## Effect of weak elasticity on the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability

Binqiang Xie † , Boling Guo ‡ , Bin Zhao ‡ ∗ ,

† School of Mathematics and Statistics,

Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510006, China

‡ Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics, Beijing, 100088, China

## Abstract

In this paper, we present an analysis of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in two-dimensional ideal compressible elastic flows, providing a rigorous confirmation that weak elasticity has a destabilizing effect on the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. There are two critical velocities, U low and U upp , where U low and U upp represent the lower and upper critical velocities, respectively. We demonstrate that when the magnitude of the rectilinear solutions satisfies U low + c/epsilon1 0 ≤ | ˙ v + 1 | ≤ U upp -c/epsilon1 0 , the linear and nonlinear ill-posedness of the piecewise smooth solutions of the KelvinHelmholtz problem for two-dimensional ideal compressible elastic fluids is established uniformly, where c is the sound speed and /epsilon1 0 is some small enough positive constant.

Keywords: Free boundary, Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, Two-dimensional elastic flow.

2020 Mathematics Subject Classification: 35Q35, 35D35.

## 1 Introduction

In this paper, we will prove that weak elasticity has a destabilizing effect on the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability for the ideal compressible elastic fluids. The two-dimensional compressible inviscid elastodynamics in the domain R 2 for time t ≥ 0 is considered as the following form:

$$\begin{cases} \partial _ { t } \rho + \text{div} ( \rho u ) = 0, \\ \partial _ { t } ( \rho v ) + \text{div} ( \rho u \otimes u ) + \nabla p = \text{div} ( \rho F F ^ { T } ), & ( 1. 1 ) \\ \partial _ { t } ( \rho F _ { j } ) + \text{div} ( u \otimes \rho F _ { j } - \rho F _ { j } \otimes u ) = 0, \\ \text{ions } \rho, u, p \text{ and } F _ { j } \text{ represent the fluid density, the velocity, the pressure and the } j \text{th} \\ \text{information gradient } F _ { \cdots } i. \, i = 1. 2 \text{resinctively. $n$ is a $C^{\infty}$ function of $a$ defined on} \end{cases}$$

where the functions ρ , u , p and F j represent the fluid density, the velocity, the pressure and the j th column of the deformation gradient F ij , i, j = 1 2 respectively, , p is a C ∞ function of ρ , defined on (0 + , ∞ ), and such that p ′ ( ρ ) &gt; 0 for all ρ . The speed of sound c ρ ( ) in the fluid is defined by the relation:

$$\forall \rho > 0, \ c ( \rho ) = \sqrt { p ^ { \prime } ( \rho ) }. & & ( 1. 2 ) \\ \text{nented by the divergence constraint}$$

The system (1.1) is supplemented by the divergence constraint

$$\text{div} ( \rho F _ { j } ) = 0, \ j = 1, 2$$

*Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: zhaobin2017math@163.com(B. Zhao), xbqmath@gdut.edu.cn(B.Q. Xie), gbl@iapcm.ac.cn(B.L. Guo).

and this property holds at any time if it is satisfied initially.

Assume U t, x ( 1 , x 2 ) = ( ρ, u, F )( t, x 1 , x 2 ) to be the solution of the system (1.1) which is smooth on each side of the surface Γ( ) := t { x 2 = f ( t, x 1 ) } , here function f describing the discontinuity front is part of the unknown of the problem, i.e. this is a free boundary problem and x 1 is tangential coordinate. The whole space R 2 can be seperated by Γ( ) into the upper domain Ω t + ( ) t and the lower domain Ω -( ), which are defined by t

$$\Omega ^ { + } ( t ) \coloneqq \{ x _ { 2 } > f ( t, x _ { 1 } ) \},$$

and

$$\Omega ^ { - } ( t ) \coloneqq \{ x _ { 2 } < f ( t, x _ { 1 } ) \}.$$

We denote the solutions of the upper and lower fluids by

$$U = \begin{cases} U ^ { + } ( t, x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ), & \text{in } \Omega ^ { + } ( t ), \\ U ^ { - } ( t, x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ), & \text{in } \Omega ^ { - } ( t ), \end{cases}$$

where U ± = ( ρ ± , u ± , F ± ). As we are interested in the smooth solutions of (1.1) on either side of Γ( ), such piecewise smooth solutions t U to be weak solutions of (1.1) should satisfy the RankineHugoniot conditions:

$$& \text{litions} \colon \\ & \quad \begin{cases} \partial _ { t } f [ \rho ] - [ \rho u \cdot n ] = 0, \\ \partial _ { t } f [ \rho u ] - [ ( \rho u \cdot n ) u ] - [ p ] n + [ \rho F F ^ { T } n ] = 0, \\ \partial _ { t } f [ \rho F _ { j } ] - [ ( \rho u \cdot n ) \rho F _ { j } ] + [ ( \rho F _ { j } \cdot n ) u ] = 0, \\ [ \rho F _ { j } \cdot n ] = 0, \end{cases} \\ & \text{tion} \ [ \phi ] = \phi ^ { + } | _ { \Gamma ( t ) } - \phi ^ { - } | _ { \Gamma ( t ) } \text{ denotes the jump of a quantity } \phi \, \text{ across } \Gamma ( t ), \, n = ( - \partial _ { 1 } f, 1 ) \\ & \text{tor to } \Gamma ( t ) \, \text{ with } \partial _ { 1 } = \partial / \partial x _ { 1 }. \, \text{ If we denote mass transfer flux by } S ^ { \pm } = \rho ^ { \pm } ( \partial _ { t } f - u ^ { \pm } \cdot n ),$$

 where the notation [ φ ] = φ + | Γ( ) t -φ -| Γ( ) t denotes the jump of a quantity φ across Γ( ), t n = ( -∂ f, 1 1) is a normal vector to Γ( ) with t ∂ 1 = ∂/∂x 1 . If we denote mass transfer flux by S ± = ρ ± ( ∂ f t -u ± · n ), in according with the first condition in (1.5), we get [ S ] = 0. In order to induce Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, we assume that S ± = 0 and F ± j · n = 0 on Γ( ). t Therefore, for Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions (1.5) give the boundary conditions

$$p ^ { + } = p ^ { - }, \ \partial _ { t } f = u ^ { + } \cdot n = u ^ { + } \cdot n, \ F _ { j } ^ { + } \cdot n = F _ { j } ^ { - } \cdot n = 0 \ \ o n \ \Gamma ( t ). \quad \ \ ( 1. 6 ) \\ \dots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots$$

To complete the statement of the problem, we specify initial conditions. For the initial front f (0), we give the initial interface Γ(0) = { x 2 = f (0 , x 1 ) = f 0 ( x 1 ) } , which yields the open sets Ω ± (0) on which we specify the initial density, velocity and deformation gradient, ρ ± (0) = ρ ± 0 : Ω (0) ± → R + , u ± (0) = u ± 0 : Ω (0) ± → R 2 and F ± (0) = F ± 0 : Ω (0) ± → R 2 × 2 , respectively.

Because p ′ ( ρ ) &gt; 0, the function p = p ρ ( ) can be inverted, allowing us to write ρ = ρ p ( ). Given a positive constant ˙ ρ &gt; 0, we introduce the quantity σ p ( ) = log( ρ p /ρ ( ) ˙) and consider σ as a new unknown quantity. In terms of ( σ, u, F ), the equations (1.1) become

$$\text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text{array: } \text` \\ \text{end of sound is considered as a function of } \sigma, i. e., c = c ( \sigma ). \\ \text{conditions } ( 1. 6 ) \, \text{may be rewritten as}$$

The jump conditions (1.6) may be rewritten as

 where the speed of sound is considered as a function of σ , i.e., c = ( ). c σ

$$u ^ { + } \cdot n = u ^ { - } \cdot n, \ \sigma ^ { + } = \sigma ^ { - }, \ F _ { j } ^ { + } \cdot n = F _ { j } ^ { - } \cdot n = 0 \text{ on } \ \Gamma ( t ).$$

## 1.1. Rectilinear solution

It is easy to see that the system (1.1)-(1.6) admits contant solutions ˙ U = ( ˙ f, ρ, u, F ˙ ˙ ˙ ) with the corresponding interface satisfying Γ := { x 2 = 0 } for all t ≥ 0. Then the corresponding domain satisfies Ω + = Ω + ( ) = t R × (0 , ∞ ) and Ω -= Ω -( ) = t R × -∞ ( , 0) for all t ≥ 0. More precisely, the front is flat, i.e., ˙ f = 0. To make sure the constant density ˙ ρ ± satisfy the jump condition (1.5), we must impose that

$$\dot { \rho } ^ { + } = \dot { \rho } ^ { - } = \colon \dot { \rho },$$

where ˙ ρ is a positive constant. Under a Galiean transformation, we may assume that the upper fluid moves in the horizontal direction with some constant velocity and the lower fluid moves by the same constant velocity in the opposite direction, i.e, the constant velocity field ˙ u is the following form:

$$\dot { u } = \begin{cases} ( \dot { u } _ { 1 } ^ { + }, 0 ) & x _ { 2 } \geq 0, \\ ( \dot { u } _ { 1 } ^ { - }, 0 ) & x _ { 2 } < 0, \end{cases}$$

where the constants ˙ u + 1 , u ˙ -1 satisfy

$$\begin{smallmatrix}. \\ & & \dot { u } _ { 1 } ^ { + } = - \dot { u } _ { 1 } ^ { - }. \\ & & &. \end{smallmatrix}$$

Under the change of the scale of measurement, the constant deformation gradient ˙ F is the following form:

$$\dot { F } = \left \{ \left [ \begin{array} { c c } \dot { F } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } & \dot { F } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right ] & x _ { 2 } \geq 0, \\ \left [ \begin{array} { c c } \dot { F } _ { 1 1 } ^ { - } & \dot { F } _ { 1 2 } ^ { - } \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right ] & x _ { 2 } < 0, \\ ^ { + } _ { 1 }, \dot { F } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + }, \dot { F } _ { 1 1 } ^ { - }, \dot { F } _ { 1 2 } ^ { - } \text{ satisfy}$$

 where the constants ˙ F + 11 , F ˙ + 12 , F ˙ -11 , F ˙ -12 satisfy

$$\dot { F } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } = - \dot { F } _ { 1 1 } ^ { - }, \ \dot { F } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } = - \dot { F } _ { 1 2 } ^ { - }.$$

## 1.2. History result

In Chandrasekhar's book [2], the stability problem of superposed fluids can be divided into two kinds, the first kind of instability is called Rayleigh-Taylor instability. There are lot of works about mathematical analysis of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability problem ([1], [16], [17],[18],[21], [22]). Ebin in [14] proved the instability for the Rayleigh-Taylor problem of the incompressible Euler equation, while Guo and Tice in [17] showed the instability of this problem for the compressible inviscid case. Moreover, the Rayleigh-Taylor instability for the viscous compressible fluids was proved in [18] and for the inhomogeneous Euler equation in [21]. The second type of instability arises when the different layer of stratified heterogeneous fluids are in relative horizontal motion. In this paper, we study the second kind.

The stability problem of two fluids in a relative motion has attracted a wide interest of researchers of various fields. This type of instability is well known as the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability which was first studied by Hermann von Helmholtz in [20] and by William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) in [23]. The Kelvin-Helmholtz instability is important in understanding a variety of space and astrophysical phenomena involving sheared plasma flow such as the stability of the interface between the solar

wind and the magnetosphere ([11],[19], [30]), interaction between adjacent streams of different velocities in the solar wind [33] and the dynamic structure of cometary tails [12].

There are a lot of progress on the well-posedness of solutions for the Kelvin-Helmholtz problem of the ideal fluids. The Kelvin-Helmholtz instability configuration is also known in literature as the 'vortex sheets', as their vorticity distribution is described by a δ -function supported by a discontinuity in the velocity field at the sheet location. In the pioneer works [8], [9], Coulombel and Secchi proved the nonlinear stability of vortex sheets for the ideal compressible flows by using a micro-local analysis and Nash-Moser method. Later on, Morando, Trebeschi and Wang [27], [28] generalized this result to the two-dimensional ideal nonisentropic compressible flows. Their method in [8] also has been used to deal with the two-dimensional magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) flows, a necessary and sufficient condition is obtained for the linear stability of the rectilinear vortex sheets in Wang and Yu [40]. Moreover, for the three-dimensional compressible magnetohydrodynamics flows, Trakhinin [35], [36] and Chen-Wang [3] adopted a different symmetrization approach to prove the linear and nonlinear stability of compressible vortex sheets. These results indicate the stabilization effects of the magnetic fields on the current vortex sheets. On the other hand, these stabilization effects of the magnetic fields on the current vortex sheets are also shown in the incompressible case. Under the Syrovatskij stability condition [31], Morando, Trakhinin, and Trebeschi [26] proved an a priori estimate with a loss of three-order derivatives for the linearized system. Trakhinin [36] proved an a priori estimate without loss of derivative from data for the linearized system with variable coefficients under a strong stability condition. In a recent work [10], Coulombel, Morando, Secchi, and Trebeschi proved an a priori estimate without loss of derivatives for the nonlinear currentvortex sheet problem under the strong stability condition. Nonlinear stability of the incompressible current-vortex sheet problem was proved by Sun-Wang-Zhang under Syrovatskij stability condition in [34]. For vortex sheets in elastic flows, Chen, Hu and Wang ([5], [6]) proved strong elasticity can inhibit Kelvin-Helmholtz vortices. Further, Chen, Huang, Wang and Yuan proved the stabilization effect of elasticity on three-dimensional compressible vortex sheets in [7].

Meanwhile, there are some progress on the ill-posedness of solutions for the Kelvin-Helmholtz problem of the ideal fluids. For Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in the incompressible Euler flows, Ebin in [14] proved linear and nonlinear ill-posedness of the well-known Kelvin-Helmholtz problem. Recently we prove linear and nonlinear ill-posedness of the Kelvin-Helmholtz problem for incompressible MHD fluids [38] under the condition violating the Syrovatskij stability condition. On the other hand, for Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in the compressible Euler flows. It has been well-known by Landau [24] that the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability is suppressed in compressible supersonic flows. By the normal mode analysis, it is also shown in [15], [25] that the linear Kelvin-Helmholtz instability can be inhibitied when the Mach number M := | ˙ v + 1 | c &gt; √ 2 and the solutions of the linear equation are violently unstable when M &lt; √ 2. Our work [39] proved ill-posedness of Kelvin-Helmholtz problem for the nonlinear Euler fluids exhibit the same ill-posedness as their linearized counterparts in [15], [25] under the condition /epsilon1 0 ≤ M ≤ √ 2 -/epsilon1 0 , where /epsilon1 0 is a small but fixed number.

Our aim of this paper is to prove weak elasticity has a destabilizing effect on the KelvinHelmholtz instability of the two-dimensional ideal compressible elastic fluids. By the eigenvalue analysis for the linearized system to the Kelvin-Helmholtz problem of the two-dimensional ideal compressible elastic fluids, we show that the front will grow instantaneously with time envloves for the high frequency case when U low &lt; | ˙ v + 1 | &lt; U upp . Inspired by the works [17], [29] and

[39], we prove the ill-posedness of the nonlinear system (1.1)-(1.6) uniformly when the rectilinear solutions satisfy U low + c/epsilon1 0 ≤ | ˙ v + 1 | ≤ U upp -c/epsilon1 0 with U low := √ (( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 ) and U upp := √ 2 c 2 +(( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 ).

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we reformulate the system in a new coordinate and derive the wave equation of the pressure. Besides, we state the main result in the flatting coordinate. In Section 3, we give an analysis of the root for the symbol of the linearized system to the Kelvin-Helmholtz problem of the two-dimensional ideal compressible elastic fluids, which help us identify the instability condition that the rectilinear solutions need satisfy. In Section 4 and Section 5, we prove the linear and nonlinear ill-posedness of Kelvin-Helmholtz problem for the ideal compressible elastic fluids.

## 2 The new formulation and main result

## 2.1. The new formulation

Our analysis in this paper relies on the reformulation of the problem under consideration in new coordinates. To begin with, we define the fixed domains Ω ± as

Define the fixed boundary Γ as

$$\Omega ^ { + } & \coloneqq \left \{ x \in \mathbb { R } ^ { 2 } \, \colon x _ { 2 } > 0 \right \}, \\ \Omega ^ { - } & \coloneqq \left \{ x \in \mathbb { R } ^ { 2 } \, \colon x _ { 2 } < 0 \right \}. \\ y \, \Gamma & \text{as} \\ & \text{$\nu$} \quad \text{$\nu$} \quad \text{$\nu$}$$

$$\Gamma \coloneqq \left \{ x \in \mathbb { R } ^ { 2 } \colon x _ { 2 } = 0 \right \}. \\ \text{lem to the fixed domain } \Omega ^ { \pm }, \, \text{we} \quad \dots \quad \dots \quad \text{.}$$

↦

$$\psi ( t, x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ) = \theta ( \frac { x _ { 2 } } { 3 ( 1 + a ) } ) f ( t, x _ { 1 } ), \ a = \| f _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( \mathbb { R } ) },$$

To reduce our free boundary problem to the fixed domain Ω ± , we consider a change of variables by ( t, x ) → ( t, x 1 , x 2 + ψ t, x ( )) with x = ( x , x 1 2 ) which maps the fixed domains into the free boundary domains. We construct such ψ via multiplying the front f by a smooth cut-off function depending on x 2 :

where θ ∈ C ∞ c ( R ) is a smooth cut-off function with 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1, θ x ( 2 ) = 1, for | x 2 | ≤ 1, θ x ( 2 ) = 0 for | x 2 | ≥ 3, and | ∂ θ x 2 ( 2 ) | ≤ 1 for all x 2 ∈ R , writing ∂ j = ∂/∂x j . We also assume

$$\| f _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { \infty } ( \mathbb { R } ) } \leq 1.$$

Moreover, we have

$$\psi ( t, x _ { 1 }, 0 ) = f ( t, x _ { 1 } ), \\ \partial _ { 2 } \psi ( t, x _ { 1 }, 0 ) = 0, \\ | \partial _ { 2 } \psi | \leq \frac { 1 } { 3 ( 1 + a ) } | f |. \\.. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. +$$

The change of variables that reduces the free boundary problem (1.1) to the fixed domain Ω ± is given in the following lemma.

## Lemma 2.1. Define the function Ψ by

$$\Psi ( x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ) \coloneqq ( x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } + \psi ( t, x ) ) \,, \quad ( t, x ) \in [ 0, T ] \times \Omega.$$

↦

Then Ψ : ( x , x 1 2 ) → ( x , x 1 2 + ψ t, x ( )) is a diffeomorphism transform from Ω ± to Ω ( ) ± t for all t ∈ [0 , T ] . In particular, we emphasis that Ψ | t =0 : Ω ¯ ± → ¯ Ω (0) ± is a diffeomorphism transform.

↦

Proof. Since ‖ f 0 ‖ L ∞ ( R ) ≤ 1, one can prove that there exists some T &gt; 0 such that sup [0 ,T ] ‖ f ‖ L ∞ &lt; 2, the free interface is still a graph within the time interval [0 , T ] and

$$\partial _ { 2 } \Psi _ { 2 } ( t, x ) = 1 + \partial _ { 2 } \psi ( t, x ) \geq 1 - \frac { 1 } { 3 } \times 2 = \frac { 1 } { 3 },$$

↦

which ensure that Ψ : ( x , x 1 2 ) → ( x , x 1 2 + ψ t, x ( )) is a diffeomorphism transform from Ω ± to Ω ± ( ) t for all t ∈ [0 , T ].

We introduce the following operator notation

$$\cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \\ A = [ D \Psi ] ^ { - 1 } = \left ( \begin{array} { c c c } 1 & 0 \\ - \partial _ { 1 } \psi / J & 1 / J \end{array} \right ), \\ a = J A = \left ( \begin{array} { c c c } J & 0 \\ - \partial _ { 1 } \psi & 1 \end{array} \right ), \\ \vdash \partial _ { 2 } \psi. \ \text{ Now we may reduce the free boundary}$$

and J = det[ D Ψ] = 1 + ∂ ψ 2 . Now we may reduce the free boundary problem (1.7)-(1.8) to a problem in the fixed domain Ω ± by the change of variables in Lemma 1.1. Let us set

$$& v ^ { \pm } ( t, x ) \coloneqq u ^ { \pm } ( t, \Psi ( t, x ) ), G ^ { \pm } ( t, x ) \coloneqq F ^ { \pm } ( t, \Psi ( t, x ) ), \\ & q ^ { \pm } ( t, x ) \coloneqq p ^ { \pm } ( t, \Psi ( t, x ) ), \quad \varrho ^ { \pm } ( t, x ) \coloneqq \rho ^ { \pm } ( t, \Psi ( t, x ) ), \\ & \quad h ^ { \pm } ( t, x ) \coloneqq \sigma ^ { \pm } ( t, \Psi ( t, x ) ).$$

Throughout the rest paper, an equation on Ω means that the equation holds in both Ω + and Ω -. For convenience, we consolidate notation by writing v , G j , q , /rho1 , h to refer to v ± , G ± j , q ± , /rho1 ± , h ± except when necessary to distinguish the two.

We also introduce the notation:

$$\nabla ^ { \psi } = A ^ { T } \nabla, \Delta ^ { \psi } = ( A ^ { T } \nabla ) \cdot ( A ^ { T } \nabla ).$$

Then equations (1.7) and boundary condition (1.8) can be reformulated as:

with the initial data

$$\text{ions} \, ( 1. 7 ) \, \text{and boundary condition} \, ( 1. 8 ) \, \text{can be reformulated as} \colon \\ \begin{cases} \partial _ { t } h + ( \check { v } \cdot \nabla ) h + \nabla ^ { \psi } \cdot v = 0 & \text{on } \Omega, \\ \partial _ { t } v + ( \check { v } \cdot \nabla ) v + c ^ { 2 } \nabla ^ { \psi } h = \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( \check { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) G _ { j } & \text{on } \Omega, \\ \partial _ { t } G _ { j } + ( \check { v } \cdot \nabla ) G _ { j } = ( \check { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) v & \text{on } \Omega, \\ \nabla ^ { \psi } \cdot ( \varrho G _ { j } ) = 0 & \text{on } \Omega, \\ \partial _ { t } f = v \cdot n & \text{on } \Gamma, \\ [ v \cdot n ] = 0, \quad [ h ] = 0, \quad G _ { j } \cdot n = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma. \end{cases} \\ \text{initial data} \\ \begin{cases} h | _ { \iota - n } = h \iota _ { n }. \quad v | _ { \iota - n } = v \iota _ { n }. \quad G _ { i } | _ { \iota - n } = G \iota _ { n } & \text{on } \Omega. \end{cases}$$

$$\begin{cases} h | _ { t = 0 } = h _ { 0 }, & v | _ { t = 0 } = v _ { 0 }, & G _ { j } | _ { t = 0 } = G _ { 0, j } & \text{on } \Omega, \\ f | _ { t = 0 } = f _ { 0 } & & \text{on } \Gamma. \end{cases}$$

where we have define

Notice that

$$J = 1, \ \breve { v } _ { 2 } = 0, \ \breve { G } _ { 2 j } = 0 \quad \text{on } \Gamma.$$

The initial data are required to satisfies

$$\nabla ^ { \psi _ { 0 } } \cdot ( \rho _ { 0 } G _ { 0, j } ) = 0 & \quad & \text{in } \Omega, \\ h _ { 0 } ^ { + } = h _ { 0 } ^ { - }, \ v _ { 0 } ^ { + } \cdot n _ { 0 } = v _ { 0 } ^ { - } \cdot n _ { 0 }, \ G _ { 0, j } ^ { + } \cdot n _ { 0 } = G _ { 0, j } ^ { - } \cdot n _ { 0 } = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma. \\ \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

Since we are interested in Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, the instability behavior firstly happens on the boundary. To see this, we are going to derive an second order evolution equation for the front f on the fixed boundary Γ. By using the momentum equation of (2.8), we deduce that

$$0 \, \text{and you} \, \text{$v$} \, \text{$o$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$ } \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \  \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \tilde { \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \text{$u$} \, \colon \\ \quad \partial _ { t } ^ { 2 } f = & \partial _ { t } v ^ { + } \cdot n + v ^ { + } \cdot \partial _ { t } n + \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } G _ { 1 } ^ { + } \partial _ { t } G _ { j } ^ { + } \cdot n - c ^ { 2 } \nabla ^ { \psi } h ^ { + } \cdot n - v ^ { + } \cdot ( \partial _ { 1 } \partial _ { t } f + \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } G _ { 1 } ^ { + } \partial _ { t } G _ { j } ^ { + } \cdot n + c ^ { 2 } \nabla ^ { \psi } h ^ { + } \cdot n - v ^ { + } _ { 1 } \partial _ { t } \partial _ { t } f \\ = & \quad - 2 v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } \partial _ { t } f - c ^ { 2 } \nabla ^ { \psi } h ^ { + } \cdot n - ( v _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } f + \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( G _ { 1 j } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } f \quad \text{on} \quad \Gamma.$$

$$\sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { r } ( \begin{matrix} \sum \\ \dots \end{matrix} )$$

Similarly, we can also derive an evolution equation of f from the negative part:

$$\partial _ { t } ^ { 2 } f = - 2 v _ { 1 } ^ { - } \partial _ { 1 } \partial _ { t } f - c ^ { 2 } \nabla ^ { \psi } h ^ { - } \cdot n - ( v _ { 1 } ^ { - } ) ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } f + \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( G _ { 1 j } ^ { - } ) ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } f \quad o n \ \Gamma. \quad \ ( 2. 1 3 ) \\ \tau \quad e \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdots$$

Therefore summing up the ' + ' equation (2.12) and ' -' equation (2.13) to get

$$\dots \dots \dots \circ \frac { - r } { 2 } \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \circ \dots \\ \partial _ { t } ^ { 2 } f + ( v _ { 1 } ^ { + } + v _ { 1 } ^ { - } ) \partial _ { 1 } \partial _ { t } f + \frac { 1 } { 2 } ( ( c ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } \nabla ^ { \psi } h ^ { + } \cdot n + ( c ^ { - } ) ^ { 2 } \nabla ^ { \psi } h ^ { - } \cdot n ) \\ + \frac { 1 } { 2 } ( ( v _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( v _ { 1 } ^ { - } ) ^ { 2 } ) \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } f - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( ( G _ { 1 j } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( G _ { 1 j } ^ { - } ) ^ { 2 } ) \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } f = 0 \quad o n \ \Gamma.$$

## 2.2. The wave equation for h

Applying the equation ∂ t +˘ v · ∇ to the first equation of (2.8) and ∇ · ψ to the second one of (2.8) gives

$$\begin{cases} ( \partial _ { t } + \check { v } \cdot \nabla ) ^ { 2 } h + ( \partial _ { t } + \check { v } \cdot \nabla ) \nabla ^ { \psi } \cdot v = 0, \\ \nabla ^ { \psi } \cdot ( ( \partial _ { t } + \check { v } \cdot \nabla ) v ) + \nabla ^ { \psi } \cdot ( c ^ { 2 } \nabla ^ { \psi } h ) = \nabla ^ { \psi } \cdot ( \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( \check { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) G _ { j } ). \\ \\ 7 \end{cases}$$

$$\underset { \substack { \delta } { v } \colon = A v - \left ( 0, \partial _ { t } \psi / J \right ) = \left ( v _ { 1 }, \left ( v \cdot n - \partial _ { t } \psi \right ) / J \right ), \\ \check { G } _ { j } \colon = A G _ { j } = \left ( G _ { 1 j }, G _ { j } \cdot n / J \right ).$$

Next, we take the difference of the two equations in (2.15) to deduce a wave-type equation:

$$( \partial _ { t } + \check { v } \cdot \nabla ) ^ { 2 } h - c ^ { 2 } \Delta ^ { \psi } h - \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( \check { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) ( \nabla ^ { \psi } \cdot G _ { j } ) = \mathcal { F },$$

where the term F = -[ ∂ t + ˘ v · ∇ , ∇ ψ ] v -∇ ψ c 2 · ∇ ψ h + ∑ 2 j =1 ∇ ψ ˘ G j · ∇ G j is a lower order term in the second order differential equation for h , here [ f, g a ] = f ( ga ) -g fa ( ) is a commutator.

$$\nabla ^ { \psi } \cdot ( \varrho G _ { j } ) = \nabla ^ { \psi } \varrho \cdot G _ { j } + \varrho \nabla ^ { \psi } \cdot G _ { j } = 0,$$

As for the term ∑ 2 j =1 ( ˘ G j · ∇ )( ∇ · ψ G j ), by using the divergence constraint in (2.8), we rewrite it as follows:

thus, we have

$$& \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( \breve { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) ( \nabla ^ { \psi } \cdot G _ { j } ) = - \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( \breve { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) ( \frac { \nabla ^ { \psi } \varrho } { \varrho } \cdot G _ { j } ) = - \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( \breve { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) ( \nabla ^ { \psi } h \cdot G _ { j } ) \\ & = - \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } G _ { s j } \partial _ { s } ^ { \psi } ( \partial _ { l } ^ { \psi } h G _ { l j } ) = - \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } G _ { s j } G _ { l j } \partial _ { s } ^ { \psi } \partial _ { j } ^ { \psi } h - G _ { s j } \partial _ { s } ^ { \psi } G _ { l j } \partial _ { l } ^ { \psi } h.$$

Finally, substituting (2.18) into (2.16) and we deduce a wave-type equation for h :

$$( \partial _ { t } + \check { v } \cdot \nabla ) ^ { 2 } h - c ^ { 2 } \Delta ^ { \psi } h - \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } G _ { s j } G _ { l j } \partial _ { s } ^ { \psi } \partial _ { j } ^ { \psi } h = G _ { s j } \partial _ { s } ^ { \psi } G _ { l j } \partial _ { l } ^ { \psi } h + \mathcal { F },$$

note that all terms in the right hand side of (2.19) are lower order terms.

From the boundary conditions in (2.8), we already know that

$$[ h ] = 0 \text{ on } \Gamma.$$

To determine the value of h , we add another condition involving the normal derivatives of h . More precisely, Taking the difference of two equations (2.12) and (2.13), we can obtain the jump of the normal derivatives ∇ h ± · n on Γ,

$$[ c ^ { 2 } \nabla ^ { \psi } h \cdot n ] = [ - 2 v _ { 1 } \partial _ { 1 } \partial _ { t } f - ( v _ { 1 } ) ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } f + \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( G _ { 1 j } ) ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } f ] \ o n \ \Gamma.$$

Combining (2.19), (2.20) with (2.21) to obtain the nonlinear system for h ,

$$\text{comming } \langle e. \in \Sigma \rangle, \, \langle e. \in \Sigma \rangle \, \text{when } \langle e. \in \Sigma \rangle \, \text{you can use non-syset} \, \infty \, n, \\ \begin{cases} ( \partial _ { t } + \check { v } \cdot \nabla ) ^ { 2 } h - c ^ { 2 } \Delta ^ { \psi } h - \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } G _ { s j } G _ { l j } \partial _ { s } ^ { \psi } \partial _ { j } ^ { \psi } h = G _ { s j } \partial _ { s } ^ { \psi } G _ { l j } \partial _ { l } ^ { \psi } h + \mathcal { F } \quad \text{on } \Omega, \\ [ h ] = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma, \quad & \text{on } \Gamma, \quad & \text{(2.22)} \\ [ c ^ { 2 } \nabla ^ { \psi } h \cdot n ] = [ - 2 v _ { 1 } \partial _ { 1 } \partial _ { t } f - ( v _ { 1 } ) ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } f + \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( G _ { 1 j } ) ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } f ] & \text{on } \Gamma. \\ \\ 8 \end{cases}$$

## 2.3. Definitions and Terminology

Before stating the main result, we define some notation that will be used throughout the paper. Throughout the paper, C &gt; 0 will denote a generic constant that can depend on the parameters of the problem, but does not depend on the data, etc. We refer to such constants as universal constants. They are allowed to change from one inequality to the next one. We will employ the notation a /lessorsimilar b to mean that a ≤ Cb for a universal constant C &gt; 0. Also the notation a /greaterorsimilar b denotes a ≥ Cb . R means the real part of the complex function or number. We use x to mean the 2 dimensional vector ( x , x 1 2 ). It is conventional that e 2 = (0 1) means the unit vector in , R 2 .

Since we study two disjoint fluids, for a function ψ defined in Ω, we write ψ + for the restriction to Ω + and ψ -for the restriction to Ω -. For all j ∈ R , We define the piecewise Sobolev space by

$$H ^ { j } ( \Omega ) \coloneqq \{ \psi | \psi ^ { + } \in H ^ { j } ( \Omega ^ { + } ), \psi ^ { - } \in H ^ { j } ( \Omega ^ { - } ) \},$$

endowed with the norm ‖ ψ ‖ 2 H j = ‖ ψ + 2 ‖ H j (Ω + ) + ‖ ψ -‖ 2 H j (Ω -) . The usual Sobolev norm ‖ ψ ‖ 2 H j (Ω ± ) is equipped with the following norm:

$$\cdot \quad \ \ & \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \cdot \quad \ & \quad \quad \quad$$

where I -= ( -∞ , 0) and I + = (0 , ∞ ) and ˆ is the Fourier transform of ψ ψ via

$$\hat { \psi } ( \eta ) = \int _ { \mathbb { R } } \psi e ^ { - i x _ { 1 } \eta } d x _ { 1 },$$

for a function ψ defined on Γ, we define usual Sobolev space by

$$\| \psi \| _ { H ^ { j } ( \Gamma ) } ^ { 2 } \coloneqq \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j } | \hat { \psi } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta.$$

To shorten notation, for k ≥ 0, we define

$$\| ( f, h, v, G _ { j } ) ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } } = \| f ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Gamma ) } + \| h ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } + \| v ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } + \| G _ { j } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) }. \quad ( 2. 2 7 )$$

## 2.4. Main result

This paper is devoted to proving the ill-posedness of Kelvin-Helmholtz problem of the ideal compressible elastic system under the following condition:

$$U _ { l o w } + c \epsilon _ { 0 } \leq | \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } | \leq U _ { u p p } - c \epsilon _ { 0 },$$

where we define U low := √ (( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 ) and U upp := √ 2 c 2 +(( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 ), here /epsilon1 0 is a small but fixed constant, ˙ G + 11 and ˙ G + 12 are defined by (3.3), c = (˙) is the sound speed defined as c ρ (1.2).

Definition 2.2. We say that the problem (2.8) is locally well-posedness for some k ≥ 3 if there exist δ, t 0 , C &gt; 0 such that for any initial data ( f 1 0 , h 1 0 , v 1 0 , G 1 0 ,j ) , ( f 2 0 , h 2 0 , v 2 0 , G 2 0 ,j ) satisfying

$$\| ( f _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } - f _ { 0 } ^ { 2 }, h _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } - h _ { 0 } ^ { 2 }, v _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } - v _ { 0 } ^ { 2 }, G _ { 0, j } ^ { 1 } - G _ { 0, j } ^ { 2 } ) \| _ { H ^ { k } } < \delta,$$

there exist unique solutions ( f 1 , h 1 , v 1 , G 1 j ) and ( f 2 , h 2 , v 2 , G 2 j ) ∈ L ∞ ([0 , t 0 ]; H 3 ) for the system (2.8) with initial data ( f k , h k , v k , G k j ) | t =0 = ( f k 0 , h k 0 , v k 0 , G k 0 ,j ) , k = 1 2 , and there holds

$$& \sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \| ( f ^ { 1 } - f ^ { 2 }, h ^ { 1 } - h ^ { 2 }, v ^ { 1 } - v ^ { 2 }, G ^ { 1 } _ { j } - G ^ { 2 } _ { j } ) ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { 3 } } \\ & \leq C ( \| ( f ^ { 1 } _ { 0 } - f ^ { 2 } _ { 0 }, h ^ { 1 } _ { 0 } - h ^ { 2 } _ { 0 }, v ^ { 1 } _ { 0 } - v ^ { 2 } _ { 0 }, G ^ { 1 } _ { 0, j } - G ^ { 2 } _ { 0, j } ) \| _ { H ^ { k } } ).$$

Theorem 2.3. Let the initial domain to be R 2 = Ω + (0) ∪ Ω (0) -∪ Γ(0) . Suppose that the initial data satisfies the constraint condition (2.3) and (2.11) , further we assume the rectilinear solution satisfies the instability condition (2.28) . Then the Kelvin-Helmholtz problem of (2.8) is not locally well-posed in the sense of Definition 2.2.

Remark 2.1. We construct the growing normal mode solution for the front f when the background velocity satisfies U low &lt; v | ˙ + 1 | &lt; U upp . While for the linear and nonlinear problem, we can prove the ill-posedness of the solutions ( h, v, G j ) of the Kelvin-Helmholtz problem to the ideal compressible elastic flow uniformly when U low + c/epsilon1 0 ≤ ˙ v + 1 ≤ U upp -c/epsilon1 0 , where /epsilon1 0 is some fixed small enough positive constant and c is the sound speed.

↦

Remark 2.2. Since Ψ : ( t, x ) → ( t, x 1 , x 2 + ψ t, x ( )) is a diffeomorphism transform, the ill-poseness of system (2.8) in the flatten coordinate implies the ill-poseness of the solution to the original system (1.1) (1.6) -.

Remark 2.3. In this paper, we take ( f 2 , h 2 , v 2 , G 2 j ) exactly by the rectilinear solution ( ˙ f, /rho1 ˙ ± , v ˙ ± , G ˙ ± j ) . Thus we prove the ill-posedness of the solution near the rectilinear solution for the free boundary value problem of the two-dimensional ideal compressible elastic flows.

Remark 2.4. By taking ˙ G = 0 , the instability condition (2.28) becomes

$$\epsilon _ { 0 } \leq M \coloneqq \frac { | \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } | } { c } \leq \sqrt { 2 } - \epsilon _ { 0 },$$

which reduces to the instability condition of Kelvin-Helmholtz problem for the compressible Euler fluids(refer to [39] ) .

## 3 The Linearized Equations in new coordinate

In this section, we consider a linearized system in new coordinate and would construct a growing normal mode solution for this linearized system. By taking Fourier trnasform of linearized system and solving the linear equation for ˆ , m we finally derive a second order ordinary equation for ˆ and g obtain the symbol for ˆ. g With the analysis of the symbol of ˆ, we show the instability condition of g the linear system of Kelvin-Helmholtz problem for the ideal compressible elastic fluids.

## 3.1. Construction of a growing solution of the linearized system.

It is easily verified that the particular solution in Euler coordinate is also a particular solution in new coordinate such that

$$\ t n a t \quad & \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
 \ t n a t \quad & \quad \quad \quad$$

and

$$\dot { \varrho } ^ { + } = \dot { \varrho } ^ { - } \coloneqq \dot { \varrho }.$$

and

 Now we will consider a constant coefficient linearized equations which is derived by linearization of equations (2.8), (2.14) and (2.22) around the rectilinear solutions: constant velocity ˙ v ± = (˙ v ± 1 , 0), constant deformation matrix ˙ G ± = ( ˙ G ± 11 , G ˙ ± 12 , 0 0), constant pressure , ˙ h + = ˙ h -, flat front Γ = { x 2 = 0 } and around the outer normal vector e 2 = (0 1). , Moreover, all the rectilinear solutions can be transformed to the following form under the Galilean transformation and by the change of the scale of measurement

$$\dot { G } = \dot { F } = \begin{cases} \left [ \begin{array} { c c } \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } & \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right ] & x _ { 2 } \geq 0, \\ \left [ \begin{array} { c c } \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { - } & \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { - } \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right ] & x _ { 2 } < 0. \end{cases} \\ \text{sider a constant coefficient linearized equations which is derived by linearization} \\ 2. 1 4 ) \, \text{and} \, ( 2. 2 2 ) \, \text{around the rectilinear solutions: constant velocity} \, \dot { v } ^ { \pm } = ( \dot { v } _ { 1$$

$$\dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } + \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { - } = 0, \ \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } + \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { - } = 0, \ \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } + \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { - } = 0.$$

Remark 3.1. From now on and throughout this paper, We use the new notation ( ˙ f, /rho1 ˙ ± , v ˙ ± , G ˙ ± ) to denoe the rectilinear solution ( ˙ f, ρ ˙ ± , u ˙ ± , F ˙ ± ) , which is in fact the same constant quantity. Here we use the new notation to match the notation in the new coordinates.

Therefore, we have the following linearized equation around the rectilinear solution ( ˙ f, /rho1 ˙ ± , v ˙ ± , G ˙ ± )

$$\text{or, we have any unknown} \text{measure equation} \, \underbrace { \mathbf v } \,, \underbrace { \mathbf v } \,, \underbrace { \mathbf v } \,, \underbrace { \mathbf v } \, \rightarrow \\ \text{e the boundary conditions in } ( 2. 8 ), \, \text{we let } v = \underbrace { v } \, + \, \tilde { v } \, \text{and } n = e _ { 2 } + \tilde { n }, \, \text{therefore we have} \colon$$

 To linearize the boundary conditions in (2.8), we let v = ˙ + ˜ and v v n = e 2 + ˜, therefore we have: n

$$[ ( \dot { v } + \tilde { v } ) \cdot ( e _ { 2 } + \tilde { n } ) ] = [ \tilde { v } \cdot e _ { 2 } ] + [ \dot { v } \cdot \tilde { n } ] + [ \tilde { v } \cdot \tilde { n } ] = 0,$$

where ˜ = ( n -∂ f, 1 ˜ 0). Obviously, the third term is nonlinear term, it follows that

$$[ \tilde { v } \cdot e _ { 2 } ] = - [ \dot { v } \cdot \tilde { n } ] = 2 \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } \tilde { f }.$$

Similarly, we can deduce that

$$\tilde { G } _ { 2 j } - \dot { G } _ { 1 j } \partial _ { 1 } \tilde { f } = 0. \\.. \. \. \..$$

Thus, the boundary conditions can be linearized as follows:

$$[ h ] = 0, \ [ v \cdot e _ { 2 } ] = 2 \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } f, \ G _ { 2 j } - \dot { G } _ { 1 j } \partial _ { 1 } f = 0 \text{ on } \Gamma.$$

We also get a linearized equation for the front f

$$\partial _ { t } ^ { 2 } f + ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } f + \frac { c ^ { 2 } } { 2 } \partial _ { 2 } ( h ^ { + } + h ^ { - } ) - ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } f = 0 \ \ o n \ \Gamma,$$

and a linearized system for the pressure h

$$\Lambda ^ { * } & \quad \Lambda ^ { * } \\ & \quad \begin{cases} ( \partial _ { t } + \dot { v } _ { 1 } \partial _ { 1 } ) ^ { 2 } h - c ^ { 2 } \Delta h - ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } h = 0, \quad \text{on } \Omega, \\ [ h ] = 0, & \quad \text{on } \Gamma, \quad \text{on } \Gamma. \end{cases} \\ \intertext { Since we want to construct a solution to the linear system (3.5)-(3.8) that has a growing H } \sim \Lambda ^ { * } \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdclots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \end{cases}$$

Since we want to construct a solution to the linear system (3.5)-(3.8) that has a growing H k norm for any k . To begin with, we assume the solution is in the following normal mode form:

$$& h ( t, x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ) = e ^ { \tau t } m ( x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ), \ v ( t, x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ) = e ^ { \tau t } w ( x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ), \\ & G _ { j } ( t, x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ) = e ^ { \tau t } E _ { j } ( x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ), \ f ( t, x _ { 1 } ) = e ^ { \tau t } g ( x _ { 1 } ),$$

here we assume that τ = γ + iδ ∈ C \{ } 0 is the same above and below the interface. A solution with R ( τ ) &gt; 0 corresponds to a growing mode. Plugging the ansatz (3.8) into (3.5)-(3.8), we have and

$$\upsilon \text{expions} \upsilon \, a \, \text{gowing move.} \, \i \, \underset { \left ( \begin{array} { c c c } \tau m + i v _ { 1 } \partial _ { 1 } m + \text{div} w = 0 \quad & \text{in} \ \Omega, \\ \tau w + i v _ { 1 } \partial _ { 1 } w + c ^ { 2 } \nabla m = \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } \tilde { G } _ { 1 j } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } E _ { j } ^ { + } \quad & \text{in} \ \Omega, \\ \tau E _ { j } + i v _ { 1 } \partial _ { 1 } E _ { j } = \tilde { G } _ { 1 j } \partial _ { 1 } w \quad & \text{in} \ \Omega, \\ \tau g = w _ { 2 } - i v _ { 1 } \partial _ { 1 } g \quad & \text{on} \ \Gamma, \\ [ m ] = 0, \ [ w \cdot e _ { 2 } ] = 2 i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } g, \ E _ { 2 j } - \tilde { G } _ { 1 j } \partial _ { 1 } g = 0 \quad & \text{on} \ \Gamma. \end{array} \right ) \\ \tau ^ { 2 } g + ( i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } g + \frac { c ^ { 2 } } { \partial } \partial _ { 2 } ( m ^ { + } + m ^ { - } ) - ( ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } g = 0 \quad & \text{on} \ \Gamma,$$

$$\text{and} \quad \tau ^ { 2 } g + ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } g + \frac { c ^ { 2 } } { 2 } \partial _ { 2 } ( m ^ { + } + m ^ { - } ) - ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } g = 0 \ \ o n \ \Gamma,$$

and

## 3.2. The formula for ∂ m 2 ˆ + + ∂ m 2 ˆ -on Γ

$$\begin{cases} ( \tau + i _ { 1 } \partial _ { 1 } ) ^ { 2 } m - c ^ { 2 } \Delta m - ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \partial _ { 1 1 } ^ { 2 } m = 0 & o n \ \Omega, \\ [ m ] = 0 & o n \ \Gamma, \\ [ c ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 2 } m ] = - 4 i _ { 1 } ^ { + } \tau \partial _ { 1 } g & o n \ \Gamma. \end{cases} \\ \colon \text{ The formula for $\partial_{2} \hat{m}^{+}+\partial_{2} \hat{m}^{-}$ on $\Gamma$}$$

By taking the Fouier transform of problem (3.11) and (3.12), we deduce a formula for ∂ m 2 ˆ + + ∂ m 2 ˆ -on Γ, then substituting this formula into (3.11), it follows that an second-order wave-type equation for the front g . More precisely, we define the Fourier transform of m and g with respect to the x 1 variable as follow:

$$\hat { m } ( \eta, x _ { 2 } ) = \int _ { \mathbb { R } } m ( x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ) e ^ { - i x _ { 1 } \eta } d x _ { 1 }, \, \hat { g } ( \eta ) = \int _ { \mathbb { R } } g ( x _ { 1 } ) e ^ { - i x _ { 1 } \eta } d x _ { 1 }. \\. \quad \. \quad \. \quad \. \quad \. \quad \. \quad \. \quad \. \.$$

Taking the transform of the problem (3.11) and (3.12), we derive the following equations

$$\tau ^ { 2 } \hat { g } - ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } \eta ^ { 2 } \hat { g } + \frac { c ^ { 2 } } { 2 } \partial _ { 2 } ( \hat { m } ^ { + } + \hat { m } ^ { - } ) + ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } \hat { g } = 0 \text{ \ on } \Gamma,$$

and

 Solving the system (3.14), we obtain

$$\text{and} \begin{cases} ( \tau + i v _ { 1 } \eta ) ^ { 2 } \hat { m } + c ^ { 2 } \eta ^ { 2 } \hat { m } - c ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 2 2 } ^ { 2 } \hat { m } + ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } \hat { m } = 0 & \text{ in } \Omega, \\ [ \hat { m } ] = 0 & \text{ on } \Gamma, & \text{ on } \Gamma, \\ [ c ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 2 } \hat { m } ] = - 4 i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \tau \eta \hat { g } & \text{ on } \Gamma. \end{cases}$$

$$\theta = \begin{cases} \frac { 4 i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \tau \eta \hat { g } } { c ^ { 2 } ( \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } ) } e ^ { - \mu ^ { + } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } \geq 0, \\ \frac { 4 i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \tau \eta \hat { g } } { c ^ { 2 } ( \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } ) } e ^ { \mu ^ { - } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } < 0, \end{cases} \\ \overline { \frac { \frac { 1 } { 2 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \hat { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \hat { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } { c ^ { 2 } } + \eta ^ { 2 } } \, \text{are the root of the equation}$$

$$- c ^ { 2 } s ^ { 2 } + ( \tau \pm i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } + c ^ { 2 } \eta ^ { 2 } = 0,$$

 where µ ± = √ ( τ ± iv ˙ + 1 η ) 2 +(( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 ) η 2 c 2 + η 2 are the root of the equation here we notice that R µ ± &gt; 0 since R τ &gt; 0.

By direct computation, we deduce

$$c ^ { 2 } ( \partial _ { 2 } \hat { m } ^ { + } + \partial _ { 2 } \hat { m } ^ { - } ) = - 4 i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta \tau \hat { g } \frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } } \quad \text{on } \Gamma,$$

substituting (3.17) into (3.13) to obtain an second-order equation for ˆ g

$$( \tau ^ { 2 } - ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } \eta ^ { 2 } - 2 i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta \tau \frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } } + ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } ) \hat { g } = 0 \quad \text{on } \Gamma.$$

## 3.3. Study of the roots of the symbol Σ

In order to further analysis the equation (3.18), we define the symbol of (3.18) by Σ:

$$\Sigma ( \tau, \eta ) = \tau ^ { 2 } - ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } \eta ^ { 2 } - 2 i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta \tau \frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } } + ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 },$$

and define a set of 'frequencies'

$$\Xi = \{ ( \tau, \eta ) \in \mathbb { C } \times \mathbb { R } \, \colon \mathfrak { R } \, > 0, ( \tau, \eta ) \neq ( 0, 0 ) \}.$$

/negationslash

Since we already know that R µ ± &gt; 0 in all points with R τ &gt; 0. It follows that R ( µ + + µ -) &gt; 0 and thus µ + + µ -&gt; 0 in all such points. In this paper, we are interested only in the unstable case, the symbol Σ is defined in points ( τ, η ) ∈ Ξ.

We also need to know whether the difference µ + -µ -vanishes.

Lemma 3.1. Let ( τ, η ) ∈ Ξ . Then µ + = µ -if and only if ( τ, η ) = ( τ, 0) .

Proof. From (3.16), it implies that ( µ + 2 ) = ( µ -) 2 if and only if η = 0 or τ = 0. Since ( τ, η ) ∈ Ξ, only η = 0 case need to study. When η = 0, it follows that µ + = µ -= τ/c .

We will discuss the roots of the symbol (3.19) in the instability case.

Lemma 3.2. Let Σ( τ, η ) be the symbol defined in (3.19) , for ( τ, η ) ∈ Ξ . If U low &lt; v ˙ + 1 &lt; U upp , then Σ( τ, η ) = 0 if only if

$$\tau & = X _ { 1 } \eta, &$$

where X 2 1 = √ c 4 +4(( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 + c 2 )( ˙ v + 2 1 ) -( ˙ v + 2 1 ) -( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 -( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 -c 2 &gt; 0 . The root τ = X η 1 is simple, i.e. there exists a neighborhood V of ( X η,η 1 ) ∈ Ξ and a smooth F defined on V such that

$$\Sigma = ( \tau - X _ { 1 } \eta ) F ( \tau, \eta ), \ F ( \tau, \eta ) \neq 0 \text{ for all} ( \tau, \eta ) \in \mathcal { V }, \\ \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \colon \end{cases}$$

/negationslash where F τ, η ( ) is defined as c 2 η 2 dφ dX ( αX 1 +(1 -α X ) )) .

/negationslash

/negationslash

/negationslash

/negationslash

$$\text{ompute} \quad & \frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } } = \frac { ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) ^ { 2 } } { ( \mu ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } - ( \mu ^ { - } ) ^ { 2 } } = \frac { c ^ { 2 } ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) ^ { 2 } } { 4 i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \tau },$$

Proof. In according with the definition of Σ and Lemma 3.1, we can easily verify Σ( τ, 0) = τ 2 = 0 for ( τ, 0) ∈ Ξ. Meanwhile, it is easy to check that Σ( τ, η ) = Σ( τ, -η ). Thus we can assume without loss of generality that τ = 0, η = 0 and η &gt; 0 and from Lemma 3.1 we know that µ + -µ -= 0. Therefore we compute and

$$( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) ^ { 2 } = 2 ( ( \frac { \tau } { c } ) ^ { 2 } - ( \frac { \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta } { c } ) ^ { 2 } + \frac { ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } { c ^ { 2 } } + \eta ^ { 2 } - \mu ^ { + } \mu ^ { - } ), \quad \quad ( 3. 2 3 )$$

therefore we deduce that

$$\frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } } = \frac { 2 [ \tau ^ { 2 } - ( i _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } + c ^ { 2 } ( \eta ^ { 2 } - \mu ^ { + } \mu ^ { - } ) ] } { 4 i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \tau }$$

and substituting the above expression (3.24) into (3.18) we can rewrite it as

$$c ^ { 2 } ( \mu ^ { + } \mu ^ { - } - \eta ^ { 2 } ) \hat { g } = 0, \text{ on } \Gamma.$$

The symbol Σ can be reformulated as

$$\Sigma = c ^ { 2 } ( \mu ^ { + } \mu ^ { - } - \eta ^ { 2 } ).$$

Let us set µ + µ --η 2 = 0 and introduce two quantities:

$$X = \frac { \tau } { \eta }, \, \tilde { \mu } ^ { \pm } = \frac { \mu ^ { \pm } } { \eta }.$$

Therefore we can deduce and

$$( \tilde { \mu } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ( \tilde { \mu } ^ { - } ) ^ { 2 } = 1.$$

By the formula of the roots µ ± , it follows that

$$( \tilde { \mu } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } = \frac { 1 } { c ^ { 2 } } [ ( X + i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ] + 1,$$

and

$$( \tilde { \mu } ^ { - } ) ^ { 2 } = \frac { 1 } { c ^ { 2 } } [ ( X - i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ] + 1,$$

$$\tilde { \mu } ^ { + } \tilde { \mu } ^ { - } = - 1,$$

Hence we have

$$[ ( X + i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + c ^ { 2 } ] [ ( X - i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + c ^ { 2 } ] = c ^ { 4 }, \quad \ \ ( 3. 3 2 )$$

which leads to the following equation for X 2 :

$$& X ^ { 4 } + 2 ( ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + c ^ { 2 } ) X ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 4 } - 2 ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + c ^ { 2 } ) ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } \\ & + ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } + 2 c ^ { 2 } ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) = 0.$$

Using the quadratic formula, the two roots of the above equation are and

$$X _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } & = - ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } - ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } - ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } - c ^ { 2 } + \sqrt { c ^ { 4 } + 4 ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + c ^ { 2 } ) ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } }, \\ \text{and}$$

$$& \text{and} \\ & X _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } = - ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } - ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } - ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } - c ^ { 2 } - \sqrt { c ^ { 4 } + 4 ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + c ^ { 2 } ) ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } }, \\ & \text{We claim that the points } ( \tau, \eta ) \in \Sigma \text{ with } \tau = \pm X _ { 2 } \eta \text{ are not the roots of } \mu ^ { + } \mu ^ { - } = \eta ^ { 2 }. \text{ Without loss}$$

We claim that the points ( τ, η ) ∈ Σ with τ = ± X η 2 are not the roots of µ + µ -= η 2 . Without loss of generality, we can assume that Y 2 is positive. From (3.35), we deduce

$$X _ { 2 } & = i Y _ { 2 }, \ Y _ { 2 } \geq i _ { 1 } ^ { + } + \sqrt { ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + c ^ { 2 } }, \\. \quad. \quad. \quad \sqrt { ( \Delta \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \,. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad.$$

from this we deduce Y 2 ± ˙ v + 1 &gt; √ ( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 + c 2 . In accord with the equation (3.32) and (3.33), it follows that

$$\tilde { \mu } ^ { + } = i \sqrt { \frac { ( Y _ { 2 } + \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } - ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } - ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } } { c ^ { 2 } } - 1 }, \tilde { \mu } ^ { - } = i \sqrt { \frac { ( Y _ { 2 } - \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } - ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } - ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } } { c ^ { 2 } } - 1 }.$$

From which we know that ˜ µ + ˜ µ -= 1 is not satisfied. Similarly, we can show that ( τ, η ) ∈ Σ with τ = -X η 2 is not root of µ + µ -= η 2 . On the other hand, from (3.36), we know that τ = iY η 2 is imaginary root, thus it implies that R τ = 0 and ( ± X η,η 2 ) /notsubseteql Ξ.

Now we focus on the root X 2 1 . If U low &lt; v ˙ + 1 &lt; U upp , from (3.34), we know that X 2 1 is positive, it follows that τ = ± X η 1 are real. The point ( -X η,η 1 ) /notsubseteql Ξ, thus we omit this point, we only study the root τ = + X η 1 . Using a fact that square roots of the complex number a + ib are

$$\pm \{ \sqrt { \frac { r + a } { 2 } } + i s g n ( b ) \sqrt { \frac { r - a } { 2 } } \}, \ r = | a + i b |.$$

In our case here, we compute

$$\mu ^ { + } = \sqrt { \frac { r + a } { 2 } } + i \sqrt { \frac { r - a } { 2 } }, \mu ^ { - } = \sqrt { \frac { r + a } { 2 } } - i \sqrt { \frac { r - a } { 2 } },$$

where

$$a = \frac { X _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } - ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { \pm } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + c ^ { 2 } } { c ^ { 2 } } \eta ^ { 2 }, \ b = \frac { 2 X _ { 1 } \dot { v } ^ { \pm } } { c ^ { 2 } } \eta ^ { 2 },$$

so that µ + µ -= r &gt; 0, therefore we deduce that in case of U low &lt; v ˙ + 1 &lt; U upp , the root of the symbol Σ is the point (+ X η,η 1 ). In summary we can get a root ( τ, η ) with R τ &gt; 0, which is a unstable solution.

Now we prove that the root ( X η,η 1 ) are simple. We define φ X ( ) = ˜ µ + ˜ µ --1, therefore we have Σ = c 2 η φ X 2 ( ). By Taylor formula, we can write

$$\Sigma = c ^ { 2 } \eta ^ { 2 } ( \phi ( X _ { 1 } ) + ( X - X _ { 1 } ) \frac { d \phi } { d X } ( \alpha X _ { 1 } + ( 1 - \alpha ) X ) ), 0 < \alpha < 1.$$

By direct computation, we have

$$\phi ( X _ { 1 } ) = 0, \, \frac { d \phi } { d X } = \frac { 2 X / c } { \tilde { \mu } ^ { + } \tilde { \mu } ^ { - } } \{ ( \frac { X } { c } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } / c ) ^ { 2 } + 1 \}.$$

/negationslash

Since dφ dX ( X 1 ) = 0, by the continuity of dφ dX , it follows that dφ dX ( αX 1 + (1 -α X ) )) = 0. Therefore we complete the proof of this lemma.

/negationslash

## 4 Ill-posedness of solutions for the linear problem

4.1. Uniqueness for the linearized equations (3.5) (3.6) -

To begin with, we prove a uniqueness result for the linearized system (3.5)-(3.6).

Lemma 4.1. Let f, h, v, G j be the solution to the linearized equations (3.5) (3.6) -with the initial data ( f, h, v, G j ) | t =0 = 0 . Then it holds ( f, h, v, G j ) ≡ 0 .

Proof. Taking the standard inner product of the first equation and second equation in (3.5) with h + , v + and integrating over Ω + , we obtain

$$\frac { 1 } { 2 } \partial _ { t } \int _ { \Omega ^ { + } } c ^ { 2 } | h ^ { + } | ^ { 2 } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \int _ { \Omega ^ { + } } i _ { 1 } \partial _ { 1 } ( c ^ { 2 } | h ^ { + } | ^ { 2 } ) + \int _ { \Omega ^ { + } } c ^ { 2 } h ^ { + } \text{div} v ^ { + } = 0.$$

and

Meanwhile, we take the inner product of the third equation in (3.5) with G j and integrate over Ω + to arrive at

$$\text{and} \quad \frac { 1 } { 2 } \partial _ { t } \int _ { \Omega ^ { + } } | v ^ { + } | ^ { 2 } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \int _ { \Omega ^ { + } } \bar { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } ( | v ^ { + } | ^ { 2 } ) + \int _ { \Omega ^ { + } } c ^ { 2 } \nabla h ^ { + } \cdot v ^ { + } = \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } \int _ { \Omega ^ { + } } \dot { G } _ { 1 j } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } G _ { j } ^ { + } v ^ { + }. \quad \text{(4.2)} \\ \text{Meanswhile we take the inner product of the third equation in (3.5) with G. and interpolate over } O ^ { + }$$

$$\text{re at} \frac { 1 } { 2 } \partial _ { t } \int _ { \Omega ^ { + } } | G _ { j } ^ { + } | ^ { 2 } + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \int _ { \Omega ^ { + } } \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } ( | G _ { j } ^ { + } | ^ { 2 } ) = \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } \int _ { \Omega ^ { + } } \dot { G } _ { 1 j } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } v G _ { j } ^ { + }. \\ \text{therefore} \text{in} w \text{arts the second terms on the left hand side of } ( 4 \, 1 ) \text{ and } ( 4 \, 2 ) \text{ vanish} \text{ also the}$$

After integrating by parts, the second terms on the left hand side of (4.1) and (4.2) vanish, also the sum of the terms on the right hand side of (4.2) and (4.3) vanish, thus adding (4.1), (4.2) and (4.3) and integrating by parts, we get

$$\frac { 1 } { 2 } \partial _ { t } \int _ { \Omega ^ { + } } ( c ^ { 2 } | h ^ { + } | ^ { 2 } + | v ^ { + } | ^ { 2 } + | G _ { j } ^ { + } | ^ { 2 } ) = c ^ { 2 } ( \varrho _ { 0 } ) \int _ { \Gamma } h ^ { + } v ^ { + } \cdot e _ { 2 }. \\ \int _ { \dots \dots \dots \Delta } \circ \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \end{cases}$$

A similar result holds on Ω -with the opposite sign on the right hand side:

$$\frac { 1 } { 2 } \partial _ { t } \int _ { \Omega ^ { - } } ( c ^ { 2 } | h ^ { - } | ^ { 2 } + | v ^ { - } | ^ { 2 } + | G _ { j } ^ { - } | ^ { 2 } ) = - c ^ { 2 } ( \varrho _ { 0 } ) \int _ { \Gamma } h ^ { - } v ^ { - } \cdot e _ { 2 }. \\ \dots \dots \, \vec { \lambda } \, \dots \, \dots \, \dots.$$

Adding (4.4) and (4.5) implies

$$\frac { 1 } { 2 } \partial _ { t } \int _ { \Omega } ( c ^ { 2 } | h | ^ { 2 } + | v | ^ { 2 } + | G _ { j } | ^ { 2 } ) = c ^ { 2 } \int _ { \Gamma } [ h v \cdot e _ { 2 } ] = 2 c ^ { 2 } ( \varrho _ { 0 } ) \int _ { \Gamma } h \bar { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } f.$$

Also multiplying the fourth equation in (3.5) by f , we have

$$\frac { 1 } { 2 } \partial _ { t } \int _ { \Gamma } | f | ^ { 2 } = \int _ { \Gamma } v _ { 2 } f. \\. \quad. \quad -.. \quad. \quad..$$

Adding (4.6) and (4.7) and using the Holder inequality yields

$$\psi _ { 1 } \quad \psi _ { 2 } \quad \psi _ { 3 } \quad \psi _ { 4 } \quad \psi _ { 5 } \quad \psi _ { 6 } \quad \psi _ { 7 } \quad \psi _ { 8 } \quad \psi _ { 9 } \\ \quad \quad & \frac { 1 } { 2 } \partial _ { t } \int _ { \Omega } ( c ^ { 2 } | h | ^ { 2 } + | v | ^ { 2 } + | G _ { j } | ^ { 2 } ) + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \partial _ { t } \int _ { \Gamma } | f | ^ { 2 } \\ = 2 c ^ { 2 } \int _ { \Gamma } h \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } f + \int _ { \Gamma } v _ { 2 } f \\ \leq 2 c ^ { 2 } \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \| h \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Gamma ) } \| \partial _ { 1 } f \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Gamma ) } + \| v _ { 2 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Gamma ) } \| f \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Gamma ) } \coloneqq J. \\ \text{the loss of derivatives. we suppose that the solutions are band-limited at radius } R > 0.$$

To avoid the loss of derivatives, we suppose that the solutions are band-limited at radius R &gt; 0, i.e., that

$$\underset { x _ { 2 } \in \mathbb { R } } { \cup } s u p p ( | \hat { f } ( \cdot ) | + | \hat { h } ( \cdot, x _ { 2 } ) | + | \hat { v } ( \cdot, x _ { 2 } ) | + | \hat { G } _ { j } ( \cdot, x _ { 2 } ) | ) \subset B ( 0, R ),$$

also we introduce an anisotropic trace estimate in Lemma B.1 ([37]):

$$\| \phi \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Gamma ) } ^ { 2 } & \leq C ( \| \dot { v } \cdot \nabla \phi \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } \| \phi \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } + \| \phi \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } ),$$

where ˙ = (˙ v v , 1 0) with ˙ v + 1 = U low + c/epsilon1 0 &gt; 0. Now we estimate J as follows:

$$J & \lesssim ( \| \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } h \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } \| h \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } + \| h \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \| \eta \hat { f } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Gamma ) } \\ & + ( \| v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } v _ { 2 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } \| v _ { 2 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } + \| v _ { 2 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \| f \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Gamma ) } & & ( 4. 1 0 ) \\ & \lesssim ( ( v _ { 1 } ^ { + } R + 1 ) R ^ { 2 } \| h \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \| f \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Gamma ) } + ( ( v _ { 1 } ^ { + } R + 1 ) \| v _ { 2 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } ) ^ { \frac { 1 } { 2 } } \| f \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Gamma ) }. \\ \Gamma \quad \text{$\mathbb{m.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m.s.m$$

Finally plugging (4.10) into (4.8) and taking use of Gronwall's inequality, for arbitrary R , we have

$$\| f \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Gamma ) } ^ { 2 } + \| h \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } + \| v \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } + \| G _ { j } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } \leq C ( \| f _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Gamma ) } ^ { 2 } + \| h _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } + \| v _ { 0 } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } + \| G _ { 0, j } \| _ { L ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } ).$$

From this, we infer that if ( f, h, v, G j ) | t =0 = 0, then it follows that ( f, h, v, G j ) ≡ 0.

## 4.2. Discontinuous dependence on the initial data

In according with Lemma 3.2 and (3.34), if √ ( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 &lt; v ˙ + 1 &lt; √ 2 c 2 +( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 , we deduce that X 2 1 is positive, it follows that τ = X η 1 is real and positive. Next, we claim that the equation (3.7) can be simplied to the following form

$$\partial _ { t } ^ { 2 } f + \lambda \partial _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } f = 0.$$

where λ must be positive in the case of √ ( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 &lt; v ˙ + 1 &lt; √ 2 c 2 +( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 . In fact, plugging f = e τt g into equation (4.12), we get τ 2 g + λ∂ g 2 x = 0. Then we take Fourier transform of this identity with respect the x 1 variable, we have

$$( \tau ^ { 2 } - \lambda \eta ^ { 2 } ) \hat { g } = 0,$$

which yields λ = τ 2 η 2 . From Lemma 3.2, we know that X 2 1 = τ 2 η 2 &gt; 0 in the case of √ ( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 &lt; ˙ v + 1 &lt; √ 2 c 2 +( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 . Thus we have λ = X &gt; 2 1 0. Therefore (3.7) is indeed a linear elliptic equation.

Firstly, we state the following lemma which gives the explicit expression of the solutions ˆ w , w 1 ˆ 2 and ˆ E 1 j , E ˆ 2 j in terms of ˆ( g η ).

Lemma 4.2. The horizontal Fourier transform of the solution w i snd E ij with i, j = 1 2 , to (3.10) satisfies the following equality

$$\ s a u s j u e s \ n u e \ j o w o w n g \ e q u a u v y \\ \hat { w } _ { 1 } ( \eta, x _ { 2 } ) = \begin{cases} - \frac { ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } i \eta ( \tau + i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau + i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } \hat { \varrho } ( \eta ) e ^ { - \mu ^ { + } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } \geq 0, \\ - \frac { ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } i \eta ( \tau - i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau - i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } \hat { \varrho } ( \eta ) e ^ { \mu ^ { - } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } < 0, \\ \\ _ { \cdots } \quad \int \frac { ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } \mu ^ { + } ( \tau + i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau + i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } \hat { \varrho } ( \eta ) e ^ { - \mu ^ { + } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } \geq 0, \end{cases}$$

$$& \mathfrak { V } \quad \mathbb { V } ^ { - \ e v _ { 1 } } \, \mathbb { V } \quad \mathbb { V } _ { 1 1 } \, \mathbb { V } \quad \mathbb { V } _ { 1 2 } \, \mathbb { V } ^ { \prime } \\ \hat { v } _ { 2 } ( \eta, x _ { 2 } ) = \begin{cases} \frac { ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } \mu ^ { + } ( \tau + i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau + i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \hat { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \hat { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } \hat { g } ( \eta ) e ^ { - \mu ^ { + } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } \geq 0, \\ - \frac { ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } \mu ^ { - } ( \tau - i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau - i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \hat { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \hat { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } \hat { g } ( \eta ) e ^ { \mu ^ { - } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } < 0, \\ \end{cases} \Big. & - \frac { i \hat { G } _ { 1 j } ^ { + } \eta ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } i \eta ( \tau + i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau + i i n ^ { + } n ) l ( \tau + i i n ^ { + } n ) 2 + ( ( \hat { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) \, \infty \, 2 + ( \hat { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) \, \infty \, n 2 l } \, \hat { g } ( \eta ) e ^ { - \mu ^ { + } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } \geq 0,$$

and

$$& \ w _ { 2 } ( \mu, \, \omega _ { 2 } ) - \\ & - \frac { ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } \mu ^ { - } ( \tau - i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau - i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 1 } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } \hat { g } ( \eta ) c ^ { - } x _ { 2 } \quad x _ { 2 } < 0, \\ & \hat { E } _ { 1 j } ( \eta, x _ { 2 } ) = \begin{cases} - \frac { i \dot { G } _ { 1 j } ^ { + } \eta ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } i \eta ( \tau + i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau + i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) [ ( \tau + i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } ] } \hat { g } ( \eta ) e ^ { - \mu ^ { + } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } \geq 0, \\ & - \frac { i \dot { G } _ { 1 j } ^ { - } \eta ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } i \eta ( \tau - i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau - i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) [ ( \tau - i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } ] } \hat { g } ( \eta ) c ^ { \mu ^ { - } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } < 0, \end{cases} \\ & \text{and} \end{cases} \\ & \left ( \frac { i \dot { G } _ { 1 j } ^ { + } \eta ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } \mu ^ { + } ( \tau + i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } \mu ^ { + } ( \tau + i v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } \hat { a } ( n \wedge e ^ { - \mu ^ { + } x _ { 2 } } & r _ { \tau } > 0$$

$$& \text{and} \\ & \hat { E } _ { 2 j } ( \eta, x _ { 2 } ) = \begin{cases} \frac { i \dot { G } _ { 1 j } ^ { + } \eta ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } \mu ^ { + } ( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) [ ( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } \eta ^ { 2 } ] } \hat { g } ( \eta ) c ^ { - \mu ^ { + } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } \geq 0, \\ - \frac { i \dot { G } _ { 1 j } ^ { - } \eta ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } \mu ^ { - } ( \tau - i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau - i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) [ ( \tau - i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } \eta ^ { 2 } ] } \hat { g } ( \eta ) c ^ { - x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } < 0. \\ & \text{Proo} f. \text{ Taking the horizontal Fourier transform of the second and third equation in (3.10), we arrive} \end{cases}$$

$$( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } \eta ) \hat { w } _ { 1 } + c ^ { 2 } i \eta \hat { m } = i \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } \dot { G } _ { 1 j } \eta \hat { E } _ { 1 j },$$

and and

and

$$( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } \eta ) \hat { E } _ { 2 j } = i \dot { G } _ { 1 j } \eta \hat { w } _ { 2 },$$

Then we substitute (4.20) into (4.18) to obtain

$$( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } \eta ) ^ { 2 } \hat { w } _ { 1 } + c ^ { 2 } ( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } \eta ) i \eta \hat { m } = - ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } \hat { w } _ { 1 },$$

$$( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } \eta ) \hat { w } _ { 2 } + c ^ { 2 } \partial _ { 2 } \hat { m } = i \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } \dot { G } _ { 1 j } \eta \hat { E } _ { 2 j },$$

$$( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } \eta ) \hat { E } _ { 1 j } = i \dot { G } _ { 1 j } \eta \hat { w } _ { 1 },$$

similarly substituting (4.21) into (4.19) to obtain

$$( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } \eta ) ^ { 2 } \hat { w } _ { 2 } + c ^ { 2 } ( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } \eta ) \partial _ { 2 } \hat { m } = - ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } \hat { w } _ { 2 }.$$

Taking use of (3.15), we obtain (4.14) and (4.15). Futher, we can derive (4.16) and (4.17) by (4.20) and (4.21).

