In this paper, an effective numerical method for solving the variable-order(VO) fractional reaction diffusion equation with the Caputo fractional derivative is constructed and analyzed. Based on the generalized alternating numerical flux, we get a fully discrete local discontinuous Galerkin scheme for the problem. From a practical standpoint, the generalized alternating numerical flux, which is distinct from the purely alternating numerical flux, has a more extensive scope. For 0<α(t)<1, we prove that the method is unconditionally stable and the errors attain (k+1)-th order of accuracy for piecewise Pk polynomials. Finally, some numerical experiments are performed to show the effectiveness and verify the accuracy of the method.
Citation: Lijie Liu, Xiaojing Wei, Leilei Wei. A fully discrete local discontinuous Galerkin method based on generalized numerical fluxes to variable-order time-fractional reaction-diffusion problem with the Caputo fractional derivative[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(9): 5701-5715. doi: 10.3934/era.2023289
[1] | Yanlin Li, A. A. Abdel-Salam, M. Khalifa Saad . Primitivoids of curves in Minkowski plane. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 2386-2406. doi: 10.3934/math.2023123 |
[2] | Jiafan Zhang, Xingxing Lv . On the primitive roots and the generalized Golomb's conjecture. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 5654-5663. doi: 10.3934/math.2020361 |
[3] | Lilan Dai, Yunnan Li . Primitive decompositions of idempotents of the group algebras of dihedral groups and generalized quaternion groups. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 28150-28169. doi: 10.3934/math.20241365 |
[4] | Anthony Overmars, Lorenzo Ntogramatzidis, Sitalakshmi Venkatraman . A new approach to generate all Pythagorean triples. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(2): 242-253. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.2.242 |
[5] | Jiafan Zhang, Xingxing Lv . Correction: On the primitive roots and the generalized Golomb's conjecture. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 8607-8608. doi: 10.3934/math.2022480 |
[6] | Wenpeng Zhang, Tingting Wang . The primitive roots and a problem related to the Golomb conjecture. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 3899-3905. doi: 10.3934/math.2020252 |
[7] | Yaguo Guo, Shilin Yang . Projective class rings of a kind of category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 10997-11014. doi: 10.3934/math.2023557 |
[8] | Guoqing Wang . A generalization of Kruyswijk-Olson theorem on Davenport constant in commutative semigroups. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 2992-3001. doi: 10.3934/math.2020193 |
[9] | Shahida Bashir, Ahmad N. Al-Kenani, Maria Arif, Rabia Mazhar . A new method to evaluate regular ternary semigroups in multi-polar fuzzy environment. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 12241-12263. doi: 10.3934/math.2022680 |
[10] | Ze Gu, Xiang-Yun Xie, Jian Tang . On C-ideals and the basis of an ordered semigroup. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 3783-3790. doi: 10.3934/math.2020245 |
In this paper, an effective numerical method for solving the variable-order(VO) fractional reaction diffusion equation with the Caputo fractional derivative is constructed and analyzed. Based on the generalized alternating numerical flux, we get a fully discrete local discontinuous Galerkin scheme for the problem. From a practical standpoint, the generalized alternating numerical flux, which is distinct from the purely alternating numerical flux, has a more extensive scope. For 0<α(t)<1, we prove that the method is unconditionally stable and the errors attain (k+1)-th order of accuracy for piecewise Pk polynomials. Finally, some numerical experiments are performed to show the effectiveness and verify the accuracy of the method.
Primitive semigroups have been an important topic of semigroup researches since the 1950s. In fact, as early as 1954, Preston who is one of the founders of the algebraic theory of semigroups studied primitive inverse semigroups in [16], and then he gave the characterization of primitive regular semigroups and applied it to the study of matrix representations of inverse semigroups in [17]. In particular, he pointed out that a regular semigroup (resp. an inverse semigroup) with zero is primitive if and only if it is the 0-direct union of a family of completely 0-simple semigroups (resp. Brandt semigroups) (See also the monographs [5,12,18]). In addition, from the view of category Lawson [12] showed that an inverse semigroup with zero is primitive if and only if it is isomorphic to a groupoid with zero adjoined. On the other hand, Theorem Ⅲ.3.5 and Corollary Ⅲ.3.6 in [5] together give that a regular semigroup (resp. an inverse semigroup) without zero is primitive if and only if it is a completely simple semigroup (resp. a group). Furthermore, primitive orthodox semigroups were also concerned in Venkatesan [21].
As generalizations of regular semigroups, abundant semigroups were introduced and investigated in 1982 by Fountain in [2] where the class of primitive abundant semigroups and its several subclasses, such as primitive abundant semigroups with regularity condition, primitive quasi-adequate semigroups and primitive adequate semigroups etc., were also characterized. We observe that the roles of quasi-adequate semigroups and adequate semigroups in the range of abundant semigroups are similar to those of orthodox semigroups and inverse semigroups in the range of regular semigroups, respectively.
In 1991, Lawson [13] went a further step to generalize abundant semigroups to U-semiabundant semigroups where U is a nonempty subset of the set of idempotents and correspondingly generalize quasi-adequate semigroups and adequate semigroups to weakly U-orthodox semigroups and Ehresmann semigroups, respectively. The class of Ehresmann semigroups and its special subclasses (for example, the class of restriction semigroups) now form a hot research topic, and a lot of achievements in this line have been obtained by many semigroup experts, for example, see [3,4,6,8,10,11,13,20] and the references therein. In particular, Gould [3,4] gave the equivalent definition of Ehresmann semigroups from the view of variety, and Jones explicitly introduced the notion of primitive Ehresmann semigroups in [8] and by using small categories obtained a construction of primitive Ehresmann semigroups with zero in [10] which is analogous to that of primitive inverse semigroups with zero given in Lawson [12] by using groupoids. We also observe that Lawson [14] investigated a class of primitive U-semiabundant semigroups named Rees semigroups and Wang [22] characterized primitive weakly U-orthodox semigroups, which generalize the corresponding results of primitive abundant semigroups provided in [2].
On the other hand, Jones [7] generalized Ehresmann semigroups to P-Ehresmann semigroups from a varietal perspective and provided a common framework for Ehresmann semigroups and regular *-semigroups. Regular *-semigroups first appeared in Nordahl and Scheiblich [15] and a generalization of this class of semigroups was investigated in the author [23]. For more details for regular ∗-semigroups, the reader may consult the texts[1,7,15,19,23] and their references. At present, some valuable results have been obtained on P-Ehresmann semigroups. For instance, the constructions of P-Ehresmann semigroups have been considered by "fundamental approach" in [7] and [25,26] by "categorical approach", respectively. Variety properties, semigroup algebras and completions of P-Ehresmann semigroups have been explored in Jones [8], Wang [24] and Yan and Wang [27], respectively.
From the above discussions, the following problem is natural: How to introduce and characterize primitive P-Ehresmann semigroups? The aim of this paper is to solve the above problem. We have introduced the notion of projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroups and established the structures of projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroups. In particular, we show that projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroups are always P-restriction. Our work may be regarded as extending primitive Ehresmann semigroups introduced and investigated by Jones in [8] and [10], respectively.
In this section, after recalling some necessary notions and results on P-Ehresmann semigroups, we shall introduce projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroups and explore their basic properties.
For a semigroup S, we always denote the set of idempotents in S by E(S). From Lemma 2.2 and its dual in Gould [3], a bi-unary semigroup (S,⋅,+,∗) is called an Ehresmann semigroup if the following identities hold:
x+x=x,(xy)+=(xy+)+,(x+y+)+=x+y+,x+y+=y+x+,(x+)∗=x+ |
xx∗=x,(xy)∗=(x∗y)∗,(x∗y∗)∗=x∗y∗,x∗y∗=y∗x∗,(x∗)+=x∗. |
To extend Ehresmann semigroups, P-Ehresmann semigroups were introduced in Jones [7] from the view of variety. A bi-unary semigroup (S,⋅,+,∗) is called a P-Ehresmann semigroup if the following identities hold:
![]() |
A P-Ehresmann semigroup (S,⋅,+,∗) is called P-restriction if
(xy)+x=xy+x∗ and x(yx)∗=x+y∗x for all x,y∈S. |
In a P-Ehresmann semigroup (S,⋅,+,∗), the set of projections is PS={a+∣a∈S} which is equal to {a∗∣a∈S} by (ⅴ) and (ⅴ)′. The following lemmas collect some basic properties of P-Ehresmann semigroups first given in Jones [7].
Lemma 2.1 ([7]). A bi-unary semigroup (S,⋅,+,∗) is Ehresmann (resp. restriction) if and only if (S,⋅,+,∗) is P-Ehresmann (resp. P-restriction) and PS is a subsemilattice of S.
Lemma 2.2 ([7]). Let (S,⋅,+,∗) be a P-Ehresmann semigroup and x,y∈S,e,f∈PS.
(1) (x+y)+=x+y+x+,x++=x+,x+(xy)+x+=(xy)+.
(2) (xy∗)∗=y∗x∗y∗,x∗∗=x∗,y∗(xy)∗y∗=(xy)∗.
(3) (ef)2=ef,e+=e=e∗,(ef)+=efe=(fe)∗∈PS.
(4) ef∈PS if and only if ef=fe.
Let (S,⋅,+,∗) be a P-Ehresmann semigroup. Define a relation on PS by the rule
e≤fifandonlyife=ef=feforalle,f∈PS. |
Then it is easy to see that ≤ is a partial order on PS. By Lemma 2.2, the following corollary is obvious.
Corollary 2.3. Let (S,⋅,+,∗) be a P-Ehresmann semigroup and x,y∈S,e,f∈PS. Then (xy)+≤x+,(xy)∗≤y∗ and efe≤e.
Similar to the case of restriction semigroups appeared in Jones [8], we call a P-Ehresmann semigroup (S,⋅,+,∗) without zero or with zero 0 satisfying 0∉PS projection-primitive if
(∀e,f∈PS)e≤f⟹e=f, |
while call a P-Ehresmann semigroup (S,⋅,+,∗) with zero 0 satisfying 0∈PS projection-primitive if
(∀e,f∈PS)e≤f⟹e=0ore=f. |
Observe that a primitive Ehresmann semigroup without zero is just a momoid in which the identity is the only projection by Lemma 2.1. We first characterize projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroups without zero.
Proposition 2.4. Let (S,⋅,+,∗) be a P-Ehresmann semigroup without zero. Then the following statements are equivalent:
(1) S is projection-primitive.
(2) (xy)+=x+ for all x,y∈S.
(3) (xy)∗=y∗ for all x,y∈S.
Proof. We only show that (1) is equivalent to (2), and one can prove that (1) is equivalent to (3) by similar arguments. If S is projection-primitive and x,y∈S, then (xy)+≤x+ by Corollary 2.3. This implies that (xy)+=x+. Conversely, let e,f∈PS and e≤f. Then ef=fe=e. By the given condition and Lemma 2.2, we have f=f+=(fe)+=e+=e. This gives the projection-primitivity of S.
From Jones [9], a P-Ehresmann semigroup (S,⋅,+,∗) is called reduced if PS contains exactly one element. By the identities (ⅰ) and (ⅰ)′, in this case S is a monoid with the only projection as its identity. Obviously, reduced P-Ehresmann semigroups are always projection-primitive. In fact, we have the following result.
Proposition 2.5. Let (S,⋅,+,∗) be a P-Ehresmann semigroup with zero 0 and 0∉PS. Then the following statements are equivalent:
(1) S is projection-primitive.
