Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Dynamics of Riemann waves with sharp measure-controlled damping

T0 review · 6 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs damping regions whose interior and boundary measures can be made arbitrarily small, yet still control the wave equation and yield finite-dimensional global attractors.

desk verdict Genuinely new geometric construction and a promising potential-energy observability inequality, but the quasi-stability proof drops a boundary term and the attractor theorem is not yet fully established. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04814 v1 pith:5F7ATVO7 submitted 2019-08-13 math.AP

M. M. Cavalcanti , T. F. Ma , P. Marín-Rubio , P. N. Seminario-Huertas This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35B4035L2035B4193B0735R01
keywords observabilityuniquecontinuationlocalizeddampingRiemannianmanifoldglobalattractorgeometriccontrolconditionquasi-stabilitycriticalSobolevgrowth
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to show that the damping region for a semilinear wave equation on a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary can be made extremely small—both inside the manifold and along its boundary—without destroying the long-time dynamics. It constructs, for any prescribed $\varepsilon>0$, an open set $\omega$ whose summed interior and boundary measure is less than $\varepsilon$, proves these $\varepsilon$-controllable regions satisfy the geometric control condition, and establishes a new observability inequality in terms of potential energy on $\omega$. Using that inequality together with unique continuation, it then proves that, on a three-dimensional manifold, the semilinear wave equation with locally distributed damping on such a region and a critical nonlinearity has a global attractor with finite fractal dimension and $H^2(M)\times H^1(M)$ regularity. The interest is that previous results in the Euclidean setting required stronger regularity of the nonlinearity, while here merely $C^1$ is enough, and the measure-sharpness is purely geometric.

What carries the argument

Two pieces of machinery carry the argument. The first is the geometric construction of a 'scape' potential $d$ on a large subset $V\subset M$: on $V$ one has $\mathrm{Hess}\, d(X,X) \ge |X|^2_g$, $\inf_V |\nabla d|>0$, and $\langle\nabla d,\nu\rangle<0$ on $\partial M\cap V$, while $M\setminus V$ has measure $\varepsilon_0<\varepsilon$. Since $d$ has no critical points on $V$, the boundary region $\Gamma_1=\{x\in\partial M:\langle\nabla d,\nu\rangle>0\}$ provides the observation set required by a Carleman-based boundary observability theorem, quoted and extended in Theorem 3.1. The second ingredient is a coarea-type relation (Lemma 3.1) that converts the boundary integral over $\Gamma_1$ into a volume integral over $\omega$ with a constant $C(\varepsilon)$: $\int_{\Gamma_1} f\,d\sigma \le C\int_\omega f\,dg$. Feeding $f=|\nabla w|^2$ through this relation converts boundary observability into the volume potential-energy inequality (3.11), which is exactly what the quasi-stability theory needs. The attractor result then follows from the gradient structure (unique continuation) and quasi-stability estimates that use Strichartz estimates for the critical cubic nonlinearity.

What would settle it

Search for a potential $p_0\in L^2(0,T;L^2(M))$ and a solution of $\partial_t^2 w-\Delta w=p_0 w+p_1\partial_t w$ on a compact manifold with boundary for which the boundary observability inequality (3.5) fails while the hypotheses of Theorem 3.1 hold; equivalently, exhibit a nonzero solution that vanishes to infinite order on $\Gamma_1\times(0,T)$. Such a counterexample would invalidate the extension claimed in Remark 3.1 and, with it, the attractor theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a control/damping region whose total measure—interior plus boundary—is arbitrarily small can nevertheless be fully effective for wave dynamics. Concretely, given $\varepsilon>0$ the authors construct an open set $V$ with smooth boundary, a 'scape' potential $d$ with $\mathrm{Hess}\, d \ge g$ on $V$, and an open $\omega$ containing $M\setminus V$ such that $\mathrm{meas}_M(\omega)+\mathrm{meas}_{\partial M}(\omega\cap\partial M)<\varepsilon$. For such admissible regions they prove the observability inequality $$\int_0^T\int_\omega |\nabla w|^2\,dx\,dt \ge k_T\big(\|(w(0),\partial_t w(0))\|$_H^{2}$+\|(w(T),\partial_t w(T))\|$_H^{2}$\big),$$ for solutions of the linear wave equation with potentials, together with a unique continuation property. In three dimensions, under assumptions (4.2)–(4.4) and $a\ge a_0>0$ a.e. on an admissible region $\omega$, the semilinear wave equation $\partial_t^2 u-\Delta u+a(x)g(\partial_t u)+f(u)=0$ has a global attractor $A$ with finite fractal dimension and regularity $H^2(M)\times H^1(M)$. The proof combines the observability inequality with the quasi-stability theory, using Strichartz estimates to handle the critical exponent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Carleman boundary observability theorem, claimed without proof to extend to potentials $p_0\in L^2(0,T;L^2(M))$ and to finite overlapping subdomains, and the asserted existence of submanifolds $\Omega_j\subset V_j$ with $V_j\setminus\Omega_j\subset\omega$ in the proof of Theorem 2.2, hold exactly as stated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Damping can be confined to regions of arbitrarily small total measure (interior plus boundary) without sacrificing exponential stabilization or controllability, because every admissible region satisfies the geometric control condition; existing GCC-based results therefore transfer to this measure-sharp setting.
  • The semilinear wave equation with critical cubic growth and merely $C^1$ nonlinearities has a finite-dimensional, $H^2(M)\times H^1(M)$-regular global attractor under localized damping on an $\varepsilon$-controllable region, so its long-time dynamics are captured by finitely many modes.
  • The new observability inequality is expressed in terms of potential energy rather than kinetic energy and holds for potentials $p_0\in L^2(0,T;L^2(M))$, exactly the regularity needed for the quasi-stability proof.
  • The accompanying unique continuation property—vanishing on $\omega\times(0,T)$ forces vanishing everywhere—is a stand-alone tool for inverse problems and exact controllability of waves with lower-order terms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the geometric construction (Theorem 2.1 and the GCC bridge) is dimension-free, so admissible $\varepsilon$-controllable regions exist on manifolds of any dimension; only the attractor step uses three-dimensional Strichartz estimates, so the same regions could feed controllability results in higher dimensions.
  • Editorial inference: since the coarea relation converts boundary integrals into volume integrals over $\omega$ with a constant independent of $f$, the same potential-energy observability should hold for wave equations with more general lower-order terms than the Lipschitz damping treated here, potentially broadening the class of admissible nonlinearities.
  • Editorial inference: because the boundary measure of admissible regions can be made arbitrarily small, a natural next problem is boundary stabilization—a damper supported on a boundary set of arbitrarily small measure—provided a boundary version of the observability inequality can be proved.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs, on a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary, a class of admissible ε-controllable damping regions ω whose combined interior and boundary measure is arbitrarily small (Theorem 2.1), claims that these regions satisfy the geometric control condition via an obstacle condition (Theorem 2.2), and provides an overlapping sub-domain decomposition (Theorem 2.3). Using a Carleman-based boundary observability result of Triggiani–Yao and a coarea relation, the authors derive an observability inequality with potential energy (Theorem 3.2). For a three-dimensional semilinear wave equation with locally distributed damping and critical nonlinear source, they combine this inequality with quasi-stability theory to claim existence of a finite-dimensional global attractor with H²×H¹ regularity (Theorem 4.1).

Significance. If the proof gaps are filled, the main result would be a genuine extension of the Chueshov–Lasiecka–Toundykov / Feireisl–Zuazua theory: it would allow damping regions of arbitrarily small interior plus boundary measure on general compact manifolds, reduce the regularity assumption on f to C¹, and still obtain finite fractal dimension and regularity. The geometric construction in Theorem 2.1 is explicit and self-contained, and the idea of converting boundary observability into a volume observability with a coarea formula is well suited to the quasi-stability framework. The observability inequality in the form (3.11) and the unique continuation consequence are potentially reusable tools. The paper is analytic and does not rely on fitted parameters; its main claims are sharply formulated and falsifiable.

major comments (6)
  1. [§4.4, Lemma 4.2(3)] Differentiating ψ(t)=∫_ω w(t)∂_t w(t) dx and integrating by parts in (4.19) produces the boundary integral ∫_{∂ω∩int M} w ∂_ν w dS, which is missing from the displayed estimate. Since the Dirichlet condition only gives w=0 on ∂M, the interior part ∂ω∩int M is not controlled, and for weak solutions w∈H¹(ω) the normal derivative need not have a trace in L²(∂ω). This term has the same differential order as the negative term -‖∇w‖²_{L²(ω)}, so it cannot be absorbed by the observability inequality without additional geometric assumptions on ω and additional regularity of the solutions. The subsequent Z-estimate in Lemma 4.4 and the quasi-stability inequality (4.18) depend on this step. A standard cutoff-function repair is not included.
  2. [§4.4, proof of Theorem 4.4 (definition of Z)] The definition of Z after Lemma 4.2 does not follow from (4.21) and Lemma 4.2. From those estimates one obtains a term -(η/2)‖∇w‖²_{L²(M)} - ‖∇w‖²_{L²(ω)} from the φ and ψ derivatives, not -3/2‖∇w‖²_{L²(ω)}; the lower-order potential terms are also combined inconsistently. Since Lemma 4.4 relies on the displayed form of Z to obtain the negative term that makes γ_T<1 in (4.24), the quasi-stability proof is incomplete unless the correct expression for Z is derived and verified.
  3. [§3.1, Remark 3.1] Theorem 3.1 is stated as a revisited version of [35, Theorem 10.1.1] with p0∈L²(0,T;L²(M)) and a finite family of overlapping sub-domains, but the only justification is the sentence that a careful revision of the proof shows this. This extension is load-bearing: the observability inequality (3.11) and the unique continuation property in Theorem 3.2 are used in Theorem 4.3 and Lemma 4.4 precisely with potentials of the form f′(u_k) and f′(αu_1+(1-α)u_2), which satisfy (3.2)-(3.3) rather than the L∞ condition in [35]. A proof or a precise reference establishing the stated version is required.
  4. [§2.3, proof of Theorem 2.3] The proof ends by saying that 'it is enough to take unit partition over each ~d_j' to extend the functions and obtain (5). A partition of unity does not preserve the lower bound ∇²d_j(X,X) ≥ |X|²_g or the positivity of inf_{Ω_j}|∇d_j|, and the estimates are only proven on the smaller sets W_j or ~W_j. Since Theorem 2.3 is the mechanism that supplies the overlapping sub-domains required by Theorem 3.1, this is a central gap in the observability argument.
  5. [§2.2, proof of Theorem 2.2] The proof asserts, without proof, that for every admissible ω there exist smooth compact submanifolds Ω_j⊂V_j with V_j\Ω_j⊂ω and ∂Ω_j∩int M⊂ω. This existence is not part of Theorem 2.1 or of the definition of [ω_ε], and the subsequent reduction to the obstacle and escape potential conditions depends on it. As written, the claim that every admissible region satisfies (GCC) is not established.
  6. [§3.2, proof of Lemma 3.1] In Step 1 of the proof of Lemma 3.1, it is assumed that each connected component of ω∩∂M lies entirely in a single chart and is the level set x_N=0 of a prism P_h(Γ^j_1) contained in ω. This is not justified for arbitrary admissible ε-controllable sets; connected components of an open set on ∂M need not be contained in one coordinate chart. The proof also asserts meas_{∂M} Γ̂1 < ε0, whereas ε-controllability only gives meas_{∂M}(ω∩∂M)<ε. Since the coarea inequality (3.8) is the bridge to the volume observability (3.11), this needs a careful justification or a finite-cover argument.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 2.3(4) and Theorem 3.1(1)] The inequalities are written as ∇²d_j(X,X) ≥ |X|_g, but the scaling of the Hessian requires the square |X|²_g, as already stated in Theorem 2.1(d2).
  2. [§4.4, proof of Theorem 4.4] The condition µ>max{2/(a0m1), 2√λ1} does not guarantee β1=µ−2/√λ1>0 when λ1<1; the proof needs the condition µ>2/√λ1 instead of, or in addition to, 2√λ1.
  3. [§2.2, proof of Theorem 2.2] The escape potential condition in Definition 2.5 requires |∇d|≤T/2, but the proof does not explicitly verify this bound before fixing T_j; it can be achieved by taking T_j large since d∈C∞(M), but this step should be stated.
  4. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'C1-forces with critical Sobolev growth' should be 'C¹ forcing terms with critical Sobolev growth' for consistency with the assumptions in Section 4.1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction: observability and attractor results rest on external Carleman estimates and independent geometric constructions, not on their own conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central observability inequality (3.11) is obtained by combining an external Carleman-boundary observability theorem of Triggiani and Yao ([35, Theorem 10.1.1], quoted as Theorem 3.1) with a coarea relation (Lemma 3.1) and the geometric construction of admissible epsilon-controllable regions. No parameter is fitted from the dynamics and then renamed as a prediction; the damping coefficient a(x) is assumed to be bounded below on omega, and the attractor is then proved conditional on the observability estimate. The use of observability and unique continuation in Sections 4.3-4.5 is as hypotheses, not as conclusions derived from the target result. Self-citations appear, notably [7] for the geometric construction and [31] for background, but they provide prior, independently stated tools rather than assuming the paper's main theorems. Remark 3.1 does assert an extension of Triggiani-Yao to L^2-type potentials and finitely many overlapping subdomains 'after a careful revision of its proof'; that is an unverified premise or a possible correctness gap, but it is not circular because the cited theorem is external and the target result is not used in its proof. Similarly, the unproved existence of submanifolds Omega_j in Theorem 2.2 and the possible omission of a boundary term in Lemma 4.2(3) are mathematical-risk concerns, not self-referential reductions. Since none of the paper's equations reduce by construction to their inputs, the circularity score is appropriately low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No data fitting or invented physical entities appear. The dependence is on external Carleman theory, coarea, Strichartz estimates, and well-posedness references, plus an unproved geometric decomposability premise in Theorem 2.2.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Triggiani-Yao Carleman boundary observability theorem with potentials satisfying p0 in L^2(0,T;L^2(M)) and p1 in L^infinity, extended to finite overlapping subdomains
    Quoted as Theorem 3.1 in Section 3.1; the extension to p0 in L^2 is asserted in Remark 3.1 without a written proof.
  • standard math Coarea formula for smooth functions on Riemannian manifolds
    Used in Lemma 3.1 to replace boundary integrals over Gamma_hat_1 by volume integrals over the admissible region omega.
  • standard math Strichartz estimates for the wave equation on compact manifolds with boundary
    Used in Lemma 4.3 to place p0 w in L^1(0,T;L^2(M)) and to obtain L^2 bounds via L^12 estimates.
  • domain assumption Well-posedness of problem (4.1) in H and Lipschitz dependence, taken from Chueshov-Lasiecka-Toundykov and Feireisl-Zuazua
    Theorem 4.2 is stated as essentially proved in [11,13]; the paper does not reproduce the proof.
  • ad hoc to paper Every admissible region omega in [omega_epsilon] admits submanifolds Omega_j with Omega_j subset V_j and V_j \ Omega_j subset omega
    Used in Theorem 2.2 to derive GCC; asserted 'by construction' from the measure conditions, not proved from Definition 2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of Riemann waves with sharp measure-controlled damping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5F7ATVO7

@misc{pith2026190804814,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of Riemann waves with sharp measure-controlled damping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5F7ATVO7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04814}
}
read the original abstract

This paper is concerned with locally damped semilinear wave equations defined on compact Riemannian manifolds with boundary. We present a construction of measure-controlled damping regions which are sharp in the sense that their summed interior and boundary measures are arbitrarily small. The construction of this class of open sets is purely geometric and allows us to prove a new observability inequality in terms of potential energy rather than the usual one with kinetic energy. A unique continuation property is also proved. Then, in three-dimension spaces, we establish the existence of finite dimensional smooth global attractors for a class of wave equations with nonlinear damping and forces with critical Sobolev growth. In addition, by means of an obstacle control condition, we show that our class of measure-controlled regions satisfies the well-known geometric control condition (GCC). Therefore, many of known results for the stabilization of wave equations hold true in the present context.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04814 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Let M be the unitary square. It is easy to see that both control regions ω1, ω2 satisfy (GCC). The region ω2 is ε-controllable but ω1 is not because meas∂M (ω1) > 2. The region ω3 does not satisfy (GCC) since M possesses trapped (vertical) rays. We are interested in the long-time dynamics of semilinear waves with damping mechanism effective only in an ε-controllable region. As it is well-known (cf. [11, 13]) we shal… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the figure, (U, ψ) and (U, e ψe) represent charts containing p, respec￾tively in M and Mf. Note that ψ(Vp) ⊂ ψ(U) ⊂ ψe(Ue) so we can use the same coordinate system for every point in Vp ⊂ M. Step 3: We recall that for relatively compact sets A, B ⊂ M satisfying dist(A, B) = inf{dist(x, y)| x ∈ A y ∈ B} > 0, there exist open subsets OA ⊃⊃ A and OB ⊃⊃ B with smooth boundaries such that dist(OA, OB) > 0. Moreover, t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Given i = 1, ..., k, we have total control over the interior measure of Wi \ Ui and boundary measure of ∂M ∩ (Wi \ Ui), provided they are positive. Note that if ε0 2k ≥ min{measM(Wi), meas∂M (∂M ∩ Wi)} > 0 it is possible to choose some 0 < ε 0 2k < {measM(Wi), meas∂M (∂M ∩ Wi)} such that the measure of the aforementioned sets are less than ε0 2k 0 where k 0 = kε0 ε 0 . For the construction of d, it is enough to defi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Note that h > 0 depends directly on ε0 > 0, thus, the open set φ −1 j (Ph(Γj 1 )) ⊂ Uj depends on the class [ωε]. Step 3. Let us consider the N-dimensional manifold with boundary (φ −1 j (Ph(Γj 1 )), g|φ −1 j (Ph(Γj 1 ))) and the map in C ∞(φ −1 j (Ph(Γj 1 ))) given by…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    Triggiani and P

    T. Triggiani and P. F. Yao,Carleman estimates with no lower-order terms for general Riemann wave equations. Global uniqueness and observability in one shot, Special issue dedicated to the memory of Jacques-Louis Lions, Appl. Math. Optim. 46 (2002) 331–375

    work page 2002

  2. [1]

    Arrieta, A

    J. Arrieta, A. N. Carvalho and J. K. Hale, A damped hyperbolic equation with critical exponent, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 17 (1992) 841–866

    work page 1992

  3. [2]

    A. V. Babin and M. I. Vishik, Attractors of Evolution Equations, Studies in Mathematics and its Applications 25, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992

    work page 1992

  4. [3]

    Bardos, G

    C. Bardos, G. Lebeau and J. Rauch, Sharp sufficient conditions for the ob- servation, control, and stabilization of waves from the boundary , SIAM J. Control Optim. 30 (1992) 1024–1065

    work page 1992

  5. [4]

    Burq, Contrˆ olabilit´ e exacte des ondes dans des ouverts peu r´ eguliers, Asymptot

    N. Burq, Contrˆ olabilit´ e exacte des ondes dans des ouverts peu r´ eguliers, Asymptot. Anal. 14 (1997) 157–191

    work page 1997

  6. [5]

    Burq and P

    N. Burq and P. G´ erard, Condition n´ ecessaire et suffisante pour la contrˆ olabilit´ e exacte des ondes, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math. 325 (1997), no. 7, 749–752

    work page 1997

  7. [6]

    M. M. Cavalcanti, V. N. Domingos Cavalcanti, R. Fukuoka and J. A. Soriano, Uniform stabilization of the wave equation on compact surfaces and locally distributed damping – a sharp result , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 361 (2009) 4561–4580

    work page 2009

  8. [7]

    M. M. Cavalcanti, V. N. Domingos Cavalcanti, R. Fukuoka and J. A. Soriano, Asymptotic stability of the wave equation on compact manifolds and locally distributed damping: a sharp result , Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 197 (2010) 925–964

    work page 2010

Show all 36 references
  1. [8]

    M. P. do Carmo, Riemannian Geometry, Mathematics: Theory & Applica- tions, Birkh¨ auser, Boston, 1992

    1992

  2. [9]

    Chavel, Isoperimetric Inequalities: Differential Geometric and Analytic Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, 2001

    I. Chavel, Isoperimetric Inequalities: Differential Geometric and Analytic Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, 2001

    2001

  3. [10]

    Chueshov, Dynamics of Quasi-Stable Dissipative Systems, Universitext, Springer, Cham, 2015

    I. Chueshov, Dynamics of Quasi-Stable Dissipative Systems, Universitext, Springer, Cham, 2015. 29

    2015

  4. [11]

    Chueshov, I

    I. Chueshov, I. Lasiecka and D. Toundykov, Long-term dynamics of semi- linear wave equation with nonlinear localized interior damping and a source term of critical exponent , Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 20 (2008) 459–509

    2008

  5. [12]

    Chueshov and I

    I. Chueshov and I. Lasiecka, Von Karman Evolution Equations. Well- Posedness and Long-Time Dynamics, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, New York, 2010

    2010

  6. [13]

    Feireisl and E

    E. Feireisl and E. Zuazua, Global attractors for semilinear wave equations with locally distributed nonlinear damping and critical exponent , Comm. Partial Differential Equations 18 (1993) 1539–1555

    1993

  7. [14]

    Folland, Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1984

    G. Folland, Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1984

    1984

  8. [15]

    Ginibre and G

    J. Ginibre and G. Velo, The global Cauchy problem for the nonlinear Klein- Gordon equation, Math. Z. 189 (1985) 487–505

    1985

  9. [16]

    H¨ ormander, The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators, Vol

    L. H¨ ormander, The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators, Vol. III, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985

    1985

  10. [17]

    J. K. Hale, Asymptotic Behavior of Dissipative Systems, Mathematical Sur- veys and Monographs 25, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1988

    1988

  11. [18]

    Hebey, Nonlinear Analysis on Manifolds: Sobolev Spaces and Inequalities, Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics 5, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1999

    E. Hebey, Nonlinear Analysis on Manifolds: Sobolev Spaces and Inequalities, Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics 5, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1999

    1999

  12. [19]

    Joly and C

    R. Joly and C. Laurent, Stabilization for the semilinear wave equation with geometric control condition, Analysis and PDE 6 (2013) 1089–1119

    2013

  13. [20]

    Ladyzhenskaya, Attractors for Semigroups and Evolution Equations, Cambridge University Press, 1991

    O. Ladyzhenskaya, Attractors for Semigroups and Evolution Equations, Cambridge University Press, 1991

    1991

  14. [21]

    Lasiecka and D

    I. Lasiecka and D. Tataru, Uniform boundary stabilization of semilinear wave equations with nonlinear boundary damping , Differential Integral Equations 6 (1993) 507–533

    1993

  15. [22]

    Lasiecka, R

    I. Lasiecka, R. Triggiani and X. Zhang, Nonconservative wave equations with unobserved Neumann B.C.: global uniqueness and observability in one shot , Differential geometric methods in the control of partial differential equations (Boulder, CO, 1999), 227–325, Contemp. Math., 26...

    1999

  16. [23]

    R. B. Melrose and J. Sj¨ ostrand, Singularities of boundary value problems. I , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 31 (1978) 593–617. 30

    1978

  17. [24]

    R. B. Melrose and J. Sj¨ ostrand,Singularities of boundary value problems. II , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 35 (1982) 129–168

    1982

  18. [25]

    Miller, Escape function conditions for the observation, control, and stabi- lization of the wave equation , SIAM J

    L. Miller, Escape function conditions for the observation, control, and stabi- lization of the wave equation , SIAM J. Control Optim. 41 (2003) 1554–1566

    2003

  19. [26]

    J. V. Ralston, Solutions of the wave equation with localized energy , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 22 (1969) 807–823

    1969

  20. [27]

    Rauch and M

    J. Rauch and M. Taylor, Decay of solutions to nondissipative hyperbolic sys- tems on compact manifolds , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 28 (1975) 501–523

    1975

  21. [28]

    Rauch and M

    J. Rauch and M. Taylor, Exponential decay of solutions to hyperbolic equa- tions in bounded domains , Indiana Univ. Math. J. 24 (1974) 79–86

    1974

  22. [29]

    Robbiano and C

    L. Robbiano and C. Zuily, Uniqueness in the Cauchy problem for operators with partially holomorphic coefficients , Invent. Math. 131 (1998) 493–539

    1998

  23. [30]

    Ruiz, Unique continuation for weak solutions of the wave equation plus a potential, J

    A. Ruiz, Unique continuation for weak solutions of the wave equation plus a potential, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 71 (1992), no. 5, 455–467

    1992

  24. [31]

    P. N. Seminario–Huertas, Asymptotic dynamics of wave equations on com- pact Riemannian manifolds: sharp localized damping and supercritical forc- ing, Doctoral Dissertation, ICMC University of S˜ ao Paulo, 2019

    2019

  25. [32]

    Strichartz, Restriction of Fourier transform to quadratic surfaces and de- cay of solutions to the wave equation , Duke Math

    R. Strichartz, Restriction of Fourier transform to quadratic surfaces and de- cay of solutions to the wave equation , Duke Math. J. 44 (1977) 705–714

    1977

  26. [33]

    Taylor, Partial Differential Equations, volumes 1 and 2, Springer, Berlin, 1991

    M. Taylor, Partial Differential Equations, volumes 1 and 2, Springer, Berlin, 1991

    1991

  27. [34]

    Temam, Infinite-Dimensional Dynamical Systems in Mechanics and Physics, Applied Mathematical Sciences 68, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997

    R. Temam, Infinite-Dimensional Dynamical Systems in Mechanics and Physics, Applied Mathematical Sciences 68, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997

    1997

  28. [36]

    Yao, Modeling and Control in Vibrational and Structural Dynamics

    P. Yao, Modeling and Control in Vibrational and Structural Dynamics. A Dif- ferential Geometric Approach, Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Science series, CRC press, Boca Raton, 2011. 31 Addresses • M. M. Cavalcanti Departamento de Matem´ atica, Universidade Estadual de Marin...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.