Startseite Boundary layers to a singularly perturbed Klein–Gordon–Maxwell–Proca system on a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary
Artikel Open Access

Boundary layers to a singularly perturbed Klein–Gordon–Maxwell–Proca system on a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary

  • Mónica Clapp , Marco Ghimenti ORCID logo EMAIL logo und Anna Maria Micheletti
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 21. Juli 2017

Abstract

We study the semiclassical limit to a singularly perturbed nonlinear Klein–Gordon–Maxwell–Proca system, with Neumann boundary conditions, on a Riemannian manifold 𝔐 with boundary. We exhibit examples of manifolds, of arbitrary dimension, on which these systems have a solution which concentrates at a closed submanifold of the boundary of 𝔐 , forming a positive layer, as the singular perturbation parameter goes to zero. Our results allow supercritical nonlinearities and apply, in particular, to bounded domains in N . Similar results are obtained for the more classical electrostatic Klein–Gordon–Maxwell system with appropriate boundary conditions.

1 Introduction

On a compact smooth Riemannian manifold ( 𝔐 , 𝔤 ) with boundary, we consider the system

(1.1) { - ε 2 Δ 𝔤 𝔲 + α ( x ) 𝔲 = 𝔲 p - 1 + ω 2 ( q 𝔳 - 1 ) 2 𝔲 on  𝔐 , - Δ 𝔤 𝔳 + Λ ( 𝔲 ) 𝔳 = q 𝔲 2 on  𝔐 , 𝔲 ν = 0 , 𝔳 ν = 0  or  𝔳 = 0 on  𝔐 ,

where Δ 𝔤 = div 𝔤 𝔤 is the Laplace–Beltrami operator (without a sign), ε > 0 , q > 0 , ω , α 𝒞 2 ( 𝔐 ) is a real-valued function which satisfies α ( x ) > ω 2 on 𝔐 , p ( 2 , ) , and Λ is given by

Λ ( 𝔲 ) = { 1 + q 𝔲 2 if  𝔲 ν = 𝔳 ν = 0  on  𝔐 , q 𝔲 2 if  𝔲 ν = 𝔳 = 0  on  𝔐 .

We are interested in studying the semiclassical limit to this system, i.e., the existence of positive solutions and their asymptotic profile, as ε 0 .

Solutions to system (1.1) correspond to standing waves of an electrostatic Klein–Gordon–Maxwell (KGM) system if Λ ( 𝔲 ) = q 𝔲 2 , and of a Klein–Gordon–Maxwell–Proca (KGMP) system with Proca mass 1 if Λ ( 𝔲 ) = 1 + q 𝔲 2 . For the physical meaning of these systems, we refer to [3, 4, 25].

The seminal paper [3] by Benci and Fortunato attracted the attention of the mathematical community, and motivated much of the recent activity towards the study of this type of systems. For ε = 1 , existence and nonexistence results for subcritical nonlinear terms have been obtained, e.g., in [1, 3, 6, 10, 13, 14, 15, 27] for systems in the entire space 3 , or in a bounded domain in 3 with Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions. KGMP-systems on a closed (i.e., compact and without boundary) Riemannian manifold of dimension 3 or 4 have been recently investigated in [17, 24, 25] for subcritical or critical nonlinearities.

The existence and asymptotic behavior of semiclassical states in flat domains have been investigated, e.g., in [11, 12, 31]. In [11], D’Aprile and Wei constructed a family of positive radial solutions ( 𝔲 ε , 𝔳 e ) to a KGM-system in a 3-dimensional ball, with Dirichlet boundary conditions, such that 𝔲 ε concentrates around a sphere which lies in the interior of the ball. For compact manifolds of dimensions 2 and 3, with or without boundary, the existence and multiplicity of positive semiclassical states, such that 𝔲 ε concentrates at a point, have been exhibited, e.g., in [20, 21, 23], for subcritical nonlinearities. The concentration at a positive-dimensional submanifold for a KGMP-system on closed manifolds of arbitrary dimension, and for nonlinearities which include supercritical ones, was recently exhibited in [7].

Our aim is to extend the results in [7, 8] to manifolds with boundary, i.e., we will establish the existence of positive semiclassical states ( 𝔲 ε , 𝔳 e ) to system (1.1), on some compact Riemannian manifolds 𝔐 with boundary, such that 𝔲 ε concentrates at a positive-dimensional submanifold as ε 0 . Our results apply, in particular, to systems with supercritical nonlinearities in bounded smooth domains Ω of N of any dimension.

The Neumann boundary condition 𝔳 ν = 0 on 𝔳 seems to be more meaningful from a physical point of view, as it gives a condition on the electric field on 𝔐 . However, if the Proca mass is 0, i.e., if Λ ( 𝔲 ) = q 𝔲 2 , and we set 𝔳 ν = 0 , then the second equation in system (1.1) admits the trivial solution 𝔳 = 1 q and the first equation reduces to a Schrödinger equation, making the coupling effect unnoticeable. This is why we impose a Dirichlet boundary condition on 𝔳 when Λ ( 𝔲 ) = q 𝔲 2 .

The Neumann boundary condition 𝔲 ν = 0 on 𝔲 produces an effect of the boundary of 𝔐 on the existence and concentration of solutions to system (1.1). In fact, the solutions that we obtain form a positive layer which concentrates around a submanifold of 𝔐 as ε 0 .

As in [7], our approach consists in reducing system (1.1) to a similar system, with the same power nonlinearity, on a manifold of lower dimension. Solutions to the new system which concentrate at a point will give rise to solutions to the original system concentrating at a positive-dimensional submanifold. This approach was introduced by Ruf and Srikanth in [29] and has been used, for instance, in [9, 28, 30]. We begin by describing some of the reductions that we will use.

1.1 Reducing the dimension of the system

Let ( M , g ) be a compact smooth n-dimensional Riemannian manifold with boundary, let f : M ( 0 , ) be a 𝒞 1 -function, and let ( N , h ) be a compact smooth Riemannian manifold without boundary of dimension k 1 . The warped product M × f 2 N is the cartesian product M × N endowed with the Riemannian metric 𝔤 := g + f 2 h . It is a smooth Riemannian manifold of dimension n + k with boundary M × f 2 N .

For example, if Θ is a bounded smooth domain in n whose closure is contained in n - 1 × ( 0 , ) , f ( x 1 , , x n ) = x n and 𝕊 k is the standard k-sphere, then, up to isometry, the warped product Θ × f 2 𝕊 k is

Θ × f 2 𝕊 k { ( y , z ) n - 1 × k + 1 : ( y , | z | ) Θ } ,

which is a bounded smooth domain in n + k .

Let π M : M × f 2 N M be the projection, α ^ 𝒞 2 ( M ) and α := α ^ π M . A straightforward computation gives the following result; see, e.g., [16].

Proposition 1.1.

The functions u ε , v ε : M R solve the system

(1.2) { - ε 2 div g ( f k g u ) + f k α ^ u = f k u p - 1 + ω 2 f k ( q v - 1 ) 2 u on  M , - div g ( f k g v ) + f k Λ ( u ) v = q f k u 2 on  M , u ν = 0 , v ν = 0 or  v = 0 on  M

if and only if the functions u ε := u ε π M , v ε := v ε π M : M × f 2 N R solve the system

(1.3) { - ε 2 Δ 𝔤 𝔲 + α 𝔲 = 𝔲 p - 1 + ω 2 ( q 𝔳 - 1 ) 2 𝔲 on  M × f 2 N , - Δ 𝔤 𝔳 + Λ ( 𝔲 ) 𝔳 = q 𝔲 2 on  M × f 2 N , 𝔲 ν = 0 , 𝔳 ν = 0 or  𝔳 = 0 on  ( M × f 2 N ) .

We stress that the exponent p is the same in both systems. Since k 1 , we have that 2 n + k < 2 n , where 2 d is the critical Sobolev exponent in dimension d, i.e., 2 d := if d = 2 and 2 d := 2 d d - 2 for d > 2 . So, if 2 n + k p < 2 n , system (1.2) on M is subcritical, whereas system (1.3) on M × f 2 N is critical or supercritical. Moreover, if the solution u ε of (1.2) concentrates at a point x 0 M as ε 0 , then the function 𝔲 ε := u ε π M concentrates at the submanifold π M - 1 ( x 0 ) ( N , f 2 ( x 0 ) h ) . Note also that 𝔲 ε and 𝔳 ε are positive if u ε and v ε are positive.

Another type of reduction is obtained from the Hopf maps. For N = 2 , 4 , 8 , 16 , we write N 𝕂 × 𝕂 , where 𝕂 is either the real numbers , the complex numbers , the quaternions , or the Cayley numbers 𝕆 . The Hopf map 𝔥 𝕂 is defined by

𝔥 𝕂 : 2 dim 𝕂 𝕂 × 𝕂 𝕂 × dim 𝕂 + 1 ,
𝔥 𝕂 ( z ) := ( 2 z 1 ¯ z 2 , | z 1 | 2 - | z 2 | 2 ) for  z = ( z 1 , z 2 ) 𝕂 × 𝕂 .

This map is horizontally conformal with dilation λ ( z ) = 2 | z | . It is also invariant under the action of the units S 𝕂 := { ζ 𝕂 : | ζ | = 1 } , i.e., 𝔥 𝕂 ( ζ z ) = 𝔥 𝕂 ( z ) for all ζ S 𝕂 , z 𝕂 × 𝕂 .

Let Ω be a bounded smooth domain in 2 dim 𝕂 { 0 } such that ζ z Ω for all ζ S 𝕂 , z Ω . Then Θ := 𝔥 𝕂 ( Ω ) is a bounded smooth domain in dim 𝕂 + 1 { 0 } . The main property of Hopf maps, for our purposes, is that they locally preserve the Laplace operator up to a factor, i.e.,

Δ ( u 𝔥 𝕂 ) = λ 2 [ ( Δ u ) 𝔥 𝕂 ] in  Ω  for every  u 𝒞 2 ( Θ ) .

Such maps are called harmonic morphisms; see [2]. This property allows us to reduce system (1.1) on 𝔐 := Ω to a system in Θ. Assume that α 𝒞 2 ( Ω ) satisfies α ( ζ z ) = α ( z ) for all ζ S 𝕂 , z Ω . Then the map α ^ : Θ given by α ^ ( x ) := α ( 𝔥 𝕂 - 1 ( x ) ) is well defined and of class 𝒞 2 . Note that λ 2 ( 𝔥 𝕂 - 1 ( x ) ) = 4 | x | for every x dim 𝕂 + 1 . The following proposition is an immediate consequence of these facts.

Proposition 1.2.

The functions u ε , v ε : Θ R solve the system

(1.4) { - ε 2 Δ u + α ^ ( x ) 4 | x | u = 1 4 | x | u p - 1 + ω 2 4 | x | ( q v - 1 ) 2 u on  Θ , - Δ v + 1 4 | x | Λ ( u ) v = q 4 | x | u 2 on  Θ , u ν = 0 , v ν = 0 or  v = 0 on  Θ

if and only if the functions u ε := u ε h K , v ε := v ε h K : Ω R solve the system

(1.5) { - ε 2 Δ 𝔲 + α ( x ) 𝔲 = 𝔲 p - 1 + ω 2 ( q 𝔳 - 1 ) 2 𝔲 on  Ω , - Δ 𝔳 + Λ ( 𝔲 ) 𝔳 = q 𝔲 2 on  Ω , 𝔲 ν = 0 , 𝔳 ν = 0 or  𝔳 = 0 on  Ω .

