Abstract
We consider a parametric nonlinear, nonhomogeneous Dirichlet problem driven by the (p, q)-Laplacian with a reaction involving a singular term plus a superlinear reaction which does not satisfy the Ambrosetti–Rabinowitz condition. The main goal of the paper is to look for positive solutions and our approach is based on the use of variational tools combined with suitable truncations and comparison techniques. We prove a bifurcation-type theorem describing in a precise way the dependence of the set of positive solutions on the parameter \(\lambda \). Moreover, we produce minimal positive solutions and determine the monotonicity and continuity properties of the minimal positive solution map.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Let \(\Omega \subseteq \mathbb {R}^{N}\) be a bounded domain with a \(C^{2}\)-boundary \(\partial \Omega \). In this paper, we study the following singular eigenvalue problem for the Dirichlet (p, q)-Laplacian
with \(\lambda >0\), \(0<\eta <1\) and \(1<q<p\).
For \(r\in (1,\infty )\), by \(\Delta _{r}\) we denote the r-Laplace differential operator defined by
In \((P_{\lambda })\), we have the sum of two such operators. So, in problem \((P_{\lambda })\), the differential operator is nonhomogeneous and this is a source of difficulties in the study of \((P_{\lambda })\). Boundary value problems driven by a combination of two or more operators of different nature [(such as (p, q)-equations], arise in many mathematical models of physical processes. One of the first such models was introduced by Cahn-Hilliard [6] describing the process of separation of binary alloys. Other applications can be found in Zakharov [36] (on plasma physics), in Benci-D’Avenia-Fortunato-Pisani [4] (on quantum physics), in Cherfils-Il’Yasov [7] (on reaction-diffusion systems) and in Bahrouni-Rǎdulescu-Repovš [2] (on transonic flow problems).
In the reaction of \((P_{\lambda })\), \(\lambda >0\) is a parameter, \(u\mapsto u^{-\eta }\) with \(0<\eta <1\) is a singular term and f(z, x) is a Carathéodory perturbation (that is, for all \(x\in \mathbb {R}, z\mapsto f(z,x)\) is measurable on \(\Omega \) and for a.a \(z\in \Omega \), \(x\mapsto f(z,x)\) is continuous). We assume that for a.a \(z\in \Omega \), \(f(z,\cdot )\) is \((p-1)\)-superlinear near \(+\infty \). However, this superlinearity of the perturbation \(f(z,\cdot )\) is not formulated using the very common in the literature Ambrosetti–Rabinowitz condition (the AR-condition, for short), see Ref. [1]. Instead, we employ a less restrictive condition which incorporates in our framework also superlinear nonlinearities with ”slower” growth near \(+\infty \) which fail to satisfy the AR-condition. The main goal of the paper is to explore the existence of a positive solution to \((P_{\lambda })\). Using variational tools from the critical point theory together with truncations and comparison techniques, we show that \((P_{\lambda })\) has a continuous spectrum. More precisely, we prove a bifurcation-type theorem, producing a critical parameter value \(\lambda ^{*}>0\) such that
-
for all \(\lambda \in (0,\lambda ^{*})\), problem \((P_{\lambda })\) has at least two positive solutions;
-
for \(\lambda =\lambda ^{*}\), problem \((P_{\lambda })\) has at least one positive solution;
-
for all \(\lambda > \lambda ^{*}\), problem \((P_{\lambda })\) has no positive solution.
Moreover, we show that for every \(\lambda \in \mathcal {L}:=(0,\lambda ^{*}]\) problem \((P_{\lambda })\) admits a minimal positive solution \(u^{*}_{\lambda }\), and establish the monotonicity and continuity properties of the map \(\lambda \mapsto u^{*}_{\lambda }\).
Our work here extends that of Lü-Xie [25], who considered equations driven by the p-Laplacian only and \(f(z,x)=x^{r-1}\) with \(p<r<p^{*}\) (recall \( p^{*}= \left\{ \begin{array}{lll} \frac{Np}{N-p}&{} \hbox { if} \ p<N,\\ +\infty &{}\hbox { if} \ N\le p. \end{array}\right. \) the critical Sobolev exponent corresponding to p). In [25], the authors did not prove the precise dependence of the set of positive solutions on the parameter \(\lambda >0\), that is, they did not prove a bifurcation-type theorem as described above and they did not produce the minimum positive solution.
Other type of eigenvalue problems for the (p, q)-Laplacian, but with no singular terms, can be found in Bobkov-Tanaka [5], Papageorgiou-Rǎdulescu-Repovš [27], Papageorgiou-Vetro-Vetro [31], Tanaka [35], Zeng-Bai-Gasiński-Winkert [37, 38] and the references therein. Elliptic problems with singular terms can be found in Ghergu-Rǎdulescu [15], Crandall-Rabinowitz-Tartar [9], Papageorgiou-Winkert [32], Bartušek-Fujimoto [3], Gasiński-Papageorgiou [14], Cîrstea-Ghergu-Rădulescu [8], Liu-Motreanu-Zeng [24], Dupaigne-Ghergu-Rădulescu [11], Papageorgiou-Vetro-Vetro [33]. A more detailed bibliography can be found in the book of Ghergu-Rădulescu [18].
2 Mathematical background, hypotheses and auxiliary results
The main spaces that will be used in the analysis of problem \((P_{\lambda })\) are the Sobolev space \(W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) and the Banach space \(C^{1}_{0}(\overline{\Omega })=\left\{ u\in C^{1}(\overline{\Omega })\,\mid \,u\big |_{\partial \Omega }=0\right\} \). By \(\Vert \cdot \Vert \) we denote the norm of the Sobolev space \(W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\). On account of the Poincaré inequality, we have
The Banach space \(C^{1}_{0}(\overline{\Omega })\) is ordered with positive (order) cone
which has nonempty interior given by
with \(n(\cdot )\) being the outward unit normal on \(\partial \Omega \). We will also use another open cone in \(C^{1}(\overline{\Omega })\), namely, the cone
Given \(u,v\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) with \(u\le v\), we set
For \(x\in \mathbb {R}\), we set \(x^{\pm }= \max \ \{\pm x,0\}\). Then, for \(u\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\), we define \(u^{\pm }(z)=u(z)^{\pm }\) for all \(z\in \Omega \). We know that
We say that \(S\subseteq W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) is ”downward directed”, if for every pair \((u_{1}, u_{2})\in S\times S\), we can find \(u\in S\) such that \(u\le u_{1}\) and \(u\le u_{2}\). Given \(h_{1}, h_{2}\in L^{\infty }(\Omega )\), we write \(h_{1}\prec h_{2}\), if for each \(K \subseteq \Omega \) compact there exists a constant \(c_K>0\) such that
It is obvious that if \(h_{1}, h_{2}\in C(\Omega )\) and \( h_{1}(z)<h_{2}(z)\) for all \(z\in \Omega \), then \(h_{1}\prec h_{2}\).
With X a Banach space and \(\varphi \in C^{1}(X, \mathbb {R})\), we say that \(\varphi (\cdot )\) satisfies the ”C-condition”, if the following property holds:
-
every sequence \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\ge 1}\subseteq X \) such that
$$\begin{aligned} \{\varphi (u_{n})\}_{n\ge 1}\subseteq \mathbb {R}\hbox { is bounded and } (1+\Vert u_{n}\Vert )\varphi '(u_n)\rightarrow 0 \hbox { in } X^{*} \hbox { as } n\rightarrow \infty , \end{aligned}$$admits a strongly convergent subsequence.
Also by \(K_{\varphi }\) we denote the critical set of \(\varphi (\cdot )\), that is, \(K_{\varphi }=\{u\in X\,\mid \, \varphi '(u)=0\}\).
For every \(r\in (1,\infty )\), by \(A_{r}:W^{1,r}_{0}(\Omega )\rightarrow W^{1,r}_{0}(\Omega )^{*}=W^{-1,r'}(\Omega ) \) \((\frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{r'}=1)\) we denote the nonlinear map defined by
The following properties of \(A_{r}(\cdot )\) are well-known (see for example, Gasiński-Papageorgiou [13], Problem 2.192, p. 279).
Proposition 1
The map \(A_{r}:W^{1,r}_{0}(\Omega )\rightarrow W^{-1,r'}(\Omega ) \) is bounded (that is, maps bounded sets to bounded sets), continuous, strictly monotone (hence maximal monotone too) and type \((S)_{+}\), that is,
The hypotheses on the perturbation f(z, x) are following:
\(\underline{H}\): \(f:\Omega \times \mathbb {R}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is a Carathéodory function such that \(f(z,0)=0\) for a.a \(z\in \Omega \) and
-
(i)
\(f(z,x)\le \alpha (z) [1+x^{r-1}]\) for a.a \(z\in \Omega \), all \(x\ge 0\), with \(\alpha \in L^{\infty }(\Omega )_+\) and \(p<r<p^{*}\);
-
(ii)
if \(F(z,x)=\int ^{x}_{0}f(z,s)\,ds\), then \(\lim _{x\rightarrow +\infty } \frac{F(z,x)}{x^{p}}=+\infty \) uniformly for a.a \(z\in \Omega \);
-
(iii)
if \(e(z,x)=\left[ 1-\frac{p}{1-\eta }\right] x^{1-\eta }+f(z,x)x-pF(z,x)\), then there exists \(\beta \in L^{1}(\Omega )_+\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} e(z,x)\le e(z,y)+\beta (z)\ \ \hbox { for a.a}\ \ z\in \Omega , \ \ \hbox { all}\ \ 0\le x \le y; \end{aligned}$$ -
(iv)
there exist \(\delta > 0\) and \(\tau \in (1,q)\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} c_{0}x^{\tau -1}\le f(z,x) \hbox { for a.a } z\in \Omega , \hbox { all } x\in [0,\delta ], \hbox { with } c_{0}>0, \end{aligned}$$and for all \(s>0\), we have
$$\begin{aligned} 0< m_{s}\le f(z,x) \hbox { for a.a } z\in \Omega , \hbox { all } x\ge s; \end{aligned}$$ -
(v)
for every \(\rho >0\), there exists \(\widehat{E}_{\rho }> 0\) such that for a.a \(z\in \Omega \), the function
$$\begin{aligned} x\mapsto f(z,x)+\widehat{E}_{\rho }x^{p-1} \end{aligned}$$is nondecreasing on \([0,\rho ]\).
Remark 2
Since our goal is to find positive solutions for problem \((P_{\lambda })\) and all the above hypotheses concern the positive semiaxis \(\mathbb {R}_{+}=[0,+\infty )\), without any loss of generality, we may assume that
Hypotheses H(ii) and (iii) imply that
that is, for a.a \(z\in \Omega \) the perturbation \(f(z,\cdot )\) is \((p-1)\)-superlinear. Often in the literature superlinear problems are treated by using the AR-condition. In our case, on account of (1), we will state a unilateral version of this condition. According to the AR-condition, there exist \(\mu > p\) and \(M>0\) such that
(see Ambrosetti–Rabinowitz [1]). Integrating (2) and using (3), we obtain the following weaker condition
So, the AR-condition restricts \(f(z,\cdot )\) to have at least \((\mu -1)\)-polynomial growth near \(+\infty \). In contrast, the quasimonotonicity condition that we use in this work (see hypothesis H(iii)), does not impose such a restriction on the growth of \(f(z,\cdot )\) and permits also the consideration of superlinear nonlinearities with slower growth near \(+\infty \) (see the examples below). Besides, hypothesis H(iii) is a slight extension of a condition used by Li-Yang[23]. There are convenient ways to verify H(iii). So, the hypothesis H(iii) holds, if we can find \(M>0\) such that for a.a \(z\in \Omega \)
Hypothesis H(iv) implies the presence of a concave term near zero, while hypothesis H(v) is a one sided local Hölder condition. It is satisfied, if for a.a \(x\in \Omega \), \(f(z,\cdot )\) is differentiable and for every \(\rho >0\) we can find \(\widehat{c}_{\rho }> 0\) such that
Example 3
Consider the following functions (for the sake of simplicity, we drop the z-dependence):
(see (1)). Both functions satisfy hypotheses H, but only \(f_{1}(\cdot )\) satisfies the AR-condition.
