1. Introduction
In this paper, we consider the following fast diffusive
p-Laplacian equation:
()
()
where 1 <
p < 2,
k,
q,
λ > 0, 0 <
r < 1,
Ω ⊂
RN (
N ≥ 2) is a bounded domain with smooth boundary and
is a nonnegative function. Equation (
1) is a class of nonlinear singular parabolic equations and appears to be relevant in the theory of non-Newtonian fluids perturbed by both nonlocal sources and nonlinear absorptions; see [
1–
4], for instance. Extinction is the phenomenon whereby the evolution of some nontrivial initial data
u0(
x) produces a nontrivial solution
u(
x,
t) in a time interval 0 <
t <
T and
u(
x,
t) → 0 as
t →
T. As an important property of solutions of developing equations, the extinction recently has been studied intensively by several authors in [
5–
9]. In paper [
10], the authors discussed the extinction behavior of solutions for Problem (
1)-(
2) when
r = 1. In this paper, we investigated the extinction of solutions when 0 <
r < 1. Due to the nature of our problem, we would like to use the following lemmas by [
11].
Lemma 1 (Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality). Suppose that β ≥ 0, N > p ≥ 1, β + 1 ≤ q ≤ (β + 1)Np/(N − p); then for u such that |u|βu ∈ W1,p(Ω), one has
()
with
θ = ((
β + 1)
r−1 −
q−1)/(
N−1 −
p−1 + (
β + 1)
r−1), where
C is a constant depending only on
N,
p, and
r.
2. Main Results and Proofs
Theorem 2. Assume that p − 1 = q with r < 1; then the non-negative nontrivial weak solution of Problem (1)-(2) vanishes in finite time for any non-negative initial data provided that |Ω| or λ is sufficiently small.
- (1)
For the case 2N/(N + 2) ≤ p < 2, one has
()
-
where k1, M1, and T1 are given by (11), (16), and (17), respectively.
- (2)
For the case 1 < p < 2N/(N + 2), one has
()
-
where s, k2, M2, and T2 are given by (18), (22), (26), and (28), respectively.
Proof. (1) For the case 2N/(N + 2) ≤ p < 2, multiplying (1) by u and integrating over Ω, we deduce from the Hölder inequality that
()
inequality
()
where
B denotes the optimal embedding constant, combining (
6) and (
7) we have
()
By Lemma
1, we have
()
where
θ1 = (1/(1 +
r) − 1/2)(1/
N − 1/
p + 1/(1 +
r))
−1.
It is easy to check that θ1 ∈ (0,1]; using Young′s inequality with ε, it follows from (9) that
()
where
ε1 > 0 and
k1 > 0 will be determined later. We choose
()
Then we can conclude that
k1 ∈ (1,2) and
pk1(1 −
θ1)/(
p −
k1θ1) = 1 +
r. Therefore, it follows from (
10) that
()
By combining (8) and (12), we have
()
Choosing
ε1 small enough such that 1 −
kε1/
C(
ε1) > 0 and |
Ω | ≤ (1 −
kε1/
C(
ε1))/
λBp, then we have 1 −
kε1/
C(
ε1) −
Bpλ |
Ω | > 0. Therefore, we deduce from
k1 ∈ (1,2) that
()
which implies that
()
where
()
()
(2) For the case 1 <
p < 2
N/(
N + 2), multiplying (
1) by
us, where
()
integrating over
Ω, we deduce from the Hölder inequality that
()
By Lemma
1 and
s > 1, we have
()
where
θ2 =
N(1 −
r)(
p +
s − 1)/(
s + 1)[
p(
s +
r) +
N(
p − 1 −
r)]. By (
18) and
r < 1, it is easy to check that
θ2 ∈ (0,1). By Young′s inequality with
ε, it follows from (
19) that
()
where
ε2 > 0 and
k2 > 0 will be determined later. We choose
()
then it follows that
k2 ∈ (
s,
s + 1) and (
p +
s − 1)
k2(1 −
θ2)/(
p +
s − 1 −
k2θ2) =
s +
r. Therefore, it follows from (
21) that
()
By combining (19) and (23), we have by poincare inequality
()
Choosing
ε2 > 0 small enough such that
spp/(
p +
s − 1)
p −
kε2/
C(
ε2) > 0 and |
Ω | ≤ (
spp/(
p +
s − 1)
p −
kε2/
C(
ε2))/
λ |
Ω |
Bp, then we have
spp/(
p +
s − 1)
p −
kε2/
C(
ε2) −
λ |
Ω |
Bp > 0. Therefore, we deduce from
k2 ∈ (
s,
s + 1) that
()
where
()
which implies that
()
where
()
The proof of Theorem
2 is complete.
Theorem 3. Assume that r < 1.
- (1)
If 2N/(N + 2) ≤ p < 2 with q > k1 − 1 = (2rp + N(p − 1 − r))/(2p + N(p − 1 − r)), then the non-negative nontrivial weak solution of Problem (1)-(2) vanishes in finite time provided that u0 (or |Ω| or λ) is sufficiently small and
()
-
where k1, M3, and T3 are given by (11), (35), and (33), respectively.
- (2)
If 1 < p < 2N/(N + 2) with q > k2 − s = ((s + 1)rp + N(p − 1 − r))/((s + 1)p + N(p − 1 − r)), then the non-negative nontrivial weak solution of Problem (1)-(2) vanishes if finite time provided that u0 (or |Ω| or λ) is sufficiently small and
()
-
where s, k2, M4, and T4 are given by (18), (22), (39), and (41), respectively.
Proof. (1) If 2N/(N + 2) ≤ p < 2, multiplying (1) by u and integrating over Ω, we deduce from (12) and the Hölder inequality that
()
By choosing
ε1 > 0 small enough such that 1 −
kε1/
C(
ε1) ≥ 0, we obtain that
()
provided that
and
q >
k1 − 1 = (2
rp +
N(
p − 1 −
r))/(2
p +
N(
p − 1 −
r)), where
()
From (32) and k1 ∈ (1,2), we can derive that
()
where
()
(2) If 1 <
p < 2
N/(
N + 2), multiplying (
1) by
us, where
s is given by (
18) and integrating over
Ω, we deduce from the Hölder inequality and (
23) that
()
Choosing
ε2 > 0 small enough such that
spp/(
p +
s − 1)
p −
kε2/
C(
ε2) > 0, we have
()
Therefore, we have
()
provided that
and
q >
k2 −
s = ((
s + 1)
rp +
N(
p − 1 −
r))/((
s + 1)
p +
N(
p − 1 −
r)), where
()
It follows from (
38) and
k2 ∈ (
s,
s + 1) that
()
where
()
The proof of Theorem
3 is complete.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Department of Education of Jilin Province (2013445) and by Science and Technology Bureau of Siping, Jilin Province (2012040), and is partially supported by the NSF of China under Grant 11171060.