Note again that, if p [ 2 2 dim 𝕂 , 2 dim 𝕂 + 1 ) , system (1.4) is subcritical, whereas system (1.5) is critical or supercritical. And if the functions u ε concentrate at a point ξ 0 Θ as ε 0 , then the functions 𝔲 ε concentrate at the ( dim 𝕂 - 1 ) -dimensional sphere 𝔥 𝕂 - 1 ( ξ 0 ) in Ω.

Propositions 1.1 and 1.2 lead us to study the following problem.

1.2 The main results

Let ( M , g ) be a smooth compact Riemannian manifold with boundary of dimension n = 2 , 3 , 4 . We consider the subcritical system

(1.6) { - ε 2 div g ( c ( x ) g u ) + a ( x ) u = b ( x ) u p - 1 + b ( x ) ω 2 ( q v - 1 ) 2 u on  M , - div g ( c ( x ) g v ) + b ( x ) Λ ( u ) v = b ( x ) q u 2 on  M , u ν = 0 , v ν = 0  or  v = 0 on  M ,

where ε , q > 0 , ω , a , b , c 𝒞 1 ( M ) are strictly positive functions such that a ( x ) > ω 2 b ( x ) on M, and p ( 2 , 2 n ) . As before, 2 n := if n = 2 and 2 n := 2 n n - 2 if n = 3 , 4 .

Theorem 1.3.

Let K M be a nonempty C 1 -stable critical set for the function Γ : M R , which is given by

Γ ( ξ ) := c ( ξ ) n 2 [ a ( ξ ) - ω 2 b ( ξ ) ] p p - 2 - n 2 b ( ξ ) 2 p - 2 .

Then, for ε small enough, system (1.6) has a positive solution ( u ε , v ε ) such that u ε concentrates at a point ξ 0 K as ε goes to zero.

A 𝒞 1 -stable critical set is defined as follows.

Definition 1.4.

Let f 𝒞 1 ( M , ) . A subset 𝒦 of M is called a 𝒞 1 -stable critical set of f if 𝒦 { x M : g f ( x ) = 0 } and if, for any μ > 0 , there exists δ > 0 such that every function h 𝒞 1 ( M , ) which satisfies

max dist g ( x , 𝒦 ) μ ( | f ( x ) - h ( x ) | + | g f ( x ) - g h ( x ) | g ) δ

has a critical point x 0 with dist g ( x 0 , 𝒦 ) μ . Here dist g denotes the geodesic distance associated to the Riemannian metric g.

Theorem 1.3, together with Propositions 1.1 and 1.2, yields the existence of solutions to the KGMP (or the KGM) system (1.1), which concentrate at a submanifold for subcritical, critical and supercritical exponents. The following two results illustrate this fact.

We write the points in n - 1 × ( 0 , ) as ( y ¯ , y n ) with y ¯ n - 1 and y n ( 0 , ) .

Theorem 1.5.

Let Θ be a bounded smooth domain in R n whose closure is contained in R n - 1 × ( 0 , ) for n = 2 , 3 , 4 , and let ω R and α ^ C 2 ( Θ ) be such that α ^ > ω 2 . Let

𝔐 := { ( y ¯ , z ) n - 1 × k + 1 : ( y ¯ , | z | ) Θ }

and α ( y ¯ , z ) := α ^ ( y ¯ , | z | ) . If K is a nonempty C 1 -stable critical set for the function Γ : Θ R defined by

Γ ( y ¯ , y n ) := y n k [ α ^ ( y ¯ , y n ) - ω 2 ] p p - 2 - n 2 ,

then, for any q > 0 , p ( 2 , 2 n ) and ε small enough, system (1.1) has a positive solution ( u ε , v ε ) in M such that, for some point ( ξ ¯ , ξ n ) K , u ε concentrates at the k-dimensional sphere { ( ξ ¯ , z ) R n - 1 × R k + 1 : | z | = ξ n } M as ε 0 .

Proof.

Set M := Θ , a := f k α ^ and b := f k = : c with f ( y ¯ , y n ) := y n . Theorem 1.3 yields a positive solution ( u ε , v ε ) to system (1.2) such that u ε concentrates at a point ( ξ ¯ , ξ n ) 𝒦 as ε 0 . The result follows from Proposition 1.1. ∎

Theorem 1.6.

Let

𝔐 := { z 2 : 0 < r < | z | < R }

and assume that α C 2 ( M ) satisfies α ( ζ z ) = α ( z ) > ω 2 for all ζ C with | ζ | = 1 , z M . If K is a nonempty C 1 -stable critical set for the function Γ : ( h C ( M ) ) R defined by

Γ ( x ) := 2 | x | [ α ( 𝔥 - 1 ( x ) ) - ω 2 ] p p - 2 - 3 2 ,

then, for any q > 0 , p ( 2 , 6 ) and ε small enough, system (1.1) has a positive solution ( u ε , v ε ) in M such that u ε concentrates at the circle { ζ z 0 : ζ C , | ζ | = 1 } M , for some z 0 h C - 1 ( K ) , as ε 0 .

Proof.

Set M := 𝔥 ( 𝔐 ) , a ( x ) := α ^ ( x ) 2 | x | , b ( x ) := 1 2 | x | , and c ( x ) := 1 with α ^ ( x ) := α ( 𝔥 - 1 ( x ) ) . Theorem 1.3 yields a positive solution ( u ε , v ε ) to system (1.4) such that u ε concentrates at a point ξ 0 𝒦 as ε 0 . The result follows from Proposition 1.2. ∎

The rest of the paper is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1.3.

2 Preliminaries

2.1 Reducing system (1.6) to a single equation

In order to overcome the problems given by the competition between u and v, using an idea of Benci and Fortunato [3], we introduce the map Φ : H g 1 ( M ) H g 1 ( M ) which associates to each u H g 1 ( M ) the solution Φ ( u ) to the problem

(2.1) { - div g ( c ( x ) g [ Φ ( u ) ] ) + b ( x ) q 2 u 2 [ Φ ( u ) ] = b ( x ) q u 2 in  M , Φ ( u ) = 0 on  M

for system (1.6) with Dirichlet boundary conditions, or to the problem

(2.2) { - div g ( c ( x ) g [ Φ ( u ) ] ) + b ( x ) ( 1 + q 2 u 2 ) [ Φ ( u ) ] = b ( x ) q u 2 in  M , [ Φ ( u ) ] ν = 0 on  M

for system (1.6) with Neumann boundary conditions. It follows from standard variational arguments that Φ is well defined in H g 1 ( M ) . The proofs of the following two lemmas are contained in [17].

Lemma 2.1.

The map Φ : H g 1 ( M ) H g 1 ( M ) is of class C 1 and its differential Φ ( u ) [ h ] = V u [ h ] at u H g 1 ( M ) is the map defined by

- div g ( c ( x ) g [ V u [ h ] ] ) + b ( x ) q 2 u 2 [ V u [ h ] ] = 2 b ( x ) q u ( 1 - q Φ ( u ) ) h

for all h H g 1 ( M ) , in case of Dirichlet boundary conditions, or by

- div g ( c ( x ) g [ V u [ h ] ] ) + b ( x ) ( 1 + q 2 u 2 ) [ V u [ h ] ] = 2 b ( x ) q u ( 1 - q Φ ( u ) ) h ,

for all h H g 1 ( M ) , in case of Neumann boundary conditions. Moreover,

0 Φ ( u ) 1 q 𝑎𝑛𝑑 0 Φ ( u ) [ u ] 2 q .

Lemma 2.2.

The function Θ : H g 1 ( M ) R given by

Θ ( u ) = 1 2 M b ( x ) ( 1 - q Φ ( u ) ) u 2 𝑑 μ g

is of class C 1 , and its differential is given by

Θ ( u ) [ h ] = M b ( x ) ( 1 - q Φ ( u ) ) 2 u h 𝑑 μ g

for any u , h H g 1 ( M ) .

Now, we introduce the functionals I ε , J ε , G ε : H g 1 ( M ) given by

(2.3) I ε ( u ) := J ε ( u ) + ω 2 2 G ε ( u ) ,

where

J ε ( u ) := 1 2 ε n M [ ε 2 c ( x ) | g u | 2 + d ( x ) u 2 ] 𝑑 μ g - 1 p ε n M b ( x ) ( u + ) p 𝑑 μ g

with d ( x ) := a ( x ) - ω 2 b ( x ) , and

G ε ( u ) := q ε n M b ( x ) Φ ( u ) u 2 𝑑 μ g .

From Lemma 2.2 we deduce that

1 2 G ε ( u ) [ φ ] = 1 ε n M b ( x ) [ 2 q Φ ( u ) - q 2 Φ 2 ( u ) ] u φ 𝑑 μ g ,

so

I ε ( u ) φ = 1 ε n M [ ε 2 c ( x ) g u g φ + a ( x ) u φ - b ( x ) ( u + ) p - 1 φ - b ( x ) ω 2 ( 1 - q Φ ( u ) ) 2 u φ d μ g ] .

Therefore, if u is a critical point of the functional I ε , we have that

(2.4) - ε 2 div g ( c ( x ) g u ) + d ( x ) u + ω 2 q b ( x ) Φ ( u ) ( 2 - q Φ ( u ) ) u = b ( x ) ( u + ) p - 1 ,

with d ( x ) := a ( x ) - ω 2 b ( x ) . In particular, if u 0 , by the maximum principle and regularity arguments we have that u > 0 . Thus, the pair ( u , Φ ( u ) ) is a positive solution to system (1.6).

This reduces solving system (1.6) to finding a solution u ε H g 1 ( M ) to the single equation (2.4).

Some useful estimates involving the function Φ are contained in the appendix.

2.2 The approximate solution

We shall obtain a solution u ε to equation (2.4) using the Lyapunov–Schmidt reduction method. It will be an approximation to a function W ε , ξ , which we introduce next.

If ( M , g ) is an n-dimensional compact smooth Riemannian manifold with boundary, its boundary M is a closed smooth Riemannian manifold of dimension n - 1 , possibly not connected. We fix R > 0 , smaller than the injectivity radius of M , such that for each point x M with dist g ( x , M ) < R there exists a unique x ¯ M for which dist g ( x , x ¯ ) = dist g ( x , M ) , where dist g denotes the geodesic distance in ( M , g ) . For ξ M , we set

Q ξ := { x M : dist g ( x , M ) = dist g ( x , x ¯ ) < R , x ¯ M , dist g ( ξ , x ¯ ) < R } .

We write each point x Q ξ in Fermi coordinates ( y 1 , , y n ) at ξ, i.e., ( y 1 , , y n - 1 ) are normal coordinates for x ¯ on M at the point ξ, and y n = dist g ( x , x ¯ ) is the geodesic distance from x to M . We write ψ ξ : D + Q ξ for the chart whose inverse is given by ( ψ ξ ) - 1 ( x ) := ( y 1 , , y n ) , defined on

D + := B R n - 1 ( 0 ) × [ 0 , R ) , where  B R n - 1 ( 0 ) := { y ¯ n - 1 : | y ¯ | < R } .

The second fundamental form II ( X , Y ) of two vector fields X and Y on M is the component of X Y which is normal to M , where is the covariant derivative operator in the ambient manifold M. In Fermi coordinates at q it is given by a matrix ( h i j ) i , j = 1 , , n - 1 . One has the well-known formulas

(2.5) g i j ( y ) = δ i j + 2 h i j y n + O ( | y | 2 ) for  i , j = 1 , , n - 1 ,
(2.6) g i n ( y ) = δ i n ,
(2.7) | g | ( y ) = 1 - ( n - 1 ) H y n + O ( | y | 2 ) ,

where y = ( y 1 , , y n ) are the Fermi coordinates, | g | is the determinant of g = ( g i j ) , g i j are the coefficients of the inverse of ( g i j ) , and H = 1 n - 1 i = 1 n - 1 h i i ; see [5, 18, 19]. Abusing notation, we shall write ( h i j ) i , j = 1 , , n for the matrix which coincides with the second fundamental form for i , j = 1 , , n - 1 and has h i , n = h n , j = 0 for i , j = 1 , , n .

Set d ( x ) := a ( x ) - ω 2 b ( x ) . By assumption, this function is positive on M. Given ξ M , we consider the unique positive radial solution V ¯ = V ¯ ξ to the equation

(2.8) - c ( ξ ) Δ V ¯ + d ( ξ ) V ¯ = b ( ξ ) V ¯ p - 1 in  n .

By direct computation, one sees that

V ¯ ξ ( y ) = ( d ( ξ ) b ( ξ ) ) 1 p - 2 U ( d ( ξ ) c ( ξ ) y ) ,

where U is the unique positive radial solution of

- Δ U + U = U p - 1  in  n .

In the following, we set

γ ( ξ ) := ( d ( ξ ) b ( ξ ) ) 1 p - 2 and A ( ξ ) := d ( ξ ) c ( ξ ) ,

so

V ¯ ξ ( y ) = γ ( ξ ) U ( A ( ξ ) y ) .

The restriction V ξ ( y ) := V ¯ ξ | + n of V ¯ ξ to the half-space + n := { y n 0 } solves the Neumann problem

{ - c ( ξ ) Δ V + d ( ξ ) V = b ( ξ ) V p - 1 in  + n , V y n = 0 on  { y n = 0 } .

For ξ M and ε > 0 , set V ε ξ ( y ) := V ξ ( y ε ) . We define the functions W ε , ξ 𝒞 ( M ) by

(2.9) W ε , ξ ( x ) := { V ε ξ ( ( ψ ξ ) - 1 ( x ) ) χ ( ( ψ ξ ) - 1 ( x ) ) , x Q ξ , 0 elsewhere .

Here the function χ is a fixed cut-off function of the form χ ( y ¯ , y n ) := χ ~ ( | y ¯ | ) χ ~ ( y n ) for ( y ¯ , y n ) D + , where χ ~ : + [ 0 , 1 ] is a smooth function such that χ ( s ) 1 for 0 s R 2 , χ ( s ) 0 for s R and | χ ~ ( s ) | 1 R .

Remark 2.3.

The following limits hold uniformly with respect to ξ M ,

lim ε 0 1 ε n | W ε , ξ | p , g p C | U | p p , p 2 ,
lim ε 0 1 ε n | ε 2 g W ε , ξ | 2 , g 2 C | U | 2 2 ,

where the constant C does not depend on ξ.

It is well known that the space of solutions to the linearized problem

{ - Δ φ + φ = ( p - 1 ) ( V ξ ) p - 2 φ in  + n , φ y n = 0 on  { y n = 0 } ,

is generated by the functions φ i := V ξ y i for i = 1 , , n - 1 . The corresponding local functions on the manifold M are given by

(2.10) Z ε , ξ i ( x ) := { φ ε i ( ( ψ ξ ) - 1 ( x ) ) χ ( ( ψ ξ ) - 1 ( x ) ) , x Q ξ , 0 elsewhere ,

where φ ε i ( y ) := φ i ( y ε ) and χ is as above.

2.3 Proof of Theorem 1.3

As before, we set d ( x ) := a ( x ) - ω 2 b ( x ) > 0 . We denote by H ε the space H g 1 ( M ) equipped with the scalar product

u , v ε := 1 ε n M ε 2 c ( x ) g u g v + d ( x ) u v d μ g

and the norm u ε = u , u ε 1 / 2 . Similarly, we write L ε p for the space L g p ( M ) endowed with the norm

| u | ε , p = 1 ε n ( M | u | p 𝑑 μ g ) 1 p .

For any p [ 2 , 2 n ) , the embedding i ε : H ε L ε , p is compact and there is a positive constant C, independent of ε, such that | u | ε , p C u ε . The adjoint operator i ε : L ε , p H ε , p := p p - 1 , is defined by

u = i ε ( v ) u , φ ε = 1 ε n M v φ 𝑑 μ g for all  φ H g 1 ( M )
- ε 2 div g ( c ( x ) g u ) + d ( x ) u = v .

Note that, for some positive constant C independent of ε,

(2.11) i ε ( v ) ε C | v | p , ε for all  v L ε , p .

Using the adjoint operator, we can rewrite equation (2.4) as

u = i ε ( b ( x ) f ( u ) + ω 2 b ( x ) g ( u ) ) ,

where

f ( u ) := ( u + ) p - 1 ; g ( u ) := [ q 2 Φ 2 ( u ) - 2 q Φ ( u ) ] u .

For ξ M and ε > 0 , let

K ε , ξ := Span { Z ε , ξ 1 , , Z ε , ξ n - 1 } ,

where the Z ε , ξ i are the functions defined in (2.10). This is an ( n - 1 ) -dimensional subspace of H ε . We denote its orthogonal complement with respect to , ε by

K ε , ξ := { u H ε : u , Z ε , ξ i ε = 0 } .

We look for a solution to equation (2.4) of the form W ε , ξ + ϕ with ϕ K ε , ξ . Thus, W ε , ξ + ϕ solves the equations

(2.12) Π ε , ξ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ - i ε [ b ( x ) f ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) + ω 2 b ( x ) g ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) ] ) = 0 ,
Π ε , ξ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ - i ε [ b ( x ) f ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) + ω 2 b ( x ) g ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) ] ) = 0 ,

where Π ε , ξ : H ε K ε , ξ and Π ε , ξ : H ε K ε , ξ are the orthogonal projections onto K ε , ξ and K ε , ξ , respectively.

The first step in the proof of Theorem 1.3 is to solve equation (2.12). To this end, we define the linear operator L ε , ξ : K ε , ξ K ε , ξ by

(2.13) L ε , ξ ( ϕ ) := Π ε , ξ ( ϕ - i ε [ b ( x ) f ( W ε , ξ ) ϕ ] ) .

Lemma 3.1 yields the invertibility of L ε , ξ . Then we will use a contraction mapping argument to solve equation (2.12). In Section 3, we will prove the following result.

Proposition 2.4.

There exist ε 0 > 0 and C > 0 such that, for any ξ M and any ε ( 0 , ε 0 ) , there is a unique ϕ = ϕ ε , ξ which solves equation (2.12). This function satisfies

ϕ ε , ξ ε C ε .

Moreover, ξ ϕ ε , ξ is a C 1 -map.

Now, for each ε ( 0 , ε 0 ) , we introduce the reduced energy I ~ ε : M , defined by

I ~ ε ( ξ ) := I ε ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) ,

where I ε is the functional defined in (2.3), whose critical points are the solutions to equation (2.4). It is easy to verify that ξ ε is a critical point of I ~ ε if and only if the function u ε = W ε , ξ ε + ϕ ε , ξ ε is a weak solution to problem (2.4).

In Section 4, we will compute the asymptotic expansion of the reduced functional I ~ ε with respect to the parameter ε. We will show that

I ~ ε ( ξ ) = κ c ( ξ ) n 2 d ( ξ ) p p - 2 - n 2 b ( ξ ) 2 p - 2 + o ( 1 )

𝒞 1 -uniformly with respect to ξ M as ε 0 , where

κ := ( 1 2 - 1 p ) + n U p 𝑑 z .

If 𝒦 is a nonempty 𝒞 1 -stable critical set for the function Γ, then, by Definition 1.4, there exists a critical point ξ ε M of I ~ ε such that dist g ( ξ ε , 𝒦 ) 0 as ε 0 . Consequently, u ε = W ε , ξ ε + ϕ ε , ξ ε is a solution of (2.4), and Theorem 1.3 is proved.

3 The finite-dimensional reduction

In this section, we prove Proposition 2.4. Using the linear operator L ε , ξ : K ε , ξ K ε , ξ introduced in (2.13), equation (2.12) can be rewritten as

L ε , ξ ( ϕ ) = N ε , ξ ( ϕ ) + R ε , ξ + S ε , ξ ( ϕ ) ,

where

N ε , ξ ( ϕ ) := Π ε , ξ ( i ε [ b ( x ) ( f ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) - f ( W ε , ξ ) - f ( W ε , ξ ) ϕ ) ] ) ,
R ε , ξ := Π ε , ξ ( i ε [ b ( x ) f ( W ε , ξ ) ] - W ε , ξ ) ,
S ε , ξ ( ϕ ) := ω 2 Π ε , ξ ( i ε [ b ( x ) ( q 2 Φ 2 ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) - 2 q Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) ) ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) ] ) .

We refer to [26, Proposition 3.1], [7, Lemma 4.1] or [22, Lemma 10] for the proof of the following lemma.

Lemma 3.1.

There exist ε 0 and C > 0 such that, for any ξ M and ε ( 0 , ε 0 ) ,

L ε , ξ ε C ϕ ε for every  ϕ K ε , ξ .

We now estimate the remainder term R ε , ξ .

Lemma 3.2.

There exists ε 0 > 0 such that, for any ξ M and ε ( 0 , ε 0 ) , one has

R ε , ξ ε = o ( ε ) .

Proof.

Let G ε , ξ be the function such that W ε , ξ = i ε ( b ( x ) G ε , ξ ) , i.e.,

- ε 2 div g ( c ( x ) g W ε , ξ ) + d ( x ) W ε , ξ = b ( x ) G ε , ξ .

Then, for x Q ξ and its Fermi coordinates y := ( ψ ξ ) - 1 ( x ) , setting c ~ ( y ) := c ( x ) , d ~ ( y ) := d ( x ) and b ~ ( y ) := b ( x ) , we have

b ( x ) G ε , ξ ( x ) = d ~ ( y ) V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) - ε 2 | g ( y ) | y j [ | g ( y ) | g i j ( y ) c ~ ( y ) y i ( V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) ) ]
= d ~ ( y ) V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) - ε 2 g i j ( y ) y j [ c ~ ( y ) y i ( V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) ) ]
- ε 2 | g ( y ) | y j [ | g ( y ) | g i j ( y ) ] c ~ ( y ) y i ( V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) )
= d ~ ( y ) V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) - ε 2 y i [ c ~ ( y ) y i V ε ξ ( y ) ] χ ( y ) - ε 2 c ~ ( y ) y i V ε ξ ( y ) y i χ ( y )
- ε 2 y i [ c ~ ( y ) V ε ξ ( y ) y i χ ( y ) ] - ε 2 ( g i j ( y ) - δ i j ) y j [ c ~ ( y ) y i ( V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) ) ]
- ε 2 | g ( y ) | y j [ | g ( y ) | 1 2 g i j ( y ) ] c ~ ( y ) y i ( V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) ) .

Moreover, by (2.8), we have

d ~ ( y ) V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) - ε 2 y i [ c ~ ( y ) y i ( V ε ξ ( y ) ) ] χ ( y )
= d ( ξ ) V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) - ε 2 c ( ξ ) Δ V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) + [ d ~ ( y ) - d ( ξ ) ] V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) - ε 2 y i [ ( c ~ ( y ) - c ( ξ ) ) y i ( V ε ξ ( y ) ) ] χ ( y )
= ( b ( ξ ) ( V ε ξ ( y ) ) p - 1 + [ d ~ ( y ) - d ( ξ ) ] V ε ξ ( y ) - ε 2 y i [ ( c ~ ( y ) - c ( ξ ) ) y i ( V ε ξ ( y ) ) ] ) χ ( y ) .

From the definition of R ε , ξ we obtain

R ε , ξ ε i ε ( b ( x ) f ( W ε , ξ ) ) - W ε , ξ ε = i ε ( b ( x ) [ f ( W ε , ξ ) - G ε , ξ ] ) ε .

Using (2.11), we estimate the right-hand side by

M | b ( x ) W ε , ξ p - 1 - b ( x ) G ε , ξ | p 𝑑 μ g C B ( 0 , r ) b ~ ( y ) p | ( V ε ξ ( y ) ) p - 1 - G ε , ξ ( ψ ξ ( y ) ) | p 𝑑 y
C D + | b ~ ( y ) - b ( ξ ) | p | V ε ξ ( y ) | p 𝑑 y + C B ( 0 , r ) | d ~ ( y ) - d ( ξ ) | p | V ε ξ ( y ) | p 𝑑 y
+ C ε 2 D + | y i [ ( c ~ ( y ) - c ( ξ ) ) y i ( V ε ξ ( y ) ) ] | p 𝑑 y
+ C ε 2 D + | g i j ( y ) - δ i j | p | v j [ c ~ ( y ) y i ( V ε ξ ( y ) ) ] | p 𝑑 y
+ C ε 2 D + 1 | g ( y ) | p 2 y j | [ | g ( y ) | 1 2 g i j ( y ) ] | p | c ~ ( y ) y i ( V ε ξ ( y ) ) | p 𝑑 y .

By the usual change of variables y = ε z , we can easily estimate almost all terms in the previous equation. The only term needing more attention is

I 1 = C ε 2 D + | g i j ( y ) - δ i j | p | y j [ c ~ ( y ) y i ( V ε ξ ( y ) ) ] | p 𝑑 y .

We have

I 1 C ε 2 + n | g i j ( ε z ) - δ i j | p | 1 ε 2 2 z i 2 ( V ξ ( z ) ) | p ε n 𝑑 z + o ( ε p ) ,

and by (2.5) we get

R ε , ξ ε = O ( ε 2 + p + n - 2 p p ) = O ( ε 2 + n p - 1 ) = o ( ε )

since p > 2 and n 2 , so 2 + n p > 2 . ∎

Lemma 3.3.

There exist ε 0 > 0 and C > 0 such that, for any ξ M , ε ( 0 , ε 0 ) and r > 0 , we have that

(3.1) S ε , ξ ( ϕ ) ε C ε

and

(3.2) S ε , ξ ( ϕ 1 ) - S ε , ξ ( ϕ 2 ) ε ε ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ε

for ϕ , ϕ 1 , ϕ 2 { v H ε : v ε r ε } , with ε 0 as ε 0 .

Proof.

Let us prove (3.1). From the definition of i and (2.11) it follows that

S ε , ξ ( ϕ ) ε C | Φ 2 ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) | ε , p + C | Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) | ε , p
C | Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) | ε , p

since 0 < Φ ( u ) < 1 q . Hence, for some t > 2 if n = 2 or for t = 2 n if n = 3 , 4 , we have that

S ε , ξ ( ϕ ) ε C 1 ε n / p ( M | Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) | t ) 1 t ( | W ε , ξ + ϕ | t p t - p ) t - p t p
C 1 ε n / p Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) H g 1 | W ε , ξ + ϕ | t p t - p , g
C 1 ε n / p Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) H g 1 ε n t - p t p | W ε , ξ + ϕ | ε , t p t - p
C ε - n t Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ) H g 1 ( 1 + ϕ ε )

by Remark 2.3. Now, for n = 2 , by (5.2) we have that

S ε , ξ ( ϕ ) ε C ε β - 2 t ,

and we can chose t > 2 sufficiently large and β < 2 sufficiently close to 2 to prove the claim. On the other hand, for n = 3 , 4 , recalling that t = 2 n and using (5.4), we have

S ε , ξ ( ϕ ) ε C ε - n - 2 2 ε n + 2 2 = C ε 2 .

In every case, S ε , ξ ( ϕ ) ε C ε , and we have proved (3.1).

Let us prove (3.2). From (2.11), since 0 < Φ ( u ) < 1 q , it follows that

S ε , ξ ( ϕ 1 ) - S ε , ξ ( ϕ 2 ) ε
C | Φ 2 ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 1 ) ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 1 ) - Φ 2 ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 2 ) ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 1 ) | ε , p
    + C | Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 1 ) ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 1 ) - Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 2 ) ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 1 ) | ε , p
C | Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 1 ) ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 1 ) - Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 2 ) ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 1 ) | ε , p
= C | [ Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 1 ) - Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 2 ) ] W ε , ξ | ε , p + C | Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 2 ) ( ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ) | ε , p = : I 1 + I 2 .

In the light of Remark 2.3, for some θ ( 0 , 1 ) we have that

I 1 p = C ε n M | Φ ( W ε , ξ + θ ϕ 1 + ( 1 - θ ) ϕ 2 ) ( ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ) | p | W ε , ξ + ϕ 1 | p
C ε n ( M | Φ ( W ε , ξ + θ ϕ 1 + ( 1 - θ ) ϕ 2 ) ( ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ) | t ) p t ( M | W ε , ξ + ϕ 1 | p t t - p ) t - p t
= C ε n Φ ( W ε , ξ + θ ϕ 1 + ( 1 - θ ) ϕ 2 ) ( ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ) H g 1 p ε n t - p t | W ε , ξ + ϕ 1 | ε , p t t - p p
C ε - n p t Φ ( W ε , ξ + θ ϕ 1 + ( 1 - θ ) ϕ 2 ) ( ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ) H g 1 p .

Here, as before, t > 2 for n = 2 and t = 2 n for n = 3 , 4 . Notice that, since p < 2 , we have

p 2 2 - p < 2 .

By direct computation, one sees that u H g 1 ε ( n - 2 ) / 2 u ε for n = 2 , 3 , 4 . Thus, in case n = 2 , from Lemma 5.2 we obtain that

I 1 C ε - 2 t ( ε β + ϕ 1 ε + ϕ 2 ε ) ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ε C ε β - 2 t ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ε

and, choosing t sufficiently large, we conclude that I 1 ε ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ε with ε 0 . For n = 3 , 4 , again by Lemma 5.2, we have

I 1 C ε - n 2 ( ε 2 + ε n - 2 2 ( ϕ 1 ε + ϕ 2 ε ) ) ε n - 2 2 ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ε
C ( ε 2 + ε n - 2 2 ( ϕ 1 ε + ϕ 2 ε ) ) ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ε ,

and since ϕ 1 ε + ϕ 2 ε C ε , we have again that I 1 ε ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ε with ε 0 . To estimate I 2 we proceed in a similar way, obtaining

I 2 p = C ε n M | Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 2 ) | p | ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 | p
C ε n ( M | Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 2 ) | t ) p t ( M | ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 | p t t - p ) t - p t
C ε - n p t Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ 2 ) H g 1 p ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ε p .

For n = 2 , we have by (5.2) that

I 2 C ε - 2 t ε β ( 1 + ϕ 2 ε ) ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ε C ε β - 2 t ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ε

and, since t may be chosen arbitrarily large, we have ε β - 2 / t 0 . For n = 3 , 4 , again by (5.2) we conclude that

I 2 C ε - n 2 ε 2 ( 1 + ϕ 2 ε ) ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ε C ε 2 ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ε ,

so I 2 ε ϕ 1 - ϕ 2 ε with ε 0 . Collecting the estimates for I 1 and I 2 , we get (3.2). ∎

Sketch of the proof of Proposition 2.4.

Since, by Lemma 3.1, L ε , ξ is invertible, the map

T ε , ξ : K ε , ξ K ε , ξ , T ε , ξ ( ϕ ) := L ε , ξ - 1 ( N ε , ξ ( ϕ ) + R ε , ξ + S ε , ξ ( ϕ ) )

is well defined. As

T ε , ξ ( ϕ ) ε C ( N ε , ξ ( ϕ ) ε + S ε , ξ ( ϕ ) ε + R ε , ξ ε )

and

T ε , ξ ( ϕ 1 ) - T ε , ξ ( ϕ 2 ) ε C N ε , ξ ( ϕ 1 ) - N ε , ξ ( ϕ 2 ) ε + C S ε , ξ ( ϕ 1 ) - S ε , ξ ( ϕ 2 ) ε ,

we deduce from Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3 that T ε , ξ is a contraction in the ball centered at 0 with radius C ε in K ε , ξ for a suitable constant C. Then T ε , ξ has a unique fixed point. The proof that the map ξ ϕ ε , ξ is a 𝒞 1 -map uses the implicit function theorem. This part of the proof is standard. ∎

4 The reduced energy

In this section, we obtain the expansion of the functional I ~ ε ( ξ ) with respect to ε. Recall the notation introduced in Section 2.2.

Lemma 4.1.

The expression

I ~ ε ( ξ ) = I ε ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) = I ε ( W ε , ξ ) + o ( 1 ) = J ε ( W ε , ξ ) + ω 2 2 G ε ( W ε , ξ ) + o ( 1 )

holds true C 0 -uniformly with respect to ξ as ε goes to zero. Moreover, setting ξ ( z ¯ ) := exp ξ ( z ¯ ) for z ¯ B R n - 1 ( 0 ) , we have that

( z ¯ h I ~ ε ( ξ ( z ¯ ) ) ) | z ¯ = 0 = ( z ¯ h I ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) + ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) ) | z ¯ = 0
= ( z ¯ h I ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) ) | z ¯ = 0 + o ( 1 )
= ( z ¯ h J ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) ) | z ¯ = 0 + ω 2 2 ( z ¯ h G ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) ) | z ¯ = 0 + o ( 1 )

𝒞 0 -uniformly with respect to ξ as ε goes to zero, for every h = 1 , , n - 1 .

Proof.

As in [7, Lemma 5.1], we obtain the estimates

J ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) + ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) - J ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) = o ( 1 ) ,
( J ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) + ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) - J ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) ) [ ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 ] = o ( 1 ) .

To complete the proof we need the following estimates:

(4.1) G ε ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) - G ε ( W ε , ξ ) = o ( 1 ) ,
(4.2) [ G ε ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) - G ε ( W ε , ξ ) ] [ ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 ] = o ( 1 ) ,
(4.3) ( J ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) + ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) + ω 2 2 G ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) + ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) ) [ z ¯ h ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ] = o ( 1 ) .

The proof of (4.1), (4.2) and (4.3) is technical and it is postponed to the appendix. With these estimates, one can prove the claim following the argument of [7, Lemma 5.1]. ∎

Lemma 4.2.

The estimate

J ε ( W ε , ξ ) = ( 1 2 - 1 p ) c ( ξ ) n 2 d ( ξ ) p p - 2 - n 2 b ( ξ ) 2 p - 2 + n U p 𝑑 z + O ( ε )

holds true C 1 -uniformly with respect to ξ M .

Proof.

For y D + , setting c ~ ( y ) := c ( x ) , d ~ ( y ) := d ( x ) and b ~ ( y ) := b ( x ) with x := ψ ξ ( y ) Q ξ , we have

J ε ( W ε , ξ ) = ε 2 2 ε n D + c ~ ( y ) i , j = 1 n g i j ( y ) ( V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) ) y i ( V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) ) y j | g ( y ) | 1 2 d y
+ 1 2 ε n D + d ~ ( y ) ( V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) ) 2 | g ( y ) | 1 2 𝑑 y - 1 p ε n D + b ~ ( y ) ( V ε ξ ( y ) χ ( y ) ) p | g ( y ) | 1 2 𝑑 y .

Using the change of variables y = ε ζ , from the expansions (2.5), (2.6) and (2.7) we immediately obtain

J ε ( W ε , ξ ) = 1 2 + n c ( ξ ) | V ξ ( ζ ) | 2 + d ( ξ ) ( V ξ ( ζ ) ) 2 d ζ - 1 p + n b ( ξ ) ( V ξ ( ζ ) ) p 𝑑 ζ + O ( ε ) .

From the definitions of V ξ and U we get

J ε ( W ε , ξ ) = c ( ξ ) n 2 d ( ξ ) p p - 2 - n 2 b ( ξ ) 2 p - 2 [ 1 2 + n ( | U | 2 + U 2 ) - 1 p + n U p 𝑑 ζ ] + O ( ε )
= ( 1 2 - 1 p ) c ( ξ ) n 2 d ( ξ ) p p - 2 - n 2 b ( ξ ) 2 p - 2 + n U p 𝑑 ζ + O ( ε )

𝒞 0 -uniformly with respect to ξ M . For the sake of readability, the 𝒞 1 -convergence is postponed to the appendix, where a proof is given in full detail. ∎

Lemma 4.3.

The expression

I ε ( W ε , ξ ) = ( 1 2 - 1 p ) c ( ξ ) n 2 d ( ξ ) p p - 2 - n 2 b ( ξ ) 2 p - 2 + n U p 𝑑 z + o ( 1 )

holds true C 1 -uniformly with respect to ξ M .

Proof.

In Lemma 4.2 we proved that

J ε ( W ε , ξ ) = ( 1 2 - 1 p ) c ( ξ ) n 2 d ( ξ ) p p - 2 - n 2 b ( ξ ) 2 p - 2 n U p 𝑑 z + O ( ε ) .

It is enough to show now that G ε ( W ε , ξ ) = o ( 1 ) holds true 𝒞 1 -uniformly with respect to ξ M . For the 𝒞 0 -convergence, by Remark 2.3 and since Φ ( W ε , ξ ) ε C ε , we have that

| G ε ( W ε , ξ ) | C ε n | M Φ ( W ε , ξ ) W ε , ξ 2 𝑑 μ g |
C ε n | Φ ( W ε , ξ ) | 2 , g | W ε , ξ | 4 , g 2
C | Φ ( W ε , ξ ) | ε , 2 | W ε , ξ | ε , 4 2
C Φ ( W ε , ξ ) ε C ε .

For the 𝒞 1 -convergence, we estimate

| z ¯ h G ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 | | C ε n z ¯ h M Φ ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) 2 | z ¯ = 0 d μ g |
| C ε n M Φ ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) 2 W ε , ξ ( h ) ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 d μ g |
+ | C ε n M W ε , ξ ( h ) 2 Φ ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) [ z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 ] 𝑑 μ g |
= : I 1 + I 2 .

Now, by Remark 2.3 and since

z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 ε = O ( 1 ε ) ,

we have

I 1 C ε n | Φ ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | 3 , g | W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | 3 , g | z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 | 3 , g
C ε 2 3 n ε n Φ ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) H g 1 | W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | ε , 3 z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 ε
C ε - n 3 - 1 Φ ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) H g 1 .

From Lemma 5.1, choosing 5 3 < β < 2 if n = 2 , we get I 1 C ε β - 2 / 3 - 1 = o ( 1 ) , and for n = 3 , 4 we get

I 1 C ε n + 2 2 - n 3 - 1 = ε n 6 = o ( 1 ) .

Using Remark 2.3 and choosing 2 n n + 2 < t < 2 , we obtain

I 2 C ε n | W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | 2 t , g 2 | Φ ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) [ z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 ] | t , g
C ε n t ε n | W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | ε , 2 t 2 Φ ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) [ z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 ] H g 1
C ε n t - n Φ ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) [ z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 ] H g 1 .

Finally, using Lemma 5.2 and noting that u H g 1 C ε ( n - 2 ) / 2 u ε , for n = 2 and 3 - 2 t < β < 2 we have

I 2 C ε 2 t - 2 ε β z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 ε C ε β + 2 t - 3 = o ( 1 ) ,

while for n = 3 , 4 we get

I 2 C ε n t - n ε 2 ε n - 2 2 z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 ε C ε n t - n 2 = o ( 1 )

since t < 2 . ∎

5 Appendix

We collect a series of technical results that were used previously.

5.1 Key estimates for the function Φ

Lemma 5.1.

For ε > 0 , ξ M and φ H g 1 ( M ) , we have the following estimates:

For n = 2 and 1 < β < 2 , we have

(5.1) Φ ( W ε , ξ + φ ) H g 1 C 1 ( ε β + φ H g 1 2 ) ,
(5.2) Φ ( W ε , ξ + φ ) H g 1 C 1 ε β ( 1 + φ ε 2 ) ,

and for n = 3 , 4 we have

(5.3) Φ ( W ε , ξ + φ ) H g 1 C 1 ( ε n + 2 2 + φ H g 1 2 ) ,
(5.4) Φ ( W ε , ξ + φ ) H g 1 C 1 ε n + 2 2 ( 1 + φ ε 2 ) ,

where the constant C 1 does not depend on ε, ξ and φ.

Proof.

To simplify the notation we set v := Φ ( W ε , ξ + φ ) . By (2.1) or (2.2) we have

v H g 1 2 C M c ( x ) | g v | 2 + b ( x ) q 2 ( W ε , ξ + φ ) 2 v 2
= C q M b ( x ) ( W ε , ξ + φ ) 2 v
C ( M v t ) 1 t ( M ( W ε , ξ + φ ) 2 t ) 1 t
C v H g 1 W ε , ξ + φ L g 2 t 2
C v H g 1 ( W ε , ξ L g 2 t 2 + φ L g 2 t 2 ) ,

where t = 2 n for n = 3 , 4 and t 2 for n = 2 . We recall (see Remark 2.3) that

lim ε 0 1 ε n | W ε , ξ | q q C | U | q q uniformly with respect to  ξ M .

Thus, we have

(5.5) v H g 1 C 1 ( ε n t + | φ | 2 t , g 2 ) C 1 ( ε n t + φ H g 1 2 ) .

Notice that for n = 2 , since t 2 , we have that 1 2 t < 2 , while for n = 3 , 4 we have t = 2 n n + 2 , which proves (5.1) and (5.3). In the light of (5.5), we also obtain that

v H g 1 C 1 ( ε n t + | φ | 2 t , g 2 ) C 1 ε n t ( 1 + | φ | 2 t , ε 2 ) C 1 ε n t ( 1 + φ ε 2 ) ,

which proves the other two inequalities (5.2) and (5.4). ∎

Lemma 5.2.

For ε > 0 , ξ M and h , k H g 1 ( M ) , we have the following estimates:

For n = 2 and β ( 0 , 2 ) , we have

Φ ( W ε , ξ + k ) [ h ] H g 1 C h H g 1 ( ε β + k H g 1 ) ,

and for n = 3 , 4 we have

Φ ( W ε , ξ + k ) [ h ] H g 1 C h H g 1 ( ε 2 + k H g 1 ) ,

where the constant C does not depend on ε, ξ, h and k.

Proof.

From Lemma 2.1 we obtain

Φ ( W ε , ξ + k ) [ h ] H g 1 2 = 2 q M b ( x ) ( W ε , ξ + k ) ( 1 - q Φ ( W ε , ξ + k ) ) h Φ ( W ε , ξ + k ) [ h ]
- q 2 M b ( x ) ( W ε , ξ + k ) 2 ( Φ ( W ε , ξ + k ) [ h ] ) 2
C M W ε , ξ | h | | Φ ( W ε , ξ + k ) [ h ] | + M | k | | h | | Φ ( W ε , ξ + k ) [ h ] | .

We call the last two integrals I 1 and I 2 , respectively, and we estimate each of them separately. We have, by Remark 2.3, that

I 2 k L g 3 h L g 3 Φ ( W ε , ξ + k ) [ h ] L g 3 k H g 1 h H g 1 Φ H g 1

and

I 1 Φ ( W ε , ξ + k ) [ h ] L g t h L g t W ε , ξ L g t t - 2 ε n t - 2 t Φ H g 1 h H g 1 ,

where t = 2 n for n = 3 , 4 and t > 2 for n = 2 . ∎

5.2 Change of coordinates along M

For ξ M , we consider the chart ψ ξ : D + Q ξ , introduced in Section 2.2, whose inverse ( ψ ξ ) - 1 ( x ) = y expresses a point x Q ξ M in Fermi coordinates y = ( y 1 , , y n ) around ξ.

For z ¯ B R n - 1 ( 0 ) and x Q ξ Q exp ξ ( z ¯ ) , we consider the change of coordinates map

(5.6) ( z ¯ , x ) = ( ψ exp ξ ( z ¯ ) ) - 1 ( x ) = ( ψ exp ξ ( z ¯ ) ) - 1 ψ ξ ( y ) = ~ ( z ¯ , y ) .

Since y n = dist g ( x , M ) , writing y = ( y ¯ , y n ) with y ¯ n - 1 and y n [ 0 , ) , we have that

(5.7) ~ ( z ¯ , y ¯ , y n ) = ( exp exp ξ ( z ¯ ) - 1 exp ξ ( y ¯ ) , y n ) .

Lemma 5.3.

The derivatives of E at ( 0 , ξ ) are given by

k y h ( 0 , ξ ) = ~ k y h ( 0 , 0 ) = - δ h k for  h = 1 , , n - 1 , k = 1 , , n ,
2 k η j y h ( 0 , ξ ) = 2 ~ k η j y h ( 0 , 0 ) = 0 for  h = 1 , , n - 1 , j , k = 1 , , n .

Proof.

This follows from [26, Lemma 6.4] by using the expression (5.7). ∎

For z ¯ B R n - 1 ( 0 ) , we set ξ ( z ¯ ) := exp ξ ( z ¯ ) M . The function W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) , defined in (2.9), can now be written as

W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ( x ) = γ ( ξ ( z ¯ ) ) U ε ( A ( ξ ( z ¯ ) ) ( ψ ξ ( z ¯ ) ) - 1 ( x ) ) χ ( ( ψ ξ ( z ¯ ) ) - 1 ( x ) )
= γ ~ ( z ¯ ) U ε ( A ~ ( z ¯ ) ( z ¯ , x ) ) χ ( ( z ¯ , x ) ) ,

where A ~ ( z ¯ ) := A ( exp ξ ( z ¯ ) ) and γ ~ ( z ¯ ) := γ ( exp ξ ( z ¯ ) ) . Thus, we have

z ¯ s W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 = ( z ¯ s γ ~ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 ) U ( 1 ε A ~ ( 0 ) ( 0 , x ) ) χ ( ( 0 , x ) )
+ γ ~ ( 0 ) U ( 1 ε A ~ ( 0 ) ( 0 , x ) ) z ¯ s χ ( ( z ¯ , x ) ) | z ¯ = 0
+ γ ~ ( 0 ) χ ( ( 0 , x ) ) z ¯ s U ( 1 ε A ~ ( z ¯ ) ( z ¯ , x ) ) | z ¯ = 0 .

If x := ψ ξ ( ε y ) , ξ := ξ ( 0 ) , then ( 0 , x ) = ε y , and we have

z ¯ s W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 = ( z ¯ s γ ~ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 ) U ( A ~ ( 0 ) y ) χ ( ε y ) + γ ~ ( 0 ) U ( A ~ ( 0 ) y ) χ η k ( ε y ) z ¯ s k ( z ¯ , ψ ξ 0 ( ε y ) ) | z ¯ = 0
+ γ ~ ( 0 ) χ ( ε y ) A ~ ( 0 ) ε U η k ( A ~ ( 0 ) y ) z ¯ s k ( z ¯ , ψ ξ 0 ( ε y ) ) | z ¯ = 0
(5.8) + γ ~ ( 0 ) χ ( ε y ) U η k ( A ~ ( 0 ) y ) z ¯ s A ~ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 y k ,

where f η k ( ) denotes the derivative of the function f with respect to its k-th variable.

5.3 The pending proofs in Section 4

Conclusion of the proof of Lemma 4.1.