(2) x+=0+ for all x∈S.
(3) x∗=0∗ for all x∈S.
In this case, S is a reduced P-Ehresmann semigroup with the identity 0+ and so is an Ehresmann semigroup.
Proof. We only show that (1) is equivalent to (2), and one can prove that (1) is equivalent to (3) by similar arguments. Let S be projection-primitive and x∈S. Then 0+=(x0)+≤x+ by Corollary 2.3, and so 0+=x+. Conversely, the given condition (2) implies that PS={x+∣x∈S}={0+}. This gives that S is reduced and has identity 0+, and so is projection-primitive certainly.
Remark 2.6. By Proposition 2.5, a projection-primitive P-Ehresmann (or Ehresmann) semigroup (S,⋅,+,∗) with zero 0 and 0∉PS is reduced and is exactly a monoid with zero containing at least two elements.
Now we consider projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroups with zero 0 as a projection.
Proposition 2.7. Let (S,⋅,+,∗) be a projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroup with zero 0 and 0∈PS.
(1) For all x∈S, x+=0⟺x=0⟺x∗=0.
(2) For all x,y∈S∖{0}, xy≠0⟺x∗y+x∗=x∗⟺y+x∗y+=y+.
Proof. (1) Let x∈S. We only prove that x+=0 if and only if x=0. The other equivalence can be showed by symmetry. In fact, if x+=0, then x=x+x=0x=0 by (ⅰ). To show the converse, we first observe that 0+=(a0)+≤a+ for all a∈S by Corollary 2.3. This implies that 0+ is the minimum element in PS. Since 0∈PS, it follows that 0+=0+0=0.
(2) Let x,y∈S∖{0}. We only prove that xy≠0 if and only if x∗y+x∗=x∗. The other equivalence can be showed by symmetry. If xy≠0, then xx∗y+y=xy≠0 by the identities (ⅰ) and (ⅰ)′. This implies that x∗≠0 and x∗y+≠0. By item (1) we have x∗+≠0 and (x∗y+)+≠0. But Corollary 2.3 gives that (x∗y+)+≤x∗+, and so (x∗y+)+=x∗+ by the projection-primitivity of S. Moreover, Lemma 2.2 provides that x∗y+x∗=(x∗y+)+=x∗+=x∗. Conversely, if x∗y+x∗=x∗, then by using (ⅱ), (ⅰ)′, (ⅱ), Lemma 2.2 (3), (ⅰ)′ and item (1) of the present lemma in order, we have
(xy)+=(xy+)+=(xx∗y+)+=(x(x∗y+)+)+=(xx∗y+x∗)+=(xx∗)+=x+≠0, | (2.1) |
which implies that xy≠0 by item (1) of the present lemma again. To end this section, we observe the following interesting result.
Theorem 2.8. A projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroup is always P-restriction.
Proof. Let (S,⋅,+,∗) be a projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroup and x,y∈S. Firstly, if S contains no zero, then (xy)+x=x+x=x by Proposition 2.4. By Corollary 2.3, we have x∗y+x∗≤x∗, and so x∗y+x∗=x∗ by the projection-primitivity of S. This implies that xy+x∗=xx∗y+x∗=xx∗=x by (ⅰ)′. Thus (xy)+x=xy+x∗. Dually, we have x(yx)∗=x+y∗x. Secondly, if S contains a zero 0 and 0∉PS, then it is obvious that (xy)+x=xy+x∗ and x(yx)∗=x+y∗x by Proposition 2.5. Finally, assume that S contains a zero 0 and 0∈PS. If xy=0, then by Proposition 2.7 (1) and (ⅱ) we have 0=(xy)+=(xy+)+ and xy+=0. This implies that (xy)+x=0=xy+x∗. If xy≠0, then (xy)+≠0 and x∗=x∗y+x∗ by Proposition 2.7. Since (xy)+≤x+ by Corollary 2.3, the projection-primitivity of S gives that (xy)+=x+. This implies that
xy+x∗=xx∗y+x∗=xx∗=x=x+x=(xy)+x |
by (ⅰ) and (ⅰ)′. Therefore, (xy)+x=xy+x∗. Dually, we have x(yx)∗=x+y∗x. Thus, S is P-restriction in all cases.
In the remainder of this paper, we shall establish the structures of projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroups. The present section is devoted to projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroups without zero or with zero which is not a projection. The following theorem characterize these semigroups completely.
Theorem 3.1. Let I and Λ be two sets and ϕ:I→Λ,i↦iϕ be a bijection. Assume that M is a monoid, |I×M×Λ|≠1 and P=(pλi)Λ×I is a Λ×I-matrix over M satisfying piϕ,i=e=piϕ,jpjϕ,i for all i,j∈I, where e is the identity of M. Define a binary and two unary operations on the set
S=M(I,Λ,M,P)={(i,x,λ)∣i∈I,x∈M,λ∈Λ} |
as follows:
(i,x,λ)(j,y,μ)=(i,xpλjy,μ),(i,x,λ)+=(i,e,iϕ),(i,x,λ)∗=(λϕ−1,e,λ). |
Then (S,⋅,+,∗) is a projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroup without zero or with zero which is not a projection. Conversely, every such semigroup can be obtained in this way.
Proof. Direct part. By hypothesis, S0 can be regarded as a Rees matrix semigroup over the monoid M0. Denote P(S0)={(i,p−1λi,λ)∣i∈I,λ∈Λ}∪{0} and U={(i,e,iϕ)∣i∈I}. Then by Proposition 1.5 in Lawson [14], we can easily show that for all (i,x,λ),(j,y,μ)∈S,
(i,x,λ)˜RP(S0)(j,y,μ)⟺(i,x,λ)˜RU(j,y,μ)⟺i=j, |
(i,x,λ)˜LP(S0)(j,y,μ)⟺(i,x,λ)˜LU(j,y,μ)⟺λ=μ. |
Moreover, ˜RU (resp. ˜LU) is a left congruence (resp. a right congruence) on S by Lemma 1.9 in Lawson [14]. By the given condition on the matrix P, it is easy to see that U is both a right projection-set and a left projection-set of S in the sense of Jones [7] (see page 629). According to Theorem 6.1 of Jones [7] and its dual, (S,⋅,+,∗) is a P-Ehresmann semigroup and PS=U. Moreover, in view of Proposition 1.7 of Lawson [14], no two different elements in PS can be compatible. Thus S is projection-primitive. If (i,z,λ) is the zero element of S, then for all (j,y,μ)∈S, we have (i,z,λ)(j,y,μ)=(i,z,λ)=(j,y,μ)(i,z,λ). This implies that i=j and λ=μ. In this case, |I|=|Λ|=1 and so PS contains only one element. By hypothesis, S has at least two elements and so the zero is not a projection.
Converse part. Let (M,⋅,+,∗) be a projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroup with zero which is not a projection. Then by Proposition 2.5 and Remark 2.6, M has at least two elements and is a monoid with the only projection e as its identity. In this case, M has the form in the theorem certainly.
Now let (T,⋅,+,∗) be a projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroup without zero. Then it is easy to see that T0 is a Rees semigroup with respect to U=P0T in the sense of Lawson [14], and ˜LU={(a,b)∈T0×T0∣a∗=b∗}∪{(0,0)} and ˜RU={(a,b)∈T0×T0∣a+=b+}∪{(0,0)} (see page 28 in [14]). Fix an element e∈PT and denote I={xe∣x∈PT},Λ={ex∣x∈PT}. Define ϕ:I→Λ,xe↦ex for all x∈PT. Then ϕ is a bijection. In fact, if x,y∈PT and xe=ye, then x=x+=(xe)+=(ye)+=y+=y by Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.4, and so ex=ey. This fact and its dual give that ϕ is bijection. We assert that piϕ,i=e=piϕ,jpjϕ,i for all i,j∈I. In fact, take i=xe,j=ye∈I where x,y∈PT. Then iϕ=ex and jϕ=ey. This implies by Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.4 that piϕ,i=(iϕ)i=(ex)(xe)=exe=(ex)+=e+=e and
piϕ,jpjϕ,i=((iϕ)j)((jϕ)i)=exyeeyxe=exyeyxe=(e(xyeyx))+=e+=e. |
On the other hand, for every t∈T, we have (t+e)+=t+ and (et∗)∗=t∗ by Proposition 2.4. In view of Lemma 2.2 (4), I and Λ can index the non-zero ˜RU-classes and ˜LU-classes of T0, respectively. Denote M={a∈T∣a+=a∗=e}∪{0}. For i∈I and λ∈Λ, let ri=i and qλ=λ and denote pλi=qλri=λi. Since (t+e)+=t+, (et∗)∗=t∗, (ete)+=(ete)∗=e and t=(t+e)ete(et∗) by Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.4, in view of the proof of Theorem 3.6 in Lawson [14],
θ:T0→S=M0(I,Λ,M,P),t↦(t+e,ete,et∗),0↦0 |
is a semigroup isomorphism. Moreover, if we define
(i,a,λ)+=(i,e,iϕ),(i,a,λ)∗=(λϕ−1,e,λ),0+=0∗=0 |
on S, then we can see that θ also preserves + and ∗ by Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.4. By the construction of P=(pλi), θ|T is a (2,1,1)-isomorphism from T onto M(I,Λ,M,P).
In Theorem 3.1, if we identify i with iϕ for all i∈I, we can assume that I=Λ. So we have the following corollary.
Corollary 3.2. Let I be a set and M a monoid with |I×M|≠1. Assume that P=(pλi)I×I is an I×I-matrix over M satisfying pii=e=pijpj,i for all i,j∈I, where e is the identity of M. Define a binary and two unary operations on the set
S=M(I,M,P)={(i,x,j)∣i,j∈I,x∈M} |
as follows:
(i,x,j)(k,y,l)=(i,xpjky,l),(i,x,j)+=(i,e,i),(i,x,j)∗=(j,e,j). |
Then (S,⋅,+,∗) is a projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroup without zero or with zero which is not a projection. Conversely, every such semigroup can be obtained in this way.
In this section, we consider the structures of projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroups with zero as a projection. To this aim, we need to recall some necessary notions and results. From Jones [7], a left projection algebra consists of a nonempty set P and a binary operation "×" satisfying the following axioms:
(P1) e×e=e.
(P2) e×(e×f)=(e×f)×e=e×f.
(P3) (e×f)×g=e×(f×(e×g)).
(P4) e×(f×g)=(e×f)×(e×(f×g)).
For simplicity, we use the words "projection algebra" to replace "left projection algebra" in the sequel. Let (P,×) be a projection algebra. Define a relation "≤P" on P by the rule that for all e,f∈P, e≤Pfifandonlyife=f×e. Then ≤P is a partial order on P by (P1)–(P4). Moreover, by (P2) it is easy to see that
e×f≤Pe | (4.1) |
for all e,f∈P. A projection algebra (P,×) with the least element 0 with respect to ≤P is called primitive if no two different elements in P∖{0} can be compatible. On primitive projection algebras, we have the following simple results.
Proposition 4.1. A primitive projection algebra (P,×) is just a (2, 0)-type algebra (P,×,0) satisfying the following conditions: For all e,f∈P,
(Pr1) e×e=e.
(Pr2) 0×e=0=e×0.
(Pr3) e×f=0ore×f=e.
(Pr4) e×f=0ifandonlyiff×e=0.
In particular, if e×f=f×e for all e,f∈P, then e×f≠0 if and only if e=f≠0.
