Next Article in Journal
Role of Metaheuristic Approaches for Implementation of Integrated MPPT-PV Systems: A Comprehensive Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Quasilinear Parabolic Equations Associated with Semilinear Parabolic Equations
Previous Article in Journal
Int N-Soft Substructures of Semigroups
Previous Article in Special Issue
Liouville-Type Theorem for Nonlinear Elliptic Equations Involving Generalized Greiner Operator
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Buckling Operator: Inverse Boundary Value Problem

School of Mathematics and Statistics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
Mathematics 2023, 11(2), 268; https://doi.org/10.3390/math11020268
Submission received: 24 November 2022 / Revised: 27 December 2022 / Accepted: 30 December 2022 / Published: 4 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Modern Analysis and Partial Differential Equations, 2nd Edition)

Abstract

:
In this paper, we consider a zeroth-order perturbation q ( x ) of the buckling operator Δ 2 κ Δ , which can be uniquely determined by measuring the Dirichlet-to-Neumann data on the boundary. We extend the conclusion of the biharmonic operator to the buckling operator, but the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map given in this study is more meaningful and general.
MSC:
35R30; 35B20; 35J40

1. Introduction

Let Ω R n ( n 3 ) be a bounded domain with C boundary Ω . Let us consider the following buckling operator Δ 2 κ Δ with zeroth-order perturbation:
L q ( x , τ ) = Δ 2 κ Δ + q ( x ) .
Here, parameter κ > 0 , Δ denotes the Laplacian, Δ 2 is the biharmonic operator, and the electric potential q L ( Ω , C ) is a complex-valued function. The buckling operator Δ 2 κ Δ , equipped with the domain:
H 4 ( Ω ) H 0 2 ( Ω ) , H 0 2 ( Ω ) = { u H 2 ( Ω ) : u | Ω = ν u | Ω = 0 }
is closed, and its spectrum is discrete. Here and in what follows, H s ( Ω ) , s R is the standard Sobolev space on Ω . We define the Dirichlet trace of u by ( u , u ν ) | Ω , u H 4 ( Ω ) , where ν is the unit outer normal to the boundary Ω . Let us make the assumption that 0 is not an eigenvalue of L q ( x , κ ) : H 4 ( Ω ) H 0 2 ( Ω ) L 2 ( Ω ) . Then, for any g = ( g 0 , g 1 ) H 7 / 2 ( Ω ) × H 5 / 2 ( Ω ) , the following boundary value problem:
L q ( x , κ ) u = 0 in   Ω , u = g 0 on   Ω , u ν = g 1 on   Ω ,
has a unique solution u H 4 ( Ω ) . We also define the Neumann trace of u by
( 1 ι ) 2 u ν 2 + ι Δ u , κ u ν Δ u ν ( 1 ι ) div Ω ( P Ω [ ( D 2 u ) ν ] ) | Ω u H 4 ( Ω ) ,
where Poisson’s ratio ι ( 1 / ( n 1 ) , 1 ) and P Ω projects a vector V at a point x on Ω onto the tangent space at x on Ω . The div Ω represents the surface divergence, and D 2 u is the Hessian matrix. The above boundary conditions are called natural or free boundary conditions with nonzero Poisson’s ratio [1,2]. Physically, in two dimensions, the function u is a transverse vibrational mode of the plate, Ω is a homogeneous, isotropic plate, and the parameter κ describes the ratio of the lateral tension to the flexural rigidity of the plate. Positive κ corresponds to a plate under tension, while negative κ gives us a plate under compression.
We then define the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map associated with the perturbed buckling operator N q : H 7 / 2 ( Ω ) × H 5 / 2 ( Ω ) H 3 / 2 ( Ω ) × H 1 / 2 ( Ω ) by
N q ( g 0 , g 1 ) = ( 1 ι ) 2 u ν 2 + ι Δ u , κ u ν Δ u ν ( 1 ι ) div Ω ( P Ω [ ( D 2 u ) ν ] ) | Ω ,
where u H 4 ( Ω ) is the solution to (1). Let us also define the set of Cauchy data C q :
C q = { u , u ν , ( 1 ι ) 2 u ν 2 + ι Δ u , κ u ν Δ u ν ( 1 ι ) div Ω ( P Ω [ ( D 2 u ) ν ] ) | Ω : u H 4 ( Ω ) , L q u = 0 in   Ω } .
Notice that, when ι = 1 , κ = 0 , the Cauchy data for the perturbed buckling operator becomes
{ ( u | Ω , u ν | Ω , Δ u | Ω , Δ u ν | Ω ) : u H 4 ( Ω ) , L q u = 0 in   Ω }
For this case, one can see [3].
Higher-order operators appear in the fields of physics and geometry, for example the study of the Paneitz–Branson operator in conformal geometry and the study of the Kirchoff plate equation in the theory of elasticity; see [4]. Thus, the inverse scattering problems for the biharmonic, or more generally polyharmonic, operator are therefore natural to consider. It addresses the recovery of the coefficients from measurements taken on the boundary [5,6,7,8,9], the lower regularity of the coefficients [10,11,12], stability issues [13,14], and the Weyl-type asymptotic formula [15,16,17] from the boundary Dirichlet-to-Neumann data. Apart from works already mentioned, for, the positive problem of elliptic equations we refer the reader to [18,19,20,21,22].
In this paper, we study the inverse problem of recovering the potential q ( x ) of the buckling operator Δ 2 κ Δ from the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map, in particular the Neumann trace of u given by the free boundary conditions with nonzero Poisson’s ratio. Thus, the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map given in this study is more meaningful and general. This work provides a fresh look in order to determine the perturbation q ( x ) , which we do not see often. Our main result is as follows.
Theorem 1. 
Let Ω R n ( n 3 ) be a bounded domain with the C boundary, and let q ( 1 ) , q ( 2 ) L ( Ω , C ) . If
N q ( 1 ) ( g 0 , g 1 ) = N q ( 2 ) ( g 0 , g 1 ) f o r a l l ( g 0 , g 1 ) H 7 / 2 ( Ω ) × H 5 / 2 ( Ω ) ,
then we have q ( 1 ) = q ( 2 ) in Ω.
In addition, if C q ( 1 ) = C q ( 2 ) , then N q ( 1 ) ( g 0 , g 1 ) = N q ( 2 ) ( g 0 , g 1 ) . Therefore, we can easily obtain the following corollary from Theorem 1.
Corollary 1. 
Under the assumptions of Theorem 1. If C q ( 1 ) = C q ( 2 ) , then we have q ( 1 ) = q ( 2 ) in Ω.
Remark 1. 
If we consider a similar problem with the following natural boundary conditions:
κ u ν Δ u ν div Ω ( P Ω [ ( D 2 u ) ν ] ) = f 0 o n   Ω , 2 u ν 2 = f 1 o n   Ω ,
where the symbols have the same meanings as above (see [23]), that is ι = 0 , the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map N q : H 7 / 2 ( Ω ) × H 5 / 2 ( Ω ) H 3 / 2 ( Ω ) × H 1 / 2 ( Ω ) becomes
N q ( g 0 , g 1 ) = 2 u ν 2 , κ u ν Δ u ν div Ω ( P Ω [ ( D 2 u ) ν ] ) | Ω ,
where u H 4 ( Ω ) is the solution to the problem (1). The perturbation q ( x ) also can be uniquely determined by the Dirichlet-to-Neumann data.
The key step in the proof of Theorem 1 is to construct a special class of complex geometric optics (CGO) solutions for the operator L q . The idea of constructing such CGO solutions to the Schrödinger operator goes back to the fundamental paper by Sylvester and Uhlmann [24], which has been extensively used to show the unique recovery of coefficients in many inverse problems, e.g., conductivity equation [25,26,27], fractional Laplacian [28], and the Navier–Stokes equation [29]. We also use the Carleman estimate, which is based on the corresponding method for the Laplacian.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we construct complex geometric optics solutions on a bounded domain. Section 3 is devoted to the main integral identity for the perturbed buckling operator. The proof of Theorem 1 is given in Section 4.

