Galzolari E., Filippucci R., Pucci P. - Existence of Radial Solutions For The P-Laplacian Elliptic Equations With Weights (2006) PDF

Manuscirpt submitted to
AIMS Journals
Volume 15, Number 2, June 2006
Website: http://AIMsciences.org
pp. 447479
EXISTENCE OF RADIAL SOLUTIONS

FOR THE P LAPLACIAN ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS WITH WEIGHTS
Elisa Calzolari, Roberta Filippucci and Patrizia Pucci

Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica
Universit`
a degli Studi di Perugia
Via Vanvitelli 1
06123 Perugia, Italy
(Communicated by Eiji Yanagida)

Abstract. Using the definition of solution and the qualitative properties established in the recent paper [17], some existence results are obtained both for
crossing radial solutions and for positive or compactly supported radial ground
states in Rn of quasilinear singular or degenerate elliptic equations with weights
and with nonlinearities which can be possibly singular at x = 0 and u = 0,
respectively. The technique used is based on the papers [1] and [12]. Furthermore we obtain a nonexistence theorem for radial ground states using a
technique of Ni and Serrin [13].
1. Introduction. Recently, in [17] for the pLaplacian equation with weights in

Rn , under general conditions for the nonlinearity f , uniqueness of ground states
and various qualitative properties of solutions were established. Here we prove
existence of crossing radial solutions for f positive near u = 0, and existence of
radial ground states in Rn for f negative near u = 0 of such spatially dependent
equations. More specifically, we use a unified proof and a new subcritical condition
() on f at infinity, which was introduced in [1]. Indeed, in canonical cases, () is
interesting in applications and () is more general than the well known subcritical
condition (1) of Castro and Kurepa [4], adopted in several related papers, as [22],
[8] and [12].
In particular, we are interested in finding sufficient conditions for existence of
radial ground states of the singular quasilinear elliptic equation with weights
div(g(|x|)|Du|p2 Du) + h(|x|)f (u) = 0
p > 1,
n 1,
in Rn \ {0},
(1)
where g, h : R+ R+ and Du = (u/x1 , , u/xn ), when f < 0 near u = 0.

By a ground state we mean a nonnegative nontrivial solution of (1) which tends
to zero at infinity. In the radial form (1) becomes
[a(r)|u0 |p2 u0 ]0 + b(r)f (u) = 0
in R+ ,
p > 1,
(2)
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 35J70; Secondary: 35J60.

Key words and phrases. Ground states, pLaplacian operator, weight functions.
This research was supported by the Italian MIUR project titled Metodi Variazionali ed
Equazioni Differenziali non Lineari.
447
448
E. CALZOLARI, R. FILIPPUCCI AND P. PUCCI
where a(r) = rn1 g(r), b(r) = rn1 h(r), n 1 and r = |x|. The simple Laplace
Poisson equation arises when a(r) = b(r) = rn1 , where n is the underlying space
dimension.
Moreover, with the same technique, when f > 0 near u = 0, we are also able to
prove the existence of a radial crossing solution of (1) in its maximal continuation
interval where u > 0 and u0 < 0. We recall that these existence results were
established in [1] for general quasilinear elliptic equations without weights, while in
[22] for the pLaplacian equation without weights.
In addition to the ground state problem, when f < 0 near u = 0, we can also
consider existence of nontrivial radial solutions of the homogeneous Dirichlet
Neumann free boundary problem
(
div(g(|x|)|Du|p2 Du) + h(|x|)f (u) = 0 in BR \ {0},
(3)
u 0, u 6 0, u = u = 0 on BR ,
for some R > 0.
A number of examples fall into the general category of (1). A first is the celebrated Matukuma equation and several generalizations of it in stellar dynamics,
cfr. [11], [2], [23], [5], [10], [7] and [14][17]. All these models are discussed in detail
in Section 4 of [17], as special cases of the main example introduced in [17]
s /s
r
k
p2
`
div(r |Du| Du) + r
f (u) = 0,
(4)
1 + rs
p > 1,
n 1,
k R,
` R,
s > 0,
> 0.
In particular, under the following general conditions on the exponents
` k p,
k
`
+ 0 1 n,
p p
(5)
where p0 is the Holder conjugate of p, and on f

f C(R+ ) L1 [0, 1],
(f 1)
in [17] a careful definition of semiclassical solution for (1) was given, as well as a
qualitative theory. Finally the main uniqueness theorem of [17] can be applied to
(4) under appropriate behavior of the nonlinearity f (u), satisfied i.e. by
f (u) = um + u ;
p 2,
1 < m < p 1,
m1+
p3
.
p1
(6)
In other words radial nonnegative nonsingular semiclassical ground states for

equations of type (4)(6) are unique.
Some existence and nonexistence results for radial ground states of special cases
of (2) are given in [5] when f is continuous also at u = 0 and nonnegative for u > 0
small. In the recent paper [9] some existence, nonexistence and uniqueness results
for radial ground states of some special cases of (2) are given when f > 0 everywhere
in R+ but singular at u = 0. For a more detailed discussion and comparison with
our results we refer to the Remarks after Theorems 5 and 6 in Section 7. We
emphasize, however, that the main case treated in the present paper is when f < 0
for u > 0 small, as in [17].
Throughout the paper we shall adopt the definition of semiclassical
solution
Ru
for (1) proposed in [17], when f satisfies (f 1) and F (u) = 0 f (v)dv denotes the
pLAPLACIAN ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS WITH WEIGHTS
449
well defined integral function of f . In the main existence theorems of Section 7 we

suppose also that either
(f 2) there exists > 0 such that F (u) < 0 for 0 0,
as in [8], [12] and [1], or
(f 3) there exists c > 0, possibly infinite, such that f (u) > 0 for 0 < u < c,
as in [22] and [1].
Using the main change of variable of [17], we transform (2) into the equivalent
equation
[q(t)|vt |p2 vt ]t + q(t)f (v) = 0,
(7)
that is, into an equation of type (2), but with the same weights. In the special
case when (7) arises with q(t) = tN 1 for some N 1, then earlier theory can be
applied, see e.g. [18] and [19], but of course, in general q is no longer a pure power.
In order to study the existence of semiclassical solutions of (2), we ask that the
transformed equation (7) is compatible with the basic structure assumptions of [17],
namely:
q C 1 (R+ ),
(q1)
(q2)
qt /q
(q3)
q > 0,
qt > 0
in R+ ;
is strictly decreasing on R+ ;
lim
t0+
tqt (t)
= N 1 0.
q(t)
The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 the definition of semiclassical

solutions of (1) and preliminary qualitative properties for such solutions are given.
In Section 3 we present and summarize the main properties of solutions of the
corresponding initial value problem, in the spirit of [6]. Section 4 is devoted to
showing the connections between the following subcritical growth conditions (1)
Rt
and (), with Q(t) = 0 q( )d , d = under (f 2) and d = 0 under (f 3).
(1) The function (v) = pN F (v) (N p)vf (v), v R+ , is locally bounded near
v = 0 and there exist > d and (0, 1) such that (v) 0 for all v
and

1/p !
v p1
lim sup (1 v)Q C
=
for all 1 , 2 [, 1],
f (2 v)
v
0
where C = [(1 )p0 ]1/p .

Property (1) is equivalent to the famous condition of Castro and Kurepa [4], used
in [22], [8], [12] and [1] in the standard case, when q(t) = tN 1 . While property
() The function (v) = pN F (v) (N p)vf (v), v R+ , is locally bounded near
v = 0 and there exist > d and (0, 1) such that (v) 0 for all v
and
lim sup (1 v)Q c [v p+1 f (2 v)]1/p = for every 1 , 2 [, 1],

v
where c = [(1 )p0 ]1/p (1 )2/p ,
450
is equivalent, when q(t) = tN 1 , to the condition introduced in [1]. Of course

c < C .
Section 4 ends with some remarks about the independence of the two different
growth hypotheses () and (1). Proposition 1 shows that, under (f 1) and the assumption lim inf u f (u) = k0 > 0, with k0 possibly , condition (1) is stronger
than (). Examples illustrating the independence of () and (1) are given in
Section 5. For instance, when 1 > 1, with 1 < < pN , where pN = N p/(N p), see
Section 5 and also [1]. In Section 6 some preliminary lemmas are presented to simplify the main proofs. In Section 7 existence of crossing solutions is established when
(f 3) holds, as well as the principal existence theorems if (f 2) is verified. Finally,
in Section 8 a nonexistence theorem for positive radial semiclassical nonsingular
ground states of (1) is given under condition (f 2).
From the main results of Sections 78, the following consequence can be derived.
Corollary 1. Suppose that 1 < p < N . Assume (q1)(q3) and let
f (u) = um + u ,
1 < m < .
(8)
(i) There exists a semiclassical nonsingular radial ground state u of (1) whenever
0 < m < < pN 1,
and
q 0 (t)
= 0,
(q4)
lim
t q(t)
holds. Moreover, u is positive in the entire Rn if and only if m p 1, while it is
compactly supported when 0 < m < p 1.
(ii) There exists a positive radial semiclassical nonsingular solution of the corresponding homogeneous DirichletNeumann free boundary value problem (3) if
1 < m 0

q 2 (t)
N
is satisfied.
Moreover, in cases (i) and (ii), if for some < 1
a(r)
g(r)
=
c r
b(r)
h(r)
as r 0+ ,
c > 0,
then the constructed solution u of (1) and (8) is regular, that is Du is H

older
continuous at x = 0, with Du(0) = 0; while if [1, p), then u is H
older continuous
at x = 0. In both cases
1,p
u Wloc
(Rn ),
when also 1 < p n.
Conditions (q1)(q5) are given in terms of the main radial weights a and b in the
paper, cfr. (A1)(A4) in Section 2, (A5) in Section 3 and finally (A6) in Section 8
as well as their related comments.
451
2. Semi-classical solutions. Consider the quasilinear singular elliptic equation

div(g(|x|)|Du|p2 Du) + h(|x|)f (u) = 0
in = {x Rn \ {0} : u(x) > 0};
u 0,
u 6 0
p > 1,
n 1,
(9)
in Rn \ {0},
where g, h : R+ R+ . Prototypes of (9), with nontrivial functions g, h, are given,

for example, by equations of Matukuma type and equations of BattFaltenbacher
Horst type, see (1.4) and Section 4 of [17]. In several interesting cases g can be
singular at the origin, and in general h also may be singular there; thus it is necessary
in (9) that excludes the point x = 0 and also points where u(x) = 0 because of
the assumption (f 1) which allows f to be singular at u = 0.
We shall be interested in the radial version of (9), namely
[a(r)|u0 |p2 u0 ]0 + b(r)f (u) = 0
in J = {r R+ : u(r) > 0},
u = u(r),
u 0,
p > 1,
u 6 0
r = |x|,
(10)
in R ,
where, with obvious notation,

a(r) = rn1 g(r),
b(r) = rn1 h(r).
(11)
As in [17], in order that the transformed equation (7) should satisfy the requirements
(q1)(q3) we shall ask that the coefficients a, b have the following behavior
a, b > 0 in R+ ,
(A1)
(b/a)1/p L1 [0, 1] \ L1 [1, ),
(A2)
(A3)
a, b C 1 (R+ ),
the function
(r) =
1 a0
1 b0 a 1/p
+ 0
p a
p b
b
is positive and strictly decreasing in R+ , where p0 is the H

older conjugate of p (> 1),
(A4)
there is N 1 such that
Z r 1/p
b
= N 1.
lim (r)
a
r0+
0
In Section 4 of [17] several equations, such as (4), satisfying the above conditions
and modelling physical phenomena, are presented. As noted in [17], in the special
case when g 1 or equivalently a(r) = rn1 , assumptions (A1) and (A2) also
appear in [10], though in somewhat different circumstances, see also [15] and [16].
As noted above, since (9) is possibly singular when x = 0 and when u = 0, it is
necessary to define carefully the meaning to be assigned to solutions of (9), and in
turn, of (10). One can consider weak distribution solutions of (9), or alternatively
distribution solutions with suitable further regularity conditions and well defined
values at x = 0. Following [17] we shall thus consider the following definition.
Definition. A semiclassical radial solution of (9) is a nonnegative function u
of class C 1 (R+ ), which is a distribution solution of (10) in J, that is for all C 1
452
functions = (r), having compact support in J, it results

Z
Z
n1
0 p2 0 0
r
g(r)|u | u dr =
rn1 h(r)f (u) dr.
J
In Proposition 2.1 of [17] it is proved that every semiclassical radial solution becomes a classical solution in R+ when f is continuous in R+
0 with f (0) = 0. Conditions which guarantee nonsingular behavior of solutions of (10) at r = 0 are also
given in [17].
As noted in the Introduction, equation (2) can be transformed in equation (7)
by the following change of variables of [17]
Z r
1/p
t(r) =
[b(s)/a(s)] ds,
r 0.
(12)
0
R+
0
R+
0,
Of course t :
t(0) = 0, t() = , by (A2), and t is a diffeomorphism of

+
into
R
by
(A1),
with
inverse r = r(t), t 0. The relation between the original
R+
0
0
weights a and b and the new weight q is given by
0
q(t) = [a(r(t))]1/p [b(r(t))]1/p ,
t > 0.
(13)
Obviously, if u = u(r) is a semiclassical solution of (10) in J, then v = v(t) =

u(r(t)) is of class C 1 (R+ ) and it satisfies (7) in I = {t R+ : v(t) > 0}, namely
1
+
v is a semiclassical solution of (7). We emphasize that q C(R+
0 ) C (R ) by
condition (q1). In particular v satisfies (7) in I in the classical sense with v 0 and
v C 1 (R+
0 ),
|vt |p2 vt C 1 (I).
(14)
For details see Proposition 3.1 and Theorem 3.2 of [17] together with other related
results contained in Section 3 of [17].
In the main example (4) we have
s /s
r
.
a(r) = rn+k1 ,
b(r) = rn+`1
1 + rs
As shown in Section 4 of [17] conditions (A1)(A4) are satisfied if (5) is verified.
Furthermore,

/ps
k
`
1
1 + rs
(r) = n 1 + + 0 + 0
r(k`)/p1 ,
(15)
p p
p 1 + rs
rs
and the limit value N 1 in (A4) is given by
Z r
`
k
(k`)/p1
t(k+`)/p dt,
n 1 + + 0 + 0 lim+ r
p p
p
r0
0
(16)
which immediately yields

N =p
n+`+
> 1,
p+`+k
(17)
by (5).
Finally 1 p n. The latter condition implies that
a1/(p1) 6 L1 [0, 1]. In this case, as proved in [17] via the main result of [7], the
natural Sobolev exponent of (4) and its transformed equation (7) is given by
1
1
1 n+kp
1
=
.
=
pN
p N
p n+`+
Here pN > p because N > 1.
453
To obtain the asymptotic behavior of u0 (r) for r near 0 one can apply Theorem 3.2
of [17], since
g(r)
a(r)
=
r
h(r)
b(r)
as r 0+ ,
= k ` ,
and in turn (17) can be rewritten in the form

N =p
n+k
.
p
Thus from (3.10) of [17] we find as r 0+
r(1)/(p1) u0 (r) [sgn f ()]
|f ()|
n+k
1/(p1)
.
(18)
It is finally interesting in this example that the parameter s in (4) does not appear
in any of the exponent relations (5), (17)(18). This is a reflection of the fact that
the term rs /(1 + rs ) in (4) can be replaced by more general functions having the
same asymptotic behavior.
Conditions (5) have the first consequence that ` n. Moreover, either a can
be discontinuous (k < 1 n) or b discontinuous (n ` < 1 n), but not both in
view of the second condition of (5). One can show that necessarily N p when b is discontinuous (if
k > p n).
For example a is discontinuous if n = 3, p = 2, k = 5/2, ` = 1/2, while b is
discontinuous and N > p when n = 3, p = 2, k = 1/2, ` = 9/4 and 0 < < 1/4.
The wellknown Matukuma model is the subcase of (4) when k = 0, ` = = s,
and the exponent conditions for (A1)(A4) reduce simply to p and n 1 + /p,
with N = n. Here = k ` = 0, we get u0 (r) = O(r1/(p1) ) and so u(r) =
O(rp/(p1) ). In particular u C 1 (Rn ).
For the standard Matukuma equation, namely when k = 0, p = 2, ` = = s =
2 and n = 3, the transformed equation (7) arises with q(t) = sinh2 t/ cosh t. In this
case we have N = n = 3, and so the critical Sobolev exponent is 23 = 6, the usual
critical exponent for the Matukuma equation in R3 , as well known in the literature.
The case = 0 in (4) is not allowed. If, nevertheless, we do set = 0 then
conditions (A1)(A4) will be satisfied if the relations of (5) hold as strict inequalities,
with
n+`
N =p
> 1.
p+`k
This is clear in the main example of [18], see also [17], when in (9)
h(r) = r` .
g(r) 1,
Indeed, here = 0 and (A1)(A4) hold if
` + p > 0,
with
` + (n 1)p0 > 0,
(19)
`+n
> 1.
(20)
`+p
At the same time using the main change of variable (12) we see that (7) takes the
canonical form
[tN 1 |vt |p2 vt ]t + tN 1 f (v) = 0,
by (12) and (13), that is, N serves as the natural dimension for this example.
N =p
454
For this case we have n > p if and only if N > p. This condition also implies
that a1/(p1) = r(n1)/(p1) 6 L1 [0, 1]. Thus the natural Sobolev exponent is
1
1
1
np
=
=
,
pN
p N
`+n
confirming again the role of N as the natural dimension of the problem.
For other equations modelled by (4) we refer to Section 4 of [17].
3. Preliminary Results. For simplicity, from this point on we write 0 = d/dt if
there is no confusion in the notation. In this section, as in [1], we present some
preliminary results useful for the proof of the main existence theorems of crossing
solutions and of radial ground states of (2) via equation (7). In particular, they are
semiclassical solutions of the initial value problem
(
[q(t)|v 0 (t)|p2 v 0 (t)]0 + q(t)f (v) = 0, t > 0,
(21)
v(0) = , v 0 (0) = 0.
Define
(
,
d :=
0,
if (f 2) holds,
if (f 3) holds.
and := sup{v > d : f (u) > 0 for u (d, v)}.
Moreover, as in [1], from now on we assume together with (f 1) also

(f 4)
f Liploc (0, ).
Finally, we restrict our attention to solutions v of (21), with
(d, ).
(22)
Lemma 1. Assume that f satisfies either (f 2) or (f 3). If v is a semiclassical

solution of (21) and (22), then v 0 (t) < 0 near the origin. Moreover v is unique
until it exists and remains in (0, ), provided that v 0 (t) < 0.
Proof. From (22), we deduce that there exists t0 > 0 sufficiently small such that
[q(t)|v 0 (t)|p2 v 0 (t)]0 = q(t)f (v) < 0,
t (0, t0 ).
Hence q(t)|v 0 (t)|p2 v 0 (t) is strictly decreasing in (0, t0 ) and it assumes value zero at
t = 0 from (q1). Consequently v 0 (t) < 0, t (0, t0 ). Thus v is a solution of the first
order differential system
q 0 (t)
0
w (t) = q(t) w(t) f (v)

(23)
v 0 (t) = [w(t)]1/(p1)
v(0) = ,
w(0) = 0,
where we have used the fact that sgn w(t) = sgn v 0 (t), being w(t) = |v 0 (t)|p2 v 0 (t).
Finally, (q1) and (f 4) guarantee that (23) admits a unique solution such that
v(t) > 0
and
< v 0 (t) < 0
for all t > 0.

Lemma 1 says that the unique local solution v of (21) and (22) can be continued
exactly until t , where t is the first point in R+ , uniquely determined, such
that either v (t ) = 0 and v0 (t ) 0, or v (t ) > 0 and v0 (t ) = 0.
455
Let I = (0, t ) denote the maximal interval of continuation of every semi

classical solution of (21)(22), under the restrictions
v > 0 and
< v0 < 0
in I .
(24)
From the definition of I , it is clear that the solutions of (21) we consider have the
property that v 0 (t) < 0. Letting (t) = |v 0 (t)|, problem (21)(22) can be rewritten
as
(
[q(t)(t)p1 ]0 = q(t)f (v), t I ,
(25)
v(0) = (0, ), v 0 (0) = 0.
In analogy to [1] and [12] we give the following lemmas.
Lemma 2. Let v1 be a solution of (25) defined in its maximal interval I1, , determined by (24). For all t0 I1, and > 0, there exists > 0 such that, if v2 is a
solution of (25), with |v1 (0) v2 (0)| < , then v2 is defined in [0, t0 ] and
sup {|v1 (t) v2 (t)| + |v10 (t) v20 (t)|} < .
[0,t0 ]
Proof. By using (q1)(q3), the proof of Lemma 2.3 of [12] for the special case
q(t) = tN 1 can be repeated since it was used only the fact that f Liploc (0, )
together with (f 1). For a complete proof we refer to Lemma 4.2 of [3].
A natural energy function associated to solutions v of (7) is given by
E(t) =
p (t)
+ F (v(t)),
p0
= |v 0 |,
which is of class C 1 (I {0}), with E 0 (0) = 0 and in I

q 0 (t) p
E (t) =
(t),
q(t)
0
E(t) E(s0 ) =
s0
q 0 (s) p
(s)ds,
q(s)
(26)
(27)
see Lemma 5.3 and Section 5 of [17] for more detailed properties.
Lemma 3. Suppose that f satisfies alternatively either (f 2) or (f 3). Let v be a
solution of (25). Then the following results hold.
(i) The limit
` := lim v(t)
(28)
tt
belongs to [0, ) if (f 2) holds; while ` = 0 if (f 3) holds.

