauchy problem in Rn, only the case σ0 was studied;

    (2) for zero Dirichlet problem in a bounded domain Ω, only the case σ=0 was studied.

    The difficulty of allowing σ to be less than 0 is the term |x|σ become infinity at x=0. In this paper, we consider the problem in a bounded domain Ω with zero Dirichlet boundary condition, i.e. problem (1), and the parameters satisfies (3), which allows σ to be less than 0. To overcome the singularity of |x|σ at x=0, we use potential well method by introducing the |x|σ weighed-Lp+1(Ω) space and assume there is a lower bound of σ, i.e,

    σ>(p+1)(n2)2n<0 if n3

    for n3.

    The main results of this paper can be summarized as follows: Let J and I be the functionals given in (12) and (13), respectively; d be the mountain-pass level given in (14); Sρ and Sρ be the sets defined in (20).

    (1) (the case J(u0)d, see Fig. 1) If u0H10(Ω) such that (I(u0),J(u0)) is in the dark gray region (BR), then the solution blows up in finite time; if u0H10(Ω) such that (I(u0),J(u0)) is in the light gray region (GR), then the solution exists globally; if u0H10(Ω) such that (I(u0),J(u0))=(0,d), then u0 is a ground-state solution and (1) admits a global solution uu0; there is no u0H10(Ω) such that (I(u0),J(u0)) is in the dotted part (ER).

    Figure 1.  The results for J(u0)d.

    (2) (the case J(u0)>d) If u0Sρ for some ρJ(u0)>d, then the solution exists globally and goes to 0 in H10(Ω) as times goes to infinity; if u0Sρ for some ρJ(u0)>d, then the solution blows up in finite time.

    (3) (arbitrary initial energy level) For any MR, there exits a u0H10(Ω)) satisfying J(u0)=M such that the corresponding solution blows up in finite time.

    (4) Moreover, under suitable assumptions, we show the exponential decay of global solutions and lifespan (i.e. the upper bound of blow-up time) of the blowing-up solutions.

    The organizations of the remain part of this paper are as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the notations used in this paper and the main results of this paper; in Section 3, we give some preliminaries which will be used in the proofs; in Section 4, we give the proofs of the main results.

    Throughout this paper we denote the norm of Lγ(Ω) for 1γ by Lγ. That is, for any ϕLγ(Ω),

    ϕLγ={(Ω|ϕ(x)|γdx)1γ, if 1γ<;esssupxΩ|ϕ(x)|, if γ=.

    We denote the |x|σ-weighted Lp+1(Ω) space by Lp+1σ(Ω), which is defined as

    Lp+1σ(Ω):={ϕ:ϕ is measurable on Ω and uLp+1σ<}, (4)

    where

    ϕLp+1σ:=(Ω|x|σ|ϕ(x)|p+1dx)1p+1,ϕLp+1σ(Ω). (5)

    By standard arguments as the space Lp+1(Ω), one can see Lp+1σ(Ω) is a Banach space with the norm Lp+1σ.

    We denote the inner product of H10(Ω) by (,)H10, i.e.,

    (ϕ,φ)H10:=Ω(ϕ(x)φ(x)+ϕ(x)φ(x))dx,ϕ,φH10(Ω). (6)

    The norm of H10(Ω) is denoted by H10, i.e.,

    ϕH10:=(ϕ,ϕ)H10=ϕ2L2+ϕ2L2,ϕH10(Ω). (7)

    An equivalent norm of H10(Ω) is ()L2, and by Poincaré's inequality, we have

    ϕL2ϕH10λ1+1λ1ϕL2,ϕH10(Ω), (8)

    where λ1 is the first eigenvalue of Δ with zero Dirichlet boundary condition, i.e,

    λ1=infϕH10(Ω)ϕ2L2ϕ2L2. (9)

    Moreover, by Theorem 3.2, we have

    for p and σ satisfying (4), H10(Ω)Lp+1σ(Ω) continuously and compactly. (10)

    Then we let Cpσ as the optimal constant of the embedding H10(Ω)Lp+1σ(Ω), i.e.,

    Cpσ=supuH10(Ω){0}ϕLp+1σϕL2. (11)

    We define two functionals J and I on H10(Ω) by

    J(ϕ):=12ϕ2L21p+1ϕp+1Lp+1σ (12)

    and

    I(ϕ):=ϕ2L2ϕp+1Lp+1σ. (13)

    By (3) and (10), we know that J and I are well-defined on H10(Ω).

    We denote the mountain-pass level d by

    d:=infϕNJ(ϕ), (14)

    where N is the Nehari manifold, which is defined as

    N:={ϕH10(Ω){0}:I(ϕ)=0}. (15)

    By Theorem 3.3, we have

    d=p12(p+1)C2(p+1)p1pσ, (16)

    where Cpσ is the positive constant given in (11).

    For ρR, we define the sub-level set Jρ of J as

    Jρ={ϕH10(Ω):J(ϕ)<ρ}. (17)

    Then, we define the set Nρ:=NJρ. In view of (15), (12), (17), we get

    Nρ={ϕN:ϕ2L2<2(p+1)ρp1},ρ>d. (18)

    For ρ>d, we define two constants

    λρ:=infϕNρϕH10,Λρ:=supϕNρϕH10 (19)

    and two sets

    Sρ:={ϕH10(Ω):ϕH10λρ,I(ϕ)>0},Sρ:={ϕH10(Ω):ϕH10Λρ,I(ϕ)<0}. (20)

    Remark 1. There are two remarks on the above definitions.

    (1) By the definitions of Nρ, λρ and Λρ, it is easy to see λρ is non-increasing with respect to ρ and Λρ is non-decreasing with respect to ρ.

    (2) By Theorem 3.4, we have

    2(p+1)dp1λρΛρ2(p+1)(λ1+1)ρλ1(p1). (21)

    Then the sets Sρ and Sρ are both nonempty. In fact, for any ϕH10(Ω){0} and s>0,

    sϕH102(p+1)dp1sδ1:=2(p+1)dp1ϕ1H10,I(sϕ)=s2ϕ2L2sp+1ϕp1Lp+1σ>0s<δ2:=(ϕ2L2ϕp+1Lp+1σ)1p1,sϕH102(p+1)(λ1+1)ρλ1(p1)sδ3:=2(p+1)(λ1+1)ρλ1(p1)ϕ1H10,I(sϕ)=s2ϕ2L2sp+1ϕp1Lp+1σ<0s>δ2.

    So,

    {sϕ:0<s<min{δ1,δ2}}Sρ,{sϕ:s>max{δ2,δ3}}Sρ.

    In this paper we consider weak solutions to problem (1), local existence of which can be obtained by Galerkin's method (see for example [22,Chapter II,Sections 3 and 4]) and a standard limit process and the details are omitted.

    Definition 2.1. Assume u0H10(Ω) and (3) holds. Let T>0 be a constant. A function u=u(x,t) is called a weak solution of problem (1) on Ω×[0,T] if u(,t)L(0,T;H10(Ω)), ut(,t)L2(0,T;H10(Ω)) and the following equality

    Ω(utv+utv+uv|x|σ|u|p1uv)dx=0 (22)

    holds for any vH10(Ω) and a.e. t[0,T]. Moreover,

    u(,0)=u0() in H10(Ω). (23)

    Remark 2. There are some remarks on the above definition.

