A result related to nonuniqueness for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation on the real line has been established by Kenig, Ponce, and Vega [
13]
: With a Dirac mass as initial datum, either there exists no solution, or there exists more than one solution.^{2 }
Dix [
10]
has shown nonuniqueness of weak solutions in
${C}^{0}\left({H}^{s}\right)$
for Burgers' equation, for
$s<\frac{1}{2}$
, via the ColeHopf transformation, which transforms solutions of the heat equation to solutions of Burgers' equation by taking a logarithm.
2.4 Nonuniqueness in more restrictive function spaces
We will also establish, by a slightly more complicated argument, the analogue of Theorem 2.1 for certain less standard function spaces. These are the spaces
${\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}^{p}$
for
$p\in [1,\infty )$
, defined by
Definition 2.4.
${\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}^{p}(\mathbb{T})=\{f\in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{T}):\widehat{f}(\cdot )\in {\ell}^{p}\}$
.
Here
$\mathcal{D}(\mathbb{T})$
is the usual space of distributions, and
${\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}^{p}$
is equipped with the norm
$\parallel \widehat{f}{\parallel}_{{\ell}^{p}(\mathbb{Z})}$
.
The Cauchy problem
NLS* in
${\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}^{p}$
exhibits certain attributes of wellposedness for all
$p\in [1,\infty )$
[
5]
: For any
$R<\infty $
there exists
$T>0$
such that the solution operator
${u}_{0}\mapsto u(t,x)$
, defined initially for all
${u}_{0}\in {H}^{1}$
, is uniformly continuous (even real analytic) as a mapping from
$\{{u}_{0}\in {H}^{1}:\parallel {u}_{0}{\parallel}_{{\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}^{p}}\le R\}$
, equipped with the
${\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}^{p}$
topology, to
${C}^{0}\left(\right[0,T],{\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}^{p})$
. Moreover the mapping
${u}_{0}\mapsto u$
defined by extending this mapping from the dense subspace to all of
${\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}^{p}$
is actually real analytic, and the function
$u(t,x)$
thus defined is a weak solution of the differential equation in the extended sense. The unmodified Cauchy problem NLS lacks these features for all
$p>2$
; the modified equation is better behaved.
Theorem 2.3.
Let
$p>2$
and
$\omega \ne 0$
. There exists a weak solution
$u\in {C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}^{p})$
of NLS* , in the extended sense, which does not vanish identically but has initial datum
${u}_{0}\equiv 0$
. Moreover, the limit 2.4 defining
${e}^{it\Delta}\mathbf{N}\left(u\right)$
exists in the
${C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1],{\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}^{p})$
norm.
2.5 Quadratic nonlinearities
Consider next the Cauchy problem
$$\begin{array}{c}\{\begin{array}{cc}& i{u}_{t}+{u}_{xx}+\omega Q\left(u\right)=0\\ & u(0,x)={u}_{0}\left(x\right)\end{array}\end{array}$$ 
(NLS˙2)

where
$$\begin{array}{c}Q\left(u\right)={u}^{2},={\overline{u}}^{2},\text{or}=u{}^{2}\mu (\leftu{}^{2}\right).\end{array}$$ 
(2.8)

Theorem 2.4.
Let
$s<0$
and
$\omega \ne 0$
. For the Cauchy problem NLS2̇ with any of the nonlinearities^{3 }
2.8 , there exists
$u\in {C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{H}^{s})$
which is a weak solution in the extended sense, does not vanish identically, and has initial datum
${u}_{0}\equiv 0$
. Moreover,
${lim}_{N\to \infty}{e}^{it\Delta}Q\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}u\right)$
exists in the
${C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1],{H}^{s})$
norm for any sequence of operators
${\mathcal{P}}_{N}$
satisfying the conditions of Definition 2.1 .
For
$Q={u}^{2}$
or
${\overline{u}}^{2}$
, this Cauchy problem is wellposed in
${H}^{s}$
for all
$s>\frac{1}{2}$
[
14]
, in the usual sense; for any initial datum in
${H}^{s}$
there exists a solution belonging to a space more restrictive than
${C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{H}^{s})$
, and within this smaller space the solution is unique.
Thus for
$s\in (\frac{1}{2},0)$
we have simultaneously wellposedness in
${H}^{s}$
in the usual sense, and nonuniqueness of weak solutions in the extended sense in
${C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{H}^{s})$
.
2.6 Discussion
The construction proceeds as follows. We consider a sequence of exact solutions
${u}_{\nu}$
of the modified Cauchy problem with initial data zero and with driving forces
${f}_{\nu}={\sum}_{\leftk\right\ge {M}_{\nu}}{c}_{k,\nu}\left(t\right){e}^{ikx}$
, where
${M}_{\nu}\to \infty $
as
$\nu \to \infty $
. To leading order,
${f}_{\nu}$
contributes
${v}_{\nu}\left(t\right)=i{\int}_{0}^{t}{e}^{i(ts)\Delta}{f}_{\nu}\left(s\right)ds$
to the solution
${u}_{\nu}$
. We choose
${f}_{\nu +1}$
so that
$\mathbf{N}\left({v}_{\nu +1}\right)\approx {f}_{\nu}$
, modulo a very small remainder; it is essential to work in function spaces
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}(\mathbb{T})$
in which it is possible to simultaneously make
${v}_{\nu +1}$
small in
${C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],\mathcal{\mathscr{H}})$
, and
$\mathbf{N}\left({v}_{\nu +1}\right)$
large in
${C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1],\mathcal{\mathscr{H}})$
. Thus nonuniqueness arises via an infinite cascade of “energy” from high spatial Fourier modes to lower Fourier modes, that is, from small spatial scales to large scales. Our construction and that of Shnirelman [
16]
have in common both the use of driving forces tending weakly to zero, and the exploitation of this reverse energy cascade.
The motivation for the construction is that if the evolution is viewed as a coupled system of ordinary differential equations for the spatial Fourier coefficients of
$\widehat{u}(t,n)$
, then because this system has infinite dimension, uniqueness should be expected to fail without some growth restriction as
$\leftn\right\to \infty $
. The main issues in the construction are then that exponential growth with respect to
$n$
must be avoided, and that the inverse energy cascade inevitably produces many undesired terms along with terms useful in the construction, and it is required to make all undesired terms small in order to keep the
${H}^{s}$
norm finite, while useful terms are large and prescribed.
2.7 Extensions, and potential extensions
Various related results follow in a straightforward way from the same method.

$\bullet $
Let
$L$
be any linear operator of the form
$\widehat{Lu}\left(n\right)=\sigma \left(n\right)\widehat{u}\left(n\right)$
where
$\sigma $
is realvalued.
Then Theorem
2.1 and its proof carry through, nearly verbatim, when the linear term
${u}_{xx}$
in the differential equation is replaced by
$Lu$
. More generally, if
$\sigma $
has nonnegative imaginary part, the construction goes through if rewritten without the substitution 3.3 .

$\bullet $
Generalization to higher dimensions is likewise straightforward.

$\bullet $
Many other nonlinearities can be treated by the same method. Suitable modifications, analogous to the subtraction of
$2\mu \left(\rightu{}^{2})u$
, are often needed in order to make sense of the equation in
${H}^{s}$
for negative
$s$
.

$\bullet $
In particular, the periodic Kortewegde Vries equation admits nonunique solutions, in the extended weak sense, in
${C}^{0}\left({H}^{s}\right)$
for all
$s<0$
. This contrasts with the work of Kappeler and Topalov [12] , who have proved existence of quite canonical solutions in
${C}^{0}\left({H}^{s}\right)$
, which depend continuously on initial data in
${H}^{s}$
for all
$s>1$
.
These “solutions” were only proved to satisfy the PDE in the quite weak sense of being limits in
${C}^{0}\left({H}^{s}\right)$
of
${C}^{\infty}$
solutions. Our construction shows that if this notion of solution is liberalized by allowing limits of smooth solutions of inhomogeneous Cauchy problems with smooth driving forces tending to zero in the natural space
${e}^{it\Delta}\left({C}^{1}\right({H}^{s}\left)\right)$
, then solutions are no longer unique.

$\bullet $
The construction applies to semilinear hyperbolic equations
${u}_{tt}{\Delta}_{x}u+\mathcal{N}\left(u\right)=0$
, for many nonlinearities
$\mathcal{N}$
.
Other extensions and variants are at present more speculative. It appears to be possible to:

$\bullet $
Sharpen the examples of Scheffer and Shnirelman for the Euler equation via this construction, to produce solutions in
${C}^{0}\left({L}^{2}\right)$
rather than merely in
${L}^{2}\left(\right[0,T]\times \mathbb{T})$
.

$\bullet $
Establish nonuniqueness of the initial value problem for the NavierStokes equation, for solutions in the extended weak sense in
${C}^{0}\left({H}^{s}\right)$
for
$s$
strictly negative. This does not address the question of uniqueness of Leray's weak solutions in
${C}^{0}\left({H}^{0}\right)$
.

$\bullet $
Extend the construction to positive Sobolev exponents, for a certain class of artificial equations such as
$i{u}_{t}+{u}_{xx}+{u}_{x}\overline{u}=0$
.
However, at present none of this has been verified in detail.
One feature of the construction is that it is relatively insensitive to the degree of the (semilinear) nonlinear term, in contrast to the behavior of threshold exponents in wellposedness theorems.
I thank Betsy Stovall for proofreading the manuscript.
3 Reformulation as an ordinary differential equation
We reformulate the Cauchy problem NLS* as an infinite coupled system of ordinary differential equations for the Fourier coefficients of
$u$
. Define
$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma (j,k,l,n)={n}^{2}{j}^{2}+{k}^{2}{l}^{2}.\end{array}$$ 
(3.1)

