TRIESTE
Second School of Nonlinear Functional Analysis
and Applications to Dierential Equations
21 April9 May
1997
Multiplicity of Solutions
for
the pLaplacian
Ireneo Peral
Departamento de Matem aticas
Universidad Aut onoma de Madrid
Madrid, Spain
MiramareTrieste
Italy
Work partially supported by DGICYT project PB940187 MEC Spain
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1 Eigenvalue problem 9
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2 Existence of eigenvalues by minimax techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 Asymptotic behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.4 Isolation of the rst eigenvalue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.5 Eigenvalues in the radial case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.6 Bifurcation for the pLaplacian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2 Multiplicity of solutions: Growth versus Shape 33
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.2 First results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.3 Critical Problems: The PalaisSmale condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.4 Local results on multiplicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.4.1 The critical case and p
> q > p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.4.2 The critical case and 1 < q < p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.5 Global results on multiplicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.6 Multiple bifurcation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.7 Further results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3 What means Growth? 65
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.2 Hardy inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.3 The Dirichlet problem with singular potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.4 Critical potential and subcritical growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.5 Critical potential and critical growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.6 Subcritical potential and critical growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
1
2
Appendix 77
A The inverse operator of the pLaplacian 79
B Genus and its properties 85
C The variational principle of Ekeland 87
D The Mountain Pass Theorem 91
E Boundedness of solutions 97
F Two Lemmas by P.L. Lions 103
Bibliography 107
3
4
5
Preface
This lectures notes are a review of some contributions to the theory of Quasilinear Elliptic
Equations with a reaction term. We study the existence, multiplicity, positivity of solutions,
bifurcation, etc., with respect to the relation between the growth and shape of the zero order
reaction term.
We can propose a quite general class of elliptic problems involving the plaplacian, for
instance,
(P)
p
u div ([u[
p2
u) = F
(u) in ,
u[
= 0,
where 1 < p < N, is a regular bounded domain in IR
N
, and
F1) F
=
Np
N p
, the Sobolev theorem gives the inclusion
W
1,p
0
() L
p
.
We say that the problem (P) is subcritical, critical or supercritical if, r < p
1, r = p
1
or r > p
1
,
> 0, Pucci and Serrin show that problem (P) has no positive solution. See [73].
3. It is very easy to prove that if = x IR
N
[0 < a < [x[ < b and the same hypotheses as
in (1) or (2), problem (P) has positive solutions. In fact, if we look for radial solutions, it
is an easy onedimensional problem. See for instance [61].
4. The behaviour of the problem in (3) when a 0, is not evident. The answer to this
question was given by BahriCoron, [19]. More precisely: If some fundamental group of the
domain is non trivial then problem (P) with p = 2 and the zero order term F(u) = u
N+2
N2
,
> 0, has a nontrivial solution.
At this level it seems that the existence of nontrivial solution of (P) depends strongly on
the topology of the domain.
This idea is not totally exact.
5. In [40] and [36], independently, it is obtained that there are contractible domains for
which the problem in item (1) has a nontrivial solution. In particular, this fact means that
the existence result depends deeply on the geometry of the domain and not only on the
topology.
The rough consequence from the remarks above is the strong dependence of the results on
the domain.
On the other hand we have as starting point the seminal result by Brezis and Nirenberg in
[29] that we can summarize as follows.
Theorem (BrezisNirenberg) Consider the problem
(LP)
u = [u[
q2
u +[u[
4
(N2)
u in ,
u[
= 0,
where is a bounded domain in IR
N
and > 0. Then,
a) If q = 2 and N 4, there exists a positive solution of (LP), for all 0 < <
1
,
1
being the
rst eigenvalue of the laplacian in .
7
b) If q = 2 and N = 3, there exists
0
depending on such that the problem (LP) admits a
positive solution if 0 <
0
< <
1
. Moreover if is a ball then the problem has a positive
soltution if and only if
1
/4 < <
1
,
1
rst eigenvalue of the laplacian.
c) If 2 < q <
2N
N2
and N 4, the problem (LP) admits a positive solution for all > 0. In
dimension N = 3 there exists positive solution for large .
The Theorem above means that the action of the term [u[
q2
u breaks down the nonexis
tence obstruction found by Pohozaev [71]. Therefore, Pohozaevs result depends not only on the
growth of the second member in the equation and on the geometry of the domain, but also on
the precise expression of F.
We will emphasize this last fact in these notes and we will obtain results that depends in a
deep way on the shape of F.
In rst place we deal with the typical eigenvalue problems in Chapter 1; we will study
existence, asymptotic behaviour, properties and, as a consequence, some results on bifurcation.
Chapter 2 will be devoted mainly to study the inuence of the shape of the zero order term in
the behaviour of the elliptic problems with respect to multiplicity of solutions and bifurcation
properties.
Chapter 3 is devoted to a critical problem related with a Hardy inequality. It seems that
it can be considered as a starting point for a more extensive research. It shows how the depen
dence on x of the second member, (non autonomous case) changes the concept of growth to be
considered.
General references for dierent aspect on the topics considered here are the books, [6], [12],
[17], [20], [26], [34], [59], [63], [67], [76], [81], [83], [91], [92] and [94]. But some general results
that will be used often, are collected in several appendix at the end of the lectures notes.
* * *
I would like to thank the organizers of the Second School of Nonlinear Functional Analysis
and Applications to Dierential Equations at ICTP of Trieste, Professors Ambrosetti, Chang
and Ekeland, the opportunity that they give to me to teach this course. Also my thanks to
Professors Garcia Azorero and Walias by their helpful comments and missprint correction. Also
my gratitude to J.A. Aguilar by his careful nal missprint correction.
Very special thanks to A. Ambrosetti for his friendship and his teaching in these years.
Madrid, February 1997
I. Peral
8
Chapter 1
Eigenvalue problem
1.1 Introduction
This chapter will be devoted to the typical eigenvalue problem for the pLaplacian, namely, the
problem,
p
u div ([u[
p2
u) = [u[
p2
u, x ,
u = 0 x ,
(1.1)
where 1 < p and IR
N
is a bounded domain. We look for nontrivial solutions, i.e., (u, )
W
1,p
0
() IR, u = 0, veriying the problem in a weak sense.
We call this case the typical eigenvalue problem because if we have a solution (u, ) to
problem (1.1), then for all IR, (u, ) is a solution. With dierent homogeneity in the
second member we get a curve of solutions for each xed solution to the problem with = 1,
simply by a scaling, namely, if u = 0 is solution of
p
u = [u[
q2
u then if > 0, v = u veries
the same equation with =
pq
.
1.2 Existence of eigenvalues by minimax techniques
In this section we study the existence of a sequence of eigenvalues for problem (1.1). The result
that we will explain can be found in [51]. The method used in the proof is an adaptation of the
methods in [4], i.e., the LusternikSchnirelman theory.
Consider
B : W
1,p
0
() IR, dened by B(u) =
1
p
[u[
p
dx, (1.2)
that is the potential of
b : W
1,p
0
() W
1,p
[u[
p
dx = . (1.4)
For each u W
1,p
0
() 0 we nd (u) > 0 in such a way that (u)u , i.e.,
(u) =
[u[
p
dx
1/p
(1.5)
hence : W
1,p
0
() 0 (0, ) is even and bounded on subsets in the complementary of
the origin. Moreover the derivative of is
'
(u), v` =
1
p
1
p
1
p
[u[
p
dx
(p+1)/p
'
p
u, v`, (1.6)
for all v W
1,p
0
() where ', ` denotes the duality product. Therefore,
'
p
u, v` = 0 implies '
(u), v` = 0,
'
p
u, u` = p, if u
and, for all u W
1,p
0
() 0,
'
p
u, u` =
1
(u)
p
'
p
((u)u), (u)u` =
p
((u))
p
The next step is to construct a ow in related to B and the corresponding deformation
lemma that allows us to apply the minimax theory. (See [76]). By direct computation we get
the derivative of B((u)u) in u , that according to (1.6), becomes
D(u) = b(u)
'b(u), u`
'
p
u, u`
(
p
u) W
1,p
(). (1.7)
11
We need the tangent component of D(u) to . Then we will use the duality mapping
J : W
1,p
() W
1,p
0
(),
1
p
+
1
p
= 1,
which gives the possibility to consider J(Du) W
1,p
0
() and gives its tangent component. It is
well known that J veries for all f W
1,p
(),
i) 'f, J(f)` = [[f[[
2
W
1,p
()
ii) [[J(f)[[
W
1,p
0
()
= [[f[[
W
1,p
()
.
(See for instance [26]). Taking into account the properties of J and the previous comments we
dene
T : W
1,p
0
(), by T(u) = J(D(u))
'
p
u, J(D(u))`
'
p
u, u`
u (1.8)
and then, T(u) is the tangent component that we are looking for, because
'
p
u, T(u)` = 0 if u ,
and also by (1.6)
'
(u), T(u)` = 0 if u .
Moreover, by denition, T is odd, uniformly continuous and bounded on ; in particular we
can nd a
0
> 0, t
0
> 0, such that
[[u +tT(u)[[
0
, for all (u, t) [t
0
, t
0
].
As a consequence we dene the ow
H : [t
0
, t
0
]
(u, t) H(u, t) = (u +tTu)(u +tTu).
(1.9)
Then H veries:
i) Is odd as function of u, namely, H(u, t) = H(u, t) for xed t.
ii) Is uniformly continuous.
iii) H(u, 0) = u for u .
The next result shows that H dene trajectories on for which the functional B is
increasing. This is the relevant property of H in order to get a deformation result.
12
Lemma 1.2.1 Let H be dened by (1.9). Then there exists
r : [t
0
, t
0
] IR
such that lim
0
r(u, ) = 0 uniformly on u , and:
B(H(u, t)) = B(u) +
t
0
[[Du[[
2
+r(u, s)ds
for all u , t [t
0
, t
0
].
Proof. We have < B
t
0
'b(H(u, s)),
s
H(u, s)`ds. (1.10)
But
s
H(u, s) =
s
((u +sT(u))(u +sT(u)) =
'
(u +sT(u))
(u +sT(u))
are uniformly
continuous,
lim
s0
R(u, s) = 0, uniformly in u .
Hence (1.10) becomes
B(H(u, t)) = B(u) +
t
0
< b(H(u, s)), R(u, s) +T(u) > ds =
B(u) +
t
0
'b(u), T(u)` +r(u, s)ds,
where
r(u, s) = 'b(u), R(u, s)` +'b(H(u, s)) b(u), R(u, s) +T(u)`.
and also r(u, s) 0 uniformly in u , as s 0. But
'b(u), T(u)` = 'D(u), J(D(u))` = [[Du[[
2
W
1,p
()
,
13
and we conclude.
We can now formulate the necessary deformation result. For > 0, consider the level sets,
b
= u [ B(u) (1.11)
then
Lemma 1.2.2 Let > 0 be xed and assume that there exists an open set U , such that
for some constants 0 < , 0 < < , the condition
[[D(u)[[
W
1,p
()
, if u V
= u [ u / U, [B(u) [
is veried. Then, there exists > 0, and an operator H
U)
+
.
Proof. With t
0
and r(u, s) as in the Lemma 1.2.1, consider t
1
(0, t
0
] such that for s [t
1
, t
1
]
[r(u, s)[
1
2
2
, for all u .
Then, for u V
and t [0, t
1
],
B(H(u, t)) = B(u) +
t
0
[[Du[[
2
+r(u, s)ds
B(u) +
t
0
(
2
1
2
2
)ds = B(u) +
1
2
2
t.
Choosing = min,
1
4
2
t
1
. If u V
(u) t
1
,
ii) t
(u) is continuous in V
.
Dene
H
U
+
14
by
H
(u) =
H(u, t
(u)), if u V
,
u, if u
U V
.
In this way H
k
= sup
CC
k
min
uC
B(u). (1.13)
Then,
k
> 0, and there exists u
k
such that B(u
k
) =
k
, and u
k
is a solution to problem
(1.1) for
k
=
k
.
Proof. The inequality
k
> 0 is a consequence of () = +, namely, for all k > 0, (
k
= ,
and given C (
k
, we have min
uC
B(u) > 0, hence
k
> 0 for all k. Let k be a xed positive
integer. In the general hypotheses there exists a sequence u
j
such that
a) B(u
j
)
k
,
b) D(u
j
) 0.
(1.14)
In fact if not, there must exists , > 0, such that
[[Du[[ if u u [ [B(u)
k
[ .
We can assume <
k
and then by the previous deformation Lemma 1.2.2 with U = ,
there exists > 0 and a odd continuous mapping H
, such that
H
k
+
.
From (1.13) there exists C
(
k
such that B(u)
k
en C
; namely, C
. Then,
B(u)
k
+ in H
(C
).
Now (H
(C
)) k, because (C
) k, hence H
(C
) (
k
, that is a contradiction with
the denition of
k
.
15
In this way we nd a sequence, u
j
, verifying (1.14) and then, for some subsequence,
u
j
u
k
in W
1,p
0
(). Since B is compact, B(u
j
)
k
and by continuity D(u
k
) = 0, so we nd
p
u
k
=
k
[u
k
[
p2
u
k
, with
k
=
k
To nish this section, we will prove that the sequence of critical values
k
is innite,
namely that we have a true sequence of eigenvalues.
Lemma 1.2.4 Let
k
be dened in (1.13). Then lim
k
k
= 0 .
(As a consequence
k
=
1
k
as k ).
Proof.
Consider E
j
sequence of linear subspaces in W
1,p
0
() such that
i) E
k
E
k+1
,
ii) L(E
k
) = W
1,p
0
(),
iii) dimE
k
= k.
Dene
k
= sup
CC
k
min
uCE
c
k1
B(u) (1.15)
where E
c
k
is the linear and topological complementary of E
k
.
Obviously
k
k
> 0. So it is sucient to prove that lim
k0
k
= 0.
Now, if for some positive constant, > 0,
k
> > 0 for all k IN, then for each k IN
there exists C
k
(
k
such that
k
> min
uC
k
E
c
k1
B(u) > ,
and then there exists u
k
C
k
E
c
k1
such that
k
> B(u
k
) > .
In this way u
k
, B(u
k
) > > 0 for all k IN, hence for some subsequence,
u
k
v weakly in W
1,p
0
(),
u
k
v in L
p
().
As a consequence b(v) > and this is a contradiction because u
k
E
c
k1
, implies v = 0.
In the next section we will give a more precise result about the asymptotic behaviour of
the sequence
k
.
16
1.3 Asymptotic behaviour
Consider the sequence of eigenvalues
k
=
1
k
, where
k
= sup
FC
k
()
inf
uF
[u[
p
dx, k IN (1.16)
which has be found in the previous section.
We obtain the following result that gives the asymptotic behaviour of the sequence of
eigenvalues obtained above. The case p = 2 is classical.
Theorem 1.3.1 The sequence
k
kIN
of eigenvalues of
p
dened by (1.16), veries that
there exist two constants, c(), C(), depending only on the domain , such that
c()k
p/N
k
C()k
p/N
, for all k IN, (1.17)
where N is the dimension.
Step 1. Dimension N = 1. A fundamental role in proving the estimate is played by the following
Bernsteins Lemma, which gives the inequality,
k
Ck
p
.
Lemma 1.3.2 Let S(x) be a ndegree trigonometric polynomial
S(x) =
n
j=n
a
j
e
ij
.
Then:
(
1
1
[S
(x)[
p
dx)
1
p
n(
1
1
[S(x)[
p
dx)
1
p
, p 1
( See [94]).
The reverse inequality is obtained in the following onedimensional result which proof uses
Fourier Analysis techniques, and completes the case of dimension N = 1.
Lemma 1.3.3 Let E
k
be the linear space spanned by
sin(jx)[1 j k,
and E
c
k
its topological complement in the Sobolev space W
p
0
(0, 1). Then, there exists a constant
C > 0 such that
[[u[[
p
C
1
k
[[u
[[
p
for each u E
c
k
.
17
Proof. Consider
g(t) =
t, si 1 t 1.
1/t, si [t[ > 1.
Then g(t) = w(t), namely, is the Fourier transform of w(t) L
1
(IR); in fact [w(t)[ C(1+t
2
)
1
and
lim
t0
+
w(t) = lim
t0
w(t).
We show the previous assertions on w. We have by denition
w(x) = 2
0
g(t) sin(tx)dt = 2
1
0
t sin(tx)dt + 2
1
sin(xt)
t
dt.
Integrating by parts we get
w(x) = 2
sin x
x
2
2
x
1
cos(xt)
t
2
dt,
and integrating by parts a second time we get for [x[ large ,
[w(x)[
c
[x[
2
.
For x > 0 small, by the change of variable s = xt we have,
w(x) =
2
x
2
x
0
s sin sds + 2
x
sin s
s
ds , x 0.
Because w is odd we get that w is discontinuous at 0, and moreover that it satises in the whole
real line
[w(t)[
C
(1 +t
2
)
.
Dene w
k
(t) = kw(kt), then [[w
k
[[
1
= [[w[[
1
= C < and
g(
t
k
) = w
k
(t).
For k 1 we consider the 2periodization of w
k
(t) i.e.,
w
k
(t)) =
j=
w
k
(t + 2j).
It is clear that [[ w
k
[[
L
1
(1,1)
= C for all k 1 and, moreover, the Fourier series of w
k
is
w
k
(x) =
j=
w
k
(j)e
ijx
,
18
and, by denition, the Fourier coecients of w
k
for [j[ k > 1 are
w
k
(j) = g(
j
k
) =
k
j
.
Call = (0, 1). Then if u W
1,p
0
() and u is the odd extension of u to (1, 1), we get that if
u(x) =
j
a
j
e
ijx
,
then its derivative is,
u
(x) = i
j
ja
j
e
ijx
=
j
a
j
e
ijx
.
Now, if u E
c
k
we get that
u(x) =
j
a
j
e
ijx
=
k
jk
g(
j
k
)a
j
e
ijx
,
that gives the following identity
k
u(j) = g(
j
k
)
(j),
which is equivalent to
k
u = w
k
u
,
where means the integral of convolution. As conclusion,
k
[[u[[
p
[[ w
k
[[
1
[[u
[[
p
c[[u
[[
p
With this estimate we get,
k
ck
p
Step 2. Dimension N > 1 and = (0, 1)
N
. The next step is to show the case N > 1 in the
particular case of a product of N intervals that, by scaling, we can assume that = (0, 1)
N
. We
will consider
e
k
= sin(k
1
x
1
) sin(k
2
x
2
)... sin(k
N
x
N
), k
i
IN, i = 1, ..., N
a basis of W
1,p
0
(). If on the lattice IN
N
we take the complement of the cube Q
k
, of edge k, we
are considering E
c
k
N
, the complement of the k
N
dimensional linear space E
k
N spanned for the
functions with frequencies in such cube.
19
In fact, we consider for u E
c
k
N
,
u =
m
e
m
, b
m
= 0 if m = (m
1
, ..., m
N
), m
i
k, i = 1, ...N.
Then we prove the corresponding result
Lemma 1.3.4 There exists a constant C > 0, such that if u E
c
k
N
,
[[u[[
p
C
k
[[u[[
p
Proof. If u E
c
k
N
, there exists b
m
= 0 for some m = (m
1
, ..., m
N
) with m
j
> k, for some
j = 1, ..., N.
Then by Lemma 1.3.3 we get
[u(x
1
, ..., x
j
, ..., x
N
)[
p
dx
j
C
k
p
[
u
x
j
(x
1
, ..., x
N
)[
p
dx
j
.
The reverse inequality, as above, is an application of Bernstein inequalities. So we conclude.
Assume the linear subspaces in W
1,p
0
() spanned by the basis e
k
dened above and
ordered as follows
i)E
k
N = Le
l
, where
l Q
k
.
ii) If k
N
< j < k
N+1
, then E
j
E
c
k
N
E
k
N+1.
In this way the result in Lemma 1.3.4 gives us the result in the Theorem 1.3.1 for an interval.
To read correctly the result put in the horizontal axis the subspace dimension and as ordinate
the constant of the inequality, we have for extrapolation the function f(x) =
C
x
1/N
. Hence we
get,
Lemma 1.3.5 Given , a product of N one dimensional intervals in IR
N
, there exists a constant
C > 0, such that
[[u[[
p
C
K
1/N
[[u[[
p
, for all u E
C
K
,
where the linear spaces E
K
are dened and ordered as above.
Finally, the case of a general bounded domain can be proved by comparison. More precisely,
consider Q
Q, Q, Q
cubes in IR
N
.
By denition we have
k
(Q)
k
()
k
(Q
) and then
k
(Q)
k
()
k
(Q
).
Remark 1.3.6 The main open problem is to show that the sequence that we have found contains
all the eigenvalues. A partial answer to this problem is given in [57], for dimension N = 1 and
in [43] for the radial case, that we will explain below.
20
1.4 Isolation of the rst eigenvalue
Let us consider the problem (1 < p < ):
p
u = [u[
p2
u,
u W
1,p
0
(), u 0.
(1.18)
Then according to the previous section, the rst eigenvalue is given by
1
= inf
[w[
p
dx : w W
1,p
0
(),
[w[
p
dx = 1
.
The main result in this section is the following Theorem.
Theorem 1.4.1 The rst eigenvalue of
p
is isolated and simple.
Remark 1.4.2 The problem