Proof. Let (P,×) be a primitive projection algebra with the least element 0. We only need to show that (Pr2)–(Pr4) hold. Let e,f∈P. Since 0≤Pe, we have e×0=0, and so 0×e=(e×0)×e=e×0=0 by (P2). This proves (Pr2). In view of (4.1), (Pr3) is true. Finally, if e×f=0 and f×e≠0, then f×e=f≠0 by (Pr3). However,
f×e=(f×e)×e=f×(e×(f×e))=f×(e×f)=f×0=0 |
by (P3) and (Pr2). This is a contradiction. So (Pr4) holds.
Conversely, let (P,×,0) be a (2, 0)-type algebra satisfying the given conditions. We only need to show that (P2)–(P4) hold. Let e,f,g∈P. By (Pr3), e×f=0 or e×f=e. In the former case, all items in (P2) are equal to 0 by (Pr2). In the latter case, all items in (P2) are equal to e by (Pr1). This shows (P2). Moreover, we also have e×g=0 or e×g=e. Then the following four cases may occur:
(1)e×f=e,e×g=e;(2)e×f=e,e×g=0;(3)e×f=0,e×g=e;(4)e×f=0,e×g=0. |
In case (1), (e×f)×g=e×g=e and e×(f×(e×g))=e×(f×e). By (Pr3) and (Pr4), f×e=f in the case. So e×(f×e)=e×f=e. This proves (P3) for case (1). The other cases can be showed similarly. Finally, we consider (P4). By (Pr3), f×g=f or f×g=0. In the former case, the left side of (P4) is e×f, the right side of (P4) is (e×f)×(e×f)=e×f by (Pr1), and so they are equal. In the latter case, the two sides of (P4) are both 0 by (Pr2). The final result of the proposition follows from (Pr1), (Pr3) and (Pr4).
By the dual of Proposition 2.4 in [7], and Propositions 2.7 and 4.1, we have the following result easily.
Lemma 4.2. Let (S,⋅,+,∗) be a primitive P-Ehresmann semigroup with zero 0 and 0∈PS. Define a binary operation "×S" on PS as follows: For all e,f∈PS, e×Sf=(ef)+=efe. Then (PS,×S,0) forms a primitive projection algebra. In particular, if S is Ehresmann, then e×Sf=f×Se for all e,f∈PS by Lemma 2.1.
Let C be a nonempty set with a partial binary operation ⋅ and (P,×,0) a primitive projection algebra with (P∖{0})⊆C. Assume that d:C→P,x↦d(x), r:C→P,x↦r(x) are maps such that d(C)∪r(C)⊆(P∖{0}) and
d(e)=e=r(e) | (4.2) |
for all e∈(P∖{0}). According to Wang [26], C=(C,⋅,d,r,P) is called a generalized category over (P,×,0) if the following conditions hold:
(G1) For all x,y∈C, x⋅y is defined if and only if r(x)×d(y)≠0 and then d(x⋅y)=d(x) and r(x⋅y)=r(y).
(G2) If x,y,z∈C such that both x⋅y and y⋅z are defined, then (x⋅y)⋅z=x⋅(y⋅z).
(G3) For all x∈C, d(x)⋅x and x⋅r(x) are defined and d(x)⋅x=x=x⋅r(x).
(G4) If e,f∈P and e×f≠0, then (e⋅f)⋅e=e.
If e×f=f×e for all e,f∈P, then e×f≠0 if and only if e=f, and so (G4) is always satisfied by (4.2), (G3) and Proposition 4.1. In this case, C=(C,⋅,d,r,P) is a category in usual sense.
Proposition 4.3. Let C=(C,⋅,d,r,P) be a generalized category over the primitive projection algebra (P,×,0). Put C0=C∪{0}. Define a binary operation on C0 as follows: If x,y∈C and x⋅y is defined in C, then xy=x⋅y; all other products in C0 are 0. Moreover, define two unary operations on C0 as follows: 0♣=0♠=0 and x♣=d(x),x♠=r(x) for all x∈C. With these operations C0 is a projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroup with 0 as a projection. In the sequel, we call (C0,⋅,♣,♠) a generalized category with zero adjoined.
Proof. Let x,y,z∈C0. It is routine to check that (xy)z=0 precisely when x(yz)=0. Thus C0 is a semigroup by (G2). We shall show that the identities (ⅰ)–(ⅴ) and (ⅰ)′–(ⅴ)′ are satisfied. Let x,y∈C0. If 0∈{x,y}, the identities (ⅰ)–(ⅴ) and (ⅰ)′–(ⅴ)′ are satisfied obviously. So we assume that x,y∈C. Firstly, since d(x)⋅x=x by (G3), we have x♣x=x. This gives (ⅰ). Dully, we have (ⅰ)′. Secondly, since d(y♣)=d(d(y))=d(y) by (4.2), it follows that xy♣≠0 if and only if xy≠0 by (G1). If this is the case, we have
(xy♣)♣=d(xy♣)=d(x)=d(xy)=(xy)♣ |
by (G1) again. This is exactly the identity (ⅱ). Dually, (ⅱ)′ is also true. Thirdly, by (4.2), (G1) and (Pr4), we can see that
x♣y♣≠0⟺d(x)×d(y)≠0⟺x♣y♣x♣≠0. |
In this case, we have
(x♣y♣)♣=d(d(x)d(y))=d(d(x))=d(x) |
by (G1) and x♣y♣x♣=d(x)d(y)d(x)=d(x) by (G4). This implies that the identity (ⅲ) is true. Dually, (ⅲ)′ is valid. Moreover, by (4.2), (G1) and (G3) we have
x♣x♣=d(x)d(x)=d(d(x))d(x)=d(x). |
This gives (ⅳ). Similarly, we have (ⅳ)′. The identities (ⅴ) and (ⅴ)′ follow from the fact (x♣)♠=r(d(x))=d(x)=x♣ by (4.2) and its dual. We have shown that (C0,⋅,♣,♠) is a P-Ehresmann semigroup with the set of projections
PC0={x♣∣x∈C0}=P={d(x)∣x∈C}∪{0}={r(x)∣x∈C}∪{0}. |
Finally, let e,f∈PC0 and e≤f. Then e=ef=fe. If e≠0, then f⋅e is defined and so e=d(e)=d(fe)=d(f)=f by (4.2) and (G1). Thus, (C0,⋅,♣,♠) is projection-primitive.
Remark 4.4. Let C=(C,⋅,d,r,P) be a generalized category over the primitive projection algebra (P,×,0). If P contains at least three elements and e×f≠0 for all e,f∈P∖{0}, then x⋅y is defined for all x,y∈C. By Propositions 4.3 and 2.5, (C,⋅,♣,♠) is a projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroup without zero. On the other hand, if P contains two elements, say, P={0,1}, then (C,⋅,♣,♠) is a reduced P-Ehresmann semigroup. In fact, (C,⋅) is a monoid with 1 as identity, and (C0,⋅) is a monoid with zero adjoined. Thus we can think that generalized categories with zero adjoined covers the semigroups considered in the last section.
Now we can give the main result of this section, which is a generalization of a result on restriction semigroups obtained by Jones in Section 4 of [10].
Theorem 4.5. Let (S,⋅,+,∗) be a P-Ehresmann semigroup with zero as a projection and |S|>1. Then S is projection-primitive if and only if S is (2, 1, 1)-isomorphic to a generalized category with zero adjoined.
Proof. We have proved in Proposition 4.3 that every generalized category with zero adjoined is a projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroup with zero as a projection. To prove the converse, let (S,⋅,+,∗) be a projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroup with zero 0 and 0∈PS. By Lemma 4.2, (PS,×S,0) forms a primitive projection algebra. Denote C=S∖{0}. Define a partial binary operation "⋅" as follows:
x⋅y={xyif xy≠0,undefinedif xy=0, | (4.3) |
where xy denotes the multiplication of x and y in the semigroup S. Define maps
d:C→PS,x↦x+, r:C→PS,x↦x∗. | (4.4) |
Then we have d(C)∪r(C)⊆(PS∖{0}) by Proposition 2.7 (1), and d(e)=e=r(e) for all e∈PS∖{0} by Lemma 2.2, respectively.
We assert that (C,⋅,d,r,PS) is a generalized category over the primitive projection algebra (PS,×S,0). First, let x,y∈C. By Proposition 2.7 (2) and (Pr3), (Pr4),
x⋅yisdefined⟺x∗y+x∗=x∗ |
⟺y+x∗y+=y+⟺r(x)×Sd(y)≠0⟺d(y)×Sr(x)≠0. |
In this case, by the identities defining P-Ehresmann semigroups and Lemma 2.2 we have
d(x⋅y)=d(xy)=(xy)+=(xy+)+=(xx∗y+)+ |
=(x(x∗y+)+)+=(xx∗y+x∗)+=(xx∗)+=x+=d(x). |
Dually, we have r(x⋅y)=r(y). Thus (G1) holds. Next, let x,y,z∈C, and x⋅y and y⋅z be defined. Since r(x⋅y)=r(y) and d(y⋅z)=d(y), (x⋅y)⋅z and x⋅(y⋅z) are defined, and so (x⋅y)⋅z=(xy)z=x(yz)=x⋅(y⋅z). This gives (G2). Moreover, for x∈C, since x+x=x≠0, it follows that x+⋅x is defined and d(x)⋅x=x. Dually, x⋅x∗ is defined and x⋅r(x)=x. Thus (G3) is true. Finally, let e,f∈PS and e×Sf≠0. Then f×Se≠0 by (Pr4) and e=e×Sf=efe by (Pr3). In view of (G2), (e⋅f)⋅e is defined and (e⋅f)⋅e=(ef)e=efe=e. Thus (G4) is valid.
By Proposition 4.3, we have a generalized category with zero adjoined (C0,⋅,♣,♠). We shall show that S is (2, 1, 1)-isomorphic to C0. Define a map ψ:S→C0 by assigning 0ψ=0 and xψ=x for all x∈C=S∖{0}. Obviously, ψ is a bijection. Let x,y∈S. If x=0 or y=0, then xψ=0 or yψ=0, whence (xy)ψ=0ψ=0=(xψ)(yψ). Assume that x,y∈C=S∖{0}. Then xy=0 in (S,⋅,+,∗) if and only if x⋅y is not defined in the generalized category (C,⋅,d,r,PS), if and only if xy=0 in (C0,⋅,♣,♠) by (4.3) and Proposition 4.3. This implies that (xy)ψ=(xψ)(yψ) for all x,y∈C. Thus ψ is a semigroup homomorphism. Furthermore, observe that 0+=0 by Proposition 2.7 (1) and 0♣=0 by Proposition 4.3, it follows that (0ψ)♣=0♣=0=0ψ=0+ψ. Dually, we have (0ψ)♠=0∗ψ. If x∈C=S∖{0}, then x+∈C by Proposition 2.7 (1), this implies that (xψ)♣=x♣=d(x)=x+=x+ψ by Propositions 4.3 and (4.4). Dually, we have (xψ)♠=x∗ψ for all x∈C. We have shown that ψ is a (2, 1, 1)-isomorphism. By Lemma 4.2 and the statements before Proposition 4.3, we have the following result appeared in Jones [10].
Corollary 4.6 ([10]). Let (S,⋅,+,∗) be an Ehresmann semigroup with zero as a projection and |S|>1. Then S is projection-primitive if and only if S is (2, 1, 1)-isomorphic to a category with zero adjoined.
Remark 4.7. Let (S,⋅,+,∗) be a primitive P-Ehresmann semigroup without zero or with zero 0 but 0∉PS. Let ⋄∉S and define additionally x⋄=⋄x=⋄=⋄⋄ and ⋄+=⋄∗=⋄. Then (S⋄,⋅,+,∗) forms a primitive P-Ehresmann semigroup with zero ⋄ and ⋄∈PS⋄. In this case, the generalized category associated with S⋄ constructed in the proof of Theorem 4.5 is just (S,⋅,+,∗) and the corresponding generalized category with zero adjoined is just (S⋄,⋅,+,∗). By Remark 4.4, we can think that Theorem 4.5 also works for the semigroups considered in the last section. However, it is trivial certainly in the case.
In this paper, we have obtained the structures of projection-primitive P-Ehresmann semigroups. As a future work, one can investigate the associative algebras of these semigroups by using the results obtained in the present paper.
The author expresses his profound gratitude to the referees for the valuable comments and suggestions, which improve greatly the content and presentation of this article. In particular, according to the advices of one of the referees, we rewrite Section 3 (with the help of the results of Lawson [14] provided by the referee) and Section 4. This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11661082). Thanks also go to the editor for the timely communications.
The author declares there is no conflict of interest.
[1] | A. A. Kilbas, H. M. Srivastava, J. J. Trujillo, Theory and Applications of Fractional Differential Equations, Elsevier, Netherlands, 2006. |
[2] | C. P. Li, F. H. Zeng, Numerical Methods for Fractional Calculus, Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2015. |
[3] | I. Podlubny, Fractional Differential Equations, Academic Press, 1999. |
[4] |
G. Andrew, A Method of Analyzing Experimental Results Obtained from Elasto-Viscous Bodies, J. Appl. Phys., 7 (1936), 311–317. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1745400 doi: 10.1063/1.1745400
![]() |
[5] |
M. Caputo, F. Mainardi, A new dissipation model based on memory mechanism, Pure Appl Geophys, 91 (1971), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00879562 doi: 10.1007/BF00879562
![]() |
[6] | J. H. He, Some applications of nonlinear fractional differential equations and their applications, Bull. Sci. Technol., 15 (1999), 86–90. |
[7] | Z. Jiao, Y. Chen, I. Podlubny, Distributed-Order Dynamic Systems: Stability, Simulation, Applications and Perspectives, Springer, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2852-6 |
[8] |
X. Yang, L. Wu, H. Zhang, A space-time spectral order sinc-collocation method for the fourth-order nonlocal heat model arising in viscoelasticity, Appl. Math. Comput., 457 (2023), 128192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2023.128192 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2023.128192
![]() |
[9] |
X. M. Gu, H. W. Sun, Y. L. Zhao, X. C. Zheng, An implicit difference scheme for time-fractional diffusion equations with a time-invariant type variable order, Appl. Math. Lett., 120 (2021), 107270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2021.107270 doi: 10.1016/j.aml.2021.107270
![]() |
[10] |
S. Chen, J. Shen, L. L. Wang, Generalized Jacobi functions and their applications tofractional differential equations, Math. Comp., 85 (2016), 1603–1638. https://doi.org/10.1090/mcom3035 doi: 10.1090/mcom3035
![]() |
[11] | S. Guo, L. Mei, Z. Zhang, Y. Jiang, Finite difference/spectral-Galerkin method for a two-dimensional distributed-order time-space fractional reaction-diffusion equation, Appl. Math. Lett., 85 (2018, ) 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2018.06.005 |
[12] |
C. P. Li, F. H. Zeng, F. Liu, Spectral approximations to the fractional integral and derivative, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal., 15 (2012), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13540-012-0028-x doi: 10.2478/s13540-012-0028-x
![]() |
[13] |
X. Li, C. Xu, A space-time spectral method for the time fractional diffusion equation, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 47 (2009), 2108–2131. https://doi.org/10.1137/080718942 doi: 10.1137/080718942
![]() |
[14] |
Y. Lin, C. Xu, Finite difference/spectral approximations for the time-fractional diffusion equation, J. Comput. Phys., 225 (2007), 1533–1552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.02.001
![]() |
[15] |
F. Y. Song, C. J. Xu, Spectral direction splitting methods for two-dimensional space fractional diffusion equations, J. Comput. Phys., 299 (2015), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2015.07.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2015.07.011
![]() |
[16] | J. Guo, C. Li, H. Ding, Finite difference methods for time sub-diffusion equation with space fourth order, Commun. Appl. Math. Comput., 28 (2014), 96–108. |
[17] |
J. L. Gracia, M. Stynes, Central difference approximation of convection in Caputo fractional derivative two-point boundary value problems, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 273 (2015), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2014.05.025 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2014.05.025
![]() |
[18] |
M. Li, X. M. Gu, C. Huang, M. Fei, G. Zhang, A fast linearized conservative finite element method for the strongly coupled nonlinear fractional Schrödinger equations, J. Compu. Phys., 358 (2018), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2017.12.044 doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.12.044
![]() |
[19] |
E. Sousa, C. Li, A weighted finite difference method for the fractional diffusion equation based on the Riemann-Liouville derivative, Appl. Numer. Math., 90 (2015), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2014.11.007 doi: 10.1016/j.apnum.2014.11.007
![]() |
[20] |
W. Bu, A. Xiao, W. Zeng, Finite difference/finite element methods for distributed-order time fractional diffusion equations, J. Sci. Comput., 72 (2017), 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-017-0360-8 doi: 10.1007/s10915-017-0360-8
![]() |
[21] |
V. J. Ervin, J. P. Roop, Variational formulation for the stationary fractional advection dispersion equation, Numer. Methods Partial Differential Eq., 22 (2006), 558–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/num.20112 doi: 10.1002/num.20112
![]() |
[22] |
L. Feng, P. Zhuang, F. Liu, I. Turner, Y. Gu, Finite element method for space-time fractional diffusion equation, Numer. Algor., 72 (2016), 749–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11075-015-0065-8 doi: 10.1007/s11075-015-0065-8
![]() |
[23] |
Y. N. He, W. W. Sun, Stability and Convergence of the Crank-Nicolson/Adams-Bashforth scheme for the Time-Dependent Navier-Stokes Equations, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 45 (2007), 837–869. https://doi.org/10.1137/050639910 doi: 10.1137/050639910
![]() |
[24] |
Y. N. He, J. Li, Convergence of three iterative methods based on the finite element discretization for the stationary Navier-Stokes equations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 198 (2009), 1351–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2008.12.001 doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2008.12.001
![]() |
[25] |
H. Wang, D. Yang, S. Zhu, Inhomogeneous Dirichlet boundary-value problems of space-fractional diffusion equations and their finite element approximations, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 52 (2014), 1292–1310. https://doi.org/10.1137/130932776 doi: 10.1137/130932776
![]() |
[26] |
B. Cockburn, C. W. Shu, The local discontinuous Galerkin method for time-dependent convection-diffusion systems, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 35 (1998), 2440–2463. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036142997316712 doi: 10.1137/S0036142997316712
![]() |
[27] |
L. Guo, Z. Wang, S. Vong, Fully discrete local discontinuous Galerkin methods for some time-fractional fourth-order problems, Int. J. Comput. Math., 93 (2016), 1665–1682. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207160.2015.1070840 doi: 10.1080/00207160.2015.1070840
![]() |
[28] |
Y. Liu, M. Zhang, H. Li, J.C. Li, High-order local discontinuous Galerkin method combined with WSGD-approximation for a fractional sub-diffusion equation, Comput. Math. Appl., 73 (2017), 1298–1314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2016.08.015 doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2016.08.015
![]() |
[29] |
L. Wei, Y. He, Analysis of a fully discrete local discontinuous Galerkin method for time-fractional fourth-order problems, Appl. Math. Model., 38 (2014), 1511–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.07.040 doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2013.07.040
![]() |
[30] |
L. Wei, X. Wei, B. Tang, Numerical analysis of variable-order fractional KdV-Burgers-Kuramoto equation, Electronic. Res. Arch., 30 (2022), 1263–1281. https://doi.org/10.3934/era.2022066 doi: 10.3934/era.2022066
![]() |
[31] |
M. A. Imran, N. A. Shah, I. Khan, M. Aleem, Applications of non-integer Caputo time fractional derivatives to natural convection flow subject to arbitrary velocity and Newtonian heating, Neural Comput & Applic., 30 (2018), 1589–1599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-016-2741-6 doi: 10.1007/s00521-016-2741-6
![]() |
[32] |
Y. Mahsud, N. A. Shah, D. Vieru, Influence of time-fractional derivatives on the boundary layer flow of Maxwell fluids, Chinese J. Phys., 55 (2017), 1340–1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjph.2017.07.006 doi: 10.1016/j.cjph.2017.07.006
![]() |
[33] |
N. A. Shah, C. Fetecau, D. Vieru, Natural convection flows of Prabhakar-like fractional Maxwell fluids with generalized thermal transport, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim., 143 (2021), 2245–2258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-020-09835-0 doi: 10.1007/s10973-020-09835-0
![]() |
[34] | J. Shu, Q. Q. Bai, X. Huang, J. Zhang, Finite fractal dimension of random attractors for non-autonomous fractional stochastic reaction-diffusion equations in R, Appl. Anal., (2020), 1–22. |
[35] |
M. Stynes, E. O'Riordan, J. Gracia, Error analysis of a finite difference method on graded meshes for a time-fractional diffusion equation, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 55 (2017), 1057-1079. https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1082329 doi: 10.1137/16M1082329
![]() |
[36] | C. Huang, M. Stynes, A direct discontinuous Galerkin method for a time-fractional diffusion equation with a Robin boundary condition, Appl. Numer. Math., (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2018.08.006 |
[37] |
V. K. Baranwal, R. K. Pandey, M. P. Tripathi, O. P. Singh, An analytic algorithm for time fractional nonlinear reaction-diffusion equation based on a new iterative method, Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat, 17 (2012), 3906–3921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.02.015 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.02.015
![]() |
[38] |
S. Ali, S. Bushnaq, K. Shah, M. Arif, Numerical treatment of fractional order Cauchy reaction diffusion equations, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 103 (2017), 578–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2017.07.016 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2017.07.016
![]() |
[39] |
H. Safdari, M. Rajabzadeh, M. Khalighi, LDG approximation of a nonlinear fractional convection-diffusion equation using B-spline basis functions, Appl. Numer. Math., 171 (2022), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2021.08.014 doi: 10.1016/j.apnum.2021.08.014
![]() |
[40] |
Y. Xu, C. W. Shu, Local Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for the Degasperis-Procesi Equation, Commun. Comput. Phys., 10 (2011), 474–508. https://doi.org/10.4208/cicp.300410.300710a doi: 10.4208/cicp.300410.300710a
![]() |
[41] |
C. B. Huang, M. Stynes, Optimal spatial H1-norm analysis of a finite element method for a time-fractional diffusion equation, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 367 (2020), 112435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2019.112435 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2019.112435
![]() |
[42] | Y. Cheng, Q. Zhang, H. Wang, Local analysis of the local discontinuous Galerkin method with the generalized alternating numerical flux for two-dimensional singularly perturbed problem, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Modeling, 15 (2018), 785–810. |
[43] |
Y. Cheng, X. Meng, Q. Zhang, Application of generalized Gauss-Radau projections for the local discontinuous Galerkin method for linear convection-diffusion equations, Math. Comp., 86 (2017), 1233–1267. https://doi.org/10.1090/mcom/3141 doi: 10.1090/mcom/3141
![]() |