2. Complex Geometric Optics Solutions

In this section, we shall construct some complex geometric optics solutions to the equation L q u = 0 on a bounded domain. For the construction of various complex geometric optics solutions and their applications, one can see [30,31,32].
Let Ω R n ( n 3 ) be a bounded domain with the C boundary. We will look for the solutions of L q u = 0 in Ω having the form:
u ( x , h ) = e i x · ρ h ( a ( x , ρ ) + h r ( x , ρ , h ) ) .
Here, ρ C n satisfies ρ · ρ = 0 , amplitude a C ( Ω ¯ ) , correction term r satisfies r H s c l 1 = O ( 1 ) , and h > 0 is a small number.
In this paper, we shall consider ρ = ρ ( 0 ) + ρ ( 1 ) with ρ ( 0 ) independent of h, ρ ( 1 ) = O ( h ) , and | Re ρ ( 0 ) | = | Im ρ ( 0 ) | = 1 . Consider the following conjugated operator:
e i x · ρ h h 4 L q e i x · ρ h = ( h 2 Δ 2 i ρ · h ) 2 + κ h 2 ( h 2 Δ 2 i ρ · h ) + h 4 q .
In order to get rid of the lowest-order term containing h, we need
e i x · ρ h h 4 L q ( e i x · ρ h a ) = O ( h 3 )
in L 2 ( Ω ) . Choose a C ( Ω ¯ ) such that
( ρ ( 0 ) · ) 2 a = 0 in Ω
holds. As ρ ( 0 ) · is a ¯ -operator, so the above equation has a solution a = a ( x , ρ ( 0 ) ) C ( Ω ¯ ) .
Definition 1 
(P. 470 of [32]). A real smooth function φ on an open set Ω ˜ is called a limiting Carleman weight if φ 0 in Ω ˜ , and the Poisson bracket of Re p φ and Im p φ satisfies
{ Re p φ , Im p φ } ( x , ξ ) = 0 w h e n p φ ( x , ξ ) = 0 , ( x , ξ ) Ω ˜ × R n ,
where p φ is the semiclassical principal symbol of P φ = e φ h ( h 2 Δ ) e φ h , satisfying
p φ ( x , ξ ) = ξ 2 + 2 i φ · ξ | φ | 2 x Ω ˜ , ξ R n .
In this paper, we shall choose the linear weights φ ( x ) = α · x , α R n , | α | = 1 .
Proposition 1 
(Lemma 2.1 of [33]). Let φ be a limiting Carleman weight for the semiclassical Laplacian on Ω ˜ . Then, for all h > 0 small enough, the Carleman estimate
e φ h ( h 2 Δ ) e φ h u H s c l s h C s , Ω u H s c l s + 1 ,
holds, for all u C 0 ( Ω ) .
Here and in what follows, we define the norm u H s c l s = | | h D s u | | L 2 with ξ = ( 1 + | ξ | 2 ) 1 / 2 on the semiclassical Sobolev spaces H s c l s ( R n ) ( s R ) . Since it is a semiclassical space, the parameter h goes to zero, but then, it is no longer a Sobolev space. We set
L φ = e φ h h 4 L q e φ h .
Proposition 2. 
Assume q L ( Ω , C ) and that φ is a limiting Carleman weight for the semiclassical Laplacian on Ω ˜ . If 2 s 0 , then we have
e φ h h 4 L q e φ h u H s c l s h 2 C s , Ω , κ u H s c l s + 2 ,
for all u C 0 ( Ω ) and h > 0 small enough.
Proof. 
Notice that H s c l s + 1 H s c l s , and we have
u H s c l s O ( 1 ) u H s c l s + 1 .
Due to the Proposition 1, there exists a constant C s , κ , Ω such that