We are now in a position to prove ill-posedness for this linear problem (3.5)-(3.6) in the following lemma:

Lemma 4.3. In the case of √ ( ˙ G + 2 11 ) +( ˙ G + 2 12 ) c 2 + /epsilon1 0 ≤ M := | ˙ v + 1 | c ≤ √ 2 + ( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 2 12 ) c 2 -/epsilon1 0 , the linear equations (3.5) with the corresponding jump boundary conditions (3.6) is ill-posed in the sense of Hadamard in H k (Ω) for every k . More precisely, for any k, j ∈ N with j ≥ k and for any T 0 &gt; 0 and α &gt; 0 , there exists a sequence { ( f n , v n , h n ) , G n,l } ∞ n =1 with l = 1 2 , to (3.5) , satisfying boundary conditions (3.6) , so that

$$\omega _ { \ } w e w _ { \ } \\ \quad \| ( f _ { n } ( 0 ), h _ { n } ( 0 ), v _ { n } ( 0 ), G _ { n, l } ( 0 ) ) \| _ { H ^ { j } } \lesssim \frac { 1 } { n },$$

but

$$\| ( f _ { n } ( t ), h _ { n } ( t ), v _ { n } ( t ), G _ { n, l } ( t ) ) \| _ { H ^ { k } } \geq \alpha, \ f o r \ a l l \ t \geq T _ { 0 }.$$

Proof. For any j ∈ N , we let χ n ( η ) ∈ C ∞ c ( R ) be a real-valued function so that supp χ ( n ) ⊂ B (0 , n + 1) \ B (0 , n ) and

$$\int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + | \eta | ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j + 1 } | \chi _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta & = \frac { 1 } { \bar { C } _ { j } ^ { \ 2 } n ^ { 2 } }, \\ \cdot \,, \quad, \quad \cdot \, \mathbb { m r } \quad, \quad \wedge \quad \wedge \quad \cdot \,, \quad \cdot \,, \quad \cdot \, \mathbb { m r r r r r r r r r r r r r r } \cdot \, \cdot \,.$$

where ¯ C j is a constant depend on j . We can choose ˆ g n = χ n ( η ) which solves (4.13). We define

$$f _ { n } ( t ) = e ^ { \tau t } g _ { n } = \frac { 1 } { 4 \pi ^ { 2 } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } } e ^ { X _ { 1 } \eta t } \chi _ { n } ( \eta ) e ^ { i \eta x _ { 1 } } d \eta, \quad \quad \quad$$

which solves (4.12). Here we take use of τ = X η 1 in according with Lemma 3.2 . From this, we can see that the front of the linear equation is qualitatively more unstable for large frequencies η . Since η → ∞ , the solutions (4.12) with a higher frequency grow faster in time, which provides a mechanism for Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. By the choice of χ n , we have the estimate

$$& \| f _ { n } ( 0 ) \| _ { H ^ { j } ( \Gamma ) } = \| g _ { n } \| _ { H ^ { j } ( \Gamma ) } \\ & = ( \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + | \eta | ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j } | \chi _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ {$$

Meanwhile for n +1 ≥ η ≥ n and t ≥ T 0 , we get

$$- \cdot - & - \cdot \\ \| f _ { n } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Gamma ) } ^ { 2 } & \geq e ^ { 2 X _ { 1 } n T _ { 0 } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + | \eta | ^ { 2 } ) ^ { k } | _ { X n } ($$

Let n be sufficiently large so that

$$\frac { e ^ { 2 X _ { 1 } n T _ { 0 } } } { ( 1 + ( n + 1 ) ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j - k + 1 } } \geq \alpha ^ { 2 } \bar { C } _ { j } ^ { \, 2 } n ^ { 2 },$$

where α is some positive constant independed of n . Thus we may estimate

$$\| f _ { n } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Gamma ) } & \geq \alpha.$$

From (3.15), we know that

$$\hat { \ m } _ { n } ( \eta, x _ { 2 } ) = \begin{cases} \frac { 4 i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta \tau } { c ^ { 2 } ( \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } ) } \hat { g } _ { n } ( \eta ) e ^ { - \mu ^ { + } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } \geq 0, \\ \frac { 4 i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta \tau } { c ^ { 2 } ( \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } ) } \hat { g } _ { n } ( \eta ) e ^ { \mu ^ { - } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } < 0. \end{cases} \\ K _ { 1 } \eta > 0 \text{ and } \eta > 0, \text{ from lemma } 3. 1 \text{ we know that } \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } \neq 0, \text{ then } ( 4. 3 0 ) \text{ can be} \\ \vdots$$

/negationslash

$$\hat { m } _ { n } ( \eta, x _ { 2 } ) = \begin{cases} ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) \hat { g } _ { n } ( \eta ) e ^ { - \mu ^ { + } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } \geq 0, \\ ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) \hat { g } _ { n } ( \eta ) e ^ { \mu ^ { - } x _ { 2 } } & x _ { 2 } < 0, \end{cases} \\ \text{that } u ^ { \pm } \text{ only downend on } n \text{ since we set } \tau - X. n \text{ therefore it minimise that } u ( \tau \ n ) -$$

 Since τ = X η &gt; 1 0 and η &gt; 0, from lemma 3.1 we know that µ + -µ -= 0, then (4.30) can be rewritten as here we note that µ ± only depend on η , since we get τ = X η 1 , therefore it implies that µ τ, η ( ) = µ X η,η ( 1 ).

Then, by (3.38) in Lemma 3.2, we deduce that

$$| \frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { \pm } } | ^ { 2 } = \frac { | 2 i \sqrt { \frac { r - a } { 2 } } | ^ { 2 } } { | \sqrt { \frac { r + a } { 2 } } \pm i \sqrt { \frac { r - a } { 2 } } | ^ { 2 } } = 2 \frac { r - a } { r }. \\ \intertext { h i f t h o o m m a t i o n } \ m i n d { n o o t h o o m m a t i o n } \ F = \sqrt { ( \dot { G } ^ { + } _ { 1 1 } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } ^ { + } _ { 1 2 } ) ^ { 2 } } \ m i n d { \tilde { V } }. = X _ { 1 }$$

In order to simplify the computation, we introduce the notation K = √ ( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 c 2 and ˜ X 1 = X 1 c , thus the condition (2.28) is rewritten as K + /epsilon1 0 ≤ M ≤ √ K 2 +2 -/epsilon1 0 and the equality (3.34) is rewritten as ˜ X 2 1 = √ 1 + 4( K 2 +1) M 2 -M 2 -K 2 -1. At the same time, we rewrite (3.39) by

We estimate a as follows:

$$a & = ( \tilde { X } _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } - M ^ { 2 } + K ^ { 2 } + 1 ) \eta ^ { 2 } \\ & = ( \sqrt { 1 + 4 ( K ^ { 2 } + 1 ) M ^ { 2 } } - 2 M ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 }. \\ \text{allows} \colon$$

$$- \eta ^ { 2 } < a \leq ( \sqrt { 1 + 4 ( K ^ { 2 } + 1 ) ( K + \epsilon _ { 0 } ) ^ { 2 } } - 2 ( K + \epsilon _ { 0 } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 }, \quad & ( 4. 3 4 ) \\ \text{he lower bound in } ( 4. 3 4 ) \text{ holds when } M = \sqrt { K ^ { 2 } + 2 } \text{ in } ( 4. 3 3 ). \text{ Also we compute}$$

where the lower bound in (4.34) holds when M = √ K 2 +2 in (4.33). Also we compute

$$| \mu ^ { + } | & = | \sqrt { \frac { r + a } { 2 } } + i \sqrt { \frac { r - a } { 2 } } | = \sqrt { r }, \\ | \mu ^ { - } | & = | \sqrt { \frac { r + a } { 2 } } - i \sqrt { \frac { r - a } { 2 } } | = \sqrt { r }, \\ \intertext { 4 4 } \text{ and } ( 3 3 ) \text{ if inmlies that}$$

In according with (3.34) and (3.39), it implies that

$$r ^ { 2 } = a ^ { 2 } + b ^ { 2 } = \eta ^ { 4 }.$$

Finally, combining with (4.32), (4.33), (4.34) and (4.36) implies that

$$C _ { 1 } \coloneqq 2 - 2 ( \sqrt { 1 + 4 ( K ^ { 2 } + 1 ) ( K + \epsilon _ { 0 } ) ^ { 2 } } - 2 ( K + \epsilon _ { 0 } ) ^ { 2 } ) \leq | \frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { \pm } } | ^ { 2 } < 4, \quad \ \ ( 4. 3 7 )$$

here we remark that √ ( ˙ G + 2 11 ) +( ˙ G + 2 12 ) c 2 + /epsilon1 0 ≤ M must be satisfied, where /epsilon1 0 is a small but fixed number. Because if March number M tends to √ ( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 c 2 , this lower bound of (4.37) would tend to zero.

At the same time, we need to estimate the term | µ ± µ + + µ -| , by (4.33), (4.35) and (4.36), after the direct computation, we can obtain

$$\left | \frac { \mu ^ { \pm } } { \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } } \right | = \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { 2 } \sqrt { \sqrt { 1 + 4 ( K ^ { 2 } + 1 ) M ^ { 2 } } + 1 - 2 M ^ { 2 } } } \\ + \epsilon _ { 0 } \leq M \leq \sqrt { K ^ { 2 } + 2 } - \epsilon _ { 0 }, \text{ it is easy to verified that}$$

Then, since K + /epsilon1 0 ≤ M ≤ √ K 2 +2 -/epsilon1 0 , it is easy to verified that where C ∗ is defined by

$$\frac { \cdot } { 2 } < \left | \frac { \mu ^ { \pm } } { \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } } \right | \leq C _ { * },$$

$$C _ { * } \coloneqq \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { 2 } } \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { 1 + \sqrt { ( 2 K ^ { 2 } + 3 ) ^ { 2 } - 4 ( K ^ { 2 } + 1 ) \epsilon _ { 0 } ( 2 \sqrt { K ^ { 2 } + 2 } - \epsilon _ { 0 } ) } - 2 ( \sqrt { K ^ { 2 } + 2 } - \epsilon _ { 0 } ) ^ { 2 } } }. \\ \text{We remark that when } \epsilon _ { 0 } \, \text{goes to } 0, \, C _ { * } \, \text{would go to infinity, which would not obtain the uniform}$$

We remark that when /epsilon1 0 goes to 0, C ∗ would go to infinity, which would not obtain the uniform upper bound.

Therefore employing (4.37), (4.31) and (4.35), we estimate ‖ h n (0) ‖ H j (Ω) as follows

$$\begin{array} { l } \text{per bound.} \\ \text{Therefore employing } ( 4. 3 7 ), ( 4. 3 1 ) \text{ and } ( 4. 3 5 ), \text{ we estimate } \| h _ { n } ( 0 ) \| _ { H ^ { j } ( \Omega ) } \text{ as follows} \\ & \| h _ { n } ( t = 0 ) \| _ { H ^ { j } ( \Omega ) } = \| m _ { n } \| _ { H ^ { j } ( \Omega ) } \\ & \leq \sum _ { 0 } ^ { j } \int _ { 0 } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j - s } | \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } | ^ { 2 } | \hat { g } _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } | \partial _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } e ^ { - \mu ^ { + } x _ { 2 } } | ^ { 2 } d x _ { 2 } d \eta \\ & + \sum _ { s = 0 } ^ { j } \int _ { 0 } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j - s } | \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } | ^ { 2 } | \hat { g } _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } | \partial _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } e ^ { - 2 } \sqrt { \frac { k } { 2 } } x _ { 2 } } d x _ { 2 } d \eta \\ & \leq \sum _ { 0 } ^ { j } \int _ { 0 } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j - s } | \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } | ^ { 2 } | \hat { g } _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } | \mu ^ { - } | ^ { 2 } e ^ { - 2 } \sqrt { \frac { k } { 2 } } x _ { 2 } } d x _ { 2 } d \eta \\ & \leq 2 C _ { * } \sum _ { s = 0 } ^ { j } \int _ { 0 } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j - s } \left | \frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { + } } \right | ^ { 2 } | \mu ^ { + } | ^ { 2 s + 1 } \left | \frac { \mu ^ { + } } { \mu ^ { + } } \right | \left | X _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta \\ & + 2 C _ { * } \sum _ { s = 0 } ^ { j } \int _ { 0 } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j - s } \left | \frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { - } } \right | ^ { 2 } | \mu ^ { - } | ^ { 2 s + 1 } \left | \frac { \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { + } } + \mu ^ { - } \right | | X _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta \\ & < 4 C _ { * } ( j + 1 ) \int _ { 0 } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j + 1 } | X _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta \lesssim \frac { \pi ^ { 2 } } { \pi ^ { 2 } }, \\ \text{While for the lower bound of } \| h _ { n } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) }, \text{ by the definition of the } H ^ { k } \text{ norm and } ( 4. 3 0 ), \text{ noting} \\ \text{$\mu^{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{ \nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{v}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nu}_{\nolimits} \end{array}$$

While for the lower bound of ‖ h n ( ) t ‖ 2 H k (Ω) , by the definition of the H k norm and (4.30), noting that µ + = √ r + a 2 + i √ r -a 2 , µ -= √ r + a 2 -i √ r -a 2 and supp χ ( n ) ⊂ B (0 , n + 1) \ B (0 , n ), by (4.35)

and (4.36), we have

$$. 36 ), \, \text{we have} \\ & \| h _ { n } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } = \| e ^ { \prime t } m _ { n } \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } \\ & \geq \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { k } | \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } | ^ { 2 } | e ^ { \prime t } \hat { g } _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } | e ^ { - \mu ^ { + } x _ { 2 } } | ^ { 2 } d x _ { 2 } d \eta \\ & + \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { k } | \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } | ^ { 2 } | e ^ { \prime t } \hat { g } _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } \int _ { - \infty } ^ { 0 } | e ^ { \mu ^ { - } x _ { 2 } } | ^ { 2 } d x _ { 2 } d \eta \\ & \geq \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { k } \frac { | \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } | ^ { 2 } } { | \mu ^ { + } | ^ { 2 } } e ^ { 2 \tau t } | \hat { g } _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } \left | \frac { \mu ^ { + } } { \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } } \right | | \mu ^ { + } | d \eta \\ & + \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { k } \frac { | \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } | ^ { 2 } } { | \mu ^ { - } | ^ { 2 } } e ^ { 2 \tau t } | \hat { g } _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } \left | \frac { \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } } \right | | \mu ^ { - } | d \eta \\ & \geq \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { k } | \frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { + } } | ^ { 2 } e ^ { 2 X _ { 1 } \eta ^ { t } } \frac { | \mu ^ { + } | } { | \mu ^ { + } | + | \mu ^ { - } | } | \mu ^ { + } | | \chi _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta \\ & + \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { k } | \frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { - } } | ^ { 2 } e ^ { 2 X _ { 1 } \eta ^ { t } } \frac { | \mu ^ { - } | } { | \mu ^ { + } | + | \mu ^ { - } | } | \mu ^ { - } | | \chi _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta \\ & \geq C _ { 1 } \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { k } e ^ { 2 X _ { 1 } \eta ^ { t } } | \chi _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta, \\ \, \text{we use the triangle inequality } | \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } | \leq | \mu ^ { + } | + | \mu ^ { - } | \text{ in the second to the last inequality} \\. \, \text{ Meanwhile for } \eta \geq n \geq 1 \text{ and } t \geq T _ { 0 }, \, \text{we may estimate (4.40) as follows}$$

where we use the triangle inequality | µ + + µ -| ≤ | µ + | + | µ -| in the second to the last inequality above . Meanwhile for η ≥ n ≥ 1 and t ≥ T 0 , we may estimate (4.40) as follows

$$\| h _ { n } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } \geq C _ { 1 } \frac { e ^ { 2 X _ { 1 } n T _ { 0 } } } { 1 + ( n + 1 ) ^ { j - k + 1 } } \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j + 1 } | \chi _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta, \\. \quad \neg \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot.$$

Let n be sufficiently large so that

$$C _ { 1 } \frac { e ^ { 2 X _ { 1 } n T _ { 0 } } } { 1 + ( n + 1 ) ^ { j - k + 1 } } \geq \alpha ^ { 2 } n ^ { 2 } \bar { C } _ { j } ^ { 2 },$$

where α is some positive constant independent of n . Hence we may estimate

$$\| h _ { n } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } \geq \alpha.$$

To estimate ‖ v n (0) ‖ H j (Ω) and ‖ v n ( ) t ‖ H k (Ω) , we need to estimate | iη τ ( ± iv ˙ + 1 η ) ( τ ± iv ˙ + 1 η ) 2 +(( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 ) η 2 | and | µ ± ( τ ± iv ˙ + 1 η ) ( τ ± iv ˙ + 1 η ) 2 +(( ˙ G + 11 ) 2 +( ˙ G + 12 ) 2 ) η 2 | as follows:

$$| \frac { \mu ^ { + } ( \tau \pm w _ { i } \eta ) } { ( \tau \pm i v _ { i } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( G _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( G _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } | \text{ as follows:} \\ & \left | \frac { i \eta ( \tau \pm i v _ { i } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau \pm i v _ { i } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( G _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \tilde { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } \right | ^ { 2 } \\ & = \frac { X _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + ( i v _ { i } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } } { ( X _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + ( i v _ { i } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } + 2 ( ( G _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( G _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) ( X _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } - ( i v _ { i } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( G _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( G _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } } \\ & = \frac { \tilde { X } _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + M ^ { 2 } } { c ^ { 2 } [ ( \tilde { X } _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + M ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } + 2 K ^ { 2 } ( \tilde { X } _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } - M ^ { 2 } ) + K ^ { 4 } ] } \\ & = \frac { \sqrt { 1 + 4 ( K ^ { 2 } + 1 ) M ^ { 2 } - K ^ { 2 } - 1 ) ^ { 2 } + 2 K ^ { 2 } ( \sqrt { 1 + 4 ( K ^ { 2 } + 1 ) M ^ { 2 } } - 2 M ^ { 2 } - K ^ { 2 } - 1 ) + K ^ { 4 } ] } { c ^ { 2 } [ ( \sqrt { 1 + 4 ( K ^ { 2 } + 1 ) M ^ { 2 } } - K ^ { 2 } - 1 ) ^ { 2 } + 2 K ^ { 2 } ( \sqrt { 1 + 4 ( K ^ { 2 } + 1 ) M ^ { 2 } } - 2 M ^ { 2 } - K ^ { 2 } - 1 ) + K ^ { 4 } ] },$$

Let z = √ 1 + 4( K 2 +1) M 2 , the last equality in (4.44) can be written a function of z as following

$$\frac { 1 } { c ^ { 2 } } \frac { ( K ^ { 2 } + 1 ) ( z - K ^ { 2 } - 1 ) } { z ^ { 2 } - 2 ( K ^ { 2 } + 1 ) z + 2 K ^ { 2 } + 1 }.$$

Since K + /epsilon1 0 ≤ M ≤ √ K 2 +2 -/epsilon1 0 , then √ 1 + 4( K 2 +1)( K + /epsilon1 0 ) 2 ≤ z &lt; 2 K 2 +3, the function in (4.45) is monotone decreasing when √ 1 + 4( K 2 +1)( K + /epsilon1 0 ) 2 ≤ z &lt; 2 K 2 +3, thus we know that where C 2 = √ √ 1+4( K 2 +1)( K + /epsilon1 0 ) 2 -K 2 -1 c 2 [( √ 1+4( K 2 +1)( K + /epsilon1 0 ) 2 -K 2 -1) 2 +2 K 2 ( √ 1+4( K 2 +1)( K + /epsilon1 0 ) 2 -2( K + /epsilon1 0 ) 2 -K 2 -1)+ K 4 ] and the lower bound holds when z = 2 K 2 + 3 in the above inequality (4.45). Similarly we also get an estimate as follows:

$$\gamma _ { \lambda } \, = \,. & \sqrt { K ^ { 2 } + 2 } \, { 2 c } \, \left | \frac { i \eta ( \tau \pm i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau \pm i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } \right | \leq \frac { C _ { 2 } } { c }, \\ \gamma _ { \lambda } \, = \,. & \sqrt { \frac { \sqrt { 1 + 4 ( K ^ { 2 } + 1 ) ( K + \epsilon _ { 0 } ) ^ { 2 } - K ^ { 2 } - 1 } } { } } \, \text{ and } \text{ the}$$

$$\frac { \sqrt { K ^ { 2 } + 2 } } { 2 c } < | \frac { i \eta ( \tau \pm i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau \pm i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \dot { G } _ { 1 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { G } _ { 1 2 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } | \leq \frac { C _ { 2 } } { c },$$

Therefore employing (4.46), (3.9), (4.14) and (4.38), noting that µ + = √ r + a 2 + i √ r -a 2 , µ -= √ r + a 2 -i √ r -a 2 , we deduce

$$\sqrt { \frac { r + a } { 2 } } - i \sqrt { \frac { r - a } { 2 } }, \, \text{we deduce } \\ & \| v _ { n, 1 } ( 0 ) \| _ { \dot { H } ^ { j } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } = \| w _ { n, 1 } \| _ { \dot { H } ^ { j } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } \\ & \leq \sum _ { s = 0 } ^ { j } \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j - s } \left | \frac { ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } i \eta ( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( G _ { 1 } ^ { + } _ { 1 } ) ^ { 2 } + ( G _ { 1 } ^ { + } _ { 1 } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } \right | ^ { 2 } \, | \hat { g } _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } | \partial _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } e ^ { - \mu ^ { + } x _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } d x _ { 2 } d \eta } \\ & + \sum _ { s = 0 } ^ { j } \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j - s } \left | \frac { ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) c ^ { 2 } i \eta ( \tau - i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau - i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( G _ { 1 } ^ { + } _ { 1 } ) ^ { 2 } + ( G _ { 1 } ^ { + } _ { 1 } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } \right | ^ { 2 } \, | \hat { g } _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } \int _ { - \infty } ^ { \infty } | \partial _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } e ^ { \mu ^ { - } x _ { 2 } | ^ { 2 } d x _ { 2 } d \eta } \\ & \leq c ^ { 2 } C _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } \sum _ { s = 0 } ^ { j } \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j - s } | \frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { + } } | ^ { 2 } | \mu ^ { + } | ^ { 2 s + 1 } \left | \frac { \mu ^ { + } } { \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } } \right | | x _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta \\ & + c ^ { 2 } C _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } \sum _ { s = 0 } ^ { j } \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j - s } | \frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { - } } | ^ { 2 } | \mu ^ { - } | ^ { 2 s + 1 } \left | \frac { \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } } \right | | x _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta \\ & < 8 c ^ { 2 } C _ { * } C _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ( j + 1 ) \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j + 1 } | _ { \dot { X } _ { n } } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta \lesssim \frac { 1 } { n ^ { 2 } }. \\ \text{Computing similarly as above, then we have}$$

Computing similarly as above, then we have

$$\| v _ { n, 2 } ( 0 ) \| _ { H ^ { j } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } \lesssim \frac { 1 } { n ^ { 2 } }.$$

Noting that supp χ ( n ) ⊂ B (0 , n +1) \ B (0 , n ), by (4.35)-(4.37) and (4.46), (4.38), we deduce

$$& \text{Noting that swpp} ( \chi _ { n } ) \subset B ( 0, n + 1 ) \vee B ( 0, n ), \text{ by } ( 4. 3 7 ) \text{ and } ( 4. 4 6 ), ( 4. 3 8 ), \text{ we deduce} \\ & \| v _ { n, 1 } ( t ) \| _ { \Lambda ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } ^ { k } = \| e ^ { X _ { 1 } \eta ^ { t } } w _ { n, 1 } \| _ { \Lambda ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } \\ & \geq \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { k } \left | \frac { ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) ^ { c } 2 i \eta ( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau + i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \widetilde { Q } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } \right | ^ { 2 } e ^ { 2 X _ { 1 } \eta ^ { t } } | \hat { g } _ { n } | ^ { 2 } \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } | e ^ { - \mu ^ { + } x _ { 2 } } | ^ { 2 } d x _ { 2 } d \eta \\ & \quad + \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { k } \left | \frac { ( \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } ) ^ { c } 2 i \eta ( \tau - i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } { ( \tau - i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) ^ { 2 } + ( ( \widetilde { Q } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } ) \eta ^ { 2 } } \right | ^ { 2 } e ^ { 2 X _ { 1 } \eta ^ { t } } | \hat { g } _ { n } | ^ { 2 } \int _ { - \infty } ^ { 0 } | e ^ { \mu ^ { - } x _ { 2 } } | ^ { 2 } d x _ { 2 } d \eta \\ & \geq \frac { ( K ^ { 2 } + 2 ) c ^ { 2 } } { 4 } \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { k } | \frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { + } } | ^ { 2 } e ^ { 2 X _ { 1 } \eta ^ { t } } | \chi _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } \left | \frac { \mu ^ { + } } { \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } } \right | | \mu ^ { + } | d \eta } \\ & \quad + \frac { ( K ^ { 2 } + 2 ) c ^ { 2 } } { 4 } \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { k } | \frac { \mu ^ { + } - \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { - } } | ^ { 2 } e ^ { 2 X _ { 1 } \eta ^ { t } } | \chi _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } \left | \frac { \mu ^ { - } } { \mu ^ { + } + \mu ^ { - } } \right | | \mu ^ { - } | d \eta } \\ & \geq \frac { ( K ^ { 2 } + 2 ) c ^ { 2 } C _ { 1 } } { 8 } \left ( 1 + ( n + 1 ) ^ { j - k + 1 } \int _ { \mathbb { R } } ( 1 + \eta ^ { 2 } ) ^ { j + 1 } | \chi _ { n } ( \eta ) | ^ { 2 } d \eta, \\ & \text{where} \, c \, \text{ is the sound speed defined in } ( 1. 2 ). \text{ Let } n \text{ be sufficiently large so that}$$

where c is the sound speed defined in (1.2). Let n be sufficiently large so that

$$\frac { ( K ^ { 2 } + 2 ) c ^ { 2 } C _ { 1 } } { 8 } \frac { e ^ { 2 X _ { 1 } n T _ { 0 } } } { 1 + ( n + 1 ) ^ { j - k + 1 } } \geq \alpha ^ { 2 } n ^ { 2 } \bar { C } _ { j } ^ { 2 },$$

where α is some positive constant independent of n . Hence we may estimate

$$\| v _ { n, 1 } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } & \geq \alpha.$$

Similarly we have

$$\| v _ { n, 2 } \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } & \geq \alpha.$$

To estimate terms of ‖ G n,l ( t, x 1 , x 2 ) ‖ 2 H j , we need to rewrite | iη τ ± iv ˙ + 1 η | and | µ ± τ ± iv ˙ + 1 η | as follows:

$$\left | \frac { i \eta } { \tau \pm i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } \right | ^ { 2 } & = \frac { 1 } { X _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } } = \frac { 1 } { c ^ { 2 } ( \sqrt { 1 + 4 ( K ^ { 2 } + 1 ) M ^ { 2 } } - K ^ { 2 } - 1 ) }. \\ \intertext { n c e } K + \epsilon _ { 0 } \leq M \leq \sqrt { K ^ { 2 } + 2 } - \epsilon _ { 0 }, \, \text{we know by } ( 4. 5 4 ) \text{ that}$$

∣ Since K + /epsilon1 0 ≤ M ≤ √ K 2 +2 -/epsilon1 0 , we know by (4.54) that

$$\frac { 1 } { c ^ { 2 } ( K ^ { 2 } + 2 ) } < \left | \frac { i \eta } { \tau \pm i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta ) } \right | ^ { 2 } \leq C _ { 3 }, \\ \frac { 1 } { \overline { K ^ { 2 } + 1 } ) ( K + \epsilon _ { 0 } ) ^ { 2 } - K ^ { 2 } - 1 ) }.$$

where C 3 = 1 c 2 ( √ 1+4( K 2 +1)( K + /epsilon1 0 ) 2 -K 2 -1) .

The estimates (4.35) and (4.55) then imply that

$$\frac { 1 } { c ^ { 2 } ( K ^ { 2 } + 2 ) } < \left | \frac { \mu ^ { + } } { \tau \pm i \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } \eta } \right | ^ { 2 } = \frac { 1 } { X _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + ( \dot { v } _ { 1 } ^ { + } ) ^ { 2 } } \leq C _ { 3 }. \\ & \quad \, 2 4$$

Then, by (4.16), making use of (4.55) and (4.46), we get with l = 1 2 ,

$$x _ { \alpha } \rangle \| _ { \dots \colon \infty } ^ { 2 } = \| F _ { \infty } \, x _ { \alpha } ( x _ { \alpha } \, x _ { \alpha } ) \| _ { \dots \colon \infty } ^ { 2 }$$

(4.57)

$$& \text{Then, by } ( 4. 1 6 ), \, \text{making use of } ( 4. 5 5 ) \, \text{and } ( 4. 4 6 ), \, \text{we get with } l = 1, 2 \\ & \quad \| G _ { n, 1$$

Similarly, by (4.17), we have

$$\| G _ { n, 2 l } ( t = 0, x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ) \| _ { H ^ { j } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } \lesssim \frac { 1 } { n ^ { 2 } }. \quad \quad \quad$$

Whereas for n +1 ≥ η ≥ n and t ≥ T 0 , similar process with (4.50), we deduce

$$& \stackrel { \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cd$$

$$\| G _ { n, 1 l } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } ^ { 2 } = \| e ^ { X _ { 1 } \eta t } E _ { n, 1 l } ( x _ { 1 }, x _ { 2 } ) \|$$

As previous, we let n be sufficiently large so that

$$\| G _ { n, 1 l } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } \geq \alpha.$$

Also we have

$$\| G _ { n, 2 l } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } & \geq \alpha. \\ \intertext { v o \vee \ v o \vee \ v o \vee \. }$$

Collecting the estimates (4.26), (4.39) and (4.48) gives

$$\| f _ { n } ( 0 ) \| _ { H ^ { j } ( \Gamma ) } + \| h _ { n } ( 0 ) \| _ { H ^ { j } ( \Gamma ) } + \| v _ { n } ( 0 ) \| _ { H ^ { j } ( \Omega ) } + \| G _ { n, l } ( 0 ) \| _ { H ^ { j } ( \Omega ) } \lesssim \frac { 1 } { n }, \quad \ \ ( 4. 6 2 )$$

but the estimates (4.29), (4.43) (4.52) and (4.53) yield

$$\| f _ { n } \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Gamma ) } + \| h _ { n } \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } + \| v _ { n } \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } + \| G _ { n, l } \| _ { H ^ { k } ( \Omega ) } \geq \alpha, \ f o r \ a l l \ t \geq T _ { 0 }, \quad \ \ ( 4. 6 3 ) \quad \\ \dots \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cd.$$

which completes the proof of Lemma 4.3.

## 5 Ill-posedness for the nonlinear problem

Now we will prove nonlinear ill-posedness for the nonlinear problem (2.8). To begin with, we rewrite the nonlinear system (2.8) in a perturbation form around the steady state. Let

$$\i a \, \sigma \, \text{you} \, \langle \, \chi _ { j } \, \text{in a power} \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \iota \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i i \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i o \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i } \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i b \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i A \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i a \, \i \\ \, \quad \quad \quad$$

where G j means the jth column of the 2 × 2 matrix ( G ij ) with i, j = 1 2, i.e. , G j = ( G 1 j , G 2 j ) T . ψ and Ψ are defined by (2.2) and (2.5), respectively. Meanwhile, B can be represented as following

$$B = \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } ( - 1 ) ^ { n - 1 } ( D \tilde { \Psi } ) ^ { n }. \\ \sim \epsilon \, \frac { 1 } { 2 } \, \frac { 1 } { 3 } \, \frac { 1 } { 4 } \, \sinh \pi \pi }$$

We can rewrite the term ˘ as follows v

$$\stackrel { \dots } { v } & = ( I - B ) ( \dot { v } + \tilde { v } ) - ( 0, \frac { \partial _ { t } \tilde { \psi } } { 1 + \partial _ { 2 } \tilde { \psi } } ) \\ & = \dot { v } + \tilde { v } - B ( \dot { v } + \tilde { v } ) - ( 0, \frac { \partial _ { t } \tilde { \psi } } { 1 + \partial _ { 2 } \tilde { \psi } } ) \coloneqq \dot { v } + M, \\. & \cdots \cdots \cdots$$

where the M is defined as follows

$$M = \tilde { v } - B ( \dot { v } + \tilde { v } ) - ( 0, \frac { \partial _ { t } \tilde { \psi } } { 1 + \partial _ { 2 } \tilde { \psi } } ).$$

Similarly we rewrite the term ˘ G j as follows

$$\check { G } _ { j } & = ( I - B ) ( \dot { G } _ { j } + \tilde { G } _ { j } ) \\ & = \dot { G } _ { j } + \tilde { G } _ { j } - B ( \dot { G } _ { j } + \tilde { G } _ { j } ) \coloneqq \dot { G } _ { j } + N, \\. \ a \. \ \ a \.$$

where the N is defined as follows

$$N & = \tilde { G } _ { j } - B ( \dot { G } _ { j } + \tilde { G } _ { j } ). \\ \dots \quad \dots \quad \tilde { \cdot }. \quad \tilde { \cdot }. \quad - \. \. \. \quad.$$

To linearize the term c 2 ( h ) = c 2 ( ˙ h + ˜ ), we employ Taylor formula to get h

$$c ^ { 2 } ( \dot { h } + \tilde { h } ) = c ^ { 2 } ( \dot { h } ) + \mathcal { R },$$

where the remainder term is defined by

$$\mathcal { R } = ( c ^ { 2 } ) ^ { \prime } ( \dot { h } + ( 1 - \alpha ) \tilde { h } ) \tilde { h }, \ 0 < \alpha < 1.$$

For the term v · n and G j · n , we can rewrite it as

$$v \cdot n = ( \dot { v } + \tilde { v } ) \cdot ( e _ { 2 } + \tilde { n } ) = \tilde { v } _ { 2 } - \dot { v } _ { 1 } \partial _ { 1 } \tilde { f } + \tilde { v } \cdot \tilde { n },$$

and

$$G _ { j } \cdot n = ( \dot { G } _ { j } + \tilde { G } _ { j } ) \cdot ( e _ { 2 } + \tilde { n } ) = \tilde { G } _ { 2 j } - \dot { G } _ { 1 j } \partial _ { 1 } \tilde { f } + \tilde { G } _ { j } \cdot \tilde { n }. \quad \quad ( 5. 1 0 )$$

Then the nonlinear system (2.8) can be rewritten a linear system of the perturbation terms ( ˜ h, v, f, G ˜ ˜ ˜ j ) as following

$$( n, v, J, \varkappa _ { j } ) & \text{saving} \\ \begin{cases} \partial _ { \tilde { h } } \tilde { h } + ( \tilde { v } \cdot \nabla ) \tilde { h } + \nabla \cdot \tilde { v } = - ( M \cdot \nabla ) \tilde { h } + B ^ { T } \nabla \cdot \tilde { v } & \text{in} \ \Omega, \\ \partial _ { \tilde { v } } + ( \tilde { v } \cdot \nabla ) \tilde { v } + c ^ { 2 } ( \tilde { h } ) \nabla \tilde { h } - \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( \tilde { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) \tilde { G } _ { j } = - ( M \cdot \nabla ) \tilde { v } \\ + \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( N \cdot \nabla ) \tilde { G } _ { j } + c ^ { 2 } ( \tilde { h } ) B ^ { T } \nabla \tilde { h } - \mathcal { R } ( \nabla \tilde { h } - B ^ { T } \nabla \tilde { h } ) & \text{in} \ \Omega, \\ \partial _ { t } \tilde { G } _ { j } + ( \tilde { v } \cdot \nabla ) \tilde { G } _ { j } - ( \tilde { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) \tilde { v } = - ( M \cdot \nabla ) \tilde { G } _ { j } + ( N \cdot \nabla ) \tilde { v } & \text{on} \ \Gamma, \\ \partial _ { t } \tilde { f } + \tilde { v } _ { 1 } \partial _ { 1 } \tilde { f } - \tilde { v } _ { 2 } = \tilde { v } \cdot \tilde { n } & \text{on} \ \Gamma. \end{cases}$$

The jump conditions take new form in terms of ˜ h, v, G ˜ ˜ j

$$\text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi\text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psigma \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psi \text{--} \psigma
 \begin{cases} ( \tilde { v } ^ { + } - \tilde { v } ^ { - } ) \cdot e _ { 2 } + ( \tilde { v } ^ { + } - \tilde { v } ^ { - } ) \cdot \tilde { n } = - ( \tilde { v } ^ { + } - \tilde { v } ^ { - } ) \cdot \tilde { n } & \text{on } \Gamma, \\ \tilde { G } _ { j } ^ { + } \cdot e _ { 2 } + \dot { G } _ { j } ^ { + } \cdot \tilde { n } + \tilde { G } _ { j } ^ { + } \cdot \tilde { n } = 0, \, \tilde { G } _ { j } ^ { - } \cdot e _ { 2 } + \dot { G } _ { j } ^ { - } \cdot \tilde { n } + \tilde { G } _ { j } ^ { - } \cdot \tilde { n } = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma, \, \quad ( 5. 1 2 ) \\ \tilde { h } ^ { + } + \tilde { h } ^ { + } = \tilde { h } ^ { - } + \tilde { h } ^ { - } & \text{on } \Gamma. \end{cases}$$

Fix n ∈ N so that n &gt; C . Applying Lemma 4.2 with this n, T 0 = t 0 / , k 2 ≥ 3, and α = 2, we can find f L , h L , v L , G L j solving (3.5) so that

 Proof of Theorem 2.3 Now we are ready to prove the main Theorem 2.3. We prove it by the method of contradiction. Suppose that the system (2.8) is locally well-posedness for some k ≥ 3. Let δ, t 0 , C &gt; 0 be the constants provided by Definition 2.2. For ε &gt; 0, let ( f ε , h ε , v ε , G ε j )( ) t with initial data ( f ε , h ε , v ε , G ε j ) | t =0 = ( f ε 0 , h ε 0 , v ε 0 , G ε 0 ,j ) is a solution sequence of the system (2.8). We choose ( f 1 , h 1 , v 1 , G 1 j ) to be ( f ε , h ε , v ε , G ε j ). We also replace ( f 2 0 , h 2 0 , v 2 0 , G 2 0 ,j ) by the rectilinear solution U ≡ ( ˙ f, h, v, G ˙ ˙ ˙ j ) defined in section 1.1. Obviously, U is always the solution of the system (2.8). For simplicity, we always take this steady-state U as the solution of the system (2.8), i.e., ( f 2 , h 2 , v 2 , G 2 j )( ) = t U for t ≥ 0.

$$\| ( f _ { 0 } ^ { L }, h _ { 0 } ^ { L }, v _ { 0 } ^ { L }, G _ { 0, j } ^ { L } ) \| _ { H ^ { k } } \lesssim \frac { 1 } { n },$$

but

$$\| ( f ^ { L } ( t ), h ^ { L } ( t ), v ^ { L } ( t ), G ^ { L } _ { j } ( t ) ) \| _ { H ^ { 3 } } \geq 2 \quad \text{for $t\geq t_{0}/2$.} \quad \text{(5.14)} \\ \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \quad \tilde { \ s s } \$$

We define ˜ f ε 0 = f ε 0 -˙ f := εf L 0 , ˜ h ε 0 = h ε 0 -˙ h := εh L 0 , ˜ v ε 0 = v ε 0 -˙ v := εv L 0 and ˜ G ε 0 ,j = G ε 0 ,j -˙ G j := εG L 0 ,j . Then for ε &lt; δn , we have ‖ ( ˜ f ε 0 , h ˜ ε 0 , v ˜ ε 0 , G ˜ ε 0 ,j ) ‖ H k &lt; δ , so according to Definition 2.2, there exists a solution ( ˜ f ε := f ε -˙ f, h ˜ ε := h ε -˙ h, v ˜ ε := v ε -˙ v, G ˜ ε j := G ε j -˙ G j ) ∈ L ∞ ( [0 , t 0 ] ; H 3 (Ω) ) that solves (5.11)-(5.12) with initial data ( ˜ f ε 0 , h ˜ ε 0 , v ˜ ε 0 , G ˜ ε 0 ,j ) and satisfies the inequality

$$\sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \left \| \left ( \tilde { f } ^ { \varepsilon }, \tilde { h } ^ { \varepsilon }, \tilde { v } ^ { \varepsilon }, \tilde { G } ^ { \varepsilon } _ { j } \right ) ( t ) \right \| _ { H ^ { 3 } } & \leq C \left ( \left \| \left ( f _ { 0 } ^ { \varepsilon }, h _ { 0 } ^ { \varepsilon }, v _ { 0 } ^ { \varepsilon }, \tilde { G } ^ { \varepsilon } _ { 0, j } \right ) \right \| _ { H ^ { k } } \right ) \\ & \leq C \varepsilon \frac { 1 } { n } < \varepsilon. \\. \varepsilon \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \. \........................................................................................................................................................................................................ \..................................................................................................................................................................................................... \. \................................................................................................................................................................................................... \... \...................................................................................................................................................................................................$$

Now define the rescaled functions ¯ f ε = ˜ f ε /ε, h ¯ ε = ˜ h /ε, v ε ¯ ε = ˜ v /ε, G ε ¯ ε j = ˜ G /ε ε j ; rescaling (5.15) then shows that

$$& \sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \left \| ( \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon }, \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon }, \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon }, \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \varepsilon } ) ( t ) \right \| _ { H ^ { 3 } } < 1. & & ( 5. 1 6 ) \\ \intertext { we know that } & \quad \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon } _ { \varepsilon }, \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } _ { 0 }, \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } _ { 0 }, \bar { G } _ { 0 j } ^ { \varepsilon } ) = ( f _ { 0 } ^ { L }, h _ { 0 } ^ { L }, v _ { 0 } ^ { L }, G _ { 0 j } ^ { L } ). \text{ Next, we are going to show } & \quad \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot \text{ } \cdot$$

By construction, we know that ( ¯ f ε 0 , h ¯ ε 0 , v ¯ ε 0 , G ¯ ε 0 j ) = ( f L 0 , h L 0 , v L 0 , G L 0 j ). Next, we are going to show that the rescaled functions ( ¯ f ε , h ¯ ε , v ¯ ε , G ¯ ε j ) converge as ε → 0 to the solutions ( f L , h L , v L , G L j ) of the linearized equations (3.2).

Now we are going to reformulate (5.11)-(5.12) in terms of rescaled functions ( ¯ f ε , h ¯ ε , v ¯ ε , G ¯ ε j ) and show some convergence results. The third equation in (5.7) can be rewritten in terms of rescaled function ( ¯ f ε , h ¯ ε , v ¯ ε , G ¯ ε j ) as follows:

$$\partial _ { t } \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon } + \dot { v } _ { 1 } \partial _ { 1 } \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon } - \bar { v } _ { 2 } ^ { \varepsilon } = \varepsilon \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } \cdot n ^ { \varepsilon }. & & ( 5. 1 7 ) \\ - & \quad. & &.. & \quad.$$

$$\| n ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } ( \Gamma ) } \leq \| \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 3 } ( \Gamma ) } < 1,$$

where n ε = ( -ε∂ f 1 ¯ ε , 0) ε = ( -∂ f 1 ¯ ε , 0) is well defined and uniformly bounded in L ∞ ( [0 , t 0 ] ; H 2 (Γ) ) since

where the above inequality holds according to (5.16). Hence, by (5.16) and(5.18), we obtain and

$$\lim _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \left \| \partial _ { t } \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon } + \dot { v } _ { 1 } \partial _ { 1 } \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon } - \bar { v } _ { 2 } ^ { \varepsilon } \right \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } = 0 \\ \intertext {.. } \, - \dots \, \begin{array} { c c c c }.. \\.. \end{array} \,.. \, - \dots \end{array} \,.. \,.. \,.. \,..$$

Expanding the first equation in (5.11) implies that

$$\sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \| \partial _ { t } \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \leq | \dot { v } _ { 1 } | \sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \| \partial _ { 1 } \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } + \sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \| \bar { v } _ { 2 } ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \leq C \quad \ \ ( 5. 2 0 ) \\ \text{Expanding the first equation in (5.11) implies that}$$

$$\partial _ { t } \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } + ( i \cdot \nabla ) \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } + \nabla \cdot \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } = - \varepsilon ( M ^ { \varepsilon } \cdot \nabla ) \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } + \varepsilon ( B ^ { \varepsilon } ) ^ { T } \nabla \cdot \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon },$$

where we define M ε as follows

$$M ^ { \varepsilon } = \vartheta ^ { \varepsilon } - B ^ { \varepsilon } ( \dot { v } + \varepsilon \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } ) - ( 0, \frac { \partial _ { t } \psi ^ { \varepsilon } } { 1 + \varepsilon \partial _ { 2 } \psi ^ { \varepsilon } } ), \text{ with } \psi ^ { \varepsilon } = \theta \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon } \text{ defined in } ( 2. 2 ) \.$$

In order to estimate the bound of M ε , we firstly estimate the bound of B ε . We assume that ε is sufficiently small so that ε &lt; 1 / (2 C 1 ), where C 1 &gt; 0 is the best constant in the inequality ‖ UV ‖ H 2 ≤ C 1 ‖ U ‖ H 2 ‖ V ‖ H 2 for 3 × 3 matrix-valued functions U, V . This assumption guarantees that B ε := ( I -( I + ε ∇ Ψ ) ε -1 ) /ε is well defined and uniformly bounded in L ∞ ( [0 , t 0 ] ; H 2 (Ω) ) since whereas we shows that

$$\mathbb { Z } \, \coloneqq \, ( I - ( I + \varepsilon \nabla \Psi ^ { \varepsilon } ) ^ { - 1 } ) / \varepsilon \, \text{is well defined and uniformly bounded in } L ^ { \infty } \, ( [ 0, t _ { 0 } ] \, ; H ^ { 2 } ( \Omega ) ) \, \text{since} \\ \| B ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } & = \left \| \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } ( - \varepsilon ) ^ { n - 1 } ( \nabla \Psi ^ { \varepsilon } ) ^ { n } \right \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \leq \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } \varepsilon ^ { n - 1 } \, \| ( \nabla \Psi ^ { \varepsilon } ) ^ { n } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \\ & \leq \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } ( \varepsilon C _ { 1 } ) ^ { n - 1 } \, \| \nabla \Psi ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \leq \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } \frac { 1 } { 2 ^ { n - 1 } } \, \| \psi ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 3 } } ^ { n } \\ & \leq \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } \frac { 1 } { 2 ^ { n - 1 } } \, \| \tilde { J } ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 3 } } ^ { n } < \sum _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } \frac { 1 } { 2 ^ { n - 1 } } = 2, \\ \text{as we shows that} \\ \| M ^ { \varepsilon } \| \,.. < \, \| \tilde { \pi } ^ { \varepsilon } \|... \, + \, | \mathfrak { r } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \|.. \, + \, \ell \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \|.. \,.. \, + \, \ell \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \|.. \,.. \, + \, \ell \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \|... \,.. \, + \, \ell \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \|... \,.. \,.$$

$$\| M ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } & \leq \| \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } + | \dot { v } | \| B ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } + \varepsilon \| B ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \| \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } + \| \partial _ { t } \vec { \psi } ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \\ & \leq \| \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } + | \dot { v } | \| B ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } + \varepsilon \| B ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \| \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } + \| \partial _ { t } \bar { \bar { f } } ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \\ & \leq C.$$

Therefore, by employing (5.16),(5.23) and (5.24), we get by (5.21)

and

$$\lim _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \left \| \partial _ { t } \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } + ( \dot { v } \cdot \nabla ) \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } + \nabla \cdot \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } \right \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } = 0, \\ \quad \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

Expanding the second equation in (5.11), we find that

$$\sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \left \| \partial _ { t } \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } ( t ) \right \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } < C. & & ( 5. 2 6 ) \\ \text{equation in } ( 5. 1 1 ), \, \text{we find that}$$

$$\Phi _ { \tilde { v } } ^ { \varepsilon } + ( \dot { v } \cdot \nabla ) \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } + c ^ { 2 } \nabla \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } - \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( \dot { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) \tilde { G } _ { j } = - \varepsilon ( M ^ { \varepsilon } \cdot \nabla ) \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } \\ + \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } \varepsilon ( N ^ { \varepsilon } \cdot \nabla ) \tilde { G } _ { j } + \varepsilon c ^ { 2 } ( B ^ { \varepsilon } ) ^ { T } \nabla \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } + \varepsilon \mathcal { R } ^ { \varepsilon } ( \nabla \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } - \varepsilon ( B ^ { \varepsilon } ) ^ { T } \nabla \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } ), \\ \intertext { \infty }$$

where we define N ε as follows

$$\cdots \quad & N ^ { \varepsilon } = \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \varepsilon } - B ^ { \varepsilon } ( \dot { G } _ { j } + \varepsilon \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \varepsilon } ). \\ \cdots \quad &.$$

Making full use of (5.25), we show that

$$\| N ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } & \leq \| \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } + | \dot { G } _ { j } \| | B ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } + \varepsilon \| B ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \| \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \\ & \leq C. \\.. \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \cdot \,.$$

We also define the normalized remainder function by

$$\mathcal { R } ^ { \varepsilon } ( x, t ) = \frac { ( c ^ { 2 } ) ^ { \prime } ( \dot { h } + ( 1 - \alpha ) \varepsilon \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } ) \varepsilon \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } } { \varepsilon } = ( c ^ { 2 } ) ^ { \prime } ( \dot { h } + ( 1 - \alpha ) \varepsilon \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } ) \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon }.$$

It is easy to show that ˙ h +(1 -α εh ) ¯ ε is bounded above by a positive constant. Taking use of (5.16) implies

$$\sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \| \mathcal { R } ^ { \varepsilon } ( x, t ) \| _ { H ^ { 3 } } \leq C.$$

Therefore, from (5.31) and (5.16), we deduce by (5.27) that and

$$\sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \| \partial _ { t } \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } < C.$$

$$\lim _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \left \| \partial _ { t } \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } + ( \dot { v } \cdot \nabla ) \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } + c ^ { 2 } \nabla \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon } - \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( \dot { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) \tilde { G } _ { j } \right \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } = 0 \\ \sup _ { \ } \| \partial _ { t } \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } ( t ) \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } < C.$$

Finally, we expand the third equation in (5.11) to find that

$$\partial _ { t } \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { e } + ( \dot { v } \cdot \nabla ) \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { e } - ( \dot { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) \bar { v } ^ { e } = - \varepsilon ( M ^ { e } \cdot \nabla ) \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { e } + \varepsilon ( N ^ { e } \cdot \nabla ) \bar { v } ^ { e }.$$

In according with (5.24) and (5.32), we deduce that

$$\sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \left \| ( M ^ { \varepsilon } \cdot \nabla ) \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \varepsilon } + ( N ^ { \varepsilon } \cdot \nabla ) \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } \right \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } \leq C. \\ ( 5. 3 1 ), ( 5. 1 6 ) \text{ and } ( 5. 3 5 ), \text{ we deduce that}$$

Therefore from (5.31), (5.16) and (5.35), we deduce that and

$$\lim _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \left \| \partial _ { t } \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \varepsilon } + ( i \cdot \nabla ) \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \varepsilon } - ( \dot { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } \right \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } = 0 & & ( 5. 3 6 ) \\ & & \left \| \partial _ { \bar { \varepsilon } ^ { \varepsilon } \cdot \left \| \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right\| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varphi } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot \right \| _ { \varepsilon } \cdot 0 & & ( 5. 3 6 )$$

$$\sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \left \| \partial _ { t } \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \epsilon } ( t ) \right \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } < C. \quad & & ( 5. 3 7 ) \\ \intertext { e convergence results for the jump conditions.  For the first equation in }. \quad.$$

Next, we deal with some convergence results for the jump conditions. For the first equation in (5.12) we rewrite the normal vector n as follows

$$n = e _ { 2 } + \tilde { n } ^ { \varepsilon } \coloneqq e _ { 2 } + \varepsilon n ^ { \varepsilon }, \ n ^ { \varepsilon } = ( - \partial _ { 1 } \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon }, 0 ).$$

Noting that ˙ v + · e 2 = 0 and ˙ G + j · e 2 = 0, so we may rewrite the second equation in (5.12) as

$$\left ( \bar { v } ^ { +, \varepsilon } - \bar { v } ^ { -, \varepsilon } \right ) \cdot e _ { 2 } + ( \dot { v } ^ { + } - \dot { v } ^ { - } ) \cdot n ^ { \varepsilon } = - \varepsilon ( \bar { v } ^ { +, \varepsilon } - \bar { v } ^ { -, \varepsilon } ) \cdot n ^ { \varepsilon }$$

and

Since

$$\bar { G } _ { j } ^ { +, \varepsilon } \cdot e _ { 2 } + \dot { G } _ { j } ^ { + } \cdot n ^ { \varepsilon } = - \varepsilon \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { +, \varepsilon } \cdot n ^ { \varepsilon }, \ \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { -, \varepsilon } \cdot e _ { 2 } + \dot { G } _ { j } ^ { - } \cdot n ^ { \varepsilon } = - \varepsilon \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { -, \varepsilon } \cdot n ^ { \varepsilon }.$$

$$\| n ^ { \varepsilon } ( t ) \| _ { L ^ { \infty } } \leq \| n ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { H ^ { 3 } ( \Gamma ) } < 1$$

and

$$\left \| ( \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon }, \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \varepsilon } ) ( t ) \right \| _ { L ^ { \infty } } \leq \left \| ( \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon }, \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \varepsilon } ) ( t ) \right \| _ { H ^ { 3 } } < 1 \\ \text{ve find that} \\.. \quad. \quad. \quad.$$

∥ is bounded uniformly, we find that and

$$\sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \left \| e _ { 2 } \cdot ( \bar { v } ^ { +, \varepsilon } - \bar { v } ^ { -, \varepsilon } ) + ( \bar { v } ^ { + } - \bar { v } ^ { - } ) \cdot n ^ { \varepsilon } \right \| _ { L ^ { \infty } } \to 0 \quad \text{as } \varepsilon \to 0 \quad \text{(5.40)} \\ - \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

$$\sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \| e _ { 2 } \cdot \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { +, \varepsilon } + \dot { G } _ { j } ^ { + } \cdot n ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { L ^ { \infty } } \to 0 \quad \text{as } \varepsilon \to 0$$

and

Therefore we have and

$$\bar { G } _ { j } ^ { +, \varepsilon } \cdot e _ { 2 } = \dot { G } _ { 1 j } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } f ^ { \varepsilon }, \ \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { -, \varepsilon } \cdot e _ { 2 } = \dot { G } _ { 1 j } ^ { - } \partial _ { 1 } f ^ { \varepsilon } \text{ on } \Gamma.$$

We expand the third equation in (5.12) as follows

$$\dot { h } ^ { + } + \varepsilon \bar { h } ^ { +, \varepsilon } = \dot { h } ^ { - } + \varepsilon \bar { h } ^ { -, \varepsilon } \ o n \ \Gamma.$$

Since ˙ h + = ˙ h -, we may eliminate these two terms from equation (5.45) and divide both sides of the result equation by ε to get

$$\bar { h } ^ { +, \varepsilon } = \bar { h } ^ { -, \varepsilon } \ o n \ \Gamma.$$

According to the bound (5.16) and sequential weak-∗ compactness, we have that up to the extraction of a subsequence (which we still denote the subsequence by using ε )

$$( \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon }, \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon }, \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon }, \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \varepsilon } ) \stackrel { * } { \rightharpoonup } ( f ^ { * }, h ^ { * }, v ^ { * }, G _ { j } ^ { * } ) \quad \text{weakly } - * \text{ in } L ^ { \infty } \left ( [ 0, t _ { 0 } ] ; H ^ { 3 } ( \Omega ) \right ) \quad \text{as } \varepsilon \to 0. \quad \quad ( 5. 4 7 ) \\ \text{By lower semicontinuity, we have}$$

By lower semicontinuity, we have

$$\sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \left \| ( f ^ { * }, h ^ { * }, v ^ { * }, G _ { j } ^ { * } ) ( t ) \right \| _ { H ^ { 3 } } \leq 1. \\ 2 0 ), ( 5. 2 6 ), \, \text{and} \, ( 5. 3 3 ), \, \text{we get}$$

In according with (5.20), (5.26), and (5.33), we get

$$\lim _ { \varepsilon \to 0 } \sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \left \| ( \partial _ { t } \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon }, \partial _ { t } \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon }, \partial _ { t } \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon }, \partial _ { t } \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \varepsilon } ) ( t ) \right \| _ { H ^ { 2 } } < \infty. & & ( 5. 4 9 ) \\ \text{is-Abin lemma in } [ 3 2 ], \, \text{we then have that the sequence } \left \{ \left ( f ^ { \varepsilon }, h ^ { \varepsilon }, G _ { i } ^ { \varepsilon } \right ) \right \} \text{is strongly}$$

$$( \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon }, \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon }, \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon }, \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \varepsilon } ) \to ( f ^ { * }, h ^ { * }, v ^ { * }, G _ { j } ^ { * } ) \ \text{ strongly in } L ^ { \infty } \left ( [ 0, t _ { 0 } ] \, ; H ^ { 8 / 3 } ( \Omega ) \right ). \quad \ \ ( 5. 5 0 )$$

By Lions-Abin lemma in [32], we then have that the sequence {( f ε , h ε , v ε , G ε j )} is strongly precompact in the space L ∞ ( [0 , t 0 ] ; H 8 3 / (Ω) , thus )

$$\sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \| e _ { 2 } \cdot \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { -, \varepsilon } + \dot { G } _ { j } ^ { - } \cdot n ^ { \varepsilon } \| _ { L ^ { \infty } } \to 0 \quad \text{as } \varepsilon \to 0.$$

$$[ \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon } \cdot e _ { 2 } ] = 2 i _ { 1 } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } f ^ { \varepsilon } \ o n \ \Gamma.$$

This strong convergence, together with (5.19), (5.26),(5.33), implies that

$$( \partial _ { t } \bar { f } ^ { \varepsilon }, \partial _ { t } \bar { h } ^ { \varepsilon }, \partial _ { t } \bar { v } ^ { \varepsilon }, \partial _ { t } \bar { G } _ { j } ^ { \varepsilon } ) \to \left ( \partial _ { t } f ^ { * }, \partial _ { t } h ^ { * }, \partial _ { t } v ^ { * }, \partial _ { t } G _ { j } ^ { * } \right ) \text{ strongly in } L ^ { \infty } \left ( [ 0, t _ { 0 } ] ; H ^ { 5 / 3 } ( \Omega ) \right ), \quad ( 5. 5 1 ) \\ \text{The index } \, \ & \text{ and } \, \ & \text{ are sufficient large to ensure } L ^ { \infty } ( [ 0, t _ { \alpha } ] \colon L ^ { \infty } ) \text{ convergence of } \left \{ \left ( f ^ { \varepsilon }, h ^ { \varepsilon }, f ^ { \varepsilon }, G _ { \alpha } ^ { \varepsilon } \right ) \right \}$$

The index 8 3 and 5 3 are sufficient large to ensure L ∞ ([0 , t 0 ]; L ∞ ) convergence of {( f ε , h ε , v ε , G ε j )} as ε goes to zero, thus we have and

$$\text{to zero, thus we have } \begin{cases} \partial _ { t } h ^ { * } + ( \dot { v } \cdot \nabla ) h ^ { * } + \nabla \cdot v ^ { * } = 0 & \text{in } \Omega, \\ \partial _ { t } v ^ { * } + ( \dot { v } \cdot \nabla ) v ^ { * } + c ^ { 2 } \nabla h ^ { * } = \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { 2 } ( \dot { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) G _ { j } ^ { * } & \text{in } \Omega, \\ \partial _ { t } G _ { j } ^ { * } + ( \dot { v } \cdot \nabla ) G _ { j } ^ { * } = ( \dot { G } _ { j } \cdot \nabla ) v ^ { * } & \text{in } \Omega, \\ \partial _ { t } f ^ { * } + \dot { v } _ { 1 } \partial _ { 1 } f ^ { * } - v _ { 2 } ^ { * } = 0 & \text{on } \Gamma, \\ \\ \varepsilon +, * \cdot \, \cdot \, \hat { \mathcal { \tau } } + \Delta \, \mathcal { \tau } ^ { * } \cdot \, \frac { \mathcal { \tau } -, * } { \mathcal { \tau } } \cdot \, \cdot \, \hat { \mathcal { \tau } } - \Delta \, \mathcal { \tau } ^ { * } \cdot \, \frac { \mathcal { \tau } } { \mathcal { \tau } } - \Delta \, \mathcal { \tau } ^ { * } \cdot \, \frac { \mathcal { \tau } } { \mathcal { \tau } } - \Delta \, \mathcal { \tau } ^ { * } \cdot \, \frac { \mathcal { \tau } } { \mathcal { \tau } } \cdot \, \cdot \, \end{cases}$$

$$\left ( v ^ { +, * } - v ^ { -, * } \right ) \cdot e _ { 2 } = 2 v _ { 1 } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } f ^ { * } & \text{ on } \text{ } \Gamma. \\ G _ { j } ^ { +, * } \cdot e _ { 2 } = \dot { G } _ { 1 j } ^ { + } \partial _ { 1 } f ^ { * }, \ G _ { j } ^ { -, * } \cdot e _ { 2 } = \dot { G } _ { 1 j } ^ { - } \partial _ { 1 } f ^ { * } & \text{ on } \text{ } \Gamma, \\ h ^ { +, * } = h ^ { -, * } & \text{ on } \text{ } \Gamma. \\ - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, - \, -$$

We also pass to the limit in the initial conditions ( ¯ f ε 0 , h ¯ ε 0 , v ¯ ε 0 , G ¯ ε 0 ,j ) = ( f L 0 , h L 0 , v L 0 , G L 0 ,j ) as ε goes to 0 to obtain

$$( f _ { 0 } ^ { * }, v _ { 0 } ^ { * }, h _ { 0 } ^ { * }, G _ { 0, j } ^ { * } ) = ( f _ { 0 } ^ { L }, h _ { 0 } ^ { L }, v _ { 0 } ^ { L }, G _ { 0, j } ^ { L } ).$$

Now we can see that ( f /star , v /star , h /star , G /star j )( t, x ) are solutions to (2.2) with boundary conditions (2.3) satisfying the same initial data. In according with the uniqueness result in lemma 4.1, we have

$$( f ^ { * }, v ^ { * }, h ^ { * }, G _ { j } ^ { * } ) ( t, x ) & = ( f ^ { L }, v ^ { L }, h ^ { L }, G _ { j } ^ { L } ) ( t, x ).$$

Therefore we combine inqualities (5.48) and (5.14) to get

$$2 = \alpha \leq \sup _ { 0 \leq t \leq t _ { 0 } } \left \| ( f ^ { * }, h ^ { * }, v ^ { * }, G _ { j } ^ { * } ) ( t ) \right \| _ { H ^ { 3 } } \leq 1. \text{ \quad \ \ } & ( 5. 5 5 ) \\ \text{adiction. Therefore, the proof of Theorem 2.3 is completed.}$$

which is a contradiction. Therefore, the proof of Theorem 2.3 is completed.

## References

- [1] A. Castro A, D. Cordoba, C. Fefferman, F. Gancedo, M. Lopez-Fernandez, Rayleigh-Taylor breakdown for the Muskat problem with applications to water waves, Annals of Mathematics 175 (2012), 909-948.
- [2] S. Chandrasekhar, Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability, Oxford University Press, New York, 1961.
- [3] G. Q. Chen, Y. G. Wang, Existence and Stability of Compressible Current-Vortex Sheets in Three-Dimensional Magnetohydrodynamics. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 187 (2008), 369-408.
- [4] S.H. Chen and M. G. Kivelson, On nonsinusoidal waves at the Earth's magnetopause, Geophys. Res. Lett., 20, 2699-2702, 1993.

- [5] R. M. Chen, J. Hu, and D. Wang, Linear stability of compressible vortex sheets in twodimensional elastodynamics, Adv. Math. 311 (2017), 18-60.
- [6] R. M. Chen, J. Hu, and D. Wang, Linear stability of compressible vortex sheets in 2D elastodynamics: variable coefficients. Math. Ann., 376(2020), 863-912.
- [7] R. M. Chen, F. M. Huang, and D. Wang, D. F. Yuan, Stabilization effect of elasticity on three-dimensional compressible vortex sheets, J. Math.PuresAppl., 172(2023), 105-138.
- [8] J.-F. Coulombel and P. Secchi, The stability of compressible vortex sheets in two space dimensions, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 53 (2004), no. 4, 941-1012.
- [9] J.-F. Coulombel and P. Secchi, Nonlinear compressible vortex sheets in two space dimensions, Ann. Sci.cole Norm. Supr. (4) 41 (2008), no. 1, 85-139.
- [10] Coulombel, J.-F.; Morando, A.; Secchi, P.; Trebeschi, P. A priori estimates for 3D incompressible current-vortex sheets. Comm. Math. Phys. 311 (2012), 247-275.
- [11] J. W. Dungey, Electrodynamics of the outer atmosphere, in Proceedings of the Ionosphere, The Physical Society of London, London, 255-265, 1955.
- [12] A. I. Ershkovich, Solar wind interaction with the tail of comet Kohoutek, Planet. Space Sci., 24, 287-290, 1976.
- [13] D. G. Ebin, The equations of motion of a perfect fluid with free boundary are not well-posed . Communications in Partial Differential Equations, 12 (1987), 1175-1201.
- [14] D. G. Ebin, Ill-posedness of the rayleigh-taylor and helmholtz problems for incompressible fluids . Communications in Partial Differential Equations, 13 (1988), 1265-1295.
- [15] J. A. Fejer and J. W. Miles, On the stability of a plane vortex sheet with respect to threedimensional disturbances, J. Fluid Mech. 15 (1963), 335-336
- [16] Y. Guo, W. Strauss, Instability of periodic BGK equilibria, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 48 (1995) 861-894.
- [17] Y. Guo, I. Tice, Compressible, inviscid Rayleigh-Taylor instability, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 60 (2011) 677-712.
- [18] Y. Guo, I. Tice, Linear Rayleigh-Taylor instability for viscous, compressible fluids, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 42 (2011) 1688-1720.
- [19] H. Hasegawa, M. Fujimoto, T.D. Phan, H. Reme, A. Balogh, M. W. Dunlop, C. Hashimoto, R. TanDokoro, Transport of solar wind into Earth's magnetosphere through rolled-up Kelvin-Helmholtz vortices, Nature, 430(2004), 755-758.
- [20] H.L.F. Helmholtz, On the discontinuous movements of fluids. Sitz.ber. Preuss. Akad.Wiss. Berl. Philos.-Hist. Kl. 23,(1868) 215-228.
- [21] H.J. Hwang, Y. Guo, On the dynamical Rayleigh-Taylor instability, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 167 (2003) 235-253.

- [22] F. Jiang, S. Jiang, W.C Zhan, Instability of the abstract Rayleigh-Taylor problem and applications, Mathematical models and methods in applied sciences. 30 (2020), no. 12, 2299-2388.
- [23] L. Kelvin (W.T. Thomson), Hydrokinetic solutions and observations. Philos. Mag. 42, 362-377 (1871)
- [24] L. D. Landau, On the stability of tangential discontinuities in a compressible fluid, Akad. Kauk. L. S. S. S. R. Comptes Rendus (Doklndy) 44, 139 (1944).
- [25] J. W. Miles, On the disturbed motion of a plane vortex sheet, J. Fluid Mech. 4 (1958), 538-552
- [26] A. Morando,Y. Trakhinin, P. Trebeschi, Stability of incompressible current-vortex sheets. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 347 (2008), 502-520.
- [27] A. Morando and P. Trebeschi, Two-dimensional vortex sheets for the nonisentropic Euler equations: linear stability, J. Hyperbolic Differ. Equ. 5 (2008), no. 3, 487-518.
- [28] A. Morando, P. Trebeschi, and T.Wang, Two-dimensional vortex sheets for the nonisentropic Euler equations: nonlinear stability, J. Differential Equations 266 (2019), no. 9, 5397-5430
- [29] A. Morando, P. Secchi, P. Trebeschi, On the evolution equation of compressible vortex sheets, Mathematische Nachrichten 293 (2020) 945-969.
- [30] E. N. Parker, Dynamics of the interplanetary gas and magnetic fields, Astrophys. J., 128, 664-678, 1958.
- [31] S. I. Syrovatskij, The stability of tangential discontinuities in a magnetohydrodynamic medium. Z. Eksperim. Teoret. Fiz. 24 (1953), 622-629.
- [32] J. Simon, Comact sets in the space L p (0 , T ); B , Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4)146 (1987), 65-96.
- [33] P. A. Sturrock, and R. E. Hartle, Two-fluid model of the solar wind, Phys. Rev. Lett., 16, 628-636, 1966.
- [34] Y. Z. Sun, W. Wang, Z. F. Zhang, Nonlinear Stability of the Current-Vortex Sheet to the Incompressible MHD Equations. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 71 (2018), 0356-0403.
- [35] Y. Trakhinin, Existence of compressible current-vortex sheets: variable coefficients linear analysis. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 177 (2005), 331-366.
- [36] Y. Trakhinin, The existence of current-vortex sheets in ideal compressible magnetohydrodynamics. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 191 (2009), 245-310.
- [37] Y.J. Wang and Z.P. Xin, Existence of multi-dimensional contact discontinuities for the ideal compressible magnetohydrodynamics,DOI: 10.1002/cpa.22148.
- [38] B.Q. Xie, B. Zhao and D.W. Huang, Ill-posedness of the Kelvin-Helmholtz problem for incompressible MHD fluids, submitted.

- [39] B.Q. Xie, B. Zhao, Ill-posedness of the Kelvin-Helmholtz problem for compressible Euler fluids, Arxiv:2407.01938.
- [40] Y.-G. Wang and F. Yu, Stabilization effect of magnetic fields on two-dimensional compressible current-vortex sheets, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 208 (2013), no. 2, 341-389.
Binqiang Xie Boling Guo Bin Zhao
Effect of weak elasticity on Kelvin-Helmholtz instability
In this paper, we present an analysis of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in
two-dimensional ideal compressible elastic flows, providing a rigorous
confirmation that weak elasticity has a destabilizing effect on the
Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. There are two critical velocities,
$U_{\text{low}}$ and $U_{\text{upp}}$, where $U_{\text{low}}$ and
$U_{\text{upp}}$ represent the lower and upper critical velocities,
respectively. We demonstrate that when the magnitude of the rectilinear
solutions satisfies $U_{\text{low}}+c\epsilon_{0}\le |\dot{v}^{+}_{1}| \le
U_{\text{upp}}-c\epsilon_{0}$, the linear and nonlinear ill-posedness of the
piecewise smooth solutions of the Kelvin-Helmholtz problem for two-dimensional
ideal compressible elastic fluids is established uniformly, where $c$ is the
sound speed and $\epsilon_{0}$ is some small enough positive constant.