arxiv: v2 [math.ap] 5 Aug 2016

Transcription

1 MULTIPLE POSITIVE SOLUTIONS OF PARABOLIC SYSTEMS WITH NONLINEAR, NONLOCAL INITIAL CONDITIONS GENNARO INFANTE AND MATEUSZ MACIEJEWSKI arxiv: v2 [math.ap] 5 Aug 216 Abstract. In this paper we study the existence, localization multiplicity of positive solutions for parabolic systems with nonlocal initial conditions. In order to do this, we extend an abstract theory that was recently developed by the authors jointly with Radu Precup, related to the existence of fixed points of nonlinear operators satisfying some upper lower bounds. Our main tool is the Granas fixed point index theory. We also provide a non-existence result some examples to illustrate our theory. 1. Introduction In this paper we deal with the existence, non-existence localization of positive solutions of the following system of parabolic equations subject to nonlinear, nonlocal initial conditions (1.1) u t u = f(t, x, u, v), (t, x) (, t max ) Ω, v t v = g(t, x, u, v), (t, x) (, t max ) Ω, u(t, x) = v(t, x) =, (t, x) (, t max ) Ω, u(, ) = α(u, v), v(, ) = β(u, v), where Ω R m is a bounded Dirichlet regular domain (i.e. for all ϕ C( Ω) there exists u C(Ω) such that u Ω = ϕ u = in a distributional sense, see [1, Definition 6.1.1]), f, g : (, t max ) Ω R + R + R + are continuous functions (1.2) α(u, v) = G 1 ( ) ( ) g 1 (u(t), v(t))dµ 1 (t), β(u, v) = G 2 g 2 (u(t), v(t))dµ 2 (t), where g 1, g 2 : R 2 + R +, G 1, G 2 : R + R + are continuous with g i (, ) = G i () = for i {1, 2} µ 1, µ 2 are finite (positive) Borel measures on [, t max ] such that µ 1 ({}) = µ 2 ({}) =. Note that the initial conditions (1.2) cover a variety of cases, a particular example being (1.3) α(u, v)(x) = u(t, x)dt, β(u, v)(x) = v(t, x)dt. 21 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 35K51, secondary 35B9, 35B45, 35D5, 47H1. Key words phrases. Fixed point index, parabolic system, nonlocal initial condition, positive mild solution, cone, weak Harnack inequality, multiplicity, nonexistence. 1

2 Note that the system (1.1) can be applied to describe physical phenomena in which it is possible to measure the sums of amounts of substances according to formulae of the type (1.3) or k r (1.4) α(u, v) = α s u(t s ), β(u, v) = β s v(t s), s=1 s=1 where < t 1 <... < t k, < t 1 <... < t r α s, β s >. For example, the system (1.1) with the nonlocal initial conditions (1.4) can be used to model a reaction-diffusion process of a little amount of gases in a transparent tube, in a more appropriate way than with the usual initial-value condition; for more insight on the physical interpretation of this system see the paper by Byszewski [3]. We mention that a physical motivation for the integral form of the initial condition is presented in [4, 5, 23]. Moreover, the system (1.1) can be used to describe the periodic solutions in the case α(u, v) = u(t ), β(u, v) = v(t ), where T > f g are T -periodic. Furthermore, a number of applications of nonlocal problems for evolution equations are illustrated in Section 1.2 of [22]. Initial nonlocal conditions have been investigated in a variety of settings, for example in the case of multi-point [1], integral [9, 13, 23, 24, 26, 27] nonlinear conditions [2, 6, 7, 8], see also the recent review [28]. In a recent paper [19] the authors investigated the existence, localization multiplicity of positive solutions of systems of (p, q)-laplacian equations subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions. The main tool in [19] is the development of a general abstract framework for the existence of fixed points of nonlinear operators acting on cones that satisfy an inequality of Harnack-type. Within this setting, the authors of [19] used the Granas fixed point index (see for example [12, 16]), in order to compute the index, they used some estimates from above, using the norm, from below, utilizing a seminorm. Here we extend the theoretical results of [19] to a more general setting; this generalization is apparently simple but fruitful is motivated by the application to the parabolic system (1.1). In particular, we replace the use of the seminorm with the use of a more general positively homogeneous functional, moreover, we relax the assumptions on the cone. The Remarks 2.5, 3.6, 3.17 illustrate in details the differences between the two theoretical approaches their applicability. We point out that our new approach is quite general covers, as a special case, the system (1.1). The problem of one parabolic equation with nonlocal, linear initial condition was stated discussed in [25]. By modifying the theoretical setting as described above, we overcome the difficulties arisen in [25], obtaining the results predicted by [25]. In contrast with the paper [19], where the space L with an integral seminorm was used, here, in order to seek mild solutions of our problem, we use the classical space of continuous functions, with a very natural positively homogeneous functional, namely the minimum on a suitable subset. A similar idea has been used with success in the context of 2

3 ordinary differential equations integral equations, see for example [12, 17, 21]. In our case, a key role for our multiplicity results is played by a weak Harnack-type inequality, see Remark 3.9. In the case of the system (1.1) we obtain existence, localization, multiplicity nonexistence of positive mild solutions. We illustrate in two examples the applicability of our results we show that the constants that occur in our theory can be computed. 2. Abstract existence theorems In this Section we generalize the abstract results of Section 2 of [19]. Although these results are motivated by the solvability of the parabolic system (1.1), we present them in a greater generality, as we believe that they are of independent interest, since they can be applied in other contexts, whenever an abstract Harnack-type inequality is available. For i = 1, 2, let (E i, i ) be a Banach space let i be a given positively homogeneous continuous functional on E i. In what follows, we omit the subscript in i, when confusion is unlikely. Let also G i E i be closed convex wedges, which is understood to mean that λu + µv G i for all u, v G i λ, µ. Moreover, let K i G i be closed convex cones, which means that K i are closed convex wedges such that K i ( K i ) = {}. The wedges induce the natural semiorders on E i in the following way: u v if only if v u G i, u, v E i. By a semiorder we mean that the relation is reflexive transitive, but not necessarily antisymmetric. We assume that the functionals i are monotone on K i with respect to the semiorder, that is for i {1, 2} we have (2.1) if u v then u v for u, v K i. In particular we have u for u K i. We assume that there exist some elements ψ i K i such that ψ i = 1 for i {1, 2} (2.2) u u ψ i for all u K i. Note that (2.1) (2.2) yield (2.3) u i ψ u for all u K i. In particular, we have ψ i > if is nonzero. 3

4 In what follows by the compactness of a continuous operator we mean the relative compactness of its range. By the complete continuity of a continuous operator we mean the relative compactness of the image of every bounded set of the domain. We seek the fixed points of a completely continuous operator N := (N 1, N 2 ): K 1 K 2 K 1 K 2, that is (u, v) K 1 K 2 such that N(u, v) = (u, v). We shall discuss not only the existence, but also the localization multiplicity of the solutions of the nonlinear equation N(u, v) = (u, v). In order to do this, we utilize the Granas fixed point index, ind C (f, U), which roughly speaking, is the algebraic count of the fixed points of f in the set U. The formal definition of the index involves the Leray- Schauder degree retractions, for more information on the index its applications we refer the reader to [12, 16]. The next Proposition describes some of the useful properties of the index, for details see Theorem 6.2, Chapter 12 of [16]. Proposition 2.1. Let C be a closed convex subset of a Banach space, U C be open in C f : U C be a compact map with no fixed points on the boundary U of U. Then the fixed point index has the following properties: (i) (Existence) If ind C (f, U) then fix(f), where fixf = { x Ū : f(x) = x}. (ii) (Additivity) If fixf U 1 U 2 U with U 1, U 2 open in C disjoint, then ind C (f, U) = ind C (f, U 1 ) + ind C (f, U 2 ). (iii) (Homotopy invariance) If h: U [, 1] C is a compact homotopy such that h(u, t) u for u U t [, 1] then ind C (h(, ), U) = ind C (h(, 1), U). (iv) (Normalization) If f is a constant map, with f(u) = u for every u U, then 1, if u U ind C (f, U) =, if u / U. In particular, ind C (f, C) = 1 for every compact function f : C C, since f is homotopic to any u C, by the convexity of C (take h (u, t) = tf (u) + (1 t) u ) Fixed point results. We begin with two theorems on the existence localization of one solution of the operator equation N(u, v) = (u, v). Set K = K 1 K 2 C = C(R 1, R 2 ) := {(u, v) K 1 K 2 : u R 1, v R 2 }, for some fixed numbers R 1, R 2. The first Theorem is a generalization of Theorem 2.17 of [19]. 4

5 Theorem 2.2. Assume that there exist numbers r i, R i, i = 1, 2 with < r i < ψ i R i such that (2.4) inf (u,v) C u =r 1, v r 2 N 1 (u, v) > r 1, inf N 2 (u, v) > r 2, (u,v) C u r 1, v =r 2 (2.5) sup N i (u, v) R i (i = 1, 2). (u,v) C Then N has at least one fixed point (u, v) K 1 K 2 such that u R 1, v R 2 either u > r 1 or v > r 2. Proof. The assumption (2.5) implies that N(C) C. Therefore, by Proposition 2.1, we obtain ind C (N, C) = 1. Let U := {(u, v) C : u < r 1, v < r 2 }. This is an open set, whose boundary U with respect to C is equal to U = A 1 A 2, where A 1 = {(u, v) C : u = r 1, v r 2 }, A 2 = {(u, v) C : u r 1, v = r 2 }. Observe that (2.4) implies that there are no fixed points of N on U. Therefore, the indices ind C (N, U) ind C (N, C \ U) are well defined their sum, by the additivity property of the index, is equal to one. Therefore, it suffices to prove that ind C (N, U) =. Take h = (R 1 ψ 1, R 2 ψ 2 ) C consider the homotopy H : C [, 1] C, H (u, v, t) := th + (1 t)n(u, v). We claim that H is fixed point free on U. Since (2.6) R i ψ i = R i ψ i > r i, i = 1, 2. we have (u, v) h = H (u, v, 1) for all (u, v) U. It remains to show that H (u, v, t) (u, v) for (u, v) U t (, 1). Assume the contrary. Then there exists (u, v) A 1 A 2 t (, 1) such that (2.7) (u, v) = th + (1 t)n(u, v). Suppose that (u, v) A 1. Then, N 1 (u, v) N 1 (u, v) ψ 1 R 1 ψ 1 exploiting the first coordinate of the equation (2.7), we obtain (2.8) u = N 1 (u, v) + t(r 1 ψ 1 N 1 (u, v)) N 1 (u, v). 5

6 Using the monotonicity of (2.4) we obtain r 1 = u N 1 (u, v) > r 1, which is impossible. Similarly, we derive a contradiction if (u, v) A 2. By the homotopy invariance of the index we obtain ind C (N, U) = ind C (h, U). From (2.6) we have h U, hence ind C (N, U) = ind C (h, U) =, as we wished. Remark 2.3. From the proof we can deduce that if we change the assumption (2.4) into (2.9) inf (u,v) C u =r 1, v r 2 N 1 (u, v) r 1, inf N 2 (u, v) r 2, (u,v) C u r 1, v =r 2 then we obtain at least one fixed point (u, v) C with slightly weaker localization: u r 1 or v r 2. The assumption (2.9) permits the existence of fixed points of N on U. The assumption (2.4) is more convenient when dealing with multiplicity results. Remark 2.4. We observe that, using the relation (2.3), a lower bound for the solution in terms of the functional provides a lower bound for the norm of the solution, namely u > r 1 = u > ψ 1 1 r 1, v > r 2 = v > ψ 2 1 r 2. Remark 2.5. The main differences between Theorem 2.2 Theorem 2.17 of [19] consist in: The possibility of considering a positively homogeneous functional instead of a seminorm. The assumption on the cone; in Theorem 2.17 of [19] it is needed the existence of ψ such that u u ψ i for all u E i, where is the order induced by the cone K i, i = 1, 2. Here, instead, we can consider a semiorder. Under the point of view of the applicability of our novel approach to parabolic problems, this is highlighted in the Remarks The second Theorem is in the spirit of Theorem 2.9 Remark 2.16 of [19]. Theorem 2.6. Assume that there exist numbers r i, R i, i = 1, 2 with < r i < ψ i R i such that (2.1) inf (u,v) C u =r 1, v r 2 N 1 (u, v) > r 1, inf N 2 (u, v) > r 2, (u,v) C u r 1, v =r 2 (2.11) sup N i (u, v) R i (i = 1, 2). (u,v) C Then N has at least one fixed point (u, v) K 1 K 2 such that u R 1, v R 2 u > r 1, v > r 2. Proof. The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 2.4 [19, Theorem 2.9] we only sketch it. As before, the assumption (2.11) implies that N(C) C. Thus, ind C (N, C) = 1. 6

7 In order to finish the proof, it is sufficient to show that ind C (N, V ) =, where We have V = B 1 B 2, where V := {(u, v) C : u < r 1 or v < r 2 }. B 1 = {(u, v) C : u = r 1, v r 2 }, B 2 = {(u, v) C : u r 1, v = r 2 }. By (2.1) we obtain N has no fixed points on V. Consider the same homotopy as in the proof of Theorem 2.2, that is H (u, v, t) = th + (1 t)n(u, v), where h = (R 1 ψ 1, R 2 ψ 2 ). As before we can prove that H is fixed point free on V. Therefore ind C (N, V ) = ind C (h, V ) =, since, like in the previous proof, h / V. The result, in the spirit of Lemma 4 of [2], allows different types of growth of the operators is a modification of Theorem 2.4 of [19]. Theorem 2.7. Assume that there exist numbers r i, R i with < r i < ψ i R i such that (2.12) sup N i (u, v) R i (i = 1, 2), (u,v) C (2.13) inf (u,v) A N 1(u, v) r 1 or inf (u,v) A N 2(u, v) r 2, where A is a subset of the set U = {(u, v) C : u < r 1, v < r 2 } C. Then N has at least one fixed point (u, v) K 1 K 2 such that u R 1, v R 2 (u, v) A. Proof. Since N is a completely continuous mapping in the bounded closed convex set C, by Schauder s fixed point theorem, it possesses a fixed point (u, v) C. We now show that the fixed point is not in A. Suppose on the contrary that (u, v) = N(u, v) (u, v) A. Suppose that the first inequality from (2.13) is satisfied. Then r 1 > u = N 1 (u, v) r 1, which is impossible. Similarly we arrive at a contradiction, if the second inequality from (2.13) is satisfied Multiplicity results. We present now some multiplicity results that are analogues of the results of Subsection 2.3 of [19]. 7

8 Theorem 2.8. Assume that there exist numbers ρ i, r i, R i with (2.14) < ψ i ρ i < r i < ψ i R i (i = 1, 2), such that (2.15) inf (u,v) C u =r 1, v r 2 N 1 (u, v) > r 1, inf (u,v) C u r 1, v =r 2 N 2 (u, v) > r 2, (2.16) sup N i (u, v) R i (i = 1, 2), (u,v) C (2.17) N(u, v) λ(u, v), for λ 1 ( u = ρ 1, v ρ 2 or u ρ 1, v = ρ 2 ). Then N has at least three fixed points (u i, v i ) C (i = 1, 2, 3) with u 1 < ρ 1, v 1 < ρ 2 (possibly zero solution); u 2 < r 1 or v 2 < r 2 ; u 2 > ρ 1 or v 2 > ρ 2 (possibly one solution component zero); u 3 > r 1, v 3 > r 2 (both solution components nonzero). Proof. Let U, V be as in the proof of Theorems Strict inequalities in (2.15) guarantee that N is fixed point free on V. According to the proof of Theorem 2.6 we have ind C (N, C) = 1, ind C (N, V ) = therefore by the additivity property, ind C (N, C \ V ) = 1. Let From (2.3), for every (u, v) W, we have W := {(u, v) C : u < ρ 1, v < ρ 2 }. u ψ 1 u ψ 1 ρ 1 < r 1, similarly, v < r 2. Hence (u, v) U, which proves that W U V. Condition (2.17) shows that N is homotopic with zero on W. Thus ind C (N, W ) = ind C (, W ) = 1. Then ind C (N, V \ W ) = 1 = 1. Consequently, there exist at least three fixed points of N, in W, V \ W C \ V. If we assume the following estimates of N i (u, v) : (2.18) inf (u,v) C u =r 1 N 1 (u, v) > r 1, inf (u,v) C v =r 2 N 2 (u, v) > r 2, then we can obtain a more precise localization for the solution (u 2, v 2 ) in Theorem 2.8, the Figure 1 (analogous to Figure 1 of [19]) illustrates this fact. Theorem 2.9. Suppose that all the assumptions of Theorem 2.8 are satisfied with the condition (2.15) replaced by (2.18). Then N has at least three fixed points (u i, v i ) C 8

9 v =R 2 (u 2,v 2 ) (u 3,v 3 ) v =R 2 (u 3,v 3 ) [v]=r 2 [v]=r 2 v R 2 v R 2 v =ρ 2 v =ρ 2 (u 1,v 1 ) (u 1,v 1 ) (u 2,v 2 ) u =ρ 1 [u]=r 1 u =R 1 u =ρ 1 [u]=r 1 u =R 1 u R 1 u R 1 Figure 1. Localization of the three solutions (u i, v i ) from Theorem 2.8 (on the left) Theorem 2.9 (on the right). (i = 1, 2, 3) with u 1 < ρ 1, v 1 < ρ 2 (possibly zero solution); u 2 < r 1, v 2 < r 2 ; u 2 > ρ 1 or v 2 > ρ 2 (possibly one solution component zero); u 3 > r 1, v 3 > r 2 (both solution components nonzero). Proof. The assumption (2.18) implies both (2.4) (2.1) that there are no fixed points of N on U V. Hence, as in the proofs of Theorems , the indices ind C (N, U) ind C (N, V ) are well defined equal. An analysis similar to that in the proof of Theorem 2.8 shows that ind C (N, W ) = 1, ind C (N, U \ W ) = 1, ind C (N, C \ V ) = 1, which completes the proof. In order to ensure that the solution (u 1, v 1 ) from the theorems above is nonzero, thereby to obtain three nonzero solutions, we use some additional assumptions on N. Theorem 2.1. Assume that all the conditions of Theorem 2.8 or Theorem 2.9 are satisfied. Consider < ϱ i < ψ i ρ i, i = 1, 2. (i) If N 1 (, ) or N 2 (, ), then the solution (u 1, v 1 ) from Theorem 2.8 or 2.9 is nonzero. (ii) If (2.19) inf u =ϱ 1, v ϱ 2 u ϱ 1, v =ϱ 2 (u,v) K, u ρ 1, v ρ 2 N 1 (u, v) ϱ 1, inf (u,v) K, u ρ 1, v ρ 2 N 2 (u, v) ϱ 2 N i (u, v) ρ i for u ρ 1, v ρ 2 (i = 1, 2), 9

10 then we can assume that the solution (u 1, v 1 ) from Theorem 2.8 or Theorem 2.9 satisfies u 1 ϱ 1 v 1 ϱ 2 ; (iii) if (2.2) inf u <ϱ 1, v <ϱ 2 u <ϱ 1, v <ϱ 2 (u,v) K, u ρ 1, v ρ 2 N 1 (u, v) ϱ 1 or inf (u,v) K, u ρ 1, v ρ 2 N 2 (u, v) ϱ 2 for some ρ 1 ρ 1, ρ 2 ρ 2, then we can assume that the solution (u 1, v 1 ) from Theorem 2.8 or Theorem 2.9 satisfies u 1 ϱ 1 or v 1 ϱ 2 or u 1 > ρ 1 or v 1 > ρ 2. Proof. (i) The assumption impies that (, ) is not a fixed point. (ii) The inequality follows from Theorem 2.6 applied in the case of r i := ϱ i R i := ρ i. (iii) From Theorem 2.7 applied in the case of r i := ϱ i, R i := ρ i A = {(u, v) : u < ϱ 1, v < ϱ 2, u ρ 1, v ρ 2 }, we obtain there are no fixed points of N in A, which ends the proof. The next Remark illustrates how Theorem 2.6 can be used to prove the existence of more nontrivial solutions. Remark If N satisfies the conditions of Theorem 2.6 for all pairs < r j i < ψ i R j i for i = 1, 2, j = 1, 2,..., n, satisfying ψ i R j i < rj+1 i for i = 1, 2, j = 1, 2,..., n 1, then N possesses at least n nontrivial solutions (u j, v j ) with u j R j 1, v j R j 2, u j > r j 1, v j > r j 2. Moreover, if (2.11) holds with the strict inequality, i.e. if sup N i (u, v) < R j i (i = 1, 2), (u,v) K, u R j 1, v Rj 2 hold, then we have n 1 additional solutions (ū j, v j ), j = 1,..., n 1 such that ū j < R j+1 1, v j < R j+1 2 ; ū j > R j 1 or v j > R j 2; ū j < r j+1 1 or v j < r j+1 2. The first conclusion follows from Theorem 2.6 applied n times, whereas the second follows from Theorem 2.8 applied n 1 times. Remark We stress that the abstract results obtained in this section can be applied to the case of one equation. Furthermore, our results can be generalized to the case of systems of more than two equations. The idea is to consider the product space E = Π n i=1e i of the Banach spaces E i, endowed with the norms i, functionals i, the pairs of cones wedges K i G i E i such that (2.1), (2.2) are satisfied for i = 1, 2,..., n. In this setting we are interested in the existence localization of fixed points of a given 1

11 operator N : K K, where K = Π n i=1k i. For example, let us consider the sets C = {u K : u 1 1 R 1,..., u n n R n }, U = {u C : u 1 1 < r 1,..., u n n < r n } for given radii r i, R i > with r i < ψ i i R i, i = 1,..., n. If sup N i (u) i R i, i = 1, 2,..., n u C inf N i (u) i > r i, i = 1, 2,..., n, u U u i i =r i then N has at least one fixed point in C \ U. As a consequence, results analogous to ones obtained later in Section 3, can be established for systems with more than two differential equations. 3. The system of parabolic equations Let Ω R m be a bounded domain that is Dirichlet regular. This class of domains is rather large; for example, if the boundary of Ω is Lipschitz continuous, then Ω is Dirichlet regular (see [11, Chapter II, Section 4, Proposition 4]). Let us take E = C (Ω) = { u C(Ω) : u Ω = }, E + = {u E : u(x) for all x Ω}. Let us also consider the space E = C(, t max, E), t max > its cone of nonnegative functions E + = C(, t max, E + ). The spaces E E are endowed with the uniform norms, that is u = max { u(x) : x Ω }, u E, u = max { u(t) : t t max }, u E. Let D Ω be any open non-empty subset. Put G = {u E : u(, x) for all x D}. The set G is a wedge generating the semiorder. By we denote the order induced by the cone E +. The symbol will also be used to denote the order on E induced by E + the natural order on H = L 2 (Ω) (that is u v if u(x) v(x) for a.a. x Ω). Given a function u H we set u = ess inf x D u(x), (in particular u = inf x D u(x) for u E) futhermore, with abuse of notation, by the same symbol we denote the value u = u() for u E. The following monotonicity continuity conditions of the functional are satisfied: u v if u, v E + u v 11

12 u v u v for all u, v E (therefore u u for all u E). Consider the function ψ(t) = ϕ for all t [, t max ], where ϕ E satisfies the following conditions: ϕ D 1 ϕ 1 in Ω. Then ψ = 1 u u ψ for every u E +. Let us consider the Laplace operator defined on the domain D( ) = {u E : u E}. We briefly recall some known facts regarding the Laplace operator the semigroup generated by it. Lemma 3.1. The operator is a generator of an analytic (immediately) compact C - semigroup of contractions {S(t) : t } on E. Moreover, the operators S(t) are positive, i.e. S(t)u for u. Proof. See [1, Section 6.1]. We shall also consider the space H = L 2 (Ω) the Laplacian 2 on H with Dirichlet boundary condition. Denote by S 2 : [, ) B(H) the semigroup generated by 2 by i: E H the natural embedding. Proposition 3.2. i(s(t)u) = S 2 (t)i(u) for all u E. Proof. The proof uses the Post-Widder inversion formula for C -semigroups (see Corollary in [1]). Defnition 3.3. For ξ E, f E, we say that the function u(t) = p(ξ, f)(t) := S(t)ξ + t S(t s)f(s)ds is a mild solution of the problem u u = f on (, t max ) Ω with u() = ξ. It is worth pointing out the following regularity result of the mild solutions, this can be proved using stard techniques, see for example [31, Theorem 8.2.1]. Proposition 3.4. Let u = p(ξ, f) for ξ E, f E, that is u is a mild solution of the problem u u = f, u() = ξ. Then (a) u is a strong solution of that problem in the space L 2 (Ω). Precisely, u: [, t max ] L 2 (Ω) is absolutely continuous, u L 1 (, t max, L 2 (Ω)), u(t) D( 2 ) u (t) = 2 u(t) + f(t) for almost all t (, t max ). (b) u is a weak solution of the equation u 2 u = f in the sense that the weak spatial derivative u(t, x) weak time derivative u t (t, x) exist on (, t max ) Ω (3.1) t u(t, x) φ(t, x) u t t φ(t, x)dxdt = f(t)φ(t, x)dt Ω Ω for all φ C ((, t max ) Ω). 12

13 We make use of the following result. Proposition 3.5. Assume that u E is a nonnegative nonzero function. Define u(t, x) = (S(t)u )(x). Then (i) u C ((, ) Ω) C(R + Ω) (ii) u t = u on (, ) Ω (iii) u(, x) = u (x) for x Ω (iv) u(t, x) > for t > x Ω. Proof. The conclusions (i)-(iii) follow from Proposition 2.6 of [1], while (iv) follows from the parabolic Harnack inequality, see for example Theorem of [15]. Remark 3.6. It seems worth discussing the choice of the space C (Ω). In the recent paper [19], where an elliptic system was discussed, the space L (Ω) was considered. Unfortunately, the Laplacian fails to generate a C -semigroup on L (Ω). Moreover, although generates semigroups on L p (Ω), these spaces are somewhat inappropriate to obtain the localization of solutions with our approach. Note also that in the space E = C(, t max, C (Ω)) there is no element ψ that ψ = 1 u u ψ for every u E +. This fact prevented us from using the abstract setting from [19] is the main reason for considering the wedges G i, i {1, 2}, the semiorders in Section 2. We make use of the following Lemma. Lemma 3.7. Let η E = C (Ω) let µ be a Borel measure on R. (a) If < t < t 1, then we have m η (t, t 1 ) := min { (S(τ)η)(x) : x D, τ [t, t 1 ] } >. t1 (b) If t < t 1 µ([t, t 1 ]) >, then we have S(τ)ηdµ(τ) >. Proof. (a) The conclusion follows from Proposition 3.5 compactness of [t, t 1 ] D. (b) We can assume that t >. Then t1 for x D, which is the desired conclusion. Define t (S(τ)η)(x)dµ(τ) µ([t, t 1 ])m η (t, t 1 ) > (3.2) m(t, t 1 ) := ess inf x D, t [t,t 1 ] (S 2(t)χ D ) (x). Corollary 3.8. (a) If < t < t 1, then m(t, t 1 ) >. t1 (b) If t t 1 µ([t, t 1 ]) >, then S 2 (τ)χ D dµ(τ) >. It is possible that m(, t 1 ) > (see Example 3.26). 13 t t

14 Proof. Let η E = C (Ω) be any nonzero function with η χ D. The conclusion is implied by Lemma 3.7 the inequality S 2 (t)χ D S 2 (t)η = S(t)η, which follows from the positiveness of S 2 Proposition 3.2. Define the cones K 1 = K 2 = {u E + : u(t) S(t)u() for all t [, t max ]}. Let us fix t < t 1 t max satisfying µ 1 ([t, t 1 ]) >, µ 1 ([t, t 1 ]) >, where µ i are the measures from the definition of α β. Put m := m(t, t 1 ). Remark 3.9. Take u K set r := u = inf x D u(, x). Observe that u() rχ D therefore we have u(t) S(t)u() = S 2 (t)u() rs 2 (t)χ D rmχ D for t [t, t 1 ]. As a consequence, we obtain the estimate (3.3) u m u χ [t,t 1 ] D for all u K, which can be called weak Harnack-type inequality, a counterpart of the inequality (3.4) of [19]. We now turn back our attention to the parabolic system u t u = f(t, x, u, v) (t, x) Q := (, t max ) Ω, (3.4) v t v = g(t, x, u, v) (t, x) Q := (, t max ) Ω, u(t, x) = v(t, x) = (t, x) (, t max ) Ω, u(, ) = α(u, v), v(, ) = β(u, v). Here, f, g : (, t max ) Ω R + R + R + α, β : E E E are continuous functions. In what follows we shall identify u: [, t max ] Ω R with u: [, t max ] C(Ω) via the formula u(t)(x) = u(t, x). Define F (u, v)(t)(x) = f(t, x, u(t)(x), v(t)(x)), G(u, v)(t)(x) = g(t, x, u(t)(x), v(t)(x))). Under the following assumption: (3.5) f(t, x,, ) = g(t, x,, ) = for x Ω, the operators F, G: E E E are continuous bounded (map bounded sets into bounded ones). Therefore, the mild solution of the problem (3.4) is a fixed point of the vector valued operator M defined as M 1 (u, v) = S(α(u, v)) + Ŝ(F (u, v)), M 2(u, v) = S(β(u, v)) + Ŝ(G(u, v)), 14

15 where S : E E, S(u )(t) = S(t)u, u E, Ŝ : E E, Ŝ(f)(t) = t S(t τ)f(τ)dτ, f E. Proposition 3.1. The operators M 1, M 2 are completely continuous if only if α β are completely continuous. Proof. If M 1, M 2 are completely continuous, then e M 1 = α, e M 2 = β are completely continuous, where e (f) = f() for f E. Now, assume that the operators α, β are completely continuous. Since the operator S is continuous, then the operator S α is completely continuous. We shall demonstrate that Ŝ is completely continuous. In order to do this we utilize a version of the Ascoli-Arzelà Theorem tailored for the space E, see for example Theorem A.2.1 of [31]. First, denote by Ξ the upper bound of the norms of S(t) B(E) for t [, t max ]. Because S is immediate norm continuous, for any ε > there exists a number δ(ε) > such that S(t) S(s) B(E) < ε if < ε t s t + δ(ε). Fix R, ε > let D = {f E : f < R}. η = min{t, ε}. We can present Ŝ(f)(t) as a sum Ŝ(t) = x + y, where x = S(η) t η S(t s η)f(s)ds, y = For a fixed t > f D let t t η S(t s)f(s)ds. It is straightforward to show that x Ĉ := S(η)(B(, tξr)) that y B(, εξr). } Because {Ŝ(f)(t) Ĉ is relatively compact ε is arbitrary, we obtain the set : f D is relatively compact for all t [, t max ]. Now we shall prove the equicontinuity of the family do it let us fix ε >, t, s [, t max ] f D. {Ŝ(f) : f D }. In order to Without loss of generality we can assume that t s. Let us put η = min{t, ε} (the case η = appears if t = ). Then Ŝ(f)(s) Ŝ(f)(t) = x + y, where x R x = t t (S(s τ)f(τ) S(t τ)f(τ))dτ, y = S(s t + τ) S(τ) B(E) dτ 2ΞRε + y s t ΞR. t η s t S(s τ)f(τ)dτ. S(s t + τ) S(τ) B(E) dτ. Therefore Ŝ(f)(s) Ŝ(f)(t) (3ΞR + t max)ε if s t } min{δ(ε), ε}. This proves the uniform equicontinuity of the family {Ŝ(f) : f D finishes the proof of the complete continuity of Ŝ. Now, the complete continuity of M 1 = S α + Ŝ F is clear. Similarly we can prove the complete continuity of M 2. In order to use fixed point index for compact operators, at the same time, to avoid assuming the compactness of α β, we consider the operator N = (N 1, N 2 ), defined 15

16 by the formula N 1 (u, v) = S N 2 (u, v) = S ( ( )) α S(u()) + Ŝ(F (u, v)), S(v()) + Ŝ(G(u, v)) + Ŝ(F (u, v)), ( ( )) β S(u()) + Ŝ(F (u, v)), S(v()) + Ŝ(G(u, v)) + Ŝ(G(u, v)). Proposition The sets of fixed points of the operators M N coincide. Proof. Note that (3.6) N 1 (u, v) = S(u ) + Ŝ(F (u, v)) N 2(u, v) = S(v ) + Ŝ(G(u, v)), where u = α(ū, v), v = β(ū, v) (3.7) ū = S(u()) + Ŝ(F (u, v)), v = S(v()) + Ŝ(G(u, v)). From (3.6) the properties of S Ŝ we have N 1(u, v)() = u N 2 (u, v)() = v. Therefore, if N(u, v) = (u, v), then ū = u v = v, consequently, u = α(u, v) v = β(u, v). By (3.6) we arrive at M(u, v) = (u, v). Conversely, if M(u, v) = (u, v), then (3.8) u = S(α(u, v)) + Ŝ(F (u, v)), v = S(β(u, v)) + Ŝ(G(u, v)) u() = α(u, v), v() = β(u, v). Therefore we have u = S(u()) + Ŝ(F (u, v)) v = S(v()) + Ŝ(F (u, v)). Plugging this into (3.8) we obtain N(u, v) = (u, v). From the proof it follows in particular, that (3.9) N 1 (u, v) = S(N 1 (u, v)()) + Ŝ(F (u, v)), N 2 (u, v) = S(N 2 (u, v)()) + Ŝ(G(u, v)), which yields N(E + E + ) K 1 K 2 = K. From Proposition 3.1 we know that a necessary condition for the operator M to be completely continuous is the complete continuity of α β. In the case of the operator N we can weaken the assumptions on α β. Proposition The operator N is completely continuous if the images α(u 1 U 2 ) β(u 1 U 2 ) are relatively compact for all bounded sets U 1, U 2 E that satisfy the following property: (3.1) For all ε > the set {u(t) : u U i, t [ε, t max ]} is relatively compact, i = 1, 2. Proof. We prove, without loss of generality, the complete continuity of N 1. Let ᾱ(u, v) = α(ū, v), where ū(u, v) v(u, v) are defined by (3.7). From (3.6) it follows that N 1 (u, v) = S(ᾱ(u, v))+ŝ(f (u, v)). By Proposition 3.1, it suffices to show that ᾱ is completely continuous. This will be done if we demonstrate, that ū(u U) v(u U) satisfy (3.1) for a given bounded set U E. 16

17 Let ε > be given. Put R = sup { u : u U}. For u, v U t ε we obtain S(u())(t) = S(ε)S(t ε)u() S(ε)D(, R) =: C the set C is relatively compact. Moreover, the proof of Proposition 3.1 shows that the set Ŝ(F (U U)) is relatively compact in E. By the stard arguments, utilizing the compactness of [, t max ], one can show that the set {Ŝ(F (u, v))(t) : u, v U, t [, tmax ]} is totally bounded ( therefore relatively compact) in E. This shows that ū(u U) satisfies the condition (3.1). Similarly we can verify this condition for the set v(u U). Example Let α(u, v) = u(t ), β(u, v) = v(t ), where t t max. Then α, β satisfy the condition from Proposition 3.12 if only if t >. Indeed, let t = U 1 = U 2 = {S( )u : u 1}. Then the condition (3.1) is satisfied, but the set α(u 1 U 2 ) = {u() : u U 1 } = {u E : u 1} is not compact. Conversely, if t > sets U 1, U 2 satisfy the condition (3.1), then α(u 1 U 2 ) = {u(t ) : u U 1 } is compact from (3.1). Proposition Let α, β be as in (1.2). Then α, β satisfy the assumptions of Proposition Proof. Indeed, let us consider the sets U 1, U 2 B(, R) satisfying the condition (3.1) let ε >. From the uniform continuity of G 1 on [, ω d], where d = max {g 1 (u, v) : u, v R}, ω = µ 1 ([, t max ]), there exists δ > such that G 1 (p) G 1 (q) < ε if p, q ω d, p q < δ d. Since µ 1 ({}) =, there exists σ > such that δ := µ 1 ([, σ)) < δ. Put Ui σ := {u(t) : u U i, t [σ, t max ]}, i = 1, 2 Γ σ := conv g 1 (U1 σ U2 σ ). From the Mazur Theorem, which states that the closed convex hull of a compact subset in a Banach space is compact, the set Γ σ is compact. Therefore, σ g 1 (u(t), v(t))dt W σ := (ω δ ) Γ σ g 1 (u(t), v(t))dt δ d σ for u U 1, v U 2. Thus, by the choice of δ, we deduce that for all u U 1, v U 2 we have α(u, v) = u 1 + u 2, where u 1 G 1 (W σ ) u 2 < ε. Because G 1 (W σ ) is compact ε is arbitrarily small, we obtain α(u 1 U 2 ) is relatively compact. Similarly we can proceed with β. 17

18 Remark The assumption that is not an atom of the measures µ 1, µ 2 follows from the observation from Example 3.13, where it is shown that the Dirac measure δ is not admissible in our theory. Moreover, in the case µ 1 ({}) > or µ 2 ({}) >, the initial conditions u() = α(u, v), v() = β(u, v) become implicit, making the considerations unnecessarily complicated or incorrect. Note also that the conclusion of Proposition 3.14 can be applied to the case of: (i) multi-point conditions of the type α(u, v) = k α s u(t s ), β(u, v) = s=1 r β s v(t s), s=1 where < t 1 <... < t k, < t 1 <... < t r α s, β s >. (ii) integral conditions of the type α(u, v) = g 1 (u(t))dt, β(u, v) = Let α, β be as in (1.2). Consider the assumption g 2 (v(t))dt. (3.11) p 1 u g 1 (u, v) q 1 u, p 2 v g 2 (u, v) q 2 v, P i u G i (u) Q i u, for all u, v, i {1, 2}, where < p i q i, < P i Q i, i {1, 2}. Similar assumptions were used, for nonlinear nonlocal conditions in the context of ODEs, in [18, 2]. Under the assumption (3.11) we have the following estimates: (3.12) Put p 1 P 1 u(t)dµ 1 (t) α(u, v) q 1 Q 1 u(t)dµ 1 (t), p 2 P 2 v(t)dµ 2 (t) β(u, v) q 2 Q 2 v(t)dµ 2 (t). (3.13) fr,r := f(t, x, u, v) inf t [t,t 1 ], x D mr 1 u R 1, v R 2 (3.14) f r,r := inf f(t, x, u, v) t [t,t 1 ], x D mr 1 u R 1, mr 2 v R 2 (3.15) f R := sup f(t, x, u, v) t [,t max], x Ω u R 1, v R 2 r 1, g r,r := inf t [t,t 1 ], x D u R 1, mr 2 v R 2 r 1, g r,r := inf t [t,t 1 ], x D mr 1 u R 1, mr 2 v R 2 R 1, g R := sup t [,t max], x Ω u R 1, v R 2 Note that we have f r,r f r,r f R g r,r g r,r g R. g(t, x, u, v) r 2, g(t, x, u, v) r 2 g(t, x, u, v) R 2. Lemma Let α, β be as in (1.2). Assume that the inequalities (3.11) are satisfied. 18

19 (a) If u R 1, v R 2, then we have N 1 (u, v) R 1 q 1 Q 1 C f R (q 1 Q 1 C C 1), where the constants C1 i = C2 i = are positive. t (b) The following implications hold: u r 1 v r 2 S 2 (τ)χ Ω dµ i (τ), C 1 = S 2 (τ)χ Ω dτdµ i (t) N 2 (u, v) R 2 q 2 Q 2 C g R (q 2 Q 2 C C 1), S 2 (τ)χ Ω dτ, = N 1(u, v) r 1 p 1 P 1 (c f r,rc 1 2), = N 2(u, v) r 2 p 2 P 2 (c g r,rc 2 2), where the constants (3.16) c i 1 = S 2 (τ)χ D dµ i (τ), c i 2 = are positive. (c) If u r 1 v r 2, then we have N 1 (u, v) r 1 p 1 P 1 (c f r,r c 1 2), t min{t,t1 } t S 2 (t τ)χ D dτdµ i (t) N 2 (u, v) r 2 p 2 P 2 (c g r,r c 2 2), Proof. Consider u, v such that u R 1, v R 2. (a) Using the symbols u, ū, v introduced in the proof of Proposition 3.11 having in mind the equality u = α(ū, v) the estimates (3.12) we obtain (3.17) 1 q 1 Q 1 u Exploiting the equation (3.7) we obtain (3.18) ū(t)dµ 1 (t) = S(t)u()dµ 1 (t) + ū(t)dµ 1 (t). t S(t τ)f (u, v)(τ)dτdµ 1 (t). From (3.17), (3.18), (3.15) the fact that u R 1 χ Ω it can be concluded that (3.19) From (3.6), we obtain 1 tmax u R 1 S 2 (t)χ Ω dµ 1 (t) + R 1 f R q 1 Q 1 (3.2) N 1 (u, v)(t) = S(t)u + t t S 2 (τ)χ Ω dτdµ 1 (t). S(t τ)f (u, v)(τ)dτ S(t)u +R 1 f R S 2 (τ)χ Ω dτ. 19

20 Combining (3.19) (3.2) an applying the contractiveness of S(t) gives N 1 (u, v) R 1 q 1 Q 1 C f R (q 1 Q 1 C C 1). Similarly, we can obtain the estimate of N 2 (u, v). (b) Assume now that u r 1. Then u() r 1 χ D. From (3.3) (3.13) we obtain u(t) mr 1 χ D F (u, v)(t) r 1 f r,rχ D for t [t, t 1 ]. Using the symbols ū, v introduced in the proof of Proposition 3.11 we obtain 1 N 1 (u, v)() = 1 α(ū, v) p 1 P 1 p 1 P 1 = S(t)u()dµ 1 (t) + ū(t)dµ 1 (t) t r 1 S 2 (t)χ D dµ 1 (t) + r 1 fr,r Using the superadditivity of we obtain S(t τ)f (u, v)(τ)dτdµ 1 (t) min{t,t1 } N 1 (u, v) r 1 p 1 P 1 (c f r,rc 1 2). In the same manner we can obtain the estimate of N 2 (u, v). t t S 2 (t τ)χ D dτdµ 1 (t). (c) Using the fact, that v r 2 implies v(t) mr 2 χ D following the calculations analogous to those above, we obtain the conclusion. The positiveness of the constants c i 1, c i 2, C i 1, C i 2, C 1, i = 1, 2, follows from Corollary 3.8. Remark As it was pointed out in Remark 3.9, the Harnack-type inequality (3.3) is an analogue of the inequality (3.4) of [19]. These two inequalities play a crucial role in obtaining the estimates from below are utilized for the calculation of the fixed point index on some suitable subsets of a cone. The difference between these two Harnack-type inequalities deserves a comment, as our choice to use the inequality (3.3) led us to build the new theory presented in Section 2. The inequality (3.4) of [19] was directly derived from a Harnack-type inequality given by Trudinger [29]. The natural counterpart in our context would be the parabolic Harnack inequality by Trudinger [3, Theorem 1.2], which is valid for all weak supersolutions u of the equation u t u = (that is, functions u such that u t u ). This inequality could be expressed in the following manner: (3.21) u c u χ Q, where c > is a constant u = u(t, x) dtdx, Q + = [ t, t 1] D, Q = [t, t 1 ] D Q + 2

21 for < t < t 1 < t < t 1 t max. However, the use of this inequality is somewhat unnatural it seems that it leads to additional complication of the argument to worse results. For the sake of brevity, we provide here only a brief explanation. 1) The inequality (3.21) gives a lower bound on the values of u on Q, which depend on the values of u on Q +. The proof of Lemma 3.16(b) shows that it is more convenient to utilize the dependence of values u Q on values of u {} D, due to the presence of the nonlocal boundary condition u(, x) = α(u, v)(x). 2) The inequality (3.3) is actually a consequence of the inequality u m u χ [t,t 1 ] D used for u(t) = S 2 (t)χ D, which follows from the very definition of m. On the other h, the inequality (3.21) is more general in the sense that the constant c is so chosen that a supersolution u of the equation u t u = satisfies the estimate u(t, x) c on Q whenever u 1. This universality, which in other context proves to be very important, is not exploited in our consideration, unfortunately, it effects in a negative way the constants arising in the lower bounds of the nonlinearities (the counterparts of c 1 c 2 ). And lastly, those constants are more difficult to be established. In other words, having in mind the nature of the calculations from Lemma 3.16, the use of minimum u is more convenient, natural effective than the use of the integral seminorm u Existence results. We are now prepared to establish some sufficient conditions for the existence of nonnegative nontrivial solutions of the problem (3.4). In what follows we shall assume that α, β are as in (1.2) that the estimates (3.11) is satisfied. Theorem Assume there exist radii < r i < R i, i {1, 2} such that (3.22) q 1 Q 1 C f R (q 1 Q 1 C C 1) 1, q 2 Q 2 C g R (q 2 Q 2 C C 1) 1 (3.23) p 1 P 1 (c f r,r c 1 2) > 1, p 2 P 2 (c g r,r c 2 2) > 1. Then there exists at least one nonnegative solution (u, v) of the problem (3.4) such that u R 1, v R 2 u > r 1, v > r 2. Proof. Lemma 3.16 implies that the conditions (2.4) (2.5) are satisfied. Moreover, r i < ψ i R i, since ψ i = 1. The assertion follows from Theorem 2.6. Remark It is worth mentioning that the condition u > r 1 implies u > r 1, which follows from both the definitions of from Remark 2.4. Theorem 3.2. Let < r 1 < R 1, < r 2 < R 2 let R 1 R 1, R2 R 2. Define the quantities f := r, R f(t, x, u, v) inf, t [t,t 1 ], x D r 1 g r, u R 1, v R 2 21 R := inf t [t,t 1 ], x D u R 1, v R 2 g(t, x, u, v) r 2.

22 Assume that the condition (3.22) is satisfied that (3.24) f r, R ( ) p 1 P 1 c or g r, R ( p 2 P 2 c2) 2 1. Then there exists a nontrivial nonnegative solution (u, v) of (3.4) such that u R 1, v R 2 (3.25) u r 1 or v r 2 or u > R 1 or v > R 2. In particular, if R 1 = R 1 R 2 = R 2, then there exists a nontrivial nonnegative solution (u, v) with either u r 1 or v r 2. Proof. As in the previous proof we know that the condition (2.12) from Theorem 2.7 is satisfied. Let (u, v) A := {(u, v) : u < r 1, v < r 2, u R 1, v R 2 }. In the same way as in the proof of Lemma 3.16(b) we can prove that (3.26) N 1 (u, v) r 1 p 1 P 1 c 1 2f r, R, N 2 (u, v) r 2 p 2 P 2 c 2 2g r, R for u R 1 v R 2. Therefore, the assumption (3.24) implies the condition (2.13) is satisfied we can apply Theorem 2.7 to obtain a solution (u, v) A. Clearly, this is equivalent to (3.25). Remark The importance of Theorem 3.2 consists in the fact that the assumption (3.24) involves only one component of the system nonlinearity (f, g). Therefore, it allows different kind of growth of f g near the origin. A similar remark also applies to the following theorem. Theorem Assume there exist radii < ρ i < r i < R i, i {1, 2}, such that q 1 Q 1 C f R (q 1 Q 1 C C 1) 1, q 2 Q 2 C g R (q 2 Q 2 C C 1) 1, q 1 Q 1 C f ρ (q 1 Q 1 C C 1) 1, q 2 Q 2 C g ρ (q 2 Q 2 C C 1) 1 (3.27) p 1 P 1 (c f r,r c 1 2) > 1, p 2 P 2 (c g r,r c 2 2) > 1 with Then there exist three nonnegative solutions (u i, v i ) (i = 1, 2, 3) of the system (3.4) u 1 < ρ 1, v 1 < ρ 2 (possibly the zero solution); u 2 < r 1 or v 2 < r 2 ; u 2 > ρ 1 or v 2 > ρ 2 (possibly one solution component zero); u 3 > r 1, v 3 > r 2 (both solution components nonzero). By the following slight strengthening of the assumption (3.27): (3.28) p 1 P 1 (c f r,rc 1 2) > 1, p 2 P 2 (c g r,rc 2 2) > 1 22

23 we obtain a slight improvement of the precision in localizing the second solution: u 2 < r 1, v 2 < r 2 ; u 2 > ρ 1 or v 2 > ρ 2. Moreover, having given numbers < ϱ i < ρ i (i = 1, 2), (i) if then u 1 ϱ 1 v 1 ϱ 2 ; (ii) if p 1 P 1 (c f ϱ,ρ c 1 2) > 1, p 2 P 2 (c g ϱ,ρ c 2 2) > 1, fϱ, ρ ( ) p 1 P 1 c or gϱ, ρ ( ) p 2 P 2 c for some ρ 1 ρ 1, ρ 2 ρ 2, then u 1 ϱ 1 or v 1 ϱ 2 or u 1 > ρ 1 or v 1 > ρ 2. Proof. One can use Lemma The first assertion follows from Theorem 2.8, while second follows from Theorem 2.9. The third part of the conclusion, i.e. assertions (i) (ii), is a consequence of Theorem 2.1 (3.26) Non-existence results. We now present some sufficient conditions for the nonexistence of positive solutions of the system (3.4). We still assume that α, β are as in Example 3.14 that (3.11) is satisfied. We also assume that t max supp(µ i ), i = 1, 2. Lemma Let (u, v) be a solution of the system (3.4). If u then u > if v then v >. Proof. Let t < t max be such that u(t ). From Proposition 3.11 we know that (u, v) is a fixed point of M. Thus, u() = α(u, v) p 1 P 1 u(t)dµ 1 (t) p 1 P 1 u(t)dµ 1 (t) t u(t) S(t t )u(t ) for t t. From Lemma 3.7 we therefore obtain t u = u() p 1 P 1 S(t)u(t )dµ 1 (t + t ) >. Theorem Put ( 1 qi Q i C1 i e i = max, 1 q ) iq i µ i ([, t max ]), e q i Q i C2 i + C 1 C 1 i = (p ip i ) 1 c i 1, i {, 1}. mc i 2 Assume that (u, v ) is a nonnegative solution of the system (3.4). If one of the following conditions holds: (3.29) (3.3) then u =. f(t, x, u, v) < e 1 u for all t [, t max ], x Ω, u >, v, f(t, x, u, v) > e 1 u for all t [t, t 1 ], x D, u >, v, 23

24 Similarly, if one of the following conditions holds: (3.31) (3.32) g(t, x, u, v) < e 2 v for all t [, t max ], x Ω, u, v >, g(t, x, u, v) > e 2 v for all t [t, t 1 ], x D, u, v >, then v =. In particular, if p 1 P 1 c 1 1 > 1 (p 2 P 2 c 2 1 > 1), then u = (v = ), regardless of the properties of f (g). Proof. Suppose on the contrary that u. Then u = N 1 (u, v ) = M 1 (u, v ). Put R 1 = u, R 2 = max{ v, 1} r 1 = u >. Assume that the inequality (3.29) holds. Observe that f(t, x, u, v)/r 1 < e 1 for t [, t max ], x Ω, u R 1 v R 2. Therefore, f R < e 1. From Lemma 3.16(a) we obtain (3.33) 1 = u R 1 = N 1(u, v ) R 1 q 1 Q 1 C f R (q 1 Q 1 C C 1). Similarly, in the analogous manner as in the proof of Lemma 3.16(a), one can show that (3.34) 1 = u R 1 = M 1(u, v ) R 1 q 1 Q 1 µ 1 ([, t max ]) + f R C 1. The estimates (3.33) (3.34) give f R e 1, a contradiction. Assume now that (3.3) holds. Observe that f(t, x, u, v)/r 1 > me 1 for t [t, t 1 ], x D, mr 1 u R 1 v R 2. Therefore, f r,r > me 1. On the other h, from Lemma 3.16(b) we obtain (3.35) 1 = u r 1 = N 1(u, v ) r 1 p 1 P 1 (c f r,rc 1 2). From (3.35) we conclude that f r,r me 1, a contradiction. The second assertion can be proved analogously. Corollary (i) If one of the inequalities (3.29)-(3.32) holds, then there are no positive solutions of the system (3.4). (ii) If one of the inequalities (3.29)-(3.3) holds one of the inequalities (3.31)-(3.32) holds, then there are no nontrivial nonnegative solutions of the system (3.4) Two examples. In the following one-dimensional examples we show that all the constants C i 1, C 1, C i 2, c i 1, c i 2, m, i = 1, 2, that occur in our theory can be computed. Example Let Ω = [, π] let µ 1 = µ 2 be the Lebesgue measure on [, t max ]. Let us put D = [b, π b] for a fixed < b < π/2. Then 4 χ D = (2k + 1)π cos ( (2k + 1)b ) sin ( (2k + 1)x ) k= 24

25 χ Ω = k= 4 (2k + 1)π sin ( (2k + 1)x ), where the convergence is considered in the space L 2 (Ω). The evolution of χ D χ Ω is given by the formulae 4 (S 2 (t)χ D )(x) = (2k + 1)π cos ( (2k + 1)b ) e (2k+1)2t sin ( (2k + 1)x ), k= (S 2 (t)χ Ω )(x) = k= 4 (2k + 1)π e (2k+1)2t sin ( (2k + 1)x ). Put b = π/4, t = t 1 = t max = 1. Then we have ( π ) m = (S 2 (1)χ D ) = ( 1) k 2 4 (2k + 1)π e (2k+1)2 k=.23. Since we consider the Lebesgue measure in the definition of the operators α β, we shall omit the superscripts in the constants C i j, c i j. Because tmax S 2 (τ)χ D dτ(x) = t we obtain k= S 2 (t τ)χ D dτdt = Moreover, because c 1 = 4 (1 (2k + 1) 3 π cos(2k + 1)π 4 e (2k+1)2) sin ( (2k + 1)x ) k= c 2 = k= 4 (2k + 1) 5 π cos(2k + 1)π 4 e (2k+1)2 sin ( (2k + 1)x ), 2 ( 1) k ( 1 e (2k+1)2).38 (2k + 1) 3 π k= 2 ( 1) k (2k + 1) 5 π e (2k+1)2.23 S 2 (τ)χ Ω dτ = k= 4 (1 (2k + 1) 3 π e (2k+1)2) sin ( (2k + 1)x ) t (3.36) C 1 = S 2 (τ)χ Ω dτdt = k= S 2 (τ)χ Ω dτ, C 2 = 4 (2k + 1) 5 π e (2k+1)2 sin ( (2k + 1)x ), t S 2 (τ)χ Ω dτdt 25

26 we obtain C 1 = C 1 = k= 4 ( 1) k ( (2k + 1) 3 π 1 e (2k+1)2).77 C 2 = k= 4 ( 1) k (2k + 1) 5 π e (2k+1)2.47. If we put G i (x) = g i (x) = x, then p i = P i = q i = Q i = 1 the conditions (3.22) (3.23) are equivalent to the following inequalities: f R, g R 1 C 1.19, f C 1 r,r, g r,r > 1 c C 2 c 2 The numerical calculations indicate that the choice b = π/4 is optimal, i.e. the ratio (1 c 1 )/(c 2 m) is the smallest. Example Let Ω, D, t max be as in Example We consider the problem (1.1) with conditions of the form u() = κu(t max ), v() = κv(t max ), κ >. We discuss in details the cases of periodic conditions of solutions that double in time. Therefore u() = α(u, v) v() = β(u, v), where α β are as in (1.2) with G i = id, g i (u 1, u 2 ) = κ u i µ 1 = µ 2 = δ tmax is a Dirac measure. Hence we have p i = q i = κ P i = Q i = 1. Put t = t 1 = t max = 1. The evolution of χ D χ Ω is the same as in Example Therefore, m.23. The remaining constants can be calculated by using the formulae C 1 = S 2 (t max )χ Ω, C 2 = C 1 = S 2 (τ)χ Ω dτ, c 1 = S 2 (t max )χ D, c 2 = S 2 (τ)χ D dτ the calculations from Example We obtain C 1 = k= ( 1) k 4 (2k + 1)π e (2k+1)2 = 2m.46, C 2.77, c 1 = m.23, c Finally, the conditions (3.22) (3.23) are equivalent to the following inequalities: f R, g R C(κ) := 1 κc 1, f C 1 r,r, g r,r > c(κ) := 1 κc 1. + κc 2 κc 2 For instance, in the periodic case (κ = 1) we obtain C(1).35 c(1) 2.3. Moreover, in the case of solutions that double in time (κ =.5) we obtain C(.5).67 c(.5)

27 Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the anonymous Referee for the constructive comments. The authors are indebted to Prof. Precup for the useful discussions on the nonlocal parabolic case, in particular for providing them with the works [9, 25]. G. Infante was partially supported by G.N.A.M.P.A. - INdAM (Italy). This paper was written during the postdoctoral stage of M. Maciejewski at the University of Calabria, supported by a research fellowship within the project Enhancing Educational Potential of Nicolaus Copernicus University in the Disciplines of Mathematical Natural Sciences (Project no. POKL /1) by the NCN Grant 213/9/B/ST1/1963. References [1] W. Arendt, C. Batty, M. Hieber F. Neubrer, Vector-valued Laplace transforms Cauchy problems. Monographs in Mathematics, 96. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 21. [2] I. Benedetti, V. Taddei M. Väth, Evolution problems with nonlinear nonlocal boundary conditions, J. Dynam. Differential Equations 25 (213), [3] L. Byszewski, Strong maximum minimum principles for parabolic problems with nonlocal inequalities, Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 7 (199), [4] L. Byszewski, Strong maximum principles for parabolic nonlinear problems with nonlocal inequalities together with integrals, J. Appl. Math. Stochastic Anal., 3 (199), [5] L. Byszewski, Strong maximum principles for parabolic nonlinear problems with nonlocal inequalities together with arbitrary functionals, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 156 (1991), [6] A. Boucherif, Nonlocal problems for parabolic inclusions, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., suppl. (29), [7] A. Boucherif, Discontinuous parabolic problems with a nonlocal initial condition, Bound. Value Probl., 211, Art. ID , 1 pp. [8] A. Boucherif, Nonlocal conditions for lower semicontinuous parabolic inclusions, Adv. Difference Equ., 211, Art. ID 1957, 7 pp. [9] T. Cardinali, R. Precup P. Rubbioni, A unified existence theory for evolution equations systems under nonlocal conditions, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 432 (215), [1] J. Chabrowski, On nonlocal problems for parabolic equations, Nagoya Math. J., 93 (1984), [11] R. Dautray J. L. Lions, Mathematical analysis numerical methods for science technology, Vol Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 199. [12] K. Deimling, Nonlinear functional analysis, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, [13] K. Deng, Exponential decay of solutions of semilinear parabolic equations with nonlocal initial conditions, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 179 (1993) [14] K. J. Engel R. Nagel, One-parameter semigroups for linear evolution equations. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 194. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2. [15] L. C. Evans, Partial differential equations. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 19. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, [16] A. Granas J. Dugundji, Fixed point theory, Springer-Verlag, New York, 23. [17] D. Guo V. Lakshmikantham, Nonlinear problems in abstract cones, Academic Press, Boston, [18] G. Infante, Nonlocal boundary value problems with two nonlinear boundary conditions, Commun. Appl. Anal., 12 (28),