    (1) Since u(,t)L(0,T;H10(Ω))L2(0,T;H10(Ω)), ut(,t)L2(0,T;H10(Ω)), we have uH1(0,T;H10(Ω)). According to [6], uC([0,T];H10(Ω)), then (23) makes sense. Moreover, by (10), all terms in (22) make sense for uC([0,T];H10(Ω)) and utL2(0,T;H10(Ω)).

    (2) Denote by Tmax the maximal existence of u, then u(,t)L(0,T;H10(Ω))C([0,T];H10(Ω)), ut(,t)L2(0,T;H10(Ω)) for any T<Tmax.

    (3) Taking v=u in (22), we get

    u(,t)2H10=u02H102t0I(u(,s))ds,0tT, (24)

    where H10 is defined in (7) and I is defined in (13).

    (4) Taking v=ut in (22), we get

    J(u(,t))=J(u0)t0us(,s)2H10ds,0tT, (25)

    where J is defined in (12).

    Definition 2.2. Assume (3) holds. A function uH10(Ω) is called a weak solution of (2) if

    Ω(uv|x|σ|u|p1uv)dx=0 (26)

    holds for any vH10(Ω).

    Remark 3. There are some remarks to the above definition.

    (1) By (10), we know all the terms in (26) are well-defined.

    (2) If we denote by Φ the set of weak solutions to (2), then by the definitions of J in (12) and N in (15), we have

    Φ={ϕH10(Ω):J(ϕ)=0 in H1(Ω)}(N{0}), (27)

    where J(ϕ)=0 in H1(Ω) means J(ϕ),ψ=0 for all ψH10 and , means the dual product between H1(Ω) and H10(Ω).

    With the set Φ defined above, we can defined the ground-state solution to (2).

    Definition 2.3. Assume (3) holds. A function uH10(Ω) is called a ground-state solution of (2) if uΦ{0} and

    J(u)=infϕΦ{0}J(ϕ).

    With the above preparations, now we can state the main results of this paper. Firstly, we consider the case J(u0)d. By the sign of I(u0), we can classify the discussions into three cases:

    (1) J(u0)d, I(u0)>0 (see Theorem 2.4);

    (2) J(u0)d, I(u0)<0 (see Theorem 2.5);

    (3) J(u0)d, I(u0)=0. In this case, by the definition of d in (14), we have u0=0 or J(u0)=d and I(u0)=0. In Theorem 2.6, we will show problem (1) admits a global solution u(,t)u0.

    Theorem 2.4. Assume (3) holds and u=u(x,t) is a weak solution to (1) with u0V, then u exists globally and

    u(,t)L22(p+1)J(u0)p1,0t<, (28)

    where

    V:={ϕH10(Ω):J(ϕ)d,I(ϕ)>0}. (29)

    In, in addition, J(u0)<d, we have the following decay estimate:

    u(,t)H10u0H10exp[λ1λ1+1(1(J(u0)d)p12)t]. (30)

    Remark 4. Since u0V, we have I(u0)>0. Then it follows from the definitions of J in (12) and I in (13) that

    J(u0)>p12(p+1)u02L2>0.

    So the equality (28) makes sense.

    Theorem 2.5. Assume (3) holds and u=u(x,t) is a weak solution to (1) with u0W. Then Tmax< and u blows up in finite time in the sense of

    limtTmaxt0u(,s)2H10ds=,

    where

    W:={ϕH10(Ω):J(ϕ)d,I(ϕ)<0} (31)

    and Tmax is the maximal existence time of u. If, in addition, J(u0)<d, then

    Tmax4pu02H10(p1)2(p+1)(dJ(u0)). (32)

    Remark 5. There are two remarks.

    (1) If J(ϕ)<0, then we can easily get from the definitions of J and I in (12) and (13) respectively that I(ϕ)<0. So we have ϕW if J(ϕ)<0.

    (2) The sets V and W defined in (29) and (31) respectively are both nonempty. In fact for any ϕH10(Ω){0}, we let

    f(s)=J(sϕ)=s22ϕ2L2sp+1p+1ϕp+1Lp+1σ,g(s)=I(sϕ)=s2ϕ2L2sp+1ϕp+1Lp+1σ.

    Then (see Fig. 2)

    Figure 2.  The graphs of f and g.

    (a) f(0)=f(s4)=0, f(s) is strictly increasing for s(0,s3), strictly decreasing for s(s3,), limsf(s)=, and

    maxs[0,)f(s)=f(s3)=p12(p+1)(ϕL2ϕLp+1σ)2(p+1)p1dBy (14) since s3ϕN, (33)

    (b) g(0)=g(s3)=0, g(s) is strictly increasing for s(0,s1), strictly decreasing for s(s1,), limsg(s)=, and

    maxs[0,)g(s)=g(s1)=p1p+1(2p+1)2p1(ϕL2ϕLp+1σ)2(p+1)p1,

    (c) f(s)<g(s) for 0<s<s2, f(s)>g(s) for s>s2, and

    f(s2)=g(s2)=p12p(p+12p)2p1(ϕL2ϕLp+1σ)2(p+1)p1,

    where

    s1:=(2ϕ2L2(p+1)ϕp+1Lp+1σ)1p1<s2:=((p+1)ϕ2L22pϕp+1Lp+1σ)1p1<s3:=(ϕ2L2ϕp+1Lp+1σ)1p1<s4:=((p+1)ϕ2L22ϕp+1Lp+1σ)1p1.

    So, {sϕ:s1<s<s3}V, {sϕ:s3<s<}W.

    Theorem 2.6. Assume (3) holds and u=u(x,t) is a weak solution to (1) with u0G. Then problem (1) admits a global solution u(,t)u0(), where

    G:={ϕH10(Ω):J(ϕ)=d,I(ϕ)=0}. (34)

    Remark 6. There are two remarks on the above theorem.

    (1) Unlike Remark 5, it is not easy to show G. In fact, if we use the arguments as in Remark 5, we only have J(s3ϕ)d and I(s3ϕ)=0 (see Fig. 2 and (33)). In Theorem 2.7, we will use minimizing sequence argument to show G.

    (2) To prove the above Theorem, we only need to show G is the set of the ground-state solution of (2), which is done in Theorem 2.7.

    Theorem 2.7. Assume (3) holds and let G be the set defined in (34), then G and G is the set of the ground-state solution of (2).

    Secondly, we consider the case J(u0)>d, and we have the following theorem.

    Theorem 2.8. Assume (3) holds and the initial value u0H10(Ω) satisfying J(u0)>d.

    (i): If u0Sρ with ρJ(u0), then problem (1) admits a global weak solution u=u(x,t) and u(,t)H100 as t.

    (ii): If u0Sρ with ρJ(u0), then the weak solution u=u(x,t) of problem (1) blows up in finite time.

    Here Sρ and Sρ are the two sets defined in (20).

    Next, we show the solution of the problem (1) can blow up at arbitrary initial energy level (Theorem 2.10). To this end, we firstly introduce the following theorem.

    Theorem 2.9. Assume (3) holds and u=u(x,t) is a weak solution to (1) with u0ˆW. Then

    Tmax8pu02H10(p1)2(λ1(p1)λ1+1u02H102(p+1)J(u0)) (35)

    and u blows up in finite time in the sense of

    limtTmaxt0u(,s)2H10ds=,

    where

    ˆW:={ϕH10(Ω):J(ϕ)<λ1(p1)2(λ1+1)(p+1)ϕ2H10}. (36)

    and Tmax is the maximal existence time of u.

