2017
DOI: 10.1007/s13324-017-0166-8
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evolution of states in a continuum migration model

Abstract: The Markov evolution of states of a continuum migration model is studied. The model describes an infinite system of entities placed in R d in which the constituents appear (immigrate) with rate b(x) and disappear, also due to competition. For this model, we prove the existence of the evolution of states μ 0 → μ t such that the moments μ t (N n ), n ∈ N, of the number of entities in compact ⊂ R d remain bounded for all t > 0. Under an additional condition, we prove that the density of entities and the second co… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
(39 reference statements)
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They also develop conservation equations for higher order moment measures [6,4]. The model studied in our paper appears in, e.g., [3] and [13], and the latter also gives a proof of the existence of an evolution starting at time 0.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…They also develop conservation equations for higher order moment measures [6,4]. The model studied in our paper appears in, e.g., [3] and [13], and the latter also gives a proof of the existence of an evolution starting at time 0.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…It is clear, cf. [22,Sect. 2.3], that without interaction the distribution of migrants should eventually reflect the heterogeneity of the habitat and be Poissonian-in view of the randomness mentioned above and the lack of interactions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, starting from the second line in (4.17), we have, see the beginning of Sect. 3.2.2, d dt q (1)…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The proof of Lemma 4.1 of [1] has a certain inexactness which should be corrected. Namely, in proving the estimate in (4.18), one has to consider in (4.17) the case of l = 1 separately from all other cases as F (l−1) (∅) = 0 holds only for l ≥ 2.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation