English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In part I of the rebuttal (see [2] to the article [1] entitled "Uniformstabilization for the Timoshenko beam by a locally distributed damping"published in 2003, in the journal Electronic Journal of Differential Equations,we prove that Lemma 3.6 and Theorem 3.1 are unproved due to major flaws(contradictory assumptions). We also show that Theorem 2.2 and its proofs ofstrong stability, and non uniform stability in the case of different speeds ofpropagation, contain several incorrect arguments and several gaps (includingmissing functional frames). In this part II, we give the precise missingfunctional frames, fill the gaps and correct several parts contained in theproof of Theorem 2.2 in [1]. We also complete a missing argument (see Remark4.23 and Remark 3.2) in the proof of Theorem A in [5] used by [1]. For this westate and prove Proposition 4.4 (see also Proposition 4.6 for a generalformulation in Banach spaces). We also give the correct formulations, andproofs of strong stability and non uniform stability (in case of differentspeeds of propagation) for Timoshenko beams.

Part II On strong and non uniform stability of locally damped Timoshenko  beam: Mathematical corrections to the proof of Theorem 2.2 in the publication  referenced as [1] in the bibliography