    By using the above theorem, we get the following theorem.

    Theorem 2.10. For any MR, there exists u0H10(Ω) satisfying J(u0)=M such that the corresponding weak solution u=u(x,t) of problem (1) blows up in finite time.

    The following lemma can be found in [11].

    Lemma 3.1. Suppose that 0<T and suppose a nonnegative function F(t)C2[0,T) satisfies

    F(t)F(t)(1+γ)(F(t))20

    for some constant γ>0. If F(0)>0, F(0)>0, then

    TF(0)γF(0)<

    and F(t) as tT.

    Theorem 3.2. Assume p and σ satisfy (3). Then H10(Ω)Lp+1σ(Ω) continuously and compactly.

    Proof. Since ΩRn is a bounded domain, there exists a ball B(0,R):={xRn:|x|=x21+x2n<R}Ω.

    We divide the proof into three cases. We will use the notation ab which means there exits a positive constant C such that aCb.

    Case 1. σ0. By the assumption on p in (3), one can see

    H10(Ω)Lp+1(Ω) continuously and compactly. (37)

    Then we have, for any uH10(Ω),

    up+1Lp+1σ=Ω|x|σ|u|p+1dxRσup+1Lp+1up+1H10,

    which, together with (37), implies H10(Ω)Lp+1σ(Ω) continuously and compactly.

    Case 2. n<σ<0 and n=1 or 2. We can choose r(1,nσ). Then by Hölder's inequality and

    H10(Ω)L(p+1)rr1(Ω) continuously and compactly, (38)

    for any uH10(Ω), we have

    up+1Lp+1σ=Ω|x|σ|u|p+1dx(B(0,R)|x|σrdx)1r(Ω|u|(p+1)rr1dx)r1r{(2σr+1Rσr+1)1rup+1L(p+1)rr1up+1H10,n=1;(2πσr+2Rσr+2)1rup+1L(p+1)rr1up+1H10,n=2,

    which, together with (38), implies H10(Ω)Lp+1σ(Ω) continuously and compactly.

    Case 3. (p+1)(n2)2n<σ<0 and n3. Then there exists a constant r>1 such that

    σn<1r<1(p+1)(n2)2n.

    By the second inequality of the above inequalities, we have

    (p+1)rr1=p+111r<p+1(p+1)(n2)2n=2nn2.

    So,

    H10(Ω)L(p+1)rr1(Ω) continuously and compactly. (39)

    Then by Hölder's inequality, for any uH10(Ω), we have

    up+1Lp+1σ=Ω|x|σ|u|p+1dx(B(0,R)|x|σrdx)1r(Ω|u|(p+1)rr1dx)r1r(ωn1σr+nRσr+n)1rup+1L(p+1)rr1up+1H10,

    which, together with (39), implies H10(Ω)Lp+1σ(Ω) continuously and compactly. Here ωn1 denotes the surface area of the unit ball in Rn.

    Theorem 3.3. Assume p and σ satisfy (3). Let d be the constant defined in (14), then

    d=p12(p+1)C2(p+1)p1pσ,

    where Cpσ is the positive constant defined in (11).

    Proof. Firstly, we show

    infϕNJ(ϕ)=minϕH10(Ω){0}J(sϕϕ), (40)

    where N is the set defined in (15) and

    sϕ:=(ϕ2L2ϕp+1Lp+1σ)1p1. (41)

    By the definition of N in (15) and sϕ in (41), one can easily see that sϕ=1 if ϕN and sϕϕN for any ϕH10(Ω){0}.

    On one hand, since NH10(Ω) and sϕ=1 for ϕN, we have

    minϕH10(Ω){0}J(sϕϕ)minϕNJ(sϕϕ)=minϕNJ(ϕ).

    On the other hand, since {sϕϕ:ϕH10(Ω){0}}N, we have

    infϕNJ(ϕ)infϕH10(Ω){0}J(sϕϕ).

    Then (40) follows from the above two inequalities.

    By (40), the definition of d in (14), the definition of J in (12), and the definition of Cpσ in (11), we have

    d=minϕH10(Ω){0}J(sϕϕ)=p12(p+1)minϕH10(Ω){0}(ϕL2ϕLp+1σ)2(p+1)p1=p12(p+1)C2(p+1)p1pσ.

    Theorem 3.4. Assume (3) holds. Let λρ and Λρ be the two constants defined in (19). Here ρ>d is a constant. Then

    2(p+1)dp1λρΛρ2(p+1)(λ1+1)ρλ1(p1). (42)

    Proof. Let ρ>d and Nρ be the set defined in (18). By the definitions of λρ and Λρ in (19), it is obvious that

    λρΛρ. (43)

    Since NρN, it follows from the definitions of d, J, I in (14), (12), (13), respectively, that

    d=infϕNJ(ϕ)=p12(p+1)infϕNϕ2L2p12(p+1)infϕNρϕ2H10=p12(p+1)λ2ρ,

    which implies

    λρ2(p+1)dp1

    On the other hand, by (8) and (18), we have

    Λρ=supϕNρϕH10λ1+1λ1supϕNρϕL2λ1+1λ12(p+1)ρp1.

    Combining the above two inequalities with (43), we get (42), the proof is complete.

    Theorem 3.5. Assume (3) holds and u=u(x,t) is a weak solution to (1). Then the sets W and V, defined in (31) and (29) respectively, are both variant for u, i.e., u(,t)W (u(,t)V) for 0t<Tmax when u0W (u0V), where Tmax is the maximal existence time of u.

    Proof. We only prove the invariance of W since the proof of the invariance of V is similar.

    For any ϕW, since I(ϕ)<0, it follows from the definition of I (see (13)) and (11) that

    ϕ2L2<ϕp+1Lp+1σCp+1pσϕp+1L2,

    which implies

    ϕL2>Cp+1p1pσ. (44)

    Let u(x,t) be the weak solution of problem (1) with u0W. Since I(u0)<0 and uC([0,Tmax),H10(Ω)), there exists a constant ε>0 small enough such that

    I(u(,t))<0,t[0,ε]. (45)

    Then by (24), ddtu(,t)2H10>0 for t[0,ε], and then by (25) and J(u0)d, we get

    J(u(,t))<d for t(0,ε]. (46)

    We argument by contradiction. Since u(,t)C([0,Tmax),H10(Ω)), if the conclusion is not true, then there exists a t0(0,Tmax) such that u(,t)W for 0t<t0, but I(u(,t0))=0 and

    J(u(,t0))<d (47)

    (note (25) and (46), J(u(,t0))=d cannot happen). By (44), we have u(,t)C([0,Tmax),H10(Ω)) and u(,t0)¯W, then

    u(,t0)L2Cp+1p1pσ>0,

    which, together with I(u(,t0))=0, implies u(,t0)N. Then it follows from the definition of d in (14) that

    J(u(,t0))d,

    which contradicts (47). So the conclusion holds.

    Theorem 3.6. Assume (3) holds and u=u(x,t) is a weak solution to (1) with u0W. Then

    u(,t)2L22(p+1)p1d,0t<Tmax, (48)

    where W is defined in (31) and Tmax is the maximal existence time of u.

    Proof. Let N:={ϕH10(Ω):I(ϕ)<0}. Then by Theorem 3.5, u(,t)N for 0t<Tmax.