e φ h ( h 2 ( Δ κ ) ) e φ h u H s c l s h C s , κ , Ω u H s c l s + 1 ,
for all u C 0 ( Ω ) and h > 0 small enough. Note that we have the following factorization:
Δ 2 κ Δ = Δ ( Δ κ ) .
Applying the Proposition 1 again, we obtain
e φ h ( h 2 Δ ( h 2 ( Δ κ ) ) ) e φ h u H s c l s h C s , Ω e φ h ( h 2 ( Δ κ ) ) e φ h u H s c l s + 1 h 2 C s , κ , Ω u H s c l s + 2 .
Next, we deal with the perturbation h 4 q :
q u H s c l s q u L 2 q L u L 2 q L u H s c l s + 2 .
for 2 s 0 . Thus, we obtain the desired result. □
We denote by H s c l 1 ( Ω ) the semiclassical Sobolev space of order one on Ω , equipped with the norm u H s c l 1 ( Ω ) 2 = u L 2 ( Ω ) 2 + h u L 2 ( Ω ) 2 . The following solvability result is an immediate consequence of the above Carleman estimate.
Proposition 3. 
Assume q L ( Ω , C ) and φ is a limiting Carleman weight for the semiclassical Laplacian on Ω ˜ . Then, for any v L 2 ( Ω ) , there exists a solution u H 2 ( Ω ) of the equation:
L φ u = v i n Ω ,
such that
u H s c l 2 C h 2 v L 2 ,
for all h > 0 small enough.
 Proof. 
We extend q L ( Ω , C ) and v to be zero in R n \ Ω , solve the equation in R n , and set the formal L 2 -adjoint of L φ :
L φ * : = e φ h h 4 L q ¯ e φ h .
Define the following complex linear functional:
L : L φ * C 0 ( Ω ) C , L φ * w ( w , v ) L 2 .
The map L is well defined from Proposition 2 with L φ replaced by L φ * . For any w C 0 ( Ω ) , we have
| L ( L φ * w ) | = | ( w , v ) L 2 | w L 2 v L 2 C h 2 L φ * w H s c l 2 v L 2 .
Thus, L is bounded in the H 2 -norm. Now, by the Hahn–Banach theorem, we extend L to L ˜ , which is a linear continuous functional on H 2 ( R n ) . Applying the Riesz representation theorem, there exists u H 2 ( R n ) such that
L ˜ ( w ) = ( w , u ) ( H 2 , H 2 ) and u H s c l 2 C h 2 v L 2 ,
for all w H 2 ( R n ) . Here, ( · , · ) ( H 2 , H 2 ) represents for the usual L 2 -duality. □
Now, we construct the complex geometric optics solution of Equation (4). From (5), we have
e i x · ρ h h 4 L q e i x · ρ h a = O ( h 3 ) .
Applying Proposition 3, we can obtain a solution r H 1 ( Ω ) such that
e i x · ρ h h 4 L q e i x · ρ h ( h r ) = e i x · ρ h h 4 L q e i x · ρ h a in Ω ,
for h > 0 small enough.
Summing up, we have the following result.
Proposition 4. 
Assume q L ( Ω , C ) and ρ C n such that ρ · ρ = 0 , | Re ρ | = | Im ρ | = 1 , then there exist solutions u ( x , ρ ; h ) H 1 ( Ω ) to the equation L q u = 0 in Ω, having the following form:
u ( x , ρ ; h ) = e i x · ρ h ( a ( x , ρ ) + h r ( x , ρ , h ) ) ,
for all h > 0 small enough. Here, a ( · , ρ ) C ( Ω ¯ ) satisfies (5) and r H s c l 1 = O ( 1 ) .
Remark 2. 
By elliptic regularity, we know that the complex geometric optics solutions belong to H 4 ( Ω ) .

