*Let k ( t ) k(t) k ( t ) be a real regulated function and > 0 > 0 > 0 on I I I , and let f ( t , x ) f(t, x) f ( t , x ) be a function that is defined and Lipschitz with respect to k ( t ) k(t) k ( t ) on I × H I \times H I × H . If u u u and v v v are two approximate solutions of (1), to within ε 1 \varepsilon_1 ε 1 and ε 2 \varepsilon_2 ε 2 respectively, defined on I I I with values in H H H , then, for all t ∈ I t \in I t ∈ I such that t ≥ t 0 t \geq t_0 t ≥ t 0 ,
∥ u ( t ) − v ( t ) ∥ ≤ ∥ u ( t 0 ) − v ( t 0 ) ∥ Φ ( t ) + ( ε 1 + ε 2 ) Ψ ( t )
\|u(t) - v(t)\| \leq \|u(t_0) - v(t_0)\| \Phi(t) + (\varepsilon_1 + \varepsilon_2)\Psi(t)
∥ u ( t ) − v ( t ) ∥ ≤ ∥ u ( t 0 ) − v ( t 0 ) ∥Φ ( t ) + ( ε 1 + ε 2 ) Ψ ( t )
where
{ Φ ( t ) = 1 + ∫ t 0 t k ( s ) exp ( ∫ s t k ( τ ) d τ ) d s Ψ ( t ) = t − t 0 + ∫ t 0 t ( s − t 0 ) k ( s ) exp ( ∫ s t k ( τ ) d τ ) d s .
\begin{cases}
\Phi(t) = 1 + \int_{t_0}^t k(s) \exp \left( \int_s^t k(\tau) d\tau \right) ds \\
\Psi(t) = t - t_0 + \int_{t_0}^t (s - t_0)k(s) \exp \left( \int_s^t k(\tau) d\tau \right) ds.
\end{cases}
⎩ ⎨ ⎧ Φ ( t ) = 1 + ∫ t 0 t k ( s ) exp ( ∫ s t k ( τ ) d τ ) d s Ψ ( t ) = t − t 0 + ∫ t 0 t ( s − t 0 ) k ( s ) exp ( ∫ s t k ( τ ) d τ ) d s .
From the relation ∥ u ′ ( t ) − f ( t , u ( t ) ) ∥ ≤ ε 1 \|u'(t) - f(t, u(t))\| \leq \varepsilon_1 ∥ u ′ ( t ) − f ( t , u ( t )) ∥ ≤ ε 1 , valid on the complement of a countable set, one deduces, from the mean value theorem, that
∥ u ( t ) − u ( t 0 ) − ∫ t 0 t f ( s , u ( s ) ) d s ∥ ≤ ε 1 ( t − t 0 )
\left\| u(t) - u(t_0) - \int_{t_0}^t f(s, u(s))\, ds \right\| \leq \varepsilon_1 (t - t_0)
u ( t ) − u ( t 0 ) − ∫ t 0 t f ( s , u ( s )) d s ≤ ε 1 ( t − t 0 )
and similarly
∥ v ( t ) − v ( t 0 ) − ∫ t 0 t f ( s , v ( s ) ) d s ∥ ≤ ε 2 ( t − t 0 )
\left\| v(t) - v(t_0) - \int_{t_0}^t f(s, v(s))\, ds \right\| \leq \varepsilon_2 (t - t_0)
v ( t ) − v ( t 0 ) − ∫ t 0 t f ( s , v ( s )) d s ≤ ε 2 ( t − t 0 )
whence
∥ u ( t ) − v ( t ) ∥ ≤ ∥ u ( t 0 ) − v ( t 0 ) ∥
\|u(t) - v(t)\| \leq \|u(t_0) - v(t_0)\|
∥ u ( t ) − v ( t ) ∥ ≤ ∥ u ( t 0 ) − v ( t 0 ) ∥
+ ∥ ∫ t 0 t ( f ( s , u ( s ) ) − f ( s , v ( s ) ) ) d s ∥ + ( ε 1 + ε 2 ) ( t − t 0 ) .
+ \left\| \int_{t_0}^t (f(s, u(s)) - f(s, v(s)))\, ds \right\| + (\varepsilon_1 + \varepsilon_2)(t - t_0).
+ ∫ t 0 t ( f ( s , u ( s )) − f ( s , v ( s ))) d s + ( ε 1 + ε 2 ) ( t − t 0 ) .
By the Lipschitz condition (8) one has
∥ ∫ t 0 t ( f ( s , u ( s ) ) − f ( s , v ( s ) ) ) d s ∥ ≤ ∫ t 0 t ∥ f ( s , u ( s ) ) − f ( s , v ( s ) ) ∥ d s
\left\| \int_{t_0}^t (f(s, u(s)) - f(s, v(s)))\, ds \right\| \leq \int_{t_0}^t \|f(s, u(s)) - f(s, v(s))\|\, ds
∫ t 0 t ( f ( s , u ( s )) − f ( s , v ( s ))) d s ≤ ∫ t 0 t ∥ f ( s , u ( s )) − f ( s , v ( s )) ∥ d s
≤ ∫ t 0 t k ( s ) ∥ u ( s ) − v ( s ) ∥ d s
\leq \int_{t_0}^t k(s) \|u(s) - v(s)\|\, ds
≤ ∫ t 0 t k ( s ) ∥ u ( s ) − v ( s ) ∥ d s
whence, putting w ( t ) = ∥ u ( t ) − v ( t ) ∥ w(t) = \|u(t) - v(t)\| w ( t ) = ∥ u ( t ) − v ( t ) ∥ ,
w ( t ) ≤ w ( t 0 ) + ( ε 1 + ε 2 ) ( t − t 0 ) + ∫ t 0 t k ( s ) w ( s ) d s .
w(t) \leq w(t_0) + (\varepsilon_1 + \varepsilon_2)(t - t_0) + \int_{t_0}^t k(s)w(s)\, ds.
w ( t ) ≤ w ( t 0 ) + ( ε 1 + ε 2 ) ( t − t 0 ) + ∫ t 0 t k ( s ) w ( s ) d s .
The proposition is thus a consequence of the following lemma:
Bourbaki puts the proof directly after the statement, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.
Nothing.
Nothing.