• 検索結果がありません。



Academic year: 2022



読み込み中.... (全文を見る)




J. BANASIAK Received 6 April 2000

The aim of this paper is to show an application of the recently introducedB-bounded semigroups in the theory of implicit and degenerate evolution equations. The most interesting feature of this approach is its applicability to problems with noncloseable operators.

1. Introduction

Consider the Cauchy problem for the implicit evolution equation d

dt(Ku)=Lu, lim

t→0+(Ku)(t)=u, (1.1) where K :ZX, L: ZX,Z,X are, say, Banach spaces, andK,L are linear operators. There is a number of approaches to solving such problems; for example, [11,12], similar in spirit the results of [15,16,17,18] where an interesting notion of empathy is introduced, or [20] where a suitable change of space method is used. In this paper, we aim neither at a comprehensive treatment of the problem (1.1), nor at an exhaustive comparison of various methods employed to solve it, but we rather describe how a new notion ofB-bounded semigroups, introduced in [8,10] and investigated in [3,4], can be used in this field.

One of the “natural” ways of approaching (1.1) would be to factor out K and, provided it is invertible, to consider a standard Cauchy problem with the operator K−1Lon the right-hand side. In some cases, however, the operatorKis not closeable and therefore there is no way the “time derivative” or the limit att=0+can commute with K. Thus, it is reasonable to study (1.1) as it stands. In [18,19] this problem is treated by introducing a pair of evolution families, called an empathy. As we will see, the theory ofB-bounded semigroups provides another convenient way of performing this

“impossible” commutations by passing to a specially constructed space related toK. In this paper, a similar approach to that of [20] is used but some adopted assumptions onKare less restrictive.

Copyright © 2000 Hindawi Publishing Corporation Abstract and Applied Analysis 5:1 (2000) 13–32 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 47D06, 34G10 URL:http://aaa.hindawi.com/volume-5/S1085337500000087.html


It is worthwhile to note that the method ofB-bounded semigroups does not require Xto be a Banach space (in factXis not required to have any structure but linear) and consequently the operatorsK andLare not assumed to have any standard topological properties when considered separately; we require, however, their good behaviour in the abstract extrapolation spaceXBintroduced in [4] or, equivalently, a good behaviour of the operatorK−1L(or its suitable realization) inZ. The idea is similar to that of [7,14], where the authors also seek a modification of the original space in which the given operators are, for example, closeable. Our method on one hand is less general, as the modified space is defined in a prescribed way by the operators appearing in the problem, but on the other hand this space may be much less restrictive than that stipulated in the work cited.

As we mentioned before, we do not give a survey of all available methods for solving (1.1); instead we demonstrate links betweenB-bounded semigroups and the empathy theory which is also focused on solving problems with possibly noncloseableK, and with the method employed by Showalter in [20], which seems to be a particular case of theB-bounded semigroup method.

To keep the exposition within a reasonable length we focus on linear operators with Kinvertible. A generalization to multivalued and nonlinear cases can be done along the lines of, for example, [11,12,15,20] with only minor difficulties (see alsoRemark 3.8).

We intend to pursue this topic provided interesting applications arise.

It is also worthwhile to note that despite superficial similarities ofB-bounded semi- groups andC-existence families, these two notions coincide only for a very restricted class of operators. This question is addressed in detail in [5].

2. B-bounded semigroups revisited

We start with recalling basic facts from the theory ofB-bounded semigroups and give generalizations relevant to the theory of implicit evolution equations.

We consider the standard abstract Cauchy problem in a Banach spaceX: du

dt =Au, lim

t→0+u(t)=u. (2.1)

Very often the existence of the semigroup (exp(tA))t≥0 describing the evolution of the system is established in a nonconstructive way. This is especially the case when the positivity methods are employed (cf. [1]). Then very little quantitative information on the evolution is available. On the other hand, there may exist an operator B such thattBetA can be calculated constructively yielding some information about the evolution. An example of this type, pertaining to the transport equation with multiplying boundary conditions, was analysed in [10] and has prompted one of the authors to define a class of evolution families which behave well if looked at through the “lenses” of another operator, and which can be thought of as generalizations of{BetA}t≥0. Such families, calledB-bounded semigroups, have been introduced in [8], and analysed and applied to various problems in a few papers [3,4,6,9].

The definition of B-quasi bounded semigroups as introduced in [9] (with some modifications due to the author of this paper) reads as follows.


Definition 2.1. Let(A,D(A))be a linear operator in a Banach spaceXand(B,D(B)) be another linear operator fromXto another Banach spaceZwithD(A)D(B), and let for someω∈Rthe resolvent set ofAsatisfies

ρ(A)⊃]ω,∞[. (2.2)

A one-parameter family of operators(Y (t))t≥0fromXtoZ, which satisfies (1)D(Y (t))=:D(B), and for anyt≥0 andfD(B)

Y (t)fZMexp(ωt)BfZ, (2.3) (2) the functiontY (t)fC([0,∞[,Z)for anyf,

(3) for anyf0:= {f ∈D(A)D(B);Af} ⊂D(A)D(B) Y (t)f =Bf+ t


Y (s)Af ds, t≥0 (2.4) is called aB-quasi bounded semigroup generated byA.

To shorten notation, if A generates aB-bounded semigroup satisfying the above conditions, then we writeAB−Ᏻ(M,ω,X,Z). We also shorten the name saying that the family(Y (t))t≥0defined inDefinition 2.1is aB-bounded semigroup generated byA. We also use the standard notationA∈Ᏻ(M,ω,X)to express the fact thatAis the generator of aC0-semigroup inXwith the Hille-Yosida constantsMandω. Remark 2.2. It follows that the assumptions [3]:D(A)D(B)and (2.2) can be re- placed by a single assumption that forλ > ωthe operator

(λI−A):DB(A)−→D(B), (2.5) where


xD(A)D(B); AxD(B)

(2.6) is bijective. Note that this requirement is purely algebraic.

We recall here the main results of [4] together with some recent generalizations due to [3].

The main role in the considerations of [4] is played by the spaceXB which is the completion of the quotient spaceD(B)/N(B)with respect to the seminorm · B = B· Z. It is known that then D(B)/N(B) is isometrically isomorphic to a dense subspace ofXB, say,ᐄ. The canonical injection ofXintoXB(and ontoᐄ) is denoted byp. In a standard wayBextends by density to an isometryB:XBZ.

An important observation is that if A generates aB-bounded semigroup, then A preserves cosets ofD(B)/N(B)and therefore it can be defined to act frompDB(A)⊂ᐄ into. We denote byAB the part ofAinD(B), that is,AB=A|DB(A). It can be also proved [4] that ifAB−Ᏻ(M,ω,X,Z), then the shift ofAtois closeable inXB; we denote its closure byA.

To simplify the notation we use the same notation for the operatorsAandBdefined on and their shifts which is possible by [4]; with this convention the injection p


becomes the identity (or more precisely projection) and for any operatorCdefined in XBandxD(B), the symbolCxis to be understood asCpx, if the latter is defined.

We introduce the subspaceZB =R(B) (the closure of the range ofB inZ). The main result of [4, Theorem 4.1], reads as follows.

Theorem2.3. IfAB−Ᏻ(M,ω,X,Z)andB[DB(A)]Z=ZB, thenA∈Ᏻ(M,ω,XB). Conversely, if there is A such that ∈Ᏻ(M,ω,XB), then =A and AB−Ᏻ(M,ω,X,Z).

TheB-bounded semigroup(Y (t))t≥0forxD(B)is given by Y (t)x=exp


Bx=Bexp(tA)x. (2.7)

The assumption thatB[DB(A)]is dense inZB can be discarded ifZ(and conse- quentlyZB) are reflexive spaces (see [4, Corollary 4.1]). Recently Arlotti [3] proved that if theB-bounded semigroup satisfies the additional condition

∀x∈D(B), Y (0)x=Bx, (2.8) thenB[DB(A)]is dense inZB(or equivalently,DB(A)is dense inXB). Note that (2.4) gives (2.8) only forx0that, in most cases, reduces toDB(A).

It is easy to see that the converse is also true. Therefore, if (2.8) holds, then the density assumption inTheorem 2.3can be omitted.

Since the spaceXBis in many cases rather difficult to handle,Theorem 2.3is most often used in the following version (see [4, Theorem 4.3] and [3, Theorem 2.1]).

Theorem2.4. Let the operatorsAandB satisfy the conditions ofDefinition 2.1. Then Ais the generator of aB-quasi bounded semigroup satisfying (2.8) if and only if the following conditions hold:

(1)B[DB(A)]is dense inZB,

(2)there existM >0andω∈Rsuch that for anyxD(B),λ > ωandn∈N: B(λIA)−nxZM

ω)nBxZ. (2.9)

If we do not require(Y (t))t≥0 to satisfy (2.8), then condition (1) is sufficient but not necessary.

The main point in the proof of Theorem 2.4is the observation that (2.9) can be extended to hold on the entireXB. This allows a useful corollary.

Corollary2.5. Let the operatorsAandBsatisfy the conditions ofDefinition 2.1and let also assumptions (1) and (2) ofTheorem 2.4be satisfied.

(1)If the estimate (2.9) is satisfied forn=1withM=1andω=0, thenAgenerates a semigroup of contractions inXBand consequentlyAB−Ᏻ(1,0,X,Z).

(2)If the estimate



|λ−ω|BxZ (2.10)


holds forλSθ = {λ∈C; |Argλ| ≤π/2+θ, θ >0}, thenAgenerates an analytic semigroup inXB and consequentlyAB−Ᏻ(M,ω,X,Z)for some constantM. 2.1. Further improvement of the generation theorem. Note that it is not necessary forAto generate a semigroup inX. Thus, the existence of aB-bounded semigroup is no longer related to the existence of(exp(tA))t≥0, as was the case in the motivating example of [8]. As mentioned before, the assumption that [ω,∞[⊆ρ(A) for some ω∈Rwas replaced by the requirement thatA):DB(A)D(B)is bijective. It follows that this assumption can be relaxed even further. A detailed discussion of this topic together with the proofs can be found in [5]. Here we sketch the main results.

