arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 5 Nov 2017

Transcription

1 ESTIMATES FOR THE NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS IN THE HALF-SPACE FOR NON LOCALIZED DATA YASUNORI MAEKAWA, HIDEYUKI MIURA, AND CHRISTOPHE PRANGE arxiv:7.65v [math.ap] 5 Nov 7 Abstract. This paper is devoted to the study of the Stokes and Navier-Stokes euations, in a half-space, for initial data in a class of locally uniform Lebesgue integrable functions, namely L,σ Rd +. The two main results of the paper are: i the proof of the analyticity of the Stokes semigroup e ta in L,σ Rd + for <, ii the proof of bilinear estimates for e ta P from which the existence of local in time mild solutions to the Navier-Stokes system for initial data in L,σ Rd +, d, follows as a conseuence. From the existence of mild solutions in L we infer a local concentration property of the L norm d along a parabolic cone for blow-up solutions. This improves a recent result by Li, Ozawa and Wang and provides a new proof. Our strategy, in order to estimate the time dependent dynamics, is to first study the stationary Stokes resolvent problem for data in L,σ Rd +, <. The paper ends with two Liouville theorems for the stationary and non stationary Stokes system.. Introduction Thispaperisdevotedtothestudyoffluideuationsinthehalf-spaceR d +. Ourgoal is twofold. First we show the analyticity of the Stokes semigroup for data belonging tothelocally uniformlebesguespacel,σ Rd + for < uniformlylocally in L p, divergence-free and normal component zero on the boundary; a precise definition is given below in Section.. Second we prove optimal bounds for the Oseen kernel e ta P and get as a by-product the short time existence of mild solutions to the Navier-Stokes system with noslip boundary conditions { t u u+ p = u u, u = in,t R d +,. u = on,t R d +, u t= = u in R d +, for non localized initial data u L,σ Rd +, d. Our results directly yield the concentration of the scale critical L d norm for blow-up solutions of the Navier-Stokes euations... Outline of our results. The results of the paper are gradual. They are obtained in three main steps which we emphasize here. The most important results of the paper are for the Navier-Stokes euations in the half-space for non localized data: computation of the Helmholtz-Leray projection, estimates for the Oseen kernel, existence of mild solutions and concentration of phenomenon for the L norm, d, near the blow-up time for a blow-up solution. These results are stated in the third paragraph below. The first two paragraphs are devoted to preliminary results on the Stokes resolvent problem and on the Stokes semigroup in the half-space for non Date: November 7, 7.

2 Y. MAEKAWA, H. MIURA, AND C. PRANGE localized data. The fourth paragraph is devoted to the Liouville theorems proved in Appendix A. Stokes resolvent problem. The following statements are the main tools of the rest of the paper. A considerable part of our work is concerned with estimates for the resolvent problem for the stationary Stokes system { λu u+ p = f, u = in R d +,. u = on R d +. for non localized data f in the class L,σ Rd +, for <. Theorem. Let <, ε >. Let λ be a complex number in the sector S π ε. Let f L,σ Rd +. Then there exist Cd,ε, < independent of λ and a uniue solution u, p L Rd + d L Rd + d to. in the sense of distributions such that.3.4 and λ u L u + λ L C f L, u L + p L C +e c λ log λ.5 lim R p L x <,R<x d <R+ =. f L, for Moreover, for < = p or < p satisfying p < d, there exists a constant Cd,ε,,p < independent of λ such that.6.7 u L p C λ + λ d p f L u L p C λ + λ d p f L., Uniueness comes from the condition.5 which eliminates the parasitic solutions of our Liouville-type result, Theorem 4 given in the Appendix. Condition.5 is easily verified for the pressure represented via the integral formulas of Section.3. With Theorem, one can define the resolvent operator Rλ = λ + A on the sector S π ε for given ε >. As is classical, the bounds on the solution to the resolvent problem are crucial to estimate the semigroup. The mixed p, bounds.6 and.7 are particularly important in view of the study of the nonlinear term in the Navier-Stokes euations. Let us comment on two points. First, we are not able to remove the logλ loss for small λ in.4. We are ignorant whether there is a real obstruction or if this is just a technical issue. Second, the estimate.3 fails for =. This is a fundamental point, which was already observed in the case of L R d + by Desch, Hieber and Prüss in [4]. It is specific to the case of Rd + as opposed to R d. We comment more on this below. Stokes semigroup. Let A be the Stokes operator realized in L,σ Rd + for precise definitions, see Section 5. Time dependent estimates for the semigroup are derived from the resolvent bounds using classical techniues from complex analysis. Theorem. Let <. Then A generates a bounded analytic semigroup in L,σ Rd +.

3 NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS IN THE HALF-SPACE FOR NON LOCALIZED DATA 3 More precise statements along with global in time estimates for the linear Stokes dynamic are given in Section 5, see in particular propositions 5. and 5.3. Again, becauseofthefailureof.3 when =, Afails togenerate an analytic semigroup in L,σ Rd +. This is due to the presence of the boundary. Bilinear estimates, mild solutions and concentration for blow-up solutions. Our main result is the following bilinear estimate, from which the short time existence of mild solutions follows as a corollary. Theorem 3. Let < p or p < and let A be the Stokes operator realized in L,σ Rd +. Then for α =,, and t >,.8 α e ta P u v L p Ct +α t d p + u v L, and also e ta P u v L Ct u v L + v u.9 L. Estimates.8 and.9 are valid also for =. The function e ta P u v is expressed in terms of the integral over R 3 + with some kernels satisfying suitable pointwise estimates, and such a representation itself is well-defined and satisfies.8 and.9 even for the case =, though we do not have the analyticity of the semigroup {e ta } t in L,σ R3 +. There is uite some work to go from the semigroup bounds on e ta to the bounds on e ta P of Theorem 3, which are needed to solve the Navier-Stokes euations. Two of the key difficulties are: i making sense of the action of e ta P on L,σ functions, since the Helmholtz-Leray projection does not act as a bounded operator on L, ii the non commutativity of vertical derivatives and the symbol in tangential Fourier for the projection P. The existence of mild solutions for initial data u L,σ, d, is stated in Proposition 7. and Proposition 7. in Section 7. Once the bilinear estimate of Theorem 3 is established, the local in time existence of strong solutions can be shown by the standard arguments. It is not our objective to include a deeper discussion of the mild solutions here. Many issues, such as the convergence to the initial data, are similar in the half-space and the whole space. Hence we simply refer to [5] where a thorough discussion is carried out. As an application of the well-posedness in L,σ, d, we study the behavior of the blow-up solution. Here a solution u C,T ;L σ Rd + blows up at t = T if limsup ut L =. Leray [3] proved a lower bound for the blow-up solutions t T in R d of the form. ut L ε T t for t < T. More recently lower bounds for scale critical norms of the blow-up solution have been also studied extensively. It is shown in [] that lim t T ut L 3 R 3 + =. On the other hand, the authors in the recent work [4] showed a lower bound for the local L d norm along the parabolic cone for the blow-up solutions. More precisely, it is proved that there exists a seuence x n,t n R 3,T such that ut n L d x n+,c T tn d ε. This can be seen as a concentration phenomenon of

4 4 Y. MAEKAWA, H. MIURA, AND C. PRANGE the critical norm at the blow-up time. In the same work, concentration results along the parabolic cone are also proved for L norms, d, along a discrete seuence of times. To the best of our knowledge, this type of concentration results is new for the Navier-Stokes euations, even in the whole space R d. While in [4] the concentration results are proved via a clever use of freuency decomposition techniues, it occurred to us that they are simple conseuences of the existence of mild solutions in L. As a direct conseuence of the well-posedness result, we thus have the following corollary. Corollary.. There exists a positive constant γ < such that for all < T <, for all u C,T ;L σ Rd + mild solution to., if u blows up at t = T, then for all t,t, there exists xt R d + with the following estimate: for all d ut L xt T γ t T t d. Our result also holds for R d instead of R d + and seems to be new even in that case. It obviously includes the concentration of the scale-critical norm L d. It improves Theorem. in [4] in the sense that the concentration holds not only along a seuence of times t n T, but for all times t,t. Moreover, our method gives a new and simple proof of this type of results, which appear to be nice applications of the existence of mild solutions in the L setting. Liouville theorems. Here we give a uniueness result to. in our functional framework. This Liouville theorem is the counterpart for the resolvent system to the Liouville theorem for the unsteady Stokes system in the half-space proved in [7] and crucial for the uniueness part of Theorem. Theorem 4. i Let λ S π ε with ε,π. Let u, p L Rd + d L Rd + d with p L loc Rd + be a solution to. with f = in the sense of distributions. Then u, p is a parasitic solution, i.e., u = a x d, and p = D x +c. Here a x d = a x d,,a d x d is smooth and bounded and its trace at x d = is zero, while D C d is a constant vector and c C is a constant. If either lim R p L x <,R<x d <R+ = or lim u y L x y <,<x d < = in addition, then p is a constant and u =. ii Let u, p L Rd + d L Rd + d with p L loc Rd + be a solution to. with λ = and f = in the sense of distributions. Then u = and p is a constant. This theorem is proved in Appendix A. By using a similar argument we shall show a uniueness result for the time-dependent Stokes problem: { t u u+ p = f, u = in,t R d +,. u = on,t R d +, u t= = u in R d +, Compared with the known Liouville theorem by [7] for bounded solutions, our result imposes the condition on the pressure, while the regularity condition on the velocity is weaker than in [7]. This framework will be useful in the study of the local energy weak solutions. Theorem 5. Let u, p be a solution to. in the sense of distributions with u = f =. Then u, p is a parastic solution, i.e., ut,x = a t,x d, and

5 NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS IN THE HALF-SPACE FOR NON LOCALIZED DATA 5 pt,x = Dt x + ct. Here a t,x d = a t,x d,,a d t,x d with a j L loc [,T Rd +, while D L loc,td and c L loc,t. If either lim R T δ pt L x <,R<x d <R+dt = for all δ,t or T lim ut L y x y <,<x d <dt = in addition, then p is a constant and u =. This theorem is proved in Appendix B. To our knowledge, these two Liouville-type results, Theorem 4 and Theorem 5, are new under these assumptions... Comparison to other works. We give an overview of some works related to our result. Although we try to give a faithful account of the state of the art of the study of fluid euations mainly Stokes and Navier-Stokes systems with infinite energy or non localized data, we are very far from being exhaustive in our description. We divide the description into three parts: first we deal with the class of bounded functions, second we handle the class of locally uniform Lebesgue spaces and finally we describe some differences between the whole space and the half-space. A common feature of the analysis in L σ and L,σ is the failure of classical techniues used in works on Stokes and Navier-Stokes euations. This appears at several levels. Firstly, there is of course no global energy ineuality. The substitute is a local energy ineuality, which involves the pressure. Hence one has to obtain precise information on the pressure. Secondly, there is obviously no uniueness for flows with infinite energy. This is due to flows driven by the pressure solving the Stokes and Navier-Stokes euations, such as in the whole space R d or in the half-space R d + ux,t := ft and px,t := f t x, ux,t := v x d,t,... v d x d,t, and px,t := ft x, where f C, ;Rd and vx d,t solves the heat euation t v d v = f with v, t =. Hence, one has to handle or eliminate these parasitic solutions. Thirdly, even in the instance where flows driven by the pressure are ruled out, one needs to make sense of a representation formula for the pressure. Indeed the source term in the elliptic euation for the pressure p = u u, is non localized, thus a priori non decaying at infinity. Fourthly, the Helmholtz-Leray projection is not bounded on L nor on L, basically because the Riesz transform does not map L into itself. This makes the study of the mapping properties of the Stokes operator A, which is usually defined as A = P D, where P is the Helmholtz-Leray projection and D the Dirichlet Laplacian, particularly delicate. Bounded functions. From the point of view of both the results and the techniues, the main source of inspiration of the linear Stokes estimates is the paper by Desch, Hieber and Prüss [4]. This paper is concerned with the study of the Stokes semigroup in the half-space in particular in the class of bounded functions. The authors prove the analyticity of the Stokes semigroupin L σr d + for <. Thecase of < < was previously known. Their approach is based on the study of the Stokes resolvent

6 6 Y. MAEKAWA, H. MIURA, AND C. PRANGE problem.. In order to circumvent the use of the Helmholtz-Leray projection, one of the key ideas is to decompose the resolvent operator into a part corresponding to the Dirichlet-Laplace part and another part associated to the nonlocal pressure term λ+a = R D.L. λ+r n.l. λ. Our work uses the same idea, but we need more precise estimates on the kernels than the mere L bounds proved in [4, Section 3], which are not enough for our purposes. The L theory for the Stokes euations has recently been advanced thanks to a series of works by Abe, Giga and Hieber. In [3], the Stokes semigroup is proved to be analytic via an original in this context compactness or blow-up method in admissible domains, which include bounded domains and the half-space. In these domains a bound on the pressure holds, which excludes the parasitic solutions previously mentioned. However, an intrinsic drawback of the compactness argument, is that it only gives an L bound on the solution for times < t < T, with T depending only on the domain. The papers [, 4] build on the same method. Concerning the resolvent problem, it was considered in [5] by a localization argument, which boils down to applying locally the L p theory and interpolating to get a control in L. These developments enable to investigate blow-up rates. in L for potential singularities in the solutions of the Navier-Stokes euations []. Locally uniform Lebesgue spaces. The locally uniform Lebesgue spaces L form a wider class of functions than L. They include a richer spectrum of behaviors, obviously allowing for some singular behavior homogeneous functions slowly decaying at or non decaying functions such as locally L p periodic or almost-periodic functions. The main advantage of this class is that it is easy to define and visualize, while it includes various class of functions as mentioned above. In the operator theoretical point of view, another advantage is that we can characterize the domain of the Stokes operator in the L spaces if < < see Section 5, which is hard to expect in the L framework even for the Laplace operator. On the other hand, the main and major drawback is that the L functions are difficult to handle in the context of pseudodifferential calculus. Indeed, there is no obvious characterization in Fourier space, which makes it difficult to straightly analyze the action of Fourier symbols. Most of the time, one has to first derive kernel bounds for the symbols in physical space, before estimating the L norms. Many euations have been studied in the framework of loc-uniform spaces. Without aiming at exhaustivity, let us mention some works parabolic-type euations: on linear parabolic euations [8], on Ginzburg-Landau euations [6, 6] and on reaction-diffusion euations []. We refer to these works for basic properties of the space L. The study of the Stokes semigroup and the application to the existence of mild solutions to the Navier-Stokes euations with initial data u L,σ Rd, d, was carried out in [5]. As regards the existence of weak solutions for initial data in L,σ Rd satisfyingthelocal energyineuality, theso-called suitableweaksolutions it was handled by Lemarié-Rieusset [, Chapter 3 and 33]. This result was also worked out in []. Existence of these local energy solutions is the key to the blow-up of the L 3 norm criteria at the blow-up time proved by Seregin in [7] for the threedimensional Navier-Stokes euations and also to the construction of the forward self-similar solutions by Jia and Sverak in [8].

7 NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS IN THE HALF-SPACE FOR NON LOCALIZED DATA 7 Whole space vs. half-space. Fewer results are proved for the half-space and more generally for unbounded domains with unbounded boundaries. Let us emphasize some phenomena related to the presence of boundaries. A striking feature of the half-space case is the failure of L R d + estimates, for the resolvent problem as well as the semigroup. This fact was proved in [4, Section 5]. In the whole space, the Stokes semigroup is known to be analytic even for = see [5]. As underlined in [4], one should relate this lack of analyticity in L to the non existence of local mild solutions to the Navier-Stokes euations in L for an exterior domain []. Existence of such solutions would imply that the total force acting on the boundary is zero. On a different note, the Helmholtz decomposition may fail even in L, for some < < for smooth sector-like domains with sufficiently large opening see [5, Remark III..3]. On the contrary, the decomposition is known to hold for any < <, for any smooth domain with compact boundary, for the half-space and the whole space see [5, Theorem III..]. The definition of the Stokes semigroup in L spaces for finite in non Helmholtz sector-like domains was recently addressed in [6]. The works of Abe and Giga, notably [3], aim at extending results known for the Stokes semigroup in L σ R d + to more general domains with boundaries. They introduce a class of admissible domains which includes smooth bounded domains and R d + in which the analyticity of the Stokes semigroup holds in L σ. This work however says nothing in general about the longtime behavior of the linear Stokes dynamics. Indeed the L bound for the Stokes dynamics is true only on a time interval,t, with T depending only on the domain. Notice that T = for smooth bounded domains and for the half-space. As regards the existence of mild solutions to the Navier-Stokes euations in the half-space for bounded data, let us mention the work of Solonnikov [9] initial data bounded and continuous and of Bae and Jin [9] initial data in just bounded. These works are based on direct estimates on the kernels of the non stationary Stokes system. Our approach for the solvability of the Navier-Stokes euations in the non localized class L,σ Rd + is based on the analysis of the bilinear operator. u,v λ+a P u v. from which we derive bounds for the unsteady problem. A key issue of the half-space as opposed to the whole space is the non commutativity of P and vertical derivatives d the commutation with tangential derivatives does work. This prompts the need to integrate by parts in the vertical direction so as to analyze. see Section 6. below. To finish this overview, let us mention that stationary Stokes, Stokes-Coriolis and Navier-Stokes-Coriolis systems with infinite energy Dirichlet boundary condition were also considered in the context of boundary layer theory. The domain is usually a perturbed half-space with a highly oscillating boundary x d ωx. The results of [3, ] are well-posedness results in the class of Sobolev functions with locally uniform L integrability in the tangential variable and L integrability in the vertical variable. The main challenges are first the bumpiness of the boundary, which prevents from using the Fourier transform close to the boundary and second the lack of a priori bounds on the function itself, which reuires to rely on Poincaré type ineualities.

8 8 Y. MAEKAWA, H. MIURA, AND C. PRANGE.3. Overview of the paper. In Section, the reader can find standard notations used throughout the paper, the definitions of the functional spaces as well as the computation of the Fourier symbols for the resolvent problem. As stated above, we rely on the decomposition of the solution to the resovent problem into a part corresponding to the solution of the Dirchlet-Laplace problem and a part associated to the nonlocal pressure. Section 3 is devoted to getting pointwise bounds on the kernels for the resolvent problem defined in the physical space. In this regard, Lemma 3. is the basic tool so as to get the optimal pointwise estimates. These bounds on the kernels stated in Lemma 3. local Dirichlet-Laplace part, Proposition 3.5 nonlocal pressure part and Proposition 3.7 pressure form an essential part of our work. They are indispensablefor the estimates in L obtained in Section 4. In this section, Theorem is proved. The next section, Section 5 establishes the analyticity of the Stokes semigrouptheorem along with the bounds on the longtime dynamic of the linear Stokes euation stated in Proposition 5.3. Section 6 contains the crucial bilinear estimates Proposition 6.4 and Theorem 3 needed to prove the existence of mild solutions to the Navier-Stokes euations.. The proofs of Proposition 7., Proposition 7. and Corollary. are given in Section 7. Appendix A is concerned with the proof of the Liouville-type result of Theorem 4 for the resolvent problem.. The Liouville theorem for the non steady Stokes system, Theorem 5, is proved in Appendix B.. Preliminaries.. Notations. Throughout the paper unless stated otherwise, the small greek letters α, β, γ, ι, η usually denote integers or multi-indices, and ε, δ, κ > denote small positive real numbers. When it is clear from the context, we also sometimes use Einstein s summation convention for repeated indices. For x,x d R d +, x R d is the tangential component, while x d is the vertical one. Thecomplex scalar number λ C belongs to the sector S π ε := {ρe iθ : ρ >, θ [ π +ε,π ε]} C, with ε fixed in,π. For ξ R d, we define. ω λ ξ := λ+ ξ. The following ineuality is used repeatedly in the paper: there exists a constant Cε <, such that for all λ S π ε, for all ξ R d, ω λ ξ Reω λ ξ C λ + ξ. Finally, let us fix our convention for Fourier transform: for ξ R d ûξ := ux dx R d e iξ x for u SR d. The inverse Fourier transform is defined by ux := π d ûξdξ R d e iξ x for û SR d. Both the Fourier transform and its inverse are naturally extended to S R d by duality. The definitions of the functional spaces are given in the next paragraph.

9 NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS IN THE HALF-SPACE FOR NON LOCALIZED DATA 9.. Functional setting and notion of solutions. The results of the paper take place in the class L p Rd + of uniformly locally Lp functions. More precisely, } L p Rd + := {f L loc Rd + sup η Z d Z f L p η+, d < Let us define the space L p,σ Rd + of solenoidal vector fields in Lp as follows: { }. L p,σ Rd + := f L p Rd + d f ϕdx = for any ϕ C R d +. R d + Notice that this definition encodes both the fact that f is divergence-free in the sense of distributions take test functions ϕ C Rd + and the fact that f vanishes on R d +. As usual, WL p Rd + for < p denotes the dual space of L p Rd +, where p is the Hölder conjugate of p <, = p + p. It is defined in the following way: WL p Rd + := { g L loc Rd + } g L p η+, d <. η Z d Z As is usual BUCR d + denotes the space of bounded uniformly continuous functions, and { } BUC σ R d + = f BUCR d + d divf =, f xd = =.. Let us also fix the notion of solutions to.. Let f L Rd + d. We say that u, p L Rd + d L Rd + d with p L loc Rd + is a solution to. in the sense of distributions if.3 and.4 R d + u λϕ ϕ+ p ϕdx = R d + R d + f ϕdx, ϕ C Rd + d with ϕ xd = =, u φdx =, φ C Rd +. Remark.. In the definition of the solution in the sense of distributions, since u, p L Rd + d L Rd + d, the class of test functions is easily relaxed as follows: ϕ C R d + d with ϕ xd = = and φ C R d + such that, for α =,, and β =,, for some κ >. α ϕx, β φx O x d κ, x,.3. Integral representation formulas for the resolvent system. The solution to the resolvent problem. can be computed in Fourier space. We build on the formulas for the symbols, which were derived in [4]. In particular in this paper, the authors show that the symbol associated to the Dirichlet Stokes resolvent problem can be decomposed into: one part corresponding to the symbol of the Dirichlet- Laplace resolvent problem and a remainder term due to the pressure. Hence, the

10 Y. MAEKAWA, H. MIURA, AND C. PRANGE solution in the Fourier side about the tangential variables can be decomposed into û = v +ŵ, with for all ξ R d, y d >,.5a vξ,y d = e ω λξ y d z d e ω λξy d +z d fξ,zd dz d, ω λ ξ.5b ŵ ξ,y d = ξ e ξ y d e ω λξy d ξ ω λ ξω λ ξ ξ e ω λξz d ξ f ξ,z d dz d and e ξ y d e ω λξy d.5c ŵ d ξ,y d = i ω λ ξω λ ξ ξ e ω λξz d ξ f ξ,z d dz d The solution of the form u = v + w is then obtained by taking the inverse Fourier transform. Notice that v is the solution to the Dirichlet-Laplace resolvent problem, while the remainder term w comes from the contribution of the nonlocal pressure term. The above formulas are derived for f C Rd + d satisfying f = in R d + and f d = on R d +. But as is seen below, these formulas are also well-defined for any L p function f. If moreover f is solenoidal, i.e. f = in the sense of distributions and f d = on R d + in the sense of the generalized trace, the velocity u, together with the pressure p defined below, is a solution to.. The formula for the pressure in the Fourier variables is written as follows: for all ξ R d, y d >,.5d pξ,y d = = Another useful representation of p is.6a which in particular leads to.6b.6c e ξ y d e ω λξz d ω λ ξ+ ξ ξ e ξ y d e ω λξz d ξ + ω λ ξ pξ,y d = iξ ξ e ξ yd yd û ξ,, iξ j pξ,y d = ξ jξ ξ e ξ yd yd û ξ,, yd pξ,y d = iξe ξ yd yd û ξ,, f d ξ,z d dz d iξ f ξ,z d dz d. for all y d >. Formula.6 is important when one deals with the nondecaying solutions. Indeed, it excludes the flow driven by the pressure, that is, the pressure is completely determined by the velocity. Notice that such a formula rules out the parasitic linearly growing solutions to the pressure euation see the Liouville theorem, Theorem 4 in the Appendix. By using the integration by parts the formula.6b is also written as iξ j pξ,y d = ξ jξ ξ e ξ y d e ω λξz d ω λ ξ zd û ξ,z d z d û ξ,z d dz d = ξ jξ.7a ξ e ξ y d e ω λξz d ω λ ξ û ξ,z d z d û ξ,z d dz d,.7b yd pξ,y d = iξ e ξ y d e ω λξz d ω λ ξ û ξ, z d û ξ,z d dz d.

11 NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS IN THE HALF-SPACE FOR NON LOCALIZED DATA The expression.7a is useful in obtaining the characterization of the domain of the Stokes operator in L spaces; see Proposition 5.. We now define the kernels k,λ : R d C and k,λ : R d R + C associated to the Dirichlet-Laplace part by: for all y R d and y d R,.8a k,λ y,y d := e iy ξ R d ω λ ξ e ω λξ y d dξ, and for all y R d and y d, z d >,.8b k,λ y,y d,z d := e iy ξ R d ω λ ξ e ω λξy d +z d dξ. We also define the kernels r λ : Rd + R + C d and r d,λ : R d + R + C associated to the nonlocal part as follows: for all y R d and y d, z d > r λ y,y d,z d := e iy ξe ξ yd e ωλξyd R d ω λ ξω λ ξ ξ e ω λξz d ξ ξ.8c dξ, ξ r d,λ y,y d,z d := ie iy ξe ξ yd e ωλξyd.8d R d ω λ ξω λ ξ ξ e ω λξz d ξdξ. Moreover, the kernel associated to the pressureis defined as follows: for all y R d and y d, z d > λ y,y d,z d := i e iy ξ e ξ y d e ω λξz d ξ R d ξ + ξ.8e dξ. ω λ ξ Notice that for all y R d, for all y d >,.9a vy,y d = k,λ y z,y d z d fz,z d dz d dz R d + k,λ y z,y d,z d fz,z d dz d dz,.9b.9c w y,y d = w d y,y d = and.9d py,y d = R d R d R d R d r λ y z,y d,z d f z,z d dz d dz, r d,λ y z,y d,z d f z,z d dz d dz. λ y z,y d,z d f z,z d dz d dz. These integral representation formulas, together with pointwise estimates on the kernels, are the bases for estimate in L p spaces. Note that, in view of.6, the pressure p is also written as.a.b p,y d = Py d γ yd u, y d >, yd p,y d = Py d γ yd u, y d >. Here γ is the trace operator on R d + and Pt is the Poisson semigroup whose kernel is the Poisson kernel defined by F [e ξ t ]. We note that, when γ yd u belongs to L Rd d for some [, ], the function Py d γ yd u is smooth and bounded including their derivatives in R d +,δ = {y,y d R d y d > δ} for each δ >. This can be proved from the pointwise estimate of the Poisson kernel and its derivatives and

12 Y. MAEKAWA, H. MIURA, AND C. PRANGE we omit the details here. Then, the action of or on Py d γ yd u makes sense for each y d >, when γ yd u L Rd d. Indeed, one natural way to realize the action of is to define it as f = Ptf dt, which is well-defined for any function f BC R d or more sharply, for any f C +ε R d, ε >. The formula. will be used in Section 5. We end this section with the following scaling properties of the kernels, which will be used to work with λ = : for all y R d, y d R,.a and for all y R d, y d, z d R +,.b.c.d.e k,λ y,y d = λ d k, λ λ y, λ y d λ k,λ y,y d,z d = λ d k, λ λ y, λ yd, λ zd, λ r λ y,y d,z d = λ d r λ λ y, λ y d, λ z d, λ r d,λ y,y d,z d = λ d r d, λ λ y, λ y d, λ z d, λ λ y,y d,z d = λ d λ λ y, λ yd, λ zd. λ Thereisnoevidentcharacterization ofl p spacesinfourierspace. Thesespacesare easily defined in physical space. Therefore, a prominent task is to derive pointwise estimates on the kernels. The goal of the next section is to address this task. 3. Pointwise kernel estimates Deriving pointwise bounds for the Dirichlet-Laplace is rather classical. The nonlocal part reuires a more refined analysis. 3.. A standard tool. The following lemma is standard. Since we use it repeatedly, we state and prove it here. Lemma 3.. Let m C R d \{} be a smooth Fourier multiplier. Let K be the kernel associated to m: for all y R d, Ky := e iy ξ mξdξ. R d Assume that there exists n > d+, and positive constants c d,n,m, C d,n,m < such that for all α N, α n+d, for all ξ R d \{} 3. α mξ C ξ n α e c ξ if n > d, Then, there exists a constant Cd,n,c,C < such that for all y R d \{}, 3. Ky C y n+d. In the definition of K the integral is, as usual, considered as the oscillatory integral. Note that n is not needed to be an integer. The lemma will be typically used to get bounds on the kernel when y is large, say y. Let us now give the proof of the lemma.

13 NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS IN THE HALF-SPACE FOR NON LOCALIZED DATA 3 Proof. The proof is by integration by parts. There are two steps. For the first step, due to the singularity of the multiplier m at, we can integrate by parts [n+d ] times, which yields the decay Ky C. Here [a] denotes the Gauss symbol, y n+d i.e., [a] is the integer such that a = [a] + δ with δ [,. In the second step, we cut-off the singularity around at an ad hoc freuency R, and integrate by parts two more times in high freuencies. This makes it possible to get the optimal decay stated in display 3.. Let y R d \{} be fixed. Step. There is j {, d } such that y j y /d. For such j we have from the integration by parts, iy j [n+d ] Ky = e iy ξ [n+d ] ξ R d j mξdξ = χ R e iy ξ [n+d ] ξ R d j mξdξ + χ R e iy ξ [n+d ] ξ R d j mξdξ =: I R +II R. Here R, is fixed and will be chosen below and χ R C Rd is a smooth radial cut-off function such that χ R = for ξ R and χ R = for ξ R. Notice that using the bound 3. we get iỹ j [n+d ] Ky C ξ n [n+d ] e c ξ dξ C, R d which is not optimal. Step. We have I R C while ξ R ξ n [n+d ] dξ C R +δ, n+d = [n+d ]+δ, iỹ j II R = e iy ξ ξ j χ R [n+d ] ξ R d j mξ dξ C ξ n [n+d ] e c ξ dξ C R +δ. ξ R Now we take R = y, which yields from y j y /d, This concludes the proof. Ky ỹ j [n+d ] I R + II R C y n d Kernel estimates for the Dirichlet-Laplace part. We recall and prove the following classical pointwise bounds. Proposition 3.. Let λ S π ε. There exist constants cd,ε, Cd,ε < such that for y R d, y d R, k,λ y,y d 3.3 { } Ce c λ y d min log e+, λ y d + y λ y d + y, d =, Ce c λ y d d 3, y d + y d + λ y d + y,

14 4 Y. MAEKAWA, H. MIURA, AND C. PRANGE and for α N, k,λ y Ce c λ y d,y d y + y d d + λ y d + y, α k,λ y,y d Ce c λ y d y d + y d +α + λ y d + y. Moreover we have for y R d, y d, z d R +, α N, k,λ y,y d,z d 3.6 { Ce c λ y d +z d min log e+, λ y d +z d + y Ce c λ y d +z d d 3, y d +z d + y d + λ y d +z d + y, and for α N, } λ y d +z d + y, d =, k,λ y Ce c λ y d +z d,y d,z d y d +z d + y d + λ y d +z d + y, α k,λ y,y d,z d Remark 3.3. From 3.6, it is clear that k,λ y,y d,z d Ce c λ y d +z d y d +z d + y d +α + λ y d +z d + y. 3.9 { } Ce c λ y d z d min log e+, λ y d z d + y λ y d z d + y, d =, Ce c λ y d z d y d z d + y + λ d, d 3, y d z d + y and similar estimates hold for the derivatives. Hence the integral operator associated with k,λ can be estimated as a convolution kernel in R d as k,λ. Proof. Since these bounds can be estimated in the similar way, we only deal with 3.3. The scaling property. allows us to assume λ = in the following argument. When d 3, we first observe that 3. k,λ y,y d C e c+ ξ yd R d ξ Ce cy d y d d. Secondly, for all α N we have the following pointwise bound: 3. α ξ ω λ ξ e ω λξ y d Ce cy de c ξ y d + ξ α+. dξ

15 NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS IN THE HALF-SPACE FOR NON LOCALIZED DATA 5 Therefore, applying Lemma 3. with mξ := ω λ ξ e ω λξ y d, n = and C := Ce cy d remember that in this computation y d is a parameter, we get k,λ y,y d Ce cy d y d. Combining the previous estimate with 3. yields 3. k,λ y,y d Ce cy d y +y d d. In the same way as above, the integration by parts and 3. give iy j d k,λ y,y d = e iy ξ ξ d j R d ω λ ξ e ω λξ y d dξ Ce cy d R d + ξ d+dξ which together with 3. implies 3.3 Ce cy d, k,λ y,y d Ce cy d y +y d d. Combining this with 3., we obtain the desired estimate 3.3 for d 3. It remains to handle the case d =. We will only prove 3.4 k,λ y,y d Ce c λ y d loge+e λ y + y d, since the other case in 3.3 for d = can be shown in the same manner as in 3.3. Splitting the integral as in the previous case, we have k,λ y,y d = R ω λ ξ e ω λξ y d dξ = e iy ξ R ω λ ξ e ω λξ y d χ R ξdξ + e iy ξ ω λ ξ e ω λξ y d χ R ξdξ R = I +II. 3. and integration by parts give I C from which we have y R Ce cy d + ξ e + ξ y d dξ y R Ce cy d log+r, + ξ dξ II C y e iy ξ ξ R ω λ ξ e ω λξ y d χ R ξ dξ Ce cy d R y, k,λ y,y d Ce cy d log+r+ y R,

16 6 Y. MAEKAWA, H. MIURA, AND C. PRANGE Hence taking R = y we obtain On the other hand, we have k,λ y,y d k,λ y,y d Ce cy d log+ y +. y d + y d Ce cy d e iy ξ ω λ ξ e ω λξ y d dξ e iy ξ ω λ ξ e ω λξ y d dξ y d + ξ dξ + Ce cy d log+y d +. Combining both cases, we obtain the desired estimate 3.5 This completes the proof of 3.3. y d e ξ y d dξ ξ k,λ y,y d Ce cy d log+ y +y d +. Remark 3.4 On the estimate of the tangential derivatives. The tangential derivatives of k or k should a priori be better behaved than the vertical derivatives in y d or z d, since differentiating in y brings a ξ in the symbol. We were however unable to get an estimate of the type y k,λy,y d C y d e c λ y d y d + y d+, on the contrary of y r λ for which this is true see below 3.8. A pointwise bound such as 3.8 makes it possible to prove uniform bounds in λ on second order tangential derivatives in L, without loss of a factor log λ for small λ compare 4.3 to 4.3. On a different note, we also note that the argument above also provide the estimate for the fractional derivative in the tangential variables. Indeed, if m α D is any Fourier multiplier homogeneous of order α >, then we have for β =,, 3.6 m α D β k,λ y,y d m α D β k,λ y,y d,z d Ce c λ y d y d + y d +α+β + λ y d + y, Ce c λ y d +z d y d +z d + y d +α+β + λ y d +z d + y Kernel estimates for the nonlocal part. We now consider the nonlocal part w, which is the most difficult one. The aim of this section is to get pointwise estimates on the kernels. We summarize our results in the following proposition. Proposition 3.5. Let λ S π ε. There exist positive constants cd,ε, Cd,ε < such that for all y R d, y d, z d >, r λ y,y d,z d + rd,λ y,y d,z d 3.7 z d Cy d e c λ y d +z d + y d + λ y d +z d + y + λ y d +z d.

17 NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS IN THE HALF-SPACE FOR NON LOCALIZED DATA 7 Moreover, for α =,, α y r λ y,y d,z d + α y r d,λy,y d,z d 3.8 z d Cy d e c λ y d +z d + y d +α + λ y d +z d + y + λ y d +z d, and for β =,, β y yd r λ y,y d,z d + β y yd r d,λ y,y d,z d 3.9 and 3. z d C e c λ y d +z d + y d +β + λ y d +z d + y + λ y d +z d, y d r λ y,y d,z d + y d r d,λ y,y d,z d Ce c λ z d y d +z d + y d + λ y d +z d. Finally, for β =,, β y zd r λ y,y d,z d + β y zd r d,λ y,y d,z d 3. and 3. z d Cy d e c λ y d +z d + y d+β + λ y d +z d, yd zd r λ y,y d,z d + yd zd r d,λ y,y d,z d Ce c λ z d y d +z d + y d + λ y d +z d. Remark 3.6. Related to3.8, as in case of the Dirichlet-Laplace kernel, we also have the estimate for the fractional derivative in the tangential variables. Let m α D be any Fourier multiplier of homogeneous order α >. Then we have mα D r λ y,y d,z d + mα D r d,λ y,y d,z d 3.3 z d Cy d e c λ y d +z d + y d +α + λ y d +z d + y + λ y d +z d, mα D r λ y,y d,z d + mα D r d,λ y,y d,z d z d C e c λ y d +z d + y d +α + λ y d +z d + y. Estimate3.3isprovedsimilarlyasin3.8, andthustheproofof 3.3isomitted in this paper. Proof of Proposition 3.5. Using the scaling., we assume λ = for the remainder of this section. We give the proof only for r λ. Indeed from the representations

18 8 Y. MAEKAWA, H. MIURA, AND C. PRANGE.8c and.8d it is clear that the estimate of r d,λ is obtained in the similar manner. By using the identity ω λ ξ ξ = ω λξ+ ξ, λ we rewrite r λ as r λ y,y d,z d = e iy ξ e ξ y d e ω λξy d e ω λ ξz d ξ ξ dξ λ R d ξ e iy ξ e ξ y d e ω λξy d e ω λ ξz d ξ ξ λ R d ω λ ξ dξ = r λ, y,y d,z d +r λ, y,y d,z d. Since λ S π ε and λ = the factor ω λ ξ is more regular than ξ. Therefore we focus on the pointwise estimate of r λ,, that is automatically satisfied by r λ, as well. Again from λ = it suffices to consider the estimate of 3.5 s λ y,y d,z d = e iy ξ e ξ y d e ω λξy d e ω λ ξz d ξ ξ R d ξ Step. Case y d. In this case by virtue of the factor e ξ y d and e ω λξy d the kernel s λ becomessmooth. Moreover, thefactor e ω λξz d gives theexponential decay like e cz d since λ S π ε and λ =. Thus the main issue is the decay in y and y d. By the change of the variables η = ξy d we see s λ y,y d,z d = y d d dξ. e iỹ η e η e λy+ η η ω d e λ z y d η η d dη R d η =: y d d s λ ỹ,y d,z d, where ỹ = y y d. We will show that 3.6 s λ ỹ,y d,z d Ce cz d + ỹ d, from which we can derive the desired bound of s λ for y d, since 3.7 s λ y,y d,z d Ce cz d y d + y d Cy d e cz d +y d +z d + y d +y d +z d by changing the constants C and c suitably. To show 3.6 we first observe that s λ ỹ,y d,z d e η +e c η e cz d η dη Ce cz d, R d which gives the estimate 3.6 for the case ỹ. Next we consider the case ỹ. In this case, we notice that for y d and α N, α d+, for all η R d \{}, { } α η e η e λyd + η e ω λ η z y d η η d Ce cz d e c η η α+. η Therefore, we apply Lemma 3. with mη := e η e λyd + η e ω λ η z y d η η d η

19 NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS IN THE HALF-SPACE FOR NON LOCALIZED DATA 9 for all η R d \{} and Kỹ := s λ ỹ,y d,z d, where λ, y d and z d are parameters, n = and C := Ce cz d. This gives the bound s λ ỹ,y d,z d C ỹ d e cz d. Hence, estimate 3.6 holds also for ỹ. Step. Case < y d. In this case we have to be careful about both the decay in y and the singularity in y near y =. Set R = and we decompose s λ by using the cut-off χ R as s λ = χ R ξ dξ + χ R ξ dξ R d R d =: s λ,low +s λ,high. As for the term s λ,low, we have from e ξ y d e ω λξy d Cy d for ξ 3, s λ,low y,y d,z d C y d e cz d ξ dξ Cy d e cz d Cy d e cz d +y d +z d d+. ξ 3 Here the condition < y d is used. This estimate gives the desired bound of s λ,low for the case y. Next we consider the case y. A direct computation implies that for < y d, α N, α d+, for all ξ R d \{}, α ξ { χ R ξ e ξ y d e ω λξy d e ω λξz d ξ ξ ξ Hence, we can apply Lemma 3. with mξ := χ R ξ e ξ y d e ω λξy d } Cy d e c z d ξ α+ χ R ξ Cy d e cz d e c ξ ξ α+. e ω λξz d ξ ξ ξ for all η R d \{} and Ky := s λ,low y,y d,z d, where λ, y d and z d are parameters, and n =. This yields s λ,low Cy d y d e cz d, for y. Combining this with the estimate in the case y, we have 3.8 s λ,low y,y d,z d for < y d, z d, and y R d. Cy d e cz d +y d +z d + y d +y d +z d, Finally, let us estimate s λ,high. Since the associated symbol is smooth, the singularity around y = is the main issue. The key point is to use the smoothing effect from the symbol Indeed, ξ ω λ ξ = ξ e ξ y d e ω λξy d = e ξ ω λξy d e ξ y d. + λ ξ = λ ξ + λ t ξ dt = λ λ ξ +O ξ 3 for ξ and λ =. Hence, we have for ξ, < y d, and for all α N, α d+, e 3.9 α ξ y d ξ e ω λξy d e ω λ ξz d ξ ξ Cy d e cz d e c ξ y d+z d ξ α. ξ

20 Y. MAEKAWA, H. MIURA, AND C. PRANGE If y 4 which gives then 3.9 implies for j =,...d, iy j d+ s λ,high y,y d,z d = e iy ξ d+ ξ R d j χ R e ξ y d e ω λξy d e ω λ ξz d ξ ξ dξ ξ Cy d e cz d ξ d dξ Cy d e cz d, ξ R s λ,high y,y d,z d Cy d e cz d y d Cy d e cz d +y d +z d + y d+, since < y d and y 4. Itremainstoconsiderthecase y 4. If y y d +z d and y 4, then estimate 3.9 with α = yields s λ,high y,y d,z d C y d e cz d e c ξ y d+z d dξ ξ R Cy d e cz d e c y d +z d Cy d e cz d y d +z d + y d +y d +z d + y. On the other hand, if < y d +z d y 4 then we take R 4 and the cut-off χ R, and decompose s λ,high into s λ,high = χ R ξ χ R ξ dξ + χ R ξ dξ =: I R +II R. R d R d The term I R, on the one hand, is estimated from 3.9 with α = as I R C y d e cz d dξ Cy d e cz d R d, R ξ R and the term II R, on the other hand, is estimated by integration by parts, iy j d II R = e iy ξ ξ d j χ R dξ R d C y d e cz d ξ d dξ Cy d e cz d R ξ R for each j =, d. Therefore, by taking R = y we have s λ,high y,y d,z d Cy de cz d y d Cy d e cz d y d +z d + y d +y d +z d + y for < y d + z d y 4. Thus, we have arrived at the following estimate for s λ when < y d : 3.3 s λ y,y d,z d s λ,low y,y d,z d + s λ,high y,y d,z d Cy d e cz d y d +z d + y d +y d +z d + y +y d +z d. From 3.7 for y d and 3.3 for < y d we conclude that 3.3 holds for all y d >. The same bound is also valid for r λ by the identity 3.4 and λ =. By scaling back to general λ, we complete the proof of 3.7. Step 3. Next we consider the estimates for derivatives of the kernel. Again we assume that λ S π ε and λ =, and it suffices to focus on the estimate of s λ in view of

21 NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS IN THE HALF-SPACE FOR NON LOCALIZED DATA 3.4 and 3.5. The estimate for the derivative in y is obtained from the same argument as above for s λ itself, for the symbol of y α s λ is just the multiplication by iξ α of the symbol of s λ. Hence, the argument for the proof of 3.7 gives the bound α y s λy Cy d e cz d 3.3,y d,z d y d +z d + y d +α +y d +z d + y +y d +z d for λ = and α =,. Thus, estimate 3.8 holds. As for the derivative in y d, we observe the identity yd s λ y,y d,z d = e iy ξ ξ e ξ y d e ω λξy d e ω λ ξz d ξ ξ dξ R d ξ + e iy ξ ω λ ξ ξ e ω λξy d +z d ξ ξ dξ. R d ξ Then the first term of this right-hand side satisfies the estimate 3.3 with α =. As for the second term, we see that the symbol ω λ ξ ξ ξ ξ ξ behaves like ω λ ξ ξ ξ ξ { O ξ, for ξ, 3.3 ξ O, for ξ. Thus, we decompose the integral into the low freuency part ξ and the high freuency part ξ using the cut-off χ R as in the proof for s λ. We can show that the contribution from the low freuency part is bounded by Ce cy d+z d +y d +z d + y d Ce cyd+zd y d +z d + y d +y d +z d + y +y d +z d while the contribution from the high freuency part is bounded by Ce cy d+z d y d +z d + y d +y d +z d + y Ce cy d+z d y d +z d + y d +y d +z d + y +y d +z d. Here are have replaced the constant c > suitably. Collecting these bounds, we conclude that yd s λ y Ce cz d 3.33,y d,z d y d +z d + y d +y d +z d + y +y d +z d for λ =, which implies 3.9 with β =. The similar observation yields the estimate 3.9 with β = and also 3.. The details are omitted here. Finally we consider the estimate for the derivative in z d. Again it suffices to consider the estimate of s λ with λ =. We observe from 3.5 that zd s λ y,y d,z d = e iy ξ e ξ y d e ω λξy d e ω λ ξz d ω λ ξ ξ ξ dξ R d ξ = e iy ξ e ξ y d e ω λξy d e ω λ ξz d ξ ξ ξ dξ R d ξ + e iy ξ e ξ y d e ω λξy d e ω λ ξz d ξ ωλ ξ ξ ξ dξ. R d ξ Then the first term of the right-hand side has the similar pointwise estimate as y s λ which is already obtained, while the symbol of the second term has the similar behavior as the one of s λ for ξ and also decays faster for ξ. Hence the

22 Y. MAEKAWA, H. MIURA, AND C. PRANGE second term satisfies at least the same estimate as s λ. From these observations we conclude that zd s λ y Cy d e cz d,y d,z d y d +z d + y d, λ =. +y d +z d This proves 3. with β =. Estimate 3. with β = and estimate 3. are proved in the same manner, and the details are omitted here. The proof of estimates 3.7 to 3. is complete Kernel bounds for the pressure. The goal of this section is to prove the following bounds on the pressure kernel. Proposition 3.7. Let λ S π ε. There exist positive constants cd,ε, Cd,ε < such that for all y R d, y d, z d >, 3.34 λ y,y d,z d Ce c λ z d y d +z d + y d. Moreover, for α =,... 3 α y λ y,y d,z d + α yd λ y,y d,z d + α zd λ y,y d,z d 3.35 and 3.36 Ce c λ z d y d +z d + y d +α, y yd λ y,y d,z d + yd zd λ y,y d,z d + y zd λ y,y d,z d Ce c λ z d y d +z d + y d+. Thegeneral scheme of the proof is the same as for the kernels correspondingto the nonlocal part see Section 3.3. Again, using the scaling., we assume without loss of generality that λ =. Proof. Step. We assume y d. By the change of variable η = ξy d, we get λ y,y d,z d = i y d e iỹ η e η e ω η λ z y d η d d R d η + η dη ω λy η d = λ ỹ,y d,z d, y d d with ỹ = y y d. We aim at proving 3.37 λ ỹ,y d,z d Ce cz d + ỹ d, from which we can derive the desired bound of λ for y d : 3.38 λ y,y d,z d Ce cz d y d + y d Ce czd y d +z d + y d by changing the constants C and c suitably. For ỹ, we simply bound the integrand by its modulus, and get λ ỹ,y d,z d e cz d e η dη e cz d, R d

23 NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS IN THE HALF-SPACE FOR NON LOCALIZED DATA 3 hence For ỹ, we rely on Lemma 3.. It follows from the bound { } α η e η e ω η λ z y d η d η + η ω λy η Ce cz d e c η η α d valid for all η R d \{} and the lemma, that there exists C > such that for all ỹ R d, y d, z d >, This implies λ ỹ,y d,z d Ce cz d ỹ d. Step. We now deal with the case y d. We split the kernel between low and high freuencies: λ = χ R ξ dξ + χ R ξ dξ R d R d =: λ,low + λ,high. We first deal with λ,low. Our goal is to show that 3.39 λ,low y,y d,z d If y, we bound straightforwardly and get λ,low y,y d,z d Ce cz d Ce cz d y d +z d + y d. Ce cz d y d + y d, from which 3.39 follows up to changing the constants c and C. If y, we apply Lemma 3. and get λ,low y,y d,z d Ce cz d y d Ce czd y d + y d, from which 3.39 follows up to changing the constants c and C. We now handle λ,high. We aim at proving that 3.4 λ,high y,y d,z d Ce cz d y d +z d + y d. If y 4, we integrate by parts d times and obtain for j =,...d, which gives iy j d λ,high y,y d,z d = e iy ξ ξ d j χ R e ξ y d e ω λξz d ξ R d ξ + ξ dξ ωξ Ce cz d ξ d dξ Ce cz d, ξ R λ,high y,y d,z d Ce cz d y d Ce czd y d, from which 3.4 follows. If y 4, we directly bound the kernel as follows, λ,high y,y d,z d Ce cy d+z d,

24 4 Y. MAEKAWA, H. MIURA, AND C. PRANGE which implies 3.4 in the case when y d +z d y. If y 4 and y d +z d y, then we take R 4 and the cut-off χ R, and decompose λ,high into λ,high = χ R ξ χ R ξ dξ + χ R ξ dξ =: I R +II R. R d R d The term I R, on the one hand, is estimated directly I R C e cz d dξ Ce cz d R d, R ξ R and the term II R, on the other hand, is estimated by integration by parts, iy j d II R = Ce cz d ξ d dξ Ce cz d R ξ R for each j =, d. Therefore, by taking R = y we have λ,high y,y d,z d Ce cz d y d for < y d +z d y 4, which yields 3.4. Conseuently, we have proved The bounds for the derivatives 3.35 and 3.36 are obtained in a rigorously similar way. Therefore, we do not repeat the argument. 4. Resolvent estimates This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem, in particular, the resolvent estimates for.. We study the resolvent problem for data f L. Since the space L includes nondecaying functions, an assumption on the behavior of the pressure p itself, rather than p, is needed to ensure uniueness; see Theorem 4 in the Appendix. Indeed, if one allows the linear growth for p the uniueness is proved only modulo shear flows in general. 4.. Estimates for the Dirichlet-Laplace part. In this subsection, we will prove the L p -L estimate for the resolvent problem for the Laplacian. Proposition 4.. Assume that 4. p, p < d. Define the funtions K = K λ y,y d and K = K λ y,y d by 4. { Ce c λ y d min log e+, λ y + y d K λ y,y d = Ce c λ y d d 3, y + y d d + λ y + y d, } λ y + y d, d =, 4.3 K λ y,y d = Ce c λ y d y + y d d + λ y + y d

25 NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS IN THE HALF-SPACE FOR NON LOCALIZED DATA 5 for λ S π ε. Then there exists a constant C = Cd,ε,,p > independent of λ such that K λ y f L p C λ d p f λ L, 4.5 K λ y f L p C λ where y denotes the convolution in R d. + λ d p f L, Proof. Since both estimates can be proved in the same way, we will only deal with 4.4. For η = η,η d Z d Z we estimate the L p norm of K λ y f in the cube of the form B η = B η [η d,η d +], where B η = η +[,] d. We first consider the case when d 3. Without loss of generality we may assume that η =. Let χ α be the characteristic function on the cube B α, for α Z d. Then we have K λ y f = χ β K λ y χ α f β Z d α Z d = χβ K λ y χα f, α,β Z d, max α i +β i due to the support of χ β and χ α. Thus, the Young ineuality for convolution yields for p = s +, K λ y f L p B χ β K λ L s R d χ α f L R d = α,β Z d, max α i +β i max β i, max α i +β i + =:I +I. For the estimate of I we have max β i 3, max α i +β i χ β K λ L s R d χ α f L R d χ β K λ L s R d χ α f L R d K λ s L s R d CR y d s + λ y s dy d =C λ d s z d s + z s dz λ d R d C λ d s d z d s dz + z ds dz z z C λ d s d, where we have used the assumption 4. in the last line. Therefore I C χ β K λ L s R d f L Rd max β i C λ d d s f L Rd C λ +d p f L Rd.