This paper presents the proofs of the higher integrability and regularity of weak solutions to a class of variation-inequality problems that are formulated by a non-Newtonian parabolic operator. After obtaining the gradient estimate, the higher order integrability of the weak solution is analyzed. We also examine the internal regularity estimate of the weak solution by utilizing a test function of the difference type.
Citation: Zongqi Sun. Regularity and higher integrability of weak solutions to a class of non-Newtonian variation-inequality problems arising from American lookback options[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 14633-14643. doi: 10.3934/math.2023749
[1] | Zhi Guang Li . Global regularity and blowup for a class of non-Newtonian polytropic variation-inequality problem from investment-consumption problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 18174-18184. doi: 10.3934/math.2023923 |
[2] | Yuejiao Feng . Regularity of weak solutions to a class of fourth order parabolic variational inequality problems arising from swap option pricing. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 13889-13897. doi: 10.3934/math.2023710 |
[3] | Yudong Sun, Tao Wu . Hölder and Schauder estimates for weak solutions of a certain class of non-divergent variation inequality problems in finance. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 18995-19003. doi: 10.3934/math.2023968 |
[4] | Jia Li, Changchun Bi . Study of weak solutions of variational inequality systems with degenerate parabolic operators and quasilinear terms arising Americian option pricing problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(11): 19758-19769. doi: 10.3934/math.20221083 |
[5] | Jia Li, Zhipeng Tong . Local Hölder continuity of inverse variation-inequality problem constructed by non-Newtonian polytropic operators in finance. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 28753-28765. doi: 10.3934/math.20231472 |
[6] | Huashui Zhan, Yuan Zhi, Xiaohua Niu . On a non-Newtonian fluid type equation with variable diffusion coefficient. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 17747-17766. doi: 10.3934/math.2022977 |
[7] | Qingjun Zhao . The L∞ estimate of the spatial gradient of the solution to a variational inequality problem originates from the financial contract problem with advanced implementation clauses. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(12): 35949-35963. doi: 10.3934/math.20241704 |
[8] | Jia Li, Changchun Bi . Existence and blowup of solutions for non-divergence polytropic variation-inequality in corn option trading. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16748-16756. doi: 10.3934/math.2023856 |
[9] | Savin Treanţă, Muhammad Bilal Khan, Soubhagya Kumar Sahoo, Thongchai Botmart . Evolutionary problems driven by variational inequalities with multiple integral functionals. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 1488-1508. doi: 10.3934/math.2023075 |
[10] | Imran Ali, Faizan Ahmad Khan, Haider Abbas Rizvi, Rais Ahmad, Arvind Kumar Rajpoot . Second order evolutionary partial differential variational-like inequalities. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 16832-16850. doi: 10.3934/math.2022924 |
This paper presents the proofs of the higher integrability and regularity of weak solutions to a class of variation-inequality problems that are formulated by a non-Newtonian parabolic operator. After obtaining the gradient estimate, the higher order integrability of the weak solution is analyzed. We also examine the internal regularity estimate of the weak solution by utilizing a test function of the difference type.
The American lookback option is a crucial aspect of option pricing whose value can be determined through a variation-inequality approach. This option allows investors to observe the risk assets' lowest price St,t∈[0,T] during the time frame [0,T] and purchase them at that price before the transaction time t. If the option is exercised on the expiry date, its value is calculated as follows [1,2,3]:
V(ST,JT,T)=ST−JT, |
where Jt=mint∈[0,t]St. American look-back options allow investors to exercise their options at any point during the time interval [0,T]. This means that the value of the option, denoted by V(St,Jt,T), is greater than or equal to the difference between the stock price at time t, St and the minimum stock price within the time interval (Jt), which is represented by
V(St,Jt,T)≥St−Jt. |
According to the literature [4], the option value V(S,J,t) at any given time is governed by a variation inequality:
{(∂tV+12σ2S2∂SSV+rS∂SV−rV)×(V−S+J)=0,J≥0,S≥J,t∈[0,T],∂tV+12σ2S2∂SSV+rS∂SV−rV≥0,J≥0,S≥J,t∈[0,T],V−S+J≥0,J≥0,S≥J,t∈[0,T],V(S,J,T)=S−J,J≥0,S≥J, | (1) |
where r represents the risk-free interest rate of the financial market, and σ represents the volatility of option-linked stocks.
The theoretical study of variation-inequality has increasingly gained the attention of scholars. In 2022, wu developed a fourth-order p-Laplacian Kirchhoff operator, given by
Lϕ=∂tϕ−Δ((1+λ||Δϕ||p(x)Lp(x)(Ω))|Δϕ|p(x)−2Δϕ)+γϕ |
and investigated a variation-inequality problem [5]:
{min{Lϕ,ϕ−ϕ0}=0,(x,t)∈ΩT,ϕ(0,x)=ϕ0(x),x∈Ω,ϕ(t,x)=0,(x,t)∈∂Ω×(0,T), | (2) |
where ΩT=Ω×(0,T), Ω is a N-dimensional domain with N≥2, where ϕ0 is a given function and γ is a positive constant.The Leray-Schauder principle, a penalty function, and inequality amplification techniques were used to establish the existence, stability and uniqueness of the weak solution. Li and Bi [6] examined a 2-D variation-inequality system and proved the existence of weak solutions by analyzing upper and lower solutions of the auxiliary problem. The issues of existence for variation-inequality problems have been extensively studied in [7,8], with relevant literature reviewed. Additionally, uniqueness and stability of weak solutions for variation-inequality problems have been proven in [9,10,11]. Further results on solvability and well-posedness can be found in [12,13] and related references. However, research regarding regularity and higher integrability of this type of problem appears to be less explored.
We investigate a kind of variation-inequality problem
{Lu≥0,(x,t)∈ΩT,u−u0≥0,(x,t)∈ΩT,Lu(u−u0)=0,(x,t)∈ΩT,u(0,x)=u0(x),x∈Ω,u(t,x)=∂u∂ν=0,(x,t)∈∂Ω×(0,T) | (3) |
defined on Ω×(0,T), featuring a non-Newtonian parabolic operator (4) in which
Lu=∂tu−div(|∇u|p−2∇u)−f,p>2. | (4) |
Here, u0:Ω→R is measurable, and u0∈H1(Ω).
We aim to investigate the regularity and higher integrability of weak solutions to problem (1). Our approach involves several steps. First, we establish the existence of Δu by utilizing the weak solution of an auxiliary problem. Next, we analyze the first-order spatial gradient estimation and the time gradient estimation of u by employing the weak solution of the variation-inequality. We then combine the results obtained from both these analyses to obtain higher-order integrability using the inequality amplification technique. Final, we construct the weak solution using the difference operator and approximate the estimate of the partial derivative using its estimate. Through this process, we are able to obtain the regularity of the variational inequality problem.
Firstly, we present the weak solution of the variation-inequality. This solution's existence can be found in various literatures [5,6]. To do so, we provide a set of maximal monotone maps given by
G={u|u(x)=0,x>0;u(x)∈[0,−M0],x=0} | (5) |
where M0 is a positive constant.
Using a standard energy method, it can be shown that variation-inequality (3) has a unique solution if and only if,
(a) u∈L∞(0,T,H1(Ω)),∂tu∈L∞(0,T,L2(Ω)) and ξ∈Gforany(x,t)∈ΩT,
(b) u(x,t)≥u0(x),u(x,0)=u0(x)forany(x,t)∈ΩT,
(c) for every test-function φ∈C1(ˉΩT), there admits the equalities
∫∫ΩT∂tu⋅φ+|∇u|p−2∇u∇φdxdt+∫∫ΩTfφdxdt=∫∫ΩTξ⋅φdxdt | (6) |
and
∫∫ΩT∂tu⋅φ−div(|∇u|p−2∇u)⋅φdxdt+∫∫ΩTfφdxdt=∫∫ΩTξ⋅φdxdt. | (7) |
To analyze the regularity of variation-inequality (3), we need to introduce the following operators and their corresponding results. Readers can refer to literature [14] for proofs of some of these results.