3. An Integral Identity

In this section, we give Green’s formula for the buckling operator. Now, multiplying L q u = 0 by ϕ and integrating yield:
Ω [ ( 1 ι ) D 2 u : D 2 ϕ + ι Δ u Δ ϕ + κ D u · D ϕ + q u ϕ ] d x = 0 ,
where ϕ H 2 ( Ω ) is a test function and
D 2 u : D 2 ϕ = i , j = 1 n 2 u x i x j 2 ϕ x i x j ,
with { x i } 1 i n the Cartesian coordinates of R n , and d x , d S are volume densities on Ω and Ω , respectively. Applying the divergence theorem twice:
Ω ι Δ u · Δ ϕ d x = ι Ω Δ u ϕ ν d S ι Ω D ( Δ u ) · D ϕ d x = ι Ω [ Δ u ϕ ν ϕ ( Δ u ) ν ] d S + ι Ω Δ 2 u · ϕ d x .
Thus, the Hessian term becomes
Ω ( 1 ι ) D 2 u : D 2 ϕ d x = ( 1 ι ) i , j = 1 n Ω 2 u x i x j 2 ϕ x i x j d x = ( 1 ι ) j = 1 n Ω D ( u x j ) · D ( ϕ x j ) d x = ( 1 ι ) j = 1 n Ω ϕ x j ( u x j ) ν d S j = 1 n Ω Δ ( u x j ) · ϕ x j d x = ( 1 ι ) Ω [ D ϕ · ( D 2 u · ν ) ϕ ( Δ u ) ν ] d S + Ω ϕ · Δ 2 u d x .
Note that the gradient grad Ω equals D ν ν on a neighborhood of the boundary. By the divergence theorem on Ω ,
Ω D ϕ · ( ( D 2 u ) · ν ) d S = Ω ( ν ϕ ν + grad Ω ϕ ) · ( ν 2 u ν 2 + P Ω [ ( D 2 u ) ν ] ) d S = Ω ϕ ν 2 u ν 2 + grad Ω ϕ , P Ω [ ( D 2 u ) ν ] d S = Ω ϕ ν 2 u ν 2 ϕ div Ω P Ω [ ( D 2 u ) ν ] d S .
Thus, the Hessian term equals
Ω ( 1 ι ) D 2 u : D 2 ϕ d x = ( 1 ι ) { Ω [ ϕ ν 2 u ν 2 ϕ div Ω ( P Ω [ ( D 2 u ) ν ] ) ϕ ( Δ u ) ν ] d S + Ω ϕ · Δ 2 u d x } .
Therefore,
Ω ( Δ 2 u κ Δ u + q u ) ϕ d x = ( 1 ι ) Ω [ ϕ ν 2 u ν 2 ϕ div Ω ( P Ω [ ( D 2 u ) ν ] ) ϕ ( Δ u ) ν ] d S ι Ω [ Δ u ϕ ν ϕ ( Δ u ) ν ] d S κ Ω ϕ u ν d S = Ω κ u ν Δ u ν ( 1 ι ) div Ω ( P Ω [ ( D 2 u ) ν ] ) ϕ d S Ω ( 1 ι ) 2 u ν 2 + ι Δ u ϕ ν d S .
Summing up, Green’s formula of the buckling operator gives
( L q u , v ) L 2 ( Ω ) ( u , L q * v ) L 2 ( Ω ) = Ω κ u ν Δ u ν ( 1 ι ) div Ω ( P Ω [ ( D 2 u ) ν ] ) v d S Ω ( 1 ι ) 2 u ν 2 + ι Δ u v ν d S + Ω κ v ν Δ v ν ( 1 ι ) div Ω ( P Ω [ ( D 2 v ) ν ] ) u d S + Ω ( 1 ι ) 2 v ν 2 + ι Δ v u ν d S ,
for all u , v H 4 ( Ω ) .

4. Proof of Theorem 1

In this section, we shall prove Theorem 1. We start with the following result.
Proposition 5. 
Let Ω Ω ˜ be two bounded domains in R n with smooth boundaries. Assume that q ˜ ( 1 ) , q ˜ ( 2 ) L ( Ω ˜ , C ) satisfy q ˜ ( 1 ) = q ˜ ( 2 ) in Ω ˜ \ Ω . If C q ˜ ( 1 ) Ω = C q ˜ ( 2 ) Ω , then we have C q ˜ ( 1 ) Ω ˜ = C q ˜ ( 2 ) Ω ˜ .
Proof. 
Let u ˜ H 4 ( Ω ˜ ) be a solution of L q ˜ ( 1 ) u ˜ = 0 in Ω ˜ . Since C q ˜ ( 1 ) Ω = C q ˜ ( 2 ) Ω , there exists v H 4 ( Ω ) , solving L q ˜ ( 2 ) v = 0 in Ω and satisfying
( v , v ν ) | Ω = ( u ˜ , u ˜ ν ) | Ω ,
and
( 1 ι ) 2 v ν 2 + ι Δ v , κ v ν Δ v ν ( 1 ι ) div Ω ( P ν [ ( D 2 v ) ν ] ) | Ω = ( 1 ι ) 2 u ˜ ν 2 + ι Δ u ˜ , κ u ˜ ν Δ u ˜ ν ( 1 ι ) div Ω ( P ν [ ( D 2 u ˜ ) ν ] ) | Ω .
Setting
v ˜ = v in Ω , u ˜ in Ω ˜ \ Ω ,
we obtain v ˜ H 4 ( Ω ˜ ) and L q ˜ ( 2 ) v ˜ = 0 in Ω ˜ . Thus, C q ˜ ( 1 ) Ω ˜ C q ˜ ( 2 ) Ω ˜ . Another direction with the same argument shows this claim. □
Let Ω ˜ be an open domain in R n , such that Ω Ω ˜ . We extend q ( j ) L ( Ω ) ( j = 1 , 2 ) to be zero in Ω ˜ \ Ω and denote the extensions q ˜ ( j ) . Thanks to Proposition 5, we have C q ˜ ( 1 ) Ω ˜ = C q ˜ ( 2 ) Ω ˜ . Let u ˜ 1 H 4 ( Ω ˜ ) satisfy the following equation:
L q ˜ ( 1 ) ( x , κ ) u = 0 in Ω ˜ , u = g 0 on Ω ˜ , u ν = g 1 on Ω ˜ ,
Since C q ˜ ( 1 ) Ω ˜ = C q ˜ ( 2 ) Ω ˜ , then there exists a solution u ˜ 2 H 4 ( Ω ˜ ) that satisfies
L q ˜ ( 2 ) ( x , κ ) u = 0 in Ω ˜ , u ˜ 2 = u ˜ 1 u ˜ 2 ν = u ˜ 1 ν on Ω ˜ ,
( 1 ι ) 2 u ˜ 2 ν 2 + ι Δ u ˜ 2 = ( 1 ι ) 2 u ˜ 2 ν 2 + ι Δ u ˜ 1 on Ω ˜ ,
κ u ˜ 1 ν Δ u ˜ 1 ν ( 1 ι ) div Ω ( P ν [ ( D 2 u ˜ 2 ) ν ] ) = κ u ˜ 1 ν Δ u ˜ 1 ν ( 1 ι ) div Ω ( P ν [ ( D 2 u ˜ 1 ) ν ] ) on Ω ˜ .
Setting w : = u ˜ 1 u ˜ 2 , we have
L q ˜ ( 1 ) ( w ) = ( q ˜ ( 2 ) q ˜ ( 1 ) ) u ˜ 2 in Ω ˜ .
and
w = w ν = ( 1 ι ) 2 w ν 2 + ι Δ w = 0 on   Ω ˜
κ w ν Δ w ν ( 1 ι ) div Ω ( P ν [ ( D 2 w ) ν ] ) = 0 on   Ω ˜
Therefore, we have the following Green’s formula:
( L q ˜ u ˜ , v ˜ ) L 2 ( Ω ˜ ) = ( u ˜ , L q ˜ * v ˜ ) L 2 ( Ω ˜ ) u ˜ , v ˜ H 4 ( Ω ˜ ) .
Let v ˜ H 4 ( Ω ˜ ) be a solution of
L q * v ˜ = 0 in Ω ˜ .
Applying Green’s formula (9) over Ω ˜ , we obtain
Ω ˜ ( q ˜ ( 2 ) q ˜ ( 1 ) ) u ˜ 2 v ˜ ¯ d x = 0 .
Next, we shall construct the appropriate complex geometric optics solutions to show q ˜ ( 2 ) = q ˜ ( 1 ) . Let ξ , μ 1 , μ 2 R n be such that | μ 1 | = | μ 2 | = 1 and μ 1 · μ 2 = μ 1 · ξ = μ 2 · ξ = 0 . Similarly, in [34], we let h > 0 small enough and set
ρ 1 = h ξ 2 + 1 h 2 | ξ | 2 4 μ 1 i μ 2 , ρ 2 = h ξ 2 + 1 h 2 | ξ | 2 4 μ 1 + i μ 2 ,
such that ρ j · ρ j = 0 , j = 1 , 2 and ρ 2 ρ 1 ¯ = h ξ . Then, by Proposition 4, there exist solutions u ˜ 2 ( x , ρ 2 ; h ) H 4 ( Ω ˜ ) and v ˜ ( x , ρ 1 ; h ) H 4 ( Ω ˜ ) to the equations L q ˜ ( 2 ) u 2 = 0 and L q ˜ ( 1 ) * v = 0 in Ω ˜ , respectively, of the form:
u ˜ 2 ( x , ρ 2 ; h ) = e i x · ρ 2 h ( a 2 ( x , μ 1 + i μ 2 ) + h r 2 ( x , ρ 2 , h ) ) ,
v ˜ ( x , ρ 1 ; h ) = e i x · ρ 1 h ( a 1 ( x , μ 1 i μ 2 ) + h r 1 ( x , ρ 1 , h ) ) ,
for h > 0 small enough. Here, the amplitudes a 1 ( · , μ 1 i μ 2 ) , a 2 ( · , μ 1 + i μ 2 ) C ( Ω ˜ ¯ ) satisfy the following transport equations:
( ( μ 1 + i μ 2 ) · ) 2 a 2 ( x , μ 1 + i μ 2 ) = 0 in Ω ˜ ,
( ( μ 1 i μ 2 ) · ) 2 a 1 ( x , μ 1 i μ 2 ) = 0 in Ω ˜ ,
and
r j H s c l 1 = O ( 1 ) , j = 1 , 2 .
Substituting u ˜ 2 and v ˜ , given by (11) and (12), into (10), we obtain
Ω ˜ ( q ˜ ( 2 ) q ˜ ( 1 ) ) e i x · ξ ( a 2 + h r 2 ) ( a 1 ¯ + h r 1 ¯ ) d x = 0 .
Letting h 0 + , we obtain
Ω ˜ ( q ˜ ( 2 ) q ˜ ( 1 ) ) e i x · ξ a 2 a 1 ¯ d x = 0 .
Here, we use (13) and the fact a 1 ( · , μ 1 i μ 2 ) , a 2 ( · , μ 1 + i μ 2 ) C ( Ω ˜ ¯ ) , to conclude that
| Ω ˜ r 2 r 1 ¯ d x | ( Ω ˜ r 2 2 d x ) 1 2 ( Ω ˜ r 1 2 d x ) 1 2 O ( 1 ) ,
| Ω ˜ a 2 r 1 ¯ d x | ( Ω ˜ a 2 2 d x ) 1 2 ( Ω ˜ r 1 2 d x ) 1 2 O ( 1 ) ,
and
| Ω ˜ r 2 a 1 ¯ d x | ( Ω ˜ r 2 2 d x ) 1 2 ( Ω ˜ a 1 2 d x ) 1 2 O ( 1 ) .
Obviously, a 1 = a 2 = 1 satisfies the transport equations. Thus, we insert a 1 = a 2 = 1 in (14), and we have
Ω ˜ ( q ˜ ( 2 ) q ˜ ( 1 ) ) e i x · ξ d x = 0 ,
for all ξ R n . By the uniqueness of the inverse Fourier transformation q ˜ ( 2 ) q ˜ ( 1 ) = 0 in Ω ˜ , hence q ( 2 ) = q ( 1 ) in Ω . This completes the proof of Theorem 1.

