starting from a paper by dziuk and elliott @xcite , much insight into the stability and convergence properties of finite elements on evolving surfaces has been obtained by studying a linear parabolic equation on a given moving closed surface @xmath0 .
the strong formulation of this model problem is to find a solution @xmath1 ( for @xmath2 and @xmath3 ) with given initial data @xmath4 to the linear partial differential equation @xmath5where @xmath6 denotes the material time derivative , @xmath7 is the laplace
beltrami operator on the surface , and @xmath8 is the tangential divergence of the _ given _ velocity @xmath9 of the surface .
we refer to @xcite for an excellent review article ( up to 2012 ) on the numerical analysis of this and related problems .
optimal - order @xmath10 error bounds for piecewise linear finite elements are shown in @xcite and maximum - norm error bounds in @xcite .
stability and convergence of full discretizations obtained by combining the evolving surface finite element method ( esfem ) with various time discretizations are shown in @xcite .
convergence of semi- and full discretizations using high - order evolving surface finite elements is studied in @xcite .
arbitrary euler  lagrangian ( ale ) variants of the esfem method for this equation are studied in @xcite .
convergence properties of the esfem and of full discretizations for quasilinear parabolic equations on prescribed moving surfaces are studied in @xcite .    beyond the above model problem
, there is considerable interest in cases where the velocity of the evolving surface is _ not given explicitly _ , but depends on the solution @xmath11 of the parabolic equation ; see , e.g. , @xcite for physical and biological models where such situations arise .
contrary to the case of surfaces with prescribed motion , there exists so far no numerical analysis for solution - driven surfaces in @xmath12 , to the best of our knowledge .    for the case of evolving _ curves _ in @xmath13 , there are recent preprints by pozzi & stinner @xcite and barrett , deckelnick & styles @xcite , who couple the curve - shortening flow with diffusion on the curve and study the convergence of finite element discretizations without and with a tangential part in the discrete velocity , respectively . the analogous problem for two- or
higher - dimensional surfaces would be to couple mean curvature flow with diffusion on the surface .
studying the convergence of finite elements for these coupled problems , however , remains illusive as long as the convergence of esfem for mean curvature flow of closed surfaces is not understood .
this has remained an open problem since dziuk s formulation of such a numerical method for mean curvature flow in his 1990 paper @xcite .    in this paper
we consider different velocity laws for coupling the surface motion with the diffusion on the surface . conceivably the simplest velocity law would be to prescribe the normal velocity at any surface point as a function of the solution value and possibly its tangential gradient at this point : @xmath14 for @xmath15 , where @xmath16 denotes the outer normal vector and @xmath17 is a given smooth scalar - valued function .
this does , however , not appear to lead to a well - posed problem , and in fact we found no mention of this seemingly obvious choice in the literature .
here we study instead a _ regularized velocity law _ : @xmath18 with a fixed regularization parameter @xmath19 .
this elliptic regularization will turn out to permit us to give a complete stability and convergence analysis of the esfem semidiscretization , for finite elements of polynomial degree at least two .
the case of linear finite elements is left open in the theory of this paper , but will be considered in our numerical experiments .
the stability and convergence results can be extended to full discretizations with linearly implicit backward difference time - stepping , as we plan to show in later work .
our approach also applies to the esfem discretization of coupling a _
regularized mean curvature flow _ and diffusion on the surface : @xmath20 where @xmath21 denotes mean curvature on the surface @xmath22 .
the error analysis is further extended to a _ dynamic velocity law _
@xmath23 a physically more relevant dynamic velocity law would be based on momentum and mass balance , such as incompressible navier  stokes motion of the surface coupled to diffusion on the surface , where the velocity @xmath9 is determined together with the density @xmath24 and the pressure @xmath25 by the equations @xmath26 we expect that our analysis extends to such a system , but this is beyond the scope of this paper .
surface evolutions under navier  stokes equations and under willmore flow have recently been considered in @xcite .
the paper is organized as follows .    in section  [ section : problem ] we describe the considered problems and give the weak formulation .
we recall the basics of the evolving surface finite element method and describe the semidiscrete problem .
its matrix - vector formulation is useful not only for the implementation , but will play a key role in the stability analysis of this paper .    in section  [ section : main result ] we present the main result of the paper , which gives convergence estimates for the esfem semidiscretization with finite elements of polynomial degree at least @xmath27 .
we further outline the main ideas and the organization of the proof .    in section  [ section : preliminaries ] we present auxiliary results that are used to relate different surfaces to one another .
they are the key technical results used later on in the stability analysis .
section  [ section : uncoupled problem ] contains the stability analysis for the regularized velocity law with a prescribed driving term . in section  [ section : coupled problem ] this is extended to the stability analysis for coupling surface pdes and surface motion .
in section  [ section : geometric estimates ] we briefly recall some geometric estimates used for estimating the consistency errors , which are the defects obtained on inserting the interpolated exact solution into the scheme .
section  [ section : defect bounds ] deals with the defect estimates .
section  [ section : proof completed ] proves the main result by combining the results of the previous sections .    in section  [ section : extensions ] we give extensions to other velocity laws : the regularized mean curvature flow and the dynamic velocity law addressed above .
section  [ section : numerics ] presents numerical experiments that are complementary to our theoretical results in that they show the numerical behaviour of piecewise linear finite elements on some examples .
we use the notational convention to denote vectors in @xmath12 by italic letters , but to denote finite element nodal vectors in @xmath28 and @xmath29 by boldface lowercase letters and finite element mass and stiffness matrices by boldface capitals . all boldface symbols in this paper
will thus be related to the matrix - vector formulation of the esfem .
we consider the evolving two - dimensional closed surface @xmath30 as the image @xmath31 of a sufficiently regular vector - valued function @xmath32\to { \mathbb{r}}^3 $ ] , where @xmath33 is the smooth closed initial surface , and @xmath34 . in view of the subsequent numerical discretization ,
it is convenient to think of @xmath35 as the position at time @xmath36 of a moving particle with label @xmath25 , and of @xmath37 as a collection of such particles . to indicate the dependence of the surface on @xmath38 ,
we will write @xmath39 when the time @xmath36 is clear from the context . the _ velocity _
@xmath40 at a point @xmath41 equals @xmath42 note that for a known velocity field @xmath9 , the position @xmath35 at time @xmath36 of the particle with label @xmath25 is obtained by solving the ordinary differential equation from @xmath43 to @xmath36 for a fixed @xmath25 .    for a function @xmath1 ( @xmath2 , @xmath44 )
we denote the _ material derivative _ as @xmath45 at @xmath46 and @xmath44 , we denote by @xmath47 the outer normal , by @xmath48 the tangential gradient of @xmath11 , by @xmath49 the laplace
beltrami operator applied to @xmath11 , and by @xmath50 the tangential divergence of @xmath9 ; see , e.g. , @xcite for these notions .
as outlined in the introduction , we consider a parabolic equation on an evolving surface that moves according to an elliptically regularized velocity law : @xmath51 here , @xmath52 and @xmath53 are given continuously differentiable functions , and @xmath19 is a fixed parameter .
this system is considered together with the collection of ordinary differential equations for every label @xmath25 .
initial values are specified for @xmath11 and @xmath38 .
on applying the leibniz formula as in @xcite , the weak formulation reads as follows : we seek to determine the weak solution @xmath54 and @xmath55 such that for all test functions @xmath56 with @xmath57 and @xmath58 , @xmath59          \int_{{\gamma}(x ) } v \cdot \psi + \alpha \int_{{\gamma}(x ) } \!\ !
\nabla_{\gamma(x ) } v \cdot \nabla_{\gamma(x ) } \psi = & \ \int_{{\gamma}(x ) }   g(u,\nabla_{\gamma(x ) }
u ) \,\nu_{{\gamma}(x ) } \cdot \psi ,      \end{aligned }   \ ] ] alongside with the ordinary differential equations for the positions @xmath38 determining the surface @xmath60 .
we describe the surface finite element discretization of our problem , following @xcite and @xcite .
we use simplicial elements and continuous piecewise polynomial basis functions of degree @xmath61 , as defined in ( * ? ? ?
* section 2.5 ) .
we triangulate the given smooth surface @xmath62 by an admissible family of triangulations @xmath63 of decreasing maximal element diameter @xmath64 ; see @xcite for the notion of an admissible triangulation , which includes quasi - uniformity and shape regularity . for a momentarily fixed @xmath64 ,
we denote by @xmath65 the vector in @xmath29 that collects all @xmath66 nodes of the triangulation . by piecewise polynomial interpolation of degree @xmath61 , the nodal vector defines an approximate surface @xmath67 that interpolates @xmath62 in the nodes @xmath68 .
we will evolve the @xmath69th node in time , denoted @xmath70 with @xmath71 , and collect the nodes at time @xmath36 in a vector @xmath72 provided that @xmath70 is sufficiently close to the exact position @xmath73 ( with @xmath74 ) on the exact surface @xmath75 , the nodal vector @xmath76 still corresponds to an admissible triangulation . in the following discussion
we omit the omnipresent argument @xmath36 and just write @xmath77 for @xmath76 when the dependence on @xmath36 is not important .    by piecewise
polynomial interpolation on the plane reference triangle that corresponds to every curved triangle of the triangulation , the nodal vector @xmath77 defines a closed surface denoted by @xmath78 .
we can then define finite element _ basis functions _ @xmath79:\gamma_h({{\mathbf x}})\to{\mathbb{r } } , \qquad j=1,\dotsc , n,\ ] ] which have the property that on every triangle their pullback to the reference triangle is polynomial of degree @xmath61 , and which satisfy @xmath79(x_k ) = \delta_{jk } \quad   \text { for all } j , k = 1 ,   \dotsc , n .\ ] ] these functions span the finite element space on @xmath78 , @xmath80 , \phi_2[{{\mathbf x } } ] , \dotsc , \phi_n[{{\mathbf x } } ] \big\ } .\ ] ] for a finite element function @xmath81 the tangential gradient @xmath82 is defined piecewise .
we set @xmath83(p_h ) , \qquad p_h \in \gamma_h^0,\ ] ] which has the properties that @xmath84 for @xmath85 , that @xmath86 for all @xmath87 , and @xmath88 the _ discrete velocity _
@xmath89 at a point @xmath90 is given by @xmath91 a key property of the basis functions is the _ transport property _
@xcite : @xmath92(x_h(p_h , t ) ) \bigr ) = 0,\ ] ] which by integration from @xmath43 to @xmath36 yields @xmath93(x_h(p_h , t ) ) = \phi_j[{{\mathbf x}}(0)](p_h).\ ] ] this implies that the discrete velocity is simply @xmath94(x ) \quad\hbox { for } x \in \gamma_h\bigl({{\mathbf x}}(t)\bigr ) , \qquad \hbox{with } \
v_j(t)=\dot x_j(t),\ ] ] where the dot denotes the time derivative @xmath95 .
the _ discrete material derivative _ of a finite element function @xmath96(x ) , \qquad x \in \gamma_h\bigl({{\mathbf x}}(t)\bigr),\ ] ] is defined as @xmath97 by the transport property of the basis functions , this is just @xmath98(x ) , \qquad x \in \gamma_h\bigl({{\mathbf x}}(t)\bigr).\ ] ]      the finite element spatial semidiscretization of the problem reads as follows : find the unknown nodal vector @xmath99 and the unknown finite element functions @xmath100 and @xmath101 such that , for all @xmath102 with @xmath103 and all @xmath104 , @xmath105 and @xmath106 the initial values for the nodal vector @xmath107 corresponding to @xmath108 and the nodal vector @xmath77 of the initial positions are taken as the exact initial values at the nodes @xmath68 of the triangulation of the given initial surface @xmath62 : @xmath109      we now show that the nodal vectors @xmath110 and @xmath111 of the finite element functions @xmath108 and @xmath112 , respectively , together with the surface nodal vector @xmath113 satisfy a system of differential - algebraic equations ( daes ) . using the above finite element setting , we set ( omitting the argument @xmath36 ) @xmath114 , \qquad u_h(x_j)=u_j \in { \mathbb{r } } , \\      v_h = & \
\sum_{j=1}^n v_j \phi_j[{{\mathbf x } } ] , \qquad v_h(x_j)=v_j \in { \mathbb{r}}^3 , \end{aligned}\ ] ] and collect the nodal values in column vectors @xmath115 and @xmath116 .
we define the surface - dependent mass matrix @xmath117 and stiffness matrix @xmath118 on the surface determined by the nodal vector @xmath77 : @xmath119 \phi_k[{{\mathbf x } } ] , \\          { { \mathbf a}}({{\mathbf x}})\vert_{jk } = & \ \int_{{\gamma}_h({{\mathbf x } } ) } \ ! { \nabla}_{{\gamma}_h } \phi_j[{{\mathbf x } } ] \cdot { \nabla}_{{\gamma}_h } \phi_k[{{\mathbf x } } ] ,      \end{aligned }      \qquad ( j , k = 1 ,   \dotsc , n ) .\ ] ]
we further let @xmath120 the right - hand side vectors @xmath121 and @xmath122 are given by @xmath123 ,      \\      { { \mathbf g}}({{\mathbf x}},{{\mathbf u}})\vert_{3(j-1)+\ell } & = \int_{{\gamma}_h({{\mathbf x } } ) } g(u_h,{\nabla_{\gamma_h}}u_h ) \,\bigl(\nu_{{\gamma}_h({{\mathbf x}})}\bigr)_\ell \ , \phi_j[{{\mathbf x } } ] ,      \end{aligned }      \ ] ] for @xmath124 and @xmath125 .
we then obtain from  the following coupled dae system for the nodal values @xmath126 and @xmath77 : @xmath127 with the auxiliary vector @xmath128 , this system becomes @xmath129 this is of a form to which standard dae time discretization can be applied ; see , e.g. , ( * ? ? ? * chap.vi ) .      in the error analysis
we need to compare functions on three different surfaces : the _ exact surface _ @xmath75 ,
the _ discrete surface _
@xmath130 , and the _ interpolated surface _
@xmath131 , where @xmath132 is the nodal vector collecting the grid points @xmath133 on the exact surface . in the following definitions we omit the argument @xmath36 in the notation .
a finite element function @xmath134 ( @xmath135 or 3 ) on the discrete surface , with nodal values @xmath136 , is related to the finite element function @xmath137 on the interpolated surface that has the same nodal values : @xmath138.\ ] ] the transition between the interpolated surface and the exact surface is done by the _ lift operator _ , which was introduced in @xcite and further investigated in @xcite .
the lift operator @xmath139 maps a function on the interpolated surface @xmath140 to a function on the exact surface @xmath141 , provided that @xmath140 is sufficiently close to @xmath141 .    using the oriented distance function @xmath142 ( ( * ? ? ?
