Abstract
Considered herein is a particular nonlinear dispersive stochastic equation. It was introduced recently in Dinvay and Mémin (Proc. R. Soc. A. 478:20220050, 2022), as a model describing surface water waves under location uncertainty. The corresponding noise term is introduced through a Hamiltonian formulation, which guarantees the energy conservation of the flow. Here the initial-value problem is studied.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification
1 Introduction
Consideration is given to the following Stratonovich one-dimensional BBM-type equation
introduced in [4], as a model describing surface waves of a fluid layer. It is supplemented with the initial condition u(0) = u 0. Equation (1) has a Hamiltonian structure with the energy
The Fourier multiplier operator K, defined in the space of tempered distributions \(\mathcal S'(\mathbb R)\), has an even symbol of the form
with σ 0 > 1∕2. Expression (3) means that the symbol K(ξ) is bounded from below and above by RHS(3) multiplied by some positive constants. In other words the operator K essentially behaves as the Bessel potential of order 2σ 0, see [6]. The space variable is \(x \in \mathbb R\) and the time variable is \(t \geqslant 0\). The unknown u is a real valued function of these variables and of the probability variable ω ∈ Ω, representing the free surface elevation in the fluid layer. The scalar sequence {γ j} satisfies the restriction \( \sum _j \gamma _j^2 < \infty , \) and {W j} is a sequence of independent scalar Brownian motions on a filtered probability space \( \left ( \Omega , \mathcal F, \{ \mathcal F_t \}, \mathbb P \right ) . \)
Model (1) was introduced in [4], where an attempt to extend an elegant Hamiltonian formulation of [1] to the stochastic setting was made. We will just briefly comment on the methodology of [4]. The white noise is firstly introduced via the stochastic transport theory presented in [8], which is based on splitting of fluid particle motion into smooth and random movements. Then it is restricted to a particular Stratonovich form in order to respect the energy conservation. In particular, it provides us with a model having multiplicative noise of Hamiltonian structure. Finally, a long wave approximation results in simplified models as (1), for example.
One may notice that after discarding the nonlinear terms in Eq. (1), the details can be seen in [4], the corresponding linearised initial-value problem can be solved exactly with the help of the fundamental multiplier operator
where \(t_0, t \in \mathbb R\). Note that it can be factorised as \( \mathcal S(t, t_0) = S(t - t_0) S_W(t, t_0) , \) where \(S(t) = \exp ( - \partial _x Kt )\) is a unitary semi-group and S W containing all the randomness coming from the Wiener process is unitary as well. They obviously commute as bounded differential operators. We recall that S(t) is defined via the Fourier transform \( \mathfrak F \left ( S(t) \psi \right ) = \exp ( - i\xi K(\xi ) t ) \widehat \psi (\xi ) \) for any \(\psi \in \mathcal S'(\mathbb R)\) and \( \widehat \psi = \mathfrak F \psi . \) Similarly, S W(t, t 0) is defined by the line
It allows us to represent (1) in the Duhamel form
where
and
Existence and uniqueness of solution to Eq. (5) is under consideration. It is worth to point out that both S W and the stochastic integral in (5) are well defined. Indeed, appealing to Doobs’ inequalities for the submartingale \( \left | \sum _{j = n}^{n + m} \gamma _j W_j \right | \) and the Itô-Nisio theorem one can show that ∑j γ j W j converges uniformly in time almost surely, in probability and in L 2 sense. If the integrand of the stochastic integral in (5) is in some Sobolev space \(H^{\sigma }( \mathbb R )\) for each s and a.e. ω, then we can understand this sum of integrals as an integration with respect to a Q-Wiener process associated with a Hilbert space H and a non-negative symmetric trace class operator Q having eigenvalues \(\gamma _j^2\) and eigenfunctions e j forming an orthonormal basis in H. Then the corresponding integrand is the unbounded linear operator between H and \(H^{\sigma }( \mathbb R )\) that maps all e j to the same element of \(H^{\sigma }( \mathbb R )\), namely, to \( \mathcal S(0, s) g(u(s)) . \) In particular, it explains why we need the summability condition \( \sum _j \gamma _j^2 < \infty . \)
Before we formulate the main result it is left to introduce a notation as follows. By \( C(0, T; H^{\sigma }(\mathbb R)) \) we will notate the space of continuous functions on [0, T] having values in \(H^{\sigma }(\mathbb R)\) with the usual supremum norm.
