 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
A condition for blowup solutions to discrete pLaplacian parabolic equations under the mixed boundary conditions on networks
Boundary Value Problems volume 2019, Article number: 180 (2019)
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the condition
for some \(\alpha >2\), \(\gamma >0\), and \(0\leq \beta \leq \frac{ (\alpha p ) \lambda _{p,0}}{p}\), where \(p>1\), and \(\lambda _{p,0}\) is the first eigenvalue of the discrete pLaplacian \(\Delta _{p,\omega }\). Using this condition, we obtain blowup solutions to discrete pLaplacian parabolic equations
on a discrete network S, where \(\frac{\partial u}{\partial _{p}n}\) denotes the discrete pnormal derivative. Here μ and σ are nonnegative functions on the boundary ∂S of S with \(\mu (z)+\sigma (z)>0\), \(z\in \partial S\). In fact, we will see that condition \((C_{p})\) improves the conditions known so far.
Introduction
These days the discrete version of differential equations has attracted attention of many researchers. In particular, the pLaplacian \(\Delta _{p,\omega }\) on networks (or weighted graphs) is used to observe various social and scientific phenomena (see [1,2,3] and references therein), which can be modeled by the discrete pLaplacian parabolic equations
with some boundary and initial conditions, where \(p>1\). Here S̅ is the set of chemicals or networks, and ω is a weight function on S̅.
Especially, many authors studied blowup solutions for the reaction–diffusion equations, which contain pLaplacian, Laplacian, and so on, in continuous and discrete analogues. For example, in 1973, Levine [4] considered formal parabolic equations of the form
where P and \(A(t)\) are positive linear operators defined on a dense subdomain D of a real or complex Hilbert space H. Here he first introduced the “concavity method” to obtained the blowup solutions under abstract conditions
for \(x\in D\), where \(F(x)=\int _{0}^{1}(f(\rho x),x)\,d\rho \).
After this, Philippin and Proytcheva [5] have applied this method to the equations
and obtained a blowup solution under the Dirichlet boundary condition by using the condition
for some \(\epsilon >0\) and the initial data \(u_{0}\) satisfying
For the pLaplace operator, Messaoudi [6] obtained the blowup solutions to the equation
under the Dirichlet boundary condition by using the condition
for some \(\epsilon >0\) and the initial data \(u_{0}\) satisfying
Besides, Junning [7] obtained the blowup solutions to the equation
under the Dirichlet boundary condition by using the condition
Here the initial data \(u_{0}\) satisfies
Recently, Ding and Hu [8] adopted condition \((A)\) to obtain the blowup solutions to the equation
with the nonnegative initial value and the null Dirichlet boundary condition.
On the other hand, condition (A) was relaxed by Bandle and Brunner [9] as follows:
for some \(\epsilon >0\). Also, the initial data \(u_{0}\) satisfies
for some \(\epsilon >0\) and \(\gamma >0\).
Finally, condition \((B)\) was improved by Chung and Choi [10] with the discrete analogue. They obtained the blowup solutions to the equation
under the Dirichlet boundary condition by using the condition
for some \(\epsilon >0\), \(0< \beta \leq \frac{\epsilon \lambda _{0}}{2}\), and \(\gamma >0\) and the initial data \(u_{0}\) satisfying
Here \(\lambda _{0}\) is the first eigenvalue for the discrete Laplace operator \(\Delta _{\omega }\).
In 2018, Chung and Choi [11] refines condition \((C)\) in continuous analogue. For \(p\geq 2\), they obtained the blowup solutions to the equation
under the Dirichlet boundary condition by using the condition
for some \(\epsilon >0\), \(0< \beta \leq \frac{\epsilon \lambda _{p,0}}{p}\), and \(\gamma >0\). Here the initial data \(u_{0}\) satisfies
Here \(\lambda _{p,0}\) is the first eigenvalue for the pLaplace operator.
It is clear that conditions \((A)\), \((A_{p})\), \((B)\), and \((B_{p})\) are independent of the eigenvalue of the Laplace operator, and conditions \((C)\) and \((C_{p})\) depend on the eigenvalue. As a matter of fact, it is known that the first eigenvalue for the pLaplace operator depends not only on the domain but also on the boundary conditions (see [12]).
Motivated by the works mentioned, we study the blowup solutions to the following discrete pLaplacian parabolic equations:
where \(p>1\), f is a nonnegative locally Lipschitz continuous function on \(\mathbb{R}\), and \(B[u]=0\) on \(\partial S\times [0,+\infty )\) stands for the boundary condition
Here \(\mu ,\sigma :\partial S \rightarrow [0,+\infty )\) are functions such that \(\mu (z)+\sigma (z)>0\), \(z\in \partial S\), and \(\frac{ \partial u}{\partial _{p} n}\) denotes the discrete pnormal derivative (introduced in Sect. 1). It is easy to see that this boundary value problem includes various boundary value problems such as the Dirichlet boundary, Neumann boundary, and Robin boundary problems. Note that one of advantages of our result is a unified approach.