To finish the proof of this lemma we need to prove (4.1), (4.2) and (4.3).

Proof of (4.1). For some θ [ 0 , 1 ] , we have

G ε ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) - G ε ( W ε , ξ ) = 1 ε n M b ( x ) [ Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) 2 - Φ ( W ε , ξ ) ( W ε , ξ ) 2 ]
= 1 ε n M b ( x ) Φ ( W ε , ξ + θ ϕ ε , ξ ) [ ϕ ε , ξ ] ( W ε , ξ ) 2
+ 1 ε n M b ( x ) Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) [ 2 ϕ ε , ξ W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ 2 ] .

Since ϕ ε , ξ ε C ε and 0 < Φ ( u ) < 1 q , from Remark 2.3 we obtain

| G ε ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) - G ε ( W ε , ξ ) | C ε n | Φ ( W ε , ξ + θ ϕ ε , ξ ) [ ϕ ε , ξ ] | 2 , g | Φ ε , ξ | 4 , g 2 + C ε n | ϕ ε , ξ | 2 , g ( | W ε , ξ | 2 , g + | ϕ ε , ξ | 2 , g )
C ε n / 2 ε n Φ ( W ε , ξ + θ ϕ ε , ξ ) [ ϕ ε , ξ ] H g 1 Φ ε , ξ ε 2 + C Φ ε , ξ ε ( W ε , ξ ε + Φ ε , ξ ε )
ε 2 ε n / 2 Φ ( W ε , ξ + θ ϕ ε , ξ ) [ ϕ ε , ξ ] H g 1 + C ε ( 1 + ε ) .

Using Lemma 5.2, we conclude that

| G ε ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) - G ε ( W ε , ξ ) | C ( ε 3 - n 2 + ε ) C ε .

Proof of (4.2). Recall that ξ ( z ¯ ) := exp ξ ( z ¯ ) for z ¯ B R n - 1 ( 0 ) . Since 0 < Φ ( u ) < 1 q , for some θ [ 0 , 1 ] we have

| [ G ε ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) - G ε ( W ε , ξ ) ] [ ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 ] |
| C ε n M [ Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) - Φ ( W ε , ξ ) ] W ε , ξ ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 |
    + | C ε n M [ q Φ 2 ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) - q Φ 2 ( W ε , ξ ) ] W ε , ξ ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 |
    + | C ε n M [ Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) - q Φ 2 ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) ] ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 |
| C ε n M [ Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) - Φ ( W ε , ξ ) ] W ε , ξ ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 |
    + | C ε n M Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 |
| C ε n M Φ ( W ε , ξ + θ ϕ ε , ξ ) ( ϕ ε , ξ ) W ε , ξ ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 |
    + | C ε n M Φ ( W ε , ξ + θ ϕ ε , ξ ) ( ϕ ε , ξ ) ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 |
    + | C ε n M Φ ( W ε , ξ ) ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 |
= : I 1 + I 2 + I 3 .

From (5.8) and a straightforward computation we derive that

| ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 | ε , 3 ( n [ k = 1 n | 1 ε U y k ( y ) | ] 3 d y ) 1 3 = O ( 1 ε ) .

Now, recalling that ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ε C ε and that u H g 1 C ε ( n - 2 ) / 2 u ε , from Remark 2.3 and Lemma 5.2 we get that

I 1 C ε 2 n 3 ε n ( M | Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) ( ϕ ε , ξ ) | 3 ) 1 3 ( 1 ε n M W ε , ξ 3 ) 1 3 ( 1 ε n M | ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 | 3 ) 1 3
C ε - n 3 - 1 Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) ( ϕ ε , ξ ) H g 1
C ε - n 3 - 1 ϕ ε , ξ H g 1 2
C ε - n 3 - 1 ε n = o ( 1 ) .

The term I 2 can be estimated in the same way, while for I 3 we have

I 3 C ε 2 n 3 ε n ( M | Φ ( W ε , ξ ) | 3 ) 1 3 ( 1 ε n M | ϕ | ε , ξ 3 ) 1 3 ( 1 ε n M | ( z ¯ h W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 | 3 ) 1 3
C ε - n 3 Φ ( W ε , ξ ) H 1 .

Now, if n = 2 , by (5.1) we have I 3 C ε = β - n / 3 o ( 1 ) , choosing β wisely. If n = 3 , 4 , by (5.2) we get

I 3 C ε n + 2 2 - n 3 = C ε n 6 + 1 .

This proves (4.2).

Proof of (4.3). Following the proof of [7, Lemma 5.1, step 2], we just have to prove that

| G ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) + ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) [ Z ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) l ] | = o ( 1 ) ,

Since 0 < Φ ( u ) < 1 q ,

| G ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) + ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) [ Z ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) l ] | | C ε n M Φ ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) + ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) + ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) Z ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) l |
+ | 1 ε n M Φ 2 ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) + ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) + ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) Z ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) l |
| C ε n M Φ ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) + ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) + ϕ ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) Z ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) l | = : I 4 .

By (2.10) it can be proved easily that Z ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) l ε = O ( 1 ) . So we have

I 4 ε - n 3 ( M | Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) | 3 ) 1 3 ( 1 ε n M | W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ | 3 ) 1 3 ( 1 ε n M | Z ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) l | 3 ) 1 3
ε - n 3 Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) H g 1 ( W ε , ξ 3 , ε + ϕ ε , ξ ε ) Z ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) l ε
ε - n 3 Φ ( W ε , ξ + ϕ ε , ξ ) H g 1 .

Now, if n = 2 , by (5.2) we have that

I 3 c ε β - n / 3 = o ( 1 ) ,

and if n = 3 , 4 by (5.2) we have that

I 3 c ε n + 2 2 - n 3 = c ε n 6 + 1 .

Conclusion of the proof of Lemma 4.2.

To finish the proof of this lemma we need to prove the 𝒞 1 -convergence. We do this for the first partial derivative. We set ξ ( z ¯ ) := exp ξ ( z ¯ ) for z ¯ B R n - 1 ( 0 ) . Then we have

z ¯ 1 J ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 = J ε ( W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) [ z ¯ 1 W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ] | z ¯ = 0
= ε 2 ε n M c ( x ) g W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) g z ¯ 1 W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) d μ g | z ¯ = 0
+ 1 ε n M d ( x ) W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) z ¯ 1 W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) 𝑑 μ g | z ¯ = 0
+ 1 ε n M b ( x ) W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) p - 1 z ¯ 1 W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) 𝑑 μ g | z ¯ = 0
= : I 1 + I 2 + I 3 .

Next, we estimate each term. Set x := ψ ξ ( y ) and c ~ ( y ) := c ( ψ ξ ( y ) ) = c ( x ) . By (5.8), we have

I 1 = ε 2 ε n M c ( x ) g W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) g ( z ¯ 1 W ε , ξ ( z ¯ ) ) d μ g | z ¯ = 0
= ε 2 ε n + n c ~ ( y ) | g ξ ( y ) | 1 2 g ξ i j ( y ) y i [ γ ~ ( 0 ) U ε ( A ~ ( 0 ) ~ ( 0 , y ) ) χ ( ~ ( 0 , y ) ) ]
× y j z ¯ 1 [ γ ~ ( z ¯ ) U ε ( A ~ ( z ¯ ) ~ ( z ¯ , y ) ) χ ( ~ ( z ¯ , y ) ) ] | z ¯ = 0 d y
= n c ~ ( ε ζ ) | g ξ ( ε ζ ) | 1 2 g ξ i j ( ε ζ ) ζ i [ γ ~ ( 0 ) U ε ( A ~ ( 0 ) ~ ( 0 , ε ζ ) ) χ ( ~ ( 0 , ε ζ ) ) ]
× ζ j z ¯ 1 [ γ ~ ( z ¯ ) U ε ( A ~ ( z ¯ ) ~ ( z ¯ , ε ζ ) ) χ ( ~ ( z ¯ , ε ζ ) ) ] | z ¯ = 0 d ζ .

Using the definition (5.6) of ~ , we obtain

I 1 = + n c ~ ( ε ζ ) γ ~ ( 0 ) | g ξ ( ε ζ ) | 1 2 g ξ i j ( ε ζ ) [ ( ζ i U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ) χ ( ε ζ ) + U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ζ i χ ( ε ζ ) ]
× ζ j z ¯ 1 [ γ ~ ( z ¯ ) U ε ( A ~ ( z ¯ ) ~ ( z ¯ , ε ζ ) ) χ ( ~ ( z ¯ , ε ζ ) ) ] | z ¯ = 0 d ζ + O ( ε )
= + n c ~ ( ε ζ ) γ ~ ( 0 ) | g ξ ( ε ζ ) | 1 2 g ξ i j ( ε ζ ) [ ( ζ i U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ) χ ( ε ζ ) + U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ζ i χ ( ε ζ ) ]
× ζ j [ z ¯ 1 γ ~ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) χ ( ε ζ ) + γ ~ ( 0 ) U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) χ ζ k ( ε ζ ) z ¯ 1 k ( z ¯ , ψ ξ ( ε ζ ) ) | z ¯ = 0
    + γ ~ ( 0 ) χ ( ε ζ ) A ~ ( 0 ) ε U ζ k ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) z ¯ 1 k ( z ¯ , ψ ξ ( ε ζ ) ) | z ¯ = 0
    + γ ~ ( 0 ) χ ( ε ζ ) U ζ k ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) z ¯ 1 A ~ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 ζ k ] d ζ + O ( ε )
= : D 1 + D 2 + D 3 + D 4 + O ( ε ) ,

where f ζ k ( ) denotes the derivative of the function f with respect to its k-th variable. Expanding c ~ ( ε ζ ) , by the exponential decay of U and its derivative, and by (2.5), (2.6) and (2.7), we get

D 1 = γ ~ ( 0 ) + n ( c ~ ( 0 ) δ i j + O ( ε | ζ | ) ) [ ζ i ( U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ) χ ( ε ζ ) + O ( ε | ζ | ) ]
× z ¯ 1 γ ~ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 [ ζ j ( U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ) χ ( ε ζ ) + O ( ε 2 | ζ | 2 ) ] d ζ
= 1 2 z ¯ 1 ( γ ~ ( z ¯ ) ) 2 | z ¯ = 0 c ~ ( 0 ) n | ζ ( U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ) | 2 𝑑 ζ + O ( ε ) .

Similarly, D 2 = O ( ε ) . Also, we have

D 4 = γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) + n ( c ~ ( 0 ) δ i j + O ( ε | ζ | ) ) [ ζ i ( U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ) χ ( ε ζ ) + O ( ε 2 | ζ | 2 ) ]
× ζ j [ χ ( ε ζ ) U ζ k ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) z ¯ 1 A ~ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 ζ k ] d ζ
= c ~ ( 0 ) γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) z ¯ 1 A ~ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 + n ζ i ( U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ) ζ i [ U ζ k ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ζ k ] 𝑑 ζ + O ( ε ) .

Now, an elementary computation yields

1 2 z ¯ 1 | ζ U ( A ~ ( z ¯ ) ζ ) | 2 = ζ i ( U ( A ~ ( z ¯ ) ζ ) ) ζ i z ¯ 1 ( U ( A ~ ( z ¯ ) ζ ) )
= ζ i ( U ( A ~ ( z ¯ ) ζ ) ) ζ i [ U ξ k ( A ~ ( z ¯ ) ζ ) ζ k z ¯ 1 A ~ ( z ¯ ) ] .

Hence,

D 4 = 1 2 c ~ ( 0 ) γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) + n z ¯ 1 ( | ζ U ( A ~ ( z ¯ ) ζ ) | 2 ) | z ¯ = 0 d ζ + O ( ε ) .

We conclude that

D 1 + D 4 = 1 2 c ~ ( 0 ) + n z ¯ 1 ( | γ ~ ( z ¯ ) ζ U ( A ~ ( z ¯ ) ζ ) | 2 ) | z ¯ = 0 d ζ + O ( ε )
= 1 2 c ( ξ ) + n z ¯ 1 ( | ζ V ξ ( z ¯ ) ( ζ ) | 2 ) | z ¯ = 0 d ζ + O ( ε ) .

The term D 3 is more delicate since the factor 1 ε forces us to expand all factors up to the second order. In the light of (2.5), (2.6) and (2.7), with the convention that the matrix ( h i j ) i , j = 1 , , n coincides with the second fundamental form when i , j = 1 , , n - 1 and h i , n = h n , j = 0 for i , j = 1 , , n , we obtain

D 3 = γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) A ~ ( 0 ) + n 1 ε c ~ ( ε ζ ) | g ξ ( ε ζ ) | 1 2 g ξ i j ( ε ζ ) [ ζ i ( U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ) χ ( ε ζ ) + O ( ε 2 | ζ | 2 ) ]
× ζ j [ χ ( ε ζ ) U ξ k ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) z ¯ 1 k ( z ¯ , ψ ξ ( ε ζ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 ] d ζ
= γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) A ~ ( 0 ) + n [ δ i j c ~ ( 0 ) ε + 2 c ~ ( 0 ) h i j ζ n - c ~ ( 0 ) ( n - 1 ) δ i j H ζ n + δ i j c ~ ζ l ( 0 ) ζ l ]
× ζ i ( U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ) ζ j [ U ξ k ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) z ¯ 1 k ( z ¯ , ψ ξ ( ε ζ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 ] d ζ + O ( ε ) .

By Lemma 5.3, we have

z ¯ 1 k ( z ¯ , ψ ξ ( ε ζ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 = - δ 1 k + O ( ε 2 | ζ | 2 ) ,
ζ j ( z ¯ 1 k ( z ¯ , ψ ξ ( ε ζ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 ) = O ( ε 2 | ζ | 2 ) .

Moreover, since U is radial,

(5.9) U ζ i ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) = U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ζ i | ζ | ,
(5.10) ζ 1 ( U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | ζ | ) = ( A ~ ( 0 ) U ′′ ( ζ ) | ζ | 2 - U ( ζ ) | ζ | 3 ) ζ 1 ,

where U = U r , U ′′ = 2 U r 2 and r = | ζ | . Thus, we get

D 3 = - γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) A ~ ( 0 ) + n [ δ i j c ~ ( 0 ) ε + 2 c ~ ( 0 ) h i j ζ n - c ~ ( 0 ) ( n - 1 ) δ i j H ζ n + δ i j c ~ ξ l ( 0 ) ζ l ]
× U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | ζ | ζ i ζ j ( U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | ζ | ζ k ) δ 1 k d ζ + O ( ε )
= - γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) A ~ ( 0 ) + n [ δ i j c ~ ( 0 ) ε + 2 c ~ ( 0 ) h i j ζ n - c ~ ( 0 ) ( n - 1 ) δ i j H ζ n + δ i j c ~ ξ l ( 0 ) ζ l ]
× ( U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | ζ | ) 2 ζ i δ j 1 + U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | ζ | ( A ~ ( 0 ) U ′′ ( ζ ) | ζ | 2 - U ( ζ ) | ζ | 3 ) ζ j ζ i ζ 1 d ζ + O ( ε ) .

Now, by symmetry considerations, for i = 1 , , n - 1 , any term containing ζ i to an odd power vanishes, and, since h i n = h n j = 0 , we get that

D 3 = - γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) A ~ ( 0 ) c ~ ξ l ( 0 ) + n δ i j ( U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | ζ | ) 2 ζ i ζ l δ j 1
+ δ i j U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | ζ | ( A ~ ( 0 ) U ′′ ( ζ ) | ζ | 2 - U ( ζ ) | ζ | 3 ) ζ j ζ i ζ 1 ζ l d ζ + O ( ε )
= - γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) A ~ ( 0 ) c ~ ξ 1 ( 0 ) + n ( U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | ζ | ) 2 ζ 1 2
+ U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | ζ | ( A ~ ( 0 ) U ′′ ( ζ ) | ζ | 2 - U ( ζ ) | ζ | 3 ) ζ i ζ i ζ 1 2 d ζ + O ( ε )

Notice that, by (5.9) and (5.10), we have

1 2 ζ 1 | ζ U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | 2 = A ~ ( 0 ) ( U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | ζ | ) 2 ζ 1 + A ~ ( 0 ) U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | ζ | ( A ~ ( 0 ) U ′′ ( ζ ) | ζ | 2 - U ( ζ ) | ζ | 3 ) ζ i ζ i ζ 1 ,

so

D 3 = - γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) c ~ ξ 1 ( 0 ) 1 2 + n ζ 1 | ζ U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | 2 ζ 1 𝑑 ζ
= γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) c ~ ξ 1 ( 0 ) 1 2 + n ζ 1 | ζ U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | 2 𝑑 ζ
= c ~ ξ 1 ( 0 ) 1 2 + n | V ξ ( ζ ) | 2 𝑑 ζ = z ¯ 1 c ( ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | z ¯ = 0 1 2 + n | V ξ ( ζ ) | 2 𝑑 ζ + O ( ε ) .

Consequently, we obtain

I 1 = 1 2 + n z ¯ 1 [ c ( ξ ( z ¯ ) ) | V ξ ( z ¯ ) ( ζ ) | 2 ] | z ¯ = 0 d ζ + O ( ε ) .

For the second term, setting d ~ ( y ) = d ( ψ ξ ( y ) ) = d ( x ) , we obtain in an analogous way

I 2 = + n d ~ ( ε ζ ) | g ξ ( ε ζ ) | 1 2 γ ~ ( 0 ) U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) χ ( ε ζ ) z ¯ 1 [ γ ~ ( z ¯ ) U ε ( A ~ ( z ¯ ) ~ ( z ¯ , ε ζ ) ) χ ( ~ ( z ¯ , ε ζ ) ) ] | z ¯ = 0 d ζ
= n d ~ ( ε ζ ) | g ξ ( ε ζ ) | 1 2 γ ~ ( 0 ) U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) χ ( ε ζ )
× [ z ¯ 1 γ ~ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) χ ( ε ζ ) + γ ~ ( 0 ) χ ( ε ζ ) A ~ ( 0 ) ε U ξ k ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) z ¯ 1 k ( z ¯ , ψ ξ ( ε ζ ) ) | z ¯ = 0
    + γ ~ ( 0 ) χ ( ε ζ ) U ξ k ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) z ¯ 1 A ~ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 ζ k + γ ~ ( 0 ) U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) z ¯ 1 [ χ ( ~ ( z ¯ , ε ζ ) ) ] | z ¯ = 0 ] d ζ
= : B 1 + B 2 + B 3 + B 4 .

Expanding d ~ ( ε ζ ) , by the exponential decay of U and its derivative, and by (2.7) and the definition of ~ , we get

B 1 = + n d ~ ( 0 ) γ ~ ( 0 ) z ¯ 1 γ ~ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 U 2 ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) d ζ + O ( ε )
= 1 2 d ~ ( 0 ) z ¯ 1 γ ~ 2 ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 n U 2 ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) 𝑑 ζ .

As before, we obtain that B 4 = O ( ε ) and

B 3 = + n d ~ ( 0 ) γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) U ξ k ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) z ¯ 1 A ~ ( z ¯ ) | z ¯ = 0 ζ k d ζ + O ( ε )
= 1 2 + n d ~ ( 0 ) γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) z ¯ 1 ( U ( A ~ ( z ¯ ) ζ ) ) 2 | z ¯ = 0 d ζ + O ( ε ) .

Thus,

B 1 + B 3 = 1 2 d ~ ( 0 ) + n z ¯ 1 ( γ ~ 2 ( z ¯ ) U ( A ~ ( z ¯ ) ζ ) ) 2 | z ¯ = 0 d ζ + O ( ε )
= 1 2 d ( ξ ) + n z ¯ 1 ( V ξ ( z ¯ ) ( ζ ) ) 2 | z ¯ = 0 d ζ + O ( ε ) .

Again, we have to pay particular attention to the term containing 1 ε as a factor. From (2.7) and Lemma 5.3 we get

B 2 = γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) A ~ ( 0 ) + n d ~ ( ε ζ ) ε | g ξ ( ε ζ ) | 1 2 U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) U ξ k ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ( - δ 1 k + O ( ε 2 | ζ | 2 ) ) 𝑑 ζ + O ( ε )
= - γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) A ~ ( 0 ) + n ( d ~ ( 0 ) ε + d ~ ξ l ( 0 ) ζ l ) U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) U ξ 1 ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) 𝑑 ζ + O ( ε )

and, by (5.9),

B 2 = - γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) A ~ ( 0 ) + n ( d ~ ( 0 ) ε + d ~ ξ l ( 0 ) ζ l ) U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | ζ | ζ 1 𝑑 ζ + O ( ε )
= - γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) A ~ ( 0 ) + n d ~ ξ 1 ( 0 ) U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) | ζ | ζ 1 2 𝑑 ζ + O ( ε )

due to the symmetry. So,

B 2 = - γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) d ~ ξ 1 ( 0 ) + n 1 2 ζ 1 [ U ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) ] 2 ζ 1 𝑑 ζ + O ( ε )
= γ ~ 2 ( 0 ) d ~ ξ 1 ( 0 ) + n U 2 ( A ~ ( 0 ) ζ ) 𝑑 ζ + O ( ε )
= 1 2 z ¯ 1 d ( ξ ) | z ¯ = 0 + n ( V ξ ( z ¯ ) ( ζ ) ) 2 𝑑 ζ

and

I 2 = 1 2 + n z ¯ 1 { d ( ξ ( z ¯ ) ) ( V ξ ( z ¯ ) ( ζ ) ) 2 } | z ¯ = 0 d ζ + O ( ε ) .

In a similar way we proceed for I 3 , completing the proof. ∎

Funding statement: The first author is supported by CONACYT grant 237661 (México) and PAPIIT-DGAPA-UNAM grant IN104315 (Mexico). The second and third authors are partially supported by the GNAMPA project by INDAM. The second author is partially supported by the PRA project of the university of Pisa.

References

[1] A. Azzollini and A. Pomponio, Ground state solutions for the nonlinear Klein–Gordon–Maxwell equations, Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 35 (2010), no. 1, 33–42. Suche in Google Scholar

[2] P. Baird and J. C. Wood, Harmonic Morphisms Between Riemannian Manifolds, London Math. Soc. Lecture (N. S.) 29, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198503620.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

[3] V. Benci and D. Fortunato, Solitary waves of the nonlinear Klein–Gordon equation coupled with the Maxwell equations, Rev. Math. Phys. 14 (2002), no. 4, 409–420. 10.1142/S0129055X02001168Suche in Google Scholar

[4] V. Benci and D. Fortunato, Solitary waves in classical field theory, Nonlinear Analysis and Applications to Physical Sciences (Pistoia 2002), Springer, Milan (2004), 1–50. Suche in Google Scholar

[5] J. Byeon and J. Park, Singularly perturbed nonlinear elliptic problems on manifolds, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 24 (2005), no. 4, 459–477. 10.1007/s00526-005-0339-4Suche in Google Scholar

[6] D. Cassani, Existence and non-existence of solitary waves for the critical Klein–Gordon equation coupled with Maxwell’s equations, Nonlinear Anal. 58 (2004), no. 7-8, 733–747. 10.1016/j.na.2003.05.001Suche in Google Scholar

[7] M. Clapp, M. Ghimenti and A. M. Micheletti, Solutions to a singularly perturbed supercritical elliptic equation on a Riemannian manifold concentrating at a submanifold, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 420 (2014), no. 1, 314–333. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2014.05.079Suche in Google Scholar

[8] M. Clapp, M. Ghimenti and A. M. Micheletti, Semiclassical states for a static supercritical Klein–Gordon–Maxwell–Proca system on a closed Riemannian manifold, Commun. Contemp. Math. 18 (2016), no. 3, Article ID 1550039. 10.1142/S021919971550039XSuche in Google Scholar

[9] M. Clapp and B. B. Manna, Double- and single-layered sign-changing solutions to a singularly perturbed elliptic equation concentrating at a single sphere, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 42 (2017), no. 3, 474–490. 10.1080/03605302.2017.1279627Suche in Google Scholar

[10] T. D’Aprile and D. Mugnai, Non-existence results for the coupled Klein–Gordon–Maxwell equations, Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 4 (2004), no. 3, 307–322. 10.1515/ans-2004-0305Suche in Google Scholar

[11] T. D’Aprile and J. Wei, Layered solutions for a semilinear elliptic system in a ball, J. Differential Equations 226 (2006), no. 1, 269–294. 10.1016/j.jde.2005.12.009Suche in Google Scholar

[12] T. D’Aprile and J. Wei, Clustered solutions around harmonic centers to a coupled elliptic system, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 24 (2007), no. 4, 605–628. 10.1016/j.anihpc.2006.04.003Suche in Google Scholar

[13] P. d’Avenia and L. Pisani, Nonlinear Klein–Gordon equations coupled with Born-Infeld type equations, Electron. J. Differential Equations 2002 (2002), Paper No. 26. Suche in Google Scholar

[14] P. d’Avenia, L. Pisani and G. Siciliano, Dirichlet and Neumann problems for Klein–Gordon–Maxwell systems, Nonlinear Anal. 71 (2009), no. 12, E1985–E1995. 10.1016/j.na.2009.02.111Suche in Google Scholar

[15] P. d’Avenia, L. Pisani and G. Siciliano, Klein–Gordon–Maxwell systems in a bounded domain, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 26 (2010), no. 1, 135–149. 10.3934/dcds.2010.26.135Suche in Google Scholar

[16] F. Dobarro and E. Lami Dozo, Scalar curvature and warped products of Riemann manifolds, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 303 (1987), no. 1, 161–168. 10.1090/S0002-9947-1987-0896013-4Suche in Google Scholar

[17] O. Druet and E. Hebey, Existence and a priori bounds for electrostatic Klein–Gordon–Maxwell systems in fully inhomogeneous spaces, Commun. Contemp. Math. 12 (2010), no. 5, 831–869. 10.1142/S0219199710004007Suche in Google Scholar

[18] J. F. Escobar, Conformal deformation of a Riemannian metric to a scalar flat metric with constant mean curvature on the boundary, Ann. of Math. (2) 136 (1992), no. 1, 1–50. 10.2307/2946545Suche in Google Scholar

[19] J. F. Escobar, Addendum: ”Conformal deformation of a Riemannian metric to a scalar at metric with constant mean curvature on the boundary” [Ann. of Math. (2) 136 (1992), no. 1, 1–50; MR1173925], Ann. of Math. (2) 139 (1994), no. 3, 749–750. 10.2307/2118578Suche in Google Scholar

[20] M. Ghimenti and A. M. Micheletti, Number and profile of low energy solutions for singularly perturbed Klein–Gordon–Maxwell systems on a Riemannian manifold, J. Differential Equations 256 (2014), no. 7, 2502–2525. 10.1016/j.jde.2014.01.012Suche in Google Scholar

[21] M. Ghimenti and A. M. Micheletti, Low energy solutions for singularly perturbed coupled nonlinear systems on a Riemannian manifold with boundary, Nonlinear Anal. 119 (2015), 315–329. 10.1016/j.na.2014.10.024Suche in Google Scholar

[22] M. Ghimenti and A. M. Micheletti, Construction of solutions for a nonlinear elliptic problem on Riemannian manifolds with boundary, Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 16 (2016), no. 3, 459–478. 10.1515/ans-2015-5036Suche in Google Scholar

[23] M. Ghimenti, A. M. Micheletti and A. Pistoia, The role of the scalar curvature in some singularly perturbed coupled elliptic systems on Riemannian manifolds, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 34 (2014), no. 6, 2535–2560. 10.3934/dcds.2014.34.2535Suche in Google Scholar

[24] E. Hebey and T. T. Truong, Static Klein–Gordon–Maxwell–Proca systems in 4-dimensional closed manifolds, J. Reine Angew. Math. 667 (2012), 221–248. 10.1515/CRELLE.2011.130Suche in Google Scholar

[25] E. Hebey and J. Wei, Resonant states for the static Klein–Gordon–Maxwell–Proca system, Math. Res. Lett. 19 (2012), no. 4, 953–967. 10.4310/MRL.2012.v19.n4.a18Suche in Google Scholar

[26] A. M. Micheletti and A. Pistoia, The role of the scalar curvature in a nonlinear elliptic problem on Riemannian manifolds, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 34 (2009), no. 2, 233–265. 10.1007/s00526-008-0183-4Suche in Google Scholar

[27] D. Mugnai, Coupled Klein–Gordon and Born–Infeld-type equations: Looking for solitary waves, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 460 (2004), no. 2045, 1519–1527. 10.1098/rspa.2003.1267Suche in Google Scholar

[28] F. Pacella and P. N. Srikanth, A reduction method for semilinear elliptic equations and solutions concentrating on spheres, J. Funct. Anal. 266 (2014), no. 11, 6456–6472. 10.1016/j.jfa.2014.03.004Suche in Google Scholar

[29] B. Ruf and P. N. Srikanth, Singularly perturbed elliptic equations with solutions concentrating on a 1-dimensional orbit, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 12 (2010), no. 2, 413–427. 10.4171/JEMS/203Suche in Google Scholar

[30] B. Ruf and P. N. Srikanth, Concentration on Hopf-fibres for singularly perturbed elliptic equations, J. Funct. Anal. 267 (2014), no. 7, 2353–2370. 10.1016/j.jfa.2014.07.018Suche in Google Scholar

[31] D. Ruiz, Semiclassical states for coupled Schrödinger-Maxwell equations: Concentration around a sphere, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 15 (2005), no. 1, 141–164. 10.1142/S0218202505003939Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-02-24
Accepted: 2017-04-25
Published Online: 2017-07-21

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Asymptotic behavior of evolution systems in arbitrary Banach spaces using general almost periodic splittings
  3. Solvability of a product-type system of difference equations with six parameters
  4. On Dirichlet problem for fractional p-Laplacian with singular non-linearity
  5. Absence of Lavrentiev gap for non-autonomous functionals with (p,q)-growth
  6. On a class of fully nonlinear parabolic equations
  7. On sign-changing solutions for (p,q)-Laplace equations with two parameters
  8. Weighted Caffarelli–Kohn–Nirenberg type inequalities related to Grushin type operators
  9. On the fractional p-Laplacian equations with weight and general datum
  10. An elliptic equation with an indefinite sublinear boundary condition
  11. Liouville-type theorems for elliptic equations in half-space with mixed boundary value conditions
  12. Well/ill-posedness for the dissipative Navier–Stokes system in generalized Carleson measure spaces
  13. Hypercontractivity, supercontractivity, ultraboundedness and stability in semilinear problems
  14. Theoretical analysis of a water wave model with a nonlocal viscous dispersive term using the diffusive approach
  15. A multiplicity result for asymptotically linear Kirchhoff equations
  16. Higher-order anisotropic models in phase separation
  17. Well-posedness and maximum principles for lattice reaction-diffusion equations
  18. Existence of a bound state solution for quasilinear Schrödinger equations
  19. Existence and concentration behavior of solutions for a class of quasilinear elliptic equations with critical growth
  20. Homoclinics for strongly indefinite almost periodic second order Hamiltonian systems
  21. A new method for converting boundary value problems for impulsive fractional differential equations to integral equations and its applications
  22. Diffusive logistic equations with harvesting and heterogeneity under strong growth rate
  23. On viscosity and weak solutions for non-homogeneous p-Laplace equations
  24. Periodic impulsive fractional differential equations
  25. A result of uniqueness of solutions of the Shigesada–Kawasaki–Teramoto equations
  26. Solutions of vectorial Hamilton–Jacobi equations are rank-one absolute minimisers in L
  27. Large solutions to non-divergence structure semilinear elliptic equations with inhomogeneous term
  28. The elliptic sinh-Gordon equation in a semi-strip
  29. The Gelfand problem for the 1-homogeneous p-Laplacian
  30. Boundary layers to a singularly perturbed Klein–Gordon–Maxwell–Proca system on a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary
  31. Subharmonic solutions of Hamiltonian systems displaying some kind of sublinear growth
  32. Multiple solutions for an elliptic system with indefinite Robin boundary conditions
  33. New solutions for critical Neumann problems in ℝ2
  34. A fractional Kirchhoff problem involving a singular term and a critical nonlinearity
  35. Existence and non-existence of solutions to a Hamiltonian strongly degenerate elliptic system
  36. Characterizing the strange term in critical size homogenization: Quasilinear equations with a general microscopic boundary condition
  37. Nonlocal perturbations of the fractional Choquard equation
  38. A pathological example in nonlinear spectral theory
  39. Infinitely many solutions for cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equations in dimension four
  40. On Cauchy–Liouville-type theorems
  41. Maximal Lp -Lq regularity to the Stokes problem with Navier boundary conditions
  42. Besov regularity for solutions of p-harmonic equations
  43. The classical theory of calculus of variations for generalized functions
  44. On the Cauchy problem of a degenerate parabolic-hyperbolic PDE with Lévy noise
  45. Hölder gradient estimates for a class of singular or degenerate parabolic equations
  46. Critical and subcritical fractional Trudinger–Moser-type inequalities on
  47. Multiple nonradial solutions for a nonlinear elliptic problem with singular and decaying radial potential
  48. Quantization of energy and weakly turbulent profiles of solutions to some damped second-order evolution equations
  49. An elliptic system with logarithmic nonlinearity
  50. The Caccioppoli ultrafunctions
  51. Equilibrium of a production economy with non-compact attainable allocations set
  52. Exact behavior around isolated singularity for semilinear elliptic equations with a log-type nonlinearity
  53. The higher integrability of weak solutions of porous medium systems
  54. Classification of stable solutions for boundary value problems with nonlinear boundary conditions on Riemannian manifolds with nonnegative Ricci curvature
  55. Regularity results for p-Laplacians in pre-fractal domains
  56. Carleman estimates and null controllability of a class of singular parabolic equations
  57. Limit profiles and uniqueness of ground states to the nonlinear Choquard equations
  58. On a measure of noncompactness in the space of regulated functions and its applications
  59. p-fractional Hardy–Schrödinger–Kirchhoff systems with critical nonlinearities
  60. On the well-posedness of a multiscale mathematical model for Lithium-ion batteries
  61. Global existence of a radiative Euler system coupled to an electromagnetic field
  62. On the existence of a weak solution for some singular p ( x ) -biharmonic equation with Navier boundary conditions
  63. Choquard-type equations with Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev upper-critical growth
  64. Clustered solutions for supercritical elliptic equations on Riemannian manifolds
  65. Ground state solutions for the Hénon prescribed mean curvature equation
  66. Quasilinear equations with indefinite nonlinearity
  67. Concentrating solutions for a planar elliptic problem with large nonlinear exponent and Robin boundary condition
  68. Retraction of: Concentrating solutions for a planar elliptic problem with large nonlinear exponent and Robin boundary condition
Heruntergeladen am 22.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/anona-2017-0039/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen