A convex entropy is paired with any flux antiderivative satisfying almost everywhere. Its admissibility inequality is distributionally, with the matching initial entropy trace. Affine entropies recover the weak formulation, while bounded classical solutions satisfy equality for smooth entropies and then by approximation for piecewise smooth convex entropies.
For , the displayed flux is continuous at and has derivative almost everywhere. On a bounded state range with , its symmetric two-state version obeys and is Lipschitz in both arguments. The vanishing factor at removes any sign-function jump contribution.
Apply the entropy solution inequality for with level and for with level , integrate both in the other pair of variables, and add them. Symmetry of the Kruzhkov entropy flux produces derivatives and . A nonnegative mollifier concentrated near the diagonal then yields the Kato inequality for scalar conservation laws. Boundary-time terms require an initial trace argument, not merely interior translation continuity.
For bounded entropy solutions of the same scalar law, satisfies the displayed distributional inequality, with initial value in its test-function form. The doubling of variables for scalar conservation laws, local translation continuity and the averaged initial trace of an entropy solution prove it. Its significance is comparison between two solutions rather than an inequality against a constant state.
If on the solutions' state range, the Kato inequality for scalar conservation laws implies the displayed estimate for almost every . Approximate the shrinking interval by smooth cutoffs satisfying and multiply by a temporal cutoff ending at . Since , the lateral flux cannot increase the integral. The estimate gives uniqueness and a finite propagation speed without global assumptions on the data.
Subtract the weak equation for from its Kato inequality for scalar conservation laws and divide by two. The result is an inequality for with a flux bounded in magnitude by . The same shrinking-interval argument proves almost everywhere. Choosing the constant solution proves preservation of nonnegativity even when . Two-sided absolute-value contraction alone should not be mistaken for this one-sided comparison proof.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.