p
u = V (x)[u[
p2
u,
u W
1,p
0
(), u 0.
(1.19)
with V L
and with smooth boundary was studied in [15] and was extended in [66] to
general domains. Often the case V L
q
with q < is useful for the applications.
We can nd similar results if V (x) 0, V (x) L
q
(), and [x : V (x) > 0[ = 0,
where q 1 if p > N, q > 1 if p = N, q > N/p > 1 otherwise. The details of this extension can
be found in [2].
Without these hypotheses the behaviour is dierent and we will give an example in the last
Chapter of this lectures notes.
The proof of Theorem 1.4.1 follows closely the arguments in [66] and is divided in several
Lemmas.
Lemma 1.4.3
1
is an eigenvalue, and every eigenfunction u
1
corresponding to
1
does not
changes sign in : either u
1
> 0 or u
1
< 0.
Proof. Directly from the proof of existence of the rst eigenvalue we conclude that there exists
a positive eigenfunction: if v is an eigenfuction also u = [v[ is a solution of the minimization
problem and then an eigenfunction. By the strong maximum principle [v[ > 0 and then u has
constant sign.
21
Lemma 1.4.4 i) If p 2 then
[
2
[
p
[
1
[
p
+p[
1
[
p2
'
1
,
2
1
` +C(p)
[
2
1
[
p
2
p
1
, (1.20)
for all
1
,
2
IR
N
.
ii) If p < 2, then
[
2
[
p
[
1
[
p
+p[
1
[
p2
'
1
,
2
1
` +C(p)
[
2
1
[
2
([
2
[ +[
1
[)
2p
, (1.21)
for all
2
,
2
IR
N
.
(C(p) is a constant depending only on p).
(See the proof in [66]).
Lemma 1.4.5
1
is simple, i.e. if u, v are two eigenfunctions corresponding to the eigenvalue
1
, then u = v for some .
Proof. As [15] and [66] point out, if the functions
1
= u v
p
u
1p
and
2
= v u
p
v
1p
could
be considered as admisible test function in
[u[
p2
'u,
i
`dx =
1
[u[
p2
u
i
, i = 1, 2, (1.22)
then the result would be obtained by direct calculations.
In suciently regular domains it is possible to assume this hypothesis by a convenient use
of Hopf lemma, otherwise, it is necessary to regularize the candidates to test functions. Following
the proof in [66] we consider for > 0, u
= u +, v
= v + and then
1
=
u
p
v
p
u
p1
and
2
=
v
p
u
p
v
p1
.
Hence the gradient of
1
is
1
=
1 + (p 1)(
v
)
p
p(
v
)
p1
v
and by symmetry
2
is obtained in a similar way. We substitute in the equations (1.22) and
22
adding we get:
u
p1
u
p1
v
p1
v
p1
(u
p
v
p
)dx =
1 + (p 1)(
v
)
p
[u
[
p
+
1 + (p 1)(
u
)
p
[v
[
p
dx
p
(
v
)
p1
[u
[
p2
+ (
u
)
p1
[v
[
p2
'u
, v
`dx =
(u
p
v
p
)([log u
[
p
[log v
[
p
)dx
p
v
p
[log u
[
p2
'log u
, log v
log u
`dx
p
u
p
[log v
[
p2
'log v
, log u
log v
`dx,
(1.23)
that it is not positive by the convexity of the function f(s) = s
p
. Moreover the Lebesgue
convergence theorem implies that
lim
0
+
u
p1
u
p1
u
p1
u
p1
(u
p
v
p
)dx = 0. (1.24)
Now, if p 2, by the estimate (1.20) applied to
1
= log u
,
2
= log v
and viceversa we
get
0 c(p)
1
v
p
+
1
u
p
[v
[
p
dx
u
p1
u
p1
u
p1
u
p1
(u
p
v
p
)dx.
According to (1.24) we conclude that vu = uv in , and then u = v. Similarly, if 1 < p < 2
we use the estimate (1.21) for the same functions as above and we get
0 c(p)
(v
+u
)
p
(u
)
p
[v
[
2
(v
[u
[ +u
[v
[)
2p
dx
u
p1
u
p1
v
p1
v
p1
(u
p
v
p
)dx,
that nished the proof as in the case p 2.
23
To nish the study of the isolation of the rst eigenvalue, we extend slightly the results by
Anane [15] and [66] to the case of unbounded potential. We have the following nodal result.
Lemma 1.4.6 If w is an eigenfunction corresponding to the eigenvalue , > 0, =
1
, then
w changes sign in : w
+
0, w
0 and
[
[ ([[V [[
q
C
p
)
,
where
= x : w(x) < 0, = 2q
if p N, =
qN
qp N
if 1 < p < N and
1
is the
rst eigenvalue for the plaplacian with weight V in .
Proof. We have by denition
1
Let u, w be two eigenfunctions corresponding to
1
and
respectively. If w does not change sign, by using the same arguments as above we obtain
1
V (x)
w
w
V (x)
u
u
(u
p
w
p
)dx 0,
then
(
1
)
V (x)(u
p
w
p
) dx 0
and we arrive to a contradiction if >
1
by taking kw. Then w is positive implies =
1
.
Moreover, if we take w
[[
p
p
=
V (w
)
p
dx [[V [[
q
[[ (w
)
p
[[
[
1/
,
with
1
q
+
1
+
1
)
p
[[
= [[w
[[
p
p
C[[w
[[
p
p
, > 1.
Thus, if we take = = 2q
then
[
[ ([[V [[
q
C
p
)
2q
.
2. 1 < p < N. We take =
N
N p
, =
qN
qp N
([[(w
)
p
[[
= [[w
[[
p
p
, where p
=
Np
N p
).
By Sobolevs inequality
[[w
[[
p
p
[[V [[
q
[[ w
[[
p
p
,
24
[
[
qpN
qN
[[V [[
q
C
p
[[w
[[
p
p
[
[
qpN
qN
.
Hence
[
[ ([[V [[
q
C
p
)
qN
qpN
.
The isolation of
1
is studied to nish this section.
Lemma 1.4.7
1
is isolated; that is,
1
is the unique eigenvalue in [0, a] for some a >
1
.
Proof. Let 0 be an eigenvalue and v be the corresponding eigenfunction. By the denition
of
1
(it is the inmum) we have
1
. Then,
1
is leftisolated.
We are now arguing by contradiction. We assume there exists a sequence of eigenvalues (
k
),
k
=
1
which converges to
1
. Let (u
k
) be the corresponding eigenfunctions with [[u
k
[[
p
= 1.
We can therefore take a subsequence, denoted again by (u
k
), converging weakly in W
1,p
0
, strongly
in L
p
() and almost everywhere in to a function u W
1,p
0
. Since u
k
=
1
p
(
k
V [u
k
[
p2
u
k
),
the subsequence (u
k
) converges strongly in W
1,p
0
, and subsequently u is the eigenfunction cor
responding to the rst eigenvalue
1
with norm equals to 1. Hence, by applying the Egorovs
Theorem ([26] Th. IV.28), (u
k
) converges uniformly to u in the exterior of a set of arbitrarily
small measure. Then, there exists a piece of of arbitrarily small measure in which exterior u
k
is positive for k large enough, obtaining a contradiction with the conclusion of Lemma 1.4.6
1.5 Eigenvalues in the radial case
In the case of the nonlinear Sturm Liouville problem, N = 1, the corresponding eigenvalue
problem is
([u
[
p2
u
= [u[
p2
u
u(0) = 0 = u(1),
(1.25)
and can be solved explicitely getting the following results (see [43] and [57]):
1) Problem (1.25) has nontrivial solution if and only if
=
k
= (
p
)
p
k
p
,
where
p
= 2
(p1)
1/p
0
dt
(1 s
p
/(p 1))
1/p
25
2) Fixed k IN there exists an unique solution v
k
to problem (1.25) for =
k
, such that
[[v
k
[[ = 1 and v
k
S
+
k
. Moreover
v
k
(x) = (1)
m
v
1
(kx m), m/k < x (m+ 1)/k,
where v
1
is the normalized positive solution corresponding to
1
.
In this way problem (1.25) is a typical nonlinear eigenvalue problem, and all of its eigen
values are simple.
Hence the set of solutions of (1.25) is
o = (v
k
,
k
) [ IR 0, k IN.
We will study in some detail the Ndimensional radial eigenvalue problem and we follow
the paper [43] where the results are obtained in a elementary way. In particular we recover the
nonlinear SturmLiouville eigenvalue problem for N = 1.
Consider the eigenvalue problem,
/
p
u = r
N1
[u(r)[
p2
u(r)
u(1) = 0,
u
(0) = 0,
(1.26)
where /
p
u = (r
N1
[u
[
p2
u
.
We will use the following results.
Lemma 1.5.1 The Cauchy problem
/
p
u = r
N1
[u(r)[
p2
u(r),
u(0) = a,
u
(0) = 0,
(1.27)
has a unique C
1,
solution u = u
a
dened in [0, ). Moreover, u
a
has innitely many zeros in
[0, ).
Proof. To be brief we call
p
(s) = [s[
p2
s. Then the equation in problem (1.27) can writen as
(r
N1
p
(u
))
= r
N1
p
(u) (1.28)
26
Then a solution to (1.27) must satisfy
u(r) = a
r
0
1
s
N1
s
0
p
(u(t))dt
ds L
p
(u)(r),
1
p
+
1
p
= 1,
namely u must be a xed point for the operator L
p
. It is very easy to check that for small > 0,
L
p
veries the hypotheses of the Schauders xed point theorem. Then we have local solution to
problem (1.27).
We prove the uniqueness following the ideas in [47] where a more general situation is also
considered. If u and v are solutions to 1.27, assume that [u
(r)[ [v
)
p
(v
),
then w satises the equation,
w
+
N 1
r
w = (r), w(0) = 0,
where
(r) =
p
(v)
p
(u) [v(r)[
p2
v(r) [u(r)[
p2
u(r),
then
[w(r)[ = [
r
0
(t)(
t
r
)
N1
dt[
r
N
sup
t[0,r]
[(t)[,
and because u and v leaves in the positive real axe we get a local Lipschitz constant for the
second member, namely
[(r)[ M[u(r) v(r)[,
and then
[(r)[ M
r
0
[u
(t) v
(t)[.
But
[u
(r) v
(r)[
1
inf
u
v
p
()
[w(r)[.
Moreover for a solution
p
(u
(r)) =
r
0
[u(t)[
p2
u(t)(
t
r
)
N1
dt,
then
p
() >
p
([u
[) =
r
0
[u(t)[
p2
u(t)(
t
r
)
N1
dt a
p1
r
2N
,
27
because
p
is increasing. Moreover
p
() [
p
()[
p
() [
p
()[
(a
p1
r
2N
)
and then
[(r)[ = M
r
0
[u
(t) v
(t)[dt M
r
0
(
2N
a
p1
t
)
[w(t)[dt.
In this way we obtain
[w(r)[ Cr
r
0
[w(t)[
t
dt,
Calling y(r) =
[w(r)[
r
, we get
[y(r)[ C
r
0
[w(t)[
t
dt = C
s
0
[w(t)[
t
dt +C
r
s
[y(t)[
t
1
dt,
for all s [0, r], and by Gronwall inequality
[y(r)[ C
s
0
[w(t)[
t
dt e
(C
r
s
dt
t
1
)
,
letting s 0 we get w(r) = 0.
To see that the solution is dened in [0, ), multiply the equation by u
and integrate by
parts. Then we arrive to the inequality
[u
(r)[
p
+[u(r)[
p
K(a)
1 +
r
0
([u
(s)[
p
+[u(s)[
p
)ds
, r [0, a]
and by the Gronwall inequality we conclude that
[u
(r)[
p
+[u(r)[
p
e
Kr
.
Classical arguments imply that u is dened in the whole interval [0, ).
Finally, we will prove that u is oscillatory. We proceed by contradiction. Assume that u
solution of
(r
N1
[u
[
p2
u
+r
N1
u
p1
= 0 (1.29)
and that for some r
0
> 0 u does not vanish on [r
0
, ). We follow arguments in [69]. Since u
p1
is positive for r > r
0
,
(r
N1
[u
[
p2
u
[
p2
u
is a decreasing function.
In particular, since r
N1
[u
[
p2
u
(r)[
p2
u
(r) r
N1
0
[u
(r
0
)[
p2
u
(r
0
) =
r
r
0
s
N1
u
p1
(s)ds
u
p1
(r)
r
r
0
s
N1
ds =
r
N
r
N
0
N
u
p1
(r).
By integrating again from s
0
= 2r
0
to r ( s
0
)
log
u(s
0
)
u(r)
C(r
p
p1
s
p
p1
0
),
that is
u(r) u(s
0
)e
(C(s
p
p1
0
r
p
p1
))
.
But u
< 0 and r
N1
[u
[
p2
u
is a decreasing function, so r
N1
[u
[
p2
u
C for large r. By
integrating this inequality from r to , we arrive to a contradiction with the decay of u above,
since
u(r) C
1
r
Np
p1
.
So we conclude.
A direct consequence is the following result.
Corollary 1.5.2 Let u = 0 a solution of the equation
/
p
u(r) = r
N1
[u(r)[
p2
u(r), r (0, 1)
such that u(r
0
) = 0, then u
(r
0
) = 0.
As a consequence all zeros of u are simple.
Theorem 1.5.3 The problem (1.26) has nontrivial solution if and only if belongs to an in
creasing sequence
k
(p). Moreover,
1. For each eigenvalue
k
(p) any solution takes the form v
k
(r) with IR; namely the
multiplicity of each eigenvalue is 1. Moreover v
k
has exactly (k 1) simple zeros.
2. Each
k
(p) depends continously on p.
Proof. Let u be the solution to the Cauchy problem
/
p
u = r
N1
[u(r)[
p2
u(r),
u(0) = 1,
u
(0) = 0,
(1.30)
29
and 0 <
1
(p) <
2
(p) < ... <
k
(p) < ... the zeros of u, that are simple and, according to
Lemma 1.5.1, lim
k
k
(p) = . We dene
k
= (
k
(p))
p
, k IN
v
k
(r) = u(
k
(p)r), k IN.
(1.31)
In this way (
k
, v
k
) are solution to problem (1.26), namely,
k
is an eigenvalue and v
k
the
corresponding eigenfunction and moreover v
k
has exactly k 1 zeros in (0, 1).
We need to prove that they are all the eigenvalues to problem (1.26). Assume > 0 is an
eigenvalue and w the corresponding eigenfunction. By the uniqueness result in Lemma 1.5.1 we
have
w(r) = w(0)u(
1
p
r)
and because w(1) = 0 then we have =
k
(p) for some k IN and as a conclusion we get,
w(r) = w(0)v
k
(r).
Now, the solution u to the Cauchy problem (1.30) veries
u(r) = 1
r
0
1
s
N1
s
0
p
(u(t))dt
ds L
p
(u)(r),
1
p
+
1
p
= 1,
so is continuous in p in the sense of the uniform convergence on bounded intervals. According
to this fact and taking into account that for p xed the zeros of u are simple, we conclude the
continuous dependence of the eigenvalues on p.
1.6 Bifurcation for the pLaplacian
Let
p,
be dened in
X = v C
1
() : v(x) = v([x[), v(1) = 0
by
p,
(u) = u /
1
p
(r
N1
[u[
p2
u).
It is no dicult to show that
,p
is a nonlinear compact perturbation of the identity.
Fixed k IN we call
S
+
k
= v X[ v(r) > 0, if r [0, ) and has exactly (k 1) simple zeros .
In this way if S
k
= S
+
k
both are open sets in X.
Taking into account the behaviour of the inverse operator of the eigenvalue problem (1.25),
we can use the extension of the LeraySchauder degree denided in [31], in order to perform a
homotopic deformation in p as is used in [42], to prove the following result.
30
Lemma 1.6.1 Let
k
(p)
kIN
be the sequence of eigenvalues of (1.25). Consider =
k
(p),
k IN, then
deg(
p,
, B
(0), 0) = (1)
, > 0,
where = #
k
(p) [
k
(p) <
Proof. If <
1
(p), deg(
p,
, B
(0), 0) = deg(
2,
(2)
, B
(0), 0) = (1)
k
.
Remark 1.6.2 It is important to point out that the main point in this proof is the continuity
of the eigenvalues with respect to p.
As an application we found the following variation of the classical Rabinowitz bifurcation
theorem:
Consider the problem
/
p
u = r
N1
([u[
p2
u +g(r, u))
u
(0) = 0,
u(1) = 0,
(1.32)
where for some > p,
lim
u0
g(r, u)
u
= M > 0
uniformly in r.
Theorem 1.6.3 From each eigenvalue
k
of problem (1.25) it bifurcates an unbounded contin
uum (
k
of solutions to problem (1.32), with exactly k 1 simple zeros.
31
Proof. We will be sketchy. The same argument as in the Rabinowitz theorem, [74], taking
into account Lemma 1.6.1, gives that either (
k
is unbounded, either it touches (
j
, 0). But the
last alternative is impossible because if there exists (
m
, u
m
) (
j
, 0) when m , u
m
= 0
and u
m
/ S
+
j
, then we could consider v
m
=
u
m
[[u
m
[[
, and v
m
should be a solution of problem,
/
p
v
m
= r
N1
(
m
v
m
+
g(r, u
m
)
[[u
m
[[
p1
),
and by the properties of g it is easily seen that
lim
u0
g(r, u)
[[u
m
[[
p1
= 0.
By the compactness of /
1
p
we obtain that for some convenient subsequence v
m
w = 0 as
m . Now w veries the equation /
p
w = r
N1
j
[w[
p2
w and [[w[[ = 1. Hence w S
+
j
which is an open set in X (observe that any zero of these solutions must be simple), and as a
consequence for some m large enough, v
m
S
+
j
, and this is a contradiction.
32
Chapter 2
Multiplicity of solutions: Growth
versus Shape
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter the model problem that we will consider is the following,
p
u = [u[
q2
u +[u[
r2
u in ,
u[
= 0,
(2.1)
where IR
N
is a smooth bounded domain, 1 < q, 1 < p < r, > 0 and, perhaps, with some
restrictions on and q that we will precise in each situation.
We dene p
=
Np
N p
if p < N and p
subcritical case.
2. r = p
critical case.
3. r > p
supercritical case.
This classication takes into account mainly the growth.
Case 1 is classical and can be studied by critical point methods. We refer to [51] for the
details. See also [70]. In case 2, one of the main diculties in the application of the critical point
methods is the lack of compactness. Sometimes a local PalaisSmale property can be recovered
and this allows us to solve the problem under convenient conditions. We will explain the main
ideas and methods. Case 3 is dierent because the study from the point of view of the critical
33
34
point theory has no sense in general. Nevertheless, recently some results are obtained in [33] by
using the critical point techniques. Also in this case, it is impossible to have a general result on
regularity ( by regularity we mean (
1,
).
B) With respect to the relation between q and p.
1. 1 < q = p.
2. p
> q > p.
3. 1 < q < p.
The two rst cases can be seen in [51], [53] and [58] and the references therein. The last case
has precedents in [53] and in [11] in the case p = 2.
C) With respect to .
In [11] a more deep study of the case 1 < q < p is performed. This study is of global character.
The meaning of global here deals with respect to . Namely we have the last classication of
the problems to be considered as:
1. Small > 0, i.e., local behaviour.
2. All > 0, i.e., global behaviour.
2.2 First results
We will explain two types of results that show the inuence of the shape of the zero order term.
First of all, we are interested in obtaining results about the ordering of solutions. Some
previous results can be found in [49] and in [39] for other nonlinearities. We obtain below this
type of result in an elementary way as a consequence of the following lemma by Adimurthi
Yadava [1].
Lemma 2.2.1 Let 0
1
(x)
2
(x) be two functions in L
r
() dened on , a bounded domain
with smooth boundary, where r 1 if p > N, r > N/p if p N and
1
0. Let
1
(
i
) be the
rst eigenvalue corresponding to
p
=
i
(x)
p1
, x , i = 1, 2
= 0 on .
(2.2)
Then, either
1
(
1
) <
1
(
2
) or
1
(
1
) =
1
(
2
) and the corresponding eigenfunctions
1
,
2
vanish in K = x :
2
(x) >
1
(x).
35
Proof. It is clear that
1
(
1
)
1
(
2
). Let us suppose that
1
(
1
) =
1
(
2
). Since
1
,
2
> 0
and
1
(
1
) = inf
[u[
p
dx
1
u
p
dx
=
[
1
[
p
dx
p
1
dx
,
1
(
2
) = inf
[u[
p
dx
2
u
p
dx
=
[
2
[
p
dx
p
2
dx
[
1
[
p
dx
p
1
dx
,
we get
(
2
1
)
p
1
dx 0.
Then, we conclude that
1
0 in K. Therefore
p
1
dx =
p
1
dx i.e.
[
1
[
p
dx
p
1
dx
=
1
(
2
).
Thus
2
=
1
and
2
0 in K.
As a consequence we can prove the following general result:
Lemma 2.2.2 Let f : [0, ) [0, ) be a continuous function verifying that
f(s, )
s
p1
is
nondecreasing and
f(s, )
s
p1
L
loc
([0, )).
Assume that u
1
and u
2
are bounded solutions of
p
u = f(u, ) x IR
N
, > 0
u(x) = 0 x ,
(2.3)
such that 0 < u
1
u
2
(0 < u
2
u
1
). Then u
1
u
2
Proof. If 0 < u
1
u
2
, then
p
u
i
= f(u
i
, ) =
f(u
i
, )
u
p1
i
u
p1
i
i
(x)u
p1
i
in , i = 1, 2.
with
1
(x)
2
(x) by hypothesis, hence u
1
and u
2
are eigenfunctions for the eigenvalue
1
(
1
) =
1
(
2
) 1 of the pLaplacian with weights
1
and
2
, respectively. By Lemma 2.2.1, u
1
and u
2
36
vanish in
1
(x) <
2
(x). By Hopfs Lemma, u
1
, u
2
> 0 in ; so,
1
(x) <
2
(x) = , i.e.,
u
1
u
2
.
Other application of Lemma 2.2.1 is the following uniqueness result for a radial problem
obtained in [1].
Theorem 2.2.3 Consider the problem
/
p
u = r
N1
[u[
p2
u +[u[
2
u
u(1) = 0,
u
(0) = 0,
(2.4)
where /
p
u = (r
N1
[u
[
p2
u
p
u = [u[
r2
u +[u[
q2
u
u[
= 0,
(2.5)
where we assume:
(H) 1 < q < p < r and > 0.
Notice that the growth of the zero order term can be arbitrarily large, but there are a
subdiusive part, in the sense that 1 < q < p, that produces the behaviour described in the
following result.
Theorem 2.2.4 Consider the problem under the hypothesis (H). Then there exist
0
> 0 such
that for 0 <
0
, (2.5) has a positive solution.
Proof. The proof of the theorem is organized in several steps.
Step 1. We nd a supersolution to problem (2.5).
Let v be the solution to the Dirichlet Problem
p
u = + 1
u[
= 0.
Then 0 < v < K in . By simplicity of writing we call
F(u) = [u[
r2
u +[u[
q2
u.
37
Dene u(x) = Tv(x) where T is a constant that will be chosen in such a way that
p
u F(TM) F(u)
where M = max 1, v
Now
p
u = T
p1
( + 1) and
F(u) T
q1
v
q1
+T
r1
v
r1
T
q1
M
q1
+T
r1
M
r1
.
Then, it is sucient to nd T such that
( + 1) T
qp
M
q1
+T
rp
M
r1
.
We call
(T) = c
1
T
qp
+c
2
T
rp
,
with c
1
= M
q1
, c
2
= M
r1
. Then
lim
T0
+
(T) = lim
T
(T) = ,
because q p < 0 < r p; then attains a minimum in [0, ). By elementary computations we
have that
(T) c
3
T
qp1
+c
4
T
rp1
= 0 in T
0
= c
5
1
rq
,
where c
5
= M
1
(r q)
1
(p q). To nish it is sucient that,
(T
0
) + 1,
that is
c
6
rp
rq
< + 1,
and here c
6
= c
p,q
M
p1
. Moreover M depends on in the correct way because
[[v[[
c[[
(
1
N
1
r(p1)
)
( + 1)
1
p1
where r >
N
p1
; then there exists
0
such that for 0 < <
0
and 1 < q < p < N, u(x) = T
0
v is
a supersolution of problem (2.5).
Step 2. Construction of a subsolution to (2.5).
Consider
1
, positive eigenfunction of the eigenvalue problem,
p
u =
1
[u[
p2
u
u[
= 0,
38
such that 
1

= 1. We dene u(x) = t
1
(x).Then u is a subsolution if t is small enough
because
1
t
p1
p1
1
t
q1
p1
1
t
q1
q1
1
+t
r1
r1
1
.
Now xed the supersolution u, i.e. T, for t small enough, we get
p
u = t
p1
q1
1
t
p1
1
p
u
Then by the weak comparison principle u u.
End of the proof. By the classical iteration method we get a solution between the sub
solution and supersolution.
Theorem 2.2.5 Assume that has a smooth boundary. There exists > 0 such that (2.5) has
no positive solution for > .
Proof. Consider
1
> 0 eigenfunction corresponding to the rst eigenvalue
1
, namely,
1
=
1
[
1
[
p2
1
[
= 0.
The regularity of the boundary of implies that the solutions of the eigenvalue problem are
(
1,
in the closure of . If we assume that (2.5) has a positive solution u for all then by Hopf
Lemma there exist a t > 0 depending on such that t
1
p1
1
u in .
We call = t
1
p1
1
. Pick > 0 such that for (
1
,
1
+ ) the eigenvalue problem has
no nontrivial solution. The existence of such is a consequence of the result of isolation of the
rst eigenvalue of the plaplacian studied in Section 1.4.
If is such that
1
+ b
p,q
rp
rq
where b
p,q
veries
b
p,q
rp
rq
u
p1
u
q1
+u
r1
then
p
=
1
p1
p1
u
p1
(
1
+)u
p1
b
p,q
rp
rq
u
p1
u
q1
+u
r1
=
p
u
But then the problem
p
u = [u[
p2
u
u[
= 0,
with (
1
, +) must have nontrivial solution and this is a contradiction.
39
We will consider the following subcritical problem
p
u = [u[
q2
u +[u[
2
u
u[
= 0
(2.6)
with 1 < q < p < < p
[ u[
p
dx
q
[u[
q
dx
1
[u[
dx.
If is small enough it is possible to show that the solution to problem (2.6), found in the
Theorem 2.2.4, veries that J(u) < 0. Also it is easy to show that at least for small > 0 we
can apply the Mountain Pass Theorem and get the following result.
Theorem 2.2.6 There exist a
0
such that problem (2.6) has at least two positive solutions for
0 < <
0
.
Comparing the results in this section we notice that the shape of the zero order term plays
a very important role, namely:
1. If p = q the growth is important for existence, and the positive solutions cannot be ordered.
In the radial case the subcritical problem has a unique solution.
2. If 1 < q < p there exists solution without restriction in the growth, the subcritical problem
has a second positive solution that is ordered with the minimum solution.
In the next section we will obtain dierent results that involve the interplay of shape and
growth.
2.3 Critical Problems: The PalaisSmale condition
The study of existence of solutions to the critical problem (2.1), i.e., the critical case r = p
, is
done by looking for critical points of the funcional
J(u) =
1
p
[u[
p
dx
q
[u[
q
dx
1
p
[u[
p
, if q = p,
or, if p = q, by homogeneity, looking for the minimun in the variational problem with constraints,
I
= inf
[u[
p
dx
[u[
p
dx[ [[u[[
p
p
= 1, u W
1,p
0
().
40
Then the idea is to consider approximate critical points and pass to the limit. (See appendix).
The main diculty is to have compactness because the Sobolev embedding is not compact.
The concept of PalaisSmale sequence gives form to the meaning of approximate critical
point.
We say that u
j
jIN
W
1,p
0
() is a PalaisSmale sequence if:
a) J(u
j
) c, j ; b) J
(u
j
) 0 in W
1,p
(), j .
We call to the constant c energy level of the sequence.
We say that J veries the PalaisSmale condition at the level c if any PalaisSmale sequence
at the level c, admits a strongly convergent subsequence .
Under our hypothesis on J, every Palais Smale sequence is bounded in W
1,p
0
(), but because
of the lack of compactness it is not possible to conclude strong convergence for any subsequence.
The solution of this diculty depends on a deep analysis of the behavior of the lack of compact
ness. More precisely, assume that we have a bounded sequence u
j
jIN
W
1,p
0
(). Taking a
convenient subsequence we can assume that:
i) u
j
u in W
1,p
0
().
ii) u
j
u almost everywhere and in L
r
with 1 r < p
.
iii) [u
j
[
p
d weakly.
iv) [u
j
[
p
d weakly.
where and are nite measures. We can extend the functions u
j
by 0 to IR
N
. To precise the
ideas, assume initially that u 0. By the Sobolev inequality we have
(
IR
N
[u
j
[
p
dx)
1
p
S
1
p
(
IR
N
[(u
j
)[
p
dx)
1
p
, for all (
0
,
where S is the best constant in the Sobolev inclusion, i.e.,
S = inf[[u[[
p
p
[ [[u[[
p
= 1, u L
p
.
From iii) we obtain,
lim
j
(
IR
N
[u
j
[
p
dx)
1
p
= (
IR
N
[[
p
d)
1
p
,
moreover, by ii) and
[(u
j
)
p
u
j

p
[ u
j

p
,
we obtain that
lim
j
IR
N
[(u
j
)[
p
dx =
IR
N
[[
p
d,
41
then we conclude that
(
IR
N
[[
p
d)
1
p
S
1
p
(
IR
N
[[
p
d)
1
p
, for all (
0
.
The last inequality is a Reverse H older Inequality from which we get the following representation
result due to P.L. Lions. (See [64] and appendix.)
Lemma 2.3.1 Let , be two nonnegative and bounded measures on , such that for 1 p <
r < there exists some constant C > 0 such that
(
[[
r
d)
1
r
C(
[[
p
d)
1
p
(
0
.
Then, there exists x
j
jI
and
j
jI
(0, ), where I is nite, such that:
=
jI
x
j
, C
p
jI
p
r
j
x
j
,
where
x
j
is the Dirac mass at x
j
.
In the general case, i.e., when u = 0, we can obtain the same conclusion for v
j
= u
j
u,
and then to study the absolutely continous part. We have the following P.L. Lions Lemma. (See
appendix).
Lemma 2.3.2 Let u
j
be a weakly convergent sequence in W
1,p
0
() with weak limit u, and such
that:
i) [u
j
[
p
weakly in the sense of measures.
ii) [u
j
[
p
1) = [u[
p
jI
j
x
j
,
j
> 0
2) [u[
p
+
jI
j
x
j
,
j
> 0 , x
j
3)
p
p
j
j
S
.
(See [64] and [65]).
The representation obtained in Lemma 2.3.2, allows us to conjecture how small must be the
energy level for which the singular part of the measures must be 0, and then a local PalaisSmale
condition holds. The calculus of how small must be the energy level is relatively easy.
42
Assume v
j
jIN
W
1,p
0
() a PalaisSmale sequence for the energy level c, i.e.:
a) J(v
j
) c; b) J
(v
j
) 0, in W
1,p
().
Then the sequence is bounded, and we can apply the Lemma 2.3.2 to some subsequence, i.e., we
obtain,
i) [v
j
[
p
d = [v[
p
jI
j
x
j
weak.
ii) [v
j
[
p
d [v[
p
jI
j
x
j
weak.
iii) Moreover,
j
/S
p/p
j
.
Localizing each singularity by a test function with support in B(x
j
, ), and by i), ii)
applied to v
j
we have,
d +
[v[
q
dx
d = lim
j
[v
j
[
p2
v
j
'v
j
, `dx.
Using the weak convergence, H older inequality and taking limits for 0, we get that neces
sarily
j
=
j
. Then taking into account iii), either
j
=
j
S
N/p
or
j
=
j
= 0.
Then if we assume q > p, and there exists a Dirac mass, necessarily we obtain,
c = lim
j
J(v
j
) = lim
j
(J(v
j
) 'J
(v
j
), v
j
`)
1
N
[v[
p
dx +(
1
p
1
q
)[[v[[
q
q
+
1
N
S
N/p
,
as a conclusion:
If there exists a Dirac mass, c
1
N
S
N
p
.
In a similar way if 1 < q < p we have:
If there exists a Dirac mass, c
1
N
S
N
p
K
, where =
p
q
and K depends on p, q, N
and .
As a consequence of the calculus above and the continuity of the inverse of the plaplacian,
we get the following Lemma.
Lemma 2.3.3 Let v
j
W
1,p
0
() be a PalaisSmale sequence for J,
J(v
j
) c
J
(v
j
) 0 in W
1,p
(),
1
p
+
1
p
= 1
Then, we have:
43
1. If p < q < p
, and c <
1
N
S
N
p
, there exists a subsequence v
j
k
v
j
, strongly convergent
in W
1,p
0
() .
2. If 1 < q < p , and c <
1
N
S
N
p
K
, where =
p
q
and K depends on p, q, N and ,
then there exists a subsequence v
j
k
v
j
, strongly convergent in W
1,p
0
().
Outline of the proof. From the previous arguments, we have that the singular part of is
identically zero. Therefore, there exists a subsequence v
j
k
v
j
, such that
i) v
j
k
v almost everywhere; ii)
[v
j
k
[
p
dx
[v[
p
dx.
So we conclude that v
j
k
v strongly in L
p
. (See [28]).
As a consequence
[v
j
k
[
q2
v
j
k
+[v
j
k
[
p
2
v
j
k
[v[
q2
v +[v[
p
2
v; in W
1,p
()
and then the continuity of the inverse of the plaplacian from W
1,p
() to W
1,p
0
() implies the
theorem. (See [53] and appendix for more details).
Now assume that p = q. If we have a minimizing sequence for I
and u
j
u in W
1,p
0
(),
by Sobolev inequality,
[u
j
[
p
dx
[u
j
[
p
dx S
[u
j
[
p
dx,
and then I
S [[u[[
p
p
. As a conclusion:
A sucient condition to get a nontrivial solution, u = 0, is that I
< S.
In fact we can prove compactness also with the same hypothesis. More precisely Lemma
2.3.2 gives the following result.
Lemma 2.3.4 If u
j
jIN
W
1,p
0
() is a minimizing sequence for I
> q > p
We emphasize the dependence of J on writting the action functional as J
. We assume in
rst place that q > p. If we consider the function g
(t) = J
(tv
0
), we nd that it attains its
maximum for t > 0 and lim
t
g(t) = .
It is not dicult to prove that J
(u
j
) 0 in X
(dual of
X).
(See [13], [17] or appendix for the proof). As a consequence of the results in Section 2.3 , it is
sucient to show that
sup
t0
J
(tv
0
) <
1
N
S
N
p
, for some v
0
W
1,p
0
().
Now, if = 0 then sup
t0
J
0
(tv
0
)
1
N
S
N
p
. The minimizers of Sobolev inclusion in IR
N
are,
U
(x) = ( +c
p,N
[x[
p/(p1)
)
pN
p
> 0.
(See [84]). Dene u
(x) = (x)U
(x), v
= u
[[u
[[
1
p
for some convenient cutto function . By
denition we get
lim
0
sup
t0
J
0
(tv
) =
1
N
S
N
p
.
The idea is that the perturbation term [u[
q2
u provides a energy level from below the critical
constant.
Now, xed w
0
W
1,p
0
() we can compute that
lim
(sup
t0
J
(tw
0
)) = 0.
45
Then,
There exists
0
such that for >
0
the problem (2.1) has a nontrivial solution, obtained
as critical point of J
(tv
) <
1
N
S
N
p
.
We have the following estimates:
v

p
p
= S +O(
Np
p
)
and
[[v
[[
C
1
p1
p
(N
(Np)
p
)
+o(
p1
p
(N
(Np)
p
)
) if > p
(1
1
p
)
C
1
Np
p
2
[ log [ +o(
Np
p
2
[ log [) if = p
(1
1
p
)
C
1
Np
p
2
+o(
Np
p
2
) if < p
(1
1
p
),
where the change of behaviour in the last estimate is due to the integrability or not integrability
of U
in IR
N
. For > 0 consider g
(t) = J
(tv
for which,
g
(t
) = max
t0
g
(t),
getting that
[v
[
p
dx t
p
>
S
2
.
Therefore,
g
(t
)
1
N
S
N
p
+C
Np
p
q
(
S
2
)
q
p
v
q
dx,
and then
g
(t
) <
1
N
S
N
p
if C
Np
p
q
(
S
2
)
q
p
v
q
dx < 0,
that is equivalent to
N p
p
>
p 1
p
(N q
(N p)
p
).
As a conclusion we have the following result.
46
Theorem 2.4.2 a) If p < q < p
, there exists
0
> 0 such that the problem (2.1) has a
nontrivial solution
0
.
b) If max(p, p
p
p 1
) < q < p
. This
result corresponds for p = 2 to dimension N 4. ( See [29]). For N = 3 the existence of solution
for all > 0 in this case cannot be obtained.
A similar calculation in the case q = p allows us to obtain a sucient condition for which
I
substitued by (u
+
)
, where u
+
is the positive part of u.
2.4.2 The critical case and 1 < q < p
Results in the critical case, r = p
, there exists
0
> 0, such
that, for 0 < <
0
, there exists innitely many solutions. Moreover at least one of them is
positive. For large enough no positive solution exists.
Remark 2.4.7 We nd no restrictions on the dimensions and moreover we get innitely many
solutions, perhaps with change of sign.
47
We explain briey the methods of the proof of this statement.
Consider as in the previous section g
(t) = J
(tv
0
). If is small enough, g
(t) attains a
local minimum and a local maximum in t > 0, for 0 < <
0
because, 1 < q < p.
By Sobolev inequality we obtain
J
(u) h(u
p
).
where,
h(x) =
1
p
x
p
1
p
S
p
p
x
p
q
C
p,q
x
q
,
and C
p,q
is a constant. We can choose
0
> 0 such that, if 0 <
0
, h attains its nonnegative
maximum. Consider R
0
and R
1
in such a way that h(R
0
) = 0, h(R
1
) = 0, (the point R, where h
attains its maximum, veries R
0
R R
1
). We make the following truncation of the functional
J
. Take : IR
+
[0, 1], nonincreasing and (
J(u) =
1
p
[u[
p
1
p
[u[
p
(u)
q
[u[
q
.
As a consequence of Lemma 2.3.3 2) and the previous construction, it is not dicult to prove
the following result.
Lemma 2.4.8
1.
J (
1
(W
1,p
0
(), IR), is even.
2. If
J
J(u
n
) = F(u
n
) =
1
p
1
p
[u[
p
q
[u[
q
E
n
is a space of nite dimension; so, all the norms are equivalent . Then, if we dene:
n
= inf
[u[
p
: u E
n
, u
n

p
= 1 > 0
n
= inf
[u[
q
: u E
n
, u
n

p
= 1 > 0
we have
J(u
n
)
1
p
n
p
n
q
q
, and we can choose (which depends on n ), and
< R
0
, such that
J(u) if u E
n
, and u
p
= 1.
Let S
= u W
1,p
0
() : u
p
= . S
E
n
u W
1,p
0
() :
J(u) ; therefore,
by the properties of the genus,
(u W
1,p
0
() :
J(u) ) (S
E
n
) = n
( See appendix).
The last result is an extension of [21] and permits to prove the existence of critical points by
using a LusternikSchnirelmann argument. (See for instance [76]). We get the following results
Lemma 2.4.10 Let
k
= C W
1,p
0
() 0[ C is closed, C = C, (C) k.
Let c
k
= inf
C
k
sup
uC
J(u), K
c
= u W
1,p
0
() :
J
(u) = 0,
J(u) = c, and suppose 0 < <
0
, where
0
is the same that in Lemma 2.4.8.
Then, if c = c
k
= c
k+1
= ... = c
k+r
, (K
c
) r + 1.
In particular, the c
k
s are critical values of
J.
Proof.
In the proof, we will use the Lemma 2.4.9, and a classical deformation lemma (see [76]).
For simplicity, we call J
= u W
1,p
0
() : J(u) . By lemma 2.4.9, k
IN, (k) > 0 such that (J
) k.
Because J is continuous and even, J
k
; then, c
k
(k) < 0, k. But J is bounded
from below; hence, c
k
> k.
Let us assume that c = c
k
= ... = c
k+r
. Let us observe that c < 0 ; therefore, J veries the
PalaisSmale condition in K
c
, and it is easy to see that K
c
is a compact set.
49
If (K
c
) r, there exists a closed and symmetric set U , K
c
U, such that (U) r.
( We can choose U J
0
, because c < 0).
By the deformation lemma, we have an odd homeomorphism : W
1,p
0
() W
1,p
0
(), such
that (J
c+
U) J
c
, for some > 0. (Again, we must choose 0 < < c, because J
veries the PalaisSmale condition on J
0
, and we need J
c+
J
0
). By denition,
c = c
k+r
= inf
C
k+r
sup
uC
J(u).
Then, there exists A
k+r
, such that sup
uA
J(u) < c + ; i.e., A J
c+
, and
(AU) (J
c+
U) J
c
(2.7)
But (AU) (A) (U) k , and ((AU)) (AU) k.
Then, (AU)
k
. And this contradicts (2.7); in fact,
(AU)
k
implies sup
u(AU)
J(u) c
k
= c.
With the lemmas above we conclude Theorem 2.4.6. It is necessary only to point out that
there exists at least a positive solution because
J has a global minimum and the solution where
2
p 1
.
50
Then there exists a constant
0
> 0 such that if 0 < <
0
then problem (2.1) with q < p <
r = p
(u
0
), minimum of the truncated functional. A detailed analysis gives us
that for a PalaisSmale sequence, u
j
W
1,p
0
(), such that
i) J
(u
j
) c < c
0
+
1
N
S
N/p
( S being the best Sobolev constant).
ii) J
(u
j
) 0,
and if small enough, then, there exists a strongly convergent subsequence.
Step 2. The Mountain Pass Lemma hyphotesis.
It is possible to show that:
Given v W
1,p
0
() such that J
(v) < c
0
there exists a sequence u
j
W
1,p
0
() such that
i)J
(u
j
) 0
ii)J
(u
j
) c = inf
C
sup
t[0,1]
J
((t))
where ( = (([0, 1], W
1,p
0
()) : (0) = 0, (1) = v.
Therefore, we must nd v W
1,p
0
() such that c < c
0
+
1
N
S
N/p
.
Step 3. The energy estimate.
We are looking for an estimate of the type
sup
R>0
J
(u
0
+Ru
) < J
(u
0
) +
1
N
S
N/p
,
where u
(v) < c
0
.
We indicate the proof in the case 1) of the theorem.
By using the estimates for the Sobolev minimizers, that u
0
is a solution of the problem,
and convenient estimates for J
(u
0
+v) J
(u
0
), it follows
J
(u
0
+Ru
)
J
(u
0
) +
R
p
p
[u
[
p
dx
R
p
[u
[
p
dx+
C
1
R
C
2
R
p
Np
p
, >
Np
p
.
51
For the parameters in the given range we have that the exponent of the negative error term,
is smaller than those of the positive error term. This remark allows us to conclude after some
estimates about the value of R
where the maximum is attained. (See [54] for all the details).
Remark 2.4.12
1. p > q
0
implies the following restriction for the dimension:
N > p(1 +
p(p 1)
2
).
2. If q q
0
the methods that we use in the proof dont work.
3.
2N
N + 2
< p is equivalent to p
> 2.
The obstruction in the dimension that appears in the second case of the theorem can be
seen in the following example.
Example.Assume p = 4, N = 8, q = 2 (and therefore p
(u
0
+Ru
)
c
0
+
R
4
4
[U
1
[
4
dx
R
8
8
[U
1
[
8
dx +C
1
2/3
C
2
2/3
+o(
2/3
),
and the constants depend on the L
norms of u
0
and u
0
. Therefore, the sign of the coecient
of the main error term it is not clear.
Nevertheless, numerical experiments performed by Prof C. Sim o, seem to indicate that if
q < p then there is no restriction, while if p = q, it appears the phenomena of the bad dimensions
p
2
< N (as in the case p = 2 and N = 3, see [29].)
2.5 Global results on multiplicity
In the work [11] by Ambrosetti, Brezis, and Cerami, it is proved the existence of a second positive
solution in the semilinear case (p=2). Their result is global in the following sense:
Let p = 2, 1 < q < 2, 2 < r
2N
N+2
in problem 2.1 and
= sup[ Problem(2.1) has a positive solution.
For (0, ), there is a second positive solution of problem (2.1).
52
This global result is obtained by the application of the results in [30]. (See also [39]).
There is also a multiplicity result by Tarantello [85], when the term u
q1
is replaced by an
inhomogeneous term f(x) with a convenient norm small enough.
Here we will study the case p = 2 in the radial case. As a byproduct of the method we
obtain a dierent proof in the case 1 < p = 2 < (2 +N)/(N 2)
Consider the radial problem
/
p
u = r
N1
f
(u), 0 r < 1,
u
(0) = 0,
u(1) = 0,
(2.8)
where
/
p
u = (r
N1
[u
(r)[
p2
u
(r))
, f
(u) = u
q1
+u
1
,
and
1 < q < p < < p
, with p
=
Np
Np
if p < N and p
= otherwise.
By a solution of (2.8) we mean hereafter u C(0, 1) which solves (2.8) weakly. In the sequel we
shall make use (also without mentioning them explicitly) of the regularity results of [79], [44]
and [87], namely that if u C(0, 1) is any weak solution of (2.8), then u C
1,
.
In section 1.5 we prove uniqueness of solution for the Cauchy Problem
/
p
u = r
N1
[u(r)[
2
u(r),
u(0) = a,
u
(0) = 0.
(2.9)
As an application of Lemma 1.6.1 we obtain the following uniqueness results.
Lemma 2.5.1 For = 0, problem (2.8) has a unique positive solution v
0
.
Proof. Let u
1
, u
2
be two solutions of (2.8) for = 0. Let, for example, u
1
(0) u
2
(0) and set
=
u
1
(0)
u
2
(0)
, R =
(pa)/p
and
v
2
(r) = u
2
(
r
R
).
53
One checks that v
2
satises the Cauchy problem,
/
p
v
2
= r
N1
[v
2
(r)[
2
v
2
(r),
v
2
(0) = u
2
(0) = u
1
(0),
v
2
(0) = 0.
By Lemma 1.6.1 one deduces that v
2
(r) = u
1
(r), namely
u
1
(r) = u
2
(
r
R
).
As a consequence, u
1
(R) = u
1
(1) = 0, where R 1 because 1. Since u
1
> 0 for r (0, 1),
it follows that R = 1, whence = 1. Then u
1
(0) = u
2
(0) and u
1
u
2
by the uniqueness for the
Cauchy Problem.
Lemma 2.5.2 For all a > 0 there exists a unique R
a
such that
v
a
(R
a
) = 0,
v
a
(R
a
) < 0,
where v
a
is the solution of the Cauchy problem (2.9).
Proof. Let a
0
v
0
(0) and let
R
a
= (
a
a
0
)
(p)/p
u(r) =
a
a
0
v
0
(
r
R
a
).
Then a direct computation shows that
/
p
u = r
N1
u
1
u(0) = a,
u
(0) = 0,
so u(r) = v
a
(r) by uniqueness, and hence v
a
(R
a
) =
a
a
0
u
0
(1) = 0. Moreover by Hopf lemma
v
a
(R
a
) < 0.
As a consequence of the previous lemma we obtain the following Corollary which is an
extension to our situation of the well known result by Gidas and Spruck, [56].
Corollary 2.5.3 Let u be any solution of
/
p
u = r
N1
[u[
2
u, 0 r < ,
u
(0) = 0, u(r) 0.
Then u 0.
54
Proof. If a = u(0) = 0 the result follows trivially by the uniqueness for the Cauchy Problem.
Assume that u > 0. Then by Lemma 2.5.2 there exists R
a
where u(R
a
) = 0 and u
(R
a
) < 0, so
u changes sign, a contradiction.
Remark 2.5.4 An elementary consequence of the uniqueness of the Cauchy Problem is that in
the case N = 1 all the solutions to the problem (2.8) with = 0 are symmetric. The reader
could check that if N = 1 the moving planes method also works. (See [50]).
Now we obtain uniform bounds for the solutions of problem (2.8). In rst place we have
the radial version of the Theorem 2.2.5.
Lemma 2.5.5 There exists
> 0 such that for >
, problem (2.8) has no positive solution.
Set
= sup > 0 : (2.8) has a positive (radial) solution.
By the previous Lemma we know that < . We know also that > 0 because for > 0
small enough we can nd a positive solution: it suces to use critical point theory, see [52], or
by sub and supersolutions, see [24].
Now we get the uniform estimate in the L
C,
for all positive (radial) solutions of (2.8) and all [0, ].
Proof. We argue by contradiction. Let u
n
be a sequence of (radial) positive solutions of
/
p
u
n
= r
N1
f
n
(u
n
), (
n
(0, )), such that [[u
n
[[
.
Now, we normalize by using the following rescaling:
w
n
(r) =
n
u
n
(
n
r)
where
n
= u
n
(0)
(p)/p
=
p
p
> 0
Obviously, lim
n
n
= 0.
55
Such a w
n
satises
/
p
w
n
= r
N1
(pq)+p
n
w
q1
n
+w
1
n
, 0 < r <
1
n
,
w
n
(0) = 1,
w
n
(
1
n
) = 0.
Using Lemma 2.5.2, let R
1
be such that v
1
(R
1
) = 0 (hence v
1
(0) = 1) and choose
R > R
1
. From
the results of [44] and [87], it follows that w
n
are uniformly bounded in C
1,
(0,
R). Then one
has that
w
n
v
in C
1
(0,
R), up to a subsequence. The limit function v is a solution of (2.8) with = 0, v(0) = 1,
such that v(r) > 0 in 0 < r <
R. This is a contradiction with the choice of
R.
Remark 2.5.7 The extension of the result in Lemma (2.5.6) for solutions of (2.8) on general
domains and p = 2 is an open problem.
We can state the main result in this section.
Theorem 2.5.8 For all (0, ) the problem (2.8) admits at least two positive solutions
Proof. Fixed
0
(0, ) we take (
0
, ). Let u be a positive solution of (2.8) for = .
Now u is a strict supersolution to the problem (2.8) for =
0
, because
0
< . It is easy to
check that u =
1
with > 0 small enough and
1
> 0 a positive eigenfunction, veries u < u
and is a strict subsolution of the problem (2.8) for =
0
.
Let us set
X = v C
1
() : v(x) = v([x[), v(1) = 0
and, for (0, ), consider the map /
dened on X by setting:
/
(v) = (/
p
)
1
(f
(v)).
It is well known (see for example [47]) that /
(u), u > /
(u).
So, if we dene
A = v X[ u v u,
we nd that
/
0
: A A.
56
By the C
1
estimates in [44] and [87] already refered in the beginning of this section, it follows
that /
is compact. In particular,
/
0
(A) A
is a compact set in X. The Schauder xed point theorem implies that there exists a u
0
A
such that /
0
(u
0
) = u
0
, or, in others words, (2.8) has at least a solution in A for =
0
. If u
0
is not the unique xed point in A we have nothing to prove. Otherwise, u
0
can be obtained by
iterations and then u < u
0
< u. So by the Hopf lemma we have that u
0
is in the interior of A
(in the C
1
topology). Hence there exits > 0 such that u
0
+B
1
A. Here B
1
denote the unit
ball in X.
To complete the proof we use topological degree arguments developed in [5]. In fact we have
deg(I /
0
, u
0
+B
1
, 0) =
i(/
0
, u
0
+B
1
, E) = i(/
0
, A, A) = 1,
(2.10)
where we use the permanence and excision properties of the degree. (See [5] Chapter 3, specially
the proof of the Schauder xed point theorem for the last equality).
On the other hand, by Lemma 2.5.5, we know that for > the problem (2.8) has no
positive solutions. By Lemma 2.5.6 we know that for all [0, ], (2.8) has no positive solution
such that
[[u[[
> C.
So by the homotopy invariance of the LeraySchauder degree we get
deg(I /
0
, B
1
, 0) = deg(I /
+
, B
1
, 0) = 0.
Then by the excision property and (2.10) we infer
deg(I /
0
, B
1
` u
0
+B
1
, 0) =
deg(I /
0
, B
1
, 0) deg(I /
0
, u
0
+B
1
, 0) = 1
(2.11)
Hence, /
0
has another xed point u
1
B
1
` u
0
+B
1
.
Remark 2.5.9 The fact that is a ball is used only to prove the uniform bounds of Lemma
2.5.6. If p = 2, such a priori estimate holds true for any bounded domain , see [56]. As a
consequence, the proof of Theorem 2.5.8 gives an alternative method to show the subcritical
result in [11]. Actually, the minimal solution in [11] is a local minimum and has index = 1,
while the solution found in [11] as mountain pass critical point has index = 1.
57
Remark 2.5.10 By using the a priori estimates of [56] and the degree theoretic results of [38],
one can prove the preceding bifurcation result for the second order problem
u = [u[
q2
u +G
(u), x ,
u = 0 x ,
(2.12)
where G is possibly not symmetric and a bounded domain.
2.6 Multiple bifurcation
We will look for solutions of the following problem
A
p
u = h(u) +g(r, u), 0 < r < 1
u
(0) = 0,
u(1) = 0,
(2.13)
where p > 1,
A
p
u =
1
r
N1
(r
N1
[u
[
p2
u
= , then
> () > 0.
As an inmediate consequence we get:
Corollary 2.6.2 There exists > 0 such that for all (0, ) problem (2.13) has innitely
many solutions.
Some of the preceding results hold in a greater generality, see Remark 2.6.7 below.
Theorem 2.6.1 cannot be proved using standard bifurcation techniques by linearization.
Actually, even when p = 2 and the dierential operator becomes the linear Laplacian , the
nonlinear term h has innite derivative at u = 0. To overcome this problem we shall employ a
limiting procedure. Dene
h
(s) =
h()
p1
[s[
p2
s if [s[ ,
h(s) if [s[ .
and consider the approximated problems
A
p
u = h
(0) = 0,
u(1) = 0.
(2.14)
In order to study (2.14) we use the results from [43] studied in Sections 1.5 and 1.6 concerning
to bifurcation from nonlinear eigenvalues of the problem
A
p
u = [u[
p2
u, 0 < r < 1
u
(0) = 0,
u(1) = 0.
(2.15)
Hence, we have the following result.
Theorem 2.6.3 For each positive integer k there exists an unbounded continuum S
k
E of
solutions (, u) of (2.14) branching o from (
k,
, 0), where,
k,
=
p1
h()
k
,
and
k
is an eigenvalue of problem (2.15). Moreover if (, u) S
k
and u = 0 then u has exactly
k 1 zeros in (0, 1).
59
Remark 2.6.4 The arguments in Section 1.6 permit to handle problem (2.14). More precisely,
setting
k,
=
p1
h()
k
,
one nds that from each (
k,
, 0) branches o an unbounded continuum S
k,
of solutions of (2.14)
having exactly k 1 zeros in (0, 1).
For R > 0 let T
R
denote the ball of radius R in E. For each xed k and R let
k,
denote the
connected component of S
k,
T
R
that contains (
k,
, 0). Let us point out that
k,
is nonempty
because S
k,
is unbounded.
We will use the following topological theoretical lemma from [92]:
Lemma 2.6.5 Let
n
nIN
be a sequence of connected sets in a complete metric space E.
Assume that
i)
n
is precompact in E.
ii) liminf
n
= .
Then limsup
n
is not empty closed and connected.
Here liminf
n
, respectively limsup
n
, denotes the set of all x E such that any neighbourhood
of x meets all but nitely many of
n
, respectively innitely many
n
.
Take a sequence
n
0 and let
k,n
=
k,n
. By classical a priori estimates the set
k,n
is precompact. Moreover, since
k,n
0 as
n
0, then (0, 0) liminf
k,n
. Then Lemma
2.6.5 applies to
n
=
k,n
and hence
k,R
:= limsup(
k,n
) = limsup(S
k,n
T
R
) is a not empty
closed and connected set. Moreover it is clear that
k,R
meets T
R
for all R > 0.
We set
k
=
R>0
k,R
and show in the rest of the section that the
k
satisfy the properties
stated in Theorem 2.6.1.
First of all, it follows directly by the preceding arguments that each
k
is an unbounded
continuum in E and (0, 0)
k
. It is also clear that any (, u)
k
is a solution of (2.13). Next
we give the proofs of Properties 1 2 of Theorem 2.6.1.
Proof of 2.6.11). Let
0
be such that h(
0
)
1p
0
>
1
and consider (, u)
1,
, with > 0
and (0,
0
]. Fixed > 0 small, by assumptions (H
1
H
2
) there exists c = c() > 0 such that
h
c, u satises
A
p
u > (
1
+)[u[
p1
u
60
and the usual iterative method yields the existence of a positive solution u X of the eigenvalue
problem
A
p
u = (
1
+)[u[
p1
u,
a contradiction, because
1
+ is not the rst eigenvalue of (2.15). This shows that if (, u)
1,
,
with > 0 and (0,
0
], then u
c().
When we consider
k
with k > 1 the argument is similar. If (, u)
k,
then there exists at
least one interval I
k
with length 1/k where u has constant sign. Therefore if we restrict ourselves
to the interval I
k
and we replace
1
by the rst eigenvalue of (2.15) on the interval I
k
, then we
get the same contradiction as before.
Proof of 2.6.12). By 1) above, we know that if (, u)
k
and > 0 then u = 0. Let u
n
be
such that (
n
, u
n
)
k,n
, with
n
and u
n
u. First, let k = 1. Then u
n
> 0 in [0, 1).
Hence u 0 and the strong Maximum Principle implies that u > 0 in [0, 1).
Next, take k > 1 and let x
n
< y
n
, 0 < x
n
< y
n
< 1, be two consecutive zeros of u
n
with
x
n
and y
n
. Obviously, u() = u() = 0. We claim that = . Otherwise, there exists
a third sequence z
n
such that u
n
(z
n
) = 0 and limz
n
= . By the AscoliArzel` a theorem we nd
that u is a solution of
A
p
u = h(u) +g(r, u),
such that u() = u
A
p
u = g(r, u), 0 < r < 1
u
(0) = 0,
u(1) = 0.
(2.16)
satises [[u[[
>
o
.
Proof. If not, we can nd a sequence u
n
= 0 of solutions of (2.16) such that u
n

0.
Setting v
n
= u
n
[[u
n
[[
1
. (2.17)
61
Using the compactness of A
1
p
we infer that, up to a subsequence, v
n
w in C
1,
, with w = 0.
On the other side, from (2.17) it follows that
1
0
[v
n
[
p
r
N1
dr =
1
0
g(r, u
n
)
[u
n
[
p2
u
n
v
p
n
r
N1
dr.
According to (H
2
) the last integral tends to 0, a contradiction.
Proof of 2.6.13).
Arguing by contradiction, we suppose there exists a sequence (
n
, u
n
)
k,n
such that
n
0, u
n
u and [[u
n
[[
=
o
. Passing to the limit we nd that u = 0 is a solution of
(2.16) such that u
0
, in contradiction with Lemma 2.6.6. This completes the Proof of
Theorem 2.6.1.
Remark 2.6.7 (i) The preceding arguments show that the existence of the continuum of positive
solutions
1
can be established for a problem with the same type of zero order term on a general
bounded domain IR
N
.
(ii) The preceding bifurcation and multiplicity results hold true also for SturmLiouville equations
(a(x)u
s
0
. To prove this fact
let r
0
[0, 1), respectively r
1
(0, 1], be the point where u attaints its maximum, respectively
minimum. From the equation it readily follows that h(u(r
0
)) + g(r
0
, u(r
0
)) 0, respectively
h(u(r
1
)) + g(r
1
, u(r
1
)) 0. Therefore u(r
0
) s
0
, respectively u(r
1
) s
0
, as claimed. In
addition if , for example, g(r, s)s < 0 for all s = 0 then
k
IR
+
u X : u
s
0
for all
k and hence (2.13) has has innitely many solutions for all > 0.
62
b) Equidiusive nonlinearities. Consider the eigenvalue problem
A
p
u = h(u), 0 < r < 1
u
(0) = 0,
u(1) = 0.
(2.18)
where h satises (H
1
), h > 0 on IR
+
and
lim
s+
h(s)
s
p1
= m
> 0.
In such a case we can apply the results of [7], Section 4, to infer that
1
blows up at innity as
=
1
m
1
. Similarly, if
h(s)
[s[
p2
s
m
. Moreover, if m
, where p
= pN/(N p) if
p < N and p
= + if p N.
In particular, the growth of g is said subcritical, in the sense of the Sobolev embedding. In the
sequel, for the sake of simplicity, we will take h(s) = [s[
q2
s. We will also consider only solutions
u such that u(0) > 0.
The main result in this section is :
Theorem 2.7.1 Suppose that (H
1
H
2
H
3
H
4
) hold. Then, for any k 1 there exist
k
> 0
and C
k
> 0 such that for every (, u)
k
with 0 one has
k
, u
C
k
.
In particular for all 0 small, problem (2.13) has innitely many pairs u
k
, v
k
of solutions
with k 1 zeros.
Remark 2.7.2 The continua emanating from (0, 0) turn back and cross the axis = 0 at a
solution of (2.13) for = 0 with k1 zeros. In general, C
k
+ as k +. We also suspect
that
k
+. If this is true, then (2.13) has innitely many pairs of solutions for any 0.
63
The details can be found in [8] where it is described also the behaviour of the branch of
positive solutions
+
1
in the critical case. More precisely if
A
p
u = u
q1
+u
1
, u(r) > 0, in 0 < r < 1
u
(0) = 0,
u(1) = 0.
(2.19)
we have
Theorem 2.7.3 Let p < N and suppose 1 < q < p < p
and that if = p
then either
p = 2 or
2N
N + 2
< p < 3 or p 3 and p > q > p
2
p 1
. (2.20)
holds.
(i) If < p
then
+
1
is bounded.
(ii) If = p
then
+
1
` 0, 0 ]0,
1
] X and blows up at innity as 0
+
, in the sense
sepecied above.
(iii) Eq. (2.19) has at least two (positive) solutions for all 0 < <
1
.
(iv) Eq. (2.19) has one (positive) solution for all 0
1
, resp. 0 <
1
, when < p
,
resp. = p
.
(v) Eq. (2.19) has no (positive) solution for >
1
.
The same problem in the supercritical case is considered in [3], where the existence of
an unbounded radial solution is proved, and the behaviour of
+
1
is discused in terms of the
dimension.
64
Chapter 3
What means Growth?
3.1 Introduction
In this Chapter we analyze problems related to a critical potential, more precisely, problems
related to the operator
L
u
p
u
[x[
p
[u[
p2
u.
We will study equations of the form L
1
, then the Dirichlet Problem in any bounded
starshaped domain containing the origin, has no solution. This means that the term
[x[
p
[u[
p2
u
does not regularize as in the autonomous case, previously studied in Chapter 2.
We can also look to this kind of result from the point of view of the eigenvalue problem in a
extreme case, namely, in the case where the potential
[x[
p
belongs to L
r
if and only if r <
N
p
,
which is the complementary range of the classical results. ( See for instance the classical book
[63].)
More details and applications of this kind of ideas can be found in [55]. Roughly speaking
all the new problems appear from the lack of compactness in the Hardy inequality that we will
study in the next section.
3.2 Hardy inequality
The main point of this section is to discuss the following classical result, esentially dues to Hardy.
( See [59]). By completeness we include the proof.
65
66
Lemma 3.2.1 Assume 1 < p < N, then if u W
1,p
(IR
N
).
1.
u
[x[
L
p
(IR
N
).
2. (Hardy Inequality)
IR
N
[u[
p
[x[
p
dx C
N,p
IR
N
[u[
p
dx
with C
N,p
= (
p
N p
)
p
.
3. The constant C
N,p
is optimal.
Proof.
Step 1. A density argument allows us to consider only smooth functions u C
0
(IR
N
).
Under this hypothesis we have the following identity
[u(x)[
p
=
1
d
d
[u(x)[
p
d = p
1
u
p1
(x)'x, u(x)`d.
By using H older inequality, it follows that
IR
N
[u(x)[
p
[x[
p
dx = p
IR
N
u
p1
(x)
[x[
p1
'
x
[x[
, u(x)`dxd =
p
1
d
N1p
IR
N
u(y)
p1
[y[
p1
u(y)
r
dy =
p
N p
IR
N
u(y)
p1
[y[
p1
u(y)
r
dy
p
N p
(
IR
N
[u(y)[
p
[y[
p
dy)
(p1)/p
(
IR
N
[
u(y)
r
[
p
dy)
1/p
.
And then we conclude that
IR
N
u
p
(x)
[x[
p
dx (
p
N p
)
p
IR
N
[u(x)[
p
dx.
Step 2. Optimality of the constant . Following the idea of Hardy for the one dimensional
case, we show that the best constant is C
N,p
= (
p
Np
)
p
.
Given > 0, take the radial function
U(r) =
A
N,p,
if r [0, 1],
A
N,p,
r
pN
p
if r > 1,
(3.1)
67
where A
N,p,
= p/(N p +p), whose derivative is
U
(r) =
0, if r [0, 1],
r
N
p
if r > 1.
(3.2)
By direct computation we get
IR
N
U
p
(x)
[x[
p
dx =
B
U
p
(x)
[x[
p
dx +
IR
N
B
U
p
(x)
[x[
p
dx =
= A
p
N,p,
1
0
r
N1p
dr +
1
r
(1+p)
dr
=
= A
p
N,p,
1
0
r
N1p
dr +A
p
N,p,
IR
N
[U(x)[
p
dx,
where
N
is the measure of the (N 1)dimensional unit sphere. We conclude by letting 0.
Corollary 3.2.2 The same result is true in W
1,p
(B), where B is the unit ball in IR
N
.
Proof. The proof of the rst step is the same. The argument of optimality in the case of the
unit ball proceeds by approximation as follows. First, we remark that by the invariance under
dilations the optimal constant has to be the same for any ball. Second, let B
R
be a ball with
large radius. We take as test function v(x) = (x)U(x) where U is one of the approximate
optimizers explicitly given above and C
0
(B
R
) is a cuto function which is identically 1 on
B
R1
with [[ m. It is easily seen that for R 1 the inuence of in the calculation of
Step 2 is negligible.
Remark 3.2.3 Sometimes the Hardy inequality in the case p = 2 is known as uncertainty
principle, see [46]. We can read the Hardy inequality saying that the embedding of W
1,p
(IR
N
) in
L
p
with respect to the weight [x[
p
is continuous. It is very easy, working a little bit more with
the minimizers that we use in the proof, to see that the inclusion is non compact. This will be
the cause of many of our diculties.
In the sequel, we will denote
N,p
= C
1
N,p
.
It will be useful to compare the best constant in the Hardy inequality with the following
approximating eigenvalue problems.
Theorem 3.2.4 Consider
1
(n) the rst eigenvalue to the problem
1
= W
n
(x)[
1
[
p2
1
, x IR
N
,
1
(x) = 0, x .
(3.3)
68
where W
n
(x) = min[x[
p
, n.
Then
1
(n)
N,p
, and moreover lim
n
1
(n) =
N,p
.
Proof. The rst inequality follows immediatly from the denition of the rst eigenvalue by
the Rayleigh quotient. Also, it is easy to see that
1
(n) is a nonincreasing sequence; then
we have to prove that the limit cannot be bigger than
N,p
. Assume by contradiction that
lim
n
1
(n) =
N,p
+.
Then, we can choose W
1,p
0
() such that
[[
p
dx
p
[x[
p
dx
<
N,p
+/2.
But then
1
(n)
[[
p
dx
p
W
n
(x)dx
, and this is a contradiction because the last expression has to
be smaller than
N,p
+ for n large.
3.3 The Dirichlet problem with singular potential
The rst result in this section is an easy consequence of the Hardy inequality
Lemma 3.3.1 Consider the nonlinear operator
L
u
p
u
[x[
p
[u[
p2
u (3.4)
in W
1,p
0
(). Then
1. If
N,p
, L
is a positive operator.
2. If >
N,p
, L
0
() such that 'L
, ` < 0.
We can assume that [[[[
p
= 1 and then by dening u
(x) =
N/p
(x) we have [[u
[[
p
= 1 and
the homogeneity of the operator allows us to conclude that 'L
, u
` =
p
'L
, ` < 0.
Taking into account the previous result, in this section we will study the following problem
u = f(x) W
1,p
(), x , <
N,p
,
1
p
+
1
p
= 1
u(x) = 0, x ,
(3.5)
69
where IR
N
is a bounded domain. If 0 / then we have a classical problem with a bounded
potential. So we will assume hereafter that 0 .
Consider the energy functional,
J(u) =
F(x, u, u)dx
where F(x, u, ) =
1
p
[[
p
p
u
p
[x[
p
f(x)u.
The classical results in the Calculus of Variations characterize the weak lower semicontinuity
of J if F(x, u, ) is convex and F veries a lower bound: positivity, or a lower estimate by a
linear combination of , etc. (See Tonelli [86], Serrin [78], De Giorgi [37], the book by Dacorogna
[34] and the references therein). However, in our case these usual hypotheses are not fullled.
Variational approach. The energy functional,
J(u) =
1
p
[u[
p
dx
p
u
p
[x[
p
dx
fudx,
by the Hardy inequality, is continuous, Gateaux dierentiable and coercive, namely, there exist
constants > 0 and c IR such that
J(u)
[u[
p
dx c.
Hence by the Variational Principle of Ekeland we can nd a sequence u
n
nIN
such that
J(u
n
) inf J, and J
(u
n
) 0, as n .
As usually we say that u
n
nIN
is a PalaisSmale sequence. (See [45] and Appendix). The coer
civity of J implies the boundedness of u
n
in W
1,p
0
(), so we have that for some subsequence:
i) u
n
u in L
p
,
ii) u
n
converges in L
p
and a.e.,
iii)
u
p1
n
[x[
p
are bounded as Radon measures and converges weakly in L
1
.
Under these hypotheses we can apply the convergence theorem by Boccardo and Murat in [25].
The results proved by Boccardo and Murat are much more general and we refer to the paper
[25] for the details.
70
Lemma 3.3.2 Let u
n
nIN
verifying the problems
p
u
n
= g
n
+f
n
, in
u
n
W
1,p
0
().
(3.6)
Assume that
1) u
n
u weakly in W
1,p
0
() and u
n
u in L
p
().
2) f
n
f in W
1,p
().
3) g
n
g weak in the sense of the measures.
Then, u
n
in (L
q
())
N
for 1 < q < p.
Moreover if 3) is replaced by
3
) g
n
g weak in L
1
(),
then
T
k
(u
n
) T
k
(u) in W
1,p
0
()
for all k > 0, where T
k
(s) = s if [s[ k and T
k
(s) = ks/[s[ if [s[ k.
Proof. We take as test function T
k
(u
n
u) W
1,p
0
(). Then
'[u
n
[
p2
u
n
[u[
p2
u, T
k
(u
n
u)`dx =
'[u[
p2
u, T
k
(u
n
u)`dx +'g
n
, T
k
(u
n
u)` +'f
n
, T
k
(u
n
u)`
(3.7)
Fixed k, by 1) we have that
'f
n
, T
k
(u
n
u)` 0
and
'[u[
p2
u, T
k
(u
n
u)`dx 0
as n .
From 2) we have ['g
n
, T
k
(u
n
u)`[ Ck.
Then xed k we get
limsup
n
'[u
n
[
p2
u
n
[u[
p2
u, T
k
(u
n
u)`dx Ck.
71
Now the inequalities in Appendix A imply that the functions
e
n
(x) = '[u
n
[
p2
u
n
[u[
p2
u, T
k
(u
n
u)`
are non negative and uniformly bounded in L
1
(). Take 0 < < 1 and split in
S
k
n
= x [ [u
n
u[ k, G
k
n
= x [ [u
n
u[ > k
H older inequality provides the following estimate
n
dx =
S
k
n
e
n
dx +
G
k
n
e
n
dx
S
k
n
e
n
dx
[S
k
n
[
1
+
G
k
n
e
n
dx
[G
k
n
[
1
.
Now, xed k, [G
k
n
[ 0 as n and from the uniform boundedness in L
1
we get
limsup
n
n
dx (Ck)
[[
1
,
and letting k 0 we get that e
n
0 strongly in L
1
. To nish the rst part we use the
inequalities for the plaplacian obtained in appendix A.1 and we conclude.
If we assume now 3
), the idea is to get the same type of estimate but with = 1. We take
as test function T
k
(u
n
u) and proceed in a similar way. We refer to the reader to [25] for the
details.
In our context the Lemma 3.3.2 will be read as follows.
Lemma 3.3.3 Let u
n
nIN
verifying (i), (ii) and (iii) by the Variational Principle of Ekeland.
Then for some subsequence,
u
n
j
u, in W
1,q
0
(), q < p
and
T
k
(u
n
) T
k
(u) in W
1,p
0
()
for all k > 0, where T
k
(s) = s if [s[ k and T
k
(s) = ks/[s[ if [s[ k.
According with the previous Lemma, and by a density argument, we can prove the required
compactness property. We will call such a compactness property singular PalaisSmale condition
in the sense of the following Lemma:
Lemma 3.3.4 Consider u
n
nIN
the PalaisSmale sequence obtained above.
Then u
n
nIN
satises the singular PalaisSmale condition, namely, there exists a subse
quence u
n
j
jIN
such that
u
n
j
u, in W
1,q
0
(), q < p.
72
An inmediate consequence of Lemma (3.3.4) is that u is a solution of our problem in the sense
of distributions. Moreover by density and taking into account that u W
1,p
0
(), we conclude
that u is solution in the sense of W
1,p
0
().
Finally the homogeneity of the problem implies that u is a minimum for J. Consider
J(u
k
)
1
p
'J
(u
k
), u
k
` = (
1
p
1)
fu
k
,
where in the last term we can pass to the limit by weak W
1,p
0
()convergence. Therefore
inf J = lim
k
J(u
k
) = lim
k
(J(u
k
)
1
p
'J
(u
k
), u
k
`) =
(
1
p
1)
fu = J(u)
1
p
'J
(u), u` = J(u).
We would like to point out that this approach solves the minimization problem, namely, the
solution is obtained as a minimum of J. Also it is interesting to emphasize that this approach
will be used to study problems with unbounded energy functionals in the following sections.
Remark 3.3.5
I) The uniqueness in the case p = 2 is obvious. Also it is easy to prove that in the linear case
(p = 2) the sequence of minimizers converges strongly in the Sobolev space.
II) If p > 2 the uniqueness is in general not true as the following argument shows (see [42]).
Assume B a ball and consider u
0
(
2
0
() such that u = k > 0 in B. Consider f(x) = L
u
with <
N,p
. In this way f W
1,p
(u
0
)z, z` = (p 1)
[u
0
[
p2
[z[
2
dx
[u
0
[
p2
[x[
p
z
2
dx
.
Hence, in particular if z (
0
() is such that supp (z) B,
'J
(u
0
)z, z` = (p 1)
[u
0
[
p2
[x[
p
z
2
dx < 0,
and then u
0
is not a minimum for J.
III) The uniqueness in the case 1 < p < 2 seems to be an open problem.
IV) The strong convergence of the PalaisSmale sequence if p = 2, is unknown. The main
diculty is classical, we start with a weakly convergent sequence and the dependence in the
gradient is nonlinear.
73
3.4 Critical potential and subcritical growth
In this section we will try to study the same kind of problems as in Chapter 2, but including
the critical potential
[x[
p
.
We will use again the variational approach to study the case of unbounded funcionals,
more precisely the existence of solution via the Mountain Pass Lemma. (See the Appendix). For
instance the following result holds.
Theorem 3.4.1 Consider the Dirichlet problem
p
u = [u[
p2
u[x[
p
+[u[
2
u, <
N,p
, p < < Np/(N p),
u[
= 0.
Then there exists at least a positive solution u W
1,p
0
().
Proof. The proof of this theorem follows closely the previous variational approach; instead of
minimizing and using the variational principle of Ekeland, the geometry of the energy functional
allows us to use the Mountain Pass Lemma of AmbrosettiRabinowitz. In fact since <
N,p
then
J(u)
1
p
[u[
p
dx
p
[u[
p
[x[
p
dx
1
[u[
dx
[u[
p
dx C(p, )(
[u[
p
dx)
q/p
.
Then we nd the required Palais Smale sequence, which is easy to show has to be bounded in
W
1,p
0
(). Using again Lemma 3.3.3, we get the compactness result, in the sense of the singular
Palais Smale condition dened above. Then we can nd a function u W
1,p
0
() which is the
strong limit in W
1,q
0
(), q < p, and therefore is a solution in the sense of distributions. Since
u W
1,p
0
(), by density we get that u is a weak solution.
Finally, by homogeneity, and taking into account that we have strong convergence in L
,
we can see that u 0:
c = lim
n
J(u
n
) =
lim
n
(J(u
n
)
1
p
'J
(u
n
), u
n
`) =
lim
n
(
1
p
1
[u
n
[
dx = (
1
p
1
[u[
dx,
and we conclude.
74
3.5 Critical potential and critical growth
We will use the method developed by Pohozaev to show how our problem with critical Sobolev
exponent is not regularized by the term in [x[
p
u
p1
. This is a deep dierence with the au
tonomous case studied in the Chapter 2. In this sense, the following nonexistence result shows,
from a dierent point of view, the critical character of the problem.
Lemma 3.5.1 Consider the problem
p
u =
u
p1
[x[
p
+f(u), x , > 0,
u(x) = 0, on ,
(3.8)
where IR
N
is bounded, starshaped with respect to the origin, f is a continuous function and
(NF(u)
N p
p
uf(u)) 0, F(u) =
u
0
f(s)ds.
Then (3.8) has no positive solution u W
1,p
0
().
Proof. We will use a Pohozaev type identity. The idea consists on multiply the equation by
'x, u` and integrate by parts. (Observe that the regularity of u does not suce to justify this
calculus directly but as Pohozaev points out in [71] the results are valid also for weak solutions;
an argument of approximation which justies the previous observation can be seen for instance
in [57]. See also [73].)
(
p 1
p
)
[u[
p
'x, `d + (
N p
p
)
[u[
p
dx =
(
N p
p
)
u
p
[x[
p
dx +N
F(u)dx,
where is the outwards normal to . On the other hand, multiplying the equation by u and
integrating
[u[
p
dx =
u
p
[x[
p
dx +
uf(u)dx. (3.9)
Both identities give
(
p 1
p
)
[u[
p
'x, `d =
(NF(u)
N p
p
uf(u))dx.
The conclusion is now obvious.
Notice the contrast of Lemma 3.5.1 with the results in Chapter 2 and in the papers [29]
[68] in the case p = 2, and in [53] for p = 2, where the autonomous case is considered.
75
Remark 3.5.2 In the case = IR
N
, p = 2 and f(u) = u
(N+2)/(N2)
an existence result can
be seen in [64], Th.I.3, pg. 179. However the previous Lemma proves that this doubly critical
problem has no positive solution in bounded starshaped domains. This means that the term with
the potential cannot be seen as a lower order perturbation of the term with critical Sobolev
exponent, although this is the case in terms of the growth in u.
3.6 Subcritical potential and critical growth
We will prove that in fact the potential [x[
p
is critical in the sense of the remark above by
considering [x[
q
with 0 < q < p.
It is known that for the potential [x[
q
, which belongs to L
r
for some r >
N
p
, there exists
a rst isolated and simple eigenvalue
1
, for the corresponding Dirichlet problem. We will show
that this subcritical potential produces a similar eect to the case q = 0, in the sense that
the lack of compactness arises only from the highest power term. Moreover there are also bad
dimensions, p < N < p
2
(p 1)q as in the autonomous case. This interval coincides with the
known result in the case q = 0, and decreases when q p, dissappearing the solution in the
limit case q = p, according to Lemma 3.5.1.
Theorem 3.6.1 Consider the Dirichlet problem
p
u =
[u[
p2
u
[x[
q
+[u[
p
2
u, <
1
u[
= Np/(N p).
(3.10)
If N p
2
(p 1)q, then there exists at least a positive solution u W
1,p
0
().
Proof. The arguments are similar to those in [53] and then we will be sketchy. The geometry
of the energy functional, J, satises the requirements of the Mountain Pass Theorem as can be
checked following the same calculations as in Theorem 3.4.1. Then by using the concentration
compactness method by P.L. Lions, see [64], we get a local PalaisSmale condition. More precisely,
let S the optimal constant in the Sobolev embedding and given a PalaisSmale sequence such
that
J(u
k
) c <
S
N/p
N
, J
(u
k
) 0, in W
1,p
()
there exists a convergent subsequence. The only thing to check (and this is the main point), is
the existence of a PalaisSmale sequence at this subcritical energy level. To get this particular
sequence it is well known that it is sucient to nd a direction v
W
1,p
0
() for which
sup
t>0
J(tv
) < c
0
<
S
N/p
N
, (3.11)
76
because in this way the minimax critical value in the Mountain Pass Theorem veries c < c
0
.
The natural election is
v
=
u
[[u
[[
p
, where u
=
(x)
( +[x[
p
p1
)
Np
p
are the minimizers of the Sobolev inclusion with a convenient truncation (
0
to adapt their
support to . As usual we compute:
1. [[v
[[
p
p
S +c
1
Np
p
.
2.
v
p
[x[
q
dx c
2
p
2
(p1)qp
p
if N > p
2
(p 1)q.
3.
v
p
[x[
q
dx c
2
Np
p
[ log [ if N = p
2
(p 1)q.
4.
v
p
[x[
q
dx c
2
Np
p
if N < p
2
(p 1)q.
Following the proofs in the previous Chapter, the decay as 0 of [[v
[[
p
p
must be faster than
the decay of
v
p
[x[
q
dx, to get the inequality (3.11) and this is true if N p
2
(p 1)q. So we
conclude. (See also the proof of Theorem 3.3 in [53]).
Remark 3.6.2 Something more can be said in the case N < p
2
(p 1)q. Following the same
argument as in the proof of Theorem 3 in [16] we nd that there exists a positive solution to
problem (3.10) if (
1
A,
1
), where A = S(
[x[
Nq/p
dx)
p/N
(S is the optimal Sobolev
constant).
Remark 3.6.3 A good exercise to the reader is to study dierent combinations of potentials
and nonlinearities and describe the complete fauna.
77
Appendix
78
Appendix A
The inverse operator of the
pLaplacian
We will study the pLaplacian operator dened by
p
u div ([u[
p2
u) 1 < p <
that appears in several situations. The pLaplacian is the paradigmatic example of degener
ated/singular quasilinear elliptic operator. Notice that if p = 2 it becomes the classical Laplace
operator. In this section we deal mainly with the Dirichlet problem,
p
u = f(x) if x
u[
= 0 if x ,
(A.1)
where IR
N
, f W
1,p
(), p
'[u[
p2
u, ` fdx = 0, W
1,p
0
(). (A.2)
Proof. The functional
J(u) =
1
p
[u[
p
dx
f(x)udx u W
1,p
0
()
79
80
is Gateaux diferentiable and the Euler equation of J coincide with the partial dierential equa
tion under study. Then, we look for solution to problem A.1 as critical points of J. But, we
have
i) J is coercive since
J(u)
1
p
[[u[[
p
p
[[f[[
W
1,p
()
[[u[[
p
1
2p
[[u[[
p
p
Cf
p
W
1,p
()
.
ii) J is lower weakly semicontinuous because the rst term is the norm in W
1,p
0
() and the
second one is continuous. Hence we can apply the abstract minimization result to J to nd a
minimum.
We are interested in the properties of the inverse operator
(
p
)
1
: W
1,p
() W
1,p
0
()
and we need the following inequalities. (See [80]).
Lemma A.0.5 Let x, y IR
N
and ', ` the standard scalar product in IR
N
. Then
'[x[
p2
x [y[
p2
y, x y`
c
p
[x y[
p
, if p 2
c
p
[x y[
2
([x[ +[y[)
2p
, if 1 < p < 2.
(A.3)
Proof. By homogeneity we can assume that [x[ = 1 and [y[ 1. Morover by choosing a
convenient basis in IR
N
we can assume
x = (1, 0, ..., 0), y = (y
1
, y
2
, 0, ..., 0), and
y
2
1
+y
2
2
1.
i) Case 1 < p < 2. It is clear that the inequality is equivalent to the next one
1
y
1
y
2
1
+y
2
2
2p
2
(1 y
1
) +
y
2
2
y
2
1
+y
2
2
2p
2
y
2
1
+y
2
2
2p
(1 y
1
)
2
+y
2
2
C. (A.4)
But
1
y
1
y
2
1
+y
2
2
2p
1
y
1
[y
1
[
2p
(p 1)(1 y
1
), if 0 y
1
1
1 y
1
(p 1)(1 y
1
), if y
1
0,
then
(p 1)(1 y
1
)
2
+y
2
2
(1 +y
1
+y
2
)
2p
2
(1 y
1
)
2
+y
2
2
p 1.
81
ii) Case p 2. The inequality is equivalent to prove that
1 y
1
y
2
1
+y
2
2
p2
2
(1 y
1
) +y
2
2
y
2
1
+y
2
2
p2
2
(1 y
1
)
2
+y
2
2
p
2
C.
Denote t =
[y[
[x[
and s =
'x, y`
[x[[y[
then, we must show that the function
f(t, s) =
1 (t
p1
+t)s +t
p
(1 2ts +t
2
)
p
2
,
is bounded from below. Direct calculation shows that xed t,
f
s
= 0 if
1 (t
p1
+t)s +t
p
=
t
p2
+ 1
p
(1 2ts +t
2
),
then for the critical s for f we have
f(t, s) =
t
p2
+ 1
p
1
(1 2ts +t
2
)
p2
2
1
p
t
p2
+ 1
(t + 1)
p2
1
p
min
0t1
t
p2
+ 1
(t + 1)
p2
1
2p
.
The main properties of
p
and (
p
)
1
are summarized in the following theorem.
Theorem A.0.6 Let IR
N
a bounded domain.
A)
p
: W
1,p
0
() W
1,p
() W
1,p
0
(), and is continuous.
C) The composed operator
(
p
)
1
: W
1,p
() W
1,p
0
() L
q
()
is compact if 1 q <
pN
N p
.
Proof.
A) Consider ( W
1,p
0
() bounded set, i.e.,
u
W
1,p
0
()
< M, if u (.
82
Then for u, v ( we get

p
u (
p
v)
W
1,p
()
= sup
W
1,p
0
()
=1
'
p
u
p
v, `dx
c
p
sup
W
1,p
0
()
=1
[u[
p2
+[v[
p2
[u v[[[dx, if p 2
c
p
sup
W
1,p
0
()
=1
[u v[
p1
[[dx, if 1 < p < 2
then by H older inequality we conclude that
[[
p
u (
p
v)[[
W
1,p
()
2C
p
M
p2
u v
p
, if p 2,
C
p
Mu v
p
, if p 2.
B) We need to prove uniqueness of solution to the Dirichlet problem A.1. Let u
1
, u
2
W
1,p
0
()
be solutions to the problems
p
u
1
= f
1
,
p
u
2
= f
2
,
then
'
p
u
1
(
p
u
2
), (u
1
u
2
)` = 'f
1
f
2
, u
1
u
2
` ,
where the rst term must be understood as the duality product. By the previous lemma
'
p
u
1
(
p
u
2
), (u
1
u
2
)` =
'[u
1
[
p2
u
1
[u
2
[
p2
u
2
, (u
1
u
2
)`dx
C
p
[(u
1
u
2
)[
p
dx, if p 2
C
p
[(u
1
u
2
)[
2
([u
1
[ +[u
2
[)
2p
dx, if 1 < p < 2,
then if p 2
[(u
1
u
2
)[
p
dx D
p
[[f
1
f
2
[[
W
1,p
()
[[(u
1
u
2
)[[
p
[[(u
1
u
2
)[[
p
D
1
p1
p
[[f
1
f
2
[[
1
p1
W
1,p
()
,
in particular, if f
1
f
2
implies u
1
u
2
.
If 1 < p < 2
[(u
1
u
2
)[
2
([u
1
[ +[u
2
[)
2p
dx C
p
[[f
1
f
2
[[
W
1,p
()
[[u
1
u
2
[[
W
1,p
0
()
,
83
and then by H older inequality
[(u
1
u
2
)[
p
dx =
[(u
1
u
2
)[
p
([u
1
[ +[u
2
[)
p(2p)
2
([u
1
[ +[u
2
[)
p(2p)
2
dx
[(u
1
u
2
)[
2
([u
1
[ +[u
2
[)
2p
dx
p
2
([u
1
[ +[u
2
[)
p
dx
2p
p
.
Hence
[(u
1
u
2
)[
p
dx
1
p
[[u
1
[[
W
1,p
0
()
+[[u
2
[[
W
1,p
0
()
2p
C
p
[[f
1
f
2
[[
W
1,p
()
.
In this way we have obtained simultaneously the existence of the inverse operator (uniqueness)
and its continuity.
C) Is a direct consequence of B) and the Sobolev embedding
Lemma A.0.7 (Weak comparison Principle). Let be a bounded domain in IR
N
with smooth
boundary. Let u
1
, u
2
W
1,p
0
() satisfy
p
u
1
p
u
2
in the weak sense in
u
1
u
2
on
then u
1
u
2
in .
Proof. Take as test function = maxu
1
u
2
, 0 that is nonnegative and belong to W
1,p
0
()
by hypothesis. So we get
{u
1
>u
2
}
'[u
1
[
p2
u
1
[u
2
[
p2
u
2
, (u
1
u
2
)`dx 0,
and we conclude taking into account the Lemma A.0.5.
We will use the following extension of the Hopf Lemma, that can be found in [77].
Lemma A.0.8 Let be a bounded domain with smooth boundary. If u (
1
() W
1,p
0
() and
veries
p
u div([u[
p2
u) 0 in T
u > 0 in
u[
= 0
84
then
u
n
< 0 on . Here n is the outward normal to .
Proof. We will assume that the domain veries the interior sphere condition.
Consider x
0
and a interior ball tangent to , namely,
B
r
(y) ,
B
r
(y) = x
0
.
Dene
v(x) =
A[x y[
pN
p1
+B N = p
Alog [x y[ +B, N = p,
where A = [2
(Np)/(p1)
1]
1
r
(Np)/(p1)
, B = [1 2
(Np)/(p1)
]
1
if p = N, and A =
(log 2)
1
, B =
log r
log 2
if p = N. The function v veries:
i) v(x) 1 in B
r
2
(y) and v(x) 0 on B
r
(y),
ii) 0 < v(x) < 1 if x B
r
(y) B
r
2
(y) and
[v(x)[ > c > 0, for some positive constant c.
But u(x) > 0 in , then
= infu(x)[ x B
r
2
(y) > 0,
and putting v = w we nd that w satises
p
w(x) = 0, if x B
r
(y)
B
r
2
(y)
w(x) = , if x B
r
2
(y) and
w(x) = 0, if x B
r
(y).
Now w u on the boundary of the ring B
r
(y) B
r
2
(y) and
p
w
p
u in in the weak sense.
Hence, the weak comparison principle implies that w u in B
r
(y) B
r
2
(y). Taking into account
that u(x
0
) = w(x
0
) = 0, then
u
n
(x
0
) = lim
t0
u(x
0
tn)
t
lim
t0
w(x
0
tn)
t
=
w
n
(x
0
) =
v
n
(x
0
) < 0.
Appendix B
Genus and its properties
We introduce in this section the classical idea of genus due to Krasnoselskii, as a tool to
measure in a convenient way the size of the sets.
Given X a Banach space, we consider the class
= A X[ A closed , A = A. (B.1)
Denition B.0.9 Then the genus, , is dened as follows.
: IN
A (A)
where
(A) = mink IN [ ((A, IR
k
0), (x) = (x). (B.2)
If the minimum does not exist, then we dene (A) = +.
Notice that if C X is such that C (C) = and we dene A by A = C (C) then
A and moreover (A) = 1. It is sucient dene (x) = 1 if x C and (x) = 1 if x C.
In this way ((A, IR 0).
As a consequence we have that if A
1
and (A
1
) > 1 then A
1
contains innitely many
dierent points.
This elementary remark shows how to use the genus.
In general to calculate the exact genus of a set is a dicult task. Often it is sucient to
have some estimates which can be obtained by comparison with sets whose genus is known, for
instance, with respect to spheres. In this way the following results are very useful.
85
86
Lemma B.0.10 Let A, B
. Then:
1. If there exists f ( (A, B), odd, then (A) (B).
2. If A B , then (A) (B).
3. If there exists an odd homeomorphism between A and B, then (A) = (B).
4. If S
N1
is the sphere in IR
N
, then (S
N1
) = N.
5. (A B) (A) +(B).
6. If (B) < +, then (AB) (A) (B).
7. If A is compact, then (A) < +, and there exists > 0 such that (A) = (N
(A))
where N
(A) = x X : d(x, A) .
8. If X
0
is a subspace of X with codimension K , and (A) > K, then A X
0
= .
For the proof and more details on this topic we refer to [76] and the references therein.
Appendix C
The variational principle of Ekeland
The idea of the variational principle of Ekeland is the following: Assume f lower semicontinuous
real valued function dened on the metric space (, d) such that f(x) for all x .
The principle deals with the construction of minimizing sequences with some control, precisely,
sequences verifying
inf
xM
f(x) + > f(x
),
and
f(y) f(x
) d(x
, y).
We can read geometrically this conditions saying that for all > 0 the graph of f is above of
this cone. See the original paper [45]; we follows here the proof in [67].
Theorem C.0.11 Let be a complete metric space and let
: (, ]
a proper function such that
i) (y) ,
ii) lower semicontinuous.
Given > 0 and u such that
(u) inf
M
+,
then there exists v such that:
1. (u) (v),
87
88
2. d(u, v) 1,
3. If v = w then (w) (v) d(v, w).
Proof. Fixed > 0, we dene the following order relation on , we say
w v, if and only if (w) +d(w, v) (v).
Consider u
0
= u and by recurrence dene the sequence u
n
, as follows: for n IN we take
S
n
= w : w u
n
,
choosing u
n+1
S
n
such that
(u
n+1
) inf
Sn
+
1
n + 1
,
we get that u
n+1
u
n
and S
n+1
S
n
. The lower semicontinuity of implies that S
n
is a closed
set. Now, if w S
n+1
, we have w u
n+1
u
n
and then,
d(w, u
n+1
) (u
n+1
) (w) inf
Sn
+
1
n + 1
inf
Sn
=
1
n + 1
.
Namely, if we call diameter(S
n+1
) =
n+1
, (
n+1
)
2
(n + 1)
, so, lim
n
n+1
= 0. The com
pleteness of implies
n=1
S
n
= v for some v . But, in particular, v S
0
, hence
v u
0
= u, i.e., (v) (u) +d(u, v) (u) and
d(u, v)
(u) (v)
1
(inf
M
+ inf
M
) = 1.
Then, d(u, v) 1.
To get 3), suppose that w v. Then for all n IN, w u
n
, i.e.,
w
n=1
S
n
and then w = v.
So we conclude that if w = v then (w) (v) d(v, w).
The results that we explain below show how to use the variational principle to nd critical
points of functionals.
Corollary C.0.12 Let A be a Banach space, and : A IR a dierentiable lower bounded
function in A. Then for all > 0 and for all u A such that
(u) inf
X
+
89
there exists v A verifying
(v) (u),
u v
X
1/2
,

(v)
X
1/2
.
Proof. In Theorem C.0.11 take = A, = , > 0, =
1
1/2
, d =  . We obtain v A
such that
(v) (u)
u v
X
1/2
and for all w = v
(w) > (v)
1/2
(v w).
Taking in particular w = v +th with t > 0 and h A, h = 1, then
(v +th) (v) >
1/2
t
that implies
1/2
'
(v)
X
1/2
.
Corollary C.0.13 If A and are as in Corollary C.0.12. Then, for all minimizing sequence
of , u
k
A there exists a minimizing sequence v
k
A such that
(v
k
) (u
k
)
u
k
v
k

X
0 k

(v
k
)
X
0 k
Proof. If (u
k
) c = inf
X
consider
k
= (u
k
) c if is positive and
k
=
1
k
if (u
k
) = c.
Then for
k
we take v
k
that gives the Corollary C.0.12.
In the sense of the previous Corollary we nd almost minimum for . The problem now
is to get almost critical points of dierent types, for instance mountain pass type critical points
in the sense of [13]. Here we point out how the variational principle of Ekeland separates the
geometric aspect of the problem of nding critical points of functional from the analytical one,
namely, we will need some compactness property to complete the search of critical points.
90
Appendix D
The Mountain Pass Theorem
Seeking by the completeness of the exposition we will give a proof of the classical Mountain Pass
Theorem by Ambrosetti and Rabinowitz. (See [13]).
We will precise the notation as follows,
H1 A is a Banach space, / IR
N
a compact metric space, and /
0
/ a closed set.
H2
: /
0
A
is a continuous function.
H3 Dene
= g ((/, A) : g(s) = (s), s /
0
.
We recall the denition of subdierential in the case of the norm in A,
x
0
 = p A
: x
0
 x p(x
0
x), x A
(A
dual space of A.
We will use the following abstract result.
Lemma D.0.14 Let A be a Banach space, then for the norm
  : A IR
we have
x
0
 = p A
: p(x
0
) = x
0
, p
X
= 1
Proof. Given x
0
A by HahnBanach theorem there exists p A
= (/) : 0,
K
d = 1, supp() t : f(t) = f
.
Proof. It is clear that the Radon measures verifying the conditions above are the subdierential
of the norm. More precisely, by Lemma D.0.14 we have
i) If the conditions are satised then  = 1 and
K
f(x)d = f
supp
d = f
,
ii) If  = 1 and
K
f(x)d = f
.
Theorem D.0.16 Consider A, /, /
0
and being as in H1 H2 H3. Let u : A IR a
functional verifying:
1) u is continuous,
2) u is Gateaux diferentiable and, moreover,
u
: A A
1
= max
(K
0
)
u,
and assume that >
1
. Then for all > 0 and for all such that max
sK
u((s)) +
there exists v
A such that
u(v
) max
sK
u((s))
d(v
, (/))
1/2
u
(v
)
1/2
.
Proof. We can assume that 0 < <
1
. Let veriying
max
sK
u((s)) +.
Dene
I : IR, by I(c) = max
sK
u(c(s))
for c . By hypothesis = inf
cM
I(c) >
1
. Moreover I is lower semicontinuous, because if
c
k
c
0 we have
I(c) = u(c(s
0
)) = lim
k
u(c
k
(s
0
)) lim
k
I(c
k
).
By the Ekeland variational principle applied to I : IR, given > 0 and such that
I() + there exists c
such that
(i) I(c
) I() +.
(ii) I(c) I(c
)
1/2
c c
if c .
(iii) c
1/2
.
Consider : / A such that (/
0
) = 0. For h = 0, h IR from (ii) we conclude that
I(c
+h) I(c
)
1/2
[h[
, namely
1
[h[
I(c
+h) I(c
)
1/2

.
By denition of I,
I(c
+h) I(c
) = max u(c
)
= max
sK
u(c
(s)) +h'u
(c
(s)).
To simplify the printing we write
f(s) = u(c
(c
(s)), (s)`.
We have by hypothesis that f ((/, 1{); also g ((/, 1{) because,
94
a) By BanachAlaoglu theorem f
is weak compact.
b) By hypothesis if v
n
v en A then
'u
(v
n
), y` 'u
(v), y`
for all y A.
c) If u
(v
n
) u
(v) weak in A
and y
n
y in A then
'u
(v
n
), y
n
` 'u
(v), y`, as n .
Then the inequalities above can be written as
1/2

lim
h0
1
h
I(c
+h) I(c
)
= lim
h0
1
h
(f +hg)
f
sup
1
0
gd : f
.
Dene F : f
IR by F() =
K
gd and consider a weak convergent sequence
n
in f
, then
F(
n
) =
K
gd
n
K
gd = F(),
so, the supremum is attained. As a consequence we have
e
1/2

max
K
u
(c
.
Consider = ((/, A) : (s) = 0 if s /
0
, 
1. Then,
1/2
1/2

inf
max
K
u
(c
.
Take
n
() f
K
u
(c
(s)), (s)d
n
() M(), n
where
M() = max
uf
K
u
(c
(s)), (s)d,
Then by choosing a convenient weak convergent subsequence
n
() () we have
K
u
(c
1/2
inf
M() = inf
K
u
(c
(s)), (s)d()
max
f
inf
K
u
(c
K
u
(c
(s))
X
d) =
minu
(c
(s))
X
: s t / : u(c
(t)) = f
Namely
min
s{tK:u(c(t))=f}
u
(c
(s))
X
1/2
In other words, there exists s
/ such that, if v
= c
(s
), then:
i) u(v
) = max
sK
u(c
(s)) = I(c
) inf I +
1/2
,
ii) u
(v
)
1/2
,
iii) u(v
)
1
,
iv) d(v
, (/))
1/2
.
The classical condition of compactness is the condition of PalaisSmale that we formalize
in the following denition.
Denition D.0.17 Let A be a Banach space and U : A IR a functional Gateaux diferen
tiable. U veries the PalaisSmale condition to the level c IR if and only if for all sequence
x
k
A verifying
i) U(x
k
) c as k ,
ii) U
(x
k
) 0 in A
for k
there exists a subsequence x
k
j
x in A.
A sequence verifying i) and ii) is called a PalaisSmale sequence for U.
With this notions we can formulate the Montain Pass Theorem.
Theorem D.0.18 Let A be a Banach space and U : A IR a continuous functional veriying:
i) U is Gateaux dierentiable,
96
ii) U
is continuous from A to A
and
c = inf
f
sup
s[0,1]
U(f(s)).
If U satises the PalaisSmale condition at the level c, then c is a critical value for U and
c > maxU(u
0
), U(u
1
).
Proof. Take / = [0, 1], /
0
= 0, 1, (0) = u
0
, (1) = u
1
and = ; since c
0
=
inf
Br
U(x) > maxU(u
0
), U(u
1
) = c
1
and because all path g has nonempty intersec
tion with B
r
, Theorem D.0.16 implies that for a given sequence
k
with
k
0 we can nd
a sequence x
k
A such that
a) U(x
k
) c,
b) U
(x
k
) 0,
and then by the PalaisSmale condition for the level c, there exists a subsequence such that:
c = lim
k
U(x
k
) = U(x),
0 = lim
k
U
(x
k
) = U
(x).
Namely, x is a critical point at level c.
Appendix E
Boundedness of solutions
The boundedness of the solutions in the case p N is a consequence of Morreys theorem and
the classical bootstrapping.
One of the few general results for problems with critical growth is the following one on (
1,
regularity. We will concentrate on the following problem
p
u div ([u[
p2
u) = f(x, u) in ,
u[
= 0,
(E.1)
where IR
N
is a smooth bounded domain, 1 < p < N and f satises
[f(x, u)[ C(1 +[u[
r
), with r + 1 p
=
Np
N p
, (E.2)
that is the critical Sobolev exponent. The regularity of the solution of E.1 for r < p
1 is a
consequence of the results in the paper by Serrin [79] about the L
1 is much
more delicate and will be obtained below, while for the supercritical case the result is not true:
in general in the supercritical case a weak solution is not bounded.
The idea of the L
p
u = g, in , g W
1,q
(), q >
N
p1
u[
= 0,
(E.3)
then u L
().
Proof. We can write g = div F, F = (f
1
, ..., f
N
) where f
i
L
q
(). Since u is the weak solution
to (E.3) we can write
[u[
p2
'u, v`dx =
'F, v`, v W
1,p
0
() (E.4)
For k > 0 we consider the test function
v = sign(u)([u[ k) =
u k if u > k
0 if u = k
u +k if u < k
(E.5)
then u = v + ksign(u) and u
x
i
= v
x
i
in A(k) = x [ [u(x)[ > k, v = 0 in A(k) and
v W
1,p
0
(). For this election of test function (E.4) becomes
A(k)
[v[
p
dx =
'F, v`dx,
and by H older inequality
'F, v`dx
A(k)
[f[
q
1/q
A(k)
[v[
p
1/p
[A(k)[
1(
1
p
+
1
q
)
,
here [C[ denotes the Lebesgue measure of the measurable set C. Then we have
A(k)
[v[
p
dx
11/p
A(k)
[F[
q
1/q
[A(k)[
1(1/p+1/q)
and by Sobolev inequality we obtain
S
A(k)
[v[
p
dx
p/p
A(k)
[F[
q
1/q
[A(k)[
1(1/p+1/q)
. (E.6)
99
Notice that for 0 < k < h, A(h) A(k) and then
[A(h)[
1/p
(h k) =
A(h)
(h k)
p
dx
1/p
A(h)
[v[
p
dx
1/p
A(k)
[v[
p
dx
1/p
.
(E.7)
From (E.6) and (E.7) we obtain
[A(h)[
[[F[[
p
/(p1)
q
S
p
/p
1
(h k)
p
[A(k)[
p
(
1
p
1
(p1)q
.
Because the hypothesis q > N/(p 1),
p
(
1
p
1
q(p 1)
) > 1.
Now we have the following
Claim: Assume : [0, ) [0, ) is a nonincreasing function such that if h > k > k
0
,
for some > 0, > 1,
(h)
c
(h k)
[(k)]
.
Then (k
0
+d) = 0, where d
= c2
1
[(k
0
)]
1
.
In our case (h) = [A(h)[, = p
and
= p
(
1
p
1
q(p 1)
) > 1.
We have (0) = [[. By the Claim we get that (d) = 0 for
d = c
[[F[[
1/(p1)
q
S
1/p
[[
(
1
p
1
q(p1)
)
1
p
,
namely
[[u[[
c
[[F[[
1/(p1)
q
S
1/p
[[
(
1
p
1
q(p1)
)
1
p
.
To nish we need to prove the Claim.
Proof of the claim: Given d as above, dene d
n
= d
0
+d
d
2
n
By recurrence we have that
(k
n
)
(k
0
)
2
n
, =
1
,
100
then
0 = lim
n
(k
k
) (k
0
+d) 0,
as we want to prove.
The second result in this section is the following adaptation of the announced result by
Trudinger, [88].
Theorem E.0.20 Let u W
1,p
0
() be a solution of E.1. If f veries E.2, then u L
().
Proof. We assume r + 1 = p
, if u l
l
1
(u l) +l
, if u > l
and
G(u) =
u
(1)p+1
, if u l
(( 1)p + 1)l
(1)p
(u l) +l
(1)p+1
, if u > l.
It is easy to show the following properties
i) G(u) uG
(u).
ii) For some constant independent of l, c[F
(u)]
p
G
(u).
iii) u
p1
G(u) C[F(u)]
p
with C independent of l.
iv) If u W
1,p
0
(), then F(u), G(u) W
1,p
0
() because F and G are Lipschitz functions.
We choose > 1 such that p < p
0
will be xed below.
Then the equation gives us
[u[
p2
'u, (
p
G(u))`dx =
f(x, u)
p
G(u)dx.
For > 0 and by direct computation on the left hand side, the previous identity becomes
[u[
p
p
G
(u)dx
[u[
p
p
G
(u)dx +C
[[
p
(u
p1
G(u))dx +
f(x, u)
p
G(u)dx,
101
where we use the property i) above, H older and Young inequalities. Then, by choosing small
enough,
[u[
p
p
G
(u)dx
C
1
[[
p
[F(u)]
p
dx +C
2
p
u
p
p
[F(u)]
p
dx +C
3
[[,
where we use that G(u)f(x, u) C
3
(1 + u
p
1
G(u)) (for l > 1), motivated by the hypothesis
E.2, and the property iii).
The left hand side can be estimated by using the property ii), i.e., G
c[F
]
p
,
[u[
p
p
G
(u)dx c
[F
(u)u[
p
dx,
but then,
[(F(u))[
p
dx
C
4
[[
p
[F(u)]
p
dx +C
5
p
u
p
p
[F(u)]
p
dx +C
6
[[.
By the Sobolev inequality we get
[F(u)]
p
dx
p
p
C
4
[[
p
[F(u)]
p
dx +C
5
p
u
p
p
[F(u)]
p
dx +C
6
[[.
Given x
o
, we choose (
0
such that if supp () = B(x
o
, R), then
[[u[[
p
p
L
p
(B(xo,R))
1
2C
5
.
Then, by H older inequality,
C
5
p
u
p
p
[F(u)]
p
dx
1
2
[F(u)]
p
dx
p/p
.
Finally we get the inequality
[F(u)]
p
dx C
5
[[
p
[F(u)]
p
dx +C
6
[[.
Taking limits for l we conclude
u
p
dx
p/p
C()
u
p
dx +C
6
[[
102
and, because p < p
, we have u L
p
loc
.
Then, u is a solution of the equation
p
u = a(x)u
p1
+b(x),
where
a(x) =
0 if u < 1
f(x, u)
u
p1
if u 1
and
b(x) =
0 if u > 1
f(x, u) if u 1.
Therefore, a(x) L
r
, with r >
N
p
, and b L
,
and moreover, u (
by Theorem 1 in [79].
Appendix F
Two Lemmas by P.L. Lions
By the sake of completness we will include in this appendix the proof of two lemmas by P.L.
Lions. (See [64] and [65]). These results have been used in section 2.3. The rst one is a real
variable result that allows us to get precise representation of measures related by a reverse
H older inequality.
Lemma F.0.21 Let , be two nonnegative and bounded measures on , such that for 1
p < r < there exists some constant C > 0 such that,
(
[[
r
d)
1
r
C(
[[
p
d)
1
p
(
0
. (F.1)
Then, there exist x
j
jJ
and
j
jI
(0, ), where I is nite, such that:
=
jI
x
j
, C
p
jI
p
r
j
x
j
, (F.2)
where
x
j
is the Dirac mass at x
j
.
Proof. By the reverse H older inequality (F.1), the measure is absolutely continuous with
respect to . As a consequence there exists f L
1
(), f 0, such that = f. Also by (F.1)
we have,
(A) c
q
0
((A))
q/p
,
for any borelian set A . In particular, f L
().
On the other hand the Lebesgue decomposition of with respect to gives us
= g +, where g L
1
(d), g 0
103
104
and is a bounded positive measure, singular respect to , namely, if K is the support of
then (K) = 0.
Now consider (F.1) applied to the test function
= g
1/(qp)
{gn}
we obtain
(
[[
r
d)
1
r
= (
g
r/(rp)
[[
r
{gn}
d)
1
r
C(
g
1+p/(rp)
[[
p
{gn}
d)
1
p
C(
g
r/(rp)
[[
p
{gn}
d)
1
p
.
(F.3)
Hence calling d
n
= g
r/(rp)
{gn}
d the following reverse H older inequality holds
(
[[
r
d
n
)
1
r
C(
[[
p
d
n
)
1
p
,
and in particular for each borelian A we have
(
n
(A))
1/r
C(
n
(A))
1/p
.
Taking into account that p < r then either
n
(A) = 0 or
n
(A) c
(
1
p
1
r
)
= > 0.
As a consequence, given a point x , either
n
(x) = 0, or
n
(x) > 0 and this means
that
n
is a linear combination of Dirac masses, that necessarily must be nite because
n
is
bounded. Taking limits as n we conclude that
=
jI
x
j
.
Moreover the inequality (F.1) applied in each x
j
gives,
C
p
jI
p
r
j
x
j
.
The second result is, roughly speaking, a description of how the lack of compactness happens
in the Sobolev inclusion. More precisely we have.
105
Lemma F.0.22 Let u
j
be a weakly convergent sequence in W
1,p
0
() with weak limit u, and
such that:
i) [u
j
[
p
weakly in the sense of measures.
ii) [u
j
[
p
1) = [u[
p
jI
j
x
j
,
j
> 0
2) [u[
p
+
jI
j
x
j
,
j
> 0 , x
j
3)
p
p
j
j
S
.
Proof. Given any (
0
(), by Sobolev inequality we have,
[[
p
[u
n
[
p
dx
1
p
S
1
p
[(u
n
)[
p
dx
1
p
. (F.4)
We write v
n
= u
n
u and by the convergence results in [28], we have,
[[
p
[u
n
[
p
dx
[[
p
[v
n
[
p
dx
[[
p
[u[
p
dx, n .
Moreover v
n
0 as n then applying the Sobolev inequality to v
n
and taking limits we
arrive to a reverse H older inequality as in Lemma F.0.21, so we have the representation
= [u[
p
jI
x
j
.
Now by (F.4) and taking into account that u
n
u in L
p
, we obtain,
[[
p
1
p
S
1
p
[[
p
d
1
p
+
[[
p
[u[
p
dx
1
p
, (F.5)
for all (
0
(). Consider a (
0
() such that 0 1, (0) = 1 and supported in the
unit ball B IR
N
. Fixed j I and > 0, we consider (
x x
j
1
p
j
S
1
p
(B(x
j
, ))
1
p
+
B(x
j
,)
p
[(
x
j
x
)[
p
[u[
p
dx
1
p
106
and by H older inequality,
B(x
j
,)
p
[(
x
j
x
)[
p
[u[
p
dx
1
p
B(x
j
,)
[u[
p
dx
1
p
[(
x
j
x
)[
N
dx
1
N
,
then
1
p
j
S
1
p
(B(x
j
, ))
1
p
+c
B(x
j
,)
[u[
p
dx
p
p
j
p
p
j
S, j I,
that can be read in an equivalent way as
jI
p
p
j
S
x
j
1
.
But because u
n
u in W
1,p
0
(), [u[
p
and [u[
p
is orthogonal to
1
, we conclude.
Bibliography
[1] Adimurthi, S.L. Yadava, An Elementary Proof of the Uniqueness of Positive Radial
Solutions of a Quasilinear Dirichlet Problem. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 127 (1994),
219229.
[2] J. A. Aguilar, I. Peral, On an elliptic equation with exponential growth Rend. Semi.
Mat. Univ. Padova Vol 96 (1996), 143175.
[3] J. A. Aguilar, I. Peral, Positive radial solutions of quasilinear equations involving su
percritical growth Preprint U.A.M. 1997.
[4] H. Amann, LusternikSchnirelman Theory and Nonlinear eigenvalue problems Math.
Ann. 199 (1972), 5572.
[5] H. Amann, Fixed point equations and nonlinear eigenvalue problems in ordered Banach
spaces SIAM Review, Vol. 18 No 4 (1976), 620709.
[6] A. Ambrosetti, Critical points and nonlinear variational problems Memoire No 49,
Societe Mathematique de France Tome 120, Fascicule 2, 1992.
[7] A. Ambrosetti, J. Garcia , I. Peral, Multiplicity of solutions for semilinear and quasi
linear elliptic problems, Jour. Funct. Anal. 137 (1996), 219242.
[8] A. Ambrosetti, J. Garcia, I. Peral, Quasilinear Equations with a Multiple Bifurcation
To appear in Di. and Int. Equations.
[9] A. Ambrosetti, P. Hess, Positive Solutions of Asymptotically Linear Elliptic Problems
Jou. Math. Anal. and Applic. 73, No 2 (1980), 411422.
[10] A. Ambrosetti, D. Arcoya, B. Buoni, Positive solutions for some semipositone prob
lems via bifurcation theory Dierential and Integral Equations, Vol 7 No 3. (1994),
655663.
107
108
[11] A. Ambrosetti, H. Brezis, G. Cerami, Combined Eects of Concave and Convex Non
linearities in some Elliptic Problems Journal of Functional Anal. 122, No 2 (1994),
519543.
[12] A. Ambrosetti, G. Prodi, A primer of Nonlinear Analysis Cambridge Studies in Ad
vanced Mathematics No 34, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[13] A. Ambrosetti, P.H. Rabinowitz, Dual variational methods in critical point theory and
applications. Jour. Funct. Anal. 14 (1973), 349381.
[14] A. Ambrosetti, M. Struwe, A note on the problem u = u+u[u[
2
1
Manusc. Math.
54 (1986), 373379.
[15] A. Anane, Simplicite et isolation de la premi`ere valeur propre du plaplacien avec poids
C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris. t. 305, Serie I. (1987), 725728.
[16] G. Arioli, F. Gazzola, Some results on pLaplace equations with a critical growth term
Research Report in Mathematics No 14, 1996. Dept. Math. Stockholm University.
[17] J.P. Aubin, I. Ekeland, Applied Nonlinear Analysis Ed. John Wiley, 1984.
[18] P. Baras, J. Goldstein, The heat equation with a singular potential Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc Vol 294 (1984), 121139.
[19] A. Bahri, J.M. Coron, On a Nonlinear Elliptic Equation Involving the Critical Sobolev
Exponent: The Eect of the Topology of the Domain Comm. Pure Appl. Math. Vol XLI
(1988), 253294.
[20] T. Bartsch, M. Willem, On an elliptic equation with concave and convex nonlinearities
Procee. A.M.S. 123 (1995), 35553561.
[21] V. Benci, D. Fortunato, Bifurcation from the essential spectrum for odd variational
operators Confer. Sem. Mat. Univ. Bari 178 (1981).
[22] M. F. BidautVeron Local and global behaviour of solutions of quasilinear elliptic equa
tions of EmdenFowler type Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 107 (1989), 293324.
[23] L. Boccardo, T. Gallouet, Nonlinear Elliptic Equations with right hand side measures,
Commun. in P.D.E. Vol 17 No 3,4 (1992), 641655.
[24] L. Boccardo, M. Escobedo, I. Peral, A Dirichlet problem involving critical exponent
Nonlinear Analysis T.M.A. Vol 24 (11)(1995), 16391648.
109
[25] L. Boccardo, F. Murat, Almost Everywhere Convergence of the Gradients of Solutions
to Elliptic and Parabolic Equations, Nonlinear Analysis T.M.A. Vol 19 No 6 (1992),
581597.
[26] H. Brezis, Analyse Fonctionelle. Theorie et Applications Ed. Masson, 1983.
[27] H. Brezis, Some variationals problems with lack of compactness Proc. Berkeley Sym.
Nonlinear Functional Analysis, 1985.
[28] H. Brezis, E. Lieb. A relation between pointwise convergence of functions and conver
gence of functionals Proc. American Math. Soc. 88 (1983), 486490.
[29] H. Brezis, L. Nirenberg, Positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations involving
critical Sobolev exponents Comm. Pure App. Math. 36 (1983), 437477.
[30] H. Brezis, L. Nirenberg, H
1
versus C
1
local minimizers C.R.A.S. Paris t.317 (1993),
465472.
[31] F.E. Browder, W.F. Petryshyn, Approximation methods and the generalized topological
degree for nonlinear mapping in Banach spaces, Jou. Funct. Anal., 3 (1969), 217245.
[32] S. Chandrasekar, An introduction to the study of stellar structure Ed. Dover Publ. Inc.
(1985).
[33] X. Cabre, P. Majer, Truncation of nonlinearities in some supercritical elliptic problems
Preprint 1996.
[34] B. Dacorogna, Direct Methods in the Calculus of Variations, SpringerVerlag, 1989.
[35] L. Damascelli, Comparison Theorems for some Quasilinear Degenerate Elliptic Opera
tors and Aplications to Symmetry and Monotonicity Results To appear in Annal. I.H.P.
Anal. Nonlineaire.
[36] E.N. Dancer, A Note on an Equation with Critical Exponent Bull. London Math. Soc.
Vol 20 (1988), 600602.
[37] E. De Giorgi, Teoremi di semicontinuita nel calcolo delle variazioni Ins. Naz. di Alta
Matematica, Roma 1968.
[38] D.G. De Figueiredo, P.L. Lions, R. Nussbaum, A priori estimates and existence of
positive solutions of semilinear elliptic equations J. Math. Pures et Appl., 61 (1982),
4163.
110
[39] D.G. De Figueiredo, On the existence of multiple ordered solutions of nonlinear eigen
value problems Nonlinear Analysis T.M.A. 11 (1987), 481492.
[40] W.Y. Ding, Positive solutions of u = u
N+2
N2
on contractible domains Jou. P.D.E.
Vol 2 No. 4 (1989), 8388.
[41] I. Daz , J.E. Saa, Existence et unicite de solutions positives pour certaines equations
elliptiques quasilineaires C.R.A.S. de Paris t. 305, Serie I (1987), 521524.
[42] M. Del Pino, M. Elgueta, R. Manasevich, A Homotopic Deformation along p of a Leray
Schauder Degree Result and existence for ([u
[
p2
u