Written in terms of Fourier coefficients
${\widehat{u}}_{n}\left(t\right)=\widehat{u}(t,n)$
and
${\widehat{F}}_{n}\left(t\right)=\widehat{F}(t,n)$
, the differential equation
$i{u}_{t}+{u}_{xx}+\omega \mathbf{N}u=F$
becomes
$$\begin{array}{c}i\frac{d{\widehat{u}}_{n}}{dt}{n}^{2}{\widehat{u}}_{n}+\omega {\sum}_{jk+l=n}{\widehat{u}}_{j}\overline{{\widehat{u}}_{k}}{\widehat{u}}_{l}2\omega {\widehat{u}}_{n}{\sum}_{m}{\widehat{u}}_{m}{}^{2}=\widehat{{F}_{n}}(t).\end{array}$$ 
(3.2)

Here the first summation is taken over all
$(j,k,l)\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{3}$
satisfying the indicated identity, and the second over all
$m\in \mathbb{Z}$
. The term
$2\omega {\widehat{u}}_{n}{\sum}_{m}{\widehat{u}}_{m}{}^{2}$
cancels out certain terms of the first sum. Eliminating these and substituting^{4 }
$$\begin{array}{c}{y}_{n}\left(t\right)={e}^{i{n}^{2}t}\widehat{u}(t,n),\end{array}$$ 
(3.3)

3.2 becomes
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{d{y}_{n}}{dt}=i\omega {\sum}_{jk+l=n}^{*}{y}_{j}{\overline{y}}_{k}{y}_{l}{e}^{i\sigma (j,k,l,n)t}i\omega {y}_{n}{}^{2}{y}_{n}i{e}^{i{n}^{2}t}\widehat{{F}_{n}}(t)\end{array}$$ 
(3.4)

where the notation
${\sum}_{jk+l=n}^{*}$
means that the sum is taken over all
$(j,k,l)\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{3}$
for which neither
$j=n$
nor
$l=n$
.
For a sequence
$a$
define
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel a{\parallel}_{{\ell}_{s}^{2}}^{2}={\sum}_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\left{a}_{n}{}^{2}\right(1+{n}^{2}{)}^{s}.\end{array}$$ 
(3.5)

Clearly
$y\in {C}^{0}\left(\right[0,T],{\ell}_{s}^{2})$
if and only if
$u\in {C}^{0}\left(\right[0,T],{H}^{s})$
, with identical norms.
For any complexvalued sequence
$z$
define
${\mathcal{N}}_{diag}\left(t\right)\left(z\right)$
and
${\mathcal{N}}_{main}\left(t\right)\left(z\right)$
to be the sequences whose
$n$
th terms are
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left[{\mathcal{N}}_{main}\right(t\left)\right(z){]}_{n}=i\omega {\sum}_{jk+l=n}^{*}{z}_{j}{\overline{z}}_{k}{z}_{l}{e}^{i\sigma (j,k,l,n)t}\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \left[{\mathcal{N}}_{diag}\right(t\left)\right(z){]}_{n}=i\omega {z}_{n}{}^{2}{z}_{n}.\end{array}$$  
$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$  
and define
$$\mathcal{N}\left(z\right)={\mathcal{N}}_{main}\left(z\right)+{\mathcal{N}}_{diag}\left(z\right).$$
For each
$t\in \mathbb{R}$
,
$\mathcal{N}\left(t\right)$
is a nonlinear operator which acts on a numerical sequence
$z=({z}_{n}{)}_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}$
, and produces another numerical sequence.
We will work with sequencevalued functions
$y$
of
$t$
, and
$\mathcal{N}\left(y\right)$
will denote the sequencevalued function
$\mathcal{N}\left(t\right)\left(z\right)$
where
$z=y\left(t\right)$
. With this notation, 3.4 becomes
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{dy}{dt}=\mathcal{N}\left(y\right)+f\end{array}$$ 
(3.6)

where
$${f}_{n}\left(t\right)=i{e}^{i{n}^{2}t}\widehat{{F}_{n}}\left(t\right).$$
We say that a sequencevalued function
$h\left(t\right)=\left({h}_{n}\right(t){)}_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}$
of
$t\in [0,1]$
has support contained in
$S\subset \mathbb{Z}$
if
${h}_{n}\left(t\right)\equiv 0$
for all
$t\in [0,1]$
, for every
$n/\in S$
. Thus we may speak of sequencevalued functions with finite supports.
4 The main step
Expressed in terms of Fourier coefficients, Proposition 2.2 becomes
Proposition 4.1.
Let
$s<0$
. Let
$x\in {C}^{\infty}\left(\right[0,1\left]\right)$
be a finitely supported sequencevalued function such that
$x(t,\cdot )$
vanishes to infinite order as
$t\to {0}^{+}$
.
Then for any
$\varepsilon >0$
there exist finitely supported sequencevalued functions
$y,g\in {C}^{\infty}\left(\right[0,1\left]\right)$
satisfying
$$\begin{array}{c}\{\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{dy}{dt}=\mathcal{N}\left(y\right)+g\left(t\right)\\ & y(t,\cdot )\text{vanishes to infinite order as}t\to {0}^{+}\text{}\end{array}\end{array}$$ 
(4.1)

with
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \parallel yx{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})}\le \varepsilon \end{array}$$ 
(4.2)

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \parallel g{\parallel}_{{C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})}\le \varepsilon .\end{array}$$ 
(4.3)

$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$  
Moreover, for any
$M<\infty $
,
$y$
may be constructed so that
$yx$
and
$g$
are supported in
$[M,\infty )$
.
4.1 Construction of
$y$
Define
$$\begin{array}{c}f=\frac{dx}{dt}\mathcal{N}\left(x\right).\end{array}$$ 
(4.4)

Since
$x$
has finite support, so does
$f$
. Let
$S$
be a finite set in which
$f$
is supported, and write
$S=\{{n}_{j}:1\le j\le A\}$
where the
${n}_{j}$
are distinct. Choose a finite set
${S}^{\u2020}\subset \mathbb{Z}\cap [M,\infty )$
, as follows. First choose
${m}_{1}\ge M$
, and define
${m}_{1}^{\prime}$
by the equation
$2{m}_{1}{m}_{1}^{\prime}={n}_{1}$
. Make
${m}_{1}$
sufficiently large to ensure that
${m}_{1}^{\prime}\ge M$
as well. Choose
${m}_{2}\ge M$
very large relative to
${m}_{1},{m}_{1}^{\prime}$
, and define
${m}_{2}^{\prime}$
by
$2{m}_{2}{m}_{2}^{\prime}={n}_{2}$
. Then choose
${m}_{3},{m}_{3}^{\prime},{m}_{4},{m}_{4}^{\prime}...$
in that order, satisfying
$$\begin{array}{c}2{m}_{j}{m}_{j}^{\prime}={n}_{j}\text{for all}1\le j\le A\text{,}\end{array}$$ 
(4.5)

and let
${S}^{\u2020}=\{{m}_{1},{m}_{1}^{\prime},\cdots ,{m}_{A},{m}_{A}^{\prime}\}$
. The elements of
${S}^{\u2020}$
are to be chosen to satisfy additional constraints:

(1)
If
$k,l,m\in {S}^{\u2020}$
and if
$l/\in \{k,m\}$
then
$kl+m\ge M$
unless
$(k,l,m)=({m}_{j},{m}_{j}^{\prime},{m}_{j})$
for some
$j$
.

(2)
If
$k,l\in {S}^{\u2020}$
and
$n$
belongs to the support of
$x$
then
$kn+l\ge M$
. Moreover
$kl+n\ge M$
provided that
$k\ne l$
.

(3)
If
$k\in {S}^{\u2020}$
and
$m,n$
belong to the support of
$x$
then
$km+n\ge M$
and
$m+kn\ge M$
.
Since each
${m}_{j}^{\prime}$
is approximately twice as large as
${m}_{j}$
, and since the support of
$x$
is finite, all these conditions will hold, provided that
${m}_{1}$
is sufficiently large and each subsequent
${m}_{j}$
is chosen sufficiently large relative to
${m}_{1},\cdots ,{m}_{j1}$
, while
${m}_{j}^{\prime}$
is defined to be
$2{m}_{j}{n}_{j}$
.
Choose
${C}^{\infty}$
functions
$\left\{{h}_{m}\right(t):m\in {S}^{\u2020}\}$
that vanish to infinite order as
$t\to 0$
and satisfy
$$\begin{array}{c}i\omega \overline{{h}_{{m}_{j}^{\prime}}}\left(t\right){h}_{{m}_{j}}^{2}\left(t\right)\equiv \frac{1}{2}{e}^{i\sigma ({m}_{j},{m}_{j}^{\prime},{m}_{j},{n}_{j})t}{f}_{{n}_{j}}\left(t\right)\end{array}$$ 
(4.6)

for each
${n}_{j}\in S$
. It is essential that these functions be chosen so that
${max}_{m\in {S}^{\u2020}}\parallel {h}_{m}{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1\left]\right)}$
is bounded above by a finite quantity depending only^{5 }
on
$S$
and on
$f$
, not on the choice of
${S}^{\u2020}$
itself. Define
$h=\left({h}_{j}\right(t){)}_{j\in \mathbb{Z}}$
by
${h}_{j}\left(t\right)=0$
for all
$j/\in {S}^{\u2020}$
, and
${h}_{j}$
as above for all
$j\in {S}^{\u2020}$
. Define
$$\begin{array}{c}y=x+h.\end{array}$$ 
(4.7)

4.2 Remainder terms
Define
$$\begin{array}{c}g=\frac{dy}{dt}\mathcal{N}\left(y\right).\end{array}$$ 
(4.8)

Since
$x,h$
have disjoint supports,
${\mathcal{N}}_{diag}(x+h)={\mathcal{N}}_{diag}\left(x\right)+{\mathcal{N}}_{diag}\left(h\right)$
. Consequently
$$\begin{array}{c}g=\left(f{\mathcal{N}}_{main}\left(h\right)\right)+\frac{dh}{dt}{\mathcal{N}}_{diag}\left(h\right)\left({\mathcal{N}}_{main}(x+h){\mathcal{N}}_{main}\left(x\right){\mathcal{N}}_{main}\left(h\right)\right).\end{array}$$ 
(4.9)

The bounds on
$yx$
and
$g$
in Proposition 4.1 will now be established. As in other constructions of poorly behaved solutions [
4]
,[
6]
,[
7]
,[
8]
, we work in a regime in which nonlinear effects are more powerful than dispersion.
Lemma 4.2.
Let
$x$
be as in the hypotheses of Proposition 4.1 , and let
$h$
be constructed as above. Then for any
$\varepsilon >0$
there exists
$M<\infty $
such that if
${S}^{\u2020}$
is chosen as specified, then
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \parallel h{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})}\le \varepsilon \end{array}$$ 
(4.10)

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \parallel \frac{dh}{dt}{\parallel}_{{C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})}\le \varepsilon \end{array}$$ 
(4.11)

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \parallel {\mathcal{N}}_{main}\left(x\right)+{\mathcal{N}}_{main}\left(h\right){\mathcal{N}}_{main}(x+h){\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})}\le \varepsilon \end{array}$$ 
(4.12)

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \parallel {\mathcal{N}}_{main}\left(h\right)f{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})}\le \varepsilon \end{array}$$ 
(4.13)

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \parallel {\mathcal{N}}_{diag}\left(h\right){\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})}\le \varepsilon \end{array}$$ 
(4.14)

$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$  

Proof.
${h}_{k}\left(t\right)$
vanishes for all
$k/\in {S}^{\u2020}$
, and is bounded uniformly by a finite constant depending on
$f$
, independent of the choice of
${S}^{\u2020}$
. The cardinality of
${S}^{\u2020}$
likewise depends only on
$x$
. Since
$s$
is strictly negative, it follows that
$\parallel h{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})}\le C{M}^{s}$
.
The bound for
$\frac{dh}{dt}$
is merely a restatement of the bound for
$h$
.
${\mathcal{N}}_{diag}\left(h\right)$
is also supported in
${S}^{\u2020}$
, and the same reasoning as for
$h$
applies to it.
${\mathcal{N}}_{main}\left(h\right)f$
is supported on
$\{n:n\ge M\}$
, by 1 . The term
${\mathcal{N}}_{main}\left(x\right)+{\mathcal{N}}_{main}\left(h\right){\mathcal{N}}_{main}(x+h)$
is supported in the same set, by 2 and 3 . Therefore the same reasoning applies to them and yields the same bound
$C{M}^{s}$
. □
5 A solution with zero initial datum
5.1 Construction of the solution
By induction on
$n\in \mathbb{N}$
, we construct a sequence of finitely supported
${C}^{\infty}$
sequencevalued functions
${x}^{\left(n\right)}\in {C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1\left]\right)$
which vanish to infinite order as
$t\to 0$
. To begin, choose
${x}^{\left(1\right)}$
to be smooth, to have finite support, to vanish to infinite order as
$t\to 0$
, and moreover to have
$0$
th component satisfying
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel {x}_{0}^{\left(1\right)}{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1\left]\right)}\ge 1.\end{array}$$ 
(5.1)

For the inductive step, construct
${x}^{(n+1)}=y$
by applying Proposition 4.1 to
$x={x}^{\left(n\right)}$
.
Define the increments
${h}^{\left(n\right)}={x}^{(n+1)}{x}^{\left(n\right)}$
and the driving forces
${f}^{(n+1)}=\frac{d{x}^{\left(n\right)}}{dt}\mathcal{N}\left({x}^{\left(n\right)}\right)$
.
Then by induction
${h}^{\left(n\right)}$
and hence
${x}^{(n+1)}$
vanish to infinite order as
$t\to 0$
. Taking
$\varepsilon $
to be sufficiently small in the conclusion of the proposition at each step, we obtain bounds
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \parallel {h}^{\left(n\right)}{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})}\le {\delta}_{n}\end{array}$$ 
(5.2)

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \parallel {f}^{(n+1)}{\parallel}_{{C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})}\le {\delta}_{n}\end{array}$$ 
(5.3)

$$\begin{array}{cc}& {\delta}_{n}\le {2}^{n1}\end{array}$$ 
(5.4)

$$\begin{array}{}\end{array}$$  
and moreover each
${\delta}_{n}$
may be arranged to be as small as may be desired, relative to any quantity depending only on
${x}^{\left(n\right)}$
. Moreover
${h}^{\left(n\right)}$
and
${f}^{(n+1)}$
are naturally expressed as finite sums of various constituent quantities, discussed in the proof of Proposition 4.1 and in Lemma 4.2 , which are also
$\le {\delta}_{n}$
.
Define
$$\begin{array}{c}x={lim}_{n\to \infty}{x}^{\left(n\right)}\in {C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2});\end{array}$$ 
(5.5)

the limit exists because the sequence
$({x}^{\left(n\right)}{)}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$
is constructed so as to be Cauchy in
${C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})$
, as stated in 5.2 . Together, 5.1 and 5.2 ensure that the component
${x}_{0}$
does not vanish identically as a function of
$t\in [0,1]$
, so
$x$
is a nonzero element of
${C}^{0}\left({\ell}_{s}^{2}\right)$
. Because
${x}^{\left(n\right)}\left(0\right)\equiv 0$
, the same holds for
$x$
; that is,
$x$
satisfies the desired initial condition at time
$t=0$
.
5.2 Existence of
$\mathcal{N}\left(x\right)$
In order to show that
$x$
satisfies the desired differential equation, we must first show that
$\mathcal{N}\left(x\right)$
is welldefined.
Lemma 5.1.
Let
$\left({\mathfrak{m}}_{N}\right)$
be a uniformly bounded sequence of finitely supported functions from
$\mathbb{Z}$
to
$\mathbb{C}$
, and suppose that
${lim}_{N\to \infty}{\mathfrak{m}}_{N}\left(n\right)=1$
for all
$n\in \mathbb{Z}$
.
Define
^{6 }
the operators
${\mathcal{P}}_{N}{y}_{n}={\mathfrak{m}}_{N}\left(n\right){y}_{n}$
.
Then
${lim}_{N\to \infty}\mathcal{N}\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}x\right)$
exists in
${C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})$
norm.
Two facts will be repeatedly used in the proof of Lemma 5.1 . Firstly,
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \mathcal{N}\left(v\right)\mathcal{N}\left(w\right){\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}^{1})}\le C\parallel vw{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}^{1})}\cdot {\left(\parallel v{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}^{1})}+\parallel w{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}^{1})}\right)}^{2}.\end{array}$$ 
(5.6)

Secondly, the operators
${\mathcal{P}}_{N}$
are uniformly bounded on
${C}^{r}\left(\right[0,1],\mathcal{\mathscr{H}})$
for
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}={\ell}^{1}$
and
$\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}={\ell}_{s}^{2}$
, for
$r=0$
and
$r=1$
.
For any
$N,k$
,
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \mathcal{N}\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}{x}^{\left(k\right)}\right)\mathcal{N}\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}x\right){\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}^{1})}\le C{N}^{3}{2}^{k},\end{array}$$ 
(5.7)

since
${x}^{\left(k\right)}x\le {2}^{k}$
in
${C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}^{\infty})$
norm and
${\mathcal{P}}_{N}y$
is supported
$[3N,3N]$
for any
$y$
.
Thus for any index
$J$
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathcal{N}\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}x\right)=\mathcal{N}\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}{x}^{\left(J\right)}\right)+{\sum}_{j=J}^{\infty}\left[\mathcal{N}\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}{x}^{(j+1)}\right)\mathcal{N}\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}{x}^{\left(j\right)}\right)\right]\end{array}$$ 
(5.8)

with convergence in the
${C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}^{1})$
norm.
For any fixed
$k$
,
${\mathcal{P}}_{N}{x}^{\left(k\right)}\to {x}^{\left(k\right)}$
in
${C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}^{1})$
norm since the multipliers
${\mathfrak{m}}_{N}$
are uniformly bounded and tend pointwise to
$1$
. Therefore
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \mathcal{N}\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}{x}^{\left(k\right)}\right)\mathcal{N}\left({x}^{\left(k\right)}\right){\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}^{1})}\to 0\text{as}N\to \infty \text{}\end{array}$$ 
(5.9)

by 5.6 .
Lemma 5.2.
If the construction of the sequence
$({x}^{\left(n\right)}{)}_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}$
is carried out so that each
${\delta}_{n}$
is sufficiently small relative to quantities determined at earlier steps of the construction, then there exists
$C<\infty $
such that for all
$k$
and all
$N$
,
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \mathcal{N}\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}{x}^{(k+1)}\right)\mathcal{N}\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}{x}^{\left(k\right)}\right){\parallel}_{{C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})}\le C{2}^{k}.\end{array}$$ 
(5.10)

Lemma 5.1 follows directly from the combination of Lemma 5.2 with 5.8 and 5.9 . Henceforth
$\mathcal{N}\left(x\right)$
is welldefined, via Lemma 5.1 .
Corollary 5.3.
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathcal{N}\left({x}^{\left(k\right)}\right)\to \mathcal{N}\left(x\right)\text{in}{C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})\text{norm as}k\to \infty \text{.}\end{array}$$ 
(5.12)


Proof.
By Lemma 5.2 ,
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \mathcal{N}\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}x\right)\mathcal{N}\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}{x}^{\left(k\right)}\right){\parallel}_{{C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})}\le C{2}^{k},\end{array}$$ 
(5.13)

uniformly in
$N$
. By Lemma 5.1 and 5.9 ,
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathcal{N}\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}x\right)\mathcal{N}\left({\mathcal{P}}_{N}{x}^{\left(k\right)}\right)\to \mathcal{N}\left(x\right)\mathcal{N}\left({x}^{\left(k\right)}\right)\text{in}{C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})\text{norm as}N\to \infty \text{.}\end{array}$$ 
(5.14)

Therefore
$$\begin{array}{c}\parallel \mathcal{N}\left(x\right)\mathcal{N}\left({x}^{\left(k\right)}\right){\parallel}_{{C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})}\le C{2}^{k}.\end{array}$$ 
(5.15)

□
5.3 A solution of the Cauchy problem
By definition of
${f}^{\left(n\right)}$
,
${x}^{\left(n\right)}\left(t\right)={\int}_{0}^{t}\mathcal{N}\left({x}^{\left(n\right)}\right(s\left)\right)ds+{\int}_{0}^{t}{f}^{\left(n\right)}\left(s\right)ds$
. Since
${f}^{\left(n\right)}\to 0$
in
${C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})$
norm,
${x}^{\left(n\right)}\to x$
in
${C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})$
, and
$\mathcal{N}\left({x}^{\left(n\right)}\right)\to \mathcal{N}\left(x\right)$
in
${C}^{1}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})$
, it follows at once that
$$\begin{array}{c}x\left(t\right)={\int}_{0}^{t}\mathcal{N}\left(x\right(s\left)\right)ds.\end{array}$$ 
(5.16)

Define
$u\in {C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{H}^{s})$
by
$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{u}(t,n)={e}^{i{n}^{2}t}{x}_{n}\left(t\right).\end{array}$$ 
(5.17)

Since
${x}^{\left(n\right)}(t,x)\in {C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})$
vanishes identically for
$t=0$
and tends to
$x$
in
${C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})$
norm,
$u$
satisfies the initial condition
$u(0,\cdot )\equiv 0$
. Lemma 5.1 states in equivalent form that
$\mathcal{N}\left(u\right)$
exists in the sense of Definition 2.2 . 5.16 implies that
$u$
is a weak solution in the extended sense of the modified nonlinear Schrödinger equation. This completes the proof of Theorem 2.1 . □
6 Variants
6.1 The analogue for
${\mathcal{\mathscr{H}}}^{p}$
The proof of Theorem 2.3 is quite similar to that of Theorem 2.1 . The only significant change arises in the proof of Proposition 4.1 , for one cannot make
$\parallel h{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}^{p})}$
arbitrarily small simply by selecting
${S}^{\u2020}\subset [M,\infty )$
for
$M$
arbitrarily large, as can be done for
$\parallel h{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}_{s}^{2})}$
.
The key now is that with a modification of the set
${S}^{\u2020}$
of spatial Fourier modes in the support of the new driving force
$g$
, making
${\mathcal{N}}_{main}\left(h\right)\approx f$
requires a lower bound on
$h$
in
${C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}^{2})$
but not in
${C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1],{\ell}^{p})$
for
$p>2$
. Let
$S=\{{n}_{j}:1\le j\le A\}$
be as in the proof of Proposition 4.1 .
${S}^{\u2020}$
will now be taken to consist of elements
${m}_{0}$
and
${m}_{j,i},{m}_{j,i}^{\prime}$
for
$1\le j\le A$
and
$1\le i\le K$
where the new parameter
$K$
is to be determined. A large integer
${m}_{0}\in \mathbb{N}$
is chosen first, then
${m}_{1,1}<{m}_{1,2}<\cdots <{m}_{1,K}<{m}_{2,1}<{m}_{2,2}<\cdots <{m}_{2,K}<{m}_{3,1}<\cdots <{m}_{A,K}$
are chosen in that order, each sufficiently large relative to all its predecessors for later purposes, and then the quantities
${m}_{j,i}^{\prime}$
are uniquely determined by the relations
$$\begin{array}{c}{m}_{0}+{m}_{j,i}{m}_{j,i}^{\prime}={n}_{j}\text{for all}j,i.\end{array}$$ 
(6.1)

If
${m}_{0}$
is chosen so that
${m}_{0}{n}_{j}>0$
for all
$j$
then there is no obstruction to choosing
${m}_{j,i},{m}_{j,i}^{\prime}$
so that this equation holds and
${m}_{0},{m}_{j,i},{m}_{j,i}^{\prime}$
are three distinct integers.
${h}_{{m}_{0}}\left(t\right)$
is defined to be the constant function
$c\varepsilon $
where
$\varepsilon $
is the small quantity in the conclusion of the Proposition, and
$c$
is some sufficiently small fixed constant. Coefficients
$\{{h}_{m}:m\in {S}^{\u2020}\}$
are chosen to be
${C}^{1}$
functions satisfying
$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{}\text{(6.2)}& i\omega {h}_{{m}_{j,i}}\overline{{h}_{{m}_{j,i}^{\prime}}}{h}_{{m}_{0}}\left(t\right)\equiv \frac{1}{2}{K}^{1}{e}^{i\sigma ({m}_{j},{m}_{j}^{\prime},{m}_{j},{n}_{j})t}{f}_{{n}_{j}}\left(t\right)\parallel {h}_{m}{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}\left(\right[0,1\left]\right)}\le C{\left({\varepsilon}^{1}{K}^{1}\parallel {f}_{{n}_{j}}{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}}\right)}^{1/2}\text{if}m={m}_{j,i}\text{or}m={m}_{j,i}^{\prime}\text{.}\end{array}\end{array}$$ 
(6.3)

for each
$1\le j\le A$
and each
$1\le i\le K$
. If
$p$
is strictly greater than
$2$
then for any given
$\delta >0$
,
$\left\{{h}_{j,i}\right\}$
can be made to satisfy
$$\begin{array}{c}{\left({\sum}_{m\ne {m}_{0}\in {S}^{\u2020}}\parallel {h}_{m}{\parallel}_{{C}^{0}}\right)}^{1/p}\le \delta ,\end{array}$$ 
(6.4)

by choosing
$K$
to be sufficiently large as a function of
$\varepsilon ,\delta $
, for the factor of
${K}^{1/p}$
arising from the number of terms on the lefthand side is more than compensated for by the factor of
${K}^{1/2}$
in 6.3 , and this allows us to absorb the factor
${\varepsilon}^{1/2}$
in 6.3 . The remainder of the proof of Proposition 4.1 is unchanged. Repeated applications of the Proposition establish Theorem 2.3 , just as for Theorem 2.1 . □
6.2 Quadratic nonlinearities
Consider the nonlinearity
$Q\left(u\right)={u}^{2}$
; the discussion will apply to
${\overline{u}}^{2}$
and
$u{}^{2}\mu (\leftu{}^{2}\right)$
with very minor changes which are left to the reader. If
$S=\{{n}_{j}:1\le j\le A\}$
then we set
${S}^{\u2020}=\{{m}_{j},{m}_{j}^{\prime}:1\le j\le A\}$
where
${m}_{j}+{m}_{j}^{\prime}={n}_{j}$
and
$\left{m}_{j}\right,\left{m}_{j}^{\prime}\right\ge M$
for all
$j$
. The conditions on
$\left\{{h}_{m}\right\}$
now become
$$\begin{array}{c}i\omega {h}_{{m}_{j}}\left(t\right){h}_{{m}_{j}^{\prime}}\left(t\right)\equiv \frac{1}{2}{e}^{i({m}_{j}^{2}+{{m}_{j}^{\prime}}^{2}{n}_{j}^{2})t}{f}_{{n}_{j}}\left(t\right).\end{array}$$ 
(6.5)

By choosing
${m}_{1}$
sufficiently large and then
$\left{m}_{j}\right$
sufficiently large relative to
$\left{m}_{j1}\right$
we may ensure that the analogue of Lemma 4.2 holds. The rest of the argument is unchanged. □ References

H. A. Biagioni, A nonlinear theory of generalized functions, Second edition. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1421. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1990.

J. Bourgain, Fourier transform restriction phenomena for certain lattice subsets and applications to nonlinear evolution equations. I. Schrödinger equations, Geom. Funct. Anal. 3 (1993), no. 2, 107–156. MR1209299 (95d:35160a)

, Fourier transform restriction phenomena for certain lattice subsets and applications to nonlinear evolution equations. II. The KdVequation, Geom. Funct. Anal. 3 (1993), no. 3, 209–262. MR1215780 (95d:35160b)

N. Burq, P. Gérad and N. Tzvetkov, An instability property of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation on
${S}^{d}$
, Math. Res. Lett. 9 (2002), no. 23, 323–335. MR1909648 (2003c:35144)

M. Christ, Power series solution of a nonlinear Schrödinger equation, preprint December 2004.

M. Christ, J. Colliander, and T. Tao, Asymptotics, frequency modulation, and low regularity illposedness for canonical defocusing equations, Amer. J. Math. 125 (2003), no. 6, 1235–1293. MR2018661 (2005d:35223)

Illposedness for nonlinear Schrödinger and wave equations, to appear, Annales IHP Analyse Non Linéaire.

, Instability of the periodic nonlinear Schrödinger equation, preprint, math.AP/0311227.

J.F. Colombeau, Multiplication of distributions. A tool in mathematics, numerical engineering and theoretical physics, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1532. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1992.

D. B. Dix, Nonuniqueness and uniqueness in the initialvalue problem for Burgers' equation, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 27 (1996), no. 3, 708–724. MR1382829 (97c:35174)

G. Furioli, F. Planchon, and E. Terraneo, Unconditional wellposedness for semilinear Schrödinger and wave equations in
${H}^{s}$
, Harmonic analysis at Mount Holyoke (South Hadley, MA, 2001), 147–156, Contemp. Math., 320, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2003, MR1979937.

T. Kappeler and P. Topalov, Global WellPosedness of KdV in
${H}^{1}(T,R)$
, preprint.

C. E. Kenig, G. Ponce, and L. Vega, On the illposedness of some canonical dispersive equations, Duke Math. J. 106 (2001), no. 3, 617–633.

, Quadratic forms for the
$1$
D semilinear Schrödinger equation, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 348 (1996), no. 8, 3323–3353. MR1357398 (96j:35233)

V. Scheffer, An inviscid flow with compact support in spacetime, J. Geom. Anal. 3 (1993), no. 4, 343–401.

A. Shnirelman, On the nonuniqueness of weak solution of the Euler equation, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 50 (1997), no. 12, 1261–1286.
Michael Christ, Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 947203840, USA URL: math.berkeley.edu/
$\sim $
mchrist Email address : mchrist@math.berkeley.edu