* section  2.1 ) ) , the lift of a continuous function @xmath143 is defined as @xmath144 where for every @xmath145 the point @xmath146 is uniquely defined via @xmath147 for functions taking values in @xmath12 the lift is componentwise . by @xmath148
we denote the function on @xmath149 whose lift is @xmath150 .
we denote the composed lift @xmath151 from finite element functions on @xmath152 to functions on @xmath141 via @xmath140 by @xmath153
we are now in the position to formulate the main result of this paper , which yields optimal - order error bounds for the finite element semidiscretization of a surface pde on a solution - driven surface as specified in , for finite elements of polynomial degree @xmath154 .
we denote by @xmath75 the exact surface and by @xmath155 the discrete surface at time @xmath36 .
we introduce the notation @xmath156    [ theorem : coupled error estimate ] consider the space discretization  of the coupled problem  , using evolving surface finite elements of polynomial degree  @xmath154 .
we assume quasi - uniform admissible triangulations of the initial surface and initial values chosen by finite element interpolation of the initial data for @xmath11 .
suppose that the problem admits an exact solution @xmath157 that is sufficiently smooth ( say , in the sobolev class @xmath158 ) on the time interval @xmath44 .
then , there exists @xmath159 such that for all mesh widths @xmath160 the following error bounds hold over the exact surface @xmath161 for @xmath44 : @xmath162 and @xmath163 the constant @xmath164 is independent of @xmath36 and @xmath64 , but depends on bounds of the @xmath158 norms of the solution @xmath165 , on local lipschitz constants of @xmath166 and @xmath17 , on the regularization parameter @xmath19 and on the length @xmath167 of the time interval .
we note that the last error bound is equivalent to @xmath168    a key issue in the proof is to ensure that the @xmath169 norm of the position error of the curves remains small . the @xmath170 error bound and an inverse estimate yield an @xmath171 error bound in the @xmath169 norm .
this is small only for @xmath154 , which is why we impose the condition @xmath154 in the above result .
our assumptions guarantee that the triangulations formed by the nodes @xmath133 remain admissible uniformly for @xmath172 $ ] ( though the admissibility bounds may degrade with growing @xmath36 ) . since @xmath154
, the position error estimate implies that for sufficiently small @xmath64 also the triangulations formed by the numerical nodes @xmath70 remain admissible uniformly for @xmath172 $ ] .
this can not be concluded for @xmath173 .
the error bound will be proven by clearly separating the issues of consistency and stability .
the consistency error is the defect on inserting a projection ( interpolation or ritz projection ) of the exact solution into the discretized equation .
the defect bounds involve _ geometric estimates _ that were obtained for higher order @xmath154 in @xcite , by combining techniques of dziuk & elliott @xcite and demlow @xcite .
this is done with the esfem formulation of section  [ subsection : semidiscretization ] .
the main issue in the proof of theorem  [ theorem : coupled error estimate ] is to prove _ stability _ in the form of an @xmath64-independent bound of the error in terms of the defect .
the stability analysis is done in the matrix - vector formulation of section  [ subsection : dae ] .
it uses energy estimates and transport formulae that relate the mass and stiffness matrices and the coupling terms for different nodal vectors @xmath77 . _ no geometric estimates _
enter in the proof of stability .    in section  [ section : preliminaries ]
we prove important auxiliary results for the stability analysis . the stability is first analysed for the discretized velocity law without coupling to the surface pde in section  [ section : uncoupled problem ] and is then extended to the coupled problem in section  [ section : coupled problem ] .
the necessary geometric estimates for the consistency analysis are collected in section  [ section : geometric estimates ] , and the defects are then bounded in section  [ section : defect bounds ] .
the proof of theorem  [ theorem : coupled error estimate ] is then completed in section  [ section : proof completed ] by putting together the results on stability , defect bounds and interpolation error bounds .
the finite element matrices of section  [ subsection : dae ] induce discrete versions of sobolev norms . for any @xmath174 with corresponding finite element function @xmath175 \in s_h({{\mathbf x}})$ ] we note @xmath176 in our stability analysis we need to relate finite element matrices corresponding to different nodal vectors .
we use the following setting .
let @xmath177 be two nodal vectors defining discrete surfaces @xmath78 and @xmath178 , respectively .
we let @xmath179 . for the parameter
@xmath180 $ ] , we consider the intermediate surface @xmath181 and the corresponding finite element functions given as @xmath182\ ] ] and , for any vectors @xmath183 , @xmath184 { \quad\hbox { and } \quad}z_h^\theta=\sum_{j=1}^n z_j \phi_j[{{\mathbf y}}+\theta{{\mathbf e } } ] .\ ] ]    [ lemma : matrix differences ] in the above setting the following identities hold : @xmath185 with @xmath186 for @xmath187 .    using the fundamental theorem of calculus and the leibniz formula we write @xmath188 in the last formula we used that the material derivatives ( with respect to @xmath189 ) of @xmath190 and @xmath191 vanish , thanks to the transport property of the basis functions
. the second identity is shown in the same way , using the formula for the derivative of the dirichlet integral ; see @xcite and also ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 3.1 ) .
@xmath192    a direct consequence of lemma  [ lemma : matrix differences ] is the following conditional equivalence of norms :    [ lemma : cond - equiv ] if @xmath193 for @xmath194 , then @xmath195 if @xmath196 for @xmath194 , then @xmath197    by lemma  [ lemma : matrix differences ] we have for @xmath198 @xmath199 and the first result follows from gronwall s inequality .
the second result is proved in the same way .
@xmath192    to check the conditions of the previous lemma , the following result is very useful , since it reduces the condition for @xmath194 to just the case @xmath200 when it is applied with @xmath190 chosen as the components of @xmath201 .
