\jyear

2021

[1]\fnm**gfeng \surShao

1]\orgdivSchool of Mathematics, \orgnameHarbin Institute of Technology, \orgaddress\streetWest Da-Zhi Street, \cityHarbin, \postcode150001, \countryChina

Generalized Young Measure Solutions for a Class of Quasilinear Parabolic Equations with Linear Growth

[email protected]    \fnmZhichang \surGuo [email protected]    \fnmChao \surZhang [email protected] [
Abstract

Using the generalized Young measure theory, we extend the theory of Young measure solutions to a class of quasilinear parabolic equations with linear growth, and introduce the concept of generalized Young measure solutions. We prove the existence and uniqueness of the generalized Young measure solutions. In addition, for the gradient flow of convex parabolic variational integral, we show that the generalized Young measure solutions are equivalent to the strong solutions.

keywords:
generalized Young measure solution, BV solution, linear growth, quaslilinear, forward-backward
pacs:
[

MSC Classification]35C99, 35D99, 35K59

1 Introduction

Let ΩNΩsuperscript𝑁\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{N}roman_Ω ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a bounded domain with Lipschitz boundary ΩΩ\partial\Omega∂ roman_Ω. Define ΩT:=Ω×(0,T)assignsubscriptΩ𝑇Ω0𝑇\Omega_{T}:=\Omega\times(0,T)roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := roman_Ω × ( 0 , italic_T ) and Γ:=Ω×(0,T)assignΓΩ0𝑇\Gamma:=\partial\Omega\times(0,T)roman_Γ := ∂ roman_Ω × ( 0 , italic_T ). We study the following nonlinear parabolic evolution problem of forward-backward type:

{ut=divq(u)in ΩT,u(x,t)=0on Γ,u(x,0)=u0(x)in Ω.cases𝑢𝑡div𝑞𝑢in subscriptΩ𝑇𝑢𝑥𝑡0on Γ𝑢𝑥0subscript𝑢0𝑥in Ω\displaystyle\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\dfrac{{\partial u}}{{\partial t}}={\rm% {div}}{\;\overrightarrow{q}\left(\nabla u\right)}&\text{in }\Omega_{T},\\ u(x,t)=0&\text{on }\Gamma,\\ u(x,0)=u_{0}(x)&\text{in }\Omega.\end{array}\right.{ start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG ∂ italic_u end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t end_ARG = roman_div over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( ∇ italic_u ) end_CELL start_CELL in roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_u ( italic_x , italic_t ) = 0 end_CELL start_CELL on roman_Γ , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_u ( italic_x , 0 ) = italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_CELL start_CELL in roman_Ω . end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY (4)

The initial data function u0subscript𝑢0u_{0}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is given in BV(Ω)L(Ω)𝐵𝑉Ωsuperscript𝐿ΩBV(\Omega)\cap L^{\infty}(\Omega)italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) ∩ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) with a trace of zero on ΩΩ\partial\Omega∂ roman_Ω. Here q:NN:𝑞superscript𝑁superscript𝑁\overrightarrow{q}:\mathbb{R}^{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{N}over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a nonlinear, continuous, potential gradient function, satisfying that q=Φ𝑞Φ\overrightarrow{q}=\nabla\Phiover→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG = ∇ roman_Φ, where ΦC1(N)Φsuperscript𝐶1superscript𝑁\Phi\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})roman_Φ ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and Φ(0)=infANΦ(A)Φ0subscriptinfimum𝐴superscript𝑁Φ𝐴\Phi(0)=\inf\limits_{A\in\mathbb{R}^{N}}\Phi(A)roman_Φ ( 0 ) = roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ ( italic_A ). Moreover, ΦΦ\Phiroman_Φ and q𝑞\overrightarrow{q}over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG satisfy the following structure conditions:

(λ|A|1)+Φ(A)Λ|A|+1,ANformulae-sequencesubscript𝜆𝐴1Φ𝐴Λ𝐴1for-all𝐴superscript𝑁\displaystyle{\left({\lambda|A|-1}\right)_{+}}\leqslant\Phi(A)\leqslant\Lambda% |A|+1,\;\;\forall A\in\mathbb{R}^{N}( italic_λ | italic_A | - 1 ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⩽ roman_Φ ( italic_A ) ⩽ roman_Λ | italic_A | + 1 , ∀ italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (5)

and

|q(A)|Λ,AN,formulae-sequence𝑞𝐴Λfor-all𝐴superscript𝑁\displaystyle|\overrightarrow{q}(A)|\leqslant\Lambda,\;\;\forall A\in\mathbb{R% }^{N},| over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_A ) | ⩽ roman_Λ , ∀ italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (6)

for some 0<λΛ0𝜆Λ0<\lambda\leq\Lambda0 < italic_λ ≤ roman_Λ, where s+=max{s,0}subscript𝑠𝑠0s_{+}=\max\{s,0\}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_max { italic_s , 0 }. We would like to point out that no monotonicity requirements such as (q(A1)q(A2))(A1A2)0𝑞subscript𝐴1𝑞subscript𝐴2subscript𝐴1subscript𝐴20(\overrightarrow{q}(A_{1})-\overrightarrow{q}(A_{2}))\cdot(A_{1}-A_{2})\geq 0( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ⋅ ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≥ 0 for A1,A2Nsubscript𝐴1subscript𝐴2superscript𝑁A_{1},A_{2}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are imposed.

Before stating our main results, let us mention some related results. Slemrod 1991Dynamics investigated the asymptotic behavior of measure valued solutions to the initial value problem for the nonlinear heat conduction equation

ut=divq(u)inΩT,𝑢𝑡div𝑞𝑢insubscriptΩ𝑇\displaystyle\dfrac{{\partial u}}{{\partial t}}={\rm{div}}{\;\overrightarrow{q% }\left(\nabla u\right)}\quad\text{in}\;\Omega_{T},divide start_ARG ∂ italic_u end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t end_ARG = roman_div over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( ∇ italic_u ) in roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

where

λ(|A|21)Φ(A)and|q(A)|Λ(1+|A|γ), 1γ<2.formulae-sequence𝜆superscript𝐴21Φ𝐴andformulae-sequence𝑞𝐴Λ1superscript𝐴𝛾1𝛾2{\lambda(|A|^{2}-1)}\leqslant\Phi(A)\quad\text{and}\quad|\overrightarrow{q}(A)% |\leqslant\Lambda(1+|A|^{\gamma}),\;1\leq\gamma<2.italic_λ ( | italic_A | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) ⩽ roman_Φ ( italic_A ) and | over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_A ) | ⩽ roman_Λ ( 1 + | italic_A | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , 1 ≤ italic_γ < 2 .

Demoulini 1996Young further discussed the Young measure solutions for the case that

(λ|A|21)+Φ(A)Λ|A|2+1subscript𝜆superscript𝐴21Φ𝐴Λsuperscript𝐴21\displaystyle{\left({\lambda|A|^{2}-1}\right)_{+}}\leqslant\Phi(A)\leqslant% \Lambda|A|^{2}+1( italic_λ | italic_A | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⩽ roman_Φ ( italic_A ) ⩽ roman_Λ | italic_A | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1

and

|q(A)|Λ|A|.𝑞𝐴Λ𝐴\displaystyle|\overrightarrow{q}(A)|\leqslant\Lambda|A|.| over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_A ) | ⩽ roman_Λ | italic_A | .

With the similar framework as in 1996Young , Yin and Wang 2003Young extended the theory of Young measure solutions to the more general case like that

(λ|A|1+δ1)+Φ(A)Λ|A|1+δ+1subscript𝜆superscript𝐴1𝛿1Φ𝐴Λsuperscript𝐴1𝛿1\displaystyle{\left({\lambda|A|^{1+\delta}-1}\right)_{+}}\leqslant\Phi(A)% \leqslant\Lambda|A|^{1+\delta}+1( italic_λ | italic_A | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 + italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⩽ roman_Φ ( italic_A ) ⩽ roman_Λ | italic_A | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 + italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1

and

|q(A)|Λ|A|δ,𝑞𝐴Λsuperscript𝐴𝛿\displaystyle|\overrightarrow{q}(A)|\leqslant\Lambda|A|^{\delta},| over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_A ) | ⩽ roman_Λ | italic_A | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where 0δ10𝛿10\leq\delta\leq 10 ≤ italic_δ ≤ 1. Especially, for the limit case that δ=0𝛿0\delta=0italic_δ = 0, by assuming that there exists a sequence {Φδ}0<δ1subscriptsubscriptΦ𝛿0𝛿1\{\Phi_{\delta}\}_{0<\delta\leq 1}{ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 < italic_δ ≤ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that {qδ=Φδ}0<δ1subscriptsubscript𝑞𝛿subscriptΦ𝛿0𝛿1\{\overrightarrow{q}_{\delta}=\nabla\Phi_{\delta}\}_{0<\delta\leq 1}{ over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 < italic_δ ≤ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT locally and uniformly converges to q𝑞\overrightarrow{q}over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG in Nsuperscript𝑁\mathbb{R}^{N}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and adding some conditions for {Φδ}0<δ1subscriptsubscriptΦ𝛿0𝛿1\{\Phi_{\delta}\}_{0<\delta\leq 1}{ roman_Φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 < italic_δ ≤ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, they obtained the existence of a kind of biting Young measure solutions. However, the uniqueness is lost due to the failure of the equality of independence (16) below.

When ΦΦ\Phiroman_Φ is convex and δ=0𝛿0\delta=0italic_δ = 0, there have been a lot of research activities in mathematical theory and engineering, see MR571133 ; MR1301176 ; 2001Minimizing ; MR3341130 . One possible approach to consider solutions is to use parabolic variational inequality. Lichnewsky and Temam 1978Pseudo considered the pseudo-solutions of the time-dependent minimal surface equation

ut=div(u1 + |u|2).𝑢𝑡div𝑢1 + superscript𝑢2\frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial t}}={\text{div}}\;\left({\frac{{\nabla u}}{{% \sqrt{1{\text{ + }}|{\nabla u}|^{2}}}}}\right).divide start_ARG ∂ italic_u end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t end_ARG = div ( divide start_ARG ∇ italic_u end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG 1 + | ∇ italic_u | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG ) .

More similar results can be found in MR1148668 ; MR2001660 .

Other possible approaches to define the generalized solutions is to apply the Anzellotti pairing Gabriele1983Pairings . Andreu et al. 2004Parabolic investigated the following nonlinear problem

ut=div(a(x,u)),𝑢𝑡div𝑎𝑥𝑢\frac{{\partial u}}{{\partial t}}={\text{div}}\;\left({\overrightarrow{a}(x,% \nabla u)}\right),divide start_ARG ∂ italic_u end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t end_ARG = div ( over→ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG ( italic_x , ∇ italic_u ) ) ,

where a(x,ξ)=ξf(x,ξ)𝑎𝑥𝜉subscript𝜉𝑓𝑥𝜉\overrightarrow{a}(x,\xi)=\nabla_{\xi}f(x,\xi)over→ start_ARG italic_a end_ARG ( italic_x , italic_ξ ) = ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x , italic_ξ ) and f(x,)𝑓𝑥f(x,\cdot)italic_f ( italic_x , ⋅ ) is a convex function with linear growth. By virtue of the Anzellotti pairing and nonlinear semigroup theory, they obtained the result of the existence and uniqueness of generalized solutions.

The aim of this paper is to study the existence and uniqueness of solutions for problem (𝒫)𝒫(\mathcal{P})( caligraphic_P ). The novelties of this paper are as follows. First, inspired by the known theory 2010Characterization ; MR2885572 , we introduce a new framework of generalized Young measure solutions which can ensure the uniqueness of solutions. Second, our proof relies on some viscosity approximation instead of the usual p𝑝pitalic_p–Laplace type approximation as p1𝑝1p\to 1italic_p → 1. Third, based on the new definition of generalized Young measure solutions, we remark that we can not only deal with the nonlinear parabolic problem with linear growth, but also show the equivalence between the generalized Young measure solutions and the strong solutions (in Definition 6).

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we first present the mathematical preliminaries, some definitions and auxiliary lemmas. In Section 3, we prove the existence of the generalized Young measure solutions. In Section 4, we establish the uniqueness of the generalized Young measure solutions. Finally in Section 5, the equivalence between generalized Young measure solutions and strong solutions is investigated.

2 Mathematical Preliminaries

2.1 The Auxiliary Problem and Young Measure Solutions

By (X)𝑋\mathcal{M}(X)caligraphic_M ( italic_X ) we denote the set of finite Radon measures on a Borel set X𝑋Xitalic_X and by the M1+(X)subscriptsuperscript𝑀1𝑋M^{+}_{1}(X)italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ) its subset of probality measures. As usual Nsuperscript𝑁\mathcal{L}^{N}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and N1superscript𝑁1\mathcal{H}^{N-1}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT represent the N𝑁Nitalic_N-dimensional Lebesgue measure and (N1)𝑁1(N-1)( italic_N - 1 )-dimensional Hausdorff measure in Nsuperscript𝑁\mathbb{R}^{N}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, respectively. We denote +(X)subscript𝑋\mathcal{M}_{+}(X)caligraphic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ) the positive Radon measures on X𝑋Xitalic_X. For all λ1,λ2(X)subscript𝜆1subscript𝜆2𝑋\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}\in\mathcal{M}(X)italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_M ( italic_X ),

λ1λ2 in (X)λ1λ2+(X).subscript𝜆1subscript𝜆2 in 𝑋subscript𝜆1subscript𝜆2subscript𝑋{\lambda_{1}}\geqslant{\lambda_{2}}\;\text{ in }\;\mathcal{M}(X)% \Leftrightarrow{\lambda_{1}}-{\lambda_{2}}\in\mathcal{M}_{+}(X).italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⩾ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in caligraphic_M ( italic_X ) ⇔ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ) .

Denote C0(N)subscript𝐶0superscript𝑁{C_{0}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) as the closure of continuous functions on Nsuperscript𝑁\mathbb{R}^{N}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with compact support. The dual of C0(N)subscript𝐶0superscript𝑁{C_{0}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) can be identified with the Radon measures space (N)superscript𝑁\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^{N})caligraphic_M ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) via the pairing

ν,f=Nf𝑑ν,ν(N),fC0(N).formulae-sequence𝜈𝑓subscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓differential-d𝜈formulae-sequencefor-all𝜈superscript𝑁𝑓subscript𝐶0superscript𝑁\left\langle{\nu,f}\right\rangle=\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}fd{\nu},\quad% \forall\nu\in\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^{N}),\;f\in{C_{0}}(\mathbb{R}^{N}).⟨ italic_ν , italic_f ⟩ = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f italic_d italic_ν , ∀ italic_ν ∈ caligraphic_M ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_f ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Let the set Dn𝐷superscript𝑛D\subset{\mathbb{R}^{n}}italic_D ⊂ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a measurable set with finite measure. A map ν:D(N):𝜈𝐷superscript𝑁\nu:D\to\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_ν : italic_D → caligraphic_M ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is called weakly𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑙superscript𝑦weakly^{\ast}italic_w italic_e italic_a italic_k italic_l italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT measurable if the functions xNf𝑑νxmaps-to𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓differential-dsubscript𝜈𝑥x\mapsto\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}fd{\nu_{x}}italic_x ↦ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f italic_d italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are measurable for all fC0(N)𝑓subscript𝐶0superscript𝑁f\in{C_{0}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_f ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), where νx=ν(x)subscript𝜈𝑥𝜈𝑥{\nu_{x}}=\nu(x)italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ν ( italic_x ). Young measures on a bounded domain ΩNΩsuperscript𝑁\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{N}roman_Ω ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are weakly𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑙superscript𝑦weakly^{\ast}italic_w italic_e italic_a italic_k italic_l italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT measurable map**s xνx,xΩformulae-sequencemaps-to𝑥subscript𝜈𝑥𝑥Ωx\mapsto\nu_{x},\;x\in\Omegaitalic_x ↦ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x ∈ roman_Ω, with νx:Ω1+(N):subscript𝜈𝑥Ωsubscriptsuperscript1superscript𝑁\nu_{x}:\Omega\to\mathcal{M}^{+}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Ω → caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

Next, the following lemma is a foundamental theorem on Young measures.

Lemma 1 (MR1036070 ).

Let zj:DN(j1):superscript𝑧𝑗𝐷superscript𝑁𝑗1{z^{j}}:D\to\mathbb{R}^{N}(j\geq 1)italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_D → blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_j ≥ 1 ) be a sequence of measurable functions. Then there exists a subsequence {zjk}k=1superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑧subscript𝑗𝑘𝑘1\{{z^{{j_{k}}}}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}{ italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and a weakly𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑙superscript𝑦weakly^{\ast}italic_w italic_e italic_a italic_k italic_l italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT measurable map ν:D(N):𝜈𝐷superscript𝑁\nu:D\to\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_ν : italic_D → caligraphic_M ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) such that the following holds:

  • (i)

    ν(x)0,ν(x)(N)=N𝑑νx1a.e.xDformulae-sequenceformulae-sequence𝜈𝑥0subscriptnorm𝜈𝑥superscript𝑁subscriptsuperscript𝑁differential-dsubscript𝜈𝑥1a.e.𝑥𝐷\nu(x)\geq 0,\;{\left\|{\nu(x)}\right\|_{\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}=\int% \limits_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}d{\nu_{x}}\leq 1\quad\text{a.e.}\;x\in Ditalic_ν ( italic_x ) ≥ 0 , ∥ italic_ν ( italic_x ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 1 a.e. italic_x ∈ italic_D;

  • (ii)

    For all fC0(N),f(zjk(x))𝑓subscript𝐶0superscript𝑁𝑓superscript𝑧subscript𝑗𝑘𝑥f\in{C_{0}}(\mathbb{R}^{N}),\;f({z^{{j_{k}}}}(x))italic_f ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_f ( italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ) converges weakly𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑙superscript𝑦{weakly^{\ast}}italic_w italic_e italic_a italic_k italic_l italic_y start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to Nf𝑑νxsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓differential-dsubscript𝜈𝑥\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}fd{\nu_{x}}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f italic_d italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in L(D)superscript𝐿𝐷{L^{\infty}}(D)italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_D );

  • (iii)

    Furthermore, one has

    ν(x)(N)=1a.e.xD,formulae-sequencesubscriptnorm𝜈𝑥superscript𝑁1a.e.𝑥𝐷{\left\|{\nu(x)}\right\|_{\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^{N})}}=1\quad\text{a.e.}\;x% \in D,∥ italic_ν ( italic_x ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 a.e. italic_x ∈ italic_D ,

    if and only if the sequence does not escape to infinity, namely,

    limMsupk1N({xD:|zjk|M})=0.subscript𝑀subscriptsupremum𝑘1superscript𝑁conditional-set𝑥𝐷superscript𝑧subscript𝑗𝑘𝑀0\mathop{\lim}\limits_{M\to\infty}\mathop{\sup}\limits_{k\geq 1}\;\mathcal{L}^{% N}(\{x\in D:|{{z^{{j_{k}}}}}|\geq M\})=0.roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( { italic_x ∈ italic_D : | italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ≥ italic_M } ) = 0 .
Definition 1.

The map ν:D(N):𝜈𝐷superscript𝑁\nu:D\to\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_ν : italic_D → caligraphic_M ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) in Lemma 1 is called the Young measure on Nsuperscript𝑁\mathbb{R}^{N}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT generated by the sequence {zjk}k=1superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑧subscript𝑗𝑘𝑘1\{{z^{{j_{k}}}}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}{ italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

For p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1, define

0p(N)={φC(N):lim|A||φ(A)|1+|A|pexists}.superscriptsubscript0𝑝superscript𝑁conditional-set𝜑𝐶superscript𝑁subscript𝐴𝜑𝐴1superscript𝐴𝑝𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠\mathscr{E}_{0}^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})=\left\{{\varphi\in C(\mathbb{R}^{N}):% \mathop{\lim}\limits_{|A|\to\infty}\frac{{|{\varphi(A)}|}}{{1+{{|A|}^{p}}}}\;% \;exists}\right\}.script_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = { italic_φ ∈ italic_C ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) : roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_A | → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG | italic_φ ( italic_A ) | end_ARG start_ARG 1 + | italic_A | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_e italic_x italic_i italic_s italic_t italic_s } .

The space 0p(N)superscriptsubscript0𝑝superscript𝑁\mathscr{E}_{0}^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})script_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is a separable Banach space with the norm

ϕ0p=supAN|ϕ(A)|1+|A|p.subscriptnormitalic-ϕsuperscriptsubscript0𝑝subscriptsupremum𝐴superscript𝑁italic-ϕ𝐴1superscript𝐴𝑝{\left\|\phi\right\|_{\mathscr{E}_{0}^{p}}}=\mathop{\sup}\limits_{A\in\mathbb{% R}^{N}}\frac{{|{\phi(A)}|}}{{1+{{|A|}^{p}}}}.∥ italic_ϕ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT script_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG | italic_ϕ ( italic_A ) | end_ARG start_ARG 1 + | italic_A | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

Define

p(N)={φC(N):supAN|φ(A)|1+|A|p<+},superscript𝑝superscript𝑁conditional-set𝜑𝐶superscript𝑁subscriptsupremum𝐴superscript𝑁𝜑𝐴1superscript𝐴𝑝{\mathscr{E}^{p}}(\mathbb{R}^{N})=\left\{{\varphi\in C(\mathbb{R}^{N}):\mathop% {\sup}\limits_{A\in\mathbb{R}^{N}}\frac{{|{\varphi(A)}|}}{{1+{{|A|}^{p}}}}\;<+% \infty}\right\},script_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = { italic_φ ∈ italic_C ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) : roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG | italic_φ ( italic_A ) | end_ARG start_ARG 1 + | italic_A | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG < + ∞ } ,

which is an inseparable space in the above norm.