Theorem 1
Let σ 0 > 1∕2 and \(\sigma \geqslant \max \{ \sigma _0, 1 \}\) . Then for any \(\mathcal F_0\) -measurable \( u_0 \in L^2(\Omega ; H^{\sigma }( \mathbb R )) \cap L^{\infty }(\Omega ; H^{\sigma _0}( \mathbb R )) \) with sufficiently small \(L^{\infty }H^{\sigma _0}\) -norm and any T 0 > 0 Eq.(5) has a unique adapted solution \( u \in L^2( \Omega ; C(0, T_0; H^{\sigma }(\mathbb R)) ) \cap L^{\infty }( \Omega ; C(0, T_0; H^{\sigma _0}(\mathbb R)) ) . \) Moreover, \( \mathcal H(u(t)) = \mathcal H(u_0) \) for each t ∈ [0, T 0] almost surely on Ω.
The conservation of energy (2) plays a crucial role in the proof. So it will be a bit more convenient to regard the energy norm defined by
instead of the spatial \(H^{\sigma _0}\)-norm. They are obviously equivalent.
The proof is essentially based on the contraction mapping principle. We do not exploit much smoothing properties of the group \(\mathcal S(t, t_0)\), as for example is done in [2] for analysis of a stochastic nonlinear Schrödinger equation. It is enough to know that the absolute value of its symbol equals one, and that S(t) is a unitary semigroup. However, in order to appeal to the fixed point theorem we have to truncate both deterministic f and random g nonlinearities. There are a couple of technical difficulties related to implementation of the energy conservation in our case. Firstly, for the truncated equation we can claim \(\mathcal H\)-conservation only until a particular stopping time. Secondly, one can control \(\left \Vert u \right \Vert { }_{ \mathcal H }\) with \(\mathcal H(u)\) only provided \(\left \Vert u \right \Vert { }_{ \mathcal H }\) is small. These additional difficulties make us repeat the arguments of the last section in the paper iteratively in order to construct solution on the whole time interval [0, T 0].
As a final remark we point out that the noise in Eq. (1) can be gathered in one dimensional \( \partial _x \left ( u + K u^2 \right ) \circ d B \) with the scalar Brownian motion B =∑j γ j W j. However, this does not affect the proof below anyhow, so we continue to stick to the original formulation (1). In future works we are planning to extend it to γ j being either Fourier multipliers or space-dependent coefficients.
2 Truncation
The Sobolev space \(H^{\sigma }(\mathbb R)\) consists of tempered distributions u having the finite square norm \( \left \Vert u \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma }}^2 = \int \left | \widehat u (\xi ) \right |{ }^2 \left ( 1 + \xi ^2 \right ) ^{\sigma } d\xi < \infty . \) Let \( \theta \in C_0^{\infty }(\mathbb R) \) with \( \operatorname {\mathrm {supp}} \theta \in [-2, 2] \) being such that θ(x) = 1 for x ∈ [−1, 1] and \( 0 \leqslant \theta (x) \leqslant 1 \) for \( x \in \mathbb R . \) For R > 0 we introduce the cut off θ R(x) = θ(x∕R) and
that we substitute in (5) instead of f(u), g(u), respectively. The new R-regularisation of (5) reads as
In this section without loss of generality we can set t 0 = 0 and u(t 0) = u 0. We will vary time moments t 0 below in the next section. Equation (6) can be solved with a help of the contraction mapping principle in \( L^2( \Omega ; C(0, T; H^{\sigma }(\mathbb R)) ) . \)
Proposition 1
Let σ > 1∕2, \( u_0 \in L^2( \Omega ; H^{\sigma }(\mathbb R) ) \) be \(\mathcal F_0\) -measurable and T 0 > 0. Then (6) has a unique adapted solution \( u \in L^2( \Omega ; C(0, T_0; H^{\sigma }(\mathbb R)) ) . \) Moreover, it depends continuously on the initial data u 0.
Proof
We set \( \mathcal Tu(t) = \mbox{RHS(6)} . \) We will show that \(\mathcal T\) is a contraction mapping in \( X_T = L^2( \Omega ; C(0, T; H^{\sigma }(\mathbb R)) ) , \) provided T > 0 is sufficiently small, depending only on R. Let u 1, u 2 be two adapted processes in X T. Firstly, one can notice that
Indeed, \(H^{\sigma }(\mathbb R)\) poses an algebraic property for σ > 1∕2 and ∂ x K is bounded in \(H^{\sigma }(\mathbb R)\). Then assuming \( \left \Vert u_1 \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma }} \geqslant \left \Vert u_2 \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma }} \) without loss of generality one deduces
where we have used the estimate \( \left | \theta _R( \left \Vert u_1 \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma }} ) - \theta _R( \left \Vert u_2 \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma }} ) \right | \leqslant \left \Vert \theta ' \right \Vert { }_{L^{\infty }} R^{-1}\) \( \left \Vert u_1 - u_2 \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma }} \) following obviously from the mean value theorem. The difference between f R(u 1) and f R(u 2) can be obtained in the same way. Thus
The first integral is estimated straightforwardly as
The second one is estimated with the use of the Burkholder inequality [5] as
It is clear that time-continuity of \( \mathcal Tu_1 , \mathcal Tu_2 \) follows from the factorisation \( \mathcal S = S S_W \) and the estimate \( \left \Vert S_W g_R( u ) \right \Vert _{H^{\sigma }} \leqslant CR^2 , \) so we have a stochastic convolution as in [5, Lemma 3.3]. Thus
and so there exists a small T depending only on R such that \(\mathcal T\) has a unique fixed point in X T. Moreover, this estimate also gives us continuous dependence of solution in X T on the initial data \( u_0 \in L^2( \Omega ; H^{\sigma }(\mathbb R) ) , \) obviously. Clearly, the solution can be extended to the whole interval [0, T 0]. □
The regularisation affects the energy conservation. Indeed, in the Itô differential form Eq. (6) reads
and so applying the Itô formula to the energy functional \(\mathcal H(u(t))\) defined by (2) with the use of (7), one can easily obtain
Indeed, assuming \(\sigma \geqslant \sigma _0 + 2\) at first, we notice that the solution u given by Proposition 1 solves Eq. (7). Let us introduce the following notations
Then Itô’s formula reads
where the Fréchet derivatives are defined by
at every \( \phi , \psi \in H^{\sigma _0}(\mathbb R) . \) Substituting these expressions together with the definitions of Φ and Ψ into the Itô’s formula one obtains (8). Let us, for example, calculate the stochastic integral
that equals zero as one can see integrating by parts in the space integral. Similarly, one calculates the other two integrals in the Itô formula. Thus we have proved (8) for \(\sigma \geqslant \sigma _0 + 2\). In order to lower the bound for σ, one would like to argue here by approximation of initial value u 0 via smooth functions and appeal to the continuous dependence on u 0, however, there is a problem here, since θ R in (8) contains the dependence on σ. So even for a smooth initial data the corresponding solution lies a priori only in H σ. This difficulty is overcome in the next statement, where we argue similar to [3].
Proposition 2
Let σ 0 > 1∕2 and \(\sigma \geqslant \max \{ \sigma _0, 1 \}\) . Then (8) holds almost surely for u satisfying Eq.(6) given by Proposition 1.
Proof
The main idea is to cut off high frequencies of the differential operator ∂ x in (7) as follows. Let P λ be a Fourier multiplier with the symbol θ λ, λ > 0. It is defined by the expression \( \mathfrak F ( P_{\lambda } \psi ) = \theta _{\lambda } \widehat \psi . \) Now we consider instead of (7) the following regularisation
that has a strong solution. Indeed, it contains only bounded operators and the corresponding mild equation has exactly the same form as Eq. (6) with \( \mathcal S^{\lambda } = S S_W^{\lambda } \) now instead of \(\mathcal S\), where
So we can actually apply Proposition 1 to obtain u = u λ solving (9). Let u = u ∞ stay for the solution of the original Eq. (6). Firstly, we will check that u λ → u ∞ in \( L^2( \Omega ; L^2(0, T_0; H^{\sigma }(\mathbb R)) ) \) for any σ > 1∕2 as λ →∞.
Let \( 0 \leqslant t \leqslant T \leqslant T_0 , \) where a positive small enough time moment T is to be chosen below. Then
The terms I 3 and I 6 are estimated exactly as the analogous integrals I and II in the proof of Proposition 1, namely,
and
Thus
and so there exists a small T > 0 depending only on R such that
One needs to show that the right hand side of this expression tends to zero when λ →∞. All these four integrals are treated similarly. Indeed, let us regard more closely the first one
that obviously tends to zero as λ →∞ for a.e. ω and any t. Hence \( \mathbb E \int _0^T I_1^2 dt \to 0 \) by the dominated convergence theorem, sine \( I_1 \leqslant 2 \left \Vert u_0 \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma }} . \) The integral of \(I_4^2\) is estimated exactly in the same manner with the stochastic integral of \( \mathcal S^{\infty } g_R( u_{\infty } ) \) standing in place of u 0. The second integral
by the dominated convergence theorem, since \( \left \Vert \ldots \right \Vert _{H^{\sigma }}^2 \leqslant CR^2 (1 + R)^4 . \) Finally, the last integral
by the Burkholder inequality and the dominated convergence theorem, since \( \left \Vert \ldots \right \Vert _{H^{\sigma }}^2 \leqslant CR^4 . \)
Repeating this argument iteratively on subintervals of [0, T 0] of the size T one obtains that u λ → u ∞ in \( L^2( \Omega \times [0, T_0] ; H^{\sigma }(\mathbb R) ) . \)
Let us calculate each term in the Itô formula for u = u λ. As we shall see the corresponding stochastic integral is not zero, and moreover, it is difficult to pass to the limit λ →∞ treating the stochastic part. So instead of \(\mathcal H\) we consider at first a sequence \(\mathcal H_n\), \(n \in \mathbb N\), with the cubic term being cut off in the following way
that clearly tends to \(\mathcal H(u)\) almost surely at any fixed time moment. The corresponding Fréchet derivatives are defined by
at every \( \phi , \psi \in H^{\sigma _0}(\mathbb R) . \) Substituting it to the stochastic integral one obtains the following expression that can be simplified by integration by parts
where u = u λ. We will show that this integral tends to zero as λ →∞. That is exactly the place where we need the cut off θ n. Applying some algebraic manipulations to the space integral and the Burkholder inequality to the stochastic integral, one deduces the estimate
as λ → 0 for each fixed \(n \in \mathbb N\). Note that the use of the functional \(\mathcal H_n\) instead of \(\mathcal H\) is important here. Similarly, we calculate the rest two terms in the Itô formula
where as above u = u λ. One can prove that for a.e. ω ∈ Ω and t ∈ [0, T 0] the first three terms J 1 + J 2 + J 3 tend to the integrand of the right hand side of Expression (8) in the subsequent limits, firstly, as λ →∞ and then as n →∞. Both J 4 and J 5 tend to zero as λ →∞. Meanwhile the last term J 6 stays bounded by C∕n, and so \( \lim _{n \to \infty } \lim _{\lambda \to \infty } J_6 = 0 . \) Let us show, for example, that J 4 → 0 which is the most troublesome term in the sum, since here is the only place in the paper where we make use of the fact \(\sigma \geqslant 1\). The rest are treated similarly without this additional restriction. Indeed,
that obviously tends to zero as λ →∞. This concludes the proof. □
At this stage one cannot claim the energy conservation yet, so we will prove a weaker result that will be sharpened later. Note that there exists \(C_{\mathcal H} > 0\) such that
following from the well-known embedding \( H^{\sigma _0} (\mathbb R) \hookrightarrow L^{\infty } (\mathbb R) , \) recall that σ 0 > 1∕2.
Lemma 1
There exists a constant T 1 > 0 independent of ω such that if u solving Eq.(6) has \( \left \Vert u \right \Vert { }_{ \mathcal H } \leqslant \frac 1{ 2 C_{\mathcal H} } \) on some interval [0, τ] then \( \mathcal H(u) \leqslant 2 \mathcal H(u(0)) \) on [0, T 1 ∧ τ].
Proof
At first one can notice that as long as \(\left \Vert u \right \Vert { }_{ \mathcal H }\) stays bounded by \((2 C_{\mathcal H})^{-1}\), we have
Moreover, one can as well easily deduce from (8) the following bound
and so the proof is concluded by Grönwall’s lemma. □
3 Proof of the Main Result
We construct a solution u of (5) iteratively on the intervals [0, T 1], [T 1, 2T 1] and so on. Here the interval size T 1 is defined by Lemma 1. Staying under the assumptions of Theorem 1, we denote by u m solutions of Eq. (6) with \(R = m \in \mathbb N\) given by Proposition 1, where we subsequently set t 0 = 0, T 1, 2T 1, …. We define the stopping times
with the agreement \(\inf \emptyset = T_0\). Starting with t 0 = 0 we firstly show the following result.
Lemma 2
For a.e. ω ∈ Ω, any \( m \in \mathbb N \) and each t ∈ [0, τ] with \( \tau (\omega ) = \min \{ \tau _m(\omega ), \tau _{m+1}(\omega ) \} , \) it holds true that u m(t) = u m+1(t).
Proof
We define
At first we will show that \( \widetilde u_m \) and \( \widetilde u_{m+1} \) coincide in X T provided T is sufficiently small. Then we will finish the proof by an iteration procedure. The difference of these functions has the form
where the stochastic integral is estimated via
with the help of the Burkholder inequality for convolution with the unitary group S, see [5, Lemma 3.3]. The first integral is estimated more straightforwardly, notice a similar argument employed to I in the proof of Proposition 1, and so one obtains
Hence \( \widetilde u_{m+1} = \widetilde u_m \) on [0, T] for a.e. ω ∈ Ω provided T is chosen sufficiently small depending only on m. Thus we can iterate this procedure to show that \( \widetilde u_{m+1} = \widetilde u_m \) on the whole interval [0, T 0], which concludes the proof of the lemma. □
Our goal is to bound \( \left \Vert u_m \right \Vert _{ L^2 C( 0, T_1; H^{\sigma } ) } \) by a constant independent of \(m \in \mathbb N\), and so we will need to estimate \( \left \Vert f(u_m) \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma }} , \) \( \left \Vert g(u_m) \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma }} , \) in particular. This can be easily done with the help of
being true for any \(\sigma \geqslant 0\) and σ 0 > 1∕2, see for example [7, Estimate (3.12)].
For a.e. ω ∈ Ω and any \(m \in \mathbb N\), t ∈ [0, T 0] we have
where \( \left \Vert f(u_m(s)) \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma }} \leqslant C \left ( \left \Vert u_m(s) \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma _0}} + \left \Vert u_m(s) \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma _0}}^2 \right ) \left \Vert u_m(s) \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma }} . \) Now taking into account that \( \left \Vert \mathcal S(0, s) g_m(u_m(s)) \right \Vert _{H^{\sigma }} \leqslant C \left \Vert u_m(s) \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma _0}} \left \Vert u_m(s) \right \Vert { }_{H^{\sigma }} , \) the stochastic integral can be estimated by the Burkholder inequality, and so we obtain for any \(0 < T \leqslant T_0\) the following inequality
where C depends only on σ 0, σ, T 0, \(\sum _j \gamma _j^2\). This inequality we will use iteratively on the intervals [0, T 0 ∧ kT 1], \(k \in \mathbb N\), with T 1 found in Lemma 1. Let \( \left \Vert u_0 \right \Vert { }_{ \mathcal H } \leqslant ( 5 C_{ \mathcal H } )^{-1} \) a.e. on Ω. Consider the following stopping time
Then a.e. \(T_1 \leqslant T_2^m\). Indeed, assuming the contrary \(T_1 > T_2^m\) one can deduce from (10) and Lemma 1 that
which contradicts to the definition of the stopping time \(T_2^m\) due to continuity of \(\left \Vert u_m \right \Vert { }_{ \mathcal H }\). As a result \(\left \Vert u_m \right \Vert { }_{ \mathcal H }\) stays bounded by \(( 2 C_{ \mathcal H } )^{-1}\) on the interval [0, T 1] for a.e. ω, and this simplifies (12) in the following way
holding true for any \(0 < T \leqslant T_1\). Hence by Grönwall’s lemma we obtain
where M does not depend on \(m \in \mathbb N\). Hence
and so \( [0, T_1] \subset \cup _{m \in \mathbb N} [0, \tau _m(\omega )] \) for a.e. ω ∈ Ω. Thus we can define u on [0, T 1] by assigning u = u m on [0, τ m]. This is obviously a solution of (5) on [0, T 1] satisfying \(d \mathcal H(u) = 0\) and \( \left \Vert u \right \Vert { }_{ \mathcal H } < ( 2 C_{ \mathcal H } )^{-1} \) for a.e. ω ∈ Ω.
Now one can repeat the argument on [T 1, 2T 1] by constructing new solutions u m of Eq. (6) with the initial data u(T 1) given at the time moment t 0 = T 1. The stopping times τ m are defined by (11) with t 0 = T 1. The fact that \(\left \Vert u_m \right \Vert { }_{ \mathcal H }\) does not exceed the level \(( 2 C_{ \mathcal H } )^{-1}\), is guaranteed by the energy conservation, namely by \( \mathcal H(u(T_1)) = \mathcal H(u_0) \) in the same manner as above. The rest is similar, and so we get a solution on [T 1, 2T 1] with the constant energy equalled \(\mathcal H(u_0)\). After several repetitions of the argument we construct a solution on [0, T 0].
It remains to prove the uniqueness. Let \( u_1, u_2 \in L^2( \Omega ; C(0, T_0; H^{\sigma }(\mathbb R)) ) \) solve Eq. (5). For R > 0 we introduce
Clearly, for a.e. ω ∈ Ω both u 1 and u 2 are solutions of (6) on [0, τ R]. By Proposition 1 it holds true that u 1 = u 2 on [0, τ R] for a.e. ω ∈ Ω. Taking \(R \in \mathbb N\) and exploiting the time-continuity of u 1, u 2 one obtains u 1 = u 2 on [0, limR→∞ τ R] for a.e. ω ∈ Ω. Now from sub-additivity and Chebyshev’s inequality we deduce
as R →∞, proving u 1 = u 2 on [0, T 0]. This concludes the proof of Theorem 1.
References
Craig, W., and Groves, M. D. Hamiltonian long-wave approximations to the water-wave problem. Wave Motion 19, 4 (1994), 367–389.
de Bouard, A., and Debussche, A. A Stochastic Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation with Multiplicative Noise. Communications in Mathematical Physics 205, 1 (Aug. 1999), 161–181.
de Bouard, A., and Debussche, A. The Stochastic Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation in H 1. Stochastic Analysis and Applications 21, 1 (2003), 97–126.
Dinvay, E., and Mémin, E. Hamiltonian formulation of the stochastic surface wave problem. Proc. R. Soc. A. 478, (2022), 20220050. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2022.0050
Gawarecki, L., and Mandrekar, V. Stochastic Differential Equations in Infinite Dimensions. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011.
Grafakos, L. Modern Fourier Analysis, vol. 250. Springer, 2009.
Linares, F., and Ponce, G. Introduction to Nonlinear Dispersive Equations. Universitext. Springer, New York, 2015.
Mémin, E. Fluid flow dynamics under location uncertainty. Geophysical & Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics 108, 2 (2014), 119–146.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to the members of STUOD team for fruitful discussions and numerous helpful comments. The author acknowledges the support of the ERC EU project 856408-STUOD.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this paper
Cite this paper
Dinvay, E. (2023). A Stochastic Benjamin-Bona-Mahony Type Equation. In: Chapron, B., Crisan, D., Holm, D., Mémin, E., Radomska, A. (eds) Stochastic Transport in Upper Ocean Dynamics. STUOD 2021. Mathematics of Planet Earth, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18988-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18988-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-18987-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-18988-3
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)