As always by a solution of problem \((P_\lambda )\), we mean a ”weak solution”, namely, a function \(u\in W_0^{1,p}(\Omega )\) such that \(u^{-\eta }h\in L^1(\Omega )\) for all \(h\in W_0^{1,p}(\Omega )\) and
The difficulty that we encounter in the analysis of problem \((P_{\lambda })\) is that the energy (Euler) function of the problem \(\varphi _{\lambda }:W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) defined by
for all \(u\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\), is not \(C^{1}\) (due to the singular term). So, we can not use the minimax methods of critical point theory directly on \(\varphi _{\lambda }(\cdot )\). We have to find ways to bypass the singularity and to deal with \(C^{1}\)-functionals.
On account of hypotheses H(i) and (iv), we can find \(c_{2}>0\) such that
This unilateral growth estimate on \(f(z,\cdot )\) leads to the following auxiliary Dirichlet (p, q)-equation
with \(\lambda >0\) and \(1<\tau<q<p<r<p^*\).
Proposition 4
For every \(\lambda >0\), problem \((Q_{\lambda })\) admits a unique positive solution \(\underline{u}_{\lambda }\in \mathrm {int} C_{+}\) and \(\underline{u}_{\lambda }\rightarrow 0\) in \( C^{1}_{0}(\overline{\Omega })\ \hbox { as}\ \lambda \rightarrow 0^{+}\).
Proof
First we prove the existence of a positive solution. To this end, let \(\psi _{\lambda }:W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) \(\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be the \(C^{1}\)-functional defined by
Since \(1<\tau<q<p<r\), it is clear that \(\psi _{\lambda }(\cdot )\) is coercive. Also using the Sobolev embedding theorem, we see that \(\psi _{\lambda }(\cdot )\) is sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous. So, by the Weierstrass-Tonelli theorem, we can find \(\underline{u}_{\lambda }\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) such that
Recall that \(1<\tau<q<p<r\), if \(u\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) and \(t\in (0,1)\) is small, we have
Using (5) again, we have
i.e.,
for all \(h\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\). In (6), we choose \(h=\underline{u}^{-}_{\lambda }\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\). Then
Therefore, it holds
But, Theorem 7.1, p. 286, of Ladyzhenskaya-Ural’tseva [20] implies that \(\underline{u}_{\lambda }\in L^{\infty }(\Omega )\). Then, the nonlinear regularity theory of Lieberman [22] says that \(\underline{u}_{\lambda } \in C_{+}\setminus \{0\}\). Moreover, from (7) we have
Hence, the nonlinear maximum principle of Pucci-Seerin [34] (pp. 111, 120) implies that \(\underline{u}_{\lambda }\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\).
Next we show the uniqueness of this positive solution. Suppose that \(\underline{\hat{u}}_{\lambda }\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) is another positive solution of \((Q_{\lambda })\). As above, we show that \(\underline{\hat{u}}_{\lambda }\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\). We introduce the integral functional \(j:L^{1}(\Omega )\rightarrow \overline{\mathbb {R}}=\mathbb {R}\cup \{+\infty \}\) defined by
From Lemma 1 (and its proof) of Diaz-Saa [10], we have that the integral functional \(j(\cdot )\) is convex (recall that \(1<\tau<q<p\)).
Let dom\(j=\{u\in L^{1}(\Omega )\,\mid \,j(u)<+\infty \}\) (the effective domain of \(j(\cdot )\)). We let \(h=\underline{u}_{\lambda }^{\tau }-\hat{\underline{u}}^{\tau }_{\lambda }\in C^{1}_{0}(\overline{\Omega })\). Since \(\underline{u}_{\lambda },\hat{\underline{u}}_{\lambda }\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\), for \(|t|<1\) small, we have
(see Papageorgrou-Radulescu-Repovs [28], Proposition 4.1.22, p. 274). Then we have the Gâteaux differentiability of \(j(\cdot )\) at \(\underline{u}^{\tau }_{\lambda }\) and at \(\hat{\underline{u}}^{\tau }_{\lambda }\) in the direction h, respectively. Moreover, using the nonlinear Green’s identity (see Papageorgrou-Rǎdulescu-Repovš [28], Corollary 1.5.17, p. 35), we have
Whereas, the convexity of \(j(\cdot )\) implies the monotonicity of \(j'(\cdot )\). So, we have
This proves the uniqueness of the positive solution \(\underline{u}_{\lambda }\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) of problem \((Q_{\lambda })\).
For every \(\lambda >0\), we have
Then, the nonlinear regularity theorem of Lieberman [22] and the compact embedding of \(C^{1,\alpha }_{0}(\overline{\Omega }):=C^{1,\alpha }(\overline{\Omega })\bigcap C^{1}_{0}(\overline{\Omega })\) \( (0<\alpha <1)\) into \(C^{1}_{0}(\overline{\Omega })\), imply that
This completes the proof of the proposition. \(\square \)
Next we consider another auxiliary Dirichlet problem
with \(\lambda >0\), \(0<\eta <1\) and \(1<q<p\).
Proposition 5
For every \(\lambda >0\), problem \((N_{\lambda })\) has a unique solution \(\overline{u}_{\lambda }\in \mathrm{int}C_{+}\) and we can find \(\lambda _{0}>0\) such that for all \(\lambda \in (0,\lambda _{0}]\) it holds
Proof
Let \(\hat{d}(z)=d(z,\partial \Omega )\) for all \(z\in \overline{\Omega }\). Lemma 14.16, p. 335, of Gilbarg-Trudinger [17] says that we can find \(\delta _{0}>0\) such that \(\hat{d}\in C^{2}(\Omega _{\delta _{0}})\) with \(\Omega _{\delta _{0}}=\{z\in \overline{\Omega }\,\mid \,\hat{d}(z)<\delta _{0}\}\). It follows that \(\hat{d}\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) and so by Proposition 4.1.22, p. 274 of Papageorgiou-Rǎdulescu-Repovš [28], we can find \(c_{3}=c_{3}(\underline{u}_{\lambda })>0\) and \(c_{4}=c_{4}(\underline{u}_{\lambda })>0\) such that
Then we can apply Theorem B.1 of Giacomoni-Saoudi [16] (see also Lieberman [22]) to produce a unique solution \(\overline{u}_{\lambda }\in C_{+}\setminus \{0\}\) to problem \((N_{\lambda })\). In fact the nonlinear maximum principle of Pucci-Serern [34] (pp. 111, 120) implies that \(\overline{u}_{\lambda }\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\).
Next we show that there exists \(\lambda _{0}>0\) such that for all \(0<\lambda \le \lambda _{0}\), we have \(\underline{u}_{\lambda }\le \overline{u}_{\lambda }\). Acting on \((N_{\lambda })\) with \(\overline{u}_{\lambda }\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\), we obtain
So, we have \(\{\overline{u}_{\lambda }\}_{\lambda \in (0,1]}\subseteq W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) is bounded. Then, from [12] and Lemma A.6 of Giacommoni-Sooudi [16] (see also Ladyzhenskaya-Ural’tseva [20] Theorem 7.1, p. 286), we obtain that
On account of (9) and hypothesis H(i), we can find \(\lambda _{0}\in (0,1]\) such that
Then, for \(\lambda \in (0,\lambda _{0}]\), we consider the Carathéodory function \(k_{\lambda }(z,x)\) defined by
We set \(K_{\lambda }(z,x)=\int ^{x}_{0}k_{\lambda }(z,s)\,ds\) and consider the \(C^{1}\)-functional \(\delta _{\lambda }:W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) defined by
Evidently \(\delta _{\lambda }(\cdot )\) is coercive (see (9)) and sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous. So, we can find \(\widetilde{u}_{\lambda }\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) such that
In (15), first, we choose \(h=-\tilde{u}^{-}_{\lambda }\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) to obtain \(\tilde{u}_{\lambda }\ge 0\) and \(\tilde{u}_{\lambda }\ne 0\) (see (14)). Next, in (15), we take \(h=[\tilde{u}_{\lambda }-\overline{u}_{\lambda }]^{+}\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) to find
So, we have proved that
From (11), (15), (16) and Proposition 4, we infer that
This completes the proof of the proposition. \(\square \)
Remark 6
From the above proof we have \(\underline{u}_{\lambda }^{-\eta }h\in L^1(\Omega )\) for all \(h\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\), while from the proof of the Lemma in Lazer-McKenna [21], we have that \(\underline{u}^{-\eta }_{\lambda }\in L^1(\Omega )\).
3 Positive solutions
We introduce the following two sets
and \(S_{\lambda }\) the set of positive solutions to problem \((P_{\lambda })\).
First, we show the nonemptiness of \(\mathcal {L}\).
Proposition 7
If hypotheses H hold, then \(\mathcal {L}\ne \varnothing \).
Proof
Let \(\lambda _{0}>0\) be as postulated by Proposition 5, and let \(\lambda \in (0,\lambda _{0}]\). We have
(see Proposition 5 and its proof). We introduce the following truncation of the reaction of the problem \((P_{\lambda })\)
This is a Carathéodory function. We set \(G_{\lambda }(z,x)=\int ^{x}_{0}g_{\lambda }(z,s)\,ds\) and consider the functional \(\hat{\varphi }_{\lambda }:W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) defined by
Then, \(\hat{\varphi }_{\lambda }\in C^{1}(W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega ),\mathbb {R})\) (see Papagerogiou-Smyrlis [30], Proposition 3). From (18), we see that \(\widehat{\varphi }_{\lambda }(\cdot )\) is coercive. Also it is sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous. So, we can find \(u_{\lambda }\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) such that
In (19), first, we choose \(h=(u_{\lambda }-\overline{u}_{\lambda })^{+}\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) to get
Next, in (19), we take \(h=(\underline{u}_{\lambda }-u_{\lambda })^{+}\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\). It finds
So, we have proved that
This completes the proof of the proposition. \(\square \)
Proposition 8
If hypotheses H hold and \(\lambda \in \mathcal {L}\), then \(\underline{u}_{\lambda }\le u\) for all \(u\in S_{\lambda }\) and \(S_{\lambda }\subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}\).
Proof
Let \(u\in S_{\lambda }\). Reasoning as in the last part of the proof of Proposition 5 (see the part of the proof from (11) and below), replacing \(\overline{u}_{\lambda }\) with u (see (11)), we show that \(\underline{u}_\lambda \le u\) for all \(u\in S_{\lambda }\). Finally, \(S_{\lambda }\subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) follows from [16] (Theorem B.1, regularity theory) and from [34] (pp. 111 and 120, nonlinear maximum principle). \(\square \)
Next, we prove a structural property of the set \(\mathcal {L}\), namely, we show that \(\mathcal {L}\) is an interval.
Proposition 9
If hypotheses H hold, \(\lambda \in \mathcal {L}\) and \(\mu \in (0,\lambda )\), then \(\mu \in \mathcal {L}\).
Proof
Since \(\lambda \in \mathcal {L}\), we can find \(u_{\lambda }\in S_{\lambda } \subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) (see Proposition 8). We consider the following Dirichlet problem
with \(0<\theta \le \lambda \) and \(1<\tau<q<p<r\). Reasoning as in the proof of Proposition 4, via the direct method of the calculus of variations, we show that for every \(\theta \in (0,\lambda ]\) problem \((H_{\theta })\) admits a unique solution \(\widetilde{u}_{\theta }\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) and also we have that \(\widetilde{u}^{-\eta }_{\theta }\in L^{1}(\Omega )\) (see [21]). In addition, if \(0<\theta _{1}<\theta _{2}\le \lambda \), then since \(\theta _{1}c_{0}x^{\tau -1}-\lambda c_{2}x^{r-1}\le \theta _{2}c_{0}x^{\tau -1} -\lambda c_{2}x^{r-1}\) for all \(x\ge 0\), we have that \(\widetilde{u}_{\theta _{1}}\le \widetilde{u}_{\theta _{2}}\). Note that \(\widetilde{u}_{\lambda }=\underline{u}_{\lambda }\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\), we have
Therefore, we can define the following truncation of the reaction in problem \((P_{\mu })\)
This is a Carathéodory function. We set \(\Gamma _{\mu }(z,x)=\int ^{x}_{0}\gamma _{\mu }(z,s)\,ds\) and consider the \(C^{1}\)-functional \( \Sigma _{p}:W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) defined by
From (20), it is clear that \(\Sigma _{\mu }(\cdot )\) is coercive and sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous. So, we can find \(u_{\mu }\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) such that
that is,
In (21), first, we choose \(h=(u_{\mu }-u_{\lambda })^{+}\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) to get
Next, in (21), we take \(h=(\widetilde{u}_{\mu }-u_{\mu })^{+}\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) to find
So, we have proved that
This completes the proof of the proposition. \(\square \)
Remark 10
The following observation is a byproduct of the above proof:
-
if \(\lambda \in \mathcal {L}, u_{\lambda }\in S_{\lambda }\subseteq \mathrm {int} C_{+}\) and \(0<\mu <\lambda \), then \(\mu \in \mathcal {L}\) and we can find \(u_{\mu }\in S_{\mu }\subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) such that
$$\begin{aligned} u_{\mu }\le u_{\lambda }. \end{aligned}$$
However, in the next proposition, we improve the observation.
Proposition 11
If hypotheses H hold, \(\lambda \in \mathcal {L}, u_{\lambda }\in S_{\lambda }\subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) and \(\mu <\lambda \), then \(\mu \in \mathcal {L}\) and we can find \(u_{\mu }\in S_{\mu }\subseteq \mathrm {int} C_{+}\) such that
Proof
From Proposition 9 and Remark 10, we know that \(\mu \in \mathcal {L}\) and we can find \(u_{\mu }\in S_{\mu }\subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) such that \(u_{\mu }\le u_{\lambda }\). Let \(\rho =\Vert u_{\lambda }\Vert _{\infty }\) and let \(\widehat{E}_{\rho }>0\) be as postulated by hypothesis H(v). We have
due to \(u_{\lambda }\in S_{\lambda }\subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}\). On account of condition H(iv), we have
Then, from (22) and Proposition 7 of Papageorgiou-Rǎdulescu-Repovš [29], we conclude that
This completes the proof of the proposition. \(\square \)
Let \(\lambda ^{*}=\text {sup}\mathcal {L}\). The following proposition reveals that \(\lambda ^*\) is finite.
Proposition 12
If hypotheses H hold, then \(\lambda ^{*}<+ \infty \).
Proof
On account of hypotheses H(i), (ii), (iii), we can find \(\widehat{\lambda }>0\) such that
Let \(\lambda >\widehat{\lambda }\) and suppose that \(\lambda \in \mathcal {L}\). Then, we can find \(u_{\lambda }\in S_{\lambda }\subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}\). Consider \(\Omega _{0}\subset \subset \Omega \) with \(C^{2}\)-boundary \(\partial \Omega _{0}\). We set \(m_{0}=\mathrm {min}_{\overline{\Omega }_0}u_{\lambda }>0\), and for \(\delta \in (0,1)\) small we set \(m^{\delta }_{0}=m_{0}+\delta \). Let \(\rho =\Vert u_{\lambda }\Vert _{\infty }\) and let \(\widehat{E}_{\rho }>0\) be as postulated by hypothesis H(v). We have
where we have used the hypotheses H(iv), (v) and the fact, \(\chi (\delta )\rightarrow 0^{+}\) as \(\delta \rightarrow 0^{+}\), i.e., for \(\delta \in (0,1)\) small enough, it has
Besides, it holds
Then, from (24) and Proposition 6 of Papageorgiou-Rǎdulescu-Repovš [29], we have that
which contradicts with the definition of \( m_{0}\). Consequently, it holds \(0<\lambda ^{*} \le \widehat{\lambda }<\infty \). \(\square \)
Therefore we have
Proposition 13
If hypotheses H hold and \(\lambda \in (0,\lambda ^{*})\), then problem \((P_{\lambda })\) has least two positive solutions
Proof
Let \(0<\lambda<\theta <\lambda ^{*}\). From (25), we have that \(\lambda , \theta \in \mathcal {L}\). On account of Proposition 11, we can find \(u_{0}\in S_{\lambda }\subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) and \(u_{\theta }\in S_{\theta }\subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) such that
From Proposition 8, we know that \(\underline{u}_{\lambda }\le u_{0}\), hence \(u_{0}^{-\eta }\in L^{1}(\Omega )\). Additionally, we introduce the Carathéodory function \(\widehat{w}_{\lambda }(z,x)\) defined by
We set \(\widehat{W}_{\lambda }(z,x)=\int ^{x}_{0}\widehat{w}_{\lambda }(z,s)\,ds\) and consider the \(C^{1}\)-functional \(\widehat{\mu }_{\lambda }:W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) defined by
In addition, we introduce another Carathéodory function \(w_{\lambda }(z,x)\) defined by
We set \(W_{\lambda }(z,x)=\int ^{x}_{0}w_{\lambda }(z,s)\,ds\) and consider the \(C^{1}\)-functional \(\mu _{\lambda }:W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) defined by
It is clear from (27) and (28) that
Moreover, using (27), (28) and the nonlinear regularity theory, we can show that
From (31), it is clear that we can assume that
Otherwise, we already have an infinity of positive smooth solutions of \((P_{\lambda })\) bigger than \(u_{0}\) (see (31) and (28)) and so we are done. In addition, we can also assume that
Otherwise, from (31) and (28), we see that there is a second positive smooth solution bigger than \(u_{0}\) and so we are done. From (27), it is clear that \(\widehat{\mu }_{\lambda }(\cdot )\) is coercive. Also, it is sequentially weakly lower semicontinuous. So, there exists \(\tilde{u}_{0}\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) such that
Then, (26) and (29) imply that
where we have used Proposition 2.12 of Papageorgiou-Rǎdulescu [26]. From (34), (30) and Theorem 5.7.6, p.449, of Papageorgiou-Rǎdulescu-Repoveš [28], we are able to find \(\rho \in (0,1)\) small such that
If \(u\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\), then on account of hypothesis H(ii) we have
Claim. The function \(\mu _{\lambda }(\cdot )\) satisfies the C-condition.
We consider a sequence \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\ge 1}\subseteq W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) such that
From (38), we have
for all \(h\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) with \(\varepsilon _{n}\rightarrow 0^{+}\) as \(n\rightarrow +\infty \). In (39), we choose \(h=-u^{-}_{n}\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) to get
Next, in (39), we take \(h=u^{+}_{n}\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) to yield
for some \(c_{9}>0\), all \(n\in \mathbb {N}\) (see(31)) and recall that \(u^{-\eta }_{0}\in L^{1}(\Omega )\). By virtue of (37), (40) and (28), we have
for some \(c_{10}>0\), all \(n\in \mathbb {N}\). Note that \(q<p\), we add (41) and (42) to find
for some \(c_{11}>0\), all \(n\in \mathbb {N}\) (see hypothesis H(iii)).
Suppose that \(\{u^{+}_{n}\}_{n\ge 1}\subseteq W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) is not bounded. We may assume that
We set \(y_{n}=\frac{u^{+}_{n}}{\Vert u^{+}_{n}\Vert }\), \(n\in \mathbb {N}\). This means that \(\Vert y_{n}\Vert =1\), and \(y_{n}\ge 0\) for all \(n\in \mathbb {N}\). We may assume that
First, we assume that \(y\not \equiv 0\). Let \(\Omega _{+}=\{z\in \Omega \,\mid \,y(z)>0\}\). Then, \(|\Omega _{+}|_{N}>0\), (by \(|\cdot |_{N}\) we denote the Lebesgue measure on \(\mathbb {R}^{N}\)), and we have
From (37), (40) and (28), we have for each \(n\in \mathbb {N}\)
Comparing (46) and (47), we have a contradiction.
Next, we assume that \(y\equiv 0\). Let \(k>0\) and set \(v_{n}=(pk)^{1/p}y_{n}, n\in \mathbb {N}\). Then, we have
Consider the \(C^{1}\)-functional \(\tilde{\mu }_{\lambda }:W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) defined by
It is not difficult to prove that
For each \(n\in \mathbb {N}\), let \(t_{n}\in [0,1]\) be such that
From (44), we can find \(n_{0}\in \mathbb {N}\) such that
Then for \(n\ge n_{0}\), from (50) and (51), we can find a constant \(c_{15}>0\) satisfying
Also, we can take \(k_{0}> 0\) such that
So, from (48), it has
for some \(c_{16}>0\), all \(k>k_{0}\), i.e.,
However, (37), (40) and (49) point out
From (52) and (53), it follows that
Then, from (54) and (50), we have
This means that
for all \(n\ge n_2\) with some \(c_{19}>0\), where we have used (54) and hypothesis H(iii). So, we have
We compare (55) and (52) to have a contradiction. This proves that
So, we may assume that
In (39), we choose \(h=u_{n}-u\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\), pass to the limit as \( n\rightarrow \infty \), and use (56) to obtain
Therefore \(\mu _{\lambda }(\cdot )\) satisfies the C-condition. This proves the claim.
Then, (35), (36) and the claim, permit the use of the mountain pass theorem. So, we can find \(\hat{u}\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) such that
From (57), (28) and (35), we infer that \(\hat{u}\in S_{\lambda }, u_{0}\le \hat{u}\) and \(\hat{u}\ne u_{0}\). \(\square \)
Moreover, we check the admissibility of the critical parameter value \(\lambda ^{*}\).
Proposition 14
If hypotheses H hold, then \(\lambda ^{*}\in \mathcal {L}\).
Proof
Let \(\{\lambda _{n}\}\subset (0,\lambda ^{*})\) be such that \(\lambda _{n}\uparrow \lambda ^{*}\). We have \(\{\lambda _{n}\}_{n\ge 1}\subseteq \mathcal {L}\) (see Proposition 11). From the proof of Proposition 13 and keeping the notation introduced there, we are able to find \(u_{n}\in S_{\lambda _{n}}\subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) such that
Recall that \(u_{n}\in S_{\lambda _{n}}\subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}, n\in N\). So, we have
for all \(h\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\), all \(n\in \mathbb {N}\). From (58), (59) and reasoning as in the Claim in the proof of Proposition 13, we obtain that at least for a subsequence, we have
We know that \(\tilde{u}_{\lambda _{1}}\le u_{n}\) for all \(n\in \mathbb {N}\) (see the proof of Proposition 11). Therefore, from (60), we see that \(u_{*}\ne 0\) and \(u_{*}^{-\eta }h\le \tilde{u}_{\lambda _{1}}^{-\eta }h \in L^1(\Omega )\) for all \(h\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\). In (59), we pass to the limit as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) and use (60) to admit
This completes the proof of the proposition. \(\square \)
We have proved that
So, summarizing our findings in this section, we can state the following bifurcation-type theorem.
Theorem 15
If hypotheses H hold, then there exists \(\lambda ^{*}>0\) such that
-
(a)
for every \(\lambda \in (0,\lambda ^{*})\), problem \((P_{\lambda })\) has at least two positive solutions \(u_{0}, \hat{u}\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) with \(u_{0}\le \hat{u}\) and \(u_{0} \ne \hat{u}\);
-
(b)
for \(\lambda =\lambda ^{*}\), problem \((P_{\lambda })\) has at least one positive solution \(u_{*}\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\);
-
(c)
for every \(\lambda >\lambda ^{*}\), problem \((P_{\lambda })\) has no positive solutions.
In the next section, we produce minimal positive solution and study the properties of the corresponding minimal positive solution map.
4 Minimal positive solutions
In this section, we show that for every \(\lambda \in \mathcal {L}\) problem \((P_{\lambda })\) has a minimal positive solution \(u^{*}_{\lambda }\in \mathrm {int} C_{+}\) (that is, \(u^{*}_{\lambda }\le u\) for all \(u\in S_{\lambda }\)) and also examine the monotonicity and continuity properties of the map \(\lambda \mapsto u^{*}_{\lambda }\).
Proposition 16
If hypotheses H hold and \(\lambda \in \mathcal {L}=(0,\lambda ^{*}]\), then problem \((P_{\lambda })\) admits a smallest positive solution \(u^{*}\in S_{\lambda }\subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}\), that is, \(u^{*}_{\lambda }\le u\) for all \(u\in S_{\lambda }\).
Proof
From Proposition 19 of Papagetorgiou-Rǎdulescu-Repovš [29], we know that \(S_{\lambda }\) is downward directed. Then, invoking Lemma 3.10, p. 178, of Hu-Papageorgiou [19], we can find a decreasing sequence \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\ge 1}\subseteq S_{\lambda }\) such that
From Proposition 5, we know that \(\underline{u}_{\lambda }\le u_{n}\) for all \( n\ge 1 \) and \(\underline{u}_\lambda ^{-\eta }\in L^1(\Omega )\) (see \(\underline{u}_{\lambda }\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\)). Therefore, we have
for all \(n\in \mathbb {N}\). Choosing \(h=u_{n}\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega )\) in (61) and using (62) and hypothesis H(i), we see that
So, using the monotonicity of the sequence \(\{u_{n}\}_{n\ge 1}\) and the \((S)_{+}\)-property of \(A_{p}(\cdot )\) (see Proposition 1), as in the proof of Proposition 13 (see the Claim), we obtain
Then, passing to the limit as \(n\rightarrow \infty \) in (61) and using (63) and (62), we conclude that
This completes the proof of the proposition. \(\square \)
Next we examine the properties of the map \(\mathcal {L}\ni \lambda \mapsto u^{*}_{\lambda }\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}\subseteq C^{1}_{0}(\overline{\Omega })\).
Proposition 17
If hypotheses H hold, then the minimal positive solution map \(\lambda \mapsto u^{*}_{\lambda }\) from \(\mathcal {L}=(0,\lambda ^{*}]\) into \(C^{1}_{0}(\overline{\Omega })\) is
-
(a)
strictly increasing, that is,
$$\begin{aligned} 0<\mu <\lambda \le \lambda ^{*}\Rightarrow u^{*}_{\lambda }-u^{*}_{\mu }\in \mathrm {int}C_{+}; \end{aligned}$$ -
(b)
left continuous.
Proof
(a) From Proposition 11, we can find \(u_{\mu }\in S_{\mu }\subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) such that
(b) Suppose \(\lambda _{n}\rightarrow \lambda ^{-}\le \lambda ^{*}\) as \(n\rightarrow \infty \). Then, from Proposition 8 and assertion (a), we have
Then, the nonlinear regularity theory of Lieberman [22] implies that there exist \(\alpha \in (0,1)\) and \(c_{21}>0\) such that
The compact embedding of \(C^{1,\alpha }_{0}(\overline{\Omega })\) into \(C^{1}_{0}(\overline{\Omega })\) and the monotonicity of \(\{u^{*}_{\lambda _{n}}\}_{n\ge 1}\) (see part (a)) imply that
Suppose that \(\tilde{u}^{*}_{\lambda }\ne u^{*}_{\lambda }\). Then, we can find \(z_{0}\in \Omega \) such that
and this contradicts with part (a). Therefore, \(\tilde{u}^{*}_{\lambda }=u^{*}_{\lambda }\), so, \(\lambda \mapsto u^{*}_{\lambda }\) is left continuous. \(\square \)
Summarizing, we can state the following theorem about minimal positive solutions for problem \((P_{\lambda })\).
Theorem 18
If hypotheses H hold and \(\lambda \in \mathcal {L}=(0, \lambda ^{*}]\), then problem \((P_{\lambda })\) has a smallest positive solution \(u^{*}_{\lambda }\in S_{\lambda }\subseteq \mathrm {int}C_{+}\) and the map \(\lambda \mapsto u^{*}_{\lambda }\) from \(\mathcal {L}=(0,\lambda ^{*}]\) into \(C^{1}_{0}(\overline{\Omega })\) is strictly increasing and left continuous.
References
Ambrosetti, A., Rabinowitz, P.H.: Dual variational methods in critical point theory and applications. J. Funct. Anal. 14, 349–381 (1973)
Bahrouni, A., Rǎdulescu, V.D., Repovš, D.D.: Double phase transonic flow problems with variable growth: nonlinear patterns and stationary waves. Nonlinearity 32, 2481–2495 (2019)
Bartušek, M., Fujimoto, K.: Singular solutions of nonlinear differential equations with \(p(t)\)-Laplacian. J. Differ. Equ. 269, 11646–11666 (2020)
Benct, V., D’Avenia, P., Fortunato, D., Pisani, L.: Solitons in several space dimensions: Derrick’s problem and infinitely many solutions. Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 154, 297–324 (2000)
Bobkov, V., Tanaka, M.: On positive solutions for \((p, q)\)-Laplace equations with two parameters. Calc. Var. PDEs 54, 3277–3301 (2015)
Cahn, J.W., Hilliard, J.E.: Free energy of a nonuniform system I: Interfacial free energy. J. Chem. Phys. 28, 258–267 (1958)
Cherfils, L., Il’Yasov, Y.: On the stationary solutions of generalized reaction diffusion equations with \( p\) and \(q\)-Laplacian. Comm. Pure. Appl. Anal. 4, 9–22 (2005)
Cîrstea, F., Ghergu, M., Rădulescu, V.D.: Combined effects of asymptotically linear and singular nonlinearities in bifurcation problems of Lane-Emden-Fowler type. J. Math. Pures Appl. 84, 493–508 (2005)
Crandall, M.G., Rabinowitz, P.H., Tartar, L.: On a Dirichlet problem with a singular nonlinearity. Comm. Partial Differ. Equ. 2, 193–222 (1977)
Diaz, J.I., Saa, J.E.: Existence et unicité de solutions positives pour certaines équations elliptiques quasilinéaires. CRAS Paris 305, 521–524 (1987)
Dupaigne, L., Ghergu, M., Rădulescu, V.D.: Lane-Emden-Fowler equations with convection and singular potential. J. Math. Pures Appl. 87, 563–581 (2007)
Gasiński, L., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Nonlinear Analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2006)
Gasiński, L., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Exercise in analysis. Part 2: nonlinear analysis. Springer, Switzerland (2016)
Gasiński, L., Papageorgiou, N.S.: Asymmetric \((p,2)\)-equations with double resonance. Calc. Var. PDEs 56, 8 (2017)
Ghergu, M., Rǎdulescu, V.D.: Sublinear singular elliptic problems with two parameters. J. Differ. Equ. 195, 520–536 (2003)
Giacomoni, J., Saoudi, K.: \(W^{1, p}_{0}\) versus \(C^{1}\) local minimizers for a singular and critical functional. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 363, 697–710 (2010)
Gilbarg, D., Trudinger, N.S.: Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order. Spriger, Berlin (2001)
Ghergu, M., Rǎdulescu, V.D.: Singular Elliptic Problems: Bifurcation and Asymptotic Analysis. Oxford University Press, UK (2008)
Hu, S., Papageorgiou, N.S.: S. Handbook of Multivalued Analysis. Volume I: Theory. Rluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (1997)
Ladyzhenskaya, O.A., Ural’tseva, N.N.: Linear and Quasilinear Elliptic Equations. Academic Press, New York (1968)
Lazer, A.C., McKenna, P.J.: On a singular nonlinear elliptic boundary value problem. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 111, 721–730 (1991)
Lieberman, G.M.: The natural generalization of the natural conditions of Ladyzhenskaya and Uraltseva for elliptic equations. Comm. Partial Differ. Equ. 16, 311–361 (1991)
Li, G., Yang, C.: The existence of a nontrivial solution to a nonlinear elliptic boundary value problem of \(p\)-Laplacian type without the Ambrosetti-Rabinowitz condition. Nonlinear Anal. TMA 72, 4602–4613 (2010)
Liu, Z.H., Motreanu, D., Zeng, S.D.: Positive solutions for nonlinear singular elliptic equations of \(p\)-Laplacian type with dependence on the gradient. Calc. Var. PDEs 58, 28 (2019)
Lü, H., Xie, Y.: Existence and multiplicity of positive solutions for singular \(p\)-Laplacian equations. Zeitsch. Anal. Anwend. 26, 25–41 (2007)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Rǎdulescu, V.D.: Nonlinear nonhomogeneous Robin problems with superlinear reaction. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 16, 737–764 (2016)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Rǎdulescu, V.D., Repovš, D.D.: Double-phase problems and a discontinuity property of the spectrum. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 147, 2899–2910 (2019)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Rǎdulescu, V.D., Repovš, D.D.: Nonlinear Analysis Theory and Methods. Springer, Switzerland (2019)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Rǎdulescu, V.D., Repovš, D.D.: Nonlinear nonhomogeneous singular problems. Calc. Var. PDEs 59, 9 (2020)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Smyrlis, G.: A bifurcation-type theorem for singular nonlinear elliptic equations. Methods Appl. Anal. 22, 147–170 (2015)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Vetro, C., Vetro, F.: Continuous spectrum for a two phase eigenvalue problem with an indefinite and unbounded potential. J. Differ. Equ. 268, 4102–4118 (2020)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Winkert, P.: Singular \(p\)-Laplacian equations with superlinear perturbation. J. Differ. Equ. 266, 1462–1487 (2019)
Papageorgiou, N.S., Vetro, C., Vetro, F.: Positive solutions for singular \((p,2)\)-equations. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 70, 72 (2019)
Pucci, P., Serrin, J.B.: The maximum principle. Springer, Berlin (2007)
Tanaka, M.: Generalized eigenvalue problems for \((p, q)\)-Laplacian with indefinite weight. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 419, 1181–1192 (2014)
Zakharov, V.E.: Collapse of Langmuir waves. Sov. J. Exper. Theor. Phys. 35, 908–914 (1972)
Zeng, S.D., Bai, Y.R., Gasiński, L., Winkert, P.: Existence results for double phase implicit obstacle problems involving multivalued operators. Calc. Var. PDEs 59, 176 (2020)
Zeng, S.D., Bai, Y.R., Gasiński, L., Winkert, P.: Convergence analysis for double phase obstacle problems with multivalued convection term. Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 10, 659–672 (2020)
Acknowledgements
This project has received funding from the NNSF of China Grant Nos. 12001478, 12026255 and 12026256, and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant agreement No. 823731 CONMECH, National Science Center of Poland under Preludium Project No. 2017/25/N/ST1/00611, and the Startup Project of Doctor Scientific Research of Yulin Normal University No. G2020ZK07. It is also supported by Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Grant No. 2020GXNSFBA297137, and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Republic of Poland under Grants Nos. 4004/GGPJII/H2020/2018/0 and 440328/PnH2/2019.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bai, Y., Papageorgiou, N.S. & Zeng, S. A singular eigenvalue problem for the Dirichlet (p, q)-Laplacian. Math. Z. 300, 325–345 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00209-021-02803-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00209-021-02803-w
Keywords
- (p, q)-Laplacian
- Singular term
- Nonlinear regularity
- Nonlinear maximum principle
- Truncation
- Bifurcation-type theorem
- Minimal positive solution