Let ΦsuperscriptΦabsent\Phi^{**}roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the convexification of ΦΦ\Phiroman_Φ, namely,

Φ(A)=sup{f(A):fΦ,fis convex}.superscriptΦabsent𝐴supremumconditional-set𝑓𝐴𝑓Φ𝑓is convex\displaystyle{\Phi^{**}}(A)=\sup\left\{{f(A):f\leq\Phi,\;f\;\text{is convex}}% \right\}.roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A ) = roman_sup { italic_f ( italic_A ) : italic_f ≤ roman_Φ , italic_f is convex } .

Since ΦC1(N)Φsuperscript𝐶1superscript𝑁\Phi\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})roman_Φ ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), then ΦsuperscriptΦabsent\Phi^{**}roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is convex and in C1(N)superscript𝐶1superscript𝑁C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) (see KIRCHHEIM2001725 ).

Lemma 2 (Theorem 2.35, 2007Direct ).

Let f:N{+}:𝑓superscript𝑁f:\mathbb{R}^{N}\to\mathbb{R}\cup\{+\infty\}italic_f : blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R ∪ { + ∞ } and, for every xN𝑥superscript𝑁x\in\mathbb{R}^{N}italic_x ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT,

Cf(x)=sup{g(x):gf and g is convex}.𝐶𝑓𝑥supremumconditional-set𝑔𝑥𝑔𝑓 and 𝑔 is convex\displaystyle Cf(x)=\sup\left\{g(x):g\leq f{\text{ and }}g{\text{ is convex}}% \right\}.italic_C italic_f ( italic_x ) = roman_sup { italic_g ( italic_x ) : italic_g ≤ italic_f and italic_g is convex } .

Assume that Cf>𝐶𝑓Cf>-\inftyitalic_C italic_f > - ∞. Then

Cf(x)=inf{i=1N+1αif(xi):i=1N+1αixi=x,αi0withi=1N+1αi=1}.𝐶𝑓𝑥infconditional-setsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁1subscript𝛼𝑖𝑓subscript𝑥𝑖formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁1subscript𝛼𝑖subscript𝑥𝑖𝑥subscript𝛼𝑖0withsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁1subscript𝛼𝑖1\displaystyle Cf(x)={\rm inf}\left\{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N+1}{{\alpha_{i}}f({x_{% i}})}:\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N+1}{{\alpha_{i}}{x_{i}}}=x,\;{\alpha_{i}}\geqslant 0% \;\;{\text{with}}\;\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N+1}{{\alpha_{i}}}=1\right\}.italic_C italic_f ( italic_x ) = roman_inf { ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) : ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_x , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⩾ 0 with ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 } .

In the rest of this paper, I𝐼Iitalic_I represents the identity operator in Nsuperscript𝑁\mathbb{R}^{N}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Set p=Φ𝑝superscriptΦabsent\overrightarrow{p}=\nabla\Phi^{**}over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG = ∇ roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We note that q=p𝑞𝑝\overrightarrow{q}=\overrightarrow{p}over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG = over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG on the set {AN:Φ(A)=Φ(A)}conditional-set𝐴superscript𝑁Φ𝐴superscriptΦabsent𝐴\left\{A\in\mathbb{R}^{N}:\Phi(A)=\Phi^{**}(A)\right\}{ italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : roman_Φ ( italic_A ) = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A ) }. Thus, ΦsuperscriptΦabsent\Phi^{**}roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and p𝑝\overrightarrow{p}over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG satisfy the same structure conditions as ΦΦ\Phiroman_Φ and q𝑞\overrightarrow{q}over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG, respectively.

We consider the following auxiliary problem

{ut=div(qε(u)):=div(q(u)+εu)in ΩT,u(x,t)=0on Γ,u(x,0)=u0ε(x)in Ω,cases𝑢𝑡divsubscript𝑞𝜀𝑢assigndiv𝑞𝑢𝜀𝑢in subscriptΩ𝑇𝑢𝑥𝑡0on Γ𝑢𝑥0subscriptsuperscript𝑢𝜀0𝑥in Ω\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\dfrac{{\partial u}}{{\partial t}}={\rm{div}}({\;% \overrightarrow{q}_{\varepsilon}\left(\nabla u\right)}):={\rm{div}}({\;% \overrightarrow{q}\left(\nabla u\right)+\varepsilon\nabla u})&\text{in }\Omega% _{T},\\ u(x,t)=0&\text{on }\Gamma,\\ u(x,0)=u^{\varepsilon}_{0}(x)&\text{in }\Omega,\end{array}\right.{ start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG ∂ italic_u end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t end_ARG = roman_div ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∇ italic_u ) ) := roman_div ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( ∇ italic_u ) + italic_ε ∇ italic_u ) end_CELL start_CELL in roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_u ( italic_x , italic_t ) = 0 end_CELL start_CELL on roman_Γ , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_u ( italic_x , 0 ) = italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) end_CELL start_CELL in roman_Ω , end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY (𝒫εsubscript𝒫𝜀\mathcal{P_{\varepsilon}}caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT)

where u0ε(x)H01(Ω)subscriptsuperscript𝑢𝜀0𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝐻10Ωu^{\varepsilon}_{0}(x)\in H^{1}_{0}(\Omega)italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) and it satisfies that when ε0𝜀0\varepsilon\rightarrow 0italic_ε → 0

u0ε(x)BV(Ω)u0(x)BV(Ω),subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscript𝑢0𝜀𝑥𝐵𝑉Ωsubscriptnormsubscript𝑢0𝑥𝐵𝑉Ω\displaystyle\left\|{u_{0}^{\varepsilon}(x)}\right\|_{BV(\Omega)}\to{\left\|{u% _{0}(x)}\right\|_{BV(\Omega)}},∥ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → ∥ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (7)
u0ε(x)u0(x)inL2(Ω),superscriptsubscript𝑢0𝜀𝑥subscript𝑢0𝑥insuperscript𝐿2Ω\displaystyle u_{0}^{\varepsilon}(x)\to{u_{0}}(x)\quad\text{in}\;{L^{2}}(% \Omega),italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) → italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) in italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) , (8)
u0ε(x)L(Ω)u0(x)L(Ω),subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscript𝑢0𝜀𝑥superscript𝐿Ωsubscriptnormsubscript𝑢0𝑥superscript𝐿Ω\displaystyle{\left\|{u_{0}^{\varepsilon}(x)}\right\|_{{L^{\infty}}(\Omega)}}% \leqslant{\left\|{{u_{0}}(x)}\right\|_{{L^{\infty}}(\Omega)}},∥ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⩽ ∥ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (9)
εnu0εn(x)H1(Ω)0,for a subsequence of{ε}.subscript𝜀𝑛subscriptnormsuperscriptsubscript𝑢0subscript𝜀𝑛𝑥superscript𝐻1Ω0for a subsequence of𝜀\displaystyle\sqrt{{\varepsilon_{n}}}{\left\|{u_{0}^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}(x)}% \right\|_{{H^{1}}(\Omega)}}\to 0,\;\text{for a subsequence of}\;\{\varepsilon\}.square-root start_ARG italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 0 , for a subsequence of { italic_ε } . (10)
Definition 2.

A Young measure valued solution of (𝒫ε)subscript𝒫𝜀(\mathcal{P_{\varepsilon}})( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is a pair (uε,νε)superscript𝑢𝜀superscript𝜈𝜀(u^{\varepsilon},\nu^{\varepsilon})( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), where uεL(0,T;H01(Ω))superscript𝑢𝜀superscript𝐿0𝑇superscriptsubscript𝐻01Ωu^{\varepsilon}\in{L^{\infty}}(0,T;H_{0}^{1}(\Omega))italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 , italic_T ; italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) ), uεtL2(ΩT)superscript𝑢𝜀𝑡superscript𝐿2subscriptΩ𝑇\dfrac{{\partial u^{\varepsilon}}}{{\partial t}}\in L^{2}(\Omega_{T})divide start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t end_ARG ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), and νε=(νx,tε)(x,t)ΩTsuperscript𝜈𝜀subscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝜈𝜀𝑥𝑡𝑥𝑡subscriptΩ𝑇\nu^{\varepsilon}={\left({{\nu^{\varepsilon}_{x,t}}}\right)_{\left({x,t}\right% )\in{\Omega_{T}}}}italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_t ) ∈ roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a parametrized family of probability measures on Nsuperscript𝑁\mathbb{R}^{N}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that

ΩT(νε,qεζ+uεtζ)𝑑x𝑑t=0,ζH01(ΩT)formulae-sequencesubscriptdouble-integralsubscriptΩ𝑇superscript𝜈𝜀subscript𝑞𝜀𝜁superscript𝑢𝜀𝑡𝜁differential-d𝑥differential-d𝑡0for-all𝜁subscriptsuperscript𝐻10subscriptΩ𝑇\displaystyle\iint_{{\Omega_{T}}}{{\left({\left\langle{\nu^{\varepsilon},% \overrightarrow{q}_{\varepsilon}}\right\rangle\cdot\nabla\zeta+\frac{{\partial u% ^{\varepsilon}}}{{\partial t}}\zeta}\right)}}dxdt=0,\;\forall\zeta\in H^{1}_{0% }({\Omega_{T}})∬ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⋅ ∇ italic_ζ + divide start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t end_ARG italic_ζ ) italic_d italic_x italic_d italic_t = 0 , ∀ italic_ζ ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , (11)
uε(x,t)=νx,t,Ia.e.(x,t)ΩTformulae-sequencesuperscript𝑢𝜀𝑥𝑡subscript𝜈𝑥𝑡𝐼a.e.𝑥𝑡subscriptΩ𝑇\displaystyle\nabla u^{\varepsilon}(x,t)=\left\langle{{\nu_{x,t}},I}\right% \rangle\quad\text{a.e.}\;(x,t)\in{\Omega_{T}}∇ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_t ) = ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ a.e. ( italic_x , italic_t ) ∈ roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (12)

and

uε(x,t)superscript𝑢𝜀𝑥𝑡\displaystyle u^{\varepsilon}(x,t)italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_t ) =0,(x,t)Ω×[0,T],formulae-sequenceabsent0𝑥𝑡Ω0𝑇\displaystyle=0,\;(x,t)\in\partial\Omega\times[0,T],= 0 , ( italic_x , italic_t ) ∈ ∂ roman_Ω × [ 0 , italic_T ] , (13)
uε(x,0)superscript𝑢𝜀𝑥0\displaystyle u^{\varepsilon}(x,0)italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x , 0 ) =u0ε(x),xΩ,formulae-sequenceabsentsubscriptsuperscript𝑢𝜀0𝑥𝑥Ω\displaystyle={u^{\varepsilon}_{0}}(x),\;x\in\Omega,= italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) , italic_x ∈ roman_Ω , (14)

in the sense of trace. Furthermore,

suppνε{Φ+ε2|I|2=(Φ+ε2|I|2)},suppsuperscript𝜈𝜀Φ𝜀2superscript𝐼2superscriptΦ𝜀2superscript𝐼2absent\displaystyle{\mathrm{supp}}\;\nu^{\varepsilon}\subseteq\left\{{\Phi+\frac{% \varepsilon}{2}{{|I|}^{2}}={{\left({\Phi+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}{{|I|}^{2}}}% \right)}^{**}}}\right\},roman_supp italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊆ { roman_Φ + divide start_ARG italic_ε end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | italic_I | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( roman_Φ + divide start_ARG italic_ε end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG | italic_I | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } , (15)

and the equality of independence

νx,tε,qεI=νx,tε,qενx,tε,Ia.e.(x,t)ΩTformulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝜈𝜀𝑥𝑡subscript𝑞𝜀𝐼subscriptsuperscript𝜈𝜀𝑥𝑡subscript𝑞𝜀subscriptsuperscript𝜈𝜀𝑥𝑡𝐼a.e.𝑥𝑡subscriptΩ𝑇\displaystyle\left\langle{{\nu^{\varepsilon}_{x,t}},\overrightarrow{q}_{% \varepsilon}\cdot I}\right\rangle=\left\langle{{\nu^{\varepsilon}_{x,t}},% \overrightarrow{q}_{\varepsilon}}\right\rangle\cdot\left\langle{{\nu^{% \varepsilon}_{x,t}},I}\right\rangle\quad\text{a.e.}\;(x,t)\in{\Omega_{T}}⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ italic_I ⟩ = ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⋅ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ a.e. ( italic_x , italic_t ) ∈ roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (16)

holds, i.e., qεsubscript𝑞𝜀\overrightarrow{q}_{\varepsilon}over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and uεsuperscript𝑢𝜀\nabla u^{\varepsilon}∇ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are independent with respect to the Young measure νεsuperscript𝜈𝜀\nu^{\varepsilon}italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

According to Remark 3.1 in 2003Young , the following lemma holds.

Lemma 3.

The problem (𝒫ε)subscript𝒫𝜀(\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) admits a Young measure solution uεsuperscript𝑢𝜀u^{\varepsilon}italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. And there exists a constant M𝑀Mitalic_M depending only on u0(x)BV(Ω),u0(x)L(Ω),λ,Λsubscriptnormsubscript𝑢0𝑥𝐵𝑉Ωsubscriptnormsubscript𝑢0𝑥superscript𝐿Ω𝜆Λ{\left\|{{u_{0}}(x)}\right\|_{{BV}(\Omega)}},{\left\|{{u_{0}}(x)}\right\|_{{L^% {\infty}}(\Omega)}},\lambda,\Lambda∥ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∥ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ , roman_Λ, and N(Ω)superscript𝑁Ω\mathcal{L}^{N}(\Omega)caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) but independent of ε𝜀\varepsilonitalic_ε and T𝑇Titalic_T such that

uεL(ΩT)M,subscriptnormsuperscript𝑢𝜀superscript𝐿subscriptΩ𝑇𝑀\displaystyle{\left\|{{u^{\varepsilon}}}\right\|_{{L^{\infty}}({\Omega_{T}})}}% \leqslant M,∥ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⩽ italic_M , (17)
uεL(0,T;W01,1(Ω))M,subscriptnormsuperscript𝑢𝜀superscript𝐿0𝑇subscriptsuperscript𝑊110Ω𝑀\displaystyle{\left\|{{u^{\varepsilon}}}\right\|_{{L^{\infty}}(0,T;{W^{1,1}_{0% }}(\Omega))}}\leqslant M,∥ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 , italic_T ; italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⩽ italic_M , (18)
uεL(0,T;L2(Ω))M,subscriptnormsuperscript𝑢𝜀superscript𝐿0𝑇superscript𝐿2Ω𝑀\displaystyle{\left\|{{u^{\varepsilon}}}\right\|_{{L^{\infty}}(0,T;{L^{2}}(% \Omega))}}\leqslant M,∥ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 , italic_T ; italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⩽ italic_M , (19)
uεtL2(ΩT)M,subscriptnormsuperscript𝑢𝜀𝑡superscript𝐿2subscriptΩ𝑇𝑀\displaystyle{\left\|{\frac{{\partial{u^{\varepsilon}}}}{{\partial t}}}\right% \|_{{L^{2}}\left({{\Omega_{T}}}\right)}}\leqslant M,∥ divide start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t end_ARG ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⩽ italic_M , (20)
εnuεnL(0,T;H1(Ω))M.subscript𝜀𝑛subscriptnormsuperscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝐿0𝑇superscript𝐻1Ω𝑀\displaystyle\sqrt{{\varepsilon_{n}}}{\left\|{{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}}\right\|% _{L^{\infty}(0,T;{H^{1}}(\Omega))}}\leqslant M.square-root start_ARG italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∥ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 , italic_T ; italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⩽ italic_M . (21)

2.2 Pairings between Measures and Bounded Functions

A function uL1(Ω)𝑢superscript𝐿1Ωu\in L^{1}(\Omega)italic_u ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) is called a function of bounded variation if its distributional derivative Du𝐷𝑢Duitalic_D italic_u is a Nsuperscript𝑁\mathbb{R}^{N}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-valued Radon measure with finite total variation in ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω. The vector space of functions of bounded variation in ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω is denoted by BV(Ω)𝐵𝑉ΩBV(\Omega)italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ). The space BV(Ω)𝐵𝑉ΩBV(\Omega)italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) is a non-reflexive Banach space under the norm uBV:=uL1+|Du|(Ω)assignsubscriptnorm𝑢𝐵𝑉subscriptnorm𝑢superscript𝐿1𝐷𝑢Ω\|u\|_{BV}:=\|u\|_{L^{1}}+|Du|(\Omega)∥ italic_u ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ∥ italic_u ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + | italic_D italic_u | ( roman_Ω ), where |Du|𝐷𝑢|Du|| italic_D italic_u | is the total variation measure of Du𝐷𝑢Duitalic_D italic_u.

For uBV(Ω)𝑢𝐵𝑉Ωu\in BV(\Omega)italic_u ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ), the gradient Du𝐷𝑢Duitalic_D italic_u is a Radon measure that decomposes into its absolutely continuous and singular parts

Du=Dau+Dsu.𝐷𝑢superscript𝐷𝑎𝑢superscript𝐷𝑠𝑢Du=D^{a}u+D^{s}u.italic_D italic_u = italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u + italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u .

Then Dau=uNsuperscript𝐷𝑎𝑢𝑢superscript𝑁D^{a}u=\nabla u\mathcal{L}^{N}italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u = ∇ italic_u caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where u𝑢\nabla u∇ italic_u is the Radon-Nikodým derivative of the measure Du𝐷𝑢Duitalic_D italic_u with respect to the Lebesgue measure Nsuperscript𝑁\mathcal{L}^{N}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. There is also the polar decomposition Dsu=Dsu|Dsu||Dsu|superscript𝐷𝑠𝑢superscript𝐷𝑠𝑢superscript𝐷𝑠𝑢superscript𝐷𝑠𝑢D^{s}u=\frac{{{D^{s}}u}}{{|{D^{s}}u|}}|{{D^{s}}u}|italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u = divide start_ARG italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_ARG start_ARG | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u | end_ARG | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u |, where Dsu|Dsu|L1(Ω,|Dsu|;𝔹N)superscript𝐷𝑠𝑢superscript𝐷𝑠𝑢superscript𝐿1Ωsuperscript𝐷𝑠𝑢superscript𝔹𝑁\frac{{{D^{s}}u}}{{|{D^{s}}u|}}\in{L^{1}}\left({\Omega,|{{D^{s}}u}|;\partial{% \mathbb{B}^{N}}}\right)divide start_ARG italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_ARG start_ARG | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u | end_ARG ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω , | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u | ; ∂ blackboard_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is the Radon-Nikodým derivative of Dsusuperscript𝐷𝑠𝑢D^{s}uitalic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u with respect to its total variation measure |Dsu|superscript𝐷𝑠𝑢|D^{s}u|| italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u |.

Set Ω~~Ω\tilde{\Omega}over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG as a bounded smooth domain satisfying ΩΩ~\Omega\subset\subset\tilde{\Omega}roman_Ω ⊂ ⊂ over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG. For vBV(Ω)𝑣𝐵𝑉Ωv\in BV(\Omega)italic_v ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ), we denote v~~𝑣\tilde{v}over~ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG by

v~(x):={v(x),xΩ,0,xΩ~\Ω¯.\tilde{v}(x):=\left\{\begin{gathered}v(x),\;x\in\Omega,\\ 0,\;x\in\tilde{\Omega}\backslash\overline{\Omega}.\end{gathered}\right.over~ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG ( italic_x ) := { start_ROW start_CELL italic_v ( italic_x ) , italic_x ∈ roman_Ω , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 , italic_x ∈ over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG \ over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG . end_CELL end_ROW
Lemma 4 (Theorem B.3, 2004Parabolic ).

Assume that uBV(Ω)𝑢𝐵𝑉Ωu\in BV(\Omega)italic_u ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ). There exists a sequence of functions uiW1,1(Ω)C(Ω)subscript𝑢𝑖superscript𝑊11Ωsuperscript𝐶Ωu_{i}\in W^{1,1}(\Omega)\cap C^{\infty}(\Omega)italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) ∩ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) such that

  • (i)

    uiusubscript𝑢𝑖𝑢u_{i}\to uitalic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_u in L1(Ω)superscript𝐿1ΩL^{1}(\Omega)italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω );

  • (ii)

    |Dui|(Ω)|Du|(Ω)𝐷subscript𝑢𝑖Ω𝐷𝑢Ω|Du_{i}|(\Omega)\to|Du|(\Omega)| italic_D italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ( roman_Ω ) → | italic_D italic_u | ( roman_Ω );

  • (iii)

    ui|Ω=u|Ωevaluated-atsubscript𝑢𝑖Ωevaluated-at𝑢Ωu_{i}|_{\partial\Omega}=u|_{\partial\Omega}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_u | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all i𝑖iitalic_i;

Moreover,

  • (iv)

    if uBV(Ω)Lq(Ω)𝑢𝐵𝑉Ωsuperscript𝐿𝑞Ωu\in BV(\Omega)\cap L^{q}(\Omega)italic_u ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) ∩ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ), q<𝑞q<\inftyitalic_q < ∞, we can find functions uisubscript𝑢𝑖u_{i}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that uiLq(Ω)subscript𝑢𝑖superscript𝐿𝑞Ωu_{i}\in L^{q}(\Omega)italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) and uiusubscript𝑢𝑖𝑢u_{i}\to uitalic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_u in Lq(Ω)superscript𝐿𝑞ΩL^{q}(\Omega)italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω );

  • (v)

    if uBV(Ω)L(Ω)𝑢𝐵𝑉Ωsuperscript𝐿Ωu\in BV(\Omega)\cap L^{\infty}(\Omega)italic_u ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) ∩ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ), we can find uisubscript𝑢𝑖u_{i}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that uiusubscriptnormsubscript𝑢𝑖subscriptnorm𝑢\|u_{i}\|_{\infty}\leq\|u\|_{\infty}∥ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∥ italic_u ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and uiusubscript𝑢𝑖𝑢u_{i}\to uitalic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_u weakly* in L(Ω)superscript𝐿ΩL^{\infty}(\Omega)italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ).

