2017 (Book) PDE Models For Chemotaxis and Hydrodynamics in Supercritical Function Spaces

Series of Lectures in Mathematics
Hans Triebel
Hans Triebel
PDE Models for Chemotaxis and
Hydrodynamics in
Supercritical Function Spaces
Hans Triebel
PDE Models for Chemotaxis and Hydrodynamics in Supercritical Function Spaces

PDE Models for
This book deals with PDE models for chemotaxis (the movement of biological
cells or organisms in response of chemical gradients) and hydrodynamics
(viscous, homogeneous, and incompressible fluid filling the entire space). The
Chemotaxis and
underlying Keller–Segel equations (chemotaxis), Navier–Stokes equations
(hydrodynamics), and their numerous modifications and combinations are
treated in the context of inhomogeneous spaces of Besov–Sobolev type paying
Hydrodynamics
special attention to mapping properties of related nonlinearities. Further
models are considered, including (deterministic) Fokker–Planck equations and
chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations.
These notes are addressed to graduate students and mathematicians having

a working knowledge of basic elements of the theory of function spaces,
especially of Besov-Sobolev type and interested in mathematical biology and
in Supercritical
physics.
Function Spaces
ISBN 978-3-03719-172-9
www.ems-ph.org
Triebel_ELM | Rotis Sans | Pantone 287, Pantone 116 | RB: 7.2mm

EMS Series of Lectures in Mathematics
Edited by Ari Laptev (Imperial College, London, UK)
EMS Series of Lectures in Mathematics is a book series aimed at students, professional

mathematicians and scientists. It publishes polished notes arising from seminars or lecture series
in all fields of pure and applied mathematics, including the reissue of classic texts of continuing
interest. The individual volumes are intended to give a rapid and accessible introduction into
their particular subject, guiding the audience to topics of current research and the more
advanced and specialized literature.
Previously published in this series (for a complete listing see our homepage at www.ems-ph.org):
Sergey V. Matveev, Lectures on Algebraic Topology
Joseph C. Várilly, An Introduction to Noncommutative Geometry
Reto Müller, Differential Harnack Inequalities and the Ricci Flow
Eustasio del Barrio, Paul Deheuvels and Sara van de Geer, Lectures on Empirical Processes
Iskander A. Taimanov, Lectures on Differential Geometry
Martin J. Mohlenkamp and María Cristina Pereyra, Wavelets, Their Friends, and What They
Can Do for You
Stanley E. Payne and Joseph A. Thas, Finite Generalized Quadrangles
Masoud Khalkhali, Basic Noncommutative Geometry
Helge Holden, Kenneth H. Karlsen, Knut-Andreas Lie and Nils Henrik Risebro, Splitting Methods
for Partial Differential Equations with Rough Solutions
Koichiro Harada, “Moonshine” of Finite Groups
Yurii A. Neretin, Lectures on Gaussian Integral Operators and Classical Groups
Damien Calaque and Carlo A. Rossi, Lectures on Duflo Isomorphisms in Lie Algebra and
Complex Geometry
Claudio Carmeli, Lauren Caston and Rita Fioresi, Mathematical Foundations of Supersymmetry
Hans Triebel, Faber Systems and Their Use in Sampling, Discrepancy, Numerical Integration
Koen Thas, A Course on Elation Quadrangles
Benoît Grébert and Thomas Kappeler, The Defocusing NLS Equation and Its Normal Form
Armen Sergeev, Lectures on Universal Teichmüller Space
Matthias Aschenbrenner, Stefan Friedl and Henry Wilton, 3-Manifold Groups
Hans Triebel, Tempered Homogeneous Function Spaces
Kathrin Bringmann, Yann Bugeaud, Titus Hilberdink and Jürgen Sander, Four Faces of Number
Theory
Alberto Cavicchioli, Friedrich Hegenbarth and Dušan Repovš, Higher-Dimensional Generalized
Manifolds: Surgery and Constructions
Davide Barilari, Ugo Boscain and Mario Sigalotti, Geometry, Analysis and Dynamics on sub-
Riemannian Manifolds, Volume I
Davide Barilari, Ugo Boscain and Mario Sigalotti, Geometry, Analysis and Dynamics on sub-
Riemannian Manifolds, Volume II
Dynamics Done with Your Bare Hands, Françoise Dal’Bo, François Ledrappier and Amie Wilkinson,
(Eds.)
Hans Triebel
PDE Models for

Chemotaxis and
Hydrodynamics
in Supercritical
Function Spaces
Author:
Hans Triebel
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik
Institut für Mathematik
07737 Jena
Germany
E-mail: hans.triebel@uni-jena.de
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 35–02, 46–02, 76–02, 92–02; 35K05, 35Q30, 35Q92, 42B35, 46E35,
76D05, 92C15, 92C17
Key words: Function spaces of Besov–Sobolev type, chemotaxis, hydrodynamics, heat equations, Keller–Segel
equations, Navier–Stokes equations
ISBN 978-3-03719-172-9
The Swiss National Library lists this publication in The Swiss Book, the Swiss national bibliography, and the
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://www.helveticat.ch.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfilms or in other ways, and storage in data banks. For any kind of use permission
of the copyright owner must be obtained.
© European Mathematical Society 2017
Contact address:
European Mathematical Society Publishing House
Seminar for Applied Mathematics
ETH-Zentrum SEW A27
CH-8092 Zürich
Switzerland
Phone: +41 (0)44 632 34 36

Email: info@ems-ph.org
Homepage: www.ems-ph.org
Typeset using the author’s TEX files: le-tex publishing services GmbH, Leipzig, Germany
Printing and binding: Beltz Bad Langensalza GmbH, Bad Langensalza, Germany
∞ Printed on acid free paper
987654321
6. Mathematical Treatment of the Axioms of Physics. . . . To treat in the same
manner [foundations of geometry], by means of axioms, those physical sci-
ences in which mathematics plays an important part; in the first rank are the
theory of probabilities and mechanics.
The organic unity of mathematics is inherent in the nature of this science, for
mathematics is the foundation of all exact knowledge of natural phenomena.
(David Hilbert, Lecture delivered before the international congress of mathematicians
at Paris in 1900, [Hil02], [Rei70, Chapter X]).
The purposes of the meeting are twofold:

1. To exhibit the vitality of mathematical research and to indicate some of
its potential major growing points: these include some of the major classical
problems (the Riemann Hypothesis, the Poincaré Conjecture, the regularity
of three-dimensional fluid flows) as well as some of the recently developed
major research programs like those associated with the names of Langlands
and Thurston.
2. To point up the growing connections between the frontiers of research in
the mathematical sciences and cutting–edge developments in such areas as
physics, biology, computational science, computer science, and finance.
(Felix E. Browder, president of the AMS, announcing the meeting ‘Mathematical
Challenges of the 21st Century’, Univ. California, Los Angeles, 2000, [Bro00]).
Preface
. . . I am interested not so much in the human mind as in the marvel of

a nature which can obey such an elegant and simple law as the law of
gravitation [Newton’s law of gravitation]. Therefore our main concen-
tration will not be on how clever we are to have found it all out, but how
clever nature is to pay attention to it.
(Richard Phillips Feynman, Nobel prize in physics, 1965, [Fey80, p. 14]).
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for

the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we nei-
ther understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that
it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or
for worse, to our pleasure even though perhaps also to our bafflement,
to wide branches of learning.
(Eugene Paul Wigner, Nobel prize in physics, 1963, [Wig60, p. 14]).
With the example of how mathematics has benefited from and influenced
physics, it is clear that if mathematicians do not become involved in
biosciences they will simply not be a part of what are likely to be the
most important and exciting scientific discoveries of all time.
(James Dickson Murray, [Mur93, Preface, p. v]).
These notes deal with applications of the theory of inhomogeneous function

spaces Asp;q .Rn / of Besov–Sobolev type where A 2 fB; F g and s 2 R, 0 < p 1,
0 < q 1, to distinguished PDE models for hydrodynamics and chemotaxis. Spe-
cial attention is paid to the classical Keller–Segel equations describing the movement
of biological cells in response to chemical gradients.
The aim of Chapter 1 (Preliminaries) is twofold. First we collect some basic no-
tation and a few properties of the functions spaces Asp;q .Rn /. Secondly we explain
what is meant by chemotaxis and how corresponding models may look like. In Chap-
ter 2 we clarify which spaces Asp;q .Rn / should be called critical and supercritical
with respect to Keller–Segel systems. Mapping properties of related nonlinearities
are treated in Chapter 3 in some detail; this may be considered as the prototype of
all what follows. The heart of these notes is Chapter 4, where we deal with diverse
properties of the classical Keller–Segel equations in Rn and local in time. This will
be complemented in Chapter 5 where we have a closer look at further PDE mod-
els for chemotaxis. In Chapter 6 we collect briefly some known related assertions for
Navier–Stokes equations preparing a more detailed discussion of chemotaxis Navier–
Stokes equations in Chapter 7. Section 5.6 is somewhat outside of the main body of
these notes. There we introduce Faber devices, subspaces of spaces with dominating
viii
mixed smoothness, as reliable numerical schemes to describe peaks, troughs, stripes,

spots and other filigree structures as occur in chemotaxis and elsewhere.
Our method is local in time and qualitative as far as the underlying properties of
the function spaces involved are concerned. These spaces can also be used for more
general equations. This will be indicated occasionally. But we also mention that the
peculiar structure of some distinguished equations admits simplifications (shifting the
divergence from the nonlinearities to the heat kernels).
We fix our use of (equivalence) as follows. Let I be an arbitrary index set.
Then
a i bi for i 2 I (equivalence) (0.1)
for two sets of positive numbers fai W i 2 I g and fbi W i 2 I g means that there are
two positive numbers c1 and c2 such that
c1 ai bi c2 ai for all i 2 I : (0.2)

Contents
1 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Function spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Chemotaxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Critical and supercritical spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 Mapping properties of Keller–Segel nonlinearities . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.1 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2 The inhomogeneous parabolic-elliptic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3 The homogeneous parabolic-elliptic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.4 The parabolic-parabolic model, I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.5 The parabolic-parabolic model, II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4 Equations of Keller–Segel type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.1 Preparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2 The inhomogeneous parabolic-elliptic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.3 The homogeneous parabolic-elliptic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.4 The parabolic-parabolic model, I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.5 The parabolic-parabolic model, II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.6 Stability and well-posedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.7 Decay properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.8 Positivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.9 Conservation properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.10 A discussion: Damping constants and negative chemotaxis . . . . . . 62
5 Further PDE models for chemotaxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5.1 Fokker–Planck equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.2 Models with logistic terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.3 Models for competing species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.4 Density-dependent sensitivity models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
5.5 Decay, positivity, and well-posedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.6 Peaks, troughs, stripes, spots, and Faber bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6 Navier–Stokes equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.1 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.2 Critical and supercritical spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.3 Main assertions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
x Contents
7 Chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
7.2 Critical and supercritical spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
7.3 Chemotaxis Navier–Stokes nonlinearities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
7.4 Main assertions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.6 Double chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
7.7 Decay, positivity, and well-posedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Chapter 1
Preliminaries
1.1 Function spaces

We use standard notation. Thus, N is the set of all natural numbers, N0 D N[f0g, and
Rn is the Euclidean n-space, where n 2 N. Put R D R1 , whereas C is the complex
plane. Let S.Rn / be the usual Schwartz space and S 0 .Rn / be its dual, the space of
all tempered distributions on Rn . Further, Lp .Rn / with 0 < p 1, is the standard
quasi-Banach space with respect to the Lebesgue measure in Rn , quasi-normed by
Z 1=p

f jLp .Rn / D jf .x/j dx
p
(1.1)
Rn
with the natural modification if p D 1. As usual, Z is the set of all integers; and Zn
where n 2 N, denotes the lattice of all points m D .m1 ; : : : ; mn / 2 Rn with mj 2 Z.
Let Nn0 , where n 2 N, be the set of all multi-indices,
X
n
˛ D .˛1 ; : : : ; ˛n / with ˛j 2 N0 and j˛j D ˛j . (1.2)
j D1
Let as usual @j D @=@xj , @m

j D @ m
=@xjm , m 2 N0 , (@0j f D f ) and D ˛ D
˛1 ˛n
@1 @n , ˛ 2 N0 . If ' 2 S.R /, then
n n
Z
' ./ D .F '/./ D .2/n=2
b eix '.x/ dx; 2 Rn ; (1.3)
Rn
denotes the Fourier transform of '. Also, F 1 ' and ' _ stand for the inverse Fourier
transform, given by the right-hand side of (1.3) with i in place of i . Here x denotes
the scalar product in Rn . Both F and F 1 are extended to S 0 .Rn / in the standard
way. Define '0 2 S.Rn / by
'0 .x/ D 1 if jxj 1 and '0 .x/ D 0 if jxj 3=2, (1.4)
and let

'k .x/ D '0 2k x '0 2kC1 x ; x 2 Rn ; k 2 N: (1.5)
Since
1
X
'j .x/ D 1 for x 2 Rn ; (1.6)
j D0
b/_ .x/
the 'j form a dyadic resolution of unity. The entire analytic functions .'j f
0
make sense pointwise in R for any f 2 S .R /.
n n
2 1 Preliminaries
Definition 1.1. Let ' D f'j g1

j D0 be the above dyadic resolution of unity.
(i) Assume
0 < p 1; 0 < q 1; s 2 R: (1.7)
s
Then Bp;q .Rn / is the collection of all f 2 S 0 .Rn / such that
0 11=q
1
X q
f jB s .Rn / D @ b _
p;q '
2jsq .'j f / jLp .Rn / A <1 (1.8)
j D0
.with the usual modification if q D 1/.

(ii) Assume
0 < p < 1; 0 < q 1; s 2 R: (1.9)
s
Then Fp;q .Rn / is the collection of all f 2 S 0 .Rn / such that
0 11=q
1
X ˇ ˇ

f jF s .Rn / D @ ˇ b/_ ./ˇ A jLp .Rn /
ˇq
2 jsq
ˇ.' j f <1 (1.10)
p;q '
j D0
.with the usual modification if q D 1/.
Remark 1.2. As usual Asp;q .Rn / with A 2 fB; F g means Bp;q s

.Rn / and Fp;q
s
.Rn /.
The theory of these inhomogeneous spaces and their history may be found in [T83,
T92, T06]. In particular, these spaces are independent of adopted resolutions of unity
' according to (1.4)–(1.6) (equivalent quasi-norms). This justifies our omission of
the subscript ' in (1.8), (1.10) in the sequel. We recall here a few special cases and
properties, referring for details to the above books, especially [T06, Section 1.2].
(i) Let 1 < p < 1. Then the assertion that
Lp .Rn / D Fp;2
0
.Rn / (1.11)
is the well-known Littlewood–Paley theorem.

(ii) Let 1 < p < 1 and k 2 N0 . Then
Wpk .Rn / D Fp;2

k
.Rn / (1.12)
are the classical Sobolev spaces usually equivalently normed by

0 11=p
X
D ˛ f jLp .Rn / A
f jWpk .Rn / D @
p
: (1.13)
j˛jk
This generalizes (1.11).

1.1 Function spaces 3
(iii) Let 2 R. Then

_ 1=2
I W b ;
f 7! hi f with hi D 1 C jj2 ; (1.14)
is a one-to-one map of S.Rn / onto itself and of S 0 .Rn / onto itself. Furthermore, I
is a lift for the spaces Asp;q .Rn / with A D B or A D F and s 2 R, 0 < p 1
(p < 1 for the F -scale), 0 < q 1, namely
I Asp;q .Rn / D As n
p;q .R / (1.15)
(equivalent quasi-norms). With
Hps .Rn / D Is Lp .Rn /; s 2 R; 1 < p < 1; (1.16)
one has
Hps .Rn / D Fp;2
s
.Rn /; s 2 R; 1 < p < 1; (1.17)
and
Hpk .Rn / D Wpk .Rn /; k 2 N0 ; 1 < p < 1: (1.18)
Nowadays Hps .Rn / are referred to as Sobolev spaces (sometimes fractional Sobolev
spaces or Bessel-potential spaces), with the classical Sobolev spaces Wpk .Rn / as spe-
cial cases.
(iv) We denote
C s .Rn / D B1;1
s
.Rn /; s 2 R; (1.19)
and call these spaces Hölder–Zygmund spaces. Let
1
h f .x/ D f .x C h/ f .x/; lC1
h
f .x/ D 1
h l
h f .x/; (1.20)
where x 2 Rn , h 2 Rn , l 2 N, be the iterated differences in Rn . Let 0 < s < m 2 N.

Then
kf jC s .Rn /km D sup jf .x/j C sup jhjs jm h f .x/j; (1.21)
x2Rn
where the second supremum is taken over all x 2 Rn and h 2 Rn with 0 < jhj 1,
are equivalent norms in C s .Rn /.
(v) This assertion can be generalized as follows. Once more let 0 < s < m 2 N and
1 p; q 1. Then
Z 1=q

n q dh
f jB s .Rn / D f jLp .Rn / C jhj sq m
h f jLp .R /
p;q m
jhj1 jhjn
(1.22)
and
Z 1 !1=q
m q dt
f jB .R / D f jLp .R / C
s n n
t sq
sup h f jLp .R /
n
p;q m
0 jhjt t
(1.23)
4 1 Preliminaries
(with the usual modification if q D 1) are equivalent norms in Bp;q s

.Rn /. These
are the classical Besov spaces. We refer the reader to [T92, Chapter 1] and [T06,
Chapter 1], where one finds the history of these spaces, further special cases, and
classical assertions. In addition, (1.22) and (1.23) continue to be equivalent quasi-
norms in
s
Bp;q .Rn / with 0 < p; q 1 and s > n .max.1=p; 1/ 1/ ; (1.24)
[T83, Theorem 2.5.12, p. 110].
Finally we recall how the above inhomogeneous spaces Asp;q .Rn / can be charac-
terized in terms of heat kernels. Let w 2 S 0 .Rn /. Then
Z
1 jxyj
2 1 jxj
2
Wt w.x/ D e 4t w.y/ dy D w; e 4t ; t > 0;
.4 t/n=2 Rn .4 t/n=2
(1.25)
x 2 Rn , is the well-known Gauss–Weierstrass semi-group, which can be written on
the Fourier side as
b 2
Wt w./ D et jj w
b./; 2 Rn ; t > 0: (1.26)
The Fourier transform is taken with respect to the space variables x 2 Rn . Of course,
both (1.25) and (1.26) must be interpreted in the context of S 0 .Rn /. But we recall
that (1.25) makes sense pointwise: It is the convolution of w 2 S 0 .Rn / and gt .y/ D
jyj2
.4 t/n=2 e 4t 2 S.Rn /. In particular,
N=2
w gt 2 C 1 .Rn /; j.w gt /.x/j ct 1 C jxj2 ; x 2 Rn ; (1.27)
for some ct > 0 and some N 2 N. Further explanations and related references may
be found in [T14, Section 4.1]. Let
s<0 and 0 < p; q 1 (with p < 1 for F -spaces): (1.28)
Then
Z 1=q
1
dt
f jB s .Rn / D t sq
2 kWt f jLp .R /k
n q
(1.29)
p;q
0 t
and Z 1=q

1
dt

f jF .R / D
s n
t sq
2 jW f ./j
t
q
jLp .R n
/ (1.30)
p;q
0 t
(usual modification if q D 1) are admissible (characterizing) equivalent quasi-norms
in the respective spaces. More precisely: f 2 S 0 .Rn / belongs to Bp;q s
.Rn / if, and
only if, the right-hand of (1.29) is finite. Similarly for Fp;q .R / with p < 1. This
s n
is essentially covered by [T92, Theorem, p. 152]. Additional explanations may be

found in [T15, p. 14]. In particular,
kf jC s .Rn /k D sup t s=2 jWt f .x/j ; s < 0; (1.31)

x2Rn ;0<t <1
is an admissible equivalent norm in C s .Rn /, according to (1.19). One can extend

the above characterizations to s 0 as follows. Recall that @t D @=@t and @m t D
@m =@t m , m 2 N0 with @0t f D f . Let 0 < p 1 (p < 1 for F -spaces),
0 < q 1, s 2 R and s=2 < m 2 N0 . Then Bp;q s
.Rn / collects all f 2 S 0 .Rn / such
that
Z 1=q
1
n q dt
f jB s .Rn / D W1 f jLp .Rn /C t .m 2s /q m
@t Wt f jLp .R /
p;q .m/
0 t
(1.32)
s
is finite and Fp;q .Rn / collects all f 2 S 0 .Rn / such that

f jF s .Rn / D W1 f jLp .Rn /
p;q .m/
Z 1=q
1 (1.33)
s dt n
C t .m 2 /q j@m Wt f ./jq
jLp .R /
0 t
t
is finite (usual modification if q D 1). This is covered by [T92, Theorem 2.6.4,

p. 152].
In these notes we rely on the inhomogeneous spaces Asp;q .Rn / and their proper-
ties. But there is one exception. To clarify which spaces should be called critical or
supercritical for, say, Keller–Segel systems, Navier–Stokes equations, or their diverse
modifications, it is suitable to switch from inhomogeneous spaces to related homo-
geneous spaces. The first choice for this purpose might be the spaces APsp;q .Rn / in

the framework of the dual pairing SP .Rn /; SP 0 .Rn / . Details about (the glory and the
misery of) these spaces may be found in [T83, Chapter 5] or in the more recent [T15,
Chapter 2]. But we wish to stay within the dual pairing .S.Rn /; S 0 .Rn //. The related

theory of the tempered homogeneous function spaces Asp;q .Rn / has been developed
in [T15, T16, T16a]. We recall the related definitions and modify first (1.31). Let

C s .Rn /, s < 0, be the collection of all f 2 S 0 .Rn / such that
s n
f jC .R / D sup t s=2 jWt f .x/j (1.34)
x2Rn ;t >0
is finite. According to [T15, Definition 3.22, p. 78] and Definition 2.8 in [T16, T16a]

one can introduce the spaces Asp;q .Rn /, A 2 fB; F g as follows.
Definition 1.3. Let n 2 N.

(i) Let 0 < p 1 .p < 1 for F -spaces/; 0 < q 1 and

1 n n n
n 1 <s < ; Ds : (1.35)
p p r p
6 1 Preliminaries

Let s=2 < m 2 N0 . Then F sp;q .Rn / collects all f 2 S 0 .Rn / such that
Z 1=q
s 1
f jF .R / D . s
/ q dt
n
t m 2 q
j@m
Wt f ./j jLp .R n
/
p;q m 0 t
t (1.36)

C f jC n=r .Rn /

is finite, and B sp;q .Rn / collects all f 2 S 0 .Rn / such that
Z 1=q
s 1
n q dt

f jB .Rn / D t .m 2 /q @m
s
Cf jC n=r .Rn /
p;q m t Wt f jLp .R /
0 t
(1.37)
is finite .usual modification if q D 1/.

(ii) Let 0 0
is finite.

(iii) Let 0 < p 1, 0 < q 1, s D n=p and s=2 < m 2 N. Then F sp;q .Rn /
Z 1=q
s 1 ˇ
f jF .R / D . s
/ q dt ˇ
n
t m 2 q
j@m
Wt f ./j Lp .R n
/ C sup j.f; '/j
p;q m 0 t
t
(1.39)
is finite .usual modification if q D 1/, where the supremum is taken over all ' 2
S.Rn / with k' jL1 .Rn /k 1.

(iv) Let 0 < p < 1, 0 < q 1, s D n=p and s=2 < m 2 N. Then B sp;q .Rn /
Z 1 1=q
s
n q dt
f jB .Rn / D t . m 2s /q m
@t Wt f jLp .R / C sup j.f; '/j
p;q m
0 t
(1.40)
is finite, where the supremum is taken over all ' 2 S.Rn / with k' jL1 .Rn /k 1.
Remark 1.4. Details and discussions may be found in [T15, T16, T16a]. In partic-
ular, these spaces are independent of the admitted m 2 N0 (equivalent quasi-norms).
The restrictions for s are natural, also with respect to our later considerations. As said
above, we rely on the inhomogeneous spaces Asp;q .Rn /. The only reason for includ-

ing the above tempered homogeneous spaces Asp;q .Rn / is the following homogeneity
property.

Proposition 1.5. Let Asp;q .Rn / be one of the spaces covered by Definition 1.3. Then

f ./ jAs .Rn / D s pn f jAs .Rn / ; > 0: (1.41)
p;q m p;q m
Proof. This follows by direct calculations, as detailed in [T15, p. 61].
Remark 1.6. As already indicated in Remark 1.2 we do not care about equivalent

quasi-norms in a given space Asp;q .Rn / or Asp;q .Rn /. This may justify our omission
of any related subscripts or superscripts.
Special properties of the spaces Asp;q .Rn / will be quoted when needed. As an
exception we recall here the following assertion that will play a crucial role in our
considerations.
Proposition 1.7. Let n 2 N.

(i) Let 1 p; q 1 .p < 1 for F -spaces/; s 2 R. Let d 0. Then there is a
constant c > 0 such that for all t with 0 < t 1 and all w 2 Asp;q .Rn /,

t d=2 Wt w jAsCd n s n
p;q .R / c w jAp;q .R / : (1.42)
(ii) Let 1 0 such that for all t, t > 0, and all w 2 Asp;q .Rn /,
s
t d=2 Wt w jAsCd n n
p;q .R / c w jAp;q .R / : (1.44)
Remark 1.8. Part (i) is covered by [T14, Theorem 4.1, p. 114] with
Ln=pAsp;q .Rn / D Asp;q .Rn / and [T13, Theorem 5.30, p. 187]. As for part (ii), we
refer the reader to Theorem 3.3 in [T16, T16a]. As mentioned in Remark 3.4 in [T16,
T16a], part (ii) can be extended to some limiting cases covered by Definition 1.3.
Remark 1.9. The history of these function spaces may be found in the respective
Chapters 1 in [T92, T06] both entitled How to measure smoothness, complemented
by [T15]. The above collection of definitions and properties is the bare minimum to
make the text readable. More specific assertions will be quoted when needed. But
to provide a better understanding we add a comment about our vocabulary which is

in good agreement with the recent literature. The spaces Asp;q .Rn /, A 2 fB; F g,
as introduced in Definition 1.3 enjoy the global homogeneity property (1.41) (for all
> 0) and called for this reason homogeneous spaces. We rely here on the spaces
Asp;q .Rn /, A 2 fB; F g, according to Definition 1.1. They do not have this global
8 1 Preliminaries
homogeneity property, and so are called inhomogeneous spaces (especially if both

types of spaces occur in the same text as here). In addition, we use the terms crit-
ical spaces and supercritical spaces in connection with distinguished equations of
Keller–Segel type, Navier–Stokes type, or combinations and modifications of them.
This is based on the so–called scaling heuristics which will be exemplified in detail
in Chapter 2 with respect to the classical Keller–Segel equations. We refer the reader
to the detailed discussion in Remark 2.2, but also to the comments in the Remarks
2.6 and 2.7. We return to related discussions throughout this book whenever the un-
derlying equations admit self–similar solutions, which means that any solution, say,
u.x; t/, generates a family of solutions a u.b x; c t/ for all > 0 and suitably cho-
sen real numbers a; b; c. In other words, scaling heuristics and the resulting critical
and supercritical spaces provide an understanding of which (inhomogeneous) spaces
are particularly well-adapted to the related equations, no more and not less.
1.2 Chemotaxis
Chemotaxis is the movement of biological cells or organisms in response to chemical
gradients. Of interest is the ability to initiate spatial pattering caused by positive ori-
ented chemotactical migration. In response to starvation, the slime (Schleim) mo(u)ld
(Schimmelpilz) Dictyostelium discoideum produces an auto-attractant, the chemi-
cal cAMP (Adenosine 30 ;50 -cyclic monophosphate), which initiates an aggregation
process. This is observed in Petri dishes [J. Petri, 1852–1922, German bacteriolo-
gist] since the 1930s and also commented with astonishment by A. Einstein in the
1950s. One needs a density of 5 104 per cm2 of these amoebae to initiate this re-
action. A description of how to understand this remarkable chemotactical behaviour
of amoebae and bacteria from a biochemical point of view may be found in [Adl75].
Photographs of the spiral signalling patterns in Dictyostelium discoideum under the
influence of the produced chemical cAMP are shown in [Mur93, Figure 12.16, p. 346]
= [Mur03, Figure 1.18, p. 57]. Adenosine is involved in many physiological processes
in living tissue, providing energy and muscular contraction. Mathematical models go
back to the 1950s. But the breakthrough came in the 1970s with the rather general
Keller–Segel equations, [KeS70, KeS71], simplified shortly afterwards in [Nan73].
A detailed description, including the biological background and the model equations
studied today may be found in the surveys [Hor03, Hor04] and [HiP09]. P
In what follows we use standard notation. In particular, D njD1 @2j stands for
the Laplacian with respect to the space variables x D .x1 ; : : : ; xn /. Similarly,
P rv D
.@1 v; : : : ; @n v/ denotes the gradient of a scalar function v and div w D njD1 @j wj
the divergence of a vector function w D .w1 ; : : : ; wn /.
The prototype of Keller–Segel equations (adapted to our later considerations) is
given by
@t u D u div .urv/; (1.45)
@t v D v ˛v C uI (1.46)
1.2 Chemotaxis 9
here ˛ 0 is the so-called damping constant, discussed later on in Section 4.10 be-
low, where ˛ > 0 is of biological relevance, [Hor03, p. 113], [Hor04, (1), (2), p. 53].
This coincides essentially with the so-called minimal model according to [HiP09,
(M1), p. 187]. Here u D u.x; t/ denotes the cell (or organisms) density on a given
domain Rn , n 2 N, and v D v.x; t/ describes the concentration of the chemi-
cal signal. Furthermore, u, v indicate diffusion: microscopic irregular individual
movements of particles, for example cells, bacteria, chemicals, animals and so on,
result in some macroscopic or gross motion. These coupled so-called parabolic-
parabolic systems are usually considered in (smooth bounded) domains subject to
boundary and initial conditions
@u @v
.x; t/ D .x; t/ D 0; x 2 @; t > 0; (1.47)
@ @
and
u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/; v.x; 0/ D v0 .x/; x 2 : (1.48)
Here is the outer normal to @ and (1.47) are null Neumann data. Further ex-
planations about this standard model and typical problems related to Keller–Segel
systems may be found in [JaL92, GaZ98], and more recently [BBTW15]. As far as
the biological background is concerned one may also consult [BGM08]. The sur-
vey [HiP09] discusses 10 models, with minimal models as a starting point, all of
parabolic-parabolic type as in (1.45), (1.46). Equations with v constant in time, that
is @t v D 0, are mentioned only by passing in [HiP09, p. 211], but some references are
given. However, this case has been considered in detail in [Hor03, Hor04], resulting
in the so-called parabolic-elliptic systems
@t u D u div .u rv/; (1.49)

v D u ˛v; (1.50)
˛ 0 (again with ˛ > 0 of biological relevance). Whereas in (1.45), (1.46) it

does not matter whether ˛ > 0 or ˛ D 0, the situation in (1.49), (1.50) is different.
The cases ˛ > 0 (one could take ˛ D 1) and ˛ D 0 will be treated separately
with different assertions. We include ˛ D 0 in (1.49), (1.50) on the one hand for
mathematical reasons. But on the other hand, inserting (1.50) with ˛ D 0 in (1.49) (as
will be done later on) one obtains a nonlinear version of the Fokker–Planck equation
with a special drift term [Per15, Section 8.9, pp. 160/161]. We return to this point
in Section 5.1 below. This may explain why we retain the constant ˛, while we
neglect all other constants of biological and chemical relevance (normalized by 1 or
1, discussed in Section 4.10). It is our main aim to apply the techniques developed
in [T13, T14, Baa15] in connection with Navier–Stokes equations to Keller–Segel
systems. For this purpose we ask first which spaces Asp;q .Rn / should be called critical
and supercritical for Keller–Segel systems. This will be done in Chapter 2. Recall
that spaces Asp;q .Rn / with s D 1 C pn are critical for Navier–Stokes equations. This
is now shifted to s D 2 C pn for Keller–Segel systems (which means that spaces
Asp;q .Rn / with s > 2 C pn are called supercritical for Keller–Segel systems). In
10 1 Preliminaries
both cases (Navier–Stokes and Keller–Segel) one examines homogeneity properties

of the underlying equations and related solutions to find out which spaces should be
called critical. Whereas the outcome in case of the Navier–Stokes equations, that is
Asp;q .Rn / with s D 1 C pn , is beyond any doubt, the situation in case of Keller–
Segel systems, that is Asp;q .Rn / with s D 2 C pn , may be different. It might well be
reasonable to call spaces Asp;q .Rn / critical if
8
< pn ; Navier–Stokes;
s D 1 C n (1.51)
:
p 1 C
; Keller–Segel;
0 < p 1, n 2. Here aC D max.a; 0/ for a 2 R. We return to this point in

Remark 2.6 below. In recent times both parabolic-parabolic equations of type (1.45),
(1.46) and parabolic-elliptic equations of type (1.49), (1.50) attracted some attention,
preferably in some homogeneous critical spaces APsp;q .Rn /. One may consult [Lem13]
and the references within. We deal with Keller–Segel systems exclusively in the
context of inhomogeneous supercritical spaces Asp;q .Rn / in Rn based on (1.51), that
is
n
s > 1 C 1 ; 1 p 1; 2 n 2 N: (1.52)
p C
Problem 1.10. These notes deal exclusively with PDE models for chemotaxis and
hydrodynamics in Rn . But the above remarks suggest to ask of whether there is a
counterpart for bounded smooth domains in Rn . This applies, in particular, to
Keller–Segel equations as discussed above, but also to chemotaxis Navier–Stokes
equations as considered in Chapter 7. For this purpose one may examine our main
tools and ask whether there are suitable counterparts for smooth bounded domains
in Rn instead of Rn . In Section 3.1 we recall specific properties of the spaces
Asp;q .Rn / which we use in a decisive way throughout the text. They have immediate
counterparts for the spaces Asp;q ./, defined by restriction of Asp;q .Rn / to . But the
situation is less favourable for some other assertions playing a crucial role. Above all
we rely on the Gauss–Weierstrass semi-group Wt w according to (1.25), (1.26) and, in
particular, on the mapping properties in Proposition 1.7 (especially part (i)). There is
no counterpart (as far as we know) based on an -adapted Gauss–Weierstrass semi-
groups generated by the Laplacian, subject to null Neumann boundary conditions.
But it is a challenge to develop a corresponding theory, both for the underlying func-
tion spaces and, even more, for related PDE models. The crucial test is an -version
of Proposition 1.7(i) (maybe restricted to some spaces Asp;q ./ as far as the smooth-
ness s is concerned). If this is possible (as we hope) it would be a major progress.
The situation is much better if one asks for PDE models for chemotaxis (maybe not
so much for hydrodynamics) on the n-torus Tn D Œ0; 1 n (opposite points are iden-
tified in the usual way) instead of Rn , at least as far as some basic ingredients are
concerned. Corresponding periodic spaces Asp;q .Tn / and their properties have been
considered in [T08, Section 1.3]. In particular they can be identified (isomorphic
maps) with periodic subspaces of suitable weighted spaces Asp;q .Rn ;
/, where the
1.2 Chemotaxis 11
latter will be recalled below in (4.82)–(4.84). According to (4.91)–(4.96), one has

weighted counterparts of the basic mapping properties described in Section 3.1 and
also a weighted generalization of Proposition 1.7(i), as stated in (4.99). This remains
valid if one restricts these assertions to the periodic spaces Asp;q .Tn / in the indicated
way. This suggests that assertions in terms of Asp;q .Rn / for some PDE models, in-
cluding in particular the above classical Keller–Segel equations, can be transferred to
Asp;q .Tn /. But this must be checked in detail and will not be done in these notes. This
is surely an interesting mathematical task and one can ask of whether corresponding
results have suitable biological interpretations (what might be not so clear, at least for
the author). This method may work well for the basic equations of chemotaxis, but
not (immediately) for Navier–Stokes equations and their chemotactic generalizations.
This can be seen from the different decay properties according to Section 4.7 on the
one hand and Remark 6.8 on the other hand.
Chapter 2
Critical and supercritical spaces
First we ask which spaces Asp;q .Rn /, n 2 N, should be called critical in the context
of Keller–Segel systems. We begin with the simplest case. This is (1.49) and ˛ D 0
in (1.50), which means
X
n
@t u D u @j u @j v C u2 ; (2.1)
j D1
v D u: (2.2)
Let > 0 and
u .x; t/ D 2 u.x; 2 t/; x 2 Rn ; t > 0: (2.3)
With v .x; t/ D v.x; 2 t/ one has
v .x; t/ D u .x; t/; x 2 Rn ; t > 0; (2.4)
and
X
n
@t u D u @j u @j v C u2 ; x 2 Rn ; t > 0: (2.5)
j D1
In particular, u , v solves again (2.1), (2.2).
Proposition 2.1. Let > 0 and u0 D u0 .x/, x 2 Rn . Let u D u .x; t/, v D

v .x; t/, x 2 Rn , 0 t < T , be a solution of
X
n
@t u u C

@j u @j v .u /2 D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ,
j D1
(2.6)
v D u ;

x 2 R , 0 < t < T;
n
(2.7)
u .x; 0/ D 2 u0 .1 x/; x 2 Rn . (2.8)
Then
u .x; t/ D 2 u .x; 2 t/; x 2 Rn , 0 t < 2 T ; (2.9)

2
v .x; t/ D v .x; t/;
2
x 2R ,0t <
n
T; (2.10)
14 2 Critical and supercritical spaces
is a solution of
X
n
@t u u C @j u @j v u2 D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < 2 T ; (2.11)
j D1
v D u ; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < 2 T ; (2.12)

u .x; 0/ D u0 .x/; x 2 Rn : (2.13)
Proof. This follows from the above considerations, in particular (2.1)–(2.5).
Remark 2.2. In other words, if u; v is a solution of (2.1), (2.2) in Rn .0; T / with

the initial data u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/, x 2 Rn , then u , v solves the same problem in
Rn .0; 2 T /. Let 2 n 2 N and let us assume that there are numbers ı > 0 and
T > 0 such that the system (2.1), (2.2) with the initial data u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/, x 2 Rn ,
has a solution in Rn .0; T / if

u0 2 Asp;q .Rn / with u0 jAsp;q .Rn / ı: (2.14)

Here Asp;q .Rn / (or APsp;q .Rn /) are the homogeneous spaces as discussed in Section 1.1
with a reference to [T15, T16, T16a]. In particular,

f .% / jAs .Rn / D %s pn f jAs .Rn /; f 2 Asp;q .Rn /; % > 0; (2.15)
p;q p;q
Proposition 1.5 based on [T15, Section 1.3, Theorem 3.24, pp. 5/6, 79/80]. Then one
can ask whether u ; v according to (2.11)–(2.13) is again a solution of (2.1), (2.2)
with the same initial data u0 in Rn .0; 2T /. For this purpose one has first to solve
(2.6)–(2.8) under the above assumptions, that is
n
2sC p u0 jAsp;q .Rn / D 2 u0 .1 / jAsp;q .Rn /
(2.16)
D u .; 0/ jAsp;q .Rn / ı:
In other words, if

u0 jAs .Rn / ı 2Cs pn ; > 0; (2.17)
p;q
then u , v solves (2.11)–(2.13). This suggests to call the spaces

n
Asp;q .Rn /; Asp;q .Rn /; 0 < p; q 1; sD 2 (2.18)
p
critical (for the Keller–Segel equations). If one assumes that one has for any initial
data u0 according to (2.14) with ı > 0 and s D pn 2 a solution of system (2.1),
(2.2) in Rn .0; T /, u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/, then it follows by the above considerations that
one has also a solution of system (2.1), (2.2) in Rn .0; 2 T / for any > 0, with
the same initial data. In particular one has for admissible initial data (2.14) for some
ı > 0 solutions of system (2.1), (2.2), u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/ in any time interval, hence in
2 Critical and supercritical spaces 15
Rn .0; T /, T > 0. If one assumes in addition uniqueness, then one obtains global

solutions in Rn .0; 1/. In the case of Navier–Stokes equations spaces Asp;q .Rn /
and Asp;q .Rn / with s D 1C pn are called critical. Then one has the same situation as
discussed above for the Keller–Segel equations. We return to this point in Section 6.2
below. The distinguished critical space Ln .Rn /, 2 n 2 N, for Navier–Stokes
equations is now replaced by the distinguished critical space Ln=2 .Rn /, 2 n 2 N
for Keller–Segel systems. The spaces
n
Asp;q .Rn /; Asp;q .Rn /; 0 < p; q 1; s> 2 (2.19)
p
are called supercritical (for Keller–Segel equations). If one assumes that one has for
any initial data u0 according to (2.14) with ı > 0 and s > pn 2 a solution of (2.1),
(2.2) in Rn .0; T /, u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/, then it follows from (2.17) upon letting ! 1

that one has for arbitrarily large u0 2 Asp;q .Rn / a solution in Rn .0; 2 T /, which
means in shrinking time-intervals. The same discussion applied to the subcritical (for

Keller–Segel equations) spaces Asp;q .Rn /, s < 2C pn , suggests that the system (2.1),

(2.2) has global solutions in Rn .0; 1/ for arbitrarily large u0 2 Asp;q .Rn /. This is
rather unlikely (as in the related counterpart for Navier–Stokes equations, discussed
in [T15, Section 1.1] and repeated in Remark 6.3 below). These notes deal with
diverse equations of Keller–Segel type in some supercritical inhomogeneous spaces
Asp;q .Rn /. Homogeneity does not play any role. In particular, the system (1.45),
(1.46), and also (1.49), (1.50) with ˛ > 0 are not homogeneous. This applies also to
the more complicated models discussed in [HiP09]. Instead of homogeneity we use
multiplication properties of inhomogeneous spaces.
We inserted Proposition 2.1 mainly to justify in Remark 2.2 which spaces for
Keller–Segel systems should be called critical or supercritical. But it is reasonable
(also from the point of view of applications) to complement Proposition 2.1 by a
corresponding assertion for the parabolic-parabolic system (1.45), (1.46) with ˛ D 0.
We formulate a related assertion.
Proposition 2.3. Let > 0, u0 D u0 .x/ and v0 D v0 .x/, x 2 Rn . Let u D

u .x; t/, v D v .x; t/, x 2 Rn , 0 t < T , be a solution of
X
n
@t u u C @j u @j v C u v D 0; x 2 Rn ; 0 < t < T;
j D1
(2.20)
@t v v D u ; x 2 Rn ; 0 < t < T;
(2.21)
u .x; 0/ D 2 u0 .1 x/; x 2 Rn : (2.22)
1
v .x; 0/ D v0 .

x/; x2R : n
(2.23)
16 2 Critical and supercritical spaces
Then
u .x; t/ D 2 u .x; 2 t/; x 2 Rn , 0 t < 2 T ; (2.24)

v .x; t/ D v .x; 2 t/; x 2 Rn , 0 t < 2 T ; (2.25)
is a solution of
X
n
@t u u C @j u @j v C u v D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < 2 T ;
j D1
(2.26)
2
@t v v D u ; x 2R ,0<t <
n
T;
(2.27)
u .x; 0/ D u0 .x/; x 2 Rn ; (2.28)
v .x; 0/ D v0 .x/; x 2 Rn : (2.29)
Proof. One has to modify (2.1)–(2.5) appropriately.
Remark 2.4. Although quite similar, it seems to be reasonable to formulate the

parabolic-elliptic case in Proposition 2.1 and the parabolic-parabolic case in Proposi-
tion 2.3 separately both with ˛ D 0 (otherwise they are not homogeneous).
Remark 2.5. The counterparts of (2.16), (2.17) are given by
n
sC p v0 jAsp;q .Rn / D v0 .1 / jAsp;q .Rn / D v .; 0/ jAsp;q .Rn / ı
(2.30)
and

v0 jAs .Rn / ı s pn ; > 0: (2.31)
p;q
The exponent 2 C s is (2.17) is now shifted to s pn in (2.31). The difference of

n
p
the smoothness assumptions for the initial cell density u0 and the initial concentration
of the chemical v0 by 2 is quite typical for Keller–Segel equations and will also be
reflected in our later discussions.
Remark 2.6. Homogeneity suggests to call the spaces (2.18) critical for Keller–Segel
systems. But there are also good reasons to modify (2.18) and to call spaces

n
s n s
Ap;q .R /; Ap;q .R /; n
0 < p; q 1; s D 1C 1 ; 2 n 2 N;
p C
(2.32)
critical (for the Keller–Segel equations). We discuss this point in Remark 3.5. We
refer the reader also to the Figure PP, PE, ˛ > 0, p. 22, the Theorems 4.3 and 4.13,
and related assertions in the subsequent sections.
2 Critical and supercritical spaces 17
Remark 2.7. The above scaling heuristics for the classical homogeneous Keller–
Segel systems and their counterparts for Navier–Stokes equations as recalled in Sec-
tion 6.2 below is a guide indicating which (critical and supercritical) spaces are natu-
rally adapted to the related problems. It does not provide rigorous barriers for other
spaces. In addition, most of the Keller–Segel modifications are non–homogeneous
in the above sense. Furthermore, we rely almost exclusively on the inhomogeneous
spaces Asp;q .Rn /. One has to deal with these equations case by case. But our ar-
guments will always be based on supercritical spaces originating from the classical
homogeneous Keller–Segel and Navier–Stokes equations.
Chapter 3
Mapping properties of Keller–Segel
nonlinearities
3.1 Preliminaries
We dealt in [T13, T14] with Navier–Stokes equations based on multiplication prop-
erties of some inhomogeneous function spaces applied to respective nonlinearities.
As far as these nonlinearities are concerned one can reduce these problems to (scalar)
nonlinear heat equations
X
n
@t u u @j .u2 / D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (3.1)
j D1
u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/; x 2 Rn : (3.2)
In the case of global inhomogeneous spaces Asp;q .Rn / we assumed that the related
solution spaces are multiplication algebras, that is
kf1 f2 jAsp;q .Rn /k c kf1 jAsp;q .Rn /k kf2 jAsp;q .Rn /k (3.3)
for all f1 2 Asp;q .Rn /, f2 2 Asp;q .Rn / and some c > 0, abbreviated as
Asp;q .Rn / Asp;q .Rn / ,! Asp;q .Rn /: (3.4)
This is ensured for the spaces
Asp;q .Rn / with 0 < p; q 1; s > n=p; (3.5)
(p < 1 for F -spaces). Details, including some limiting cases and references, in
particular to [SiT95], may be found in [T13, Theorem 1.16, p. 12]. As for the initial
data u0 one has to assume that
n
u0 2 Ap;q .Rn /; 1 p; q 1; > 1: (3.6)
p
This is the supercritical case for the nonlinear heat equations (3.1), (3.2) and also for
Navier–Stokes equations. One can replace the request (3.4) for the solution spaces by
some more sophisticated multiplication properties [Baa15].
Basically we wish to apply the scheme as developed in [T13, T14] in connec-
tion with Navier–Stokes equations to Keller–Segel systems. This requires that one
deals first with mapping properties of the related nonlinearities which are now more
20 3 Mapping properties of Keller–Segel nonlinearities
complicated even for the so-called minimal models (1.45), (1.46) and (1.49), (1.50)
and even more for the other models discussed in [HiP09]. The natural counterpart of
(3.4), (3.5) for solution spaces and (3.6) for initial data will now be some spaces
n
Asp;q .Rn /; 0 < p; q 1; s> 1 (3.7)
p
and
n
u0 2 Ap;q .Rn /; 1 p; q 1; > 2: (3.8)
p
In other words, we deal again with supercritical spaces now for Keller–Segel equa-
tions as discussed in Chapter 2. A crucial role as a substitute of multiplication alge-
bras according to (3.4), (3.5) for solution spaces will play the following multiplication
properties.
(i) Let
1 1 s
2 < r < 1; s > 0; D C ; 0 < q 1: (3.9)
p r n
Then
Asp;q .Rn / Asp;q .Rn / ,! Aspr ;q .Rn /; (3.10)
with
1 2 s 1 1
D C D C (3.11)
pr r n p r
and, in addition, 0 < q r in the case of B-spaces.
(ii) Let
1 1 s
1 < r < 1; s > 0; D C ; 1 q r: (3.12)
p r n
Then
s
Bp;q .Rn / B sn ;1 .Rn / ,! Bp;q
s
.Rn /: (3.13)
s
(iii) Let
1 p < 1; 0 < s < n=p; 0<q1 (3.14)
and
0 < w 1; % > max .s; n=w/ ; 0 < ı 1: (3.15)
%
Then Bw;ı .Rn / is a pointwise multiplier space for Bp;q
s
.Rn /, that is
%
s
Bp;q .Rn / Bw;ı .Rn / ,! Bp;q
s
.Rn /: (3.16)
The assertions (i) and (ii) are special cases of [ET96, Theorems 2.4.3, 2.4.4,
pp. 52/53, 55]. There one finds also explanations and references, in particular to
[SiT95]. Part (iii) follows essentially from (3.13) interpolated with the pointwise
multiplier spaces C % .Rn / for Bp;q
s
.Rn /. This will be justified below in Remark 3.2.
3.2 The inhomogeneous parabolic-elliptic model 21
3.2 The inhomogeneous parabolic-elliptic model

First we consider the nonlinearity of the system (1.49), (1.50) with ˛ > 0. By (1.50),
one has 1 _
v D ˛ C jj2 b
u (3.17)
and
P u D div .urv/
_ X
n _
jj2 j
D u b
u Ci @j u b
u (3.18)
˛ C jj2 ˛ C jj2
j D1
D P1 u C P2 u;
where P u, P1 u, P2 u must be understood as the definitions of the respective terms.
Proposition 3.1. Let 2 n 2 N,

n
0 < p; q 1 and s > 1 (3.19)
p C
.p < 1 for F -spaces/ as indicated in Figure PE, ˛ > 0, p. 22. Let " > 0. Then
kP u jAs1"
p;q .Rn /k c" ku jAsp;q .Rn /k2 (3.20)
for some c" > 0 and all u 2 Asp;q .Rn /.

1
Proof. Step 1. First we assume that p
;s is in the strip

n n
0 < p < 1 and max 1; 1 < s < : (3.21)
p p
Then 0 < 1
p
ns D 1
r
< n1 . Let, in addition, q r. Then by (3.9)–(3.11) one obtains
1 1 1
kP1 u jBps r ;q .Rn /k c ku jBp;q
s
.Rn /k2 ; D C ; (3.22)
pr p r
_
jj2
where we used in addition that u 7! ˛Cjj2
b
u s
is an isomorphic map of Bp;q .Rn /
onto itself. Recall
n n n
Bps r ;q .Rn / ,! Bp;q

.Rn /; Ds >s1 : (3.23)
p pr p
Then one has

kP1 u jBp;q
s1
.Rn /k c ku jBp;q
s
.Rn /k2 : (3.24)
s
n1
n1
1
2
1 2
n n
1 1
p
1
n
1 1
p
3
1 2n
1
2
PE, ˛ D 0
PE, ˛ > 0 and PP
Figure 3.1. Keller–Segel nonlinearities, n D 3, PE: parabolic-elliptic, PP: parabolic-parabolic
As for P2 u we remark first that

_
j n
b
u 2 Bp;q
sC1
.Rn / ,! Bp;1
p
.Rn / ,! B s1
n .Rn /: (3.25)
˛ C jj 2 s1 ;1
Here we used that ˛ > 0, s C 1 > pn , s 1 > 0, well-known embeddings, and a

modification of (1.15). Furthermore,
n n n
n 2<s1< : (3.26)
p p p
Then one can apply (3.13) with s 1 in place of s, some 1 < r < 1 and 1 q r.
One obtains
X
n

P2 u jB s1 .Rn / c @j u jB s1 .Rn / u jB s .Rn /
p;q p;q p;q
j D1 (3.27)
2
c u jBp;q
0 s
.Rn / :
In other words, one has so far

P u jB s1 .Rn / c u jB s .Rn /2 ; u 2 Bp;q
s
.Rn /; (3.28)
p;q p;q
for p; s as in (3.21) and some q 1.

Step 2. Let still p; s be as in (3.21) and " > 0. Then (3.20) follows from (3.28) and

P u jAs12".Rn / c P u jBp;
s1"
.R n
/
p;q e
q
2 (3.29)
n 00 n 2
c 0 u jBp;
s"
e q
.R / c u jAs
p;q .R / ;
where eq is chosen such that (3.28) with e

q in place of q can be applied.
Step 3. The arguments in Step 2 cover also the case s > 1 and s D n=p. Let now
s > 1 and s > n=p. Then one can argue as above using now that the spaces in (3.5)
are multiplication algebras. The spaces As1 n
p;q .R / are either multiplication algebras,
or covered by the preceding arguments.
Step 4. Let
n
0 0, p. 22. Then p > n2 1 and

n 1
0>s1> 2n 1 : (3.31)
p p
One has again the estimate (3.24) for P1 u for some q r (in the notation used
there). As for P2 u, we need now an additional duality argument. We begin with a
preparation. Let

1 1 1 1 1
1 < p; q 1; C 0 D C 0 D 1; n 1 < ı < 0: (3.32)
p p q q p
s1
This covers in particular the above spaces Bp;q .Rn / if, in addition, 1 < q r (recall
r > n). Then one has by [T83, Theorem 2.11.2, p. 178]
n 0 n
0 ;q 0 .R / D Bp;q .R /;
Bp1s 0<1s < n:
s1 n
(3.33)
p0
By (3.16) (justified below in Remark 3.2), we have
0 ;q 0 .R / Bp;q .R / ,! Bp 0 ;q 0 .R /
Bp1s n sC1 n 1s n
(3.34)
where we used s C 1 > n=p. Together with (3.33) one has

s1
Bp;q .Rn / Bp;q
sC1
.Rn / ,! Bp;q
s1
.Rn /: (3.35)
Then one has counterparts of (3.27), (3.28), that is

P u jB s1 .Rn / c u jB s .Rn /2 ; u 2 Bp;q
s
.Rn /; (3.36)
p;q p;q
for p; s in (3.30) and some q. This can be extended to (3.20) at the expense of " > 0,
covering also the case s D 1, excluded so far.
Remark 3.2. We justify (3.16) under the assumptions (3.14), (3.15). It follows from
%
[T92, Corollary, p. 205] that B1;q .Rn / is a pointwise multiplier space for Bp;q
s
.Rn /,
s
Bp;q .Rn / B1;q
%
.Rn / ,! Bp;q
s
.Rn /; % > s; 0 < q 1: (3.37)
Then one obtains (3.16) from (3.13), some well-known embeddings and the real in-
terpolation

%
B1;q .Rn /; B %n ;q .Rn / D Bq;q
%
.Rn /; (3.38)
s ;q
1 s s 1
0< D < < 1; (3.39)
q n n p
which can be justified as follows. Using wavelet isomorphisms according to [T08,

Theorem 1.20, pp. 15/16] one can reduce (3.38) to
n

`q 2j% `1 ; `q 2j.%s/ ` ns D `q 2j.% q / `q : (3.40)
;q
By (3.39) one has 1 < q < 1 and 1 < ns < 1. Then (3.40) is covered by [T78,
Theorems 1.18.1, 1.18.2, pp. 120–124]. Instead of real interpolation one can rely
on complex interpolation, as will be done later on in (3.83), (3.88) with the same
references as there.
Remark 3.3. We add a comment about our method. Later on we convert (1.49),
(1.50) with ˛ > 0, complemented by initial data according to (4.9)–(4.11), into a
fixed point problem for (4.16), (4.17). Using (4.132) we estimate for this purpose
Z t
Wt P u.; / d .x/
0
Z tZ jxyj2
1 e 4.t /
D div .urv/.y; / dyd (3.41)
.4/n=2 0 Rn .t /n=2
Z tZ jzj2
1 e 4.t /
D div .urv/.x z; / dz d
.4/n=2 0 Rn .t /n=2

in Asp;q .Rn / with 1 p; q 1 (p < 1 for F -spaces) and s > pn 1 . Based
C
on

n
t d=2 Wt w jAsCd
p;q .R / c w jAsp;q .Rn / ; 1 p; q 1; s 2 R; d > 0;
(3.42)
(p < 1 for F -spaces), 0 < t 1, Proposition 1.7 with a reference to [T14, Theorem
4.1, p. 114], [T13, Theorem 5.30, p. 187] and Proposition 3.1, one has
Z t

n
Wt P u.; / d jAp;q .R /
s

0
Z t
1
c div .urv/.; / jAs1".Rn / d (3.43)
1 " p;q
0 .t / 2 C 2
Z t
1
c" u.; / jAs .Rn /2 d:
1 " p;q
0 .t / 2 C 2
We did not use the specific nature of P u in (3.18) and estimated P1 u and P2 u sepa-
rately by qualitative mapping properties. This gives the possibility to extend Propo-
sition 3.1 to more general nonlinearities, as will be done below in Corollary 3.4 and
applied later on to more general PDE models for chemotaxis. But if one sticks at the
specific nature of P u as the divergence of u rv, one can modify the above estimates
as follows. Let

jxj2 j 1 x
w .x/ D xj e
j
and wt .x/ D w j
p ; (3.44)
.4 t/n=2 2 t
j D 1; : : : ; n and t > 0. Integration by parts of (3.41) (which can be justified for all
cases of interest) gives
Z t
Wt P u.; / d .x/
0
n Z
X t (3.45)
1 j
D wt .x y/ u.y; / @j v.y; / dy d
j D1 0 .t / 1=2
and
Z t

W P u.; / d jA s
.R n
/
t p;q
0
X n Z t (3.46)
1
c u.; / @j v.; / jAs .Rn / d;
p;q
j D1 0
.t / 1=2
s > 0 and 1 p; q 1 (p < 1 for F -spaces). If pn 1 < s < pn , then it

follows from the first embedding in (3.25) that @j v is a pointwise multiplier for the
s
spaces Bp;q .Rn / covered by (3.12), (3.13). Similarly, if Asp;q .Rn / is a multiplication
n=p
algebra, which applies to all spaces with s > n=p, but also to Bp;1 .Rn /, (3.5), [T13,
Theorem 1.16, p. 12] (and the references given there). In all these cases one has
Z t Z t
1
W P u.; / d jAs
.R n
/ c u.; / jAs .Rn /2 d:
t p;q p;q
0 .t /
1=2
0
(3.47)
This is the counterpart of (3.43). The remaining spaces Asp;q .Rn / with 1 p; q 1

(p < 1 for F -spaces), s > pn 1 , can be incorporated as in Proposition 3.1 at
C
the expense of " > 0. But it is not so clear whether this "-modification is of any use,
or whether applications must be restricted to spaces Asp;q .Rn / with (3.47) (in contrast
to Proposition 3.1).
Arguments of the above type (to shift the divergence from the nonlinearity to the
heat kernels) are in common use in the literature dealing with PDE models in physics
and biology having a related structure. We stick here at Proposition 3.1 and formulate
the above-indicated generalization replacing P u in (3.18) by
X
n
P u D u L0 u C @j u Lj u D P1 u C P2 u; (3.48)
j D1
where
L0 W Asp;q .Rn / ,! Asp;q .Rn /; (3.49)

Lj W Asp;q .Rn / ,! AsC1 n
p;q .R /; (3.50)
j D 1; : : : ; n, are linear bounded operators.
Corollary 3.4. Let 2 n 2 N,

n
0 < p; q 1 and s> 1 (3.51)
p C
.p < 1 for F -spaces/ as indicated in Figure PE, ˛ > 0, p. 22. Let P u be as in

(3.48)–(3.50). Let " > 0. Then

P u jAs1".Rn / c" u jAs .Rn /2 (3.52)
p;q p;q
Proof. This coincides with Proposition 3.1, where P in (3.18) is a special case of P
in (3.48)–(3.50). An examination of the proof shows that one needs only the mapping
properties (3.49), (3.50) for the related factors in (3.18).
Remark 3.5. For the typical nonlinearity of Navier–Stokes equations and nonlinear
heat equations according to (3.1) one has

X
n
2
@j u jAp;q .R / c u jAsp;q .Rn / ;
2 s1 n
(3.53)

j D1
3.3 The homogeneous parabolic-elliptic model 27
under the assumption that Asp;q .Rn / is a multiplication algebra. This applies in partic-
ular to the spaces in (3.5). For the corresponding initial data u0 in Ap;q .Rn / (now as-
sumed to be Banach spaces) one has (3.6) covering all related supercritical spaces (for
Navier–Stokes equations). Nonlinearities for Keller–Segel systems are more compli-
cated, where Proposition 3.1 may be considered as the simplest case, extended in
Corollary 3.4. But otherwise one can take the situation for nonlinear heat equations
and Navier–Stokes equations as a guide. Then Proposition 3.1 suggests to comple-
ment the parabolic-elliptic system (1.49), (1.50) with ˛ > 0 by

n
u.; 0/ D u0 ./ 2 Ap;q .R /;
n
1 p; q 1; > 1 1 (3.54)
p C
as indicated in Figure PE, ˛ > 0, p. 22. If 1 p n, then one has > pn 2,

which covers all related supercritical spaces for Keller–Segel equations as described
in (2.19). But if n 1 as an
assumption resulting from Proposition 3.1. In contrast to Navier–Stokes equations,
there is now a breaking point p D n. One may ask whether this is an artefact caused
by our method, or a natural phenomenon for equations of type (1.49), (1.50) with
˛ > 0. But some results about well-posedness and ill-posedness for critical spaces of
initial data for Navier–Stokes equations on the one hand, [BoP08, Yon10, DeY13],
and for Keller–Segel equations on the other hand, [DeL14, DeV14], suggest that
the role of A1 n 1
1;q .R / for Navier–Stokes equations is now taken over by An;q .R /
n
for Keller–Segel equations. This is also supported by the breaking point p D n in

Proposition 3.1 and its later use in Section 4.2 dealing with parabolic-elliptic Keller–
Segel systems (4.9)–(4.11).
3.3 The homogeneous parabolic-elliptic model

We deal with the nonlinearity of the system (1.49), (1.50) with ˛ D 0. The counter-
part of (3.18) is now given by
P u D div .urv/
X n _
j
D u C i
2
@j u b
u (3.55)
jj2
j D1
D P1 u C P2 u:
The estimates for P1 u in the proofs of Proposition 3.1 and Corollary 3.4 apply also
to P1 u D u2 , again under the assumption that

n
0 < p; q 1; s > max 0; 1 ; (3.56)
p
(p < 1 for the F -spaces). But the term P2 u is now more complicated. Its second
factor can be decomposed as
j
P2 u D K1 Rj u; j D 1; : : : ; n; (3.57)
where
j b _
Rj f D f ; j D 1; : : : ; n; (3.58)
jj
are the usual Riesz transforms and K1 is a special case of the Riesz potentials
_ Z
f .y/
K f .x/ D jj f b .x/ D c dy; (3.59)
Rn jx yjn
0 <
< n. A short proof of (3.59) including a calculation of c may be found in
[LiL97, 5.9, pp. 122/123]. It is well known that Rj maps Lp .Rn /, 1 < p < 1, into
itself. This has been extended in [T13, Theorem 1.25, pp. 17/18] to Asp;q .Rn /,
Rj W Asp;q .Rn / ,! Asp;q .Rn /; s 2 R; 1 < p < 1; 0 < q 1 (3.60)

(1 < q < 1 for F -spaces). Let
n 1 1
0 <
< n; 1<p< ; D : (3.61)

w p n
Then
K W Lp .Rn / ,! Lw .Rn / (3.62)
is the well-known Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality. A short proof and (histori-
cal) references may be found in [T78, Theorem 3, pp. 140/141]. Then one obtains by
the same arguments as in [T13, pp. 17/18]
n 1 1
K W Asp;q .Rn / ,! Asw;q .Rn /; s 2 R; 1<p< ; D ; (3.63)

w p n
0 < q 1 for B-spaces, 1 < q < 1 for F -spaces. One has to use in addition the
embedding
id W APsC n Ps n
p;q .R / ,! Aw;q .R / (3.64)
for homogeneous spaces (or their norms). After these preparations one can now prove
the counterpart of Proposition 3.1 with P as in (3.55).

1 max 1 n
;
2 p
1 (3.65)
as indicated in Figure PE, ˛ D 0, p. 22. Let P u be as in (3.55). Let " > 0. Then

P u jAs1".Rn / c" u jAs .Rn /2 (3.66)
p;q p;q

Proof. Step 1. As said above, the estimate for P1 u D u2 is covered by the proof of
Proposition 3.1 with p; q; s as in (3.56). Otherwise we modify the proof of Proposi-
tion 3.1 and assume first that

n n
1 < p < n; max 1; 1 < s < ; (3.67)
p p
which is a subset of (3.65). Let u 2 Bp;q s
.Rn /. We ask for a counterpart of (3.25)
now based on (3.57), (3.60), (3.63) with
D 1, s 1 < pn 1 D wn , rewritten as
n
w < s1 and s wn D s pn C 1 > 0. Then one has
_
j n
b
u 2 B s
w;q .R n
/ ,! B w n s1
w;1 .R / ,! B s1
n
n
;1 .R /: (3.68)
jj2
Recall (3.26). Now one can argue as at the end of Step 1 of the proof of Proposi-
tion 3.1. Then one has for p; s as in (3.67) and some q 1,

P u jB s1 .Rn / c u jB s .Rn /2 : (3.69)
p;q p;q
This can be extended in the same way as in Step 2 of the proof of Proposition 3.1 to
all spaces Asp;q .Rn / with p; s as in (3.67) and 0 < q 1 at the expense of " > 0
resulting in (3.66). The case 1 1) can again be
incorporated at the expense of " > 0. If
n n
1 < p < n and < s < C 1; (3.70)
p p
then we can apply (3.14)–(3.16) with s 1 in place of s and s in place of %. In
s
particular Bw;q .Rn / is a pointwise multiplier space for Bp;q
s1
.Rn /, that is

fg jB s1 .Rn / c f jB s1 .Rn / g jB s .Rn / (3.71)
p;q p;q w;q
for some c > 0, all f 2 Bp;q s1

.Rn / and all g 2 Bw;q
s
.Rn /. Then one can argue
s n
as above as far as P2 is concerned. Spaces Ap;q .R / with (3.70) are multiplication
algebras. This covers a corresponding estimate for P1 u D u2 . Using again an
"-argument one obtains (3.66) for all spaces with (3.70). If s 1 > n=p, then
s1
Bp;q .Rn / is a multiplication algebra. An appropriate modification of (3.14)–(3.16)
and its proof in Remark 3.2 (based again on [T92, Corollary, p. 205]) gives the desired
result. This covers all spaces with (3.65) and s > 1.
Step 2. Let 1 < p < n, 1 < q < 1, and 1=2 < s < 1. We use again a duality
argument as in Step 4 of the proof of Proposition 3.1. The counterpart of (3.34),
0 ;q 0 .R / Bw;q .R / ,! Bp 0 ;q 0 .R /;
Bp1s n s n 1s n
(3.72)
requires s > 1 s and s > wn D pn 1 what is ensured. The desired estimate follows
_

now from the fact that jjj2 b
u 2 Bw;q
s
.Rn / as in (3.68) and duality,
s1
Bp;q .Rn / Bw;q
s
.Rn / ,! Bp;q
s1
.Rn /: (3.73)
The rest is now the same as in the proof of Proposition 3.1, incorporating the remain-
ing cases at the expense of an " > 0.
Remark 3.7. If ˛ > 0, then one has (3.25) for all 0 < p 1, and there are
no restrictions for p in Proposition 3.1. The proof of its counterpart (3.68) in case
of ˛ D 0 is based on (3.57), (3.60), and (3.62) with
D 1, which requires the
assumption 1 < p < n in Proposition 3.6. Whereas p 1 is rather natural in
our later considerations of parabolic-elliptic systems (1.49), (1.50) with ˛ 0, one
may ask what happens if p n in Proposition 3.6. But at least in the context of
inhomogeneous spaces the restriction p < n in Proposition 3.6 seems to be natural.
This comes from the observation that K according to (3.59) with 0 <
< n is not

well defined in Lp .Rn / if p > n=
. Let jyj1 D 0 if jyj 1 and jyj1 D jyj if

jyj > 1. Then jyj1 2 Lp .Rn / if n=
< p < 1, but K j j1 .x/ D 1 for any
x 2 Rn .
We outlined in Remark 3.3 an alternative way to modify Proposition 3.1 by shift-

ing the divergence in (3.18) to the heat kernels. Then one has (3.47) instead of (3.43).
But there is no improvement in the later applications. In addition, the generalization
according to Corollary 3.4 cannot be treated in this way. One may ask the same ques-
tions with respect to Proposition 3.6 and its later applications. Both can be done. First,
we formulate a qualitative version of Proposition 3.6 which may be considered as the
counterpart of Corollary 3.4. Secondly, we adapt the discussion in Remark 3.3 to the
above homogeneous parabolic-elliptic nonlinearity (3.55) (shifting the divergence to
the heat kernels). This gives the possibility to remove in the later applications the
disturbing restriction s > 1=2 in (3.65).
The counterpart of (3.48)–(3.50) is now given by
X
n
P u D u L0 u C @j u Lj u D P1 u C P2 u; (3.74)
j D1
where
L0 W Asp;q .Rn / ,! Asp;q .Rn /; (3.75)
Lj W Asp;q .Rn / ,! Asw;q .Rn /; (3.76)
j D 1; : : : ; n, are linear bounded operators.

1 max 1 n
;
2 p
1 ; (3.77)
as indicated in Figure PE, ˛ D 0, p. 22. Let P u be as in (3.74)–(3.76) with w1 D

1
p
n1 . Let " > 0. Then for some c" > 0

P u jAs1".Rn / c" u jAs .Rn /2 (3.78)
p;q p;q
for all u 2 Asp;q .Rn /.

Proof. This coincides with Proposition 3.6 where P in (3.55) is a special case of P
in (3.74)–(3.76). An examination of the proof shows that one needs only the mapping
properties (3.75), (3.76) with w1 D p1 n1 in the related factors in (3.55).
Remark 3.9. Next we ask whether the restriction s > 1=2 in Proposition 3.6 and
Corollary 3.8 can be removed. We have no final answer. But with respect to the later
applications one can transfer this question to the alternative approach in Remark 3.3
shifting the divergence of P u in (3.55) to the heat kernels in the same way as in
(3.45)–(3.47). By (3.57)–(3.63) with
D 1, one may ask of whether for 0 < q 1,
n 1 1 1
Asw;q .Rn /; 1 1; D ; (3.79)
p w p n
is a pointwise multiplier space for Asp;q .Rn /, that is
Asp;q .Rn / Asw;q .Rn / ,! Asp;q .Rn /: (3.80)
By (3.79), one has at least Asw;q .Rn / ,! L1 .Rn /. In general, (3.80) looks some-
what doubtful, especially if s < n=p. But there are some affirmative answers which
might be of selfcontained interest. According to [T83, Remark 1, p. 143], one has
s
Bp;q .Rn / B1;q
s
.Rn / ,! Bp;q
s
.Rn /; s > 0; 1 p 1; 0 < q 1:
(3.81)
We wish to interpolate this assertion with
n
s
Bp;1 .Rn / B sn ;1 .Rn / ,! Bp;1
s
.Rn /; 1 p < 1; 0<s< ; (3.82)
s p
which is covered by (3.12), (3.13). By (3.79) one has w1 < ns . Let ns D 1
w
. Then
one obtains by complex interpolation
h i
s
B1;1 .Rn /; B sn ;1 .Rn / D Bw;1
s
.Rn /; (3.83)
s
covered by [KMM07, Theorems 5.2, 9.1, pp. 137, 157] and the references therein.
But then it follows from (3.81), (3.82) that
n n 1 1 1
s
Bw;1 .Rn /; 1 < p < n; 1<s < ; D ; (3.84)
p p w p n
s
is a pointwise multiplier space for Bp;1 .Rn /,
s
Bp;1 .Rn / Bw;1
s
.Rn / ,! Bp;1
s
.Rn /: (3.85)
This ensures the counterpart of (3.47), that is
Z t Z t
1
W P u.; / d jB s
.R n
/ c u.; / jB s .Rn /2 d;
t p;1 p;1
0 .t /
1=2
0
(3.86)
with P u as in (3.55) and p; s as in (3.84). In particular, one does not need the re-
striction s > 1=2 in (3.65) (caused by the duality argument in Step 2 of the proof of
Proposition 3.6) any longer. This will be sufficient for our later applications. But the
assertion itself can be extended to
n
s
Bp;q .Rn /; 1 ; 1 q < 1; (3.87)
p
n=p
and also to Bp;1 .Rn /, 1 < p < n, being multiplication algebras. The needed coun-
terpart of (3.83), s
B1;q .Rn /; Bp;q

s
.Rn / p=w D Bw;q
s
.Rn / (3.88)
is covered by the above references. In other words, one has
Z t Z t
1
W P u.; / d jB s
.R n
/ c u.; / jB s .Rn /2 d
t p;q p;q
0 .t /
1=2
0
(3.89)
with P u as in (3.55) and s; p; q as in (3.87) (complemented by s D n=p, q D 1).
It is not so clear whether these arguments can be extended to other cases (covered
by Proposition 3.6). The corresponding assertions in Remark 3.3 do not cover new
cases compared with Proposition 3.1. This is somewhat in contrast to the above
considerations, where one can remove the restriction s > 1=2 in the later applications
of Proposition 3.6. One may compare Theorem 4.7 and Corollary 4.8.
Remark 3.10. There is a counterpart of Remark 3.5. By the same comments as

there, Proposition 3.6 suggests to complement the parabolic-elliptic equations (1.49),
(1.50), now with ˛ D 0, by

1 n
u.; 0/ D u0 ./ 2 Ap;q .R /; 1 max ; 2
n
(3.90)
2 p
1 q 1; this means D s 1 compared with (3.65) pushing down the related
area in Figure PE, ˛ D 0, p. 22, by 1. If 1 pn 2, which
covers again all related supercritical spaces for Keller–Segel equations as described
in (2.19). In the cases described in Remark 3.9 one has even the optimal restriction
1 pn 2. One may consult Corollary 4.8.
3.4 The parabolic-parabolic model, I

We deal now with the nonlinearities of the parabolic-parabolic system (1.45), (1.46),
that is
@t u u C div .urv/ D 0; (3.91)
@t v v C ˛v D u; (3.92)
˛ 0, u D u.x; t/, v D v.x; t/, .x; t/ 2 Rn .0; 1/, with the initial data at t D 0:
u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/; v.x; 0/ D 0; x 2 Rn : (3.93)
3.4 The parabolic-parabolic model, I 33
In the case of parabolic-elliptic models the estimates in the Propositions 3.1, 3.6 and
Remark 3.9 are sufficient for our later applications. The corresponding assertions for
parabolic-parabolic models are more specific. To provide a better understanding, we
begin with two preparations.
Let Wt w, t > 0, be the Gauss–Weierstrass semi-group in Rn as described in
(1.25), (1.26) with a reference to [T13, Section 5.1.1, p. 159] or [T14, Section 4.1,
p. 113]. In particular,
b
Wt w./ D et jj w
2
b./; 2 Rn ; t > 0: (3.94)
First we justify that the Duhamel formula

Z t
˛t
v.x; t/ D e ˛
e Wt u.; / d .x/ (3.95)
0
solves (3.92) with vanishing initial data v.x; 0/ D 0. This can be rewritten on the
Fourier side as Z t
2
v.; t/ D e˛t
b e˛ e.t /jj bu.; / d; (3.96)
0
which can be justified by direct calculations:
Z t
˛t 2
@tb
v .; t/ D ˛bv .; t/ C b
u.; t/ C e e˛ .jj2 / e.t /jj bu.; / d
0 (3.97)
D ˛b
v .; t/ C b c t/:
u.; t/ C v.;
We need a second preparation. In [T13, p. 184] and [T14, p. 118] we reduced

(3.91) with the initial data (3.93) to a fixed point problem for the mapping
Z t
Tu0 u.x; t/ D Wt u0 .x/ C Wt f ./ d .x/; (3.98)
0
with
f .y/ D f .y; / D div .urv/.y; /; y 2 Rn ; > 0; (3.99)

in some weighted function spaces L2r .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / . As for u0 , we as-
sumed u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn / with 0 < g 1. Compared
with [T13, T14],
we deal now
exclusively with the case r D 1. Then L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / is normed by

u jL1 .0; T /; a=2; As .Rn / D sup t a=2 u.; t/ jAs .Rn / : (3.100)
p;q p;q
0<t <T
Furthermore a and g are restricted in [T14, Theorem 4.10, p. 119] by
0 < 1 a < g 1: (3.101)

This suggests to deal with the nonlinearity f in (3.99) in suitably adapted spaces of
the above type. We return to the notation used in the preceding Sections 3.2 and 3.3.
Then one has for the nonlinearity in (3.91) and (3.99)
X
n
P u D div .urv/ D u v C @j u @j v D P1 u C P2 u; (3.102)
j D1
with v as in (3.95), (3.96).

n
1 p; q 1; s> 1 and a < 2; (3.103)
p C
.p < 1 for F -spaces/, Figure PP, p. 22. Let " > 0. Then

P u.; t/ jAs12".Rn /
p;q
a a (3.104)
c" t " 2 u.; t/ jAsp;q .Rn / sup 2 u.; / jAsp;q .Rn /
0< <t
for some c" > 0, all 0 < t 1, and all u.; t/ 2 Asp;q .Rn /.
Proof. Step 1. One has by (3.95) and [T14, Theorem 4.1, p. 114] (based on [T13,
Theorem 5.12, p. 171]) that

v jAs2" .Rn / c v jAsC22" .Rn /
p;q p;q
Z t

c0 Wt u.; / jAsC22".Rn / d
p;q
0
Z t

c 00 .t /1C" u.; / jAsp;q .Rn / d
0
Z
a t
00
c sup 2 u.; / jAp;q .R /s n a
.t /1C" 2 d
0< <t 0

c 000 t " a
2 sup
a
2 u.; / jAs .Rn / :
p;q
0< <t
(3.105)
Let, in addition,

n n
1 p < 1 and max 1; 1 < s < : (3.106)
p p
Then one has, by the same arguments as in the Steps 1 and 2 in the proof of Proposi-
tion 3.1, that

P1 u.; t/ jAs12".Rn /
p;q
a a (3.107)
c" t " 2 u.; t/ jAsp;q .Rn / sup 2 u.; / jAsp;q .Rn / :
0< <t
3.5 The parabolic-parabolic model, II 35
We estimate P2 u again with p; s as in (3.106). Similarly as in (3.105) one has

@j v jAsC12" .Rn / c t " a2 sup a2 u.; / jAs .Rn / : (3.108)
p;q p;q
0< <t
Now one can argue as in (3.26), (3.27) (based on (3.13)) and the "-version as indicated
above. Then one obtains

P2 u.; t/ jAs12".Rn /
p;q
a a (3.109)
c" t " 2 u.; t/ jAsp;q .Rn / sup 2 u.; / jAsp;q .Rn / :
0< <t
Then (3.104) with p; s as in (3.106) follows from (3.102), (3.107) and (3.109).
Step 2. The extension of (3.104) with (3.106) to (3.104) with (3.103) can now be
done in the same way as in the Steps 3 and 4 of the proof of Proposition 3.1.
Remark 3.12. The somewhat curious preference of a=2 instead of a in Proposi-

tion 3.11 originates
from the later application
in connection with the fixed point prob-
lem in L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / outlined so far in (3.98), (3.99). Together with
the initial data u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn / in (3.93) one needs further restrictions described
so far in (3.101). Then g > 0 near zero requires a near 1. Otherwise one has for s the
same restrictions as in Proposition 3.1 (where 1 p; q 1 is needed later on in all
parabolic-elliptic and parabolic-parabolic models). In contrast to the nonlinearities
for the parabolic-elliptic models in the Propositions 3.1 and 3.6, it does not play any
role for the nonlinearities of the above parabolic-parabolic model of whether ˛ > 0
or ˛ D 0.
Remark 3.13. In Remark 3.3 we described an alternative way to prove desired in-
equalities of type (3.47) with P u as in (3.18). There is a counterpart with P u as in
(3.102) and Proposition 3.11. But again this approach does not cover new spaces and
will not be undertaken here. There is also a desirable counterpart of Corollary 3.4.
We shift a corresponding formulation to the next section where we generalize the
above considerations.
3.5 The parabolic-parabolic model, II

So far we assumed v.x; 0/ D 0 for the initial data (3.93) of the system of equations
(3.91)–(3.93) for the concentration of the chemical signal. This makes sense espe-
cially in case of an auto-attractant produced by the amoebae themselves starting from
level zero. But the situation is different if external chemical stimuli are involved. In
other words, it is reasonable both from the mathematical and the biological point of
view to complement (3.91)–(3.93) by
@t u u C div .urv/ D 0; (3.110)
@t v v C ˛v D u; (3.111)
˛ 0, u D u.x; t/, v D v.x; t/, .x; t/ 2 Rn .0; 1/, with the initial data at t D 0,
u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/; v.x; 0/ D v0 .x/; x 2 Rn : (3.112)
We follow the discussion in Section 3.4 appropriately modified as far as the resulting
nonlinearities are concerned having in mind later applications to (3.110)–(3.112).
Instead of (3.95) one has now the Duhamel formula
Z t
˛t
v.x; t/ D e e Wt u.; / d .x/ C e˛t Wt v0 .x/
˛
(3.113)
0
with the same justification as there. The nonlinearity P u in (3.102) is now given by
X
n
P u D div .urv/ D u v C @j u @j v D P1 u C P2 u; (3.114)
j D1
with v according to (3.113).

n
1 p; q 1; s> 1 and 0 < a < 2; (3.115)
p C
.p < 1 for F -spaces/, Figure PP, p. 22. Let 0 < " < a=2 and v0 2 AsC2a
p;q .Rn /.
Then

P u.; t/ jAs12".Rn / c" t " a2 u.; t/ jAs .Rn /
p;q p;q

a (3.116)
n
v0 jAp;q .R / C sup 2 u.; / jAp;q .R /
sC2a s n
0< <t
for some c" > 0, all 0 < t 1 and all u.; t/ 2 Asp;q .Rn /.
Proof. We follow the proof of Proposition 3.11 where we have to incorporate the
second term on the right-hand side of (3.113) originating from v0 . Then (3.105) must
be modified by

v jAs2" .Rn /
p;q
a
c t " 2 sup 2 u.; / jAsp;q .Rn / C c Wt v0 jAsC22" .Rn /
a
p;q (3.117)
0< <t
a a
c t " 2 sup 2 u.; / jAsp;q .Rn / C c t " 2 v0 jAsC2a .Rn / :
a
p;q
0< <t
We used again [T14, Theorem 4.1, p. 114] (where we need now a > 0 in contrast to
(3.103)). Let p; s be restricted by (3.106). Then the counterpart of (3.107) is given
by
P1 u.; t/ jAs12".Rn / c" t " a2 u.; t/ jAs .Rn /
p;q p;q

a (3.118)
sup 2 u.; / jAsp;q .Rn / C v0 jAsC2a
p;q .R n
/ :
0< <t
Similarly one obtains related counterparts of (3.108), (3.109), that is

P2 u.; t/ jAs12".Rn / c" t " a2 u.; t/ jAs .Rn /
p;q p;q

a (3.119)
n
sup u.; / jAp;q .R / C v0 jAp;q .R / :
2 s sC2a n
0< <t
By (3.114), one has (3.116). The extension of (3.116) with (3.106) to (3.116) with
(3.115) can now be done in the same way as in the Steps 3 and 4 of the proof of
Proposition 3.1.
Remark 3.15. In contrast to Proposition 3.11, we now need a > 0. But this does
not matter very much. Later on a is restricted by (3.101), which means in particular
0 < a < 1.
Remark 3.16. There is a striking difference between the pointwise multiplier asser-
tions in the Propositions 3.1 and 3.6 on the one hand, and in the Propositions 3.11 and
3.14 on the other hand. For u.; t/ at a given time t > 0 one needs both in (3.104) and
(3.116) a knowledge of the past history of the functions u.; /, 0 t. One may
call the Propositions 3.11 and 3.14 pointwise multiplier assertions with time-memory.
This may be considered as the mathematical counterpart of [Adl75, p. 344]: The fact
that bacteria can ‘remember’ that there is a different concentration [of the chemical]
now than before has led to the proposal that bacteria have a kind of ‘memory’.
Remark 3.17. As indicated in Remark 3.13, one can transfer the arguments from
Remark 3.3 to the above case. But there is no gain as far as the covered spaces
Asp;q .Rn / in Proposition 3.14 are concerned. However, it seems to be reasonable to
formulate the counterpart of Corollary 3.4.
Let v.x; t/ be as in (3.113) and let

X
n
P u D u .v C L0 u/ C @j u .@j v C Lj u/; (3.120)
j D1
where
L0 W Asp;q .Rn / ,! Asp;q .Rn /; (3.121)
Lj W Asp;q .Rn / ,! AsC1 n
p;q .R /; (3.122)
j D 1; : : : ; n are linear operators.

n
1 p; q 1; s> 1 and 0 < a < 2; (3.123)
p C
.p < 1 for F -spaces/, Figure PP, p. 22. Let 0 < " < a=2 and v0 2 AsC2a
p;q .Rn /.
Then

P u.; t/ jAs12".Rn / c" u.; t/ jAs .Rn /2 C c" t " a2 u.; t/ jAs .Rn /
p;q p;q p;q

a
n
v0 jAp;q .R / C sup 2 u.; / jAp;q .R /
sC2a s n
0< <t
(3.124)
for some c" > 0, all 0 < t 1, and all u.; t/ 2 Asp;q .Rn /.
Proof. This follows from Proposition 3.14 and Corollary 3.4.

Chapter 4
Equations of Keller–Segel type
4.1 Preparations
We dealt in [T13, T14] with the nonlinear heat equations (3.1), (3.2) in Asp;q .Rn /
where 1 p; q 1 and, in particular, s > n=p, with initial data u0 as in (3.6). We
wish to apply this approach to the parabolic-parabolic equations (1.45), (1.46) and
the parabolic-elliptic equations (1.49), (1.50) in Rn complemented by suitable initial
data at t D 0. Basically we reduce questions of this type to fixed point problems for
Tu0 u.x; t/ in (3.98) in spaces

L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / S 0 .RnC1 /; a < 2; (4.1)
T > 0, normed by (3.100). Details and explanations may be found in [T14, (4.37),
(4.17)–(4.21), pp. 115–119]. We repeat a basic inequality for the solution W .x; t/ of
the Cauchy problem of the linear heat equation
@t W .x; t/ W .x; t/ D f .x; t/; x 2 Rn , t > 0, (4.2)

W .x; 0/ D w.x/; x 2 Rn : (4.3)
With f .y/ D f .y; / one has the Duhamel formula

Z t
W .x; t/ D Wt w.x/ C Wt f d .x/; x 2 Rn , t > 0, (4.4)
0
now interpreted in the context of S 0 .RnC1 / as explained above with references to

[T14].
Proposition 4.1. Let 1 p; q 1 .p < 1 for F -spaces/ and s 2 R. Let T > 0

and
a < 1; 0 d < 2; g d: (4.5)
There is a constant c > 0 such that for all

w 2 AsCg n
p;q .R /; f 2 L1 .0; T /; a; Asp;q .Rn / (4.6)
and t with 0 < t < T ,

d g
n
W .; t/ jAsCd
p;q .R / c t 2 w jAsCg n
p;q .R /
(4.7)
C c t 1 2 a sup a f ./ jAsp;q .Rn / :
d
0< t
40 4 Equations of Keller–Segel type
Remark 4.2. This is a special case of [T14, Theorem 4.6, p. 116].
We add a comment about our method. We deal with equations of Keller–Segel

type (1.45), (1.46) and (1.49), (1.50) in Rn and not in (bounded smooth) domains
in Rn with the typical Neumann conditions (1.47) in addition to (1.48), as suggested
by the biological background. One may consult the related papers mentioned in Sec-
tion 1.2, in particular [Hor03, Hor04] and [BBTW15]. But in recent times there is
a growing interest in dealing with equations of Keller–Segel type in Rn somewhat
parallel to Navier–Stokes equations. There is now a substantial literature, including
[CPZ04, CoP06, CoP08, KoS09, KoS10, Iwa11, Lem13, DeL14, DeV14, IwO16] and
the references therein. These papers deal mainly with initial data u0 (described so far
in Propositions 2.1, 2.3) in some Lp -spaces, nearby spaces of measurable functions,
or (homogeneous) critical spaces according to (2.18). One asks for solutions global
in time and converts for this purpose related Keller–Segel systems into fixed point
problems for u, typically of type (3.98), (3.99) with v inserted according to (3.95) or
(3.113). We are doing the same with initial data u0 belonging to some inhomogeneous
supercritical spaces according to (2.19).
Solutions u.x; t/ arising from related fixed point problems are called mild.
In addition to uniqueness (local in time, 0 t < T ) one asks whether the solution
is strong, that is

u 2 C Œ0; T /; Ap;q .Rn / for all all admitted u0 2 Ap;q .Rn /: (4.8)
Here C .Œ0; T /; X.Rn// is the usual space of continuous functions on the interval
Œ0; T / D ft W 0 t < T g with values in the quasi-Banach space X.Rn /.
This is the understanding of the Theorems 4.3, 4.7, 4.11, 4.13 and Corollary 4.8
below, where we deal with mild and strong solutions for u in respective Keller–Segel
systems. This approach gives priority to u D u.x; t/ describing the cell density of
the considered amoebae under the influence of the concentration v.x; t/ of the related
chemical signals. But, of course, one may also ask what happens with v.x; t/ in time.
For this purpose one can try to switch back from the nonlinear integral equations
underlying the related fixed point problems to the original Keller–Segel equations in-
serting what one already knows about u.x; t/. This works very well in case of the
parabolic-parabolic equations, (1.45), (1.46), complemented by initial data, that is
(4.50)–(4.53). According to Corollary 4.14, the concentration v.x; t/ of the related
chemical signal is again a strong solution. This supports the model, but also the
above set-up. The situation is similar for the parabolic-elliptic system (1.49), (1.50)
or (4.9)–(4.11) with ˛ > 0. Then (4.10) is for (now) given u a harmless linear equa-
tion in S 0 .Rn /. This will be fixed in Corollary 4.5 below. The situation is different
if ˛ D 0 in (1.50) (recall that we include this case mainly for mathematical reasons;
it has no biological relevance, as indicated in Section 1.2). Then (1.49), (1.50) with
˛ D 0 or (4.30)–(4.32) does not fit in the scheme of inhomogeneous spaces Asp;q .Rn /.
We do not try to complement Theorem 4.7 by a related assertion for v. The situation
might be different in the context of homogeneous spaces underlying the above quoted
papers. We refer the reader in particular to [KoS10]. Quite recently hydrodynamics
(in particular, Navier–Stokes equations) and chemotaxis came together. This goes
back to related mathematical models originating from respective biological and phys-
ical experiments as reported in [TCDWKG05]. One may consult [BBTW15, Sections
4.1, 4.2, pp. 1701–1712], the references given there, and [CaL16, Lan16, Win15]. We
return to this topic in Chapter 7 below.
4.2 The inhomogeneous parabolic-elliptic model

We deal with (1.49), (1.50) in Rn .0; T /, T > 0, complemented by initial data
u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/, that is
@t u u C div .urv/ D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (4.9)

v C ˛v D u; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (4.10)
u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn ; (4.11)
˛ > 0, where u D u.x; t/, v D v.x; t/ and u0 D u0 .x/. As far as the nonlinearity
P u D div .urv/ is concerned we rely on Proposition 3.1. Otherwise we follow
[T14, Section 4.4], which in turn is based on [T13, Section 5.4] where we dealt with

the nonlinear heat equation (3.1), (3.2). Recall that L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / is
normed by (3.100), that is

u jL1 .0; T /; a=2; As .Rn / D sup t a=2 u.; t/ jAs .Rn / : (4.12)
p;q p;q
0<t <T

Furthermore, C Œ0; T /; Ap;q .Rn / is the corresponding space of functions continu-
ous up to t D 0 inclusively. Recall cC D max.0; c/ for c 2 R.
Theorem
4.3. Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 p; q 1 .p < 1 for F -spaces/, s >
p 1
n
as in Figure PE, ˛ > 0, p. 22.
C
(i) Let
0<g1 and a D 1 ~g with 0 < ~ < 1: (4.13)
Let u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn /. Then there is a number T , T > 0, such that (4.9)–(4.11) with
˛ > 0 has a unique mild solution

u 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / : (4.14)
Furthermore, u 2 C 1 .Rn .0; T //.

(ii) If, in addition, p < 1, q < 1,
0<g1 and a D 1 ~g with 1=2 < ~ < 1 (4.15)

then the above solution is strong, that is u 2 C Œ0; T /; As1Cg
p;q .R n
/ .
Proof. Step 1. We outline the proof of part (i) following closely the proof of [T13,
Theorem 5.24, pp. 183-186]. According to the Duhamel formula (4.2)–(4.4) and as
alreadyindicated in (3.98), (3.99),
we convert (4.9)–(4.11) into a fixed point problem
in L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / for
Z t
Tu0 u.x; t/ D Wt u0 .x/ Wt P u.; / d .x/; (4.16)
0
with
P u D div .urv/ (4.17)
as in (3.18). Let " > 0. We apply Proposition 4.1 with s 1 " in place of s,
d D 1 C " and g C " in place of g to

w D u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn / and f D P u 2 L1 .0; T /; a; As1" p;q .Rn / ;
(4.18)
where we used Proposition 3.1. Then it follows from (4.7) and (3.20) that
a
t 2 Tu0 u.; t/ jAsp;q .Rn /
a 1g
c t 2 2 u0 jAs1Cg .Rn / C c t 2 2 2 sup a f jAs1" .Rn / :
1 " a
p;q p;q
0< <t
(4.19)
With
ˇ D 12 g.1 ~/ > 0 and
D 12 .~g "/ > 0 (4.20)
one has by (3.20) and 0 < t < T ,
a
(4.21)
c T ˇ u0 jAs1Cg
p;q .R n
/ C c T
u jL1 .0; T /; a=2; As
p;q .R n 2
/ :
If T > 0 for given u0 is chosen sufficiently small, then Tu0 maps the unit ball UT
in L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / into itself. The above calculations show in detail how
to
Pnadapt the arguments in [T13, p. 184] if one replaces the quadratic nonlinearity
2
j D1 @j u in (3.1) for the nonlinear heat equation by the quadratic nonlinearity
P u according to (3.18) and Proposition 3.1. But this applies also to the subsequent
arguments in [T13, pp. 184-186]. In particular, Tu0 is a contraction in UT . This
ensures existence
the solution u of (4.9)–(4.11) first in UT , and
and uniqueness of
then in L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / , and also u 2 C 1 ..0; T / Rn /.
Step 2. We prove part (ii) following [T14, p. 121]. One has by (4.16) for the above
solution u,
Z t
u.x; t/ u0 .x/ D Wt u0 .x/ u0 .x/ Wt P u.; / d .x/: (4.22)
0
Let w D 0 in (4.7) with s 1 " in place of s and g C " in place of d . Using (4.15)
and (3.20) one obtains
Z t

n
Wt P u.; / d ./ jAp;q .R /
s1Cg

0

c t ~g 2 2 sup a f ./ jAs1" .Rn /
g "
(4.23)
p;q
0< <t
2
c t ı u jL1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / ;
where one may choose " > 0 small such that

1 "
ıDg ~ > 0: (4.24)
2 2
By (4.14) (already known) and (4.23), the second term in (4.22) tends to zero if t # 0.
If u0 2 S.Rn / then it follows from [T14, pp. 121/122] that also the first term in (4.22)
tends to zero in As1Cg
p;q .Rn / if t # 0. The rest is a matter of completion using that
s1Cg
S.R / is dense in Ap;q .Rn / with p < 1, q < 1.
n

Remark 4.4. Let max.p; q/ 1 with p < 1 for F -spaces. Then part (ii) can
ı
be extended to Asp;q .Rn /, which is the completion of S.Rn / in Asp;q .Rn /. This is
covered by the above arguments. It applies in particular to initial data
ı
u0 2 C .Rn / with D s 1 C g; s > 0; 0 < g 1; (4.25)
where C .R / D
n
B1;1 .Rn / are the Hölder–Zygmund spaces.
Recall that the mild solution u originates from a fixed point of (4.16) with (4.17),
(3.18). This eliminates v. But one can equivalently return to (4.9)–(4.11), ˛ > 0,
with

1 _
v.x; t/ D .˛ C jj2 /1 u.; t/./ .x/; x 2 Rn ; 0 < t < T; (4.26)
which can be complemented by

_
v0 D .˛ C jj2 /1 ub0 ./ 2 AsC1Cg
p;q .Rn /: (4.27)
These are lifts in the related spaces. Then Theorem 4.3 can be complemented imme-
diately as follows.
Corollary 4.5. Let v; v0 be as in (4.26), (4.27). Then

v 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; AsC2 n
p;q .R / (4.28)
under the conditions of Theorem 4.3(i). If, in addition, p < 1, q < 1 and
g; a;
~ as in (4.15), then v is a strong solution, which means that v belongs also
to C Œ0; T /; AsC1Cg
p;q .Rn / .
Proof. The assertion (4.28) follows from (4.14) and the lift (4.26). Similarly one
obtains that under the indicated restrictions for the parameters from Theorem 4.3(ii) v
is a strong solution and

v.; t/ v0 ./ jAsC1Cg .Rn / u.; t/ u0 ./ jAs1Cg .Rn / ! 0 (4.29)
p;q p;q
if t # 0.
Remark 4.6. We described in Remark 3.3 an alternative way of how to cope with the
nonlinearity in (4.16), (4.17) using the specific nature of P u. This does not improve
Theorem 4.3, but simplifies the arguments. However, one has to pay a price. This
modification does not work for the more general nonlinearity in (3.48)–(3.50) and
Corollary 3.4. The proof of the above theorem shows that it is sufficient to rely on
Corollary 3.4. In other words, both Theorem 4.3 and Corollary 4.5 remain valid if
one replaces div .urv/ D P u in (4.9), (4.17) by P u according to (3.48)–(3.50).
4.3 The homogeneous parabolic-elliptic model

The homogeneous parabolic-elliptic model refers to (1.49), (1.50) with ˛ D 0, com-
plemented by the initial data u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/, that is
v D u; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (4.31)
u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn ; (4.32)
where again u D u.x; t/, v D v.x; t/ and u0 D u0 .x/. As far as the nonlinearity
P u D div .urv/ is concerned, we rely now on Proposition 3.6 instead of Proposition
3.1 as in Section 4.2. But this is the only difference. Otherwise one can argue as in
the proof of Theorem 4.3 with the related references to [T13, T14]. One obtains the
following assertion.
Theorem 4.7. Let 2 n 2 N. Let

1 n
1 max ; 1 (4.33)
2 p
as in Figure PE, ˛ D 0, p. 22.
(i) Let
0<g1 and a D 1 ~g with 0 < ~ < 1: (4.34)
s1Cg
Let u0 2 Ap;q .Rn /.Then there is a number T , T > 0, such that (4.30)–(4.32)
has a unique mild solution

u 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / : (4.35)
Furthermore u 2 C 1 .Rn .0; T //.
4.4 The parabolic-parabolic model, I 45
(ii) If, in addition, q < 1,

0 < g 1; and a D 1 ~g with 1=2 < ~ < 1; (4.36)

then the above solution is strong, i.e., u 2 C Œ0; T /; As1Cg
p;q .Rn / .
Proof. As said above, the proof of the above theorem is the same as the proof of
Theorem 4.3 based on Proposition 3.6 instead of Proposition 3.1.
The alternative method for inhomogeneous parabolic-elliptic models as described
in Remark 3.3 does not improve Theorem 4.3. The situation is somewhat different
for the above homogeneous parabolic-elliptic model, where we dealt in Remark 3.9
with spaces not yet covered by (4.33). We formulate the resulting assertion.
Corollary 4.8. Let 2 n 2 N. Then Theorem 4.7 remains valid for all
n
1 1 (4.37)
p
as in Figure PE, ˛ D 0, p. 22 .q < 1 in (4.36)/.
Proof. This follows from the proof of Theorem 4.7 and the references given there
based now on Remark 3.9, in particular (3.86), instead of Proposition 3.6 and ele-
mentary embeddings at the expense of g > 0.
Remark 4.9. Compared with Theorem 4.7 we removed the restriction s > 1=2.
On the other hand, Theorem 4.7 has an immediate counterpart if one replaces the
nonlinearity P in (3.55) by (3.74)–(3.76) and Proposition 3.6 by Corollary 3.8. But
it is not clear whether Corollary 4.8 can also be generalized in this way.
Remark 4.10. As mentioned in Section 1.2, the case ˛ > 0 in (1.49), (1.50) is of
biological relevance. Nevertheless, the case ˛ D 0 attracted some attention and has
been treated in [Per07, Sections 5.2, 5.3] as a model case.
4.4 The parabolic-parabolic model, I

We deal with the parabolic-parabolic model according to (1.45), (1.46), comple-
mented by the initial data v.x; 0/ D 0 and u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/, that is
@t v v C ˛v D u; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (4.39)
u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn ; (4.40)
v.; 0/ D 0; x 2 Rn ; (4.41)
˛ 0, where u D u.x; t/, v D v.x; t/ and 0 D v.x; 0/, u0 D u0 .x/. As far as
the nonlinearity P u D div .urv/ is concerned, we rely now on Proposition 3.11.
Otherwise we adapt the arguments in the proof of Theorem 4.3 to the above situation.
All symbols have the same meaning as there.
Theorem
4.11.
Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 p; q 1 .p < 1 for F -spaces/,
s > p 1 as in Figure PP, p. 22.
n
C
(i) Let
0<g1 and a D 1 ~g with 0 < ~ < 1: (4.42)
Let u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn /.
Then there is a number T , T > 0, such that (4.38)–(4.41)
with ˛ 0 has a unique mild solution

u 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / : (4.43)
0 < g 1; and a D 1 ~g with 1=2 < ~ < 1; (4.44)

p;q .Rn / .
Proof. The above formulation coincides largely with Theorem 4.3. This applies also
to the proof. We indicate the related
modifications. Again we convert (4.38)–(4.41)
into a fixed point problem in L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / for the operator
Z t
Tu0 u.x; t/ D Wt u0 .x/ Wt P u.; / d .x/ (4.45)
0
with
f D P u D div .urv/; (4.46)
according to (3.102). Instead of (4.19) we have now, by (4.7) and (3.104),
a
a 1g
c t 2 2 u0 jAs1Cg .Rn / C c t 2 " 2 sup a f jAs12" .Rn /
1 a
p;q p;q
0< <t

ct
a 1g
2 2 u0 jAs1Cg .Rn / C c t 12 a2 sup a u.; / jAs .Rn /2 :
p;q p;q
0< <t
(4.47)
With
ˇ D 12 g.1 ~/ and
D 12 ~g (4.48)
and 0 < t < T one has
a
2
c T ˇ u0 jAs1Cg
p;q .Rn / C c T u jL1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / :
(4.49)
This is the direct counterpart of (4.21). Afterwards one can argue as there. This
applies also to Step 2 of the proof of Theorem 4.3.
Remark 4.12. There is also a counterpart of Remark 4.4. In other words, part (ii) of
ı
the above theorem can be extended to Asp;q .Rn / with max.p; q/ 1 (p < 1 for
ı
F -spaces). This applies in particular to the spaces C .Rn / according to (4.25).
4.5 The parabolic-parabolic model, II

So far we dealt with (4.38)–(4.41) assuming in particular v0 .x/ D v.x; 0/ D 0. This
makes sense by the biological background, as described in Section 1.2. If the slime
mold Dictyostelium discoideum produces an auto-attractant, it starts from level zero,
that is v0 D 0. But Keller–Segel systems describe also the behaviour of amoebae
or other cell-compounds if treated with external chemicals. Then it is reasonable to
admit a starting concentration v0 of the chemical signal that is different from zero. In
other words, we deal now with parabolic-parabolic equations

@t v v C ˛v D u; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (4.51)
u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn ; (4.52)
v.; 0/ D v0 ; x 2 Rn ; (4.53)
˛ 0, where u D u.x; t/, v D v.x; t/ and u0 D u0 .x/, v0 D v0 .x/. As far as

the nonlinearity P u D div .urv/ is concerned, we rely now on Proposition 3.14.
Otherwise we adapt the arguments in the proof of Theorem 4.11, which in turn relies
on the proof of Theorem 4.3. All symbols have the same meaning as there.
Theorem
4.13.
s > p 1 as in Figure PP, p. 22.
n
C
(i) Let
0 < g 1 and a D 1 ~g with 0 < ~ < 1: (4.54)
Let
u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn / and v0 2 AsC1C~g
p;q .Rn /: (4.55)
Then there is a number T , T > 0, such that (4.50)–(4.53) with ˛ 0 has a unique
mild solution
u 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / : (4.56)
0 < g 1; and a D 1 ~g with 1=2 < ~ < 1; (4.57)

p;q .R n
/ .
Proof. The above theorem extends Theorem 4.11 from v0 D 0 to v0 2

AsC1C~g
p;q .Rn / D AsC2a
p;q .Rn /. Again we ask for a fixed point of (4.45), (4.46)
now with P u as in (3.114), (3.113). Instead of (3.104) we rely now on (3.116). Then
the counterpart of (4.47) is given by
a a 1g
t 2 Tu0 u.; t/ jAsp;q .Rn / c t 2 2 u0 jAs1Cg
p;q .Rn /

C c t 2 2 sup a=2 u.; / jAsp;q .Rn /
1 a
0< <t (4.58)

v0 jAsC1C~g
p;q .Rn / C sup a=2 u.; / jAsp;q .Rn / :
0< <t
With
ˇ D 12 g.1 ~/ and
D 12 ~g (4.59)
and 0 < t < T one has
a
t 2 Tu0 u.; t/ jAsp;q .Rn / c T ˇ u0 jAs1Cg
p;q .Rn /

C c T u jL1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / (4.60)

v0 jAsC1C~g
p;q .Rn / C u jL1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / :
This is the counterpart of (4.49) and in turn of (4.21). Then part (i) follows by the
same arguments as there. This applies also to part (ii), with an appropriate modifica-
tion of (4.23).
Recall that u D u.x; t/ denotes the cell density, whereas v D v.x; t/ describes the
concentration of the chemical signal. This makes clear that one is mainly interested
of whether u is a strong solution. But one may ask a corresponding question with
respect to v.

Corollary 4.14. Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 p < 1, 1 q < 1 and s > pn 1
C
be as in Figure PP, p. 22. Let g; a; ~ be as in (4.54). Let u according to (4.56) be the
uniquemild solution of (4.50)–(4.53)
and (4.55). Then v is a strong solution, that is
sC1C~g
v 2 C Œ0; T /; Ap;q n
.R / .
Proof. One has by (3.113)

Z t
˛t ˛t
v.x; t/v0 .x/ D e Wt v0 .x/v0 .x/Ce ˛
e Wt u.; / d .x/: (4.61)
0
Let D s C 1 C ~g. Then < s C 2. One obtains, similarly as in (4.23) with a
reference to (4.7),
Z t

e ˛
W u.; / d ./jA
.R n
/
t p;q
0

c t 1 2 2 sup a=2 u.; / jAsp;q .Rn /
s a
(4.62)
0< t

D c sup a=2 u.; / jAsp;q .Rn / ! 0
0< t
4.6 Stability and well-posedness 49
if t ! 0. The last assertion comes from (4.60) with u.; T / D Tu0 u.; T / ! 0 if
T ! 0. This shows that the second term on the right-hand side of (4.61) tends to
zero if t tends to zero. As for the first term on the right-hand side, one can argue as
in Step 2 of the proof of Theorem 4.3, with a reference to [T14, pp. 121/122].
4.6 Stability and well-posedness

Let 1 p < 1, 1 q < 1, s > n
p
1 and
C
0 < g 1; a D 1 ~g with 1=2 < ~ < 1: (4.63)
Let
u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn /: (4.64)
Then it follows from Theorem 4.13 and Corollary 4.14 that (4.50)–(4.53) with ˛ 0
has for some T > 0 a unique mild and strong solution

u 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / \ C Œ0; T /; As1Cg
p;q .Rn / ; (4.65)

v 2 C Œ0; T /; AsC1C~g
p;q .Rn / : (4.66)
Having the biological origin of these equations in mind, one may ask in addition
for stability, i.e., small perturbations of the initial data u0 , v0 in (4.64) should cause
small deviations of the solutions u; v in (4.65), (4.66). More precisely, let temporarily
X.Rn/ D As1Cgp;q .Rn / and Y .Rn / D AsC1C~g
p;q .Rn /. Then the solutions u1 ; u2 and
v ; v of (4.50)–(4.53) in (4.65), (4.66) (with u ; u2 in place of u and v 1 ; v 2 in place
1 2 1
of v) are called (locally) stable if for any " > 0 there exist a time T > 0 and an ı > 0
such that
1
u .; t/ u2 .; t/ jX.Rn/ C v 1 .; t/ v 2 .; t/ jY .Rn/ " (4.67)
whenever
1
0t T and u u2 jX.Rn / C v 1 v 2 jY .Rn / < ı: (4.68)
0 0 0 0
The problem (4.50)–(4.53) is called well-posed if it has unique mild

solutions which are in addition strong and stable in the above sense.
This coincides largely with what is called well-posedness both for Navier–Stokes and
Keller–Segel equations, although we specified the above formulation to our context.
Compared with what is already known (and repeated above), it remains to clarify that
the problem (4.50)–(4.53) is also stable. Recall that by construction one has

ku jL1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / k 1 (4.69)
for the solution u in (4.65).

Corollary
4.15.
Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 p; q 1 .p < 1 for F -spaces/ and
s > p 1 as in Figure PP, p. 22. Let g; a; ~ be as in (4.57). Let
n
C
ul0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn / and v0l 2 AsC1C~g
p;q .Rn / where l D 1; 2: (4.70)
Let ul ; v l be the corresponding solutions of (4.50)–(4.53) satisfying (4.56), (4.69)
for some common T > 0 and v l .; t/ 2 AsC1C~g p;q .Rn /, 0 < t < T . Let V0 D
sC1C~g
1 C maxlD1;2 kv0l jAp;q .Rn /k. Then
1
u .; t/ u2 .; t/ jAs1Cg .Rn / u1 u2 jAs1Cg .Rn / C c t g.~ 12 / V0 ;
p;q 0 0 p;q
0 < t < T;
(4.71)
and
1
v .; t/ v 2 .; t/ jAsC1C~g .Rn / v 1 v 2 jAsC1C~g .Rn /
p;q 0 0 p;q
(4.72)
C c t 2 .1~/ u10 u20 jAsC1Cg .Rn / C c t 2 ~ V0 ; 0 < t < T;
g g
p;q
where c > 0 is independent of the initial data according to (4.70) and t.
Proof. By the arguments in the proof of Theorem 4.13 and (4.45), one has for the
related mild solutions
Z t

u1 .x; t/ u2 .x; t/ D Wt .u10 u20 /.x/ Wt P u1 P u2 .; / d .x/
0
(4.73)
with P u1 , P u2 as in (4.46) based on (3.114), (3.113). This must be estimated
s1Cg
in Ap;q .Rn /. Let u be either u1 or u2 . We argue similarly as in the proof of
Proposition 3.14. Then one has
Z t

Wt P u.; / d jAs1Cg .Rn /
p;q
0
Z t (4.74)
g

"

n
c .t / 2 P u.; / jAp;q
s12"
.R / d
0
where we used again [T14, Theorem 4.1, p. 114]. Then by (3.116) with a D 1 ~g
and (4.69) one obtains
Z t

Wt P u.; / d jAp;q .R /
s1Cg n

0
Z t
g 1 ~g
c" V0 .t / 2 " " 2 C 2 ku.; / jAsp;q .Rn /k d
0
Z t
g 1 ~g a (4.75)
c" V0 .t / 2 " " 2 C 2 2 d
0
Z t
g
D c" V0 .t / 2 " "1C~g d
0
1
D c"0 V0 t g.~ 2 / ; 0 < t < T:
Now (4.71) follows from (4.73) and (4.75). As for (4.72), we rely on (4.61) in
AsC1C~g
p;q .Rn /. Then
1
v .; t/ v 2 .; t/ jAsC1C~g .Rn /
p;q
Z t
1

v0 v0 jAp;q
2 sC1C~g n
.R / C Wt .u1 u2 /.; / jAsC1C~g .Rn / d
p;q
0
v01 v02 jAsC1C~g
p;q .R n
/
Z t

.t /1C 2 .1~/ .u1 u2 /.; / jAs1Cg .Rn / d
g
C p;q
0
(4.76)
where we used again [T14, Theorem 4.1, p. 114]. We insert (4.71) in (4.76). Then the
resulting last term can be estimated from above by

c t 2 .1~/ u10 u20 jAs1Cg .Rn / C c V0 t 2 .1~/Cg.~ 2 / :
g g 1
p;q (4.77)
This proves (4.72).
Remark 4.16. By assumption, the exponents g.~ 12 /, g2 .1 ~/ and g2 ~ in (4.71),

(4.72) are positive. Then one can choose ı and T in (4.68) such that one has (4.67)
for given " > 0. In other words, (4.50)–(4.53) is also stable, and as explained above
well-posed if p < 1, q < 1.
Similarly one can argue in the case of the parabolic-elliptic equations (4.9)–(4.11)
and (4.30)–(4.32) (always in the interpretation as mild solutions originating from re-
lated fixed point problems as explained at the end of Section 4.1). We assume again
that
0<g1 and a D 1 ~g with 1=2 < ~ < 1 (4.78)
as in (4.15) = (4.36). Then Theorems 4.3 and 4.7 can be complemented as follows.
As before, we assume (4.69).

Corollary 4.17. Let 2 n 2 N and ˛ 0. Let 1 p; q < 1 and s > n
p
1
C
.modified by (4.33) if ˛ D 0/, Figures PE, ˛ > 0 and PE, ˛ D 0, p. 22. Let g; a; ~ be
as in (4.78). Let
ul0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn / where l D 1; 2: (4.79)
Let ul be the corresponding unique mild strong solutions (4.9)–(4.11), ˛ > 0; or

(4.30)–(4.32), ˛ D 0, satisfying (4.14) = (4.35) and (4.69) for a common T > 0
according to Theorems 4.3(ii) and 4.7(ii). Let 0 < ı < g.~ 12 /. Then
1
u .; t/ u2 .; t/ jAs1Cg .Rn / u1 u2 jAs1Cg .Rn / C cı t ı ; 0 < t < T;
p;q 0 0 p;q
(4.80)
where cı > 0 is independent of the initial data (4.79) and t.
Proof. We rely again on (4.73), (4.74) and estimate P u according to (3.20) and
(3.66). Instead of (4.75) one has now
Z t

Wt P u.; / d jAs1Cg .Rn /
p;q
0
Z t 2
.t / 2 " a a=2 u.; / jAsp;q .Rn / d
g
c" (4.81)
0
g2 "aC1
c" t
1
D c" t g.~ 2 /" ; 0 < t < T:
Now (4.80) follows from (4.73) and (4.81).
Remark 4.18. In the case of (4.30)–(4.32), that is ˛ D 0, one can replace Theo-
rem 4.7 by Corollary 4.8 which means that Corollary 4.17 remains valid for p; q; s in
(4.37) (q < 1). For this purpose one has to modify the above arguments as indicated
in Remark 3.9.
4.7 Decay properties

As described in Section 1.2, the equations (4.50)–(4.53) originate from the chemo-
tactical behaviour of biological cells. The well-posedness of solutions according to
Theorem 4.13(ii) complemented by the stability assertions as described in Corollary
4.15 fit in this scheme. But in this context there are some other desirable properties
for solutions u; v of (4.50)–(4.53). All our assertions are local in time, but global with
respect to the spaces variables. This is somewhat in contrast to the original initial-
boundary value problem (1.45)–(1.48) in (smooth bounded) domains in Rn . As a
reasonable substitute one may ask whether the solutions u; v of (4.50), (4.51) decay
rapidly with respect to the space variables if, say, the initial data u0 ; v0 in (4.52),
(4.53) are smooth compactly supported functions. We deal with this question extend-
ing the above theory from the unweighted spaces Asp;q .Rn / to the weighted spaces
˚
Asp;q .Rn ;
/ D f 2 S 0 .Rn / W w f 2 Asp;q .Rn / ; (4.82)

f jAs .Rn ;
/ D w f jAs .Rn / ; (4.83)
p;q p;q
where 0 < p; q 1 (p < 1 for F -spaces), s 2 R, and

=2
w .x/ D 1 C jxj2 ;
2 R: (4.84)
But there is a second, even more important, reason for the extension of the above
theory from unweighted spaces to weighted ones. The biological origin of (4.50)–
(4.53) suggests to assume that the initial data u0 , v0 in (4.52), (4.53) are real and
4.7 Decay properties 53
non-negative. It follows from the set-up so far that related solutions u; v are also
real (one may simply deal from the very beginning with the real parts of Asp;q .Rn /,
including related fixed point assertions). However one wishes to known that u.x; t/
(the cell density) and v.x; t/ (the concentration of the chemical signal) are also non-
negative. We return to this point in Section 4.8 where some L2 -arguments will play
a role. Then the higher flexibility of weighted spaces and related embeddings are
helpful. In other words, we deal with weighted spaces not only for their own sake,
but also as a preparation for the problem just indicated.
First we collect some basic properties of Asp;q .Rn ;
/. Let ' D f'j g1
j D0 be the
standard resolution of unity and let Lp .R ;
/, 0 < p 1,
2 R, be the usual
n
quasi-Banach space quasi-normed by

Z 1=p

f jLp .Rn ;
/ D w f jLp .Rn / D wp .x/ jf .x/jp dx ; (4.85)
Rn
modification if p D 1. Then Bp;q

s
.Rn ;
/ collects all f 2 S 0 .Rn / such that
0 11=q
1
X q
f jB s .Rn ;
/ D @ b _
p;q '
2jsq .'j f / jLp .Rn ;
/ A (4.86)
j D0
s
is finite and Fp;q .Rn ;
/ collects all f 2 S 0 .Rn / such that
0 11=q
1
X ˇ ˇq ˇ
f jF s .R ;
/ D @
n jsq ˇ ˇ
b / ./ˇ A
_ ˇLp .R ;
/
n
2 ˇ.' j f (4.87)
p;q '
j D0
is finite (equivalent quasi-norms). This assertion has some history. The shortest avail-
able proof may be found in [ET96, Section 4.2.2, pp. 156-158], based on [HaT94].
Let
> 0. Then
1 1 1
s
Bp;q .Rn ;
/ ,! Bps ;q .Rn /; < C ; (4.88)
p p p n
0 < p; q 1, s 2 R, follows from (4.86) and Hölder’s inequality. Similarly for
the F -spaces. This will be of some use for us in Section 4.8. On the other hand, the
crucial multiplication properties for unweighted spaces as described in Section 3.1
can be immediately transferred to the weighted spaces as introduced in (4.82), (4.83).
By (3.4), (3.5) one has
Asp;q .Rn ;
/ Asp;q .Rn / ,! Asp;q .Rn ;
/ (4.89)
for all spaces
Asp;q .Rn ;
/ with 0 < p; q 1; s > n=p;
2 R; (4.90)
where the unweighted space Asp;q .Rn / in (4.89) should be considered as a space of
pointwise multipliers. Similarly one can transfer (3.9)–(3.16) as follows.
(i) Let
1 1 s
2 < r < 1; s > 0; D C ; 0 < q 1;
2 R: (4.91)
p r n
Then
Asp;q .Rn ;
/ Asp;q .Rn / ,! Aspr ;q .Rn ;
/; (4.92)
with
1 2 s 1 1
D C D C ; (4.93)
pr r n p r
and, in addition, 0 < q r in the case of B-spaces.
(ii) Let
1 1 s
1 < r < 1; s > 0; D C ; 1 q r;
2 R: (4.94)
p r n
Then
s
Bp;q .Rn ;
/ B sn ;1 .Rn / ,! Bp;q
s
.Rn ;
/: (4.95)
s
(iii) Let p; s; q and w; %; ı be as in (3.14), (3.15). Let

2 R. Then
%
s
Bp;q .Rn ;
/ Bw;ı .Rn / ,! Bp;q
s
.Rn ;
/: (4.96)
Further properties, including lifting, can be transferred from unweighted spaces

Asp;q .Rn / to the above weighted spaces Asp;q .Rn ;
/. Details may be found in [ET96,
Chapter 4].
This is sufficient to extend Proposition 3.1 (the parabolic-elliptic model with
˛ > 0) from the unweighted spaces Asp;q .Rn / considered there to their weighted
counterparts Asp;q .Rn ;
/,
> 0. In order to apply (4.92), (4.95) and (4.96), one
needs Asp;q .Rn ;
/ ,! Asp;q .Rn /, which requires
0. In Step 4 of the related
proof one needs the weighted counterpart of the duality (3.33),
n
Bpjıj0 ;q 0 .Rn ;
/0 D Bp;q
ı
.Rn ;
/; 0 < jıj < n;
2 R; (4.97)
p0
with p; q; ı D s 1 as in (3.32), in the framework of the dual pairing
.S.Rn /; S 0 .Rn //. This is an easy consequence of (3.33) and (4.82), (4.83).
We do not look for a weighted counterpart of Proposition 3.6 (the parabolic-
elliptic model with ˛ D 0). This may cause some problems. Furthermore, as men-
tioned above, this case is more interesting from a mathematical point of view than
from a biological one.
We are mainly interested in the extension of Proposition 3.14 (with Proposition
3.11 as a forerunner) from the unweighted spaces Asp;q .Rn / in question to related
weighted spaces Asp;q .Rn ;
/,
0. Compared with the proof of Proposition 3.1
and its outlined generalization to weighted spaces, we relied in the proof of Proposi-
4.7 Decay properties 55
tion 3.14 in a decisive way on Proposition 1.7 based on [T14, Theorem 4.1, p. 114],
that is

n
t d=2 Wt w jAsCd
p;q .R / c w jAsp;q .Rn / ; 0 < t < 1; (4.98)
where 1 p; q 1 (p < 1 for F -spaces), s 2 R, d 0. As for a proof

of (4.98), we referred to the proof of its local counterpart in [T13, Theorem 5.12,
p. 171]. The arguments given there rely on wavelet expansions of w in Asp;q .Rn /
and related so-called caloric wavelets as treated in [T13, Section 2.4.2, pp. 84-88].
There are weighted counterparts. The final version of wavelet expansions in weighted
spaces of the above type may be found in [T08, Section 1.2.3, pp. 17-19] improv-
ing [T06, Section 6.2, pp. 268-273] which in turn relies on [HaT05]. We applied in
[T13, Section 2.4, pp. 81-88] the Gauss–Weierstrass semi-group Wt to the Daubechies
j j
wavelets ‰G;m and called the resulting molecules Wt ‰G;m caloric wavelets. They
are no longer compactly supported, but they decay as wL .x/ according to (4.84)
where L 2 N is at our disposal. But this can be applied also to the weighted spaces
Asp;q .Rn ;
/. Afterwards one can carry over the arguments in the proof of [T13, The-
orem 5.12, pp. 171–173]. Then one obtains the following extension of (4.98).
Let 1 p; q 1 .p < 1 for F -spaces/, s 2 R and
2 R. Let
d 0. Then there is a constant c > 0 such that for all t with 0 < t 1
and all w 2 Asp;q .Rn ;
/,

t d=2 Wt w jAsCd
p;q .R n
;
/ c w jAsp;q .Rn ;
/ : (4.99)
Furnished with this inequality and the above extension of Proposition 3.1 to re-
lated weighted spaces one can now follow the arguments in the proof of Proposi-
tions 3.11 and 3.14. Then one obtains a generalization of Proposition 3.14 with
Ap;q .Rn ;
/,
0, in place of Ap;q .Rn /, under the same restrictions of p; q; s; a as
there.
Afterwards one can extend Theorems 4.11 and 4.13 and their proofs to the
weighted spaces Ap;q .Rn ;
/ in place of Ap;q .Rn /, with the diverse specifications
of . As explained in Section 4.1, a solution of (4.50)–(4.53) is called mild if it arises
from a related fixed point problem.
Theorem
4.19. Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 p; q 1 .p < 1 for F -space/, s >
n
p
1 as in Figure PP, p. 22 and
0.
C
(i) Let
0<g1 and a D 1 ~g with 0 < ~ < 1: (4.100)
Let
u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn ;
/ and v0 2 AsC1C~g
p;q .Rn ;
/: (4.101)
Then there is a number T , T > 0, such that (4.50)–(4.53) with ˛ 0 has a unique
mild solution
u 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn ;
/ : (4.102)
1
Furthermore u 2 C .R .0; T //.
n
0 < g 1; and a D 1 ~g with 1=2 < ~ < 1 (4.103)

p;q .Rn ;
/ .
Remark 4.20. This is the direct extension of Theorem 4.13 from the unweighted
case, that is
D 0, to the weighted case
0, based on the above outlined justifica-
tion. Similarly one extends Corollary 4.14 to the weighted case. In other words,

if 1 p < 1, 1 q < 1, s > pn 1 ,
0 and g; a; ~ are
C
restricted as in (4.100), then v is also a strong solution, which means
that v 2 C Œ0; T /; AsC1C~g
p;q .R n
;
/ .
Theorem 4.19 and also the comments in Remark 4.20 maybe of some self-
contained interest. But we are mainly interested in whether the solutions u and v
according to Theorem 4.13, Corollary 4.14 decay in the space variables if the initial
data in (4.55) decay appropriately, which can be expressed by (4.101) with
> 0. It
follows from (4.86), (4.87) that the spaces Asp;q .Rn ;
/ are monotone with respect to
0. Then one has for the solutions u; v of Theorem 4.13(ii) and Corollary 4.14

u 2 C Œ0; T /; As1Cg
p;q .Rn ;
/ ; v 2 C Œ0; T /; AsC1C~g
p;q .Rn ;
/ (4.104)
if (4.55) is strengthened by (4.101) with

> 0. We describe a simple example. Let

n
u0 2 Bp;q .R ;
/;
s n
v0 2 Bp;q .R ;
/;
sC2 n
s > max 1; ; (4.105)
p
where 1 p; q < 1 and

> 0. Then, according to Theorem 4.13 and Corollary
4.14, the solutions u.x; t/, v.x; t/ satisfy
ˇ ˇ =2
ˇ ˇ ˇ n
ˇDx u.x; t/ˇ c 1 C jxj2 ; x 2 Rn ; 0 t < T; jˇj < s ;
p
(4.106)
and
ˇ ˇ =2
ˇ ˇ ˇ n
ˇDx v.x; t/ˇ c 1 C jxj2 ; x 2 Rn ; 0 t < T; jˇj < s C 2 ;
p
(4.107)
ˇ ˇ ˇ
where Dx D @11 @nn , ˇ D .ˇ1 ; : : : ; ˇn / 2 Nn0 refer to classical derivatives with
respect to the space variables. This follows from (4.104) with, say, g D 1, ~ < 1
jˇ j
near 1, (4.82), (4.83) applied to D ˇ f 2 Ap;q .Rn ;
/ if f 2 Ap;q .Rn ;
/ as a con-
sequence of (4.86), (4.87), and well-known embeddings for the unweighted spaces.
In [T13, Step 2, p. 185] we justified in the case of Navier–Stokes equations how
derivatives with respect to t can be incorporated afterwards. The same can be done
4.8 Positivity 57
for the above solutions u.x; t/, v.x; t/. In particular, one can extend (4.106), (4.107)
to some mixed derivatives in space and time in Rn .0; T /. In particular, one has by
(4.105)–(4.107)
u.; t/ 2 S.Rn / and v.; t/ 2 S.Rn /; 0 t < T; (4.108)
if
u0 2 S.Rn / and v0 2 S.Rn /: (4.109)
4.8 Positivity
The biological background of (4.50)–(4.53) suggests that the initial data u0 , v0 in
(4.52), (4.53) are real and non-negative. It follows from the set-up so far that the
solutions u; v are real if u0 , v0 are real (one may simply deal from the very beginning
with the real parts of Asp;q .Rn /, including related fixed point assertions). However
one wishes to know that u.x; t/ (the cell density) and v.x; t/ (the concentration of the
chemical signal) are non-negative if their initial data u0 .x/, v0 .x/ are non-negative.
This problem can be treated to some extent in our set-up. For this purpose we need
the so-called truncation property studied in detail in [T01, Chapter 25]. Let for a real
Lebesgue-measurable function f in Rn , n 2 N,
fC .x/ D max .f .x/; 0/ ; x 2 Rn ; (4.110)
a.e. We call . p1 ; s/ a truncation couple if f 7! fC is a bounded map in all spaces
s
Bp;q .Rn / with 0 < q 1. It turns out that . p1 ; s/ is a truncation couple if, and only
if,
1 1
0 < p 1; n max ;1 1 < s < 1 C ; (4.111)
p p
[T01, Theorem 25.8, p. 364] (there is a less satisfactory assertion for F -spaces). Re-
call that in (4.82)–(4.87) we introduced the weighted spaces Asp;q .Rn ;
/.
Theorem4.21. Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 p; q 1 .p < 1 for F -spaces/. Let

s > max 1; pn ,

1 1

0 if 1 p 2; and
>n if 2 < p 1: (4.112)
2 p
Let
u0 2 Asp;q .Rn ;
/; v0 2 AsC2 n
p;q .R ;
/ (4.113)
be real and non-negative, u0 .x/ 0, v0 .x/ 0, x 2 Rn . Then the solutions u.x; t/,
v.x; t/, 0 t < T of (4.50)–(4.53) with ˛ 0 are also real and non-negative,
u.x; t/ 0; v.x; t/ 0; x 2 Rn ; 0 < t < T: (4.114)
Proof. Step 1. According to Theorem 4.19, Remark 4.20 with g D 1 and ~ < 1
near 1 we have even u.x; t/ 2 Asp;q .Rn ;
/, v.x; t/ 2 AsCı n
p;q .R ;
/ for any ı with
ı < 2. We begin with the discussion of some technicalities explaining in particular
the restrictions for s and
in (4.112). First we justify that
@j fC 2 L2 .Rn / if f 2 Bp;q
s
.Rn / real; j D 1; : : : ; n: (4.115)
By embedding we may assume s n
p
< 1 if p < 1. Then
n n
s
Bp;q .Rn / ,! Be
1
.Rn /; 0<1 D s < 1: (4.116)
p;q e
p p
In particular, e
p > n 2. If, in addition, 1 p 2, then
1C
s
Bp;q .Rn / ,! B2;q .Rn / for some > 0: (4.117)
Using (4.110), (4.111) one obtains fC 2 W21 .Rn / and (4.115). If p > 2, then by
(4.88) and (4.112) one has
s
Bp;q .Rn ;
/ ,! B2;q
s
.Rn /; (4.118)
and one can argue as above. Afterwards one can incorporate all other admitted spaces
by elementary embedding. We need a second technical preparation. Let f .; t/ 2
sC 1
s
Bp;q .Rn /, 0 t T , real and let, in addition f 2 Bp;q p .Rn .0; T //. Let s be as
above and s < 1 C p1 if p < 1 in addition. Using the well-known trace assertion and
truncation property according to (4.110), (4.111), one obtains fC .; t/ 2 Bp;qs
.Rn /,
0 t T , and fC 2 Bp;q .R .0; T //. Furthermore,
s n
fC @t f D fC @t fC D 1
2
@t fC2 (4.119)
follows from ' @t ' D 1

2
@t ' 2 for smooth compactly supported functions, completion
sC 1
(if p < 1, q < 1), and elementary embedding (recall that Bp;q s
.Rn / and Bp;q p .Rn /
are multiplication algebras). This can be extended to the above weighted spaces,
replacing f .x; t/ by w .x/ f .x; t/ with w in (4.84). Then one has by well-known
trace assertions, the above L2 -embeddings and again a completion argument,
Z Z T
fC @t f dt dx D 12 kfC .; T / jL2 .Rn /k2 12 kfC .; 0/ jL2 .Rn /k2 : (4.120)
Rn 0
Step 2. Let u; v be the solutions of (4.50)–(4.53) considered first in the strip 0 <
" < t < T . As in Step 1 of the proof of Theorem 4.3, we refer the reader again to
the smoothness discussion of solutions of non-linear heat equations in [T13, p. 185].
One has in particular u 2 Bp;q

.Rn ."; T // for any s: This can be extended
sC 1
immediately to the weighted case. In particular, w u 2 Bp;q p .Rn ."; T // used
above (now with " > 0 instead of " D 0). We apply the above considerations to
u .x; t/ D min .u.x; t/; 0/ D max .u.x; t/; 0/ : (4.121)
4.8 Positivity 59
We multiply (4.50) by u .x; t/ and integrate over Rn ."; T /. We rely on the asser-
tions in Step 1, in particular (4.115), (4.119), (4.120), and claim that
X n Z
1 2 1 2
ku .; T / jL2 .Rn /k ku .; "/ jL2 .Rn /k C j@j u j2 dx dt
2 2
j D1 R .";T /
n
Xn Z
D u @j v @j u dxdt:
j D1 Rn .";T /
(4.122)
The first two terms are justified by (4.120). Furthermore, by Remark 4.20 we have
@j v 2 Asp;q .Rn ;
/. In particular, @j v 2 L1 .Rn /. The last term on the left-hand side
and the right-hand side of (4.122) follow from integration by parts and that u.; t/,
u .; t/, @j u .; t/ are in L2 .Rn / as stated in Step 1. The right-hand side of (4.122)
can be estimated from above by
n Z Z
1 X
j@j u j dx dt C c
2
ju j2 dx dt: (4.123)
2 Rn .";T / Rn .";T /
j D1
The above estimates are uniform in ". This follows from Theorem 4.19(ii) with g D 1
and the above assertions of type (4.115). Then " ! 0 and the assumption u0 .x/ 0
result in
Z t
n 2
ku .; t/ jL2 .R /k c ku .; / jL2 .Rn /k2 d; 0 < t < T: (4.124)
0
Recall that u.x; t/ and hence also u .x; t/ are continuous in x 2 Rn and 0 t T .
Let U.t/ D ku .; t/ jL2 .Rn /k2 . Then U.t/ U < 1 for some U , where
0 t T . Inserted in (4.124) one has U.t/ c Ut, and by iteration
U.t/ c k Ut k =kŠ ! 0 if k ! 1: (4.125)
Then u .x; t/ D 0 and consequently u.x; t/ 0. We insert u in (4.51). Then

it follows from (3.113), the positivity of the kernels of Wt , Wt , and the fact that
v0 0 that v.x; t/ 0. This proves (4.114).
Remark 4.22. Recall that (4.124) is a simple example of so-called Gronwall inequal-
ity, covered by [MPF91, Theorem 1, pp. 354/355]. For ordinary or partial differen-
tial equations originating from physics, biology, or other sciences, it is quite often
desirable to know that the solutions are non-negative if the given (initial) data are
non-negative. The idea to deal with related questions by looking at truncations of
type (4.110) for real solutions is attributed to G. Stampacchia. This requires some
(technical) care, because truncation destroys higher smoothness properties. Never-
theless this method is in common use and may also be found in [Per15, pp. 3, 46] in
connection with Lotka–Volterra prey-predator systems. The specific corresponding
L2 -argument used in Step 2 of the above proof goes back to [KoS09, Theorem 3,
p. 5, proof, p. 31] dealing with solutions of (4.50)–(4.53) global in time in the con-
n n
2 2
text of scale-invariant spaces of type (2.18), especially Hpp .Rn / D Fp;2 p
.Rn /,
1 < p < 1. Again some efforts (and restrictions for the parameters) are required
to ensure that L2 -arguments of the above type can be applied. Our approach relies
again on some restrictions for the parameters s, p and the strengthened assumption
(4.113) in terms of weighted spaces. Compared with Theorem 4.13, one may ask
what happens in other admitted cases. It is surely possible to relax the conditions for
s, p in the above theorem somewhat, but the question arises of whether this can be
done in the context of natural restrictions for s, p, and weights w .
4.9 Conservation properties

Let 2 n 2 N, 1 p; q 1 (p < 1 for F -spaces). Let s > max 1; pn and
u0 2 Asp;q .Rn ;
/; v0 2 AsC2 n
p;q .R ;
/ (4.126)
be as in (4.113) (not necessarily real now) with
> n. Then by (4.106), (4.107) one
has Z Z
u.x; t/ dx < 1 and v.x; t/ dx < 1 (4.127)
Rn Rn
for the solutions of (4.50)–(4.53), ˛ 0, with u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/ and v.x; 0/ D
v0 .x/. Recall that u.x; t/ is the cell (or organism) density and v.x; t/ stands for the
concentration of the chemical involved. Then questions of type (4.127) make sense
and one may ask how these quantities evolve in time.
Theorem4.23. Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 p; q 1 .p < 1 for F -spaces/. Let

s > max 1; pn ,
> n and
u0 2 Asp;q .Rn ;
/; v0 2 AsC2 n
p;q .R ;
/: (4.128)
Let u.x; t/, v.x; t/, 0 t < T , be the solutions of (4.50)–(4.53) with ˛ 0. Then
Z Z
u.x; t/ dx D u0 .x/ dx < 1; 0 < t < T; (4.129)
Rn Rn
and
Z Z Z
v.x; t/ dx D e˛t v0 .x/ dx C c˛ .t/ u0 .x/ dx < 1; 0 < t < T;
Rn Rn Rn
(4.130)
with (
t; if ˛ D 0,
c˛ .t/ D (4.131)
˛ 1 .1 e˛t /; if ˛ > 0:
4.9 Conservation properties 61
Proof. Step 1. As mentioned above, all integrals in (4.129), (4.130) are finite. It
may be helpful to write down the mild solution u.x; t/ according to (4.45) explicitly,
following [T14, p. 113]:
Z
1 jxyj2
u.x; t/ D e 4t u0 .y/ dy
.4 t/n=2 Rn
Z tZ jxyj2
1 e 4.t /
div .u.y; / rv.y; // dyd
.4/n=2 0 Rn .t /n=2
Z (4.132)
1 jzj
2
D e 4t u .x z/ dz
0
.4 t/n=2 Rn
Z tZ jzj2
1 e 4.t /
C div .urv.x z; // dz d;
.4/n=2 0 Rn .t /n=2
where div is taken with respect to z. As far as technicalities are concerned, we rely
R t, 0 < t < T ,
on Theorem 4.13 and (4.106), (4.107). We integrate (4.132) for fixed
over Rn . The resulting first term on the right-hand side gives Rn u0 .x/ dx: The
corresponding second terms are zero. This follows from
Z
u.y 0 ; yn ; / rv.y 0 ; yn ; / dy 0 ! 0 if jyn j ! 1; (4.133)
Rn1
based on jrv.y 0 ; yn ; /j c < 1 and
c 1
ju.y 0 ; yn ; /j ; jyn j 1; (4.134)
0
.1 C jy j /
2 n=2 jyn j n
according to (4.106), (4.107). Both together give (4.129).

Step 2. We use (3.113). Integration over x 2 Rn and (4.129) gives
Z Z Z t Z
v.x; t/ dx D e˛t v0 .x/ dx C e˛t e˛ d u0 .x/ dx (4.135)
Rn Rn 0 Rn
and (4.130).
Remark 4.24. If, in addition, u0 and v0 are non-negative, then one has (4.114), and
(4.129) may be considered as a conservation assertion: the total mass of cells remains
constant over time. For small t one has c˛ .t/ t, which again looks reasonable, hav-
ing in mind that Dictyostelium
R discoideum produces its own chemical cAMP growing
proportionally to Rn u0 .x/ dx approximately linearly in time.
4.10 A discussion: Damping constants

and negative chemotaxis
We return to our comments in Section 1.2. In the preceding sections we dealt mainly
with parabolic-parabolic equations (1.45), (1.46), complemented by initial data ac-
cording to (4.50)–(4.53). This coincides essentially with the so-called minimal model
according to [HiP09, (M1), p. 187] being a special case of the more general equations
@t u u D div ..u; v/rv/ ; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (4.136)

@t v v C ˛v D u; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (4.137)
(local in time). As mentioned in Section 1.2, ˛ 0 is the damping constant, where

˛ > 0 is of biological relevance. According to [CPZ04, p. 2], the function .u; v/ is
called the chemotactic sensitivity, and is preferably linear in u, that is
.u; v/ D u .v/; or, more special, .u; v/ D u; (4.138)
where 2 R is a constant. In the above-mentioned literature, especially [Hor03,

Hor04, CPZ04, HiP09], positive chemotaxis means aggregation, whereas negative
chemotaxis indicates to move away or to repel. Substances stimulating positive
chemotaxis are called chemo-attractants, whereas substances generating negative
chemotaxis are called chemo-repellents. We dealt with .u; v/ D u, which is the
prototype of positive chemotaxis. The question arises what happens if one deals also
with the related prototype for negative chemotaxis,
@t u u D div .urv/; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (4.139)

@t v v C ˛v D u; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (4.140)
u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn ; (4.141)
v.; 0/ D v0 ; x 2 Rn ; (4.142)
in place of (4.50)–(4.53). One may ask to which extent the damping constant ˛ and
the chemotactic sensitivity constant (normalized by D 1 or D 1) influence
the above calculations. Our approach is mainly qualitative and for most of our asser-
tions for the parabolic-parabolic equations (4.50)–(4.53) or (4.139)–(4.142) it does
not matter if one replaces ˛ 0 by ˛ 2 R or even ˛ 2 C: This applies in particu-
lar to the assertions in Sections 4.5–4.7. The situation is different in the case of the
parabolic-elliptic models treated in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, where whether ˛ > 0 or
˛ D 0 plays a crucial role (recall that only ˛ > 0 is of biological relevance).
In the case of positive chemotaxis expressed by (4.50)–(4.53) with ˛ > 0 we have
under the conditions of Theorem 4.23 the conservation (4.129) of the total mass of
cells (or organic material) and (4.130) for the total amount of the chemical involved in
dependence on time t. This makes clear why ˛ > 0 is called the damping constant,
reducing the influence of v0 over the time. The role played by ˛ can also be seen
from the discussion in [Per15, p. 111] (parabolic-elliptic model). In particular, ˛ 1=2
represents the so-called activation length.
4.10 A discussion: Damping constants and negative chemotaxis 63
Under the conditions of Theorem 4.23 we have for the related positive chemotaxis
the desired very reasonable positivity assertion (4.114). But the arguments in (4.122)–
(4.125) remain unchanged if one replaces (4.50) by (4.139). This means that we have
(4.114) also in the case of negative chemotaxis under the conditions of Theorem 4.21.
Chapter 5
Further PDE models for chemotaxis
5.1 Fokker–Planck equations

According to [Per15, Section 8.9, pp. 160/161] the (nonlinear deterministic) Fokker–
Planck equations

Z
v.; t/ K. y/ u.y; t/ dy D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.2)
Rn
u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn ; (5.3)
n 2 N, describe the motion of a large number of cells under the influence of a signal
generated by the population. Again u D u.x; t/ denotes the cell density, whereas the
concentration of the produced chemical v D v.x; t/ is assumed to be generated by
the convolution (5.2). In addition to the diffusion u, one has now the drift div .urv/
generated by v. Then the gradient rv indicates the preferred direction of motion. Of
special interest are radially-symmetric kernels K.x/ D k.jxj/, in particular rv D
P u with
n
P u D P ;j u j D1 ; P ;j u D K Rj u; j D 1; : : : ; n; (5.4)
where Rj are the Riesz transforms (3.58) and K has the same meaning as in (3.59),
that is
_ Z
b f .y/
.K f /.x/ D jj f .x/ D c dy; 0 <
< n: (5.5)
Rn jx yj
n
In other words, similarly as in the case of the Keller–Segel equations in the Chapters 3
and 4 we insert (5.2) into (5.1) and reduce (5.1)–(5.3) to
@t u u C div .uP u/ D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.6)

u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn : (5.7)
The case
D 1, n 2, coincides essentially with the homogeneous parabolic-
elliptic model as treated in the Sections 3.3 and 4.3. In other words, (5.6), (5.7)
generalizes (4.30)–(4.32) based on Section 3.3. This applies also to the method and
related assertions. We have Theorem 4.7 based on Proposition 3.6 on the one hand,
and Corollary 4.8 based on Remark 3.9 on the other hand. The specific nature of
(5.6) allows one to apply the second method. Then one has a full counterpart of
Corollary 4.8. This applies also to the appropriately modified
-version of Figure PE,
66 5 Further PDE models for chemotaxis
˛ D 0, p. 22: the line of slope n begins now at

(as a generalization of 1) and
intersects s D 0 at
=n (as a generalization of 1=n). We formulate the outcome and
indicate how the proof must be modified. Afterwards we discuss which spaces should
be called critical and supercritical for the Fokker–Planck equations (5.6), (5.7). As
before, beginning with Section 4.2, we convert (5.6), (5.7) into a fixed point problem
for the operator
Z t
Tu0 u.x; t/ D Wt u0 .x/
Wt div .u.; / P u.; // d .x/ (5.8)
0

in L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / normed by (4.12). As indicated in Section 4.1, solu-
tions u.x; t/ resulting from corresponding fixed point problems are called mild. In
addition to uniqueness (local in time, 0 < t < T ), one asks again of whether the
solution is strong, that is

u 2 C Œ0; T /; Ap;q .Rn / for all admitted u0 2 Ap;q .Rn /: (5.9)
Detailed discussions about these preliminaries may be found in the Sections 4.1 and
4.2.
Theorem 5.1. Let n 2 N and 0 <

< n. Let
n n
1<p< ; 1 q 1; and s>
; (5.10)

p
as in the above-described
-version of Figure PE, ˛ D 0, p. 22.
(i) Let
0 < g 1 and a D 1 ~g with 0 < ~ < 1: (5.11)
Let u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn /. Then there is a number T , T > 0, such that the problem
(5.6), (5.7) has a unique mild solution

u 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / : (5.12)

0 < g 1; and a D 1 ~g with 1=2 < ~ < 1; (5.13)

p;q .Rn / .
Proof. As already indicated above, we benefit from the specific nature of the nonlin-
earity
P u.x; / D div .u.x; / P u.x; // (5.14)
5.1 Fokker–Planck equations 67
in (5.8) and shift the divergence of uP u to the heat kernel Wt . By the same
arguments as in (3.45), (3.46) one has
Z t

Wt P u.; / d jAs .Rn /
p;q
0
Xn Z t (5.15)
1
c u.; / K Rj u.; / jAs .Rn / d
p;q
j D1 0
.t /1=2
with K Rj u as in (5.4), (5.5). One obtains, by (3.60)–(3.63),

n 1 1
K Rj W Asp;q .Rn / ,! Asw;q .Rn /; s 2 R; 1<p< ; D ; (5.16)

w p n
0 < q 1 for B-spaces, 1 < q < 1 for F -spaces. With p and s as in (5.10) one
has
n
K Rj u 2 Bw;1
s
.Rn / if u 2 Bp;1
s
.Rn /; s > 0: (5.17)
w
Then it follows from the
-extension of (3.84) that
n n n 1 1
s
Bw;1 .Rn /; 1<p< ;
<s < ; D (5.18)

p p w p n
s
is a pointwise multiplier space for Bp;1 .Rn /,
s
Bp;1 .Rn / Bw;1
s
.Rn / ,! Bp;1
s
.Rn /: (5.19)
Inserted in (5.15) one has the counterpart of (3.86), that is
Z t Z t
1
W P u.; / d jB s
.R n
/ c u.; / jB s .Rn /2 d
t p;1 p;1
0 .t /
1=2
0
(5.20)
with P u as in (5.14). Similarly, one has a counterpart of (3.87)–(3.89) if 1 n=p. Afterwards one can argue as in Corollary 4.8, which in turn relies
on the indicated corresponding assertions.
Remark 5.2. We discussed in Chapter 2 which (homogeneous and inhomogeneous)

spaces Asp;q .Rn / and Asp;q .Rn / should be called critical or supercritical with respect
to Keller–Segel systems. Combined with Section 4.3 it turns out that the (inhomoge-
neous) spaces
n
Asp;q .Rn / with 1 < p < n; sD 2; (5.21)
p
1 q 1, are critical for the homogeneous parabolic-elliptic model. Recall that
critical and supercritical refer to spaces for the initial data, whereas the related solu-
tion spaces may be smoother by 1g with 0 < g 1, Theorem 4.7 and Corollary 4.8.
Then (4.37) for the solution spaces covers all admitted supercritical spaces for the ini-
tial data u0 . This is a rather satisfactory situation. On the other hand, Corollary 4.8 is
a special case of Theorem 5.1 choosing there
D 1. The question arises of whether
these observations can be extended from
D 1 to 0 <
< n. For this purpose we
replace u in (5.4) by u./, > 0. The Riesz transforms Rj are homogeneous of
order zero, whereas K in (5.5) is homogeneous of order
. Then one has
;j
P u./ .x/ D P ;j u .x/; > 0: (5.22)
Let u be a solution of (5.6). Then
u .x; t/ D 1C u.x; 2 t/ (5.23)

is a solution of
@t u u C div .u P u / D 0; x 2 Rn ; 0 < t < 2 T: (5.24)

Now one can argue as in Proposition 2.1 and Remark 2.2. The counterpart of the
initial data in (2.8) is given by
u .x; 0/ D 1 u0 .1 x/; x 2 Rn : (5.25)

We switch again temporarily to the homogeneous spaces Asp;q .Rn / according to Def-

inition 1.3 temporarily complemented by Asp;q .Rn / with 1 < p < 1, s < 0 as
introduced in [T15, Definition 3.1, p. 46]. One has always (1.41) ([T15, (3.23), p. 49]
for spaces with s < 0). Now one can argue as in Remark 2.2. Instead of (2.17) one
has
n
ku0 jAsp;q .Rn /k ı 1C Cs p ; > 0: (5.26)
This suggests to call the spaces
n n
Asp;q .Rn /; Asp;q .Rn /; 1<p< ; 1 q 1; sD 1
(5.27)

p
critical for the initial data u0 of the Fokker–Planck equations (5.6), (5.7). The spaces
n n
Asp;q .Rn /; Asp;q .Rn /; 1<p< ; 1 q 1; s> 1
(5.28)

p
are called supercritical for the above Fokker–Planck equations. This fits perfectly to
(5.10) and (5.11).

Remark 5.3. In Definition 1.3 we restricted the admitted parameters for Asp;q .Rn / to
the strip (1.35) complemented by some limiting cases. Then one has

S.Rn / ,! Asp;q .Rn / ,! S 0 .Rn /; (5.29)
which is desirable for initial data, [T15, Theorem 3.24, p. 79, 80] and [T16, T16a].
5.2 Models with logistic terms 69

This is no longer valid for the above-mentioned spaces Asp;q .Rn / outside of this dis-
tinguished strip. This observation has a curious counterpart if one compares (5.1),
(5.2) with K D K~ , 0 < ~ < n on the one hand, and the resulting reformulation
(5.6) based on (5.4) with
D ~ 1 on the other hand. Our natural assumption
0 <
< n requires ~ > 1, but
< n must be modified by
< n 1. Inserted in
(5.28) one has s > n p 1 . In other words, if one gives preference to (5.1), (5.2)
1
with K D K~ , 1 < ~ < n, then one has (5.6) with 0 <

D ~ 1 < n 1 and the
corresponding critical spaces in (5.27) are within the distinguished strip (1.35).
Problem 5.4. A detailed discussion of diverse aspects of Fokker–Planck equations

and related Kolmogorov equations may be found in [Per15, Chapter 8]. We dealt with
(5.1) where the cell density u is influenced by the chemoattractant or chemorepellent
v produced by the cells according to (5.2). The request that the kernel K is radially-
symmetric seems to be reasonable. At least from a mathematical point of view, the
special choice K with 0 <
< n according to (5.5) resulting in (5.6) based on
(5.4) maybe of particular interest. The case
D 1, n 2, coincides essentially
with the homogeneous parabolic-elliptic model as treated in the Sections 3.3 and 4.3.
One may ask what happens if one looks at a corresponding generalization of the
inhomogeneous parabolic-elliptic model as considered in the Sections 3.2 and 4.4,
4.5. Then one has to replace K in (5.5) by the lift I according to (1.14), (1.15),
_
b ;
I f D hi f < 0; (5.30)
where again hi D .1 C jj2 /1=2 . In other words, it might be of interest to consider
@t u u C div .u rI u/ D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.31)

u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn : (5.32)
The question arises how counterparts of Proposition 3.1 and Theorem 4.3, or their
modifications according to Corollary 3.4 and Remark 4.4, may look like. It is pos-
sible that one needs now more sophisticated pointwise multiplier theorems for the
underlying function spaces.
5.2 Models with logistic terms

According to Theorem 4.23 one has the conservation property (4.129) for the stan-
dard parabolic-parabolic model (4.50)–(4.53). In other words, the total mass of the
cells remains constant over the time. Birth (reproduction) and death (maybe by over-
crowding) of cells can be incorporated in (4.50)–(4.53) by so-called logistic terms
u u2 with > 0 and > 0:

@t u u C div .urv/ u C u2 D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.33)
@t v v C v D u; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.34)
u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn ; (5.35)
v.; 0/ D v0 ; x 2 Rn : (5.36)
As before, u D u.x; t/ denotes the cell density and v D v.x; t/ describes the con-
centration of the (produced or given) chemical. Reproduction is reflected by u and
death by u2 . As already mentioned in Section 1.2, problems of type (5.33)–(5.36)
are usually considered in smooth bounded (sometimes convex) domains in Rn .
Then the initial data (5.35), (5.36) must be replaced by the initial-boundary data
(1.47), (1.48). But we stick here again with Rn as the underlying domain. As far
as Keller–Segel equations with logistic terms are concerned, one can consult the liter-
ature already mentioned in the Sections 1.2 and 4.1. We refer the reader in particular
to [HiP09] (cell kinetics model (M8), p. 188), [BBTW15, Section 3.3, p. 1687] and
[TaW15].
To provide a better understanding of the above logistic terms, we assume that the
Theorems 4.21 and 4.23 can be extended to (5.33)–(5.36) (under suitable conditions
on the initial data u0 and v0 ). Then it follows from the proof of Theorem 4.23 that
Z Z Z tZ

u.x; t/ dx D u0 .x/ dx C u.y; / u2 .y; / dy d (5.37)
Rn Rn 0 Rn
for the cell density u.x; t/ 0. In particular, > 0 in the reproduction term increases
the total mass of the cells, whereas > 0 in the death term decreases the total mass
of the cells. This sounds quite natural. But we will not stress this point. We are
interested in extending Theorem 4.13 for the Keller–Segel system (4.50)–(4.53) to
(5.33)–(5.36). Otherwise we use the same notation as there, with a reference to the
Sections 4.1 and 4.2.
Theorem
5.5. Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 p; q 1 .p < 1 for F -spaces/, s >
n
p
1 as in Figure PP, p. 22. Let 2 C and 2 C.
C
(i) Let
0<g1 and a D 1 ~g with 0 < ~ < 1: (5.38)
Let
u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn /: (5.39)
Then there is a number T , T > 0, such that (5.33)–(5.36) has a unique mild solution

u 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / : (5.40)
0 < g 1; and a D 1 ~g with 1=2 < ~ < 1; (5.41)

then the above solution is strong, meaning that u 2 C Œ0; T /; As1Cg
p;q .Rn / .
Proof. As in the proof of Theorem 4.13 we ask for a fixed point of (4.45) now with
P u D div .urv/ u C u2 (5.42)

in L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / . The additional quadratic term u u2 can be esti-
mated as in the proof of Proposition 3.1 in analogy to (3.21)–(3.24). Compared with
(4.58) and (4.47) one has now in the corresponding estimate the additional summand
2
t 2 2 sup a u.; / jAsp;q .Rn / C u.; / jAsp;q .Rn / :
1 a
(5.43)
0< <t
The quadratic term fits in the above scheme. The linear term can be incorporated
using a a=2 T a=2 using a > 0. Otherwise one can follow the proofs of the
Theorems 4.11 and 4.13.
The proof of Theorem 4.13 and its forerunners are based on the possibility of
choosing positive numbers g and a with (4.54) resulting in the positive numbers
ˇ;
; ı in (4.59) and (4.24). As said above, one can incorporate linear and quadratic
terms in (5.33) and (5.42) without essentially changing the arguments (in the case of
linear terms we used that our approach is local in time). But it is also clear that the
replacement of u u2 in (5.33), (5.42) by other nonlinearities requires additional
considerations. First we ask what happens if one modifies u u2 by
X
m
Pm u D b l ul ; bl 2 C; bm 6D 0; m 2 N: (5.44)
lD1
In Section 5.4 we deal also with other types of nonlinearities. In other words, instead
of (5.33)–(5.36) we ask in this section for solutions of
@t u u C div .urv/ C Pm u D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.45)

@t v v C v D u; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.46)
u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn ; (5.47)
v.; 0/ D v0 ; x 2 Rn ; (5.48)
with Pm u as in (5.44). All notations have the same meaning as in Theorem 5.5.
Corollary 5.6. Let 2 n 2 N and Pm u be as in (5.44) with 2 m 2 N. Let

1 p; q 1 .p < 1 for F -spaces / and s > pn m1
1
.
C
(i) Let
1
0<g1 and 1 g < a D 1 ~g < : (5.49)
m1
Let
u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn /: (5.50)

u 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / : (5.51)

(ii) If, in addition, p < 1; q < 1, and
1 m2
C < ~ < 1; (5.52)
m gm

p;q .Rn / .
Proof. Step 1. We prove part (i). Compared with the previous considerations, one
has to clarify two points. First we ask for a counterpart of (3.24) with um in place of
P1 u as in (3.18) or (3.55), that is
m s1 n
u jB .R / c u jB s .Rn /m ; (5.53)
p;q p;q
where we assume now s > 0 and

n 1 n
<s< ; 0 < p < 1: (5.54)
p m1 p
We iterate (3.9)–(3.11), based on
1 s 1 1 1
0< D < ; (5.55)
p n r n.m 1/ m
with the outcome
m s
u jB n n m
pr ;q .R / c u jBp;q .R /
s
; (5.56)
q r, where
1 m s 1 m1
D C D C : (5.57)
pr r n p r
Similarly as in (3.23) one has
n n n n.m 1/ n
Bps r ;q .Rn / ,! Bp;q

.Rn /; Ds Ds <s1 :
p pr p r p
(5.58)
Together with (5.56) one obtains the counterpart of (3.24),
kum jBp;q
s1
.Rn /k c ku jBp;q
s
.Rn /km : (5.59)
The second modification is similar to what we already discussed in connection with

(5.43). With f D um in (4.19) one has now the typical counterpart (neglecting " and
the other terms already treated)

a
a 1g
c t 2 2 u0 jAs1Cg .Rn / C c t 2 C 2 b sup b um .; / jAs1 n
a 1
p;q p;q .R / :
0< <t
(5.60)
We use (5.59) and distribute b D a2 m < 1 equally to the m factors. Instead of (4.20)
and (4.21), one has now by (5.49)
2ˇ D g.1 ~/ > 0 and 2
D 1 a.m 1/ > 0; (5.61)
and then

t a=2 Tu0 u.; t/ jAsp;q .Rn /
m (5.62)
c T ˇ u0 jAs1Cg
p;q .Rn / C c T u jL1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / :
To ensure that Tu0 in (4.45) with the above P is a contraction, we replace um in (5.53)
by
X
m1
u1 u2 D .u1 u2 /
m m
um1k
1 uk2 (5.63)
kD0
and
m
u um jB s1 .Rn /
1 2 p;q
X
m1

k
c u1 u2 jBp;q
s
.Rn / u1 jBp;q
s
.Rn /km1k u2 jBp;q
s
.Rn / :
kD0
(5.64)
Otherwise one can argue as before.
Step 2. We prove part (ii). As in (4.23), we use (4.7) with w D 0, s 1 in place of s
and g in place of d (neglecting "). Then one has
Z t

Wt P u.; / d jAp;q .R / 1 g
2 b sup b f ./ jAs1 n
ct
s1Cg n
p;q .R / ;
0 0< <t
(5.65)
where both P u and f stand for the nonlinearity in (5.45). We have the clarify the
influence of the additional polynomial part Pm u and assume, as before, f D um .
Then we have the same situation as in (5.60), again with b D a2 m < 1. Instead of
(4.24) we have by (5.65) and (5.52)
g m
ı D1 .1 ~g/ > 0: (5.66)
2 2
In Remark 5.7 below we discuss the monotonicity of the relevant restrictions of g
and ~ on m. Then one has (5.66) not only for m, but also for all natural numbers
between 2 and m. The rest is now the same as in Step 2 of the proof of Theorem
4.3.
Remark 5.7. If m D 2 then the assumptions (5.38) are natural. In the case of 3
m 2 N one has by (5.49) the additional restriction
m2 m2
<g1 and < ~ < 1: (5.67)
m1 .m 1/g
In particular, the admitted g are monotone in m. If one inserts the (not admitted)
limiting case g0 D m2
m1
in the left-hand sides of the estimates for ~ in (5.67) and
(5.52), then one has
m2 1 m2
D C D 1; (5.68)
.m 1/g0 m g0 m
making clear that the above conditions are monotone in m. The question arises of
whether these restrictions are natural. From (5.67), that is
g m2 m2
> ; (5.69)
m m1 m
it follows that the left-hand side of (5.52) is larger than its counterpart in (5.67) (as it
should be as an additional assumption).
Problem 5.8. The logistic term u u2 in (5.33) and u in (5.34) have been mod-
ified in [NaO11, NaO13, NaO16] and [BBTW15, p. 1694] by other nonlinearities of
biological relevance,
@t u u C div .urv/ D f .u/; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.70)

@t v v C v D g.u/; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.71)
u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn ; (5.72)
v.; 0/ D v0 ; x 2 Rn : (5.73)
Of special interest are
f .u/ D u u ; > 0;

> 1; (5.74)
and
g.u/ D u.1 C u/ˇ 1 ; ˇ 0: (5.75)
In this context it may be reasonable to restrict the considerations from the very begin-
ning to the real parts of suitable spaces Asp;q .Rn /. Then one can use the elaborated
theory of composition operators as treated in numerous works. One may consult the
survey [BoS11], the more special papers [BMS10, BMS14], the book [RuS96], and
the references within. Of interest are non-negative solutions u, v (under the assump-
tion that the initial data u0 , v0 are non-negative). This may suggest to replace f .u/
in (5.74) by
f .u/ D u juj or f .u/ D u ujuj 1 ; > 0;

> 1: (5.76)
Similarly, one may factorize g.u/ in (5.75) by

u u
g.u/ D .1 C u/ˇ or replace by g.u/ D .1 C juj/ˇ : (5.77)
1Cu 1Cu
u
The factors 1Cu can be treated as in Section 5.4, (5.100)–(5.103) and Theorem 5.14
below. The truncation
ju.x/j D 2uC.x/ u.x/; uC .x/ D max .u.x/; 0/ ; (5.78)
x 2 Rn , u.x/ 2 R, has already been used in Section 4.8 with a reference to [T01,

Chapter 25]. The counterpart in terms of the homogeneous spaces Asp;q .Rn / may
be found in [T15, Section 3.11, pp. 91–95]. In any case nonlinearities of biological
relevance have a product structure. This suggests to factorize suitable nonlinearities
f .u/ (and similarly g.u/) as
YK
f .u/ D fk .u/; (5.79)
kD1
where fk .z/, z 2 R, are perhaps powers jzj , .1 C z 2 /=2 or holomorphic functions.

We refer the reader to [T84]. Afterwards one can clip together the factors fk .u/
using multiplication properties of the underlying spaces as described in Section 4.7
and [ET96, RuS96].
Remark 5.9. One of the main aims of chemotactic models is the explanation
of spatial patterning. In [BGM08, Figure 3, pp. R261/R262] with a reference to
[MMMW90, MMP98] one finds a description of numerical simulations of models
of type (5.70)–(5.73), where f .u/ is essentially the logistic term as in (5.33) and
g.u/ D 1Cuu
, that is (5.75) with ˇ D 0:
The field is initially in the homogeneous steady state, with small random
perturbations added to the cell density. Diffusion-driven amplification
of the heterogeneities results in a regular array of peaks and troughs.
. . . Amplification of small perturbations in cell density across the field
leads to a regular array of peaks and troughs in chemical concentration
that is mirrored by the cell density pattern.
It is surely a challenge to confirm these impressive numerical findings by rigorous
mathematical arguments. One may ask similar questions with respect to the original
Keller–Segel equations (4.50)–(4.53) (in Rn or in domains), that is (5.70)–(5.73) with
f .u/ D g.u/ D 0. But the answer seems to be largely negative. This is closely
connected with blow-up phenomena. For a detailed discussion we refer the reader
to [Hor03, Hor04], [NaO16] and the references therein. Corresponding theoretical
assertions are not confirmed by experimental observations (there is no blow-up). This
is precisely the reason why the original Keller–Segel equations have been modified by
numerous models: one wishes to avoid blow-up effects and one wishes to find models
providing explanations of spatial patterning in good agreement with experimental
observations.
5.3 Models for competing species

The famous prey–predator Lotka–Volterra system without diffusion,
@t u D ˛u ˇuv; (5.80)
@t v D
uv ıv; (5.81)
has been studied in great detail. One may consult [Mur02, Per07, Per15] for discus-
sions, assertions, references, and numerous modifications. Here u D u.x; t/ is the
density of the prey that is the food of the predator v D v.x; t/, whereas ˛; ˇ;
; ı
are positive constants. If diffusion is taken into account then (5.80), (5.81) must be
replaced by
@t u u D ˛u ˇuv; (5.82)

@t v v D
uv ıv; (5.83)
with, in addition, > 0, > 0 [Per15, pp. 34, 35]. Usually equations of type (5.80),
(5.81) and (5.82), (5.83) are considered in .0; T /, where is a bounded domain
in Rn , complemented by initial data as in (1.48) and, in the case of (5.82), (5.83), by
null Neumann boundary conditions, as in (1.47). But we deal with PDE models in
Rn .0; T /, as before. If one adopts this point p
of view also for the above equations,
p
then the scaling u ! u. x; t/ and v ! v. x; t/ shows that we may assume,
afterwards, D D 1. We stick with this normalization in what follows. If the
two species, characterized by u and v, are not necessarily prey and predator, but in
competition for resources, then (5.80), (5.81) must be replaced by
@t u D 1 u.1 u a1 v/; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.84)

@t v D 2 v.1 a2 u v/; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.85)
without diffusion, and (5.82), (5.83) by
@t u u D 1 u.1 u a1 v/; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.86)

@t v v D 2 v.1 a2 u v/; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.87)
with diffusion. Here a1 ; a2 are non-negative and 1 ; 2 are positive constants. We

refer the reader for details and (biological) justifications to [Per15, Sections 4.10,
7.6.1, pp. 81–83, 138]. If, in addition, a chemical w D w.x; t/ is reacting with the
two species which are characterized as before by u and v, then one has to combine
(5.86), (5.87) with (4.50)–(4.53) resulting in the two-species chemotaxis competition
model
@t u u C div .urw/ 1 u.1 u a1 v/ D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.88)

@t v v C div .vrw/ 2 v.1 a2 u v/ D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.89)
@t w w C
w ˛u ˇv D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.90)
5.4 Density-dependent sensitivity models 77
with the initial data
u.; 0/ D u0 ; v.; 0/ D v0 ; w.; 0/ D w0 ; x 2 Rn ; (5.91)
where 1 ; 2 ; ˛; ˇ;
are positive and a1 ; a2 are non-negative constants. We followed
here [BLM16], where corresponding equations in bounded smooth domains have
been considered. Then the initial data (5.91) must be complemented by null Neumann
data, as in (1.47). There one finds also further biological explanations and related
references. If v D 0 then (5.88)–(5.91) reduces essentially to (5.33)–(5.36) (replacing
there v by w). The proof of the related Theorem 5.5 relies on the proofs of the
Theorems 4.11, 4.13 and the indicated incorporation of the linear and quadratic terms
u u2 according to (5.43). This can be extended to the linear and quadratic terms
for u and v in (5.88), (5.89). We formulate the outcome using the same notation as
there.
Theorem
5.10.
s > pn 1 as in Figure PP, p. 22. Let 1 ; 2 ; a1 ; a2 ; ˛; ˇ be complex numbers
C
and
> 0.
(i) Let
0 < g 1 and a D 1 ~g with 0 < ~ < 1: (5.92)
Let
u0 ; v0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn / and w0 2 AsC1C~g
p;q .Rn /: (5.93)

u; v 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / : (5.94)
Furthermore, u; v 2 C 1 .Rn .0; T //.

0<g1 and a D 1 ~g with 1=2 < ~ < 1; (5.95)

then the above solution is strong, i.e., u; v 2 C Œ0; T /; As1Cg
p;q .R n
/ .
Proof. This is the direct counterpart of Theorem 5.5. As explained above one can
take over the related proof which in turn relies on the proofs of the Theorems 4.11
and 4.13.
5.4 Density-dependent sensitivity models

The classical Keller–Segel equations as described in Section 1.2 have been refined
in our days by numerous modifications. In these notes we look at a few of them
from the point of view of function spaces, as indicated in Section 1.2. For more
we refer the reader again to the surveys [Hor03, Hor04, HiP09, BBTW15] and the
books [Per07, Per15]. The authors of [HiP09] deal with 10 models both from the
mathematical (numerical) and the experimental (biological) point of view. In addition
to our preceding considerations and what follows afterwards (especially in Chapter 7),
we glance here at two so-called density-dependent sensitivity models as described in
[HiP09, p. 187]. The volume-filling model

@t u u C div u u2 rv D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.96)
@t v v C v D u; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.97)
u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn ; (5.98)
v.; 0/ D v0 ; x 2 Rn ; (5.99)
adds the term u2 rv to (4.50)–(4.53). Recall that u D u.x; t/ denotes the cell
density, whereas v D v.x; t/ describes the concentration of the chemical signal. A
second density-dependent sensitivity model asks for (positive) solutions of

u
@t u u C div rv D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.100)
1Cu
@t v v C v D u; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.101)
u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn ; (5.102)
v.; 0/ D v0 ; x2R : n
(5.103)
Our method is qualitative and local in time. This allows one to replace u u2 in
(5.96) by polynomials Pm u according to (5.44), m 2 N, that is,
@t u u C div .Pm u rv/ D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.104)

@t v v C v D u; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.105)
u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn ; (5.106)
v.; 0/ D v0 ; x 2 Rn : (5.107)
One may look at (5.96)–(5.99) as the counterpart of (5.33)–(5.36) and at (5.104)–

(5.107) as the counterpart of (5.45)–(5.48). But Pm u plays a different role in (5.45)
and (5.104), and this may cause now some (maybe technical) problems as far as
the admitted smoothness s is concerned. All notation have the same meaning as in
Theorem 5.5 and Corollary 5.6.
Proposition 5.11. Let 2 n 2 N and Pm u be as in (5.44). Let 1 p; q 1

.p < 1 for F -spaces/ and s > n=p.
(i) Let
0 < g 1 and 1 g < a D 1 ~g < 1=m: (5.108)
Let
u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn /: (5.109)
Then there is a number T , T > 0, such that (5.104)–(5.107) has a unique mild
solution
u 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / : (5.110)
(ii) If, in addition, p < 1, q < 1 and
1 m1
C <~<1 (5.111)
mC1 g.m C 1/

p;q .R n
/ .
Proof. For the estimate of the nonlinearity P u D Pm u rv we rely now on (3.44)–

(3.46) with um in place of u. The assumption s > n=p ensures that Asp;q .Rn / is a
multiplication algebra, (3.4), (3.5). Then
Z t Z t
1
n
Wt P u.; / d jAp;q .R / c
s u.; / jAs .Rn /mC1 d
p;q
0 .t /
1=2
0
(5.112)
is the counterpart of (3.47). Now one can argue as in (5.59)–(5.64) with b D
a
2
.m C 1/. One has now (5.62) with
2ˇ D g.1 ~/ > 0 and 2

D 1 am > 0: (5.113)
From here on one can follow the above arguments where part (ii) is covered by the
arguments in Step 2 of the proof of Corollary 5.6 with m C 1 in place of m.
Remark 5.12. As in (5.67), one has now

m1 m1
<g1 and < ~ < 1; where m 2 N: (5.114)
m mg
By Remark 5.7, the conditions for g and ~ in (5.114) and (5.111) are monotone in m
and the left-hand side of (5.111) is larger then its counterpart in (5.114) (as it should
be as an additional assumption). The case of biological relevance is m D 2 in the
specification of (5.96)–(5.99).
Problem 5.13. If m D 1, then (5.104)–(5.107) coincides

essentially with (4.50)–
(4.53). But instead of the natural restriction s > p 1
n
in Theorem 4.13 we
C
assumed now s > n=p. Then the underlying spaces are multiplication algebras,
resulting in (5.112). But one may ask for more natural restrictions of s in Proposi-
tion 5.11 such that one recovers Theorem 4.13 if m D 1. This may require more
sophisticated multiplication properties of the underlying spaces Asp;q .Rn /.
The proof of Proposition 5.11 and, in particular, letting m ! 1, shows that

the related arguments cannot be extended immediately to other nonlinearities as, for
example, in (5.100). Nevertheless something can be said. The underlying spaces are
again the multiplication algebras Asp;q .Rn / with s > n=p. Then

fg jAs .Rn / c f jAs .Rn / g jAs .Rn / (5.115)
p;q p;q p;q
for some c > 0 and all f 2 Asp;q .Rn / and g 2 Asp;q .Rn /. If c, then it follows
from
c
fg jAsp;q .Rn / f jAsp;q .Rn / g jAsp;q .Rn / (5.116)

that one may assume

fg jAs .Rn / f jAs .Rn / g jAs .Rn / (5.117)
p;q p;q p;q
and, based on the embedding Asp;q .Rn / ,! C.Rn /,

jf .x/j f jAsp;q .Rn / ; x 2 Rn : (5.118)

As a special case of (4.12) we rely now on L1 .0; 1/; Asp;q .Rn / normed by

u jL1 .0; 1/; As .Rn / D sup u.; t/ jAs .Rn / : (5.119)
p;q p;q
0<t <1

In particular, if u jL1 .0; 1/; Asp;q .Rn / 1=2 then (5.118) justifies
1
X
u
D .1/k ukC1 : (5.120)
1Cu
kD0
Using (5.117) one obtains

X 1
u
jAs
.R n
/ u jAs .Rn /kC1
1 C u p;q p;q
kD0
(5.121)
u jAs .Rn /
D p;q
2 u jAsp;q .Rn / :

1 u jA .R /
s n
p;q
Otherwise we follow the previous scheme and convert (5.100)–(5.103) into a fixed
point problem for the operator
Z t
Tu0 ;v0 u.x; t/ D Wt u0 .x/ Wt P u.; / d .x/; (5.122)
0
with
u
P u D div rv ; (5.123)
1Cu
in analogy to (4.45), (4.46). All notations have the same meaning as there. We
indicate also the initial data v0 in (5.122) playing now a more substantial role than
before. Let
˚
U" .Asp;q / D u.x; t/ W u jL1 .0; 1/; Asp;q .Rn / " (5.124)

be the ball of radius " > 0 in L1 .0; 1/; Asp;q .Rn / centered at the origin. As before,
solutions of (5.100)–(5.103) arising from the indicated fixed point problem are called
mild.
Theorem 5.14. Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 p; q 1 .p < 1 for F -spaces/

and s > n=p. There are numbers ı > 0, > 0, and 0 < " 1=2 such that
(5.100)–(5.103) has a unique mild solution in U" .Asp;q / for any u0 2 Asp;q .Rn / and
v0 2 AsC1 n
p;q .R / with

u0 jAs .Rn / ı and v0 jAsC1 .Rn / : (5.125)
p;q p;q
Proof. Step 1. By Proposition 4.1,

p
Tu ;v u.; t/ jAs .Rn / u0 jAs .Rn / C c t sup P u.; / jAs1.Rn / ;
0 0 p;q p;q p;q
0< <t
(5.126)
with P u as in (5.123) and 0 < t 1. Using (5.121) and (5.115) one obtains

P u.; / jAs1.Rn / c u.; / jAs .Rn / v.; / jAsC1 .Rn / ; (5.127)
p;q p;q p;q
where we have to justify that the last factor in (5.127) is finite. The solution of (5.97),
(5.99) is given by (3.111)–(3.113), that is
Z t
t
v.x; t/ D e e Wt u.; / d .x/ C et Wt v0 .x/:

(5.128)
0
Using again Proposition 4.1 one has

p
v.; t/ jAsC1 .Rn / v0 jAsC1 .Rn / C c t sup u.; / jAs .Rn / :
p;q p;q p;q
0< <t
(5.129)
We insert (5.129) in (5.127) and the outcome in (5.126). Then one obtains
p
Tu ;v u.; t/ jAs .Rn / u0 jAs .Rn / C c t sup u.; / jAs .Rn /
0 0 p;q p;q p;q
0< <t

p
sC1 n s n
v0 jAp;q .R / C c t sup u.; / jAp;q .R / ı C c 0 " Œ C " < "
0< <t
(5.130)
provided the positive numbers ı; ; " are chosen appropriately (recall that t 1).
This show that Tu0 ;v0 maps U" .Asp;q / into itself.
Step 2. We have to justify that Tu0 ;v0 for given u0 , v0 is a contraction. Let u1 2
U" .Asp;q / and u2 2 U" .Asp;q /. By (5.128), (5.129) one has for the related functions
v1 and v2
p
v1 .; t/ v2 .; t/ jAsC1 .Rn / c t sup u1 .; / u2 .; / jAs .Rn / :
p;q p;q
0< <t
(5.131)
Furthermore, one obtains similarly as in (5.120), (5.121)
u1 u2 X1 X 1 Xk
D .1/k ukC1 u kC1
D .1/ k
.u 1 u 2 / ukl
1 ul2
1 C u1 1 C u2 1 2
kD0 kD0 lD0
(5.132)
and
1
u1 u2 X
n n
1 C u 1 C u jAp;q .R / u1 u2 jAp;q .R / .k C 1/"k (5.133)
s s
1 2
kD0
(recall that " 1=2). By (5.122) and (5.126) one has

Tu ;v u1 .; t/ Tu ;v u2 .; t/ jAs .Rn /
0 0 0 0 p;q
p (5.134)
c t sup P u1 .; / P u2 .; / jAs1.Rn / :
p;q
0< <t
By (5.123) with P u1 P u2 in place of P u,

u1 u2 u1 u2 u2
rv1 rv2 D rv1 C .r.v1 v2 // ;
1 C u1 1 C u2 1 C u1 1 C u2 1 C u2
(5.135)
one obtains similarly as in (5.127), (5.129), (5.131), (5.121) and what we already
know (and assumed)

P u1 .; t/ P u2 .; t/ jAs1 .Rn /
p;q
p (5.136)
c sup u1 .; / u2 .; / jAs .Rn / . C t "/:
p;q
0< <t
Recall again that t 1. We insert (5.136) in the counterpart of (5.126) (with u0 D 0).
Choosing and " in addition to (5.130) sufficiently small, one obtains

Tu ;v u1 .; t/ Tu ;v u2 .; t/ jAs .Rn /
p;q

0 0 0 0

sup u .; / u .; / jAs .Rn /
1 2 p;q
(5.137)
0< <1
for some 0 <

< 1. This shows that Tu0 ;v0 is a contraction in U" .Asp;q / and one
can apply the Banach contraction theorem (which can be found in many books, for
example [Sma74, Theorem 1.2.2, p. 2] or [AmA11, Theorem 2.1.2, p. 17]). Hence,
Tu0 ;v0 has a unique fixed point in U" .Asp;q /.
Remark 5.15. The above theorem has not the same definitive character as, for exam-
ple, Theorem 4.13 (and whatfollowed afterwards in Chapter 4). We have uniqueness
in U" .Asp;q /, but not in L1 .0; 1/; Asp;q .Rn / . But this cannot be expected by the
above method, where we relied decisively on (5.120), (5.121). Also smoothness as-
sertions as indicated after (4.21) with a reference to [T13, pp. 184–186] are not avail-
able. The above arguments are similar to those in [T13, Theorem 5.20, p. 180] and
its proof. One may ask whether the above solution is strong in the understanding of
(4.8). It may well be that the above solution u.; t/ 2 Asp;q .Rn / is continuous with
respect to t, 0 < t < 1. But this is not immediately covered by the above arguments.
However, one has at least

lim u.; t/ u0 jAsp;q .Rn / D 0 (5.138)
t #0
if p < 1 and q < 1: One can argue as in Step 2 of the proof of Theorem 4.3. As in
(4.22), one has
Z t
u.x; t/ u0 .x/ D Wt u0 .x/ u0 .x/ Wt P u.; / d .x/ (5.139)
0
with P u as in (5.122), (5.123). The counterpart of (4.23) is now the second term in
the first estimate in (5.130) tending to zero when t # 0. The term Wt u0 u0 can now
be treated as after (4.24) with a reference to [T14, pp. 121/122].
Problem 5.16. According to [BBTW15, Section 3.6, pp. 1697–1700] density-

dependent models of type (5.100)–(5.103) have been generalized in several direc-
tions. Of special interest in our context is the modification

u
@t u u C div rv D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.140)
.1 C u/r
@t v v C v D u; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.141)
u.; 0/ D u0 ; x2R ; n
(5.142)
v.; 0/ D v0 ; x2R ; n
(5.143)
of (5.100)–(5.103) with r > 1 n2 . Of course, r D 1 recovers (5.100)–(5.103). Oth-

erwise one could try to use the composition and multiplication properties of suitable
spaces Asp;q .Rn / as indicated in Problem 5.8. Problems of type (5.140)–(5.143) in
bounded smooth domains with (1.47), (1.48) in place of (5.142), (5.143) have been
studied in detail in [HoW05]. Of interest is the question for which exponents r in
the chemotactic sensitivity function f .u/ D .1Cu/ u
r blow-up phenomena can be pre-
vented. It turns out that r D 1 n is a critical value. In other words, r D 1 n2 might

2
be of interest also in the above Rn -version.

In Chapter 2 we dealt with the question which spaces Asp;q .Rn / and Asp;q .Rn /
should be called critical and supercritical for the Keller–Segel equations (4.50)–
(4.53). The related assertions are covered by Proposition 2.3 and the discussions
in the Remarks 2.2, 2.5. One can extend these arguments to the homogeneous modi-
fication of (5.140), (5.141), that is
@t u u C div .u% rv/ D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.144)
@t v v D u; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (5.145)
where % > 0. Direct calculations show that
2
u .x; t/ D % u .x; 2 t/; x 2 Rn , 0 t < 2 T ; (5.146)
2
v .x; t/ D % 2 2
v .x; t/; x2R ,0t <
n 2
T; (5.147)
is the correct generalization of (2.24), (2.25) from % D 1 to % > 0. The counterparts
of (2.17), (2.18) suggest to call the spaces
n 2
Asp;q .Rn /; Asp;q .Rn /; 0 < p; q 1; sD ; (5.148)
p %
critical for generalized Keller–Segel equations of type (5.144), (5.145) (comple-
mented by suitable initial data). Spaces with s > pn %2 could be called supercritical.
For % D 1 one has the related assertions in (2.18), (2.19). Inserting the critical expo-
nent % D 2=n according to [HoW05] one has the supercritical spaces

1
s n s
Ap;q .R /; Ap;q .R /;n
0 < p; q 1; s > n 1 : (5.149)
p
This fits very well in the theory of tempered homogeneous spaces as developed in
[T15, T16, T16a].
In [Mur93, (15.1), p. 438] = [Mur03, (3.1), p. 145] (Mammalian coat patterns –
‘How the leopard got its spots’) one finds the following modifications of (5.82), (5.83)
and (5.86), (5.87):
@t u u D
f .u; v/; (5.150)
@t v d v D
g.u; v/; (5.151)
with
f .u; v/ D a u h.u; v/; g.u; v/ D ˛.b v/ h.u; v/; (5.152)
where
%uv
h.u; v/ D (5.153)
1 C u C Ku2
for two chemical species. All constants are positive, d > 1. This may also be
compared with (5.70), (5.71) and (5.140), (5.141). In any case it seems to be possible
to deal with equations of type (5.150)–(5.153) complemented by suitable initial data
in our context. (In contrast to other related equations one has now the isolated positive
constants a and b. This suggests that one should perhaps deal with C s .Rn /, s > 0, as
possible solution spaces.)
5.6 Peaks, troughs, stripes, spots, and Faber bases 85
5.5 Decay, positivity, and well-posedness

In the Sections 4.5–4.8 we dealt with fundamental properties of the classical Keller–
Segel equations (4.50)–(4.53), supporting the well-established claim that these sys-
tems are of biological relevance. This applies to conditions ensuring that related
solutions are strong, Section 4.5, stable and well-posed, Section 4.6, but also to de-
cay properties, Section 4.7, and positivity, Section 4.8. In the present Chapter 5 we
discussed some further models, asking for existence and uniqueness and for con-
ditions ensuring that related mild solutions are strong. But there are good reasons to
believe (although not yet done) that the above considerations about stability and well-
posedness can be transferred to at least some of the models in the present chapter. It
might also be possible to replace the unweighted inhomogeneous spaces Asp;q .Rn /
by their weighted counterparts (4.82)–(4.84) and to extend Theorem 4.19 and Re-
mark 4.20 to some of the models considered in this Chapter 5. It is of interest to
ask to which extent positivity assertions as in Theorem 4.21 have related counter-
parts for other models. This may even shed some additional light on the interplay
of some positive parameters having biological relevance. But we stick here with a
simple example. Let us assume that Theorem 4.21 and its proof can be extended to
(5.33)–(5.36), where u u2 with > 0, > 0 are logistic terms. If one multi-
plies (5.33) as there by u .x; t/, then (under suitable restrictions) the counterpart of
(4.122) looks like
Xn Z
n 2 n 2
2 ku
1
.; T / jL2 .R /k 2 ku .; "/ jL2 .R /k C
1
j@j u j2 dx dt
j D1 Rn .";T /
n Z
X
D u @j v @j u dxdt
j D1 Rn .";T /
Z Z
C u .x; t/ dxdt
2
u .x; t/3 dxdt:
Rn .";T / Rn .";T /
(5.154)
If, as in Theorem 4.21, s > n=p (and u0 0, v0 0), then u and u are bounded
and one can argue as in (4.123)–(4.125), resulting in u D 0, that is u.x; t/ 0. But
one has to check the above somewhat sketchy arguments and also whether this type
of reasoning can be transferred to other models considered in this Chapter 5.
5.6 Peaks, troughs, stripes, spots, and Faber bases

Can the Nubian change his skin, or the leopard its spots?
And you? Can you do good, you who are schooled in evil?
(The New English Bible, The Bible Soc., Oxford Univ. Press, 1979; Jeremiah, 13.23,
p. 572, The Lord appeals to Judah, illustrated by a drawing of a leopard sitting on a
branch of a tree.)
It is impossible not to be fascinated and enthralled with the wealth,

diversity and beauty of pattern in biology.
(James Dickson Murray, [Mur93, p. 372] = [Mur03, p. 72]).
Spatial pattern formation is a central topic in mathematical biology. This does not
only apply to mammalian coat patterns (leopard, zebra, giraffe, tiger etc.), butterflies,
fishes and so on as considered in the richly illustrated books [Mur93, Mur03, Per15],
but also to tiny animals on a microscopic scale. On the one hand, the model (5.150)–
(5.153) should reflect the divine spots of a leopard. The surprising computed solu-
tions in [Mur93, Fig. 15.2, p. 441] confirm this model in an impressive way. On the
other hand, it had been observed already in the 1990s that chemotactic bacteria may
produce symmetric spatial patterns [BuB91, BuB95]:
The formation of complex patterns by chemotactic cells of E. coli pro-
vides a striking example of biological self-organization by interacting,
initially identical, microscopic elements,
[BuB91, p. 633] (here E. coli is the usual abbreviation for the bacterium Escherichia
coli). A short description of how cells move may be found in [Per07, Sections 5.1,
5.2, 5.6]. This includes E. coli and Dictyostelium discoideum. We mentioned in
Remark 5.9 related numerical simulations and refer the reader again to [BGM08,
pp. R261/R262, Figure 3]. A similar behaviour has been described in [DCCGK04]
concerning the bacteria of species Baccillus subtilis. The related mathematical model
goes back to [TCDWKG05]. We return to these equations in Chapter 7. In Sec-
tion 7.1 we provide some further information. Impressive colourful examples may
also be found in [Per15, Chapter 5]. This applies to the underlying equations, their
numerical simulations, and experimental observations. These tiny animals have ap-
parently the remarkable ability to create spatial patterns spontaneously from initially
almost homogeneous distributions. The outcome are regular (or smoothly distorted)
configurations consisting of peaks and troughs. This is quite similar to the situa-
tion in the above-mentioned more macroscopic scale, such as the spots of a leopard,
the related model (5.150)–(5.153), and its numerical simulations in [Mur93, p. 441].
Corresponding rigorous mathematical theories are apparently not available:
Since we do not know what reaction diffusion mechanism is involved
[with respect to the model (5.150)–(5.153) resulting in the spots of a
leopard], . . . , all we need at this stage is a specific system to study
numerically
[Mur93, p. 438] = [Mur03, p. 145]. Asking for adequate mathematical tools describ-
ing these observations one may think about Faber bases. They fit in our scheme for
several reasons. We first outline what is meant by Faber bases and continue after-
wards the above discussion.
Recall that @j D @=@xj . Let 1 < p < 1. Then the Sobolev space Sp1 W .R2 / of
first order mixed derivatives in the plane R2 is the collection of all f 2 Lp .R2 / such
that
X 2

f jS 1 W .R2 / D f jLp .R2 / C @j f jLp .R2 / C @2 f jLp .R2 / ;
p
j D1
(5.155)
with @2 D @1 @2 , is finite. Let Q D .0; 1/2 be the unit square in R2 . Then Sp1 W .Q/
is the usual restriction of Sp1 W .R2 / to Q and
ı ˚ ˚
Sp1 W .Q/ D f 2 Sp1 W .Q/ W f j@Q D 0 D f 2 Sp1 W .R2 /; supp f Q :
(5.156)
We refer the reader to the relevant parts of [T10], in particular [T10, p. 143]. We wish
to simplify what follows as much as possible. In particular, we choose (for simplicity)
ı ı
p D 2. Then S21 W .R2 /, S21 W .Q/ D S 1 H.Q/ and S21 W .Q/ D S 1 H .Q/ are
ı
Hilbert spaces, where S 1 H .Q/ can be equivalently normed by

ı
f jS 1 H .Q/ D @2 f jL2 .Q/ : (5.157)

We dealt in [T10, Chapter 3] with Faber bases in some Besov–Sobolev spaces

r
Sp;q B.Q/ and Spr H.Q/ with dominating mixed smoothness, where, preferably,
1 p 1, p1 < r < 1 C p1 . This covers in particular Sp1 W .Q/. We give a
ı
description restricting us to S 1 H .Q/. Let I D .0; 1/ be the unit interval in R. Ac-
cording to [T10, p. 124], the Faber system on I (without the starting terms)
˚
vj;m W j 2 N0 I m D 0; : : : ; 2j 1 (5.158)
consists of the hat-functions vj;m .x/, 0 x 1,

8
ˆ
<2
j C1
x 2j m ; if 2j m x < 2j m C 2j 1;

vj;m .x/ D 2j C1 2j .m C 1/ x ; if 2j m C 2j 1 x < 2j .m C 1/;
:̂0; otherwise;
(5.159)
[T10, Figure, p. 64]. The corresponding Faber system on Q D .0; 1/2 (again without
the starting terms) is given by
˚
vk;m W k D .k1 ; k2 / 2 N20 ; m 2 Pk ; (5.160)
where
n o
Pk D m D .m1 ; m2 / 2 N20 W ml D 0; : : : ; 2kl 1I l D 1; 2 ; k 2 N20 ;
(5.161)
with the tensor products
vk;m .x/ D vk1 ;m1 .x1 / vk2 ;m2 .x2 /; x D .x1 ; x2 / 2 Q; (5.162)
ı
of the hat functions in (5.159), [T10, p. 134]. The expansion of f 2 S 1 H .Q/ in
ı
terms of the Faber basis (5.160) is based on the pointwise evaluation of f 2 S 1 H .Q/
at some lattice points expressed in terms of differences. Let f be a continuous func-
tion on R2 . Let x D .x1 ; x2 / 2 R2 , h 2 R, and set
2h;1 f .x1 ; x2 / D f .x1 C 2h; x2 / 2f .x1 C h; x2 / C f .x1 ; x2 /; (5.163)
2h;2 f .x1 ; x2 / D f .x1 ; x2 C 2h/ 2f .x1 ; x2 C h/ C f .x1 ; x2 /: (5.164)

Then

2;2
h1 ;h2
f .x 1 ; x 2 / D 2
h 2 ;2 2
h 1 ;1 f .x1 ; x2 /; h1 2 R; h2 2 R; (5.165)
evaluates f .x/ at the 9 points .x1 C l1 h1 ; x2 C l2 h2 / with l1 ; l2 2 f0; 1; 2g. Let

1 2;2
2
dk;m .f / D 2k1 1 ;2k2 1 f 2k1 m1 ; 2k2 m2 ; (5.166)
4
where k 2 N20 and m 2 Pk according to (5.161). Recall that
Sp1 W .Q/ ,! C.Q/; 1 < p < 1; (5.167)
where C.Q/ is the usual space of continuous functions on Q. This applies in par-
ı ı
ticular to S 1 H .Q/ D S21 W .Q/, according to (5.156), (5.157). We refer the reader
again to [T10, Section 3.2.3], where one finds detailed explanations and proofs. In
ı
particular, (5.160)–(5.162) is a basis in S 1 H .Q/. For a related description one needs
the sequence space h.Q/ collecting all complex sequences
˚
D k;m W k 2 N20 ; m 2 Pk (5.168)
with 0 11=2
B X k1 Ck2 X C
k jh.Q/k D @ 2 jk;m j2 A < 1: (5.169)
k2N2 m2Pk
0
ı
Proposition 5.17. Let f 2 L1 .Q/. Then f 2 S 1 H .Q/ if, and only if, it can be
represented as X X
f D k;m vk;m ; 2 h.Q/; (5.170)
k2N2 m2Pk
0
with unconditional convergence in L1 .Q/. The representation (5.170) is unique, with

k;m D k;m .f / D dk;m
2
.f /; k 2 N20 ; m 2 Pk ; (5.171)
and
J W f 7! .f / (5.172)
ı
is an isomorphic map of S 1 H .Q/ onto h.Q/. Furthermore, fvk;m g is an uncondi-
ı
tional basis in S 1 H .Q/.
Remark 5.18. This is a special case of [T10, Theorem 3.13, p. 138/139] adapted to
our special situation. We have (5.167). Recall that the above representation
X X
f D 2
dk;m .f / vk;m (5.173)
k2N2 m2Pk
0
ı
is a conditional basis in C .Q/ D ff 2 C.Q/ W f j@Q D 0g. This follows from
[T10, pp. 136/137] and the explanations given there.
Peaks and troughs. We wish to relate the astonishing regular patterns produced
by tiny chemotactic bacteria or as observed on the skin of leopards to suitable sub-
ı
spaces of S 1 H .Q/. Let
n o
P k D m D .m1 ; m2 / 2 N20 ; ml D 0; : : : ; 2k 1I l D 1; 2 ; k 2 N0 ;
(5.174)
be the diagonal part of Pk in (5.161). Then
Qk;m D 2k m C 2k Q; k 2 N0 ; m 2 P k; k 2 N; (5.175)
is the subdivision of Q D .0; 1/2 into squares of side-length 2k , that is Q D
S
m2P k Qk;m . Furthermore,
[ 2 n
[
k
o
@Q D k
@Qk;m D x D .x1 ; x2 / 2 Q; either x1 D 2k l or x2 D 2k l
m2P k lD0
(5.176)
is the related grid of lines of length 1 in Q. For fixed k 2 N (characterizing the size
ı
of the spots) the above regular pattern may be described by f 2 S 1 H .Q/ having a
support located in pairwise disjoint squares Qk;m . In particular,
f 2 S 1 H.Q/ with f j@Qk D 0: (5.177)
This is justified by (5.167). We expand f according to (5.170), (5.171). By (5.166),
l;m .f / D 0 if l D .l1 ; l2 / 2 N20 with either l1 < k or l2 < k, so
X X
f D l;m .f / vl;m : (5.178)
l2N2 ;l1 k;l2 k m2Pl
We discuss the outcome having in mind that f represents regular patterns created by
chemotactic bacteria or spots on the skin of leopards.
(i) One may assume f 0 in Q with f .x/ D 0 in troughs and f .x/ > 0
at peaks. (Recall that f stands for the cell density or the concentration of related
chemicals.) Then it is at least reasonable that the building blocks vl;m according to
(5.162), (5.159) are also non-negative. This does not necessarily apply to the coeffi-
cients l;m .f / in (5.178) which originate by the 9-point-evaluation (5.171), (5.166)
and
kf jS 1 H.Q/k k.f / jh.Q/k: (5.179)
(ii) In [T10] we dealt with so-called sampling numbers and the numerical inte-
gration of functions belonging to S 1 H.Q/. Of particular interest are approximations
in Lp .Q/, 1 p 1, with the following outcome. Let f 2 S 1 H.Q/ be given by
(5.178). Then
(
p 22k ; if 1 p 2;
f jLp .Q/ c k @ f jL2 .Q/
2
(5.180)
2k. 21 C p
1
/
2 ; if 2 < p 1;
where c is independent of k 2 N. This follows from related estimates in [T10,

p. 197] and (5.157). Observations of this type in two and higher dimensions might be
of interest if one deals with equations of Keller–Segel type in critical function spaces,
as considered in Chapter 2 (or chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations in Section 7.2
below). Then one assumes that the initial data are small in some related critical
spaces, for example, Ln=2 .Rn /, 2 n 2 N. One may consult [KMS16] and the
references therein as a typical paper. The observation (5.180) and its generalizations
in [T10] show that the requirement of being small in, say, some Lp spaces can be
replaced by assumptions of type (5.177) if k 2 N is sufficiently large. This structural
assertion has a lattice counterpart for Navier–Stokes equations which can be found in
[T14, Section 6.1] (with Haar wavelets in place of Faber bases).
(iii) The expansion (5.178) relies on (5.177). But in the typical patterns pro-
duced by chemotactic bacteria or of the spots on the skin of leopards, the related
function f may be different from zero only in a few squares according to (5.175).
If f jQk;M D 0 for some M 2 P k (and given k 2 N), then it follows from the 9-
point-evaluation according to (5.171) that also the corresponding coefficients l;m .f /
referring to Qk;M are zero. In other words, any pattern of the above type is faithfully
allocated a, say, leopard-like subspace or leopardean subspace (not to be mixed with
Leopardian, as referring to the style of the Italian poet Leopardi, 1798–1837!) of
S 1 H.Q/ spanned by those Faber functions which refer to cubes Qk;m in (5.175) in
which f is not identically zero. The convergence of the related expansions is not only
ensured in S 1 H.Q/, and by (5.167) in C.Q/, but also in the isotropic Hölder space
C 1=2 .Q/ and its dominating mixed counterpart S 1=2 C .Q/, normed by
jf .x/ f .y/j

f jC 1=2 .Q/ D sup jf .x/j C sup (5.181)
x2Q x;y2Q jx yj1=2
and

f jS 1=2
C .Q/ D
f j C 1=2
.Q/
jf .x1 ; x2 / f .y1 ; x2 / f .x1 ; y2 / C f .y1 ; y2 /j
C sup
xD.x1 ;x2 /2Q; jx1 y1 j1=2 jx2 y2 j1=2
yD.y1 ;y2 /2Q
(5.182)
with 0=0 D 0. This follows from [T10, (4.218), p. 208] and the embeddings
S 1 H.Q/ ,! S 1=2 C .Q/ ,! C 1=2 .Q/ ,! C.Q/: (5.183)
The first embedding is covered by [T10, Theorem 3.13, p. 138] specified by

f jS 1=2 C .Q/ sup 2 2 .k1 Ck2 / jk;m .f /j kf jh.Q/k f jS 1 H.Q/ ;
1
k2N2
0;
m2Pk
(5.184)
whereas the other embeddings are obvious.
Stripes. The above considerations apply to peaks and spots concentrated in a
few squares of type (5.175). Stripes as again produced by chemotactic bacteria or as
displayed by zebras do not fit in this scheme, at least at the first glance. Instead of
(5.175), (5.176) one has now the stripes
n o
Sk;m D .x1 ; x2 / W 2k m < x1 < 2k .m C 1/; 0 < x2 < 1 ; k 2 N;
(5.185)
m D 0; : : : ; 2k 1, and
2 n
[
k
o
@S Dk
x D .x1 ; x2 / 2 Q W x1 D 2k l : (5.186)
lD0
But otherwise one can argue as above. If
f 2 S 1 H.Q/ with f j@S k D 0; (5.187)
then X X
f D l;m .f / vl;m (5.188)
l2N2 m2Pl
0 ;l1 k
is the counterpart of (5.178). One has (5.180) with 2k in place of 22k and also
(5.183). By the same discussion as above one arrives at zebra-like subspaces or ze-
broid subspaces of S 1 H.Q/.
Spirals, snakes, and other contours. Peaks, troughs, spots on the one hand,
and stripes on the other hand fit pretty well in the scheme of Faber bases accord-
ing to (5.160). One may ask whether the above approach can be extended to other
more or less filigree structures such as spirals, or as displayed by snakes, butterflies,

fishes, and again chemotactic bacteria. For this purpose we return first to the above
discussion about leopardean subspaces. The underlying function f in (5.178) is con-
centrated on some (isolated) squares Qk;m . But inside a fixed square Qk;m one does
not rely on subsequent fibreless isotropically scaled down building blocks, but one
uses the more sophisticated fibroid Faber bases which have the further advantage that
they are based on 9-point-evaluations. Representations of this type are not only stable
under translations f .x/ ! f .x C h/, but also under fibre-preserving diffeomorphic
maps .x/ of Q onto itself,
.x/ D . 1 .x1 /; 2 .x2 // ; x 2 Q; (5.189)
where 1 .t/ and 2 .t/ are smooth strictly monotone functions on the unit interval
Œ0; 1 with 1 .0/ D 2 .0/ D 0 and 1 .1/ D 2 .1/ D 1. This follows from
0 0
@2 f . 1 .x1 /; 2 .x2 // D .@2 f / . 1 .x1 /; 2 .x2 // 1 .x1 / 2 .x2 /: (5.190)
Then one can try first to decompose D supp f Q into isotropic parts located in
some Qk;m , maybe with different k’s. Afterwards one expands f in Qk;m as indi-
cated above. Then one can glue together these pieces using translations and smooth
distortions as described above. One obtains gliding Faber frames starting isotrop-
ically with squares having side length comparable with related local widths of .
Instead of squares in Q one could start with rectangles in Q having sides parallel to
the axes of coordinates. They can be reduced to the stripes as considered above. Of
course, all this must be justified rigorously, which may also depend on the geometric
shape of D supp f . In Remark 5.20 we add a related proposal.
Remark 5.19. The restriction of the above discussion to n D 2 is quite natural. But
the extension of these considerations to, say, the cube Q D .0; 1/n Rn , n 3, is
essentially a technical matter. The related mathematical background may be found in
[T10]. The case n D 3 might be of interest in connection with chemotaxis Navier–
Stokes equations as considered in Chapter 7 below.
Remark 5.20. We return to the above discussion in the plane R2 and add a few
somewhat vague comments which may also be considered as a proposal. We are in-
ı
terested in functions f 2 S 1 H .Q/ such that D supp f is aesthetically appealing
(whatever this means). Examples are functions belonging to leopardean subspaces
(reflecting regular peaks and troughs), or functions belonging to zebroid subspaces
(reflecting stripes). But one would like to incorporate other sets displayed on the
skins of animals or created by chemotactic bacteria. We represent now Q D .0; 1/2
by complex numbers z D Re z C i Im z, 0 < Re z < 1, 0 < Im z < 1. Then
z0 D 12 .1 C i / is the center of Q. Let 0 t < 1 and
0 < r1 .t/ < r2 .t/ ! 0 if t ! 1; (5.191)
r2 .t/ < 1=2. Then
˚
D z0 C z D r ei t ; r1 .t/ < r < r2 .t/; 0 t < 1 (5.192)
is a spiral centered at z0 , where the local width %.t/ D r2 .t/ r1 .t/ is assumed to
be small compared with r1 .t/. Then one can try to install a gliding Faber frame
based on the squares Qk.t /;m.t / , where 2k.t / m.t/ is the lattice point nearest to
z0 C r.t/ei t , 2r.t/ D r1 .t/ C r2 .t/, and 2k.t / %.t/. One wishes to expand
fk.t /;m.t / D f jQk.t /;m.t / as in (5.178) with l1 k.t/, l2 k.t/. This requires
Qk.t /;m.t / \ \ Pk D ;, where Pk has the same meaning as in (5.161) with either
k1 < k.t/ or k2 < k.t/. But the request that fk.t /;m.t / jPk D 0 if either k1 < k.t/
or k2 < k.t/ is rather severe and one would like to replace the rigid lattices Pk in
(5.161) by more flexible ones, at the best well adapted to . The fibre-preserving
diffeomorphic maps (5.189) of Q onto itself and of Pk onto .Pk / may be consid-
ered as a first, however not really satisfactory, step. But more promising might be
the attempt to replace the rigid Faber basis by more flexible Faber–Schauder bases.
Schauder (presumably not knowing Faber’s related paper [Fab09]) constructed in
[Scha27, pp. 48/49] a basis in C.I /, where again I D .0; 1/, replacing in (5.158),
(5.159) the regular nodes f2j m W j 2 N0 ; m D 0; : : : ; 2j 1g by an arbitrary
dense set fyj W j 2 Ng I . A description and a more recent proof may be found in
[AlK06, pp. 9/10]. The extension of Faber–Schauder bases from C.I / to C.Q/ with
Q D .0; 1/2 goes back to [Sem63, Sem82]. The question arises of whether the theory
of Haar and Faber bases in more general spaces of dominating mixed smoothness as
developed in [T10] can be extended to related generalized Haar and Faber–Schauder
bases. In particular, one may ask whether corresponding Faber–Schauder bases in
C.Q/ are also bases in S 1 H.Q/. If this is the case then one can try to use these more
flexible Faber–Schauder bases in the above context. Instead of [Sem82] one could
try to construct first generalized Haar and Faber–Schauder bases on suitable Besov
r r
spaces Bp;p .I / and extend the outcome in terms of tensor products to Sp;p B.Q/.
Details about this procedure may be found in [T10, Sections 1.2.7, 3.2.3]. We refer
the reader in this context also to [GeL61, Schm07, SiU09].
Faber devices. In the so-called worst case of approximation, sampling, and nu-
merical integration all functions f of a suitable space A.Q/ on Q are admitted. One
may consult [T10] for details, explanations and references. The above considerations
suggest to refine this standard approach, complementing f 2 A.Q/ by the require-
ment supp f , where is a prescribed subset of Q having some distinguished
properties. Restricted to the above discussions one might specify these comments as
ı
follows: If Q is the aesthetically appealing support of a function f 2 S 1 H .Q/,
then one may ask for
-adapted gliding Faber–Schauder frames
or
-adapted gliding 9-point-evaluations.
Chapter 6
Navier–Stokes equations
6.1 Preliminaries
Navier–Stokes equations are sometimes considered as the big brother of Keller–
Segel equations. There are striking similarities as far as the set-up in the context
of inhomogeneous function spaces Asp;q .Rn / (as well as their homogeneous coun-

terparts APsp;q .Rn / and Asp;q .Rn / in the understanding of [T15] and Section 1.1)
are concerned. The nonlinearities for Navier–Stokes equations are simpler than
for Keller–Segel equations. On the other hand, the requirement that the veloc-
ity field u D u.x; t/ D u1 .x; t/; : : : ; un .x; t/ of the viscous, homogeneous,
incompressible fluid should be divergence-free requires some additional construc-
tions. For the general background of Navier–Stokes equations we refer the reader
to [Ama00, Lem02, Lem16, BoF13]. We dealt in [T13, T14] with Navier–Stokes
equations in the context of more general spaces, covering in particular related inho-
mogeneous supercritical spaces Asp;q .Rn /. Further references may be found in [T14,
p. 132]. In recent times there is a growing interest to combine Keller–Segel equations
and Navier–Stokes equations in what are sometimes called chemotaxis Navier–Stokes
equations. This will be the topic of Chapter 7 below. The present Chapter 6 may be
considered as a preparation. We borrow some material from [T13, T14] adapted to
our later needs. We will be brief, but to some extent self-contained. In particular we
add a few arguments in preparation of what follows afterwards in Chapter 7.
In [T13, T14] we dealt with the Navier–Stokes equations
@t u C .u; r/u u C rP D 0 in Rn .0; T /, (6.1)

div u D 0 in R .0; T /;
n
(6.2)
u.; 0/ D u0 in R ;
n
(6.3)
1
T > 0, where u.x; t/ D u .x; t/; : : : ; un .x; t/ is the unknown velocity and P .x; t/
is the unknown (scalar) pressure, 2 n 2 N. Recall that @t D @=@t, @j D @=@xj if
j D 1; : : : ; n; and that the vector-function .u; r/u has the components
X
n
Œ.u; r/u k D uj @j uk ; k D 1; : : : ; n; (6.4)
j D1
where as before
X
n
div u D @j uj ; rP D .@1 P; : : : ; @n P /: (6.5)
j D1
96 6 Navier–Stokes equations
By (6.2),
X
n
.u; r/u D div .u ˝ u/; div .u ˝ u/k D @j .uj uk /: (6.6)
j D1
This reduces (6.1)–(6.3) in the strip Rn .0; T /, T > 0, to
@t u u C P div .u ˝ u/ D 0 in Rn .0; T /, (6.7)

u.; 0/ D u0 in Rn : (6.8)
Here P is the Leray (Leray–Hopf, Helmholtz) projector
X
n
.Pf /k D f k C Rk Rj f j ; k D 1; : : : ; n; (6.9)
j D1
based on the (scalar) Riesz transforms Rk ,

_ Z
k yk
Rk g.x/ D i g .x/ D cn lim
b g.x y/ dy; x 2 Rn : (6.10)
jj "#0 jyj" jyjnC1
We discuss briefly how (6.1)–(6.3) on the one hand, and (6.7), (6.8) on the other hand
are related to each other. For this purpose we collect first a few properties of the Leray
projector P following [T13, Section 6.1.2]. Let L2 .Rn /n be the Hilbert space of all
complex-valued vector-functions f D .f 1 ; : : : ; f n /, f k 2 L2 .Rn /, furnished in the
usual way with the scalar product
n Z
X
.f; g/L2.Rn /n D f k .x/ g k .x/ dx; (6.11)
Rn
kD1
f; g 2 L2 .Rn /n , and normed by

!1=2
X
n
kf jL2 .R /n k D
n
kf jL2 .R /k
k n 2
: (6.12)
kD1
Let
div L2 .Rn /n D ff 2 L2 .Rn /n W div f D 0g (6.13)
n
be the divergence-free closed subspace of L2 .R /n . Of course, div f must be inter-
preted in the framework of S 0 .Rn /, that means div f 2 S 0 .Rn / if f 2 L2 .Rn /n .
Let Q be the linear bounded operator in L2 .Rn /n defined on the Fourier side by
b k X bj
n
k
Qf k ./ D j f D i 2 .div f /^ ./; k D 1; : : : ; n: (6.14)
jj 2 jj
j D1
6.1 Preliminaries 97
One obtains by direct calculations that the Leray projector P D id Q is the orthog-
onal projection of L2 .Rn /n onto div L2 .Rn /n :
PL2 .Rn /n D div L2 .Rn /n : (6.15)
Furthermore,
PrP D 0 for any P 2 L2 .Rn /: (6.16)
Details of these well-known assertions may be found in [T13, Section 6.1.2,
pp. 194/195]. The above mapping properties can be extended to the vector space
Y
n
Asp;q .Rn /n D Asp;q .Rn /; (6.17)
j D1
which is the collection of all f D .f 1 ; : : : ; f n / such that f j 2 Asp;q .Rn / and is

quasi-normed by
X n
j s
f jAs .Rn /n D f jA .Rn / : (6.18)
p;q p;q
j D1
Let, in extension of (6.13),

˚
div Asp;q .Rn /n D f 2 Asp;q .Rn /n W div f D 0 : (6.19)
Proposition 6.1. Let 1 < p < 1, 0 < q 1 and s 2 R. Then P is a projection of

Asp;q .Rn /n onto div Asp;q .Rn /n ,
PAsp;q .Rn /n D div Asp;q .Rn /n : (6.20)

Furthermore,
PrP D 0 for any P 2 Asp;q .Rn /: (6.21)
Proof. The corresponding mapping properties of the Riesz transforms Rj are covered
by [T14, Theorem 3.52, p. 90]. The remaining assertions follow now from the above
considerations extended from L2 .Rn / to Asp;q .Rn /.
After these preparations we have a closer look at (6.1)–(6.3) on the one hand,
and (6.7), (6.8) on the other hand. Similarly as in (4.45) we convert (6.7), (6.8) in
Section 6.3 into a fixed point problem with
Asp;q .Rn /; 1 n=p; (6.22)
as the underlying spaces. Then one can apply Proposition 6.1 where s > n=p ensures
that Asp;q .Rn / is a multiplication algebra, (3.4), (3.5), and the references given there.
In particular, if u.x; t/ 2 Asp;q .Rn /n , 0 < t < T , solves (6.7), (6.8) then
Z t
u.x; t/ D Wt u0 .x/ Wt Pdiv .u ˝ u/.; / d .x/; (6.23)
0
where we will suppose, similarly as in Theorem 4.11, that u0 2 As1Cg

p;q .Rn /n for
some 0 < g 1. If, in addition, div u0 D 0, then by (6.20), (6.22), (6.23) one has
that div u.; t/ D 0. Using (6.6) and P D id Q (and again the Duhamel formula
(4.4)) one obtains
@t u C .u; r/u u Q div u ˝ u D 0 in Rn .0; T /, (6.24)

div u D 0 in Rn .0; T /; (6.25)
u.; 0/ D u0 in Rn : (6.26)
According to [T13, pp. 197/198],
X
n
rP D Q div .u ˝ u/ with P D Rj Rl .ul uj / (6.27)
l;j D1
for the pressure P in (6.1). Conversely, let u be a solution of (6.1)–(6.3). By (6.14),

one has Pu D u Qu D u. Then application of P to (6.1), combined with (6.21) and
(6.6), gives
@t u u C Pdiv .u ˝ u/ D 0 in Rn .0; T /; (6.28)
that is (6.7) with (6.8). In other words, it is sufficient to deal with (6.7), (6.8) without
the additional assumption div u0 D 0.
6.2 Critical and supercritical spaces

We dealt in Chapter 2 with critical and supercritical spaces in the context of Keller–
Segel equations. One can ask the same questions for the Navier–Stokes equations
(6.1)–(6.3) or, as preferred here, (6.7), (6.8). This provides a better understanding
not only for the Navier–Stokes equations, but also for their combination with Keller–
Segel systems, called chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations and considered in Chap-
ter 7 below. We follow here [T15, Section 1.1].
Proposition 6.2. Let 2 n 2 N. Let > 0 and let u0 D u0 .x/ D

u10 .x/; : : : ; un0 .x/ , x 2 Rn . Let u D u .x; t/, x 2 Rn , 0 t < T , be a so-
lution of
@t u u C P div .u ˝ u / D 0; x 2 Rn ; 0 < t < T; (6.29)

u .x; 0/ D 1 u0 1 x ; x 2 Rn : (6.30)
Then u .x; t/ D u .x; 2 t/ is a solution of
@t u u C P div .u ˝ u / D 0; x 2 Rn ; 0 < t < 2 T; (6.31)

u .x; 0/ D u0 .x/; x 2 Rn : (6.32)
6.2 Critical and supercritical spaces 99
Proof. By (6.9), (6.10), the Leray projector P is homogeneous of order zero. Then
the above assertion follows by direct calculations.
Remark 6.3. Now one can argue as in the Remarks 2.2 and 2.5. If u is a solution
of (6.7), (6.8) in Rn .0; T / with the initial data u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/, x 2 Rn , then
according to the above proposition u solves the same problem in Rn .0; 2 T /.
Let us assume that there are numbers ı > 0 and T > 0 such that (6.7), (6.8) with the
initial data u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/, x 2 Rn , has a solution in Rn .0; T / if

u0 2 Asp;q .Rn /n with u0 jAs .Rn /n ı: (6.33)
p;q

Here Asp;q .Rn / (or APsp;q .Rn /) are again the homogeneous spaces as discussed in
[T15], with the homogeneity (2.15). Then one can ask of whether u is again a
solution of (6.7), (6.8) with the same initial data u0 in Rn .0; 2 T /. For this
purpose one has first to solve (6.29), (6.30) under the above assumptions, that is
n
1sC p u0 jAsp;q .Rn /n D 1 u0 .1 / jAsp;q .Rn /n
(6.34)
D u .; 0/ jAsp;q .Rn /n ı:
In other words, if

u0 jAs .Rn /n ı 1Cs pn ; > 0; (6.35)
p;q
then u solves (6.31), (6.32). This suggests to call the spaces

n
Asp;q .Rn /; APsp;q .Rn /; 0 < p; q 1; sD 1; (6.36)
p
critical (for Navier–Stokes equations). Regarding the remaining aspects we are in the
same position as in Remark 2.2. But it will be helpful for our later considerations
to indicate the necessary modifications. If one assumes that one has for any initial
data u0 according to (6.33) with ı > 0 and s D pn 1 a solution of (6.7), (6.8) in
Rn .0; T /, u.x; 0/ D u0 .x/, then the above considerations show that one has also a
solution of (6.7), (6.8) in Rn .0; 2 T / for any > 0, with the same initial data. In
particular, one has for admitted initial data (6.33) for ı > 0 solutions of (6.7), (6.8)
in any time interval, which means in Rn .0; T /, T > 0. If one assumes in addition
uniqueness, then one obtains global solutions in Rn .0; 1/. The distinguished
critical Legesgue spaces are now Ln .Rn /, 2 n 2 N. The spaces
n
Asp;q .Rn /; Asp;q .Rn /; 0 < p; q 1; s> 1; (6.37)
p
are called supercritical (for Navier–Stokes equations). If one assumes that one has
for any initial data u0 according to (6.33) with ı > 0 and s > pn 1 a solution of
(6.7), (6.8), then it follows from (6.35) upon letting ! 1 that one has for arbitrar-

ily large u0 2 Asp;q .Rn /n a solution in Rn .0; 2 T /, which means in shrinking
time intervals. The same discussion applied to subcritical spaces (for Navier–Stokes

equations) Asp;q .Rn /, s < n
p
1, suggests that (6.7), (6.8) has global solutions in

Rn .0; 1/ for arbitrarily large u0 2 Asp;q .Rn /n . However, this is rather unlikely.
Some further discussions may be found in [T15, pp. 2–4]. We deal here with inho-
mogeneous supercritical spaces Asp;q .Rn /, s > pn 1.
6.3 Main assertions

In [T13, T14] we dealt with the Navier–Stokes equations (6.7), (6.8) in the context of
more general (local and hybrid) spaces. This covers in particular related assertions in
the framework of supercritical inhomogeneous spaces Asp;q .Rn /. But it is reasonable
for our later purposes to recall some key properties and to indicate how to prove
them.
Let the space Asp;q .Rn /n be as in (6.17), (6.18), where 2 n 2 N. Then

L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn /n normed by

u jL1 .0; T /; a=2; As .Rn /n D sup t a=2 u.; t/ jAs .Rn /n (6.38)
p;q p;q
0<t <T
is the obvious counterpart of (3.100) with a as in (3.101). In particular, a < 2.

Then the vector-valued version of (4.1) and the references given there ensure that all
calculations take place in the framework of tempered distributions. In the rest we
rely again on the (vector-valued) Duhamel formula (4.4) and on Proposition 4.1. We
convert (6.7), (6.8) similarly
as (4.16), (4.17) (and the
references given there) into a
fixed point problem in L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn /n for the map
Z t
Tu0 u.x; t/ D Wt u0 .x/ Wt P u.; / d .x/; (6.39)
0
with
P u.y; / D P div .u ˝ u/.y; /: (6.40)
As already indicated in Section 4.1,
solutions u.x; t/ arising from related fixed point problems are called mild.
In addition to uniqueness (local in time, 0 < t < T ), one asks whether the solution is
strong, that is

u 2 C Œ0; T /; Ap;q .Rn /n for all admitted u0 2 Ap;q .Rn /n : (6.41)
6.3 Main assertions 101

As before, C Œ0; T /; Ap;q .Rn /n is the space of all continuous functions up to
1
t D 0 normed by (6.38) with a D 0. Let C .R .0; T //n be the collec-
n
tion of all g.x; t/ D g 1 .x; t/; : : : ; g n .x; t/ , x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T , such that
g j 2 C 1 .Rn .0; T //, j D 1; : : : ; n (C 1 –functions in the open strip Rn .0; T /).
Theorem 6.4. Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 n=p.

(i) Let
0<g1 and a D 1 ~g with 0 < ~ < 1: (6.42)
Let u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn /n . Then there is a number T , T > 0, such that
@t u u C P div .u ˝ u/ D 0; x 2 Rn ; 0 < t < T; (6.43)
u.; 0/ D u0 ; x 2 Rn ; (6.44)
has a unique mild solution

u 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn /n : (6.45)
Furthermore,
u 2 C 1 .Rn .0; T //n : (6.46)
0 < g 1; and a D 1 ~g with 1=2 < ~ < 1; (6.47)

p;q .Rn /n .
Proof. This is the direct counterpart of Theorem 4.3 and its proof, where in turn we
relied on [T13, Theorem 5.24, pp. 183–186]. We indicate the necessary modifica-
tions. Instead of (4.16), (4.17) we convert (6.43), (6.44) into the fixed point prob-
lem (6.39) with the nonlinearity P given by (6.40). By (3.4) and (3.5), the underly-
ing spaces Asp;q .Rn / are multiplication algebras. Using again the mapping property
@j W Asp;q .Rn / ,! As1 n
p;q .R / and Proposition 6.1, one obtains

P u jAs1 .Rn /n c u jAs .Rn /n 2 : (6.48)
p;q p;q
Then one is in the same (vector-valued) position as in (4.19)–(4.21) and the technical-
ities discussed afterwards with related references to [T13]. This proves part (i) of the
theorem. Similarly one can justify part (ii), transferring (4.22)–(4.24) to the situation
under consideration.
Remark 6.5. The above proof is a modification of corresponding arguments justi-

fying Theorem 4.3, based in turn on related assertions in [T13, T14]. In particular,
the above theorem is a special case of [T14, Section 5.3, Theorem 5.2, Corollary 5.4,
pp. 128/129]. We included this material mainly as a preparation for Chapter 7, where
we deal with chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations combining Keller–Segel systems
with classical Navier–Stokes equations. This applies also to what follows now asking
for stability and well-posedness.

In Section 4.6 we said what is meant by stability and well-posedness for Keller–Segel
systems. The counterpart in terms of Navier–Stokes equations is quite obvious. But it
seems reasonable to give an explicit formulation. The problem (6.43), (6.44) is called
(locally) stable if for any " > 0 there exist a time T > 0 and an ı > 0 such that
1
u .; t/ u2 .; t/ jAs1Cg .Rn /n " (6.49)
p;q
for solutions u1 , u2 according to Theorem 6.4, whenever

1
0t T and u u2 jAs1Cg .Rn /n < ı (6.50)
0 0 p;q
for the related initial data.

The problem (6.43), (6.44) is said to be well-posed if there are unique mild
solutions which in addition are strong and stable in the above sense.
According to Theorem 6.4(ii), we already know under which conditions the unique
mild solution u is also strong. It remains to verify that the problem (6.43), (6.44) is
stable. According to the adapted proof of Theorem 4.3, one has by construction

u jL1 .0; T /; a=2; As .Rn /n 1 (6.51)
p;q
for the solution u in Theorem 6.4.
Corollary 6.6. Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 n=p.

Let g; a; ~ be as in (6.47). Let ul0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn /n where l D 1; 2. Let ul be the
corresponding solutions of (6.43), (6.44) satisfying (6.45), (6.51) for some common
T > 0. Then
1
u .; t/ u2 .; t/ jAs1Cg .Rn /n
p;q
(6.52)
u10 u20 jAs1Cg .Rn /n C c t g.~ 2 / ; 0 < t < T;
1
p;q
where c > 0 is independent of the initial data ul0 and of t.
Proof. One can argue as in the proof of Corollary 4.15. By (6.39) and Theorem 6.4,
the related mild solutions satisfy
Z
t 1
u .x; t/ u .x; t/ D
1 2
Wt u10 u20 .x/ Wt P u P u .; / d .x/
2
0
(6.53)
1 2
with P u and P u as in (6.40). This must be estimated in As1Cg
Let u
p;q .Rn /n .
be either u1 or u2 . Then similarly to (4.74) with a reference to [T14, Theorem 4.1,
p. 114] using (6.48) and (6.51) with a D 1 ~g, one has

Z t

W P u.; / d jAs1Cg
.R n
/
t p;q n
0
Z t

c1 .t /g=2 P u.; / jAs1 n
p;q .R /n d
0
Z t
2 (6.54)
c2 .t /g=2 u.; / jAs .Rn /n d
p;q
0
Z t
c3 .t /g=2 ~g1 d
0
1
D c4 t g.~ 2 / :
Now (6.52) follows from (6.53) and (6.54).
Remark 6.7. By assumption, g.~ 12 / is positive. Then one can choose ı > 0 and
T > 0 in (6.50) such that (6.49) holds for given " > 0. In other words, (6.43), (6.44)
with (6.47) is also stable. If, in addition, q < 1, then (6.43), (6.44) is well-posed in
the sense introduced above.
Remark 6.8. We dealt in Section 4.7 with decay properties of the parabolic-parabolic
equations (4.50)–(4.53). In particular, one has the rather satisfactory assertion
(4.108), (4.109). But the arguments used there cannot be extended without severe
restrictions to the Navier–Stokes equations (6.43), (6.44). There is no counterpart
of Proposition 6.1 for all weighted spaces Asp;q .Rn ;
/ according to (4.82)–(4.84) in
place of Asp;q .Rn / with
> 0. Nevertheless, something can be said that is in very
good agreement with certain recent observations about the spatial decay of solutions
of the Navier–Stokes equations (6.1)–(6.3) on the one hand, and the extension of the
positivity assertions for the Keller–Segel equations (4.50)–(4.53) according to Theo-
rem 4.21 to related chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations as considered in Section 7.7
below on the other hand. Mapping properties of the Leray projector P are reduced by
(6.9) to related mapping properties of the Riesz transforms Rj . According to [Ste93,
p. 205],
Rj W Lp .Rn ;
/ ,! Lp .Rn ;
/; 1 < p < 1; (6.55)
if, and only if, wp with w .x/ D .1 C jxj2 /=2 belongs to the Muckenhoupt class
Ap .Rn /. This means n <
p < n.p 1/, [T14, pp. 19/20], n 2 N. Then,
generically, Rj f .x/ with f 2 D.RP n
/ D C01 .Rn / doesP not decay stronger than
n
jxj at infinity. (Recall that id D njD1 Rj2 , i.e., f D njD1 Rj .Rj f /.) Simi-
larly for Pu with u 2 C01 .Rn /n , n 2. Precise decay properties for the Navier–
Stokes equations (6.1)–(6.3) have been obtained recently. Let 2 n 0 such that (6.1)–(6.3) has a unique solution u 2 C Œ0; T ; Lp .Rn ;
/n .
The related decay u.; t/ 2 Lp .Rn ;
/ cannot be improved generically even if
u0 2 C01 .Rn /n . These assertions are due to [Vig05]. If p D 1, then it follows
from [BrM02] that generically no stronger decay than jxjn1 at infinity can be ex-
pected even if u0 2 C01 .Rn /n . According to [BrV07] one has even
p
c tjxjn1 ju.x; t/j c 0 tjxjn1; 0 < t t0 ; jxj C= t; (6.56)
0 < c < c 0 < 1, C > 0, generically with respect to u0 2 C01 .Rn /n , n 2,
and exceptional spatial directions. We refer the reader to [BrM02, Vig05, BrV07] for
precise formulations, proofs, and explanations of what is meant by generically. One
may also consult [Lem16, Section 4.10, pp. 72–77] for detailed discussions of the case
n D 3. The exceptional initial data u0 for which the solution u.x; t/ decays stronger
than jxjn1 at infinity are not stable in the understanding of (6.49), (6.50), which
means that they are not of physical relevance. By (6.56) one has ju.x; t/j > 0 instan-
taneously even if u0 2 C01 .Rn /n , which again contradicts the physical law saying
that information travels with at most the speed of light (the Navier–Stokes equations
inherited this malaise from the usual linear heat equation in an even stronger way,
maybe damped by quadratic nonlinearities, but reinforced by the Leray projector).
Remark 6.9. Recall that we used the decay properties for the Keller–Segel equations
as described in Theorem 4.19 to ensure the positivity of the cell density u.x; t/ and
of the concentration of the chemical v.x; t/ in Theorem 4.21. An extension of this
observation to the chemotaxis Navier–Stokes as considered in Chapter 7 is desirable.
We return to this point in Section 7.7. For this purpose one needs first a weighted
counterpart of Theorem 6.4 for some spaces Asp;q .Rn ;
/ as introduced in (4.82)–
(4.84). So far we have (6.55) with n <
p < n.p 1/. This can be extended to
Rj W Asp;q .Rn ;
/ ,! Asp;q .Rn ;
/; 1 < p < 1; n <
p < n.p 1/;
(6.57)
s 2 R, where Asp;q .Rn ;
/ is either Bp;q
s
.Rn ;
/ with 0 < q 1, or Fp;q
s
.Rn ;
/
with 1 < q < 1. We justify (6.57). First we remark that the operator I in (1.14),
(1.15) is also a lift in the above weighted spaces,
I Asp;q .Rn ;
/ D As n
p;q .R ;
/ (6.58)
[ET96, p. 158]. Then (6.55) can be extended first to the weighted Sobolev spaces
s
Fp;2 .Rn ;
/ D Hps .Rn ;
/ D Is Lp .Rn ;
/ by lifting. Later on we use the rather
special interpolation property (7.21) for F -spaces. The respective interpolation
for corresponding weighted spaces follows from (4.82), (4.83) interpreted as an
isomorphic map f 7! w f between weighted and unweighted spaces. Combined
again with the lifting (6.58), one obtains (6.57) for the F -spaces. The extension
of this assertion to the B-spaces is a matter or real interpolation based on the just
indicated isomorphism and well-known interpolation properties for the unweighted
spaces. Using again (6.9) one can transfer (6.57) to the Leray projector P,
P W Asp;q .Rn ;
/n ,! Asp;q .Rn ;
/n; 1 < p < 1;
n <
p < n.p 1/;
(6.59)
s 2 R, n 2, with 1 < q < 1 for the F -spaces and 0 < q 1 for the B-spaces.
Using these observations and the arguments on which Theorem 4.19 is based, one
can extend Theorem 6.4 from the unweighted spaces Asp;q .Rn / to weighted spaces
Asp;q .Rn ;
/ under the same restrictions for all parameters as there, complemented
by 1 < q < 1 for the F -spaces, and 0
p < n.p 1/. We do not give an explicit
formulation, but we use these considerations later on in Section 7.7.
Remark 6.10. Blow-up phenomena for Keller–Segel equations and their numerous
modifications have been studied in detail in the literature. But as already mentioned
in Remark 5.9, these phenomena are not confirmed by experimental observations.
One asks for modifications of the classical Keller–Segel equations avoiding blow-
ups. The situation for the Navier–Stokes equations (6.1)–(6.3) or (6.7), (6.8) is totally
different. There are apparently no suggestions to modify these equations substantially
to ensure that there are no blow-ups. Just the opposite: it is one of the millennium
prize problems to clarify whether (6.1)–(6.3) has for any real initial data u0 2 S.R3 /3 ,
div u0 D 0, a (unique) global (real) smooth solution (with uniformly bounded energy
in time) in R3 Œ0; 1/, [Fef06]. A description of the recent situation may be found
in [Lem16, Section 20.3, pp. 670–673]. We mention two remarkable facts. Let
p
@t u u D .u2 / in Rn .0; 1/; (6.60)
be the so-called scalar cheap Navier–Stokes equation. According to [Mon01], there

are initial data u0 2 S.Rn / such that (6.60) with u.; 0/ D u0 has no mild solution
in C .Œ0; 1/; Ln .Rn //. One may also consult [Lem16, p. 305]. This assertion has
been extended in [GaP09] to the vector-valued case. Even more remarkable is the
observation in [LiS08] that complex-valued solutions of (6.1)–(6.3) in R3 for some
smooth complex-valued initial data u0 , div u0 D 0, undergo blow-up in finite time. It
is always mentioned in these papers that these assertions are not (negative) solutions
of the above millennium prize problem. At least for questions of this type it is ap-
parently essential whether the admitted initial data u0 are real or complex. The most
elaborated recent discussion of this tricky problem in R3 may be found in [Tao16],
based on [Tao13]. Our own approach both for Keller–Segel and Navier–Stokes equa-
tions is qualitative and local in time. The underlying function spaces are complex.
If, in addition, the intial data are real, then the corresponding solutions are also real.
But it is also clear that our approach, which is local in time, cannot be extended to
assertions that are global in time.
Chapter 7
Chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations
7.1 Introduction
In 2005 the authors of [TCDWKG05] described their findings about the behaviour of
aerobic bacteria living in thin fluid layers near solid-air-water contact lines. In this
problem the biology of chemotaxis is intimately connected with the physics of dif-
fusion, mixing and, in particular, buoyancy [the vertical upward force of a fluid on
a floating or immersed body, which is equal to the weight of fluid displaced by the
body; Oxford dictionary] governed by the Navier–Stokes equations. The experiments
were conducted with Bacillus subtilis (0:8 m diameter, 5 m D 5 106 m long,
[DHDWBG13]) in sessile drops with a cell concentration of 109 cm3 . Even these
simple chemotatic bacteria exhibit a complex collective behaviour. Dictyostelium
discoideum underlying the Keller–Segel equations as treated in the Chapters 3 and 4
is a giant compared with Bacillus subtilis: for related experiments in planar Petri
dishes a density of 5 104 cm2 of these amoebae is sufficient. There is a further
striking difference. Whereas Dictyostelium discoideum produces an auto-attractant,
the chemical cAMP, the behaviour of Bacillus subtilis is governed by oxygen con-
sumption, oxygentaxis, with a bacteria consumption of 106 oxygen molecules=sec,
[DCCGK04]. This has the consequence that the responsible term u v in (1.46),
(4.51) (˛ D 1) must be replaced by u v in the related mathematical models as de-
scribed below. This changes the nature of the corresponding equations decisively.
Based on their observations, the authors of [TCDWKG05] suggested a mathemati-
cal model, called nowadays chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations. It attracted a lot
of attention especially in the last few years, both in well-reputed journals and in the
arXiv. The interested reader may consult the survey [BBTW15, Section 4], the papers
[CaL16, Lan16, Win12, Win15] and the references within.
We are interested in a combination of the adapted Keller–Segel system according
to (4.50)–(4.53) in Rn .0; T /, 2 n 2 N, with the Navier–Stokes equations (6.1)–
(6.3) replacing there u now by w, resulting in the following chemotaxis Navier–Stokes
equations
@t u u C div .urv/ C w ru D 0 in Rn .0; T /, (7.1)

@t v v C uv C w rv D 0 in Rn .0; T /, (7.2)
@t w w C .w; r/w urˆ C rP D 0 in Rn .0; T /, (7.3)
div w D 0 in Rn .0; T /, (7.4)
u.; 0/ D u0 in Rn ; (7.5)
v.; 0/ D v0 in Rn ; (7.6)
w.; 0/ D w0 in Rn : (7.7)
108 7 Chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations
Here again u D u.x; t/ denotes the unknown cell density (population density of bac-
teria), v D v.x; t/ the unknown concentration of the chemical signal (concentration

of oxygen consumed by the bacteria), w.x; t/ D w 1 .x; t/; : : : ; w n .x; t/ the un-
known velocity field of the fluid, and P .x; t/ the unknown (scalar) pressure, whereas
ˆ is a given gravitational potential (preferably the buoyancy as described above).
We use the same notation as before, recalled in connection with the Navier–Stokes
equations (6.1)–(6.3). In addition,
X
n X
n
w ru D w j @j u; w rv D w j @j v: (7.8)
j D1 j D1
We have again a counterpart of (6.6). This suggest to reformulate (7.3), (7.4) similarly
as in (6.7), where P is the Leray projector as described there. This means that we
switch from (7.1)–(7.7) to
@t u u C div .urv/ C w ru D 0 in Rn .0; T /, (7.9)
@t v v C uv C w rv D 0 in Rn .0; T /, (7.10)
@t w w C P Œdiv .w ˝ w/ u rˆ D 0 in Rn .0; T /, (7.11)
u.; 0/ D u0 in Rn ; (7.12)
v.; 0/ D v0 in Rn ; (7.13)
w.; 0/ D w0 in Rn : (7.14)
Similarly to Section 6.1, where we dealt with the Navier–Stokes equations, we ask
how the Navier–Stokes part (7.3), (7.4), (7.7) of (7.1)–(7.7) is related to (7.11), (7.14).
Let w.x; t/ 2 Asp;q .Rn /n with p; q; s as in (6.22) (complemented by suitable assump-
tions for u; v and ˆ detailed below), 0 < t < T be a solution of (7.11), (7.14). Then
one has a counterpart of (6.23), that is
Z t
w.x; t/ D Wt w0 .x/ Wt P Œdiv .w ˝ w/ urˆ .; / d .x/; (7.15)
0
where we assume as there that w0 2 As1Cg p;q .Rn /n . If, in addition, div w0 D 0,
then similarly to (6.23) one has that div w.; t/ D 0, as requested in (7.4). There
is also a counterpart of (6.24)–(6.28), although the unknown pressure P cannot be
constructed explicitly as in (6.27). One has to rely on the following Helmholtz–Weyl
decomposition, based on div Asp;q .Rn /n in (6.19) and
˚
p;q .R / D g 2 Ap;q .R /n W g D rh for some h 2 Ap;q .R / :
rAsC1 n s n sC1 n
(7.16)
Proposition 7.1. Let 1 < p < 1 and s 2 R. Let Asp;q .Rn / be either Bp;q
s
.Rn / with
0 < q 1, or Fp;q .R / with 1 < q < 1. Then
s n
Asp;q .Rn /n D div Asp;q .Rn /n ˚ rAsC1 n

p;q .R / (7.17)
.direct sum/.
7.1 Introduction 109
Proof. By Proposition 6.1, one has to prove that
QAsp;q .Rn /n D rAsC1 n

p;q .R /; (7.18)
where again Q D id P. The case Lp .Rn /, 1 < p < 1, is covered by [Gal11,

Section III.1, pp. 141–152],
Lp .Rn /n D div Lp .Rn /n ˚ rWp1 .Rn /; (7.19)
where Wp1 .Rn / D Hp1 .Rn / D Fp;2

1
.Rn / is the classical Sobolev space. Recall that
_
b
Is W f 7! his f ; hi D .1 C jj2 /1=2 ; s 2 R; (7.20)
maps Lp .Rn / onto Hps .Rn /, 1 < p < 1, (1.14). Obviously, div and r commute
with Is . Then (7.17) with Asp;q .Rn / D Hps .Rn / follows from (7.19) by lifting. The
s
extension to Bp;q .Rn / is a matter of real interpolation. In the case of Fp;q
s
.Rn / one
can rely on the recent interpolation

2
Fp;q .Rn / D Lp .Rn /; Wp2 .Rn / ;` ; 1 < p; q < 1; (7.21)
q
according to the inhomogeneous version [Kun15, Proposition 5.1, p. 17] based on

[KuU14], especially [KuU14, Proposition 4.13, p. 175] and lifting.
After these preparations, we discuss how (7.1)–(7.7) on the one hand, and (7.9)–
(7.14) on the other hand are related, where it is sufficient to deal with the corre-
sponding Navier–Stokes parts. We apply P to (7.3). Then (7.11) follows from (7.4),
Proposition 6.1, in particular Pw D w, and (6.6). As for the converse, we assume in
addition div w0 D 0. Then one has also div w D 0 as remarked above, that is (7.4).
Using again (6.6) and Q D id P, one can reformulate (7.11) as
@t w w C .w; r/w u rˆ Q Œ.w; r/w urˆ D 0: (7.22)
Under suitable conditions for ˆ (detailed later on) it follows for the spaces covered
by Proposition 7.1 that there is a uniquely determined pressure P 2 AsC1 n
p;q .R / such
that
Q Œu rˆ .w; r/w D rP (7.23)
and (7.3) is satisfied. (P is unique because constants c 6D 0 do not belong to the
spaces AsC1 n
p;q .R /). In the sequel we deal with (7.9)–(7.14) without the additional
assumption div w0 D 0.
The classical Navier–Stokes equations (6.7), (6.8) are preferably considered in Rn
as the underlying domain (where n D 2 and n D 3 deserve special attention). The
situation for Keller–Segel equations is different. Usually one deals with equations
of type (1.45), (1.46) in bounded smooth domains in Rn (with n D 2 as a distin-
guished case). Then the initial data (1.48) are complemented by the Neumann condi-
tions (1.47). It seems to be quite natural from a biological and physical point of view
that one sticks with this preference if one switches from the classical Keller–Segel
equations to the chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations (7.1)–(7.7) or (7.9)–(7.14). In
other words, the big majority of papers about chemotaxis Navier–Stokes systems deal
with equations of type (7.1)–(7.7) with .0; T / (preferably .0; 1/) in place of
Rn .0; T /, where is a smooth bounded (sometimes convex) domain in Rn . Then
the Neumann boundary conditions (1.47) are complemented by related Dirichlet con-
ditions for the velocity field of the fluid w, namely
@u @v
.x; t/ D .x; t/ D 0 and w.x; t/ D 0; x 2 @; t > 0: (7.24)
@ @
Our aim here is different. We are mainly interested (as before) in the interplay be-
tween the theory of function spaces on Rn (including more or less sophisticated map-
ping properties) on the one hand, and equations of the above type on the other hand.
This is quite different, also from a technical point of view, from the study of equations
of this type in bounded smooth domains . Then one relies quite often on the Neu-
mann Laplacian having a pure point spectrum, where the related first positive eigen-
value plays a decisive role. One may consult the above-mentioned literature. This
approach cannot be extended from bounded smooth domains to Rn . Our method is
(as before) qualitative (and local in time). In particular, one can modify the nonlin-
earities in (7.1)–(7.3) as long as the related terms can be controlled in the framework
of mapping properties of corresponding function spaces. Preference is given to terms
with biological or physical relevance. In particular, one can incorporate the logistic
terms according to Section 5.2, resulting in
@t u u C div .u rv/ C w ru u C u2 D 0; (7.25)

„ƒ‚… „ ƒ‚ … „ ƒ‚ … „ ƒ‚ …
diffusion chemotaxis transport logistic terms
as already done in [Lan16]. Here > 0 stands again for the growth rate of the
population (birth) and > 0 for death by overcrowding. As already mentioned
above, (4.51), with ˛ D 1 and (7.2) differ by
vu
„ƒ‚… and vu
„ƒ‚… (7.26)
auto-attractant oxygen-consumption
originating from the related biological models for Dictyostelium discoideum on the
one hand, and Bacillus subtilis on the other hand. This describes the difference be-
tween produced and consumed chemicals. But it seems quite natural to study double
chemotaxis models in Navier–Stokes fluids if both types of chemicals are present.
This has been done in [KMS16] in an Rn -setting. Then one has to complement the
already present or given chemical (oxygen) v D v 1 in (7.1)–(7.7) or, likewise (7.9)–
(7.14), by a second produced chemical (auto-attractant) v 2 with the typical related
7.2 Critical and supercritical spaces 111
terms according to (7.26). Then (7.9)–(7.14) must be modified to

@t u u C div ur.v 1 C v 2 / C w ru D 0 in Rn .0; T /, (7.27)
@t v v C uv C w rv D 0
1 1 1 1
in R .0; T /,
n
(7.28)
@t v v C v u C w rv D 0
2 2 2 2
in R .0; T /,
n
(7.29)
@t w w C P Œdiv .w ˝ w/ u rˆ D 0 in Rn .0; T /, (7.30)
u.; 0/ D u0 ; v 1 .; 0/ D v01 ;

v 2 .; 0/ D v02 ; w.; 0/ D w0 in Rn : (7.31)
Here u; w; ˆ have the same meaning as before, whereas v 1 , v 2 are the two types
of chemicals as indicated above. Our method is qualitative (and local in time) and
applies both to (7.9)–(7.14) and (7.27)–(7.31). This may justify that we deal mainly
with the chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations (7.9)–(7.14).
In Section 7.2 we ask which spaces Asp;q .Rn / should be called critical and super-
critical for chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations, combining what has already been
done in Chapter 2 and Section 6.2. Afterwards we deal in Section 7.3 with map-
ping properties of related nonlinearities. This will be used in Section 7.4 to con-
sider chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations of type (7.9)–(7.14) in related supercriti-
cal spaces. In Section 7.5 we discuss some further properties. Finally, we indicate
in Section 7.6 how the above considerations can be extended to double chemotaxis
Navier–Stokes equations according to (7.27)–(7.31).
7.2 Critical and supercritical spaces

We clarified in Chapter 2 which (homogeneous and inhomogeneous) spaces should
be called critical or supercritical for the classical Keller–Segel systems. The outcome
is different from corresponding assertions for the Navier–Stokes equations as con-
sidered in Section 6.2 and also mentioned in (1.51). The chemotaxis Navier–Stokes
equations are a mixture of both. Nevertheless, one has the following counterpart of
Propositions 2.3 and 6.2.
Proposition 7.2. Let 2 n 2 N. Let > 0, u0 D u0 .x/, v0 D v0 .x/ and

w0 .x/ D w01 .x/; : : : ; w0n .x/ , x 2 Rn . Let u D u .x; t/, v D v .x; t/ and
w D w .x; t/, x 2 Rn , 0 t < T , be a solution of
@t u u C div .u rv / C w ru D 0 in Rn .0; T /, (7.32)

@t v v C u v C w rv D 0

in R .0; T /,
n
(7.33)
h i
@t w w C P div .w ˝ w / u rˆ D 0 in Rn .0; T /, (7.34)
u .x; 0/ D 2 u0 .1 x/ in Rn ; (7.35)

v .x; 0/ D v0 .1 x/ in Rn ; (7.36)
1 1
w .x; 0/ D

w0 . x/ in R ;
n
(7.37)
where ˆ .x/ D ˆ.x/. Then
u .x; t/ D 2 u .x; 2 t/ in Rn .0; 2 T /, (7.38)

v .x; t/ D v .x; 2 t/ in Rn .0; 2 T /, (7.39)
2
w .x; t/ D w .x; t/
2
in R .0;
n
T /, (7.40)
is a solution of (7.9)–(7.14) with u , v , w in place of u; v; w and Rn .0; 2 T /

in place of Rn .0; T /.
Proof. This follows by direct calculations combining the arguments resulting in the
Propositions 2.1 and 6.2.
Remark 7.3. Now one can argue as in the Remarks 2.2 and 6.3 based on the homo-
geneity (2.15). Let us assume that there are numbers ı > 0 and T > 0 such that

(7.9)–(7.14) (with ˆ in place of ˆ) has a solution in Rn .0; T / if u0 2 Asp;q
u
.Rn /,

v0 2 Asp;q
v
.Rn /, w0 2 Asp;q
w
.Rn /n , with

u0 jAsu .Rn / ı; v0 jAsv .Rn / ı; w0 jAsw .Rn /n ı; (7.41)
p;q p;q p;q
for spaces covered by Definition 1.3. Then one asks whether u , v , w is a solution
of (7.9)–(7.14) with suitable initial data u0 ; v0 ; w0 in Rn .0; 2 T /. To answer this,
one has first to solve (7.32)–(7.40) (with ˆ .x/ D ˆ.x/), that is, by (2.17), (2.31),
and (6.35),

u0 jAsu .Rn / ı 2Csu pn ; > 0; (7.42)
p;q

v0 jAsv .Rn / ı sv pn ; > 0; (7.43)
p;q

w0 jAsw .Rn /n ı 1Csw pn ; > 0: (7.44)
p;q
By the above discussions one has now three critical spaces,

8
ˆ
ˆsu D p 2; cell-density;
n
<
Asp;q .Rn /; Asp;q .Rn / with s D sv D pn ; chemical; (7.45)
ˆ
:̂s D n 1; fluid:
w p
Inhomogeneous spaces with s u > su , s v > sv , s w > sw could be called respective

supercritical spaces for the corresponding initial data. According to Theorems 4.13
7.3 Chemotaxis Navier–Stokes nonlinearities 113
and 6.4, the solution spaces are smoother by 1 g with 0 < g 1. Otherwise we
proceed as in the case of the Keller–Segel equations in the Chapters 3 and 4 dealing
first with mapping properties of the related nonlinearities in (7.9)–(7.11). There is
a coupling between u; v, and w, making clear that the related spaces Asp;q .Rn / re-
specting separately s > su , s > sv , and s > ww cannot be chosen independently.
We take the Navier–Stokes equations as a guide and adapt the conditions for u and v
appropriately.
7.3 Chemotaxis Navier–Stokes nonlinearities

We extend the arguments in Chapter 3, where we dealt with mapping properties of
Keller–Segel nonlinearities, to the corresponding nonlinearities in (7.9)–(7.11). Let
z D .u; v; w/ and let
PX z D div .u rv/ C w ru; (7.46)

PY z D uv C w rv; (7.47)
PZ z D P Œdiv .w ˝ w/ u rˆ ; (7.48)
be the related nonlinearities. The question arises in which solution spaces (7.9)–
(7.14) should be considered. Guided by related discussions about critical
and super-
critical spaces in Chapter 2, one has the natural restriction s > p 1 in Theorem
n
C
4.13 as far as u is concerned. Its counterpart s > n=p in Theorem 6.4 for the Navier–
Stokes equations is again quite natural. This is also well reflected by (7.45) (critical
spaces for initial data). But now one has to care for the couplings of u; v; w in (7.46)–
(7.48). There might well be several reasonable choices of different solution spaces
for u; v; w. But we try to avoid here additional complications, and take the Navier–
Stokes assumption s > n=p (for the solution spaces) as a guide and adapt related
assumptions for the Keller–Segel ingredients appropriately.

Proposition 7.4. Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 max 12 ; pn .
Let " > 0. Then

PX z jAs1".Rn / c" u jAs .Rn / v jAsC1 .Rn / C w jAs .Rn /n ;
p;q p;q p;q p;q
(7.49)

PY z jA .R / c" v jA .R / u jA .R / C w jA .R /n ;
s" n sC1 n s n s n
p;q p;q p;q p;q
(7.50)
2
PZ z jAs1"
.R /n c" w jAp;q .R /n C c" ˆ jAp;q .R / u jAp;q .Rn /
n s n s n s
p;q
(7.51)
for some c" > 0 and all u 2 Asp;q .Rn /, v 2 AsC1

p;q .R /, w 2 Ap;q .R /n , and
n s n
ˆ 2 Ap;q .R /.
s n
Proof. Step 1. Let, in addition, s > 1. We rely on arguments similar to those used in
the proof of Proposition 3.1. Recall that Asp;q .Rn / with (3.5) is a multiplication alge-
bra according to (3.3), (3.4). Furthermore, we use the pointwise multiplier assertion
(3.14)–(3.16) with s 1 in place of s if 0 < s 1 < n=p. Let Asp;q .Rn / D Bp;q s
.Rn /

be of the indicated type, that is max 1; pn < s < pn C 1. Then one has

PX z jB s1 .Rn / c u rv jB s .Rn /n C c w ru jB s1 .Rn /
p;q p;q p;q

c u jBp;q
s
.Rn / v jBp;q
sC1
.Rn / C w jBp;q
s
.Rn /n :
(7.52)
If s > pn C 1, then (7.52) follows from (3.4) (all spaces involved are multiplication
algebras). All other spaces with s > 1 can be incorporated afterwards at the expense
of " > 0 (elementary embeddings as indicated in (3.29)). This proves (7.49) with
s > 1. The proof of (7.50), (7.51) is similar; here one uses in addition Proposition
6.1.
Step 2. Let, in addition, 1
2
< s < 1, that is max 1 n
;
2 p
< s < 1 and 1 < q < 1. By
(3.16), one has
1 1 1 1
0 ;q 0 .R / Bp;q .R / ,! Bp 0 ;q 0 .R /;
Bp1s C 0 D C 0 D 1;
n s n 1s n
(7.53)
p p q q
where we used s > 1 s, s > n

p
and 0 < 1 s < n
p0
. Then by the duality (3.33) one
obtains
s1
Bp;q .Rn / Bp;q
s
.Rn / ,! Bp;q
s1
.Rn /: (7.54)
s
This shows that Bp;q .Rn / is a pointwise multiplier space for Bp;q
s1
.Rn /. But then one
can argue as in Step 1, first for the above B-spaces and afterwards for all admitted
spaces Asp;q .Rn / at the expense of an " > 0. This applies also to the spaces Asp;q .Rn /
with s D 1.
Remark 7.5. Roughly speaking, the above proposition suggests to deal with the
smoothness assumptions u0 2 As1 p;q .R /, v0 2 Ap;q .R /, w0 2 Ap;q .R /n for
n s n s1 n
the initial data in (7.9)–(7.14), with s as in the above proposition (better adapted for-
mulations may be found in the Theorems 4.13, 6.4, and Theorem 7.6 below). This
should be compared with the critical spaces (7.45) for the cell-densities, the chemi-
cals, and the fluid vectors. In case of the chemicals the situation in (4.50)–(4.53) and
(7.9)–(7.14) is different, as indicated in (7.26). Nevertheless, one can take (7.45) as
a guide. Then s > n=p is natural both for the Navier–Stokes fluid and the chemical
The situation for the cell-density u is different compared to the case
to be consumed.
s > p 1n
in Theorem 4.13. Furthermore, one may ask of whether the addi-
C
tional assumption s > 1=2 in the above proposition can be removed. In some sense
we took the simplest case. It might well be possible that the conditions in the above
7.4 Main assertions 115
proposition can be relaxed if one uses more sophisticated multiplication properties

of function space of type (3.9)–(3.11). It might also be possible to take different p0 s
in the above proposition for the Navier–Stokes part on the one hand, and the Keller–
Segel part on the other hand.
7.4 Main assertions

We wish to combine the main assertions for Keller–Segel systems according to Theo-
rem 4.13 with their Navier–Stokes counterparts in Theorem 6.4. As far as the Keller–
Segel part is concerned, there are now differences both from the biological and math-
ematical points of view, which we indicated in (7.26). In (4.50)–(4.53) we solved
first (4.51), which is linear in the auto-attractant v, inserted the outcome in (4.50),
and dealt in Theorem 4.13 exclusively with the cell-density u. Afterwards we incor-
porated in Corollary 4.14 a related assertion for v. This is no longer possible if one
replaces v u by vu as indicated in (7.26). One has now to deal simultaneously
with u; v and w as described in (7.1)–(7.7) or, as preferred here, (7.9)–(7.14). But
apart from this one can use both the preceding notations and arguments, now based
on Proposition 7.4. In particular, let

L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / and L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn /n (7.55)
be the same spaces as before, normed according to (3.100) and (6.38), where again
a < 2 ensures that one can deal with these spaces in the framework of tempered
distributions.
As in (4.45), (4.46) and (6.39), (6.40), we convert (7.9)–(7.14) into a fixed point
problem relying again on the Duhamel formula (4.4), Proposition 4.1, and its vector-
valued counterpart. This means that we ask for fixed points in the space

L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / L1 .0; T /; a=2; AsC1 n
p;q .R /
(7.56)
L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn /n
for
Z t
Xu0 z.x; t/ D Wt u0 .x/ Wt PX z.; / d .x/; (7.57)
0
Z t
Yv0 z.x; t/ D Wt v0 .x/ Wt PY z.; / d .x/; (7.58)
0
Z t
Zw0 z.x; t/ D Wt w0 .x/ Wt PZ z.; / d .x/; (7.59)
0
with PX , PY , PZ as in (7.46)–(7.48).
As already indicated in the Sections 4.1 and 6.3
solutions u; v; w arising from related fixed point problems are called mild.
In addition to uniqueness (local in time, 0 < t < T ), one asks whether the solution is
strong, that is

u 2 C Œ0; T /; Ap;q .Rn / for all admitted u0 2 Ap;q .Rn /; (7.60)

v 2 C Œ0; T /; AC1
p;q .R /
n
for all admitted v0 2 AC1 n
p;q .R /; (7.61)

w 2 C Œ0; T /; Ap;q .Rn /n for all admitted w0 2 Ap;q .Rn /n : (7.62)

As before, C Œ0; T /; Ap;q .Rn /n is the space of all continuous functions up to t D 0

normed by (6.38) with a D 0, and similarly for the space C Œ0; T /; Ap;q .Rn / . Let
C 1 .Rn .0; T // and C 1 .Rn .0; T //n be as explained after (6.41).

Theorem 7.6. Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 max 1 n
;
2 p
.
(i) Let
0 < g 1; and a D 1 ~g with 0 < ~ < 1: (7.63)
Let
u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn /; v0 2 AsCg n
p;q .R /; w0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn /n : (7.64)
Then there is a number T , T > 0, such that (7.9)–(7.14) with ˆ 2

L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / has a unique mild solution

u 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / ; v 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; AsC1 n
p;q .R / ; (7.65)

w 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn /n : (7.66)
Furthermore,
u; v 2 C 1 .Rn .0; T // ; w 2 C 1 .Rn .0; T //n : (7.67)
(ii) If, in addition, q < 1;
0 < g 1; and a D 1 ~g with 1=2 < ~ < 1; (7.68)
then the above solution is strong, i.e., (7.60)–(7.62) with D s 1 C g.
Proof. The above assertions are the direct counterpart of the Theorems 4.3 and 6.4.
This applies also to the proof based on (7.57)–(7.59) and Proposition 7.4.

In Sections 4.6 and 6.4 we dealt with the stability and well-posedness of Keller–Segel
systems and Navier–Stokes equations. It is quite clear how corresponding definitions
and assertions look like. Also the related proofs, especially that of Corollary 6.6, can
be carried over to chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations. Nevertheless it seems to be
reasonable to give an explicit formulation.
Let again z D .u; v; w/ with u; v; w as in Theorem 7.6 (already used in (7.46)–
(7.48) and (7.57)–(7.59)). Put

z jA .Rn / D u jA .Rn / C v jAC1 .Rn / C w jA .Rn /n : (7.69)
p;q p;q p;q p;q
The problem (7.9)–(7.14) is called (locally) stable if for any " > 0 there exist a time
T > 0 and a ı > 0 such that
1
z .; t/ z 2 .; t/ jA .Rn / " (7.70)
p;q
for solutions z 1 ; z 2 according to Theorem 7.6 with D s 1 C g whenever

1
0t T and z z 2 jA .Rn / < ı (7.71)
0 0 p;q
for related initial data.

The problem (7.9)–(7.14) is said to be well-posed if there are unique mild
solutions which in addition are strong and stable in the above sense.
This is the direct extension of a corresponding formulation in Section 6.4 for Navier–
Stokes equations to chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations. Similarly one can extend
Corollary 6.6. According to the proof of Theorem 7.6 and the references given there,
we may assume that

z jL1 .0; T /; a=2; As .Rn / 1 (7.72)
p;q
for the solution z D .u; v; w/ in Theorem 7.6.

Corollary 7.7. Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 max 1 n
;
2 p
.
Let g; a; ~ be as in (7.68). Let z0l D 2
.ul0 ; v0l ; w0l / As1Cg
p;q where l D 1; 2.
.Rn /,
Let z l D .ul ; v l ; w l / be the corresponding solutions of (7.9)–(7.14) according to
Theorem 7.6, satisfying (7.65), (7.66) and (7.72) for some common T > 0. Then
1
z .; t/ z 2 .; t/ jAs1Cg .Rn / z 1 z 2 jAs1Cg .Rn / C ct g.~ 21 / ;
p;q 0 0 p;q
(7.73)
0 < t < T;
where c > 0 is independent of the initial data z0l and of t.
Proof. This is the direct counterpart of Corollary 6.6. One can argue in the same way
as there. One has to replace P in (6.53), (6.54) by PX , PY , PZ as in (7.46)–(7.48)
and (7.57)–(7.59).
Remark 7.8. By assumption, g.~ 12 / is positive. Then one can choose ı > 0 and
T > 0 in (7.71) such that one has (7.70) for given " > 0. In other words, (7.9)–(7.14)
with (7.68) is stable. If, in addition, q < 1, then it follows from Theorem 7.6(ii) that
the problem (7.9)–(7.14) is well-posed as explained above.
7.6 Double chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations

We described in (7.27)–(7.31) double chemotaxis models in Navier–Stokes fluids if
both auto-attractants v 1 produced and chemicals v 2 to be consumed are present as
indicated in (7.26). Our method is qualitative and local in time. One can expect
that one has a direct counterpart of Theorem 7.6. This is the case and we describe the
necessary modifications. Let now z D .u; v 1 ; v 2 ; w/. In the underlying nonlinearities
(7.46)–(7.48), PZ z remains unchanged, in (7.46) one has now v 1 C v 2 instead of v,
whereas PY z must be replaced by
PY 1 z D uv 1 C w rv 1 ; (7.74)
PY 2 z D v u C w rv :
2 2
(7.75)
Obvious counterparts of (7.49)–(7.51) with PY 1 z in place of PY z are complemented

by

PY 2 z jAs" .Rn /
p;q
(7.76)
c" v 2 jAsC1 .Rn / 1 C w jAs .Rn /n C c" u jAs .Rn / :
p;q p;q p;q
Although quite obvious, we formulate how the modified Theorem 7.6 looks like. If
one has (7.60)–(7.62) now with v 1 ; v 2 in place of v, we call related solutions strong.
Apart from this we use the previous notation.

Theorem 7.9. Let 2 n 2 N. Let 1 max 12 ; pn .
(i) Let
0<g1 and a D 1 ~g with 0 < ~ < 1: (7.77)
Let
u0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn /; v01 ; v02 2 AsCg n
p;q .R /; w0 2 As1Cg
p;q .Rn /n : (7.78)
Then there is a number T , T > 0, such that (7.27)–(7.31) with ˆ 2

L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / has a unique mild solution

u 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / ; v 1 ; v 2 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; AsC1 n
p;q .R / ;
(7.79)

w 2 L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn /n : (7.80)
7.7 Decay, positivity, and well-posedness 119
Furthermore,
u; v 1 ; v 2 2 C 1 .Rn .0; T // ; w 2 C 1 .Rn .0; T //n : (7.81)
0 < g 1; and a D 1 ~g with 1=2 < ~ < 1; (7.82)
then the above solution is strong in the indicated modification of (7.60)–(7.62) with
D s 1 C g.
Proof. This is the direct counterpart of Theorem 7.6, which in turn relies on Theo-
rems 4.3 and 6.4 and their proofs based on (7.57)–(7.59) and Proposition 7.4. This
must be complemented by (7.76), where one has now the two additional terms
2 sC1 n
v jA .R / and u jAs .Rn / : (7.83)
p;q p;q
We check the influence of these terms in our previous arguments. This can be done
in the same way as in the proof of Theorem 5.5: The related estimate in the proof of
Theorem 4.3 (and similarly for the Navier–Stokes equations and chemotaxis Navier–
Stokes equations) relies on (4.19) involving products of u and v in f according to
(4.17), (4.18). Then we distributed a in (4.19) with a=2 to the two factors. If one
has only one factor as in (7.83), then one can simply use a a=2 taking a > 0 and
assuming T 1. Otherwise one can argue as indicated above.
Remark 7.10. The arguments in the proofs of Theorems 5.5 and 7.9 show that there is
no problem to add linear terms in the related Keller–Segel, Navier–Stokes, or chemo-
taxis Navier–Stokes nonlinearities consisting otherwise of quadratic terms or prod-
ucts of two terms. This applies to the logistic terms in (7.25), which is the Navier–
Stokes version of (5.33). If higher powers or related products of u; v; w are involved,
then one needs the same modifications as in Corollary 5.6 and Proposition 5.11.
7.7 Decay, positivity, and well-posedness

We indicated in Section 5.5 that there is a good chance of being able to transfer fun-
damental properties for the classical Keller–Segel equations such as stability, well-
posedness, decay and, in particular, positivity to some models as considered in Chap-
ter 5. One may ask the same questions for the cell density u and the concentration
v of the chemical (or the concentration of the chemicals v 1 and v 2 ) in (7.1)–(7.7)
(or (7.27)–(7.31)). As far as stability and well-posedness are concerned, we have al-
ready Corollary 7.7. One can expect that there are corresponding assertions for the
double chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations as treated in Section 7.6. But the decay
properties as discussed in Section 4.7 have no direct counterpart. We discussed this
point in the Remarks 6.8 and 6.9. On the other hand, as indicated at the end of Re-
mark 6.9, Theorem 6.4 can be extended at least to some weighted spaces Asp;q .Rn ;
/
according to (4.82)–(4.84), where in particular 0
p < n.p 1/. Under these re-
strictions one can extend also Theorem 7.6 to these weighted spaces (1 < q < 1 for
F -spaces). Then one is in the same position as in Theorem 4.21, based on Theorem
4.19. Wegive a somewhat rough description. Let 2 n 2 N and 1 < p; q < 1. Let
s > max 1; pn . Let

1 1 1
n max 0; <
<n 1 ; 1 < p < 1: (7.84)
2 p p
Let u0 ; v0 ; w0 be as in (7.64) with .Rn ;

/ in place of .Rn /. Suppose that u0 .x/ 0,
v0 .x/ 0, x 2 Rn . Then
u.x; t/ 0; v.x; t/ 0; x 2 Rn ; 0 < t < T: (7.85)
One can follow the proof of Theorem 4.21 now based on the indicated
-version of
Theorem 7.6, applied to (7.1), (7.2) instead of (4.50). We omit the details.
We discussed in Remark 5.9 blow-up phenomena for Keller–Segel equations and
the attempts to modify these equations in order to avoid this effect. One may ask the
same questions with respect to (7.1)–(7.7) or (7.9)–(7.14). But this might be a tricky
task. One has now in addition Navier–Stokes equations, for which blow-up is a very
delicate question, as we already discussed in Remark 6.10.
Bibliography
[Adl75] J. Adler, Chemotaxis in bacteria. Ann. Rev. Biochem. 44 (1975), 341–356. [8, 37]
[AlK06] F. Albiac and N.J. Kalton, Topics in Banach Space Theory, Springer, New York,
2006. [93]
[Ama00] H. Amann, On the strong solvability of the Navier–Stokes equations. J. Math. Fluid
Mech. 2 (2000), 16–83. [95]
[AmA11] A. Ambrosetti and D. Arcoya, An Introduction to Nonlinear Functional Analysis
and Elliptic Problems, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2011. [82]
[Baa15] F. Baaske, Heat and Navier–Stokes equations in supercritical function spaces. Rev.
Mat. Complut. 28 (2015), 281–301. [9, 19]
[BGM08] R.E. Baker, E.A. Gaffney, and P.K. Maini, Partial differential equations for self–
organization in cellular and developmental biology. Nonlinearity 21 (2008), R251–
R290. [9, 75, 86]
[BBTW15] N. Bellomo, A. Bellouquid, Y. Tao, and M. Winkler, Towards a mathematical the-
ory of Keller–Segel models of pattern formation in biological tissues. Math. Mod-
els Methods Appl. Sciences 25 (2015), 1663–1763. [9, 40, 41, 70, 74, 78, 83,
107]
[BLM16] T. Black, J. Lankeit, and M. Mizukami, On the weakly competitive case in a two-
species chemotaxis model. arXiv (2016), Art. ID 1604.03529. [77]
[BMS10] G. Bourdaud, M. Moussai, and W. Sickel, Composition operators on Lizorkin–
Triebel spaces. J. Funct. Anal. 259 (2010), 1098–1128. [74]
[BMS14] G. Bourdaud, M. Moussai, and W. Sickel, Composition operators acting on Besov
spaces on the real line. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 193 (2014), 1519–1554. [74]
[BoS11] G. Bourdaud and W. Sickel, Composition operators on function spaces with frac-
tional order of smoothness. RIMS Kôkyûroku Bessatsu B26, Res. Inst. Math. Sci.
(RIMS), Kyoto, 2011, 93–132. [74]
[BoP08] J. Bourgain and N. Pavlović, Ill-posedness of the Navier–Stokes equations in a
critical space in 3D. J. Funct. Anal. 225 (2008), 2233–2247. [27]
[BoF13] F. Boyer and P. Fabrie, Mathematical Tools for the Study of the Incompressible
Navier–Stokes Equations and Related Models, Springer, New York, 2013. [95]
[BrM02] L. Brandolese and Y. Meyer, On the instantaneous spreading for the Navier–Stokes
system in the whole space. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 8 (2002), 273–285.
[104]
[BrV07] L. Brandolese and F. Vigneron, New asymptotic profiles of nonstationary solutions
of the Navier–Stokes system. J. Math. Pures Appl. 88 (2007), 64–86. [104]
[Bro00] F.E. Browder, Mathematical challenges of the 21st century. Notices Amer. Math.
Soc. 47 (2000), 324. [v]
[BuB91] E.O. Budrene and H.C. Berg, Complex patterns formed by motile cells Escherichia
coli. Nature 349 (1991), 630–633. [86]
122 Bibliography
[BuB95] E.O. Budrene and H.C. Berg, Dynamics of formation of symmetrical patterns of
chemotatic bacteria. Nature 376 (1995), 49–53. [86]
[CaL16] X. Cao and J. Lankeit, Global classical small-data solutions for a three-
dimensional chemotaxis Navier–Stokes system involving matrix-valued sensitiv-
ities. Calc. Var. Part. Diff. Equ. 55 (2016), 107. [41, 107]
[CoP06] L. Corrias and B. Perthame, Critical space for the parabolic-parabolic Keller–Segel
model in Rd . C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I, 342 (2006), 745–750. [40]
[CoP08] L. Corrias and B. Perthame, Asymptotic decay for the solutions of the parabolic-
parabolic Keller–Segel chemotaxis system in critical spaces. Math. Comput.
Model. 47 (2008), 755–764. [40]
[CPZ04] L. Corrias, B. Perthame, and H. Zaag, Global solutions of some chemotaxis and
angiogenesis systems in high space dimensions. Milan J. Math. 72 (2004), 1–28.
[40, 62]
[DeL14] C. Deng and T. Li, Well-posedness of a 3D parabolic-hyperbolic Keller–Segel sys-
tem in the Sobolev space framework. J. Diff. Equations 257 (2014), 1311–1332.
[27, 40]
[DeV14] C. Deng and J. Villavert, Ill-posedness of the two-dimensional Keller–Segel model
in Triebel–Lizorkin spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 95 (2014), 38–49. [27, 40]
[DeY13] C. Deng and X. Yao, Ill-posedness of the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations
1;q
in FP1 .R3 /. arXiv (2013), Art. ID 1302.7084. [27]
[DCCGK04] C. Dombrowski, L. Cisneros, S. Chatkaew, R.E. Goldstein, and J.O. Kessler, Self-
concentration and large-scale coherence in bacterial dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 93
(2004), 098103. [86, 107]
[DHDWBG13] J. Dunkel, S. Heidenreich, K. Drescher, H.H. Wensink, M. Bär, and R.E. Goldstein,
Fluid dynamics of bacterial turbulence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013), 228102. [107]
[ET96] D.E. Edmunds and H. Triebel, Function Spaces, Entropy Numbers, Differential
Operators, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996. [20, 53, 54, 75, 104]
[Fab09] G. Faber, Über stetige Funktionen. Math. Ann. 66 (1909), 81–94. [93]
[Fef06] C.L. Fefferman, Existence and smoothness of the Navier–Stokes equation. In The
millennium prize problems (C. Carlson, A. Jaffe, and A. Wiles, eds.), Amer. Math.
Soc., Providence, 2006, 57–77. [105]
[Fey80] R. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, 1980 (9th
printing, first ed. 1965). [vii]
[GaZ98] H. Gajewski and K. Zacharias, Global behaviour of a reaction-diffusion system
modelling chemotaxis. Math. Nachr. 195 (1998), 77–114. [9]
[Gal11] G.P. Galdi, An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of the Navier–Stokes
Equations, Springer, New York, 2011 (Sec. ed.). [109]
[GaP09] I. Gallagher and M. Paicu, Remarks on the blow-up of solutions to a toy model
for the Navier–Stokes equations. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 137 (2009), 2075–2083.
[105]
[GeL61] B.R. Gelbaum and J. Gil de Lamadrid, Bases of tensor products of Banach spaces.
Pacific J. Math. 11 (1961), 1281–1286. [93]
Bibliography 123
[HaT94] D.D. Haroske and H. Triebel, Entropy numbers in weighted function spaces and
eigenvalue distributions of some degenerate pseudo-differential operators I. Math.
Nachr. 167 (1994), 131–156. [53]
[HaT05] D.D. Haroske and H. Triebel, Wavelet bases and entropy numbers in weighted
function spaces. Math. Nachr. 278 (2005), 108–132. [55]
[Hil02] D. Hilbert, Mathematical problems. Bulletin Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1902), 437–479.
English translation by M.W. Newson with the approval of Hilbert of the German
original, Mathematische Probleme. Göttinger Nachrichten (1900), 253–297. [v]
[HiP09] T. Hillen and K.J. Painter, A user’s guide to PDE models for chemotaxis. J. Math.
Biol. 58 (2009), 183–217. [8, 9, 15, 20, 62, 70, 78]
[Hor03] D. Horstmann, From 1970 until present: The Keller–Segel model in chemotaxis
and its consequences I. Jahresbericht DMV 105 (2003), 103–165. [8, 9, 40, 62, 75,
78]
[Hor04] D. Horstmann, From 1970 until present: The Keller–Segel model in chemotaxis
and its consequences II. Jahresbericht DMV 106 (2004), 51–69. [8, 9, 40, 62, 75,
78]
[HoW05] D. Horstmann and M. Winkler, Boundedness vs. blow-up in a chemotaxis system.
J. Diff. Equations 215 (2005), 52–107. [83, 84]
[Iwa11] T. Iwabuchi, Global well-posedness of Keller–Segel system in Besov type spaces.
J. Math. Anal. Appl. 379 (2011), 930–948. [40]
[IwO16] T. Iwabuchi and T. Ogawa, Ill-posedness issue for the drift diffusion system in the
homogeneous Besov spaces. Osaka J. Math. 53 (2016), 919–939. [40]
[JaL92] W. Jäger and S. Luckhaus, On explosions of solutions to a system of partial dif-
ferential equations modelling chemotaxis. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 329 (1992),
819–824. [9]
[KMM07] N. Kalton, S. Mayboroda, and M. Mitrea, Interpolation of Hardy–Sobolev–Besov–
Triebel–Lizorkin spaces and applications to problems in partial differential equa-
tions. In Interpolation Theory and Applications, (L. De Carli and M. Milman,
eds.), Contemp. Math. 445, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 2007, 121–177. [31]
[KeS70] E.F. Keller and L.A. Segel, Initiation of slime mold aggregation viewed as an in-
stability. J. Theor. Biol. 26 (1970), 399–415. [8]
[KeS71] E.F. Keller and L.A. Segel, Model for chemotaxis. J. Theor. Biol. 30 (1971), 225–
234. [8]
[KMS16] H. Kozono, M. Miura, and Y. Sugiyama, Existence and uniqueness theorem on
mild solutions to the Keller–Segel system coupled with the Navier–Stokes fluid. J.
Funct. Anal. 270 (2016), 1663–1683. [90, 110]
[KoS09] H. Kozono and Y. Sugiyama, Global strong solution to the semi-linear Keller–
Segel system of parabolic-parabolic type with small data in scale invariant spaces.
J. Differ. Equations 247 (2009), 1–32. [40, 59]
[KoS10] H. Kozono and Y. Sugiyama, Strong solutions to the Keller–Segel system with the
weak Ln=2 initial data and its applications to the blow-up rate. Math. Nachr. 283
(2010), 732–751. [40]
[Kun15] P.C. Kunstmann, A new interpolation approach to spaces of Triebel–Lizorkin type.
Illinois J. Math. 59 (2015), 1–19. [109]
124 Bibliography
[KuU14] P. Kunstmann and A. Ullmann. Rs –sectorial operators and generalized Triebel–

Lizorkin spaces. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 20 (2014), 135–185. [109]
[Lan16] J. Lankeit, Long-term behaviour in a chemotaxis-fluid system with logistic source.
Math. Models Methods Appl. Sciences 26 (2016), 2071–2109. [41, 107, 110]
[Lem02] P.G. Lemarié-Rieusset, Recent Developments in the Navier–Stokes Problem, Chap-
man & Hall, Boca Raton, 2002. [95]
[Lem13] P.G. Lemarié-Rieusset, Small data in an optimal Banach space for the parabolic-
parabolic and parabolic-elliptic Keller–Segel equations in the whole spaces. Adv.
Diff. Equ. 18 (2013), 1189–1208. [10, 40]
[Lem16] P.G. Lemarié-Rieusset, The Navier–Stokes Problem in the 21st Century, Chapman
& Hall, Boca Raton, 2016. [95, 104, 105]
[LiS08] D. Li and Y.G. Sinai, Blow ups of complex solutions of the 3D Navier–Stokes
system and renormalization group method. J. Eur. Math. Soc. 10 (2008), 267–313.
[105]
[LiL97] E.H. Lieb and M. Loss, Analysis, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1997. [28]
[MPF91] D.S. Mitrinović, J.E. Pečarić, and A.M. Fink, Inequalities Involving Functions and
their Integrals and Derivatives, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1991. [59]
[Mon01] S. Montgomery-Smith, Finite time blow up for a Navier–Stokes like equation.
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 129 (2001), 3025–3029. [105]
[Mur93] J.D. Murray, Mathematical Biology. Springer, Berlin, 1993 (Sec. ed.). [vii, 8, 84,
86]
[Mur02] J.D. Murray, Mathematical Biology. I: An Introduction, Springer, New York, 2002
(Third ed.). [76]
[Mur03] J.D. Murray, Mathematical biology. II: Spatial Models and Biomedical Applica-
tions, Springer, New York, 2003 (Third ed.). [8, 84, 86]
[MMMW90] M.R. Myerscough, P.K. Maini, J.D. Murray, and K.H. Winters, Two-dimensional
pattern formation in a chemotactic system. In Dynamics of Complex Intercon-
nected Biological Systems (T.L. Vincent, A.I. Mees, and L.S. Jennings, eds.),
Birkhäuser, Boston, 1990, 65–83. [75]
[MMP98] M.R. Myerscough, P.K. Maini, and K.J. Painter, Pattern formation in a generalised
chemotatic model. Bull. Math. Biol. 60 (1998), 1–26. [75]
[NaO11] E. Nakaguchi and K. Osaki, Global existence of solutions to a parabolic-parabolic
system for chemotaxis with weak degradation. Nonlinear Anal. 74 (2011), 286–
297. [74]
[NaO13] E. Nakaguchi and K. Osaki, Global solutions and exponential attractors of a
parabolic-parabolic system for chemotaxis with subquadratic degradation. Dis-
crete Cont. Dynam. Systems, Ser. B 18 (2013), 2627–2646. [74]
[NaO16] E. Nakaguchi and K. Osaki. Lp -estimates of solutions to n-dimensional parabolic-
parabolic system for chemotaxis with subquadratic degradation. Funkcial. Ekvac.
59 (2016), 51–66. [74, 75]
[Nan73] V. Nanjundiah, Chemotaxis, signal relaying and aggregation morphology. J. Theor.
Biol. 42 (1973), 63–105. [8]
Bibliography 125
[Per07] B. Perthame, Transport Equations in Biology, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2007. [45, 76,
78, 86]
[Per15] B. Perthame, Parabolic Equations in Biology, Springer, Cham, Heidelberg, 2015.
[9, 59, 62, 65, 69, 76, 78, 86]
[Rei70] C. Reid, Hilbert, Springer, Berlin, 1970. [v]
[RuS96] T. Runst and W. Sickel, Sobolev Spaces of Fractional Order, Nemytskij Operators,
and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations, W. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1996. [74,
75]
[Scha27] J. Schauder, Zur Theorie stetiger Abbildungen in Funktionalräumen. Math. Z. 26
(1927), 47–65. [93]
[Schm07] H.-J. Schmeisser, Recent developments in the theory of function spaces with dom-
inating mixed smoothness. In Proceedings Nonlinear Analysis, Function Spaces
and Applications 8, (J. Rákosnik, ed.), Inst. Math. Acad. Sci. Czech Republic,
Praha, 2007, 145–204. [93]
[Sem63] Z. Semadeni, Product Schauder bases and approximation with nodes in spaces of
continuous functions. Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. Sér. Sci. Math. Astronom. Phys. 11
(1963), 387–391. [93]
[Sem82] Z. Semadeni, Schauder Bases in Banach Spaces of Continuous Functions. Lect.
Notes Math. 918, Springer, Berlin, 1982. [93]
[SiT95] W. Sickel and H. Triebel, Hölder inequalities and sharp embeddings in function
s and F s type. Z. Anal. Anwendungen 14 (1995), 105–140. [19, 20]
spaces of Bpq pq
[SiU09] W. Sickel and T. Ullrich, Tensor products of Sobolev–Besov spaces and applica-
tions to approximation from the hyperbolic cross. J. Approx. Theory 161 (2009),
748–786. [93]
[Sma74] D.R. Smart, Fixed Point Theorems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1974.
[82]
[Ste93] E.M. Stein, Harmonic Analysis: Real Variable Methods, Orthogonality, and Os-
cillatory Integrals, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1993. [103]
[Tao13] T. Tao, Localisation and compactness properties of the Navier–Stokes global reg-
ularity problem. Anal. PDE 6 (2013), 25–107. [105]
[Tao16] T. Tao, Finite time blowup for an averaged three-dimensional Navier–Stokes equa-
tion. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 29 (2016), 601–674. [105]
[TaW15] Y. Tao and M. Winkler, Persistence of mass in a chemotaxis system with logistic
source. J. Differ. Equations 259 (2015), 6142–6161. [70]
[T78] H. Triebel, Interpolation Theory, Function Spaces, Differential Operators, North-
Holland, Amsterdam, 1978. (Sec. ed. Barth, Heidelberg, 1995). [24, 28]
[T83] H. Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1983. [2, 4, 5, 23, 31]
[T84] H. Triebel, Mapping properties of non-linear operators generated by ˆ.u/ D juj%
and by holomorphic ˆ.u/ in function spaces of Besov–Hardy–Sobolev type.
Boundary value problems for elliptic differential equations of type u D f .x/ C
ˆ.u/. Math. Nachr. 117 (1984), 193–213. [75]
[T92] H. Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces II, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1992. [2, 4, 5, 7, 24,
29]
126 Bibliography
[T01] H. Triebel, The Structure of Functions, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2001. [57, 75]
[T06] H. Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces III, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2006. [2, 4, 7, 55]
[T08] H. Triebel, Function Spaces and Wavelets on Domains, European Math. Soc. Pub-
lishing House, Zürich, 2008. [10, 24, 55]
[T10] H. Triebel, Bases in Function Spaces, Sampling, Discrepancy, Numerical Integra-
tion, European Math. Soc. Publishing House, Zürich, 2010. [87, 88, 89, 90, 91,
92, 93]
[T13] H. Triebel, Local Function Spaces, Heat and Navier–Stokes Equations, European
Math. Soc. Publishing House, Zürich, 2013. [7, 9, 19, 25, 28, 33, 34, 39, 41, 42,
44, 55, 56, 58, 83, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101]
[T14] H. Triebel, Hybrid Function Spaces, Heat and Navier–Stokes Equations, European
Math. Soc. Publishing House, Zürich, 2014. [4, 7, 9, 19, 24, 33, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41,
42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, 55, 61, 83, 90, 95, 97, 100, 101, 102, 103]
[T15] H. Triebel, Tempered Homogeneous Function Spaces, European Math. Soc. Pub-
lishing House, Zürich, 2015. [4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 68, 75, 84, 95, 98, 99, 100]
[T16] H. Triebel, Tempered homogeneous function spaces II. Contemp. Math. (to ap-
pear), 2016. [5, 6, 7, 14, 68, 84]
[T16a] H. Triebel, Tempered homogeneous function spaces II. arXiv (2016), Art. ID
1601.00432 v2. [5, 6, 7, 14, 68, 84]
[TCDWKG05] I. Tuval, L. Cisneros, C. Dombrowski, C.W. Wolgemuth, J.O. Kessler, and R.E.
Goldstein. Bacterial swimming and oxygen transport near contact lines. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 102(7) (2005), 2277–2282. [41, 86, 107]
[Vig05] F. Vigneron, Spatial decay of the velocity field of an incompressible viscous fluid
in Rd . Nonlinear Anal. 63 (2005), 525–549. [103, 104]
[Wig60] E.P. Wigner, The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sci-
ences. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 13 (1960), 1–14. [vii]
[Win12] M. Winkler, Global large-data solutions in a chemotaxis-(Navier–)Stokes sys-
tem modelling cellular swimming in fluid drops. Comm. Part. Diff. Equations 37
(2012), 319–351. [107]
[Win15] M. Winkler, How far do chemotaxis-driven forces influence regularity in the
Navier–Stokes system? Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. (to appear). [41, 107]
[Yon10] T. Yoneda, Ill-posedness of the 3D-Navier–Stokes equations in a generalized
Besov space near BMO1 . J. Funct. Anal. 258 (2010), 3376–3387. [27]
Symbols

Sets F sp;q .Rn /, 6
Ap .Rn /, 103 s
Fp;q .Rn ;
/, 53
C, 1 h.Q/, 88
N, N0 , 1 Hps .Rn /, 3
Nn0 , 1 Lp .Rn /, 1
Rn , R, 1 Lp .Rn ;
/, 53
Pm , 71 div L2 .Rn /n , 96

Pk , 87 L1 .0; 1/; Asp;q .Rn / , 80
P k , 89
L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / , 33, 41
Q D .0; 1/2, 87
L1 .0; T /; a=2; Asp;q .Rn / n , 100
Tn , 10
S.Rn /, S 0 .Rn /, 1
Z, Zn , 1
Sp1 W .R2 /, 87
ı
S 1 H.Q/, S 1 H .Q/, 87
Spaces S 1=2 C .Q/, 91
Asp;q .Rn /, 2 Wpk .Rn /, 2

Asp;q .Rn /, 5
Asp;q .Rn ;
/, 52 Operators
Asp;q .Rn /n , 97 b
' , F ', 1
Ap;q .Rn /, 117 ' _ , F 1 ', 1
div Asp;q .Rn /n , 97 I , 3
s
Bp;q .Rn /, 2 K , 28, 65
P , 65
B sp;q .Rn /, 6, P, 96
s
Bp;q .Rn ;
/, 53 Rj , 28
C.Q/, 88 Wt , 4
ı
C .Q/, 89
C s .Rn /, 3
Functions, functionals
C 1=2 .Q/, 90 aC , 10

C s .Rn /, 5 ai bi , viii
C .Œ0; T /; X.Rn //, 40 @j , @m
j ,1
s
Fp;q .Rn /, 2 @t , @m
t ,5
128 Symbols
D˛ , 1 fC , fC .x/, 57
lh , 3 r, 8, 95
, 8 'k , 1
div , 8, 95 Tu0 , 33
div u ˝ u, 96 w , 52
Index
Bacillus subtilis, 86, 107 fluid, Navier–Stokes, double chemotaxis,

basis, Faber, 87, 88 110
basis, Faber–Schauder, 93 formula, Duhamel, 33, 36, 39
blow-up, 75, 105, 120 Fourier transform, 1
cell density, 8 heat kernel, 4

chemical signal, 8
chemo-attractant, 62 inequality, Gronwall, 59
chemo-repellent, 62
chemotaxis, 8, 110 Jeremiah, 85
chemotaxis, positive, 62 Judah, 85
chemotaxis, negative, 62
constant, damping, 9, 62
leopard, 85, 89
Leopardi, 90
decay property, 52, 85, 104, 120
lift, 3, 104
decomposition, Helmholtz–Weyl, 108
Littlewood–Paley theorem, 2
Dictyostelium discoideum, 8, 86, 107
diffusion, 9, 65, 76
memory, 37
drift, 65
millennium prize problem, 105
duality, 23, 54
model, competing species, 76
model, density-dependent sensitivity, 77
equations, Fokker–Planck, 65
model, logistic terms, 69, 110
equations, Keller–Segel, 8
model, minimal, 9
equations, Navier–Stokes, 95
model, parabolic-elliptic, homogeneous,
equations, Navier–Stokes, chemotaxis, 27, 44
107
model, parabolic-elliptic, inhomoge-
Escherichia coli, 86 neous, 21, 41
evaluation, 9-point, 90, 93 model, parabolic-parabolic, 9, 32, 35, 45,
47
Faber device, vii, 93 model, two-species competition, 76
Faber frame, gliding, 93, model, volume-filling, 78
Faber–Schauder frame, 93 Muckenhoupt class, 103
Feynman, vii multi-index, 1
130 Index
multiplication algebra, 19 space, critical, 10, 16, 68, 98, 111

multiplication property, 20, 53 space, Hölder–Zygmund, 3, 43
multiplier, pointwise, 20, 24 space, homogeneous, 5, 7,
Murray, vii space, inhomogeneous, 2, 8
space, periodic, 10
Navier–Stokes equation, cheap, 105 space, Sobolev, 3
space, Sobolev, classical, 2
peaks, 89 space, supercritical, 10, 15, 27, 68, 98,
positivity, 57, 119 111
projector, Leray, 96, 104 space, tempered homogeneous, 5
property, conservation, 60 space, weighted, 52
spiral, 93
quasi-norm, admissible, 4 stability, 49, 102, 103, 117
Stampacchia, 59
resolution of unity, 1 stripes, 91
Riesz potential, 28 subspace, leopardean, 90
Riesz transform, 28, 96, 103, 104 subspace, zebroid, 91
system, Lotka–Volterra, 76
scaling heuristics, 8, 17 system, parabolic-elliptic, 9
Schauder, 93, system, parabolic-parabolic, 9
semi-group, Gauss–Weierstrass, 4
sensitivity, chemotactic, 62, 83 The Lord, 85
solution, mild, 40 troughs, 89
solution, self-similar, 8 time-memory, 37
solution, strong, 40 truncation property, 57
solution, well-posed, 49
space, Besov, classical, 4 well-posed, 49, 85, 102, 117
Series of Lectures in Mathematics
Hans Triebel
Hans Triebel
PDE Models for Chemotaxis and
Hydrodynamics in
Supercritical Function Spaces
Hans Triebel
PDE Models for Chemotaxis and Hydrodynamics in Supercritical Function Spaces

PDE Models for
This book deals with PDE models for chemotaxis (the movement of biological
cells or organisms in response of chemical gradients) and hydrodynamics
(viscous, homogeneous, and incompressible fluid filling the entire space). The
Chemotaxis and
underlying Keller–Segel equations (chemotaxis), Navier–Stokes equations
(hydrodynamics), and their numerous modifications and combinations are
treated in the context of inhomogeneous spaces of Besov–Sobolev type paying
Hydrodynamics
special attention to mapping properties of related nonlinearities. Further
models are considered, including (deterministic) Fokker–Planck equations and
chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations.
These notes are addressed to graduate students and mathematicians having

a working knowledge of basic elements of the theory of function spaces,
especially of Besov-Sobolev type and interested in mathematical biology and
in Supercritical
physics.
Function Spaces
ISBN 978-3-03719-172-9
www.ems-ph.org
Triebel_ELM | Rotis Sans | Pantone 287, Pantone 116 | RB: 7.2mm

2017 (Book) PDE Models For Chemotaxis and Hydrodynamics in Supercritical Function Spaces

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2017 (Book) PDE Models For Chemotaxis and Hydrodynamics in Supercritical Function Spaces

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Series of Lectures in Mathematics

PDE Models for Chemotaxis and Hydrodynamics in Supercritical Function Spaces

These notes are addressed to graduate students and mathematicians having

Triebel_ELM | Rotis Sans | Pantone 287, Pantone 116 | RB: 7.2mm

EMS Series of Lectures in Mathematics is a book series aimed at students, professional

PDE Models for

© European Mathematical Society 2017

Phone: +41 (0)44 632 34 36

The purposes of the meeting are twofold:

. . . I am interested not so much in the human mind as in the marvel of

The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for

These notes deal with applications of the theory of inhomogeneous function

mixed smoothness, as reliable numerical schemes to describe peaks, troughs, stripes,

c1 ai bi c2 ai for all i 2 I : (0.2)

2 Critical and supercritical spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3 Mapping properties of Keller–Segel nonlinearities . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4 Equations of Keller–Segel type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5 Further PDE models for chemotaxis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

7 Chemotaxis Navier–Stokes equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

1.1 Function spaces

Let as usual @j D @=@xj , @m

Definition 1.1. Let ' D f'j g1

.with the usual modification if q D 1/.

.with the usual modification if q D 1/.

Remark 1.2. As usual Asp;q .Rn / with A 2 fB; F g means Bp;q s

is the well-known Littlewood–Paley theorem.

Wpk .Rn / D Fp;2

are the classical Sobolev spaces usually equivalently normed by

This generalizes (1.11).

(iii) Let 2 R. Then

where x 2 Rn , h 2 Rn , l 2 N, be the iterated differences in Rn . Let 0 < s < m 2 N.

(with the usual modification if q D 1) are equivalent norms in Bp;q s

is essentially covered by [T92, Theorem, p. 152]. Additional explanations may be

kf jC s .Rn /k D sup t s=2 jWt f .x/j ; s < 0; (1.31)

is an admissible equivalent norm in C s .Rn /, according to (1.19). One can extend

is finite (usual modification if q D 1). This is covered by [T92, Theorem 2.6.4,

Definition 1.3. Let n 2 N.

Proof. This follows by direct calculations, as detailed in [T15, p. 61].

Proposition 1.7. Let n 2 N.

(ii) Let 1 < p < 1, 1 q 1 and

homogeneity property, and so are called inhomogeneous spaces (especially if both

@t u D u  div .u rv/; (1.49)

˛  0 (again with ˛ > 0 of biological relevance). Whereas in (1.45), (1.46) it

both cases (Navier–Stokes and Keller–Segel) one examines homogeneity properties

0 < p 1, n  2. Here aC D max.a; 0/ for a 2 R. We return to this point in

latter will be recalled below in (4.82)–(4.84). According to (4.91)–(4.96), one has

Let  > 0 and

u .x; t/ D 2 u.x; 2 t/; x 2 Rn ; t > 0: (2.3)

With v .x; t/ D v.x; 2 t/ one has

 v .x; t/ D u .x; t/; x 2 Rn ; t > 0; (2.4)

In particular, u , v solves again (2.1), (2.2).

Proposition 2.1. Let  > 0 and u0 D u0 .x/, x 2 Rn . Let u D u .x; t/, v D

u .x; t/ D 2 u .x; 2 t/; x 2 Rn , 0 t < 2 T ; (2.9)

v D u ; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < 2 T ; (2.12)

Proof. This follows from the above considerations, in particular (2.1)–(2.5).

Remark 2.2. In other words, if u; v is a solution of (2.1), (2.2) in Rn .0; T / with

then u , v solves (2.11)–(2.13). This suggests to call the spaces

Proposition 2.3. Let  > 0, u0 D u0 .x/ and v0 D v0 .x/, x 2 Rn . Let u D

u .x; t/ D 2 u .x; 2 t/; x 2 Rn , 0 t < 2 T ; (2.24)

Proof. One has to modify (2.1)–(2.5) appropriately.

Remark 2.4. Although quite similar, it seems to be reasonable to formulate the

Remark 2.5. The counterparts of (2.16), (2.17) are given by

The exponent 2 C s  is (2.17) is now shifted to s  pn in (2.31). The difference of

@t u D u div .u rv/; (1.49)

˛ 0 (again with ˛ > 0 of biological relevance). Whereas in (1.45), (1.46) it

0 < p 1, n 2. Here aC D max.a; 0/ for a 2 R. We return to this point in

Let > 0 and

u .x; t/ D 2 u.x; 2 t/; x 2 Rn ; t > 0: (2.3)

With v .x; t/ D v.x; 2 t/ one has

v .x; t/ D u .x; t/; x 2 Rn ; t > 0; (2.4)

Proposition 2.1. Let > 0 and u0 D u0 .x/, x 2 Rn . Let u D u .x; t/, v D

u .x; t/ D 2 u .x; 2 t/; x 2 Rn , 0 t < 2 T ; (2.9)

v D u ; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < 2 T ; (2.12)

Proposition 2.3. Let > 0, u0 D u0 .x/ and v0 D v0 .x/, x 2 Rn . Let u D

u .x; t/ D 2 u .x; 2 t/; x 2 Rn , 0 t < 2 T ; (2.24)

The exponent 2 C s is (2.17) is now shifted to s pn in (2.31). The difference of

Asp;q .Rn / Asp;q .Rn / ,! Asp;q .Rn /: (3.4)

Here we used that ˛ > 0, s C 1 > pn , s 1 > 0, well-known embeddings, and a

for p; s as in (3.21) and some q 1.

as illustrated in Figure PE, ˛ > 0, p. 22. Then p > n2 1 and

s > 0 and 1 p; q 1 (p < 1 for F -spaces). If pn 1 < s < pn , then it

L0 W Asp;q .Rn / ,! Asp;q .Rn /; (3.49)

as indicated in Figure PE, ˛ > 0, p. 22. If 1 p n, then one has > pn 2,

Rj W Asp;q .Rn / ,! Asp;q .Rn /; s 2 R; 1 < p < 1; 0 < q 1 (3.60)

K W Asp;q .Rn / ,! Asw;q .Rn /; s 2 R; 1<p< ; D ; (3.63)

f .y/ D f .y; / D div .urv/.y; /; y 2 Rn ; > 0; (3.99)

0 < 1 a < g 1: (3.101)

@t W .x; t/ W .x; t/ D f .x; t/; x 2 Rn , t > 0, (4.2)

With f .y/ D f .y; / one has the Duhamel formula

@t u u C div .urv/ D 0; x 2 Rn , 0 < t < T ; (4.9)

0<g1 and a D 1 ~g with 1=2 < ~ < 1 (4.15)