    By the proof in Theorem 3.3,

    d=minϕH10(Ω){0}J(sϕϕ)minϕNJ(sϕϕ)J(suu(,t))=(su)22u(,t)2L2(su)p+1p+1u(,t)p+1Lp+1σ((su)22(su)p+1p+1)u(,t)2L2,

    where we have used I(u(,t))<0 in the last inequality. Since I(u(,t))<0, we get from (41) that

    d=minϕH10(Ω){0}J(sϕϕ)minϕNJ(sϕϕ)J(suu(,t))=(su)22u(,t)2L2(su)p+1p+1u(,t)p+1Lp+1σ((su)22(su)p+1p+1)u(,t)2L2,

    Then

    dmax0s1(s22sp+1p+1)u(,t)2L2=(s22sp+1p+1)s=1u(,t)2L2=p12(p+1)u(,t)2L2,

    and (48) follows from the above inequality.

    Theorem 3.7. Assume (3) holds and u=u(x,t) is a weak solution to (1) with u0ˆW. Then I(u(,t))<0 for 0t<Tmax, where Tmax is the maximal existence time of u and ˆW is defined in (36)

    Proof. Firstly, we show I(u0)<0. In fact, by the definition of J in (12), u0ˆW, and (8), we get

    12u02L21p+1u0p+1Lp+1σ=J(u0)<λ1(p1)2(λ1+1)(p+1)u02H10p12(p+1)u02L2,

    which implies

    I(u0)=u02L2u0p+1Lp+1σ<0.

    Secondly, we prove I(u(,t))<0 for 0<t<Tmax. In fact, if it is not true, in view of uC([0,Tmax),H10(Ω)), there must exist a t0(0,Tmax) such that I(u(,t))<0 for t[0,t0) but I(u(,t0))=0. Then by (24), we get u(,t0)2H10>u02H10, which, together with u0ˆW and (8), implies

    J(u0)<λ1(p1)2(λ1+1)(p+1)u02H10<λ1(p1)2(λ1+1)(p+1)u(,t0)2H10p12(p+1)u(,t0)2L2. (49)

    On the other hand, by (24), (12), (13) and I(u(,t0))=0, we get

    J(u0)J(u(,t0))=p12(p+1)u(,t0)2L2,

    which contradicts (49). The proof is complete.

    Proof of Theorem 2.4. Let u=u(x,t) be a weak solution to (1) with u0V and Tmax be its maximal existence time. By Theorem 3.5, u(,t)V for 0t<Tmax, which implies I(u(,t))>0 for 0t<Tmax. Then it follows from (25), (12) and (13) that

    J(u0)J(u(,t))p12(p+1)u(,t)2L2,0t<Tmax,

    which implies u exists globally (i.e. Tmax=) and

    u(,t)L22(p+1)J(u0)p1,0t<. (50)

    Next, we prove u(,t)H10 decays exponentially, if in addition, J(u0)<d. By (24), (13), (11), (50), (16) we have

    ddt(u(,t)2H10)=2I(u(,t))=2(u(,t)2L2u(,t)p+1Lp+1σ)2(1Cp+1pσu(,t)p1L2)u(,t)2L22(1Cp+1pσ(2(p+1)J(u0)p1)p1)u(,t)2L2=2(1(J(u0)d)p12)u(,t)2L22λ1λ1+1(1(J(u0)d)p12)u(,t)2H10,

    which leads to

    u(,t)2H10u02H10exp[2λ1λ1+1(1(J(u0)d)p12)t].

    The proof is complete.

    Proof of Theorem 2.5. Let u=u(x,t) be a weak solution to (1) with u0W and Tmax be its maximal existence time.

    Firstly, we consider the case J(u0)<d and I(u0)<0. By Theorem 3.5, u(,t)W for 0t<Tmax. Let

    ξ(t):=(t0u(,s)2H10ds)12,η(t):=(t0us(,s)2H10ds)12,0t<Tmax. (51)

    For any T(0,Tmax), β>0 and α>0, we let

    F(t):=ξ2(t)+(Tt)u02H10+β(t+α)2,0tT. (52)

    Then

    F(0)=Tu02H10+βα2>0, (53)
    F(t)=u(,t)2H10u02H10+2β(t+α)=2(12t0ddsu(,s)2H10ds+β(t+α)),0tT, (54)

    and (by (24), (12), (13), (48), (25))

    F(t)=2I(u(,t))+2β=(p1)u(,t)2L22(p+1)J(u(,t))+2β2(p+1)(dJ(u0))+2(p+1)η2(t)+2β,0tT. (55)

    Since I(u(,t))<0, it follow from (24) and the first equality of (54) that

    F(t)2β(t+α).

    Then

    F(t)=F(0)+t0F(s)dsTu02H10+βα2+2αβt+βt2,0tT. (56)

    By (6), Schwartz's inequality and Hölder's inequality, we have

    12t0ddsu(,s)2H10ds=t0(u(,s),us(,s))H10dst0u(,s)H10us(,s)H10dsξ(t)η(t),0tT,

    which, together with the definition of F(t), implies

       (F(t)(Tt)u02H10)(η2(t)+β)=(ξ2(t)+β(t+α)2)(η2(t)+β)=ξ2(t)η2(t)+βξ2(t)+β(t+α)2η2(t)+β2(t+α)2ξ2(t)η2(t)+2ξ(t)η(t)β(t+α)+β2(t+α)2(ξ(t)η(t)+β(t+α))2(12t0ddsu(,s)2H10ds+β(t+α))2,0tT.

    Then it follows from (54) and the above inequality that

    (F(t))2=4(12t0ddsu(s)2H10ds+β(t+α))24F(t)(η2(t)+β),0tT. (57)

    In view of (55), (56), and (57), we have

    F(t)F(t)p+12(F(t))2F(t)(2(p+1)(dJ(u0))2pβ),0tT.

    If we take β small enough such that

    0<βp+1p(dJ(u0)), (58)

    then F(t)F(t)p+12(F(t))20. Then, it follows from Lemma 3.1 that

    TF(0)(p+121)F(0)=Tu02H10+βα2(p1)αβ.

    Then for

    α(u02H10(p1)β,), (59)

    we get

    Tβα2(p1)αβu02H10.

    Minimizing the above inequality for α satisfying (59), we get

    Tβα2(p1)αβu02H10|α=2u02H10(p1)β=4u02H10(p1)2β.

    Minimizing the above inequality for β satisfying (58), we get

    T4pu02H10(p1)2(p+1)(dJ(u0)).

    By the arbitrariness of T<Tmax it follows that

    Tmax4pu02H10(p1)2(p+1)(dJ(u0)).

    Secondly, we consider the case J(u0)=d and I(u0)<0. By the proof of Theorem 3.5, there exists a t0>0 small enough such that J(u(,t0))<d and I(u(,t0))<0. Then it follows from the above proof that u will blow up in finite time. The proof is complete.

    Proof of Theorems 2.6 and 2.7. Since Theorem 2.6 follows from Theorem 2.7 directly, we only need to prove Theorem 2.7.

    Firstly, we show G. By the definition of d in (14), we get

    d=infϕNJ(ϕ)=p12(p+1)infϕNϕ2L2.

    Then a minimizing sequence {ϕk}k=1N exists such that

    limkJ(ϕk)=p12(p+1)limkϕk2L2=d, (60)

    which implies {ϕk}k=1 is bounded in H10(Ω). Since H10(Ω) is reflexive and H10(Ω)Lp+1σ continuously and compactly (see (10)), there exists φH10(Ω) such that

    (1) ϕkφ in H10(Ω) weakly;

    (2) ϕkφ in Lp+1σ(Ω) strongly.

    Now, in view of ()L2 is weakly lower continuous in H10(Ω), taking lim infk in the equality ϕk2L2=ϕkp+1Lp+1σ (sine ϕkN), we get

    limkJ(ϕk)=p12(p+1)limkϕk2L2=d, (60)

    We claim

    φ2L2=φp+1Lp+1σ i.e. I(φ)=0. (62)

    In fact, if the claim is not true, then by (61),

    φ2L2<φp+1Lp+1σ.

    By the proof of Theorem 3.3, we know that sφφN, which, together with the definition of d in (14), implies

    J(sφφ)d, (63)

    where

    J(sφφ)d, (63)

    On the other hand, since sφφN, we get from the definitions of J in (12) and I in (13), sφ(0,1), ()L2 is weakly lower continuous in H10(Ω), (60) that

    J(sφφ)=p12(p+1)(sφ)2φ2L2<p12(p+1)φ2L2p12(p+1)lim infkϕk2L2=d,

    which contradicts to (63). So the claim is true, i.e.

    limkϕk2L2=φp+1Lp+1σ,

    which, together with H10(Ω) is uniformly convex and ϕkφ in H10(Ω) weakly, implies ϕkφ strongly in H10(Ω). Then by (60), J(φ)=d, which, together with (62) and the definition of G in (34), implies φG, i.e., G.

    Second, we prove GΦ, where Φ is the set defined in (27). For any φG, we need to show φΦ, i.e. φ satisfies (26). Fix any vH10(Ω) and s(ε,ε), where ε>0 is a small constant such that φ+svp+1Lp+1σ>0 for s(ε,ε). Let

    limkϕk2L2=φp+1Lp+1σ,

    Then I(τ(s)(φ+sv))=0. So by the definition of N in (15), the set

    A:={τ(s)(φ+sv):s(ε,ε)}

    is a curve on N, which passes φ when s=0. The function τ(s) is differentiable and

    A:={τ(s)(φ+sv):s(ε,ε)}

    where

    ξ:=2Ω(φ+sv)vdxφ+svp+1Lp+1σ,η:=(p+1)Ω|x|σ|φ+sv|p1(φ+sv)vdx(φ+sv)2L2.

    Since (62), we get τ(0)=1 and

    τ(0)=1(p1)φp+1Lp+1σ(2Ωφvdx(p+1)Ω|x|σ|φ|p1φvdx). (65)

    Let

    ϱ(s):=J(τ(s)(φ+sv))=τ2(s)2(φ+sv)2L2τp+1(s)p+1φ+svp+1Lp+1σ,s(ε,ε).

    Since τ(s)(φ+sv)N for s(ε,ε), τ(s)(φ+sv)|s=0=φ, ϱ(0)=J(φ)=d, it follows from the definition of d that ϱ(s) (s(ε,ε)) achieves its minimum at s=0, then ϱ(0)=0. So,

    0=ϱ(0)=τ(s)τ(s)(φ+sv)2L2+τ2(s)Ω(φ+sv)vdx|s=0τp(s)τ(s)φ+svp+1Lp+1στp+1(s)Ω|x|σ|φ+sv|p1(φ+sv)vdx|s=0=ΩφvdxΩ|x|σ|φ|p1φvdx.

    So, φΦ, i.e. GΦ. Moreover, we have G(Φ{0}) since φ0 for any φG.

    Finally, in view of Definition 2.3 and J(φ)=d (φG), to complete the proof, we only need to show

    d=infϕΦ{0}J(ϕ). (66)

    In fact, by the above proof and (27), we have GΦ{0}N. Then, in view of the definition of d in (14), i.e.,

    d=infϕNJ(ϕ)

    and J(φ)=d for any φG, we get (66). The proof is complete.

    Proof of Theorem 2.8. Let u=u(x,t) be the solution of problem (1) with initial value u0 satisfying J(u0)>d. We denote by Tmax the maximal existence of u. If u is global, i.e. Tmax=, we denote by

    ω(u0)=t0¯{u(,s):st}H10(Ω)

    the ω-limit set of u0.

    (i) Assume u0Sρ={ϕH10(Ω):ϕH10λρ,I(ϕ)>0} (see (20)) with ρJ(u0). Without loss of generality, we assume u(,t)0 for 0t<Tmax. In fact it there exists a t0 such that u(,t0)=0, then it is easy to see the function v defined as

    v(x,t)={u(x,t), if 0tt0;0, if t>t0

    is a global weak solution of problem (1), and the proof is complete.

    We claim that

    I(u(,t))>0,0t<Tmax. (67)

    Since I(u0)>0, if the claim is not true, there exists a t0(0,Tmax) such that

    I(u(,t))>0,0t<t0 (68)

    and

    I(u(,t0))=0, (69)

    which together with the definition of N in (15) and the assumption that u(,t)0 for 0t<Tmax, implies u(,t0)N. Moreover, by using (68), similar to the proof of (46), we have J(u(,t0))<J(u0), i.e. u(,t0)JJ(u0) (see (17)). Then u(,t0)NJ(u0) (since NJ(u0)=NJJ(u0)) and then u(,t0)H10λJ(u0) (see (19)). By monotonicity (see Remark 1) and ρJ(u0), we get

    u(,t0)H10λρ. (70)

    On the other hand, it follows from (24), (68) and u0Sρ that

    u(,t)H10<u0H10λρ,

    which contradicts (70). So (67) is true. Then by (24) again, we get

    u(,t)H10u0H10,0t<Tmax,

    which implies u exists globally, i.e. Tmax=.

    By (24) and (67), u(,t)H10 is strictly decreasing for 0t<, so a constant c[0,u0H10) exists such that

    limtu(,t)H10=c.

    Taking t in (24), we get

    0I(u(,s))ds12(u02H10c)<.

    Note that I(u(,s))>0 for 0s<, so, for any sequence {tn} satisfying tn as n, if the limit limnI(u(,tn)) exists, it must hold

    limnI(u(,tn))=0. (71)

    Let ω be an arbitrary element in ω(u0). Then there exists a sequence {tn} satisfying tn as n such that

    u(,tn)ω in H10(Ω) as n. (72)

    Then by (71), we get

    I(ω)=limnI(u(,tn))=0. (73)

    As the above, one can easily see

    ωH10<λρλJ(u0),J(ω)<J(u0)ωJJ(u0),

    which implies ωNJ(u0). In fact, if ωNJ(u0), by (19), λJ(u0)ωH10, a contradiction. Since NJ(u0)=NJu0 and ωJJ(u0), we get ωN. Therefore, by the definition of N in (15) and (73), ω=0, then it follows from u(,t)H10 is strictly decreasing and (72) that

    limtu(,t)H10=limnu(,tn)H10=ωH10=0.

    (ⅱ) Assume u0Sρ={ϕH10(Ω):ϕH10Λρ,I(ϕ)<0} (see (20)) with ρJ(u0). We claim that

    I(u(,t))<0,0t<Tmax. (74)

    Since I(u0)<0, if the claim is not true, there exists a t0(0,Tmax) such that

    I(u(,t))<0,0t<t0 (75)

    and

    I(u(,t0))=0. (76)

    Since (75), by (44) and uC([0,Tmax),H10(Ω)), we get

    \begin{equation*} \|\nabla u(\cdot,t_0)\|_{L^2}\geq C_{p\sigma}^{-\frac{p+1}{p-1}}, \end{equation*}

    which, together with the definition of N in (15), implies u(\cdot,t_0)\in N . Moreover, by using (75), similar to the proof of (46), we have J(u(\cdot,t_0))<J(u_0) , i.e. u(\cdot,t_0)\in J^{J(u_0)} (see (17)). Then u(\cdot,t_0)\in N^{J(u_0)} (since N^{J(u_0)} = N\cap J^{J(u_0)} ) and then \|u(\cdot,t_0)\|_{H_0^1}\leq \Lambda_{J(u_0)} (see (19)). By monotonicity (see Remark 1) and \rho\geq J(u_0) , we get

    \begin{equation} \|u(\cdot,t_0)\|_{H_0^1}\leq \Lambda_{\rho}. \end{equation} (77)

    On the other hand, it follows from (24), (75) and u_0\in S^\rho that

    \begin{equation*} \|u(\cdot,t)\|_{H_0^1} > \|u_0\|_{H_0^1}\geq\Lambda_\rho, \end{equation*}

    which contradicts (77). So (74) is true.

    Suppose by contradiction that u does not blow up in finite time, i.e. {T_{\max}} = \infty . By (24) and (74), \|u(\cdot,t)\|_{H_0^1} is strictly increasing for 0\leq t<\infty . If the limit \lim_{t\uparrow\infty}\|u(t)\|_{H_0^1} exists, i.e. there exists a constant \tilde c\in[\|u_0\|_{H_0^1},\infty) such that

    \begin{equation*} \lim\limits_{t\uparrow\infty}\|u(\cdot,t)\|_{H_0^1} = \tilde c, \end{equation*}

    Taking t\uparrow\infty in (24), we get

    \begin{equation*} -\int_0^\infty I(u(\cdot,s))ds\leq\frac12\left( \tilde c-\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2\right) < \infty. \end{equation*}

    Note -I(u(\cdot,s))>0 for 0\leq s<\infty , so, for any sequence \{t_n\} satisfying t_n\uparrow\infty as n\uparrow\infty , if the limit \lim_{n\uparrow\infty}I(u(\cdot,t_n)) exists, it must hold

    \begin{equation} \lim\limits_{n\uparrow\infty}I(u(\cdot,t_n)) = 0. \end{equation} (78)

    Let \omega be an arbitrary element in \omega(u_0) . Then there exists a sequence \{t_n\} satisfying t_n\uparrow\infty as n\uparrow\infty such that

    \begin{equation} u(\cdot,t_n)\rightarrow\omega \hbox{ in }H_0^1( \Omega)\hbox{ as }n\uparrow\infty. \end{equation} (79)

    Since \|u(\cdot,t)\|_{H_0^1} is strictly increasing, \lim_{t\uparrow\infty}\|u(\cdot,t)\|_{H_0^1} exists and

    \begin{equation*} \lim\limits_{t\uparrow\infty}\|u(\cdot,t)\|_{H_0^1} = \lim\limits_{n\uparrow\infty}\|u(\cdot,t_n)\|_{H_0^1} = \|\omega\|_{H_0^1}. \end{equation*}

    Then by (78), we get

    \begin{equation} I(\omega) = \lim\limits_{n\uparrow\infty}I(u(\cdot,t_n)) = 0. \end{equation} (80)

    By (24), (25) and (74), one can easily see

    \begin{equation*} \|\omega\|_{H_0^1} > \|u_0\|_{H_0^1}\geq\Lambda_\rho\geq\Lambda_{J(u_0)},\; \; \; \underbrace{J(\omega) < J(u_0)}_{\Rightarrow\omega\in J^{J(u_0)}}, \end{equation*}

    which implies \omega\notin N^{J(u_0)} . In fact, if \omega \in N^{J(u_0)} , by (19), \Lambda_{J(u_0)}\geq \|\omega\|_{H_0^1} , a contradiction. Since N^{J(u_0)} = N\cap J^{u_0} and \omega\in J^{J(u_0)} , we get \omega\notin N . Therefore, by the definition of N in (15) and (80), \omega = 0 . However, this contradicts \|\omega\|_{H_0^1}>\Lambda_{J(u_0)}>0 . So u blows up in finite time. The proof is complete.

    Proof of Theorem 2.9. Let u = u(x,t) be a weak solution of (1) with u_0\in\hat W and {T_{\max}} be its maximal existence time, where \hat W is defined in (36). By Theorem 3.7, we know that I(u(\cdot,t))<0 for 0\leq t< {T_{\max}} . Then by (8) and (24), we get

    \begin{equation} \|\nabla u(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2}^2\geq \frac{ \lambda_1}{ \lambda_1+1}\|u(\cdot,t)\|_{H_0^1}^2\geq\frac{ \lambda_1}{ \lambda_1+1}\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2,\; \; \; 0\leq t < {T_{\max}}. \end{equation} (81)

    The remain proofs are similar to the proof of Theorem 2.9. For any T^*\in(0, {T_{\max}}) , \beta>0 and \alpha>0 , we consider the functional F(t) again (see (52)). We also have (53), (54), but there are some differences in (55), in fact, by (81) and (25), we have

    \begin{equation} \begin{split} F''(t) = &-2I(u(\cdot,t))+2 \beta\\ = &(p-1)\|\nabla u(\cdot,t)\|_{L^2}^2-2(p+1)J(u(\cdot,t))+2 \beta\\ \geq&\frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{ \lambda_1+1}\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2-2(p+1)J(u_0)+2(p+1)\eta^2(t)+2 \beta,\; \; \; 0\leq t\leq T^*. \end{split} \end{equation} (82)

    We also have (56) and (57). Then it follows from (56), (57) and (82) that

    \begin{align*} &F(t)F''(t)-\frac{p+1}{2}(F'(t))^2\\ \geq& F(t)\left(\frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{ \lambda_1+1}\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2-2(p+1)J(u_0)-2p \beta\right),\; \; \; 0\leq t\leq T^*. \end{align*}

    If we take \beta small enough such that

    \begin{equation} 0 < \beta\leq\frac{1}{2p}\left(\frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{ \lambda_1+1}\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2-2(p+1)J(u_0)\right), \end{equation} (83)

    then F(t)F''(t)-\frac{p+1}{2}(F'(t))^2\geq0 . Then, it follows from Lemma 3.1 that

    \begin{equation*} T^*\leq\frac{F(0)}{\left(\frac{p+1}{2}-1\right) F'(0)} = \frac{T^*\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2+ \beta \alpha^2}{(p-1) \alpha \beta}. \end{equation*}

    Then for

    \begin{equation} \alpha\in\left(\frac{\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2}{(p-1) \beta},\infty\right), \end{equation} (84)

    we get

    \begin{equation*} T^*\leq \frac{ \beta \alpha^2}{(p-1) \alpha \beta-\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2}. \end{equation*}

    Minimizing the above inequality for \alpha satisfying (84), we get

    \begin{equation*} T^*\leq\left.\frac{ \beta \alpha^2}{(p-1) \alpha \beta-\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2}\right|_{ \alpha = \frac{2\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2}{(p-1) \beta}} = \frac{4\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2}{(p-1)^2 \beta}. \end{equation*}

    Minimizing the above inequality for \beta satisfying (58), we get

    \begin{equation*} T^*\leq\frac{8p\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2}{(p-1)^2\left(\frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{ \lambda_1+1}\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2-2(p+1)J(u_0)\right)}. \end{equation*}

    By the arbitrariness of T^*< {T_{\max}} it follows that

    \begin{equation*} {T_{\max}}\leq\frac{8p\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2}{(p-1)^2\left(\frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{ \lambda_1+1}\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2-2(p+1)J(u_0)\right)}. \end{equation*}

    Proof of Theorem 2.10. For any M\in \mathbb{R} , let \Omega_1\subset \Omega and \Omega_2\subset \Omega be two arbitrary disjoint open domains. Let \psi\in H_0^1( \Omega_2)\setminus\{0\} , extending \psi to \Omega by letting \psi = 0 in \Omega\setminus \Omega_2 , then \psi\in H_0^1( \Omega) . We choose \alpha large enough such that

    \begin{equation} \| \alpha\psi\|_{H_0^1}^2 > \frac{2( \lambda_1+1)(p+1)}{ \lambda_1(p-1)}M. \end{equation} (85)

    For such \alpha and \psi , we take a \phi\in H_0^1( \Omega_1)\setminus\{0\} (which is extended to \Omega by letting \phi = 0 in \Omega\setminus \Omega_1 i.e. \phi\in H_0^1( \Omega) ) such that

    \begin{equation} J(s_3^*\phi)\geq M-J( \alpha \psi), \end{equation} (86)

    where (see Remark 5)

    \begin{equation} J(s_3^*\phi)\geq M-J( \alpha \psi), \end{equation} (86)

    which can be done since

    \begin{equation*} J(s_3^*\phi) = \frac{p-1}{2(p+1)}\left(\frac{\|\nabla \phi\|_{L^2}}{\|\phi\|_{L_\sigma^{p+1}}}\right)^{\frac{2(p+1)}{p-1}} \end{equation*}

    and \phi can be chosen such that \|\nabla \phi\|_{L^2}\gg\|\phi\|_{L_\sigma^{p+1}} .

    By Remark 5 again,

    \begin{equation} J(\{s\phi:0\leq s < \infty\}) = (-\infty, J(s_3^*\phi)]. \end{equation} (87)

    By (87) and (86), we can choose s\in[0,\infty) such that v: = s\phi satisfies J(v) = M-J( \alpha \psi) . Letting u_0: = v+ \alpha \psi\in H_0^1( \Omega) , since \Omega_1 and \Omega_2 are disjoint, we get

    \begin{equation*} J(u_0) = J(v)+J( \alpha\psi) = M \end{equation*}

    and (note (85))

    \begin{align*} J(u_0)& = M < \frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{2( \lambda_1+1)(p+1)}\| \alpha\psi\|_{H_0^1}^2\\ &\leq\frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{2( \lambda_1+1)(p+1)}\left(\| \alpha\psi\|_{H_0^1}^2+\|v\|_{H_0^1}^2\right)\\ & = \frac{ \lambda_1(p-1)}{2( \lambda_1+1)(p+1)}\|u_0\|_{H_0^1}^2. \end{align*}

    Let u = u(x,t) be the weak solution of problem (1) with initial value u_0 given above. Then by Theorem 2.9, u blows up in finite time.



    [1] Wang P, Goertzel B (2007) Introduction: Aspects of Artificial General Intelligence. Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms. IOS Press, 1–16.
    [2] Goertzel B, Pennachin C (2007) Artificial General Intelligence, Springer Science and Business Media.
    [3] Goertzel B (2021) The General Theory of General Intelligence: A Pragmatic Patternist Perspective. arXiv: 2103.15100.
    [4] Franz A, Gogulya V, Löffler MW (2019) William: A monolithic approach to agi. International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, Springer International Publishing, 44–58.
    [5] Franz A (2015) Artificial general intelligence through recursive data compression and grounded reasoning: a position paper. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1506.04366.
    [6] Al-Sikaiti SH, Regtien J (2008) Challenging Conventional Wisdom, Waterflooding Experience on Heavy Oil Fields in Southern Oman. Canada.
    [7] Chierici GL, Ciucci GM, Pizzi G (1964) A Systematic Study of Gas and Water Coning By Potentiometric Models. J Pet Technol 16: 923–929. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/871-PA doi: 10.2118/871-PA
    [8] Chaperon I (1986) Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal and Vertical Wells in Anisotropic Formations: Subcritical and Critical Rates. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. https://doi.org/10.2118/15377-MS
    [9] Wheatley MJ (1985) An Approximate Theory of Oil/Water Coning. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, USA. https://doi.org/10.2118/14210-MS
    [10] Karami M, Khaksar Manshad A, Ashoori S (2014) The Prediction of Water Breakthrough Time and Critical Rate with a New Equation for an Iranian Oil Field. Pet Sci Technol 32: 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2011.586960 doi: 10.1080/10916466.2011.586960
    [11] Bottazzi F, Dell'Aversana P, Molaschi C, et al. (2020) A New Downhole System for Real Time Reservoir Fluid Distribution Mapping: E-REMM, the Eni-Reservoir Electro-Magnetic Mapping System. International Petroleum Technology Conference. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-19807-MS
    [12] Dell'Aversana P, Servodio R, Bottazzi F, et al., (2019) Asset Value Maximization through a Novel Well Completion System for 3d Time Lapse Electromagnetic Tomography Supported by Machine Learning. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. https://doi.org/10.2118/197573-MS
    [13] Dell'Aversana P, Rizzo E, Servodio R (2017) 4D borehole electric tomography for hydrocarbon reservoir monitoring. 79th EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2017. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. 1–5.
    [14] Dell'Aversana P, Bottazzi F, Molaschi C, et al. (2022) Monitoring and mapping system of the space-time distribution of formation fluids in a reservoir and a completion and production plant of a well for the extraction of formation fluids. U.S. Patent 11,268,374.
    [15] Chella A, Frixione M, Gaglio S (2008) A cognitive architecture for robot self-consciousness. Artif Intell Med 44: 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2008.07.003 doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2008.07.003
    [16] Dehaene S, Lau H, Kouider S (2017) What is consciousness, and could machines have it? Science 358: 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan8871 doi: 10.1126/science.aan8871
    [17] Dell'Aversana P (2024) Enhancing Deep Learning and Computer Image Analysis in Petrography through Artificial Self-Awareness Mechanisms. Minerals 14: 247. https://doi.org/10.3390/min14030247 doi: 10.3390/min14030247
    [18] Um ES, Alumbaugh D, Commer M, et al. (2024) Deep learning multiphysics network for imaging CO2 saturation and estimating uncertainty in geological carbon storage. Geophys Prospect 72: 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.13257 doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.13257
    [19] Bergmann P, Schmidt-Hattenberger C, Kiessling D, et al. (2012) Surface-downhole electrical resistivity tomography applied to monitoring of CO2 storage at Ketzin, Germany. Geophysics 77: B253–B267. https://doi.org/10.1190/GEO2011-0515.1 doi: 10.1190/GEO2011-0515.1
    [20] Bergmann P, Schmidt-Hattenberger C, Labitzke T, et al. (2017) Fluid injection monitoring using electrical resistivity tomography—five years of CO2 injection at Ketzin, Germany. Geophys Prospect 65: 859–875. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12426 doi: 10.1111/1365-2478.12426
    [21] Binley A (2015) Tools and Techniques: DC Electrical Methods. Treatise Geophys 11: 233–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53802-4.00192-5 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53802-4.00192-5
    [22] Binley A, Kemna A (2005) DC Resistivity and Induced Polarization Methods, In: Rubin Y, Hubbard SS, Authors, Hydrogeophysics, Springer, 129–156.
    [23] Buscheck TA, White JA, Chen M, et al. (2014) Pre-injection brine production for managing pressure in compartmentalized CO2 storage reservoirs. Energy Procedia 63: 5333–5340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.565 doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.565
    [24] Christensen NB, Sherlock D, Dodds K (2006) Monitoring CO2 injection with cross-hole electrical resistivity tomography. Explor Geophys 37: 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1071/EG06044 doi: 10.1071/EG06044
    [25] Descloitres M, Ribolzi O, Le Troquer Y (2003) Study of infiltration in a Sahelian gully erosion area using time-lapse resistivity mapping. Catena 53: 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00038-9 doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(03)00038-9
    [26] Goldman M, Kafri U (2006) Hydrogeophysical applications in coastal aquifers. Applied Hydrogeophysics, Springer: Dordrecht, 71: 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4912-5_8
    [27] Schmidt-Hattenberger C, Bergmann P, Bösing D, et al. (2013) Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) for monitoring of CO2 migration—from tool development to reservoir surveillance at the Ketzinpilot site. Energy Procedia 37: 4268–4275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.329 doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.329
    [28] Kazakis N, Pavlou A, Vargemezis G, et al. (2016) Seawater intrusion mapping using electrical resistivity tomography and hydrochemical data. An application in the coastal area of eastern Thermaikos Gulf, Greece. Sci Total Environ 543: 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.041 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.041
    [29] Tarrahi M, Afra S (2015) Optimization of Geological Carbon Sequestration in Heterogeneous Saline Aquifers through Managed Injection for Uniform CO2 Distribution. Carbon Management Technology Conference. https://doi.org/10.7122/440233-MS
    [30] Befus KM (2018) Pyres: A Python Wrapper for Electrical Resistivity Modeling with R2. J Geophys Eng 15: 338–346.
    [31] Binley A (2016) R2 version 3.1 Manual. Lancaster, UK.
    [32] Dell'Aversana P (2021) Reservoir prescriptive management combining electric resistivity tomography and machine learning. AIMS Geosci 7: 138–161. https://doi.org/10.3934/geosci.2021009 doi: 10.3934/geosci.2021009
    [33] Kaelbling LP, Littman ML, Moore AW (1996) Reinforcement Learning: A Survey. J Artif Intell Res 4: 237–285. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.301 doi: 10.1613/jair.301
    [34] Raschka S, Mirjalili V (2017) Python Machine Learning: Machine Learning and Deep Learning with Python, scikit-learn, and TensorFlow, 2nd Eds., PACKT Books.
    [35] Ribeiro C, Szepesvári C (1996) Q-learning combined with spreading: Convergence and results, Proceedings of the ISRF-IEE International Conference: Intelligent and Cognitive Systems (Neural Networks Symposium), 32–36.
    [36] Russell S, Norvig P (2016) Artificial Intelligence: A Modern approach, Global Edition, Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice Hall.
    [37] Ravichandiran S (2020) Deep Reinforcement Learning with Python: Master classic RL, deep RL, distributional RL, inverse RL, and more with OpenAI Gym and TensorFlow, Packt Publishing.
    [38] Ullah J, Li H, Ashraf U, et al. (2023) Knowledge-based machine learning for mineral classification in a complex tectonic regime of Yingxiu-Beichuan fault zone, Sichuan basin. Geoenergy Sci Eng 229: 212077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoen.2023.212077 doi: 10.1016/j.geoen.2023.212077
    [39] Ullah J, Luo M, Ashraf U, et al. (2022) Evaluation of the geothermal parameters to decipher the thermal structure of the upper crust of the Longmenshan fault zone derived from borehole data. Geothermics 98: 102268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102268 doi: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102268
    [40] Ullah J, Li H, Soupios P, et al. (2024) Optimizing geothermal reservoir modeling: A unified bayesian PSO and BiGRU approach for precise history matching under uncertainty. Geothermics 119: 102958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2024.102958 doi: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2024.102958
    [41] Eppelbaum LV, Zheludev V, Averbuch A (2014) Diffusion maps as a powerful tool for integrated geophysical field analysis to detecting hidden karst terranes. Izv Acad Sci Azerb Rep Ser.: Earth Sciences 2014: 36–46.
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Yuxuan Chen, Jiangbo Han, Global existence and nonexistence for a class of finitely degenerate coupled parabolic systems with high initial energy level, 2021, 14, 1937-1632, 4179, 10.3934/dcdss.2021109
    2. Quang-Minh Tran, Hong-Danh Pham, Global existence and blow-up results for a nonlinear model for a dynamic suspension bridge, 2021, 14, 1937-1632, 4521, 10.3934/dcdss.2021135
    3. Jun Zhou, Guangyu Xu, Chunlai Mu, Analysis of a pseudo-parabolic equation by potential wells, 2021, 200, 0373-3114, 2741, 10.1007/s10231-021-01099-1
    4. Le Thi Phuong Ngoc, Khong Thi Thao Uyen, Nguyen Huu Nhan, Nguyen Thanh Long, On a system of nonlinear pseudoparabolic equations with Robin-Dirichlet boundary conditions, 2022, 21, 1534-0392, 585, 10.3934/cpaa.2021190
    5. Jinxing Liu, Xiongrui Wang, Jun Zhou, Huan Zhang, Blow-up phenomena for the sixth-order Boussinesq equation with fourth-order dispersion term and nonlinear source, 2021, 14, 1937-1632, 4321, 10.3934/dcdss.2021108
    6. Peiqun Lin, Chenxing He, Lingshu Zhong, Mingyang Pei, Chuhao Zhou, Yang Liu, Bus timetable optimization model in response to the diverse and uncertain requirements of passengers for travel comfort, 2023, 31, 2688-1594, 2315, 10.3934/era.2023118
    7. Hang Ding, Renhai Wang, Jun Zhou, Infinite time blow‐up of solutions to a class of wave equations with weak and strong damping terms and logarithmic nonlinearity, 2021, 147, 0022-2526, 914, 10.1111/sapm.12405
    8. Le Thi Phuong Ngoc, Nguyen Anh Triet, Phan Thi My Duyen, Nguyen Thanh Long, General Decay and Blow-up Results of a Robin-Dirichlet Problem for a Pseudoparabolic Nonlinear Equation of Kirchhoff-Carrier Type with Viscoelastic Term, 2023, 0251-4184, 10.1007/s40306-023-00496-3
    9. Gang Cheng, Yijie He, Enhancing passenger comfort and operator efficiency through multi-objective bus timetable optimization, 2024, 32, 2688-1594, 565, 10.3934/era.2024028
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1417) PDF downloads(51) Cited by(1)

Figures and Tables

Figures(9)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog