Home Double phase anisotropic variational problems involving critical growth
Article Open Access

Double phase anisotropic variational problems involving critical growth

  • Ky Ho , Yun-Ho Kim EMAIL logo and Chao Zhang
Published/Copyright: May 29, 2024

Abstract

In this study, we investigate some existence results for double phase anisotropic variational problems involving critical growth. We first establish a Lions-type concentration-compactness principle and its variant at infinity for the solution space, which are our independent interests. Using these results, we obtain a nontrivial nonnegative solution to problems of generalized concave-convex type. We also obtain infinitely many solutions when the nonlinear term is symmetric. Our results are new even for the p ( ) -Laplace equations.

MSC 2010: 35J20; 35J60; 35J70; 47J10; 46E35

1 Introduction

In this study, we investigate the existence of a nontrivial nonnegative solution and infinitely many solutions to the following double phase anisotropic problem of Schrödinger-Kirchhoff type:

(1.1) M R N A ( x , u ) d x div a ( x , u ) + V ( x ) u α ( x ) 2 u = λ f ( x , u ) + b ( x ) u t ( x ) 2 u , in R N ,

where a ( x , ξ ) = ξ A ( x , ξ ) behaves like ξ q ( x ) 2 ξ for small ξ and like ξ p ( x ) 2 ξ for large ξ with 1 < p ( ) < q ( ) < N ; t C ( R N ) satisfying 1 < α ( ) t ( ) N p ( ) N p ( ) p ( ) , with

(1.2) C { x R N : t ( x ) = p ( x ) } ;

M : [ 0 , ) R is a real function, which is continuous and nondecreasing on some interval [ 0 , τ 0 ) ; V : R N R is measurable and positive a.e. in R N ; f : R N × R R is a Carathéodory function and is of subcritical growth; b L ( R N ) and b ( x ) > 0 for a.e. x R N ; and λ > 0 is a parameter.

Throughout this study, for m , n C ( R N ) , by m ( ) n ( ) , we mean inf x R N ( n ( x ) m ( x ) ) > 0 . Moreover, we denote

C + 0 , 1 ( R N ) { r C ( R N ) : r is Lipschitz continuous and 1 r ( ) } .

We make the following assumptions:

  1. The function A C ( R N × R N ) is continuously differentiable with respect to the second variable with ξ A a and verifies A ( x , ξ ) = A ( x , ξ ) and A ( x , 0 ) = 0 for all ( x , ξ ) R N × R N .

  2. A ( x , ) is strictly convex in R N for all x R N .

  3. There exist positive constants N 1 and N 2 and variable functions p and q such that for all ( x , ξ ) R N × R N , it holds

    a ( x , ξ ) ξ N 1 ξ p ( x ) , if ξ 1 , N 1 ξ q ( x ) , if ξ 1 , and a ( x , ξ ) N 2 ξ p ( x ) 1 , if ξ 1 , N 2 ξ q ( x ) 1 , if ξ 1 .

  4. p , q C + 0 , 1 ( R N ) and p ( ) q ( ) min { N , p ( ) } .

  5. a ( x , ξ ) ξ s ( x ) A ( x , ξ ) for any ( x , ξ ) R N × R N , where s C + 0 , 1 ( R N ) satisfies q ( ) s ( ) p ( ) .

  6. A is uniformly convex, i.e., for any ε ( 0 , 1 ) , there exists δ ( ε ) ( 0 , 1 ) such that u v ε max { u , v } or A ( x , u + v 2 ) 1 2 ( A ( x , u ) + A ( x , v ) ) for any x , u , v R N .

Note that from ( A 1 ) , we easily obtain

(1.3) a ( x , ξ ) = a ( x , ξ ) , ( x , ξ ) R N × R N .

Moreover, as shown in [61, Eqn. (3)], there exist positive constants M 1 and M 2 such that

(1.4) M 1 ξ p ( x ) , ξ > 1 M 1 ξ q ( x ) , ξ 1 A ( x , ξ ) a ( x , ξ ) ξ M 2 ξ p ( x ) , ξ > 1 M 2 ξ q ( x ) , ξ 1 , ( x , ξ ) R N × R N .

The basic assumptions for the potential V and the variable exponent α to obtain the desired solution space are the following:

  1. V L loc 1 ( R N ) and ess inf x R N V ( x ) = V 0 > 0 .

  2. α C ( R N ) such that 1 α ( ) p ( ) N 1 N and α ( ) p ( ) q ( ) p ( ) in R N with r ( ) r ( ) r ( ) 1 , for r C ( R N ) , satisfying 1 r ( ) .

For obtaining our concentration-compactness principle, we will need the following further assumption:
  1. ess sup x B R V ( x ) < , for any R > 0 .

Moreover, for covering some classes of subcritical terms, we will include the following assumption on V in some situations:
  1. V ( x ) as x .

The studies of differential equations and variational problems with nonhomogeneous operators and non-standard growth conditions have attracted extensive attention during the last few decades. The interest in the equations associated by nonhomogeneous nonlinearities has consistently developed in light of the pure or applied mathematical perspective to illustrate some concrete phenomena arising from nonlinear elasticity, plasticity theory, and plasma physics. Let us recall some related results by the way of motivation. Azzollini et al. [2,3] introduced a new class of nonhomogeneous operators with a variational structure:

div ( ϕ ( u 2 ) u ) ,

where ϕ C 1 ( R + , R + ) has a different growth near zero and infinity. Such a behavior occurs if

ϕ ( t ) = 2 ( ( 1 + t ) 1 2 1 ) ,

which corresponds to the prescribed mean curvature operator defined by

div u 1 + u 2 .

In particular, Azzollini et al. in [2] proved the existence of a nontrivial nonnegative radially symmetric solution for the quasilinear elliptic problem:

(1.5) div ( ϕ ( u 2 ) u ) + u α 2 u = u s 2 u , in R N , u 0 , as x ,

where N 2 , ϕ ( t ) behaves like t q 2 for small t and t p 2 for large t , and

(1.6) 1 < p < q < N , 1 < α p * q p , max { α , q } < s < p * ,

with p = p ( p 1 ) and q = q ( q 1 ) . Under the aforementioned assumption (1.6), Chorfi and Rădulescu [18] considered the standing wave solutions for the following Schrödinger equation with unbounded potential:

div ( ϕ ( u 2 ) u ) + a ( x ) u α 2 u = f ( x , u ) , in R N ,

where the nonlinearity f : R N R also satisfies the subcritical growth and a : R N ( 0 , ) is a singular potential satisfying some conditions.

Anisotropic partial differential equations have recently gained significant attention, thanks to their applications in double- and multiphase variational energies, along with their relevance in integral form anisotropic energies. For insights into this topic, we refer the reader to the survey article [51] and references therein. Problem (1.5) is relevant to the double phase anisotropic phenomenon, in the sense that the differential operator has a different growth near zero and infinity. The double phase problems are described by the following functional:

Ω H ( x , u ) d x ,

with the so-called ( p , q ) -growth conditions:

c ξ p H ( x , ξ ) C ( ξ q + 1 ) .

This ( p , q ) -growth condition was first treated by Marcellini [4750], and it has been extensively studied in the last few decades. Particularly, double phase functionals have been introduced by Zhikov in the context of homogenization and Lavrentiev’s phenomenon [64,65]. Then, it engages the enormous researchers’ attention to the development of both theoretical and application aspects of various double phase differential problems. For an overview of the subject, we refer the readers to the survey article [52]. Regularity theory for double phase functionals had been an unsolved issue for a while. However, we would like to mention a series of remarkable articles by Mingione et al. [57,2123]. Also, we refer to the works of Bahrouni et al. [4], Byun–Oh [15], Colasuonno–Squassina [20], Gasiński–Winkert [35,36], Liu–Dai [46], Papageorgiou et al. [53,54], Perera–Squassina [55], Ragusa–Tachikawa [57], Zhang–Rădulescu [61], and Zeng et al. [62,63].

In recent years, the study on partial differential equations with variable exponent has received an increasing deal of attention because they can be perceived as their application in the mathematical modeling of many physical phenomena occurring in diverse studies related to electro-rheological fluids, image processing, and the flow in porous media. There are many reference articles associated with the study of elliptic problems with variable exponent (see [25,27,58] and references therein for more background on applications). Also, we refer the readers to [24,41,57,59,61] for double phase differential problems with variable exponent. In this directions, Zhang and Rădulescu in a recent work [61] extended the results in [18] to the more general variable exponent case:

(1.7) div Φ ( x , u ) + V ( x ) u α ( x ) 2 u = f ( x , u ) , in R N ,

where the differential operator Φ ( x , ξ ) has behaviors like ξ q ( x ) 2 ξ for small ξ and like ξ p ( x ) 2 ξ for large ξ , 1 < α ( ) p ( ) < q ( ) < N . In order to analyze Problem (1.7), the authors gave useful elementary properties of a function space, called the variable exponent Orlicz-Sobolev space that is a generalization of Orlicz-Sobolev space setting in [2]. In particular, they provided fundamental imbedding results in the solution space, such as the Sobolev imbedding and the compact imbedding when the potential V satisfies conditions ( V 1 ) and ( V 3 ) . Also, they obtained some topological properties for the energy functional corresponding to Problem (1.7). Motivated by this work, the authors in [59] discussed the existence of multiple solutions to Problem (1.7) with V 1 when nonlinear term f has concave-convex nonlinearities. Very recently, Cen et al. [16] discussed the existence of multiple solutions to double phase anisotropic variational problems for the case of a combined effect of concave-convex nonlinearities:

div Φ ( x , u ) + V ( x ) u α ( x ) 2 u = λ a ( x ) u r ( x ) 2 u + f ( x , u ) , in R N ,

where λ > 0 is a parameter, r C ( R N ) satisfies 1 < r ( ) < p ( ) , a is an appropriate potential function defined in ( 0 , ) , and f : R N × R N R is a Carathéodory function. Especially, the superlinear (convex) term f substantially fulfills a weaker condition as well as Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition.

This work can be seen as a continuation of the earlier works [16,59,61] to the case of Problem (1.1) with critical growth and containing a Kirchhoff term. The critical problem was originally studied in the pioneer study by Brezis–Nirenberg [13] dealing with Laplace equations. Since then, many researchers have been interested in such problems, and there have been extensions of [13] in many directions. As we know, one of the difficulties in studying elliptic equations in an unbounded domain involving critical growth is the absence of compactness arising in relation to the variational approach. To overcome this difficulty, the concentration-compactness principles (CCPs), which were initially provided by Lions [44,45], and its variant at infinity [8,10,17] have been used. In particular, these principles have played a crucial role in showing the precompactness of a minimizing sequence or a Palais-Smale sequence. By making use of these CCPs or extending them to the suitable solution spaces, many authors have been successful to deal with critical problems involving elliptic equations of various types (see e.g., [11,12,33,3740] and references therein). Regarding the nonlocal Kirchhoff term, it was first introduced by Kirchhoff [42] to study an extension of the classical D’Alembert’s wave equation for free vibrations of elastic strings. Elliptic problems of Kirchhoff type have a strong background in several applications in physics and have been intensively studied by many authors in recent years (e.g., [1,19,26,31,60] and references therein).

The main feature of this article is to establish the existence and multiplicity of nontrivial nonnegative solutions to double phase anisotropic problem of Schrödinger-Kirchhoff type with critical growth. To do this, we first establish a Lions-type concentration-compactness principle and its variant at infinity for the solution space of (1.1). As mentioned earlier, as compared with the p ( ) -Laplacian, the solution space belongs to the variable exponent Orlicz-Sobolev spaces and the general variable exponent elliptic operator a has a different growth near zero and infinity. Hence, this problem with nonhomogeneous operator has more complex nonlinearities than those of the previous works [33,34,3840], so more exquisite analysis has to be meticulously carried out when we obtain the CCPs for the solution space (see Theorems 3.1 and 3.2). As far as we are aware, there were no such results for the variable exponent double phase anisotropic problems in this situation. This is one of the novelties of this article.

As an application of this result, we will be concerned with the existence of a nontrivial nonnegative solution and infinitely many solutions to a class of double phase problems involving critical growth. Concerning this, on a new class of nonlinearities that is a concave-convex type of nonlinearities, we obtain the existence result of a nontrivial nonnegative solution via applying the Ekeland variational principle (Theorem 4.1). When the symmetry of the reaction term f is additionally assumed, by employing the genus theory, we derive that Problem (1.1) admits infinitely solutions (Theorem 4.2). Although the proofs of Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 follow the basic idea of those in [19], we believe these consequences are new even in the constant exponent case as well as for the p ( ) -Laplace equations. This is another novelty of this study. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first effort to develop some existence and multiplicity results to the variable exponent double phase anisotropic problems with critical growth because we observe a new class of nonlinearities, which is of a generalized concave-convex type.

This article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review some properties of the variable exponent spaces. In Section 3, we establish the concentration-compactness principles for variable exponent Orlicz-Sobolev space, which plays as the solution space of Problem (1.1). Section 4 is devoted to the study of the existence and multiplicity of nontrivial solutions to Problem (1.1). In the Appendix, we provide a proof for a helpful inequality presented in Section 2.

2 Preliminaries and notations

2.1 Lebesgue-Sobolev spaces with variable exponent

In this subsection, we briefly recall the definition and some basic properties of the Lebesgue-Sobolev spaces with variable exponent, which were systematically studied in [27].

Let Ω be an open domain in R N . Denote

P + ( Ω ) { w : Ω R : w is Lebesgue measurable and positive a.e. in Ω }

and

C + ( Ω ) { m C ( Ω ¯ ) : 1 < m inf x Ω m ( x ) m + sup x Ω m ( x ) < } .

For p C + ( Ω ¯ ) and a σ -finite, complete measure μ in Ω , define the variable exponent Lebesgue space L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) as

L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) u : Ω R : u is μ measurable and Ω u ( x ) p ( x ) d μ < ,

endowed with the Luxemburg norm:

u L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) inf λ > 0 : Ω u ( x ) λ p ( x ) d μ 1 , u L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) .

When μ is the Lebesgue measure, we write d x , L p ( ) ( Ω ) and L p ( ) ( Ω ) in place of d μ , L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) , and L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) , respectively. For w P + ( Ω ) , denote L p ( ) ( w , Ω ) L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) with d μ = w ( x ) d x . We also denote

L + p ( ) ( Ω ) { u L p ( ) ( Ω ) : u is positive a.e. in Ω }

and

p ( ) p ( ) p ( ) 1 .

Some basic properties of L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) are listed in the next two propositions.

Proposition 2.1

[27] Define the modular ρ : L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) R as

ρ ( u ) Ω u p ( x ) d μ , u L p ( ) ( Ω ) .

Then, for all u L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) , it holds that

  1. ρ ( u ) > 1 ( = 1 ; < 1 ) if and only if u L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) > 1 ( = 1 ; < 1 ) , respectively;

  2. if u L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) > 1 , then u L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) p ρ ( u ) u L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) p + ;

  3. if u L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) < 1 , then u L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) p + ρ ( u ) u L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) p .

Consequently, we have

u L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) p 1 ρ ( u ) u L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) p + + 1 .

Furthermore, for { u n } n N L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) , it holds that

lim n u n u L μ p ( ) ( Ω ) = 0 lim n ρ ( u n u ) = 0 .

Proposition 2.2

[28,43] The space L p ( ) ( Ω ) is a separable and reflexive Banach space. Moreover, for any u L p ( ) ( Ω ) and v L p ( ) ( Ω ) , the following Hölder-type inequality holds:

Ω u v d x 2 u L p ( ) ( Ω ) v L p ( ) ( Ω ) .

Define the Sobolev space W 1 , p ( ) ( Ω ) as

W 1 , p ( ) ( Ω ) { u L p ( ) ( Ω ) : u L p ( ) ( Ω ) }

endowed with the norm:

u W 1 , p ( ) ( w , Ω ) u L p ( ) ( Ω ) + u L p ( ) ( Ω ) .

We recall the following result obtained by Fan (see [29, Theorem 1.1]).

Proposition 2.3

Let Ω be a (bounded or unbounded) domain in R N satisfying the cone uniform condition. Suppose that p C + ( Ω ) is Lipschitz in Ω ¯ with p + < N . Then, there holds a continuous imbedding W 1 , p ( ) ( Ω ) L q ( ) ( Ω ) , for any q C ( Ω ¯ ) satisfying condition:

p ( x ) q ( x ) p * ( x ) , x Ω .

Moreover, if Ω is bounded and q ( x ) < p * ( x ) for all x Ω ¯ , the aforementioned imbedding is compact.

2.2 Variable exponent Orlicz-Sobolev spaces

In this subsection, we review the definition and properties of the variable exponent Orlicz-Sobolev space introduced in [61], which is the solution space for Problem (1.1) and the construction of energy functional.

Throughout this subsection, we assume ( A 4 ) , ( V 1 ) , and ( P 1 ) . Let Ω be an open domain in R N . We define the following linear space:

L p ( ) ( Ω ) + L q ( ) ( Ω ) { u : u = v + w , v L p ( ) ( Ω ) , w L q ( ) ( Ω ) } ,

which is endowed with the norm:

u L p ( ) ( Ω ) + L q ( ) ( Ω ) inf { v L p ( ) ( Ω ) + w L q ( ) ( Ω ) : u = v + w , v L p ( ) ( Ω ) , w L q ( ) ( Ω ) } .

Proposition 2.4

[61] The space ( L p ( ) ( Ω ) + L q ( ) ( Ω ) , L p ( ) ( Ω ) + L q ( ) ( Ω ) ) is a reflexive Banach space.

We define the variable exponent Orlicz-Sobolev space W ( V , Ω ) as

W ( V , Ω ) { u L α ( ) ( V , Ω ) : u L p ( ) ( Ω ) + L q ( ) ( Ω ) } ,

which is equipped with the norm:

u W ( V , Ω ) u L α ( ) ( V , Ω ) + u L p ( ) ( Ω ) + L q ( ) ( Ω ) .

We have the following (see [61, Proposition 3.11 and Theorem 3.14 (ii)]).

Proposition 2.5

( W ( V , Ω ) , W ( V , Ω ) ) is a reflexive Banach space. Furthermore, if Ω is a bounded Lipschitz domain, then

W ( V , Ω ) L r ( ) ( Ω ) ,

for any r C ( Ω ¯ ) satisfying 1 r ( x ) < p * ( x ) for all x Ω ¯ .

Hereafter, we simply denote ( W ( V , R N ) , W ( V , R N ) ) as ( X , ) . We have the following imbedding results on X (see [61, Theorem 3.14]).

Proposition 2.6

The following conclusions hold:

  1. X L r ( ) ( R N ) for any r C ( R N ) satisfying α ( ) r ( ) p ( ) ;

  2. Assume additionally that ( V 3 ) holds, then X L r ( ) ( R N ) for any r C ( R N ) satisfying α ( ) r ( ) p ( ) .

We also have the following compact imbedding, which is crucial to obtain our existence results; its proof can be found in [59, Theorem 3.10].

Proposition 2.7

Let r C + 0 , 1 ( R N ) and ϱ L + θ ( ) ( R N ) with θ C + ( R N ) satisfying α ( ) θ ( ) r ( ) p * ( ) in R N . Then, it holds that

X L r ( ) ( ϱ , R N ) .

The next result is from [61, Corollary 3.13 (iii)] that shows the density of smooth functions with compact support in X .

Proposition 2.8

The space C c ( R N ) is dense in X .

Finally, we present a useful estimate regarding the main operator in (1.1), which is proved in Appendix and will be frequently used in the next sections. Define

(2.1) A ( u ) R N A ( x , u ) d x + R N V ( x ) α ( x ) u α ( x ) d x , u X ,

and

(2.2) p α ( x ) min { p ( x ) , α ( x ) } , q α ( x ) max { q ( x ) , α ( x ) } , x R N .

Then, there exist positive constants α 1 and α 2 such that

(2.3) α 1 min { u p α , u q α + } A ( u ) α 2 max { u p α , u q α + } , u X .

3 Concentration-compactness principles

Let C c ( R N ) be the set of all continuous functions u : R N R whose support is compact, and let C 0 ( R N ) be the completion of C c ( R N ) relative to the supremum norm L ( R N ) . Let ( R N ) be the space of all signed finite Radon measures on R N with the total variation norm. We may identify ( R N ) with the dual of C 0 ( R N ) via the Riesz representation theorem, i.e., for each μ [ C 0 ( R N ) ] , there is a unique element in ( R N ) , still denoted by μ , such that

μ , f = R N f d μ , f C 0 ( R N ) ,

(see, e.g., [32, Section 1.3.3]). We identify L 1 ( R N ) with a subspace of ( R N ) through the imbedding T : L 1 ( R N ) [ C 0 ( R N ) ] defined by

T u , f = R N u f d x , u L 1 ( R N ) , f C 0 ( R N ) .

Let p , q , V , and α verify ( A 4 ) , ( V 1 ) , and ( P 1 ) , and let b L + ( R N ) , t C ( R N ) satisfy α ( ) t ( ) p ( ) . Then, it holds X L t ( ) ( b , R N ) in view of Proposition 2.6 (i). Thus,

(3.1) S b inf u X \ { 0 } u u L t ( ) ( b , R N ) ( 0 , ) .

We now state the main result of this section, i.e., a concentration-compactness principle for the variable exponent Orlicz-Sobolev space X .

Theorem 3.1

Let ( A 1 ) ( A 6 ) , ( V 1 ) , ( V 2 ) , and ( P 1 ) hold. Let { u n } n N be a bounded sequence in X such that

(3.2) u n u in X ,

(3.3) A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) μ in ( R N ) ,

(3.4) b u n t ( x ) ν in ( R N ) .

Then, there exist { x i } i C of distinct points and { ν i } i , { μ i } i ( 0 , ) , where is at most countable and C is given in (1.2), such that

(3.5) ν = b u t ( x ) + i ν i δ x i ,

(3.6) μ A ( x , u ) + V ( x ) u α ( x ) + i μ i δ x i ,

(3.7) S b ν i 1 t ( x i ) 2 max M 1 1 p ( x i ) , M 1 1 q ( x i ) max μ i 1 p ( x i ) , μ i 1 q ( x i ) , i ,

where S b and M 1 are given in (3.1) and (1.4), respectively.

Note that the preceding result does not provide any information about a possible loss of mass at infinity. The next theorem expresses this fact in quantitative terms.

Theorem 3.2

Let ( A 1 ) ( A 6 ) , ( V 1 ) , and ( P 1 ) hold. Let u n u in X and set

μ lim R lim sup n { x > R } [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] d x ,

ν lim R lim sup n { x > R } b ( x ) u n t ( x ) d x .

Then,

(3.8) lim sup n R N [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] d x = μ ( R N ) + μ ,

(3.9) lim sup n R N b ( x ) u n t ( x ) d x = ν ( R N ) + ν .

Assume, in addition, that:

( ) There exist positive real numbers p , q , α , and t such that

lim x p ( x ) = p , lim x q ( x ) = q , lim x α ( x ) = α , and lim x t ( x ) = t .

Then,

(3.10) S b ν 1 t max 1 , M 1 1 p μ 1 p + μ 1 q + μ 1 α .

Before giving a proof of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2, we review some auxiliary results for Radon measures.

Lemma 3.3

[39] Let ν , { ν n } n N be nonnegative and finite Radon measures on R N such that ν n ν in ( R N ) . Then, for any r C + ( R N ) ,

ϕ L ν n r ( ) ( R N ) ϕ L ν r ( ) ( R N ) , ϕ C c ( R N ) .

Lemma 3.4

[37] Let μ and ν be two nonnegative and finite Radon measures on R N such that

ϕ L ν r ( ) ( R N ) C max { ϕ L μ p ( ) ( R N ) , ϕ L μ q ( ) ( R N ) } , ϕ C c ( R N ) ,

for some constant C > 0 and for some p , q , r C + ( R N ) satisfying max { p ( ) , q ( ) } r ( ) . Then, there exist an at most countable set { x i } i of distinct points in R N and { ν i } i ( 0 , ) , such that

ν = i ν i δ x i .

The following result is an extension of the Brezis-Lieb lemma to weighted variable exponent Lebesgue spaces.

Lemma 3.5

[39] Let { f n } n N be a bounded sequence in L r ( ) ( m , R N ) ( r C + ( R N ) , m P + ( R N ) ), and f n ( x ) f ( x ) a.e. x R N . Then, f L r ( ) ( m , R N ) and

lim n R N m f n r ( x ) m f n f r ( x ) m f r ( x ) d x = 0 .

We are now in a position to prove Theorems 3.1 and 3.2. In the rest of this section, we denote the ball in R N centered at x 0 with radius ε by B ε ( x 0 ) and simply write it as B ε when x 0 is the origin. We also denote B ε c = R N \ B ε .

Proof of Theorem 3.1

Let v n = u n u . Then, up to a subsequence, we have

(3.11) v n ( x ) 0 a.e. x R N , v n 0 in X .

So, by Lemma 3.5, we deduce that

lim n R N b u n t ( x ) b v n t ( x ) b u t ( x ) d x = 0 .

From this and (3.11), we easily obtain

lim n R N ϕ b u n t ( x ) d x R N ϕ b v n t ( x ) d x = R N ϕ b u t ( x ) d x , ϕ C 0 ( R N ) ,

i.e.,

(3.12) b v n t ( x ) ν ¯ = ν b u t ( x ) in ( R N ) .

By (2.3), it is clear that { A ( x , v n ) + V ( x ) v n α ( x ) } n N is bounded in L 1 ( R N ) . So up to a subsequence, we have

(3.13) A ( x , v n ) + V ( x ) v n α ( x ) μ ¯ in ( R N ) ,

for some finite nonnegative Radon measure μ ¯ on R N . By the definition of X , it is easy to see that ϕ v X for any ϕ C c ( R N ) with supp ( ϕ ) B R and for any v X . So, using (3.1), for any ϕ C c ( R N ) , we obtain

(3.14) S b ϕ v n L t ( ) ( b , R N ) ( ϕ v n ) L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) + ϕ v n L α ( ) ( V , R N ) ϕ v n L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) + v n ϕ L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) + ϕ v n L α ( ) ( V , R N ) .

We will prove that

(3.15) limsup n v n ϕ L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) = 0 ,

(3.16) limsup n ϕ v n L α ( ) ( V , R N ) = 0 ,

and

(3.17) limsup n ϕ v n L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) 2 max 1 , M 1 1 p max { ϕ L μ ¯ p ( ) ( R N ) , ϕ L μ ¯ q ( ) ( R N ) } ,

where M 1 is given in (1.4).

Assuming (3.15)–(3.17) for the moment, by taking the limit superior as n in (3.14), and invoking Lemma 3.3, we obtain

S b ϕ L ν ¯ t ( ) ( R N ) 2 max 1 , M 1 1 p max { ϕ L μ ¯ p ( ) ( R N ) , ϕ L μ ¯ q ( ) ( R N ) } ;

hence, (3.5) follows in view of Lemma 3.4 and (3.12).

To see (3.15), we first note that

v n ϕ = v n ϕ χ { v n ϕ 1 } + v n ϕ χ { v n ϕ 1 } .

From this and the facts that v n ϕ χ { v n ϕ 1 } ( L p ( ) ( R N ) ) N and v n ϕ χ { v n ϕ 1 } ( L q ( ) ( R N ) ) N , we deduce that

v n ϕ L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) v n ϕ χ { v n ϕ 1 } L p ( ) ( R N ) + v n ϕ χ { v n ϕ 1 } L q ( ) ( R N ) v n ϕ L p ( ) ( B R ) + v n ϕ L q ( ) ( B R ) ϕ L ( R N ) ( v n L p ( ) ( B R ) + v n L q ( ) ( B R ) ) .

Then, we obtain (3.15) by invoking Proposition 2.5 and (3.11).

To see (3.16), we note that

ϕ v n L α ( ) ( V , R N ) = ϕ v n L α ( ) ( V , B R ) ϕ L ( R N ) v n L α ( ) ( B R ) .

By this, we obtain (3.16) in view of Proposition 2.5.

Finally, we prove (3.17). To this end, we first note that by (1.4),

R N ϕ v n χ { v n 1 } p ( x ) d x C q R N v n p ( x ) χ { v n 1 } d x C q M 1 1 R N A ( x , v n ) d x <

and

R N ϕ v n χ { v n 1 } q ( x ) d x C q R N v n q ( x ) χ { v n 1 } d x C q M 1 1 R N A ( x , v n ) d x < ,

where C q 1 + ϕ L ( R N ) q + . Hence, ϕ v n χ { v n 1 } ( L q ( ) ( R N ) ) N and ϕ v n χ { v n 1 } ( L p ( ) ( R N ) ) N . From this and the fact that

ϕ v n = ϕ v n χ { v n 1 } + ϕ v n χ { v n 1 } ,

we obtain that

(3.18) λ n ϕ v n L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) λ n 1 + λ n 2 ,

where

(3.19) λ n 1 ϕ v n χ { v n 1 } L p ( ) ( B R ) and λ n 2 ϕ v n χ { v n 1 } L q ( ) ( B R ) .

Up to a subsequence, we may assume that

(3.20) lim n λ n = limsup n λ n λ * , lim n λ n i = limsup n λ n i λ * i ( i = 1 , 2 ) .

Since { λ n } n N , { λ n 1 } n N and { λ n 2 } n N are the bounded sequences, we have λ * , λ * 1 , λ * 2 [ 0 , ) . Obviously, (3.17) holds for the case λ * = 0 . Let us consider the case λ * > 0 . From (3.18), we have λ * λ * 1 + λ * 2 . Hence, we obtain

(3.21) λ * 2 max { λ * 1 , λ * 2 } .

Thus, (3.17) immediately follows if we can show that

(3.22) λ * 1 max 1 , M 1 1 p ϕ L μ ¯ p ( ) ( R N )

and

(3.23) λ * 2 max 1 , M 1 1 q ϕ L μ ¯ q ( ) ( R N ) .

We only prove (3.22) since (3.23) can be proved similarly. Clearly, (3.22) holds for the case λ * 1 = 0 . For the case λ * 1 > 0 , using (1.4), we have that for n large,

1 = R N ϕ v n χ { v n 1 } λ n 1 p ( x ) d x R N ϕ λ n 1 p ( x ) M 1 1 A ( x , v n ) d x R N ϕ min 1 , M 1 1 p λ n 1 p ( x ) A ( x , v n ) d x R N ϕ min 1 , M 1 1 p λ n 1 p ( x ) ( A ( x , v n ) + V ( x ) v n α ( x ) ) d x .

Taking the limit as n in the last equality and using (3.13), we obtain

1 R N ϕ min 1 , M 1 1 p λ * 1 p ( x ) d μ ¯ .

Equivalently,

λ * 1 max 1 , M 1 1 p ϕ L μ ¯ p ( ) ( R N ) .

Thus, we have proved (3.22) (and similarly, (3.23)); hence, (3.17) follows due to (3.21).

We claim that { x i } i C . Assume, by contradiction, that there is some x i R N \ C . Let δ > 0 be such that B 2 δ ( x i ) ¯ R N \ C . Set B = B δ ( x i ) R N , and then B ¯ R N \ C , and hence, t ( x ) < p ( x ) for all x B ¯ . Thus, u n u in L t ( ) ( B ) in view of Proposition 2.5. Equivalently, B u n u t ( x ) d x 0 due to Proposition 2.1; hence, B b u n u t ( x ) d x 0 since

B b u n u t ( x ) d x b L ( R N ) B u n u t ( x ) d x .

Thus, invoking Lemma 3.5 again, we infer

B b u n t ( x ) d x B b u t ( x ) d x .

From this and the fact that ν ( B ) liminf n B b u n t ( x ) d x (see [32, Proposition 1.203]), we obtain ν ( B ) B b u t ( x ) d x . Meanwhile, from (3.5), we have

ν ( B ) B b u t ( x ) d x + ν i > B b u t ( x ) d x ,

a contradiction. So, { x i } i C .

Next, to obtain (3.7), let η be in C c ( R N ) such that 0 η 1 , η 1 on B 1 2 ( 0 ) , and η 0 outside B 1 ( 0 ) . Fix i and take ε > 0 . Set ϕ i , ε ( x ) η ( x x i ε ) and

p i , ε + sup x B ε ( x i ) p ( x ) , p i , ε inf x B ε ( x i ) p ( x ) , t i , ε + sup x B ε ( x i ) t ( x ) , t i , ε inf x B ε ( x i ) t ( x ) .

Thus, by (3.1), we have

S b ϕ i , ε u n L t ( ) ( b , R N ) ( ϕ i , ε u n ) L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) + ϕ i , ε u n L α ( ) ( V , R N ) ϕ i , ε u n L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) + ϕ i , ε u n L α ( ) ( V , R N ) + u n ϕ i , ε L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) .

Taking the limit superior as n and invoking Lemma 3.3, then taking the limit superior as ε 0 + in the last inequality, we obtain

(3.24) S b limsup ε 0 + ϕ i , ε L ν t ( ) ( R N ) limsup ε 0 + limsup n ϕ i , ε u n L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) + limsup ε 0 + limsup n ϕ i , ε u n L α ( ) ( V , R N ) + limsup ε 0 + limsup n u n ϕ i , ε L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) .

From Proposition 2.1, we have

ϕ i , ε L ν t ( ) ( R N ) min B ε ( x i ) ϕ i , ε t ( x ) d ν 1 t i , ε + , B ε ( x i ) ϕ i , ε t ( x ) d ν 1 t i , ε .

It is clear that

B ε ( x i ) ϕ i , ε t ( x ) d ν B ε 2 ( x i ) ϕ i , ε t ( x ) d ν ν i .

Thus, we obtain

ϕ i , ε L ν t ( ) ( R N ) min ν i 1 t i , ε + , ν i 1 t i , ε .

Hence,

(3.25) limsup ε 0 + ϕ i , ε L ν t ( ) ( R N ) ν i 1 t ( x i ) .

On the other hand, arguing as that obtained (3.18), we obtain that

(3.26) ϕ i , ε u n L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) ϕ i , ε u n χ { u n 1 } L p ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) + ϕ i , ε u n χ { u n 1 } L q ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) .

Invoking Proposition 2.1, we have

(3.27) ϕ i , ε u n χ { u n 1 } L p ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) max B ε ( x i ) u n p ( x ) χ { u n 1 } ϕ i , ε p ( x ) d x 1 p i , ε + , B ε ( x i ) u n p ( x ) χ { u n 1 } ϕ i , ε p ( x ) d x 1 p i , ε max B ε ( x i ) M 1 1 A ( x , u n ) ϕ i , ε d x 1 p i , ε + , B ε ( x i ) M 1 1 A ( x , u n ) ϕ i , ε d x 1 p i , ε max M 1 1 p i , ε + , M 1 1 p i , ε max B ε ( x i ) [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] ϕ i , ε d x 1 p i , ε + , B ε ( x i ) [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] ϕ i , ε d x 1 p i , ε .

Similarly, we have

(3.28) ϕ i , ε u n χ { u n 1 } L q ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) max B ε ( x i ) u n q ( x ) ϕ i , ε q ( x ) χ { u n 1 } d x 1 q i , ε + , B ε ( x i ) u n q ( x ) ϕ i , ε q ( x ) χ { u n 1 } d x 1 q i , ε max M 1 1 q i , ε + , M 1 1 q i , ε max B ε ( x i ) [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] ϕ i , ε d x 1 q i , ε + , B ε ( x i ) [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] ϕ i , ε d x 1 q i , ε .

From (3.26)–(3.28), we obtain

limsup n ϕ i , ε u n L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) 2 max M 1 1 p i , ε , M 1 1 q i , ε + max μ ( B ε ( x i ) ) 1 p i , ε , μ ( B ε ( x i ) ) 1 q i , ε + .

Thus, one has

(3.29) limsup ε 0 + limsup n ϕ i , ε u n L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) 2 max M 1 1 p ( x i ) , M 1 1 q ( x i ) max μ i 1 p ( x i ) , μ i 1 q ( x i ) ,

where μ i lim ε 0 + μ ( B ε ( x i ) ) . We have

ϕ i , ε u n L α ( ) ( V , R N ) max V L ( B 1 ( x i ) ) 1 α + V L ( B 1 ( x i ) ) 1 α u n L α ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) ,

for all n N and all ε ( 0 , 1 ) . Thus, by invoking Proposition 2.5, we obtain

(3.30) limsup ε 0 + limsup n ϕ i , ε u n L p ( ) ( V , R N ) = 0 .

Now, we analyze the last term in (3.24) to obtain (3.7). First, we have

u n ϕ i , ε L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) u n ϕ i , ε χ { u n ϕ i , ε 1 } L p ( ) ( R N ) + u n ϕ i , ε χ { u n ϕ i , ε 1 } L q ( ) ( R N ) ,

i.e.,

(3.31) u n ϕ i , ε L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) u n ϕ i , ε χ { u n ϕ i , ε 1 } L p ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) + u n ϕ i , ε χ { u n ϕ i , ε 1 } L q ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) .

By Proposition 2.5 again, we have that X L p ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) and X L q ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) . Hence,

(3.32) lim sup n u n ϕ i , ε χ { u n ϕ i , ε 1 } L p ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) = u ϕ i , ε χ { u ϕ i , ε 1 } L p ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) )

and

(3.33) lim sup n u n ϕ i , ε χ { u n ϕ i , ε 1 } L q ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) = u ϕ i , ε χ { u ϕ i , ε 1 } L q ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) .

Also, we note that

(3.34) max B ε ( x i ) u ϕ i , ε χ { u ϕ i , ε 1 } p ( x ) d x , B ε ( x i ) u ϕ i , ε χ { u ϕ i , ε 1 } q ( x ) d x B ε ( x i ) u ϕ i , ε p ( x ) d x .

Applying Proposition 2.2, using the fact u L p ( ) ( R N ) (see Proposition 2.6), we obtain

B ε ( x i ) u ϕ i , ε p ( x ) d x 2 u p ( ) L p ( ) p ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) ϕ i , ε p ( ) L N p ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) 2 c u p ( ) L p ( ) p ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) ,

where c is a positive constant. Here, in view of Proposition 2.1, we have used the fact that

ϕ i , ε p ( ) L N p ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) 1 + B ε ( x i ) ϕ i , ε N d x p + N constant , ε > 0 .

Hence, the estimate (3.34) infers

lim ε 0 + B ε ( x i ) u ϕ i , ε χ { u ϕ i , ε 1 } p ( x ) d x = 0

and

lim ε 0 + B ε ( x i ) u ϕ i , ε χ { u ϕ i , ε 1 } q ( x ) d x = 0 .

Hence, one has

lim ε 0 + u ϕ i , ε χ { u ϕ i , ε 1 } L p ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) = lim ε 0 + u ϕ i , ε χ { u ϕ i , ε 1 } L q ( ) ( B ε ( x i ) ) = 0 .

From this and (3.32)–(3.33), we deduce from (3.31) that

(3.35) lim ε 0 + lim sup n u n ϕ i , ε L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) = 0 .

Using (3.24), (3.25), (3.29), (3.30), and (3.35), we obtain (3.7).

Finally, to show (3.6), note that for any ϕ C ( R N ) with ϕ 0 , the functional u Φ ( u ) R N ϕ ( x ) ( A ( x , u ) + V ( x ) u α ( x ) ) d x is Gâteaux differentiable on X due to ( A 1 ) , with

Φ ( u ) , v = R N ϕ ( x ) a ( x , u ) v d x + R N ϕ ( x ) α ( x ) V ( x ) u α ( x ) 2 u v d x , u , v X .

Here and in the sequel, by , , we denote the duality pairing between X and its dual X * . By ( A 6 ) , Φ : X X * is strictly monotone, and hence, Φ is weakly lower semicontinuous, and therefore,

R N ϕ ( x ) ( A ( x , u ) + V ( x ) u α ( x ) ) d x liminf n R N ϕ ( x ) ( A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ) d x = R N ϕ d μ .

Thus, μ A ( x , u ) + V ( x ) u α ( x ) . By extracting μ to its atoms, we deduce (3.6) and the proof is complete.□

Proof of Theorem 3.2

Let ϕ be in C ( R ) such that ϕ ( t ) 0 on t 1 , ϕ ( t ) 1 on t 2 and 0 ϕ 1 , ϕ 2 in R . For each R > 0 , set ϕ R ( x ) ϕ ( x R ) for all x R N . We then decompose

(3.36) R N [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] d x = R N [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] ϕ R d x + R N [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] ( 1 ϕ R ) d x .

For the first term of the right-hand side of (3.36), we note that

{ x > 2 R } [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] d x R N [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] ϕ R d x { x > R } [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] d x .

Thus, we obtain

(3.37) μ = lim R lim sup n R N [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] ϕ R d x .

For the second term of the right-hand side of (3.36), we note that 1 ϕ R is a continuous function with compact support in R N . Hence,

(3.38) lim n R N [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] ( 1 ϕ R ) d x = R N ( 1 ϕ R ) d μ .

Clearly, lim R R N ϕ R d μ = 0 in view of the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem. By this and (3.38), we deduce

lim R lim n R N [ A ( x , u n ) + V ( x ) u n α ( x ) ] ( 1 ϕ R ) d x = μ ( R N ) .

Using this and (3.37), we obtain (3.8) by taking the limit superior as n and then letting R in (3.36). In the same fashion, to obtain (3.9), we decompose

(3.39) R N b ( x ) u n t ( x ) d x = R N b ( x ) u n t ( x ) ϕ R d x + R N b ( x ) u n t ( x ) ( 1 ϕ R ) d x .

Arguing as earlier, we obtain

(3.40) ν = lim R lim sup n R N b ( x ) u n t ( x ) ϕ R d x ,

and using (3.40), we easily obtain (3.9) from (3.39). Moreover, by replacing ϕ R with ϕ R t ( x ) in the aforementioned arguments we also have

(3.41) ν = lim R lim sup n R N b ( x ) u n t ( x ) ϕ R t ( x ) d x .

Next, we prove (3.10) when ( ) is additionally assumed. It is easy to see that ϕ R v X for all R > 0 and all v X . Thus, by (3.1), we have

(3.42) S b ϕ R u n L t ( ) ( b , R N ) ( ϕ R u n ) L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) + ϕ R u n L α ( ) ( V , R N ) ϕ R u n L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) + ϕ R u n L α ( ) ( V , R N ) + u n ϕ R L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) .

Let ε be arbitrary in ( 0 , 1 ) . By ( ) , there exists R 0 = R 0 ( ε ) > 0 such that

(3.43) p ( x ) p < ε , q ( x ) q < ε , α ( x ) α < ε , t ( x ) t < ε , x > R 0 .

For R > R 0 given, let { u n k } k N be a subsequence of { u n } n N such that

(3.44) lim k B R c b ( x ) u n k t ( x ) ϕ R t ( x ) d x = lim sup n B R c b ( x ) u n t ( x ) ϕ R t ( x ) d x .

Using Proposition 2.1 with (3.43), we have

ϕ R u n k L t ( ) ( b , B R c ) min B R c b ( x ) u n k t ( x ) ϕ R t ( x ) d x 1 t + ε , B R c b ( x ) u n k t ( x ) ϕ R t ( x ) d x 1 t ε .

From this, (3.41), and (3.44), we deduce

(3.45) lim R lim sup k ϕ R u n k L t ( ) ( b , B R c ) min ν 1 t + ε , ν 1 t ε .

On the other hand, arguing as that obtained (3.18) again with noting supp ( u n k ) B R c , we obtain that

(3.46) ϕ R u n k L p ( ) ( B R c ) + L q ( ) ( B R c ) ϕ R u n k χ { u n k 1 } L p ( ) ( B R c ) + ϕ R u n k χ { u n k 1 } L q ( ) ( B R c ) .

Invoking Proposition 2.1 and taking into account (3.43) again, we have

(3.47) ϕ R u n k χ { u n k 1 } L p ( ) ( B R c ) max B R c u n k p ( x ) χ { u n k 1 } ϕ R p ( x ) d x 1 p + ε , B R c u n k p ( x ) χ { u n k 1 } ϕ R p ( x ) d x 1 p ε max B R c M 1 1 A ( x , u n k ) ϕ R d x 1 p + ε , B R c M 1 1 A ( x , u n k ) ϕ R d x 1 p ε max M 1 1 p + ε , M 1 1 p ε max B R c [ A ( x , u n k ) + V ( x ) u n k α ( x ) ] ϕ R d x 1 p + ε , B R c [ A ( x , u n k ) + V ( x ) u n k α ( x ) ] ϕ R d x 1 p ε .

Similarly, we have

(3.48) ϕ R u n k χ { u n k 1 } L q ( ) ( B R c ) max B R c u n k q ( x ) ϕ R q ( x ) χ { u n k 1 } d x 1 q + ε , B R c u n k q ( x ) ϕ R q ( x ) χ { u n k 1 } d x 1 q ε max M 1 1 q + ε , M 1 1 q ε max B R c [ A ( x , u n k ) + V ( x ) u n k α ( x ) ] ϕ R d x 1 q + ε , B R c [ A ( x , u n k ) + V ( x ) u n k α ( x ) ] ϕ R d x 1 q ε

and

(3.49) ϕ R u n k L α ( ) ( V , B R c ) max B R c [ A ( x , u n k ) + V ( x ) u n k α ( x ) ] ϕ R d x 1 α + ε , B R c [ A ( x , u n k ) + V ( x ) u n k α ( x ) ] ϕ R d x 1 α ε .

From (3.46)–(3.49) and (3.37), we obtain

(3.50) lim R lim sup k [ ϕ R u n k L p ( ) ( B R c ) + L q ( ) ( B R c ) + ϕ R u n k L α ( ) ( V , B R c ) ] max 1 , M 1 1 p ε max μ 1 p + ε + μ 1 q + ε + μ 1 α + ε , μ 1 p ε + μ 1 q ε + μ 1 α ε .

Now, we analyze the last term in (3.42) to show (3.10). First, we have

u n ϕ R L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) u n ϕ R χ { u n ϕ R 1 } L p ( ) ( R N ) + u n ϕ R χ { u n ϕ R 1 } L q ( ) ( R N ) ,

i.e.,

(3.51) u n ϕ R L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) u n ϕ R χ { u n ϕ R 1 } L p ( ) ( B 2 R \ B R ¯ ) + u n ϕ R χ { u n ϕ R 1 } L q ( ) ( B 2 R \ B R ¯ ) .

By Proposition 2.5, we have that X L p ( ) ( B 2 R \ B R ¯ ) and X L q ( ) ( B 2 R \ B R ¯ ) . Hence, one has

(3.52) lim sup n u n ϕ R χ { u n ϕ R 1 } L p ( ) ( B 2 R \ B R ¯ ) = u ϕ R χ { u ϕ R 1 } L p ( ) ( B 2 R \ B R ¯ )

and

(3.53) lim sup n u n ϕ R χ { u n ϕ R 1 } L q ( ) ( B 2 R \ B R ¯ ) = u ϕ R χ { u ϕ R 1 } L q ( ) ( B 2 R \ B R ¯ ) .

Also, we note that

(3.54) max B 2 R \ B R ¯ u ϕ R χ { u ϕ R 1 } p ( x ) d x , B 2 R \ B R ¯ u ϕ R χ { u ϕ R 1 } q ( x ) d x B 2 R \ B R ¯ u ϕ R p ( x ) d x .

Arguing as that leads to (3.35), we obtain

lim R B 2 R \ B R ¯ u ϕ R p ( x ) d x = 0 .

Hence, the estimate (3.54) infers

lim R B 2 R \ B R ¯ u ϕ R χ { u ϕ R 1 } p ( x ) d x = 0

and

lim R B 2 R \ B R ¯ u ϕ R χ { u ϕ R 1 } q ( x ) d x = 0 .

Equivalently,

lim R u ϕ R χ { u ϕ R 1 } L p ( ) ( B 2 R \ B R ¯ ) = lim R u ϕ R χ { u ϕ R 1 } L q ( ) ( B 2 R \ B R ¯ ) = 0 .

From this, (3.52)–(3.53), we deduce from (3.51) that

(3.55) lim R lim sup n u n ϕ R L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) = 0 .

Using (3.42), (3.45), (3.50), and (3.55), we arrive at

S b min ν 1 t + ε , ν 1 t ε max 1 , M 1 1 p ε max μ 1 p + ε + μ 1 q + ε + μ 1 α + ε , μ 1 p ε + μ 1 q ε + μ 1 α ε .

Letting ε 0 + in the last inequality, we obtain (3.10).□

4 Application

As an application of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2, in this section we will obtain the existence of a nontrivial nonnegative solution and infinitely many solutions for Problem (1.1) when the reaction term is of generalized concave-convex type.

Throughout this section, let ( A 1 ) ( A 6 ) , ( P 1 ) , ( V 1 ) , ( V 2 ) , and ( ) hold. Furthermore, for r C + 0 , 1 ( R N ) with r ( ) p ( ) , we denote

A r θ E r L + θ ( ) ( R N ) ,

with E r { θ C + ( R N ) : α ( ) θ ( ) r ( ) p * ( ) in R N } , and when ( V 3 ) and α ( ) r ( ) in R N are additionally assumed, we denote

A r θ E r L + θ ( ) ( R N ) L + ( R N ) .

Then, by Propositions 2.6 and 2.7, we have that

(4.1) X L r ( ) ( ϱ , R N ) , if ϱ A r .

Assume, in addition, that

  1. q α + < s + < t , where s and q α are given in ( A 5 ) and (2.2), respectively.

  2. M : [ 0 , ) R is a real function such that M is continuous and nondecreasing on an interval [ 0 , τ 0 ] for some τ 0 > 0 and M ( 0 ) > 0 .

  3. There exist r i C + 0 , 1 ( R N ) with r i ( ) p ( ) and ϱ i A r i ( i = 1 , , m ) such that

    f ( x , τ ) i = 1 m ϱ i ( x ) τ r i ( x ) 1 for a.e. x R N , and all τ R .

  4. There exist r C + 0 , 1 ( R N ) with r + < p α , ϱ A r , β ( s + , t ) , and C i ( i = 1 , , 6 ) such that

    C 1 ϱ ( x ) τ r ( x ) C 2 b ( x ) τ t ( x ) β F ( x , τ ) f ( x , τ ) τ + C 3 ϱ ( x ) τ r ( x ) + C 4 b ( x ) τ t ( x )

    and

    F ( x , τ ) C 5 ϱ ( x ) τ r ( x ) + C 6 b ( x ) τ t ( x ) ,

    for a.e. x R N and all τ R , where F ( x , τ ) 0 τ f ( x , s ) d s and p α is given by (2.2).

A typical example for f fulfilling ( 1 ) ( 2 ) is a p ( ) -sublinear term f ( x , t ) = ϱ ( x ) t r ( x ) 2 t with r C + 0 , 1 ( R N ) , r + < p α , and ϱ A r . Furthermore, if ( V 3 ) is additionally assumed, then an interesting another example is f ( x , t ) = c 1 t r ( x ) 2 t + c 2 b ( x ) t m ( x ) 2 t log κ ( e + t ) with c 1 > 0 , c 2 0 , κ 0 , and r , m C + 0 , 1 ( R N ) satisfying r + < p α and p α ( ) m ( ) t ( ) .

By a solution of Problem (1.1), we mean a function u X such that

(4.2) M R N A ( x , u ) d x R N a ( x , u ) v d x + R N V ( x ) u α ( x ) 2 u v d x λ R N f ( x , u ) v d x R N b ( x ) u t ( x ) 2 u v d x = 0 , v X .

This definition is clearly well defined under aforementioned assumptions thanks to the aforementioned imbeddings on X .

Our first existence result is the next theorem.

Theorem 4.1

(A nontrivial nonnegative solutions for the generalized concave-convex type problem) Let ( A 1 ) ( A 6 ) , ( P 1 ) , ( P 2 ) , ( V 1 ) , ( V 2 ) , and ( ) hold. Let ( ) , ( 1 ) , and ( 2 ) hold with ϱ t t r b r t r L 1 ( R N ) . Then, there exists λ > 0 such that for any λ ( 0 , λ ) , Problem (1.1) admits a nontrivial nonnegative solution u λ . Furthermore, it holds that

lim λ 0 + u λ = 0 .

In addition, if f is symmetric with respect to the second variable, then we can obtain infinitely many solutions for Problem (1.1) as follows.

Theorem 4.2

(Infinitely many solutions for the generalized concave-convex type problem) In addition to the assumptions of Theorem 4.1, assume that f ( x , τ ) = f ( x , τ ) and F ( x , τ ) 0 for a.e. x R N and all τ R . Then, there exists λ * > 0 such that for any λ ( 0 , λ * ) , Problem (1.1) admits infinitely many solutions. Furthermore, if let u λ be one of these solutions, then it holds that

lim λ 0 + u λ = 0 .

We have the following important remark.

Remark 4.3

In Theorems 4.1 and 4.2, if we additionally assume ( V 3 ) and α ( ) r ( ) , then the weights ρ and ρ i in ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) can be L -weights.

We will make use of critical point theory to determine solutions to Problem (1.1). In order to obtain necessary properties regarding the Kirchhoff term, we truncate the function M ( t ) as follows. Let us fix τ ¯ 0 ( 0 , τ 0 ) such that

(4.3) M ( τ ¯ 0 ) < β s + M ( 0 ) .

Define

(4.4) M 0 ( t ) M ( τ ) , 0 τ τ ¯ 0 , M ( τ ¯ 0 ) , τ > τ ¯ 0 ,

and

M ^ 0 ( τ ) 0 τ M 0 ( s ) d s , τ 0 .

It is clear that M 0 C ( [ 0 , ) , R + ) ,

(4.5) 0 < m 0 M ( 0 ) M 0 ( τ ) M ( τ ¯ 0 ) , τ [ 0 , ) ,

and

(4.6) m 0 τ M ^ 0 ( τ ) M ( τ ¯ 0 ) τ , τ [ 0 , ) .

Let λ > 0 . We define the modified energy functionals J λ , J ˜ λ : X R as

J λ ( u ) M ^ 0 R N A ( x , u ) d x + R N V ( x ) α ( x ) u α ( x ) d x λ R N F ( x , u ) d x R N b ( x ) t ( x ) u t ( x ) d x , u X ,

and

J ˜ λ ( u ) M ^ 0 R N A ( x , u ) d x + R N V ( x ) α ( x ) u α ( x ) d x λ R N F + ( x , u ) d x R N b ( x ) t ( x ) ( u + ) t ( x ) d x , u X ,

where u + max { u , 0 } and

(4.7) F + ( x , τ ) 0 τ f + ( x , η ) d η and f + ( x , τ ) f ( x , τ ) , τ 0 , 0 , τ < 0 ,

for a.e. x R N and all τ R . By a standard argument, we can show that J λ , J ˜ λ C 1 ( X , R ) and its Fréchet derivative J λ , J ˜ λ : X X are given by

J λ ( u ) , v = M 0 R N A ( x , u ) d x R N a ( x , u ) v d x + R N V ( x ) u α ( x ) 2 u v d x λ R N f ( x , u ) v d x R N b ( x ) u t ( x ) 2 u v d x , u , v X ,

and

J ˜ λ ( u ) , v = M 0 R N A ( x , u ) d x R N a ( x , u ) v d x + R N V ( x ) u α ( x ) 2 u v d x λ R N f + ( x , u ) v d x R N b ( x ) ( u + ) t ( x ) 1 v d x , u , v X .

From the Definition (4.4) of M 0 , it is clear that any critical point u of J λ (resp. J ˜ λ ) is a solution (resp. a nonnegative solution) to Problem (1.1) provided R N A ( x , u ) d x τ ¯ 0 .

In the next two subsections, we always assume that ( A 1 ) ( A 6 ) , ( P 1 ) , ( P 2 ) , ( V 1 ) , ( V 2 ) , ( ) , ( ) , ( 1 ) , and ( 2 ) hold with ϱ t t r b r t r L 1 ( R N ) . We also make use of the following estimate that is easily derived from (3.1) and (4.1):

(4.8) max { u L r ( ) ( ϱ , R N ) , u L t ( ) ( b , R N ) } C 7 u , u X .

Here and in the rest of this section, C i ( i = 7 , 8 , ) stand for positive constants depending only on the data, and we can take C 7 > 1 .

4.1 Existence of a nontrivial nonnegative solution

In this subsection, we will prove Theorem 4.1 via using the Ekeland variational principle for J ˜ λ . For this purpose, we first obtain several auxiliary results. The next lemma provides a certain range of levels such that the local Palas-Smale condition for J ˜ λ is satisfied. In the following, by a ( PS ) c sequence { u n } n N for a C 1 functional I : X R , we mean

I ( u n ) c and I ( u n ) 0 , as n ,

and we say that I satisfies the ( PS ) c condition if every ( PS ) c sequence for I admits a convergent subsequence. Set

(4.9) λ 1 1 2 1 β 1 t β C 4 1 ,

where β and C 4 are given in ( 2 ) .

Lemma 4.4

For any given λ ( 0 , λ 1 ) , J ˜ λ satisfies the ( PS ) c condition with c R satisfying

(4.10) c < K 1 K 2 max λ l + l + 1 , λ l l 1 ,

where l ( ) t ( ) r ( ) , and K 1 and K 2 are the positive constants depending only on the data. The conclusion remains valid if J ˜ λ is replaced with J λ .

Proof

Let λ ( 0 , λ 1 ) , and let { u n } n N be a ( PS ) c -sequence for J ˜ λ in X , namely,

(4.11) J ˜ λ ( u n ) c and J ˜ λ ( u n ) 0 , as n ,

for some c R satisfying (4.10). From this, (4.3), (4.5)–(4.7), ( A 5 ) , and ( 2 ) , we have that for n large,

(4.12) c + 1 + u n J ˜ λ ( u n ) 1 β J ˜ λ ( u n ) , u n M ^ 0 R N A ( x , u n ) d x 1 β M 0 R N A ( x , u n ) d x R N a ( x , u n ) u n d x + 1 α + 1 β R N V ( x ) u n α ( x ) d x λ β R N [ β F + ( x , u n ) f + ( x , u n ) u n ] d x + 1 β 1 t R N b ( x ) ( u n + ) t ( x ) d x m 0 s + M ( τ ¯ 0 ) β R N A ( x , u n ) d x + 1 α + 1 β R N V ( x ) u n α ( x ) d x λ β R N [ C 3 ϱ ( x ) ( u n + ) r ( x ) + C 4 b ( x ) ( u n + ) t ( x ) ] d x + 1 β 1 t R N b ( x ) ( u n + ) t ( x ) d x m 1 A ( u n ) λ C 3 β R N ϱ ( x ) u n r ( x ) d x + 1 β 1 t λ C 4 β R N b ( x ) ( u n + ) t ( x ) d x ,

where m 1 min m 0 s + M ( τ ¯ 0 ) β , 1 α + 1 β > 0 , A is defined by (2.1) and τ ¯ 0 is given in (4.3). By taking into account (2.3), (4.8), Proposition 2.1, and (4.9), we derive from (4.12) that for n large,

c + 1 + u n m 1 ( u n p α 1 ) λ C 3 β ( C 7 r + u n r + + 1 ) .

Since p α > r + > 1 , the last inequality yields the boundedness of { u n } n N ; hence, { u n + } n N is also a bounded sequence in X . Next, we will show that { u n + } n N is also a ( PS ) c -sequence for J ˜ λ in X . To this end, using (1.3), (1.4), (2.3), and (4.5), we have

o n ( 1 ) = J ˜ λ ( u n ) , u n = M 0 R N A ( x , u n ) d x R N a ( x , u n ) u n d x + R N V ( x ) u n α ( x ) 2 u n u n d x = M 0 R N A ( x , u n ) d x R N a ( x , u n ) u n d x + R N V ( x ) u n α ( x ) d x m 0 R N A ( x , u n ) d x + R N V ( x ) u n α ( x ) d x m ˜ 0 A ( u n ) m ˜ 0 α 1 min { u n p α , u n q α + } ,

where u n min { u n , 0 } and m ˜ 0 min { 1 , m 0 } . It follows that

(4.13) lim n A ( u n ) = lim n u n = 0 .

It is not difficult to see that

(4.14) J ˜ λ ( u n ) = J ˜ λ ( u n + ) + o n ( 1 )

and

(4.15) J ˜ λ ( u n + ) X * C J ˜ λ ( u n ) X * + A ( u n ) 1 p α + A ( u n ) 1 q α + ,

for some positive constant C independent of n . From (4.11) and (4.13)–(4.15), we have that { u n + } n N is a ( PS ) c -sequence for J ˜ λ in X .

Set v n u n + for n N . Then, v n 0 a.e. in R N and { v n } n N is a bounded ( PS ) c -sequence for J ˜ λ in X . By the reflexivity of X and Theorems 3.13.2, we find { x i } i C with at most countable such that, up to a subsequence, we have

(4.16) v n ( x ) u ( x ) 0 , a.e. x R N ,

(4.17) v n u in X ,

(4.18) A ( x , v n ) + V ( x ) v n α ( x ) μ A ( x , u ) + V ( x ) u α ( x ) + i μ i δ x i in ( R N ) ,

(4.19) b v n t ( x ) ν = b u t ( x ) + i ν i δ x i in ( R N ) ,

(4.20) S b ν i 1 t ( x i ) 2 max M 1 1 p ( x i ) , M 1 1 q ( x i ) max μ i 1 p ( x i ) , μ i 1 q ( x i ) , i ,

and

(4.21) lim sup n R N [ A ( x , v n ) + V ( x ) v n α ( x ) ] d x = μ ( R N ) + μ ,

(4.22) lim sup n R N b ( x ) v n t ( x ) d x = ν ( R N ) + ν ,

(4.23) S b ν 1 t max 1 , M 1 1 p μ 1 p + μ 1 q + μ 1 α .

We claim that = and μ = ν = 0 . To this end, let us suppose, on the contrary, that this does not hold. We first consider the case that there exists i . Let ε > 0 and define ϕ i , ε as in the proof of Theorem 3.1. By (1.4) and (4.5), we have

m ˜ 0 R N ϕ i , ε [ A ( x , v n ) + V ( x ) v n α ( x ) ] d x R N ϕ i , ε b ( x ) v n t ( x ) d x M 0 R N A ( x , v n ) d x R N ϕ i , ε a ( x , v n ) v n d x + R N ϕ i , ε V ( x ) v n α ( x ) d x R N ϕ i , ε b ( x ) v n t ( x ) d x = J ˜ λ ( v n ) , ϕ i , ε v n M 0 R N A ( x , v n ) d x R N a ( x , v n ) v n ϕ i , ε d x + λ R N ϕ i , ε f ( x , v n ) v n d x .

From this and (4.5), we have

(4.24) m ˜ 0 R N ϕ i , ε [ A ( x , v n ) + V ( x ) v n α ( x ) ] d x R N ϕ i , ε b ( x ) v n t ( x ) d x J ˜ λ ( v n ) , ϕ i , ε v n + λ R N ϕ i , ε f ( x , v n ) v n d x + M ( τ ¯ 0 ) R N a ( x , v n ) v n ϕ i , ε d x .

We will show that limsup ε 0 + limsup n T ( v n , ϕ i , ε ) = 0 , where T ( v n , ϕ i , ε ) is each term in the right-hand side of (4.24). To this end, we first note that by the boundedness of { v n } in X , we have

(4.25) C * sup n N R N [ v n p ( x ) χ { v n 1 } + v n q ( x ) χ { v n 1 } ] d x < .

Noting the boundedness of { ϕ i , ε v n } in X , it follows from (4.11) that

(4.26) limsup ε 0 + limsup n J ˜ λ ( v n ) , ϕ i , ε v n = 0 .

By (4.17) and ( 1 ) , we have v n u in L r i ( ) ( ϱ i , R N ) ( i = 1 , , m ) in view of (4.1). From this, ( 1 ) and (4.16), invoking the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, we easily see that

(4.27) limsup ε 0 + limsup n R N ϕ i , ε f ( x , v n ) v n d x = limsup ε 0 + R N ϕ i , ε f ( x , u ) u d x = 0 .

Finally, invoking the Young inequality, ( A 3 ) , and (4.25), we deduce that for an arbitrary δ > 0 ,

(4.28) R N a ( x , v n ) v n ϕ i , ε d x R N δ a ( x , v n ) p ( x ) p ( x ) 1 + C ( δ ) v n p ( x ) ϕ i , ε p ( x ) d x C ˜ δ R N v n p ( x ) χ { v n 1 } + v n p ( x ) ( q ( x ) 1 ) p ( x ) 1 χ { v n 1 } d x + C ( δ ) R N v n p ( x ) ϕ i , ε p ( x ) d x C ˜ δ R N [ v n p ( x ) χ { v n 1 } + v n q ( x ) χ { v n 1 } ] d x + C ( δ ) R N v n p ( x ) ϕ i , ε p ( x ) d x C ˜ C * δ + C ( δ ) R N v n p ( x ) ϕ i , ε p ( x ) d x ,

for a positive constant C ˜ . By (4.17) and Proposition 2.5, we have

R N v n p ( x ) ϕ i , ε p ( x ) d x = B ε ( x i ) v n p ( x ) ϕ i , ε p ( x ) d x B ε ( x i ) u p ( x ) ϕ i , ε p ( x ) d x ,

as n . From this and (4.28), we obtain

(4.29) limsup n R N a ( x , v n ) v n ϕ i , ε d x C ˜ C * δ + C ( δ ) B ε ( x i ) u p ( x ) ϕ i , ε p ( x ) d x .

Arguing as that obtained (3.35), we obtain

limsup ε 0 + limsup n B ε ( x i ) u ϕ i , ε p ( x ) d x = 0 .

Thus, (4.29) implies that

limsup ε 0 + limsup n R N a ( x , v n ) v n ϕ i , ε d x C ˜ C * δ .

Since δ > 0 was taken arbitrarily, the preceding inequality leads to

(4.30) limsup ε 0 + limsup n R N a ( x , v n ) v n ϕ i , ε d x = 0 .

By passing to the limit superior as n and taking into account (4.26), (4.27), and (4.30), we deduce from (4.24) that

m ˜ 0 μ i ν i .

Combining this with (4.20) gives

μ i min ( 2 1 S b ) t ( x i ) p ( x i ) t ( x i ) p ( x i ) , ( 2 1 S b ) t ( x i ) q ( x i ) t ( x i ) q ( x i ) min M 1 t ( x i ) p ( x i ) ( t ( x i ) p ( x i ) ) q ( x i ) , M 1 t ( x i ) q ( x i ) ( t ( x i ) q ( x i ) ) p ( x i ) min m ˜ 0 p ( x i ) t ( x i ) p ( x i ) , m ˜ 0 q ( x i ) t ( x i ) q ( x i ) .

Hence, one has

(4.31) ν i m ˜ 0 μ i k 1

with h p ( x ) p ( x ) t ( x ) p ( x ) , h q ( x ) q ( x ) t ( x ) q ( x ) for x R N , and

k 1 min { ( 2 1 S b ) ( h p t ) , ( 2 1 S b ) ( h q t ) + } min M 1 h p t q , M 1 h q t p + min { m ˜ 0 1 + h p , m ˜ 0 1 + h q + } .

Next, we consider the other case, namely, μ > 0 . Let ϕ R be as in the proof of Theorem 3.2. Arguing as that obtained (4.24), we have

(4.32) m ˜ 0 R N ϕ R [ A ( x , v n ) + V ( x ) v n α ( x ) ] d x R N ϕ R b ( x ) v n t ( x ) d x J ˜ λ ( v n ) , ϕ R v n + λ R N ϕ R f ( x , v n ) v n d x + M ( τ ¯ 0 ) R N a ( x , v n ) v n ϕ R d x .

By the same way of deriving (4.26), (4.27), and (4.30), we obtain

lim R lim sup n J ˜ λ ( v n ) , ϕ R v n = lim R lim sup n R N ϕ R f ( x , v n ) v n d x = lim R lim sup n R N a ( x , v n ) v n ϕ R d x = 0 .

Using this, (3.37), and (3.40) while passing to the limit superior as n and then R in (4.32), we derive

m ˜ 0 μ ν .

Combining this with (3.10) gives

μ min ( 3 1 S b ) t p t p , ( 3 1 S b ) t q t q , ( 3 1 S b ) t α t α × min 1 , M 1 t t p , M 1 t α ( t α ) p , M 1 t q ( t q ) p × min m ˜ 0 p t p , m ˜ 0 q t q , m ˜ 0 α t α .

We obtain from the last two inequalities that

(4.33) ν m ˜ 0 μ k 2 ,

where

k 2 min { ( 3 1 S b ) ( h p α t ) , ( 3 1 S b ) ( h q t ) + } min 1 , M 1 h q t p + min { m ˜ 0 1 + h p α , m ˜ 0 1 + h q + }

and

h p α ( ) p α ( ) t ( ) p α ( ) .

From the estimate (4.31) for the case and the estimate (4.33) for the case μ > 0 , we arrive at

(4.34) i { } ν i i { } m ˜ 0 μ i min { k 1 , k 2 } K 0 .

Arguing as those lead to (4.12), we have

c + o n ( 1 ) = J ˜ λ ( v n ) 1 β J ˜ λ ( v n ) , v n m 0 s + M ( τ ¯ 0 ) β R N A ( x , v n ) d x + 1 α + 1 β R N V ( x ) v n α ( x ) d x λ β R N [ C 3 ϱ ( x ) v n r ( x ) + C 4 b ( x ) v n t ( x ) ] d x + 1 β 1 t R N b ( x ) v n t ( x ) d x 1 β 1 t λ C 4 β R N b ( x ) v n t ( x ) d x λ C 3 β R N ϱ ( x ) v n r ( x ) d x .

Since 0 < λ < λ 1 = ( t β ) 2 C 4 t , we deduce from the last estimate that

c + o n ( 1 ) ( t β ) 2 β t R N b v n t ( x ) d x λ C 3 β R N ϱ v n r ( x ) d x .

Passing to the limit as n in the last inequality, invoking (4.19), (4.22), and (4.34), we obtain

(4.35) c ( t β ) 2 β t R N b u t ( x ) d x λ C 3 β R N ϱ u r ( x ) d x + K 1 ,

where

K 1 ( t β ) K 0 2 β t .

Invoking Proposition 2.2, we have

R N ϱ u r ( x ) d x = R N b ( ϱ b 1 ) u r ( x ) d x 2 ϱ b 1 L l ( ) l ( ) 1 ( b , R N ) u r ( ) L l ( ) ( b , R N ) ,

where l ( ) t ( ) r ( ) . Combining the last inequality with (4.35) gives

(4.36) c a 1 R N b ( u r ( x ) ) l ( x ) d x b 1 λ u r ( ) L l ( ) ( b , R N ) + K 1 ,

where a 1 t β 2 β t and b 1 2 C 3 β ϱ b 1 L l ( ) l ( ) 1 ( b , R N ) > 0 . Note that by Proposition 2.1, we have

R N b ( u r ( x ) ) l ( x ) d x min { u r ( ) L l ( ) ( b , R N ) l , u r ( ) L l ( ) ( b , R N ) l + } .

Using this fact, we consider the following two cases.

If u r ( ) L l ( ) ( b , R N ) 1 , then (4.36) yields

c a 1 ξ l b 1 λ ξ + K 1 g 1 ( ξ ) , with ξ = u r ( ) L l ( ) ( b , R N ) 1 .

Thus,

c min ξ 0 g 1 ( ξ ) = g 1 b 1 λ l a 1 1 l 1 ,

i.e.,

c K 1 ( l ) 1 l 1 ( l ) l l 1 a 1 1 l 1 b 1 l l 1 λ l l 1 .

If u r ( ) L l ( ) ( b , R N ) < 1 , then (4.36) yields

c a 1 ξ l + b 1 λ ξ + K 1 g 2 ( ξ ) with ξ = u r ( ) L l ( ) ( b , R N ) < 1 .

Thus,

c min ξ 0 g 2 ( ξ ) = g 2 b 1 λ l + a 1 1 l + 1 ,

i.e.,

c K 1 ( l + ) 1 l + 1 ( l + ) l + l + 1 a 1 1 l + 1 b 1 l + l + 1 λ l + l + 1 .

Therefore, in any case, we obtain

c K 1 K 2 max λ l + l + 1 , λ l l 1 ,

where

K 2 max * { + , } ( l * ) 1 l * 1 ( l * ) l * l * 1 a 1 1 l * 1 b 1 l * l * 1 .

This contradicts with (4.10), i.e., we have shown that = and μ = ν = 0 . Hence, (4.19) yields R N b v n t ( x ) d x R N b u t ( x ) d x . From this and (4.16), we obtain

(4.37) v n u in L t ( ) ( b , R N ) ,

in view of Lemma 3.5. Moreover, we also have

(4.38) v n u in L r i ( ) ( ϱ i , R N ) ( i = 1 , , m ) ,

in view of (4.1) and (4.17). Using (4.37), (4.38), ( 1 ) , and invoking the Hölder-type inequality (Proposition 2.2), we easily obtain

(4.39) R N f ( x , v n ) ( v n u ) d x 0 , R N b v n t ( x ) 1 ( v n u ) d x 0 .

On the other hand, by the monotonicity of ξ a ( x , ξ ) (due to ( A 2 ) ) and τ τ α ( x ) 2 τ , we have

0 R N [ ( a ( x , v n ) a ( x , u ) ) ( v n u ) + V ( x ) ( v n α ( x ) 2 v n u α ( x ) 2 u ) ( v n u ) ] d x m ˜ 0 1 M 0 R N A ( x , v n ) d x R N ( a ( x , v n ) a ( x , u ) ) ( v n u ) d x + m ˜ 0 1 R N V ( x ) ( v n α ( x ) 2 v n u α ( x ) 2 u ) ( v n u ) d x m ˜ 0 1 M 0 R N A ( x , v n ) d x R N a ( x , v n ) ( v n u ) d x + R N V ( x ) v n α ( x ) 2 v n ( v n u ) d x m ˜ 0 1 M 0 R N A ( x , v n ) d x R N a ( x , u ) ( v n u ) d x + R N V ( x ) u α ( x ) 2 u ( v n u ) d x .

This leads to

(4.40) 0 R N [ ( a ( x , v n ) a ( x , u ) ) ( v n u ) + V ( x ) ( v n α ( x ) 2 v n u α ( x ) 2 u ) ( v n u ) ] d x m ˜ 0 1 J ˜ λ ( v n ) , v n u + R N f ( x , v n ) ( v n u ) d x + R N b ( x ) v n t ( x ) 1 ( v n u ) d x m ˜ 0 1 H n ,

where

H n M 0 R N A ( x , v n ) d x R N a ( x , u ) ( v n u ) d x + R N V ( x ) u α ( x ) 2 u ( v n u ) d x .

By the boundedness of { v n } n N in X , (4.5), (4.11), and (4.17), we easily see that

(4.41) lim n J ˜ λ ( v n ) , v n u = lim n H n = 0 .

Using (4.39) and (4.41), we infer from (4.40) that

lim n R N [ ( a ( x , v n ) a ( x , u ) ) ( v n u ) + V ( x ) ( v n α ( x ) 2 v n u α ( x ) 2 u ) ( v n u ) ] d x = 0 .

Invoking (4.17) again, we obtain from the last equality that

lim n R N [ a ( x , v n ) ( v n u ) + V ( x ) v n α ( x ) 2 v n ( v n u ) ] d x = 0 .

From this and (4.17) we derive v n u in X in view of [61, Lemma 4.7-(ii)]. Combining this with (4.13) gives u n = v n u n u . Finally, to obtain the conclusion for J λ , we directly argue with { u n } n N instead of { v n } n N in the aforementioned arguments. The proof is complete.□

The next two lemmas provide several geometries of J ˜ λ . Set

(4.42) δ 0 min C 7 1 , ( C 7 t + 4 1 m ˜ 0 α 1 ) 1 t q α + , 1 ,

where m ˜ 0 min { 1 , m 0 } , while q α , α 1 , and C 7 are given by (2.2), (2.3), and (4.8), respectively.

Lemma 4.5

For each δ ( 0 , δ 0 ) , there exists λ 2 = λ 2 ( δ ) such that for any λ ( 0 , λ 2 ) , there exists ρ λ > 0 such that

J ˜ λ ( u ) ρ λ , u B δ ,

where B δ { u X : u = δ } .

Proof

Let δ ( 0 , δ 0 ) be given, and let λ < ( C 6 t ) 1 with C 6 given in ( 2 ) . For u B δ ,

max { u L r ( ) ( ϱ , R N ) , u L t ( ) ( b , R N ) } C 7 u < C 7 δ 0 < 1 and u < δ 0 < 1 ,

in view of (4.8) and (4.42). Thus, using ( 2 ) , (2.3), (4.6), (4.8), and invoking Proposition 2.1, we have

(4.43) J ˜ λ ( u ) m ˜ 0 A ( u ) C 5 λ R N ϱ ( x ) u r ( x ) d x C 6 λ + 1 t R N b ( x ) u t ( x ) d x m ˜ 0 A ( u ) C 5 λ R N ϱ ( x ) u r ( x ) d x 2 t R N b ( x ) u t ( x ) d x m ˜ 0 α 1 δ q α + C 7 r λ δ r 2 t C 7 t δ t , u B δ .

Noting 2 t C 7 t δ t 1 2 m ˜ 0 α 1 δ q α + , inequality (4.43) yields

J ˜ λ ( u ) 1 2 m ˜ 0 α 1 δ q α + C 7 r λ δ r = C 7 r δ r 1 2 m ˜ 0 α 1 C 7 r λ , u B δ .

So, by taking λ 2 min ( C 6 t ) 1 , 1 2 m ˜ 0 α 1 C 7 r and ρ λ C 7 r δ r 1 2 m ˜ 0 α 1 C 7 r λ , we deduce that for λ ( 0 , λ 2 ) , it holds

J ˜ λ ( u ) ρ λ > 0 , u B δ .

The proof is complete.□

Set

(4.44) λ 3 β ( C 2 t + ) 1 ,

where β and C 2 are taken from ( 2 ) . Then, we have the following.

Lemma 4.6

Let λ ( 0 , λ 3 ) with λ 3 given by (4.44). Then, for any ϕ X \ { 0 } with ϕ 0 , we find τ λ , ϕ ( 0 , 1 ) such that

J ˜ λ ( τ ϕ ) < 0 , τ ( 0 , τ λ , ϕ ) .

Proof

Let τ ( 0 , 1 ) . By (2.3), (4.6), and ( 2 ) , we have

J ˜ λ ( τ ϕ ) M ( τ ¯ 0 ) R N A ( x , ( τ ϕ ) ) d x + 1 α R N V ( x ) ( τ ϕ ) α ( x ) d x λ β R N [ C 1 ϱ ( x ) ( τ ϕ ) r ( x ) C 2 b ( x ) ( τ ϕ ) t ( x ) ] d x 1 t + R N b ( x ) ( τ ϕ ) t ( x ) d x ( 1 + M ( τ ¯ 0 ) ) A ( τ ϕ ) λ C 1 β R N ϱ ( x ) ( τ ϕ ) r ( x ) d x 1 t + C 2 λ β R N b ( x ) ( τ ϕ ) t ( x ) d x ( 1 + M ( τ ¯ 0 ) ) ( 1 + ϕ q α + ) τ p α λ C 1 β R N ϱ ( x ) ϕ r ( x ) d x τ r + .

Since r + < p α , the conclusion follows from the last estimate.□

Proof of Theorem 4.1

Let δ * be such that

(4.45) 0 < δ * < δ 0 , α 2 δ * p α < τ ¯ 0 ,

see the notations p α , α 2 , τ ¯ 0 , and δ 0 in (2.2), (2.3), (4.3), and (4.42), respectively. Let λ be such that

(4.46) 0 < λ < min { λ 1 , λ 2 ( δ * ) , λ 3 } , 0 < K 1 K 2 max λ l + l + 1 , λ l l 1 ,

where K 1 , K 2 , λ 1 , λ 2 ( δ * ) , and λ 3 are given in Lemmas 4.44.6. Let λ ( 0 , λ ) . Then, by Lemma 4.5, we find ρ λ > 0 such that

J ˜ λ ( u ) ρ λ , u B δ * .

Define

c inf u B ¯ δ * J ˜ λ ( u ) .

Then, from Lemma 4.6 and the definition of c , we deduce < c < 0 . From the Ekeland variational principle (see, for example, [14]), for each 0 < ε < inf u B δ * J ˜ λ ( u ) c , we find u ε B ¯ δ * such that

(4.47) J ˜ λ ( u ε ) c + ε , J ˜ λ ( u ε ) < J ˜ λ ( u ) + ε u u ε , u B ¯ δ * , u u ε .

Thus, u ε B δ * since J ˜ λ ( u ε ) c + ε < inf u B δ * J ˜ λ ( u ) . Hence, we deduce from (4.47) that

(4.48) J ˜ λ ( u ε ) X ε .

From (4.47) and (4.48), we produce a ( PS ) c -sequence { u n } n N for J ˜ λ . Notice that by (4.46) we have

c < 0 < K 1 K 2 max λ l + l + 1 , λ l l 1 .

Thus, up to a subsequence, we obtain that u n u λ in X in view of Lemma 4.4. So, J ˜ λ ( u λ ) = 0 and J ˜ λ ( u λ ) = c < 0 . By (2.3) and (4.45) and noting u λ δ * < 1 , we have

R N A ( x , u λ ) d x A ( u λ ) α 2 u λ p α α 2 δ * p α τ ¯ 0 .

Thus, u λ is a nonnegative solution to Problem (1.1). The proof is complete.□

4.2 Existence of infinitely many solutions

In this subsection, we will prove Theorem 4.2 employing the genus theory for the truncated energy functionals. Our argument follows the proof of [19, Theorem 2.2].

Let 0 < λ < ( C 6 t ) 1 λ ( 1 ) . Then, arguing as that leads to (4.43), we have

(4.49) J λ ( u ) m ˜ 0 α 1 u q α + λ C 7 r + u r 2 t C 7 t + u t , u 1 .

Thus,

(4.50) J λ ( u ) g λ ( u ) , for u 1 ,

where g λ C ( [ 0 , ) ) is given by

g λ ( τ ) m ˜ 0 α 1 τ q α + λ C 7 r + τ r 2 C 7 t + t τ t , τ 0 .

Rewrite g λ ( τ ) = C 7 r + τ r ( h ( τ ) λ ) with

h ( τ ) a 0 τ q α + r b 0 τ t r ,

where a 0 m ˜ 0 α 1 C 7 r + > 0 and b 0 2 C 7 t + r + t > 0 . Clearly,

(4.51) λ ( 2 ) max τ 0 h ( τ ) = h ( q α + r ) a 0 ( t r ) b 0 1 t q α + = a 0 t r t q α + b 0 r t + t q α + q α + r t r t + r q α t + t q α + t r > 0 ,

and for any λ ( 0 , λ ( 2 ) ) , g λ ( τ ) has only positive roots τ 1 ( λ ) and τ 2 ( λ ) with

(4.52) 0 < τ 1 ( λ ) < ( q α + r ) a 0 ( t r ) b 0 1 t q α + τ * < τ 2 ( λ ) .

Obviously, on [ 0 , ) , it holds that g λ ( τ ) < 0 if and only if τ ( 0 , τ 1 ( λ ) ) ( τ 2 ( λ ) , ) . Moreover, we have

(4.53) lim λ 0 + τ 1 ( λ ) = 0 .

By (4.53), we find λ * ( 1 ) such that

(4.54) 0 < λ * ( 1 ) < min { λ 1 , λ 3 , λ ( 1 ) , λ ( 2 ) } , τ 1 ( λ ) < 1 , α 2 τ 1 ( λ ) p α < α 1 min { 1 , τ * q α + } , λ ( 0 , λ * ( 1 ) ) ,

where λ 1 and λ 3 are given in (4.9) and (4.44), respectively. For each λ ( 0 , λ * ( 1 ) ) , we consider the truncated functional T λ : X R given by

T λ ( u ) M ^ 0 R N A ( x , u ) d x + R N V ( x ) α ( x ) u α ( x ) d x ϕ ( A ( u ) ) λ R N F ( x , u ) d x + R N b ( x ) t ( x ) u t ( x ) d x ,

for u X , where A is given by (2.1) and ϕ C c ( R ) , 0 ϕ ( τ ) 1 for all τ R , ϕ ( τ ) = 1 for τ α 2 τ 1 ( λ ) p α and ϕ ( τ ) = 0 for τ α 1 min { 1 , τ * q α + } . Clearly, T λ C 1 ( X , R ) and

(4.55) T λ ( u ) J λ ( u ) , for all u X .

Moreover, we have

(4.56) T λ ( u ) = J λ ( u ) , if A ( u ) < α 2 τ 1 ( λ ) p α ,

and

(4.57) T λ ( u ) = M ^ 0 R N A ( x , u ) d x + R N V ( x ) α ( x ) u α ( x ) d x if A ( u ) > α 1 min { 1 , τ * q α + } .

Lemma 4.7

Let λ ( 0 , λ * ( 1 ) ) . Then, it holds that

(4.58) A ( u ) < α 2 τ 1 ( λ ) p α , T λ ( u ) = J λ ( u ) , T ( u ) = J λ ( u ) ,

for any u X satisfying T λ ( u ) < 0 .

Proof

Let u X satisfy T λ ( u ) < 0 . Then, we have J λ ( u ) < 0 due to (4.55). If u > 1 , then by (2.3), A ( u ) > α 1 , and therefore, (4.57) yields

M ^ 0 R N A ( x , u ) d x + R N V ( x ) α ( x ) u α ( x ) d x = T λ ( u ) < 0 ,

which is a contradiction. Thus, we have u 1 , and hence, it follows from (4.50) that g λ ( u ) J λ ( u ) < 0 . Thus, u < τ 1 ( λ ) or u > τ 2 ( λ ) > τ * due to (4.52). If u > τ * , then by (2.3) again, we have

A ( u ) α 1 u q α + > α 1 τ * q α + ;

hence, T λ ( u ) 0 due to (4.57), which is a contradiction. Thus, u < τ 1 ( λ ) ; hence, A ( u ) < α 2 τ 1 ( λ ) p α . Then, the conclusion follows from (4.56) and the definition of T λ . The proof is complete.□

Next, we will construct the sequence of critical points { u n } n N of T λ such that A ( u n ) < α 2 τ 1 ( λ ) p α via genus theory. Let us denote by Σ the set of all closed subset E X \ { 0 } such that E = E , namely, u E implies u E . For E Σ , let us denote the genus of a E by γ ( E ) (see [56] for the definition and properties of the genus).

Lemma 4.8

Let λ ( 0 , λ * ( 1 ) ) . Then, for each k N , there exists ε > 0 such that

(4.59) γ ( T λ ε ) k ,

where T λ ε { u X : T λ ( u ) ε } .

From the assumption of A and f , T λ ε is a closed subset of X \ { 0 } and is symmetric with respect to the origin; hence, γ ( T λ ε ) is well defined.

Proof of Lemma 4.8

Let k N and let X k be a subspace of X of dimension k . Since all norms on X k are mutually equivalent, we find δ k > τ 1 ( λ ) 1 ( > 1 ) such that

(4.60) δ k 1 u L r ( ) ( ϱ , R N ) u δ k u L r ( ) ( ϱ , R N ) , u X k .

For u X k with u < δ k 1 , thus, max { u , u L r ( ) ( ϱ , R N ) } < 1 and A ( u ) < α 2 τ 1 ( λ ) p α due to (4.60) and (2.3), by arguing as the proof of Lemma 4.6 we deduce from Proposition 2.1, ( 2 ), (4.8), and (4.56) that

T λ ( u ) = J λ ( u ) ( M ( τ ¯ 0 ) + 1 ) u p α λ C 1 β u L r ( ) ( ϱ , R N ) r + ( M ( τ ¯ 0 ) + 1 ) u p α λ C 1 C 7 r + β u r + ,

i.e.,

T λ ( u ) ( M ( τ ¯ 0 ) + 1 ) u r + u p α r + λ C 1 C 7 r + ( M ( τ ¯ 0 ) + 1 ) β .

Thus, by taking η with

0 < η < min δ k 1 , λ C 1 C 7 r + ( M ( τ ¯ 0 ) + 1 ) β 1 p α r +

and

ε ( M ( τ ¯ 0 ) + 1 ) η r + η p α r + λ C 1 C 7 r + ( M ( τ ¯ 0 ) + 1 ) β > 0 ,

we have T λ ( u ) < ε < 0 , for all u S η { u X k : u = η } . This yields S η T λ ε ; hence, γ ( T λ ε ) γ ( S η ) = k , and this completes the proof.□

Now, for each k N , define

Σ k { E Σ : γ ( E ) k }

and

c k inf E Σ k sup u E T λ ( u ) .

As in [30, Lemma 3.9], we have

(4.61) c k < 0 , k N .

Let λ * ( 2 ) > 0 be such that

K 1 K 2 max ( λ * ( 2 ) ) l + l + 1 , ( λ * ( 2 ) ) l l 1 > 0 ,

where K 1 , K 2 , and l are as in Lemma 4.4. Set

(4.62) λ * min { λ * ( 1 ) , λ * ( 2 ) } ,

where λ * ( 1 ) is given by (4.54). We have the following.

Lemma 4.9

For λ ( 0 , λ * ) , if c = c k = c k + 1 = = c k + m for some m N , then

γ ( K c ) m + 1 ,

where K c { u X \ { 0 } : T ( u ) = 0 and T λ ( u ) = c } .

Proof

Let λ ( 0 , λ * ) . Then, by (4.61) and the choice of λ * we have

c < 0 < K 1 K 2 max λ l + l + 1 , λ l l 1 .

Thus, K c is a compact set in view of Lemmas 4.4 and 4.7. Using this fact and a standard argument for which the deformation lemma is applied, we derive the desired conclusion (see, e.g., [9, Lemma 4.4] or [30, Lemma 3.10].□

Proof of Theorem 4.2

Let λ * be defined as in (4.62). Let λ ( 0 , λ * ) . In view of Lemma 4.9, we find the sequence { u n } n N of critical points of T λ with T λ ( u n ) < 0 for all n N . By Lemma 4.7, { u n } n N are the solutions to Problem (1.1). Let us denote by u λ one of u n . By Lemma 4.7 again, we have

A ( u n ) < α 2 τ 1 ( λ ) p α .

From this and (2.3), we arrive at

lim λ 0 + u λ = 0 ,

and the proof is complete.□

  1. Funding information: K. Ho was partially supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (Grant No. 2022R1A4A1032094). Y.-H. Kim was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2019R1F1A1057775). C. Zhang was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 12071098) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 2022FRFK060022).

  2. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and consented to its submission to the journal, reviewed all the results and approved the final version of the manuscript. KH and YK: writing – original draft preparation – reviewing and editing, CZ: writing – reviewing and editing.

  3. Conflict of interest: Prof. Chao Zhang, who is the author of this article, is a current Editorial Board member of the journal Advances in Nonlinear Analysis. This fact did not affect the peer-review process.

  4. Data availability statement: Data sharing is not applicable to this article as obviously no data sets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Appendix A Proof of Inequality (2.3)

Proof of inequality (2.3)

We will prove that (2.3) holds true with

α 1 = min M 1 , 1 α + 3 q α + and α 2 = 3 max 2 2 q + M 2 , 1 α .

Let u X , and we first prove the lower bound of A ( u ) as follows. By (1.4) we have

(A1) A ( u ) M 1 R N χ { u 1 } u p ( x ) d x + R N χ { u 1 } u q ( x ) d x + 1 α + R N V ( x ) u α ( x ) d x m 0 ( u ) ,

where

( u ) R N [ χ { u 1 } u p ( x ) + χ { u 1 } u q ( x ) + V ( x ) u α ( x ) ] d x and m 0 min M 1 , 1 α + .

For brevity, set

a 0 χ { u 1 } u L p ( ) ( R N ) , b 0 χ { u 1 } u L q ( ) ( R N ) , and c 0 u L α ( ) ( V , R N ) .

Thus, it holds

a 0 + b 0 + c 0 u .

Case A ( u ) < m 0 .

In this case, we obtain from (A1) that

R N χ { u 1 } u p ( x ) d x + R N χ { u 1 } u q ( x ) d x + R N V ( x ) u α ( x ) d x < 1 .

Consequently, by invoking Proposition 2.1, we derive from (A1) that

A ( u ) m 0 ( a 0 q α + + b 0 q α + + c 0 q α + ) m 0 3 1 q α + ( a 0 + b 0 + c 0 ) q α + m 0 3 1 q α + u q α + .

Case A ( u ) m 0 .

  1. If u 3 , then

    A ( u ) m 0 3 q α + u q α + .

  2. If u 3 , then a 0 + b 0 + c 0 3 . Thus, there exists x { a 0 , b 0 , c 0 } such that x 1 .

If x is the only element of { a 0 , b 0 , c 0 } that is greater than or equal to 1 and the remaining two elements are denoted by y , z , then y , z 1 and it holds

x 1 3 ( x + y + z ) = 1 3 ( a 0 + b 0 + c 0 ) 1 .

Thus, by (A1) and Proposition 2.1, we obtain

A ( u ) m 0 x p α m 0 1 3 ( a 0 + b 0 + c 0 ) p α m 0 3 p α u p α .

If there are only two of { a 0 , b 0 , c 0 } greater or equal 1, denoted by x and y , and the remaining element is denoted by z , then x , y 1 > z and

x + y 2 3 ( x + y + z ) = 2 3 ( a 0 + b 0 + c 0 ) .

Thus, by (A1) and Proposition 2.1 again, we obtain

A ( u ) m 0 ( x p α + y p α ) m 0 2 1 p α ( x + y ) p α m 0 2 1 p α 2 3 ( a 0 + b 0 + c 0 ) p α m 0 3 p α u p α .

Finally, for a 0 1 , b 0 1 , and c 0 1 , we have

A ( u ) m 0 ( a 0 p α + b 0 p α + c 0 p α ) m 0 3 1 p α ( a 0 + b 0 + c 0 ) p α m 0 3 1 p α u p α .

In any case, we obtain the following lower bound of A ( u ) :

A ( u ) m 0 3 q α + min { u p α , u q α + } .

Next, we prove the upper bound of A ( u ) . To this end, let v ( L p ( ) ( R N ) ) N and w ( L q ( ) ( R N ) ) N be such that

u = v + w and u L p ( ) ( R N ) + L q ( ) ( R N ) = v L p ( ) ( R N ) + w L q ( ) ( R N ) .

From this and (1.4), we obtain

(A2) A ( u ) M 2 { u 1 } u p ( x ) d x + M 2 { u < 1 } u q ( x ) d x + 1 α R N V ( x ) u α ( x ) d x M 2 2 p + 1 { u 1 } [ v p ( x ) + w p ( x ) ] d x + M 2 2 q + 1 { u < 1 } [ v q ( x ) + w q ( x ) ] d x + 1 α R N V ( x ) u α ( x ) d x .

On { u 1 } , we have

v + w u 1 .

  1. If w 1 2 , then we have w p ( x ) 2 ( q p ) + w q ( x ) , and thus,

    v p ( x ) + w p ( x ) 2 ( q p ) + ( v p ( x ) + w q ( x ) ) .

  2. If w < 1 2 , then we have v > 1 2 , and thus,

    v p ( x ) + w p ( x ) 2 v p ( x ) 2 ( v p ( x ) + w q ( x ) ) .

So, we infer

(A3) { u 1 } [ v p ( x ) + w q ( x ) ] d x 2 1 + ( q p ) + { u 1 } [ v p ( x ) + w q ( x ) ] d x .

On { u < 1 } , we have v + w = u < 1 .

  1. If w 1 , then

    v v + w + w 2 w .

    Thus, we know

    v q ( x ) + w q ( x ) 2 1 + q + w q ( x ) 2 1 + q + ( v p ( x ) + w q ( x ) ) .

  2. If w < 1 , then

    v v + w + w < 2 .

    Thus, one has v q ( x ) 2 ( q p ) + v p ( x ) . Hence, we obtain

    v q ( x ) + w q ( x ) 2 ( q p ) + ( v p ( x ) + w q ( x ) ) .

Thus, it holds

(A4) { u < 1 } [ v q ( x ) + w q ( x ) ] d x 2 1 + q + { u < 1 } [ v p ( x ) + w q ( x ) ] d x .

From (A2)–(A4), we obtain

A ( u ) M 2 2 p + + ( q p ) + { u 1 } [ v p ( x ) + w q ( x ) ] d x + M 2 2 2 q + { u < 1 } [ v p ( x ) + w q ( x ) ] d x + 1 α R N V ( x ) u α ( x ) d x 2 2 q + M 2 R N v p ( x ) d x + R N w q ( x ) d x + 1 α R N V ( x ) u α ( x ) d x .

Applying Proposition 2.1 again, we drive from the last inequality that

(A5) A ( u ) 2 2 q + M 2 [ max { v L p ( ) ( R N ) p , v L p ( ) ( R N ) p + } + max { w L q ( ) ( R N ) q , w L q ( ) ( R N ) q + } ] + 1 α max { u L α ( ) ( V , R N ) α , u L α ( ) ( V , R N ) α + } .

Note that v L p ( ) ( R N ) + w L q ( ) ( R N ) + u L α ( ) ( V , R N ) = u . We will distinguish two cases.

  1. If u 1 , then by (A5), we have

    A ( u ) 2 2 q + M 2 ( u p + + u q + ) + 1 α u α + 3 max 2 2 q + M 2 , 1 α u q α + .

  2. If u < 1 , then v L p ( ) ( R N ) < 1 , w L q ( ) ( R N ) < 1 and u L α ( ) ( V , R N ) < 1 , and thus, (A5) yields

    A ( u ) 2 2 q + M 2 ( v L p ( ) ( R N ) p + w L q ( ) ( R N ) q ) + 1 α u L α ( ) ( V , R N ) α max 2 2 q + M 2 , 1 p α ( v L p ( ) ( R N ) p α + w L q ( ) ( R N ) p α + u L α ( ) ( V , R N ) p α ) max 2 2 q + M 2 , 1 α ( v L p ( ) ( R N ) + w L q ( ) ( R N ) + u L α ( ) ( V , R N ) ) p α = max 2 2 q + M 2 , 1 α u p α .

In summary, we obtain the upper bound of A ( u ) as

A ( u ) 3 max 2 2 q + M 2 , 1 α max { u p α , u q α + } .

The proof is complete.□

References

[1] G. Autuori, P. Pucci, and M. Salvatori, Global nonexistence for nonlinear Kirchhoff systems, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 196 (2010), no. 2, 489–516. 10.1007/s00205-009-0241-xSearch in Google Scholar

[2] A. Azzollini, P. d’Avenia, and A. Pomponio, Quasilinear elliptic equations in RN via variational methods and Orlicz-Sobolev embeddings, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 49 (2014), 197–213. 10.1007/s00526-012-0578-0Search in Google Scholar

[3] A. Azzollini, Minimum action solutions for a quasilinear equation, J. Lond. Math. Soc. 92 (2015), 583–595. 10.1112/jlms/jdv050Search in Google Scholar

[4] A. Bahrouni, V. D. Rădulescu, and D. D. Repovš, Double phase transonic flow problems with variable growth: nonlinear patterns and stationary waves, Nonlinearity 32 (2019), 2481–2495. 10.1088/1361-6544/ab0b03Search in Google Scholar

[5] P. Baroni, M. Colombo, and G. Mingione, Harnack inequalities for double phase functionals, Nonlinear Anal. 121 (2015), 206–222. 10.1016/j.na.2014.11.001Search in Google Scholar

[6] P. Baroni, M. Colombo, and G. Mingione, Non-autonomous functionals, borderline cases and related function classes, St. Petersburg Math. J. 27 (2016), no. 3, 347–379. 10.1090/spmj/1392Search in Google Scholar

[7] P. Baroni, M. Colombo, and G. Mingione, Regularity for general functionals with double-phase, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations. 57 (2018), Paper no. 62, 48 pp. 10.1007/s00526-018-1332-zSearch in Google Scholar

[8] A. K. Ben-Naouma, C. Troestler, and M. Willem, Extrema problems with critical Sobolev exponents on unbounded domains, Nonlinear Anal. 26 (1996), 823–833. 10.1016/0362-546X(94)00324-BSearch in Google Scholar

[9] F. Bernis and J. Garcia Azorero, I. Peral Alonso, Existence and multiplicity of nontrivial solutions in semilinear critical problems of fourth-order, Adv. Differential Equations 1 (1996), 219–240. 10.57262/ade/1366896238Search in Google Scholar

[10] G. Bianchi, J. Chabrowski, and A. Szulkin, Symmetric solutions of an elliptic equation with a nonlinearity involving critical Sobolev exponent, Nonlinear Anal. 25 (1995), 41–59. 10.1016/0362-546X(94)E0070-WSearch in Google Scholar

[11] J. F. Bonder and A. Silva, Concentration-compactness principle for variable exponent spaces and applications, Electron. J. Differential Equations (2010), Paper No. 141, 18 pp. Search in Google Scholar

[12] J. F. Bonder, N. Saintier, and A. Silva, The concentration-compactness principle for fractional order Sobolev spaces in unbounded-domains and applications to the generalized fractional Brezis-Nirenberg problem, NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl. 25 (2018), Paper No. 52, 25 pp. 10.1007/s00030-018-0543-5Search in Google Scholar

[13] H. Brezis and L. Nirenberg, Positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponents, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 36 (1983), no. 4, 437–477. 10.1002/cpa.3160360405Search in Google Scholar

[14] H. Brezis and L. Nirenberg, Remarks on finding critical points, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 44 (1991), no. 8–9, 939–963. 10.1002/cpa.3160440808Search in Google Scholar

[15] S.-S. Byun and J. Oh, Regularity results for generalized double phase functionals, Anal. PDE 13 (2020), 1269–1300. 10.2140/apde.2020.13.1269Search in Google Scholar

[16] J. Cen, S. J. Kim, Y.-H. Kim, and S. Zeng, Multiplicity results of solutions to the double phase anisotropic variational problems involving variable exponent, Adv. Differential Equations 28 (2023), no. 5–6, 467–504. 10.57262/ade028-0506-467Search in Google Scholar

[17] J. Chabrowski, Concentration-compactness principle at infinity and semilinear elliptic equations involving critical and subcritical Sobolev exponents, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 3 (1995), no. 4, 493–512. 10.1007/BF01187898Search in Google Scholar

[18] N. Chorfi and V. D. Rǎdulescu, Standing wave solutions of a quasilinear degenerate Schrödinger equation with unbounded potential, Electron. J. Qual. Theory Differ. Equ. 37 (2016), 12 pp. 10.14232/ejqtde.2016.1.37Search in Google Scholar

[19] N. T. Chung and K. Ho, On a p(⋅) -biharmonic problem of Kirchhoff type involving critical growth, Appl. Anal. 101 (2022), no. 16, 5700–5726. 10.1080/00036811.2021.1903445Search in Google Scholar

[20] F. Colasuonno and M. Squassina, Eigenvalues for double phase variational integrals, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 195 (2016), 1917–1959. 10.1007/s10231-015-0542-7Search in Google Scholar

[21] M. Colombo and G. Mingione, Regularity for double phase variational problems, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 215 (2015), 443–496. 10.1007/s00205-014-0785-2Search in Google Scholar

[22] M. Colombo and G. Mingione, Bounded minimisers of double phase variational integrals, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 218 (2015), 219–273. 10.1007/s00205-015-0859-9Search in Google Scholar

[23] M. Colombo and G. Mingione, Calderón-Zygmund estimates and non-uniformly elliptic operators, J. Funct. Anal. 270 (2016), 1416–1478. 10.1016/j.jfa.2015.06.022Search in Google Scholar

[24] Á. Crespo-Blanco, L. Gasiński, P. Harjulehto, and P. Winkert, A new class of double phase variable exponent problems: Existence and uniqueness, J. Differential Equations 323 (2022), 182–228. 10.1016/j.jde.2022.03.029Search in Google Scholar

[25] D. V. Cruz-Uribe and A. Fiorenza, Variable Lebesgue spaces. Foundations and harmonic analysis, Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis, Birkhäuser/Springer, Heidelberg, 2013. 10.1007/978-3-0348-0548-3Search in Google Scholar

[26] P. D’Ancona and S. Spagnolo, Global solvability for the degenerate Kirchhoff equation with real analytic data, Invent. Math. 108 (1992), no. 2, 247–262. 10.1007/BF02100605Search in Google Scholar

[27] L. Diening, P. Harjulehto, P. Hästö, and M. Růžička, Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces with variable exponents, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 2017, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 2011. 10.1007/978-3-642-18363-8Search in Google Scholar

[28] X. Fan and D. Zhao, On the spaces Lp(x)(Ω) and Wm,p(x)(Ω), J. Math. Anal. Appl. 263 (2001), 424–446. 10.1006/jmaa.2000.7617Search in Google Scholar

[29] X. Fan, Sobolev embeddings for unbounded domain with variable exponent having values across N, Math. Inequal. Appl. 13 (2010), 123–134. 10.7153/mia-13-09Search in Google Scholar

[30] G. M. Figueiredo and R. G. Nascimento, Multiplicity of solutions for equations involving a nonlocal term and the biharmonic operator, Electron. J. Differential Equations (2016), Paper No. 217, 15 pp. Search in Google Scholar

[31] A. Fiscella, G. Marino, A. Pinamonti, and S. Verzellesi, Multiple solutions for nonlinear boundary value problems of Kirchhoff type on a double phase setting, Rev. Mat. Complut. 37 (2024), 205–236. 10.1007/s13163-022-00453-ySearch in Google Scholar

[32] I. Fonseca and G. Leoni, Modern Methods in the Calculus of Variations: Lp Spaces, Springer, New York, 2007. Search in Google Scholar

[33] Y. Fu, The principle of concentration compactness in Lp(x) spaces and its application, Nonlinear Anal. 71 (2009), 1876–1892. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.023Search in Google Scholar

[34] Y. Fu and X. Zhang, Multiple solutions for a class of p(x)-Laplacian equations in involving the critical exponent, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 466 (2010), no. 2118, 1667–1686. 10.1098/rspa.2009.0463Search in Google Scholar

[35] L. Gasiński and P. Winkert, Existence and uniqueness results for double phase problems with convection term, J. Differential Equations 268 (2020), 4183–4193. 10.1016/j.jde.2019.10.022Search in Google Scholar

[36] L. Gasiński and P. Winkert, Sign changing solution for a double phase problem with nonlinear boundary condition via the Nehari manifold, J. Differential Equations 274 (2021), 1037–1066. 10.1016/j.jde.2020.11.014Search in Google Scholar

[37] K. Ho and Y.-H. Kim, The concentration-compactness principles for Ws,p(⋅,⋅)(RN) and application, Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 10 (2021), no. 1, 816–848. 10.1515/anona-2020-0160Search in Google Scholar

[38] K. Ho, Y.-H. Kim, and J. Lee, Schrodinger p(⋅)-Laplace equations in RN involving indefinite weights and critical growth, J. Math. Phys. 62 (2021), 1–28. 10.1063/5.0054557Search in Google Scholar

[39] K. Ho, Y.-H. Kim, and I. Sim, Existence results for Schrodinger p(⋅)-Laplace equations involving critical growth in RN, Nonlinear Anal. 182 (2019), 20–44. 10.1016/j.na.2018.12.004Search in Google Scholar

[40] K. Ho and I. Sim, On degenerate p(x)-Laplace equations involving critical growth with two parameters, Nonlinear Anal. 132 (2016), 95–114. 10.1016/j.na.2015.11.003Search in Google Scholar

[41] I. H. Kim, Y.-H. Kim, M. W. Oh, and S. Zeng, Existence and multiplicity of solutions to concave-convex-type double phase problems with variable exponent, Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl. 67 (2022), Paper No. 103627, 25 pp. 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2022.103627Search in Google Scholar

[42] G. R. Kirchhoff, Vorlesungen über Mathematische Physik, Mechanik, Teubner, Leipzig, 1876. Search in Google Scholar

[43] O. Kováčik and J. Rákosník, On spaces Lp(x) and Wk,p(x), Czechoslovak Math. J. 41 (1991), 592–618. 10.21136/CMJ.1991.102493Search in Google Scholar

[44] P. L. Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The locally compact case, part 1, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 1 (1984), no. 2, 109–145. 10.1016/s0294-1449(16)30428-0Search in Google Scholar

[45] P. L. Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The limit case, part 1, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 1 (1985), no. 1, 145–201. 10.4171/rmi/6Search in Google Scholar

[46] W. Liu and G. Dai, Existence and multiplicity results for double phase problem, J. Differential Equations 265 (2018), 4311–4334. 10.1016/j.jde.2018.06.006Search in Google Scholar

[47] P. Marcellini, Regularity of minimizers of integrals of the calculus of variations with non standard growth conditions, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 105 (1989), 267–284. 10.1007/BF00251503Search in Google Scholar

[48] P. Marcellini, Regularity and existence of solutions of elliptic equations with p,q-growth conditions, J. Differential Equations 90 (1991), 1–30. 10.1016/0022-0396(91)90158-6Search in Google Scholar

[49] P. Marcellini, Regularity for elliptic equations with general growth conditions, J. Differential Equations 105 (1993), 296–333. 10.1006/jdeq.1993.1091Search in Google Scholar

[50] P. Marcellini, Everywhere regularity for a class of elliptic systems without growth conditions, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (IV) 23 (1996), 1–25. Search in Google Scholar

[51] P. Marcellini, Anisotropic and p,q-nonlinear partial differential equations, Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei 31 (2020), 295–301. 10.1007/s12210-020-00885-ySearch in Google Scholar

[52] G. Mingione and V. D. Rădulescu, Recent developments in problems with nonstandard growth and nonuniform ellipticity, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 501 (2021), Paper No. 125197, 41 pp. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2021.125197Search in Google Scholar

[53] N. S. Papageorgiou, V. D. Rădulescu, and D. D. Repovš, Double phase problems and a discontinuity property of the spectrum, P. Amer. Math. Soc. 147 (2019), 2899–2910. 10.1090/proc/14466Search in Google Scholar

[54] N. S. Papageorgiou, V. D. Rădulescu, and D. D. Repovš, Existence and multiplicity of solutions for double phase Robin problems, B. London Math. Soc. 52 (2020), 546–560. 10.1112/blms.12347Search in Google Scholar

[55] K. Perera and M. Squassina, Existence results for double phase problems via Morse theory, Commun. Contemp. Math. 20 (2018), Paper no. 1750023, 14 pp. 10.1142/S0219199717500237Search in Google Scholar

[56] P. H. Rabinowitz, On a class of nonlinear Schrödinger equations, Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 43 (1992), 270–291. 10.1007/BF00946631Search in Google Scholar

[57] M. A. Ragusa and A. Tachikawa, Regularity for minimizers for functionals of double phase with variable exponents, Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 9 (2020), 710–728. 10.1515/anona-2020-0022Search in Google Scholar

[58] V. D. Rădulescu and D. D. Repovš, Partial differential equations with variable exponents. Variational methods and qualitative analysis, Monographs and Research Notes in Mathematics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2015. Search in Google Scholar

[59] X. Shi, V. D. Rădulescu, D. D. Repovš, and Q. Zhang, Multiple solutions of double phase variational problems with variable exponent, Adv. Calc. Var. 13 (2020), no. 4, 382–401. 10.1515/acv-2018-0003Search in Google Scholar

[60] P. Pucci, M. Xiang, and B. Zhang, Multiple solutions for nonhomogeneous Schrödinger-Kirchhoff type equations involving the fractional p-Laplacian in RN, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 54 (2015), no. 3, 2785–2806. 10.1007/s00526-015-0883-5Search in Google Scholar

[61] Q. Zhang and V. D. Rădulescu, Double phase anisotropic variational problems and combined effects of reaction and absorption terms, J. Math. Pures Appl. 118 (2018), no. 9, 159–203. 10.1016/j.matpur.2018.06.015Search in Google Scholar

[62] S. D. Zeng, Y. R. Bai, L. Gasiński, and P. Winkert, Existence results for double phase implicit obstacle problems involving multivalued operators, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 59 (2020), Paper No. 176, 18 pp. 10.1007/s00526-020-01841-2Search in Google Scholar

[63] S. D. Zeng, Y. R. Bai, L. Gasiński, and P. Winkert, Convergence analysis for double phase obstacle problems with multivalued convection term, Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 10 (2021), 659–672. 10.1515/anona-2020-0155Search in Google Scholar

[64] V. V. Zhikov, Averaging of functionals of the calculus of variations and elasticity theory, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 50 (1986), no. 4, 675–710. Search in Google Scholar

[65] V. V. Zhikov, On Lavrentiev’s phenomenon, Russ. J. Math. Phys. 3 (1995), no. 2, 249–269. Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-07-13
Revised: 2023-12-14
Accepted: 2024-04-06
Published Online: 2024-05-29

© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

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

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Regular Articles
  2. Existence of normalized peak solutions for a coupled nonlinear Schrödinger system
  3. Orbital stability of the trains of peaked solitary waves for the modified Camassa-Holm-Novikov equation
  4. Global boundedness in a two-dimensional chemotaxis system with nonlinear diffusion and singular sensitivity
  5. Existence and uniqueness of solution for a singular elliptic differential equation
  6. The bounded variation capacity and Sobolev-type inequalities on Dirichlet spaces
  7. Vanishing and blow-up solutions to a class of nonlinear complex differential equations near the singular point
  8. Existence, uniqueness, localization and minimization property of positive solutions for non-local problems involving discontinuous Kirchhoff functions
  9. Concentration phenomena for a fractional relativistic Schrödinger equation with critical growth
  10. Beyond the classical strong maximum principle: Sign-changing forcing term and flat solutions
  11. Monotonicity of solutions for parabolic equations involving nonlocal Monge-Ampère operator
  12. On a nonlinear Robin problem with an absorption term on the boundary and L1 data
  13. Multiple solutions for the quasilinear Choquard equation with Berestycki-Lions-type nonlinearities
  14. Gradient estimates for a class of higher-order elliptic equations of p-growth over a nonsmooth domain
  15. Global existence and decay estimates of the classical solution to the compressible Navier-Stokes-Smoluchowski equations in ℝ3
  16. Global existence and finite-time blowup for a mixed pseudo-parabolic r(x)-Laplacian equation
  17. Multiple positive solutions for a class of concave-convex Schrödinger-Poisson-Slater equations with critical exponent
  18. A minimization problem with free boundary for p-Laplacian weakly coupled system
  19. Multiplicity of semiclassical solutions for a class of nonlinear Hamiltonian elliptic system
  20. k-convex solutions for multiparameter Dirichlet systems with k-Hessian operator and Lane-Emden type nonlinearities
  21. Infinitely many solutions for Hamiltonian system with critical growth
  22. On optimal control in a nonlinear interface problem described by hemivariational inequalities
  23. Variational–hemivariational system for contaminant convection–reaction–diffusion model of recovered fracturing fluid
  24. Potential and monotone homeomorphisms in Banach spaces
  25. Critical fractional Schrödinger-Poisson systems with lower perturbations: the existence and concentration behavior of ground state solutions
  26. Supercritical Hénon-type equation with a forcing term
  27. Concentration of blow-up solutions for the Gross-Pitaveskii equation
  28. Mountain-pass-type solutions for Schrödinger equations in R2 with unbounded or vanishing potentials and critical exponential growth nonlinearities
  29. Regularity for critical fractional Choquard equation with singular potential and its applications
  30. Double phase anisotropic variational problems involving critical growth
  31. Normalized solutions of NLS equations with mixed nonlocal nonlinearities
  32. Nontrivial solutions for resonance quasilinear elliptic systems
  33. Standing waves for Choquard equation with noncritical rotation
  34. Low regularity conservation laws for Fokas-Lenells equation and Camassa-Holm equation
  35. Modified quasilinear equations with strongly singular and critical exponential nonlinearity
  36. Limit profiles and the existence of bound-states in exterior domains for fractional Choquard equations with critical exponent
  37. Nests of limit cycles in quadratic systems
  38. Regularity of minimizers for double phase functionals of borderline case with variable exponents
  39. Boundedness, existence and uniqueness results for coupled gradient dependent elliptic systems with nonlinear boundary condition
  40. Ground state solutions for magnetic Schrödinger equations with polynomial growth
  41. Nonoccurrence of Lavrentiev gap for a class of functionals with nonstandard growth
  42. Dynamics for wave equations connected in parallel with nonlinear localized damping
  43. Boussinesq's equation for water waves: Asymptotics in Sector I
  44. Optimal global second-order regularity and improved integrability for parabolic equations with variable growth
  45. Normalized solutions of Schrödinger equations involving Moser-Trudinger critical growth
  46. Normalized solutions for the double-phase problem with nonlocal reaction
  47. Normalized solutions for Sobolev critical fractional Schrödinger equation
  48. Well-posedness of Cauchy problem of fractional drift diffusion system in non-critical spaces with power-law nonlinearity
  49. Improved results on planar Klein-Gordon-Maxwell system with critical exponential growth
  50. Existence and multiplicity of solutions for a new p(x)-Kirchhoff equation
  51. Quasiconvex bulk and surface energies: C1,α regularity
  52. Time decay estimates of solutions to a two-phase flow model in the whole space
  53. Bounds for the sum of the first k-eigenvalues of Dirichlet problem with logarithmic order of Klein-Gordon operators
  54. The properties of a new fractional g-Laplacian Monge-Ampère operator and its applications
  55. A fractional profile decomposition and its application to Kirchhoff-type fractional problems with prescribed mass
  56. Cauchy problem for a non-Newtonian filtration equation with slowly decaying volumetric moisture content
  57. Multiplicity of normalized semi-classical states for a class of nonlinear Choquard equations
  58. The second Yamabe invariant with boundary
  59. Peaked solitary waves and shock waves of the Degasperis-Procesi-Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation
  60. Normalized solutions for the Choquard equations with critical nonlinearities
  61. Boundedness and long-time behavior in a parabolic-elliptic system arising from biological transport networks
  62. Initial boundary value problem and exponential stability for the planar magnetohydrodynamics equations with temperature-dependent viscosity
  63. Nonexistence of mean curvature flow solitons with polynomial volume growth immersed in certain semi-Riemannian warped products
  64. Analysis of a vector-borne disease model with vector-bias mechanism in advective heterogeneous environment
  65. Normalized solutions for the Kirchhoff equation with combined nonlinearities in ℝ4
  66. Nonexistence of the compressible Euler equations with space-dependent damping in high dimensions
  67. Multiplicity of solutions for a nonhomogeneous quasilinear elliptic equation with concave-convex nonlinearities
  68. On semilinear inequalities involving the Dunkl Laplacian and an inverse-square potential outside a ball
  69. Besov regularity for the elliptic p-harmonic equations in the non-quadratic case
  70. Uniqueness and nondegeneracy of ground states for Δ u + u = ( I α u 2 ) u in R 3 when α is close to 2
  71. Existence of solutions for a class of quasilinear Schrödinger equations with Choquard-type nonlinearity
  72. Weighted Hardy-Adams inequality on unit ball of any even dimension
  73. Existence and regularity for a p-Laplacian problem in ℝN with singular, convective, and critical reaction
  74. Temporal periodic solutions of non-isentropic compressible Euler equations with geometric effects
  75. Nodal solutions for a zero-mass Chern-Simons-Schrödinger equation
  76. The modified quasi-boundary-value method for an ill-posed generalized elliptic problem
  77. Nonlocal heat equations with generalized fractional Laplacian
  78. Choquard equations with recurrent potentials
  79. Local and global well-posedness of the Maxwell-Bloch system of equations with inhomogeneous broadening
  80. The Riemann problem for two-layer shallow water equations with bottom topography
  81. Global stability and asymptotic profiles of a partially degenerate reaction diffusion Cholera model with asymptomatic individuals
  82. On Kirchhoff-Schrödinger-Poisson-type systems with singular and critical nonlinearity
  83. Energy-variational solutions for viscoelastic fluid models
  84. Stability on 3D Boussinesq system with mixed partial dissipation
  85. Existence and multiplicity results for non-autonomous second-order Hamiltonian systems
  86. Erratum
  87. Erratum to “Normalized solutions for the Kirchhoff equation with combined nonlinearities in ℝ4
Downloaded on 11.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/anona-2024-0010/html
Scroll to top button