Home Mathematics Unilateral problems for quasilinear operators with fractional Riesz gradients
Article Open Access

Unilateral problems for quasilinear operators with fractional Riesz gradients

  • Pedro Miguel Campos EMAIL logo and José Francisco Rodrigues
Published/Copyright: September 4, 2025

Abstract

In this work, we develop the classical theory of monotone and pseudomonotone operators in the class of convex-constrained Dirichlet-type problems involving fractional Riesz gradients in bounded and in unbounded domains Ω R d . We consider the problem of finding u K s , such that

R d a ( x , u , D s u ) D s ( v u ) d x + Ω b ( x , u , D s u ) ( v u ) d x 0

for all v K s . Here, K s Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) is a non-empty, closed, and convex set of a fractional Sobolev-type space Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) with 0 s 1 and 1 < p < , and D s denote the distributional Riesz fractional gradient, with two limit cases: D 1 = D represents the classical gradient in the classical Sobolev space Λ 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) , and D 0 = R denotes the vector-valued Riesz transform within Λ 0 0 , p ( Ω ) = { u L p ( R d ) : u = 0 a.e. in R d \ Ω } . We discuss the existence and uniqueness of solutions in this novel framework, and we obtain new results on the continuous dependence, with respect to the fractional parameter s , of variational solutions corresponding to several classical assumptions on the structural functions a and b adapted to the fractional framework. We introduce an extension of the Mosco convergence for convex sets K s with respect to the parameter s , including the limit cases s = 1 and s = 0 , to prove weak or strong convergences of the solutions u s and their fractional gradients D s u , according to different cases. Several applications are illustrated with examples of unilateral problems, including quasi-variational inequalities with constraints of obstacle type u ψ and s -gradient type D s u g .

MSC 2010: 26A33; 35J87; 35R11

1 Introduction

In 2015, Shieh and Spector considered a new type of fractional differential operator in [64], combining results of harmonic analysis, especially pseudodifferential operators, with calculus of variations. The functionals in [64] defining those operators are given with the distributional Riesz fractional gradient, denoted by D s .

When applied to smooth functions, D s can be computed as the gradient D of the convolution of the function with the Riesz kernel. More precisely, the operator D s can be expressed as

(1.1) D s u = D ( I 1 s * u ) ,

where I 1 s ( x ) = μ d , s d + s 1 x 1 s d denotes the Riesz kernel in R d with s ( 0 , 1 ) and μ d , s is given by (2.2). These fractional derivatives have some advantages in some types of fractional differential equations. First, they can be extended to more general classes of function spaces of Sobolev type, and they approach, in a natural way, the classical derivatives due to the fact that the Riesz kernel I 1 s is an approximation of the identity as s 1 . Second, being vector-valued like the classical gradient, in contrast with the scalar fractional Laplacian ( Δ ) s , they are suitable for inhomogeneous and anisotropic problems, since duality methods apply to the Riesz fractional s -gradient. Moreover, it can also provide an 11th characterization of the fractional Laplacian in R d with respect to [41]. Indeed, denoting by Φ div s Φ = D s Φ the s -divergence, we have in the distributional sense

(1.2) ( Δ ) s u = D s D s u .

Subsequently, Ponce made a brief introduction to the fractional gradient and divergence operators for smooth functions with compact support, [53, pp. 246–251], and Šilhavý published in [70] a fractional vector calculus developing ideas presented in a seminar [69]. In the introduction of [65], the equivalence of the definition of the distributional Riesz fractional gradient (1.1), with definition (2.6) of s -fractional gradient introduced by Šilhavý in [69,70], which corresponds to

(1.3) D s u = N s * u ,

with N s ( x ) = D I 1 s ( x ) = μ d , s x x 1 s d being the vector-valued kernel of Horváth [34]. Actually, this definition can be seen as a special case of a definition used by Sobolev and Nikol’skiĭ in [63] in a more general framework, with generalized homogeneous functions of degree d s (a class of functions containing the Horváth kernel as a special case), under the name of Liouville derivatives of order s. The proof of that equivalence was proved in [53] and in the work of Comi and Stefani [24], respectively, for smooth and Lipschitz functions with compact support.

Šilhavý’s treatment was different from the one of Shieh and Spector, as he was interested in showing that these nonlocal operators satisfy the “natural qualitative requirements on the fractional operators.” Notably, Šilhavý has shown that D s is, up to a multiplicative constant, the only operator applying scalar functions into vector-valued functions that satisfies: ( i ) rotational and translational invariance, important for the operators to be independent of the chosen basis; ( i i ) a mild continuity hypothesis, D s is sequential continuous for test functions in a suitable topology, and ( i i i ) s-homogeneity under isotropic scaling, which characterizes the fractional nature of the operator. In addition, using the weaker form of the definitions of the fractional gradient and divergence, he derived explicit formulas for these operators, in particular, showing that ( Δ ) ( s + r ) 2 u = D s D r u and computing directly the fractional gradient of distributions like the Dirac delta or the Heaviside function in R , [70, Examples 6.2 and 6.3].

With this notion of fractional gradient, for 0 < s < 1 and 1 < p < , in [64], the following Sobolev-type space was also introduced:

(1.4) Λ s , p ( R d ) = C c ( R d ) ¯ Λ s , p ( R d ) ,

i.e., the completion of the space of test functions for the norm

(1.5) u Λ s , p ( R d ) = ( u L p ( R d ) p + D s u L p ( R d ; R d ) p ) 1 p .

These spaces, that we call here Lions-Calderón spaces, were not new, as they were shown, for 1 < p < , also in [64], to be equivalent to the so-called Bessel potential spaces in [1,2,67] or generalized (inhomogeneous) Sobolev spaces in [33]. With this new approach, they are well suited to the study of some fractional partial differential equations, including nonhomogeneous and anisotropic variants of the fractional Laplacian. Therefore, they have been well studied in the literature, as they have a long and rich history. Indeed, the oldest reference we could find for these spaces is due to Aronzajn and Smith, who in [7,8] defined them in the Hilbertian case p = 2 . As is well-known, this case coincides with the Sobolev-Gagliardo space W s , 2 ( R d ) = H s ( R d ) . Later, those spaces were independently generalized to the non-Hilbertian case 1 < p < , by Lions [42], using complex interpolation between L p ( R d ) and W 1 , p ( R d ) , and by Calderón [21], using Bessel potentials. The initial definition in terms of Bessel potentials G s , with their different notations H s , p ( R d ) = L s p ( R d ) = G s ( L p ( R d ) ) = Λ s , p ( R d ) , is not sufficient to justify their terminology as “Bessel potential spaces.” In fact, both the Besov and the Triebel-Lizorkin spaces can be also obtained by the image of Bessel potential, respectively, B q s , p ( R d ) = G s ( B q 0 , p ( R d ) ) and F q s , p ( R d ) = G s ( F q 0 , p ( R d ) ) , and we have B p s , p ( R d ) = W s , p ( R d ) and F 2 s , p ( R d ) = Λ s , p ( R d ) , see [71] for instance.

Conversely, as in [24] under the name of distributional fractional Sobolev spaces for 1 p , the Lions-Calderón spaces were defined directly in terms of the s -fractional gradient, i.e.

(1.6) Λ s , p ( R d ) = { u L p ( R d ) : D s u L p ( R d ; R d ) } ,

which equivalence with the definition (1.4) was proved for 1 < p < in [10] and independently in [39], while for p = 1 , it has been earlier proven in [24]. Actually, this definition was also suggested for general spaces of functions with Liouville derivatives by Sobolev and Nikol’skiĭ in the survey [63, p. 150]. The alternative names “generalized Sobolev spaces” or “distributional fractional Sobolev spaces,” although possibly more appropriate to this general class of functional spaces of the form { u L p : D u L p } , with D being some broadened notion of derivatives, collides with the Sobolev-Gagliardo spaces W s , p ( R d ) , see [1,44], which are also well-known as the fractional Sobolev spaces and do not coincide with the spaces Λ s , p ( R d ) , except when p = 2 or when s is an integer.

Another important property of the fractional gradient D s is the continuous dependence with respect to the parameter s . In fact, it was noted, in [69] and in [53] without proofs, in [56] using Kurokawa’s results [40] on the approximating the identity by Riesz kernels, and in [12] using Fourier analysis and an interpolation inequality, that the following property for sufficiently regular functions u :

D s u D u in L p ( R d ; R d ) as s 1 for 1 < p < .

These results were obtained concurrently and independently in [25] and later on generalized in [10] using direct estimates and properties of the singular integrals. In these works, the authors were able to show that

D s u D σ u in L p ( R d ; R d ) as s σ ( 0 , 1 ] , for 1 p < ,

and also that

D s u R u in L p ( R d , R d ) as s 0 , for 1 < p < .

Here, R is the Riesz transform (see [32,67]), which motivates the notation D 0 = R .

Concerning applications to partial differential equations, these spaces had also appeared in [35,44], to study the regularity theory for linear elliptic partial differential equations, and in [46], to study a variety of questions about solutions to dispersive partial differential equations. However, the new characterization of these spaces using the distributional Riesz fractional gradient allows the study of fractional partial differential equations, as proposed in [64], as well as extensions to unilateral problems, as in [5,6,47,56] and other problems of the calculus of variations, as in [65], [11,12] and [39], in particular with applications in Peridynamics [59,61] to model fractional hyperelasticity, see also [58]. Conversely, this functional framework for the Riesz fractional gradient is also well suited for certain classes of evolution problems, such as fractional Stefan-type problems [48] and hyperbolic obstacle-type problems [23].

Paraphrasing Jean Mawhin in his Foreword of [49], it is therefore a natural question to see which results “survive” when the gradient is replaced by the fractional gradient, which is also fruitful because the extension of classical results to new situations also sheds light on a better and deeper understanding of the classical results. In this work, we are interested in more general types of stationary problems, with or without constraints, in (fractional) divergence form, including the variants of the ( s , p ) -Laplacian-type:

(1.7) D s ( α ( u ) D s u p 2 D s u + e ( u ) ) + b ( u , D s u ) = f 0 D s f in Ω u = 0 on R d \ Ω ,

This will be done in the general framework of monotone and pseudomonotone operators involving fractional Riesz gradients, in bounded and in unbounded domains Ω R d , in classes of convex constrained Dirichlet-type problems. In particular, this allows us to consider the existence of solutions to problems of the type (1.7), their extensions with obstacle or s -gradient constraints and to study their dependence with respect to the parameter s , including the limit cases s = 1 and s = 0 .

In Section 2, we start with a summary of the natural functional framework of the Riesz fractional gradient D s , with the precise definition of the Lions-Calderón spaces Λ s , p ( R d ) and Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , with special emphasis on the differences between the properties of the latter spaces when Ω is bounded and when it is not. In particular, we recall the equivalent definitions of the fractional gradient and their important duality property in the Lions-Calderón spaces, the characterization of their dual spaces Λ s , p ( R d ) , p = p ( p 1 ) , by showing the representation F = f 0 D s f , for all F Λ s , p ( R d ) , the contiguity relation between Λ s , p ( R d ) and W s , p ( R d ) and the monotone inclusions of the spaces Λ s , p ( R d ) and Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , with respect to the inverse monotone variation of the parameter s [ 0 , 1 ] , for 1 < p < . We also recall the fractional Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities and the continuity of D s with respect to s [ 0 , 1 ] in those spaces. We note that these results also hold for Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , since it may be considered a subspace of Λ s , p ( R d ) . Some properties of these spaces are then also complemented in the case of bounded Ω , like in the classical case, as the fractional Poincaré inequality, emphasizing the dependence on the fractional parameter, and the fractional Rellich-Kondrachov compactness embedding. In particular, we prove the new explicit estimate D t u L p ( R d ; R d ) C t 1 + 1 p D s u L p ( R d ; R d ) of the embedding Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) , 1 < p < , depending on the fractional parameter t but not on s , 0 < t < s 1 , and we show the compact embedding Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 t , q ( Ω ) for all 1 < p q < , 0 t < s 1 , satisfying 1 p s d < 1 q t d . We conclude this functional section with a relevant property on the density of the non-negative smooth functions with compact support, in a bounded open set Ω , in the non-negative cone of Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

In the functional framework of the Lions-Calderón spaces, we study in Section 3 the existence of solutions u = u s K s Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) to fractional variational inequalities of the type

(1.8) R d a ( x , u , D s u ) D s ( v u ) d x + Ω b ( x , u , D s u ) ( v u ) d x Ω f 0 ( v u ) + R d f D s ( v u )

for all v K s . Here, K s denotes a non-empty closed convex subset of Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) for s [ 0 , 1 ] and p ( 1 , ) . Some examples of these convex sets that are used throughout the text are the following:

(1.9) K ψ s = { u Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) : u ψ in Ω } and K g s = { u Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) : D s u g in R d } .

In this new framework, we develop the theory of monotone operators, initiated in [37,50], and pseudomonotone operators, introduced by Brézis [18] and extended by Browder [19]. These methods, combined with the functional properties of the fractional Riesz gradients, allow us to obtain a variety of interesting existence results for different types of problems, with Ω bounded or unbounded, in this novel framework. In the monotone case, it is possible to let s = 0 , which corresponds to a new class of nonlinear problems involving an important Calderón-Zygmund operator, namely the Riesz transform. When Ω is bounded and s > 0 , we apply the method of [18] for pseudomonotone operators to obtain the novel existence results, while when Ω is unbounded and s > 0 we extend the method of [19] to the fractional framework. When Ω is unbounded but s 0 we restrict ourselves to monotone operators and make use of more classical arguments. We observe that, as in the classical pseudomonotone case s = 1 , when Ω is unbounded the type of functions a and b for which we can obtain existence results is more restrictive.

In particular, we study specially fractional p -Laplacian-type operators, for which the typical example is the variational ( s , p ) -Laplacian, or the s -fractional p -Laplacian

(1.10) u Δ p s u = D s ( D s u p 2 D s u ) ,

that constitutes a continuous one parameter family of nonlinear operators as s varies through Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , from 0 in L 0 0 ( Ω ) till 1 in W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) . In addition, we prove that the solution operator

S : Λ s , p ( Ω ) F = f 0 D s f u K Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) ,

for the variational inequality (1.8) associated with fractional p -Laplacian-type operators, for 0 s 1 , is 1 p 1 -Hölder continuous for p 2 , locally Lipschitz continuous for 1 < p < 2 and, for Ω bounded, also compact in Λ 0 t , q ( Ω ) for 0 < t < s and 1 < p , q < satisfying 1 p s d < 1 q t d . These results are new for 0 s 1 with p 2 and K Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , extending those of [62] for the classical Dirichlet problem corresponding to s = 1 .

The following section in this article, Section 4, contains the main results of this work and concerns the continuous dependence of the solutions to (1.8) with respect to the parameter s , which implies the variation of the convex sets K s and the respective functional spaces Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) . Introducing a generalized Mosco convergence (1.15) for the convex sets, we show that the solutions to those problems converge, up to subsequences, to a solution of the limit problems as s σ [ s * , 1 ] , following the four settings of Section 3, respectively, the case of pseudomonotone operators with 0 < s * < s 1 , with Ω bounded, where we prove

(1.11) u s u σ in Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) , for 0 t < s * , and D s u s D σ u σ in L p ( R d ; R d ) ,

for pseudomonotone operators with 0 < s * < s 1 , with Ω unbounded, where the result is weaker

(1.12) u s u σ in Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) , for 0 t s * , and D s u s D σ u σ in L p ( R d ; R d ) ,

and similarly for monotone operators with 0 s * σ 1 and with Ω unbounded, where σ = 0 is admissible with Λ 0 0 , p ( Ω ) = L 0 p ( Ω ) and σ = 1 corresponds to Λ 0 1 , p ( Ω ) = W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) . In the case of p -Laplacian-type coercive operators we have, in addition to the convergence (1.12) for the whole sequence s σ , as the solutions are unique, also the stronger convergences for 0 σ 1

(1.13) u s u σ in L 0 p ( Ω ) and D s u s D σ u σ in L p ( R d ; R d ) ,

and, in the case σ s * > 0 with bounded Ω , the first convergence in (1.11) also holds.

The proofs of these stability results are based in a refinement of the classical monotonicity and compactness methods used to study the existence problems and a generalization of the Mosco convergence [51] in a fixed Banach space V :

(1.14) K n M K w- limsup n K n K liminf n K n in V .

Although this notion of convergence is a powerful tool to study stability problems associated with variational inequalities with respect to the variation of the convex sets, as one can see, for example, in [4,16,51,52,54], it cannot be used directly in our framework, since the spaces Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) change with s . The particular case s σ is simpler, since the convex sets K s are non-increasing and K σ K s , and it has been considered in [22,47] for obstacle problems with σ = 1 , by using Mosco’s arguments directly in the space Λ 0 s * , p ( Ω ) where 0 s * < s < σ 1 .

The general case requires a generalization of Mosco’s notion of convergence, which in our situation consists of working with the convergences of the pair ( u , D s u ) in the space L p ( Ω ) = L p ( Ω ) × L p ( R d ; R d ) , instead of working directly with the functions u in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) . This allows the ambient space L p ( Ω ) to be independent of s without losing information about the regularity of u and to introduce, for converging sequences [ 0 , 1 ] s σ [ 0 , 1 ] , the convergence of convex sets in the generalized sense of Mosco

(1.15) Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) K s s M K σ Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) .

With this approach, we are able to obtain the new results, with different combinations of weak and strong convergences of the solutions u s and their fractional gradients D s u , given in (1.11), (1.12), and (1.13). We emphasize that the convergences s σ may be arbitrary, not requiring monotonicity even in the limit cases σ = 1 and σ = 0 .

To complement the existence and stability results obtained in Sections 3 and 4, respectively, we provide some new examples and new applications in Section 5. We start in Section 5.1 with specific examples of sets that converge in the generalized sense of Mosco that was introduced in Section 4. We show that Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) s M Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) , which implies, for example, that, under suitable assumptions on the nonlinear coefficients, the solutions u s Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) to (1.7), as s 1 , converge to solutions u W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) of the classical quasilinear Dirichlet problem:

(1.16) D ( α ( u ) D u p 2 D u + e ( u ) ) + b ( u , D u ) = f 0 D f in Ω u = 0 on Ω .

In order to study the stability, as s σ [ 0 , 1 ] , of the solutions to obstacle problems we give examples of K ψ s s s M K ψ σ σ , and also one example of K g s s s M K g σ σ , with constraint on the fractional gradient D s u instead of u , which we restrict to g s = I σ s * g σ and s σ ( 0 , 1 ] .

In Section 5.2, we provide applications to quasi-variational problems, i.e., problems where the convex sets K = K ( u ) are allowed to depend on the solution u of the problem, a class of problems considered, for instance, in the classical framework by [9,13,14,31,36,52]. Fractional problems of this type were, as far as we know, first studied in the Hilbertian framework by Antil and Rautenberg [3] using methods that are dependent on a comparison principle. Since it is not known if the fractional operators studied in our work satisfy any type of comparison principles, we use fixed-point arguments together with variational methods, generalizing some results that were obtained in [4,47,56] to the non-Hilbertian framework. We give two examples with strictly monotone coercive operators, one of obstacle type, where the obstacle is given by ψ = Ψ ( u ) , and another with a fractional gradient constraint g = G ( u ) , for suitable compact operators Ψ and G , respectively. We conclude this subsection with two examples of continuous dependence with respect to s : (i) by showing the convergence (1.11) for s σ [ s * , 1 ] in the case of subsequences of solutions u s K Ψ ( u s ) s to the quasi-variational implicit obstacle problem towards a solution of the limit obstacle problem u σ K Ψ ( u σ ) s , and (ii) applying a result of [5] proving the localization of solutions of fractional quasi-variational inequalities with s -gradient constraints in the Hilbertian framework p = 2 with a linear operator when s 1 .

2 Lions-Calderón spaces

2.1 Natural spaces for the s-fractional gradient

Introducing the Riesz potentials

(2.1) I r φ ( x ) = ( I r * φ ) ( x ) = μ d , 1 r d r R d φ ( y ) x y d r d y ,

for r = 1 s ( 0 , 1 ) and φ C c ( R d ) , with

(2.2) μ d , s = 2 s Γ d + s + 1 2 π d 2 Γ 1 s 2 ,

we recall the following definition introduced in [64]:

Definition

(Distributional Riesz fractional partial derivative) Let s ( 0 , 1 ) and consider φ C c ( R d ) . Then, we define ( D s φ ) j = s φ x j s by

(2.3) s φ x j s , v = R d ( I 1 s φ ) v x j d x , v C c ( R d ) .

Since φ C c ( R d ) , the Riesz potential I 1 s φ is actually a well-defined function belonging to L p ( R d ) C ( R d ) for all p ( 1 , ) , and so the distributional Riesz fractional partial derivative (2.3) is well-defined in the distributional sense.

By definition of distributional Riesz partial derivative, these operators are non-local, in the sense that in order to be computed, they require information on the whole R d and not just information along the direction of canonical vector e j . Similar to the classical derivatives, we can express the distributional Riesz fractional gradient, or simply the s -fractional gradient, in terms of its s -fractional partial derivatives

(2.4) D s φ = j = 1 d s φ x j s e j .

When dealing with smooth functions with compact support, we can express the s -fractional gradient without the need to use distributions, since it is still a smooth vector function, although not having compact support. In fact, we have the following characterization:

Proposition 2.1

Let s ( 0 , 1 ) and φ C c ( R d ) , then

(2.5) D s φ = D ( I 1 s φ ) = I 1 s ( D φ ) .

Proof

See [64, Theorem 1.2].□

It is also possible to show that the s -fractional gradient D s corresponds, up to a sign, to the convolution with Horváth’s kernel (1.3).

Proposition 2.2

Let s ( 0 , 1 ) and φ C c ( R d ) , then

(2.6) D s φ ( x ) = μ d , s lim ε 0 { y > ε } y φ ( x + y ) y d + s + 1 d y ,

Proof

See [53, Lemma 15.9] or [24, Proposition 2.2].□

One consequence of the characterizations (2.5) and (2.6) is that we can extend them to the integral cases s = 1 and s = 0 , respectively. Indeed, by observing that, in a certain sense [40], the limit case I 0 corresponds to the identity operator, we can use (2.5) to extend the notion of D s to s = 1 , identifying D 1 and the classical gradient D . Conversely, we can use the characterization in (2.6) to extend D s to s = 0 , by identifying D 0 with R , where R is the vector-valued Riesz transform.

These s -fractional differential operators have some properties that are similar to the ones of the classical gradient. One of the most important, which allow us to make use of variational methods, is the duality property between the s -fractional gradient and the s -fractional divergence

(2.7) D s Φ ( x ) = div s Φ ( x ) = j = 1 d s Φ j x j s .

Proposition 2.3

(Duality between the s -gradient and the s -divergence) Let s [ 0 , 1 ) , φ C c ( R d ) , and Φ C c ( R d ; R d ) . Then,

(2.8) R d φ ( x ) D s Φ ( x ) d x = R d Φ ( x ) D s φ ( x ) d x .

Proof

For s ( 0 , 1 ) , see [24, Lemma 2.5]. The limit case s = 0 is shown in [10, Lemma 26].□

In fact, due to this duality property, following [24, Definition 3.19] for s > 0 and [10, Lemma 26] for s = 0 , it is possible to extend the notion of fractional differentiability to a wider class of functions.

Definition

(Weak s -fractional gradient) Let 0 s < 1 and consider 1 p if s > 0 or 1 < p < if s = 0 . We define the weak s -fractional gradient of a function f L p ( R d ) as the function Γ L loc 1 ( R d ; R d ) that satisfies

(2.9) R d f D s Φ d x = R d Γ Φ d x Φ C c ( R d ; R d ) .

To simplify the notation, we write D s f = Γ .

It is important to observe that this definition only makes sense because D s = div s : C c ( R d ; R d ) L p ( R d ) continuously, see [24, Corollary 2.3] for the case s > 0 and [32, Corollary 5.2.8] for the case s = 0 .

This notion of weak fractional gradient allows a definition of function spaces, similar to the classical Sobolev spaces, suitable to study problems involving s -fractional gradients.

Definition

(Lions-Calderón spaces) Let 0 s < 1 and consider 1 p if s > 0 or 1 < p < if s = 0 . We define Λ s , p ( R d ) as the space of functions in L p ( R d ) with (weak) s -fractional gradient in L p ( R d ; R d ) , i.e.

(2.10) Λ s , p ( R d ) { f L p ( R d ) : D s f L p ( R d ; R d ) } .

This space is endowed with the norm

(2.11) f Λ s , p ( R d ) ( f L p ( R d ) p + D s f L p ( R d ; R d ) p ) 1 p .

We also define the completion of C c ( R d ) for the norm Λ s , p ( R d ) as the Banach space

(2.12) Λ 0 s , p ( R d ) C c ( R d ) ¯ Λ s , p .

The definition of the space Λ s , p ( R d ) was given in [24, Definition 3.19] for s > 0 and in [10, Remark 27] for s = 0 . The space Λ 0 s , p ( R d ) was introduced in [64], where the authors have shown that Λ 0 s , p ( R d ) , for 1 < p < , coincides with the Bessel potential spaces or generalized Sobolev spaces

(2.13) H s , p ( R d ) = { ( ( 1 + 4 π 2 ξ 2 ) s 2 f ˆ ) : f L p ( R d ) } .

Conversely, it was proved that C c ( R d ) is also dense in Λ s , p ( R d ) , in [10] and in [39], showing, as in the classical Sobolev space W 1 , p ( R d ) (corresponding to s = 1 ), the identity of all those three spaces.

The case s = 0 in Definition 2.10 only includes the cases 1 < p < and we can identify Λ 0 , p ( R d ) with L p ( R d ) . These results can be summarized (and written more precisely) in the following proposition.

Proposition 2.4

(Lions-Calderón spaces and Bessel potential spaces) The following identities hold:

  1. Λ 0 s , p ( R d ) = H s , p ( R d ) with equivalent norms, when 0 < s < 1 and 1 < p < ;

  2. Λ s , p ( R d ) = Λ 0 s , p ( R d ) , when 0 < s < 1 and 1 p < ; and

  3. Λ 0 , p ( R d ) = L p ( R d ) with equivalent norms when 1 < p < .

Proof

  1. It was proved in [64, Theorem 1.7].

  2. It was proved in [39, Theorem 2.7] when 1 < p < and in [10, Theorem A.1] when 1 p < .

  3. It was proved in [10, Remark 27].□

An interesting consequence of the previous result is that we can establish a relationship between the Lions-Calderón spaces and the classical Sobolev spaces. In fact, unlike the Besov spaces, the class of Bessel Potential spaces H s , p ( R d ) contain the (classical) Sobolev spaces W k , p ( R d ) when s = k N and p ( 1 , ) , and the Lebesgue spaces L p ( R d ) when s = 0 and p ( 1 , ) . Consequently, it is natural to extend the definition of Λ s , p ( R d ) to s = 1 by setting

(2.14) Λ 1 , p ( R d ) W 1 , p ( R d ) ,

with D 1 D , where D is the classical gradient.

Conversely, from the point of view of the theory of interpolation, the Lions-Calderón space Λ s , p ( R d ) , when 0 < s < 1 and 1 < p < , is the complex interpolated space ( L p ( R d ) , W 1 , p ( R d ) ) [ s ] (see [42] and [71, Theorem 2.4.7]), while the Sobolev-Slobodeckij space W s , p ( R d ) is the real interpolated space ( L p ( R d ) , W 1 , p ( R d ) ) s , p (see [71, Theorem 2.4.2]). For the definition of the spaces W s , p ( R d ) , as well as some of their properties, we refer to [26].

Although in general the Lions-Calderón spaces Λ s , p ( R d ) do not coincide with the Sobolev-Slobodeckij spaces W s , p ( R d ) , they are in a certain sense close.

Proposition 2.5

(Contiguity between the Lions-Calderón spaces and the Sobolev-Slobodeckij spaces) Let 1 < p < , 0 < s < 1 , and 0 < ε min { s , 1 s } , then

Λ s + ε , p ( R d ) W s , p ( R d ) Λ s ε , p ( R d ) .

Proof

See [44, Theorem 3.2], which contains the more general case s R in the framework H s , p ( R d ) .□

Similar to the classical Sobolev spaces, the Lions-Calderón spaces inherit some natural properties, such as continuous embeddings with respect to the fractional parameter s .

Proposition 2.6

Let 0 s < t 1 and 1 < p < . Then, Λ t , p ( R d ) Λ s , p ( R d ) , being the inclusion map continuous. Moreover, in the limit case Λ 1 , p ( R d ) = W 1 , p ( R d ) , and there exists a constant C > 0 , independent of 0 < s < 1 , such that

(2.15) D s u L p ( R d ; R d ) C s u W 1 , p ( R d ) , u W 1 , p ( R d ) w i t h 1 p < .

Proof

The inclusions among the Lions-Calderón spaces for 1 < p < are from [21, Theorem 5] and [44, Prop. 3.3], where the notations L s p ( R d ) and H s , p ( R d ) were used for Λ s , p ( R d ) , respectively. Inequality (2.15) is from [12, Proposition 2.7].□

Proposition 2.7

(Fractional Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities for Λ s , p ( R d ) ) Let 0 r s t 1 and consider θ [ 0 , 1 ] such that s = θ r + ( 1 θ ) t . Consider also p , p 1 , p 2 [ 1 , ] such that

(2.16) 1 p = θ p 1 + 1 θ p 2 .

Then, there exists a positive constant C = C ( d , p 1 , p 2 , r , t , s ) 0 such that for all f Λ r , p 1 ( R d ) Λ t , p 2 ( R d ) , one has

(2.17) f Λ s , p ( R d ) C f Λ r , p 1 ( R d ) θ f Λ t , p 2 ( R d ) 1 θ .

Proof

This is a simple application of [15, Proposition 5.6] and Proposition 2.4 for the identification between Λ s , p ( R d ) and H s , p ( R d ) .□

Remark 2.1

In [10, Theorem 13], it was proved that for 1 < p 1 = p 2 = p < and for 0 r s t 1 , one has

(2.18) D s f L p ( R d ; R d ) c d , p D r f L p ( R d ; R d ) t s t r D t f L p ( R d ; R d ) s r t r , for all f Λ t , p ( R d ) .

This result is better than Proposition 2.7 in the particular case p 1 = p 2 = p because it provides an inequality just in terms of the fractional gradient and the constant c d , p does not depend on r , s , t .

To conclude this subsection, let us provide some properties of the s -fractional gradient in the context of the Lions-Calderón spaces. We start with the continuous dependence on D s with respect to the parameter s , provided that the function where we are computing these fractional gradients is sufficiently regular.

Proposition 2.8

(Continuity s D s ) Let f Λ s , p ( R d ) with 0 < s 1 and 1 p < . Then, for any sequence { t n } ( 0 , s ] converging to t ( 0 , s ] , we have that D t n f D t f in L p ( R d ; R d ) . Moreover, if we impose the strict condition p > 1 , then this continuity result can be extended to the case in which the sequence { t n } can converge to any value in [ 0 , s ] .

Proof

See [10, Theorem 34].□

Finally, we provide a similar characterization to the one in Proposition 2.1 but for functions that satisfy the minimal regularity assumptions, that is, belong to the smallest Lions-Calderón space where the respective fractional gradient is well-defined.

Proposition 2.9

Let 0 < s < 1 , 1 < p < , and u Λ s , p ( R d ) . Then, D s u = D ( I 1 s u ) , which means that, in these spaces, the notion of weak fractional gradient and the notion of distributional Riesz fractional gradient coincide.

Proof

Let φ C c ( R d ) . Using the weak definition of fractional gradient as well as Proposition 2.1, we obtain that

R d φ D s u d x = R d u D s φ d x = R d u ( I 1 s D φ ) d x .

Noting that

R d R d D φ ( y ) u ( x ) y x d + s 1 d y d x < + ,

by Fubini’s theorem, we can change the order of the integrals and so

R d u ( I 1 s D φ ) d x = R d ( I 1 s u ) D φ d x .

Consequently, we conclude that D s u = D ( I 1 s u ) , first in the sense of distributions and afterwards in L p ( R d ; R d ) .□

Remark 2.2

By density, this equivalence in the definition of the fractional gradient implies the general duality property of this operator D s :

R d v D s u d x = R d u D s v d x

for all u Λ s , p ( R d ) , v Λ s , p ( R d ) with 0 < s < 1 and 1 < p < . Similarly, we note that the duality between D s and D s = div s in (2.8) still holds for all φ Λ s , p ( R d ) and all Φ Λ s , p ( R d ) d .

Proposition 2.10

Let 0 < s σ 1 , d d ( σ s ) < p < d σ s , and u Λ σ , p ( R d ) . Then D s u = I σ s D σ u .

Proof

Let φ C c ( R d ) . Then, by the semigroup property of Riesz potentials,

R d φ D s u d x = R d u D s φ d x = R d u D ( I 1 s φ ) d x = R d u D ( I 1 σ I σ s φ ) d x .

Since φ C c ( R d ) , I σ s φ L p ( R d ) because p > d d ( σ s ) . Moreover, for every ψ C c ( R d ) we have

R d ψ D σ ( I σ s φ ) d x = R d ( I σ s φ ) D σ ψ d x = R d φ ( I σ s D σ ψ ) d x = R d φ ( I σ s ( I 1 σ D ψ ) ) d x = R d φ ( I 1 s D ψ ) d x = R d φ D s ψ = R d ψ D s φ d x ,

which means that D σ ( I σ s φ ) = D s φ L p , and therefore, I σ s φ Λ σ , p ( R d ) . Using Proposition 2.9, we have D ( I 1 σ I σ s φ ) = D σ ( I σ s φ ) . Consequently, from the properties of the fractional gradient, we are able to conclude that

R d φ D s u d x = R d u D ( I 1 σ I σ s φ ) d x = R d u D σ ( I σ s φ ) d x = R d I σ s φ D σ u d x .

Finally, since p < d σ s ,

R d R d D σ u ( x ) φ ( y ) y x d + s σ d y d x D σ u L p ( R d ; R d ) I σ s φ L p ( Ω ) C D s u L p ( R d ; R d ) φ L q ( R d ) < + ,

for q = d p d ( p 1 ) + ( σ s ) p , and hence, we can apply Fubini’s theorem to obtain

R d φ D s u d x = R d I σ s φ D σ u d x = R d φ ( I σ s D σ u ) d x ,

which concludes the proof.□

2.2 Fractional framework for the homogeneous Dirichlet condition

As it was observed in Proposition 2.4, C c ( R d ) is dense in Λ s , p ( R d ) . This prompts us to define the Lions-Calderón spaces Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) for arbitrary open sets Ω also by density of smooth functions in R d with compact support in Ω , i.e., C c ( Ω ) . These spaces are suited to fractional Dirichlet problems.

2.2.1 The space Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) with arbitrary Ω

Definition

Let Ω R d be any open set, and consider 0 s 1 and 1 < p < . We define the space

(2.19) Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) = C c ( Ω ) ¯ Λ s , p ( R d )

and we endow this space with the norm of Λ s , p ( R d ) . We also denote the dual space of Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) by Λ s , p ( Ω ) , and denote their duality by , = , s .

We observe that, by construction, we have

(2.20) Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) { f Λ 0 s , p ( R d ) : f = 0 on Ω c } .

Due to this inclusion, it makes sense to compute the weak fractional gradient D s of any function u Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) . Moreover, it is easy to show that this fractional gradient D s u coincides with the L p -limit of D s u n where { u n } n is a sequence of functions in C c ( Ω ) that converges to u in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) . In addition, we also have that for any u Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) and v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) ,

R d v D s u d x = lim n R d v D s u n d x = lim n R d u n D s v d x = R d u D s v d x .

When s = 0 , we note that

(2.21) Λ 0 0 , p ( Ω ) = L 0 p ( Ω ) = { f L p ( R d ) : f = 0 on Ω c } .

Among the important properties of these spaces, we recall the generalization of the classical Sobolev inequalities to this fractional framework. We define the fractional Sobolev exponent

(2.22) p s * = d p d s p

whenever s p < d . For technical reasons, which will become more apparent in Section 3, we will also define the Sobolev exponent p s * in the case s p d as any finite real value greater or equal to p . Note that when s = 0 , p 0 * = p for all p ( 1 , ) .

Proposition 2.11

(Sobolev embeddings for Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) ) Let 0 s 1 , 1 < p < . Then,

  1. if s p < d , we have Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) L q ( Ω ) for p q p s * . Moreover, when q = p s * we have

    (2.23) f L p s * ( Ω ) C D s f L p ( R d ; R d ) , f Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) ;

  2. if s p = d , then Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) L q ( Ω ) for every q [ p , + ) ;

  3. if s p > d , then we have Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) C 0 , s d p ( Ω ¯ ) with the estimate

    (2.24) f ( x ) f ( y ) C x y s d p D s f L p ( R d ) , f Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) ;

  4. for t < s and p q p s t * = d p d ( s t ) p , we have Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 t , q ( Ω ) .

Proof

Since these results are valid for Λ 0 s , p ( R d ) , see [64, Theorems 1.8 and 1.11], the proofs are a simple consequence of restricting the test functions to those compactly supported in Ω . Item (4) was proved for s < t , 1 < p < and q = d p d ( s t ) p in [21, Theorem 6]. To extend the inclusions for p q d p d ( s t ) p , we write s = t + δ for some δ > 0 , and we consider 0 ε δ . In this case,

Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ t + δ ε , p ( R d ) Λ t , d p d ( δ ε ) p ( R d ) .

Finally, since for every u Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ t , d p d ( δ ε ) p ( R d ) , then there exists a sequence { u n } C c ( Ω ) such that u n u in Λ s , p ( R d ) Λ t , d p d ( δ ε ) p ( R d ) , and consequently u Λ 0 t , d p d ( δ ε ) p ( Ω ) .□

If instead of considering just the inclusion operator like in Sobolev embeddings, we also restrict the domain of the functions to one subdomain with finite measure, then the resulting operator is compact. More precisely, we have the following result.

Proposition 2.12

(Local Rellich-Kondrachov for Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) ) Let 0 < s 1 , p ( 1 , ) and Ω R d , where Ω is any open set. If we also consider the open set with finite measure ω Ω and the compact set K Ω , we have the following compact embeddings (denoted by ) :

  1. if s p < d , then Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) L q ( ω ) for q < p s * ;

  2. if s p = d , then Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) L q ( ω ) for every q < + ) ; and

  3. if s p > d , then Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) C 0 , β ( K ) for β < s d p .

Proof

We observe that, since Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ s , p ( R d ) , we just need to prove this result for Ω = R d . The idea is to use the contiguity between the Lions-Calderón spaces and the Sobolev-Slobodeckij spaces and then apply the compactness results that are already known for the latter.

In fact, if s p d , we can consider ε ( 0 , s ) and then due to Proposition 2.5 and [27, Theorem 2.1], we have that

(2.25) Λ s , p ( R d ) W s ε , p ( R d ) L q ( ω ) with q < p s ε * .

Since ε ranges in ( 0 , s ) , p s ε * ranges in ( p , p * ) . Then, the conclusion follows using the fact that ω has finite measure.

We can use the same arguments for s p > d but with ε 0 , s d p and with the inclusions

(2.26)□ Λ s , p ( R d ) W s ε , p ( R d ) C 0 , β ( K ) , with β < s ε d p .

Similar to the classical Sobolev spaces, the Lions-Calderón spaces are closed for the composition with Lipschitz functions. In fact, as an immediate consequence of the following theorem, we have, in particular,

(2.27) f + , f and f Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , whenever f Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

Theorem 2.1

(Composition with Lipschitz functions) Let Ω R d be any open set, s ( 0 , 1 ) and p ( 1 , ) . If f Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) and φ Lip ( R ) with φ ( 0 ) = 0 , then φ f Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

Proof

Let f n C c ( Ω ) be such that f n f in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) . Using Strichartz’s characterization of H s , p ( R d ) = Λ s , p ( R d ) , [68, Section 2.3] or [2, Theorem 4.8.1], we know that a function g Λ s , p ( R d ) if and only if g L p ( R d ) and

S s g ( x ) = 0 B 1 ( 0 ) g ( x + r y ) g ( x ) d y 2 d r r 1 + 2 s 1 2 L p ( R d ) .

Moreover, the norm of g in Λ s , p ( R d ) is equivalent to g L p ( R d ) + S s g L p ( R d ) .

We note that φ f n L p ( R d ) , from the known properties of L p functions. We also have S s ( φ f n ) L p ( R d ) since S s ( φ ( f n ) ) L p ( R d ) φ L ( R ) S s f n L p ( R d ) , by taking the L p norm on both sides of the pointwise estimate

S s ( φ ( f n ) ) ( x ) = 0 B 1 ( 0 ) φ ( f n ( x + r y ) ) φ ( f n ( x ) ) d y 2 d r r 1 + 2 s 1 2 φ L ( R ) 0 B 1 ( 0 ) f n ( x + r y ) f n ( x ) d y 2 d r r 1 + 2 s 1 2 = φ L ( R ) S s f n ( x ) .

Therefore, φ f n Λ s , p ( R d ) . Since supp { φ f n } supp { f n } Ω , φ f n Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) . Taking the limit as n and using Vitali’s convergence theorem and the above inequality, we conclude φ f Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .□

Remark 2.3

Although this result was first mentioned, without proof, in [65] for the case Ω = R d , it was shown in [22] for the special cases φ ( t ) = t and the truncation function φ k ( t ) = ( t k ) ( k ) . Moreover, in [22], it was also proved that the truncation T k f = φ k f for a function f Λ s , p ( R d ) is such that T k f f in Λ s , p ( R d ) as k .

The definition (2.19) and the interpretation (2.20) of Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) as subspaces of Λ s , p ( R d ) yield the following interesting characterization of these spaces:

Theorem 2.2

(Netrusov’s theorem) Let Ω R d be any open set, s ( 0 , 1 ) and p ( 1 , ) , and consider f Λ s , p ( R d ) . Then, we have f Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) if and only if, for every ε > 0 there exists a function η such that η = 0 on a neighborhood of Ω c , 0 η 1 , and f η f Λ s , p ( R d ) < ε .

Proof

This is the equivalence between (b) and (c) in [2, Theorem 10.1.1].□

Theorem 2.3

Let Ω R d be an open and bounded set, s ( 0 , 1 ) , p ( 1 , ) and f Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) with f 0 . Then, there exists a sequence of functions f n C c ( Ω ) with f n 0 for all n N such that f n f in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

Proof

Let f Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) . By definition of Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , there exists a sequence of test functions f n C c ( Ω ) such that f n f in Λ s , p ( R d ) . Consider now the functions g n = f n Lip c ( Ω ) Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , where the last inclusion is valid by [24, Corollary 2.3]. Note that g n 0 , D s g n L p ( R d ; R d ) C D s f n L p ( R d ; R d ) with C > 0 independent of n by Theorem 2.1. Moreover, because f 0 , we can extract a subsequence, still denoted by g n such that g n f a.e.. For this subsequence, we use the fact that sup n g n Λ s , p ( R d ) < + to be able to extract further a subsequence such that g n F in L p ( R d ) and D s g n G in L p ( R d ; R d ) . From Egorov’s theorem, it is possible to conclude that f = F a.e. in Ω . By Mazur’s lemma, there are functions h n , which correspond to finite convex combinations of g n such that h n f in L p ( R d ) and D s h n G in L p ( R d ; R d ) . By integration we have that G = D s f .

Consider now a family of non-negative molifiers ρ ε and then define 0 h n , ε = h n * ρ ε C ( R d ) . Note that supp ( h n * ρ ε ) Ω for small ε , and we have the convergences h n , ε h n in L p ( R d ) and D s h n , ε = ρ ε * D s h n D s h n in L p ( R d ; R d ) as ε 0 . Finally, from a diagonal argument, we can construct a sequence f n ˜ = h n , ε n C c ( Ω ) with the properties that f n ˜ 0 , f n ˜ f in L p ( Ω ) and D s f n ˜ D s f in L p ( R d ; R d ) as n .□

Remark 2.4

In the case of Ω bounded, this result can be proved as a simple consequence of Netrusov’s theorem, Theorem 2.2. The argument for general domains was kindly suggested by an anonymous referee.

A useful property for applications to the theory of fractional differential equations is the characterization of Λ s , p ( Ω ) using fractional partial derivatives. Consider the operator

(2.28) Π s : Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) L p ( Ω ) × L p ( R d ; R d ) L p ( Ω ) v ( v , D s v ) .

Theorem 2.4

(Characterization of Λ s , p ( Ω ) ) Let Ω R d be any open set and let s ( 0 , 1 ) , p ( 1 , ) . If F Λ s , p ( Ω ) , then there exist functions f 0 L p ( Ω ) and f 1 , , f d L p ( R d ) such that

F , g = Ω f 0 g d x + j = 1 d R d f j s g x j s d x , g Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

Proof

Note that Π s g L p ( Ω ) = g Λ 0 s , p ( R d ) which means that Π s is an isometry of Λ 0 s , p ( R d ) onto a subspace W L p ( Ω ) . Then, we define the linear functional F * on W as F * , Π s g = F , g . By the isometry between Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) and W we obtain that F * W = F Λ s , p ( Ω ) . Consequently, using the Hahn-Banach theorem, there exists an extension F ˜ of F * to all L p ( Ω ) such that F * W = F ˜ ( L p ( Ω ) ) . Then, by the Riesz representation theorem, there exist f 0 L p ( Ω ) and f 1 , , f n L p ( R d ) , such that

F ˜ , h = Ω f 0 h 0 d x + j = 1 d R d f j h j d x , h = ( h 0 , h 1 , , h d ) L p ( Ω ) × L p ( R d , R d ) .

Hence, for any g Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , we conclude

F , g = F * , Π s g = F ˜ , Π s g = Ω f 0 g d x + j = 1 d R d f j s g x j s d x .

Remark 2.5

Due to this characterization, we may write any element F Λ s , p ( Ω ) in the form

F = f 0 D s f

with f 0 L p ( Ω ) and f = ( f 1 , , f d ) L p ( R d ; R d ) , similar to the classical Sobolev case s = 1 , cf. [1, Theorem 3.8].

Remark 2.6

It is also possible to write F = f 0 D s f Λ s , p ( Ω ) with f 0 L ( p s * ) ( Ω ) and f L p ( R d ; R d ) . This is a simple consequence of the fractional Sobolev inequality (2.23), which allows us to use the application Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) g ( g , D s g ) L p s * ( Ω ) × L p ( R d , R d ) in the proof of Theorem 2.4.

2.2.2 Space Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) with Ω bounded

So far, we have been providing some properties that hold for any open set Ω R d , but now we are going to focus on the case in which Ω is bounded. We start by providing a characterization of these spaces when the boundary of Ω is sufficiently smooth.

Proposition 2.13

(Extension by 0) Let Ω R d be a bounded and open subset with the Lipschitz boundary, 0 < s 1 and 1 < p < . Then,

(2.29) Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) = { f Λ s , p ( R d ) : supp f Ω ¯ } .

Proof

Since this is a property about the elements of Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , we can use the identification Λ s , p ( R d ) = H s , p ( R d ) and then just apply [35, Remark 2.7].□

There are also some results, similar to those valid for arbitrary Ω that can be improved when Ω is bounded. One such example is Proposition 2.11 concerning the Sobolev embeddings.

Proposition 2.14

(Sobolev embeddings for Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) ) Let Ω R d be any bounded open set and consider s [ 0 , 1 ] and p ( 1 , + ) . Then,

  1. if s p < d , we have that Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) L q ( Ω ) for every q [ 1 , p s * ] with

    (2.30) f L q ( Ω ) C D s f L p ( R d ; R d ) ;

  2. s p = d implies that Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) L q ( Ω ) for every q < + ;

  3. s p > d implies that Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) C 0 , β ( Ω ¯ ) for any β s d p . In particular, Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) L q ( Ω ) for all q + ;

  4. when t s and 1 < q p s t * , we have Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 t , q ( Ω ) .

Proof

Items (1)–(4) are a simple application of Proposition 2.11 together with some well-known properties of the L p and C 0 , α spaces.□

Inequality (2.30) is important as it also implies a fractional Poincaré inequality. In fact, in [12], it was raised the question of how does the constant C in this inequality depends on s and it was proved that one could take this constant to be inversely proportional to s , at least when q = p . To be more precise, let us now recall their result (with a small improvement).

Theorem 2.5

(Fractional Poincaré’s inequality) Let p [ 1 , ) and s ( 0 , 1 ) and let Ω R d be a bounded open subset. Then, there exists a sufficiently large real number R > 1 for which Ω B R ( 0 ) , and a positive constant C P > 0 depending only on p , d , Ω and R , such that for all open sets Ω 1 B 2 R ( 0 ) ( Ω 1 can be unbounded) and for all f Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , we have

(2.31) f L p ( Ω ) C P s D s f L p ( Ω 1 ; R d ) .

Proof

The proof of this result can be found in [12, Theorem 2.9] with minor adjustments. In fact, when p ( 1 , ) , one only needs to change the last estimate of (13) of the same article, with a L p ( Ω 1 ; R d ) -norm instead of doing it with the L p ( R d ; R d ) -norm. When p = 1 , the proof of [12, Theorem 2.9] also holds as it was pointed out in [5, Proposition 2.6].□

Remark 2.7

It is interesting to see that the Poincaré constant obtained in the previous theorem blows-up as s 0 . Conversely, from part (iii) of Proposition 2.4, we know that f L p ( Ω ) D 0 f L p ( R d ; R d ) . This raises the question whether it is possible or not to obtain a uniform bound to the best Poincaré constants independent of s ( 0 , 1 ) . This is known to be possible for p = 2 due to the results of [30], where it is shown, in particular, that the best Poincaré constant c 2 , s = 1 λ s 1 as s 0 + , where λ s = inf D s w L 2 ( R d ; R d ) w L 2 ( Ω ) : w H 0 s ( Ω ) > 0 is the first eigenvalue of the Dirichlet problem for ( Δ ) s = D s D s .

Remark 2.8

It was also observed in [5] that the proof of Theorem 2.5 is also valid for p = . This is due to the fact that the constant C P does not depend on the exponent p .

This result has several implications. The first one is that the L p -norm of the s -fractional gradient is equivalent to the usual norm of Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) . In fact, we have

Corollary 2.1

(An equivalent norm for Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) ) Let s [ 0 , 1 ] and p [ 1 , ) , and let Ω R d be an open and bounded subset. Then, there exists a constant C = C ( s , p , d , Ω ) such that

D s f L p ( R d ; R d ) f Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) C D s f L p ( R d ; R d ) , f o r a l l f Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

Remark 2.9

Note that it is also possible to prove that D s f L p ( Ω 1 ; R d ) is equivalent to f L p ( Ω ) + D s f L p ( R d ; R d ) . The only extra step that one needs to take care of is the one of finding an estimate for D s f L p ( Ω 1 c ; R d ) in terms of f L p ( Ω ) , which can be done using some arguments that are present in the proof of [12, Theorem 2.9]. This means one can consider the norm of a function in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) just knowing the D s of that function on a certain bounded domain Ω 1 , which can be of interest for numerical methods.

Moreover, we may compare the norms of the embedding Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) , with 1 < p < fixed, with an explicit dependence with respect to the fractional parameter t < s .

Corollary 2.2

Let 0 < t < s 1 . Let Ω R d be a bounded and open set. Then, Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) with the inequality

(2.32) D t u L p ( R d ; R d ) C 1 d ( s t ) + C 2 s D s u L p ( R d ; R d ) , u Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

for some constants C 1 = C 1 ( Ω , d ) > 0 and C 2 = C 2 ( Ω , d , p ) > 0 . Moreover, when d > 1 , there exists a constant C = C ( Ω , d , p ) > 0 such that

D t u L p ( R d ; R d ) C s D s u L p ( R d ; R d ) , u Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

Proof

This is a refinement of the proof of [12, Proposition 4.1]. In fact, if we proceed as in the proof of [12, Proposition 4.1], making use of the precise constants, in particular not estimating in [12, eq. (22)] μ d , 1 s + t d s + t = 1 γ ( t s ) C ( d ) , and making the estimate ( n + s ¯ ) p n n ( p 1 ) (with their notation), we obtain

D t u L p ( R d ; R d ) 3 σ d 1 R ( s t ) μ d , 1 s + t d s + t + μ d , t C P s 2 d + s σ d 1 Ω d + t + Ω 1 p σ d 1 n ( p 1 ) 1 p D s u L p ( R d ; R d ) ,

where C P = C P ( Ω , d , p ) > 0 is the fractional Poincaré’s constant, σ d 1 is the measure of the d 1 dimensional sphere B ( 0 , 1 ) , and R > 1 is a sufficiently large number such that Ω B ( 0 , R ) . Inequality (2.32) then follows from [12, Lemma 2.4], in particular there exists a constant C sup τ [ 1,1 ) μ d , τ 1 τ > 0 such that

1 ( t s ) μ d , 1 s + t d s + t 1 d ( s t ) μ d , 1 s + t 1 ( 1 s + t ) C d ( s t ) .

Corollary 2.3

(Characterization of Λ s , p ( Ω ) , when Ω is bounded) Let Ω be a bounded subset of R d and let s ( 0 , 1 ) , p ( 1 , ) and p . If F Λ s , p ( Ω ) , then there exist functions f 1 , , f d L p ( R d ) such that

F , g = j = 1 d R d f j s g x j s d x , g Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

Proof

By using the equivalent norm f D s f L p ( R d ; R d ) in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , the result follows by applying the same arguments as those used in the proof of Proposition 2.4.□

Remark 2.10

As in the general case, when Ω is bounded, any F Λ s , p ( Ω ) may also be given as in Theorem 2.4 in the form F = f 0 D s f with f = ( f 1 , , f d ) L p ( R d ; R d ) and f 0 L q ( Ω ) , where, by the fractional Sobolev embeddings, q ( p s * ) = d p d p d + s p if s p < d , q > 1 if s p = d and q 1 if s p > d .

Our improved version of the fractional Poincaré inequality, Theorem 2.5, also allows us to prove that, for fixed s , there is an increasing order of inclusions of Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) with respect to the decreasing of p . This generalizes the already known results for s = 0 and s = 1 that are simple consequences of the inclusions between the L p ( Ω ) , for bounded Ω , and the characterization of Λ 0 0 , p ( Ω ) = { u L p ( R d ) : u = 0 a.e. in R d \ Ω } , in the first case, and of the fact that the (classical) gradient is local in the second case, respectively.

Corollary 2.4

(Order with respect to p ) Let Ω R d be a bounded open subset of R d , s ( 0 , 1 ) and 1 p < q < + . Then, Λ 0 s , q ( Ω ) Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

Proof

Let Ω 1 Ω be an open bounded subset of R d as in the statement of the theorem of the Poincaré inequality (Theorem 2.5). Then, the proof of this corollary is just a simple consequence of the fact that f D s f L p ( Ω 1 ; R d ) is an equivalent norm to Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) and that L q ( Ω 1 ; R d ) L p ( Ω 1 ; R d ) .□

We also have an estimate for the product of functions of Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) with test functions.

Corollary 2.5

(Estimate for product with test function) Let s ( 0 , 1 ) and p [ 1 , ) , and consider ϕ C c ( Ω ) and u Λ s , p ( R d ) . Then, ϕ u Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) with

(2.33) D s ( ϕ u ) L p ( R d ; R d ) C D s u L p ( R d ; R d ) ,

where C = C ( d , s , Ω , ϕ ) > 0 is a constant that blows-up as s 0 .

Proof

It is a simple consequence of [39, Lemma 2.11].□

The last direct application that we make of the fractional Poincaré inequality that we present is the following compactness result, which was first proven in [12] in the case σ = 1 . This result is going to play a very important role in the theory of stability of solutions in Section 4.

Theorem 2.6

Let Ω R d be a bounded open subset of R d , and let p ( 1 , + ) . Consider a convergent sequence in ( 0 , 1 ] such that s n σ ( 0 , 1 ] , and a sequence of functions u n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) with sup n D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) < . Then, there exists u Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) such that for every t ( 0 , σ ) one can extract a subsequence also denoted by u n satisfying

u n u i n Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) a n d D s n u n D σ u i n L p ( R d ; R d ) .

Proof

Fix t ( 0 , σ ) . The arguments in [12, Theorem 4.2] may be generalized to prove that there exists a function u Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) and a subsequence { u n j } j Λ 0 t + ε , p ( Ω ) such that u n j u in L p ( Ω ) and D s n j u n j D σ u in L p ( R d ; R d ) , where ε > 0 is sufficiently small to have t + 2 ε < min { σ , s ̲ } with s ̲ = inf j N s n j . Now, one only needs to prove that in fact u n j u in Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) . Using the Gagliardo-Nirenberg interpolation inequality, Proposition 2.7, and the order between Lions-Calderón spaces with p fixed, item (4) of Proposition 2.14, together with the fact that t + 2 ε < min { σ , s ̲ } , we obtain

D t ( u n j u ) L p ( R d ; R d ) c d , p u n j u L p ( R d ) ε t + ε D t + ε ( u n j u ) L p ( R d ; R d ) t t + ε c d , p , t , ε u n j u L p ( R d ) ε t + ε ( D s n j u n j L p ( R d ; R d ) + D σ u L p ( R d ; R d ) ) t t + ε .

Using the hypothesis that D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) is uniformly bounded and that u n u in L p ( R d ) with u Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) , we conclude the proof.□

Corollary 2.6

Let Ω R d be a bounded open set, and let 0 t < s 1 and p ( 1 , ) . Then,

Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) .

Proof

This is a simple consequence of Theorem 2.6 when s n s , since by taking a sequence u n bounded in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) there is a u Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) and a subsequence u n such that D t u n D t u in L p ( R d ; R d ) .□

Theorem 2.7

(Fractional Rellich-Kondrachov) Let Ω R d be a bounded open set. Then, for every 0 t < s 1 and 1 < p , q < satisfying

1 p s d < 1 q t d

we have the compact embedding

Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 t , q ( Ω ) .

Proof

From Corollary 2.6, we have Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 s ε , p ( Ω ) for every ε ( 0 , s ) . However, at the same time, due to item (4) of Proposition 2.14, we have that for t < s ε and 1 p s ε d 1 q t d , we have Λ 0 s ε , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 t , q ( Ω ) . By choosing ε arbitrarily small, and combining the two embeddings, we conclude the proof.□

Remark 2.11

Some of the results, which we have included in this section, are well-known to have a counterpart on the Sobolev-Slobodeckij spaces W 0 s , p ( Ω ) . For example, the fractional Sobolev and the Rellich-Kondrachov embeddings can be found, for example, in [1,26,71], and the fractional Poincaré inequality can be found in [17, Proposition 2.5].

3 Existence results

In this section, we study the existence of solutions u = u s K to the variational inequalities of the form

(3.1) A s ( u ) , v u F , v u , v K ,

where K is a non-empty closed convex subset of Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , F Λ s , p ( Ω ) with Ω R d being an open set, bounded, or unbounded, and

(3.2) A s ( u ) , v = R d a ( x , u , D s u ) D s v d x + Ω b ( x , u , D s u ) v d x , v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

Note that the operator A s : Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ s , p ( Ω ) , defined by

(3.3) A s ( v ) = D s a ( x , v , D s v ) + b ( x , v , D s v ) ,

is of fractional divergence form if 0 < s < 1 , classical if s = 1 , and of novel type if s = 0 . As in the classical case, we assume that a : R d × R × R d R d and b : R d × R × R d R are Carathéodory functions, that is, a ( , r , ξ ) and b ( , r , ξ ) are measurable for fixed r R and ξ R d , and a ( x , , ) and b ( x , , ) are continuous for a.e. x R d , satisfying suitable growth and coercivity conditions.

From Remark 2.5, setting F = f 0 D s f and replacing the nonlinear functions a and b by a f and b f 0 , respectively, one can rewrite inequality (3.1) in the integral form

(3.4) R d a ( u , D s u ) D s ( v u ) d x + Ω b ( u , D s u ) ( v u ) d x 0 , v K ,

where we have omitted the dependence of a and b on x to simplify the notation. Conversely, the condition K Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) means that we have a homogeneous Dirichlet condition u = 0 in R d \ Ω . If instead, we have u = g in R d \ Ω with g Λ s , p ( R d ) , we can set u ¯ = u g Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) and consider the variational inequality (3.1) for u ¯ K ¯ and A ¯ s , with K ¯ = K g and A ¯ s ( u ¯ ) = A s ( u g ) .

With this general structure, we can apply classical abstract methods in the framework of Lions-Calderón spaces, in particular the general theory of pseudomonotone operators introduced by Brézis [18] (see also the classic book [43] or the more modern references [55,60]), to show the existence of solutions to general nonlinear operators. Similarly, we can also study the more restrictive class of monotone operators, which in certain cases, with additional assumptions, allow us to obtain stronger results, including the uniqueness of solutions in the strictly monotone case and to handle the novel case of D 0 .

3.1 Pseudomonotone operators with Ω bounded and 0 < s 1

In this subsection, we assume Ω open and bounded. For simplicity, we consider first the case where b does not depend on ξ and later, in Remarks 3.1 and 3.2, we discuss the general case. We assume the growth conditions

(3.5) a ( x , r , ξ ) γ 1 ( x ) + C 1 r q 1 p + C 1 ξ p 1 ,

(3.6) b ( x , r ) γ 2 ( x ) + C 2 r q 2 1 ,

and the coercivity condition

(3.7) a ( x , r , ξ ) ξ + b ( x , r ) r α ξ p β r q 3 k ( x )

for every r R , ξ R d and a.e. x R d , with exponents

(3.8) 1 < q 1 < min { p s * , p 2 ( p 1 ) } , 1 < q 2 < min { p s * , p + 1 } , and 1 < q 3 < p ,

constants C 1 , C 1 , C 2 , α > 0 and β R and functions γ 1 , γ 2 L p ( R d ) and k L 1 ( R d ) .

In this case, we assume that a is only monotone with respect to the last variable, i.e.,

(3.9) ( a ( x , r , ξ ) a ( x , r , η ) ) ( ξ η ) 0 ,

for every ξ , η R d , r R and for almost all x R d .

Lemma 3.1

(Pseudomonotonicity) Let Ω R d be a bounded and open set, s ( 0 , 1 ] , p ( 1 , ) . Let a and b satisfy the growth conditions (3.5) and (3.6), with q 1 and q 2 as in (3.8), and the monotonicity condition (3.9) hold. Then, the operator A s : Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ s , p ( Ω ) , as defined in (3.3), is pseudomonotone, i.e., it is bounded and

(3.10) u k u limsup k A s ( u k ) , u k u 0 . A s ( u ) , u v liminf k A s ( u k ) , u k v , v V .

Proof

We can apply a similar argument to [55, Lemmas 2.31 and 2.32], for the boundedness and for the implication (3.10), respectively, by replacing D by D s . In fact, as observed in the previous section, the framework of the Lions-Calderón spaces has also a fractional version of the Sobolev and Poincaré inequalities as well as of the Rellich-Kondrachov’s compactness embeddings.□

Theorem 3.1

(Existence solutions of fractional variational inequalities) Let Ω R d be a bounded open set, K is a non-empty closed convex subset of Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , s ( 0 , 1 ] , p ( 1 , ) and let the coercivity condition (3.7), with q 3 as in (3.8), hold in addition to the assumptions present in Lemma 3.1. Then, there exists a function u K such that

(3.11) R d a ( u , D s u ) D s ( v u ) d x + Ω b ( u ) ( v u ) d x 0 , v K .

Proof

By Lemma 3.1, we know that A s is pseudomonotone and, by the well-known existence theory, see [43, Theorem 8.2, p. 247], it is sufficient to show that the coercivity assumption (3.7) implies, for some v 0 K ,

(3.12) lim v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) + A s ( v ) , v v 0 v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) = .

In fact, (3.12) is an immediate consequence of the following estimate:

(3.13) A s ( v ) , v v 0 = A s ( v ) , v A s ( v ) , v 0 α D s v L p ( R d ; R d ) p C D s v 0 L p ( R d ; R d ) D s v L p ( R d ; R d ) q 1 p + D s v L p ( R d ; R d ) p 1 + D s v L p ( R d ; R d ) q 2 1 C D s v L p ( R d ; R d ) q 3 k L 1 ( R d ) γ 1 L p ( R d ) D s v 0 L p ( R d ; R d ) γ 2 L p ( R d ) v 0 L p ( Ω )

which is easily obtained using (3.7), (3.5), (3.6), and the fractional Sobolev inequalities together with the inclusions between Lebesgue spaces due to Ω being bounded.

In fact, using (3.7), (3.5), (3.6), the coercivity (3.12) follows by recalling that from (3.8), we have q 1 p < p , q 2 1 < p , and q 3 < p .□

Remark 3.1

In the case in which 0 K , the existence result of Theorem 3.1 can be improved for more general functions a and b . By choosing v 0 = 0 , the estimate (3.13) can be simplified to

A s ( v ) , v v 0 = A s ( v ) , v α D s v L p ( R d ; R d ) p C D s v L p ( R d ; R d ) q 3 k L 1 ( R d )

which does not depend on q 1 and q 2 , and so, these exponents can be extended to

1 < q 1 , q 2 < p s * ,

where p s * is given in (2.22) and in the discussion below.

Remark 3.2

When 0 K , we can also consider b to be dependent on ξ , see, for instance, [55, Section 2.4.3]. One particular example is when b is an affine transformation of ξ R d , i.e.,

b ( x , r , ξ ) = b 0 ( x , r ) + b ( x , r ) ξ ,

satisfying, in conjugation with a , the coercivity condition

(3.14) a ( x , r , ξ ) ξ + b ( x , r , ξ ) r α ξ p β r q 3 k ( x )

for 1 < q 3 < p , with b 0 subjected to (3.6) and b having the growth condition

b ( x , r ) γ ( x ) + C r p s * ( q ε ) .

with γ L q + ε ( R d ) for some ε > 0 , and q satisfying

1 = 1 p + 1 p s * + 1 q when s p < d and q = p when s p d .

However, to obtain an existence result for (3.4) with a more general function b ( x , r , ξ ) , we not only need to impose a growth condition of the type

b ( x , r , ξ ) γ ( x ) + C ( r p s * ε 1 + ξ ( p ε ) p s * )

with ε > 0 and γ L p s * + ε ( R d ) , but we also need to require further restrictions on the main part of a . In fact, we need the strict monotonicity on a with respect to the last variable, also called the Leray-Lions condition, i.e.,

( a ( x , r , ξ ) a ( x , r , η ) ) ( ξ η ) > 0 whenever ξ η ,

with the coercivity conditions

η R d , lim s a ( x , r , ξ ) ( ξ η ) ξ = + uniformly for r bounded

and (3.14). Under these hypothesis, we can use similar arguments as in [55, Section 2.4.3] to obtain an existence result, which is also a special case of the next subsection.

Remark 3.3

In the particular case when the operator A s is of potential type and derives from a Gâteaux differentiable functional F s : Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) R given by

F s ( u ) = R d F ( x , u , D s u ) d x ,

for some differentiable function ( x , r , ξ ) F ( x , r , ξ ) , their coefficients are given by a ( x , u , D s u ) = F ξ ( x , u , D s u ) and b ( x , u , D s u ) = F r ( x , u , D s u ) . General integral functionals of this gradient type have been considered in [65] and extensions to functionals of vector valued functions u in [12,39].

3.2 Pseudomonotone operators with Ω arbitrary and 0 < s 1

When we allow Ω to be an arbitrary open subset of R d , possibly unbounded, we cannot apply the same arguments as in the previous subsection since we do not have Poincaré inequalities nor Rellich-Kondrachov compactness embeddings.

To overcome the lack of Poincaré inequalities, we impose a stronger coercivity condition on the pair of functions a and b

(3.15) a ( x , r , ξ ) ξ + b ( x , r , ξ ) r α ξ p + β r p k ( x ) ,

for every r R , ξ R d and a.e. x R d , where α > 0 and β > 0 are constants, k L 1 ( R d ) , and s ( 0 , 1 ] . Moreover, we also impose the classical growth conditions

(3.16) a ( x , r , ξ ) γ 1 ( x ) + C 1 r p 1 + C 1 ξ p 1

and

(3.17) b ( x , r , ξ ) γ 2 ( x ) + C 2 r p 1 + C 2 ξ p 1 ,

with γ 1 , γ 2 L p ( R d ) .

When Ω is unbounded, the failure of the Rellich-Kondrachov compactness embeddings can be handled by using a different argument due to Browder [19] for the classical case s = 1 , by also assuming the Leray-Lions condition of strict monotonicity with respect to the last variable on a , i.e., for almost all x R d , for all r R and for all ξ , η R d

(3.18) ( a ( x , r , ξ ) a ( x , r , η ) ) ( ξ η ) > 0 whenever ξ η .

As in the previous subsection, we start by proving that the operator A s is pseudomonotone.

Lemma 3.2

(Pseudomonotonicity when Ω is arbitrary) Let Ω R d be any open set, s ( 0 , 1 ] and p ( 1 , ) . Let a : R d × R × R d R d and b : R d × R × R d R satisfy the growth conditions (3.16) and (3.17), the strong coercivity condition (3.15) and assume also that a is strictly monotone with respect to the last variable as in (3.18). Then, the operator A s : Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ s , p ( Ω ) , as defined in (3.3), is pseudomonotone.

Proof

First, we note that assumptions (3.16) and (3.17) imply that A s : Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ s , p ( Ω ) is bounded. In order to prove (3.10) let u k u in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) and limsup k A s ( u k ) , u k u 0 . We may adapt the proof of [19, Theorem 1]:

  1. applying the local Rellich-Kondrachov compactness result, Proposition 2.12, to an increasing sequence of bounded open sets exhausting Ω , we can extract a subsequence { u k } that converges to u a.e. in R d ;

  2. for the almost everywhere convergence of a subsequence { D s u k } to D s u in R d , we consider the function

    p k ( x ) = ( a ( x , u k , D s u k ) a ( x , u , D s u ) ) ( D s u k D s u ) + ( b ( x , u k ) b ( x , u ) ) ( u k u ) .

    By considering the p k = p k + p k as the difference of its positive and negative parts, it is possible to study its a.e. convergence. In fact, it is possible to show that p k 0 strongly in L 1 ( R d ) due to Vitali’s convergence theorem, which afterwards also yields that p k + 0 in L 1 ( R d ) , and consequently p k 0 a.e. in R d . Using the strictly monotonicity of a with respect to the last variable, we are able to conclude that in fact D s u k D s u a.e. in R d ;

  3. Once we have proven that both { u k } and { D s u k } converge a.e. in R d , using the Lebesgue theorem, we obtain

    A s ( u k ) , v A s ( u ) , v in Λ s , p ( Ω ) for all v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) and lim k A s ( u k ) , u k u = 0 ,

    which yields

    liminf k A s ( u k ) , u k v lim k A s ( u k ) , u k u + lim k A s ( u k ) , u v = A s ( u ) , u v ,

    proving (3.10).□

Theorem 3.2

(Existence of solutions for fractional variational inequalities with Ω arbitrary) Under the same assumptions of Lemma 3.2, there exists a function u K that solves (3.4).

Proof

By Lemma 3.2, we know that A s is pseudomonotone and we may also apply [43, Theorem 8.2, page 247] as in Theorem 3.1. It is sufficient to conclude the coercivity condition (3.12) by noting that, for any fixed v 0 K , Sobolev’s embeddings and Young’s inequalities allow us to obtain

(3.19) A s ( v ) , v v 0 α D s v L p ( R d ; R d ) p + β v L p ( R d ) p C ( k , γ 1 , γ 2 , v 0 ) .

with α > 0 and β > 0 depending on α and β , respectively.□

Remark 3.4

When K Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) is bounded, we just need pseudomonotonicity of A s to prove the existence of solutions. Conversely, the coercivity condition (3.15) can be replaced in Lemma 3.2 by

a ( x , r , ξ ) ξ + b ( x , r , ξ ) r C ( ξ q + r q ) k ( x ) ,

with q < p and k L 1 ( R d ) , to prove the pseudomonotonicity as in [45].

Remark 3.5

Although Theorem 3.2 is valid for Ω arbitrary and for a more general lower order term b , it does not contain in bounded domains Theorem 3.1 as a special case, even with assumption 3.15 replaced by 3.7, since this one requires that a is only monotone with respect to the last variable.

3.3 Monotone operators with 0 s 1

If we restrict a to be dependent only on x and ξ , but not on r , and b not dependent on ξ , such that A s is a monotone operator, then we have an existence result with Ω arbitrary for each s [ 0 , 1 ] . In particular, we can also consider the case s = 0 with D s corresponding to minus the vectorial Riesz transform.

Theorem 3.3

(Existence of solutions for monotone operators) Let Ω R d be any open set, s [ 0 , 1 ] and p ( 1 , ) . Let K Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) be a non-empty closed convex set and assume that a = a ( x , ξ ) : R d × R d R d and b = b ( x , r ) : R d × R R are monotone with respect to ξ and r , respectively, satisfy the growth conditions (3.16) and (3.17) and the strong coercivity (3.15). Then, there exists a function u K such that

(3.20) R d a ( D s u ) D s ( v u ) d x + Ω b ( u ) ( v u ) d x 0 , v K .

Proof

This is an immediate consequence of well-known results (see, for example, [60, Lemma 2.1 and Corollary 2.2]) since the assumptions imply that A s is a bounded, coercive, monotone, and hemicontinuous operator in the Banach space Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) . In particular, the hemicontinuity property is also satisfied for all 0 s 1 , i.e., the real-valued function t A s ( u + t v ) , v is continuous for all u , v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , since the growth conditions (3.16) and (3.17) imply the continuity of Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) u a ( D s u ) L p ( R d ; R d ) , by the continuity of the operator D s in L p ( R d ) for all 0 s 1 .□

Remark 3.6

In the limit case of s = 0 , since Λ 0 0 , p ( Ω ) = L 0 p ( Ω ) , it is enough to have only one of the constants α or β positive in the coercivity assumption (3.15). For 0 < s 1 when Ω is bounded, using the Poincaré inequality, we can relax the coercivity assumption (3.15) by letting β > α ( s C P ) p , with C P > 0 given in the Poincaré inequality (2.31), and keeping α > 0 .

As in the classical case, the uniqueness of solutions can be shown under a stricter hypothesis of strict monotony on a or b .

Proposition 3.1

(Uniqueness through strict monotonicity of a or b ) If we assume that a or b is strictly monotone with respect to the last variable, then there is at most one solution of (3.20) in K Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

Proof

If u 1 and u 2 solve the variational inequality (3.20), then

(3.21) R n ( a ( D s u 1 ) a ( D s u 2 ) ) ( D s u 1 D s u 2 ) d x + Ω ( b ( u 1 ) b ( u 2 ) ) ( u 1 u 2 ) d x 0 .

Since ( a ( x , ξ ) a ( x , η ) ) ( ξ η ) 0 for all ξ , η R d , if ( b ( x , r ) b ( x , t ) ) ( r t ) > 0 for all r , t R , we conclude that u 1 = u 2 a.e. in Ω . A similar argument can be applied when a is the one that is strictly monotone, since then it would follow D s u 1 = D s u 2 a.e. in R d , implying also u 1 = u 2 .□

3.3.1 Special case of p -Laplacian-type operators

In this subsection, we shall consider the special class of operators

(3.22) A s , p u = D s a ( x , D s u )

of p -Laplacian-type, i.e., when a : R d × R d R d is a Carathéodory function with a ( x , 0 ) = 0 , satisfying the growth condition (3.16), and there exists a constant α p > 0 such that

(3.23) ( a ( x , ξ ) a ( x , η ) ) ( ξ η ) α p ξ η p if p 2 α p ξ η 2 ( ξ + η ) 2 p if 1 < p < 2 ,

for every ξ , η R d and almost every x R d .

This class contains the fractional ( s , p ) -Laplacian

(3.24) Δ p s u = D s ( D s u p 2 D s u ) ,

which corresponds to choose a ( ξ ) = ξ p 2 ξ , where the best constant α p = 2 2 p for p 2 and α p = p 1 for 1 < p < 2 , see [29, Lemma 1.11] whose proof for the scalar case extends easily to the vectorial case R d . When s = 1 , it coincides with the usual classical p -Laplacian, i.e., Δ p 1 = Δ p , while when s = 0 is a new class of a nonlinear operator involving the vectorial Riesz transform.

Remark 3.7

As was observed in [66], the fractional ( s , p ) -Laplacian (3.24) does not coincide with the nonlocal p -Laplacian

( Δ ) p s u ( x ) = κ s , p , d p.v. R d u ( x ) u ( y ) p 2 ( u ( x ) u ( y ) ) x y d + s p d y ,

with κ s , p , d being the normalized constant computed in [28]. This is a consequence of the fact that the fractional ( s , p ) -Laplacian is the Euler-Lagrange equation in the Lions-Calderón spaces Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , while the nonlocal p -Laplacian arises from the Euler-Lagrange equation associated with the Gagliardo seminorm of the Sobolev-Slobodeckij spaces W 0 s , p ( Ω ) , which are algebraically and topologically different when p 2 , 0 < s < 1 . In the Hilbertian case p = 2 for the Dirichlet boundary condition, as W 0 s , 2 ( Ω ) = Λ 0 s , 2 ( Ω ) = H 0 s ( Ω ) , the corresponding variational problems for the fractional Laplacian are related, as observed in [47], and have had a great increase of interest, as can be seen, for instance, in [20,49].

As a simple application of Theorem 3.3 and Proposition 3.1, we have the following simple existence and uniqueness result, which is stated here for completeness.

Corollary 3.1

(Existence and uniqueness for p -Laplacian-type of operators) Let Ω R d be an open and bounded set, 0 s 1 and 1 < p < . Consider a closed, convex, and non-empty set K Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , a p-Laplacian-type operator A s , p and any functional F Λ s , p ( Ω ) . Then, there exists a unique solution u K to the variational inequality

(3.25) A s , p u , v u F , v u , v K .

This last result shows that for any functional F Λ s , p ( Ω ) , if u K denote the corresponding solution of (3.25), the solution operator A K 1 F = u K is well-defined. Note that when K = Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , the operator A K 1 is the inverse of the fractional p -Laplacian-type operator A s , p with Dirichlet homogeneous boundary conditions. This solution operator has interesting properties.

Theorem 3.4

Let Ω R d be a bounded open set, 0 s 1 and 1 < p < . Consider a p-Laplacian-type operator A s , p , a closed and convex set K Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , with 0 K , and the variational inequality (3.25). Then, setting u 1 = A K 1 ( F 1 ) and u 2 = A K 1 ( F 2 ) , the solution map A K 1 : Λ s , p ( Ω ) K is

  • 1 p 1 -Hölder continuous when p 2 , with

    (3.26) D s u 1 D s u 2 L p ( R d ; R d ) α p 1 1 p F 1 F 2 Λ s , p ( Ω ) 1 p 1 ;

  • locally Lipschitz continuous when 1 < p < 2 , with

    (3.27) D s u 1 D s u 2 L p ( R d ; R d ) C p ( F 1 , F 2 ) F 1 F 2 Λ s , p ( Ω ) ,

    where C p ( F 1 , F 2 ) = 2 ( p 1 ) ( 2 p ) p α p 3 p 1 p F 1 Λ s , p ( Ω ) 1 1 p + F 2 Λ s , p ( Ω ) 1 1 p 2 p .

Proof

From Corollary 3.1, we have that A K 1 : Λ s , p ( Ω ) K is well-defined.

Applying Hölder’s inequality and inequality (3.25) to the previous identities, testing them with v = u 2 and v = u 1 , respectively, we obtain

(3.28) A s , p u 1 A s , p u 2 , u 1 u 2 = F 1 F 2 , u 1 u 2 F 1 F 2 Λ s , p ( Ω ) D s ( u 1 u 2 ) L p ( R d ; R d ) .

Conversely, by definition of a p-Laplacian-type operator, we also have

(3.29) A s , p u 1 A s , p u 2 , u 1 u 2 α p D s ( u 1 u 2 ) L p ( R d ; R d ) p if p 2 α p R d D s ( u 1 u 2 ) 2 ( D s u 1 + D s u 2 ) 2 p if 1 < p < 2 .

Combining estimates (3.28) and (3.29), we can easily see that for p 2 , we obtain

α p D s ( u 1 u 2 ) L p ( R d ; R d ) p 1 F 1 F 2 Λ s , p ( Ω ) .

In the case 1 < p < 2 , we can use the reverse Hölder inequality together with (3.28) and (3.29) to obtain

(3.30) D s ( u 1 u 2 ) L p ( R d ; R d ) ( D s u 1 L p ( R d ; R d ) + D s u 2 L p ( R d ; R d ) ) 2 p 2 ( p 1 ) ( 2 p ) p α p 1 1 p F 1 F 2 Λ s , p ( Ω ) .

But since a ( x , 0 ) = 0 and

α p D s u j L p ( R d ; R d ) p 1 A s , p u j , u j D s u j L p ( R d ; R d ) F j Λ s , p ( Ω )

for j = 1,2 , we can use the estimate (3.30) to obtain

D s ( u 1 u 2 ) L p ( R d ; R d ) 2 ( p 1 ) ( 2 p ) p α p 3 p 1 p F 1 F 2 Λ s , p ( Ω ) F 1 Λ s , p ( Ω ) 1 1 p + F 2 Λ s , p ( Ω ) 1 1 p 2 p .

As a consequence of Theorem 2.7, we also obtain the compactness of A K 1 : Λ s , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 t , q ( Ω ) :

Corollary 3.2

Under the same hypothesis of Theorem 3.4, we have that A K 1 : Λ s , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 t , q ( Ω ) is compact for 0 < t < s and 1 < p , q < satisfying 1 p s d < 1 q t d .

Remark 3.8

The results presented in Theorem 3.4 generalize those of [62] to the fractional setting with a convex constraint. In fact, [62] covers the classical p -Laplacian case, with s = 1 and K = W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) .

Besides p -Laplacian-type operators, we can also consider some operators that constitute variations of these, for which we can also obtain existence and uniqueness results. We present first a case in which we have also a lower order term of the type b ( r ) = r p 2 r .

Let the Carathéodory function b ( x , r ) : Ω × R R satisfy the growth condition (3.17) and assume that there exists a constant β p 0 such that

(3.31) ( b ( x , ρ ) b ( x , r ) ) ( ρ r ) β p ρ r p if p 2 β p ρ r 2 ( ρ + r ) 2 p if 1 < p < 2 ,

for every ρ , r R and almost every x Ω .

Corollary 3.3

( p -Laplacian-type operator with lower order term) Let Ω R d be an open set, 0 s 1 and 1 < p < . Consider now the p-Laplacian-type operator A s , p with a lower order perturbation b satisfying the assumption (3.31), with the constant β p 0 (with β p > 0 when Ω is unbounded), a closed and convex set K Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , with 0 K , and a functional F Λ s , p ( Ω ) . Then the variational inequality

A s , p u + b ( u ) , v u F , v u , v K ,

has a unique solution u K . Moreover, the respective solution map ( A s , p + b ) K 1 : Λ s , p ( Ω ) K is 1 p 1 -Hölder continuous when p 2 and locally Lipschitz continuous when 1 < p < 2 .

Proof

In the case of bounded Ω , the operator A s , p + b still satisfies the inequalities (3.29) and the same conclusions for u 1 = ( A s , p + b ) K 1 ( F 1 ) and u 2 = ( A s , p + b ) K 1 ( F 2 ) hold as in Theorem 3.4.

In the case of unbounded Ω , one needs to use the full norm (2.11) for Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , i.e., u u L p ( Ω ) + D s u L p ( R d ; R d ) , hence we require β p > 0 . Combining (3.31) with (3.29), one can use a similar argument to the one of used in the proof of Theorem 3.4, namely for the estimate (3.26), to prove the 1 p 1 -Hölder continuity of ( A s , p + b ) K 1 : Λ s , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) when p 2 . Similarly, we can also prove a similar estimate to (3.27) and conclude that ( A s , p + b ) K 1 is locally Lipschitz continuous when 1 < p < 2 .□

A second example is given by a perturbation with a Carathéodory function e : R d × R R d , such that, for all r , ρ R and a.e. x R d ,

(3.32) e ( x , r ) e ( x , ρ ) λ r ρ and e ( x , 0 ) = 0 ,

with λ > 0 , in the possible nonlinear p = 2 framework in Λ 0 s , 2 ( Ω ) = H 0 s ( Ω ) .

Corollary 3.4

(Small perturbation of a 2-Laplacian-type operator) Let Ω R d be an open and bounded set, and 0 s 1 . Consider a function a : R d × R d R d that generates a 2-Laplacian-type operator with constant α 2 > 0 , and a function e : R d × R R d satisfying (3.32) with λ sufficiently small such that α 2 > λ c 2 , s , where c 2 , s > 0 is the best Poincaré constant in H 0 s ( Ω ) , as in Remark 2.7. Then, for any F s Λ s , 2 ( Ω ) = H s ( Ω ) and any non-empty, closed and convex set K Λ 0 s , 2 ( Ω ) = H 0 s ( Ω ) , there exists a unique function u K such that

(3.33) R d ( a ( D s u ) + e ( u ) ) D s ( v u ) d x F s , v u , v K .

Proof

Since a = a ( x , ξ ) generates a 2-Laplacian-type operator, it satisfies inequality (3.29) for p = 2 , and e = e ( x , r ) is a Lipschitz function in r , under the assumptions of this corollary, the function ( x , r , ξ ) a ( x , ξ ) + e ( x , r ) defines a nonlinear operator A 2 s , which is strictly monotone and coercive, and satisfies (3.29) for some α 2 = α 2 λ c 2 , s > 0 . Indeed, by Cauchy-Schwarz’s and Poincaré’s inequalities, we have

R d ( a ( D s u 1 ) a ( D s u 2 ) + e ( u 1 ) e ( u 2 ) ) D s ( u 1 u 2 ) d x α 2 D s u 1 D s u 2 L 2 ( R d ; R d ) 2 R d λ u 1 u 2 D s u 1 D s u 2 d x α 2 D s u 1 D s u 2 L 2 ( R d ; R d ) 2 λ u 1 u 2 L 2 ( R d ) D s u 1 D s u 2 L 2 ( R d ; R d ) ( α 2 λ c 2 , s ) D s u 1 D s u 2 L 2 ( R d ; R d ) 2 .

4 Mosco convergence and continuous dependence

In this section, we consider the convergence of solutions of variational inequalities in the framework of Section 3 with respect to the convergence of the convex sets, specially with respect to the variation of the fractional parameter s [ 0 , 1 ] . We start by recalling Mosco’s convergence for convex sets K n M K . We say that K n , with n N , converges in the sense of Mosco to K in a Banach space X if: (i) for every u K , there exists a sequence u n K n such that u n u in X , i.e., K liminf n K n ; and (ii) if there exists a sequence u n K n and a function u X such that u n u in X , then u K , i.e., w- limsup n K n K .

However, in this section, we are considering convergences of u n K n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) solutions of the variational inequalities

(4.1) D s n a ( u n , D s n u n ) + b ( u n , D s n u n ) F n , v u n s n 0 , v K n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) .

Here not only the convex sets K n depend on the parameter s n but also the space Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) and the operator, including the F n , depend on s n . These terms may be represented in the form

(4.2) F n , v s n = f 0 n D s n f n , v s n = Ω f 0 n v d x + j = 1 d R d f j n s n v x j s n d x v Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω )

with f 0 n L p ( Ω ) and f n = ( f 1 n , , f d n ) L p ( R d ; R d ) .

Since the space of the solutions depends on n and we need to consider not only the convergence of the solutions but also of their fractional gradients, we are led to the following adaptation of the notion of Mosco’s convergence:

Definition

Let us consider a sequence { s n } [ 0 , 1 ] that converges to σ [ 0 , 1 ] , convex sets K n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) for each n N , and K Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) , and define the linear map

(4.3) Π s : Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) L p ( Ω ) = L 0 p ( Ω ) × L p ( R d ; R d ) u ( u , D s u ) .

We say that K n converges in the generalized sense of Mosco to K , denoted K n s n M K , when:

  1. for every u K , there exists a sequence { u n } with u n K n , such that Π s n ( u n ) Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) ; and

  2. if there exists a sequence u n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) with u n K n and a function u Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) , such that Π s n ( u n ) Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) , then u K .

Remark 4.1

When the sequence { s n } is a constant sequence, i.e., s n = σ for all n N , the generalized Mosco convergence reduces to the classical notion of Mosco’s convergence [51].

In the following subsections, we shall consider sequences { s n } [ 0 , 1 ] converging to σ [ 0 , 1 ] and a corresponding converging sequence of convex sets in the generalized sense of Mosco

(4.4) Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) K n s n M K Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) ,

and sequence of given data, such that

(4.5) f 0 n f 0 in L p ( Ω ) and f n f in L p ( R d ; R d ) ,

which implies

(4.6) Λ s n , p ( Ω ) F n = f 0 n D s n f n s n f 0 D σ f = F Λ σ , p ( Ω )

in the distributional sense, i.e., F n , v s n s n F , v σ for all v C 0 ( Ω ) .

For simplicity, when studying solutions to variational inequalities associated with a sequence of operators A s n , we shall consider the functions a and b used in different cases of the existence theorems of Section 3 with slightly different structural assumptions. In particular, we assume that the growth conditions (3.5) and (3.6), when Ω is bounded, are independent of the choice of the sequence s n , namely, we assume that the exponents q 1 and q 2 satisfy

(4.7) 1 < q 1 < min { p s * * , p 2 ( p 1 ) } and 1 < q 2 < min { p s * * , p + 1 } ,

where 0 < s * < s n for all n N . In the case of Ω arbitrary, the growth conditions (3.16) and (3.17) are already independent of s , hence, no change is needed in this case. Note that these restrictions do not state that the operators A s n are independent of the choice of s n , they only impose a restriction on their growth. Moreover, since we are separating the nonhomogeneous terms F n and F from the nonlinearities of a and b , it is not restrictive to that γ 1 and γ 2 are zero in the growth conditions (3.5), (3.6), when Ω is bounded, and (3.16), (3.17), when Ω is arbitrary.

4.1 Pseudomonotone case with 0 < s 1 and Ω bounded

The following Mosco-type theorem yields the convergence of solutions in the general situation of Section 3.1.

Theorem 4.1

Let Ω R d be a bounded open set, 1 < p < + and consider a sequence { s n } ( s * , 1 ] with s * > 0 and s n σ [ s * , 1 ] . Let K n and K be convex sets satisfying (4.4) and F n = f 0 n D s n f n Λ s n , p ( Ω ) satisfying (4.5). If the two Carathéodory functions a : R d × R × R d R d and b : R d × R R satisfy the growth conditions (3.5) and (3.6) with q 1 and q 2 as in (4.7), the weak coercivity conditions (3.7) with 1 < q 3 < p , and the monotonicity condition (3.9), then from the sequence of solutions { u n } , with u n K n satisfying

(4.8) D s n a ( u n , D s n u n ) + b ( u n ) F n , v u n s n 0 , v K n ,

one can extract a subsequence, still denoted by u n , with the property

(4.9) u n u i n Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) , f o r 0 t < s * , a n d D s n u n D σ u i n L p ( R d ; R d ) ,

where, for F f 0 D σ f , u K solves

(4.10) D σ a ( u , D σ u ) + b ( u ) F , v u σ 0 , v K .

To prove this theorem, we first establish a compactness result that will allow us to extract a convergence subsequence in which its limit will be shown to be the solution of the limit problem.

Lemma 4.1

Under the hypotheses of Theorem 4.1, as s n σ [ s * , 1 ] , one can extract from { u n } a subsequence such that u n u in Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) for 0 t < s * and D s n u n D σ u in L p ( R d ; R d ) for some u K .

Proof

For an arbitrary function v K Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) , by assumption, there exists a sequence { v n } , with v n K n , such that Π s n ( v n ) Π σ ( v ) in L p ( R d ) as s n σ . With these functions in (4.8) and the weak coercivity of a and b , (3.7), we obtain

(4.11) R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) D s n v n d x + Ω b ( u n ) v n d x + F n , u n v n s n R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) D s n u n d x + Ω b ( u n ) u n d x α D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) p β C s * D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) q 3 k L 1 ( R d ) .

For the left-hand side of the previous equations, we use the growth conditions of a and b , (3.5) and (3.6), respectively, Hölder’s inequality, Young’s inequality with δ , and Poincaré’s inequality (2.31), with s * > 0 , to obtain

(4.12) R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) D s n v n d x + Ω b ( u n ) v n d x C ( s * , v 0 ) D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) q 1 p + D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) p 1 + D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) q 2 1

and

(4.13) F n , u n v n s n f 0 n , u n s n + f 0 n , v n s n + f n , D s n u n s n + f n , D s n v n s n δ D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) p + C ( δ , M 1 , M 2 ) ,

where M 1 , M 2 0 are such that v n L p ( Ω ) + D s n v n L p ( R d ; R d ) M 1 , f 0 n L p ( Ω ) + f n L p ( R d ; R d ) M 2 , and δ > 0 is a sufficiently small positive number. Combining these estimates, with

C ( s * , v 0 ) D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) q 1 p + D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) p 1 + D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) q 2 1 + β C s * D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) q 3 ε D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) p + C ( ε , p , q 1 , q 2 , q 3 , β C s * , C ( s * , v 0 ) ) ,

for a sufficiently small ε > 0 , by recalling from (3.8) that q 1 p < p , q 2 1 < p and q 3 < p , we may conclude that D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) is uniformly bounded by a constant independent of s n .

As a simple consequence of the uniform bound of D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) we obtain, from Theorem 2.6, that there exists a subsequence still denoted by { u n } that converges strongly in Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) , with 0 t < s * σ , to some function u Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) with the additional property that D s n u n D σ u in L p ( R d ; R d ) . Since K n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) converges in the generalized sense of Mosco to K Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) , then by M2) and by the uniqueness of weak limits, we have that u K .□

Proof of Theorem 4.1

Let u be given by Lemma 4.1 and v K . We start by considering the family of functions u ε = ( 1 ε ) u + ε v K with ε ( 0 , 1 ] and a sequence of functions { w n } with the property that w n K n for each s n and with Π s n ( w n ) Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) , as K n converges in the generalized sense of Mosco to K . Using R d ( a ( u n , D s n u n ) a ( u n , D σ u ε ) ) ( D s n u n D σ u ε ) 0 , with a simple calculation, we obtain

ε R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) D σ ( u v ) d x ε R d a ( u n , D σ u ε ) D σ ( u v ) d x + R d a ( u n , D σ u ε ) ( D s n u n D σ u ) d x + R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) D s n ( w n u n ) d x R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) ( D s n w n D σ u ) d x .

Hence, take the inferior limit on both sides of the previous inequality, we obtain

(4.14) ε liminf n R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) D σ ( u v ) d x ε lim n R d a ( u n , D σ u ε ) D σ ( u v ) d x + lim n R d a ( u n , D σ u ε ) ( D s n u n D σ u ) d x + liminf n R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) D s n ( w n u n ) d x lim n R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) ( D s n w n D σ u ) d x .

The limits of the right-hand side can be computed easily in the following way. First, with the help of Hölder’s inequality together with the facts a ( u n , D σ u ε ) a ( u , D σ u ε ) in L p ( R d × R d ) , u n u in L q 1 ( R d ) and D s n u n D σ u in L p ( R d ; R d ) , we deduce

(4.15) lim n R d a ( u n , D σ u ε ) D σ ( u v ) d x = R d a ( u , D σ u ε ) D σ ( u v ) d x

and

(4.16) lim n R d a ( u n , D σ u ε ) ( D s n u n D σ u ) d x lim n a ( u n , D σ u ε ) a ( u , D σ u ε ) L p ( R d ; R d ) D s n u n D σ u L p ( R d ; R d ) + R d a ( u , D σ u ε ) ( D s n u n D σ u ) d x = 0 .

In addition, since by the growth condition of a , (3.5), and the uniform boundedness of u n L p ( R d ; R d ) , and using the fact that D s n w n D σ u in L p ( R d ; R d ) , we also obtain

(4.17) lim n R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) ( D s n w n D σ u ) d x = 0 .

For the inferior limit of the right-hand side of (4.14), we use the fact that each u n K n is a solution of (4.8) and w n u in L p ( R d ) to obtain

(4.18) liminf n R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) D s n ( w n u n ) d x lim n F , w s n u s n s n = 0 .

Applying now (4.15), (4.16), (4.17), and (4.18) into (4.14), we obtain an inequality, which divided by ε > 0 , yields

(4.19) liminf n R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) D σ ( u v ) d x lim ε 0 R d a ( u , D σ u ε ) D σ ( u v ) d x = R d a ( u , D σ u ) D σ ( u v ) d x .

Using the monotonicity of a with the convergence a ( u n , D σ u ) a ( u , D σ u ) in L p ( R d ; R d ) , we deduce

(4.20) liminf n R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) ( D s n u n D σ v ) d x liminf n R d ( a ( u n , D s n u n ) a ( u n , D σ u ) ) ( D s n u n D σ u ) d x + lim n R d ( a ( u n , D σ u ) a ( u , D σ u ) ) ( D s n u n D σ u ) d x + lim n R d a ( u , D σ u ) ( D s n u n D σ u ) d x + liminf n R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) D σ ( u v ) d x lim n R d a ( u n , D σ u ) ( D s n u n D σ u ) d x + R d a ( u , D σ u ) D σ ( u v ) d x = R d a ( u , D σ u ) D σ ( u v ) d x ,

by applying inequality (4.19).

Conversely, by Lemma 4.1, the u n are bounded in Λ 0 s * , p ( Ω ) . By Sobolev embeddings, we have then u n u in L p s * * ( Ω ) and, by compactness, also u n u in L ( q 2 1 ) ( p s * * ) ( Ω ) , since q 2 < p s * * = d p d s * p . This implies, by the growth assumption (3.6), b ( u n ) b ( u ) in L ( p s * * ) ( Ω ) , and consequently

(4.21) lim n Ω b ( u n ) ( u n v ) d x = Ω b ( u ) ( u v ) d x .

For each v K , let v n K n be such that Π s n ( v n ) Π σ ( v ) . Combining the limits (4.20) and (4.21) with the monotonicity and growth condition of a , (3.5) and (3.9), respectively, and the fact that u n solves (4.8), we conclude that u K is a solution of (4.10), because

(4.22)□ R d a ( u , D σ u ) D σ ( u v ) d x + Ω b ( u ) ( u v ) d x liminf n R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) ( D s n u n D σ v ) d x + Ω b ( u n ) ( u n v ) d x liminf n R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) ( D s n v n D σ v ) d x + Ω b ( u n ) ( v n v ) d x F n , u n v n s n = F , u v σ , v K .

4.2 Pseudomonotone case with 0 < s 1 and arbitrary Ω

In order to extend Mosco-type results to arbitrary domains for general Leray-Lions operators, we develop Browder’s argument of Section 3.2 in the framework of Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) with s n σ .

Theorem 4.2

Let Ω R d be an open set, 1 < p < + and consider a sequence { s n } ( s * , 1 ] with s * > 0 and s n σ [ s * , 1 ] . Let K n and K be convex sets satisfying (4.4) and F n = f 0 n D s n f n Λ s n , p ( Ω ) satisfying (4.5). If the two Carathéodory functions a : R d × R × R d R d and b : R d × R R satisfy the growth conditions (3.16) and (3.17), the strong coercivity condition (3.15) and a is strictly monotone with respect to the last variable as in (3.18), then, from the sequence of solutions { u n } , with u n K n satisfying

(4.23) D s n a ( u n , D s n u n ) + b ( u n , D s n u n ) F n , v u n s n 0 , v K n ,

one can extract a subsequence, still denoted by { u n } , satisfying

u n u in Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) , for 0 t s * , and D s n u n D σ u in L p ( R d ; R d )

where, for F = f 0 D σ f , u K solves

(4.24) D σ a ( u , D σ u ) + b ( u , D σ u ) F , v u σ 0 , v K .

Remark 4.2

The main difference between Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 is the weak convergence of u n to u in Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) , 0 t < s * , because Ω can be unbounded in the second one. In this framework, we still have the local strong convergence of the sequence u n , using Rellich-Kondrachov’s Proposition 2.12. In fact, if s * p d , for any subset with finite measure ω Ω , u n u in L q ( ω ) for q < p s * * ( p s * * = + if s * p = d ) . Conversely, if s * p > d , for any compact subset K ˜ Ω , u n u in C 0 , β ( K ˜ ) for β < s * d p .

Lemma 4.2

Under the hypotheses of Theorem 4.2, we can extract a subsequence from { u n } (still denoted by u n ) such that Π s n ( u n ) Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) for some u K .

Proof

The proof of this lemma is similar to the proof of Lemma 4.1. In fact, for (4.11), the only difference is that we have to the strong coercivity hypothesis made on a and b , which gives us the estimate

R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) D s n v n d x + Ω b ( u n ) v n d x + F n , u n v n s n α D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) p + β u n L p ( Ω ) p k L 1 ( R d ) .

For the estimates (4.12) and (4.13), we argue in the same way now with the norm (2.11) with the necessary adaptations.□

Proof of Theorem 4.2

Since we are dealing with potentially unbounded domains, we use a local version of the Rellich-Kondrachov theorem and we consider an increasing sequence of bounded sets { ω j } R d such that Ω = j = 1 ω j . Then, Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 s * , p ( Ω ) L p ( ω j ) for each j N . Using a diagonal argument, we can construct a subsequence, still denoted by { u n } , such that u n u in L p ( ω j ) for any j N . Consequently, we have, up to a subsequence, that u n ( x ) u ( x ) a.e. x Ω .

Let us now consider the function

(4.25) p n ( x ) = a ( u n , D s n u n ) D s n u n ( x ) + b ( u n , D s n u n ) u n ( x ) g n 1 ( x ) g n 0 ( x ) ,

where

g n 1 ( x ) = a ( u , D σ u ) ( D s n u n D σ u ) ( x ) + a ( u n , D s n u n ) D σ u ( x )

and

g n 0 ( x ) = b ( u , D σ u ) ( u n u ) ( x ) + b ( u n , D s n u n ) u ( x ) .

Following [19], we study the convergence of p n , by using Vitali’s theorem to show first p n 0 in L 1 ( R d ) , and afterwards deducing p n 0 a.e. in R d .

We start by observing that g n 1 and g n 0 are both equi-integrable in R d . This is an easy consequence of the growth conditions of a and b , (3.16) and (3.17), respectively, and the a priori estimates on u n and D s n u n .

Moreover, the growth conditions and the strong coercivity hypothesis applied to (4.25) imply the existence of constants C 2 , C 3 > 0 and a function k ˜ L 1 ( R d ) such that

(4.26) p n ( x ) C 2 ( u n ( x ) p + D s n u n ( x ) p ) C 3 ( u ( x ) p + D σ u ( x ) p + k ˜ ( x ) ) .

So, restricting to x supp ( p n ) , we have

(4.27) C 2 D s n u n ( x ) p C 2 ( D s n u n ( x ) p + u n p ( x ) ) C 3 ( u ( x ) p + D σ u ( x ) p ) + k ˜ ( x ) = ρ ( x ) ,

where ρ is a function independent of s and finite a.e. in R d (otherwise it would not be integrable).

Writing p n ( x ) = q n ( x ) + r n ( x ) + t n ( x ) , with

q n ( x ) = ( a ( x , u n ( x ) , D s n u n ( x ) ) a ( u n ( x ) , D σ u ( x ) ) ) ( D s n u n D σ u ) ( x ) r n ( x ) = ( a ( x , u n ( x ) , D σ u ( x ) ) a ( x , u ( x ) , D σ u ( x ) ) ) ( D s n u n D σ u ) ( x ) t n ( x ) = ( b ( x , u n ( x ) , D s n u n ( x ) ) b ( x , u ( x ) , D σ u ( x ) ) ( x ) ) ( u n ( x ) u ( x ) ) ,

and denoting χ n = χ { x : p n > 0 } , we can write a.e. x R d .

(4.28) p n = χ n q n + χ n r n + χ n t n .

By the monotonicity of a , we have q n ( x ) 0 and so χ n q n 0 . Since a is a Carathéodory function and (4.27) holds in { x : p n > 0 } , we have χ n r n 0 , as u n ( x ) u ( x ) a.e. Similarly, the growth conditions of b with (4.27) imply χ n t n 0 a.e. in R d . Consequently, we obtain p n 0 a.e. in R d .

To prove p n 0 in L 1 ( R d ) , we show that p n is equi-integrable and apply Vitali’s convergence theorem. In fact, the strong coercivity assumption on a and b , (3.15), and (4.25), yields the estimate

p n ( x ) α D s n u n ( x ) p + β u n ( x ) p + k 2 ( x ) g n 1 ( x ) g n 0 ( x ) k 2 ( x ) g n 1 ( x ) g n 0 ( x ) ,

and consequently,

0 p n ( x ) k 2 ( x ) + g n 1 ( x ) + g n 0 ( x ) , a.e. in R d .

This implies that p n is equi-integrable, since both { g n 0 } and { g n 1 } are equi-integrable.

Now, we can easily prove p n ( x ) 0 for a.e. x R d . Indeed, using the monotonicity of a in the last variable, we have p n 0 , and, since p n 0 in L 1 ( R d ) , we obtain

0 limsup n R d p n + d x = limsup n R d p n d x lim n R d p n d x 0 .

Therefore, p n + 0 in L 1 ( R d ) , and consequently, up to a subsequence, also p n ( x ) 0 for a.e. x R d . This pointwise convergence with the estimate (4.26) yields a uniform bound on D s n u n ( x ) p a.e. in R d and we can define a function ξ ( x ) as a.e. pointwise limit of D s n u n ( x ) as n . Moreover, since p n ( x ) 0 , r n ( x ) 0 and t n ( x ) 0 for a.e. x R d as n , we have

lim n p n ( x ) = lim n q n ( x ) = ( a ( x , u ( x ) , ξ ( x ) ) a ( x , u ( x ) , D σ u ( x ) ) ) ( ξ ( x ) D σ u ( x ) ) = 0 ,

which, together with the strict monotonicity of a in the third variable, implies ξ = D σ u a.e. x R d .

We rewrite

p n = ( a ( u n , D s n u n ) a ( u , D σ u ) ) ( D s n u n D σ u ) + ( b ( u n , D s n u n ) b ( u , D σ u ) ) ( u n u )

and use u n u a.e. in Ω and D s n u n D σ u a.e. in R d to obtain

liminf n R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) ( D s n u n D σ v ) d x + Ω b ( u n , D s n u n ) ( u n v ) d x lim n R d p n d x + R d a ( u , D σ u ) ( D s n u n D σ u ) d x + Ω b ( u , D σ u ) ( u n u ) d x + liminf n R d a ( u n , D s n u n ) D σ ( u v ) d x + Ω b ( u n , D s n u n ) ( u v ) d x R d lim n ( a ( u n , D s n u n ) ) D σ ( u v ) d x + Ω lim n ( b ( u n , D s n u n ) ) ( u v ) d x = R d a ( u , D σ u ) D σ ( u v ) + b ( u , D σ u ) ( u v ) d x .

We conclude the proof as in (4.22).□

4.3 Monotone case with 0 s 1 and Ω arbitrary

Without the strict monotonicity of Section 3.3, we can obtain a Mosco-type theorem with a weak convergence of solutions in the case of operators simply monotone, up to the lower limit s = 0 .

Theorem 4.3

Let Ω R d be an open set, 1 < p < + and consider a sequence { s n } [ 0 , 1 ] with s n σ [ 0 , 1 ] . Let K n and K be convex sets satisfying (4.4) and F n = f 0 n D s n f n Λ s n , p ( Ω ) satisfying (4.5). If the two Carathéodory functions a = a ( x , ξ ) : R d × R d R d and b = b ( x , r ) : R d × R R , both monotone with respect to their last variable, satisfy the growth conditions (3.16) and (3.17), respectively, and the strong coercivity hypothesis (3.15), then from the sequence of solutions { u n } , with u n K n satisfying

(4.29) D s n a ( D s n u n ) + b ( u n ) F n , v u n s n 0 , v K n ,

one can extract a subsequence, still denoted by { u n } , with the property that

(4.30) u n u i n L p ( Ω ) a n d D s n u n D σ u i n L p ( R d ; R d ) ,

where, with F = f D σ f , u K solves

(4.31) D σ a ( D σ u ) + b ( u ) F , v u σ 0 , v K .

Remark 4.3

If σ > s * > 0 , as in Theorem 4.2, the first weak convergence in (4.30) also holds weakly in Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) , for 0 < t < s * . When Ω is bounded, using the Poincaré inequality, we can relax the coercivity assumption (3.15) by letting β > α ( s C P ) p , as in Remark 3.6, with α > 0 . If σ > s * > 0 , as in Theorem 4.1, we can improve the first weak convergence in 4.30 by u n u in Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) , for 0 < t < s * .

Remark 4.4

If σ > 0 in unbounded domains, a similar observation as in Remark 4.2 is also valid here. As for σ = 0 , in general one should not expect any strong convergence of u n to u due to the lack of compactness, since the uniform estimates on the sequences u n and D s n u n are only in Λ 0 0 , p ( Ω ) = L 0 p ( Ω ) and in L p ( R d ; R d ) , respectively.

Proof

Using similar arguments to those employed in the proof of Lemma 4.2 one can deduce that u n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) is uniformly bounded with respect to s n . Consequently, there exist two functions u L p ( R d ) and η L p ( R d ; R d ) such that

(4.32) u n u in L p ( R d ) and D s n u n η in L p ( R d ; R d ) .

Note that η = D σ u because

(4.33) R d D s n u n φ d x = R d u n D s n φ d x R d u D σ φ d x = R d D σ u φ d x , φ C c ( R d ; R d ) .

Hence, we have u K , since Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) K n s n M K Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) .

Next, we prove that u is a solution of (4.31), by applying Minty’s lemma. Indeed, let us consider an arbitrary function w K and a sequence { w n } such that w n K n and Π s n ( w n ) Π σ ( w ) in L p ( Ω ) . Due to the monotonicity of a and b , we have

R d a ( D s n w n ) D s n ( w n u n ) d x + Ω b ( w n ) ( w n u n ) d x R d a ( D s n u n ) D s n ( w n u n ) d x + Ω b ( u n ) ( w n u n ) d x = F n , w n u n s n .

Using Π s n ( w n ) Π σ ( w ) in L p ( Ω ) , the continuity of the operators a : L p ( R d ; R d ) L p ( R d ; R d ) and b : L p ( R d ) L p ( R d ) , the convergence of f n f in L p ( R d ) , and the weak limits (4.32), we obtain

(4.34) R d a ( D σ w ) D σ ( w u ) d x + Ω b ( w ) ( w u ) d x F , φ u σ .

Setting in (4.34) w = u + θ ( v u ) , with 0 < θ < 1 and an arbitrary v K , dividing by θ and letting θ 0 , we conclude that u K is a weak solution of (4.31):

R d a ( D σ u ) D σ ( v u ) d x + Ω b ( u ) ( v u ) d x F , v u σ , v K .

4.3.1 Stronger convergence for p -Laplacian-type operators

In the framework of Corollary 3.3, we can prove a strong convergence result for the fractional gradients in a Mosco-type theorem for p -Laplacian operators with lower order terms, in addition to the conclusions of Remark 4.3.

Theorem 4.4

Let us assume the hypothesis of Theorem 4.3 and let us also assume that a and b satisfy (3.23) and (3.31), with β p > α p ( s C P ) p when Ω is bounded and with β p > 0 when Ω is unbounded, respectively. Then, the sequence of solutions u n K n of (4.29) satisfies

u n u in L p ( Ω ) and D s n u n D σ u in L p ( R d ; R d ) ,

where u K is the unique solution of (4.31).

Proof

From Theorem 4.1 we know that there exists a subsequence { u n } such that Π s n ( u n ) Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) where u is the solution to (4.31). We only need to prove that this weak convergence is a strong convergence in L p ( Ω ) .

Using the assumption K n s n M K , we may consider a sequence { w n } , with w n K n , such that Π s n ( w n ) Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) . Since u n are solutions to (4.29), we have

(4.35) D s n a ( D s n u n ) D s n a ( D s n w n ) + b ( w n ) b ( u n ) , w n u n s n R d ( a ( D s n w n ) f n ) ( D s w n u n ) d x + Ω ( b ( w n ) f 0 n ) ( w n u n ) d x .

Conversely, since a and b satisfy (3.23) and (3.31), respectively, we have, for p 2 ,

(4.36) D s n a ( D s n u n ) D s n a ( D s n w n ) + b ( w n ) b ( u n ) , w n u n s n α p D s n ( u n w n ) L p ( R d ; R d ) p + β p u n w n L p ( Ω ) p ,

and, for 1 < p < 2 , also

(4.37) D s n a ( D s n u n ) D s n a ( D s n w n ) + b ( w n ) b ( u n ) , w n u n s n 1 2 2 p p ( C u + C w ) 2 p p ( α p D s n ( u n w n ) L p ( R d ; R d ) p + β p u n w n L p ( Ω ) p ) .

Here C u , C w > 0 are constants, independent of n , such that u n L p ( Ω ) p + D s n u n L p ( R d ; R d ) p C u and w n L p ( Ω ) p + D s n w n L p ( R d ; R d ) p C w . Combining (4.35) with (4.36), when p 2 , and with (4.37), when 1 < p < 2 , and using b ( w n ) b ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) and a ( D s n w n ) a ( D σ u ) in L p ( R d ; R d ) , respectively, by the continuity of a and b , together with the convergences (4.5), we obtain

lim n u n w n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) = lim n ( β p u n w n L p ( Ω ) p + D s n ( u n w n ) L p ( R d ; R d ) p ) 1 p = 0 .

Hence, using the Poincaré inequality when Ω is bounded (see Remark 3.6), recalling Π s n ( w n ) Π σ ( u ) , we conclude Π s n ( u n ) Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) and the convergence of the whole sequence is a consequence of the uniqueness of the limit problem (4.31), by Corollary 3.3.□

Remark 4.5

The typical examples of operators that satisfy the hypothesis of the last theorem are those in which D s n a ( x , D s n u n ) = D s n ( α ( x ) D s n u p 2 D s n u ) is the heterogeneous fractional ( s n , p ) -Laplacian operator, with 0 < α * α ( x ) α * , and the lower term b ( x , u ) = β ( x ) u p 2 u , with 0 < β * β ( x ) β * , if Ω is unbounded, or α * ( s C P ) p < β * β ( x ) β * , if Ω is bounded.

Remark 4.6

In the context of problems without unilateral constraints where K n = Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) and A s n is of potential type, like in Remark 3.3, instead of using the Mosco convergence, one can use Γ -convergence, as in [12].

5 Applications to unilateral problems

5.1 Examples of generalized Mosco convergence with s in [ 0 , 1 ]

In order to illustrate the Mosco-type convergence theorems, in this section we provide some examples of families of convex sets that converge in the generalized sense of Mosco. The first example corresponds to the case in which the convex sets coincide with the Lions-Caldéron spaces and its application to the continuous dependence with respect to the parameter s of the solutions of the Dirichlet problems, which is essentially a consequence of the known strong convergence properties of D s . The two examples of unilateral constraints, leading to variational inequalities, will be given by the translations of cones in those spaces, corresponding to obstacle problems, and by a special case of fractional gradient constraints.

Theorem 5.1

(No obstacle) Let Ω R d be any open set, p ( 1 , + ) , and a sequence { s n } [ 0 , 1 ] with s n σ [ 0 , 1 ] . Then, Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) converge in the generalized sense of Mosco to Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) , i.e.

(5.1) Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) s n M Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) a s s n σ .

Proof

Condition (M2) follows immediately from the fact that K = Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) .

To prove (M1), let u Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) and { φ j } C c ( Ω ) be a sequence such that φ j u in Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) as j . For each m N , there exists q 1 ( m ) N such that j q 1 ( m ) , for which

φ j u L p ( R d ) + D σ φ j D σ u L p ( R d ; R d ) < 1 m

For each j q 1 ( m ) , by Proposition 2.8, there exists a positive integer q 2 ( m , j ) j such that for all k q 2 ( m , j ) and

D s k φ j D σ φ j L p ( R d ; R d ) 1 m .

Define the sequence

u n = φ 1 if n < q ( 1 ) φ q ( k ) if q ( k ) n < q ( k + 1 ) , for k N

where q ( k ) = q 2 ( k , q 1 ( k ) ) . For n q 2 ( m ) q 1 ( m ) , then

u n u L p ( Ω ) + D s n u n D σ u L p ( R d ; R d ) u n u L p ( R d ) + D s n u n D σ u n L p ( R d ; R d ) + D σ u n D σ u L p ( R d ; R d ) 2 m ,

which implies that Π s n ( u n ) Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) .□

Remark 5.1

In the case s n σ , the proof of (5.1) is much simpler, since (M1) holds directly from Proposition 2.8 by considering the sequence u n u Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) .

In the case s n σ , we can also give a different proof of (5.1). Let u n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) be the solution of

(5.2) R d D s n u n p 2 D s n u n D s n v d x + Ω u n p 2 u n v d x = Ω f 0 v d x + R d f D s n v d x , v Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) .

Here, the functions f 0 and f = ( f 1 , , f d ) are given such that

Δ p σ u + u p 2 u , v σ = F , v σ = Ω f 0 v d x + R d f D σ v d x v Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) ,

where the functional F = Δ p σ u + u p 2 u Λ σ , p ( Ω ) Λ s n , p ( Ω ) and f 0 , f 1 , , f d L p ( R d ) can be obtained from Theorem 2.4 to characterize F .

We prove that, up to a subsequence, Π s n ( u n ) Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) . Testing (5.2) with v = u n , we obtain

(5.3) u n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) p = R d D s n u n p 2 D s n u n D s n u n d x + Ω u n p d x = Ω f 0 u n d x + R d f D s n u n d x .

This identity, together with Hölder’s inequality, allows us to obtain a uniform estimate of u n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) with respect to n , and so, there exist two functions u ˜ L p ( R d ) and η L p ( R d ; R d ) such that

(5.4) u n u ˜ in L p ( R d ) and D s n u n η in L p ( R d ; R d ) .

We conclude that η = D σ u ˜ as in (4.33). Using Minty’s lemma and the uniqueness of the solution of the limit problem, we deduce that u ˜ = u .

Finally, since u is a weak-solution of (5.2) when s n is replaced by σ , and u n u in L p ( Ω ) , from (5.3), we obtain

D s n u n L p ( R d ) p + u n L p ( Ω ) p = F , u n s n F , u σ = D σ u L p ( R d ; R d ) + u L p ( Ω ) .

Consequently, since L p ( Ω ) is uniformly convex for p ( 1 , ) , we conclude that Π s n ( u n ) Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) strongly.

In the general case s n σ , we can replace the proof of (M1) in Theorem 5.1 by choosing u n = u if s n σ , and u n as the solution of (5.2) if s n σ .

As a simple consequence of the theorems of Section 3 and Theorem 5.1, we obtain the following general stability result for fractional partial differential equations.

Corollary 5.1

Let Ω R d be an open set, p ( 1 , ) and { s n } ( 0 , 1 ) be a sequence such that s n σ ( 0 , 1 ] . Let us also consider the assumptions of Theorem 4.1, 4.2, or 4.3, with F n Λ s n , p ( Ω ) and F Λ σ , p ( Ω ) defined as in (4.6). If u n are solutions to

(5.5) D s n a ( u n , D s n u n ) + b ( u n , D s n u n ) = F n i n Ω u = 0 o n R d \ Ω ,

then one can extract a subsequence, still denoted by { u n } , such that Π s n ( u n ) Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) , i.e.

u n u i n L p ( Ω ) a n d D s n u n D σ u i n L p ( R d ; R d ) ,

where u Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) is a solution of

(5.6) D σ a ( u , D σ u ) + b ( u , D σ u ) = F i n Ω u = 0 o n R d \ Ω .

Remark 5.2

If in the previous corollary, we assume the hypothesis of Theorem 4.3 for the functions a and b , we can then also take sequences s n tending to 0. Similarly, also under the stronger assumptions of Theorem 4.4 for fractional operators of p -Laplacian-type, we have Π s n ( u n ) Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) strongly, for the whole sequence s n σ [ 0 , 1 ] .

For obstacle problems, we consider families of convex sets of the following type

K ψ s { v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) : v ψ } ,

with their convergence in the generalized sense of Mosco. For ψ Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , the condition on its positive part ψ + Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) is sufficient for the convex set K ψ s to be non-empty. We start with the case, inspired in [16, Proposition 3 (1)], where we have an upper bound on the obstacles ψ n by its limit ψ and the fractional parameters s n are non-decreasing.

Proposition 5.1

(With bound on the obstacles and order in the fractional parameters) Let Ω R d be any open set, p ( 1 , + ) and a non-decreasing sequence { s n } ( 0 , 1 ) with s n σ ( 0 , 1 ] . For a sequence of functions { ψ n } with ψ n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) for all n N , such that Π s n ( ψ n ) Π σ ( ψ ) weakly in L p ( Ω ) for some ψ Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) and ψ s n ψ , then K ψ s n s n converges in the generalized sense of Mosco to K ψ σ .

Proof

To verify (M1), we just need to observe that for every v K ψ σ , we can simply consider the sequence v n v for each n since K ψ σ K ψ n s n .

Conversely, to verify that (M2) holds, we start by considering a sequence { v n } with v n K ψ n s n for each n , and a function v Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) such that Π s n ( v n ) Π σ ( v ) in L p ( Ω ) as s n σ . Now, consider two compact sets ω and ω such that ω ω Ω and consider also a function ϕ C ( ω ) such that ϕ 1 in ω . Moreover, from Proposition 2.5, we know that D s n ( ϕ u ) L p ( R d ; R d ) C s u Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) , which together with Theorem 2.6, implies the existence of two subsequences { ϕ v n } and { ϕ ψ n } such that

ϕ v n ϕ v ϕ ψ n ϕ ψ in L p ( ω ) and v n v ψ n ψ in L p ( ω ) .

Since this is valid for every compact ω Ω , and since v n ψ n for each n , we can easily deduce that v K ψ σ .□

There are also some examples of sets that converge in the generalized sense of Mosco that do not require the order hypothesis on the obstacles, nor the order of the fractional parameters. As a first example, we consider ψ n = 0 , where the convex sets are the cones of non-negative functions.

Theorem 5.2

(Positive cones) Let Ω R d be an open and bounded set, p ( 1 , ) and a sequence { s n } ( 0 , 1 ) with s n σ [ 0 , 1 ] . Then, K 0 s n converges in the generalized sense of Mosco to K 0 σ .

Proof

For (M1), we use the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem 5.1, but instead of using the density of C c ( Ω ) in Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) , we use the density of the cone of non-negative functions C c ( Ω ) in the cone of non-negative functions of Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) of Theorem 2.3.

For (M2), let us consider a sequence { v n } n N with v n K 0 s n for each n N , and a function v Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) such that Π s n ( v n ) Π σ ( v ) in L p ( Ω ) . As a consequence, we have

0 Ω v n φ d x Ω v φ d x φ C c ( Ω ) with φ 0 ,

which implies v 0 a.e. in Ω and, consequently, v K 0 σ .□

This result is the basis for other examples of sequences of convex sets of obstacle type that converge in the generalized sense of Mosco. These examples can be obtained when we combine Theorem (5.2) with the following result, adapted from [51, Lemma 1.6 on p. 529], concerning the convergence of translations of the convex sets, for the L p ( Ω ) framework.

Proposition 5.2

(Translations of convex sets) Let Ω R d be any open set, p ( 1 , + ) and a sequence s n in ( 0 , 1 ) with s n σ [ 0 , 1 ] . Consider a family of non-empty, closed convex sets { K n } such that K n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) converging in the sense of Mosco to K Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) , and also a sequence of functions { ψ n } such that ψ n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) for all n and Π s n ( ψ n ) Π σ ( ψ ) in L p ( Ω ) for some function ψ Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) . Then, the convex set K n + ψ n converges in the generalized sense of Mosco to K + ψ .

Proof

In order to check that (M1) holds, let us consider a function v K + ψ , i.e., v = v ¯ + ψ for some v ¯ K . Since K m converges in the generalized sense of Mosco to K , there exists v ¯ n K n such that Π s n ( v ¯ n ) Π σ ( v ¯ ) in L p ( Ω ) . This allow us to construct the functions v n = v ¯ n + ψ n K n + ψ n with the property that Π s n ( v n ) = Π s n ( v ¯ n ) + Π s n ( ψ n ) Π σ ( v ¯ ) + Π σ ( ψ ) = Π σ ( v ) in L p ( Ω ) as s σ .

For condition (M2), we start by considering a sequence { v n } with v n K n + ψ n and a function v Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) such that Π s n ( v n ) Π σ ( v ) in L p ( Ω ) as n . Since v n ψ n K n for each n , Π s n ( v n ψ n ) Π σ ( v ψ ) in L p ( Ω ) , and K n converges in the generalized sense of Mosco to K , v ψ K .□

As a consequence of the last proposition, we can adapt [51, Lemma 1.7 on p. 531] to prove a result about the generalized Mosco convergence of convex sets when the obstacles, and their fractional gradients, converge strongly.

Corollary 5.2

(Without order between obstacles) Let Ω R d be a bounded open set, p ( 1 , + ) and { s n } ( 0 , 1 ) a sequence with s σ [ 0 , 1 ] . Consider { ψ n } to be a family of measurable functions with ψ n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) for each n. If Π s n ( ψ n ) Π σ ( ψ ) in L p ( Ω ) for some ψ Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) , then K ψ n s n converges in the generalized sense of Mosco to K ψ σ .

Proof

As K 0 s n s n M K 0 σ by Theorem 5.2, and Π s n ( ψ n ) Π σ ( ψ ) in L p ( Ω ) , Proposition 5.2 immediately yields K ψ n s n = K 0 s n + ψ n s n M K 0 σ + ψ = K ψ σ .□

Remark 5.3

The results in Proposition 5.1 and Corollary 5.2 are extensions of the Mosco convergence of convex sets of obstacle type in the spaces Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) with varying s , of classical results of [51] corresponding to constant s n = σ ( 0 , 1 ] , in particular for W 0 1 , p ( Ω ) [16].

Remark 5.4

It was proved in [4] that, as a consequence of the compactness of the positive cone of Λ σ , 2 ( Ω ) in Λ σ , q ( Ω ) for 1 < q < 2 , if ψ n ψ in Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) for some p > 2 , then H 0 σ ( Ω ) K ψ n σ M K ψ σ H 0 σ ( Ω ) . It would be interesting to extend this property to K ψ n s n s n M K ψ σ , even in the Hilbertian framework of H 0 s ( Ω ) with varying s .

Remark 5.5

Theorem 5.2 and Corollary 5.2 are also valid for convex sets of the obstacle type of the form

K ϕ s = { v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) : v ϕ } ,

with the appropriate adaptations of the proofs.

Another type of admissible sets that one can consider are the ones that correspond to constraints on the fractional gradient, namely convex sets of the form

(5.7) K g s = { v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) : D s v g a.e. in R d } .

Concerning the generalized Mosco convergence, the case of the fractional gradient constraints are, in general, more difficult to deal with than those with obstacle constraints on the function. However, we present an interesting example of a family of convex sets of that type that converge in the generalized sense of Mosco, using the approximation of the Riesz operator I α to the identity as α 0 [40].

Theorem 5.3

(Constraint in the fractional gradient) Let Ω R d be an open set, p ( 1 , + ) , σ ( 0 , 1 ] and an increasing sequence { s n } ( 0 , 1 ) such that s n σ ( 0 , 1 ] . Consider a function g L p ( R d ) L q ( R d ) with 1 < q < p and g 0 a.e., and a sequence of functions g n = I σ s n g . Then, K g n s n , as defined in (5.7), converges in the generalized sense of Mosco to K g σ .

Proof

We can assume without loss of generality that d d ( σ s n ) < p < d σ s n for all n N because s n is increasing. Note that g n g in L p ( R d ) by [40, Theorem C]. Moreover, K g σ K g n s n for every n . In fact, if u K g σ , then Proposition 2.10 allows us to obtain the estimate

D s n u = I σ s n D σ u I σ s n D σ u I σ s n g = g n .

Consequently, we can set u n u K g σ K g n s n for all n , and (M1) holds.

For condition (M2), consider a sequence of functions u n K s n g n such that Π s n ( u n ) Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) . Then, D s n u n D σ u in L p ( ω ; R d ) for all measurable sets ω R d , because Π s n ( u n ) Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) , and we have

ω D σ u p d x liminf s n σ ω D s n u n p d x liminf s n σ ω g n p d x = ω g p d x .

Since this inequality is valid for all measurable sets ω R d , we conclude that D σ u g a.e. in R d .□

5.2 Quasi-variational inequalities

As a natural application of the Mosco convergence in variational inequalities, quasi-variational inequalities correspond to unilateral problems where the convex sets depend on the solutions themselves. This type of problem with s = 1 arises in different models of control theory, solid mechanics or superconductivity, for instance. In this section, we provide examples of quasi-variational inequalities involving the s -fractional gradient. In particular, we study the existence of solutions, and their continuous dependence with respect to the fractional parameter s , to a quasi-variational inequality of obstacle type, where the obstacle is itself a solution to a coupled problem. We also study the existence of solutions to a quasi-variational inequality of s -gradient constraint type.

5.2.1 Quasi-variational inequality of obstacle type

Consider the problem of finding a solution u K t s ( u ) , such that

(5.8) R d a ( D s u ) D s ( w u ) d x + Ω b ( u ) ( w u ) d x F , w u s , w K t s ( u ) ,

where the convex set is of obstacle type

(5.9) K t s ( u ) = { w Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) : w Ψ ( u ) } ,

with the obstacle ψ = Ψ ( u ) being itself a solution to the problem, depending on u , given by

(5.10) Δ p t ψ + ψ p 2 ψ = T ( u , D s u ) in Ω , ψ = 0 on R d \ Ω ,

where T is a suitable continuous operator. The implicit obstacle problem (5.8), (5.9), and (5.10) may be solved with the general abstract existence theory for quasi-variational inequalities of [36] or [38, Theorem 2.2]. However, for this type of application, it is simpler to use directly a combination of the Mosco continuous dependence results with a compactness argument. To also illustrate the continuous dependence on the fractional parameter in the case of monotone operators, including of p -Laplacian-type, we present the following theorem, which proof we develop for completeness.

Theorem 5.4

Let Ω R d be any open set, s [ 0 , 1 ] and p ( 1 , ) . Let us consider two Carathéodory functions a = a ( x , ξ ) : R d × R d R d and b = b ( x , r ) : R d × R R , both monotone with respect to their last variable, and at least one of them being strictly monotone, satisfying the growth conditions (3.16) and (3.17) and the strong coercivity (3.15). Consider also a family of closed convex sets { K ( v ) : v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) } such that

  1. there exists a bounded set E Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) with the property that K ( v ) E for all v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) ;

  2. whenever v n v in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , we have K ( v n ) K ( v ) in the (classical) sense of Mosco.

Then, there exists a function u K ( u ) , such that

(5.11) R d a ( D s u ) D s ( w u ) d x + Ω b ( u ) ( w u ) d x 0 , w K ( u ) .

Proof

For each v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , we can apply Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 3.1 to obtain the existence and uniqueness of the solution u v = S ( v ) K ( v ) to the problem

(5.12) R d ( a ( D s u v ) ) D s ( w u v ) d x + Ω b ( u v ) ( w u v ) d x 0 , w K ( v ) .

We show that S has a fixed point. We start by obtaining an a priori estimate for the functions u v . Choose, for each v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , a function g v E K ( v ) . With these functions, we can apply the coercivity condition to obtain

R d a ( D s u v ) D s g v d x + Ω b ( u v ) g v d x R d a ( D s u v ) D s u v d x + Ω b ( u v ) u v d x α D s u v L p ( R d ; R d ) p + β u v L p ( Ω ) p k L 1 ( R d ) .

Conversely, from the growth conditions, we have

R d a ( D s u v ) D s g v d x + Ω b ( u v ) g v d x γ 1 L p ( R d ) D s g v L p ( R d ; R d ) + C 1 D s u v L p ( R d ; R d ) p 1 D s g v L p ( R d ; R d ) + γ 2 L p ( Ω ) g v L p ( Ω ) + C 2 u v L p ( R d ) p 1 g v L p ( R d ) .

Combining these two estimates, and using the fact that E is bounded in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , we deduce that there exists R > 0 , such that u v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) R , and so

(5.13) S ( B R ¯ ) S ( Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) ) B R ¯ ,

where B R ¯ = { v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) : v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) R } . Since B R ¯ is weakly compact, then there exists v , z B R ¯ such that

v n v in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) and S ( v n ) z in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

The weak convergence of v n , implies K ( v n ) K ( v ) in the sense of Mosco by assumption (ii). As a consequence of Theorem 4.3, which in this case is equivalent to the classical Mosco’s theorem because s n σ , see Remark 4.1, we also obtain S ( v n ) S ( v ) in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

With these properties, we can apply Tychonov’s fixed point theorem, [9, Theorem 9.16] to deduce that S has a fixed point in B R ¯ , completing the proof.□

As an application of this type of fixed point argument, we have the following existence result for (5.8), (5.9), and (5.10), where we can relax the continuity assumption on the dependence v K t s ( v ) .

Theorem 5.5

Let Ω R d be an open bounded set, 0 < s < t 1 and 1 < p < . Let a and b satisfy the same assumptions as in Theorem 5.4. Let T : L p ( Ω ) L ( p s * ) ( Ω ) be a continuous operator such that T ( g ) L ( p s * ) ( R d ) M < for all g L p ( Ω ) . Then, the quasi-variational inequality (5.8), (5.9) and (5.10) has a solution.

Proof

We apply Schauder’s fixed point theorem to v S ( v ) = Q Ψ ( v ) , where Ψ = Ψ ¯ T Π s ( v ) , being T Π s : Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ t , p ( Ω ) a compact operator since L ( p * s ) ( Ω ) Λ s , p ( Ω ) Λ t , p ( Ω ) by Corollary 2.6, and with Ψ ¯ : Λ t , p ( Ω ) T v ψ Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) being the solution of (5.10) given by Corollary 3.3, and Q : Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) is the solution to the variational inequality (5.8) with the convex K t s ( v ) given by (5.9).

In order to obtain the inclusion (5.13) for some R > 0 , we need the following a priori estimate. For every v Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , let Ψ ( v ) denote the solution to (5.10) with T v = T ( v , D s v ) , so, recalling Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , we have

(5.14) C Ψ ( v ) Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) p Ψ ( v ) Λ 0 t , p ( Ω ) p = Δ p t Ψ ( v ) + Ψ ( v ) p 2 Ψ ( v ) , Ψ ( v ) σ = Ω T v Ψ ( v ) d x T v L ( p s * ) ( Ω ) Ψ ( v ) L p s * ( Ω ) C s T v L ( p s * ) ( Ω ) Ψ ( v ) Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) .

Since T v L p s * ( Ω ) M , we have

(5.15) Ψ ( v ) Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) ( M C s ) 1 p 1 = R ,

and we have a fixed point u = S u B R ¯ K t s ( u ) .□

Remark 5.6

An example may be given by the Uryson operator T : L p ( Ω ) L ( p s * ) ( Ω ) given by

(5.16) T ( g ) ( x ) = O τ ( x , y , g ( y ) , D s g ( y ) ) d y , for a.e. x Ω ,

where O is a bounded subset of R d and τ : Ω × O × R × R d R is a Carathéodory function, continuous in ( v , ξ ) and measurable for a.e. ( x , y ) , satisfying the inequality

τ ( x , y , v , ξ ) ϕ ( x , y ) , for a.e. ( x , y ) Ω × O and for all ( v , ξ ) R × R d

with ϕ L ( p s * ) ( Ω ; L ( O ) ) . Here, we may choose M = Ω O ϕ ( x , y ) d y ( p s * ) d x 1 ( p s * ) in Theorem 5.5. For the continuity of T : L p ( Ω ) L ( p s * ) ( Ω ) , we observe that for every ( g n , E n ) L p ( Ω ) converging to ( g , E ) L p ( Ω ) as n we have τ ( x , y , g n ( y ) , E n ( y ) ) τ ( x , y , g ( y ) , E ( y ) ) in measure as n , for a.e. ( x , y ) Ω × O , because τ is a Carathéodory function. Moreover, for C O , we have

lim C 0 C τ ( x , y , g n ( y ) , E n ( y ) ) d y lim C 0 C ϕ ( x , y ) d y = 0

uniformly with respect to n . From Vitali’s theorem, we obtain that τ ( x , , g n , E n ) τ ( x , , g , E ) in L 1 ( O ) for a.e. x Ω . The continuity of T then follows by Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem.

Remark 5.7

If in Theorem 5.5 we assume that T does not depend on D s u , i.e., T : L q ( Ω ) L ( p s * ) ( Ω ) , with 1 q < p s * , and keep the same assumptions on T , we can still prove the existence of a solution to (5.8), (5.9), and (5.10) when 0 < s = t 1 , as a corollary of Theorem 5.4. Indeed, by the fractional Rellich-Kondrachov’s theorem, Theorem 2.7, we can use the compactness of Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) L q ( Ω ) for any sequence v n v in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) , and the continuity of T : L q ( Ω ) L ( p s * ) ( Ω ) , to obtain T v n T v in L ( p s * ) ( Ω ) , and consequently, by Corollary 3.3, we have Ψ ( v n ) Ψ ( v ) in Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) . Hence, Corollary 5.2, with s n σ , yields K t s ( v n ) K t s ( v ) in the sense of Mosco and the assumption (ii) of Theorem 5.4 is satisfied. The assumption (i) is satisfied with E = B R ¯ by the a priori estimate (5.14).

Remark 5.8

An example of a continuous operator T : L q ( Ω ) L ( p s * ) ( Ω ) satisfying the hypothesis stated in Remark 5.7 is given by

(5.17) T ( g ) ( x ) = ( g ( x ) k ( x ) ) k ( x ) ,

with k 0 a.e. and k L ( p s * ) ( Ω ) . In fact, we may choose M = k L ( p s * ) ( Ω ) , and since

T ( g ) ( x ) k ( x ) a.e. x Ω , for all g L q ( Ω ) ,

using Vitali’s theorem, the continuity follows

T ( g n ) T ( g ) in L ( p s * ) ( Ω ) for all g n g in L q ( Ω ) .

In this framework, it is also possible to show the continuous dependence, with respect to s , of the solutions to the quasi-variational inequality of obstacle type (5.8), (5.9), and (5.10). This is a consequence of the general stability results obtained in Section 4 and the convergence, in the generalized sense of Mosco, of convex sets of obstacle type as obtained in Section 5.1, combined with compactness methods. For simplicity, we assume that T does not depend on D s and q = p , so that we can use the fractional Poincaré’s inequality, for which the dependence of the constant with respect to the fractional parameter s can be controlled.

Theorem 5.6

Let Ω be a bounded open set in R d , 1 < p < and consider a sequence { s n } ( s * , σ ] with 0 < s * < σ 1 such that s n σ . Let a and b satisfy the same hypothesis as in Proposition 5.5 and F n = f 0 n D s n f n Λ s n , p ( Ω ) satisfying (4.5). Assume that T : L p ( Ω ) L p ( Ω ) be a continuous operator such that T ( g ) L p ( R d ) M < for all g L p ( Ω ) . If u n K σ s n ( u n ) is a solution of (5.8), (5.9), and (5.10) for each n N , then we can extract a subsequence such that

u n u i n Λ t , p ( Ω ) , f o r 0 t s * a n d D s n u n D σ u in L p ( R d ; R d ) ,

where u K σ σ ( u ) solves

(5.18) R d a ( D σ u ) D σ ( w u ) d x + Ω b ( u ) ( w u ) d x F , w u σ , w K σ σ ( u ) .

Proof

From Theorem 4.3, we just need to prove that K σ s n ( u n ) K σ σ ( u ) in the generalized sense of Mosco.

Using the same argument as in (5.14) with s = s n , t = σ , and using Corollary 2.2 and the fractional Poincaré’s inequality (2.31) to make explicit the dependence of the constant in terms of s * < s n σ , we obtain

(5.19) D s n Ψ ( u n ) L p ( R d ; R d ) p 1 C s * 1 + 1 p p 1 D σ Ψ ( u n ) L p ( R d ; R d ) p 1 C s * 2 + 1 p p 1 ψ ( u n ) Λ σ , p ( R d ) p 1 C s * 2 + 1 p p 1 ψ ( u n ) Λ σ , p ( R d ) 1 Δ p r Ψ ( u n ) + Ψ ( u n ) p 2 Ψ ( u n ) , Ψ ( u n ) σ M C s * 2 + 1 p p 1 .

This estimate is useful to obtain an estimate for u n in Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) , independent of s n . In fact, testing (5.8) with Ψ ( u n ) K σ s n ( u n ) , and using an adaptation of the arguments employed in (4.11), (4.12), and (4.13) with the coercivity and growth assumptions on a and b and the bound (5.19), we obtain the uniform estimate,

u n Λ 0 s n , p ( Ω ) C

where C > 0 is a positive constant depending on Ω , α , β , M , and s * but not on n .

From Theorem 2.6, we obtain u n u in L p ( Ω ) , which by the continuity of T implies T ( u n ) T ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) , and consequently, from Corollary 3.3, we obtain Ψ ( u n ) Ψ ( u ) in Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) . Moreover, we also have D s n Ψ ( u n ) D σ Ψ ( u ) in L p ( R d ; R d ) because

lim n D s n Ψ ( u n ) D σ Ψ ( u ) L p ( R d ; R d ) lim n ( D s n Ψ ( u n ) D s n Ψ ( u ) L p ( R d ; R d ) + D s n Ψ ( u ) D σ Ψ ( u ) L p ( R d ; R d ) ) lim n ( C s * Ψ ( u n ) Ψ ( u ) Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) + D s n Ψ ( u ) D σ Ψ ( u ) L p ( R d ; R d ) ) = 0 .

To conclude, we just need to apply Corollary 5.2.□

Remark 5.9

When T depends only on u and q = p , a similar argument can be used to prove that the solutions u n K s n s n ( u n ) to (5.8), (5.9), and (5.10), for each n N , converge to a solution u K σ σ ( u ) of (5.18), as s n σ . The only difference between the proofs is that we do not need to use Corollary 2.2 to obtain an estimate of the type of (5.19), and instead of using Corollary 3.3 for the convergence of Ψ ( u n ) to Ψ ( u ) in Λ 0 σ , p ( Ω ) , we use Remark 5.2 for the convergence of Π s n ( u n ) to Π σ ( u ) in L p ( Ω ) .

Remark 5.10

In Theorem 5.6 and in Remark 5.9 we can recover the solutions u K 1 1 ( u ) to the classical quasi-variational problem associated with (5.8), (5.9) and (5.10) with s = r = 1 , which is a localization result of the fractional quasi-variational inequality as s 1 .

5.2.2 Quasi-variational inequality of s -gradient constraint type

Consider the problem of finding u K G ( u ) s , such that

(5.20) R d a ( D s u ) D s ( v u ) d x + Ω b ( u ) ( v u ) d x F s , v u s , v K G ( u ) s

where G : L p s * ( Ω ) L ν ( R d ) is a continuous and bounded operator, with

L ν ( R d ) = { g L ( R d ) : g ν a.e. in R d }

for some ν > 0 , and

(5.21) K G ( u ) s = { w Λ 0 s , p ( Ω ) : D s w G ( u ) a.e. in R d } .

This extends a result of [56] to the nonlinear fractional setting, inspired in examples of the classic case s = 1 surveyed in [57].

Theorem 5.7

Let Ω R d be a bounded open set, s ( 0 , 1 ] , p ( 1 , ) , and ν > 0 . Let A s ( u ) = D s a ( D s u ) be a p -Laplacian-type operator, let b : R d × R R satisfy the growth condition (3.17) and the monotonicity condition (3.31), with the constant β p 0 , and let F Λ s , p ( Ω ) . If G : L 0 p s * ( Ω ) L ν ( R d ) is a continuous and bounded operator, then there exists a solution u K G ( u ) s to (5.20).

Proof

Let g L ν ( R d ) . We know from Corollary 3.3 that there exists a unique solution u g = S ( F , g ) K g s such that

R d a ( D s u g ) D s ( v u g ) d x + Ω b ( u ) ( v u g ) d x F , v u g s , v K g s .

Moreover, since 0 K g s , we have

α p D s u g L p ( R d ; R d ) p + β p u g L p ( Ω ) R d a ( D s u g ) D s u g d x + Ω b ( u g ) u g d x F , u g s f L p ( R d ; R d ) D s u g L p ( R d ; R d ) ,

which implies the existence of a positive constant C F , independent of g , such that

u g L p s * ( Ω ) C s D s u g L p ( R d ; R d ) C F .

Let us consider the operator T = S ( F , ) G . Note that for every w B C F ¯ = { v L 0 p s * ( Ω ) : v L p s * ( Ω ) C F } , we have T ( w ) = u G ( w ) B C F ¯ K G ( w ) s , so by proving that T is continuous and compact in L 0 p s * ( Ω ) , we can apply Schauder’s fixed point theorem on B C F ¯ and deduce that there exists a function u B C F ¯ such that T ( u ) = u .

To prove that T : L 0 p s * ( Ω ) L 0 p s * ( Ω ) is continuous, we only need to prove that S ( F s , ) : L ( Ω ) L 0 p s * ( Ω ) is continuous since G : L p s * ( Ω ) L ν ( R d ) is by hypothesis a continuous operator. Consider two functions g 1 , g 2 L p * ( Ω ) and define u i = S ( F , g i ) as well as u ˜ i = ν ν + η u i , where η g 1 g 2 L ( R d ) , for i = 1,2 . Note that u ˜ 1 K s ( g 2 ) and u ˜ 2 K s ( g 1 ) because

D s u ˜ 1 ν ν + η g 1 ν ν + η ( g 1 g 2 + g 2 ) η ν + η ν + ν ν + η g 2 g 2 ,

and similarly D s u ˜ 2 g 1 . Moreover, these functions also satisfy

u i u ˜ i = η ν + η u i η ν u i and D s ( u i u ˜ i ) = η ν + η D s u i η ν D s u i .

These estimates, in conjugation with Hölder’s inequality, the fractional Poincaré inequality, and the fact that u g i = S ( F s , g i ) , allow us to obtain

R d ( a ( D s u 1 ) a ( D s u 2 ) ) D s ( u 1 u 2 ) d x + Ω ( b ( u 1 ) b ( u 2 ) ) ( u 1 u 2 ) d x F , ( u 1 u ˜ 1 ) + ( u 2 u ˜ 2 ) s + R d a ( D s u 1 ) D s ( u ˜ 2 u 2 ) d x + R d a ( D s u 2 ) D s ( u ˜ 1 u 1 ) d x + Ω b ( u 1 ) ( u ˜ 2 u 2 ) d x + Ω b ( u 2 ) ( u ˜ 1 u 1 ) d x η ν f L p ( Ω ) ( u 1 L p ( Ω ) + u 2 L p ( Ω ) ) + 2 C η ν ( D s u 1 L p ( R d ; R d ) p 1 D s u 2 L p ( R d ; R d ) + u 1 L p ( Ω ) p 1 u 2 L p ( Ω ) ) C g 1 g 2 L ( R d ) .

Moreover, if we combine this estimate with the coercivity conditions on a and b , (3.23) and (3.31) respectively, we have for p > 2

C α p , β p u 1 u 2 Λ s , p ( Ω ) p C g 1 g 2 L ( R d )

and for 1 < p < 2

C α p , β p u 1 u 2 Λ s , p ( Ω ) 2 C g 1 g 2 L ( R d ) ( D s u 1 L p ( R d ; R d ) + D s u 2 L p ( R d ; R d ) ) 2 p ( 2 C F ) 2 p C g 1 g 2 L ( R d ) ,

concluding the continuity of S ( F s , ) : L ( Ω ) L p s * ( Ω ) .

To prove the compactness of T , we use the boundedness of G : L p s * ( Ω ) L ν ( R d ) and the estimate

D s u G ( w ) L q ( R d ; R d ) q = R d D s u G ( w ) q d x = R d D s u G ( w ) q p D s u G ( w ) p d x D s u G ( w ) L ( R d ; R d ) q p D s u G ( w ) L p ( R d ; R d ) p G ( w ) L ( R d ; R d ) q p D s u G ( w ) L p ( R d ; R d ) p

with q > d s q > p and γ = s d q , to derive T ( B C F ¯ ) C 0 , γ ( Ω ¯ ) C 0 ( Ω ¯ ) L p s * ( Ω ) , by using Ascoli-Arzelà’s theorem.□

Remark 5.11

Similar to [57, Example 4.1], we can consider G : L 0 p s * ( Ω ) R d defined as

G ( u ) ( x ) = F ( x , w u ( x ) ) ,

where F : R d × R R is a bounded function in x R d and continuous in w R uniformly with respect to x R d , satisfying for some ν > 0 ,

0 < ν F ( x , w ) φ ( w ) a.e. x R d

for some monotone increasing function φ . Moreover, for u L 0 p s * ( Ω ) , we set

w u ( x ) = Ω θ ( x , y ) u ( y ) d y

with θ L ( R x d ; L ( p s * ) ( Ω y ) ) .

The case of the convergence of the solutions of the quasi-variational problems with gradient constraints is much more delicate, since the criteria of the generalized Mosco convergence of the convex sets K ( u ) are not satisfied in general for the quasi-variational solutions u . However, using a result of [5] on the localization of the solutions of variational inequalities with gradient constraint as s 1 in the Hilbertian framework Λ 0 s , 2 ( Ω ) = H 0 s ( Ω ) , we can obtain the following result.

Theorem 5.8

Let Ω R d be a bounded open set, 0 < s * < s < 1 and F s = f 0 s D s f s H s ( Ω ) satisfying (4.5) as s 1 with p = 2 . Consider the linear operator A s u = D s ( A ( x ) D s u ) with A being a bounded, measurable, and strictly elliptic matrix-valued function, satisfying

α ξ 2 A ( x ) ξ ξ a n d A ( x ) ξ η C ξ η ,

and a continuous operator G : L 2 ( Ω ) L ν ( R d ) , such that 0 < g * G ( v ) g * for all v L 2 ( Ω ) . From the set of u s K G ( u s ) s H 0 s ( Ω ) that are solutions of (5.20)–(5.21) for each s, we can extract a generalized subsequence such that, as s 1 ,

u s u i n Λ 0 s * , p ( Ω ) C 0 , λ ( Ω ¯ ) a n d D s u s D u i n L ( R d ; R d ) ,

for all 0 λ < s * and all 1 < p < , where u K G ( u ) 1 H 0 1 ( Ω ) C 0 , 1 ( Ω ¯ ) solves

Ω A D u D ( w u ) d x F , w u , w K G ( u ) 1 .

Proof

This is a direct application of [5, Theorem 5.1], because the assumption and the uniform estimate of D s u s in L ( Ω ) imply the uniform convergence u s u and, consequently also, G ( u s ) G ( u ) in L ( Ω ) as s 1 .□

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions and corrections.

  1. Funding information: Pedro Miguel Campos and Jose Francisco Rodrigues’s research was done under the framework of CMAFcIO, FCT project: UIDB/04561/2020 and UIDP/04561/2020. Pedro Miguel Campos was also supported by the PhD FCT-grant UI/BD/152276/2021.

  2. Author contributions: All authors contributed equally to the preparation of the manuscript. All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and reviewed all the results.

  3. Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.

References

[1] R. A. Adams, Sobolev spaces, Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 65. Academic Press [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], New York-London, 1975. Search in Google Scholar

[2] D. R. Adams and L. I. Hedberg, Function spaces and potential theory, volume 314 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03282-4. Search in Google Scholar

[3] H. Antil and C. N. Rautenberg, Fractional elliptic quasi-variational inequalities: theory and numerics, Interfaces Free Bound. 20 (2018), no. 1, 1–24, https://doi.org/10.4171/IFB/395. Search in Google Scholar

[4] H. Antil, C. N. Rautenberg, and A. Schikorra, On a fractional version of a Murat compactness result and applications, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 53 (2021), no. 3, 3158–3187, https://doi.org/10.1137/20M1379873. Search in Google Scholar

[5] A. Azevedo, J. F. Rodrigues, and L. Santos, Nonlocal Lagrange multipliers and transport densities, Bull. Math. Sci. 14 (2024), no. 2, 2350014, https://doi.org/10.1142/S1664360723500145. Search in Google Scholar

[6] A. Azevedo, J. F. Rodrigues, and L. Santos, On a class of nonlocal problems with fractional gradient constraint, In European Congress of Mathematics, EMS Press, Berlin, 2023, pp. 885–906, https://doi.org/10.4171/8ECM/26. Search in Google Scholar

[7] N. Aronszajn and K. T. Smith, Theory of Bessel potentials, Number 26, University of Kansas, Dept. of Mathematics, 1959, https://doi.org/10.5802/aif.116. Search in Google Scholar

[8] N. Aronszajn and K. T. Smith. Theory of Bessel potentials. I, Annales de lainstitut Fourier, 11 (1961), 385–475, http://eudml.org/doc/73778. 10.5802/aif.116Search in Google Scholar

[9] C. Baiocchi and A. Capelo, Variational and quasivariational inequalities, A Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1984, Applications to free boundary problems, Translated from the Italian by Lakshmi Jayakar. Search in Google Scholar

[10] E. Bruè, M. Calzi, G. E. Comi, and G. Stefani, A distributional approach to fractional Sobolev spaces and fractional variation: asymptotics II. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 360 (2022), 589–626, 10.5802/crmath.300. Search in Google Scholar

[11] J. C. Bellido, J. Cueto, and C. Mora-Corral, Fractional Piola identity and polyconvexity in fractional spaces, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré C Anal. Non Linéaire 37 (2020), no. 4, 955–981, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2020.02.006. Search in Google Scholar

[12] J. C. Bellido, J. Cueto, and C. Mora-Corral, Γ-convergence of polyconvex functionals involving s-fractional gradients to their local counterparts, Calculus Variat. Partial Differ. Equ. 60 (2021), no. 1, 7, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-020-01868-5. Search in Google Scholar

[13] A. Bensoussan, M. Goursat, and J.-L. Lions, Contrôle impulsionnel et inéquations quasi-variationnelles stationnaires, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A-B 276 (1973), A1279–A1284. Search in Google Scholar

[14] A. Bensoussan and J.-L. Lions, Contrôle impulsionnel et inéquations quasi variationnelles, volume 11 of Méthodes Mathématiques de laInformatique [Mathematical Methods of Information Science], Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1982. Search in Google Scholar

[15] H. Brezis and P. Mironescu, Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities and non-inequalities: the full story, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré C Anal. Non Linéaire 35 (2018), no. 5, 1355–1376, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anihpc.2017.11.007. Search in Google Scholar

[16] L. Boccardo, Some new results about Mosco convergence, J. Convex Anal. 28 (2021), no. 2, 387–394. Search in Google Scholar

[17] L. Brasco, E. Parini, and M. Squassina, Stability of variational eigenvalues for the fractional p-Laplacian, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 36 (2016), no. 4, 1813–1845, https://doi.org/10.3934/dcds.2016.36.1813. Search in Google Scholar

[18] H. Brézis, Equations et inéquations non linéaires dans les espaces vectoriels en dualité, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 18 (1968), fasc. 1, 115–175, https://doi.org/10.5802/aif.280. Search in Google Scholar

[19] F. E. Browder, Pseudo-monotone operators and nonlinear elliptic boundary value problems on unbounded domains, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 74 (1977), no. 7, 2659–2661, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.74.7.265. Search in Google Scholar

[20] C. Bucur and E. Valdinoci, Nonlocal diffusion and applications, volume 20 of Lecture Notes of the Unione Matematica Italiana, Springer, Cham; Unione Matematica Italiana, Bologna, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28739-3. Search in Google Scholar

[21] A.-P. Calderón, Lebesgue spaces of differentiable functions and distributions, In: Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. IV, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1961, pp. 33–49, 10.1090/pspum/004/0143037. Search in Google Scholar

[22] P. Campos, Lions-Calderón spaces and applications to nonlinear fractional partial differential equations, Master’s thesis, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, 2021, https://repositorio.ul.pt/handle/10451/52753. Search in Google Scholar

[23] P. M. Campos and J. F. Rodrigues, On fractional and classical hyperbolic obstacle-type problems, Discr. Contin. Dyn. Syst. S. 16 (2023), no. 12, 3813–3836, https://doi.org/10.3934/dcdss.2023164. Search in Google Scholar

[24] G. E. Comi and G. Stefani, A distributional approach to fractional Sobolev spaces and fractional variation: existence of blow-up, J. Funct. Anal. 277 (2019), no. 10, 3373–3435, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfa.2019.03.011. Search in Google Scholar

[25] G. E. Comi and G. Stefani, A distributional approach to fractional Sobolev spaces and fractional variation: asymptotics I, Revista Matemática Complutense 36 (2022), 1–79, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13163-022-00429-y. Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[26] E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci, and E. Valdinoci, Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces, Bull. Sci. Math. 136 (2012), no. 5, 521–573, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bulsci.2011.12.004. Search in Google Scholar

[27] F. del Teso, D. Gómez-Castro, and J. L. Vázquez, Estimates on translations and Taylor expansions in fractional Sobolev spaces, Nonlinear Anal. 200 (2020), 111995, 12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2020.111995. Search in Google Scholar

[28] F. del Teso, D. Gómez-Castro, and J. L. Vázquez, Three representations of the fractional p-Laplacian: semigroup, extension and Balakrishnan formulas, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 24 (2021), no. 4, 966–1002, https://doi.org/10.1515/fca-2021-0042. Search in Google Scholar

[29] D. E. Edmunds and W. D. Evans, Fractional Sobolev spaces and inequalities, volume 230 of Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009254625. Search in Google Scholar

[30] P. A. Feulefack, S. Jarohs, and T. Weth, Small order asymptotics of the Dirichlet eigenvalue problem for the fractional Laplacian. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 28 (2022), no. 2, Paper No. 18, 44, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00041-022-09908-8. Search in Google Scholar

[31] J. Gwinner, B. Jadamba, A. A. Khan, and F. Raciti, Uncertainty quantification in variational inequalities–theory, numerics, and applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2022. 10.1201/9781315228969Search in Google Scholar

[32] L. Grafakos, Classical Fourier analysis, third edition, volume 249 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1194-3. Search in Google Scholar

[33] L. Grafakos, Modern Fourier analysis, volume 250 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics, third edition, Springer, New York, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1230-8. Search in Google Scholar

[34] J. Horváth, On some composition formulas, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 10 (1959), 433–437, https://doi.org/10.2307/2032862. Search in Google Scholar

[35] D. Jerison and C. E. Kenig, The inhomogeneous Dirichlet problem in Lipschitz domains, J. Funct. Anal. 130 (1995), no. 1, 161–219, https://doi.org/10.1006/jfan.1995.1067. Search in Google Scholar

[36] J.-L. Joly and U. Mosco, à propos de laexistence et de la régularité des solutions de certaines inéquations quasi-variationnelles, J. Functional Analysis 34 (1979), no. 1, 107–137, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1236(79)90028-4. Search in Google Scholar

[37] R. I. Kachurovskii, Monotone operators and convex functionals, Uspekhi Matematicheskikh Nauk 15 (1960), no. 4, 213–215. Search in Google Scholar

[38] R. Kano, N. Kenmochi, and Y. Murase, Existence theorems for elliptic quasi-variational inequalities in Banach spaces, In: Recent Advances in Nonlinear Analysis, World Scientific Publications, Hackensack, NJ, 2008, pp. 149–169, https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812709257_0010. Search in Google Scholar

[39] C. Kreisbeck and H. Schönberger, Quasiconvexity in the fractional calculus of variations: characterization of lower semicontinuity and relaxation, Nonlinear Anal. 215 (2022), Paper No. 112625, 26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2021.112625. Search in Google Scholar

[40] T. Kurokawa, On the Riesz and Bessel kernels as approximations of the identity, Sci. Rep. Kagoshima Univ. 30 (1981), 31–45. Search in Google Scholar

[41] M. Kwaśnicki, Ten equivalent definitions of the fractional Laplace operator, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 20 (2017), no. 1, 7–51, https://doi.org/10.1515/fca-2017-0002. Search in Google Scholar

[42] J.-L. Lions, Une construction d espaces d interpolation, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 251 (1960), 1853–1855. Search in Google Scholar

[43] J.-L. Lions, Quelques méthodes de résolution des problèmes aux limites non linéaires, Dunod, Paris; Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1969. Search in Google Scholar

[44] J.-L. Lions and E. Magenes, Problemi ai limiti non omogenei (iii), Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa-Classe di Scienze 15 (1961), no. 1–2, 41–103. Search in Google Scholar

[45] R. Landes and V. Mustonen, On pseudomonotone operators and nonlinear noncoercive variational problems on unbounded domains, Math. Ann. 248 (1980), no. 3, 241–246, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01420527. Search in Google Scholar

[46] F. Linares and G. Ponce, Introduction to nonlinear dispersive equations, second edition, Universitext. Springer, New York, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2181-2. Search in Google Scholar

[47] C. W. K. Lo and J. F. Rodrigues, On a class of nonlocal obstacle type problems related to the distributional Riesz fractional derivative, Port. Math. 80 (2023), no. 1/2, 157–205, 10.4171/PM/2100. Search in Google Scholar

[48] C. W. K. Lo and J. F. Rodrigues, On an anisotropic fractional Stefan-type problem with Dirichlet boundary conditions, Math. Eng. 5 (2023), no. 3, Paper No. 47, 38, 10.3934/mine.2023047. Search in Google Scholar

[49] G. Molica Bisci, V. D. Radulescu, and R. Servadei, Variational methods for nonlocal fractional problems, volume 162 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316282397. Search in Google Scholar

[50] G. J. Minty, Monotone (nonlinear) operators in Hilbert space, Duke Math. J. 29 (1962), 341–346, 10.1215/S0012-7094-62-02933-2. Search in Google Scholar

[51] U. Mosco, Convergence of convex sets and of solutions of variational inequalities, Adv. Math. 3 (1969), 510–585, https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8708(69)90009-7. Search in Google Scholar

[52] U. Mosco, Implicit variational problems and quasi variational inequalities, In: Nonlinear operators and the calculus of variations (Summer School, Univ. Libre Bruxelles, Brussels, 1975), Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 543, Springer, Berlin-New York, 1976, pp. 83–156, https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0079943. Search in Google Scholar

[53] A. C. Ponce. Elliptic PDEs, measures and capacities, volume 23 of EMS Tracts in Mathematics. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2016, 10.4171/140. Search in Google Scholar

[54] J. F. Rodrigues, Obstacle problems in mathematical physics, volume 134 of North-Holland Mathematics Studies, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1987. Search in Google Scholar

[55] T. Roubíček, Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations with Applications, volume 153 of Int. Series Numerical Mathematics, 2nd edition, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-0513-1. Search in Google Scholar

[56] J. F. Rodrigues and L. Santos, On nonlocal variational and quasi-variational inequalities with fractional gradient, Appl. Math. Optim. 80 (2019), no. 3, 835–852, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00245-019-09610-0. Search in Google Scholar

[57] J. F. Rodrigues and L. Santos, Variational and quasi-variational inequalities with gradient type constraints, In: Topics in Applied Aanalysis and Optimisation-Partial Differential Equations, Stochastic and Numerical Analysis, CIM Ser. Math. Sci., Springer, Cham, 2019, pp. 319–361, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33116-0_13. Search in Google Scholar

[58] H. M. J. Schönberger, Characterization of Lower Semicontinuity and Relaxation of Fractional Integral and Supremal Functionals, Master’s thesis, Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, 2021, https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/41293. Search in Google Scholar

[59] S. A. Silling, M. Epton, O. Weckner, J. Xu, and E. Askari, Peridynamic states and constitutive modeling, J. Elasticity 88 (2007), no. 2, 151–184, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10659-007-9125-1. Search in Google Scholar

[60] R. E. Showalter, Monotone Operators in Banach Space and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations, volume 49 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1090/surv/049. Search in Google Scholar

[61] S. A. Silling, Reformulation of elasticity theory for discontinuities and long-range forces, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 48 (2000), no. 1, 175–209, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5096(99)00029-0. Search in Google Scholar

[62] J. Simon, Régularité de la solution d’un problème aux limites non linéaires, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (5) 3 (1982), no. 3–4, 247–274, https://doi.org/10.5802/afst.569. Search in Google Scholar

[63] S. L. Sobolev and S. M. Nikol’skii, Embedding theorems, In: Amer. Math. Soc. Trans. (2), 1970, pp. 147–173, Translation of Proc. 4th All-Union Math. Congr. (Leningrad, 1961), Vol. I, pp. 227–242. Izdat. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Leningrad, 1963. Search in Google Scholar

[64] T.-T. Shieh and D. E. Spector, On a new class of fractional partial differential equations, Adv. Calc. Var. 8 (2015), no. 4, 321–336, https://doi.org/10.1515/acv-2014-0009. Search in Google Scholar

[65] T.-T. Shieh and D. E. Spector, On a new class of fractional partial differential equations II, Adv. Calc. Var. 11 (2018), no. 3, 289–307, https://doi.org/10.1515/acv-2016-0056. Search in Google Scholar

[66] A. Schikorra, T.-T. Shieh, and D. E. Spector, Regularity for a fractional p-Laplace equation, Commun. Contemp. Math. 20 (2018), no. 1, 1750003, 6, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219199717500031. Search in Google Scholar

[67] E. M. Stein, Singular integrals and differentiability properties of functions, Princeton Mathematical Series, No. 30, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J, 1970, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1bpmb07. Search in Google Scholar

[68] R. Strichartz, Multipliers on fractional Sobolev spaces, J. Math. Mech 16 (1967), 1031–1060, https://www.jstor.org/stable/45277132. 10.1512/iumj.1967.16.16068Search in Google Scholar

[69] M. Šilhavý, Beyond fractional laplacean: fractional gradient and divergence, 2016, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295095188_Beyond_fractional_laplaceanfractional_gradient_and_divergence. Search in Google Scholar

[70] M. Šilhavý, Fractional vector analysis based on invariance requirements (critique of coordinate approaches), Contin. Mech. Thermodyn. 32 (2020), no. 1, 207–228, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00161-019-00797-9. Search in Google Scholar

[71] H. Triebel, Theory of function spaces, volume 78 of Monographs in Mathematics, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1983. 10.1007/978-3-0346-0416-1Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-12-18
Revised: 2025-03-07
Accepted: 2025-03-31
Published Online: 2025-09-04

© 2025 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. Research Articles
  2. Incompressible limit for the compressible viscoelastic fluids in critical space
  3. Concentrating solutions for double critical fractional Schrödinger-Poisson system with p-Laplacian in ℝ3
  4. Intervals of bifurcation points for semilinear elliptic problems
  5. On multiplicity of solutions to nonlinear Dirac equation with local super-quadratic growth
  6. Entire radial bounded solutions for Leray-Lions equations of (p, q)-type
  7. Combinatorial pth Calabi flows for total geodesic curvatures in spherical background geometry
  8. Sharp upper bounds for the capacity in the hyperbolic and Euclidean spaces
  9. Positive solutions for asymptotically linear Schrödinger equation on hyperbolic space
  10. Existence and non-degeneracy of the normalized spike solutions to the fractional Schrödinger equations
  11. Existence results for non-coercive problems
  12. Ground states for Schrödinger-Poisson system with zero mass and the Coulomb critical exponent
  13. Geometric characterization of generalized Hajłasz-Sobolev embedding domains
  14. Subharmonic solutions of first-order Hamiltonian systems
  15. Sharp asymptotic expansions of entire large solutions to a class of k-Hessian equations with weights
  16. Stability of pyramidal traveling fronts in time-periodic reaction–diffusion equations with degenerate monostable and ignition nonlinearities
  17. Ground-state solutions for fractional Kirchhoff-Choquard equations with critical growth
  18. Existence results of variable exponent double-phase multivalued elliptic inequalities with logarithmic perturbation and convections
  19. Homoclinic solutions in periodic partial difference equations
  20. Classical solution for compressible Navier-Stokes-Korteweg equations with zero sound speed
  21. Properties of minimizers for L2-subcritical Kirchhoff energy functionals
  22. Asymptotic behavior of global mild solutions to the Keller-Segel-Navier-Stokes system in Lorentz spaces
  23. Blow-up solutions to the Hartree-Fock type Schrödinger equation with the critical rotational speed
  24. Qualitative properties of solutions for dual fractional parabolic equations involving nonlocal Monge-Ampère operator
  25. Regularity for double-phase functionals with nearly linear growth and two modulating coefficients
  26. Uniform boundedness and compactness for the commutator of an extension of Riesz transform on stratified Lie groups
  27. Normalized solutions to nonlinear Schrödinger equations with mixed fractional Laplacians
  28. Existence of positive radial solutions of general quasilinear elliptic systems
  29. Low Mach number and non-resistive limit of magnetohydrodynamic equations with large temperature variations in general bounded domains
  30. Sharp viscous shock waves for relaxation model with degeneracy
  31. Bifurcation and multiplicity results for critical problems involving the p-Grushin operator
  32. Asymptotic behavior of solutions of a free boundary model with seasonal succession and impulsive harvesting
  33. Blowing-up solutions concentrated along minimal submanifolds for some supercritical Hamiltonian systems on Riemannian manifolds
  34. Stability of rarefaction wave for relaxed compressible Navier-Stokes equations with density-dependent viscosity
  35. Singularity for the macroscopic production model with Chaplygin gas
  36. Global strong solution of compressible flow with spherically symmetric data and density-dependent viscosities
  37. Global dynamics of population-toxicant models with nonlocal dispersals
  38. α-Mean curvature flow of non-compact complete convex hypersurfaces and the evolution of level sets
  39. High-energy solutions for coupled Schrödinger systems with critical growth and lack of compactness
  40. On the structure and lifespan of smooth solutions for the two-dimensional hyperbolic geometric flow equation
  41. Well-posedness for physical vacuum free boundary problem of compressible Euler equations with time-dependent damping
  42. On the existence of solutions of infinite systems of Volterra-Hammerstein-Stieltjes integral equations
  43. Remark on the analyticity of the fractional Fokker-Planck equation
  44. Continuous dependence on initial data for damped fourth-order wave equation with strain term
  45. Unilateral problems for quasilinear operators with fractional Riesz gradients
  46. Boundedness of solutions to quasilinear elliptic systems
  47. Existence of positive solutions for critical p-Laplacian equation with critical Neumann boundary condition
  48. Non-local diffusion and pulse intervention in a faecal-oral model with moving infected fronts
  49. Nonsmooth analysis of doubly nonlinear second-order evolution equations with nonconvex energy functionals
  50. Qualitative properties of solutions to the viscoelastic beam equation with damping and logarithmic nonlinear source terms
  51. Shape of extremal functions for weighted Sobolev-type inequalities
  52. One-dimensional boundary blow up problem with a nonlocal term
  53. Doubling measure and regularity to K-quasiminimizers of double-phase energy
  54. General solutions of weakly delayed discrete systems in 3D
  55. Global well-posedness of a nonlinear Boussinesq-fluid-structure interaction system with large initial data
  56. Optimal large time behavior of the 3D rate type viscoelastic fluids
  57. Local well-posedness for the two-component Benjamin-Ono equation
  58. Self-similar blow-up solutions of the four-dimensional Schrödinger-Wave system
  59. Existence and stability of traveling waves in a Keller-Segel system with nonlinear stimulation
  60. Existence and multiplicity of solutions for a class of superlinear p-Laplacian equations
  61. On the global large regular solutions of the 1D degenerate compressible Navier-Stokes equations
  62. Normal forms of piecewise-smooth monodromic systems
  63. Fractional Dirichlet problems with singular and non-locally convective reaction
  64. Sharp forced waves of degenerate diffusion equations in shifting environments
  65. Global boundedness and stability of a quasilinear two-species chemotaxis-competition model with nonlinear sensitivities
  66. Non-existence, radial symmetry, monotonicity, and Liouville theorem of master equations with fractional p-Laplacian
  67. Global existence, asymptotic behavior, and finite time blow up of solutions for a class of generalized thermoelastic system with p-Laplacian
  68. Formation of singularities for a linearly degenerate hyperbolic system arising in magnetohydrodynamics
  69. Linear stability and bifurcation analysis for a free boundary problem arising in a double-layered tumor model
  70. Hopf's lemma, asymptotic radial symmetry, and monotonicity of solutions to the logarithmic Laplacian parabolic system
  71. Generalized quasi-linear fractional Wentzell problems
  72. Existence, symmetry, and regularity of ground states of a nonlinear Choquard equation in the hyperbolic space
  73. Review Article
  74. Existence and stability of contact discontinuities to piston problems
Downloaded on 7.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/anona-2025-0084/html
Scroll to top button