To obtain the blowup solutions to equation (2), we introduce the following condition:
For \(p>1\),
for some \(\alpha >2\), \(0\leq \beta \leq \frac{ (\alpha p ) \lambda _{p,0}}{p}\), and \(\gamma \geq 0\).
We discuss condition \((C_{p})\) in Section 3 to understand the constants α, β, and γ with respect to the boundary condition \(B[u]=0\) and the parameter \(p>1\), which are crucial points of our results.
It is worth noting that we obtained the blowup solutions to equation (2) in the case \(p>1\), not in the case \(p\geq 2\). In fact, there are interesting results in the case \(1< p<2\) with respect to blowup property (see [13,14,15]). Therefore we expect that under condition \((C_{p})\), more interesting results can be obtained even in the continuous case, which will be our forthcoming work.
We organize this paper as follows. In Sect. 1, we briefly introduce the preliminary concepts on networks and comparison principles. Section 2 is the main section devoted to blowup solutions using the concavity method with condition \((C_{p})\). Finally, in Sect. 3, we discuss condition \((C_{p})\), comparing it with conditions \((A_{p})\) and \((B_{p})\), together with the condition \(B(0)>0\), the parameter \(p>1\), and the initial data condition.
Preliminaries and discrete comparison principles
In this section, we start with the theoretic graph notions frequently used throughout this paper. For more detailed information on notations, notions, and conventions, we refer the reader to [16].
Definition 1.1

(i)
A graph \(G=G (V,E )\) is a finite set V of vertices with a set E of edges (twoelement subsets of V). Conventionally used, we denote by \(x\in V\) or \(x\in G\) the fact that x is a vertex in G.

(ii)
A graph G is called simple if it has neither multiple edges nor loops.

(iii)
G is called connected if for all vertices x and y, there exists a sequence of vertices \(x=x_{0}\), \(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n1},x_{n}=y\) such that \(x_{j1}\) and \(x_{j}\) are connected by an edge for \(j=1,\ldots ,n\) (called adjacent).

(iv)
A graph \(G'=G' (V',E' )\) is called a subgraph of \(G (V,E )\) if \(V'\subset V\) and \(E'\subset E\). In this case, G is a host graph of \(G'\). If \(E'\) consists of all the edges from E that connect the vertices of \(V'\) in its host graph G, then \(G'\) is called an induced subgraph.
Definition 1.2
For an induced subgraph S of a graph \(G=G (V,E )\), the (vertex) boundary∂S of S is defined as
Here, \(x\sim y\) means that two vertices x and y are connected (adjacent) by an edge in E.
Throughout this paper, the subgraph S is assumed to be induced, simple, and connected. Also, we denote by S̅ the graph with vertices and edges in \(S\cup \partial S\). We note that by definition the set S̅ is an induced subgraph of G.
Definition 1.3
A weight on a graph G is a symmetric function \(\omega : V \times V\rightarrow [0,+\infty )\) satisfying the following:
 (i)
\(\omega (x,x )=0\), \(x\in V\),
 (ii)
\(\omega (x,y )=\omega (y,x )\) if \(x\sim y\),
 (iii)
\(\omega (x,y )>0\) if and only if \(\{x,y\}\in E\),
and a graph G with weight ω is called a network.
Definition 1.4
The degree\(d_{\omega }x\) of a vertex x in a network S (with boundary ∂S) is defined as
Definition 1.5
For \(p>1\) and a function \(u:\overline{S}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\), the discrete pLaplacian \(\Delta _{p,\omega }\) on S is defined by
for \(x\in S\).
Definition 1.6
For \(p>1\) and a function \(u\,:\,\overline{S}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\), the discrete pnormal derivative \(\frac{\partial u}{\partial _{p} n}\) on ∂S is defined by
for \(z\in \partial S\).
The following two lemmas are used throughout this paper.
Lemma 1.7
(See [17])
Let\(p>1\). For functions\(f,~g\,:\,\overline{S}\to \mathbb{R}\), the discretepLaplacian\(\Delta _{p,\omega }\)satisfies
In particular, in the case\(g=f\), we have
Lemma 1.8
(See [12])
For\(p>1\), there exist\(\lambda _{p,0}>0\)and a function\(\phi _{0} (x )>0\), \(x\in S\cup \varGamma \), such that
where\(B[\phi _{0}]\)on∂Sstands for
Here\(\varGamma :=\{z\in \partial S\,\,\mu (z)>0 \}\), and\(\mu ,\sigma :\partial S\rightarrow [0,+\infty )\)are functions such that\(\mu (z)+\sigma (z)>0\)for\(z\in \partial S\). Moreover, \(\lambda _{p,0}\)is given by
where\(\mathcal{A}:= \{ u :\overline{S}\rightarrow \mathbb{R} u\not \equiv 0\textit{ in }S, u=0 \textit{ on } \partial S\setminus \varGamma \} \).
The number \(\lambda _{p,0}\) is called the first eigenvalue of \(\Delta _{p,\omega }\) on a network S̅ with corresponding eigenfunction \(\phi _{0}\) (see [18] and [19] for the spectral theory of the Laplacian operators). In fact, we note that if Γ is the empty set, then \(\sum_{z\in \varGamma }\frac{\sigma (z)}{\mu (z)}u(z)^{p}\) is 0.