It is well known that summability conditions on the divergence of a vector field z𝑧zitalic_z in ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω yield trace properties for the normal component of z𝑧zitalic_z on ΩΩ\partial\Omega∂ roman_Ω. As in Gabriele1983Pairings , we define a function [z,n]L(Ω)𝑧𝑛superscript𝐿Ω[z,\vec{n}]\in L^{\infty}(\partial\Omega)[ italic_z , over→ start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ] ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ roman_Ω ) which is associated to any vector field zL(Ω,N)𝑧superscript𝐿Ωsuperscript𝑁z\in L^{\infty}(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_z ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) such that div(z)div𝑧{\rm{div}}(z)roman_div ( italic_z ) is a bounded measures in ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω.

Assume that ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω is an open bounded set in Nsuperscript𝑁\mathbb{R}^{N}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with ΩΩ\partial\Omega∂ roman_Ω Lipschitz, N2𝑁2N\geq 2italic_N ≥ 2, and 1pN1𝑝𝑁1\leq p\leq N1 ≤ italic_p ≤ italic_N, NN1q𝑁𝑁1𝑞\frac{N}{N-1}\leq q\leq\inftydivide start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_ARG italic_N - 1 end_ARG ≤ italic_q ≤ ∞. Since ΩΩ\partial\Omega∂ roman_Ω is Lipschitz, the outer unit normal n𝑛\vec{n}over→ start_ARG italic_n end_ARG exists N1a.e.formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑁1ae\mathcal{H}^{N-1}-\mathrm{a.e.}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - roman_a . roman_e . on ΩΩ\partial\Omega∂ roman_Ω. We shall consider the following spaces:

BV(Ω)q:=BV(Ω)Lq(Ω),assign𝐵𝑉subscriptΩ𝑞𝐵𝑉Ωsuperscript𝐿𝑞Ω\displaystyle BV(\Omega)_{q}:=BV(\Omega)\cap L^{q}(\Omega),italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) ∩ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) ,
BV(Ω)c:=BV(Ω)L(Ω)C(Ω),assign𝐵𝑉subscriptΩ𝑐𝐵𝑉Ωsuperscript𝐿Ω𝐶Ω\displaystyle BV(\Omega)_{c}:=BV(\Omega)\cap L^{\infty}(\Omega)\cap C(\Omega),italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) ∩ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) ∩ italic_C ( roman_Ω ) ,
X(Ω)p:={zL(Ω,N):div(z)Lp(Ω)},assign𝑋subscriptΩ𝑝conditional-set𝑧superscript𝐿Ωsuperscript𝑁div𝑧superscript𝐿𝑝Ω\displaystyle X(\Omega)_{p}:=\{z\in L^{\infty}(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{N}):{\rm{div% }}(z)\in L^{p}(\Omega)\},italic_X ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := { italic_z ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) : roman_div ( italic_z ) ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) } ,
X(Ω)μ:={zL(Ω,N):div(z)(Ω)}.assign𝑋subscriptΩ𝜇conditional-set𝑧superscript𝐿Ωsuperscript𝑁div𝑧Ω\displaystyle X(\Omega)_{\mu}:=\{z\in L^{\infty}(\Omega,\mathbb{R}^{N}):{\rm{% div}}(z)\in\mathcal{M}(\Omega)\}.italic_X ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := { italic_z ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) : roman_div ( italic_z ) ∈ caligraphic_M ( roman_Ω ) } .
Lemma 5 (Theorem C.2, 2004Parabolic ).

Assume that ΩNΩsuperscript𝑁\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{N}roman_Ω ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is an open bounded set with Lipschitz boundary ΩΩ\partial\Omega∂ roman_Ω. Then there exists a bilinear map z,uΩ:X(Ω)μ×BV(Ω)c:subscript𝑧𝑢Ω𝑋subscriptΩ𝜇𝐵𝑉subscriptΩ𝑐\langle z,u\rangle_{\partial\Omega}:X(\Omega)_{\mu}\times BV(\Omega)_{c}\to% \mathbb{R}⟨ italic_z , italic_u ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_X ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → blackboard_R such that

a,uΩ=Ωu(x)z(x)n𝑑N1ifzC1(Ω¯,N),subscript𝑎𝑢ΩsubscriptΩ𝑢𝑥𝑧𝑥𝑛differential-dsuperscript𝑁1if𝑧superscript𝐶1¯Ωsuperscript𝑁\displaystyle\langle a,u\rangle_{\partial\Omega}=\int\limits_{\partial\Omega}{% u(x)z(x)\cdot\vec{n}\;d{\mathcal{H}^{N-1}}}\;\;\text{if}\;z\in C^{1}(\overline% {\Omega},\mathbb{R}^{N}),⟨ italic_a , italic_u ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u ( italic_x ) italic_z ( italic_x ) ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_n end_ARG italic_d caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT if italic_z ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , (22)
|a,uΩ|zΩ|u(x)|𝑑N1.subscript𝑎𝑢Ωsubscriptnorm𝑧subscriptΩ𝑢𝑥differential-dsuperscript𝑁1\displaystyle|\langle a,u\rangle_{\partial\Omega}|\leq\|z\|_{\infty}\int% \limits_{\partial\Omega}|u(x)|d{\mathcal{H}^{N-1}}.| ⟨ italic_a , italic_u ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ≤ ∥ italic_z ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_u ( italic_x ) | italic_d caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (23)
Lemma 6 (Theorem C.3, 2004Parabolic ).

Assume that ΩNΩsuperscript𝑁\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{N}roman_Ω ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is an open bounded set with Lipschitz boundary ΩΩ\partial\Omega∂ roman_Ω. Then there exists a linear operator γ:X(Ω)μL(Ω):𝛾𝑋subscriptΩ𝜇superscript𝐿Ω\gamma:X(\Omega)_{\mu}\to L^{\infty}(\partial\Omega)italic_γ : italic_X ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ roman_Ω ) such that

γsubscriptnorm𝛾\displaystyle\|\gamma\|_{\infty}∥ italic_γ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT z,absentsubscriptnorm𝑧\displaystyle\leq\|z\|_{\infty},≤ ∥ italic_z ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (24)
a,uΩsubscript𝑎𝑢Ω\displaystyle\langle a,u\rangle_{\partial\Omega}⟨ italic_a , italic_u ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =Ωu(x)γ(z)(x)n𝑑N1 for alluBV(Ω)c,absentsubscriptΩ𝑢𝑥𝛾𝑧𝑥𝑛differential-dsuperscript𝑁1 for all𝑢𝐵𝑉subscriptΩ𝑐\displaystyle=\int\limits_{\partial\Omega}{u(x)\gamma(z)(x)\cdot\vec{n}\;d{% \mathcal{H}^{N-1}}}\;\;\text{ for all}\;u\in BV(\Omega)_{c},= ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u ( italic_x ) italic_γ ( italic_z ) ( italic_x ) ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_n end_ARG italic_d caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for all italic_u ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (25)
γ(z)(x)𝛾𝑧𝑥\displaystyle\gamma(z)(x)italic_γ ( italic_z ) ( italic_x ) =z(x)n for allxΩifzC1(Ω¯,N).absent𝑧𝑥𝑛 for all𝑥Ωif𝑧superscript𝐶1¯Ωsuperscript𝑁\displaystyle=z(x)\cdot\vec{n}\;\;\;\text{ for all}\;x\in\partial\Omega\;\;% \text{if}\;\;z\in C^{1}(\overline{\Omega},\mathbb{R}^{N}).= italic_z ( italic_x ) ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_n end_ARG for all italic_x ∈ ∂ roman_Ω if italic_z ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) . (26)

The function γ(z)𝛾𝑧\gamma(z)italic_γ ( italic_z ) is a weakly defined trace on ΩΩ\partial\Omega∂ roman_Ω of the normal component of z𝑧zitalic_z. We denote γ(z)𝛾𝑧\gamma(z)italic_γ ( italic_z ) by [z,n]𝑧𝑛[z,\vec{n}][ italic_z , over→ start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ].

In the sequel we shall consider pairs (z,u)𝑧𝑢(z,u)( italic_z , italic_u ) such that one of the following conditions holds

a)zX(Ω)p,uBV(Ω)pand 1<pN;\displaystyle a)\;z\in X(\Omega)_{p},\;u\in BV(\Omega)_{p^{\prime}}\;\text{and% }\;1<p\leq N;italic_a ) italic_z ∈ italic_X ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_u ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and 1 < italic_p ≤ italic_N ;
b)zX(Ω)1,uBV(Ω);\displaystyle b)\;z\in X(\Omega)_{1},\;u\in BV(\Omega)_{\infty};italic_b ) italic_z ∈ italic_X ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_u ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; (27)
c)zX(Ω)μ,uBV(Ω)c.\displaystyle c)\;z\in X(\Omega)_{\mu},\;u\in BV(\Omega)_{c}.italic_c ) italic_z ∈ italic_X ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_u ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Definition 3.

Let (z,u)𝑧𝑢(z,u)( italic_z , italic_u ) satisfy one of the conditions (27). Then we define a functional (z,Du):𝒟(Ω):𝑧𝐷𝑢𝒟Ω(z,Du):\mathcal{D}(\Omega)\to\mathbb{R}( italic_z , italic_D italic_u ) : caligraphic_D ( roman_Ω ) → blackboard_R as

(z,Du),ϕ:=Ωu(x)ϕdiv(z)𝑑xΩu(x)zϕdx,ϕ𝒟(Ω),formulae-sequenceassign𝑧𝐷𝑢italic-ϕsubscriptΩ𝑢𝑥italic-ϕdiv𝑧differential-d𝑥subscriptΩ𝑢𝑥𝑧italic-ϕ𝑑𝑥for-allitalic-ϕ𝒟Ω\displaystyle\langle(z,Du),\phi\rangle:=-\int\limits_{\Omega}{u(x)\phi\;{\rm{% div}}(z)dx}-\int\limits_{\Omega}{u(x)z\cdot\nabla\phi dx},\;\;\forall\;\phi\in% \mathcal{D}(\Omega),⟨ ( italic_z , italic_D italic_u ) , italic_ϕ ⟩ := - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u ( italic_x ) italic_ϕ roman_div ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_x - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u ( italic_x ) italic_z ⋅ ∇ italic_ϕ italic_d italic_x , ∀ italic_ϕ ∈ caligraphic_D ( roman_Ω ) ,

where 𝒟(Ω)𝒟Ω\mathcal{D}(\Omega)caligraphic_D ( roman_Ω ) represents the space of all infinitely differentiable functions with compact support on ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω.

Lemma 7 (Theorem C.6, 2004Parabolic ).

For any functions ϕ𝒟(V)italic-ϕ𝒟𝑉\phi\in\mathcal{D}(V)italic_ϕ ∈ caligraphic_D ( italic_V ) and for any open sets VΩ𝑉ΩV\subseteq\Omegaitalic_V ⊆ roman_Ω, it follows that

|(z,Du),ϕ|supϕzL(V)|Du|(V).𝑧𝐷𝑢italic-ϕsupremumsubscriptnormitalic-ϕsubscriptnorm𝑧superscript𝐿𝑉𝐷𝑢𝑉\displaystyle|\langle(z,Du),\phi\rangle|\leq{\sup}\;\|\phi\|_{\infty}\|z\|_{L^% {\infty}(V)}|Du|(V).| ⟨ ( italic_z , italic_D italic_u ) , italic_ϕ ⟩ | ≤ roman_sup ∥ italic_ϕ ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ italic_z ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_V ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_D italic_u | ( italic_V ) . (28)

Thus, (z,Du)𝑧𝐷𝑢(z,Du)( italic_z , italic_D italic_u ) is a Radon measure in ΩΩ\Omegaroman_Ω.

Next, we give the Green’s formula related to the function [z,n]𝑧𝑛[z,\vec{n}][ italic_z , over→ start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ] and the measure (z,Du)𝑧𝐷𝑢(z,Du)( italic_z , italic_D italic_u ).

Lemma 8 (Theorem C.9, 2004Parabolic ).

Assume that ΩNΩsuperscript𝑁\Omega\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{N}roman_Ω ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is an open bounded set with Lipschitz boundary ΩΩ\partial\Omega∂ roman_Ω. If z𝑧zitalic_z and u𝑢uitalic_u ensure that one of the conditions (27) holds, then we have

Ωudiv(z)𝑑x+Ω(z,Du)=Ω[z,n]u𝑑N1.subscriptΩ𝑢div𝑧differential-d𝑥subscriptΩ𝑧𝐷𝑢subscriptΩ𝑧𝑛𝑢differential-dsuperscript𝑁1\displaystyle\int\limits_{\Omega}{u\;{\rm{div}}(z)dx}+\int\limits_{\Omega}{(z,% Du)}=\int\limits_{\partial\Omega}{[z,\vec{n}]\;u\;d\mathcal{H}^{N-1}}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u roman_div ( italic_z ) italic_d italic_x + ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_z , italic_D italic_u ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_z , over→ start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ] italic_u italic_d caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (29)

More details about pairings z,uΩsubscript𝑧𝑢Ω\langle z,u\rangle_{\partial\Omega}⟨ italic_z , italic_u ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and (z,Du)𝑧𝐷𝑢(z,Du)( italic_z , italic_D italic_u ) can be found in Gabriele1983Pairings .

2.3 The Generalized Young Measure Solutions

This subsection gives a brief overview of the basic theory of generalized Young measures, which will be used later. We refer to 2010Characterization ; MR2885572 for further information about the generalized Young measures.

First, we need a suitable class of integrands. Let (Ω;N)Ωsuperscript𝑁\mathcal{E}(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})caligraphic_E ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) be the set of all fC(Ω¯×N)𝑓𝐶¯Ωsuperscript𝑁f\in C(\overline{\Omega}\times\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_f ∈ italic_C ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG × blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) such that

(Tf)(x,A^):=(1|A^|)f(x,A^1|A^|),xΩ¯,A^𝔹N,formulae-sequenceassign𝑇𝑓𝑥^𝐴1^𝐴𝑓𝑥^𝐴1^𝐴formulae-sequence𝑥¯Ω^𝐴superscript𝔹𝑁\displaystyle(Tf)(x,\hat{A}):=(1-|\hat{A}|)f\left({x,\frac{{\hat{A}}}{{1-|\hat% {A}|}}}\right),\;x\in\overline{\Omega},\;\hat{A}\in{\mathbb{B}^{N}},( italic_T italic_f ) ( italic_x , over^ start_ARG italic_A end_ARG ) := ( 1 - | over^ start_ARG italic_A end_ARG | ) italic_f ( italic_x , divide start_ARG over^ start_ARG italic_A end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG 1 - | over^ start_ARG italic_A end_ARG | end_ARG ) , italic_x ∈ over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_A end_ARG ∈ blackboard_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (30)

extends into a continuous function TfC(Ω×𝔹N¯)𝑇𝑓𝐶¯Ωsuperscript𝔹𝑁Tf\in C(\overline{\Omega\times{\mathbb{B}^{N}}})italic_T italic_f ∈ italic_C ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω × blackboard_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ), where 𝔹Nsuperscript𝔹𝑁\mathbb{B}^{N}blackboard_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denotes the open unit ball in Nsuperscript𝑁\mathbb{R}^{N}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In particular, it implies that f𝑓fitalic_f has linear growth at infinity, i.e., there exists a constant M>0𝑀0M>0italic_M > 0 (in fact, M=f(Ω;N):=Tf,Ω×𝔹N¯𝑀subscriptnorm𝑓Ωsuperscript𝑁assignsubscriptnorm𝑇𝑓¯Ωsuperscript𝔹𝑁M={\left\|f\right\|_{\mathcal{E}(\Omega;{\mathbb{R}^{N}})}}:={\left\|{Tf}% \right\|_{\infty,\overline{\Omega\times{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}}}italic_M = ∥ italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_E ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ∥ italic_T italic_f ∥ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ , over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω × blackboard_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ),

|f(x,A)|M(1+|A|)for all(x,A)Ω¯×N.𝑓𝑥𝐴𝑀1𝐴for all𝑥𝐴¯Ωsuperscript𝑁|{f(x,A)}|\leqslant M(1+|A|)\;\;\text{for all}\;(x,A)\in\overline{\Omega}% \times{\mathbb{R}^{N}}.| italic_f ( italic_x , italic_A ) | ⩽ italic_M ( 1 + | italic_A | ) for all ( italic_x , italic_A ) ∈ over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG × blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

For all f(Ω;N)𝑓Ωsuperscript𝑁f\in\mathcal{E}(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_f ∈ caligraphic_E ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) the recession function

f(x,A):=limAAxxtf(x,tA)t,xΩ¯,AN,formulae-sequenceassignsuperscript𝑓𝑥𝐴subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝐴superscript𝑥𝑥𝑡𝑓superscript𝑥𝑡superscript𝐴𝑡formulae-sequence𝑥¯Ω𝐴superscript𝑁\displaystyle{f^{\infty}}(x,A):=\mathop{\lim}\limits_{\begin{subarray}{c}A^{% \prime}\to A\\ x^{\prime}\to x\\ t\to\infty\end{subarray}}\frac{{f(x^{\prime},tA^{\prime})}}{t},\;x\in\overline% {\Omega},\;A\in{\mathbb{R}^{N}},italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_A ) := roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_A end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_x end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_t → ∞ end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_f ( italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_t italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG , italic_x ∈ over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG , italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (31)

exists as a continuous function. Sometimes this notion of a recession function is too strong and so for any function gC(N)𝑔𝐶superscript𝑁g\in C(\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_g ∈ italic_C ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) with linear growth at infinity, we define the generalized recession function

g(A):=limAAtg(tA)t,AN.formulae-sequenceassignsuperscript𝑔𝐴subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑔𝑡superscript𝐴𝑡𝐴superscript𝑁\displaystyle{g^{\sharp}}(A):=\mathop{\lim}\limits_{\begin{subarray}{c}A^{% \prime}\to A\\ t\to\infty\end{subarray}}\frac{{g(tA^{\prime})}}{t},\;A\in{\mathbb{R}^{N}}.italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ♯ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A ) := roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_A end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_t → ∞ end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_g ( italic_t italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG , italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (32)

We remark that for both flavors of recession function one can drop the additional sequence AAsuperscript𝐴𝐴A^{\prime}\to Aitalic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_A if the functional is Lipschitz continuous (see 2014A ).

Definition 4.

A generalized Young measure with target space Nsuperscript𝑁\mathbb{R}^{N}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a triple λ=(νx,λν,νx)𝜆subscript𝜈𝑥subscript𝜆𝜈subscriptsuperscript𝜈𝑥\lambda=(\nu_{x},\lambda_{\nu},{\nu}^{\infty}_{x})italic_λ = ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) comprising

  • (i)

    a parametrized family of probability measures (νx)xΩ1+(N)subscriptsubscript𝜈𝑥𝑥Ωsubscriptsuperscript1superscript𝑁(\nu_{x})_{x\in\Omega}\subseteq\mathcal{M}^{+}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT );

  • (ii)

    a positive finite measure λν+(Ω¯)subscript𝜆𝜈subscript¯Ω\lambda_{\nu}\in\mathcal{M}_{+}(\overline{\Omega})italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG );

  • (iii)

    a parametrized family of probability measures (νx)xΩ¯1+(𝔹N)subscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝜈𝑥𝑥¯Ωsubscriptsuperscript1superscript𝔹𝑁(\nu^{\infty}_{x})_{x\in\overline{\Omega}}\subseteq\mathcal{M}^{+}_{1}(% \partial\mathbb{B}^{N})( italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ blackboard_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) (𝔹Nsuperscript𝔹𝑁\partial\mathbb{B}^{N}∂ blackboard_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denotes the unit sphere in Nsuperscript𝑁\mathbb{R}^{N}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT);

  • (iv)

    the map xνxmaps-to𝑥subscript𝜈𝑥x\mapsto\nu_{x}italic_x ↦ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is weakly* measurable with respect to Nsuperscript𝑁\mathcal{L}^{N}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, i.e., the function xνx,f(x,)maps-to𝑥subscript𝜈𝑥𝑓𝑥x\mapsto\langle\nu_{x},f(x,\cdot)\rangleitalic_x ↦ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_f ( italic_x , ⋅ ) ⟩ is Nsuperscript𝑁\mathcal{L}^{N}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-measurable for all bounded Borel functions f:Ω×N:𝑓Ωsuperscript𝑁f:\Omega\times\mathbb{R}^{N}\to\mathbb{R}italic_f : roman_Ω × blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_R;

  • (v)

    The map xνxmaps-to𝑥subscriptsuperscript𝜈𝑥x\mapsto\nu^{\infty}_{x}italic_x ↦ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is weakly* measurable with respect to λνsubscript𝜆𝜈\lambda_{\nu}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT;

  • (vi)

    xνx,||L1(Ω)x\mapsto\langle\nu_{x},|\cdot|\rangle\in L^{1}(\Omega)italic_x ↦ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , | ⋅ | ⟩ ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ).

By Y(Ω;N)𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁Y(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) we denote the set of all such generalized Young measures. The parametrized measure (νx)subscript𝜈𝑥(\nu_{x})( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is called the oscillation measure, the measure λνsubscript𝜆𝜈\lambda_{\nu}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the concentration measure, and (νx)subscriptsuperscript𝜈𝑥(\nu^{\infty}_{x})( italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is the concentration-angle measure.

The duality pairing λ,fdelimited-⟨⟩𝜆𝑓\langle\langle\lambda,f\rangle\rangle⟨ ⟨ italic_λ , italic_f ⟩ ⟩ for λY(Ω;N)𝜆𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁\lambda\in Y(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_λ ∈ italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and f(Ω;N)𝑓Ωsuperscript𝑁f\in\mathcal{E}(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_f ∈ caligraphic_E ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is defined via

λ,fdelimited-⟨⟩𝜆𝑓\displaystyle\left\langle{\left\langle{\lambda,f}\right\rangle}\right\rangle⟨ ⟨ italic_λ , italic_f ⟩ ⟩ :=Ωνx,f(x,)𝑑x+Ω¯νx,f(x,)𝑑λν(x)assignabsentsubscriptΩsubscript𝜈𝑥𝑓𝑥differential-d𝑥subscript¯Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝜈𝑥superscript𝑓𝑥differential-dsubscript𝜆𝜈𝑥\displaystyle:=\int\limits_{\Omega}{\left\langle{{\nu_{x}},f(x,\cdot)}\right% \rangle dx}+\int\limits_{\overline{\Omega}}{\left\langle{\nu_{x}^{\infty},{f^{% \infty}}(x,\cdot)}\right\rangle d{\lambda_{\nu}}(x)}:= ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_f ( italic_x , ⋅ ) ⟩ italic_d italic_x + ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x , ⋅ ) ⟩ italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x )
=ΩNf(x,A)𝑑νx(A)𝑑x+Ω¯𝔹Nf(x,)𝑑νx(A)𝑑λν(x).absentsubscriptΩsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓𝑥𝐴differential-dsubscript𝜈𝑥𝐴differential-d𝑥subscript¯Ωsubscriptsuperscript𝔹𝑁superscript𝑓𝑥differential-dsuperscriptsubscript𝜈𝑥𝐴differential-dsubscript𝜆𝜈𝑥\displaystyle=\int\limits_{\Omega}{\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^{N}}}{f(x,A)d{\nu_% {x}}\left(A\right)}dx}+\int\limits_{\overline{\Omega}}{\int\limits_{\partial{% \mathbb{B}^{N}}}{{f^{\infty}}(x,\cdot)d\nu_{x}^{\infty}\left(A\right)}d{% \lambda_{\nu}}(x)}.= ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x , italic_A ) italic_d italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) italic_d italic_x + ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ blackboard_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x , ⋅ ) italic_d italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A ) italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) .

The space Y(Ω;N)𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁Y(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of Young measures can be considered as a part of the dual space (Ω;N)superscriptΩsuperscript𝑁\mathcal{E}(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})^{*}caligraphic_E ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (the inclusion is strict since, for instance, frΩf(x,A0)𝑑xmaps-to𝑓𝑟subscriptΩ𝑓𝑥subscript𝐴0differential-d𝑥f\mapsto r\int\limits_{\Omega}{f(x,A_{0})dx}italic_f ↦ italic_r ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x , italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_x lies in (Ω;N)Y(Ω;N)superscriptΩsuperscript𝑁𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁\mathcal{E}(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})^{*}\setminus Y(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})caligraphic_E ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∖ italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) whenever r1𝑟1r\neq 1italic_r ≠ 1 and A0Nsubscript𝐴0superscript𝑁A_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT). This embedding gives rise to a weak* topology on Y(Ω;N)𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁Y(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and so we say that (λj)Y(Ω;N)subscript𝜆𝑗𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁(\lambda_{j})\subseteq Y(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⊆ italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) (where λj:=(νxj,λνj,νx,j\lambda_{j}:=(\nu^{j}_{x},\lambda_{\nu_{j}},{\nu}_{x}^{\infty,j}italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ( italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ , italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) weakly* converges to λY(Ω;N)𝜆𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁\lambda\in Y(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_λ ∈ italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), in symbols λjλsuperscriptsubscript𝜆𝑗𝜆\lambda_{j}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle*}}{{\rightharpoondown}}\lambdaitalic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG ⇁ end_ARG start_ARG ∗ end_ARG end_RELOP italic_λ, if λj,fλ,fdelimited-⟨⟩subscript𝜆𝑗𝑓delimited-⟨⟩𝜆𝑓\langle\langle\lambda_{j},f\rangle\rangle\to\langle\langle\lambda,f\rangle\rangle⟨ ⟨ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_f ⟩ ⟩ → ⟨ ⟨ italic_λ , italic_f ⟩ ⟩ for all f(Ω;N)𝑓Ωsuperscript𝑁f\in\mathcal{E}(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_f ∈ caligraphic_E ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). The set Y(Ω;N)𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁Y(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is topologically weakly*-closed in (Ω;N)superscriptΩsuperscript𝑁\mathcal{E}(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})^{*}caligraphic_E ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

The main compactness result in the space Y(Ω;N)𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁Y(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is listed as follows.

Lemma 9 (Corollary 2, 2010Characterization ).

Let (λj)Y(Ω;N)subscript𝜆𝑗𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁(\lambda_{j})\subseteq Y(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⊆ italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) be a sequence such that

  • (i)

    the functions xνxj,||x\mapsto\langle\nu_{x}^{j},|\cdot|\rangleitalic_x ↦ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , | ⋅ | ⟩ are uniformly bounded in L1(Ω)superscript𝐿1ΩL^{1}(\Omega)italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω );

  • (ii)

    the sequence (λνj(Ω¯))subscript𝜆subscript𝜈𝑗¯Ω(\lambda_{\nu_{j}}(\overline{\Omega}))( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) ) is uniformly bounded.

Then, (λj)subscript𝜆𝑗(\lambda_{j})( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is weakly* sequentially relatively compact in Y(Ω;N)𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁Y(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), i.e., there exists λY(Ω;N)𝜆𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁\lambda\in Y(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_λ ∈ italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and a subsequence of (λj)subscript𝜆𝑗(\lambda_{j})( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) (not relabeled) such that λjλsuperscriptsubscript𝜆𝑗𝜆\lambda_{j}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle*}}{{\rightharpoondown}}\lambdaitalic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG ⇁ end_ARG start_ARG ∗ end_ARG end_RELOP italic_λ.

Next, we define the set GY(Ω;N)𝐺𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁GY(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_G italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of generalized gradient Young measures as the collection of the generalized Young measures λY(Ω;N)𝜆𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁\lambda\in Y(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_λ ∈ italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) with the property that there exists a norm-bounded sequence (uj)BV(Ω)subscript𝑢𝑗𝐵𝑉Ω(u_{j})\subseteq BV(\Omega)( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⊆ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) such that the sequence (Duj)𝐷subscript𝑢𝑗(Du_{j})( italic_D italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) generates λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ, denoted as DujYλsuperscript𝑌𝐷subscript𝑢𝑗𝜆Du_{j}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle Y}}{{\to}}\lambdaitalic_D italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG → end_ARG start_ARG italic_Y end_ARG end_RELOP italic_λ, meaning that

Ωf(x,uj(x))𝑑x+Ω¯f(x,Dsuj|Dsuj|)d|Dsuj|λ,fsubscriptΩ𝑓𝑥subscript𝑢𝑗𝑥differential-d𝑥subscript¯Ωsuperscript𝑓𝑥superscript𝐷𝑠subscript𝑢𝑗superscript𝐷𝑠subscript𝑢𝑗𝑑superscript𝐷𝑠subscript𝑢𝑗delimited-⟨⟩𝜆𝑓\int\limits_{\Omega}{f(x,\nabla{u_{j}}(x))dx}+\int\limits_{\overline{\Omega}}{% {f^{\infty}}(x,\frac{{{D^{s}}{u_{j}}}}{{\left|{{D^{s}}{u_{j}}}\right|}})d}% \left|{{D^{s}}{u_{j}}}\right|\to\left\langle{\left\langle{\lambda,f}\right% \rangle}\right\rangle∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( italic_x , ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) ) italic_d italic_x + ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x , divide start_ARG italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | end_ARG ) italic_d | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | → ⟨ ⟨ italic_λ , italic_f ⟩ ⟩

for all f(Ω;N)𝑓Ωsuperscript𝑁f\in\mathcal{E}(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_f ∈ caligraphic_E ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

The following lemma can been found in 2014A , see also 2010Characterization .

Lemma 10 (Theorem 9, 2010Characterization ).

Let λY(Ω;N)𝜆𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁\lambda\in Y(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_λ ∈ italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) be a generalized Young measure with λν(Ω)=0subscript𝜆𝜈Ω0\lambda_{\nu}(\partial\Omega)=0italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ roman_Ω ) = 0. Then λGY(Ω;N)𝜆𝐺𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁\lambda\in GY(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_λ ∈ italic_G italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), if and only if there exists uBV(Ω)𝑢𝐵𝑉Ωu\in BV(\Omega)italic_u ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) with

Du=ν,INΩ+ν,IλνΩ in (Ω),𝐷𝑢𝜈𝐼superscript𝑁Ωsuperscript𝜈𝐼subscript𝜆𝜈Ω in Ω\displaystyle Du=\left\langle{\nu,I}\right\rangle{\mathcal{L}^{N}}\llcorner% \Omega+\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},I}\right\rangle{\lambda_{\nu}}\llcorner% \Omega\quad\text{ in }\;\mathcal{M}(\Omega),italic_D italic_u = ⟨ italic_ν , italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω in caligraphic_M ( roman_Ω ) ,

and for all quasiconvex gC(N)𝑔𝐶superscript𝑁g\in C(\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_g ∈ italic_C ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) with linear growth at infinity the following Jensen-type inequalities hold:

  • (i)
    g(ν,I+ν,IdλνdN)ν,g+ν,gdλνdN,𝑔𝜈𝐼superscript𝜈𝐼𝑑subscript𝜆𝜈𝑑superscript𝑁𝜈𝑔superscript𝜈superscript𝑔𝑑subscript𝜆𝜈𝑑superscript𝑁g\left({\left\langle{\nu,I}\right\rangle+\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},I}\right% \rangle\dfrac{{d{\lambda_{\nu}}}}{{d{\mathcal{L}^{N}}}}}\right)\leqslant\left% \langle{\nu,g}\right\rangle+\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},{g^{\sharp}}}\right% \rangle\dfrac{{d{\lambda_{\nu}}}}{{d{\mathcal{L}^{N}}}},italic_g ( ⟨ italic_ν , italic_I ⟩ + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ divide start_ARG italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_d caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ⩽ ⟨ italic_ν , italic_g ⟩ + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ♯ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ divide start_ARG italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_d caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,

    for Nsuperscript𝑁\mathcal{L}^{N}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-a.e. xΩ𝑥Ωx\in\Omegaitalic_x ∈ roman_Ω, where dλνdN𝑑subscript𝜆𝜈𝑑superscript𝑁\dfrac{{d{\lambda_{\nu}}}}{{d{\mathcal{L}^{N}}}}divide start_ARG italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_d caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG is the Radon-Nikodým derivative of the measure λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ with respect to the Lebesgue measure Nsuperscript𝑁\mathcal{L}^{N}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT;

  • (ii)
    g(ν,I)ν,gsuperscript𝑔superscript𝜈𝐼superscript𝜈superscript𝑔{g^{\sharp}}\left({\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},I}\right\rangle}\right)% \leqslant\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},{g^{\sharp}}}\right\rangleitalic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ♯ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ ) ⩽ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ♯ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩

    for λνssubscriptsuperscript𝜆𝑠𝜈\lambda^{s}_{\nu}italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-a.e. xΩ𝑥Ωx\in\Omegaitalic_x ∈ roman_Ω, where λνssubscriptsuperscript𝜆𝑠𝜈\lambda^{s}_{\nu}italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the singular part of λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ with respect to the Lebesgue measure Nsuperscript𝑁\mathcal{L}^{N}caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Given uBV(Ω)𝑢𝐵𝑉Ωu\in BV(\Omega)italic_u ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ), denote σDu:=(δu,|Dsu|,δp)GY(Ω;N)assignsubscript𝜎𝐷𝑢subscript𝛿𝑢superscript𝐷𝑠𝑢subscript𝛿𝑝𝐺𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁\sigma_{Du}:=(\delta_{\nabla u},|D^{s}u|,\delta_{p})\in GY(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{% N})italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_D italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := ( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u | , italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_G italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and p:=Dsu|Dsu|L1(Ω,|Dsu|;𝔹N)assign𝑝superscript𝐷𝑠𝑢superscript𝐷𝑠𝑢superscript𝐿1Ωsuperscript𝐷𝑠𝑢superscript𝔹𝑁p:=\frac{{{D^{s}}u}}{{|{{D^{s}}u}|}}\in{L^{1}}\left({\Omega,|{{D^{s}}u}|;% \partial{\mathbb{B}^{N}}}\right)italic_p := divide start_ARG italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u end_ARG start_ARG | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u | end_ARG ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω , | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u | ; ∂ blackboard_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). δAsubscript𝛿𝐴\delta_{A}italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denotes the Dirac measure on Nsuperscript𝑁\mathbb{R}^{N}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT giving unit mass to the point AN𝐴superscript𝑁A\in\mathbb{R}^{N}italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

In the rest of this paper, uΩsuperscript𝑢Ωu^{\Omega}italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT represents the trace of uBV(Ω)𝑢𝐵𝑉Ωu\in BV(\Omega)italic_u ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) on ΩΩ\partial\Omega∂ roman_Ω.

Definition 5.

A generalized Young measure valued solution of (𝒫)𝒫(\mathcal{P})( caligraphic_P ) is a pair (u,λ)𝑢𝜆(u,\lambda)( italic_u , italic_λ ), if uL(0,T;BV(Ω)L2(Ω))𝑢superscript𝐿0𝑇𝐵𝑉Ωsuperscript𝐿2Ωu\in{L^{\infty}}(0,T;BV(\Omega)\cap L^{2}(\Omega))italic_u ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 , italic_T ; italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) ∩ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) ), utL2(ΩT)𝑢𝑡superscript𝐿2subscriptΩ𝑇\dfrac{\partial u}{{\partial t}}\in L^{2}(\Omega_{T})divide start_ARG ∂ italic_u end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t end_ARG ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), λ=(νx,t,λν,νx,t)xΩY(Ω;N)𝜆subscriptsubscript𝜈𝑥𝑡subscript𝜆𝜈subscriptsuperscript𝜈𝑥𝑡𝑥Ω𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁\lambda=(\nu_{x,t},\lambda_{\nu},\nu^{\infty}_{x,t})_{x\in\Omega}\in Y(\Omega;% \mathbb{R}^{N})italic_λ = ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x , italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x ∈ roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), ||,λL(0,T)\langle\langle|\cdot|,\lambda\rangle\rangle\in L^{\infty}(0,T)⟨ ⟨ | ⋅ | , italic_λ ⟩ ⟩ ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 0 , italic_T ), and for almost all t(0,T)𝑡0𝑇t\in(0,T)italic_t ∈ ( 0 , italic_T ) they satisfy

ut=divν,qin𝒟(Ω),subscript𝑢𝑡div𝜈qinsuperscript𝒟Ω\displaystyle u_{t}=\rm{div}\langle\nu,\overrightarrow{q}\rangle\quad\text{in}% \;\mathcal{D}^{\prime}(\Omega),italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_div ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG roman_q end_ARG ⟩ in caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) , (33)
Du=ν,INΩ+ν,IλνΩin(Ω),𝐷𝑢𝜈𝐼superscript𝑁Ωsuperscript𝜈𝐼subscript𝜆𝜈ΩinΩ\displaystyle Du=\left\langle{\nu,I}\right\rangle{\mathcal{L}^{N}}\llcorner% \Omega+\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},I}\right\rangle{\lambda_{\nu}}\llcorner% \Omega\quad\text{in}\;\mathcal{M}(\Omega),italic_D italic_u = ⟨ italic_ν , italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω in caligraphic_M ( roman_Ω ) , (34)

and

ν,IλνΩ=(uΩn)N1Ωin(Ω¯),superscript𝜈𝐼subscript𝜆𝜈Ωtensor-productsuperscript𝑢Ω𝑛superscript𝑁1Ωin¯Ω\displaystyle\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},I}\right\rangle{\lambda_{\nu}}% \llcorner\partial\Omega=\left({-u^{\Omega}\otimes\vec{n}}\right){\mathcal{H}^{% N-1}}\llcorner\partial\Omega\quad\text{in}\;\mathcal{M}(\overline{\Omega}),⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⌞ ∂ roman_Ω = ( - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ over→ start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ ∂ roman_Ω in caligraphic_M ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) , (35)
u(x,0)=u0(x),xΩ.formulae-sequence𝑢𝑥0subscript𝑢0𝑥𝑥Ω\displaystyle u(x,0)={u_{0}}(x),\;x\in\Omega.italic_u ( italic_x , 0 ) = italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) , italic_x ∈ roman_Ω . (36)

Furthermore,

suppν{Φ=Φ},supp𝜈ΦsuperscriptΦabsent\displaystyle{\mathrm{supp}}\;\nu\subseteq\left\{\Phi=\Phi^{**}\right\},roman_supp italic_ν ⊆ { roman_Φ = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } , (37)

and the (JF) inequality

ν,q(ν,INΩ+ν,IλνΩ¯)𝜈𝑞𝜈𝐼superscript𝑁Ωsuperscript𝜈𝐼subscript𝜆𝜈¯Ω\displaystyle\left\langle{\nu,\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\cdot\left(\left% \langle{\nu,I}\right\rangle{\mathcal{L}^{N}}\llcorner\Omega+\left\langle{{\nu^% {\infty}},I}\right\rangle{\lambda_{\nu}}\llcorner\overline{\Omega}\right)⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⋅ ( ⟨ italic_ν , italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⌞ over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG )
\displaystyle\geq ν,qINΩ+ν,(qI)λνΩ¯𝜈𝑞𝐼superscript𝑁Ωsuperscript𝜈superscript𝑞𝐼subscript𝜆𝜈¯Ω\displaystyle\left\langle{\nu,\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}\right\rangle{\mathcal% {L}^{N}}\llcorner\Omega+\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I% )^{\infty}}\right\rangle{\lambda_{\nu}}\llcorner\overline{\Omega}⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⌞ over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG (38)

holds in (Ω¯)¯Ω\mathcal{M}(\overline{\Omega})caligraphic_M ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ).

Remark 1.

If (u,λ)𝑢𝜆(u,\lambda)( italic_u , italic_λ ) is a generalized Young measure solution, and for almost all t(0,T)𝑡0𝑇t\in(0,T)italic_t ∈ ( 0 , italic_T ), λGY(Ω;N)𝜆𝐺𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁\lambda\in GY(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})italic_λ ∈ italic_G italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), we call (u,λ)𝑢𝜆(u,\lambda)( italic_u , italic_λ ) is a generalized gradient Young measure solution.

3 Existence Results

In this section, we are ready to prove the existence of generalized Young measure solutions of (𝒫)𝒫(\mathcal{P})( caligraphic_P ).

We first introduce the following assumptions (SH):
(SH1)subscriptSH1\rm{(SH_{1})}( roman_SH start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ΦC1(N)Φsuperscript𝐶1superscript𝑁\Phi\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})roman_Φ ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), Φ(0)=infANΦ(A)Φ0subscriptinfimum𝐴superscript𝑁Φ𝐴\Phi(0)=\inf\limits_{A\in\mathbb{R}^{N}}\Phi(A)roman_Φ ( 0 ) = roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ ( italic_A ) and Φ(Ω;N)ΦΩsuperscript𝑁\Phi\in\mathcal{E}(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})roman_Φ ∈ caligraphic_E ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).
(SH2)subscriptSH2\rm(SH_{2})( roman_SH start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ΦΦ\Phiroman_Φ and q=Φ𝑞Φ\overrightarrow{q}=\nabla\Phiover→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG = ∇ roman_Φ satisfy the structure conditions:

(λ|A|1)+Φ(A)Λ|A|+1,AN,formulae-sequencesubscript𝜆𝐴1Φ𝐴Λ𝐴1for-all𝐴superscript𝑁\displaystyle{\left({\lambda|A|-1}\right)_{+}}\leqslant\Phi(A)\leqslant\Lambda% |A|+1,\;\forall A\in\mathbb{R}^{N},( italic_λ | italic_A | - 1 ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⩽ roman_Φ ( italic_A ) ⩽ roman_Λ | italic_A | + 1 , ∀ italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (39)

and

|q(A)|Λ,AN,formulae-sequence𝑞𝐴Λfor-all𝐴superscript𝑁\displaystyle|\overrightarrow{q}(A)|\leqslant\Lambda,\;\;\forall A\in\mathbb{R% }^{N},| over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_A ) | ⩽ roman_Λ , ∀ italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (40)

for some 0<λΛ0𝜆Λ0<\lambda\leq\Lambda0 < italic_λ ≤ roman_Λ.
(SH3)subscriptSH3\rm(SH_{3})( roman_SH start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) qI(Ω;N)𝑞𝐼Ωsuperscript𝑁\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I\in\mathcal{E}(\Omega;\mathbb{R}^{N})over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ∈ caligraphic_E ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) and (qI)=Φ=(Φ)superscript𝑞𝐼superscriptΦsuperscriptsuperscriptΦabsent(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)^{\infty}={\Phi}^{\infty}=(\Phi^{**})^{\infty}( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.
(SH4)subscriptSH4\rm(SH_{4})( roman_SH start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) η𝔹Nfor-all𝜂superscript𝔹𝑁\forall\eta\in\partial\mathbb{B}^{N}∀ italic_η ∈ ∂ blackboard_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, ξ{ARNΦ(A)=Φ(A)}for-all𝜉conditional-set𝐴superscript𝑅𝑁superscriptΦabsent𝐴Φ𝐴\forall\xi\in\left\{{A\in{R^{N}}\mid{{\Phi^{**}}(A)=\Phi(A)}}\right\}∀ italic_ξ ∈ { italic_A ∈ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∣ roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A ) = roman_Φ ( italic_A ) },

q(ξ)η(qI)(η).𝑞𝜉𝜂superscript𝑞𝐼𝜂\overrightarrow{q}(\xi)\cdot\eta\leqslant{\left({\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}% \right)^{\infty}}(\eta).over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_ξ ) ⋅ italic_η ⩽ ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_η ) .
Theorem 1.

Under the assumptions of (SH). Given u0BV(Ω)L(Ω)subscript𝑢0𝐵𝑉Ωsuperscript𝐿Ωu_{0}\in BV(\Omega)\cap L^{\infty}(\Omega)italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) ∩ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) with a trace of zero on ΩΩ\partial\Omega∂ roman_Ω, there exists a generalized Young measure solution of (𝒫)𝒫(\mathcal{P})( caligraphic_P ) for every T>0𝑇0T>0italic_T > 0.

Proof: According to Lemma 3, for almost all t(0,T)𝑡0𝑇t\in(0,T)italic_t ∈ ( 0 , italic_T ), we can extract from {uεn}superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛\{u^{\varepsilon_{n}}\}{ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } and {νεn}superscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛\{\nu^{\varepsilon_{n}}\}{ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT }, a subsequence (still labeled by {uεn}superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛\{u^{\varepsilon_{n}}\}{ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } and {νεn}superscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛\{\nu^{\varepsilon_{n}}\}{ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT }) such that

uεnuinL2(Ω),superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛𝑢insuperscript𝐿2Ω\displaystyle{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}\to u\quad\text{in}\;{L^{2}}(\Omega),italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_u in italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) , (41)
uεnuinL(Ω),superscriptsuperscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛𝑢insuperscript𝐿Ω\displaystyle{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle*}}{{% \rightharpoonup}}u\quad\text{in}\;{L^{\infty}}(\Omega),italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG ⇀ end_ARG start_ARG ∗ end_ARG end_RELOP italic_u in italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) , (42)
utεnutinL2(Ω),superscriptsubscript𝑢𝑡subscript𝜀𝑛subscript𝑢𝑡insuperscript𝐿2Ω\displaystyle u_{t}^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}{\rightharpoonup}{u_{t}}\quad\text{in}% \;{L^{2}}(\Omega),italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⇀ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) , (43)
u~εnNΩ~Du~in(Ω~),superscriptsuperscript~𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝑁~Ω𝐷~𝑢in~Ω\displaystyle\nabla\tilde{u}^{\varepsilon_{n}}{\mathcal{L}^{N}}\llcorner\tilde% {\Omega}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle*}}{{\rightharpoondown}}D\tilde{u}\quad\text{in% }\;\mathcal{M}(\tilde{\Omega}),∇ over~ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG ⇁ end_ARG start_ARG ∗ end_ARG end_RELOP italic_D over~ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG in caligraphic_M ( over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) , (44)
εn|uεn|0inL2(Ω),subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛0insuperscript𝐿2Ω\displaystyle{\varepsilon_{n}}|{\nabla{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}}|\to 0\quad\text% {in}\;{L^{2}}(\Omega),italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | → 0 in italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) , (45)

and

νεn,qν,qinL(Ω;N),superscriptsuperscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝑞𝜈𝑞insuperscript𝐿Ωsuperscript𝑁\displaystyle\left\langle{{\nu^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}},\overrightarrow{q}}\right% \rangle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle*}}{{\rightharpoonup}}\left\langle{\nu,% \overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\quad\text{in}\;{L^{\infty}}(\Omega;\mathbb{R}% ^{N}),⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG ⇀ end_ARG start_ARG ∗ end_ARG end_RELOP ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ in italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , (46)
νεn,qINΩν,qINΩ+superscriptsuperscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝑞𝐼superscript𝑁Ωlimit-from𝜈𝑞𝐼superscript𝑁Ω\displaystyle\left\langle{{\nu^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}},\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}% \right\rangle{\mathcal{L}^{N}}\llcorner\Omega\stackrel{{\scriptstyle*}}{{% \rightharpoondown}}\left\langle{\nu,\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}\right\rangle{% \mathcal{L}^{N}}\llcorner\Omega+⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG ⇁ end_ARG start_ARG ∗ end_ARG end_RELOP ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω +
ν,(qI)λνin(Ω¯),superscript𝜈superscript𝑞𝐼subscript𝜆𝜈in¯Ω\displaystyle\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},{{(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)}^{% \infty}}}\right\rangle{\lambda_{\nu}}\quad\text{in}\;\mathcal{M}(\overline{% \Omega}),⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in caligraphic_M ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) , (47)
λεnλinY(Ω;N),superscriptsuperscript𝜆subscript𝜀𝑛𝜆in𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁\displaystyle{\lambda^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle*}}{{% \rightharpoondown}}\lambda\quad\text{in}\;Y\left({\Omega;{\mathbb{R}^{N}}}% \right),italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG ⇁ end_ARG start_ARG ∗ end_ARG end_RELOP italic_λ in italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , (48)

where λεn:=(νεn,0,δ0)assignsuperscript𝜆subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛0subscript𝛿0\lambda^{\varepsilon_{n}}:=(\nu^{\varepsilon_{n}},0,\delta_{0})italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT := ( italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 0 , italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and λ=(ν,λν,ν)𝜆𝜈subscript𝜆𝜈superscript𝜈\lambda=(\nu,\lambda_{\nu},\nu^{\infty})italic_λ = ( italic_ν , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

We divide the proof into the following steps.

Step 1. For all φ𝒟(Ω)𝜑𝒟Ω\varphi\in\mathcal{D}(\Omega)italic_φ ∈ caligraphic_D ( roman_Ω ),

Ωεnνεn,Iφdx=Ωuεnφdx0,n,formulae-sequencesubscriptΩsubscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝐼𝜑𝑑𝑥subscriptΩsuperscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛𝜑𝑑𝑥0𝑛\int\limits_{\Omega}{{\varepsilon_{n}}\left\langle{{\nu^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}},I% }\right\rangle\cdot\nabla\varphi dx}=\int\limits_{\Omega}{\nabla{u^{{% \varepsilon_{n}}}}\cdot\nabla\varphi dx}\to 0,\;n\to\infty,∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ ⋅ ∇ italic_φ italic_d italic_x = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ ∇ italic_φ italic_d italic_x → 0 , italic_n → ∞ ,

and

Ωutεnφ𝑑x=Ωνεn,q+εnIφdx.subscriptΩsuperscriptsubscript𝑢𝑡subscript𝜀𝑛𝜑differential-d𝑥subscriptΩsuperscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝑞subscript𝜀𝑛𝐼𝜑𝑑𝑥\int\limits_{\Omega}{u_{t}^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}\varphi dx}=-\int\limits_{\Omega% }{\left\langle{{\nu^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}},\overrightarrow{q}+{\varepsilon_{n}}I% }\right\rangle\cdot\nabla\varphi dx}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_φ italic_d italic_x = - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG + italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I ⟩ ⋅ ∇ italic_φ italic_d italic_x .

Letting n𝑛n\to\inftyitalic_n → ∞, we have

Ωutφ𝑑x=Ων,qφdx,subscriptΩsubscript𝑢𝑡𝜑differential-d𝑥subscriptΩ𝜈𝑞𝜑𝑑𝑥\int\limits_{\Omega}{{u_{t}}\varphi dx}=-\int\limits_{\Omega}{\left\langle{\nu% ,\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\cdot\nabla\varphi dx},∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ italic_d italic_x = - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⋅ ∇ italic_φ italic_d italic_x ,

i.e.,

ut=divν,qin𝒟(Ω).subscript𝑢𝑡div𝜈qinsuperscript𝒟Ω\displaystyle u_{t}=\rm{div}\langle\nu,\overrightarrow{q}\rangle\quad\text{in}% \;\mathcal{D}^{\prime}(\Omega).italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_div ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG roman_q end_ARG ⟩ in caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) .

Since uεnH01(Ω)superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛subscriptsuperscript𝐻10Ωu^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}\in H^{1}_{0}(\Omega)italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ), then

Du~εn=νεn,INΩ.𝐷superscript~𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝐼superscript𝑁ΩD{{\tilde{u}}^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}=\left\langle{{\nu^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}},I}% \right\rangle{\mathcal{L}^{N}}\llcorner\Omega.italic_D over~ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω .

As

Du~εnDu~in(Ω~),superscript𝐷superscript~𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛𝐷~𝑢in~ΩD{\tilde{u}}^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle*}}{{\rightharpoondown}% }D{\tilde{u}}\quad\text{in}\;\mathcal{M}(\tilde{{\Omega}}),italic_D over~ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG ⇁ end_ARG start_ARG ∗ end_ARG end_RELOP italic_D over~ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG in caligraphic_M ( over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) ,

and

νεn,INΩν,INΩ+ν,Iλνin(Ω¯),superscriptsuperscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝐼superscript𝑁Ω𝜈𝐼superscript𝑁Ωsuperscript𝜈𝐼subscript𝜆𝜈in¯Ω\displaystyle\left\langle{{\nu^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}},I}\right\rangle{\mathcal{L% }^{N}}\llcorner\Omega\stackrel{{\scriptstyle*}}{{\rightharpoondown}}\left% \langle{\nu,I}\right\rangle{\mathcal{L}^{N}}\llcorner\Omega+\left\langle{{\nu^% {\infty}},{I}}\right\rangle{\lambda_{\nu}}\;\text{in}\;\mathcal{M}(\overline{% \Omega}),⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG ⇁ end_ARG start_ARG ∗ end_ARG end_RELOP ⟨ italic_ν , italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in caligraphic_M ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) , (49)

we obtain

Du~=ν,INΩ+ν,Iλνin(Ω~).𝐷~𝑢𝜈𝐼superscript𝑁Ωsuperscript𝜈𝐼subscript𝜆𝜈in~Ω\displaystyle D{\tilde{u}}=\left\langle{\nu,I}\right\rangle{\mathcal{L}^{N}}% \llcorner\Omega+\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},{I}}\right\rangle{\lambda_{\nu}}% \quad\text{in}\;\mathcal{M}(\tilde{{\Omega}}).italic_D over~ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG = ⟨ italic_ν , italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in caligraphic_M ( over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) . (50)

Therefore,

Du=ν,INΩ+ν,IλνΩin(Ω),𝐷𝑢𝜈𝐼superscript𝑁Ωsuperscript𝜈𝐼subscript𝜆𝜈ΩinΩ\displaystyle Du=\left\langle{\nu,I}\right\rangle{\mathcal{L}^{N}}\llcorner% \Omega+\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},I}\right\rangle{\lambda_{\nu}}\llcorner% \Omega\quad\text{in}\;\mathcal{M}(\Omega),italic_D italic_u = ⟨ italic_ν , italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω in caligraphic_M ( roman_Ω ) , (51)

and by boundary trace theorem (see (MR1857292, , Theorem 3.87)),

Du~Ω=ν,IλνΩ=(uΩn)N1Ωin(Ω¯).formulae-sequence𝐷~𝑢Ωsuperscript𝜈𝐼subscript𝜆𝜈Ωtensor-productsuperscript𝑢Ω𝑛superscript𝑁1Ωin¯Ω\displaystyle D{\tilde{u}}\llcorner\partial\Omega=\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},% I}\right\rangle{\lambda_{\nu}}\llcorner\partial\Omega=\left({-u^{\Omega}% \otimes\vec{n}}\right){\mathcal{H}^{N-1}}\llcorner\partial\Omega\quad\text{in}% \;\mathcal{M}(\overline{\Omega}).italic_D over~ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG ⌞ ∂ roman_Ω = ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⌞ ∂ roman_Ω = ( - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ over→ start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ ∂ roman_Ω in caligraphic_M ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) . (52)

Step 2. Prove

supp ν{Φ=Φ}.supp 𝜈ΦsuperscriptΦabsent\text{supp }\nu\subseteq\left\{\Phi=\Phi^{**}\right\}.supp italic_ν ⊆ { roman_Φ = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } .

Set

Bε:={AN(Φ+ε|I|2)(A)=(Φ+ε|I|2)(A)},assignsubscript𝐵𝜀conditional-set𝐴superscript𝑁superscriptΦ𝜀superscript𝐼2absent𝐴Φ𝜀superscript𝐼2𝐴{B_{\varepsilon}}:=\left\{{A\in{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\mid{{{\left({\Phi+\varepsilon{% {|I|}^{2}}}\right)}^{**}}(A)=\left({\Phi+\varepsilon{{|I|}^{2}}}\right)(A)}}% \right\},italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := { italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∣ ( roman_Φ + italic_ε | italic_I | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A ) = ( roman_Φ + italic_ε | italic_I | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( italic_A ) } ,

and

B:={ARN:Φ(A)=Φ(A)}.assign𝐵conditional-set𝐴superscript𝑅𝑁superscriptΦabsent𝐴Φ𝐴B:=\left\{{A\in{R^{N}}:{{\Phi^{**}}(A)=\Phi(A)}}\right\}.italic_B := { italic_A ∈ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A ) = roman_Φ ( italic_A ) } .

By the definition of ΦsuperscriptΦabsent\Phi^{**}roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and (Φ+ε|I|2)superscriptΦ𝜀superscript𝐼2absent{{\left({\Phi+\varepsilon{{|I|}^{2}}}\right)}^{**}}( roman_Φ + italic_ε | italic_I | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we arrive at

Φ+ε|I|2(Φ+ε|I|2)Φ+ε|I|2.superscriptΦabsent𝜀superscript𝐼2superscriptΦ𝜀superscript𝐼2absentΦ𝜀superscript𝐼2{\Phi^{**}}+\varepsilon{|I|^{2}}\leqslant{\left({\Phi+\varepsilon{{|I|}^{2}}}% \right)^{**}}\leqslant\Phi+\varepsilon{|I|^{2}}.roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_ε | italic_I | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⩽ ( roman_Φ + italic_ε | italic_I | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⩽ roman_Φ + italic_ε | italic_I | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Thus, we get BBε𝐵subscript𝐵𝜀B\subseteq B_{\varepsilon}italic_B ⊆ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, for all ε>0𝜀0\varepsilon>0italic_ε > 0.

Similarly, it follows that Bε1Bε2subscript𝐵subscript𝜀1subscript𝐵subscript𝜀2B_{\varepsilon_{1}}\subseteq B_{\varepsilon_{2}}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, for all 0ε1ε20subscript𝜀1subscript𝜀20\leq\varepsilon_{1}\leq\varepsilon_{2}0 ≤ italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Now, assume ε>0BεBnot-subset-ofsubscript𝜀0subscript𝐵𝜀𝐵\mathop{\cap}\limits_{\varepsilon>0}{B_{\varepsilon}}\not\subset B∩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊄ italic_B. Since Bε>0Bε𝐵subscript𝜀0subscript𝐵𝜀B\subset\mathop{\cap}\limits_{\varepsilon>0}{B_{\varepsilon}}italic_B ⊂ ∩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, there exists x0ε>0BεBsubscript𝑥0subscript𝜀0subscript𝐵𝜀𝐵x_{0}\in\mathop{\cap}\limits_{\varepsilon>0}{B_{\varepsilon}}\setminus Bitalic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ ∩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∖ italic_B and δ>0𝛿0\delta>0italic_δ > 0 such that

Φ(x0)>Φ(x0)+2δ.Φsubscript𝑥0superscriptΦabsentsubscript𝑥02𝛿\displaystyle\Phi({x_{0}})>{\Phi^{**}}({x_{0}})+2\delta.roman_Φ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) > roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + 2 italic_δ . (53)

According to Lemma 2, there exist αisubscript𝛼𝑖\alpha_{i}italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, xisubscript𝑥𝑖x_{i}italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, N𝑁Nitalic_N such that

i=1N+1αixi=x0,i=1N+1αi=1,αi0,formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁1subscript𝛼𝑖subscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝑥0formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁1subscript𝛼𝑖1subscript𝛼𝑖0\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N+1}{{\alpha_{i}}{x_{i}}}={x_{0}},\;\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N+1}% {{\alpha_{i}}}=1,\;{\alpha_{i}}\geqslant 0,∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⩾ 0 ,

and

Φ(x0)i=1N+1αiΦ(xi)δ.superscriptΦabsentsubscript𝑥0superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁1subscript𝛼𝑖Φsubscript𝑥𝑖𝛿\displaystyle{\Phi^{**}}({x_{0}})\geqslant\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N+1}{{\alpha_{i}}% \Phi({x_{i}})}-\delta.roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⩾ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - italic_δ . (54)

Observe that

ε>0BεBε,ε>0,formulae-sequencesubscript𝜀0subscript𝐵𝜀subscript𝐵𝜀for-all𝜀0\mathop{\cap}\limits_{\varepsilon>0}{B_{\varepsilon}}\subseteq{B_{\varepsilon}% },\;\forall\varepsilon>0,∩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ∀ italic_ε > 0 ,

one has

(Φ+ε|I|2)(x0)=Φ(x0)+ε|x0|2.superscriptΦ𝜀superscript𝐼2absentsubscript𝑥0Φsubscript𝑥0𝜀superscriptsubscript𝑥02{\left({\Phi+\varepsilon{{|I|}^{2}}}\right)^{**}}({x_{0}})=\Phi({x_{0}})+% \varepsilon{|{{x_{0}}}|^{2}}.( roman_Φ + italic_ε | italic_I | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_Φ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_ε | italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Hence, by (53) and (54), it follows that

i=1N+1(αiΦ(xi)+αiε|xi|2)(Φ+ε|I|2)(x0)=Φ(x0)+ε|x0|2>Φ(x0)+ε|x0|2+2δi=1N+1αiΦ(xi)+ε|x0|2+δ.superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁1subscript𝛼𝑖Φsubscript𝑥𝑖subscript𝛼𝑖𝜀superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑖2superscriptΦ𝜀superscript𝐼2absentsubscript𝑥0Φsubscript𝑥0𝜀superscriptsubscript𝑥02superscriptΦabsentsubscript𝑥0𝜀superscriptsubscript𝑥022𝛿superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁1subscript𝛼𝑖Φsubscript𝑥𝑖𝜀superscriptsubscript𝑥02𝛿\begin{gathered}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N+1}{\left({{\alpha_{i}}\Phi({x_{i}})+{% \alpha_{i}}\varepsilon{{|{{x_{i}}}|}^{2}}}\right)}\hfill\\ \geqslant{\left({\Phi+\varepsilon{{|I|}^{2}}}\right)^{**}}({x_{0}})\hfill\\ =\Phi({x_{0}})+\varepsilon{|{{x_{0}}}|^{2}}\hfill\\ >{\Phi^{**}}({x_{0}})+\varepsilon{|{{x_{0}}}|^{2}}+2\delta\hfill\\ \geqslant\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N+1}{{\alpha_{i}}\Phi({x_{i}})}+\varepsilon{|{{x_{% 0}}}|^{2}}+\delta.\hfill\\ \end{gathered}start_ROW start_CELL ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε | italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ⩾ ( roman_Φ + italic_ε | italic_I | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = roman_Φ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_ε | italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL > roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_ε | italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2 italic_δ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ⩾ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Φ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_ε | italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_δ . end_CELL end_ROW

Then, we obtain

ε(i=1N+1αi|xi|2|x0|2)>δ,ε>0,formulae-sequence𝜀superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁1subscript𝛼𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑖2superscriptsubscript𝑥02𝛿for-all𝜀0\varepsilon\left({\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N+1}{{\alpha_{i}}{{|{{x_{i}}}|}^{2}}}-{{|% {{x_{0}}}|}^{2}}}\right)>\delta,\;\forall\varepsilon>0,italic_ε ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) > italic_δ , ∀ italic_ε > 0 ,

we deduce that it is a contradiction by letting ε0𝜀0\varepsilon\rightarrow 0italic_ε → 0.
Thus,

ε>0Bε=B.subscript𝜀0subscript𝐵𝜀𝐵\mathop{\cap}\limits_{\varepsilon>0}{B_{\varepsilon}}=B.∩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_B .

Moreover, recall that

λεnλinY(Ω;N)superscriptsuperscript𝜆subscript𝜀𝑛𝜆in𝑌Ωsuperscript𝑁{\lambda^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle*}}{{\rightharpoondown}}% \lambda\quad\text{in}\;Y\left({\Omega;{\mathbb{R}^{N}}}\right)italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_RELOP SUPERSCRIPTOP start_ARG ⇁ end_ARG start_ARG ∗ end_ARG end_RELOP italic_λ in italic_Y ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )

and

supp νεBε2.supp superscript𝜈𝜀subscript𝐵𝜀2\displaystyle\text{supp }\nu^{\varepsilon}\subseteq B_{\frac{\varepsilon}{2}}.supp italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊆ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_ε end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Finally, we get

supp ν{Φ=Φ}.supp 𝜈ΦsuperscriptΦabsent\text{supp }\nu\subseteq\left\{\Phi=\Phi^{**}\right\}.supp italic_ν ⊆ { roman_Φ = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } .

Step 3. Since

ut=divν,qin𝒟(Ω),subscript𝑢𝑡div𝜈qinsuperscript𝒟Ω\displaystyle u_{t}=\rm{div}\langle\nu,\overrightarrow{q}\rangle\quad\text{in}% \;\mathcal{D}^{\prime}(\Omega),italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_div ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG roman_q end_ARG ⟩ in caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) ,

with utL2(Ω)subscript𝑢𝑡superscript𝐿2Ω{u_{t}}\in{L^{2}}(\Omega)italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ), we get

ν,qX2(Ω).𝜈𝑞subscript𝑋2Ω\left\langle{\nu,\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\in{X_{2}}(\Omega).⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) .

For any 0φCc(Ω~)0𝜑subscriptsuperscript𝐶𝑐~Ω0\leq\varphi\in C^{\infty}_{c}(\tilde{\Omega})0 ≤ italic_φ ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ), one has

Ω~utεnφuεn𝑑x=Ω~div(νεn,q+εnI)φuεn𝑑xsubscript~Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝑢𝑡subscript𝜀𝑛𝜑superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛differential-d𝑥subscript~Ωdivsuperscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝑞subscript𝜀𝑛𝐼𝜑superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛differential-d𝑥\displaystyle-\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{u_{t}^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}\varphi{u^% {{\varepsilon_{n}}}}dx}=-\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{{\rm div}\left({\left% \langle{{\nu^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}},\overrightarrow{q}+{\varepsilon_{n}}I}\right% \rangle}\right)\varphi{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}dx}- ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_φ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_x = - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_div ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG + italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I ⟩ ) italic_φ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_x
=\displaystyle== Ω~φνεn,q+εnIuεndx+Ω~uεnνεn,q+εnIφdx.subscript~Ω𝜑superscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝑞subscript𝜀𝑛𝐼superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛𝑑𝑥subscript~Ωsuperscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝑞subscript𝜀𝑛𝐼𝜑𝑑𝑥\displaystyle\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\varphi\left\langle{{\nu^{{% \varepsilon_{n}}}},\overrightarrow{q}+{\varepsilon_{n}}I}\right\rangle\cdot% \nabla{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}dx}+\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{{u^{{\varepsilon% _{n}}}}\left\langle{{\nu^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}},\overrightarrow{q}+{\varepsilon_% {n}}I}\right\rangle\cdot\nabla\varphi dx}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG + italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I ⟩ ⋅ ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_x + ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG + italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I ⟩ ⋅ ∇ italic_φ italic_d italic_x . (55)

Observe that by (12) and (16),

Ω~φνεn,q+εnIuεndxsubscript~Ω𝜑superscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝑞subscript𝜀𝑛𝐼superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛𝑑𝑥\displaystyle\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\varphi\left\langle{{\nu^{{% \varepsilon_{n}}}},\overrightarrow{q}+{\varepsilon_{n}}I}\right\rangle\cdot% \nabla{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}dx}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG + italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I ⟩ ⋅ ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_x
=\displaystyle== Ω~φνεn,q+εnIνεn,I𝑑xsubscript~Ω𝜑superscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝑞subscript𝜀𝑛𝐼superscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝐼differential-d𝑥\displaystyle\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\varphi\left\langle{{\nu^{{% \varepsilon_{n}}}},\overrightarrow{q}+{\varepsilon_{n}}I}\right\rangle\cdot% \left\langle{{\nu^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}},I}\right\rangle dx}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG + italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I ⟩ ⋅ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_x
=\displaystyle== Ω~φνεn,qI𝑑x+εnΩ~φ|νεn,I|2𝑑xsubscript~Ω𝜑superscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝑞𝐼differential-d𝑥subscript𝜀𝑛subscript~Ω𝜑superscriptsuperscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝐼2differential-d𝑥\displaystyle\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\varphi\left\langle{{\nu^{{% \varepsilon_{n}}}},\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}\right\rangle dx}+{\varepsilon_{n% }}\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\varphi{{|{\left\langle{{\nu^{{\varepsilon_{n}}% }},I}\right\rangle}|}^{2}}dx}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_x + italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ | ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_x
\displaystyle\geqslant Ω~φνεn,qI𝑑x.subscript~Ω𝜑superscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝑞𝐼differential-d𝑥\displaystyle\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\varphi\left\langle{{\nu^{{% \varepsilon_{n}}}},\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}\right\rangle dx}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_x . (56)

From (41),(43),(45) and (46), we get

Ω~uεnνεn,q+εnIφdxsubscript~Ωsuperscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝑞subscript𝜀𝑛𝐼𝜑𝑑𝑥\displaystyle\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}\left\langle{% {\nu^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}},\overrightarrow{q}+{\varepsilon_{n}}I}\right\rangle% \cdot\nabla\varphi dx}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG + italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I ⟩ ⋅ ∇ italic_φ italic_d italic_x
=\displaystyle== Ω~uεnνεn,qφdx+Ω~uεn(εnuεnφ)𝑑xsubscript~Ωsuperscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝜈subscript𝜀𝑛𝑞𝜑𝑑𝑥subscript~Ωsuperscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛𝜑differential-d𝑥\displaystyle\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}\left\langle{% {\nu^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\cdot\nabla\varphi dx% }+\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}\left({{\varepsilon_{n}}% \nabla{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}\cdot\nabla\varphi}\right)dx}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⋅ ∇ italic_φ italic_d italic_x + ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ ∇ italic_φ ) italic_d italic_x
\displaystyle\to Ω~uν,qφdx,n.subscript~Ω𝑢𝜈𝑞𝜑𝑑𝑥𝑛\displaystyle\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{u\left\langle{\nu,\overrightarrow{q}% }\right\rangle\cdot\nabla\varphi dx},\;\;n\to\infty.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⋅ ∇ italic_φ italic_d italic_x , italic_n → ∞ . (57)

On the other hand, by Green’s formula of Lemma 8, it follows that

Ω~utφu𝑑xsubscript~Ωsubscript𝑢𝑡𝜑𝑢differential-d𝑥\displaystyle-\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{{u_{t}}\varphi udx}- ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ italic_u italic_d italic_x
=\displaystyle== Ω~div(ν,q)φu𝑑xsubscript~Ωdiv𝜈𝑞𝜑𝑢differential-d𝑥\displaystyle-\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{{\rm div}\left({\left\langle{\nu,% \overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle}\right)\varphi udx}- ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_div ( ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ) italic_φ italic_u italic_d italic_x
=\displaystyle== Ω~φ(ν,q,Du~)+Ω~uν,qφdxsubscript~Ω𝜑𝜈𝑞𝐷~𝑢subscript~Ω𝑢𝜈𝑞𝜑𝑑𝑥\displaystyle\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\varphi\left({\left\langle{\nu,% \overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle,D\tilde{u}}\right)}+\int\limits_{\tilde{% \Omega}}{u\left\langle{\nu,\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\cdot\nabla\varphi dx}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ ( ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ , italic_D over~ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG ) + ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⋅ ∇ italic_φ italic_d italic_x
=\displaystyle== Ω~φν,q(ν,Idx+ν,Idλν)+Ω~uν,qφdx.subscript~Ω𝜑𝜈𝑞𝜈𝐼𝑑𝑥superscript𝜈𝐼𝑑subscript𝜆𝜈subscript~Ω𝑢𝜈𝑞𝜑𝑑𝑥\displaystyle\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}\varphi\left\langle{\nu,% \overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\cdot\left({\left\langle{\nu,I}\right\rangle dx% +\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},I}\right\rangle d{\lambda_{\nu}}}\right)+\int% \limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{u\left\langle{\nu,\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle% \cdot\nabla\varphi dx}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⋅ ( ⟨ italic_ν , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_x + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⋅ ∇ italic_φ italic_d italic_x . (58)

Hence, by (55),(56),(57) and (58), letting n𝑛n\to\inftyitalic_n → ∞, we have

Ω~φν,q(ν,Idx+ν,Idλν)subscript~Ω𝜑𝜈𝑞𝜈𝐼𝑑𝑥superscript𝜈𝐼𝑑subscript𝜆𝜈\displaystyle\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}\varphi\left\langle{\nu,% \overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\cdot\left({\left\langle{\nu,I}\right\rangle dx% +\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},I}\right\rangle d{\lambda_{\nu}}}\right)∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⋅ ( ⟨ italic_ν , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_x + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
\displaystyle\geqslant Ω~φ(ν,qIdx+ν,(qI)dλν).subscript~Ω𝜑𝜈𝑞𝐼𝑑𝑥superscript𝜈superscript𝑞𝐼𝑑subscript𝜆𝜈\displaystyle\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}\varphi\left({\left\langle{\nu,% \overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}\right\rangle dx+\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},{{(% \overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)}^{\infty}}}\right\rangle d{\lambda_{\nu}}}\right).∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ ( ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_x + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

Furthermore, by the arbitrariness of ϕitalic-ϕ\phiitalic_ϕ and the definition of u~~𝑢\tilde{u}over~ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG,

ν,q(ν,INΩ+ν,IλνΩ¯)𝜈𝑞𝜈𝐼superscript𝑁Ωsuperscript𝜈𝐼subscript𝜆𝜈¯Ω\displaystyle\left\langle{\nu,\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\cdot\left(\left% \langle{\nu,I}\right\rangle{\mathcal{L}^{N}}\llcorner\Omega+\left\langle{{\nu^% {\infty}},I}\right\rangle{\lambda_{\nu}}\llcorner\overline{\Omega}\right)⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⋅ ( ⟨ italic_ν , italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⌞ over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG )
\displaystyle\geq ν,qINΩ+ν,(qI)λνΩ¯𝜈𝑞𝐼superscript𝑁Ωsuperscript𝜈superscript𝑞𝐼subscript𝜆𝜈¯Ω\displaystyle\left\langle{\nu,\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}\right\rangle{\mathcal% {L}^{N}}\llcorner\Omega+\left\langle{{\nu^{\infty}},(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I% )^{\infty}}\right\rangle{\lambda_{\nu}}\llcorner\overline{\Omega}⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⌞ over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG (59)

holds in (Ω¯)¯Ω\mathcal{M}(\overline{\Omega})caligraphic_M ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ). \hfill\blacksquare

Remark 2.

Actually, the (JF) inequality (38) is also an equality. According to monotonicity of p𝑝\overrightarrow{p}over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG, one has (p(A)p(A0))(AA0)0𝑝𝐴𝑝subscript𝐴0𝐴subscript𝐴00(\overrightarrow{p}(A)-\overrightarrow{p}(A_{0}))\cdot(A-A_{0})\geq 0( over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ( italic_A ) - over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ( italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ⋅ ( italic_A - italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≥ 0. By (37), taking A0=ν,Isubscript𝐴0𝜈𝐼A_{0}=\langle\nu,I\rangleitalic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ⟨ italic_ν , italic_I ⟩, we get ν,qIν,qν,I.𝜈𝑞𝐼𝜈𝑞𝜈𝐼\langle\nu,\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I\rangle\geq\langle\nu,\overrightarrow{q}% \rangle\cdot\langle\nu,I\rangle.⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ ≥ ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⋅ ⟨ italic_ν , italic_I ⟩ . On the other hand, by (SH4)subscriptSH4\rm(SH_{4})( roman_SH start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), we have ν,(qI)ν,qν,I.superscript𝜈superscript𝑞𝐼𝜈𝑞superscript𝜈𝐼\langle\nu^{\infty},(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)^{\infty}\rangle\geq\langle\nu,% \overrightarrow{q}\rangle\cdot\langle\nu^{\infty},I\rangle.⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ≥ ⟨ italic_ν , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⋅ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ . These two inequalities lead to the conclusion.

4 Uniqueness Results

The (JF) inequality (38) describes a property of the solution upon which the uniqueness proof relies. Similar to the situation of Young measure solutions, we note that there is no claim that the parametrized measure λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ is unique, which is false in general.

Theorem 2.

Under the assumptions of (SH). If both (u1,λ1)subscript𝑢1subscript𝜆1(u_{1},\lambda_{1})( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and (u2,λ2)subscript𝑢2subscript𝜆2(u_{2},\lambda_{2})( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) are the generalized Young measure solutions of (𝒫)𝒫(\mathcal{P})( caligraphic_P ), then

u1=u2a.e. in ΩTsubscript𝑢1subscript𝑢2a.e. in subscriptΩ𝑇u_{1}=u_{2}\quad\textrm{{a.e. in }}\Omega_{T}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT a.e. in roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

for every T>0𝑇0T>0italic_T > 0.

Proof: Note λ1=(ν1,λν1,ν1)subscript𝜆1subscript𝜈1subscriptsuperscript𝜆1𝜈subscriptsuperscript𝜈1\lambda_{1}=(\nu_{1},\lambda^{1}_{\nu},\nu^{\infty}_{1})italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), λ2=(ν2,λν2,ν2)subscript𝜆2subscript𝜈2subscriptsuperscript𝜆2𝜈subscriptsuperscript𝜈2\lambda_{2}=(\nu_{2},\lambda^{2}_{\nu},\nu^{\infty}_{2})italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ν start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Since

0sΩ~(u1u2)t(u1u2)𝑑x𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝑢1subscript𝑢2𝑡subscript𝑢1subscript𝑢2differential-d𝑥differential-d𝑡\displaystyle-\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\frac{{\partial({u_{1}% }-{u_{2}})}}{{\partial t}}({u_{1}}-{u_{2}})dx}}dt- ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t end_ARG ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_x italic_d italic_t
=\displaystyle== 0sΩ~div(ν1,qν2,q)(u1u2)𝑑x𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωdivsubscript𝜈1𝑞subscript𝜈2𝑞subscript𝑢1subscript𝑢2differential-d𝑥differential-d𝑡\displaystyle-\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{{\rm div}\left({\left% \langle{{\nu_{1}},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle-\left\langle{{\nu_{2}},% \overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle}\right)({u_{1}}-{u_{2}})dx}}dt- ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_div ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ - ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ) ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_x italic_d italic_t
=\displaystyle== 0sΩ~(ν1,q,Du~1)𝑑t0sΩ~(ν2,q,Du~1)𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝜈1𝑞𝐷subscript~𝑢1differential-d𝑡superscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝜈2𝑞𝐷subscript~𝑢1differential-d𝑡\displaystyle\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left({\left\langle{{% \nu_{1}},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle,D{{\tilde{u}}_{1}}}\right)}}dt-\int_% {0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left({\left\langle{{\nu_{2}},% \overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle,D{{\tilde{u}}_{1}}}\right)}}dt∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ , italic_D over~ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_t - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ , italic_D over~ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_t
+0sΩ~(ν2,q,Du~2)𝑑t0sΩ~(ν1,q,Du~2)𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝜈2𝑞𝐷subscript~𝑢2differential-d𝑡superscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝜈1𝑞𝐷subscript~𝑢2differential-d𝑡\displaystyle+\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left({\left\langle{{% \nu_{2}},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle,D{{\tilde{u}}_{2}}}\right)}}dt-\int_% {0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left({\left\langle{{\nu_{1}},% \overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle,D{{\tilde{u}}_{2}}}\right)}}dt+ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ , italic_D over~ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_t - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ , italic_D over~ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_t
=\displaystyle== 0sΩ~ν1,q(ν1,Idx+ν1,Idλν1)𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝜈1𝑞subscript𝜈1𝐼𝑑𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜈1𝐼𝑑superscriptsubscript𝜆𝜈1differential-d𝑡\displaystyle\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left\langle{{\nu_{1}},% \overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left({\left\langle{{\nu_{1}},I}\right\rangle dx% +\left\langle{\nu_{1}^{\infty},I}\right\rangle d\lambda_{\nu}^{1}}\right)}}dt∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_x + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_t
+0sΩ~ν2,q(ν2,Idx+ν2,Idλν2)𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝜈2𝑞subscript𝜈2𝐼𝑑𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜈2𝐼𝑑superscriptsubscript𝜆𝜈2differential-d𝑡\displaystyle+\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left\langle{{\nu_{2}}% ,\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left({\left\langle{{\nu_{2}},I}\right\rangle dx% +\left\langle{\nu_{2}^{\infty},I}\right\rangle d\lambda_{\nu}^{2}}\right)}}dt+ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_x + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_t
0sΩ~ν2,q(ν1,Idx+ν1,Idλν1)𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝜈2𝑞subscript𝜈1𝐼𝑑𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜈1𝐼𝑑superscriptsubscript𝜆𝜈1differential-d𝑡\displaystyle-\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left\langle{{\nu_{2}}% ,\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left({\left\langle{{\nu_{1}},I}\right\rangle dx% +\left\langle{\nu_{1}^{\infty},I}\right\rangle d\lambda_{\nu}^{1}}\right)}}dt- ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_x + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_t
0sΩ~ν1,q(ν2,Idx+ν2,Idλν2)𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝜈1𝑞subscript𝜈2𝐼𝑑𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜈2𝐼𝑑superscriptsubscript𝜆𝜈2differential-d𝑡\displaystyle-\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left\langle{{\nu_{1}}% ,\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left({\left\langle{{\nu_{2}},I}\right\rangle dx% +\left\langle{\nu_{2}^{\infty},I}\right\rangle d\lambda_{\nu}^{2}}\right)}}dt- ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_x + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_t
\displaystyle\geqslant 0sΩ~(ν1,qIdx+ν1,(qI)dλν1)𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝜈1𝑞𝐼𝑑𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜈1superscript𝑞𝐼𝑑superscriptsubscript𝜆𝜈1differential-d𝑡\displaystyle\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left({\left\langle{{% \nu_{1}},\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}\right\rangle dx+\left\langle{\nu_{1}^{% \infty},{{(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)}^{\infty}}}\right\rangle d\lambda_{\nu}^% {1}}\right)}}dt∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_x + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_t
+0sΩ~(ν2,qIdx+ν2,(qI)dλν2)𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝜈2𝑞𝐼𝑑𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜈2superscript𝑞𝐼𝑑superscriptsubscript𝜆𝜈2differential-d𝑡\displaystyle+\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left({\left\langle{{% \nu_{2}},\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}\right\rangle dx+\left\langle{\nu_{2}^{% \infty},{{(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)}^{\infty}}}\right\rangle d\lambda_{\nu}^% {2}}\right)}}dt+ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_x + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_t
0sΩ~ν2,q(ν1,Idx+ν1,Idλν1)𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝜈2𝑞subscript𝜈1𝐼𝑑𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜈1𝐼𝑑superscriptsubscript𝜆𝜈1differential-d𝑡\displaystyle-\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left\langle{{\nu_{2}}% ,\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left({\left\langle{{\nu_{1}},I}\right\rangle dx% +\left\langle{\nu_{1}^{\infty},I}\right\rangle d\lambda_{\nu}^{1}}\right)}}dt- ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_x + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_t
0sΩ~ν1,q(ν2,Idx+ν2,Idλν2)𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝜈1𝑞subscript𝜈2𝐼𝑑𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜈2𝐼𝑑superscriptsubscript𝜆𝜈2differential-d𝑡\displaystyle-\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left\langle{{\nu_{1}}% ,\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left({\left\langle{{\nu_{2}},I}\right\rangle dx% +\left\langle{\nu_{2}^{\infty},I}\right\rangle d\lambda_{\nu}^{2}}\right)}}dt- ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_x + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_t
=\displaystyle== 0sΩ~(ν1,qI+ν2,qIν2,qν1,Iν1,qν2,I)𝑑x𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝜈1𝑞𝐼subscript𝜈2𝑞𝐼subscript𝜈2𝑞subscript𝜈1𝐼subscript𝜈1𝑞subscript𝜈2𝐼differential-d𝑥differential-d𝑡\displaystyle\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left({\left\langle{{% \nu_{1}},\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}\right\rangle+\left\langle{{\nu_{2}},% \overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}\right\rangle-\left\langle{{\nu_{2}},\overrightarrow% {q}}\right\rangle\left\langle{{\nu_{1}},I}\right\rangle-\left\langle{{\nu_{1}}% ,\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left\langle{{\nu_{2}},I}\right\rangle}\right% )dx}}dt∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ - ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ - ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ ) italic_d italic_x italic_d italic_t
+0sΩ~(ν1,(qI)ν2,qν1,I)𝑑λν1𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝜈1superscript𝑞𝐼subscript𝜈2𝑞superscriptsubscript𝜈1𝐼differential-dsuperscriptsubscript𝜆𝜈1differential-d𝑡\displaystyle+\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left({\left\langle{% \nu_{1}^{\infty},{{(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)}^{\infty}}}\right\rangle-\left% \langle{{\nu_{2}},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left\langle{\nu_{1}^{\infty% },I}\right\rangle}\right)d\lambda_{\nu}^{1}}}dt+ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ - ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ ) italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_t
+0sΩ~(ν2,(qI)ν1,qν2,I)𝑑λν2𝑑tsuperscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsuperscriptsubscript𝜈2superscript𝑞𝐼subscript𝜈1𝑞superscriptsubscript𝜈2𝐼differential-dsuperscriptsubscript𝜆𝜈2differential-d𝑡\displaystyle+\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\left({\left\langle{% \nu_{2}^{\infty},{{(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)}^{\infty}}}\right\rangle-\left% \langle{{\nu_{1}},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left\langle{\nu_{2}^{\infty% },I}\right\rangle}\right)d\lambda_{\nu}^{2}}}dt+ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ - ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ ) italic_d italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_t
:=assign\displaystyle:=:= I1+I2+I3.subscript𝐼1subscript𝐼2subscript𝐼3\displaystyle{I_{1}}+{I_{2}}+{I_{3}}.italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Observe that by (37),

ν1,qI+ν2,qIν2,qν1,Iν1,qν2,Isubscript𝜈1𝑞𝐼subscript𝜈2𝑞𝐼subscript𝜈2𝑞subscript𝜈1𝐼subscript𝜈1𝑞subscript𝜈2𝐼\displaystyle\left\langle{{\nu_{1}},\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}\right\rangle+% \left\langle{{\nu_{2}},\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}\right\rangle-\left\langle{{% \nu_{2}},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left\langle{{\nu_{1}},I}\right% \rangle-\left\langle{{\nu_{1}},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left\langle{{% \nu_{2}},I}\right\rangle⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ + ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ - ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ - ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩
=\displaystyle== NNq(A)I(A)+q(B)I(B)q(A)I(B)q(B)I(A)dν1(A)dν2(B)subscriptsuperscript𝑁subscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑞𝐴𝐼𝐴𝑞𝐵𝐼𝐵𝑞𝐴𝐼𝐵𝑞𝐵𝐼𝐴𝑑subscript𝜈1𝐴𝑑subscript𝜈2𝐵\displaystyle\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^{N}}}{\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^{N}}}{% \overrightarrow{q}(A)\cdot I(A)+\overrightarrow{q}(B)\cdot I(B)-% \overrightarrow{q}(A)\cdot I(B)-\overrightarrow{q}(B)\cdot I(A)d{\nu_{1}}(A)d{% \nu_{2}}(B)}}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_A ) ⋅ italic_I ( italic_A ) + over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_B ) ⋅ italic_I ( italic_B ) - over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_A ) ⋅ italic_I ( italic_B ) - over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_B ) ⋅ italic_I ( italic_A ) italic_d italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) italic_d italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B )
=\displaystyle== {Φ=Φ}{Φ=Φ}(q(A)q(B))(I(A)I(B))𝑑ν1(A)𝑑ν2(B)subscriptΦsuperscriptΦabsentsubscriptΦsuperscriptΦabsent𝑞𝐴𝑞𝐵𝐼𝐴𝐼𝐵differential-dsubscript𝜈1𝐴differential-dsubscript𝜈2𝐵\displaystyle\int_{\left\{{\Phi={\Phi^{**}}}\right\}}{\int_{\left\{{\Phi={\Phi% ^{**}}}\right\}}{\left({\overrightarrow{q}(A)-\overrightarrow{q}(B)}\right)% \cdot\left({I(A)-I(B)}\right)d{\nu_{1}}(A)d{\nu_{2}}(B)}}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { roman_Φ = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { roman_Φ = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_A ) - over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_B ) ) ⋅ ( italic_I ( italic_A ) - italic_I ( italic_B ) ) italic_d italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) italic_d italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B )
=\displaystyle== {Φ=Φ}{Φ=Φ}(p(A)p(B))(I(A)I(B))𝑑ν1(A)𝑑ν2(B)subscriptΦsuperscriptΦabsentsubscriptΦsuperscriptΦabsent𝑝𝐴𝑝𝐵𝐼𝐴𝐼𝐵differential-dsubscript𝜈1𝐴differential-dsubscript𝜈2𝐵\displaystyle\int_{\left\{{\Phi={\Phi^{**}}}\right\}}{\int_{\left\{{\Phi={\Phi% ^{**}}}\right\}}{\left({\overrightarrow{p}(A)-\overrightarrow{p}(B)}\right)% \cdot\left({I(A)-I(B)}\right)d{\nu_{1}}(A)d{\nu_{2}}(B)}}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { roman_Φ = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { roman_Φ = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ( italic_A ) - over→ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG ( italic_B ) ) ⋅ ( italic_I ( italic_A ) - italic_I ( italic_B ) ) italic_d italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) italic_d italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B )
\displaystyle\geqslant 0.0\displaystyle 0.0 .

Hence, it follows that I10subscript𝐼10I_{1}\geq 0italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0.

On the other hand, by (SH4)subscriptSH4\rm(SH_{4})( roman_SH start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and (37),

ν1,(qI)ν2,qν1,Isuperscriptsubscript𝜈1superscript𝑞𝐼subscript𝜈2𝑞superscriptsubscript𝜈1𝐼\displaystyle\left\langle{\nu_{1}^{\infty},{{(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)}^{% \infty}}}\right\rangle-\left\langle{{\nu_{2}},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle% \left\langle{\nu_{1}^{\infty},I}\right\rangle⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ - ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩
=\displaystyle== {Φ=Φ}𝔹N(qI)(A)q(B)I(A)dν1(A)dν2(B)subscriptΦsuperscriptΦabsentsubscriptsuperscript𝔹𝑁superscript𝑞𝐼𝐴𝑞𝐵𝐼𝐴𝑑superscriptsubscript𝜈1𝐴𝑑subscript𝜈2𝐵\displaystyle\int_{\left\{{\Phi={\Phi^{**}}}\right\}}{\int_{\partial{\mathbb{B% }^{N}}}{{{(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)}^{\infty}}(A)-\overrightarrow{q}(B)\cdot I% (A)d\nu_{1}^{\infty}(A)d{\nu_{2}}(B)}}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { roman_Φ = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ blackboard_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A ) - over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_B ) ⋅ italic_I ( italic_A ) italic_d italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A ) italic_d italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_B )
\displaystyle\geqslant 0.0\displaystyle 0.0 .

Therefore, I20subscript𝐼20I_{2}\geq 0italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0. Similarly, we get I30subscript𝐼30I_{3}\geq 0italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0.

Now, by

0sΩ~(u1u2)t(u1u2)𝑑x𝑑t0,superscriptsubscript0𝑠subscript~Ωsubscript𝑢1subscript𝑢2𝑡subscript𝑢1subscript𝑢2differential-d𝑥differential-d𝑡0\int_{0}^{s}{\int\limits_{\tilde{\Omega}}{\frac{{\partial({u_{1}}-{u_{2}})}}{{% \partial t}}({u_{1}}-{u_{2}})dx}}dt\leq 0,∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t end_ARG ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_x italic_d italic_t ≤ 0 ,

we have

u1=u2a.e. inΩ,T>0,formulae-sequencesubscript𝑢1subscript𝑢2a.e. inΩfor-all𝑇0u_{1}=u_{2}\quad\text{a.e. in}\;\Omega,\;\forall T>0,italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT a.e. in roman_Ω , ∀ italic_T > 0 ,

and this leads to the uniqueness. \hfill\blacksquare

5 Equivalence between Generalized Young Measure Solutions and Strong Solutions

It doesn’t make much sense just to propose a concept of generalized solution with existence and uniqueness. Next, we will establish the relationship between this generalized solution and other types of generalized solutions.

When the parabolic variational integral ΦΦ\Phiroman_Φ is convex, Andreu et al.2004Parabolic combined nonlinear semigroup theory with Anzellotti’s dual theoryGabriele1983Pairings to give a definition of semigroup strong solutions to this equation, and systematically studied the existence, uniqueness and asymptotic behavior of this kind of solutions. In this section, we study the relationship between generalized Young measure solutions and strong solutions ((2004Parabolic, , Definition 6.5)).

The additional assumptions (H) are the following:
(H1)subscriptH1\rm(H_{1})( roman_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) Φ^(ξ,s)^Φ𝜉𝑠\widehat{\Phi}(\xi,s)over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( italic_ξ , italic_s ) is continuous on N×[0,+)superscript𝑁0\mathbb{R}^{N}\times[0,+\infty)blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × [ 0 , + ∞ ) and convex in (ξ,s)𝜉𝑠(\xi,s)( italic_ξ , italic_s ), where

Φ^(ξ,s):={Φ(ξs)s,ifs>0,Φ(ξ),ifs=0.\widehat{\Phi}(\xi,s):=\left\{\begin{gathered}\Phi\left({\frac{\xi}{s}}\right)% s,\quad if\;s>0,\hfill\\ {\Phi^{\infty}}\left(\xi\right),\quad if\;s=0.\hfill\\ \end{gathered}\right.over^ start_ARG roman_Φ end_ARG ( italic_ξ , italic_s ) := { start_ROW start_CELL roman_Φ ( divide start_ARG italic_ξ end_ARG start_ARG italic_s end_ARG ) italic_s , italic_i italic_f italic_s > 0 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ξ ) , italic_i italic_f italic_s = 0 . end_CELL end_ROW

(H2)subscriptH2\rm(H_{2})( roman_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) Φ(ξ)=Φ(ξ)superscriptΦ𝜉superscriptΦ𝜉{\Phi^{\infty}}\left({-\xi}\right)={\Phi^{\infty}}\left(\xi\right)roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - italic_ξ ) = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ξ ) and q(ξ)ξ0𝑞𝜉𝜉0\overrightarrow{q}(\xi)\cdot\xi\geqslant 0over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_ξ ) ⋅ italic_ξ ⩾ 0 holds, ξNfor-all𝜉superscript𝑁\forall\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{N}∀ italic_ξ ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Definition 6.

A measurable function u:(0,T)×Ω:𝑢0𝑇Ωu:(0,T)\times\Omega\to\mathbb{R}italic_u : ( 0 , italic_T ) × roman_Ω → blackboard_R is a strong solution of (𝒫)𝒫(\mathcal{P})( caligraphic_P ) in ΩTsubscriptΩ𝑇\Omega_{T}roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT if uC([0,T],L2(Ω))𝑢𝐶0𝑇superscript𝐿2Ωu\in C([0,T],L^{2}(\Omega))italic_u ∈ italic_C ( [ 0 , italic_T ] , italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) ), u(0)=u0𝑢0subscript𝑢0u(0)=u_{0}italic_u ( 0 ) = italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, u(t)L2(Ω)superscript𝑢𝑡superscript𝐿2Ωu^{\prime}(t)\in L^{2}(\Omega)italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t ) ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ), u(t)BV(Ω)L2(Ω)𝑢𝑡𝐵𝑉Ωsuperscript𝐿2Ωu(t)\in BV(\Omega)\cap L^{2}(\Omega)italic_u ( italic_t ) ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) ∩ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ), q(u(t))X(Ω)1𝑞𝑢𝑡𝑋subscriptΩ1\overrightarrow{q}(\nabla u(t))\in X(\Omega)_{1}over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( ∇ italic_u ( italic_t ) ) ∈ italic_X ( roman_Ω ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT a.e. t[0,T]𝑡0𝑇t\in[0,T]italic_t ∈ [ 0 , italic_T ], and for almost all t[0,T]𝑡0𝑇t\in[0,T]italic_t ∈ [ 0 , italic_T ] u(t)𝑢𝑡u(t)italic_u ( italic_t ) satisfies:

u(t)=div(q(u(t)))in𝒟(Ω),superscript𝑢𝑡div𝑞𝑢𝑡in𝒟Ω\displaystyle u^{\prime}(t)={\rm{div}}(\overrightarrow{q}(\nabla u(t)))\;\;% \text{in}\;\mathcal{D}(\Omega),italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = roman_div ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( ∇ italic_u ( italic_t ) ) ) in caligraphic_D ( roman_Ω ) , (60)
q(u(t))Dsu(t)=Φ(Dsu(t)),𝑞𝑢𝑡superscript𝐷𝑠𝑢𝑡superscriptΦsuperscript𝐷𝑠𝑢𝑡\displaystyle\overrightarrow{q}(\nabla u(t))\cdot D^{s}u(t)=\Phi^{\infty}(D^{s% }u(t)),over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( ∇ italic_u ( italic_t ) ) ⋅ italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u ( italic_t ) = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u ( italic_t ) ) , (61)
[q(u(t)),n]sign(uΩ(t))Φ(n)N1-a.e.onΩ.𝑞𝑢𝑡𝑛signsuperscript𝑢Ω𝑡superscriptΦ𝑛superscript𝑁1-a.e.onΩ\displaystyle[\overrightarrow{q}(\nabla u(t)),\vec{n}]\in{\rm sign}(-u^{\Omega% }(t))\Phi^{\infty}(\vec{n})\quad\mathcal{H}^{N-1}\text{-a.e.}\;\text{on}\;% \partial\Omega.[ over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( ∇ italic_u ( italic_t ) ) , over→ start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ] ∈ roman_sign ( - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t ) ) roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT -a.e. on ∂ roman_Ω . (62)

Using the theory of nonlinear semigroups, Andreu et al. proved the existence and uniqueness of strong solutions (2004Parabolic, , Theorem 6.6) and the following lemma follows.

Lemma 11.

Under the assumptions of (𝐒𝐇)𝐒𝐇\bf{(SH)}( bold_SH ) and (𝐇)𝐇\bf{(H)}( bold_H ). Given u0L2(Ω)subscript𝑢0superscript𝐿2Ωu_{0}\in L^{2}(\Omega)italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ), there exists a unique strong solution u𝑢uitalic_u of (𝒫)𝒫(\mathcal{P})( caligraphic_P ) in ΩTsubscriptΩ𝑇\Omega_{T}roman_Ω start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for every T>0𝑇0T>0italic_T > 0 such that u(0)=u0𝑢0subscript𝑢0u(0)=u_{0}italic_u ( 0 ) = italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Assume that ΦΦ\Phiroman_Φ satisfies (𝐒𝐇)𝐒𝐇\bf(SH)( bold_SH ) and u𝑢uitalic_u is a solution in the Definition 6, by calculation, we can verify that (u,σDu)𝑢subscript𝜎𝐷𝑢(u,\sigma_{Du})( italic_u , italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_D italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is a generalized gradient Young solution. The following theorem follows.

Theorem 3.

If u𝑢uitalic_u is a strong solution of (𝒫)𝒫(\mathcal{P})( caligraphic_P ) in the Definition 6, then (u,σDu)𝑢subscript𝜎𝐷𝑢(u,\sigma_{Du})( italic_u , italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_D italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is a generalized gradient Young measure solution of (𝒫)𝒫(\mathcal{P})( caligraphic_P ).

On the other hand, if ΦΦ\Phiroman_Φ is convex and satisfies (SH), the generalized Young solution of (𝒫)𝒫(\mathcal{P})( caligraphic_P ) uniquely determines a strong solution in Definition 6.

Theorem 4.

Let u0BV(Ω)L(Ω)subscript𝑢0𝐵𝑉Ωsuperscript𝐿Ωu_{0}\in BV(\Omega)\cap L^{\infty}(\Omega)italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ) ∩ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ). If (u,λ)𝑢𝜆(u,\lambda)( italic_u , italic_λ ) is a generalized Young measure solution of (𝒫)𝒫(\mathcal{P})( caligraphic_P ), then u𝑢uitalic_u is a strong solution of (𝒫)𝒫(\mathcal{P})( caligraphic_P ) in Definition 6.

Proof: Since ΦΦ\Phiroman_Φ is convex function, by the usual theory of monotone operators, there exists a unique weak solution (of usual sense) to problem (𝒫ε)subscript𝒫𝜀(\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), then (uε,δuε)superscript𝑢𝜀subscript𝛿subscript𝑢𝜀(u^{\varepsilon},\delta_{\nabla u_{\varepsilon}})( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is a Young measure solution to the problem (𝒫ε)subscript𝒫𝜀(\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon})( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

Using (uε,δuε)superscript𝑢𝜀subscript𝛿subscript𝑢𝜀(u^{\varepsilon},\delta_{\nabla u_{\varepsilon}})( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), by the method in Theorem 1, there exist a subsequence (uεn,δuεn)superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛subscript𝛿subscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛(u^{\varepsilon_{n}},\delta_{\nabla u_{\varepsilon_{n}}})( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and a generalized gradient Young measure solution (u¯,λ¯)¯𝑢¯𝜆(\bar{u},\bar{\lambda})( over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG , over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG ) (λ¯:=(ν¯,λ¯ν,ν¯)assign¯𝜆¯𝜈subscript¯𝜆𝜈superscript¯𝜈\bar{\lambda}:=(\bar{\nu},\bar{\lambda}_{\nu},\bar{\nu}^{\infty})over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG := ( over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )) satisfying that

uεnu¯inL2(Ω),εn|uεn|0inL2(Ω),δuεn,qν¯,qinL(Ω;N),utεnu¯tinL2(Ω).formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛¯𝑢insuperscript𝐿2Ωformulae-sequencesubscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛0insuperscript𝐿2Ωsubscript𝛿superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛𝑞superscript¯𝜈𝑞insuperscript𝐿Ωsuperscript𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑢𝑡subscript𝜀𝑛subscript¯𝑢𝑡insuperscript𝐿2Ω\begin{gathered}{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}\to\bar{u}\quad{\text{in}}\;{L^{2}}(% \Omega),\hfill\\ {\varepsilon_{n}}|{\nabla{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}}|\to 0\quad{\text{in}}\;{L^{2% }}(\Omega),\hfill\\ \left\langle{{\delta_{\nabla{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}}},\overrightarrow{q}}% \right\rangle\mathop{\rightharpoonup}\limits^{*}\left\langle{\bar{\nu},% \overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\quad{\text{in}}\;{L^{\infty}}(\Omega;{\mathbb% {R}^{N}}),\hfill\\ u_{t}^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}{\rightharpoonup}{\bar{u}_{t}}\quad\text{in}\;{L^{2}}% (\Omega).\hfill\\ \end{gathered}start_ROW start_CELL italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG in italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | → 0 in italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ⟨ italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⇀ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ in italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ; blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⇀ over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) . end_CELL end_ROW

Since

u¯t=divν¯,qin𝒟(Ω),subscript¯𝑢𝑡div¯𝜈𝑞insuperscript𝒟Ω\displaystyle{{\bar{u}}_{t}}={\text{div}}\langle\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}% \rangle\quad{\text{in}}\;\mathcal{D}^{\prime}(\Omega),over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = div ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ in caligraphic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ) , (63)

we get ν¯,qX2(Ω)¯𝜈𝑞subscript𝑋2Ω\langle\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}\rangle\in X_{2}(\Omega)⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ).

Let 0θ𝒟(Ω)0𝜃𝒟Ω0\leq\theta\in\mathcal{D}(\Omega)0 ≤ italic_θ ∈ caligraphic_D ( roman_Ω ) and ηC1(Ω¯)𝜂superscript𝐶1¯Ω\eta\in C^{1}(\overline{\Omega})italic_η ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ). By the convexity of ΦΦ\Phiroman_Φ and q=Φ𝑞Φ\overrightarrow{q}=\nabla\Phiover→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG = ∇ roman_Φ, it follows that

Ωθ(qεn(uεn)qεn(η))(uεnη)𝑑x0.subscriptΩ𝜃subscript𝑞subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛subscript𝑞subscript𝜀𝑛𝜂superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛𝜂differential-d𝑥0\displaystyle\int\limits_{\Omega}{\theta\left({\overrightarrow{q}_{{% \varepsilon_{n}}}\left({\nabla{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}}\right)-\overrightarrow{% q}_{\varepsilon_{n}}\left({\nabla\eta}\right)}\right)\cdot\left({\nabla{u^{{% \varepsilon_{n}}}}-\nabla\eta}\right)dx}\geqslant 0.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∇ italic_η ) ) ⋅ ( ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∇ italic_η ) italic_d italic_x ⩾ 0 . (64)

Since

Ωθqεn(uεn)(uεnη)dxsubscriptΩ𝜃subscript𝑞subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛𝜂𝑑𝑥\displaystyle\int\limits_{\Omega}{\theta\overrightarrow{q}_{\varepsilon_{n}}% \left({\nabla{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}}\right)\cdot\nabla\left({{u^{{\varepsilon% _{n}}}}-\eta}\right)dx}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⋅ ∇ ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_η ) italic_d italic_x
=\displaystyle== Ωθutεn(uεnη)𝑑xΩ(uεnη)θqεn(uεn)𝑑x,subscriptΩ𝜃superscriptsubscript𝑢𝑡subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛𝜂differential-d𝑥subscriptΩsuperscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛𝜂𝜃subscript𝑞subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛differential-d𝑥\displaystyle-\int\limits_{\Omega}{\theta u_{t}^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}\left({{u^{% {\varepsilon_{n}}}}-\eta}\right)dx}-\int\limits_{\Omega}{\left({{u^{{% \varepsilon_{n}}}}-\eta}\right)\nabla\theta\cdot\overrightarrow{q}_{% \varepsilon_{n}}\left({\nabla{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}}\right)dx},- ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_η ) italic_d italic_x - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_η ) ∇ italic_θ ⋅ over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_d italic_x ,

we have

limnΩθqεn(uεn)(uεnη)dxsubscript𝑛subscriptΩ𝜃subscript𝑞subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛𝜂𝑑𝑥\displaystyle\mathop{\lim}\limits_{n\to\infty}\int\limits_{\Omega}{\theta% \overrightarrow{q}_{\varepsilon_{n}}\left({\nabla{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}}% \right)\cdot\nabla\left({{u^{{\varepsilon_{n}}}}-\eta}\right)dx}roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∇ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⋅ ∇ ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_η ) italic_d italic_x
=\displaystyle== Ωθu¯t(u¯η)𝑑xΩ(u¯η)θν¯,q𝑑xsubscriptΩ𝜃subscript¯𝑢𝑡¯𝑢𝜂differential-d𝑥subscriptΩ¯𝑢𝜂𝜃¯𝜈𝑞differential-d𝑥\displaystyle-\int\limits_{\Omega}{\theta\bar{u}_{t}\left({\bar{u}-\eta}\right% )dx}-\int\limits_{\Omega}{\left({\bar{u}-\eta}\right)\nabla\theta\cdot\left% \langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle dx}- ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG - italic_η ) italic_d italic_x - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG - italic_η ) ∇ italic_θ ⋅ ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ italic_d italic_x
=\displaystyle== Ωθdiv(ν¯,q)(u¯η)𝑑xΩ(u¯η)θν¯,q𝑑xsubscriptΩ𝜃div¯𝜈𝑞¯𝑢𝜂differential-d𝑥subscriptΩ¯𝑢𝜂𝜃¯𝜈𝑞differential-d𝑥\displaystyle-\int\limits_{\Omega}{\theta{\rm{div}}\left({\left\langle{\bar{% \nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle}\right)\left({\bar{u}-\eta}\right)dx}-% \int\limits_{\Omega}{\left({\bar{u}-\eta}\right)\nabla\theta\cdot\left\langle{% \bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle dx}- ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ roman_div ( ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ) ( over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG - italic_η ) italic_d italic_x - ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG - italic_η ) ∇ italic_θ ⋅ ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ italic_d italic_x
=\displaystyle== Ωθ(ν¯,q,D(u¯η)).subscriptΩ𝜃¯𝜈𝑞𝐷¯𝑢𝜂\displaystyle\int\limits_{\Omega}{\theta\left({\left\langle{\bar{\nu},% \overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle,D\left({\bar{u}-\eta}\right)}\right)}.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ , italic_D ( over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG - italic_η ) ) .

From this, and

limnΩθqεn(η)(uεnη)dx=Ωθq(η)D(u¯η),subscript𝑛subscriptΩ𝜃subscript𝑞subscript𝜀𝑛𝜂superscript𝑢subscript𝜀𝑛𝜂𝑑𝑥subscriptΩ𝜃𝑞𝜂𝐷¯𝑢𝜂\mathop{\lim}\limits_{n\to\infty}\int\limits_{\Omega}{\theta\overrightarrow{q}% _{\varepsilon_{n}}\left({\nabla\eta}\right)\cdot\nabla\left({{u^{{\varepsilon_% {n}}}}-\eta}\right)dx}=\int\limits_{\Omega}{\theta\overrightarrow{q}\left({% \nabla\eta}\right)\cdot D\left({\bar{u}-\eta}\right)},roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n → ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∇ italic_η ) ⋅ ∇ ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_η ) italic_d italic_x = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( ∇ italic_η ) ⋅ italic_D ( over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG - italic_η ) ,

letting n𝑛n\to\inftyitalic_n → ∞ in (64), we obtain

Ωθ(ν¯,qq(η),D(u¯η))0.subscriptΩ𝜃¯𝜈𝑞𝑞𝜂𝐷¯𝑢𝜂0\int\limits_{\Omega}{\theta\left({\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}% \right\rangle-\overrightarrow{q}\left({\nabla\eta}\right),D\left({\bar{u}-\eta% }\right)}\right)}\geqslant 0.∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_θ ( ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ - over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( ∇ italic_η ) , italic_D ( over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG - italic_η ) ) ⩾ 0 .

Hence,

(ν¯,qq(η),D(u¯η))0in (Ω),¯𝜈𝑞𝑞𝜂𝐷¯𝑢𝜂0in Ω{\left({\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle-% \overrightarrow{q}\left({\nabla\eta}\right),D\left({\bar{u}-\eta}\right)}% \right)}\geqslant 0\quad\text{in }\mathcal{M}(\Omega),( ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ - over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( ∇ italic_η ) , italic_D ( over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG - italic_η ) ) ⩾ 0 in caligraphic_M ( roman_Ω ) ,

then, its absolutely continuous part satisfies that

(ν¯,qq(η))(u¯η)0a.e. in Ω.¯𝜈𝑞𝑞𝜂¯𝑢𝜂0a.e. in Ω\left({\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle-\overrightarrow% {q}\left({\nabla\eta}\right)}\right)\cdot\nabla\left({\bar{u}-\eta}\right)% \geqslant 0\quad\text{a.e. in }\Omega.( ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ - over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( ∇ italic_η ) ) ⋅ ∇ ( over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG - italic_η ) ⩾ 0 a.e. in roman_Ω .

Since C1(Ω¯)superscript𝐶1¯ΩC^{1}(\overline{\Omega})italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) is separable, by taking a countable set dense in C1(Ω¯)superscript𝐶1¯ΩC^{1}(\overline{\Omega})italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ), we have that the above inequality holds for all xΩ𝑥superscriptΩx\in\Omega^{\prime}italic_x ∈ roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where ΩΩsuperscriptΩΩ\Omega^{\prime}\subseteq\Omegaroman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊆ roman_Ω is such that N(ΩΩ)=0superscript𝑁ΩsuperscriptΩ0\mathcal{L}^{N}(\Omega\setminus\Omega^{\prime})=0caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_Ω ∖ roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0, and all ηC1(Ω¯)𝜂superscript𝐶1¯Ω\eta\in C^{1}(\overline{\Omega})italic_η ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ). Now, fixed xΩ𝑥superscriptΩx\in\Omega^{\prime}italic_x ∈ roman_Ω start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and given AN𝐴superscript𝑁A\in\mathbb{R}^{N}italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, there is ηC1(Ω¯)𝜂superscript𝐶1¯Ω\eta\in C^{1}(\overline{\Omega})italic_η ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) such that η=A𝜂𝐴\nabla\eta=A∇ italic_η = italic_A. Thus,

(ν¯,qq(A))(u¯(x)A)0,AN.formulae-sequence¯𝜈𝑞𝑞𝐴¯𝑢𝑥𝐴0for-all𝐴superscript𝑁\left({\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle-\overrightarrow% {q}\left(A\right)}\right)\cdot\left({\nabla\bar{u}(x)-A}\right)\geqslant 0,\;% \forall A\in\mathbb{R}^{N}.( ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ - over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_A ) ) ⋅ ( ∇ over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG ( italic_x ) - italic_A ) ⩾ 0 , ∀ italic_A ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

By choosing A=u¯(x)±ϵξ𝐴plus-or-minus¯𝑢𝑥italic-ϵ𝜉A=\nabla\bar{u}(x)\pm\epsilon\xiitalic_A = ∇ over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG ( italic_x ) ± italic_ϵ italic_ξ, ξNfor-all𝜉superscript𝑁\forall\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{N}∀ italic_ξ ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and letting ϵ0+italic-ϵsuperscript0\epsilon\to 0^{+}italic_ϵ → 0 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we obtain

ν¯,q=q(u¯(x))a.e.xΩ.formulae-sequence¯𝜈𝑞𝑞¯𝑢𝑥a.e.𝑥Ω\displaystyle\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle=% \overrightarrow{q}(\nabla{\bar{u}}(x))\quad\text{a.e.}\;x\in\Omega.⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ = over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( ∇ over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG ( italic_x ) ) a.e. italic_x ∈ roman_Ω . (65)

Similar to (50) and (59), we have

Du¯~=ν¯,INΩ+ν¯,Iλ¯νin(Ω~),𝐷~¯𝑢¯𝜈𝐼superscript𝑁Ωsuperscript¯𝜈𝐼subscript¯𝜆𝜈in~Ω\displaystyle D{\tilde{\bar{u}}}=\left\langle{\bar{\nu},I}\right\rangle{% \mathcal{L}^{N}}\llcorner\Omega+\left\langle{{\bar{\nu}^{\infty}},{I}}\right% \rangle{\bar{\lambda}_{\nu}}\quad\text{in}\;\mathcal{M}(\tilde{{\Omega}}),italic_D over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG = ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω + ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in caligraphic_M ( over~ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) , (66)

and

ν¯,q(ν¯,INΩ+ν¯,Iλ¯νΩ¯)¯𝜈𝑞¯𝜈𝐼superscript𝑁Ωsuperscript¯𝜈𝐼subscript¯𝜆𝜈¯Ω\displaystyle\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\cdot\left% (\left\langle{\bar{\nu},I}\right\rangle{\mathcal{L}^{N}}\llcorner\Omega+\left% \langle{{\bar{\nu}^{\infty}},I}\right\rangle{\bar{\lambda}_{\nu}}\llcorner% \overline{\Omega}\right)⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⋅ ( ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω + ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⌞ over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG )
\displaystyle\geqslant (ν¯,qINΩ+ν¯,(qI)λ¯νΩ¯),¯𝜈𝑞𝐼superscript𝑁Ωsuperscript¯𝜈superscript𝑞𝐼subscript¯𝜆𝜈¯Ω\displaystyle\left(\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I}\right% \rangle{\mathcal{L}^{N}}\llcorner\Omega+\left\langle{{\bar{\nu}^{\infty}},(% \overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)^{\infty}}\right\rangle{\bar{\lambda}_{\nu}}% \llcorner\overline{\Omega}\right),( ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω + ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⌞ over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) , (67)

in (Ω¯)¯Ω\mathcal{M}(\overline{\Omega})caligraphic_M ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ).

Thus,

(ν¯,qν¯,Iν¯,qI)NΩ¯𝜈𝑞¯𝜈𝐼¯𝜈𝑞𝐼superscript𝑁Ω\displaystyle\left({\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle% \left\langle{\bar{\nu},I}\right\rangle-\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{% q}\cdot I}\right\rangle}\right){\mathcal{L}^{N}}\llcorner\Omega( ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , italic_I ⟩ - ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ⟩ ) caligraphic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ roman_Ω
+(ν¯,qν¯,Iν¯,(qI))λ¯νΩ¯0,¯𝜈𝑞superscript¯𝜈𝐼superscript¯𝜈superscript𝑞𝐼subscript¯𝜆𝜈¯Ω0\displaystyle+\left({\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle% \left\langle{{{\bar{\nu}}^{\infty}},I}\right\rangle-\left\langle{{{\bar{\nu}}^% {\infty}},{{(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)}^{\infty}}}\right\rangle}\right){{\bar% {\lambda}}_{\nu}}\llcorner\overline{\Omega}\geqslant 0,+ ( ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ - ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⌞ over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ⩾ 0 , (68)

and its singular parts satisfies that

(ν¯,qν¯,Iν¯,(qI))λ¯νsΩ¯0in(Ω¯).¯𝜈𝑞superscript¯𝜈𝐼superscript¯𝜈superscript𝑞𝐼superscriptsubscript¯𝜆𝜈𝑠¯Ω0in¯Ω\left({\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left\langle{{{% \bar{\nu}}^{\infty}},I}\right\rangle-\left\langle{{{\bar{\nu}}^{\infty}},{{(% \overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)}^{\infty}}}\right\rangle}\right)\bar{\lambda}_{\nu}% ^{s}\llcorner\overline{\Omega}\geqslant 0\quad\text{in}\;\mathcal{M}(\overline% {\Omega}).( ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ - ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ) over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ⩾ 0 in caligraphic_M ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) .

Then, it follows that

ν¯,qν¯,Iν¯,(qI)λ¯νs-a.e.inΩ¯.¯𝜈𝑞superscript¯𝜈𝐼superscript¯𝜈superscript𝑞𝐼superscriptsubscript¯𝜆𝜈𝑠-a.e.in¯Ω\displaystyle\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left% \langle{{{\bar{\nu}}^{\infty}},I}\right\rangle\geqslant\left\langle{{{\bar{\nu% }}^{\infty}},{{(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)}^{\infty}}}\right\rangle\quad\bar{% \lambda}_{\nu}^{s}{\text{-a.e.}}\;{\text{in}}\;\overline{\Omega}.⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ ⩾ ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT -a.e. in over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG . (69)

By (66), we get

Dsu¯~=ν¯,(qI)λ¯νsin(Ω¯).superscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢superscript¯𝜈superscript𝑞𝐼superscriptsubscript¯𝜆𝜈𝑠in¯Ω\displaystyle{D^{s}}\tilde{\bar{u}}=\left\langle{{{\bar{\nu}}^{\infty}},{{(% \overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)}^{\infty}}}\right\rangle\bar{\lambda}_{\nu}^{s}% \quad{\text{in}}\;\mathcal{M}(\overline{\Omega}).italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG = ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in caligraphic_M ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) . (70)

Since λ¯¯𝜆\bar{\lambda}over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG is a generalized gradient Young measure, by (ii)𝑖𝑖(ii)( italic_i italic_i ) of Lemma 10, it follows that

ν¯,(qI)=ν¯,ΦΦ(ν¯,I)λ¯νs-a.e.inΩ¯,formulae-sequencesuperscript¯𝜈superscript𝑞𝐼superscript¯𝜈superscriptΦsuperscriptΦsuperscript¯𝜈𝐼superscriptsubscript¯𝜆𝜈𝑠-a.e.in¯Ω\left\langle{{{\bar{\nu}}^{\infty}},{{(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)}^{\infty}}}% \right\rangle=\left\langle{{{\bar{\nu}}^{\infty}},{\Phi^{\infty}}}\right% \rangle\geqslant{\Phi^{\infty}}\left({\left\langle{{{\bar{\nu}}^{\infty}},I}% \right\rangle}\right)\quad\bar{\lambda}_{\nu}^{s}{\text{-a.e.}}\;{\text{in}}\;% \overline{\Omega},⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ = ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ ⩾ roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ ) over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT -a.e. in over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ,

i.e.,

ν¯,(qI)λ¯νsΦ(ν¯,I)λ¯νs=Φ(Dsu¯~|Dsu¯~|)|Dsu¯~|in(Ω¯).formulae-sequencesuperscript¯𝜈superscript𝑞𝐼superscriptsubscript¯𝜆𝜈𝑠superscriptΦsuperscript¯𝜈𝐼superscriptsubscript¯𝜆𝜈𝑠superscriptΦsuperscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢superscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢superscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢in¯Ω\displaystyle\left\langle{{{\bar{\nu}}^{\infty}},{{(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)% }^{\infty}}}\right\rangle\bar{\lambda}_{\nu}^{s}\geqslant{\Phi^{\infty}}\left(% {\left\langle{{{\bar{\nu}}^{\infty}},I}\right\rangle}\right)\bar{\lambda}_{\nu% }^{s}={\Phi^{\infty}}\left({\frac{{{D^{s}}\tilde{\bar{u}}}}{{|{{D^{s}}\tilde{% \bar{u}}}|}}}\right)|{{D^{s}}\tilde{\bar{u}}}|\quad{\text{in}}\;\mathcal{M}(% \overline{\Omega}).⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⩾ roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ ) over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG | end_ARG ) | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG | in caligraphic_M ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) . (71)

On the other hand, by (70), we have

ν¯,qν¯,Iλ¯νs=ν¯,qDsu¯~=ν¯,qδp,I|Dsu¯~|,¯𝜈𝑞superscript¯𝜈𝐼superscriptsubscript¯𝜆𝜈𝑠¯𝜈𝑞superscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢¯𝜈𝑞subscript𝛿𝑝𝐼superscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left\langle{{{\bar{\nu% }}^{\infty}},I}\right\rangle\bar{\lambda}_{\nu}^{s}=\left\langle{\bar{\nu},% \overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle{D^{s}}\tilde{\bar{u}}=\left\langle{\bar{\nu},% \overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left\langle{{\delta_{p}},I}\right\rangle|{{D^% {s}}\tilde{\bar{u}}}|,⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ over¯ start_ARG italic_λ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ν end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG = ⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩ | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG | ,

where p=Dsu¯~|Dsu¯~|𝑝superscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢superscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢p=\frac{{{D^{s}}\tilde{\bar{u}}}}{{|{{D^{s}}\tilde{\bar{u}}}|}}italic_p = divide start_ARG italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG | end_ARG.

Then, by (SH4)subscriptSH4\rm(SH_{4})( roman_SH start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), we find

ν¯,qδp,I¯𝜈𝑞subscript𝛿𝑝𝐼\displaystyle\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle\left% \langle{{\delta_{p}},I}\right\rangle⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ ⟨ italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_I ⟩
=\displaystyle== N𝔹Nq(B)A𝑑δp(A)𝑑ν¯(B)subscriptsuperscript𝑁subscriptsuperscript𝔹𝑁𝑞𝐵𝐴differential-dsubscript𝛿𝑝𝐴differential-d¯𝜈𝐵\displaystyle\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^{N}}}{\int\limits_{\partial{\mathbb{B}^{% N}}}{\overrightarrow{q}(B)\cdot Ad{\delta_{p}}(A)d\bar{\nu}(B)}}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ blackboard_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ( italic_B ) ⋅ italic_A italic_d italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG ( italic_B )
\displaystyle\leqslant N𝔹N(qI)(A)𝑑δp(A)𝑑ν¯(B)subscriptsuperscript𝑁subscriptsuperscript𝔹𝑁superscript𝑞𝐼𝐴differential-dsubscript𝛿𝑝𝐴differential-d¯𝜈𝐵\displaystyle\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^{N}}}{\int\limits_{\partial{\mathbb{B}^{% N}}}{{{(\overrightarrow{q}\cdot I)}^{\infty}}(A)d{\delta_{p}}(A)d\bar{\nu}(B)}}∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ blackboard_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⋅ italic_I ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_A ) italic_d italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_A ) italic_d over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG ( italic_B )
=\displaystyle== Φ(Dsu¯~|Dsu¯~|)superscriptΦsuperscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢superscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢\displaystyle{\Phi^{\infty}}\left({\frac{{{D^{s}}\tilde{\bar{u}}}}{{|{{D^{s}}% \tilde{\bar{u}}}|}}}\right)roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG | end_ARG )

holds |Dsu¯~|-a.e.inΩ¯superscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢-a.e.in¯Ω|{{D^{s}}\tilde{\bar{u}}}|{\text{-a.e.}}\;{\text{in}}\;\overline{\Omega}| italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG | -a.e. in over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG.

Combining this inequality with (69) and (71), we obtain

ν¯,qDsu¯~=Φ(Dsu¯~|Dsu¯~|)|Dsu¯~|=Φ(Dsu¯~)in(Ω¯).formulae-sequence¯𝜈𝑞superscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢superscriptΦsuperscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢superscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢superscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢superscriptΦsuperscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢in¯Ω\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle{D^{s}}\tilde{\bar{u}}=% {\Phi^{\infty}}\left({\frac{{{D^{s}}\tilde{\bar{u}}}}{{|{{D^{s}}\tilde{\bar{u}% }}|}}}\right)|{{D^{s}}\tilde{\bar{u}}}|={\Phi^{\infty}}\left({{D^{s}}\tilde{% \bar{u}}}\right)\quad{\text{in}}\;\mathcal{M}(\overline{\Omega}).⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG | end_ARG ) | italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG | = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG ) in caligraphic_M ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) .

Therefore,

ν¯,qDsu¯Ω=Φ(Dsu¯)Ωin(Ω¯),¯𝜈𝑞superscript𝐷𝑠¯𝑢ΩsuperscriptΦsuperscript𝐷𝑠¯𝑢Ωin¯Ω\displaystyle\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle{{D^{s}}% \bar{u}}\;\llcorner\Omega={\Phi^{\infty}}\left({{D^{s}}\bar{u}}\right)% \llcorner\Omega\quad{\text{in}}\;\mathcal{M}(\overline{\Omega}),⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG ⌞ roman_Ω = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG ) ⌞ roman_Ω in caligraphic_M ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) , (72)

and

ν¯,qDsu¯~Ω=Φ(Dsu¯~)in(Ω¯).¯𝜈𝑞superscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢ΩsuperscriptΦsuperscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢in¯Ω\displaystyle\left\langle{\bar{\nu},\overrightarrow{q}}\right\rangle{D^{s}}% \tilde{\bar{u}}\llcorner\partial\Omega={\Phi^{\infty}}\left({{D^{s}}\tilde{% \bar{u}}}\right)\quad{\text{in}}\;\mathcal{M}(\overline{\Omega}).⟨ over¯ start_ARG italic_ν end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_q end_ARG ⟩ italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG ⌞ ∂ roman_Ω = roman_Φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG ) in caligraphic_M ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) . (73)

Since u¯BV(Ω)¯𝑢𝐵𝑉Ω\bar{u}\in BV(\Omega)over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG ∈ italic_B italic_V ( roman_Ω ), we get

Dsu¯~Ω=Du¯~Ω=(u¯Ωn)N1Ωin(Ω¯).formulae-sequencesuperscript𝐷𝑠~¯𝑢Ω𝐷~¯𝑢Ωtensor-productsuperscript¯𝑢Ω𝑛superscript𝑁1Ωin¯Ω\displaystyle{D^{s}}\tilde{\bar{u}}\llcorner\partial\Omega=D\tilde{\bar{u}}% \llcorner\partial\Omega=\left({-{{\bar{u}}^{\Omega}}\otimes\vec{n}}\right){% \mathcal{H}^{N-1}}\llcorner\partial\Omega\quad{\text{in}}\;\mathcal{M}(% \overline{\Omega}).italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG ⌞ ∂ roman_Ω = italic_D over~ start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG end_ARG ⌞ ∂ roman_Ω = ( - over¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ω end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ over→ start_ARG italic_n end_ARG ) caligraphic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⌞ ∂ roman_Ω in caligraphic_M ( over¯ start_ARG roman_Ω end_ARG ) . (74)

According to Theorem 2, u¯=u¯𝑢𝑢\bar{u}=uover¯ start_ARG italic_u end_ARG = italic_u.

Combining (63),(65) and (72)–(74), we arrive at (60)–(62). The proof is complete. \hfill\blacksquare

\bmhead

Acknowledgments

\bmhead

Data Availability

The authors declare that data sharing not applicable to this article, as no datasets were generated or analysed during the study.

References

  • \bibcommenthead
  • (1) Slemrod, M.: Dynamics of measure valued solutions to a backward-forward heat equation. J. Dynam. Differential Equations 3(1), 1–28 (1991)
  • (2) Demoulini, S.: Young measure solutions for a nonlinear parabolic equation of forward-backward type. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 27(2), 376–403 (1996)
  • (3) Yin, J., Wang, C.: Young measure solutions of a class of forward-backward diffusion equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 279(2), 659–683 (2003)
  • (4) Gerhardt, C.: Evolutionary surfaces of prescribed mean curvature. J. Differential Equations 36(1), 139–172 (1980)
  • (5) Hardt, R., Zhou, X.: An evolution problem for linear growth functionals. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 19(11-12), 1879–1907 (1994)
  • (6) Andreu, F., Ballester, C., Caselles, V., Mazón, J.M.: Minimizing total variation flow. Differential Integral Equations 14(3), 321–360 (2001)
  • (7) Bögelein, V., Duzaar, F., Marcellini, P.: A time dependent variational approach to image restoration. SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 8(2), 968–1006 (2015)
  • (8) Lichnewsky, A., Temam, R.: Pseudosolutions of the time-dependent minimal surface problem. J. Differential Equations 30(3), 340–364 (1978)
  • (9) Zhou, X.: An evolution problem for plastic antiplanar shear. Appl. Math. Optim. 25(3), 263–285 (1992)
  • (10) Chen, Y., Rao, M.: Minimization problems and associated flows related to weighted p𝑝pitalic_p energy and total variation. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 34(5), 1084–1104 (2003)
  • (11) Anzellotti, G.: Pairings between measures and bounded functions and compensated compactness. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 135, 293–3181984 (1983)
  • (12) Andreu-Vaillo, F., Caselles, V., Mazón, J.M.: Parabolic Quasilinear Equations Minimizing Linear Growth Functionals. Progress in Mathematics, vol. 223, p. 340. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel (2004)
  • (13) Kristensen, J., Rindler, F.: Characterization of generalized gradient Young measures generated by sequences in W1,1superscript𝑊11W^{1,1}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and BV. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 197(2), 539–598 (2010)
  • (14) Kristensen, J., Rindler, F.: Erratum to: Characterization of generalized gradient Young measures generated by sequences in W1,1superscript𝑊11W^{1,1}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and BV. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 203(2), 693–700 (2012)
  • (15) Ball, J.M.: A version of the fundamental theorem for Young measures. In: PDEs and Continuum Models of Phase Transitions (Nice, 1988). Lecture Notes in Phys., vol. 344, pp. 207–215. Springer, Berlin (1989)
  • (16) Kirchheim, B., Kristensen, J.: Differentiability of convex envelopes. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 333(8), 725–728 (2001)
  • (17) Dacorogna, B.: Direct Methods in the Calculus of Variations, 2nd edn. Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol. 78, p. 619. Springer, New York (2008)
  • (18) Rindler, F.: A local proof for the characterization of Young measures generated by sequences in BV. J. Funct. Anal. 266(11), 6335–6371 (2014)
  • (19) Ambrosio, L., Fusco, N., Pallara, D.: Functions of Bounded Variation and Free Discontinuity Problems. Oxford Mathematical Monographs, pp. 180–181. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York (2000)