[ lemma : theta - independence ] in the above setting , assume that @xmath202 } e_h^0 \|_{l^\infty(\gamma_h[{{\mathbf y } } ] ) } \le \frac12.\]]then , for @xmath194 the function @xmath203 $ ] on @xmath204 $ ] is bounded by @xmath205 where @xmath206 depends only on @xmath25 ( we have @xmath207 ) .
we describe the finite element parametrization of the discrete surfaces @xmath208 in the same way as in section  [ section : esfem ] , with @xmath189 instead of @xmath36 in the role of the time variable .
we set @xmath209(q_h),\quad\ q_h\in\gamma_h[{{\mathbf y}}]\ ] ] so that @xmath210=\gamma_h^\theta.\ ] ] since @xmath211 for all @xmath212 $ ] , the above formula can be rewritten as @xmath213 tangent vectors to @xmath208 at @xmath214 are therefore of the form @xmath215 where @xmath216 is a tangent vector to @xmath67 at @xmath217 , or written more concisely , @xmath218 .    letting @xmath219 denote the euclidean norm of a vector in @xmath12
, we have at @xmath214 @xmath220 by construction of @xmath190 and the transport property of the basis functions , we have @xmath221(y_h^\theta(q_h ) ) = \sum_{j=1}^n w_j \phi_j[{{\mathbf y}}](q_h ) = w_h^0(q_h).\]]by the chain rule , this yields @xmath222 under the imposed condition @xmath223 ) } \le \frac12 $ ] we have for @xmath194 @xmath224 hence we obtain @xmath225 this yields the stated result for @xmath226 . for @xmath227
we note in addition that in using the integral transformation formula we have a uniform bound between the surface elements , since @xmath228 is close to the identity matrix by our smallness assumption on @xmath229 . @xmath192
the arguments of the previous proof are also used in estimating the changes of the normal vectors on the various surfaces @xmath230 $ ] .
[ lemma : normal vector perturbation ] suppose that condition is satisfied .
let @xmath231 be related by the parametrization of @xmath208 over @xmath67 , for @xmath194 .
then , the corresponding unit normal vectors differ by no more than @xmath232 with some constant @xmath164 .
let @xmath233 and @xmath234 be two linearly independent tangent vectors of @xmath67 at @xmath235 ( which may be chosen orthogonal to each other and of unit euclidean norm ) . with @xmath236 for @xmath237
we then have , for @xmath194 , @xmath238 since this expression is a locally lipschitz continuous function of the two vectors , the result follows .
( the imposed bound is sufficient to ensure the linear independence of the vectors @xmath239 . )
@xmath192    we denote by @xmath240 the material derivative of a function @xmath241 depending on @xmath180 $ ] and @xmath242 : @xmath243 from lemma  [ lemma : normal vector perturbation ] together with lemma  [ lemma : theta - independence ] we obtain the following bound :    [ lemma : mat normal vector ] if condition is satisfied , then @xmath244 where @xmath164 is independent of @xmath194 and @xmath245 .    by lemma  [ lemma : normal vector perturbation ] with @xmath208 in the role of @xmath67 , we obtain @xmath246 which implies @xmath247 and lemma  [ lemma : theta - independence ] completes the proof .
we finally need a result that bounds the time derivatives of the mass and stiffness matrices corresponding to nodes on the exact smooth surface @xmath0 .
the following result is a direct consequence of ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 4.1 ) .
[ lemma : matrix derivatives ] let @xmath75 , @xmath248 $ ] , be a smoothly evolving family of smooth closed surfaces , and let the vector @xmath249 collect the nodes @xmath133 . then
, @xmath250 for all @xmath183 and @xmath251 $ ] . the constant @xmath164 depends only on a bound of the @xmath252 norm of the surface velocity .
in this section we consider the velocity law without coupling to a surface pde : @xmath253 where @xmath254 is a given continuous function of @xmath255 , and @xmath19 is a fixed parameter .
this problem is considered together with the ordinary differential equations for the positions @xmath38 determining the surface @xmath60 .
initial values are specified for  @xmath38 .
we consider the weak formulation : find @xmath256 such that the following weak equation holds for every test function @xmath257 : @xmath258 alongside with the ordinary differential equations for the positions @xmath38 .
then the finite element spatial semidiscretization of this problem reads as : find the unknown nodal vector @xmath99 and the unknown finite element function @xmath101 such that the following semidiscrete equation holds for every @xmath259 : @xmath260 together with the ordinary differential equations . as before ,
the nodal vector of the initial positions @xmath261 is taken from the exact initial values at the nodes @xmath68 of the triangulation of the given initial surface @xmath62 : @xmath262 for @xmath85 .
as in section  [ subsection : dae ] , the nodal vectors @xmath111 of the finite element function @xmath112 together with the surface nodal vector @xmath113 satisfy a system of differential - algebraic equations ( daes ) .
we obtain from and the following coupled dae system for the nodal values @xmath263 and
@xmath77 : @xmath264here the matrix @xmath265 is from , and the driving term @xmath266 is given by @xmath267 \qquad ( j = 1 ,   \dotsc , n , \
\ell=1,2,3 ) .\ ] ]      we denote by @xmath268 the nodal vector of the _ exact _ positions on the surface @xmath269 .
this defines a discrete surface @xmath270 that interpolates the exact surface @xmath269 .
we consider the projected exact velocity @xmath271\ ] ] with the corresponding nodal vector @xmath272 we assume that @xmath273 inserting @xmath274 and @xmath275 in place of the numerical solution @xmath112 and @xmath77 into yields a defect @xmath276 : for every @xmath277 , @xmath278 with @xmath279 $ ] and the corresponding nodal vector @xmath280 we then have @xmath281 as the defect on inserting @xmath275 and @xmath282 in the first equation of , and the defect in the second equation is denoted @xmath283 : with @xmath284}({{{\mathbf x}}^\ast})=
i_3\otimes{{\mathbf m}}({{{\mathbf x}}^\ast})$ ] , @xmath285}({{{\mathbf x}}^\ast}){{{\mathbf d}}_{{\mathbf v } } } , \\          { \dot{{\mathbf x}}^\ast}=&\ { { { \mathbf v}}^\ast}+ { { { \mathbf d}}_{{\mathbf x}}}.      \end{aligned}\ ] ] we denote the errors in the surface nodes and in the velocity by @xmath286 and @xmath287 , respectively .
we rewrite the velocity law in as @xmath288 then , by subtracting from the above version of , we obtain the following error equations for the uncoupled problem : @xmath289}({{{\mathbf x}}^\ast}){{{\mathbf d}}_{{\mathbf v } } } , \\          { \dot{{\mathbf e}}_{{\mathbf x}}}=&\ { { { \mathbf e}}_{{\mathbf v}}}- { { { \mathbf d}}_{{\mathbf x}}}.      \end{aligned}\ ] ] when no confusion can arise , we write in the following @xmath290 for @xmath284}({{{\mathbf x}}^\ast})$ ] and @xmath291 for @xmath292 , etc .
we recall that @xmath265 and , for @xmath293 and the corresponding finite element function @xmath175 \in s_h({{\mathbf x}})^3 $ ] , we consider the norm @xmath294 for convenience , we will take @xmath295 in the remainder of this section , so that the last norm equivalence becomes an equality . for the defect @xmath296 we use the dual norm ( cf .
* proof of theorem 5.1 ) ) @xmath297 we denote @xmath298 so that @xmath299      the following stability result holds for the errors @xmath300 and @xmath301 , under an assumption of small defects .
it will be shown in section  [ section : defect bounds ] that this assumption is satisfied if the exact solution is sufficiently smooth and the projection @xmath302 is chosen as piecewise polynomial interpolation of degree @xmath154 .    [ proposition : stability - uncoupled problem ] suppose that the defects are bounded as follows , with @xmath303 : @xmath304 .\ ] ] then there exists @xmath305 such that the following error bounds hold for @xmath306 and @xmath44 : @xmath307 the constant @xmath164 is independent of @xmath36 and @xmath64 , but depends on the final time @xmath167 and on the regularization parameter @xmath308 .
we note that the error functions @xmath309 with nodal vectors @xmath310 and @xmath311 , respectively ,
are then bounded by @xmath312 .\ ] ]    the proof relies on the results of section [ section : preliminaries ] , otherwise it mainly follows the usual steps of stability proofs based on energy estimates ; cf .
in the course of this proof @xmath313 and @xmath164 will be generic constants that take on different values on different occurrences .    in view of condition for @xmath314
, we will need to control the @xmath169 norm of the position error @xmath315 .
let @xmath316 be the maximal time such that @xmath317.\ ] ] at @xmath318 either this inequality becomes an equality , or else we have @xmath319 .
we will first prove the stated error bounds for @xmath320 .
then the proof will be finished by showing that in fact @xmath321 coincides with @xmath167 .    by testing the first equation in with @xmath300 , and dropping the omnipresent argument @xmath322 $ ]
, we obtain : @xmath323 we separately estimate the four terms on the right - hand side in an appropriate way , with lemmas  [ lemma : matrix differences ]  [ lemma : normal vector perturbation ] as our main tools .
\(i ) we denote , for @xmath324 , by @xmath325 and @xmath326 the finite element functions in @xmath327 for @xmath328 with nodal vectors @xmath300 and @xmath282 , respectively .
lemma  [ lemma : matrix differences ] then gives us @xmath329 using the cauchy
schwarz inequality , we estimate the integral with the product of the @xmath330 norms of the three factors .
we thus have @xmath331 by and lemma  [ lemma : theta - independence ] , this is bounded by @xmath332 where the last factor is bounded independently of @xmath64 . by the young inequality ,
we thus obtain @xmath333    \(ii ) similarly , estimating the three factors in the integrals by @xmath334 , we obtain @xmath335 where in the last inequality we used the bound .
\(iii ) in the following estimate we use lemma  [ lemma : mat normal vector ] . with the finite element function @xmath336 $ ] on the surface @xmath328 , for  @xmath194
, we write @xmath337 using the leibniz formula , this becomes @xmath338 here we have , noting that @xmath339 , @xmath340 with lemmas  [ lemma : theta - independence ] and [ lemma : mat normal vector ] we therefore obtain via the cauchy - schwarz inequality @xmath341 and again with lemma  [ lemma : theta - independence ] , @xmath342 in total , we obtain a bound of the same type as for the terms in ( i ) and ( ii ) : @xmath343    the combination of the estimates of the three terms ( i)(iii ) with absorptions ( for sufficiently small @xmath306 ) , and a simple dual norm estimate , based on , for the defect term , yield the bound @xmath344 using this estimate , together with taking the @xmath345 norm of both sides of the second equation in , we obtain @xmath346    in order to apply gronwall s inequality , we connect @xmath347 and @xmath348 as follows : @xmath349 where we use the cauchy - schwarz inequality and lemma  [ lemma : matrix derivatives ] in the estimate .
inserting , we obtain @xmath350 a gronwall inequality then yields , using @xmath351 for @xmath352 . inserting this estimate in , we can bound @xmath310 for @xmath353 by .
now it only remains to show that @xmath319 for @xmath64 sufficiently small .
for @xmath320 we use an inverse inequality and to bound the left - hand side in : @xmath354 for sufficiently small @xmath64 .
hence , we can extend the bound beyond @xmath321 , which contradicts the maximality of @xmath321 unless we have already @xmath319 .
now we turn to the stability bounds of the original problem  , or in dae form , which is the formulation we will actually use for the stability analysis .      similarly as before , in order to formulate the stability estimates we consider the dae system when we insert the nodal values @xmath355 of the exact solution @xmath11 , the nodal values @xmath356 of the exact positions @xmath38 , and the nodal values @xmath357 of the exact velocity @xmath9 .
plugging them into yields the defects @xmath358 , @xmath359 and @xmath360 : @xmath361    we denote the pde error by @xmath362 , and just as before @xmath287 and @xmath286 denote the velocity error and surface error , respectively . subtracting from , we obtain the following error equation : @xmath363      we now formulate the stability result for the errors @xmath364 , @xmath300 and @xmath301 of the surface motion coupled to the surface pde .    [
proposition : stability - coupled problem ] assume that the following bounds hold for the defects , for some @xmath303 : @xmath365 .\ ] ] then there exists @xmath305 such that the following stability estimate holds for all @xmath306 and @xmath44 : @xmath366 the constant @xmath164 is independent of @xmath36 and @xmath64 , but depends on the final time @xmath167 and on the regularization parameter @xmath308 .
the proof is an extension of the proof of proposition  [ proposition : stability - uncoupled problem ] , again based on the matrix - vector formulation and the auxiliary results of section [ section : preliminaries ] .
we handle the surface pde and the surface equations separately : we first estimate the errors occurred in the pde , while those for the surface equation are based on section  [ section : uncoupled problem ] .
finally we will combine the results to obtain the stability estimates for the coupled problem .
let @xmath367 be the maximal time such that the following inequalities hold : @xmath368,\ ] ] note that @xmath369 since initially both @xmath370 and @xmath371 .
we first prove the stated error bounds for @xmath320 . at the end , the proof will be finished by showing that in fact @xmath321 coincides with @xmath167 .
testing the first two equations of with @xmath372 and @xmath300 , and dropping the omnipresent argument @xmath322 $ ] , we obtain : @xmath373 _ estimates for the surface pde : _ we estimate the terms separately , again by using lemmas  [ lemma : matrix differences ] and  [ lemma : cond - equiv ] as our main tools .
\(i ) the symmetry of @xmath290 and a simple calculation yields @xmath374 where the last term is bounded by lemma  [ lemma : matrix derivatives ] as @xmath375    \(ii ) by the definition of the @xmath376-norm we have @xmath377    \(iii ) with the product rule we write @xmath378 with the notation as in lemma  [ lemma : matrix differences ] with @xmath379 $ ] , that lemma yields for the first term @xmath380 using the cauchy - schwarz inequality we obtain for the first term @xmath381 under condition we obtain from lemmas  [ lemma : cond - equiv ] and  [ lemma : theta - independence ] that for @xmath353 , @xmath382 using lemma  [ lemma : matrix differences ] together with the leibniz formula , the second term becomes @xmath383 here we further use , cf .
* lemma  2.6 ) , that @xmath384 where @xmath385 symbolizes the euclidean inner product of the vectorization of two matrices . proceeding as for the first term we
then obtain the estimate @xmath386    \(iv ) we obtain similarly @xmath387 where in the last inequality we used the third bound from .
\(v ) lemma  [ lemma : matrix differences ] and the cauchy - schwarz inequality yield @xmath388    \(vi ) similarly we estimate @xmath389 where in the last inequality we used the second bound from .
\(vii ) the coupling term is estimated similarly to ( iii ) in the proof of proposition  [ proposition : stability - uncoupled problem ] : @xmath390 with @xmath391\ ] ] we therefore have @xmath392 and with the leibniz formula we rewrite this as @xmath393 here we note the chain rule @xmath394 and the relation , cf .
* lemma  2.6 ) , @xmath395 with a bounded bilinear map @xmath396 whose precise form is irrelevant here , and further @xmath397 in the same way as before , and using the assumed boundedness of @xmath166 , @xmath398 and @xmath399 , this yields the bound @xmath400    the above estimates combined , yield the following inequality : @xmath401 estimating further , using young s inequality and absorptions into @xmath402 ( using @xmath306 ) , we obtain the following estimate : @xmath403    _ estimates in the surface equation : _ based on section  [ section : uncoupled problem ] , we obtain @xmath404 where the coupling term can be estimated based on ( iii ) in the proof of proposition  [ proposition : stability - uncoupled problem ] and ( vii ) above . by taking the @xmath405-norm of the third equation in and using the above estimate , we obtain @xmath406 which , similarly as before , provides the estimate @xmath407    _ combination : _ by using all three inequalities , we first insert into , then we sum up and to obtain @xmath408 now we integrate both sides over @xmath409 $ ] , for @xmath320 , to get @xmath410 the middle term can be further bounded using lemmas  [ lemma : matrix differences][lemma : theta - independence ] and an @xmath334 estimate , as @xmath411 where in the last inequality we used the first bound from .    absorbing this to the left - hand side and using gronwall s inequality yields the stability estimates : @xmath412 further estimating the defects using the assumed bounds
, we obtain the @xmath413 estimates for @xmath414 .
finally , the fact that @xmath319 is shown by the same argument as in the proof of proposition  [ proposition : stability - uncoupled problem ] . @xmath192
in this section we give further notations and some technical lemmas from @xcite that will be used later on .
most of the results are high - order and time - dependent extensions of geometric approximation estimates shown in @xcite and @xcite .
we return to the setting of section  [ section : problem ] , where @xmath415 defines a smooth surface @xmath75 . for an admissible triangulation of @xmath0 with nodes @xmath133 and the corresponding nodal vector @xmath416
, we define the interpolating surface by @xmath417(p_h ) , \qquad p_h \in \gamma_h^0,\ ] ] which has the properties that @xmath418 for @xmath85 , and @xmath419 in the following we drop the argument @xmath36 when it is not essential .
the velocity of the interpolating surface @xmath149 , defined as in section  [ section : esfem ] , is denoted by @xmath274 .
the lift of a function @xmath420 is again denoted by @xmath421 , defined via the oriented distance function @xmath142 between @xmath422 and @xmath0 provided that the surfaces are sufficiently close ( which is the case if @xmath64 is sufficiently small ) .    *
( equivalence of norms ( * ? ? ?
* lemma  3 ) , @xcite ) * [ lemma : equivalence of norms ] let @xmath423 with lift @xmath424 .
then the discrete and continuous @xmath425 and @xmath426 norms are equivalent for @xmath245 , uniformly in the mesh size @xmath427 ( with sufficiently small @xmath305 ) and in @xmath428 $ ] .
in particular , there is a constant @xmath313 such that for @xmath427 and @xmath44 , @xmath429    later on the following estimates will be used .
they have been shown in @xcite , based on @xcite and @xcite .
[ lemma : geometric est ] we have the estimates @xmath430 with constants independent of @xmath427 and @xmath428 $ ] .
we use surface - dependent bilinear forms defined similarly as in @xcite : let @xmath38 be a given surface with velocity @xmath9 , with interpolation surface @xmath431 with velocity @xmath274 . for arbitrary @xmath432 and for their discrete analogs
@xmath433 : @xmath434          m(x;z,{\varphi } )                 & = \int_{{\gamma}(x)}\!\!\!\ !
z { \varphi } , \\          a(x;z,{\varphi } )                 & = \int_{{\gamma}(x)}\!\!\!\ ! { \nabla_{\gamma}}z \cdot { \nabla_{\gamma}}{\varphi } , \\          q(x;v;z,{\varphi } )               & = \int_{{\gamma}(x)}\!\!\!\ ! ( { \nabla_{\gamma}}\cdot v ) z{\varphi } , \\      \end{aligned }      \quad      \begin{aligned}[c ]          m({x_h^\ast};z_h,\phi_h )          & = \int_{{\gamma}({x_h^\ast})}\!\!\!\ ! z_h \phi_h , \\
a({x_h^\ast};z_h,\phi_h )          & = \int_{{\gamma}({x_h^\ast})}\!\!\!\ ! { \nabla_{\gamma_h}}z_h \cdot { \nabla_{\gamma_h}}\phi_h , \\          q({x_h^\ast};v_h^*;z_h,\phi_h )      & = \int_{{\gamma}({x_h^\ast})}\!\!\!\ ! ( { \nabla_{\gamma_h}}\cdot v_h^ * ) z_h \phi_h ,
\\      \end{aligned}\ ] ] where the discrete tangential gradients are understood in a piecewise sense . for more details see ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 2.1 ) ( and the references in the proof ) , or ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 5.2 ) .
we start by defining a discrete velocity on the smooth surface , denoted by @xmath435 .
we follow sections  4.3 and 5.3 of @xcite . using the lifted elements , @xmath436
is decomposed into curved elements whose edges move with the velocity @xmath435 defined by @xmath437 discrete material derivatives on @xmath438 and @xmath436 are given by @xmath439 in ( * ? ? ?
* lemma  4.1 ) it was shown that the transport property of the basis functions carries over to the lifted basis functions @xmath440 $ ] : @xmath441^l = ( { \partial^{\bullet}}_{{v_h^\ast } } \phi_j[{{{\mathbf x}}^\ast}])^l = 0 \qquad        ( j=1,\dotsc , n ) .\ ] ] therefore , the above discrete material derivatives and the lift operator satisfy , for @xmath442 , @xmath443    * ( transport properties ( * ? ? ?
* lemma  4.2 ) ) * [ lemma : transport prop ] for any @xmath444 , @xmath445 the same formulas hold when @xmath6 and @xmath9 are replaced by @xmath446 and @xmath435 , respectively : @xmath447 similarly , in the discrete case , for arbitrary @xmath448 we have : @xmath449 where @xmath450 is the velocity of the surface @xmath438 .
the following estimates , proved in lemma  5.6 of @xcite , will play a crucial role in the defect bounds later on .
[ lemma : geometric perturbation errors ] for any @xmath451 where @xmath438 is the interpolation surface of piecewise polynomial degree @xmath61 , we have the following bounds @xmath452 the constant @xmath313 is independent of @xmath64 and @xmath172 $ ] .      for any @xmath453
, there is a unique piecewise polynomial surface finite element interpolation of degree  @xmath61 in the nodes @xmath454 , denoted by @xmath455 .
we set @xmath456 .
error estimates for this interpolation are obtained from ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 2.7 ) by carefully studying the time dependence of the constants , cf .
@xcite .
[ lemma : interpolation error ] there exists a constant @xmath457 independent of @xmath64 and @xmath36 such that for @xmath458 , for @xmath459 , @xmath460    the same result holds for vector valued functions .
as it will always be clear from the context we do not distinguish between interpolations for scalar and vector valued functions .
in this section we show that the assumed defect estimates of proposition  [ proposition : stability - uncoupled problem ] and [ proposition : stability - coupled problem ] are indeed fulfilled when the projection @xmath461 is chosen to be the piecewise @xmath61th - degree polynomial interpolation operator @xmath462 for @xmath463 .
the interpolations satisfy the discrete problem  only up to some defects .
these defects are denoted by @xmath464 , with @xmath465 the vector of exact nodal values @xmath466 , and are given as follows : for all @xmath467 with @xmath468 and @xmath469 , @xmath470 later on the vectors of nodal values of the defects @xmath471 and @xmath472 are denoted by @xmath473 and @xmath474 , respectively .
these vectors , together with @xmath475 , satisfy .
[ lemma : semidiscrete residual ] let the solution @xmath11 , the surface @xmath38 and its velocity @xmath9 be all sufficiently smooth .
then there exists a constant @xmath457 such that for all @xmath172 $ ] , the defects @xmath471 and @xmath472 of the @xmath61th - degree finite element interpolation are bounded as @xmath476 where the @xmath477-norm is defined in .
the constant @xmath313 is independent of @xmath64 and @xmath172 $ ] .
\(i ) we start from an identity for the dual norm as in , ( omitting the argument @xmath478 of the matrices ) : @xmath479 in order to estimate the defect in @xmath11 , we subtract from the above equation , and perform almost the same proof as in ( * ? ? ?
* section  7 ) .
we use the bilinear forms and the discrete versions of the transport properties from lemma  [ lemma : transport prop ] .
we obtain , for any @xmath467 with @xmath468 , @xmath480 and @xmath481 subtracting the two equation yields @xmath482 we bound all the terms pairwise , by using the interpolation estimates of lemma  [ lemma : interpolation error ] and the estimates for the geometric perturbation errors of the bilinear forms of lemma  [ lemma : geometric perturbation errors ] . for the first pair , using that @xmath483 , we obtain @xmath484 for the second pair we obtain @xmath485 the third pair is estimated by @xmath486 for the last pair we use the fact that @xmath487 and the local lipschitz continuity of the function @xmath166 , to obtain @xmath488 the first term is estimated , using the local lipschitz continuity of @xmath166 and equivalence of norms , by @xmath489 where the first two terms are bounded by @xmath413 using interpolation estimates , while the third term is bounded , using remark  4.1 in @xcite and lemma  [ lemma : geometric est ] , as @xmath490 thus for the fourth pair we obtained @xmath491    altogether , we have @xmath492 which , by the equivalence of norms given by lemma [ lemma : equivalence of norms ] , shows the first bound of the stated lemma .
\(ii ) in order to estimate the defect in @xmath9 , similarly as previously we subtract from the above equation and use the bilinear forms to obtain @xmath493 similarly as in the previous part , these three pairs are bounded pairwise . for the first pair we have @xmath494 for the second pair we use the interpolation estimate to bound @xmath495 the third pair we estimate , similarly to the nonlinear pair above , by @xmath496 where we have used the local lipschitz boundedness of the function @xmath17 , the interpolation estimate , lemma  [ lemma : geometric est ] , and lemma  [ lemma : geometric perturbation errors ] , through a similar argument as above for the semilinear term with @xmath166 .
finally , the combination of these bounds yields @xmath497 providing the asserted bound on @xmath498 . @xmath192
the errors are decomposed using interpolations and the definition of lifts from section  [ section : lifts ] : omitting the argument @xmath36 , @xmath499 the last terms in these formulas can be bounded in the @xmath500 norm by @xmath501 , using the interpolation bounds of lemma  [ lemma : interpolation error ] .    to bound the first terms on the right - hand sides , we first use the defect bounds of lemma  [ lemma : semidiscrete residual ] , which then together with the stability estimate of proposition  [ proposition : stability - coupled problem ] proves the result , since by the norm equivalences of lemma  [ lemma : equivalence of norms ] and equations  we have ( again omitting the argument @xmath36 ) @xmath502 and similarly for @xmath503 and @xmath504 .
in this section we consider the extension of our results to different velocity laws : adding a mean curvature term to the regularized velocity law considered so far , and a dynamic velocity law .
we concentrate on the velocity laws without coupling to the surface pde , since the coupling can be dealt with in the same way as previously .
we only consider the stability of the evolving surface finite element discretization , since bounds for the consistency error are obtained by the same arguments as before .
we next extend our results to the case where the velocity law contains a mean curvature term : @xmath505 where @xmath254 is a given lipschitz continuous function of @xmath255 , and @xmath19 and @xmath506 are fixed parameters . here
@xmath507 is a suggestive notation for @xmath508 , where @xmath21 denotes the mean curvature of the surface @xmath436 .
( more precisely , @xmath509 . )
the corresponding differential - algebraic system has the following form : @xmath510    similarly as before the corresponding error equation is given as @xmath511    [ proposition : stability - with mc term ] under the assumptions of proposition  [ proposition : stability - uncoupled problem ] , there exists @xmath305 such that the following stability estimate holds for all @xmath306 , for @xmath44 : @xmath512 the constant @xmath164 is independent of @xmath36 and @xmath64 , but depends on the final time @xmath167 , and on the parameters @xmath308 and @xmath513 .
we detail only those parts of the proof of proposition  [ proposition : stability - uncoupled problem ] where the mean curvature term introduces differences , otherwise exactly the same proof applies .    in order to prove the stability estimate we again test with @xmath300 , and
obtain @xmath514    every term is estimated exactly as previously in the proof of proposition  [ proposition : stability - uncoupled problem ] , except the terms corresponding to the mean curvature term , involving the stiffness matrix @xmath376 .
they are estimated by the same techniques as previously : @xmath515    altogether we obtain the error bound @xmath516 which is exactly .
the proof is then finished as before .
@xmath192    with proposition [ proposition : stability - with mc term ] and the appropriate defect bounds , theorem  [ theorem : coupled error estimate ] extends directly to the system with mean curvature term in the regularized velocity law .
let us consider the dynamic velocity law , again without coupling to a surface pde : @xmath517 where again @xmath254 is a given lipschitz continuous function of @xmath255 , and @xmath19 is a fixed parameter .
this problem is considered together with the ordinary differential equations for the positions @xmath38 determining the surface @xmath60 .
initial values are specified for  @xmath38 and @xmath9 .
the weak formulation and the semidiscrete problem can be obtained by a similar argument as for the pde on the surface in section  [ section : coupled problem ] .
therefore we immediately present the ode formulation of the semidiscretization . as in section  [
subsection : dae ] , the nodal vectors @xmath111 of the finite element function @xmath112 , together with the surface nodal vector @xmath113 satisfy a system of odes with matrices and driving term as in section  [ section : uncoupled problem ] : @xmath518 by using the same notations for the exact positions @xmath519 , the projected exact velocity @xmath520 , and for the defects @xmath521 and @xmath522 , we obtain that they fulfill the following equation @xmath523 by subtracting this from , and using similar arguments as before , we obtain the error equations for the surface nodes and velocity : @xmath524    essentially we repeat the stability estimates of section  [ subsection : stability estimate - pde ] , but we track the @xmath376- and @xmath525-norms more carefully in the proof of proposition  [ proposition : stability - coupled problem ] .    [
proposition : stability - dynamic velocity laws ] under the assumptions of proposition  [ proposition : stability - uncoupled problem ] , there exists @xmath305 such that the following error estimate holds for all @xmath306 , uniformly for @xmath44 : @xmath526 the constant @xmath527 is independent of @xmath36 and @xmath64 , but depends on the final time @xmath167 and the parameter @xmath308 .    by testing the error equation with @xmath300
we obtain @xmath528 the terms are bounded in the same way as the corresponding terms in the proofs of propositions  [ proposition : stability - uncoupled problem ] and  [ proposition : stability - coupled problem ] . with these estimates ,
a gronwall inequality yields the result . @xmath192    with proposition [ proposition :
stability - dynamic velocity laws ] and the appropriate defect bounds , theorem  [ theorem : coupled error estimate ] extends directly to the parabolic surface pde coupled with the dynamic velocity law .
in this section we complement theorem  [ theorem : coupled error estimate ] by showing the numerical behaviour of piecewise linear finite elements , which are not covered by theorem  [ theorem : coupled error estimate ] , but nevertheless perform remarkably well . moreover , we compare our regularized velocity law with regularization by mean curvature flow .
our test problem is a combination of with a mean curvature term as in : @xmath529 for non - negative parameters @xmath530 .
the velocity law here is a special case of for @xmath531 , and reduces to for @xmath532 .
the matrix - vector form reads @xmath533 , \\    { { { \mathbf k}}}\bigl({{{\mathbf x}}}(t)\bigr )
\dot{{{\mathbf x}}}(t ) + \beta    { { { \mathbf a}}}\bigl({{{\mathbf x}}}(t)\bigr ) { { { \mathbf x}}}(t)= { }    & \delta \mathbf{n}\bigl({{{\mathbf x}}}(t)){{\mathbf u}}(t ) +      { { \mathbf g}}\bigl(t , { { { \mathbf x}}}(t ) \bigr )    & &   t\in [ 0,t],\end{aligned}\ ] ] for given @xmath261 and @xmath534 , where @xmath535,\ ] ] for @xmath536 and @xmath537 .    in our numerical experiments we used a linearly implicit euler discretization of this system with step sizes chosen so small that the error is dominated by the spatial discretization error .    [ example:1 ] we consider and choose @xmath166 and @xmath17 such that @xmath538 with @xmath539 and @xmath540 are the exact solution of the problem . the parameters are set to be @xmath541 , @xmath295 , @xmath542 , @xmath543 , @xmath544 , @xmath545 and @xmath546
.    we choose @xmath547 as a series of meshes such that @xmath548 . in table
[ table : ex1 ] we report on the errors and the corresponding experimental orders of convergence ( eoc ) . using
the notation of section  [ section : lifts ] , the following norms are used : @xmath549 } \lvert \widehat u_{h}({\:\cdot\ : } , t )      - { \widetilde{i}_h}u({\:\cdot\ : } , t ) \rvert_{l^{2}({\gamma}_h^*(t ) ) } ,   \\      \|{\rm err}_u \| _ { l^{2}(h^1)}&= \left ( \int_{0}^{t }        \bigl\lvert \widehat u_{h}({\:\cdot\:},s)- { \widetilde{i}_h}u({\:\cdot\:},s )        \bigr\rvert^{2}_{h^{1}({\gamma}_h^*(s ) ) }        \mathrm{d}s      \right)^{\frac{1}{2 } } ,   \\      \|{\rm err}_v \| _ { l^{\infty}(h^1 ) } & = \sup_{[0,t]}\lvert \widehat v_{h}({\:\cdot\ : } , t )      - { \widetilde{i}_h}v({\:\cdot\ : } , t ) \rvert_{h^1({\gamma}_h^*(t ) ) } ,   \\      \|{\rm err}_x \| _ { l^{\infty}(h^1 ) } & = \sup_{[0,t]}\lvert \widehat x_{h}({\:\cdot\ : } , t )      - { \mathrm{id}}_{{\gamma}_h^*(t ) } \rvert_{h^1({\gamma}_h^*(t ) ) } .
\end{aligned}\ ] ] the eocs for the errors @xmath550 and @xmath551 with mesh sizes @xmath552 are given via @xmath553 the degree of freedoms ( dof ) and maximum mesh size at time @xmath167 are also reported in the tables .    in table
[ table : ex1 ] we report on the errors and eocs observed using example  [ example:1 ] .
the eocs in the pde are expected to be @xmath27 for the @xmath554 norm and @xmath555 for the @xmath556 norm , while the errors in the surface and in the surface velocity are expected to be @xmath555 in the @xmath557 norm .
+    [ example:3 ] again we consider , but this time we quantitatively compare the two different regularized velocity laws .
hence , we let @xmath558 vanish .
we use a @xmath17 like in example  [ example:1 ] and run two tests with the common parameters @xmath559 , @xmath544 , @xmath545 and @xmath546 , and use the same mesh and time step levels as before . the first test uses @xmath560 and @xmath561 and the second test uses @xmath295 and @xmath542 . the results are captured in table  [ table : ex3 ] .
+    our regularized velocity law provides smaller errors as regularizing with mean curvature flow .
the eocs in the errors in the surface and in the errors for the surface velocity are expected to be @xmath555 in @xmath562 and @xmath563 norm , see table  [ table : ex3].b . while it can be observed that for this particular example the convergence rates for @xmath564 are higher then for @xmath565 .
our next test problem is the coupled system of equations @xmath566 where @xmath567 with non - negative parameters @xmath568 .    for @xmath560
this system has been used as a simplified model for tumor growth ; see barreira , elliott and madzvamuse @xcite and @xcite .
these authors used the mean curvature term with a small parameter @xmath506 to regularize their velocity law .
we used piecewise linear finite elements and the same time discretization scheme as in @xcite .
[ example:2 ] we consider and want to compare qualitatively the two different regularized velocity laws @xmath564 and @xmath569 . as common parameters we use @xmath570 , @xmath571 , @xmath572 , @xmath573 and @xmath574 .
the initial surface is a sphere and the initial values @xmath575 and @xmath576 are calculated by solving an auxiliary surface pde as follows .
we take small perturbations around the steady state @xmath577 where @xmath578 $ ] take random values .
we solve the auxiliary coupled diffusion equations with the stationary initial surface until time @xmath579 .
we set @xmath580 and @xmath581 , which we used as initial values for .
we perform two experiments with @xmath582 and @xmath583 .
we present snapshots in figure  [ fig : example2 ] .
we observe that both velocity laws display the same qualitative behavior , also agreeing with @xcite .
the research stay of buyang li at the university of tbingen during the preparation of this paper was funded by the alexander von humboldt foundation .
the work of balzs kovcs is funded by deutsche forschungsgemeinschaft , sfb 1173 .