The difference operator of u(x,t) in the ei direction, denoted by Δihu(x,t), is given by
Δihu(x,t)=u(x+hei,t)−u(x,t)h |
where ei is the unit vector in the xi direction.
Lemma 2.1. [14] (1) Assume that Δi∗h is the conjugate operator of Δih satisfies Δi∗h=−Δi−h. Then, one gets
∫Rnf(x)Δihg(x)dx=∫Rng(x)Δi∗hf(x)dx. |
(2) Dj and Δih are interchangeable, in other words,
DjΔihf(x)=ΔihDjf(x),i=1,2,⋯,N,j=1,2,⋯,N. |
(3) Suppose Tih represents the displacement operator in the xi direction. Then,
Δihf(x)g(x)=f(x)Δihg(x)+Tihg(x)Δihf(x). |
(4) If u∈W1,p(Ω), then for any Ω′⊂⊂Ω, we have ||Δihu||Lp(Ω′)≤||Diu||Lp(Ω).
(5) Let h be small enough. If ||Δihu||Lp(Ω)≤C, then ||Diu||Lp(Ω)≤C.
Using Holder inequalities and combining with Lemma 2.1 (4), it is clear to verify that
∫Ω|DiuΔihu|dx≤∫Ω|Diu|2dx, ∫Ω|DiuΔi∗hu|dx≤∫Ω|Diu|2dx. | (8) |
Lemma 2.2. Let u∈H2(Ω), and h be small enough. If ∫Ω|DiuΔihu|dx≤C, then
∫Ω|Δihu|2dx≤C. | (9) |
Proof. Using Taylor expansion method, there is an θ∈[0,1], such that
u(x+hei,t)=u(x,t)+Diu(x,t)h+12D2iu(x+θhei,t)h2. |
Rearranging the above equation, we have
Diu(x,t)=u(x+hei,t)−u(x,t)h−12D2iu(x+θhei,t)h. |
Since u∈H2(Ω),
∫Ω|DiuΔihu|dx≥∫Ω|Δihu|2dx+|Ω|O(h). |
Then, if h is small enough, (9) holds.
Lemma 2.3. Assume u∈H2(Ω), and m is a positive integer. Let h be small enough. If |∫ΩDi[(Δihu)m]Δih[(Diu)m]dx|≤C, then we have
∫Ω|Δih[(Δihu)m]|2dx≤C, ∫Ω|Di[(Δihu)m]|2dx≤C. |
Proof. Since Diu(x,t)=Δihu+O(h), carrying out binomial expansion to [Δihu+O(h)]m gives (Diu)m=(Δihu)m+O(h), so
|∫ΩDi[(Δihu)m]Δih[(Diu)m]dx|=|∫ΩDi[(Δihu)m]Δih[(Δihu)m]dx|+O(h). |
If h is small enough, using Lemma 2.2 obtains
|∫ΩDi[(Δihu)m]Δih[(Δihu)m]dx|≥∫Ω|Δih[(Diu)m]|2dx+O(h). |
Hence, the first part of Lemma 2.3 is proved from which the second part is an immediate result.
First, we consider the existence of Δu and use ε to construct a penalty function βε(⋅) to control the variation-inequality (3). The penalty map βε:R→R− satisfies
βε(x)=0ifx>ε,βε(x)∈[−M0,0)ifx∈[0,ε]. | (10) |
Furthermore, we use the following auxiliary problem to approach the variation-inequality (3):
{Luε=−βε(uε−u0),(x,t)∈ΩT,uε(x,0)=u0ε(x),x∈Ω,uε(x,t)=ε,(x,t)∈∂ΩT, | (11) |
where
Lεuε=∂tuε−div((|∇uε|2+ε)p−22∇uε)+f. |
Using a similar method as in [5,6], we can find a solution uε for problem (11) that satisfies uε∈L∞(0,T;W1,p(Ω)), ∂tuε∈L∞(0,T;L2(Ω)), and the identity
∫Ω(∂tuε⋅φ+(|∇uε|2+ε)p−22∇uε∇φ+fφ)dx=−∫Ωβε(uε−u0)φdx | (12) |
with φ∈C1(ˉΩT). Additionally, for any ε∈(0,1),
u0ε≤uε≤|u0|∞+ε, uε1≤uε2forε1≤ε2. | (13) |
By choosing uε as the test function in Eq (12), we can follow a similar approach as in [5] to obtain the following inequality:
||∇uε||L∞(0,T;Lp(Ω))≤||(|∇umε|2+ε)p−22|∇umε|2||L∞(0,T;L1(Ω))≤C. |
This implies that for any ε∈(0,1), there exists a subsequence of {uε}0<ε<1 (which we still denote by {uε}0<ε<1) and a function v, such that:
Δuε→vinL∞(0,T;Lp(Ω))asε→0. |
Indeed, from [13], we know that {uε,ε∈(0,1)} is a bounded sequence, which allows us to extract a subsequence without loss of generality, denoted again by {uε,ε∈(0,1)}, that converges almost everywhere in ΩT to some function u:
uε→ua.e.inΩTasε→0. | (14) |
Now, we verify v=Δu. By suing integral by part, one gets
∫∫ΩTΔuεϕdx=−∫∫ΩTuεΔϕdx. |
Thus, from Eq (14) we have for any ϕ∈C∞0(Ω),
∫∫ΩTΔuεϕdx=−∫∫ΩTuεΔϕdx→−∫∫ΩTuΔϕdx=∫∫ΩTΔuϕdx. |
This implies that v=Δu a.e. in ΩT.
This section gives several gradient estimates of u. First, choosing u as a test function in (6) gives
∫∫ΩT∂tu⋅u+|∇u|pdxdt+∫∫ΩTfudxdt=∫∫ΩTξ⋅udxdt. | (15) |
Since ∫∫ΩT∂tu⋅udxdt=∫T0∫Ω∂tu2dxdt=∫Ω|u(,T)|2dx−∫Ω|u0|2dx, one, from (15) can get that
∫∫ΩT|∇u|pdxdt≤∫∫ΩTξ⋅udxdt+∫Ω|u0|2dx. | (16) |
Applying Holder and Young inequalities,
∫T0∫Ωξ⋅Δudxdt≤(p−1)/pMp/(p−1)0T|Ω|+1p∫∫ΩT|Δu|pdxdt. | (17) |
Combining (16) and (17), it is inferred that (note that p≥1),
∫T0∫Ω|∇u|pdxdt≤∫Ω|∇u0|2dx+(p−1)/pMp/(p−1)0T|Ω|. | (18) |
Second, letting ∂tu be a test function in (6), we can find that
∫∫ΩT|∂tu|2+|∇u|p−2∇u∇∂tudxdt+∫∫ΩTf∂tudxdt=∫∫ΩTξ⋅∂tudxdt. | (19) |
Using differential transformation technology, one gets
∫∫ΩT|∇u|p−2∇u∇∂tudxdt=1p∫∫ΩT|∇u|pdxdt=1p||∇u(⋅,T)||Lp(Ω)−1p||∇u0||Lp(Ω). | (20) |
Applying Holder and Young inequalities with parameters (1/2,1/2),
|∫∫ΩTf∂tudxdt|≤C(f,|Ω|,T)+18∫∫ΩT|∂tu|2dxdt, | (21) |
|∫∫ΩTξ⋅∂tudxdt|≤C(M0,|Ω|,T)+18∫∫ΩT|∂tu|2dxdt. | (22) |
Combining (19)–(22) and dropping the term 1p||∇u(⋅,T)||Lp(Ω), one can get
34∫∫ΩT|∂tu|2dxdt≤1p||∇u0||Lp(Ω)+C(M0,f,|Ω|,T). | (23) |
Final, we choose φ=div(|∇u|p−2∇u) in (7) to arrive at
∫∫ΩT∂tu⋅div(|∇u|p−2∇u)+|div(|∇u|p−2∇u)|2dxdt+∫∫ΩTfdiv(|∇u|p−2∇u)dxdt=∫∫ΩTξ⋅div(|∇u|p−2∇u)dxdt. | (24) |
Applying integral by part and joining with (20),
∫∫ΩT∂tu⋅div(|∇u|p−2∇u)dxdt=∫∫ΩT|∇u|p−2∇u∇∂tudxdt=1p||∇u(⋅,T)||Lp(Ω)−1p||∇u0||Lp(Ω). | (25) |
Applying Holder and Young inequalities to ∫∫ΩTfdiv(|∇u|p−2∇u)dxdt and ∫∫ΩTξ⋅div(|∇u|p−2∇u)dxdt,
|∫∫ΩTfdiv(|∇u|p−2∇u)dxdt|≤C(f,|Ω|,T)+18∫∫ΩT|div(|∇u|p−2∇u)|2dxdt, | (26) |
∫∫ΩTξ⋅div(|∇u|p−2∇u)dxdt≤C(M0,|Ω|,T)+18∫∫ΩT|div(|∇u|p−2∇u)|2dxdt. | (27) |
Substituting (26) and (27) to (27) and dropping the term 1p||∇u(⋅,T)||Lp(Ω),
34∫∫ΩT|div(|∇u|p−2∇u)|2dxdt≤1p||∇u0||Lp(Ω)+C(M0,f,|Ω|,T). | (28) |
Theorem 4.1. If u0∈W1,p0(Ω) \ and \; f∈L1(0,T;L2(Ω)), then
||div(|∇u|p−2∇u)||2L2(ΩT)≤43p||∇u0||Lp(Ω)+C(M0,f,|Ω|,T). |
It should be pointed out that the higher-order term div(|∇u|p−2∇u) in the non-Newtonian parabolic operator Lu has not been explained before and is substituted into Eq (24). While the final result displays the boundedness of div(|∇u|p−2∇u), a more reasonable proof may be required. Thus, we provide such a proof in Section 5.
This section considers the regularity estimate of weak solutions. We draw inspiration from literature [14] and introduce the difference operator Δih and its conjugate Δ∗ih into the test function. Since u∈L∞(0,T;W1,p(Ω)), we have
φ=Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)∈L∞(0,T;W1,p(Ω)). |
By choosing φ as a test function in (7), we get:
∫∫ΩT∂tu⋅Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)+|∇u|p−2∇u⋅∇Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)dxdt+∫∫ΩTf⋅Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)dxdt=∫t0∫Ωξ⋅Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)dxdt. | (29) |
We first consider ∫∫ΩT∂tu⋅Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)dxdt. Using Lemma 2.1 (1) and some differential transformation technologies
∫∫ΩT∂tu⋅Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)dxdt=∫ΩT∂t(Δihu)(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)dxdt=1p∫ΩT∂t|Δihu|pdxdt=1p∫Ω|Δihu(x,T)|2dx−1p∫Ω|Δihu0|2dx. | (30) |
Substituting (30) into (29) and removing the non negative term 1p∫Ω|Δihu(x,T)|2dx, one gets
∫∫ΩT|∇u|p−2∇u⋅∇Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)dxdt+∫∫ΩTf⋅Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)dxdt≤∫∫ΩTξ⋅Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)dxdt+1p∫Ω|Δihu0|2η2dx. | (31) |
Using the commutative properties of Δi∗h and ∇
∫∫ΩT||∇u|p−2∇u⋅∇Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)|dxdt=∫T0∫ΩΔih(|∇u|p−2∇u)⋅∇(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)dxdt. |
It follows from Lemma 2.4 that if h is small enough,
∫∫ΩT||∇u|p−2∇u⋅∇Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)|dxdt≥∫T0∫Ω|Δih(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)|2dxdt. | (32) |
So, combining (31) and (32) and applying Lemma 2.1 (5), inequality (31) can be rewritten as
∫T0∫Ω|Di(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)|2dxdt≤∫t0∫Ωξ⋅Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)dxdt+1p∫Ω|Δihu0|2dx−∫∫ΩTf⋅Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)dxdt. | (33) |
Applying Holder and Young inequalities,
∫T0∫ΩfΔi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)dxdt≤2∫T0∫Ωf2dxdt+18∫T0∫Ω[Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)]2dxdt≤2∫T0∫Ωf2dxdt+18∫T0∫Ω[Di(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)]2dxdt, | (34) |
∫t0∫Ωξ⋅Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)dxdt≤C(M0,|Ω0|,T)+18∫T0∫Ω[Δi∗h(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)]2dxdt≤C(M0,|Ω0|,T)+18∫T0∫Ω[Di(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)]2dxdt. | (35) |
Inserting (34) and (35) into (33), it is inferred that
∫T0∫Ω|Di(|Δihu|p−2Δihu)|2dxdt≤C(M0,|Ω0|,T)+4∫T0∫Ωf2dxdt+2p∫Ω|Δihu0|2dx. |
From Lemma 2.1 (4), we have ∫Ω|Δihu0|2dx≤∫Ω|Diu0|2dx, so one can use lemma 2.1 (5) to arrive at
∫T0∫Ω|Di(|Diu|p−2Diu)|2dxdt≤C(M0,|Ω0|,T)+4∫T0∫Ωf2dxdt+2p∫Ω|Diu0|2dx. | (36) |
Adding the above formula from 1 to N, we summarize the following result.
Theorem 5.1. If u0∈W1,p0(Ω)andf∈L1(0,T;L2(Ω)), then
||div(|∇u|p−2∇u)||2L2(ΩT)≤C(M0,|Ω0|,T)+4∫T0∫Ωf2dxdt+2p∫Ω|∇u0|2dx. |
Using Poincare inequality twice, it can be easily verified that
||∇u||L(0,T;L2p−2(Ω))≤Cpoincare||div(|∇u|p−2∇u)||2L2(ΩT), |
||u||L(0,T;L2p−2(Ω))≤Cpoincare||∇u||L(0,T;L2p−2(Ω)), |
where Cpoincare is the poincare parameter, such that we obtain the following theorem.
Theorem 5.2. For u0∈W1,p0(Ω)andf∈L1(0,T;L2(Ω)), we have u∈L(0,T;W1,2p−2(Ω)).
In this paper, we investigate the variation-inequality problem (3) featuring a non-Newtonian operator. First, we establish the norm boundedness of the gradient ∇uε based on the weak solution of the auxiliary problem. We then utilize weak limit to prove the existence of the gradient of the solution to the variation-inequality (3). Second, we analyze the higher order integrability of the solutions of variation-inequality (3). To achieve this, we use the weak Eq (6) of variation-inequality (3), which is fundamental in the study of higher order integrability, to obtain the gradient estimate of the solutions (18) and (23). Further, we select the higher order term of the non-Newtonian parabolic operator as the test function and combine the gradient estimations (18) and (23) to establish the higher order integrability of the weak solution. Last, from the perspective of regularity, we obtain high-order gradient estimates for the variational inequality (3).
It is important to note that using second-order spatial partial derivatives as test functions to analyze regularity and higher-order integrability may not meet the conditions for weak solutions. To avoid discussing the existence and rationality of the test function, we construct it using the difference function. This leads to the derivation of integral inequality (31), which is crucial for proving regularity. The regularity of weak solutions is estimated using Holder and Young inequalities.
There are still some points worth discussing in this article. If we introduce the cutoff factor η in formula (29) to construct the test function as follows:
φ=Δi∗h(η2|Δihu|p−2Δihu)∈L∞(0,T;W1,p(Ω)). |
Here, η∈C∞0(Ω) is a cutoff factor on Ω′⊂⊂Ω satisfying:
0≤η≤1,η=1inΩ′,dist(suppη,Ω)≥2d,d=dist(Ω′,Ω). |
By following the proof in Section 5, we obtain the following estimate:
||div(|∇u|p−2∇u)||2L2(ΩT)≤C(M0,|Ω0|,T)+C||∇u||2L2p−2(ΩT)+4∫T0∫Ωf2dxdt+2p∫Ω|∇u0|2dx. |
If p=2, we can easily obtain the following:
||Δu||2L2(ΩT)≤C(M0,|Ω0|,T)+C||∇u||2L2(ΩT)+4∫T0∫Ωf2dxdt+∫Ω|∇u0|2dx. |
In this case, it is easy to deduce that u∈L(0,T,Hk(Ω)), where k is a positive integer satisfying k≥2. However, when p≥2, it is impossible to obtain a similar result as in the case of p=2 because we cannot prove ||Δu|||2L2p−2(ΩT)≤||div(|∇u|p−2∇u)||2L2(ΩT).
Z. Sun was partially supported by the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project of the Ministry of Education of China (No.21XJC910001). The author is grateful to the anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
[1] |
J. Cao, J. Kim, X. Li, W. Zhang, Valuation of barrier and lookback options under hybrid CEV and stochastic volatility, Math. Comput. Simulat., 208 (2023), 660–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2023.01.035 doi: 10.1016/j.matcom.2023.01.035
![]() |
[2] |
M. Ai, Z. Zhang, Pricing some life-contingent lookback options under regime-switching Lvy models, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 407 (2022), 114082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2022.114082 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2022.114082
![]() |
[3] |
Y. Gao, L. Jia, Pricing formulas of barrier-lookback option in uncertain financial markets, Chaos Soliton. Fract., 147 (2021), 110986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2021.110986 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2021.110986
![]() |
[4] |
C. Guan, Z. Xu, F. Yi, A consumption-investment model with state-dependent lower bound constraint on consumption, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 516 (2022), 126511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2022.126511 doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2022.126511
![]() |
[5] |
T. Wu, Some results for a variation-inequality problem with fourth order p(x)-Kirchhoff operator arising from options on fresh agricultural products, AIMS Math., 8 (2023), 6749–6762. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2023343 doi: 10.3934/math.2023343
![]() |
[6] |
J. Li, C. Bi, Study of weak solutions of variational inequality systems with degenerate parabolic operators and quasilinear terms arising Americian option pricing problems, AIMS Math., 7 (2022), 19758–19769. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.20221083 doi: 10.3934/math.20221083
![]() |
[7] |
C. O. Alves, L. M. Barros, C. E. T. Ledesma, Existence of solution for a class of variational inequality in whole RN with critical growth, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 494 (2021), 124672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2020.124672 doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2020.124672
![]() |
[8] |
I. Iqbal, N. Hussain, M. A. Kutbi, Existence of the solution to variational inequality, optimization problem, and elliptic boundary value problem through revisited best proximity point results, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 375 (2020), 112804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2020.112804 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2020.112804
![]() |
[9] |
J. Zheng, J. Chen, X. Ju, Fixed-time stability of projection neurodynamic network for solving pseudomonotone variational inequalities, Neurocomputing, 505 (2022), 402–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2022.07.034 doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2022.07.034
![]() |
[10] |
W. Han, Y. Li, Stability analysis of stationary variational and hemivariational inequalities with applications, Nonlinear Anal. Real, 50 (2019), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nonrwa.2019.04.009 doi: 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2019.04.009
![]() |
[11] |
Y. Bai, S. Migorski, S. Zeng, A class of generalized mixed variational-hemivariational inequalities Ⅰ: existence and uniqueness results, Comput. Math. Appl., 79 (2020), 2897–2911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2019.12.025 doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2019.12.025
![]() |
[12] |
W. Han, A. Matei, Well-posedness of a general class of elliptic mixed hemivariational-variational inequalities, Nonlinear Anal. Real, 66 (2022), 103553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nonrwa.2022.103553 doi: 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2022.103553
![]() |
[13] |
M. A. Malik, M. I. Bhat, B. Zahoor, Solvability of a class of set-valued implicit quasi-variational inequalities: A Wiene CHopf equation method, Results Control Optim., 9 (2022), 100169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rico.2022.100169 doi: 10.1016/j.rico.2022.100169
![]() |
[14] | Z. Wu, J. Zhao, H. Li, J. Yin, Nonlinear diffusion equations, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2001. |
1. | Yan Dong, Local Hölder continuity of nonnegative weak solutions of inverse variation-inequality problems of non-divergence type, 2024, 32, 2688-1594, 473, 10.3934/era.2024023 |