Our aim is to replace assumption (2.2) by a weaker one which would require only the bijectivity of a suitable extension ofA. In fact, in the proof of Theorem 2.3the assumption (2.2) is used to show that[ω,∞[⊂ρ(A). Thus, what we really need is the Hille-Yosida estimate valid on some dense subspaceX ofXB. Moreover, as we are using the pseudo-resolvent identity, we must have that Dλ =(λIA)−1X⊂X for λ > ωand this yields that Dλ must be independent of λ [5]. Finally, as our starting point areXand the operators defined in it, the spaceXmust be accessible fromXin the sense of the operator closure inXB. All these indicate that we can free ourselves from any topological structure ofX.

Therefore we adopt the following new assumptions onAandX.

(2.1) The spaceXis a linear space and the operatorABis closeable inXB. Denoting A= ¯AXBB, we assume further that there exist subspacesXsatisfyingD(B)⊆X⊆XB, andDB(A)D⊂X∩D(A)such that−A|D):D→Xis bijective for allλ > ω.

We have then the following theorem [5].

Theorem2.6. Let the operatorsAandB satisfy the conditions ofDefinition 2.1with assumption (2.2) replaced by assumption (2.1). ThenAB−Ᏻ(M,ω,X,Z)and (2.8) holds if and only if the following conditions are satisfied:

(1)B(D)is dense inZB,

(2)there existM >0andω∈Rsuch that for anyy∈X,λ > ω, andn∈N: B



ω)nByZ. (2.11) If we do not assume (2.8), then assumption (1) is sufficient but not necessary. In both cases theB-bounded semigroup is given again by (2.7).

Example 2.7. Consider X=L2(R,ex2dx), Au=xu on the maximal domain, and (Bu)(x) = e−x2/2u(x). Clearly, B : XX is a continuous operator. Moreover, BuX= uL2(R)and sinceC0(R)X, we can identifyXB withL2(R). We con- sider the closure Aof A, that is, we take a sequence (un)n∈N of elements of D(A) such thatunuandxungasn→ ∞inL2(R). However, this is the same as the closure ofD(A)inW21(R), and asC0 (R)D(A)is dense inW21(R), we obtain that Au=xuforuW21(R). Thus, Agenerates a semigroup of contractions inXB and therefore(Y (t)u)(x)=e−x2/2u(t+x)satisfies conditions (1)–(3) ofDefinition 2.1. By


standard argument (see also [5]) one can prove however that,λIA:D(A)Xis not bijective for anyλ, henceDefinition 2.1is not applicable.

2.2. Special case. It is of interest to determine conditions under which XB is not an abstract space but can be identified with a subspace ofX. We have the following theorem.

Theorem2.8. LetX,Zbe Banach spaces and B :XZbe an injective operator.

The following conditions are equivalent:

(i)XBhas the following properties:

(i)each cosetx˜∈XB contains a sequence(xn)n∈Nconverging in the norm of Xto somexX, andxis the limit of any other X-Cauchy sequence inx˜, (i)if(xn)n∈N∈ ˜x,(yn)n∈Nsatisfyxn−ynX→0asn→ ∞and(yn)n∈N∈ ˜y

for somey˜∈XB, thenx˜= ˜y,

(ii)the operatorB is closeable andB−1is bounded,

(iii)there is an isometric isomorphism T : XBXB (X which satisfies T|D(B)=Id.

Proof. (i)⇔(ii). Since for each x˜ ∈XB, there is exactly one representative (xn)n∈N

which converges inXto, say,x, the formula Tx˜=T



= lim

n→∞xn=x (2.12)

defines an operator T : XBX. Moreover, as D(B) ˜x = [(x,x,...)], we get T|D(B)=Id.Next define


xX; x= lim

n→∞xn for some xn

n∈ND(B)such that Bxn

n∈Nis Cauchy . (2.13) By the assumption in (i),T :XBXBis a bijection. This allows us to induce a norm inXBby

xXB =xn


B= lim

n→∞Bxn, (2.14)

where x=limn→∞xn. In fact, ifxXB, then there must bex˜ ∈XB such that for some(xn)n∈N∈ ˜x, limn→∞xn=x. By the assumption, there is only one suchx˜, hence xXBdetermines uniquelyx˜. Since[(xn)n∈N]Bis well defined by the last equality in (2.14), · XB is well defined. This norm turns T into an isometry and thus XB becomes a Banach space.

Thanks to the assumption (i) again, we can define the shiftB:XBZby Bx=Bx˜= lim

n→∞Bxn, (2.15)

where(xn)n∈Nis as before. We have

B:D(B)−−−→onto ImB,

B:XB −−−→onto ImB. (2.16)


SinceXBX, we can consider(B,XB)as an unbounded operator inX. Let(xn)n∈NXB converges to xX and (Bxn)n∈NZ converges to yZ, in the respective norms. From the assumption (i), for eachn∈Nthere is a sequence(x(n)k)k∈NT−1xn, xk(n)D(B), converging toxninX. From the construction of cosets inXB,(Bx(n)k )k∈N is a Cauchy sequence and as a consequence, for anyn∈N,Bxk(n)→Bxnask→ ∞. Indeed, denote x˜n =T−1xn = [(xk(n))k∈N] and x˜l(n) =T−1xl(n) = [(xl(n),xl(n),...)]. Since(Bxk(n))k∈Nis a Cauchy sequence, we obtain, for any sufficiently largel∈N

x˜n− ˜xl(n)X

B = lim

k→∞Bxk(n)Bxl(n)Z< ,, (2.17) that is, liml→∞x˜l(n)= ˜xn inXB. SinceT is an isomorphism, and by (2.14) and (2.15) we obtain that for anyn∈N,

k→∞lim Bxk(n)=Bxn. (2.18) For anyr∈Nwe can findnr∈Nsuch that


r, BxnryZ< 1

r, (2.19)

and for such a fixednrwe selectkr∈Nsatisfying xk(nrr)xnr


r, Bxk(nrr)−Bxnr


r. (2.20)

Defineφr=x(nkrr). For anyr∈N,φrD(B). Fixing, >0 we findr0>2/,, and for anyr > r0we have by estimates (2.19) and (2.20),

φrxX<2 r < ,, ry


Z<2 r < ,,


which means thatr)r∈Nis a sequence definingx¯ and from assumption (i) we obtain


x=xXB. Thus(B,XB)is a closed operator inX. ThereforeXB =D(B), equipped with the norm of the graph, is a Banach space, andB:XB−−−→onto ImBis a continuous bijection. Therefore the inverse ofBis bounded in the norm of the graph, and for its restrictionB−1we obtain

∀y∈ImB, xX≤ xX+BxZ= xD(B)KBxZ (2.22) for some constantK, which gives the boundedness ofB−1:ZX.

Now letB:XZbe a closeable operator with a bounded inverse. For anyx˜, let (xn)n∈N∈ ˜x, that is,(Bxn)n∈Nis a Cauchy sequence inZ. By the boundedness ofB−1, (xn)n∈Nis a Cauchy sequence inXand its limitxD(B)¯ . Also, by the boundedness of B−1, if any other Cauchy sequence(Byn)n∈Nis such that(B(xn−yn))n∈Nis convergent to 0, then limn→∞yn=x. Next, ifxnxandynxinXdetermine two cosetsx˜ andy˜, then by definition both(Bxn)n∈Nand(Byn)n∈Nconverge. SinceB is closeable, they must have the same limit, that is,x˜= ˜y.


(ii)⇔(iii). From (ii) to (iii) the theorem follows easily, as in the previous part we con- structed a required isometry, and sinceXB=D(B), set-theoretically and topologically, XB(X.

Conversely, letT be the stipulated isomorphism and define forxXB

Bx=BT−1x. (2.23)

Since XB (X, then T : XBX is continuous, and therefore T−1 is closed as an operator defined inX. SinceB is an isomorphism, thenB:X→ImB is closed.

But since T|D(B)=Id, B is an extension ofB and therefore B is closeable. More- over, B−1=TB−1 :ImBX is continuous, therefore B−1=TB−1|ImB is also


Remark 2.9. It is interesting to note that there exist operators which are injective with bounded inverse but which are not closeable [17].

IfBis not invertible, then we can still obtain a similar result, however in a less com- pact form. First we note that it is impossible to follow the way leading toTheorem 2.3 as already the quotient spaceD(B)/N(B)is not a subspace ofX.

We start with some preliminaries. Following, for example, [21, pages 766–767], we can write splitD(B)as an algebraic direct sum

D(B)=N(B)DB (2.24)

for some linear spaceDB such thatB :DBR(B)is a bijection (clearlyDB is not unique, butR(B)is independent of the choice ofDB). We denote byBR−1:R(B)DB

the right inverse toBhavingDB as its range. Conversely, given any right inverseBR−1 toB defined onR(B)we can always splitD(B)as in (2.24) withDB=R(BR−1).

Now we can construct a number of extrapolation spaces X˜B completing various DB’s in the normB·Z. It is important to note that all these spaces are isometrically isomorphic to each other and also to the spaceXB. Indeed, letX˜Bbe a completion ofDB

with respect to the abovementioned norm. Denote byB˜ : ˜XBR(B)Z the extension by continuity of (B,DB). As in the original case, this is an isometric isomorphism.

However, alsoB:XBR(B)Z is an isometric isomorphism, thereforeT= ˜B−1B: XB→ ˜XB is an isometric isomorphism. LetxDBD(B), thenBx=BxR(B), butB˜−1is here the extension of the inverse ofB|DB, hence we obtain

T|DB=Id. (2.25)

Now we can formulate a generalization ofTheorem 2.8.

Corollary2.10. LetX,Zbe Banach spaces,X=N(B)⊕DBandDB be the range of some right inverseBR−1. The following are equivalent:

(i)the operator(B,DB)is closeable andBR−1is bounded,

(ii)there is an isomorphismT :XBXB(Xwhich satisfiesT|DB =Id.


If either of the above condition holds and additionally bothN(B)andDBare closed, then(B,D(B))is also closeable.

Proof. (i)⇔(ii). The proof is straightforward by repeating the proof of the equivalence (ii)⇔(iii) ofTheorem 2.8with(B,D(B))replaced by(B,DB)and applying (2.25).

To prove the last statement considerxn→0 inX,xnD(B), n=1,...,such that Bxny inZ. We writexn=xn+xn withxnN(B)andxnDB forn=1,....

SinceBxn=Bxn, we see that(Bxn)n∈Nis also convergent, and by the boundedness of the right inverse,(xn)n∈Nis also convergent in X. Therefore(xn)n∈N converges and by the closedness of both subspaces we get x =limn→∞xnN(B) andx = limn→∞xnDB. On the other hand,x+x=0 which yieldsx=x=0 by (2.24).

Thusxn→0 and Bxny impliesy=0 by closeability of(B,DB)and therefore

(B,D(B))is also closed.

If we have the case described inTheorem 2.8, the operatorAalso becomes much simpler.

Theorem 2.11. If B is a closeable operator such that B−1 is bounded, and A is closeable in X with λI− ¯A injective for some λ > ω, and moreover AB − Ᏻ(M,ω,X,Z), then

A= ¯A

DB¯(A)¯, (2.26)







; ¯AxDB¯

. (2.27)

Proof. LetxD(A). Then there exists a sequence(xn)n∈NinDB(A)such thatBxnBx¯ andBAxn→ ¯BAxasn→ ∞. From the proof ofTheorem 2.8, it follows that also B¯−1is bounded, that is,xnxandAxn→AxinXasn→ ∞. From this formulae we get thatxD(B)¯ ,xD(A)¯ withAx= ¯AxandAx¯ ∈D(B)¯ , that is,D(A)DB¯(A)¯ . Conversely, forλ > ω,λI−A:D(A)−−−→onto D(B)¯ , and forxDB¯(A)¯ ,λx− ¯AxD(B)¯ . Thus for someyD(A)we obtain

λy−Ay=λx− ¯Ax, (2.28)

but yD(A)DB¯(A)¯ yields Ay = ¯Ay, and by injectivity of λI − ¯A we get


Example 2.12. We considerX=L2(R,e−x2dx),Au=xuon the maximal domain, and(Bu)(x)=ex2/2u(x).B:XXis an unbounded operator and sinceBuX= uL2(R), we see that D(B)= L2(R). Since B(D(B)) =X, we obtain that XB = D(B)=L2(R)byTheorem 2.8. ThenDB(A)=W21(R)andAgenerates a contraction semigroup, say (T (t))t≥0, in L2(R). Thus Y (t)u =BT (t)u =ex2/2u(t+x) is the B-bounded semigroup generated by(A,B).

Note that here neitherD(A)D(B), norρ(A)⊃ [ω,∞[, but the (2.5) is satisfied.


3. B-bounded semigroups and implicit evolution equations

3.1. XB-solutions of implicit evolution equations. We consider again the original Cauchy problem (1.1). It is often the case that the original spacesXandZare not the most convenient spaces from the mathematical point of view. We are usually interested to keep the values of the solution in the original space which may be related to some physical properties like finite total energy space, finite mass, and so forth, but for (1.1) to hold in the strict sense may be too restrictive and often it is enough that it holds in some other Banach (or even linear topological) spaceX˜ with K and L replaced by appropriate extensions K˜ and L˜ acting from Z to X˜. This concept is similar to the differentiation in the sense of distributions; a related concept for semigroups is sometimes called the Haraux extrapolation [13].

To be able to linkKandLwithK˜ andL˜ we restrict these extensions to the closures of respective operators. In other words,D(L)andD(K)are required to be cores forL˜ andK˜, respectively.

As we mentioned in the introduction, in general, thanks toTheorem 2.6, we do not need any topological structure in X and therefore there is no need to introduce any topological assumptions onK andLseparately—as we see, these will be replaced by appropriate assumption imposed on eitherLK−1orK−1L.

We introduce the following definition.

Definition 3.1. Let X⊂ ˜Xand L˜ = ¯LX˜,K˜ = ¯KX˜. AZ-valued functiontu(t)is called anX˜-solution of the problem (1.1) if it is a classical solution of the problem

d dt


= ˜Lu, lim



(t)=u, (3.1)

that is,t→ ˜Ku(t)is continuously differentiable inX˜, the differential equation holds for allt >0 inX˜, and the initial condition holds as a limit in the topology ofX˜.

With this definition we can formulate the following theorem.

Theorem3.2. Suppose that we are given operatorsK:D(K)XandL:D(L)X withD(L),D(K)Z, whereZis a Banach space andXis a linear space. Assume that Kis a densely defined, one-to-one operator. DefineA=LK−1with the natural domain D(A)=K(D(L)D(K))andB =K−1. IfAB−Ᏻ(M,ω,X,Z)(in the sense of Subsection 2.1), then, for anyxDB(A)= {x∈K(D(L)∩D(K));LK−1x∈ImK}, the functiontY (t)x, where(Y (t))t≥0is theB-bounded semigroup generated byA, is anXB-solution of the problem (1.1).

Proof. Since Y (t)x =Bexp(tA)x, whereB:XBZis an isomorphism and xD(A), we obtain


dtY (t)x= d


dtexp(tA)px=BAexp(tA)px (3.2)


which can be rewritten as d

dtB−1Y (t)x=AB−1Y (t)x. (3.3) Similarly,

t→lim0+B−1Y (t)x=x. (3.4) To complete the proof we must show thatB−1is the closure ofK=B−1and thatAB−1 is the closure ofL=AB−1. The first statement follows from the fact thatB, being the extension by density, is also the closure of B and that the operation(x,y)(y,x), which transforms graph of an operator onto the graph of its inverse, is an isomorphism.

Consider the second operator. By constructionAis the closure ofLK1defined on DB(A)=D


= xK



(3.5) inXB.

We know thatBis the closure ofK−1inXB. Consider the operator(AB−1,BD(A)); it is well defined and closed, asAis closed andB−1is continuous. Also, sinceD(A) is dense inXB andBis an isomorphism, this is a densely defined operator.

We prove that the operator (AB−1,BD(A)) is the closure of (L,D(L)D(K)) in XB. Let xD(L)D(K), then KxK(D(L)D(K))D(A). For such x we have

AB−1x=AKx=LK−1Kx=Lx, (3.6)

henceAB−1is an extension of(L,D(L)).

We know thatAis theXB-closure ofLK−1fromDB(A), that is for anyyD(A) there is a sequence(yn)n∈Nof elements belonging toK(D(L)∩D(K))and such that LK−1yn∈ImK, which satisfiesynyinXB and

Ay=XB− lim

n→∞LK1yn. (3.7)

Take arbitraryx∈B(D(A)); thenx=Byfor someyD(A)ory=B−1x. Now Ay=AB−1x=XB− lim

n→∞LK−1yn, (3.8)

butynK(D(L)∩D(K)), that is,yn=Kxnfor somexnD(L)D(K). However, onD(K)=ImB we haveB−1x=B−1x=Kxand consequently,

yn=Kxn=B−1xn. (3.9)

Because(yn)n∈Nconverges inXBby construction,(xn)n∈N=(Byn)n∈Nconverges in Ztox(by continuity ofB) and

AB−1x=Ay=XB− lim

n→∞LK−1yn=XB− lim

n→∞Lxn. (3.10) This shows that AB−1LK1XB. However, since AB−1 is a closed extension of

LK−1, the theorem is proved.


Remark 3.3. The assumption thatK is densely defined inZis not essential. If it does not hold, then in the considerations the spaceZshould be replaced byD(K)Z=ZB.

The assumption (2.2), specified to the present conditions, means that the operator (LK−1,D(LK−1)), whereD(LK−1)is defined by (3.5), satisfies

ρ LK1

⊃ [ω,∞[ (3.11)

for someω∈R. If this assumption is satisfied, then we can combineTheorem 3.2with Corollary 2.5to obtain the following result.

Theorem3.4. Assume that

(1)the set{y∈D(L)∩D(K); Ly∈ImK}is dense inD(K)Z, (2)forxD(K)either


xZλ−1xZ, λ >0, (3.12) or

λIK−1L−1 x


|λ−ω|xZ, λSθ, (3.13) then, for anyx ∈ {x ∈K(D(L)D(K)); LK−1x∈ImK}, the functiontY (t)x is anXB-solution to (1.1).

In reflexive spaces assumption (1) is superfluous.

Proof. Assumption (1) ofTheorem 2.4 requiresB[DB(A)] to be dense inZB. With B=K−1andDB(A)defined by (3.5), we obtain


=K−1 xK




yD(L)D(K);Ly∈ImK (3.14) so our assumption (1) is simply rephrasing of that ofTheorem 2.4.

Equation (2.9) specified to our case reads K−1


fZλ−1K−1fZ, λ >0, (3.15) forf ∈ImK. SinceK is invertible, puttingx=K−1f gives an arbitrary element of D(K). Hence we have


λILK−1−1 Kx


λI−LK−1 K−1



=λI−K1L−1 x

Z, (3.16)

thus inequality (3.15) follows from (3.12). Analogous arguments prove the statement for analytic case. Assumption (1) is needed for the density of the domain ofAinXB, and it is well known, that for reflexive space this follows once the Hille-Yosida estimates

are satisfied.


An important role in the theory ofB-bounded semigroups is played by the operator BAB−1 which gives rise to another semigroup which can be used to define the B- bounded semigroup, the advantage of which stems from acting in the spaceZ rather than in the abstract spaceXB. In our case formally we haveBAB−1=K−1LK−1K= K−1L. Precisely, by (3.5) we must defineK−1Lon the domain

D K−1L


yD(L)D(K); Ly∈ImK

, (3.17)

which has already appeared inTheorem 3.4. Then we have the following proposition.

Proposition3.5. The operator(LK−1,D(LK−1)) is closeable inXB if and only if (K−1L,D(K−1L))is closeable inZand the following equality holds:

Ax=KK1LZK−1x, (3.18)

whereKis theXB-closure ofK. Consequently, the operatorBAB−1ofTheorem 2.3 is equal toK−1L.

Proof. LetxD(A), then

y=K−1x= lim

n→∞K−1xn= lim

n→∞yn (3.19)

inZ, withxnDB(A), henceynD(K−1L), and K−1Ax= lim

n→∞K−1LK−1xn= lim

n→∞K−1Lyn. (3.20) This shows thatyD(K−1L)andK−1Ly=K−1Axand consequently

A⊂KK−1LK−1. (3.21)

Conversely, ifyD(K−1L), then for(yn)n∈ND(K−1L)we have

n→∞lim yn=y, lim

n→∞K−1Lyn=K−1Ly. (3.22) Putting xn =Kyn, we obtain that (xn)n∈N converges in XB and by continuity of K, we haveXB−limn→∞xn=x=Ky. Thus,(K−1LK−1xn)n∈Nconverges in Z, and therefore(LK1xn)n∈Nconverges inXB toAxandKK−1LK1⊂A. With this proposition,Theorem 2.6yields a stronger version ofTheorem 3.4. Note that the assumption (2.1) is incorporated intoTheorem 3.6as assumption (2) below.

Theorem3.6. Assume that

(1)D(K−1L)is dense inD(K)Z,

(2)the operator (K−1L,D(K−1L)) is closeable in Z and there exist spaces: X satisfying forD(K)⊆X⊆Z, and D satisfyingD(K−1L)DD(K−1L) such that forx∈ᐄeither

λIK−1L|D−1 x

Zλ−1xZ, λ >0, (3.23)



λI−K−1L|D−1 x


|λ−ω|xZ, λSθ, (3.24) then, for anyxD(LK−1), the functiontY (t)x is anXB-solution to (1.1). For xD(LK−1)the classical solution is given by

u(t,x)=etK1LK−1x. (3.25) In reflexive spaces assumption (1) is superfluous.

Remark 3.7. AnXB-solution to (1.1) exists for a larger class of initial values, namely for allx∈KD(K−1L).

Remark 3.8. Using arguments similar to that precedingCorollary 2.10, we can provide analogous solvability results even when K is not invertible. In fact, all the theorems above are valid if we replace(K,D(K))by(K,DK)whereZ=N(K)DK, andZ by ZB = ¯DKZ as noted in Remark 3.3. However, in such a case the uniqueness is an open question, as different choices ofDK lead in general to different spacesXB, and to differentB-bounded semigroups.

3.2. B-bounded semigroups and empathy. We start with a brief outline of the em- pathy theory as presented in [19]. Let Xand Z be Banach spaces and consider two families of operators= {E(t):XX}t>0and = {S(t):XZ}t>0such that the Laplace transforms:R(λ)y=ᏸ(E(t)y)(λ)andP (λ)y=ᏸ(S(t)y)(λ)exist for any yXandλ >0. The pair᏿,Ᏹ is called anempathyif for anys,t >0

S(t+s)=S(t)E(s) (3.26) andP (ξ)is invertible for someξ >0. It can be proved that thenP (λ)is invertible for anyλ >0, and the same is valid forR(λ). Also, the subspacesE=R(λ)Xand= P (λ)Zare independent ofλ. Define the operators:K:Ᏸ→ᏰE byK=R(λ)P−1(λ) andL:Ᏸ→XbyL=(λR(λ)I)P1(λ); both can be proved to be independent of λand

P (λ)=(λK−L)−1. (3.27) The pairL,K is called the generator of empathy᏿,Ᏹ . In this case, for anyy∈ᏰE, the function tS(t)y is a solution of the Cauchy problem (1.1). This result is not satisfactory, as it allows to recognize which Cauchy problem is solvable by a given empathy. The inverse requires an additional assumption. To explain its meaning, we first note that it can be proved thatᏱis a semigroup, but not necessarily a C0-semigroup, in X. In particular, the function tE(t)x can be unbounded at t =0 for some xX. To be able to prove the main generation result for empathy in [19], the author introduced the assumption that the empathy᏿,Ᏹ is uniformly bounded, that is, there exist constantsN,M such that supt>0S(t) ≤M, supt>0E(t) ≤N.Then the following theorem is valid.


Theorem3.9. Suppose that the spaceXhas the Radon-Nikodym property. The operator pairL,K is the generator of a uniformly bounded empathy,if and only if the operatorsP (λ)andR(λ)are bounded for everyλ >0and there exist positive numbers M,N such that for everyλ >0andk=1,2,...

P (λ) ≤λ−1M, Rk(λ)λ−kN. (3.28) To compare empathy withB-bounded semigroups, we first note that forL,K to be the generator of an empathy,Kmust be an injective operator. Moreover, by definition, the solution family (S(t))t≥0 is a family of bounded operators in X. Since the B- bounded semigroup(Y (t))t≥0 is supposed to give solutions for the same problem, it must be also defined on the whole space, which requiresB =K−1 to be a bounded operator.

We have the following theorem.

Theorem3.10. Let(Y (t))t≥0be a B-bounded semigroup generated by AwhereA: D(A)X, B :D(B)Z, D(A),D(B)X, A satisfies (2.2) with ω =0, and B is a bounded, one-to-one operator. The pair (Y (t))t≥0,(etA|X)t≥0 is an empathy generated byAB−1,B−1 if and only if

∀t≥0, etAXX (3.29)

∀x∈X, λ >0, t−→e−λt etA X

xL1(0,∞,X). (3.30) Proof. SinceB is a bounded operator,(Y (t))t≥0 is a family of bounded operators by property (1) ofDefinition 2.1. Moreover, by [8] we have

P (λ)x=B(λIA)−1x=

0 e−λtY (t)x dt (3.31) for anyxXand sinceBis invertible,P (λ)exists and is invertible.

By (3.30) the operator R(λ)is well defined. Fixt ≥0 and considerxnx and etAxnyinXasn→ ∞. Since by the boundedness ofB,X (XB,y=etAxand etAis a closed operator, and being defined on the wholeX, it is a bounded operator.

Next, for anyxXwe have, by (3.29), Y (t+s)x=Bexp


x=Bexp(tA)exp(sA)x=Y (t)exp(sA)x, (3.32) therefore(Y (t))t≥0,(etA|X)t≥0 is an empathy.

SinceB is bounded, we obtain for anyxX BR(λ)x=B

0 e−λtetA Xx dt=

0 e−λtY (t)x dt=B(λI−A)−1x, (3.33) where again we usedX (XBto obtain the equivalence of the integrals. HenceR(λ)= (λIA)−1, by a simple calculation

K=R(λ)P−1(λ)=B−1, L=


(λIA)B−1=AB−1. (3.34)


Conversely, the properties (3.29) and (3.30) follow from the original definition of


A better characterization of(etA|X)t≥0 can be obtained when the empathy is uni- formly bounded. Clearly, then the statement ofTheorem 3.10is valid provided condi- tions (3.29) and (3.30) are replaced by the requirement that (etA|X)t≥0 is a strongly measurable and uniformly bounded semigroup inX. Depending on the structure ofX, we can prove some additional properties of this semigroup.

Proposition3.11. Let the assumptions ofTheorem 3.10be satisfied and(Y (t))t≥0, (etA|X)t≥0 be a uniformly bounded empathy. ThenA satisfies the Hille-Yosida esti- mates inX, and consequently

(1)(etA|D(A))t≥0is aC0-semigroup inD(A),

(2)ifXhas the Radon-Nikodym property, then additionally(etA|X)t>0is a bounded strongly continuous semigroup of bounded operators inX(but in general not a C0-semigroup),

(3)ifX is reflexive or D(A)=X, then(etA|X)t≥0 is aC0-semigroup generated byA.

Proof. If(Y (t))t≥0,(etA|X)t≥0 is a uniformly bounded empathy, then by [19, Theo- rem 7.1] there isN such that for anyλ >0, k=1,2,...we haveλkRk(λ) ≤N. From (3.33) we obtain that

(λIA)−kλ−kN, (3.35)

henceAsatisfies the Hille-Yosida estimates inX. The rest of the proof follows from

the well-known theorem by Arendt [2] (see also [5]).

Another avenue to explore is based on the following simple observation which fol- lows immediately from the definition ofB-bounded semigroups.

Proposition3.12. The pair(Y (t))t≥0,(exp(tA))t≥0 is an empathy in the pairZ,XB. This proposition suggests that if one could find a space XXsuch thatX is a completion ofX with respect to the norm K1· Z, then the notion ofB-bounded semigroup generated in the pairX,Z would coincide with the notion of empathy in the pair of spacesX,Z. However, the following result shows that also here the choice is very limited.

Proposition3.13. The pair (Y (t))t≥0,(exp(tA))t≥0 is an empathy in Z,Xif and only ifK is a bounded operator, with a bounded densely defined inverseK−1. Proof. The pair (Y (t))t≥0,(exp(tA))t≥0 is an empathy in Z,X if and only if XB

can be identified withX. ByTheorem 2.8this is possible if and only ifB =K−1is closeable andB−1=K is bounded.XB is then identified withD(B)¯ =D(K−1)and byTheorem 2.8again we must haveD(K−1)=X.



In this case (X t ) t≥0 is in fact a continuous (F t X,∞ ) t≥0 -semimartingale, where the martingale component is a Wiener process and the bounded variation component is an

A bounded linear operator T ∈ L(X ) on a Banach space X is said to satisfy Browder’s theorem if two important spectra, originating from Fredholm theory, the Browder spectrum and

In section 4 we use this coupling to show the uniqueness of the stationary interface, and then finish the proof of theorem 1.. Stochastic compactness for the width of the interface

It is easy to prove that B X (D) is a semigroup with respect to the operation of multiplication of binary relations, which is called a complete semigroup of

A class F of real or complex valued functions is said to be inverse closed if 1/f remains in the class whenever f is in the class and it does not vanish, and it is said to

It is known that quasi-continuity implies somewhat continuity but there exist somewhat continuous functions which are not quasi-continuous [4].. Thus from Theorem 1 it follows that

It is an elementary result of the toric geometry of a toric ASD Einstein space M that there is a toric Fano orbifold surface X δ ∗ associated to it.. The Sasaki–Einstein space M is

In this paper X is always a complex Banach space and L ( X ) the Banach algebra of all bounded linear operators on X... The next result we will use frequently in