Funding

This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (12271031) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11671033/A010802).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the anonymous Referees for their thorough reading and insightful comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chasman, L.M. An isoperimetric inequality for fundamental tones of free plates with nonzero Poisson’s ratio. Appl. Anal. 2015, 95, 1700–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Krupchyk, K.; Lassas, M.; Uhlmann, G. Inverse boundary value problems for the perturbed polyharmonic operator. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 2014, 366, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Krupchyk, K.; Lassas, M.; Uhlmann, G. Determining a first order perturbation of the biharmonic operator by partial boundary measurements. J. Funct. Anal. 2012, 262, 1781–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Gazzola, F.; Sweers, G.; Grunau, H.C. Polyharmonic Boundary Value Problems. Lect. Notes Math. 2010, 1991, xviii+423. [Google Scholar]
  5. Assylbekov, Y.M.; Yang, Y. Determining the first order perturbation of a polyharmonic operator on admissible manifolds. J. Differ. Equ. 2017, 262, 590–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Bhattacharyya, S. An inverse problem for the magnetic Schrödinger operator on Riemannian manifolds from partial boundary data. Inverse Probl. Imaging 2018, 12, 801–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Ghosh, T. An inverse problem on determining upto first order perturbations of a fourth order operator with partial boundary data. Inverse Probl. 2015, 31, 105009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ghosh, T.; Krishnan, V. Determination of lower order perturbations of the polyharmonic operator from partial boundary data. Appl. Anal. 2015, 94, 2444–2463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yang, Y. Determining the first order perturbation of a bi-harmonic operator on bounded and unbounded domains from partial data. J. Differ. Equ. 2014, 257, 3607–3639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Assylbekov, Y.M. Inverse problems for the perturbed polyharmonic operator with coefficients in Sobolev spaces with nonpositive order. Inverse Probl. 2016, 2, 105009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Assylbekov, Y.M.; Iyer, K. Determining rough first order perturbations of the polyharmonic operator. Inverse Probl. Imaging 2019, 13, 1045–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Krupchyk, K.; Uhlmann, G. Inverse boundary problems for polyharmonic operators with unbounded potentials. J. Spectr. Theory 2016, 6, 145–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Anupam, P.C.; Horst, H. Stability of the inverse boundary value problem for the biharmonic operator: Logarithmic estimates. J. Inverse Ill-Posed Probl. 2017, 25, 251–263. [Google Scholar]
  14. Choudhury, A.P.; Krishnan, V.P. Stability estimates for the inverse boundary value problem for the biharmonic operator with bounded potentials. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2015, 431, 300–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, G.Q. The Weyl-type asymptotic formula for biharmonic Steklov eigenvalues on Riemannian manifolds. Adv. Math. 2011, 228, 2162–2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Liu, G.Q. On asymptotic properties of biharmonic Steklov eigenvalues. J. Diff. Equ. 2016, 261, 4729–4757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, G.Q. Spectral invariants of the perturbed polyharmonic Steklov problem. Calc. Var. Parit. Differ. Equ. 2022, 61, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, Y.Y.; Nguyen, L.; Wang, B. Comparison principles and Lipschitz regularity for some nonlinear degenerate elliptic equations. Calc. Var. Parit. Differ. Equ. 2018, 57, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Li, Y.Y.; Wang, B. Strong comparison principles for some nonlinear degenerate elliptic equations. Acta Math. Sci. Ser. B 2018, 38, 1583–1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Fan, W.; Dai, L.; Wang, B.; Wang, B.; Li, H.G.; Bao, J.G. Positive Radially Symmetric Entire Solutions of p-k-Hessian Equations and Systems. Mathematics 2022, 10, 3258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, P. Lower bounds for sums of eigenvalues of the buckling problem. Monatsh. Math. 2022, 198, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Li, S.; Mao, J. An isoperimetric inequality for a biharmonic Steklov problem. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2105.12401. [Google Scholar]
  23. Chasman, L.M. An Isoperimetric Inequality for Fundamental Tones of Free Plates. Commun. Math. Phys. 2011, 303, 421–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sylvester, J.; Uhlmann, G. A global uniqueness theorem for an inverse boundary value problem. Ann. Math. 1987, 125, 153–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Astala, K.; Päivxaxrinta, L. Calderón’s inverse conductivity problem in the plane. Ann. Math. 2006, 35, 265–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Brown, R.M.; Uhlmann, G. Uniqueness in the inverse conductivity problem for nonsmooth conductivities in two dimensions. Comm. Partial. Differ. Equ. 1997, 22, 1009–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kenig, C.E.; Sjöestrand, J.; Uhlmann, G. The Calderón problem with partial data. Ann. Math. 2007, 165, 567–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Bhattacharyya, S.; Ghosh, T.; Uhlmann, G. Inverse problems for the fractional Laplacian with lower order nonlocal perturbations. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 2021, 374, 3053–3075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, P.; Liu, G. An inverse boundary value problem for the incompressible inhomogeneous Navier-Stokes equations. Ann. Funct. Anal. 2022, 13, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chen, J.; Yang, Y. Quantitative Photo-acoustic Tomography with Partial Data. Inverse Probl. 2012, 28, 417–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Chen, J.; Yang, Y. Inverse Problem of Electro-seismic Conversion. Inverse Probl. 2013, 29, 1748–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Ferreira, D.D.S.; Kenig, C.E.; Sjöstrand, J.; Uhlmann, G. Determining a magnetic Schrödinger operator from partial Cauchy data. Commun. Math. Phys. 2007, 271, 467–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Salo, M.; Tzou, L. Carleman estimates and inverse problems for Dirac operators. Math. Ann. 2009, 344, 161–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sun, Z. An inverse boundary value problem for Schrödinger operators with magnetic potentials. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1993, 338, 953–969. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ma, Y. The Buckling Operator: Inverse Boundary Value Problem. Mathematics 2023, 11, 268. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11020268

AMA Style

Ma Y. The Buckling Operator: Inverse Boundary Value Problem. Mathematics. 2023; 11(2):268. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11020268

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ma, Yanjun. 2023. "The Buckling Operator: Inverse Boundary Value Problem" Mathematics 11, no. 2: 268. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11020268

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop