2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0012-9593(03)00021-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stabilization and control for the subcritical semilinear wave equation

Abstract: In this paper, we analyze the exponential decay property of solutions of the semilinear wave equation in R 3 with a damping term which is effective on the exterior of a ball. Under suitable and natural assumptions on the nonlinearity we prove that the exponential decay holds locally uniformly for finite energy solutions provided the nonlinearity is subcritical at infinity. Subcriticality means, roughly speaking, that the nonlinearity grows at infinity at most as a power p < 5. The method of proof combines clas… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
136
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 111 publications
(138 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
136
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In some sense, it is a high frequency controllability result and expresses in a rough physical way that we can control some "small noisy data". In the subcritical case, two similar kind of results were proved : in Dehman-Lebeau-Zuazua [11] similar results were proved for the nonlinear wave equation but without the smallness assumption in L 2 ×H −1 while in Dehman-Lebeau [10], they obtain similar high frequency controllability results for the subcritical equation but in a uniform time which is actually the time of linear controllability (see also the work of the author [21] for the Schrödinger equation). Actually, this smallness assumption is made necessary in our proof because we are not able to prove in general the following unique continuation result.…”
Section: Assumption 12 (Geometric Control Before Refocusing) the Opmentioning
confidence: 55%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…In some sense, it is a high frequency controllability result and expresses in a rough physical way that we can control some "small noisy data". In the subcritical case, two similar kind of results were proved : in Dehman-Lebeau-Zuazua [11] similar results were proved for the nonlinear wave equation but without the smallness assumption in L 2 ×H −1 while in Dehman-Lebeau [10], they obtain similar high frequency controllability results for the subcritical equation but in a uniform time which is actually the time of linear controllability (see also the work of the author [21] for the Schrödinger equation). Actually, this smallness assumption is made necessary in our proof because we are not able to prove in general the following unique continuation result.…”
Section: Assumption 12 (Geometric Control Before Refocusing) the Opmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…It mainly describes the proof contained in Dehman-Lebeau-Zuazua [11]. We also emphasize which points fail in the critical case, that we will describe in the next section.…”
Section: Arguments Of the Proofmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Later on, Dehman [7] reduced the two proofs in [45] to a single proof, but for initial data that are bounded in the energy space. Subsequently, using Strichartz dispersive inequalities, the results of [7,45,46] were improved to include all the subcritical nonlinearities f in the three dimensional setting, meaning that q < 4 in (1.1), by Dehman, Lebeau and Zuazua in [8]. It is also of interest to mention Nakao's papers [29,30], where the authors discuss the same type of questions for systems involving nonlinearities of the form f (x, s) -that are bounded in x -and nonlinear damping locally distributed on a neighborhood of a suitable subset of the boundary; they establish polynomial and exponential energy decay estimates for small enough initial data.…”
Section: Ag(y T ∇Y)y T DX = E(s) ∀0 ≤ S < T < ∞mentioning
confidence: 99%