Remark 1.9
It is clear that the first eigenvalue \(\lambda _{p,0}\) is nonnegative. Moreover, we note here that the first eigenvalue \(\lambda _{p,0}\) satisfies the following statements:
 (i)
If \(\sigma \equiv 0\), then \(\lambda _{p,0}=0\).
 (ii)
If \(\sigma \not \equiv 0\), then \(\lambda _{p,0}>0\).
We now discuss the local existence of a solution to equation (2). To discuss the local existence, we would like to investigate the relationship between the boundary condition \(B[u]=0\) and the initial data \(u_{0}\).
Remark 1.10
Consider the function \(\psi :\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) defined as
where \(a(x)\geq 0\) for \(x\in S\), and \(b\geq 0\) with \(a(x)+b>0\) for some \(x\in S\). Then it is easy to see that ψ is a continuous function that is strictly increasing and bijective on \(\mathbb{R}\). Therefore there exists a unique \(\rho \in \mathbb{R}\) such that \(\psi (\rho )=0\). It means that for all \(z\in \partial S\), we can uniquely define the value of \(u(z,0)\) according to the given boundary condition \(B[u]=0\) and initial data \(u_{0}\), that is, for every \(z\in \partial S\), \(u(z,0)\) is determined such that
where \(\mu ,\sigma :\partial S\rightarrow [0,+\infty )\) are given functions with \(\mu (z)+\sigma (z)>0\) for all \(z\in \partial S\). Therefore we have a compatible condition such that the initial data \(u_{0}\) satisfies
We will prove the existence of the solution to equation (2) using the Schauder fixed point theorem. For this reason, we first define the set \(C(S\times I)\) for a compact interval I:
Also, we need the following modified version of the Arzelà–Ascoli theorem.
Lemma 1.11
(Modified version of the Arzelà–Ascoli theorem)
Let F be a compact subset of\(\mathbb{R}\), and letS̅be a network. Consider the Banach space\(C ( S \times F )\)with the maximum norm\(\lVert u \rVert _{S,F} := \max_{x\in S} \max_{t \in F} \vert u (x,t ) \vert \). Then a subsetAof\(C (S \times F )\)is relatively compact if A is uniformly bounded on\(S \times F\)and equicontinuous onFfor each\(x\in S\).
Proof
This lemma is already proved by Chung and Hwang [14]. □
Theorem 1.12
(Local existence)
There exists\(t_{0}>0\)such that equation (2) admits at least one bounded solutionusuch that\(u(x,\cdot )\)is continuous on\([0,t_{0}]\)and differentiable in\((0,t_{0})\)for each\(x\in \overline{S}\).
Proof
We first start with the Banach space
with the maximum norm \(\lVert u\rVert _{S,t_{0}}:=\max_{x\in S} \max_{0\leq t\leq t_{0}}u(x,t)\), where \(t_{0}\in \mathbb{R}\) is a positive constant, which will be defined later. Now consider the subspace
of a Banach space \(C(S\times [0,t_{0}])\). Then it is clear that \(B_{t_{0}}\) is convex. To apply the Schauder fixed point theorem, we have to show that \(B_{t_{0}}\) is closed. Let \(g_{n}\) be a sequence in \(B_{t_{0}}\) that converges to g. Since the convergence is uniform, g is continuous. Moreover, \(\vert \lVert g_{n} \rVert _{S,t_{0}} \lVert g \rVert _{S,t_{0}} \vert \leq \lVert g_{n}g\rVert _{S,t_{0}}\) implies that \(g\in B_{t_{0}}\). Hence \(B_{t_{0}}\) is closed.
On the other hand, for every \(u\in B_{t_{0}}\), we can uniquely define the value of \(u(z,t)\) according to the boundary condition \(B[u]=0\) in a similar way to Remark 1.10, that is, for every \(u\in B_{t_{0}}\), \(u(z,t)\) satisfies
for all \((z,t)\in \partial S \times [0,t_{0}]\), where \(\mu ,\sigma : \partial S\rightarrow [0,+\infty )\) are given functions with \(\mu (z)+\sigma (z)>0\) for all \(z\in \partial S\). Then by the boundary condition it is clear that \(u(z,t)\) satisfies \(u(z,t)\leq \lVert u \rVert _{S,t_{0}}\), \((z,t)\in \partial S\times [0,t_{0}]\).
Let us define the operator \(D:B_{t_{0}} \rightarrow B_{t_{0}}\) by
where \(u_{0}:\overline{S}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) is a given function.
Since f is locally Lipschitz continuous on \(\mathbb{R}\), there exists \(L>0\) such that
where \(m=2\lVert u_{0}\rVert _{S,t_{0}}\). Now put
where \(\omega _{0}:=\max_{x\in \overline{S}}\sum_{y\in \overline{S}} \omega (x,y)\). Then it is easy to see that the operator D is welldefined. Now we will show that D is continuous. The verification of the continuity is divided into two cases as follows:
 (i)
\(1< p<2\).
For u and v in \(B_{t_{0}}\), it follows that
$$ \begin{aligned} \bigl\vert D[u](x,t)D[v](x,t) \bigr\vert & \leq \biggl\vert \int _{0}^{t_{0}} \sum _{y\in \overline{S}}2^{2p}\lVert uv\rVert _{S,t_{0}}^{p1} \omega (x,y)+L\lVert uv\rVert _{S,t_{0}} \,\,ds \biggr\vert \\ &\leq t_{0} \bigl[ 2^{2p} \omega _{0}\lVert uv\rVert _{S,t_{0}}^{p1}+L \lVert uv \rVert _{S,t _{0}} \bigr]. \end{aligned} $$  (ii)
\(p\geq 2\).
For u and v in \(B_{t_{0}}\), by the mean value theorem we have
$$ \begin{aligned} & \bigl\vert D[u](x,t)D[v](x,t) \bigr\vert \\ & \quad \leq \biggl\vert \int _{0}^{t_{0}} \sum _{y\in \overline{S}}(p1)\lVert 2u_{0}\rVert _{S,t_{0}}^{p2}2 \lVert uv\rVert _{S,t_{0}}\omega (x,y)+L\lVert uv\rVert _{S,t_{0}} \,\,ds \biggr\vert \\ &\quad \leq \biggl\vert \int _{0}^{t_{0}}\sum_{y\in \overline{S}}2^{2p3}(p1) \lVert u_{0}\rVert _{S,t_{0}}^{p2}\lVert uv\rVert _{S,t_{0}}\omega (x,y)+L \lVert uv\rVert _{S,t_{0}} \,\,ds \biggr\vert \\ &\quad \leq t_{0} \bigl[ 2^{2p3}(p1) \lVert u_{0} \rVert _{S,t_{0}}^{p2}\omega _{0}\lVert uv\rVert _{S,t_{0}}+L \lVert uv \rVert _{S,t_{0}} \bigr]. \end{aligned} $$Consequently, for each \(p>1\), we obtain
$$ \bigl\lVert D[u]D[v]\bigr\rVert _{S,t_{0}} \leq C_{1}\lVert uv\rVert _{S,t_{0}} ^{p1}+C_{2}\lVert uv\rVert _{S,t_{0}}, $$where \(C_{1}\) and \(C_{2}\) are constants depending only on \(u_{0}\), \(t_{0}\), p, L, and \(\omega _{0}\). Therefore we obtain the continuity of D.
Finally, we will show that \(D(B(t_{0}))\) is relatively compact. By Lemma 1.11 it suffices to show that \(D(B(t_{0}))\) is uniformly bounded on \(S\times [0,t_{0}]\) and equicontinuous on \([0,t_{0}]\). Since \(D(B(t_{0}))\in B(t_{0})\), it is trivial that \(D(B(t_{0}))\) is uniformly bounded. On the other hand, it follows that for each \(x\in S\),
for all \(t_{1},t_{2}\in [0,t_{0}]\) and \(u\in B_{t_{0}}\), which implies that \(D(B(t_{0}))\) is equicontinuous on \([0,t_{0}]\). Hence \(D(B(t_{0}))\) is relatively compact by Lemma 1.11. Therefore by the Schauder fixed point theorem there exists \(u\in B(t_{0})\) satisfying \(D[u]=u\) and the boundary condition \(B[u]=0\). It is clear that u is the solution to equation (2). On the other hand, it is easy to see that u is bounded. Moreover, \(u(x,\cdot )\) is continuous on \([0,t_{0}]\) and differentiable in \((0,t_{0})\) for each \(x\in \overline{S}\) by the definition of D and the boundary condition \(B[u]=0\). □
Now we state two types of comparison principles.
Theorem 1.13
(Comparison principle)
Let\(T>0\) (Tmay be +∞) and\(p>1\), and letfbe locally Lipschitz continuous on\(\mathbb{R}\). Suppose that realvalued functions\(u(x,\cdot )\), \(v(x,\cdot ) \in C[0, T)\)are differentiable in\((0, T)\)for each\(x \in \overline{S}\)and satisfy
Then\(u (x,t )\geq v (x,t )\)for all\((x,t) \in \overline{S}\times [0,T)\).
Proof
Let \(T'>0\) be arbitrarily given with \(T'< T\). Since f is locally Lipschitz continuous on \(\mathbb{R}\), there exists \(L>0\) such that
where \(m={ \max_{x\in \overline{S}}\max_{0\leq t\leq T'}} \{ \vert u (x,t ) \vert , \vert v (x,t ) \vert \} \). Let \(\tilde{u}, \tilde{v} : \overline{S}\times [0,T' ]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) be the functions defined by
Then from (4) we have
for all \((x,t )\in S\times (0,T']\).
We recall that \(\tilde{u}(x,\cdot )\) and \(\tilde{v}(x,\cdot )\) are continuous on \([0,T']\) for each \(x\in \overline{S}\) and S̅ is finite. Hence we can find \((x_{0},t_{0} )\in \overline{S}\times [0,T' ]\) such that
which implies that
Then now we have only to show that \((\tilde{u}\tilde{v} ) (x_{0},t_{0} )\geq 0\).
Suppose that, on the contrary, \((\tilde{u}\tilde{v} ) (x_{0},t_{0} )<0\). Assume that \(x_{0}\in \partial S\). Then we see that
Therefore, if \(\sigma (x_{0})>0\), then equation (8) is negative, which leads to a contradiction. If \(\sigma (x_{0})=0\), then we have
for all \(x\in S\). Hence there exists \(x_{1}\in S\) such that
Hence we may choose \(x_{0}\in S\). Moreover, since \(\tilde{u}(x,0) \tilde{v}(x,0)\geq 0\) on S̅, we have \((x_{0},t_{0} ) \in S\times (0,T']\). Then we obtain from (7) that
and from the differentiability of \((\tilde{u}\tilde{v} ) (x,t )\) in \((0,T']\) for each \(x\in \overline{S}\) it follows that
According to (5), we have
since \(\tilde{u} (x_{0},t_{0} )<\tilde{v} (x_{0},t _{0} )\). Combining (9), (10), and (11), we obtain that
which contradicts (6). Therefore \(\tilde{u} (x,t ) \geq \tilde{v} (x,t )\) for all \((x,t)\in S\times (0,T']\), so that we get \(u (x,t )\geq v (x,t )\) for all \((x,t)\in \overline{S}\times [0,T)\), since \(T'< T\) is arbitrary. □
When \(p\geq 2\), we obtain a strong comparison principle.
Theorem 1.14
(Strong comparison principle)
Let\(T>0\) (Tmaybe +∞) and\(p\geq 2\), and letfbe locally Lipschitz continuous on\(\mathbb{R}\). Suppose that realvalued functions\(u(x,\cdot )\), \(v(x,\cdot ) \in C[0, T)\)are differentiable in\((0, T)\)for each\(x \in \overline{S}\)and satisfy
If\(u (x^{*},0 )>v (x^{*},0 )\)for some\(x^{*}\in S\), then\(u (x,t )>v (x,t )\)for all\((x,t)\in S\cup \varGamma \times (0,T)\).
Proof
First, note that \(u\geq v\) on \(\overline{S}\times [0,T)\) by the previous theorem. Let \(T'>0\) be arbitrarily given with \(T'< T\). Since f is locally Lipschitz continuous on \(\mathbb{R}\), there exists \(L>0\) such that
where \(m={ \max_{x\in \overline{S}}\max_{0\leq t\leq T'}} \{ \vert u (x,t ) \vert , \vert v (x,t ) \vert \} \). Let \(\tau \,:\, \overline{S}\times [0,T' ]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\) be the function defined by
Then \(\tau (x,t )\geq 0\) for all \((x,t ) \in \overline{S}\times [0,T' ]\). From inequality (12) we have
for all \(0< t\leq T'\). Then by the mean value theorem, for each \(y\in \overline{S}\) and \(0\leq t\leq T'\), it follows that
where \(\zeta (x^{*},y,t)\leq 2\max_{x\in \overline{S}} \max_{0\leq t\leq T'}{u(x,t),v(x,t)}\). By (13) and (15) inequality (14) becomes
This implies
since \(\tau (x^{*},0 )>0\). Now suppose there exists \((x_{0},t_{0})\in S\cup \varGamma \times (0,T']\) such that
Case 1: \(x_{0}\in S\).
Since \(\tau (x_{0},t_{0})\leq \tau (x,t)\) for all \((x,t)\in \overline{S}\times [0,T']\), we have
and
Hence from inequality (12) we obtain
Therefore we have
which implies that \(\tau (y,t_{0} )=0\) for all \(y\in \overline{S}\) with \(y\sim x_{0}\). Now, for any \(x \in \overline{S}\), there exists a path
since S̅ is connected. By applying the same argument as before inductively we see that \(\tau (x, t_{0})=0\) for every \(x \in \overline{S}\), which is a contradiction to (16).
Case 2: \(x_{0}\in \varGamma \).
By the boundary condition in (12) we have
from which it follows that
for some \(x_{1}\in S\) with \(x_{0}\sim x_{1}\). This means that \(\tau (x_{1},t_{0})=0\), which contradicts to Case 1. Hence we finally obtain that \(u (x,t )>v (x,t )\) for all \((x,t )\in S\times (0,T )\), since \(T'< T\) is arbitrary. □
Note that by the comparison principle, if \(f(0)=0\), then solutions u to equation (2) are nonnegative. On the other hand, it is natural that f is assumed to be positive on \((0,+\infty )\) when we deal with the blowup theory. Hence we always assume that f is a locally Lipschitz continuous function on \(\mathbb{R,}\) which is positive in \((0,+\infty )\) and \(f(0)=0\). Moreover, we assume that the initial data \(u_{0}\) is nontrivial and nonnegative.
Blowup: the concavity method
In this section, we discuss the blowup phenomena of the solutions to equation (2), which is the main part of this paper.
Definition 2.1
(Blowup)
We say that a solution u to equation (2) blows up at finite time \(T>0\) if there exists \(x\in S\) such that \(\vert u (x,t ) \vert \rightarrow +\infty \) as \(t\nearrow T ^{}\) or, equivalently, \(\sum_{x\in S} \vert u (x,t ) \vert \rightarrow +\infty \) as \(t\nearrow T^{}\).
To state and prove our result, we introduce the following condition:
for some \(\alpha >2\), \(\beta \geq 0\), and \(\gamma >0\) with \(0\leq \beta \leq \frac{ (\alpha p )\lambda _{p,0}}{p}\).
Remark 2.2
We have the fact that \(\lambda _{p,0}=0\) if and only if \(\sigma \equiv 0\) (see [12]). Therefore we can easily obtain that the condition on α in \((C_{p})\) depends on the boundary condition and \(p>1\) as follows:
 (i)
If \(\sigma \equiv 0\), then \(\alpha >2\) for all \(p>1\).
 (ii)
If \(\sigma \not \equiv 0\), then \(\alpha >2\) for all \(1< p\leq 2\).
 (iii)
If \(\sigma \not \equiv 0\), then \(\alpha \geq p\) for all \(p>2\).
We now state the main theorem of this paper:
Theorem 2.3
For\(p>1\)and the functionfwith hypothesis\((C_{p})\), if the initial data\(u_{0}\)satisfies
then the solutionsuto equation (2) blow up at finite time\(T^{*}\)in the sense that
whereγis the constant in e condition\((C_{p})\).
Proof
First, let us define functionals by
and
Then we have from equation (2) and Lemma 1.7 that
Applying condition \((C_{p})\) and Lemma 1.8, we can see that (18) implies
Here it is easy to see that if \(\lambda _{p,0}=0\) or \(\alpha = p\), then \(\beta =0\). Therefore, even though \(\lambda _{p,0}=0\) or \(\alpha = p\), (19) is true.
On the other hand, we have from equation (2) and Lemma 1.7 that
Now we will show that
for all \(t>0\). Using the Schwarz inequality, from (19) and (20) we obtain that
for all \(t>0\). Therefore inequality (21) is true, which implies that
Solving the differential inequality (22), we obtain
Hence \(A(t)\) blows up in finite time T with \(0< T\leq \frac{A(0)}{( \alpha 2)\alpha B(0)}\). □
Remark 2.4
The blowup time can be estimated roughly as
Remark 2.5
Chung and Choi [11] obtained the blowup results for equation (2) under the Dirichlet boundary condition in the continuous setting, where \(p\geq 2\) by using condition \((C_{p})\). In fact, their condition had the assumption \(\alpha >p\), which is one of the main differences to us.
Discussion on condition \((C_{p})\) with the initial data conditions
In this section, we compare conditions \((A_{p})\), \((B_{p})\), and \((C_{p})\) and discuss the role of \(B(0)>0\).
First, we consider the Neumann boundary condition \(\sigma \equiv 0\). Summing up over S to equation (2), we have
From this equality we can obtain that the time behavior of \(\sum_{x \in S}u(x,t)\) is determined by \(\sum_{x\in S}f(u(x,t))\). Therefore by the definition of the blowup we can expect that the blowup condition for the solution u depends only on f, not on p. On the other hand, for all \(p>1\), condition \((C_{p})\) is represented by
for some \(\epsilon >0\) and \(\gamma >0\), which also does not depend on p.
From now on we consider the boundary condition \(\sigma \not \equiv 0\). Let us recall the following conditions:
for \(1< p\leq 2\),
$$\begin{aligned} &(A_{p})\quad (2+\epsilon ) F(u)\leq uf(u), \\ &(B_{p})\quad (2+\epsilon ) F(u)\leq uf(u) + \gamma , \\ &(C_{p}) \quad (2+\epsilon ) F (u ) \leq uf(u)+\beta u^{p}+\gamma , \end{aligned}$$where
$$ \epsilon >0, \quad 0\leq \beta \leq \frac{(2+\epsilon p)\lambda _{p,0}}{p}, \quad \text{and} \quad \gamma >0, $$and for \(p> 2\),
$$\begin{aligned} &(A_{p})\quad (p+\epsilon ) F(u)\leq uf(u), \\ &(B_{p})\quad (p+\epsilon ) F(u)\leq uf(u) + \gamma , \\ &(C_{p}) \quad (p+\epsilon ) F (u ) \leq uf(u)+\beta u^{p}+\gamma , \end{aligned}$$where
$$ \epsilon \geq 0, \quad 0\leq \beta \leq \frac{\epsilon \lambda _{p,0}}{p}, \quad \text{and} \quad \gamma >0 $$for every \(u\geq 0\). Here \(F(u):=\int _{0}^{u}f(s)\,ds\).
It is easy to see that \((A_{p})\) implies \((B_{p})\) and in turn \((B_{p})\) implies \((C_{p})\). In fact, the first eigenvalue \(\lambda _{p,0}\), which depends on the domain, is not contained in conditions \((A_{p})\) and \((B_{p})\). However, condition \((C_{p})\) depends on the domain due to the term \(\beta u^{p}\). From this point of view, condition \((C_{p})\) can be understood as a refinement of \((B_{p})\), corresponding to the domain. On the contrary, if a function f satisfies \((C_{p})\) for every domain, then the first eigenvalue \(\lambda _{p,0}\) can be arbitrarily small so that condition \((C_{p})\) gets arbitrarily closer to \((B_{p})\).
Remark 3.1
In fact, there have been efforts to obtain the condition \(\epsilon =0\) in the continuous analogue. For example, Junning studied the blowup solutions to equation (2) in the continuous setting under the Dirichlet boundary condition with the assumption \(\epsilon =0\) in \((A_{p})\) and the initial data \(u_{0}\) satisfying
where \(p>2\) and \(\varOmega \subset \mathbb{R}^{N}\) (see [7]). From this point of view, for \(p>2\), our condition \(\epsilon \geq 0\) with \(B(0)>0\) improves the conventional results.
Now we consider the cases \(p>2\) and \(1< p\leq 2\) to investigate conditions \((A_{p})\), \((B_{p})\), and \((C_{p})\).
Case 1: \(p>2\).
Assuming that \(\epsilon >0\), we obtain that condition \((C_{p})\) is equivalent to
In a similar way, assuming that \(\epsilon =0\), we have
Hence (23) and (24) imply that for all \(u>0\) and \(p>2\),
for some constants \(\epsilon >0\), \(a\geq 0\), and \(b>0\) with \(0\leq a\leq \frac{\lambda _{p,0}}{p}\), where \(h_{1}\), \(h_{2}\), and \(h_{3}\) are nondecreasing function on \((0,+\infty )\).
Case 2: \(1< p\leq 2\).
We obtain that \((C_{p})\) is equivalent to
which implies that for all \(u>0\) and \(1< p\leq 2\),
for some constants \(\epsilon >0\), \(a\geq 0\), and \(b>0\) with \(0\leq a\leq \frac{\lambda _{p,0}}{p}\), where \(h_{1}\), \(h_{2}\), and \(h_{3}\) are nondecreasing function on \((0,+\infty )\).
In case 1 and case 2, the constants ϵ, a, and b may be different in each case. Also, the nondecreasing function \(h_{1}\) is nonnegative on \((0,+\infty )\), but \(h_{2}\) and \(h_{3}\) may be not nonnegative in general.
Theorem 3.2
For\(p>1\), letfbe a realvalued function satisfying condition\((C_{p})\). Suppose that\(f(u)\geq \lambda u^{p1}\), \(u>0\), for some\(\lambda >\lambda _{p,0}\). Then the following statements are true.
 (i)
There exists\(m>0\)such that\(h_{3}(u)>0\)for\(u\geq m\).
 (ii)
There exists\(\zeta >0\)such that\(f(u)\geq \zeta u^{ \max \{p1, 1\}+\epsilon }\), \(u\geq m\).
 (iii)
Conditions\((B_{p})\)and\((C_{p})\)are equivalent when\(p\geq 2\).
Proof
(i): First, it follows from the fact \(F(u)\geq \frac{\lambda }{p}u ^{p}> \frac{\lambda _{p,0}}{p}u^{p}\) that
which goes to +∞ as \(u\rightarrow +\infty \). Therefore we can find \(m>0\) such that \(h_{3}(m)>0\).
(ii): (i) implies that
Putting it into condition \((C_{p})\), we obtain
Hence we obtain that
which gives
for some \(\zeta >0\).
(iii): Now consider the case \(p\geq 2\). Then it is trivial that \((B_{p})\) and \((C_{p})\) are equivalent when \(\epsilon =0\). Therefore we may assume that \(\epsilon >0\). Since \(0\leq \beta \leq \frac{\epsilon \lambda _{p,0}}{p}\) and \(f(u)\geq \lambda u>\lambda _{p,0}u\), \(u>0\), it follows from \((C_{p})\) that
where \(\epsilon _{1}= \frac{\epsilon \lambda _{p,0}}{\lambda }>0\) and \(\epsilon _{2}=\epsilon \epsilon _{1}>0\). This implies that for every \(u>0\),
which implies \((B_{p})\). □
In general, only condition \((C_{p})\) may not guarantee the blowup solutions for every initial data \(u_{0}\). Therefore, from now on, we are going to discuss when we can find initial data \(u_{0}\) that satisfies \(B(0)>0\).
Lemma 3.3
Let\(p>1\). If there exists\(v_{0}>0\)such that\(F(v_{0})>\frac{\omega _{0}}{p}v_{0}^{p}+\gamma _{1}\), where\(\gamma _{1}\geq \gamma \), then there exists the initial data\(u_{0}\)such that\(B(0)>0\). Here\(\omega _{0}:=\max_{x\in S}d_{\omega }x\).
Proof
First of all, there exist \(a,b>0\) with \(0< a< b\) such that \(F(v)>\frac{ \omega _{0}}{p}v^{p}+\gamma _{1}\), \(v\in (a,b)\), since F is continuous on \([0,+\infty )\). Now, we consider the function \(u_{0}(x)\) satisfying
which satisfies the boundary condition \(B[u_{0}]=0\). Then we obtain that
where \(S\) denotes the number of vertices in S. □
Corollary 3.4
The following statements are true.
 (i)
If there exists\((a,b)\)such that\(F(v)>\frac{\omega _{0}}{p}v^{p}+ \gamma _{1}\), \(\gamma _{1}\geq \gamma \)for every\(v\in (a,b)\), then for every\(u_{0}\)satisfying the boundary condition\(B[u_{0}]=0\)such that
$$\textstyle\begin{cases} a< u_{0} (x )< b, \quad & x\in S, \\ 0< u_{0}(x)< b, \quad &x\in \varGamma , \\ u_{0} (x )=0, &x\in \partial S\setminus \varGamma , \end{cases} $$we see that\(B(0)>0\).
 (ii)
If\(F(v)>\omega _{0}v^{\max \{2+\epsilon _{1},p\}}+\gamma _{1}\), \(\epsilon _{1}>0\), \(\gamma _{1}\geq \gamma \), for every\(v\in (0,+ \infty )\)on\(S\cup \varGamma \), then the solutions blow up for every initial data\(u_{0}>0\)on\(S\cup \varGamma \). Here\(\omega _{0}:=\max_{x \in S}d_{\omega }x\).
References
 1.
Elmoataz, A., Lezoray, O., Bougleux, S.: Nonlocal discrete regularization on weighted graphs: a framework for image and manifold processing. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 17(7), 1047–1060 (2008)
 2.
He, Z.: On the existence of positive solutions of pLaplacian difference equations. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 161(1), 193–201 (2003)
 3.
Candito, P., Guivannelli, N.: Multiple solutions for a discrete boundary value problem involving the pLaplacian. Comput. Math. Appl. 56(4), 959–964 (2008)
 4.
Levine, H.A.: Some nonexistence and instability theorems for formally parabolic equations of the form \(Pu_{t}=Au+\mathcal{F}(u)\). Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 51, 371–386 (1973)
 5.
Philippin, G.A., Proytcheva, V.: Some remarks on the asymptotic behaviour of the solutions of a class of parabolic problems. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 29, 297–307 (2006)
 6.
Messaoudi, S.A.: A note on blow up of solutions of a quasilinear heat equation with vanishing initial energy. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 273, 243–247 (2002)
 7.
Junning, Z.: Existence and nonexistence of solutions for \(u_{t}=\operatorname{div}(\nabla u^{p2}\nabla u)+f(\nabla u,u,x,t)\). J. Math. Anal. Appl. 172, 130–146 (1993)
 8.
Ding, J., Hu, H.: Blowup and global solutions for a class of nonlinear reaction diffusion equations under Dirichlet boundary conditions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 433, 1718–1735 (2016)
 9.
Bandle, C., Brunner, H.: Blowup in diffusion equations, a survey. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 97, 3–22 (1998)
 10.
Chung, S.Y., Choi, M.J.: A new condition for blowup solutions to discrete semilinear heat equations on networks. Comput. Math. Appl. 74, 2929–2939 (2017)
 11.
Chung, S.Y., Choi, M.J.: A new condition for the concavity method of blowup solutions to pLaplacian parabolic equations. J. Differ. Equ. 265(12), 6384–6399 (2018)
 12.
Chung, S.Y., Hwang, J.: The discrete pSchrödinger equations under the mixed boundary conditions on networks. Physica D (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2019.02.009
 13.
Chung, S.Y.: Critical blowup and global existence for discrete nonlinear pLaplacian parabolic equations. Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc. 10, Article ID 716327 (2014)
 14.
Chung, S.Y., Hwang, J.: A complete characterization of the discrete pLaplacian parabolic equations with qnonlocal reaction with respect to the blowup property. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 473(2), 1447–1473 (2019)
 15.
Li, J., Han, Y., Li, H.: Blowup and extinction of solutions to a fast diffusion equation with homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions. Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 2016, 236 (2016)
 16.
Chung, S.Y., Berenstein, C.A.: ωharmonic functions and inverse conductivity problems on network. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 65, 1200–1226 (2005)
 17.
Kim, J.H., Chung, S.Y.: Comparison principles for the pLaplacian on nonlinear networks. J. Differ. Equ. Appl. 16(10), 1151–1163 (2010)
 18.
Chung, F.R.K.: Spectral Graph Theory. CBMS Regional Conference Series in Math., vol. 92. Am. Math. Soc., Providence (1997)
 19.
Cvetkovic, D.M., Doob, M., Sachs, H.: Spectra of Graphs, Theory and Applications. Academic Press, New York (1980)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express thanks to anonymous reviewers for their excellent suggestions.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Funding
The first author was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF2015R1D1A1A01059561). The third author was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (BK21PLUS) (NRF22A20130000051).
Author information
Author notes
Affiliations
Contributions
The authors contributed and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to SoonYeong Chung.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Chung, S., Choi, M. & Hwang, J. A condition for blowup solutions to discrete pLaplacian parabolic equations under the mixed boundary conditions on networks. Bound Value Probl 2019, 180 (2019) doi:10.1186/s13661019012943
Received
Accepted
Published
DOI
MSC
 39A12
 35F31
 35K91
 35K57
Keywords
 Discrete pLaplacian
 Semilinear parabolic equation
 Blowup