(ii) If ` > 0 and t , then lim v 0 (t) = 0.
tt
(iii) If t = , then lim v 0 (t) = 0.

t
(iv) Let > d. If > , then there exists a unique value t, I such that
v(t, ) = .
Proof. (i) Clearly the limit in (28) exists and is nonnegative, since v is strictly
decreasing and positive in I by (24). Suppose first that (f 2) holds. Then ` [0, )
by (22). Assume by contradiction that ` [, ). Then ` < v(t) < in I ,
and in turn, by (25) and (f 2), from [q(t)|v 0 (t)|p1 ]0 = q(t)f (v) > 0, it follows that
q|v 0 |p1 is strictly increasing in I .
Distinguish now two cases: t < and t = . If t < , since v(t ) =
` > 0, then v 0 (t ) = 0 by (24), and so q(t)|v 0 (t)|p1 0 as t t
. On the
other hand (q|v 0 |p1 )(0) = 0, and this contradicts the fact that q|v 0 |p1 is strictly
increasing in I .
456
While if t = , then I = R+ and by Lemma 5.3 of [17] the energy function

along v defined in (26) is of class C 1 (R+ ), with
E 0 (t) =
q 0 (t) p
(t) < 0
q(t)
in
I .
(29)
Therefore E admits finite limit as t . By (26) also (t) has limit as t ,

and
v 0 (t) 0,
(30)
t
since ` [, ) by contradiction. Rewrite the equation in (25) in the equivalent

form
q 0 (t) p1
[p1 (t)]0 +
(t) = f (v(t)), t I .
(31)
q(t)
By (30) and (q2)
q0
[(t)]p1 0,
t
q
and in turn by (31)
lim [p1 (t)]0 = f (` ) > 0,
t
since ` [, ) by contradiction. This is impossible, since p1 > 0 in R+ and

p1 (t) 0 as t .
Suppose now that (f 3) holds and that ` > 0 by contradiction. We can repeat
the above proof, with [, ) replaced by (0, ), and obtain the desired contradiction.
(ii) If ` > 0 and t < , then v 0 (t) v 0 (t ) = 0 as t t
by (24). While if
` > 0 and t = , arguing as in (i), case t = , and using (29), we obtain the
validity of (30).
(iii) If t = , by (i) and the fact that E admits limit as t then v 0 (t) 0
as t .
(iv) In this case the proof is an immediate consequence of the fact that v is
strictly decreasing in I by (24).
As in [1] define
I := { (d, ) : t < , ` = 0, v0 (t ) < 0}.
(32)
Lemma 4. Suppose that f verifies either (f 2) or (f 3). Let v be a semiclassical

solution of (25), in I defined in (24). If
/ I , then for all t I
1/p0
q(t)
v(t) 0
<
p [F + F (v(t))]
,
0
q (t)
F (v(t))
where F := max F (v), with F := max{F, 0}.
[0,d]
When f satisfies (f 3), clearly F = 0.

Proof. Let
/ I and suppose by contradiction that there exists t I such that
1/p0
q(t)
V 0
p
[F
+
F
(V
)]
,
(33)
F (V )
q 0 (t)
where V := v(t). Put
M := sup (t).
[t,t )
We claim that there is T1 [t, t ), with M = (T1 ). Indeed, since

/ I one of
0
the following three cases occurs: (t = ) (` > 0) (v (t ) = 0). In the third
457
case there is nothing to prove, that is M is achieved in [t, t ); if t = , then (30)

holds by Lemma 3 (iii), that is M is again achieved in [t, t ). Finally if ` > 0,
then v 0 (t ) = 0 by Lemma 3, and in turn M is again achieved in [t, t ).
Moreover
p (t )
E(t ) =
+ F (` ) = F (` ) 0.
(34)
p0
Indeed if (f 2) holds, then ` [0, ) and E(t ) = F (` ) 0; while if (f 3) holds,
E(t ) = F (` ) = 0. Using (q2) and (24)
Z t 0
Z
q 0 (t) p1 t
q (s) p
q 0 (t) p1
(s)ds
M
[(v 0 (s))]ds
M
V.
(35)
q(s)
q(t)
q(t)
t
t
Hence by (27) and (34)
Z
q 0 (t) p1
q 0 (s) p
(s)ds
M
V.
q(s)
q(t)
(36)
Z t 0
Mp
p (T1 )
q (s) p
=
= E(T1 ) F (v(T1 )) E(t ) +
(s)ds + F
p0
p0
T1 q(s)
q 0 (T1 ) p1
q 0 (t) p1
F +
M
V.
M
V F+
q(T1 )
q(t)
(37)
F (V ) = F (v(t)) < E(t) = E(t ) +
Now by (34) and (35)
By the assumption of contradiction (33)

q(t)
V
p0 [F + F (V )]
,
F (V ) p0 [F + F (V )]1/p
q 0 (t)
and so
p
V
q 0 (t)
[F + F (V )]
F (V )
q(t)
p1
0
V
q (t)
q 0 (t)
V
= p0
,
[F + F (V )]
p0
[F + F (V )]
F (V )
F (V )
q(t)
q(t)
p0 [F + F (V )]
p0
that is
F (V ) q(t)
0
V
q (t)
p1
q 0 (t)
0 V
.
p
[F + F (V )]
F (V )
q(t)
Therefore by (36) we get

M p1 >
F (V ) q(t)
0
V
q (t)
p0
V
q 0 (t)
[F + F (V )]
F (V )
q(t)
p1
,
in other words
M
V
q 0 (t)
>
[F
+
F
(V
)]
.
p0
F (V )
q(t)
Consequently by (37)
Mp
q 0 (t) p1
q 0 (t)
p1 M
F 0
M
V =M
V ,
p
p0
q(t)
q(t)
(38)
458
and in turn by (36) and (38)
0
V
q 0 (t)
q 0 (t)
p1
p1 q (t) F + F (V )
F >M
(F + F (V ))
V
=M
V
1
F (V )
F (V )
q(t)
q(t)
q(t)
F (V ) q(t)
q 0 (t) F + F (V ) F (V )
0
V
= F.
V
F (V )
q (t)
q(t)
This is the desired contradiction.
Let
(v) := pN F (v) (N p)vf (v),
v R+ ,
(39)
be the function given in assumptions (1) and () of the Introduction, and along
a solution v of (25) in I let P be defined as
Z t
0
0
p2
P (t) := (N p){q(t)v(t)v (t)|v (t)|
+ pQ(t)E(t)},
Q(t) =
q(s)ds. (40)
0
0
Clearly P (0) = 0 by (f 1), since v (0) = 0 and Q(0) = 0.

We present an inequality proved with the same technique of Lemma 2.4 of [12].
Lemma 5. (NiPucciSerrin) Assume 1 < p < N . Let v be a solution of (25) in
I , given in (24). Then
Z t
P (t)
q( )[(v( )) p2 F (v( ))]d.
(41)
0
Proof. By Lemma 5.3 of [17] the energy function E is of class C 1 (I ) and by the
regularity of v in I we can differentiate P in (40), obtaining in I by (29)
0 0 p2 0
Qq 0 0 p
0
0 p
P (t) = (N p) q|v | + v qv |v |
+ pqE p
|v |
q
Qq 0
= (N p)q pF (v) vf (v) + p 1 2 |v 0 |p ,
q
where we have used (25) and (26) for the last step. Adding and subtracting the
term (pN p)F (v), where pN = pN/(N p) represents the Sobolev critical exponent
for (25), as discussed and proved in Section 4 of [17], we get
pN
Qq 0
0
0 p
P (t) = (N p)q
F (v) vf (v) (pN p)F (v) + p|v | 1 2
.
N p
q
By (39) and the fact that Qq 0 /q 2 1 in R+ by (q1)(q3), we have
P 0 (t) q(v) (pN p)(N p)qF (v) = q[(v) p2 F (v)].
Finally (41) follows at once since P (0) = 0, as noted above.
We recall that throughout the section we continue to assume the validity of (f 1)
and (f 4).
Theorem 1. Let 1 < p < N and = . Suppose that f satisfies (f 3), () and
vp
(f 5)
lim inf
= 0.
v0+ F (v)
Then I 6= .
459
Proof. Suppose by contradiction that I = . Hence
/ I
for all R+ .
(42)
Take and as required in (), and > 0 so that > > d = 0 by (f 3). Without
loss of generality we suppose that is so close to 1 and > 0 so close to 0 that
>
0<
(1 )
v(0) v(t )
=
t
t
p01/p
(R+ ),
[F ()]1/p
and
(43)
with = q/q 0 and where t , t I are by Lemma 3 (iv) the unique points t such
that v(t ) = and v(t ) = . Indeed, (43)3 holds for > 0 sufficiently small
by (f 5) and the fact that (0) := limt0+ (t) = 0 by (q3) since N > 1. Clearly
t < t < t , since v(t ) = > = v(t ), by (43) and the fact that v 0 < 0 in I ,
and
v(0) v(t )
1,
t
since
v(t) v(0)
v(t ) v(0)
0 = v 0 (0) = lim
= lim
.
+
1
t
t
t0
Indeed if 1, that is if , then t 0.
Integrating the equation in (25) on [0, t], with t (0, t ), we obtain
Z t
p1
q(t) [(t)]
=
q( )f (v( ))d,
(44)
0
since (0) = |v 0 (0)| = 0. Hence, putting

f (2 ) := max f (u),
[,]
2 [, 1],
we have f (2 ) > 0, since > > 0. Therefore by (44)

Z t
p1
q(t) [(t)]
max f (v(t))
q( ) d f (2 )Q(t),
[0,t ]
and in turn
1/(p1)
Q(t)
|v (t)| f (2 )
[f (2 ) t]1/(p1) ,
q(t)
0
since Q(t)/q(t) t by (q1). Integrating this inequality on [0, t ],

Z t
Z t
v 0 (s)ds
[s f (2 )]1/(p1) ds
0
by (24). Thus
0
1/(p1)
v(t ) + v(0) = (1 ) [f (2 )]
in other words
tp
0 ,
p
[f (2 )]1/(p1) (1 )p0 tp
(45)
.
We choose so close to 1 that (1 )f (2 ) 1. Therefore
0
1/(p1)
tp
1
1
1/(p1)
[(1 )f (2 )]
,
1/(p1)
(1 )
(1 )p0
[(1 )f (2 )]
by (45). Consequently
1/p
1/p
0
= c p+1 f (2 )
,
t (1 )1+1/p (p0 )1/p p+1 f (2 )
(46)
460
where c is the constant given in ().

Since
/ I and F = 0 by (f 3), from Lemma 4
0
q(t )
[p0 F ()]1/p
p01/p
<
=
.
0
q (t )
F ()
[F ()]1/p
(47)
Therefore by (q3) and the fact that q/q 0 is invertible by (q2), we have by (43)
!
0
p01/p
1
t <
:= c .
(48)
[F ()]1/p
Clearly
:= inf (v) > ,
0<v
since is locally bounded near 0 and C(R+ ) by (). Furthermore, since

> > by (43) and (), there is 1 [, 1] such that
(1 ) :=
min (v) 0.
By construction we now have
(1 ),
0,
(v(t))
| |,
if 0 < t < t ,
if t t t ,
if
t > t .
(49)
Since 1 < p < N , by (40), (24), Lemma 5, (49) and (q1) for all t t
p(N p)Q(t)E(t) P (t)
Z
Z
t
+
0
Z t!
q(s)(v(s))ds p
Z
2
q(s)F (v(s))ds
0
(1 )Q(t ) | |Q(t) p2 F ()Q(t),

since F is strictly increasing in R+
0 by (f 3) and the assumption = , so that
F (v(s)) F ()
for all t (t , t ).
(50)
Hence by (46) for all t (t , t )

p(N p)E(t) (1 )
Q(c [p+1 f (2 )]1/p )

| | p2 F ().
Q(t)
(51)
We now treat the cases t < and t = separately.

Assume first that t < . For each > 0 define
T := min{t + , t },
so that
T (t , t ].
By () we can take > / so large that by (51)
1 p
E(t) F () + 0
in (t , T ].
p
In particular for t = T
1 p
E(T ) F () + 0
> F ().
p
We claim that
T = t + < t .
(52)
(53)
(54)
(55)
461
Assume for contradiction that T = t < , then v 0 (T ) = v 0 (t ) = 0. Indeed

` = 0 in (28) by (f 3) and Lemma 3 (i). Furthermore, since
/ I , then v 0 (t ) = 0.
Hence by (26) and (50)
E(T ) = F (v(T )) F (),
which contradicts (54) and proves the claim (55).
By (53) for all t (t , T ] I
1 p
|v 0 (t)|p
+
F
(v(t))
F
()
+
,
p0
p0
and v 0 (t) = |v 0 (t)| > / by (50). Integrating in (t , T ] by (55)
v(t ) v(T ) > (T t ) = ,
that is v(T ) < 0. This is impossible since v > 0 in [0, t ) and completes the proof
in the case t < .
Assume next that t = . By (51), (26), (50) and the assumption 1 < p < N ,
for all t t
(N p)(p 1)|v 0 |p (1 )
Q(t )
| | p2 F () p(N p)F ().
Q(t)
(56)
Since (t , t + 1) I , by (56) for all t (t , t + 1)

(N p)(p 1)|v 0 |p (1 )
Q(t )
| | pN F (),
Q(c + 1)
where c is the number defined in (48), which depends only on , p, F , but is

independent of , and we have used (q1) to have that
Q(t ) Q(t) Q(t + 1) < Q(c + 1)
in (t , t + 1),
by (42) and by Lemma 4. By () we can take so large that |v 0 | in [t , t + 1].

By (24) and integration on [t , t + 1], we get
Z t +1
Z t +1
v(t + 1) = v(t ) +
v 0 (s)ds = v(t )
|v 0 (s)|ds = 0,
t
t
+
which contradicts the fact that v > 0 in I = R

the case t = .
and completes the proof also in
Remark. If f (v) v m as v 0+ , with m > 1 by (f 1), then (f 5) holds if and

only if m < p 1.
The assertion of Theorem 1 continues to hold also when < , and under the
validity of (f 2), when condition (f 5) is replaced by (q4), as shown in the next
Theorem 2. Assume that f satisfies (f 1), (f 4) and either (f 2) or (f 3). Suppose
also that q verifies condition (q4). If () holds, then I 6= .
Proof. Case 1: < . Problem (25) admits a solution v by Proposition 1, which
is unique until it exists and its range remains in the interval where f is locally
Lipschitzian, that is in (0, ), by (f 4). By Lemma 2, with
v1 (t) = v(t, )
and
and
lim v(t, ) = ,
v2 (t) ,
462
uniformly in any bounded interval of R+

0 . Furthermore taking sufficiently close
to so that > , where := ( + d)/2, by (iv) of Lemma 3 there is a unique
value t I such that
v(t , ) = .
We claim that the function defined in (d, ) by
7 t
is not bounded as . Indeed, if there is a constant t, such that 0 < t t < ,
as , all the corresponding solutions v(t, ) would be bounded above by by
t t, since v is decreasing in I . This contradicts the fact that v(t, ) converges to
as , uniformly on any bounded interval of R+
0.
Hence there exists (d, ) such that the corresponding solution v(t, ), with
v(t , ) = , satisfies the following property
1
0
1/p0
t >
{p [F + F (
)]}
,
F (
)
by (q4). Lemma 4 guarantees that I , concluding the proof when < .
Case 2: = . We can proceed as in the proof of Theorem 1 until (47), namely
q(t )
0
1/p0
<
{p [F + F ()]}
q 0 (t )
F ()
and now by (q4)
{p0 [F + F ()]}1/p .
F ()
At this step we can proceed exactly as in the proof of Theorem 1 with the single
exception that R+ is replaced by (d, ).
t < 1
Remarks. Theorem 1 can be applied to the Matukuma equation, but not Theorem 2, since
sinh2 t
q 0 (t)
q(t) =
and lim
= 1.
t q(t)
cosh t
However (q4) holds in several cases. For instance, for the general equation (4), since
q 0 (t)/q(t) = (r(t)), under conditions (5), by (15) we have
0,
if either ` = k p and k/p + `/p0 = 1 n, or
0
q (t)
lim
=
if
` > k p and k/p + `/p0 1 n,
t q(t)
+
` R ,
if
` = k p and k/p + `/p0 > 1 n.
In particular in all the cases of (4) in which the parameters verify either
`
k
+ 0 = 1 n,
(57)
`=kp
and
p p
or
`
k
+
1 n,
(58)
`>kp
and
p p0
condition (q4) is satisfied.
For instance (57) holds when n = p = = ` = 3, s = 2 and k = 0 so that
q(t) = tanh2 t; while condition (58) is valid when n = p = 2, = s = ` = 1 and
k = 0 with q(t) = (t2 + 4t)/2(t + 2).
Assumption (q4) in terms of the radial weights a and b of the original radial
equation (2), becomes
463
lim (r) = 0,
(A5)
Rr
since Q(t(r)) = 0 b(s)ds by (40), (13) and (12). In particular in the interesting
subcase of (1) given when g 1, assumption (A5) reduces to
(A5)0
where
lim h (r) = 0,
h (r) =
n1
1 h0
+ 0
r
p h
see also [17].

We now establish the results contained in Theorems 1 and 2 when () is replaced
by condition (1) of Section 1, which was introduced in [4] for the Laplacian equation in a ball. Condition (1) is the analogue subcritical assumption used in [8] and
[22] for the pLaplacian equations with no weights. The results of [8] were extended
in [12] to Aequations, while those of [8] and [22] were extended to Aequations
in [1], with a unified proof and also with the introduction of the new subcritical
condition ().
Theorem 3. Let = . Suppose that f verifies (f 1) and (f 3)(f 5). If (1)
holds, then I 6= .
Proof. We proceed as in the proof of Theorem 3 until (45). Now
p1 1/p
p1 1/p
0 1/p0
t [(1 )p ]
= C
,
f (2 )
f (2 )
which replaces (46) in the proof of Theorem 3. Proceeding as in the proof of
Theorem 3 until (51), which becomes

1/p !
p1
(1 )
Q C
| | p2 F ().
p(N p)E(t)
Q(t)
f (2 )
Also in this case we distinguish the two cases t < and t = , and get the
same conclusions as before.
Theorem 4. Let (f 1), (f 4), (1) and (q4) hold. If f verifies either (f 2) or (f 3),
then I 6= .
Proof. In analogy of the proof of Theorem 3, following the proof of Theorem 2, we
arrive to the desired conclusion.
4. Relation between () and (1) when = . In this section we compare the
two growth conditions () and (1), as done in [1] when the weight q is the standard
weight rn1 . In particular we shall show that in cases interesting in applications,
condition () holds while (1) does not.
Proposition 1. Let = . If
lim inf f (v) = k0 (0, ],
v
then (1) implies ().
(59)
464
Proof. Fix (0, 1) and first note that for all 2 [, 1] and v > d/
p1 1/p
v
p+1
1/p
c [v
f (2 v)]
= C
[(1 )vf (2 v)]2/p
f (2 v)
(60)
By (59) we have lim inf v vf (v) limv v lim inf v f (v) = , so that
lim vf (v) = .
Hence there is v0 / sufficiently large, where > d is the number given in (1),
such that for all v v0
1
.
(61)
f (v) > 0
and
vf (2 v) 2 vf (2 v)
1
Thus for v v0 by (60) and (61)
p1 1/p
v
p+1
1/p
c [v
f (2 v)]
C
,
f (2 v)
that is

1/p !
p1
v
,
Q c [v p+1 f (2 v)]1/p Q C
f (2 v)
since Q is increasing by (q1). In turn by (1) we have

1/p !
v p1
p+1
1/p
(1 v)Q c [v
f (2 v)]
(1 v)Q C
,
f (2 v)
and the conclusion follows.
The two growth conditions (1) and () are independent, since also the reverse
implication of Proposition 1 holds, as shown in the next
Proposition 2. Let = . If
lim sup vf (v) = k1 [0, ),
v
(62)
then () implies (1).

Proof. As in the proof of Proposition 1, fix (0, 1). By (60) for all 2 [, 1]
and v > d/ we have
p1 1/p
c [v p+1 f (2 v)]1/p
v
C
=
.
(63)
f (2 v)
[(1 )vf (2 v)]2/p
By (62) there is > 0 such that k1 + /(1 ), and in turn by (62) again there
is v0 / sufficiently large, where now > d is the number given in (), such
that for all 2 [, 1] and v v0
1
k1 +
.
vf (2 v)
2
1
Hence by (63)
p1 1/p
v
c [v p+1 f (2 v)]1/p .
C
f (2 v)
Therefore, since now for all v v0 and 1 [, 1]

1/p !
v p1
(1 v)Q c [v p+1 f (2 v)]1/p ,
(1 v)Q C
f (2 v)
465
the conclusion follows at once, as above.

Remark. When assumption (62) holds with the limsup replaced by the limit, then
limv f (v) = 0, and the existence problem could be solved with much simpler
techniques. Moreover, the nonlinearities which frequently appear in applications
tend to infinity at infinity, a subcase of (59).
Hence in cases interesting in applications () is more general than (1). In
particular under (59), Theorems 3 and 4 are immediate corollaries of Theorems 1
and 2, since in general (59) together with (), (f 1), (f 4) and either (f 2) or (f 3)
do not imply the validity of (62). This will be clarified in the next section.
5. Canonical nonlinearities in the case = . Since in conditions () and
(1) only the behavior of f at infinity is important, in the examples we present in
this section, we shall define the various nonlinearities only for large values of v.
We also recall that in the sequel 1 < p < N and = . To simplify the notation
in () and (1) we shall denote by and 1 the main involved functions, namely

1/p !
v p1
p+1
1/p
(v) := (1 v)Q(c [v
f (2 v)] ),
1 (v) := (1 v)Q C
.
f (2 v)
First consider
1
for v v0 > 0.
v
Let f be defined in [0, v0 ] so that f L1 [0, v0 ] C(R+ ) Liploc (R+ ), and also in
such a way that f satisfies (f 1), (f 4) and either (f 2) or (f 3) in its entire domain
R+ , and finally so that is locally bounded near v = 0. Clearly also (59) holds
with k0 = , since 1 < p < N . Moreover for all v v0
f (v) = v pN 1 +
v N
v pN
F (v) = F (v0 ) 0 log v0 + + log v.
pN
pN
i
h
p
Hence, setting c0 := F (v0 ) log v0 v0 N /pN N p N + p, we have for all v v0
(v) = N pF (v) (N p)vf (v) = c0 + pN log v.
Of course is positive for all v sufficiently large, say for v , with > max{d, v0 }.
Fix (0, 1). Then for all 1 , 2 [, 1] and v /

!
p 1/p
v
p
1
(v) = [c0 + pN log(1 v)] Q c 2N v p+pN +

2
as v , since Q(t) as t by (q1), and in turn () holds.
While we claim that (1) does not hold. Indeed,
p1 1/p
v
(1p )/p
lim C
= lim C 2 N v 1pN /p = 0,
v
v
f (2 v)
(64)
since 1 < p < pN . Hence for all v / sufficiently large and for all 2 [, 1] we
1/p
have that C v p1 /f (2 v)
(0, 1), and so also for all 1 [, 1]
v (p1)/p
1 (v) q(1)C [c0 + pN log(1 v)]
1/p ,
1
1
p
(2 v) N +
2 v
466
by (q1). Therefore
(1p
N )/p
0 lim 1 (v) q(1)C pN 2

v
lim v 1pN /p log(1 v) = 0,
and the claim is proved.

Remark. Since the number N , given in (q3), is strictly greater than 1, we claim
that for all (0, N 1) there is t0 = t0 () > 0 and two constants C1, , C2, > 0,
depending on and N , such that
C1, tN + Q(t) C2, tN
for t (0, t0 ).
(65)
Indeed, fixed (0, N 1), by (q3) there is t0 = t0 () > 0 such that for all
t (0, t0 )
N 1
q 0 (t)
N 1+
0<
<
<
.
t
q(t)
t
Integrating on [s, t0 ], with s (0, t0 ), we get by (q1)
N 1
N 1+
t0
q(t0 )
t0
,
s
q(s)
s
that is, putting 1, := q(t0 )t1N

and 2, := q(t0 )t1+N
,
0
0
1, sN 1+ q(s) 2, sN 1 .
Now, integrating the above inequality from 0 to t, we obtain (65), with
1,
2,
C1, :=
> 0 and C2, :=
> 0.
N +
N
Let (1, pN ),
f (v) = v pN 1 + v 1
for all v v0 > 0,
and let again f be defined in [0, v0 ] so that f L1 [0, v0 ] C(R+ ) Liploc (R+ ),
and also in such a way that f satisfies (f 1), (f 4) and either (f 2) or (f 3) in its
entire domain R+ , and finally so that is locally bounded near v = 0. Also (59) is
satisfied with k0 = . By (f 1) for all v v0
p
F (v) = F (v0 ) +
v pN
v
v N
v
+
0 0 .
pN
pN
Hence (v) = c0 + c1 v for all v v0 , where

#
"
p
v0 N
v0
and
c0 := N p F (v0 )
pN
c1 := p N +
Np
> 0,
since < pN . Thus there is > max{d, v0 } sufficiently large such that (v) 0
for all v . Fix (0, 1) and put v0 = /. Therefore for all v / and 1 ,
2 [, 1] we have
p 1 p+p
N
(1 v) Q(c [2N
+ 1
v p+ ]1/p ) ,
2
as v , namely () holds.
Now, since < pN and p < pN ,
p1 1/p
v
(1p )/p
lim C
= C 2 N
lim v 1pN /p = 0.
v
v
f (2 v)
467
Furthermore, since < pN , fix (0, N 1) so small that

p
< pN
.
N p
Since 1 < p < N , by (65)2 there is v1 = v1 () / sufficiently large such that for
all v v1 and 1 , 2 [, 1] we have
(p1)(N )/p
C v (p1)/p
N [c0 + (1 v) c1 ] v
C
C
(1 v)Q
.
2,
[(2 v)pN 1 + (2 v)1 ]1/p

[(2 v)pN 1 + (2 v)1 ](N )/p
Thus the right hand side approaches zero as v since
+
(p 1)(N ) (pN 1)(N )
<0
p
p
by the choice of . Therefore (1) does not hold.

By Proposition 2 when (62) holds then Theorems 1 and 2 are corollaries of
Theorems 3 and 4, respectively, since () implies (1). To show this we shall
present some examples of nonlinearities satisfying (62) and (1), but not ().
Let m p
f (v) = v m1 ,
v v0 > 0,
(66)
and let f be defined in [0, v0 ] so that f L1 [0, v0 ] C(R+ ) Liploc (R+ ), and
also in such a way that f satisfies (f 1), (f 4) and either (f 2) or (f 3) in its entire
domain R+ ; and finally so that is locally bounded near v = 0. Here we assume
that c0 := F (v0 ) v0m /m > 0. Clearly f verifies (62) with k1 = 0. As before,
F (v) = c0 + v m /m for all v v0 , and so
(v) = c1 + c2 v m ,
c1 := N pc0 > 0,
c2 := p N + N p/m < 0,
by construction and the fact that m < 0 and 1 max{d, v0 } sufficiently large such that (v) 0 for all v .
Let (0, 1). For all v / and all 1 , 2 [, 1]
(1m)/p
v (pm)/p
as v ,
1 (v) c1 Q C 2
since c1 > 0 by construction, namely (1) is valid. While as v
(
(p+1)/p
, if m = p,
c1 Q c /2
(m1)/p
(p+m)/p
(v) c1 Q c 2
v
0,
if m < p,
that is () does not hold.
Let
f (v) = ev ,
v v0 ,
with v0 = 0 in case (f 3). Otherwise we take v0 > 0 and define f in [0, v0 ] so that
f L1 [0, v0 ]C(R+ )Liploc (R+ ), F (v0 ) > 0, and also in such a way that f satisfies
(f 1), (f 2) and (f 4) in its entire domain R+ , and is locally bounded near v = 0.
With the usual notation F (v) = c0 ev for all v v0 , with c0 = F (v0 ) + ev0 and
either F (v0 ) = 0 in case (f 3) or F (v0 ) > 0 by construction in case (f 2). Hence in
both cases c0 > 0. For all v v0
(v) = c1 [N p + (N p)v]ev ,
c1 = N pc0 > 0.
468
Therefore there is > max{d, v0 } so large that (v) 0 for all v . Fix
0
(0, 1). Moreover for all 2 [, 1] we have C v 1/p e(2 v)/p as v , so
that also for all 1 [, 1]
0
1 (v) = {c1 [N p + (N p)1 v]e1 v } Q C v 1/p e2 v/p
as v , that is (1) is valid. While c [v p+1 e2 v ]1/p 0 as v and so also
as v
(v) = {c1 [N p + (N p)1 v]e1 v } Q c [v p+1 e2 v ]1/p 0,

since Q(0) = 0, that is () is not valid.
Finally we present two examples to which all Theorems 14 can be applied, since
both growth conditions () and (1) hold.
Let p < m < pN
f (v) = v m1 ,
v v0 > 0,
1
(67)
+
and let f be defined in [0, v0 ] so that f L [0, v0 ] C(R ) Liploc (R ), and also in
such a way that f satisfies (f 1), (f 4) and either (f 2) or (f 3) in its entire domain R+ ,
is locally bounded near v = 0, and with the further property that F (v0 ) > v0m /m
if m 6= 0. Now set
(
if p < m < pN , m 6= 0,
v0m /m,
c0 (m) = F (v0 )
log v0 ,
if
m = 0,
consequently for v v0
(
v m /m,
F (v) = c0 (m) +
log v,
if p < m < pN , m 6= 0,
if
m = 0,
and so, putting c2 := p N + N p/m, we have for all v v0

(
c2 v m ,
if p < m < pN , m 6= 0,
(v; m) = N pc0 (m) +
p N + N p log v, if
m = 0.
Therefore there is > max{d, v0 } so large that (v; m) 0 for all v . Indeed
c2 > 0 when 0 < m < pN ; while N pc0 (m) > 0 for p < m < 0; and of course
(v; 0) as v when m = 0.
Let (0, 1). For all 1 , 2 [, 1] and v /
(m1)/p (p+m)/p
(v) = (1 v; m) Q c 2
v
as v .
Similarly for p < m p
(1m)/p (pm)/p
1 (v) = (1 v; m) Q C 2
as v .
While if p < m < pN there is > 0 sufficiently small that

m < pN
(m p)
.
N p
(1m)/p
(68)
Now, for all 1 , 2 [, 1] we have C 2

v (pm)/p 0 as v , and so by
(65)1 for all v v1 /, with v1 large enough,
h
iN +
(1m)/p
1 (v) C1, m
v m+(pm)(N +)/p
1 c2 C 2
469
as v since N pc0 (m) > 0 by construction, c2 > 0 by the fact that m > p > 1
and
(p m)(N + )
m+
>0
p
by (68). In conclusion also (1) is valid.
Assume that (67) holds with m > p and let f be defined in [0, v0 ] so that
f L1 [0, v0 ] C(R+ ) Liploc (R+ ), and also in such a way that f satisfies (f 1),
(f 4) and either (f 2) or (f 3) in its entire domain R+ , that is locally bounded near
v = 0, and with the further property that F (v0 ) > v0m /m if m 6= 0. Then repeating
the same argument above, () and (1) hold if and only if
m < pN .
Indeed the sufficient part is proved above. For the necessary part if m 0 then the
positivity of forces that m < pN , while if m < 0 obviously there is nothing to
prove. In this case all Theorems 14 can be applied.
Hence () and (1) hold for (67) with m > p if and only if m < pN , that is
they are subcritical growth conditions for f at in the sense of Sobolev embedding
with weights.
Let 0 m < pN ,
f (v) = v m1 log v,
v v0 > 0,
(69)
and let f be defined in [0, v0 ] so that f L1 [0, v0 ] C(R+ ) Liploc (R+ ), and also
in such a way that f satisfies (f 1), (f 4) and either (f 2) or (f 3) in its entire domain
R+ , and is locally bounded near v = 0. As before, put
(
if 0 < m < pN ,
v0m [1 m log v0 ]/m2 ,
c0 (m) = F (v0 ) +
log2 v0 /2,
if
m = 0,
and so for all v v0
(
v m [m log v 1]/m2 ,
if 0 < m < pN ,
F (v) = c0 (m) +
2
log v/2,
if
m = 0,
(
v m [m(N p)(pN m) log v N p]/m2 ,
if 0 < m < pN ,
(v; m) = N pc0 (m)+
log v[N p log v 2(N p)]/2,
if
m = 0.
Hence there is > max{d, v0 } so large that (v) 0 for all v , since m < pN .
Let (0, 1). For all 1 , 2 [, 1] and v / we have
(v) = (1 v; m) Q c [m1
v m+p log(2 v)]1/p
as v .
2
Namely () holds.
Now to prove the validity of (1), we distinguish two cases again for all 1 ,
2 [, 1] and v /. If m [0, p), then

1/p !
1
1m pm
1 (v) = (1 v; m)Q C 2 v
as v .
log(2 v)
While in the remaining case m [p, pN ), we can argue as for the example (67),
since
1/p
1m pm
C 2 v
log(2 v)
0
470
as v . Therefore, taking > 0 so small that

(p m)(N + )
> 0,
m+
p
by (65)1 for v sufficiently large we get
pm (N +)/p
v
(1m)/p N +
1 (v) C1, (1 v; m)[C 2
]
log(2 v)
(1m)/p N +
C1, [C 2
log(1 v)
(N +)/p
[log(2 v)]
m+(pm)(N +)/p
(p N )(1 pN /m)m
1 v
and (1) follows at once letting v .

6. Preliminary Lemmas for the existence of radial ground states. Throughout the section we assume that the nonlinearity f in (25) verifies assumptions (f 1),
(f 2) and (f 4). Let
(70)
I + := { : ` > 0}.
+
Of course I and I are disjoint, where I is given in (32). We shall prove below
some properties useful for the proof of the main existence Theorems 7 and 10.
Lemma 6. belongs to I + .
Proof. Let v be a solution of
[q(t)|v 0 (t)|p1 ]0 = q(t)f (v),
v(0) = ,
v 0 (0) = 0,
defined in I = (0, t ), given in (24). From (26), we get

p (0)
+ F (v(0)) = F () = 0,
(71)
p0
thanks to (f 2). Moreover, E is strictly decreasing in I by (27), hence E(t) < 0 in
I by (71). Now, fix t0 I , then
E(0) =
F (v(t)) E(t) < E(t0 ) < 0
in (t0 , t ).
Hence, by letting t t , we get F (` ) E(t0 ) < 0, where ` is defined in (28). In

turn ` > 0 by (f 2), since F (0) = 0 by (f 1). Thus I + .
Lemma 7. I + is open in [, ).
Proof. Fix I + . Let v be the solution of (25), with replaced by , defined
in its maximal interval I = (0, t ), in the sense of (24). Clearly
` (0, )
and
v0 (t) 0
as t t
(72)
by Lemma 3 (i), (ii) and the fact that I + . Thus

lim E (t) = F (` ) < 0,
tt
by (26) and (f 2), since ` (0, ).

First fix t0 I such that E (t0 ) < 0. If > 0 is chosen sufficiently close to
and v is the corresponding solution of (25), then by Lemma 2 we have that
(0, t0 ] I, where I is the maximal interval of continuation of v. Furthermore
E(t0 ) E (t0 )/2 < 0. As in the proof of Lemma 6, this implies that is in I + .
Lemma 8. I is open.
471
Proof. Fix I and let (k )kN be any sequence of positive numbers convergent
to . Let v be the solution of (25), with v(0) = , in its maximal domain of
continuation I = (0, t ); and similarly denote by vk the solution of (25), with
vk (0) = k , in the maximal domain Ik = (0, tk ), in the sense of (24). Denote
by E and Ek the energy functions along the solutions v and vk , respectively. Put
c := E(t )/2. Clearly c > 0 by (26), since v 0 (t ) < 0 and ` = 0 by the fact
that I . By Lemma 2 of course kEk Ek 0 as k , so that there is
s0 (t /2, t ) such that 2c < E(s0 ) < 3c by (27), and for all k N sufficiently
large
tk > s 0 ,
c Ek (s0 ) 4c,
vk (s0 ) 2v(s0 ) .
(73)
By (27), integrating on [s0 , tk ), we have by (q2)
q 0 (s0 )
|Ek (tk ) Ek (s0 )|
sup p1 (s)
q(s0 ) [s0 ,tk ) k
where k := |vk0 |. Now
Z tk
Z
k (t)dt =
s0
tk
s0
Z
vk0 (t)dt
tk
k (s)ds,
s0
vk (s0 )
dv vk (s0 ),
vk (tk )
since vk0 < 0 in Ik by (24). Hence for all k sufficiently large

|Ek (tk ) Ek (s0 )|
q 0 (s0 )
vk (s0 ) sup p1
(t) M0 sup p1
(t),
k
k
q(s0 )
[s0 ,tk )
[s0 ,tk )
(74)
where M0 := 2q 0 (s0 )v(s0 )/q(s0 ). By (27) and (73)2 for all t [s0 , tk )
pk (t) = p0 [Ek (t) F (vk (t))] p0 [Ek (s0 ) F (vk (t))] p0 [4c + F ],
where F := max |F (v)|. In turn
v[0,]
sup kp1 (t) [p0 (4c + F )]1/p := c,
[s0 ,tk )
and by (74) we obtain

|Ek (tk ) Ek (s0 )| cM0 .
(75)
Clearly (75) remains valid when s0 is replaced by any t in (s0 , t ) (t /2, t ).

Since v(t) 0 as t t , being I , then Ek (s0 ) c > 0 by (73)2 . Moreover,
since F (vk (tk )) 0, being vk (tk )) , then pk (tk ) > 0 by (26), that is
vk0 (tk ) < 0,
tk < ,
vk (tk ) = 0,
by Lemma 3 (iii) and (24). Hence k I for all k sufficiently large, namely I is
open.
7. Existence results. In this section we shall establish existence of radial solutions
of (1), assuming in the sequel that 1 0.
Theorem 5. Assume (f 1), (f 3)(f 5) and (), with = . Then (1) admits a
semiclassical nonsingular radial crossing solution u in the ball B , with
u (0) = > 0,
u (x) = 0
and
Du (0) = 0,
Du (x) x < 0
r < ,
for x B .
(76)
472
Proof. By virtue of Theorem 1 there is I and a corresponding solution v of (7)

in the interval I = (0, t ), maximal in the sense of (24). Hence u (x) = v (t(|x|))
in B , r = r(t ) by (12), is the required solution.
Remarks. Theorem 5 can be applied to all equations (4), including the classical
Matukuma equation, when f verifies (f 5) and = .
In the recent paper [9] some existence, nonexistence and uniqueness results for
radial ground states of some special cases of (2) are given when f > 0 everywhere
in R+ but singular at u = 0. Moreover in [9] it is required that g 1, and h is
continuous also at r = 0 and verifies an integral condition. In their prototype
f (u) = um + u ,
(77)
the main existence Theorem 1.1 of [9] can be applied provided that 1 0 if 1 < p 2, or when
(p 2)n + `(p 1) + p < 0 if p 2, that is in both cases when ` < 0, so that h
must be singular at r = 0. Hence Theorem 1.1 of [9] cannot be applied in this case,
since in [9] the weight h is required to be continuous also at r = 0. In the famous
Matukuma case, namely when g 1 and h(r) = (1 + r2 )1 , n = 3, p = 2, the
main condition (1.4) of [9] again fails to hold, so that Theorem 1.1 of [9] cannot be
applied.
For (77) conditions (f 1), (f 3)(f 5) and both () and (1) hold provided that
1 < p < N,
1 p < m < 1,
m < < pN 1.
Clearly Theorem 5 can be applied in both examples discussed above, and actually
also in the generalized Matukuma equations (see (1.4) of [17]), namely when g 1
0
0
0
and h(r) = rp /(1 + rp )/p , > 0, and
n 2,
p 2,
with N = p
n + p0
> 1.
p + p0
Hence in the classical subcase p = 2 and n = 3 it results N = 2(1 + )/ > 2. In

any case here 1 < p < N if and only if 1 < p < n.
We now present another result when is possibly finite.
Theorem 6. Assume that (f 1), (f 3), (f 4), (q4) and () hold. Then (1) admits
a semiclassical nonsingular radial crossing solution u in the ball B , satisfying
(76).
Proof. Here by virtue of Theorem 2 there is I , so that 0 < < , and a
corresponding solution v of (25) in the interval I = (0, t ), maximal in the sense
of (24). Hence u (x) = v (t(|x|)) in B , r = r(t ) by (12), is the required solution
also in this case.
Remarks. When f is of the required type, Theorem 6 can be applied to all equations (4), with exponents verifying (5) and either (57) or (58), but not, for instance,
to the Matukuma equation.
Some existence and nonexistence results for radial ground states of special cases
of (2) are given in [5] in the case in which f is nonnegative for u > 0 small. They
prove existence of nontrivial positive radial solutions of (1) in the interesting case
in which the continuous nonlinearity f may depend on r, but is continuous also at
u = 0. Furthermore, they consider (2) when g(r) = rk , k + n p > 0, h(r) r` h(r)
473
as r with ` k + 1 > 0 and f (r, u) h(r)u

for u > 0 sufficiently small and
verifying some integral conditions.
r sufficiently large, with m > p 1, and h
As a corollary of Theorem 6 we obtain existence of crossing solutions for the
pHessian operator Hp1 , p Z, according to the notation in [23] and [5], see also
[17]. For instance, in the first prototype studied in Theorem 5.2 of [5], that is
|u|m1 u
= 0,
r > 0,
1 + r
0
u(0) = > 0,
u (0) = 0,
div(r2p |Du|p2 Du) +
p > 1,
(78)
existence of crossing solutions is proved by Theorem 6, provided that

0 < 2(p 1) < n,
1 < m <
(p 1)(n + 2)
.
n 2(p 1)
(79)
Moreover, when (79) holds with = 0, p 2 and m > 1, Theorem 5.2(M1) of

[5] can also be applied so that problem (78) has no positive solutions. Therefore
Theorem 6 adds more information in the mentioned nonexistence result of [5]. For
the same reason, also in the case > 0, p 2 and m > 1 Theorem 6 adds further
information with respect to Theorem 5.2(M4) of [5] since
(p 1)(n + 2)
(n )p [n 2(p 1)]
>
n 2(p 1)
n 2(p 1)
and p 2(p 1).
In the other special case treated in [5], namely BattFaltenbacherHorst case, that
is when (4) reduces to
rp
|u|m1 u = 0,
(1 + rp )/p
u(0) = > 0,
u0 (0) = 0,
div(r2p |Du|p2 Du) +
r > 0,
p > 1,
(80)
Theorem 6 shows that problem (80) admits crossing solutions when

p > 2,
> 0,
n > 2(p 1),
1 < m <
(n + p)p n + 2(p 1)
,
n 2(p 1)
while in the somewhat complementary case

2 1,
n > 2(p 1),
(n + p)p n + 2(p 1)
,
n 2(p 1)
Theorem 5.3 of [5] guarantees that (80) has a ground state solution, so that now
the picture is more detailed.
We now turn to the more delicate case in which the nonlinearities treated are
of the type (f 2).
Theorem 7. Assume that (f 1), (f 2), (f 4), (q4) and () hold.
If f is continuous also at u = 0 and f (0) = 0, then (1) admits a semiclassical
nonsingular radial ground state u , with 0,
= ,
(82)
1/p
0+ |G(u)|
474
where G : [0, ) R, with G(0) = 0, is nondecreasing. When (81) holds, then the
compactly supported solution u is also a semiclassical nonsingular radial solution
of the free boundary problem (3) for some R > 0.
When lim supu0+ f (u) < 0, then problem (1) admits no semiclassical non
singular radial ground states, while (3) has a semiclassical nonsingular radial
solution for some R > 0.
When f is singular at u = 0 and lim supu0+ f (u) 0, then either (1) has a
positive semiclassical nonsingular radial ground state or (3) has a radial solution
for some R > 0. If (82) is satisfied, then the first case occurs; if (81) is satisfied,
the second case occurs.
Moreover, if for some < 1
g(r)
c r
h(r)
as r 0+ ,
c > 0,
(83)
then the solution u is regular, that is Du is H

older continuous at x = 0, with
Du(0) = 0; while if [1, p), then u is H
older continuous at x = 0. In both cases
1,p
u Wloc
(Rn ),
when also 1 < p n.

Proof. As already noted, I + and I are disjoint. By Theorem 2 and Lemmas 68,
the sets I + and I are open and not empty. Hence there is
/ I + I , whose
corresponding solution v of (25) is positive in the maximal interval I , given by
(24). Since
/ I + , then ` = 0 by (70). Since
/ I , then either t = or
0
t < . In both cases v (t ) = 0 by Lemma 3 (iii) and the fact that
/ I .
In the first case v is a positive semiclassical radial ground state of (25) and so
u (x) = v (t(|x|)) is a semiclassical radial ground state of (1). In the second case
u (x) is a solution of (3) with R = R = r(t ). In particular in this latter case
when f is continuous also at u = 0, with f (0) = 0, the solution, when it is extended
to all x, with |x| > R , by the value 0, becomes a compactly supported radial
ground state of (1).
In conclusion we have shown that, if f is continuous also at u = 0, with f (0) = 0,
problem (1) admits a semiclassical nonsingular radial ground state u , with <
u (0) = < , which is compactly supported in Rn if (81) holds or everywhere
positive in Rn if (82) is valid by virtue of Theorem 5.7 of [17].
Now, when lim supu0+ f (u) < 0, if there would exist a semiclassical non
singular radial ground state u of (1) or equivalently a semiclassical radial ground
state v of (25), then by Lemma 3
|v 0 (t)|p1 0 as
so that by (31) and (q2)
t ,
(84)
0
lim sup |v 0 (t)|p1 < 0.
t
This is clearly impossible, since by the mean value theorem and by (84) there would
exist a sequence (tk )k tending to , along which [|v 0 (tk )|p1 ]0 0 as k . This
contradiction proves the claim since the only possibility is that R < . Hence
there exists a semiclassical nonsingular solution of (3).
Combining now the above conclusions with Theorem 5.7 of [17] we immediately
get the assertion in the case in which lim supu0+ f (u) 0 and f is singular at
u = 0.
475
Finally, the regularity result valid under (83) is a direct application of Corollary 3.3 of [17].
For a more general discussion of the validity of the strong maximum and compact
support principles for solutions, radial or not, of quasilinear elliptic inequalities, as
well as on applications of these principles to variational problems on manifolds and
to existence of radial dead cores, we refer to [20].
As shown in Section 4, the above results continue to hold when assumption ()
is replaced by (1). More precisely
Theorem 8. Assume (f 1), (f 3)(f 5) and (1). Then (1) admits a semiclassical
radial nonsingular crossing solution u in the ball B , satisfying (76).
Proof. To do this we can repeat the proof of Theorem 5 word for word with the
single exception that Theorem 1 is replaced by Theorem 3.
Theorem 9. Assume that (f 1), (f 3), (f 4), (q4) and (1) hold. Then (1) admits
a semiclassical nonsingular radial crossing solution u in the ball B , satisfying
(76).
Proof. This result can be shown following the proof of Theorem 6 word for word
with the exception that Theorem 2 is replaced by Theorem 4.
Theorem 10. Assume the validity of (f 1), (f 2), (f 4), (q4) and (1). Then the
conclusions of Theorem 7 continue to hold.
Proof. To do this we can repeat the proof of Theorem 7 word for word with the
exception that Theorem 2 is replaced by Theorems 3 and 4.
8. Nonexistence results. In this section a nonexistence result for positive radial semiclassical nonsingular ground states of (1) is established via essentially
the technique of Theorem 3.2 of [13]. We introduce
(f 6) there exists 0 > 0 such that f (u) 0 for 0 < u < 0 .
Of course when both (f 2) and (f 6) hold, then 0 < .
Theorem 11. Assume (A1)(A4), (f 1), (f 2) and (f 6), and that 1 0 is sufficiently small.
Finally, if
Rr
1 a0
1 b0 0 b(s)ds
N 1
(A6)
+ 0
p a
p b
b(r)
N
(86)
in R+ ,
then problem (1) does not admit any positive radial semi-classical non-singular
ground state.
Proof. Assume by contradiction that there exists a semiclassical nonsingular positive radial ground state u of (1), and denote by v(t) = u(r(t)) the corresponding
classical ground state of (7). By (29) and (7) we get that
[Q(t)E(t) + q(t)|v 0 (t)|p2 v 0 (t)v(t)]0 = qE
Qq 0 0 p
|v | + q|v 0 |p qvf (v).
q
476
Using (26), by integration of the above equality we obtain

Q(t)E(t) + q(t)|v 0 (t)|p2 v 0 (t)v(t)
Z t
Qq 0
1
0 p
=
q F (v) vf (v) + 2 + 0 |v | ds,
q
p
0
(87)
for all t > 0 and R. Now take = 1/( + 1), where is given in (85). Then by
(85) and the fact that (A6) is equivalent to (q5), we obtain in R+
1
1
1
Qq 0
+ 0
0.
q2
p
+ 1 pN
Hence by (86) the right side of (87) is strictly negative. In the left hand side of (87)
we have that
lim q(t)|v 0 (t)|p2 v 0 (t)v(t) = 0
t
by Proposition 6.1 of [17], since v is a ground state of (7). On the other hand for t
sufficiently large
Qq 0
q(t)
0
0
p 1
[Q(t)E(t)] q(t)|v (t)|
2 |v 0 (t)|p < 0
(88)
p0
q
pN
by (26), (27), the fact that F (v) < 0 if v is small by (f 2) and (q5). Furthermore
by Proposition 6.1 of [17] we have that lim inf t Q(t)E(t) = 0, hence (88) implies
that
lim Q(t)E(t) = 0.
t
Thus the left hand side of (87) tends to 0 as t and so
Z
Z
Qq 0
1
q(s)[F (v(s)) v(s)f (v(s))]ds =
q(s) 2 + 0 |v 0 (s)|p ds.
q
p
0
0
Now, since = 1/( + 1) as above, we get the required contradiction since the left
side is strictly negative by (86) while the right hand side is nonnegative.
As a consequence of the main Theorems 10 and 11 we prove the corollary of the
Introduction.
Proof of Corollary 1. Clearly f in (8) satisfies (f 1), (f 2), (f 4) and (f 6), with
1/(m)
+1
=
,
0 = 1 < ,
= ,
m+1
since 1 < m < . Moreover when 1 < p < N the principal conditions () and
(1) are valid if < pN 1.
The existence part of the corollary follows from either Theorem 7 or Theorem 9,
while the nonexistence result from Theorem 11. When I = R+ , then (31) admits
a nonnegative ground state only when lim supu0+ f (u) 0, that is in case (8)
when limu0+ f (u) = 0, namely when m > 0. Furthermore by Corollary 5.8 of [17]
a ground state of (7), with f given by (8), is positive in the entire Rn if and only
if m p 1, and so the claim is proved.
Finally, the regularity property under (83) follows exactly as in the proof of
Theorem 7.
477
Remarks. 1. As noted by Ni and Serrin in the Remark at the end of Theorem 3.3
of [13], if f (u) = u (u), C 1 (R+ ), (u) < 0 for u small, then
Z u
t+1 0 (t)dt.
(89)
( + 1)F (u) uf (u) =
0
0
Consequently, condition (86) holds if (u) 0 in R+ , and 0 (u) > 0 for u > 0
sufficiently small.
If, for example, we consider f (u) = um + u , 1 < m < , we see that
(u) = 1 um and
m m+1
u
.
( + 1)F (u) uf (u) =
m+1
Thus (86) holds since m < .
2. As used in the proof of Theorem 11, assumption (A6), in terms of the radial
weights a and b of the original radial equation (2), is equivalent to condition (q5) in
of the new weighted equation (7), where q is given by (13), since Q(t(r)) =
Rterms
r
b(s)ds
as noted in the Remark before Theorem 3.
0
In particular when g 1 assumption (A6) becomes
Rr
n1
1 h0 0 sn1 h(s)ds
N 1
0
(A6)
+ 0
.
r
p h
rn1 h(r)
N
Finally, we give some examples of functions g and h, for which (A1)(A6) or (q1)
(q5) hold.
3. Of course in the case
g(r) 1,
h(r) = r` ,
then as noted in Section 2 the main structure assumptions (A1)(A4) hold if (19)
is satisfied, with N > 1 given in (20). In this case q(t) = tN 1 and so (q4) and (q5)
trivially hold. In conclusion all (A1)(A6) are valid.
Another interesting example is given by
g(r) 1,
h(r) = log(1 + r),
where (A1)(A5) hold, with N = p(n + 1)/(p + 1) > 1. Furthermore, when p = 2

and n = 3, it is not hard to see that also (A6) is valid.
Moreover another example is given by
g(r) = h(r) = r1n (e
1),
q(t) = e
1,
r, t R+
0.
Indeed (q1), (q2) and (q4) trivially hold, q(0) = 0, (q3) is satisfied with N = 3/2.
Finally (q5) is verified when n = 3 and p = 2, since Qq 0 /q 2 is an increasing function
such that limt0+ Qq 0 /q 2 = 1/3(= (N 1)/N ) and limt Qq 0 /q 2 = 1.
4. Actually Theorem 11 is the special case c = 1 1/N of the following more
general nonexistence result:
Assume (A1)(A4), (f 1), (f 2) and (f 6), and that 1 0 is sufficiently small, then problem (1) does not
admit any positive radial semiclassical nonsingular ground state.
The proof is exactly the same as that of Theorem 11, where now c replaces the
previous main number 1 1/N . Note that here + 1 = p0 /(p0 c 1) pN , and c is
any positive number, such that
1
1
1c< .
N
p
5. The function
f (u) = c1 um + c2 u ,
1 < m < ,
(90)
where c1 , c2 , are positive constants, can be transformed by the change of variable

u = v, = (c1 /c2 )1/(m) to the form
f (v) = c(v m + v ),
c = c1 m = c2 > 0.
Hence (f 1), (f 2), (f 4) and (f 6) are also satisfied by (90), since 1 < m < , with
= .
The study of uniqueness of radial ground states of (1) or non singular solutions
semiclassical of (3) is very delicate. The first results are contained in [17], where
the nonlinearity f is assumed to have a sublinear growth at infinity, see also related
results, even if more specific, given in [9]. In particular in [17] it was proved for
the special nonlinearity (89) that the corresponding equation (1) admits at most
one semiclassical radial ground state u, with 0 < u(0) < = , when (6) holds,
namely when
p3
p 2,
1 < m 0 and < 0, though not both at the same time. In
this case, when also condition (q4) holds, both Theorem 8.4 of [17] and Corollary 1
can be applied to (1), that is (1) admits one and only one semiclassical radial
ground state u, with u(0) > 0, when f satisfies (6).
Acknowledgements. The authors were supported by MIUR project Metodi Variazionali ed Equazioni Differenziali non Lineari.
REFERENCES
[1] B. Acciaio and P. Pucci, Existence of radial solutions for quasilinear elliptic equations with
singular nonlinearities, Adv. Nonlinear Studies, 3 (2003), 513541.
[2] J. Batt, W. Faltenbacher and E. Horst, Stationary spherically symmetric models in stellar
dynamics, Arch. Rational Mech. Analysis, 93 (1986), 159183.
[3] E. Calzolari, Esistenza di stati fondamentali radiali per equazioni ellittiche singolari con pesi,
Tesi di Laurea, Universit`
a di Perugia, 2004, 132 pages.
[4] A. Castro and A. Kurepa, Infinitely many radially symmetric solutions to a superlinear
Dirichlet problem in a ball, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 101 (1987), 5764.
[5] Ph. Cl
ement, R. Manasevich and E. Mitidieri, Some Existence and NonExistence Results
for a Homogeneous Quasilinear Problem, Asymptotic Analysis, 17 (1998), 1329.
[6] B. Franchi, E. Lanconelli and J. Serrin, Existence and uniqueness of nonnegative solutions
of quasilinear equations in Rn , Advances in Math., 118 (1996), 177243.
[7] M. GarcaHuidobro, A. Kufner, R. Man
asevich and C. Yarur, Radial solutions for a quasilinear equation via Hardy inequalities, Advances in Diff. Equations, 6 (2001), 15171540.
[8] F. Gazzola, J. Serrin and M. Tang, Existence of ground states and free boundary value problems for quasilinear elliptic operators, Advances in Diff. Equations, 5 (2000), 130.
479
[9] J.V. Goncalves and C.A.P. Santos, Positive solutions for a class of quasilinear singular equations, Electronic J. Differential Equations, 2004 (2004), No. 56, 115.
[10] N. Kawano, E. Yanagida and S. Yotsutani, Structure theorems for positive radial solutions to
div(|Du|m2 Du) + K(|x|)uq = 0 in Rn , J. Math. Soc. Japan, 45 (1993), 719742.
[11] T. Matukuma, The cosmos, Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo, 1938.
[12] E. Montefusco and P. Pucci, Existence of radial ground states for quasilinear elliptic equations, Advances in Diff. Equations, 6 (2001), 959986.
[13] W.M. Ni and J. Serrin, Nonexistence theorems for quasilinear partial differential equations,
Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo Suppl., 8 (1985), 171185.
[14] E.S. Noussair and C.A. Swanson, Solutions of Matukumas equation with finite total mass,
Indiana Univ. Math. J., 38 (1989), 557570.
[15] E. Yanagida and S. Yotsutani, A unified approach to the structure of radial solutions for
semilinear elliptic problems, Japan J. Indust. Appl. Math., 18 (2001), 503519.
[16] E. Yanagida and S. Yotsutani, Recent topics on nonlinear partial differential equations: structure of radial solutions for semilinear elliptic equations (translation of Sugaku 51 (1999) 276
290), Selected papers on analysis and differential equations, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2,
211 Providence, RI, (2003), 121137.
[17] P. Pucci, M. Garc`aHuidobro, R. Man`
asevich and J. Serrin, Qualitative properties of ground
states for singular elliptic equations with weights, Annali Mat. Pura Appl., 185 (2006), 205
243.
[18] P. Pucci and J. Serrin, Uniqueness of ground states for quasilinear elliptic operators, Indiana
Univ. Math. J., 47 (1998), 501528.
[19] P. Pucci and J. Serrin, Uniqueness of ground states for quasilinear elliptic equations in the
exponential case, Indiana Univ. Math. J., 47 (1998), 529539.
[20] P. Pucci and J. Serrin, The strong maximum principle revisited, J. Diff. Equations, 196
(2004), 166, Erratum, J. Diff. Equations, 207 (2004), 226227.
[21] J. Serrin and M. Tang, Uniqueness of ground states for quasilinear elliptic equations, Indiana
Univ. Math. J., 49 (2000), 897923.
[22] M. Tang, Existence and uniqueness of fast decay entire solutions of quasilinear elliptic equations, J. Diff. Equations, 164 (1999), 155179.
[23] K. Tso, On symmetrization and Hessian operators, J. dAnal. Math. 52 (1989), 94106.
Received April 2005; revised November 2005.

E-mail address: calzolarielisa@libero.it
E-mail address: roberta@dipmat.unipg.it
E-mail address: pucci@dipmat.unipg.it

Galzolari E., Filippucci R., Pucci P. - Existence of Radial Solutions For The P-Laplacian Elliptic Equations With Weights (2006) PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Galzolari E., Filippucci R., Pucci P. - Existence of Radial Solutions For The P-Laplacian Elliptic Equations With Weights (2006) PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Manuscirpt submitted to

EXISTENCE OF RADIAL SOLUTIONS

Elisa Calzolari, Roberta Filippucci and Patrizia Pucci

(Communicated by Eiji Yanagida)

1. Introduction. Recently, in [17] for the pLaplacian equation with weights in

where g, h : R+ R+ and Du = (u/x1 , , u/xn ), when f < 0 near u = 0.

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 35J70; Secondary: 35J60.

E. CALZOLARI, R. FILIPPUCCI AND P. PUCCI

where p0 is the Holder conjugate of p, and on f

In other words radial nonnegative nonsingular semiclassical ground states for

pLAPLACIAN ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS WITH WEIGHTS

well defined integral function of f . In the main existence theorems of Section 7 we

The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 the definition of semiclassical

where C = [(1 )p0 ]1/p .

lim sup (1 v)Q c [v p+1 f (2 v)]1/p = for every 1 , 2 [, 1],

where c = [(1 )p0 ]1/p (1 )2/p ,

E. CALZOLARI, R. FILIPPUCCI AND P. PUCCI

is equivalent, when q(t) = tN 1 , to the condition introduced in [1]. Of course

and (q4) is valid.

for all t > 0

then the constructed solution u of (1) and (8) is regular, that is Du is H

pLAPLACIAN ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS WITH WEIGHTS

2. Semi-classical solutions. Consider the quasilinear singular elliptic equation

where g, h : R+ R+ . Prototypes of (9), with nontrivial functions g, h, are given,

where, with obvious notation,

b(r) = rn1 h(r).

(b/a)1/p L1 [0, 1] \ L1 [1, ),

is positive and strictly decreasing in R+ , where p0 is the H

there is N 1 such that

E. CALZOLARI, R. FILIPPUCCI AND P. PUCCI

functions = (r), having compact support in J, it results

t(0) = 0, t() = , by (A2), and t is a diffeomorphism of

q(t) = [a(r(t))]1/p [b(r(t))]1/p ,

Obviously, if u = u(r) is a semiclassical solution of (10) in J, then v = v(t) =

|vt |p2 vt C 1 (I).

which immediately yields

pLAPLACIAN ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS WITH WEIGHTS

and in turn (17) can be rewritten in the form

Thus from (3.10) of [17] we find as r 0+

r(1)/(p1) u0 (r) [sgn f ()]

E. CALZOLARI, R. FILIPPUCCI AND P. PUCCI

and := sup{v > d : f (u) > 0 for u (d, v)}.

Moreover, as in [1], from now on we assume together with (f 1) also

Lemma 1. Assume that f satisfies either (f 2) or (f 3). If v is a semiclassical

w (t) = q(t) w(t) f (v)

< v 0 (t) < 0

for all t > 0.

pLAPLACIAN ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS WITH WEIGHTS

Let I = (0, t ) denote the maximal interval of continuation of every semi

which is of class C 1 (I {0}), with E 0 (0) = 0 and in I

belongs to [0, ) if (f 2) holds; while ` = 0 if (f 3) holds.

(iii) If t = , then lim v 0 (t) = 0.

E. CALZOLARI, R. FILIPPUCCI AND P. PUCCI

While if t = , then I = R+ and by Lemma 5.3 of [17] the energy function

Therefore E admits finite limit as t . By (26) also (t) has limit as t ,

since ` [, ) by contradiction. Rewrite the equation in (25) in the equivalent

since ` [, ) by contradiction. This is impossible, since p1 > 0 in R+ and

Lemma 4. Suppose that f verifies either (f 2) or (f 3). Let v be a semiclassical

When f satisfies (f 3), clearly F = 0.

We claim that there is T1 [t, t ), with M = (T1 ). Indeed, since

pLAPLACIAN ELLIPTIC EQUATIONS WITH WEIGHTS

case there is nothing to prove, that is M is achieved in [t, t ); if t = , then (30)